NC0024881_Report_19930127

. �/GD02yS'SI
REIDSYILLE WWTP (NC0024881)WSRO,letter chronic limit:99% M P/F 1/l/87, permit chronic
limit:99% Q P/F 9/l/87. JOC 8/12/91-3/31/93: chronic Q P/F 99% monit only.
1/27/93-Memo for ATU (Ausley) to WSRO (Ron Linville) transmitting comments of 1/12/93 to regional
office: progress on tox. red. has been slow, facility has failed to take advantage of important
opportunities for tox. red. and proposed THE plans comprise too much time to accomplish.
1/12/93-Memo from ATU (Ausley) to WSRO (Mauney) transmitting review comments on City's 12/28/92
status report on Toxicity Reduction. comments are 1) City may be wasting money by sampling
SIU's for specific chemicals - these chemicals may or may be contributing but does not take into
account the accumulative effect, 2)report lacks refractory toxicity assessment studies as proposed
by 6/11/92 THE Progress Report, 3) we question the timliness of repeat analysis for pre and post
chlorination, 4) there is no followup on statements made in report concerning a decrease in toxicity
when certain SIU's are not discharging 5) the report indicates that tox. can be reduced by use of
polymers for color reduction - why isn't this occurring? and 6) all work should be expedited since
JOC issued to facility is about to expire.
6/3/92 Memo from MM to Mauney. THE proposal looks good. keep us informed.
5/21/92 THE submitted. BRIdid acute TIE. Don Mount has been contracted to do chronic TIE, RTA, etc.
4/10/92 THE review by LWA to Mauney. Little done to date. Proposed TIE right direction but awfully
late in SOC process.
3/30/92 letter from Kelly Almond City Mgr. to GTE forwarding Tox Evaluation Report from Hazen and
Sawyer. Proposes single chemical substitutions for phthalates, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, and APE's
and TIE. LWA is writing review of this report for Mauney.
9/25/91-Letter from WSRO that stipulates reservations concerning requests for additional flow from the
City of Reidsville, due to the apparent absence of life in "Little Troublesome Creek". Public
concerns in the way of comments and complaints have been heard frequently, and a timely
biological assessment of the creek is needed.
JOC— --inability to comply w/BOD,TSS,Tox,P. Action items included: id sources of toxic pollutants and
report to DEM by 4/1/89. Require Us suspected as source of toxic pollutant to conduct Ac tox
testing.
8/3/90-As per RO conversation with facility lab tech, monthly test have been conducted, but AT -Is have
not been submitted. Facility will submit AT -Is.
6/l/90-As per RO memo, Bioassays have been performed but the results have not been submitted on AT-
l's. Past results will be submitted.
/89-letter from City stating that they are performing pre- and post -chlorination tests for the first time. BRI
did complete EPA chronic test in effort to pin down source of tox.
6/13/88-letter from City to David R (WSRO) in reply to David's 4/26/88 letter, NOW. City reported 4/22/
meeting w/ Amer Tobacco and R&A (consultant) rep. to review American Tobacc's progress in
reducing their effluent toxicity. City conducted bioassay analysis of samples collected upstream
and downstream (sanitary sewer) of American Tobacc plant and confirmed Amer Tobacc as source
of City's in -plant toxicity. R&A has proposed plan of action to identify most probable toxicant,
evaluate removal or pretrtmnt to level sufficient to protect WWTP. American Tobacco has been
sent City's test results with notice of non-compliance with City's SUO and been given notice to
submit plan of corrective action within 30 days.
4/21/88-letter from City (Fred Goodman) to WSRO (S. Mauney) re. City's effluent toxicity. It briefly
summarized their in-house test efforts of 7/87 which implied source of tox as indirect discharger
Amer Tobacco. Mentioned that the same was implied by AT on -site of 11/87. Said that American
Tobacc had retained R&A consultant to identify source of tox and to remove it from.wastestream.
They enclosed Amer Tobacc's plan of action 9/18/87 and progress report 11/18/87 and also noted
that City would be meeting w/ Amer Tobacc 4/22/88 to review progress to date.(see American
Tobacco for plan of action and progress report) Lttr closed by noting that other potential sources of
tox were continuing to be investigated.
3/28/88-NOV for effluent toxicity issued by WSRO. Noted that since 9/1/87 issuance of toxicty
requirement in permit, facility has been in noncompliance. WSRO requested facility to respond in

writing by 4/22/88 re. steps that have been or will be taken to identify and solve toxicity
noncompliance.
12/4/87-Prelim report for on -site toxicity testing conducted by DEM 11/16-21/87. Based on test results,
Reidsville disch is predicted to have severe impact on rcving stream organisms of sensitivity equal
or greater than Cerio and fatheads. The first day's grab sample caused 24 hr LC50 of 3.2% when
different day's grab sample had LC50 of 70%-highly variable effluent toxicity range. Tot resid Cl
levels varied from .01-.50 mg/1, most in the lower part of range. Preliminary results of
fractionation tox test series suggest efflu tox contribted by organic cmpnd. Major influent trunk line
samples showed varying degrees of toxicity. Prelim benthic invert. analyses indicates impact to
roving stream populations w/ possible organic enrichment.
10/3/87-letter from WSRO to City re.failure to submit self monit test results. Referred to new permit req.
and was explicit about use of AT-1 form.
5/28/87-memo from Ken E. to WSRO(Mauney-Reg Engin) responding to City's tox-related arguments for
remission of civil penalties. Ken ptd out that roving stream must be protected for acute and chronic
toxicity. Efflu comprises 99% of rcving stream therefore restrictive tox limits apply. State's tests
showed no acute tox. but did indicate chronic toxicity in 7 day reprod. test. City's in-house tox
testing did not take into acct. effect at 99% IWC.
4/21/87-letter from WSRO(Mauney) to City for not submitting monthly reports 1-3/87. Response
requested by 5/8/87.

r
02/02/93 17:10 *$919 733 9959 NC DELI WQ ENVSCI WQ HQ 191003
Division of Environmental Management
January 27,1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Linville
From: Larry Ausley
Subject: SOC request from City of Reidsville WWTP
NCO024881 Rockingham County
In reference to your January 26,1993 request for comments on the City's proposal for an SOC extension
to their current third amendment of JOC for chronic toxicity, please refer to my January 12,1993 memo
to Steve Mauney on review of the City's 12/28/92 status report on toxicity reduction.
In summary, this review states that progress on toxicity reduction has been very slow and has not met
deadlines proposed in the past, the facility has failed to take advantage of some important information
and opportunities for toxicity reduction, and proposed THE work spans what would be considered an
inordinate amount of time. If 1 can provide you with further information, please give me a call at (919)
733-2136.
cc:Steve Mauney
Central Files
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section

Division of Environmental Management
January 12, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Mauney
From: Larry Ausley
Subject: Review of 12/28/92 Status Report on Toxicity Reduction
City of Reidsville WWTP NC0024881 Rockingham County
FEB C
UPWIm WPP vn { SWI
We have completed a review of the referenced document and have the following
comments.
1)On page 3, Item III of the cover letter, the City states that it is sampling all industrial
users to determine sources of phthalates and 1,2,4, trichlorobenzene. As I mentioned in my
April 10,1992 review of the. March, 1992 Hazen and Sawyer report, this effort may not be
worthwhile in toxicity reduction efforts unless direct toxicity testing can characterize these
constituents as causative toxicants. This chemical specific sampling may be wasted expense
at present, unless it is necessary to meet some chemical specific limitations.
2)The current report lacks completed refractory toxicity assessment studies as proposed
by the June 11, 1992 THE progress report.. The facility initiated progress in this step by
performing untreated tests of SIU wastes but failed, to date, to followup with any
treatability(RTA) studies other than evaluation of the WWTP sludge for toxicity. This RTA
is going to be a critical step in evaluating toxicity source(s) and should have been completed
by now, as proposed in June.
3) Lacking the RTA information described above, I would question whether followup
with repeat analyses of pre- and post -chlorinated effluent for chlorination/ surfactant
toxicants and multiple species are timely. These tests, already conducted once, have not
yielded results as valuable as would be the RTA which could help to narrow search areas.
The three chronic toxicity characterization procedures performed in the past year (as well as
one by DEM in 1987) have all apparently pointed toward the same type(s) of causative
toxicants. It may be time to move ahead with Phase II type TIE analyses (a process that
would again be strengthened by RTA results).
4) In several instances in the Burlington Research report(pg. 4, pg. 5, pg.13) mention is
made that the WWTP effluent becomes less toxic when certain (unnamed) SIUs are not
discharging. I do not understand why no followup of such an obvious indication of toxicity
source(s) has been made.
5) The Burlington Research report presents data that the WWTP can reduce its toxicity
to or near permitted levels through the use of one of the polymers proposed for color
removal. If this is an available alternative, why is it not being currently practiced or actively
pursued, if only in the interim of completion of THE and toxicity source evaluation efforts?
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section

b) The Reidsville WWTP has reported aquatic toxicity test results nearly monthly since
before 1988, all of which predict impacts to sensitive aquatic organisms in the receiving
stream under design conditions. This impact has been substantiated by benthic
macroinvertebrate population evaluations made by the DEM Biological Assessment Group in
1987 and 1992. At the point the facility is about to run out of relief under a consent order
which has effectively been in force since 1988, they are only beginning to make progress
toward toxicity reduction. The facility is now requesting an SOC to continue this relief
though milestones proposed by the facility even within the last year continue not to be met.
The current TIE/TRE work being performed should continue but should be expedited. The
proposed nine month span for completion of "Phase I" work may be excessive in light of
shortcomings of the proposed 1992 schedule. I cannot locate a description of activities in our
files of what Burlington Research is proposing as "Phase II" of their THE (pg. 15) and thus
cannot determine whether the 10-20 month time frame for such is appropriate.
If I can provide you with further information, please give me a call at [phone].
cc:Central Files
Tina Koukel
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section

January 26, 1993
TO: Ken Eagleson
Trevor Clements
Ju 1 is Storm
John Dorney
Central Office
THROUGH: Steve Mauney
FROM: Ron Linville
SUBJECT: City of Reidsville WWTP
Request for SOC prior to expiration of JOC ((930630)
Order to Resolve Chronic Toxicity Failures
Rockingham County
The City of Reidsville has requested an SOC to replace their
current JOC which was signed on December 6, 1988 and subsequently
amended three times. This new Order should (hopefully) resolve the
chronic toxicity situation for the City.
As per the proposed compliance schedule (attached) provided
by the City, a primary thrust appears to be the relocation of the
outfall to the Haw River. However, the region is concerned that the
City may not be Performing sufficiently in the pretreatment
program. Insuring that this issue is resolved prior to the discharge
show I d be the primary scope of the SOC.
The City has been under a Notice of Continuing Penalties due to
significant problems with the pretreatment program. Other historical
and/or biological information may be important in resolving this
chronic toxicity issue. Please consider any pertinent information that
you have on the situation in Reidsville and orovide us with awritten.
version of any item(s) that you feel should be included in the new
Your advice and assistance is very important and is very much
appreciated. If we can be of further service, please call us at 896-
7007.
cc: WSRO
Central Files
Kent Wiggins

O sc�
�j-ry el-
SsyE, a F ._T�1IG s�- �Xic�TY or C��
�z/yz
¢ 7wr/
�eio'-/
��Ifl G�Sit'J% L'lt�f f?T t'C(�`(.{/l-( ylele(
/;7e 12) Gd��,e �rW
erg films ✓ rIayi� �' Me.1/,c� �E —
sS�r ,vi fGCK 74eS
14/
�Sq
7n /r" = r. /7� 04 o. s�
ryy/617y /CC T
elfiwl c� vR/et- - /aic

tk)/
I ►C9ov a ll:�o✓u
o `7 z( -1q3
13 314

A (o 02)
s-� 6 603) -!5;, ccc0gJ
Y /
70 6�� -� � evil.
—vurur� � .
�Sf1l� 5&Ur '� lax
dq + j; J. ,

L
1
�r

--^' 1 � � • l� - - .._.. '''. ,` '� ii,., .�✓�, �'�,�\fit.\J ` •r:
'I•y. •'� � .�I ^ .--;=air jl/e, ' '%. 1t ` . ,�:1!, ` � »i
`•' � . —.. �{... � � i• ^, �-.J %-� � �!. � •, . Ill ,,�' \ �•�': l � •- ,( —� •�/ ':/•• .I /r\� �:.~ -
CP
._-�.._._�. // �_ ter :�.. - - � - .._— ._.r� .-*- --- '•. ., - .' . ;' , - , •%
•.i i // // ark/ / ` •aN..._. - '♦ \• i '\ \ ` t '� <». - / ,/' i•/ r \� , 1 /
• J i \ /' �r � ( " Thompson ville r� ' (� •' �`
°u6 Cb Y
y l 7co 1 150 f I• f
749
;(Trailer
u Park l •`'\\ f 0� • (e` "�� C_
4 TraileiWilliamsburg
't �• `\\Park J ,,� //, '•. ` '
768
�7.79• r
// • �' � •1Vi�li..mKburl,,• ;Sch T �•` . �'� .' 1- \ 26i9l
r • :r- • j'•— �-rTr
i
29- 7N
I� ' � �.:., r I.1`., ! 1 .. { .. �..... ✓�'•-u.• ter'. -I
' ail. •',• ..N. .. I .// � /'`� • \ / � 1 .,
.. AY• — :U: .All.- .Y,. +•�!'/ �. �L . �—• 1 � •.�/� i ,:..•., 1 ter" �• , . '--
-
r^ � f /I• /• �'// f
' ! •` � � r ! < r ,. 45� �' ^✓_fir. J /�///�
709
01
26027
• 1 730 0 - �20
:. 755759
I'r .`• l `. `'\� :i "`,`I! •t..�` is � -
. .__....••.•..-».. �........�w+.s...•...w.+•r+.w...+...n�.......»...:...,....,...«--<.... ...-+.«.arw.-w»� I.1 •.•,"'� 1} � '•=__�.'i J f

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box•29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # 919I733-9919
TELECOPY TO:
FAX NUMBER
FROM: DAv
NO. OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: a`
coMMErrrs: 5-7Q10
eiVC-f-
fe C-1r, I kf (-M0,114
iu,iamsi-2-Adc, -ToPe, 0>21015�0

in
N.C. Deft
JANI 1 1 19P.1
yn / l
Vdlilst4fl`v<%.rC�i il
GT: �
State of North Carolina Regional Off Ice
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
January 6, 1993
Mr. Harold Jensen
Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Limited
One Centerview Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
Dear Mr. Jensen,
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the draft copy of the NPDES permit application
submitted by you on behalf of the City of Reidsville for the relocation of the City's W WTP outfall.
Specifically, the request was for preliminary discharge limits for three proposed sites on the Haw River.
After reviewing Reidsville's effluent data, Haw River water quality data, hydrologic characteristics of the
three sites, and streamflow statistics, I have the following comments:
Technical Support cannot recommend approval of relocation of the Reidsville discharge to sites 002
or 003 on the Haw River. These two sites are located on the Haw River upstream from it's confluence
with Little Troublesome Creek, and are therefore as yet unimpacted by Reidsville's discharge. This area is
natural wetland area, with slow waters, poorly defined channels, and relatively little defined streamflow,
all of which significantly reduce the assimilative capacity. There is no benefit of relocating the discharge
C� to either of these sites that would make it the most environmentally sound alternative. Also, it has been
our experience that there is a great amount of public recreational and aesthetic value on the upper reaches
of the Haw River, and sites pursuing relocation to 002 and 003 would likely invoke considerable
resistance.
Site 004, at NC 150, is the most viable of the alternatives proposed. It is below the existing
discharge, and is at a point in the river that is much more free -flowing and riverine. Due to the
characteristics of the drainage area and the effects of the upstream wetlands on flow gages, it is difficult to
accurately estimate flow statistics at this point. Preliminary USGS flow estimates indicate a 7Q10 of 7.4
cfs, which is considerably more dilution than exists at the present discharge location on Little
Troublesome Creek. The instream waste concentrations (IWCs) at this point would be 51 % at a discharge
rate of 5 MGD, and 61% at 7.5 MGD. Prior to any permit being issued at this site, however, DEM would
need to be provided with the appropriate hydraulic and water quality data to calibrate a water quality
model that could be used to adequately evaluate the proposed discharge. Based on the best currently
available information it is unlikely that the City's BOD or ammonia limits would change. Per DEM's
standard operating procedures, the chemical specific and whole effluent toxicity limits would be less
stringent at this site than at the current site. It is important to remember that this is speculative at this
point, and a full evaluation will be performed when an NPDES application is received by the Division.
Also, given the magnitude of this proposed discharge relocation, the City may be required to perform an
environmental assessment of the impacts associated with the project. Contact Monica Swihart of the
Division's Planning Branch for further details in this regard.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

2
The largest obstacle in the City's plan to relocate it's discharge will be it's persistent problems with
effluent toxicity. Based on several years of toxicity test data from Reidsville's effluent, it seems unlikely
that the City could consistently meet toxics limits that would be applied at any reasonably close location
on the Haw River. Technical Support will not recommend permitting a noncompliant discharge to
relocate to another site where it is likely to continue to be noncompliant. From a water quality standpoint,
it is not reasonable to move a discharge to a location where the damage will only be less or more
infrequent, and only for that reason. From a legal standpoint, the City of Reidsville has obligations to
correct the toxicity problems of their effluent. The Division only approved the City's expansion to 7.5
MGD under the condition that compliance with the whole effluent toxicity limit at 5.0 MGD is achieved
before any increase of flow is allowed. Therefore, this Branch will not recommend approval of any
relocation until it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Division that the City can consistently
comply with toxicity limitations and that the effluent poses no threat to water quality at the proposed
location.
DEM has and will continue to provide assistance to the City. It is recommended that the City
continue it's efforts to correct existing problems and provide the documentation requested above prior to
submitting a formal NPDES application.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (919)
733-5083.
Sincerely,
d.jvre'vor Clements, ssistant Chief
r Quality Section
JTC/MDS
cc: Steve Mauney, WSRO
Mr. Kelly Almond, City Manager of Reidsville
Monica Swihart
Central Files
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

RECEIVED
City of Reiidsviiie»i ,6��neread 511ee1. R00511 ie, No,lh Carolina 27320
LTFT"7
Winston-Salem
Regional Office OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
ZERTIFIED MAIL
December 28, 1992
Mr. Preston Howard, Director
N. C. Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
SUBJECT: Status Report on Toxicity Reduction
As Required by: J.O.C. No. 88-37 Ad III
Paragraph 9(b)(21)
Dear Mr. Howard:
Pursuant to the requirements established as part of J.O.C. 88-
37 Ad III Paragraph 9(b)(21), I am enclosing a status report of the
progress achieved on Toxicity Reduction at the Reidsville WWTP.
In recent months, significant progress has been made to bring
the plant into compliance with all NPDES permit requirements.
Since July 1, 1992, the plant effluent has been of good quality and
stability. Removal of pollutants has exceeded the requirements of
the NPDES permit. The only exception being the plant's continued
difficulty in passing the Ceriodaphnia-dubia mortality test for
chronic toxicity.
The City of Reidsville has committed much time and resources
to identify and correct the causes of the toxicity problems cited
in J.O.C. 88-37. A detailed listing of the actions taken follows.
Where appropriate, copies of reports or data are attached in order
to give the most accurate and complete representation possible.
ITEM I
In 1989-1990 the plant underwent extensive modification.
Under a design plan prepared by Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout,
Limited, the following modifications were made to the plant at a
total cost of $5,000,000.00.
(A) Construction of an influent aerated grit channel.
(B) Construction of installation of lime, alum and polymer
feed systems.
=11ed

Mr. Preston Howard
Payne 2
December 28, 1992
(C) Conversion of the existing second stage nitrification
basins into sludge storage basins.
(D) Conversion of the biological process from two -stage
nitrification into a single stage nitrification process.
(E) Conversion of the existing second stage nitrification
clarifiers into final clarifiers receiving flow from the
single stage nitrification aeration basins. This
modification resulted in a total of four final
clarifiers.
(F) Installation of six Zimpro Hydroclear high rate tertiary
sand filters.
(G) Conversion of the existing primary clarifiers into
gravity sludge thickeners.
(H) Implementation of a sludge land application program
through Environmental Waste Recyclers, Inc.
ITEM II
Improved process control has resulted in a significant
improvement in the plant's effluent quality. Significant changes
were implemented in 1992 and are described as follows:
(A) Implementation of an- effective sludge wasting :and
disposal program to control solids inventory.
(B) A drastic reduction in return activated sludge flow
(R.A.S.) rates by use of smaller pumps. This helped to
eliminate a hydraulic overload problem in the final
clarifiers.
(C) Utilization of only one of the two existing aeration
basins for biological treatment. The second basin is in
a standby mode and can be used for flow equalization or
to divert toxic slug loads if needed. The use of only
one aeration basin allows better control of solids and
produces a higher quality effluent.
(D) Discontinued use of chemical augmentation of the
biological process (i.e.,,lime, alum, polymers).
(E) Improved operation and maintenance of the tertiary sand
filters to optimize their performance.

Mr. Preston Howard
Page 3
December 28, 1992
Imo! III
In an effort to identify the actual causes of toxicity in the
plant's final effluent, the City contracted with Hazen and Sawyer
Environmental Engineers to conduct a toxicity evaluation for the
P.O.T.W. This study was concluded at a cost of $18,500.00. The
results were summarized in a report submitted to the City in March
of 1992. A copy of this report is included ( See Attachment "All) to
provide the details of the conclusions drawn from this study.
Several recommendations were put forward including identifying
the sources of phthalates, 1, 2, 4 trichlorobenzene and
surfactants. The City is presently sampling all Industrial Users
to try and determine the source of these specific compounds.
ITEM IV
In an effort to, insure maximum performance of the treatment
facility, the following improvements to the wastewater collections
system were initiated.
The City provided funding and construction is nearly complete
on' the "Interceptor Sewer Improvements" contract designed by
Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout, Limited. Under this contract,
26,155 linear feet of 8" to 30" gravity flow sewer mains,. manholes
and all appurtenances were constructed to replace major sections of
the older parts of the collection system. The cost of this project
was $2,600,000.00.
Also included .in this contract was the construction of two new
pumping stations and-8,549 linear feet of associated.18" force
mains-*, Emergency power generation is to be installed at two of the
existing lift stations.
Construction of this project began in early May of 1991 and is
to be completed by late December of 1992.
Under the "Annexation Area Sewer Improvements" contract,
46,430 linear feet of 8" to 24" gravity flow sewer lines and 14,340
linear feet of 3" to 8" force mains, manholes and appurtenances
were funded for construction. Construction of five new pumping
stations and upgrade of -one existing pumping station is included in
this contract. This construction is substantially complete at -this
time at a Cost of $2,300,000.00.
These improvements will greatly reduce inflow, infiltration
and increase the reliability of the remote pumping stations.

