NC0020184_Permit Issuance_20020531

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
Permit:
NC0020184
Gastonia — Long Creek WWTP
NPDES
Document 'I pe:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload
Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Correspondence
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document
Date:
May 31, 2002
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re-iirei-se side

6tate of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Mr. David Shellenbarger
City of Gastonia
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina
28053-1748
May 31, 2002
AVA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0020184
Long Creek WWTP
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Shellenbarger:
Division of Water Quality (Division) personnel have reviewed and approved your application for
renewal of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit.
This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and
the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
The following changes have been made to the draft version of this permit:
• The sample type for chloroform has been changed to grab. This is in accordance with
Division policy and matches your current permit requirements. In addition, the
monitoring frequency has been changed to quarterly due to a finding of no reasonable
potential to exceed water quality criteria.
• The sampling frequency for antimony has been changed to quarterly. Although the
levels of antimony in your facility's discharge did not demonstrate reasonable potential to
exceed North Carolina water quality standards, the Division wishes to continue monitoring
antimony through reduced monitoring on a quarterly basis.
• A special footnote regarding ammonia has been included in the permit's effluent
limits page. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which oversees North Carolina's
NPDES program, has determined that municipal permits in this state should include
weekly average ammonia limits. Once an appropriate allowable ammonia concentration
has been established, the EPA will analyze ammonia data to assess reasonable potential to
exceed the allowable concentration. If reasonable potential to exceed the new limit exists,
this permit will be re -opened to include a weekly average ammonia limit.
• Molybdenum monitoring has been removed from your permit. No criteria exist for
evaluation of reasonable potential; you will still have to monitor for molybdenum through
your pretreatment long term monitoring plan (LTMP).
• Your facility has been downgraded to a Tier 1 facility following the South Fork
Catawba Color hearing. With the closure of the major industrial contributor to your color
problem, color at the Long Creek facility has been greatly reduced. It is the Hearing
Officer's recommendation that Long Creek WWTP now be designated a Tier 1 facility, which
carries with it color monitoring and a color reopener condition.
• The weekly average cyanide limit has been removed. The allowable instream
concentration of cyanide (based on chronic criteria) is 27 µg/L, which is greater than the
daily maximum limit stipulated by acute criteria 22 pig/L. It is therefore determined that
the daily maximum limit offers sufficient protection of water quality and the weekly average
limit has been eliminated.
• A footnote to the total residual chlorine (TRC) limit has been included allowing for
compliance to be judged based on the daily average TRC value.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Visrr us ON THE INTERNET @ http:11h2o.enr.state.nc.usJNPDES

The Division offers the following in response to your comments submitted on August 16, 2001:
• Nutrient Requirements: The Division has proposed a year-round mass limit cap based on
an equivalent concentration limit of 6.0 mg/L total nitrogen in the summer and 12.0 mg/L
total nitrogen in the winter (at permitted flow). It is the Division's understanding that this
is not an acceptable alternative to the City of Gastonia. In order to protect water quality,
the Division feels a summer concentration -based limit of 6.0 mg/L total nitrogen is
necessary.
• Silver and Copper: A reasonable potential analysis was conducted using effluent data
provided by the City of Gastonia. This analysis indicated reasonable potential to exceed
North Carolina's action level standards for silver and copper. Because of Gastonia's
excellent toxicity record, no limits for these parameters were imposed, but twice monthly
monitoring will be required to ensure that the levels being discharged pose no threat to
water quality. This is consistent with toxicant requirements at Class IV facilities across the
state.
In addition, please be aware of a modification to our permitting guidance regarding mercury.
As you are aware, mercury continues to be a water quality concern throughout North Carolina.
NPDES permittees have worked with the state to reduce potential risks from this pollutant, including
tasks associated with collecting and reporting more accurate data. The most commonly used
laboratory analysis (EPA Method 245.1) has a detection limit of 0.2 icg/L while the current water
quality standard is an order of magnitude lower at 0.012 µg/L. A more recently approved analytical
test (EPA Method 1631) should produce a detection limit below the level of the standard. This will
allow the Division to assess potential water quality impacts from discharges more accurately.
Therefore, beginning on or before September 1, 2003, you will be required to begin using EPA Method
1631 when analyzing for mercury.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-67141. Unless
such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the
legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or
permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other
Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Natalie Sierra at telephone
number [phone], extension 551.
Sincerely,
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NPDES Unit
Technical Assistance & Certification Unit
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
EPA Region 4
Ms. Donna Lisenby, Catawba Riverkeeper
Mr. Ron Bryant. Catawba River Foundation

Permit NC0020184
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE .
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance th the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards an regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management ommission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of Gastonia
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
to receiving
with effluent
I, II, III, and
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Old Spencer Mountain Road
Gastonia
Gaston County
caters designated as Long Creek in the Catawba River Basin in accordance
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts
V hereof.
The permit s all become effective July 1, 2002.
This permit d the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on January 31, 2005.
Signed this day May 31, 2002.
Greg
Divi
ByA
orzw,"J. '-rpe, Ph.D Acting Director
l • , • . ter Quail
of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0020184
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The City of Gastonia is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 16.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility that
includes the following components:
❖ Coarse bar screen
❖ Mechanical bar screens
❖ Grit removal
❖ Parshall flume
❖ Influent pump station
❖ Splitter box
❖ Primary clarifiers
❖ Raw sludge pumping station
❖ Dual basins for biological nutrient removal
❖ Denitrification basin
❖ Final clarifiers
❖ Tertiary filtration
❖ Backwash holding tank
❖ Chlorine contact basin
❖ Chlorination/dechlorination facilities
❖ Static aerators
❖ Dissolved air floatation (DAF) unit
❖ Four anaerobic digesters
❖ Solids contact reactor
❖ Chemical feed facilities.
This wastewater treatment facility is located on Old Spencer Mountain Road
at the Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant near Spencer Mountain in
Gaston County.
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on
the attached map into the South Fork Catawba River, classified Class WS-V
waters in the Catawba River Basin.

State Grid/Ouad:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Class:
Cit�of Gastonia
Lo Creek WWTP
F14SFJMt. Holly, NC Drainage Basin: Catawba River Basin
35° 31' 35" N Sub -Basin: 03-08-36
82° 24' 10" W
South Fork Catawba River
WS-V
Facility
C ti YV
Location
not to scale
North
NPDES Permit NC0020184
Gaston County

Permit NC0020184
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001 Such discha s shall
...
Note
1. Upstream = at NCSR 1108. Downstream = a) NCSR 2424 and b) NCSR 564. Instream monitoring shall be grab samples taken 3/week
Qune-September) and 1/week (October -May).
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3• The Division may re -open this permit to require weekly average limits for ammonia. After calculating allowable concentrations, an analysis of past
ammonia data will determine if there is a reasonable potential for this discharge to exceed these potential limits. If there is, this permit will be re -opened.
If not, the permit will not be re -opened, but will contain weekly average limits for ammonia upon renewal.
4- The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L
5. Compliance with the limit for Total Residual Chlorine shall be based upon a daily average value.
6. As a Tier 1 Facility, Long Creek WW I"P must monitor for color at upstream and downstream monitoring stations on a monthly basis, from April to
October. In addition, monthly color samples of the effluent must be taken year-round. See A. (3) for other effluent color requirements.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphni2►),, P/F at 19% with testing in March, June, September and December (see A. (2)).
8. The detection limit for cyanide is 10.0 µg/L If the measured levels of cyanide are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be
zero for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as < 10.0 µg/L
9. The current detection limit for mercury is 0.2 µg/L If the measured levels of mercury are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered
to be zero for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as <0.2 µg/L If mercury is detected in any sample, the presence
of mercury can be verified using a separate split sample analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 1631. The result from this second analysis shall be
used for compliance determinations. As of September 1, 2003, all mercury samples shall be analyzed using EPA Method 1631.
10. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0020184
A. (2) CHR NIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 19%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarterlu monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of March, June, September and December. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a
failure or ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be
performed at minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North
Carolina Ph a II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February
1998) or subs quent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the
geometric mean of the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of
reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable
impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment,"
collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in
the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed,
using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value.
Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences
Branch no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is
made.
Test data shal
measurement.
supervisor an
toxicity sampl
the waste stre
Should there
monitoring is
aquatic toxic'
county, and
area of the fo
the address ci
be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical
and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory
ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent
must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
e no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
quired, the permittee will complete the information Located at the top of the
(AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number,
month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment
. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at
d above.

Permit NC0020184
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality 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, minimum control organism reproduction, and
appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (3) COLOR PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER 1 FACILITY
Long Creek WWTP has been classified as a Tier 1 color discharger in accordance with North
Carolina's Color Permitting Strategy. The Permittee will conduct color monitoring of
instream stations (upstream, downstream) on a monthly basis during summer season
(April -October). The Permittee will record whether a color plume was observed around the
outfall pipe during the monthly instream sampling events, and include that information on
the monthly discharge monitoring report. Effluent samples will be collected monthly for
color on a year-round basis. Color samples will be analyzed for ADMI color at natural pH.
Effluent samples will consist of 24-hour composites, while instream samples will be
collected as grabs. Samples will be analyzed by a state certified laboratory.
If data show that water quality standards for color are being violated by the discharge
permitted by the terms of this permit, then the Director may reopen this permit for the
purpose of imposing additional requirements pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114.
Alternatively, if future conditions change and color is no longer a component of the influent
wastestream, then the Permittee may request a permit modification to remove color permit
requirements.

Re: Gastonia permits
Subject: Re: G tonia permits
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:45:45 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Natalie Sierra <[e-mail]>
Natalie,
It looks like you have added the mercury testing change for 2003 and the
re -opener clause for possible weekly average ammonia limits. Thanks for
making these changes prior to issuing. Please send EPA a final permit
when issued.
Dee
Natalie Sierra
<Natalie.Sierra@n
cmail.net>
05/20/2002 12:48
PM
To:
cc:
Subject:
Dee Stewart/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
Gastonia permits
Dee-
Attached are the final permits for the City of Gastonia's two WWTPs.
Please send confirmation that it is OK to issue these.
Thanks,
Natalie
(See attached file: 74268_final.doc)(See attached file: 20184_final.doc)
(See attached file: Natalie.Sierra.vcf)
D74268 final.doc
Name: 74268final.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
13 20184 final.doc
Name: 20184final.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
DNatalie.Sierra.v
cf
Name: Natalie.Sierra.vcf
Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 5/28/02 9:35 AM

Re: City of Gastonia - Long Creek
•
Subject: R : City of Gastonia - Long Creek WWTP
Date: Tu , 14 May 2002 09:15:18 -0400
From: Br tt Setzer <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Mooresville Regional Office
To: NaItalie Sierra <[e-mail]>
Natalie,
I have completed the review of the referenced permit. Since this is a renewal
of an existing NPDES permit, I have no objection to the permit being reissued
provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated effluent
limits are met prior to discharge and the discharge doesn't contravene the
designated water quality standards.
Natalie Sierra wrote:
Britt -
Here is the Gastonia permit we spoke about. This "final" version of the
permit has not gone out yet and will not go out until I receive DEH
sign -off.
Thanks (and s rry about the mix-up),
Natalie
20184 final.doc
Name: 20184_final.doc
Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
issuance cover.doc
Name:
Type:
Encoding:
Download Status:
issuance cover.doc
WINWORD File (application/msword)
base64
Not downloaded with message
Britt Setzer - [e-mail]
Regional Engineer
North Carolina ept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of Enviro ental Health - Public Water Supply Section
919 N. Main St.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
DBritt.Setzer.vcf
Name: Britt.Setzer.vcf
Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
Encoding: 7bit
Description: Card for Britt Setzer
1 of 1 5/14/02 9:29 AM

hir(r
;era
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
-ReI er fD Oe11z Fde for
Comiolf z' Pulli'c 4earpTn
r{pot+
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe
FROM: Bobby Blowe
SUBJECT: Findings and Recommendations
Public Hearing held on August 28, 2001
February 8, 2002
Re: Renewal of NPDES permits
NC0005274
NC0006190
NC0074268
NC0020184
NC0025496
NC0044440
NC0040797
Yorkshire Americas, Inc.
Delta Apparel, Inc.
City of Gastonia, Crowder's Creek
City of Gastonia, Long Creek
City of Lincolnton
City of Cherryville
City of Hickory, Henry Fork
WAiERQLSECIKA
A'
As you requested, I served as Hearing Officer for a public hearing to obtain comments
relative to the proposed color removal requirements necessary for the renewal of the above listed
draft NPDES permits. The hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. on August 28, 2001 at the Citizen's
Resource Center in Dallas, NC. The hearing was held in response to numerous complaints about
the colored effluent plumes from some of the above permitted facilities. These plumes are
primarily due to the large number of textile dischargers in the Catawba River Basin.
BACKGROUND
15A NCAC 02B.0211(3)(f) states, in part, that colored wastes are allowed only in " such
amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or to
aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the
waters for any designated uses". Noticeably colored effluent from the above facilities, as well as
others, in the Catawba River Basin has been the subject of an ever increasing number of
complaints over the years. However, there has been no evidence collected by the Division, nor
presented by others, to indicate that these facilities are having anything other than an aesthetic
impact on the receiving stream.
Construction Grants and Loans Section
E-Mai dress www.nccgl.net
n h
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 [phone]
FAX [phone]
_44.10
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

Summary of Color Reduction in North Carolina
Influent/or
-Untreated Eff
(ADMI)
Treated Eff
Percent Color
Treatment
Volume
Treated—
(MGD)
Treatment
Bleach/Dye Mix
Facility
(ADMI)
Reduction—
(% reduction)
Method
Cost
($)
Flynt Fabrics
3000
200-400
87-93
reducing agent
0.5
$112,000 capital
40%bleach; 60% dyes
$103,500 O&M (300 d/yr)
America)
?
<50
?
polymer
0.15
$285,000 capital
?
$135,000 O&M (300d/yr)
Cone Mills
(Greensboro)
Cone Mills
3000
<100
>97
ultrafiltration+
polymer
ultrafiltration+
1.25
$895,000 capital
$250,000/yr O&M
100% dyed deni
(Cliffside)
3000
<100
>97
polymer+
0.9
$1,500,000 capital
100% dyed denim
AquaDisk filter
$60,000/yr O&M
City of Eden
500-10,000
.
(Mebane)
avg 2,000
<100
>95
polymer
13.5
$100,000 capital
?
$651,000/yr O&M
3 textile inputs
Belmont Dyers
2900
<25
99
electrochemical +
polymer
0.5
$4,500,000 capital
$1,200,000 O&M (325d/yr)
5% bleach; 95% dyes
Delta Apparel
1436
?
?
polymer
1
?
?
Data Sources:
Color Reduction and Removal Seminar, Charlotte, NC, June 17, 1998

/D/ q / 0

i itg of (6azf mtta
P. O. BOX 1748
16astuxtizt, Nurt11 (1lttrnlixm 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
August 17, 2001
r
v
C�
Ms. Natalie Sierra
NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, NPDES
NC0020184
City of Gastonia, Gaston County
Dear Ms. Sierra:
We appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
regarding the NPDES permitting issues for our facilities. The purpose of this letter to provide specific
comments on the subject draft NPDES permit dated July 20, 2001, which we received on July 31. We
have comments on several items in the draft permit including color requirements, nutrient limitations,
metals limitations/monitoring requirements, cyanide limitations, and other miscellaneous permit
requirements. We have organized our comments according to these topic areas.
Color Requirements
The City of Gastonia strongly supports DWQ's efforts to reduce color in the South Fork watershed
and statewide. As a result of this support, we were an active member of the Color Alliance to provide
information, upon which DWQ could develop a color policy.
We have reviewed the color policy dated June 5, 2001, in detail. The Color requirements in Part A.
(3) of our draft permit are directly based on this policy. However, the policy is not specifically
referenced in the permit. Hence the referral to the Long Creek facility in Part A. (3) and in footnote 4
of Part A. (1) as a "Tier 2 Facility" has no reference. Without the policy referenced in the permit, the
term "Tier 2" has no context.
As we have indicated in correspondence to David Goodrich/DWQ on July 13, 2001, we believe that
DWQ has inaccurately prioritized our Long Creek facility. As a result of the dramatic reductions in
color that have occurred at the Long Creek WWTP with the recent closure of an industrial

Ms. Natalie Sierra
Page 2
August 17, 2001
contributor, we believe this facility should be considered a Tier 1 facility. The Table below
demonstrates the dramatic reduction in color from monitoring data of the effluent collected before
and after the closure of an industrial contributor, Fleischmann's Yeast. The average ADMI color units
were reduced by well over an order of magnitude or about a 93 percent reduction.
Long Creek Effluent Color
(ADMI Color Units)
Statitistic
Without
With Industrial Industrial
Contribution' Contribution2
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
558 40
391 26
933 70
Notes: 1) Data from 11 /1 /2000 to 3/27/2001
2) Data from 4/10/2001 to 8/9/2001
Even prior to the closure of Fleischmann's Yeast (the industrial contributor who caused the effluent to
have a "teajlike" color), there was no downstream impact from color in the effluent. Since
Fleischmann's closed, the effluent is extremely clear. The only visible plume is of the clear effluent
discharging into a frequently "muddy" river. We do not believe a Pollution Prevention/BMP
(PP/BMP) study is needed at this time because color levels are quite low. We believe the color
monitoring with the reopener as proposed for Tier 1 facilities in the DWQ Color Policy should be
sufficient to monitor the problem and address concerns if they re -appear.
Color monitoring at the upstream and downstream sites is noted as weekly in the months April
through Ocober in Part A. (1) while it is noted as monthly for these months on the Color Permitting
Requirements in Part A. (3). We suggest that this discrepancy be clarified so that monthly instream
monitoring for color is clearly specified including observations of whether there is a color plume. We
would also like the permit to clearly indicate that no observation of the plume is required in
November through March.
Nutrient Requirements
The limitations for Total Nitrogen (TN) are concentration based that apply only during April through
October.
As indicated in previous correspondence, the City of Gastonia would prefer mass limits for TN. Our
preference i that the calculation for the mass limits be established as a monthly average value based
on permitted flow and a concentration of 6 mg/L TN. We believe these limitations should be
applicable during the months of April through October, as you have proposed for TN concentration.
Although we discussed an option with DWQ staff that would included the mass limitations plus an

Ms. Natalie Sierra
Page 3
August 17 2001
annual cap, we have specific problems at the Long Creek WWTP that preclude us from accepting any
requirements that could prevent maintenance activities during the winter as explained below.
During a recent expansion of the Long Creek WWTP from 8 to 16 MGD capacity, the wastewater
processes were modified to include biological nutrient removal. A key component of this system is a
denitrification basin — which is key to effective removal of TN in the system. As a result of problems
that occurrFd during construction, based upon an independent preliminary structural analysis, we
believe that this basin may have severe structural problems that may require periodic maintenance
throughout the year and significant annual maintenance during the winter. We are conducting further
investigations to determine the severity of the structural defects. Based on the preliminary report we
have received, we anticipate that this basin may require major renovation or replacement during the
course of the next permit term. Until pending litigation concerning the construction of this facility is
resolved acid until corrective measures are fully implemented, Gastonia must plan on a lengthy winter
maintenance period for this facility. In addition, TN mass limits during the summer also provide
flexibility for us to perform short term maintenance if necessary to avoid a catastrophic failure of this
system.
In conclusion, we would like DWQ to reconsider our request for mass based limits during the summer
months for the Long Creek facility. If this is not acceptable, we are willing to accept summer mass
based limits with an annual cap but include a schedule for compliance with the annual mass. This
schedule would need to extend nearly the entire permit term because of on -going litigation and the
time requirements to correct the basin problems.
Metals, Cyanide and Chloroform
We appreciate the elimination of several metals and chloride from monitoring requirements from an
earlier draft of the permit. Our consultant has reviewed your analysis of whether there is a reasonable
potential to exceed (RPE) water quality standards, Action Levels, or other criteria. We believe several
of the requirements are still not necessary. Comments on each pollutant are summarized below
Silver
A monitoring frequency of two times per month was recommended for silver. Only four of the 40
sample values used in the DWQ analysis actually had any detectable silver; therefore, 90 percent of
the samples were below the detection limit. This is consistent with the information included in the
permit application for an earlier review period. We believe that quarterly monitoring in conjunction
with the Long Term Monitoring Program (LTMP) through our Pretreatment requirements will be
sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no adverse aquatic effects.
Copper
A monitoring frequency of two times per month was recommended for copper. Only six of the 40
samples (15 percent) were above the chronic concentration (Action Level) of 38 ug/1 based on the
dilution at the IWC. We are not sure of the value of this monitoring since we have a pretty good
record of copper concentrations and no indication of a toxicity problem. While we will accept twice

Ms. Natalie Sierra
Page 4
August 17, 2001
per month monitoring, monthly monitoring is sufficient to track major changes over time as a result
of changing industrial contributions.
Molybdenum
A monitoring frequency of two times per month was recommended for molybdenum. There are
currently no NC standards/Action Levels or EPA criteria for molybdenum; therefore, we are
recommencing no monitoring of this parameter. If monitoring is required, the frequency should be
quarterly iri conjunction with the LTMP.
Antimony
A monitoring frequency of two times per month was recommended for antimony. There are currently
no NC stan ards/Action Levels for antimony. There is an EPA human health criterion. In examining
DWQ's RP analysis, it seems that a chronic criterion value of 14 was compared with a maximum
predicted concentration (MPC) of about 47 ug/L to determine monitoring was required. We do not
know the source of this criterion value of 14 ug/L but believe it is the human health protection
criterion based on water and fish consumption. This criterion should be allocated based on annual
average flow (AAQ) versus 7Q10 flow. Use of AAQ would allow a discharge of about 378 ug/L in
effluent before exceeding the criterion in the receiving water. Even considering the inappropriate use
of this criterion for chronic protection of aquatic life, the predicted instream level based on the 19
percent IWC is about 75 — considerably higher than the MPC. None of the 64 samples approach the
allowable concentrations; therefore, we believe that quarterly monitoring of this parameter in
conjunction with the LTMP is appropriate.
Chloroform
A monitoring frequency of two times per month was recommended for chloroform. There are
currently no NC standards; however there is an EPA criteria for human health of 154 ug/L. None of
the 65 samples were above the human health limit. We believe no monitoring for this pollutant is
necessary a d it is not included in our LTMP. If sampling is left in the permit, sampling for this
parameter s ould be "grab" sampling instead of "composite" in Part A.(1).
Cyanide
CH2M HILL's RPE analysis presented in the permit application identified that a limit for cyanide
was necessary. However, we do not agree with the approach taken for the limit in the draft permit.
The propos d limits are 10.8 ug/L as a weekly average and 22 ug/L as a daily maximum value. The
22 ug/L vale is based on one/half of the final acute value (FAV) while the 10.8 value has no
apparent basis. The calculated chronic level based on the IWC of 19 percent for cyanide should be 26
ug/L. We believe that this should be the basis for the weekly average permit limit. We also believe
that developing a limit based on meeting one-half the FAV in the discharge with no allowance for
dilution is ecessive and in this case would be less than the chronic based limit. We suggest no daily
maximum value for cyanide because the weekly average value is essentially a daily maximum with a
weekly monitoring requirement.

Ms. Natalie Sierra
Page 5
August 17 2001
Mercury
Based on previous efforts with DWQ regarding mercury, we negotiated mercury monitoring based on
a grab sample rather than composite and included a footnote in our limitations allowing values above
the detection level to be verified using EPA Method 1631. Our Crowders Creek Draft NPDES permit
includes thse requirements. We request that the sample type be modified to a grab sample and that
footnote 7 in Part A. (1) be modified to included the language of footnote 8 from the draft Crowders
Creek WR. ' permit.
Instream Monitoring Requirements
We are evaluating whether an alternative instream monitoring program coordinated through the Color
Alliance or other watershed organization will be of value to the City of Gastonia. We understand that
our monitoring requirements can be modified administratively without a permit modification if a
watershed based monitoring program that is acceptable to DWQ is developed. Please advice us if this
is not the case.
Miscellaneous Issues
We requestl that the limitation for total residual chlorine be a daily average value rather than a daily
maximum as we discussed in earlier correspondence.
The City would respectfully request consideration of above comments and looks forward to meeting
with DWQ staff on August 27. Please contact Larry Cummings at 704-854-6670 if you have any
questions regarding our comments
Sincerely,
Donald E. Carmichael, P.E.
Director of public Works and Utilities
CLT\LongPerm it0801.doc
c: D4iny Crew/City Manager
Asl(i Smith/Deputy City Attorney
Larry Cummings/Interim Wastewater Superintendent
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
David Goodrich/DWQ
CERTIFIEDI MAIL 7000 0600 0023 7549 0908
CHARL0TTE/003992-020/139645 v.2 08/17/01

DENRIDWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0020184
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Gastonia — Long Creek W W1'P
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 1748; Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Facility Address:
Spencer Mountain Road, Gastonia, North Carolina
Permitted F1gw
16.0 MGD
Type of Waste:
40% Domestic
60% Industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Class 1V/Active; Renewal
County:
Gaston County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Steam:
South Fork
Catawba River
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
WS-V
State Grid / USGS Quad:
FI4SE/Mount Holly,
NC
303(d) Listed?
No
Permit -Writer:
Natalie Sierra
Subbasin:
03-08-36
Date:
21 May01
Drainage Are (mi2):
558
1
Lat. 35° 18 37" N Long. 81 ° 06' 50" W
Summer 7Q1 ) (cfs)
109
Winter 7Q 10 (cts):
200
30Q2 (cfs) !
272
Average Flow (cfs):
-' 653
1 WC (%): 1
10.2
BACKGRO1IND
Long Creek WWTP is one of two wastewater treatment plants operated by the City of
Gastonia. The plant has a permitted flow of 16.0 MGD. The facility serves the central, northern
and eastern poritons of the City of Gastonia service area. In addition, the plant also accepts
wastewater from 19 significant industrial users (SIUs) and as such, has a full Long Term
Monitoring Program (LTMP) with the Pretreatment program. From August 1998-March 1999,
the City decommissioned its Catawba Creek WWTP and re-routed the waste to the Long Creek
plant. This project also involved relocation of the outfall from Long Creek to its current location
at the South F' rk Catawba River.
At the dime of the last permit renewal, the facility was having a number of compliance
problems. They had entered into an SOC for chronic toxicity, nickel, cyanide, cadmium, lead
and summer BOD limits. Under the terms of the 1997 SOC, the facility had to enforce
pretreatment and identify inflow and infiltration (I/I) problems. They also entered into a Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation (TRE) to determine the cause of the toxicity. The municipality has also
been working with DENR's Pollution Prevention program (PP), participating in both the
Common Sense Initiative and development of an Environmental Management System (EMS).
These measur • s should aid in the facility's compliance with NPDES permit limits.
Since 1998, the Long Creek plant has experienced far fewer compliance problems. Of ongoing
concern, however, are the periodic large sewer overflows that have occurred within the last two
years as well as the facility's inability to meet summer total nitrogen limits of 6 mg/L. The
facility has requested that the nitrogen limits be changed to mass -based loadings for the new
permit to aid 'n compliance. DWQ staff recommended a year-round mass loading based upon
summer limits of 6 mg/L and winter limits of 12 mg/L, but this was deemed unacceptable by the
City of Gasto 'a. The permit will be drafted with 6 mg/L summer limits unless the Planning
Branch reco ends otherwise.
This f cility forms a part of the South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance,
which, from pril to November 2000, undertook a study of color dischargers in the river.
Following the release of the Final Color Study Report (AWARE Environmental, Inc., March
2001.), the Division of Water quality began an effort to address the aesthetic concerns associated
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0020184 Renewal
Page 1

with the col r dischargers to the river. The result is the 2001 NPDES Color Permitting Policy,
under which Gastonia -Long Creek is classified as a Tier 2 facility. This classification requires
that the fac lity perform effluent and instream color monitoring and prepare a pollution
prevention r ort.
Instream Monitoring and Verification of Existing Conditions and DMR Data Review.
For toxicants, DMR data dating from January 1998 through December 2000 were
reviewed. For nutrients, DMR data from January 1999 through March 2001 were reviewed.
Average flow, from 1/99- 3/01 was with an average BOD of 5.93 mg/L. Total phosphorus
averaged 1.2 mg/L (slightly above the upcoming limit of 1 mg/L). Total nitrogen values
averaged 674 7 pounds per day (approximately equivalent to 11.3 mg/L).
Instre data were largely unavailable for this renewal. Under a special condition in the
previous pe 't, the plant would do an assessment of the downstream sampling points to
determine th dissolved oxygen (DO) sag point. Once completed, the permit could be reopened
to included stream sampling. This analysis was performed, and in this permit, the new
downstream sampling point will be just below the I-85 Bridge.
Long Creek also monitors for a broad range of metals due to the large industrial
contribution to its wastestream. Data from both the Pretreatment LTMP and the DMRs were
used to assess reasonable potential for silver, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead,
cyanide, nickel, arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, zinc, antimony, beryllium, chloride and
chloroform.
The facility has begun the process of applying for a collection system permit with the
non-discharg unit.
Results of Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA):
A reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was performed for all monitored parameters. It
was determined that there is reasonable potential for violations of instream standards of the
following:
• Cgpper
• Cyanide
• Silver
• Zinc
• Mercury
• M9I lybdenum
• Athimony
• Beryllium
• Chloroform
No reasonable potential exists for the following:
• Arsenic
• Cadmium
• C omium
• Led
• Ni kel
• Selenium
• Chloride
• Be Ilium
Coppe , silver, and zinc are all action level pollutants and no state standard exists for
molybo1enum so these compounds will be monitored only, not limited. The current
NPDESpermit limits cyanide and mercuryalready, as well as requiring monitoring for
Y Y
antimony and chloroform.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0020184 Renewal
Page 2

