NC0020184_APPLICATION_20000322

NP®ES DOCUMENT SCANNINO COVER SMEET
NPDES Permit: NC0020184
Gastonia — Long Creek WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Application
n Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: March 22, 2000
This aocumeat is printea oaM X*euse]pV&per-i@PM40X-e ariy
conteizt aiz the xre-%re -"e isiae

p.O.SOY 1748
ustania, �Kurt4 (garolina 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OPP
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
March 22, 2000
Mr. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Division of Water Quality-Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mooresville,Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville,NC 28115
Subject: Request for Special Order by Consent(SOC)
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NCO020184
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Gleason:
Enclosed please find three originals of an application for an SOC for the Long Creek WRF
including a resolution by the City Coucil. We have also included a check for$400.
Pleas ve me a call if you have any questions at [phone]
Don Carmichael
Director of Public Works and Utilities
CLT\Documentl APR 3 - 2000
c: David Goodrich/NPPDES Unit
Tommy Stevens/DWQ Director UENR - WATER OUALITy
POMT SOURCE BRANCH

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT
(INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR FACILITIES REQUESTING AN SOC)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Applicant (corporation, individual, or other ): City of Gastonia
2. Print or Type Owner's or Signing Official's Name and Title (the person who is legally responsible for the
facility and its compliance): Don Carmichael, Director of Public Works and Utilities
3. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1748
City: State: Zip: Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
Telephone No.: [phone]
4. Facility Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - must be consistent with name on the permit
issued by the Division of Environmental Management): Long Creek Water Resources Reclamation
Facility
5. Application Date: March 15, 2000
6. County where project is located: Gaston County
II. PERMIT INFORMATION FOR THE FACILITY REQUESTING THE SOC: -
1. Permit No.: NCO020184
2. Name of the specific wastewater treatment facility (if different from I.4. above):
3. Issuance Date of Permit: 11/25/98
4. Expiration Date Of Permit: 01/31/2000
5. Attach a listing of all effluent parameters addressed in the permit, including limitations and monitoring
requirements. See attachment 1
III. COMPLIANCE HISTORY FOR FACILITY REQUESTING THE SOC: Please attach a listing of
all SOC(s) and amendments, Judicial Order(s) and amendments, EPA 309 letter(s), EPA
Administrative Order(s), civil penalty assessment(s), notices of violation(s), etc. issued for this facility
during the past 5 years. This listing must contain the issue dates, reasons for issuance, when the
facility returned to compliance and actions taken to return the facility to compliance. See attachment
2,

IV. EXPLANATION AS TO WHY SOC IS NEEDED:
Please attach a very specific detailed explanation as to why the SOC is being requested.
Please address the following issues:
1. Existing or unavoidable future violation(s) of Permit Limitation(s). The effluent concentration limit for
Total Nitrogen (TN) of 6 mg/L which becomes effective on April 1, 2000. The facility cannot meet this
limit as explained in detail in-the engineering report referenced below. The Long Creek WRF
receives a combination of domestic and industrial wastewaters for treatment. Organic nitrogen from
a specific significant industrial user (SIU) is not biodegradable and at current loads and flow, causes
TN concentrations to consistently exceed 6 mg/L.
2. Existing or unavoidable future violation(s) of Permit Condition(s)
3. Magnitude, duration and date(s) of all existing Violations. Current mass limit of 800 lbs/day has been
complied with under the terms of the NPD_ES permit with the exception of May and June 1999 when
the monthly average TN was 951 and 847 lbs/day, respectively. The limit may also have been violated
in February 2000 due to an inexplicable loss of nitrification. Final results for the month are still be
compiled.
4. Explanation for any existing or unavoidable future violation(s) along with any mitigating factor(s) The
TN_concentration limit cannot be complied with because of non-biodegradable organic N coming
from a SILT to the Long Creek facility. A modification of the TN concentration limit was requested in
the permit renewal application made in July 1999. As of March 2000, no action had been taken b_y_
DWO on the permit application.
5. Expected duration of any existing or unavoidable future violation(s). Resolution of the issue will take
until July 2002. One year to resolve permit issues and determine whether a permit modification to
800 lbs/day or some other alternative approach is accepted by DWQ and an additional 15 months for
compliance if the 6 mWL TN limit is retained in the permit, if no modifications to the Long Creek
treatment works are required.
V. EXPLANATION OF ACTIONS- TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT TO MAXIMIZE THE
EFFICIENCY- OF THE FACILITY PRIOR TO REQUESTING THE SOC:
Please attach a very specific detailed explanation of the actions taken. Please address the following issues:
1. Describe the existing treatment process and any modifications that have been made in an effort to correct
and avoid violations of effluent limitations. An upgrade and expansion of the facility have been
completed. Evaluation of wastewater process data show approximately 4-5 mg/L of TKN (actually
organic nitrogen)which does not degrade through the system. This is equivalent to the contribution
from the SIU which has gone through extended aeration pre-treatment before discharge to the
City's stem. All other aspects of the upgraded system to achieve biological „nutrient removal
BNR are operating with normal tolerances. The BNR process for TN only works if the organic
nitrogen can be broken down to ammonia and then nitrified to nitrate. The nitrate is then removed
through denitrification. Organic nitrogen, as evidenced by the refractory TKN, is not breaking
down in the re-treatment or through treatment at the Long Creek facilities.

