NC0031836_Permit (Issuance)_19941020

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING; COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Document Type:
i'j,
Permit is
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
October 20, 1994
Whim document ion printed on reuse paper - igznore any
content on the reYex- a wide

State of North Carolina ' , • ' ' '
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 20,1994
Jack King, City Manager
City of Statesville
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, NC 28677
TPFA
EDIEF-INJ Ii
Subject: NPDES / Statesville
NPDES Permit No. NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Iredell County
Dear Mr. King:
In accordance with your application for a renewal of discharge permit received on December 9,
1993, we are forwarding herewith the subject State - NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6,1983.
In response to the letter submitted August 26, 1994 by Joe Hudson regarding the City's draft
permit, the following comments are offered for your information:
• The development of the water quality standards for metals in North Carolina was on the basis of
protection from chronic effects. Therefore, in cases where a facility requests that the permit limit
for toxicants be expressed as a weekly average, the Division will modify the permit to include a
daily maximum and weekly average limit. Weekly average and daily maximum concentrations have
been included in this permit. For further explanation of the derivation of these limits, please refer to
the letter responding to the Petition for a Contested Hearing of the Statesville Third Creek NPDES
permit issuance (copy attached). Any questions regarding this method may be brought forward in
the meeting scheduled for October 26, 1994.
• North Carolina bases its limits for both cadmium and cyanide on total values in accordance with the
existing water quality standards. Any deviation from total values would require the development
of site -specific criteria. A copy of the procedures required to be followed for the development of a
site -specific criteria is attached for your information.
• The recommended monitoring frequency for mercury is based on the classification of the facility
(Class IV) and is the standard monitoring requirement for all Class IV facilities. The monitoring
frequency of 2/month for mercury shall remain due to its potential presence in the wastestream.
The City may request that the Division review the mercury monitoring requirement one year after
the effective date of the permit.
• The value of 40.5 mg/1 weekly average for BOD5 during the winter months was derived by 1.5 x
27.0 mg/1 (monthly average), per 40 CFR 133.101. The previous value of 41.5 mg/l was in error.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

t
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicative hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7447. Unless
such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be
followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge. This permit does not affect the
legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Environmental
Management or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or
any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Susan Wilson at telephone
number 919f133-5083.
cc: Jim Patrick, EPA
Mooresville Regional Office
Joe Pearce, Pretreatment Unit
Compliance
Central Files
Sincerely,
1
/....-..A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.

Permit No. NC0031836
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Statesville
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Fourth Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
off of SR 2316
northeast of Statesville
Iredell County
to receiving waters designated as Fourth Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I,11, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective December 1, 1994
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 1999
Signed this day October 20,1994
0147-1,L,44.
lek,k. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

f
Permit No. NC0031836
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Statesville Wastewater Treatment Plant
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate a 4.0 MGD facility consisting of an influent pump station, mechanical bar
screens, extended aeration basins with mechanical aerators, secondary clarification, chlorine
disinfection, post aeration, aerobic sludge digester, gravity belt thickener, sludge filter press,
N-Viro soil process residuals stabilization, and sludge drying beds.
2. Prior to exceeding 90% of 4.0 MGD based on an annual average as specified in 15A NCAC
2H .0223, operate the treatment units as indicated in the Authorization to Construct issued
November 19, 1987, for a wastewater treatment facility located at Fourth Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant, off of SR 2316, northeast of Statesville, Iredell County (See Part III of this
Permit), and
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Fourth
Creek which is Class C waters in the Yadkin River Basin.

r.�
DISCHARGE POINT
STATESVILLE-FOURTH CREEK WASTEWATER TREAT ENT PLANT
NC0031836
FOURTH CREEK
•
ti
!SHEPHERDS)
*855 Ill NE
SCALE 1:24 000
0
100
3030
0
soot
soon
6000
'•18
7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
)UR INTERVAL 10 FEET
JM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
47'30" ' 119
1 NILE
• .-�.� •�,�.�. .•
: �..7.'
•$20
•
1
\
•
i_
• nowt O'0Loa1cAL %mow
421O"'E
ROAD CLASSIFII
Ugh
hard surface imp
Secondary highway.
hard surface _____ -- — Uni
0 interstate Route 0 U. S
Primary highway.
`'=6 w •--•• •
"`� `t� .i:' . �•..:-;i:�'�^: .•' �..

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0031836
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until permitted flow reaches 90% of 4.0 MGD, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Flow
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C**
Total Suspended Residue**
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen***
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Cadmium
Cyanide
Nickel
Lead
Chromium
Mercury
Chronic Toxicity****
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg,
4.0 MGD
17.0 mg/I 25.5 mg/I
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
12.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
5.5 µg/I
14.0 µg/I
244.0 µg/I
69.0 µg/I
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Daily Max, Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
13.9 µg/I Weekly
56.0 µg/I Weekly
976.0 µg/I Weekly
94.0 µ g / I Weekly
2/Month
2/Month
Quarterly
Sample
Iv�
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
I,E
I,E
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at SR 2316, D - Downstream approximately 0.5 miles.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples.Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week during
the months of June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals monitoring shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
**** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 36%; January, April, July, October; See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall he no discharve of floating:, solids or visible foam in other than trar•.e amrnmts.

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0031836
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until flow exceeds 90% of 4.0 MGD, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Flow
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C**
Total Suspended Residue**
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen***
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Cadmium
Cyanide
Nickel
Lead
Chromium
Mercury
Chronic Toxicity'***
Monthly. Avg. Weekly Avg,
4.0 MGD
27.0 mg/I 40.5 mg/I
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
18.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
5.5 µg/I
14.0 µg/I
244.0 pg/I
69.0 µg/I
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Daily Max, Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
13.9 µ g / I Weekly
56.0 µg/I Weekly
976.0 µg/l Weekly
94.0 µ g / I Weekly
2/Month
2/Month
Quarterly
Sample
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
I,E
I,E
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at SR 2316, D - Downstream approximately 0.5 miles.
Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week during the months of June, July, August, and September and
once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals monitoring shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
**** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 36%; January, April, July, October, See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall he no discharge of flnatinv solids or visible foam in other than tramp amounts.

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0031836
During the period beginning upon EXCEEDANCE OF 90% OF 4.0 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Flow
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C**
Total Suspended Residue**
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen***
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Cadmium
Cyanide
Nickel
Lead
Chromium
Mercury
Chronic Toxicity****
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg.
6.0 MGD
17.0 mg/I 25.5 mg/I
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
2.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
3.6 µg/I
9.1 µg/1
160.0 µg/I
45.5 µg/I
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Daily Max, Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
9.1 µ g / I Weekly
36.4 µg/I Weekly
640.0 µg/I Weekly
61.5 µ g / I Weekly
2/Month
2/Month
Quarterly
Sample
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
I,E
I,E
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at SR 2316, D - Downstream approximately 0.5 miles.
Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week during the months of June, July, August, and September and
once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals monitoring shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/I.
**** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 55%; January, April; July, October; See Part III, Condition H.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall he no clischar,e of flnatina solids or visible foam in ether than tray a amounts.

A. (I ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0031836
During the period beginning upon EXCEEDANCE OF 90% OF 4.0 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg. Daily Max, Frequency IMMe Location
Flow 6.0 MGD Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C** 27.0 mg/l 40.5 mg/1 Daily Composite I,E
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I Daily Composite I,E
NH3 as N 4.0 m g/I Daily Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen*** Daily Grab E,U,D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 1100 ml Daily Grab E,U,D
Total Residual Chlorine Daily Grab E
Temperature Daily Grab E,U,D
Conductivity Daily Grab E,U,D
Total Phosphorus Monthly Composite E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) Monthly Composite E
Cadmium 3.6 µ g/ I 9.1 µ g/ I Weekly Composite E
Cyanide 9.1 µ g/ I 36.4 µ g/ I Weekly Grab E
Nickel 160.0 µ g/ I 640.0 µ g/ I Weekly Composite E
Lead 45.5 µg/I 61.5 µg/1 Weekly Composite E
Chromium 2/Month Composite E
Mercury 2/Month Composite E
Chronic Toxicity**** Quarterly Composite E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at SR 2316, D - Downstream approximately 0.5 miles.
Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week during the months of June, July, August, and September and
once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals monitoring shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
**** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 55%; January, April, July, October; See Part 1TI, Condition H.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall he no disctharoe of flnatinor solids or visible foam in other than trade amounts.

Part III
Y 4 1
Permit No. NC0031836
G. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 36% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date
of this permit during the months of January, April, July, October. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted fmal effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
H. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 55% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date
of this permit during the months of January, April, July, October. Effluent sampling for this

testing shall be performed at the NPDES 'pimutted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
n a�
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.

`State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 19,1994
Joe Hudson, Director
Water & Wastewater Treatment
City of Statesville
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, NC 28677-1111
Dear Mr. Hudson:
Ag7121L
=2.ftrjric
LDIEI—INJ I
Subject: NPDES / Statesville
NPDES Permit No. NC0020591
Third Creek WWTP
Iredell County
In response to the Petition for a Contested Case Hearing, 94 EHR 0953, filed on September 2,
1994, the following outlines the basis of the permitting decisions and the modifications the Division is
willing to make to the NPDES permit No. NC0020591 for the Statesville Third Creek wastewater
treatment plant. Attached is a copy of the permit incorporating the modifications. This letter will also
serve as confirmation for the meeting scheduled on October 26,1994 to discuss the issues below.
As you may be aware, the development of permit limits for toxic substances is based on a
determination of whether reasonable potential exists that the pollutant of concern may be discharged in
quantities which would result in a violation of the water quality standard in the receiving water.
Therefore, two computations are used to make this determination. First, the allowable pollutant
concentration which will protect the water quality standard is calculated (i.e., permit limit) and second,
the potential for exceedances of the allowable concentration is determined.
The allowable concentration is calculated using a mass balance equation which takes into
consideration the wastewater treatment plant discharge volume, the instream flow, the upstream ambient
concentration of the pollutant, and the water quality standard. The upstream concentration is assumed
to be zero unless stream data indicate otherwise.
The determination of reasonable potential is based on a statistical evaluation of the data available
for each pollutant of concern. Using existing effluent data, the variability of the data is calculated and
the maximum expected concentration is determined. Any evaluation which results in a predicted
concentration greater than the allowable concentration results in a permit limit. In the case of Third
Creek WWTP, existing Long-term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) data were used in the calculations. In each
case that a limit was implemented, the determination was conclusive that reasonable potential existed for
the allowable concentration to be exceeded. The reasonable potential methodology for determining
whether a toxic parameter should be limited in a permit is based upon the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Technical Support Document.
The development of the water quality standards for metals in North Carolina was on the basis of
protection from chronic effects. Therefore, in cases where a facility requests that the permit limit for
toxicants be expressed as a weekly average, the Division will modify the permit to incorporate a daily
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

maximum and weekly average limit. The weekly average is calculated as stated above, and the daily
maximum is calculated based on the 1/2 Final Acute Value (or Criteria Maximum Concentration). For
purposes of compliance, samples are required to be collected and analyzed on a weekly basis. If the
initial sample analyzed complies with the weekly average limit, no additional analysis of samples is
required. If the analysis documents concentrations above the weekly average limit, the additional
samples collected that week may be analyzed and the results of the multiple samples averaged to
determine compliance. For purposes of compliance, any analysis result reported as less than the
detection level is considered to be zero.
Weekly average and daily maximum values were placed in the Statesville Third Creek permit.
However, the daily maximum values for cadmium, and cyanide were miscalculated. The original
permitted values and the corrected values are listed below.
Parameter Daily Maximum Daily Maximum Weekly Average
(110) 4WD
CORRECTED
Cadmium 8.0 12.8 5.2
Cyanide 35 51.6 12.9
The Division also corrected the daily maximum/weekly average value for lead. The corrected
daily maximum was calculated as 86.7 µg/1 and the weekly average as 64.5141.
The existing North Carolina standards for cadmium and cyanide were developed and are
expressed as total recoverable. To use different criteria for developing permit limits, as suggested in the
Petition, would necessitate approval by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and by
EPA, as this would be considered a variance of the existing regulations via the development of a site -
specific standard.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) governing metals limits in NPDES permits allows three
exceptions from metals limits being expressed as total recoverable. The pertinent exception in this case
allows a dissolved fraction limit when required to carry out the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
While this is a broad statement, EPA Interim Guidance released in October 1993 specifically
recommends that no translation between total and dissolved be used by states with standards expressed
as total recoverable until the state standards are changed to the dissolved form. The guidance further
states that implementation of this exception should occur only in "highly unusual circumstances".
The North Carolina General Statutes, § 143-214.3, allow any person to petition the EMC for a
hearing to revise the water quality standards. The procedure requires the EMC to find that the
application of effluent limits ynore restrictive than those promulgated by EPA would result in adverse
social and economic impact, disproportionate to the benefits to public health, safety or welfare as a
result of maintaining the existing standard and that there exists no reasonable relationship between cost
of achieving the limits, including incremental benefits to the receiving waters, to be obtained from the
application of the effluent limits. The documentation to demonstrate that the above requirements are met
will include an evaluation of sources and a source reduction plan, an audit to assure proper function and
management of the facility, pollution prevention planning, cost analysis of all available treatments
(including source reduction), etc. If the EMC determines that the conditions of § 143-214.3 are
satisfactorily met, then a study plan will have to be developed demonstrating how sufficient data will be
collected to develop a site -specific criterion. This criterion will eventually have to be promulgated as an
amendment to the existing water quality standards regulations.
Development of a site -specific standard requires chemical analyses of the receiving water and
the effluent and a biological assessment of the surface waters. The EPA guidance requires that the
development of a site -specific standard includes an assessment of the genus and species which "occur at
the site". The phrase "occur at the site" has been defined to include species that are usually present, are
present seasonally, are present intermittently, were at the site in the past and could return with improved
conditions, and are present in nearby bodies of water and could return with improved conditions.
Upon completion of the study and approval by the EMC, the site -specific standard is then submitted to

the EPA for review and approval in accordance with the program delegation and Chapter 40 CFR Part
131.5. Attached for your information is an outline of the eligibility requirements and study plan
requirements for the development of site -specific criteria. Statesville should be aware that the site -
specific criterion will be used for calculating the cadmium and cyanide limits, even if the criterion is
found to be lower than the existing water quality standards. If the City chooses to pursue the option of
a site -specific standard, a study plan will have to be developed in accordance with the attached draft
guidance, reviewed and approved prior to initiation.
In regard to the specific issue raised on the cyanide limit, until an EPA approved method for
analyzing free cyanide becomes available, EPA recommends applying the criteria using the total cyanide
method [as stated in ,Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide - 1984 (USEPA 1985)]. The City
should review its current method for the analysis of cyanide. Nitrates have been found to interfere with
cyanide analysis resulting in potentially falsely elevated cyanide concentrations being documented. The
sixteenth and subsequent editions of Standard Methods have included sulfamic acid pretreatment as part
of the procedure for performing cyanide analysis to reduce this interference.
There are several items that Statesville should take into consideration while reviewing the City's
options. First, even if the showings required by the North Carolina General Statutes and the Code of
Federal Regulations can be made, there is no guarantee that the EMC will approve such a petition.
There is also no guarantee that EPA will accept site -specific metals criteria using the dissolved form
from North Carolina, given that the Water Quality Section's existing standards are expressed as total
recoverable. Additionally, the City should be made aware that the current North Carolina surface water
quality standard for cadmium (2 µg/1) is higher than the EPA water quality criteria (0.66 µg/1). North
Carolina recalculated the EPA standard after deleting salmon and trout genus mean acute values. Since
that time, EPA has published new guidance which includes additional information from more recent
studies on cadmium that may result in a more stringent standard.
As stated earlier, a meeting has been scheduled for October 26, 1994, at 1:00 pm in the 11 th
Floor Conference Room of the Archdale Building to discuss the above issues. If you have any
questions concerning this permit, please contact Susan Wilson at telephone number 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
. Prestod, Jr., P.E.
cc: Betsy Mosley, AGO
Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office
Joe Pearce, Pretreatment Unit
Instream Assessment Unit
Central Files
Permit File

