NC0021474_Final Permit_20020726

.e of North Carolina
apartment of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
July 26, 2002
Mr. Michael Hite
City of Mebane
106 East Washington Street
Mebane, North Carolina 27278
/�
NCDENR
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO021474
Mebane WWTP
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Hite:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North
Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended.)
The following modification has been added to the final permit:
• The Division may re -open this permit to require weekly average limits for ammonia. After calculating
allowable concentrations, the Division will perform an analysis of past ammonia data to determine if there is a
reasonable potential for this discharge to exceed these potential limits. If there is, this permit will be re -opened. If
there is not, the permit will not be re -opened, but will contain weekly average limits for ammonia upon renewal.
The following explanations and modifications were included in the draft permit and remain in the final permit:
• The total residual chlorine (TRC) limit of 17 µg/I must remain in the permit for protection of the aquatic
life from toxic effect of TRC. In March 2001, the Division established guidelines regarding permits with TRC
limits. All facilities with permits containing TRC limits will be required to use field instruments that can measure
TRC concentrations to the lowest attainable levels. The Division is aware that facilities will have to incur expenses
related to the purchase and use of new equipment with an attainable range of 10-15 µ9/1. For this reason, the
permittees were not required to use the more sensitive instruments until July 1, 2002. This guideline was
implemented to ensure water quality protection and compliance with 15A NCAC 2B.0505 (d) (4). The Division is
anticipating the development of a technical review and write-up of the chlorine methodology by EPA staff in
Athens, GA. Mebane must report to the lowest levels that can be consistently reproduced during this time.
• The effluent limitations for cadmium and mercury will be dropped based on evaluation of the reasonable
potential analysis. Cadmium and mercury will now be monitored q� n ly
Program of lyleb�ne s more in the Long Term Monitoring
eaten nt program, Mercury continues to be a water quality concern North Carolina. NPDES permittees have worked with the state to reduce potential risks from this pollutant,
including tasks associated with collecting and reporting more accurate data. The most commonly used laboratory
analysis (EPA Method 245.1) has a detection limit of 0.2 µg/L while the current water quality standard is an order
of magnitude lower at 0.012 µg/L. A more recently approved analytical test (EPA Method 1631) should produce a
detection limit below the level of the standard. This will allow the Division to assess potential water quality impacts
from discharges more accurately. Therefore beeinninr before September 1 2nnx t
to bggipming EPA Method 1631 when analyzing for mercury- ygm w be requ,reA
• After further evaluation of submitted data, monthly cyanide monitoring has been deleted from the NPDES
permit. Cyanide i5jU be monitored quanerly in the Long Term Monitoring Program of Meba Te s
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROUNA 27699-1617 - TELEPHONE 919-733-W83/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
.nC.US/NPDES
VISIT US ON THE INTTERNET @ htip://h2o.enr.stote

pretreatment program. This will provide sufficient effluent data for future evaluation of the reasonable potential
analysis.
Effluent monitoring for copper, zinc, and chloride has been increased to twice per month based on the
Mebane WWTP's rating as a Class IV facility (NCAC 2B .0508).
The monitoring frequencies for BOD5, TSS, NH3, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, pH and TRC have
been modified from 3/Week to Daily based on the Class IV facility rating. Any problems encountered while
sampling should be clearly denoted on the daily monitoring report or reported to the Winston Salem Regional
Office at 336-771-4600 to make DWQ aware of any reporting deficiencies.
Individual instream monitoring requirements have been waived for this NPDES permit based on
Mebane's membership in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association and its environmental monitoring
plan. In the event that Mebane should leave the Association, instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen,
conductivity and temperature will be reinstated. Instream fecal conform monitoring will be discontinued based on
revised DWQ procedure.
Please note that this facility discharges to nutrient sensitive water (NSW) and has total phosphorus limits as a
result of the NSW strategy. In 1997 the Clean Water Responsibility Act (House Bill 515) was enacted, with the intent
to strengthen the control of nutrients from all discharges to NSW waters. Facilities permitted to discharge 21500,000
gallons per day (and any new or expanding facilities) will be subject to nutrient limits for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus according to House Bill 515 requirements. The limits were scheduled to take effect)anuary 1, 2003. The
City of Mebane was granted a compliance extension and is currently working jointly on a nutrient response model
with eight other facilities. Due to the approval of the extension, the nutrient limits will be deferred until results of the
nutrient response modeling effort are completed. Please note that modeling results may result in limits lower than
those mandated by House Bill 515.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings,
6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit
shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may require modification or revocation
and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits that may be
required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone
number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A Goodrich
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Central Files
Winston Salem Regional Office / Water Quality Section
Technical Assistance & Certification Unit
NPDES Unit/Permit File
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Roosevelt Childress/ EPA Region IV

Permit No. NCO021474
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
City of Mebane
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant
701 Corregidor Road (SR 1997)
southwest of Mebane
Alamance County
to receiving waters designated as MoAdams Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective September 1, 2002
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2006
Signed this day July 26, 2002
Original Signed By
David A Goodrich
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0021474
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Mebane
is hereby authorized to:
Continue to operate an existing 2.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting
of influent bar screen, grit chamber, dual 1,117,000 gallon aeration basins, three
clarifiers, sand filters, gas chlorination, chlorine contact chamber, dechlorination,
aerobic sludge digestors, located at Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant, on 701
Corregidor Road (NCSR 1997), southwest of Mebane, Alamance County, and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map
into the MoAdams Creek, which is classified C-NSW waters in the Cape Fear
River Basin.

Facility
Location
Meb NC
NCO021474
imance CUI,ry

Permit No. NCO021474
A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Sample Locationl
Flow
2.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2
(April 1 through October 31
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2
November 1 through March 31
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 through October 31
2.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1 through March 31
4.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
H4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Fecal Colfform
(geometric mean
200/ 100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
17 ijcVL
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phos horus5
2.0 mg/L quarterly average
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/1VIonth
I Composite-
Effluent
Chloride
2/Month
composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. For instream sampling locations and requirements, see Supplement to Effluent Limitations A (2). Instream monitoring
requirements may be provisionally waived per Condition A (3).
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Compliance shall be based upon a quarterly average of weekly samples.
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnra) P/F at 90% with testing in January, April, July and October (see Supplement to Effluent
Limitations A (4)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0021474
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (2) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Parameter Sample Type Frequency Frequency
Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
Grab
Grab
I 3MIk (June —Sept)
3/Wk (June —Sept)
I 1/Wk (October — May)
1M/k (October— May)
Fecal Coliform
Grab
3M/k (June —Sept)
1/Wk (October — May)
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
1. U — Upstream 100 feet of discharge
2. D = D1, D2, and D3; D1 — Downstream at NCSR 1940, Moadams Creek,
D2 — Downstream at Back Creek at NCSR 1936,
D3 — Downstream at Back Creek at NC Highway 54
A. (3) PROVISIONAL WAIVER OF INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Instream monitoring requirements in this NPDES permit shall be provisionally waived so long as
the Permittee remains a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association and the
Association continues to function as approved by the Division and Environmental Management
Commission. If the Permittee does not participate in the Association or if the Association ceases
to function, the instream monitoring requirements in this permit become effective immediately;
and the Division may reopen this permit by administrative letter to establish additional instream
monitoring requirements, it deems necessary to adequately characterize the effects of the
discharges on water quality in the receiving stream.

Permit No. NC0021474
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A (4). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY(
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent
versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of January, April, July, and October.
Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all
treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months
as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February
1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that
does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment,"
collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase
fI Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP313 for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30
days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is
employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity(AT) test form indicating the
facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No
Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at
the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to
include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as speed in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall
constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day
of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
facsimile transmittal
To: Michael Hite Fax: [phone]
From: Jackie Nowell Date: JULY 26, 2002
Phone: [phone] EXT 512 Pages: 2 INCLUDING COVER PAGE
❑ Urgent X For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Mr. Hite, Note the changes to the effluent page, these will be in the finalized permit .
1) Quarterly monitoring for Cadmium and Mercury have been deleted from the NPDES
Permit. These parameters will be monitored at the same frequency in the LTMP of the
pretreatment program. NPDES will be able to use this reported data for future data
evaluations and reasonable potential analyses )RPA).
21 After further evaluation and consultation, Cyanide monitoring will be deleted from the
NPDES permit. Lab information provided by the Town indicates that the 30 ug/1 data
value should be considered an outlier. If this value is removed from the R PA data set,
there is no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard. Cyanide will be
monitored quarterly in the LTMP and there will be sufficient data for future evaluations
and RPAs.
3) Effluent monitoring for copper and zinc will be increased to 2/month based on RPA
results that indicated that there is reasonable potential for both constituents to exceed
the water quality action level. DWQ permit procedures recommend Class IV discharge
facilities conduct effluent monitoring for toxicants at the frequency of twice per month.
4) Please call and con&m receipt and concurrence with these changes.
�Sb sr�Gr, "Li.�/�Zaa✓ 3rJw/n4/m L/lll�Cirlr�/JA✓c✓f..f/TJ.
1
Lc12�N/"ri 'I /H'L " /L !(w % ""'%r✓+ri7 ✓tM1i a�

COMMENTS RECEIVED:
MEBANE SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON APRIL 4, 2001 AS FOLLOWS:
1) REQUESTED THAT TRC BE A MONITORING REQUIREMENT NOT A LIMIT, WITH A SPECIFIED DETECTION
LEVEL OF 100 UG/L
2) REQUESTED THAT MERCURY DETECTION LEVEL OF 0.2 UG/L BE PLACED IN THE PERMIT
3) INSTREAM FECAL COLIFORM WAS TO BE DELETED BUT WAS LISTED IN THE PERMIT
4) REQUESTED THAT CYANIDE MONITORING BE DELETED FROM PERMIT. CYANIDE HIT
RECORDED WAS CAUSED BY AN INFERENCE (?)
5) DAILY SAMPLING WAS GIVEN AS A FREQUENCY FOR BOD5, TSS, NH3 — NO ALLOWANCE FOR
HUMAN OR MECHANICAL ERROR
DWQ RESPONSE
1) FACILITY MUST HAVE TRC LIMIT OF17 UG/L BASED ON ITS DISCHARGE INTO A ZERO FLOW
STREAM. CHLORINE LIMIT IS BASED ON PROTECTION AGAINST CHROMC TOXICITY AT THE END OF
THE OUTFALL. DWQ NOW RECOMMENDS THAT FACILITY'S HAVE APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT TO
TEST CHLORINE DOWN TO LEVELS CLOSER TO LOWER LIMITS. MEBANE MUST MAKE THE EFFORT
TO ATTAIN NEWER EQUIPMENT. WE CAN NOT DROP TRC LIMIT FROM MEBANE'S PERMIT DUE TO
ANTIBACKSLIDING, HOWEVER WILL WORK WITH THEM TO HELP COME IN COMPLIANCE. WET NOT
REFLECTIVE OF CHLORINE AT THE END OF PIPE. DWQ ENCOURAGES ALTERNATE FORMS OF
DISINFECTION SUCH AS UV DISINFECTION,LIMIT APPLIES ONLY IF CHLORINE USED FOR
DISINFECTION.
2) WILL ADD SENTEMS ABOUT MERCURY DETECTION LEVEL OF 0.2 UGIL AND H491V READING OF
BELOW DETECTION WOULD BE GOAWDERED IV COMPLIANOB WITH MERCURY LIMM ***6/21/02 NEW
EPA METHOD 1631 WILL BE REQUIRED IN SEPT. 2003. REMOVED REFERENCE TO 0.2 UG/L
DETECTION LEVEL FROM EFFLUENT PAGE.
3) WILL DELETE INSTREAM FECAL COLIFORM MOMTORING BASED ON DWQ PROCEDURE
4) HAVE GIVEN CYANIDE MOMTORING IN THE PERMIT BASED ON SAMPLE OF 30 UG/L. LAB
SUBMITTED LETTER THAT PH OF SAMPLE HAD LOWERED FROM 12 SU AT ARRIVAL TO 7 SU BEFORE
SAMPLING AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY PRESERVED.
5) DAILY SAMPLING NOT ALLOWING FOR HUMAN ERROR. TOLD MR. HITE TO NOTE ANY
ABNORMALITIES ON THE DMR SHEET AND TO REPORT ANY CONSISTENT PROBLEMS TO THE WSRO.
FACTSHEET AMENDMENT
7/26/02 - AFTER CONSULTATION WITH DAVE GOODRICH, THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WILL
BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL NPDES PERMIT:
1) Quarterly monitoring for Cadmium and Mercury has been deleted from the
NPDES permit. These parameters will be monitored at the same frequency in
the LTMP of the pretreatment program. NPDES will be able to use this
reported data for future data evaluations and reasonable potential analyses
(RPA).
2) After further evaluation, Cyanide monitoring will be deleted from the NPDES
permit. Lab information provided by the Town indicates that the 30 ug/l data
value should be considered an outlier. If this value is removed from the R PA
data set, there is no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality
standard. Cyanide will be monitored quarterly in the LTMP and there will be
sufficient data for future evaluations and RPAs.
3) Effluent monitoring for copper and zinc will be increased to 2/month based
on RPA results that indicated that there is reasonable potential for both
constituents to exceed the water quality action level. DWQ permit procedures
recommend Class IV discharge facilities conduct effluent monitoring for
toxicants at the frequency of twice per month.
Mebane WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 5

Re: [Fwd: comments on NCO021474 - City of Mebane] / i7
Subject: Re: [Fwd: comments on NCO021474 - City of Mebane] G �/
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:11:55 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
thanks for resending. We have no remaining comments or concerns -
proceed to issue! Marshall
l of 1 6/20/02 4:23 PM