Correspon ence:
The acility was under SOC from late 1997-early 1999 for chronic toxicity, nickel,
cadmium, c anide, lead and summer BOD limits. The inspection reports describe the facility as
well maintained with problems in monitoring and reporting. The facility has received four
NOVs/NODs following inspections, largely for deficiencies in self -monitoring and laboratory
work. There have been several NOVs issued per year for permit effluent violations as well.
Since 1998, one cyanide, six fecal coliform, seven total nitrogen, nine TRC, four BOD5, one
mercury, thr a ammonia nitrogen and four total phosphorus violations have been reported.
Several of rebent bypass/overflow situations have been reported during the last permitting cycle.
PERMITTING STRATEGY AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Ther is concern about the contribution that the effluent from this plant makes to the
receiving str am in terms of both color and nutrients. The cessation of the Fleischmann's Yeast
discharge h significantly reduced effluent color and nitrogen in the past few months. To reflect
this decrease in color, Long Creek WWTP has been classified as a Tier 2 facility under the 2001
Color Permitting Strategy.
The facility has requested the following mercury footnote:
Mercury compliance is dependent on test results near the detection level. The permits should be
modified to allow for mercury samples to be collected with grab samples at all facilities. A footnote could
be added to the permit that allows detected mercury levels to be verified though clean analysis of true
split sam les. This could eliminate many compliance issues with this parameter.
Due o the results of the reasonable potential analysis, cadmium, and lead will be
monitored through the pretreatment LTMP. Beryllium and chloride will be removed from the
permit. The daily maximum limit for cyanide will change due to the change in the 1/2 FAV value.
Copper, silver, zinc, molybdenum and chloroform will be monitored 2/month through the
NPDES permit.
Items added to the 2001 permit Items removed from the 2001 permit
Color monitoring and special condition Cadmium and lead monitoring — now
monitored through LTMP only
Copper, silver, zinc and molbydenum Beryllium and chloride monitorin removed
monitoring
The water quality limited parameters in this permit are: BODs, NH3-N, fecal
coliform, tot 1 residual chlorine, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, cyanide, and mercury.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: July 27, 2001
Permit Scheduled to Issue: September 17, 2001
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0020184 Renewal
Page 3

City of Gastonia - Long Creek WWTP
Permit No: NC0020184
Permit Writer: Natalie Sierra
Review of Effluent Nutrient Data
Date
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Jun-00
Jul-00
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Nov-00
Dec-00
Jan-01
Feb-01
Mar-01
AVERAGE
MAX
MIN
Flow
(MGD)
5.4
5.7
7.1
6.3
7.3
7.6
7.24
7.32
7.11
7.6
7.08
7.04
7.64
7.93
7.72
7.99
7.3
7.09
6.67
7.31
7.92
7.14
7.09
7.06
6.64
6.6
7.57
7.13
7.99
5.4
Monthly Average Value
Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus NH3-N
TN mass loading based on
6 mg/I (summer limits)
12 mg/I (winter limits)
and average flow (7.13 MGD)
1070.0776 ppd
or 390578 ppy
Actual yearly average loading for TN
254697 ppy
Actual max loading (max load " 365)
426935.025 ppy
Actual min loading (min load * 365)
143810 ppy
(ppd)
702.56
988.79
633.59
951
905.8
847
469.2
425.75
467.4
559.2
394
839.8
568.2
852.75
523.6
541.09
583.25
586.58
481.18
456.02
532.39
631.20
720.21
1015.10
1093.71
1169.69
901.55
697.8
1169.7
394
(mg/L) (mg/L)
3.9 8.1
3.4 0.2
2.3 1.7
2.2 2.5
3.4 0.7
1.1 0.2
1.44 0.12
0.6 0.43
0.5 0.15
0.4 0.25
0.92 0.28
0.99 2.15
0.96 0.88
0.6 9.05
0.98 2.35
0.84 0.23
0.7 0.11
1 0.1
0.96 0.1
0.44 0.03
0.32 0.13
0.36 0.14
0.38 0.14
0.9 1.17
0.65 2.92
0.88 6.22
0.88 0.14.
1.2 1.5
3.9 9.05
0.32 0.03

Yellow highlighting indicates that value was derived by multiplying
the [average N] by the average flow by 8.34 (conversion factor)
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) X Flow (MGD) X 8.34 = Total Nitrogen (ppd)
Data Follows on next page
Date TN (mg/L)
Jan-99 15.6
Feb-99 20.8
Mar-99 10.7
Apr-00 8.12
May-00 9.58
Jun-00 9.92
JuI-00 8.65
Aug-00 7.48
Sep-00 8.06
Oct-00 10.6
Nov-00 12.18
Dec-00 17.24
Jan-01 19.75
Feb-01 21.25
Mar-01 14.28

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
City of Gastonia
Long Cieek WWTP
NC0020184
Time Period Jan 1998 thru Oct 2000
Ow (MGD) 8
7O,0S (ds) 109
3002 (cis) 272
7. Stream Flow. 1OA (cis) 653
Rec'vin Stream South Fork Catawba River
Summary for 8.0 MGD
« For Instructions, See RED TAB (cell Al).
WWTP Class 4
IWC(%)®7010S 10.2
0 3002 4.4
0OA 1.9
Stream Class WS-V
STANDARDS &
PARAMETE - TYPE* CRITERIA
NCWOS S%FAY
PQL
REASONABLE
POTENTIAL
RESULTS
PRELIMINARY
RESULTS
Silver NC 0.06
01.1
Cadmium NC 2 15
Chromium NC 50 1.022
Copper NC 7 7.3
(At)
Mercury NC 0.012
Lead NC 25 33.e
Cyanide NC 5.003 22
Nickel NC 65 261
Arsenic A so.o
Selenium NC 5.0
Molybdenum Nc 0.06 1.23
(ALI
Zinc NC 50 67
(AL)
na 11
Max Prod Cw 26.0
Allowable Cw (acute) NIA
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0.5874
^--- - n a 82
Max Pred Cw 3.2
Allowable Cw (aculo) 15
Allowable Cw (chronic) 20
n a 17
Max Pred Cw 100.3
Allowable Cw (acute) 1,022
Allowable Cw (chronic) 490
n 11
2 Max Pred Cw 510.0
Allowable Cw (acute) 7
Allowable Cw (chronic) 69
n.28
Max Prod Cw 0.7
Allowable Cw (acute) NIA
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0
n.18
Max Prod Cw 6.2
Allowable Cw (acute) 34
Allowable Cw (chronic) 245
na20
0.2 Max Prod Cw 51.570
Allowable Cw (acute) 22
Allowable Cw (chronic) 48.952
na 18
5 Max Pred Cw 399.0
Allowable Cw (acute) 261
Allowable Cw (chronic) 882
- - - --- n e 34 -----
Max Pred Cw 10.8
Allowable Cw (acute) WA
Albwabto Cw (chronic) 2.683
Max Prod Cw • 11.1
Allowable Cw (acute) WA
Allowable Cw (chronic) 49
Max Prod Cw • 70.1
Allowable Cw (acute) 1.2
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0.8
n.41
10 Max Pred Cw 1007.6
Allowable Cw (acute) 87
Allowable Cw (chronic) 490
MaxPredCw « Allowable Cw
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
MaxPredCw « Allowable Cw
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
MaxPredCw « Allowable Cw
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
MaxPredCw > Action Level
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. LIMIT
MaxPredCw > 12 FAV
RECOMMENDED ACTION
No limit or monitoring necessary in NPDES permit.
Monitoring may still be required under LIMP.
No limit or monitoring necessary In NPDES permit.
Monitoring may still be required under LTMP.
No limit or monitoring necessary M NPDES permit.
Monitoring may still be required under LTMP.
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit al this timo since no standard in place.
Set daily max. Limit = 22 uglL
MONITOR? Require monitoring 2/week
WK. AVG. LIMIT
MaxPredCw < Atlrwabte Cw
sNo limit or monitoring necessary in NPDES permit.
MONITOR? Monitoring may still be required under LIMP.
MONITOR?
MaxProdCw < Allowable Cw
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. UMIT
MaxPredCw < Allowable Cw
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
MONITOR?
)axPredCw > NCWOS (narrativ
Antimony
NC
n 64
Max Prod Cw
Allowable Cw (acute)
Allowable Cw (chronic)
46.9
NIA
0
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
MaxPredCw = NCWOS
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
MaxPredCw > Action Level
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. UMIT
MaxPredCw > Action Level
No limit at this time •
Re-evaluate when new plant comes on -fine.
Require monitoring 2Meek.
•
No limit or monitoring necessary in NPDES permit.
Monitoring may stitl be required under LTMP.
e)
Require monitoring 2lweek, narrative NCWOS
applies to water supply waters only.
No Limit at this limo
Ro•evatuate when new plant comes on•5ne.
Require monitoring 2/week.
Require monitoring 2hvoek
No limit at this time wince no standard in place.
Require monitoring 2/week
DAILY MAX. LIMIT No limit at this time since no standard in place.
WK. AVG. LIMIT
MaxPredCw > Action Level t
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit at this time since no standard in piece.
Beryllium
0.006e 0.117
Chloride
NC
250033
Chloroform
'Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
n.85
Max Prod Cw
Allowable Cw (acute)
Allowable Cw (chronic)
1.2
0.1170
0.1560
MaxPredCw > Action Level
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. LIMIT
ALL DATA ARE NON DETECTS
No limit at this time
n.85
Max Prod Cw 1368.0
Albwablo Cw (acute) WA
Atbwable Cw (chronic) 2.447.581
MaxProdCw > Action Level
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
Require monitoring 2lweck
No limit at this time since no standard in place.
na85
Max Prod Cw
Allowable Cw (acule)
iAi1owable Cw (chronic)
Freshwater Discharge
207.9
WA
0
MaxPredCw > Action Level
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit at thus time since no standard in place.
Long Creek RPA 8 MGD
5/16/01

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
City of Gastonia
Long Creek WWTP
NC0020184
Time Pedal Jan 1998 thru Oct 2000
Ow (MGO) 16
7010S (cis) 109
3002 (cis) 272
g. Stream Row. OA (cls) 653
Rec vi Stream South Fork Catawba River
PARAMETE
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
TYPE'
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Cyanide NC
c
i
Nickel
Arsenic
Selenium
NC
A
Molybdenum,.
Zinc
Antimony
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA
NCWOS %FAY
0.08
(AL)
2 15
50 1,022
T 7.3
(Lt
NC
NC
NC
NC
Beryllium i C
Chloride
Chloroform
i
NC
0.012
25 33.8
5.000 22
M 261
50.0
5.0
006 123
Wt)
50 87
IALI
0.0088 0.117
250030
POL
Summary for 16.0MGD
« For Instructions, See RED TAB (cell A1).
WWTP Class 4
!WC(%) 0 7010S 18.5
@ 3002 8.4
0 OA 3.7
Stream Class WS-V
REASONABLE
POTENTIAL
RESULTS
PRELIMINARY
RESULTS
n = 11 AA=.Pra.nr:,.. « at4.,,.shIn rl.,
Max Pred Cw 28.0
Allowable Cw (acute) N/A MONITOR?
Nbwable Cw (chronic) 0.3237 WK. AVG. LIMIT
n = 62 MaxPredCw « Allowable Cw
Max Pred Cw 3.2
Allowable Cw (acute) 15 MONITOR?
Allowable Cw (chronic) 11 MONITOR?
n = 17 i MaxPredCw <c Allowable Cw
5 Max Pred Cw 100.3
Allowable Cw (acute) 1,022 l MONITOR?
Allowable Cw (chronic) 270 MONITOR?
n = 11 MaxPredCw > Acllon Level
2 Max Pred Cw 510.0
Allowable Cw (acute) 7 DAILY MAX. LIMIT
Allowable Cw (chronic) 38 } WK. AVG. LIMIT
n = 26 MaxPredCw> 1/2 FAV
Max Pred Cw 0.7
Allowable Cw (acute) N/A: MONITOR?
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0 WK. AVG. LIMIT
- - - - n = 18 MaxPredCw < Allowable Cw
Max Pred Cw 8.2
Nbwable Cw (acute) 34 MONITOR?
Allowable Cw (chronic) 135 MONITOR?
n = 20 MaxPredCw < Allowable Cw
02 Max Pred Cw 51.570
Abwable Cw (awls) 22 DAILY MAX. LIMIT
Allowable Cw (chronic) 26.978 , WK. AVG. LIMB
n = 18 MaxPredCw < Allowable Cw
Max Pred Cw 399.0
Allowable Cw (acute) 281 DAILY MAX. LIMIT
_ Allowable Cw (chronic) 475 MONITOR?
n = 34 axPredCw > NCWOS (narrativ
Max Pied Cw 10.8
Allowable Cw (acute) N/A MONITOR?
Allowable Cw (chronic) 1.367 MONITOR?
n = 34 MaxPredCw = NCWOS
Max Pred Cw 11.1
Allowable Cw (acute) WA MONITOR?
Nbwable Cw (chronic) 27 MONITOR?
n = 37 MaxPredCw > Action Level
Max Pred Cw 70.1
Allowable Cw (acute) 1.2 DAILY MAX. LIMIT
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0.3 WK. AVG. LIMIT
n = 41 MaxPredCw > Action Level
10
Max Pred Cw
Allowable Cw (acute)
Allowable Cw (chronic)
n 65
Max Pred Cw
Allowable Cw (acute)
Alowable Cw (dvanlo)
Max Pied Cw 1007.6
Allowable Cw (acute) 67
Allowable Cw (chronic) 270
n = 84
46 9 =
NA
0
1.2
0.1170
0.0814
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. LIMIT
MaxPredCw > Action Level
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
No limit necessary in NPDES permit.
2/week morolonng may sill be required
No limit or monitoring necessary in NPDES penn0.
Monitoring may still be required under LTMP.
No limit or monitoring necessary in NPDES permit.
Monitoring may still be required under LTMP.
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit al this time since no standard In place.
Set daily max. limit = 22 uglL
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit or monitoring necessary In NPDES perm8.
Monitoring may still be required under LTMP.
No limit at this time -
Monitoring may still be required under LIMP.
No limit or monitoring necessary in NPDES pennli.
Monitoring may still be required under LTMP.
Require monitoring quarterly. nanat5e NCWOS
applies to water supply waters only.
No limit at this time •
No limit al this lime since no standard in place.
Require monitoring 27week
No limit at this Limo since no standard in place.
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit at this line since no alandard In place.
MaxPredCw > Action Level
ALL DATA ARE NON DETECTS.
DAILY MAX. LIMIT No limit at this lime
WK. AVG. LIMIT
n 85
Max Pred Cw 1388.0
Allowable Cw (acute) WA
Allowable Cw (chronic) 1,348,790
MexPradCw > Action Lwel
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit at Ihia tirrie since no standard in place.
'legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
n=655
Max Pred Cw
Allowable Cw (acute)
Allowable Cw (chronic)
207.9
WA
0
MaxPredCw > Action Level
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
" Freshwater Discharge
Require monitoring 2/week
No limit at this time since no standard in place.
Re-evaluate when new plan) comes on-line.
Long Creek RPA, X- MGD
511&01

NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
2-I2-\ ku\
Date of Request
Facility C. \\---k \ Ljcxa14:r-Ni cam-- L c.l v, C, re e K
J
Permit # tic_- c,O 2..e\ g'-k
Region ' =v:x -env,\\�
Requestor `\c,-Vo_1\e S:e .rro,.
Pretreatment A_D Towns- Keyes McGee (ext. 580)
Contact E-L Towns- Deborah Gore (ext. 593)
M-R Towns- Dana Folley (ext. 523)
S-Z Towns- Steve Amigone (ext 592)
PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (circle all that apply)
1) the facility has no SIU's and does have a Division approved Pretreatment Program that isINACTIVE
2) the facility has no SIU's and does not have a Division approved Pretreatment Program
the facility as or is eveloping) a Pretreatment rogram
is Full Program with LTMPI - or 2b) is Modified Program with STMP
4) the facility MUST develop a Pretreatment Program - Full Modified
5) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow Permitted Actual C)
% Industrial 3.9 Z. S 0.,
STMP time frame:
most recent
gg rr c,D eg
next cycle
% Domestic y S 91 4-
(S)
T
MP
Pollutant
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/Non-
Discharge
Permit Limit
Required
by EPA'
Required by
503 Sludge"
POC due 10 SIU **
Site specific POC (Provide Explanation)•••'
STMP
Frequency
effluent
V
at
LTMP OD-
Frequency at
effluent
,)i-
BOD
✓
4
Q) M
VTSS
✓
,..,
4
Q
M
-vNH3
✓
✓
4
Q/M
' —"Arsenic
✓-
4
Q) M
'J
Cadmium
✓
q
✓
N/
4
Q M
Chromium
a
r/
✓
4
Q M
4
Copper
q
✓
4
Q M
✓Cyanide
�/
4
Q M
' 4
Lead
�/
4
Q M
' ✓Mercury
✓
✓
✓
4
Q M
' ✓Molybdenum
�/
4
Q M
' �'
Nickel
�/
4
Q M
✓Silver
✓
4
M
'✓Selenium
✓
4
M
�I
Zinc
-
�/
✓
4
M
' ✓"Cat&A
to
✓
4
M
,:r
-vbkaX ' ,o%
v"
4
M
- '"
Ar.V.+,,,rov.,l
1 v''4
Q M
`�
�er�\1iuwl.
✓
4
Q
M
1 ✓
4
Q
M
,✓C\,.\or,d.e.
`/�\..�o�o�r,h
✓
4
M
'Always in the LTMP
—Only in the LTMP if the POTW land appl es sludge
•" Only in LTMP while the SIU is connected to the POTW
""'" Only in LTMP when the pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ex -Chlorides for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
0= Quarterly
M=Monthly
Comments: Lb G'ro.,,.. \lw(A S Its l o o . \/.): A gy) A-o ,,.Aoh44. 1q Zoo rf .
L-C 'r`np c1.0,-\c, S on --0mR. - ,_\,.ec.ke d. i „ cc ...-1---r,1 1=, to s 2-/2-3/6 I .
version 8/23/00
v
v
V
i
NPDES_Pretreatment. request.form.000823
Revised: August 4, 2000

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
11 r 1(
tnonpa)Lj-le
Lr
NrsiK.U1 PtoN.
l(k1ten.
City of Gastonia
Long Creek WWTP
NC0020184
Time Period Jan 1998 thru Oct 2000
Qw (MGD) 16
7QTOS (cfs) 109
3042 (cfs) 272
g. Stream Flow, QA (cis) 653
RecLing Stream South Fork Catawba River
Summary for 16.0MGD
<o For Instructions, See RED TAB (cell Al).
WVVTP Class 4
ANC (%)@7Q10S 18.5
@ 3002 8.4
@ QA 3.7
Stream Class WS-V
PARAMETER
TYPE'
STANDARDS S
CRITERIA
NCWQS 'A FAV
PQL
REASONABLE
POTENTIAL
RESULTS
PRELIMINARY
RESULTS
Silver
NC
0A6
(AL)
n • 11
Max Pred Cw 26.0
Allowable Cw (acute) N/A
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0.3237
MaxPredCw «Allowable Cw
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
Cadmium
NC
2 15
n • 62
Max Pred Cw 3.2
Allowable Cw (acute) 15
Allowable Cw (chronic) 11
MaxPredCw «Allowable Cw
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
Chromium
NC
50 1,022
5
n • 17
Max Pred Cw 100.3
Allowable Cw (acute) 1,022
Allowable Cw (chronic) 270
MaxPredCw «Allowable Cw
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
Copper
NC
7 71
(AL)
7
n • 11
Max Pred Cw 510.0
Allowable Cw (acute) 7
Allowable Cw (chronic) 38
MaxPredCw > Action Level
DAILY MAX. UMIT
WK. AVG. UMIT
Mercury
NC
001?
n • 26
Max Pred Cw 0.7
Allowable Cw (acute) N/A
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0.0647
MaxPredCw > 12 FAV
MONITOR?
INK. AVG. UMIT
Lead
NC
25 338
5
n • 18
Max Pred Cw 6.2
Allowable Cw (acute) 34
Allowable Cw (chronic) 135
MaxPredCw <Allowable Cw
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
Cyanide
NC
5000 22
02
n • 20
Max Pred Cw 51.570
Allowable Cw (acute) 22
Allowable Cw (chronic) 26.976
MaxPredCw < Allowable Cw
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. LIMIT
Nickel
NC
88 261
5
n • 18
Max Pred Cw 399.0
Allowable Cw (acute) 261
Allowable Cw (chronic) 475
MaxPredCw < Allowable Cw
DAILY MAX. UMIT
MONITOR?
Arsenic
A
50,0
n • 34
Max Prod Cw 10.8
Allowable Cw (acute) N/A
Allowable Cw (chronic) 1.367
axPredCw > NCWOS (narrativ.
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
• elenlum
NC
50
n• 34
Max Pred Cw 11.1
Allowable Cw (acute) NIA
Allowable Cw (chronic) 27
MaxPredCw • NCWOS
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
'Molybdenum
NC
006 173
(AO
n • 37
MaxPredCw 70.1
Allowable Cw (acute) 1.2
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0.3
MaxPledCw> Action Level
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. LIMIT
Zinc
NC
50 67
565)
10
n • 41
Max Pred Cw 1007.6
Allowable Cw (acute) 67
Allowable Cw (chronic) 270
MaxPredCw> Action Level
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
WK. AVG. LIMIT
Antimony
NC
n • 64
Max Pred Cw 46.9
Allowable Cw (acute) N/A
Allowable Cw (chronic) 5h
MaxPredCw > Action Level
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
Beryllium
c
00068 0.117
n • 65
Max Pred Cw 1.2
Allowable Cw (acute) 0.1170
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0.0814
MaxPledCw > Action Level
DAILY MAX. LIMIT
INK. AVG. UMIT
Chloride
NC
250000
n = 65
Max Pred Cw 1368.0
Allowable Cw (acute) WA
Allowable Cw (chronic) 1,348,790
MaxPredCw > Action Level
MONITOR?
MONITOR?
Chloroform
NC
n • 65
MaxPredCw 207.9
Allowable Cw (acute) WA
Allowable Cw (chronic) 0
MaxPredCw > Action Level
MONITOR?
WK. AVG. LIMIT
' Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
Long Creek RPA X- MGD
521/01

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary May 16,2001
FACILITY REQUIREMENT YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gastonia -Long Cr. W Wlp Perm chr lim: 10%; upon cap to16MGD chr lim 19%
NC0020184/001 Begin:11/1/1998 Frequency: Q P/F + Mar Jun Sep Dec + NonComp:Single
County: Gaston Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB36
PF: 8.0 special
7Q10: 109 IWC(%):I 0 Order.
1997 -
1998 -
1999 -
2000 -
2001 -
28.1
>40
Pass
Pau
'80
46.5 - - 48 - 692
Pass Pass - Pass
P8136 - - Pass - - Pass
Pass - - Pass - - Pass
GE Lighting Systems Perm 24hr LC50 ac monit epis Ilhd (grab); chr lim: 72% when p. 1997 - >100.100 - >100 - >100
NC0000507/001 Begin:8/1/1996 Frequency: SOWD/A NonComp: 1998 - - - >100 - -
County: Henderson Region: ARO Subbasin: FRB02 1999 >100
PF: 0.50 Special 2000 - - - >100
7Q10: 0.30 IWC(%):72.1 Order: 2001 --
GE Lighting Systems Perm chr lim: 61 % (Grab)
NC0000507/009 Begin 8/1/1996—Frequency: Q P/F + Mar_JunScp Deo
County. Henderson Region: ARO Subbasin: FRB02
PF: 0.3 Special
7Q10: 0.3 IWC(%):61.0 Order.
NonComp:Single -
1997 - -- H - - H - - Fait H
1998- - - Pass -- -- Pass - - Pass,Pass -
1999 - -- Pass - Pass - - Fall <30.5 H
2000 H H H H H H H H H H H
2001 H H H
Pass
Pass
H
H
GE lighting Systems Perm 24hr LC50 ac monit epis Ithd (grab) 1997 - >100
NC0000507/002 Begin:8/1/1996 Frequency: 50WD/A NonComp: 1998 - -
County: Henderson Region: ARO Subbasin: FR1302 1999 -
PF: VAR Special 2000 -
7Q10: 0.3 IWC(%):NA Order: 2001 -
>100
82
>100
>100
>100
>100,>100 -
GE Lighting Systems Perm 24hr LC50 ac monit epis ithd (grab)
NC0000507/004 Begin8/1/1996 Frequency: 50WD/A NonComp:
County: Henderson Region: ARO Subbasin: FR1302
PF: VAR Special
7Q10: 0.3 IWC(%):NA Order:
1997 - >100 >100 - - - - - - 58.4 >100,44.1 -
1998 - - - - - >100 - - - -
1999 - - - - - >100 - - -
2000 - - - - >100 - - - - - -
2001
GE Lighting Systems Penn 24hr LC50 ac monit epis (Old (gab) 1997 >100 >too >too - - - - - - >100 >100,>100 -
NC0000507/005 Begtin:8/1/1996 Frequency: 50WD/A NonComp: 1998 - - - - - >100 - - - -
County: Henderson Region: ARO Subbasin: FRB02 1999 - - - - >100 - - - - --
PF: VAR Special 2000 - - - - - >100
7Q10: 0.3 IWC(%):NA Ord= 2001 - -
GE Lighting Systems Perm 24 hr LC50 ac monit epis Mid (grab) 1997 - >100 >100
NC0000507/006 Begin:8/I/1996 Frequency:5OWD/A NonComp: 1998 - - -
County: Henderson Region: ARO Subbasin FRB02 1999 - - -
PF: VAR Special 2000 - - -
7Q10:0.3 IWC(%):NA Order: 2001 - -
>1- 00
>100 -
>100
>100 >100,>100
GE Lighting Systems Perm 24hr LC50 ac monit epis Ithd (gab) 1997 - >too >100 - -- - - >100 >100,>100 -
NC0000507/008 Begite8/1/1996 Frequency:50WD/A NonComp: 1998 - - - - -- >100 -- - - - -
County: Henderson Region: ARO Subbasin: FRB02 1999 - - - - -- >100 - -- - - -
PF: VAR Special 2000 - - -- --- >100 -- -- -
7Q10: 0.3 1WC(%):NA Order: 2001 -
Genoa Ind. W WTP PERM 24HR AC P/F LIM: 90% FIND 1007
NC0030392/001 Begin4/1/1994 Frequency: Q + Feb May Aug Nov NonComp:SINGLE 1998
County. Wayne Region: WARO Subbasin: NEU05 1999
PF: 0.40 Special 2000
7Q10: 270 IWC(%):0.23 Order. 2001
Pass
Pass
Late
Pass
Pass
Puss
NR - -.- Pass- -. Pass
- Pass - -- Pass -- -- Passsig -
- >100 - - Pass -- Late NR
- Pass -- -- Pass - Pass --
Glen Raven 51111s Penn chr lim: 2.6% 9 1997 -- Pass - Pass - - Pass -- -- Pass
NC0003913/001 Begin:9/1/1997 Frequency: Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 1996 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass Pass
County: Alamance Region WSRO Subbasin: CPF01 1999 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
PF: 0.15 Special 2000 - Pass -- - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
7Q10: 8.7 IWC(%):.6 Order: 2001 - Pass
Global Nuclear Fuel -Americas, LLC Penn 24hr p/f ac lim: 90% 9 1997 Pass - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
NC0001228/00I Begin:911/1996 Frequency: Q P/F + Jan Apr Jul Oct NonComp:Single 1998 Pass - -- Pass - - Pass Pass
County: New Hanover Region WIRO Subbasin: CPFI7 1999 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - Pass
PF: 1.8 Special 2000 Late Pass Pass - Pass - - Pass
7Q10: 27.0 IWC(%)9.37 Order. 2001 Pass - -
I' Pre 1997 Data Available
LEGEND;
PERM = Permit Requirement LET = Administrative Letter - Target Frequency = Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly; BM- Bimonthly; SA- Semiannually; A• Annually; OWD- Only when discharging; D- Discontinued monitoring requirement
Begin = First month required 7Q10 = Receiving stream low flow criterion (cfs) + •• quanerly monitoring increases to monthly upon failure or NR Months that testing must occur - ex. Jan, Apr, Jul. Oct NonComp = Current Compliance Requirement
IT = Permitted flow (MGD) IWC/e - Inslream waste concentration P/F = Pass/Fail test AC = Acute CHR = Chronic
Data Notation: f - Fathead Minnow; • - Ceriodaphnia sp.; my - Mysid shrimp; ChV - Chronic value; P - Mortality of stated percentage at highest concentration; at - Performed by DWQ Aquatic Tox Unit; bt - Bad test
Reporting Notation: - = Data not required; NR - Not reported Facility Activity Status: I - Inactive, N - Newly Issucd(To construct); H - Active but not discharging; t-More data available for month in question; • = ORC signature needed
22