Site -Specific Criteria Guidance Outline
* No guarantee that EPA will accept site -specific metals criteria using dissolved from
North Carolina. Prothro memo October 1, 1993: "In those States where the standards are
in the total recoverable or acid soluble form, EPA recommends that no translation be
used until the time that the State changes the standards to the dissolved form."
Determining Eligibility for Site -Specific Criteria
One of the following requirements must be fully documented per G.S. 143-214.3(b):
• Natural background conditions in the stream segment preclude the attainment of
the applicable water quality standards; or
• Irretrievable and uncontrollable man -induced conditions preclude the attainment
of the applicable water quality standards; or
• Application of effluent limitations for existing sources established or proposed
pursuant to G.S. 143-215.11 more restrictive than those effluent standards and
limitations determined or promulgated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to section 3012 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (CWA) in order to achieve and maintain applicable water quality
standards would result in adverse social and economic impact. disproportionate to
the benefits to the public health, safety or welfare as a result of maintaining the
standards; and
• There exists no reasonable relationship between the cost to the petitioner of
achieving the effluent limitations necessary to comply with applicable water
quality standards to the benefits, including the incremental benefits to the
receiving waters, to be obtained from the application of the said effluent
limitations.
Documentation to demonstrate any of the above requirements is met will include:
• Evaluation of sources & source reduction plan
• Audit to assure proper function and management of facility
• For metals, documentation and demonstration of clean techniques for sampling
and analyses (duplicate sampling with a lab that can do clean techniques)
• Pollution prevention plan
• Cost analysis of all available treatments, including source reduction
If one of the above requirements is judged by the EMC to be satisfactorily met, then
facility will provide Water Quality staff with a study plan demonstrating how sufficient
data will be collected to develop a site -specific criterion. The discharger should be aware
that the site -specific criterion will be used for calculating their effluent limit. even ifthe
site -specific criterion is lower than the applicable water quality standard.
1 G.S. 143-215.1- Control of sources of water pollution; permits required. Outlines what activities will
require a permit and describes Commission's powers regarding permits.
2 Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act - Effluent Limitations. Outlines minimum
requirements for effluent limitations and requirements for granting modifications. Requires that
modification represent maximum use of technology within economic capability of the owner/operator and
will result in reasonable further progress toward elimination of the discharge of pollutants.

For metals the following steps must be included in any study plan for site -specific
criteria development.
• Clean techniques for sampling and analyses with appropriate QA/QC per latest EPA
guidance3
• Determine site -specific partitioning coefficient for each metal using latest EPA
guidance.4 Assumptions and calculations will be clearly presented to aid in review.
• Sampling will include 20 pairs of dissolved and total recoverable metals samples and
20 total suspended solids samples over all flow regimes from upstream, downstream
and the effluent. The 95th percentile of highest dissolved concentration will be used
for calculation of the partitioning coefficient. This value is a critical condition
analogous to that used for identification of low flows and other critical environmental
conditions.5 Sampling will also include hardness, alkalinity and pH.
• Sampling to determine what portion of the effluent metals becomes bioavailable will
also be conducted. This sampling will require dilution of effluent by receiving stream
waters to critical low flow (7Q10) instream waste concentration and analysis of
dissolved and total recoverable metal concentrations. Dilution water should have total
suspended solids concentrations similar to documented TSS concentrations during
7Q10 flows.
Steps for approval of site -specific standards
• Approval of final site -specific study results by DEM Water Quality staff.
• Compliance with G.S. 143.214.3 and section 301 of the CWA. These regulations state
that the new effluent limit may not endanger human health and may not be less than
either the current effluent guidelines for the discharger or the highest level of treatment
which can reasonably be attained without economic hardship.
• Compliance with state antidegradation policy (15A NCAC 2B .0201) must also be
determined prior to issuing any site -specific effluent limits. Existing uses must be
protected by the site -specific water quality standard.
• Site -specific standards are subject to the procedures for assignment of water quality
standards per 15A NCAC 2B .01016 . Requires public hearings and review by EPA.
• Site -specific standards must be reviewed as part of the Triennial Review of Water
Quality Standards per 15A NCAC 2B .02187. Requires public hearings and review by
EPA.
The final permit would also be noticed per 15A NCAC 2H .01098 and would include
monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with sections 305(b) and 303(d) of
the CWA. These sections require states to identify waters not meeting designated uses
and/or waters for which site -specific standards have been developed and to develop total
maximum daily loads or other waste load allocations for section 304(a)(2) pollutants.
Monitoring would include sampling to determine that dissolved site -specific standard not
exceeded.
3 Appendix C of Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for Metals. EPA-
823-B-94-001.
4 Guidance Document on Dynamic Modeling and Translators Attachment #3, Prothro memo Oct 1,1993.
5 Guidance Document on Dynamic Modeling and Translators Attachment #3, Prothro memo Oct 1,1993.
6 Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards, General Procedures.
7 Exemptions from Surface Water Quality Standards.
8 Wastewater Discharges to Surface Waters, Public Notice.

Permit No. NC0020591
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Statesville
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Statesville Third Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
SR 2354 east of Statesville
Iredell County
to receiving waters designated as Third Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 1999
Signed this day
4111Nr.
A. Preston ' a, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of onmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0020591
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Statesville
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate 4.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of mechanical bar screens,
spiral lift pumps, aeration basins with mechanical aerators, secondary clarification, chlorination,
sludge thickeners, aerobic sludge digestion, filter press, and belt press (temporary, portable
structure) located at Statesville Third Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, ,SR 2354 east of
Statesville, Iredell County (See Part III of this Permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Third
Creek which is classified Class C waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until one year after the effective date of the permit, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristics pischarge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg. Daily Max. Frequency Ina_ Location
Flow 4.0 MGD Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I Daily Composite I,E
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I Daily Composite I,E
NH3 as N 13.0 mg/1 Daily Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen*** Daily Grab E,U,D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml Daily Grab E,U,D
Total Residual Chlorine Daily Grab E
Temperature Daily Grab E,U,D
Conductivity Daily Grab E,U,D
Total Phosphorus Monthly Composite E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) Monthly Composite E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at least 100 feet, D - Downstream at 1) 1.9 miles downstream at SR 2359, 2) 3.5
miles downstream at SR 2362.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week
during the months of June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/I.
(CONTINUED)

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until one year after the effective date of the permit, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristics Pischarge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly. Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max, Frequency UM— Location
Cadmium 5.2 µ g/ I 12.8 µ g/ I Weekly Composite E
Chromium 2/Month Composite E
Nickel 2/Month Composite E
Cyanide 12.9 µ g/ I 51.6 µ g/ I Weekly Grab E
Lead 64.5 µg/I 86.7 µg/I Weekly Composite E
Chlorides Quarterly Composite E
MBAS Quarterly Composite E
Selenium Quarterly Composite E
Copper 2/Month Composite E
Zinc 2/Month Composite E
Silver Monthly Composite E
Chronic Toxicity**** Quarterly Composite E
**** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 39%; January, April, July, October; See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until one year after the effective date of the permit, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Monthly. Avg,
Flow 4.0 MGD
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C 30.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 m g / I
NH3asN
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly Avg.
45.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Daily Max, Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
3/Week
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Iv�
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
I,E
I,E
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at least 100 feet, D - Downstream at 1)1.9 miles downstream at SR 2359, 2) 3.5
miles downstream at SR 2362.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week
during the months of June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
(CONTINUED)

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning after the effective date of the permit and lasting until year after the effective date of the permit, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg, Daily Max, Frequency Type Location
Cadmium 5.2 µ g/ I 12.8 µ g/ I Weekly Composite E
Chromium 2/Month Composite E
Nickel 2/Month Composite E
Cyanide 12.9 µ g/ I 51.6 µ g/ I Weekly Grab E
Lead 64.5 µ g/ I 86.7 µ g/ I Weekly Composite E
Chlorides Quarterly Composite E
MBAS Quarterly Composite E
Selenium Quarterly Composite E
Copper 2/Month Composite E
Zinc 2/Month Composite E
Silver Monthly Composite E
Chronic Toxicity*** Quarterly Composite E
*** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 39%; January, April, July, October; See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning one year after the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Flow
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C"
Total Suspended Residue"
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen***
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg.
4.0 MGD
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
13.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Daily Max, Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Igoe
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
I,E
I,E
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at least 100 feet, D - Downstream at 1)1.9 miles downstream at SR 2359, 2) 3.5
miles downstream at SR 2362.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week
during the months of June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
(CONTINUED)

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning one year after the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Chlorides
MBAS
Selenium
Copper
Zinc
Silver
Chronic Toxicity****
Monthly. Avg. Weekly Avg.
5.2 µg/I
129.0 µg/I
227.1 µg/I
12.9 µg/I
64.5 µg/I
pai[y Max,
12.8 µg/I
516.0 µg/I
908.0 p.g/I
51.6 µg/I
86.7 µg/I
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Weekly Composite
Weekly Composite
Weekly Composite
Weekly Grab
Weekly Composite
Quarterly Composite
Quarterly Composite
Quarterly Composite
2/Month Composite
2/Month Composite
Monthly Composite
Quarterly Composite
*Sample
Location
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
**** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 39%; January, April, July, October; See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31)
Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning one year after the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5-Day, 20°C"
Total Suspended Residue"
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Discharge Limitations
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg.
4.0 MGD
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Daily Max. Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
3/Week
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
I,E
I,E
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at least 100 feet, D - Downstream at 1) 1.9 miles downstream at SR 2359, 2) 3.5
miles downstream at SR 2362.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Instream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3 times per week
during the months of June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remainder of the year.
Additional metals shall be monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 %
removal).
(CONTINUED)

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0020591
During the period beginning one year after the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly. Avg, Weekly Avg, Daily Max, frequency Type _ Location
Cadmium 5.2 µ g/ I 12.8 µ g/ I Weekly Composite E
Chromium 129.0 µg/I 516.0 µg/1 Weekly Composite E
Nickel 227.1 µg/I 908.0 µg/I Weekly Composite E
Cyanide 12.9 µg/I 51.6 µg/l Weekly Grab E
Lead 64.5 µg/I 86.7 µg/I Weekly Composite E
Chlorides Quarterly Composite E
MBAS Quarterly Composite E
Selenium Quarterly Composite E
Copper 2/Month Composite E
Zinc 2/Month Composite E
Silver Monthly Composite E
Chronic Toxicity*** Quarterly Composite E
*** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 39%; January, April, July, October; See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Part III Permit No. NC0020591
G. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL Pam' LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 39% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date
of this permit during the months of January, April, July, October. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
. immediate . . . . . . . .
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 7, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Susan Wilson
PROM: Michelle Wilson MM J
THRU: Ruth Swanek 2.CD
Carla Sanderson e
SUBJECT: Statesville -Fourth Creek WWTP
NC0031836
Iredell County
I calculated weekly averages and daily maximums for cadmium,
cyanide, nickel, and lead. The existing 7Q10 (11 cfs) was used to
calculate the following effluent limits for the existing permitted
wasteflow, 4 mgd. The instream waste concentration (IWC) is 36%
and the dilution is 2.78.
Wasteflow (mgd):
Cadmium (ug/l):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/l):
Lead (ug/l):
Daily Max
4.0 (Pktm Avr)
13.9
56.0
976.0
94.0
Weekly Average
4.0 (+)
5.5
14.0
244.0
69.0
I updated the stream flows using the current USGS low -flow
procedure. I used the updated flows to calculate the following
effluent limits for the expansion to 6 mgd. The IWC is 55% and the
dilution is 1.82.
Wasteflow (mgd):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/l):
Nickel (ug/l):
Lead (ug/l):
Daily Max
6.0(r ,W
9.1
36.4
640.0
61.5
Weekly Average
6.0 4txsrv)
3.6
9.1
160.0
45.5

(City of
14:4, c_4(.561-/,
tatto uil e
-)?
11. (.. illoN 1.111 • 3tatcsuille, x?urtil Carolina 28687-1111
October 5, 1994
Mr. Joe Pearce
N.C. Dept. of Environmental Health
& Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Long Term Monitoring Data for 1994
Dear Mr. Pearce:
REGENED
OCT 1 3 1994
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT UNIT
Attached is the information you requested. Data is reported in mg/1, except metals,
which are reported in ug/1. Stream samples will be pulled in October.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
e.12e-t 4,cyzio
Carol Rogers, Pretreatment Coordinator
Water/Wastewater Treatment
CR/sg
Enclosure

s,ardvv4
Source
NH3
BOD
COD
TSS
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Ag
Fe
Hg
R3
8.7
238
615
96
< .667
<50
62
11.6
17
196
< .50
<2000
R3
7.7
174
700
116
1.4
108
108
24.7
34.6
330
< .50
<2000
< .10
R3
8.2
210
752
140
.98
<50
114
93
25.6
273
.69
<2000
E3
1.2
12.4
66
<1.0
4.6
<50
<50
12.1
20.7
201
< .5
<2000
E3
.38
7.5
68
6
3.8
<50
<50
10.8
20
210
2.5
<2000
<.10
E3
.50
5.7
67
5
2.5
<50
<50
16.5
15.2
180
.69
<2000
R4
12.5
612
1346
740
2.0
<50
136
16.8
17.7
393
7.5
4247
< .10
R4
7.3
95
252
60
< .667
<50
53
<6
18.5
153
.86
<2000
R4
9.5
158
453
228
.94
62
60
8
21.2
207
4.7
2507
E4
.30
8.9
36
7
< .667
<50
<50
<6
22.3
146
.96
<2000
< .10
E4
.21
4.5
36
6
< .667
<50
<50
<6
19.4
126
2.6
<2000
E4
1.9
3.6
23
18
< .667
<50
<50
<6
20.3
117
.82
<2000
Dourest.
Fox St.
7.3
149
202
112
< .667
<50
<50
8.4
12.3
154
.68
<2000
g
g

D / Klee /C l a U / L'o e /u /1/4.0
f Y S6_ f-e_r v e z{44^ WTIP NC oo3t83k,
244
f9�
NCI ee nve,
31�
Cadvi en ( ))
Cv5art i I (v616)
N: J _€- (t, )
3, Co, 761i0 = /l c4r
? I wa3teit,J= 411&L
Ic,o /WC=34
45 5
M
F (oNAI = 4,0 m6DRive_
P1rcHoi ,
DLP /Z �( x
5 5 2.7X z 13,y
5 x z,ig 6/.z
75s7 x 2.7Y = 2193
100 33.$ X z.7g : 944'
r�tw Flaw
70ru-7.5
wurbci(o,d = ( `r76V
1IWC =55
36 0.3(0 = 2,78
55sq = 22
►4x)1`
4 X q ` 97�.'
9x5-/oo= .2q5
-Flow = (0 o r►1(j -A / wC - 55
5
5
40
/2 F/U x °Idah h
5 9_/ir
72 r i. 87. = 46
789 x 1.82 = 1436
100 33,g x 112 = 6/.5
4,0V) (,D
wed 1
13,c1
5(0
94
D;10)6n ; 0..5S ' l4/8
rfi s5 -OL
iL! y L (t x 4 r DL 7 G 1lo awahl.v
3.6 5-5= /3
7,/) x4 = 36,1
160 x4
4S.Sxs-100 = 127,5
(n,V 616.6
week
CI
I0o
46.6
do' it rho
9,/
3(2,4
(040
61.5