Re: comments on NCO021474 - City of Mebane
Subject: Re: comments on NC0021474 - City of Mebane
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:50:43 -0500
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: [e-mail]
Hello Marshall,
In response to your comments,
Item #1 - NH3 weekly average limits - to be resolved
Item #2 - Will add "total" to the metals parameters
Item #3 - Mebane is one of nine municipalities that have received a
compliance extension from HB515 and nutrient limits do not have to be
applied until after completion of nutrient modeling project.
Looking forward to meeting you on Wednesday. Jackie
[e-mail] wrote:
> 1. The permit does not contain weekly average limits for total ammonia,
> as required by 40 CFR 122.45(d)(2). I know this is a global issue for
> many NC municipal permits and we are in discussions with Dave to resolve
> this.
> 2. 40 CFR 122.45(c) requires that metals in permits be expressed as
> total recoverable, unless another form is appropriate. Why aren't the
> metals in this permit expressed this way?
> 3. Pls help me understand why this permit does not contain annual
> average mass limits for total P, as well as why it doesn't contain
> annual mass and conc limits for total N. In my opinion, limiting both
> flow and total P conc is indirectly controlling mass, but not directly
> controlling it.
> thanks!
I of 1 6/20/02 2:39 PM

Re: City, of Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit No. NCO021474
Subject: Re: City of Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit No. NCO021474
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:48:01 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
This letter is in response to the draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the City of Mebane Wastewater
Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit No. NC0021474) in Alamance County. EPA has
completed its review of this draft permit and, in accordance with the EPA/
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource (NCDENR)
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the federal regulations, we provide the
following comments, and request for additional information:
1) The permit application contained no effluent data, making analysis of
Reasonable Potential impossible based on the information provided.
2) This facility discharges to a nutrient sensitive water. According to
the 1997 NC House Bill 515, discharges to such waters must have annual
mass limits, as well as concentration limits of 5.5 mg/1 TN and 2.0
mg/l TP, effective January 1, 2003.
A The rationale for the TP limit was included in the transmittal
letter to the permittee, but not in the fact sheet.
B. The permit as drafted appears to make the 2.0 mg/1 TP limit
effective immediately. This conflicts with the January 1, 2003
effective date cited above.
C. The permit does not contain mass limits for either TP or TN, nor
does it contain a TN concentration limit. This appears to
conflict with NC House Bill 515 cited above. The fact sheet should be
revised to include a rationale for these conditions in the permit.
3) 40 CFR § 122.45(d)(2) requires that POTW permits include monthly and
weekly average limits. For continuous discharges, unless
impracticable, parameters should include maximum daily and average
monthly limitations (see 40 C.F.R. §122.45(d)(1)). The current permit
does not include daily maximum limitations for seasonal NH3-N. The
fact sheet should be revised to address why the permit does not
contain a weekly average concentration limit for NH3-N.
4) Monitoring for temperature is not specified as either EC. or EF.
5) The fact sheet does not provide a rationale nor cite NC's Reasonable
Potential Procedures as a basis for deletion of limits for cadmium and
mercury, however NC's Reasonable Potential Procedures were cited in
NC's letter transmitting the draft permit to the City, but no details
are provided. NPDES regulations require that all fact sheets include a
brief summary of the basis for the draft permit conditions, including
references to applicable statutory or regulatory provisions (see 40
C.F.R. §124.8(b)(4)).
6) The fact sheet does not contain a description of the procedures for
reaching a final decision on the draft permit must include: the
beginning and ending dates for the comment period and the address
where comments will be received, procedures for requesting a hearing
and the nature of that hearing, and any other procedures by which the
public may participate in the final decision. This information is
required per Section 40 C.F.R. §124.8(b)(6).
7) Pretreatment language is required in all permits of Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) which have significant industrial users
1 of 2 12/13/01 1:38 PM

Re: City of Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit No. NCO021474
(SIUs). The fact sheet supporting the proposed permit identifies nine
(9) SIUs for this facility, but does not discuss any requirements for
pretreatment. The appropriate pretreatment language, in accordance
with 40 C.F.R. §122.44(j), is needed.
8) The permit application form provided with the draft permit was North
Carolina's own Standard Form A. This application does not provide the
effluent characteristic information required in the EPA application
Standard Form A which would be applicable to this facility. 40 C.F.R.
§122.21(a)(2)(iv) and 40 C.F.R. §123.25(a) mandate that permit
applications used by the State require at a minimum the information
required in the EPA application forms. Therefore, EPA has determined
that the application used to develop the proposed City of Mebane WWTP
permit was inadequate and a complete application including an
evaluation of effluent characteristics is needed prior to the issuance
of this permit.
Please respond to these concerns and provide copies of any revised proposed
permits and fact sheets, for EPA review, before the final permit is issued.
Thank You.
Caroline Ejimofor
NPDES and Biosolids Permits Section
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-8692
2 of 2 12/13/01 1:38 PM

Comments on the City of Mebane WWTP - NPDES permit #NC0021474:
Subject: Comments on the City of Mebane WWTP - NPDES permit #NC0021474:
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:27:28 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Comments on the City of Mebane WWTP - NPDES permit #NC0021474:
1. The permit application contained no effluent data, making analysis of RP
impossible based on the materials at hand.
2. The permit does not contain weekly average permit limits for ammonia, as
required by 40 CFR § 122.45(d)(2).
3. This facility discharges to a nutrient sensitive water. According to
the 1997 NC House Bill 515, discharges to such waters must have annual mass
limits, as well as concentration limits of 5.5 mg/1 TN and 2.0 mg/l TP,
effective January 1, 2003.
A The rationale for the TP limit was included in the transmittal letter
to the permittee, but not in the fact sheet.
B. The permit as drafted appears to make the 2.0 mg/l TP limit effective
immediately. This conflicts with the January 1, 2003 effective
date cited above.
C. The permit does not contain mass limits for either TP or TN, nor does
it contain a TN concentration limit. This appears to conflict with NC
House Bill 515 cited above. The fact sheet provides no rationale for the
lack of these conditions in the permit.
D. 40 CFR § 122.45(d)(2) requires that POTW permits include monthly and
weekly average limits. The fact sheet does not address why the permit does
not contain a weekly average TP concentration limit.
E. Monitoring for temperature is not specified as either EC. or EF.
F. The fact sheet does not provide a rationale or cite NC's Reasonable
Potential Procedures as a basis for deletion of limits for cadmium and
mercury - NC's Reasonable Potential Procedures were cited in NC's letter
transmitting the draft permit to the City, but no details are provided.
G. The fact sheet does not contain a description of the procedures for
reaching a final decision on the draft permit including: 1) the beginning
and ending dates for the comment period; 2) the address where comments will
be received; 3) procedures for requesting a hearing and the nature of that
hearing; and 4) any other procedures by which the public may participate in
the final decision. This is required by 40 CFR §124.8(b)(6).
H. The fact sheet identifies 9 significant industrial users to the WWTP,
but the permit does not contain pretreatment language as required by 40 CFR
§122.44(j) and 40 CFR §122.44(1).
Review of NC's Implementation of WET
Enforcement and SESD conducted an assessment of NC's WET laboratory on May
9, 2000. The results of that evaluation were transmitted to NC in a June
7, 2000 letter. In a July 24, 2000 response, NC indicated the changes it
was making based on EPA's review. The following is a compilation of the
unresolved issues.
1. NC's WET procedures only require the collection of 2 composite samples
for chronic tests and do not daily renew test solutions; EPA's Part 136
Method requires the collection of 3 composite samples and daily renewal of
test solutions. In its letter, EPA suggested that NC apply for an
alternative test procedure for its method under Part 136. NC has initiated
contact regarding this with Wayne Turnbull (SESD), but has not submitted a
formal package requesting this to date because EPA has not spelled out what
it needs to complete its review. This delay by EPA in part is caused by
lack of sufficient resources in HQ for review of alternate test procedures.
1 of 3 12/13/01 1:38 PM

Comments on the City of Mebane W WTP - NPDES permit #NC0021474:
2. Part 136 WET methods require the age of Pimephales promelas to be 1-14
days and a 24-hr range in age. NC did initiate a review of its procedure,
but it is not clear if it has changed its procedures to be consistent with
Part 136.
3. NC's procedures require the use of a 24-hr composite sample for acute
tests. This is not consistent with EPA's acute WET protocol, which
recommends the use of four grabs or 4 composites collected every 6 hours
and tested separately. This is also not consistent with the practices of
most other Region 4 states.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
Caroline
Ejimofor
<[e-mail]>
NC NPDES
06/04/2001
02:56 PM
To: Jackie Nowell
cc:
Subject: Re: Request for an update on
permits(Document link: Caroline Ejimofor)
Jackie,
On Thursday, May 31st, I requested (via e-mail) an extension of time to
provide comments on these two NC NPDES permits. Please give me until
Monday, the llth, to provide you comments on both of these permits. There
are some issues that have come to light regarding the issuance of both of
these permits for which I am in the process of collecting more information.
For instance, I need more documentation on deleting a permit limit because
this deletion is considered a major change to the draft permit. And as
such, the EPA/NC Memorandum of Agreement allows me the opportunity to
review the changes to the draft permit before it becomes finalized.
I shall send a formal request (signed by Roosevelt Childress, my
supervisor) for a week's extension if this is needed.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
Jackie Nowell
<jackie.nowell@n
Ejimofor/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
cmail.net>
To: Caroline
cc:
2 of 3 12/13/01 1:38 PM

Comments on the City of Mebane WWTP - NPDES permit #NC0021474:
on NC
Subject: Re: Request for an update
06/04/2001 02:27 NPDES permits
PM
Hello Caroline, the City of Graham permit is in the process of being
finalized awaiting Dave's signature. After review of the lab information
submitted by Graham, the cyanide limit is being dropped in the final
permit.
Per your comment, I have included an additional sentence about their
participation in the nutrient modeling effort.
The Mebane permit has not been finalized yet, still have to address their
comment on their TRC limit. It should be final by midweek.
[e-mail] wrote:
> Good Morning, Jackie:
> Please update me on the status of the following permits in the permitting
> process.
> - NCO021211 - City of Graham WWTP in Alamance County
> - NCO021474 - Mebane WWTP in Alamance County
> Thanks,
> Caroline Ejimofor
> Environmental Engineer
> Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
> EPA Water Management Division
> e-mail address: [e-mail]
> phone number: 404-562-9309
> fax number: 404-562-9318
3 of 3 12/13/01 1:38 PM

Re: Request for an update on NC NPDES permits
Subject: Re: Request for an update on NC NPDES permits
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:56:14 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Jackie,
On Thursday, May 31st, I requested (via e-mail) an extension of time to
provide comments on these two NC NPDES permits. Please give me until
Monday, the llth, to provide you comments on both of these permits. There
are some issues that have come to light regarding the issuance of both of
these permits for which I am in the process of collecting more information.
For instance, I need more documentation on deleting a permit limit because
this deletion is considered a major change to the draft permit. And as
such, the EPA/NC Memorandum of Agreement allows me the opportunity to
review the changes to the draft permit before it becomes finalized.
I shall send a formal request (signed by Roosevelt Childress, my
supervisor) for a week's extension if this is needed.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
Jackie Nowell
<jackie.nowell@n
Ejimofor/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
cmail.net>
on NC
06/04/2001 02:27
PM
To: Caroline
cc:
Subject: Re: Request for an update
NPDES permits
Hello Caroline, the City of Graham permit is in the process of being
finalized awaiting Dave's signature. After review of the lab information
submitted by Graham, the cyanide limit is being dropped in the final
permit.
Per your comment, I have included an additional sentence about their
participation in the nutrient modeling effort.
The Mebane permit has not been finalized yet, still have to address their
comment on their TRC limit. It should be final by midweek.
[e-mail] wrote:
> Good Morning, Jackie:
> Please update me on the status of the following permits in the permitting
> process.
> - NCO021211 - City of Graham WWTP in Alamance County
> - NCO021474 - Mebane WWTP in Alamance County
1 of 2 12/ 13/01 1:37 PM

Re: Request for an update on NC NPDES permits
> Thanks,
> Caroline Ejimofor
> Environmental Engineer
> Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
> EPA Water Management Division
> e-mail address: [e-mail]
> phone number: 404-562-9309
> fax number: 404-562-9318
2 of 12/13/0) 1:37 PM

Re: 21474 transmittal letter
Subject: Re: 21474 transmittal letter
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:58:54 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Thank you, Jackie.
This answers a lot of the questions I had about this permit.
I intend to print your e-mail to add to the administrative file on this
permit because it clears up a lot of possible questions.
Please endeavor to add a comment in the permit and/or fact sheet on the
matter pertaining the compliance extensions to House Bill 515 (by Senate
Bill 1366). This is necessary for outside entities to follow the logic of
the permit's content (or in this case, lack of content). The permit and/or
fact sheet should explicitly state that these municipalities are working
with seven other municipalities on a calibrated nutrient response model. It
should be stated within the permit and/or fact sheet that these nine cities
will not receive mass based nutrient limits in their permit until the model
has been completed and reviewed. Thank You.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
jackie.nowell@
ncmail.net
05/31/2001
02:43 PM
Please respond
to
jackie.nowell
To: Caroline Ejimofor/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
cc:
Subject: 21474 transmittal letter
Caroline, the attached transmittal letter does not clearly state this,
but Mebane and Graham were granted compliance extensions to House Bill
515 (by Senate Bill 1366) and are working with seven other
municipalities on a calibrated nutrient response model. These nine
cities will not receive mass based nutrient limits in their permit until
the model has been completed and reviewed. The model results are due
April 2002. Existing concentration based TP limits of 2 mg/l are in
both permits.
I assumed that since both cities were aware of their status, I did not
have to repeat it in their letters. However, I will add an additional
sentence to make it clear in the final permit letter.
(See attached file: 121474 draft.doc)
1 of 2 5/31 /01 3:27 PM

