NC0020290_COMPLIANCE_20081211

MPDES DOCUWEMT SCAMMIMO COVER: !iQ+lEE 1'
NPDES Permit:
NCO020290
Burnsville WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Compliance
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
December 11, 20'08
Tilvis document is pri=ited On rate V per - iazore any
coritQxzt Ori tje reef side

of W Ark Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
December 11, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL 7003 0500 0002 6819 3828
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Danny McIntosh
Town of Burnsville
P. O. Box 97
Burnsville, NC 28714. .
SUBJECT: Assessment of Civil Penalties
NPDES Permit NCO020290
Town of Burnsville WWTP
Case Number PC-2008-0065
Yancey County .
Dear Mayor McIntosh:
This letter transmits notice of a civil penalty assessed against the Town of Burnsville in the amount of
$37,944.57, including $11,444.57 in enforcement costs.
Attached is a copy of the assessment document explaining this penalty. This action was taken under the
authority vested in me pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Any continuing violation(s) may be the subject of a new
enforcement action, including an additional penalty.
Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, you must do one of the following:
1. Submit payment of the penalty:
Payment should be made directly to the order of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(do not include waiver form). Payment of the penalty will not foreclose further enforcement action for
any continuing or new violation(s). Please submit payment to the attention of:
Point Source Branch
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
OR
No hCarolina
Natura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.newatcroualily.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal CpportunilylAffirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycledlf 0% Post Consumer Paper

IN Complete items t, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Deiivery is desired.
* Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to.
A. Signatu
t/ ❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
S. eceived by (Print e) C. Date of Del{v
/7—j&_0
D. is deWery address different from Rem i? ❑ Yes
if YES, enter delivery address below: 13 No
HONORABLE DANNY MQNTOSH
TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
PO BOX 97 3. Service Type
BURNSVILLE NC 28714 o Cer►irred Matt © Express Man ;
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) p Yes
2. ArticleArias r Number
7003 0500 0002 6819 3828
{Tinnsfer from service laGeQ
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt to2s9sU2-iM �sao

2. Submit a written request for remission including a detailed justification for such
request: -
Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors listed
below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the civil penalty assessed.
Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for contesting whether the violation(s) occurred
or the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the civil penalty assessment
document. Because a remission request forecloses the option of an administrative hearing, such
a request must be accompanied by a waiver of your right to an administrative hearing and a
stipulation and agreement that no factual or legal issues are in dispute. Please prepare a detailed
statement that establishes why you believe the civil penalty should be remitted, and submit it to
the Division of Water Quality at the address listed below. In determining whether a remission
request will be approved, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS 14313-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the violator;
(2) whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from
the violation;
(3) whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(4) whether the violator has been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations; or
(5) whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions.
Please note that all evidence presented in support of your request for remission must be
submitted in writing. The Director of the Division of the Division of Water Quality will review
your evidence and inform you of her decision in the matter of your remission request. The
response will provide details regarding the case status, directions for payment, and provision for
further appeal of the penalty to the Environmental Management Commission's Committee on
Civil Penalty Remissions (Committee). Please be advised that the Committee cannot consider
information that was not part of the original remission request considered by the Director.
Therefore, it is very important that you prepare a complete and thorough statement in support of
your request for remission.
In order to request remission, you must complete and submit the enclosed "Request for
Remission of Civil Penalties, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of
Facts" form within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. The Division of Water Quality also
requests that you complete and submit the enclosed "Justification for Remission Request." Both
forms should be submitted to the following address:
Point Source Branch
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

V
3. File a petition for an administrative hearing with the Office of Administrative
Hearings:
If you wish to contest any statement in the attached assessment document you must file a petition
for an administrative hearing. You may obtain the petition form from the Office of
Administrative Hearings. You must file the petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings
within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. A petition is considered filed when it is received
in the Office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office of
Administrative Hearings accepts filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., except for official state holidays. The original and one (1) copy of the petition
must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petition may be faxed - provided
the original and one copy of the document is received in the Office of Administrative Hearings
within five (5) business days following the faxed transmission. The mailing address for the
Office of Administrative Hearings is:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Telephone [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
A copy of the petition must also be served on DENR as follows:
Ms. Mary Penny Thompson, Registered Agent
DENR
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Please indicate the case number (as found on page one of this letter) on the petition.
Failure to exercise one of the options above within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, as
evidenced by an internal date/time received stamp (not a postmark), will result in this matter
being referred to the Attorney General's Office for collection of the penalty through a civil
action. Please be advised that additional penalties may be assessed for violations that occur after
the review period of this assessment.
If you have any questions, please contact Bob Sledge at [phone], or via e-mail at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jeffrey O. Poupart
attachments
cc: Asheville Regional Office — SWP Section
NPDES Unit - Enforcement File
PERCS Unit
Central Files

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YANCEY
IN THE MATTER OF
THE TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
NPDES PERMIT NC0020290,
15A NCAC 2B 0.211(1),
15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(e)
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
File No. PC-2008-0065
FINDINGS AND DECISIONS
AND ASSESSMENT OF
CIVIL PENALTIES
Acting pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ),1, Jeffrey O.
Poupart, make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The Town of Burnsville is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of
the State of North Carolina.
B. The Town of Burnsville operates a 0.8 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant,
consisting of 0.5 MGD and 0.3 MGD contact stabilization plants operating in
parallel. The WWTP is located off of NCSR 1138, southwest of Burnsville, in
Yancey County, North Carolina.
C. The Town of Burnsville was issued NPDES Permit NCO020290 on July 17, 2006
(effective September 1, 2006, with an expiration, date of September 30, 2010) for
the treatment of wastewater and the discharge of treated wastewater to Cane
River, class C-Trout waters of the State in the French Broad River Basin.
D. Section C. (2.) of the NPDES Permit states, in part, that "The Permittee shall at all
times provide the operation and maintenance resources necessary to operate the
existing facilities at optimum efficiency. The Permittee shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and
related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve
compliance with the conditions of this permit."

E. Section E. (9.) of the NPDES permit states, in. part, that "The Permittee shall
report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional office of
the Division as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next
working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any
of the following: any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which
results in the discharge of significant amounts of waste which are abnormal in
quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of the sludge
digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance.through the facility;
or any other unusual circumstances." The section additionally states: "Persons
reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report within 5
days following first knowledge of the occurrence."
F. Part IV, Section C. (1.) of NPDES permit NC0020290 states the Town of
Burnsville shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved
pretreatment program (i.e., obtain Town Council adoption of its DWQ approved
Sewer Use Ordinance).
G. Part IV, Section C. (2.) of NPDES permit NC0020290 states the Town of
Burnsville shall update its Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) to include all users of
the sewer collection system at least once every five years.
H. Part IV, Section C. (7.) of NPDES permit NC0020290 states the Town of
Burnsville shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as
described in its Division approved pretreatment program in order to determine
compliance with applicable pretreatment standards. This includes annual
inspections of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and semi-annual or annual
sampling of each permit limited parameter at each SIU, depending on the
parameter.
I. Part IV, Section C. (9.) of NPDES permit NC0020290 requires the Town of
Burnsville to obtain Division approval of an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) in
order for the Town to enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all
pretreatment standards.
Part IV, Section C. (10.) of NPDES permit NC0020290 states the Town of
Burnsville shall submit its pretreatment annual report to the Division according to
a schedule established by the Director. The Town was notified via letter dated
December 27, 2007 that its 2007 report was to be submitted no later than March 1,
2008.
K. 15A NCAC 2B .0211(1) states that best usage for Class C waters are "aquatic life
propagation and. maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing and fish),
wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary
recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes;"

L. 15A NCAC 2B .0211(2) states that Class C.waters "will be suitable for aquatic
life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing, and
fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture; sources of water pollution which
preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or a long-term basis will be
considered a violation of a water quality standard."
M. 15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(e) establishes the water quality standard for fecal
coliforrn in Class C waters, stating that "fecal coliforms shall not exceed a
geometric mean of 200/100 ml (MF count) based upon at least five consecutive
samples examined during any thirty day period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more
than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period."
N. On March 19, 2008, an inspection of the Burnsville WWTP was conducted by
Roy Davis of the DWQ's Asheville Regional Office (ARO). The primary finding
of the inspection was that the WWTP exhibited an appearance indicating it
occasionally received slug loadings of toxic waste that adversely affected the
WWTP's performance. The Town was encouraged to identify and deal with the
waste source.
O. During the afternoon of Tuesday, April 22, 2008, staff of the Catena Group, Inc.
(TCG) were working in the Cane River in the vicinity just upstream of the
Whittington Road (SR 1379) bridge, searching for a suitable relocation site for
Appalachian Elktoe mussels (a federally endangered freshwater mussel species)
whose habitat would be disturbed by the US Highway 19E bridge widening
project. This location. is approximately four miles downstream from the Bumsville
WWTP, and was known historically as an area supporting populations of
freshwater mussels, including the Appalachian Elktoe.
P. TCG personnel noticed "a strong odor of WWTP effluent" as they entered the
Cane River at the location noted in I. O. They did not observe any live mussels,
but did find 6 fresh -dead Appalachian Elktoe mussels, 2 wavy -rayed lampmussel
shells with soft tissue still intact, dozens of dead Asian clams, and numerous dead
and distressed fish. Following their survey at the Whittington Road location,
TCG staff proceeded downstream to the Langston Road (SR 1381) bridge
(approximately 6.5 miles downstream of the WWTP) and performed an
assessment of the Cane River in the area upstream of the bridge. At this location
no live mussels were observed and 3 dead Appalachian Elktoe mussels were
found, along with additional dead and diseased fish (but fewer in number than
observed at the Whittington Road site). TCG personnel notified the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC )of their observations the
next morning. DWQ was notified shortly thereafter by the NCWRC.

Q. On April 23, 2008, ARO's Roy Davis with surveyed the Cane River above the
point where dead aquatic organisms were observed. The only thing observed out
of the ordinary was the visible plume created as effluent from the Town of
Burnsville WWTP entered the Cane River. An inspection of the Burnsville
WWTP revealed a black, malodorous activated sludge in the two contact
stabilization units with the larger unit showing this characteristic the most. Tom
Storie, Director of Public Works with the Town of Burnsville, reported that a
toxic slug passed through the WWTP on the previous weekend. The WWTP's
discharge monitoring report (DMR) for April 2008 states the slug reached the
WWTP on April 16, 2008.
R. Prior to the occasion of Roy Davis' April 23, 2008 inspection, the Town of
Burnsville had not verbally notified the ARO of the conditions existing at the
WWTP and in its discharge, nor had the Town reported the passage of a
hazardous substance through the WWTP. Neither were written reports submitted
within 5 days of the Town's first knowledge of the incident.
S. On May 7, 2008, staff of the DWQ's Biological Assessment Group conducted a
benthic sampling study of the Cane River at sites upstream and downstream of the
Town of Burnsville WWTP. Based upon the results of sampling and comparison
to historical data, the study concluded the Town of Burnsville WWTP discharge
had caused a noticeable difference in benthic communities downstream of the
WWTP.
T. Noncompliant conditions persisted at the Town of Burnsville WWTP through
August 2008, as evidenced by routine follow up inspections conducted by ARO
personnel and the results of self-monitoring.contained in the WWTP's DMRs.
Both the DMRs and ARO staff noted the WWTP had been severely impacted by
repeated toxic slug loads.
U. Between June 5, 2008 and July 8, 2008 the Cane River was sampled at various
locations and analyzed for fecal coliform. Sampling sites and results of the
monitoring are included in Attachment A. The results evidenced violations of the
Water Quality Standard for fecal coliform in the Cane River downstream from the
Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant.
V. On June 3, 2008, DWQ staff conducted a Pretreatment Audit Inspection of the
Town of Burnsville's pretreatment program. The inspection revealed program
deficiencies as depicted in Attachment A. A Notice of Violation/Notice of
Recommendation for Enforcement was sent to the Town regarding the findings of
the inspection.
W. On June 3, 2008, the Toe River Health District issued an advisory against
swimming and wading in the Cane River downstream of the Town of Burnsville
WWTP due to the potential for negative health effects resulting from exposure to
the WWTP's discharge to the river.

X. The costs to the State for the investigation and enforcement procedures in this
matter totaled $ 11,444.57.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. The Town of Burnsville is a "person" within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.6A
pursuant to G.S. 143-212(4).
B. NPDES Permit NCO020290 is required by NCGS 143-215.1.
C. The conditions within the subject permit regarding the proper operation of the
wastewater treatment plant, reporting of unusual circumstances, and operation of
the pretreatment program are terms, conditions, or requirements of said permit.
D. The Cane River constitutes waters of the State within the meaning of G.S. 143-
215.1(a)(1) pursuant G.S. 143-212(6).
E. 15A NCAC 2B .0211(1) and 15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(e) are water quality
. standard established pursuant to G.S. 143-214.L
F. The conditions existing at the Town of Burnsville wastewater plant on April 23,
2008 and persisting for weeks thereafter, and the Town's inability to identify and
eliminate the source of toxic slug loads constituted a failure to properly operate
and maintain systems of control, in violation of Section C. (2.) of NPDES Permit
NC0020290.
G. The Town of Burnsville violated Section E. (9) of NPDES Permit NCO020290 by
failing to provide verbal notification within 24 hours of the -known passage of a
slug of toxic material through the facility on or about April 16, 2008, and the
effects of the slug loading on the wastewater treatment plant which resulted in the
discharge of significant amounts of waste which are abnormal in quantity, and by
failing to provide a written report within 5 days following first knowledge of the
occurrence of the events.
H. The Town of Burnsville violated Part IV, Section C. (I.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to obtain Town Council approval of its Sewer Use
Ordinance,
L The Town of Burnsville violated Part IV, Section C. (2.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to update its Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) to include all
users of the sewer collection system at least once every five years.

The Town of Burnsville violated Part IV, Section C. (7.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring
activities of its one SIU during 2007 in order to determine compliance with
applicable pretreatment standards.
K. The Town of Burnsville violated Part IV, Section C. (9.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to obtain Division approval for an Enforcement Response
Plan.
L. The Town of Burnsville violated Part IV, Section C. (10.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to submit its pretreatment annual report to the Division no
later than March 1, 2008.
M. Mortality to Appalachian Elktoe mussels and other freshwater species, reduction
of benthic species numbers, distribution and habitat, and the posting of an
advisory against swimming and wading in the Cane River constitute a removal of
best usage within the meaning of 15A NCAC 2B A211(2).
N. The Town of Burnsville violated 15A NCAC 213 .0211(1) by removing best usage
from the Cane River as a result of the discharge of inadequately treated effluent
from its WWTP.
0. The Town of Burnsville violated 15A NCAC 213 .0211(3)(e) on 3 occasions by
creating conditions that caused the fecal coliform in the Cane River to exceed a
geometric mean of 200/100 ml based upon five consecutive samples within a 30
day period, which represent a violation of the fecal coliform water quality
standard for class C waters.
P. General Statute 143-215.6A (a)(2) provides that a civil penalty of not more than
twenty-five thousand dollars per violation may be assessed against a person who
violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of
a permit required by G.S. 143-215.1.
Q. General Statute 143-215.6A(a)(1) provides that a civil penalty of not more than
twenty-five thousand dollars per violation may be assessed against a person who
violates any classification, standard, limitation, or management practice
established pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1.
R. The State's enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against the Town of
Burnsville pursuant to G.S.143-215.3 (a)(9) and G.S. 14313-282.1(b)(8).
S. Jeffrey 4. Poupart, pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Director of the
Division of Water Quality, has the authority to assess civil penalties in this matter.

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I.make the following:
III. DECISION:
The Town of Burnsville is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ C- v0 c7 For violation of Part II, Section C. (2.) of NPDES Permit
NC0020290, by failing to properly operate and maintain the
wastewater treatment plant during an undetermined period
of time beginning on or about April 16, 2008.
$ .3� 000 For violation of Part II, Section E. (9.) of NPDES Permit
NC0020290, by failing to provide either the 24 hour verbal
or 5 day written reports of the known passage of a slug of
toxic material through the facility, and the slug's effects on
the wastewater treatment plant which occurred on or about
April 16, 2008.
$ 00 0 For violation of Part IV, Section C. (L) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to obtain Town Council approval of
its Sewer Use Ordinance.
$ 1.0011
For violation of Part IV, Section C. (2.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to update its Industrial Waste Survey
(IWS) to include all users of the sewer collection system at
least once every five years.
$ /, .S 0 o
For violation of Part IV, Section C. (7.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to conduct inspection, surveillance,
and monitoring activities as described in its Division
approved pretreatment program
$ 000
For violation of Part IV, Section C. (9.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to obtain Division approval for an
Enforcement Response Plan.
$ w 0
For violation of Part IV, Section C. (10.) of NPDES permit
NCO020290 by failing to submit its pretreatment annual
report to the Division no later than March 1, 2008.
$ &00
For violation of 15A NCAC 2B .0211(1) by removing best
usage from the Cane River due to the discharge of
inadequately treated wastewater.

$ q For 3 of 3 violations of 15A 2B .0211(3)(e), the water
quality standard for fecal coliform, between June 5, 2008
and the July 8, 2008.
$ , s o0 TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY
$ 11,444.57 Enforcement Costs
$ .37, 4 , 57 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
As required by G_S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining the amount of the penalty I have
considered the factors listed in G.S.143B-282. I (b), which are:
(1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from the violation;
(2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
(3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
(7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs
over which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority;
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
(Date) frey O. Poupart
Point Source Branch Manager
Division of Water Quality

Case PC-2008-0065
Town of Burnsville WWTP
Attachment A
Results of DWQ Sampling
Date
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream I
June 5, 2008
30
6700
June 9, 2008
30
8100
June 12, 2008
19
5400
June 18, 2008
20
100
June 23, 2008
2000
June 24, 2008
21
670 (1814)
July 2, 2008
30
86
51 (684)
July 7, 2008
>2000
July 8, 2008
26
3300
160 (312)
Downstream 2
1700
2200
3500
130
730 (1044)
59 (533)
475 (392)
Upstream. 50 —100 feet upstream of WWTP outfall
Downstream 1: Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School (112 mile downstream from
WWTP)
Downstream 2: Cane River at US Highway 19E bridge (1.5 miles downstream from WWTP)
(###) = the geometric mean of the results of 5 consecutive sampling events.
Deficiencies Observed During June 3, 2008
Pretreatment Audit Inspection
1. Failure to obtain Town Council approval of a Sewer Use Ordinance.
2. Failure to update Industrial Waste Survey
3. Failure to sample Significant Industrial User at designated sampling point.
4. Failure to inspect Significant Industrial User during calendar year 2007.
5. Failure to obtain Division approval of an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP).
6. Failure to submit 2007 Pretreatment Annual Report by March 1, 2008.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YANCEY
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST
TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
NPDES PERMIT NCO020290
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. PC-2008-0065
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $37,944.57 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Quality dated December 11, 2008, the undersigned,
desiring to seek remission of the civil penalties, does hereby waive the right to an administrative
hearing in the above -stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment
document. The undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission
of this civil penalty must be submitted to the Director of the Division of Water Quality within 30
days of receipt of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will
be allowed after 30 days from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the
day of
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
200_.