TABLE 4
Potential Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements -Permitted Discharge to S. Fork Catawba River
Effluent Characteristics
LIMITS MONITORING -REQUIREMENTS —
Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample
Average Average Maximum Frequency Location'
Flow 16.0 MGD Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (April 1 — October 31) 5.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L Daily Composite E, I
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (November 1 — March 31) 10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Daily Composite E, I
TSS2 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite E, I
NH3-N (April 1 — October 31) 2.0 mg/L Daily Composite E
NH3-N (November 1 — March 31) 4.0 mg/L Daily Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen3 Daily Grab E,
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Daily Grab E
Temperature Daily Grab E,
Total Residual Chlorine 28.0 ug/L Daily Grab E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) 800 lbs/day4 Weekly Composite E
Total Phosphorus 133 lbs/day Weekly Composite E
Chronic Toxicity5 Quarterly Composite E
Cyanides 27 ug/L 119 ug/L Weekly Grab , E
Mercury' 0.065 ug/L Weekly Grab E
Chloride 2/month Composite E
NPDES TM_FINAL.DOC 7 152907.A0.01

Lai 6'7Or
LoNG
CO
tzp_— comvevris
Ev (6eJ
N eN TS —
woo- kc`7f'trzs
CUfremt ki : n SAM eY
�✓ aztion
col a 0ti
ruC YC4 CQ4a,o ,c-n_ bQ;n W? LQ d) f 2c j ✓Y4'4-4
S c-IER- % I L,\ c a 1 v-10 ,
(nctj livuto i N61 t
h;-+-s
60
ANNOLL C 0. 4
C0?19-Ele- a
'I I NSA /n
�Q�►c-� C = 51 1 �.
Wo„Airi No t1Ulbv-,_
SI
•1111- YN-1 CRTk -�
.AK CL)31-4° ' 9 3
1L
1/4)
1/4
aittotzefl l /116
cAhitv di4d/sALP t()/
/d gitruid/
•
11.0-t5,0(L
psi
03)
04'1 `&ks S
MxQS U1.0��
`Ali`'at 1,�09
gra
WM4 ))4L4
kte d?-(akke

I.JNb ()Cal(
/1/9 Ab421 VAS ee1/11, deS
016imMf �u
il\131-)2-0H CAN X-C4 '73 ribb )01 - oe, 51/ -2
' /' /GUSL394)
PA!HEX - 01( -
(140)@ecS
CoLog_-- A _o
NrT12iEYi -�
uXn4 &gat&
daio CoAll it711 Z_
1.kii rd(Y I'��victS
"a° -b1;-'h -f
SILv-3
e,) -- a b'
AuaA)CIA) -0,1).,-c (acae-
Mel k
°u r 271r —} Uti M uNl y
61vm2_ inarrecfGya lied _ � 11�1�E
a ll hai� -b
9an ko-/- Ina dPy/L
RAM
I,
RAC
42.043
godi

)fis-frecor blioAireq,
$iIl° torvW- �SIGno�or a 2 vv10+14-)
00\mpliamce ex4-er'kslon ,(X � fefrOad'e 62xll:wvuu(
Oki ILOLgtil°
GA\T-cALL___
cog - q-X -375 2
E oa-I_ L\
sl(912)k d
7(L( (90-4
,a/ 4114 htiod/iadAlk&
11) ')1 C11
tpg gaddi
/./
/72
/11 j41-1(!t" -)1/60,1
12
) )

NC0020184 - Gastonia Long Creek WWII
Subject: NC0020184 - Gastonia Long Creek WWTP
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:44:05 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
ncmail.net
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Natalie,
Thank you for you 2/18/02 e-mail providing the average Fluoride
concentration in the City of Gastonia's treated drinking water of 1.08
mg/1. This is below the NC water quality standard for Fluoride and
therefore no r asonable potential exists and a limit is not needed.
Please note that this permit is still being held by EPA R4 due to its
lack of weekly average limits for NH3-N per 40 CFR 122.45(d)(1).
Additionally, this permit includes a daily maximum mercury limit with a
mercury quantification level recommended as 0.2 ug/1. This is
inconsistent with EPA approved methods 1669 and 1631C listing the
detection limit for mercury as 0.0005ug/l. The recent NC IG Report
documented that NC should require more sensitive analytical methods as
they become available. The use of a 0.2 ug/1 rather than a 0.0005 ug/1
detection limit is not consistent with the IG recommendation.
Additionally, NC Water Quality Standards list a mercury criterion of
0.012 ug/1 and the use of a 0.2 ug/1 detection limit is not sufficient
to determine compliance with the NC standards. An appropriate sensitive
detection limit should be used in this permit, per 40 CFR Part 136, 40
CFR 122.41(j)(4) and 40 CFR 123.44(c)(5). This issue would be the basis
of an EPA objection and is being discussed for several permits.
Dee Stewart
404/562-9334
1 of 1
5/9/02 11:04 AM

City of Gastonia - Long Creek
Subject: City o Gastonia - Long Creek
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:08:07 -0500
From: Stew [e-mail]
To: natalie.sierraC ncmail.net
Natalie,
I have the following questions/comments concerning the City of Gastonia
- Long Creek, kc 0020184.
1) The application used was the EPA Standard Form A which includes a
"Believed Present" checklist of pollutant parameters. Fluoride was
listed as believed present parameter with NC numeric water quality
standards and ± did not see any data contained in the file which would
enable a reasonable potential determination. Please explain how RP
was determined for this parameter.
2) Suggest that at a future date winter loading limits for NH3-N be
considered.
Thank you for your response.
Dee Stewart
EPA R4
404/562-9334
1 of 1
2/11/02 3:50 PM

Draft NPDES Permits for Gastonia
Subject: Draft NPDES Permits for Gastonia
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2001 07:57:34 -0400
From: "Cummings, Larry" <[e-mail]>
To: "Natalie Sierra (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Carmichael, Don" <[e-mail]>,
"Bill Kreutzberger P.E. (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
Natalie,
Thank you for
27th open for
to seeing you
forwarding the draft permits to us. I will keep August
your visit with the hearing officer, and we look forward
then.
We may have more comments after we have had time to review the permits
thoroughly, but one item immediately caught my attention. The Crowders
permit lists T tC as a daily average, while the Long permit lists TRC as -a,
al0114911WRIMum. We discussed this issue when you and Dave met with us
earlier, and it was my understanding that we could get the daily average
TRC in the -Long permit if we requested it in writing. We did request
the daily average TRC for both permits in our correspondence to Dave,
dated July 13th-perhaps this request didn't make it to your attention
before the draft permits were issued. In any case, the daily average
TRC is an important issue for us, and we would respectfully request that
the State consider listing the TRC as a daily average in both the
Crowders and Long permits.
Thanks and looking forward to seeing you on the 27th,
Larry Cummings
Interim Superintendent WWTD
City of Gastonia
1 of 1 7/26/01 S:57 AM

/Oa- der-EK' '10C off/
2cN& 019
Ciiry l)u & R f D.E. To
C A\ N J T h2-t I 10 74 L.
TOR 0X-,61--,t CO'-'(NccD
5 r1LL rya 773 Go i V
row\{ 2 Th P,�
Grpv �g'p. G�Z c'�Y. AS
74'2 el -VT b\k%Ste£ CEms+ L-, ' -n,v ?co-nurvS
C;— �,r a Lis-,s-z ,AN c` (^ (62,C)00
` t
l�'C�P�.iv rst : 5ScS �I �Uk iC a�S /Po c_
Qi ° siomZr� i� 1}� ��Ci �� 3QCT rI� cn5 Pt
ReAri i---1v tr.", 'L' b� Yl �l i �� { i M 1,/to V'o' S-fit-- L., IN .r Js.Nt\-L-rc
94;C. J �c`M C'crib-&
�IY
CxVecr5 "b- S 1t'1L
Cr�ZM 1a)LL RLsc )11-2 gT>P
150-D5 a-
6 N - .C5x , C E11):7 S "PE? - �4 T
c i A l .c C -, yr i t,/u 4 i L_A wo) rs „,Z Q:y ��
6� uc 1 L W =1-1 �� s s'! rv�i
eu . L + h 1) "r � 1 fl C)iL gyp` 11-� tv o i 1-" ? ' 5 CA-- C P6 o. .fir
to �e�L� t 1 ji , v`,� t
'''? -j-a( L rT',i tt)1 -T-C)( C IT 7 RE)-"F.S S )rvcc- i C. 119,

,C- L M)
7 D r f Poc f
coINf.N r_S'e a{zPo< -Ny PE \-t .tA P - Sc--eNSj C
wHe
re rt. ‘,SC.
4
1 -
�) • -� i+t
Ck,a-e,L1 ' ��U cr'\ -?i'e
Zervr):1e i Pts i k.oe , Arc *4-(4)(1- t is L - `'T 1C-
clot, PS ` d 134,F 1 L .t ( -G
A-r4\-L db) c, IC.� �S��S SaL0
1
m-raa c-- e cr Fog_ pea -t ov AL
:�=v�J°-� ��- C-t��-►c�L - Syr-b-r-1-_S
-

v .1 rl IT -+ 1 \__,C d
Bl a51cta
7)o oat& ,9od-rYvoL_
g'(c c '. JF a-0'o )SRO
dt ,� woo Azoa.a-2r1P-60/ /OP P46. .&),k
f7/(o/753
c2 )3)oD n, y-frt 9A4'/k/A& 7"44/'-u'
aint mtio4 �/ eyCt �L
8-Gb lds/cl
/N1/1%)r) ,‹ "71
$Q.t 1t- iac.EtatPo^w.-r
C? r a-p-Avy,Sb(C- v - /c
N aa,loo Rzo-
& t � rc
101-1 ci.c< PO,,tt i1oo \- L C CIL
12-\ \ l� P fl ANC-,
Ic9to -P€0_ ry xss ic-
-5
\\kik
IvIs-VY-ccum. ,t‘(\04\foi fe.0-0-12-i-(-"-) be coAi`c)
%./-urk& fte/1 gc), ; TS.
?k_oa pt-4 , Tr)
Cam() C,(-1 .) Ab )
n`��� IS1
S

(VA--
81(0Ig3 u� -Pb'' 1J610;b-Qca.G)
-1),t,0e,haWy �e.o
/fi,o/)-01`� �m wi ck o dova�t
nnakivri / '
(2,tpa fIext444
0--( Pali
,e
: t&J)w ,
NI% - 3199) TuitiNs; -)a� (4is t c ct P
COS -ESPY,, gthitEw
z� ZZ Sc - x ch‘ro n c c cl , c_vt j P�
-� Sv,Wvil1/4)( B of
10)01-ram
�c CS U IYIS�Tl1G C vut i Nr D Kaf2:1 fv-OJ, c &c ��t piWVt^+fre
iolaq
ViI 041 t Iv10 rt c' 1 t (s
U for w mt ek_ . ,- \F vrtysrl e e
poi

tC q ( ) Gorci
017
_7/ad94
�.eU,e t;�vrn2f�lin /0
•-) -/i/1/)-(o�ii�d.! /ilk /l
s1i9�59 C.6,L.
101
101 (7146 7/1G4i
AediNilei6
`� � � day //14)41) ��/6-
\JAM/4/n 644694 d1/30147?‹
PH-OA/no
lDl? korai Mee/
015
Nock //0
nria4ozo y
pv-,tir) yA/rn. -71S
404/L--

1199g &X/I
--)zy
SO( ipzee Le46,le
Jogie/wm-6/-- /
6))-p,a,a /on/ igizza249 )/)2z
slN NOV
Gar' rkW (SY =30). 6
/6168
7�l
iolqapdi6f wnfi�' 6eaJa- /17(22/1/.
6/20
aoriAl
vv6J
N)) 3 PtAI�. v�
/ ly n \ ►
-�` \\ N'•
-7 J \'
`At reo3di,01 4te_loY 4Aie V
7`.
0/&,//t/b,)
�(d-A4Vi/

v
Db1-glob
go/P/4P. ge &i4/'
gal A ,za- -A
1117100
£ d iy awe k� i; ; �
Ligek/ y (\
2,001
.3116101 NoV
-cs
N Mom 1 Nic,. VIOL .
P Q NC-6 +--c�2 a�t.1 S oL tat
ASSCSSri t c \A., PAL
flei NON- Ct,k4tt.

City of Gaziratia
P. O. BOX 1748
Gatchmitt, Xor#fi aztrolina 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
July 13, 2001
Mr. David Goodrich
NCDENR/DWQ/Permits
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
r-
Subject: Follow-up items from June 27, 2001 Meeting
NPDES NC0020184 -City of Gastonia, Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES NC0074268-City of Gastonia, Crowders Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Dave:
We previously sent you the minutes from our meeting on June 27, 2001. In these minutes, we
identified a number of follow-up action items to address through formal correspondence. These action
items include:
• Total Nitrogen Limitations
• Color Requirements
• Total Residual Chlorine Limitation
• Metals Monitoring Requirements
We have organized our comments according to each of these items below. However, we will be
addressing metals monitoring requirements in a separate letter since we require supplemental
information from DWQ prior to analyzing your preliminary proposal for monitoring requirements.

Mr. David Goodrich
Page 2
July 13, 2001
Total Nitr 7 gen Limitations
As indicated in the permit applications for both facilities, the City of Gastonia would prefer mass
limits for TN for both the Long Creek and Crowders Creek facilities. Our preference is that the
calculation for the mass limits be established as a monthly average value based on permitted flow and
a concentration of 6 mg/L TN. We also believe these limitations should be applicable during the
months of April through October, as you have indicated would be the case with limitations based on
TN concentration.
We appreciate your consideration of this request by offering to consider a mass basis for our TN
limits. However, we do not think the additional requirement for an annual cap on TN (based on
permitted flow and 12 mg/L TN in the winter months) is necessary. We also have specific problems
at the Long Creek WWTP that preclude us from accepting any requirements that could prevent
maintenance activities during the winter, as I will explain below.
During a recent expansion of the Long Creek WWTP from 8 to 16 MGD capacity, the wastewater
processes were modified to include biological nutrient removal. A key component of this system is a
denitrification basin — which is key to effective removal of TN in the system. As a result of problems
that occurred during construction, based upon an independent structural analysis, this basin has severe
structural problems that require periodic maintenance throughout the year and significant annual
maintenance during the winter. We anticipate that this basin will require major renovation or
replacement during the course of the next permit term. Until litigation concerning the construction of
this facility is resolved and until corrective measures are fully implemented, Gastonia must plan on
lengthy winter maintenance for this facility. In addition, TN mass limits during the summer also
provide flexibility for us to perform shorter term maintenance if necessary to avoid a catastrophic
failure of this system.
In conclusion, we would like DWQ to reconsider our request for mass based limits during the summer
months at both the Long Creek and Crowders Creek facilities. If this is not acceptable, we would
prefer to accept summer mass based limits with an annual cap as described above at both facilities but
include a schedule for compliance with the annual mass for the Long Creek WWTP. This schedule
would need to extend nearly the entire permit term. Our third preference would be to accept summer
mass based limits with an annual cap as described above at the Crowders Creek Plant and a TN
concentration limit of 6 mg/L in for summer months only at Long Creek as is now effective in our
Permits. As indicated at the meeting, we are presently meeting TN requirements at the Long Creek
WWTP. At your suggestion, a letter was submitted to Rex Gleason officially rescinding our request
for a Special Order by Consent (SOC) at Long Creek WWTP.
Color Re uirements
We have reviewed the proposed color policy and have comments regarding the applicability of the
policy to both our facilities. While the Long Creek WWTP was included in the study performed by
the Color Alliance, the Crowders Creek facility was not included in the study. We believe that at a

Mr. David Goodrich
Page 3
July 13, 2001
minimum, this difference needs to be considered in the implementation schedule for color
requirements at the Crowders facility as discussed below.
Long Creek WWTP
We believe that DWQ has inaccurately prioritized our Long Creek facility. As a result of the dramatic
reductions in color that have occurred at the Long Creek WWTP with the recent closure of industrial
contributors, we believe this facility should be considered a Tier 1 facility. Even prior to the
shutdown of Fleischmann's Yeast (an industrial contributor who caused the effluent to have a "tea -
like" color, there was no downstream impact from color in the effluent. Since Fleischmann's closed,
the effluent is extremely clear. The only visible plume is of the clear effluent discharging into a
frequently "muddy" river. We do not believe a Pollution PreventionBMP (PP/BMP) study is needed
at this time because color levels are quite low. We believe the color monitoring with the reopener as
proposed for Tier 1 facilities in the DWQ Color Policy should be sufficient to monitor the problem
and address concerns if they re -appear.
Crowders Creek WWTP
The first issue we want to raise is whether other municipalities outside of the South Fork basin are
also being asked to meet the requirements of the DWQ Color Policy? The inclusion of the Crowders
Creek WWTP in the implementation plan for the policy caught us off guard since it was not part of
the Color Alliance and was also not in the South Fork basin study area — the focus for the Alliance
work. We want to be assured that we are being treated equitably with other dischargers?
Regarding the proposed handling of the Crowders Creek WWTP as a Tier 3 facility we believe that
the 12 months for PPBMP study and 24 month time frame for the Color Reduction Study (CRS) are
insufficient. Although we are aware of the color issue at the Crowders facility, we have not had any
warning of the potential requirements at this facility since the Crowders Creek WWTP was not
included in the Color Alliance Study. Hence, we presently have no funds budgeted for additional
work in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001. We also believe that the City of Kings Mountain,
which is permitted as a significant industrial contributor to our facility and is a major source of color,
is also unaware of the pending requirements. We believe that 24 months and 36 months for PP/BMP
and CRS, respectively, are more reasonable schedules for these requirements since the facility was
not included in the South Fork River Color Study.

Mr. David Goodrich
Page 4
July 13, 2001
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
As discussed at the meeting, we are requesting that TRC be included as a daily average limit rather
than a daily maximum value. This will allow short-term variability of TRC levels to be averaged over
a day, if n cessary
Metals Monitoring Requirements
As indicated above, we will send separate correspondence on this issue after we receive the results of
the reaso ri
able potential to exceed analysis from Natalie Sierra when she returns from vacation.
The City would respectfully request a meeting with you and your staff to discuss these issues at your
convenience, prior to release of the draft permits. Please contact me at [phone] to schedule a
time we can meet.
Sincerely
G,7//
Larry Cunfmings
Interim Superintendent WWTD
cc: Danny Crew/City Manager
As h Smith/ Deputy City Attorney
Dbn Carmichael/Director Public Works and Utilities
Bfi11 Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
Nataile Sierra/DWQ

MEETING SUMMARY CH2MHILL
City of Gastonia NPDES Permitting Meeting
ATTENDEES:
COPIES:
FROM:
DATE:
Larry Cummings/Gastonia
Coleman Keeter/Gastonia
Dave Goodrich/DWQ
Don Carmichael/Gastonia
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
July 5, 2001
Natalie /DWQ
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
A meeting held at the Long Creek WWTP on June 27, 2001 to discuss the status of NPDES permits
for the Loig and Crowders Creek WWTP. The following are notes from the meeting.
Agenda
I troductions and Overview —Larry Cummings
Permit Applications Overview — Bill Kreutzberger
Water Quality Concerns of DWQ — Dave Goodrich
R view of Key Issues — All
• Total Nitrogen Limitations — Long Creek and Crowders Creek WWTP
• Color Requirements — Long Creek and Crowders Creek WWTP
• Instream Monitoring Studies — Long Creek
• Other issues
Dissolved oxygen/TRC — daily average
— Metals
— Monitoring frequencies
Permitting Schedule — Dave Goodrich
Wrap —up/Actions Items - All
Summary of Discussion
The meeting addressed all of the agenda items but not in the same order as noted below.
Color
Dave Goodrich indicated that a major issue for both permits was color. He said that they planned on
having a ublic hearing on the permits as a result of the color issue and the work of the Color
Alliance r the South Fork. He provided a draft of their color permitting policy/approach for
CLT/MEETING SUMMARY 0627011 1

CITY OF GASTONIA NPDES PERMITTING MEETING
consideration. He briefly went over the policy indicating that the Long Creek facility would be a Tier
2 facility in terms of requirements and that Crowders Creek would be a Tier 3 facility.
Dave spent a good bit of time explaining why a permit hearing would be held — mainly because
Donna Lizenby (the Catawba Riverkeeper) had requested it. He indicated that the hearing would
likely be held in August in Dallas. He also explained that they were aware of the dramatic color
reduction at Long Creek as a result of the shutdown of Fleishmans. DWQ was not aware that Kings
Mountain was the main source of color to the Crowders Creek facility.
Although the strategy includes individual permittee instream monitoring requirements, Dave
indicated that he would prefer that the Alliance stays together and performs coordinated monitoring
activities Larry indicated that no decision had been made regarding whether Gastonia would remain
in the Alliance or not.
Total Nitogen
We then went over the total nitrogen issues in considerable detail. Dave and Natalie noted the
reduction in TN with the closure of Fleishmans. We indicated that an SOC was no longer necessary.
Dave suggested that we send a letter to Rex Gleason/DWQ-MRO officially withdrawing our request
for an SOC and copy Bill Reid — DWQ Permitting and Compliance Branch Head.
Dave brie y went over the options for nitrogen limits that Natalie had previously explained to Larry.
We then i dicated that — particularly for Long Creek WWTP - our preference would be to have mass
limits in the summer with no limits in the winter. If this was not acceptable — then Gastonia's next
choice w �s for the summer only TN concentration limit. Dave did not fully understand this position.
Coleman hen went on to explain the problems at the Long Creek facility related to the denitrification
basin and the winter work that would be required over the next few years. Coleman indicated that an
annual limit might be difficult to meet with the required maintenance activities at this site.
Several options were reviewed and Dave indicated that he would review them with the modeling
staff. He indicated that he would prefer separate correspondence specifically requesting consideration
of alterna live nitrogen limits.
Instream Monitoring
Dave indicated that he was disappointed that Gastonia did not want to conduct an additional instream
DO study. He thought the DO was just reaching the Sag point as it approached the dam near I-85.
While we mentioned some.differences in interpretation of the data, Dave used this subject to also
discuss hi desire to have more coordinated/coalition based monitoring in the South Fork Basin. He
suggested again that Gastonia's continued participation in the Alliance may be one way to accomplish
this.
Other Issues
Natalie pr9vided draft permit pages for both facilities. Although metals limits appeared to be similar
to what we requested in the permit application for each facility, she included monitoring requirements
for severa parameters. Bill Kreutzberger requested that she email the reasonable potential to exceed
(RPE) analysis files so that we could compare them with the ones we did when the permit application
was prepared. Proposed monitoring frequencies will be reviewed in conjunction with the RPE
analysis.
Bill Kreutrerger indicated that Gastonia would like the TRC limit to be expressed as a "daily
average" or grab samples similar to DO. Dave indicated that this was possible but that he would like a
written rearuest for this consideration.
CLT/MEETING SUMMARY 0627011
2

CITY OF GASTONIA NPDES PERMITTING MEETING
SummarylAction items
The meeting finished after a brief discussion. Here is a summary of action items with the responsible
party noted.
1. Prepare letter rescinding the SOC request for TN limitation (Gastonia/CH2M HILL)
2. DWQ to email CH2M HILL information on RPE analysis for metals (Natalie Sierra/DWQ)
3. Prepae letter with specific requests for DWQ inclusion in the permits (Gastonia/CH2M HILL)
— Requested TN Limits and rationale
— Desire for daily average TRC limit
— Additional comments on color strategy
CLT/MEETING SUMMARY 0627011 3

1 of 28
XcL atcv CX. AS/S Gc% , d.TLG.
Consulting Engineers
NAINCO
P.O. Box 129, Dallas, N.C. 28034 tel: [phone]
Structural Evaluation on
lknitrification Basin at
Long Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant
,�,�t
0 a CAROL/,��'%�i
% •I ..47
SSA- 's
020983
Submitted to:
City of Gastonia
F.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
it mit
April, 2001

2 of 28
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
DENITRIFICATION BASIN
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DALLAS, NORTH CROLINA
A.) _ OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this project is to conduct general concrete evaluation of the
existing struc e — De -nitrification Basin at Long Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant —
in Dallas, North Carolina. The evaluation will focus on the following:
1.) Joint 'study
2.) Support settlement
3.) Walk way slab study
B.) DEFINITIONS
1.) Concrete Failure: Concrete failure could be due to several factors, but the main visual
signs of failurr are basically cracks, and crushing. Construction material failure takes
place when the applied stress (due to loading such as moisture gradient, thermal, and
external loading) exceeds the material strength. Some common causes of cracking are:
restraint of the
moisture loath
excessive load
movements brought about by drying shrinkage or thermal contraction,
ig, uneven supports, expansive clay, improper jointing and sealing,
ngs, and many others. Failure by crushing in concrete is caused by
excessive compressive forces. The following are specific types of concrete failure
mentioned throughout this report:
i. Crazing and map cracking: shrinkage cracking

3 of 28
ii. Scaling: scabrous of some surfaces after exposure to freezing
and thawing.
iii. Pop -outs: cone -shaped pits in the surface.
iv. Blisters: Retaining air or water in cavities within concrete
masses.
v. Spalling: scaling but with deeper. penetration in the concrete.
vi. Chipping: Removal of thin surface layers.
2.) Settlement: Soil contraction under compressive loading. Settlement is the combination
of the two phenomena:
a.). Contraction of the soil due to compressive and shear stresses
resulting from the structure's loading
b.) Consolidation of the soil due to volume changes
3.) Differential Settlement: Settlement under the structure of various values.
4.) Joint Fail
e: Excessive separation, full or partial removal of the filler material and/or
the sealant, or excessive damage to edges.
C.) SCOPE
The study is ased on engineering observation and/or non-destructive material testing.
Field measure ents are collected in order to support the general evaluation process. The
study is limited to concrete evaluation of the de -nitrification basin mentioned above. The
field study is conducted in four different days as follows:

4 of 28
• Table 1: Field -Work Schedule.
No.
Date'
Weather
Notes
Temp. F
Condition
wind
-1
3--01
56
Sunny
Moderate
Joint study
2
3-10-01
62 .
Sunny
Still
Joint study and general
3
3-116-21
•
63
Partly cloudy
Moderate
Supports and cracks study
4
3-
9-01
66
Partly cloudy
Moderate
Slabs and cracks study
D.) WALK -WAY SLABS
Figure 1 sho s the location of the major cracks detected at the site. In general the cracks
intensify at the comers and near the central area. Three major cracks were observed:
i.)
ii.
Transversal cracks crossing the width of the slab. These cracks tend to
separate the slab into smaller portions cross -wise. Most of these cracks are
located in the slab between Anoxic Zone 2 and Anoxic Zone 3.
Diagonal Cracks: These cracks start at the comers or sharp edges. It is
noticed that almost every comer of the walk -way slabs is suffering from at
least one diagonal crack. These cracks tend to isolate every segment of the
walk -way slab from the rest. Eventually every segment will act separately
and independent of the others. This ultimately will .deprive the slab from
the re -distribution of stresses in case of over loading.
Longitudinal Cracks: These are the cracks that run along the length of the
walk -way slab. One major longitudinal crack is found between the