2. Changes made to facility operations such as use of polymers, more frequent wasting of solids, additional
aeration, additional operators etc. Not applicable
3. Collection system rehabilitation work completed or scheduled (including dates). Not Applicable
4. Coordination with pretreatment facilities for municipalities or production facilities for industries. Identify
any noncompliance significant industrial users and measure(s) taken or proposed to be taken to bring the
pretreatment facilities back into compliance. Currently, the SILT contributing to the TN compliance
issue is generally in compliance with pretreatment requirements..Through studies undertaken
through this SOC, pretreatment requirements for organic nitrogen and related parameters may
be established.
5. If the SOC is being requested for failure to meet permit effluent limitations, the applicant must submit a
report prepared by an independent consultant (a professional with expertise in wastewater treatment) or
by the Municipal Compliance Initiative program of the Construction Grants and Loans Section of the
Division of Environmental Management This report must address the following: See attachment 3.
a. An evaluation of all existing treatment units, operational procedures and recommendations as to how the
efficiencies of these facilities can be maximized.
b. A certification that these facilities could not be operated in a manner that would achieve compliance with
final permit limitations
c. The effluent limitations that the facility could be expected to meet if operated at their maximum
efficiency during the term of the requested SOC (Be sure to consider interim construction phases listed
in section VIA. of this application).
6. Any other actions taken to correct problems prior to requesting the SOC.
VI. REQUESTED TIME SCHEDULE TO BRING THE FACILITY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND STATE REGULATIONS/STATUTES
The applicant must submit a detailed listing of activities along with time frames that are necessary to bring
the facility into compliance. This schedule must include interim dates as well as a final compliance date.
The schedule should address such activities as:
1. Request any needed permit(s). A permit modification request has been made as 12art of the July 1999
NPDES permit renewal. We anticipate that the NPDES permit will be issued by April 1, 2001._Based
on the results of the study noted below, a modification of this NPDES permit may then be required.
2. Submit plans, specifications and appropriate engineering reports to DEM for review and approval. A
study will be conducted to evaluate the potential for removal of organic nitrogen from the Long
Creek WRF through either additional pretreatment or through additional treatment at the WRF.
This study will examine the relationship of organic nitrogen to other_effluent parameters such as
color. This study will be submitted to DWO-by April 1, 2001.
3. Begin construction

4.,Occurrence of major construction activities that are likely to effect facility performance (units out of
• service,-diversion of flows, etc.).
5. Complete construction
6. Achieve compliance with all effluent limitations,If TN compliance issues are not resolved through
NPDES permit modification or through additional pretreatment or treatment evaluated through the
engineering study, compliance with a TN_concentration limit of 6 m_Z/L can be achieved by July 1
2002. ,..—_._
7. Complete specific Infiltration/Inflow work
8. Have all pretreatment facilities achieve compliance with their pretreatment permits. After consideration
of NPDES permittinp_ and the results of the engineering study, require until April 1, 2002 to issue
pretreatment permit and bring the SIU into compliance to achieve TN requirements.
9. Conduct needed toxicity reduction evaluations (IRE)
VII. IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCES TO BE USED TO BRING THE FACILITY INTO
COMPLIANCE
The applicant must provide an explanation as to the sources of funds to be utilized to complete the work
needed to bring the facility into compliance. Possible funding sources include but are not limited to loan
commitments, bonds, letters of credit, block grants and cash reserves. This explanation must demonstrate
that the funds are available or can be secured in time to meet the schedule outlined as part of this
application.
Maior funding of capital improvements will not be known until the engineering study is completed
VIII. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FLOW
Only facilities owned by a unit of government may request to add additional flow to the treatment system as
part of the SOC in accordance with NCGS 143-215.67(b). If a request is made, it must contain —e following
information:
1. If domestic wastewater flow is requested for residential and commercial growth, a justification must be
made as to the flow being requested. This flow request must be based on past growth record, documented
growth projections, annexation plans, specific subdivision commitments, etc. The justification must include
a Iisting of all proposed development areas and associated flows. The total additional domestic flow that is
needed during the term of this requested order is an additional 9.5 million gallons per day minus any
additional industrial flows.
2. If nondomestic flow is requested, a justification must be made based on actual commitments from the
industry. Copies of these commitments (such as building permits) must be included as part of the
application. Nondomestic flow is only allowable when its strength and volume can be demonstrated to be
such as to not adversely impact the wastewater treatment system, limit the ability to dispose of/utilize the
sludge/residuals and be similar to domestic wastewater for all parameters that are relaxed as part of the
requested SOC. This level of strength can be either prior to pretreatment or after pretreatment if the
applicant is requiring the industry to meet the pretreated levels. The application must contain a detailed
analysis of all parameters that can be reasonably expected to be contained in the proposed industrial