Re: Request for update on two permits
Subject: Re: Request for update on two permits
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:53:28 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Jackie:
RE: NCO021474 - Mebane WWTP in Alamance County
The draft permit was sent with a transmittal letter explaining that the
effluent limitations for cadmium and mercury would be dropped based on an
evaluation of the reasonable potential analysis. This reasonable potential
analysis was not provided in the fact sheet for this facility. Please
transmit the RPA so that I could see the basis for dropping the effluent
limitations for cadmium and mercury.
Also since the Mebane WWTP discharges to NSW, limits for total nitrogen and
total phosphorus should be placed in the permit. Or the permit should
indicate a measure (within the permit and/or fact sheet) considerate of the
nutrient sensitive water (NSW) status of MoAdams Creek.
Also some of the notes on the transmittal letter should be included in the
permit and/or fact sheet.
RE: NCO021211 - City of Graham WWTP in Alamance County
The draft permit was sent with a transmittal letter explaining that
effluent limitations for cyanide would be added based on an evaluation of
the Long Term Monitoring Plan and reasonable potential analysis. This
reasonable potential analysis was not provided in the fact sheet for this
facility. Please transmit the RPA and LTMP so that I could see the basis
for adding the effluent limitation for cyanide.
Also please note that if significant changes are made to the transmitted
draft permit, EPA requests that we be afforded an additional review
opportunity.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
Caroline
Ejimofor
<[e-mail]>
05/30/2001
02:37 PM
To: Jackie Nowell
CC:
Subject: Re: Request for update on two
permits.(Document link: Caroline Ejimofor)
Jackie,
If a reasonable potential analysis was done for either of these two
permits,
please submit the RPA(s) to me via e-mail or fax [phone]) for my
administrative records.
Thank you.
1 of 3 12/13/01 1:37 PM

Re: Request for update on two permits
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
Jackie Nowell
<jackie.nowell@n To:
Ejimofor/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
cmail.net> cc:
Subject:
two
05/30/2001 11:56 permits.
AM
Caroline
Re: Request for update on
Caroline, NC0021211(City of Graham) and NCO021474 (City of Mebane) have not
been issued yet although the comment periods for both have passed ( May
llth
for Graham and April 28th for Mebane). Both municipalities submitted
written
comments and I am in the process of responding to them. Hopefully I will
forward the final permits to Dave at the end of this week or the first of
the
next.
[e-mail] wrote:
> Jackie:
> Please update me on the status of the following permits in the permitting
> process.
> - NCO021211
> - NCO021474
> I need to know their proposed schedule of reissuance.
> Specifically, I want to know if my allowed comment period for these
permits
> has expired.
> Thanks,
> Caroline Ejimofor
> Environmental Engineer
> Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
> EPA Water Management Division
> e-mail address: [e-mail]
> phone number: 404-562-9309
> fax number: 404-562-9318
2 of 3 12/13/01 1:37 PM

Re: Request for update on two permits.
Subject: Re: Request for update on two permits.
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:17:12 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Jackie,
I need to request an extension for my review of these permits. I have some
concerns about the information provided in the transmittal letter with the
draft permit. Please call me to discuss.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
Jackie Nowell
<jackie.nowell@n To: Caroline
Ejimofor/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
cmail.net> cc:
Subject: Re: Request for update on
two
05/30/2001 11:56 permits.
AM
Caroline, NC0021211(City of Graham) and NCO021474 (City of Mebane) have not
been issued yet although the comment periods for both have passed ( May
llth
for Graham and April 28th for Mebane). Both municipalities submitted
written
comments and I am in the process of responding to them. Hopefully I will
forward the final permits to Dave at the end of this week or the first of
the
next.
[e-mail] wrote:
> Jackie:
> Please update me on the status of the following permits in the permitting
> process.
> - MC0021211
> - NC0021474
> I need to know their proposed schedule of reissuance.
> Specifically, I want to know if my allowed comment period for these
permits
> has expired.
> Thanks,
> Caroline Ejimofor
> Environmental Engineer
> Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
I of 2 12/ 13/01 1:36 PM

Re: Request for update on two permits.
Subject: Re: Request for update on two permits.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:37:12 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Jackie Nowell [e-mail]>
Jackie,
If a reasonable potential analysis was done for either of these two
permits,
please submit the RPA(s) to me via e-mail or fax [phone]) for my
administrative records.
Thank you.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
Jackie Nowell
<jackie.nowell@n To:
Ejimofor/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
cmail.net> cc:
Subject:
two
05/30/2001 11:56 permits.
AM
Caroline
Re: Request for update on
Caroline, NC0021211(City of Graham) and NCO021474 (City of Mebane) have not
been ,issued yet although the comment periods for both have passed ( May
llth
for Graham and April 28th for Mebane). Both municipalities submitted
written
comments and I am in the process of responding to them. Hopefully I will
forward the final permits to Dave at the end of this week or the first of
the
next.
[e-mail] wrote:
> Jackie:
> Please update me on the status of the following permits in the permitting
> process.
> - NCO021211
> - NCO021474
> I need to know their proposed schedule of reissuance.
> Specifically, I want to know if my allowed comment period for these
permits
> has expired.
> Thanks,
> Caroline Ejimofor
> Environmental Engineer
1 of 2 12/13/01 1:36 PM

Request for update on two permits.
Subject: Request for update on two permits.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:12:34 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Jackie:
Please update me on the status of the following permits in the permitting
process.
- NCO021211
- NCO021474
I need to know their proposed schedule of reissuance.
Specifically, I want to know if my allowed comment period for these permits
has expired.
Thanks,
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
1 of 1 12/13/01 1:36 PM

Update.on status of NPDES NC permits
Subject: Update on status of NPDES NC permits
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:24:43 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Charles Weaver <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Good Morning,
Please update me on the status of the following 4 NPDES permits:
NC0000299 - BASE Corporation - Enka Plant;
NCO021211 - Graham City - Gilbreath Street;
NCO021474 - City of Mebane WWTP; and
NCO024881 - City of Reidsville WWTP.
I, basically, want to know if these permits have been issued and what is
the proposed schedule of issuance.
I do have a few major comments to render on these permits. Please call me
at your convenience to discuss.
Thank You.
Caroline Ejimofor
Environmental Engineer
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
EPA Water Management Division
e-mail address: [e-mail]
phone number: 404-562-9309
fax number: 404-562-9318
1 of 1 12/13/01 1:36 PM

•Rob,IL Wilson
Clry Manager
Glmdel .Stephenson
Akn'r
Cu rzil
Ed Harks_ Afapur Pm Inn
are Bore:en
rim Bradley
Bob Hupman
Henry Johns
(.Litu of 41fiEiTum
106 E. Washington Street
Mebane, N.C. 27302
[phone]
April 4, 2001
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit
NCDENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Draft NPDES Permit
Permit No. NCO021474
Mebane WWTP
Alamance County
Dear Ms. Nowell:
I want to thank you for taking time to talk with me about our draft permit.
Below are some of our concerns about the permit:
Total Residual Chlorine
The City is looking into converting to UV treatment shortly.
Elaine J. Hicks
A.cr. A4gr.R'iry Clerk1F,,., OIPnr
Jaekie Mo.
im CoOennr
Gary aumgarner
('hleJrd`Potlee
Jiminy lobe
Public Work. Uirc "irlbire Chief
Mike Hite
Wind, Treammnr Dbenor
Dean Ray
R—s-,,diorr & Park. Uirecmr
The 17pg/I number is an action level for toxic substances and not a permit limit,
unless the WWTP effluent is toxic and TRC is the cause of the toxicity. The 17
pg/I applies only to trout waters.
The plant is passing toxicity testing.
A 17pg/I limit with a detection level of 100Ng/I would be inconsistent with 15A
NCAC 2B. 0505 (d) (4).
We request that TRC be a monitoring requirement, with no permit limit, with a
specified detection level of 100 pg/I.
Mercury
With only monitoring requirements for Mercury, a statement should be added that
the detection level of Mercury is 0.2 pg/I for the duration of the permit.
r' I, -. I ....,.1 :.. IQ 0 1

Instream Monitoring for fecal coliforms
In the cover letter it was stated "Instream fecal coliform monitoring will be
discontinued based on revised DWQ procedure." In section A. (2) INSTREAM
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Fecal Coliform is still present and needs to be
removed.
Additional instream temperature monitoring needs to added where the fecal
coliform was eliminated.
Cyanide
The high effluent cyanide result in November 1999 may have been caused by an
inference.
Please refer to the attached letter from Water Technology and Controls, now
Meritech, about problems with that sample.
The last effluent sample with detectible cyanide was October 1993.
We ask that the cyanide monitoring requirements be deleted from the permit.
This is consistent with our current permit.
Daily Sampling
The permit was changed to daily sampling for BOD, Total Suspended Solids, and
Ammonia as required by regulations, however a sampler failure or a dropped
sample bottle would be a violation of the permit.
Is there any allowance for human or mechanical error?
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (919)-563-
6141.
Sincerely,
F�-
Michael Hite
Wastewater Director
Cc: Robert Wilson

APR. 5.2001 10:32AM P 1
FROM : Panasonic PPF
WATER TECHNOLOGY AND CONTROLS, INC.
Water Treatment Chemistries & Environmental Laboratory
Mr. Mike Hite
City of Mebane WWTP
106 E. Washington St.
Mebane, NC 27302
Dear -Mr. Hite:
Post-ir Fax Note
7
December 15, 1999
t
da
Frain
Co. Gi Obi m Q,
Phone # L�`/G J � 3 0, / V,!
You asked me last week to check the details of analysis of your plant effluent
grab sample collected on November 16, 1999, for which we reported a Total Cyanide
value of 0.030 mg/I. I talked with the analyst and found that there was in fact something
unusual about the analysis that had not been noted on the report sent to you.
When that sample and an accompanying influent sample were received on
November 16th, their pH's were checked to be sure they were at least 12, and it was noted
on thefihain of Custody that they were satisfactoryin this regard: However, when the
analyst doing the Cyanide test checked the pH of these two•satnples.on November 17th
she found the pH of the effluent sample was only 7.0, whereas the pH of the influent
sample was at least 12.
I cannot account for this difference in the two reported pH values for this efluent
sample, but the pH of 7.0 noted just prior to analysis indicates that the sample was not
adequately preserved' We have taken several actions as a result of this finding. First, in
case the bottle we sent you for collection of that cyanide sample had not been given a
proper amount of sodium hydroxide preservative, we have reminded the person preiaaring
our sample bottle kits how important it is that each and every bottle receives correct.
preservation. Secondly, along the same line, in case the 12 pellets of sodium hydroxide
we have been adding recently to each liter cyanide sample bottle are not always enough
to guarantee that the sample pH will be raised to 12 or above, we have begun to add 25
pellets per bottle. Thirdly, regarding the initial measurement of pH on receipt of samples
here, we have spoken to the person responsible for this task and have emphasized how
important it is to make and record this measurement accurately, so that if a pH is not
proper we can immediately contact the client and arrange for re -sampling. Finally, we
have reminded the cyanide analyst that it is important that she bring to our attention
quickly any instance in which a sample is found before analysis to have a pH below 12.
Tn summary, the fact that, ai analysis, the pH of your effluent sample was below,
12 and thus did not meet a method requirement' is a significant qualification on the result;
though we have no way of knowing whether it did or did not influence the r
nj�
Offices:106-A South Walnut Circle • P.O. Box 8808 • Greensboro, NC 27419 • [phone]
Laboratory: 642 Tamco Road • Reidsville, NC 27320 9 [phone]

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
A7i
mT/ADIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 'vr
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
KERR T. STEVENS
DIRECTOR
P.O. BOX 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-OS35
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLE0/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

APR. 5.2001 10:39RM P 2
FROM Panasonic PPF
WATER TECHNOLOGY AND CONTROLS, INC.
1 water Treatment Chemistries & Environmental Laboratory
While it is impossible to re -analyze that sample, we want you to know that we have a
continuing, on -going concern with quality control at our laboratory and will give your
samples the best possible attention in the future. Please call me at [phone] if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Maurice liZghan
Laboratory Supervisor
MV/pg
Offices:106-A South Walnut Circle • P.O. Box 8808 • Greensboro, NC 27419 • [phone]
Laboratory: 642 Tamco Road • Reidsville, NC 27320 • [phone]

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
AM`
NCDENR
JAMCS B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE McDEVITf
SECRETARY
KERR T. STEVENS
DIRECTOR
P.O. Box 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