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: PC-2008-0065 County: Yancey
Assessed Party: Town of Burnsville.
Permit Number: NCO020290 Amount Assessed: $37,944.57
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing,and Stipulation o
Facts" form to request remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that
you believe support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in evaluating
your request for remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to
consideration of the five factors listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the
amount of the civil penalty assessed. Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for
contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements
contained in the civil penalty assessment document. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143B-282.1(c),
remission of a civil penalty may be granted only when one or more of the following five factors
applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to your case and provide a detailed
explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why the factor applies (attach
additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 143B-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are listed in
the civil penalty assessment document);
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future
occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the
violation was unavoidable or something you could not prevent or prepare for);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions (i.e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing
the activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
Violator: Town of Burnsville
County: Yancev
Case Number: PC-200E-0065
ASSESSMENT FACTORS
1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public health, or
to private property resulting from the violation;
C--4),td i n JAI Care ulsu,fl OJ fld or
J
�1 eels Sw'm m,� river � PSr"edne
2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
g y
sevelaj
3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
&fccd were 17aij more tl,4,� all m;lf �0WAstre A.,
levels Nord
y
4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
Ivor C41cJ1 dfej .
5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
CaSr of- 1041Ssd Sva?,pl� Il P"o(C- 47a)/I1-e4 cfn c.0
Y
6) Whether the violation IIwas committed willfully or intentionally;
Nor
7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs over
which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority; and
CP)f ►n /asr f"Ve 6,4fs
S) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedur s. ,
!r ,�pcnp�l,
51 pit) oAT s44r/ s���I � K AV �� �"
/f A-
Date Jeffrey O. Poupart

JACK L. WILSON, JR.
ATTOKNRY AT LAW
1' O. BOX 457
131 KAST MAIN COUKT, 81.11TRIB
BURNSVILLH, NC 28734-0457
T1U,],PII0NH (828) 682-41155
PAX (8281 682-4862
M MAI1, jwilsonQtrconline.net
08 October, 2008
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Bob Guerra
NCDENR DWQ PSV NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: Town of Burnsville12008-LV-0292
Division of Water Quality:
lin
OCT
13
2008
it
O.,if
IrY
The Town of Burnsville has requested me to submit the hollowing factual
accounting relative to justification for remission of the civil penalty assessment for its
violation of the discharge limitations and/or monitoring requirements for May, 2008.
1) In mid or late April, 2008, the waste facility received an excessive amount of
waste input. The waste facility is an older facility incapable of handling unusual inflow
increases without prior notification. The facility was not notified of this excessive
inflow. Once the facility was aware of the problem, it took immediate steps in an attempt
to promptly abate any continued environmental damage. Such steps included any and all
recommendations of the Division of Water Quality and the implementation of
recommended treatment procedures for such a violation.
2) The violation for excessive discharge was inadvertent and certainly not willful.
We take great pride in the beauty of our streams, rivers and community. The Town of
Burnsville is continuously exploring ways to update and make the facility better. The
Town has been waiting for more than a year on a specific grant from the EPA to upgrade
the facility. It appears that this may soon become a reality and help provide needed
equipment for the outdated facility. Additionally, the Town has spent in excess of
$100,000.00 updating the facility prior to the incident and substantial non -budged funds
since the incident to correct the violations and hopefully insure the same does not happen
again. This penalty would dramatically impact the Town's ability to direct additional
monies to the facility and meet other budget requirements.

Therefore, the Town of Burnsville respectfully request that the civil penalty
assessed for the discharge violation be remitted. Thank you in advance for your
consideration of this request. If you have any questions or desire additional information,
please advise.
Respectfully submitted,
r
/Jaa�ckf Wilson, Jr., ittrney
Cc: Roger C. Edwards
Attachments

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YANCEY
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST
Town of Burnsville WWTP
PERMIT NO. NCO020290
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINSTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. LV-2008-0292
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $7,820.00 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Quality dated August 11, 2008, the undersigned,
desiring to seek remission of the civil penalty, does hereby waive the right to an administrative hearing
in the above -stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment document.
The undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission of this civil
penalty must be submitted to the director of the Division of Water Quality within thirty (30) days of
receipt of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will be allowed
after (30) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the 26 th day of September , 20 08
L7
SIGNATURd
ADDRESS
Post Office Box 457
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
TELEPHONE
828) 682-4955

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: LV-2008-0292 County: Yancey
Assessed Party: Town of Burnsville
Permit No.:NC0020290 Amount Assessed: S7,820.00
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of Facts"
form to request remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that you believe
support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in evaluating your request for
remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors
listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the civil penalty assessed.
Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or
the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the civil penalty assessment document.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14313-282.1(c), remission of a civil penalty may be granted only when one or
more of the following five factors applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to your
case and provide a detailed explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why the
factor applies (attach additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 14313-282.1(b) were
wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are listed in the civil
penalty assessment document);
X (b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future occurrences);
x (c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the violation
was unavoidable or something you could not prevent or prepare for);
(d) the.violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
x (e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary remedial
actions (i.e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing the activities
necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:
See attached letter of explanation for remission of civil penalty.

�pF W A TFgQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
�0 G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
U3 r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0 Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 1, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL 7007 0710 0000 5376 7631
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Jack L. Wilson, Attorney At Law
P.O. Box 457
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714-0457
Subject: Request for Remission of Civil Penalty
Town of Burnsville WWTP
NPDES Permit Number NCO020290
Case Number LV-2008-0292
Yancey County
Dear Mr. Wilson:
On September 30, 2008, the Division received your request for remission of civil penalty with
accompanying support information. Unfortunately, your request cannot be considered since it was not
received within the required thirty (30) days from your receipt of the assessment document. To have been
considered for remission, the request would have to have been received by the Division on or before
September 15, 2008. Submittal of a remission request within thirty (30) days is a requirement of North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A(f), which states, "Remission requests shall not be considered unless
made within 30 days of receipt of the notice of assessment. "
A copy of the Divisions tracking database is attached which documents the date (August 15, 2008) that
the Town of Burnsville received the enforcement notification and documents that said 30-day response
window was not met. As a result, this letter serves to inform you that payment of the civil penalty
assessment in the amount of $7820.00 (including $70.00 in enforcement costs) is now due. The Division
will proceed to refer your case to the North Carolina Attorney General's Office for collection through the
courts unless payment is received by October 20, 2008.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 919/807-6387 or by email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Bob Guerra, Point Source Branch, NPDES Western Region
Cc: Asheville Regional Office
Danny McIntosh, Mayor of Burnsville
P.O. Box 97
Burnsville, NC 28714
rEnfo ecr ment File
Cen- tral Files
Mailing Address Phone [phone] Location N nc Carolina
t617 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] N. Salisbury S llf1, arollf
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Raleigh, NC 27604
Internet: www.ncwateruuality.ar6 Customer Service I-S77-623-6748
An Equal Oppariunity/Affirmative Action Employer —Wl,, Recycled/i 00% Post Consumer Paper

JACK L. WMSON, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
R 0. BOX 457
t31 FAST MAIN COURT, SU ITE B
BURNSVCLLE. NC 28714-0457
TELEPHONE. [phone]
FAX 1H287 682.4862
I+4-MAIL jwllson(Dlrconline.net
26 September, 2008
SENT VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL RECEIVED
Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: Town of Burnsville/2008-LV-0385
Division of Water Quality:
SEP 3 0 2008
DENR , WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
The Town of Burnsville has requested me to submit the following factual
accounting relative to justification for remission of the civil penalty assessment for its
violation of the discharge limitations and/or monitoring requirements for May, 2008.
1) In mid or late April, 2008, the waste facility received an excessive amount of
waste input. The waste facility is an older facility incapable of handling unusual inflow
increases without prior notification. The facility was not notified of this excessive
inflow. Once the facility was aware of the problem, it took immediate steps in an attempt
to promptly abate any continued environmental damage. Such steps included the any and
all recommendations of the Division of Water Quality and the implementation of
recommended treatment procedures for such a violation.
2) The violation for excessive discharge was inadvertent and certainly not willful.
We take great pride in the beauty of our streams, rivers and community. The Town of
Burnsville is continuously exploring ways to update and make the facility better. The
Town has been waiting, for more than a year on a specific grant from the EPA to upgrade
the facility. It appears that this may soon become a reality and help provide needed
equipment for the outdated facility. Additionally, the Town has spent in excess of
$100,000.00 updating the facility prior to the incident and substantial non -budgeted funds
since the incident to correct the violations and hopefully insure the same does not happen
again. This penalty would dramatically impact the Town's ability to direct additional
monies to the facility and meet other budget requirements.
Therefore, the Town of Burnsville respectfully request that the civil penalty
assessed for the discharge violation be remitted. Thank you in advance for you

Page 2
consideration of this request. If you have any questions or desire additional information,
please advise,
Respectfully submitted,
ck L. ilson
Cc:. Roger C. Edwards
Attachments

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COUNTY OF YANCEY
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINSTRATIVE HEARING AND
Town of Burnsville WWTP ) STIPULATION OF FACTS
}
PERMIT NO. NCO020290 } FILE NO. LV-2008-0292
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $7,820.00 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Quality dated August 11 2008, the undersigned,
desiring to seek remission of the civil penalty, does hereby waive the right to an administrative hearing
in the above -stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment document.
The undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission of this civil
penalty must be submitted to the director of the Division of Water Quality within thirty (30) days of
receipt of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will be allowed
after (30) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the 26 th day of _ September , 20 08
SIGNATURd
ADDRESS
Post Office Box 457
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
TELEPHONE
[phone]

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: LV-2008-0292 County: Yancey
Assessed Party: Town of Burnsville
Permit No.:NC0020290 Amount Assessed: $7,820.00
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of Facts "
form to request remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that you believe
support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in evaluating your request for
remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors
listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the civil penalty assessed.
Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or
the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the civil penalty assessment document.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14313-282.1(c), remission of a civil penalty may be granted only when one or
more of the following five factors applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to your
case and provide a detailed explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why the
factor applies (attach additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 143B-282. I (b) were
wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are listed in the civil
penalty assessment document);
x (b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future occurrences);
x (c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the violation
was unavoidable or something you could not prevent or prepare for);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
x (e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary remedial
actions (i.e., explain haw payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing the activities
necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:
See attached letter of explanation for remission of civil penalty.

MEMO TO: BOB SLEDGE
FROM: ROY DAV Is
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2008
SUBJECT: BURNSVILLE CASE
YANCEY COUNTY
Hi Roy,
rr_
OCT 3 2308
Sorry to be so slow in my review of this case. I've been back in school from the time it
was handed to me and I'm afraid I'm easily distracted and lacking in focus these days. I
think I understand what's at issue in the case, but there are a few places where we
probably will want to tighten up our arguments with more documentation or clarify some
things. Would you please look over the following comments/questions at your leisure,
and we can discuss them further at some later time. I hope the comments don't sound too
critical; they're mostly just my thoughts written down as I worked through the file I
received.
• Do we have a statement from the DOT contract workers? Do we have an itemization of
the dead wildlife seen on that day?
Attached is a copy of the April 28, 2008 letter from the Catena Group. The
attached copy of the May 1, 2008 E-mail from the USFWS indicates the
observation of shells of eleven dead Appalachian elktoe mussels and two wavy -
rayed lampmusssels. The Catena Group letter mentions the observation of six
Appalachian elktoe mussels(same mussels as observed by USFWS). We do not
have an itemization of dead Appalachian elktoes from the WRC for the reason
that I did not request a count. I have requested that the USFWS assign a dollar
value to the dead Appalachian elktoes observed. My request has been passed
on to Steve Fraley with the WRC. Not having this information, I did not construct
the F & D to try to recover the value of killed elktoes.
• Roy's narrative says US Fish & Wildlife and the WRC were in the river on April 24 and
at least one group "corroborated" the observation of the contract workers. What did they
find? Is there a report? Do we have a count of dead bivalves and fish? What does it mean
to say the benthic species were infested with blackspot parasite?
Again 1 refer you to the USFS May 1, 2008 E-mail to me as well as a copy of a
WRC May 28, 2008 E-mail. The WRC May 28, 2008 E-mail speaks to the
subject of the blackspot parasite.

Did Roy see any dead organisms in the river as he moved upstream toward the WWTP
on 4/23?
I saw no dead organisms on this date. Keep in mind that the dead Appalachian
elktoe mussels are seen only when snorkeling.
• Do we have any pictures of the WWTP or the plume its discharge made in the river
from the time of the violations?
Jeff Menzel sent you the requested pictures electronically.
I don't know much about pretreatment. Why was Glen Raven Mills not considered a SIU
and monitored under the town's pretreatment program? Do we believe it was their
discharge that led to the problems? Does their discharge account for any of the very high
metals values they have experienced?
Keith Haynes has responded to you separately regarding this question. Keith will
be your contact on all questions regarding pretreatment.
• Has a report been prepared on the full scale benthic study performed in the river on May
7?
Attached is a copy of the July 10, 2008 report detailing the results of Benthic
sampling occurring in the Cane River on May 7, 2008.
What is the source of the fecal coliform values shown on the summary sheet? Can we
get the raw data? Are these geometric means of results obtained during those time
frames? How many samples were taken? Any idea why some of the values from the area
of the bridge seem to be different from results reported on the facility's DMR? Do you
believe it is appropriate to cite a violator for exceeding the WQ standard at two different
points in the stream during the same time period? Do you think we can cite the facility
for causing the standard to be exceeded 1.5 miles downstream, when the standard is met
only 0.5 miles downstream? Are there any potential sources for fecal coliform other than
the WWTP in that stretch of the stream?
Burnsville's difficult to disinfect, inadequately treated wastewater was the cause
of the high fecal values observed in the Cane River with one exception, that
being when the cause was a blocked and overflowing sewer belonging to
Burnsville. Attached is a spread sheet showing the raw data. One of the
attachments(Cane River Fecal Coliform Violations) submitted to you along with
the F & D indicated the fecal values shown result from arriving at the geometric

mean of five samples taken within a thirty day time period. When we see fecal
values increase as we go downstream during the same sampling event, we
presume that we are dealing with a high fecal count slug that has recently
passed. For a long period of time the Town of Burnsville was feeding a liquid
chlorine solution, dropping chlorine tablets in the effluent troughs in addition to
operating its gaseous system to disinfect the poorly treated effluent. Under this
circumstance we would not expect the Burnsville effluent to came out with a
constant value fecal coliform. We are not surprised at increasing fecal coliform
values as we proceed downstream. On August 18, 2008 we found a blocked and
overflowing sewer line in Burnsville which would serve to explain the high fecal
coliform counts in the cane River when the Town's effluent fecal count was fairly
low. So yes, I think we can assess for a downstream fecal coliform violation when
just upstream no violation occurred. Likewise I have no problem with assessing
for fecal violations occurring on the same day, in the same stream but at different
locations in that stream.
In the F&D, do we need to be any more descriptive of the WWTP and its make up?
The Town of Burnsville WWTP consists of two contact stabilization plants in
parallel; one having a capacity of 0.5 MGD and the other having a capacity of 0.3
MGD. Disinfection is achieved by means of gaseous chlorination. Waste sludge
is dewatered by means of a belt press. Dewatered sludge is composted in the
presence of wood chips.
• In finding of fact E., exactly what noncompliance should the WWTP have reported?
Does a WWTP impacted by a toxic slug constitute failure to operate and maintain, or
does the fact that they were alerted to the possibility a month earlier play into this?
Excellent question. The noncompliance in my mind would be noncompliance with
permit effluent limits. Then I ask when is "first knowledge of noncompliance"? It
might not be until the first lab results come back. Given that Burnsville has an
activated sludge plant and that the toxic slug killed the activated sludge and the
sludge turned almost black it is not unreasonable to say the first knowledge
occurred when the activated sludge turned black.
Considering the.nature of the violations, how do we plan to differentiate between the
violations of permit conditions E. (6) and E. (9)?
E-6 refers to noncompliance which potentially threatens public health or the
environment. E-9 refers to "the known passage of a slug of a hazardous
substance" or "process unit failure". The Burnsville WWTP upset violated both
sections in that inability to properly treat resulted in the discharge of an
inadequately disinfected effluent which contravened stream standards for fecal

endangering the public health (as evidenced by the Toe River Health District
posting the Cane River against swimming or wading) and the Town had
knowledge of the passage of a waste stream through its WWTP which was so
toxic that it killed off the plant's activated sludge. In an activated sludge plant the
death of the activated sludge constitutes "process unit failure".
• The town's normal convention is to perform sampling on Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday. Why did they not sample on Wednesday the 23^rd ?
I have not idea. I presume that you are referring to the month of April, 2008. 1
observe that the Town reported an effluent fecal result four other days that same
week.
• The report and the F&D do not have any documentation to back up claims of
deficiencies in the town's pretreatment program.
I trust that Keith Haynes's E-mail sufficiently answered this point.
Talk to you later.
M
Xc: Roger Edwards
Keith Haynes
G:IWPDATAIDEMWQIYancey\Cane River Mussel Kill\Reply to Bob Sledge's E-mail.doc

S o• 8. 2008 12:OOPM Jack Wilson Jr Atty at Law
JACFS X.. WILSON, ip,
ATT0rN-9Y AT I.st'P4
)?.O.sOX4S7
�Ly/J 131 R.A.ST MAIN COURT. SUrry- 8
(� BURNSVIET T, NC 28714-04S7
TnIa HONE [phone]
FA-X [phone]
IMAM jQS0r-aIrconGne,nel
8 September, 2008
SENT VIA, FAX
No, 1352 P. 1
l�
SEA' — 8 2008
Nlr_ Keith Haynes
VVA�T LER 01 3:7UT;' S;_Cl-iON
Division of Water Quality p.� =_.vi .i_r_ r�.:c ,,�y a�ric:F
2090 U.S. Highway 70� _ = n . „
Swanaanoa, North Carolina 28778 1 11c } f
RE: TOWN OF BURNSVILLE/Yancey County
�` �. OCT z 3 zoos
Dear Mr. Haynes: — t
i iJl:?tiF, fjJ'.j_Ira
Pursuant to our earlier telephone conversation, as legal`counsel-6p the'-q'awn'of
Burnsville I am respectfully requesting an extension o£tirae to respond to the letter
received by my client dated 8 August, 2008. The additional time is necessary to properly
review all data and records and respond appropriately to this important matter.
Thank your for consideration and attention to this matter. If you have any
questions, please contact me_
With best regards,
ck L. Wilson, 7r_
41 �1
e,S d use. 5 u� IY\A e
POSt It® Fax Note 7671
Datea
pages `
To r
G►C. � \ O Y`
From
��• 0.
Co./Dept.
Co,
Phone #
Phone
Fax #
Fax #

4
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office
August 11, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED — 7007 1490 0004 0798 7957
Danny McIntosh
Town of Burnsville
PO Box 97
Burnsville, NC 28714
SUBJECT: Notice of Violation and Assessment of Civil Penalty
for Violations of North Carolina General Statute (G.S.) 143-215.1(a)(6)
and NPDES Permit NCO020290
Town of Burnsville
Burnsville WWTP
Case No. LV-2008-0292
Yancey County
Dear Mayor McIntosh:
This letter transmits a Notice of Violation and assessment of civil penalty in the amount of
$7,820.00 ($7,750.00 civil penalty + $70.00 enforcement costs) against the Town of Burnsville.
This assessment is based upon the following facts: a review has been conducted of the discharge
monitoring report (DMR) submitted by the Town of Burnsville for the month of May 2008. This
review has shown the subject facility to be in violation of the discharge limitations and/or
monitoring requirements found in NPDES Permit NC0020290. The violations, which occurred in
May 2008 are summarized in Attaclunent A to this letter.
Based upon the above facts, I conclude as a matter of law that Town of Burnsville violated the
terms, conditions or requirements of NPDES Permit NCO020290 and G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) in the
manner and extent shown in Attachment A. ]p accordance with the maximums established by G.S.
143-215.6A(a)(2), a civil penalty may be assessed against any person who violates the terms,
conditions or requirements of a permit required by G.S. 143-215.1(a).
Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in accordance with authority
provided by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
Director of the Division of Water Quality, I, Roger C. Edwards, Division of Water Quality
Regional Supervisor for the Asheville Region, hereby make the following civil penalty assessment
against Town of Burnsville:
NNq ehCarolina
aturally
2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone: [phone] FAX:[phone] Customer Service 1- 800 623-7748