wastewater. The total nondomestic flow that is requested during the term of this order is an additional 9.5
million gallons per day minus any domestic contribution. A complete breakdown of the
business/industries and the requested flow for each must be attached.
3. The total flow requested as part of the-SOC application (both domestic and nondomestic) is gallons per
day.
Please be advised that the actual additional flow, if any, that could be allowed as part of the
requested SOC will be determined by a complete analysis of any projected adverse impact that could
be expected as the result of this additional wastewater on the wastewater treatment facility and the
surface waters.
THIS APPLICATION PACKAGE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY UNLESS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE SUBMITTAL
Required items
a. One original and two copies of the completed and appropriately executed application along with all
required attachments. If the SOC request is for a city/town or county, the applicant must submit a copy
of a resolution (example attached) from the city council or the county commissioners authorizing the
person signing the order to do so. This resolution must clearly state that the council or commission is
aware of the financial commitment that is necessary to bring the facility into compliance. If the applicant
is a company, the person signing the application must be an upper management company official.
b. The nonrefundable SOC processing fee of$400.00. The check must be made payable to The Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Applicant's Certification:
I, , attest that this application for an SOC has been reviewed by
me and is accurate and complete to —e best of my knowledge. I understand that if all required parts of this
application are not completed and that if all required supporting information and attachments are not
included, this applicati n package will be returned as incomplete.
r
Signature Date
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE, INCLUDINC ALL SUPPORTING
INFORMATION AND MATERIALS, SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWINC ADDRESS:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville,NC 28115
Voice: [phone]
fax: [phone]

Attachment 1
Current NPDES Effluent Limitations

A.(2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS-PERMITTED DISCHARGE TO S. FORK CATAWBA RIVER Permit No.NCO020184
During the period beginning after the expansion to 16.0 MGD 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:
xMEN
ZA
kveeklykl3
ti"�. 81 ye.a_S'iremen y
mp a Sample
AMaz �
u:^a Fx ' Anera a nc ocation
e
j
Flow Continuous Recording I or
SOD, 5-day, 20°C (April 1 -October 31) 5.0 mg mg Daily omposi e Ej
SOD, 5-day, 20°C (November 1 - March 31) mg mg Daily Composite 11
TSS mg/1 _T5TM__9T Daily Composite Ej
pre - October mg Daily Composite
(November 1 - March 31) 4.0. mg Daily Composite
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Grab ,
Fecal o r orm (geometric mean m ml Daily Grab
Temperature (3rab E,U,D
Totai Residua onne 28.0 ugh ai y Grab
Conductivity Daily Grab U,D
o a i rogen 2+ NC)3 800 Ibs1day4 Weekly Composite
Total i rogen 2f 3 + 6.0 mg/[ ee y C omposi e
Total osp orus 1.0 mg7l Weekly Composite
Chronic Toxicitys Quarterly ComposiFe
Cyanide ug ug I Ne-ekly Grab
Mercury ug Weekly Grab
Antimony mon Composite
Beryllium mon Composite sie
Cadmium 2/monthComposite
one mon Composite
Chloroform 2/monthLead monGrab E1 Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U -Upstream, D - Downstream. Instream monitoring will not be required during the remainder of the
permit period. See Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Page -Special Condition A(5).
2 The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids 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.
4 800 lbs/day TN limit applies only from April 1 through October 31, 1999. 6.0 mgll TN limit applies April 1 through October 31, 2000 and April 1 through
October 31, 2001 (or earlier if new permit issued prior to this date).
5 Chronic Toxicity (Cerioda hnia , P/F, no significant mortality at 19%; March, June, September, and December; See Supplement to Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements Page - Speciaf Condition A(4).
6 The detection limit for cyanide is 10.0 ug/l. If the measured levels of cyanide are below the detection limit, there the measurement is considered to be zero
for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as < 10.0 ug/l.
The detection limit for mercury is 0.2 ug/l. If the measured levels of mercury are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be zero
for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as < 0.2 ugll.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Attachment 2
Compliance History

