NC0028916_Engineering Alternative Analysis_20040618

pk K
DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
June 18, 2004
Ms. Susan A. Wilson, P.E. Environmental Engineer
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
=
©We)
Re: Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Wastewater Disposal Alternatives for the Towns of Biscoe and Star
WKD #30043.00.CL.
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Attached for your review is the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) prepared for the
Towns for Biscoe and Star. As you are aware, both Biscoe and Star operate treatment plants
that discharge to zero flow streams. Both Towns' treatment plants are ageing and will require
major upgrades to remain in compliance in the coming years. This situation has prompted the
Towns to assess their wastewater disposal alternatives.. Our findings indicate that the most
environmentally and economically sound alternative is to create a regional wastewater
treatment system by transferring all of Biscoe and Star's wastewater to the Town of Troy for
Treatment.
The Towns have applied for grant funding from both the Rural Center and Clean Water
Management Trust Fund to supplement the cost of construction of the recommended option
(option 2) from the EAA. The funding applications are currently under review by both
agencies.
N
You will find in Appendix G the results from the treatability study performed by Aquatic
Sciences Consulting (ACS). The study utilized a bench scale reactor to evaluate the effect of
combining wastewater from Biscoe, Star and Troy on the Town of Troy's capability in meeting
the speculative discharge permit limits. The test results demonstrate that regional treatment at
Troy's WWTP can be achieved within the speculative limits for conventional parameters. The
results also indicate that the combined town influents can be successfully treated to remove
toxicity at Troy's WWTP. Upon receiving preliminary approval from the NPDES unit, the
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com
North Carolina • South Carolina • Georgia • Florida

Ms. Susan A. Wilson, PE
June 18, 2004
Page 2 of 2
Towns plan to pursue other avenues of funding to further supplement the cost of this
important regionalization project.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional supporting data.
Sincerely,
W. K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
Cooper J. Burton, PE
cc: Mr._Paul Rawls'- DWQ
Enclosures
L/Projects/bisco/300 43/SWilson061704

f--
1
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES. ANALYSIS (EAA)
FOR
TOWNS OF BISCOE AND STAR
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
MAY, 2004
WKD #30043.00.CL
Prepared for
Town of Biscoe
Post Office Box 1228
Biscoe, NC 27209
.0 .\ CAR "'s.
•QpFEr.
SiAL
29463
'• � ••�NGINe'• off:
Report Prepared by
W. K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
704/334-5348
©WQ

Towns of Biscoe and Star
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
WKD# 30043.00.CL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description
Page Number
Section I - Summary 1
Introduction
Summary of Findings
Section II — General Information 2
Basic Identification of the Project
Project Description
Existing Wastewater Facilities
Phased Construction
Section III — Evaluate Disposal Alternatives 3 — 5
Land Based Disposal
Surface Water Discharge Through the NPDES Program
Connecting to a Sewer Collection System
Wastewater Reuse
Possible Combinations of the Above Options
Section IV — Recommendation of System Options 6
Appendices
Appendix A - Total Present Value Table/Estimated Capital and Recurring Costs
Appendix B — Site Plan, Schematic and Vicinity Map
Appendix C — Preliminary indication of flow acceptance from Troy
Appendix D — State Demographic Data & Wastewater flow Projections
Appendix E — USGS 7Q10 & 30Q2 regional flow projections
Appendix F — Speculative Limits
Appendix G — ACS Consulting Treatability Study

Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
I. SUMMARY
A. Introduction:
The purpose of this EAA is to determine which wastewater disposal alternative is
the best option for the Towns of Biscoe and Star from both an economic and
environmental standpoint. This EAA also includes a Present -Value -of -Costs
Analysis.
Summary of Findings:
The Towns of Biscoe and Star operate treatment plants that discharge to zero flow
streams. Both Towns' treatment plants are ageing and will require major upgrades
to remain in compliance in the coming years. A regional surface water discharge is
recommended as the most viable option for both Towns from both an economic
and environmental standpoint. It is recommended that the Towns transfer all flows
to the Town of Troy for treatment (option 2). This option will remove two zero flow
stream discharges and combine all three towns wastewater treatment operations
into a regional system with a single discharge.
The estimated Capital Costs and Present -Value -of -Costs amount for the
recommended surface water discharge system for the two Towns is as follows:
Option 2 — Transfer all Flows to Troy for Treatment
Present Value of Costs
Capital Cost
An in depth discussion of the summary of findings follows.
$11,068,300
$ 6,165,139

II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Basic Identification of the Project:
1. Existing Facility Name — Biscoe NC WWTP (NPDES # NC0021504)
Star NC WWTP (NPDES # NC0058548)
2. County — Montgomery
3. Facility Address — Biscoe North Carolina SR 1556; Seaberry Road
Star North Carolina SR1369; Center Street
4. Facility Telephone No. — Biscoe, NC (910) 428 - 4112
5. EAA Preparer's Name — WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
6. EAA Preparer's Mailing Address/Telephone No. —
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
[phone]
B. Project Description:
The Town of Biscoe and the Town of Star each operate separate wastewater systems
serving their respective communities. The two Town's are located near each other,
with less than a mile separating their town limits along NC 220 Business. Each
town's wastewater treatment plant has a rated treatment capacity of 0.600 MGD.
The Biscoe treatment plant, located southwest of Town, is approximately 32-years
old and discharges treated effluent to Hickory Branch (a zero flow stream) in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee river basin. It is an outdated plant that lacks the redundancy of
more modern plants. The Town has had significant non-compliance issues for BOD
and Fecal Coliform throughout the years 2000 and 2001, but its ageing components
are unable to be taken out of service for repair due to its out dated design.
The neighboring Town of Star operates a treatment plant, located east of its Town
Limits, discharging to Cotton Creek (a zero flow stream) in the Cape Fear River
basin. The Star facility is approximately 15-years old and is also showing signs of
age. Star's WWTP has been plagued with toxicity compliance issues (more than 12
per year) for years.
Both communities have a need to upgrade their respective wastewater treatment
systems. This need is the stimulus to develop a regional concept that would
provide safe and reliable wastewater treatment for both Towns. The two Towns
have resolved to work together to determine the regions most environmentally and
economically feasible solution for wastewater treatment now and in the future.
The Town of Biscoe currently has a population of 1,747 and Star's population is
808. The populations projected out to year 2025 are 2,287 and 1,072 respectively
based on the State demographic data. The 20 year projected average day
wastewater flows from these Towns based on historical treatment plant data is
projected to be 0.539 MGD and 0.425 MGD respectively(see appendix D). These
flows are slightly higher than the standard 60 gallon per person per day (15A NCAC
2H .0219) in large part due to the industrial component from both of these towns.
2

The Towns currently offer incentives in the form of rebates to their existing water /
sewer customers for the use of low flow faucets and fixtures.
C. Existing Wastewater Facilities:
The existing facilities can not be used for treatment in this project to meet regional
needs. Due to the age and condition of the existing facilities, it has been
determined that it is not feasible to utilize them. As well, the NCDENR DWQ
regional office has indicated that they will not allow an increase in capacity to an
existing NPDES Permit on a zero flow stream. This eliminates the possibility of
increasing capacity of one of the existing plants.
D. Phased Construction:
The project will not be constructed in phases. The proposed wastewater treatment
system will be designed to accommodate the Towns' 20 year growth projections.
III. EVALUATE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
A. Land Based Disposal:
Neither Biscoe nor Star currently own land suitable for a surface or subsurface land
disposal discharge system. One alternative for land based disposal is for the two
Towns to send all of their flows to the Town of Candor for Treatment. Candor is
approximately 6 miles south of Biscoe and approximately 8.5 miles south of Star.
Montgomery County currently operates a 0.2 MGD wastewater treatment facility in
Candor that discharges all of its effluent by spray irrigation on 42 acres. Based on
these existing loading rates the Candor plant would need an additional 504 acres to
treat the 1.2 MGD from Biscoe and Star and provide a 100% reserve area. In
addition to the land and the infrastructure required to transport the flows to Candor
the plant would need to be upgraded to a handle the additional 1.2 MGD. Due to
the extraordinary costs associated with the land acquisitions and infrastructure
required, land based disposal is not considered a feasible option.
B. Surface Water Discharge Through the NPDES Program:
Option 1: Construct a new 1.2 MGD regional wastewater treatment facility to
serve only Biscoe and Star, discharging to Little River.
Option one would remove both Towns from zero flow streams and provide a
wastewater treatment solution for their existing and future flows. Option one will
require Star to abandon its existing treatment plant and transfer all of its flows to
Biscoe. Transferring the flows to Biscoe will require construction of a pump station
and approximately 25,000 LF of 8" force main.
The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) was contacted first to obtain receiving stream
flow information for several locations near Biscoe in Montgomery County. The
7Q10 for streams in this area is about 0.01 cfs per square mile. The low -flow

(30Q2) characteristics for streams in this region are regarded as having little to no
potential for providing sustained base flows (see attachment Appendix E). This is
primarily due to the characteristically thin soils known to occur in the area and the
relatively high land -surface slopes. The Towns of Biscoe and Star both currently
discharge to zero flow streams with their existing NPDES permits. Because of the
low flows, several locations and arrangements were assessed based on the premise
that the effluent would have to be discharged to the Little River. The two most
feasible locations are described below:
The first potential discharge location is just North of Smitherman Dam on the Little
River. Constructing a plant at this location would require a lengthy gravity outfall
down White Oak and Cedar Creeks or a 30,000+ LF force main following SR 1556
to SR 1557 to SR 1519 and then on to the plant site. This location would also
require acquisition of property for the plant site and extensive earthwork. An
alternative location would be at the site of the existing Biscoe treatment facility (see
option one Appendix B). This location would only require 24,000 LF of force main,
minimal earthwork and no property acquisition. Due to the significantly reduced
cost and ease of construction it was determined that the new plant should be
located at the location of the existing plant. The discharge location would be the
Little River at its intersection with Highway 24/27. (see Appendix G for the
speculative limits for this option)
The project cost of this option is projected to be $9,191,329, including
construction, engineering, legal and administrative costs. The present value of
cost, including recurring operation and maintenance costs is $13,078,300.
C. Connecting to a Sewer -Collection System
Option 2: Transfer all flows from both Biscoe and Star to the Town of Troy for
treatment.
The nearest publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that is capable of handling
the flows from the two Towns is in Troy, NC. Troy currently operates a 1.2 MGD
activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (NPDES # NC0028916) that discharges
to Densons Creek Northwest of the Little River.
1. The Troy WWTP is approximately six (6) miles from the Biscoe WWTP.
Due to the size and nature of this project the extended distance is
considered cost effective.
(a) The Town of Star would need a 738 gpm pump station and approximately
25,000 LF of 10" force main to pump all of their existing and projected
flows to Biscoe. Their treatment plant would be abandoned and the pump
station would most likely be located at the site of the existing WWTP.
Biscoe would also abandon their existing treatment plant and construct a
pump station at the site of the existing treatment plant. Biscoe would need
a 1,736 gpm pump station and 30,200 LF of 14" force main to pump al I of
the flows from both Biscoe and Star to the Town of Troy. The pump station
will be designed to meet peak demands however the existing treatment
4

plant basins can be used as flow equalization basins during times of extreme
usage. The Town of Troy's WWTP will also need to be upgraded to handle
2 MGD.
(b) The Town of Troy has met with both Star and Biscoe and has offered
preliminary indication of flow acceptance by way of resolution by their
Governing Body (see attachment appendix C).
(c) See attached map labeled Option two in appendix B.
(d) See Appendix A for the Present Value of Costs Analysis.
The project cost of this option is projected to be $6,165,139, including
construction, engineering, legal and administrative costs. The present value of
cost, including recurring operation and maintenance costs is $11,068,300.
The Towns retained Aquatic Sciences Consulting (ACS) from Woodbine MD to
perform a treatability study of the three towns' combined wastewaters. (Report is
included in Appendix G). ACS performed a bench -scale simulation of the main
activated sludge treatment process used at the Troy WWTP. Using the simulation,
ACS evaluated the impact of the combined wastewaters on the Town of Troy's
capability in meeting speculative discharge permit limits for BOD5, ammonia -
nitrogen, total suspended solids(TSS), and toxicity (see speculative limits for this
option in Appendix F). The test results show that the effluent concentrations of
BOD5, ammonia nitrogen and TSS were below the speculative limits for the existing
discharge to Denson's Creek and the proposed discharge to the Little River (at 2.0
MGD). Also, no toxic effect, either on survival and reproduction to Ceriodaphnia
dubia or survival and growth to Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow), was
observed at the highest effluent test concentration of.90%. The test results
demonstrate that regional treatment at Troy's WWTP can achieve the speculative
limits for conventional parameters as well as chronic toxicity and dissolved oxygen.
Furthermore it is anticipated that the proposed ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system
upgrades will achieve the speculative limits for fecal coliform and total residual
chlorine.
D. Wastewater Reuse:
The Town of Troy has recently performed a study of wastewater effluent reuse
options including irrigating land owned by Troy Lumber and that owned by
Montgomery Country Club. They have concluded that it is feasible to send
200,000 GPD of treated effluent to Montgomery Country Club. This reuse project
is currently under design. 200,000 GPD would equal 10% of the design flow from
all three Towns.
E. Possible Combinations of the Above Options:
Combinations of wastewater reuse and sending all of the flows to Troy for treatment
may be a feasible alternative due to the current progress of the Montgomery
Country Club effluent irrigation project. The combination of wastewater reuse
5

and/or land application with option one from above is not recommended due to the
varying operation and maintenance procedures involved with each system. In
addition the excessive cost associated with construction of a new plant as well as
construction of a reuse or land application system would make this option
unfeasible from an economic standpoint.
IV. RECOMMENDATION OF SYSTEM OPTIONS
Surface water discharge option 2 is the recommended option for the Towns of
Biscoe and Star. The total present value of this option; shown in appendix A, shows
that this is the best option from an economic standpoint. By removing two
discharges from zero flow streams and regionalizing three towns' wastewater flows,
this option also presents itself as the best environmental solution as well.
6

APPENDIX A

J
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE
Interest Rate: 8.00% Discrete Compounding
Number of Years: 20
Option No.
Description
Est. Capital Costs
Present Value
Est. Recurring Costs
Present Value
Total Present Value
1
Construct new 1.2 MGD Regional WWTP
$ 9,191,329.00
$9,191,329.00
$ 395,900.00
$ 3,886,985.79
$13,078,300
2
Transfer all flows to Town of Troy for treatment
$ 6,165,139.00
$6,165,139.00
$ 499,400.00
$ 4,903,159.14
$11,068,300

SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE SYSTEM - OPTION 1
CONSTRUCT NEW 1.2 MGD REGIONAL WWTP
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
Item No.
Item Description
Units
Unit Price
Quantities
Total
Cost
1
Star Pump Station, Generator, Electrical
LS
$ 150,000
1
$ 1 50,000
2
10" Force Main
LF
$ 25
25,000
$ 625,000
3
Abandon Star WWTP
LF
$ 50,000
1
$ 50,000
4
Cased Rail Road .Crossing
LF
$ 120
100
$ 12,000
5
Connect to Biscoe
LS
$ 3,000
1
$ 3,000
6 .
Biscoe Effluent Pump Station, Generator, Electrical
LS
$ 285,900
1
$ 285,900
8
14" Force Main
LF
$ 35
23,175
$ 811,125
9
1 MGD Regional WWTP
LS
$ 5,000,000
1
$ 5,000,000
Abandon Biscoe WWTP
LS
$ 250,000
1
$ 250,000
Construction Subtotal
$ 7,187,025
Contingency (15%)
$ 1,078,054
Total Construction Cost
$ 8,265,079
10
Engineering Services
Design Surveys
LS
$ 109,350
1
$ 109,350
Final Design
LS
$ 372,900
1
$ 372,900
Geotechnical Investigations
LS
$ 10,000
1
$ 10,000
11
Constuction Services
Contract Administration
LS
$ 93,200
1
$ 93,200
Construction Observation (305-Days)
LS
$ 175,400
1
$ 1 75,400
12
Environmental Assessment
LS
$ 35,500
1
$ 35,500
13
0 & M Manual
LS
$ 18,000
1
$ 18,000
14
Legal & Administrative (1.5%)
LS
.$ 111,900
1
$ 111,900
Total Engineering & Other Cost
$ 926,250
Total Project Cost
$ 9,191,329
ESTIMATED RECURRING COSTS
Item No.
Item Description
Units
Unit Price
Quantities
Total
Cost
1
Force Main Maintenance Cost
Year
$ 7,500.00
1
7,500
2
Average Power Cost for Both Pump Stations
Year
$ 51,000.00
1
51,000
3
Pump Station Maintenance Costs
Year
$ 5,000.00
1
5,000
4
Average Pump Station Labor costs
Month
$ 200.00
12
2,400
5
Plant Operation & Maintenance Costs
Year
$ 250,000.00
1
250,000
6
Debt Service at 6%
Year
$ 80,000.00
1
80,000
Total
Year
395,900

SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE SYSTEM - OPTION 2
TRANSFER FLOWS TO TROY
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
Item No.
Item Description
Units
Unit Price
Quantities
Total
Cost
1
Star Pump Station, Generator, Electrical
LS
$ 1 50,000
1
$ 1 50,000
2
10" Force Main
LF
$ 25
25,000
$ 625,000
3
Abandon Star WWTP
LF
$ 50,000
1
$ 50,000
4
Cased Rail Road Crossing
LF
$ 120
100
$ 12,000
5
Connect to Biscoe
LS
$ 2,500
1
$ 2,500
6
Biscoe Pump Station, Generator, Electrical
LS
$ 285,900
1
$ 285,900
7
Abandon/Modify Biscoe WWTP for Flow EQ
LS
$ 250,000
1
$ 250,000
8
14" Force Main
LF
$ 35
30,200
$ 1,057,000
9
Troy plant expansion to 2 MGD
Headworks Upgrades
LS
$ 239,525
1
$ 239,525
Oxidation Ditch Improvements
LS
$ 1,121,288
1
$ 1,121,288
Secondary Clarifier Addition
LS
$ 290,569
1
$ 290,569
Return Sludge Pumping
LS
$ 52,594
1
$ 52,594
Sludge Digestion Upgrades
LS
$ 59,375
1
$ 59,375
UV Upgrades
LS
$ 50,000
1
$ 50,000
Electrical Upgrades & 400 KVA Generator
LS
$ 152,500
1
$ 1 52,500
Effluent Outfall (discharge to Little River)
LS
$ 355,000
1
$ 355,000
Construction Subtotal
$ 4,753,251
Contingency (15%)
$ 71-2,988
Total Construction Cost
$ 5,466,239
10
Engineering Services
Design Surveys
LS
$ 141,900
1
$ 141,900
Final Design
LS
$ 224,200
1
$ 224,200
11
Construction Services
Contract Administration
LS
$ 59,800
1
$ 59,800
Construction Observation (260 Days)
LS
$ 149,500
1
$ 149,500
12
Environmental Assessment
LS
$ 35,500
1
$ 35,500
13
0 & M Manual
LS
$ 18,000
1
$ 18,000
14
Legal & Administrative (1.5%)
LS
$ 70,000
1
$ 70,000
Total Engineering & Other Cost
$ 698,900
Total Project Cost
$ 6,165,139
ESTIMATED RECURRING COSTS
Item No.
Item Description
Units
Unit Price
Quantities
Total
Cost
1
Force Main Maintenance Cost
Year
$ 8,000.00
1
8,000
2
Average Power Cost for Both Pump Stations
Year
$ 55,000.00
1
55,000
3
Pump Station Maintenance Costs
Year
$ 5,000.00
1
5,000
4
Average Pump Station Labor costs
Month
$ 200.00
12
2,400
5
Plant Operation & Maintenance Costs
Year
$ 375,000.00
1
375,000
6
Debt Service @ 6%
Year
$ . 54,000.00
1
54,000
Total
Year
499,400

APPENDIX B

STAR WWTP
UMP ST TION"---_,
OP11ON ONE
NEW WWTP W/SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
REGIONAL WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE
TOWN OF BISCOE
V'
PAW 816 "ATI 1 'OE g2d01
[phone]
1
2
p0CaTT.
DICKSON rze=ront.
South Curol.,o °Nct

