NC0020559_WASTELOAD ALLOCATION_19890803

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNIMO COVER 'SHERT
NPDES Permit:
NCO020559
Henderson WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
August 3, 1989
This document ie printed on rO'MMO paper - ignore any
ooateat oa the reverse iaide
11
E

M STATC
u
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
August 3, 1989
Mr. Eric M. Williams, City Manager
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
Subject: City of Henderson Nutbush Creek WWTP Draft Permit
NPDES No. NCO020559 080204
Vance County
Dear Mr. Williams:
I am writing in response to your letter of June 30 concerning
your draft NPDES permit. The items of concern are addressed as
follows:
(1) Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Limit in JOC
The Division of Environmental Management's (DEM) water
quality model indicates that the JOC dissolved oxygen limit may
be changed to 6 mg/l without violating EMC criteria. These
criteria state that the JOC limits cannot result in a decrease
in DO of more than 0.5 mg/l at the sag point or cause more than
0.5 miles of stream to have predicted DO concentrations less
than 5 mg/l. Therefore, the City may pursue changing its order.
(2) Bypass Around Nitrification Basin
The bypass may be maintained beyond 1993. The City should
note that it must meet its effluent limits when the nitrifica-
tion basin is bypassed.
(3) Nutrient Removal
No nitrogen limit is being planned at this time. However,
if downstream eutrophication problems persist with phosphorus
P.O. Rox 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

- 2 -
controls, and nitrogen is found to be limiting or co -limiting, a
limit may.be considered in the future. DEM supports the use of
a biological process that removes both nitrogen and phosphorus.
The biological process reduces problems related to sludge hand-,
ling and operation and maintenance costs.
(4) Metals Limits
The City may formally request to monitor for metals daily.
A weekly average limit equivalent to your existing limits for
protection to the chronic no effect level would apply for com-
pliance purposes, along -with a daily maximum concentration that
at a minimum protects to the acute no effect level instream.
For the purposes of determining the weekly average, daily values
shown to be less than detection will be considered equal to
zero. Based upon these criteria, your revised metals limits
would be as follows:
Weekly Avg
Daily Max
Parameter
(ug/1)
u 1
Cr
50.0
75.0
Pb
25.0
34.0
Cd
2.0
4.5
Ni
50.0
75.0
This method allows more flexibility in evaluating com-
pliance while ensuring protection of the State's water quality
standards. If the City chooses this alternative, the monitoring
frequency will remain fixed as daily for the duration of the
permit.
(5) Ceriodaphnia Toxicity Test
The City must pass the Ceriodaphnia test in order to be in
compliance with its permit. The Environmental Protection Agency
and the State of North Carolina have determined the test is
applicable for determining toxicity.
If you have any further questions regarding these matters,
please contact Trevor Clements or Dale Overcash of my staff at
[phone].
I hope that the Division'.s response is satisfactory to the
City. However, if this.letter does not adequately address your
concerns, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon writ-
ten request within thirty (30) days following receipt of the
reissued permit. This request must be in the form of a written
petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General

- 3 -
Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings,
Post Office Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Unless
such a request is received, the requirements contained in the
reissued permit shall be final and binding.
S' c rely
R. Paul Wilms
cc: Dale Overcash
zTreevvor-Clements,
Bill Kre- uutzberger
Central Files

