NC0031836_Permit Modification_20010502

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING. COVER SHEET
NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
y�ri.t+.etyV (b Mw-W.Yr'.4ii.'.a
r'
et Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
May 2, 2001
This doc»m zi.t is printed on reuse paper - ignore aay
content on the reYerne aide

W ATFR Michael F. Easley
Off" p,- Governor
t1t i 1�\ 7 ©�^^ �' William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-c Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
May 2, 2001
Mr. L.F. Hudson
Water Resources Director
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification and
Withdrawal of Contested Case
Permit NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Iredell County
Dear Mr. Hudson:
After further examination of the recent permit renewal and your facility's history, the Division has modified the
subject permit to correct errors in the permit renewal issued for this facility on January 29, 2001. That permit renewal
incorrectly characterized the 6.0 MGD flow as "new". This modification removes the total residual chlorine limit at
6.0 MGD. This permit modification also removes the weekly average limits for lead at 4.0 and 6.0 MGD, as you
requested. Compliance with the (lower) Daily Maximum limit will protect biota from both acute and chronic effects,
obviating the need for the (higher) Weekly Average limit.
Please find enclosed the revised effluent pages. The revised pages should be inserted into your permit. The old
pages may then be discarded. All other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and
in full effect. This permit modification is issued under the requirements of North Carolina General Statutes 143-
215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Please complete and submit the enclosed Notice of Withdrawal of Petition, following the instructions on the
form. If you have any questions concerning this permit modification, please contact Dave Goodrich of the NPDES
Unit at [phone], extension 517.
Sincerely,
g.71....R
err T. Stevens
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit
NPDES Unit
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Ed Gavin
Steve Levkas
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Permit NC0031836
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (4.0 MGD)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until the average flow discharged
exceeds 3.6 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency .
Sample
Type
Sample Location1
Flow
4.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
(April 1 to October 31)2
17.0 mg/I
25.5 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
(November 1 to March 31)2
27.0 mg/I
40.5 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 to October 31)
12.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 to March 31)
18.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
3/Week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
pH4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Cadmium
4.4 µg/I
15 µg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Lead
33.8 µg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chromium
110.4 µg/I
1022 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Upstream = at NCSR 2316. Downstream = approximately 0.5 miles downstream from the outfall. Upstream and
downstream samples shall be grab samples collected 3/week during June, July, August and September then once per week
during the rest of the year. (As a participant in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Association, the subject faciliD, is not responsible for
conducting the instream monitoring requirements as stated above. Shouldyour membership in the agreement be terminated, you shall notj the
Division immediately and the instream monitoring requirements specified inyourpermit will be automatically reinstated.)
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations. shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 36%: January, April, July & October (see special condition A. (3.)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC01131836
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (6.0 MGD)
During the period beginning when the average flow discharged exceeds 3.6 MGD and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location1
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
(April 1 to October 31)2
17.0 mg/I
25.5 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
(November 1 to March 31)2
27.0 mg/I
40.5 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
.
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 to October 31)
2.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 to March 31)
4.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200 /100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
3/Week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
pH4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Cadmium
3.6 µgll
15 µg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Lead
33.8 µg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chromium
90.4 µg/I
1022 µg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Upstream = at NCSR 2316. Downstream = approximately 0.5 miles downstream from the outfall. Upstream and
downstream samples shall be grab samples collected 3/week during June, July, August and September then once per week
during the rest of the year. (As a participant in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Association, the subject facilio is not responsible for
conducting the instream monitoring requirements as stated above. Shouldyour membership in the agreement be terminated, you shall notify the
Division immediately and the instream monitoring requirements specified in your per»ut will be automatically reinstated.)
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be Tess than 5.0 mg/l.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 55%: January, April, July & October (see special condition A. (4.)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Statesville.,.
Subject: Statesville...
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:53:44 -0600
From: "McIntire, Mark" <[e-mail]>
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
I forgot to mention that I corresponded with Joe Hudson at Statesville. He indicated that once they go the modification, they'd
withdraw their petition. So, in case you forgot the details the modification entails:
• removal of the TRC limit(s); and
• removal of the weekly average lead limits.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks amigo.
Mark McIntire, P.E.
[e-mail]
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller
2301 Rexwoods Dr., Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27607
(p) 919.782.5511, ext. 107
(f) 919.782.5905
1 of 1 4/12/2001 10:31 AM

