NC0083275_Comments_20191230

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] 48 PATTON AVENUE.SUITE 304 Facsimile 828-258-2024
ASHEVILLE.NC 28801-3321
December 30,2019
RECEIVED
Via First Class U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail JAN -3 2020
Emily DelDuco NCDEQIDWRINpDES
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section-NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Re: Harris Plant WWTP, NPDES Permit#NC0083275
Dear Ms. DelDuco,
On behalf of MountainTrue and the Broad Riverkeeper, we submit the following
comments on the proposed renewal of the Town of Forest City's permit to discharge polluted
wastewater into the Broad River from the Harris Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP).
MountainTrue is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting streams,rivers, and
groundwater from contamination. The Broad Riverkeeper, a program of MountainTrue, focuses
on the Broad River watershed. Both MountainTrue and the Broad Riverkeeper advocate for
cleaner water, awareness and education of the Broad River, improved access, and broadened
recreational opportunities within the Broad River Basin. MountainTrue's members use the
Broad River for recreation,business, or educational purposes.
The Town of Forest City seeks renewal of a permit for the Harris Plant industrial WWTP
facility to discharge polluted wastewater into the Broad River. Although the facility has not
discharged for over thirteen years, since a nearby textile mill idled prior to 2006, Forest City now
seeks expedited renewal of the mothballed plant for"anticipated future domestic treatment needs
and/or industrial development." Forest City says it wants the permit so it can"move at a quicker
pace"in the event of an unspecified industrial user. See Application Cover Letter(Feb. 8, 2018).
The nature and characteristics of the anticipated polluted discharge, particularly as influenced by
a hypothetical industrial user, is undisclosed in the application. As a consequence,the draft
permit cannot, and so does not try to, develop limits to properly limit and control the potential
extent of polluted discharge.
Because the Division of Water Resources (DWR)lacks necessary information to issue a
permit that assures compliance with water quality standards pursuant to the mandate of its
delegated authority under the Clean Water Act, the renewal must be denied and the existing
permit for the mothballed plant should terminate. DWR may consider an application once Forest
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington,DC
100%recycled paper

City has characterized the wastewater it intends to accept and completed other necessary
disclosures in the application.
A. DWR Must Deny the Permit Renewal and Allow the Permit to Expire
The objective of the Clean Water Act(CWA) is to"restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The CWA
generally prohibits discharges to waterways. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System(NPDES)program is an exception to that prohibition.' DWR issues NPDES permits
under the federal CWA, 33 U.S.0 §§ 1251, et seq.,pursuant to delegated authority. Therefore,
the state's authority to implement the NPDES program is governed by the CWA, federal
regulations, and state water quality statutes and rules.
The discharge of a specific pollutant or group of pollutants cannot be permitted if it is not
disclosed in a NPDES permit application. The CWA defines pollutant,very broadly and includes
any type of industrial,municipal, or agricultural waste discharged into water. See CWA section
33 U.S.C. § 1362 (6);40 C.F.R. § 122.2. The NPDES permit application form for Forest City's
WWTP requires disclosure of effluent testing data for the last three years. See NPDES Permit
Application—Form 2A NPDES, item Al2, B6. The data can be no more than 4.5 years old. Id.
Forest City provides no data because the facility has been idled for 13 years. Likewise missing
is information about design flow rate or maximum daily flow and average daily flow rate from
the outfall. See Form at A6, A9. In addition,the renewal request includes no "residuals
management plan,"which"shall be submitted"with the application for renewal "for all
wastewater treatment systems that generate residuals." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0105 (e),
2H.0138. None of this required information is included because the facility is and has been
"mothballed"for over a decade, and the source of wastewater is either unknown or undisclosed.
As a result,predicting the effluent characterization, limits, and ensuring proper disposal is not
possible. In the absence of complete information, the permit must be denied.
The permit's simple assumption that the waste received will be 100%domestic, alone,
cannot allow the permit to lawfully issue. Industrial users discharging"domestic"waste into
Forest City's WWTP's at other facilities have already caused problems with pollutants not
anticipated in domestic sewage waste. For example, Forest City's Riverstone WWTP Plant
failed multiple toxicity tests while it accepted American Zinc Product's (AZP)sanitary.sewage
(and not industrial)waste. According to Forest City's System Performance Annual Report
(SPAR): "Toxicity issues were believed to be caused by heavy metals,particularly zinc, in the
influent of the Riverstone WWTP. ... It is believed that employee showers/wash stations are the
main culprits for the excess metals found in the sanitary sewer. Also Inflow/Infiltration of
stormwater into the sanitary sewer has caused issues." 2015 SPAR, attached(discussing
problems caused by sanitary sewer from AZP's predecessor, Horsehead Corp). AZP is an
industrial zinc recycling facility approximately 2.5 miles from the Harris WWTP. That AZP's
sewage discharge caused the applicant's Riverstone WWTP to fail toxicity tests demonstrates
that a restriction on accepting only domestic waste in the Harris WWTP cannot substitute for
characterization of the sewage waste received from industrial facilities,particularly here,where
33 U.S.C. § 1311(a);see also N.C.Gen.Stat. 143-215.1(a)(1);33 U.S.C. § 1342.
2