The -'tows
/0 w - rio.,) pro cede uce > t�LQ c)'isc17U&
1" Ff F 1 h I IJ 'ik
h � dig.) jU �i C Y'e i Un � a 4 �i�
(,i) is e v
/IHMO
we ve u p d 4/94
76710
WICx10
702
3002
(3/5)/,2
e fs
= 0. I S5TArLo1
_ 0.252 thigF 099
0. 2 g
vs/h :fie. Gartefizi
10CO_ Aoki iS cc1, 1///)1
yyi ort afr n uaf rUkt o if
O YecL Of - ,5 fi12 z
ihpF =,)l/qk x DI)
n'1 E = me0h 01I00 -i'(0u1
= R a ve a r tA)
76 (0 = O. 155 (46, S c�s)''0' _ 0,155 (-0. 32) - 7, 4g96, 7.5 ch
0.25Z (4(0, 5c�s�o.y9
0, 252 (44. 7 g5) _ //, 2 77 C FJ
360 z — 0 , 3 4 4 (4(.5) 1 'w = a , 344 (46 5) - /5, _ /4 r,rr
fx'716,5 = rk
oY / 1fl J' clei/ G 1Q1dinuv�� now bveC/ ' G vei(a f
we`.e . Ca (C VSlh Th-e Iv %(oWirt( e (it/ 40v►
Cw = r(ocp,cc)_ (G)(ck)J/&v\r

Cvva Ilovvalat.Q e[Ilv.d �ollv�uil� cokiren4oh0>7
& W = �G S t�i-�U W f !, P. Pe <7 / / Des / If /J F-4ln/)
c = /I //owc,(e .v,vl./ hie.0 jn rO��V let (aYlC . (1.r• _slab �a`c�i
d= bowvo %re _ 7-61^) 6: e. ow f c ())
CAA_ = Ups ireb p 0 /(v �t{vt (0 n(fhf1'A ho17 (/. r, bad ,avnCi
CISSth cJ T eto / yt ea ct-i e (�a 60
QU = u sire°try, t"/OI'U (i-e. -76210 mioinnum 044/ 7y Ye4.ce)
Gw = 0 -lam e vahon
Gw
(o d C'.ai) / o w
z� Plonn kL5 A ddb-PSS
ff±3)
noon/ ; tt.) fre v.efic (4 is iwpece o I'+ /A? (I'a d ,l7G�G i1r
0 1- /G (S vi 3 C,re z lc kiwi" P ,s
GI.e GtS CN /a_ss 1V Wt1JL(n. ✓p vi w!_ 2/✓hukl
! i !
n`l(1ul l � i � � 0 ! r.y(I C.0 V1 w 11 al\ Grp � 0 � � i hi t � f_d!

Memorandum
To:
From:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Michelle Wilson
Susan A. Wilson
October 4, 1994
Subject: Statesville -Fourth Creek
NC0031836
Iredell County
Please review the attached comments regarding the Statesville -Fourth Creek draft permit.
Please provide a response and documentation (i.e. statistical method spreadsheet) regarding
Items 1, 2, and 3. As with Statesville Third Creek, daily maximum/weekly average values
should be determined to provide the City with some relaxation of the daily maximum
compliance requirement in the current draft permit.
Jhrot k- Cc' -L o'
end
-i ,�espe asv c he(
4-147),
r°���ek i Ca Vie. � rr'�"
a_ -16-gi- da
zy

Titu of
.A
•
A s�-rr-txs• - -
r �r
tatesuille
o. 3. Sox 1111 •'tatesuille, Nadi! (Carolina 28687-1111
August 26, 1994
VIA FACSIMILE Ke.c:oL CI
��3%
gviiq490/
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
NPDES Permit Group
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Comments on Draft Permit for City of Statesville, Iredell County
Fourth Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0031836
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The City of Statesville (the "City") is in receipt of draft permit NPDES No. NC0031836
(the "draft permit") prepared by the Division of Environmental Management ("DEM") for the
City's wastewater treatment facility at Fourth Creek. The City has several comments and
concerns regarding this permit which are set forth below.
1. The permit creates two sets of effluent limitations; the first set is in effect until
the City's flow reaches 3.6 mgd (the "first set"); a more restrictive set is in effect after the �titM
City's flow exceeds 3.6 mgd (the "second set"). The City requests that the DEM supply the fe� 60\
City with the calculations and modeling DEM used to arrive at both sets of limitations for the
following parameters: cadmium, cyanide, nickel, and lead. These limits are so restrictive that, ow
the City anticipates that even minor fluctuations in treatment plant operations will cause p�
exceedances in these limits which are expressed in terms of daily maximums.
2. The City's engineering consultants have thoroughly reviewed the Fourth Creek
plant and determined that there are no feasible upgrades which will ensure consistent compliance,
with the cadmium and cyanide limits even during application of the first set of limits. The
Fourth Creek plant currently exceeds these limits when there are minor fluctuations in plant
operations. Our data indicates that the plant would exceed the limits in the second set routinely.
If the DEM is aware of any economically feasible change the City can make to its treatment
process to ensure compliance with the cyanide and cadmium limits please advise us.

Mr. David A. Goodrich
August 26, 1994
Page 2
The City believes that it cannot consistently meet these limits because they were
inaccurately derived and are therefore unnecessarily restrictive. As set forth in our comments
on the Third Creek permit, the City believes its cadmium limits should be adjusted. Our
understanding is that the cadmium limit in our draft permit was calculated as follows:
(Maximum in -stream concentration) x (dilution factor). Pursuant to 15A NCAC
2B.0211(b)(3)(L)(iii) the maximum in -stream concentration for cadmium is set at 0.4 for trout
waters and 2.0 for non -trout waters. Our research indicates that this in -stream concentration is
unreasonably stringent. The State adopted these values based upon EPA guidance published in
1985, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium - 1984, USEPA, Office of Water, Jan.
1985. EPA, however, has significantly revised its position on the derivation of the water quality
criteria for cadmium since the publication of this document. See Interim Guidance on
Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals, USEPA, Office of Science
& Technology, May 1992 and Guidance Document on Dynamic Modeling and Translators,
August 1993, USEPA, Office of Water Policy, and the Memorandum entitled Technical
Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, USEPA, Office
of Water, October 1, 1993 (hereinafter "memorandum").
The subsequently published guidance documents recognize that the water quality criteria
for cadmium are too stringent. While EPA develops new criteria, EPA has encouraged states
to adopt a flexible approach to developing effluent limitations. See Memorandum at p. 5. The
City requests that the DEM meet with the City to calculate a cadmium limit that is stringent
enough to protect the water quality in Fourth Creek but still allows the City to operate its
wastewater treatment plant.
believes the permit limit for cyanide was wrongly calculated. The EPA�3-
miu criteria using measurements of free cyanide not total cyanide.
The City als
developed the cad See
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide - 1984, USEPA, Criteria and Standards Division,y,.,0U
Jan. 1985. The DEM, however, has taken this measurement of free cyanide and used it to
calculate a permit limit expressed in terms of total cyanide without using a translation formula.
The permit limit, therefore, overstates the bioavailable cyanide in the effluent.
3. The Draft Permit doubles the City's monitoring requirements for Mercury. The
City does not believe that increased monitoring for Mercury in the effluent is justified. As our
monitoring results indicate, the City has successfully controlled Mercury in its effluent. The
draft permit, however, doubles the City's monitoring responsibilities causing the City to incur
significant costs. The City would like the DEM to reevaluate the need for this permit
requirement.
4. The Draft Permit decreases the weekly average BOD for winter months from 41.5

Mr. David A. Goodrich
August 26, 1994
Page 3
mg/1 to 40.5 mg/1. The City would like an explanation for this decrease as well as any modeling
calculations used to derive this number.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. The City would like to meet with the
DEM staff to discuss these concerns before a final permit is issued.
Sincerely,
L.F. "Joe" Hudson, Jr., Director
Water/Wastewater Treatment
LFH/rp
cc: Mr. Rex Gleason

MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 4TH CREEK EFFLUENT
(mg/1)
thibuz in uSIP
Date
Sampled
NH3N
BOD
COD
TSS
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Ag
,14
'7'I1` 1 1
8 9V
vi-
q4
PI
144
A
-
s
/0--
/ gol
,
r n
7-)q-qi
• 7
//'t
'i'-J
i l
41,0
l.LIa
15
in
51
q
0
hi'
9-2(,-9/
136
s,bq
3'7
9
L.(0
.3,0
Lp.of
/5
3 /
L4'
445
•i
(D 1-91"
al
pitA
7.1.
?.
59
z-14&
9.0
I
a1
30
.3
.22
J -1-q1
33
10,(4)
L I
49
41.0
<L10
12.0
el
IA
50
). 0
• IE
GI - icol
. (14
i a
45'
t,
. I 0
fl • O
5. 0
4 i cy
10.D
`560
.03"i
. 1
l-I(0-61),
.$1
5 `i
10
is
.L}0
10.
iO.o
..4o
46.
30
t.").
.1`
2-1-ga
, 33
13,1i
41a
IA
Lia
z-LID
1 i,La
-1
3(P
-5
I.2
.��
3
/04
1440
611
AO-
Lie
J,i)
qi9
577
4
z-A
di;
9-I-99-I6-9103
t g5
T,g1
'4,6
2c
, l
3 , �4
i,i
/;a3/
U a.aQ
,2
5-)1"61)
1)
9;6'5-
41.0
r
1i13o
4100
65.,.�3
.531
/3,7
34-R
-69)
, Iq
0- T(5-q�
35
oil
" ` ..o
fq
4!.O
1.0
4.3D
,Lcc
ia.0
aJ.o
lit-1
.I.,
i- 1-q .
:2Ii
(p.SS
I
.
n1,53
Lc�b
.5 1
3,w)3_5'371
.a1
,a3�
7
0
5
S
'1
76

MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 4TH CREEK EFFLUENT
(mg/1)
Jauttub(if)tii-J514-,
Date
Sampled
()_
NH3N
BOD
COD
TSS
Cd
Cr
'Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Ag
-cf
--).1T-q"
Jr')
5,c3
itt49
iilm
► iS
1.arl
4(1
5 D
,55
i2. (,
S'7.o
5,1 u,
06
- -
, ICJ
6.1
(-HD
j
l . b'*
LLB-'
%Q
1.1(0
t' ,1.%
16.0
OD
.17
/ g
,153,1
3
I/o
j,riq
4.ea
cp
9f.gi
6/1
1/6
.,7Sig
,11
ti"S'°G
'1')In
5.4
n
9lit__
1,5a
11.
41.0
',6
o
eb�i,)
ic
I x- j o -q
LI6
IC
.
'7 G
a.6
t o
'), .V q
'1,1 t
.(p5
l a O
)-!
.10.
. c
I -a 1-q3
.10
q
loco
qq,
4.1
Z.o
430.
4i0.
<feO.
4
+ 430.
. l 4?
4.25--3
, q
10
51
15
' 15
z3:o
(..p l .1
61)."0460,
45
430
..1 I'
-1.1' q.1/42)
6(.p
iti9
/5 �
3 l
3Ip
<5•G
4300
1.90
.G
l 3
. 3
�
16O_ 93
. Co
‘i-
\)) 45
1-
,
11
3,Lf
Up
1 i
vi
20
lei
At
G 3
' 35
'0-0-'13
.6.5
'
14
Y.,.
13
cd
5'16
cO
s
L3
1,51
,15 .„
, vi,
xP
LH
v3
1.7LI
.
r
5 1-14--13
0 j
aL/Q
/ a
al
60
Li9
43
,Qi,
I-4-91
4
A
- g
Lib
as
ZR
56
ql
Zs
,30
010
1D /a 45 Lto aeo
51L
4
LI
5
8
'/

MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 4TEI CREEIC EFFLUENT
' (mg/1)
Date NH3N BOD COD TSS Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn Ag
Sampled
/h e.-r9d f1

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM
'Pa SUSAN WILSON
THRU: CARLA SANDERSONa
FROM: MICHELLE WILSON ,/i,iJKI
SUBJECT: CORRECTION TO 6/30/94 MEMO
Statesville -Third Creek
NC0020591
Iredell County
This memo should replace the June 30, 1994 memo to Susan Wilson
from Michelle Wilson. The first memo included daily maximum
limits which were miscalculated. I used the wrong dilution for the
first set of calculations. I hope this has not caused too much of a
inconvenience. The permit should include the following limits;
therefore, DEM needs to send the facility a letter with the
necessary permit modifications.
Item 1:
North Carolina's current procedure for protecting an instream criteria
involves an analysis considering the standard and dilution at the point of
discharge. Until we develop new procedures for the state, these methods apply
to all discharges. However, higher daily maximum concentrations may be
allocated if a facility performs weekly monitoring. For implementation
purposes, the Permittee may choose to collect multiple samples for the week
and base the number of analyses run on the outcome of the first sample. If the
first sample is in compliance with the weekly average limit, then no more
analyses need to be run for that week. If, on the other hand, the first sample
is above the weekly average, then more samples will need to be analyzed and
ensure compliance with both the weekly average and daily maximum limits.
The following are the daily maximums and the weekly averages for •the
parameters of concern.
Daily Max Weekly average
Cadmium (ug/l): 12.8 5.2
Chromium (ug/l): 516 129
Nickel (ug/l): 908 227.1
Cyanide (ug/l): 51.6 12.9
Lead (ug/l): 86.7 65.4

Item 2:
Due to the fact that the facilities maximum effluent concentration is
lower than the allowable (maximum predicted is greater than the allowable)
and this is a new requirement, the facility should be allowed to monitor only
for the first year and then the limit should apply for both Chromium and
Nickel. Due to the variability of the data, a safety factor was applied to highest
recorded value to determine whether or not a limit was needed.
Item 3:
I recommend at least monthly monitoring. However, the monitoring
frequency should be based on facility class to ensure equality between
permits.
Item 4:
In the staff report, Kim Colson recommended monitoring for Chlorides
and MBAS. MBAS because the City's effluent contains surfactants. Mercury is
included in the LTMP; therefore, it can be dropped from the NPDES permit.
Conductivity requirement should be the same as existing permit. Selenium
appeared in last two APAMs, it is not included in the LTMP and it should be
monitored so we can gather more data to determine whether or not a limit is
necessary.