L
EXISTING
STAR WVVTP
TROY
(,)
OPTION TWO
PUMP TO TOWN OF TROY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE
TOWN OF BISCOE
pglieKSON
0 COLONNADE DRIVE1
CHARLOTTE NC 20205
2
[phone]
Office Locations:
North Carolina
South Cording
7,24.3 2

APPENDIX C

TOWN OF TROY
RESOLUTION
January 21, 2004
ROY ''1ANIESS
H G: MASSENGILL
MAYOR PRO-TE:tf
COMMISSIONERS:
E3RUCE HAMILTON
JAMES HURLEY
WALLACE JONES
CHRIS WATKINS
JAMES E. JUSTICE
TOIYN MANAGER
CATHY M. MANESS
TOWN CLERK
WHEREAS, the Towns of Biscoe, Star and Troy North Carolina are assessing
potential regional solutions for wastewater treatment, all potential solutions
will provide wastewater treatment for the three Towns and allow for the 20
year growth plans of each Town as well as the region; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to regionalize their wastewater systems, the Towns
of Biscoe, Star and Troy have resolved to focus their study on the option of
sending all flows from the three Towns to the Town of Troy for treatment.
The Towns have not eliminated any options, but rather have chosen to focus
their efforts on studying the feasibility of the aforementioned option for
regional wastewater treatment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of
the Town of Troy that the Town of Troy, working with the Towns of Biscoe
and Star will proceed with the regionalization study by focusing on
determining the feasibility of treating all three Town's wastewater at the
Town of Troy's Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Town of Troy will
support efforts to meet the discharge limit requirements as required by State
laws and regulations for the Town of Troy's Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Adopted this the ‘.2, day of Jca,r-Nv c � 2004.
ATTEST:
A
•r1 I\.
Town Clerk
315 NORTH MAIN STREET TROY, NC 27371
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
www.troy.nc.us

APPENDIX D

Alternate #2 Wastewater Flow Projections
PRELIMINARY
Projected Population Served
2002 2010 2020 2025
Star 808 910 1,018 1,072
Biscoe 1,747 1,942 2,172 2,287
Troy 4,225 4,764 5,328 5,610
Total 6,780 7,616 8,518 8,969
Projected Water Demand (MGD)
2002 2010 2020 2025
Star
Res 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.053
Comm 0.018 0.025 0.037 0.045
Ind 0.372 0.403 0.445 0.468
0.430 0.473 0.532 0.566
Biscoe
Res 0.016 0.120 0.134
Comm 0.040 0.055 0.081
Ind 0.194 0.266 0.393
0.141
0.099
0.478
0.250 0.441 0.608 0.718
Troy
Res 0.348 0.394 0.440 0.463
Comm 0.005 0.007 0.010 0.012
Ind 0.263 0.360 0.532 0.648
0.616 0.761 0.982 1.123
Total 1.296 1.675 2.122 2.407
Projected Wastewater ADF (MGD)
Star 0.323 0.355 0.399 0.425
Biscoe 0.188 0.331 0.456 0.539
Troy 0.500 0.609 0.786 0.898
Total 1.010 1.294 1.641 1.861

APPENDIX E

Cooper Burton
From: John C Weaver [jcweaver©usgs.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:40 PM
To: Cooper Burton
Cc: jcweaver©usgs.gov
Subject: Low -flow characteristics for streams near Troy, Montgomery County...
Mr. Burton,
In response to your .inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for some locations near
Troy in Montgomery County, the following information is provided.
It appears the 7Q10 discharge yield (expressed as flow per square mile of drainage area)
for streams in this area is about 0.01 cfs per sqmi. This is based on records of
discharge that have been collected at a couple of. locations near Troy.
I Rough estimates of the drainage areas for your sites of interest are as
follows:
I.,
1 i
Site 1 - Cedar Creek just dnstrm of confluence_with White Oak Creek - approx 6.5 sqmi Site
2 - Little River, at NC 24/27 - 148 sqmi Site 3 - Cedar Creek at mouth - 11.4 sqmi Site 4 -
Densons Creek at confluence with Spencer Branch - approx 32 to 33 sqmi:
Thus the estimated 7Q10 discharges for each of these locations would be the product of the
above yield (0.01 cfs per sqmi) and the respective drainage areas (sqmi).
In July 1999, the low-flow'characteristics for a site on Densons Creek upstream of Spencer
Branch were the focus of a letter sent to the NC Division of Water Quality. Included in
the letter is some discussion about the effects of underlying geology (Carolina Slate Belt
region), soils characteristics, 'and high degree of topographic relief observed in that
area. Areas underlain by the Carolina Slate Belt geologic belt are characterized by some
of the lowest water -yielding rocks in the State. Thus, combined with the "thin" soils
known to occur 'in the area withrelatively high land -surface slopes, the low -flow
characteristics for streams in this region are regarded as having little to no potential
for sustained base flows.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
*************************************.**********************************
J. Cur.tis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
U.S. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: (919):571-4043 // Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
*****************************,*************************************.*****
1

APPENDIX F

April 9, 2004
Mr. Cooper Burton, P.E.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205
Subject: Speculative Limits
Micnael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIVED
APR 21 2004
W.K. DICKSON CO.
Regional System on Little River and Denson's Creek
Ref. NPDES' Permit Nos. NC0021504 (Biscoe) and NC0058548 (Star)
Towns of Biscoe, Star, Troy
Montgomery County
Dear Mr. Burton:
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent Limits on behalf of the
Town's of Star and Biscoe for a potential regional system. It is the Division of Water Quality's
understanding that there is a potential for a. regional -type system to be built and to discharge at
(1) the location of the Town of Troy's discharge point on Denson's Creek or (2) at a location along
Highway 24/27 on the Little River. The Division encourages the Towns of Troy, Biscoe, and Star
to work diligently towards a regional system. An addendum is attached to this letter which
presents the various discharge scenarios requested by the Towns of Troy, Star, and Biscoe.
These speculative limits are based on our understanding of the proposal and of present
environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot guarantee that it will
issue the Town an NPDES permit to expand its discharge of treated wastewater into waters of the
State. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent limitations and other requirements included in any
Permit will be exactly as presented here. Final decisions on these matters will be made only after
the Division evaluates a formal permit application for the discharge and notices the proposal for
public comment.
Environmental Assessments of New Projects and Expansions
Any entity proposing to construct new or expanded wastewater- treatment facilities using
public funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when
wastewater expansions equal or exceed 0.5 MGD. Please contact the Division's State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) coordinator, currently Alex'Marks, at (919) 733 - 5083, ext. 555
for further information on EA requirements. DWQ will notaccept a permit application for a
project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and sent a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment. .
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the most practicable wastewater
treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to
be implemented with any expansion. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit applications
for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared.
The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment
alternatives. .Alternatives to a surface water discharge, such as a spray/drip irrigation,
wastewater reuse, or inflow/infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally
preferable. 'A copy of the EAA"requirements is attached to this -letter. Permit applications for new
or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA requirements are not adequately
addressed. You may also wish to refer to the NPDES Unit website for more information regarding
requests for expansion, http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone]
FAX [phone]
On the Internet at http://t-i2o.enr.state.nc.us/

Mr.
r
Page 3
BOD5 and NH3-N. The proposed limits for a 1 MGD discharge into the Little River (with the Troy
discharge on 'Denson's Creek) would be 5 mg/l (BOD5) and 1.0 mg/1 (NH3-N) during the summer
months, 30 mg/1 (BOD5) and 13 mg/1 (NH3-N) during the winter months. These limits are based
on an EPA -approved water quality model. The 7Q10s flow is fairly low for this size drainage area
(but is typical for this hydrologic area), so; the summer limits are fairly stringent. Because the
7Q10w flow isrelatively higher, the winter limits are less stringent.
Dissolved Oxygen. A minimum daily average dissolved oxygen level of 6 mg/1 must be maintained
in the effluent.
TSS. The limits for total suspended solids are standard for secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater and would remain the same as in the existing permit (30 mg/1 monthly, average).
Fecal Coliforrn, pH. The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH are derived to -protect water
quality in the receiving stream and will likely remain the same as in the previous permit.
Chlorine. A total residual' chlorine limit of 28 ug/1 (daily maximum) would be implemented in this
permit.
Chronic Toxicity Testing: The chronic toxicity limit for the 1.0 MGD flow would be Pass/Fail at
51%. This is based on the 7Q10s stre.ainflow of 1.48 cfs.
Toxicant Parameters: Estimation of toxicant parameters will not be given with this speculative
letter, but will be submitted as appropriate with the draft NPDES permit.
If you have any additional questions about these limits, feel free to contact Susan Wilson
at [phone], extension 510.
cc:
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich(pervisor
NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
Fayetteville Regional Office/ WQS
Central Files
NPDES Unit Files
The Honorable Frank Kersey, Mayor
Town: of Star
P.O. Box 97
Star, NC 28356
The Honorable James Blake. Mayor
Town lof Biscoe
P.O. Box 26
Biscoe, NC 27209
Gray Walls, P.E.
Town of Troy
444 North Main Street
Troy, North Carolina 27371-2799

Addendum
Troy, Biscoe, Star Issues & Potential Regional System Scenarios
Scenarios
Site Description
Proposed
Flow (MGD)
BOD5 mg/1
(sum/win)
NH3-N. mg/1
. (sum/win)
D.O.
mg/1
Instream waste
concentration
(IWC °rb)
1
Regional system at
Troy's existing site,
Denson's Creek
(Troy/ Biscoe/ Star)
2.0
8.5 / 30
1.1 / 3.0
6.0
90
2
Regional system for
Biscoe/ Star -
At Hwy. 24/27
(w/Troy as is)
1.0 (Biscoe/
Star)
5.0 / 30
1.0 / 13 •
6.0
51
3
Regional system
2 MGD plant at '
Hwy. 24/27
(no Troy discharge
upstream)•
2.0
5.0 / 30
1.2 / 7.5
6.0
68
Scenario 1 -
This scenario assumes all permitted flow at the existing Troy discharge site on Denson's Creek.
Scenario 2 -
_This scenario assumes a Biscoe/Star regional system at a flow of 1.0 MGD to Little River at Hwy. 24/27. This
scenario also assumes Troy continues its discharge of 1.2 MGD to Denson's Creek.
Scenario 3 -
This scenario assumes a regional system of 2.0 MGD with discharge to Little River at Hwy. 24/27. This
scenario also assumes that Troy will relocate its discharge to this point.
Stream flows:
Denson's Creek, Class.0
(Town of Troy's existing outfall site on Denson's Creek, above confluence with Spencer Branch)
DA=32mi2
7Q10s.= 0.35 cfs
7Q10w=2.42cfs
•Qavg;=.32
Little River (at Hwy..24/27), Class C
DA = 148 mi2
7Q 10s = 1.48 cfs
7Q 10w = 11.2 cfs
Q avg = 148 cfs
On Denson's Creek - although the stream flows are lower, the slopes are much higher than Little River, which
affects the water quality model (likely why the limits are just as low on Little River as on Denson's Creek).

r-F WA7
tvtrchael F. Easley. Governor
Stale of North Carolina
April 9, 2004
Mr. Gray Walls, P.E.
Town Engineer/ Public Services Director
Town of Troy
444 North Main Street
Troy, North Carolina 27371-2799
Subject: Speculative Limits
Regional System on Little River
Ref. NPDES Permit NC0028916
Towns of Troy, Star. Biscoe
Montgomery County
Dear Mr. Walls:
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P E., Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIVED
APR 2 1 2004
W.K. DICKSON CO.
This letter is in response to a request for speculative effluent limits for the potential
expansion and relocation of the Troy wastewater treatment plant. It is the Division of Water
Quality's understanding that there is a potential for a regional -type system to be built and to
discharge at the proposed location along Highway 24/27. The Division encourages the Towns of
Troy, Biscoe, and Star to work diligently towards a regional system. The speculative limits
provided below are for a discharge to the Little River at a flow of 2 MGD (with the understanding
that the existing discharge on Denson's Creek would be removed). You may also wish to refer to
Table 1 attached to this letter. In addition. an addendum is attached to this letter which presents
the various discharge scenarios requested by the Towns of Troy, Star, and Biscoe.
These speculative limits are based on our understanding of the proposal and of present
environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot guarantee that it will
issue the Town an NPDES pet chit to expand its discharge of treated wastewater into waters of the
State. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent limitations and other requirements included in any
permit will be exactly as presented here. Final decisions on these matters will be made only after
the Division evaluates a formal permit application for the discharge and notices the proposal for
public comment.
Environmental Assessments of New Projects and Expansions
Any entity proposing to construct new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities using
. public funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when
wastewater expansions equal or exceed 0.5 MGD. Please contact the Division's State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) coordinator, currently Alex Marks, at (919) 733 — 5083. ext. 555
for further information on EA requirements. DWQ will not accept a permit application for a
project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and sent a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the most practicable wastewater
treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to
be implemented with any expansion. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit applications
for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives. analysis (EAA) must be prepared.
The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment
alternatives. Alternatives to a surface water discharge, such as a spray/drip irrigation,
wastewater reuse, or inflow/infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally
preferable. A copy of the EAA requirements is attached to this letter. Permit applications for new
or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA requirements are not adequately
addressed. You may also wish to refer to the NPDES Unit website for more information regarding
requests for expansion, http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
[phone]
FAX [phone]

Mr. Walls
Page 3
Table 1. Speculative Limits for a Flow of 2.0 MGD
(Discharge point at Hwy. 24/27 on the Little River)
Parameter
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
2.0 MGD
BOD5 (summer)
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/1
BOD5 (winter)
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
NH3-N (summer)
1.2 mg/1
3.6 mg/1
NH3-N (winter)
7.5 mg/1
22.5 mg/1
15S
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
Fecal coliform
200 #/100 ml
400 #/100 ml
Total residual chlorine
25 ug/1
Dissolved Oxygen
6.0 mg/1
(minimum)
Chronic Toxicity
Quarterly P/F at 68%

APPENDIX G

Evaluation of Regional Treatment of Combined Influent Wastewaters
From the Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
at Troy's Wastewater Treatment Plant
Prepared for:
W.K. Dickson
616 Colonnade Dr
Charlotte, NC 28205
And
Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star, NC
Prepared by:
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
John Botts, Principal Scientist
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine, MD 21797
June 8, 2004

Contents
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Background 4
1.2 Purpose and Objectives 5
2. Technical Approach 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Town of Troy WWTP Operating Conditions and Effluent Quality 6
2.3 Speculative Limits 7
2.4 Towns' Influent and Effluent Characteristics 8
2.5 Design and Operation of the Treatment Simulation 11
2.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 18
3. Results 19
3.1 Bioreactor Operating Results 19
3.2 Treatment Performance Results 23
3.3 Effluent Quality 26
3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results 29
4. References 31
Appendices,
A. NC Division of Water Quality Response to Request for Speculative Limits for
Regional. Treatment and Discharge to Denson's Creek or the Little River A-1
B. Mean Cell Residence Time Calculation for the Existing Town of Troy .
Wastewater Treatment Plant B-1
C. Analytical and Toxicity Test Reports C-1
D. Analytical QA/QC Reports D-1

Contents (Continued)
Figures
1 Diagram of Study Bioreactor 12
2 Two -stage Treatment Simulation for the Troy — Biscoe — Star Study 13
3 Influent Feed Tank and Pump 14
4 Effluent Collection Tank 15
5 Mean Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Concentrations in the Regional
WWTP Simulation
22
6 Sludge Volume Index Results for the Regional WWTP Simulation 24
Tables
ES-1 Comparison of Average Simulation Effluent Results and Speculative
Permit Limits for Regional Treatment at the Town of Troy 3
1 Existing Operating Conditions for Troy WWTP Activated Sludge Process 7
2 Average Monthly Effluent Data and Permit Limits for the Town of Troy 8
3 Speculative Effluent Limits for Regional Wastewater Treatment at Troy 9
4 Monthly Average Influent Characteristics for the Towns of Troy, Biscoe
and Star 10
5 Influent Sample Collection and Use in Bioreactors 16
6 Summary of Bioreactor Operating Conditions 20
7 Influent and Effluent Monitoring Results for Troy-Biscoe-Star Simulation 25
8 Comparison of Simulated Effluent Results and Speculative Permit Limits
for Regional Treatment at the Town of Troy 27
9 Summary of Effluent Toxicity Results for the Treatment Simulation 28

Regional. Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 1
June 8, 2004
Executive Summary
The towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star are considering options for combined treatment of their
wastewaters in a regional facility. W.K. Dickson, the towns' engineer, has indicated that the
preferred alternative would involve pumping wastewater from the towns of Star and Biscoe to an
upgraded wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at the town of Troy. The North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) estimates that less stringent effluent limitations would apply if the town
of Troy relocates its outfall on Denson's Creek to the Little River (starting at mile 19 at Highway
24/27).
An issue of concern in considering regional wastewater treatment is whether or not effluent
toxicity observed at the town of Star's WWTP can be effectively reduced by combined treatment
with wastewater from the other towns. After discussions with DWQ, it was agreed that a study
should be performed to evaluate the effect of the combined wastewaters on treatment system
performance and effluent limitations, particularly toxicity. Aquatic Sciences Consulting (ASC)
was retained in April 2004 to perform the study.
It was decided by the towns and W.K. Dickson that the treatability study would focus on the
preferred alternative of treating the combined Troy, Star and Biscoe influent wastewaters at the
town of Troy's WWTP. A bench -scale treatment simulation was set up and operated for a 28
day period, which was equivalent to 1 '/z mean cell residence times (MCRT), a measure of the
activated sludge growth cycle for Troy's WWTP. The treatment simulation was intended to
provide information on whether or not regional treatment at the Troy WWTP can achieve
speculative effluent limitations for Denson's Creek and the Little River.
The simulation was operated as a continuous -flow process using two bioreactors in series.
Influent samples were received from each town and mixed in proportions corresponding to the
current flow rates. Return activated sludge (RAS) sample from Troy's WWTP was added to
each bioreactor. Treatment was initiated by pumping the combined influent at a rate of 8.2
mL/min [to simulate the hydraulic retention time (HRT) for the combined flow at the WWTP]
and the mixed Liquors were aerated to achieve the dissolved oxygen (DO)- levels maintained at
Troy's WWTP. Treatment conditions promoted the growth of carbon -fixing bacteria in the first
bioreactor. Mixed liquors from the first bioreactor were discharged to the second bioreactor
where conditions allowed nitrifying bacteria to oxidize. ammonia. The mixed liquor solids were
then settled in the clarifier chamber of the second bioreactor and the clarified effluent was
periodically collected for analysis. The settled solids were returned at least twice a day to the
first bioreactor to maintain relatively equal mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 2
June 8, .2004
concentrations in the bioreactors (i.e., close to Troy's WWTP operating value of 3,200 ing/L for
summer months).
The combined influent exhibited relatively low five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
concentrations (average of 150 mg/L compared to 195 mg/L typically observed at Troy's
WWTP). The relatively low BOD5 caused Troy's activated sludge biomass to grow slower in the
treatment simulation than it does currently, which resulted in a longer than expected MCRT.
Nonetheless, the simulation treatment performance was good. Percent removals of BOD5
(>95%), chemical oxygen demand (COD, >89%), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN, >96%),
ammonia -nitrogen (NH3-N, >97%) and phosphorus (TP, >32%) were similar to percent removals
observed at Troy's WWTP or at other municipal WWTPs. Nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen (NO2+NO3-
N) production confirmed that ammonia -nitrogen was being oxidized: Sludge volume index
(SVI) values (average of 100 — 117 mL/L/g MLSS) were higher than those observed at _Troy's
WWTP in April and May 2004 (99 mL/L/g MLSS and 73 mL/L/g MLSS); however, the
bioreactor SVIs still indicate good solids settling rates. In summary, there was no evidence that
treatment was inhibited by constituents of the combined influent wastewater.
As shown in Table ES-1, the simulation effluent concentrations of.BOD5, ammonia -nitrogen and
TSS were below the speculative limits for the existing discharge to Denson's Creek and the
proposed discharge to the Little River (at 2.0 mgd flow). Also, no toxic effect, either on survival
and reproduction to Ceriodaphnia dubia or survival and growth to Pimephales promelas (fathead
minnow), was observed at the highest effluent test concentration of 90%. These results
demonstrate that regional treatment at Troy's WWTP can achieve that the speculative limits for
conventional parameters and chronic toxicity. It is anticipated that proper disinfection, perhaps
with the existing, or an expanded, ultraviolet process at Troy, will achieve the speculative limits
for fecal coliform and total residual chlorine (see Appendix A). The speculative dissolved
oxygen limits are also achievable.
Toxicants common to municipal WWTPs receiving textile wastewater (e.g., salt ions, heavy
metals and cyanide) were not a concern in this study. However, historical chloride
concentrations at Troy's WWTP (i.e., 407 — 540 mg/L for November 2003 — February 2004)
have been above those observed during simulation testing (289 mg/L average) and the toxicity
threshold of 400 mg/L identified for the town of Star's effluent (ASC letter dated June 28, 2002).
It will be important to monitor chloride concentrations at the regional WWTP. If chloride
toxicity is predicted or observed, the town of Troy should contact its textile mill regarding the
substitution of the less toxic salt, sodium sulfate, for sodium chloride in dyeing operations. Of
the metals of concern, only copper was consistently observed at concentrations above the NC
action level of 7 µg/L (NCDENR 2002) after accounting for instream dilution. Copper
concentrations in the simulation effluent. (21 — 28 µg/L) were at levels observed to cause toxicity
in other municipal WWTP effluents. However, most or all of the copper was apparently not
bioavailable.(e.g., bound to suspended solids) and did not affect C. dubia survival and