expedited permitting is requested in the event of an unidentified future user that is described as
"industrial." Application, Cover letter(Feb. 8, 2018).
The reopener for industrial waste in the draft permit(condition A.(3.)) does not alleviate
this problem. Although the provision requires notification to the Division"prior to commencing
a discharge of industrial wastewater," a major modification is only required for any"significant
changes in wastewater characteristics"which are defined in comparison to a permitted"100 %
domestic"wastewater.Id. First,the condition,to be effective at controlling pollution, would
have to require a reopener for any wastewater received from an industrial discharger—whether
domestic, stormwater, or industrial—since a nearby industrial discharger has already discharged
domestic sewage waste that included pollutants outside the scope anticipated by this permit.2 In
addition,there are presently no wastewater characteristics at all to compare to for purposes of
determining"significant changes"—thus it is unclear how the division will determine when
changes are significant, as any wastewater characteristic would be significant compared to none.
In other words, in the absence of complete information about expected discharge being
permitted, it is impossible to determine when that discharge is being significantly changed.
Without disclosing the actual pollutants that will be discharged, Forest City also cannot
receive effective permit coverage under the CWA for a particular pollutant. See S. Appalachian
Mountain Stewards, 758 F.3d 560 (mining company's failure to meet its disclosure obligations
rendered it ineligible for permit shield under provision of CWA). A general disclosure of
wastestreams, operations, and processes is not sufficient to gain access to the permit shield. See
S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d 560, 563 (4th Cir. 2014);see
also Piney Run Pres. Ass'n v. Cty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cty., 268 F.3d 255, 268 (4th Cir. 2001)
(To the extent that a permit holder discharges a pollutant that it did not disclose, it violates the
NPDES permit and the Clean Water Act). In the absence of necessary information about the
polluted wastewater Forest City intends to discharge, even if DWR grants a permit,Forest City
will not have an effective permit shielding it from CWA liability for discharging pollutants it has
not disclosed beyond those regulated in the permit(and it has not disclosed any).
Forest City's request has put the Division in the impossible position of authorizing a
hypothetical polluted wastewater discharge, which is not presently occurring and may or may not
occur in the future, supported by incomplete application at a facility idled since 2006. This
request must be denied.
B. The CWA and State Law Require DWR to Develop Effluent Limits Based on the
Wastewater to be Processed
The discharge of a specific pollutant cannot be properly limited and controlled if the
nature of the discharge being permitted is hypothetical and unknown. NPDES permits control
pollution by setting limits based on the technology available to treat pollutants ("technology-
2 General permit conditions for POTWs,requiring notification to the division for"introduction of pollutants"from
an"indirect discharger"also does not prevent an industrial discharger from discharging domestic waste
contaminated with metals or other unanticipated pollutants without disclosure,since indirect discharger is defined as
any"non-domestic source that discharges wastewater containing pollutants into a POTW. . . ."See
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Surface%20Water%20Protection/NPDES/GUIDANCEBoilerplate-11-09-2011-2.pdf
(emphasis added).
3