MEMORANDUM
To:
Ruth Swanek, Supervisor
Instream Assessment Unit
From: Coleen Sullins, P.E., Supervisor
Permits and Engineering Unit
Subject:
Statesville WWTP _r/Oteek
Permit No. NC0020591
Iredell County
Division of Environmental Management (1C-
Ck
s /C`>:) (\
In accordance with Water Quality Section procedures, please review the attached petition
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Please evaluate the objections raised by
the permittee and provide me with your comments within ten (10) working days of your
receipt of this package.
The items under adjudication are:
1 - Cadmium Limit - objecting to the fact that the water effect ratio and translators were
not used in determining the permit limits.
2 - Cyanide Limit - objecting to the fact that EPA criteria is based on free cyanide and DEM
has applied the criteria as total without using a translation formula.
3 - Inclusion of belt press in the description of the units operating at the facility.
Statesville is currently using a temporary belt press. City objects to being forced to
operate the belt press permanently.
.*4 - Mercury monitoring in the permit. Issuance letter stated mercury was to be
monitored as part of longterm monitoring plan and would not be included in permit.
Miscellaneous Comments: Please review development of cadmium and cyanide limits.
The water effect ratio and the translator issues have been addressed in a previous
adjudication (Raleigh). Planning Branch input will be sought on the issue of free versus
total cyanide.
If you have any comments, please contact Susan Wilson or myself at [phone].
cc: Office of the Attorney General - Kathy Cooper
Dave Goodrich
Water Quality Section

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA b:
COUNTY OF IREDELL,
•
SFP 9 1994
1
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
G1
CITY OF STATESVILLE
Petitioner,
VERSUS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
WATER QUALITY)
SECTION )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PETITION
FOR A
CONTESTED CASE HEARING
..o
Petitioner hereby asks for a contested case hearing as provided for by G.S. 150B-23 to contest Permit NC0020591
issued to the City of Statesville by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management in accordance with the attached Petition for Review and Request for
Hearing.
(Check all that apply):
Because of these facts, the agency has:
X deprived the City of Statesville of property;
ordered the City of Statesville to pay a fine or civil penalty; or
X has otherwise substantially prejudiced the City of Statesville
rights; and based on these facts the agency has exceeded its
authority or jurisdiction;
X acted erroneously;
failed to use proper procedure;
X acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
X failed to act as required by law or rule.
O ��.
V��aN OFF1Gf.
1
.dX3 uolssct9190 #W
ON ',l1Nnoq.T13G32i1
3f811d -Ativiow
Sad 1S ' W VS32I31
f
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, first being duly sworn, say that this petition is true to my own knowledge, except as• to matters
stated on information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
og1o2 /'4
Date
Signs e
City of Statesville
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, NC 28687-1111
NORTH CAROLINA •
IREDELL COUNTY
Date I, Teresa M. Sipes, a
llotary Public for the
/ aforementioned, certify
that David Currier did
personally appear before
me to acknowledge this
instrument on the 2nd day
of September, 1994.
Telephone: •7 0 4 ICI X�
Mail the original to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447 and mail
a copy to the State agency involved.
or\c0 _

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF IREDELL
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
94 EHR
CITY OF STATESVILLE,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR
REVIEW AND
REQUEST FOR HEARING
Petitioner, City of Statesville ("the City"), hereby asks for a contested case hearing as
provided for by G.S. 150B-23 to contest the terms of National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System ("NPDES") permit No. NC0020591 (the Permit) issued by the Respondent, the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management (the "Agency"), to the City. The Permit regulates the discharges from the City's
Publicly Owned Treatment Work at Third Creek (the "Plant"). The City received this Permit
L
September 6, 1994.
The City objects to the Permit's effluent limitations for Cadmium because the Agency erred
in its derivation of this limit. In calculating the City's Cadmium limits, the Agency derived a
"dilution" factor for Third Creek, then multiplied this number by the "maximum permissible in -
stream concentration" of Cadmium. The Agency derived the maximum permissible in -stream
concentration for Cadmium based upon EPA criteria published in a 1985 guidance document. See.
Ambient Water Ouality Criteria for Cadmium -1984, USEPA, Office of Water, Jan. 1985. EPA has

subsequently determined that the criteria for Cadmium were inaccurate. ee, Use of Water -Effect
Ratio in Water Quality Standards, USEPA, Office of Water, February 22, 1994, p.2. EPA also
determined that States were wrongly applying these criteria in developing permit limits. Lee, Interim,
Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life criteria for Metals, USEPA, Office
of Water; See also, Guidance Document on Dynamic Modeling and Translators, August 1993,
USEPA, Office of Water Policy; See also, Memorandum: Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, USEPA, Office of Water, October 1, 1993. The
City has notified the Agency of the EPA's position, but the Agency has refused to recalculate the
City's Permit limits for Cadmium. This Agency action is arbitrary and capricious.
Additionally, the City objects to the Cyanide limits in the Permit. The EPA developed the
criteria for Cyanide based upon measurements of free Cyanide not total Cyanide. agg, Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide -1984, USEPA, Criteria and Standards Division, Jan. 1985. The
Agency, however, has taken this criteria for free Cyanide and used it to calculate a permit limit for
total Cyanide without using a translation formula. The result is a permit limit for total Cyanide
which is not based on studies measuring the effects of total Cyanide, but, rather, on studies
measuring the effects of free Cyanide. This methodology, therefore, drastically oveistates the
bioavailable fraction of the Cyanide in the effluent and the receiving water. The Permit limit as it
stands is arbitrary.
Further, the City objects to the Permit because it inaccurately describes the City's treatment
process. The Supplement to the Permit Coversheet incorrectly states that the Plant includes a belt
press. Although the City is temporarily using a belt press while repairs are being performed on the
2

plant; the belt press is not a permanent part of the treatment process. The City objects to the Permit
to the extent that it requires the City to incorporate the belt press permanently.
Finally, the City objects to the Permit to the extent that it requires Mercury monitoring. In
the letter accompanying the Permit, the Agency advised the City that the Permit would not require
the City to monitor Mercury because the City monitors Mercury under the Long-term Monitoring
Plan. However, the Agency failed to modify the specific terms of the Permit to delete Mercury
monitoring. This may be a typographical error but, as it stands, the Permit is ambiguous on whether
Mercury monitoring is required.
For the reasons set forth above, the Agency has acted erroneously in issuing the City the
Permit. The City, therefore, petitions for a contested case hearing.
Respectfully submitted, this the 11 day of September, 1994.
7 7
George W. House
State Bar No. 7426
Mary Ann Mullin
State Bar No. 18346
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the PETITION FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING was
served upon the following by depositing a copy thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage
prepaid, and addressed as follows:
Mr. A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Director, Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Mr. Jonathan B. Howes
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
ATTN: Richard B. Whisnant, Registered Agent
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
This the & day of Sgfil , 1994.
Mary Ann Mullin
OF COUNSEL:
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon,
Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P.
Post Office Box 26000
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
[phone]

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0031836
PERMI"1"I'EE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
City of Statesville
Fourth Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: _ 6.0 MGD
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Domestic (% of Flow): 69 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 31 %
Comments: 116Asa fdAc,uki, , r 6, o Mccp. (gEauEsimA IAT , LS
14e c -A1 jJa) W/+O MAD U)tA tom-‘46D 3f2t/14)
5 G-f, /4-0 Mein to AirilcaeD
RECEIVING STREAM:Fourth Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-06
Reference USGS Quad: D 1 5SE (please attach)
County: Iredell
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 7/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: class IV
Classification changes within three miles: p giNwrir
No change within three miles
Requested by: Susan A. Wilson 'I Date: 5/5/94
Prepared by: ;� . ,��,�/��_ Date:
Reviewed by: /� �.�I i� �:1! Date:
r (�) S.g (w) I35 bow (s) 413 (w) %2
t l _
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
MMW
54/iV
?8,4'
Drainage Area (mil ) 41. 5 Avg. Streamliow (cfs): ,5
7Q 10 (cfs) 7, 5 Winter 7Q 10 (cfs) //, 3 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC3E 55 % Acut:� P/i e 361 552
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters D.O., Fecal Coliform, Conductivity, and Temperature
at BR 752 upstream from effluent
approxiately 0.5 miles downstream from effluent and 100 feet upstream from
SS.Fertilizer's effluent
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/l):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (1.tg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/I):
Wasteflow (mgd):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Comments put I, b„,,, IT -6 ,►7.•1r-,t) Fermi ffeci fov 4 mr.,�0
Re for rli< YPes ;IVI ii.rn - however AIPRES re
C9 � P
a r ei W; �r, �,�, �+ �Y 6 061). T&sve shoo id. 9lat
-e IVec-i be1-cre, permseatd
Monthly Average Monthly Average
Summer
4.0
17
12
5
30
200
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
Winter
4.0
27
18
5
30
200
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
Daily Max.
4.0
5.5
14
244
69
monitor
monitor
Summer
6.0
17
2
5
30
200
6-9
28'
monitor
monitor
Winter
6.0
27
4
5
30
200
6-9
28 *
monitor
monitor
Daily Max.
6.0
3.6
9.1
160
45.5
monitor
monitor
LN1G 1)

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 29, 1994
Memorandum To: Susan Wilson
From: D. Rex Gleason
Prepared By: Kim H. Colson;
Subject:
Pizc
City of Statesville Fourth Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0031836
Iredell County, NC
This memorandum serves as a modification to the staff
report dated January 18, 1994 for the subject facility. The
staff report indicated a design and permitted flow of 4.0
MGD. The current permit and the submitted application
indicated a design flow of 4.0 MGD; however, an
Authorization to Construct was issued on November 19, 1987
for expansion to 6.0 MGD. The 6.0 MGD facilities are in
place; however, the City desires to continue discharging
with limitations based on 4.0 MGD until such time that the
flow limit is exceeded, at which time the limits associated
with the 6.0 MGD capacity will become effective.
If you have any questions concerning this matter,
please advise.

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
N.C. DEP7'. OF
Reque ttTURA SOURCES'HEA
Statesville Fourth Creek WWTP
NC0031836 JUN 29
69% Domestic and 31% Industrial 1994
Existing
Modification of flow from 4 mgd to di INN OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fourth Creek MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
C
030706
Iredell Stream Characteristic:
Mooresville . - USGS #
Susan Wilson Date:
5/5/94 Drainage Area (mi2):
D 15 SE Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.) v
New USGS flow guidelines (HA10; MAR=1) caused the 7Q10 estimate to drop from 11
cfs to 7.5, which caused the Level-B model to predict a DO sag of 4.36 mg/1 using the existing
limits and the new flow 6mgd. NH3N allowable is 2 mg/1 to protect against ammonia toxcity.
The instream monitoring data from '92-94 was reviewed, lowest value for DO was 6.3 mg/1
(10/92). Performed a toxicant analysis using new 7Q10 and new wasteflow. Added T.R. chlorine
limit due to permit modification. Facility has passed WET test consisently since 11/90. Adopt
these 6mgd limits when facility reaches 80% capacity of 4 mgd flow (3.2mgd). Region please
comment on treating this increase in flow as new. Fat , // Aj dues 170 /$ e /c� be 3,0//y'r1
5
Ddk'cho.7 k wS 1!t'poy/7n5 eorrecfl // Cr • . Cra, A/.. ,01"er cOow . vo /(/e1 joint'
Special Schedule Requirements a{d additional comments from Reviewers: J
S4-ck,46 tilt �2c=1) •" t v' H ,t-vk-X, it / 4 !%c=mac rrka, c-1,0k
46.5
7.5
11.3
46.5
16
55
PAS.-) crnI Gr+w.z,✓o ti.n,r St+rvr�
•
111.1,
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
1JZ% Coit�S/G��2 /yrti.
L
Date: 6
Date:
Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
JUG J i.�,.

2
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 4.0 4.0
BODS (mg/1): 17 27
NH3N (mg/1): 12 18
DO (mg/1): 5 5
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): monitor monitor
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average Monthly Average
Summer Winter Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
BODS (mg/1): 17 27 17 27
NH3N (mg/1): 12 18 2 4
DO (mg/1): 5 5 5 5
TSS (mg/1): 30 30 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): monitor monitor 28 28
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor monitor monitor
LIMIT TO CHANGES TO DUE:
Parameter Due to:
NH3N new 7Q10 and ammonia toxicity IWC=55.4%
T.R. chlorine modification to permit / increase in flow
oil and grease no data available ._ , ac /i kg_ doer /- in d 11-171el
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)
0(1 1L jteA1kt s%dV/ hap( o 1.-!7
�ec.o��.v� "pod re�
iAm J

3
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
Wasteflow (mgd):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/l):
Lead (ug/l):
Zinc (ug/l):
Copper (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/l):
Silver (ug/l):
Iron (ug/):
Recommended Limits
Wasteflow (mgd):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/l):
Mercury (ug/l):
Silver (ug/1):
Iron (ug/):
Zinc (ug/l):
Copper (ug/1):
TOXICS/METALS
Chronic Toxicity f'/F limit Qrtly (Ceriodaphnia)
P/F @ 36% -usrnj of Y Hou's o f 7 a 10
P/F @ 36% for 4mgd; P/F @ 55% for 6mgd
JAN, APR, JUL, OCT
Daily Max.
4.0
14
5.5 U Si,
139
244
69
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Daily Max.
6.0
3.6
9.1
160
45.5
monitor
monitor
LTMP
LTMP
LTMP
LTMP
0 /d r My ws
WQ
WQ
WQ
WQ
1/cf1 Sine e (4.0
O r.e c'va /Pa
Q 4 /nGo vS-e-
//c
WQ or EL Daily Max.
4.0
5.5
14
244
69
monitor
monitor
LIMP
LTMP
LTMP
LTMP
LIMIT CHANGES DUE TO:
Parameter Due to:
Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Cn, Hg New 7Q10, new wasteflow, and toxicant analysis
rm1'i- lae 1(4,1 fssi,
i/412/h.��/l
7J/a�-,
�UrvS
_X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.
% %-/ hf7-ix} / (A) -7Q 1 0 will /d
KJ/� 1(o IA) (4. U) of u i Gti �a&i h r v, .b rh y rn 11. ,4, / / �t'1
r �X1S�h�
�!h ci ,R, / i r 11'1 FQ

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: at BR 752 upstream from effluent
Downstream Location: approxiately 0.5 miles downstream from effluent and 100 feet upstream from
SS.Fertilizer's effluent
Parameters: D.O., Fecal Coliform, Conductivity, and Temperature
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) _Y_ (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? \ (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.
LTrik Ts1'5 d IL No

Facility Name S 1ZtT e.S V ►I 1-e_. 2 V P e k 4,0) Permit # IUG0031 /Nh Pipe # 001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is 3( % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
.'uarterLv monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty_ days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
511111 . PPie 4 ., (Il _ cc/ . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 // cfs
Permitted Flow 4 MGD
IWC 36> %
Basin & Sub -basin yI - /1D�
Receiving Stream /o,,k C!!/•PP/c
County 1v- le //
QCL P/F Version 9/91

Facility Name �71 ISVl III Cock \Alidtl" Permit # NM) 3iR,3(0 Pipe # ALL
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is ric3 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
i1 4 p r , -51, (, �, %- . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 7.5 cfs
Permitted Flow , MGD
IWC 5'5 %
Basin & Sub -basin YI -O 6
Receiving Stream fur /-1, , ,k
County r;-.4, if, //
QCL PIF Version 9/91

SS Fertilizer (NC0082821)
NOTE TO FILE:
SS Fertilizer plans to remediate groundwater contaminated by nitrates from the fertilizer
operation. They had occasional discharges from their process in the past which were
discharged to 2 large holding lagoons and spray land applied. SS Fertilizer received a
permit to dewater the lagoons and spray apply. The lagoons have been filled in now and
the facility recycles its process water.
The groundwater was found to be contaminated and needs to be remediated. This is
planned to be a 10-20 year project. The engineering report states there is not enough land
for spray irrigation and Statesville Fourth Creek will not take its waste.
A model was performed to determine if an NH3-N limit based on water quality was
needed. SS Fertilizer had requested flows from USGS which were much lower than
previously estimated for the Statesville Fourth Creek model (previous 7Q10s was 11 cfs,
new 7Q10s is 7.5 cfs).
Based on the new flows, the DO sag was predicted to be 4.66 mg/1 without SS fertilizer.
SS Fertilizer was included so that it would not show an increased impact on the DOsag
(Permitted flow for SS Fert = 0.144 MGD, Statesville=4 MGD). An NH3-N limit of 7.8
mg/1 will be required in order to not impact Fourth Creek. Statesville Fourth Creek may be
required to decrease their limits in the future (may only have to decrease to 17/10).
Nitrate allowabe level was calculated at the point where the stream changed to WS-IV (1.5
miles upstream of SR1985). No impact is expected from SS Fert.
Some metals may need to be monitored.
cc: Statesville- Fourth Creek