Ill. COMPLIANCE HISTORY FOR FACILITY REQUESTING THE SOC AMENDMENT:
Long Creek WWTP NCO02 184(1113/94-1/13/99)
Date Parameter Result Permit Limit SOC Limit_IType of Violation Stipulated Penal
.......... ......................................... ......
$8:006.'p­6'n"Aty... .........S::
NovM ..............
1 1/0311 994 Mercury 0.20 ug/l 0.02 ug/l Daily Maximum
11/10/1994 Mercury 0.20 ug/l 0.02 ug/l Daily Maximum
11/17/1994 Mercury 1.68 uqZI 0.02 uQ/1 Daily Maximum
11/22/1994 Mercury 0.20 ug/I 0.02 ug/I Daily Maximum
12/0211994 Cyanide 7.0 ug/l 6.2 ug/l Daily Maximum
1210511994 Toxicity Fail Pass Monthly
12/0811994 Mercury 0.22 ug/l 0.02 ug/t Daily Maximum
12108/1994 Cadmium 4.0 ug/l 2.5 ug/l Daily Maximum
12/15/1994 Mercury 0.20 ug/l 0.02 ug/I Daily Maximum
12/15/1994 Cadmium 3.0 um 2.5 ugA Daily Maximum
1 211 6/1 994 Cyanide 14.0 ug/I 6.2 ug/l Daily Maximum
12120/1994 Mercury 0.40 ug/I 0.02 ugA Daily Maximum
12/21/1994 Cyanide 9.0 ug/l 6.2 ugA Daily Maximum
12/29/1994, Cadmium'- 4.0 ug/l 2,5 u l,t Daily Maximum.
12/30/1994 Cyanide 8.0 ug/1 6,2 ug/l Daily Maximum
01/05/1995 Lyercury 0.48 uWI 0.02 uQ/1 Daily Maximum
01/09/1995 aanide 14.0 ugA 6.2 ugA Daily Maximum
01/09/1995 Toxicity Fail Pass Monthly
01/19/1995 Cadmium 4.0 ug/l 2.5 ug/l Daily Maximum
01/19/1995 hAercury 0.45 ug/l 0.02 ug/l Daily Maximum
1/3-6/95 Fecal 9452col/100ml 400col/100ml Weekly Avo
1/17-20/95 Fecal 1479coV100ml 400coV1 00ml Weekly Avg
02/06/1995 Toxicity Fail Pass Monthly
02/10/1995 Cyanide 10.0 ug/l 6.2 ug/1 Daily Maximum
03/06/1995 Toxicity Fail Pass Monthly
03/10/1995 Cyanide 18.0 u 62 ug/1 Daily Maximum
03116/1995 Cadmium 3.2 ugA 2.5 ugA Daily Maximum
03/23/1995 lCadmium 3.7 ug/I 2,5 ugA Daily Maximum
0313011995 Cadmium 2.5 ug/1 2.5 u_qA Daily Maximum
03/31/1995 aanide 8.0 ug/I 6.2 ug/l Daily Maximum
04/03l1 995 Toxicity Fail Pass Monthly
04/12/1995 Mercury 0.20 ugA 0.02 ugA Daily Maximum
07/06/1995 Mercu!y 0.25 u 0.02 u.QA Daily Maximum
8/1-31/95 Fecal 215col/1 00ml 200coV1 00ml Monthly Avg
08/01/1995 Fecal 686.3col/100ml 400col/100ml Weekly Avg
08/03/1995 Fecal 777.6col/100ml 400coV100ml Weekly Avg
108/05/1995 Fecal 474.2coV 1 00m I 400col/100ml' Weekly Avg
02�
............ ..
F 7134666111 000L 00 "1 ............... We...ki "A.'g'
.:. V:1.1/2911 W16r6d Q:02Uii 8 axim
..........
.......... ..
:7.....................
................j.
a
v UdA D"il..y.�.Mi'��
:OOT
...... .............. .......................m
0.02u..1...
...
. . . ......... ...
..........
lurri
ty
.. . . . ... .
C;y
..b .................
OAG�:u ...........
---------------
. .. ....... ...............
DM
.$I 00:0Q
.................
04/03/. Morcu jDailyj
..........
u l :Maximum
....................
00g..tic
aif Maxim'um''
B.OD' ....... Mbn ................................... ......
...................
00 Y.
Bob
197..:. �A� W N."A
5/20-24/96 Fecal 1468coV100ml 400coV1100m[ Weekly Avg
06/2511996 BOD Monitoring Frequency $100.00
06/26/1996 BOD Monitoring Frosuencx $100,,,0.0
..............Hh' ..........
�0'0`111'1!1" W
7/8-12/96 Fecal 458 col/100 ml 400col/100ml Weekly Avg
8/26-30/96 Fecal 1677coV100 mf 400coV100rn1 Weekly Avg
08/15/1996 Mercm 0.30 uW 0.02 u I Daily Maximum
awaawf"Ifi�
10MM
03/06/1997 Mercua 10,30 ug/I 0.02 u l Daily Maximum
04/17/1997':.: $1;00&06 C aid:fd'f�v16iatcifis hi hlig hied:mgrebwab'6v6.::
07/31/1997 Mercury 0.20 u.QA 0.02 uciA Daily Maximum
11/18/1997 Mercu[y no sample 0.02 ucO Monitorinq Frequency $100.00
04/02/1998 Mercury 0.20 ug/1 0.12 ug/l Weekly Avg
04/15/1998 Chlorine 43.0 ug/l 28.0 uo Daily Maximum
5/0/1998 Fecal Lab Error 400col/100ml Monitoriing Frequency $50.00
06/01/1998 Chlorine 178 ug/I 28.0 ug/I Daily Maximum 1$250.00
...........
.......................... 1. '."1I1""',.00_
. W NIQit N R.I"W.w,
",W Ont.:r"'P,1
M
.. .........
a"o NoJO.W wA.-P.wwiv...
v
EtVM . ' 0 LM � H� tW "
,'4ft h N.
05 h .
Plukgwm; w 7 7. 7777
09102/1998 BOD No samples taken MonitoringFre auency $50-00
09/02/1998 TSS No samples taken Monitoring Frequency $50.00
09/02/1998 NH3-N No samples taken Monitoring Frequency $50.00
r:
.1.1 J2Wj f6 C�Mid6�.�jo L atio. g 6d .rescinded
si"060,W.'bald 1 '6:fij hlightdd::16 f66K:Ab6�6 a .011' ndo&ip hest for: .6arin
12/04/1998 Cyanide Detection limit error Reeortino Violation 1$25.00
12/28/1998 Chlorine 74.8 ucO 28.0 u_qA Daily Max, $250.00
01/13/1999 Chlorine 28.0 Daily Max. $250.00
4 8 u u
#5 �7 u I
94-98 Vios. Exl.-Long SOC Viol.