i
CITY OF` HLNDERSON
NORTH CAROLINA
June 30, 1989
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
N. G. Division of Environmental MaltaGeiOeili
P. 0. sox 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RE: City of Henderson
Nutbush Creek WWTP
NPDF.S Permit No. NCO020559
Comments and Request
Dear Mr. W:ililis:
Ft1tl
OFFICE OF
CITY MANAGER
RECEIVED
JUL 0 51989
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
The City of Henderson has receiveCi, and conducted a further
review, of the subject permit, which was distributed by Public
Notice_ from your Office, with a date Of .June 9, 1969 ainil Signed
by Mr. Mouberry.
Our C1'ty Staff along with the assls'tance of our Consill tirlj
Engineers, Peirson « Whitman, Inc., have reviewed the various.
components of this new Draft Pa'.1.'iili'% anti I wo .ld like to
officially convey several questions/comments tv you on behalf of
the City. .They areas follows:
I. Since the U.O. limit in the new Draft Permit has been
lowered to 6.0 mg/l, can -lie D.O. 11mit in the current JOC
permit (our Complaint and Consent Judgment - JOC 433-04,
filed June 27, 1908 ill the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division of the County of Vance - 68 CVS 4771)
also be changed to f-,.O mg/l?
2. Special condition L. of the Draft Permit conflicts with item
3 of your let"ter Of May o, 1909 to the City of Fenderson
(written to Mayor Robert G. Young) wherein tile City's
ruq-,i est to .uL:..]'ta7..th, c-;mp^n: -nt bypass a_lh-eit locke
around the nitrification basin was accepted. Over the past
wi 11 tetr tl'/c. C: i. i:y, e+vet] 'vJ '-!-I bypassing aro-kind the i]i"i:rifica-
tion basin of flows over 3 MOD, was able to meet its
original permit limits. This is strong evidence promoting
the maintenance of this bypass beyond 1993.
3. The City of. Henderson .-is contemplating the use of cheiiiical
addition for phosphorous removal when this becomes necessary
'tin,'Aer the proposed perm -it. In fact, the new clarifiers have
been designed to be retrofitted with flocculation equipment
-in the future w;]en the phosphorous limit kicks in. The use
of alum for phosphorous removal will have no effect on tile
total nitrogen concentration. In that the Draft Permit has
P.O. BOX 1434, HENDERSON, N.C. [phone]

a 'total nitrogen i7ion-itoring requirement, will the subsequent
permit have a total nitrogen limit? If so, the City may
need to rethink our phosphorous removal alternatives to
include one which will remove total nitrogen to the required
level, as well; to possibly include: a biological process.
4. It is our understanding that metal concentration limits can
be raised if daily measurements, with weekly average 'limits,
are used in lieu of the weekly monitoring requirements now
contained in the Draft Permit. Please provide us with an
indication as to what these higher metal limits would be so
that a determination can be made Whether to request them or
not.
5. It is our understanding that a study i.s currently be.in
p •erform,,ed clt the V1I1verslty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
on the applicability of the use of the ceriodaphnia test to
determine chronic toxicity. Although the City will perform
the quarterly ttixi.city test as required in the Draft Permit,
we request that the requirement to pass the test be waived
until such time as the study at UNC is finished and accepted
by the DEM in this regard.
If there are any concerns or questions regarding the City's
request, please do not hesitate to contact me. We would
appreciate hearing froiii you as soon as possible on these items so
I
he final permit can be established. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF HENDERSON
Eric M. Williams
7
City Manager
EMW/dew
C: Mr. Arthur 111ouberry, DEM
Mr. William Krutzberger, DEM
idr. Randy Dodd, DEM
Mr.. Dale Overcash, DEM
Mi,. Mike Ac:questa, Peirson « Whitruan, Inc.
Mr. Mike Guarini, City
Mr. Tom Spain, City

;PAC
-7rn189
- - ! Cw
--- %C( `12-rv= _51 G'm,f Z uJc�O Cup=� —
I
%2FgV ?$q ucJIQ �Am., l 150 L
I
II -

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor May 8, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mr. Robert G. Young, Mayor
City of Henderson
Henderson, NC 27536
Dear Mayor Young:
This letter is being written in response to your letter of
April 12, 1989 to William A. Kreutzberger, Regional Water Quality
Supervisor, requesting review of draft NPDES permit requirements.
Your numbered comments are addressed in order below.
1. Your request to increase the summer total phosphorus
limit to 1 mg/l and reduce the winter limit to 1.5 mg/l is
acknowledged and accepted. As is discussed in the wasteload
allocation report which you have received, last summer's studies
indicate that it is conceivable that water quality standards
(chlorophyll a, DO, dissolved gases) will not be maintained in
the upper portion of the Nutbush Creek arm of Kerr Lake at these
permit levels, and that more stringent limitations may be needed
in the future if supported by available data.
2. Water quality regulations (2B.0404) require that DEM issue
final permit conditions defining the summer period as April -
October and the winter period as November -June.
3. Your request is accepted.
4. As discussed in the wasteload allocation report, it is pre-
dicted that the standard for dissolved oxygen (DO) will not be
violated with a DO effluent limit of 6 mg/l in the free -flowing
portion of Nutbush Creek. Therefore, your request is granted.
The City should be aware that the permit can be reopened if con-
tinued study indicates that a more stringent limit is necessary.
5. DEM studies have indicated that, because of the short travel
time to Kerr Lake and the assimilative capacity in the free flow-
ing portion of Nutbush Creek, the effluent is currently impacting
the receiving waters at the point where the creek enters the
lake. It is critical that monitoring for the parameters of con-
cern occurs at the location of observed and predicted impacts.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