FROM ' Panasonic PPF
DEC.17.2001
1:32PM P 1
DEC-iA-2901 11:35 FROM
Background
DEN WRTER OUPL.ITY SECTION To
AMENDMENT TO NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
8919563loQ7
In mid-2001 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees North Carohna's
NPDES permit program, determined that the state's application form for major municipcl
dischargers is inadequate. The EPA indicated that the form does not require a summary of the
applicant's wastewater characteristics, as EPA's standard form does, and does not
provide the necessary public record for permit issuance. Since July 2001, EPA has objected to
the issuance of approximately forty permit renewals o ttil the pernaittees provide complete
applications.
In recent discussions with the Division of Water Quality, the EPA recently agreed that the
Division may provide the monitoring information on each perminee's behalf rather, than require
the facilities to complete new applications. The pemtittees have already submittec{ dlschatga
monitoring reports (i)MRs) , alder the terms of their NFDES permits, and the Division
can easily prodttce s minanes for each facilty. However, the Division does not have the legal
authority to amend a facility's application; each permittee must give its consent in order for the
Division to submit this information on its behalf. North Carolina will provide a summary of
discharge monitoring reports as additional documentation to ensure the record is complete.
The statement below is designed to give the Division the authority to submit this data on behalf
of the permitter for this one instance. Other than signing the statement below, no further
action, will be required on the part of the permit holder. Furthermore, this will not
change the substance of the draft permit already issued by the Division.
PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THE VOLLOWING STATEMENT AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. TILTS STATEMENT WILL CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL PERMIT
AMENDMENT. In order to expedite the renewal of your peanut, please fax the signed
form to (9I9)-733-0719 and send the original to:
NCDENR/DWQINPDES UNIT
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Cortification of Permit Application Amendment
"I certify that this informmtion, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is true, complete, and
accurate. This information, including any data provided, amends the current application for
reissuance of NPDES permit number NC0021474 submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, on January 20, 2WO."
/t)"ke A�-
5rt, nature of Pcmut Bolder pace
TOTAL P,02

[Fwd: Residual Chlorine]
Subject: [Fwd: Residual Chlorine]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:36:11 -0400
From: Shannon Langley <[e-mail]
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Connie Brower wrote:
Mr. Mike Hite
Mebane WWTP Laboratory
Mebane, NC
Dear Mike;
1,41 eoyn y -�,4+, w/141
yt /ft&~ lvw. ��itnl
_ wf�z� �•-�rrl
In reference to your phone call yesterday, I wanted to again reiterate that until the proper equipment is
purchased to achieve the low levels required by the Town of Mebane's permit, you must use approved
methodology to report at the level that is currently achievable - with the equipment available. The
"process control" procedure outlined in the memo from Coleen Sullins is not acceptable for reporting
purposes. It can not be used for any monitoring and reporting pursuant to NPDESpermit
requirements. I have spoken to both Shannon Langley and Mike Mickey concerning the Town's
desire to get the proper equipment, as always, our sections will be glad to help with information and
guidance, we can not, however, make the decision of what equipment must be purchased to meet your
needs. We suggest that you contact persons involved with the LAB network groups who may have
already purchased successfully usable equipment for additional information, and in addition, check
with vendors for "satisfied customers" to (hopefully) assure that the Town's funds are used wisely.
Let me know if we can be of further assistance. Your facility is not alone in this process ... if you obtain
information that could be used by others, please let me know and I will (with your permission) have
other inquirers to contact you directly.
Sincerely,
Connie Brower
Shannon Langley <shannon.langley(a ncmail.nev
1 of 1 5/2/01 12:19 PM

[Fwd: Mebane -residual chlorine]
Subject: [Fwd: Mebane -residual chlorine]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:35:32 -0400
From: Shannon Langley <[e-mail]>
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Connie Brower wrote:
> Just to keep you all informed - the City of Mebane has, again, contacted
> me with alternative test procedures proposed for the residual chlorine.
> This time the claim (from Linda Holt) is that they have severe (to the
> tune of 60$) matrix interference from SO4. (i.e. if they spike the
> samples with a standard they can retrieve only 40-9 of the added
> component). The issue as stated would be alarming - however, this
> measured loss is performed by an instrument NOT capable of reading to
> this accuracy (using significant figures) - so, I have told her to send
> me the information, because it appears that they are still going to NOT
> pursue the proper instrumentation purchase. I have not heard of this
> issue (interference) from them before, and questioned why the permit
> limit was not challenged before now if such an issue existed. She could
> not answer...
> I am not a plant operator - and can not defend nor fully deny these
> comments of interference.. could any of you help me with this issue? I
> have reiterated to her the State's position on the need to purchase
> equipment that can satisfy the permit limits.
> Thanks
> Connie
Shannon Langley <shannon.langley(cr ncmail.net>
1 of 1 5/2/01 12:17 PM

[Fwd: Chlorine issues/01G report]
Subject: [Fwd: Chlorine issues/OIG report]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:36:27 -0400
From: Shannon Langley <[e-mail]>
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Connie Brower wrote:
Shannon -
As we discussed, -- some things that I have corrected may not be on the "right track". I have checked
(extremely quickly and by no means thoroughly) - I don't believe that the electrode method will reach
the "low" level. Also, I could not verify that the iodometric II method could reach it. Please read
carefully, as I told you - I may not have understood where we were going with some statements. Call if
you need to ... Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays >>> Connie
Chlorine: There are two EPA approved methods that are appropriate for low-level Total Residual
Chlorine (amperometric and DPD colorimetric) These are capable of quantifying chlorine at levels of
less than 0.050 mg/L. The practical achievable reporting limit (detection/reporting issue?) for these
methods is between 0.020 and 0.030 mg/L. Under ideal conditions the manufacturers state that 0.010
mg/L can be detected, but do not qualify precision and accuracy at that concentration. With good
technique, a 0.015 ug/L is feasible. North Carolina NPDES permits state the permittee must use the
best available technology to achieve the set requirements of the permit. One of the above methods
must be chosen and used in conjunction with a measurement device capable of displaying the
measurement to the best available level.
Most meters used for colorimetric analyses only display two decimal places in the mg/L range. This
makes it impossible to distinguish between 0.013 and 0.017 mg/L. These numbers are routinely
identified as the maximum levels set in some permits. < Is this referring to the new equipment or
field? New spectrophotometric equipment CAN read and does read to three decimals. The field
equipment does not typically read but to two decimals as stated. >
One manufacturer has a system that, theoretically, can determine concentrations of residual chlorine to
less than 0.015(?) mg/L. Special handling of wastewater samples must be performed in order to
achieve such levels. < I would not want to state that technology is available to the less than 0.010
range... I'm not sure the statement is a defensible one, with or without special treatment. > In order
that most people reach below --30 - 50 ?g/L, the special equipment would be needed. The issue is
complicated by matrix, technique, etc. Without this special treatment a value of about 0.050 mg/L is
a reasonable expectation.
< This low level DPD system would provide the most accurate numbers when set up in a permanent
laboratory, or mobile laboratory set-up to handle the special care, equipment and power source
required by the procedure. > The necessary equipment requires a capital outlay of about 2500 to
4500 dollars. < I have not verified nor documented the cost. I do know that my last lab paid — 6000
dollars, the instrument is capable ofdetermining other analytes, and they took that option. >
North Carolina has agreed to immediately begin requiring permittees to use one of the above
mentioned sensitive methods, along with the required meter or other measuring equipment to more
closely achieve their permit limits.
Mercury: EPA has provided DENR with a list of laboratories which have agreed to accept samples for
analysis. < Note: per the State regulations, these labs must be certified with us to report them.>
DENR has agreed to require the use of Method 1631 as permits are renewed. In the meantime, DENR
will sample for mercury at all facilities in subbasins of streams listed as threatened by mercury
pollution Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Region 4 has agreed to perform the analyses of these
samples for DENR.
1 of 2 5/2/01 12:20 PM

[Fwd: Chlorine issues/OIG report]
Shannon - I know that this was not mentioned here, but, I would like to mention that we (the State) are
still struggling with implementation of the "Clean Air Act' ban on the use of Freon. As noted above,
is, or can action be taken to phase in the 1664 Method for Oil and Grease by writing it in to the
permits, as they are modified? The old method EPA 413.1 is still acceptable, and many labs do not
want to switch to the new hexane (1664) method because (mostly) they fear the additional QC
required. Needless to say generally speaking, more QC, more work .... Better data -probably,
maybe... learning curve you know. It is a frequently asked question.
Shannon Langley <shannon.langley(a�ncmail.nev
2 of 2 5/2/01 12:20 PM

Mebane WWTP.
Subject: Mebane WWTP.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:06:04 -0500
From: Mike Mickey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hi Jackie,
I see from the spreadsheet Charles W. sent that you are handling
Mebane's renewal (NC0021474). Please note that Mebane is a Grade 4
facility. Their monitoring frequencies should be increased to "daily"
at renewal. For some reason, the old permit only required "3/week"
monitoring. Please revise the draft accordingly.
Also, we have been arguing with Mebane for some time over their method
detection limit and testing method for Total Residual Chlorine. Per
Coleen's 3/8/01 memo, Mebane current procedure is not approved for
effluent monitoring. If need be, can WSRO request that a clause be
added to the permit requiring Mebane to purchase adequate laboratory
equipment in a reasonable time period for determining compliance with
the 17 ug/l TRC limit
Thanks, Mike.
Mike Mickey <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist II
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wf/to tz
ate.... •�- f,.�- �- >� �,
you IiA, AIJ gyp.
�
RSA 4fon-qg9 %
G oy op
C i> rJGZ.
-flr� m tic
yob yUOwl � a 11 a 4 1hol e h0Z° uM f
loft
3/15/01 9:14 AM

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
MAR - 8 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Water Quality Re ' nal upervisors
From: Coleen Sullins
Subject: Total Residual Chlorine Monitoring
�Gr,nsn
1�
i
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of this memo is to provide general guidance regarding the monitoring for
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) in effluent and describe the Division's future direction in this
matter.
North Carolina has hundreds of NPDES permitted facilities that are required to monitor
for TRC. Many of them have permit limits for this parameter, typically set at either 17 or 28µgA.
The EPA has approved two methods for low-level TRC analyses; the amperometric (titration)
method and the DPD Colorimetric method. The amperometric method is a classic chemistry
analysis performed in a laboratory setting. Larger facilities with on -site laboratories frequently
use this method and achieve reliable, low-level results of their testing.
The vast majority of permitted facilities with TRC limits are small and/or have no on -site
laboratory. Because TRC must be analyzed within 15 minutes of sample collection due to its
volatile nature, these facilities are not able to send these samples out for analysis at a commercial
lab. They must rely on some son of field technique, which will typically utilize the DPD
colorimetric method. The most commonly used field instrument is a hand-held meter,
sometimes described as a pocket colorimeter. Under optimal effluent conditions and assuming
conscientious preparation and operation, this instrument may yield accurate results at
concentrations of less than 100 µg/1; however, this is not felt to be the norm. The 100 µg/1 level
is generally considered to be the reliable low end of analysis using such instrumentation.
Furthermore, the resolution on these instruments is only precise to tens of micrograms, meaning
that even if it were accurate in a very low range, it could not distinguish between concentrations
of, for example, 13 µg/1 and 18µg/l.
1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Please note that if a facility has no effluent limit for TRC (just a monitoring requirement),
this instrumentation and the reporting of <I00 µgA as a TRC value is fine and completely within
the rules. But for those facilities with an effluent limit for chlorine, the hand-held meter is an
inadequate device for demonstrating compliance with the permit limit. However, there are other
portable instruments available that have the capability of analyzing TRC in the range of 10 — 15
µg1l. While this may be an optimistic expectation, it is certain that, all things being equal, these
instruments are able to reliably analyze TRC to levels much lower than can be achieved by the
hand-held, pocket colorimetric meter.
In the past, the Division has been reluctant to require facilities to use a field instrument
other than the pocket colorimeter. The Division had weighed the potential benefits of use of a
portable spectrophotometer versus the expense that would be home by permittees and until
recently, did not feel the change was justified. However, we have recently reevaluated our
position. We have determined that in the interest of overall program equity, to ensure water
quality protection, and to comply with 15A NCAC 2B .0505(d)(4), the Division will require all
facilities with TRC limits to utilize a field instrument that will measure TRC concentrations to
the lowest attainable levels.
The Division realizes that implementation of this directive will not be without difficulty
on the part of our permittees. They will have to evaluate and purchase instruments and become
both educated and proficient in their use. And while these instruments are advertised as portable,
they may have to prepare special on -site facilities to ensure their most reliable operation. For
these reasons, permittees will not be required to use the more sensitive instruments until July 1,
2002.
In the meantime, the Division will initiate campaigns to communicate this new directive
and to educate permittees as to its implications. We welcome your prompt advice and comments
regarding how best to accomplish these tasks. Until this occurs, you may share this
memorandum with affected permittees so they may begin to work toward compliance with the
rule. Please use caution, however, in communicating this change to permittees. For example,
although it is approved, the low-level DPD colorimetric method may not be suitable for facilities
that discharge a colored effluent. In such cases, use of the amperometric method may be more
appropriate. Facilities with questions about which method to use for effluent TRC analysis
should conduct adequate research in to the matter before purchasing new equipment.
There is another increasingly brought up, chlorine related matter that needs to be
addressed at this time. A memorandum from the EPA's Region IV lab that has found its way
into general circulation proposes the use of an alternate sampling procedure for TRC. In
summary, it calls for taking samples of wastewater after the chlorine contact chamber (but before
dechlorination) and from the final effluent. A TRC value is obtained from the first wastewater
sample, then equal volumes of the wastewater and the final effluent are mixed and that volume is
tested for TRC. If the TRC value of the mixture is one-half or less the value of the first
wastewater value, the effluent is deemed to have no residual chlorine. A TRC value is calculated
from the data if the second test value is greater than one-half of the first. The stated advantage of
this procedure is that it can generate a low-level value while the actual analyses stay within the
reliable range of the pocket colorimeter.