Mr. Preston Howard
Page 4
December 28, 1992
The City has contracted with Burlington Research, Inc. to
conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation for the P .O. T. W . A copy of
the progress report on Phase I of this study is included to provide
details of the data and conclusions obtained so far ( SEE ATTACHMENT
"B")• The City has expended $43 000.00 on this T.R.E. to date. An
additional $84, 960. 00 is projected to be required to complete Phase
I and move into Phase II in 1993. A time frame for completion of
the T.R.E. and implementation of its results is included in this
report. (SEE ATTACHMENT "C").
ITEM VI
Due to .the small volume of our receiving stream (Little
Troublesome Creek), the plant's 7Q10 has been established at 99%.
This will be reduced to 90% with the issuance of the plant's NPDES
renewal permit. A proposal to relocate the plant's discharge point
to the Haw River is being developed by Finkbeiner.. Pettis and
Strout, Limited at this time at the current permitted flow of 5.0
MGD. This relocation would reduce the plant's 7Q10 to 54% and
provide substantial relief. This project is estimated to cost
$51000,000.00 to complete. A time frame for an -environmental
impact study, permit application and approval, design and
construction are included in this report (SEE ATTACHMENT "C").
ITEM VII
.In July of 1992 the City entered into a four-year contract
with Hydro Management Services, Inc. of Clemmons, N. C. Under this
contract, Hydro Management Services is to provide expert
operational, maintenance, pretreatment, and management services for
the City at the P.O.T.W.
ITEM Vill
During disqussions between the City of Reidsville, Hydro
Management Services, Inc., -and Department of Environmental
Management representatives, a decision was made to request issuance
of an S.O.C. at the expiration of the current J.O.C. deadline of
March 31, 1993. Hydro Management and the City are currently
compiling the documentation for' completion of the S.O.C.
application. This will be suEbmitted to D.E.M.-W.S.R.O. by December
31, 1992. _

Mr. Preston Howard
Page 5
December 28, 1992
We feel conf ident that if the actions and time frame stated in
the S.O.C. application are approved and implemented the
P.O.T.W.
can be brought into compliance with the NPDES toxicity re iremen
as well as all requirements.
other NPDES permit re qu ement
.
The City will continue to work tly dili e
Pretreatment, WWTP optimization and construction, if ne essarrough
resolve its toxicity issue. y, to
We greatly appreciate your assistance in resolving this
matter. If you have any questions or re g
information, please advise. quire additional
Sincerely,
CITY OF REIDSVIL E
D. Kelly Almond
City Manager
DKA:asb
Enclosures
cc: We. Larry Coble
Mr. C. D. Malone
Mr. Donald Waddell

0
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION
CITY OF REIDSVILLE
PHASE I PROGRESS REPORT
DECEMBER 1992
i" Burlington Research, Inc. • P. O. Boa 2481 • Burlington, NC 27215 • Telephone [phone]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGEs
LIST OF
TABLES .......................................
ii
SECTION
1
INTRODIICTZON ............................
SECTION
2
METHODS AND MATERIALS ...................
3
SECTION
3
RESULTS .................................
4
1 .SECTION
4
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS .................
13
tSECTION
5
ADDITIONAL STUDIES ......................
15
SECTION6
REFERENCES ..............................
16
i

1. POTW final effluent toxicityhistory,
ry, January -
November 1992, City of Reidsville ................ 9
2. Multi -species acute and chronic toxicity deter-
minations, POTW composite effluents, City of
Reidsville Phase I THE 10
3. SIU discharge toxicity monitoring, City of
Reidsville Phase I THE 11
4. POTW final effluent and industrial discharge
polymer treatments, City of Reidsville Phase
ITR 'E . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ii .

i SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 Sackgr =d
The City of Reidsville's Publicly owned Treatment Works (POTW) is
operating under a Consent Judgement that requires it to produce a
final effluent that is chronically non -toxic to the cladoceran
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 99%. A con-
pliance date of March 1993, originally scheduled for July 1992, is
presently expected. The City has subsequently been notified that
toxicity compliance at an effluent concentration of 90%, rather
than 99%, will be required.
The City of Reidsville has asked Burlington Research, Inc., (BRI)
to conduct a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) for its POTW.
Previous to this request, BRI conducted a Wastestream Impact Study
(1,2) which included POTW influent and effluent as well as
Significant Industrial User (SIU) discharge analyses. As a result
of this study, BRI presented recommendations regarding POTW opera-
tions and chemical usage by SIUs, issues which have been addressed
by the City to the best extent possible.
1.2 Current Study
Representatives of the City and BRI met on April 29, 1992 to
discuss the initial plan of study for the TRE, the toxicant
identification evaluation (TIE). Phase I was designed with the
following objectives:
objective One: To monitor the variability and persistency of
chronic toxicity.
-1-

Qb ect ve To,: To characterize and identify the source{s) of
chronic toxicity through application of bioassay
and chemical specific analyses.
The ensuing report presents results of activities completed to
date during the seven months since the initiation of Phase I in
n May 1992. A summary chronology is as follows:
MAY POTW Final Effluent dubia Chronic Bioassay
SIU Toxicity Monitoring
Toxicity Persistency Study
JUNE POTW Final Effluent C. dubiA and Fathead Minnow
Chronic Bioassays
SIU Toxicity Monitoring
EPA Chronic Toxicity Characterization Procedures
JTJLY POTW Final Effluent C. dubia Chronic Bioassay
SIU Toxicity Monitoring
Toxicity Persistency Study
AUGUST POTW Final Effluent C. dubia Chronic Bioassay
SEPTEMBER POTW Final Effluent C. dubia Chronic Bioassay
EPA Chronic Toxicity Characterization Procedures
Polymer Treatment Studies
POTW Biomass Toxicity Screens
OCTOBER POTW Final Effluent C. dubia Chronic Bioassay
Toxicity Persistency Study
Chlorination/Surfactant Toxicant Characterization
Polymer Treatment Studies
NOVEMBER POTW Final Effluent C. dubia Chronic Bioassay
EPA Chronic Toxicity Characterization Procedures
Discussion of future activities and a general timetable for
completion is also presented.
-2-

SECTION 2
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Details regarding methodologies are presented in the Phase I
proposal (3) and will be presented again in the final Phase I
report. General information regarding test organisms and data
calculations and interpretation are summarized for this report.
2.1 Test Organis
The cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubjft has been the organism of choice
for all toxicity monitoring and toxicant identification and char-
acterization procedures. This cladoceran is designated in the
City's NPDES permit as the species to be utilized for toxicity
monitoring and is the species with which toxicity compliance will
be determined. All bioassay organisms have been obtained from
cultures maintained by BRI staff.
2.2 Data
Mortality and reproduction were measured in all test procedures.
Mortality was measured at 48, 96, 120 and 168 hours during test
periods and reported as ratios of dead to total test organisms.
Data were analyzed by Trimmed Spearman-Karber method to determine
LC50s. Reproductive data were analyzed by hypothesis testing
and/or point estimation methods. Significance of treatment
effects on lethality and reproduction were determined according to
discreetness of 95% Confidence Intervals.
Ml=

SECTION 3
RESULTS
3.1 Toxicity Monitorinc
Results of monthly C. dub multiple concentration bioassays are
summarized in Table I. Except for the months of June and July,
effluent toxicity was consistent: 48- and 96-h LC50s measured
>99%, NOECs measured 25% and IC25s measured 30-36%. In June,
effluent was uncharacteristically more toxic, with measurable
acute impact at 48 and 96 hours; and an NOEC of <35% and IC25 of
27%. Contrastingly, effluent collected during the week of July 6
was less toxic chronically, with an NOEC and IC25 of 55% and 57%,
respectively. It was noted that a couple of industries were not
discharging during the July collection week.
3.2 Toxicant Identification Evaluations
3.2.1 ulti le Species Testin
A single set of concurrent fathead minnow and C. dubia chronic
bioassays was conducted with effluent samples collected the week
of June 1. Results, summarized in Table 2, indicated that C_.
du_ bia was more sensitive acutely to effluent toxicants; and both
species were similarly sensitive chronically.
3.2.2 Toxicity Characterization
3.2.2.1 Persistency_
Toxicity persistency tests were conducted in May, July and
Mtn October. Each procedure involved two chronic bioassays, one
Y
--4 -
y-
�Yv

initiated and renewed with effluent held for less than 72 hours;
the other set up and renewed with portions of the same effluent
samples held for 120-168 hours. Results of the procedures indi-
cated that effluent toxicity was acutely and chronically persist-
ent with May and October samples and non -persistent with July
samples. It is noted that the July effluent was collected during
the week after the Fourth of July when at least one major SIU was
not discharging.
3.2.2.2 Chlorination and Surfactant Characterization
The October toxicity persistency test noted above was also design-
ed to characterize the contribution of residual chlorine and/or
chlorinated compounds and surfactants to whole effluent toxicity.
Chronic bioassays were set up with pre- and post -chlorination
effluents, transported and stored in standard bioassay 1-L plastic
Cubitainers, to determine impact from chlorination. Separate
post -chlorination effluent samples were transported and stored in
plastic and glass containers to compare surfactant -associated
toxicity persistency. Because surfactants tend to adsorb onto
plastics, an effluent containing toxic amounts of surfactant would
tend to lose toxicity faster if held in a plastic container than
when held in a glass container.
Results of this single study indicated that there was no measur-
able toxicity contribution from residual chlorine and/or chlori-
nated organics or surfactants at the 50%, 75% and 100% effluent
test concentrations. At the 25% effluent concentration, chronic
impact of post -chlorinated effluent was significantly greater in
effluent held in plastic compared to that held in glass in the
-5-

initial bioassay set-up. Effluents were equally toxic, however,
in bioassays set up with aged samples.
3.2.2.3 EPA Chronic Toxicity Characterization Procedures
Three EPA Phase I chronic toxicity identification procedures
(CTCPs) (4) have been conducted with POTW final effluent. These
procedures involve manipulations designed to characterize the
physical/chemical properties of compounds contributing to effluent
toxicity. The first CTCP was conducted by AScI Corporation,
Duluth, Minnesota; the second and third CTCPs were conducted by EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., Sparks, Maryland.
In the first study, conducted in mid -June, there was a lack of
reproduction in control organisms in each of two test sets. Data
interpretation was, therefore, based on organism survival. In
this study, aeration and C18 SPE treatments were most effective in
reducing acute toxicity: and acute toxicity was recovered in the
methanol eluate from the C18 SPE procedure. This treatment
efficacy indicates that non -polar organics could be a source of
acute toxicity. Overall, it was concluded that surfactants were
probable toxicants. CTCP Trial #2 was conducted with effluent
collected in late September. The only treatment which substan-
tially reduced effluent chronic toxicity was C18 SPE extraction;
and within this treatment most effectively at ambient pH. Verbal
notification of results for the third CTCP conducted in late
November indicated that the most effective toxicity reduction was
obtained with C18 SPE treatment at ambient pH. Again, both
studies indicated that non -polar organics were a probable source
of toxicants.

3,2,3 Toxicity Source Eva1uatiOn
3,2.3.1 industrial User Discharge monitoring
Preliminary investigations were conducted to identify significant
industrial user (SIU) discharges that are acutely and/or chroni-
cally toxic at projected flow contributions to the POTW. Three
sets of 4s-h acute and pass/fail chronic bioassays were conducted
for each of Reidsville's seven industries during May through July.
Results of SIU toxicity monitoring are presented in Table 3*
overall data indicate that three industries produced a discharge
�
that was consistently acutely and chronically toxic; one industry
generat
ed a wastestream that was acutely non -toxic but chronically
toxic,
• and three industries produced discharges that were acutely
and chronically non -toxic.
3,2.3.2 POTW Activated Sludge Refractory Toxicity
p In
anticipation of SIU discharge activated sludge treatment
studies, preliminary investigation of the suitability of
Reidsville POTW activated sludge biomass was conducted. Studies
involved
the filtration of POTW return activated sludge and test-
ing of
the resulting filtrate for chronic toxicity (5j. Results
of the two trials conducted in September indicated that the
• filtrate was as toxic as POTW final effluent concurrently
biomass f
tested, suggesting
that another POTW biomass should be used for
future treatment studies.
3.3 Polymer Treatment
Because
the City will be required to meet a final effluent color
y 1
l/�I�-��"� i��L �- f' L.io-1( lf'�-c:.�Y✓`'e'J .S� r 4 ` Cr
MIA

limit in the near future, it has been investigating the efficacy
of various polymers for color removal. In order to determine any
effect on toxicity from polymer addition, chronic bioassays were
conducted with portions of polymer -treated POTW final effluent and
polymer -treated industrial discharges.
Three studies were conducted in September and October, results of
which are presented in Table 4. One of the two polymers identi-
fied to effectively remove color was also effective in reducing
chronic toxicity in POW final effluent. At an application rate
of 100 mg/L, toxicity reduction was clearly evident and effluent
was able to meet or nearly meet compliance at 90% effluent concen-
tration in both of two trials. Similar application to industrial
discharges showed no toxicity reduction at loot discharge test
concentrations.
-8-

'ABLE 1. POTW final effluent toxicity history. January - November 1992, City of Reidsville.
TEST DATE
TEST
48-H LC50
96-H LC50
120-H LC50
1d8-H LC50 PASSIFAIL
CHV
NOEC
LOEC
I=
K:SO NOTEs
Fall
-
-
-
- 100% wwtaft by Day 2.
01 /08/92
P/F Chronic
-
02/05/92
P/F Chronic
-
-
- FaN
. ,
03/18/92
MC Chronic
>99
-
>99
>99
35
25
50
32
40
04/29/92
MC Chronic
>99
99
51
35
25
50
30
47
05/13/92
MC Chronic
>99
-
80
42 -
35
25
50
34
42
08/02/92
MC Chronic
59
49
49
43
<35
<35
35
27
39 AIlsred teat ooncanlratlar.
07/08/92
MC Chronic
>99
>99
76
57 -
e0
55
as
57
73 Altond test conaanbatlons.
08/19/92
MC Chronic
>99
>99
>99
5d -
35
25
50
35
44
09/16/92
MC Chronic
>99
>99
>99
>99
35
25
50
30
40
10/14/92
MC Chronic
>99
>99
>99
>99
35
25
50
32
38
11/11/92
MC Chronio
>99
>99
>99
>99 -
35
25
50
27
as
OP reida th

TABLE 2. Multi -species acute and chronic toxicity determinations.. FM composite effluents,
City of Reidsville Phase I TRE.
SPECIES
-
TEST DATE PARANETER
C. dubis
P.
rome as1
6/02-09/92 MORTALITY
4" LC5M
59
(56.7 - 60.8)2
M
96-h LC5M
49
(".9 - $4.0)
M
120-h LC5M
49
(44.9 - 54.0)
71
(34.0 - 147.0)
1684 LC5M
43
09.1 - 46.8)
<65
REPRODUCTION
Chronic Value Y
435
<65
NOEC
05
<65
LOEC
35
65
Inhibition Cones.
IC25
27
(18.5 - 35.9)
19
(17.3 - 21.5)
IC50
39
(36.3 - 41.5)
38
(34.5 - 43.1)
1 Abbreviated test set-up with 65% and 99% effluent test concentrations. •
2 95% Confidence Interval.

TABLE 3. SIU dlschAroe toxIc1ty nwitodn0. CI1v of Reidsville Phan 1 TRE.
SIU
PERMIT 0 1wc
DATE
TRIAL 0
WORK ORDER I
CHRONIC
•
YOUNG
ACUTE 404
pH
CONDUCTWITY
I1Ep0U11L.
TOO
CUD
PASWAL
TIMTJ CTRL
LCw%
O&CFA E
134
1213/92
SA
92-05.199-01
FeN
0
$3.7
1.
31Z
c0.1
372
05114.15192
16
92-W283-01
0710745/92
2A
W47-0n-01
FAN
a
!A
1.7
7A*
m
4a1
07/09.10/92
213
92-07.148-01
40.1
•17
1N
07/25.20192
3A
92-07.40"1
FAN
0
04.0
1.2
7.03
2s
40.1
sn
M1
07/3031/92
38
92-07.517-01
EQUITY GROUP
bA
05/12.13192
1A
92.05.190-03
FAN
0
35A
300
7.19
912
40.1
034
1.8110
06/14.15102
I
02.06.20.i-02
07/0748/92
2A
92-07-077-0e
FM
"A
WA
SLI
SAO
on
40.1
07/00.10/02
28
92-07.148-02
7A0
1.2l0
40.1
1.130
t.OTa
07/20-20/92
3A
02-07.400-03
Foil
It
944
as
7As
so
-40.1
4it
1.fr0
07/3&31/92
38
02-07-W-02
SA4
an
40.1
CHACE PRECI M
4.2
06/19.20/92
1A
92.05451-01
PAN
33A
=A
13
9.43
In
<0.1
72
061Z1.22/02
16
0245-42"1
7.74
754
so.1
•
toN
08110.17192
2A
92*"13-03
PAAA
34.E
84A
19.0
?At
t"
00116.19102
2e
02-08-39"2
6.08
1e0
24
04
07/14-ISM2
3A
92.07.21443
FAN
111.1
MA
"A
7.08
4n
40.1
es
2t7
07110-17192
3B
92-07.274-01
&At
104
.40.1
sm
MILLER BREWING
6.7
05/19.20/92
1A
924)5351-03
FAN
L/
33.4
9
9A8
1.697
4c0.1
wo
05M-22102
16
92. MA22601
10.30
1.0t0
40.1
370
f.2�0
05/10.17102
2A
024)8313.01
FAN
ox
34A
2.0
9.77
2.000
00/18.10192
20
02-08-30"1
1024
11A011
!S4
07/14.16102
3A
02-07-214-01
FM
0.1
SA
sA
0.70
"to
40.1
211
so
07n0-17192
3B
92-07-274-01
10A$
lim
40.1
7�
UNIFI
07
05/28-27102
/A
92-0547"1
FAN
0
21.1
0L0
?At
1AW
05120.20192
16
9246.520-01
44
m
00/23.24192
2A
924X0.423-03
FAN
a
28.0
4"
Tim
tm
40.1
08/25-28/92
26
92-06-46"1
m
701
07121.22192
3A
92-07-323-03
FAN
0
210
01.2
722
we
40.1
/4til
Al
07123.24192
3B
92-07-003-02
7.17
1.170
"A
OMME FILATFX
2.0
05120-V/92
IA
924Z 479-03
PAN
30.0
31.1
220
4.0?
lam
05125-20192
16
02. 5.52002
8.92
111
a
m
07/0740/92
2A
92-07-077-03
PAee
31.9
NA
s40A
7.53
116
0.19
07100.10/02
26
92-07446-03
7.40
122
0.10
40
104
07120.20/92
3A
92607-400-06
PAN
28A
ilA
0A
?A*
t07
0.10
t0!
$17
07/3031/02
36
92.07-017-03
7.116
14b
40.1
BETA SYSTEMS
0.2
06/20.27/02
1A
92-05.479 5
PAN
29.6
31.1
s•
0.67
247
05125.20/02
/s
92-0"2043
TAS
m
46
242
05123.24102
20k
924"23-01
PAN
13.4
WA
2.0
7.00
210
00/25-20102
20
0208-40942
7AS
2.320
01
!!6
07/21.2Z/9Z
3A
02-074W"I
/AAA
as
me
3,16
?AT
RAM
sat
n
/31
071044M
38
02.07.10L01
7.70
W2
4a1

TABLE i. POTY final effluent and industrial discharge polymer treatments, City of Reidsvitle Phase I TRE.
-
TEST DATE
TREATREMT
,
9/23-30/92
10/14-20/92
10/21-27/92
MORTALITY
AVG. / YOUNG
MORTALITY
AVG. / YOUNG
MORTALITY
AVG. / YOUNG
BIOASSAY CONTROL
0/10
29.5
0/10
35.5
0/10
30.5
. POTiI EFFLUENT, UNTREATED
90%
5/10
0.0
7/10
0.0
-
-
M
3/10
0.0 *
6/10
0.0
-
-
POTY EFFLUENT, POLYMER 11
'
(a0 MG/L)
90%
-
-
0/10
0.7
-
-
99%
-
-
0/10
0.1
POTY EFFLUENTf POLYMER 21
(100 MIG/1.)
90%
0/10
27.0
0/10
27.7 *
-
-
m
0/10
23.3
0/10
27.7
POW EFFLUENT, POLYMER 02
(100 MG/L)
90%
10/10
0.0
-
-
-
-
99%
10/10
0.0
-
-
-
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE,
POLYMER #1 (100 MG/L)
Industry A - Untreated, 100%
-
-
-
-
10/10
0.0
Treated, 100%
-
-
-
-
10/10
0.0
Industry B - Untreated, 100%
-
=
10/10
0.0
Treated, 100%
=
-
=
10/10
0.0
Industry C - Untreated, 100%
-
-
-
-
10/10
0.0
Treated, 100%
-
-
-
-
10/10
0.0
* Significantly tess than bioassay controt.

SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Based on findings of Phase I studies completed to date, several
preliminary observations can be made:
4.1 POTW final effluent consistently demonstrates chronic impact
at a concentration of about 35%. A measurable reduction in
toxicity is evident when one or more SIUs are not discharg-
ing.
4.2 _C. dubia and the fathead minnow are similarly affected by
effluent toxicants chronically. Q. dubi-a is acutely more
sensitive to effluent toxicants than the fathead minnow.
4.3 Characterization and identification studies identify toxi-
cants as being persistent and as non -polar organics. Evi-
dence suggests that surfactants may be a source of the non -
polar organic toxic fraction.
4.4 Three SIU discharges are consistently acutely and chronically
toxic and one SIU discharge is consistently acutely toxic at
projected % flow contributions to the POTW. The remaining
three dischargers produce a flow that is consistently acutely
and chronically non -toxic at projected % flow contributions.
4.5 Reidsville POTW activated sludge has unacceptable refractory
toxicity and should not be used for SIU discharge toxicity
�.� treatability studies.
rg
� -13-
151

4.6 Polymer treatment of POTW final effluent effectively elimi-
nates agents responsible for chronic toxicity. Polymer -
treated effluent can meet a 90% toxicity compliance limit.
Additional substantiation of some study results is needed before
more conclusive conclusions can be made.
-14-

i
o�
SECTION 5
ADDITIONAL STUDIES
Considerable progress has been made in the past seven months
towards identifying the nature and sources of toxicity in POTW
final effluent. In order to more clearly understand the agents
and sources of toxicity, BRI feels that additional confirmatory
testing is needed. Additional efforts are needed to expand upon
initial findings of EPA Phase I CTCPs, in particular. More
definitive identification of the non -polar organic toxicant(s) and
toxicants not yet identified is fundamental to the development of
Phase II of the City's TRE, the period when steps are taken to
eliminate identified toxicants. This information is also import-
ant so that THE funds budgeted by the City can be spent wisely.
BRI projects that another 9 months is needed for completion of
Phase I toxicant identification studies, studies which will
include additional multi -species chronic bioassays and pre -and
post-chlorination/surfactant characterizations. The primary
effort during this period will focus on repeat applications of the
EPA Phase I toxicity characterization procedures; and incorpora-
tion of EPA Phase II toxicity identification techniques.
Phase II of the City's THE is projected to take 10--20 months,
depending on the nature of the toxicants identified in Phase I.
A longer period of time could be needed if modifications to the
POTW are required; a shorter period of time if industrial sources
of toxicants are identified.
-15-

HYDRO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 12n, 2419 Lewisville•Clemmons Road, Clernmons, N.C. 27012
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
December 3,1992
Environmental Sciences Branch
Div. of Environmental Management
NC Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N. C. 27607-6445
RE: Effluent Toxicity Testing
NPDES No. NCO024881
Rockingham County
Dear Sirs,
RECEIVED
I.C. Dept. of EHNI
DE C 4 1992
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
Enclosed are the results of a Chronic Toxicity Test analyses performed on the effluent
from the Reidsville Wastewater Treatment Plant.
If you have any questions please advise.
Sincerely,
1
C
CDM/tg
ENCLOSURE
cc: Mr. Jerry Rothrock
Mr. Donald Waddell
Mr. Jim Johnston

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form/Phase 11 Chronic Ceriodaphnia
Facility (-1 f 4 Of �e ICISyI lIe NPDES#: NC DOo?4S8/ Pipe# I County c l
Laboratory
y�Performing Test r Ilri n r • Comments TCa.S =32 r
X" Signature of O.R.C. V Signature of Lab Supervisor �f 0-�
..
•
r,�a a�.•�s3
3 •�.. -'�i
�3 � vya
I i
i
�
as
;.
Sample temp. at
Control
Treatment
pH Initial %,57
pH Fria 7, 8%
D.O. Initial +
D.O. Final r7 q
•1 St//art Time EnT
r 10I I6•
Start Renews ei
Control Control Cc
7.q.4)791�7.
0IiR#1Em 1 7
y •cl • �I •c . ;a.� I rremp. Final [d4 q P .3 1a4.2 I a5 I
r n' Chronic Test Rest
112 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Final Control Mortality %
Mean Control Repro.
# YoungIwhhokz 137k3134A-J % Control 3rd Brood
Adult
L L L L L, ✓✓ --
Effluent%j # Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)e
Effluent% #Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)e
F1
O
—j
signmcanrrU
L
L
/
L
L
I
/
_
Final Mortality Significant (?a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reproduction Analysis:
Repro. LOEpCI- S50 %; NOEC-�2_%Method: . 1i -S
Distrib? NO Metho��_
Statistic: o. 893 Critical: 0.930
T
L
%
LILNormal
4
5
7
8
Eff``ll�uent%
#Young
9
p 5
(L)ived(D)eadH
I
L-
L
L
L
L
L
LL
EqualVanances? Method: —
Statistic: Critical:
° i
Method-
3 4 56 7 8 9 10 a
Effluent%
#Young
O
I
8
I
D
o
Q
3
5
Adult
I
I
UD
I L
I L —1
Effluent% #Young Q Q Q Q
Adult 1� T
ATT: Environmental Sciences Branch
MAIL
Div. of Environmental Management
TO: N.C. Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
EE �sit�r��
'Should use highest rest concentration or
highest concentraQon with D.O. >5.0 mgA
DEM form AT-3 (8/91)

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form/Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
Facility �' o-F -ReldSVI Ile. NPDES#: NC00�4Si� I Pipe# ��/ County O lr
P rf in Ties r in 4Dn earC•tt Comments z~a7%'
aboratory a orml g
Id VAI I:
m
Signature of O.R.C. Signature o Lab
Control
t—
RPr9�- 11- �83-01
Start Date End Date Start Time I
tformation' I �l/�� ' ;
7S7tMa7TR_e_n_e"w_1IRenewj Start Renew
Treatment q q �` Control Control
lffilm.e, q
GiZJiilTl
' I
INN
r1m
Mal
out
pool
M
= • . _ _ .
ood�000eooeo
Effluent% # Young
Adult
1p (L)ive (D)e
Effluent'/° #Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)e
Mean Control Repro.
% Control 3rd Brood
48 Hour Mortality
Control It
Dof10 C
z 38 3 — — Significant?EY
0 Final Mortality Signific
—%or FN0C
12
'
,5
J 6
Repro. LOEC- ! /•;
Method: 54 S N
Normal Distnb? e5 M
Statistic: a.I
L
p
4
5
L
6
7
L
1p
Effluent%
r
#Young
rr
�J
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead L
L
L
L
�
L
L
L
L
Effluent%
#Young
a
I
5
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
1
L
1,
L
D
I
L
9
.
1 n
Effluent% #Young Q 0 C7 O D D O 00
nQ Adult
vl l (L)ive (D)ead L 1. �- D LL ✓ _
ATT: Environmental Sciences Branch
MAIL Div. of Environmental Management
N.C. Department of EHNR
TO. 4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Equal Variances? No
Statistic: 33.7L
Met Pe a
;t56
ieneve
Control
-Should use highest test concenuation or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0 mgA
PJ
DEM form AT-3 (8/91)

4.0
HYDRO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Inc.
ENVIAONMENTAL ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 1270, 2410 LevAsAlle-Clemmont goad. Ct•mmon& N.C.27012
Telophona (gig) MOM
MATE : Q/� 2 �"
This Pax consists of
page) •
This Teleaopy is for:
FAX No.
FROM:
Transmitted BY:
0
pagos. (including this cover
, MV W P2. 2211- W.eAUA".X
If you have any questions or problems related to this fax, please
contact the writer at [phone]. Our FAX Number is (919)
766-0469.
• :#f1i•••1;=s•i
1• • • • i•1•1•
• ••_
_
�Zi��� ••fps* ls�=•too* :••*fee
*9 : g
•�:!!!i! !
��;�
11
!!i
! i !tt;i
=i1�li
00:
�•��I;il!
•ti,•;
t .•••••i
:: ft•
Voo
#Goes
.•nisi
loop::
loose
comments/Massage logo#•
fti.••
ties•
4+0600
Got •.i••
�e
/'fie
•••ii
Gloss
�ii.••
� l
•••.i�
+ fir• ...���
il.•I
Q Lf/d •...•
t f�••
•Gees /+
1 �+if•
•••li�
- Z 1. • •.
K too
let•••
+o..t*
sloe•
Non
A
d�
;i
•..if!
off
� .
ties.
•toots
$toot
ii.h
N.•�
...•♦
lies•
iiN•
Io.li•
floss
I+..i•
too$$
�a... _. ...
�� �..
.••l!
6•L'
i��•
• •' ' i i i i i#� i' i 3###
s i i
{ i i
t!
1
{�! i t i i i! i: i';� i �
••0 :.a. �aai���
.• .::..
.....
Of�Q��� •
sees• OO
a�
• • Qo:e9:::::::::..

