NC0020184_Permit Issuance_19970226

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0020184
Gastonia —
NPDES Permit:
Long Creek WWTP
Document Type:
!Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Correspondence
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
February 26, 1997
Thies document i s printed on reuse paper -ignore any
content oa the reverse side

State of
Departm�
Health ar
Division o€
orth Carc.'ina
nt of Environment,
d Natural Resources
Water Quaiity
Janes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Dona
•City orG,
Post Offic,
Gastonia,
Dear Mr.
d E. Carmichael. P.E.
stoma
Box 1748
North Carolina 28053-1748
Carmichael:
IE) NJ F
February 26, 1997
Subject: NPDES Permits Issuance
Permit No. NC0020192
Catawba Creek WWTP
Permit No. NC0074268
Crowders WWTP
Permit No. .NC0020I 84
Long Creek WWTP
Gaston County
In accordance with the discharge perinit applications received on March 11, 1996, the Division is
forwarding herewith the subject NPDES permits�.These permits are issued pursuant to the requirements
of North arolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina
and the U S. Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6, 1983.
Thi letter responds to comments made in your December 19, 1996 letter. The format of this Ietter is
similar to the December 19, 1996 letter so that Gastonia can easily reference their comments and questions.
New Mo itorin• Rec uirements
The
of conce
are condu
Explanati
Division requires monitoring for all parameters identified as pollutants of concern. A pollutant
is a parameter that is Iikely to be present in a given discharge. Reasonable potential analyses
ted for all pollutants of concern monitored to determine if these pollutants will be limited.
ns for identification of new pollutants of concern are contained in the following paragraphs.
Thr e industries discharge mercury to Catawba Creek WWTP. Review of Catawba Creek WWTP
pretreatment data for the period 12/95-4/96 indicated one detection equal to 0.3 ug/1 (greater than the
allowabl concentration of 0.013 ug/1) on 3/7/96. Catawba Creek WWTP is scheduled to be
decommi sioned within a year. In addition, there is some uncertainty associated with mercury analyses.
Therefor.. monitoring (no limit) for mercury will be required in the permit.
Of
mercury.
indicated
detection
detection
addition,
limit) wi
e facilities which discharge to Crowders Creek WWTP, none is expected to discharge
However, review of Crowders Creek WWTP pretreatment data for the period 1/94-6/95
three detections: 0.25 ug/1 (4/29/94), 0.60 ug/1 (7/22/94), and 2.2 ug/11(8/26/94). All three
were greater than the allowable concentration of 0.029 ug/1. Because there were three
over the water quality standard, mercury will be limited in the proposed NPDES permit. In
oluene was detected at a concentration above the water quality standard and monitoring (no
be required in the final NPDES permit.
An mony, beryllium, chloride, and chloroform monitoring is only required for the discharge to
the South Fork Catawba River (Class WS-V stream). Long Creek is a Class C stream and thus, water
quality standards for these parameters are not as stringent as in water supply classified waters. Results
from an APAM, indicated that concentrations detected of these four parameters were greater than
corresponding water quality standards. Thus, they were identified as pollutants of concern. However,
they will not be limited because there was only one detection in the case of each parameter.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Carmichael
February 26, 1997
Page 2
The frequencies specified for the newly identified pollutants of concern are standard for toxicants
+and other non -conventional parameters. These frequencies are based on Division policy and the
facility's treatment class. The City may request a re-evaluation of these requirements after data from 12
sampling events are collected
Stream Monitoring Requirements
The Division concurs with Gastonia's request to eliminate instream monitoring of total nitrogen
and total phosphorus from all three discharge permits. Catawba Creek WWTP is scheduled to be
decommissioned within a year, so that the amount of data collected at this facility would be limited. At
Long Creek WWTP, the Division does not want to discourage use of the automated stream monitoring
system. However, as stated in the Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (July
1995), studies have documented eutrophic conditions in Lake Wylie and several of its major tributaries.
The Division agrees with Gastonia that a special study (perhaps including a coordinated monitoring
program) may be a better tool to evaluate nutrient problems in the Lake Wylie region.
Metals and Cyanide Limitations
The Division concurs with Gastonia that metals' concentrations appear to be generally decreasing
since the onset of using clean sampling techniques. However, review of the effluent data from all three
facilities indicate that there remain periodic instances of relatively higher concentrations. Thus, the
Division anticipates receiving the results of the glean sampling techniques studies in March or April
1997, but cannot postpone issuance of the Gastonia permits until that date.
Because review of the effluent data from al "three facilities indicate periodic instances of relatively
higher concentrations, conducting reasonable potiitial analyses on data collected from November 1995
to the present would not necessarily benefit Gastonia. If, after at least one year of data are collected,
some permit requirements are no longer representative of a facility's discharge, Gastonia may apply for
permit modifications.
Review of weekly average and daily maximum limit calculations indicated that some errors were
made in the draft permits. In the Catawba Creek WWTP permit, the daily maximum limits for cadmium
and lead should be 5.5 ugll and 37.4 ug/l, respectively. The Long Creek WWTP permit has a single
effluent sheet for each of the three different discharge scenarios. There are no changes to the 8.0 MGD
discharge to Long Creek. However, on the effluent sheet pertaining to the 8.0 MGD discharge to South
Fork Catawba River, for cadmium, the weekly average should be 19.6 ug/1 and the daily maximum
should be 49.0 ug/l. In addition, on the effluent sheet pertaining to the 16.0 MGD discharge to South
Fork Catawba River, the weekly averages and daily maximums should be as designated in the
following table:
ParameterWeekly
Average':(ugh)
Daily Maximum (ug/1) .
Cadmium
10.8
27.0
Cyanide
• 27.0
118.7
Lead
134.9
182.3

DEPART
Permit No. NC0020184
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulation: promulgated and adopted by the forth Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, . d the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City gf.Gastonia
is hereby auth • rized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
to receiving w
in accordance
II, III, and IV
The permit sh
This permit an
Signed this da
it
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Old Spencer Mountain Road
Gastonia
Gaston County
ters designated as Long Creek in the Catawba River Basin
ith effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I,
ereof.
1 become effective April 1, 1997
the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on September 30, 2001
February 26, 1997
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Mr. Carmichael
February 26, 1997
Page 3
,Loma Creek WWTP Total Nitroszen Limits
The Division agrees that Fleischmann's Yeast appears to contribute a significant amount of
nitrogen to the Long Creek WWTP. Unfortunately, conditions in the Lake Wylie region prevent the
Division fromdmodifying the total nitrogen limits. As stated earlier in this letter, studies have
documented nutrient problems in Lake Wylie and several of its major tributaries. Extensive water
quality modeling conducted for this region demonstrated the need to implement a nutrient management
strategy. The first strategy developed in 1992 was modified and made less stringent in 1995. The total
nitrogen effluent limits in the Long Creek WWTP were modified from 4.0 mg/1 (summer) and 8.0 mg/1
(winter) in 1992 to 6.0 mg (summer) and no limit (winter) in 1995_ The Division believes the most
recent limits are necessary to effectively manage nutrients in the Lake Wylie region.
Crowders Creek WWTP Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous Limits
The Division concurs with Gastonia's request to phase in nutrient limits at this WWTP. Please
note that the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements page has been corrected to properly
indicate that these limits are not effective until September 1, 2001.
Catawba Creek WWTP - Decommissioning Flows (9.0, 6.0. and 3.0 MGD)
The Division has modified the Catawba C{;eek WWTP NPDES permit to include effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements (including toxicity test requirements) to correspond with
anticipated flow decreases of 6.0 and 3.0 MGD associated with the decommissioning. The format is
similar to that of the draft permit. Specifically, special conditions pages immediately follow the Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring Requirements pages .
In Part III, Section B. Pretreatment Program Requirements, Number 11. Public Notice of the
NPDES permit, the requirement has been changed from two to four months. The four month time limit
allows the Division to complete work and processing for one compliance period before beginning the next.
A six month requirement would cause subsequent compliance periods to overlap.
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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such demand is
made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take note that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be
followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
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, or any other Federal
or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Paul B. Clark at telephone number
[phone], extension 580.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Permits and Engineering Unit
Facility Assessment Unit
Aquatic Survey and Toxicology Unit

is hereby au horized to:
1. Continu
lift stati
polishin
static ae
expansi
cyclone
clarifier
sludge
Treatme
permit),
2. Prior to
location
the Cata
3. After rel
• Location_
Class W
Permit No. NC0020184
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Gastonia
tb operate an existing 8.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility consists of influent
n, a mechanical bar screen and grit removal, primary clarifiers, trickling filters,
ponds with floating aerators, dual chlorine contact chambers with dechlorination, a
ator, sludge lagoons, and sludge, drying beds. Facilities under construction for
n to 16.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility include mechanical bar screens,
grit removal, anaerobic/anoxic/oxic basins, caustic and alum feed, secondary
, tertiary filters, chlorine disinfection with dechlorination, static post aeration, and
igesters. Wastewater treatment- facility is located at Long Creek Wastewater
t Plant,.Old Spencer Mountain Road, Gastonia, Gaston County (See Part III of this
nd
elocution of discharge point, discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the
pecified on the attached map into Long Creek which is classified Class C waters in
ba River Basin.
cation of discharge point, discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the
specified on .the:attached:map into South. •Fork Catawba River which is classified
-V waters in the Catawba River Basin.

ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HWY
HARD SURFACE.— immazsmilm
SECONDARY HWY
HARD SURFACE••• • C=DSIM=i
LIGHT -DUTY ROAD. HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE...
UN IMPROVED
Existing Discharge
Latitude 35°18'25"
Proposed Discharg e
Latitude 35°31'35"
Point
Longitude
Point
81°08'04"
Longitude 82°24'10"
map # F14SW Sub -basin 030836
Stream Class C
Discharge Class 01
Receiving Stream Long Crk/S. Fork
Design 0 8.0 m(30 Permit expires 9/ 30/ 01
0
SCALE 1 :24 GOO
0
1 MILE
1•44.4.4*.;g.44:4
f:"6:4".';'444444:44:44:41
7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
City of Gastonia
NC00020184
Gaston County
Long Creek WWTP

A.(2)EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -PERMITTED DISCHARGE TO S. FORK CATAWBA• RIVER Permit No.•N00020184
During the period beginning after the relocation of the discharge to theSouth Fork Catawba River and lasting until expansion to 16.0 MGD, the Permittee i
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: s
Flow
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (April 1 - October 31)
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (November 1 - March 31)
TSS2
NH3-N, (April 1 - October 31)
NH3-N, (November 1 - March 31)
Dissolved Oxygen3
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Temperature
Total Residual Chlorine
Conductivity
8.0 MGD
11.0 mg/I
22.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
4.0 mg/I
14.0 mg/I
200/100 ml
16.5 mg/I
33.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
400/100 mi
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicit
Cadmium
Mercury
Antimony
Beryllium
Chloride
Chloroform
4
ai:ly
[aximu
28.0 ug/I
19.6 ug/I
0.12 ug/I
ig/1
0.47 ug/I
easure.ment
Frequency
Continuous Recording
• Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
-=_-� Quarterly
Weekly
Weekly
Notes:
2/month
2/month
2/month
2/month
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
ample
cafion?'
I or E
E,I
E,I
E,I
E
E
Grab •
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E
U,D
E
E
E
E'
E
E
Sample locations: E - Effluent, 1 - Influent, U - Upstream at City of Gastonia Pump Station, D - Downstream at a) Spencer Mountain Dam
pool at dam, b) NCSR 2003, and c) 1.5 miles below tailrace at powerlines. Instream monitoringshall be
grab samples taken 3/wk
(Jun -Sep) and 1/wk (Oct -May). These monitoring frequencies specified above for dissolved oxygen, temperature,
conductivity, and pH are to be used only when experiencing operational problems with the YSI 6-series system. It is assume
2
that when the YSI system is operating properly, these four parameters will be monitored continuously. 3 The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85°/% removal). 4 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/I.
Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia), P/F, no significant mortality at 10%; March, June, September, and December; See Supplement to Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements Page - Special Conditions for flow of 8.0 MGD to South Fork Catawba River.
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.

A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - PERMITTED DISCHARGE TO LONG CREEK • Permit No.. NC0020184
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until relocation to the South Fork Catawba River, 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:
•
Flow
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (April 1 - October 31)
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (November 1 - March 31)
TSS2
NH3-N, (April 1 - October 31)
-onth�
u;e rag
8.0 MGD
11.0 mg/1
22.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
7..0 mg/1
NH3-N, (November 1 - March 31) 14.0 mg/I
.Dissolved Oxygen3
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Temperature
Total Residual Chlorine
Conductivity
200/100 ml
16.5 mg/1
33.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/I
400/100 rill
Measu'remeni
Frequency
Continuous
. Daily
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity 4
Cadmium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Notes:
2
3
4
2.5 ug/I
6.2 ug/l
31.0 ug/I
0.015 ug/I
109 ug/I
6.Z,.Ug/I_
27.3 ug/I
42.0 ug/1
0.060 ug/I
437 ug/I
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Recor.ding
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Grab
Grab
Grab
.Grab
Grab
I or E
E,
E,1
E,1
E
E
E,UzD
E
E,U,D
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Composite
E
U,D
E
E
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at NCSR 2264, D - Downstream at NCSR 2003. lnstream monitoring shall be
grab samples taken 3/wk (Jun -Sep) and 1/wk (Oct -May).
The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/I.
Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia), P/F, 81 %; March, June, September, and December; See Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements Page - Special Conditions for flow of 8.0 MGD to Long Creek.
The pH shall not be Tess 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 No. NC 020184
A(4). CHRO
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS for Flow of 8.0 MGD to Long Creek
IC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent di charge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the "Norte
Carolina Cell daphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or subsequent
versions.
The effluent c ncentratl.on at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality is 81 % (defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The tests will be
performed dur ng the months of Mar., Jun., Sept., and Dec.. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be
performed at th NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity tes ing_results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Fo m (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3I3.
Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to be $ent to the following address:
ttention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Divison of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Test data shall b- complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed
in association ith the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent
toxicity sample ust be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
• Should there be
the'permittee w
the facility nam
"No Flow" in t
Branch at the ad
Should any sing
begin immediat
revert to quarter
Should the per
monitoring will
requirement will
Should any test
Water Quality i
include alternate
NOTE: • Failur-
organism surviv
constitute an inv.
of the month foll
o discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
11 complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating
-, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of
e comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences
ress cited above.
e quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
ly until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
y in the months specified above.
ttee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly
Begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
• ata from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
dicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to
monitoring requirements or limits.
to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
l, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall
id test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day
wing the month of the initial monitoring.
•
QCL PIP' Version 9/96

A.(3) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -PERMITTED DISCHARGE TO S. FORK CATAWBA RIVER Permit ,No. •NC0020184
During the period beginning after the relocation of the discharge to the.South Fork Catawba River and the expansion to 16.0 MGD and lasting until expiration
the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfail(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
onthl'
er.a•
Flow 16.0 MGD
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (April 1 - October 31) 5.0 mg/I
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (November 1 - March 31) 10.0 mg/I
TSS2 30.0 mg/I
NH3-N, (April 1 - October 31) 2.0 mg/I
NH3-N, (November 1 - March 31) 4.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen3
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 ml
Temperature
Total Residual Chlorine
Conductivity
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN) 6.0 mg/I 4
Total Phosphorus 1.0 mg/I
Chronic Toxicity 5
Cadmium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury 6
Antimony
Beryllium
Chloride
Chloroform
Notes:
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 Conditions for flow of 16.0 MGD to South Fork Catawba River.
6 The detection limit for mercury is 0.2 ug/I. If the measured levels of mercury are below the deection limit, then the measurement is considered to be zero for
purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reproted on the DMR as < 0.2 ug/I.
The pH shall not be Tess 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.
eekly' Daily Measurement
!:era`• e Maximum °Fre o uenc;
7.5 mg/I
15.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/i
400/100 ml
10.8 ug/I
27.0 ug/I
134.9 u•/I
28.0 ug/I
27.Mug/1
118.7 ug/I
182.3 ug/I
Continuous
. Daily
Daily
UIREMENtS
Recording
Composite
Composite
• Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Grab
Daily Grab
Daily Grab
Daily Grab
Daily Grab
Weekly Composite
Weekly Composite
�-= Quarterly Composite
Weekly Composite
Weekly Grab
Weekly
Weekly
Composite
;ample.,
ocation1.
I or E
E,I
E,I
E, I
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E
U,D
E
Grab
2/month Composite
2/month Composite
2/month Composite
2/month Grab
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at City offtastonia Pump Station, D - Downstream at a) Spencer Mountain Dam
pool at dam, b) NCSR 2003, and c) 1.5 miles below tailrace at powerlines. Instream monitoring shall be grab samples taken 3/wk
(Jun -Sep) and 1/wk (Oct -May). These monitoring frequencies specified above for dissolved oxygen, temperature,
conductivity, and pH are to be used only when experiencing operational problems with the YSI 6-series system. It is assumed
2
that when the YSI system is operating properly, these four parameters will be monitored continuously. a The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/I.
4 TN limit applies only from April 1 through October 31.

DEHNR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0020184
Applicant/Facility Name:
Applic4nt Address:
Facility Address:
Permitted Flow
Type of Waste:
Facility/Permit Status:
Facility Class:
County{{
Regional Office:
USGS :opo Quad:
Stream Nharactclistics:
Receiving Stream
Stream lassification
Subbasi
Drainag Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter Q10 (cfs):
Averag Flow (cfs):
IWC Lo gCrk @ 8.0 MGD(%):
``. IWC(Sib- rk @ 8.0 MGD(%):
TVVSFk. \ 16.3 M ,D0:1:i:
Wastelc d •.11 �.
may^. , i.ii,.,..«v,.._,�.iilTl.u"\'
City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
P.O. Box 1748, Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
Spencer Mountain Road, Gastonia
8.0/16.0 MGD
Domesti c-40%/Indus-60%
Existing/Renewal
IV
Gaston
Mooresville
G 14NW
Long Creek/South Fork
Catawba River
C/WS-V
030836
6.4/558
109
11'/200
518/653
81
10
19
Monitoring and limits will remain the same for the majority of parameters in the permit.
Oxygen consuming wastes have generally not been a problem. Lake Wylie continues to
have proplems with nutrients and therefore the phased total nitrogen and total phosphorus
limits will remain in the permit.
Three reasonable potential analyses were conducted corresponding to the three different
flow and discharge location scenarios. Conclusions from the three analyses follow:
1. 8.0 MGD - Long Creek: cadmium, cyanide, lead, mercury, and nickel will be limited.
2. 8.0 MGD - South Fork Catawba River: cadmium, cyanide, and mercury will be limited.
3. 16.0 MGD - S. Fork Catawba River: cadmium, cyanide, and mercury will be limited.
Gastonia has concern with meeting metals limits on a consistent basis and they believe
Long Creek WWTP would be less likely to violate metals limits if the NPDES permit had
weekly averages as well as daily maximum values. Thus, the Division agreed to add
weekly averages to the NPDES permit for limited parameters.
Because hromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc are required in the pretreatment
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP), monitoring for these parameters will not be required
in the NPDES permit.
Page 1 of 3

Long Creek WWTP has a Quarterly Chronic Pass/Fail Toxicity test with an 81% effluent
concentration limit. They are under a SOC 8/21/95-11/30/97. The SOC requires them to
conduct more extensive toxicity testing in at attempt to quantify the toxicity and identify
possible sources of toxicity. Thus, more recently they have conducted toxicity tests using
graduatO effluent concentrations (22,36,60,80,100). From January 1993 to the present,
Long Creek WWTP failed all of their toxicity tests except 9/93 and 12/95.
Gastonia submitted a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) quarterly progress report (July
1996) aid Aquatic Toxicology (AT)'s concerns are summarized below. AT notes that the
THE report does not document any actions undertaken to investigate/reduce and/or
eliminate causative toxicants in Long Creek WWTP wastestream. AT inquired as to status
of pilot Testing at Long Creek WWTP. AT emphasizes facility's ability to consistently meet
its chro is permit limitation even though the facility is actively involved with expansion.
Long C eek has undertaken several positive actions including: trunkline sampling,
require ent for all SIUs to conduct chronic refractory screenings to meet pretreatment
progr requirements, mail out of greater than 400 industrial waste surveys, in -plant "day -
of -week toxicity monitoring, and treatability testing. AT further states that treatment
technol gies at Catawba Facility may not necessarily be appropriate at Long Creek WWTP.
See toxi ity report for actual toxicity results.
Instream Monitoring
Instream monitoring occurred at upstream station at NCSR 2264 and downstream station
NCSR 2003. Instream data was examined from January 1994 through May 1996. The
data sunmimaries below refer to monthly averages.
- Dissolved oxygen dropped from the upstream to the downstream station as would be
expected. However, the lowest DO value was only 7.0 mg/1 (8/95).
- BOD values were generally higher downstream than upstream, but BOD monitoring may
not be n cessary since DO is monitored instream.
- The majority of pH values were in the vicinity of 7.0. A few extreme pH values in recent
months 1.2 (3/96-downstream), 5.5 (1/96-downstream), and 2.1 (12/95-upstream) may
be cause f concern and reason to continue to monitor pH instream.
- Fecal c liform values ranged from 113/100 ml to 6929/100 ml (both measured at the
downstre m station) and were lower down- than upstream more than half the time.
- Conduc ivity values were higher downstream than upstream which is expected given the
discharg of wastewater containing metals and ions into the receiving water.
- The ma ority of the ammonia -nitrogen values were below 0.10 mg/1 upstream and
concentrations ranged from below 0.10 mg/1 to 2.34 mg/1 (2/94) downstream.
Instream data indicate the Long Creek WWTP is not having an adverse impact on the
receiving water quality. Therefore, instream monitoring for BOD5 and fecal coliform will
be elimin ted and instream monitoring for ammonia -nitrogen will be changed to total
nitrogen t provide a greater amount of information on nutrients associated with nitrogen.
The Division received Gastonia's instream monitoring modification request to use the YSI
6-series syxstem for continuous instream monitoring, move the upstream monitoring station
location, ind delete fecal coliform instream monitoring on April 24, 1996. The Division
concurs vvith Gastonia's proposed instream monitoring modification, but will continue to
specify th original monitoring frequencies in the permit. Therefore, should the system
experienc problems, it is expected that the monitoring frequencies specified in the permit
would se a as a default. The Division also has no problem with relocating the upstream
monitorin location and this new location will be specified in the proposed permit.
Page 2 of 3

perms
1. Re
locati
`Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 10/09/96
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 11/25/96
State Contact
If you ave any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Paul Clark at [phone] ext. 580.
Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on
development:
sonable potential analyses for three different flow and discharge
n scenarios.
`. L` AI
3. Proposed
Special
Llllg pei ii11L ClliuCiiL SneeLS, and
draft permit.
Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Rec.
Review:d
Regional
Permits
mmended by: Date:
by
Supervisor: Date:
& Engineering: Date:
Page 3 of 3

N0002O184 Summary
Augu t 15, 1996
Nove ber 15, 1996 (revised)
City oGastonia/Long Creek wastewater treatment facility has applied for renewal of their
discharge permit which allows the facility to discharge 8.0 and 16.0 MGD. This permit
allows for the following discharge scenarios:
1. Disoharge 8.0 MGD into Long Creek
2. Discharge 8.0 MGD into South Fork Catawba River
3. Discharge 16.0 MGD into South Fork Catawba River
Long 1 reek WWTP will relocate their discharge point from Long Creek to South Fork
Cataw a River prior to expanding from 8.0 to 16.0 MGD because Long Creek would not
be ab1: to assimilate a Long Creek WWTP discharge of 16.0 MGD.
City o Gastonia has also applied for a permit modification. The modification would allow
the use of automated sampling equipment at Long Creek WWTP to conduct instream
monito ng and includes a relocation of the upstream monitoring location and elimination
(or red ced) instream monitoring for fecal conform.
Decom issioning Catawba WWTP and constructing a pump station so that Catawba
WWT''s wastewater goes to Long Creek makes sense environmentally, but it would cost
S9 mill on. City of Gastonia has already received at least S 15 million from the State
Const ction Loans and Grants Section to help them fund some other wastewater treatment
projects which may make obtaining future loans problematic.
. Catawb Creek Decommissioning/Long Creek expansion proposed schedule follows:
9701: atawba Creek decommissioning plans and specifications submitted.
02. ' ong Creek expansion to 9.0 MCD complete
I u : 1 elocation sewerline to be completed.
9707: ong Creek filters complete.
9712: ong Creek expansion to 16.0 MGD complete.
2001: pastonia will begin to examine Long Creek expansion from 16.0 to 24.0 MGD
2005: ong Creek expansion from 16.0 to 24.0 MGD becomes operational.
Long C eek WWTP wastewater is currently treated through new portion of WWTP.
Capacit of new portion of WWTP is 9.0 MGD. After older section of WWTP is
renovat d an additional 7.0 MGD will be added resulting in a total of 16.0 MGD.
Pease C nsultants prepared a report (5/31/96) on the decommissioning of Catawba Creek
WWTP 'hich supported the decommissioning as cost-effective. Pease references the
SVBK r port and mentions five main areas of cost savings. The statements provided in
Pease re ort are summary statements and SVBK report should be examined for specifics.
Informa ion compiled by the City of Gastonia in response to their lawsuit with the
America Canoe Association (7/22/96) indicates that the City of Gastonia has obtained
authoriz tion and funding to decommission the 40 year old Catawba Creek WWTP and
construe a pump station and force main to divert the flow from the Catawba Creek WWTP
to the ne er Long Creek WWTP. By decommissioning the Catawba Creek WWTP, the
City is s pporting the State concept of regionalization of WWTPs and alleviating an
eutrophi system.
Catawba Creek WWTP receives wastewater from various industries that will be received at
Long Cr ek WWTP (following the expansion). However, even with the increase in the
type and umber of industries discharging to Long Creek, presently, the Long Creek
NPDES ermit requires more extensive monitoring than the Catawba Creek WWTP permit.
Page 1 of 8

N00020184 Summary
August 15, 1996
November 15, 1996 (revised)
City of Gastonia's Catawba Creek, Crowders Creek, and Long Creek WWTPs discharge
into different arms of Lake Wylie and are all experiencing the following problems:
• 1. Toxicity: the three facilities receive wastewater from several industries.
2. Nutrients: Point and nonpoint sources of pollution contribute nutrients to Lake Wylie.
There are management strategies unique to Long, Catawba, and Crowders creeks that
require point dischargers on these waters to abide by certain limits.
The existing 8.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility consists of influent lift station, a
mechanical bar screen and grit removal, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, polishing ponds
with floating aerators, dual chlorine contact chambers with dechlorination, a static aerator,
sludge lagoons, and sludge drying beds.
Facilities under construction for expansion to 16.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility
include mechanical bar screens, cyclone grit removal, anaerobic/anoxiJoxic basins, caustic
and alum feed, secondary clarifiers, tertiary filters, chlorine disinfection with
dechlorination, static post aeration, and sludge digesters.
Industries (all SIUs) discharging to Long Creek WWTP include:
1. Armtex, Inc.: product - textile/domestic, rm: fiber reactive dyes, softners, wwc - BOD,
TSS, NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
2. Danager Tool Group: product - metal finisher/domestic, rm: alloy steel ASTM, alkaline
cleaners, plating chemicals, wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
3. Fleishmann's Yeast: product - yeast/domestic, rm - molasses, starch, ammonia,
phosphoric acid, growth additive (An, SO4. MgSO4), wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD,'
Cu. Zn, and Ni.
4. Freightliner Corporation: product - metal finisher/domestic, rm - ??, wwc - BOD, TSS
NH3-N, COD. Cu, Zn, and Ni.
5. Lida Stretch Fabrics: product - textile/domestic, rm - fiber reactive dyes, disperse dyes,
wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
6. Globe Manufacturing Company: product - OCPSF/Domestic, rm - polyester resin,
ethvlenedianie, toluene, wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
7. Ithaca Industries: product - textile/domestic, rm - dyes, caustic cotton, synthetic yarns,
wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
8. Stabilus: product - metal finisher/domestic, rm - steel rod & tube stock, painting
materials, wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
9. WIX: product - filter/domestic, rm - metal, paper, paint, plastisol, oil, silicone glue, and
solvents, wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
10. Weyerhaeuser Corporation: product - boxes/domestic, rm - corn starch, water, draft
paper, flexographic ink, sodium hydroxide. wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and
Ni.
11. Wales Fabrics: product - textile/domestic, rm - dyes, caustic, acid finishing chemicals,
cottons, wwc - BOD, TSS NH3-N, COD, Cu, Zn, and Ni.
SIU: Significant Industrial User
To be classified as a SIU, an industry must meet one or more of the following conditions:
1) Flow to POTW > 25,000 GPD
2) Flow to POTW > 5% of POTW's Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading (MAHL)
3) Industry is a classified Categorical Industry (CI)
4) Other - an industry may not meet nos. 1-3 listed above, but if there is a concern that the
industry may adversely impact the.POTW, it can be classified as a SIU and thus a
pretreatment permit is required.
Only the SIU dischargers have pretreatment permits.
Page 2 of 8

114
NC0020184 Summary
August 15, 1996
November 15, 1996 (revised)
Compliance Summary
Cornpli
violatio
nce data was evaluated for the period July 1994 through June 1996 and the
s are compiled on the following table:
Parameter
Limit
Result
Date
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
10.3 ug/1
9605
BODS
11.0 mg/1 •
11.7 mg/1
9604
Mercury]
0.012 ug/1
1.0 ug/1
9604
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
70.0 ug/1
9604
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
34.0 ug/1
9603
Mercury
-0.012 ug/1
0.4 ug/1
9603
Cyanide
6.2 ug/I
12.8 ug/1
9602
Cyanide
6.2 ug/l
40.2 ug/1
9601
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
1.0 ug/1
9601 .
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
12.1 ug/1
9512
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
0.20 ug/1
9512
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
7.4 ug/I
9511
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
0.20 ug/1
9511
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
15.0 ug/1
9509
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
0.20 ug/1
9509
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
30.0 ug/1 .
9508
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
17.0 ug/1
9507
Mercury I
0.012 ug/1
0.25 ug/1
9507
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
12.0 ug/1
9506
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
10.0 ug/1
9505
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
9.0 ug/1
9504
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
0.20 ug/1
9504
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1.
18.0 ug/1
9503
Cadmium
2.5 ug/1
3.7 ug/1
9503
Cyanide
6.2 ug/I
10.0 ug/1
9503
Cadmium
2.5 ug/1 -
4.0 ug/1
9501
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
14.0 ug/1
9501
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
0.48 ug/1
9501
Cadmium
2.5 ug/1
4.0 ug/1
9412
Cyanide
6.2 ug/I
14.0 ug/1
9412
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
0.40 ug/1 .
9412
Cadmium
2.5 ug/1
3.0 ug/1
9411
Cyanide
6.2 ug/1
13.0 ug/1
9411
Mercury
0.012 ug/1
1.68 ug/1
9411
Lead
31.0 ug/1
131.0 ug/1
9411
Fecal Coli orm violations were not recorded - method of determining violations unclear.
Long Cree • WWTP has a Quarterly Chronic Pass/Fail Toxicity test with an 81% effluent
concentrati n limit. They are under a SOC 8/21/95-11/30/97. The SOC requires them to
conduct m re extensivetoxicitytesting in at attempt to quantify the toxicity and identify
possible so rces of toxicity. Thus, more recently they have conducted toxicity tests using
graduated ffluent concentrations (22,36,60,80,100). From January 1993 to the present,
Long Cree WWTP failed all of their toxicity tests except 9/93 and 12/95.
Page 3 of 8

NC0020184 Summary
August 15, 1996
November 15, 1996 (revised)
Gastonia submitted a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) quarterly progress report (July
1996) and Aquatic Toxicology (AT)'s concerns are summarized below. AT notes that the
TRE report does not document any actions undertaken to investigate/reduce and/or
eliminate causative toxicants in Long Creek WWTP wastestream. AT inquired as to status
of pilot testing at Long Creek WWTP. AT emphasizes facility's ability to consistently meet
its chronic permit limitation even though the facility is actively involved with expansion.
Long Creek has undertaken several positive actions including: trunkline sampling,
requirement for all SIUs to conduct chronic refractory screenings to meet pretreatment
program requirements, mail out of greater than 400 industrial waste surveys, in -plant "day -
of -week toxicity monitoring, and treatability testing. AT further states that treatment
technologies at Catawba Facility may not necessarily be appropriate at Long Creek WWTP.
See toxicity report for actual toxicity results.
WLA Summary
Monitoring and limits will remain the same for the majority of parameters in the permit.
Oxygen consuming wastes have generally not been a problem. Lake Wylie continues to
have problems with nutrients and therefore the phased total nitrogen and total phosphorus
limits will remain in the permit.
Three reasonable potential analyses were conducted corresponding to the three different
flow and discharge location scenarios. Conclusions from the three analyses follow:
1. 8.0 MGD - Long Creek: cadmium, cyanide, lead, mercury, and nickel will be limited.
2. 8.0 MGD - South Fork Catawba River: cadmium and mercury will be limited.
3. 16.0 MGD -.S. Fork Catawba River: cadmium. cyanide, lead, and mercury .will be -----
limited.
Gastonia has concern with meeting metals limits on a consistent basis and they believe
Long Creek WWTP would be less likely to violate metals limits if the NPDES permit had
weekly averages as well as daily maximum values. Thus, the Division agreed to add
weekly averages to the NPDES permit for limited parameters.
As stated in the Instream Assessment SOP, under routine analyses, chemical specific
effluent limits are calculated to protect to the chronic no -effect level for aquatic life instream
under 7Q10 conditions. Since most criteria reflect between 4 and 7 consecutive day
exposure period assumptions, a weekly average of daily monitoring basis should protect
against chronic effects. However, as a result of a DEM cost/frequency of monitoring study
conducted in the early 1980's, a procedure was established whereby once/week or
2/month sampling would be required dependent on facility classification. Thus, generally,
chemical specific toxic limits shall be placed in NPDES permits as a maximum daily
allowable concentration in light of this reduced monitoring frequency. Higher daily
maximum concentrations may be allocated if a facility agrees to conduct daily monitoring
(5/week). Gastonia's existing daily maximum limits will become weekly average limits
since as stated above these existing limits already protect against chronic effects. A new
daily maximum limit (to protect against acute effects) is equal to one-half of the toxicant's
FAV value (or the CMC value) multiplied by dilution.
Page 4 of 8