Attachment 3
Engineering Report

Technical Memorandum CH21VIIHILL
Long Creek WRF SOC - Nitrogen Removal Evaluation
To: City of Gastonia
FROM: Steve Goodwin, F.E./CH2M HILL
DATE: March 17, 2000
This report has been prepared as a supporting document for the City of Gastonia's Long Creek WRF
(LCWRF) Application for a Special Order by Consent(SOC). More specifically, this report addresses
the LCWRF's anticipated difficulty in meeting a total nitrogen (TN)concentration-based effluent
limit which become effective on April 1, 2000.
In keeping with the instructions provided by the SOC, this report contains the following sections:
• Facility Description
• Evaluation of Existing Treatment Units
• Operation Certification
• Expected Effluent Limitations during the term of the SOC
Facility Description
The LCWRF is an advanced treatment facility with a permitted capacity of 16.0 mgd. The major
process units include preliminary treatment(mechanical screening and grit removal), primary
clarification and sludge pumping, activated sludge biological nutrient removal, secondary
clarification,effluent filtration, post aeration and disinfection. Solids handling consists of combined
primary and waste activated sludge thickening with a dissolved air flotation(DAF) system followed
by lime stabilization. The stabilized biosolids are beneficially reused through land application.
Current flows and loads are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 based on plant data collected from
February, 1999 through January, 2000.Effluent data is summarized in Table 3. A detailed
development of facility flows and loads,effluent quality and operating data is provided in Attachment
A. 1n Tables 1 to 3, AD=average day, MM = maximum month, and MD = maximum day operating
condition.
Evaluation of Existing Treatment Units
The unit processes that most affect effluent quality are the primary clarifiers, the BNR system, the
final clarifiers, and the effluent filters.
CkT1SOC_MEM2 1

LONG CREEK WRF SOC-NITROGEN REMOVAL EVALUATION
Table 1
Raw Influent Flows and Loads
Flow BOD TSS TKN NH3-N TP Alkalin.
Case M9 lbs lbs IN; lbs lbs. lbs.
day day day day day day day
AD 6.5 8,840 11,300 1,740 759 366 15,400
MM 7.6 11,700 15,900 2,310 1,140 439 20,900
MD 16.6 17,200 23,600 3,790 1,900 951 27,100
Table 2
Secondary Influent Loads and Concentrations
BOD TSS �TKN NH N,.,......_.
3- TP
Case lbs 1g lbs MR lbs ma Lbs Mg ]bs
L day L day L day L Day L day
AD 101 5,480 71 3,850 27 1,460 14 759 5 271
MM 128 6,340 93 5,040 36 1,950 21 1,140 6 325
MD 281 15,200 200 10,800 59 3,200 35 1,900 13 705
Table 3
Effluent Loads and Concentrations
BOD TSS TN NH3-N TP
Case MR lbs mg lbs mg lbs M9
Lb mg lbs
L day L day L day L day L day
AD 2.9 157 2.9 157 11.3 613 0.7 38 1.9 103
MM 9.1 493 9.0 488 30.4 1,650 2.8 152 4.6 249
MD 28.0 1,517 22.0 1,190 143.0 7,750 9.6 520 11.7 634
Primary Clarification
The LCWRF has three primary clarifiers; two with 85-ft diameters and one with a 120-ft diameter.
The total clarifier surface area is about 22,660 sf. The original design values for BOD and TSS
removal were 25-percent and 50-percent, respectively. Plant operating data shows that at current
flows, the primary clarifiers are achieving removal rates of 40-percent for BOD and 66-percent for
TSS. The primary clarifiers are currently achieving BOD and TSS removals greater than the original
design criteria.
BNR System
The LCWRF uses a variation of the modified Bardenpho process to biologically remove nitrogen and
phosphorus from the wastewater. This process uses a sequence of
CJISOC-MEM2 2