HYDRO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
PA Sax 1279, 2419 Lewisville-ClemmonS Road, Clemmms, N.C. 27012
Telephone: (919) ?W210 Fen: [phone]
December 22,1992
Mr. Jerry Rothrock
Director of Public Works
Ci of Reidsville
23 West Morehead Street
Reidsville, NC 27320
Dear Mr, Rothrock,
I am enclosing a copy of the "revised" SDC Time Schedule for your records. This copy
includes all the revisions that were requested by Mr. Harold Jensen of FinkBeiner, Pettis
and Strout and Mr. Rick Diehl of Burlington Research.
As we discussed by telephone, this schedule will be incorporated into the City's SOC
application and submitted to DENHR for their consideration.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
Hydro anagement S ices, Inc.
f
Gary Sta' ack
Vice-president
cc: C.D. Malone
Harold Jensen
Rick Diehl
Donald Waddell
Steve Mauney, DE14NR (Transmitted by Fax)

PROPOS12,D SOC IME SCHEDULES
DATE
TOXICITY
REDTJCTION EVAL , AT10N
OI,ITFALL
LINE SCQNSTRUMQN
AUG 31, 1993
Complete Phase I of THE and
Develop and Submit an
Submit Report, Meet with DEHNR
Environmental Impact
Winston-Salem Regional Office to
Present
Study & Submit .
Findings of Phase I of TRE.
Preliminary Design.
JUN 30,1994
DEHNR complete Review, '
Response and Public
Hearing to Environmental
Impact Study
JUL 1, 1994
Authorization to Proceed
With Final Design.
NOV 30,1994
Complete Phase II of THE and
Subnut Report. Meet with DEHNR
Winston-Salem Regional Office to
Present Findings of Phase H of THE
DEC 31,1994
Submit Engineering Plans
to Construct
FEB 159 1995
Approval of Plans by
DEHNR with
Authorization to Construct
MAR 15,1995
Receive Bids
APR 159 1995
Notice to Proceed
APR 159 1496
Complete Outfali Line
Construction
MAY 15,1996
Complete Pump Station
Start-up.
MAY 31,1996
Compliant with Final NPDES Permit
Compliant with Final
Limitations
Limitations and
Requirements
C08 010 ** NOI ViS 30IA83S 3—IIWISOVA ** 690099Z6161 00s91 zZ-31—Z661

.VISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM (DM1)
'01lTY e-W<A_ Zj A- i PRIVITY SAMPLE TYPE
l.R BASIN C (�
:-ORT TO: ARO FRO MRO RRO WaRO WIR9�- $ TS tAMBIENT ❑ QA iG31 STREAM ❑ EFFLUENT
Ism ❑COMPLIANCE ❑ CHAIN ❑ LAKE ❑ INFLUENT
.rr
OF CUSTODY
For Lab Use ON
Lab Number:
Date Recelve4
w
Rec'd I From: B -Cou�fer-andDel
DATA ENTRY._BY:. (:Fl:
kped by: Bu ouri , Staff. Other ❑ EMERGENCY ❑ESTUARY DATE- REPORTED:
STATION LOCATION: AZ imated BOD Range: 0.5/5-25/25-65/40.130 or 100 plus - fC � �� ��l�fiff t//// GVt�✓, ��
d: Yes ❑ No W Chlorinated: Yes ❑ No CR REMARKS: .,S ✓ Q���.. S�srs �� '«-_-r �-
oIon 7y Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) TIme Begin DateEnd Time End Depth DM DB DBM• Value Type Composlle Sample •l+�e _
d l� 3 (� A if L T S 11 G !�( GNXX
1
BOD5 310y mg/1
2
COD High 340 mg/1
COD To335 mg/1
3
4
Coliform: MF Fecal 31616 /loom]
rt
Coliform: MF Total 31504 /looms
7
8
-• ()Volatile
10
I I
1.2
13
Coliform: Tube Fecal 31615 /loom]
Coliform: Fecal Strep 31673� /looml
Residue: Total 500-� - - - ---- mg/1
505 mg/1
_
_--
r
fixed 510 - mg/1
Residue: Suspended 530 mg/I
••-•-Volatile bJL •-__��•• mg/i
Fixed 540 -- mg/1
1_5
16
pH 403 ~- units
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 mg/I
Acidity to pH 8.3 435 mg/1
17
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 mg/1
-to
18
Alkalinity pH 4.5 410 mg/1
19
TOC 680 mg/1
20
Turbidity 76 NTU
Chloride 940 1119/1
Chi a: Tri 32217 ug/I
Chi a: Corr 32209 ug/1
Pheophytin a 32213 ug/I
Color: True 80
Color -(pH ) 83 k� / 7n Af)MI
Color: pH 7.6 82 ADMI
Cyanide 720- ntg/l
Fluorkle 951 VIDA
Formaldehyde 71880 tng/I -
Grease and Oils 556
Ilardrtuen Toltrl 900 tng/i _-
Specific Cond. 95uMhos/cm2
MBAS 38260 mg/I
Phenols 32730 - ttll/1
Sulfate 945 tng/1
Sulfide 745 mg/t
NI13as N G10 rng/l
NO2 plus NO3 us N 630
P: Total as 1' 665 mg/1
1104 as 1' 70507
1": Dissolved as PP 666 - -
-��ingA
Cd-Cadialui, 1027- - �ulln
Cr-Chronlutn:fotal 1034 u9A
Cu-Coplmr 1042 ---_ ug/l
NI-Nickul 106*1 ug/I
Pb-Leucl 1051 +-� rug/I/I
Ztt-Zinc 1092
Ag-Silver 1077 u9/1
Al -Aluminum 1105 ug/l
Be-Betyllittm-1012 ug/1
Ca-Calciwn 916 mg/l
Co -Cobalt 1037 ug/1
Fe -iron 1045
Li-Llthlum 1132
Mg -Magnesium 927
Mn-Manganese 1055 ug/l
Na-Sodlum 929 a„v '1
Arsenic.Total 1002
Se -Selenium 1147 --.-- --- �,� 1
Hg-Mercury 71900 a:trr
Organochlorine. Pestickles
OrganolAwslAvorcis Pt -Suckles T
Acid lierbkides•-_.-_._.__.�-
Base/ Neutral I:xttactable Orgattles
Acid Extractable Organics
Purgeable•Organics (VOA bottle reti'•t,
Phytuplankton
/_ 1^_ 7': A Z-.A - . ./ _ L .
:,npling Point %
Conductance at 25 C
Water Temperature
D.O. mg/l
1*1
Alkalinity
Acidity
Air Temperature (C)
pH 8.3 pll 4.5
pi1 4.5 pli 8.3
94
10
300 .
400 it
82244 431
82243 182242
20
Salinity %
Precipition On/day)
Cloud Cover %
Wind Direction (Deg)
Stream Flow Severity
Turbidity Severity
Wind Velocity M/1i
�- _
Wean Stream Depth ft.
Stream Width It.
480
45
32
36
1351
1350
35
64
4
rJa I T
p.
..I.-IRC FA-d In/fib % e
r �'� may(/ .✓ � f'(•-� ..L.�=� t7 C_ Q,/J 7�
W q.� 14 o -G0 , t .

!
AVISIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY FIELD•LAB FORM (DM1)
O LINTY p j
PRIORITY
❑AMBIENT ❑ QA
�I'S
SAMPLE TYPE
❑ STREAM
12 EFFLUENT
JVER BASIN Feaq::�
SPO
EPORT TO: ARO FRO MRO O WaRO WIRO
.T BM
)1her
��--�
i�lpped by: Bus�Ca; Staff. Other
COMPLIANCE ❑ CHAIN
OF CUSTODY
❑EMERGENCY
❑ LAKE
❑F,ST(IgRy
❑ INFLUENT
OLLECTOR(.Sh Z i A/U 'W-4
Pnr r Rh llc_ f%par V
Lab Number:
Date Receive Ime:
Rec'd b WI From: Bus• our er and Del
DATA ENTRY BY: CK
DATE REPORTED: /a 17
stlmated BOD Range: 0-5/5-25/25-65/40.130 or100�plus
STATION LOCATION: .f �/ /Ae J l
eed: Yes ❑ No❑ Chlorinated: Yes2- No ❑ REMARKS:
;cation #/ Date Begin (=�d)e Begin Date End Tlme End Depth DM DB DBM Value Type Composite Sample Type
A H L T S B C G GNXX
1
___V Y • V Mg/1
2
COD High 340 mg/I
1
3
ICOD Low 335 mg/l
4
Collform: MF Fecal 31616 /loom[
5
Collform: MF Total 31504 /100ml
6
Collform: Tube Fecal 31615 /looml
7
Collform: Fecal Strep 31673 /100ml
8
Residue: Total 500 mg/I
9
Volatile 505 mg/I
10
`
Fixed 510 mg/I
1 1
Residue: Suspended 530„ mg/I
_ 12
Volatile 535 mg/1
13
Fixed 540 mg/I
14
pH 403 units
15
`16
Acidity to PH 4.5 436 mg/I
Acidity to pH 8.3 435 mg/1
1 7
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 mg/1
18
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 410 mg/I
19
TOC 680 m9A
20
Turbidity 76 ITV
Chloride 940 mg/I
Chi a: Tri 32217 ug/1
Chi a: Corr 32209 USA
Pheophytln a 32213 ug/I
C lor: True 80 Pt -Co
tl
Color:(pH ) 83 Dial (� ADMI
Color. pH 7.6 82 ADMI
Cyanide 720 mg/1
Fluoride 951 mg/I
Formaldehyde 71880 mg/I
Grease and Oils 556 mg/I
Hardness Total900 mgA
Specific Cond. 95 uMhos/cm2
MBAS 38260 m8A
Phenols 32730 ug/I
Sulfate 945 mg/I
Sulfide 745 mg/I
NH3 as N 610 mg/I
TKN as N 625 moA
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 mg/1
P: Total as P 665 mg/I
PO4 as P 70507 mgA
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/I
Cd•Cadmium 1027 ug/1
Cr-Chromium:Total 1034 USA
Cu-Copper 1042 ug/I
Ni-Nickel 1067 ugA
Pb-Lead 1051 u
Zn-Zinc 1092 USA
Ag liver 1077 ug/I
AI -Aluminum 1105 ug/I
Be -Beryllium 1012 ug/l
Ca -Calcium 916 mg/1
Co -Cobalt 1037 ug/1
Fe -Iron 104S ugn
LI-Llthlum 1132 ug/l
Mg -Magnesium 927 mg/l
Mn-Manganese 1055 ug/1
Na-Sodium 929 mg/1
ArsenimTotal 1002 ug/I
Se -Selenium 1147 ug/I
Mg -Mercury 71900 ug/l
Organochlorine Pesticides
Orgwxn*x spiwrus Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
Base/ Neutral Extractable Organics
Acid Extractable Organics
Purgeable Organics (VOA bottle reg'd)
Phytoplankton
ampling Point A
onductance at 25 C
Water Temperature
D.O. mgA
PH
Alkalinity
PH 8.3 pH 4.5
Acidity
pH 4.5 PH 8.3
Air Temperature (C)
94
Salinity X
10
Preclpition On/day)
300 .
Cloud Cover S
400 •
Wind Direction (Deg)
82244 431
Stream Flow Severity Turbidity Severity
82243 82242
20
Wind Velocity M/H Mean Stream Depth ft.
Stream Width it.
480
45
32
36
1351 11350
35 64
4
1*11,rRev[sed 10/b.

December 18,1992
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: John D orney
THROUGH: M. Steven Mauney
FROM: Ron Linville
Subject: Request for Planning Group
Preliminary 'Wetland Impact Review
Reidsville VVWTP Outfall Extension
Rockingham County
The City of Reidsville is currently under a JOC which requires
them to pass chronic toxicity. To date, the City has been unable to
pass these tests at 90% stream concentration (actual concentration is
99% at 5.0 MGD with an existing expansion capacity of 7.5 MGD). The
average flow from this plant is around 3.2 MGD (estimated). The
present outfall is into Little Troublesome Creek just east of the plant at
the end of Broad St in Reidsville.
Movement to the Haw River will provide some additional
dilution which will reduce the effluent stream concentration. Recent
studies have indicated that substantial toxicity reductions may be
accomplished in the areas of surfactant removal and possibly color
reduction by using polymers. Generally, the City has had to be
compelled to move forward on any and all of these improvements
through a JOC and now possibly through an SOC relative to Toxicity.
The effluent is approximately 66-67% industrial. Significant foaming
has been associated with this facility and there have been numerous
complaints concerning foaming as far down the Haw as the Town of
Haw River. The Haw has WS and NSW classifications.
Knowledge of the Troublesome Creek and upper Haw River areas
for the proposed sewerline outfall indicates that these areas are very
productive freshwater swamps and hardwood bottomlands that are
extremely rare for the piedmont Just south of this area, large
mussells have been found in a relatively unimpacted section of the
swamp (Candy Creek). A demolition landfill was recently denied in
this same area. Larger species of wildlife known to be in the area
include deer, many species of wading birds, ducks (especially woodies,
blacks, N. shovellors, and mallards), coots, mergansers, marsh hawks,
beaver, otter, mink, assorted woodpeckers, as well as turkey.

Page 2
The WSRO would appreciate your direct assistance and
cooperation in assessing these areas prior to the City submitting their
engineering proposals. Preliminary reviews are currently underway
which could benefit from early information on the preferred route for
protecting these wetlands. It would appear that there would be a
significant risk to biological diversity and to water quality if route "A" is
taken. Whereas, route "B" would entertain the status quo as the creek
is now a conveyance for this discharge. Contiuing to discharge into
the Haw at this point would not help Little Troublesome Creek to
recover (see 305B reports). Route "C" on the other hand could
actually improve water quality in the wetlands and creeks upstream
while providing a better stream flow for assimilation. Option "C" would
also be less likely to impact as many wetlands and would cause less
negative commentary from sportsmen and conservationists. Also,
based on the previous performance history of the Reidsville WWTP, it
would be advantageous to insure that the outfall is readily available for
public view (and official inspection) which would be the case at Hwy.
150 (Route "C"). If you have any questions please do not hesitate to
call.
MSM/rl
c c: WSRO
Central Files

City of
230 West Morehead Street,
Ilan nn
I! C i •'
SCIENCES BRA �.s
APR 1 1997
March 30, 1992
C
C 27320IZ [phone]
if
OR I&M THE QITY MANAGER
Winston•Se;ern
oonai Aim
pallub
MAR 81 IM
Dr. George Everett
Director MY, Of ENVIRONWWAi MGM
N.C. Division of Environment Management CIRECSORSOFFU
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Dr. Everett:
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
Enclosed are two copies of the report on Toxicity Evaluations
for Reidsville Wastewater Treatment Plant, prepared for the City of
Reidsville by Hazen and Sawyer, Environmental Engineers and
Scientists. This report contains a recommended plan of action for
addressing toxicity issues as required by the consent judgment
between the City and the Division of Environmental Management.
Specific activities recommended in this report are:
1. Reductions of the levels of phthalates and 1,2, 4-
trichlorobenzene in industrial wastewater discharges.
2. Limitations on alkyl phenol ethoxylate surfactants and
other poorly biodegraded surfactants through substitution
of more biodegradable materials such as linear alcohol
ethoxylate surfactants.
3. Perform a Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluation to
assist in identifying additional contaminants that may
need to be limited. It is anticipated that initial
evaluations can be completed by June, 1992, resulting in
an interim report. The full program is likely to extend
for a longer period and may involve additional waste
characterizations.
4. Initiate a permit application for an alternative
discharge location on the Haw River as an option for
achieving greater assimilation capability for toxicity
that may remain after corrective approaches have been
undertaken.
The City has been working towards resolution of the toxicity
issues. This has required an effort, not only at the Reidsville
Wastewater Treatment Plant, but also by industries that are major
contributors of wastewater to the system. The level of toxicity
�p Recycled
{� j Paper

n a + . .�.�" +L r, 4.
.;,vl :e... $'.,.. �--y y ,-'�E4 r :'y1:,�.: .tat• u+ t .�T,.. ,{r:'
�,y,, '�r t �., .h• ..�1. LPL`: ..2 ,w`,,= h. aR'K, ::!« r5" .1+t!+:Y-fi'F•• •,lfy4. Jt ..rJ•1�t}y[.y,":A^{.'W ."Z-•jgiS
�'"7ef: ,�'•_1..':., ".tip r ,''hr�141'.'•.tt`7}�', ,ti,rW .'`ifr�-[(i� ,/. ' ,_ ..lW11;; �,y..•r.'.. .i+...r. ' 1.y r y. , '.. s•,--.y 7;, S_', r:.,C ,r- a. .` ,"• •-F �.,., .t.'kw 'a•�i:••
r ,,l . at w!j}yr;' �Zy< +; ,r Y..;� ..C4, .Y i s, -�.^ s►�.L'�':�.+i+'+': ;►�• M', P S 1��` f ixr,.,f�r'n47e�`t�!� '., ,�S}+jy
,�. - ,.r, .l:. � ,t-M-'1 V.r>;. 4,. `Y..�=�"-iy�t Y? r; �r j;•.J-'•StS '� e '�•3
b :- 'r.,•..� .I. h ..., t -t i to a.»r ,�+5''6nry.
j*,,. �i �3i a7 " -" �''' Y? ]i .+y . S'i„ _ F ♦ x _:s' _ r! t f' Y r'. �,'r r S ^ Y ,�?
�.. .k ,+C+ v a,i ' i t'''"` • Z.f54+51 ..:t', �5f.'4 r+ .'?s'1i + i z.i..,r,Yr e dtr�' -.. •� i�1 ,7."t� w+' . .lj^.f;:..v' _ .w+ , ii
} _ .H i .. '„7, $ .Jy.=:fl r.! Q -"' � "+! 3'.� �e Y .:?.4.1., j 4.-.5�,.. f N(>. ,t ,,�..l. t F �;Ng '•ly1/,�� �f .' fir, .i.,,�'jht'r �n. 11•• . i _yx��rn.•�y ,.r
1."I -:P..��{{ •,l :,�r k'.,iz!=� i1'!", ', ..8,+ N. '.'.-,Y� �?rii`4' '•aa -:"; ^'-�Z1''•'• 1, ++9'-R!7•, , rr'l•�i'! F.IB-S (?rr - .i 1"3-L+t'-1 wf
t a'.j f y-,7w Y' {,4 .,' yr , :r• .l.'1,. r .}. c.�7r. _ �..�q1�i' 1• Y; r.,. 'i'-"' �� � �� '< a. � Y.. .rl r i +� .. '•1• -.t,.- .: i. .,s�1ii
y�l,.. 4. r .h'J, t:.. 'tr` T. :J •:ki �.jr,�q",te. a•'_ a: }..:�i „4,.1 r fa yrt, _: 4i 7. +'•�'t,,,l•• 4 'F� .f.'�. `t i.N-: •'"r'1
ii �!M.:1 ri..•) it ti�+':Y! 3 i=1', ter: :+{ t.. 4=- ++ �... Bch - .15 :Y .r.S �S ri-r_ ]75 ,� .1
:,y,< 'r'�.L G ;�,p't •r H.",�.. '}1. }ay�,aa�� ����j{{ "P1 t> , tN < s ^•i .0 . t.L �f. '3 -,n 'G • �.r - - ,'S, .lr.; •;�'li {:,. .12�-Y `rt,N.'
I. '1.L_':A" '• �'. a? '•k l••*j` (l..' .x [j;; !.1/ •4.'%yr•. !i4_:S': .iw ZryFA :r ."�..... �.. ,'. ^ .tir.♦ irr ,,i. F .� Y. �..'� C< til. a Y i'4�.. �a.(..r
,.d' t.; "�. ,+.;{•'• ...1' t• ..:[- 'zY"c Y �tx .;t't . h., :.. "a,` -6; ,� G s 1:. q}�' ' bSt .' - ,a+ . •rt;)aC' �7¢ R'r' -a- {;rrr t f,ry�
J .'? f. ,;Jrt t ,,y I?. tJ ,7 '��rr LAY tti r7e�•', +f "3 iS ti.1 'is. Y. S it L� � Y, ...yam., .r. - :y R � 'k+ yyr .. h
t�7s� ''i »r.r•:r{.. �ayJ,�. Tr_ v:.' ,-�:175' ?�lL•,}3r`?�,',++.�,.e .lf: c'.'" .i "�_,i:�. + �•..,�ix:'r'. Y.ka sd' }.� �rq..:1 "'^`.�y r::M. 'i".r++•�y, ' !?'tt�2,t''�Jp'.?!`.
.i%• >�` - �..••��. T' r2,.. %F.{�,' �,}, 7nY.. ^,fi' s -w.a .T.t"t'},r�. ..: " .i R;!-st,.: 'NuR"�+%�t-,�t•" ��•'Y '1�, t' 1.y�e-�' v -:. 1 :�Sr -r.�±. -�J�.
:J`-x' '�' +i?i,?� + - •• _ 9..: �d i' x-cl :.`tr }.,}ar �t4 J:: .'::s=. I nt 7' ,1 _. . w ,,
'..= '•rT .�'p_.. �`_ .-.,:r :,.:�? ;r w `•' F+ -': :-;. '7:� -. '.er �'c_ .r. :, i.., ra1z.. ), 7+ I�':,, .ram a a .�'a .t.'�i~`- ,t
4 - .. ^ , 'r. -s r � :Ta � :}�. 'fin. t-_ , r,rf +I : 1 �rF. t> .C"{''r� ,•t : 'ae, x r i 't r t -`i . -- 5 t-� �, r ',:;•...
;d�3•:; y5 - -'»a ! �.' i 2.j V~•: .' R�,:.t. -'a S' �S 'i ,..t:�. 'f-:it -��i'r��.�..�. -'i,- 'Sr'i,- i-, -., 5 sd��i , . - r'� ..,�
i. X Yp• n �+!'. .�r+ y �i�~. l'iks . Y- ..e'., �. J ,�rsr e Y' rJ' Lk,'. „1' L�j�r_Y L rp�� r''i iJ,
�A ! -::t om id,• :.` .�"'' +:r. ..,Y + r .,+r. ,y ,:y... t i; . r. , . 'J?' `!'� *„"F ..'Syr .,,+•a" .ti t r� ':' r,.t 'b �y,+.?. k - nT. • t
t, .fir. George `�verett U� -.� .e,_,.,. �,``j4. dt ~
�j ... .. :;` t�. - a ,'s"- �'t* i` �` .N<�+•! ra' µ ja i1�'.4 ;- . �!rN.i, ;.;.��•�.a -;_ r r - r _ ,}, e�� .r.,- 7q .r
r._ +y;..- 4'S t ; J w .a., { r� ",,..,; l k Y � .I r r - �siy'.
�f:'��j?':-Cf.-_ 7 - a e - a.. �; '.�rr„Y `-- .-� .i+e •q�,' .<3'r' •.< 't. �,`'a. kw.+,,' .: �fd 1•, �NL.. T_.L',v: •_-I.:I..,y�- -�;;A
��,,, +_ f F t�{;az Y. � +r Y3 T, _ y}ewe • � t,r% . F Y, - :..J t°ir�.' w... z .ae `4". 1, 'C i�� «i iY't.`i'"?j•'�;. her'`- •. 3-•'
^'4• _ .Z 'tiLi��-''-?:_d=''.-.?t Y - .aa5.•_.,?••,. +r aiJ, # <•... . 111 • , JJ 1`
- t.• "i ••i+4�,r�'Trd -�.At: `... �{;riu i-+•-�Y. �"5��: t xY^' u:t..•r ";�!'.3',R'-` 't{�f n ��`'° R. 7 `,e,�. j?.��F -, m r�. n! -'A% �t. ..,� r •� rr ;.��i�!;1 :�.''"' .
-4 ti�>` arch YO '199Z +.h •� . r -Y "Sr+.�: ,r - .•l.•d n..ft ;.J:" 'i`,A .-,1 �*,t f"a•3 �iJ•t :s r•�fe. •t ; ` } ,yr :+F�
''H. ;�•.. - _ -•i..i , ,.J.:.4'L�x ,;�'tV - .�i".:L' t d- ..f tri �.` ,•=�'.��;- ylii ,a 'i;!'frl?if {t 7' .f �:ti'�lf� �s'fip.T-' +,. .ray i,:�..• .�✓1 rg'•i?r vrx-•3 wy { t'.
_,,t. "y1 �. -.tr;. ��"'71_'• h "+` •�. " ^.?" "'4� :f_. '? t�'1:"_!l" `;1•. i rr. yl,:: t. 3 ;. a �+ Xt 7 L',A'�.. yy.,
r,' 'J .f. \+ t .I' j� , s}_. ws W.1,y. _ ;:':..a '{- `- •`. t- ) ,rix- 'T r'� •r... .a`r �: `< t'SLa1,"ti. 'i,
{'1 rn-'ti 'f.t!. _ ', C: r•r .. �r"�r' •-i'.Tr.: .4 n 3y}F :i � i.-.-,F f r :y2y _.•.`�� •t. �. •,« Sitjr a/.3'{�.� -,+�''f-✓,r _Y }.. - �4 ,...r--
.a;,. -x .. -r w+:, _L..+_`;f-._ , d.P:---...,•_�a. �.S• _ ••_ :J.f k . r�L Y •.ett c.,°.� C4 e; • �F. ,,.��yy ' �!'. `-''+�t'�..',i..t'�a:'c'k
s"`+• -"'-:: f-..ti . ti .s=.,.h -4a1+ '.r:l. tF� �"i ,,a' �:��," �r�._-r <., i .Z,„ •y ,;, .C,i?y t .:;�; ;. r r•.: -. ,,� •'""-`• ''•-t - •t: r :.:r` - f
-r.�i:',•. ., c i� �i- r..� es: T �, =f a:y� vX 4: ,r4i-i"" ,: - :`^ ..+,,,.gu�:Ss. a�,c '�; r.. n::-�i .�,+a •' .:r' , ...r, » ,
i, h . ::ti%. - - , :a�_r aSSG•• r 'r !'f: t,4. •ri .:L.,y ,r �r-1..,�t�.r ?'•'--r•,...... .,f7c. ,_ -r_ w�,,, :r,. .L'•A i7;: i.. r_'.. �`�
.;S-r,d2- ; M, X, i• .4- •1 r. .T .'S.. `l't'. ,:�';f., i. : s k- �.•: .• rI - E:: •�lt' ♦-L" c. rji',r �� ' : J - ^ -• ' '=+.'+ .- a i
..r.�:}i:,.,.!� `yL.i t �v� 4r -c •.�-'.•. 't.=:4+1, {� • jy ._.at•d3.-{.T. ._ ;.•,n' �:,:. r �i�/ .r�•`• i'.'
"' .. J.s..' - .`. I..-. .. „M a ..J :jai: " !,'1.. L.:�`; :.,K A,. .«.•+3.. ._r.SZ-.k�. t�i'a `.=-l: :sTy- ,. _.�•� -�. ,'ei.j;•r•-ii:f- �S- �.Va. 7 -t �• .�r7 :�' J {�.-:-%. �Ia :L^ t - , ,y •e' : t ' „0-:
L'.0 -Y 'ryrr - u.'S't, .1 Y �.'+f,•'3- ��. A i? �, L. �: i - r `.ii s. L •.;„ 4 !--t: ; ?`. `t• - 1 r5"'.4.: wx+ $I,; -�-•" . ' f :.; :.tt\ _`I . .t.. 'L�_
s � � �' , J 4 +teduction needed �.n Itbis `I to nce may H require' ' a �Uigher bevel •:+cif ' � � " 1t,.
'" `'� Arad j ustment by the various affected parties than encountered in most � "x �'
4
t
�' _ Wither wastewater systems . `I am sure that DBt� Can to the z°
J � - lexities involved with developing a comprehensive program that k: , .1tu
. ! �-� r �.nvolves -such a high level of waste . management by so many separate .�_ z�
~., ' 1 y �' :end diverse entities within a City.. 'The City has been dealing with ;t� -' :"
y. >z;. <,
iY�y � he :.complexities .associated with This .situation 4md .;progress -Yr ;-r �.
1T " a * -
continues to be 'wade. ,, T
^S y < a f, 1� tl J .l a r it - i �,ak k� l �l- J ,3-Si.
r* a i' ° y -
',.i�. f .k .':r i{ rr r t 4 r:+" f. -r ! Y 1 ..* t ji L
_ . 4, J ,• `d''4 +.��jtr , k� .,i-;. pf,,.- y.ry .». ,- ; -' m 1. • v .3�. 7..3. Y'a+: ,�: i .7 ' ; t • + },E' RACYi..
S4�' * .- incerely � • . r'l{ �+ :1 a . ;tr •� d ` ., ,+ >Y.f : t r C.y,f ,_ - H.^ y+...l a 7 + rZ•:i}
♦ I t ., �.,,f, r i* r et i ..:ire, +rat~ f A
r an }} .L . 't 4Y f 1a.. r '+ e.. t.,4 2 - y !, t L 1 �. ,'�-r,+ :� 7.,. 2, r i� --'!'•
fi t J •, i rr .:F. . r. ' i l J 1. 4:. .vy f f 17i. .. VR 1, �.'. i't'� `'i i/ � T } +:.
t i
a !l'e
tr. • j.. ri 3 i .'i , - "r� YM, ' ,y + =? , t+`+Yn L rt #v,� �: + J•� 1•:h rFrr a 1. r i..r T Ay Y.+ t� ..
+ t, tea r ,t , ♦ I i
CPS
t t 14j
D Belly Almond ' `" _t r `7„ 4 ' s; �_
+ City lyanager t t {.
} - _ .. - '�' •C •.T '• r -. *K-" r "' : C+ ti p 1 y:r.. u { Y4-F� cm �.� Y• r
Y r DKA: crn t Y' ' '`
r ��
,i+ ,, ,7 r,, 7yt } + 1 +
' _ r ( Y• ; ., y .. .� a fr rfS '-v ` `.1
cc : 1+�lr . marry Coble .. t _ y �
""
a _ ,' - T -t �, -
- r - _ `�r.
..•.r t .:r, .. .. '«. Y Z Y h , - f ._...-.. . `- +` -g'Y
r
- , - i' + t
,
,
x, . ..
,+
T r ' 1 �,, , , L':
s. -, a'. .rr .' +t wa , itj a �' .+ g.1 t +. : �::,, r ,':t -t y+,. t.+., , ih .i>..
r i j � i r^; y b �... t o ,,, . n. i` c Y
r 'rJ' ,3.
k. ' e i
1- , " . . -
•-�yj�
_ i.I
I" - _ ., -
r - - ' . _ -¢
- - +�
_ .. _ 1