based effluent limits") and any additional limits necessary to protect water quality("water
quality-based effluent limits"). 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1314(b); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1), (d).
Any state NPDES permit must contain effluent limitations and standards to meet the
minimum of 15A NCAC 2B .0400 and the Clean Water Act. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0118.
Therefore, DWR may issue an NPDES permit only if the permit assures compliance with all
technology-based and water quality-based effluent limits. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R.
§ 122.43(a).
Every NPDES permit"shall" contain technology-based effluent limits (TBELs), which
set the minimum level of control required. 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a). Technology-based permit
limits are derived from: (1)national effluent limitation guidelines(ELGs) issued by EPA for
various industries, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b), and(2) case-by-case determinations using the"best
professional judgment"of permit writers, when EPA has not issued an ELG for an industry. See
33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(c)(2).
In addition, every NPDES permit must also include water-quality based effluent
limitations to the extent necessary to meet water quality standards established under state or
federal law. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C). North Carolina water quality rules also require water
quality-based effluent limitations and, like the federal requirement, assume applicable
technology-based reductions are in place first. See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B.0404, .0403.
Here, in the absence of any effluent data for the last 13 years, DWR proposes to carry
forward 2014 permit limits for TSS, BOD,pH, fecal coliform, TRC and chronic toxicity. See
Fact Sheet at 1 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 133.102, 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0406, and 2014
modeling to predict facility discharge and limits). However,because the nature of the domestic
waste to be accepted is unknown, other limits that will be needed for the forthcoming
wastestream are also unknown. It is entirely possible that domestic sewage from an industrial
user could contain additional pollutants, like metals, for which there are no monitoring
conditions or limits proposed(see above). The EPA's NPDES permit writer manual expressly
recognizes that the wastewater accepted by POTWs may necessitate treatment beyond
conventional pollutants. "The types of pollutants treated by a POTW always include
conventional pollutants and may include nonconventional and toxic pollutants, depending on the
characteristics of the sources discharging to the POTW."NPDES Permit Writers Manual 2.3.1.1
(2010) (emphasis added).3
DWR cannot develop appropriate limits for unknown effluent. As a consequence, DWR
cannot know whether its permit conditions will assure compliance with water quality standards—
a mandate that cannot be ignored. "No permit may be issued when the imposition of conditions
cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations of
all affected states." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112 (c) (final action on NPDES permit
applications); see 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C).
3 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/pwm_2010.pdf.
4

C. DWR Should Instead Terminate or Revoke the Existing Permit
DWR lacks necessary information to issue a permit that will assure compliance with
water quality standards for the reasons above, and therefore Forest City's current application
must be denied. See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112 (c . As a consequence,the existingpermit
( ) �
—extended administratively by a renewal application—must expire in accord with its original
term, on December 31, 2019. Even if the existing permit was not expiring already,there are
other ample bases warranting termination or revocation based upon the plant's current non-
operating status and the failure of the permit application to disclose the characteristics and source
of anticipated wastewater.
Federal CWA regulations recognize several grounds for terminating a permit or denying
permit renewal. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.64;see also 40 CFR § 123.25 (requiring state programs to
incorporate these requirements). Federal guidance interpreting these requirements recognizes
"plant closure" as a specific kind of changed circumstance warranting permit termination. The
instruction to permit writers is clear: A"change in any condition that requires either a temporary
or permanent reduction or elimination of a discharge(e.g.,plant closure)"is among situations
"that are causes for termination of the permit."NPDES Permit Writers Manual, Sec. 11.4.3
Permit Termination(emphasis added).4 Because Harris WWTP closed over a decade ago, in
2006, the permit should terminate. Forest City can re-apply when it has the necessary and
relevant information in order for DWR to develop permit limits to control the actual anticipated
pollutants.
In addition,the applicant's "failure to disclose fully all relevant facts" in the permit
application,related to the effluent waste stream that will be discharged for an anticipated
industrial user, is grounds for revocation under state regulation. 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2H.0114(a)(20).
Finally,the current permit, issued in 2014, included an authorization to construct
provision to meet minimum domestic treatment limitations and requirements. North Carolina's
regulations are clear that failure to apply for an authorization to construct in the life of the permit
renders a permit void. "If an Authorization to Construct has not been applied for in accordance
with the requirements of the NPDES permit during the term of the permit, the permit will be
considered void upon expiration and future actions will be considered as a new application." 15A
N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0138 (a). Here,the application for renewal represented that the"facility
has seen no change since the last permit renewal" and the plant remains "mothballed."
Application Cover Letter(Feb. 8, 2018). The applicant's apparent failure to apply for an
authorization to construct in the last NPDES permit term renders the existing permit void by
operation of law. See id. Thus,the proper course here is to evaluate Forest City's WWTP
request as a new application,but only once Forest City has sufficient information about the
expected wastewater it will receive to be able to provide the necessary information to DWR to
develop permit limits.
4 Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/pwm 2010.pdf.
5