The Division's position is that such a procedure is not acceptable for TRC monitoring
and reporting pursuant to NPDES permit requirements. Quite frankly, it does not constitute a
sampling of the effluent, and therefore cannot represent the same. And while problems may
occur under normal sampling protocol, this procedure introduces more opportunities for
sampling and statistical error. Should any permittee inquire about use of this procedure for
NPDES monitoring and reporting, the request should be denied. However, this does not mean
the procedure is not potentially useful. We see this as a very good process control technique that
can help ensure adequate disinfection of wastewater and at the same time it can help permittees
economize on their use of treatment chemicals. The procedure may potentially address long-
standing questions about process control sampling for this parameter, but it cannot be used for
effluent reporting.
If you have any questions about these matters, please contact Shannon Langley at (919)
733-5083,extension 516.
Attachments
cc: Tommy Stevens
Greg Thorpe
Coleen Sullins
Steve Tedder
Dennis Ramsey
Bill Reid
Technical Assistance & Certification Unit

Reporting Rules
There are a number of applicable rules associated with this subject. The most pertinent
are:
15A NCAC 2B .0505 (d) (4
This rule states that permittees shall use approved methods for the collection, preservation and
analysis of samples taken pursuant to NPDES program requirements. More specifically, the rule
also states: "All test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the
permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported to the approved detection
level or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are determined capable
of achieving detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the
approved method with the lowest detection and reporting levels must be used."
15A NCAC 2B .0505 (d) (5
This Rule states that analyses made of samples taken pursuant to NPDES permit requirements
must be performed by certified laboratories.
15A NCAC 2B .0506 (b) (2) (I)
The results of all tests on the characteristics of the effluent, including but not limited to NPDES
Permit Monitoring Requirements, shall be reported on monthly report forms.
15A NCAC 2H .0800
Facilities may be exempted from certified laboratory requirements for the analysis of up to three
parameters. Written requests for the exemption will be considered by the State Laboratory on a
case by case basis.

MONITORING CHLORINE AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Mike Birch, Chemist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Laboratory Evaluation & Quality Control Section
Athens, GA 30605-2720
Phone [phone]/Fax [phone]-
.?$.s-8s3x .sss- Po•rp
Since about 1970, much attention has been focused on the toxic effects of
chlorinated effluents. Both free available chlorine (FAC) and monochioramine
residuals (CAC) are toxic to fish and aquatic animals, reportedly at
concentrations as low as 0.002 mg/L. Thus, dechlorination Is being required In
many of the new NPDES permits to levels of 0.005.0.03 mg/L. The exception is
South Carolina with a final limit of 0.1 mg/L.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas is used in the dechlorination process. The gas solubility
In water is about 16.6% at 0°C; it rapidly dissolves to form a weak solution of
sulfurous acid, H2S03.
H2SOa < --- > H' + HS03-
HS03' < --- > H' + S0; 2
The solubility of S02 in water decreases at elevated temperatures. Sodium sulfite
(Na2S03), sodium bisulfite (NaHS03), and sodium metabisulfite (NaS208) are also
used in the dechlorination process. On dissolution in water, these salts produce
the same active ion, sulfite (S032).
Dechlorination Reactions
Free and combined chlorine residuals can be effectively reduced by sulfur
dioxide, sulfites, and several other dechlorination materials, The sulfite Ion
reacts rapidly with FAC and CAC; It does not, however, effectively dechlorinate
organic chloramines or chloro-organics.
SOY' +HOCI--> SO42+Cl- +H'
(FAC)
S0; 2 + NH2Ci + H2O --> SO4*2 + Cl- + NH4'
(monochloroamine)
The reactions yield small amounts of acidity, which is neutralized by the alkalinity
of the wastewater (2.8 mg of alkalinity es CaCO3 per milligram of chlorine
reduced). The mass ratio of S032 to available chlorine is 0.9:1. Actual practice,
however, indicates the requirement to be nearer 1.1;1.

Sulfur dioxide salts and sulfite salts can also react with dissolved oxygen (DO) to
produce sulfates. This leads to a reduction in dissolved oxygen In the effluent
and, possibly, In the receiving stream as well. Deoxygenation can be'satisfactory
combated by a reaeration process (e.l. cascades).
Several permits in Florida and the other southeast states have monitoring
requirements for maintaining a total residual chlorine (TRC) concentration of 0.5
mg/L in the chlorine contact chamber as well as final limits mentioned previously.
Many of the plants add extra S02 to ensure complete reduction of the TRC In the
final effluent. This may have some detrimental effects on the DO and the
alkalinity from overkill to avoid compliance violations of TRC. Many of the permit
limits for TRC are written at or just above the method detection limit (MDL) for the
approved methods listed in 40 CFR 136.3 Table 1B. The amperometric, DPD
colorimetric or the specific ion electrode methods do not provide adequate
sensitivity or resolution at the permit limits. The relative standard deviation
(RSD) for all the methods below 0.1 mg1L TRC ranges from 10 to 110 percent as
the concentration approaches the MDL of the respective method. Until an
approved method having better sensitivity which allows the analyst to determine
the TRC concentration with a "good" precision is developed the following
approach may be used to monitor TRC and/or S0, concentrations in
environmental samples from wastewater treatment plants. This approach should
accomplish several things:
Improve monitoring by measuring the TRC at a concentration where there
is better sensitivity and a lower RSD.
2. Reduce the amount of S02 used for dechlorinating purposes by providing a
back door approach for monitoring and realizing a savings in chemicals.
3. Prevent lowering of the DO and alkalinity cause by adding excessive
amounts of SO2.
4. Improve the quality of data reported to the regulatory agencies.
5. Strengthen the decision making process for the action level of
compliance/enforcement proceedings.
Disadvantages are:
1. Additional costs for pormittees that are not required to monitor TRC in the
chlorine contact basin. The analyst would have to conduct an additional
analysis each time to report the final TRC concentration.
2. Lack of adequate resolution could be a problem if the standard deviation at

the concentration of interest is greater than the minimum difference in two
sample concentrations that can be distinguisheci with a 95%, confidence.
3. Implementation of the proposal In the environmental community if
accepted as a valid approach.
A flow chart of the proposal is given in Diagram 1. The proposal is as follows:
1. Grab samples are collected prior to dechlorination (at the effluent of
chlorine contact basin or Just prior to dechlorination (Sample A)] and after
dechlorination (Sample B) which should correspond to the final effluent
monitoring point. This technique is valid as long as the matrix of the two
points were not altered by an interference added from another waste
stream entering between sample A and B, or by exceeding the holding
time.
2. Equal volume aliquots are taken from Samples A and B and mixed by
Inversion in a container with as small a headspace as possible to avoid
loss of chlorine by aeration. This constitutes Sample C. Note: Demand
free glassware must be used. If the amperometric or electrode technique
were used, the aliquots (A & B) are measured with a graduated cylinder,
poured into a beaker and stirred gently without turbulence as the test is
conducted.
3. Determine the TRC of Samples A and C.
Note: This Is analytically sound, as the method of standard additions is a
widely used approach to validate the concentration of an analyte. In this
case, the standard being added is the chlorine in Sample A. Using a
dilution of this sample matrix with water from Sample B, which should have
the same matrix and the chlorine demand satisfied, the recovery of the TRC
can be determined. The resulting mixture, Sample C, should have a
concentration of TRC that is 112 of that found In Sample A assuming
Sample B is zero (0.0). Example: Suppose the TRC concentration was 0.5
m91L at Sample A and zero 110.0" mg/L at Sample B. The concentration in
the mixture C would be 0.25 mg/L when equal volumes are taken. Instead
of conducting the analysis at or near the MDL on a sample collected at
Sample C, tha analyst would analyze Sample C, and the value obtained
would be near the midpoint of the standard curve or concentration range
where the sensitivity and the resolution would be the greatest and the
uncertainty (error of measurement) would be the lowest. Another
advantage of analyzing mixture C is the precision or RSD at 0.25 mg/L
would be approximately ± 10 percent; whereas, trying to measure TRC near
the MDL, the expected RSD would be much higher (could approach 110
percent).

4. If excess S02 were added, the analyst would expect to find In Sample C
less than half of the TRC found in Sample A. From this the analyst can
deduce that the final concentration In Sample B was less than the permit
limit (provided the colorimeter or electrode had been properly calibrated
with a series of standards in the range of 0.05 to 2.0 mg/L, or if the
amperometric method were used, the titrant had been standardized). This
would be no problem, as proper calibration Is required in Table IB for the
respective approved method as stipulated in 40 CFR 136. For Instance, if
the resulting value were 0.20 mg/L, then the TRC In Sample B would be
obtained by multiplying the mg/L found In Sample C by 2, and subtracting
the mg/L found in Sample A.
TRC mg/L at B = [C * 2) - A
If C = 0.20 mg/L and A = 0.50 mg/L;
then, the TRC at Sample B = (0.20 * 2) - 0.50 = -0.04 The .0.04 mg/L Is
negative due to the extra S02 added. The TRC for Sample B sm 0.0
mg/L and would be reported as a < MDL. For reporting the results on
the DMR, a NODI = B would be placed In the concentration block
and in the comments section the MDL would be given.
If insufficient S02 were added, the analyst would expect to find In Sample C
greater than half (> A/2) of the concentration found In Sample A. For
instance, if the resulting value were 0.27 mg/L, then the TRC In Sample B
would be obtained by multiplying the mg/L found In Sample C by 2, and
subtracting the mg/L found in Sample A.
TRC mg/L at B = [C * 2] - A
If C = 0.27 mg/L and A = 0.50 mglL;
then, the TRC at Sample B = (0.27 * 2) - 0.50 = 0.04 mglL.
This procedure was recently used at a facility in Florida. The TRC of the chlorine
contact chamber was analyzed by the amperometric method and found to be 3.4
mg/L. Analysis of the final effluent gave a "non -detect' or <0.01 mg/L. An equal
vo!umc mixture of the two poinis (final effluent and effluent at chlorine contact
chamber) had a measured TRC value of 0.70 mg/L. Therefore, excess S02 was
being added in an amount equivalent to 2.0 mg/L of TRC. Obviously, this was a
waste of S02 and chlorine. Another facility In Florida with an average flow of 3.1
MGD, maintains an average TRC of 0.6 mg/L In the chlorine contact chamber and
on the average feeds 50 Ibs per day of $02 at a cost of $0.25/1b. The average TRC
loading at the dechlorinator would be:
3.1 MGD * 0.6 mg/L * 5.34 Ibs/MGD = 15.5 Ibs/day

Assuming a 1.1:1 mass feed ratio, approximately 17.1 Ibs of SO2 are needed on
the average to dechlorinate the wastewater. However, 50 Ibs of SO2 were fed on
the average, resulting in a loss of 32.9 Ibs/day of SO2 or a cost of $8.23/day. If
this proposal were used to monitor the TRC and SO2, a potential savings of
$3000/year could be realized by the plant. This would more than offset the
additional cost of analyzing a extra sample each day.

DIAGRAM 1SCENARI0
FOR
TOTAL CHLORINE ANALYSIS
(TRC)
S02
CHLORINE COACT BASIN u DECHLORI IATION
u FINALI
TRC = 0.5 MG/L 1 II u II DISCHARGE u
> '> II * I� ~- -> II TRC = u
.0 MGI II
Fi
C =TRC = 0.25 MG/L
* A = Grab sample collected just prior to dechlorination.
* B = Grab sample collected downstream of dechlorination at final discharge
point.
* C = Equal volumes of A & B mixed without aeration and the expectant
TRC concentration mg/L = A + B = 0.5 + 0.0 = 0.25
2 2
If 1/2 A = C, then the TRC at Sample B = <0.01 or the MDL value
determined on the Instrument whichever was greater.
If 112 A > C, then excess S02 was added. The TRC concentration would be
<0.25 mg/L at Sample C and the TRC for Sample B e 0.0 mg/L and would be
reported as a < value.
If C > 112 A, then Sample B would have TRC present in final effluent. To
calculate the Sample B value: IC * 21 - A = TRC concentration. Example: If
the TRC concentration of C = 0.27 and A s 0.5, then 0.27 " 2 = 0.54, and the
TRC at Sample B = I0.54.0.50] = 0.04 mg/L.