i. i s.•"! ` rt>v .\J... S• W rh.. .t _ .. al. ... ..r. .«.G.}f..
r.k 9rs' n w"J + f +• 4 rl ><r 4^' ' O .+ 4V: '1ut•- z' o J { n h. ( •
irk., w � q vv i: t ^ Y l `+;fin "i• J S .. -
<.
f . H4 i.-:•.:,r r� , .."` .z �,S i"ti . .!:.,aTs 5 .r� : a•t'. \z : , r. `•t a ti. v; may*: '.i f "�`.i zi�.f. �.r,l, t, G. c= +`R: y•`� •r� - '. r,'� - ����J///���
i..-:sa ., J• -ls. •c;i.•t:.. .{, }R . ':. :..E✓.•,z•ptn:'v t' }' - .,T,:,, i
1, •r,v
_ _l .. 1 ..'-1 '. 'sy'�+; r..{,(Y ti', -v :pL��• r,H h,i-S I ♦ .K . J'S,.. r•r. . ,.ter.. Dt. 2 „f t.... t f . . L `>`<
Yj
OEM
ION (F F1MIlZONNIENTAI, iViAN�AG� y=m .,
YIRECEIVI=ft '
P&C. 0V t. of
7
j:s ��
r - +t is+ry. i '03 :�..' ! .rJ •+. zr, r'� l5'°" r.•,> ♦ - vy ' x - µ •'i i !" rK •, .
jl+••+ t$:•tn 4fz.j'A.L.,}1. ♦,• Iny,\+ti.. ; .yt�i:.vS, (-..i .'l t,
\ MWQRAMUM . .. ...
A.
,7r ,vo
R 592
s .Y� ,: e i2 �- �� ;� S ... J .. h.. u. _ s ,.., .:� .r �./�+�','k,�Ait`JkL ��h •K. ��� �',j.'4.' t�}r '�• ' ° i i, � _ ..
AP
Mauney Winston-Salem
r THROUGH: men Eagleson .
FROM: LarryRegions! Off
Ausley
Af
t rJ
` TM SUBJECT: Review of Toxicity Evaluations on Reidsville WWTP
NC0024881 .Rockingham County :+
I have reviewed the toxicity evaluation reports recently sent to George Everett by 1;s
the city of Reidsville. In general, I would comment that the work presented does not,
in my opinion, represent a well organized approach to addressing effluent toxicity at the F
facility. The work accomplished seems to rely almost wholly on benefits to effluent
toxicity realized through engineering and operational studies related to other, ongoing
treatment activities at the facility.
Portions of the document which compare existing chemical analysis data to
" literature values of toxicity do so without follow-up toxicological analyses to verify that
the chemicals discussed are actually causative agents. While the facility has spent time
and effort with industrial users to reduce effluent constituents that may contribute to
effluent toxicity, at least by calculation, we do not have data in our hands currently that 'y
implicate these chemicals as problematic in this effluent. The Phase I To
Identification Evaluation suggested on Page 5-2 of the report represents a step that "t
should have been initiated at the beginning of this process and one that could have
provided logical direction for studies to continue.
In the plan of action on page 5-2 the consultant recommends testing with multiple `
species to" assess the potential for compliance with species that may be more sensitive
v
than Ceriodaphnia". I cannot understand the logic of this recommendation. Since the
effiuent toxicity limitation is based on the Ceriodaphnia chronic toxicity test, a showing
that other species are more sensitive would only prove that they would be ]= likely to
- show compliance.
The report suggests that conductivity should be assessed with regard to its effects
on testing results. I would agree with this recommendation but point out that effluent
conductivity of the facility reported along with self -monitoring toxicity results
(generally 800-1200µmhos/cm) are only approaching a range of concern for a salt such
as sodium chloride. More toxic salts may be present that could contribute to observed
results.
The report suggests that the background level of toxicity in Little Troublesome
Creek should be determined to ...assess the extent to which the plant effluent night be
increasing toxicity from the natural condition". With regard to whole effluent
limitations on toxicity, this recommendation would be purely academic. The facility's
limitation is based on absolute toxicity without regard to any upstream contributions.
' ' utilized toxicity in order to address an
Receiving water could be utthzed as a toxicity test diluent o y
ameliorative effects that it may have on toxicity compared to standard laboratory
dilution water, but only if the receiving water proved non -toxic by quality assurance
standards. f
In summary, I would would say that while the facility has performed some toxicity {
reduction work in the past, this work has been piecemeal, not well organized, and 'M
much of it has been accomplished as a sideline to other ongoing work. The Phase I s
Toxicity Identification Evaluation suggested by the current document represents the
right step toward developing a closely focused approach to addressing toxicity but

'1r -^. r.. c . .p ,` . u ' S- s'. ;�a .t�r'i 4rt l' ;..F ' r.r �. ' l ,s.,y__a►Jr'"P'v. - i •I . - - r _ ....
- [ .J •:d :.+, r. -,". ,..y:..,,,. •[. :a . i.. .i.nai l'•l+•.�J ?`,>.`. _..."- x,:- �. -e5 .,%o . :1- s.s -r
l.
, . JI'%" �1". .- I 4'- ..I.II,I7I,,�1 ,
? ... 1 , 'i +, E , +, i
r� e•. . � J r• :'. Y 3 1' . .
-[� a .:J• .. a.. y , + . w ..x -'t "a. i ,�yry' % y. '�.•'gr. _c'A-7,?.•M., yyam�,,,� ys .?f.Fir� r. r+x :[[•.;:. ,�.1. :`ra' r•. n iict'� r l�••� ..t't >4,t•'.rp.'a ;r),IIs..-�.Y^r1 a'x� fe`y.k ..e•.r �T+i�i d __ -y ..z ,I. :tc'. {{ . ..+.�i
:T'��:. - ). e! �f [-.J�4:. ••.'q,[' 1 i. •,il T., ,w; .•l f�. t '4 I~ __.47�✓: . va1 _:'"1..�. r'
`�i�a:. `+Nt a '#'.f`-- 2 Lac 7 -e �t rY- :.. f:" 'r' a ::.. '•.i". ...4 " •w�
1%•. al .�'�''� -r. t-k`- 5 += aak t•j 'r•+;. r at. l �,�.f:.. r:'.I. i,.i. '^, -d.-'�
/. 'i... �,L �'[ i.r. H, J' r , I S _ •..� �w� - fir 1 ,t
:i' .C. 4( .t ii. xa•-• :'a. �+� `L V ,} 3 '.a t 'J. i.'.. 1 , :L.. a - a. ^:f i
:b t - y �• ta.F- fit- 4:r ". J� . _.a. t wON
: r A-`:ti�r �• i ,aa �„.'F'i- ,ea y }!y t-a t re r : tih ..![ ; six ., y 3^
ti ` w ice' c z. , y :, :T: a..- _ -V II 3 N
�. ..h ''•. rr - a .a ;r�""' - L ku, r,w,t a _..i`�� _7E yf: ,.i-a _.
s. �j: . �} s r_ e; ' 1 --+ �rJ. .�' .4i ��r axa 7. 1.'•
i:' .,..- !k- ., "t '. �' i?+iaA� %. i a - %.. ,yr;.JA. k'.w -y,,�x,Y -..0 _,,�� - f �- A -_ -A •a. ! .'r ! rt.: <
i f �� «�''. '(t •, '. iihk ,i."�. - I•v'rea 'Ma l :I'r , _. Ca" "_i�- ETi �. .•?. fa i[f yy ,,f-tV Y.t' Cr. 'Y.
try ' . L•Y? :. 4 y .t..,.fy� k ,a r•_ �- 4 _ ' J, µ
j�y }g,. •„-wr+. a���/•� . /.�, �- g��p-�. pp�l - k h-. Ft. - - _ M `.,,`•7 •< r.r -.{ I.
/ ' 1 = ••'a"r*' ` ".,�liV�Y hale eem 'initiated much earlier in this process rather than three years into a >- a "i c7.1
S.
r cr =x :,: � sent order. 1 would say that a rapidly paced and well executed toxicity reduction
. ,_. ,� ,. y valuation my sal be able to provide useable information to the facility in time to meet
March 31,1993 deadluie for toxicity compliance but that focus on toxicity specific
r' . v . ' Z �� methods will be required to achieve any but coincidental improvements. .•
f, .
r ? ' S jry :4 , ' '1f I can pmvideyou with further information, please give me a call 8t (919) �33- "`~
d r, s r
4 v [. '�x. 3 ! �aloC:Cental ` i t .Zr
Z ' ' ' t• ''' 1. 4 y. .i fI' y �i,ed .�i?• .'F:
F i ^ t '-F :.i.. � it : r
.tr :.C!✓• r+41• ':!':^� S .0 y: _',-. t . •a..•: ♦ •^T .4- - yl - 'i'r �vyi.
.n i; �' \' -vg r. t.� 1. J" 4,i
l ,.k rL- c i - .{ Y Y '+ a..:_ - i [K .'�S..,v,u;• �,. r -a - _, � 1 .�_..[[ '- .r .
E •J!':i." +lr.4++rc�`tr 'V^+� yg.�i-r. :a a`i"lt! ? r .q. ..J _ 7 k t -r ,4.
_s ty . i r - Sa s `ii I,-� a -.. a ..t � 'd I � - S 'w+
Y�y .N^ '�% e' '�. t,.x a 6, .'%:• i '...� a r S .r - - kr a, t . �E ti S .3 1 �.
. x V , .-. ' } �..ti.'r-. '. - -.t -1 ' - =Y > • I r;r.. .y , r0 4 l i-�C'ri •:.. .l - :,yt': _ t:
-- 2.. � t 1/."a f- h.r3 r '4•,..,i .r .y !S_ =L r- 2:- - - - 1 I. - - r
_ .- I I'. Zr
d �;4I V... ,_L. h.. 'Fait r�.�g2 -t j4 N e V;... +_ t .,- ••_ti f. r S...�.(•.� }• '. �r 1»•t � i:. s `,. 4
�. i a �_ t+ 't 1 rr I'f awl 1 .. -- +tr iti . ;, . .1
. "� •[ .w . r •A t ." .. !.r tiffs i�
y r1.= x• ! , %-C � .a t :a'�r `t h r. J .
,. y I. -, . $ '•• 1. l `•... fir[. k:; ? .. , �... : c f ~ tie r
- - - - .�'
-- •` - -
" - - `i
.
",l 4 .
. - - I_1
a - - -- .

t y .
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. of EHNR
APR 15 1992
Winston-Salem
Regional Off ice
TOXICITY EVALUATIONS FOR
REIDSVILLE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
101, tiyt
S3 n �y9
73- �z
CITY OF REIDSVILLE
NORTH CAROLINA
Iry W SAWM
Environmental Engineers 6 Scientists
RAL IOH, NORTH CAROUNA
MARCH 1992