•
NC00 0184 Summary
August 15, 1996
November 15, 1996 (revised)
Parameter
1/2 FAV
Daily Max
Wkly Avg
Daily Max
Wkly Avg
Daily Max
Wkly Avg
Value
Long
Long
SFC8,
SFCB
SFC16
SFC16
(ug/l)
(ug/l)
Lug/l)
fug)
fug)
(ug/l)
iug/li
Cadmi
m
5.0 (a)
_
6.2
2.5
49.0
19.6
27.0
'
10.8
'
Cyanid
' 22
27.3
_
6.2
215.4
49.0
118.7
27.0
Lead
' 33.8
42.0
31.0
330.9
244.8
182.3
-3.0
134.9
Merc
2.4 (b)
3.0 (c)
0.015
3.0 (c)
0.117
(c)
'
0.065
Nickel
789
_
979.9 (d)
109.3
9593.5(d)
861.5
5286.7(d)
474.8
Note01 for daily maximum and weekly average value data and calculations, please refer to
the yeas nable potential analyses worksheets.
Note02 values in italics are not limited in permit.
Long: ischarge 8.0 MGD into Long Creek
SFC8: ischarge 8.0 MGD into South Fork Catawba River
SFC16: Discharge 16.0 MGD into South Fork Catawba River
(a) EP federal criteria = 1.79 ug/l, but 5.0 ug/l should be used per DWQ/Planning Branch
investi lion.
(b) Val e is for mercury (II). There is no CMC/FAV for methylmercury, for which data
indicate higher toxicity than mercury (II).
(c) Bec use a violation of the daily maximum for mercury would automatically cause a
violatio of the weekly average, the daily maximum is calculated by multiplying the weekly
average by five and subtracting the weekly average limit from this value. In the case of
merc , (5*0.015) - 0.015 = 0.060 ug/1 - Daily maximum (Long Creek 8.0 MGD)
(5*0.11 ?) - 0.117 = 0.468 - Daily maximum (S. Fork Catawba River 8.0 MGD)
(5 0.06 ,) - 0.065 = 0.078 - Daily maximum (S. Fork Catawba River 16.0 MGD).
(d) A vi lation of the daily maximum for nickel would almost always cause a violation of
the wee , y average, thus, the daily maximum is calculated by multiplying the weekly
average !• y five and subtracting the weekly average limit from this value. In the case of
Nickel, 5*109.3) - 109.3 = 437.2 ug/1 - Daily maximum (Long Creek 8.0 MGD)
(5*861. ) - 861.5 = 3446.0 ug/1 - Daily maximum (S. Fork Catawba River 8.0 MGD)
(5*474. ;) - 474.8 = 1899.2 ug/1 - Daily maximum (S. Fork Catawba River 16.0 MGD).
Cadmiu (8.0 and 16.0 MGD flows) and cyanide (16.0 MGD flow only) will have only
daily m. imum limits (will not have weekly averages) for the discharges to South Fork
Catawb • River because the proposed daily maximum limits would be lower than their
weekly . verage.
Monito g requirements (no limit) will vary depending upon thedischarge scenario.
Long C ek: Because chromium, copper, silver, and zinc monitoring are required in the
pretrea ' ,i ent Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP), monitoring for these three parameters
will not se required in the NPDES permit.
South F. rk Catawba 8 and 16MGD: Because chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel,
silver, and zinc monitoring are required in the pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Plan
(LTMP), monitoring for these three parameters will not be required in the NPDES permit.
South Fork Catawba 16 MGD: Lead monitoring will be required in NPDES permit.
Page 5 of 8

NC0020184 Summary
August 15, 1996
November 15, 1996 (revised)
APAM data review is summarized below:
Parameter
5/94 (ug/1)
4/95 (ug/1)
6/95 (ug/1)
Antimony •
.19
nd ,
<20
Arsenic -
' 2.5
nd
<2
Beryllium
<5
nd
161
_
Cadmium
10.5
nd
<2
Chromium
24.0
nd
7.4
Copper
35.7
nd
25.1
Lead
49
nd
42
Nickel
62
nd
21
Selenium
155.9
nd
<2
Silver
3.5
nd
<3
Zinc
105.0
nd
136
Barium
34.3
nd
<100
Chloride
' 284,900
304,900
nd
Cyanide
13.0
9.
nd
Fluoride
1280
1200
nd
Chloroform
20
11
nd
_
Di-n-butyl phthalate
<50
64
nd
Hexndecanoic Acid
nd
6 (estimate)
nd
Oleic Acid
nd
120 (estimate)
nd
Octadecanoic Acid
nd
23 (estimate)
nd
nd=no data
Many of the pollutants detected in the APAM are already monitored (and some limited) in
the NPDES permit and/or the pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP). Other
parameters detected in the APAM were examined on a case -by -case basis to determine if
monitoring would be required in the NPDES permit. Monitoring for hexndecanoic, oleic,
and octadecanoic acids will not be required because the concentrations are estimates.
Monitoring for Di-n-butyl phthalate will not be required because this compound is.a
suspected laboratory contaminant.
Parameter
Detected Conc (ug/l)
WQ Standard (ug/1)
Standard Type
Antimony (ug/1)
19, <20
14/4300
W&OC/OC
Arsenic (ug/l)
2.5
50
Aquatic Life
Beryllium (ug/l)
8.8
0.117/0.0068
Human Health/WS
Selenium (ug/l)
_
155.9
5 -
Aquatic Life
Barium (ug/1)
7.8
1000
Water Supply
Chloride (mg/1)
285,385
230 AL/ 250
Aq. Life/WS
Fluoride (mg/1)
' 1.28,1.2
1.8
Aq. Life
Chloroform (ug/l)
20,11
5.7/470
W&OC/OC
Page 6 of 8

NC0020184 Summary
Augu t 15, 1996
Nove ber 15, 1996 (revised)
Long Creek Discharge
Monit ring will not be required for those compounds in the table above that have standards
or fede al criteria that are human health based or are only applicable to water supply
classifi d waters because Long Creek is a Class C stream. Therefore, monitoring will not
be req ired for beryllium or barium. Antimony monitoring will not be required because the
detecte concentrations are less than the applicable federal criterion (4300 ug/1 is applicable,
14 ug/1 is not). Arsenic monitoring will not required because the concentration detected is
less th the water quality standard. Selenium monitoring will not be required because
althou the concentration detected is greater than the water quality standard, selenium is
monito ed in the LTMP. Chloride monitoring will not required because the concentrations
detecte are only greater than a water supply standard and an action level. There is no
water q ality standard for chloride applicable to just Class C waters. Water treatment
facilitie add fluoride to the water. Fluoride concentrations in potable drinking water are
probabl similar to the concentrations in the above table. Fluoride monitoring will not be
requires . Chloroform monitoring will not be required because the detected concentrations
are less than the applicable federal criterion (470 ug/1 is applicable, 5.7 ug/1 is not).
South • rk Catawba River Dischar e
South •rk River is a Class WS-V stream. Antimony, beryllium, chloride, and chloroform
monito ng will be required because the concentrations detected are greater than the water
quality tandards for these parameters. However, they will not be limited because there
was only one detection in the case of each parameter. Arsenic monitoring will not required
because the concentration detected is less than the water quality standard. Selenium
monitoring will not be required because although the concentration detected is greater than
the wat quality standard, selenium is monitored in the LTMP. Barium will not be -
monitor d because the detection concentration is almost three orders of magnitude less than
than the ater quality standard. Water treatment facilities add fluoride to the water.
Fluoride concentrations in potable drinking water are probably similar to the concentrations
in the a ove table. Fluoride monitoring will not be required.
The pro osed Long Creek WWTP discharge location on South Fork Catawba River at the
mouth o Long Creek is about 0.2 miles upstream of the Duke Power Spencer Mountain
hydro p wer dam. The South Fork Catawba River is Class WS-V at this location. A level
B analysis demonstrated that the proposed discharge point, although not ideal, is an
acceptable location for the discharge of 16.0 MGD of treated wastewater.
Alternative discharge points include remaining in Long Creek and moving South Fork
below th Spencer Mountain Dam tailrace. Long Creek is already heavily used for the
assimilat on of wastewater. If the proposed discharge was released to Long Creek the IWC
would b 89%, whereas moving the discharge would result in a Long Creek IWC of 46%.
Due to t pography and the 1.5 mile Duke Power hydro project, considerable effort would
be requir d to pipe the effluent below the Spencer Mountain Dam tailrace. Therefore, the
effort mi ht be better spend in advanced treatment.
The BO 5, NH3-N, and DO limits in the proposed permit (for all three discharge
scenarios were developed as a result of the level B analysis conducted during the previous
permit repewal and will not change from the existing permit. The Division recommends
Gastonia xamine the possibility of using a diffuser to ensure rapid mixing and dispersion
of the eff uent across the South Fork Catawba River prior to Spencer Mountain Dam.
Page 7 of 8

NC0020184 Summary
V
August 15, 1996
November 15, 1996 (revised)
Instream Monitoring
Instream monitoring occurred at upstream station at NCSR 2264 and downstream station
NCSR 2003. Instream data was examined from January 1994 through May 1996. The
data summaries below refer to monthly averages.
- Dissolved oxygen dropped from the upstream to the downstream station as would be
expected. However, the lowest DO value was only 7.0 mg/I (8/95).
- BOD values were generally higher downstream than upstream, but BOD monitoring may
not be necessary since DO is monitored instream.
- The majority of pH values were in the vicinity of 7.0. A few extreme pH values in recent
months 11.2 (3/96-downstream). 5.5 (1/96-downstream), and 2.1 (12/95-upstream) may
be cause of concern and reason to continue to monitor pH instream.
- Fecal coliform values ranged from 113/100 ml to 6929/100 ml (both measured at the
downstream station) and were lower down- than upstream more than half the time.
- Conductivity values were higher downstream than upstream which is expected given the
discharge of wastewater containing metals and ions into the receiving water.
- The majority of the ammonia -nitrogen values were below 0.10 mg/1 upstream and
concentrations ranged from below 0.10 mg/1 to 2.34 mg/ (2/94) downstream.
Instream data indicate the Long Creek WWTP is not having an adverse impact on the
receivingwater quality. Therefore, instream monitoring for BOD5 and fecal coliform will
be eliminated and instream monitoring for ammonia -nitrogen will be changed to total
nitrogen to provide a greater amount of information on nutrients associated with nitrogen.
The Division received Gastonia's instream monitoring modification request to use the YSI
6-series system for continuous instream monitoring, move the upstream monitoring station
location, and delete fecal coliform instream monitoring on April 24, 1996. The Division
concurs with Gastonia's proposed instream monitoring modification, but will continue to
specify the original monitoring frequencies in the permit. Therefore, should the system
experience problems, it is expected that the monitoring frequencies specified in the permit
would serve as a default. The Division also has no problem with relocating the upstream
monitoring location and this new location will be specified in the proposed permit. Finally,
as is indicated in a previous paragraph, instream monitoring for fecal coliform will no
longer be required.
Page 8 of 8

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No X
If Yes, SOC No. EMC WQ 93-15
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Jeanette Powell
Date: April 25, 1996
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: Gaston
Permit No. NC0020184
PART I - GE ' RAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Long Creek WWTP
City of Gastonia
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, NC 28053
2. Date o ' Investigation: April 25, 1996
3. Report repared By: Todd St. John
4. Person • Contacted and Telephone Number: Mike O'Hara, ORC [phone]
5. Directi • ns to Site: From the intersection of Highway 279 and Old Spencer Mountain Road,
travel east on Old Spencer Mountain Road approximately 1.4 miles. The treatment Plant is
located at the end of this road.
6. Disch ge Point(s). List for all discharge points:
Latitud : 3 5° 18' 25" Longitude: 81° 08' 04"
Attach U.S.G.S. map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G. . Quad No.: F14SW U.S.G.S. Name: Gastonia North,,NC
7. Site s and expansion are consistent with application?
Yes X oIf No, explain:
8. Topog aphy (relationship to flood plain included): The site is moderately sloped and the

influent area appears to be in the flood plain; however, large dykes have been constructed to
protect znis area.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: None within 500 feet.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Long Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 030836
c. Describe receiving stream features and n pertinent downstream
Typical classcreek is
C uses
approximately 20 feet wide with y rocky bottom.
downstream.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 8.0 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facility? 8.0 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)? 8.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct
issued in the previous two years: An A to C was issued December 30, 1994, for an
interim septage disposal system. The plant is currently being upgraded to 16.0 MGD.
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: The current facilities include an influent lift station, a mechanical
bar screen and grit removal, primary_ clarifiers, trickling filters, polishing ponds with
floating aerators, dual chlorine contact chambers with dechlorination, a static aerator,
sludge lagoons, and sludge drying beds.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: The
facilities under construction include mechanical bar screens, cyclone grit removal,
anaerobic/anoxic/oxic basins, caustic and alum feed, secondary clarifiers, tertiary
filters, chlorine disinfection with dechlorination, static post aeration, and sludge
digesters.
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: This facility serves various industries which
could discharge toxic effluent.
g.
Page 2

h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Yes
in development:
should be required:
approved: X
not needed:
2. Residualshandling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM permit no.: WQ0001793
R siduals Contractor: Amsco
T lephone No.: [phone]
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP:
c. L
d. 0
3. Treatmen
Class IV.
ndfill: N/A
her disposal/utilization scheme (specify): N/A
plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): Plant Classification will remain
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities, i.e., non -contact cooling
water discharge from a metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary: 01 Secondary:
Main Treatment Unit Code: 04503
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this f cility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved (municipals only)? Yes
2. Special onitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None
3. Import t SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (please indicate)
Date
Submiss on of Plans and Specifications 7/30/94
Begin C nstruction 4/30/95
Comple a Construction 9/30/97
Page 3

4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge options
availa le. Please provide regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray 'gation: N/A
Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subs
Other-
5. Other
PART IV-E
ace: N/A
)isposalOptions: N/A
pecial Items: N/A
TALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Gastonia has requested renewal of its NPDES permit for the Long Creek WWTP.
This facility is currently under an SOC and has met all of the scheduled requirements to date.
This facility appears to be well run and maintained; therefore, this Office recommends
renewing the NPDES permit.
Signature of Repo
Water Qualit!
2
Date
Preparer
.'
Regional Supervisor
Page 4

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rex Gleason
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell
THRU: Don S
Ruth Swanek 2C5
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: Instream Assessments for the City of Gastonia Wastewater Treatment Plants
Catawba Creek WWTP - NC0020192 - (SOC # 93-017)
Long Creek WWTP - NC0020184 - (SOC # 93-015)
Crowders Creek WWTP - NC0074268 - (SOC # 93-016)
Gaston County
Summary
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the request for instream assessments
for the City of Gastonia's WWTPs . The City is requesting Special Orders of Consent
(SOCs) for all facilities for whole effluent toxicity problems and noncompliance with limits
for metals and other toxics. In addition, each facility is requesting an increase in wasteflow
during the life of the SOC, however this flow will be 100% domestic and there will be no
increase in allocated BOD. Based on this, the wasteflow at the Gastonia plants may be
increased in the following amounts:
SOC Flow (MGD)
Catawba Creek WWTP 1.973
Long Creek WWTP 0.817
Crowders Creek WWTP 1.371
Existing design flows and instream waste concentrations of the three plants are as
follows:
pesign Qw IWC
Catawba Creek WWTP 9 MGD 90%
Long Creek WWTP 8 MGD 80.5%
Crowders Creek WWTP 6 MGD 42%
The Catawba Creek plant has consistently experienced toxicity problems since the
implementation of toxicity testing, however the Long Creek and Crowders Creek plants
have just recently started to have problems. Increased pollutants from industries tying on
to the plants are evidently where the toxicity problems are originating but additional time is
needed to correct the situation. MRO staff have indicated that the request for chronic
toxicity monitoring - full range testing has already been reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Sciences Branch, and Technical Support will concur with their
recommendation.

Memo to Rex Gleason
page 2
Discussion
G = has also requested monthly average limits for the metals instead of daily
maximum limits that have been assigned in the NPDES permit The City has also
requested SOC limits for several metals however the staff of the Mooresville Regional
Office (MRO) does not think that SOC limits for all the requested metals are warranted.
The MRO recommended daily maximum limits for the Gastonia WWTPs are as follows:
Catawba Creek
Cyanide 27
Nickel 205
Cadmium 12
Long Creek Crowders Creek
10 nr
210 nr
8 12
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed 1994 effluent data from all three
facilities an has determined that the following metals limits could be recommended in the
SOCs for th Gastonia facilities. The Division can offer Gastonia the option of limits
permitted ' weekly averages and higher daily maximum limits. The daily maximum limit
could be es blished to provide protection from acute toxic effects.
Compliance with the weekly average limit is determined by the average of the daily
samples for that week. For the purposes of this calculation, samples listed at less than
analytical d tection will be assumed to be zero. The permittee may choose to collect 5
samples for the week and base the number of analyses run on the outcome of the first
sample. If a first sample is in compliance with the weekly average limit, then no more
analyses n be run for that week. However, if the first sample is above the weekly
average, the more samples should be analyzed and the permittee must comply with both
the weekly verage and daily maximum limits. If this option is implemented, the
recommend metals limits for each of the plants would be as follows:
Cyanide
Nickel
Cadmium
Cyanide
Nickel
Cadmium
Cadmium
Weekly Avg.
5.5 µg/1(WQ)
97 µg/1 (WQ)
2.2 µg/1(WQ)
Weekly Avg.
6.2 µg/1(WQ)
109 µg/1(WQ)
2.5 µg/1(WQ)
Daily Maximum
mil
388 µg/1
5.5 µg/1
Daily Maximum
25 µg/1
436 µg/1
6.2 µg/l
Weekly Avg. Daily Maximum
4.8 µg/l (WQ) 12 µg/1
review of the effluent data for all the facilities and discussion with MRO staff,
Assessment Unit recommends the following monitoring requirements for the
Gastonia plants. The exceedance of allowable concentrations for parameters

Memo to Rex Gleason
page
is not no
that substan
follows:
y recommended, in those cases we suggest that effluent monitoring only for
is placed in the SOC. Our recommendations for the Gastonia SOCs are as
Long reek WW1?
SOC requirement
Cyanide monitor
Nickel monitor
Cadmium monitor
SOC requirement
Cyanide monitor
Nickel monitor
Cadmium monitor
SOC requirement
Cadmium monitor
If there any questions concerning these recommendations, please contact me.
cc: Kent iggins
Dave Goodrich
Cen ' : Files
File

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 2, 1994
Memorandum To: Ruth Swanek
From:
Prepared By:
Subject:
D. Rex Gleason
Kim H. Colson '•,i
City of Gastonia
Long Creek WWTP
SOC # 93-015
Gaston County, NC
This Office request that the Instream Assessment Unit
conduct an instream assessment for the subject facility's
request for interim effluent limits for Nickel, Cyanide,
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, and Mercury (request enclosed).
The facility has also requested that daily maximum limits
for these parameters be changed to a monthly average.
This Office does not recommend any interim limits for
Chromium, Lead, or Mercury. Since the facility has not
reported any violations for Chromium, and reported only 1
violation for Lead and 2 violations for Mercury in the past
year, interim limitations do not appear to be needed.
This Office would most likely recommend maximum interim
limits for Nickel of 210 ug/1, Cyanide of 10 ug/1, and
Cadmium of 8 ug/1 (all daily maximum).
Please evaluate the facility's proposed interim limits
and his Office's suggested interim limits with regard to
potential instream affects. Also advise on other possible
alternatives to monthly average limits, such as weekly
average / daily maximum limits. If you have any questions
concerning this matter, please advise.
Attahment
cc: Jeff Bouchelle, Facility
Assessment Unit

ZEQUEST FORM FOR INSTREAM ASSESSMENT FOR 67b SOC
NAME OF FACILITY: Gastonia - Long Creek WWTP
COUNTY: Gaston REGION: Mooresville DESIGN FLOW: 8.0 MGD
RECEIVINe STREAM: Long Creek SUBBASIN: 030836
BACKGROU D DATA:
A. Why is SOC needed?
The facility can not comply with effluent limitations for
Chr•nic Toxicity, Nickel, Cadmium, Cyanide.
B. His uory of SOC requests:
1. Monthly average waste flow prior to any SOC: 5.2 MGD.
Time period averaged: 4/93 through 3/94.
2. Previously approved SOC's: N/A
3. Flows lost from plant (facilities that have gone off
line): None known within last year.
4. Current SOC Flow request: 0.817 MGD
5. Total plant flow post-SOC (sum of original flow and SOC
flow minus losses): 6.0 MGD
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? Yes.
CURRENT SOC REQUEST:
A. Req ulest is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a
co •ination, please specify percentages. Domestic.
B. Wha type of industry? N/A
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
Chr•1ic Toxicity Monitor only - full range
Nickel 210 ug/1
Cad ium 8 ug/1
Cyanide 10 ug/1
D. What is the basis for these limits? The limits were based
on previous data taking into consideration that the facility
sho ld be reducing peaks through continued pretreatment
controls.

•
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS A D UTILITIES
May 2, 994
Mr. Rex Gleason
Regional
NC Dept.
Div. of
919 Nort
Mooresvi
Referenc
7
Subject:
Dear Mr.
WEPT. Of
A1IRONiVMFNT, HF.ALTfh
1 1994
r.'rit!tt tit �� P. O. BOX 1748
G►''�S�� ii y,,�� � �. Gastonia, siTortli fQ mann Z8053-1748
N.C- �N�- oV
.
ill
�Nh.jr�nsov`
MAY 2 A994
*WailWitaittli
4%
1Iif of Gastonia
Quality Wateffigiihr
of EHNR
nvironmental Management
Main Street
le, N.C. 28115
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment
NPDES Permit No. NC0020184
Gaston County, N.C.
Plant
Application for a Special Order By Consent
Gleason:
On June 1, 1993 the City of Gastonia submitted an Application for
a Specia Order By Consent (SOC) for the referenced wastewater
treatmen plant. Reviewing the Application we have had several
discussio s and meetings with your staff to discuss the details
and sched le which are included in the Application.
We do appreciate the efforts of you and your staff in preparing
an SOC f r the Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant; however,
during the recent months, we have performed additional testing of
the Plants influent and effluent to determine the causes of our
toxicity problems. Although the toxicity source has not yet been
identifies, potential sources could include metals, surfactants,
and speci lty organic chemicals. These toxicants can originate
in a com ination of industrial, domestic and/or uncontrollable
sources i the Long Creek basin. Based on an intensive study by
us and ou consultants, Aware Environmental Inc. we have discov-
ered that sixty percent of the City's waste stream - which causes
the metal and toxicity violations at the Catawba Plant - are
generated by uncontrollable sources; therefore, the City will not
be able t correct the violations until improvements have been
made at t e wastewater treatment plant.
Since uncontrollable sources may be a significant factor at the
Long Creep Plant, we request that interim limits for toxicity and
metals require monitoring only until the facility is upgraded.

Page 2
Mr. D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Applicatiion for a Special Order By Consent
Long Cree Wastewater Treatment Plant
As previously stated, we have undertaken additional testing at
the wastewater treatment plant; and these tests will be continued
until violations are corrected or the sources have been identi-
fied. U fortunately, with limits on metals and toxicity, the
more tes ing we undertake, the more the potential exists for
additional violations. The goal for the City is the same as it
is for D M, and that is to meet the conditions of the NPDES
Permit as soon as possible in order to stay in compliance.
If modified limits of "monitoring only" cannot be approved by.
DEM, it 's recommended that the following modified limits be
approved:
1. Toxicity - monitoring only
2. Metals: (a) Nickel - Monthly
(b) Cyanide - Monthly
(c) Cadmium - Monthly
(d) Chromium - Monthly
(e) Lead - Monthly
(f) Mercury - Monthly
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
of 142.0 ug/1
of 18.0 ug/1
of 8.4 ug/1
of 62.0 ug/1
of 31.0 ug/1
of .36 ug/1
Also, it s requested that paragraph seven (7) of the proposed
Special O der By Consent be rewritten as follows:
"Any violation of terms of this Special Order By Consent, includ-
ing paragraphs 2(d), 2(e), and 2 (h) above and attachment A shall
terminate paragraph five (5) of this Order and any authorized
additionali waste not previously connected to the system shall not
thereafte be connected until the violations of this Special
Order By C nsent have been corrected or satisfied.".
Your favor ble consideration of this request will be appreciated.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF GA-TONIA
CCeAuaka
Donald E. armichael, P.E.
Director o Public Works/Utilities
ATTACHMENTT (1)
John huler
Colem n Keeter
Sam W lkins
CC:

Instream Assessment Request for Gastonia WWTPs
- Crowders Creek WWTP- NC0074268 SOC No. 93-016
- Catawba Creek WWTP - NC0020192 SOC No. 93-017
- Long Creek WWTTP - NC0020184 SOC No. 93-015
The City of Gastonia is requesting SOCs for all their treatment plants for toxicity and
metals.
Telecon w/ Kim Colson
All Gastonia plants are failing toxicity. Catawba creek started failing in the late 80's,
starting passing and then started consistently failling again. Town submitted THE for
Catawba Creek, and are in the process of finalizing TREs for Long Creek and Crowders
Creek facilities. All the language for chronic monitoring and test ranges have been
reviewed by Aquatic Toxicity. Gastonia wants monthly averages for all the metals.
Gastonia knows that the problems are from pollutants coming into the plants from the
industries that are tying on. Crowders plant can ease the problem through source
reduction. Long Creek plant wants to wait until they expand and relocate to SF Catawba
River to start working an toxicity problems. Catawba will be using lime precipitation and
new industrial waste surveys and headworks analysis.
The City requested SOC limits for several metals and MRO reviewed the requests and made
recommendations of their own. The tables below show the limits requested from Gastonia
and the MRO, plus data from January to April, 1994 for the treatment plants
1/2 FAV Values
Cn Cr Ni Cd Pb Hg
22 984 789 5 33.8 2.4
Crowders Creek WWTP
Existing Limits
Town Requested
MRO Recommended
Max. value reported
Max. value predicted
# Obs. for analysis
Below Detection
Catawba Creek WWTP
Existing Limits
Town Requested
MRO Recommended
Max. value reported
Max. value predicted
# Obs. for analysis
Below Detection
Cn Cr Ni
mon. 120 211
-data not included-
9
17
27
2
35
84
26
3
300
930
26
3
Cd Pb
4.8 60
12
16 104
42 478
25 26
7 10
Cn Cr Ni Cd Pb
5.5 55 97 2.2 28
12.4 55 212 5 28
27 - 205 12 -
72 25 230 17 113
410 57.5 552 42.5 520
21 21 21 21 21
9 4 - 3 5

Instream Assessment Request for Gastonia WWTPs
page 2
Long Crtek WWTP
Cn
Exiting Limits 6.2
Town Requested 18
M1O Recommended 10
Max. value reported 4 0
M. . value predicted 2 3 2
# • bs. for analysis 15
Bel • w Detection 9
7/5/94
Talked w/
after talkin _ w/ Rex.
7/26/94
Kim Colso called with MRO recommendations:
Catawba reek- can't meet the limits recommended by TSB
Cr Ni Cd _pb Hg
62 109 2.5 31 0.02
62 142 8.4 31 0.36
210 8 - -
56 210 14 85 0.3
140 441 67 408 0.51
16 19 16 18 23
2 1 6 7 21
Colson and related recommendations for the SOCs. Said that he'd call back
Weekly Avg.
Cyanide 5.5 µg/1(WOJ
Nickel 97 µg/1(WQ)
Cadmium 2.2 p.g/1 (WOJ
Daily Maximum
22 µel
388 µg/l
5.5 µg/1
MRO want to keep daily maximum values. Doesn't want the Town to spend all their
efforts sampling effluent to try to meet weekly avg limit. Would rather have Gastonia
sample inflient and collection systems to track down the source of the cyanide in the
discharge. ased on recent samples, Kim doesn't think that Catawba Creek could meet the
Cd limits r ommended by TSB. MRO recommends following Daily Max. limits for the
Catawba P t:
CN 27 µg/1
Ni 205 µg/1
Cd 12 µg/1
The SOC be effective through Dec. 1995. Gastonia has submitted ATC for addition of
lime ci i ation at the Catawba plant that will precipitate out a lot of metals. The toxicity
problems arprobablybeingcausd byconcentrations of Ni, Zn, Cu and Cd.
�, ,
Dechlonnation has also been added that will help some with the toxicity problem, but
chlorine is not the major source of the tox problem.
Crowders
be given for
12µg/1.
Long Creel
reek -MRO recommends that the daily max. limit of 12 ug/1 for Cadmium
this facility. TSB had recommended Wk avg of 4.8 14/1 and Da. Max. limit of
MRO recommends daily max. limits:
Cn 10 µg/1
Cd 8 µg/1
Ni 210 nil

Instream Assessment Request for Gastonia WWTPs
page 3
Kim thou t that since MRO recommended da. max. values for some parameters like Ni
were less TSB recommended limits, that it was okay. However, for Cd, the TSB
recommen ed limits could not be met by the plants during the SOC and that some leeway
needed to given.
Told him that I would probably still include the wk avg./da. max. limits in the instream
assessment letter but that our officewould probably go along with whatever
recommendations the MRO wanted to give for the SOC limits.
7/28/94
After review of Carla's comments on the first draft of the instream assessment, I'm
recommending effluent monitoring for the parameters where the MRO recommendation
exceeds the allowable concentration. In the cases where the MRO recommendation is
lower than e calculated daily maximum limit, we will concur with their lower limit for the
SOC.

. .
,
,
. i
il
ix4s9 a trc-6. ip/.. zs-4
I a
_____ i
s-)(s. 77. zer
, 1
------7.-
f !
_
1 i
i • C.a._
erivt6va :: /z, I, (.4‘
! ! e
/
f.z. Y i. 7 2.2.44 2 37 S. I, .... 17, 2.-
.......,:ii...
iz.), /zit
a C
/2.4 -t- 3) () .
77.
.- -... W.
tzof /2. y
-.
Ce..4i(Li
<Ca G 144 gla r ,, z C. e 7g, ,-) -= / 7.
Cot
1.
- i 2 / Z./
-
,I
t 3 f, f
On
;41•141 -4 _ iv .1/4,1-0-
---t- .
.,--7
,---r--
_
1
_
.