Mebane WWTP.
Subject: Mebane WWTP.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:06:04 -0500
From: Mike Mickey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hi Jackie,
I see from the spreadsheet Charles W. sent that you are handling
Mebane's renewal (NC0021474). Please note that Mebane is a Grade 4
facility. Their monitoring frequencies should be increased to "daily"
at renewal. For some reason, the old permit only required "3/week"
monitoring. Please revise the draft accordingly.
Also, we have been arguing with Mebane for some time over their method
detection limit and testing method for Total Residual Chlorine. Per
Coleen's 3/8/01 memo, Mebane current procedure is not approved for
effluent monitoring. If need be, can WSRO request that a clause be
added to the permit requiring Mebane to purchase adequate laboratory
equipment in a reasonable time period for determining compliance with
the 17 ug/l SRC limit
Thanks, Mike.
Mike Mickey <mike.mickey(ancmail.net>
Environmental Specialist II
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1 of 1 4/17/01 2:17 PM

AFFIDAVIT OF INSERTION OF ADVERTISEMENT
The Times -News Publishing Company
�� ul
Burlington, NC
Alamance, County
I, LINDA WHITAKER, Legal Advertising Manager of the Times -News
Publishing Co., do certify that the advertisement of NCDENR/DWQ/Budge
Entitled
Public Not
State Of North C
Measuring 106 lines appeared in the Times -News, a newspaper
published in Alamance County, Burlington, NC, in issue of march 23, 2
Legal Advertising Manager
Sworn to and described before me this c�(jn day of ­, , 2C
NotPublic
My commission
Public
Notice
State Of
North Carolina
Environmental Management
CommissionlNPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276951617
Notification Of Intent To
Issue A NPDES
Wastewater permit
on the basis of thorough slat
review and application of NC
Daneral Statute 143.21 Pubb,
Law 92-500 and other lawfu
standards and regulations, the
North Carolina Erwiradmi,ma
Management Commission pro.
Poems to issue a National Polro
Cant Discharge Elimination Sys -
arm (NPDES) wastewater dis-
charge permit to the peraon(s)
listed below effective 45 days
from the publish date of this no-
tice.
Written comments regarding
the proposed permit .1 be ac-
cepted unfit 30 days after the
Publish date of this notice. All
comments received prior to that
data are considered in Mefinal
determinations regarding the
Proposed permit. The Director
of Me NC Division of Water
Quality may decide he hold a
public meeting for the proposed
Permit should Me Division re-
ceive a significant degree of
public interest.
Copies of the draft permit and
other supporting information on
file used to determine cc i-
tions present in the draft permit
are available upon request and
payment at the casts of repro-
ducNon. Mal comments and/or
requests for information to the
NC Division of Water Quality at
the above address or call Ms.
Christie Jackson at (919)
733-5033, extension 53B.
Please include he NPDES per -
me number (aftached) in any
communication. Interested per-
sons may also visit the Division
of Water Quality at 512 N.
Salisbury Street. Raleigh, NC
276041148 between the hours
of 3:00 a.m.. and 5:00 p.m. to
review information on file.
NPDES Permit
# NCO059625
South Saxapahaw
Homeowners Association, PO
Box 217. Saxapahaw, NC
2134D has applied for a permit
renewal for a facility located in
Alamance County discharging
heated wastewater into an Un-
named Tributary to the Haw
River in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Currently settleable
solids are water quality limited.
This discharge may affect tu-
lure allocations in this portion of
the receiving stream.
NPDES Permit
#NC0021474
Mebane, City-WWTP/Mebane,
106 E. Washington St.,
Mebane, NC 2 302 has applied
for a permit renewal for a facli-
ty located in Alamance County
discharging treated wastewater
into Maintains Creek in the
Cape Fear River Basin. Cur -
really SODS, NH3, 00, fecal
coliform, total phosphorus and
fluoride are water quality lion -
ad. This discharge may affect
future dandelions in his ponion
of the receiving stream.
March 23, 2001

M3
DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO021474
Facility Information
Applicant Facility Name:
Ci of Mebane- Mebane WWTP
A licant Address:
106 East Washington St. Mebane, N.C. 27278
Facility Address:
701 Corregidor Road Mebane, N.C.
Permitted Flow
2.5 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic and industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
Facility Classification
IV
County:
Alamance
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Moadams Creek
Regional Office:
Winston-Salem
Stream Classification:
C NSW
USGS Too uad:
C21SE/Mebane, N.C.
303 d Listed?: I
No
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
Subbasin:
03-06-02
Date:
March 13,/d901
Drainage Area mil :
0.9
R�
#a,. N.C. G ?
N
MAR 2
Summer 7Q10 cfs
0.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.0
Average Flow cfs :
0.8
IWC pro :
90
Primary SIC Code:
4952
(VED
i ;NF
2 2001
SUMMARY OF FACILITY INFORMATION AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION Regional Office
The City of Mebane has requested renewal of the Mebane WWTP. The 2.5-MGD WWTP
discharges into Moadams Creek (a tributary to Back Creek), a class C NSW stream, in CPF02
subbasin.
Moadams Creek is not listed on North Carolina's 2000 303(d) list. It is a zero flow stream that
is a tributary to Back Creek. In 1996 the Cape Fear River Basin management plan
recommended that no new discharges should be permitted in this watershed and existing
discharges should conduct an engineering alternatives and economic analysis including
connection to a regional facility. If there were no alternatives, then BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3 = 2
mg/l, and DO = 6 mg/1 would be recommended. Upon expansion to 2.5 MGD, the Mebane
WWTP was required to meet tertiary limits.
There are no use support or biological ratings for Moadams Creek, however Back Creek has a
use support rating of fully supporting. CFR basin plan states that low DO levels have been
detected in Moadams and Back Creeks downstream of the Mebane WWTP. It has been difficult
to survey the creeks due to hurricane and drought effects on the biological communities in the
streams. However the absence of stoneflies does indicate water quality problems in the Back
Creek watershed.
Mebane currently has an active pretreatment program with Long Term Monitoring Program.
There are eight significant industrial users discharging to the system. The facility has an
average industrial flow of 0.179 MGD. The permitted industrial flow is 0.2026 MGD. (Mebane's
application indicates that their industries are permitted for 0.3026 MGD however one user
permitted for 0.100 MGD was scheduled to close in December 2000.
SIUs - for Mebane WWTP are as follows:
• AKG of America - heat exchanges - 0.012 MGD - continuous flow
• A.O. Smith Electrical Products - electric motors - 0.0051 MGD- continuous flow
• Armacell - foam pipe installation - 0.010 MGD- continuous flow
• GKN Automotive - front wheel drive assembly - 0.052 MGD - continuous flow
• General Electric - control panels - 0.012 MOD - continuous flow
• Sandvik Coromant- tool holders - 0.0025 MGD - continuous flow
Mebane WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1 Q

• Sterile Recoveries- hospital gowns, drapes, stainless equipment - 0.080 MGD - continuous
flow
• Walter Kidde- fire extinguishers - 0.029 MGD - continuous flow
• Tristar Hosiery- athletic socks - 0.100 MGD - continuous flow - CLOSED IN 12/2000
Existing Effluent Limits @ 2.5 MGD
Qw = 2.5 MGD
BOD5 = 5 mg/1 (summer)
BOD5 = 10 mg/1 (winter)
NH3 = 2.0 mg/1 (summer)
NH3 = 4.0 mg/1 (winter)
DO = 6 mg/1
TSS = 30 mg/1
Fecal Coliform = 200/ 100ml
TRC = 17 ug/I
pH = 6-9 SU
Total Phosphorus = 2 mg/I
Cadmium = 5.4 ug/1 (daily max.); 2.3 ug/1 (weekly avg.)
Fluoride = 1.8 mg/1 (daily max.)
Mercury = 0.048 mg/1 (daily max.); 0.012 ug/1 (weekly avg.) ** the weekly avg. limit will be
dropped and only a daily max. limit of 0.012 will be given, if appropriate.
Monthly monitoring for copper, chloride, TN and zinc
Chronic Toxicity P/F @ 90%; January April July October
TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirement: Chronic Toxicity P/F @ 90%; January April July October
The Mebane WWTP has consistently passed the toxicity test since 1997. No FAILS reported to
present. Recommend renewal of chronic toxicity test @ 90%.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
Facility has maintained an excellent compliance record since 1997. There have been no NOVs
or exceedances of permitted limits. Mebane has passed all compliance evaluation inspections.
For January 2001, Qw = 0. 893 MGD (approximately 36% of capacity), BOD5=2.77 mg/l, y,�
NH3=0.18 mg/l, TSS=2.9 mg/1, TN=3.1 mg/ and TP=2.15 mg/1. One ---- ---- -'' �� rp 1
limit of 2 a. inJanuary. wARU4o*q."..Aa W\!r"
In 2000, Avg. Qw = 1.048 MGD (approximately 42% of capacity), BOD5=2.22 mg/l, NH3=0.4
mg/1, TSS=2.9 mg/1, TN=7.7 mg/ and TP=1.56 mg/l.
In 1999, Avg. Qw = 1.042 MGD (approximately 42% of capacity), BOD5=2.34 mg/l, NH3=0.22
mg/l, TSS=3.2 mg/l, TN=10.3 mg/ and TP=1.28 mg/I.
In 1998, Avg. Qw = 1.026 MGD (approximately 41% of capacity), BOD5=2.5 mg/l, NH3=0.21
mg/l, TSS=2.5 mg/l, TN=6.9 mg/ and TP=1.36 mg/l. V. P"'
CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW:
10/ 13/00 -CEI -SATISFACTORY
4/28/00 - PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AUDIT - OVERALL PROGRAM IS SATISFACTORY
2/22/99 - PRETREATMENT COMPLIANCE INSPECTION - OVERALL PROGRAM IS SATISFACTORY
10/29/98 - CEI - DUCKWEED IN CLARIFIERS, TERTIARY FILTERS, AND CHLORINE CONTACT
BASIN; CONTINUOUS SLUDGE WASTING FROM CLARIFIERS
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Mebane is a participant in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association and the coordinated
instream monitoring effort. Individual instream monitoring requirements for DO, temperature,
conductivity, and fecal coliform have been waived from the Mebane permit effective April 6,
2000. A review of instream monitoring data prior to April 2000 - Facility sampled 100 yards
above the effluent and at NCSR 1940 at Moadams Creek. April and May 2000 fecal data had
values that exceeded the 200/ 100ml standard however the lab did not meet the quality control,
Mebanc WWTP Fml Shect
NPDBS Rcncwal
Pa c. 2

counts <20 or >60/pad. In June 1999, upstream DO values were at or below 5 mg/l on 7 of
15 sampling days. In July 1999, upstream DO values were below 5 mg/1 on 9 of 12 sampling
days. The upstream DO average was 4.8 mg/1. The substandard DO values ranged from 3.4
mg/1 to 4.7 mg/l. In August 1999, the upstream DO average was 3.6 mg/l, the minimum
value was 2.7 mg/1 and the maximum value was 5.0 mg/1. In September 1999, average
upstream DO was 5.7 mg/l, however there was a minimum value of 3.3 mg/l reported. Only 3
of 12 samples were at or below 5 mg/l. It should be noted that in all these months, the
downstream DO values were all well above 5 mg/1 ranging from 8.4 - 8.9 mg/l. Will
recommend continuation of waiver of instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and
temperature while Mebane is a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
The following modifications have been made to the permit:
• Deletion of effluent limitations for cadmium and mercury. Modify monitoring
frequency to quarterly for both parameters
• Addition of monthly cyanide monitoring. RPA was done with 12 data values from
1998 - 2000. Analysis indicated that cyanide should be limited based on a 30 ug/1
data value in Nov. 1999. Investigated further the DMR with this cyanide sample.
Comments submitted by the Town reported that the pH in this sample was 12 when
received at lab, but 7.0 prior to analysis. Consulted with Jim Meyers of DWQ Lab, he
said that cyanide is very volatile and needs to be in a basic state. If the pH had
lowered by the time of analysis, the level of Cn was probably underestimated and was
higher than 30 ug/1 before analysis. The plant was probably hit by a slug of cyanide,
which has long since gone through, if sample was in Nov. 99. A review of influent data
for that day reported cyanide <5 ug/l. This creates some uncertainty about the
validity of the 30-ug/1 data value. Based on this uncertainty, will request monthly
monitoring for cyanide. The Town can request that cyanide monitoring be
reevaluated if they report twelve months of below detection
Chloride monitoring has been changed to 2/month based on results of RPA analysis
that predicts chloride levels to exceed the allowable concentration In addition
chloride monitoring was changed based on the class IV facility rating
Modify monitoring frequency from 3/week to daily for BODS TSS NH3 DO Fecal
coliform, pH, and TRC based on Mebane being a Class IV facility INCAC 2B 05081
Recommended per WSRO.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 03/21/2001
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 05/25/2001
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Ja,Fkie Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
ON
0/
Mebane W WTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NPDES SUPERVISOR COMMENT:
,/,' t,,7 J�� C.
,?3 lqa"
%I< -}rani VAVI P I ,u I SLu rt
AVID;, Rf_,,l(,W,lI

SEsCI
NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
DES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request eI x � p (
Facili +-n1
Per # �L I V
Region W 5 (.O
Requestor ApW 1-L`
Pretreatment A_D Towns- Keyes McGee (ext. 580)
Contact E-L Towns- Vacant Positinn
UY��itlGl
PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (circle all that apply)
1) the facility has no SIU's and does have a Division approved Pretreatment Program that
is INACTIVE
2) the facility has no SIU's and does not have a Division approved Pretreatment Program
the facility as (� a Pretreatment Proara
2a) is Full rogram with LTMP or 2b) is Modified Program with STMP
4) t s facility MUST develop a Pretreatment Program - Full Modified
5) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow
Permitted Actual STIMP ti r e:
% Industrial
b • �u21� m st r ant
%Domestic
(Pon, 1947 n x ycie
Pollutant
L
(s)
Check List
POC due to
T
NPDEStNon-
Discharge
Required
Required by
ST
LTMP
MP
Permit Limit
by EPA*
503 Slud a-
POC due to Stu•••
Sites dfic POC Provide Explanation ••••
equeney at
luent
Frequency et
Free t
BOD
✓
✓
M
TSS
✓
✓
4
Q
M
NH3
✓
ri
Q
M
J
Arsenic
✓
4
Q
M
Cadmium
✓
✓
✓
4
Q
M
Chromium
4
Q
M
4,207
opper
Q
M
✓
Cyanide '
4
Q
Lead
Q
Mercury
✓
✓
4
Q
IM
Molybdenum
✓
4
Q
M
Nickel
✓
✓
Q
M
Silver
✓
4
Q
M
Selenium
✓
Q
M
Zinc
4
Q
M
✓
u
4
Q
M
�
Q
M
4
Q
M
horuS
✓
Q
M
✓
4
Q M
v r
Q M
•Always in the LTMP
"Only in the LTMP if the POTW
land applies sludge
'-- Only in LTMP while the SW is connected to the POTW
-"' Only in LTMP when the pollutant is a specific POTW
�
O= y
concern to the (ex-Chlondes for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
`!
/1
k
M=Monthly
Welly
�� �^
[rJ! S
O v\
Comments:
n 5 (A
s e CA
version W3100
P Prn p
NPDES_Pmtmatment.request.fonn.000923
Revised: August 4, 2000