January 27, 1994
NOTE TO BASIN FILE
YADKIN RIVER BASIN
SUBBASIN 03-07-06
The WLA for Statesville's Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) was completed as an
existing / renewal on January 26,1994. Since there were absolutely no modifications to
the facility the permit was renewed with existing limits. However, updated USGS
procedures from the "Low- Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina" guidelines
caused the 7Q10 estimate to drop from 11 cfs to 7.5 cfs. The decreased flow caused the
Level-B modeling analysis to predict DO sag of 4.66 mg/1 under critical conditions. The
predicted over allocation of Fourth Creek is a matter that will need to be addressed in the
issuance of permits for the Yadkin River Basin Plan.
Two additional areas of the permit will be affected by the decreased stream flow. The
limits for metals will become more stringent as per mass balance analysis with less dilution
in stream (if the previously employed spreadsheet method is used). The IWC% will also
need to be changed for the Toxicity Test requirement. These areas can also be addressed in
the implementation of the basin plan.
It should also be noted that in Fourth Creek there is a strong potential for interaction
between Statesville's facility and the discharges for Southern States Fertilizer
(NC0082821) and Cooleemee WWTP (NC0024872). This section of the creek may need
to be studied more closely for the basin plan. There is a Level-B model covering all three
of these facilities in the Southern States Fertilizer WLA file. The model is well constructed
and uses the most recent flow estimates, but Cooleemee's design flow may have increased
since it was done.
Please see the wasteload file on this facility for more details and information.
cc: Wasteload File
Michelle Wilson
-off-0r
Fd 0,,.tk CGS
vzW Fp

5/4,1/5
Discharger
Receiving Stream : FOURTH CREEK
MODEL RESULTS
SUMMER
NH3N ALLOWABLE=2
BOD5=17
: STATESVILLE FOURTH CREEK WWTP
The End D.O. is 7.29 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 3.20 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.97 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flo
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 6.03 0.50 2 __ p((ow6 ____
Reach 1 ,StaE-esvill e 34.00 17 U 9.00 z 5.00 6.00000
Reach 2 .ss• erh', Ihzev 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.14400
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Segment 2 7.09 2.20 1
Reach 1 Ooo0e1,yQ-t 60.00 90.00 0.00 1.50000
Segment 3 7.09 0.00 1
Reach 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

I Seg
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
# I
Reach # I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Seg Mi I
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.23
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.33
0.35
0.38
0.40
0.43
0.45
0.48
0.50
0.50
0.93
1.35
1.78
2.20
2.63
3.05
3.47
3.90
4.32
4.75
5.17
5.60
6.02
6.45
6.87
7.30
7.72
8.15
8.57
9.00
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
9.80
10.00
10.20
10.40
10.60
10.80
11.00
11.00
11.32
11.64
D.O. I CBOD I
6.09 19.71
6.09 19.69
6.09 19.66
6.09 19.63
6.09 19.60
6.09 19.57
6.09 19.54
6.09 19.51
6.09 19.49
6.09 19.46
6.10 19.43
6.10 19.40
6.10 19.37
6.10 19.34
6.10 19.32
6.10 19.29
6.10 19.26
6.10 19.23
6.10 19.20
6.10 19.18
6.11 19.15
6.03 18.90
6.06 18.44
6.09 17.99
6.13 17.55
6.18 17.13
6.22 16.72
6.27 16.32
6.31 15.92
6.36 15.54
6.40 15.17
6.44 14.81
6.49 14.46
6.53 14.12
6.57 13.79
6.61 13.46
6.66 13.15
6.69 12.84
6.73 12.54
6.77 12.25
6.81 11.96
6.84 11.68
6.84 11.68
6.97 11.56
7.08 11.43
7.16 11.31
7.24 11.19
7.30 11.07
7.35 10.96
7.40 10.84
7.44 10.72
7.47 10.61
7.50 10.50
7.50 10.50
7.39 10.31
7.30 10.12
SUMMER
NH3N ALLOWABLE=2
B0D5=17
NBOD I Flow I
5.43 16.80
5.42 16.81
5.41 16.82
5.40 16.82
5.39 16.83
5.38 16.84
5.37 16.85
5.36 16.85
5.35 16.86
5.34 16.87
5.33 16.88
5.32 16.88
5.31 16.89
5.30 16.90
5.29 16.91
5.28 16.91
5.27 16.92
5.26 16.93
5.25 16.94
5.24 16.94
5.23 16.95
5.62 17.17
5.44 17.30
5.27 17.43
5.11 17.56
4.95 17.68
4.79 17.81
4.65 17.94
4.50 18.07
4.36 18.19
4.23 18.32
4.10 18.45
3.97 18.58
3.85 18.70
3.74 18.83
3.62 18.96
3.51 19.09
3.41 19.21
3.31 19.34
3.21 19.47
3.11 19.60
3.02 19.72
3.02 19.72
2.98 19.78
2.94 19.84
2.91 19.90
2.87 19.96
2.84 20.02
2.80 20.08
2.77 20.14
2.73 20.20
2.70 20.26
2.66 20.32
2.66 20.32
2.60 20.42
2.54 20.52

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I Seg #
4 11.96 7.22 9.94 2.47 20.61
4 12.28 7.16 9.77 2.41 20.71
4 12.60 7.11 9.59 2.35 20.80
4 12.92 7.06 9.42 2.30 20.90
4 13.24 7.03 9.25 2.24 21.00
4 13.56 7.00 9.09 2.19 21.09
4 13.88 6.98 8.93 2.14 21.19
4 14.20 6.96 8.77 2.08 21.28
5 14.20 6.96 8.77 2.08 21.28
5 14.35 6.96 8.70 2.06 21.33
5 14.50 6.95 8.63 2.04 21.37
5 14.65 6.95 8.56 2.01 21.42
5 14.80 6.95 8.48 1.99 21.46
5 14.95 6.95 8.41 1.97 21.51
5 15.10 6.95 8.35 1.95 21.55
5 15.25 6.95 8.28 1.93 21.60
5 15.40 6.95 8.21 1.90 21.64
5 15.55 6.95 8.14 1.88 21.69
5 15.70 6.95 8.07 1.86 21.73
6 15.70 7.17 5.32 1.47 39.73
6 16.08 7.15 5.24 1.44 39.85
6 16.46 7.13 5.15 1.40 39.96
6 16.84 7.12 5.07 1.37 40.08
6 17.22 7.11 4.99 1.34 40.19
6 17.60 7.10 4.91 1.31 40.30
6 17.98 7.09 4.83 1.28 40.42
6 18.36 7.09 4.75 1.25 40.53
6 18.74 7.09 4.68 1.22 40.65
6 19.12 7.09 4.60 1.19 40.76
6 19.50 7.09 4.53 1.16 40.87
1 0.00 7.28 3.24 2.91 108.33
1 0.22 7.26 3.22 2.88 108.37
1 0.44 7.23 3.20 2.85 108.41
1 0.66 7.21 3.18 2.81 108.46
1 0.88 7.19 3.16 2.78 108.50
1 1.10 7.17 3.14 2.75 108.54
1 1.32 7.16 3.12 2.72 108.59
1 1.54 7.14 3.09 2.69 108.63
1 1.76 7.12 3.07 2.66 108.68
1 1.98 7.11 3.05 2.63 108.72
1 2.20 7.09 3.03 2.60 108.76
1 0.00 7.09 3.44 2.21 149.64
1 0.30 7.12 3.42 2.19 149.70
1 0.60 7.14 3.39 2.16 149.76
1 0.90 7.16 3.37 2.14 149.82
1 1.20 7.18 3.34 2.11 149.88
1 1.50 7.20 3.32 2.09 149.94
1 1.80 7.22 3.29 2.06 150.00
1 2.10 7.24 3.27 2.04 150.06
1 2.40 7.26 3.24 2.02 150.12
1 2.70 7.27 3.22 1.99 150.18
1 3.00 7.29 3.20 1.97 150.24
Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : STATESVILLE FOURTH CREEK WWTP Subbasin : 0307
Receiving Stream : FOURTH CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 7.5 Winter 7Q10 : 11.3
Design Temperature: 25.0
ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR 1 SOD 1 SOD
1 mile I ft/mil fps 1 ft 'design' @20 'design' @20 'design' @20 Idesign' @20 'design l @20
Segment 1 1 0.50 6.001 0.450 1 1.58 1 0.31 1 0.25 1 3.92 1 3.511 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 1 0.00 10.00 1 0.00
Reach 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 8.501 6.001 0.443 1 1.67 1 0.31 1 0.24 1 3.86 1 3.461 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 1 0. 00 1 0.00 1 0.00
Reach 2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 2.001 10.501 0.513 1 1.61 1 0.35 1 0.28 1 7.81 1 7.011 0.44 1 0.30 10.44 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00
Reach 3 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 3.201 4.251 0.393 1 1.88 1 0.29 1 0.23 1 2.42 1 2.171 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 1 0.00 10.00 10.00
Reach 4 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
Segment 1 1 1.50 4.251 0.394 1 1. 91 1 0.29 1 0.23 1 2.42 1 2.171 0.44 1 0.30 10.44 10.00 1 0.00 10.00
Reach 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 I 3.801 3.501 0.449 1 2.45 10.28 10.22 1 1.54 I 1.381 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 10.00 1 0.00 10.00
Reach 6 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 2 I 2.20 2.251 0.547 3.64 10.27 1 0.22 1 1.21 1 1.08 l 0.44 10.30 10.44 1 0.00 10.00 0.00
Reach 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 3 I 3.001 3.501 0.720 13.73 1 0.28 1 0.22 12.47 1 2.221 0.44 1 0.30 0.44 10.00 10.00 10.00
Reach 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I Flow 1 CBOD I NBOD I D.O. I
I cfs I mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I 9.300 1 34.000 1 9.000 I 5.000
Headwaters) 7.500 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff I 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.223 I 0.000 1 35.000 I 0.000

Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff I 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 ) 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 18.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 2 Reach 1
Waste 1 2.325 1 60.000 1 90.000 I 0.000
Headwaters1106.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.200 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 3 Reach 1
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 ) 0.000
Headwaters) 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.200 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

Red 700 *- .,.la
Statesville WWTP
Fourth Creek
Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/l)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.8 :1
NC0031836
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7.5 7010 (CFS)
6 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9.3 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
55.4 % IWC (%)
31 Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
7.5
6
9,3
1.0
0.22
55.4 %
2
11.3
6
9.3
1 .8
0.22
45.1
4
5/12/94

7,1¢f
"46i;
,e
ezi,-,61 5 cy4" 27.e fiv,er'(_/,/
07
oix/ 5/79
AP-7'
1 1
a--i-t-/ LO `176,L) ♦
/19-1. 6e5' e/7, /1/./
/ /l/ = LbL25 = /7
�: �3 �`7 le 5_, 4 oiezt

• TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Statesville 4th Creek WWT
NPDES #
NC0031836
Ow (MGD)
6
7010s (cfs)
__._.._..____.._.. 7.5
�55.00,
IWC (%)
Reeving Stream
Fourth Creek
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
82.65
Allowable Cw
90.9
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
158.26
Allowable Cw
9.1
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
50.72
Allowable Cw
3.6
Copper AL
Max. Pred Cw
340
Allowable Cw
12.7
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
95.7
Allowable Cw
45.5
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
255
Allowable Cw
160.0
Zinc AL
Max. Pred Cw
781.16
Allowable Cw
90.9
Silver AL
Max. Pred Cw
50.4
Allowable Cw
0.1
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
78.88
Allowable Cw
0.0218
Iron AL
Max. Pred Cw
2000
Allowable Cw
1818.2
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
6/24/94
PAGE '

Bear Wallow Valley Mobile Home Park
NC0076082
statesvilles 4th Creek
Fourth Creek
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.8 :1
s 76)(6 old
Old Re J D.5)(;) F(ouJ
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
11 7Q10 (CFS)
4 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.2 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
36.0 % IWC (%)
47 Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
11
4
6.2
1.0
0.22
36.0 %
2
11.3
4
6.2
1.8
0.22
35.4 %
5
6/24/94

Bear Wallow Valley Mobile Home Park NC0076082
statesvilles 4th Creek
Fourth Creek
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.2 :1
New
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7.5 7Q10 (CFS)
4 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.2 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
45.3 % IWC (%)
38 Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
200/l00m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
7.5
4
6.2
1.0
0.22
45.3 %
2
11.3
4
6.2
1.8
0.22
35.4 %
5
1.(1, de( 7/14101,3
6/24/94

USGS weighted low flow estimate procedure
flraidlk\
Facility(,Statesville Fourth Creek W NPDES # iNC0031836_1 g Stream?Fourth Creek
Region
DA_LFPR
s7Q10_LFPR
DA_new
MAR
QA_eq
STEP 1
HA10
0
sq mile
_.._.._.0.._.._.._.. cfs
46.5
1
46.50
sq mile
cfs/sq mile
cfs
calculate drainage area ratio
NOTE: procedure applies for regions HA3, HA5,
HA9, and HA10, else see flow SOP
elu i a to et -CO v
RATIO = new drainage area
drainage area at gage
IF 0.25 < RATIO < 4, CONTINUE to STEP 2, ELSE too far from gage
#DIV/0!
STEP 2 determine weight of gage (weight_LFPR)
A. RATIO < 1 B. RATIO > 1
weight ratio weight ratio
0 1 __ 0 1
I #DIV/0!__#DIV/0!
1 0.25 1 4
#DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0! I
STEP 3
HA3
HA5
HA9
HA10
STEP 4
weight =
#DIV/0!
calculate 7Q10_EQ using regional equation
13.14
1.50
1.50
7.49
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
7Q10 EQ =
calculate 7010 yield using weighted equation
7.49
7Q10yield = [weight_LFPR * 7Q10_LFPR] + [weight_EQ * 7010_EQ]
cfs
DA_LFPR DA_new
yield = #DIV/0! + #DIV/0!
STEP 5 calculate s7Q10
7Q10 = 7Q10yield * DA_new
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! 1
cfs/sq mile

USGS weighted low flow estimate procedure
summer 7010 = #DIV/01 cfs
Facility(Statesville Fourth Creek W NPDES # RNC0031836 Stream; Fourth Creek
Region
DA LFPR
w7010_LFPR
------HA10
.._.._.._.�_ .._.._.... sq mile
0.32 cfs
DA new 46.5 sq mile
MAR 1 cfs/sq mile
QA eq 46.50 cfs
STEP 1 calculate drainage area ratio
NOTE: procedure applies for regions HA3, HA5,
HA9, and HA10, else see flow SOP
RATIO = new drainage area
drainage area at gage
IF 0.25 < RATIO < 4, CONTINUE to STEP 2, ELSE too far from gage
#DIV/O!
STEP 2 determine weight of gage (weight_LFPR)
A. RATIO < 1
0
Lati4
1
#DN/01 1•••••••••••••••••••••••••••=j #DIW01
1
STEP 3
HA3
HA5
HA9
HA10
STEP 4
0.25
weight =
#DIV/0!
B. RATIO > 1
weight ratia
0 1
#DIV/0! #DIV/O!
1 4
calculate 7Q10 EQ using regional equation
24.99
5.61
5.61
11.284
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
7010_EQ =
calculate 7Q10 yield using weighted equation
11.28
cfs/sq mile
701 °yield = [weight LFPR * 7010 LFPR] + [weight EQ * 7Q10 EQ]
DA_LFPR DA new
yield = #DIV/01
+ #DIV/0! _ #DIV/01 cfs/mile