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING 0[SELF-MONITORING SUMMARY] Mon, Apr 18. 1994
MAY'J(M KIT. A1K; S}iP OCT NOV Urc
PACII.ITY REQUIREMENT
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR- .•-
- - - - - -
90 --
RANKL1N win, PERM CHR LIM: 1.6% 91 _- ... .-- - -� PASS •-- PASS
NC00215.17I001 Bcgin:8/21/92 I:f riucncy: Q PIP A MAR JUN SF.P DEC NonComp:S{NG13? 91 - „- M PASS ... ... PASS PASS
Region: ARO Suhbnafn: I:IN(YI 93 PASS
('ounty:MACUN
{'F:1.65 Specia! 94 -•- - - - - 1J3
7Q10: 157 IWC(%):1.6 Order ••- FAIL - - FAIL
Y 90 FAIL FAIL PASSFAIL
PERM CHR LIM:90% PASS - - FAILIL- PASS
I.1NCOO2BV 8/001 1(�:3/1/ l D , WWTP 91 PASS - - - PASS - - PASS -CC002BWAKE Bcgin:3/1/9'! Frequency: Q P/F A SEP DEC MAR JUN rlonComp:SINGLE 92 - - FAIL - •,- - PASS P
:� R1 ton: RRO Subbasin: CPJ 07 93 - - PASSPASS
County: WAKE , S-
AIL
pF:1.20 Special 94 I,p Nq � - r.
7Q10: 0.00 IWC(%):100.00 Order. - PASS - - -
90 -_ .� _, ... FAILFAIL,F
GASTON CO SCHOOLS- E GASTON 11S PERM CIIR LIM:99% (GRAB) 91 •- -- »_ - PASS - FAIL
Coun y: AST Degin:811191 Frequency: Q :PA:hi A MAR JUN SEP DEC NonComp: 92 - -., FAIL NR FAIL PASSPASS --- PASS
County:GAST()N Region: MRO Suhhasin: CTD33 93 FAIL �
LATE PASS FAIL NMI NAM Sptcint 94 - - FAIL
00 Order.
7Q10: 0.0 IWC(%): 100.0 90
GAS'l'ON CO. SC:11(X)LS PERM CI1R LIM:9996(GRAD) NC0041327/001 Begin:10/1/91 lhnrpteney: Q P/I: A FM MAY AUG NOV NonComp: 92 1
County:GASTON Region: MRU Subbasin: CTD37 92
Pig: 0.007 special SOC: 8/23/91.12!I/94 NO TOX REQ 94 w
Ordeal- FAIL 3-bt's PASS(s) LATE PASS
7Q10:0.0 {WC(%):100.0 FAIL FAIL -•- FAIL- PASS(s) -•'
•. 90 - FAIL(s) - - L(s) 3 b1'sFAIL(s)
GAS'1' 020192 001 B gi CK. 93 C1' PERM CHR MARLIMJU90% 91 FAIL(s) bt.F - FAIL -•- PASS(
P/F A J[JN STsP DEC �lonComp:S1NC,L8 FAIL,bt -- - 1NVALSD,PAS -- FAIL - FAIL
Nounty:G ?J001 gen:4/l/93 .: MROn0Y Q , . 92 - FAIL FAIL -- - FAIL FAIL FAIL
' PP:9ty:GASTON RtfAiot�: MRS - i Subb> CI;137 . 93 FAIL(s) FAtL(s) FAIL
Special 94 FAIL FAIL- - - - --
7Q10: 1.50 ' IWC(%):90.29 90 ,,, ... - - - �, - -.
GAS'I'ONIA•CIIUWDI'RS CREEK PERM CIIR LIM: 61% 91 ,,. - M ,_ ... FAIL FAIL(s) Ili FAIL(s)
Frequency: Q P/P A MAR JUN SEP DEC NonComp: _, PASS ,,, FAIL.
Nounty: AS-T Dcgin:3/9/89 Y: 92 - "' PAS FAtI. fAtl. PASS
: Co:o.ts )A51'ON Rcpion: MRO Subbasin; C"I i137r' 0'1 FAIL(*) ('AIL(1) PASS
.. �p,•..ta! 94 FAIL FAIL ...
Ih�: 0.0 Order: - - PASS,PI - bl. FAIL
7Q10:6.0 IWC(%):60.78 ... bl --- - (PASS-- ... PASS(s)
90 - PASS ,o PI)S (s)PASS.PFAIL(s)FAIL
GASI'020I 4/001 0c n:2/1/9P PERM CI1R MALIMJUNib 01 - - FAIL(s) - - FAIL --
MAR SEP DEC NonCon1Q11Pt[1U3FAIL PASS '-FAIL
Nounty: 4rool DOgin:2/{rJ3 Frequency: Q 1'A• 92 .. ' ,,I --AIL . PASS ,- FAIL. :: :s f
County:GA "�ON .J;gljicu}t MRU Subbasin: CTD3tj 93 FAIL(s) --. !iFA1L•.' FAIL • : .�
Special 94 FAIL - FAIL
PP: 0:8.3.0 „. '.. ... ...
7Q 10: IWC{96):80.0 Unreal -•- �' - •-- �' ...
(ill I.IGI1'1'IN(i SYS'1'I:MS 1'1?RM CIIR I,IM:61%(GRAD) „, ---
NC0077771/001 Begin:l l/II93 Frequency: Q PIP A MAR 111N SEP DEC NonCornp:S1NG1.1: 91 ,,, - N
County:l1ENDERSON Region: ARO Subbasin: FRD02 92 - - ---
Special 94 - - N - --
7Q0.1 Order: - PASS - - P,P
7N 10: 0.3 1\VC(96):61.0 80 FAtUFAI PASS PASS PASS ... FAIL FAIL PASS
PERM CIIR LIM:72% PASS - PASS - PASS -
GENERAL 07/001I'R{C NonComp:91 FAILPASS PASS -PASS
NC County:
7/001 Dcgin:5/I/89 Frequency: Q WI' A JAN APR JUL OCT 92 PASS - --- FAIL - PASS
tz+tt itR Special sin: l;RDn� 93 PASS -"
PASSPASS
County:)IlsND1'sRSON �
' Pis:0.S0 Special 94 FASL FAIL 6.36 - r.
7Q10: 0.30 IWC(96):72.1 Order -_ -PASS -
90 - - - LATE PASS PASS w
PERM CIIR LIM:4896 (GRAB) -PASS /
- PASSP •.. PASS
(il'NIi076Iil.IiCTRICPASS - PASS r.
NC0076643/001 Begin: I/29/90 Fier{uency: Q P/F A nut MAY AUG NOV NonComp: 92 PASS - PASS PASS
Region: MRO Subbasin: Cl'D35 93 - PASSPASS
County:CATAWBA Sr
l'F:0.094 Special 04 ... PASS
7C)I0:0.I6 1WC(9h):48
Order:
Y 1',a• l'J'n) llata Avaflnble
0 :.•,a+a.vterla'v Whiles - ■Ir{nili,•nerl a•nuv.nry,ltaa.•r study
+ I NU: a R { y: Q' _ t [ tcsnu must occur - ly; WD- Only w en di' Non(1)- D = ontinu t m n itoring nmuireertxnl
I d . l�tt:c srcncy
Monitorin f ucnc (aatterly: M- Mondaly: BM- Dinaontlsly: SA- Suntiannually; A- Annually: OWD- Only when discluuging: D- Uiscontintrcd ntonitoting nxluircnxnt:lS• Conducting indcpcn cat
PI(RM a 1'rnnit s*rercnacnt I.I1= AdmivinF %We 1.Ctlrf • Targcl i
lli•cin a Icrrxt nu„3yer«uin d 7Q10 n Receiving zlrrnoe law flow criterion (cJr:) I,rir : quarterly
chronic tratincrr+' ;� Is Acutely upon (�ilg single Chronic Moat 8
I'1' + Permitted rla,v •• • -.l •1 I\ • •• : Ista'0.; .ana woo,... concentration•.....vIt
• c t e nt highest eo e niiun: nt - Pcrfamacel by 1)11M Au Tux Gouty. •Pad test
r , • , , ., ,. • , •,,�.. , ..,,,,, , .n • ••,•• 41va,d ahruav t'V • Chronic valor: l - Mutuality of ■i:, el tart• a, ,i..•..1.• 1.•.....1. To ,•anrutertl: II • Active but not tlisclaarrint:: i.Marc data available for month in question SIG = ORC signature needed

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Gastonia -Long Creek
NC0020184
NPDES #
Ow (MGD)
8
7Q10s (cis)
,
109
1WC (%)
.________.
�10.21
Rec'ving Stream
S F Catawba River
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
67.2
Allowable Cw
19.6
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
441
Allowable Cw
861.5
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
232
Allowable Cw
49.0
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
140
Allowable Cw
489.5
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
408
Allowable Cw
244.8
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
0.51
Allowable Cw
0.1
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
6/23/94
PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Gastonia -Long Creek
NPDES #
NC0020184
Qw (MGD)
_ 8
7010s (cfs)
3
IWC (%)
,._.._________.._..___.._
�_. ._____0.52
Long Creek
__..8
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
67.2
Allowable Cw
2.5
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
441
Allowable Cw
109.3
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
232
Allowable Cw
6.2
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
140
Allowable Cw
62.1
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
408
Allowable Cw
31.0
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
0.51
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
6/23/94
PAGE "

Crc c /6- GJw% f
e6c = o? 5 u L
I` 64v vim=
/Z s_ 5 = 7.5-kj/e
41./1,4X=(s /01) /6?=5-1Z5-/0? C.
FA(/ G 7,R9 tgg
14,- 6.Z = 1/- 6.7-
/ 15-0 (ha- - -
e (5.), 6 Z - Z- .2/8641/e
P` //& _ J/ 75/E
. _ ( ,?/) - 3 1 = / aq u /.,
339u
/✓

-- 044 74gMr07 74NA4Y5/ $
L
cacilityName =try
oiC3a�is oma7Long Creek WWT Parameter=
Cadmium I
Parameter=
Cyanide
NPDES # =
NC0020184
Standard=
21110
; Standard =
5
µ54/l
Ow (MOD) =
8
7010s (cfs)=
3
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
nd,
<2
..._
RESULTS
---4
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data RESULTS
/WC Mb=
80.52
9606
nd
Std Dev.
3.861302264
9606 10.3
10.3
Std Dev.
Mean
4.4291
8.491
9605
1
Mean
3.15862069
9605 10.3
10.3
FINAL RESULTS
9604
1 <2
C.V.
1.222464691
9604
21.3
21.3 C.V.
0.522
Cadmium
9603
1 <21
9603
14
14
Max. Pred Cw 36
9602
1
<2
_ _ <2
<2
9602
8.8
8.8
Allowable Cw' 2.5
9601
1
Mutt Factorr=
2.4
9601
15.3
15.3 MO Factor=
7.8
Cyanide
9512
1
Ma'. Value
15
µgf
9512
7.9
7.9 Max. Value
21.3;tig/l
166.1
nil
µg/1
_ _
Max. Pred Cw 166.14
9511
1
<2
.2.
Ma... Pred Cw
36
µg/1
9511
6.7
6.7 Max. Pred Cw
Atlow3ble-CW 6.2
9510
i'
Allowable C.w
2.55.
pg/1
9510
2.5
<5
Allowable Cw
6.2
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred w
Allowable Cw
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
9509
11 <21 L
9509
7.8
7.8
61.2`
9508
1 �_ <2,
9508
14
14
62.1
9507! 11
<21
<2!
I
9507
8.8
8.8
9506 1.
9506
5.6
5.6
305.1
9505
1
2
<2 1
9505
5.5
5.5
8.7
1 9504
_
2
9504
6.6
6.6
9503, 2.3' 2.3
1 -T
9503
7.6
7.6
`_L_
__-
9502 1 <2,
9502
5.5
5.5
119
9501 11 <2.
9501
6.5
6.5
31.0
94121- 2.5 2.5
9412
7.7
7.7
9411 2.4 2.4!
94111
6.4
6.4
--_
1.248
9410' 2.1, 2.1
9410
2.5
<5
0.0
94091 7.8 7.8
9409
8.1
8.1
9408r 12, 12
9408
5
5
Nickel
9407, 15
151
9407
6
6
Max. Pred Cw: 183
9406F 5
5
9406
8
8
_
Allowable Cw. 109.3
9405
12
12
9405
14
14
Silver
Max. Pred Cwi
9404
7
71
9404
12
12
9403 3
3
9403
2.5
<5
18.7
9402 3
3,
9402
2.5
<5
Allowable Cwl 0.1
9401! 0.5
<1 '
9401
151
15
-
Zinc
311
31
-
32
32
Max. Pred Cw! 597.6
33�
33
Allowable Cw; 62.1
34
i�
34
I
35,
35
pal 4,7f-4 - 4/1r.4e--YS,D L) 2 fiv609.
-
F ° (2-
pon'-t(7 /E►�
P/1-1t7
PAGE 1

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Permit No. NC0049409
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 discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max. Frequency Type Location 1
Flow Weekly Instantaneous E
Total Suspended Solids 30.0 mg/1 45.0 mg/1 2/month Grab E
Settleable Solids 0.1 mUl 0.2 m1/1 Weekly Grab E
Turbidity 2 Weekly Grab U, D
Iron Weekly Grab E
Total Residual Chlorine Weekly Grab E
Aluminum Weekly Grab E
Footnotes:
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at a location 100 feet from the discharge point, D - Downstream at a location 300 feet from
the discharge point.
2 The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving water to exceed 10 NTU. If the turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background
conditions, the discharge level cannot cause any increase in the turbidity in the receiving water.
All samples collected should be of a representative discharge.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

LEXINGTON WINTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
'arameter=
Chromium
Parameter=
Copper
i':'"itParameter=
Lead
Standard =
50
µg/I
Standard =
7
µg/I
Standard =
25
µg/1
,
__ n
9606
BDL=1/2DL
13.8
13.8
10
12
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
? r; <6
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
13.8 Std Dev.
7.40917
96061 23' 23 Std DeV.
20.793
« .>,
9606
1 <2
Std Dev.
16.049
9605
13.8
10
12
Mean
182733
9605
9604
23 23 Mean
41.967
'
9605
1 <2
Mean
15.863
9604
9603
9602
_ 9601
9512
C.V.
0.40546
' '
35 35 C.V.
0.4955
�'` c
9604
1 <2
C.V.
1.0117
9603
22
22
9603
1
<2
13.4
13.4
t"<
9602
15.5
15.5
9602
1
<2
11.3
11.3 Mutt Factor=
1.7
,
9601
34.5
34.5 Muft Factor=
2.7
9601
2.3
2.3
Mult Factor=
1.7
µg/I
pg/
./I
11.8
11.8
8.4
Max. Value
36
µg 1 . „`:
9512
30.5
30.5 Max. Value
113
µg/l
9512
5
<10
Max Valusa
70
9511
9510
8.4
Max. Pred Cw
61.2
KO ; •�
9511
28.5
28.5 Max. Pred Cw
305.1
µ.
'•
9511
16.2
16.2
Max. Pred Cw
119
19.5
7.5
19.5
7.5
12.2
19.3
18.6
21.9
20.7
34
Allowable Cw
62.1
WI
9510
24
24 Allowable Cw
8.7
e
yy'%
9510
5
<10
Allowable Cw
31.0
9509
9509
113
113
9509
8
8
9508
12.2
19.3
18.6
9508
28.5 '28.5
9508
14.2
14.2
9507
9507
30.5 30.5
9507
14
14
9506
9506
16.5 16.5
9506
12.8
12.8
9505
21.9
20.7
9505
42 42
$ a
9505
8.8
8.8
9504
9504
_
41 41_,
9504
11.7
11.7
9503 34
-•
9503
_ _
58.6 58.6,
#
9503
8.1
8.1
9502 26.4
26.4
9502
25.7 25.7
mi
9502
9.8
9.8
9501 12.7
12.7
9501
27.5 27.5'
9501
11.4
11.4
9412 20.3
20.3
9412
41.5 41.5
:
9412
21.5
21.5
9411
22.9
22.9
;
9411
52 52
:::
9411
55.3
55.3
9410
24.3
24.3
9410
50.3
48.9
50.3
9410
17.6
17.6
9409
14.4
14.4
9409
48.9
9409
252
25.2
9408
19
19
9408
50 50
9408
40
40
9407
31
31
9407
74
74
9407
70
70
9406
14
14
`.4
9406
41
41
9406
22
22
9405
21
21
9405
47
47
9405
31
31
9404
36
36f:
9404
64
~
64
9404
19
19
9403
28
28
9403
73
73
9403
16
16
9402
18
18
9402
62
62'
9402
23
23
9401
12
12
9401
36
36
9401
3
3
31
31a
u
31
32
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
" <
34
35
35
35
PAGE 1

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Chatham County Schools
is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NC0039381
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.01 MGD wastewater treatment system consisting of a 2000
gallon grease trap, a 13500 gallon septic tank, a 4600 gallon dosing tank to be used as an
equalization tank, a 6000 gallon equalization/pump tank, dual recirculating sand filters, a
programmable controller system, and an ultraviolet disinfection system located at Chatham
Central High School, on NC Highway 902, south of Bear Creek, Chatham County (See Part
III of this permit), and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into an unnamed tributary to Bear Creek which is classified Class C waters in the Cape
Fear River Basin.

LEXINGTON WWTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
Parameter =
Nickel
'-,`:Parameter=
Silver
Standard =
88
µg/i
<>' u < Standard =
0.06
•
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
i3
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
9606
26
26
Std Dev.
24.594
?'.< 9606
2
<4
Std Dev.
2.2547
9605
26
26
Mean
60.933
':'' 9605
<4
Mean
9604
38
38
C.V.
0.4036
" > 9604
®
4
,.. ;
9603
30.8
30.8
# 9603
11
11
---
9602
34.2
34.21
9602
2
<4
9601
72.5
72.5
Mult Factor =
1.51
' ; '' 9601
2
<4
Mutt Factor =
1.7
9512
25.3
25.3
Max. -Value
122„!g/+
: ;�... 9519
<4
Mar Mar Value
1_1
9511
53.8
53.8
Max. Pred Cw
183
µg/i <:• < ;; 9511
2
<4
Max. Pred Cw
18.7
9510
56.3
56.3
Allowable Cw
109.3
µg/i `'"' 9510
2
<4
Allowable Cw
0.1
•
9509
48.8
48.8
9509
2
<4
9508
50.6
50.6
»>-`> 9508
2
<4
9508
62.3
62.3
"'>?'vF' 9507
2
<4
--�
--�
9506
43
43
z 9506
2
<4
9505
72.5
72.5
> ' 9505
2
<4
--�
9504
36.7
36.7
y'"'F'` 9504
4
4
--�
9503
49.9
49.9
9503
2
<4
9502
40.6
40.6
`f> 9502
2
<4
9501
64
64
9501
2
<4
--�
9412
70.4
70.4
9412
2
<4
--�
9411
72
72
'' 9411
2
<4
9410
78.3
78.3
<'';v 9410
9.3
9.3
9409
55
55
9409
4.7
�_-�
9408
81
81
:�><>;; 9408
4
9407
122
122
9407
6
6
--�
--�
9406
78
78
>`'' 9406
1.5
<3
9405
88
88
xi>< 9405
1.5
<3
9404
76
76
` ' 9404
1.5
<3
9403
78
78
Y;r; 9403
1.5--�
4•
9402
83
83
9402
-_�
9401
115
115
?sr:> 9401
1.5
<3
31
.„:.>':'>; 31---_�
32
''' 32
----�
:...:.. 33
---�
34
34
---��
35
Y.<>>: 35
PAGE 1

LEXINGTON WWTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
parameter=
Zinc
Parameter=
Mercury
Standard =
50
µg/I
"e. `<,
Standard =
0.012
µg/I
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
:.;:..
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
9606
97.7
97.7
Std Dev.
40.227
9606
0.1
<0.2
Std Dev.
0.1062
9605
97.7
97.7
Mean
142.39
,.,:
9605
0.1
<0.2
Mean
0.143
9604
126
126
C.V.
0.2825
9604
0.38
0.38
C.V.
0.7426
9603
76
76
ar`f
9603
0.1
<0.2
9602
121
121
9602 0.1 <0.2
9601
149
149
Mutt Factor=
2.4
:::
9601
0.38 0.38
Mutt Factor=
2.4
9512
161.5
161.5
Max. Value
249
pgA
9512
0.1
<0.2
Max. Value
0.52
unA
9511
96.5
96.5
Max. Pred Cw
597.6
µg/I
'`.4" i
9511
0.1
<0.2
Max. Pred Cw
1.248
µg/1
9510
132
132
Allowable Cw
62.1
g9A
'`
9510
0.1
<0.2
Allowable Cw
0.0
µgll
9509
129
129
9509
0.1
<0.2
9508
118.5
118.5
9508
0.1
<0.2
9507
125
125
9507
0.1
<0.2
9506
67.6
67.6
9506
0.1
<0.2
9505
156.5
156.5
9505
0.1
<0.2
9504
137
137
9504
0.1
<0.2
9503
161.9
161.9
j' l!,
9503
0.1
<0.2
9502
115.8
115.8
3:5%a`i
9502
0.1
<0.2
9501
147.8
147.8
"
9501
028
0.28
9412
218.3
218.3
9412
0.23
0.23
9411
163.6
163.6
': F l
9411
0.52
0.52
9410
141.3
141.3
';:
9410
0.1
<0.2
9409
151
151
9409
0.1
<0.2
9408
115
115
9408
0.1
<0.2
9407
249
249
1.�><i
9407
0.1
<0.2
9406
207
207
_
ra:
9406
0.1
<0.2
9405
154
154
`:
9405
0.1
<0.2
9404
155
155
9404
0.1
<0.2
9403
207
207
0®
9403
0.1
<0.2
9402
140
140
=
9402
0.1
<0.2
9401
154
154
9401
0.1
<0.2
31
31
32
tz.
32
33
33
34
34
PAGE1

lebf/ 7o7acjd 4in+6:2,
L j7/42 6/03)
Facility Name G1tyof'Gastonia/Lon9CreekWWT Parameter = Cadmium
NPDES#= NC0020184 Standard=
Ow (MGD) =
7010s (cts)=
IwCL)=
8
109
10.21
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
-3
2
pg/I
Parameter=
1 Standard =
Cyanide
5 pg/1
n
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data
RESULTS
9606
nd nd
Std Dev.
3.861302264
9606
10.3 10.3
9605
9604
9603
9602
1 <2
1
1
1
Allowable Cw
9601
1
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
14
9512
9511
1
1
Allowable Cw
9510'
Chromium
9509
Max. Pred Cw 61.2
Allowable Cw
9508
489.5
9507 1
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead
305.1
68.5
9506
9505
9504
9503
9502
2
2.3
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Mercury
119
244.8
9501
9412
9411
1
2.5
2.4
Mean
<2 C.V.
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2 <2
<2
2
2.3
<2
<2
2.5
2.4
Mult Factor=
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
3.15862069
9605
1.222464691 9604
9603
9602
2.4 9601
15 pg/l 9512
36 pg/l 9511
19.6 pg/I 9510
9509
Std Dev.
4.429
10.3 10.3
21.3 21.3
14' 14
Mean
C.V.
8.49
0.522
8.8 8.8
15.3
7.9
15.3 Mutt Factor
7.8
7.9 Max. Value 213 pg/I
6.7 6.7 Max. Prod Cw 166.1
2.5
7.8
9508
14
9507
8.8
9506
9505
9504
9503
9502
5.6
5.51
7.6
5.5
9501
9412
9411
6.5
7.7
6.4
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
1.248
0.1
9410
9409
9408
2.1, 2.1
7.8 7.8
12 12
Nickel
9407
9410
9409
9408
2.5
8.1
5
15 15
9407
6
Max. Pred Cw
183
9406
5 5
9406
8
Allowable Cw
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
861.5
9405
9404
9403
9402
12 121
7 7'
3 3
3 3
Allowable Cw
6
9401
0.51
9405
9404
9403
9402
9401
14
12
2.5
2.5
15
<5 Allowable Cw
7.8
14
8.8
5.6
5.5
6.6
7.6
5.5
6.5
7.7
6.4
<5
8.1
5
6
8
14
12
<5
<5
15
31
31
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
597.6
489.5
32
33
34
35
32
33
34
35
49.0
t
p9�
PAGE 1

LEXINGTON WWTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
parameter=
Chromium
Parameter=
Copper
Parameter =
Lead
16.049--
Standard =
50
µg/I
Standard =
7
141
Standard =
25,11g/I
n
9606
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data RESULTS
ug/I --
Ng/1
t1g/1 •
n
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
13.8 13.8 Std Dev.
7.40917
9606
23 23 Std Dev.
20.793
I 9606
1
<2 Std Dev.
9605 13.8 13.8 Mean
18.2733
9605
23 23 Mean
41.967
Seti 9605
1
<2 Mean
15.863'
1.0117
9604 10 ' 10 C.V.
0.40546
9604
35 35 C.V.
0.4955
9604
1
<2 C.V.
9603 12 12
9603
22 22
n, a
` 9603
1
<2
9602 13.4 13.4
9602
15.5
15.5
?; 9602
1
<2
9601
11.3 11.3
Mutt Factor =
1.71
9601
9512
9511
9510
34.5
34.5 Mu/t Factor =
2.7
9601
2.3
2.3
Mulf Factor=
1.7
N 8, - 11.
Max. Value-
36
30.6
30.5-Max-Value -1-1-3512
51
<10}Max
Value
70
µglf
_ 9512
9511
9510
_ 9509
9508
_ 9507
_ 9506
9505
8.4
8.4
Max. Pred Cw
61.2
28.5
28.5 Max. Pred Cw 305.1
( 9511 16.2
16.2
Max. Pred Cw
119
µgll
19.5
19.5
Allowable Cw
489.5
24 24.Allowable Cw
68.5
µg/I 9510 5
<10
Allowable Cw
244.8
µO
7.5
7.5
9509
113 113
R 9509 8
8
12.2
12.2
9508
28.5 28.5
9508 14.2
14.2
19.3
19.3
9507
30.5
30.5
9 9507 14
14
18.6
18.6
9506
16.5
16.5.,§,
9506 12.8
12.8
21.9
21.9
t%
9505
42
42
9505 8.8
8.8
9504
20.7 20.7
9504
41
41
9504 11.7
11.7
9503
34 34
<.
9503
58.6
58.6
9503
_
8.1
8.1
9502
26.4 26.4
#,;;� 9502
25.7
25.7
3x��; 9502
9.8
9.8
9501
12.7 12.7
20.3 20.3
9501
27.5
27.5
9501
11.4
11.4
9412
;`ty� 9412
41.5
41.5
;:
r,>: 9412
'"r
21.5
21.5
9411 22.9 22.9
H
; � 9411
52
52
--:
SSW 9411
55.3
55.3
9410 24.3
9409 14.4
9408 19
24.3
14.4
19
31
9410
50.3
50.3
.�.
� ��5; 9410
17.6
17.6
9409
48.9
48.9
a : 9409
25.2
25.2
9408
50
50
9408
40
40
9407 31
9407
74
74
3 9407
70
22
70
22
9406 14 14
9406
41
41
9406
9405 21 21
9405
47
47
9405
31
31
9404 36 36
9404
64
64
9404
19
19
9403 28 28
9403
73
73
9403
16
16
9402 18
18
9402
62
62
9402
23
23
_ 9401
31
32
121
12
9401
36
36
9401
3
3
31
31
32
?t 32
33
34
33
,,r ; 33
34
z" 34
35
35
35
PAGE 1

LEXINGTON WW TP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
°ammeter=
Nickel
;;,Parameter=
Silver
Standard =
88
µg/I
_
':':: Standard =
0.06
µg/1
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
9606
26
26
Std Dev.
24.594
9606
2
<4
Std Dev.
2.2547
9605
26
26
Mean
60.933
9605
2
<4
Mean
2.8833
9604
38
38
C.V.
0.4036
.:<' 9604
2
<4
C.V.
0.782
9603
30.8
30.8
9603
11
11
9602
342
34.2
: • 9602
2
<4
9601
72.5
72.5
Muf Factor=
1.5
z'.F 9601
2
<4
Mutt Factor=
1.7
9512
25.3
25.3
Max. Value
122
WI ^ 9512
2
<4
<41Max.
Max. Value
PWCw
11
18.7
Ng/1
µg/l
µg/I
-95-T1
b3:8
53.811/fax.
Pred-Cw
1-83
µg71 f 951T
2
9510
56.3
56.3
Allowable Cw
861.5
µg/1 ; ,:? 9510
2
<4
Allowable Cw 1
0.6
_.
9509
48.8
48.8
9509
2
<4
9508
50.6
50.6
40 9508
2
<4
9508
62.3
62.3
9507
2
<4
9506
43
43
rry h:..
.9506
2
<4
9505
72.5
72.5
9505
2
<4
9504
36.7
36.7
,, €' 9504
4
4
9503
49.9
49.9
9503
2
<4
9502
40.6
40.6
9501
64
64
. 9501
2
<4
9412
70.4
70.4
9412
2
<4
9411
72
72
.`. 9411
2
<4
9410 78.3
78.3
' n; 9410
9.3
9.3
9409 55
55
0 9409
4.7
4.7'
9408
81
81
9408
4
4
9407
122
122
9407
6
6
9406
78
78
« 9406
1.5
<3
9405
88
88
y.;,, 9405
1.5
<3'
9404
76
76
9404
1.5 <3
9403
78
78
iZ 9403
1.
1.5
<3
9402
83
83
s 9402
4
4
9401
115
115
F' Y ; 9401
1.5
<3
31
s-' 31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
PAGE 1

LEXINGTON WWTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
Parameter=
Zinc
<.;fi>
Parameter =
Mercu
Standard =
50
µg/l
Standard =
0.012
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
< `> ` nl
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
9606
97.7
97.7
Std Dev.
40.227
>, 9606
0.1
<0.2
Std Dev.
0.1062
9605
97.7
97.7
Mean 1
142.39
9605
0.1
<0.2
Mean
0.143
9604
126
126
C.V.
0.2825
>;
9604
0.38
0.38
C.V.
0.74261
9603
76
76
<;:
�;:..
9603
0.1
<0.2
9602
121
121
>`;:`:;>;3:
9602
0.1
<0.2
9601
149
149
Mult Factor =
2.4
9601
0.38
0.38
Mult Factor =
2.4
9512
161.5
161.5
Max. Value
249
µg/l <>
9512
0.1
<0.2
Max. Value
0.52
n
9511
96.5
96.5
Max. Pred Cw
597.6
489.51µg/I
jig 1 .
< <
9511
0.1
<0.2
Max. Pred Cw
9510
132
132
Allowable Cw
9510
0.1
<0.2
Allowable Cw
0.1
WM
9509
129
129
9509
0.1
<0.2
--�
-.
9508
118.5
118.5
9508
0.1
<0.2
9507
125
125
9507
0.1
<0.2
9506
67.6
67.6
9506
0.1
<0.2
9505
156.5
156.5
9505
0.1
<0.2
9504
137
137
9504
0.1
<0.2
-�
-�
9503
161.9
161.9
>>" 9503
0.1
<0.2---
<0.2
9502
115.8
115.8
"-.`«<' <'; 9502
0.1
9501
147.8
147.8
<> <»> 9501
0.28
0.28
9412
218.3
218.3
9412
0.23
0.23
--�
--�
M
9411
163.6
163.6
9411
0.52
0.52
9410
141.3
141.31
9410
0.1
<0.2
9409
151
151
<<: 9409
0.1
<0.2
9408
115
115
' "'``' 9408
0.1
<0.2
<0.2
--�
9407
249
249
" "' 9407
0.1
9406
207
207
9406
0.1
<0.2
<0.2
--�
-�
-�
9405
154
154
9405
0.1
9404
155
155
"''` ' 9404
0.1
<0.2
-�-�
9403
207
207
9403
0.1
<0.2
9402
140
140
9402
0.1
<0.2
9401
154
154
9431
0.1
31
-<0.2
---
32
32
---�
---�
33
k>< 33
34
kS>5:: is 34
:Skis
----
35
'>` "' 35
PAGE 1

GJL% / %xl cc._,. / i4 i
Facility ., City of Gastoniai! .., ; .:r,k
1. NC0020184
_ Qw1iWGD)= 16
7'C rOs (cfs)= _.._.,. 109
IWC (%) =
18.54
-t 1__F_INAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Parameters
Standard =
L
µy/I
Parameter=
Standard =
Cyanide
5
N9/1
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Luna
9606 nd
9605 1,
9604 1
9603 1
1
1
1
36
10.8
9602
9601
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
CoEeer
Max. Pred Cw
9512
166_14
27.0
61.2
269.8
305.1
Allowable Cw
37.8
Lead
951-1.1
9510
9509,
9508'
9507
9506
9505
9504
9503
9502
1;-
1
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2 Mult Factor=
<2 Max. Value
<2 Max.-PredGror,
ESULTS
Dov.
an
<2 AllowableCw'
<2
- -1
<2
Q4-
2 2
2.3,
2.3
1 <2
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Mercury
Max. Pred Cwl
Allowable Cw
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
119
134.9
1.2481
0.11
183
474.8
Silver
9501
9412
9411
9410
9409
9408
9407
9406
9405
9404'
9403
Max_ Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
18.7
0.3
597.6
269.8
9402
9401
31
32
33
34
35
1 <2'!
2.5 2.5
2.4_ 2.4
2.1 2.1
7.8 7.8
12 12
15 15
5 5
12 12
7 7
3
3.
3
0.5 <1
3.861302264
3.15862069
1.222464691
2.4
15 µg/l
--38Tr9A
10.8 µg/l
n
9606
9605
9604
9603
9602
9601
9512
9511
9510
9509
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
10.3 10.3 Std Dev.
10.3 10.3 Mean
21.3 21.3
14
8.8
15.3
14
8.8
15.3
C.V.
Mult Factor =
4.429
8.49
0.522
7.8
7.9 7.9 Max. Value 21.3
b./ " .7IMax. Pred Cw' 166.1
2.5
7.8
<5 Allowable Cw 27.0
7.8
9508
14
14
9507
8.8
8.8
9506
9505
9504
9503
5.6
5.5
6.6
7.6
5.6
5.5
6.6
7.6
9502
5.5
5.5
9501
6.5
6.5
9412 7.7
7.7
9411 6.4
6.4
9410 2.5
<5
9409 8.1
8.1
9408 5
5
9407
6
6
9406
8
8
14
14
9404
12
12
9403
2.5
<5
9402
2.5
<5
9401
15
15
31
32
33
34
35
PAGE 1