Ox
IC ZONE 1
SLAP DEPRESSION
OX VARIED VIDTH AT
SOE LOCATIENS D!E
TO JOINT FAILURE
A
3
E.J.
OXIC ZONE 4
E.J.
E.J.
E.J.
F.J.
C.J.
C..J.
ANOXIC
ZONE 1
3
3
LE...1.
3
3
WWI
0.1' E. JOINT
1 I 1
01' E. LINT
NOTES'
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
C.J. CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINT
0.1' E. JOINT
/ogiiieNW = WIDTH OF JOINT IN INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE ME SUREMNET
D = DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
DAMAGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
SLAP
3
E.J.
C.J.
3
F
OXIC ZONE 2
DEPFESSm,
C.J.
ANOXIC ZONE
i
E.J.
3
3
E.J.
E.J.
3
ANOXIC ZONE
CL
C.L
E.J.
3
IMAM
OJ' E.JOINT
01'E.JOINT
5 of 28
DEPRESSION
04' VARIED VIDTH AT
SOE LOCATD?IS DUE
TO JOINT FAILURE
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE! WALKWAY SLAB EVALUATION
OWNER ! CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER ! M. AL NASRA
FIGURE 11 WAL-KWAY
SLAB EVALUATION
SCALE
DRAWN BY ! K. LACKEY
DATE! APRIL, 2001 re
IVGI
VALKVAY

The majority
6of28
Anoxic Zone 2 and Anoxic Zone 3. Another one just started to propagate
between the Anoxic Zone 1 and Anoxic Zone 4 near the western side of
the basin. This type of cracks tends to break the slab into two equal parts
at the middle. It is the most serious type that eventually will accelerate the
propagation rate of the cracks, and reduce the load -bearing capacity of the
slab.
f the cracks are concentrated basically in three areas:
i.) Between Anoxic Zone 2 and Anoxic Zone 3. The three types of cracks can be
found in this area. It is noticeable that these cracks started joining each other
an forming crack patterns similar to map cracking. It is expected that these
cracks will intensify and propagate in various direction forming small isolated
portions of the walk -way slab. Also it is expected that the cracks will increase
in width
ii.) Ce tral area. Several diagonal cracks joined together forming complete curves
stre ching from one side of the slab to the other side. Also, it can be noticed
tha 1 the central portion is completely circled, leaving a small isolated portion
discontinued at the top portion of the slab.
iii.) Be
een Anoxic Zone 1 and Anoxic Zone 4. This area is suffering from the
samtypes of cracks as in the area between Anoxic Zone 2 and Anoxic Zone
3 but of less intensity.
It is expected to see, in the near future, some concrete chipping along the cracks of
greater width. The majority of these crack are found where there is no expansion joints in

7 of 28
cracks are found in the portion served by expansion joints, as
the walk-wa slab. Minor cr
can be seen 'n Figure 1.
E.) BASIN GENERAL EVALUATION
Major defe is found and can be summarized as follows:
a.) Damaged floor
slab edges, due to improper construction of joints, this
can be noticed in almost every anoxic zone.
b.) Deterioration of concrete at floor slab corners in addition to joint
failure in the Anoxic Zone 2 as shown in Figure 2.
c.) Joint failure at the existing expansion joint in both floor slab and wall,
joint filling isdepressed the de ressed down to a depth of 2.5 inches at
some locations along the joint, in the Anoxic Zone 3.
d.) Concrete cracks
and concrete chippings are detected around the
expansion joint in the wall of the Anoxic Zone 3 as shown in Figure 2.
e.) Spalling of
concrete adjacent to the expansion joint in the Anoxic
Zone 3 can be
noticed measuring up to 1.5 inches in width as shown in
Figure 2.
f.) Spalling of con
crete can be notice in the Anoxic Zone 4 measuring up
to 2 inches in width as shown in Figure 2.
g.) Vertical crack has been detected in the wall between the Anoxic Zone
4 and the Oxic Zone 1 as shown in Figure 2.
These
Oi
ajor defects are caused mainly by the following factors:

JOINT FAILURE
IC ZONE 1
N
II
E.J.
I
WALLED E
UP to 8' In DEPTH
E.J.
NCONCRETE
E.J.
Ea
ANOXIC
ZONE 4
EJ.
Ea
•
NOTES,
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
C.J. = CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINT
V = WIDTH OF JOINT IN INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEASUREMNET
\D = DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
DAMAGED EDGES ARE AL$0 IN INCHES IN WIDTH
OXIC ZONE 2
SPALLED E to 1frW cX1 cRETE M
th& JOD(T
J.S' In WIDTH
ANOXIC ZONE 3
AILURE
DEPTH JOINTuP
E..J E.J.
CRACKS b the WALL
ADJACENT U. the JOINT
OF 0-L8'
E.J.
DETERIORATION of CONCRETE
at CORNERS whdAn
and FAILURE iR; DtIJS
d
/7-
jiNOXIC ZONE 2 c.,J,
J
E.J.
3
8 of 28
JOINT FAILURE
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE: BASIN GENERAL EVALUATION
OWNER CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER ' M. AL NASRA
FIGURE 21 BASIN GENERAL EVALUATION
SCALE _
DRAWN BY K. LACKEY
DATE1 APRIL, 2001 ree
DWI
DASD

F.) SUPPO
I.) Improper jointing
II.) Concrete surface failure
III.) Structural movements
IV.) Freezing thawing
T SETTLEMENT:
9 of28
Support settlements were detected around the exterior walls, where the foundation
settled, inducing structural movements. Unfortunately, the supports settled at different
rates, causing what so called differential settlement. This differential settlement caused
the following:
i.) Excessive vertical cracks and , in some cases, leaks in the northern
side of the structure at the exterior wall of Oxic Zones as shown in
figure 3 .
ii.) Joint failure at walls in the Anoxic Zone 3 and 4 as shown in
Figure 3.
iii.) Joint failure and the subsequent leak at the joint in the northern
side of the structure at the exterior side of the Oxic Zones 2 as
shown in figure 3 .
iv.) Excessive shear and tensile stresses that cause cracks and
deteriorations in the concrete material.
v.) Pop -outs of concrete at the top of the pipe in the exterior western
side of the Oxic Zone 1.
vi.) Uneven surfaces in the superstructure.

ICRIZENTALCRACK
CONCRETE a EWINO
AREA at PIPE �•
VERTICAL
CRACK
FAILED JOINT -
AREA
FERIZORAL CRACK
VERTICAL CRACK
at JOINT
1
VERTICAL CRACKS
i r
•
VERTINCL CRACK and LEAK
dim to con&
VERTICN. CRACKS .HINT FAUJARE
and LEAKS
I � 1
VDITIACL
D LEAK
due toJOINT FAILURE
CRACK and LEAK
VERTICAL ti
OXIC ZONE 1
19
OXIC ZONE a
ELL
EJL
ELL
ELL
ANOXIC
ZONE 4
EJ.
EA •
3
3
E.J.
C.L
10 of28
VERTICAL CRACK and LEAK
TNRU the CONCRETE
3
LA
ANOXIC ZONE
3
C.L
3
C.J.
C L
EA
ANOXIC
ZONE 1
E.L
E.L
3
EJL
C.J.
E.J.
ELL
EL
A
3
NOXIC ZONE
C.J.
c
3
WIRIZORTAL CRACK at the LEVEL
of the VALKVAY SLAJ
NOTES'
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
C.J. = CONTROL/CONSTRUCT ON JOINT
W = WIDTH OF JOINT IN I CHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEAS REMNET
Alike DEPTH OF JOINT IN I CHES
AGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
EL
EJL
VERtTI CRACK
VERTICAL
CRACK
VERTICAL
CRACC
VERTICAL CRACK
at .HINT
VERTICAL
CRACK
VERTICAL
CRACK
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLER EXTERIOR WALL EVALUATION
OWNER ' CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER ' M. AL NASRA
-IGURE 31 EXTERIOR WALL EVALUATION
SCALE s
DRAWN BY R K. LACKEY
DATE' APRIL, 2001 rn
DVGI
EXTERIOR

11 of 28
Figure 3 shows the location of the vertical cracks. The vast majorityof these vertical
cracks are concentrated in the northern side, the western side, and the southem side of the
structure. F
G.) FLOO
Figure 5 sh
gore shows the location of the support settlements.
SLAB JOINTS EVALUATION
ws the location of the joints as determined by the field study. On the same
figure one an see the field measurements of the joint width based on straight edge
technique, d also the depth down to the joint filling measured from the top level
surface. General observations can be drawn and summarized as follows:
i.) The depth of joints is not consistent, varies between 0 inches to a
little over 2 inches (refer to original project drawing sheet No. S 1 ,
06 Typical Floor Joint)
ii.) Improper construction of the joints in terms of edging. The original
drawing specifies % inch radius round edges to prevent concrete
chipping (sheet no. S 1, sealant details A, and B)
iii.) Some breaking in the sealant at several locations
Figure 6 shows Anoxic Zone 1 floor slab joints detailing according to the field study. The
figure displays some concrete defects at the southern side of the Anoxic Zone 1 measured
up to 1.5 inc es in width. Field study is also conducted to measure the width and depth at
particular po is along the joint. Measurement started at either southern side or western
side of the Anoxic Zone. Measurements are taken at 5.0 ft spacing for the top width and

Foundation Settlement
Foundation Settlement
Foundation Settlement
Foundation Settlement
0
IC ZONE 1
E.J.
ANOXIC
ZONE 4
LA
EU
i1
Li
f
OXIC ZONE
3
u
ANOXIC ZONE 3
CL
CL
ANOXIC ZONE 1
C
hNOXIC ZONE 2
EL
Foundation Settlement
NOTES
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
C.J. = CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINT
W = WIDTH OF JOINT IN INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEASUREMNET
/' DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
AGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
;uatra1a.l.as uoIl.vpunoJ
.uawa1}has uol;.vpuno�
}uaual}has uol}vpuno,�
12of28
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE' FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
OWNER i CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER u M. AL NASRA
FIGURE 41 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
SCALE 1
DRAWN BY s K. LACKEY
DATE' APRIL, 2001
JIM

13 of28
1
OXIC
ZONE 1
•
11
11
11
A
OXIC ZONE
a
II
El
11
11
11
11
-
_
E.J.
3
I
;1
i '
1
LA
!
:I
a C.J.
LA
;
C.I.
i C.J.
.• l Vt.
E.J.
♦ VM/t
ANOXIC
3
! 1 VL Nix V4-1/t
ZONE 4
f 3
;I
S
1 LA
IP. l V6 0 MA
!
4
E.J.
.■ i Va. i, 114
3
E.J.
.. 114. r• MA
ANOXIC ZONE
a
14i
E..L
w V4. r• FN
s3
:
E.J.
.■ i Vt. M•
W 41 .p.
VFV4
3
.• i VL 1• VFV4
3 Vr dim.'
! 3
w
r 1 VI •• LIMN
!
t
.. VVL *1. V4.1 V1
3
.. 1 V4. r. VN Vt
! 3
t
'
jj5
i ,j
1 1/4. f9N-!
g
4
i
i
I,
S
3g
I
3z
S
.• Vt. d. Ma
LI
ANOXIC
.• V4. d• •
ZONE 1
•j
yj
s
a La
.• V4. r• •
.
+
'
114
LI
w Vt. 0 WO
3
ANOXIC
LI
r I VL 0. VFW
SZ
II
ZONE
4. l 3/4. I. V4-1/t
a
1I
2 tc a
•. V4 cj, « M/•
S'
F3
14 CU
3 e. ; 4
S p
S
E.J,
w 1 V4, r•
4-VS
,tril
y Vt.
1�
<
1
.. 1 VS.41. 1A4/4
r W. 0 0-1/4w
1.. s< « vt l Vs E.J,
1 1/4. • 1/4-14
a
e
NOTES'
E.J. = EXPANSION JOI T
C.J. = CONTROL/CONST UCTION JOINT
V = WIDTH OF JOINT 4N INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEASUREMNET
D = DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
DAMAGED EDGES ARE A�S0 IN INCHES IN WIDTH
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE' JOINT EVALUATIONS
OWNER I CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER 1 M. AL NASRA
FIGURE 51 JOINT EVI!LUATIONS
SCALE t
DRAWN BY 1 K. LACKEY
DATE: APRIL, 2001 rn
F.>DINTS

depth of the a
14 of 28
oint. The main purpose of the study is to collect statistical data about the
joint width and depth at every 5 ft along the joint.
Figure 7 shows the width/depth measurements at 5.0 ft spacing along the joints in the
Anoxic Zone
1. The Joints' width seems to be consistent exceptof some variations at the
beginning of the line 1.3. The joints' depth also seems to be consistent except in spots
mostly located near the slabs corners. The slab at the south west corner appears to be
rotated count
Figure 8 sho
rclockwise.
the general evaluation of the floor slab joints at the Anoxic Zone 2. The
figure displays some of the slab edge defects mostly at the northern side of the Anoxic
Zone 2. The
between 1/ in
edge damage is mainly concrete chipping of various widths that ranges
hes to 2 inches. Figure 9 shows the field measurement data of the top width
and depth alo' g the joints 5.0 ft apart. Line 2.1 shows wide range of values for the width
due to differe t joint types. It also shows that the joint filling material is not uniformly
distributed along the joint. Line 2.2 shows excessive depth of the joint near the eastern
side of the Anoxic Zone that reads up to % inches, while line 2.3 shows consistent values.
Line 2.4 sho\T s wide range of variation in the readings of the width and depth due four
1
segments of slabs and different types of joints used. Line 2.5 shows consistent width and
depth except near the end of the joint where major edge damage is detected. Line 2.6 is a
joint at the s
Anoxic Zone
uthern side of the basin that runs only along the middle portion of the
. The measurement reads relatively high values for both width (up to 3 3/
inches) and depth (1 %Z inches).
Figure 10 pre ents the general floor slab defects in the Anoxic Zone 3. The major defect
is concrete c pping at the slabs edges due to improper construction of joints that left the
edges unsupported causing concrete fragments to be broken loose. This defect can be

N
\
1
v
\
•�
N
.-4
1
co
\
C.J.
Li
`
.4'�
s
C.J. LINE 1.2
Lai
13
.4
s C.J.
w= 1/2, d= 0-1/B
E.J.
Z
•-•
Lai
1
•
u
.1
.i
u
w
wa 1/4, d= 0
ANOXIC ZONE 1
EVALUATION
E.J. LINE 1.1
W
Z
J
-7
Li
a
w 1/4, da 0
w.
u
a
-I,
u
w
E.J.
w= 1 1/4, d= 1/4-1/2
Lai
`
••
a
.4
}
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/2
damaged edges
up to 1 1/2'
Lai
a w= 1 1/2, d= 1/2
damaged edges
.p up to 1/2'
\
4.
\r
)f28
COTES'
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
:.J. = CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINT
= WIDTH OF JOINT IN INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEASUREMNET
D = DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
DAMAGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
[GURE 6: ANOXIC ZONE 1 EVALUATION
NASRA AND . ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE: ANOXIC ZONE 1 EVALUATION
OWNER : CITY of GASTONIA •
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER 1 M. AL NASRA
SCALE:
DRAWN BY : K. LACKEY
DATE: APRIL, 2001
JOH
WPM

Z
1.5
1
Is 0.5
- 0.
_1
2.5
2
1.5
1
7S
0
- 0.5
-1
•
O 5 10 15
20 25 30 • 35 40 45 50
Milano* From Left, 11
,Un•1.3
• • • ♦ •
O 5 10 15
■
o•o tor
20 25 30 35 40
Distance from south ft
Figure 7: Joint width/depth vs. distance of Anoxic Zone 1
0A
0.E
02
0
-02
-0.4
0.0
O 5 10 15
Una 12
20 25 30
Distance from left. n
Una 1.4
35
45
16 of2o )
50
• • • • • • • •
O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
■ ■ ■ • ■
Distance from south, R
-+—Dior,

i of28
d•
do
a•++
o,p.
d
a —)
La..
N
I
N
..
,
edge damage of
0 - 1' wide
CO
idE3 J
?
W
n
a
.-�
3
C.J.
s E.J. LINE 2.2
E.J.
w= 1/2, d= 0-1/8
E.J.
6
Tr
ai
LALINE
.-
LJ
}
ow= 1 1/2, d= 1/8-1/2
(Ail ANOXIC ZONE 2
; EVALUATION La
2.3 A
ww= 1 3/4, d= 1/4-1/2
�le $
ds
41>. C.J.
W= 1/4 C.J. d= 1/B 1/2
�v
>4
—c Li
nu
w a LINE 2,1
C.J.
a
'"
—>.
�it13
c w= 1/4
0 3 da 0
U
E.J.
wa 1 1/16, d= 1/8-1/4
U
w= 1/2, da 0-1/6
i
a U
a
N LINE 2.6
s w= 3, d= 1/2-1 1/2 E.J.
w= 1 1/4, d= 1/4-1/2
a
u
a
lOTESi
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
�.J. = CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINT
= WIDTH OF JOINT IN INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEASUREMNET
D = DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
DAMAGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
FIGURE 81 ANOXIC ZONE 2 EVALUATION
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE! ANOXIC ZONE 2 EVALUATION
OWNER = CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER ' M. AL NASRA
SCALE'
DRAWN BY ' K. LACKEY
DATE! APRIL, 2001 re

18of20
i
6
6
1A
12
0.5
0.0
O.4
02
0
- 02
- 0.4
0.3
0.25
02
0.15
0.1
I0$
0
-0.05
.0.1
0.15
Ua.2.1
•
2
1.5 ,
Is 0s
O
Eig
•
5
10
15
20
30
35
40
45
Sfl
Distanw From hit. ft
Uf1.2.3
•
• •
■
• ■ i ■
5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance front Left. ft
Figure 9: Joint width/depth vs. distance of Anoxic Zone 2.
-1
1.5
0.5
.0.5
•
Lrn.22
0
15 20
35 40 45 50
Distance From Loft. ft
Line 2.4
• • •
35 40 45 50
Distance from south` ft
1-1.--4-060111Valthl

19of'4._)
2
1.5
0
Lln.25
• •
• • •
O 5 10 \ 15 20 25 30 35 d0 45 50
■ in ■ ■ to ■ ■
Distance form 5cu5 . ft
Figure 9: Joint width/depth vs. distance of Anoxic Zone 2 (Continued).
4,
3
2.
0
•1
2
O
Lino 26
Dislrna front 1•11.

20 of 28
readily observed at the: southern and eastem sides of the Anoxic Zone. Also the joint
filling mat 'al along line 3.1 seems to be deteriorating. Figure 11 depicts width and
depth meas merits along joints in the Anoxic Zone 3. Line 3.1 shows slight changes in
joint width, while the depth varies great deal. Lines 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 show also some how
consistent
th readings while the depth readings vary especially along the line 3.3
which, in ' , shows substantial depression in the joint.
re ,
Figure 12 resents general evaluation of the Anoxic Zone 4. Slab edge damage can be
found along
Figure 13 dis
width seems
he joints in the area close to the south-western side of the Anoxic Zone 4.
lays graphical presentation of the field measurements. In general the joints'
to be consistent while the joints' depth seems to vary within wide range
reflecting inconsistency in the joints' depth.

U
cu
1
13
ao
E.J.
:
C.J.
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/4
E.J.
W
C"?
J
A
a ;)
;�
w= 1/4, d= 0-1/8
ANOXIC ZONE 3
EVALUATION
E.J. ' LINE 3,1
it
M
LI
Z
--I
W
w= 1/4, d= 0-1/8
N
N
11
E.J.
w= 1/1/2, d= 1/4-1
1/2
Li
(u
.r
1
0
N
u
s
w= 1 1/4, d= 1/4-1 1/2
i
W
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/4-5/8 t
damaged edges
up to 1' In width
f
NOTES'
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
C.J. = CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINT
W = WIDTH OF JOINT IN INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEASUREMNET
D = DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
DAMAGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
FIGURE 10: ANOXIC ZONE 3 EVALUATION
)of 28
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE: ANOXIC ZONE 3 EVALUATION
OWNER : CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER : M. AL NASRA
SCALE:
DRAWN BY : K. LACKEY
DATE: APRIL, 2001 r
sal�'
ne3

22 of 2,
1
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lint 3.1
1.6
1A
12
0.6
Lin. 3.2
0
-0.5
.1
.1.5
.2
1.5
V 0.5
-03
a
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Dtsaanor from tan. R
Un.3.3
• • • • • . •
•
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Dlatance from south, tt
Figure 11: Joint width/depth vs. distance of Anoxic Zone 3.
—Degn,
1s 0.6
0
02 -
• •
-0.z •
.0A
2
1.5
I '
>
' 0.5
1 o
-0.5
-1
0 5 10 /1s
50
Distance From L.ft. ft
Un. 3.4
Distance from .outh,ft

Li]'a
m
nOa
C i
L, J
\ .
CU
0 CA
413 E
cu i
` a,
E.J.
J. E.J. LINE 4.2
# E.J.
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/8-1/2
>
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/4-1/2
w= 1 1/2, d= 0-1/2
M
N
Z
J
fti
ANOXIC ZONE 4 4
NI- EVALUATION —I
., w
o
4
al
W
4 d
W
>,
M'a
'•'
>. N
3
E.J.
; E.J. LINE 4.1
E.J. •
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/8-1/4
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/8-1/4
w= 1 1/2, d= 1/8-5/6
1/2' damage
. 1/8' damage
•
N
i
0
.>,
0
W
13 Li
73
N
M
IDTES&
:.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
:.J. = CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINT
= WIDTH OF JOINT IN INCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEASUREMNET
= DEPTH OF JOINT IN INCHES
IMAGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
"IGURE 12a ANOXIC ZONE 4 EVALUATION
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE' ANOXIC ZONE 4 'EVALUATION
OWNER i CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER ' M. AL NASRA
SCALE!
DRAWN BY ' K. LACKEY
DATE: APRIL, 2001 r
MCA
ZDE4

Lln.4.1
1.5
's 0.5
.0.5
15
. . . .• . . . .
10 15
40 45 ao
Distance from left ft
Lln.4.3
1.5
03
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance horn south. R
Figure 13: Joint width/depth vs. distance of Anoxic Zone 4.
-4-war,
-■-Depth
24 of 2u )
•Un.42
1.5 •
J 1
$ 0.5
-0.5
•
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from left
Line 4A
-0.5
to 15 20 25
45 5o
Distance from South, ft

25 of 28
H.) SUGGESTED REPAIRS
The main -purpose of these suggested repairs is to provide temporary solutions to some of
the defected eas. Some defects are beyond repair. The main objective of providing
temporary sol tions is to prolong the life of the structure. The recommended repairs can
be summarized as follows:
1.) Location #1 - Joint failure at walls: Remove loose fragment of concrete, make
square
cut along the damaged area for a depth not to exceed 1 inch, replace filler
material (if damaged),- apply aluminum and bond break tape, and sealant
accord" g to the original project drawing shown on Sheet No. S 1 — 070 and
detail' g A.
2.) Locati n #2- Joint failure at floor slab and wall: Remove damaged fillings, clean
surfac thoroughly, and apply filling and sealant according to the original project
drawing shown on Sheet No. S 1 — 060 and 070.
3.) Locati
n #3- Vertical cracks with leaks — Northern side of the structure at the
exterior wall of the Oxic Zones 1, and 2: Remove any damaged concrete and
plastering, widen the major leaking vertical cracks up to 1 inch in width and
inches
the cra
4.) Locati
slab to
cut for
shown
in depth, square the cut and clean the surface, apply special crack epoxy at
Mks, apply external sealant, finish the surface.
n #4- Damaged corner — Floor slab in Anoxic Zone 2: Make a cut in the
a width of 2 ft, clean area, stabilize soil if needed, round the edges of the
a radius % inches, rebuild slab according to the original project drawing
on sheet No. S 1- 06. To provide support to the edges and prevent spalling

LOCATION 1
LOCATION 3
0
IC ZONE 1
0
OXIC ZONE 2
E.J.
3
E.J.
E.J.
E.J.
ANOXIC
ZONE 4
E.J.
E.J.
C.J.
Ca
ANOXIC ZONE
E.J.
E...
ANOXIC ZONE
J
E.J.
J
3
E.J.
26 of 28
LOCATION 2
� OCATIDN 1
LOCATIC
E.J.
J
3
N 4 E.J.
HNOXIC ZONE
E.J.
C,!
E.�
3
EJ.
NOTES!
E.J. = EXPANSION JOINT
C.J. = 'CONTROL/CONSTRUC ION JOINT
WIDTH OF JOINT IN NCHES BASED ON
STRAIGHT LINE MEA UREMNET
= DEPTH OF JOINT IN NCHES
uAMAGED EDGES ARE ALSO IN INCHES IN WIDTH
NASRA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TITLE: SUGGESTED IMMEDIATE REPAIRS
OWNER 1 CITY of GASTONIA
LONG CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEER 1 M. AL NASRA
FIGURE 141 SUGGESTED IMMEDIATE REPAIRS
SCALE I
DRAWN BY ' K. LACKEY
DATE' APRIL, 2001 ri"
DVG•
REPAIRS

27 of 28
at sa cut joint, a good quality, semi -rigid epoxy filler with a Shore Hardness of
A-80 i r D-50 (ASTM D2240) or better should be used.
I.) EVALUATION SUMMARY
The structural evaluation of the De -nitrification Basin at the Long Creek Waste Water
Treatment Pknt-. Dallas — North Carolina can be summarized into the. following major
structural defects:
1.) EXCE
SIVE CRACKS PROPAGAING ACROSS AND ALONG THE WALK-
WAY 'SLABS. The most sever case can be found at the walk -way slab between
the Anoxic Basin 2, and 3, where three types of cracks are joining: Transversal,
longitudinal, and diagonal cracks. It is expected that these cracks will intensify,
and propagate at a faster rate in the near future
2.) DIFFE
NTIAL FOUNDATION SETTLEMENTS. The structure showed
moderate to sever differential foundation settlements especially at the northern
side, western side and south-eastern side. This settlement caused vertical cracks
and in some cases leak, joint failure, and uneven surfaces in the superstructure.
3.) JOINT
DEFECTS. Improper construction of joints (including edging and filler
applicaion) left the edges unsupported and consequently caused concrete spalling
and chipping at the edges and corners.

