NC0024538_Instream Assessment_19891101

NPDES DOC /KENT SCANNIN` COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024538
Shelby / First Broad River WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Instream Assessment (67b '
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 1, 1989
'Miss document iss printed on reusae paper - ignore arty
content on the rewersse aside

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 1, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Forrest Westall
THRU: Trevor Clements
Thomas Stockton°`
Carla Sanderson(,;S
FROM: Jackie Nowell4
SUBJECT: Industrial Allocation Request for Curtis Wright Flight
Systems
City of Shelby, JOC Number 89-01
NPDES Permit No. NC0024538
Cleveland County
Summary and Recommendations
The Technical Support Branch has received the request for an
instream assessment for the City of Shelby. This assessment is
exclusively for the addition of 2000 GPD of industrial wastewater from
Curtis Wright Flight Systems. After the installation of an electro-
plating and metal coating line at the subject facility, their effluent
would contain total cadmium, total chromium, and total cyanide.
The City of Shelby entered into a Judicial Order of Consent in
August, 1989 to attain compliance with its BOD5, TSS, fecal coliform,
and toxicity limits. This JOC included a schedule for relocation of
the discharge to the First Broad River to be completed by February 1,
1990. The administrative flow allocation letter issued subsequent to
the JOC also stipulates "all additional wastewater shall have charac-
teristics not exceeding that of normal domestic wastewater". Based on
our previous recommendation in the instream assessment (July 19,
1989), Technical Support does not recommend the allowance of
industrialiwasteflow from the Curtis Wright facility at the City of
Shelby -Hickory Creek discharge site. Our rationale for this recommen-
dation is based on three factors.
First, the City of Shelby does not currently have an approved
Pretreatment Program. Previous Headworks analysis data submitted has
been erroneous and must be corrected before any additional significant
industrialusers could be connected to the Shelby plant.
Second, Shelby has already exhibited chronic whole -effluent toxic-
ity problems with a total of eight failures of the toxicity test in
1987 and 1988, and no reports of test results thus far in 1989. The
instream waste concentration (IWC) at Hickory Creek is 69%. A full
range chronic test conducted in 1988 indicated that the effluent
chronic value is 21.9%. Therefore, it is apparent that effluent

toxicity at the Hickory Creek discharge site will continue to be a
problem.
Third, a review of the existing permits for industrial users of
the Shelby WWTP indicates that cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
mercury, and silver are permitted beyond the allowable loads at the
current discharge to Hickory Creek.
There appear to be at least two options that could be exercised
in this case: 1) Shelby could reduce the permitted loads of the exist-
ing significant industrial users (SIUs) to generate more capacity at
yi the HickorCreek site, 2) Curtis Wright could wait until the
discharge is relocated to the First Broad River, where a preliminary
evaluation indicates that there will be available assimilative capac-
ity. The projected IWC at the proposed First Broad River site is 12%.
The chronic value of 21.9% and "Pass" on a Chronic Pass/Fail at 12%
indicates that Shelby should have successful toxicity testing results
upon relocation.
It is our opinion that upon relocation to the First Broad River,
the following effluent limits (daily maximum), monitoring require-
ments, and special condition should be added to Shelby's NPDES permit:
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Mercury
17 ug/1
426 ug/1
750 ug/1
43 ug/1
0.102 ug/1
Monthly effluent monitoring for copper, lead, silver, and zinc is
recommended with the addition of the following special permit condi-
tion: "Levels of silver have been detected in the subject permittee's
effluent in excess of that necessary to maintain the Action Level for
this substance as prescribed in Title 15 of the North Carolina Admin-
istrative Code, Section 2B .0211 (L) (4) . Therefore, the permittee
shall undertake all reasonable measures necessary to reduce the con-
centration of this substance in its effluent to ensure protection of
the receiving stream."
Conclusion!
Based on the pretreatment data and documented effluent toxicity
problems at the Shelby -Hickory Creek discharge site, Technical Support
does not recommend the allowance of the additional industrial
wastewater from Curtis Wright Flight Systems. However, addition of
the effluent from Curtis Wright to the Shelby WWTP after relocation of
the outfall to the First Broad River could be justified since it is
expected that whole -effluent toxicity limits and the water quality
standards for the parameters of concern (e.g. cadmium, chromium, and
cyanide) could be complied with by Shelby. Furthermore, it is recom-
mended that Shelby be immediately required to begin weekly effluent
monitoring for the following metals: cadmium, chromium, copper, cyan-
ide, mercury, nickel, lead, zinc, and silver.

Please contact Tom Stockton or myself if further clarification of
this matter is needed.
cc:
Steve Tedder
Roy Davis
Dale Overcash
Ken Eagleson
David Foster
WLA File

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey,, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
October 17, 1989
Trevor Clements, Head
Technical Support Branch
Forrest R. Westal
Regional Water
James R. Rei
Environmental
upervisorl,
Industrial Allocation under JOC
Curtis Wright Flight Systems
City of Shelby, JOG Number 89-01
Cleveland County
Ann B. Orr
Regional Manager
i 1-19a9'
009 n ,
Please find attached a completed "Request Form for In -stream
Assessment for 67B" for subject project. The City of Shelby entered
into JOC Number 89-01 (copy attached) and was subsequently granted
Allocation #1 (copy attached).
If granted, an industrial allocation request would allow Curtis
Wright Flight Systems, a City of Shelby sewer customer, to install an
electroplating and metal coating line. The metal finishing operation
would allow Curtis Wright to complete contracts with Boeing Aircraft
(unit involved not on strike) so that Boeing could fulfill its
agreement with the Department of Defense. Based upon available
information, some of affected parties have failed to plan properly and
expect that failure to constitute an emergency on our part. However,
there are probably enough influential people impacted so that rapid
response by the Division would be the best course of action.
Pleased provide an opinion as to whether there would be any
adverse impact to the receiving stream\ as a result of the addition of
2000 gpd electroplating, metals coating wastewaters to the City of
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Trevor Clements
Memorandum
October 17, 1989
Page Two
Shelby's treatment system. If approval of the requested allocation is
not indicated, perhaps the 2.18 mgd domestic wastes allowed under
Allocation # 1 could be reduced by a volume equivalent to the proposed
loading from Curtis Wright.
Per 10-16-89 telephone conversation with Jim Gilpin, Curtis
Wright's consultant, particular's concerning the proposed wastestream
are as follows:
odfUoLAI
Y1'
Discharge will be 2000 gpd maximum with discharge occurring 1 to
2 days during each 21 day period. The Company would be willing
to install a flow equalization basin so as to smooth the
discharge into the City of Shelby's system. With a flow
equalization basin, flows would occur everyday with a volume
not to exceed 300 gpd.
Total cadmium, total chromium, and total cyanide will be the only
constituents in the wastestream. Processes generating the 2000
gpd wastestream will be cadmium plating of parts prepared with
cyanide, 1700 gpd; chromium coating, 300 gpd.
Maximum concentrations of an equalized flow would be;
.001,2 0.04 mg/1 total cadmium
4,02$ 0.97 mg/1 total chromium
.Ol! 0.37 mg/1 total cyanide (expressed as Cn amenable
to chlorination, the Cn concentration would be
0.18 mg/1) (Copy of Curtis Wright's BMR attached)
If there are questions or if additional information is needed,
please contact me.
xc: Tom Stockton
Kevin Bowden
Now Iiw.c4-. 0.003s0c ntiG
C- l Now moo„,. S(u)
k&( e_. I (t -cs r
Cr, Cu,) 1 �� n L an )0\6 -0
rLV' L CtR L[33