Basins 030201-030206
Management Strategies Protecting Wetlands
-Since small streams comprise the majority of stream length in watershed - headwater wetlands are responsible for
intercepting 80 % of sediment.(Novitski 1978)
- Acquiring land, requireing buffers for agric and forestry
Management Strategies for Oxygen Consuming Wastes
DO Mainstem Model - Dan R. from NC220 to NCVA state line
NC Level B aplid to Dan R. mainstem, model does nto predict substandard DO conentrations at exisitng permitted
loads, results houl be interpreted wi caution sinc empricial equaiton scontianed in level B proceure may no apply
to Dan R. Instream DO collected form 1990 - 1994 does nto idnciate a need fr further modeling at this tim.
However, DWQ will continu to cmoito instream DO conentration sand will analuyze the data for trends. Instream
data willb e used to determine if field calibrated model is ncessary in future.
Page 11 of 4

LEXINGTON WWTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
'arameter= Chromium
>>'Parameter =
Copper
<:>`:Parameter=
Lead
1
Standard = 50
µg/I
<:`►
"' Standard =
7
A
"' `'' ` Standard =
Y:>-;:>:: z
25,
pg/I
n$ BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data1RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data RESULTS
<> >`:{? n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
l
9606 13.8
13.8
Std Dev.
7.40917
9606
23
23 Std Dev.
20.793
>$ 9606
1
<2
Std Dev.
16.049
9605
13.8
13.8
Mean
18.2733
°y" ` 9605
23
23 Mean
41.967
< 'i 9605
1
<2
Mean
15.8631
1.0117
9604
10
10
C.V.
0.40546
s 9604
35
35 C.V.
0.4955(;<qA<
9604
1
<2
C.V.
9603
12
12
x:::: 9603
22
22
K 9603
1
<2
9602
13.4
13.4
•
>.�:;?� 9602
15.5
15.5
€�;.>.:�}}/�::� 9602
1
<2
9601
11.3
11.3
Mult Factor =
1.7
;<4>: 9601
34.5
34.5! Mult Factor =
2.7
5. 9601
2.3
2.3
Mult Factor =
1.7
9512
11.8
11.8
Max. Value
36
NA: x 9512
30.5
30.5 Max. Value
113
µg/I 9512
5
<10
Max. Value
70
µg/I
9511
8.4
8.4
Max. Pro Cw
61.2
µg/1 <` ``--9511
28.5
28.5 Max. Pred Cw
305.1
AO ;::;; •. 9511
16.2
16.2
Max. Pred Cw
119
µg/I
µg/I
9510
19.5
19.5
Allowable Cw
269.8
µg/l < 9510
24
24, Allowable Cw
37.8
µg/l ,. } j 9510
5
<10
Allowable Cw
134.9
9509
7.5
7.5
` 9509
113
113 j
l ` 9509
8
8
9508
12.2
12.2
' 9508
;:�.<:;;
28.5
28.5}`'>'`<
9508
14.2
14.2
9507
19.3
19.3
«f 9507
30.5
30.51
9507
14
14
9506
18.6
18.6
''' 9506
16.51
16.5E>'>
9506
12.8
12.8
9505
21.9
21.9
"<' < 9505
42
421
9505
8.8
8.8
9504
20.7
20.7
x'<>h' 9504
41
41:
9504
11.7
11.7
9503
34
34
<`'``'` 9503
58.6
58.6;
``j``'"'` 9503
8.1
8.1
9502
26.4
26.4
9502
25.7
25.7
,: 9502
9.8
9.8
9501
12.7
12.7
'?'"`' 9501
27.5,
27.5
Y< <'< 9501
11.4
11.4
9412
20.3
20.3
</'>> 9412
41.5'
41.5
`:`^> 9412
21.5
21.5
9411' 22.9
22.9
'' 9411
52
521
'' 9411
55.3
55.3
9410 24.3
9410
50.3
50.3!
<<:�:"< 9410
17.6
17.6
9409 14.4
14.4
9409
48.9
48.3
t�; `'"`` 9409
25.2
25.2
9408 19
19
9408
1-��
50
50
> <" '.>'
.�s..} 9408
40
40
94071 31
31
>.<xr 9407
74
741
::,. f>.->:' 9407
70
70
9406 14
14
• `' 9406
41
41
"` ' 9406
22
22
9405
21
21
"`` 9405
<<>:;s:r;
47
471
;<,.:;.;::.:.,
' ' ': _3 9405
31
31
9404
36
36
'' 9404
h<;>
64
64;
>•>a 9404
19
19
9403
28
28
'� 9403
73
73
to 9403
16
16
9402
18
18
::vw
�<.;„:y 9402
62
62
�''�" "' 9402
23
23
9401
12
12
:;: 9401
36
361
'' 9401
3
3
31
1>" 31
''{`' 31
32
s> ::::>s: 32
5`''<::: 32
33
33
" 33
34
34
34
35
¢ '> 35
35
PAGE 1

LEXINGTON WWTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
p ammeter=
Nickel
3>c„41Parameter =
Silver
Standard=
88µgA
: Standard=
0.06j.tgA
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data
RESULTS
- n
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data
RESULTS
9606
26 26
Std Dev.
24.594-
>)' 9606
2 <4
Std Day.
2.2547
9605
26 26
Mean
60.933
' ` 9605
2 <4
Mean
2.8833
9604
38
38
30.8
34.2
72.5
C.V.
0.4036
; 9604
2
11
2
2
2
- - 2
<4
C.V.
0.782
9603�30.8
34.2
i��+>ni 9603
11
9602
9602
<4
9601
72.5
Mult Factor=
1.5 9601
<4
Mutt Factor=
1.7
9512
25.3
25.3
53.8
Max. Value
122
µg/I .,::-. 9512
<4
Max. Value
11
µfill
95111
53.8
Max. Pred Cw
183
gA . °. 9511
<4
Max. Pred Cw
18.7
µgf
9510
-56.3 -56:3
AllowableOw
74.8
-- 9510
2
2
--<4Allowable-Ow
0.3
µgA-
9509
48.8 48.8
9509
<4
9508
50.6 50.6
9508, 2
<4
9508
62.3 62.3
q'r:' 9507 2
<4
9506 43 43
9506 2
<4
9505
_
72.5 72.5
9505 2
<4
9504
36.7 36.7
9504 4
4
9503
_
49.9 49.9
a 9503 2
<4
9502
40.6 40.6
9502 2
<4
9501
64
64
, 9501 2
<4
9412
70.4
70.4N
9412 2
<4
9411
72
72
;,six<:;=: 9411
2
<4
9410
78.3
78.3
!.•`:i
� 9410
9.3
9.3
9409
55
55
9409
4.7
4.7
9408
81
81
''""` 9408
4
4
9407
122
122
"%'> 9407
6
6
9406
78
78
' 9406
1.5
<3
9405
88
88
,. 9405
1.5
<3
9404
76
76
9404
1.5
<3
9403
78
78
9403
1.5
<3
9402
83
83
o 9402
4
4
9401
115
115
9401
1.5
<3
31
Rt ;3s 31
32
32
33
33
34
£. $ 34
35
«........ 351
PAGE 1

All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on
the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was
performed, using the parameter code TGE6C. Additionally, DEM Form AT-2
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting
chemical/physical measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as
well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits,
then monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is
passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the
months specified above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements 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 and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of
initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
K. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures
outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina
Chronic Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction
or significant mortality is 72 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly, monitoring using this procedure to
establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty
days from the effective date of this permit during the months of January, April,
July, and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed,
using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to
the following address:

LEXINGTON WWTP LEAD DATA (7/92 - 6/93)
Parameter=
Zlnc
««q. Parameter=
Mercury
Standard=
50.29/I
> " > : Standard=
0.012
µg/I
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
> Y n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
9606
97.7
97.7
Std Dev.
40.227
`;<' 9606
0.1
<0.2
Std Dev.
0.1062
9605
97.7
97.7
Mean
142.39
::;:;:: 9605
0.1
<0.2
Mean
0.143
9604
126
126
C.V.
0.2825
'''''`' 9604
0.38
0.38
C.V.
0.7426
9603
76
76
9603
0.1
<0.2
9602
121
121
9602
0.1
<02
9601
149
149
Mutt Factor=
2.4
9601
0.38
0.38
Mull Factor=
2.4
9512
161.5
161.5
Max. Value
249
µg/l > 9512
0.1
<0.2
Max. Value
0.5220.
--9511
96.5
96.5
Max. Fred cw
597.6
µg/1>> >> 951T
0 T
<0.2
Max. Pred Cw
1.248
µgll
9510
132
132
Allowable Cw
269.8
nil ;>; 9510
0.1
<0.2
Allowable Cw
0.1
µg/l
9509
129
129
9509
0.1
<0.2
9508
118.5
118.5
9508
0.1
<0.2
9507
125
125
""` 9507
0.1
<0.2
9506
67.6
67.6
9506
0.1
<0.2
9505
156.5
156.5
% 9505
0.1
<0.2
9504
137
137
9504
0.1
<0.2
9503
161.9
161.9
9503
0.1
<0.2
9502
115.8
115.8
9502
0.1
<0.2
9501
147.8
147.8
Y^> 9501
0.28
0.28
9412
218.3
218.3
'< 9412
0.23
0.23
9411
163.6
163.6
9411
0.52
0.52
9410
141.3
141.3
f f: 9410
0.1
<0.2
9409
151
151
s,; »> : 9409
0.1
<0.2
9408
115
115
- ' 9408
0.1
<0.2
9407
249
249
'' `''` 9407
0.1
<0.2
9406
207
207
``' " 9406
0.1
<0.2
9405
154
154
'`' 9405
0.1
<0.2
9404
155
155
»`: <'' 9404
0.1
<0.2
9403
207
207
`"'>`' ' 9403
0.1
<0.2
9402
140
140
'9402
0.1
<0.2
9401
154
154
9401
0.1
<0.2
31
31
32
32
33
`:::< 33
34
>{ 34
35
35
PAGE 1

NC0049409 Summary
May 31, 1996
Town of Waynesville Water Treatment Plant (WTP) submitted an application for renewal
of their NPDES permit on May 9,1996. No changes or modifications are proposed for the
permit renewal. The WTP treatment system consists of a single settling basin located at the
Waynesville Water Treatment Plant, 1530 Allen Creek Road, south of Waynesville,
Haywood County.
Drainage area and flow information specified below was taken from USGS station
0345750000 (Allen Creek at Hazelwood) which appeared to be in the vicinity of Town of
Waynesville WTP. Drainage Area = 14.4 mi2, 7Q10S= 3.6 cfs, and 30Q2=9.9 cfs.
The WTP had Total Suspended Solids and/or Settleable Solids violations every month
(except 1/92) from 12/91-8/92 and a civil penalty was assessed for these violations in
10/92. DEM received payment for the civil penalty 7/93 and although there were still
several violations during the later part of 1992 and early part of 1993, there have been
fewer violations more recently. The last violation occurred in 1/94. A summary of
Waynesville's violations (monthly averages) from 12/91 to the present follows:
Date Parameter
Total Suspend Solids (mg/1) Settleable Solids (ml/1)
9112 34.3
9202 3.4
9203 32.6 4.7
9204 34.5 1.6
9205 33.9 6.4
9206 41.0 8.7
9207 1.7
9208 44.7 12.7
9210 0.5
9211 1.2
9212 0.4
9301 0.45
9303 3.9
9304 3.0
9401 0.75
Values in bold were never assessed.
Is there a need to sample for both Total Suspended Solids and Settleable )
Solids? This question will be raised with the regional office.
Inspections conducted from 1992-95 indicated the facility was in compliance. A 168-hour
Chronic Toxicity Test conducted 4/8/92 indicated that LC50=77% (half of the Ceriodaphnia
were killed in a solution comprised of 77 percent wastewater from the WTP). It appears
that there have not been any toxicity studies conducted since April 1992.
The WTP discharges into Allen Creek (C-Trout) in the French Broad River Basin. Instream
monitoring conducted by the WTP indicated turbidity levels not greater than 4.3 NTU at the
upstream location and not greater than 3.8 NTU at the downstream location.
The Waynesville WTP is located in the Pigeon River watershed. Much of the catchment is
undeveloped land within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Pisgah National
Forest and Pisgah Game Lands. The largest urban areas are Waynesville and Canton.

Facility Name =
City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP , Parameter =
Cadmium
NPDES # =
NC0020184
I Standard =
2
pg/I
Qw (MGD) =
8
Qw (cts) =
12.3776
it
7Q10s (cfs)=
3
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
IWC (%) =
80.52
960307
1
<2
Std Dev.
0.504429113
960314
1
<2
Mean
0.920412698
FINAL RESULTS
CONVERSIC 960321
1
<2
C.V.
0.548046669
Cadmium
960328
1
<2
n=63
Max. Pred Cw
5.1
4.1
f 960403
1
<2
Allowable;Cw
2.5
2.0
960411
3
3
Mull Factor=
1.7
Chromium
960418
1
<2
Max. Value
3
NgA
Max. Pred Cw
15.3
12.3
960425
1
<2
Max. Pred ON
5.1
pg/I
Allowable Cw
62.1
50.0
960502
1
<2
Allowable Cw
2.5
pgA
Copper I
960509
1
<2
Max. Pred bw
127.5
102.7
960516
1
<2
Allowable
Cw
8.7
7.0
960522
1
<2
Lead
960523
1
<2
Max Pred Cw
19.4
15.6
960530
1
<2
Allowable Cw
31.0
25.0
960606
1
<2
Mercury I
960613
1
<2
Max Pred Cw
0.240
0.193
960620
1
<2
Allowable Cw
0.015
0.012
960627
1
<2
Nickel
960704
1
<2
Max. Pred Cw
117.0
94.2
960711
1
<2
Allowable Cw
109.3
88.0
960718
1
<2
Silver I
I
960725
1
<2
Max. Pred Cw
54.000
43.465
960801
1
<2
Allowable Cw
0.075
0.060
960808
1
<2
Zinc I
960815
1
<2
�
Max. Pred C1 659.2
530.6
960822
1
<2
Allowable Cw, 62.1
50.0
960829
1
<2
960905
1
<2
960912
1
<2
960919
1
<2
960928
1
<2
961003
1
<2
961010
1
<2
961017
1
<2
961024
1
<2
961031
1
<2
961107
3
3
961114
1
<2
961121
1
<2
961128
1
<2
961205
1
<2
961212
1
<2
961219
1
<2
961226
1
<2
970102
1
<2
970109
1
<2
970116
1
<2
970123
1
<2
970130
1
<2
970206
1
<2
970213
1
<2
970220
1
<2
970227
1
<2
1
0.076
0.076
2
0.089
0.089
3
0.104
0.104
4
0.073
0.073
5
0.075
0.075
6
0.304
0.304
7
0.09
0.09
8
0.063
0.063
9
0.074
0.074
10
0.038
0.038
Rc vAsGe ib7 4,7/4Z ,4 1/✓1 v�S).S
4n4U G . 74'/4- bA-7A
us1416- 1 4-7 6
-7)Gastonia -Long Creek WWTP 8.OMGD to Long Creek (?o/''Lt9,e/6 Se,a/ 02/4-
PAGE1

Gastonia -Long Creek WWTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
Parameter =
Standard =
Chromium
50
Ng/I
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
960307 7 Std Dev.
960314 6 Mean
960321 7 C.V.
960328 8
960403 4
960411 3
960418 3
960425 41
960502
960509
n=63
Mult Factor
Max. Value
Max. Pred G
Allowable CN
Parameter =
Co.•er
Standard =
1.997458471
3.16981132
0.63015059
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
960307 19 23 Std Dev.
960314 nd nd Mean
960321 nd nd C.V.
960328 25 _ 18 n=63
1.7
960403 nd nd
960411 39 24 Mult Factor =
9POO
15.3 Ng/1
62.1
960418 nd
960425 31
960502 nd
2
12.727
32.724
0.3889
1.4
nd Max. Value 91.1 gg/I
11 Max. Pred Cw 127.54 gg/l
nd Allowable Cw 8.7 pg/I
960509 25 10
960516 4
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960516 nd nd
2
2
21
960522 26 9
21
2,
41
9'
1
960711
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
2
5
1
2
6
3
2
3'
2
4'
1
2'
2
961114 i 1
961121
961126
961205
961212
9612191
970109
9701161
970123
970130,
970206
970213
970220
970227
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
3
7
2
3
2
2
960523 nd _ nd __
960530 18 11
960606 nd nd
960613 44 14
960620 nd nd
960627 23
9
960704 nd nd
960711 29 21
960718 nd nd
960725 21 16
960801 nd nd
960808 32 16
960815 nd nd
960822 nd nd
960829
960905
960912
29
nd
41
960919 nd
23
nd
46
1
nd
960926 37 38
961003 nd nd
961010 41 26
961017 nd nd
961024 45 22
961031 nd nd
961107 37 25
961114 nd nd
961121 nd nd
961126 32 32
961205 nd nd
961212 26 26
961219 nd nd
961226 32 _ 32
970102 nd nd
970109 30 30
970116 nd nd
970123 nd nd
970130 28 28
970206 nd nd
970213 19 19
970220 nd _ nd
970227 nd nd
1
43.2 43.2
2
32.8 32.8
3
4
5
33 33
27.2 27.2
23.7 23.7
6 91.1 91.1
7 34 34
8 31.5 31.5
9 41.4 41.4
10 25.7 25.7
PAGE 1

PERMITS IN-HOUSE AS OF 6/30/96 (sorted by date received)
Permit Facility County
Reviewer Comments
NC0030970 SPRING LAKE, TOWN-WWTP CUMBERLAND CLARK
-- NC0003727-ARC-ADIAN FERTILIZER-- — -- NEW-HANOVER CLARK
NC0059234 TAKEDA CHEMICAL PROD. USA,INC. NEW HANOVER CLARK
NC0001406 SWIFT TEXTILES (ERWIN MILLS) HARNETT CLARK
..NG0379049-R H. JOHNSON-CONSTRUCTION CO. FORSYTH— CLARK
NC0004961__DUKE_EOWER CO., RIVERBEND S.E.—_GASTON
NC0065676-LELAND-IN�I��SR443-1 BRUNSWI
CG N510337 BARTS SHELULITTLE HUFF OIL PERSON
N60065185-AMOCO-PETROIE-UM-PAW CREEK --- MECKLENB
CLARK
NC0024937 CMUD-SUGAR CREEK WWTP MECKLENBURC
NC0005169 FMC CORPORATION - LITHIUM DIV. GASTON
NC0020184 GASTONIA, CITY -LONG CREEK WWTP GASTON
NC0020192 GASTONIA,CITY/CATAWBA CRK WWTP I GASTON
NC0074268 GASTONIA, CITY/CROWDERS CRKJ GASTON
NC0004260 CR INDUSTRIES GASTON
NCG510339 FOUR CORNERS FACIUTY)S%4LLN/Z-S d, ASH
NC0079758 NATIONAL WELDERS SUPPLY CO.INC MECKLENBU
LAR
or
AppRcd SRReq WLARe WLARa SRRcd
,FieL,u
f� tYSft�11'�
Notice Schlss BASIN Basin hold?
951109 951201 960102 960312 960201 . ••,. • 306T4
951206 9�207.-
II4 95227 960102
EFFECTIVE 4/1/94 l (� 960131
EFFECTIVE 9/1/91 — f(EAR ,- - 960131- 960205
CffCCTIVEeM:01:94 96021Q 46n221
E
CLARK PROCSS i GEAD �N (/ �•
URC-CLARK ct (MINATED-OUTFAL-LS-0D2 AND-0— 03.715194
CLARK EFFECTIVE 11/1/91
CLARK EFFECTIVE 12.01.93
CLARK MODIFIED 6/2/95
CLARK 09 EFFECTIVE 4/1/93
CLARK EFFECTIVE 5/1/94
CLARK EFFECTIVE 06.01.95
CLARKL A/7W6- FOR lur° (Ak'w..)7)7►,
4L AA OkiRC CLARK EFFECTIVE 10/1/92 '
NC0083810=GASTON MERCHANTS OIL OMNI MART—GASTON CLARK /-A17W(, EFFECTIVE- 06.01:94-
NC0083950 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS GASTON CLARK --- EFFECTIVE 12.01.94
NCG510347 TRIANGLE TEXACO/REABEN OIL CO. HENDERSON CLARKw,t,T,ti6- r'04. 374FF rttPT
NG0085758-5. CENTBA_-..! OIt GQ CROSSRBS-GRo STANLY CLAR
_ NCG510350 WEST LEXINGTON SERVICE/SAVASUM DAVIDSON CLARK P+Z`-/ce5
NC0085782 CRESCENT MOTEL/R.K.&C.. INC. FRANKLIN CLARK
NC0049409 WAYNESVILLE, TOWN OF - WTP HAYWOOD
NC0085821 AMP, INC-CHURCH ROAD. GREENSBO GUILFORD
NC0025321 WAYNESVILLE, TOWN OF - WWTP HAYWOOD
NC0000400 K-T FELDSPAR CORPORATION MITCHELL
NC0085855 T.H. TURNERANAKEFIELD SUPERETT WAKE
CLARK
CLARK F2' -'
CLARK EFFECTIVE 5/1/94
CLARK 09 EFFECTIVE 8/1/93
CLARK
NC0085871 ABB FLAKT, INCJFLAKT PRODUCTS FORSYTH
CLARK
CLARK
EFFECTIVE 811/92
_57Ar'F 2EF'ole'T
59t4E I i 1411d.
1iJ 9g-G-
960102_ _ 960201
960102 960402
960222 960125
960228-
960321 960320
960220---- 06040 Q604
960223
960228 960325 ' -- - -
960304 960306
960311 960312
960311 960321
960311 960321
960311 960321
960325 960408
960327 960408
960328 960408
960401 960408
960401
960402
60409
960418
960501
960509
960509
960520
960528
960530
960610
960311
960312 960415
960429
960429
960429
960408 960507
960520
960509
960612 960706-
9g
960515 960629 30617
30613
-- - 30201
960508 960622 30
4 Q.6Q6Qg306i Z--=
_ 960410 960525 30834.-
960422 960619 960803 30834
30836
30836
30837
30837
30837
30834
---- 30838-
30836
CO L.
960523 96D1Y15 QR4179n
960607
960524
960610
960617
40305
40305
40306

Gastonia -Long Creek WWTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
Parameter=
Lead
1 I Parameter=
Mercury
Standard =
25
pg/I
Standard =
0.012
pg/1
d
j
n
B L=1/2DL
lActual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
960307
1,
<2
Std Dev.
1.5441
970401
0.1
<0.2
Std Dev. ! 0.0458
960314
1
<2
Mean
1.7083
970410
0.1
<0.2
Mean 1 0.0641
960321
1
<2
C.V.
1 0.90391
970417
0.1
<0.2
C.V. 1 0.7156
960328
1
<2
n=63
970424
0.1
<0.2
n=23 I
960403
1
<2
970501
0.1
<0.2
960411
1
<2
Mutt Factor =
2
970508
0.1
<0.2
Mult Factor = 1 2.4
960418
1
<2
Max. Value
9.72
pg/l 970515
0.1
<0.2
Max. Value 1 0.1
pgfl
960425
1
<2
Max. Pred Cw
19.44Ig/1
970523
0.1
<0.2
Max. Pred Cwl 0.24
µgfl
960502
1
<2
Allowable Cw
31.0
pg/I 970529
0.1
<0.2
Allowable Cw 1 0.015
pg/1
960509
1,
<2
970605
0.1
<0.2
960516
2.11
2.1
970612
0.1
<0.2
960522
1
<2
970619
0.1',
<0.2
960523
1
<2
970626
0.1
<0.2
960530
1
<2
_
1
0.007731
0.00773
960606
1
<2
2
0.006451
0.00645
960613
4'
4
3
0.00774
0.00774
960620,
2
2
!
4
0.00686
0.00686
9606271
21
2
l
5
0.00643
0.00643
9607041
11
<2
6
0.1
0.1
960711'
1
<2
7
0.00743,
0.00743
960718
1
<2
8
0.007091
0.00709
960725
11
<2
9
0.0151
0.0151
960801
11
<2
10
0.0088
0.0088
960808
11
<2
1
960815
1,
<2
1
960822
1
<2
960829�
1
<2
960905
1
<2
960912
2
21
960919
1
<2
960926
1
<2
961003
1
<2
1_
961010
2
2'
961017
2
2
961024
1
<2
961031
1
<2
1
961107
1
<2
961114
3
3j
961121
4
4
961126
2
2j
1
961205
6
6'
961212
3
3
961219
5
5
961226
4
4
970102
1
<2
970109
1 <2
970116
11 <2
970123
1 <2 1
!
970130
1 <2'
970206
1 <2
j
970213
1 <2
970220
4' 4
970227
4 4
1
2.165,
2.165
2
1.2
1.2
i
1
3
1.345
1.345
4
1.13
1.13
5,
1.23
1.23
61
9.72
9.72
7
1.06
1.06
8
0.54
0.54
1
9
0.647'1
0.647
101
0.487 0.487
PAGE 1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 14, 1997
Colette B. Teachey, Executive Director
Coastal Carolina Community College Foundation, Inc.
444 Western Blvd.
Jacksonville, North Carolina 28546-6877
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0071536
Windmill Restaurant
Onslow County
Dear Ms. Teachey:
In accordance ith the application for a discharge permit received on February 4, 1997, the Division is
forwarding herewi a subject NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North
Carolina General atute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S.
Environmental P tection Agency dated December 6, 1983.
As sta d in the cover letter that accompanied the copy of the draft permit for this facility, curren , the
facility is not perating. Before beginning operation, the facility must meet original specifications which would
require some construction. An Authorization to Construct would have to be submitted before beginning the
construction necessary for the facility to meet original specifications. The Division also recommends that the
permittee continue to investigate alternatives to surface water discharge. A connection to the City of Jacksonville
may be possible after annexation of an area near (but not including) the site. However, this annexation may still be
several years in the future.
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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take note that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be followed
in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
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 or any other Federal or Local
governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Paul B. Clark at telephone number
[phone], extension 580.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Permits and Engineering Unit
Facility Assessment Unit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Gastonia -Long Creek WWTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
Parameter =
Nickel
Parameter
Silver
Standard =
1 88 Jg/l
Standard =
0.06 pg/I
n
960307
960314
960321
960328
IBDL=1/2DL Actual Data!RESULTS
70 70l Std Dev. 15.139
231 23 Mean 32.879''
5 5 C.V. 0.4605
25 251 n=63
960403' 40 40
n BDL=1/2DL ;Actual Data RESULTS
960307 20! 20 Std Dev.
960314 nd' nd Mean
960321 ndi nd C.V.
960328 21 2 n=63
960403 nd nd
3.2889
1.9972
1.6468
960411 17 17 Mult Factor = J 1.5
960418
960425
960502
960509
960516
960522,
50
45
20
15
30
21
50 Max. Value
45 Max. Pred Cw
2 01 Allowable Cw
151
30
21
78 pg/I
117 pg/I
109.3 oil
960411 2 2 Mult Factor = 1 2.7
9604181 nd1 nd Max. Value
960425; 21 2 Max. Pred Cw
960502, nd nd Allowable Cw
960509' 2 ' 2
20
54 NO
0.1 pg/l
9605161 ndl nd
960522' 2 2
960523',
9605301
9606061
960613
20 20
50 50
9605231
960530
nd
2
nd,
2'
50 50r
37 37
960606
960613,
nd nd
2
960620
960627
23' 23
45
4 5'
960704
960711
33
33
37 37'
960620.
9606271
9607041
960711
nd
2
nd
2'
nd
21
nd
2,
960718
960725
5' 51
25 25
960718'1
960725
nd:
2'
ndl
2
960801
30 30
960801,
nd
nd'1
960808
24 24'
960808'
2 2
960815
30 30
960815
ndl nd
960822
60 60
960822
nd, nd
960829
30 30
960829:
2 2'
960905
40 40'
960905
nd nd
960912
960919
26 26
30 30
960912! 2 2
960919,
nd nd
960926
961003
961010
20
40
22
20
40
22
9609261 2 2
961003 nd nd
961010 2 2
961017i 20 20
961017'
nd nd
961024i 30 30
96103170' 70
961107 7 8 78
961024,
961031
961107
2 2 1
nd, nd
2 2
961114 10' 10
961121I 20 20
96112 , 50 50
961114
961121,
961126
nd nd
nd nd
2 2
961205i
96121
40 40'
40
40
961205' ndl nd
961212 2' 2
96121
96122
30 30
40 40
10
33 33
40 40
40 40
40 40
201 20
970102 10'
97010
97011
970123
97013C,
97020E
970213
970220
55 55
45 45
961219 nd
961226 2,
nd
2
970102, nd' ndl,
970109; 2, 2'
9701161 nd
970123,11nd nd
nd
970130 ' 2'I 2
9702061 nd
nd
9702131 2 2
970220
nd nd
97022T
1
55
17.3
55
17.3
9702271 nd nd
11 0.128 0.128
2 25.5
25.5
2, 0.136 0.136
3 28.45 28.45,
23.6 23.6
3 0.104 0.104
5 19.3 19.3'
4'
51
61
7:
81
91
6 34.5 34.5
71 34.4 34.4
28.1 28.1
261 26
10. 30.2 30.2
0.1,
0.0756
0.608,
0.163'
0.104
0.255
10i 0.232
0.1
0.0756
0.608
0.163
0.104
0.255
0.232
PAGE 1

Gastonia -Long Creek VWVTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
parameter=
Zinc
I
Standard =
50
gll
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
960307
20
20
Std Dev.
65.667
960314
nd'
nd
Mean
143.81
960321
nd
nd
C.V.
0.4566
960328
132
132
n=63
960403
nd
nd
960411
150
150
Mult Factor =
1.6
960418
nd
nd
Max. Value
412
659.2
jig
1-19t1
960425
102
102
Max. Pred Cw
960502
nd
nd
Allowable Cw
I 62.1
pg/I
960509
120
120
960516
ndl
nd
960522�
100
100
960523
nd
nd
960530
73
73
9606061
nd
nd
960613
88 88
960620
nd
nd
960627
101
101
960704
nd,
nd
960711
120' 120
960718
nd
nd
960725
106
106
9608011
nd
nd
f
960808
130
130
960815
nd
nd
960822
nd
nd
960829
116
116
960905
141
141
960912
160
1601
1
960919
nd
nd
960926
nd
nd
961003
nd
nd
961010
140
140
961011
140,
140
961024
1691
169
961031
ndI
nd
961107
130
130
961114
nd
• nd
961121
nd nd
961126
197' 197
961205
ndl nd
961212
1301 130
961219
ndl nd
961226
4121 412
970102
ndl nd
970109
120 120
970116
nd; nd
970123
nd. nd
970130'
129
129
970206
nd
nd
970213
nd
nd
970220
nd
nd
970227
169
169
1
158 158
2
137 137
3
126.5 126.5
4
1371 137
i
5
133; 133
61
285
285
7
141
141
8
171 171
9
256( 256
101 94' 941
PAGE 1

ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
LIGHT•DUTY ROAD, HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE
UNIMPROVED ROAD =
Latitude 35°04'03" Longitude 83°13'31"
Map # G6SW Sub -basin 040401
Stream Class B-Trout
Discharge Class 1
Receiving Stream Little Tennessee River
Design Q 0-50 MGM Permit expires 10/31/02
0
SCALE 1:24 000
0
1 MILE
7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
Town of Highlands
NC0021407
Macon County

Gastonia -Long Creek WWTP 8.0MGD to S Fork Catawba
acitity Name =
NPDES # =
City of Gastonla/Lonq Creek WWTP
NC0020184
Qw (MGD) =
Qw (cfs)
7010s (cis)=
IWC(%)=
8
12.3776
109
10.21
FINAL RESULTS
CONRSIC
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Silver
15.3
489.5
19.4
244.8
0.240
0.117
1.6
50.0
2.0
25.0
0.024
0.012
117.0 11.9
861.5
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
54.000
0.587
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
88.0
Parameter =
Standard =
Cadmium
n
960307
960314
960321
960328
960403
960411
960418
960425
960502
960509
960516
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
2 pg/l
8DL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<2 Std Dev.
Parameter=
Standard =
n
0.504429113 960307
<2 Mean
<2 C.V.
<2 n=63
<2
3 Mult Factor =
<2 Max. Value
<2 Max. Pred Cw.
<2 Allowable Cw
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.920412698
0.548046669
1.7
960314
960321
960328
960403
960411
3 Ng/I 960418
5.1 pg/I 960425
19.6 pg/I 960502
960509
960516
<2
<2
<2
<2
1 <2
11 <2
1 <2
5.507 960801
0.060 960808
11
1i
<2
<2
960815
659.2 67.2 960822
11
1F
<2
<2
489.5 50.0 960829
11 <2
960905
1
<2
960912
1
<2
960919
1
<2
960926
1
<2
961003
1
<2
961010
1
<2
961017
1
<2
961024
1
<2
961031
1
<2
961107
3
3
961114
1
<2
961121
<2
961126
<2
961205
1
<2
961212
1 <2
961219
1
<2
961226
1
<2
970102
1
<2
970109
1 <2
970116
970123
1
<2
970130
1
<2
970206
1 <2
970213
1 <2
970220
1 <2
970227
i <2
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
970130
970206
970213
970220
970227
PAGE1