D. Groundwater Monitoring
The permit renewal fact sheet indicates basins are, or were, incorporated into the
wastewater treatment systems at the facility. See, e.g., Fact Sheet at 1 (describing neutralization
basin and aeration basin). Standard conditions for NPDES permits require groundwater
monitoring to determine compliance with the current groundwater standards.5 Once the
applicant is able to present a complete permit application, DWR should consider whether
groundwater sampling is necessary around any unlined basins incorporated in the treatment
process,or sludge disposal areas, to assess compliance with groundwater standards.
E. Conclusion
The draft permit cannot issue consistent with state or federal law for a hypothetical,
uncharacterized polluted discharge. The NPDES permit for the Harris WWTP, idled for over a
decade,must be allowed to expire. Please keep us informed of any additional developments on
this matter, intriuding notice of any agency action related to permit issuance.
Sincerely,
Amelia Y. Burnette
Senior Attorney
Cc: via email only
Linda Culpepper, DEQ
5 NPDES Permit Standard Conditions,Part II,Sec.B;see also N.C.Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(i),(k)(addressing
monitoring and corrective action for protection of groundwater).
6

Town of Forest City
2015 System Performance Annual Report (SPAR)
January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015
I. General Information
• Name of regulated entity: Town of Forest City
County: Rutherford County
• Responsible persons: Dennis Tarlton, Mayor
John Condrey, City Manager
Mailing address: PO Box 728; Forest City, NC 28043-0728
Physical address Public Works: 128 North Powell Street, Forest City 28043
Physical address Forest City WWTP: 397 Riverside Drive, Forest City 28043
Physical address Riverstone WWTP: 219 Broad River Blvd, Forest City 28043
Phone numbers:
828-245-4747 John Condrey City Manager
828-245-0149 Stewart Briscoe Public Works Director
828-248-5217 Sonny Penson WWTP Chief Plant Operator/ORC
828-248-5217 Jeff Dotson WWTP Plant Superintendent/Back-up ORC
828-248-0149 Avery Hamrick Water and Sewer Superintendent
828-245-0149 Allen Greene Collections ORC
• Listing of applicable permits:
Collection System: WQCS00050
Wastewater Treatment Plants: NC0025984 Forest City WWTP - Riverside Drive
NC0087084 Riverstone Industrial Park WWTP
NC0083272 DRG Harris WWTP
• Description of sewer collection system and wastewater treatment systems or processes:
Collection System: WQCS00050
The Town of Forest City maintains and operates 27 lift stations (19 in Forest City, 6 in
Ellenboro, and 2 at Riverstone Industrial Park) and - 95 miles of gravity sewer and -13.6 miles
of force main. Chase Middle School makes up 2.4 miles of this force main and Chase High
School makes up another 1.5 miles of this force main. The Riverstone Industrial Park makes
up 0.7 miles of the gravity sewer total and 390.8 feet of force main. The Hicks Grove station
serving Horsehead Corporation has 1.1 miles of force main contributing to the above total.
Riverstone's lift station and the Hicks Grove station are pumped to the Riverstone WWTP
headworks located at 219 Broad River Blvd.
The Town of Forest City also maintains the Town of Ellenboro's sewer collection system. This
system has - 6.2 miles of gravity sewer, 7.4 miles of force main and four pump stations (with
telemetry and dual high water alarms). Ellenboro Elementary School and East High School