LVL.11 t•
Industrial Information
RECEi,V ED
1. Name of Facility: . CURTISS
Address of Facility:201 OLD
SHELBY,
Phone Number:
President:
WRIGHT FLIGHT SYSTEMS/SHELBY, INC.
BOILING SPRINGS ROAD
NC 28150
[phone]
Mr. George Yohrling
Contact Name: Mr. James Underwood
List all categories and subparts applicable to the
Category
Metal Finishing
Subpart
40 CFR 433
facility:
n �s'
.Ashe'� t); ill^ �::.:;:;�:::� e
Ashcvilk>, North Carolina
List average and maximum daily flows (Gallons/Day) of all regulated and
unregulated process wastestreams and all dilution wastestreams (See
definition sheet for process and wastestream definitions) :
Average Maximum
Regulated Process Wastestream(s):
Electroplating (1) (see note attached)
Coating (4)
Unregulated,Process Wastestream(s):
(None)
Dilution Wastestream(s):
Air Pollution Contrnl (see note attached) 1000
Cooling Tower 5 20
1700
300
-0-
2600
Sanitary
I have personally examined and am familiar with the information suubmidted uedsin
this document and attachments. Based upon myinquiry
mation reported herein, I
immnediately responsible for °btaing tithe
information
true. accurate and complete. I
believe that the submitted informaon
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false info l t on.
i
a c `/ 3 j eAW4 s-e t/ tit,
(DATE)
500 7nn
SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL

FORM B
Regulated metal finishing Wastestream(s) + Dilution Wastestream(s)
A. Regulated metal finishing Wastestream(s)
la. Electroplating - Common Metals
lb. Electroplating -Precious Metals
34. Anodizing
4•4. Coatings
5.41. Chemical Etching and Milling
2.g. Electroless Plating
6. Printed Circuit Board
7. Unit Operations 7-46
(See Guidance Manual Table 3.1)
B. Dilution Wastestream(s)
1. Air Pollution Control
2. Cooling Tower
3. Sanitary
TF = RF + DF = 2000 + 1505 = 3505 gpd
Cd(T) standard = 0.07 mg/1
RF
DF -
Flow (gpd)
1700
300
2000
non
S
1505
2000
Alternative Cd(T) Standard - Standard x RF = O�x35n5 'Q�4—mg/1
TF
Cr(T) standard = 1.71 mg/1
2000
Alternative Cr(T) standard = standard x RF/TF = 1.71 x 5 = 0.97 mg/1
CN(T) standard = 0.65 nag/1
2000 /1
Alternative CN(T) standard = standard x RF/TF = 0.65 x5 - 0.37n g

FORM G
Comparison Of Standards And Actual Values For Judgement Of Compliance
.ist alternative standards for those pollutants for which the CWF is used. Compare categorical or
alternative standards to actual values to judge compliance.
POLLUTANT
Cadmium (T)
Chromium (T)
Copper (T)
Lead (T)
Nickel (T)
Silver (T)
Zinc (T)
Cyanide, tot
TTO (final)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING
- NOT APPLICABLE -
CATEGORICAL STANDARD ALTERNATIVE STANDARD
Daily Maximum Daily Maximum
Maximum Monthly Avg. Maximum
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0.69
2.77
3.38
0.69
3.98
0.43
2.61
. 1.20
2.13
0.26
1.71
2.07
0.43
2.38
0.24
1.48
0.65
Monthly Avg.
(mg/1)
Alternative to total cyanide: Cyanide, amenable to
chlorination 0.86 0..32
POLLUTANT
SOURCES (PSES)
ACTUAL VALUES
Daily Maximum
Maximum Monthly Avg. IN COMPLIANCE?
(mg/1) (mg/1) YES NO
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
CATEGORICAL STANDARD
Daily Maximum
Maximum Monthly Avg
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Cadmium (T)
Chromium (T)
Copper (T)
Lead (T)
Nickel (T)
Silver (T)
Zinc (T) •
Cyanide, tot.
TTO
0.11
2.77
3.38
0.69
3.98
0.43
2.61
1.20
2.13
Alternative to totals
chlorination 0.86 '
0.07
1.71
2.07
0.43
2.38
0.24
1.48
0.65
cyanide:
0.32
ALTERNATIVE STANDARD
Daily
. Maximum
(mg/1)
Maximum
Monthly Avg.
(mg/1)
0.06 0.04
L58 0.97
0.68 0.37
Cyanide, amenable to
0.49 O_18
Note:
No maximum monthly average TTO concentration regulated.
(T) = total
ACTUAL VALUES
Daily Maximum
Maximum Monthly Avg. IN COMPLIANCE?
(mg/1) (mg/1) YES NO

Curtiss Wright Flight Systems/Shelby, Inc.
Wastewater Generation Flow Chart
Electroplating Coating
of
Common Metals
1700 gpd
300 gpd
Regulated
Electroplating
Wastewater
r-�
Sanitary Cooling
Tower
2000 gpd
500 gpd
J
5 gpd
Dilution
Wastewater
Total Effluent - 3505 gpd
Air
Pollution
Device
1000gpd
1505 gpd
Please note that the Regulated Electroplating Wasterwater flow is the
maximum that is expected. This maximum will be achieved only during one
day per every two to four weeks (after cleaning the baths, and proper
pretreatment). It is our opinion that an "average" flow rate would not
be useful in these calculations.