Gastonia -Long Creek WWTP 16.0MGD to S Fork Catawba R
cacllity Name =
NPDES # =
Qw (MGD) =
Qw (cIs) =
7010s (cfs)=
IWC (%) =
City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
NC0020184
16
24.7552
109
18.54
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
FINAL RESULTS
CONVERSIC
5.1
10.8
15.3
269.8
Allowable Cw
Parameter =
Standard =
Cadmium
2
Ngn
Parameter=
Standard =
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS n
960307 1 <2, Std Dev. 0.504429113 _ 960307
960314 11 <21Mean 0.920412698 960314
960321 1 <2 C.V. 0.548046669 960321
960328 1 <2 n=63 960328
0.9 960403 1
2.0 960411 3
960418 1
2.8 960425 1
50.0 960502 1
960509 1
<2 960403
3 Mull Factor =1 1ij 960411
<2 Max. Value 3 pg/I 960418
<2 Max. Pred Cw 5.1 pg/1 960425
<2 Allowable Cw 10.8 pg/I 960502
<2 960509
127.5 23.6 960516 1 <2
37.8 7.0 960522 1 <2
19.4
134.9
960523 1 <2
3.6 960530 1 <2
25.0 960606 1 <2
0.240 0.044
0.065 0.012
960613 1 <2
960620 1 <2
117.0 21.7
474.8 88.0
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
54.000 9.994
960627 1 <2
960704 1 <2
960711 1 <2
960718 1 <2
960725 1 <2
960801 1 <2
Allowable Cw
Zinc
0.324 0.
960808 1 <2
Max. Pred Cw
659.2 122.0
Allowable Cw
269.8 50.0
960815 1 <2
960822 1 <2
960829 1 <2
960905 1 <2
960912 1 <2
960919 11 <2
960926 11 <2
961003 1 <2
961010 1 <2
961017 11 <2
961024 1 <2
961031 1 <2
961107 3i 3
961114 1 <2
961121 1 <2
961126 11 <2
961205 1 <2
961212 1 <2
961219 1 <2
961226 1 <2
970102 1 <2
970109 1 <2
970116 1 <2
970123 1 <2
970130 1 <2
970206 1 <2
970213 1 <2
960516
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
970130
970206
970213
970220 1 <2 970220
970227 1 <2 970227
PAGE1

Dfri
Co>7 Crive
Facility Name = City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
NPDES # = NC0020184
Qw (MGD) _
Ow (cis) _
7Q10s (cfs)=
/WC (%) =
8
12.3776
3
80.52
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw.
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
FINAL RESULTS
4.2
2.5
15.3
62.1
58.5
8.7
10.8
31.0
0.120
0.015
124.8
109.3
52.000 41.855
0.075 0.060
659.2
62.1 •
Parameter =
Standard =
CONVERSIC
3.4
2.0
- --- 960418
12.3 960425
50.0 960502
960509
47.1 960516
7.0 960522
960523
8.7 960530
25.0 960606
960613
0.097 960620
0.012' 960627
960704
100.5 , 960711
88.0 960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
530.6 960822
50.0 960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226,
970102
970109
970116,
970123
970130,
970206,
970213
970220
970227
Cadmium
ma
stoy
960307
960314
960321
960328
960403
960411
io9kong Creek WWTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
•
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1 <2 Std Dev. 0.384760495
1 <2 Mean 1.075471698
1 <2 C.V. 0.357759759
1 <2 n=53
1 <2
3 3 Mull Factor =
1: <2 Max. Value 3:pg/l
1 <2 Max. Pred Cw. 4.2.pg/I
1 <2 Allowable Cw 2.5 pg/I
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2.
1 <2.
1 <2
1 <2
1, <2.
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
3. 3
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2.
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
. 1, <2
i <2
1 <2
1.4
Parameter =
Standard =
Chromium
50
pg/I
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
960307 7 Std Dev. 1.99745847
960314
960321
960328
960403
960411
960418
960425
960502
960509
960516
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
970130
970206
970213,
970220
970227
Mean 3.16981132
C.V. 0.63015059
n=53
Mull Factor =
:Max. Value 9 pg/I
Max. Pred C‘ 15.3 pg/I
Allowable CH 62.1 pg/I
4
3
4
1
6
7
6
2
3
21
2
1.7
PA
E1

•
c•
4.4
Self -Priming
`Centrifugal Pumps
Pump Performance
HIGH HEAD
0
aik
20 40 10 60 100 120 ` ' 140
C.66AC1TY V.$. GALLONS PER MtNUTei
1a
100
HIGH HEAD i
HP
Cat.
No.
Dlecharoe
Suellen lift Ir1 Feet
Feet
PSI Head
10' I 1 5' 1 20' I 25'
GaIln'iE Per Minute
DIIE
20 46.2
46.
43 41
38
35
30 69.3
35
29
25
21
40- -, z.4
50 115.5
19
15.
10
60 138.6
1-1/2
DHF
20 46.2
65
53
51
49
46
30 69.3
45
4
39
36.
32
40
92.4
50 115.5
31
27
22
18•
12
80 138.5
DHG
20 46.2
30 69.3
77
74
71 68 8;
40 92.4t
83
4M
60
44
56 ' 53 49
400• ; 35 $ 30'
50 115.5
27
601 139.61
f
20
13
2-1/2
DHHG
20 46.2
89
85
82
80 76
30.
69.3
75
72 68' 64 60
40
92.4
60
57
53
49 1 44
50
115.5
DHH
DHJ
60
138.6
42
37
31
25
17
20 46.2 12!
30 89.3 irw I TM
40 92.4 ' 80
50 ' 115.5 51
20 48.2 • • 4S1
30 69.3 'CO 158.
40 _92.4 -„ 146 t 141
50 116.5 119 114
60 138.8 81 I
105
98
74
42
152
150
136
96
92
69
32
138
136
130
105 • 95
68
66
60
13
98
98
96
85
SS I 30
2 STA-RITE. Built On Commitment.

Parameter =
Copper
Paramepr =
ea
-
fJwTP 8iMGD
to Long
Parameter =
Mercury
Standard =
7
nil
Standffla
Creek
Standard =
0.012
INA
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
960307
19
23
Std Dev.
7.9554
960307
1
<2
Std Dev.
1.2245
970401
0.1
<0.2
Std Dev.
2E-09
960314
nd
nd
nd
Mean
30.375
960314
1
<2
Mean
1.6623
0.7366�
970410
0.1
<0.2
Mean
0.1
960321
nd
C.V.
0.2619
960321
1
<2
C.V.
_
970417
0.1
<0.2
C.V.
2E-08
960328
25
18
n=53
960328
1
<2
n=53
970424
0.1
<0.2
n=13
960403
nd
nd
960403
1
<2
970501
0.1
<0.2
960411
39
24
Mult Factor =
1.3
960411
1
<2
Mutt Factor =
1.8
_
970508
0.1
<0.2
Mult Factor =
1.2
--960418
nd
nd
Max Value-
45
pg/1 960418
1
<2
Max Value
6
p j 97051-5
0:1
<02-Max:
Value
0.1
Ng/1
960425
31
11
Max. Pred Cw
58.5
pg/l 960425
1
<2
Max. Pred Cw
10.8
-
Egli 970523
0.1
<0.2
Max. Pred Cw
0.12pg/i
pg/i
960502
nd
nd
Allowable Cw
8.7
g /g_I 960502
1
1
<2
Allowable Cw
31.0
' 970529
0.1
0.1
0.1
_ <0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Allowable Cw
0.015
960509
25
nd
10
960509
<2
_ _
970605
960516
nd
960516
2.1
2.1
970612
960522
26
nd
9
960522
1
<2
970619
0.1
<0.2
960523
nd
960523
960530
1
<2
970626
0.1
<0.2
960530
18
11
1
<2
960606
nd
44
nd
nd
960606
1
<2
960613
14
960613
4
_
4
960620
nd
960620
2
2
960627
23
9
960627
2
2
960704
nd
nd
960704
1j
<2
960711
29
21
960711
1
<2
960718
nd
nd
960718
1
<2
960725
21
16
960725
1
<2
960801
nd
nd
960801
1
<2
960808
32
16
960808
1
<2
960815
nd
nd
960815
1
<2�
960822
nd
nd
960822
1
<2
960829_
29
nd
41
23
960829
1
<2
960905~
nd�
960905
1
<2
_._
960912
46
960912
2
1
2
960919
nd
nd
960919
<2
960926
37
38
960926
1
<2
961003
nd
nd
961003
1
961010
41
26
961010
2
2
961017
nd
nd
961017
2
2
_
961024
45
nd
22
961024
1
<2
961031
961107
nd
961031
1
<2
37
25
961107
1
<2
961114
nd
nd
961114
3
3
961121
nd
nd
961121
4
2
4
961126
32
32
961126
2
961205
nd
nd
961205
61
6
961212
26
26
961212
3
3
-
�-
961219
_ nd
nd
_
961219
961226
5
4
5
961226
32
32
4
_ _.___-----
-----
970102
nd
nd
970102
1
<2
-__.-.
970109
30
30
970109
1
<2
--- -- ---_
970116
nd
nd
_
970116
1
<2
970123
nd
nd
970123
1
<2
970130
28
28
970130
1
<2
970206
nd
nd
970206
1
<2
970213
19
19
970213
1
<2
_
970220
nd nd
970220
4
4
IPAC
970227
ndi nd
970227
4
4
El

FACTORS AFFEO'JNG WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS
Over the past decade North Carolina has experienced rapid population growth and
industrial development. With this growth has come more jobs and better housing
opportunities. This prosperity has also brought an increasing demand on our State water's
as locations for wastewater discharges. These waters are a resource with only limited
capacity to accept wastewater. Additional discharges, in many cases, result in a requirement
for upgraded treatment by the existing dischargers. This is an unfortunate side effect of our
growth, but it is one that you must consider now, and throughout the life of your project.
Beginning on page three of your NPDES permit are the effluent limitations that you are
required to meet. These limitations were derived to protect the water quality in your
receiving stream under existing conditions. The effluent limits contained in your permit are
usually effective throughout the term of the permit. However, these limits can change during
the term of the permit (usually five years) if: (1) a water quality concern is documented in
the receiving stream or, (2) the federal guidelines change for facilities with limits based on
effluent guidelines.
Effluent limits in the permit are also subject to change at the time of reissuance of the
NPDES permit. This change can result from several factors, for example: (1) more
discharges in your immediate area, (2) an increase in total permitted flow to your stream,
(3) a change in the condition of your stream, (4) an increase in our understanding of your
receiving stream. If your limits do change, you will be responsible for taking the action
necessary to upgrade your treatment facility to meet your new effluent limits. As the
Division becomes aware of a change in the limitation of existing dischargers, we will provide
you with as much notice as is possible so that you can begin making plans to meet those new
limitations.

parameter =
Nickel
Parameter_=
Silver
° "Lcru%W.
I IWTP 8
OMGD to Long
Creek—
Parameter =
Zinc
pg/l
Standard =
88
Ng/i
StandaV'
Standard =
50
3.6742
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
960307
70
70'Std
Dev.
16.095
960307
20
Std Dev.
960307
20
20
nd
Std Dev.
67.253
960314
23
23
Mean
34.038
960314
nd
nd
Mean
2.75
960314
nd
Mean
135.8
960321
5
5
C.V.
0.4728
960321
nd
nd
C.V.
1.3361
960321
nd
nd
C.V.
0.4952
960328
25
25
n=53
960328
2
2
n=53
960328
132
132
n=53
960403
40
40
960403
960411
nd
nd
960403
nd
150
nd
150
960411
17
17
Mult Factor =
1.6
2
2
Mult Factor =
2.6
960411
Mult Factor =
1.6
960418
50
50.Max.
Value
Mpg
960418
nd
nd
Max. Value
20
pg/I-.--960418
pg/I
nd
nd
Max. -Value—
4
412
pg/i
pg/i
pg/I
J
960425
45
45
Max. Pred Cw
124.8
WI
960425
2
nd
2
Max. Pred Cw
52
960425
102
102
Max. Pred Cw
659.2
960502
2 0
2 0
Allowable Cw
109.3
Ng/i
960502
nd
Allowable Cw
0.1
pg/i
960502
nd
-
nd
Allowable Cw
62.1
960509
15
15
30
21
960509
960516
2
nd
2
960509
120
120
nd
100
nd
960516
3 0
nd
960516
nd
960522
21
960522
2
2
960522
100
960523
20
2 0
5 0
960523
nd
nd
2
960523
nd
960530
5 0
960530
960606
2
960530
73
73
nd
960606
50
50
37
nd
nd
960606
nd
960613
37
960613
2
2
960613
88
88
960620
23
2 3
960620
960627
nd
nd
960620
nd
nd
101
nd
960627
4 5
4 5
2
2
960627
101
960704
3 3
3 3
960704
nd
nd
960704
nd
960711
3 7
37
960711
2
2
960711
120
120
960718
5
5
960718
nd
nd
960718
nd
nd
960725
2 5
2 5
960725
2
2
960725
106
106
960801
3 0
30
960801
nd
nd
960801
nd
nd
960808
24
2 4
960808
2
2
960808
130
130
960815
30
30
960815
nd
nd
960815
nd
nd
nd
960822
6 0
60
960822
nd
nd
960822
nd
_
960829
30
30
960829
960905r
2
nd
2
960829
116
116
960905
40
40
nd
960905_
960912
141
160
141
160
960912
26
26
960912
960919
2
2
960919
30
30
nd
nd
960919
nd
nd
nd
960926
20
20
40
960926
2
2
960926
nd
961003
40
961003
nd
nd
961003
nd
nd
140
961010
2 2
2 2
961010
961017
2
2
961010
140
961017
2 0
20
nd
nd
961011
961024
140
169
nd
140
169
nd
130
961024
30
30
961024
2
2
961031
7 0
70
961031
nd
nd
961031
961107
7 8
7 8
10
20
961107
961114
2
2
961107
130
961114
10
nd
nd
961114
nd
nd
961121
2 0
961121
961126
nd
nd
961121
nd
nd
961126
50
50-
2
2
961126
197
nd
197
nd
130
-1
961205
40
40
961205
961212
nd
nd
961205
961212
40
40
2
2
961212
961219
1.30
nd
961219
30
30
40
961219
961226
nd
nd
nd
_ 961226
40
2
2
961226
412
412
nd
970102
10
10
970102
970109
nd
nd
970102
nd
970109
3 3
33
2
2
970109
120
120
970116
40
40
970116
nd
nd
970116
970123
nd
nd
- rid
129
970123
40
40
- 970123
970130
nd
nd
nd
970130
40
40
2
2
970130
129
-
970206
20
20
5 5
970206
nd
nd
970206
nd
nd
970213
5 5
970213
2
2
970213
nd
nd
970220
45
45
970220
nd
nd
970220
nd
nd
970227
5 5
5 5
970227
nd
nd
970227
169
169
PAGE 1

ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HWY
HARD SURFACE••••
LIGHT -DUN ROAD, HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE•••
SECONDARY HWY
HARDSURFACE•••• =MP UNIMPROVED ROAD ••• _ _ =
001-Latitude 35°31'34" Longitude 82°24'10"
002/3-Lat 35°31'25" Longitude 82°24'24"
004-Latitude 35°31'35" Longitude 82°24'10"
Map # E9SW Sub -basin 040302
Stream Class C-Trout
Discharge Class 14. 16. 56
Receiving Stream Cane Creek
Design Q 0.0288MGp Permit expires 6/ 30/ 01
0
SCALE 1:24 000
0
1 MILE
xzccxxozxsw�zaza.:
7000 FEET
0
1 KILOMETER
WSW
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
Communications Instruments
NC00033227
Buncombe County
WWTP

cacility Name =
NPDES # =
Qw (MGD) =
Qw (cfs) =
7010s (cfs)=
IWC (%) =
City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
NC0020184
8
12.3776
109
10.21
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Chromium
4.2
19.6
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw,
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
15.3
489.5
58.5
68.5
10.8
244.8
0.120
0.117
Parameter =
Standard =
CadGastunteg_R0g Creek WWfP8.0MGD to S Fork Catawba I
n
960307
960314
CONVERSIC 960321
960328
0.4 960403
2.0 960411
1418
1.6 960425
50.0 960502
960509
6.0 960516
7.0 960522
960523
124.8
861.5
1.1
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1 <2 Std Dev.
<2 Mean
<2 C.V.
<2 n=53
<2
3 Mult Factor =
<2 Max. -Value
<2 Max. Pred Cw
<2 Allowable Cw
<2
<2
<2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1 <2
960530 1 _ <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
25.0 960606
960613
0.0120/. 960620
0.0120 960627
1 <2
0.384760495
1.075471698
0.357759759
1.4
3 Ng/I
4.2 pg/I
19.6 pg/I
960704 1 <2
12.7 960711 1
88.0 960718
52.000 5.303
0.587 0.060
659.2 67.2
489.5 50.0
1
<2
<2
960725 1
960801' 1
<2
<2
960808 1
960815 1
<2
<2
960822 1
<2
960829 1 <2
960905 1 <2
960912 1 <2
960919 1 <2
960926 1
<2
961003 1
<2
961010 1
<2
961017 1
<2
961024 1 <2
961031 1 <2
961107 3 3
961114 1 <2
9611211 1 <2
961126 1 <2
961205 1 <2
961212 1 <2
961219 1 <2
961226 1 <2
970102 1 <2
970109 1 <2
9701161 1 <2
970123 - 1 <2
970130 1 <2
970206 1 <2
970213 1 <2
970220 1 <2
Parameter= Chromium
Standard = 50 pg/l
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
960307` 7
960314 6
960321 7
960328 8
960403 4
960411 3
960418+ 3
960425 4
960502 1
960509 2
960516 4
960522 _ 2
960523 2
960530 2
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
960801
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n=53
1.99745847
3.16981132
0.63015059
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred C
Allowable Cx
1.7
9 PO
15.3 pg/l
489.5 i g/I
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010I
961017
961024.
961031
961107
961114``
961121
961126
9612051
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
970130
970206
970213
970220
2
5
1
2
6,
3
2
3
2
4
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
2
3
4
3'
4
1
2
6
7
6
2
3
2.
970227 1 <2
970227
PAGE 1

Parameter =
Standard =
Copper
7
n
960307
IJ
960314
960321
960328
960403
960411
960418
960425
960502
960509
BDL=1/2DL
19
nd
nd
25
d
nd
Actual Data RESULTS
23 Std Dev. 7.9554
nd Mean 30.375
nd C.V. 0.2619
18 n=53
nd
24 Mult Factor = 1.3
nd Max. Value 45
31 11 Max. Pred Cw
nd nd Allowable Cw
25 10
58.5
68.5
960516
nd nd
960522
26 9
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
nd - nd
18 11
nd nd
44
d
23
nd
29
nd
21
nd
32
nd
nd
14
nd,
9'
nd
21
nd
16
nd
16
nd
nd
29 23
nd nd
41 46
nd nd
37 38
961010
nd nd
41 26
961017
961024
nd nd
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
_970130
970206
970213
970220
970227
45
nd
37
nd
nd
32
nd
26
nd
32
nd
30
nd
nd
28
nd
19
nd
nd
22
nd
25
nd
nd
32
nd
26
nd
32
nd
30
nd
nd
28
nd
19
nd
nd
N94
Parameter = Lead I E
Sta98la -WHY C u ITP &0M3D to S Fortc tawba
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data
960307 1
960314 1
960321 1
960328 1
960403 1
960411 1
9604181 1
960425
960502
960509
960516
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
1
1
2.1
1
1.
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
960905
1
960912 2
960919 1 <2
960926 1 <2
961003 1 <2
961010 2 2
961017 2 2
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
970130
970206
970213
970220
970227
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
3 3
4 4
2 2
6 6
3
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
2.1
<2
<2
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n=53
1.2245
1.6623
0.7366
Mult Factor =
.Max. Value 6 pg/1
Max. Pred Cw 10.8 pg/1
Allowable Cw 244.8 pg/l
4
2
2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
3
5
4
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Parameter =
Standard =
Mercury
0.012
N9�
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS_
970401 0.1 <0.2 Std Dev. 2E-09
970410, 0.1 <0.2 Mean 0.1
970417 0.1 <0.2 C.V. 1 2E-08
970424 0.1 <0.2 n=13
970501 0.1 <0.2
970508 0.1 <0.2 Mutt Factor =
970515
970523
970529
970605
970612
970619
970626
0.1 - <0.2 Max. -Value- 4-_- 0.1 }WI
0.1 <0.2 Max. Pred Cw 0.12 pg/I
0.1 <0.2 Allowable Cw 0.117 Ng/1
0.1 <0.2
0.1 <0.2
0.1 <0.2
0.1 _<0.2
PAC
El

Parameter =
Nickel
Para eter =
Silver
to S Fork
atawba R
Parameter =
Zinc
_
Standard =
88
pg/l
Sta Old
-Lung Cre.I
TP-8.0MGD
i
Standard =
50
pg/l
RESULTS
_
Actual Data
20
n
960307
BDL=1/2DL
20
nd
nd
132
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
16.095
34.038
RESULTS
Std Dev.
3.6742
960307
70
70
Std Dev.
Mean
960307
960314
20
nd
20
Std Dev.
6.7.253
135.8
0.4952
960314
23
23
nd
Mean
2.75
960314
nd
nd
132
Mean
C.V.
n=53
960321
960328
960403
5
25
40
17
5
25
40
17
C.V.
0.4728
960321
nd
nd
C.V.
1.3361
960321
960328
n=53
Mull Factor =
r
960328
960403
2
nd
2
2
nd
2
n=53
960403
nd
nd
Mull Factor =
960411
1.6
960411
Mull Factor =
2.6
960411
150
150
1.6
960418
50
50
Max.�/alue
WW1
g/I
• 60418
n d
ndMax.-Value—
—2 —0
pg/t
960418
nd�
d
Max. Value
412
pg/l
960425
1fJ O to O r 0. 0 O Is(h lA CrJ 1 h lA I IA O :r O I O O O (O O 0 0 N O. O i 0 GD O i 0 0 0 i 0 0 O O� M
1.4' N I r CO N Csl!LOlIUl M 1 N Nr I M!M 1N MIN M1CD M N M NV.IN Ni I� r NI O V',T'M ctIIri CI
'
I
1 I I
_
4 5
Max. Pred Cw
124.8
pg/l
960425
2
2
Max. Pred Cw
52
pg/i
960425
102
102
Max. Pred Cw
659.2
pg/i
960502
2 0
Allowable Cw
861.5
pg/l
_
960502
_
nd
_ _
nd
Allowable Cw
0.6
pg/i
960502
nd
nd
Allowable Cw
489.5
pg/i
960509
15
960509
2
2
960509
120
120
960516
3 0
960516
nd
nd
960516
nd
nd
960522
21
960522
2
2
960522
100
100
960523
20
_
960523
nd
nd
960523
nd
nd
960530
5 0
960530
2
2
960530
73
73
960606
5 0
960606
nd
nd
960606
nd
nd
960613
3 7
960613
- 2
2
960613
88
88
960620
2 3
960620
nd
nd
960620
nd
nd
960627
4 5
960627
2
2
960627
101
101
960704
3 3
960704
nd
nd
960704
nd
nd
960711
3 7
960711
2
2
960711
120
120
960718
5
960718
nd
nd
960718
nd
nd
960725
2 5
960725
2
2
960725
106
106
960801
3 0
960801
nd
nd
960801
nd
- nd
960808
2 4
960808
2
2
960808
130
130
960815
30
960815
nd
nd
960815
nd
nd
960822
6 0
960822
nd
nd
960822
nd
nd
960829
3 0
960829
2
2
960829
116
116
960905
40
960905
nd
nd
960905
141
141
960912
26
960912
2
2
960912
160
160
960919
30
960919
nd
nd
960919
nd
nd
960926
20
960926
2
2
960926
nd
nd
961003
4 0
961003
nd
nd
961003
nd
nd
-
961010
2 2
961010
2
2
961010
140
140
961017
2 0
961017
nd
nd
961011
140
140
_
961024
3 0
961024
2
2
961024
169
1
961031
70
961031
nd
nd
961031
nd
nd
961107
78
961107
2
2
961107
130
130
961114
101
961114~
nd
nd
961114
nd
nd
961121
20
961121
nd
nd
961121
nd
nd•
961126
5 0
961126
2
2
961126
197
197
961205
40
961205
nd
nd
961205
nd
nd
961212
4 0
961212
2
2
961212
130
130
961219
30
961219
nd
nd
961219
nd
nd
'
961226
40
961226
2
2
961226
412
412
970102
10
970102
nd
nd
970102
nd
nd
970109
33
970109
21
2
970109
120
120
970116
40
40
970116
nd
nd
- _
970116
nd
nd
970123
40
40
970123
nd
nd
970123
nd
nd
970130
40
40
970130
2
2
970130
129
129
'
— 970206
20
20
970206
nd
nd
970206
nd
nd
970213
5 5
5 5
_ —
970213
2
2
_
970213
nd
nd
970220
45
4 5
970220
nd
nd
970220
nd
nd
970227
5 51 5 5
970227
nd
nd
970227
169!
169
PAGE 1

acility Name =
NPDES # =
Qw (MGD) =
Qw (cis) =
7010s (cfs)=
!WC(%)=
City of Gastonia/Long Creek 1NWTP Parameter=
NC0020184 Standard =
16
24.7552
109
18.54
Cadmium
GdbtUllld s .g➢SI Creek WW TP-16.0MGD to S-Fork -Catawba
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
960307
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cwl
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
4.2
10.8
15.3
269.8
58.5
37.8
CONVERSIC
0.8
2.0
2.8
50.0
10.8
134.9
0.120
0.065
124.8
474.8
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
52.000
0.324
659.2
269.8
10.8
7.0
2.0
25.0
0.022
0.012.
23.1
88.0
960314
960321
960328
960403,
960411
960418
960425,
960502
960509
960516
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
9.624 960801
0.060
122.0
50.0
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
1 <2 Std Dev. 0.384760495
1 <2 Mean 1.075471698
1 <2 C.V. 0.357759759
1 <2 n=53
1 <2
3 3 Mutt Factor = 1.4
1 <2 Max. Value -3 119/l
1 <2 Max. Pred CW 4.2 pg/I
1 <2 Allowable Cw 10.8 pg/I
1 <2 _
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 _ <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
3 3
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
961205
1
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
1
1
970130
970206
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
970213
970220
970227
<2
<2
<2
Parameter= Chromium
Standard = 50 N�/1
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data
960307L 7
960314 6
960321 7
960328 8
960403
960411
960418
960425
960502
960509
960516
960522
960523
960530
RESULTS
Std Dev. 1.99745847
Mean 3.16981132
C.V. 0.63015059
n=53
4
3
4
4
Mu/t Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred C
Allowable Cv,
1.7
9 pg/I
15.3 Ngll
269.8 pg/I
2
2
2
960606 2
960613 2
960620 4
960627 9
960704 1
960711,
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919 4
960926 1
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109'
2
5
1
2
6
3'
2
3
2
3
1
1
4
3
4
1
970116 6
970123 7
970130 6
970206 2
970213 3
970220 2
970227 2
PAGE1

Parameter =
Copper
Pa meter =
is
- St �-
Lead
'Luny C►eu �
-16.0
�
GD to S Fork
atawba
T
R
Parameter =
Mercury
Standard =
7
Ng/l
7.9554
30.375
0.2619
Standard =
0.012
Ng/l
2E-09
0.1
-
Actual Data
RESULTS J
n
960307
RESULTS
Std Dev.
-
BDL=1/2DL
0.1
0.1
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
23
nd
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
1.2245
1.6623
n
19
nd
960307
960314
1
1
<2
<2
<2
<2
970401
<0.2
<0.2
Std Dev.
Mean
960314
Mean
C.V.
970410
960321
nd
nd
C.V.
960321
1
0.7366
970417
970424
970501
0.1
<0.2
C.V.
2E-08
960328
25
nd
18
nd
n=53
_ 960328
960403
960411
1
n=53
0.1
0.1
<0.2
n=13
960403
1
1
<2
<0.2
<0.2
960411
39
nd
24
Mult Factor =
1.3
<2
Mult Factor =
1.8
970508
0.1
Mult Factor =
1.2
960418
nd
Max. Value
45
960418
1
<2.Max_Value
.
ii9a
97-0515
ax. Value
0.-1
pg/I
960425
31
11
Max. Pred Cw
58.5
pg/I
960425
1
<2
Max. Pred Cw
-
10.8
pg/I
970523
0.1
<0.2
Max. Pred Cw
0.12
pg/I
960502
nd
nd
Allowable Cw
37.8
pg/I
960502
1
<2
Allowable Cw
134.9
pg/I
970529
0.1
<0.2
Allowable Cw
0.065
pg/I
960509
25
10
960509
1
<2
970605
0.1
<0.2
960516
nd
nd
960516 i 2.1
2.1
970612
0.1
<0.2
960522
26
9
9605221 1
<2
970619
0.1
<0.2
960523
nd
nd
960523
1
<2
970626
0.1
<0.2
1
960530
18
11
_
960530
1
<2
-
-
960606
nd
nd
960606
1
<2
1
960613
44
14
960613
_
4
4
960620
nd
nd_
960620
2
2
960627
23
9
960627
2
2
960704
nd
nd
960704
1
<2
960711
29
21
960711
1
<2
-
960718
nd
nd
960718
1
<2
960725
21
16
960725
1
<2
960801
nd
nd
960801
1
<2
960808
32
16
960808
1
<2
1-
960815
nd
_ nd
960815
960822
1
<2
_
960822
nd
nd
1
<2
960829
29
23
960829_
1
<2
960905
nd
nd
- -
-
960905
1
<2
960912
41
46
960912
2
2
960919
nd
nd
960919
1
<2
960926
37
38
960926
1
<2
961003
nd
nd
961003
1
<2
961010
41
26
961010
2
2
-
961017
NI
nd
961017~
2
2
-
-
45
22
961024
1
961024
<2
961031
nd
nd
961031
1
<2
961107
37
25
961107
1
<2
961114
nd
nd
961114
3
3
961121
nd
--- nd
961121
4
4
961126
32
32
961126
2
2
- - -
-
-
961205
nd
nd
961205
6
6
961212
26
26
961212
3
3
961219
nd
nd
961219
5
5
961226
32
32
961226
4
4
970102
nd
nd
970102
1
<2
970109
30
30
970109
- 1
_
<2
-
- -
970116
nd
nd
970116
1
<2
970123
nd
nd
970123
1
<2
970130
28
28
970130
1
<2
970206
nd
nd
970206
1
<2
970213
19
19
970213
1
<2
970220
nd
nd
970220
4
4
970227
nd
nd
970227
4
4
PAC
E1