,. 's: It1X. .§ Z ah .ar h ,,.• ti s. - . e•'>:'J9'-"�(-h. .,, " >- •f- r,...: �,.a 3 �.r _G ., _ - r. _ _
y S.. r .a.. .la a' �- . ?' :.r- •t �.::f'..1e . _riC .�'1►, [ -.f .,J _ ' r.•. - _ _ -
R •... ,fE•.rtc94.•'+--ed*',i.?3t✓•l, aa•-G.gis.»y,•,.►�. . .�f- '.r.Rt ,','�oai _�,.�C� ui`^.•r_ r2_c .1 •:!r '. .- . ,!.g, �� �}.a�'rr r,f:.y�..,--"«,:,i:
J ,r ���a yi r /v`:s 7�#it � f'.•'�tt'.r. '+�'f+•.1•fMi �Lr P 'V tt ,G #'f1! �+��•p + fee•.
♦ - `,•. tifr ,:-7ar �� 'il • s`f :t =Mq - .t, > i li AT t 'jy -+, . i ; '2A''• e,L` t. -.� _1
0 ,S rW"a? 'st, Y-v,, ri ire , �:- i �F73. q.SGe4;. ti' ;fh ! R• 4. ! fa«:Yu�q r p,w SyF yr3q-, � �w.: � + s�; : 1 i��` ti f PJ -�':
1: .. _ :ic, r aG,sS 43 : . , "i.: � - °"^ ``'. • i 1" �� ... tz It ;t, . r'- , . - '}� -r:.., ` '•'
IN yC•. j!zt'���"•.�'s..w=..6 s '� a=-•;t 't„' r., n•. ;si'':X11., r,a� ir.,.s.'_ �tL ti'-:t-' ZG .�r�1:t7?rs a r'�,T;v-,,}i's,!� s7 '.` t4
;r.J ,'i" - s. . - 'J� t % e., ... 's VI_-^i G _. ie r •.� .i y L�rr "
ss; ' ct „. s .z ,s.:. +r 7;4±., r a s is, .,.. 'tr ?i}"�' �' zr Y r° '._,��'�'-s r�' :. ' .a{�! �4r t - +''> : ,1. tC fj ,: .+1� •Gn ;A rr.�.' t!r ,,.,..r Y]rfjj�,, t r..'-•��;r 4.�. y s. A^s t�.y�
'�%r �4�" ... ii i, p, .. / - 3 , ! hY :'Y' . ,,, - ♦f:, i� ` A ' h _- ._ . h.. ��•'- 3 d -,) . l T` -': ]�{ , • •'' .,- `•�•.3
t.•��, . ..k, �.a•: .. r . : v, „/ 'i i� ;{het l�tiso %' �rii�� rAs '�;G-.r, '40'► rin %F �'"° ,�t sx . . ram• v 7 r. ; zl r ",� :ir. �s�,+j� jia
3 t .:o-� ::.` 7 - - "'t � ^+��.�. -,t 'I = .•y' > s _ ` ��".L- A''� 1.'.e:�r...: - %it'ti ••rat +;< }'p^}'_d„
r, 7 Y rT s5 t, a 1~
.' r,-. _.a j,r�.r.r f ,[ a , r, , '�i.,Y7""'3�fis;,:,,l j}r tcfr'ixi `•.t LP.�•a+ if a•i.•: eta-';ti71aLII����1• ,�Y A'{f l,�rd%'`•' '."" °t2
+ a a , .X,S , `+rCt x C y� s , i r i' .� � 1: t 'j i + r ' T ,:N M I � r � r �,,.,.. _�011 WestChaseBlvd. Y ��
s'.- -x, : a 4nt , U,u ✓�-a�• ,�°t'"',,•..+f I.J'ta x > u„ �r
yYi''• .,1 '} 4..,,, •'ja.i. yyw -7 lr �'? .r- i''ir 1.'F.#'itS, qlc
f :,r+ - 4 ,. a yj";:3�, �, l t 1'11 >x t' k- .� v t.i '• Y : ''r t .
r w nvironm$n#al npin$ers ci8n#is#s �' _ .. � . t-11" �, !� a-W�',' :-. z�.s ��..=k �.A fr r,:�I `: •;1- gh,NC27607 e:;W M� .
!n.l d' ., '--,. ♦.y. ,. - >, sr, ! '..� ,'�""rr,S'• +n ...�f �Z tF;v , 1-_-- + " I S r >Y
_ M1 s ` I " = 9f98 i-7152
.:.ft� 1� t; ':{ � � 1 m �s�^- ,'i'< 3 •'�i1F.� ,:t" t _ - r +1.. r.a G,'e""!y _a rl R �}i-•�r++.,�M'HS r+tifi� K y .•+-St ram . ': `:'' � . ,
-t'.i .? 'ti • ....,� -._.�V" ,� ,->l-+,.d. r Y, •47:; --I ,_A. +i-+`• t f'' �•f' .►... .�a,,:•:r` J-..� vr_ 'Y.- 1� .7 - pr�� Q�p •,`
,4:'' }:; r L. ;»r ,, rit.=.w'. . •gyp ,r •.??:�rtt}r�,T�,•.;;', ',•s t - v �;� y /:t .•w.:..�. o �J`*f ,� -� i 4 .,h }t1'' '( '. =;c 919 W�T'iQLO Q=„�; r Ys Gr,: r. �.
r.}i �':it . �� rxl4- ..r. ..1,?, '' r..�+i.: - =.ti rt t 'i' . a' r. f � ;I _ •:?, ' - - .w ' . r_
` 3. !_ ; �-. - yy. - For;: irC-:-----.- "G•
- . ..y y-} •:YS;t. tY' t "-•'i� _(. ,r +-;y `j a�Ty ur 4Y: r -:, r .,C a -.._rani' y,. •+. r. ; `," g .rv. 'r .a..5•G his r G �: t - ,t?
"�! pe , ai ..�.'�':' � ds+"� .1L` . ,�J• y.. fd- :er ,l .Y i.-33 •1 aZ�', -, •.1-.0 _1'.r i ri� I" ,};�,.:'
-:t .,.e-1 %• .. .�,G .',-'..i :sisi ,=.'S- is,• . rw.+1.J.. y-H V. rL.:. . rti:a.- �, . ;i.' �`.?> ,v .. .7w -��, ..:n `'w-i1S..!ir {,yi»,. ♦ .'� :�t a•'p�. x :;'Q.c •�" i}
1.5:: t yy.� ' +, -'t ..�•r.. 3-!" � n +E" ;^�.yy J „7''�-�.. •y •',-:�..� 7- :��'P _- "li' .�a-, -a, _. - . � .• . r�"t"� ..r: • � f '! . 'Tt a ' ,!f.<; :� y . --1, .± �e.a a _•.
ii i� ,4. 11. r Y,rJ'4'� vl. ..f" ,: �•, .L� 4Y, t •:: Y rs• Y-.,� t ,j('Y..y •�.f f r, R �1• 1. ,': R"!
�. I'a 7, "M ,.y.,.t. rs :ti;, ,tt '� :. t:'- _ram,,, '7 , --- v ;L ! 1,::" . <,•_". :H:'i,' r, �.,...�.
- •>,i Yr ':. I ^:: •f�l P;3. '�t .�.1�'^'r (. 3 r6. // I r f I _:. i 1 •t. T +.1, r 4'd-1
}. y .;.«.hf .,b S».:rY .; } :� r4 St'Lr' .1!�` +i•; -ti y .a:-, i r ,•,.`-<G_
+ i•.,''r'.' '. ,f,,- F ' .: '''r' r ) ;11't � �" k;.tiF`�•in� r ., .:i WG,t 1. � �;:tyG. ?+r '!� .''if{., n . ;r:: ..r . s fit♦': . f' i , t ! •:#i. , ..'i .
..St��.i' _%_.>.IA: C4... ''=+�. ".: e.. r�� ''.,, •},,,,i �}} tvw r' fY }.". .i.: :'a. ..1:. �3 ,.,{, '.a',,.r r'.-.f•::` '/A'c�e +r;`Y�gr:,"1' �?.. .i:1!1 ✓ :4Y'
K2,• i' -'f` _r, r ��jj." ' a ;t. > _ .•. �i''1- +5�- . d ,t. r rG,,'. : u 4 ...�."',; .SST, . I �' F..." ,.I. 3� r . 4 t { 7: y +�'; �.,.rf.,.
_.t. t .;iy}. '.6 ;•, .3' �. .,� y `f .a r.a ". 1t. rt -�'. jj�� :�iu :..r;lu :.i_ '1, 'S ,1 /.
;tp�s•;.^Y�', a- tr: 't. ••.•..r � + ^r. 4•1 �# ..sP!' �}J, sa �.�'° �. ... 1.~ .} , ._r}+�'
'� },r," _s,.-�, r... :•.: -'1'-c `Li>': '1' `', *.:? t.: .t, tb:t r i .:v .;•'V. !F2- .mot:,_ b.4.1 >. r. •�.rZ 4. •.e i .{- ",. •Y'•y. -:t_,J 1
.fir- �• ter} R .� �; ' -, i• Z, ./ :"�a.:. .+it ,i. ..a`_. ; Sr ..,_ , 7 .,:kn ,_ ?,' .4�.�', «s!f ..
.. ::L f.` K :i: -..i. :�:a+-.: � `fit •T �- �l�= J:"" -:1:,; •,r4 S' w: ...o�M'.♦ i. .;. _....*. ��a 1. i.,.r ::f.,., ;:t., :� / J _ a ;r Y ,i. r;
J ?` !, rt• > {. r'e'r' '_" nz ' r.t, . r �e, r4 t n r d'.: .'e ifti
�' f', 'a..,r .4. �.' , d. 7.. S..N+> - ? - x' y': -i 1. .� 4 }':± •f:•-i:M^-.• ." 'f t,`-�: •'!5 ..I y:�A.
{'.+ "•5'%+�c;,.'.TnC ,;i:. a' .t: �.r4- -- ^".1.t•"''C` �. 7- .i: �,,. r, _ �- - ,,;� a--
i i . j, _. s: g nu .�- ., f�,�.,,. , 4• I.49 '� S t , s - ^ ' , < r .,-!1
- v- -'"fr 'F' ...r i 't .�-1 r.,r -1. �J>xi� .t 'i:i• H _j2 - + - 3 _.:t r �l r r. �� rl:
t rt-?'.. ' ),,,t }.3.Y+) j�' .`�i 3�... -yam.-✓ V.. -. s•. I J h '. Y ! -, S: Y •" • �111' ,,� t - 1. • � -1 �'
,!.rr :.I ' " i.i: �.•'T. :. .l.'" s.< >:3 'S s� 4 J ,J' r• : "S�' _':1, • ,.4- s .r'• "� �J. - _ U.
11
,.JxIz* aYS uSM A+'%;;• •,� ,t ey{. .f1 h�. .may.l�� ]"�, 1 !V ,..Yrt N., i,.. ,-r:+ a 1. 1 .,,"• F
-_5?� :1 �.,.{t ,, P 1 "+a-.? ',•.=, '_! 1r ". ''Y ';Ul j - l:' -t _e •>J, '( e,. .
:'J1 'r,: �. ',sj,. 0. •Y ..T. is 1 �,R.• ._1K >4 I .1 r, A ,4.'I".,
♦T. ¢'i�Y: r...,r�;s;vw .;"L,� ..♦./ i.t••,Te r. `aG. ,, ,.-. :"Y.±
s, �en 's, t i;t' a r n �,: t , y k:t t i.. x GG�!^ '"t'.i
i ;•.. Vi- 'r - ;: - `•F .., t {..:: 't±'L'j�!f. �:, lcwye : r' ..G. i. 1 .., +',r . s . ir.. " i i" 4f y"I+b ,.•r•?r(.,+'iif
ti •'h 1^i`r. . k�;,';• Fa.... if , 'parch 1r.7 �'1�/f/ 4• _ dw':'�l G'Mi`,9 n' rGr ir:.
Yr R' >. ,. t i .r t ri = r y
l t.'Y, ��, ,r:9 ,. L.�, '4� J.*t,� i i! L , w ..r �' /.,W rt J • - .r: r. .�i r�
,•. ''"j. i,,1 4 .. .e `'i s y, f `,, - ? ,y r V _ 'r l I[ r
is r1�-.�G .:y c .� : �t!"�l' us'l>;: .:`f-, .t:`_:T."`^''.=as?+S"v`G.' t.;S{.h.1 C". tp'r t _+. `?'••.[�..1,�' �, .A;,e:•i. " r •+'•is,>a. s + +,: t...» t1 :,b:'. •-rr a ,•'ram irr
'-+. " 1.s. -s_ ..,,�_ q ..+r. , ';r q. ti sf: ._:y au. _ ,;,i.._ 1 -:;..= :",ir.
. 'ti:* �,y� �••,f;.. - -_ Y -a: -_t..,. �.4# �4'•F:r• ..'o _, Zur7r' �� .t c + v ''-.c..'- '♦4"'tt t ,.. G, .i,..:t ..r.t-A *'t �,+rr- zL.4+.e>:�."7tr
ygvf? �!'. ^S2"tF }�.- ti"- 'e'a5:=f-Lii:;,M1 i;CrLYht.- /" •2�. ti�;.a'- ..,.i.'et T� •G: Y ^, •-e r.l _ �� v
t Y. l ,}t{t .tom. «! a a
>--Y, :s 's R. ._. v °• •� .�.ti i:�,��'b!1f �,; } e, i�� t: - ;♦ .('G' tee, j 4 -,'•-'r �i•..•. ♦ 'ItP`ti '• p•
: a - _ , 4 " i 'f ik Y';. <. r?t Y "r! I ft i 1 i.:,. � _ 3 2,. -..� Y: r .) - p. v.-- r k iM., r .},,,�7,.
t ♦ :.y,. •r . J•- .2 - --.+i'.,,�y. y .: 6 • . r: - -w ".�, C> . ..:' " - `� F. . C ,R. LF:Y! -
:,r+t! r, .�•�+,, s-�- .� -<.rr a _-.t„ y'. ,.•. t :C -r ` :, 1 _ __,� . Sw. W: -I• -a .�, / i.:. - �y4.vr l,l. :s .Y. i'�, :I,t :� .l' q�� -aF '-r_'. C,- e,- •t. =Y:t�' :r
/�i .t " �J •,; r ,,y� -�IH}•rr. •{, :y-. :• J• yl- .. 4 -1 . _1?� y -. 2a' �v 3.(_.,�,,_��_
.r..a 'sl '.f}.` ,-LrrY•.•' .5:./t- '.r• -•1 -1�:'..rA - JD. C-'G;1:''£.>. r :T.e..up• (:s. _a, „r ^�?. -Cn ,.e'.6 ;fib. 1 Via... .Ti ,;<.••e�� •�
•v _ - ' -s, ',' F r` :':r" 'f."?�' t ,.,,rrtrsi 4 .1[�r 'a. •.ti _i..T iw•'J :7:• .%' � _..r t. »a.. .. tiT»+ .kt+`. �t '.S
j.
r. =his sandy xuff, superintendent r ,rr
.
:•; v . ,
4 / 4 4 4 ` I. ^- '-i 1 JI Y t I }tii {" y1 i, � r
Wastewater Treatment Plant ,.: 1.• ... i) ' � Y
r it✓V West i�tol Vh � M - r < Y +• r �' _L a t'x' wit • - w - o .+ 7 r. i
'Reidsville NC 27320 / - ' "' �t
._�I j, � r�...,. . � ,- .- : ,-.*.'.i'; 1.*�1IZ. ,:- I �'�,, -., 'I7. -. - .--.�'I.­�'* � I ,, �'r _: x�L.��.. L. ,.-I, ,- �',I -I _. :�...'.-I'i"r�."�. '..I.....,;��,�.:'. ._. . ' ".L:I,..%_.4 I .I - �- .' .'.. I _I ,,' 'r_..- �'"....- LI I�.r '_ .I ., . ,, II. , _.* -I �Ip . r : r , ' _'I. - 1� _"� -:,�':4 " ., �, ­ -.j*�.".-r ,I., . . � -�. .,I,I ..-- , r !rI .r " ,,-.: ' L,, *� . , ,., , ' I `'(., 'I ., .1.�* ,.-1. �'41.f- , . �.r, �.*._.-. ,. - 4 . _�.',.r�,­:r.!"�,,', ., '-�I' r, ' I . , :,- " .,... I- r .r �..I�, 1,r-�L,.�r� - IL-, :�� '. __ .rI� L ..�� .�, L��_ ,,e..�.-.. , -_ r. .,;I , _ ,-,- ..,�� I�. - : .-� ... ,� � . :. "I.1.-. ,;:..41. .r�..­ 1;,1 I ...' - _,II � 1.._ ­''_� 1­-, 'I!.- ,I. .", ,,-.-.-.,,:*. ,-.- ,-1 �,...:._r. I .�- ._, *_ r,. ' e. - � - . '..LI , L��'� . ,.", . .�.,, .1." . I" -.... .�. ,1I..I . .. . .'. *I ..�. P r._-­r "�_ ­ ,.:,;- I I ..r . . ,-� 1'_I:-, 1" ' . ..I , .I -...' , I . r4:4�. -
'.:.I" _. 1­T. �_ ­
t r ' r.
s,. ,. 1 - 'r �, r o - _ • L fit" ".
f , , r ,, w
Re:'oxicity Evaluations for the - _
" Reidsville Wastewater Treatment Plant j
. '.
. Dear Ms. l l�i 1 '!' . � � F..` � - k. .
' 'This report describes Toxicity Evaluations for the Reidsville Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1 `"
,.,-"I
r
It contains evaluations of three general categories of alternatives for addressing toxicity issues: . ` -'
:, ,
- 1
f .r
• Modifications to treatment. !,"
,
• Source control to eliminate the discharge of toxic substances. - -
• ,
Construction of an effluent pipeline to an alternative discharge location at which there - '.
• ,
is a greater capability for assimilating any toxicity that remains.
,.
;'` . This report also contains a recommended plan of action for further steps to reduce .. '
toxicity.
We have enjoyed the opportunity to work with ' your staff at the Reidsville Wastewater
- Treatment Plant. Our efforts received the highest level of support and we appreciate this A�
. assistance. If we can answer any questions or provide any additional assistance, please let us -
know. . ... - .`
.
>,
. Sincerely,
- ,::.
�.
. .,
HAZEN AND SAWYER,P.C.II, - .
- - , ,
a
George C. Budd, Ph.D., P.E. 1
,r Associate
. 'a
GCB:mc . .. • .. : . `
Enclosure - ,
I
t
New York, NY + Armonk, NY • Upper Saddle River, NJ • Raleigh, NC Charlotte, NC • Richmond, VA • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL + Foil Pierce, FL • Jupiter, FL • Miami, FL + Bogota, O.E. Colombia ' I
- •,a
. " - - _ Y..
. . - -. .5

- ._ ..
.. .-,+...- t � ;�. ..4 .t�. - S•�rv�ItY,.., - .1'• ,J.. � �,.r wit e.. .�.'n Us s �r -. ... _a.t...-
♦ :r � ar ...�, hf j Y .� S.J Y Q yS', 1 3 -. h �. •. / v {K S� .1 .. � _� �4•.J � •� ' »t .t 1 - ! 'Y •� I ..L �'
� %y,
ECT�4Nw4� �sg=_.�P.d# ��.�- 4 s
,,,y,♦ L�'i }...t%r '�.. �i1 a41 �' Y .{(rt. i'� �ry �.�ti-«w�r'?�i ,/t'. }�sq{ rk.ra; �\ .!' .. fi�,-�,y�.,t� �
#j,�� i },s:. f'r y: =.4.,g
-a{-,sjosA+�1Uc •,.:: •z.}, i.'1 �-...�. irAAFF;3 �,?.%�1*� 'J i.a
,.4
l'Ty�t1.{.e4 \, %•. ...
. �-t.,. ..�. .� �t .-•{� .. . ,, ;_-. _.
- '.r • rh e . +w 7 �•ti E f \.•�• �i.s {�,'?+y_ti�".i i�`* 4 • � • .p'ryZ U3 C:ply � Y h� Li s.`i~!'w l �t i.� s tr+. l •hr�s� ,'?_? S7.F • t _.r - r ; t
.»�
INTRODUCTIONS - r �,«4y �� :� ,__,�
•c �. r _. t1. ,�z.., : >>4� CQa,`.t ��1,. -{�.L >. ii, i,�►.�f.a:1-i.:. a'.�-, t.Z tic '
' '.�. {'�� :�i,_ '�!y *:��Y�1•i„�1yJ' ,r ,�}}••''�-Ft.' :a. F�'1M;+�1)
•i ;.f✓3 t..na 5.:.��ti�tl�_L.. 'v+• £i"`f•.� .,.':i'tl�',�,:.r .� -'{'�' Y♦ �•_
x
This report has been prepared for the City of Reidsville as a component of
, • _:
.. a project by Hazen and Sawyer #o support the City. in its toxicity evaluations for:
the City of Reidsville Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant is operated under
an NPDES discharge permit that is administered by the North Carolina Division
rf
of Environmental Management (NCDEW. The discharge from this plant is to
._ g g
=
Little Troublesome Creek, a relatively small stream that is tributary to the Haw
r;
River. The plant was recently expanded from 5 mgd to 7.5 mgd.
The present NPDES discharge permit has incorporated a requirement for
chronic toxicity under the Ceriodaphnia pass/fail test. Because of the low level
of dilution in Little Troublesome Creek, this testing is required at a wastewater
effluent concentration of 90%, thereby affording limited opportuni ty for dilution
of toxicity. This requirement for testing at a high effluent concentration increases
,Y
1
the difficulty for passing and the wastewater treatment plant has had a problem
with compliance. As a consequence, the City has entered into a consent
Fs:
judgement with NCDEM to engage in a program to bring the plant into
compliance. This consent judgement requires that a plan of action be submitted'
to NCDEM on or before March 31, 1992, and that final toxicity compliance be
achieved on or before March 31, 1993.
Hazen and Sawyer has contracted with the City to assist in evaluations of
'
approaches to achieve compliance with toxicity requirements. The existing plant
.i
already incorporates a number of advanced treatment concepts that include
ammonia removal by nitrification, phosphorus removal through the addition of
chemical precipitants, and filtration to improve removals of suspended solids and
BOD. Significant treatment process modification beyond these levels of treatment`
1-1 HAZEN AND SAWYER
_ Environmental Engineers & Scientists

t._ ,.. ar •r^ "w.!V ..r w♦ yr.+ .. I,.n.;C •rem•.- . es... •a. .•..:� .a:1. ... +... c Sq,YC. �^e"'1w ,.y
•':. :"�; L16 '.i .'aa " /»ti:vylLr.+!ll.. aaiw }-'«/1iIA�. irl i4L. � � '�• i'C.trts .7...;f _ ..�i... 'i l
�i-`.: Rr 1 .) _ ,. h .�f: X L f _.tY ::1a ref }Y) !.-.:e' '•r :tf. J .i-. ,,.n •(,
-,�..,,,,yt.- i^ i 1 ••1.1;t.. k. •i.�:1.• L i/ l.�. ai`.t.'.'i-r•.l
i..',.• Yi +,V... y. +. I a :y^.i..{ .• A: _ i', ' !hw.4-. ]"`ji r.t 3 . 1. 4. / < � � 1 . L'r.. 'v'r' .: P / .,..r11-:,/M,ARJJ.av ;. `�
E •:•: a.� .i, F.;•„•,s r.'"r.::?" - h a� 'r.v'x M7F.. .aa,v ,1.�• . S• •.,i i..-, ems. ar-+!
f x �.P . C"1,. �.
ti r r : _
is
•f
{ 0
would require a major sanvestment . the -sty -of Reids%Ue n a project that
' would take a number of -a
years, condition 'tion which would not be consistent with
°
consent judgement.: Therefore, evaluations that would require extensive
i{
J
facility modifications were assigned a low priority due to the short time schedule
available in the consent judgement, and the significant operational complexity that
r _ ' -would be contemplated under additional advanced waste treatment alternatives.
Y
The basic options that were considered to be available to the City under the
t circumstances, were as follows: f
= x
Modifications to treatment operations and/or chemical feeds to
y�
optimize the capabilities of the facility for removing toxicity.
• Identification and elimination of the discharge of toxic substances and
to the wastewater stream.
• Construction of a pipeline to convey the effluent to an alternative
discharge point which would provide for better assimilation of toxicity.
- - Combinations of the above. _
Thus re resent evaluations for each ..
will report
p p h of these approaches along with
a recommended plan of action.
Based on consultation with the plant operating staff, it was determined that
the application of alternative polymers for enhancing plant performance was the
best area for evaluation of modified chemical additions to the plant. Evaluations
also were performed to assess the effect of alum on the removal of phosphorus,
a parameter that is governed by the permit at levels less than those being
.+
achieved by the wastewater treatment plant at the time the study was initiated.
Other features of the plant have been under evaluation by the plant operating
staff, which has been engaged in evaluations to adapt plant operating protocols
- 1-2 HAZEN AND SAWYER.
Ernitonmental Engineers & Scientists
-

�. 1�•6
s r:. .S: a -ti- :_•� -•✓ 1f '�rr:.,r >.''�wiN' ,M' •�i«.?,.tip {: •xf •r `�t' :J2 ,'•i54.. t^:►i r. I�r P + -
1.- 1+_+ :.��yy •✓r.:s t�Y l.c. �:. a: :i• t .C, :r_s7`• .�.. ,r�S!.. r..``�,�,,,,,.f_:+A.\., r!Z"_ �J^.•' .. a: �y��
:3iiiV ;`.:G �s3-rt.� 4'1'N rar{J:y.. V, ♦ .i ;.vp�r.. `^r. :.�` [ C4.. -{r t�,!1J�; T '�7!l° .? ! •' y� �WSl,.a-,r 7rit -i: Z - .:! +)-a`6Q► y qi.. $(.Nf ry�-aµ •,+1 �,••�•r
.: t ,y t t L,�;, fit` x N{ e �wi �•rt" i rI ,%i i ° � r' . �.. � �. ti:,:> t c er 6 eig ^i ra a::
.�t".s�-! 1� f 5. ?_` x.t`k ;,�r�� ;`Yfi�. ,. -, fr�`ot ,•`fS ys' rr a .ft�}+h ? ,i. .s R1�(. s:. c t� t t._
r. w:.,�t� i'�S;x x t '�j'. ✓.;-lAr -_i•. ''f'.0.-J. H'yT:.h ff'.:� •rr 5f. tC•'1'� N, �... r.��.. fit'. �.4�,.. •,�i {. .;ter .:yr%':� t ♦ .i•: `y,$M �'�.% BEN
rJ, I. _ ! 1 -..)i { .� s 'iY �.��cc a,..! .� v M r, r; e•��yr .�Y t.r - +tv.Y,. t "`4♦ Pj, _ ,'•J'� tWM.�' : t .;
r ''� L , •'t `'1' Jay � 1 '•'73•^R, t i. e ti .� t •Z't' .t �1 f To r `a' � �C.�•:Y+' F .rtF? 4.. !{ � +!'SS tr r, ' `:� *? - ,,--.. 1+••a' •..u.k�'F � a� i
�"y�.:.].; � ,va`.. .`-J�?,.r r`^.••�' f�t�•� '.."u't,•�ia" s'.':i�ll.�,���'•:. �.'�'%t 3.�ia�.�t ,�� `��.'.ia.•r�Re��"� F�• �.�'�.,� `Jrdty�,'"I• h.+��'��'-•1-.,�G'-.�.�:ae�..�;!°.. :fifY•,A., :[.'�s'?+�'�` - ^!n
'Y• t. .' ,,, y..` � ;'_r. L'F'-r«"w ,..� .% '. -•t r• . ; h ,R%1 r t .�Fn• .�. ,f 3, S17'. :,t. .�.r_ � , �: .. , -..
::3 .>�_ x .it , '. .,i k.,. .•,.ira{, , t:. •i?'+, !.; _ :i- w •;'iF.e 1> rS .r ...i 'IstM+.:p t ,ram y-: 12 t Y ",�:;... --., JY.
•i' .` �. *-, `G„, • a{�1 (� �� �iNu ii,) .4.��yj�r. y.♦,{ _ �j,.i..r • - ,.J t -1 vti .w.C' yy., may,; -- - ,ter :i.,; ' R I " V ,, . � ^ n ✓' �.a .
4 ., tl'•:'� .i'. .__ •', ,I i,s.Y 4.4 "- .'i-�•dy��_.A,�.�_Sy�. h 11�p. ��y�,r+�M♦V y ] 'Y.V�Qrf7t'•t -..f- > .. ♦.rTr }� �J��y� ..,
y ,- '' P } l -'•fir "..: ^!i`"1`'�• _.•!•'{H[•i "i•' 4,•Y•.' ; ++1 .. �C".�C �-TsC1 St }• = Y M. 1' �.wu� - •? . t
I'll
Yl.i. °t s ''k: nt.'r...se,jr :.+•,.'f`:•I,Frt �'; trr,,:. tn•:r,��_ L .r�' •a. :t:.'•titi rP"�^.: `rJt (. J, rlr 'C`.i.. :.t�.�� ,,, a w:., .�'l._._1.ti4.x'-
.r ty ), r
y.-�•.f'9�Shi !'�.1' _ ;.1 .{.' _ •-,i } - ;.',. _ :ht•''lr d"i T "
�': , , v .ni t J, ` . 1 ' t r }:' 1 •.,, - �j 1 •.:1 - e tr .!,-, .�.
I.
=t'frr �^-sw rw:l'vd ..�,.... .i.4 .....Ss~�-:,i-.. , -- .t,.:t {,�,, tr.a. 'e.e dui- r rr 4wsw Nhty••••i•W .. s•..:.� ..w rr••;.�`~ •=»..4.e +•k. _u. :'?'J*
^,xr,,,, i, , !' r• 7 i ,'R•y. s. \r .r. _, > • `�`r..., ..ir l "L. ry `"1'1' :+)
t r•..y?.,; •W4,-t t r - _ . .. _ _ . _ - [ J ' -J-'
r •-)tr 1 4t YC.,.
,"_�: II �I�-...I .I!� �,.I .,,I ,., :� � �.I..I ,�.— :. . . -. ,I . '-, , - ..­.�1 ."..--;k,,:;, �� , ..� I� -­.-.._� . ,II7.I . ,_,._ I,Vt.. � 'I . .-� ,,- I. ,, , ..,."��, ..I.�MI, ,, ,, I.�..t �I� e� - .I , �I ,, "I. � `I I , -�..I,.I�,�,�­ � .,,- ",- �.; ,-I. . `., .*-�.z;, .I�.,. -�. .1,-*..,;� �. , . ,�,�...'ILI ,�, I-, : -. :- - ;,.,.,. _, ...-,-":-,,, - ... - - ,,�I � , ,-I.,1-. I-.� . . I.�..�:,.:�. ,'�.. ,.,: ,_ 1,. *-� ..� I --,, .I:--1.I1 .i. I , .I. �� --;,� . , I :L�-.�;t�.�"., I �, �..,�� .� r.� ,.; __ II ,;:. �­ .,�. ..I. I, "I. .,, ,I,.- k-, I. . - ".� � , '., ., :-;,� I. II �... ,,.. - .­ ,.,.- .. II., 1- - ­ ,� .- .;,. .�I..:T��I, ,-.C. -:- .�I . .I-!�;,, _ _� .I ",--. 1I,�- , ;. I,.. , :, I.I. - , , ..,. I-. - . , �, �­ ­ . . "I I -- .II,"� -.II��I . .a� 1I .I 1 -- � . .",I � ".*... 7.- 1.,. , ,I I�,I �
? � r, o a new plant configuration that resulted from the latest expansion project. This -k.Y
�r,� - r
-d r i. �s +
I F ` ' work was continued by fine plant operating staff. r t
ra,,..�,'Y T. ?j 4- .. - 't ,'',y Lt ♦' (t F r - ' r -+ )' 4. •d
.. Y'Jr J'^ .:3, j nf'1 J' 1 , 6 - U'r:.
``J'4:._,v�. 2V( R. '3•� t, s. J _1t ;' - 2�' • I ,} •'Ty .}1..
F G: •5'L; +'itm 7 T `� a !, r - - - ` _ i z ,S > '.
a t t r - f..
s:'3 r .,.v v Y >� . -r • J t. . 11 s t r - :.r _ _ 'a . `'r S .T
fir„, i11.; idir. -C'. Y, + :. :-i . .. t.. '% �r� "'a ! t +:'•�t a f"I r -..t 1 -a ••�' y l' - r s. ? - , *•,:'..-e.�
' ar•.: t-t; �� h • + t.2 r r . s t l :t-• \ _ r . K 1♦r •-r-[:'`•C,' e-?L:' .),�.,rY: '.
_i^+^•-.. s iA-S = kr, e J - r.'r:i"'k .- � 4I �.;.r 'J ✓ :'4 4 `-2 „s 4P
Y ,,z 's .�, ,�. ✓, ;j:7 ,•Y,t .
.r• 4 t '`¢lt ��'r 4 :. _ }'+':ur.j..
Sw r ,y,,, n .t r i . �" 't, N. wS r -: i !. -a- \ 'r f J_ :.
_ ..F. � J, _ •F. i Yt C ."..: •�. 5 r Y. t.• •C, i' LY t• �: -•1 _. •f•, �1sx� •�4•"i. }ri•1 ZeL•
_{J > Jt_
f••. . C.
t. _l r A. r•i �� :rY76 ei - A. 1GJ.rR t, y . i.. J ` •,t. . .:
�c r I 9 I
. a r r hhr •r ;' i `1 s• c1 �� .. Y .,. 1 r
­.i\ - - 1 _ .V• Ott Y-•Y ^1 r "., _ Y. i. v .. ':
t y
I.
t:. _ -
Yt - ,_ I
_=
, - - •.♦
- . ,
. - - . - -
- - _
F t s3
. •1
- .'
;t :.
,, ;
> , •.
• .
, . .
1-3 HAZEN AND SAWYER .
• - Environmental Engineers � Scientists
• - ,
c ..