Curtiss Wright Flight Systems/Shelby, Inc.
Probable Contamination Level of Cadmium in Air Pollution Control
Device Waste Water Effluent
Previous calculations of cadmium (Cd) emmissions from the electroplating
bath (prep'ared as part of the Air Quality permit request) indicate that
there may be as much as 2.67E-5 mg/cu.m. Cd in the exhaust air. The air
pollution control device will probably remove 90% of this contaminant,
but we feel that 85% removal is a more realistic design parameter. At
85% removal, this material will then be present in the wastewater
effluent from the facility. The amount present is calculated to be
(2 .67E-5) - (0 .4E-5) or 2.27E-5 mg/cu . m . Cd in the wastewater. As 12,000
cu.m. of air is exhausted from this facility per hour, the accumulation
rate of Cd in the wastewater is 0.27 mg/hr. If the flow rate of the
wastewater is 0.9 gpm (205.5 1/hr.), then the Cd concentration in the
wastewater is 1.3E-3 mg/1. The acceptable lower limit of Cd
concentration is 0.7 mg/I. Therefore, the expected Cd concentration is
more than two orders of magnitude below the acceptable lower toxicity
limit.
Therefore,
allowed to
the effluent from the air pollution control devices can be
go directly to the sewer with no additional pretreatment.

%
Request Form for In -stream Assessment for 67B
NAME OF FACILITYe.:1 bf ShQ t
104
COUNTY Cleve/ c/ REGION_
RECEIVING,
SUBBASIN o3 aOtt
DESIGN FLOW 4 . 6
STREAM
p-, (7s f ' 1�4. �`ooc G� � J/
BACKGROUND DATA :
A. Why is SOC needed? (Facility is out of compliance with which
effluent limits?
TaoD 13s -:ee4
B. History of SOC requests:
1.
2. SOC flow added:
3
Monthly Average waste flow
prior to any SOC 3. 4 mgd
Date: flow: mgd
Date: flow: mgd
Date: flow: mgd
total of previously approved SOC flow: mgd
Flows lost from plant flow: mgd
4. This SOC request
5. Total plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC flow minus losses)
flow:
0o2- mgd+(Sewr'
flow: 344/ O2—' mgd
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? Why/why not?
Li e5 itLi di S C_r enc ies bd een -bb v .c 1/ 7*ct)
Au b&i s or p -Flews of/Le
�� �'„1c�w- k C.us'�a�-K � 2s
C. Please attach DMR summary fbr past year for all permitted parame-
ters. If possible, include reports from previous years if
facility has been under SOC for more than a year. C 1, ��

THIS SOC :
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a combin-
ation, please specify percentages.
n�us ; u 1 , ale e�ro
B. What type of industry?/ �-f Please attach any pertinent
data.
£ r ` �-( P f :` v,.Ls (aLt- e. (‘a PaAIS Mk')
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
BODS "245 mg/1
NH3 mg/1
DO 'y d mg/1
TSS 7d mg/1
fecal conform /Od #/100m1
pH
sU
Per Co ►'l e; I r i e Ur7 /;S Gl%r i• as•
CO /lSu /�i4i2 1
e ,5 c c �;.�t 171Eh 4-11- CoVV,i E J
•Flow w;ll 0tev, 2000 /NI 1't Z d 2t� 4 3 weeks
• e6 45; 4" df -i / " w; If he on 17 0.4, C., %L
er-
Tw C'ax5(Sfs J 1100 �p& eIecro la tv�T u
�rJ,.�.. G-- 1O�'7 4 o £.+Q a did%.. TK e � "�a h e C U -
15 f t IA( e(. u) i 'F-k‘CLL. 30apd &•' i l! h e_ drew.
t\ vi ore
• L,, i (( lam— ,wcu x t ivcv
Cr . q I �.k� ,f
C N o . 31 -►� �� ,�

WHOLE EFFLUE1 s..OXICITY TESTING 0(SELF-MONITORING SUMMARY) Sun, Oct 15, 1989
FACILITY
SCOTCI1MAN STORE N76
NPDESI: N03074667
County: WAYNE
PF: 0.006
7Q10: 0.00 I W C(%):100.00
Region: WARO
RFOUIRFMF.NT
PERMIT a!RONIC LIMIT: 99%
legin:10/17/88 frequency: Q P/F
Months: FEB MAY AUG NOV
SOC/J0C Rcq:
YEAR JAN
'85
'86
17
'88 -
'89 -
SEABOARD RR -ROCKY MOUNI'/CSX
NPDESN: N00001503
County: EDGECOMBE Region: RRO -
PF: 0.1
7010: 0.0 IWC(%):100.0
SEALED AIR CORP. 001
NPDESII: NC0006254
County: CALDWELL Region: MRO
PF: 0.45
7Q10: 8.00 IWC(%):8.02
LET17iR ACUTI; 7RGT:SIGNIF MORT REDUC
Begin: 2/12/89 Frequency: M
Months:- -
SOC/JOC Req:
SOC:9/89-expir. by DEM. 4811r Ac M MONIT
PERMIT CI IRONIC LIMIT:8.0%
Begin: 8/1/88 Frequency: Q P/P
Months: MAR JUN SEP DEC
SOC/JDC Req:
'85
'86
'87
'88
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
NR
NR
PA- IL
'89 - LATE NR NR <5.0 21.9 31.2 14.1 20.4
'85
'86
'87
'88 -
'89 -
SIEELBY WWTP
NPDESN: NC0024538
County: CLEVELAND Region:ARO
PF: 6.0
7Q10: 3.4 IWC(%):73.19
PERMIT CHR LIMT:73%,12% W/RELOC
Begin:4/2387 Frequency: Q P/F
Months: MAY AUG NOV FEB
SOC/JOC Req:
' 85
'86 76
'87 FAIL
'88 NR
'89 -
SILVER HILL MINE
NPDESN: NC0074497
County: DAVIDSON Region: WSRO
PE: 0.432
7Q10: 0.00 1 W C(%):100.00
'.ER.MIT CHRONIC LIMIT:99%
Begin 10r31/88 Fnquoxr Q P/F
Months: FEB MAY AUG NOV
SOC/JOC Req:
'85
'86
'87
'88 -
'89 -
SNOW HILL TAPE CORP.
NPDESN: N00069922
County: GRIJINli
PE:0.10
7010: 30.9 IWC(%):49.9
Itcg&at: WAR()
PERMIT ACUTE LIMIT:>50%
Begin: 1/28/88 1it quenc) Q
Miartis: FEB MAY AUG NOV
SOC/10C Rcq:
'85
'86
'x7
'88 N
'89 ...
SOUTHEAST SHIPPING POINT MARKET
NPDESN: NC0076121
County: SAMPSON Region: FRO
PF: 0.07
7 Q 10xt.00 I W C:(%): 9.79
SOUTHERN BELL•GLBONS(X)
NPDESN: NC0075108
County: WAYNE
PF: 0.086
7Q10: 0.0 I W C(%):100.00
Region: WARO
PEwIT CI IRONIC MONIT: 10%
Begin: 6/30/89 Froqucocy: Q P/F
Montle: FEB MAY AUG NOV
SOC/JOC Req:
PERMIT CI IRONIC LIMIT:99% (GRAB)
Begin: 2/27/89 Frcqucney: Q P/F e
Months: FEB MAY AUG NOV
SOC/JOC Rcq:
'85
'86
'87
'88
119 •-•
'85
16
'87
'88
'89
SOUTHERN RAILWAY(SPENCER-011)
NPDESII: NC0029246
County: DAVIDSON Region: WSRO
PP: 0.317
7Q10:1.2 IWC(%):29.0
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT: 29%
Begin: 9/189 Frequcn y. Q P/F A
Months: MAR JUN SEP DEC
SOC/JOC Req:
'85
'86
17 ---
'88 87.5
'89 69.2
SPENCER WWTP
NPDESN: NC0025593
County: ROWAN
PF: 0.7500
7Q10: 5.80 IWC(%):16.7
Region: MRO
PERMIT CHRONIC UMTT:17%
Begin 4/1/89 Frequency: Q P/F n
Months: JAN APR JUL OCT
SOC/JOC Req:
JOC:6/88.5/89 CHR M P/F 11% TROT W/11J
' 85
'86
'87
'88 -
'89 -
70
FAIL
(-)
NR
NR
PASS
72
FAIL
NR
NR
(FAIL.)
(--')
NR
NR
N - - FAIL.
P40
27.2
80.7
2.2
NR
58.4
1.7
PA- SS
88
19.1 49- .4
93.0
( NR) - - (--)
NONE
FAIL
NR
21
903
PASS
FAIL
NO- NEP20
(. -)
FAIL
NR
NE- (
FAIL
34- .8
NONE
38.0
0 2 consecutive failures = significant noncumpliarwe
1 J:GIiND:
PF=lbrmitted flow (MGI)), 7Q10=Receiving stream low flow criterion (cfs). IWC%=Iruticam waste concentration. Ileginzlrirst month required. Irrcquency'(Monitoring frequency): IQ -Quarterly; M•Montltly; BM -Bimonthly; SA•Semiumually; A•Annually;
OWD-Only when discharging; D-Discontinued monitoring requirement; IS -Conducting independent study). P,F=Pass/Fail chronic bioassay. AccAcutc, Chr-Quotie, ltaquarierly monitoring increases to monthly upon single failum,
(Data Notation): Ile -Fathead Minnow. •=Ceriodaphnia sp., rny=Mysid shrimp, ChV conic value. P=Mortality of stated percentage at highest cancentation, at=Pcrformcd by DEM Aq Tox Group. bt=Bad test),
(Reporting Notation): [--=Data not required, NR=N'treported. ( )=Beginning of Quarter]. (Fac0ity Activity Status): [Ialnactive, N.-Newly Issucd(To construct), H;Activc but not discharging)
OCT NOV DEC
NR
FAIL
34.9
16
NR
(-•-)
FAIL
<10
49.4
PASS
NONE
NR
39.1
47.0
28

NPDFS PRETREATMENT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
FACILITY NAME: (�l� WOES No. NC1Do a if 5 3
REQUESTER:
DATE: / / REGION: b
PERMIT CONDITIONS COVERING PRFTRENTM TTT
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatliunt program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Development
Phase I due / /
Phase II due / /
Additional Conditions
(attached)
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
IQ iFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS
SIU FLOW - TOTAL: ee Oft
`!' s 1
COh ;I'TiON: 1' ;�'I7:F': v
GD
METAL FINISHING: M D
OTHER: M D
iv; )
MGD
tOID
itiORKS REVIEW
PAPAM.FTER
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
Phenol
Other kft
1 P-47TNRou, a DAILY LOAD IN LAS/D1AY
i
ALLCMBLE D MESTIC PERMITTED (Tu%ijnnUALn pl
QO5 it i, 6/ o .O?i
$3 53,iS 0.6S 3.2
i . vl x 6,04 o . yb sa
.3S-k S,s/ o.b63 3�
• /,o/ o.16'3 3•0
,`l2 4 S,69 o. 696 �S
.(o53 )t 0,13 0.b03 .IAL
Lio./3 1.,7-3? rig A-
.OI*
deD
RECEIVED: / / REVIEWED BY:
36
(f
EKcs4-►►N5 S (Ks
JRNED: /v /02 L/$+9/
ey154-11.49 StUs
&a--u Ste( se-
��w `w's9

xliwo
gevllc+
ciL,x0 •
J t C=
•
Cope (a14.
ease, S sj
a oit Corper^
tog
.30g
ite-4J•A-4-2_ sk,p/G00-A4-0.xj
-64kA
(ems lw ( -fic o�
.5c(A6s ONL(1i PA. es- 7G
ish►�
per w,i�-s �Giow ,no Ca-pac[- aVa-c 1041t a+ carrer±
ex 5
dU.sd.A.a vy e %o (-hckLo ry Creek .
a.kt.
chaN.3e toerw.L-
b (iu A.(4- lnvt-k I ma J e_ aitS ct-le e 4C9tR ro od R. ( ears o.-�
-I, is -j� vri e ere W , 11 b e cc_Poic t 5
ws-f` get a.deojw r ks a-p p rn tree(
cc" pac +t j a+ HI..1ldv j Cr,
b j rDe`^- pre re 'wle.ti"%
®rfrLA&(CpOJ hreem e h I 01 CG (A4A -`n