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
• Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 3
June 8, 2004
reproduction or P. promelas survival and growth. Again, the town should monitor copper at the
regional WWTP and, if copper toxicity is observed or predicted, the primary contributors of
copper (e.g., textile mills) should institute control measures.
Table ES-1. Comparison of Average Simulation Effluent Results and Speculative Permit
Limits for Regional Treatment at the Town of Troy*
.Parameter ; Effluent Concentration Monthly Average Limit Weekly Average Limit
Scenario 1:
BOD5
NH3-N
TSS
yCyanide**
2.0 mgd Discharge at the Existing Outfall - Denson's Creek
12.8 mg/L — summer
45 mg/L.— winter
<5.5 mg/L
0.2 — 0.7 mg/L
<3 — 4 mg/L
8.5 mg/L — summer
30 mg/L — winter
1.1 mg/L - summer
3.0 mg/L — winter
30 mg/L
3.3 mg/L — summer
9.0 mg/L — winter
45 mg/L
Chronic
Toxicity+
<5 N9/L
Passed at >90%+
6.3 pg/L
P/F at 90%
Scenario 2: 2.0 mgd Discharge to the Little River (Highway 24/27)
j BOD5 <5.5 mg/L
NH3-N
0.2 — 0.7 mg/L
TSS <3 — 4 mg/L
Cyanide** <5 pg/L
Chronic
Toxicity
5.0 mg/L — summer
30 mg/L — winter
1.2 mg/L — summer
7.5 mg/L — winter
30:mg/L
6.3 lag/L
Passed at >90%+ P/F at 68%
7.5mg/L — summer
45 mg/L — winter
3.6 mg/L — summer
22.5 mg/L — winter
45 mg/L
* Simulation effluent results are an average of four effluent samples for chemical parameters and three
effluent samples for toxicity: Speculative effluent limits are described in DWQ's letters dated April 9, 2004
(see Appendix A)
** Speculative limits were not provided for cyanide; therefore, Troy's current permit limit is shown. Troy's
daily maximum limit for cyanide (total) is 22 pg/L
+ As measured using NC Phase II procedures for Ceriodaphnia dubia and EPA procedures (2002) for
Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). The speculative limits are based on the instream waste
concentrations for the discharge scenarios.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 4
June 8, 2004
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star are considering options for combined treatment of their
wastewaters in a regional facility. The towns have retained W.K. Dickson to perform an
engineering study to evaluate the treatment alternatives. Alternative #1 involves combining only
the flows from the towns of Star and Biscoe in a new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and
Alternative #2 involves pumping the flows from the towns of Star and Biscoe to an upgraded
WWTP at the town of Troy. The preferred discharge location for both treatment options is the
section of the Little River that is classified as Class C waters (starting at mile 19 at Highway
24/27). In general, more stringent regulations apply to the upstream section of the river, which is
classified as a high quality water, and the current outfall for the town of Troy's WWTP at
Denson's Creek.
An issue of concern in considering regional wastewater treatment is whether or not effluent
toxicity observed at the town of Star's WWTP can be effectively reduced by combined treatment
with wastewater from the other towns. A preliminary test of the combined effluents from the
towns' WWTPs (2003) suggested that the regulatory requirement for effluent toxicity may be
met. However, the test results were for a single sampling event and do not provide information
on the treatability of the combined wastewaters or the resulting effluent quality. After
discussions with the NC Department of Water Quality (DWQ), it was agreed that a study should
be performed to evaluate the effect of the combined wastewaters on treatment system
performance and effluent limitations, including toxicity. Aquatic Sciences Consulting (ASC)
was retained in April 2004 to perform the study.
It was decided by the towns and W.K. Dickson that the treatability study would focus only on the
preferred alternative (#2) of treating the combined Troy, Star and Biscoe influent wastewaters at
the town of Troy's WWTP. Therefore, the study involved the set-up and operation of a single
bench -scale treatment simulation, which was designed to mimic treatment of the combined town
influents at the town of Troy's WWTP. The treatment simulation was intended to provide
information on whether or not regional treatment at the Troy WWTP can achieve speculative
effluent limitations for Denson's Creek and the Little River (DWQ letters dated April 9, 2004,
see Appendix A).

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 5
June 8, 2004
1.2 Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this treatability study was to address questions regarding the treatability of the
combined wastewaters from the towns. Specific objectives were to:
• Operate a bench -scale simulation of the main treatment process at the Troy WWTP, activated
sludge treatment
• Using the simulation, evaluate the impact of the combined wastewaters on the performance
of the Troy WWTP biological treatment system, as measured by substrate removal [e.g.,
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia -nitrogen (NH3-N) and phosphorus (TP)], nitrite+nitrate-
nitrogen (NO2+NO3-N) production and solids settleability
• Evaluate the effect of the combined wastewaters on the town of Troy's capability in meeting
speculative discharge permit limits for BOD5, ammonia -nitrogen, total suspended solids
(TSS) and toxicity
• Identify potential effluent toxicants and potential treatment modifications for toxicity
reduction, if effluent toxicity is observed, and evaluate compliance with selected water
quality standards

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 6
June 8, 2004
Section 2
Technical Approach
2.1 Introduction
This study evaluated the impact of the towns' wastewaters on the Troy's WWTP by determining
the effects of the combined wastewaters on treatment performance and by monitoring the fate of
discharge constituents and toxicity. ,The following steps were performed to accomplish these
objectives.
1. Treatment performance was evaluated by monitoring the removal of substrate (e.g., BOD5,
COD, TKN, NH3-N and phosphorus), nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen production and solids
settleability in the study bioreactor. Results were compared to operating and discharge
monitoring report (DMR) data for Troy's WWTP.' No difference in substrate removal,
nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen production, or sludge settleability would be evidence that the
discharge is suitable for treatment at the town's WWTP.
2. The parameters specified in DWQ's speculative limits letters (i.e., BOD5, ammonia -nitrogen,
TSS, and chronic toxicity) were measured in selected study samples. These data indicate the
effect of the combined wastewaters on the Troy's ability to comply with its permit
limitations.
3. As noted, initial testing suggests that the combined wastewaterconstituents will not
adversely affect the WWTP's effluent quality. However, some constituents, notably salts
(i.e., sodium, chloride,. and sulfate), surfactants, heavy metals and cyanide, may be a concern
with respect to effluent toxicity or instream water quality. Therefore, most of these
constituents were measured in selected bioreactor samples.
2.2 Town of Troy WWTP Operating Conditions and Effluent Quality
Influent to Troy's WWTP is screened and degritted before being pumped to the first of two
oxidation ditches. The oxidation ditches are operated in series (effluent from the first ditch is
treated in the second). After biological treatment and clarification of suspended solids in two
clarifiers; the effluent passes through ultraviolet disinfection. The final effluent is discharged to
1 ASC planned to monitor oxygen uptake rate (OUR); however, substantial effort was required to operate the
bioreactor, particularly the activated sludge return, leaving insufficient time for OUR measurements. Other
treatment performance indicators were deemed to be sufficient for evaluating bioreactor operation.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for.W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 7
June 8, 2004
Denson's Creek, a tributary of the Little River. Waste activated sludge is treated in a digester
and digested sludge is land applied. Table 1 summarizes the operating conditions at Troy's
WWTP.
Table 1. Existing Operating Conditions for the Troy WWTP
Activated Sludge Process
Parameter Average Operating Value
Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) 28.8 hours for each basin, based
on current average flow of 0.5 mgd
Dissolved oxygen (DO) <0.5 mg/L in first basin
2 — 5 mg/L in second basin
Mixed liquor suspended solids 3,200 mg/L warm weather
(MLSS) 3,400 mg/L cold weather
Mean cell residence time (MCRT) 16.9 days based on wasting rate of
11,900 gpd of 20,500 mg/L solids*
Return sludge rate 85 — 100°/0 of influent flow
* See MCRT calculation in Appendix B.
Troy's WWTP achieves excellent effluent quality. As summarized in Table 2, effluent BOD5,
ammonia -nitrogen and TSS concentrations are well below permit limits. Only two toxicity
compliance tests (October 2001 and July 2003) in the past two years indicated chronic toxicity.
2.3 Speculative Limits
DWQ provided speculative limits for the treatment alternative evaluated in this study (i.e.,,
Alternative #2, regional wastewater treatment at the town of Troy's WWTP). As shown in Table
3, speculative limits were given for two discharge scenarios: (1) continued discharge at existing
outfall, but at an increased flow of 2.0 mgd and (2) relocation of the outfall with an increased
flow of 2.0 mgd to the Little River (at the Highway 24/27 bridge).
In general, the speculative limits for the Little River outfall are less stringent than those for the
Denson's Creek outfall. The speculative limits for BOD5 are less stringent for the Denson's
Creek outfall than for the Little River outfall; however, the opposite is true for the ammonia -
nitrogen and chronic toxicity limits.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 8
June 8, 2004
Table 2. Average Monthly Effluent Data and Permit Limits for the Town of Troy*
Parameter I Effluent Concentration ' Monthly Average Limit Weekly Average Limit
BOD5
<1 — 3 mg/L j 7 mg/L — Apr -Oct
10.5 mg/L — Apr -Oct
1.4 mg/L — Nov -Mar 21 mg/L = Nov -Mar
N H3-N
TSS
Fecal 1
Coliform
<0.1 — 1.2 mg/L. 2 mg/L — Apr -Oct
4 mg/L— Nov -Mar
1 9 mg/L 30 mg/L 45 mg/L
0 — 33/100 mL 200/100 mL 1. 400/100 mL
Cyanide** I . <5 pg/L 6.3 pg/L
Chronic ! Pass at 79% effluent 1 >79%
Toxicity+
* Average monthly results for October 2002 — April 2004
** Daily maximum limit for cyanide (total) is 22 pg/L
+ As measured using NC Phase II procedures for Ceriodaphnia dubia
2.4 Towns' Influent and Effluent Characteristics
Influent characterizationdatafor the town WWTPs are summarized in Table 4. Flow rates since
January 2003 have averaged.0.57 mgd for the town of Troy, 0.35 mgd for the town of Biscoe and
0.17 mgd for the town of Star. Given these flow rates, the towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star would
contribute 52%, 32% and 16% of the total combined flow to the Troy WWTP. Prior to the
study, ASC was advised that the average flow rates were 0.5 mgd, 0.25 mgd and 0.20 mgd for
the towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star, respectively. These latter flow rates were used for the study.
Based on these flows, the percent flow contributions were .estimated to be 53%, 26% and 21%.
The higher initial flow estimate for the town of Star (0.20 mgd) compared to actual data (0.17
mgd) indicates that the percentage of Star's influent used for testing was relatively high (i.e.,
21% vs. 16%). Given that only the town of Star's effluent has been consistently toxic, the use of
the higher flow value represents a worse case condition that is helpful in evaluating the
capability of the WWTP to meet the speculative toxicity limits.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 9
June 8, 2004
Table 3. Speculative Effluent Limits for Regional Wastewater Treatment at Town of Troy*
Parameter
Monthl Average
y Weekly Average I Daily Maximum
Scenario 1: 2.0 mgd Discharge at the Existing Outfall — Denson's Creek
BOD5
8.5 mg/L —'summer i 12.8 mg/L — summer 7
30 mg/L — winter • 45 mg/L — winter
NH3-N 1.1 mg/L — summer
3.0 mg/L — winter
i 3.3 mg/L — summer
9.0 mg/L — winter
I
. TSS . I 30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Fecal. 200/100 mL 400/100 mL
Coliform
TRC**
Dissolved
Oxygen j
6.0 mg/L (minimum)
Chronic I P/F at 90%•
Toxicity+ f i
Scenario 2:
BOD5
NH3-N
TSS
2.0 mgd Discharge to the Little River (Highway 24/27)
5.0 mg/L — summer I
.30-mg/L — winter 1
• 1.2 mg/L — summer I
7.5 mg/L — winter i
30 mg/L
7.5mg/L — summer
-. 45 mg/L — winter
3.6 mg/L — summer
22.5 mg/L — winter
45 mg/L
Fecal 200/100 mL 1 400/100 mL
Coliform I
i
TRC** ` 1 25 pg/L
Dissolved 1 j
Oxygen
6.0 mg/L (minimum)
j 1
Chronic P/F at 68% j
Toxicity+
* As given in two DWQ letters dated April 9, 2004 (see Appendix A)
** Total residual chlorine
+ The pass/fail (P/F) value is the instream waste concentration.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 10
June 8, 2004
Table 4. Monthly Average Influent Characteristics for the Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star*
Troy WWTP Biscoe WWTP Star WWTP
Year Month Flow BOD5 NH3-N TSS Flow BOD5 NH3-N"TSS Flow BOD5 NH3-N*"TSS
2003 Jan 0.78 229.0 30.7 344.0 0.23 139.8 86.0 0.08
Feb 0.56 203.0 18.9 416.0 0.30 95.7 57.3 0.16
Mar 0.66 221.0 21.1 354.0 0.43 99.5 53.5 0.18
'Apr 0.66 165.0 19.0 247.0 0.38 112.0 67.4 0.20 130.5
May 0.82 173.0 22.7 260.0 0.38 87.3 61.0 0.23 120.0
Jun . 0.70 196.0 6.8 298.0 0.40 76.5 44.3 0.19 111.0
Jul 0.54 187.0 28.8 293.0 0.34 118.2 58.2 0.20 101.1
Aug 0.61 171.0 28.5 283.0 0.39 84.2 61.4 0.23 80.0
Sep 0.49 175.0 30.2 308.0 0.30 164.0 . 90.2 0.16
Oct 0.46 190.0 26.3 309.0 0.30 159.8 60.0 0.12 113.2
Nov 0.43 216.0 23.0 329.0 0.29 193.3 65.3 0.11 '116.0
Dec 0.48 205.0 15.0 239.0 0.34 158.4 58.4 133.0
2004 Jan 0.46 198.0 17.0 211.0 0.30 192.5 39.7
Feb 0.56 198.0 17.0 257.0 0.43 102.5 55.3 131.0
Mar 0.49 185.0 19.0 194.0 0.34 131.8 58.0 161.6
Apr 0.38 211.0 21.2 272.0 0.36 160.0 56.5
Avg 0.57 195.2 21.6 288.4 0.35 129.7
Max 0.82 • 229.0 30.7 416.0 0.43 193.3
Min 0.38 165.0 6.8 194.0 0.23 76.5
60.8
90.2
39.7
0.17 119.7
0.23 161.6
0.08 80.0
98.6
80.5
84.0
100.8
94.0
114.5
90.3
119.1
95.0
105.4
98.2
119.1
80.5
.* Units are mgd for flow and mg/L for BOD5, NH3-N and TSS
** not monitored
Troy's WWTP generally receives higher strength wastewater, as indicated by BOD5 and TSS,
than the Biscoe and Star WWTPs (Table 4). Biscoe's WWTP has the lowest influent BOD5 and
TSS concentrations of the three WWTPs. Based on these data, the strength of Troy's WWTP
influent is expected to be somewhat diluted by the. addition of influents from_towns of Biscoe
and Star.
The towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star each receive wastewater from textile mills. Of the three
towns, the town of Star receives the largest proportion of textile wastewater (about 50%). The
textile mill contribution to the town of Troy is a smaller percentage (about 15%);-however, the
mill flow rate is similar to the mill flow rate at Star (as much as 75,000 gpd). Biscoe's textile
mill flow averages about 35,000 gpd or about 10% of the WWTP influent flow.
The textile mills contribute salts, surfactants, metals and cyanide, which have caused effluent
toxicity or limits violations at other municipal WWTPs. Salts largely pass through the WWTP
(i.e., only slight removal). For example, only about 21% of the chloride received at Troy's

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 11
June 8, 2004
WWTP is removed in treatment. Effluent concentrations of chloride at the towns of Troy and
Star average about 422 mg/L and 333 mg/L, respectively.2 Assuming the town of Biscoe's
effluent averages 250 mg/L chloride, the predicted chloride concentration for the regional
WWTP effluent should average about 370 mg/L. This predicted concentration is slightly below
the level that has been identified as a threshold for toxicity at the town of Star (400 mg/L, ASC
letter dated February 11, 2004). Sulfate may also be a concern; however, it is considered less
toxic than chloride. Sodium sulfate can be substituted for sodium chloride in some textile dyeing
operations. Metals have not been identified as effluent toxicants at any of the towns; however,
occasional high levels of copper and zinc have been observed in the WWTP effluents (i.e.,
exceed NC water quality action levels of 7 and 50 µg/L, respectively, NCDENR 2002). These
constituents were monitored during the study to evaluate their potential impact on permit
compliance.
2.5 Design and Operation of the Treatment Simulation
The combined flows from the towns. (Troy — 0.5 mgd, Biscoe — 0.25 mgd and Star — 0.20 mgd)
will increase the average Troy WWTP flow to 0.95 mgd. It was assumed that the combined flow
rate would remain fairly constant for the short-term as the uncertainty in textile mill production
may be balanced by an increase in domestic wastewater flow from new homes and, perhaps,
commercial businesses. The current combined flows would decrease the average hydraulic
retention time (HRT) of the Troy WWTP from 28.8 hours for each basin (Table 1) to about 15.2
hours. The increased flow is close to the permitted flow of 1.2 mgd, which may require an
expansion of the WWTP.
The combined flows would increase the overall BOD5 loading on the WWTP, which should
decrease the mean cell residence time (MCRT) of the existing activated sludge process.
However, other than an increase in sludge wasting, it was assumed that other operating
conditions at the WWTP would remain the same (see Table 1). Therefore, the treatment
simulation was designed to achieve the same operating conditions as the current Troy WWTP
with the exception of the increased influent flow of 0.95 mgd.
The simulation was operated as a continuous -flow process using Eckenfelder-type bioreactors
(Figure 1). Two bioreactors were operated in series as shown in Figure 2 (flow is left to right).
Influent samples were collected and mixed in the proportions corresponding to the current flow
rates at each town as described in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.4. Return activated sludge (RAS) sample
from Troy's WWTP (Section 2.5.1) was added to each bioreactor. Treatment was initiated by
pumping the combined influent at a rate of 8.2 mL/min (Figure 3) to the first bioreactor (A),
which had an operating capacity of 7.5 L. The influent flow rate achieved the target HRT of
15.2 hours in each bioreactor. The influent and activated sludge were aerated to achieve the
2 Based on Troy WWTP data for Nov 2003 — Apr 2004 and Star WWTP data for Jan - Nov 2003

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson. and Towns. of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 12
June 8, 2004
dissolved oxygen (DO) level noted in Table 1 and the mixed liquors were well mixed using a
magnetic stir table. Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations in Bioreactor A were
maintained close to the WWTP operating value of 3,200 mg/L (summer). It was necessary for
the mixed liquors to spill over to the second bioreactor (B) to simulate the two -stage process at
the WWTP; therefore, Bioreactor A did not have a clarifier. The Mixed liquor spilled over.a
stilling well and flowed through tubing connected to Bioreactor B (Figure 2). Bioreactor B had
an operating capacity of 7.5 L, including a clarifier, and the mixed liquors were stirred with a
magnetic stir table. DO and MLSS concentrations were maintained as close as possible to the
WWTP operating values noted in Table 1. The mixed liquor solids were settled in the clarifier.
chamber (2.3 L) and the clarified effluent was discharged through a stilling well to an effluent
collection container (Figure 4). Settled solids were periodically recirculated to Bioreactor A.
Influent
Stilling Well
Adjustable Plate
Effluent
r/4
Aeration Chamber Clarifier
Figure 1. Diagram of Study Bioreactor

