NC0020184_Speculative Limits_19940421

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NCO020184
Gastonia — Long Creek WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: April 21, 1994
This d me3Mt i= printQW& oa mouse paper - igpo.:-e sXILSr
coateat oXs. the reverse side

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
April21, 1994
Don Carmichael, P.E.
Director for Public Works and Utilities
City of Gastonia
1300 North Broad Street
PO Box 1748
Gastonia, NC 28053
1~•
D E H N R
Subject: Gastonia Long Creek WWTP Speculative Limits
NPDES Permit No. NCO020184
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Carmichael:
The Technical Support Branch of the Water Quality Section has completed a speculative
wasteload allocation for the City of Gastonia Long Creek WWTP. In a February 22,
1994, letter to Coleen Sullins, J.N. Pease Associates had requested speculative limits for
the discharge of 35, 50, and 65 MGD of treated wastewater to the South Fork Catawba
River. At this point in time, speculative limits are provided for the 35 MGD flow only. It
was felt that further hydraulic and chemical sampling would be required before even
speculative limits could be given for flows of 50 and 65 MGD. Speculative limits for
discharge of 35 MGD are provided below.
Summer Winter
Wasteflow
35
35
BOD5 (mg/1)
5
10
NH3-N
2
4
DO (mg/1)
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
Fecal Coliform (#/100m1)
200
200
pH (Si)
6-9
6-9
Chlorine (µg/1)
28
28
TN (mg/1)
4
8
TP (mg/1)
0.5
0.5
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

2
Please be advised that the speculative limits provided above are based upon the current
information available to the Division. Final NPDES effluent limitations can be determined
only after a formal permit application has been submitted to the Division.
The instream waste concentration at 35 MGD could range between 31 and 55%. This will
depend upon operation of Gasontia's water supply intake upstream of the discharge point.
If the existing water supply intake is replaced, the instream waste concentration at 35
MGD would be 31 %. A chronic toxicity testing requirement with quarterly monitoring
will remain a condition of the NPDES permit. A complete evaluation of limits and
monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will have to be addressed at the
time of formal NPDES application.
It should also be noted that an expansion of more than 0.5 MGD for an existing facility
will require that an environmental document be prepared by the applicant. The N.C.
Environmental Policy Act and its associated rules require that an environmental
assessment (EA) and Fonsi (Finding of No Significant Impact) be prepared before an
application for a permit expansion is submitted. If deemed appropriate, an environmental
impact statement (EIS) might be necessary. Monica Swihart of the Water Quality
Planning Branch can provide further information regarding the EA requirement.
As you may be aware, DEM has begun a basinwide water quality management initiative.
Our schedule for implementation in the Catawba River Basin is set for 1995. The plan will
attempt to address all sources of point and nonpoint pollutants where deemed necessary to
protect or restore water quality standards. In addressing interaction of sources, wasteload
allocations may be affected. Those facilities that already have committed to high levels of
treatment technology are least likely to be affected.
If you have further questions about speculative permit limits for the Long Creek WWTP
please contact'Steve Bevington or me at [phone].
ffonald Safiit E.
Assistant Chief for ec Support
Water Quality Section
DLS/SRB
cc: Mooresville Regional Office
Donald T. Garbrick, J.N. Pease Associates
Central Files