Headworks Review
10/27/89
ver 2.1
Facility:
NPDES Permit No.:
Permitted Flow:
Actual Average Flow:
Subbasin:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
7Q10:
Average Streamflow:
IWC:
Percent industrial:
CITY OF SHELBY
NC0024538
6.000 mgd
3.409 mgd
'030804
FIRST BROAD CREEK
C
70.000 cfs
371.000 cfs
11.7 %
34.0 %
Actual Actual Permt.
or Ind. + Ind. +
Default Actual Domest. Permited Domestic
Standard Acute Removal Allowable Domestic Indust. Total Indust. Total
Pollutant AL Criteria Eff. Load Load Load Load Load Load
(ug/1) (ug/1) * (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d)
Cadmium S 2.0 1.79 84% 5.07 0.05 0.07 0.12 1.61
Chromium S 50 984 82% 112.72 0.83 0.68 1.51 53.18
Copper AL 7 9.2 82% 15.78 1.02 0.46 1.48 6.04
Nickel S 88.0 789 32% 52.52 0.35 0.07 0.42 5.51
Lead 5 25 34 80% 50.73 0.78 0.17 0.95 1.01
Zinc AL 50 65 78% 92.23 2.92 0.66 3.58 5.64
Cyanide S 5 22.0 59% 4.95 0.68 0.01 0.69 0.13
Mercury S 0.012 2.4 86% 0.03 0.010 0.00 0.01 0.00
Silver AL 0.06 1.2 91% 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.23 0.25 0.330
Selenium S 5 20 80% 10.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
Arsenic S 50 360 80% 101.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
Phenols S 20% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
ADDITIONAL INPUT
ANALYSIS RESULTS IF AVAILABLE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Allowable Allowable Predicted Predicted Actual Actual Monitor / Limit / Special Condition*
Effluent Effluent on Actual on Max. Wkly Max. Ave.
Bkg Conc Conc. Influent Permitted Daily Ave. Actual Permit. Actual Actual
Pollutant Conc. Chronic Acute Data Data Value Value Ind. Ind. Effl. Effl.
(ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/l) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data Data
1.660
54.010
7.060
5.860
1.790
8.560
0.810
0.010
Cadmium S 17.054 15.263 0.681 9.338 Monitor Limit
Chromium S 426.344 8393.180 9.524 341.788 Monitor Limit
Copper AL 59.688 78.618 9.378 44.677 Monitor Special
Nickel S 750.366 6727.710 9.993 140.093 Monitor Limit
Lead S 213.172 288.038 6.666 12.586 Monitor Monitor
Zinc AL 426.344 554.588 27.659 66.207 Monitor Monitor
187.591 9.917 11.676 Limit Limit
20.465 0.049 0.049 Limit Limit
Silver AL 0.512 10.488 0.721 1.044 Special
Selenium S 42.634 170.538 0.000 0.000
Arsenic S 426.344 3069.677 0.000 0.000
Phenols S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cyanide S 42.634
Mercury 5 0.102
special
* Refer to SOP manual for special condition Ian

Headworks Review 10/27/89
ver 2.1
Facility: CITY OF SHELBY
NPDES Permit No.: NC0024538
Permitted Flow: 6.000 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 3.409 mgd
Subbasin: '030804
Receiving Stream: HICKORY CREEK
Stream Classification: C
7Q10: 4.100 cfs
Average Streamflow: 26.000 cfs
IWC: 69.4 %
Percent industrial: 34.0 %
Actual Actual Permt.
or Ind. + Ind. +
Default Actual Domeat. Permited Domestic
Standard Acute Removal Allowable Domestic Indust. Total Indust. Total
Pollutant AL Criteria Eff. Load Load Load Load Load Load
(ug/1) (ug/1) 8 (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d)
Cadmium S 2.0 1.79 84% 0.63 0.05 0.07 0.12 1.61 1.660
Chromium S 50 984 82% 14.04 0.83 0.68 1.51 53.18 54.010
Copper AL 7 9.2 82% 1.97 1.02 0.46 1.48 6.04 7.060
Nickel S 88.0 789 32% 6.54 0.35 0.07 0.42 5.51 5.860
Lead S 25 34 80% 6.32 0.78 0.17 0.95 1.01 1.790
Zinc AL 50 65 78% 11.49 2.92 0.66 3.58 5.64 8.560
Cyanide S 5 22.0 59% 0.62 0.68 0.01 0.69 0.13 0.810
Mercury S 0.012 2.4 86% 0.00 0.010 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.010
Silver AL 0.06 1.2 91% 0.03 0.08 0.15 0.23 0.25 0.330
Selenium S 5 20 80% 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
Arsenic S 50 360 80% 12.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
Phenols S 20% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
ADDITIONAL INPUT
ANALYSIS RESULTS IF AVAILABLE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Allowable Allowable Predicted Predicted Actual Actual Monitor / Limit / Special Condition*
Effluent Effluent on Actual on Max. Wkly Max, Ave.
Bkg Conc Conc. Influent Permitted Daily Ave. Actual Permit. Actual Actual
Pollutant Conc. Chronic Acute Data Data Value Value Ind. Ind. Effl. Effl.
(ug/l) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/l) Loading Loading Data Data
Cadmium S 2.882 2.579 0.681 9.338
Chromium S 72.043 1418.268 9.524 341.788
Copper AL 10.086 13.285 9.378 44.677
Nickel S 126.796 1136.839 9.993 140.093
Lead S 36.022 48.672 6.666 12.586
Zinc AL 72.043 93.714 27.659 66.207
Cyanide S 7.204 31.699 9.917 11.676
Mercury S 0.017 3.458 0.049 0.049
Silver AL 0.086 1.772 0.721 1.044
Selenium S 7.204 28.817 0.000 0.000
Arsenic S 72.043 518.710 0.000 0.000
Phenols S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Limit Limit
Limit Limit
Special Special
Monitor Limit
Limit Limit
Special Special
Limit Limit
Limit Limit
Special Special
* Refer to SOP manual for special condition Ian