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 13
June 8, 2004
Figure 2. Two -stage Treatment Simulation for the Troy — Biscoe — Star Study (Bioreactor
A on left is connected by tubing to Bioreactor B on right)

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 14
June 8, 2004
Figure 3. Influent Feed Tank and Pump
fN

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 15
June 8, 2004
Figure 4. Effluent Collection Tank (connected by tubing to Bioreactor B)

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 16
June 8, 2004
Returning solids from the clarifier was insufficient because of the relatively small size of the
clarifier. Therefore, additional return sludge pumping was performed twice per day. This return
involved (1) stopping aeration and mixing in both bioreactors, (2) measuring the sludge depths
and (3) pumping settled sludge from Bioreactor B to Bioreactor A to equalize the sludge depths.
After pumping, the sludge depth in Bioreactor A was about two to three -fold greater than the
Bioreactor B sludge depth. This differential allowed the MLSS concentrations to equalize at
about the midpoint of the time period between return pumping. Pumping was achieved using a
peristaltic pump (set at 75 mL/min) and a wide -bore pipette attached to the pump tubing.
The bioreactors were operated for 28 days, which corresponds to 1 1/2 MCRTs at the Troy
WWTP. This treatment period was the minimum time estimated to ensure stable treatment
performance. This treatment period was intended to allow an evaluation of potential effects
during a complete growth cycle for the activated sludge.
2.5.1 Sample Collection
The following samples were collected for the study:
• Manual composite samples of influent from each town WWTP were collected three times.a
week as described in Table 5. The town of Troy utilized its automatic influent sampler for a
portion of each sample. The remaining sample was collected manually several times a day.
The towns of Biscoe and Star collected influent samples manually several times a day.
• Single grab sample (10 gal) of RAS from Troy's WWTP, which was used to initiate the
bioreactors (April 13th)
Table 5. Influent Sample Collection and Use in Bioreactors
Town
Sampling Day I Sample Volume I Days Used in
Bioreactor
Troy
Mon 110 gal
Tues — Wed
I Tues — Wed 10 gal--- Thurs — Fri
Thurs — Fri ; 15 gal i Sat - Mon •
Biscoe & Star Mon ' 2 1/2 gal I Tues — Wed
Tues — Wed
2 Y2 gal I Thurs — Fri
Thurs — Fri
1 3 %2 gal I Sat - Mon

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 17
June 8, 2004
The influent samples were packed with freezer packs in coolers and the samples were delivered
by overnight courier to ASC's laboratory. The RAS sample was not cooled during shipment to
maintain the viability of the biomass. Chain of custody forms were completed for all samples.
2.5.2 Bioreactor Monitoring
The bioreactors were routinely monitored for flow rate, pH and temperature and DO, ammonia
and MLSS concentrations. Flow rate, DO, pH, temperature and ammonia were monitored at
least twice a day. Adjustments were made to achieve the operating conditions listed in Table 1
with the exception of the decreased HRT of 15.2 hours and decreased sludge return rate. As
noted, it was practical to return sludge from Bioreactor B to Bioreactor A only twice a day.
Ammonia was measured using an aquarium screening kit. DO concentrations were adjusted to
ensure BOD5 removal in Bioreactor A and complete nitrification in Bioreactor B. MLSS
concentrations were measured in each bioreactor about every other day. MLSS samples were
collected immediately after return sludge pumping.
Treatment performance was evaluated by monitoring the removal of substrate (e.g., BOD5, COD,
TKN, NH1-N and phosphorus), production of nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen and solids settleability in
the treatment simulation. Weekly BOD5, COD, 'TKN, ammonia -nitrogen and phosphorus
analyses (EPA, 1983) were performed on the bioreactor influent and effluent samples. Effluent
samples were collected one day after the influent sample collection to account for the HRT of the
bioreactors. The percent removal of substrate and final effluent concentrations were compared to
removal rates and effluent data for Troy's WWTP. Differences in substrate removal rates and/or
effluent concentrations may indicate -the presence of influent constituents that inhibit the uptake
of organic material and nutrients by carbon -fixing (heterotrophic) bacteria or anunonia removal
by nitrifying bacteria. Alkalinity was also monitored in the final effluent to confirm that
sufficient alkalinity was available for nitrification. In addition, nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen was also
monitored in the influent and effluent samples. The results were used to confirm nitrification
activity in the bioreactors. Solids settleability was monitored by measuring the sludge volume
index (SVI) twice daily in each bioreactor and by measuring TSS in the final effluent on a daily
basis. These results indicated the effectiveness of biological solids clarification. SVI and TSS
results were compared to data for Troy's WWTP.
Bioreactor effluent quality was also evaluated by comparing BOD5, ammonia -nitrogen, TSS and
chronic toxicity results to historical Troy WWTP effluent results and DWQ's speculative limits.
Chronic toxicity was measured in the same effluent samples collected for conventional pollutant
analysis. Chronic toxicity was determined using modified NC Phase II procedures (1998) for
Ceriodaphnia dubia and EPA procedures (2002) for Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow).
Test concentrations were based on the prospective instream waste concentrations (IWCs) for

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 18
June 8, 2004
Denson's Creek and the Little River as shown below.
Projected discharge (2 mgd) to Denson's Creek 90%
Permitted discharge (1.2 mgd) to Denson's Creek 84%
Projected discharge to Little River (2 mgd) 68%
Permitted discharge to Little River (1.2 mgd) 56%
A fifth effluent concentration was added that was equal to one-half of the permitted discharge to
the Little River (28%).
In the event that the simulation effluent may be toxic, it is useful to have data on potential
toxicants. As noted, some constituents of textile wastewater, notably salts (i.e., chloride, sulfate,
sodium and potassium), surfactants, heavy metals and cyanide, may be a concern with respect to
effluent toxicity. Therefore, chloride, sulfate, conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), total
hardness and total cyanide analyses were performed on simulation effluent samples using EPA
procedures (1983). Total sodium, potassium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
silver and zinc were also monitored using EPA procedures (1998). The data were also used to
evaluate compliance with NC water quality standards. The analyses were performed on the same
samples used for conventional pollutant analysis and toxicity testing.
2.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) consisted of laboratory control analyses and sample
matrix analyses to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the chemistry analyses.
Relative percent differences (RPD)'in duplicate results were calculated as follows:
RPD =
(Original Result — Duplicate Result)
* 100
(Original Result + Duplicate. Result)/2
Percent recovery (PR) values were calculated using the following equation:
(1)
Spike Conc — Unspike Conc
PR = x 100 (2).
Actual Conc

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 19
June 8, 2004
Section 3
Results
Treatability data include (1) bioreactor operating results, treatment performance results (substrate
removal, nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen production and, solids settleability) and (3) effluent monitoring
for permit parameters, including toxicity, and potential toxicants.
3.1 Bioreactor Operating Results
In general, the study met the operational objectives: During most of the 28-day study period, the
operating conditions of the WWTP activated sludge process were successfully simulated,
including the HRT, MLSS concentrations, DO concentrations and pH (see Table 6). Operating
results are summarized as follows.
3.1.1 Influent Samples .
Based on historical data (Table 4), the BOD5 of the combined town influents is predicted to be
162 mg/L. The actual combined influent BOD5 averaged 150 mg/L. This BOD5 is about 23%
lower than the current BOD5 concentration of Troy's WWTP influent (195 mg/L). The
relatively low BOD5 caused Troy's activated sludge biomass to grow slower in the treatment
simulation than it does currently, which resulted in a higher than expected MCRT (see below).
Generally, the wastewater strength (as measured by BOD5) appeared to vary according to the
intensity of the dye color in the town influents (i.e., the greater the color, the higher the BOD5).
The town of Star's influent exhibited the greatest color. The town of Troy's influent did not
have much color. The WWTP ORC indicated that the Troy's textile mill was not dyeing at a
level previously observed.
3.1.2. Treatment Time (HRT)
The treatment simulation closely matched the HRT of Troy's WWTP at the projected increased
influent flow rate (15.2 hours per basin).

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 20
June 8, 2004
Table 6. Summary of Bioreactor Operating Conditions
Week.
Bioreactor/Parameter Apr 13 - 19 Apr 20 - 26 Apr 27 - May 3 May 4 - 11 Target
Bioreactor A
Influent Flow Rate (mL/min) 7.8 - 8.5. 7.5 - 8.4 7.7 - 8.4# 7.7 - 8.5 8.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)* 0.1 - 3.6** 0.1 - 1.2 ' 0.1 - 1.4 0.1 - 1.8 , <0.5
pH (s.u.) 6.5-7.4 6.7-7.3 6.8-7.4 6.7-7.5 7
•
Temperature (°C) 14.5 - 29.4+ 17.7 - 24.7 14.2 - 24.8 17.5 - 27.3 21
Sludge Volume Index (mL/L)++ 166 116 , 117 116
Bioreactor B
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)* 2.0 - 6.8 3.9 - 7.0 4.6 - 8.5 5.3 - 8.3 2 - 5
pH (s.u.) 6.5-7.0 6.8-7.1 6.8-7.1 6.8-7.0 7
Temperature (°C) 15.7 - 29.3+ 18.9 - 24.5 20.4 - 25.4 18.9 - 28.2 21
Ammonia (mg/L) 0- 1 0- 1 0- 1 0- 0.5 <1
Sludge Volume Index (mUL)++ 117 93 103 104
* DO concentration during stable operation (i.e., several hours after return sludge pumping)
** Highest DO concentration occurred during bioreactor startup
+ Air conditioner not functioning
++ Average of measurements taken twice a day
# Flow rate was inadvertently set at >9 mL/nin for part of May 2
3.1.3 Dissolved Oxygen
DO levels were generally below 0.5 mg/L in Bioreactor A and 4 - 6 mg/L in Bioreactor B (Table
6). These DO levels were close to the levels observed at Troy's WWTP (Table 1). A magnetic
stirrer was used as the primary method for mixing; however, as the activated sludge solids
accumulated in Bioreactor B over time (prior to return sludge pumping), thestirrer would
occasionally become mired in the solids. Therefore, it was necessary to set the DO concentration
in Bioreactor B higher than the target operating level in order to ensure constant mixing of the
activated sludge. The relatively high DO concentrations did not hinder suspended solids
clarification. Sludge flocculation was good throughout the study period.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 21
June 8, 2004
In general, as the DO concentration in Bioreactor A was lowered, the pH increased. DO levels
less than 0.5 mg/L inhibited nitrification in Bioreactor A, thereby preventing alkalinity
destruction with the attendant reduction in pH.
The DO concentrations in Bioreactor B were sufficient to promote complete nitrification.
3.1.4 pH and Alkalinity Control
It was possible to maintain a pH that was optimum for nitrification in Bioreactor B by
maintaining. the DO concentrations in each bioreactor as noted above. If the DO increased above
1.mg/L in Bioreactor A, alkalinity was consumed and the pH in Bioreactor B decreased below
the optimum pH level (i.e., 6.8 — 7.1).
Textile mills generally contribute substantial alkalinity from the use of soda ash (sodium
carbonate) in their dyeing processes. Although each town has textile mills, production appears to
be declining. During this study, dyeing activities at Troy's textile mill were less than previously
observed. As a result, the alkalinity remaining after simulation treatment was relatively low (<30
mg/L). If textile mill production declines further, regional wastewater treatment at Troy's
WWTP may require alkalinity addition to maintain nitrification.
3.1.5 Temperature
The temperature of the bioreactor mixed liquors varied due to changes in the weather. The
laboratory air conditioner was not functioning during an unusually hot period at the beginning of
the study (90 °F days), but was operating shortly thereafter. The variable temperatures did not
appear to affect treatment performance (Section 3.2).
3.1.6 Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids.
The trend in the mean MLSS concentration of the bioreactors is shown in Figure 5.3 The initial
addition of WWTP RAS resulted in a mean MLSS concentration that was below the target level
of 3,200 mg/L. Additional RAS was added the next day, which brought the mean MLSS
concentration to about 2,900 mg/L. Subsequent biomass growth brought the mean MLSS
concentration to the target level within about a week of bioreactor startup. An error in MLSS
measurement on April 18th led to inadvertent sludge wasting (840 mg), which delayed achieving
the target MLSS concentration.
3 The mean MLSS concentration for the two bioreactors was used because of the variable MLSS levels in the period
between return sludge pumping.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 22
June 8, 2004
cm 4000
• N
• . a
33600
a)
ai 3200
a
0,
u)
0 2800
o
Q'
J
• 2400
`a • 2000
13-Apr
Added Additional RA
Wasted00 mL of Mixed Liquor
18-Apr
23-Apr
28-Apr
Date
3-May
Effluent Collection
8-May
13-May
Figure 5. Mean Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Concentrations in the Regional WWTP Simulation (mean of both
bioreactors)

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 23
June8, 2004
Once the target MLSS concentration was achieved, biomass growth was slowed. Consequently,
no further sludge wasting was performed.
3.1.7 Sludge Volume Index
SVI results are shown in Table 6 and Figure 6. After stable bioreactor operation was achieved
on April 20th, the solids settling rates in Bioreactors A and B averaged 117 mL/L/g MLSS and
100 mL/L/g MLSS, respectively. These values are higher than those observed at Troy's WWTP
in April and May 2004.(99 tnL/L/g MLSS and 73 mL/L/g MLSS, respectively); however, the
bioreactor SVIs still indicate good solids settling rates.
SVIs for Bioreactor B were generally better than the SVIs for Bioreactor A. This result may be
an artifact of the measurement approach. SVIs were measured just prior to return sludge
pumping when the MLSS concentrations in Bioreactor B were higher than those in Bioreactor A.
It is possible that the sludge settling rate was greater in Bioreactor B because of the greater
weight of MLSS in Bioreactor B compared to Bioreactor A.
3.1.8 Mean Cell Retention Time
As a consequence of not wasting much activated sludge, the MCRT for the treatment simulation
was longer than expected. It is not possible to calculate an accurate MCRT; however, assuming
(1) biomass loss in the bioreactor effluent (average of 5.7 mg/L), (2) biomass loss by TSS
measurement and (3) endogenous activity, the MCRT is predicted to be at least several fold
higher than the WWTP MCRT of 16.9 days. The relatively high MCRT can be explained to
some extent by the lower BOD5 concentration of the combined influent compared to the current
WWTP influent (see Section 3.1.1).
3.2 Treatment Performance Results
Treatment performance was evaluated by monitoring BOD5, COD, TKN, NH3-N and phosphorus
removal and nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen production in the bioreactors. Results for these parameters
are summarized in Table 7. Analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix C.
Percent removals of BOD5 and ammonia -nitrogen in the treatment simulation (>96% and 98%)
were similar to removal rates observed at Troy's WWTP (>99% and >99%, respectfully). Good
COD removal (93%) and low effluent COD concentrations (average of 41 mg/L) indicated that
the textile mills were not contributing much refractory material.
Textile dyeing often involves the use of products containing amines, a form of organic nitrogen.
In this study, TKN analyses wereused to measure the organic nitrogen, plus ammonia -nitrogen,
content of the simulation influent and effluent. A comparison of the TKN and ammonia -nitrogen

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 24
June 8, 2004 .
concentrations in the combined influent show that ammonia -nitrogen averaged about 55% of the
TKN. This ratio is typical for domestic wastewater influents (Thomas 1995). Therefore, it is
unlikely that the textile mills contributed substantial organic nitrogen to the combined influent.
Good removal of TKN was achieved (96%).
200
x 150
a)
"CS c/,
C O
a J
o ) 100
>
to
J
E
50
Bioreactor A
Bioreactor B
0
13-Apr 18-Apr 23-Apr 28-Apr 3-May 8-May 13-May
Date
Figure 6. Sludge Volume Index Results for the Regional WWTP Simulation (mean of
twice per day measurements)
Good ammonia -nitrogen removal was also achieved in the treatment simulation (98%). As
noted, the conditions for nitrification were good (i.e., sufficient alkalinity and dissolved oxygen).
Nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen production confirmed that nitrification was occurring (Table 7).
Some total phosphorus was removed by treatment (average of 40%). The percent removal was
slightly higher than is typically observed for conventional activatedsludge treatment processes
that do not include chemical treatment for phosphorus (10 — 30%). Nonetheless, the majority of
the phosphorus removal was probably for biomass cell growth.

- Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 25
June 8, 2004
Table 7. Influent and Effluent Monitoring Results for the Troy-Biscoe-Star Treatment Simulation (April - May 2004)
Samples.
BOD5
mg/L
NH.3-N
mglL
TSS
mg/L
COD
mg/L
TKN
mg/L
TP
mg/L
NO2.+NO3-N
mg/L
Ale
mg/L
TDS
mg/L
Sp Cond**
um hos/cm
Hardness+
mg/L
K
mg/L
Na
mg/L
CI
mg/L
SO4
mg/L
As
ug/L
Cd
ug/L
Cr
uq/L
Cu
ug/L
Pb
ug/L
Ni
ug/L
Ag
uq/L
• Zn
/L
CN++
April 19-20
.
•
u
ug/L
Influent
206
22.4
364
734
47.6
- 8.0
• <0.2
Effluent
'i4i:
Mi'.:6Mi:
,.,:i._.:ig
iX3.i'0-•:
38.6
2.0
4.2
14.5
•
% Removal
>97%
97%
>99%
99%
96%
33%
•
.
•
April 26-27
Influent
87.4
17.7
26.7
317
34.4
4.7
NA •
Effluent
4.,:.ag:::.0i4:
,:.;qi)A
33.7
1.4
3.2
19.0
25.0
813
1,350
46.0
17.0
213
257
136
<9.4
<0.8
<3.0
27.6
<10
<5.1
<2.0
49.2
<5.0
% Rembval
>95%
98%
>89%
89%
96%
32%
May 3-4
Influent
175
37.6
160 .
573
61.6
7.2
<0.4
Effluent
:.:.05•i:;i_
.:iii]...,
.'21;::::
?,.,i]m:•ir:.::
M:4.'0=i:
45.9
1.7
3.1
33.2 •
NA
976
1,610
. 63.9
29.6
280
326
104
<9.4
<0.8
<3.0
205
<10
8.5
<2.0
54.6 .
<5.0
% Removal
>97%
99%
98%
92%
97%
57%
May 10-11
'
Influent
• 133
24.1
214
513
41.9
5.1
Effluent
g41,:; :0.4,6i
'*ci.g
45.3
1.7
3.1
21.9
28.5
798
1,290
53.9
20.2
240
283
97.4 .<9.4
<0.8
<3.0
24.4
<10
5.4
<2.0
47.3
•<5.0
% Removal
>96%
98%
98%
91%
96%
39%.
Avg Effluent .i::
..,.;.-i:,1:, _..,.:*,._5
.4.i:44,:i;:i:.:3
40.9
1.7
3.4
22.2
26.8
862
1,417
54.6
22.3
244
289
112.5
<9.4
<0.8
<3.0
24.2
<10
<6.3
<2.0
50.4
<5.0
- indicates curren ly limited or to be limited according to DWQ's speculative limits
. Alkalinity as CaCO3 at pH 4.5
** Specific conductance.
+ Total hardness as CaCO3
++ Total. cyanide
. Less than values indicate minimum detection limits
NA - not analyzed