1 of the 1 violations of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) and NPDES Permit No.
$250.00 NC0020290, by discharging waste water into the waters ofthe State
in violation of the Permit Daily Maximum limit for CADMIUM.
1 of the I violations of G.S. 143-215,1(a)(6) and NPDES Permit No,
$500.00 NC0020290, by discharging waste water into the waters of the State
in violation of the Permit Weekly Average limit for RES/TSS.
1 of the 1 violations of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) and NPDES Permit No.
$1,OOO.00 NC0020290, by discharging waste water into the waters of the State
in violation of the Permit Monthly Average limit for BOD.
1 of the 1 violations of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) and NPDES Permit No.
$.1,000.00 NC0020290, by discharging waste water into the waters of the State
in violation of the Permit Monthly Geometric Mean limit for FEC
COLT.
1 of the I violations of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) and NPDES Permit No.
$1,000.00 NC0020290, by discharging waste water into the waters'of the State
in violation of the Permit Monthly Average limit for RESITSS.
4 of the 4 violations of G.S. 143-215. 1 (a)(6) and NPDES Permit No.
$2,000.00 NC0020290, by discharging waste water into the waters of the State
in violation of the Permit Weekly Average limit for I3O1).
$7,750.00 TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY
$70.00 Enforcement Costs
$7,820.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining the amount of the penalty I have taken into
account the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the factors set forth at G'.S. 14313-
282.1(b), which are:
(1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public health, or
to private property resulting from the violation;
(2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
(3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
(7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs over
which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority; and
(8) The cost to the State of the enorcement procedures.
Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, you must do one of the following:
LD

! 1. Submit payment of the penalty:
Payment should be made directly to the order of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (do not include waiver form). Payment of the penalty will not foreclose further
enforcement action for any continuing or new violation(s). Please submit payment to the
attention of:
Point Source Cornpliance/Fnforcement Unit
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
OR
2. Submit a written request for remission or mitigation including a detailed justification
for such request:
Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors listed
below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the arnount of the civil penalty assessed.
Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for contesting whether the violation(s)
occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the civil penalty
assessment document. Because a remission request forecloses the option of an administrative
hearing, such a request must be accompanied by a waiver of your right to an administrative
hearing and a stipulation and agreement that no factual or legal issues are in dispute. Please
prepare a detailed statement that establishes why you believe the civil penalty should be
remitted, and submit it to the Division of Water Quality at the address listed below. In
determining whether a remission request will be approved, the following factors shall be
considered:
(1) whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS 143B-282. I (b)
was wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner;
(2) whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from
the violation;
(3) whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(4) whether the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations; or
(5) whether payment of the' civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions.
Please note that all evidence presented in support of your request for remission must be submitted
in writing. The Director of the Division of the Division of Water Quality will review your
evidence and inform you of his decision in the matter of your remission request. The response will
provide details regarding the case status, directions for payment, and provision for further appeal
of the penalty to the Environmental Management Commission's Committee on Civil Penalty
Remissions (Committee). Please be advised that the Committee cannot consider information that
was not part of the original remission request considered by the Director. Therefore, it is very
important that you prepare a complete and thorough statement in support of your request for
remission.
In order to request remission, you must complete and submit the enclosed "Request for Remission
of Civil Penalties, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of Facts" form
within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. The Division of Water Quality also requests that
you complete and submit the enclosed "Justification for Remission Request." Both forms should
be submitted to the following address:

t
Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
OR
3. File a petition for an administrative hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings:
If you wish to contest any statement in the attached assessment document you must file a petition
for an administrative hearing. You may obtain the petition form from the Office of Administrative
Hearings. You must file the petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within thirty (30)
days of receipt of this notice. A petition is considered filed when it is received in the Office of
Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office of Administrative Hearings
accepts filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except for
official state holidays. The original and one (1) copy of the petition must be filed with the Office
of Administrative Hearings. The petition may be faxed - provided the original and one copy of the
document is received in the Office of Administrative Hearings within five (5) business days
following the faxed transmission. The mailing address for the Office of Administrative Hearings
is:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714
Telephone [phone] facsimile: [phone]
and
Mail or hand -deliver a copy of the petition to
Mary Penny Thompson, General Counsel
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Please indicate the case number (as found on page one of this letter) on the petition,
Failure to exercise one of the options above within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, as
evidenced by an internal date/time received stamp (not a postmark), will result in this matter being
referred to the Attorney General's Office for collection of the penalty through a civil action. Please
be advised that additional penalties may be assessed for violations that occur after the review
period of this assessment.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Keith Haynes or me of the Water Quality staff of the
Asheville Regional Office at 828-296-4500.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection
Asheville Regional Office
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Regional Supervisor wl attachments
Enforcement File w/ attachments
Central Files w/ attachments
NPDES Unit

.JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: LV-2008-0292 County: Yancey
Assessed Party: Town of Burnsville
Permit No.:NC0020290 Amount Assessed: $7,820.00
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of Facts"
form to request remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that you believe
support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in evaluating your request for
remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors
listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the civil penalty assessed.
Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or
the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the civil penalty assessment document.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143B-282.1(c), remission of a civil penalty may be granted only when one or
more of the following five factors applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to your
case and provide a detailed explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why the
factor applies (attach additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 143B-282. I (b) were
wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment faclors are listed in the civil
penalty assessment document);
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the violation
was unavoidable or something you could not prevent or prepare far);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary remedial
actions (i. e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing the activities
necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:

-f STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YANCEY
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST
Town of Burnsville W WTP
,nC�►>i•[r��crIIMY��yT�Z�7
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINSTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. LV-2008-0292
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $7 8_,_ 2000 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Quality dated Aug ust I I, 2009, the undersigned,
desiring to seek remission of the civil penalty, does hereby waive the right to an administrative hearing
in the above -stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment document.
The undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission of this civil
penalty must be submitted to the director of the Division of Water Quality within thirty (30) days of
receipt of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will be allowed
after (30) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the
day of
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
SIGNATURE,
c

ATTACHMENT A
Town of Burnsville
CASE NUMBER: LV-2008-0292
PERMIT: NCO020290 FACILITY: Burnsville WWTP COUNTY: Yancey REGION: Asheville
Limit Violations
MONITORING
OUTFALLI
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
% OVER
PENALTY
REPORT
PPI
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
LIMIT
VIOLATION TYPE
$500,00
5-2008
001
Effluent
BOD
05/10108
3 X week
mgA
45
70.23
56.07
Weekly Average Exceeded
$500.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
BOD
05/17108
3 X week
mgA
45
93.33
107.41
Weekly Average Exceeded
$500.40
5-2008
001
Effluent
BOD
05/24/08
3 X week
mgA
45
94.23
109.41
Weekly Average Exceeded
$1.000.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
BOD
05/31/08
3 X week
mgA
30
B1.9
173.00
Monthly Average Exceeded
$50t1.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
BOD
05/31/08
3 X week
mgA
45
81.33
80.74
Weekly Average Exceeded
$250.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
CADMIUM
05/12/08
Weekly
ugA
2
4
100.00
Daily Maximum Exceeded
$500.DD
5-2008
001
Effluent
FEC COLT
05/03/08
3 X week
tH100m1
400
897.21
124.30
Weekly Geometric Mean Exceeded
$500.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
FEC COLT
05/17/08
3 X week
#l100ml
400
6,000
1,400.DC
Weekly Geometric Mean Exceeded
$500.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
FEC COLT
05/24/08
3 X week
91100m1
400
6.000
1,400.00
Weekly Geometric Mean Exceeded
$1,000.00
5.2008
001
Effluent.
FEC COLT
05/31/08
3 X week
fu100ml
200
876.94
338.47
Monthly Geometric Mean
Exceeded
$500.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
FEC COLI
05/31/08
3 X week .
W100ml
400
6.000
1,400.00
Weekly Geometric Mean Exceeded
$500.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
RESlTSS
05/24108
3 X week
mgA
45
89,67
99.26
Weekly Average Exceeded
$1,000.00
5-2008
001
Effluent
RESITSS
05131108
3 X week
mgA
30
4777
59.23
Monthly Average Exceeded

Division of Water Quality
Biological Assessment Unit
July 10, 2008
Memorandum
To: Jimmie Overton
Through: Trish MacPherson
From: Dee Dee Black 1 0s
Subject: Results of benthic sampling from Cane River above and below Burnsville WWTP, French Broad
River Basin, Subbasin 07, Yancey County.
Introduction
During the week of April 28, 2008, a mussel die -off of the federally endangered freshwater mussel
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonfa raveleniana), and other molluscs occurred in the Cane River. The
Appalachian Elktoe is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in the mountains of western North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee. It was once widely distributed but has been extirpated from the
majority of its historic range. It now occurs in short stretches of the Little Tennessee, Tuckaseegee,
Pigeon, Nolichucky, Little, Cheoah, North Toe, South Toe, Toe, and Cane Rivers, where it inhabits
shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, well -oxygenated and moderate- to fast -flowing water.
It has been observed in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt -free, coarse sand
and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock (USFWS; http://www.fws,gov/nc-
es/mussel/appelk.html).
The Cane River originates in Pisgah National Forest and lies within the Southern Crystalline Ridges and
Mountains ecoregion.' It passes through many small communities and rural developments with the
largest community being the town of Burnsville. Additionally, the river is adjacent to US 19 for much of its
length eliminating the riparian buffer on one side which increases the potential for road runoff. Despite
this, the Cane River basinwide site at US 19W, which is located approximately 21 miles downstream of
the Burnsville WWTP (NC 0020290; Qw = 0.8 MGD), has consistently rated Excellent since 1992
indicating no water quality or serious habitat deficiencies, based upon the macroinvertebrate community.
The addition of high quality waters from many of the Cane River tributaries is likely partially responsible
for maintaining the excellent water of the Cane River.
The Asheville Regional Office requested benthic sampling at three sites on the Cane River: one
upstream of the Burnsville WWTP at SR 1138, one approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the WWTP at
US 19E, and one approximately eight miles downstream of the WWTP at SR 1381 (Figure 1). Benthic
sampling was conducted on May 7, 2008 to determine whether the Burnsville WWTP impacted the Cane
River benthic community.
Two of the Cane River sites, SR 1138 and SR 1381, have not been previously sampled by the Biological
Assessment Unit (BAU). The US 19E location has been sampled once in July 2002 and rated Excellent.
The basinwide site at US 19W has been Excellent since 1992 with the most recent sample in August
2007.
Methods
Benthic Mac roi nverte brat es
Benthic samples were collected using Full Scale methods developed for sampling streams in North
'Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A. Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenal, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B. and
Shelburne, V.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey.

Figure 1. Location of Burnsville WVVTP (NC0020290) and Cane River sampling locations, May
2008.
Carolina.2 Each Full Scale sample is a composite of ten collections: two kicks, three sweeps, one leaf -
pack, two rock/log washes, one sand and "visual' collections; representative specimens of all invertebrate
taxa collected were removed from the matrix and preserved with 95% ethanol by biologists while in the
field. The purpose of benthic sampling is to inventory the aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna and to
generate a taxa list with an indication of relative abundance of organisms for each taxon. Organisms are
classified as Rare (1-2 specimens, denoted by "R" on taxa tables), Common (3-9 specimens, "C"), or
Abundant (>10 specimens, "A").
Several data analysis summaries (metrics) are calculated from those benthic data to facilitate the
detection of physical habitat and/or water quality problems. These metrics are based on a long history of
observations and studies that show unstressed streams and rivers have higher invertebrate diversity and
a relatively high proportion of intolerant species. Conversely, polluted streams have lower invertebrate
diversity and are dominated by tolerant species. The diversity of the invertebrate fauna is evaluated
using taxa richness (i.e. the total number of distinct taxa present); the tolerance of the stream community
is evaluated using a Biotic Index (derived from the general response of each taxon to the presence of
stressors).
Two especially robust metrics are used extensively by the BAU for evaluating water quality in North
Carolina: EPT richness and the North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI). Taxa within the three EPT insect
orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) are generally intolerant of many kinds of pollution.
2NCDWQ,2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benlhic Macroinvertebrates. NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch. July, 2006.

Therefore, higher EPT taxa richness values indicate better water quality. The relative tolerance of the
macroinvertebrate community to stressors, as summarized by the NCBI, is also used to evaluate water
quality. Both tolerance values for individual taxa and the final biotic index values have a range of 0-10
with higher numbers indicating more tolerant taxa and more polluted conditions respectively. Criteria for
mountain sites were used to assign bioclassifications based upon EPT Richness and NCBI values.
Seasonal corrections for EPT richness and NCBI were made as appropriate for May samples.
Habitat Evaluation
Habitat evaluations were conducted at each site using the Biological Assessment Unit's Habitat
Assessment Field Data Sheet for Mountain Streams. This assessment assigns a numerical score from 1-
100 for the reach of stream sampled, based on channel modification, instream habitat, bottom substrate,
pool variety, riffle habitats, bank stability and vegetation, light penetration, and width of the riparian zone.
More specifically, these habitat evaluations assess the quality and quantity of instream habitat, the quality
and quantity of the stream's riparian zone, and also evaluate detrimental impacts on stream habitat such
as bank erosion and substrate embeddedness. No criteria have been developed to rate habitat scores,
but the higher the score, the better the overall habitat.
Physical -Chemical
Measurements for pH were collected from each site using an Accumet AP61 meter. Data for
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance were collected using a YSI-85 multimeter for all
sites. The dissolved oxygen probe on the YSI-85 meter was not functioning properly at the time of
sampling so dissolved oxygen measurements were not collected.
Study Sites
Visible land use: Mostly forest with WWTPin view.
Width (m): 15-0
Drainage Area (mi'): 10.0
Depth (m): Average: 0.5 Max: 1.0
Canopy (% cover): 40, Deciduous
Substrate: Mix of boulder, rubble, gravel and sand
with small amount of silt.
Riparian quality: Left bank is wide and intact. Right
bank is wide and intact except for the last 25% of
reach where a road runs parallel with the stream for a
few meters. Stable banks with diverse trees, shrubs,
and grasses with little to no erosion.
Instream habitat: Rocks, sticks and leafpacks
abundant. Snags, logs, undercut banks and root mats
were common.
Habitat Score (out of 100): 83
Dissolved Oxygen (mglL); Not measured
Specific conductance (pmhoslcm): 25.0
Temperature (IC): 17.8
pH: 7,18
Remarks: Breached dam upstream. Noticeable
WWTP smell. Many wires and cables present in
stream.

Cane River at US 19E, Yancey County
Cane River at SR 1381, Yancey County
Visible land use: Forest, prison, road and residential
Width (m): 14.0
Drainage Area (mi): xx
Depth (m): Average: 0.3 Max: 0.7
Canopy (% cover): 30, Deciduous
Substrate: Good mix of boulder, rubble, and gravel with some
bedrock, sand and silt.
Riparian quality: Left bank wide and intacl. Narrow riparian
with occasional breaks along right bank. Bank vegetation
diverse and healthy along left bank, mostly shrubs and small
trees along left bank.
Instream habitat: Rocks abundant. Undercut banks and root
mats common. Slicks and leafpacks rare. Snags and logs
absent.
Habitat Score (out of 100): 78
Dissolved Oxygen (mglt.): 5.1
Specific conductance (pmhoslcm): 35,0
Temperature (IC): 18.1
pH: 7.31
Remarks: Strong WWTP smell, Many midges. No riparian
along right bank.
Visible land use: Road, forest, active pasture and residential.
Width (m): 20.0
Drainage Area (mi2y xx.0
Depth (m): Average- 0 3 Max 1.0
Canopy (% cover): 30, Deciduous
Substrate: Good mix of boulder, rubble, and gravel with some
sand and sill.
Riparian quality: Narrow riparian with occasional breaks along
left bank. Right bank narrow but intact. Bank vegetation diverse
and healthy along both banks.
Instream habitat: Rocks abundant. Sticks, leafpacks, undercut
banks and root mats common. Snags and logs absent.
Habitat Score (out of 100): 73
Dissolved Oxygen (mg1L): Not measured
Specific conductance (pmhoslcm): 45.0
Temperature (IC): 19.5
pH: 8.57
Remarks: Rocks coaled with an abundance of aurwuchs. Poor
riparian and edge habitat.
Results
Habitat conditions, physical and chemical water data, and geographical coordinates for the study sites are
given in Table 1. Summary biological community metrics and resultant bioclassifications are given in
Table 2. Taxa identified and the corresponding abundance classifications are given in Appendix 1.

Table 1. Habitat conditions, physical and chemical water data, and geographical coordinates for
the three Cane River study sites, French Broad River Basin, May, 2007.
Stream
Cane River
Cane River
Cane River
Site Location
SR 1138
US 19E
SR 1381
County
Yancey
Yancey
Yancey
Drainage area (mil)
54.3
59.2
108.8
Collection date
7-May-08
7-May-08
7-May-08
Habitat Scores
Channel modification (5)
5
4
4
Instream habitat (20)
18
17
17
Bottom substrate (15)
12
12
10
Pool variety (10)
6
6
6
Riffle habitats (16)
14
16
14
Left bank stability and
vegetation (7)
7
7
7
Right bank stability and
vegetation (7)
7
6
7
Light penetration (10)
5
4
5
Left bank riparian zone
width (5)
5
5
1
Right bank riparian zone
width (5)
4
1
2
Habitat Score (out of 100)
83
78
73
Other Habitat
Average stream width
15
14
20
Average stream depth
0.5
0.3
0.3
Canopy (%)
40
30
30
Substrate (%)
Boulder
35
40
40
Rubble
20
25
25
Gravel
10
10
15
Sand
25
10
15
Sill
10
10
5
Bedrock
0
5
0
Physicochemical
Temperature (°C)
17,8
18.1
19.5
DO (mglL)
--
--
--
Conductivity (Cmhoslcm)
25
35
45
pH
7.2
7.3
8.6
Coordinates
Latitude (°)
35.90437
35.90951
35.9417
Longitude (°)
-82.33250
-82.34689
-82.39175
Latitude (DD MM SS)
35 54 14
35 54 44
35 56 31
Longitude (DD MM SS)
-82 19 57
-82 2058
-82 23 28

Cane River at SR 1138, Yancey County
Taxa Richness: 94
EPT Richness: 44 Seasonally Corrected EPT Richness: 34
EPT Biotic Index: 2.9
NCBI: 3.8 Seasonally Corrected NCBI: 4.28
Bioclassification: Good
This site is approximately 300 meters upstream of the Burnsville WWTP outfall. 2008 was the first year
for which Cane River above the Burnsville WWTP was sampled. The stream received a classification of
Good. Intolerant taxa collected at the site included; the mayflies Drunella cornutella, D. walkeri,
Ephemerella needhami, E. septentrionalis, Epeorus rubidus, Heptagenia marginalis, Neoephemera
purpurea, Serratella dettciens, and Stenacron palGdum; stoneflies Acroneuria abnormis, Isoperla dicala, !.
holochlora, 1. orata, 1. slossonae, Paragnetina ichusa, and P. immarginata; and caddisflies Chimarra,
Dolophiloides, Lepidostoma, Rhyacophila carolina, Ceratopsyche spama, and Ceratopsyche morosa.
Cane River at US 19E, Yancey County
Taxa Richness: 73
EPT Richness: 25 Seasonally Corrected EPT Richness: 23
EPT Biotic Index: 4.1
NCBI: 5.7 Seasonally Corrected NCBI: 6.2
Bioclassification: fair
This site is located approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the Burnsville WWTP. It has been sampled
once previously in 2002, where it received an Excellent rating. In 2008, the rating dropped three
bioclassifications to Fair. Taxa richness decreased from 105 in 2002 to 73 in 2008. In addition, EPT
richness decreased from 49 to 23 and the NCBI increased from 4.8 to 6.2. A majority of the taxa were
collected as either Rare or Common. Only three moderately tolerant mayfly taxa were collected as
Abundant, Ephemerella dorothea, Eurylophella verisimilis and Maccaffertium ithaca.
Cane River at SR 1381, Yancey County
Taxa Richness: 115
EPT Richness: 41 Seasonally Corrected EPT Richness: 33
EPT Biotic Index: 3.8
NCBI: 5.2 Seasonally Corrected NCBI: 5.6
Bioclassification: Good -Fair
This is the most downstream site of the three sites sampled on the Cane River. It is approximately eight
miles below the WWTP and has not been previously sampled. Intolerant taxa collected include the
mayflies Dannella Iita, Ephemerella invaria group, E. septentrionalis, Heptagenia marginalis, Ephemera,
Leucrocuta, Stenacron pallidum, and Serratella deficiens; the stoneflies, Acroneuria abnormis, and
Isoperla holochlora; and the caddisflies Dolophiloides, Hydropsyche demora, Lepidostoma, Micresema
wataga, Pycnopsyche lepida, Setodes, and Ceratopsyche morosa.