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Permits and Engineering/ NPDES Unit
March 18, 1994
TO: Preston Howard
THROUGH: Steve Tedder
FROM: Coleen Sullins
SUBJECT: City of Gastonia, Long Creek WWTP
Permit Number NCO020184
Gaston County
Long Creek WWTP was submitted as a modification for the increase in
flow from 8.0 MGD to 16.0 MGD and for the relocation of the discharge
outfall from Lopg Creek to the South Fork Catawba River. The limited
dilution of Long Creek (7Q10 = 3.5 cfs) has given Gastonia problems in
meeting their toxicity test ( limited at 80%) at the present flow and will
definitely not meet limits if the facility was expanded to 16.0 MGD. Long
Creek, aside from having severe toxicity problems (failed six straight tests
starting in March 1993), also has had a failure of BOD5 in April, 1993.
Because of this and the need for additional flows, Gastonia decided they
wanted to expand the facility and relocate to the South Fork Catawba
River where they would receive a break with the toxicity test because of
the low flows existing there (7Q10 = 109 cfs). This relocation would give
Long Creek a toxicity limit of 22% at 8 MGD and 36% at 16 MGD. The
problem with the relocation to the South Fork Catawba River is where to
locate it. The mouth of Long Creek is just upstream of Spencer
Mountain Dam which is utilized by Duke Power as a water supply for a
hydroelectric plant(see attached map). Three possible locations are
possible for the relocation and the good and bad points are listed below:
1 . Upstream of Dam
This is a suitable location for Gastonia because of it being the
least expensive of the locations. However, due to the pooling behind the
Dam, the mixing is poor and may cause problems. Also because of this,
the existing treatment at the Long Creek WWTP would cause dissolved
oxygen levels to drop below standards. This could be a suitable site if the
treatment is upgraded to a tertiary treatment plant to meet tertiary limits.
2) the bypass reach at the dam
Because the location is past the dam and is not involved with
the pooling, this site could be considered better than the first. The

problem is with the minimum release required by the FERC license for
Duke Power. As it exists now, the minimum discharge is below the
volume that would supply the discharge with sufficient dilution to
protect the water quality.
belowhe tailrace f the D Power hydroelectric pr 'e t
This is a satisfactory site for the Division because it has suitable
flows and adequate mixing for both the existing flow and the expanded
flows of 16 MGD. But this site is not favorable for Gastonia because it is
almost an additional 1.5 miles downstream through some rough terrain c'X4 'W
and which would add large amounts to the cost of the relocation. �rvrc�✓v
ID ;��

P E
A
S
E
�,A;�
A r c h i t e c t u r e
E n g i n e e r i n g
P l a n n i n g
I n t e r i o r s
February 22, 1994
Ms. Colleen Sullins
Permits and Engineering Group
Water Quality Section
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Lg
�U k d() ?� for,
Reference: Wastewater System Improvements
City of Gastonia, North Carolina
J.N. Pease Associates' Commission No. 94013-00 c-)
r
Subject: Long Creek Waste Stream Allocations ip
Dear Colleen: t 11
As discussed in our meeting on February 10, 1994, we are hereby reques 'ng that the
in -stream waste allocations be run on the South Fork River at the following capacities:
1. 35 MGD of Discharge
2. 50 MGD of Discharge
3. 65 MGD of Discharge
Each one of these discharges should be run with the City of Gastonia's raw water
intake coming off line and allowing that flow to be attributed to the 7Q10.
We thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project.
Sincerely,
Donald T. arbrick, PE
DTG/lh
cc: Mr. Don Carmichael
dtg6
J.N. Pease Associates P.O. Box 18725 2925 East Independence Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28218 704 376-6423

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
January 20, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Swihart
THRU: Ruth Swanek Q,C5
Carla Sanderson'
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell,�y,NJ
SUBJECT: Environmental Review for Gastonia 201 Facilities Plan
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed Gastonia's responses to Division
memorandum. Our additional comment is that the City should be aware that a basinwide
management plan for the Catawba River Basin is being developed and implementation is set
for 1995. The plan will address point and nonpoint sources within the river basin and
wasteload allocations for existing dischargers could be affected If additional
environmental assessments for the phased expansions will be submitted, the Division will
perform further review at that time.
Please contact if additional questions on these comments.
cc: Rex Gleason
WLA File