_. .:1:::.�.: i:« ....!•..........:Nw...5.!•.. ••.••...Jib i;ra L•L'j'' .4'1L< • 4'w.!•ti •'MIN Na!••••144,4•...aawt/fa.w.•+.....•• ,••..:•3Wi.•.•i1a•ir
Burlington
Research
Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evalua`
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
/ Sit4-16WIT
ions CI vie, Co ,
Nrc453 g
Post Office Box 2481 • 615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
CUSTOMER:
FACILITY:
SAMPLE (S) :
DATE REC'D:
LAB ID:
REPORT DATE:
REPORT TO:
CITY OF SHELBY
Shelby, NC
Composite effluents for EPA chronic bioassay
3/30 and 4/2/88
88-03-102
4/25/88
Mr. Don Rhom
Ceriodaphnia
BIOASSAY PARAMETER
RESULT
(%)
EPA Survival and Reproduction Test
Chronic Value 21.9
NOEC
(No Observable Effect
Concentration)
LOEC
(Lowest Observable Effect
Concentration)
NCDEM Pass/Fail
At. Current 73% 7Q10 IWC
At .Alternate 12% 7Q10 IWC
48-Hour-Acute•Static
LC50
12.0
40.0
Fail
Pass
None
RECEIVED
MAY 1 ^1988
TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCh

5L
1J
6
1145
/ci-i /5 1)
I*,
1/z,r77Y 6C/1
— CA4 Ar.„.f.„,,,r-‘,4_,
C c��, •Z/, 9 7a

/y
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
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
The Honorable George W. Clay
Mayor, City of Shelby
Post Office Box 207
Shelby, North Carolina 28150
SUBJECT: Judicial Order by Consent Allocation Request
City of Shelby
JOC # 89-01, Allocation # 1
NPDES NC0024538, Cleveland County
Dear Mayor Clay:
August 30, 1989
R. Paul Wilms
Director
In accordance with the City's request of August 8, 1989, and as
allowed under paragraph 10 of the subject Consent Judgement (JOC 89-01) and
pursuant to the provision of NCGS 143-215.67(b), I hereby authorize the
acceptance of up to 2.18 MGD of additional wastewater into the Shelby
Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is the maximum additional flow that can be
allowed during the term of the Judicial Order under present flow conditions;
the total plant flow during the term of the Judicial Order shall not exceed
5.5 MGD. Any flows which may have been allocated under a previous Special
Order and are not connected to the system shall be included in this
allocation. The City should allocate this flow to proposed proiects
carefully to allow for orderly growth during the term of this Judicial
Order. The Division may evaluate toxicity at the Shelby Wastewater
Treatment Plant and any study which projects significant impacts on the
receiving stream may result in the Division suspending flow allocations to
the treatment system. Acceptance of flow into the treatment facility is
subject to the following conditions:
1) All additional wastewater shall have characteristics
not exceeding that of normal domestic wastewater.
2) Monthly reports shall be submitted to the attention
of Mr. Roy Davis, Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources; Division of Environmental Management;
59 Woodfin Place; Asheville, N. C. 28801 listing those
projects which have been allocated flows, amount
allocated, and once connected data on actual water
consumption.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

Honorable George W. Clay
August 30, 1989
Page 2
Please note that any violation of terms of your Consent Judgement
including effluent limitations and schedule dates shall be enforced
thereunder and shall terminate this flow allocation. If you continue to
operate under this increased flow allocation after a violation has occurred,
you will be considered to be in violation of the flow originally allocated
to you in the Consent Judgment. Any portion of the authorized additional
waste not previously connected to the system shall not thereafter be
connected until the necessary sewerage system improvements have been
completed and placed in operation.
If you have questions, or if we can be of any further assistance,
please contact Mr. James Reid of our Asheville Regional Office at
704/251-6208.
R. "Paul Wilms
cc: Roy M. Davis/
Steve Tedder
Kent Wiggins
Permits and Engineering
Dave Wilkinson, Town Manager

•
Con 5fr, C-1 5
-`asp Icy (�, o&f=ict
rev,.: + (Acts Crb 13) —7 Cer►ii._Q Fi des
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI CEIVE THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
v U
JU�2 5 SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF CLEVELAND 1989 89 CVS
Enforcement And
STATE OF NORTH CAROLZN ; n e 2se
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary,
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, and
ex rel ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION,
CITY, OF SHELBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
C.J
•
. •
4 ,
CONSENT JUDGMENT
(JOC # 8 914CF1.1.: E '.' D
r
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard this dayAsbe6foiiL'L at e .13
undersigned Judge of Superior Court upon joint appearance
by the parties, who have announced to the Court that all
matters in controversy between them as alleged in the
Complaint have been settled and that they have consented to
the entry of the Consent Judgment upon the following
stipulations and terms:
STIPULATED FACTS
1. The plaintiff is the sovereign State of North
Carolina. The Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development (NRCD) is an agency of the State
established pursuant to NCGS 143E-275, et seq; and
William W. Cobey, Jr., is its Secretary. The Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) is an agency of the State
established pursuant to NCGS 1438-282, et seq.