Table 2. Biological community metrics for the three Cane River study sites, French Broad River
Basin, May, 2007.
Stream
Cane River
Cane River
Cane River
Site Location
SR 1138
US 19E
SR 1381
Richness (number of taxa)
Ephemeroptera
18
14
22
Plecoplera
10
1
4
Trichoptera
16
10
15
Total EPT
44
25
41
Seasonally Corrected EPT Richness
34
23
33
Odonata
9
10
10
Megaloptera
1
0
2
Coleoptera
6
4
11
Diplera
24
26
34
Misc Diplera
5
3
6
Oligocheata
2
1
2
Cruslacea
1
0
1
Pelycepoda
0
0
2
Gastropoda
1
3
4
Hemiplera
0
0
0
Total taxa richness
94
73
115
Other Biological Measures
EPT Abundance
207
64
175
EPT Biotic Index
2.93
4.15
3.81
NCBI
3.79
5.67
5.17
Seasonally Corrected NCBI
4.28
6.16
5.57
Bioclassificalion
Good
Fair
Good -Fair
Conclusions
Despite having similar habitat scores, a noticeable difference between the benthic communities above
(SR 1138) and below (US 19E) the Burnsville WWTP was observed. The benthic community at US 19E
was less diverse and more tolerant (EPT richness = 25, NCBI = 5.67) than the benthic community above
the WWTP (EPT richness = 44, NCBI = 3.79). Nineteen EPT taxa that were collected upstream of the
WWTP were not collected at the US 19 E site. The greatest loss was in the number of stonefly taxa. Ten
stonefly taxa of which six taxa were either Abundant or Common were collected upstream. Downstream
only two specimens of Acroneuria abnormis were collected. The difference between the two samples is
further emphasized by the almost complete loss of stoneflies, the most sensitive order of the EPT orders.
Therefore, these differences suggest the WWTP did have an impact on the benthic community in the
Cane River. The third site at SR 1381 did appear to show some signs of recovery.
Cc (via email): Roger Edwards, Asheville Regional Office
Ed Williams, Ashville Regional Office
Angie Rodgers, Natural Heritage Program
Steve Fraley, Wildlife Resources Commission
Dianne Reid, Planning Section

Appendix I. Benthic Macroinverteb rates collected from Cane River, French Broad River Basin,
May, 2008.
Taxon CANE R CANE R CANE R CANE R
SIMON
W1012002
9712008
5A12008
SR 1138
US 19E
US 19E
SR 1381
EPHEMEROPTERA
ACENTRELLA SPP
R
ACENTRELLA TURBIDA
A
R
R
BAETIS FLAVISTRIGA
C
R
C
BAETIS INTERCALARIS
C
C
A
BAETIS PLUTO
C
R
R
BAETIS TRICAUDATUS
R
BAETISCA CAROUNA
R
CENTROPTILUM $PP
A
R
CANNELLA LITA
A
CANNELLA SIMPLEX
C
DRUNELLA CORNUTELIA
R
DRUNELLA TUBERCULATA
R
DRUNELLA WALKERI
C
EPHEMERELLA CATAWBA
C
C
EPHEMERELLADOROTHEA
A
A
A
EPHEMERELLA INVARIA{GR)
A
EPHEMERELLA NEEDHAMI
A
EPHEMERELLASEPTENTRIONALIS
A
C
EPEORUS RUBIDUS
C
A
EPHEMERA SPP
R
EPHORON LEUKON
C
EURYLOPHELLA FUNERAUS
C
EURYLOPHELLA VERISIMIUS
A
A
A
HE PTAGENIA MARGINALIS
R
A
HETEROCLOEON ANOKA
A
ISONYCHIA SPP
A
A
LEUCROCUTA SPP
A
C
R
NEOEPHEMERAPURPUREA
R
PARALEPTOPHLEBIA SPP
R
PLAUDITUS DUBIUS GR
C
A
R
A
POTAMANTHUS DISTINCTUS
R
C
R
PROCLOEON SPP
C
PSEUDOCLOEON PROPINODUM
A
MACCAFFERTIUM ITHACA
A
A.
A
A
MACCAFFERTIUM MEDIOPUNCTATUM
C
MACCAFFERTIUM MODESTUM
R
SERRATELLA OEFICIE.NS
C
A
R
A
SERRATELLA SERRATOIDES
A
SIPHLONURUS SPP
C
R
STENACRONINTERPUNCTATUM
C
R
STENACRON PALLIOUM
C
A
TRICORYTHODES SPP
C
PLECOPTERA
ACRONEURIA ABNORMIS
A
A
R
C
AMPHINEMURA SPP
R
R
ISOPERLA DICALA
C
ISOPERLA HOLOCHLOFA
A
C
ISOPERLA ORATA
R
ISOPERLA SLOSSONAE
R
LEUCTRA SPP
R
PARAGNETINA ICHUSA
A
C
PARAGNETINA IMMARGINATA
A
R
PERLESTA SPP
C
A
A
PTERONARCYS BILOBA
R
TALLAPERLA SPP
R
TRICHOPTERA
CERATOPSYCHEBRONTA
C
C
R
CERATOPSYCHE MOROSA
R
C
R
CERATOPSYCHE SPARNA
A
A
CHEUMATOPSYCHE SPP
A
A
C
CHIMARRA SPP
C
DOLOPHILODES SPP
A
R
R
GLOSSOSOMA SPP
C
HYDROPSYCHE BETTENI
R
R
HYDROPSYCHE OEMORA
C
HYDROPSYCHE VENULARIS
R
R
A
LEPIDOSTOMA SPP
C
R
C

Appendix I. Continued.
Taxon
CANE R
CANE R
CANE R
CANE R
517/2008
7110/2002
5012008
5/712008
SR 1138
US 19E
US 19E
SR 1381
TRICHOPTERA—Con't
HYDROPSYCHE BETTENI
R
R
HYDROPSYCHFOEMORA
C
HYDROPSYCHE VENULARIS
R
R
A
LEPIDOSTOMA SPP
C
R
C
LEUCOTRICHIA PICTIPES
A
C
LYPE DIVERSA
R
MICRASEMA WATAGA
A
C
C
MYSTACIDES NR ALAFIMBRIATA
C
C
MYSTACIDES SEPULCHRALIS
C
NECTOPSYCHE EXQUISITA
R
R
NEOPHYLAX CONSIMILIS
R
NEOPHYLAX OLIGIUS
R
R
NEURECLIPSIS SPA
C
C
R
NYCTIOPHYLAX CELTA
R
NYCTIOPHYLAX NEPHOPHILUS
R
OECETIS SPP
R
OECETIS PERSIMILIS
C
R
C
PHRYGANEIDAE
R
POLYCENTROPUS SPP
A
C
C
PYCNOPSYCHESPP
R
R
PYCNOPSYCHE LEPIDA
R
R
RHYACOPHILA CAROLM
R
RHYACOPHILA GLASERRIMA
R
SETODES SPP
R
C
TRIAENODES IGNITUS
R
R
COLEOPTERA
ANCHYTARSUS BICOLOR
R
ANCYRONYX VARIEGATUS
R
DINEUTUS SPP
C
C
DUBIRAPHIA SPP
R
GYRINUS SPP
C
R
HELICHUS SPP
A
HELICHUS BASALIS
A
R
A
HELICHUS FASTIGIATUS
R
HELICHUS LITHOPHILUS
C
LACCOBIUS SP
R
MACRONYCHUS GLABRATUS
C
C
R
A
NEOPORUSSPP
-
R
OPTIOSERVUS SPP
R
PROMORESIA ELEGANS
A
A
PSEPHENUS HERRICKI
A
A
A
SPERCHOPSISTESSELLATUS
R
STENELMIS SPP
C
C
R
TROPISTERNUS SPP
R
ODONATA
ARGIA SPP
A
A
C
BOYERIA VINOSA
C
A
R
R
CALOPTERYX SPP
R
C
A
C
CORDULEGASTER SPP
R
R
ENALLAGMA SPP
A
EPITHECA SPP
R
GOMPHIDAE
R
GOMPHUSSPP
C
R
C
C
HAGENIUS BREVISTYLUS
R
R
R
C
HELOCOROULIA SPP
R
R
LANTHUS SPP
A
R
MACROMIA SPP
C
C
A
OPHIOGOMPHUS SPP
C
C
C
STYLOGOMPHUS ALBISTYLUS
R
C
R
MEGALOPTERA
CORYDALUS CORNUTUS
A
C
C

Appendix I. Continued.
Taxon CANE R CANE R CANE R CANE R
51712008 7/1012002 5/712006 51712008
SR 1138 US 19E US 19L SR 1381
MEGALOPTERA--Con't
NIGRONIA SERRICORNIS
DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE
AHLABESMYIA MALLOCHI
C
R
A8LABESMYIA PARAJANTAIJANTA
R
ABLABESMYIA SIMPSONI
R
BRILLIA SPP
C
C
CRICOTOPUS BICINCTUS, C10 SRI
A
A
A
ORTHOCLADIUS RIVICOLA
A
C
CRICDTOPUS (C.) FUGAX GR
R
CRICOTOPUS VIERIENSIS GR: C10 SP46
R
R
CRICOTOPUS INFUSCATUS GR; C10 SP5
C
A
A
A
CRICOTOPUS VARIPES GR: CIO SP6
C
ORTHOCLADIUS DORENUS
C
CARDIOCLADIUS SPP
R
A
C
CHIRONOMUS SPP
R
R
CLADOTANYTARSUS SPP
R
A
CLADOTANYTARSUS SP2
C
CLADOTANYTARSUS SPB
R
CLINOTANYPUS PINGUIS-
C
CONCHAPELOPIA GROUP
C
C
C
C
CQRYNONEURA SPP
C
R
C
C
CRICOTOPUS SPP
C
CRICOTOPUS LUCIAEITREMULUS
R
CRYPTOCHIRONOMUS SPP
R
C
CRYPTOCHIRONOMUS FULVUS
A
CRYPTOTENDIPES SPP
R
C
DEMICRYPTOCHIRONOMUS SPP
R
MAMESA SPP
R
DICROTENDIPES NEOMODESTUS
R
C
EUKIEFFERIELLA PSEUDOMONTANA GR
R
EUKIEFFERIELLA CLARIPENNIS GR {E SP11)
C
R
R
EUKIEFFERIELLA GRACEI GR (ESP14)
R
EUKIEFFERIELLA DEVONICA GR (E SP2)
R
C
TVE3EMA MSCOLORIPES GR (E SP3)
R
LABRUNDINIA PILOSELLA
R
MICROTENDIPES SPP
A
MICROTENDIPES SP1
R
NANOCLADIUS SPP
C
C
R
ODONTOMESA FULVA
R
ORTHOCLADIUS SPP
R
R
POLYPEDILUM AVICEPS
C
POLYPEDILUM FALLAX
C
R
A
C
POLYPEDILUM FLAVUM
A
A
POLYPEDILUM HALTERALE GR
R
POLYPEDILUM ILLINOENSE GR
A
R
A
POLYPEDILUM LAETUM
C
R
POLYPEDILUM SCALAENUM
R
A
PAGASTIA SPP
R
PARAKIEFFERIELLA TRIQUETA
R
PARAMETRIOCNEMUS LUNDBECKI
C
C
R
C
PARATENDIPES SPP
R
PHAENOPSECTRA SPP
R
R
POTTHASTIA GAEDI
R
PROCLADIUS 5PP
C
PSEUDOCHIRONOMUS SPP
R
R
RHEOCRICOTOPUS ROBACKI
R
RHEOTANYTARSUS SPP
C
A
STENOCHIRONOMUS SPP
R
SUBLETTEA COFFMANI
R
SYNORTHOCLADIUS SPP
C
TANYTARSUS SPP
C
TANYTARSUS SR. U
R
TWENEMANIELLA SPP
C
C

Appendix I. Continued.
Taxon
CANE R
CANE R
CANE R
CANE R
V71200B
711012002
517120D8
51712008
SR 1138
US 19E
US 19E
SR 1301
DIPTERA; CHIRONOMIDAE—Con't
TRIBELOS SPP
A
TRIBELOS JUCUNDUM
C
C
TVETENIA BAVARICA GR
R
TVETENIA VITRACIES
R
ZAVRELIMYIA SPP
R
MISC. DIPTERA
ANTOCHA SPP
C
A
ATHERIX SPP
C
R
PALPOMYIA COMPLEX
R
CHRYSOPS SPP
R
R
R
DICRANOTA SPP
R
EMPIDIDAE
R
HEXATOMA SPP
R
PROBEZZIA .
R
PROTOPLASA FITCHII
R
SIMULIUM SPP
A
A
R
TIPULA SPP
R
R
R
OLIGOCHAETA
LIMNODRILUS HOFFMEISTERI R
LUMBRICULIDAE C R
NAIS SPP A
TUBIFICIDAE R R
CRUSTACEA
CAMBARIDAE
R
R
PELECYPODA
CORBICULA FLUMINEA
C
PISIDIUM SPP
C
R
GASTROPODA
ELIMIA SP
C A
C
C
FERRISSIA SPP
A
C
C
HF USOMA ANCEPS
R
A
PHYSELLA SPP
A
R
C
OTHER
HYDRACARINA
R
R
C
PETROPHILA SP
R
PROSTOMA GRAECENS
R

Station Description
Date
Fecal
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
6/5/2008
30
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
6/5/2008
6700
Cane River at Hwy 19E
6/5/2008
1700
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
6/9/2008
30
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
6/9/2008
8100
Cane River at Hwy 19E
6/9/2008
2200
Cane River at Langford Branch
6/9/2008
280
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
6/12/2008
19
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
6/12/2008
5400
Cane River at Hwy 19E
6/12/2008
3500
Cane River at Langford Branch
6/12/2008
311
Cane River at Lewisburg
6/12/2008
57
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
6/18/2008
20
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
6/18/2008
100
Cane River at Hwy 19E
6/18/2008
130
Cane River at Langford Branch
6/18/2008
170
Cane River at Lewisburg
6/18/2008
530
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
6/23/2008
2000
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
6/24/2008
21
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
6/24/2008
670
Cane River at Hwy 19E
6/24/2008
730
Cane River at Langford Branch
6/24/2008
120
Cane River at Lewisburg
6/24/2008
56
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/2/2008
86
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/2/2008
30
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/2/2008
51
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/2/2008
59
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/2/2008
320
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/2/2008
92
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/7/2008
>2000
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/8/2008
3300
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/8/2008
26
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/8/2008
160
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/8/2008
475
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/8/2008
132
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/8/2008
126
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/15/2008
190
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/15/2008
57
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/15/2008
100
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/15/2008
300
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/15/2008
170
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/15/2008
96
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/23/2008
>2000
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/23/2008
64
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/23/2008
390
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/23/2008
970
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/23/2008
340
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/23/2008
180
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/28/2008
19
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
6/23/2008
2000
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
6/24/2008
21

Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
6/24/2008
670
Cane River at Hwy 19E
6/24/2008
730
Cane River at Langford Branch
6/24/2008
120
Cane River at Lewisburg
6/24/2008
56
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/2/2008
86
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/2/2008
30
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/2/2008
51
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/2/2008
59
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/2/2008
320
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/2/2008
92
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/7/2008
>2000
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/8/2008
3300
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/8/2008
26
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/8/2008
160
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/8/2008
475
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/8/2008
132
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/8/2008
126
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/15/2008
190
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/15/2008
57
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/15/2008
100
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/15/2008
300
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/15/2008
170
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/15/2008
96
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/23/2008
>2000
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
7/23/2008
64
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
7/23/2008
390
Cane River at Hwy 19E
7/23/2008
970
Cane River at Langford Branch
7/23/2008
340
Cane River at Lewisburg
7/23/2008
180
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
7/28/2008
19
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
8/14/2008
52
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
8/14/2008
39
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
8/14/2008
670
Cane River at Hwy 19E
8/14/2008
2000
Cane River at Langford Branch
8/14/2008
110
Cane River at Lewisburg
8/14/2008
140
Burnsville WWTP Effluent
9/4/2008
56
Cane River upstream of Burnsville WWTP
9/4/2008
79
Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School
9/4/2008
160
Cane River at Hwy,19E
9/4/2008
160
Cane River at Langford Branch
9/4/2008
76

Surface Water Protection Section
Asheville Regional Field Office
Division of Water Quality
At,tctist 15, 2008
Memorandum:
TO: Bob Sledge
Point Source Branch
Regional Office Contact
FROM: er C, Edwards
Asheville Regional Office
PREPARED BY: Roy Davis O-AA—�A
SUBJECT: Enforcement Recommendation
Town of Burnsville
Waste%vater Treatment Plant
Yancey County, NC
Enclosed is an enforcement recommendation package for the Town of Burnsville in Yancey
County, NC. Roy Davis of this Office conducted a site inspection on April 23, 2008. A Notice
of Violation and Recommendation for Enforcement was issued on June 5, 2008. No response to
the DWQ NOV was received in this office.
The current status of the site is marginal compliance.
The impacts have resulted in the following violations:
• Part It, Section C. (2), NPDF'S Pcrinit NCO020290, failure to properly operate
wastewater treatment plant
• 15A NCAC 2B.0211(1) removal of best usage in Cane River
• Section l (6). NPDES Pernnit NCO020290 failure to report discharge potentially
threatening to environment
• Section I (9), NPDLS Permit Nc0020290, Iailurc to report known passage of slug of
hazardous substance
• 15A NCAC 213.01-1 1 (3)(e) violation of water quality standard for fecal coliform
• Various violations of Part IV of NPDI. S Permit Number NC0020290 relating to the
Town's industrial wastewater pretreatment program.
Attached is the history ofprevious Civil Penalties assessed by the DWQ against the Town of
Burnsville.
Enforcement Costs: See attached.
Central Office Review and Processing $100.00
GAWPDATAIDEMWOIYanceylCane River Mussel Kil1l13urnsville-Enforcement Cover Memo.doc

Permit Enforcement History by Owner
Owner: Town of Burnsville
Facility: Burnsville VVWTP
Permit: NCO020290
Region: Asheville
Penalty
Assessment penalty
Case Number MR Approved Amount
County: Yancey
Remission Enf EMC
Enforcemen Request Enf Conf Remission Hearing
t Costs Damages Received Held Amount Held
EMC OAH Collection
Remission Remission Memo Sent
Amount Amount to AGO Total Paid
08111 /08
1
Has
Pmt
Balance Due Plan
Case
Closed
IAIQ-1985-0018 01101185
No
01127/87
LR-i990-0001 01124190
$150.00
S.00
5.00
$150.00
5.00
No
01129190
LR-1990-0277 05/21190
$300.00
S.00
S.00
$300.00
S.00
No
06112/90
LR-1990-0356 08127/90
$600.00
$.00
$.00 $600.00
S.00
$.00
No
1011219D
LR-1990-0390 10/04190
$300.00
S.00
S.00
$300.00
$A0
No
11/06/90
LV-1999-0229 06/25/99
$750.00
$80.00
$830.00
S.00
No
08/26/99
LV-1999-0230 06125199
S1,550.00
$80,00
51,630.00
S.00
No
08/26/99
i-V-1999-0269 07123/99
$4,000,00
$80,00
$4,080.00
$.Do
No
09/15199
LV-1999-0357 09117199
$3,125.00
$W00
$3.205.00
$.00
No
10/13199
LV-2000-0145 05105/00
$2,250.00
$80.00
$2,330.00
$.00
No
05/31/00
LV-2000-0175 05/22/00
$3,000.00
$80.00
$3,080,00
$.00
No
05/31/00
LV-2000-0244 06119/00
$1,30Q00
$80.00
$1,380.00
$.Do
No
07/03/00
LV-20D0-0330 08101/00
$1,562.50
$100.00
$1,662,50
$.00
No
08/14/00
LV-2001-0292 0&20101'
S250.00
$50.00
$300.00
$.00
No
10/24101
LV-2004-D231 3-2004 06117104
$500.00
$100.00
$600.00
$.00
No
07/12/04
LV-2008-0292 5-2008
$7,750.00
$70.00
$7.820.00
No
PG2008-0065
S.00
$,00
No
PC-2008-0068
$4,500.00
$2,140.66
$6,640.66
No