28 of 28
4.) CONCRETE DETERIORATION. The structure showed signs of over -stressing in
concr te, specially in the walls at several locations, causing spalling and
chipp g In the concrete and consequently exposing weaker concrete surfaces. It
is ex ected that the defected areas to be enlarged and the damage spread to a
great depth.
szepSsio
4
SEAL +
020983 if ;IF
OAGIN�01TA�``
9 .P

7/3 i c f�off " ('fVMr - j„)(1` — 1iit� � /l
L /J �?f tf /- L
I z /mt?r4
44
joiii Lair
( ifg t f 6asth htaa
P.O. BOX 1748
6astaniu, Yortli (larolina 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND1UTILITIES
June 28, 2000
David A. Goodrich
State of North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
1,1 3 u 2000
Subject: 5-Day DO Monitoring Study - NC0020184 - Gastonia - Long Creek Gaston County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to DWQ's request to collect additional instream
information regarding DO conditions in the South Fork Catawba River. After examining the data
carefully, we do not think that additional studies extending the monitoring further downstream are
warranted. The following paragraphs describe the rationale for this position.
The data was collected last summer form August 20th to 24th when stream flow conditions
generally were low, ranging from 135 to 270 cfs at the gauge near the study area. Table 1 shows
the daily DO concentrations for the sample station directly below Crompton & Knowles. The
table also shows the daily flow for the USGS gauging station (02145000) approximately 1400
feet downstream of the sample station. There were two rain events during the sampling one on the
22"d and another on the 24th and with the increased flow there is little change in the DO.
Table 1
Daily DO at Station 5 - Directly Downstream of Crompton & Knowles.
Date
8-20-1999
8-21-1999
8-22-1999
8-23-1999
8-24-1999
Daily DO (mg/L)
6.6
6.1
6.7
6.5
6.6
Gauging Station Flow (cfs)
135.9
134.89
194.4
171.4
296.9

June 28, 2000
Monitoring Study
Page 2
For much f the summer of 1999, drought conditions were experienced so that the flows,
particularly for the early part of the survey were quite representative of low flow summer periods
of concern. According to the USGS report entitled Water Resources Data North Carolina for
Water Year 1998, the flow in the South Fork Catawba River exceeds 283 cfs 90 percent of the
time based n data collected over the period of record at the gage. The 7Q 10 for that area of the
watershed i approximately 130 cfs.
The attached figure illustrates stream DO during the surveys downstream of the Long Creek
WWTP discharge. While there appears to be a slight decline in DO with distance downstream
from the Long Creek WWTP, all but four DO values were between 6 and 7 mg/L. There was one
value measured at 5.8 mg/L and three values measured above 7 mg/L. DO variability appeared to
lessen with distance downstream.
While we understand DWQ's interest in extending the monitoring downstream from the sampling
point near I-85 to see if there is a sag point, we do not think this will provide useful information
regarding water quality in the river for the following reasons:
• Flows were significantly low during 1999 to provide a good representation of low flow
conditions
• There is a dam immediately downstream from I-85 as noted on the figure which will
confound results by producing a higher DO from the reaeration
• The backwater areas of Lake Wylie begin only about 1 mile downstream from the dam near
I-85. In these backwaters, DO will be driven primarily by the lake productivity processes
rather than oxygen demanding material as assumed for streams.
We believe the data collected provides compelling information that there is not a significant DO
sag in this portion of the river and see no reason to study this further at this time.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
CITY OF GASTONIA
t‘,LA 40,
Coleman Keeter
Superinten ent WWTD
Pc: Don Carmichael, Director of Public Works and Utilities
Larry Cummings, Assistant Superintendent WWTD
Dennis Redwing, Deputy City Attorney
Certified Mail #7000 0600 0023 7549 1165

8
7
6
5
J
a,
E 4
0
3
2
1
0
Dissolved Oxygen by Stream Location
• •
♦ • •
• • ♦
••
♦
•
•
•
I
•
DO - mg/L
•Avg ■ Min • Max
Crompton & Knowels
(0.4 MGD)
Gaging Station
(02145000)
Long Creek
WWTP (16MGD)
Lowell WWTP
(0.6 MGD)
Pharr
(1 MGD)
McAdenville
(0.13MGD)
WWTP
•
•
Dam
...
•
Lake
water
Wylie back
•
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Stream Mile
(miles)
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0

State of North
Department of
and Natural RE
Division of Watei
Carolina
Environment
sources
Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Sec~etary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
May 31, 2000
Larry Cummings, Asst. Superintendent WWTD
City of Gastonia
P.O.Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Dear Mr. Cummings:
Ai7A
NCDENR
Subject: 5-Day DO Monitoring Study
NC0020184
Gastonia- Long Creek
Gaston County
The Division has reviewed the results of the 1999 5-day dissolved oxygen (DO)
monitoring of the South Fork Catawba River under low flow conditions conducted in
accordance with the subject permit. The objective of this study is to determine where the
DO sag occurs along this stretch of the river. Since the lowest DO concentrations were
reported at the most downstream station (the I-85 bridge) on 4 of 5 days, we feel additional
DO measurements need to be conducted downstream of the bridge to determine the true DO
sag point. As already discussed with you by phone, we recommend that the study be
conducted again during low summer flows this year, with stations extending downstream to
the point where DO levels show a rebounding pattern. If you have any questions about this
request, feel free to call Tom Belnick at [phone], extension 543.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
cc: Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality
NPDES file
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Aug-25-99 09:35A CITY Of GASTONIA LCWWTP 704 922— 619`1
,;)) -
PO BOX 1748, GASTONIA, NC 28053-1748
City of Gastonia
UTILITIES/WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
1..."0" ...)"
Phone:
Fax phone:
CC:
Date:
Apse-
Number of pages including cover sheet:
P.01
0 gAivtlie
6
FROM: Z4//1
•
Phone: [phone]
Fax phone: [phone]
REMARKS: [] Urgent [] For your review 1 ASAP
/ J ew ❑ Reply Y ❑ Please comment
e4sivsinmiik 14-0“.A. JA-rur-Zit-urtiavAav-- ft
zz

Aug-25-99 09:35A CITY of GASTONIA LCWWTP
704 922-0619
P.02
q
City of Gastonia
P. O. BOX 1746
Sttstuniz, Iartll (Iziralina 28053-1748
COMPARTMENT OF
PUDIac WORKS AND UTILITIES
August 25, 1999
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NCDENR/DWQ
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: Long Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0020184
South Fork River Monitoring
Dear Dave:
In accordance with NPDES Permit No. NC0020184, the City has completed the five
day DO monitoring of the South Fork River under low flow conditions. This
information is enclosed for your review. A copy will also be included with the August,
1999, DMR for the Long Creek facility.
We look forward to discussing this information with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
lugs
Assistant Superintendent WWTD
Enclosures
cc: Coleman Keeter, Superintendent WWTD
John Shuler, Assistant Director of Utilities
John Lesley, Mooresville Regional Office
- Lair) CA0101713
NO dire 301wQ wa4
who--
Loa / j - co og'4 b.r aac iv
Att ov-44 Pk"( Cu"!
`;kJ CAS a- •
etc.LYv'tt
eQ,Ire
bed( 'l -�c I ,A1 100441
t.e tk
. J I

M
0
a
rn
1-4
O
N
N
01
It
0
h
a
1-
3
V
J
Q
14
Z
O
I-
V)
Q
t5
4-
0.
}:
1-
I0-1
Q
LQ
0
01
0)
1
ID
N
1
0)
3
191.9--
174.4-
157.0-
122.E
Daily Graph for City of Gastonia WWTPs --
08/01 /1999 to 08/25/1999
104.E----
87.108101 68l04 d8ri d8/10 d8/18 • 8/9' 68/22 d
x South Fork Flow MGM

e
O
a
at
0
tV
01
0
N
O.
1-
3
3
0
J
Q
H
Z
0
I—
V)
Q
0
4-
0
)-
I;
U
coLO
al
m
Di
1
Lo
N
1
0)
3
523.2
450.5
Daily Graph for City of Gastonia VNWTPs --
06101 /1999 to 08/25/1999
305.2 ILI\--
R.). -1- .
232.5=4- Al-- 4- --
159.8-- -
i
ic
87.1 01 d8/10 66/19 66/28 67/07 d7/16 67125 d8/0 d8 ' 8/21
x South Fork Flow MGD

1564.7-
1304.3-
1043.
783.5-'}
523.1j
262.7
Daily Graph for City of Gastonia WWTPs --
01101 /1999 to 08/25/1999
2-301/61 61/26 6218 63/14 64107 (5/01 6525 66/18 67/12 deros
x South Fork Flow MGD

Aug-25-99 09:36A CITY of GASIONIA LCWWTP
704 922-0619 P.06
NC Permit 0020184
Long Creek
South Fork River Data for low flows
August 20-24, 1999
Began
Fri 0120t99 began at 10:30 am
Back at 3:30 P.M.
Level 1.55
6.2
Point of Entry
Ft3 137.90
6.6
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow = 89.12
6.6
Below Hydro-Elec Plant
6.8
1!2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
After 3:45 prn
6.6
Above Crompton &Knowles
Level 1.56
6.6
Below Crompton &Knowles
Ft3 139.9
6.4
1/2 mi. below C & K
Flow = 90.40
8.1
185 Bridge
Lizgan
att o1'2111££9 txrsjan at 7:03 am
Bock at 2:00 PM
Level 1.61
6.8
Point of Entry
Ft3 134.89
6.8
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flaw = 87.'18
6.8
Below Hydro Elec- Plant
6.4
1/2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
After 1:50 pm
5.8
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 1.73
6.1
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 175.90
6.1
1/2 mi. below C & K
Flow = 113.7
6.4
185 Bridge
Eicgar1
Sun 8122103 began at 0:60 am
Bock at 12:20 PM
Level 1.81
7.2
Point of Entry
Ft3 194.4
7.0
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow 125.64
6.7
Below Hydro-Elec Plant
6.7
1/2 mi.below Hydra-Elec
After 2 pm
6.7
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 1.78
6.7
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 187.3
6.5
112 mi. below C & K
Flow =121.05
6.1
185 Bridge
Qc Jon
mart 8123lu9 bacan at 9:30 am
Back at 12:40 PM
Level 1.71
7.2
Point of Entry
Ft3 171.4
7.0
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow 110.77
7.3
Below Hydro -Electric Plant
6.9
1/2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
After 2 pm
6.9
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 1.78
6.5
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 187.3
6.7
1/2 mi. glow C & K
Flow =126.07
Began
6.1
Tin 8/24/99 began nt 0:60 am
185 Bridge
Back at 1:00 PM
Level 2.20
7
Point of Entry
Ft3 296.90
6.9
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow = 191.88
6.9
Below Hydro -Electric Plant
6.9
1/2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
After 1 pm
6.6
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 2.80
6.6
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 496.50
6.3
1/2 mi. below C & K
Flow = 320.88
6.2
185 Bridge
614/1•

(11itg of azfnx is
P. O. BOX 1748
Gastonia, cirir111 «E trnlim 28II53-174.8
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
May 25, 2000
Mr. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Division of Water Quality - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Subject:
J U N - 1 2000
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Additional Information on TN for Request for Special Order by Consent (SOC)
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0020184
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Gleason:
On March 22, 2000 we sent an SOC request to your office to address an anticipated problem with
compliance with a Total Nitrogen (TN) concentration limit of 6 mg/L that was sheduled to go into
effect on April 1, 2000. As outlined in our SOC request, the major cause of this TN noncompliance is
an industrial contributor which has wastewater with a high level of organic nitrogen which does not
breakdowns to ammonia in our wastewater system and thus can not be subsequntly removed through
nitrification/denitification. The purpose of this letter is to provide some additional information
regarding the SOC application.
The industrial contributor of organic nitrogen, Fleischmann's, announced in April that they are
planning to close their Gastonia facility by the Spring of 2001. Therefore, the major cause of our
noncompliance will be eliminated in about one year. In addition, the DWQ Pretreatment Unit has
requested that we update our Headworks Analysis and allocation to address TN. Attached is a letter to
the Pretreatment Unit which shows, updated limitations to address organic nitrogen and a justification
as to why we are addressing organic nitrogen rather than TN.

Mr. Rex G eason, P.E.
Page 2
May 25, 2 00
If the SOC request for Long Creek WWTP is granted, our intent is to give Fleishcmanns a
compliance schedule which will allow them time to cease their operations.
Please give
me a call if you have any questions at [phone].
Donald E. Carmichael, P.E.
Director of Public Works and Utilities
CLT1Documentl
c: David Goodrich/NPPDES Unit
Tommy Stevens/DWQ Director

P. O. BOX 1748
gttefnrria, larfll anriana 281153-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
April 26, 2000
Mr. David Goodrich
NPDES Permit Group
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Subject: , Addendum Material for:
l Application for Permit to Discharge Wastewater, Standard Form A Request for Renewal
of NPDES NC0020184 (originally submitted 7/27/99, ammended 7/30/99) City of
Gastonia, Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Please accept this letter as addendum material to be inserted in the Long Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) NPDES permit renewal application for NPDES Permit NC0020184. The
renewal application was originally submitted to NCDENR on July 27, 1999. Two issues are
addresssed in this letter: Permit Reopener Language and Sludge Management.
Permit Reopener Language
The City of Gastonia has been participating in a color study of the South Fork of the Catawba River
since the Fall of 1999. As a result of partciaption in this study, the City of Gastonia requests that the
following language regarding color studies be included in the NPDES permit:
The City of Gastonia is a participant in a color study (the "South Fork Color Study") being
performed by the South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance, Inc. (the "Alliance").
The South Fork Color Study is attached to the Permit and incorporated as a part hereof.
Provided that City of Gastonia continues to participate as a part of the Alliance in the South
Fork Color Study, no color monitoring or color reduction requirements shall be imposed by
this Permit. Following the conclusion of the South Fork Color Study, and submittal of the
final report to the Director of the Division of Water Quality, or during the pendency of the
South Fork Color Study, where data show that water quality standards for color are being
violated by the discharge permitted by the terms of this.Permit, the Director may reopen the
Permit for the purpose of imposing a requirement to perform such color monitoring or color
reduction studies, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114. If at any time during the term of this
Permit, it is reported by the Alliance that the City of Gastonia has ceased its participation in
the South Fork Color Study, the Director may reopen this Permit for the purpose of imposing
such monitoring requirements for color and a requirement to perform such color reduction
studies as the Director deems necessary, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114.

Mr. Davic Goodrich
Page 2
April 26, 2000
Sludge Management
A sludge maintenance plan was submitted as an attachment to an addendum letter dated July 30,
1999. At that time a pilot study was being proposed to test lime stabilization of residuals. The study
has been c mpleted, and the results have been evaluated. A determination has been made that this
treatment jrocess should continue on a permanent basis. The following summary has been updated
to reflect tie work that has been completed since the sludge maintenance plan was submitted.
Tvro of the open top digesters have been converted into lime stabilization tanks with mixers
and pumps for the batch treatment of residuals with a lime product. The remaining four
digesters are still in service as storage areas; however, the operation of heat exchangers and
pe' th units has ceased. When residuals are ready for treatment, City Staff fill one of the open
diesters with raw sludge and the Contractor begins the treatment process. This process
inolves the operation of mixers/pumps to unload a trailer load of the alkaline material,
constant mixing, pumping of the treated material into the other open tank, and loading of the
tanker trucks for transportation to land application sites. Treatment is achieved by elevating
the pH of the residuals to a pH of 12 for 2 hours and then a pH of 11.5 for an additional 22
hours. The contractor collects samples for the initial 2-hour and 24-hour pH and documents
all components of the treatment process. The samples are taken to the plant laboratory for pH
analysis.
If you have
6670.
Sincerely,
any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call Larry Cummings at (704) 854-
Coleman Keeter, Superintendent
Wastewater Treatment Division
cc: Bi11 Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
Larry Cummings
Johi R. Shuler
Donald E. Carmichael
Certified M it # P 877 537 915

Catawba Permitting
Subject: Cataw
Date: Fri, 24
From: Tom B
To: Charles
Dave
CC: Tom B
a Permitting
Mar 2000 13:01:34 -0500
!nick <[e-mail]>
Weaver <[e-mail]>,
oodrich <[e-mail]>
lnick <[e-mail]>
Before you start assigning Catawba files to folks, there are some facilities that may require additional
background info noted below. I'll put a copy of this email into those files, to tip off permit writer about
issues to address.
• Color Dischargers- Currently 8 facilities in Color Alliance, plus Newton which did not join. There
will be some language to add in cover letter and possibly permit for these facilities regarding color
study. Charles- I'll give you a hardcopy list of these facilities, and I'm o.k. if you assign them to me.
• Valdese WWTP- At the ESB meeting this week on Lakes James/ Rhodhiss/Hickory, there was
concern about the increasing TP loading from this facility. Although the load does not appear to
impact Lake Rhodhiss, we don't know how much will be exported downstream to Lake Hickory,
since Rhodhiss doesn't appear to be a TP sink. No need for limits, but Coleen thought we should put
something in permit cover letter asking them to evaluate why TP load is increasing; indicate that
there is conrrn about downstream lake; and possibly have them do TP optimization study. Michele
W. is looking into how much TP is exported from Lake Rhodhiss to Lake Hickory. Forest W. will
have Jim Reid discuss TP situation with facility.
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 3/24/00 1:01 PM

+ JJewFe� (Noo3 b I To) —nay mein 1;1
PROPOSED SAMPLING PLAN FOR
SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER COLOR STUDY
Background
The South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance Inc. (Alliance) has initiated a program
to evaluate the discharge of color and the effect of the color discharges on the South Fork
Catawba River (South Fork). The objectives of this program are:
1. To provide a high quality database on South Fork color; and
2. To determine if there is a color problem in the South Fork, and if so, if it is related to
any of the Alliance discharges.
There are eight (8) dischargers involved in this color study. They are:
Facility Name
NPDES Permit #
Receiving Water
Delta Mills WWTP
- NC0006190
Clark Creek
Lincolnton-S. Fork WWTP
NC0025496
S. Fork Catawba River
Cherryville WWTP
NC0044440
Indian Creek
Hickory -Henry Fork WWTP
NC0040797
Henry Fork
Gastonia -Long Cr WWTP
NC0020184
S. Fork Catawba River
Yorkshire Americas WWTP
NC0005274
S. Fork Catawba River
Cramerton WWTP
NC0006033
S. Fork Catawba River
Stowe Pharr Yarns WWTP
NC0004812
S. Fork Catawba River
This study will provide a long-term data baseline from which to evaluate the color in the river.
A detailed sampling protocol and quality control program will be implemented in conjunction
with this program to ensure representative data. The color monitoring procedures for this
program will utilize the procedures recommended by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and laboratories certified by the State of
North Carolina to conduct these analyses. This report presents the proposed plan for the
conduct of this study.
Monitoring
To develop the required data a detailed monitoring plan is proposed. Monitoring will include
effluent and river samples for ADMI color, pH and temperature. The river samples will
include upstream and downstream samples of all Alliance discharges, samples at NCDENR
monitoring locations, and samples from selected river locations. All river samples will be
monitored for turbidity. Pictures will be taken of the river at the point of the discharge in
1

7325 Watercrest Road
Charlotte, i ti Carolina 28210
l ndy [1;4, g000
Mr. Dave Goodrich- DWQ
NPDES Permit Section
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
DEHR - WATER 0R ILAU Ty
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
As you know, I am the Technical Review Chairman of the Lake Wylie Covekeepers section of
the Catawba Riverkeeper organization. We would like to formally comment during the
upcoming NPDES permit renewal process for the following dischargers:
Discharger
Permit No.
Current Permit
Expiration
Gastonia WWTP- Long Creek
NC0020184
" 1/31/2000
Newton WWTP
NC0036196
7/31/2000
Hickory -Henry WWTP
NC0040797
7/31/2000
Lincolnton WWTP
NC0025496
7/31/2000
Cherryville WWTP
NC0044440
7/31/2000
Stanley WWTP
NC0020036
7/31/2000
Maiden WWTP
NC0039594
7/31/2000
Delta Mills Maiden WWTP
NC0006190
7/31/2000
Lowell WWTP
NC0025861
9/30/2001
Collins and Aikman d/b/a
Cramerton Auto Products, L.P.
NC0006033
9/30/2001
Pharr Yarns WWTP
NC0004812
9/30/2001
Consistent with FOI Act requirements, we will be contacting the NCDENR regional office at
Mooresville to request dischargers' application documents, draft permits and background
materials. Please notify me as soon public comment hearings are scheduled.
We also wish to continue our ongoing commentary and involvement with the permit renewal
process around the following dischargers:
Crompton and Knowles
Clariant Co oration
Permit NC0005274 Permit expired 5/31/1996
Permit NC0004376 Permit expired 8/31/1996
Thank21`-‘-‘"
you fo your continuing cooperation and attention to our requests.
Michael L. Jo es
cc: Donna Lisenby, Catawba Riverkeeper®
Michael Parker, NCDENR Mooresville Regional Office

C`t .af (6tstratia
P. O. BOX 1748
@a fmtirx, nr±} {turnlinrx 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
February 3, 2000
Mr. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Division of Water Quality - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Subject: Permit Requirements for Total Nitrogen
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0020184
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Gleason:
it IFFa ��
DIV. OP 20Q0 D
DVRFc RrQU
ER qTY
S OFF/
The purpose for this letter is three fold; 1) to provide background information on the current permit
status and compliance issues for the Long Creek WWTP, 2) discuss technical reasons for the
compliance issues, and 3) present some possible solutions to this issues. We believe a meeting to
discuss these issues should be scheduled as soon as possible.
Background Information
The current NPDES permit for the Long Creek WWTP expired on January 31, 2000. The current
permit includes limitations for Total Nitrogen (TN) during the months of April through October. The
permit limitation was expressed as a mass limit, 800 lbs./day, through October, 1999. The permit also
includes a concentration limit for TN of 6 mg/L which becomes effective April 1, 2000 (after permit
expiration). The NPDES Permit Limitations page is attached for your reference.
The City of Gastonia has determined that it cannot comply with the TN concentration limit and made
a formal request to your agency in our NPDES renewal application (submitted July 26, 1999) to have
the 800 lbs./day mass limit retained in the reissued permit. It is our understanding that the NPDES
Permits Group is running behind schedule and that action on our permit application will be unlikely
to occur until mid or late 2000.
pan ght
FEB 1 i 2000
DER QUALITY
SECTION

Mr. Rex G on, P.E.
Page 2
February 3, 2000
TN Compliance Issues
A major contributor of TN in our Long Creek Service area is Fleischmann's Yeast. Based on data for
1999, this company contributes between 200 and 500 lbs/day of TN to our system. While some of this
nitrogen is as ammonia (and is thus readily nitrified to Nitrate and then removed from the system),
much of the organic fraction of this waste is not readily biodegradable. There should be prior
corresponde1ce m your files on this issue and Fleischmann's Yeast has also discussed this issue with
you. Our upgraded wastewater treatment processes have not improved our ability to treat this waste.
Interestingly' enough, our ability to comply with the TN limit is partially the result of the current
overall low hydraulic loading to the Long Creek Plant. Currently, the plant has averaged about 6 mgd
(current permitted capacity of 16 mgd) during 1999. This low flow provides limited dilution to the
Fleischmann's Yeast waste and thus makes compliance with the 6 mg/L TN concentration limit more
difficult. As the hydraulic loading to the facility increases, the waste concentration will go down and
thus the effluent will have lower TN concentrations. We feel that compliance with the 800 lbs/day TN
limit can be tchieved under current and permitted hydraulic loading to the facility.
Potential Solutions
The first issu that needs to be addressed is the interpretation of the NPDES permit requirements.
That is, does the 6 mg/L TN limitation come into effect if the scheduled date is after permit
expiration. Iff the concentration limit does not come into effect, we can resolve issues concerning the
TN permit limitation as part of the NPDES permit renewal.
The City of Gastonia is also reluctantly willing to consider applying for a Special Order by Consent
(SOC) for TN. However, this SOC could not be issued by April 1, 2000 when the concentration limit
becomes effective. Also, we have a slight philosophical problem applying for an SOC since the City
did make a timely request, as part of permit application, to have the TN limit reconsidered.
In closing, I would like to set up a meeting to discuss these issues as soon as possible. I will be
following up 'th a phone call to try to set up a meeting in Mid- February. Thank you for your
attention to is important issue.

Mr. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Page 3
February 3, 2000
Sincerely,
CITY OF r STONIA
nA
Coleman Keeter
Superintendent WWTD
CLT\Documentl
c: David Goodrich/NPPDES Unit
Tommy Stevens/DWQ Director
Don Carmichael, Director of Public Works/Utilities
John Shuler, Assistant Director of Utilities
Dennis Rewing, Deputy City Attorney

A.(2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -PERMITTED DISCHARGE TO S. FORK CATAWBA RIVER Permit No.NC0020184
During the period beginning after the expansion to 16.0 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
.EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS �,
}y y.. h• f f:
5<i�-
� 4f_ , � :', t;,
.! �.W
:rti�.7 .fit ,'.r't. `r R ti'it:{ >`R ',J` ritrk: .»y. �;.Ar ; ''"r t '^,?"k
.y�=�"t1.t., ,-i
: - LIMITS
�n .l,
iJ�fN' Jl% . n
MONITORING -REQUIREMENTS
.i,'
..atiMonthl ,
•,yt94., 4•ln
:
-e . .t::,;
.
'ww1ee I .,,.
� . ag
l 6#
)�S+i:_Daily 4. tit, C. , ,
'MxKNum
'Measurement
; M* eas.urement �...
re_g•_t.Op.t,::
'
CS'�ample
',K.:-,:iTYPe.y,.. t
- Sample
.:ALocaon X ::,:
_•�?<;.i
Flow
16.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
5.0
---7.5
Daily
Composite
E,1
--BO9; 5-day, 20°C2-(April 1---October31-)
mgil
mg/I
,
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (November 1 - March 31)
10.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
E,1
TSS2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E,I
NH3-N, (April 1 - October 31)
2.0 mg/I
Daily
• Composite
E
NH3-N, (November 1 - March 3i)
4.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab•
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Total Residual Chlorine
28.0 ug/I
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKIa)
800 Ibs/day4
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
6.0 mg/14
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
1.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E -
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
E
Cyanides.
10.8 ug/I
27.0 ug/1
Weekly
. Grab
E
Mercury?
0.651 ug/I
Weekly
Grab
E
Antimony
2/month
Composite
E
Beryllium
2/month
Composite
E
Cadmium
2/mohth
Composite
E
Chloride
2/month
Composite
E
.Chloroform
2/month
Grab
E
Lead
2/month
Grab
E
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U Upstream, D - Downstream. Instream monitoring will not be required during the remainder of the
permit period. See Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Page - Special Condition A(5).
2 The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be Tess than 6.0 mg/I.
4 800 lbs/day TN limit applies only from April 1 through October 31, 1999. 6.0 mg/l TN limit applies April 1 through October 31, 2000 and April 1 through
October 31, 2001 (or earlier if new permit issued prior to this date).
5 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia), P/F, no significant mortality at 19%; March, June, September, and December; See Supplement to Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements Page - Special Condition A(4).
8 The detection limit for cyanide is 10.0 ugfl. If the measured levels of cyanide are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be zero
for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as < 10.0 ug/I.
7 The detection limit for mercury is 0.2 ug/I. If the measured levels of mercury are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be zero
for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as < 0.2 ug/I.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard .units and shall. be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
1
.. •

MRO Staff Report — (NPDES Permit Renewal)
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: NO
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
Date: September 8, 1999
ES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Gaston
NPDES Permit No.: NC0020184
MRO No.: 99-124
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Page 1 of 4
1. Facility and Address: Long Creek WWTP
c/o City of Gastonia
Mailing Address Physical Address
PO Box 1748 Spencer Mountain Rd.
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748 Gastonia, Gaston County
2. Date of On -site Investigation: August 13, 1999
3. Report Prepared By: Charley Schwartz, Environmental Engineer
4. Person Contacted and Telephone Number:
Main Contact: Coleman Keeter (Phone# [phone])
ORC Name: Larry Cummings (Cert# 9232)
Backup ORC: Harold Hanna
5. Directions to Site: From the jct. of I-85 and NC Hwy 279, travel on 279 north
approximately 3.5 miles to Stowe Road. Turn right on Stowe Road and travel
approximately 0.5 mile to fork in road. Proceed down right fork (Long Creek Disposal
Plant Road). The WWTP is located at the end of Long Creek Disposal Plant Road.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge Points: -
Attach
Latitude: 35° 18' 37"
ongitude: 81 ° 06' 50"
USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: F 14 SE USGS Quad Name: Mount Holly, NC
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application: Yes.

MRO Staff 1ieport — (NPDES Permit Renewal) Page 2 of 4
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The site is moderately sloped and the
influent area appears to be in the flood plain; however, earthen dykes have been
constricted to protect this area.
9. Location of Nearest Dwelling: None within 500 feet of the WWTP site.
10. Receiving Stream or Affected Surface Waters: South Fork of the Catawba River
a.
b.
c.
Classification: WS V
River Basin and Subbasin No.: Catawba 03-08-36
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: At the
discharge point, the river is approximately 150 feet wide. The depth could not be
evaluated due to the dark color of the water; however, the river is several feet
deep. There are several dischargers of colored water upstream. The WWTP
effluent is also colored. Downstream of the discharge, the river has high visibility
and access to the public for a number of uses. The river and its existing water
quality have been discussed to great extent during the Catawba River Basin Plan
public meetings.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
Volume of Wastewater (Actual Flow from DMRs): 5.6 MGD
What is the current permitted capacity: 16.0 MGD
Current design capacity: 16.0 MGD
pate(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the
previous two years: The facility has conducted many alterations to existing
lequipment and constructed several new treatment units. The following is a list of
some of the alterations and additions: New main lift station with additional
mechanical bar screen, grit removal equipment, 36 mgd wet well, splitter boxes to
,rimary clarifiers, new 9 mgd biological nutrient removal basin, retrofitting of 7
mgd biological nutrient removal basin, new blower, four new secondary clarifiers,
-cell tertiary filter, solids contact reactor, dissolved air flotation unit,
termediate lift station with screw pumps, and new static aerators.
e. escription of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The existing
facilities consist of one coarse bar screen, two rake -type mechanical bar
creens, grit removal, Parshall Flume, 36 mgd capacity wet well/ dry well influent
ump station, splitter box (diversion to primary clarifiers), three primary clarifiers,
ne raw sludge pump station with flow meter, splitter boxes and piping to
econdary treatment, two biological nutrient removal basins (volumes of 7 mgd
d 9 mgd), one denitrification basin, intermediate lift station with three screw
umps, splitter box to final clarifiers, four final clarifiers, one 8-cell tertiary filter,
one backwash holding tank, dual channel chlorine contact tank, gaseous
chlorination and gaseous dechlorination facilities, dual static aerators for final

0
a
0
MRO Staff Deport — (NPDES Permit Renewal) Page 3 of 4
effluent aeration, one dissolved air flotation unit, for sludge thickening, four
anaerobic digesters, two aerobic digesters, solids contact reactor for phosphorous
removal from digester supernatant, and chemical feed facilities for sludge
conditioning.
f.
g•
h.
Description of proposed WWT facilities: No modifications to the WWTP are
proposed at this time. The facility is a color discharger within the Catawba River
Basin. Therefore, the facility will most likely be asked to monitor instream and
effluent color as well as evaluate the costs to reduce color concentrations during
the next permit cycle.
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: The facility serves several industries
which could contribute toxic chemicals to the facility's influent. Chlorine is also
added to the waste stream.
Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): The facility has an approved pretreatment
program.
2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied specify DWQ Permit No. WQ0001793
Residuals Contractor: AMSCO
Telephone No. [phone]
b. tesiduals stabilization: PSRP
c. ,andfill: N/A
d. Other: N/A
3. Treatment Plant Classification: Class IV (new rating sheet attached)
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater Code(s): 01
5. MTU
ode(s): 04513
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involve (municipals only)? The facility was constructed with public monies.
2. Special onitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: The permittee has
include I within the application a 9 page Technical Memorandum prepared by CH2MHi11
with recommendations regarding permit limitations and monitoring requirements.
3. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: No active SOCs for the facility.