Parameter:
Nickel
Para afar ir
St
liver
16.0h11GD to S Fork-&tawba
I
Parameter =
Zinc
_
n
BDL=1/2DL
20
Actual DataFR-ESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
960307
70
70
Std Dev.
16.095
34.038
960307
20
Std Dev.
3.6742
960307
960314
20
nd
20
Std Dev.
67.253
960314
23
23
Mean
960314
nd
nd
Mean
2.75
1.3361
nd
Mean
135.8
_
960321
960328
5
5
C.V.
0.4728
960321
nd
nd
C.V.
960321
nd
nd
132
C.V.
0.4952
25
25
n=53
960328
2
2
n=53
960328
132
nd
_
n=53
960403
40
40
17
960403
nd
nd
960403
nd
960411
960418
17
Muft Factor =
1.6
960411
2
2
Mult Factor =
2.6
960411
150
150
Muft Factor =
1.6
50
50
Max. V- I :
:
!
_960418
nd
nd-Max-Value—
20
p
pg/I
pg/I
80418
nd
nd
Max. Value
412
pg/I
pg/I
pg/I
___
_
_
_
960425
4 5
20
4 5
20
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
124.8
pg/I
960425
2
2
Max. Pred Cw
52
960425
960502
102
nd
102
nd
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
659.2
960502
474.8
g/I
960502
nd
nd
Allowable Cw
0.3
269.8
960509
15
15
30
960509
2
2
-
960509
120
nd
120
nd
960516
30
960516
nd
nd
960516
960522
21
20
21
960522
2
2
2
960522
100
nd
100
960523
20
960523
nd
960523
nd
960530
960606
960613
50
50
960530
2
nd
960530
73
73
50.
37
50
37
960606
960606,nd
960613
960620
960627
88
nd
101
nd
88
960613
2
2
960620
23
23
4 5
960620
nd
nd
nd
960627
4 5
960627
2
2
101
960704
33
33
37
960704
nd
nd
2
960704
nd
120
nd
960711
960718
37
5
960711
2
960711
120
5
25_
960718
nd
nd
960718
960725
nd
nd
960725
25
960725
2
2
nd
106
106
nd
960801
30
30
960801
nd
960801
nd
130
960808
2 4
2 4
960808
2
2
nd
960808
130
960815
960822
30
60
30
960815
nd
960815
nd
nd
116
141
160
nd
ndr
60
960822
nd
nd
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
nd
960829
30
30
960829
2
2
116
960905
960912
40
40
2 6
960905
960912
nd
2
nd
141
160
26
2
960919
30
30
960919
nd
nd
nd
960926
20
20
960926
2
2
nd
960926
nd
nd
nd
961003
40
40
961003
nd
961003
961010
961011
nd
140
961010
2 2
2 2
961010
2
nd
2
nd
140
140
169
961017
961024
20
30
70
20
961017
140
169
nd
30
961024
2
2
961024
961031
70
961031
961107
nd
2
nd
nd
2
961031
nd
130
nd
nd
197
961107
78
10
20
7 8
10
20
961107
130
961114
961114
nd
961114
nd
961121
961121
nd
nd
961121
961126
nd
197
961126
961205
50
50
961126
2
2
40
40
301
40
961205
nd
nd
961205
nd
nd
130
nd
412
nd
961212
961219
40
961212
2
2
nd
2
nd
2
961212
961219
961226
970102
130
nd
412
30
961219
961226
970102
nd
2
nd
961226
970102
40
40
1 0
1 0
nd
970109
33
33
40
970109
2
970109
120
120
nd.
nd
970116
40
970116
nd
nd
970116
970123
nd
nd
970123
970130
40
40
970123
nd
nd
40
20
40
20
970130
2
2
970130
129
129
nd
970206
970206
nd
nd
970206
nd
970213
55
55
970213
2
2
nd
nd
970213
nd
nd
970220
4 5
4 5
970220
nd
ndl
970220
nd
nd
169
970227
55
5 51
1 970227
i 970227
1691
PAGE 1

acility Name =
City of Gastonla/CrowdersCreek WWTP Parameter=
Cadmium
::?Parameter=
Chromium
NPDES # =
NC0074268 Standard =
2
_ _
Standard =
50
pg/I
Ow MGD =
6--
Ow (cis) =
9.2832
--
7010s cis =
13.3C
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
�E�
960307
1
<2
Std Dev.
0.233295318
960307
7
Std Dev.
1.99745847
960314
1
<2
Mean
1.056603774
960314
6
Mean
3.16981132
WPM
CONVERSIC
960321
1
<2
C.V.
0.220797354
960321
7
C.V.
0.63015059
Cadmium
960328
1
<2
n=53
960328
8
n=53
Max. Pred Cw
2.4
1.0
960403
1
<2
960403
4
Allowable Cw
4.9
2.0
960411
2
2
Mutt Factor =
1.2
960411
3
Mutt Factor 9
1.7
Chromium
960418
1
<2
Max. Value
2
i. 960418
3
Max. Value
9
pgil
Ng+l
Max. Pred Cw
15.3
6.3
960425
1
<2
Max. Pred C
2.4
„t 960425
4
Max. Pred C
15.3
Allowable Cw
121.5
50.0
960502
1
<2
Allowable Cw
4.9
.r 960502
1
Allowable Cv‘
121.5
14
Coy=r
960509
1
<2
960509
2
Max. Pred Cw
73.6
30.3
960516
1
<2
--
960516
4
AllowableCw
17.0
7.0
960522
1
<2
960522
2
Lead
960523
1
<2
--
960523
2
Max Pred Cw
10.8
4.4
960530
1
<2
960530
2
Allowable Cw
60.8
25.0
960606
1
<2
960606
2
Mercur
960613
2
2
--
960613
2
Max. Pred Cw
0.120
0.049
960620
1
<2
960620
4
Allowable Cw
0.029
0.012
960627
1
<2
960627
9
Nickel
960704
1
<2
960704
1
Max. Pred Cw
68.0
28.0
960711
1
<2
960711
1
AllowableCw
213.8
88.0
960718
1
<2
960718
2
Silver
960725
1
<2
960725
5
Max. Pred Cw
2.000
0.822
960801
1
<2
960801
1
Allowable Cw
0.146
0.060
960808
1
<2
960808
2
Zinc
960815
1
<2
960815
6
Max Pred Cw
143.0
58.8
960822
1
<2
960822
3
Allowable Cw
121.5
50.0
960829
1
<2
960829
2
960905
1
<2
960905
3
960912
1
<2
--
960912
2
960919
1
<2
--
960919
4
960926
1
<2
960926
1
961003
1
<2
961003
2
961010
1
<2
961010
2
961017
1
<2
961017
3
961024
1
<2
961024
3
961031
1
<2
961031
1
961107
2
2
--
961107
1
961114
1
<2
961114
1
961121
1
<2
961121
3
961126
1
<2-_
<2
961126
2
961205
1
961205
3
961212
1
<2
961212
4
961219
1
<2
961219
3
961226
1
<2
--
961226
4
970102
1
<2
970102
1
970109
1
<2
--
--
970109
2
970116
1
<2
970116
6
970123
1
<2
--
970123
7
970130
1
<2
--
970130
6
970206
1
<2
--
970206
2
970213
1
<2
--
970213
3
970220
1
<2
970220
2
PAC
970227
1
<2
970227
2
_ o..v,it 66, � � �v77 - i9 2/ YSL 3 u v6- G .)/z.,t//I s CU cif. v --s'1'1112L /fL)
7c�t(�vl L2uc i9-7,11 a /tits4L7-&e4'f-7e- i x7i0v,ye7/101.

Parameter =
Copper
Parameter=
Lead
° wders CrkWWTP
N
Parameter =
Mercury
_
-
Standard =
7
PO
Standard =
Gas
-
Standard =
0.012
pg/I
n
960307
BDL=1/2DL
23
Actual Data
23
RESULTS
9.0769
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
Std Dev.
960307
1
<2
Std Dev.
1.2245
1.6623
970401
0.1
<0.2
Std Dev.
2E-09
960314
nd
nd
Mean
18.708
960314
1
<2
Mean
970410
0.1
<0.2
Mean
0.1
960321
nd
nd
C.V.
0.4852
960321
1
<2
C.V.
0.7366
970417
0.1
_ _
<0.2
C.V.
2 E-08
960328
960403
18
nd
18
_
n=53
960328
1
<2
<2
n=53
1 970424
0.1
<0.2
n=13
nd
960403
- -- 1
1
970501
0.1
<0.2
960411
24
24
Mutt Factor =
1.6
960411
<2
Mutt Factor =
1.8
970508
0.1
<0.2
Mult Factor =
1.2
960418
nd
nd
Max. Value
46,01
73.6,L,g
960418
1
<2
Max Value
6-#911_
970545
0.1
< .
ax. Value-
Max. Pred Cw
_ 960425
960502
- _ 11
11
Max. Pred Cw
- 960425
-
1
1
<2
Max. Pred Cw
10.8
_
pg/I 970523
0.1
--
<0.2
0.12
pg/I
g
--
nd
nd
Allowable Cw
17.0
pg/I 960502
<2
Allowable Cw
60.8
-
pg/I 970529
0.1
<0.2
Allowable Cw
0.029
960509
10
10
960509
1
<2
970605
0.1
<0.2
960516
nd
nd
960516
2.1
2.1
_
970612
0.1
_
<0.2
960522
9
9
960522
1
<2
970619
0.1
0.1
<0.2
<0.2
960523
nd
nd
11
960523
1
<2
_
9.70626
960530
960606
11
960530
1
<2
-
-
nd
nd
960606
1
<2
960613
14
nd
14
960613
4
4
-
_
-
960815
nd
nd
960815
1
<2
960822
960829
nd
nd
960822
1
<2
-
23
23
nd
960829
_
1
-_
<2
<2
960905
nd
960905
1
960912
46
nd
46
960912
2
2
<2
__--
-_----
�- - ---J-
960919
nd
960919
1
- -
960926
38
38
960926
1
<2
___
961003
961010
nd
nd
961003
1
<2
26
26
961010
2
2
961017
nd
nd
961017
2
1
1
2
~
- 961024
961031
22
22
961024
<2
<2
nd
nd
25
961031
961107
9611141-
25
961107
1
3
<2
nd
nd~
961114
_
961121
nd
nd
961121
4
4
1
1
961126
961205
16
nd
16
nd
_--
961126
2
6
2
6
961205
961212
961219
18
nd
18
961212
3
3
nd
961219
961226
--- 970102
9
9
961226
4
4
--
--
nd
nd
970102
1
<2
-
-
- _-
970109
11
11
970109
1
<2
970116
nd
nd
-
970116
1
<2
f
970123
nd
nd
970123
1
<2
970130
14
14
970130
1
<2
<2
970206
nd
nd
970206
1
-
970213
19
19
970213
1
<2
1PAC
970220
nd
nd
970220
4
4
970227
nd
nd
-~
970227
4
4
El

Parameter=
Standard =
Nickel
88
Parameter= Silver
Standard =—6'ag44[0wders Crk WWTP
n
960307
960314
960321
9603281
960403
960411
960418
960425
960502
960509
960516
960522
960523
960530
960606
960613
960620
960627
960704
960711
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003
961010
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data
5
5
15
20
5
5
5
961126
961205
961212
961219
961226
970102
970109
970116
970123
970130'
970206
970213
970220
970227
25
10
5
30
5
5
40
10
5
28.
20
5
12
5
10
30
10
20
30
30
30
13
30
30
30
12
10
20
40
31
10'
20!
20
5
18
20
10
10
12
20
10
1
10
15
15
35
RESULTS
Std Dev. 10.515
Mean 16.453
C.V. 0.6391
n=53
Mutt Factor = 1.7
Max. Value 40
Max. Pred Cw 68
N9/1
Sg/1
Allowable Cw 213.8 pg/I
Parameter =
Standard =
n DDL=1/2DL Actual Data
960307 2
960314 nd
960321 nd
960328 2
960403 nd,
960411 2
960418
960425 2
960502 nd
960509 2,
960516 nd
960522 2
RESULTS
Std Dev. 0
Mean 2
C.V. 0
n=53
Mult Factor =
Max...Value 2
Max. Pred Cw 2
Allowable Cw 0.1
960523 nd
Zinc
50
pg/I
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data
960307 55
_ 960314 nd
960321 nd
960328 61
960403 nd
960411 ' 52
Ng/l--960418 nd
Ng/1 960425 33
pg/I 960502 nd
960509 61
960516, nd
960522 47
960523 nd
960530 2
960606 nd
960613 2
960620 nd
960627 2
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n=53
Mull Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
21.06
75.667
0.2783
1.3!
960530
960606,
960613
960620
960627
960704 nd
960704
960711 2
960711
960718 nd
960725
960801
960808
960815
2
nd
2
nd
960822 nd
960829 2
960905 nd
960912 2
960919 nd
960926 2
960718
960725
960801
960808
960815
960822
960829
960905
960912
960919
960926
961003 nd
961010 2
961003
961010
961017
nd
961017
961024
961031
961107
961114
961121
961126
961205
2
n
961024
961031
2
961107
nd
nd
2
nd
961212 2
961219 nd
961226 2
970102 nd
970109 2
970116 nd
961114
39
nd
70
nd
94
nd
92
nd
96
nd
80
nd
nd
110 I.1g/l
143 Vg/I
121.5 pg/I
85
nd
88
nd
66
nd
91
nd
79
nd
110
nd
961121 nd
961126 59
961205 nd
961212 100
961219 nd
970123 nd
970130 2
970206 nd
970213 2
970220 nd
970227 nd
961226 101
970102 nd
970109 - 80
970116 nd
970123 nd
970130! 61
9702061_ nd
970213' _ 96
970220 nd
970227 nd
PAGE 1

PST
Gastonia - Long Crk WWTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
Facility Name = City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
NPDES # =
Qw (MGD)=
Qw (cfs)
7010s (cis).
/WC (%) =
NC0020184
8
12.3776
3
80.52
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Nickel
Max. Pred Cwt
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw'
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Silver
_ Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
FINAL RESULTS
1.2464
Parameter =
Standard =
CONVERSN BAT -
RESLT£
1.003 0.37
2.5
2.000
51.75 41.654 42.7
109.3 88.000
77.76
31.0
1.02
0.015
236.86
8.7
62.590 _ 13
25.000 Parameter=
Standard =
Cadmium
2 pg/I
I
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1 0.076 0.076 Std Dev. 0.0_7.4276062 1 17.3 17.3 Std Dev.
2 0.089 0.089 Mean _ _ 0.0986 2 25.5 25.5 Mean
3 0.104 0.104 C.V. ' 0.753306913 3 _ 28.45 28.45 C.V.
4 0.073 0.073 n=10 4' 23.6 23.6111=10
5 0 075 _-_ 0.075 5 --t9.3 19.3'-
6 0.304 0.304 Mutt Factor =) 4.1 'I 6 34.5 i
7 0.09 0.09 Max. Value 0.304 pg/I 7 _ 34.4'
0.063 0.063 Max. Pred Cy., 1.2464 pg/I 8' 28.1
0.074 0.074 Allowable Cw 2.5 pg/I 9 26
0.038 0.038 10 30.2
01E51L04/6-gBAT
Parameter= Nickel - _
Standard = 88 Ng/I
0.821 0.131
0.012
190.651 155
7.000
2.4928 2.006 0.79
0.075 0.060
627 504.679 351
62.097 50.000
Parameter =
Standard =
Silver
0.06
p9"
5.69649259
26.735
0.21307247
34.5 Mull Factor 1.5j
34.4IIMax. Value
28.1 !MaxPred C1_
26 Allowable CA
30.2
34.5 pg/I
51.75 pg/I
109.3 pg/I
BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1 43.2 43.2 Std Dev. 19.54943591 1 0.128 0.128 Std Dev.
2 32.8 32.8 Mean 38.36 2 0.136 _ 0.136 Mean
3 33 33 C.V. 0.509630759 3 0.104 0.104 C.V.
4 27.2 27.2 n=10 j j 4 0.1 0.1 n=10
5 23.7 _ 23.7 _ 1.5 0.0756 0.0756
6 91.1 91.1 Mu __
lt Factor = { 2_61 6 0.608 0.608 Mult Factor 9r4.11
7 34 34 Max. Value 91.1 pg/I 7 0.163 0.163 Max. Value 0.608 pg/l_
8 31.5, 31.5 Max. Pred Cw 236.86 ug/I S 0.104 0.104 Max. Pred C1 2.4928 pg/1_
9 41.4 41.4 Allowable Cw 8.7 pg/I 9 0.255 _ 0.255 Allowable Col 0.1 pg/I
10 25.7 25.7 10 0.232 0.232
0.15782488
0.19056
0.82821619
Coe G? a
cd (6)„
Cce
PAGE 1

"BAT
Gastonia - Long Crk WWTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
parameter=
Standard =
Lead
Parameter=
Mercury
25
pg/i
Standard =
0.012
jg/I
n
n
BDL=1/2DL
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
Actual Data
RESULTS
_
0.029
1
2.165
2.165
Std Dev.
Mean
2.772
1.9524
1
0.00773
0.00773
Std Dev.
2
1.2
1.2
2
0.00645
0.00645
Mean
0.0174
3
1.345
1.345
C.V.
1.4198
3
0.00774
0.00774
C.V.
1.6787
4
1.13
1.13
n=10
_
4
0.00686
0.00686
n=53
5
1 23
1 23
r 3
--0.008431-0
00643
Mult Factor =
6
7
8
9
10
9.72
9.72
Mult Factor =
8
6
0.1
0.1
10.2
1.06
1.06
Max. Value
9.72
pg/I 7
0.00743
0.00743
Max. Value
0.1
pg/l
g/l
0.54
0.54
Max. Pred Cw
77.76
pg/l 8
pg/I 9
10
0.00709
_
0.00709
Max. Pred Cw
1.02
0.647
0.487
0.647
Allowable Cw
31.0
0.0151
0.0088
1
0.0151
Allowable Cw
0.01541g/1
0.487
0.0088
60.041
-
-
Parameter=
Zinc
--
-
Standard =
50
pg/l
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
158
1
158
Std Dev.
2
3
137
137
Mean
163.85
-
126.5
126.5
C.V.
n=10
0.3664
4
137
137
5
6
133
285
133
285
Mutt Factor =
_ _ 7
8
141
141
Max. Value
285
ggll
171
171
Max. Pred Cw
627
9
_
256
94
256
Allowable Cw
62.1
g/I
10
-
94
PAGE 1

Gastonia - Long Crk WWTP 8.0MGD to Long Creek
Facility Name =
City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
NPDES#=
NC0020184
Qw (MOD) =
8
Qw (cfs) =
12.3776
7Q10s (cfs)=
3
1WC(%)=
80.52
FINAL RESULTS
CONVERSN
BAT
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
RESLTE
—1.2464
1:003
0.37
Allowable Cw
2.5
2.000
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
51.75
41.654
42.7
Allowable Cw
109.3
88.000
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
77.76
62.590
13
Allowable Cw
31.0
25.000
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
0.02718
0.022
0.131
Allowable Cw
0.015
0.012
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
236.86
190.651
155
Allowable Cw
8.7
7.000
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
2.4928
2.006
0.79
Allowable Cw
0.075
0.060
Zinc
Max Pred Cw
627
504.679
351
Allowable Cw
62.097
50.000
,e(46oa. f
..� �� 0414/1���
PAGE 1

c-A'T
Gastonia - Long Crk WWTP 8.0MGD to imor@reer' S
Faciffry Name=
City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
NPDES # =
NC0020184
Qw (MGD) =
8
Ow (cfs) =
12.3776
7Q10s (cfs)=
109
IWC (%) =
10.21
FINAL RESULTS
CONVERSN
BAT
Cadmium
RESLT;
PrAd [:w
1 2464
0.127-0:27
_Ma
Allowable Cw
19.6
2.000
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
51.75
5.277
42.7
Allowable Cw
861.5
88.000
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
77.76
7.930
13
Allowable Cw
244.8
25.000
0.131
155
Mercury
--
0.104
0.012
Max. Pred Cw
1.02
Allowable Cw
0.117.
pper
Max. Pred Cw
236.86
24.154
Allowable Cw
68.5
7.000
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
2.4928
0.254
0.79
Allowable Cw
0.587
0.060
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
627
63.939
351
Allowable Cw
489.516
50.000
PAGE 1

Gastonia - Long Crk VVWTP,B.OMGD to Leorrereek---• S'
Facility Name =
City of Gastonia/Long Creek WWTP
NPDES#=
NC0020184
Qw (MGD) =
16
Ow (cfs) =
24.7552
7Q10s (cfs)=
109
IWC (%) =
18.54
BAT
FINAL RESULTS
CONVERSN
Cadmium
RESLTE
0.37
Max. Pred Ctv
1 24R4
0231
Allowable Cw
10.8
2.000
42.7
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
51.75
9.578
Allowable Cw
474.8
88.000
Lead
13
0.131
155
Max. Pred Cw
77.76
14.392
Allowable Cw
134.9
25.000
Mercury
0.189
Max. Pred Cw 1.02
Allowable Cw
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
0.065
0.012r
236.86
43.838
Allowable Cw
37.8
7.000
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
2.4928
0.461
0.79
Allowable Cw
0.324
0.060
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
627
116.044
351
Allowable Cw
269.758
50.000
PAGE 1

�.Je i 't,Lk 1 0 -7n
.a 6 t,Q,-fa C P A S E
f,R,do��(
bE «-1,1 1:5?,e- Architecture Engineering Planning Interiors
' ra7 October 3, 1996
c
bite, J�-c�
Mr. Paul Clark
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, NPDES
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Reference: Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0020184
Gaston County, North Carolina
J.N. Pease Associates' Commission No. 96051-00
Subject: Automated Sampling and Analysis of the
South Fork River
Dear Mr. Clark:
In accordance with our discussion, J.N. Pease Associates has been developing a
design for the installation of the equipment necessary for the subject sampling.
The following information is enclosed for your review:
• A Map showing the Location of Sampling Sites
• Photographs of Sites
• Typical River Sonde (Probe) Installation Drawing
• Literature on the Sampling Probes
• Cross Section of Sampling Sites
We have evaluated various methods for installing the probes in the river and have
concluded that the best approach would be to install the probes in submerged pipe
sleeves in a manner similar to the enclosed typical installation drawings.
In previous discussions with Mr. Dave Goodrich concerning this project, he
indicated that DEM would probably prefer that the sampling points be at mid-
stream. We believe that sampling at mid -stream - a distance of 60 to 160 feet from
the bank depending upon the site - is not achievable. The probes must be retrieved
periodically for maintenance, calibration, and retrieval of stored data. The probe
weighs approximately five pounds and would have to be inserted and retrieved
using a cable and pulley system.
J.N. Pease Associates 2925 East Independence Blvd. P.O. Box 18725 Charlotte, NC 28218 704 376-6423

Mr. Paul Clark
Page 2
October 3,1996
In our opinion, approximately 25 feet would be the maximum distance from the
bank that the probe could be inserted and retrieved with a reasonable amount of
effort.
Please advise if the DEM would allow the probes to be positioned in the river at a
distance of approximately 25 feet from the bank. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please call.
A. Keith West, PE
AKW/lh
cc: Mr. Coleman Keeter
Mr. Larry Cummings
Mr. Thorne Martin
Mr. John Shuler
Mr. Don Garbrick
eid4cad /02474Ja 4.01144,1a 444.11•41)-. 66i
0 1 4 I. ipt:Ao
(7 Prmk,
T'odu);,
Pe_hc
492— ketk GO
t 4 S Pa
peovnt.)4 40-04.- 44444-e 642 Aca.4,-4-$-
frnpfrIttA A,A.t. cj A 6AA_
moo 4) i -
cm-/ac.— OlL0-40 e‘i 7,1-0
7°6' r
c c a;'70,.,
Ind1;11
dac..J, o0.d 0 i rri S eta.)fY'v`
effe ir on, 4,,,71-4 cm,€)
keex4,3 -silt I t)-)of'fr, ./2, 1->v; /or
at 044 ,t -c oia.d
izuL
.
p-DA
, %.4 �t' rx� +J /7-1a.3,ha�t
A'S p2s _ �S" fort &k avoic0 poor-S

1-.-t--E 2
I

srre
z(--

ZIPf(-, ?WI/14aq lie- tb
.6271'40 lel 11-c 40 6') h‘-e,. -6 Jo
Mni
VIIT.,C1/0114.
714alittIce
;/-rriitity6,/
6(LA. a6i41/7."--q ttht TPT 4V1
,Z) U4li79 7 4 7 -mic-7/7 (Aviv -5/A
fr/ni 1( 4f1/xti
• e
[Lc/
0)604 ratt
Wry Gvid hirri‘t ((X
ioro- ('t. rtioli
. 7/ - ri1/99 7 /-iila
/
i .2 ..ice.-,;6„ --- 9 46,.• (new
, 7
rf / 4,1—) „d.--c 3117
t/ril LAM ic-h' i ".(,--
- ...-- • , -
1 - ,-, . -..., (7 - 1:: ./Pit`/,.:-/ ( Ctn. --Air of- pv147 woycyr
IFTI ti----ii? t-btic k
! ,,i'il (6. -.'fili---");..._,'?((e(1.i. 71.•:!''' 7/9(4).).\'
' i7fivalk Y tz.-friz 1,-- ;/-1::- cf . -:-----_,- 1 i 1 7 / ;4 L-
Z• r( f°E62-- e'4,‘. Ii—i/C- Mi. .1..? ce. (::. .........,/1)
,,,,s11-1
' Al .,. 7'. : (i(17,1.f- (frk:rili ire ,-..., ,i &./. : 4.( )
• fi . ,c-) Mr' f. / .5:- A -Irk?! . -"tiff 47 CAI' P-e-PZ,r,141/,'-7-7friai.
ri-- 1 i fric--,fr
o/ /h Nor)
jet0.4_ ful
t-1,4-7t Al rid..(5rfit2-.
_)_.1,41/1)(--
: ewl4r.";77 piJs .
6:-
- //6•41:64
c- ti-Ekitri ',AT? -7-1-0)('-', -c - -7 - ..":,'
A
.'
.---1177--
6f
fr /n1Wr --;-'7,:r,(1e- ef- 7( - -7/ I: !; ,._--.-
'.,--•
.
0 7-/-31:
: ' ck' rrieift, -ri, >,-,e,,ecz4.-:5::: 67,# Ft's
506 . (q---1--n
/141, I:41? 11-[!61 e s • 7'

ee a
AA?
ri (i( 14 pozz--11( •
PL
/-`4C7 (•-5( ije re? I
-2_ C
tJI 41' Jet( fril Wit(
V &NI
/\1 .
14 T- -TIi „iv, to
f'd
LCt-vit)e-a7.
vik61,11-5 5-eo C
ideAts. Alems 3,g,nri4!40

C-14-5,-rn VIAT
-
Pe kvt_ wee.#171-- 74 rt krok 7 / 41-i'IN ft leir
.
toil -to riv6e bti...T.,e3:4:.- /44/ Tmi4.f- VA / Pi
— - — -- - -- ---,.---
Wdedy t• ne5 gee . 1,2,.,7 h'n, ii • " /hi, aeiee75 't : -
bn 0 'r / --- /iv / iCA 5;6 / .r. 514,6 ,-7A-4-- zt-Pfset Y
‘1 eci"-1,71' 47 ".-261:. TiC. 2
fr 6</retrum -1.-27/e•/;c1 ere' ha /le
-/..C.:11•:74
4,..7,4
r7
frki-l'r ) A/4/7 tit
1 •
lei
/ J.<
(P2 •

City of Gastonia
NPDES Permit
Compliance Meeting
September 23, 1996
5-\

Meeting Objectives
• Review compliance status
• Discuss analysis of historical data
• Review proposed study plan and obtain
feedback

Compliance Issues
Catawba Creek WWTP
»
SOC expired May 31, 1996
Compliance achieved
New SOC requested for de -commissioning
Crowders Creek WWTP
» SOC expires March 1, 1997
» Compliance achieved
o Long Creek WWTP
» SOC expires March 1, 1998kCY4
CSC v\cS---c.V
• New SOC requested with Dec. 1, 1998 expiration

Historical Data Review
• Historical effluent metals data reviewed to
determine if procedures implemented to date
had reduced effluent metals concentrations
• Reasonable potential to exceed (RPE)
calculated for each plant (Catawba Creek,
Crowders Creek, and Long Creek) for metals
and cyanide
• RPEs compared to NPDES permit limits to
identify constituents of concern for each plant
• Recommended further study for selected
metals of concern and cyanide
4

140
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Lead Concentrations
120 -
100
•
80-
7
eU
J
60
40
•
•
•
•
•
•
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
20- * •• • • ♦ ♦
♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ NO ♦.
•
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦. ♦♦ ♦♦ •
♦ ♦ ♦♦ N ♦
•
0 • • :4t ♦ ♦ • ! * ♦
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95
9496LGMT.XLS Pb 9/18/96
8/24/95
12/2/95
3/11/96
6/19/96

200
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Copper Concentrations
180 -
160
140
60
40
20 -
•
•
•
•
•
♦ ♦
•
•
♦ ♦♦•
•
. s
•
•
•
♦ •
•
♦ ♦ ♦♦♦
•
•
•
•
•
Not included in statistical
analysis
♦ ♦♦
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0- i ♦
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Cu 9/18/96

1.8
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Mercury Concentrations
1.6 -
1.4
1.2 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
•
♦ •
•
♦ •
••• •♦ ♦ ..
* ♦ • NOWA* ♦ •• ♦ ♦ •O••••• •. ••••••S►••• **O••••• S••••••••• •••• ♦ ••••• ••• •
0- • • • • $
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Hg 9/19/96

20
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Silver Concentrations
18-
16-
14-
0
•
•
•
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
• ♦ ♦♦
• ♦♦ • • ♦♦
• •
• • • • N
4* N • •
• ♦ ♦ N • • • N ♦ • • • ♦♦
w
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Ag 9/19/96

120
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT COPPER CONCENTRATIONS
100 —
80 —
•
60 —
0
U
40 --
•
20 —
•
•
•
•
•
♦ •
•• •
♦♦
•
s
•
•
•• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
01 01 01 01 0\ 01 01 01 01 Q1
N ` N N 0_0 01 O
.-r CM Cnn .46 i 1 n
.7 d' d' d d' .4- d' Ifl In Ir V1 Lfl in VI If) V) Ifl V) V'1 VN Vy i 1 in V1 10 1D 10 10 1D 10 10
01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0\ 01 01 01 01 01 01 0\ 0\
so
O O = N (� M d' d' d V� 00 00 01 O 0 �--� _ _ t� N M d d in 10 10 r-[- 01 O O
O_O 01 .O C I---. .-4 ( �1 .:-r M '' } 1N0 n n 0_0 C1 p .~- .--� ` .N� ""
c� ~ c� m itrel 'mod i
DATE

160
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS
•
140 — •
120 -
100 -
•
80—
60 -
40 -
•
♦ ••
•
•
•
♦•♦
•
•
• ♦ ♦ •
•
20--- ♦♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ •� N ♦•
♦•♦♦ • • ♦ • ♦♦ • NN♦♦ •♦• ♦♦ ♦♦
• •
• • ♦ • ♦ ♦♦
0--�►'•'P 1--1 --1 1♦ 1 F-+-1-1 i$ 1 F--I 1 1 i♦ 1 •1 4t 1 • ♦ I• 1 4t i• 1 • •
2
♦♦
01/4
M
ril
01/4
1/40
dam'
01/4
01/4
00
V)
♦♦
00
01/4
01/4
n
01/4
CO
0\
O
01
.-r
01
Csi
VI sr) Sri in
• d' V'1 00
DATE
In
01/4
00
O1 O 0 - N N cr4 M N
di' i 1 l- 000 O1 O — v
in 1/40 1/40 No 1/40
�O 10 I- s 01 O O
en en e4
1/40
CA
in

30
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT SILVER CONCENTRATIONS
25 —
20 —
10 —
•
5•
—
* ♦♦♦♦♦
•♦ •
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
N
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ N
0 I♦ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -I I 1
Tr ,:r yr NI- et Tr ‘t ▪ d. v �t "zt Tr et d"
ON ON ON ON CT ON ON OS as o, o\ C• , CA ON • a
▪ a �n �O �o C 00 ▪ co ▪ Ch O o 25 .�
~ a M M f I - in n .O N 0_0 Os - O O '--1
-�
12/3/94 4- •
♦♦ •
♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦ ♦ N •♦ • •♦ • • ♦♦
• •
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
in it-) in in in in in in in in in tn in in to vO •O
CR C\ O1 C, C\ ON C\ C\ C\ Ct C\ ON C\ CT ▪ C, ON Os ON C\ ON C1 C▪ ` C1 • Os
0▪ 000 00 O\ 0 0
• N • N en • Nr d • V1 �O �O n n ▪ CA 0 Ocn
DATE

2
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
1.8 —
1.6 —
1.4 —
1.2 —
0.8 —
0.6 —
0.4 —
0.2 —
0
•
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
•
v �t Nr Nr �r Tr yr �r tr �r v Nr
ON o� o, O� o� O� O� O� cr a\ O� O� O� O� o� o� o� O\
r. v, oo co O O O .-.
cv N M i o- a
a r� �r O C- •-• O
—_4
sch
N 000
en
DATE
DATE
CO
ON
N
In
,43
0
0
vi in ill v') in v'i Vi vi 40 YC v:i iD \o NO NO
O\ D\ ON ON Ot ON O\ ON ON ON ON O\ ON ON
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
M �r v, O O •-+

250
Figure 2
Catawba Creek - Data from November 1995 through April 1996
200 —
O RPE - 99% Probability
M RPE- 95% Probability
❑ SOC Limit
■ NPDES or Estimated Limit
50 —
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc
94-96CAT.XLS RPE Chart-6mo

250
200 --
150 —
17.1
v 100 —
50 —
Figure 4
Crowders Creek - Data from November 1995 through April 1996
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel Selenium Silver
Z nc
❑ RPE - 99% Probability
RPE- 95% Probability
❑ SOC Limit
■ NPDES or Estimated Limit
CRMETALS.XLS RPE Chart-6mo

450
Figure 6
Long Creek - Data from November 1995 through April 1996
400 —
350 --
300 —
c 250 --
0
co
00 200 —
c
0
C)
150 --
100 --
50 --
0
I rag'
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc
D RPE - 99% Probability
®RPE- 95% Probability
D SOC Limit
■ NPDES or Estimated Limit -Long Creek
NPDES or Estimated Limit -South Fork
9496LGMT.XLS RPE Chart-6mo

Metals Selected for Further Study
Catawba
Creek
Crowders
Creek
Cadmium
Copper -'
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc'
Metal is borderline with
Copper -
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
SiIver-
Zinc
Long �
Creek \)#r
Cadmiumrt \\L! w'w
Copper-7 C,\''
Cyanide
Mercury
Nickel
Silver-
Zino- 7
respect to requiring further study

Action Plan
o Identified constituents from each plant for
further sampling and analysis (See study
plan)
o Consider modified structure for permit
limitations (monthly average/daily maximum
limits +�I
• Request inclusion of quantitation levels
(cyanide) (U�p,
• Collect data to address bioavailability