COST of BRINGING ACTION
Cane River Wildlife Kill
Salary
Travel Laboratory
Cathy Tyndall $221.92
$40.42
Ed Williams $2,181.75
$600.00 $923.00
Roy Davis $1,164.24
$160.00
Biological Assessment Unit
$4000.00
$401, 80
Keith Haynes $562.08
Deborah Gore $625.44
Sarah Morrison $422.40
Sub Totals $9, t 77.83
Total $1 1,444.57
Prepared by Roy Davis
$1,202.22
$70.76 (Motel)
$70.76 (Motel)
$1,064.52
G:IWIIDA"l'A\Dl'M WQIYanccy\Cane River Mussel Kill\Cost ot-Bringing Action.doc

CANE RIVER FECAL COLIFORM VIOLATIONS
FIVE SAMPLES IN 30 DAYS
FECAL COLIFORM/100 ml OF SAMPLE
2008
UPSTREAM FROM BURNSVILLE WWTP COUNT
June 5-June 24 23
June 9-July 2 23
June 12-July 8 23
June 18-July 15 27
June 14-July 23 34
MOUNTAIN HERITAGE HIGH SCHOOL-1/2 mile downstream
From discharge from Burnsville
wastewater treatment plant
June 5-June 24 1,813
June 9-July 2 683
June 12-July 8 311
June 18-July 15 140
June 14-July 23 184
HIGHWAY 19E BRIDGE-1 '/4 miles downstream from discharge
from Burnsville wastewater treatment
plant
June 5-June 24
1,043
June 9-July 2
533
June 12-July 8
392
June 18-July 15
239
June 14-July 23
359
LANGFORD BRANCH-6/2 miles downstream from discharge from
Burnsville wastewater treatment plant
June 9-July 2
224
GAWPDATAIDI MWQ1Yancey\Cane River Mussel KiliTecal Coliform Violations.doc

MEMO TO THE FILE
FROM: Roy Davis 01
DATE: August 15, 2008
SUBJECT: Investigation
Cane River Mussel Kill
Yancey County
On Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Steve Fraley with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) called the Asheville Regional Office (ARO) to
report that dead elk toe mussels, dead Asian clams, and dead minnows had
been observed in the Cane River on April 22, 2008. The observation was made
by Tim Savage and Tom Dickinson, both with The Catena Group, which is under
contract to do biological work for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (DOT) as a part of the 19 E road project. They also noted the
smell of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent. They first noted evidence
of mortality at the Whittington Bridge and then downstream at the Langford
Branch Road bridge. At the Langford bridge six fresh -dead Appalachian elktoe
and two wavy -rayed lamp mussels were found. Dozens of fresh -dead Asian
clams, numerous dead fish, and even more diseased and distressed fish were
reportedly found. The Appalachian elktoe mussel is on the federal endangered
species list. The Asian clam is an invasive species. It should be noted that the
habitat for the elktoe mussel, due to decreasing water temperature, does not
extend upstream in the Cane River above the Highway 19 E bridge.
As it so happened, I was in Yancey County near the 19 E bridge when the call
came in. Before noon I was able to drive down stream to the Langford Branch
Road Bridge over the Cane River, the downstream -most point where signs of
mortality was observed. In driving upstream, I saw nothing to catch my attention
until I reached the point at which the Town of Burnsville discharges its treated
wastewater into the Cane River. Approximately seven or eight river miles
separate the Langford Branch Road bridge and the Town of Burnsville's
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge. Burnsville's effluent was
creating a visible plume in the Cane River indicating that the plant activated
sludge was not doing its job in terms of capture of fine solids.
An inspection of the WWTP revealed basins with almost black, malodorous
sludge. The basins in question were part of the 0.5 MGD contact stabilization
system which received most of the nighttime flow. I contacted Tom Storie,
Director of Public Works for the Town of Burnsville. Tom said that a toxic
material entered the plant the previous Monday (21s). I told Tom to determine
the source of the offending discharge and remove it from the system.

During my earlier March 19, 2008 inspection of the Burnsville WWTP, I observed
that the activated sludge had the appearance of occasionally being exposed to a
toxic waste. It should be observed that the Division of Water Quality's first
indication of a severe problem at Burnsville came from a DOT contractor and not
the Town of Burnsville. It should also be noted that Burnsville NPDES Permit
(NC0020290) requires that the Town notify the Regional Office within 24 hours of
occurrence of failure of any unit rendering the WWTP incapable of adequately
treating wastewater. The Town of Burnsville did not so notify the Asheville
Regional Office. As the investigation progressed, it was felt that there was a bit
of a disconnect between the contract WWTPORC and the Director of Public
Works in that the ORC reported firstly to his supervisor in Water Quality Lab &
Operation and not to Tom Storie.
Subsequent conversations with operating staff revealed that the WWTP
experienced low influent pHs on several earlier occasions. On the date indicated
the following influent pH were measured by operating staff:
April 16, 2008
1.8
April 23, 2008
2.5
April 25, 2008
2.8
On April 24, 2008 staff of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
corroborated observation made two days earlier by the Catena Group. On April
24, 2008 staff of the WRC observed the Cane River below the Highway 19 E
bridge. They found substantial infestation of all benthic species with blackspot
parasite.
On the morning of April 29, 2009 Cathy Tyndall and I were in the Cane River
doing a benthic survey. John Austin, contract operator of the Town's WWTR
called midmorning to report having that morning measured a 2.94 pH in a waste
stream coming from a dedicated sewer serving Glen Raven Mills. We proceeded
straight to Glen Raven Mills.
Mill officials expressed surprise that Mill wastewater might be causing or
contributing to the WWTP malfunction. It was their feeling that the Mill had been
operating in the same manner for years. We asked that they look for any recent
changes in the Mill waste stream. The next day Keith Haynes with the ARO and I
met with the Plant Manager and others. We learned that Glen Raven wastes
from a few tens to a few hundred gallons per day of low pH sizing. Before
discharging to Burnsville sewers, an approximately equal volume of potable
water is mixed with the waste sizing. The waste sizing tank was on that date
measured to have a pH of 2.9. Our meeting included Rick Pitts with Hexon
Specialty Chemicals. By the end of the day on the 304h Glen Raven reported that
the waste sizing pH was being adjusted to approximately 6.4 and that as quickly
as possible a permanent pH adjusting system would be installed.
2

The cursory benthic survey conducted by Cathy Tyndall in the Cane River on
April 29, 2008 consisted of kicking the substrate and, using a sweep net,
catching organisms coming of the River bottom. This was done both up and
down stream from the point of effluent discharge from the Burnsville WWTP.
She later identified the species collected. Knowing the level of pollution
tolerance or intolerance of the various species, she arrived at a general
determination as to the level of impact of Burnsville recent treated wastewater
discharge upon the Cane River. Based upon her observations Cathy requested
a full scale benthic macro invertibrate assessment, upstream and downstream of
the Burnsville WWTP.
Such an assessment was conducted on May 7, 2008, The Assessment
determined that the Burnsville Wastewater treatment plant had a noticeable
impact on the benthic community in the Cane River.
Keith Haynes took a whole effluent toxicity sample during the week of May 5
through May 9, 2008. The report stated that "test results for these samples
indicate that the water quality of these ambient waters has not been impacted."
At the same time grab samples of the Cane River were taken near the 19E
bridge downstream from the Burnsville WWTP. Utilizing the Ceriodaphnia dubia
pass/fail toxicity test a passing result was obtained.
On May 8 & 9, 2008, the Town of Burnsville brought in 20,000 gallons of
activated sludge from the Town of Bakersville in an attempt to reseed the 0.5
MGD plant. Plant Dissolved Oxygen is still lower than one would wish.
The Town, on the morning of May 13, 2008, reported an influent pH of 4.2. In
response, the Town of Burnsville ordered that the two porta-john companies
previously using the WWTP cease discharging to the system, on the chance that
this particular waste stream could be responsible.
On May 19, 2008 Jadd Brewer, with Water Quality Lab & Operation, called to
report that the Town's influent was still somewhat toxic to activated sludge. pH
was not the problem. This time the toxic sludge seemed to be a synthetic oil
having a high Chemical Oxygen Demand. Jadd said that six people were lifting
man hole lids and wet well access ports attempting to identify the toxic waste
source. Jadd planned to run most of the Town's wastewater through the 0.3
MGD plant while attempting to rebuild the sludge in the 0.5 MGD plant.
Given that the Town of Burnsville's WWTP is the only identifiable pollution source
above the kill area and that the Town's WWTP was experiencing severe upset as
a result of the passage of a toxic waste stream through the plant during the time
of the mortality, it is felt that that same toxic waste stream went on to cause the
mortality observed in the Cane River on or about April 22, 2008.

It should be mentioned that on June 7, 2008 the Health Director for the Toe River
Health District post notices along the banks of the Cane River advising against
swimming in the River.
G:IWPDATAIDEMWQ\Yancey\Cane River Mussel KiIIlCane River Report.08.doc
4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF YANCEY
IN THE MATTER OF
THE TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
NPDES PERMIT NC0020290,
15A NCAC 2B 0.211(1),
15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(e)
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
File No. PC-2008-0065
FINDINGS AND DECISIONS
AND ASSESSMENT OF
CIVIL PENALTIES
Acting pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), I, Coleen H.
Sullins, make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The Town of Burnsville is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of
the State of North Carolina.
B. The "Town of Burnsville operates a 0.8 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant located
in Yancey County, North Carolina.
C. The Town of Burnsville was issued NPDES Permit NCO020290 on July 17, 2006
(effective September 1, 2006, with an expiration date of September 30, 2010)�
for the treatment of wastewater and the discharge of treated wastewater to Cane
River, class C-Trout, waters of the State in the French Broad River Basin.
D. Section C. (2.) of the NPDES Permit states, in part, that "The Permittee shall at all
times provide the operation and maintenance resources necessary to operate the
existing facilities at optimum efficiency. The Permittee shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and
related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve
compliance with the conditions of this permit.
E. Section E. (6.) of the NPDES permit states, in part, that "The Permittee shall
report to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office any noncompliance that
potentially threatens public health or the environment. Any information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the time the Permittee became aware of the
circumstances. Written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the
time the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances".
F. Section E. (9.) of the NPDES permit states, in part, that "The Permittee shall

report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional office of
the Division as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next
working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any
of the following: any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which
results in the discharge of significant amounts of waste which are abnormal in
quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of the sludge
digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the facility;
or any other unusual circumstances." "Persons reporting such occurrences by
telephone shall also file a written report within 5 days following first knowledge
of the occurrence".
G. 15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(e) establishes the water quality standard for fecal
coliform in Class C waters, stating that "fecal coliforms shall not exceed a
geometric mean of 200/100 ml (MF count) based upon at least five consecutive
samples examined during any thirty day period, nor exceed 400/100m1 in more
than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period."
H. 15A NCAC 2B .0211(]) states that best usage for Class C waters are "aquatic life
propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing and fish),
wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary
recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes;"
15A NCAC 2B .0211(2) states that Class C waters "will be suitable for aquatic
life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing, and
fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture; sources of water pollution which
preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or a long-term basis will be
considered a violation of a water quality standard."
J. On Tuesday, April 23, 2008 the Asheville Regional Office received a report of
dead Appalachian Elktoe mussels, dead Asian clams and dead and distressed fish
having been observed in the Cane River just above the Langford Branch Road
Bridge approximately 6 1/2 miles below the point where the Town of Burnsville's
Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges treated wastewater to the Cane River.
K. On April 23, 2008 Roy Davis with the Asheville Regional Office Regional Office
surveyed the Cane River above the point where dead aquatic life were observed.
The only thing observed out of the ordinary was the visible plume created as
Burnsville treated wastewater entered the Cane River. An inspection of the
Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant revealed a black malodorous activated
sludge in the two contact stabilization units with the larger unit showing this
characteristic the most. Tom Storie, Director of Public Works with the Town of
Burnsville reported that a toxic slug passed through the plant on the previous
weekend. The Town of Burnsville, by April 25, 2008, had not reported this toxic
discharge to the Asheville Regional Office. Neither was the required written
report submitted within 5 days of first knowledge of the incident.
Oil

L. Between .Tune 5, 2008 and June 24, 2008 the Cane River was sampled at various
locations. Those samples were analyzed for fecal coliform. The Sampling sites at
Mountain Heritage High School, U.S. Highway 19E bridge, and the Langford Branch
Road Bridge down stream from the discharge point for the Burnsville Wastewater
Treatment Plant evidenced a violation of the Water Quality Standard for fecal coliform.
M. The Town of Burnsville violated Part IV of NPDES Permit by failing to update its
Industrial Waste Survey every five years, by failing to have an approved Sewer Use
Ordinance, by failing to have an approved Enforcement Response Plan, by failing to
submit a Pretreatment Annual Report by March 31, 2008, and by failing to adequately
inspect and monitor industrial users to assure compliance..
N. The costs to the State for the investigation and enforcement procedures in this matter
totaled $ 11,444.57.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
11. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. The Town of Burnsville is a "person" within the meaning of C.S. 143-215.6A
pursuant to G.S. 143-212(4).
B. NPDES Permit NCO020290 is required by NCGS 143-215.1.
C. The conditions within the subject permit regarding the proper operation of the
wastewater treatment plant, reporting of noncompliance, and the duty to mitigate
are terms, conditions, or requirements of said permit.
D. Cane River constitutes waters of the State within the meaning of G.S. 143-
215.1(a)(l) pursuant G.S. 143-212(6).
E. 15A NCAC 2B .0211(1), 15A NCAC 2B .0211(2), and 15A NCAC 2B
.0211(3)(e) are water quality standard established pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1.
F. The conditions observed at the Town of Burnsville wastewater plant on April 23,
2008 constituted a failure to properly operate and maintain systems of control, in
violation of Section C (2) o1 NPDES Permit NC0020290.
G. The Town of Burnsville violated Section E. (6.) of NPDES Permit Number
NCO020290 by failing to provide a verbal notification within 24 hours of
occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of an event that potentially
threatened the environment. The Town of Burnsville also violated Section E. (6)
of NPDES Permit Number NCO020290 by failing to provide a written report
within 5 days following first knowledge of the occurrence of an event which

potentially threatened the environment.
H The Town of Burnsville violated Section E. (9) of NPDES Permit NC0020290 by
failing to provide verbal notification within 24 hours of occurrence at the water
pollution control facility which results in the significant amounts of waste which
are abnormal in quantity or characteristics and the known passage of a slug of
hazardous substance through the facility, or any other unusual circumstance. The
Town of Burnsville also violated Section E. (9) of NPDES Permit Number
NC0020290 by failing to provide a written report within 5 days following first
knowledge of the occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results
in the discharge of significant amounts of waste which are abnormal in quantity or
characteristic and the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the
facility; or any other unusual circumstances.
The Town of Burnsville violated 15A NCAC 2B .0211(1) by discharging under
treated wastewater creating conditions that removed the best usage from the Cane
River.
The Town of Burnsville violated 15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(e) by creating
conditions that caused the fecal coliform in the Cane River to exceed a geometric
mean of 200/100 ml based upon five consecutive samples within a 30 day period,
which represent a violation of the fecal coliform water quality standard for class
C waters.
K. General Statute 143-215.6A(a)(I) provides that a civil penalty of not more than
twenty -Five thousand dollars per violation may be assessed against a person who
violates any classification, standard, limitation, or management practice
established pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1.
L. The States enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against the Town of
Burnsville pursuant to G.S.143-215.3 (a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282.1(b)(8).
M. Coleen I-1. Sullins, pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources has the authority to assess
civil penalties in this matter.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the f-ollowing:
III. DECISION:
The Town of Burnsville is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ For violation of Part 11, Section C (2) of NPDES Permit
4

NC0020290, by failing to properly operate and maintain the
wastewater treatment plant during an undetermined period
of time starting on or about April 19, 2003.
$ The Town of Burnsville violated 15A NCAC 213 .0211(1)
by discharging inadequately treated wastewater creating
conditions that removed the best usage from the Cane
River.
$ For violation of Section E (6) of NPDES Permit
NC0020290, by failing to provide either the 24 hour verbal
or 5 day written reports of the discharges of wastewater
potentially threatening to the environment which occurred
on or about April 19, 2008.
$ For violation of Section E (9) of NPDES Permit
NC0020290, by failing to provide either the 24 hour verbal
or 5 day written reports of the known passage of a slug of
hazardous substance through the facility which occurred on
or about April 19, 2008.
$ For violation of PART IV of NPDES Permit NC0020290,
by failing to update the Town's Industrial Waste Survey at
least once every five years.
$ For violation of PART IV of NPDES Permit NC0020290,
by failing to have the Sewer Use Ordinance approved by
the 'Town in a timely manner.
$ For violation of PART IV of NPDES Permit NC0020290,
by failing to have an approved Enforcement Response Plan.
$ For violation of PART IV of NPDES Permit NC0020290,
by failing to submit a Pretreatment Annual Report by
March 31, 2008.
$ For violation of PART IV of NPDES Permit NC0020290,
by failing to adequately Inspect and monitor industrial users
to assure compliance.
$ For 9 violation of 15A 213 .0211(3)(e), the water quality
standard for fecal coliform between June 5, 2008 and the
present.

TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY
$ 11L544.57 Enforcement Costs
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
As required by G.S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining, the amount of the penalty I have
considered the factors listed in G.S. 14313-282. 1 (b), which are:
(1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from the violation;
(2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
(3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
(7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs
over which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority;
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
(Date)
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
GAWPDATAIDEMWQ\Yancey\Cane River Mussel Kill\Burnsville P&D, 2CPA.doe
J

orucnaei r. rzasiey, uovernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coieen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional office
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
June 13, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7002 0460 0001 9899 7156
Danny McIntosh, Mayor
Town of Burnsville
PO Box 97
Burnsville, NC 28714
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION/
RECOMMENDATION FOR ENFORCEMENT
NOV-2008-PC- 0430
NCAC T15A: 021-1.0900
Local Pretreatment Programs
Pretreatment Audit Inspection
Burnsville WV TP
Permit No. NCO020290
Yancey County
Dear Mayor McIntosh:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Inspection Report for the Pretreatment Audit Inspection
conducted on the Town of Burnsville's pretreatment program, Deborah Gore and Sarah Morrison
of the Raleigh PERCS Unit and Jeff Menzel and Keith Haynes of the Asheville Regional Office
conducted the Audit on June 3, 2008. The Town's pretreatment program was found to be in
violation of permit NCO020290 and the subject administrative code for the following issues:
Inspection Area
Compliance Issue
Pretreatment
Failure to properly implement an approved Pretreatment
Program in accordance with NCAC T15A:02H .0900
Pretreatment
Submit slug loading plan
Pretreatment
Failure to have SUO approved
Pretreatment
Failure to update IWS
Pretreatment
Failure to sample SIU at designated sampling point
Please refer to the enclosed Audit Form for detailed descriptions of observations, One
comments and requirements. Nolthcarolina
A atura!!y
North Carolina Division of WaterQuality 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28773 Phone[phone] Customer Service
Internet: www ncwaterguality org FAX [phone] 8771623-6748

Page Two
Mayor McIntosh
June 13, 2008
The Asheville Regional Office is considering preparation of an enforcement action for the
violation of permit conditions and the subject Administrative Code. To prevent further action,
carefully review these violations and deficiencies and respond in writing to this office within fifteen
(15) working day of receipt of this letter. You should address the causes of noncompliance and
all actions taken to prevent the recurrence of similar situations. If you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact Keith Haynes at 828/296-4500.
Attachments
cc: PERCS, w/ attachment
ARO wl attach.
WQ Central Files wl attachment
Matt Matthews/ attachment
Tom Storie w/ attachment
Sincerely,
Ro er C. Edwards Regional Supervisor
g g p
Surface Water Protection Section
SO is i Nib('
G:1WP4ATAIDEMW41Yancey120290 Burnsvilte WW7PIpretreatment\NOV2008PC0430.doc

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 I NI 2 151 31 _ NCO020290 111 121 08/o6/03 117 18t �I 191 sI 20I t
�J LJ �I !__!
Remarks
211 1 1 1 1.,.1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1....1._ 11 Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 lL11 L] I l- js
,.1 .1 _.,.1.
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 61 CA ------ ------ -------------- Reserved ----------------------
I 73I I 174 751 1 I 1 1 „j 11 as
71I I 721 NLJ—I
671 1 69 70 tJ ty
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)
10:00 AM 08/06/03
06/09/0l
Surnsville WWTP
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
NCSR 1138
Burnsville NC 26714
04:00 PM 08/06/03
10/09/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Citles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
John Franklin Austin/ORC/828-898-6277/
Tom storie///
Name. Address of Responsible Offcial/TitlelPhone and Fax Number
Contacted
Thomas W Sroxie,PO Box 97 Burnsville NC 28714/Public Works
Director/828-662-2420/828E827757 Yes
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
Section D: Summaa of Finding/Comments Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessa
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signatures) of Inspector(s) Age ncylOffice/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Al
JeEE Menzel ARO WQ//828-296-4500/
1
Keith Haynes 46' ARO WQ//828-296-4500/
4v
Deborah Gore Pretreatment Unit//919-733-5083 Ext.593/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer AgencylOffice/Phone and Fax Numbers
Roger C Edwards ARC WQ//628-296-4500/ j 0
;Z,
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page # 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
3� NCO020290 I11 12I� 08/06/03 117 181 _'
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary).
See attached Audit form.
S0 21 IN F1111,
;tom �(�; :': Page # 2

�C�E�� NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PRETREATMENT AUDIT REPORT
Background Information [Complete prior to audit; review Program Info Database Sheet(s)l ^
1. Control Authority (POTW) Name: Town of Burnsville
2. Control Authority Representative(s): Tom Storie
3. Title(s): Director of Public Works
4. Address ofPOTW:
Mailing P.O. Box 97
City Burnsville Zip Code 28714
Phone Number [phone] or 7224 Fax Number [phone] E-Mail
5. Audit Date 06/03/2008
6. Last Inspection Date: 08/29/2007 Inspection Type: ❑ PC[ X Audit
7. Has Program Completed All Requirements from the Previous Inspection and Program Info Sheet(s) ? ❑ Yes X No
If No, Explain. IWS not completed.
8. In the last year has the POTW experienced any NPDES or Sludge Permit compliance problems? X Yes ❑ No
If Yes, Explain. Lead violations — did not find source; no sludge problems as a result.
9. Is POTW under an Order That Includes Pretreatment Conditions? ❑ Yes X No
Order Type and Number: Are Milestone Dates Being Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No X NA
Parameters Covered Under Order
PCS (WENDB)Codina
Trans.Code Main Program Permit Number NIM/DD/YY Inspec.Type
Inspector
Fac. Type
LNLJ N I C 2 �0 12 19 10 06101108
(DTIA) (TYPI)
(INSP)
(FACC)
1.0.:..-Current Number of Significant Industrial Users(SIUS)..............................................................................................................................
I
SIUS
11. Current Number of Cate oncal Industrial Users (CIUS)?
I ................. �............................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 433
CIUS
........................
12. Number of SIUs Not Inspected by POTW in Last Calendar Year?
I
13. Number of.SlUs Not Sampled by POTW in Last Calendar Year?
...........................................................................................................................................
0
................................
14. Enter Hiaher Number of 12 or 13
.... .........................a...............................................................,............................................................................................................................................................................................
1
NOIN
1.?:.._Number of S1Us with No IUP,..or with an Expired Y.0....................................................................................................................
0
NOCM
16. Number of SIUs in SNC for Either Reporting or Limits Violations During Either of Last 2
0
PSNC
Semi -Annual Periods (Total Number of SIUs in SNC)
17. Number of SIUs in SNC for Reporting During Either of Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
0
MSNC
18. Number of SIUs in SN.0 for Limits Violations During Either of Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
0
SNPS
................................
19. Number of SIUs in SNC for Both Reporting and Limits Violations During Either of Last 2
0
Semi -Annual Periods
20: Number of SIUs in SNC for Self -Monitoring Requirements that were Not Inspected or Sampled
1_0
SNIN
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25, 2007 Pace l

21. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ELEMENTS REVIEW- Review POTW files, verify POTW has copy of each Program
Element in their File. comDlete with all SIIDDortinii documents and PERCS Anuroval Letter. and dates consistent with Program Info
Program Element
Last Submittal
Date In file?
Last Approval
Date In file
Date Next Due,
If Applicable
Headworks Analysis (HWA)
717/06
X Yes ❑ No
7/19106
X Yes ❑ No
5/1/11
Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
unkwn
❑ Yes X No
N/A
❑ Yes X No
12/31/08
i
Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
8/15/07
X Yes ❑ No
8/2l(07
X Yes ❑ No
8131l08
Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
1111/94
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12/31/08
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP)
9/24/02
X Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Local Authority (Sewer Use Ordinance-SU
22. Do you have any towns and/or areas from which you receive wastewater which are not in your annexed jurisdiction?
❑ Yes X No If yes, Please list these towns and/or areas. Some customers are outside of town limits
23. If yes to #22, Do you have current Interjurisdictional Agreements (IJAs) or other Contracts? ❑ Yes ❑ No X NA
A copy, if not already submitted, should be sent to Division. .
24. If yes to #22, Have you had any trouble working with these towns or districts? ❑ Yes ❑ No X NA
If yes, Explain.
25. Date of Last SUO Adoption by Local Council Not sure. SUO was submitted and approved, with a minor correction, in
August 2007. SUO needs to be presented to the Town Council for adoption and then submit the completed Section 13.
26. Have you had any problems interpreting or enforcing any part of the SUO? ❑ Yes X No
If yes, Explain.
Enforcement (Enforcement Response Plan-ERP)
27. Did you send a copy of the ERP to your industries? ❑ Yes X No This inspection will require the ERP to be updated to
match the penalty abilities of the SUO. Send copy to industries after approval of updated ERP.
28. Have you had any problems interpreting or enforcing any part of the ERP (i.e. any adjudication, improper enforcement, etc?
❑ Yes X No Hasn't had a copy to use.
29. List Industries under a Schedule or Order and Type of Schedule or Order NONE
Resources
30. Please Rate the Following: S=Satisfactory M=Mareinal U=Unsatisfactory
Rating
Explanation, if Unsatisfactory
Personnel Available for Maintaining
Tom handles PT; Rick acts as back-up (IT person); Operators
POTW's Pretreatment Program
X S ❑M ❑U
do the sampling
Access to POTW Vehicles for
Sampling, Inspections, and
X S ❑M ❑U
Emergencies
Access to Operable Sampling
Portable samplers available
Equipment
X S ❑M ❑U
Availability of Funds if Needed for
Contingency monies are available
Additional Sam lin and/or Analysis
X S ❑M ❑U
Reference Materials
Send copy of Comp Guide and 2H .0900
X S ❑M ❑U
Staff Training (i.e. Annual and
Regional Workshops, Etc.)
X S ❑M ❑U
Computer Equipment (Hardware and
Software)
X S ❑m ❑U
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: fill,, 25, 2007 Pace 2

31, Does the POTW have an adequate data management system to run the pretreatment program? X Yes ❑ No
Explain Yes or No. Has Excel, however Toni maintains paper sampling results and does not enter data into spreadsheets.
32, How does the POTW recover the cost of the Pretreatment Program from their industries? Explain.
No permitting, sampling or surcharge fees. If determined an industry was responsible for a problem the Town would
recover the costs from the responsible industry
Public Perception/ Participation
33. Are there any local issues affecting the pretreatment program (e.g.. odor, plant closing, new or proposed plants)?
X Yes ❑ No If yes, Explain. Odor problem — cant' say directly related to PT. There was a mussel kill 11.7 miles
downstream. The WWTP has experienced slug loads that have killed off the plant micro organisms. It doesn't appear to
have come from any known industry, but the Town must take steps to find the source.
34. Has any one from the public ever requested to review pretreatment program files? ❑ Yes X No
If yes, Explain procedure. If no, How would the request be addressed? Files would be brought out for requestor to review.
35, Has any industry ever requested that certain information remain confidential from the public? X Yes ❑ No If yes, Explain
procedure for determining whether information qualified for confidential status, as well as procedure for keeping files confidential
from public. If no. how would the request be addressed?. Confidential material kept in separate place.
36. In addition to annual inspection, does the POTW periodically meet with industries to discuss pretreatment? X Yes ❑ No
Meets with Env. Coor for Altech frequently.
37. Is the public notified about changes in the SUO or Local Limits? X Yes ❑ No Agenda is advertised.
38. Were all industries in SNC published in the last notice? NONE ❑ Yes ❑ No
Permitting Industrial Waste Survey-IWS)
39a. How does the POTW become aware of new or changed Users? By application for service for new users. Changes at
existing users are noted by their request for larger service.
39b. Once the POTW becomes aware of new or changed Users, how does the POTW determine which industries have the
reasonable potential to adversely impact the WWTP and therefore require a new permit or a permit revision? (Who is an
SIU?) Local awareness (not much can come into Town without Tom being aware of it) and Industrial Waste
Survey.
40. Does the POTW receive waste from any groundwater remediation projects (petroleum, CERCLA) or landfill leachate?
❑Yes X No If Yes, How many are there? Have accepted landfill leachate in the past — caused a Cd violation and
was stopped. Officially do not accept.
Please list each site and how it is permitted, if applicable.
41. Does the POTW accept waste by (mark if applicable) ❑ Truck ❑Dedicated Pipe X NA Stopped accepting porta jon
waste that previously came through dedicated pipe.
42. If the POTW accepts trucked waste, what controls are placed on this waste? (example. designated point, samples drawn,
manifests required) NIA
43, How does the POTW allocate its loading to industries? Mark all that apply
❑ Uniform Limits ❑ Historical Industry Need ❑ By Surcharge X Categorical Limits ❑ Other
Explain Other: Only current SIU is categorical. Would request State assistance to determine limits for non -
categorical SIU.
44. Review POTW's copies of current allocation tables for each WWTP. Are there any over allocations? ❑ Yes X No
Ifyes, What parameters are over allocated?
45. If yes to #43, What is being done to address the over allocations? (short-term IUPs, HWA to be revised, pollutant study, etc.)
NIA
46. Does the POTW keep pollutant loading in reserve for future growth / safety? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, what percentage of each parameter Not a particular percentage, would follow State guidance
47. Has the POTW experienced any difficulty in allocation? (for example: adjudication by an industry) ❑ Yes X No
NC DWQ Pretreatment Audit Corm . Revised: July 25. 2007 Page 3

I(yes, Explain.
48. 1-low does the POTW decide on which pollutants to limit in the permits? Monitor for? (for example: were only those pollutants
listed on the application limited; categorical parameters; NPDES Pollutants of Concern)
40 CFR or other pollutants of concern as determined with assistance of State.
49. How does the POTW decide what the monitoring frequency should be for the various pollutants in industry permits ? Explain.
Historically, monthly for SIU to self -monitor; 1/6 months for POTW monitoring. Would consider more or less frequent
based on State recommendation.
Permit Comnliance
50. Does the POTW currently have or during the past year had any permits under adjudication? ❑ Yes X No
If yes, which industries? What was (will be) the outcome of the adjudication?
51. Demonstrate how the POTW judges compliance. This should include compliance judgment on all violations of limits, reporting
requirements, and permit conditions, as well as for SNC. Data is received. Evaluate if on time and required number of samples
collected, then looks at limits to judge if in compliance with [UP.
52. Does the POTW use the Division's model inspection form or equivalent? X Yes ❑ No
If no, does the POTW form include all DWQ data? ❑ Yes ❑ No
53. Were all SIUs evaluated for the need of a sluglspill control plan during their most recent inspections? X Yes ❑ No
If no, Explain.
54, What criteria are used to determine if a slug/spill control plan is needed?
All SIUs are required to have one.
55. What criteria does the POTW use to determine if a submitted slug/spill control plan is adequate?
Tom is familiar with the facilities in town. He evaluates based on his knowledge that potential spills have been addressed
and reviews how response and clean-up is handled.
56. How does the POTW decide where the sample point for an SIU should be located?
Only process waste is preferred. Also, safe and assessable.
57. Has the POTW established a procedure to ensure that representative samples will be taken by the POTW or SIU each time?
(example: correct location; proper programming of sampler; clean equipment; swirling the sample bucket uniformly)
POTW: X Yes ❑ No SIU: X Yes ❑ No If yes, Explain. Contracted operators collect the sample and there is
a SOP for sampling.
58. Who performs sample analysis for the POTW for
SITS uses Blue Ridge
Metals _Water Ouality Services
Conventional Parameters Water Ouality Services
Organics Water Ouality Services
59. Explain the Chain of Custody Procedure used for both in house and commercial lab samples.
Operator collects the sample, cools it, logs on chain of custody form, taken to Banner Elk where it is taken by courier to the
lab. Form is signed when the sample is relinquished by the operator and received by the courier.
Long/Short Term Monitoring Plan (L/STMP) and Headworks Analysis (HWA)
60a.1s LIMP/STMP Monitoring Being Conducted at Appropriate Locations and Frequencies? X YES ❑ NO May want to
consider making the uncontrollable site optional so that the town can use those resources to sample in the collection system
to track the source of the upsets to the treatment plant.
60b. Are Correct Detection Levels being used for all LIMP/STMP Monitoring? ❑ YES ❑ NO The last STMP data collected
was in 2002 — 2003, so there was no data to evaluate at this time
60c. Is LTMP/STMP Data Maintained in Table or Equivalent? ❑ YES X NO Is Table Adequate? ❑ YES ❑ NO
60d. All LTMPISTMP effluent data on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)? ❑ YES ❑ NO No data to evaluate for this
requirement.
60e. If NO to any above, list violations
601. Should any Pollutants of Concern be Eliminated from or Added to LTMPISTMP?
If yes, which ones? Eliminated: Added:
❑ YES X NO
NC DWQ Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25. 2007 Pape 4

61. Do you complete your own headworks analysis (I TWA) ? ❑ Yes X No State personnel completed the last HWA.
If no, Who completes your HWA? Phone
62. Do you have plans to revise your HWA in the near future? ❑ Yes ❑ No Maybe. Will be a recommendation.
If yes, What is the reason for the revision? (mark all that apply) ❑Increased average flow ❑NPDES limits change
❑More LTMP data available ❑Resolve over allocation ❑5 year expiration X Other
Explain. May want to revise HWA due to recent upsets at the plant.
63. In general, what is the most limiting criteria of your HWA? X Inhibition ❑ Pass Through ❑Sludge Quality
64. Do you see any way to increase your loading in the fttture (Example: obtaining more land for sludge disposal)? X Yes ❑ No
Explain. Would need more land for composting piles — have looked into.
Summary
65. Do you plan any significant changes to the pretreatment program or changes to the W WTP that may affect pretreatment?
Phase II — upgrading existing blowers, air piping, diffusers and supply pipes; adding chlorination/dechlorination; upgrade
of influent, adding grit removal.
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25, 2007 Pate 5

INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT (IUP) FILE REVIEW (3 IUP FILE REVIEWS AND 1 IU INSPECTION)
66. User Name 11 1. Altech 1 2. 1 3. 71
67. [UP Number
68. Does File Contain Current Permit?
69, Permit Expiration Date
_70. Categorical Standard Applied (I.E. 40 CFR, Etc.) Or N/A
71. Does File Contain Permit Application Completed Within One Year Prior
to Permit Issue Date?
72. Does File Contain Inspection Completed Within Last Calendar Year?
73. a. Does File Contain Slug/Spill Control Plan?
b. If No, is One Needed? (See Inspection Form from POTW)
�74. For 40 CFR 413 and 433 TTO Certification, Does File Contain a Toxic
Organic Management Plan (TOMP)?
75. a. Does File Contain Original Permit Review Letter from Division?
b. All Issues Resolved?
76, During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did POTW Complete its
Sampling as Required by IUP, including Flow?
77. Does File Contain POTW Sam lin Chain -Of -Custody Forms?
78. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did SIU Complete its
Sampling as Required by IUP, including Flow?
79. 'During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did SIU submit all reports on
time?
80a. For categorical [Us with Combined Wastestream Formula (CWF), does
file include rocess/dilution flows as Required by IUP?
80b. For categorical IUs with Production based limits, does file include
production rates and/or flows as Required by IUP?
81. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did POTW Identify All
Limits Non -Compliance from Both POTW and S[U Sampling?
82. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did POTW Identify All
Reporting Non -Compliance from SIU Sampling?
�83. a. Was POTW Notified by SIU (Within 24 Hours) of All Self -
Monitoring Violations?
b. Did Industry Resample and submit results to POTW within 30 Days?
c. If applicable, did POTW resample and obtain results within 30 days of
becoming aware of SIU limit violations in the POTW's sampling of SIU?
84. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was SIU in SNC?
^85. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was Enforcement Taken as
Specified in POTW's ERP (NOVs, Penalties, timing, etc.)?
004 11
X Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
6/30/I0 _
433
X Yes F 1 No ❑ Yes ❑ No 11 ❑ Yes _ No
LI Yes X No
LJ Yes ❑ No11L
i Yes LJ No
a. XYes ❑No
b. [--]Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes ❑No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes [:]No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
XYes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes0No0N/A
❑Yes❑NO❑NIA
a. ❑Yes X No
a. ❑Yes (_-]No
a. ❑Yes ❑No_l
b.X YesNo❑NIA
❑
b.❑Yes❑No❑N/A
bzYes❑No❑NIA
U Yes X No 11 LJ Yes ❑ No 11 LJ Yes ❑ No
X Yes ❑ No 11 ❑ Yes ❑ No LJ Yes ❑ No
X YeS❑No❑NIA 11 ❑Yes❑No❑N/A 11, ❑Yes❑NO❑NIA
X Yes❑NoEIN/A II ❑Yes❑No❑NIA II ❑Yes❑NOONIA
X NIA ❑Yes❑No❑NIA rlYes❑No❑NIA
X NIA ❑Yes❑NO❑NIA ❑Yes❑No❑N/A
Yes X No II L Yes ❑ No II L Yes ❑ No
X NIA II ❑Yes❑No❑NIA II ©YesONo❑N/A
a.X Yes❑No❑NIA II a.❑Yes❑No❑NIA II a.❑YespNo❑NIA
b.X Yes❑No❑N/A
C. X NIA
b.❑YespNo❑NIA
c.❑Yes❑No❑NIA
J Yes X No 11 ❑ Yes ❑ No
OYes X No 11 ❑Yes❑No❑NIA
b.❑Yes❑No❑N/A
c.❑Yes0No❑N/A
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Yes❑NoON1A
86. Does File Contain Penal Assessment Notices?
X NIA
❑YespNo❑NIA
❑YespNo❑NIA
87. Does File Contain Proof Of Penal Collection?
X NIA
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑NIA
88. a. Does File Contain Any Current Enforcement Orders?
Is SIU in Com liance with Order?
X NIA
X N/AJa.0YesE3No[3N/A
b.❑Yes❑No0N/A
a.❑Yes❑No❑NIAb.
b ❑Yes❑NopNlA
89. Did POTW Representative Have Difficulty in Obtaining Any Requested
Information For You?
` ❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
11
❑ Yes ❑ No
FILE REVIEW COMMENTS:
9 72. Last formal inspection was dated 7/l/06
4 74. Covered in spill plan.
Went out March 2008 for informal inspection.
9 75. Gave Tom a copy of review letter. There were some recommendations for improvement to the IUP.
# 76. The POTW sample was not collected ai the specified sampling point and therefore cannot be used for compliance judgment. The town
sampled from a pump station that carries only the industrial flow, but that includes non -process wastewater, The results of the sample would
have been in violation of the IUP limit for zinc. The SIU is also sampling from a point different then what is specified in the permit, although
it is directly after the SIU's treatment system and should be representative. The Town must ensure that the flow being sampled is
representative and both parties are sampling from the same point.
481. Missed zinc violation 11/12/07, however not usable for compliance judgment (see comment on #76).
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: Jule 25. 2007 Pave 6