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 26
June 8, 2004
Overall, conventional pollutant removal was good. There was no evidence that treatment was
inhibited by constituents of the combined influent wastewater.
3.3 Effluent Quality
3.3.1 Conventional Parameters
As shown in Table 8, the simulation effluent concentrations ofBOD5, ammonia -nitrogen and
TSS were below the speculative limits for the existing discharge to Denson's Creek and the
proposed discharge to the Little River (at 2.0 mgd flow). These results demonstrate that regional
treatment at Troy's WWTP can achieve that the speculative limits for conventional parameters.
It is anticipated that proper disinfection, perhaps with the existing, or an expanded, ultraviolet
process at Troy, will achieve the speculative limits for fecal coliform and total residual chlorine.
The speculative dissolved oxygen limits are also achievable.
Nutrient limits were not included in DWQ's letters. The treatment simulation showed that
additional treatment processes may be needed to reduce total nitrogen and total phosphorus
concentrations, if nutrients limits are included sometime in the future in Troy's NPDES permit.
Simulation effluent concentrations of total nitrogen (TKN plus nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen) and total
phosphorus averaged 23.9 mg/L and 3.4.mg/L, respectfully.
3.3.2 Toxicity
As shown in Tables 8 and 9, the simulation effluent was not chronically toxic to either C. dubia
or fathead minnow. No chronic effect, either on survival and reproduction to C. dubia or
survival and growth to fathead minnow, was observed at the highest effluent test concentration
of 90%. These results indicate that the combined town influents can be successfully treated to
remove toxicity at Troy's WWTP. Detailed results are provided in Appendix C.
3.3.3 Potential Toxicants and Water Quality Standards
Toxicants common to municipal WWTPs receiving textile wastewater were not a concern in this
study. Salt ions, heavy metals and cyanide were below Levels reported to be toxic (Table 7).
Specific conductivity and TDS levels were relatively high (i.e., average of 1,417 µmhos/cm and
862 mg/L, respectively) compared to WWTPs treating only domestic wastewater. The ions
contributing to the high dissolved solids appeared to be primarily sodium and chloride.
Additional contributing ions were potassium and sulfate. The primary contributors of salt related
effluent toxicity from textile mills are generally chloride and sulfate. The toxicity thresholds for
chloride and sulfate in the town of Star's effluent are estimated to be 400 mg/L and >400 mg/L,

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star.
Page 27
June 8, 2004
Table 8. Comparison of Simulated Effluent Results and Speculative Permit Limits for
Regional Treatment at the Town of Troy*
Parameter Average Effluent Conc Monthly Average Limit
Weekly Average Limit
Scenario 1: 2.0 mgd Discharge at the Existing Outfall — Denson's Creek
BOD5 <5.5 mg/L 8.5 mg/L — summer
30 mg/L - winter
NH3-N 0.2 — 0.7 mg/L
TSS 30 mg/L
Cyanide**
Chronic
Toxicity+
Scenario 2: 2.0 mgd Discharge to the Little River (Highway 24/27)
BOD5
1.1 mg/L — summer
3.0 mg/L — winter
12.8 mg/L — summer
45 mg/L — winter
3.3 mg/L — summer
9.0 mg/L — winter
NH3-N
TSS
<3-4 mg/L
<5 p9/L
Passed at >90%+
<5.5 mg/L
0.2 — 0.7 mg/L
<3 — 4 mg/L
Cyanide** <5 pg/L
Chronic Passed at >90%+
Toxicity
6.3 pg/L
P/F at 90%
5.0 mg/L.—'summer
30 mg/L — winter
1.2 mg/L — summer
_ 7.5 mg/L — winter
30 mg/L
6.3 pg/L
P/F at 68%
45 mg/L
7.5mg/L — summer
45 mg/L — winter
3.6 mg/L — summer
22.5 mg/L — winter
45 mg/L
* Simulation effluent results are an average of four effluent samples for chemical parameters and three
effluent samples for toxicity. Speculative effluent limits are described in DWQ's letters dated April 9, 2004
(see Appendix A)
** Speculative limits were not provided for cyanide; therefore, Troy's current permit limit is shown. Troy's
daily maximum limit for cyanide (total) is 22 pg/L
+ . As measured using NC Phase II procedures for Ceriodaphnia dubia and EPA procedures (2002) for
Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). The speculative limits are based on the instream waste
concentrations for the discharge scenarios.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 28
June 8, 2004
Table 9. Summary of Effluent Toxicity Results for the Treatment Simulation
Chronic Toxicity Endpoints
Sample Date Test Species NOEC LOEC ChV IC25
April 26-27, 2004 C. dubia* 90.0 > .90.0 . > 90.0 > 90.0
May 3-4, 2004 C. dubia 90.0 > 90.0 > 90.0 > 90.0
P. promelas** 90.0 > 90.0 > 90.0 > 90.0
May 10-11, 2004 C. dubia 90.0 > 90.0 > 90.0 > 90.0
* Tested using NC Phase II procedures and effluent concentrations of 28, 56, 68, 84 and 90%
** Tested using EPA procedures (2002) and effluent concentrations of 28, 68 and 90%
respectively (ASC letter dated June 28, 2002). Chloride and sulfate concentrations in the
simulation effluent (average of 289 mg/L and 113 mg/L, respectively) were well below these
thresholds.
Historical data for Troy's WWTP show that effluent chloride concentrations (i.e., 407 — 540
mg/L for November 2003 — February 2004) have exceeded the toxicity threshold observed for
the town of Star. These chloride concentrations are much higher than Troy's effluent chloride
concentration in April (279 mg/L) and the simulation effluent level (289 mg/L). As noted in
Section 2.4, the predicted effluent chloride concentration for the regional WWTP, based on
historical data (370 mg/L average), is slightly below the toxicity threshold. It will be important
to monitor chloride concentrations at the regional WWTP. If chloride toxicity is predicted or
observed, the town of Troy should contact its textile mill regarding the substitution of sodium
sulfate for sodium chloride in textile dyeing operations. Sulfate is generally less toxic than
chloride. The town of Star's textile mill has made this substitution and currently uses about 70%
sodium sulfate and 30% sodium chloride for dyeing:
Most heavy metals concentrations in the simulation effluent were relatively low (i.e.,
nondetectable or below NC water quality standards). Only copper was consistently observed at
concentrations above the NC action level of 7 µg/L after accounting for instream dilution.
Copper concentrations in the simulation effluent (21 — 28 µg/L) were at levels observed to cause
toxicity in other municipal WWTP effluents. However, most or all of the copper was apparently
not bioavailable (e.g., bound to suspended solids) and did not affect C. dubia survival and

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 29
June 8, 2004
reproduction or P. promelas survival and growth. Similar effluent concentrations of copper in
the town of Troy's effluent (monthly average of 18 — 28 mg/L for November 2003 to February
2004) also did not cause chronic toxicity to C. dubia. DWQ's policy allows instream copper
concentrations in excess of the action level if effluent toxicity is either not observed or is not
related to copper.
Cyanide was not detected in the simulation effluent.
3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results
QA/QC results are provided in Appendix D. Overall, the sample analyses met the QA/AC
objectives and the reported sample results were considered valid. The results are summarized as
follows.
3.4.1 Laboratory Control Analyses
Laboratory control analysis results were within specifications with the exception of relative
percent difference (RPD) values for BOD5 for the' April 19-20 and April 26-27 samples. In both
cases, the difference in the result and the specification was small (i.e., 11% RPD vs. 7% RPD
specification).
3.4.2 Sample Matrix Analyses
RPD values for matrix spike duplicate analyses were within laboratory specifications with the
exception of the following analyses:
Total phosphorus for the April 19-20, April 26-27 and May 10-11 samples
COD for the April 19-20, April 26-27, May 3-4 and May 10-11 samples
Total cyanide for May 3-4 samples
TKN for the May 3-4 samples
Copper for the May 3-4 samples
Chloride for the May 10-11 samples
In some of these analyses, the sample concentrations were near or below the minimum detection
limits. The high RPD values were apparently a result of the imprecision in measuring
concentrations that are near or below the minimum detection limits. In other cases, the spike
addition was incorrect.
Percent recovery (PR) values for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses were within
laboratory specifications with the exception of the following analyses:

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 30
June 8, 2004
Total cyanide for the May 3-4 samples
Potassium for the May 3-4 samples
Sodium for the May 3-4 samples
TKN for the May 3-4 samples
In all cases, either the PR values were close to the laboratory specifications or there was an error
in the spike addition.

Regional Wastewater Treatment Study Report
Prepared for W.K. Dickson and Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
Page 31
June 8,.2004
Section 4
References
Aquatic Sciences Consulting. 2002. Letter to Wesley Brown - Recommendations for Salt
Loading Requirements for the Town's Textile Mills. June 28, 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1991, revised 1998. North Carolina Phase
11 Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedures.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2002, revised 2002. Administrative Code Section: 1 SA NCAC 2B. 0200, Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina.
Thomas, W. 1995. Effects of Recreational. Vehicle Wastes on .the Treatability of Domestic
Wastewater. Florida Water Resources Journal, Jan 1995, p34-35.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. Cincinnati, OH, EPA 600/4-79-020.
. 1998. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume 1 (SW-846), Revision S.
Office of Solid Waste.
. 2002. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (4th ed) EPA-821-R-02-014. Office of Water,
Washington, D.C.

Appendix A
NC Division of Water Quality Response to Request for Speculative Limits for
Regional Treatment and Discharge to Denson's Creek or the Little River

April 9, 2004
Mr_ Cooper Burton, P.E.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205
Subject: Speculative Limits
Regional System on Little River and Denson's Creek
Ref. NPDES Permit Nos. NC0021504 (Biscoe) and NC0058548 (Star)
Towns of Biscoe, Star, Troy
Montgomery County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIVED
APR 2 1 2004
W.K. DICKSON CO.
Dear Mr. Burton:
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits on behalf of the
Town's of Star and Biscoe for a potential regional system. It is the Division of Water Quality's
understanding that there is a potential for a regional -type system to be built and to discharge at
(1) the location of the Town of Troy's discharge point on Denson's Creek or (2) at a location along
Highway 24/27 on the Little River. The Division encourages the Towns of Troy, Biscoe, and Star
to work diligently towards a regional system. An addendum is attached to this letter which
presents the various discharge scenarios requested by the Towns of Troy, Star, and Biscoe.
These speculative limits are based on our understanding of the proposal and of present
environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot guarantee that it will
issue the Town an NPDES permit to expand its discharge of treated wastewater into waters of the
State. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent limitations and other requirements included in any
permit will be exactly as presented here. Final decisions on these matters will be made only after
the Division evaluates a formal permit application for the discharge and notices the proposal for
public comment.
Environmental Assessments of New Projects and Expansions
Any entity proposing to construct new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities using
public funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when
wastewater expansions equal or exceed 0.5 MGD. Please contact the Division's State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) coordinator. currently Alex Marks, at (919) 733 - 5083, ext. 555
for further information on EA requirements. DWQ will not accept a permit application for a
. project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has.approved the EA and sent a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the .state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the most practicable wastewater
treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment Is required to
be implemented with any expansion. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit applications
for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared.
The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment
alternatives. Alternatives. to a surface water discharge, such as a spray/drip irrigation,
wastewater reuse, or inflow/infiltration reduction. are considered to be environmentally
preferable. A copy of the EAA requirements is attached to this letter. Permit applications for new
or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA requirements are not adequately
addressed. You mayalso wish to refer to the NPDES Unit website for more information regarding
requests for expansion, llttp://h2o.enr.statc.nc_us/NPDES/.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617
[phone]
FAX [phone]
On the Internet at http://h2o.enr-state.nc.us/

Mr_ Walls/fc-f-oki
Page 2
Speculatiue Effluent Limits
Scenario 1
Based on the available information, tentative limits for the proposed discharge of 2 MGD flow on
Denson's Creek, at the Town of Troy's existing discharge site, are outlined below. Also refer to
Table 1 for an outline of the speculative limits.
Stream Flow. Streamflow yields were taken from a nearby site in the area. The drainage area at
this site is approximately 32 square miles. Existing DWQ records indicate a 7Q10s flow of 0.35
cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 7Q 10w flow of 2.42 cfs. The average flow forthis site is 32 cfs.
Denson's Creek is a Class C stream in this portion of the watershed (Stream Index No. 13-25-20-
13)
Flow Limits. The flow would be limited to 2 MGD at your request. This limit would be applied as
a monthly average.
BOD5 and NH3-N. The proposed limits for a 2 MGD discharge into Denson's Creek would be 8.5
mg/1 (BOD5) and 1.1 mg/I (NH3-N) during the summer months, 30 mg/1 (BOD5) and 3.0, mg/1
(NH3-N) during the winter months. These Limits are based on an EPA -approved water quality
model.
Dissolved Oxygen. A minimum daily average dissolved oxygen level of 6 mg/I must be maintained
in the effluent.
ISS. The limits for total suspended solids are standard for secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater and would remain the same as in the existing permit (30 mg/l monthly average).
Fecal Conform, pH. The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH are derived to protect water
quality in the receiving stream and will likely remain the same as in the previous permit.
Chlorine. A total residual chlorine limit of 19 ug/] (daily maximum) would be implemented in this
permit.
Chronic Toxicity Testing: The chronic toxicity limit for the 2.0 MGD flow would be Pass/Fail at
90%. This is based on the 7Q10s streamflow of 0.35 cfs.
Toxicant Parameters: Estimation of toxicant parameters will not be given with this speculative
letter, but will be submitted as appropriate with the draft NPDES permit.
Scenario 2
Based on the available information, tentative limits for the proposed discharge of 1 MGD flow to
Little River at Highway 24/27 are outlined below. This scenario assumes a flow of 1.2. MGD at the
Town of Troy's existing discharge site on Denson's Creek (upstream of the proposed discharge).
Also refer to Table 2 for an outline of the speculative limits.
Stream Flow. Streamflow yields were taken from a nearby site in the area. The drainage area at
this site (Highway. 24/27 crossing on Little River) is approximately 148 square miles. This yields
a 7Q 10s flow of 1.48 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 7Q 10w flow of 11.2 cfs_ The average flow for
this site is 148 cfs. Little River is a Class C stream in this portion of the watershed (Stream Index
No. 13-25-(19)).
Flow Limits. The flow would be limited to 1 MGD at your request. This limit would be applied as
a monthly average.

Mr. Wallsl0-04
Page 3
BOD5 and NH3-N. The proposed limits for- a 1 MGD discharge into the Little River (with the Troy
discharge on Denson's Creek) would be 5 mg/I (BOD5) and 1.0 mg/1 (NH3-N) during the summer
months, 30 mg/I (BOD5) and 13 mg/1 (NH3-N) during the winter months. These limits are based
on an EPA -approved water quality model. The 7Q10s flow is fairly low for this size drainage area
(but istypical for this hydrologic area), so the summer limits are fairly stringent. Because the
7Q10w flow is relatively higher, the winter limits are less stringent.
Dissolved Oxygen. A minimum daily average dissolved oxygen level of 6 mg/I must be maintained
in the effluent.
TSS. The limits for total suspended solids are standard.for secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater and would remain the same as in the existing permit (30 mg/1 monthly average).
Fecal Coliform, pH. The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH are derived to protect water
quality in the receiving stream and will likely remain the same as in the previous permit.
Chlorine. A total residual chlorine limit of 28 ug/1 (daily maximum) would be implemented in this •
permit.
Chronic Toxicity Testing:. The chronic toxicity limit for the 1.0 MGD flow would be Pass/Fail at
51%. This is based on the 7Q10s streamflow of 1.48 cfs.
Toxicant Parameters: Estimation of toxicant parameters will not be given with this speculative
letter, but will be submitted as appropriate with the draft NPDES permit.
If you have any additional questions about these limits, feel free to contact Susan Wilson
at [phone], extension 510.
cc:
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich, upervisor
NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
Fayetteville Regional Office/ WQS
Central Files
NPDES Unit Files
The Honorable Frank Kersey, Mayor
Town of Star
P.O. Box 97
Star, NC 28356
The Honorable James Blake, Mayor
Town of Biscoe
P.O. Box 26
Biscoe, NC 27209
Gray Walls, P.E. Town of Troy
444 North Main Street
Troy, North Carolina 2737I-2799

Mr. Walls
Page 4
Table 1. Speculative Limits for a Flow of 2.0 MGD
(Discharge point at Troy's• existing site on Denson's Creek)
Parameter
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
2.0 MGD
BOD5 (summer)
, 8.5 mg/1
12.8 mg/1
BOD5 (winter) •
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
N1-13-N (summer)
1.1 mg/1
3.3 mg/1
NH3-N (winter)
3.0 mg/1
9.0 mg/1
15S
30. mg/1
45 mg/1
Fecal coliform
200 #/100 ml
400 #/100 ml
Total residual chlorine
19 ug/1
Dissolved Oxygen
6.0 mg/1
(minimum)
Chronic Toxici ty
o
Quarterly P/F at 90 /o
Table 2. Speculative Limits for a Flow of 1.0 MGD
(Discharge point on Little River at Highway 24/27)
Parameter
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
1.0 MGD
BOD5 (summer)
5.0 rng/1
7.5 mg/1
BOD5 (winter)
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
NH3-N (summer)
1.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
NH3-N (winter)
13 mg/1
35 mg/1
` SS
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
Fecal coliform
200 #/100 ml
400 #/100 ml
Total residual chlorine
28 ug/1
Dissolved Oxygen
6.0 mg/1
(minimum)
Chronic Toxicity
o
Quarterly P/F at 51 /o

Addendum
Troy, Biscoe, Star Issues & Potential Regional System Scenarios
Scenarios
Site Description
Proposed
Flow (MGD)
BOD5 mg/I
(sum/win)
NH3-N mg/1
(sum/win)
D.O.
mg/1
Instream waste
concentration
(IWC %)
1
Regional system at
Troy's existing site,
Denson's Creek
2.0 •
8.5 / 30
1.1 / 3;.0
6.0
90
2
Regional system for
Biscoe/ Star
At Hwy. 24/27
1.0 (Biscoe/
Star)
5.0 / 30
1.0 / 13
6.0
51
3
Regional system
2 MGD plant at
Hwy. 24/27
(no Troy discharge
upstream)
2.0
5.0 / 30
1.2 / 7.5
6.0
.
68
Scenario 1 -
This scenario assumes all permitted flow at the existing Troy discharge site on Denson's Creek.
Scenario 2 -
This scenario assumes a Biscoe/Star regional system at a flow of 1.0 MGD to Little River at Hwy. 24/27. This
scenario also assumes Troy continues its discharge of 1.2 MGD to Denson's:Creek.
Scenario 3 -
This scenario assumes a regional system of 2.0 MGD with discharge to Little River at Hwy. 24/27. This
scenario also assumes that Troy will relocate its discharge to this point.
Stream flows:
Denson's Creek; Class C
(Town of Troy's existing outfall site on Denson's Creek. above confluence with Spencer Branch)
DA = 32. mi2
7Q10s = 0.35 cfs
7Q10w = 2.42 cfs
Qavg=32
Little River (at Hwy. 24/27), Class C
DA = 148 rni2
7Q10s = 1.48 cfs
7Q 10w.= 11.2 cfs
Q avg = 148 cfs
On Denson's Creek - although the stream flows are lower, the slopes are much higher than Little River, which
affects the water quality model (likely why the limits are just as low on Little ;River as on Denson's Creek).