It should be noted that DEM is Concerned about maintaining the DO
and chlorophyll a standard at tbVs point. Because of the funda-
mentally different factors affecting both DO and chlorophyll a in
the stream and lake and error associated with any attempt to cor-
relate stream and lake conditions, the downstream monitoring
location has not been changed. After collection of one year of
data, the downstream monitoring location and requirements can be
reviewed and modified if the data so warrants.
6. The request to delete the percent removal requirements for
BOD and TSS can not be granted. It is conceivable that a lower
percent removal requirement can be substituted, based on 40 CFR
133.103 W . The requirements are listed below:
a. The treatment works is consistently meeting its effluent
concentration limits but its percent removal requirements cannot
be met due to less concentrated influent.
b. To meet the percent removal requirements, the treatment
works would have to achieve significantly more stringent limita-
tions than would otherwise be required by the concentration -based
standards.
C. The less concentrated influent wastewater is not the
result of excessive infiltration and inflow.
The burden of proof for making this demonstration lies with
the City; at least one year of data and calculations demonstrat-
ing achievable percent removal and I & I studies is required
to make this decision_
7. The Division is required to protect the existing water
quality standards for lead and chromium. Lead and chromium have
been identified as pollutants of concern by the City and Division
through the pretreatment program. Based on standards for Class C
waters, a lead limit of 0.026 mg/1 and a chromium limit of 0.052
mg/l are therefore necessary to protect water quality standards.
If any item contained in the draft permit (to be amended as
indicated in this letter) is unacceptable, the City does have 30
days after the permit is issued to object to all of the permit
requirements or any portion thereof, and request an adjudicatory
hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Bill Kreutz-
berger at 733-2314.
cc: Bill Kreutzberger
Rand'YlDo33
Dale Overcash

RECEIVED
CITY OF HENDERSON
r �F NENOFq`���
s .�r,.............. so 4
��,• y �h NORTH CAROI.INA
.1841 .s
April 12, 1989
Mr. William Krutzberger, Regional Engineer
Raleigh Regional Office
N. C. Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. sox 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APR 2 11989
TECHNICAL SERVICES BASF;
MAYOR'S O F
P 1
1'go
RE: Notification of Intent to Issue a State NPDES Permit
NPDES No. NCO020559
City of Henderson, North Carolina
Nutbush Creek WWTP - Comments and Requests
Dear Mr. Krutzberger:
The City has received and had the opportunity for our
Administrative Staff to review the (Draft) NPDES Permit which was
forwarded to us for review and comment by notification from Mr.
R. Paul Wilms on March loth. As you know, since that time you
and members of your staff have diet with our City Staff, along
with Peirson & Whitman, our Consulting Engineers, to hear and
discuss the questions and comments we have relative to this Draft
NPDES Permit. This meeting was held on Wednesday, April 5th and
our City Manager, Eric Williams, tells me that the discussions
were very productive, and in some cases there was considerable
progress and success in resolving some of our concerns. We
sincerely appreciate the cooperative attitude of both you and
your staff to work with us on such an important issue.
The official purpose of this letter is to follow up from the
meeting last week and formally submit, in writing, and on behalf
of the City those Comments and Requests which we feel still need
to be addressed during the formulation of our final Permit. You
will find them attached. The majority of these items (Nos. 1-6)
were reviewed during your meeting with us last week. However, I
do want to point out that item no. 7 is an extremely serious and
additional concern that has just arisen (related to lead and
chromium limits) which we respectfully request also be fully
considered prior to any final action on our Permit.
We would also like to point out that the City of Henderson
is currently operating our Nutbush Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant under a Complaint and Consent Judgment (JOC #68-04, filed
June 27, 1968 in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division of the County of Vance - 88 CVS 477). As part of that
Order, the City has agreed to undertake a fairly extensive
renovation at our plant; renovations which are scheduled to be
paid exclusive through the availability of local funds.
Therefore, the issuance of a new NPDES Permit, which coincides
with the ability of our soon to be renovated plant to provide the
required environmental protection, is of the utmost importance to
US. In this regard we strongly believe that the request(s) noted