USGS weighted low flow estimate procedure
STEP 5 calculate w7Q10
7Q10 = 7010yield * DA new
winter 7010 =
#DIV/0!
cfs
FacilityiStatesville.Fourth Creek W NPDES #
Region
DA LFPR
3002_LFPR
DA_new
MAR
QA_eq
HA10
0
sq mile
1.2 cfs
._.._.. 46.5
1
46.50
sq mile
cfs/sq mile
cfs
STEP 1 calculate drainage area ratio
l NC0031836 I
NOTE: procedure applies
HA9, and HA10, else see
RATIO = new drainage area
drainage area at gage
IF 0.25 < RATIO < 4, CONTINUE to STEP 2, ELSE too far from gage
#DIV/0!
STEP 2 determine weight of gage (weight_LFPR)
A. RATIO < 1
weight ratiQ
0 1
fltTi�iT #DIV/0!
1 0.25
STEP 3
HA3
HA5
HA9
HA10
weight =
#DIV/0!
B. RATIO a 1
weight LaQ
0 1
#DIV/O! #DIV/0!
1 4
calculate 3002_EQ using regional equation
27.98
7.65
7.65
16.00
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
3002_EQ =
STEP 4 calculate 3002 yield using weighted equation
Stream'• Fourth Creek
for regions HA3, HA5,
flow SOP
16.00
cfs/sq mile
3002yield = [weight_LFPR * 30Q2 LFPR] + [weight_EQ * 30Q2 EQ]
#D IVIO I j

wll111w SJ,a1yq
Discharger
Receiving Stream
SUMMER
NH3N ALLOWABLE=2
BOD5=30
MODEL RESULTS
: STATESVILLE FOURTH CREEK WWTP
: FOURTH CREEK
The End D.O. is
The End CBOD is
The End NBOD is
7.19 mg/l.
3.86 mg/l.
1.97 mg/l.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Segment 2
Reach 1
Segment 3
Reach 1
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
5.46 2.54 2
7.09 2.20
6.97 0.00
WLA
CBOD
(mg/1)
_ulkx
60.00 o
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
0.00
WLA WLA
NBOD DO
(mg/1) (mg/1)
aflewalole
9.00 z
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Waste Flo
(mgd)
6.00000
0.14400
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.50000
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : SS FERTILIZER Subbasin : 0307
Receiving Stream : FOURTH CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 7.5 Winter 7Q10 : 11.2
Design Temperature: 25.0
ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd I Kd I Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR 1 SOD 1 SOD
I mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft 'design' @20 'design' @20 'design! @20 (design@20 !design! @20
I I I I I I I I 1
Segment 1 1 0.501 6.001 0.450 1 1.58 10.31 10.25 1 3.92 1 3.511 0.44 10.30 10.44 1 0.00 1 0.00 10.00
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
Segment 1 I 8.501 6.001 0.443 11.67 1 0.31 10.24 13.86 I 3.461 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 10.00 10.00 10.00
Reach 2 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1
1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I
Segment 1 1 2.001 10.501 0.513 11.61 1 0.35 1 0.28 17.81 1 7.011 0.44 1 0.30 10.44 10.00 1 0.00 10.00
Reach 3 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
Segment 1 I 3.201 4.251 0.393 1 1.88 10.29 1 0.23 12.42 I 2.171 0.44 10.30 1 0.44 1 0.00 1 0.00 10.00
Reach 4 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I
Segment 1 1 1.50' 4.251 0.394 11.91 10.29 1 0.23 1 2.42 I 2.171 0.44 10.30 10.44 1 0.00 10.00 1 0.00
Reach 5 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I
1
Segment 1 3.80 3.50 0.449 2.45 0.28 0.22 1.54 1.381 0.44 0.30 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reach 6 1
I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1
Segment 2 1 2.20 2.251 0.547 1 3.64 0.27 0.22 1 1.21 1 1.081 0.44 0.30 1 0.44 0.00 10.00 1 0.00
Reach 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I
Segment 3 1 3.00' 3.501 0.720 13.73 10.28 1 0.22 12.47 I 2.221 0.44 10.30 10.44 10.00 10.00 10.00
Reach 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I Flow 1 CBOD I NBOD 1 D.O. I
I cfs I mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I 9.300 160.000 I 9.000 I 5.000
Headwaters.' 7.500 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.223 1 0.000 1 35.000 I 0.000

Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste ) 0.000 ) 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 18.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 2 Reach 1
Waste I 2.325 160.000 ) 90.000 1 0.000
Headwaters1106.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.200 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Segment 3 Reach 1
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Headwaters) 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
Tributary 1 0.000 ) 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff 1 0.200 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
NH3N ALLOWABLE=2
BOD5=3
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I
1 1 0.00 6.09 34.11 5.43 16.80
1 1 0.01 6.09 34.10 5.43 16.80
1 1 0.01 6.08 34.09 5.42 16.80
1 1 0.02 6.08 34.08 5.42 16.80
1 1 0.02 6.08 34.07 5.42 16.81
1 1 0.03 6.07 34.06 5.42 16.81
1 1 0.03 6.07 34.05 5.42 16.81
1 1 0.04 6.07 34.04 5.41 16.81
1 1 0.04 6.07 34.03 5.41 16.81
1 1 0.05 6.06 34.02 5.41 16.81
1 1 0.05 6.06 34.01 5.41 16.82
1 1 0.06 6.06 34.00 5.41 16.82
1 1 0.06 6.05 33.99 5.40 16.82
1 1 0.07 6.05 33.98 5.40 16.82
1 1 0.07 6.05 33.97 5.40 16.82
1 1 0.08 6.05 33.96 5.40 16.82
1 1 0.08 6.04 33.95 5.40 16.82
1 1 0.09 6.04 33.94 5.39 16.83
1 1 0.09 6.04 33.93 5.39 16.83
1 1 0.10 6.04 33.92 5.39 16.83
1 1 0.10 6.03 33.91 5.39 16.83
1 1 0.11 6.03 33.90 5.39 16.83
1 1 0.11 6.03 33.89 5.38 16.83
1 1 0.12 6.02 33.88 5.38 16.83
1 1 0.12 6.02 33.87 5.38 16.84
1 1 0.13 6.02 33.86 5.38 16.84
1 1 0.13 6.02 33.85 5.38 16.84
1 1 0.14 6.01 33.84 5.37 16.84
1 1 0.14 6.01 33.83 5.37 16.84
1 1 0.15 6.01 33.82 5.37 16.84
1 1 0.15 6.01 33.81 5.37 16.85
1 1 0.16 6.00 33.80 5.37 16.85
1 1 0.16 6.00 33.79 5.36 16.85
1 1 0.17 6.00 33.78 5.36 16.85
1 1 0.17 5.99 33.77 5.36 16.85
1 1 0.18 5.99 33.76 5.36 16.85
1 1 0.18 5.99 33.75 5.36 16.85
1 1 0.19 5.99 33.74 5.35 16.86
1 1 0.19 5.98 33.73 5.35 16.86
1 1 0.20 5.98 33.72 5.35 16.86
1 1 0.20 5.98 33.71 5.35 16.86
1 1 0.21 5.98 33.70 5.35 16.86
1 1 0.21 5.97 33.69 5.34 16.86
1 1 0.22 5.97 33.68 5.34 16.86
1 1 0.22 5.97 33.67 5.34 16.87
1 1 0.23 5.97 33.66 5.34 16.87
1 1 0.23 5.96 33.65 5.34 16.87
1 1 0.24 5.96 33.64 5.33 16.87
1 1 0.24 5.96 33.63 5.33 16.87
1 1 0.25 5.96 33.62 5.33 16.87
1 1 0.25 5.95 33.61 5.33 16.88
1 1 0.26 5.95 33.60 5.33 16.88
1 1 0.26 5.95 33.59 5.32 16.88
1 1 0.27 5.95 33.58 5.32 16.88
1 1 0.27 5.94 33.57 5.32 16.88
1 1 0.28 5.94 33.56 5.32 16.88

1 1 0.28 5.94 33.55 5.32 16.88
1 1 0.29 5.94 33.54 5.31 16.89
1 1 0.29 5.94 33.53 5.31 16.89
1 1 0.30 5.93 33.52 5.31 16.89
1 1 0.30 5.93 33.51 5.31 16.89
1 1 0.31 5.93 33.50 5.31 16.89
1 1 0.31 5.93 33.49 5.30 16.89
1 1 0.32 5.92 33.48 5.30 16.89
1 1 0.32 5.92 33.47 5.30 16.90
1 1 0.33 5.92 33.46 5.30 16.90
1 1 0.33 5.92 33.45 5.30 16.90
1 1 0.34 5.91 33.44 5.30 16.90
1 1 0.34 5.91 33.43 5.29 16.90
1 1 0.35 5.91 33.42 5.29 16.90
1 1 0.35 5.91 33.41 5.29 16.91
1 1 0.36 5.90 33.40 5.29 16.91
1 1 0.36 5.90 33.39 5.29 16.91
1 1 0.37 5.90 33.38 5.28 16.91
1 1 0.37 5.90 33.37 5.28 16.91
1 1 0.38 5.90 33.36 5.28 16.91
1 1 0.38 5.89 33.35 5.28 16.91
1 1 0.39 5.89 33.34 5.28 16.92
1 1 0.39 5.89 33.33 5.27 16.92
1 1 0.40 5.89 33.32 5.27 16.92
1 1 0.40 5.88 33.31 5.27 16.92
1 1 0.41 5.88 33.30 5.27 16.92
1 1 0.41 5.88 33.29 5.27 16.92
1 1 0.42 5.88 33.28 5.26 16.92
1 1 0.42 5.88 33.27 5.26 16.93
1 1 0.43 5.87 33.26 5.26 16.93
1 1 0.43 5.87 33.25 5.26 16.93
1 1 0.44 5.87 33.24 5.26 16.93
1 1 0.44 5.87 33.23 5.25 16.93
1 1 0.45 5.87 33.22 5.25 16.93
1 1 0.45 5.86 33.21 5.25 16.94
1 1 0.46 5.86 33.20 5.25 16.94
1 1 0.46 5.86 33.19 5.25 16.94
1 1 0.47 5.86 33.18 5.24 16.94
1 1 0.47 5.86 33.17 5.24 16.94
1 1 0.48 5.85 33.16 5.24 16.94
1 1 0.48 5.85 33.15 5.24 16.94
1 1 0.49 5.85 33.14 5.24 16.95
1 1 0.49 5.85 33.13 5.23 16.95
1 1 0.50 5.85 33.12 5.23 16.95
1 1 0.50 5.84 33.11 5.23 16.95
1 2 0.50 5.77 32.68 5.62 17.17
1 2 0.59 5.74 32.52 5.58 17.20
1 2 0.67 5.71 32.36 5.55 17.22
1 2 0.76 5.68 32.20 5.51 17.25
1 2 0.84 5.66 32.04 5.48 17.28
1 2 0.93 5.63 31.88 5.44 17.30
1 2 1.01 5.61 31.72 5.41 17.33
1 2 1.10 5.59 31.56 5.37 17.35
1 2 1.18 5.58 31.40 5.34 17.38
1 2 1.27 5.56 31.25 5.30 17.40
1 2 1.35 5.54 31.09 5.27 17.43
1 2 1.44 5.53 30.94 5.24 17.45.
1 2 1.52 5.52 30.78 5.20 17.48
1 2 1.61 5.51 30.63 5.17 17.50
1 2 1.69 5.50 30.48 5.14 17.53

1 2 1.78 5.49 30.33 5.11 17.56
1 2 1.86 5.48 30.18 5.07 17.58
1 2 1.95 5.48 30.03 5.04 17.61
1 2 2.03 5.47 29.88 5.01 17.63
1 2 2.12 5.47 29.73 4.98 17.66
1 2 2.20 5.46 29.59 4.95 17.68
1 2 2.29 5.46 29.44 4.92 17.71
1 2 2.37 5.46 29.29 4.89 17.73
1 2 2.46 5.46 29.15 4.85 17.76
1 2 2.54 5.46 29.01 4.82 17.79
1 2 2.63 5.46 28.86 4.79 17.81
1 2 2.71 5.46 28.72 4.76 17.84
1 2 2.80 5.46 28.58 4.73 17.86
1 2 2.88 5.46 28.44 4.70 17.89
1 2 2.97 5.46 28.30 4.67 17.91
1 2 3.05 5.47 28.16 4.65 17.94
1 2 3.14 5.47 28.02 4.62 17.96
1 2 3.22 5.47 27.88 4.59 17.99
1 2 3.31 5.48 27.75 4.56 18.01
1 2 3.39 5.48 27.61 4.53 18.04
1 2 3.48 5.49 27.47 4.50 18.07
1 2 3.56 5.49 27.34 4.47 18.09
1 2 3.65 5.50 27.20 4.45 18.12
1 2 3.73 5.51 27.07 4.42 18.14
1 2 3.82 5.51 26.94 4.39 18.17
1 2 3.90 5.52 26.81 4.36 18.19
1 2 3.99 5.53 26.68 4.34 18.22
1 2 4.07 5.54 26.55 4.31 18.24
1 2 4.16 5.54 26.42 4.28 18.27
1 2 4.24 5.55 26.29 4.26 18.30
1 2 4.33 5.56 26.16 4.23 18.32
1 2 4.41 5.57 26.03 4.20 18.35
1 2 4.50 5.58 25.90 4.18 18.37
1 2 4.58 5.59 25.78 4.15 18.40
1 2 4.67 5.59 25.65 4.13 18.42
1 2 4.75 5.60 25.53 4.10 18.45
1 2 4.84 5.61 25.40 4.07 18.47
1 2 4.92 5.62 25.28 4.05 18.50
1 2 5.01 5.63 25.15 4.02 18.52
1 2 5.09 5.64 25.03 4.00 18.55
1 2 5.18 5.65 24.91 3.97 18.58
1 2 5.26 5.66 24.79 3.95 18.60
1 2 5.35 5.67 24.67 3.93 18.63
1 2 5.43 5.68 24.55 3.90 18.65
1 2 5.52 5.69 24.43 3.88 18.68
1 2 5.60 5.70 24.31 3.85 18.70
1 2 5.69 5.71 24.19 3.83 18.73
1 2 5.77 5.72 24.08 3.81 18.75
1 2 5.86 5.73 23.96 3.78 18.78
1 2 5.94 5.74 23.84 3.76 18.81
1 2 6.03 5.75 23.73 3.74 18.83
1 2 6.11 5.76 23.61 3.71 18.86
1 2 6.20 5.77 23.50 3.69 18.88
1 2 6.28 5.79 23.39 3.67 18.91
1 2 6.37 5.80 23.27 3.65 18.93
1 2 6.45 5.81 23.16 3.62 18.96
1 2 6.54 5.82 23.05 3.60 18.98
1 2 6.62 5.83 22.94 3.58 19.01
1 2 6.71 5.84 22.83 3.56 19.03
1 2 6.79 5.85 22.72 3.54 19.06