each have a lift station that pump into Ellenboro's collection system and are maintained by the
Town of Forest City.
Pretreatment Program:
There are 4 significant industrial users which contribute flow to the collection system
and Forest City wastewater treatment plant. They are, namely: Eaton Corporation,
Valley Fine Foods, RockTenn and Parker Hannifin. Riverstone VVWTP has one current
IUP issued to Bonita Pioneer. Horsehead Corporation has submitted an application and
will be issued an IUP if the plant remains open.
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) /Water Reclamation Facility (WRF):
NC0025984 Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 397 Riverside Drive in Forest City
is a 4.95 MGD plant consisting of the following units:
• Influent mechanical step/bar screen and manual bypass screen.
• Aerated traveling bridge grit chamber and grease removal.
• 5 smaller first stage aeration tanks with floating aerators (none in service due to
loss of flow.)
• Second stage aeration basin with floating aerators (3.99 MG capacity.)
• Dual secondary clarifiers (75 ft. diameter.)
• Chlorine contact chamber and step aeration.
• Chlorine gas feed equipment
• Sulfur Dioxide gas feed equipment for dechlorination.
• Aerobic Digester with diffused air system (approximately 0.450 MG capacity.)
• Aerobic Digester with floating aerator (approximately 0.230 MG capacity.)
• (2) WAS pumps approximately 500 gpm direct to digester, and 375 gpm to
thickener.
• 1 meter Envirex gravity belt thickener.
• Enviroquip 2.0 meter belt filter press (14% - 17% solids.)
pef_clay4pfociuGeerdiy_solids._&544_435440 Dryer will be phased out and
scrapped year 2016.
• 211 cubic yard dry sludge storage silo. Emptied January 2016 will be scrapped.
• Average flow is approximately 1.25 MGD.
NC0087084 Riverstone WWTP
Located at 219 Broad River Blvd in the Riverstone Industrial Park. The Plant is a 0.05
MGD SBR plant consisting of:
• Influent mechanical step/bar screen and manual bypass screen.
• Pre EQ basin with maximum capacity of 0.017 MG and max design flow rate of 138.9
gpm.
• SBR basin with minimum capacity of 0.043 MG and maximum capacity of 0.063 MG.
Decant flow rate (average high to low) 313 gpm. Sludge waste rate 100 gpm.
• Post SBR EQ basin maximum volume 0.0156 MG. Flow control valve feeds chlorine
contact chamber at a rate of 0—313 gpm.
• Chlorination chamber with tablet feeders for chlorination and dechlorination

• Aerobic digester with maximum volume of 0.033 MG.
The SBR has a default program for permitted flow rate of 5 cycles/24 hour day:
1. Mixed-fill 35 minutes (anoxic condition)
2. React-fill 109 minutes (blowers running with floating mixer)
3. React phase 35 minutes (influent pumps are locked out)
4. Settle 45 minutes
5. Decant 64 minutes
6. Idle 0-64 minutes (integral with decant)
7. Sludge waste 2.26 minutes (integral with decant)
The cycles have programmability built in byPLC. These have been adjusted as needed
Y P 9 Y
to accommodate the small flow rate currently received by the plant. Sludge waste is
conducted manually as needed. The plant began operation in November 2013 with the
start up of the Hicks Grove Lift station for the Horsehead Corporation site. Influent flow
currently between 0.003 MGD and 0.008 MGD of flow from industries within the
industrial park and adjacent Horsehead Corporation.
NC0083272 DRG Harris Plant
A 0.91 MGD WWTP which is inoperative & currentlyinactive.
P
WWTP Sludge Management:
WQ0010926 for Class A Residuals / Distribution & Marketing
Permitted for distribution up to 500 dry tons per year of Class A EQ residuals product. .
The sludge dryer suffered a parts failure of a rotary union on the rotating dehydration
auger. The Town has decided to seek permitting for Class B sludge and scrap the
dryer. The sludge storage silo was emptied of all residuals in January 2016 and hauled
with the sludge cake to the Anson County Landfill operated by Waste Connections.
II. Performance
• Description of overall 12 month performance, noting highlights and deficiencies.
• By month, list of the number and type of any violations of permit conditions, environmental
regulations or environmental laws, including (but not limited to):
Permit Limit Violations, Monitoring and Reporting Violations:
NC0025984 Forest City WWTP:
11/19/2015 -Spill- Incident #201501692 spill at splitter box located at dryer scrubber.
P P rY
Spill caused by heavy inflow and infiltration backing up from clarifiers to splitter.
Note: reported below under "SSO or bypass" section.
NC0087084 Riverstone WWTP:
• 01/15/2015 Weekly TSS violation 59 mg/L
• 01/21/2015 Acute Toxicity Fail