2
2. The defendant, City of Shelby, in the County of
Cleveland, North Carolina, is an incorporated municipality
established and created under North Carolina law. The
current mayor of Shelby is George Clay, upon whom service of
process may be made pursuant to Rule 4(j) (5) a of the Rules
of Civil Procedure.
3. The City of Shelby holds North Carolina NPDES
Permit No. NC0024538 for operation of an existing
wastewater treatment works, the Shelby Wastewater
Treatment Plant, and for making an outlet therefrom for
treated wastewater to Hickory Creek, Class C waters of
the State, in the Broad River Basin, but is unable to comply
with the final effluent limitations for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD-5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal
coliform, and toxicity as set forth in the -Permit.
Compliance will require preparation of plans and
specifications for, and construction and operation of,
additional treatment works. The noncompliance with final
effluent limitations constitutes causing and contributing to
pollution of the waters of the State, and the City is within
the jurisdiction of the Commission as set forth in NCGS
Chapter 143, Article 21.
4. The City of Shelby, due to its noncompliance,
must provide financing for, plan and construct treatment
works which will treat the wastewater presently being
discharged and any additional wastewater desired to be

discharged, to the extent that the City will be able to
comply with final permit effluent limitations.
5. In response to the National Municipal Policy, 49
F.R. 3832, January 30, 1984, adopted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency for assuring compliance
with the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 51342, by
publicly -owned treatment works, and in recognition of that
Act's July 1, 1988, deadline for compliance [51311 of the
Act initially required compliance by July 1, 1977, but
extensions of time were granted until July 1, 1988 if
construction was required for compliance, pursuant to
§1311(i)], the Department and Commission have identified
the Shelby Wastewater Treatment Plant of the City of Shelby
as
a facility which was not in compliance due to
extraordinary circumstances. The City has appropriated
funds and contracted with a consulting engineer who will
investigate in detail the present procedures at the
treatment facility and the waste streams being received, and
will make recommendations for changes and procedures
necessary to bring the City into compliance with final
effluent limitations.
STIPULATED TERMS
6. The defendant, City of Shelby, waives service of
process, accepts service of the Complaint, and admits all
averments contained in the Complaint.
7. The defendant, City of Shelby, shall pay all court
costs in this cause.

8. The parties agree that this Consent Judgment
supersedes the requirements of any previously entered
Special'Orders by Consent and constitutes full settlement of
all matters referred to in the Complaint, with the following
caveat: the plaintiff reserves all rights to otherwise
assess appropriate civil penalties pursuant to NCGS
143-215.6(a) in connection with the operation of the
Shelby Wastewater Treatment Plant by the defendant City
of Shelby, including but not limited to any failures to
comply with interim effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements. The parties further agree this Consent
Judgment is supplementary to the obligations of the
defendant under state and federal water quality statutes.
agrees The defendant, City of Shelby, to
perform all of the following:
(a) Meet and comply with all terms and conditions of
the permit except those effluent limitations identified
in paragraph. 3 above. (See Attachments A-1, A-2, B-1,
B-2 and C which are incorporated by reference herein,
for all monitoring requirements and effluent
limitations.)
(b) Upon entry of the Consent Judgment, undertake the
following activities in accordance with the 'indicated
time schedule:
1) Submit plans and specifications to NRCD for
an outfall line to relocate the Shelby
Wastewater Treatment Plant's discharge point
from Hickory Creek to the First Broad River
along with a request for authorization to
construct the line by July 1, 1989.
2
Complete construction of the outfall line by
February 1, 1990.
3) Submit plans and specifications to NRCD,
which are sufficient to obtain its approval,
for improvements to treatment works,
including description of funding sources by
July 1, 1990.

4) Award contracts on or before
January 1, 1991.
5) Begin construction, on or before(wo ice..i`.I�. ro(reF
• $T March 1, 1991.
6) Complete construction of proposed additional
r'`"' pc`_ January 1, 1992.
1
7) Achieve compliance with final effluent
limitations by April 1, 1992.
(c) During the time in which this Consent Judgment is
effective, comply with the interim effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements contained in
Attachments A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2 and C. Additional
monitoring may be required by the Director on a
case -by -case basis. These new requirements may be
contained in either a new NPDES Permit or a letter from
the Director.
(d) No later than 14 calendar days after any date or
time identified for accomplishment of any activity
.Listed in 9(b) above, submit to the NRCD, attention
Director of Division of Environmental Management,
written notice of compliance or noncompliance
therewith. In the case of noncompliance, the notice
shall include a statement of the reason(s) for noncom-
pliance, remedial action(s) taken, and a statement
identifying the extent to which subsequent dates or
times for accomplishment of listed activities may be
affected.
e) Enforce the water conservation prov:,sions of the
State Building Code as it applies to new residential
construction (Volume 11 - Chapter IV 401.2, 401.3).
(f) Develop and adopt sewer use ordinance limits for
non -conventional pollutants. Implement the pretreat-
ment program as approved by the Director, including the
enforcement of both categorical pretreatment standards
and local limits.
(g) Continue its program of infiltration/inflow
identification and correction and submit reports to the
NRCD Asheville Regional Office by the last day of each
month.
(h) Deny acceptance of any septage, sludge, or residue
from any domestic or industrial septic tank,
pretreatment facility, or wastewater treatment facility
into the Shelby Wastewater Treatment Plant or into any
portion of the sewerage system that is tributary
thereto.

(i) Should it become necessary to by-pass treatment
components, the City of Shelby must obtain approval
from the Director. Scheduled by-passes will only begin
after prior approval has been received from the
Director. Unforeseen by-passes must be reported to the
Director as quickly as possible but in no case later
owwe up with n five (5) wor ... ng days with a written
request for approval. By-passes conducted in
accordance with the Director's approval will not
constitute a violation of this consent judgment.
10. Additional sources of waste flows are prohibited
by NCGS 143-215.67(a). However, notwithstanding the entry
of this Consent Judgment, the plaintiff Commission, or its
delegate, may allow the City of Shelby to accept
additional waste flows to its Shelby Wastewater Treatment
Plant, pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 143-215.67(b),
where appropriate
11. Unless excused under Paragraph 12, the defendant
City of Shelby, shall pay the plaintiff Department and
Commission the following stipulated penalties for failure
to meet the deadlines set out in Paragraph 9(b):
DEADLINE PENALTY AMOUNT
1
Plans and specifications
2) Bid advertisement same
3) Contract award/construction same
initiation
4) Construction completion same
5) Compliance with $7000
final effluent limitations
$100/day for first 7
days, and
$500/day thereafter
f[51-6j;"