in the attachment document forwarded by this letter are
reasonable and will not result in the deterioration of the
Nutbush Creek stream quality. At the same time, the granting of
these requests will allow the City of Henderson to proceed with
our planned renovations in a timely manner and remain in
compliance throughout the life of the new proposed permit. We
urge your serious consideration of this position on our part.
Would you please see to it that this letter, and the
attached Comments and Requests (supplemented as necessary by our
Staff's meeting with you last week) are fully considered in the
formulation of final determinations regarding the proposed
permit. If additional meetings and/or formal appearances before
the Environmental Management Commission are judged to be
appropriate, please be sure that either our City Manager, Mr.
Eric Williams, or I receive some reasonable notification in
advance.
If you have any questions about our request, or require
further additional information, please do not hesitate to get in
touch with us, or our Consulting Engineers, Peirson & Whitman,
Inc. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
CMG .
Robert G. Ybung r.
Mayor
RGY,Jr./dew
Attachment
C; (w/attachments)
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director-DEM
Mr. Mike Acquesta, Peirson & Whitman, Inc.
Mr. Eric Williams, City Manager
Mr. Mike Guarini, PS Director
Mr. Tom Spain, WWTP Supt.

0144aM AND REWESTS
IMSARDING NEWI` E • 6• 1
.I
1. The City of Henderson requests that the summer Total Phosphorous
limit be set at 1 mg/l as recommended in the Wasteload Allocation
Study, Table 4, page 14, as prepared by the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management. As an alternative to this, it would be
acceptable to the City to have the winter TP limit reduced to 1.5
mg/1 while maintaining the summer limit at 1.0 mg/l. This should
be studied.
2. The City of Henderson requests that April be moved back to be
included as a winter month with the given winter limits as is now
the case in the JOC permit. As an alternative to this, it would
be acceptable to the City to have the winter limits apply in April
when the wastewater temperature drops below 15° C. Such a low
wastewater temperature would generally occur as the result of a '
cold rain, or the melting associated with the thaw of a snow or
ice storm. In all cases, stream flow would also be higher and
colder. Therefore, the winter conditions which allow higher
permit limits would be present, and stream deterioration due to
increased pollutant loading from the wastewater treatment plant
would be minimized.
3. The City requests that its present bypass be allowed.to remain but
with locked valuing. The bypass;as it exists, is not a total
plant bypass, but only a single component:bypass (the line
bypasses the nitrification system). It is the City's
understanding that, although total plant bypasses are not
permitted, DEM is allowing component bypasses at other treatment
plants. The City is moving forward with the construction of new
final clarifiers that would help contain solids within the
nitrification system up to a flow of 6 MGD. The City is also very
actively engaged in an I/I reduction program. However, even with
all this , it will be some time before sufficient I/I is
eliminated such that flogs 'above- 6 MGD will not be seen at the
plant. Therefore, it will be in the best interest of the
environment to continue to allow the bypassing of flows above 6
MGD (after clarifier construction). Such bypassing would happen
infrequently and only during occasions when stream flow is also
elevated. This would be preferable than washing out the
nitrification system thereby causing the plant to be out of
compliance for several weeks or months.
The Bypass would also be valuable as a means to divert
flow in the event that major repair work is needed on
the Treat Plant's Nitrification System.
Page 1 of 2