#83. Notification by SIU given by phone. This is acceptable, however Tom needs to put a dated note in the file to document the conversation
with the industrial representative.
985. Missed NOV.
INDUSTRY INSPECTION PCS CODING:
TranS.Code Main Program Permit Number NI�L'DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector Fac, Type
N INIC'1n,�n 12 10 12 1910 1 1061031481 lu__J LsJ LwJ
(D"6IA) (TYPI) (INSP) (FACC)
1. Industry Inspected: Glen Raven Mills
Z. Industry Address: I'O Box 100, 70 East Hwy 19-E, Burnsville, 28714
3. Type of Industry/Product: textile
4. Industry Contact: Bryan Peterson Title: Human Resources Manager Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
5. Does the POTW Use the Division Model Inspection Form or Equivalent? X Yes ❑ No
6. Did the POTW Contact Conduct the Following Parts of the Industrial Inspection Thoroughly?
Comments:
A. Initial Interview
X Yes
❑ No
B. Plant Tour
X Yes
❑ No
C. Pretreatment Tour
X Yes
❑ No
D. Sampling Review
X Yes
❑ No
E. Exit Interview
X Yes
❑ No
Industrial Inspection Comments:
Glen Raven was dropped as a SIU in February 2005. There have been some pH issues, but the industry has installed a pH
adjustment system. The wastewater is collected in a holding tank. The pH is manually adjusted by adding sodium hydroxide.
When in an acceptable range the water is released. Additional pH checks are done of the effluent to make sure still within
range. Working on installation that will -make the pH adjustment automatic.
Audit SUMMARY AND COMMENTS:
Audit Comments: The Division records indicate that the last Industrial Waste Survey -summary was approved in 1994. IWS
summaries are required every 5 years. It is not clear if an IWS summary was submitted in 1999, but the last recorded due date
is 1/19/2006.
The Town's WWTP has experienced several slut; loads that have killed the microorganisms. It was not apparent that the Town
has made any effort to find the source of the slug loads. This represents a failure to implement the Pretreatment Program.
The Town has one SIU Altech. The sam tin �)int desi noted in the IUP is :� manhole immediatelyoutside the reduction
building. Neither the SIU or the Town is using the correct sampline site.
Requirements: Complete an IWS summary and submit to the Division by 12/31/2008.
Submit a Ulan to the Regional and Central offices detailing how the Town plans to investigate the source of the slug loadings b
July 7, 2008.
The Town must sample at the designated sampling point and require the SIU to do the same. The POTW must complete at
least one sampling event at the correct sampling site prior to .Tune 30, 2008. In addition, the POTW must investigate why the
zinc result from the pump station were so high.
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25. 2007 Page 7

Have SUO approved by Town Council and subrnit_Section _13 showing the date of adoption by 8/31/08.
Revise the ERP to match the SUO penaltv amounts and submit to the Central Office for review by 12/31/08. See the PERCS
Unit web page for an updated model ERP.
Recommendations: Modifv the Altech [UP to delete the pounds limits_ and have_onl_y_concentration based limits.
The Division also recommends placing Glen Raven Mills on a_local permit to require submittal of pH records.
The last HWA was completed using data from 2002 — 2003. Normally, the next round of STMP sampling would have been
required to be completed in 2008 with the HWA due in 2009. The HWA review letter indicated a next due date of 5/1/2011.
The Division recommends that as soon as the treatment plant issues have been resolved the STNIP be implemented and a new
HWA developed as soon as possible.
Revise to STMP to remove Uncontrollable sampling site so those resources can be redirected tos_earchine the collection system
for the source of the slug loadings.
NOD: ❑ Yes
NOV: X Yes
QNCR: X Yes
POTS:
❑ No
❑ No
❑ No
Satisfactory ❑
Marginal ❑ Unsatisfactory X
Audit COMPLETED BY: Deborah Gore & Sarah Morrison / Keith Haynes & Jeff Menzel
PERCS Unit / Asheville Regional Office
GO S l NAC
DATE: 06/03/08
NC DWp Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25. 2007 Page 8

CENTRAL FILES
STAFF REPORT
T0:
Michelle McKay, CG & !_
FROM:
Roy Davis, ARO Ck-^--4-4
DATE:
June 13, 2008
SUBJECT: WWTP Improvements
Town of Burnsville
Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit Number NG0020290
Yancey County
This project presents certain proposed improvements to the existing Burnsville
WWTP. The Town is now into a 1 '/z month treatment plant upset caused by an
incompatible waste stream. Lack of sufficient aeration capacity is a problem in
terms of bring the plants back around even if (when) the incompatible waste is
eliminated. Given the need for the increased aeration capacity, which is included
as a part of this improvements project, I request that you put these plans on the
top of your review stack. The ARO recommends the issuance of an
Authorization to Construct Permit for these improvements and thanks you for any
assistance you are able to offer in terms of a speedy review.
Xc: Keith.Haynes
Jeff Menzel
Dan Blaisdell

1N aTFA pG Michael F. Easley, Governor
CENTM"FUS
William G. Ross Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Coleen H, Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
June 5, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED-7002 0460 0001 9899 8108
Mr. Danny McIntosh, Mayor
Town of Burnsville
Post Office Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Subject: NOV-2008-PC-0383
Town of Burnsville
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upset
NPDES Permit Number N00020290
Yancey County
Dear Mr, McIntosh:
Section E-6 of NPDES Permit Number NCO020290 requires that the Town of Burnsville provide
notification, within 24 hours of occurrence, to the Asheville Regional Office, followed by written
notification within 5 days, of any noncompliance that potentially threatens the environment.
Section E-9 of NPDES Permit Number NCO020290 requires that the Town of Burnsville provide
notification, within 24 hours of occurrence, to the Asheville Regional Office, followed by written
notification within 5 days, of the passage of toxic waste through the wastewater treatment plant
or any process unit failure.
On April 23, 2008 the Asheville Regional Office received notification of a wildlife kill having .
occured in the Cane River on the previous day. Subsequent investigation by this office revealed
that the Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant was in a state of upset after having been hit by a
slug of toxic waste possibly over the previous weekend. Notification to the Asheville Regional
Office pursuant to the requirements of Sections E-6 and E-9 of NPDES Permit Number
NCO020290 was not made.
tCaro ina
utzy
2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa, N.C. 28778 828/296-4500 (Telephone) 8281299-7043(Fax) Customer Service 877-623-6748

On June 3, 2008 we learned by visiting the wastewater treatment plant that a toxic slug coming
through the Burnsville wastewater treatment plant the previous weekend had killed activated
sludge in the recently seeded 0.3 MGD plant. Notification to the Asheville Regional Office
pursuant to the requirements on Sections E-6 and E-9 of NPDES Permit Number NCO020290
was again not made.
The Town of Burnsville is in violation of Sections E-6 and E-9 of NPDES Permit Number
NCO020290 in that, on two occasions, neither the oral nor written notifications required by
Sections E-6 nor E-9 were made. North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A (a) provides for
Civil Penalties of up to $25,000 for failure to act in accordance with permits issued by the North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
More than a month has passed since the Town of Burnsville wastewater treatment plant
activated sludge was wiped out and still the Town has failed to identify the source(s) of the toxic
waste. This is unacceptable.
I am considering assessing civil penalties against the Town of Burnsville for the above described
violations. I am giving the Town of Burnsville the opportunity to provide any additional information
regarding these violations. Such additional information should be in writing and submitted to me
within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. Should you wish to discuss this matter, I
encourage you to call Roy Davis at [phone].
Sincerely,
Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection
cc: Tom Storie, Town of Burnsville
Jadd Brewer, Water Quality Lab & Operation
Mark Hale
Steve Fraley, NC Wildlife
Keith Haynes
Don Price .
Roy Davis
8o z I NN
GAWPDATAIDEMWQIYancey\Cane River Mussel Kill\NOV-206§-PC-b8ldoc

WA Michael Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross al Secretary
`Q (� 1 � ��h Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C/J W)
r— CENTPALtry Coleen f {. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
May 13, 2008
Mr. Danny McIntosh, Mayor
Town of Burnsville
Post Office Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Subject: Town of Burnsville
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upset
NPDES Permit Number NCO020290
Yancey County
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
This morning this Office received a report that an influent composite sample being collected .
today at the Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant had '.a pH of 4.2. The Town's treatment plant
cannot recover so long as it continues to get hit by these low pH slugs. The Town must identify
the source of this low pH waste stream and get it out of the system quickly. A pH with a value of
< '5 is in violation of the Town's Sewer Use Ordinance. We have also received information that -
the Town continues to accept septage and porta-john waste at an unsupervised site Until such
time as the Town restores the wastewater treatment plant to full operation it is recommend that
the Town cease accepting this type waste. . .
The problems which Burnsville is experiencing at its wastewater treatment plant are of great
concern to us for the reason that it may be related to the mortality of elktoe mussels and other
aquatic species in the Cane River. We will be reviewing the details of this incident to determine
whether civil penalties relating to possible effluent limits, water quality standards or pretreatment
program violations are appropriate. Additionally we will consider whether we should seek
recovery of investigative costs relating to the wildlife kill and cost of damages. The North
Carolina General Statutes provide Civil Penalties up to $25,000 per violation of environmental
regulations with each day considered a separate violation.
o `
NthCarolina
Naturally
2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa, N,C, 28778 828/296-4500 (Telephone) 8281299-7043(Fax) Customer Service 877-623-6748

I ask that the Town of Burnsville continue to keep Roy Davis and Don Price of this office
informed as to wastewater treatment plant recovery or setbacks. The problem with the upset
condition at the Town's wastewater treatment plant and mortality of wildlife species in the Cane
River is very serious and of great concern. Please do not hesitate to call us at the Asheville
Regional Office any time we may be of assistance.
cc: Tom Storie, Town of Burnsville
Mark Hale
Steve Fraley, NC Wildlife
Keith Haynes
Don Price
Roy Davis
Sincerely,
�0
Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection
80 51 JW
GAWPDATAIDEMWQIYancey\Cane River Mussel Kill\WWTP UpseQ.doc

RECane River
Subject: RE: Cane River
Front: John—[e-mail]
Date: Thu, I May 2003 13:44-39 -0400
1'0: [e-mail]
CC: 'Jacob Rash" <Jacob.RashG7u ncwildiife.cnp, IoganwiIli [e-mail], "Mallory Martin"<[e-mail]>, Roger. Fdwards@ncmaiImet, "Slew. -
Fraley" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], "Tim Savidge" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], Gary _Peeples@Avs,gov, [e-mail]
Roy
After hearing ahOut the problem on Cane River from Steve Fraley (NCWRC) and
Tim Savidge (The Catena Group), Dave McHenry, NCWRC, I and two other
biologists with my office, and Tom Chisdock, Special Agent with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service's Office of Law Enf Orcemenc, went to a site just
upstream of the Langford Bridge Road ISR 1381) on Thursday. April 24. we
were unable to find any live mussels at this site and, in addition to the
three Appalachian elktoe shells found by The Catena Group the previous day
and reported by Tim Savidge in his April 28 letter to you, we found eight
shells from relatively fresh dead Appalachian elktoes and two fresh
wavy -rayed lampmussel shells. The water had a strong sewage effluent odor.
Also, as Steve mentioned in his e-mail below, on Friday, April 25, I
accompanied T.R. Russ and David Huffstetler (NCWRC) to assist with fish
sampling below the Highway 19 Bridge over the Cane River. In addition to
what Steve reported below, T.R. and I surveyed for mussels upstream of the
Whittington Road Bridge ISR 1379), while David worked to fix a problem with
the backpack shocker. in addition to the eight fresh dead Appalachian
elktoes and two way -rayed lampmussel shells found by The Catena Group at
this site and reported by Tim-s April 28 letter to you, T.R. and I found
two relatively fresh dead Appalachian elktoe shells, including one still
sitting upright in the substrate where the animal died, and One fresh
wavy -rayed lampmussel shell. we were unable to find any live mussels and
the water had a strong sewage effluent odor.
Though we.1ve only checked a few sites thus far, based on the fact the
Appalachian elktoe had previously been found at least at two of these
sites, it appears as though the species may have been eliminated from the
fiver at least downstream to the Langford Bridge Road. Based on the
condition of the shells found, much the mortality resulting in the
elimination of the elktoe from these sites has occurred recently. This is
extremely discouraging, as sites previously supporting some of the highest
densities of Appalachian elktoes recorded from the Cane River occur within
this reach of the river. If this is the case, this is a serious impact to
the Nolichucky River system population and may have significant
implications on recovery of the species and on -going and future project6
within the Nolichucky River basin subject to section 7 consultation under
the Endangered Species Act (ESAI.
I share the concerns Steve mentioned in his email below. I'm concerned
that neither the NCWRC nor the Service were notified that the Burnsville
treatment plant was experiencing problems that could adversely affett the
aquatic resourcea of the Cane River, including the federally -endangered
Appalachian elktoe. From Steve'a email below, it sounds as though this or
a similar problem with the discharge may have been ongoing for at least a
month; and, I'm concerned that there still .appears to be a problem with the
discharge. Have you been able to identify the nature of the problem, how
long it has been on -going, and can you tell me what is being done at the
plant to address the problem (if the bacteria was killed off at the plant,
what does the plant do to process/treat the incoming waste before
discharging) and how long it may continue' Tom Chisdock with skrviCe's
office of Law 8nfcrcement is investigating the die -off and is also
interested in any information you may have Concerning the plant-s discharge
(I've copied Tom on this email).
I also agree with Steve that there is a need to establish a protocol for
notifying one another when potential problems exist, both for the sake of
the resources and ourselves. Can you tell me who we should contact to see
about the possibility of setting up a meeting to discuss this' "Take"
(killing, harming, injuring, harassing, etc.) of the Appalachian elktoe and
other federally -listed specie. is specifically prohibited under Section 9
Of the ESA, and actions or activities resulting in, or with the potential
result in, 'take' of listed species should immediately be reported to the
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, we, the NCWRC. and individuals working
under state and federal permits often snorkel when conducting mussel and
other aquatic species surveys and would like to be made aware when and
where potential health risks may exists. I know that The Catena Group had
planned on snorkeling the river at the Highway 19R Bridge crossing last
Thursday (April 70 to find and relocate mussels as part of the ESA Section
7 consultation for the Highway 19 widening project. Fortunately, they
identified that there was a potential problem with the water quality in the
river before they did so. However, the picture attached below of high
school or middle school students, was taken by T.R. on April 25 at a site
in river near the school a short distance below the treatment plant
discharge. Several of these students were swimming and had completely
submerged in the river (most had wet hair and three of the boys were
wrestling and dunking each over when I arrived), all of the students had
been in the water at least to their waist. T.R. and I informed them and
their teacher that the treatment plant was having problems with the
discharge and that it may be unsafe to be in direct contact with the water.
r later learned that the teacher had taken 3 different groups of students
into the river, completely unaware that there may he a potential health
risk.
(See attached file: Cane River, at school below sewage discharge.JPG)
John Fridell
US Fish and wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. NC 28801
PH: [phone] ext. 225
'Steve Fraley'
cfraleysjabe llso
uth.net5 To
[ G':. day.3'II Ci11.111 . Ile L>
r.._
04/30/2008 1c:02 '� cc
AM rAuhn Fridt•Ylwf a•s,.gov:•,
,ar..tt.va n;:or- e
of 5 5/1/2008 1:50 PM

RE: Cane River
;ivo wax. nvssa.n:wi l;Aife.ory�, "Tim
Savidge" �..__.
<t savi dot Athecatanag:'cup. cnv::a,
�oganwil I iamsbdct. statz. nc.us�,
Mallory Martin-
mallor}'_martin�ncwildlife-org_,
Rash"—
Saccb.Rasl:-3 ncwildlif e.ar9�
Subject
RE: Cane River
Roy,
I neglected to include any background info on Appalachian elktoe in the
area affected in the memo below. I've include some of that into, below, as
well as some Concerns and preliminary proposals for addressing them.
we do have historical mussel survey data from the Cane River back to the
early 90's, but data from the area discussed below only goes back to the
early 2000's. Surveys were done just upstream from the Whittington Rd. br.
in 2003 and 20,
5. we found 5 live Appalachian elktces and no dead shells
in 4 person hours of search time {CPV6=1.25). we also have data from
surveys by us, NCDOT, and their agents upstream from that locality to
several miles upstream from the Burnsville WWTP ourfall. As I mentioned on
the phone, the farthest upstream in Cane River that we have observed
Appalachian elktoa is a few hundred meters upstream from the 19S crossing.
All other surveys from there to near Pensacola have failed to detect any
Appalachian elktoe. The fish communities in the Cane River transition from
being dominated by warm and cool water adapted species near the Langford
Branch Rd. crossing to more cool and cold water adapted species
{exemplified by reproducing trout) near and upstream from the reach where
the WWTP outfall is located. This shift in temperature regime and fish
community coincides with the natural upstream limit of Appalachian elktoe
distribution in the Cane River and elsewhere.
❑ead Appalachian elktoe shells are rarely encountered in the Cane River.
The sparse population provides relatively few mortalities under normal
conditions and the relatively high gradient and erosive energy, as well as
the relatively low pH and low levels of dissolved solids (i.e. calcium
^hungry"), in the system appears to dissolve those few shells relatively
quickly after death. The number of fresh dead shells that the Catena Group
and NCDOT biologists reported finding, including some with tissue still
attached. are significantly different from anything that we've encnuntered
on the Cane before and strongly indicates a recent mass die -off.
We are very concerned about the fate of Appalachian elktoe populations in
the Cane River given what has been observed since 22 April 2008. There are
other sensitive resources known from the Cane River that we are also
___ __ concerned about (e.y: Wavy rayed lampmussel, StOnecat, Sharphead darter,
- non. blotched chub, Eastern hellbender). Mussels in paiticular are knowc _�
to be much more sensitive to ammonia and chlorine, for example, than most
other aquatic organisms, including those used to determine toxicity
thresholds and to set pollutant load limits. we look forward to learning
more about the situation at the Burnsville WWTP, how long it may have
existed. what problems may persist, and what might be done to prevent
similar events in the future. 'Please keep us posted on further information
or developments.
we are also concerned about potential health and safety hazards for
recreational and occupational contact that may have resulted in the Cane
River downstream from the Burnsville WWTP during this event. Can we use
this experience to spur development and/or application of some kind of
protocol for notification (to local citizens. NCWRC, VSPWS, Or others) of
problems that could endanger the health and safety of recreational users
(like the fishermen and kids seen playing in the river an 22 and 25 April,
respectively) and aquatic resources management professionals (like the
Catena and NCDOT biologists, and potentially ourselves)?
Might we also come up with a way that DWQ could be aware of where sensitive
aquatic resources (like listed species or important fisheries) are located
and would notify the appropriate resource management agencies when you
become aware of water quality problems that could be potentially
detrimental to those sensitive resources? As you said, we were just lucky
that the Caters, and DOT folks were out there to see what was occurring.
Yet, you also said that you knew about serious problems at the Burnsville
WWTP for about a month, including seeing on 23 April what you described as
one of the worst examples of toxicity in their system that you'd ever seen.
Someone should be notified sooner than later about such problems in waters
that support sensitive aquatic resources, especially endangered species.
Thank you very much for your attention and cooperation. Let me know if I
can be of further assistance,
Steve Fraley
Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Coordinator -Western Region
MC Wildlife Resources Commission
50 Trillium Way
Clyde, NC 28721
Home/OffiCe: 828-627-8414
Cell: 828-442-3744
fralegsj3t_ellsouth-net
ww•r. ne:wi id, ite_: rg
-----Original message -----
From: Steve Fraley
__ ..._..
Sent: Monday. April 2B. 2008 3:35 PM
To: :rn•. da: isurce:ai ! .::R t'
Cc: Thdaa�.:v ss•�.^.c:r?dliEe.�
Subject: Cane River
Roy,
Below is a description of my recent experiences and observations on
the Cane River since April 23, 2008.
2 of 5 5/1/2008 1:50 PM