MRO Staff Report — (NPDES Permit Renewal) Page 4 of 4
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Discharge to surface water is the only feasible disposal
alternative at this time.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The permittee (City of Gastonia) has requested renewal of the subject NPDES permit.
The facility has undergone substantial expansion during the previous permit cycle. The facility
flow capacity tias been expanded from 8 to 16 mgd, and upgraded to provide for biological
nutrient removal. The outfall location was also moved from Long Creek to the South Fork of the
Catawba River.
The effluent from the facility is colored and may require stream/effluent monitoring and a
color removal feasibility study during the next permit cycle (as discussed in the proposed
Catawba River Basin Plan).
At the time of the site inspection, the facility appeared to be operating well and the staff
was knowledgeable about the equipment and processes in use at the facility. This Office
recommends renewal of the permit.
9/Stiq
Signatur o Report Preparer Date
Water Quality Regrial Supervisor Date
h :\\npdes\Iongcrk.doc

(fitv of Gastonia
P. O. BOX 1748
nstnnitt, (North (1Iarolinn 28II53-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
August 25, 1999
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NCDENR/DWQ
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: Long Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC002018
South Fork River Monitoring
Dear Dave:
to ,1053 C, i
0� 11TY
u4,v
In accordance with NPDES Permit No. NC0020184, the City has completed the five
day DO monitoring of the South Fork River under low flow conditions. This
information is enclosed for your review. A copy will also be included with the August,
1999, DMR for the Long Creek facility.
We look forward to discussing this information with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Assistant Superintendent WWTD
Enclosures
cc: Coleman Keeter, Superintendent WWTD
John Shuler, Assistant Director of Utilities
John Lesley, Mooresville Regional Office

191.9-
174.4--
157.0--
139.5-
122.0-
104.6-
Daily Graph for City of Gastonia WWTPs --
08/01 /1999 to 08/25/1999
87.108/01
d8/04 68/07 d8/10 d8/13 8/( (N � d8/22 d8/25
X South Fork Flow MGD
1

523.2-
450.5-
377.8-
305.2-
232.
159.8—
Daily Graph for City of Gastonia WWTPs --
06/01/1999 to 08/25/1999
1
$7'106/01 6/10 d6/19 (i6/28 d7/07 d7/16 d7/25 d8/0� (i8�'f�8/21
X South Fork Flow MGD

1564.7-
1304.3-
1043.
783.5=
523.1
262.7�
Daily Graph for City of Gastonia WWTPs --
01 /01 /1999 to 08/25/1999
2'301/01 61/25 d 8 d3/14 d4/07 15/01 d5/25 66/18 67/12 68/05
X South Fork Flow MGD

NC Permit 0020184
tohg Creek
South Fork River Data for low flows
August 20-24, 1999
Began
Fri 8/20199 began at 10:30 am
Back at 3:30 P.M.
Level 1.55
6.2
Point of Entry
Ft3 137.90
6.6
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow = 89.12
6.6
Below Hydro-Elec Plant
6.6
1/2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
Afer 3:45 pm
6.6
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 1.56
6.6
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 139.9
6.4
1/2 mi. below C & K
Flow
= 90.40
Began
6.1
Sat 8121/1999 began at 7:00 am
185 Bridge
Back at 2:00 PM
Level 1.61
6.8
Point of Entry
93 134.89
6.8
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow = 87.18
6.8
Below Hydro Elec- Plant
6.4
1/2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
After 1:50 pm
5.8
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 1.73
6.1
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 175.90
6.1
1/2 mi. below C & K
Flow
= 113.7
Began
6.4
Sun 8/22/99 began at 6:50 am
185 Bridge
Back at 12:20 PM
Level 1.81
7.2
Point of Entry
Ft3 194.4
7.0
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow 125.64
6.7
Below Hydro-Elec Plant
6.7
1/2 mi.below Hydro-Elec
After 2 pm
6.7
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 1.78
6.7
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 187.3
6.5
1/2 mi. below C & K
F1oyv =121.05
1 = an
6.1
Mon 8/23/99 began at 9:30 am
185 Bridge
Back at 12:40 PM
Level 1.71
7.2
Point of Entry
Ft3 171.4
7.0
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow 110.77
7.3
Below Hydro -Electric Plant
6.9
1/2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
Afer 2 pm
6.9
Above Crompton & Knowles
Lei/el 1.78
6.5
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 187.3
6.7
1/2 mi. below C & K
Flo ' =126.07
began
6.1
Tue 8/24/99 began at 9:50 am
185 Bridge
Back at 1:00 PM
Le' el 2.20
7
Point of Entry
Ft$ 296.90
6.9
Above Hydro -Electric Plant
Flow] = 191.88
6.9
Below Hydro -Electric Plant
6.9
1/2 mi. below Hydro-Elec
After 1 pm
6.6
Above Crompton & Knowles
Level 2.80
6.6
Below Crompton & Knowles
Ft3 j
496.50
6.3
1/2 mi. below C & K
Flowl
= 320.88
6.2
185 Bridge

(1I fg .> 6astortta
P. O. BOX 1748
,6nstoniu, !dortfl Car
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
July 30, 1999
Mr. David Goodrich
NPDES Permit Group
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Subject: Addendum Material for:
Application for Permit to Discharge Wastewater, Standard Form A
Request for Renewal of NPDES NC0020184 (originally submitted 7/27/99)
City of Gastonia, Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Enclosed please find three copies of addendum material to be inserted into the Long Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) NPDES permit renewal application for NPDES Permit
NC0020184. This information was inadvertently omitted from the technical memorandum that was
originally submitted to NCDENR on July 27, 1999. The following three inserts should be inserted
into the permit renewal application (Standard Form A - Municipal) that was included as Appendix A
to the technical memorandum:
• Sludge Management Plan
• Location Map
• Water Flow Schematic

Mr. David poodrich
Page 2
July 30, 1999
If you have
6670.
Sincerely,
any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call Larry Cummings at (704) 854-
Coleman Keeter, Superintendent
Wastewater Treatment Division
Enclosures: Three copies of Addendum Material for NPDES NC0020184 permit renewal
cc:
Cummings
Billy Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL

City of Gastonia
Long Creek WWTP NC0020184
Sludge Management Plan
o�R :.NIER uKE Bka°N
The Long Creek WWTP design for sludge handling currently consists of anaerobic sludge
digestion ollowed by land application. A pilot study for the lime stabilization of residuals is
scheduled to start in late August or early September. This plan describes both the current
and plann d future sludge management operations at the Long Creek WWTP.
Current - Anaerobic Digestion
Currently, the anaerobic digestion system consists of six anaerobic sludge digesters, each
with a volume of approximately 450,000 gallons, which treat the primary and waste -
activated s udge from the WWTP. On average, the City of Gastonia sends 60,000 gallons of
raw and w sted solids to these digesters each day for treatment. Two of the digesters are
operated a primary digesters, one is operated as a secondary digester, one is utilized for
gas storag , and two are utilized for sludge storage.
Raw sludg from the bottom of three primary clarifiers is pumped to the two primary
digesters where it is held for a minimum of 15 days at 35 degrees C. Wasting from the
secondary clarifiers is also pumped to the primary digesters, however these solids are first
thickened i the DAF unit located adjacent to the digesters. From the primary digesters,
solids are then pumped to the secondary digester and then into the storage digester.
The WWTP has two biosolids storage lagoons, with a combined capacity of four (4) million
gallons. In 1994-5, the City of Gastonia constructed a residuals storage facility at the City of
Gastonia Resource Recovery Farm located between Dallas and Cherryville. This facility is
capable of itoring an additional eight (8) million gallons of biosolids when application
activities are hindered by inclement weather.
The Long Creek WWTP currently complies with the 503 pathogen reduction requirement
for Class B biosolids by maintaining a PSRP process (40 CFR Part 257 Appendix II).
Pathogen reduction is demonstrated by fecal coliform testing or documentation of primary
digester MCRT and temperature. Vector attraction reduction is demonstrated by either a
measurement of 38% volatile solids reduction or a 40 day additional anaerobic digestion
bench scale test.
Future - Lime Stabilization Pilot Project
In late Aug'
stabilizatioi
application
into lime st
the batch tr
Lst or early September, the City of Gastonia will begin a pilot study for the lime
of residuals generated at the Long Creek WWTP. With the help of the land
:ontractor, the City is in the process of converting the two open top digesters
bilization tanks. These open digesters will have mixers and pumps installed for
atment of residuals with a lime product. The remaining four digesters will
SLUDGE_MGT PLAN.DOC 1

remain in service as storage areas, however the operation of heat exchangers and perth units
will cease. When residuals are ready for treatment, City Staff will fill one of the open
digesters ith raw sludge and the Contractor will begin the treatment process. The process
involves operation of mixers/pumps to unload a trailer load of the alkaline material,
constant xing, pumping of the treated material into the other open tank, and loading of
the tanker ¶rucks for transportation to land application sites. Treatment will be achieved by
elevating the pH of the residuals to a pH of 12 for 2 hours and then a pH of 11.5 for an
additional22 hours. The contractor will collect samples for the initial, 2 hour, and 24 hour
pH and document all components of the treatment process. The samples will be taken to the
plant laboratory for pH analysis.
The City of
study for o
will be eva
Land A
Gastonia has received permission from NC DENR to proceed with this pilot
e year from start up. After one year of operation, the results of the pilot study
uated to determine if this treatment process will continue on a permanent basis.
plication
In 1986, the City of Gastonia implemented a sludge land application program, which
consists of o sludge lagoons and sludge -loading facilities. The liquid sludge is hauled off
for land ap lication by AMSCO, Inc. of Clemmons, NC. Biosolids are land applied to 2,161.8
acres of loc 1 farmland throughout the county, in accordance with NCDENR Land
Applicatio Permit WQ0001793.
SLUDGE_MGT_PLAN.DOC 2

1
• • f.
/
\_.;:./AAK1
•
0 1000 200
rir
ntereyY;i.
Gastonia North, NC
FEET SW/4 Gastonia 15' Quadrangle
N3515-W8107.5/7.5
1970 AMS 4754 I SW -Series V842
tosik
City of Gastoni NC 0020184
Long Creek WWTP Location Map
Gastonia, NC JULY 1999
•
asritaganw "egg.
aktetive
var
• Quadrangle Location
41110.
CH2M H ILL
P:%GASTO NIAILONGCR EEKW WTP. APR

ti
cc
Hz
A2
0
,, •
n07 La,� ,
•
^.s. `^ ••
•� . • •
8
Latitude:35° 31' 35"
Longitude:82° 24' 10"
USGS Quad #:F14SE
t 'River Basin #:030836
Receiving Stream: South
Catwba River
Stream Class: C
• •
Fork
•
•,1� ..
i
/ +.
/ �J
800
• •
\�
i �... • �•/•
l� ter.
B00
\L.••
•
•��ys
' ^ . fir' +�� .
-768
}• •••
•
City of Gastonia
N00020184
Gaston County
Long Creek WWTP

I
V T
✓
1
•r ----- --»-
1
1 1
r ---•-�+-
1
LONG CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER FLOW DIAGRAM
GASTONIA, NORTH CAROUNA
I'
NPDES NC0020184 Water Flow Schematic
-U_JL_-11_'
r
1_
•

City of Onsionia
P. O. BOX 1748
astoniu, Yortll Carolina 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
July 26, 1999
Mr. David Goodrich
NPDES Permit Group
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 2 535
512 North alisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Subject: Application for Permit to Discharge Wastewater, Standard Form A
Request for Renewal of NPDES NC0020184
City of Gastonia, Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Enclosed please find three copies of a technical memorandum supporting the Long Creek Wastewater
Treatment P ant (WWTP) NPDES permit renewal application for NPDES NC0020184. The permit
renewal app ication (Standard Form A - Municipal) is included as Appendix A to the technical
memorandum. A renewal fee has not been enclosed, as it is our understanding that as of January 1,
1999, renewal fees will be included in the annual fee bill.
The Long Creek WWTP has just undergone an expansion, treatment upgrade and outfall relocation.
Treatment has been upgraded to expand hydraulic capacity from 8 mgd to 16 mgd, provide for
biological nutrient removal, enhance treatment of oxygen consuming wastes and solids, and discharge
into the South Fork of the Catawba River (versus discharge to Long Creek — a tributary to the South
Fork). Construction activities for this expansion were substantially complete during the spring of
1999. In ad 'tion to providing capacity for growth in and around the City of Gastonia, the Long Creek
WWTP also receives wastewater that was formerly treated at the Catawba Creek WWTP. Diversion
of flow from the Catawba Creek WWTP service area to Long Creek WWTP began in August 1998
and all flow was transferred (and decommissioning of Catawba Creek WWTP initiated) in March
1999.

Mr. David Goodrich
Page 2
July 27, 19!9
This permi application and supporting material continues the City of Gastonia's extensive efforts for
maintaining environmental compliance in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We have continued
our efforts o produce the highest quality analytical information for evaluating compliance and have
begun several new initiatives to address potential sources of contaminants to our system. Please let
me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Coleman K er, Superintendent
Wastewater Treatment Division
Enclosures:
Three copies of Technical Memorandum
(Standard Form A — Municipal is provided in Appendix A)
cc: Larry Cummings
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL

fids.mt
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
NPDEPermit Application for the Long Creek
Wasteater Treatment Plant
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
Purpos
City of Gastonia
CH2M HILL
July 26,1999
The purpos of this technical memorandum (TM) is to provide additional background
informatio , data analysis, and recommendations for the development of NPDES permit
limitations end monitoring requirements for the City of Gastonia's Long Creek Wastewater
Treatment lant (WWTP). This TM supplements the information contained in the NPDES
application form (Form A — Municipal) which is included as Appendix A of this document.
Backgr . and Information
The Long
eastern por
approxima
businesses
expansion,
expand by •
enhance tre
Fork of the
eek WWTP is an advanced treatment facility serving the central, northern and
ons of the City of Gastonia Service area. The facility treats wastewater for
-ly 62,000 people, 20 major industrial contributors, and numerous small
d commercial enterprises. The Long Creek WWTP has just undergone an
eatment upgrade and outfall relocation. Treatment has been upgraded to
raulic capacity from 8 mgd to 16 mgd, provide for biological nutrient removal,
tment of oxygen consuming wastes and solids, and discharge into the South
atawba River (versus discharge to Long Creek — a tributary to the South Fork).
Construction activities for this expansion were substantially complete during the spring of
1999.
•
In addition to providing capacity for growth in and around the City of Gastonia, the Long
Creek P also receives wastewater that was formerly treated at the Catawba Creek
WWTP. Di ersion of flow from the Catawba Creek WWTP service area to Long Creek
WWTP beg n in August 1998 and all flow was transferred (and decommissioning of
Catawba C eek WWTP initiated) in March 1999.
Historical)
limitations
made since
improved s
were also s
response to
Water Qua
November,
, the Long Creek WWTP has had some NPDES compliance issues with
or specific pollutant parameters for toxic substances. Considerable efforts were
1995 through the pretreatment program, treatment improvements, and
mpling and analytical procedures to address these compliance issues. There
me reductions in some industrial contributors to the system since 1995. In
the efforts to control toxicants and information submitted to the Division of
ity (DWQ), the NPDES permit for Long Creek WWTP was modified in
1998 eliminating limitations for several parameters and modifying the basis for
NPDES TM FINAL.DQC 1 152907.A0.01

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE LONG CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
determining compliance with others (specifically cyanide and mercury). The City has been
participatin in the Common Sense Initiative through the Pollution Prevention (PP)
program w thin the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Through
this initiati e, the City has been obtaining voluntary agreements with industries,
particular) metal finishers, to reduce their waste contributions to the City's wastewater
facilities.
The City of ' astonia is committed to environmental excellence through their wastewater
services op rations. As a demonstration of this commitment, the City is working on a pilot
project in c njunction with the PP program within the DENR to develop an ISO 14001
Environme tal Management System (EMS). The City believes that implementation of the
EMS, will greatly enhance compliance with environmental regulations. A summary of the
City's effor regarding attainment of the ISO 14001 standard is included in Appendix B. It is
expected th t the City will complete this pilot project during the late spring or early summer
of 2000.
Effluent Data Analysis
Available d to since January 1,1996 has been reviewed for various groups of pollutant
parameters. Parameters have been grouped according to the following categories:
• Oxy en demand
• Nu ients
• Toxi Substances
While the data has been reviewed and summary statistics have been developed, it is
important to remember that several of changes were occurring at the Long Creek WWTP
during this period. First, major construction activities were underway during much of the
period. Thee changes affected different treatment units over time and probably had the
most significant influence on oxygen demand parameters and solids handling. Second,
industrial c ntributions and contributing flow to the facility changed during the period as
discussed a ove, particularly the addition of flow from the Catawba Creek WWTP service
area.
Oxygen Demand
Data Summary
Table 1 is a summary of effluent BOD and ammonia -nitrogen (NH3-N) data for a period of 3
years and 3 rnonths. The data reflects the advanced treatment provided by the Long Creek
WWTP even during major construction activities.
NPDES TM FINAL.DOC 2 152907.A0.01

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE LONG CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
TABLE1
Summary of B D and Ammonia Data
Long Creek P
Parameter
Number of Data Average2 Maximum Detect Minimum Detect
Points' (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD5
BOD5 (summer)
BOD5 (winter)
NH3-N
NH3-N (summer)
NH3-N (winterl
776 7.9 48 2
433 6.8 24 ND
343 9.2 48 2
824 1.6 22 0.10
451 0.69 7.4 0.10
373 2.8 22 0.10
1. Data is from January 1, 1996 — March 31, 1999 (summer = April 1 — October 31, winter = November 1 —
March 31)
2. Average concentration calculated based on assumption that ND=0.
Proposed Permit Limitations
The permit (limitations for BOD5 and NH3-N are based on a wasteload allocation conducted
by DWQ that was the basis for the expansion design. It is not anticipated that these
requirements will change from the current permit.
Toxic Substances
Data Summary
Reasonable potential to exceed (RPE) values were calculated for effluent metals, cyanide,
and chloroform for the period of January 1,1996, through March 31, 1999. RPE calculations
for the 99th percentile were based on Chapter 3 and Appendix E of EPA's Technical Support
Document fo Water Quality -Based Toxics Control (EPA, 1991). DWQ has indicated that it
generally p efers to use the Chapter 3 approach. CH2M HILL feels that Chapter 3 just
approximat s the RPE and that the Appendix E method is more rigorous and accurate.
Appendix C provides a summary of the RPE analysis. Potential effluent limits were
developed r metals, cyanide, and chloroform, based on NC water quality standards or
action level or EPA water quality criteria using the instream waste concentration (IWC).
These value were compared to the 99th percentile RPE values to determine whether an
effluent limitation should be considered as follows:
Potential effluent limit = NC WQS or EPA criterion/IWC
For aquatic life protection and human health criteria for non -carcinogens, the IWC is based
on the 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) low flow. For human health criteria for carcinogens, the IWC is
based on th average annual flow.
Table 2 su arizes the effluent data, estimated RPE values, and current/potential effluent
limits for to icants for which Gastonia has monitoring data.
NPDES TM_FINAL.DOC
3 152907.A0.01

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE LONG CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
TABLE 2
Reasonable Potential to Exceed Potential Effluent Limits
Long Creek WWTP
Compound Monitoring Number Average' Maximum RPE - RPE - Potential Limit
Frequency of Data Detect Appendix Chapter 3 Effluent Needed
Points E (99th (99th Limits3
percentile) percentile)2
Cyanide weekly 155 6.5 70 34 102 27 Yes
Antimony 2/month 22 1.0 4.0 9.6 9.4 754 No
Arsenic monthly 39 0.74 6.0 7.0 13 270 No
Beryllium 2/month 21 ND ND ND ND 0.63 No
Cadmium 2/month 158 0.12 3.0 2.7 3.4 11 No
Chloride ./month 31 250,000 330,000 480,000 450,000 1,243,0005 No
Chloroform 2/month 23 20 51 69 117 16,0004 No
Chromium monthly 131 9.4 46 39 60 270 No
Copper monthly 69 31 63 195 91 38 (AL) No (AL)
Lead month 133 1.1 29 11 51 135 No
Mercury eek y 170 0.024 1.0 0.6 1.3 0.065 Yes
Molybdenum monthly 40 35 55* 43 105 - No
Nickel monthly 131 43 190 132 261 476 No
Selenium monthly 39 0.28 9.0 11 23 27 No
Silver monthly 69 0.58 20 20 57 0.32 (AL) No (AL)
Zinc monthly 71 115 412 294 576 270 (AL) No (AL)
Data from January 1, 1996 - March 31, 1999
Units in ug/L
ND = non -detect
AL = Action Level er 15A NCAC 2B .0211 (4)
* Excluded outlier f 740 ug/L from RPE evaluation for molybdenum
1. Average cone tration calculated based on assumption that ND=0
2. RPE calculated based on assumption that ND = 0.5*detection limit
3. Current permit effluent limits are indicated by bold italics
4. Based on EPA human health criteria for consumption of "water and organisms" based on December 7, 1998 Federal Register Notice
and the IWC of 18.5%
5. Based on EPA chronic aquatic life criteria based on December 7, 1998 Federal Register Notice and the IWC of 18.5%
RPE values were compared with the current permit limits and potential effluent limits to
determine if there is reasonable potential to exceed the permit limit or action level. If the
permit limit or action level is greater than the 99th percentile RPE, it is not likely that the
effluent will exceed the permit limit or action level. An RPE value exceeding Action Levels
does not warrant the consideration of a permit limit if effluent is meeting whole effluent
toxicity requirements. The Long Creek WWTP effluent has met the toxicity requirements
required for the 16 MGD facility discharging to the South Fork (IWC= 19%) since December
1997.
NPDES TM_FINAL.DOC
4 152907.A0.01

NPOES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE LONG CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The analysis indicates that permit limitations should only be considered for cyanide and for
mercury. For all other parameters, the RPE analysis does not indicate limitations are
required. In addition, there are no apparent conflicts between RPE methodologies shown in
Table 2 (i.e. the Chapter 3 versus Appendix E methods). However, the Appendix E method
shows a much lower RPE value for both parameters requiring consideration of limits than
the Chapte 3 method.
It should be noted that mercury was only detected in 10 of the 170 data points. In the last
year (April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999), mercury has been reported at the detection
limit (0.2 u /L) in 1 sample (April 2, 1998) and was not detected in the remainder of the
samples during this period. Extensive efforts by City of Gastonia staff to ensure high quality
mercury arlialytical results seem to have reduced the occurrence of detections near the
detection limit. In addition, Gastonia staff has been extending control efforts for mercury
beyond the Pretreatment Program for industrial contributors by initiating an education
effort throe h the local dental association.
Cyanide results also show a relatively low frequency of detections. Only 2 values out of 14
during the ast year exceeded the quantitation level of 10 ug/L included in the last NPDES
permit, anti no values exceeded the current NPDES daily maximum limitation of 27 ug/L. It
should be rioted that there appears to be an error in the most recent NPDES permit for
calculation of the cyanide limitation. The NC WQS is 5.0 ug/L and the IWC is 18.5%. This
gives a potential limitation of 27 ug/L, which should be the weekly average limit in the
permit. The daily maximum limit should be based on the EPA acute criterion of 22 ug/L
and the IWC which gives a limitation of 119 ug/L.
Proposed Permit Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
Permit limitations for cyanide and mercury seem to be justified based on the RPE analysis.
The cyanide permit limitations should be corrected to reflect the correct IWC calculations.
The limits should be a weekly average value of 27 ug/L and a daily maximum value of 119
ug/L. For mercury, compliance issues remain troublesome because any detection of
mercury results in an NPDES permit violation. While Gastonia has gone to great lengths to
ensure no sample contamination during sampling and during analysis in their own
laboratory, hey still experience problems when samples are sent out to contract
laboratone . For this reason, the recommendation from the May 13,1997 letter from the City
of Gastonia to Dave Goodrich/DWQ regarding mercury should be included in the reissued
NPDES per t. This recommendation was as follows:
Mer ury compliance is dependent on test results near the detection level. The
permits should be modified to allow for mercury samples to be collected with grab
sam les at all facilities. A footnote could be added to the permit that allows detected
mer ury levels to be verified through clean analysis of true split samples. This could
eli 'nate. many compliance issues with this parameter.
Only the gr b sampling portion of this recommendation was included in the November
1998 perm'
This reco endation is easier to implement now since EPA has recently approved the
revised ana ytical method for mercury (EPA Method 1631).
NPDES TM F1NAL.DOC 5 152907.A0.01

NPOES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE LONG CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The monitoring requirements included in the current NPDES permit for antimony,
beryllium, cadmium, chloride, chloroform and lead do not seem justified. Monitoring for
these parameters should only be performed through the requirements of the Long-term
Monitoring Plan.
Nutrients
Data Summ
ry
Table 3 summarizes total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) data. This data was
collected during a period when there were no specific nutrient removal processes in place
for the Long Creek WWTP.
TABLE 3
Summary of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Data
Long Creek WWTP
Parameter Number of Data Average Maximum Detect Minimum Detect
Points
Total Nitrogen 322 23 68 5.2
Total Phosphorus 350 5.1 9.9 0.7
Data from January 1, 1996 — March 31, 1999
Units in mg/L
1. Average coicentration calculated based on assumption that ND=O
Proposed P rmit Limitations
The current DES permit includes a mass limitation for TN during the summer (April
through Oc ober) until October 31, 1999 and then a concentration limit of 6 mg/L for
summer pe 'od thereafter. The TP limit of 1.0 mg/L applies year-round.
CH2M HIL recommends that only mass limits be included in the reissued NPDES permit.
These woul be an 800-lbs/day TN limit during the summer and a 133 lbs/day TP limit
year round. The basis for nutrient limitations for the Long Creek WWTP is based on mass
loading to e Lake Wylie system, specifically the South Fork arm of the lake. Effluent
concentrations are not critical.
Conclus
ions/Recommendations
Proposed Permit Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
Table 4 pres nts a proposed permit limitations page for the Long Creek WWTP. This page
included th changes recommended above for toxic substances and nutrients. In addition,
instream m nitoring requirements have been deleted from Table 4. The revised permit
issued in N vember 1998 included a special condition regarding Synoptic Stream Sampling
Event. Ther fore no instream monitoring should be listed until completion of this sampling.
NPDES TM FINAL.DOC
6 152907.A0.01

TABLE 4
Potential Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements -Permitted Discharge to S. Fork Catawba River
LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Effluent Characteristics
Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample
Average Average Maximum Frequency Location'
Flow 16.0 MGD Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (April 1 — October 31) 5.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L Daily Composite E, I
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (November 1 — March 31) 10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Daily Composite E, I
TSS2 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite E, I
NH3-N (April 1 — October 31) 2.0 mg/L Daily Composite E
NH3-N (November 1 — March 31) 4.0 mg/L Daily Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen3 Daily Grab E,
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Daily Grab E
Temperature Daily Grab E,
Total Residual Chlorine 28.0 ug/L Daily Grab E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) 800 Ibs/day4 Weekly Composite E
Total Phosphorus 133 Ibs/day Weekly Composite E
Chronic Toxicity5 Quarterly Composite E
Cyanides 27 ug/L 119 ug/L Weekly Grab , E
Mercury' 0.065 ug/L Weekly Grab E
Chloride 2/month Composite E
NPDES TM FINAL.DOC 7 152907.A0.01

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE LONG CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMEI IL
TABLE 4
Potential Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements -Permitted Discharge to S. Fork Catawba River
LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Effluent Characteristics
Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample
Average Average Maximum Frequency Location'
1. Sample Locations: E - effluent, I — influent,
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L
4. 800 lbs/day TN limit applies only from April 1 through October 31.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia), P/F, no significant mortality at 19%: March, June, September, and December
6. The detection limit for cyanide is 10.0 ug/L. If the measured levels of cyanide are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be zero for
purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as <10.0 ug/L.
7. The detection limit for mercury is 0.2 ug/L. If the measured levels of mercury are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be zero for
purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as <0.2 ug/L. If mercury is detected in any sample, the presence of mercury can be
verified using a separate split sample analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 1631. The result from this second analysis shall be used for compliance
determinations.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
NPDES TM_FINALDOC 8 152907.A0.01