s. The City of Henderson requests that the DO limit be s^_t at 6 mg/l
as recommended in the Wasteload Allocation Study, page 6,
paragraph IV, Summary and Recommendations. In that summer stream
DO values are generally low, the DO in the wastewater effluent
would, most likely, dissipate rapidly thereby providing no benefit
to the stream. A 1 ppm reduction in the DO limit could be an
economical benefit to the City and its sewer customers. The post
aerator could be turned off during the winter months and the
effluent DO of 6 mg/1 could be achieved utilizing the residual DO
from the nitrification basin. Also, the injection of peroxide
into the plant effluent stream to raise Do in the summer months
could be eliminated. Funds saved in these areas could be utilized
to help in the I/I reduction program or the construction of
phosphorous removal equipment, etc.
5. The City of Henderson requests that the downstream sampling point
remain at its current location. The new sampling point, as called
out in the draft permit, will cause a hardship to the City. A
sturdy boat will have to be purchased to gain access, and it will
take the good part of half a day to do the sampling. During bad
weather it may be impossible to get to the area. The reason for
desiring the location as noted in the draft permit is understood
by the City. However, could not a correlation be established
between the existing downstream sampling point and the sag point
utilizing existing data?
6. The City of Henderson requests that the requirement
to attain 85% BODS and TSS removal be waived. During
high flow situations, the influent BODS may drop to
40mg/l. At 85% reduction,, the plant would have to achieve
an effluent B0D5 of 6 mg/l, which, in most cases, would be
very difficult. As an alternative to this, it would be
acceptable to the City to have the 85% treatment efficiency
requirement for B0D5 remain in the permit as long as it
applies only to influent conditions within the design
parameters of the plant (with Q=3 MGD during the JOC).
With respect to 85% reduction oµ TSS, the City of Henderson
requests that this requirement be waived entirely as one
ton of lime is added daily to the Nitrification System for.
PH adjustment. The use of lime adds TSS to the plant
effluent giving a false data base of influent versus
effluent TSS. The City will be most happy to provide
whatever data and documentation needed to help in your
consideration of this request.
7. Request lead and chromium limits be removed from ncc permit
until such time as the Adhoc Triennial Review Committee
of the Environmental Management Commission studies the
economic and environmental effects of lead and chromium
and until such time as these standards are formally adopted
by the Environmental Management Commission.
Page 2 of 2

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCOO .2 0S c�-E=
FACILITY NAME: NI QI- 50N� eUEK, 1" o, P
Facility Status: FXWTI lci l lnpposm
(dicta one)
Permit Status: �ItE[�EWY111"'' Moo�1CA'ifON U NEW
curer �nd ----
Major — V Minor.
Pipe No: 201
Design .Capacity (MGD): '�� ty ivk
Domestic (X of Flow): 9 ` t 6_s� `l,
Industrial (Z of Flow): . C ZZz kk(�Z)
Comments:
RECEIVING STREAM: %S a—s\+ Ca_Lilv,
Class: C.
Sub -Basin:
Reference USGS Quad: �' 25 - -"w (please attach)
County: U A
Regional Office:_ Fa Ms li) we Wi WS
(circle sae)
Requested By: l �� 'Date:—,
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
C.
ZT
,2 GEC
Modeler
Date Rec.
'
t
Drainage Area (me) Avg. Streamflow (cfs): J
7Q10 (cfa) 10, 2 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0, "1 30Q2 (cfs) 2—
Toxicity Limits: IWC (dicta one) Acute / Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameterse
Upstream ✓ Location S
Downstream Location M
T'
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD$ (mg/1)
NHs N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/0
j
TSS (mg/1)
o
F. Col. (/100ml)
pH (SU)
©, a 5
1-
06 °ate
CAV- V.A
t-3;cl:e1 ,rtj V-
Comments.
��D�^^.^�C...e1� .iM�� �l//t��A�t+��. �' � 1 1....� 7 N '7.+�G�1f�:.a.i'O Pr�it �,.r�•-�-e�a