Objectives of Metals Study Plan
• Determine if clean sampling techniques
reduce reported effluent concentrations
• Determine if clean laboratory analysis lowers
reported effluent concentrations
• Evaluate whether there is a statistical
reasonable potential to exceed the permit
limitations based on an applicable water
quality standard

Objectives of Cyanide Study Plan
• Investigate the levels of cyanide which
can be measured accurately and
reproducibly
• Evaluate potential matrix effects
• Determine if cyanide is present in the
influent and effluent at levels that have
a reasonable potential to violate the
water quality standard

Metals Sampling Strategy
• Sample at Long Creek and Crowders Creek only
(due to planned shutdown of Catawba Creek)
• Collect filtered and unfiltered samples
• Collect 1 sample/week for 10 weeks
• Collect grab samples using "clean" techniques
• Collect field duplicate (true split)
• Collect equipment and trip blank samples
• Analyze matrix and blank spikes
• Analyze standard reference materials samples to
compare to blank spikes
• Split samples between traditional lab and "clean" lab 9

Cyanide Sampling Strategy
• Sample influent/effluent for Long and Crowders
Creek WWTP and influent only for Catawba Creek
• Conduct 10 week sampling (1/week)
• Conduct the method of standard addition on influent
(all plants) and effluent (Long and Crowders)
samples (first sampling event only) to evaluate matrix
effects
• Pretreat samples for removal of sulfide, chlorine and
aldehyde if necessary
• Prepare blank and spiked effluent samples at 1X and
2X the permit limit for Crowders and Long Creek
• Submit native (unspiked) and spiked samples to blind
'°
to lab analyst

Figure 1
City of Gastonia Clean Metals and Cyanide Sampling Tentative Project Schedule
ID
Task Name
Start
September October November [ December January Febru
9/9 9/16 9/23 9/30 1 10/7 10/14 10/21 10/28 11/4 11/11 11/18 11/25 12/2 12/9 12/16 12/23 12/30 1/6 11/13 11/20 1/27 2/3 2/10
1
Meeting with NCDWQ
9/23/96
IIII-
--
in-
111
2
Kickoff Clean Metal Sampling with
Training by CH2M HILL
9/30/96
3
Clean Metal and Cyanide Sampling
for Weeks 2-10
10/7/96
4
Potential Meeting with NCDWQ
11/11/96
5
Data Review and Analysis
1/6/97
6
Potential Meeting with NCDWQ
2/3/97
7
Implement Action Plan
2/10/97
Project: City of Gastonia
Date: 9/18/96
Task
Summary gr.IIIIIIMII.19P Rolled Up Progress
Progress
Rolled Up Task
�. .,
Milestone . Rolled Up Milestone O
Page 1

TECHN
ICAL MEMORANDUM cKMH111.
Clean Metals Sampling Study Plan
TO:
COPIES:
FROM:
DATE:
Larry Cummings/City of Gastonia
Coleman Keeter/City of Gastonia
Glenn Dukes/CH2M HILL
Kristen Jenkins/CH2M HILL
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
August 12,1996
Background
As part of the clean sampling and analysis project, the City of Gastonia's metals and
cyanide kustorical data were reviewed for all three wastewater treatment plants (Long
Creek, C owders Creek, and Catawba Creek). Recommendations were made for further
sampling which were presented in a Technical Memorandum dated July 19,1996. This
memorandum presents the dean metals and cyanide sampling strategy and study plan.
Objectives
The obje fives of the clean metals sampling and analysis indude:
• To determine if additional clean sampling techniques reduce reported effluent
concentrations
• To determine if use of clean laboratory lowers reported effluent concentrations
• To evaluate whether there is a statistical reasonable potential to exceed the permit
limit lions based on an applicable water quality standard
The objec 'ves of cyanide sampling and analysis indude:
• To ev luate whether sample results at, or near, the method reporting limit can be
measured accurately and reproducibly
• To investigate the levels of cyanide which can be measured accurately and reproducibly
• To evaluate the effect of potential matrix interferences at the reporting limit on the final
sampl result and, within this context, define the detection limits and reporting limits
for th plant's influent and effluent
• To de ermine if cyanide is present in the influent and effluent of the facilities at levels
that have a reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard
Samples ill be sent to two laboratories to fulfill the objectives of the study. The
laboratori s should include a "dean" laboratory and the laboratory which normally
performs analyses for the City of Gastonia.
CLT/STDYPLAN 1

CLEAN METALS SAMPUNG STUDY PLAN
Sampling Strategy
Table 1 presents the proposed analyses to be performed at each plant. No clean sampling is
recommended at Catawba Creek due to planned shutdown of the plant in the next 18
months. However, constituents which would have been monitored at the Catawba Creek
facility should be monitored at the Long Creek facility because Catawba Creek facility flow
will be directed to the Long Creek facility after shutdown of the plant.
The City of Gastonia may want permit limits based on dissolved metal concentrations
instead of total recoverable metals at some point in the future. Therefore, for each sample
event, samples will be filtered in the field and submitted to the "clean" laboratory. The
clean laboratory will store the samples until the total recoverable metal data has been
analyze . At that time, target dissolved metal concentrations of interest can be analyzed.
The hot ng time for all metals except mercury is 6 months. Mercury has a shorter holding
time, bu there is no generally acceptable method for determining permit limits based on
dissolved mercury concentrations.
Approximately one sample per week should be collected at each plant for a duration of ten
weeks. Tile samples should be grab samples collected using the "clean" procedures
discussed below. Samples should be collected on weekdays as well as weekends to avoid
any bias in the sampling. Samples should also be collected at different times of the day.
For quali
control, the following procedures should be followed:
• One 'eld duplicate sample should be collected and analyzed for each sampling event.
• Labo atory should perform duplicate analyses for each sample collected
• Equipment blank samples should be collected to ensure that the tubing used is not
adding contamination
• Trip i?lanks should be prepared by the laboratories and analyzed during each event to
ensure that activities at/around the sampling is not adding contamination
• Stan lard reference materials (SRM) samples should be analyzed as part of QC 2 to 3
times during the study to compare to the blank spikes.
Cyanide
Blanks
Blank samples will be prepared and submitted to each of the analytical laboratories. The
blank samples will consist of ASTM Type II water that has been spiked. The standards used
will be tr . ceable to NIST standards. The samples will be spiked at varying concentrations
that brac et the lower end of sample concentrations (near the MDL and permit limit) and
higher sa ple concentrations known to produce linear recoveries. Two concentrations (one
near the ater quality based standard of 12 µg/1 for the Crowders Creek facility and the
permit 1' i 't of 22 µg/L for the Long Creek facility (discharging to the South Fork) and one
in a high=r concentration range) will be used for spiking at least 7 times. These results will
provide e seven points required to statistically evaluate the results of the study. The
purpose . f these samples is to evaluate whether the analytical laboratory is capable of
precisely : d accurately measuring the concentration of an "ideal" sample at 1X and 2X the
permit li 't. Tables 2 and 3 summarize sampling and analysis for cyanide at Crowders
Creek an . Long Creek facilities, respectively.
CLTJSTDYPLAN 2

CLEAN METALS SAMPLING STUDY PLAN
Table 1
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Constituent
Plant
Catawba
Crowders
Long Creek
Cadmium
NCS
X
✓
Chromium
NCS
NCS
NCS
Copper
NCS
✓
✓
Cyanide
NCS
X
✓
Lead
NCS
X
X
Mercury
NCS
V
V
Nickel
NCS
NCS
✓
Selenium.
NCS
X
NA
Silver
NCS
✓
✓
Zinc
NCS
X
✓
✓ - Clea
X - Cle
NCS - No
NA - Constituent
sampling required
sampling at the City of Gastonia's discretion
clean sampling required
not monitored, therefore, clean sampling not applicable
Spiked Samples
Both "native" (unspiked) and spiked samples will be submitted to the laboratories. The
standards used to prepare the spike samples will be traceable to NIST standards. The test
will be fo used on evaluating whether the laboratory is capable of measuring the
concentra ' ons of cyanide in an actual sample accurately and precisely. Two matrix spikes
will be su mitted to each laboratory for both the influent and effluent each week for ten
weeks.
Sample Pretreatment
Some ma ix interferences can be minimized or eliminated through sample pretreatment.
Matrix int rferences can be a greater problem at, or near, the method reporting limit, and
the effect f the matrix interference typically decreases with increasing cyanide
concentra 'ons. Samples can be screened and if necessary, pretreated for sulfide, chlorine,
and aldeh des. Instructions for pretreatment of samples is included in Attachment B.
CLT/STDYPLAN 3

CLEAN METALS SAMPLING STUDY PLAN
Sample ccuracy and Precision
Because of the increased variablility of sample results at, or near, the method reporting
limit, all the samples will be submitted to both laboratories in duplicate for the first 6 weeks.
Sample results obtained during this period will be compared for precision within a specific
laboratory as well as for comparability between the two laboratories.
Method of Standard Addition
For cyanide, during the first sampling event, samples should be analyzed using the method
of standard addition to quantitate sample results and evaluate matrix effects at low sample
concentrations. For Crowders Creek, the standard addition samples on the influent, effluent
and blank should include (1) the native, (2) native + 10 µg/1, (3) native + 15 µg/1, (4) native
+20 µg/1 (5) native + 30 µg/1, and (6) native + 50 µg/1. For Long Creek, the standard
addition samples on the influent, effluent and blank should include (1) the native, (2) native
+ 20 µg/1. (3) native + 25 µg/1, (4) native + 30 µg/1, (5) native + 40 µg/1, and (6) native + 50
µg/1.
Sample Collection Methods
CH2M HILL's "clean" sampling procedure is presented as Attachment A. As noted in the
procedure, the procedure may require modification based on conditions encountered in the
field. The procedure requires two people for sampling - a "clean hands" person and a "dirty
hands" p rson. For the first sampling event, CH2M HILL personnel will be present to train
the samp ing personnel on using the dean sampling techniques. A field equipment
checklist is also included in Attachment A.
Laborat9ry Selection
One set of samples (metals and cyanide) should be submitted to the laboratory which
normally performs the analysis for the City of Gastonia. The duplicate set of samples should
be submitted to Battelle or another clean laboratory for the metals analysis.
A comparison laboratory should be selected for the duplicate cyanide analysis. Another
laboratory should be selected for cyanide spike and blank sample preparation.
CH2M HILL's Quality Analytical Laboratories have experience in both cyanide analysis
and preparation of spike samples.
Scheduli g and Coordination
Sampling can begin at the City of Gastonia's convenience and is tentatively scheduled for
early September. Figure 1 shows a tentative schedule for dean metals and cyanide
sampling. CH2M HILL can coordinate with the contract laboratories to ensure that the
required alyses are performed. CH2M HILL will help the City of Gastonia obtain the
required e1d equipment prior to the first sampling event.
CLT/STDYPLAN 4

Table 2
Cyanide Evaluation - City of Gastonia Crowders Creek WWTP
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Sampling
Event#
Influent Samples/Influent Matrix Spikes
Effluent Samples/Effiuent Mat ix Spikes
Blank Spikes
Native
+10 ug/L
+15 ug/L
+20 ug/L
+30 ug/L
+50 ug/L
Native
+10 ug/L
+15 ug/L
+20 ug/L
+30 ug/L
+50 ug/L
Blank
+10 ug/L
+15 ug/L
+20 ug/L
+30 ug/L
+50 ug/L
-A/B-1
•A/B-2
-NB-3
-A/B-4
-NB-5
-A/B-6
-A/B-7
•NB-8
-A/B-9
-A/B-10
-A/B-11
-NB-12
-A/B-13
-A/B-14
-NB-15
-A/B-16
-A/B-17
-A/B-18
Week 1
Lab A
Lab B
Sampling
Event l
Result
ID
Influent
Samples
-NB-1
-A/B-2
Effluent
Samples
-A/B-3
-NB-4
Blank Spikes
-A/B-5
-NB-6
Influent Matrix
Spikes
-NB-7
-A/B-8
Effluent Matrix
Spikes
-A/B-9
-A/B-10
Week 2
Spike
12
24
12
24
12
24
Lab A
Lab B
Week 3
Week 4
Spike
12
24
12
24
12
24
Lab A
Lab B
Spike
12
24
12
24
12
24
Lab A
Lab B
Week 5
Spike
12
24
12
24
12
24
Lab A
Lab B
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Spike
12
24
12
24
12
24
Lab A
Lab B
Spike
Lab A
Lab B
Spike
Lab A
Lab B
Spike
Lab A
Lab B
Spike
Lab A
Lab B
12
Sample Codes:
-A/B-1 & NB-2: Influent field duplicates for Laboratory A/B
-NB-3 & NB-4: Effluent field duplicates for Laboratory NB
-NB-5 & A/B-6: Blank spikes for Laboratory A/B
-A/B-7 & A/B-8: Influent matrix spikes for Laboratory A/8
-A/B-9 & AB-10: Effluent matrix spikes for Laboratory NB
-A/B-11 & A/8-12: Standard reference materials samples for Laboratory A/B
24
12
24
12
24
cnsum.XLS Crowders 8/12/96

Table 3
Cyanide Evaluation - City of Gastonia Long Creek WWTP
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Sampling
Event#
Influent Samples/Influent Matrix Spikes
Effluent Samples/Effluent Matrix Spikes
Blank Spikes
Native
+20 ug/L
+25 ug/L
+30 ug/L
+40 ug/L
+50 ug/L
Native
+20 ug/L
+25 ug/L
+30 ug/L
+40 ug/L
+50 ug/L
Blank
+20 ug/L
+25 ug/L
+30 ug/L
+40 ug/L
+50 ug/L
-A/B-1
-A/B-2
-NB-3
-A/B-4
-NB-5
-NB-6
-A/B-7
-NB-8
-NB-9
-A/B-10
-NB-11
-A/B-12
-NB-13
-A/B-14
-A/B-15
-A/B-16
-A/8-17
-A/B-18
Week 1
Lab A
Lab B
Sampling
Event #
Result
ID
Influent
Samples
Effluent
Samples
Blank Spikes
Influent Matrix
Spikes
Effluent Matrix
Spikes
-A/B-1
-NB-2
-NB-3
-NB-4
-NB-5
-NB-6
-A/B-7
-NB-8
-AIB-9
-NB-10
Week 2
Spike
-
-
-
-
20
40
20
40
20
40
Lab A
----------
Lab B
_---------
Week 3
Spike
-
-
-
-
20
40
20
40
20
40
Lab A
----------
Lab B
----------
Week 4
Spike
-
-
-
-
20
40
20
40
20
40
Lab A
----------
Lab B
-------_--
Week 5
Spike
-
0
-
-
20
40
20
40
20
40
Lab A
----------
Lab B
_------_--
Week 6
Spike
-
-
-
-
20
40
20
40
20
40
Lab A
----_-----
Lab B
—_--------
Week 7
Spike
-
• - ,;
20
40
20
40
20
40
Lab A
Lab B
—
r
------
Week 8
Spike
-
r —.
Lab A
Lab B
Week 9
Spike
-
-
LabA
Lab B
Week 10
Spike
-
-
Lab A
+ -
Lab B
k ?
—f
r..
.-.
_
`sfr r
, r.
Sample Codes:
-A/B-1 & NB-2: Influent field duplicates for Laboratory NB
-NB-3 & A/B-4: Effluent field duplicates for Laboratory A/B
-A/B-5 & NB-6: Blank spikes for Laboratory A/B
-A/B-7 & NB-8: Influent matrix spikes for Laboratory A/B
-A/B-9 & NB-10: Efftuent matrix spikes for Laboratory NB
-AB-11 & A/B-12: Standard reference materials samples for Laboratory NB
cnsum.XLS Long 8/12/96

Figure 1
City of Gastonia Clean Metals and Cyanide Sampling Tentative Project Schedule
ID
Task Name
September October
November December
January
8/26 9/2
9/9 9/16 9/23 9/30 10/7 0/1 0/2
0/2 11/4 1/1 1/1 1/2 12/2 12/9 2/1
2/2 2/3
1/6 1/13 1/20
1/27 2/3
1
Kickoff Clean Metal Sampling with Training by CH2M HILL
2
Clean Metal and Cyanide Sampling for Weeks 2-10
3
Data Review and Analysis
4
Regulatory Negotiation
5
Potential Meeting with NCDWQ
6
Potential Meeting with NCDWQ
7
Potential Meeting with NCDWQ
8
Action Plan
Project: City of Gastonia
Date: 8/12/96
Rolled Up
Progress
Task
Summary
Progress
Up Task
Milestone ♦
Rolled
Rolled
Up Milestone O
Page 1

CLEAN METALS SAMPLING STUDY PLAN
Attachment A
Clean Sampling Procedure
CLT/STDYPLAN

"Clean" Sampling Procedures for Metals
[from open channels or sewer manholes]
(Developed by Elizabeth Krousel and Jerry Bills, CH2M HILL)
Equipment/Workers Required
1. Masterflex "easy loading" peristaltic pump
2. 12 volt battery and connectors for peristaltic pump
3. Teflon tubing with neoprene tubing end (for insertion into pump)
•
•
Previously cut to required length
Prepared according to clean analytical procedures in laboratory
• Stored in individual ziploc baggies
[One for each sample location]
4. Teflon coated weight with clasps (for connection of weight to open end of tubing)
5. Tyvex coveralls including hood and booties
• Stored in individual ziploc baggies
[One for each field worker for each sample location]
6. H 'rnets
[Ohe for each field worker for each sample location]
]
7. Du
st/surgeons mask
• Stored in individual ziploc baggies
[One for each field worker for each sample location]
8. Sa
•
•
II
ple kits from Battelle
Shipped from Battelle in ice chest(s)
Including ziploc bag containing teflon sample containers and teflon ampules
with certified metals -free double -distilled nitric acid. This ziploc bag is sealed
within another ziploc bag containing non -talc (metals -free) gloves
[One for each sample location]
p:37205ek1t3me slclean.doc
1

9. Two field workers (one designated as the "clean hands" worker and the other
designated as the "dirty hands" worker)
10. Additional field ice chest or box for storage of "clean" sampling gear (includes ziploc
baggies containing tubing apparatus, tyvex coveralls, dust/surgeons mask, and
h irnets) and sampling equipment (including ziploc baggies of tubing apparatus and
t flon weights with clasps)
11. Additional ice chest with the required amount of ice for shipping of the samples
directly to Battelle
12. Fgderal Express labels prepared for shipping the samples from the sample collection
site or office to Battelle
13. G rbage bags and shipping tape
14. Waterproof field marker
15. Field notebook and graphite pencil
16. Field vehicle (preferably a van which has been vaccuumed and is free of dirty or
maddy equipment, etc.)
Miscellaneous Instructions
1. operations involving contact with the sample bottles, transfer of the sample, or
any sample preparation are to be handled by the field worker designated as the "clean
ha' ds" worker.
2. All operations involving preparation of the sample pump, batteries, opening of plastic
containers must be performed by the individual assigned as the "dirty hands" workers.
3. Field workers should avoid contact with any metal -containing objects during the
s ple collection period. In the case of unavoidable contact with metal- containing
ob ects, the field workers must ensure that any objects which contact the collected
sample - either directly or indirectly (including tubing, tyvex coveralls, outer portion
of loves) - are not contaminated from exposure. For example, if one worker is
re uired to remove a manhole cover or contact a metal grid to prepare for the sample
co lection, the tyvex coveralls and appropriate gloves must be applied after this
ac vity is conducted by the "dirty hands" worker.
2

4. Other contamination which may occur to the sample during sample collection such as
from dusty winds, exhaust from nearby vehicles, and/or debris from disturbance of the
sample collection location (such as removal of manhole cover) should be avoided. If
possible, field workers should wait for the optimum time (low to zero winds, no
nearby traffic, several minutes after the manhole lid is removed) before initiating the
sample collection. If unavoidable during sample collection, the sample should be
shielded from the source of contamination by the "clean hands" worker.
Field Procedure
1. After arriving at the sample collection site and marking the required information in
the field notebook (workers' names, date, time of arrival at sample location, etc.),
both field workers must don "clean" sampling ensembles (includes tyvex coveralls,
dust/surgeons mask, hairnet, and rubber gloves). Since both the dust/surgeons mask
and tyvex coverall contain metal parts (face clasp and zipper), these components of
the "clean" sampling gear must be put on prior to non -talc gloves. After both workers
hre donned the ensembles, a new garbage bag or strip of plastic should be used to
create a clean surface within the field van for the workers to use as a counter during
field operations.
2. T 1 e "dirty hands" worker:
i.
ii.
removes the ziploc bag containing sample kit from Battelle's ice chest, the
ziploc bag containing the tubing apparatus, and the ziploc bag containing the
teflon weight with clasps from the additional ice chest or box
opens both the outer and inner ziploc baggies of the sample kit and the ziploc
bag containing the tubing apparatus for the "clean hands" worker within a
relatively wind- and dust -free environment (for example, the inside the back
of the field van)
transports the pump and battery to the sample collection location
"clean hands" worker:
removes the tubing apparatus from the ziploc bag and connects the weight
with clasps to the teflon end of the tubing
transports the tubing to the sample collection location, taking care to prevent
any contamination to the tubing from wind and/or contact with surfaces
lowers the teflon end of the tubing with weight to the sample collection
location (approximately mid -depth and away from any metal -containing
objects)
3

4. The "dirty hands" worker:
ii inserts the neoprene end of the tubing apparatus into the peristaltic pump head
ii.
holds the teflon tubing which was lowered by the "clean hands" worker in the
sample collection position (approximately mid -depth and away from any
metal -containing objects) with one hand and holds the neoprene end of the
tubing extending out of the pump head in the other hand (making sure that the
end is directed away from the sample collection area to prevent contamination
of the collected sample)
turns the pump switch on to begin the 2-minute minimum purging of the
sample tubing
Note: During purging of the tubing and sample collection, the "dirty hands"
worker must take care to maintain the location of the tubing end
approximately mid -depth and away from any metal -containing objects and to
prevent contact of the tubing apparatus (including both the teflon and
neoprene portions) with any surfaces
5. The "clean hands" worker:
i. returns to field van to retrieve sample container
Note: The "clean hands" worker should not have to contact the outer portion
of the ziploc bag since it was previously opened by the "dirty hands" worker
after arriving at the sample site.
ii.
iii
i
v.
6. Th
i.
tranports closed sample container to sample collection location
after the minimum of 2-minute purging of the tubing is completed, holds
closed sample container within one inch of the tubing end before removing lid
and begins collecting sample
closes the sample container with lid once the sample container is full,
Note: During sample collection, the "clean hands" worker must prevent
contamination of the sample container lid
transports the closed sample container back inside the field van
"dirty hands" worker:
raises the teflon tubing to empty the contents of the tubing and turns off the
pump
4

ii. removes the neoprene end of the tubing from the pump head and rolls the
length of the tubing for reinsertion into ziploc bag
iii. transports rolled tubing, pump, and battery back to field van
7. The "clean hands" worker:
ii.
iv.
v.
vi
secures the closed sample container (containing sample) on a level position
with the field van and slighty loosens the lid of the sample container
removes the teflon ampule containing preservative from the previously opened
ziploc bag and removes the lid from the ampule
quickly but carefully removes the previously loosened sample container lid
with one hand, adds the preservative to the sample with the other hand, and
then immediately re-covers the sample container
tightly seals the sample container and then labels the sample container with
the sample name, date and time of collection, and initials of field workers
returns the sample container to its original ziploc bag, reseals it, and then
places both the ziploc container with the sample and the empty teflon ampule
inside the outer ziploc bag and reseals it
stores the double bagged sample in the additional ice chest filled with ice
8. Both workers remove their "clean" sampling ensembles (gloves, tyvex, mask, and
hairnet), dispose in a garbage bag, and seal prior to proceeding to the next sampling
loation
The abovprocedure (steps 1-8) is repeated for each of the sampling locations.
After all samples are collected:
her the "clean" or "dirty" hands worker:
lines the inside of the ice chest sent by Battelle with a thick garbage bag
places the double -bagged sample containers (also containing empty teflon
ampules) with double -bagged ice or blue ice (to maintain a temperature of 4
degrees celcius) in the garbage bag lined ice chest, and tightly seals the
garbage bag to prevent any leakage during shipping
5

prepares the ice chest for shipping to Battelle by sealing with strong package
tape and affixing prepared Federal Express label and delivers to Federal
Express location
6

�
1
Field Sampling Checklist
Item
Number
Teflon tubing
setups in baggies
1
Battelle 1
ottle kits with preservative
2
Battelle filter
lter units
1
City of Gastonia standard laboratory bottle kits with preservative
2
Cyanide 'rampling bottle kit
2
Cyanide pretreatment kit
1
1
Geopump peristaltic pump
1
1
Battery and connections (if needed)
1
Teflon coated weight with clasps
1
Tyvex coveralls
2
Dust masks
2
Chest for storage of sampling gear
1
Plastic bottle rack apparatus
1
Federal Express Labels
Several
Chain of Custody
Several
Garbage bags, shipping tape, duct tape
Several
Waterproof field marker
1
Field notebook and graphite pencil
1
Safety glares, hard hat and hearing protection (if required)
1
CLT/STDYPLAN 7

CLEAN METALS SAMPUNG STUDY PLAN
Attachment B
Cyanide Pretreatment Procedure
CLT/STDYPLAN

Sampling Process Flowchart
(Notes on the procedures followed will be recorded on the Field Sampling Record Form)
(9/26/95)
no
Collect Field Screen # 1 for
Sample (a) Residual Chlorine
Pretreatment #1
► Field Screen # 2 for
Residual Sulfide
1
yes
Pretreatment #2
no
► Field Screen # 3 for
Aldehydes
yes -
Pretreatment #3
no
Preserve Prepare for shipment
Samples (b) to laboratory
(a) For the Method of Standard Addition (MSA) sampling event (Week 1),12 L of influent and 12 L of effluent are required.
For Weeks 1-6 (excluding the MSA sampling event), 8 L of influent and 8 L of effluent are required.
For Week 7, 6 L of influent and 6 L of effluent are required.
For Weeks 8-10, 2 L of influent and 2 L of effluent are required.
(b) Samples will be preserved using 2 mL of sodium hydroxide(10 N) per liter of sample to raise the pH to 12 or 12.5.
Field Screen # 1 for Residual Chlorine:
1) Use a disposable dropper to place a few drops of the sample on KI starch paper.
2) If the paper tums blue, chlorine is present and the sample must be pretreated with ascorbic acid (see pretreatment #1 below).
Field Screen # 2 for Residual Sulfide:
1) Use a disposable dropper to place a few drops of the sample on lead acetate paper.
2) If the paper tums black, sulfide is present and the sample must be pretreated with powdered cadmium carbonate and filtered (see pretreatment #2 below).
Field Screen # 3 for Aldehydes:
1) If the sample is alkaline, add 1 + 1 H2SO4 to the sample to adjust the pH to Tess than 8.
2) Place one drop of sample and one drop of distilled water (for a blank) on a white spot plate.
3) Add one drop of MBTH and one drop of FeCI3 oxidizing solution to each spot.
4) Note the color change on each spot. The blank should remain yellow.
5) If the sample spot tums from a faint green -yellow to a deeper green or blue-green to blue, aldehyde is present and the sample must be pretreated with ethylenediamine solution.
(see pretreatment #3 below).
Pretreatment # 1 for Residual Chlorine:
1) Add ascorbic acid to the sample until no further color change is noted on KI starch paper.
2) Add an additional 0.6 gram of ascorbic acid for each liter of sample.
Pretreatment # 2 for Residual Sulfide:
1) Add powdered activated carbon to the sample until not further color change is noted on lead acetate paper and no additional cadmium sulfide precipitates.
2) Filter the sample through a clean, dry filter paper into a clean dry beaker and use the filtrate for the sample analysis.
Note: Approximately 25 mL of additional sample should be treated to provide adequate volume after the filtration process.
Pretreatment # 3 for Aldehydes:
1) Add 2 mL of 3.5% ethylenediamine solution per 100 mL of sample.
p:1117456.ek\planlfleldp.xls

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
ai MHI LL
Clean) Metals Sampling Historical Data Review
PREPARED FO
PREPARED BY
COPIES:
DATE:
Larry Cummings/City of Gastonia
Kristen Jenkins/CH2M HILL
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
Coleman Keeter/City of Gastonia
Glenn Dukes/CH2M HILL
July 19,1996 (Revised)
As part of the clean sampling and analysis project, the City of Gastonia's metals and
cyanide d to were reviewed for all three wastewater treatment plants (Long Creek,
Crowders Creek, and Catawba Creek). This memorandum summarizes the historical data
review and presents recommendations for further action.
Methodology
For each of the metals and cyanide, effluent concentration plots presented in the project
kickoff meting by the City of Gastonia generally showed a reduction for the period
beginning 'n January 1994 through April 1996. The reduction was attributed to actions
implemen ed to date by the City of Gastonia. Therefore, statistical parameters were
determine and compared for two data sets: January 1994 through April 1996 (28 months)
and the most recent 6 months (November 1995 through April 1996). The statistics included
mean, stan and deviation, and coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the
mean).
The reason ble potential to exceed (RPE) concentration was calculated for each metal and
cyanide according to the procedure presented in the EPA's Technical Support Document for
Water Qua_ity-Based Toxics Control. The RPE according to this method is the maximum
concentration in the data set multiplied by a factor. The multiplying factor is based on the
coefficient of variation and the number of samples in the data set. The factors are for a 99
percent confidence level and either 95 or 99 percent probability. An RPE with 95 percent
probability indicates that there is a five percent chance that the RPE will be exceeded.
Similarly, a RPE with 99 percent probability indicates that there is a one percent chance the
RPE will b exceeded. The RPE was compared to the NPDES permit limit, if applicable, or
to an estim ted permit limit based on the water quality standard or action level for the
particular eta) and the instream waste concentration (IWC). If the RPE for the 99 percent
probability evel is less than the permit limit, then there is only a one percent chance that
the permit limit will be exceeded.
Discusson
Tables 1 thr ugh 3 present summaries of the statistical analysis for each plant for each of the
analysis periods. Figures 1 through 6 present RPEs and NPDES or estimated permit limits
TM0709.Doc 1

CLEAN METALS SAMPLING DATA REVIEW
for each metal for each plant. For some data sets, one high concentration value skewed the
RPE. Therefore, if the data set included one outlying value, this value was omitted from the
statistical analysis. The outlying value is noted on the appropriate figure in Attachment A.
Compar son of Whole Data Set to Last Six Months
For the C tawba Creek Plant, RPEs for all metals and cyanide were lower for the last six
month period than for the entire data set indicating that actions to date have lowered
effluent concentrations. For the Long Creek plant, RPEs for the six month period were lower
than the vrhole data set for all constituents except cyanide. The mean cyanide concentration
and the s andard deviation have increased slightly within the last six months for the Long
Creek Plant which results in a higher RPE. For the Crowders Creek plant, RPEs for the six
month period are lower than the whole data set for all constituents except for Mercury. In
March anil April 1996, mercury concentrations were 2 and 1 µg/1, respectively, which
resulted in higher mean, standard deviation, and RPE concentrations.
Evaluati
n of RPEs
In general( actions implemented to date have lowered effluent metals concentrations, and
the last si months of data are more representative of current effluent concentrations.
Therefore the RPEs for the six month period will be compared to estimated or actual permit
limits as presented in Figures 2, 4, and 6.
For Catawba Creek, chromium is the only constituent with an RPE less than the NPDES
permit limit at 99 percent probability. For Long Creek, again chromium is the only
constituent with an RPE less than the estimated permit limit at 99 percent probability. The
RPE at 99 ercent probability for cadmium is very close to the estimated limit for discharge
to the Sou Fork. For Crowders Creek, RPEs with 99 percent probability are less than the
permitted . 't for cadmium, chromium, and nickel. The RPE at 99 percent probability for
selenium i very close to the estimated permit limit.
In reviewing the NPDES permits, a possible error was noted for the Long Creek plant
dischargin to the South Fork. The water quality standard for nickel is 88 µg/1. For
discharge o Long Creek, the IWC is 80 percent resulting in a limit of 109 µg/1 which
corresponds to the actual permit. For discharge to the South Fork, the IWC is 22 percent
which sho nld correspond to a permit limit of 400 µg/1. However, the permit lists a limit of
112 µg/1 for nickel. This is most likely a typographical error since the limit for lead is 112
µg/1. If the actual permit limit for nickel is 400 µg/1, then the 99 percent probability RPE
would be 1 ss than the permit limit.
Recomriendations
The 99 per
limits. Ho
permit lim
additional
The sampli
will provid
ent probability RPEs for several metals are less than actual or estimated permit
ever, RPEs for the remaining metals and cyanide exceed estimated or actual
Ls. Therefore, CH2M HILL recommends that the City of Gastonia conduct
sampling and analysis.
g should utilize as many clean sampling procedures as possible. CH2M HILL
assistance with training and implementation of these additional procedures.
TM0709.DOC
2