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
acility Name
imebane wwtp
NPDES
# nc0021 774
Ow (MGD)
2.5
7Q10s (cfs)
0
IWC (%)
100.00
c'ving Stream
moadams creek
Stream Class
C-NSW
FINAL RESULTS
Cr
ax. Pred Cw
2.5
ug/
Allowable Cw
50.0
ug/
Max. Value
2.5
ex. Pred Cw
70.4
ug/
Allowable Cw
7.0
ug/
Max. Value
32
Hg
ax. Pred Cw
0.1
ug/
Allowable Cw
0.0
ug/
Max. Value
0.1
Zn'
ax. Pred Cw
722
ug/
Allowable Cw
50.0
ug/
Max. Value
361
Ni
ax. Pred Cw
5
ug/
Allowable Cw
88.0
ug/
Max. Value
5
Pb
ex. Pred Cw
5
ug/
Allowable Cw
25.0
ug/
Max. Value
5
Fluoride
ax. Pred Cw
2160
ug/
Allowable Cw
1800.0
ug/
Max. Value
1800
ax. Pred Cw
345 ug/
Allowable Cw
5.0 ug/
Max. Value
30
Ag
ax. Pred Cw
2.5 ug/
Allowable Cw
0.1 ug/
Max. Value
2.5
Chloride
ex. Pred Cw
256500 ug/
Allowable Cw
230000.0 ug/
Max. Value
171000
As
ax. Pred Cw
6 ug
Allowable Cw,
50.0 ug/
Max. Value
Cd
5
ax. Pred Cw! _ 1.1 ug/
Allowable Cw 2.0 ug/
Max. Value. 1
In
1'r gBas
MQA Tat
L>MP 88h4
/1,4 / 7'
LlM/r` 7i�v63
401v/TO/K
-Z�,qp Seers
top anus
UM rr
3/12/O1

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
aramete;�4�
Parameter= Cu
Standard =
Pa
— S
Standarpg/I
7 pgA
tual Data
RESULTS
n DL=1/2D
ual Data
RESULTS
<5
--
Std Dev.
..
--
0
1
8
8 Std Dev.
5.504152
3113/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
ameter=
Hg
__Parameter=
Standard =
Zn
P
andard =
0.012
pg/I
50
pg/I
DL=1/2DI.ctual
Da t
ESULTS
n
DL=1/2D
ual Da
RESULTS
n
1
0.1
<0.2
Std Dev.
6.89E-09
1
89
89
Std Dev.
56.52943
2
0.1
<0.2
Mean
0.1
2
49
49
Mean
93.82759
3
0.1
<0.2
C.V.
6.89E-08
3
71
71
C.V.
0.602482
4
0.1
<0.2
4
82
82
5
0.1
<0.2
5
104
98
104
98
Mult Facto
2
pg/I
6
0.1
<0.2
Mult Factor
1
6
7
0.1
<0.2
Max. Value
0.1
pg/I 7
150
150
Max. Value
361
8
0.1
<0.2
Max. Pred
0.1
pg/I 8
361
361
Max. Pred
722
pg/I
9
0.1
<0.2
Allowable
G 0.01
pg/I 9
88
75
88
75
Allowable
G 50.00
pg/I
10
0.1
<0.2
10
11
0.1
<0.2
,1
45
45
12
0.1
<0.2
12
59
59
13
0.1
<0.2
1
13
82
82
14
0.1
<0.2
14
65
65
15
0.1
<0.2
15
73
73
16
0.1
<0.2
16
114
114
17
0.1
<0.2
17
111
111
18
0.1
<0.2
18
108
108
19
0.1
<0.2
191
101
101
20
0.1
<0.2
20
89
87
89
87
21
0.1
<0.2
21
22
0.1
<0.2
22
126
85
126
85
23
0.1
<0.2
23
24
0.1
<0.2
24
79
79
25
0.1
<0.2
25
50
59
50
59
26
0.1
<0.2
26
27
0.1
<0.2
27
77
77
28
0.1
<0.2
281
74
74
29
0.1
<0.2
29
70
70
30
0.1
<0.2
30
31
0.1
<0.2
31
32
0.1
<0.2
32
33
0.1
<0.2
33
34
0.1
<0.2
34
35
0.1
<0.2
35
36
0.1
<0.2
36
37
0.1
<0.2
37
38
0.1
<0.2
38
39
0.1
<0.2
39
40
0.1
<0.2
40
41
0.1
<0.2
41
42
0. 11
<0.2
1
42
43
0.1
<0.2
43
44
0.1
<0.2
44
45
0.1
<0.2
45
46
0.1
<0.2
46
47
0.1
<0.2
47
48
0.1
<0.2
48
49
0.1
<0.2
49
50
0.1
<0.2
50
51
0.1
<0.2
51
52
0.1
<0.2
52
53
0.1
<0.2
53
54
0.1
<0.2
54
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
55
0.1
<0.2
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
_
56
0.1
<0.2
57
0.1
<0.2
58
0.1
<0.2
59
0.1
<0.2
60
0.1
<0.2
61
0.1
<0.2
62
0.1
<0.2
63
0.1
<0.2
63
64
0.1
<0.2
64
65
0.1
<0.2
65
66
0.1
<0.2
66
67
0.1
<0.2
67
68
0.1
<0.2
68
69
0.1
<0.2
69
70
0.1
<0.2
70
71
0.1
<0.2
71
72
0.1
<0.2
72
73
0.1
<0.2
73
74
0.1
<0.2
74
75
0.1
<0.2
75
76
0.1
<0.2
76
77
0.1
<0.2
77
78
0.1
<0.2
78
79
0.1
<0.2
79
80
0.1
<0.2
80
81
0.1
<0.2
81
82
0.1
<0.2
82
83
0.1
<0.2
83
84
0.1
<0.2
84
85
0.1
<0.2
85
86
0.1
<0.2
86
87
0.1
<0.2
87
88
0.1
<0.2
88
89
0.1
<0.2
89
90
0.1
<0.2
90
91
0.1
<0.2
91
92
0.1
<0.2
92
93
0.1
<0.2
93
94
0.1
<0.2
94
95
0.1
<0.2
95
96
0.1
<0.2
96
97
0.1
<0.2
97
98
0.1
<0.2
98
99
0.1
<0.2
99
100
0.1
<0.2
100
101
0.1
<0.2
101
102
0.1
<0.2
102
103
0.1
<0.2
103
104
0.1
<0.2
104
105
105
106
106
1071
1
1
1
107
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
rameter=
Ni
Parameter
= Pb
= 25
n DL=1/2D
1
2
3
4
Ng/l
ctual Data
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
Pai
S1
0
5
0
tandard
= 88
Ng/I
Standard
n DL=1/2D
ual Dat
RESULTS
1
5 <10
Std Dev.
0
2
5 <10
Mean
5
3
5 <10
C.V.
0
4
5 <10
5
5 <10
5 5
5
5
5
<10
<10
<10
<10
Mult Facto
Max. Valu
Max. Pred
Allowable
1
5
5
25.00
Ng/I
NgA
Ng/I
6
5
<10
I I Mult Factof
1
6
7
5
<10
Max. Valu
5
ug/I 7
8
5
<10
Max. Ned
5
NgA 8
9
Allowable
88.00
Ng/I 9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
149
Ida
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
51
52
52
531
1
1
53
541
1
1
54
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
®®�_�
1ii
tell
o
--
,
®®j
®®1111111112111111vi
1111111131111111a
of
owl
'oil
11/991
•OEM
OEM
--
1
--�--
I
10111111MMEW
o s'--
•
--�--
MOM
2
®
--
--�--
®--23-�--
®
--2411111110go
--
_-�--
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIE-10,
ONE two
I
--�--
11111101--
•of
maloul
ME 10111111=1
of
:411--
--'--
®
tell--
oil i l
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
111111101111IMMES
out
I
-�-_
®
: r
r . e
a, I--
®-_I--
m
•
•
e e
r r'--
•'
--�--
r e
: r e'--
--�--
rrr
rrr'--
--I--
• r e
• r r
�_-_-
-__�_-_-
on
71_--�_--
74--�-_
75
errOEM--
.
--�-_
e rIIIIIIIM'--
--I--
--�--
®
• e r
• r e'--
--�--
' r r
• e e'--83--�--
• e e
• r r'--
--'--
e e e
err'--
• '
--�--
' '
--'--
rris
�e--�_-
EMU r
9--�--
--�--
' •
--�-_
--�--
®
981
-�-_
99
--�--
r-r
•rr
•er�--
ee
--I--
®
'
--�--
®
r r
momtwo I--
'--�-UM
-
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
NONNI
rmtT Me-�-
0a .161�
We Meg Iffs MeiI
iio 013 osi1
.
1-_
ism
JgRn�.
-�
®®1
®®�u6
®®�_®
� � e
/ 1 11
EFMri1MF=s
: 1I
MEMEM
: � � �
I fell--
0 111--
111 /
11=8 I
1®1-1111111111,
. o i
�1��
1
1��_
1��
'10
Illlllllm11111111.-'--
-14
--1--
.
17
11111111�11111111.111111111,1-1111111.
•
22
-UNIONS�1��
NINON
NONN1NINON
��
UNION!
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
rameter=
As
i
Parameter=
Cd
n DL=1/2D
1
2 Ng/I
ctual Data
1 <2
<2
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
0.10925
0.97897
tandard =
50
Ng/I
Standard =
n DL=1/2D
ctual Data
RESULTS
1
5 <10
Std Dev.
O.SS388
1
2 5
<10
Mean
1 4.6875
2
3 5
<10
C.V.
0.18856
3 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.5
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
C.V.
Mult Facto
Max. Valu
Max. PredAllowable
Allowable
0.1116
1.1
1
2.00
ug/I
Ng/I
4
5
<10
4
5
5
<101
1
1
5
<10
Mult Facto
1.2
6
<10
Max. Valu
5
Ng/I 7
<5
Max. Pred
fi
wl 8
50.00
Ng/I 9
10
11
g18
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
201
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
551
551
56
11
<1
1
561
1
1
1
1
1
1
163
164
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<2
<2
<2
<2
1<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
63
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78
79
79
801
80
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
85
85
86
86
87
87
88
88
89
891
90
901
91
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
96
97
97
98
981
99
991
100
100
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<1
<1
<1
101
101
102
1021
103
1031
104
104
105
105
106
106
107
107
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
rameter=
Aluminum
P
tandard =
87
pg/l [C
n
DL=1/2D
ctual Data
RESULTS
1
66
661
Std Dev.
46.6581
2
51
511
Mean
111.875
3
194
194
C.V.
0.41706
4
97
97
5
112
=1112
6
92
92
Mult Facto
2.3
7
129
129
Max. Valu
194
pg/1
8
154
154
Max. Pred
P 446.2
pgA
9
Allowable
87.00
pg/1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3/13/01

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
P
rameter=
Aluminum
RESULTS
tandard =
750 pg/I
n
DL=1/2D ctual Data
1
66 661
Std Dev. 46.6581
_
2 51' 51
3194 194
4 971 97
5 112, 112
6 92 92
7, 129' 129
Mean
111.875
pg/I
C.V.
0.41706
Mult Factor
2.3
Max. Value
194
8F 154
154
Max. Pred
446.2
pg/I
91
Allowable
C 750.00
pg/I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3113/01

z
I I I I v v x I I I I I I I I I I I
aa� aaa 3 n a a7 V x I i 1 1 1 a
I I I I v v' S I I I I 2 ss I I I Z I I I
I I v v x n d u m d a i l l
z I I I n n 1
n A z a a I
�(j;'it m y v n I d a n
I I I v v v a I l l I I I I
iIi vvv d as andd I I
' a n .1 a�s�� ass8� $ss88 s$sas �ssR�
� J
E + + C
g�
93
Pi LL< �'3 LL3 LL3
3
ooeg'za uid i z d P
inn=-
� h
er
m`OEa
v ¢Y
E E
'a2rcpuC
'F= e
E-1 o
LL-€z
0

Robco L. Wilson
Ci/y Mmmgur
Glentlel Sleph,mnn
M y,r
Ed l looks Ma,or P- I—
Allce EmA en
I on eamey
Henry Johns
Chi# of Avhat P
106 E. Washington Street
Mebane, N.C. 27302
(919) 5635901
November 20,2000
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NPDES Supervisor
Division of Environmental Management'
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: City of Mebane NPDES Permit Renewal
NCO021474
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
NOV 2 8 2000
EleincJ Hicks
A,.Yc OPcur
Jxckia Morrow
7—
Gary Bumgama
Chief"fP11iee
Jimmy Jobe
P„nu, ;En-k, I)—, ,.mne (ai f
Mlke In,
rva,rr ... ,,,rm 1)"",
Dean Ray
R"",nion4 Pork, D"'m
Please find enclose an NPDES Permit renewal application for the
Cgty of Mebane WWTP. Our current NPDES Permit expires on May
31,2001.
If you or your staff has any questions concerning this application, do
not hesitate to contact me at 919-563-6141.
Respectfully,
m L;Aj %--
Michael Hite
Wastewater Director
Cc: Robert Wilson, City Manager