.. .�, r..j, .'•a,-. �. l 1.... r ,lly� 1.•. _d , K Yn ,.. .!a.. hl ,%....' ..iwi �H' r R`....Y•rrr.5rlC ra r Fw ...
.r" a c _si � ter` fi :w t�,:�. i '.• ,.T � .a. - `fc
:.F �'J Jy..t, r � '� �• �•R•'. .1 ,� „'•.• s. aA „,.. -� - , ' ( +r �. ,i �- `. . .-. t'... ni reu
;. ECTI4N:s er a. � � � - ..: ��:, :4IXA
y .... .. __ .psi• t, �• r�y� ,m, Ye g. � y . - ` � 7' A ' ' p�� q .f ♦J .J - . i - j� �
r/Tb M35.4![ai�4Si% �F ;s �'o.`LS�i'',Y�'•1i� a •:c� �➢ a } i':'� ^w
- MODIFICATIONS TO TREATMENT OPERATION AND/OR a
CHEMICAL FEEDS
_ ,.i�Sax�Sli� ��1T��4^vim► -
General `l e . ;� :.:s AP, 4: '�V l- i,'C���r' �.:_...a
UOP
Prior to the recent fa ' i expansion, the treatment plant provided the "
following process sequence:
- \,. !:._,.. .. �`.-. 'Ai• r .:w•�•iL � L •�� •ll i....: �.i..�� � �ii'. ��t ��...'7. / 4 p1 - .}... 7.~a .s. .-,- - �s _ -
•rLiiSeentl�f(1 �?G,r�i..�.:i'..'�r.3S;•✓t.: e�i� �r� �.�':ty .-. •S.i r.
. Bt ,�. 6.. ,• .r
2. � Grit Removals,,. ,�'. .l j r� r• �; 1. �.4'.<Z 1. �1r jr �� t..il �i��i��_i-. ���� 1.� a i � Ll'j ! • e-.t -f
3. - Prinnary Sedimentation
4. Influent Pump Station
S. First Stage Aeration
• •- . ,� 6 First Stage Clarifiers„-.. _ ., , � �:, � c:: a .. '. , .- ,, to
t•
< ;
7. . Second Stage Aeration Basin (nitrification)
8. Second Stage Clarifiers (nitrification)
9. Tertiary Filters
10. Chlorine Contact
11. Effluent Reaeration
In the facility expansion project, this process sequence was modified to
expand the plant capacity and incorporate a treatment method for removing
phosphorus as is now required by the NPDES permit. Additional modifications
,i
were made to fa ' Tate' sludge handling within the plant.
s Z tc. s :3' a
... - _ � .• t• �,4 5i+:s-,, r"' l��L.•1� .i•�+• t '-� f•� •�\ � o t'"d n't •'� - .i R.
_ . ., _ � �l' ,... - a a_'- �t�\. ,.,!. �.. ._L., iJ� .. .l._! �•t.. iii 'V .. 1 ..e�>L^ .Lip: r� .. _ }r�
e
2-1 HAZEN AND SAWYER ;
Emironmental Engineers 3 Scientists :`"

-`M"` l #s -a:. h Y...{; y y+:.t * "A, /'.'. ti `' .y r .(.:t:`•i ..i./:.
4
~`Me following specific changes were made under the expansion project:
:.The primary sedimentation tanks were converted to sludge thickeners
o�-- hProvide a method for concentrating slud a thereby reducing e
ss I
f r volume of sludge to be disposed. This modification eliminated the
r .-
' sedimentation process.
k PAY
y -• `The second stage -aeration basins were converted to sludge holding t
_ tM1 basins - and the activated sludge sequence was modified to a single _
c, stage system, with biological treatment confined to the original lust -
.; stage aeration basins.. These consist of two basins, which have a
combined volume of 5.0 million gallons. A nominal detention time of t
16 hours is provided by this configuration. This volume is intended to
- achieve an extended aeration typeY of system in which the biological
nitrification process is achieved in conjunction with the removal of
, .• , y carbonaceous BOD., p o, tr r4i� � i7 :�}ts .. <�t4 ; rr
',{ Fes,\ r 1 .{•. �.J • f+_.. i - .-
_ - L` j r • ^t� ll '{�- 1' Z' i.. �•.. \r.• •.� . {.c +c,_� `~,f~! � .;L Si: f.... £_ \i•.. tom•. _+. - °.... ... .i
The second stage clarifiers were converted to first stage clan' 'ers,
t thereby providing additional clarifier capacity for the first stage
f - aeration basins. 4.. k
'_ �'� _ ..ITI,
• A new filtration system was provided to replace the old system and
- expand the filtration capacity from 5.0 mgd to 7.5 mgd.
• An alum feed system was added to provide a capability for alum feed
to the aeration basin effluent for precipitation of phosphorus.
a'-' `-and
• _ A polymer feed system was added for improving the settle b ty _
filterability of solids.., ; f...� t�4,4 r z : �;: 4 y<< t.
`J?• i- •a 7 ` rr:i 3 5..:.4. i A•i• a. :' 1- _ i.trl'.'.'viA ..�L,f4y.� j..... ♦.: r: °
• y A sodium bisulfite dechlorination system has been added to allow the
T#
removal of chlorine prior to discharge.
2-2 HAZEN AND SAWYER
EmhnmenW Enonsers & Sdgr& s

:Y:-?Jr \,i Y •i t- ; i •fit ,i _ _ a.,j ~ 1. �!'' �'- 1, ti .�--�'. q :i\�, sS iyir 1- •R' :`I 'lir.�
- the effluent reaeration system is no longer used.
t
These modifications have resulted in the following process sequence in the �Y
newly expanded plant:
lant: j
- -.
a;a i ,441V 01 ii � 1.�t4*k::�i.I? basi,ii 'Ito � F. 1�-�� a � o!
i g4tiJf�� r�l a - •1• ;_�La Screen,-!�Yf..4"'i ,4 •i fj,J .L`t-�.'4+..,•Tt Lj ii. tf:33�t J.f�����li•s
.29 Grit Removal
3. -Influent Pump Station , 4. Aeration Basins (with alum addition)
Clarifiers �' z '�. 1. _ !•
b. Tertiary Filters _
7. Chlorine Contact
= s.
Sludge handling is relatively straightforward, consisting of gravity
thickening, aerobic digestion and sludge holding. Contract hauling is used for
ultimate sludge disposal. Within this sludge handling sequence, recycle streams
that can potentially complicate to control within a wastewater treatment
plant are minimized. At present, the only major recycles within the plant are the
supernatant from the gravity thickener and from filters backwash operation. The
sludge holding basin has provision for recycle of a decant stream, but this option
is not presently used.
Operational Evaluations
The wastewater treatment process sequence was reviewed with the plant
operating staff to assess the potential for modification in treatment protocols.
Because the plant has undergone some major changes in process relationships as
a result of recent modifications, the plant operating staff was already in the
process of evaluating alternative operation strategies as a part of a start-up
` process for the revised fac' 'ties. It was agreed that they would continue these
evaluations which have included the following. -
2-3 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Sdentists

Developing sludge blanket control for the secondary
v' Balancing of solids distribution between secondary clarifiers.
t M, �• ;t :Use of onlyone aeration basin to achieve a more favorable food to,
;r
r biomass relationship at existing plant loading..... -+t -.Or a
.. -�. ..''.`f ?. :1 "i: 4 ":1.tizi-t.C'•" �... v;! -, t' ..c.. �. ti, >� �7 •;• s.. Y, r�t,.iti�>:.�;�r1.:.. '!.t •c�Y'�� eS.
�' �'!:•:�-,�; a�, i...� t� �•�i ..ii_._., t.,.e t� �•��:, �'i. _ ... r,.:.iC'�.ti• - . �s�rn�.� s._.L, a ..� d � .►.....*5 -
,a' , -Examining alternative aerator operations. - -
y i {
+ Examinin the effect of alternative MISS levels.
g
�. �,c.. z . - • " Determining optimum alum dose.
.:. • Optimizing Polymer operations.
In addition, a plant start-up typically requires that a number of equipment
items go through a shakedown process that can involves resolution of mechanical
difficulties and refinements to instrumentation and control.
Testing of Alternative Chemical Feeds
r: ,
Testing of
alternative chemical feeds focused on an examination of
alternative polymers for potential to reduce toxicity. At the suggestion of
- -' NCDEM, capability for color removal also was evaluated.
A wide range of polymers was examined from the following suppliers:
.. - ... - _R ,. - - A , t - i 4 ' .-. i. .. -. A . t � .. s' . t _ , to ♦ ... , -
• General Chemical `' s
• Rhone - Poulenc ,
• Allied Colloid A,�" a ,.• . , x
�. • Bish Chemical
HAZEN AND SAWYER
2-4 EmironmenW Engineers h Sdenfists

u - rr' •.� - - .max •n.--«npe-n.�.�•.rmay, ..t :v•w: a....... h.��:s' .ten-�ar�.�>M .t.rl.. �. �:wc � (- .
Calgon
� r 'Stockhausen �r
M� .. ;AlrieriCan Cyanamid g `�
- , r. . !� - i`` A p'.o . - • t •a'S', r+'�.t� i✓ }t �, • � ! t a a �-7�. � '� 5 , : „ I
:,. +Cationic, anionic and nonionic polymers with varying molecular weights
{ and compositions were evaluated for effectiveness in improving solids and color
pre-screening step.From these studies the following polymers were,
removal in a pre-s g
r more detailed evaluation:
selected for
r r Characteristics y Be=
L Pol er Mosa e* -�
Stockhausen. Praesto1188K 40 m /1 Medium molecular weight, Good color` �-•, h
1. cationic; Polyquarten reduction -
.� an base �'3
2. Stoc
khausen: Praestol 189K 40 mg/l High molecular weight, Good color ,..
cationic; Polyquartenary reduction
�•� ��:.. _r . ain ne base :... ......
C"
usen: Praesto13040 1.5 m /1 High molecular weight, Improves
3. Stockha g
cationic; Acrylamide base settleability M
* test doses are based on a batch system which does not employ recycle. A {
Note that
full scales stem would result in some polymer recycle. Experience at other plants
indicates that full scale polymer use can be reduced by as much as 1 /2 the dose
in P Ym 4.
y batch tests.
indicated b r
- .. ..
Tests were performed b adding the, designated polymer to aeration basin
p Y
mixed liquor using a standard jar test apparatus. A 1-minute rapid mix period
at 80 to 100 m was.followed by 5 minutes of slow mix at 20 rpm. A 20-minute
' period followed the mixing steps, following which a' sample of superna
p
settling
tant was collected and filtered through a Whatman #40 filter paper to produce a
' ' hed prod
for anal sis. Analyses . included measurements of total ,
funs p Y
2-5 HAZEN AND SAWYER {
f
Ernironmental Engineers !4 Scientists .

., y tI. �+.!'t r' . ... y • v ..al- t. a.. 4- ] t- •4•y. nz++
,, / ,X� _ F•L 1_•� +! } _ - -gib .1
.. _, .. _. -..
y is _ M 4`• ?• n e i. ► _ l
•1 ��L-t=t J!,rw• �. 1.]Jti r.r r .S. �iiwti ..I •.f .4f .�yf 3'.. �T.-.t ,C ii l\l-; n"•�..':L. `�i'�,' 1.Mf�ir.M •:Y % �' _S •I.. ..i. 1 i( ,1 t.
4v1
suspended solids rM), determination ADMI color levels, and a serial dilution
y
`
toxicity evaluation to determine the level of in -stream waste concentration UWC)
-
at which the effluent would be capable of passing a CeriodaRhnia chronic toxicity
'test. Note that the plant is presently required to pass the test at a 90 percent IWC.
'he following results were obtained from these evaluations, which included a
control test to which no polymer was added: w.
r
-
qt., Ali /1,, - (' rS.r•�,i .V ��Yi 1t1..'0 7 1{•+ .o x/r"` t
•]L+.••r {�.i �•»' i� ..�,1}4. .1:.�.V Tr♦ �_l}., .. Sa'1:f�i.'f]•; .{K L: wi .c.��7. Yyl '�l .�xa �t L4.7,. •�,
- - -. A• -. .. I - -
,,r,: flff
_)c.i ..
SC..
.'s.��: ca �:�t y,{�'- 3 �.1wC fort.r...::ADMI
Pol er ..: r� K ;Passim Toxicity c , - Color :. TSS
`� .t J.�k lT iu (.JMS.: :.I k✓dew 7{�~.f. %Ki �t1.2 -� .. -1 �►,..a ` .. �l .t..i :�..:_ ]�5.{=.-..a .ia :i: _t r� s( ... .1?
-
Control `',.''''tf'a;]�at•��r< jn1 1.S,a�s�'�. {!t �' . 61% . ._1.c�4i�,1�„ t F �62 10 mg/l
Stockhausen: Praestol 188K ; , ._ ; , , 50% .. _- ; : ; ::] < =108 : 29 mg/l
:
Stockhausen: Praestol 189K ; 61 % 141 .. ; :. 26 mg/1
e� .y
;
'
... _� ,
� C• f h 1w �
Stockhausen: Praestol ;� , �_ 61% ,:. ' i 126 .. 15 mg/1
-�
�� i Y- _ .s t .iy -> T•,�R( tti 'r •ter ��5: J,1, Ct. ••(� :`� ] .{'- , i !,}_�
In comparing these results, no significant benefits are observed for effluent
toxicity. Two of the polymer treatments matched the. control in producing a
toxicity that could pass at an IWC of 61 %, while the Praestol 188K may have
slightly increased toxicity to cause a reduction to a passing IWC of 50%. Some
color reduction was achieved by all polymers, most notably the Praestol 188K.;
Even further reduction was achieved in a test that combined Praestol 188K with
Praestol 3040, achieving a final ADMI color of 52. Note that the advantages of
polymer use for the color reductions as shown here may not be significant since
the color level in the control is relatively low and may meet future standards
without further treatment.
,
The Praestol 3040 achieved the best results for improving filterability of the
1 and achieving reductions in the TSS levels. This polymer is presently
. sample g P Ym P Y
used at the wastewater treatment plant and appears to be a good choice based on
these test results. Note also that no adverse toxicity effects are associated with
l
2-6 HAZEN AND SAWYER
- . Environmental Engineers & Scientists

-:,.L• ti.:,.;.. < ..s' -;„ i+'ltz .�... .1.'.':.':1i>,r=-: .,_,s.R-.-., ,,,x'.r. `'sa z;,4._s ,,.::.._ .._:'
�� .:-h, qM"-t d^L hi' k 4',_ !. "Yr ..f• r* y �ri+iYin v.~A1.er r .�h's'4?. R•!+'e rrr. ,{F.-3, t ..1+sa"rts3-,� «,a
y..�T r.�"L'-tw..l ..,•."'_.. 't `}- j: .i ;. .ti.,1r, ' :. iv. _ /r-K :.<.. -z.t
rk
_ t. .,.:s
r_ ":�,.- r•`:-.j-- t-
%� �,. ;'t{..vt,� , •.�i +S rf �-.f S. Y. j _ M �. :}.k.- a-. F" _ �.. q r k-.'' .7? - ...
.K _j`jC� �1rate: _ ':1t _'• >•iY.jt .\{'s:-:y. ✓.- 9 rf i:a_ _ .',:
✓hi�.'?i"• MrS i--�i �. -'' ;' .• '�., ;1-. ;.I$R,i{ f' a,f,^':• ,.!• '+'Yy S.: 'f ��c - ,.. :-a*:dro 'ir.,i.. s "�' - 4���at �1. Y:�-. Yb
.\•.... ,.
.y:-: X` _^ice>e r F-^ ..1.-r .�/+ �y J-R-,+.r . ,,N:;%•{iri! .,.. e,;-a , &; ,.+;;,; :.r .t ,r `1, ...Y�s n .f�l'r .r.... y.. ,R .1..'
f: "1r T .jr . •s}�;,-, i=,+� •,�}:r. .;rv.r.ti':,. '�.
.,'.h_ .fv•
r .:'«'r.. :rt,`�j%A''3'„•: _.wF"`hJ .Ti
'Gd�i•tA %H ham,! �
- ... .. • -. ... .. _ > .. . ... .. . . .. .. .,. .. ... ., 'G
�
.ATr.•✓a:te •ID.4 - k iR./ ' 1 �k • _ ♦!. ..y 1 1 -. .. -. ..1 .. -
W.
j
'the use of this polymer, which achieves a passing IWC of 61% the same as the
po ym P g
,control.
rt
r R v1•J„ywlr ..,
Ag was performed testin to evaluate the effect of alum dose on
`removal
of phosphorus. "Test procedures were similar to those used for polymer t`
nesting. Low levels of phosphorus were encountered at all test doses, making
•'test results inconclusive. - 'Thins result may have derived from improvements in
phosphorus removal that were made in the plant prior to the test period. Even '•°�
though samples for testing were withdrawn at a plant location upstream from the
} - =
point of alum addition, some residual alum would be incorporated in the waste's
stream as a consequence of mixed liquor recirculation. This may have beenA
F
adequate to achieve a reduction in phosphorus levels at the test point. Other - r
factors could also be involved. Although no specific dosage effects could be°
.
. lam operating
demonstrated by These tests, it was concluded that steps taken by plant g
'.
staff appeared to have reduced the phosphorus concentrations to levels that �41
lied the a factor that reduced the of
com with permit requirements, possibility
P P q ,
developing definitive results at the time of testing. As a future point of reference
for evaluating alum dose, note that the theoretical dosage is 9.6 mg of alum per
mg of phosphorus, measured as P. In computing the dose, a liquid alum feed+
µ{
rate can be estimated based on the equivalent of 5.34 pounds of alum per gallon. r
2-7 HAZEN AND SAWYER
-
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

i
•r
9ci^.'''•w .` .p( ♦ V - M i 4.("/vTY S`J 'l1 tt Eb •Vi - J4 -'i4 fX 4..; RC/ F
ECTIDN 3 �,Ao
tn ElIffigat 'r4
' Tp�gG'.�t(4N++i�1Jbi6nM+slni+MMPit�14.•«'Y.�'�r✓+YrYAia.Y�+1rLf.-it'49b=f.-1.43�j'•.l+"i.'S�_4YY..9.V'Q'y.v.-!rM�q/'1aVRIr Tai4•ti'Y�V}4.b+.PJ4,`+'��l+w.rr+.q-i►apcsr �.-.a+AaM"•sM4�11'!1
•�
IDENTIFICATION - DF TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE
;-WASTEWATER STREAM �jX 4
'.j�"�..+«-+1_... .. .�W...rrta+ ..+,`-WA ;:.wGirY-'-e7r}�ai.+:.{,
,
Analyses by the City'
��t�'�lyi���^•�_
,.. .. - � .. f -. .
- it
_ ..
"Me City has compiled extensive information on effluent chemical
characteristics and toxicity. These data were extracted from past reports into a
computer data base that allows evaluation of trends. These data are summarized
�r
as follows:
Bioassays - The City has been required to perform pass/fail chronic
toxicity tests withCeriodaphnia on a quarterly basis. These tests are
f rme at a single dilution and provide little information on the
per o d g
degree of toxicity, when present. As a consequence, the City has
- -: contracted for serial dilution bioassays to provide additional
information on the degree of toxicity. These data are summarized
4
in Table 3-1, with results expressed in terms of the chronic value
r`
effluent percentage at which a passing toxicity level can be att •aired.
Most of these percentages are at a level of 35.4, and two higher
levels of 86 and 61.2 percent were reported. None of these levels
- p
would meet the permit requirement for testing at a percentage of 90
-F
percent. Therefore, it can be seen that a significant reduction in
toxicity, as measured by this bioassay approach, will be required.
Ul
- It is noted that while present toxicity levels are not acceptable, they
represent significant improvement over two previous evaluations
that resulted in chronic values of 3.2% as reported in a test by
3-1 HAZEN AND SAWYER.
Wronmental Engineers & Scientists

+ � fia •+Qt Jr^ al A� rt' .t .� a T• i,. 1.;•t i 1 a,� ?. - _ ,I•.., i . ♦- -
�,.";>�tth�ti ,.L. .�Y'.cr.� .�-•;,w �$aie..r+�4i:.ot:.f tLtir.. ,.j?+,a—^+s �J,.'Y•i •.�y,i'� �wRri ..?r.> •...3r:. �+L.. :.Y.:..�w +... c.c ��,.:..{.. • yG.:.: a.p'uY'9t �:-••�-..,+ ♦nr'�.�w �...... .•w . r�.a•+' +i: -if. .i.:. s-f :b��
{w\� �aJ� -• _y .t. y.=i'C�� '`+ .t"A r +}--^�' it• yyZ.f� _`P 1`A. r ,��. r.� �,. .. -♦'�: 't - - K
�F'7"^ ra 'r _ T�� �i ,r.• .t.' .r: ta• r•-. ,,�,..' :i7•• w t:�.; :.�� '�i.; - a -.� - -
T;"�. � a,i 12:, �.�'• � ' .-f. .R i�' .0 '_a "R or �•� -.s t _ „1:1 -i.. �C. .l. •fit F .♦•• t
�. •'w- st'r f+SY.•. r'i 'it+731..:.:'•i3. {{ c'<R1.'. t r`• � r+i,'}: '�� �+•,.1'' ,jr.L;�'.?�{FY++ f'a.,,5l.�j � i•.: ::6it- > >!-�� i.! ,.i `�' 7.,}•' � �+; �.aYr .fr 't :'r', �. -.b-.- a -., •r•, -.t.4 t
-i tY ,11 v.' { i •,. .ttry�t, M1i"r , 7 7 �:Y ;e '*y t : .il; SStt
l t Y
-71
t ti t �7y t "Table 3-1
Ih fyt '. ! ✓r I•.• .�"+'^•N-• .f.YT < J3,f" ht.4 .t ...d, ?'. S � i-� ..... t .ri
IEU
7Sedal Dilution Effluent Toxicit ring_ _
ANv-1�...•Gl�.�Ef 7_'.f<<. .t Arn i'.`L 'w•�'F��. ~L
44
�O OSITE UNIT�� 30 '� 7- Y I1 1.7
t t t y��.,{Ey 1 �y •3 .'+�.' +�' I, an...v Y,�.r.-a�- t� 4...{ t.,..'�� '. +•�,a,�,s.y i+ �♦ i .w •< wy -.
V\.t'tv
„a:1> �t it lir �,Tftni .
BIOASSAY REPORT* - -
<•. - _ •�•• �' � �J 4t +w: �'�: �. � �t.J. i. L'' Y�`'•'<._3 :C.�� �a ".�J � �l ni. l•- -Cr F:, �.•d'�Vt I
-. ...r .. 1. ♦ tS 1 • l 'i. r.: ' +�•+•
Chr on� C Value y •� ..{ j •q .' e k t i r i A T^ y L
A V.,y/% 5t..a"V01 � .�:.if �,a:.l1 �c:, �. M. �} .i1.,tL ' ; a�K� •} f( � ) Z A� z�• t�j
11 `.1 'tor `Ya C.�'a•�"�3 1 y 1F� ••� 1 y t ` ri 4_•1 i-• i. %.r is
Ef f luent ��--_ � -� - ^ $ ': " , ,. ,.35.4 _ i.:35 . a .. A'S6 4 t 35.E - '35 . "�61:2
'. .�..>,A'..C1tLS,C f.t ti„►s t`-i � . i , .� �•'r��lt'._1ti1i.:l.Lfi'r '.e. � ,F _ t- �` �� �.,' '}• ,':
. .�t, y..y} �.,' a ,� <.<.? ±k,.. t.yi i .['�„ *y.+. � � "t. +y... , •� Y� a:,r t ~�� a r•.
C'titf_i.
NJ!!tt� ter. •Ya'♦ T .•.T t �a i•,•. •t �.e T'--'•.� �'1 t� t<• ..� r� �'':. t. t _
--i �f......< C, t:t 3A{} i is lt_.. r..� i. j,t.�._ .. .i-i..A 1F_, ys•i:•.::i «•V=4.>l �,4�I .a-.L t' i�. T'J _i� - �%• �.. ,a. 1• ; ^� - _
.�� t�+ `f'f * rr �; .Lt r l�rT Y".�4.J to a� �'yir, >t'7(�t , 4 y• r't �tw. �_` f? •�' ?I••11 �•.
..J 6.• la.�....G4.:.:T 4,�..LA_.. •:.•!� :x. y�ri e151♦ .�. ,L t,„... .a. rt�: •. ....- f.F•-yt+., i.!... � '.w%'4 r.. '�c �i.A z\.
.. l.�i 1 i•%:it, i1t '` Hai•^y e'i + 1 t- ..'y'► J -n n 'i3� �'��'� j* \ f�' •. .7 r
3�t y+,t.. ,.Z 4��`♦ •..,! .rC it'll, ;,?:+..lt`.;:? C-ii-: tilt\_J�.ti '.,i.�.t.. .:..�i t� i:\-.� J '. � .tom ... .. ...g
' - - - U`>•.'•<e i ��'. '.-''ri�..i. s.� 'i Z..+ t�! f,l�.i F �! \.,�?f a,i •i••3ti' .. , I, �; v 'xr i.1: ♦ y !; a7 s.c .i.• .7 t. e
" ..a of ,..tr•,..Ni•�S ,tv>-iya .•�: e:ii.... ���.� ; 7 ! � t",�•. + ,"j 't ti,{.. i •.e r •, i�•, a'e t' r .T' •'�\", ir'i- '
��. .. -3 .ti. - ;1:. 5 1. .. .. -.Ptti .. ..y •!.. ,,_ . ♦_1:. .. ... .. �.. t., .. �"r� .., .tf .y .-....s�.. �i ...
* Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproduction Test
..t..',...,f til,_.•�f��R. 1 ic._. ..... : L;:c•7 .t. .. t '. sr: �' t , • r'- �`' t 'rt, } _ �.. t' .. ?��� •� r•Y C ,wr sr ♦ .f.
t• r'
r'<..t.t 0 ,jam «.i t �. .. •�.' ., a! rt.t .:'I t t� a '; 1. .+ 1 •t" r:J
V.�.Y `i: .t >.� tf•�Lf �. .. . �..-♦ �1•. t.ir+. -':. ,•�: r �'\ \•. }• <, if t.�. .a - r t
t•
�1 •� - rt b a r i 1 y r L t y t. y t f -. � - -
1, 6 ; r i '•� t ; l t t i,.i r ' ''a