Table 4
Request No. :4914
--------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM ---------------------
Permit Number
Facility Name
Type of Waste
Status
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Requestor
Date of Request
Quad
: NCO020559
: HENDERSON WWTP
: MUNICIPAL
: EXIST/REN
: NUTBUSH CREEK
C
030206
VANCE
RARO
FOSTER
10/17/88
B25SW
RECEIVED
FEB 2 1989
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
Drainage Area (sq mi)
Average Flow (cfs)
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
�4*3
Or
3.8
3.5
0.2
. 0.4
: 0.5
------------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS -------------------------
CURRENT
Wasteflow (mgd): 4.14
5-Day BOD (mg/1): 6 (10)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1): 3 (6)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 7
TSS (mg/1): 30
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml): 1000
pH (SU): 6-9
TP (MG/L):
CHROMIUM (MG/L):
LEAD (MG/L):
--------------- -
PROP : -z> SUMMER WINTER KA5i5
4.14
4.14
6
12
(,,$AIC-� w�
3
6
`
30
30
( 26
1000
1000
6-9
6-9
/tea
a•S
2
yea
0.05
0.05�t
0.01s
0.03.. '
w
©, Od L
o, a -AZ
w Q
MONITORING---------------------------------
©, 0 5—
D, 06"
w 4
Upstream (YIN): Y Location: CURRENT
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: NUTBUSH CREEK ARM (SEE ATTACHED)
COMMENTS
3EE ATTACHED INFORMATION FOR STUDY RESULTS, MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS.
BEAD LIMIT OF 0.003 MG/L NECESSARY IF PROPOSED STANDARD ADOPTED.
P u!`_�
Ate: Wt will � l��e,�Sc► L J l�„ �" ,� 07 � ry� l/¢ S 1AK
( _ _
------------------------------------------------------------------
S
Recommended by Date Z
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support
Regional
Supervisor
Supervisor
Permits & Engineering
RETURN TO TE
CAL SERVICES B
Date
��- _Date ��

Facility Name Permit # 0C-06 2O5 1
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *February 1987) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is —9-7% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall performqua monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The first test w 11 be performed after thirty days from
issuance of this permit during the months of Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES pemutted final.'effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls; shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting (within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 ©- 2- cfs
Permited Flow q, t y MGD
IWC%
Basin & Sub -basin 0302-0�
Receiving Stream N o -io u5 J Cv, ,-
County klo- -c g-
Recommended by:
q"�,0V c 0-0
"Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at jD-%, 'hurt.. 1, 4-,.�3 See Part -,Condition

Table 5
Downstream Self -Monitoring Recommendations
Parameters Sample Type
DO 1. meter depth intervals
PH 1 meter depth intervals
Temperature 1 meter depth intervals
Chlorophyll a Photic zone (2 x secchi depth)
Secchi Depth
Total phosphorus Photic zone
Nitrogen series Photic zone
Recommended frequency is monthly from April - October
Recommended locations are at the powerlines and immediately above the
confluence of Indian and Crooked Run Creeks
Samples should be taken mid morning
Sampling should not occur following rain
Upstream Self -monitoring Recommendations
DO Summer - weekly; Winter - monthly
PH Summer - weekly; Winter - monthly
T Summer - weekly; Winter - monthly
Effluent Self -monitoring Recommendations
As in current permit, with the addition of chromium, lead, cyanide,
cadmium, zinc, copper, nickel, MBAS, and silver.

Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
-----------------------------
t1j 4-40 a -?-0 55-1
Discharger: HENDERSON (CURRENT STANDARDS) 01/22/89
Receiving stream: NUTBUSH CREEK
Stream Class: C
USGS Zone:
2
7Q10:
cfs
Design flow:
4.140
mgd
Actual flow:
2.2
mgd
Percent industrial:
5.5
%
IWC:
97,0
a
D, '6
Actual
Allowable
Domestic
Industrial
Standard/AL
Removal
Load (a)
Load
Load
(mg/1)
-----------
Eff.
-------
(lbs/day)
---------
(lbs/day)
---------
(lbs/day)
---------
0.002
S
50%
0.08
0.030
0.050
0.05
S
47%
1.83
0.430
1.340
0.015
AL
66%
0.86
0.580
0.730
0.05
S
6%
1.03
0.290
0.620
0.025
S
81%
2.56
0.070
1.530
0.05
AL
81%
5.12
1.870
1.670
0.005
S
59%
0.24
0.000
0.000
0.0002
S
86%
0.03
0.000
0.000
0.01
AL
94%
3.24
0.070
0.000
Total
Predicted
Allowable
Obs.
Influent
Background
Effluent
Effluent
Max
Load
Reserve
Conc
Conc (b)
Conc (c)
(lbs/day)
---------
(lbs/day)
---------
(mg/1)
---------
(mg/1)
--------
(mg/1)
---------------
(mg/1)
0.08
-0.00
0
0.0022
> 0.0021
<0.00
1.77
0.06
0
0.0511
> 0.0516
<0.02
1.31
-0.45
0
0.0243
> 0.0155
0.01
0.91
0.12
0
0.0466
> 0.0516
<0.05
1.60
0.96
0
0.0166
> 0.0258
<0.011
3.54
1.58
0
0.0366
> 0.0516
0.07�
0.00
0.24
0
0.0000
0.0052
0.0
0.00
0.03
0
0.0000
0.0002
<0.00,
0.07
3.17
0
0.0002
0.0103
<0.02',

Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
-----------------------------
Discharger:
Receiving stream:
Stream Class:
USGS Zone:
7Q10:
Design flow:
Actual flow:
Percent industrial:
IWC:
RENDERS©N (PROPOSED
NUTBUSH
CREEK
C
2
0.200
cfs
4.140
mgd
2.2
mgd
5.5
% 0
97.0
%
STANDARDS) 01/22/89
Actual
Allowable
Domestic
Industrial
Standard/AL
Removal
Load (a)
Load
Load
(mg/1)
-----------
Eff.
-------
(lbs/day)
---------
(lbs/day)
---------
(lbs/day)
---------
0.002
S
50%
0.08
0.030
0.050
0.05
S
47%
1.83
0.430
1.340
0.007
AL
66%
0.40
0.580
0.730
0.088
S
6%
1.82
0.290
0.620
0.003
S
81%
0.31
0.070
1.530
0.05
AL
81%
5.12
1.870
1.670
0.005
S
59%
0.24
0.000
0.000
0.000012
S
86%
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.00006
AL
94%
0.02
0.070
0.000
Total
Predicted
Allowable
Obs.
Influent
Background
Effluent
Effluent
Max
Load
Reserve
Conc
Conc (b)
Conc (c)
(lbs/day)
---------
(lbs/day)
---------
(mg/1)
---------
(mg/1)
--------
(mg/1)
---------------
(mg/1)
0.08
-0.00
0
0.0022
>
0.0021
<0.00
1.77
0.06
0
0.0511
>
0.0516
<0.02
1.31
-0.91
0
0.0243
>
0.0072
0.01
0.91
0.91
0
0.0466
>
0.0907
<0.05
1.60
-1.29
0
0.0166
>
0.0031
<0.01�
3.54
1.58
0
0.0366
>
0.0516
0.07
0.00
0.24
0
0.0000
0.0052
0.0
0.00
0.00
0
0.0000
0.0000
<0.00
0.07
-0.05
0
0.0002
0.0001
<0.02!

NPDFS PRETRFAINFNT INFORMATION REQUEST Few
I
FACILITY NAME: (A6 � NPDFS NO. NCOO of O
r -
�RDQ(TESTEF2: Gj,e ►�:,�. DATE: /c2y1?9 RMION•
r
1
PERMIT CONDITIONS COVERING PRPMFATKFNT
I I
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program, r
Please include the following conditions: ;
Program Development
I Phase I due
� I
I Phase II due
Additional Conditions
(attached)
I This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program, i
Please include the following conditions: ;
Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
r
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USFRS' '
(SIUs) CbNTRIAUI'IONS
I
r SIU FLOW - TOTAL:
0
CO 30SITIGN7: TEXTILE:
MF'I'AL FINISHING:
loads us OTHER:
sib �fted .
9ORKS REVIEW ev5 11 y Pei
'A �o nn,Par►soh ./
Aei PARAMPPF '
W1 r
hCaduiorks
!
DUASTIC
IN LBS/DAY
ACTUAL..
(/7DldsT`RWL
_r
'
m°�ilL
uina��61-S
Cd
Cr
p��
/
�05
3•.p1�9 5
�_
-
�5�
N
`
15y
_a
a!p! oWeSu-�o�VrQv'
___�_3 f
_./.1g
.211
�2�`
o� cdC
�
,.s�
� —
�q
s9g17 -
38q
_6
�r �Cl55
I
t C. r� sdi Other
CN—
Phenol
'd
-JAL.`
5_
- .�1
�
9
�aSs j
�tet G'Y;t6-hng
;or oVer ^110,xlgSCEIVED: / / REVIEWED BY: tTJ1�� RETURNED:
vv11�� I
Or'Q'�e5-er-S A-511 - -
�i`o a.V16 1 �tSL ul�- ev��� � yee ,e^
�5Q p�loe,�` n{�,.� ar �0�4'' y r 9
Y' va`