1 2 6.88 5.86 22.61 3.51 19.09
1 2 6.96 5.87 22.50 3.49 19.11
1 2 7.05 5.88 22.39 3.47 19.14
1 2 7.13 5.89 22.28 3.45 19.16
1 2 7.22 5.90 22.18 3.43 19.19
1 2 7.30 5.91 22.07 3.41 19.21
1 2 7.39 5.92 21.96 3.39 19.24
1 2 7.47 5.94 21.86 3.37 19.26
1 2 7.56 5.95 21.75 3.35 19.29
1 2 7.64 5.96 21.65 3.33 19.32
1 2 7.73 5.97 21.54 3.31 19.34
1 2 7.81 5.98 21.44 3.29 19.37
1 2 7.90 5.99 21.34 3.27 19.39
1 2 7.98 6.00 21.24 3.25 19.42
1 2 8.07 6.01 21.13 3.23 19.44
1 2 8.15 6.02 21.03 3.21 19.47
1 2 8.24 6.03 20.93 3.19 19.49
1 2 8.32 6.04 20.83 3.17 19.52
1 2 8.41 6.05 20.73 3.15 19.54
1 2 8.49 6.06 20.63 3.13 19.57
1 2 8.58 6.07 20.54 3.11 19.60
1 2 8.66 6.08 20.44 3.09 19.62
1 2 8.75 6.09 20.34 3.07 19.65
1 2 8.83 6.10 20.24 3.06 19.67
1 2 8.92 6.11 20.15 3.04 19.70
1 2 9.00 6.12 20.05 3.02 19.72
1 3 9.00 6.12 20.05 3.02 19.72
1 3 9.10 6.22 19.94 3.00 19.75
1 3 9.20 6.31 19.83 2.98 19.78
1 3 9.30 6.39 19.72 2.96 19.81
1 3 9.40 6.47 19.62 2.94 19.84
1 3 9.50 6.54 19.51 2.93 19.87
1 3 9.60 6.60 19.40 2.91 19.90
1 3 9.70 6.66 19.30 2.89 19.93
1 3 9.80 6.71 19.19 2.87 19.96
1 3 9.90 6.76 19.09 2.85 19.99
1 3 10.00 6.81 18.98 2.84 20.02
1 3 10.10 6.85 18.88 2.82 20.05
1 3 10.20 6.89 18.78 2.80 20.08
1 3 10.30 6.92 18.67 2.78 20.11
1 3 10.40 6.95 18.57 2.77 20.14
1 3 10.50 6.98 18.47 2.75 20.17
1 3 10.60 7.01 18.37 2.73 20.20
1 3 10.70 7.04 18.27 2.72 20.23
1 3 10.80 7.06 18.17 2.70 20.26
1 3 10.90 7.08 18.07 2.68 20.29
1 3 11.00 7.10 17.98 2.67 20.32
1 4 11.00 7.10 17.98 2.67 20.32
1 4 11.32 6.94 17.65 2.60 20.42
1 4 11.64 6.81 17.32 2.54 20.52
1 4 11.96 6.69 17.01 2.47 20.61
1 4 12.28 6.60 16.70 2.41 20.71
1 4 12.60 6.52 16.39 2.36 20.80
1 4 12.92 6.45 16.09 2.30 ° 20.90
1 4 13.24 6.40 15.80 2.24 21.00
1 4 13.56 6.36 15.52 2.19 21.09
1 4 13.88 6.33 15.24 2.14 21.19
1 4 14.20 6.30 14.96 2.08 21.28
1 5 14.20 6.30 14.96 2.08 21.28
1 5 14.35 6.30 14.83 2.06 21.33

1
1 5 14.50 6.29 14.71 2.04 21.37
1 5 14.65 6.29 14.58 2.01 21.42
1 5 14.80 6.28 14.46 1.99 21.46
1 5 14.95 6.28 14.34 1.97 21.51
1 5 15.10 6.28 14.22 1.95 21.55
1 5 15.25 6.28 14.10 1.93 21.60
1 5 15.40 6.28 13.98 1.90 21.64
1 5 15.55 6.28 13.86 1.88 21.69
1 5 15.70 6.28 13.74 1.86 21.73
1 6 15.70 6.81 8.42 1.47 39.73
1 6 16.08 6.77 8.28 1.44 39.85
1 6 16.46 6.74 8.15 1.40 39.96
1 6 16.84 6.72 8.01 1.37 40.08
1 6 17.22 6.70 7.88 1.34 40.19
1 6 17.60 6.68 7.75 1.31 40.30
1 6 17.98 6.67 7.62 1.28 40.42
1 6 18.36 6.66 7.50 1.25 40.53
1 6 18.74 6.66 7.38 1.22 40.65
1 6 19.12 6.65 7.25 1.19 40.76
1 6 19.50 6.65 7.14 1.16 40.87
2 1 0.00 7.28 3.24 2.91 108.33
2 1 0.22 7.26 3.22 2.88 108.37
2 1 0.44 7.23 3.20 2.85 108.41
2 1 0.66 7.21 3.18 2.81 108.46
2 1 0.88 7.19 3.16 2.78 108.50
2 1 1.10 7.17 3.14 2.75 108.54
2 1 1.32 7.16 3.12 2.72 108.59
2 1 1.54 7.14 3.09 2.69 108.63
2 1 1.76 7.12 3.07 2.66 108.68
2 1 1.98 7.11 3.05 2.63 108.72
2 1 2.20 7.09 3.03 2.60 108.76
3 1 0.00 6.97 4.15 2.21 149.64
3 1 0.30 7.00 4.12 2.19 149.70
3 1 0.60 7.02 4.09 2.16 149.76
3 1 0.90 7.05 4.06 2.14 149.82
3 1 1.20 7.07 4.03 2.11 149.88
3 1 1.50 7.09 4.00 2.09 149.94
3 1 1.80 7.11 3.97 2.06 150.00
3 1 2.10 7.13 3.94 2.04 150.06
3 1 2.40 7.15 3.91 2.02 150.12
3 1 2.70 7.17 3.89 1.99 150.18
3 1 3.00 7.19 3.86 1.97 150.24
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD 1 Flow I

MEMO 7QAJ(Dm6D
,o7?/71
.o,847/IJV,�% i�+ 'lni4h�
DATE:
SUBJECT:
-ktX. lelrJl
eCY W/ ,V..tt
/W.e-71- vee-44"
tPti /ee-p-e v/ 7712/ °I,7•tva-t
e(IL ,67„6 movEsp„„,}
°6-4
0
ae_ 4
X4 lee
,16„ete2y.k40
k 6v, Z7 q L77nf
1/2 —> ryldni JDr i'n /1/1),Olu/sierft7/71
Pb Al; -a No./ ,'t NPDS
From: ‘laa-u
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural R esou rces cs)
Pruned.Re cledP $peg

Page 1
Note for Jason Doll
From: Jason Doll
Date: Thu, Mar 24, 1994 12:34 PM
Subject: Statesville - Fourth Creek WWTP
To: Joe Pearce
This note is to confirm that monitoring requirements for the parameters Cu, Zn, FeAg
where removed from the NPDES permit for the above facility, and that they will be
monitored quarterly through the long term monitoring plan.
cc: WLA file
mOrn' lo►v I n
NJPDES �m erjf .
rid motet

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Statesville 4th Creek WWT
NPDES #
NC0031836
Qw (MGD)
4
7010s (cfs)
IWC (%)
.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._11.
36.05
Rec'ving Stream
Fourth Creek
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
82.65
Allowable Cw
138.7
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
158.26
Allowable Cw
13.9
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
50.72
Allowable Cw
5.5
Copper AL
Max. Pred Cw
340
Allowable Cw
19.4
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
95.7
Allowable Cw
69.4
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
255
Allowable Cw
244.1
Zinc AL
Max. Pred Cw
781.16
Allowable Cw
138.7
Silver AL
Max. Pred Cw
50.4
Allowable Cw
0.2
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
78.88
Allowable Cw
0.0333
Iron AL
Max. Pred Cw
2000
Allowable Cw
2774.2
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
o ll d wastio-v
id -R vJ 0
tx )dn i /v d n
L
P
L—
L%-MP
%honl
LTVP P
3 or
rectory +►oeci de
j-,niT tuSi
be Aec(
tt >iynvtvoiti dirt
perm if
5/12/94
PAGE'

il
TOXICANT(NALYSIS
Facility Name
Statesville 4th Creek WWTP
/Parameter=
Chromium
NPDES #
NC0031836 �)
Standard =
50
14/1Qw
(MGD)
Cs
7Q10s (cfs)
C
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
IWC (%)
55-.00i
1
5
<10
Std Dev.
Reeving Stream
Fourth Creek i
2
5
<10
Mean
Stream Class
C
3
5
<10
C.V.
1
4
2.5
<5
FINAL RESULTS I L%M
5
2.5
<5
Chromium
6
2.5
<5
MultFactor=
Max. Pred Cw
82.65!
_; i 7
2.5
<5
Max. Value
Allowable Cw
90.9I M
8
10
10
Max. Pred CW
I
9
5
<10
Allowable Cw
Cyanide
I
10
5
<10
Max. Pred Cw
158.26I
11
5
<10
Allowable Cw
9.1 ✓
12
2.5
<5
I
13
5
<10
Cadmium
I
14
5
<10
Max. Pred Cw
50.72I
15
5
<10
Allowable Cw
3.61 L.
16
5
<10
I
17
5
<10
Copper AL
I•
18
5
<10
Max. Pred Cw
340
19
15
<30
Allowable Cw
(_ TO) P 12.71 Al
III_ 20
15
<30
i
21
15
<30
Lead
i
22
15
<30
Max. Pred Cw
95.71
23
15
<30
Allowable Cw
45.5! L,
24
15
<30
I
25
32
32
Nickel
i
26
10
<20
Max. Pred Cw
255i
27
10
<20
Allowable Cw
160.01 L.
28
10
<20
29
5
<10
Zinc AL
I
30
5
<10
Max. Pred Cw
781.161
31
5
<10
Allowable Cw
7 ;Hip 90.W
in g . 32
15
<30
i
33
15
<30
Silver AL
i
34
10
<20
Max. Pred Cw
50.41
35
10
<20
Allowable Cw
/ / 7i,C 0.1! V
pi prt. 36
15
<30
i
37
15
<30
Mercury
I
38
15
<30
Max. Pred Cw
78.881
39
50
<100
Allowable Cw
p .0?-lcli 0.0V/
mot joy- 40
25
<50
I
41
10
<20
Iron AL
i
42
10
<20
Max. Pred Cw
2000i
43
1
<2
Allowable Cw
LT/1/7) 1818.2 /I
'9L 44
25
<50
I
45
16
16
0
'•
46
18
18
Max. Pred Cw
Oi
47
19
19
Allowable Cw
0.01
48
14
14
I
49
50
<100
0
i
50
1
<2
Max. Pred Cw
Oi
51
25
<50
5/11/94
PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Allowable Cw
, 0.01
52
25
<50
53
25
<50
54
2
2
55
25
<50
56
1
<2
57
2
2
58
1
<2
59
1
<2
60
3
3
61
19
19
62
25
<50
63
2
2
64
1
<2
65
2
2
66
30
<60
67
1
<2
68
22
22
69
6
6
70
10
10
71
1
1
72
30
<60
73
57
57
74
2
2
75
3
3
.
76
2
2
77
3
3
78
1
<2
79
1
<2
80
2
2
81
2
2
82
1
<2
83
0.05
<.1
84
1
<2
85
30
<60
86
30
<60
87
3
3
88
30
<60
89
4
4
90
30
<60
91
30
<60
92
30
<60
93
30
<60
94
1
<2
95
30
<60
96
30
<60
97
30
<60
98
30
<60
99
30
<60
100
30
<60
101
30
<60
102
30
<60
103
30
<60
104
30
<60
105
30
<60
106
30
<60
107
7
7
5/11/94
PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
108
8
8
109
5
5
110
1
<2
111
5
5
112
30
<60
113
30
<60
114
6
6
115
4
4
116
4
4
117
6
6
118
4
4
119
30
<60
120
30
<60
121
30
<60
122
30
<60
123
4
4
124
20
<40
125
10
10
126
20
<40
127
20
<40
128
30
<60
129
20
<40
130
20
<40
131
20
<40
132
20
<40
133
20
<40
134
1.5
<3
5/11/94
PAGE;

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter =
Cyanide
' ° arameter =
Cadmium
Standard = =
5
µg/l�
Standard =
2
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
12.42072208
1
2.5
<5
Std Dev.
8.312
•
1
0.5
14.4108209
2
1.25
<2.5
Mean
5.094
k. 2
1.7
0.861902467
3
1.25
<2.5
C.V.
1.632
. • . 3
0.5
4
1.25
<2.5
4
3.1
5
8
8
•r 5
4.2
.___.,_ .,_,1.45
••57
6
4
4
Mutt Factor =
._..1.93_1
82
µ9/l r :
6
4
WI
7
82
82
Max. Value
7
6.8
82.65
µg/l
8
4
4
Max. Pred Cw
158.3
. /l t:-t 8
3.3
90.9
4/1
9
2.5
<5
Allowable Cw
9.1
µg/I." 9
0.5
10
6
6
10
2.9
11
12
12
11
2.7
12
10
1"0
12
2
13
6
6
13
1.2
14
6
6
14
0.5
15
12
12
15
0.5
16
14
-14
16
0.5
17
8
_.8'
•
' ' 17
0.5
18
4
4
18
0.5
19
6
6
19
0.5
20
8
8
"�' 20
2.5
21
8
8
- 21
2.5
22
6
6
22
2.5
23
1.25
<2.5
' ' 23
2.5
24
1.25
<2.5
24
5
25
8
• 8
' 25
5
26
1.25
5,.Y
26
25
27
31
�3
27
5
28
1.25
<2.
28
5
29
1.25
<2.5
29
16,
30
6
• 6
30
24
31
1.25
<2.5
he.y.ke
31
2.5
32
1.25
<2.5
32
2.5
33
1.25
<2.5
--VA 33
-
2.5
34
1.25
<2.5
34
.5
2_
35
1.25
<2.5
35
2.5
36
1.25
<2.5
36
2.5
37
1.25
<2.5
37
8.78
38
1.25
<2.5
38
2.5
39
1.25
<2.5
°� ' 39
2.5
40
1.25
<2.5
:z•x 40
2.5
41
1.25
<2.5
41
2.5
42
1.25
<2.5
42
2.5
43
1.25
<2.5
• 43
2.5
44
7
7
44
2.5
45
4
4.'.
•
45
2.5
46
4
4
---3
"''
46
2.5
47
3
3
47
2.5
48
6
6
48
5.6
49
2.5
>5
49
8.97
50
6
6
50
2.5
51
2.5
<5
51
2.5
5/11/94
PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
5/
52
6
6
11 52
2.5
53
9
9
53
2.5
54
1.25
<2.5
`�`�� 54
4.4
55
1.25
<2.5
55
3.5
56
2.5
<5
.XN 56
<5
57
2.5
<5
57
3.8
58
2.5
<5
58
<1
59
2.5
<5
# �r} 59
3.4
60
8
8
" .,
60
4.2
61
2.5
<5
61
4.2
62
2.5
<5
62
1.8
63
2.5
<5
63
3.3
64
2.5
<56
64
31.7
65
2.5
<5
65
2.34
66
2.5
<5
skv 66
6.9
67
2.5
<5
67
0.5
68
2.5
<5
68
1.2
69
2.5
<5
x 69
0.5
70
2.5
<5
70
7
71
2.5
<5
71
0.5
72
2.5
<5
rl: 72
1
73
2.5
<5
73
1.9
74
11
.�;<:11
)
.,ypy. 74
4.4
75
2.5
<5i
75
1.4
76
2.5
<5
_
:: 76
3
77
7
7
.„ : 77
3.9
78
2.5
<5
78
5
79
5
5
:f 79
3
80
2.5
<5•
80
1.7
81
2.5
<5
81
7
82
6
6
vi 82
2
83
2.5
<5
83
1
84
7
A84
3
85
10
(10)
85
2
86
7
7
. 86
0.5
87
2.5
<5
' ,
87
2
88
7
,--7
88
1
89
10
10
-
89
0.6
90
2.5
<5
90
0.6
91
2.5
vii<5 :• 91
0.3
92
2.5
<5
92
1.8
93
2.5
<5
93
02
94
6
6
1
94
0.8
95
11
-11
95
0.5
96
2.5
--<5'
96
3.8
97
6
6
97
2
98
2.5
<5
> ". 98
0.8
99
2.5
<5
.f 99
3.8
100
2.5
<5
100
2
101
2.5
<5
101
0.8
102
12
12
102
7
103
2.5
<5
103
2
104
2.5
<5
104
0.05
105
2.5
<5
"` 105
1
106
2.5
<5
` ' 106
1.9
107
14
14
>..:.. 107
2.2
11 /4d PAG
c

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
108
2.5
<5
108
0.9
109
2.5
<5
f 109
1
110
2.5
<5
110
0.6
111
2.5
<5
Y: 111
1
112
2.5
<5
112
0.6
113
6
6
113
1
114
10
<20
114
5
115
115
1.5
116
116
1.8
117
117
3
118
118
7
119
119
1.4
120
120
0.8
121
121
122
0.05
0.05
122
123123
5
124
124
0.4
125
_VA
125
0.9
126
1
127
2
128
1.8
129
0.1
130
1.2
131
1.5
132
0.5
133
2
134
0.05
135
0.05
5/11/94
PAGE (