.n'G�i iss f x + •'\. •• 4 7 �i.- ..i .S . xf . J .:? • ..r . -.r :•. Y -. - r,
c x s
4v ter. j..vl i. lr'_roc:. r+ "u- :.1. =t. 1: N:... t'?.. %.; _ - - •.-.:- '•>.,r v 1f
^�•.•' .r. .'t .i .-1• .i i"`Y. +.y`i'l.•,�-7w }•.. •.rr ,7., i.. ie-rY.l,.. f. r i >+'.'kY`1w .r .i C.sw.. 1al..; 3k '_' tif, -!.. .•rfi -. `i •1
,; t...f♦ •Yh _ •I,.t ..! e ,a.•'1�"«`t. ♦jai . �-' :a r... •.
?,.:+.. ;lt y... .:s'r 1 Y. •+ - TI.Y'' ,.,jr.r]i,- "Y.f - -_ - -_L{ ..`.
•=''t - asi ..r < ri� t. -j s y�yyY't. � �'- (} .1 i� A/ T♦.' `•-�
..a-9 p,�•"�ay.+Y<.t.f ti'F a. '♦iS i:_ - ..� - j ,. f:-- .'. La..' ..r t._ :.) 1 Y _:: r".: '•Ti1
1
c Y
f~?. y.( Ci (VT`cl
.-
�~ TCDEM in November 1987, and 15.8% as reported in a Wastestream
t = 4mpact Study by Burlington Research, Inc. in A_ 11989. Therefore,
some improvement in toxicity appears to be occurring.
r , v 1.0
_} L� Metals/inorganics.
,.• f
Mj
Data for metals and other inor_garuc constituents are s ed in Tables
`3-2 and 3-3 for influent and effluent, respectively. Also shown are chronic toxicity t
t . criteria as published in the U.S. EPA document, ,Ouality Criteria for Water 1986
(EPA 440/5-561-001).'Several metals periodically are seen to exceed these
published criteria' Copper is the constituent that most frequently exceeded the
indicated level. Other metals that periodically occurred in excess in the effluent
samples included cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and silver. The significance.
of these deviations from published levels is not clear due to the difficulty of
specifically characterizing the toxicity of metals and other inorganics for different }
wastewater conditions. Most metals are more toxic in a free state; toxicity is14.
,l decreased by forming complexes. However, the free state generally exists as a h
minor proportion of the total metal content in a real wastewater situation, with r
f p p
the remainder forming a varying array of precipitates and organic and. inorganic
complexes. Therefore, metal toxicity in wastewater cannot be deduced from
simple comparisons with published criteria: These comparisons give only a.;
preliminaryindication of potential for toxici . An EDTA chelation series toxicity
test can give additional information on the possible toxicity due to metals.
Organics
Tables 3-4 and 3-5 summarize organics analyses of parameters that have
been assessed by widely -used analytical methods. Table 3-6 summarizes EPA
toxicity criteria for these compounds. Of greatest concern are the phthalates,
which occur at significant levels, especially as compared with chronic toxicity.
criteria developed by EPA. 1, 2, 4-trichlorobenzene also represents a concern, at
3-2 HAZEN AND SAWYER
:` Ernirortmer al Engineers b Scienrists

L�
+' • } -' 'fit• ,,.;
t F
Table 3-2
Influent Metals/Inorganics
EPA CHRONIC
4-/5/90_
:4/6/90
'•._ 15/� 5/90 _r' 6�
1O
PARAMETER
UNITS
TOXIC CRITERIA -
L C
Cyanide, Total
mg/l
0.0078
<0.01
<0.01
0.00026
4.0009
4.0025
4.0002
NT
0.i1006
NT
Alunirxm Total
mg/l
Not Avei lble
NT
; f : NT
NT
<0.1
NT
•.. 1.6
•
NT
0.61
�.84'
0.02 �:�+$
NT
,
Antimony, Total
mg/l
1.6
0.155
•! 0.129
0.161
NT
0.18
0
.,., NT
NT
NT
<0.005
NT
b.0031.005
'>.. qt .
<0.005
Arsenic, Total
mg/l
<0.01
'c
<0.01
<0.01
r
<0.01
0.0011
4.01
Beryllium, Total
mg/t
._ .
-._ 0.0053
<0.01
.
<0.01
< 0.0005 ,.a.
<0.001
40.001
0.0Q4
b.0025
NT
0. 002 `�
4.01
<0 00S
0
t0 00tl5
<0 005 ;4 00
�'005
•
Cadmium, Total
mg/l
0.00111
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.004
0.048
''' 0.04
0.01!'.
<O.OS
0.014
-CO 05 + 05
•
0 05
Chromium Total
mg/l
_" 0.0025
<0.05
0.05
<0.05
40.05
0.14
s
'�' 0.11
6.0�"}t:?
0 09
0.1>�
O.Q8 • ' 0.`11
0.14
Copper, Total*
mg/lf
0.0039
0.1
0.12
0.11
0.06
��
0.02
q..
r' - 0
O. Q08 ' : '1
•
90 05
0 05
<O 05 0.0�0.0
Lead, Total
mg/l
'? '- O.00T9
<0.05
0.05
0.0003
<0.05
0.0005
<0.05
0.0003
0.0009`..
0.0013
NT ';
0.0006
0.0004
0.0005 en.0:0022
O.00OS
Mercury, Total
- mg/l
. 0.00007
0.0003
<0.04
<0.04
:.> <0.04
0.032•
' 0.02
0.03 >�'s:
<0.04
�0.07
<O.Q4 <0.0$
Nickel, Total
mg/l
,-.�-, 0.056
0. 035
<0.04
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
,
<0.005
<0.001
0
NT 04
e0.00S
0
<0.005
Sele ni un Total
,
Silver, Total
mg/ l
mg/L.-0.00012
<0.01
40.01
<0.01
, ; ...
<0.01
40.001
�. 0.003
0.004 ,,fu
<0.01
0.0008
'. <0.01 s„<0.01
0.01
Thallium Total
mg/l
0.04
<0.10
'<0.01
<0.005
Y <0.005
<0.005
r r <0.005
NT r
<0.0%
0
40.005 <0.00s
h
Zinc Total
mg/l
1
0.18
0.14
0.118
0.173
; 0.129
0.291
0.139
i;
0.175
0.10S
i1.2'9t
0.19b 0.1�37
0.1r4
n
,
-
- - .,
ati n
r g 1 ,.•
- � i.��
�r���
` �.f �A'�:
-
-
r - r. ,. -
a ..
jr
-Y' -JAL^ •F'.
.. .1 _ ... .�...t,M7e. w.i}t•+e-wLi..G-vw�-.c•-t+...-• .+,..�:a.i`::Ns:�:filu'a� 3i�:GW.Ys-�SiFiar+:.:a`h'��il�•�:ati,:,C..�.
i
�u' ,•1 . ti f 1'
t•A .-...i R.
`���L`�r^^.�C�•.''.-..�a:.-A."-

I Table 3-3
+
1.. "
Effluent Metals/Inorganics
EPA CHRONIC
'` CRITERIA = '`,
d �! 90
�L
all
:E
PARAMETER
UNITS
TOXIC .'�
mq/l
NT
. Chloride
Flouride
mg/1
NT
2.27
NT
r
Cyanide, Total
CY ♦
mg/1
0.0078
<0.01
6.0024
t.
NT
1 . 005
F
r ,+� 7Lj
Aluminum, Total
mg
Not Availble
NT
0.503
1" NT
0.i�24
�•
Antimony, Total
mg/1
4.
1.6
0.105
0.2
NT
y
Arsenic, Total
mq/1
<0.01
0.0002 �.
NT-;c MOOS
Beryllium, Total
mg/1�
00053
� ``
(0.01
<0.001M
b 005•�x
Cadmium, Total �'
mg/1
0.00111
<0.005
0.002
0.002��
Chromium, Total
mg/l
0.0025
<0.05
0.007
0.04
Copper, Total
mg/1
0.0039
0.18
0.04..
0.05
Lead, Total
mg/1
0.0079
<0.05
0.008
0.007
Cd.05 d
Mercury, Total
m 1
q/
0.00007
<0.0002
0.0003
NT
+�0. 0002 .;
1
Nickel, Total
mg/l
-0.056
0.05
0.04
0.02
t0.04
Selenium, Total
mg/l
0.035
<0.005
(0.001
NT
0.005 ,
Silver.. Total
mq/1
0.00012
<0.01
0.004
6.002
Total
mg/
.Thallium,
<01
�bC0.
,
Zinc, Total
mg/1
0.18
0.132
0.128
0.099
h.0�9
1 /
r -Y'
1.'• 4 't'- i �1. 4 . - - .. S ..,e .. .-.., Y,:.,r. ,F:. .. ..., ...i =H,:1 +,,. h.1 +.k«.s..:',sK:'�.SaLh. w�:Y....x!`-......'Lk:is:i!.,i1.a+f..�+:'.a+lvai{'-SfR•R�:i�:::.i�s3:Cr..�"
a^.-aiy:-s�r7+st�r.'�tsrG:St'i.-"fit eta.. �� j

Table 3-4
{
Influent Organics
a.
i
9j
#AI
NITS
�-
4 S 4 S/1�
�l5l.� 10 8 8
ILL.
^
PARS_ _;1- .. _'.;
-/=-
-
ACID EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS.
None
F:
BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE
SIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
U9/1
12.5 10.3
134.9 84.5 32.2 42.5
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE=
Ug/l - -
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
U9/l
110.2
.Z
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE F`
ug/l
36 44.7
43.7 184.2-i'T5.1 32.E
PCB/PESTICIDES
b.tt
gamma - BHC (LINDANE)_ 4,
U9/t
.. 0.431
PURGEABLE ORGANICS (G rab Sample)
2 Z ;, +.
CHLOROFORM
�/I
T
713
S
1 1 '
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE _
U9/L
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
U9/l
TETRACHLOROETHENE
Ug/1
18
TOLUENE
1' ,

77
Table 3-6 ♦ t r ` ' s,.
Summary of Chronic Toxicity Criteria Y- r
Alk�a 3T• ',' -. i '. ':,_ -
1.
i
i.IV..'
;,.,i..� ;} i•t. y 1.i ,y, i-.> '�. as ^?,. „.. ;S. '•4. ,.
• • 1\aO� Wai .r f• ,... i C +:
EPA Quality Criteria"
Com ounds for V1�ater (1986)-Steridard§ (19�1)
C—•gM
Phthalate Esters _ 3 ug/1
Chlorinated Benzenes No chronic data for Ce_riod_aphnia,
but 7-day chronic effects in fish as
low as 50 ug/1, chronic could <> r t:r• ,,
occur at lower levels in C
da hnia tests. � Y
.4 y.Ms r
- - � "1 (fir•: \t �. t r ,`'•:
Halomethanes (Chloroform No chronic data acute effectst ��••:
- i t ,
Methylene Chloride) g/1 - rt'� ,.� ��
Gamma B C Clan )
' , i' .. . 1 :', +"a.,t ,,.;'! ^?. l 'f�: +r•r .f"j .' {I� y:'' +'t ' Mi r, • f_,', qs)/ l r ,., x �
Dichlorobenzene 763 ug/1 r r, • , w.a. r, r
IT
Tetrachloroethene 450 ug/1
No chronic data, acute effects a'
Toluene
S 500 ug/1 3 Ma •••• r� xn .+ c
M r'ni.. A J• -/..' f• - y ^,'•. _A , �- •5- }
i - i -• ,.. .. . - _ -.. t .F .L •"r I -... .C3S.•..'"G'i'i}.'-i .._. xa.l-S�.>•.i :fs

•;S u�'+v t� J'.y, t;..
i^ a ..¢'.-♦.f...y." .,f�'� T. :.. •F :. fix_ •,y - Zf' !.
♦:; _.�; )i!
yj��
t
times exceeding EPA 7-day toxicity criteria in fish. Since chronic toxicity for
�a a
Ceriodaphnia may occur at lower levels, difficulty might be anticipated in the
z
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Pass/Fail bioassay.
*
In addition to these evaluations, the City has contracted for state-of-the-art
#
analyses b Burlington Ehdustd%,, to analyze for surfactants using Fourier
Y Y � Y g
;
.
transform IR spectroscopy in conjunction with as chromatography.,This testin ;
P PY lan gg �
{
,r
• • 1 phenol etho late groups in these surfactants. -These groups
has identified alley P xY 8T P �' P
are not readily removed by biodegradation processes available in municipal
wastewater treatment plants and are more likely to escape treatment than some
-other surfactant compositions. Tests have also been performed using a cobaltni
r
thiocyanate active substance (CTAS) method for general characterization of
r 1.
nonionic surfactants. These analyses are summarized in Table 3-7. Although
significant reduction from plant influent levels to an effluent level of 2 to 4 mg/1
f
is observed in these data, surfactants can represent a significant source of chronic
w
;..
toxicity at less than 1 mg/1.
fry
The City also has contracted for analyses of phenols. These have generally
}
4
^ occurred in the range of 0.01 to 0.04 mg/l. This range compares with an EPA
chronic toxicity criterion of 2.56 mg/l. Therefore, these would not appear to be
at a level of concern.
, ,f
Previous Studies
Two previous studies have been performed for the City. These are
summarized as follows:
• NCDEM On -Site Toxicological Evaluation November 1987:
- -•
Fractionation toxicity testing performed in this study indicated that
substances removable by a C18 solid phase extraction had a strong
aim
t 3-3 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Errilmnmerdal Engineers & Sden%ts

i ice+ + i �■■■� �■■� .� .■■�
Table 3-7 + ^
Nonionic Surfactants by CTAS Method
t
r... -1 - j-w. ' •� - + . f �• te-.e .!"?� �� r !wE'7 'e
� l
f 2 13 90 2 14 90` :� 4 2 90 4 3 �0 4 90
COMPOSITE �.;;` UNIT �L_ �_. _ f«.
• ! _ _ - .. � t- : �. r-.:s •.'1 fT S ('•i• Q Li'.. �.' � �� �. �v_I, ` �, �� t r_h,
' r, ' t ,, •. i .ter '�� rr�+
CTAS, Wastewater Le
bi
Influent 10 : 2 27
Intermediate ' `. mg/1 .4 n
Effluent - mg/1. _ ,: 4.4
Aeration Basin (Grab) E mg/1 ,Y,� �• �.Od
CV
>--
! - moo• � rLrt'� • P j . ',
41 .T p �� ' �.
411
- ~. r ,..; '-� ':J ivy �. ' ....i i µ, c {. n 1 r¢� a. jam, •qJ1 i f y,.3,. 1311
- ' i- - r. t 3.--. �.' ^`E 1 ,'. } �••i !wr- �47i t""tT '�,, � ••� � '��,,,' 1�
tf
Ila
iu
- - i ,. ' i ...•t � ."-� � d .. •,-.. ., : `e ..q; 1 r� (, / r,i - i }M _ _T i? � ��� IY•.
_ �� , ^c ," t;- r..t '� Lei r^>R �' .j' i�w �� i��p �.� �) lt���y `•t
s ,.• - � h i- '�- a °;r,� .�.• �.,. �.y '� .�i; '"'` t..y, fir � t:
i
ti -
t,
'r r

.� 1•-4 rr•": '�•s'"['K. .. w.. .w f¢ .* 1 S. C".... art.. .-'.tr\•f yi Y. .♦ --.ro .•..-'I i•^': .. .. - ..r...f. J Aw�., n..
FI� 1✓ hs I `,-; - c - T,t... ' � '. . Sat.'. � t.•-" . .. - 2
..?
fir• },,rr ,.r;y
":.. _ " .
.
;
i
Influence on observed -acute #oxici .: This fractionation can include
ty
. . '
non -polar. organic -compounds and metal chelates.. Also, copper, lead
and zinc -occurred at levels that exceeded published criteria, .although
fractionation methods did not implicate metals as a significant source
of toxicity. Closer regulation of chlorine levels was recommended to
t
`reduce a toxic potential from chlorine. ote: Dechlorination will be
k
practiced at the plant as a result of the recent facility expansion project.)
iJ
Burlington Research, Ind. - Wastestream Impact Study (October 1989):
.--.
`� Al•: t+'k i•{ X Y7't-'fit'' 7r r• nl••�i i..i.. %.••.S. 1" ' t � "`y.7-f'.
�f..;..� w +..{ !, : •t.. . '• _ .- I ..,, `. .... .'rs:" .. � i., : "...i S l l� Alm , . i
1�`•,... t`. This study incorporated a toxicity 'identification evaluation that
"
included industrial surveys to assess chemical usage by major industries
bb, s dischargingto the system: E i ► ; j ;, d , :... �i .Y '.:.. "
=
7 Indus Industrial Category
s ITT
a
ft
•S»
Macfield, Inc. (now U ' ') Textile
American Tobacco Co. `' "' ~' Tobacco
Chace .. , ..., A .. Fabricated Metals
T
. _. •t. � ,_. � -
Equity Group \ �: Meat Products (poultry)
.
Boehme-Filatex Chemical Manufacturer
Miller Brewing Co. ` , Fabricated Metals
Beta Systems Fabricated Metals
It was concluded that operational problems and significant toxicity
effects were occurring as a result of the discharge of non -degraded
nonionic surfactants from industrial sources,..articularl 1 heno
p Y �Y p xY
` ethoxylates (APEs). The study cited Macfield, Inc. (now Unifi),
.
Boehme-Filatex and Miller Brewing Co. as significant dischargers of
nonionic surfactants as measured by CTAS. ' It was recommended that
industrial users ' consider conversion • from APE surfactants to linear
alcohol ethoxylates (LAE), a category of surfactant that is more readily.
34 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Ernironmental Engineers & Weds%

9'-,1L'' ri Grr_t i1� . i. � .♦ '.,... ' i r _ , -
Yt ,�.`'.s..rfr•`•.-Y•'L N+rC .�:�: y.o.:...s.- .,ram•:.,{ a•1F.:..° ..;-v w:.! .i- .. .�. ,,+. +vn. �r - -.c:'- f...7L� >�.c ,Y_..
i 1��°.�Y .i1. iF ii - _ fu - - a4. - Y y iV•J1x � •'f K Y- 4+
44
•7rf �,'w'�rt_ �: ;y _t t' •'♦ i. :'s 0 - ..+ f - F' .... t,ix'. .J .. .' r•.. '�ti y 4. Sht~.. _. *.,. r. �=ti.... .�Mr.
.removed1by hebation processes employed for treating
r mnunicipal wastewater. Other problems cited for correction were slug
' +discharges from an activated sludge pretreatment system operated by
s� i
VlacField Inc. lnow Unifi).
is 'ri��i r•if qU lL�. r:-S �E :yl 7 -1 �_� iw`°rs..•_ .�
;{ Assessment of Findings of Identification Studies
Results of analyses and findings of the NCDEM On -Site Toxicological
m
Evaluation (November 1987) strongly suggest that organic constituents may be ;
occurring at levels that can cause toxicity. Findings of the Burlington Research,
Inc. - Wastestream Impact Study (October 1989) identified nonionic surfactants ,
that exceed potentially toxic levels. Conversion by industries to more readily
biodegraded linear alcohol ethoxylate surfactants should be evaluated further. In _
` addition, phthalates and 1, 2, 4trichlorobenzene appear to be of specific concern
and efforts should be made to reduce the levels of these contaminants.
- •.', .. .....'E, �• ,.'. ..:sera.. t::%. .. .:'i`. ;•, .. _Y t.. �•,' t":i
Elevated salt levels are indicated by high levels of conductivity that are
reported for the plant effluent. Future testing should be performed to evaluate
this conductivity effect, since it may limit the extent to which successful toxicity
test results can be obtained with standard test procedures. Therefore, an area for
future evaluation is the effect of dissolved salt content on the' Ceriodaphnia test.'
Although the level of toxicity exceeds that allowed in the permit;
improvements have occurred. In addition to activities under its pretreatment
program, the City presently meets with the industries on a monthly basis to
discuss environmental issues and improve awareness, and a number of steps are
being undertaken by the industries. Significantly, Unifi (formerly MacField, Inc.)
has committed to a major facility program to improve the operation of its
pretreatment facility and eliminate slug discharges that have caused past upsets
at the Cit s wastewater treatment plant and Boehme-Filatec is adding a new
pretreatment facility. The City pretreatment program has worked with all of the
3-5 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Ern€mnmenW Engineers & Scientists

.r} "" t ^ ram,. 1 . T..t, t 1. > , n .r.'`M .Lw.• ,•.w• .>+. . <. .J.' •! � s> w.s ;.i-- . s.+t . .t, _la - o
i. s.: t .fir/ t. .-yr - i.- \ - •�.
• 't-• t;-; _
}
..,
-
=` -industries #o develop pollution reduction
programs. ;=hese efforts man be
suii LmfliLed i1v7 +VJiVws•
tiyti w''i Y ?J ° •c +.r:� i�e .. � �:li i : 6.� <t •, a. x i.r ��' .}i:�T. i.'b a� ii s � ._- . t l�.
�*-,
t i 1 A 'i t3
American'Tobacco Company -
Has aggressively :worked to remove all
known pollutants, eliminating past prob-
iy -
lams . of :compliance with . pretreatment
)-
•Ggulat1oiM7• S 4L►_ `Jx4:y'.' i: 455 }_.i4 v"'::1 we !
t
.,l
.Y' •.+?
Beta Systems -
:Has consistently . maintained compliance .
with pretreatment regulations; ._ recent.
s
-
fa • 'ty improvements include an upgrad-§
n
ed floor drainage system to reduce metal
particulates in the effluent and new sludge
•
handling and drying equipment.
Boehme Filatex -
Conducted extensive water usage stud
-
and an investigation to determine and
control the effects of compounds not
directly regulated under the pretreatment
:.. :
permit..:,
Chace -
Has made extensive waste reduction ef-
forts to bring effluent into compliance
with pretreatment requirements; efforts
have included involvement of the North
Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays pro-
gT
Equity - r .
Has increased staff for pretreatment and
implemented a waste reduction and waste
awareness program that has significantly
3-6 HAZEN AND SAWYER
1
Environmental Engineers d Saentists