Payments shall be made by certified check, made payable to
the "Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment", and shall be made within fourteen (14) days following
demand by the plaintiff.
12. Stipulated penalties are not due if the defendant,
City of Shelby satisfies the plaintiff Department, or this
Court, that non-compliance was caused by events or
circumstances
beyond the defendant's control. Such events
or circumstances do not include failure to obtain state or
federal grant funding, failure to schedule or pass necessary
bond referenda, or other failures to obtain necessary
financing, but may include delays caused by contractors
provided that such delays could not be reasonably
anticipated by the Defendant and that Defendant has made its
best efforts to avoid and minimize such delays. Any dispute
which arises concerning whether stipulated penalties are due
will in the first instance be subject to informal
negotiations between the parties, initiated by written
request. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute within
30 days from the date of the request, the dispute may be
referred by any party to the Court for judicial resolution.
If exigencies require, a party may refer the matter to the
Court prior to the expiration of the 30-day period; and the
30-day period may be extended or shortened by mutual
agreement of the parties or by Court order. The filing of a
�' on seeking
petition s e ng dispute resolution as to the payment of
stipulated penalties will not extend or postpone the

defendant-City's obligations, and upon dispute resolution
the defendant -City shall have the burden of proof.
13. The terms of this Consent Judgment may be enforced
by and through the contempt powers of the Court.
14. This Consent Judgment shall terminate on July 1,
1992;,except that determinations of final compliance made by
the State, payment of any due penalties by the Defendant,
and request for dispute resolution may be made within 90
days thereafter. Following the expiration of this Consent
Judgment, any permit violations will be subject to all
enforcement procedures as allowed by G.S. 143-215.6.
IT IS THEREFORE, upon the consent of the parties and
without the taking of any testimony, ORDERED ADJUDGED and
DECREED;
1. The above stipulated facts and terms, as agreed to
by the parties, are hereby made specific findings and orders
of this Court.
2. The parties, with Court approval, may jointly
modify the provisions of this Consent Judgment.
3. The Court shall retain necessary jurisdiction of
this matter for purposes of enforcing the terms of the
Consent Judgment; for purposes of determining any matters in
dispute; and for purposes of determining any motions for
further relief based on changes of circumstances.

This the
BY CONSENT:
day of
FOR THE CITY OF SHELBY
Attorney at Law
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
NAT "RESObR ES AND COMMUTY DEVELOPMENT
A D NVIRON &GEME COMMISSION
1989.
•
Director, Division of
Environmental Management
LACY H. THORNBURG
ATTORNEY GENE
•
SISTANT ATTORNEY GENE
f "Superior Court

ATTACHMENT A-1
City of Shelby
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - Interim
During the period beginning on the effective —date of -the Order and -lasting until February 1, 1990, the
permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall serial number(s) - 001. Such discharges shall be .
limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5Day, 20°C
Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Conductivity
Toxicity
Priority Pollutants
*
**
***
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Reouirements
Other Units (Specify)
Measurement
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Frequency
6.0 MGD
45.0 mg/1
70.0 mg/1
4.0 mg/1
1000/ 10 0 ml
68.0 mg/1
105.0 mg/1
4.0 mg/1
2000/100 ml
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Quarterly
Annually
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream
See Attachment B-1
See Attachment C
Sample
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
I,E
I,E
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E
E
U,D
E
E
pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and
shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

ATTACHMENT A-2
City of Shelby
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - Interim
Du::ing the period beginning on February 2 , 1990, .and lasting -until Apri 1- 1 1992, _the permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall serial number(s) - 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5Day, 20°C
Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 -+ NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Conductivi ty
Toxicity
Priority Pollutants
Discharge Limitations
Other Units (Specify)
Monthly Avg. Weekly Av
6.0 MGD
45.0 mg/1
70.0 mg/1
4.0 mg/1
1000/100 ml
*:*
68.0 mg/1
105.0 mg/1
4.0 mg/1
2000/100 ml
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample, *Sam
Freczuencv Type
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Quarterly
Annually
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream
See Attachment B-2
See Attachment C
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
`e
Location
I or E
I,E
TEE
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E
E
U,D
E
E
pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and
shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Consent Judgment
ATTACHMENT B-1
City of Shelby
Toxicity Testing Requirement
The effluent discharge chronic toxicity analyses shall be
performed using test procedures outlined in:
i The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent
bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *February, 1987) or
subsequent versions.
The target effluent concentration at which there may be no
observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality is 73% (defined as treatment two in the North
Carolina procedure document). The City shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the toxicity requirements. Tests shall be
performed during the months of February, May, August, and
November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be
performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testingresults required as part of this Order
will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form
(MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the
appropriate parameter code. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
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 must be
measured and reported if employed for disinfection of the
waste stream.
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 Order may be reopened and modified to
include alternate monitoring requirements.
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. Failure to submit suitable test results will
constitute a violation of Order conditions.

Consent Judgment
ATTACHMENT B-2
City of Shelby
Toxicity Testing Requirement
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic
toxicity 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 12% (defined as treatment two in the North
Carolina procedure document). The City shall.perform
quartely monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the toxicity requirements. Tests shall be
performed during the months of February, May, August, and
November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be
performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this Order
will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form
(MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the
appropriate parameter code. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
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 must be
measured and reported if employed for disinfection of the
waste stream.
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 Order may be reopened and modified to
include alternate monitoring requirements.
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. Failure to submit suitable test results will
constitute a violation of Order conditions.

ATTACHMENT C
City of Shelby
The Permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants annually
at the effluent from the treatment plant. The discharge
shall be evaluated as follows:
1.
2'.
A pollutant analysis of the effluent must be
completed annually using EPA approved methods for
the following analytic fractions: (a) purgeables
(i.e., volatile organic compounds); (b) acid
extractables; (c) base/neutral extractables; (d)
organochlorine pesticides and PCB's; (e)
herbicides; and (f) metals and other inorganics.
The Annual Pollutant Analysis (APA) Monitoring
Requirement Reporting Form A, to be provided to
all dischargers affected by this monitoring
requirement, describes the sampling and analysis
requirements and lists chemicals to be included in
the pollutant analysis. This monitoring
requirement is to be referred to as the "Annual
Pollutant Analysis" (APA).
Other significant levels of synthetic organic
chemicals must be identified and approximately
quantified. For the purpose of implementing this
requirement, the largest 10 GC/MS peaks in each
organic chemical analytic fraction (or fewer than
10, if less than 10 unidentified peaks occur) for
chemicals other than those specified on the APA
Monitoring Requirement Reporting Form A should be
identified and approximately quantified as stated
in the APA Reporting Form A instructions. This
part (item 2) of the APA monitoring requirement is
to be referred to as the "10 significant peaks
rule".