RE: Cane River
On Wednesday, April 23, 2008 I received a call around gam from Tim
Savidge, biologist with The Catena Group. Be and a group of other
biologists from Catena and NCDOT were preparing to relocate
Appalachian elktoe mussels (a federal endangered species) from the
footprint of bridge construction planned for the 19E crossings of the
Cane and South Toe rivers. They had made preliminary reconnaissance
in the Cane River at the Whittington Rd (SR 1379) and Langford Hr.
Rd. (SR 1351) crossings, at approximate Cane River miles 19.1 and
16.2. respectively. Tim reported seeing dead fish, nu5aele, Asian
clams, and seeing an abundance of fish obviously in distress. They
also reported a strong smell of "wastewater effluent•. No live
Appalachian elktoe mussels were observed at either locality, but dead
shells, some with tissue still attached, were observed. Logan
Williams (NCDOT).stated that they intended to postpone their
scheduled mussel relocation on the Cane River until more is known
about water contact safety concerns and status of Appalachian elktoe
there. I relayed this info to our regional Habitat Conservation
coordinator, David McHenry, Balsam, and the ❑istrict 0 Fisheries
Biologist, JaCOb Rash, Marion; as well as John Fridell, lead recovery
biologist for the Appalachian elktoe. Us Fish and Wildlife Service,
Asheville. I was in transit to a meeting where Roger Edwards, NCDWQ
Asheville RO, was also in attendance. and f notified him during the
meeting.
1 traveled to Cane River for a cursory reconnaissance in the late
afternoon of April 23, I0O6, Once on site, I spoke with Roy ❑avis,
DWQ, on the telephone who reported to me his findings from a similar
reconnaissance at the Langford Sr. Rd. crossing. Roy also reported
problems with toxicity at the Burnsville WWTP and the potential for
that as a Contributing factor in whatever had occurred/was occurring
on Cane River. my reconnaissance was very cursory, basically naked
eye surface observations while wading through the reach. I observed
scattered dead minnows in eddies along the margin of Cane River at
both the Whittington Rd. and US 199 (approx. Cane R. mile 21.4)
crossings. bead fish were in various states of decay and many were
totally covered in a dense. grey,-fuzxball� of fungus. Identifiable
fishes were Central stoneroller (Campoatoma anomalum), Tennessee
shiner (Notropis leuciodus), and Telescope shiner (N. telescopes). 1
also observed numerous distressed minnows in the same shallow eddies
along the stream margin. These fishes were swimming slowly and with
obvious difficulty, were discolored, and most had various amounts of
the same fungal growth observed on dead specimens. I was able to
catch some of these fish with bare hands (not pussible with healthy
fish) and on closer inspection appeared to have various injuries,
including blood -spotted scales and ulcerations that had apparently
became infected secondarily by the fungus. Fins were also eroded and
reduced. Species caught were Tennessee and telescope shiners. bead
Asian clam (Corbicula flumminea) shells were common and many appeared
to be fresh, but none were seen that still had tissue attached. No
Appalachian elktoes were seen, dead or alive.
I had obligations on April 24 6 IS but my assistants were available
to investigate further on Friday. April 25. The following is based
on the account given by T.R. Russ, NCWRC Hiologist, Marion
(828-659-1324 ext 2281,
On April 24, 2008, T.R. Russ and David Huffetetler (NCWRC) were
joined by John Fridell (IJSFWS) and sampled the fish population in the
Cane River downstream from the Hwy 19H Bridge, off MCHinney Road ISRT __
1377} at approximate Cane River mile 21. Fish were collected by
standard NCWRC community assessment techniques, which included
samples from riffles and runs using a backpack electrofishing unit,
and seine hauls to collect fishes from eddies and pools. Twenty fish
species were observed; ss3 total individuals were collected. The
majority of the fish captured appeared to be more or less normal, but
some problems were noted. All benthic species were heavily infested
with blackspot parasite (especially darters and Central
stonerollers). Telescope and Saffron IN. rubricrocecus) shiners were
also heavily infested with blackspot. Several Central stonerollers,
Saffron shiners, and one Fatlips minnow (Phenacobius crassilabrum)
were captured or observed in distress, most with fungal growth, in
shallow, eddy habitats. A total of 16 dead individuals were
observed; the majority of these were Central stonerollers and
Northern hogsuckers {Hypentelium nigricans). There was a n0tioeable
chlorine smell at the site;'however, the water appeared clear.
Following this fish sample we looked for dead or dying fish upstream
of the WWTP discharge (between the pipe and the old dam). One dead
Northern hogsucker was seen upstream of the discharge, but no other
dead or distressed fish were observed.
Thanks and let us know if we can be of further assistance,
Steve Fraley
Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Coordinator -Western Region
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
so Trillium Way
Clyde, NC 28721
Home/OffiCe: 828-627-8414
Cell: 828-442-3744
frale•:si-5be11south.net
-sww. rcwi2dlrte.arg
3 of 5 5/1/2008 1:50 PM

w
'.;
l,Eu.S ; i�
` -r't I. r. f-• r, ',l ,yy�i Y.
_ ` :.�::-+„
,
��,
.-
ki -Lm'g� �t lj�l; {-J` •
r.al�"t. f'!-.•i ♦
A'a_-."1.:
i{0a"
�r 11
jar
vt .r t`,. r Nr s rtn :j i Iz-i" } +?.,, !: ! • i ! j s l'Sy + 'y!�,rF.\ '�a .-..
r i - :i r ¢,� ,{+ys�, � ,�_,y j. J �'', j i '.,w t� a� 4r _ 4 ' X '+' Y�r 'S _ •�Jr - � a f �` •7 � �.� __ "'lll ;
.� •.x !Y * '��� � _f>s-., f �� r}•�i � .� 'a f �.r � r .A.' �!} �j;
-� s'.' �• �':'.� �'�:, •� �:+J ?��� �'i /. �. .: r ' . � _ �� 1Sf«� .lair.'` qF T� r�r� I k '� .. ' � ;
,�� � A .i / y t'.�d-.� .dr �r � :7 ��h �. t,:a ,,.• � �!�� -�r�. a -f �l �'r F?�
>` r� � �..r1��--_ ° - s �r s �r � �". "'�' + ��✓ . ! .: ` y ���"` tip � � r F . fi r .<
�� J f� y.?c�'T � w � r 'J "� y'"y '. � E ` 1 } � r� ;� I♦�` F;r� .
•"��.
PA
f -k�4r ' T ::<actrr ' �� r` � -! _ 't� -� "�'` �_ l/;.1 q�' t'� - _ ���•..�* `,� , �',� - r',I
r9
,`�44
�/r � + � r � � � � t� �1�' yb } � it �•� � '��" �r.7
s {+ .Yr- ., r - >• 'N /♦ , l i /' �j , r � SS .; s "• '�'f f r � - ' i � Y 1 -, 1. � , r �, I �
�i - --- - �- � :�ir.[%'�•i'.�r '%.� it'r�. �t.• ,; A'Ir. _ "�l"�a..f `� "!� 'a�'�" _ 1�„ 'f5:. r. gr�>ui�

Caeic Rives
Subject: Cane River
From: "Steve Fraley" <fraleysj@belIsouth. net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 l 5:35:02 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Roy,
Below is a description of my recent experiences and observations on the Cane River since April 23, 2008.
On Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1 received a call around gam from Tim Savidge, biologist with The Catena Group.
He and a group of other biologists from Catena and NCDOT were preparing to relocate Appalachian elktoe
mussels (a federal endangered species) from the footprint of bridge construction planned for the 19E crossings of
the Cane and South Toe rivers. They had made preliminary reconnaissance in the Cane River at the Whittington
Rd (SR 1379) and Langford Br. Rd. (SR 1381) crossings, at approximate Cane River miles 19.7 and 16.2,
respectively. Tim reported seeing dead fish, mussels, Asian clams, and seeing an abundance of fish obviously in
distress. They also reported a strong smell of "wastewater effluent". No live Appalachian elktoe mussels were
observed at either locality, but dead shells, some with tissue still attached, were observed. Logan Williams
(NCDOT) stated that they intended to postpone their scheduled mussel relocation on the Cane River until more is
known about water contact safety concerns and status of Appalachian elktoe there. I relayed this info to our
regional Habitat Conservation coordinator, David McHenry, Balsam, and the District 8 Fisheries Biologist, Jacob
Rash, Marion; as well as John Fridell, lead recovery biologist for the Appalachian elktoe, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Asheville. I was in transit to a meeting where Roger Edwards, NCDWQ Asheville RO, was also in`.
attendance, and I notified him during the meeting. -
I traveled to Cane River for a cursory reconnaissance in the late afternoon of April 23, 2008. Once -on site, l spoke
with Roy Davis, DWQ, on the telephone who reported to me his findings from a similar reconnaissance at the
Langford Br. Rd. crossing. Roy also reported problems with toxicity at the Burnsville WWTP and.the'potential fore
that as a contributing factor in whatever had occurred/was occurring on Cane River. My reconnaissance was,very -
cursory, basically naked eye surface observations while wading through the reach. I observed. scattered'dead
minnows in eddies along the margin of Cane River at both the Whittington Rd. and US 19E (approx. Cane:R. mile .
21.4) crossings. Dead fish were in various states of decay and many were totally covered in a dense, grey,
"fuzzball" of fungus. Identifiable fishes were Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), Tennessee shiner
(Notropis leuciodus), and Telescope shiner (N. telescopus). I also observed numerous distressed minnows in the
same shallow eddies along the stream margin. These fishes were swimming slowly and with obvious difficulty;
were discolored, and most had various amounts of the same fungal growth observed on dead specimens.. I was
able to catch some of these fish with bare hands (not possible with healthy fish) and on closer inspection. appeared
to have various injuries, including blood -spotted scales and ulcerations that had apparently become infected
secondarily by the fungus. Fins were also eroded and reduced. Species caught were Tennessee and telescope
shiners. Dead Asian clam (Corbicula flumminea) shells were common and many appeared to be fresh, but none
were seen that still had tissue attached. No Appalachian elktoes were seen, dead or alive.
I had obligations on April 24 & 25 but my assistants were available to investigate further on Friday, April 25. The
following is based on the account given by T.R. Russ, NCWRC Biologist, Marion (828-659-3324 ext 228).
On April 24, 2008, T.R. Russ, and David Huffstetler (NCWRC) were joined by John Fridell (USFWS) and sampled,
the fish population in the Cane River downstream from the Hwy 19E Bridge, off McKinney Road (SR 1377) at
approximate Cane River mile 21. Fish were collected by standard NCWRC community assessment techniques,
which included samples from riffles and runs using a backpack electrofishing unit, and seine hauls to collect fishes
from eddies and pools. Twenty fish species were observed; 553 total individuals were collected. The majority of
the fish captured appeared to be more or less normal, but some problems were noted. All benthic species were
heavily infested with blackspot parasite (especially darters and Central stonerollers). Telescope and Saffron (N.
rubricroceous) shiners were also heavily infested with blackspot. Several Central stonerollers, Saffron shiners,
and one Fatlips minnow (Phenacobius crassilabrum) were captured or observed in distress, most with fungal
growth, in shallow, eddy habitats. A total of 16 dead individuals were observed; the majority of these were Central
stonerollers and Northern hogsuckers (Hypentelium nigricans). There was a noticeable chlorine smell at the site;
however, the water appeared clear.
1 of 2 4/28/2008 4:18 PM

Caere River
Following this fish sample we looked for dead or dying fish upstream of the WWTP discharge (between the pipe
and the old dam). One dead Northern hogsucker was seen upstream of the discharge, but no other dead or
distressed fish were observed.
Thanks and let us know if we can be of further assistance,
Steve Fraley
Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Coordinator -Western Region
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
50 Trillium Way
Clyde, NC 28721
Home/Office: 828-627-8414
Cell: 828-442-3744
[e-mail]
www.ncwildlife.org
I Cmitent-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
`I!Cane River 080425.1wtr.xls`I
Content -Encoding: base64
6
2 of 2 4/28/2008 4:18 PM

The
Cate na
Group;.
Roy Davis
NC Division of Water Quality
2090 US Hwy 70,
Swannanoa North Carolina 28778.
Subject: Observations of fish and mussel kill in Cane River
Dear Mr. Davis
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
April 28, 2008
Per your request, the following is an account of our observations;in the Cane River on April 22,
2008,
The Catena Group, Inc. (TCG) is under contract with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to relocate freshwater mussels from the bridge footprint(s) at
the US 19E crossings of the South Toe and Cane Rivers respectively for the proposed US
19E widening in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, On April 22 between
5:35-6:19 pm myself, Tom Dickinson and Chris Sheats also with TCG accessed the Cane
River via the bridge at SR 1379 (Whittington Road) to search for a suitable relocation site
for the mussels that are to be removed from the US 19E crossing of the river. Habitat in
the river was evaluated from the Whittington Road bridge upstream to a point at
35.918160N,-8238859°W (approximately 250 meters). The criteria we use for selecting
a suitable relocation site include stable, relatively silt -free substrate, in an area that
contains mussel beds. Based on previous surveys by myself and others, this section of
the Cane River supported fairly "good numbers" of the two freshwater mussel species
known to occur in the Cane River, the endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) and the wavy -rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola).
A strong odor of WWTP effluent was noticed by all of us immediately upon entering the
river. The three of us spread out across the river into general survey lanes (right
descending bank, mid -channel and left descending bank) and ascended the river
surveying for mussels using bathyscopes (glass -bottom buckets). No live mussels were
observed in the river; however, a total of 6 fresh -dead Appalachian elktoe and 2 wavy -
rayed lampmussel shells were found, some with soft tissue still intact. In addition, dozens
of fresh dead Asian clams (Corbiculafluminea) with meats still intact, and numerous
dead fish in various stages of decomposition, and even more diseased fish were also
observed. In total over 40 dead fish, mostly minnows (Cyprinidae) were counted in the
surveyed reach and nearly all of the living cyprininds that were observed had various
lesions, or exhibited distressed behavior (swimming in haphazard direction, gasping at
the surface etc.). Live darters and suckers and one adult hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis) were observed that appeared to be healthy.

After leaving the Whittington Road site we headed down stream and accessed the river at
the SR 1381 (Langford Bridge Road) and conducted an assessment from 6:45-7:15 pm, at
this site in a similar manner as before beginning at the bridge and proceeding upstream.
As with the Whittington Road site, no live mussels were found in this stretch of the river,
with 3 fresh dead Appalachian elktoe found. Dead and diseased fish were also observed,
but in fewer numbers than the Whittington Road site.
I notified Steve Fraley with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission the following
morning, and he said he would contact the appropriate agencies to investigate the
situation further. We were planning to work in the Cane River on April 24, but for safety
concerns postponed these plans until it can be determined what the problem is.
As I mentioned to you in our conversation, I sample streams and rivers throughout the
southeast and come in direct contact with the water as much of our work involves diving.
I am very concerned about situations like this for my and my co-workers safety, as well
as the general public. I have observed many people swimming and fishing in the Cane
River over the years and saw three people wading in the river fishing when we were
driving along the river on 19W after leaving the site. Please keep me informed of the
results of your investigation into this situation, and let me know if I can provide anymore
information.
Sincerely
Tim Savidge
Environmental Supervisor
The Catena Group Inc.
8414 Falls ofNeuse Rd., Suite 204
Raleigh, NC 27615
O: [phone]
F: [phone]
A [phone]

W A rF9oG Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
jDnNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
March 25, 2008
Mr. Tom Storie
Director of Public Works
Town of Burnsville
Post Office Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
SUBJECT: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Town of Burnsville
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Permit Number NCO020290
Yancey County
Dear Mr. Storie:
Attached is the report resulting from my Town of Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Compliance Evaluation Inspection which I conducted on March 19, 2008. Based upon the
appearance of the activated sludge and the presence of fine solids in the effluent, it was
my impression that the plant occasionally receives a slug of toxic waste. I would hope that
the Town can find and deal with this waste source.
I observed that the influent screens, as a result of wide spacing of the screens, allow the
passage of overly large solids. Additionally, I observed that the present blowers are not
capable of maintaining adequate Dissolved Oxygen in the various basins. These and
other problems at the treatment plant will hopefully be corrected by implementation of the
Phase II project. For the record I will note that the Phase II project will receive financial
assistance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Rural Center
and would provide a new headworks, new chlorination and dechlorination systems, new
blowers, a potable water line, outdoor lighting, an emergency power generator and a new
roof for the office building.
Nowt Carolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internel: www..ntwaterquality org FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Should you need to discuss any part of this report, please do not hesitate to call me at
(8280296-4659.
Sincerely,
Roy M. Davis
Environmental Engineer
Xc: John Austin ORC, Water Quality Labs and Operations, Inc.
Surface Water Protection Section Central Files
Bob Guerra
G:IWPDATAIDEMWQ\Yancey120290 Bumsville WWTPICEI CO1aeRe1,Aj AC

United Slates EnvironmeMak Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.G. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compiiance 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 I NI 2 r [I 31 NCO020290 111 12t- 08/03/1.9 117 181 ri 19 qr 201 1
IJ (J I (—j J I-
Remarks
211 ILL 1_ 1 1 f 1 1 I I_� J_�II_ I_ f l I6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 131 QA ----- ---------- —-------- Reserved---___._____-.---
721 �180
671 169 70131 711 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)
09:00 AM OB/03/19
06/09/01
Burnsville WWTP
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Data
NCSR 1138
Burnsville NC 28714
11:30 AM 08/03/19
1.0/09/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)lPhone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phene and Fax Number
Contacted
Thomas W Scorie,PO Box 97 Burnsville NC 28714/Public Works
Director/828-662-2420/6286827757 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Flow Measurement operations & Maintenance 0 Sludge Handling Disposal 0 Facility Site Review
Effluent/Receiving Waters
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) AgencylOfficelPhone and Fax Numbers Date
Roy M Davis ARO WQ//828-296-4500 Ext.4659/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page # 1

NPDES yrlmolday Inspection Type 1
3E NCO020290 t11 12� 08/03/19 117 18f _'
f Section 0: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The plant is in need of improved influent screening and greater aeration capacity. The Town is involved in a
project using EPA and Rural Center funding which would provide a new headworks, new chlorination and
dechlorination systems, a potable water line, outdoors lighting, emergency power generation, and reroof the
office.
The color of the activated sludge and the fine solids remaining in the effluent lead me to conclude that the
WWTP is the occasional recipient of a toxic slug.
s0 11 88V
It ai ?Yz �,. t,Y. CC"-t Page # 2

Permit: NCO020290 Owner - Facility: Burnsville WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
V.. Aln NA WF
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 incompliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment: Width of opening is excessive.
Aeration Basins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
1s 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?
Diffused
■nnn
nn■n
■00.❑
■nnn
■ n.❑ n
Is the DO level acceptable? n
■
❑
n
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mgll) ❑
■
❑
❑
Comment: Blowers not capable of maintaining adequate D.O.
Operations & Maintenance Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■
n
0
n
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ■
n
n
❑
Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Disinfection -Gas Yes
No
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
■
n Cl
n
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
■
❑ n
n
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
■
❑ ❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
■
❑ 0
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
■
n D
n
Page # 3

Permit: NCO020290
Inspection Date: 03/19/2068
Disinfection -Gas
Owner -Facility: Burnsville wWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 lbs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then its there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000 - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment:
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment: .
Solids Handling Equipment
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
is storage adequate?
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum fiiters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or vollers of filter press?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
Comment: Belt press is well operated and maintained. Sludge is wixed with wood
chips and then composted. There is a high demand for the resulting solids for a soil
ammendment.
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Gas
■nn❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
nn❑■
nn■n
❑❑■❑
Yes No NA NE
■nnn
n❑■❑
nn■n
■n❑❑
■nnn
■ ❑ ❑ n
■nnn
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? — — 0■
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?� i�,� ■ ❑ n n
xi Ga-.: Page # 4

Permit: NC0020290
Owner • Facility: Burnsville WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Pipe
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
❑000
Page # 5