7`
Kg r r' :t -r?: r_ ��a -,.•...—•.I Wn- % 4- L a. :P .*,., .�.. :..r. •A �, ��. .a. «:. •. .�v.: ,e_ ,�:';nt
.+:�. R � .u, "y.•S 'a f.. f �7d�,s. ah!`_.t. .n... ,•. � t t • _ )-� g . 'Y s •' tr-� t :. , Y`t x . t'r.:t `t`y.�" - �] . r ;'�" r "LSD .,xt-. s.+.
-�' .v,.+ ,*.G„ti-%•r...� .,4%p rc�.Ts�' .'ti;'c ti:'si`p-i...w�y �x M�N3C.":.A .t•': •:7`-d6 •-,♦O±s• '.i,. wwti, ?.''� i M-`°i?,'. � r ti_:`r 3�`� .+q%+•` 2L' �•M• tf.-v;.:':;y1es tie .h�:Aw*•'W�.k �+Y
,' t !i - ..5 , s, _:�;!;?.X"! - .:J :.L3; y_ ^..r, a'•ti' d»•�' ?^....?4:1��r.'!',Y - '� t.. ~ice, ..+,'g'*
n; s_,b.s h'S'`tM1 '`; F-il r;, :y:,;' =R"� �::{"'s G''•1Q"y^r?i�•;d'+` V ..4a;' . :.�.'":'r?��=�+ ro `•f;.'l ram,,' ;=n+1? .,y �;- �...�c- a, i.. r.s n "f': J t a..per._,
r {%�ii=.r•It 'r-�: 1' f! �t .f rK �+.. '� d .: r• 'r 'rt„ t �. :; .7. :.r_•,. L la it&' ,y ,u+i- 4• .i�" Y. '' -y.: +,. d r' r °"
2+ < s
w �,
r .w. $ .,1, r ve .a_..
;< �w' �.r. ;;c „ �„ • LI", i .y`•:' �� ^'-+:4.1�.•..s. •_, y` J _>_A ,,U•>: ,.ht 'i:'r..s ,.� p- - f h."T.' n F,a ,,,�'_ •..a l,:
Y fi' =i +!, s' ,- r gg iYj 4'.' �+. G +fit ;1:, Sri" .}' i t :: n "��T�: `ay 1
�F S •.�- : •C -.I z Ft :.='"-" • - .V. } 3,1^"'..... �;•;�:I. ' «fi 'F;c �� .�.r �",f v -..yt �. , .2 L � !fir -, r z:+, '� { ] +"F4 iZ:;4 - ,�,������ -jam' , l}i� �I h t Y. 1 is ts{ �i rr t.y� .' 4 + ti - ti =
.� -s�f + ?74 rc% K3§,, •+3•'+k.Y L!^'ct-, :r£ :tie -. t�i. �a-'-��`istrylt t :�ilyy'i tx.�s��.- t..i.� r� :.t, t a�+a., v` i_:
`�wj ' , 1'. 1 , . �,:..�} _!. d .ss -Mt±•• J: t :• . J` + , �. t f •.. 'f + . -- . -:�`•`." b - ' `.1".. ?..�„'�•.._, ";.�."'.'n�i"�•;v::•. +. a.tr.:r, yP 'i -:' 's" :. •�y
q
�. 1, Lfk./ N t ,•'c. •. "Yl' .•V 51 ,( .T 4, "Y/ a G: '.:c _ -.} 'I J4. �f_'�f ii+.^•i 1. lam:; il�t.
`�{.t• �.(. - r .- ., "� any ,
Y RYei!
3 .-, } r ',r " ri r
•"!~ �i vs.J 'sia ct ->•. ';' _ . t • } ,�£: + `� A . r 7 1 ♦ •a� _ 't r • }7 •! r .
''%i.". +' �+' <'^+' rF•"�-, .-r• ,V -+-t Jro'-••r-3. +ar�- • .i ',...rft.- '� l ..-te, r�:S. :,F •.. •.�:,•,-. ..y:. , _-r � 4'.- t_ .y ..- - - '-'^'n- t^'+-•r
=.F'.}J'7 .i'% �, t ti z3-- r<. r f ti'. `n
:'.I J'3. •a. _ :i .`.i' St- �7:. r r,. :?! t Wit'! y.;.'��- -y.+. -•`�'_ '.
•,•ryi� raS+rr r j' ^;J, at •••'+ r •M1� ,i": �. rt. 'tor.''- _ , -,�- - - .. .- . q•" t. -
7:. $ , ` < ; 4�; '' t< < �,` ,t�h-� i qtfS r =seduced impact zn the Reidsville waste-
'•it* z• r J r 5f yr Tv fa ,•^' Z , '74 ,fir ! t t�.. i r .
s 1, �a * Y t �, , � "_ � . ` :,water treatmentplant; efforts have includ- I � ';
" T . 1- .�T F :4ed involvement of the .North Carolina : ,j
�1;.".*,.. : , �.1:*. ­-�II, ,.,.j .1'�.­1 .� ",,-..I ,', :. . .1, ��.­ L""%.1 '.. 'I P.''. -.�L� ",,-,`.�. � ,, ,,., , I �.4,-, I� .,I -I ,*-t­I�,,4 , I"L. - , . ,, .,. .J' .I,"" I 1�..L-,4. ..'� ,� "'. �.,-��L�. �.. ._I� .L .:t: :- :,_,�. ��,:,.- - ;�. :_... I �-. ,_� : ­ . -'_:, I.,! I,". ; . ,L : I_.,-1-�1�, . *�.� "�;.'.I.'",*I.'.-..:'­:1 �* �,-.,.."_ . _ � , , ,-I I '.__ .. .� ­,,,.�I ,�,,.. .I,'L,L..-"I .�,' I -- _I-; "., ..�I%,". '�,'.I -.'" . .� .'!4 ".I14, I,_. I�.. ;'",� L . "'I,-.� '-.' -, �L - �,I­ ­ "L,-. _. ,I-�-.I ,I. .1_,.... .4..., I '-- * 1 _ �, . _L�.�L-, ,. � �,L, '_ :,%. -� , L .._-,.�. . LL., ` .,"_L%: -.--- .,"�.',­, .-�-- �LI, �LI:��Ll, �...,-�,�__, "- ­ I . .-,.. ',.� ,_,—�I,-- �.1�',- '�:-.�'. - .,I� v --..� .:,L' I::n.�-�.�­Z.I­L ;� ­-�i�".��-,L�..._,� "_I-­1.;f1­,�1".�.-I .j�1:-,...1-, .'_,"L;��..I-- _N!:1.-. ,.P', L.A�--_ 4, ,,.I�;I:1�,i_ ,.,-�1_*.- � ..,IL- ,:*I* r,.­.1 I, �r!.:. .,, ._;_.'-. .1�L.-', , . 1 -� L�_ . ".," L .� .I,; .
• 1 i r
"' .V�t.'� �'�� f ``'ollution Prevention Pa ro.
�t . Et kff r �' _ r- ra r V j�i(�i,�Lyi��
�'!!try > �s r r ,Y ^ i r, a , 'T d P V z F `{ .
•i.�� 1'v `t'4 `J 1 v r t ) .,f .., a _.,r •. ":a
ix >� —, x} 3 . ( t r rt �t r r • t ' a 1'. . ' `{
.7 d,� y - > ^c:, �';- i yst'' - N .K , 1 t • . . .,T.i' 't -::u�r .
r • - -;, r
?£u 7 ` rVIi11er - j =:� / !-�oniinuousl evaluatin and u adin d F
(S p� Dr lr-�
i i`� a� � r++ti t .iI i ;.l .�r. 's.♦ L} .:ice 1 •�� { - .. 1 - 4. 2.
fkti'J,w r ,'a : t� ;�r ; �� t ` :pretreatment facilities to optimize perfor "y : R .
11,
. , !l ` t 1 + .C. ! _ �! N �r k 'tk i '� s}A•v]:Gu ttG� tv ,' S t, t•r .tt. .. _ _ .:.: /.l t -a-t, y i i
,:, t , •t , 1 r .Y flt .i`,t i y !r 3.. r I ,r, ' e 4 s. i r * j �� .. mance, and has developed a complete , raja h7
t .. •t r i• h.., r i
r fY
Fi`� operation and training manual to reinforce
r $• r. ' - - � y,t. � i
L . .1 f 1S t •x+; r ; �:t1y v- t: }. - - , -! x ,s �', 1
• _ ? �4 r ,P' " % 41t I staff training. Is actively addressing re- •"'
*-
y S
' cent pretreatment violations in zinc levels '. .
`, ,a r t , , ,r �s s
" k
t '+ to mod' treatment as r i. l
. ify equired. -
.. !
1­r -
.>; Una - New management is pursu* the major ,
- r .t I
. - fa ' ' im rovem n t r a Zf1
ty p e t o the p etre tment -'
&" system discussed above. Also, an im- � ,
• z : proved sludge management system is
, tq- :,� a
r: being developed to eliminate slug loads #
a9
that are disrupting performance at the
' . Reidsville wastewater treatment plant.
. ,;
. t;
!. _" _ '.. _ .. .�
r• .
rr
r ,
` +'
.'
a f! - - - - -
- _ .. -'+ •
r. - - . . -
Aj
- - -
3-7 HAZEN AND SAWYER
- Environmental Engineers � Scientists
;: . ,

EC .:
1
1 r'
" SECTION 4��-��
l ••
-. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW EFFLUENT PIPELINE TO
h
ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE POINT,
f= i.a t L-S '�."V � S+_'�'.° � t "Yv 6't.c T..t t j��'x st0. ' or, fiT S3 .ie Aelt C- f �. s-
r
General=,"Al" 'tri; �� � 4�t:z��j �� C xa t do not &�� ;;.� r: � - �:�s=� � :A.t
J'. --. ... -
-sty .7
7_,-a•. '.. .,, t { .r.' j6cx /� ( .-T-f. f'• ; ` �'j ( h ;._ >~ - Yi _ A'. ...,
.a `5. ... .lY p_}��(.�.-k... G;,�.. M. .. `•�'a.� �rO''Cf
tAlthough significant reductions in toxicity may be achieved through t '
t :
ongoing efforts of the City and its industrial customers, it cannot be concluded
-
with certainty that levels can be achieved that would allow the Ceriodaphnia
:
Chronic Pass/Fail test to be passed at the 90% instream waste concentration
(IWC) required for permit compliance. An alternative is to discharge to another.
receiving water which can more readily assimilate the remaining toxicity at a
t
lower IWC. This concept was incorporated in the facility planning study that was
prepared for the recent plant expansion, but was deferred pending resolution of
toxicity issues for the existing discharge location on Little Troublesome Creek.
This study indicated that a permit could be obtained from NCDEM for discharge
into either the Haw River or Troublesome Creek, providing options that would
afford greater dilution if necessary for compliance with toxicity requirements. y
- - -
.•. _r 1. •l<,.. -t ...
Two meetings were conducted with NCDEM to pursue this alternative
_
further. Based on the initial discussions, consideration was given to discharge to
g g
;.
Wolf Island Creek as another alternative. However, further evaluation indicates
„
that this alternative, as well as the alternative of discharge to Troublesome Creek, k
present little opportunity for. achieving significant reduction in the test _
requirement for IWC. Therefore, detailed evaluations centered on discharge to
the Haw River. A preliminary analysis, performed by NCDEM, resulted in the
following estimates of IWC for discharge to the Haw River.
I
4-1 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 3 Scientists

� .. <• r..... .11. :� '',. K � S'E •Y"ty ���.**..
i'ernut'Flow ;ea �a � are .,?��� �
_ ..
«.� } --��++d�� tt }}Z ' t (] 2 }s''sY v. e,/a.�� -t. -- ..•- g
:..p�C- •':�ay i7 1.i. Z .�1+m� ��tears E..ii,.i _i.1.C. .'i..�a4i./� Y c'_.VZ% - - •t i-,.., ��'�.('I--.. ...�
_ vv .•, , a.. ua.i .� ash- a. a wS. a tis
't
j
,S
*• �
r t
- ri r/. •..i ery .Y" Yam- Z'•u -�Y ��ftr:�C"�r •rA O n 1 -a ...
7'.5 mgd __h� . eve,
.i
At present, toxicity levels have been as low as 35.4%. Wherefore, si ' 'cant
reduction in toxicity would be required even for Ihis alternative discharge
-concept. Applicability of this concept will depend on the level of improvement = 1
=
that can be achieved; reductions that do not achieve passing results at an IWC of
90% may require further consideration of alternative discharge. Otherwise, it
;
:
would ;, ,,.
wo d not be necessary..�� ;� ::.�.`�t �:�,: ',, ff-. �.:; 4:..t�., ,:��� � ��� �f y: �:1�,��,�.�t
•... ., r,.:t 23 ..;r :�`�r +ice tiL�_ l��-i4.:�.�.� l'':iiy�r5• i5:'1L• �G lf:iS�.� � 4�U,7 "'I t f
Evaluation of Effluent Pipeline Alternative-==y=�'
}
Evaluations were based on existing County topography maps, where
available; supplemented by USGS mapping in areas where County mapping did
' {
5
not exist. This level of evaluation is preliminary in nature and is intended to
develop a range of possible concepts for planning purposes. The pipeline concept .
is developed based on a peak flow of 26.25 mgd, corresponding to a peaking
=�
factor of 3.5 at the present plant design average flow of 7.5 mgd. This design
:.
average flow is intended to meet needs for a 20 year planning period. A larger
,
J
design flow might be considered to yield a 30 to 50 year planning period as is -
common for pipeline design to meet typical municipal needs. In this case;
`
however, the decision will depend largely on anticipated long-term trends in
industrial water usage, which could either increase or decrease depending on;
:.
technology changes over time. These effects should be reviewed to determine.
whether it is appropriate to enlarge the pipelines for further flow increase in a 30
to 50 year planning period. Also, the peaking factor should be reviewed as the
plant obtains unproved data from new flow measuring equipment. The estimated
peaking factor of 3.5 was based on best information available from the operating
experience of the staff, using the older facilities that were not fully capable of
a
measuring the peaks.
€
4-2 HAZEN AND SAWYER .
EiVanmo,&I Engineers 18 enfsts

:-•�'�t js •;?A L• 7.._��t 4 ~ r '�: ... � �.(:.K �.i r ..�. 4 r.�- �. 1 A. .''� i� �

F� �

NUUNt +-i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
REIDSVILLE
PRELIMINARY ROUTES FOR
WENT PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES
N.T.S.
iJl'fM&D & M
Environmental Engineers i 8olantlats

rL'.- ��iZ.YSi�SR9'V.irr�£R. .r'S�`-���y .��• _
ttu 4 ♦• i; - 1 µ- fir` t _ Z _Y L <
tw,.'.t'.- °• '.,-a, .} v7 .,f:,,Y. 4i.:+..` .r ,L.k;Y e_ f-- r _ _? P L a:':t J' < rC�tM „✓s. _* _ .y,:." r ...,..
S
, rsA -, yrr x A ,.• tief ;1• a= ' r t i r r t` ./v'•
'r?
4;Ild+ :.;:alternative B This 'alternative employs a gravity concept by taking
advantage of the natural gradient along Little Troublesome Creek to the
' -Haw River. 'The major advantage of this approach is the elimination of
a requirement for pumping, thereby sunplifying and reducing costs of
operation. Disadvantages derive from the fact that the pipeline route
. S2
t
41J be confined to an area in the vicuuty of the creek and cannot be
3 ` Pk=,�� F3significantly altered to take advantage of existing easements or avoid
.'
_;. i . r tiif ficult areas of construction if they are encountered. Also, available
:- �head is restricted by the gradient between the plant and the Haw River,:
r .1 •' .:` thereby requiring a 42-inch pipe as opposed to the 36-inch pipe that
`k
would be used in Alternative A. The length is estimated to be
pipeline
` 27,300 linear feet.
{� j, Total Capital Cost (1991 dollars): $4,700,000
~[ �n -A v. Y "} v ! „ • ` 4 .... . . n.R t :1 .Y f . yt r. - .•-
- !•r_-
v� = • .Alternative C This route follows highway right-of-ways to a discharge
,
point below the confluence of Little Troublesome Creek and the Haw
River. It requires pumping, as does Alternative A. Based on existing
knowledge, it would have a lower priority than Alternative A, which
is more direct and shorter. However, it is located at a more
downstream location on the Haw River, allowing some potential for
increased dilution. Costs shown below incorporate two estimates for
pumping facilities, as in the case of Alternative A. -
Total Capital Cost (1991 dollars): $7,000,000 (separate wet pit/dry
4
pit pump station)
$5,300,000 (incorporate pumps into
existing tankage)
Based on these preliminary evaluations, Alternatives A and B should
r ceive the greatest priority in the future. Also the use of existing structures
. e gr p ty g
4-4 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Emimnmerdal Engineers & Sdenfs4 ts

-.4.s t �. 44y C:� y x. r• fi _fir _ �,.,•�
1.1. � -� i }� 1, l .t. ri�L� r,1 L. .t ..F � In �a rr .(-_ 7.'.V4�-',p+. t++:�tlar•k JS .%s•;•s:'�t ..t.1.7•t ,{.•-•i•.,-}�'..Y �
'[ t .w. -`4 . t`• oM.-:f+,crr i. � • «.a- ,w
� ..
it a _ •� .c- . - _ r _
� - L �'ffl'fyy' f. ,C ' M.. `. y.'•�Vl.�` - • J`'. r� �, rt^ �C'.. � tY� `. •- _> '7.:. �? r _ •!.• ,C:l �. iilip� C
�. V-t,51 �'�', �• 1. - A .•J� .M1-`)�' ,w-. 1 r-\ :Y•a h t S
• �'' F:� *k 4 ��- Yu. a �.�. , r ,.3y 1:=-'.:t• ..�.s...,,• .t :ate. f �L .t- =;Y' -i •=.>s . ,r-r' •r::•
r:':
•-+ia x� •-t. 4i•� - -•.tit. 'f - t'.l f... '.��•
E.a=t�-_ ),"n.ti;1�'=- - :�Cr.• k� •�-.i T.�. r"+�-i•`�'.r..l'w� -.�7tp }�` h %,,."'°' ... C: i• 4_ :?i" :.:-•��:.w.�w t •>:•- •r. -
". .:-. , �., •s�"'�r,;.. x..- f ,4 �f..g �.. ;Y _ L-� � y.,- r :• br- r .a. �' -s.,� ,..1*.
'Tu.t,. '• }~ 3 J^�'i�j.'1 � -f'f.�, f f. ', ^:'C �: J .A T�-y•
.wl�.. •�
.4
..r"". 1 ". r _ -♦.. ?tr.,r „-�♦.-•♦. •. 4:� �.. �,,,,,x:, %S .,l•. ?f -.� F.<•uv+l. �: 1.. � �.,-.`at ".''r�: t�
,7Y_
f 1
- ii y:.M. j1I -.- 1 4- : M C .• - 1 - 1 ` 4!• .t
" 4
t
:should be considered to avoid expensive construction of a separate wet pit/dry
T
Sj`
x d
Spit type of pumping facility.
t liven the options that have been examined, a reasonable number of options
rare available with a probable cost range for an effluent pipeline of $4,500,000 to
p g P P
,;.
_
'. 5,000..000. More detailed topographic, site and geotechnical information will be
'
L
meeded to refine ipeline concepts for design and final cost estimates may vary
1•
somewhat from these preliminary estimates, which are intended to establish a
=.
♦
general range for planning purposes. The peaking factor should be reviewed to
y
rovide an improved estimate of the design peak flow based on data as it
P P � P
_
becomes available from new flow measuring devices. The concept for the design
life of the pipeline also needs to be reviewed to determine whether an additional
allowance for a 30 to 50 year design life is appropriate. Most of the influent to ,
the plant is from industrial sources whose water use patterns could change with
'
technological advances. Therefore, projection of flow increases for 30 to 50 year
design flows may involve uncertainty with a potential for over -investment.
" 4-5 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

k "}
SECTION:,p q•.
b� ! ,f, a t.t.%iL't-" %_. 4' L' Ar;.4t� : ♦ a ' 'i Lr.�-'�.'• t i:Y ky?♦y`t'9c'
ir
... - •- ,y��dr,._ Me7.19C�•♦,.'` -.+ - _r', ••- - ` �.
'r{ I't:";2 r e:� `s Y �i�� }y+ cep` �d .ss" rr��+ •• •r ;►4:q!. �e• s' -: ;k. ,
.•+,...� ts. e. k.i.:t {5.. 1.Y.a ,.. •• #. +� .t +'.t a..a. -.�r{ .:. `a.��
�.1-i
I
��;
_
PLAN OFON. t
- - •? Ai. ,, w d.I. 4, 4. !A.`ica�. +" �•,E i {��.• 1 } rt t ,�`.`�`..t. i L Ti rf ,t- Y
•. - x y r. � e ♦ .. .L}._i ,'. Y. l.. -1,4.. .J.[+I.Y 1., ws_{y.� i�+.i _�� w,i.w: ]:.- ..IF`{• � 4-� '.'�':•
`��
The City is in the process of taking extensive steps towards improvement
`=
in effluent :#oxicity.. rtA {cooperative program of routine communication .and
information sharing has been established with major ' industrial users and
S.
't
measures are underway to reduce wastes from these large users. It is anticipated
that many of these measures, discussed in Section 3, will achieve reductions in
a
toxicity. The following specific steps are recommended for future plan of action:
} • Plant Modifications - The wastewater plant has already incorporated
f }
many advanced treatment concepts. Major facility modifications'
beyond the present level of treatment cannot be implemented in the
time frame afforded by the Consent Order. Therefore, this type of
facility improvement is assigned a low priority in the plan of action.
a-
- The plant operating staff should continue its efforts to optimize the
performance of existing facilities and identify sources of problems .. _ p g �Y p ms that
may be impairing performance.
=;
• Identification and Reduction of Toxic Substances in the Wastewater
Stream - Previous studies have indicated that waste fractions containing
�e
__ .... _ . organic contaminants appear to be associated with significant toxicityfi
in the wastewater stream. Evaluations have identified phthalates and
1, 2, 4-trichlorobenzene as contaminants that are present at potentially
toxic levels.. Steps should be taken to reduce these materials as much
as possible. Nonionic surfactants also are present at potentially toxic
levels. These materials are not readily removed by biological waste
r
treatment processes and steps should be taken to substitute linear
,
alcohol ethoxylate surfactants, which are more readily biodegraded...: ,
5-1 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Sdenlists

oil
,:. -i"Phase I'I'oxicity Identification Evaluation CTE) should be undertaken
,
-4o further characterize the nature of the toxicity under fractionation
4a
l a
=
procedures using recent EPA methodologies for chronic toxicity. - which
yyw��O,JJT��
' .•t vF Fi+
{
-are now available. Also, serial bioassay tests should be performed of
a monthly frequency to establish toxicity trends in plant effluent.
^t:l n.a .�7 �:a •�•. �,` {'"�`!.'7�1-'{f. ,CH! {, 4 ^f1 y;t;•ar,.,.. a {{.-.y ��. ._;_-.{y`.._� 1;'�s'(^:'^ (1 `r Ir; t -;' :'�t cv.- -r
�'= G... 41 i . ty' z �'Y � 71 .. }v,...t ...:.{�A•�.r a��.i'f t/ri. c .: =..y 2..
1. - .1�. :..Jl+✓ s ••;!:, •^n t^'. ... is;:.nGa`! _-Y, e .....-zi.a _. - 'r. -- , 'Y.
� It '
q.. "'?
�n'the
fractionation evaluations, particular emphasis should be placed
_
- on C,iB -solid phase 'extractions to characterize the effect of nonpolar
c'
organic compounds, an EDTA chelation fractionation to further assess
the possible role of metals, and a refractory bioassay to determine the
extent to which toxic substances can be reduced by biodegradation
processes within the plant. In addition, toxicity in unchlorinated and
chlorinated/dechlorinated samples should be assessed to determine the
effect of chlorination in adding byproducts that may contribute to
=
toxicity. Other fractionations include characterization of toxicity from
-
volatiles, from oxidants/reductants and from solids -bound compounds.
Although; <Inot pecifically required by the consent order, it is -recom-
that'testing incorporate multiple species toxicity evaluations
Emended
to assess "the potential for compliance with species that maybe more
k
sensitive than Ceriodaphnia. ro
...
r
Once the first round of testing is completed, a toxicity source evalua-
{
may be needed as a follow-up to iden ' toxic contributions from
tionidentify
Y P �Y
. _
specific industries. This testing will incorporate refractory toxici
p g rY tY
-
.
assessments to identify the extent of toxicity remaining following a
biological treatment step, such as that available in a municipal
r
4-
wastewater treatment plant.
The presence of high conductivity, a property that is not intrinsically
toxic,* may also have an effect on Ceriodaphnia bioassays. This effect
:
should be assessed to determine the extent to which toxicity testing
;
results can ultimately approach the required chronic test value of 90
Y pp q
.
5-2 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Er ironmental Engineers & Scientists

zgp
percent mstream waste concentration. e a grouni ieve'i`o' oxiciixq
a
k*** Troublesome. Creek also should be .determined -to assess".we
9666ft,116 Which.plant - effluent Aaughi be increasing #oxicit� from
�$$
r
naiv�l �c�ondstl,vn� • f ,
'�
..
-
_ Alternative Discharge Location - The outcome of toxicity reduction
tip.
efforts cannot be predicted with certainty.. and it may ultimately N
become necessary to relocate the discharge to a location that can more4.
�'
readily a�ssmulafe any remaining toxicity. NCDEM has indicated that
, '
the permit process for this alternative may involve a complex set of
.41
procedures and has recommended that a permit for this alternative be
}
pursued as early as possible. -As such, the City should initiate a permit
-
application so that this alternative could be available should toxicity
._
reduction efforts not be adequate to meet criteria for the present
discharge location on Little Troublesome Creek. Even with a multiple
contract concept for fast -tracking construction, this type of project can
involve a 2 to 21h year effort for design, bid, right-of-way acquisition
r
and construction activities. Therefore, this option, as an approach for ..
ultimately resolving toxicity issues, could not be completed within the
time frame of the existing consent order. This aspect of the compliance
schedule, needs to be thoroughly reviewed with NCDEM, since the
present consent order concept does not provide flexibility for incorpo-
rating this type of facility addition, should all reasonable toxicity
reduction efforts be inadequate for achieving levels that will pass the
Ceriodaphnia pass/fail chronic bioassay at an IWC of 90 percent.
• :j
5-3 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Em►imnmental Engineers & Scientists
a