• 01/2015 Monthly TSS violation 30.6 mg/L
• 06/09/2015 Acute Toxicity Fail
• 09/15/2015 Acute Toxicity Fail
• 10/20/2015 Acute Toxicity Fail
• 11/03/2015 Acute Toxicity Fail
• 12/08/2015 Weekly TSS violation 53 mg/L
• 12/08/2015 Acute Toxicity Fail
• 12/22/2015 Weekly TSS violation 73 mg/L
• 12/30/2015 Weekly TSS violation 114 mg/L
• 12/2015 Monthly TSS violation 64.4 mg/L
Toxicity issues were believed to be caused by heavy metals, particularly zinc, in the influent of
the Riverstone WWTP. The Town has been involved with meetings and in contact with
Horsehead Corporation representatives and the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Quality concerning this. It is believed that employee showers/wash stations are the main
culprits for the excess metals found in the sanitary sewer. Also Inflow/Infiltration of stormwater
into the sanitary sewer has caused issues. As paving around the new construction was done
the Ill was decreased, but not completely eliminated. In March 2015 Horsehead Corporation
began an Industrial Hygiene Plan to reduce heavy metals in the discharge from the facility into
the sanitary sewer. The plan had some gains initially, but after issues in June 2015 the town
prepared an Industrial User Permit Application sent in July 2015. In August 2015 David Odom
(Odom and Associates) had been contracted by Horsehead Corporation to complete the
permit application. Sampling was conducted at the Horsehead facility prior to the Town's
sewer lift station in September 2015. Sampling was scheduled 3 days/week for 2 weeks. The
Town met with Odom and associates representatives on November 14, 2015 when results
were compiled, but more information was required before the application could be processed.
On January 15, 2016 a more detailed permit application was received and is under review by
Town officials and The North Carolina Pretreatment Emergency Response and Collections
Systems unit. The Town will continue the process of implementing the Industrial User Permit,
for the Mooresboro facility, regardless of Horsehead's economic woes and recent filing of
bankruptcy. Any limits assessed and/or pretreatment units required to reduce the pollutant
load will be addressed in the near future.
Also of note a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) was conducted by Environment Testing
Solutions in October 2015 and a follow up to provide confirmation in November 2015 for the
associated monthly whole effluent toxicity testing at the Riverstone WWTP. The following
quote is taken from page 12 of the submitted report for October and is the same for the
November test:
`SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS EDTA chelation and altering sample pH to 11 SU followed by filtration were
successful in removing compound(s)responsible for causing acute toxicity in effluent from the Riverstone
Industrial Park WWTP. In addition, altering the sample pH strongly influenced the toxicity of the effluent.
Increasing sample pH decreased the toxicity of the effluent. EDTA chelation and altering sample pH to 11 SU