CLEAN METALS SAMPLING DATA REVIEW
Approximately ten samples should be collected to provide a representative data set.
Samples should be split between a "clean" lab (i.e. Battelle Northwest) and the lab(s) which
normally performs the analysis for the City of Gastonia. All of the samples should be grab.
If a composite sample is required for compliance, a grab sample should also be taken either
at the be . *rig or end of the composite sampling. Additional analyses of cyanide should
be condu ted including specific protocols to address interferences and matrix spiked
samples to evaluate potential interferences.
In summary, sampling and analysis should include the following:
• 10 week duration (one sample per week from each plant)
• Grab samples collected using clean protocols
• Split ,grab samples between clean lab and normal lab
• Contivation of composite sampling
P p g
The results from the two labs will be compared to determine if analysis by a clean lab
improves Compliance with actual and estimated permit limits. Results prior to and after
implementation of the additional clean metal sampling techniques will be compared to
determine] if the additional procedures reduce effluent concentrations.
Table 4 presents a proposed analysis plan. A checkmark indicates that data using the clean
sampling rotocols and clean lab are needed to determine if an RPE less than the permit
limit is a 'evable using these procedures. An "X" indicates that the current 95 percent
probabili RPE is dose to the permit limit and additional sampling may be at the City of
Gastonia' discretion. However, additional data would be beneficial to reinforce that
compliance sampling should be reduced or eliminated for several constituents. For Long
Creek, permit limits for discharge to the South Fork Catawba River were used for
comparison to the RPE. No clean sampling is recommended at Catawba Creek due to
planned shutdown of the plant. However, constituents which would have been monitored
at Catawba Creek should be monitored at Long Creek because Catawba Creek flow will be
sent to Long Creek after shutdown of the plant.
CH2M L will prepare a sampling and analysis workplan if the City of Gastonia concurs
with the p oposed analyses listed in Table 4.
TM0709.DOC
3

tv,„ i? ,*-7/1 rP/otti)
J
Table 1
Catawba Creek (all values ug/l)
Whole Data Set (January 1994 through April 1996)
Average
Standard
Deviation
Maximum
RPE - 99%
Probability
RPE - 95%
Probability
SOC
Limit
NPDES
Limit
Cadmium
3
3
17
77
31
15
2.2
Chromium
12
8
42
110
59
55
Copper
11
7
33
76
46
7.8 (a)
Cyanide
5
4
25
73
38
27
5.5
Lead
14
20
138
718
248
95
28
Mercury
0.2
0.1
1
2.1
1.0
0.013 (a'
Nickel
49
45
262
838
393
230
97
Silver
2
1
9
21
13
0.067 (a)
Zinc
168
83
427
854
555
56 ta)
Six -Month Data Set (November 1995 through April 1996)
Average
Standard
Deviation
Maximum
RPE - 99%
Probability
RPE - 95%
Probability
SOC
Limit
NPDES
Limit
Cadmium
0.6
0.4
2
5.2
2.8
15
2.2
Chromium
8.1
5.0
20
46
28
55
Copper
5.2
3.3
14
39
22
7.8 `a)
Cyanide
3.1
1.9
7
17
10
27
5.5
Lead
2.6
3.3
10
45
18
95
28
Mercury
0.2
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.7
0.013 "
Nickel
23.1
17.6
75
218
113
230
97
Silver
1.8
1.3
5
16
9
0.067 (a)
Zinc
79.6
18.2
110
154
132
56 `")
(a) Estimated permit limit = water qua
ity standard * 100 / instream waste concentration (%)
, pC‹.
coiA6t(if 14p1 r(A.;
101-
a ((
14,40
Flo/ ,a5P-
94-96CAT.XLS Table

Table 2
Long Creek (all values ug/I)
Whole Data Set (January 1994 through April 1996)
Average
Standard
Deviation
Maximum
RPE 99%
Probability
RPE - 95 %
Probability
SOC Limit
NPDES
Limit -Long
Creek
NPDES
Limit -South
Fork
Cadmium
3.5
5.4
32.2
167.44
57.96
20
2.5
9 tad
Chromium
18.6
10.7
66
151.8
92.4
62
227 (a)
Copper
44.1
21.4
121
242
157.3
8.75 (a)
32 (a)
Cyanide
8.2
7.4
40.2
128.64
60.3
32
6.2
22
Lead
17.9
22.9
131
589.5
235.8
120
31
112
Mercury
0.2
0.2
1.68
7.56
3.024
0.02
0.05 (a)
Nickel
62.8
35.9
210
483
294
250
109
112
Silver
2.8
2.2
13
37.7
19.5
0.075 (a)
0.27 (a)
Zinc
152.6
57.2
329
592.2
394.8
62.5 (a)
227 (a)
Six Months Data Set (11/1/95-4/30/96)
Average
Standard
Deviation
Maximum
RPE 99%
Probability
RPE - 95 %
Probability
SOC Limit
NPDES Limit
Long Creek
NPDES Limit -
South Fork
Cadmium
0.6
0.6
3.0
9.6
4.5
20
2.5
9 (a)
Chromium
11.1
3.9
19
30
23
62
227 (a)
Copper
27.7
10.7
39
78
55
8.75 {a}
32 (a)
Cyanide
!
9.6
9.3
40
141
64
32
6.2
22
Lead
1 4.2
7.4
30
183
60
120
31
112
Mercury
0.2
0.2
1.0
4.2
1.7
0.02
0.05 (a)
Nickel
1 35.6
24.0
90
234
126
250
109
112
Silver
1.6
0.9
3.0
8.4
4.8
0.075 (a)
0.27 (a)
Zinc
121.7
45.7
203
406
284
62.5 tad
227 (a)
(a) Estimated permit
limit = water quality standard * 100 / instream waste concentration (%)
9496LGMT.XLS Table 7/9/96

Table 3
Crowders Creek (all values ug11)
Whole Data Set (January 1994 through April 1996)
Average
Standard
Deviation
Maximum
RPE - 99%
Probability
RPE - 95%
Probability
SOC Limit
NPDES Limit
Cadmium
4
4
22
92
37
17
5
Chromium
9
16
134
780
255
120
Copper
31
17
107
246
150
17 (a)
Cyanide
4
3
25
73
38
12 (a)
Lead
17
25
147
764
265
150
60
Mercury
0.2
0.4
2.0
12.2
4.0
0.029 (a)
Nickel
32
28
160
512
240
211
Selenium
16
35
239
1625
478
12 (a)
Silver
3
4
27
123
49
0.14 (a)
Zinc
73
32
184
331
221
119 (a)
Six Months Data Set (11/1/95-4/30/96)
Average
Standard
Deviation
Maximum
RPE - 99%
Probability
RPE - 95%
Probability
SOC Limit
NPDES Limit
Cadmium
0.6
0.3
2.0
4.6
2.8
17
5
Chromium
3.8
2.6
10
26
14
120
Copper
16.2
5.8
25
52.5
35
17 (a)
Cyanide
3.5
1.7
7.9
18.2
11.9
11.9 (a)
Lead
3.6
5.7
20
110
38
150
60
Mercury
0.6
0.8
2.0
24.8
8.4
0.029 (a)
Nickel
11.7
10.0
40
128
60
211
Selenium
4.6
1.3
8
12.8
9.6
11.9 (a)
Silver
1.5
0.7
3
7.5
4.8
0.14 (a)
Zinc
53
17
81
146
105
119 (a)
(a) Estimated
permit limit = water quality standard * 100 / instream waste concentration (%)
CRMETALS.XLS Table 7/9/96

CLEAN METALS SAMPLING DATA REVIEW
Table 4
Proposed Analysis Plan
Metal
Plant
Catawba
Crowders
Long Creek
Cadmium
NCS
X
✓
Chromium
NCS
NCS
NCS
Copper
NCS
V
V
Cyanide
NCS
X
✓
Lead
NCS
X
X
Mercury
NCS
✓
V
Nickel
NCS
NCS
✓
Selenium
NCS
X
NA
Silver
NCS
✓
V
Zinc
NCS
X
✓
✓ - Clean
X - Clea
NCS - N
NA - Co
sampling required
sampling at the City of Gastonia's discretion
clean sampling required
tituent not monitored, therefore, clean sampling not applicable
TM0709.DOC 4

•
900 -
Figure 1
Catawba Creek - Data from January 1994 through April 1996
800 —
700 —
600 —
c 500 —
0
co
L
C..
400
c
U
300 —
200 —
100 —
0-
EEEE
EEEE
EEEE
I
l
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc
RPE - 99% Probability
® RPE- 95% Probability
0 SOC Limit
■ NPDES or Estimated Limit
94-96CAT.XLS RPE Chart-2yrs

Figure 2
Catawba Creek - Data from November 1995 through April 1996
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide
94-96CAT.XLS RPE Chart-6mo
Lead
Mercury Nickel
Silver
Zinc
El RPE - 99% Probability
® RPE- 95% Probability
❑ SOC Limit
• NPDES or Estimated Limit

500 -
0
To: 400 —
300 —
200 —
Figure 3
Crowders Creek - Data from January 1994 through April 1996
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide
CRMETALS.XLS RPE Chart-2-yr
Lead
Mercury
Nickel Selenium Silver
Zinc
D RPE - 99% Probability
RPE- 95% Probability
D SOC Limit
■ NPDES or Estimated Limit

S 150 —
c
0
al
48
c
w
o
o 100 —
Figure 4
Crowders Creek - Data from November 1995 through April 1996
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide
CRMETALS.XLS RPE Chart-6mo
Lead
Mercury
Nickel Selenium Silver
Z nc
D RPE - 99% Probability
® RPE- 95% Probability
❑ SOC Limit
■ NPDES or Estimated Limit

•
600
Figure 5
Long Creek - Data from January 1994 through May 1996
500 —
400 —
c
0
J
300 —
200 —
100
0
Eiii
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide
9496LGMT.XLS RPE Chart- 2 yr
HEE
EEi
EiE
rm—
Lead Mercury
HEE
NE
EiE
iiE
Eii
EEE
Nickel Silver Zinc
0 RPE - 99% Probability
RPE- 95% Probability
0 SOC Limit
• NPDES or Estimated Limit -Long Creek
NPDES or Estimated Limit -South Fork

450
Figure 6
Long Creek - Data from November 1995 through April 1996
400 —
350 —
300
c 250
0
e4
L
ow 200 —
c
0
0
150 --
100 —
50 —
0-
i
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide Lead
9496LGMT.XLS RPE Chart-6mo
Mercury
Nickel Silver Zinc
0 RPE - 99% Probability
▪ RPE- 95% Probability
D SOC Limit
■ NPDES or Estimated Limit -Long Creek
NPDES or Estimated Limit -South Fork
i

Attachment A
Metals and Cyanide Trend Plots

Cadmium (ug/l)
18
16-
14-
12-
10-
8
6
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
•
♦♦
• • • Not included in statistical
analysis
•
♦ •
4
•
•
•
♦N •
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ N ♦ ♦ ♦N N N••♦♦N ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦N ♦ ♦ ♦
0 1 •* ,♦ • , ♦ ♦
11/27/93
94-96CAT.XLS Cd7/10/96
•
3/7/94
6/15/94
9/23/94
1 /1 /95
4/11/95
7/20/95
10/28/95
2/5/96
5/15/96 8/23/96

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
4r
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
E
2 20 -
0
15-
10-
5
0
11/27/93
•
♦♦
•
•
•
•
• • • •
• • M♦ ♦♦
* M ♦♦
• • ♦♦ •
• • ♦♦♦
• ♦ ♦ ♦ M
• • • • • • ♦♦ •
• • ♦ ♦ ♦ •.
• • • •
♦40♦
♦ • ♦ ♦M •
•
* M •
♦
3/7/94
6/15/94
9/23/94
1/1/95
4/11/95
7/20/95
10/28/95
2/5/96
5/15/96
8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS Cr7/10/96

200
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT COPPER CONCENTRATIONS
180 -
160 -
140
120
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
11/27/93
Not included in statistical
analysis
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
•
♦♦ N♦ ♦ ♦:� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ •♦ •♦
♦♦♦,►♦♦♦ M♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦ • ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ •
3/7/94
6/15/94
9/23/94
1/1/95
4/11/95
7/20/95
10/28/95
2/5/96
5/15/96
8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS Cu7/10/96

Cyanide (ugli)
80
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT CYANIDE CONCENTRATIONS
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10-
0
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
•
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
♦♦ • • ♦
•
• ♦ ♦ •
♦ ♦ • ♦ •
♦ ♦♦ ♦ •♦♦
• ♦ $♦ M♦M♦ ♦M♦♦♦♦N N~ ♦♦NN ♦♦♦ ♦MN N♦ ♦ ♦~♦4•N♦~ M
♦♦ 9' • ♦ N yr♦~N♦ 40* N 4
11/27/93 3/7/94
6/15/94
9/23/94
1/1/95
4/11/95
7/20/95
10/28/95
2/5/96
5/15/96
8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS CN7/10/96

•
140
120 -
100
60 -
40
20 -
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS
•
♦♦
•
♦
♦♦ 400 ♦s
Z
0
11/27/93 3/7/94 6/15/94
•
• ♦ M
•
• • ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ SO
•
•
♦ • •• ♦♦ M
• •
40♦ ♦ • 0 M
• ♦. • ♦. CAI►♦ •4 NM NO 4*4•0 ♦400
♦ • ♦M
AP 1• ♦ 4 • •, • • • , • defile ♦... ,
9/23/94 1 /1 /95 4/11/95 7/20/95 10/28/95 2/5/96 5/15/96
8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS Pb7/10/96

Mercury (ug/l)
0.7
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
•
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
0,
11/27/93
•
•
•
3/7/94
6/15/94
9/23/94
1/1/95
4/11/95
7/20/95
10/28/95
2/5/96
5/15/96
8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS Hg7/10/96

t.;
0 150 -
0
z
300
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS
250 -
200 -
100 -
50 -
0
11/27/93
H
•
•
•
•
♦♦
M ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦4*•♦♦ • ♦♦ •• ♦ ♦ •
• ♦♦ •
• ♦ • ~
• ♦ ♦ ♦� •♦ • ♦ ♦i* ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ •
♦♦ M ♦♦
• • N •
♦N•
• • • • • • • ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦� ♦♦♦♦ •
• • •
• ♦♦ ♦ • M ♦ ♦ ♦ ~ • N
♦ •
3/7/94
6/15/94
9/23/94
1 /1 /95
4/11/95
7/20/95
10/28/95
2/5/96
5/15/96
8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS Ni7/10/96

•
90
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT SILVER CONCENTRATIONS
80 -
70 -
60 -
"a 50 -
v
"a' 40-
30 -
20 -
10-
0,
11/27/93
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
♦w 4,0.•♦♦♦�♦♦ ♦*♦• ♦♦� ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ N ♦♦ ♦ ♦~ ♦• ♦♦♦♦♦�•
♦s • • ♦ •
3/7/94
6/15/94
9/23/94
1 /1 /95
4/11/95
7/20/95
10/28/95
2/5/96
5/15/96 8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS Ag7/10/96

450
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT ZINC CONCENTRATIONS
400 -
350
300
t; 250 -
•
••
•
•
c_ ♦ ♦
N 200 - •
150 -
100 -
50
•
•
•♦
♦ ♦M •
•♦
0-
11 /27/93
•
N
•
•
•
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
•
•
•
♦♦
• ♦♦♦ •♦
•
•
•
•
• • ♦ ♦•♦
3/7/94 6/15/94 9/23/94 1 /1 /95 4/11/95 7/20/95 10/28/95 2/5/96 5/15/96 8/23/96
94-96CAT.XLS Zn7/10/96

450
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
0
400 —
350 —
300 —
250 —
o%
200 —
150 —
100 —
50 —
•
•
0 i + i i i i i i i
V v V v v v v v
NN ` '0 '0 r- •� 00 00 ON 0m O O
...i � n co O\
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
•
0\
•
v 'Cr d' V'
01
NN-I c+1 N
O I--- - (�
•
I l Y ON ON
l it)V I Y 1 i I v 7 i! in VI _ _ I I I v! *! v! 1 �/ V � •V V V V
M d' VI VD VD ON O 0 r-+
C d' v1 'O r. 00 O\ O
DATE

50
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
45 --
40 —
35 —
30 --
!25—
20 —
15 —
10 —
5
ON
•
•
•
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
•
♦
♦♦♦ •♦
♦ ♦ _ •••
•
M♦
•
•
•
♦ ♦ ♦• ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦• ♦
•
N
ON ON C7N ON ON cr‘ ON ON C:IN ON ON
N_ N O O \ o\0 0\o Cs O O O
t+ 1 M d' in v � 0\O C\
in
•
•
ON ON ON C7N ON ON ON ON ON ON ON\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
vt in o0 0o G1 O O •� c� el M v d' in �D �D N l� ON CDO _
e M d to VD co O M 'Cr in
DATE

25
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT CYANIDE CONCENTRATIONS
20 -
•
5-
♦♦ N
♦ •••
M► • •MM
•• •
♦••
•• •
•
•
•
•
•
♦ ♦
0 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
d- Tt v Tr d• d- ck
C\ 01 O` o\ C\ O\ 0\ C\ 01 C\ C\ C\ o\ ON o\ C\ C\
N N V'1 \D \O 00 00 O\ O O O 99.+ M
^_ .N�r ~ eq
M V1 - Ls.-. -. O N
(� M d tr \D N 00 ON •-r O 9 •
12/24/94 +
•
•
•
♦ •
•
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ui Vi V1 in V7 V) V1 vi V1 V1 in Vi V) 111 V1 N V-) \D \O \D \D \O \D \O
C\ O\ O\ ON O, O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O► O\ O\ ON O\ O\ O\ C\ Q1 O\ O\ O\ Q\ Q<
1,4 d' N 00 0`0 N N O` N c� = M \D \D N N C\ co O +
t M d VI \D c� 00 C\ O il 11 h li f M Nt 1n
DATE

300
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS
Not included in statistical
analysis
250 —
200 —
•
150 -
z
100 —
50
0
N
•
•
♦ ♦
•
♦ ♦♦♦ ♦
♦ ♦• N
•
•
•
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
• N ♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦~ ♦ •♦�
•
♦ ♦ •
♦ •
— ♦ ♦ •
♦�♦ • •♦ ♦ ---♦— - ♦
• N
I I--1—~ I I f--F—_ I I I —I I I I ♦`. .♦ •♦ I I♦ I • • - 1♦—,,♦�� •� •• I I I
d d' Tt d v v d d v v d •ct d' in vl vl Vl to vl Vi v-1 'r) In in in Il vl In vl ‘O ko NO NO NO NO NO
O1 O\ O\ O\ O1 O\ O\ O\ CT O\ O\ O\ O\ ON O\ 01 O\ O\ O\ 01 O\ O\ O\ O\ 01 O\ O\ Oti O\ ON CT ON O\ O\ O\ O1 ON O\ O\ ON O\
^• N �_ .O �O 00 00 ON O 0 O �--� N c� en -f d d N 00 22 N N O= c� c= VI 'et et VI NO 1 N O\ CIOO—
C� M d' ,54
01
In 10 00 ON --� O .-+ NO t� 00 ON O �--� c� en d' �n
DATE

250
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT SELENIUM CONCENTRATIONS
200 —
150 —
100 —
50 —
•
M
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ♦ ♦♦
♦
1 •
0 ♦ ....1 1 �► I I I ♦1 N • ♦~~~ ♦•N�N• ,♦♦►♦ ♦ NO N .•
Not included in statistical
analysis
♦ ♦♦
ON
ON
ON
M
ON
NO
Cl")
O.
ON ON ON CA ON ON O
00 ON O O O ("1
CO Ch O
ON
ON
V)
ON
Ch
WI
ON ON ON ON Oh ON O\ 01 ON
00 00 ON O O ---i (N N
M ON
dam' if) t` 000
DATE
V) V1 VI NC NO NO NO NO
ON ON ON ON CT ON ON O1 ON Orn
V� N' O NO es t- esi
M dam' i

30
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT SILVER CONCENTRATIONS
25 --
20 -
v 15 --
az
10 -
5•
-
0
0\
♦
•
•
•
•
•
M ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦
• ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ N ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ N ♦. ♦. ♦ ♦N
♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦ •
Nr mot' d d' 'Cr 'd' 't d' d' M" d' `Zr 'd' in to vi In '1 in in In Vi vn in N I1 Vi in in in '0 10 1O NO NO 1O 10
01 a, Q• 01 ON ON O► 01 01 a\ 01 ON CT 01 ON ON 01 01 01 01 Ot a\ 01 01 O` ON 01 01 01 ON ON O, 01 ON O1 ON ON CT ON 01 O1
N N V') NO NO t. 00 00 01 O O O .•.i N Ca 'Cr 00 00 O O v..4 N N M d d V) 10 NO t` s cn O O.
.-, M t�en ` O N (� N _� -. -. N � 01 - '-' •.-� ~ M
.--, cc1 cn 4 V7 \O N 00 O\ •-+ O ---- •--- ccI r-+ N M M. in so S 00 01 0 ---- •-• N ---- cc en et VI.--- ,--- .- 4 i--1 .--1 .--I
DATE

•
2
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
1.8 -
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0
•
•
ON ON 01 ON ON 01 O, ON ON 0\ ON 01 ON
N N ' 0 is 00 00 ON O O O_
- M h - \ I- \
�O N 00 O\
♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
O, O\ ON O, O, O\ O\ O\ ON O\ O, O, O\
_ M �t d' d' V'1 00 00 O\ O O
O� O .--. ' a M d\' VI NO
.-+ .-+ .---
DATE
VI VI VI
ON
N -
n ON
00
Cr)ON
ON
d
d\'
N
ON
•
ON ON ON O, .-
N N ON O
\ a M M d\'

200
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT ZINC CONCENTRATIONS
180 —
160 ---
140— ♦
s
120
a�
100 —
•
80 —♦ ♦ •
♦ •
♦•
,►
60— • ♦ ♦♦•
♦♦
•
•
•
•
•
40 —•
20 —
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
♦♦
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
♦♦
•
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
it it it it it d' izt T ' it d itt it N v) In In to In v1 in in In in tn In v) \O \O
O\ O\ O\ O\ ON O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O1 O\ O\ O\ 0\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\
N N N co c7, M N O .Nr N d N 00 OO Cr‘ O O �-+ (� N M d v) \p \p N N O\ O
M I� O N l� O\ •may 1"''-� ~ Cr)
N M �t in \p r- 00 O\ •� O 1--1 --� [� •-+ M d v) \p N 00 O\ O •--� •---11
DATE
\o
v\
..r

120
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT COPPER CONCENTRATIONS
100 —
80 —
•
60 —
o
40 —
•
20 —
.
•
•
•
• •
•• •
• ♦ ••.
•
♦ . •
•• •
••
•
•
•
•
•• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
0 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1
Nt . VI %/I ul r 'n n in 'n In in 'n cn in in in in n 'o 'o \o
O, CT ON ON ok ON ON o\ CA ON ON CT ON ON CA vh CA o\ O\ O\ O` ON CT o\ O, CT ON ON ON o, o\ CT o\ ON ON ON o, ON ON o,
--� N �n vD \O o0 00 oo 0o ON O M in.o .p O O
.-� en N
M d to cNI
;D n oo ON r-+ O �--c� •-+ c� M er WI 10 I- oo ON O M -et
DATE

•
♦♦
160
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS
140 — •
120 —
•
100 —
•
80 -
a
a
60 —
40 —
♦ ••
•
•
•
♦•♦
•
•
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
20— ♦♦ ♦ N.
♦ •
♦ ♦
0 - I• * 1 --;--1 •
• - - •
c, CT CT ON CT———-. ON ONONONONONCINONONONONONONO,ONONO,CI NONCAONONC7N�
v 1 00a\ O O O -+ "el N M d' .1t dr vn o0 0o O O chi c� N M d d �n �O
o I- oo •-• O
�ON 0
DATE
NO NO NO NO
ON 0' ON ON
ON O O
M M VI. VI

35
30
25
20
U 15
10
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Cadmium Concentrations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ♦♦ •
♦♦•
• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ •
• • • ♦ N0
• «•♦ • • ♦ �♦ ♦ ♦ M.•M• ♦ •N •NAM •♦ M
0-$
1 /1 /94 4/11/94
7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Cd 7/10/96

70
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Chromium Concentrations
60 -
50 -
1 40-
0
30-
U
20 -
10
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
♦♦
•
•
•
•
•
• ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦♦♦
♦ • ♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦ • ♦ •
♦♦ • s
♦♦
•
0-
•
M
•
•
•
•
•
♦•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ♦ • •
•
• ♦ ♦ •
♦♦
•
• ♦♦
•
♦ ♦ ♦
•
•
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Cr 7/10/96

200
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Copper Concentrations
180 -
160 -
140 -
120 - •
d 100 -
o. •
c.)
80 - ♦
♦ ♦ ♦
•
•
60 - ♦
♦♦ •l, ♦ ♦♦•
♦
• • ♦♦• ♦ • ♦ •• ♦ ♦
40- • • • • •
20 -
•
0 -
• ♦ •♦•
•
•
•
•
Not included in statistical
analysis
• ♦ • • ♦
♦♦
♦ •
♦ • •N ♦ •
• •
•
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Cu 7/10/96

70
60
50
40 -
0
v
co
0 30 -
20 -
10-
0-
•
•
Civ•
' 1
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Cyanide Concentrations
•
•
•
•
N♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦•
♦ ♦♦ • ♦ • ♦ • • •
• • • ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • •♦ ♦ •
•-•. ♦- - • ♦ • • •• ♦
♦NN*NO N • w ♦•N•NN ♦ ♦NON• N ♦♦♦M ♦
�► w • ♦ • ♦♦ ♦ •♦ • M
• _
Not included in statistical
analysis
•
•
•
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
Page 9

140
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Lead Concentrations
120 -
100
80
co
'J 60
40 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦♦ • ♦ ♦ •
20- N ♦• ♦ •
• • ♦ • • ♦ * N
- -♦ - ♦ - ♦ ♦♦ • ♦•• M ♦• ♦♦ • NO •
• • �♦ N • •
0 _ . 2 t4It• • • dk • • • , • • • 11•••• ••w ••••••►
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96
6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Pb 7/10/96

m 0.8
2
0.6
0.4
0.2 -
0-
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Mercury Concentrations
••
•
•
♦ ♦•
•
•
•
♦ N ♦A!
N • • MOM ♦ M • • 41000000 • NM•SI►N• %OWNN♦ MNNM•• MN ♦ ♦~ M• •
♦• ♦ ilk
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Hg 7/10/96

•
250
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Nickel Concentrations
200 -
150
V
Z
100
50
•
♦♦
•
•
Not included in statistical
• analysis
• ♦♦ %
• • • •
• ♦♦ • • • • • • • • •
•• • ♦♦ •• ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ N
• • • • •
♦ ♦� • •
• • • ♦ • • • • • • ♦♦♦ N♦ • ♦♦ • ♦ ♦ •
♦ •
M • • N♦
• • ♦
0-
• • ,♦
•
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95 8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Ni 7/10/96

Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Silver Concentrations
20 -
18-
16-
14-
8
6
4
2
0
1 /1 /94
•
•
•
•
• ♦ ♦♦
• ♦♦ • • ♦♦•
♦• •
•
• ♦ ♦ N
•
•
•
N
N •
Not included in statistical
analysis
♦r ♦ -M •
• • • ♦♦
4/11/94
7/20/94
10/28/94
2/5/95
5/16/95
8/24/95
12/2/95
3/11/96
6/19/96
9496LGMT.XLS Ag 7/10/96

350
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Zinc Concentrations
300 -
250 -
•
•
•
•
•
200 -
t
c
IV
150
100 -
50
•
•
•
♦r► ♦ • ♦
•
♦•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
♦♦
•
♦ •
•
•
•
•
♦♦ ♦ ♦
•
•
•
•
0- , •
1 /1 /94 4/11/94 7/20/94 10/28/94 2/5/95 5/16/95
9496LGMT.XLS Zn 7/10/96
•
•
♦♦
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8/24/95 12/2/95 3/11/96 6/19/96

(11ttg of Gastonia
P. O. BOX 1748
ki5ustartia, arts{ Qluraliva 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
June 7, 1996
Ms. Colleen Sullins
DEM/WQ/P&E
Supervisor of Permits and Engineering
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Dear Ms. Sullins:
Enclosed for your review is a summary of data for one of the issues which we will be discussing on
Wednesday, June 12, at 8:30 a.m. via telephone conference.
Sincerely,
CITY OF GASTONIA
u..
Co eman M. Keeter
Superintendent of WWTD

CHROMIUM
Catawba Creek WWTP
A Comparison of Effluent Metals Before and After the Lime Addition
NICKEL
COPPER
ZINC
95
7.971
.06 1
1
LEAD
28
15
0.468 E
0.0
CADMIUM
27
2.052 L
0.3
CYANIDE
■ January - November 95 Average December, 95 - April, 96 Average ■ SOC COMPLIANCE LEVEL • NPDES COMPLIANCE LEVEL

ZINC
CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT METALS CHARACTERIZATION BY PERCENT BEFORE THE LIME FEED ADDITION
CADMIUM
0%
PERCENTAGES ARE OF
9.37478 LBS/DAY
TOTAL EFFLUENT METALS
COPPER, NICKEL, AND ZINC ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE THE BIG THREE
METALS OF CONCERN AND MAKE UP
92% OF THE TOTAL EFFLUENT METALS
WITH A COMBINED AVERAGE OF
8.6248 LBS/DAY
BEFORE THE LIME FEED ADDITION.

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
EFFLUENT METALS CHARACTERIZATION BY PERCENT AFTER THE LIME FEED ADDITION
PERCENTAGES ARE OF
0.46416 LBS/DAY
TOTAL EFFLUENT METALS
COPPER, NICKEL, AND ZINC ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE THE BIG THREE
METALS OF CONCERN AND MAKE UP
62% OF THE TOTAL EFFLUENT METALS
WITH A COMBINED AVERAGE OF
0.288 LBS/DAY
AFTER THE LIME FEED ADDITION.
NICKEL
3%
CADMIUM
3%

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
A COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT POUNDS PER DAY
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED PROCESS
EFFLUENT CHROMIUM
FINAL EFFLUENT AVERAGE
OF 0.40688 LBS/DA\
DISCHARGED BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
BEFORE
FINAL EFFLUE
AVERAGE OF
(1.1157OO6 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED
AFTER THE
ADDITION OF THE
LIME FEED
PROCESS
86 °''i RE DI f'T CIO
F'FLU E C �a
�►S/DAY 4>FTRR J
IIIO4 P1Ell
]
FEE PROCE�f
SLIME FEED AFTER

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
A COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT POUNDS PER DAY
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED PROCESS
EFFLUENT NICKEL
FINAL EFFLUENT AVERAGE
OF 1.90022 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
BEFORE
93
E
v
t
T
H
SLIME FEED AFTER
VERA
Il 139665 LBS
SCHARGED AFT
ADDITION OFTHIHI
FEED Pfit�
L E LUENT
OF
AY
RTHE
s,n IME

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
A COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT POUNDS PER DAY
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED PROCESS
EFFLUENT COPPER
1
FINAL EFFLUENT AVERAGE
OF 0.87669 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
Y
DI CTI
E w'1 C OJ'
AITERT
FIHE1
'ROCESS
BEFORE SLIME FEED AFTER
FINAL EFFLUENT
AVERAGE OF
0.013935 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED AFTER
THE ADDITION OF
THE LIME FEED
PROCESS

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
A COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT POUNDS PER DAY
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED PROCESS
EFFLUENT ZINC
FINAL EFFLUENT AVERAGE
OF 5.80382 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
N
BEFORE SLIME FEED AFTER
1
T
FINAL EFFLUENT
AVERAGE OF
(1.25(1193 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED AFTER
THE ADDITION OF
THE LIME FEED
PROCESS

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
A COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT POUNDS PER DAY
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED PROCESS
EFFLUENT CADMIUM
FINAL EFFLUENT AVERAGE
OF 0.02147 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
P
F
F
r
E
L
D
Crl
CA
711
'ICE
D
BEFORE SLIME FEED AFTER
FINAL EFFLUENT
AVERAGE OF
0.000443 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED AFTER
THE ADDITION OF
THE LIME FEED
PROCESS

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
A COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT POUNDS PER DAY
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED PROCESS
EFFLUENT LEAD
FINAL EFFLUENT AVERAGE
OF 0.36569 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
BEFORE
9'9
Di
• E:
41.1?
v
IU!s
T LEA
TER T Fi
THE LI
SLIME FEED AFTER
FINAL EFFLUENT
AVERAGE OF
0.00291.4 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED AFTER
THE ADDITION OF
THE LIME FEED
PRO ESS

CATAWBA CREEK WWTP
A COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT POUNDS PER DAY
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED PROCESS
EFFLUENT CYANIDE
FINAL EFFLUENT AVERAGE
OF 0.09405 LBS/DA\'
DISCHARGED BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
BEFORE
L
Y
v
D
FINAL EFFLUENT
AVERAGE OF
0.0180 LBS/DAY
DISCHARGED AFTER
THE ADDITION OF
THE LIME FEED
PROCESS
CT
I`ll!
THE
KE9
SLIME FEED AFTER