1JKo # 3a0 / 3. D.
April 9, 2004
Mr. Gray Walls, P.E.
Town Engineer/ Public Services Director
Town of Troy
444 North Main Street
Troy, North Carolina 27371-2799
Subject: Speculative Limits
Regional System on Little River
Ref. NPDES Permit NC0028916
Towns of Troy, Star, Biscoe
Montgomery County
Dear Mr. Walls:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P-E., Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIVED
APR 212004
W.K. DICKSON CO.
This letter is in response to a request for speculative effluent limits for the potential
expansion and relocation of the Troy wastewater treatment plant. It is the Division of Water
Quality's understanding that there is a potential for a regional -type system to be built and to
discharge at the proposed location along Highway 24/27. The Division encourages the Towns of
Troy. Biscoe, and Star to work diligently towards a regional system. The speculative limits
provided below are for. a discharge to the Little River at a flow of 2 MGD (with the understanding
that the existing discharge on Denson's Creek would be removed). You may also wish to refer to
Table 1 attached to this letter. In addition, an addendum is attached to this letter which presents
the various discharge scenarios requested by the Towns of Troy, Star, and Biscoe.
These speculative limits are based on our understanding of the proposal and of present
environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot guarantee that it will
issue the Town an NPDES permit to expand its discharge of treated wastewater into waters of the
State. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent limitations and other requirements included in any
permit will be exactly as presented here. Final decisions on these matters will be made only after
the Division evaluates a formal permit application for the discharge and notices the proposal for
public comment.
Environmental Assessments of New Projects and Expansions
Any entity proposing to construct new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities using
public funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when
wastewater expansions equal or exceed 0.5 MGD. Please contact the Division's State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) coordinator, currently Alex Marks, at (919) 733 - 5083, ext- 555
for further information on EA requirements. DWQ will not accept a permit application for a
project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and sent a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the most practicable wastewater
treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to
be implemented with any expansion. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit applications
for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives.analysis (EAA) must be prepared.
The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment
alternatives. Alternatives to a surface water discharge, such as a spray/drip irrigation,
wastewater reuse. or inflow/infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally
preferable. A copy of the EAA requirements is attached to this letter. Permit applications for new
or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA requirements are not adequately
addressed. You may also wish to refer to the NPDES Unit website for more information regarding
requests for expansion, http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/.
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
aaieioh. North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone]
FAX [phone]
On the Internet at http,//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

Mr. Walls
Page 2
Specutative Effluent Limits
Based on the available information, tentative -limits for the proposed discharge of 2 MGD flow to
the Little River are outlined below. Also refer to Table 1 for an outline of the speculative limits.
Stream Flow. Streamflow yields were taken from a nearby site in the area. The drainage area at
this site (Highway 24/27 crossing on Little River) is approximately 148 square miles. This yields
a 7Qlos flow of 1.48 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 7QtOw flow of 11.2 cfs_ The average flow for
this site is 148 cfs. Little River is a Class C stream in this portion of the watershed (Stream Index
No. 13-25-(19)).
Flow Limits. The flow would be limited to 2 MGD at your request. This limit would be applied as
a monthly average.
BOD5 and NH3-N. The proposed limits for a 2 MGD discharge into the Little River would be 5 mg/1
(BOD5) and L2 mg/1 (NH3-N) during the summer months, 30 mg/I (BOD5) and 7.5 mg/1 (NH3-N)
during the winter months. These limits are based on an EPA -approved water quality model_
The 7Q10s flow is fairly low for this size drainage area (but is typical for this hydrologic area), so
the summer limits are fairly stringent. Because the 7glow flow is relatively higher. the winter
limits are less stringent_
Dissolved Oxygen. A minimum daily average dissolved oxygen level of 6 mg/1 must be maintained
in the effluent.
1bS. The limits for total suspended solids are standard for secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater and would remain the same as in the existing permit (30 mg/I monthly average).
Fecal Coliform, pH. The limits for fecal coliform bacteria andpH are derived to protect water
quality in the receiving stream and will likely remain the same as in the previous permit.
Chlorine. A total residual chlorine limit of 25 ug/I (daily maximum.) would be implemented in this
permit.
Chronic Toxicity Testing: The chronic toxicity limit for the 2.0 MGD flow would be Pass/Fail at
68%. This is based on the 7Q10s strearnflow of 1.48 cfs.
Toxicant Parameters: Estimation of toxicant parameters will not be given with this speculative
letter. but will be submitted as appropriate with the draft NPDES permit.
As stated previously, these speculative limits are appropriate for a discharge of 2 MGD on
Little River at Highway 24/27; these limits are appropriate only if the Town's discharge on
Denson's Creek is eliminated. As discussed with. Ms. Susan Wilson of the NPDES Unit. there is
some possibility of lowering the NH3-N limit and slightly raising the BOD5 limit if Troy wishes to
pursue that option. ' If youwould like to discuss this possibility in further detail or if you have any
additional questions about these limits, feel free to contact Ms. Wilson at [phone],
extension 510.
CC:
Sincerely.
lti
David A. Goodrict(j Supervisor
NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
Fayetteville Regional Office/ WQS
Central Files
NPDES Unit Files
Cooper Burton, P.E. WK Dickson & Co.. Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205

Mr. Walls
Page 3
Table 1. Speculative Limits for a Flow of 2.0 MGD
(Discharge point at Hwy. 24/27 on the Little River)
Parameter
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
2.0 MGD
BOD5 (summer)
5.0 mg/1
7.5 mg/1
BOD5. (winter)
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
NH3-N (summer)
1.2 mg/1
3.6 mg/1
NH3-N (winter)
7.5 mg/1
22.5 mg/1
TSS
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
Fecal coliform
200 #/100 ml
400 #/100 ml
Total residual chlorine
25.ug/1
Dissolved Oxygen
6.0 mg/1
(minimum)
Chronic Toxicity
Quarterly P/F at 68%

Appendix B
Mean Cell Residence Time Calculation for the
Existing Town of Troy Wastewater Treatment Plant

MCRT Calculation for the Existing Town of Troy WWTP
Suspended Solids in Activated Sludge Process, Ibs
Suspended Solids Wasted (Ibs/day) +Suspended Solids Loss in Effluent (Ibs/day)
Mass in Aeration Basins
Average MLSS (3,200 - 3,400):
Operating volume of the aeration basins:
Mass in aeration basins
Mass in Clarifiers (sludge blanket)
Clarifier inside diameter is 36'.
The sidewall water depth in the clarifiers is 12'.
The average sludge blanket depth. is 1.5'.
Sludge blanket volume (pi*r2*h)
Avg Return activated sludgeTSS (8,000 - 10,000):
Mass in clarifiers
Mass Loss in Effluent
The average effluent TSS:
Dec avg. 4.15mg/L
Jan avg. 9.05mg/L
Feb avg. 7.27mg/L
Average influent flow: Feb.
Average effluent flow Feb
Mass Loss in Effluent
Mass Wasted
Waste activated sludge TSS mg/L (19,000 - 22,000):
Average waste sludge volume:
Mass wasted per day
MCRT
MCRT
3300 mg/L
600000, gal
1200000 gal
14988600 g
33044 Ibs
36 ft
12 ft
1.5 ft
3054 cu ft
22844 gal
9000 mg/L
778184 g
1716 Ibs
6.82 mg/L
0.564 mgd.
0.393 mgd
10150 g/day
22 Ib/day.
20500 mg/L
11,900 gpd
923351 g
2036 Ibs
16.9 days

Appendix C
Analytical and Toxicity Test Reports

46Lancaster
Laboratori . es
Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. WW 4271710
Influent TBS 489.Composite Water Sample.
-TBS
Collected:05/10/2004 11:30 by JB
Submitted: 05/12/2004 15:30
Reported:'05/26/2004 at 12:45
Discard: 06/03/2004
CAT
No.. Analysis Name
00206 Total Suspended Solids
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen.
00221 AmmoniaNitrogen .
'00227 Total Phosphorus as P,(water)
00235 Biochemical' Oxygen Demand
This sample was submitted past
at the client's request.
04001 'Chemical Oxygen Demand
CAT
No. Analysis Name
'00206 Total Suspended Solids
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00227 Total Phosphorus as P
(water)
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
01460 Total:Kjeldahl Nitrogen;
Digest
08263 Total Phos as P Prep
(water)
Method,
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Account Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences_Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD 21797
As Received
CAS Number Result
n_.a. 214-
7727-37-9 41.9
7664-41-7 .
7723-14-0. '
n.a. 133.
the 48-hour holding time
n . a-_
513.
As Received
Method
Detection
Limit,
21.4
5.0
0.11
0.40
0.80
for'BOD but was
8.2
Laboratory Chronicle
Analysis
Trial# Date and Time
160.2 1 05/14/2004 12:34
351.2 1 05/18/2004 16:07
350.2 1 05/17/2004 15:00
365.1 1 05/17/2004 18:01
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1'
mg/1
analyzed
EPA 405.1
EPA 410.4
EPA 351.2
EPA 365.1
1 05/12/2004
1 05/14/2004
1 05/18/2004
22:14
10:40
09:05
1 05/17/2004 09:15
Page I of I
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
10
1
mg/1 1
Analyst
Susan A Engle
Kyle, W Eckenroad
Luz M Groff.
Venia B McFadden
Nicole ,R.Rohrer
Susan A'Engle
Choon Y Tian
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
10
1
1
1
Cheryl L Robinson • 1
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
MEMBER 2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

IJLancaster
�Laboratories
Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. WW
4271711
Effluent TES 46910 Composite Water Sample.
TBS
Collected:05/11/2004 11:00
Submitted: 05/12/2004 15:30
Reported: 05'/26/2004 at 12:45
Discard: 06/03/2004.
CAT .
r
No. . Analysis Name
01762
01767
07035
07049
07051
07053
07055
07061
07066
07072
00201
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium"
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Alkalinity tb pH 8.3
00202 Alkalinity to pH 4.5
00206
00212
00216
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00224 Chloride
00227 Total Phosphorus as P (water)
00228 Sulfate •
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
.00237 Total Cyanide (water)
00280 Specific Conductance
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
CAT
No. Analysis Name
'01762 Potassium
01767 Sodium
07035 Arsenic
07049 'Cadmium
by JB Account Number: 11554
CAS Number
7440-09-7
7440-23-5
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
-7440-66-6
n.a.
n.a.
Aquatic,Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
• Woodbine MD 21797 '
As Received
Result
20.2
240.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.0244
N.D.
0.0054 J
N.D.
0.0473
N.D.
28.5
n:a. 4.'0
n.a. 798.
471-34-1 53.9
7727-37-9
7664-41-7
16887-00-6
7723-14-0
14808-79-8
n.a.
57-12-5
n.a:
n.a.
7727-37-9
1 7
0.46
283.
3:1
97.4
N.D.
N.D.
1,290.
45.3.
21.9
As Received
Method
Detection
Limit
.0.0571
4.62
0.0094
0.00076
0.0030
0.0027
0.0100
0.0051
0.0020
0.0048
0.41
0.41
3.0
19.4
0.49
0.50
0.11
30.0
0.040
3.0
4.7
0.0050
1.7
J 8.2
0.80
Laboratory •Chronicle
Analysis"
Method Trial# Date and Time
SW-846 6010B 1 .05/18/2004 07:17
SW-846 6014B 1 05/19/2004 04:56
SW-846 6010B 1 05/18/2004 07:17
SW. 846 6010B ..1 05/18/2004 07:17
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 as 1
CaCO3
mg/1 as 1
CaCO3
mg/1
mg/1 1
mg/1 as 1
CaCO3
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 ,
umhos/cm
mg/1
mg/1.
Page 1 of 2
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
1
10
1
1
1
1
20
Analyst -
Joanne M Gates
Donna R Sackett
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
1
MEMBER
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425
717-656-2300 Fax-717_6Sk:7RR1

Lancaster
Laboratories
Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. WW 4271711
Effluent TBS 48910 Composite Water Sample
TBS
Collected:05/11/2004 11:00 by JB
Submitted: 05/12/2004 15:30
Reported:: 05/26/2004 at 12:45
Discard: 06/03/2004
07051 Chromium
07053 Copper
07055 Lead
07061 Nickel
07066 Silver
07072 Zinc
00201 Alkalinity to pH 8.3
00202 Alkalinity to pH 4.5
00206 Total Suspended Solids'
00212 Total Dissolved Solids
00216 Total Hardness
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00224 Chloride
00227 Total Phosphorus as P
(water)
00228 Sulfate
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
00237 Total Cyanide (water)
00280 Specific Conductance
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate
Nitrogen
00492 Cyanide Water Distillation
01460 Total Kjeldah1 Nitrogen
• Digest
05705 WW/TL SW 846 ICP Digest
(tot)
08263 Total Phos as P Prep
(water)
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
EPA 310.1
EPA 310.1
EPA 160.2
EPA 160.1 •
EPA 130.2 (modified)
EPA 351.2
EPA 350.2
EPA 300.0
EPA 365.1
EPA 300.0
EPA 405.1
EPA 335.4
EPA 120.1
EPA 410.4
EPA 353.2
EPA 335.4
EPA 351.2
SW-846 3010A
.EPA 365.1
Account Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
•Woodbine MD 21797
1.. 05/18/2004.
1 05/18/2004
1 05/18/2004
1 05/18/2004
1 05/18/2004
1 05/18/2004
1 05/14/2004
1 .05/14/2004
1 05/15/2004
2 05/18/2004
1 05/17/2004
1 05/18/2004
1 05/17/2004
1 05/18/2004
3 05/24/2004
1 05/18/2004
1 05/12/2004
1 05/13/2004
1 05/14/2004
1 05/14/2004
1 05/14/2004
07:17
07:17
07:17
07:17
07:17
07:17
17:28
17:28
13:05
10:21
09:50
15:44
15:00
02:14
16:29
02:01
22:14
20:13
19:40
10:40
15:40
1 05/13/2004 10:40
1 05/18/2004 09:05
1. 05/17/2004 20:45
1 05/17/2004 09:15
Page 2 of 2
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates'
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates
Justin M Bowers
Justin M Bowers
Anne L Kuenzli
Anne L Kuenzli
Susan A.Engle
Kyle W Eckenroad
Luz M Groff
Michelle A Bolton
Venia B McFadden
Michelle A Bolton
Nicole R Rohrer
Kyle W Eckenroad
Luz M Groff
Susan A Engle
Katherine D Webster
Choon Y Tian
Choon Y Tian
James L Mertz
Cheryl L Robinson
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
1
10
1
1
1
1
20
1
1
MEMBER
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425
71/_cca »nn r_.,. rr,

`I
Lancaster.
Laboratories
Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. WW 4267289
Influent TBS 303 Composite Water Sample
TES
• Collected:05/03/2004 14:45 by JB
Submitted: 05/05/2004 14:55
Reported: 05/20/2004 at 13:23
Discard: 05/28/2004
CAT
No. Analysis Name CAS Number
00206 Total Suspended Solids n.a.
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen • 7727-37-9
00221. Ammonia Nitrogen 7664-41-7
00227 Total Phosphorus as P (water) .7723-14-0
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand n.a.
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand n.a.
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen 7727-37-9
CAT
No.
00206
00217
00221
00227
Analysis Name
Total Suspended Solids
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus as P
{water)
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate
Nitrogen
01460 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Digest
08263 Total Phos as P Prep
(water)
Account Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD 21797
As. Received
Result
160.
61.6
37.6
7.2
175.
573,
N.D.
Laboratory
Method
EPA 160.2
EPA 351.2
EPA 350.2
EPA 365.1
EPA 405.1
EPA 410.4
EPA 353.2
EPA 351.2
EPA 365.1
As Received
Method
Detection
Limit
21.4
5.0
0.11
0.40
0.80
8.2
0.040
Chronicle
Analysis
Trial# Date and Time
1 05/07/2004 13:20
1 05/11/2004 09:45
1 05/07/2004 15:30
1 05/10/2004 19:58
1 05/05/2004
1 05/11/2004
1 05/06/2004
22:56
08:50
16:29
1 05/06/2004 08:30
05/06/2004.11:35
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Page 1 of 1
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
10
1
1
1
Analyst
Anne L Kuenzli
Nicole M Kepley
Luz M Groff
Venia B McFadden
Nicole R Rohrer
Susan A Engle
Katherine D Webster
Cheryl L Robinson
Cheryl L Robinson
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
flfl EN9BEGl
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

Lancaster
Laboratories
Lancaster.Laboratories Sample No. WW 4267288
Effluent TBS 339 Composite Water Sample
TBS
Collected:05/04/2004 13:00 by JB
Submitted: 05/05/2004 14:55
Reported: 05/20/2004 at 13:22
Discard: 05/28/2004
CAT
No. Analysis Name CAS Number
01762
01767
07035
07049
07051
07053
07055
07061
07066
07072
00206
00212
00216
Potassium
Sodium '
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00224 Chloride
00227 Total Phosphorus as P (water)
00228 Sulfate
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
00237 Total Cyanide (water)
00280 Specific Conductance
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
07882 Total Nitrit'e/Nitrate Nitrogen
CAT
No. Analysis Name
01762 Potassium
01767 Sodium
07035 Arsenic
07049 Cadmium
07051 Chromium
07053 Copper.
07055 Lead
7.440-09-7
7440-23-5
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4.
7440-66-6
n.a.
n.a.
471-34-1
7727-37-9
7664-41-7
16887-00-6
7723-14-0
14808-79-8
n.a.
57-12-5
n.a.
n.a.
7727-37-9
Account Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD 21797
As Received
Result
29.6
280.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.0205
N.D.
0.0085 J
N.D.
0.0546.
4.0 J
976.
63.9
1.7
0.21 J
326.
3.1
104.
N.D.
N.D.
1,610.
45.9 J
33.2
As Received
Method
Detection
Limit
0.0571
4.62
0.0094
0.00076
0.0030
0.0027
0.0100
0.0051
0.0020
0.0048
3.0
38.8
0.49
0.50
0.11
30.0
0.040
3.0
5.5
0.0050
1.7
8.2
0.40
Laboratory Chronicle
Analysis
Method Trial# Date and Time
SW-846 6010B 1 05/18/2004 07:11
SW-846 6010E 1 05/19/2004 04:50
SW-846 6010B 1 05/18/2004 07:11
SW-846 6010B 1 05/18/2004 07:11
SW-846 6010B 1 05/18/2004 07:11
SW-846 6010B 1 05/18/2004 07:11
SW-846 6010B 1 05/18/2004 0.7:11
Units
Page 1 of 2
Dilution
Factor
mg/1 1
mg/1. 10
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
' mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
. mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 as 1
CaCO3
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 100
mg/1 1
mg/1 10
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
umhos/cm 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 10
Analyst
Joanne M Gates
Donna R Sackett
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates.
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates
Joanne M Gates
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
MEMBER
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

`1
Lancaster
Laboratories
r
Lancaster.Laboratories Sample No. WW 4267288
Effluent TBS 339 Composite Water Sample
TBS
Collected:05/04/2004 13:00
Submitted: 05/05/2004 14:55
Reported: 05/20/2004 at 13:22
Discard:. 05/28/2004
07061 Nickel
07066 Silver
07072 Zinc
00206 Total Suspended Solids
.00212 Total Dissolved Solids
00216 Total Hardness
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00224 Chloride
00227 Total Phosphorus as P
(water)
00228 Sulfate
00235. Biochemical Oxygen Demand
00237 Total Cyanide (water)
00280 Specific Conductance
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate
Nitrogen
-- 00492 Cyanide Water Distillation
01460 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Digest
'05705 WW/TL SW 846 ICP Digest
(tot)
08263 Total Phos as P Prep
(water)
by JB
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
EPA 160.2
EPA 160.1
EPA 130.2 (modified)
EPA 351.2
EPA 350.2
EPA 300.0
EPA 365.1
EPA.300.0
EPA 405.1
EPA, 335.4
EPA 120.1
EPA 410.4
EPA 353.2
EPA 335.4
'EPA 351.2
SW-846 3010A
EPA 365.1
Account Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD 21797
1 05/18/2004 07:11
1 05/18/2004 07:11
1 05/18/2004 07:11
1 05/07/2004 13:20
1 05/07/2004 10:38
1 05/17/2004 09:50
1 05/11/2004 09:44
1 05/07/2004.15:30
1 05/07/2004 10:33
1 05/10/2004 19:57
1 05/07/2004 10:19
1 05/05/2004 22:56
1 05/06/2004 21:07
1 05/06/2004 18:00
1 05/11/2004.08:50
1 05/06/2004 16:27
1 05/06/2004 11:15
1 05/06/2004 08:30
1 05/17/2004 20:45
1 05/06/2004 11:35
Page 2 of 2
Joanne•M Gates
Joanne M Gates
JoanneM Gates
Anne L Kuenzli
Anne L Kuenzli
Susan A Engle
Nicole M Kepley
Luz M Groff
Shannon L Phillips
Venia B McFadden
Shannon L Phillips
Nicole R Rohrer
Kyle W Eckenroad
Luz M Groff
Susan.A Engle
Katherine D Webster
Choon Y Tian
Cheryl L Robinson
James L Mertz
Cheryl L Robinson
1'
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
1
10
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
M E M E3 E R 2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425
ega

i
4&Lancaster
ler Laboratories
Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. WW 4263375
Influent TBS 202. Composite Water Sample
TBS
Collected:04/27/.2004 09:00 by JB
Submitted: 04/28/2004 15:30
Reported: 05/11/2004 at 12:24
Discard:' 05/19/2004
CAT
'No. Analysis Name
00206 Total Suspended Solids
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00227 Total Phosphorus as.P (water)
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
CAT
No_
00206
i 00217
00221
00227
,00235
, 04001
--- 01460
•
-I08263
Analysis Name
Total Suspended. Solids
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus as P
(water)
Method
EPA 160.2
EPA 351.2
EPA 350.2
EPA 365.1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand EPA 405.1
Chemical Oxygen Demand EPA 410.4
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA 351.2
Digest
Total Phos as P Prep EPA 365.1
(water) -
Account. Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD.21797
As Received
As Received Method
CAS Number Result 'Detection Units
Limit
n.a. 26.7 5.0 mg/1.
7727-37-9 34.4 2.5 mg/1
7664-41-7 17.7 0.11 mg/1
7723-14-0 4.7 0.080 _ mg/1
n.a. 87.4 0.80 mg/1
n.a. 317. 8.2 mg/1
Laboratory Chronicle
Analysis
Trial# Date and Time
1 05/03/2004 14:01
1 05/04/2004 13:21
1 04/29/2004 16:00
2 05/04/2004 18:19
1 04/28/2004 22:43
1 04/29/2004 09:15
1 05/03/2004 09:20
1 04/30/2004 11:20
Page 1 of 1
Analyst
Anne L Kuenzli
Katherine D
Luz M Groff
Katherine D
Dilution
Factor
1
5
1
2
1
1
Dilution
Factor
1
Webster 5
1
Webster 2
Nicole R Rohrer
Susan A Engle
Choon Y Tian
Choon Y Tian
1
1
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
M E M B E R 2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425 •
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