followed by filtration act to bind or remove dissolved metals from solution and give strong evidence that metals
are responsible for causing acute toxicity of effluent from the Riverstone Industrial Park WWTP. Metals are also
highly susceptible to changes in toxicity with pH. Of the metals detected in the effluent, only zinc was above
levels expected to cause acute toxicity to Pimephales. In addition laboratory tests of zinc in synthetic water
provided similar pH dependent results(decreased toxicity at higher pH). These results provide strong evidence
that zinc was responsible for the whole effluent toxicity test failure in October 2015."
The Town has submitted, via Environmental Testing Solutions, these findings to the Division of
Environmental Quality Asheville Regional Office and the Division's Aquatic Toxicology Branch.
December TSS violations are being investigated.
SSOs or Bypasses of treatment facilities*
11/19/2015 -Spill Forest City VVVVTP NC 0025984- Incident #201501692 spill at
splitter box located at dryer scrubber. Spill caused by heavy inflow and infiltration
backing up from clarifiers to splitter.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) that reached surface waters.
Collection System SSOs: There were three (3) SSOs reported during 2015.
11/02/2015 Incident #201501532 Manhole #469 —first manhole upstream from
Dogwood Pump Station.
11/09/2015 Incident #201501613 Manhole #469 —first manhole upstream from
Dogwood Pump Station.
11/11/2015 Incident #201501654 Force main from 197 Social Circle Pump
Station.
11/19/2015 Incident #201501708 Manhole #469 —first manhole upstream from
Dogwood Pump Station.
Corrective Measures
Collection System: During 2015 the Town of Forest City had 51,521 feet of sewer line
cleaned and 10,111 feet of sewer treated for root control.
The Town of Ellenboro collection system is maintained by Forest City. A total of 7,575
feet of cleaning to the Ellenboro collection system took place in 2015.
• Description of any known environmental impact of violations:
• Description of corrective measures taken to address violations or deficiencies at WWTP:
The Town of Forest City VVVVTP is currently pressing sludge cake, via belt press, to the dryer
building floor. The cake is being Iandfilled while Southern Soil Builders is looking to add the

Town as an additional source for Class B land application. The Town is nearing a time frame
to begin an upgrade of the large aerobic digester. The worn out Jet Tech aeration equipment
will be replaced with a newer system. The smaller digester and belt filter press will be
addressed next budget. The Town is also considering replacement of the Gravity Belt
Thickener associated with the large digester.
Sewer Collection System Infiltration and Inflow (18,1) Rehabilitation Projects:
The Town will actively pursue grants and repair/rehabilitate lines where possible.
III. Notification
Notification of the Town's System Performance Annual Report shall be conveyed to Town
customers by a statement printed on monthly billing. The report will be available on the
Town's website and shall be made available as "hard copy" upon request from the following
locations:
• Forest City Town Hall, located at 128 N Powell Street,
• Public Works Department located at 132 Wilkie Street,
• Forest City Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 397 Riverside Drive.

IV. Certification
North Carolina Certified Operators in Responsible Charge (ORC) and backups:
WWTP ORC: (Sonny) Barnard N. Penson, Jr. WW IV Cert. # 22338
WWTP Back-up ORC(s): Jeffrey W. Dotson WW IV Cert. # 11688
Collections ORC(s): Allen W. Greene CS 4 Cert. # 989259
Collections Backup ORC(s) Brian Reid Guffey CS 3 Cert. # 1000714
• Statement by responsible officials certifying the report is accurate and complete.
I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I
further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named
s em and that those users have been notified of its availability.
v 6
Si ature by Stewart Briscoe Public Works Director Date
02./zi /go/6
Sign e by nny nson Chief Plant Operator/ORC Date
1! a© J (0
nature by Jeff Dotson WWTP Plant Superintendent/backup ORC Date
r 610 - 1J - tb
Signs re by Avery Hamrick Water and Sewer Superintendent Date
O- Afrint YFB. 9 am:.
Signature by Allen W. Greene Collections System ORC Date
Note: Annual reports (SPAR) must be submitted within 60 days of the end of the applicable 12-
month review period.
To satisfy the Departmental reporting requirement, three copies of the annual report (SPAR) should
be submitted to the following address:
System Performance Annual Report
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617