LONG CREEK WRF SOC-NITROGEN REMOVAL EVALUATION
anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic/anoxic/aerobic zones to accomplish the removal of BOD, nitrogen and
phosphorus and is an appropriate selection for this facility.
BNR operation over the period August, 1999 through January, 2000,has been very good as shown by
the monthly averages below.
BOD= 2.6 mg/L
TSS = 3.5 mg/L
Norg= 5.2 mg/L
NOx = 2.3 mg/L
NH3= 0.5 mg/L
TN= 7.95 mg/L
TP= 0.7 mg/L
These effluent values show that biological phosphorus removal is working(TP less than 1 mg/L), the
activated sludge is nitrifying(ammonia less than 1 mg/L), and denitrifcation is working(nitrate and
nitrite of 2.3 mg/L). A process of this type can be expected to produce an effluent with ammonia of
less than 0.5 mg/L, organic nitrogen of less than 1.5 mg/L, and nitrate+nitrite of about 1.5 to 2.0
mg/L for an effluent total nitrogen of about 3.0 mg/L. The effluent data that stands out in the set
shown above is the effluent organic nitrogen (Norg) of 5.2 mg/L. Process modeling using plant
influent values and assuming a normal municipal wastewater,indicate that the effluent should contain
about 0.2 mg/L ammonia-nitrogen and about 0.55 mg/L organic nitrogen (although the non-
biodegradable nitrogen fraction is somewhat difficult to model). The effluent from LCWRF
apparently contains about 4 to 5 mg/L.of non-biodegradable organic nitrogen. This nitrogen is passing
through the activated sludge system and the filters.
The factors that contribute to successful operation of the BNR system include maintaining sufficient
biomass in the process reactors and an environment conducive to wastewater treatment. Plant data
shows that adequate biomass is being maintained and that a relatively high VSS/TSS ratio(indicative
of a high active biomass fraction) is also being maintained. In addition, adequate dissolved oxygen
and pH are being maintained in the aeration portion of the treatment system. The plant has adequate
aeration blower capacity to maintain necessary dissolved oxygen concentrations through the 16 mgd
condition.
One operational procedure that can maximize the removal of phosphorus and nitrogen is the addition
of additional organic substrate, such as acetic acid. The addition of specific amounts of this substrate
to the anaerobic and anoxic zones can increase the reaction rate and result in the removal of greater
amounts of nutrients.Plant staff is aware of this operation and periodically adds acetic acid to aid in
the removal of nitrogen. It should be noted that the addition of acetic acid aids in denitrification or the
removal of nitrate nitrogen. It has no effect on organic nitrogen removal, which if biodegradable,
must first be hydrolyzed to ammonia in the aerobic zone before if can be removed from the system
through nitrification/denitriftcation.
Final Clarifiers and Effluent Filters
Plant effluent TSS data show that these unit processes are generally producing effluent of much better
quality than required by the effluent permit. Loading rates for the final clarifiers at current flows are
about 200 gpd/sf(hydraulic)and less than 10 lbs/sf-day (solids). The design hydraulic loading rate for
the secondary clarifiers was 360 gpd/sf. Hydraulic loading of the filters is currently running at less
than 1 gpm/sf. The nominal design value was 2 gpm/sf. The secondary clarifiers and effluent filters
are currently Iightly loaded.
CLTISOC_M EM2 3

LONG CREEK WRF SOC.NITROGEN REMOVAL EVALUATION
Operation Certification
Plant data shows that the facility is capable of producing an effluent with less than 015 mg/L of
ammonia nitrogen and less than 3 mg/L of NOx (nitrate and nitrite-nitrogen). In order to meet an
effluent TN limit of 6 mg/L, the facility also needs to produce an effluent with less than about 2.5
mg/L of organic nitrogen. There is presently 4 to5 mg/L of non-biodegradable organic nitrogen in the
facility effluent so the TN concentration effluent limit of 6 mg/L cannot be achieved. If no additional
sources of non-biodegradable organic nitrogen are added to the system, the effluent concentration will
approach 2.5 mg/L of organic nitrogen when the system is receiving about double the current
hydraulic loading.
Although the facility has demonstrated the ability to comply with the 800 lbs/day mass limit, the
facility may exceed this limitation due to upset conditions because the large fraction of non-
biodegradable organic nitrogen provides little margin for error in the nitrogen removal processes. For
this reason, a mass limit for TN of 1000 lbs/day is requested during the term of the SOC.
Expected Effluent Limitations
From the data provided above and from modeling of the plant, the LCWRF could be expected to meet
the following effluent concentration limits on a maximum monthly basis:
BOD= 5.0 mg/L
TSS = 5.0 mg/L
Norg W 7.0 mg/L
Nox= 3.0 mg/L
NH3 = 1.0 mg/L
TN= 11.0 mg/L
TP= 1.0 mg/L
CLTISOC_MEM2 4

ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF GASTONIA - LONG CREEK WWTP
PLANT OPERATING DATA - SUMMARIZED FROM KRUGER DATA FILE
DATE: 3/16/00
A. Raw Influent Data
Q m d BOD m /L TSS m L TKN NH3 TP Min TernJC
DATE Min Avg. Max Min Av Max Min Av Max m /L m IL m /L H De ree
Feb-99 3.0 5.7 7.8 108 175 242 120 183 330 32 12 6 7.8 19.0
Mar-99 3.4 7.2 16.6 117 181 232 64 217 671 35 13 4 7.4 16.0
A r-99 3.6 6.3 10.7 109 215 296 96 282 790 45 14 5 7.4 18.0
Ma -99 4.0 7.3 9.9 115 204 292 160 294 520 68 19 8 7.4 20.0
Jun-99 5.2 7.6 12.2 88 188 316 71 257 700 39 17 7 7.3 24.0
Jul-99 4.8 7.2 10.0 95 192 318 100 224 390 40 15 7 7.1 22.0
Au -99 5.7 7.4 8.8 117 160 188 140 194 300 38 17 13 7.3 27.0
Se -99 5.3 7.1 9.7 89 158 228 98 221 360 41 19 7 7.3 26.0
Oct-99 5.4 7.6 13.5 83 150 216 67 196 340 41 23 8 7.1 23.0
Nov-99 5.4 7.0 9.3 120 166 254 69 229 570 41 21 7 7.1 21.0
Dec-99 5.2 7.0 11.3 124. 178 222 92 215 320 68 35 8 6.9 17.0
Jan-00 5.4 7.6 13.5 83 155 228 67 199 360 41 23 8 7.1 23.0
Minimum 3.0 5.7 7.8 83.0 150.0 188.0 64.0 183.0 300.0 32.0 12.0 4.0 6.9 16.0
Ave rage 4.3 6.5 10.3 96.0 163.2 233.2 88.0 208.5 434.7 40.7 17.5 6.7 6.7 19.7
Maximum 5.7 7.6 16.6 124.0 215.0 318.0 160.0 294.0 790.0 68.0 35.0 13.0 7.8 27.0
Peaking Peaking Peaking
Factor Factor Factor
Avg Day 6.5 163 208 32 12 6.7- 16.0
Max Mon 7.6 1.17 215 1.32 294 1.41 41 18 7 7.8 27.0
Max Day 16.6 2.55 318 1.95 435 2.09 68 35 13 33.0
Ofi . Design 250 250 25 6 8 19.0
DeveloD Flows and Loads for Process Anal sis
Flow BOD TSS TKN NH3 TP Alk
Current - Condition m d Ibs/da Ibs/da Ibs/da Ibs/da Ibs/da Ibs/da
Avg Day 6.5 8,836 11,276 1,735 759 366 15,396
Max Mon 7.6 11,655 15,938 2,313 1,138 439 20,871
Max Day 1 16.6 1 17,239 1 23,581 3,791 1,897 951 27,105
Page 1 of 4

ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF GASTONIA - LONG CREEK WWTP
PLANT OPERATING DATA - SUMMARIZED FROM KRUGER DATA FILE
DATE: 3/16/00
B.Secondsry Influent Data
BOD m /L) jAvg SBO TS5 m L Avg VSS TKN m NH3 m /L TP m L ity
DATE Avq Max m /L Avg Max m /L Avg Max Avq Max Avg Max Avq Max
Feb-99 118 142 97 70 98 59 28.4 36.4 14.4 20.5 6.0 8.3 385 500
Mar-99 111 128 60 77 160 68 31.1 50.8 13.3 22.2 5.4 10.0 377 468
A r-99 117 232 66 66 82 57 29.5 39.8 15.8 24.0 6.1 13.0 306 380
Ma -99 112 170 55 93 130 56 29.7 44.8 17.4 29.0 6.2 11.0 336 430
Jun-99 95 176 41 70 84 56 27.3 50.7 14.5 35.0 5.5 12.0 290 360
Jul-99 102 164 44 59 150 48 25.1 33.6 12.7 20.1 5.2 8.9 268 330
Au -99 120 169 59 78 108 75 27.9 30.8 12.6 15.1 5.7 7.0 279 330
Se -99 108 281 48 79 190 67 26.9 35.3 13.8 19.4 5.5 7.9 292 350
Oct-99 102 211 48 82 200 76 29.1 46.5 14.6 25.4 5.6 7.3 278 360
Nov-99 104 140 51 80 120 70 29.0 34.7 15.3 22.8 6.0 8.8 295 338
Dec-99 128 165 64 87 140 76 36.5 59.4 21.4 29.9 6.0 7.0 312 412
Jan-00 100 211 46 82 200 76 28.9 46.5 14.6 25.4 5.6 7.3 278 360
Minimum 95 128 41 59 82 48 25.1 30.8 12.6 15.1 5.2 7.0 268 330
Average 101 168 52 71 128 60 26.9 39.2 13.9 22.2 5.3 8.3 284 355
Maximum 128 281 97 93 200 76 36.5 59.4 21.4 35,0 6.2 13.0 385 500
Peaking Peaking Peaking Peaking Peaking Peaking
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
Avg Day 101 52 71 60 27 14 5 284
Max Mon 128 1.27 97 93 1.31 76 36 1.33 21 1.50 6 1.20 385 1.36
Max Day 281 2.78 200 2.82 59 2.19 35 2.50 13 2.60 500 1.76
Page 2 of 4

ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF GASTONIA - LONG CREEK WWTP
PLANT OPERATING DATA - SUMMARIZED FROM KRUGER DATA FILE
DATE: 3/16/00
C. Filter Effluent Data
BOD m /L TSS m L Or - N m NOx m L NH3 m L TN m L TP m L
DATE Avg Max Avg Max AvQ Max Avg Max Ava Max Avg Max _Avg Max
Feb-1999 4.2 7.3 2.8 3.7 6.6 9.2 3.4 8.5 0.1 0.4 10.1 15.1 3.4 4.2
Mar-1999 3.3 5.7 3.0 7.0 6.6 8.0 4.8 16.1 1.8 9.6 13.2 24.8 4.6 8.3
Apr-1 999 6.9 24.6 3.0 4.7 5.2 7.0 11.9 22.6 2.8 8.5 20.4 35.9 3.5 5.5
Ma -1999 3.1 8.5 2.6 8.6 6.1 25.8 26.3 131.0 0.6 7.2 30.4 143.0 3.8 7.8
Jun-1999 2.3 4.5 3.2 12.0 4.9 7.0 12.7 30.8 0.2 1.1 17.8 36.3 3,0 6.4
Jul-1999 2.0 7.3 2.3 7.4 4.2 5.7 2.8 25.0 0.3 5.5 7.7 29.8 2.3 6.4
Au -1999 1.5 2.7 2.1 4.0 4.3 5.6 1.5 3.9 0.1 1.7 5.9 8.9 1.3 11.7
Se -1999 1.3 4.1 3.0 8.4 4.8 6.2 3.0 5.9 0.1 0.2 7.8 11.5 0.5 0.9
Oct-1999 1.0 3.1 1.9 4.0 4.8 6.1 2.0 4.4 0.2 0.9 7.0 10.5 0.4 0.7
Nov-1999 1.6 5.8 3.0 5.4 5.6 7.8 1.9 4.5 0.3 0.6 7.8 11.5 0.7 2.4
Dec-1999 9.1 28.0 9.0 22.0 6.8 23.4 3.1 6.0 2.3 8.5 12.2 30.4 0.7 1.1
Jan-2000 1.0 3.1 1.9 4.0 4.8 6.1 2.0 4.4 0.2 0.9 7.0 10.5 0.4 0.7
Minimum 1.0 2.7 1.9 3.7 4.2 5.6 1.5 3.9 0.1 0.2 5.9 8.9 0.4 0.7
Average 2.9 8.1 2.9 7.0 5.0 9.1 5.8 20.2 0.7 3.5 11.3 28.3 1.9 4.3
Maximum 9.1 28.0 9.0 22.0 6.8 25.8 26.3 131.0 2.8 9.6 30.4 143.0 4.6 11.7
Avg Day 2.9 2.9 5.0 5.8 0.7 11.3 1.9
Max Mon 9.1 9.0 6.8 26.3 2.8 30.4 4.6
Max Day 28. 1 22.0 1 1_25.8 131.0 1 9.6 143.0 11.7
Page 3 of 4

ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF GASTONIA - LONG CREEK WWTP
PLANT OPERATING DATA - SUMMARIZED FROM KRUGER DATA FILE
DATE: 3/16/00
D. Operating Data
A-TSS m /L A - VSS m /L 8 -TSS m /L B-VSS m /L RAS % lnf Flow RAS m /L
DATE Avq Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max
Feb-1999 2,748 3,440 2,124 2,710 2,791 3,660 2,144 2,850 15,660 19,100
Mar-1999 3,558 4,090 2,797 3,250 3,499 4,080 2,761 3,230 17,720 22,860
Apr-1 999 3,110 3,490 2,475 2,750 2,842 3,850 2,296 3,070 18,020 20,460
May-1 999 2,856 3,790 2,293 3,000 2,990 5,850 2,406 4,710 1.05 1.50 16,830 20,900
Jun-1999 2,518 3,510 2,035 2,870 2,576 4,090 2,077 3,270 1.16 1.65 14,020 26,860
Jul-1999 2,527 2,840 2,006 2,250 2,501 2,810 1,982 2,250 0.95 1.12 15,400 20,200
Au -1999 2,503 2,780 1,922 2,100 2,463 2,960 1,921 2,240 0.99 1.85 16,800 20,000
Sep-1 999 2,516 2,740 1,843 1,960 2,518 2,700 1,822 1,970 0.92 1.30 18,720 21,240
Oct-1999 2,455 2,840 1,738 2,060 2,411 2,860 1,683 1,910 1.00 1.64 16,800 19,900
Nov-1999 2,506 2,750 1,864 2,050 2,480 2,700 1,825 1,990 1.01 1.30 17,560 19,000
Dec-1999 2,245 2,570 1,660 1,880 2,408 3,000 1,792 2,100 1.15 1.66 15,940 18,900
Jan-2000 2,455 2,840 1,725 2,060 2,411 2,800 1,688 1,970 1.00 1.64 16,800 19,900
Minimum 2,245 2,570 1,660 1,880 2,408 2,700 1,683 1,910 0.92 1.12 14,020 18,900
Average 2,461 2,898 1,883 2,226 2,453 3,177 1,877 2,428 1.03 1.05 15,405 19,178
Maximum 3,558 4,090 2,797 3,250 3,499 5,850 2,761 4,710 1.16 1.85 18,720 26,860
VSS[TSS VSS/TSS
Avg Day 2,461 0.77 1,883 2,453 0.77 1,877 1.03 15,405
Max Mon 3,558 0.79 2,797 3,499 0.79 2,761 1.16 18,720
Max Day 4,090 3,250 5,850 4,710 1.85 26,860
Page 4 of 4

RESOLUTION FOR A SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT
WHEREAS, the City of Gastonia has a permit to discharge wastewater to the South Fork
of the Catawba River; and
WHEREAS, this discharge is allowed under NPDES Permit No NCO020184 effective
11/28/98 and scheduled to expire on 01/31/2000, and
WHEREAS, the City of Gastonia intends to make necessary improvements and/or
modifications to the wastewater treatment system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gastonia agrees to maintain and operate the wastewater
treatment system at its maximum level of efficiency during the interim period of the
Special Order and thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gastonia has, or will secure, funding for treatment plant
improvements if necessary, but they are not anticipated; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gastonia hereby authorizes its Director of Public Works/Utilities
to have the authority to sign and execute the Special Order by Consent on behalf of the
City; and
THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City of Gastonia requests a Special
Order by Consent from the Environmental Management Commission and the City hereby
authorizes its Director of Public Works/Utilities to sign and execute this document on
behalf of the City.
Adopted this the day of 21"day of March, 2000.
]en i r T. St tz,Mayor
ATTEST:
�)-Z,;4"- e 7f &2
City Clerk
S:IwordlResolutionslres 1081.doc