These changes reflect a thorough analysis of recent Long Creek WWTP data and
appropriate interpretation of requirements necessary to protect water quality in the South
Fork of the Catawba River.
ISO 14001
Pilot Project
Discussions with DWQ staff have indicated that they were willing to consider additional
NPDES permit changes upon successful completion of the ISO 14001 pilot project. The
following are some potential changes that should be considered:
• Red
ann
• Red
ctions in effluent toxicity testing monitoring frequency to semi-annual or
al monitoring
ctions in conventional parameter monitoring frequency
NPDES TM_FtNAL.DOC
9 152907.A0.01

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a desc 'ption of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descrip ion. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the fl • w (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the munici • al system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Maj • r Contributing Facility
(Se = Instructions)
Na e
Nu ber and Street
City
Cou
ty
401a Armtex, Inc.
401b 803 N. Oakland Street
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
Stat : 401e North Carolina
Zip ' • de 401f 28053
2. Prim: ry Standard Industrial 402 2228
Clas . ification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Prin • ipal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See Instructions)
Prod ct
Raw aterial
403a Textile/Domestic 403c 403e
403b Fiber Reactive Dye 403d 403f
Softeners
4. Flow Indicate the volume of water 404a 546 Thousand gallons per day
disc arged into the municipal system in
thou • and gallons per day and whether 404b _X_ Intermittent (int) Continuous (con)
this • ischarge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr-atment Provided. Indicate if 405 _X_ Yes No
pretr:atment is provided prior to entering
the unicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH; N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
183
21
0.538
14.51
4.5
0.0083
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
COD
O&G
Zn
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
00340
00550
01092
406b
Value
0.001
10.001
767
66.2
0.167
406b
Value
0.001
0.001
U.CIUZ

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri lion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descriptioi. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flow (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municipal system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility
(See Instructions)
Name
401a Armtex, Inc.
Number and Street 401 b 803 N. Oakland Street
City 401c Gastonia
Counter 401d Gaston
State 401e North Carolina
Zip Code 401f 28053
2. Primary Standard Industrial 402 2228
Classification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Princi al Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See I structions)
Product 403a Textile/Domestic 403c 403e
Raw Material
403b Fiber Reactive Dye 403d 403f
Softeners
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water 404a 546 Thousand gallons per day
discharged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether 404b _X_ Intermittent (int) Continuous (con)
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretratment Prdvided. Indicate if
pretre tment is provided prior to entering
the m nicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
405 X Yes No
P'3rameter
N
me
BOD
TSS
NH,-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
P
rameter
umber
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
183
21
0.538
14.51
4.5
0.0083
0.0001
P' rameter
ame
Cd
Pb
COD
O&G
Zn
406a
P rameter
umber
01027
01051
00340
00550
01092
406b
Iue
0.001
10.001
767
66.2
0.167

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a description of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility description. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flow (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municipal system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility
(See nstructions)
Nam
401a Best Foods Baking
Num er and Street 401b 1029 Cox Road
City 401c Gastonia
Coun 401d Gaston
State 401 a North Carolina
Zip Code 401f 28054
2. Primary Standard Industrial 402 2051
Classification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Princ
(See
pal Product or Raw Material
Instructions)
Quantity Units
Prod ct 403a Baked Bread 403c 403e
Roils, muffins
Raw Material
4. Flow1 Indicate the volume of water
discharged into the municipal system in
thousand gallons per day and whether
this clischarge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if
pretr atment is provided prior to entering
the unicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
403b Baking Ingredients 403d 403f
404a 26.5 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _XContinuous (con)
405 Yes _X_ No
!arameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH,-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
1
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
632
435
1.43
18.3
3.11
0.00125
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
O&G
406a
arameter
umber
01027
01051
00550
406b
alue
0.001
0.001
6.4

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municipal system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility
(See nstructions)
Nam!
Number and Street
City
Coun
State
Zip C e
2. Prim4ry Standard Industrial
Clas ification Code
(Seenstructions)
401a Choice USA Beverages, Inc.
P.O. Box 2669
401b 809 East Franklin Boulevard
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
401 a North Carolina
401f 28053
402 2086
3. Princ pal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See nstructions)
Product
Raw Material
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thou and gallons per day and whether
this d?scharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr?atment Provided. Indicate if
pretreatment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
403a Soft drinks 403c 403e
403b Soft drink ingredients 403d 403f
404a 35.5 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
405 Yes _X_ No
Parameter
Game
BOD
TSS
NH,-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
flumber
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
\aiue
1289
25
0.20
8.57
3.6
0.0013
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
O&G
Zn
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
00550
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.005
27
0.213

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the munici al system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Majo Contributing Facility 401a Danaher Tool Group
(See nstructions)
Nam P.O. Box 1698
Num er and Street 401 b 1228 Islay Drive
City 401c Gastonia
County 401d Gaston
State 401e North Carolina
Zip Code 401f 28052
2. Prim Ty Standard Industrial 402 3423
Clas ification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Princ pal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See Instructions)
Product
Raw Material
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
discharged into the municipal system in
thousand gallons per day and whether
this ischarge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if
pretr atment is provided prior to entering
the unicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
403a Metal Finisher/ 403c 403e
Domestic
403b Alloy Steel ASTM 403d 403f
Alkaline Cleaners, Plating Chemicals
404a 147.4 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con) 50%
405 _X_ Yes No
arameter
ame
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
TKN
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Il'arameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
1/alue
243
377
81
164
40.2
0.0028
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
Cr
Cu
Ni
Ag
Zn
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
01034
01042
01067
01077
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.0013
0.256
0.04
1.311
0.010
0.226
Iarameter
Name
Parameter
O&G
TTO
406a
Number
00550
406b
Value
2.5
0.6

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the munici al system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Majo Contributing Facility 401a Firestone Fibers and Textiles Company
(See Instructions)
Name P.O. Box 1278
Number and Street 401b 1101 West Second Avenue
City 401c Gastonia
Cou ty 401d Gaston
Stat 401 a North Carolina
Zip Code 401f 28053
2. Prim ry Standard Industrial 402 2296
Clas ification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Prin pal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See Instructions)
Prod ct
Raw
aterial
4. Flow Indicate the volume of water
disc arged into the municipal system in
thou and gallons per day and whether
this *charge is intermittent or continuous
403a Treated tire cord 403c 403e
fabric
403b NH4OH, resorcind, 403d 403f
surfactant, formaldehyde
404a 37 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
5. Pret atment Provided. Indicate if 405 _X_ Yes No
pretr atment is provided prior to entering
the unicipal system
6. Charaacteristics of Wastewater
(Seel Instructions)
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH,-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
arameter
umber
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
alue
271
42
5.16
3.93
1.21
0.00125
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
O&G
Zn
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
00550
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.010
21.3
0.269

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri lion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municip I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility 401a Fleishman's Yeast
(See nstructions)
Name P.O. Box 999
Number and Street
City
County
State
Zip C e
2. Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code
(See nstructions)
3. Princi
(See 1
Prod
aaI Product or Raw Material
nstructions)
t
Raw Material
401b
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
401e North Carolina
401f 28052
402 2099
Quantity Units
403a Yeast/ Domestic 403c 403e
403b Molasses, Starch, 403d 403f
Ammonia, Phosphoric Acid
Growth Additive (Zn, SO4, MgSO4)
4. Row. Indicate the volume of water 404a 231.2 Thousand gallons per day
disch rged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether 404b _X_ Intermittent (int) Continuous (con)
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretreatment Provided. Indicate if
pretreatment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
405 X Yes No
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
VVIue
79
177
7.1
265
22.9
0.0441
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
Cr
COD
O&G
406a
P
rameter
umber
01027
01051
01034
00340
00550
406b
Value
1.0
1.0
0.034
2329
2.5

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a description of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municip I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility
(See I structions)
Nam
401a Freightliner Corporation
Number and Street 401b 1400 Tulip Drive
City 401c Gastonia
County 401d Gaston
State 401e North Carolina
Zip C e 401f 28052
2. Primary Standard Industrial 402
Classification Code
(See instructions)
3. Principal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See Instructions)
Product
403a Metal Finisher/ 403c 403e
Domestic
Raw Material 403b 403d 403f
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water 404a 13.0 Thousand gallons per day
disch rged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether 404b _X_ Intermittent (int) Continuous (con)
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if
pretr tment is provided prior to entering
the m nicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See nstructions)
405 _X_ Yes No
14ameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
P
rameter
umber
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
11slue
209
38
18.5
94.4
8.6
0.0015
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
Cr
Cu
Ni
Ag
Zn
406a
P
rameter
umber
01027
01051
01034
01042
01067
01077
01092
406blue
0.0012
0.008
0.028
0.056
1.175
0.008
0.753
Parameter
Fame
O&G
TTO
406a
Farameter
Number
00550
406b
Value
43.5
0.760

Submit a descri
facility descripti
material, the flo
into the municip
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
(in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility 401a Gaston County Landfill
(See 1 structions)
Name
Numb- r and Street 401 b 3155 Philadelphia Church Road
City 401c Gastonia
Coun , 401d Gaston
State 401e North Carolina
Zip Cde 401f 28034
2. Prima Standard Industrial
Class fication Code
(See I structions)
3. Princi s al Product or Raw Material
(See Instructions)
402
Quantity Units
Prods ct 403a leachate 403c 403e
Raw Material
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if
pretre tment is provided prior to entering
the m nicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See nstructions)
403b soil, solid waste 403d 403f
404a 270 Thousand gallons per day
404b _X_ Intermittent (int) Continuous (con)
405 _X Yes No
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH; N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
6.6
116
0.4
0.91
0.06
0.00125
0.0001
-
Name
arameter
-
Cd '
- Pb -
-
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
406b
Value
0.004
0.007

Submit a descrii
facility descriptic
material, the floc
into the municip
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
n. indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
(in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
tI system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility 401a Gaston Memorial Hospital — 001
(See nstructions)
Nam P.O. Box 1747
Num er and Street 401 b 2525 Court Drive
City
Coun
State
Zip Gide
2. Prim ry Standard Industrial
Class fication Code
(See nstructions)
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
401e North Carolina
401f 28053
402 7218
3. Princi�al Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See nstructions)
Proddct
403a Healthcare 403c 403e
cafeteria, laundry
Raw Material 403b Food, laundry 403d 403f
supplies
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water 404a 93.5 Thousand gallons per day
discharged into the municipal system in
thousand gallons per day and whether 404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretreatment Provided. Indicate if 405 _X_ Yes No
pretreatment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
P
rameter
ame
BOD
TSS
NH; N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Isiumber
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
236
146
17.2
41
4.6
0.00125
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
O&G
Zn
J
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
00550
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.001
36.0
0.184

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri 'tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municip I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Majo Contributing Facility 401a Gaston Memorial Hospital — 002
(See nstructions)
Name P.O. Box 1747
Number and Street 401b 2525 Court Drive
City 401c Gastonia
Courry 401d Gaston
State 401 a North Carolina
Zip Code 401f 28053
2. Primary Standard Industrial 402 7218
Classification Code
(See nstructions)
3. Principal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See nstructions)
Product
Raw Material
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thou nd gallons per day and whether
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if
pretr atment is provided prior to entering
the unicipal system
6. Charcteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
403a Healthcare 403c 403e
cafeteria, laundry
403b Food, laundry 403d 403f
supplies
404a 69 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
405 X Yes No
F'arameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH; N
TKN
Total
Phosphorus
Hg
O&G
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
71900
00550
406b
Value
350
147
4.4
19.7
5.24
0.0001
21.5
F arameter
Name
Zn
406a
Parameter
Number
01092
406b
Value
0.153

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a description of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti• n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municip = I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility 401a Globe Manufacturing Company
(See nstructions)
Nam P.O. Box 2245
Num . er and Street 401b
City 401c Gastonia
Coun 401d Gaston
State 401e North Carolina
Zip C de 401f 28053
2. Prim ry Standard Industrial 402 2824
Class fication Code
(See nstructions)
3. Princi al Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See nstructions)
Prod ct 403a OCPSF/Domestic 403c 403e
Raw aterial 403b Polyester resin 403d 403f
Ethylenedianie, Toluene
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water 404a 21.7 Thousand gallons per day
disch rged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether 404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
this d scharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if 405 _X_ Yes No
pretr atment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See nstructions)
Parameter
P
ame
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
(Ibs/day)
Hg
406a
arameter
umber
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
alue
44.2
48.2
14.9
193
1.35
0.0018
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
(Ibs/day)
Ni
Se
Ag
Zn
(lbslday)
O&G
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
01067
01147
01077
01092
00550
406b
Value
0.001
0.006
0.019
0.001
0.005
0.0328
2.5
Parameter
Name
Toluene
(Ibs/day)
406a
Parameter
dIumber
406b
Value
0.00275

•
2. Primaty Standard Industrial
Classification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Principal Product or Raw Material
(See Instructions)
Product
Raw
aterial
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether
this di charge is intermittent or continuous
Submit a descri
facility descripti
material, the flo
into the municip
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
(in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
d system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility
(See Instructions)
Name
401a Industrial Electroplating Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 1537
Number and Street 401 b 317 South Linwood Road
City 401c Gastonia
County 401d Gaston
State 401 a North Carolina
Zip Code 401 f 28054
402 3471
Quantity Units
403a Plating on metal 403c 403e
parts
403b Metal parts, metals, 403d 403f
acids, caustic soda
404a 47.8 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if 405 _X_ Yes No
pretre tment is provided prior to entering
the m nicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
P4rameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Prameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
74
24
21
27.2
2.24
0.0026
0.0001
P4rameter
Name
Cd
Pb
O&G
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
406a
Pprameter
Number
01027
01051
00550
01034
01042
01067
01092
406b
Value
0.003
0.003
7.3
0.174
0.052
0.605
0.772

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri stion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municip: I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Majo Contributing Facility 401a Ithaca Industries
(See nstructions)
Nam : P.O. Box 2101
Num er and Street 401b 900 Tulip Drive
City 401c Gastonia
Coun 401d Gaston
State 401e North Carolina
Zip Cede 401f 28053
402 2257
2. Prim - ry Standard Industrial
Classification Code
(See nstructions)
3. Pnnc al Product or Raw Material
(See instructions)
Product
Raw Material
Quantity Units
403a Textile/Domestic 403c 403e
403b Dyes, Caustic 403d 403f
Cotton, Synthetic Yam
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water 404a 1,473.0 Thousand gallons per day
disch rged into the municipal system in
thou nd gallons per day and whether 404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
this d scharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if 405 _X_ Yes No
pretr atment is provided prior to entering
the unicipal system
6. Char cteristics of Wastewater
(See nstructions)
I
Name
arameter
BOO
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
- Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
190
63
0.708
14.7
2.68
0.0059
0.0002
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
Cu
Zn
O&G
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
01042
01092
00550
406b
Value
0.001
0.001
0.204
0.097
22

Submit a descri
facility descripti
material, the flo
into the municip
•
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
(in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility
(See I structions)
Name
Number and Street
City
Coun
State
Zip C e
2. Primary Standard Industrial
Classfication Code
(See Instructions)
3. Princial Product or Raw Material
(See Instructions)
Product
Raw Material
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch;rged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if
pretre tment is provided prior to. entering
the m nicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
401a Modena Southem Dyeing
P.O. Box 4016
401 b 1010 East Ozark Avenue
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
401e North Carolina
401f 28052
402 2269
Quantity
Units
403a Dyeing threads 403c 403e
403b Dyes, acetic acid 403d
404a 18 Thousand gallons per day
403f
404b _X_ Intermittent (int) Continuous (con)
405 X Yes No
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH; N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
N?lue
1199
21.5
1.6
90.5
4.9
0.002
0.0001
P
rameter
ame
Cd
Pb
O&G
Zn
406a
P
rameter
umber
01027
01051
00550
01092
406b
lue
<0.002
0.0015
8.2
0.62

2. Prima Standard Industrial
Classification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Princi al Product or Raw Material
(See I�istructions)
Produt
Raw Material
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thous d gallons per day and whether
this di charge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretreatment Provided. Indicate if
pretre tment is provided prior to entering
them nicipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri•tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti•n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municipaI system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major ontributing Facility 401a Outdoor Lifestyles, Inc.
(See I structions)
Name
Numb - r and Street 401b 918 North Highland Street
City 401c Gastonia
Coun 401d Gaston
State 401 a North Carolina
Zip i de 401f 28052
402 3499
Quantity Units
403a Painted cast 403c 403e
aluminum fumiture
403b Aluminum castings 403d 403f
and extrusions
404a 1.85 Thousand gallons per day
404b _X_ Intermittent (int) Continuous (con)
405 X Yes No
Parameter
Npme
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parametera
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
34
59
0.67
2.73
39.6
0.00125
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
O&G
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
406a
P
N
rameter
mber
01027
01051
00550
01034
01042
01067
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.006
8.8
0.01
0.069
0.011
0.201
Parameter
Name
Ag
TTO
406a
Parameter
Number
01077
406b
Value
0.005
1.17
I

STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a descri tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility descripti n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flo (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municipal system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1.
Major Contributing Facility
(See Instructions)
Name
Number and Street
City
County
State
Zip Code
2. Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code
(See nstructions)
3. Princi al Product or Raw Material
(See instructions)
Product
Raw
aterial
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thou and gallons per day and whether
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretreatment Provided. Indicate if
pretreatment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
401a Quality Metal Products, Inc.
401b 901 Tulip Drive
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
401e North Carolina
401f 28053
402 3499
Quantity Units
403a Powder coated 403c 403e
metal parts
403b Epoxy, polyester, 403d 403f
polyester urethane powder paint, steel aluminum,
aluminum alloy, zinc, rust prevention oil, phophoric acid,
sodium chlorate, sodium nitrate, propoxypropanol,
potassium hydroxide, surfactants
404a 12.7 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
405 _X_ Yes No
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
21
32
0.12
1.89
319
0.0065
0.0001
1
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
Cr
Cu
Ni
Ag
Zn
406a
Parameter
Number.
01027
01051
01034
01042
01067
01077
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.002
0.010
0.048
0.027
0.005
0.377
arameter
ame
O&G
TTO
406a
arameter
umber
00550
406b
alue
19.6
0.650

Submit a descri
facility descripti
material, the flo
into the municip
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
tion of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
n. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
(in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major Contributing Facility 401a Town of Rank)
(See I structions)
Name'
Num r and Street
City
County
State
Zip Code
401 b 1624 Spencer Mountain Road
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
401e North Carolina
401f 28054
2. Primary Standard Industrial 402 8211V; 2299; 3471C; 2097; 5812; 8361
Classification Code
(See Instructions)
3. Principal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See Instructions)
Product 403a Domestic raw 403c 403e
sewage
Raw Material 403b Domestic waste 403d 403f
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thousnd gallons per day and whether
this discharge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretreatment Provided. Indicate if
pretreatment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
404a 167.3_ Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
405 Yes _X_ No
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Phosphorus
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
406b
Value
183
140
17.5
5.6

fah
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a description of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility description. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flovy (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municip I system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Major contributing Facility
(See Instructions)
Name
Number and Street
City
County
State
Zip Code
2. Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code
(See Irstructions)
3. Principal Product or Raw Material Quantity Units
(See Iistructions)
401a Spring Ford Knitting Industries
Produ
Raw Material
4. Flow. Indicate the volume of water
disch rged into the municipal system in
thous nd gallons per day and whether
this di charge is intermittent or continuous
5. Pretreatment Provided. Indicate if
pretreatment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Characteristics of Wastewater
(See Instructions)
401b 2349 Plastics Drive
401c Gastonia
401d Gaston
401e North Carolina
401f 28054
402 2250
403a Textiles 403c 403e
403b Peroxide, 403d
stabilizer, caustic soda, softener
404a 308 Thousand gallons per day
403f
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
405 X Yes No
Parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH; N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
Number
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
365
53
0.197
22
16.2
0.024
0.0001
Parameter
Name
Cd
Pb
O&G
Zn
406a
P
N
rameter
mber
01027
01051
00550
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.001
37
0.092

STANDARD FORM A — MUNICIPAL
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a description of each major industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using a separate Section IV for each
facility description. Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, the major product or raw
material, the flow (in thousand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the industrial facility
into the municipal system. Consult Table III for standard measures of products or raw materials (See instructions).
1. Majo Contributing Facility 401a Stabilus
(See nstructions)
Nam
Num 'er and Street 401b 1201 Tulip Drive
City 401c Gastonia
Coun 401d Gaston
State 401e North Carolina
Zip Code 401f 28052
2. Primary Standard Industrial 402 3499
Class'fication Code
(See nstructions)
3. Principal Product or Raw Material • Quantity Units
(See nstructions)
Prod'. ct
Raw
4. Flow.
disch,
thous
this d
aterial
Indicate the volume of water
rged into the municipal system in
and gallons per day and whether
scharge is intermittent or continuous
403a Metal Finisher/ 403c 403e
Domestic
403b Steel Rod & Tube 403d 403f
Stock, Painting Materials
404a 78.6 Thousand gallons per day
404b Intermittent (int) _X_ Continuous (con)
5. Pretr atment Provided. Indicate if 405 _XYes No
pretr atment is provided prior to entering
the municipal system
6. Cha I cteristics of Wastewater
(See nstructions)
parameter
Name
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
CN
Hg
406a
Parameter
N
umber
00310
00530
00610
00665
00720
71900
406b
Value
148
94
21
53.9
19
0.026
0.00082
Parameter
Fame
Cd
Pb
Cr
Cu
Ni
Ag
Zn
406a
Parameter
Number
01027
01051
01034
01042
01067
01077
01092
406b
Value
0.001
0.0030
0.445
0.047
0.1104
0.035
0.42
Parameter
Fame
O&G
406a
Parameter
Number
00550
406b
Value
221

Table C-2
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Cyanide (ug/I)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 70.00 4.25 4.0622
2 70.00 4.25 4.0622
3 40.20 3.69 2.1341
4 38.20 3.64 1.9876
5 34.00 3.53 1.6728
6 34.00 3.53 1.6728
7 30.30 3.41 1.3880
8 27.00 3.30 1.1296
9 20.20 3.01 0.5970
10 19.00 2.94 0.5061
11 19.00 2.94 0.5061
12 16.20 2.79 0.3047
13 16.20 2.79 0.3047
14 16.00 2.77 0.2912
15 15.60 2.75 0.2645
16 15.40 2.73 0.2514
17 12.80 2.55 0.1001
18 12.77 2.55 0.0987
19 12.00 2.48 0.0635
20 12.00 2.48 0.0635
21 11.20 2.42 0.0335
22 11.13 2.41 0.0312
23 11.00 2.40 0.0272
24 11.00 2.40 0.0272
25 11.00 2.40 0.0272
26 10.80 2.38 0.0215
27 10.60 2.36 0.0163
28 10.60 2.36 0.0163
29 10.60 2.36 0.0163
30 10.00 2.30 0.0048
31 10.00 2.30 0.0048
32 10.00 2.30 0.0048
33 9.70 2.27 0.0015
34 9.20 2.22 0.0002
35 8.84 2.18 0.0029
36 8.80 2.17 0.0034
37 8.40 2.13 0.0110
38 8.40 2.13 0.0110
39 8.21 2.11 0.0163
40 8.16 2.10 0.0179
41 8.00 2.08 0.0236
42 8.00 2.08 0.0236
43 8.00 2.08 0.0236
44 8.00 2.08 0.0236
45 8.00 2.08 0.0236
46 7.90 2.07 0.0276
47 7.85 2.06 0.0299
48 7.80 2.05 0.0320
49 7.78 2.05 0.0329
50 7.73 2.05 0.0353
D (detection limit) 10
k sample size 155
r (# nondetects) 70
delta 0.45
2.233
a2 0.382
Ex (avg) 10.709
Vx (variance) 32.982
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.982
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 2.830
Z_p 2.092
RPE 34.008
Page 1 of 2

Table 2
Gasto is Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Cyanide (ug/l)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
51 7.66 2.04 0.0388
52 7.60 2.03 0.0420
53 7.32 1.99 0.0588
54 7.15 1.97 0.0707
55 7.00 1.95 0.0824
56 6.80 1.92 0.0999
57 6.68 1.90 0.1115
58 6.60 1.89 0.1197
59 6.60 1.89 0.1197
60 6.60 1.89 0.1197
61 6.60 1.89 0.1197
62 6.60 1.89 0.1197
63 6.29 1.84 0.1553
64 6.26 1.83 0.1591
65 6.00 1.79 0.1947
66 6.00 1.79 0.1947
67 6.00 1.79 0.1947
68 6.00 1.79 0.1947
69 6.00 1.79 0.1947
70 5.92 1.78 0.2067
71 5.84 1.76 0.2193
72 5.80 1.76 0.2258
73 5.60 1.72 0.2603
74 5.42 1.69 0.2941
75 5.30 1.67 0.3196
76 5.20 1.65 0.3415
77 5.20 1.65 0.3415
78 5.00 1.61 0.3888
79 5.00 1.61 0.3888
80 5.00 1.61 .0.3888
81 5.00 1.61 0.3888
82 5.00 1.61 0.3888
83 4.00 1.39 0.7169
84 3.00 1.10 1.2868
85 2.70 0.99 1.5370
Page 2of2

Table C-3
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Antimony (ug/I)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 4.00 1.39 0.4353
2 4.00 1.39 0.4353
3 3.00 1.10 0.1385
4 3.00 1.10 0.1385
5 2.00 0.69 0.0011
6 2.00 0.69 0.0011
7 2.00 0.69 0.0011
8 2.00 0.69 0.0011
9 0.30 -1.20 3.7267
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 22
r (# nondetects) 13
delta 0.59
0.726
a2 0.610
Ex (avg) 2.329
Vx (variance) 2.861
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.976
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 2.724
Z_p 1.970
RPE 9.630
Page 1 of 1

Table C-4
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Arsenic (ug/l)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 6.00 1.79 0.3444
2 5.00 1.61 0.1636
3 4.00 1.39 0.0329
4 4.00 1.39 0.0329
5 4.00 1.39 0.0329
6 2.00 0.69 0.2619
7 2.00 0.69 0.2619
8 2.00 0.69 0.2619
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 39
r (# nondetects) 31
delta 0.79
µ 1.205
a2 0.199
Ex (avg) 2.346
Vx (variance) 1.076
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.951
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 2.458
Z_p 1.657
RPE 6.988
Page 1 of 1

Table C-5
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Beryllium (ug/I)
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 21
r (# nondetects) 21
delta 1.00
RPE 2.000
Page 1 of 1

Table C-6
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Cadmium (ug/1)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 3.00 1.10 0.1540
2 3.00 1.10 0.1540
3 2.00 0.69 0.0002
4 2.00 0.69 0.0002
5 2.00 0.69 0.0002
6 2.00 0.69 0.0002
7 2.00 0.69 0.0002
8 2.00 0.69 0.0002
9 1.00 0.00 0.4988
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 158
r (# nondetects) 149
delta 0.94
µ 0.706
o2 0.101
Ex (avg) 2.007
Vx (variance) 0.028
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.824
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 1.865
Z_p 0.932
RPE 2.725
Page 1 of 1

Table C-7
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Chloride (ug/I)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-µ)2
1 330000.00 12.71 0.1043
2 320000.00 12.68 0.0854
3 320000.00 12.68 0.0854
4 319700.00 12.68 0.0848
5 310000.00 12.64 0.0678
6 310000.00 12.64 0.0678
7 310000.00 12.64 0.0678
8 309000.00 12.64 0.0662
9 300000.00 12.61 0.0518
10 290000.00 12.58 0.0375
11 290000.00 12.58 0.0375
12 290000.00 12.58 0.0375
13 270000.00 12.51 0.0150
14 260000.00 12.47 0.0071
15 260000.00 12.47 0.0071
16 250000.00 12.43 0.0021
17 244700.00 12.41 0.0006
18 240000.00 12.39 0.0000
19 240000.00 12.39 0.0000
20 230000.00 12.35 0.0014
21 220000.00 12.30 0.0068
22 220000.00 12.30 0.0068
23 210000.00 12.25 0.0167
24 210000.00 12.25 0.0167
25 200000.00 12.21 0.0316
26 190000.00 12.15 0.0525
27 180000.00 12.10 0.0802
28 170000.00 12.04 0.1158
29 160000.00 11.98 0.1608
30 150000.00 11.92 0.2167
31 83000.00 11.33 1.1179
k sample size 31
12.384
62 0.088
Ex (avg) 249,711
Vx (variance) 5,757,963,452
Probability level (P) 0.990
Coefficient 2.326
RPE 476,950
Page 1 of 1