6. Present Operating Status:
The treatment process consists of the following structures
Influent Bar Screen - This structure removes the larger objects that may enter the
collection system such as sticks, rags, and other such debris to prevent damage
to pumps and other equipment
Grit Chamber - This structure removes the smaller inorganic (nondecomposable)
debris such as sand, gravel and cinders. This prevents unnecessary wear on the
pumps, valves, etc. in the plant.
Aeration Basin — This structure supplies large amounts of air to a mixture of
wastewater, bacteria, and other microorganisms. Oxygen in the air speeds the
growth of helpful microorganisms, which consume harmful organic matter in the
wastewater.
Finial Clarifiers - These structures separate the settleable solids (Activated
Sludge) formed in the Aeration Basins from the treated water. The treated water
is discharged to the Sand Filters and the activated sludge is either returned to the
Aeration Basins (Return Activated Sludge - RAS) to treat more wastes or to
Rotary Drum Thickener if it is no longer needed (Waste Activated Sludge - WAS).
Sand Filters — These structures help remove any remaining suspended solids in
the water. The filters are regular backwash to remove the trapped solids and
return to the head of the plant for treatment.
Chlorine Contact Basin — This structure is where Chlorine is mixed with the
wastewater to act as a disinfectant.
Sulfur Dioxide Basin — This structure is where sulfur dioxide is mixed with the
wastewater to reduce the chlorine levels.
Reaeration Basin - This structure adds air (Dissolved Oxygen - D.O.) to the
treated water (Effluent) before it is discharged into Moadams creek.
Rotary Drum Thickener - This structure take the Waste Activated Sludge (WAS)
and remove even more water, with the addition of polymers, than is possible
through normal settling. The water that is removed is returned to the start of the
plant to be treated again. This is done to reduce the space required for finial
digestion. The thickened sludge is discharged to the Aerobic Digesters for further
treatment.
Mebane WWTP Equipment Page 1 of 2

Aerobic Digesters - These structures further treat the sludge and organic solids
removed from the water during the treatment process. The digestion consists of
continuously aerating the sludge without the addition of new food, other than the
sludge itself, so the sludge is always in the endogenous (A reduced level of
respiration in which organisms break down compounds within their own cells to
produce the oxygen they need.) region. The City has 2 digester ran in series.
The City land applies its treated sludges (Biosolids) to farmland for use as a soil
conditioner. Biosolids recycling is regulated according to 40 CFR (Code of
Federal Regulations) Part 503, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage
Sludge. These standards, commonly known as the "503" regulations, are
promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
Mebane WWTP Equipment Page 2 of 2

6. Sizes and capacities of each unit
6. Potential Facility Changes
Planned upgrades during the next several years included:
Major
Change in disinfection equipment, such as UV
Addition biosolids holding capacity and/or digesting aeration equipment
Upgrade of grit chamber

Mebane Wastewater Facility
After Upgrade
X- Influent
BAR SCREEN
GRIT CHAMBER r Irp��
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
FLOW METER i i X
WASTE SLUDGE
SAND FILTER T
BACKWASH HICKNER
a
AERATION BASINS
1, 17 A6' kacL
CLARIFIERS
A 6- i p
RETURN
i < a M Fr SLUDGE
X
SAND FILTERS
CHLORINE
CONTRACT
BASIN
DECHLORINATIONj' 0a
X- Effluent
STREAM
A
LAND APPLICATION

SECTION 111111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section /// for each Significant Industrial User.
Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU AKG of America
Street address 7315 Oakwood St. Ext.
City Mebane County Oranae
State NC Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919) 563-4286
Fax Number ( )
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantifies are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.012MGD Intermittent XContinuous

SECTION III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carded by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU A.O. Smith Electrical Products
Street address 709 AO Smith Road
City Mebane County
State NC Zip Code
Telephone Number ( 919 )563-9100
Fax Number
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantifies are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.0051 MGD ❑ Intermittent XContinuous

SECTION III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU
Street address 7600 Oakwood St. Ext
City Mebane County Orange
State NC Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919 ) 304-3846
Fax Number i i
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.01 MGD ❑ Intermittent XContinuous

SECTION III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant Industrial User.
Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system in receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU GKN Automotive
Street address 1067 Trollinawood Hawfields Road
City Mebane County Alamance
State NC Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919) 304-7288
Fax Number ( )
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantifies are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
Wheel
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.052 MGD ❑ Intermittent X Continuous

SECTION III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section /// for each Significant Industrial User.
I. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday:
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU General Electric
Street address 6801 Industrial Drive
City Mebane County Orange
State Mebane Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919) 563-7224
Fax Number ( 919) 563-7711
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.012 MGD Intermittent XContinuous

SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system in receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Sandvik Coromant
Street address 183 Dogwood Ct
City Mebane County Alamance
State NC Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919) 563-5008
Fax Number
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
Holders
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.0025 MGD ❑ Intermittent XContinuous

SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Sterile Recoveries
Street address_ 1416 Dogwood Wav
City Mebane County Alamance
State NC Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919) 563-8555
Fax Number ( )
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
and
equipment
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.080 MGD ❑ Intermittent XContinuous

SECTION ill. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant Industrial User.
Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU_ Tri Star Hosiery Will be closing in December 2000
Street address 300 West Crawford St
City Mebane CountyAlamance
State NC Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919) 304-2000
Fax Number r
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
Socks
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.100 MGD Intermittent XContinuous

SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 1/1 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW,
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Walter Kidde Inc.
Street address 1394 S. Third St
City Mebane CountyAlamance
State NC Zip Code 27302
Telephone Number ( 919) 304-8254
Fax Number ! t
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
0.029 MGD Intermittent XContinuous

'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
September 22, 2000
Mr. Michael Hite
City of Mebane
106 East Washington Street
Mebane, NC 27302
F_ OF; WA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification
Permit NCO021474
Mebane WWTP
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Hite:
The Division is beginning the cycle of permit renewals for the Cape Fear river basin. An examination of the Cape
Fear basin plan and the NPDES permit schedule has revealed that the existing expiration dates in Cape Fear NPDES
permits do not coincide with the revised permit expiration dates for the basin. This discrepancy could create unnecessary
delays in the processing of over 200 permit renewals. Accordingly, the Division is changing the permit expiration dates for
NPDES permits in the Cape Fear river basin.
This permit modification changes the expiration date of the subject permit in subbasin 30602 to May 31, 2001. Please
find enclosed the revised permit cover page. Insert the new cover page into your permit and discard the old page. All
other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and in full effect. This permit modification
is issued under the requirements of North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In accordance with the modification of the permit expiration date, the new due date for your renewal application is
December 2, 2000. Renewal application forms will be sent to you approximately 6-8 weeks in advance of the new due
date or you may download the forms from the NPDES web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents.htm].
You will need to download Standard Form A. If you have already submitted a permit renewal form, there is no need to
submit any other forms to the Division; the application will be processed during the renewal period for your subbasin.
If any part of this permit modification are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be a written petition conforming
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions concerning this permit modification, please contact Natalie Sierra at [phone],
extension 551.
Sincerely,
nc�%%
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Central Files
Winston-Salem Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer VISIT US ON THEINTERNET@hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Permit NCO021474
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Mebane
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Mebane WWTP
106 East Washington Street
Mebane
Alamance County
to receiving waters designated as Moadams Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, ITI and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective September 1, 2000.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2001.
Signed this day September 22, 2000.
Kerr T. Stevens, director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

[Fwd: NCO0.21474-Mebane]
Subject: [Fwd: NC0021474-Mebane]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:55:11 -0400
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To: Charles Weaver <[e-mail]>
Charles -
Another one for the files.
- Dave
Subject: NC0021474-Mebane
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 12:16:48 -0400
From: Dana Folley <[e-mail]>
To: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
CC: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>, Tom Poe <[e-mail]>
During my review of Mebane's LTMP, I noted their NPDES permit has a
daily max of 0.048 ug/I Hg and a weekly average of 0.012 ug/I Hg. I
spoke today with Tom Belnick and he confirmed that Bethany's policy on
weekly/daily metals and cyanide limits indicates that we will not give
weekly ave/daily max limits for mercury, but only give daily max's, but
I think that policy was adopted after the Mebane permit. Just thought
I'd give you a heads up on this "error" in Mebane's permit in case you
wanted to fix it (like you need more work to do!), or just wait until it
gets renewed in January 2001. FYI, Mebane is in the CPF 02, Moadams
Creek, C-NSW, 7Q10 = 0 cfs.
1 of 1 9/20/99 10:12 AM

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Michael Hite
City of Mebane
106 E. Washington Street
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
Dear Mr. Hite:
A
±fflk
E) FEE HNF1
March 13, 1996
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification
NPDES Permit No. NCO021474
Mebane WWTP
Alamance County
On February 19, 1996, the Division of Environmental Management issued NPDES Permit
No. NCO021474 to City of Mebane. In response to your phone call, a review of the permit file has
indicated that a few errors were inadvertently made in the permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding
herewith modifications to the subject permit to correct the errors. Specifically, the following
corrections have been made: a) Corregidor Street is spelled correctly on the permit cover sheet and
the supplement to the permit cover sheet pages, and b) The fluoride units have been changed from
ug/1 to mg/t on the summer and winter effluent limitations and monitoring requirements sheets.
Please find enclosed the modified sections of the permit referenced in the preceding paragraph.
Replace the original sections in your permit with the newer enclosed sections and discard the original
sections. All other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and in full
effect. These permit modifications are issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General
Statutes 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit modification
are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings. Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such
demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions concerning these permit modifications, please contact Paul B. Clark at
telephone number [phone], extension 580.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc. Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Permits and Engineering Unit
Facility Assessment Unit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Permit No. NCO021474
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
City of Mebane
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
City of Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant
on SR 1997
southwest of Mebane
Alamance County
to receiving waters designated as Moadams Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective March 13, 1996
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on January 31, 2001
Signed this day March 13, 1996
Original Signed By
Datum A. Conarich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Mebane
is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NC0021474
1. Continue to operate an existing 2.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of
mechanical bar screen, grit chamber, dual 1,170,000 gallon aeration basins, three clarifiers,
sand filters, gas chlorination, chlorine contact chamber, dechlorination and aerobic sludge
digestion located at Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant on NCSR 1997 (Corregidor Street),
southwest of Mebane, Alamance County (See Part III of this permit), and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into the Moadams Creek which is classified Class C-NSW waters in the Cape Fear River
Basin.

a
8
z
z
0.
2
E
0
w
U
h
t.
O
N
O
L
O
= Z
d
w w a s a a
0 ., ..
o0
d 1.
>> OC.N N a an cca n
$ E E E ; E E E; E E E E E E 8 c
F UU U U 0 0 0 U 0 U U U U U U
yUy G
h O
w
7 = Y X Y X X Y s >' N YJ a- T T y L i-: L 7
T C Y N Y N C C C
LSn U M M M M M M A Q� Cl)(UV O O O G
3 3 3
kn
'v
E
x d
E m +-
O 7 00 8
4.1
O r o
ti c o
y C3
cc
^ z F
Q �c A
E E pOu
Lr� ON
LO TL O
r? 0.
Q U
t
2 E E EIs
g
C N v: O N O N O ++ C T8 O
O O _
M N C .= 7 V- 'O
�_. c C c3 '� O
c1 V c3 w
^ , C b0
C
elz O OOAC3� C3.E
V co
^= r5L 0.� X O'E p 0
V 'G 4•.
C> o s a)
V 0 i �.• O c3
z W V .� L V h C3
+ .. CO •p U .� U
N C tp 'C N y t0.0. 0— y w
U N n o > c��s 3 :T L v
°s o x U z �% T y h. c
T > a) x c
LA mt U� d z 0.. � 7 .? � � •o 0 c� C aEi a�i E 0 c x w
N O a O � O 'C �- d G cs O L L O .0 ° d i
o p - 4 p a= C �cs C = c v�U F F U UU0
z C- F F F F U U U V. G U U

►:
r�
►�
O
N
O
y
E
CC
C
r.
..
�
N
8
���,a.,uauawuauawuawwwuawwwwww
a.
�'
%
V
Q
oro
E
o
a
nco°na°ao
Q.
w
a
m
Q.
c
ca
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
o
o
fl
N
p
p
o
o
0
0
°
p
p
°
p
°
O
LW
C >
U
U
U
U
u
U
U
U
U
U
U
c
y
01
y
C
U a
cca
o
Q
0 3
��Eii
y
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
o
3
ci
0
0
0
c
0
44
U
M
M
M
M
M
A
z
3
oa
M
w
m
S =
R
...
._.
X^
00
t
W
E
N `
..�
O
7
00
O
C by
.`n.
.c
v'
�.D
>
;
ccz
= cz
y
=
d
o�
E
o
A
c 3
�ai p
c
cz 5
E
E
CD
o�
'
C O. C
ccce
y'c
�'
Y
A
o^ E
o
E
E
"
Z.
0
0
C
O
N
O
O
cz Y
o f
.7-
C
7
O
c
d
h� —
ctl c
A
Z�-
0 cc
C
a c�
U
-
$
O
=.0
r�
E
c�
E
r�
E
c
r�
E
A
o cu E
v o` a
eu
��
0�
a•5:
Z
V L
=
Urz C
C
N
O
O
4
p�
N
N
C T
°
a
w � '
-E -
7
ca w
by
z
E
F
cl
co X 0•-
yo
c
o
5to
co
ICU V.
Sh N
cy
.a
E
ao
v°
O
c
c`z N .
° 00 a
= m
`d
U
c
L c
U
N
O
C
cJ
L
N
cz U Ox x
C yyC
00'C
T
C
p
CO
=cj,
K
i
C
S c F c=.O
cwl
O
F
"
m
p .� .� .0 .�
h
o o E
°
U
F U U°U=
O
O
O
V
OLn=
p
ci
.cv aw`iO
Q
o
Z
U
iU
-
r * n
F