ENVIRONMENTAL Fax Mar 20 '01 16:49 P.01
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IR_EDELL COUNTY
CITY OF STATESVILLE,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY,
Respondent
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE >`c:
HEARINGS
01 EHR 0375 .
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE T
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Respondent, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Wate
•
Quality (DWQ), moves the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for an order denying Petitioner.
motion to consolidate this case with the case of Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County v.
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 01 EHR 0289. In support of this
motion, Respondent shows the ALJ:
1. The issues in this contested case are as follows:
a. whether DWQ has authority to impose any Total Residual Chlorine (TRC1) effluen
limitation on North Carolina NPDES Permit no. NC 0031836 (the permit); and
b. whether the weekly average lead effluent limitation imposed in the permit is likewi
in excess of DWQ's authority or jurisdiction, or based on failure to usepropcxti
procedure, or Erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.
1 The issues in the Cabarrus ease, with which consolidation is sought, are as follows!
a. whether the ?V1IIAS (methylene blue, active. substances --a detergent indicator) wat
quality andArd, the basis for the MBAS effluent limitation in North Carob :
s�-
Post-it' Fax Note 7671
dtee 3 j a4 fo t .
Fax # , t Fas

ENVIRONMENTAL Fax Mar 20 '01 16:50 P.02
NPDES Permit no. NC 0036269, is without any scientific basis, .and has no
previously been imposed on other municipal dischargers of similar size; an
therefore, constitutes prejudice to Cabarrus' rights; and
b. whether DWQ has authority to impose any TRC1 effluent limitation on the permi
Thus there are three issues, with only one issue in common.
In addition to this disunity of issues, and the confusion likely to arise therefrom, there is
lack of cononality of witnesses. The Cabarrus petition asserts that Cabarrus attempted
without success, to resolve the issues with DWQ before the issuance of the Cabarrus permit:
However, the Statesville petition makes no such claim. (Compare Cabarrus petition, pagi
9, and. Statesville petition, page 5). Indeed, the Statesvil _ petition is a complete surprise t.
DWQ, since Statesville made no objection to the draft permipprior to its issuance:
Therefore, DWQ is unable to identify all its witnesses on the Statesville petitioneg'iro
cr,r. 3
Furthermore, there ut be DWQ witnesses on the Statesville petition's lead issue and the
Cabarrus petition's MBAS issue who will not testify in any other issue in either contested'`
case.
5. The Statesville petition asserts, as grounds for consolidation, that it is represented by the
same counsel as Cabanas, and consolidation will serve the interests of justice and judicial;;
economy, avoiding unnecessary delay and costs. However, two of the three stated issues
the Cabarrus and Statesville petitions are not shared, and other separate and distinct issues.
are likely to develop from these two. Therefore the facts will be different. For these reasons;?
and the difference between the witnesses, consolidation will lead to a cumbersome ant
•
confusing proceeding_ • Therefore, the motion should be. denied. Markham v, Nationwid6
( a M74, 1:4 457) 4
45: iIcate7)* gdi 4,1•71-
.
G( rm t 1 4/ta4-1" //km! et-/-1014..
•

ENVIRONMENTAL Fax:[phone] Mar 20 '01 16:50 P.03
•
Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 125 N.C.App. 443, 448, 481 S.E.2d 349, 353.)(1997)
Furthermore, consolidation is appropriate where a plaintiff might have brought all his claim
in one suit, but instead has brought several; where separate suits are instituted by separat
creditors to subject a debtor's estate; or where the same plaintiff sues different defendants',
and the same defenses and questions are involved in each case. This last class .6
consolidations also includes actions by different plaintiffs against the same defendant, where,...j.
the facts are substantially the same. However, cases falling outside these classes are.::
inappropriate for consolidation. 1 McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, §1342'i„ ,
• .
(2d ed. 1956).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to consolidate should be denied.
This the day of , 200.
ROY COOPER
Attorney General
Edwin Lee Gavinll
Assistant Attomey General
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
State Bar no. 6630
3

ENVIRONMENTAL Fax:[phone]
Mar 20 '01 16:51 P. 04
•
•‘1 • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
•
I certify that 1 have served a copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE
• MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE on the Petitioner by causing it to be enclosed in a suitable virrappelv-:„.
• bearing sufficient postage, and deposited in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
Steven J. Levitas, Esq.
V. Randall Tinsley, Esq.
Stephen kfartsell-Jordan, Esq.
P.O. Box 1800
Raleigh, NC 27602-
This the day of •, 200_.
Edwin Lee Gavin II
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. 130x 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
4