Table C-8
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Chloroform (ug/l)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 51.00 3.93 1.0356
2 47.00 3.85 0.8761
3 34.00 3.53 0.3748
4 28.00 3.33 0.1748
5 27.00 3.30 0.1457
6 25.00 3.22 0.0928
7 24.00 3.18 0.0696
8 24.00 3.18 0.0696
9 23.00 3.14 0.0490
10 23.00 3.14 0.0490
11 22.00 3.09 0.0313
12 18.00 2.89 0.0006
13 16.00 2.77 0.0200
14 16.00 2.77 0.0200
15 15.00 2.71 0.0425
16 13.00 2.56 0.1220
17 13.00 2.56 0.1220
18 8.00 2.08 0.6968
19 8.00 2.08 0.6968
20 7.00 1.95 0.9375
21 7.00 1.95 0.9375
D (detection limit) 5
k sample size 23
r (# nondetects) 2
delta 0.09
2.914
62 0.328
Ex (avg) 20.267
Vx (variance) 189.533
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.989
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 3.005
Z_p 2.292
RPE 68.544
Page 1 of 1

Table C-9
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Chromium (ug/I)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 46.00 3.83 2.0365
2 41.00 3.71 1.7213
3 32.00 3.47 1.1324
4 30.00 3.40 0.9992
5 26.00 3.26 0.7336
6 26.00 3.26 0.7336
7 26.00 3.26 0.7336
8 26.00 3.26 0.7336
9 26.00 3.26 0.7336
10 26.00 3.26 0.7336
11 25.00 3.22 0.6680
12 24.00 3.18 0.6029
13 22.00 3.09 0.4754
14 22.00 3.09 0.4754
15 21.00 3.04 0.4134
16 21.00 3.04 0.4134
17 21.00 3.04 0.4134
18 20.00 3.00 0.3530
19 19.00 2.94 0.2947
20 18.00 2.89 0.2389
21 17.00 2.83 0.1863
22 17.00 2.83 0.1863
23 17.00 2.83 0.1863
24 17.00 2.83 0.1863
25 15.00 2.71 0.0939
26 15.00 2.71 0.0939
27 15.00 2.71 0.0939
28 15.00 2.71 0.0939
29 15.00 2.71 0.0939
30 15.00 2.71 0.0939
31 14.00 2.64 0.0564
32 13.00 2.56 0.0267
33 13.00 2.56 0.0267
34 13.00 2.56 0.0267
35 13.00 2.56 0.0267
36 13.00 2.56 0.0267
37 13.00 2.56 0.0267
38 13.00 2.56 0.0267
39 12.00 2.48 0.0069
40 12.00 2.48 0.0069
41 12.00 2.48 0.0069
42 11.00 2.40 0.0000
43 11.00 2.40 0.0000
44 11.00 2.40 0.0000
45 11.00 2.40 0.0000
46 10.00 2.30 0.0098
47 10.00 2.30 0.0098
48 10.00 2.30 0.0098
49 10.00 2.30 0.0098
50 10.00 2.30 0.0098
D (detection limit) 20
k sample size 131
r (# nondetects) 36
delta 0.27
2.402
a2 0.330
Ex (avg) 14.940
Vx (variance) 57.803
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.986
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 2.927
Z_p 2.204
RPE . 39.162
Page 1 of 2

Table C-9
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appen ix E RPE - Chromium (ugll)
xi yi=1n(xi) (yi-mu)2
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
9.90
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.29
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
1.95
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.10
1.10
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0119
0.0418
0.0418
0.0418
0.0418
0.0418
0.0418
0.0418
0.0418
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.1038
0.2076
0.3719
0.3719
0.3719
•0.3719
0.3719
0.3719
0.3719
0.3719
0.3719
0.3719
0.6275
0.6275
0.6275
1.0308
1.0308
1.0308
1.0308
1.6977
1.6977
Page 2 of 2

Table C-10
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Copper (ug/I)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 63.00 4.14 0.7529
2 62.00 4.13 0.7253
3 60.80 4.11 0.6924
4 58.00 4.06 0.6162
5 56.00 4.03 0.5623
6 53.00 3.97 0.4828
7 52.00 3.95 0.4567
8 52.00 3.95 0.4567
9 52.00 3.95 0.4567
10 48.00 3.87 0.3549
11 47.00 3.85 0.3303
12 46.00 3.83 0.3060
13 45.00 3.81 0.2822
14 44.00 3.78 0.2588
15 44.00 3.78 0.2588
16 42.00 3.74 0.2136
17 41.00 3.71 0.1919
18 41.00 3.71 0.1919
19 41.00 3.71 0.1919
20 39.00 3.66 0.1506
21 39.00 3.66 0.1506
22 38.00 3.64 0.1311
23 37.00 3.61 0.1125
24 37.00 3.61 0.1125
25 37.00 3.61 0.1125
26 36.00 3.58 0.0949
27 35.00 3.56 0.0783
28 34.00 3.53 0.0629
29 32.00 3.47 0.0362
30 32.00 3.47 0.0362
31 32.00 3.47 0.0362
32 31.00 3.43 0.0251
33 31.00 3.43 0.0251
34 30.00 3.40 0.0158
35 30.00 3.40 0.0158
36 30.00 3.40 0.0158
37 30.00 3.40 0.0158
38 29.00 3.37 0.0084
39 29.00 3.37 0.0084
40 28.00 3.33 0.0032
41 28.00 3.33 0.0032
42 28.00 3.33 0.0032
43 26.00 3.26 0.0003
44 26.00 3.26 0.0003
45 26.00 3.26 0.0003
46 26.00 3.26 0.0003
47 25.00 3.22 0.0032
48 25.00 3.22 0.0032
49 25.00 3.22 0.0032
50 25.00 3.22 0.0032
D (detection limit)
k sample size
r (# nondetects)
delta
62
Ex (avg)
Vx (variance)
Probability level (P)
P adj for non det (P_a)
SQRT(LN(1 /((1-P_a) ^2)))
Z_p
2
69
1
0.01
3.275
0.742
37.809
1611.629
0.990
0.990
3.030
2.321
RPE 195.347
Page 1 of 2

Table C-10
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Copper (ug/l)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
23.00
23.00
21.00
20.00
19.00
19.00
18.00
18.00
16.00
15.00
12.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
9.00
7.00
6.00
0.10
3.14
3.14
3.04
3.00
2.94
2.94
2.89
2.89
2.77
2.71
2.48
2.48
2.30
2.30
2.20
1.95
1.79
-2.30
0.0196
0.0196
0.0533
0.0783
0.1096
0.1096
0.1483
0.1483
0.2529
0.3220
0.6250
0.6250
0.9465
0.9465
1.1626
1.7677
2.2014
31.1146
Page 2 of 2

Table C-11
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Lead (ug/I)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 29.00 3.37 4.8067
2 14.00 2.64 2.1438
3 12.00 2.48 1.7162
4 7.00 1.95 0.5945
5 6.00 1.79 0.3805
6 6.00 1.79 0.3805
7 6.00 1.79 0.3805
8 6.00 1.79 0.3805
9 4.00 1.39 0.0447
10 4.00 1.39 0.0447
11 3.00 1.10 0.0058
12 3.00 1.10 0.0058
13 3.00 1.10 0.0058
14 3.00 1.10 0.0058
15 3.00 1.10 0.0058
16 3.00 1.10 0.0058
17 3.00 1.10 0.0058
18 2.20 0.79 0.1493
19 2.00 0.69 0.2321
20 2.00 0.69 0.2321
21 2.00 0.69 0.2321
22 2.00 0.69 0.2321
23 2.00 0.69 0.2321
24 2.00 0.69 0.2321
25 2.00 0.69 0.2321
26 2.00 0.69 0.2321
27 2.00 0.69 0.2321
28 2.00 0.69 0.2321
29 2.00 0.69 0.2321
30 2.00 0.69 0.2321
31 2.00 0.69 0.2321
32 2.00 0.69 0.2321
33 2.00 0.69 0.2321
34 2.00 0.69 0.2321
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 133
r (# nondetects) 99
delta 0.74
1.175
a2 0.448
Ex (avg) 2.524
Vx (variance) 3.168
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.961
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 2.546
Z_p 1.761
RPE -10.522
Page 1 of 1

Table C-12
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Mercury (ug/I)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 1.00 0.00 1.2025
2 1.00 0.00 1.2025
3 0.40 -0.92 0.0325
4 0.30 -1.20 0.0115
5 0.30 -1.20 0.0115
6 0.30 -1.20 0.0115
7 0.20 -1.61 0.2630
8 0.20 -1.61 0.2630
9 0.20 -1.61 0.2630
10 0.20 -1.61 0.2630
D (detection limit) 0.2
k sample size 170
r (# nondetects) 160
delta 0.94
µ -1.097
a2 0.392
Ex (avg) 0.212
Vx (variance) 0.007
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.830
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 1.883
Z_p 0.954
RPE 0.607
Page 1 of 1

Table C-13
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Molybdenum (ug/I)
xi yi=In(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 55.00 4.01 1.4308
2 42.00 3.74 0.8584
3 36.00 3.58 0.5965
4 27.00 3.30 0.2349
5 26.00 3.26 0.1997
6 26.00 3.26 0.1997
7 24.00 3.18 0.1346
8 22.00 3.09 0.0783
9 21.00 3.04 0.0545
10 21.00 3.04 0.0545
11 19.00 2.94 0.0178
12 18.00 2.89 0.0063
13 18.00 2.89 0.0063
14 17.00 2.83 0.0005
15 16.00 2.77 0.0015
16 16.00 2.77 0.0015
17 15.20 2.72 0.0081
18 15.00 2.71 0.0106
19 15.00 2.71 0.0106
20 15.00 2.71 0.0106
21 14.00 2.64 0.0296
22 14.00 2.64 0.0296
23 13.00 2.56 0.0606
24 13.00 2.56 0.0606
25 13.00 2.56 0.0606
26 13.00 2.56 0.0606
27 12.00 2.48 0.1064
28 12.00 2.48 0.1064
29 12.00 2.48 0.1064
30 11.00 2.40 0.1708
31 11.00 2.40 0.1708
32 11.00 2.40 0.1708
33 10.00 2.30 0.2587
34 10.00 2.30 0.2587
35 8.60 2.15 0.4348
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 39
r (# nondetects) 4
delta 0.10
2.811
62 0.177
Ex (avg) 16.506
Vx (variance) 81.205
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.989
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 2.999
Z_p 2.286
RPE 43.447
Page 1 of 1

Table C-14
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Nickel (ug/I)
xi yi=In(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 190.00 5.25 2.6260
2 180.00 5.19 2.4537
3 176.00 5.17 2.3838
4 140.00 4.94 1.7296
5 100.00 4.61 0.9578
6 85.00 4.44 0.6661
7 80.00 4.38 0.5708
8 80.00 4.38 0.5708
9 78.00 4.36 0.5332
10 74.00 4.30 0.4591
11 73.00 4.29 0.4408
12 70.00 4.25 0.3869
13 70.00 4.25 0.3869
14 70.00 4.25 0.3869
15 70.00 4.25 0.3869
16 70.00 4.25 0.3869
17 70.00 4.25 0.3869
18 69.00 4.23 0.3692
19 68.00 4.22 0.3516
20 64.00 4.16 0.2834
21 60.00 4.09 0.2189
22 60.00 4.09 0.2189
23 60.00 4.09 0.2189
24 60.00 4.09 0.2189
25 56.00 4.03 0.1591
26 55.00 4.01 0.1450
27 55.00 4.01 0.1450
28 52.00 3.95 0.1054
29 50.00 3.91 0.0815
30 50.00 3.91 0.0815
31 50.00 3.91 0.0815
32 50.00 3.91 0.0815
33 50.00 3.91 0.0815
34 50.00 3.91 0.0815
35 50.00 3.91 0.0815
36 48.00 3.87 0.0599
37 48.00 3.87 0.0599
38 48.00 3.87 0.0599
39 45.00 3.81 0.0325
40 45.00 3.81 0.0325
41 45.00 3.81 0.0325
42 44.00 3.78 0.0249
43 44.00 3.78 0.0249
44 44.00 3.78 0.0249
45 44.00 3.78 0.0249
46 41.00 3.71 0.0076
47 40.00 3.69 0.0039
48 40.00 3.69 0.0039
49 40.00 3.69 0.0039
50 40.00 3.69 0.0039
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 131
r (# nondetects) 3
delta 0.02
3.627
a2 0.294
Ex (avg) 42.592
Vx (variance) 672.997
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.990
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 3.027
Z_p 2.318
RPE 132.217
Page 1 of 3

Table C-14
Gaston a Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appenlix E RPE - Nickel (ug/l)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
38.00
37.00
37.00
37.00
37.00
36.40
36.00
36.00
35.00
35.00
34.00
34.00
34.00
33.00
33.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
29.00
26.00
26.00
25.00
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.64
3.61
3.61
3.61
3.61
3.59
3.58
3.58
3.56
3.56
3.53
3.53
3.53
3.50
3.50
3.47
3.47
3.47
3.47
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.37
3.26
3.26
3.22
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0039
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0010
0.0018
0.0018
0.0051
0.0051
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.0169
0.0169
0.0259
0.0259
0.0259
0.0259
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0672
0.1357
0.1357
0.1662
Page 2 of 3

Table C-14
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Nickel (ug/l)
xi yi=In(xi) (yi-mu)2
101 25.00 3.22 0.1662
102 24.00 3.18 0.2011
103 23.00 3.14 0.2411
104 23.00 3.14 0.2411
105 23.00 3.14 0.2411
106 23.00 3.14 0.2411
107 22.00 3.09 0.2867
108 21.00 3.04 0.3387
109 21.00 3.04 0.3387
110 20.00 3.00 0.3979
111 20.00 3.00 0.3979
112 20.00 3.00 0.3979
113 20.00 3.00 0.3979
114 20.00 3.00 0.3979
115 20.00 3.00 0.3979
116 20.00 3.00 0.3979
117 20.00 3.00 0.3979
118 20.00 3.00 0.3979
119 20.00 3.00 0.3979
120 18.00 2.89 0.5419
121 17.00 2.83 0.6293
122 16.00 2.77 0.7292
123 15.00 2.71 0.8436
124 14.00 2.64 0.9751
125 13.00 2.56 1.1269
126 10.00 2.30 1.7528
127 10.00 2.30 1.7528
128 8.00 2.08 2.3934
Page 3 of 3

Table C-15
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Selenium (ug/l)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 9.00 2.20 0.5656
2 2.00 0.69 0.5656
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 39
r (# nondetects) 37
delta 0.95
1.445
62 1.131
Ex (avg) 2.280
Vx (variance) 7.460
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.805
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 1.808
Z_p 0.859
RPE 10.583
Page 1 of 1

Table C-16
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Silver (ug/l)
xi yi=ln(xi) (yi-mu)2
1 20.00 3.00 0.0000
2 20.00 3.00 0.0000
D (detection limit) 2
k sample size 69
r (# nondetects) 67
delta 0.97
2.996
62 0.000
Ex (avg) 2.522
Vx (variance) 9.119
Probability level (P) 0.990
P adj for non det (P_a) 0.655
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2))) 1.459
Z_p 0.398
RPE
20.000

Table C-17
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Zinc (ug/l)
xi yi=In(xi) (yi-1.)2
1 412.00 6.02 1.8637
2 197.00 5.28 0.3936
3 180.00 5.19 0.2885
4 169.00 5.13 0.2247
5 169.00 5.13 0.2247
6 160.00 5.08 0.1758
7 150.00 5.01 0.1259
8 145.00 4.98 0.1030
9 145.00 4.98 0.1030
10 144.00 4.97 0.0986
11 143.00 4.96 0.0942
12 142.00 4.96 0.0900
13 141.00 4.95 0.0858
14 140.00 4.94 0.0817
15 140.00 4.94 0.0817
16 140.00 4.94 0.0817
17 140.00 4.94 0.0817
18 140.00 4.94 0.0817
19 135.00 4.91 0.0622
20 135.00 4.91 0.0622
21 134.00 4.90 0.0586
22 134.00 4.90 0.0586
23 132.00 4.88 0.0515
24 130.00 4.87 0.0448
25 130.00 4.87 0.0448
26 130.00 4.87 0.0448
27 130.00 4.87 0.0448
28 129.00 4.86 0.0416
29 122.00 4.80 0.0220
30 122.00 4.80 0.0220
31 120.00 4.79 0.0173
32 120.00 4.79 0.0173
33 120.00 4.79 0.0173
34 120.00 4.79 0.0173
35 120.00 4.79 0.0173
36 120.00 4.79 0.0173
37 118.00 4.77 0.0132
38 116.00 4.75 0.0096
39 114.00 4.74 0.0065
40 112.00 4.72 0.0039
41 110.00 4.70 0.0020
42 110.00 4.70 0.0020
43 110.00 4.70 0.0020
44 106.00 4.66 0.0001
45 106.00 4.66 0.0001
46 102.00 4.62 0.0010
47 101.00 4.62 0.0017
48 100.00 4.61 0.0026
49 96.00 4.56 0.0084
50 95.00 4.55 0.0104
k sample size 71
4.656
o2 0.195
Ex (avg) 115.972
Vx (variance) 2895.916
Probability level (P) 0.990
Coefficient 2.326
RPE 293.828
Page 1 of 2

Table C-17
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Appendix E RPE - Zinc (ug/l)
xi yi=In(xi) (yi-02
51 94.00 4.54 0.0127
52 94.00 4.54 0.0127
53 92.00 4.52 0.0180
54 88.00 4.48 0.0319
55 86.00 4.45 0.0406
56 85.00 4.44 0.0455
57 84.00 4.43 0.0506
15 74.00 4.30 0.1238
5 74.00 4.30 0.1238
6 73.00 4.29 0.1335
61 66.00 4.19 0.2173
62 56.00 4.03 0.3975
63 55.00 4.01 0.4206
64 54.00 3.99 0.4447
65 53.00 3.97 0.4700
66 52.00 3.95 0.4965
67 50.00 3.91 0.5533
68 47.00 3.85 0.6492
69 44.00 3.78 0.7598
7d 41.00 3.71 0.8879
71 20.00 3.00 2.7560
Page 2 of 2

Table C-18
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Chapter 3 RPE
Cyanide
(ug/l)
Antimony Arsenic
(ugll) (ug/I)
Beryllium
(ug/I)
Cadmium Chloride
(ug/I) (ug/L)
Chloroform Chromium
(ug/l) (ug/l)
Copper Lead
(ug/I) (ug/I)
# of samples
CV
Max
Sigma
Probability level (P)
SQRT(LN(1 /((1-P_a)^2)))
Z_p
Probability level (P)
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2)))
Z_p
C99
Cx
Factor
APE
155
1.0636342
70
0.8699083
0.971
2.657
1.892
0.990
3.035
2.327
5.185
3.552
1.460
102.2
22
0.64438008
4
0.58931232
0.811
1.826
0.882
0.990
3.035
2.327
3.312
1.414
2.343
39
0.8146682
6
0.7134666
0.889
2.095
1.219
0.990
3.035
2.327
4.078
1.851
2.204
9.4 13.2
21 158
0 0.2744204
1 3
0 0.26945461
0.803 0.971
1.803 2.665
0.853 1.900
0.990 0.990
3.035 3.035
2.327 2.327
1.000 1.805
1.000 1.609
1.000 1.122
1.0 3.4
31
0.2465646
330000
0.2429357
0.862
1.990
1.089
0.990
3.035
2.327
1.709
1.265
1.351
445747.1
23
0.636607093
51
0.583291053
0.819
1.848
0.910
0.990
3.035
2.327
3.277
1.434
2.285
116.6
131
0.57291437
46
0.53277377
0.965
2.594
1.818
0.990
3.035
2.327
2.997
2.286
1.311
603
69
0.4733604
63
0.4496459
0.935
2.341
1.518
0.990
3.035
2.327
2.573
1.789
1.439
90.6
133
1.597841
29
1.125975
0.966
2.600
1.825
0.990
3.035
2.327
7.286
4.141
1.759
51.0
Page 1 of 2

Table C-18
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Chapter 3 RPE
# of samples
CV
Max
Sigma
Probability level (P)
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2)))
Z_p
Probability level (P)
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P_a)^2)))
Z_p
C99
Cx
Factor
RPE
Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc
(ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/I) (ug/L)
170
0.8761224
1
0.7547299
0.973
2.692
1.932
0.990
3.035
2.327
4.355
3.232
1.347
1.3
39
0.640251275
55
0.586117878
0.889
2.095
1.219
0.990
3.035
2.327
3.294
1.721
1.914
1053
131
0.6880832
190
0.6225852
0.965
2.594
1.818
0.990
3.035
2.327
3.507
2.555
1.372
260.8
39
1.0455301
9
0.8594545
0.889
2.095
1.219
0.990
3.035
2.327
5.106
1.971
2.590
23.3
69 71
2.0705814 0.4417356
20 412
1.2904686 0.4222029
0.935
2.341
1.518
0.990
3.035
2.327
8.758
3.084
2.840
56.8''
0.937
2.353
1.532
0.990
3.035
2.327
2.443
1.747
1.399
576.3
Page 2 of 2

Table C-1
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Data from 1996 through March 1999
Cyanide Beryllium Cadmium Chloride Chloroform Chromium Mercury Silver
(ug/1) Antimony (ug/I) Arsenic (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/L) (ugf) (ug/I) Copper (ug/I) Lead (ug/I) (ug/I) Molybdenum (ug/I)* Nickel (ug/I) Selenium (ug/l) (ug/l) Zinc (ug/L)
70 4 6 ND 3 330,000 51 46 63 29 1 55 190 9 20 412
70 4 5 ND 3 320,000 47 41 62 14 1 42 180 2 20 197
40.2 3 4 ND 2 320,000 34 32 60.8 12 0.4 36 176 ND ND 180
38.2 3 4 ND 2 319,700 28 30 58 7 0.3 27 140 ND ND 169
34 2 4 ND 2 310,000 27 26 56 6 0.3 26 100 ND ND 169
34 2 2 ND 2 310,000 25 26 53 6 0.3 26 85 ND ND 160
30.3 2 2 ND 2 310,000 24 26 52 6 0.2 24 80 ND ND 150
27 2 2 ND 2 309,000 24 26 52 6 0.2 22 80 ND ND 145
20.2 0.3 ND ND 1 300,000 23 26 52 4 0.2 21 78 ND ND 145
19 ND ND ND ND 290,000 23 26 48 4 0.2 21 74 ND ND 144
19 ND ND ND ND 290,000 22 25 47 3 ND 19 73 ND ND 143
16.2 ND ND ND ND 290,000 18 24 46 3 ND 18 70 ND ND 142
16.2 ND ND ND ND 270,000 16 22 45 3 ND 18 70 ND ND 141
16 ND ND ND ND 260,000 16 22 44 3 ND 17 70 ND ND 140
15.6 ND ND ND ND 260,000 15 21 44 3 ND 16 70 ND ND 140
15.4 ND ND ND ND 250,000 13 21 42 3 ND 16 70 ND ND 140
12.8 ND ND ND ND 244,700 13 21 41 3 ND 15.2 70 ND ND 140
12.77 ND ND ND ND 240,000 8 20 41 2.2 ND 15 69 ND ND 140
12 ND ND ND ND 240,000 8 19 41 2 ND 15 68 ND ND 135
12 ND ND ND ND 230,000 7 18 39 2 ND 15 64 ND ND 135
11.2 ND ND ND ND 220,000 7 17 39 2 ND 14 60 ND ND 134
11.13 ND ND ND 220,000 ND 17 38 2 ND 14 60 ND ND 134
11 ND ND 210,000 ND 17 37 2 ND 13 60 ND ND 132
11 ND ND 210,000 17 37 2 ND 13 60 ND ND 130
11 ND ND 200,000 15 37 2 ND 13 56 ND ND 130
10.8 ND ND 190,000 15 36 2 ND 13 55 ND ND 130
10.6 ND ND 180,000 15 35 2 ND 12 55 ND ND 130
10.6 ND ND 170,000 15 34 2 ND 12 52 ND ND 129
10.6 ND ND 160,000 15 32 2 ND 12 50 ND ND 122
10 ND ND 150,000 15 32 2 ND 11 50 ND ND 122
10 ND ND 83,000 14 32 2 ND 11 50 ND ND 120
10 ND ND 13 31 2 ND 11 50 ND ND 120
9.7 ND ND 13 31 2 ND 10 50 ND ND 120
9.2 ND ND 13 30 2 ND 10 50 ND ND 120
8.84 ND ND 13 30 ND ND 8.6 50 ND ND 120
8.8 ND ND 13 30 ND ND ND 48 ND ND 120
8.4 ND ND 13 30 ND ND ND 48 ND ND 118
8.4 ND ND 13 29 ND ND ND 48 ND ND 116
8.21 ND ND 12 29 ND ND ND 45 ND ND 114
8.16 ND 12 28 ND ND 45 ND 112
8 ND 12 28 ND ND 45 ND 110
8 ND 11 28 ND ND 44 ND 110
8 ND 11 26 ND ND 44 ND 110
8 ND 11 26 ND ND 44 ND 106
8 ND 11 26 ND ND 44 ND 106
7.9 ND 10 26 ND ND 41 ND 102
7.8462 ND 10 25 ND ND 40 ND 101
7.8 ND 10 25 ND ND 40 ND 100
7.78 ND 10 25 ND ND 40 ND 96
7.73 ND 10 25 ND ND 40 ND 95
7.66 ND 10 23 ND ND 40 ND 94
7.6 ND 10 23 ND ND 40 ND 94
7.32 ND 10 21 ND ND 40 ND 92
7.15 ND 10 20 ND ND 40 ND 88
7 ND 10 19 ND ND 40 ND 86
6.8 ND 10 19 ND ND 40 ND 85
6.68 ND 9.9 18 ND ND 40 ND 84
6.6 ND 9 18 ND ND 40 ND 74
6.6 ND 9 16 ND ND 40 ND 74
6.6 ND 9 15 ND ND 40 ND 73
6.6 ND 9 12 ND ND 40 ND 66
6.6 ND 9 12 ND ND 40 ND 56
6.29 ND 9 10 ND ND 40 ND 55
6.26 ND 9 10 ND ND 40 ND 54
6 ND 9 9 ND ND 40 ND 53
6 ND 8 7 ND ND 40 ND 52
6 ND 8 6 ND ND 40 ND 50
6 ND 8 0.1 ND ND 38 ND 47
6 ND 8 ND ND ND 37 ND 44
5.92 ND 8 ND ND 37 41
5.84 ND 8 ND ND 37 20
5.8 ND 8 ND ND 37
5.6 ND 8 ND ND 36.4
5.423 ND 8 ND ND 36
5.3 ND 8 ND ND 36
5.2 ND 7 ND ND 35
5.2 ND 6 ND ND 35
5 ND 6 ND ND 34
5 ND 6 ND ND 34
5 ND 6 ND ND 34
5 ND 6 ND ND 33
5 ND 6 ND ND 33
4 ND 6 ND ND 32
3 ND 6 ND ND 32
2.7 ND 6 ND ND 32
ND ND 6 ND ND 32
ND ND 5 ND ND 30
ND ND 5 ND ND 30
ND ND 5 ND ND 30
ND ND 4 ND ND 30
ND ND 4 ND ND 30
ND ND 4 ND ND 30
ND ND 4 ND ND 30
ND ND 3 ND ND 30
ND ND 3 ND ND 30
ND ND ND ND ND 30
ND ND ND ND ND 29
ND ND ND ND ND 26
ND ND ND ND ND 26
ND ND ND ND ND 25
ND ND ND ND ND 25
ND ND ND ND ND 24
ND ND ND ND ND 23
ND ND ND ND ND 23
ND ND ND ND ND 23
ND ND ND ND ND 23
ND ND ND ND ND 22
ND ND ND ND ND 21
ND ND ND ND ND 21
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
Page 1 of 2

Table C-1
Gastonia Long Creek WWTP NPDES Permit Application
Data from 1996 through March 1999
Cyanide Beryllium Cadmium Chloride Chloroform Chromium Mercury Silver
(ug/l) Antimony (ug/l) Arsenic (ug/l) (ug/l) (ugll) (uq/L) (ugll) (ug/l) Copper (ug/I) Lead (ug/l) (ugll) Molybdenum (ugll)* Nickel (uq/l) Selenium (ug/l) (ug/I) Zinc (ug/L)
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 20
ND ND ND ND ND 18
ND ND ND ND ND 17
ND ND ND ND ND 16
ND ND ND ND ND 15
ND ND ND ND ND 14
ND ND ND ND ND 13
ND ND ND ND ND 10
ND ND ND ND ND 10
ND ND ND ND ND 8
ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*Excluding outlier of 740 ug/L
Page 2 of 2