Lancaster
Laboratories
Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. WW
Effluent TBS 202 Composite Water. Sample
TBS
Collected:04/26/2004 13:00
through 04/27/2004 13:00
Submitted: 04/28/2004 15:30
Reported 05/11/2004 at 12:24
Discard: 05/19/2004
by JB
4263376
CAT
No. Analysis Name CAS Number
01762
01767
07035
07049
07051
07053
07055
07061
07066
07072
00201
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Alkalinity to pH 8.3
7440-09-7
7440-23-5
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-66-6
n.a.
00202 Alkalinity to pH 4.5 n.a.
00206
00212
00216
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00224 Chloride
00227 Total Phosphorus as P (water)
00228 Sulfate
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
00237 Total Cyanide (water)
00280 Specific Conductance
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
CAT
No.
01762
01767
07035
07049
Analysis Name
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
n.a.
n.a.
471-34-1
7727-37-9
7664-41-7
16887-00-6
7723-14-0
14808-79-8
n.a.
57-12-5
n.a.
n.a.
7727-37-9
Account Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD 21797
As Received
Result
17.0
213.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.0276
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.0492
N.D.
25.0
N.D.
813.
46.0
1.4
0.42 J
257.
3.2
136.
N.D.
N.D.
1,350
33.7 J
19.0
Laboratory
Method
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010E
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010E
As Received
Method
Detection
Limit
0.0571
•2.31
0.0094
0.00076
0.0030
0.0027
0.0100
0.0051
0.0020
0.0048
0.41
0.41
3.0
19.4
0.49
0.50
0.11
30.0
0.040
6.0
4.3
0.0050
1.7
8.2
1.0
Chronicle
Analysis
Trial# Date and Time
1 05/03/2004 16:23
1 05/06/2004 01:46
1 05/03/2004 16:23
1 05/03/2004 16:23
Units
Page 1 of 2
Dilution
Factor
mg/1 1
mg/1 5
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 as 1
CaCO3
mg/1 as 1
CaCO3
mg/1 ' • 1
mg/1 1
mg/1 as
CaCO3
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
umhos/cm
mg/1'
mg/1
Analyst
Jayme E
Donna R
Jayme E
Jayme E
1
1
100
1
20
1
1
1
1.•
25
Curet
Sackett
Curet
Curet
Dilution
Factor
1
5
1
1
M EIVIBIER
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

Lancaster
Laboratories
Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. WW 4263376
Effluent TBS 202 Composite Water Sample
TBS
Collected:04/26/2004 13:00
through 04/27/2004 13:00
Submitted: 04/28/2004 15:30
Reported: 05/11/2004 at 12:24
Discard: 05/19/2004
07051 Chromium
07053 Copper
07055 Lead
'.07061 Nickel
07066 Silver
07072 Zinc
00201 Alkalinity to pH 8.3
00202 Alkalinity to pH 4.5
00206 Total Suspended Solids
00212 Total Dissolved Solids
00216 Total Hardness
-- 00217 Kjeldahl Nitxogen
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen
00224 Chloride
00227 Total Phosphorus as P
(water)
00228 Sulfate
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
00237 Total Cyanide (water)
00280 Specific Conductance
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate
Nitrogen
00492 Cyanide Water Distillation
01460 Total Kjeldahl, Nitrogen
Digest
01848 WW SW846 ICP Digest (tot
rec)
08263 Total Phos as P Prep
(water)
by JB
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
SW-846 6010B
EPA 310.1
EPA 310.1
EPA 160.2
EPA 160.1
EPA 130.2 (modified)
EPA 351.2
EPA 350.2
EPA 300.0
EPA 365.1
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
300.0
405.1
335.4
120.1
410.4
353.2
EPA. 335.4
EPA 351.2
SW-846 3005A
EPA 365.1
Account Number: 11554
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD 21797
1 05/03/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 05/06/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 04/30/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 05/04/2004
1 04/29/2004
1 05/03/2004
2 05/04/2004
1 05/03/2004
1 04/28/2004
1 04/29/2004
1 04/28/2004
1 04/29/2004
1 05/05/2004
16:23
16:23
13:22
16:23
16:23
16:23
21:02
21:02
14:01
10:49
14:45
12:24
16:00
12:55
18:22
12:42
22:43
14:26
17:00
09:15
17:14
1 04/29/2004 10:25
1 05/03/2004 09:20
1 04/30/2004 09:30
04/30/2004 11:20
Page 2 of 2
Jayme E Curet
Jayme E Curet
Jayme E Curet
Jayme E Curet
Jayme E Curet
Jayme E Curet
Elaine F Stoltzfus
Elaine F Stoltzfus
Anne L Kuenzli
Anne L Kuenzli
Susan A Engle
Katherine D Webster
Luz M Groff
Shannon L Phillips
Katherine D Webster
Shannon L Phillips
Nicole R Rohrer
Katherine D Webster
Luz M Groff
Susan A Engle
Kyle Eckenroad
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
100
1
20
1
1
1
1 •
25
Cheryl L Robinson 1
Choon Y Tian 1
Megersa Deyessa
Choon Y Tian
1
1
MEM B'ER
�xt p
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

Lancaster
Laboratories
;Lancaster Laboratories Sample No. 'WW 4258786
Influent TBS Composite Water Sample
TBS .
Collected:04/19/2004 13:00 by JB
Submitted': 04/21/2004 14:35
Reported: 05/24/2004 at 16:29
Discard: 06/01/2004'
INTBS
CAT
No. Analysis Name CAS Number
00206 Total Suspended Solids n.a.
00217 KjeldahlNitrogen 7727-37-9
00221. Ammonia Nitrogen 7664-41-7
00227 Total Phosphorus. as P'(water) 7723-14-0
00235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
This sample was submitted past the 48-hour
at the. client's request.
04001 ,Chemical Oxygen Demand n.a. 734.
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen 7727-37-9 N.D.
'Account Number:' 11554'
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine MD 21797
As Received
Result
CAT
Analysis Name
00206 • Total Suspended'Solids
)0217 'Kjeldahl Nitrogen
)0221 Ammonia Nitrogen •
J0227 Total Phosphorus as, P
(water)
10235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
14001. Chemical Oxygen Demand
' 17882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate
Nitrogen
)1460 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Digest'
18263 Total Phos as P Prep
(water)
Method
EPA 160.2
EPA 351.2
EPA'350.2
EPA 365.1
EPA 405.1
EPA 410.4
EPA 353.2
EPA 351.2
EPA 365.1
364.
47.6
22.4
8.0
206.
holding time for
BOD
As Received
Method
Detection
Limit '
30.0
5.0
0.11
0.40
0.80
but. was
8.2
0.20
Laboratory Chronicle .
Analysis
Trial# Date and Time
1 04/26/2004 14:00
1 04/22/2004 20:01
1 04/22/2004.15:30
1 04/27/2004,11:20
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
.mg/1
mg/1
analyzed
1
1
1
04/21/2004
04/27/2004
04/23/2004
21:41
09:10
13:26
1 '04/22/2004 14:30
1 04/26/2004 11:00
mg/1
mg/1
'Page 1 of 1
REPRINT
Dilution.
Factor
1
'10
1
10
1
5
Analyst
Anne L Kuenzli.
Kyle W Eckenroad
Luz M.Groff
'Katherine D Webster
Nicole R Rohrer
Susan A Engle .
Katherine D Webster
Nancy J Shoop
Cheryl L Robinson
Dilution
Factor
1
10
1
10
1
1
5
1
1
MEMBER
Lancaster Laboratories. Inc.'
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

46Lancaster
!Laboratories
'Lancaster Laboratories. Sample No. WW
Effluent TBS Composite Water Sample
TBS
Collected:04/20/2004 13:00 by JP
Submitted: 04/21/2004 14:35
Reported: 05/24/2004 at 16:29
Discard: 06/01/2004
EFTBS
.CAT
No. Analysis Name
00206
00217
00221
00227
00235
04001
07882
CAT
No. Analysis Name Method
00206 Total Suspended Solids EPA'160.2
00217 Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA 351.2
00221 Ammonia Nitrogen EPA 350.2
D0227 Total Phosphorus as P EPA 365.1
(water)
)0235 Biochemical Oxygen Demand :EPA 405.1
04001 Chemical Oxygen Demand EPA 410.4
07882 Total Nitrite/Nitrate EPA 353.2
Nitrogen
)1460 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA 351.2
Digest
08263 Total Phos as P Prep EPA 365.1
(water)
Total Suspended Solids
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
425878.7
CAS Number
n.a.
7727-37-9
7664-41-7
7723-14-0
n.a.
n.a.
7727-37-9
Account Number: 11554.
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Road •
'Woodbine MD 21797
As Received
Result
N.D.
2.0
0.67 J
4.2
N.D.
38.6 J
14.5
As Received
Method
Detection
Limit
3.0
0.50
0.11
0.080
5.4
8.2
0.20
Laboratory Chronicle
Trial#
1
1
1
1
Analysis
Date and Time
04/26/2004 14:00
04/22/2004 19:40
04/22/2004 15:30
04/27/2004 11:35
1 04/21/2004 21:41
1 04/27/2004 09:10
1 04/23/2004 13:41
1 04/22/2004 14:30
1 04/26/2004 11:00
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1.
Page 1 of 1
REPRINT
Dilution
Factor
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
Analyst
Anne L Kuenzli
Kyle W Eckenroad
Luz M Groff
Katherine.D Webster
Nicole R Rohrer
Susan A Engle
Katherine D Webster
Nancy J Shoop
Cheryl L Robinson
•
Dilution
Factor
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
M E fll1 B E R 2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605_2425
t:::ry I

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION
Test: Ceriodaphnia dubia 3-brood daily limited scale chronic toxicity test
Test Procedure: EA Protocol ATS-STC-CD-07
Survival and reproduction test with cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Sample Description: TBS Treatability effluent
EA Accession Numbers: AT4-262
Sample collection time and date: 1300, 26 April 2004 - 1300, 27 April 2004
Sample receipt time and date: 1630, 27 April 2004
EA Test Number: TN-04-267
Test initiation time and .date: .1010, 28 April 2004
Test completion time and date: 0900, 4 May 2004
Dilution Water: Moderately hard synthetic fresh water
Test Vessel: 30 ml cup.
Test Volume: 15 ,ml
Number of Organisms per Replicate: 1
Number of Replicates per Concentration: 7
Photoperiod: 16-hours light/8-hours dark
Organism Lot Information
Lot Number: N/A
Source: EA's Culture Facility (Sparks, Maryland)
Age: <24 hours old, within an 8-hour window
page 6 EA Report Number 4516

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION (continued)
Test Organism: Ceriodaphnia dubia
Test: Limited Scale chronic
EA Test Number: TN-04-267
Client Name: Troy-Biscoe-Star Treatability Study
Sample Type: Treatability effluent
Test 48-Hour .6-Day
Concentration Survival Survival Mean Young Production as
(percent effluent) (percent) (percent) Neonates/Organism (±S.D.)
Control 100 100 34.0 (± 3.3)
28 100 100 32.7 (± 3.3)
56 100 100 30.2 (± 12.1)
68 100 100. 34.7 (± 3.6)
84 100 100 34.0 (± 2.0)
90 100 100 34.7 (± 3.3)
Endpoints as percent effluent Survival Reproduction
NOEC: 90 90
LOEC: >90 >90
ChV: >90 >90
48-Hour LC50: >90
Overall NOEC: 90
Overall IC25:
TUc (100/NOEC): 1.1
>90
Water Quality Parameters on Test Solutions
Temperature (°C):
pH:
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L):
Conductivity (µS/cm):
Range
24.0 — 25.7
7.6 — 8.2
7.4 — 8.7
310 — 1,668
page 7 EA Report Number 4516

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION
Test: Ceriodaphnia dubia 3-brood daily limited scale chronic toxicity test
Test Procedure: EA Protocol ATS-STC-CD-07
Survival and reproduction test with cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Sample Description: TBS Treatability effluent
EA Accession Numbers: AT4-277
Sample collection time and date: 1300, 3 May 2004 - 1300, 4 May 2004
Sample receipt time and date: 0850, 5 May 2004
EA Test Number: TN-04-279
Test initiation time and date: 1310, 5 May 2004
Test completion time and date: 1400, 12 May 2004
Dilution Water: Moderately hard synthetic fresh water
Test Vessel: 30 ml cup
Test Volume: 15 ml
Number of Organisms per Replicate: 1
Number of Replicates per Concentration: 7
Photoperiod: 16-hours light/8-hours dark
Organism Lot Information
Lot Number: N/A
Source: EA's Culture Facility (Sparks, Maryland)
Age: <24 hours old, within an 8-hour window
page 8 EA Report Number 4516

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION (continued)
Test Organism: Ceriodaphnia dubia
Test: Limited Scale chronic
EA Test Number: TN-04-279
Client Name: Troy-Biscoe-Star Treatability Study
Sample Type: Treatability effluent
Test 48-Hour 7-Day
Concentration Survival Survival Mean Young Production as
(percent effluent) (percent) (percent) Neonates/Organism (±S.D.)
Control 100 86 16.3 (± 8.2)
28 100 100 29.0 (± 3.2)
56 100 100 28.7 (± 2.9)
68 100 100 •26.6 (± 3.6)
84 100 100 27.6 (± 2.6)
90 100 100 26.4 (± 4.4)
Endpoints as percent effluent Survival Reproduction
NOEC: 90 90
LOEC: >90 >90
ChV: >90 >90
48-Hour LC50: >90
Overall NOEC: 90
Overall IC25:
TUc (100/NOEC): 1.1
>90
Water Quality Parameters on Test Solutions Range
Temperature (°C): 24.5 — 26.2
pH: 7.8-8.3
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L): 7.1 — 8.0
Conductivity (uS/cm): 304 — 1,803
page 9 EA Report Number 4516

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION
Test: Pimephales promelas 7-day limited scale chronic toxicity test
Test Procedure: EA Protocol ATS-STC-FH-08
Larval survival and growth test with fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas)
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Sample Description: TBS Treatability effluent
EA Accession Numbers: AT4-277
Sample collection time and date: 1300, 3 May 2004 - 1300, 4 May 2004
Sample receipt time and date: 0850, 5 May 2004
EA Test Number: TN-04-280
Test initiation time and date: 1330, 5 May 2004
Test completion. time and date: 1430, 12 May 2004
Dilution Water: Moderately hard synthetic fresh water
Test Vessel: 1-L beaker
Test Volume: 250 ml
Number of Organisms per Replicate: 2
Number of Replicates per. Concentration: 10
Photoperiod: 16-hours light/8-hours dark
Organism Lot Information
Lot Number: FH4 — 5/4-5
Source: EA's Culture Facility (Sparks, Maryland)
Age: <24 hours old
page 10 EA Report Number 4516

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION (continued)
Test Organism: Pijnephales promelas
Test: Limited Scale chronic
EA Test Number: TN-04-280
Client Name: Troy-Biscoe-Star Treatability Study
Sample Type: Treatability effluent
Test 48-Hour 7-Day
Concentration Survival Survival Mean Biomass as
(percent effluent) (percent) (percent) mg/Organism (±SD)
Control 85 70 0.610 (± 0.006)
28 95 90 0.706 (± 0.066)
68 95 85 0.763 (± 0.233)
90 100 100 0.955 (± 0.134)
Endpoints as percent effluent Survival Reproduction
NOEC: 90 90
•
LOEC:. >90 >90
ChV: >90 >90
48-Hour LC50: >90
Overall NOEC: 90
Overall IC25:
I U� (100/NOEC): 1.1
>90
Water Quality Parameters on Test Solutions Range
Temperature (°C): 24.0 — 26.0
pH: 7.4-8.1
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L): 4.4 — 8.1
Conductivity (µS/cm): 305 — 1,676
page 11 EA Report Number 4516

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION
Test: Ceriodapiznia dubia 3-brood daily limited scale chronic toxicity test
Test Procedure: EA Protocol ATS-STC-CD-07
Survival and reproduction test with cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia)
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Sample Description: TBS Treatability effluent
EA Accession Numbers: AT4-290
Sample collection time and date: 1100, 10 May 2004 1130, 11 May 2004
Sample receipt time and date: 1600, 11 May 2004
EA Test Number: TN-04-297
Test initiation time and date: 1000, 12 May 2004
Test completion time and date: 1010, 18 May 2004
Dilution Water: Moderately hard synthetic fresh water
Test Vessel: 30 ml cup
Test Volume: 15 ml
Number of Organisms per Replicate: 1
Number of Replicates per Concentration: 7
Photoperiod: 16-hours light/8-hoursdark
Organism Lot Information
Lot Number: N/A
Source: EA's Culture Facility (Sparks, Maryland)
Age: <24 hours old, within an 8-hour window
page 12 EA Report Number 4516

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE/TEST INFORMATION (continued)
Test Organism: Ceriodaphnia dubia
Test: Limited Scale chronic
EA Test Number: TN-04-297
Client Name: Troy-Biscoe-Star Treatability Study
Sample Type: Treatability effluent
Test 48-Hour 6-Day
Concentration Survival Survival Mean Young Production as
(percent effluent) (percent) (percent) Neonates/Organism (±S.D.)
Control 100 100 25.1 (± 2.4)
28 100 100 26.6 (± 4.4)
56 100 100 27.6 (± 4.6)
68 100 100 . 26.3 (± 4.7)
84 100 100 23.3 (± 5.9)
90 100 100 28.3 (± 4.7)
Endpoints as percent effluent Survival Reproduction
NOEC: 90 90
LOEC: >90 >90
ChV: >90 >90
48-Hour LC50: >90
-Overall NOEC: 90
Overall IC25:
TUB (100/NOEC): 1.1
>90
Water Quality Parameters on Test Solutions Range
Temperature (°C):
pH:
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L):
Conductivity (µS/cm):
24.0 — 26.4
7.6 — 8.3
7.3 — 8.4
261 — 1,471
page 13 EA Report Number 4516

Appendix D
Analytical QA/QC Reports

•
r
1110,Eaartiscoarastrries
Quality Control Summary
---Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
;;Reported: 05/24/04 at 04:29 PM
Matrix QC may not be reported if site -specific QC samples were not
submitted. In these situations, to demonstrate precision and accuracy at
a batch level, a LCS/LCSD was performed, unless otherwise specified in the
method...
Analysis Name
Batch number: 04112023501A
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Batch number: 04113022101A
Ammonia Nitrogen
Batch number: 04113108101B
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Laboratory Compliance Quality
Blank Blank Report
Result MDL Units •
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787 -
106 96
LCS LCSD
%REC %REC
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
N.D. 0.11 mg/1 98 ' 97.
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
N.D. 0.50 mg/1 105
Batch number: 04114118101A Sample number(s):
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen .'N.D. 0.040
Batch number: 04117020602A
Total Suspended Solids
;Batch number: 04117109101A
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
Batch number: 04117109101B
Total Phosphorus as'P (water)
3atch number: 04118400101A
Chemical Oxygen Demand
knalysis.Name
•
Batch number: 04112023501A
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
I• 3atch number: 04113022101A
Ammonia Nitrogen
4258786-4258787
mg/1 100
Sample number(s): 425.8786-4258787
N.D. 3.'0 mg/1 117
Sample number(s): 4258786
N.D. 0.040 mg/1 98
Sample number(s): 4258787
N.D. 0.040
'mg/1 98
Sample number(s): 425878674258787
102
Page 1 of 2
REPRINT
Group Number: 893068
Control
LCS/LCSD
Limits
85-115
92-100
90-110
89-110
55-132
'90-116
90-110 •
95-107
Sample Matrix Quality Control
MS MSD
-%REC %REC
MS/MSD
Limits RPD
RPD
MAX
Sample number(s): 4258786-425'8787
108 103 51-152 5 10
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258781
I*- Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the .LOQ.
_ '2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
BKG
Conc
4,540.
22.4
DUP
Conc
4,700:'
22.4
-RPD RPD Max
11*
DUP
RPD
Dup RPD
Max
8
2
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
M E M BIER 2425 New Holland Pike
t` ,• „ PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