�J
56�e
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 12, 1993
J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Randy Kepler 4
FROM: Stephen Bevingtoon
THROUGH: Ruth Swanek -PC,S
SUBJECT: City of Gastonia, Long Creek
NC0020184, Draft Permit Comments
Gaston County al /l AV A-, A�cj
4� C Qvr11,
The following three requests and the general request apply to each permit condition (Al fih�
through C2): A fr y,
1) Request oil and grease be monitored weekly rather than daily.
Technical Support has no specific comment or concerns.
2) Request downstream sampling at 35 18' 28", 81 05' 57" rather than current locations.
DISAGREE
The downstream sampling site(s) should meet the following conditions:
If the discharge is to Long Creek, the downstream sampling site should be
on Long Creek near the South Fork Catawba. Long Creek at SR 2003 seems an
ideal site for this, but others may be considered.
If the disarge is to the South Fork CataYA& downstream si hould be
established in th ' pencer Mountain Dam pool, a bypass reach, elow the
tailrace. The site below the tailrace should be far bnough downstream so that the
water from therace and bypass have. mixed. Ideal downst sampling
locations are t p ,^er Mountain Dam pool at the dam, thith Fork Bypass
at SR 2003, and t�uth Fork 1.5 miles below tailrace at powerlines. The far
downstream site may be difficult to reach. If this is the case, a site closer to the
tailrace may be substituted.
3) Request samples be collected two times per week rather than current schedule. AGREE
Because of the multiple downstream discharge points, twice weekly monitoring
should be effective.
U 'S _ mo o
� 7

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO024244 I11 121 18/02/22 I17 18I � I 19 I s I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
701� I 711 L
LJ L -1 I I
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:23AM 18/02/22
13/01/01
Long Creek WWTP
1040 Coble Ave Extension
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Albemarle NC 28002
12:20PM 18/02/22
14/02/28
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Brandon Wesley Plyler/ORC/704-984-9630/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Michael J Ferris,PO Box 190 Albemarle NC 280020190/City
Manager/704-984-9410/7049849406 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Roberto Scheller DWR/MRO WQ/252-946-6481/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
W. Corey Basinger DWR/MRO WQ/704-235-2194/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO024244 I11 12I 18/02/22 117 18 i c i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO024244 Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
0
❑
❑
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Permit expired February 28, 2014 with draft permit sent out for review.
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operatc
❑
❑
❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Records were current and available for review. Facility has in house lab for process control
and conducts field analyses under certification #5648. All other analyses are performed by
Statesville Analvtical Inc.. ETS Inc.. Environmental 1.
Operations & Maintenance
Yes No NA NE
Page# 3

Permit: NCO024244
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: Treatment processes appeared to be well operated.
Q— CAM —AM -
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment: Facilty is fitted with mechanical and manual by-pass bar screens
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment: Grit removal appeared to be operating properly at time of inspection.
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Yes
No
NA
NE
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Influent samples collected at headworks of treatment plant. Influent sampler was noted at 3
degrees Celsius at time of inspection.
Page# 4

Permit: NCO024244
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes
No
NA
NE
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: Influent is pumped over to aeration basins by use of influent screw pumps. One of the four
screw pumps did not appera to be in good condition but was reported as operational.
Aeration Basins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
Yes No NA NE
Ext. Air
Surface
❑
❑
■
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment: Aeration basins have the ability to step feed influent. It was noted that 2 of the 4 aeration
basins had white foam on the surface as if basins were in start-up.
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO024244 Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/ of the sidewall depth) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Secondary clarifiers appeared to be in good operational condition. During inspection it was
noted that weirs on secondary clarifiers were exceptionally clean.
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are pumps in place?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of operation:
Cross
flow
Is the filter media present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Review of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) data reported on DMR's, for the year 2017,
indicated that TSS is unusually NO for this facility. It is therefore recommended that tertiary
filters be inspected for damage and repaired as necessary. It was noted at time of
inspection that new replacement filter material has been received at WWTP.
Disinfection -Gas
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
❑
❑
❑
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
0
❑
❑
❑
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
1000-0012-3092
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
10/14/2013
Comment:
Page# 6

Permit: NC0024244 Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection -Gas Yes No NA NE
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
❑
❑
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑
❑
0
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Facility is using Sodium Bisulfite for dechlorination.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Drying Beds
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
❑
❑
0
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Drying beds are being used to dry alum sludge from water treatment plant.
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Comment: Generators are maintained by Kraft Power Equipment.
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NCO024244 Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
0
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
0
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: It was noted at time of inspection that effluent sampler was 1 degree Celsius.
Flow Measurement - Influent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Flow meter was last calibrated on January 16, 2018.
IYM7111111111►[•7►/_9►1:4
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8