4&Lancaster
lir Laboratories
Quality Control Summary
Client. Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Reported: 05/24/04 at 04:29 PM
Page 2 of 2
REPRINT
Group Number: 893068
Sample Matrix Quality Control.
MS . MSD MS/MSD RPD BKG • DUP DUP Dup RPD
'Analysis Name %REC %REC Limits -RPD MAX Conc .Conc RPD
Batch number: 04113108101B Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787 Max
Kjeldahl Nitrogen ..110 90-110 2.4 2.4 2 (1) 7'
Batch number: 04114118101A .Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen 93 90-110 . '2.1 2.1 0
2
Batch number: 04117020602A Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
Total Suspended Solids 1,070. 1,180. 10 (1) 24
Batch number: 04117109101A Sample number(s): 4258786
Total Phosphorus as P (water) 98 90-110 .0.054 . 0.050 J 8* (1) 3
Batch number: 04117109101B Sample number(s): 4258787
Total Phosphorus as P (water) 102 90-110 4.2 4.1 2 3
__Batch number: 04118400101A Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
`2hemical Oxygen Demand 98 98 90-110 1 2 11.7 J 16.6 J 35* (1) 4
Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
'7) The background result was .morethan four times the.spike added.
MEMBER
w
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425 '
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

Lancaster
Laboratories
Quality Control Summary
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Reported: 04/28/04 at 02:03 PM
Matrix QC may not be reported if site -specific QC samples were not
submitted. In these situations, to demonstrate precision and accuracy at
a batch level, a LCS/LCSD was performed, unless otherwise specified in the
method.
Analysis Name
Batch number: 04112023501A
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Batch number: 04113022101A
Ammonia Nitrogen
Batch number: 04113108101B
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Batch number: 04114118101A
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
Batch number: 04117020602A
Total Suspended Solids
Batch number: 04117109101A
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
'Batch number: 04117109101B
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
Batch number: 04118400101A
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Analysis Name
Batch number: 04112023501A
_ Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Batch number: 04113022101A
— Ammonia Nitrogen
Laboratory Compliance Quality
Blank
Result
Blank
LOQ,
Report LCS
Units %REC
LCSD
%REC
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
106 96
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
< 1.0 1.0
mg/1 ' 98 97
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
< 1.0 1.0 mg/1 105
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
< 0.10 0.10 mg/1 100
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
< 12.0 12.0 mg/1 117
Sample number(s): 4258786
< 0.050 0.050 mg/1 98
Sample number(s): 4258787
< 0.050 0.050 mg/1 98
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
102
MS
%REC
Page 1 of 2
Group Number: 893068
Control
LCS/LCSD
Limits
85-115
92-100
90-110
89-110
55-132
90-110
90-110
95-107
Sample Matrix Quality Control
MSD MS/MSD
%REC Limits
RPD BKG
RPD MAX Conc
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
108 103 51-152 5 10 4,540.
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787.
*- Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
(2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
pu
22-4
DUP
Conc
4,700.
22.4
RPD RPD Max
11* 7
1 1
DUP
RPD
3
0
Dup RPD
Max
8
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
MEMBER 2425 New Holland Pike
M ar PO Box 12425
y,1�?T Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

`�I�Labo atories
Quality Control Summary
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Reported: 04/28/04 at•02:03 PM
Sample Matrix- Quality Control
Analysis Name
Batch number: 04113108101B
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Batch number: 04114118101A
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
Batch number: 041-17020602A
'Total Suspended Solids
Batch number: 04117109101A.
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
Batch number: 04117109101B
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
Batch number: 04118400101A
Chemical Oxygen Demand
MS MSD
MS/MSD RPD
' %REC %REC Limits RPD MAX
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
110 90-110
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787.
93 90-110
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
Sample number(s): 4258786
98 90-110 •
Sample numb'er(s): 4258787
102 90-110
Sample number(s): 4258786-4258787
98 98 90-110 1 2
*- Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
-(2) The backgroundresult was more than four times the spike added.
Page 2 of 2
Group Number: 893068
BKG DUP DUP
Conc Conc RPD
'2.4 2.4 2 (1) 7
Dup RPD
Max
2.1 2.1 0 2
1,070. 1,180. 10 (1) 24
0.054 < 0.050 8* (1) 3
4.2 4.1 2 3
< 50.0 < 50.0 35* (1) 4
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
MEMBER 2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster,PA 17605-2425
� •T

Lancaster
Laboratories
Quality Control Summary
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Reported: 05/11/04 at 12:24-PM
Matrix QC may not be reported if site -specific QC samples were not
submitted. In these situations, to demonstrate precision and accuracy at
a batch level, a LCS/LCSD was performed, unless otherwise specified in the
method.
Analysis Name
Batch number: 04119023501A
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Batch number: 04119028001A
Specific Conductance
Batch number: 04120022101A
Ammonia Nitrogen
Batch number: 04120102101A
Total Cyanide (water)
Batch number: 04120400101A
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Batch number: 04121021201A
Total Dissolved Solids
Batch number: 04121109101A
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
Batch number: 041211848001
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Batch number: 04122401301A
Chloride
Sulfate
Page 1 of 3
Group Number: 893941
Laboratory Compliance Quality Control
Blank
Result
Blank
MDL
Report LCS
Units %REC
LCSD
%REC
LCS/LCSD
Limits
Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
105 101 85-115
Sample number(s): 4263376
N.D. 1.7 umhos/c 102
m
Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
N.D. 0.11 mg/1 97
Sample number(s): 4263376
N.D. 0.0050
mg/1 102
Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
100
Sample number(s):. 4263376
N.D. 9.7 mg/1 105
Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
N.D. 0.040 mg/1 99
Sample number(s): 4263376
0.0747 J 0.0571 mg/1
N.D. 0.462 mg/1
N.D. 0.0094 mg/1
N.D. 0.00076 mg/1
N.D. 0.0030 mg/1
N.D. 0.0027 mg/1
N.D. 0.0100 mg/1
N.D. 0.0051 mg/1
N.D. 0.0020 mg/1
N.D. 0.0048 mg/1
Sample number(s): 4263376
N.D. 0.30 mg/1
N.D. 0.30 mg/1
101
104
98
103
102
103
102
101
104
99
97
94-113
92-100
90-110
95-107
80-120
90-110
80-120
89-112
92-109
97-111
95-112
92-110
93-110
93-110
96-114
94-112
100 90-110
99 89-110
*- Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
(2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
3
0
RPD . RPD Max
7
1
MEMBER
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425
717_GCG_73nn c..... crc nr,..

Batch number: 04124020201A Sample number(s): 4263376
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 100 98-103
Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
N.D. 3.0 mg/1 91 55-132
Sample number(s): 4263376
N.D. 0.49 mg/1 as 101
Ca
Lancaster
Laboratories
Page 2 of 3
Quality Control Summary
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting Group Number: 893941
Reported: 05/11/04 at 12:24 PM
Laboratory Compliance Quality Control
Blank Blank Report LCS LCSD LCS/LCSD
Analysis Name Result MDL Units %REC %REC Limits
Batch number: 04124020601A
Total Suspended Solids
Batch number: 04124021601A
Total Hardness 98-107
Batch number: 04124108101A Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
Kjeldahl Nitrogen N.D. 0.50 mg/1 104 90-110.
Batch number: 04128118101A Sample number(s): 4263376
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen N.D. 0.040 mg/1 105 89-110
RPD RPD Max
Sample Matrix Quality Control
MS MSD MS/MSD RPD BKG DUP . DUP Dup RPD
Analysis Name %REC %REC Limits RPD MAX Conc RP
D PD Max
Batch number: 04119023501A Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
- Biochemical Oxygen Demand 102 108 51-152 5 10 132. 128. . 3 8'
Batch number: 04119028001A Sample number(s): 4263376
Specific Conductance 215. 215. 0 1
IIIBatch number: 04120022101A Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
Ammonia Nitrogen 17.7 17.8 0 .2
Batch number: 04120102101A Sample number(s): 4263376
IIITotal Cyanide (water) 83* 90-110 N.D. N.D. 27* (1) 9
Batch number: 04120400101A Sample number(s): 4263375'-4263376
Chemical Oxygen Demand 99 96 90-110 2 2 97.1 102. 5* (1) 4
IIIBatch number: 04121021201A Sample number(s): 4263376
Total Dissolved Solids 91 88 60-140 1 5 2,420. 2,490. 3 5
Batch number: 04121109101A Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
Total Phosphorus as P (water) 100 90-110 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 3
Batch number: 041211848001 Sample number(s): 4263376
Potassium (2) (2) 75-125 5 20 115. 117. 2 20
*- Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
(2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
M E M B E R
4157.0
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
-2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425
717_a cc_flnn c.,... 717 crc nco,

Lancaster
Laboratories
Page 3 of 3
Quality Control Summary •
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting Group Number: 893941
Reported: 05/11/04 at .12:24.PM
Sample Matrix Quality Control
MS MSD MS/MSD RPD BKG DUP 'DUP Dup RPD
Analysis Name. %REC %REC Limits RPD MAX Conc' .Conc RPD Max
Sodium '(2) (.2). 75-125 1 20 ' 1,790. 1,850. 3. ' 20
Arsenic 107 109 86-119 2 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
Cadmium 107 108 87-117 1 20 N.D. N-.D. '0 (1) 20
Chromium 108 109 86-118. 1 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1)- 20'
Copper 100 102 89-119 2 20 0.0027 J N.D. 200* (1) 20
Lead 101 '97 87-118 4 20 , N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20.
Nickel 103 • 104 91-111 1 20 .N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
Silver 103 107 75-125 3 20 N.D. '. N.D. 0'(1) 20
Zinc 101 101 80-120 0 20 N.D. N.D. 0 .(1) 20
Batch number: 04122401301A. Sample number(s).: 4263376
Chloride 100 90-110 23.8 24.0 1 3
Sulfate 98 • 90-110 17.8 17.7 0 (1) 3
Batch number: 04'124020201A Sample number(s): 4263376
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 4'
' Alkalinity to pH 4.5 102 98 64-130 1 2 ' 570. 564. 1 4
I
A
N
Batch number: 04124020601A Sample number(s): 4263375-4263376
Total Suspended Solids 7,750.- '7,150. 8' (1) 24
Batch number: 04124021601A Sample number(s): 4263376
Total Hardness 100 101. ' 93-115 0 2 ' 446.0 45.6 0 4
Batch number: 04124108101A Sample number(s):. 4263375-4263376
Kjeldahl Nitrogen .88* 90-110 2.9 2.6 10* (1). 7
Batch number: 04128118101A Sample number(s): 4263376
Total Nitrite/Nit'rate'Nitrogen 106 90-110 19.0 19.1 1 2
*- Outside of specification '
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
(2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
ME2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425
III:;
>' 4 717-656-7qM

Lancaster
Laboratories
Quality Control Summary
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Reported: 05/26/04 at 12:45 PM
Matrix QC may not be reported if site -specific QC samples were not
submitted. In these situations, to demonstrate precision and accuracy at
a batch level, a LCS/LCSD was performed, unless otherwise specified in the
method.
Analysis Name
Page'1 of 3
Group Number: 895759
Laboratory Compliance Quality Control
Blank
Result
Blank
MDL
•
Report LCS
Units %REC.
Batch number: 04133023501A Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 102
Batch number: 04134102102B Sample number(s): 4271711
Total Cyanide '(water) N.D. '0.0050 mg/1 103
Batch number: 04135020201A Sample number(s): 4271711
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 100
Batch number: 04135020602B
*Total Suspended Solids
Batch number: 04135028001A
Specific Conductance
Batch number: 04135118102A
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
Batch number: 04135400102A
Chemical Oxygen Demand .
Batch number: 04135401101B
Chloride
Sulfate
Batch number: 04136020601A
Total Suspended Solids
Batch number: 04138021601A
Total Hardness
Batch. number: 04138022101A
Ammonia Nitrogen
Batch number: 04138109101B
Sample number(s):
N.D. 3.0
Sample number(s):
N.D. 1.7
4271710
mg/1 93
4271711
umhos/c • 103
m
Sample number(s): 4271711
N.D. 0.040 mg/1 105
Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
Sample number(s):
N.D. 0.30
N.D. 0.30
Sample number(s): 4271311
N:D. 3.0
103
4271711
mg/1 '97
mg/1 98
'mg/1 113
Sample number(s): 4271711
N.D. 0.49 mg/1 as 102
Ca
,Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
• N.D. 0.11 mg/1 97
Sample number(s): '4271710-4271711
*- Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was Less than five times the LOQ.
(2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
LCSD
%REC
100
97
LCS/LCSD
Limits
85-115
90-110
98-103'
55-132
98-106
89-110
94-110
• 90-110
89-110
55-132
98-107
91-100
2
0
RPD RPD Max
8
1
MEMBER
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425
717 GCG onnn C..... -1.1-r ere nrn,

r
1
1
4U Lancaster
lur Laboratories
Quality Control. Summary
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting
Reported: 05/26/04 at 12:45 PM
Laboratory Compliance Quality Control
Analysis Name.
Total Phosphorus as P (water)
Batch number: 041385705004
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Batch number: 04139021201A
Total Dissolved Solids
Batch number: 04139108101A
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Analytis'Name
Batch number: 04133023501A
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Batch number:'
Total Cyanide
Batch number:
Alkalinity to
Alkalinity to
04134102102B
(water)
04135020201A
pH 8.3,
pH 4.5
Batch number: 04135020602B
Total Suspended Solids
Batch number: 04135028001A
Specific Conductance
•
Batch number: 04135118102A
Total Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
Batch number: 04135400102A
Blank
.Result
N.D.
Sample
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Blank.
MDL
0.040,
Report LCS
Units %REC
mg/1 99
number(s): 4271711
0.0571 mg/1
0.462 mg/1
0.0094 mg/1
0.00076 mg/1
0.0030 .mg/1
0.0027 mg/1
0.0100 mg/1
0.0051 mg/1
0.0020 mg/1
0.004.8 mg/1
109
99
99
102
101
103
102
101
103
104
Sample number(s): 4271711
N.D. 9.7 mg/1 109
Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
N.D. 0.50 mg/1 90
MS
%REC
LCSD
%REC
LCS/LCSD
Limits
90-110
80-120
89-112
92-109
,97-111
95-112
92-110
93-110
93-110
96-114
94-112
80-120
90-110
Sample Matrix Quality Control
MSD MS/MSD
%REC Limits •
RPD BKG
RPD MAX• Conc
Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
107 111 63-153 4 10
Sample number.(s): 4271711
98 90-110
Sample
99
number(s): 4271711
99 64-130 0
Sample'number(s): 4271710
Sample number(s): 4271711
Sample number(s): 4271711
91 90-110
Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
*- Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
(2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
33.,700.
0.084 0.089
N.D. N.D.
28.5 28..6
200.
60.7 60.7
N.D. N.D.
214.
DUP
Conc
Page 2 of 3
Group Number: 895759
RPD. RPD Max
.UP
RPD
33,500. 0
0 (1)
1
7 (1)
0 (1)
Dup RPD
Max
11
9
4
4
24
1
2
MEMBER
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

Lancaster
Laboratories
Page 3 of 3
Quality Control Summary
Client Name: Aquatic Sciences Consulting Group Number: 895759
Reported: 05/26/04 at 12:45 PM
Sample Matrix Quality Control
MS MSD MS/MSD RPD, BKG ' DUP •DUP Dup RPD
Analysis -Name %REC %REC Limits RPD MAX Conc Conc RPD Max
Chemical Oxygen Demand 98 94 90-110 3 4 47.8 J 37.8 J 23* (1) 5
Batch number: 04135401101B 'Sample number(s): 4271711
Chloride 94 90-110 4.1 3.8 8* (1) 3
Sulfate 104 90-110 18.6 18.1 3 (1) 3
Batch number: 04136020601A Sample number(s): 4271711
Total Suspended Solids 5.2 J 5.2 J 0 (1) 24
Batch number: 04138021601A Sample number(s): 4271711 .
Total Hardness 99 101 93-115 1 2 68.3 67.5 1 4
Batch number: 04138022101A Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
Ammonia Nitrogen 24.1 24.1 0 2
- Batch number: 04138109101B Sample number(s): 4271710-4271711
Total Phosphorus as P (water) 107 90-110 N.D. N.D. 6* (1) 3
Batch number: 041385705004
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Batch number: 04139021201A
Total Dissolved Solids
Sample number(s): 4271711
109 110 75-125 1 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
102 101 75-125 1 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
99 99 86-119 0 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
103 104 87-117 1 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
101 101 86-118 0 20 N.D. N.D.0 (1) 20
•102 1,02 89-119 0 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
102 105 87-118 3 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
101 101 91-111 1 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
103 103 75-125 1 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
102 102 80-120 0 20 N.D. N.D. 0 (1) 20
Sample number(s): 4271711
104 97 60-140 3 5 872. 876. 0 5
Batch number: 04139108101A Sample number(s): 1271710-4271711
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 101 90-110 0.80 J 0.78 J 3 (1) 7
Outside of specification
(1) The result for one or both determinations was less than five times the LOQ.
(2) The background result was more than four times the spike added.
Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
M! E M B E Fi 2425 New Holland Pike
PO Box 12425
Lancaster, PA 17605-2425

1
r
N
Evaluation of Regional Treatment of Combined Influent Wastewaters
From the Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star
at Troy's Wastewater Treatment Plant
Prepared for:
W.K. Dickson
616 Colonnade Dr
Charlotte, NC 28205
And
Towns of Troy, Biscoe and Star, NC
Prepared by:
Aquatic Sciences Consulting
John Botts, Principal Scientist
15751 Bushy Park Road
Woodbine, MD 21797
June 8, 2004

1
1
1
Contents
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Background 4
1.2 Purpose and Objectives 5
2. Technical Approach 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Town of Troy WWTP Operating Conditions and Effluent Quality 6
2.3 Speculative Limits 7
2.4 Towns' Influent and Effluent Characteristics 8
2.5 Design and Operation of the Treatment Simulation 11
2.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 18
3. Results 19
3.1 Bioreactor Operating Results 19
3.2 Treatment Performance Results 23
3.3 Effluent Quality 26
3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality. Control Results 29
4. References 31
Appendices
A. NC Division of Water Quality Response to Request for Speculative Limits for
Regional. Treatment and Discharge to Denson's Creek or the Little River A-1
B. Mean Ce11 Residence Time Calculation for the Existing Town of Troy
Wastewater Treatment Plant B-1
C. Analytical and Toxicity Test Reports C-1
D. Analytical QA/QC Reports D-1

Contents (Continued)
Figures
1 Diagram of Study Bioreactor 12
2 Two -stage Treatment Simulation for the Troy — Biscoe — Star Study 13
3 Influent Feed Tank and Pump 14
4 Effluent Collection Tank 15
5 Mean Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Concentrations in the Regional
WWTP Simulation
6
22
Sludge Volume Index Results for the Regional WWTP Simulation 24
Tables
ES-1 Comparison of Average Simulation Effluent Results and Speculative
Permit Limits for Regional Treatment at the Town of Troy 3
1 Existing Operating Conditions for Troy WWTP Activated Sludge Process 7
2 Average Monthly Effluent Data and Permit Limits for the Town of Troy 8
3 Speculative Effluent Limits for Regional Wastewater Treatment at Troy 9
4 Monthly Average Influent Characteristics for the Towns of Troy, Biscoe
and Star 10
5 Influent Sample Collection and Use in Bioreactors 16
6 Summary of Bioreactor Operating Conditions 20
7 Influent and Effluent Monitoring Results for Troy-Biscoe-Star Simulation 25
8 Comparison of Simulated Effluent Results and Speculative Permit Limits
for Regional Treatment at the Town of Troy 27
9 Summary of Effluent Toxicity Results for the Treatment Simulation 28