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
..si,k..y
ammeter = !Copper Ag
IVA
-----
f.g.0 Standard = I 71µ9/1
%.,:.*:•:
,0:0,':
..., .....
5.q....s.
R*4
:A.
........,i
Actual Data
RESULTS
k' vi... n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
W
.
<1
Std Dev.
4.14J
1
29
29
Std Dev.
25.69
1.7
Mean
2.873
.....
''• 2
21
21
Mean
22.89
<1
C.V.
1.441
3
38
38
C.V.1.1223
3.1
4
5.5
5.5
4.2
••=,••=••=64
5
•
1
<2
4
Muft Factor =
1.6
..
` \ 6
3.9
3.9
Mult Factor = 1
•••••••••••
2.72
:.,:n•
6.8
Max. Value
31.7gJ
7
1
<2
Max. Value
125;g/1
340
,...
• II mm,
it-
3.3
Max. Pred Cw
50.72jgJ
8
2.2
2.2
Max. Pred Cw
<1
Allowable Cw
3.6
/I ;,sai 9
47
47
Allowable Cw
12.7
NA
2.9
10
26,
26
.:?...x....Y.
,...,..M:.:
2.7
11
21
21
2
- : -- 12
50
<100
tvP
1.2
13
15
<30
...„
<1
14
12
12
<1
:,,.s.: ..
-.. .15
22
22
...
<1
K
16
26
26
.,ow..
,::„„,......
<1
17
• 125
<250
,....„i%:.,.
<1
• 18
15
<30
<1
?r, 19
18
18
<5
,,,:.,, 20
50
50
<5
i-.:, 21
49
49
,
<5
22
15
<30
<5
'0 23
15
<30
<10
24
62
62
<10
: 25
15
<30
25
.
26
94
94
<10
27
7
7
,..',..5,...
<10
• 28
12
12
•,,,,:...
16
, 29
8
8
24
.-„,..
•-:* 30
0.5
<1
.
.,
<5
31
15
<30
<5
g... 32
6
6
..*p.,
1.(0
<5
33
15
<30
FP'
..:sf.
<5
. :: 34
6
6
<5
4$:g 35
10
10
<5
••••:, 36
2
2
ME.
8.78
. 37
11
11
<5
. 38
10
10
<5
39
32
32
<5
40
<5
41
<5
42
<5
•
<5
wa
: 44
SS
<5
, 45
<5
. 46
k*IP;
<5
II 47
.j..):):,...
5.6
48
8.97
49
<5
50
<5
• V.
..• 2 51
5/11/94
PAGE 1

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
<5
<5
4.4
3.5
<5
3.8
<1
3.4
4.2
4.2
1.8
3.3
31.7
2.34
6.9
<1
1.2
<1
7
<1
1
1.9
4.4
1.4
3
3.9
5
3
1.7
7
2
1
3
2
<1
2
1
0.6
0.6
0.3
1.8
0.2
0.8
<1
3.8
2
0.8
3.8
52
r
74
77
79
82
}
83
}
86
87
2
0.8
7
2
<.1
1
1.9
2.2
5/11/94
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
0.9
1
0.6
1
0.6
1
5
1.5
1.8
3
7
1.4
0.8
<.1
<.1
5
0.4
0.9
1
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
2
1.8
0.1
1.2
1.5
0.5
2
<.1
<.1
5/11/94
PAGE E

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter =
Lead
. Parameter
Nickel
Standard =
25
r /l
x4
Standard =
88
r A
1
n
BDL=1/2DL
I
RESULTS
r f n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
1
Actual Data'
Std Dev.
9.3154
1
90
901
2
2.2
2.21
Mean
5.68807
r 2
40
401
3
2.9
2.91
C.V.
1.63771
'" 3
5
<10
4
2
21
. 4
30
301
5
1
<2
.-,:*
:: 5
170
1701
6
31
31
Mult Factor =
_.._.._
1.74
6
20
20
7
10
10
Max. Value
�.. 55
• 7
60
• 60
8
4
4 I
Max. Pred C
95.7
MI,-
�� ";{{.{
' 8
110
1101
9
1
<21
Allowable Cw
45.5
9
50
501
10
5.5
5.51
A.: 10
30
301
11
1
<2
11
20
20
12
3.9
3.9
{ € 12
30
30
13
1
<2
f.:. 13
30
30
14
2.2
2.2
h }
14
140
140
15
6.8
6.8
,
15
110
110
16
5.5
5.5
}-.
16
100
100
17
1
<2
5
<10
18
2.9
2.9
r{ 18
5<10
19
1
<2
19
20
20
20
5
<10
20
28
28
21
15
<301
c, 21
15<30
22
15
<30
.:,1
v 22
10
<20
23
15
<30
{ 23
125
<250
24
10
<201
x ' . 24
10
<20
25
10
<201
J• 25
10
<20
26
10
<20
:ti 26
5
<10
27
5
<10
I
27
10
<20
28
5
<10
28
5
<10
29
7.5
<151
29
8
81
30
7.5
<15
30
60
.60
31
7.5
<15
31
50
50
32
1
<2
32
40
40
33
1
<2
:, } 33
2.5
<5
34
1
<21
12
121
35
7.5
<15
4 35
10
<20
36
7.5
<15
36
10
<20
37
7.5
<15
'"f 37
25
<50
38
7.5
<15
38
25
<50
39
7.5
<151
::r 39
25
<50
40
7.5
<151
40
7.5
<15
41
7.5
<151
::. 41
10
101
42
7.5
<151
42
37
371
43
7.5
<15
43
10
<20
44
2.67
2.67
44
11.72
11.72
45
0.5
<1.0
1
• 45
15
<30
46
8.4
8.4
46
70
70
47
5.9
5.9
.: r ; 47
50
50
48
27
271
• 48
80
801
49
11
111
49
20
20
.50
7.5
<151
50
17
17
51
4.92
4.92
51
15
<30
5/11/94
PAGE 1(

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
52
0.5
<1
52
15
<30
53
0.5
<1
I
N_
�vr�
56
561
57
8
81
25
<50
58
4
4
h. 58
10
10
59
0.5
<1
I
:. 59
30
<60
•+
+
•+
17
17I
•
61
II1!
28
281
62
221
62
1021021
63
221
63
40
40
.-
'
..
4
41
,_x 66
68
0.5
<1
I
;::{ • =
11
11
69
5.8
5.81
•'
30
<60
70
6
61
+
+
+ 1
71
1
1
I
}`
10
10
72
2
2
:{:,r
33
331
73
+
i.:�{.
gr
+
<60
rf.
77
13
13
•
4
41
79
31
311
: +
tip.
k�r
82
1
1I
82
19
191
83
1
1I
83
13
131
;
86
0.5
<1
f.�r • •
9
'I
87
2
21
87
30
<60
•
2
2
30
<60
92
0.5
<1
I92
93
0.5
<1
I
V;::r 93
7
71
.,
94
95
2
21
95
15
15
• .
+
96
•
97
39
39
• •
0.3
+
98
21
21
..
0.5
<1
99
100
+
I
h'
100
15
151
101
+
I
°
`~ 101
30
<60
102
50
<1001
' 102
33
331
103
30
<60
+
+
.` : r 104
15
151
105
55
<1101
105
4
30
<60
106
9
9
106
32
32
107
50
<100
tier 107
13
13
5/11/94
PAGE 1

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
108
1
1
r,,r 108
81
81
109
1
1
109
12
12
110
0.5
<1
F.{ 110
5
5
111
1
1
111
28
28
112
0.5
<1
rfi 112
22
22
113
0.5
<1
113
40
40
114
50
<100
114
14
14
115
3
3
.:
115
6
6
116
0.5
<1
W:
116
25
<50
117
2
2
14
.
117
32
32
118
2
2
-
118
23
23
119
2
2::s
119
25
25
120
1
1
120
57
57
121
10
10
:: r
121
30
<60
122
0.5
<1
kf
122
30
<60
123
0.5
<1
_.
123
30
<60
124
0.5
<1
f,
124
30
<60
125
0.5
<1
.-
125
7
7
126
14
14
126
62
62
127
12
12
127
36
36
128
2
2
128
15
<30
129
2
2
129
30
<60
130
1
1
130
13
13
131
5
<10
131
31
31
132
5
<10
132
45
45
133
5
<10
133
15
15
134
5
<10
134
16
16
135
13
13
135
1.5
<3
5/11/94
PAGE 1

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
' -arameter =
Zinc AL
? -arameter =
;r,
Standard =
50
/I
W Standard .
Ks•:::J
RESULTS
...A
z.,:x:
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
..n
Std Dev.
28.099810
1
173
173
Std Dev.
58.5223
.s,..,i*
1
Mean
29.3601
2
148
148
Mean
62.9415
'.
2
C.V.
0.95707
3
331
331
C.V.
0.92979
ig
3
4
110
110
4
...„:
.. ..
5
100
100
o.
S .
5
Muft Factor .
1.5
-
6
91
91Mu!tFactor=1
WOOMMOW•01•1•01MIDD
2.36.
0
6
Max. Value
l7Oj9A
—
7
102
102
Max. Value
331
NA
7
Max. Pred Cw
255
p.g/I '..i
8
50
<100
Max. Pred Cw
781.16
µg/I
8
Allowable Cw
160.0
9
100
<200
Allowable Cw
90.9
/I
9
s:...c
10
49
49
10
•
11
71
71
11
12
84
84
12
13
50
<100
ei*u
13
m:.
14
50
<100
•••
14
.•
15
37.5
<75
,,v,
15
. :....4..
16
61
61
:0
4
16
. .
.*....
17
83
83
,,,„
:,,,-
17
18
103
103
::•:1:.
',0,
18
19
0.1
0.1
.
19
....)::-.1
—
20
53
53
,..,
20
21
21
9
9
:,..4.
g:..
____.0
• • 4
22
8
8
;•.•"
W
22
23
55
55
a
:•.:,,,,
23
,
24
42
42
o•
24
k
25
50
50
,,,..
4i
Ov
25
26
21
21
.:::::
. e 1.
26
...•
•,,,
27
45
45
%,;%.1.
:.i:
i.g:
27
-.•,. )
28
15
15
..,?
28
‘,..:
AI—
29
27
27
.4
.1.:
29
30
37
37
.i..,..1
30
At
31
21
21
....?-•
31
32
____xs•iw
32
28
28
.,-..
i.;'''.
:,.-
.....:.::
33
22
22
:k..,
..:::„
33
34
40
40
„.„
4.
,..
34
. :„...
35
14
14
..s.
'b
35
:y.
36
6
6
i
36
37
41
41
e.
•,.. Y
37
;• •
38
40
40
N?.;*
"::::
38.,.
:,...
•K,.
39
52
52
...:
39
40
30
30
.'4?;:-
4:
40
41
131
131
;.••.-
:44:.
.,,,,,
41
;,,in
42
k..,i
.t
42
-;',Vil
43
43
44
.t.
44
- -
45
''.'
45
46
..4
...i-..
46
:
47
:,k•?.
47
48
0:
48
•
'
49
49
50411,
50
51
51
5/11/94
PAGE 1::

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Silver AL
'
W •arameter=
Mercu
0.06
µg/1
_
Standard =
0.012
µg/1
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
`
;/ n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
1.5
<3
Std Dev.
3.894
1
0.1
<.2
Std Dev.
1.5
<3
Mean
2.925
2
0.1
<.2
Mean
1.5
<3
C.V.
1.331
3
0.1
<.2
C.V.
1.5
<3
:•
4
0.1
<.2
1.5
<3
5
0.1
<.2
1.5
<3
Mult Factor =
�._ 3.361
V
6
0.1
<.2
Mult Factor =
5
<10
Max. Value
15
s /l
7
0.1
<.2
Max. Value
5
<10
Max. Pred Cw
50.4
µg/l :
8
0.1
<.2
Max. Pred Cw
1.5
<3
Allowable Cw
0.1
r /l 4.14
9
0.1
<.2
Allowable Cw
1.5
<3
*�A.'
10
6.8
1.5
<311
0.1
<.2
1.5
<5
12
4
4)
1.5
<5
Y .{r
13
1.5
<3
14
1.5
<3
nryrx•
15
11
11
16
0.1
<.2fr
r
17
1
1
.
18
f.
$v 19
15
<30
15
<30
;.x 20
3
3
21
1
1f
- 22
9
9
23
1
1•
24
1
1
25
0.33
0.33
� 26
0.5
<1.0
27
1
1
28
2
2
• 29
0.1
<.2
30
1
1
• 31
1
1
i :r}. 32
4
4
33
v} .. 34
•
35
36
.� 37
r 38
39
i.{ 40
$' 41
-ram 42
' 43
:{ 44
- 45
,v 46
47
48
49
}
h
. LY} 50
_ 51
5/11/94
PAGE 1(

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
arameter =
Iron AL
in Parameter =
} •Standard =
1000
/i
h Standard =
t
b n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DL
2.14766
1
470
470
Std Dev.
250.692
1
0.98333
2
260
260
Mean
540.421
v ¢ 2
2.18406
3
424
424
C.V.
0.46388
•k 3
4
450
450..
4
11,: 6!
5
381
381
5
6
360
360
MO Factor =
2;
6
6.8
µg/l . 7
683
683
Max. Value
1000
µg/I h :• z 7
78.88
/l 8
1000
<2000
Max. Pred Cw
2000
r" ' 8
0.022
L 9
1000
<2000
Allowable Cw
1818.2
/I 9
10
293
293
10
11
303
303
h`_:11
,.: 12
491
491
x 12
ix 13
1000
<2000
k• 13
14
344
344
14
•• 15
575.
575
15
.
• 16
593
593
,. .. 16
55~i:�
17
657
657
Y
;.: 17
.
18
234
234
18
19
750
<1500
19
ki,Sh 1 20
}
20
1L
21
::. 21
22
V22
} 23
23
{ 24
.'s 24
; ' 25
.r 25
:{. 26
- _
:.$•} 26
27
x• 27
A�Y
28
28
r}r}T 29
--
}.
29
30
f .. 30
31
r' 31
32
?' 32
•
33
4
34
T�
-. 34
35
35
36
36
: '• 37
_
V 37
38
38
,f39
_
-
39
.it. 40
r: 40
�{p
41
41
42
42
V 1 4
43
45
<.... 45
46
"' 46
y
:47
47
r
48
:; 48
49•
49
50
50
51
.1 51
5/11/94
PAGE 1 i

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING 0[SELF-MONITORING SUMMARY] Mon, Apr 18, 1994
f •
FACIhITY
RE i9RI MPNT
YEAR MN
MAR
APR
MAY
JI1N
JUL
TAR WWTP
ERM
S NC0058548/001 Bcgin:9/1/91 Frequency( Q'C PR' At JAN. APR JLB, OCT NonComp:
County:MONTGOMI3RY 'legion: PRO Subbmin: CPI:10
OM Special
7Q10: 0.00 IWC(%): 100.00 Order:
Y 90FAIL
91 <15
02 <15
03 311.0
94 30.7
•57.45
FAIL
6t
01.0
Nl
-
FAIL
61.2
21.0
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL,21.2
NI
FAIL
38.7
•••
21.0,30.0
FAIL
FAIL
81.0
<15.0
FAIL
21.2
01.0
30.0
FAIL
21.0
21.0
FAIL
21.2
21.0
30.11
Fntt,-+ :
`..
<15.0IP:
:(0 (1
Na.....,
y
"•.:
---
STATESVILLEFOURTIICREEK WWTP PERM CURLIM:36%
NC0031836/001 Bcgin:5/1/93 Faquoncy: Q P/F A JAN APR JUL OCT NonComp:SINGLE
County:IREDE L!, Region: MRO Suhhnsin: YADO6
l'F:4.0 Special
7Q10: 11.0 IWC(%):36.0 Order.
Y 90 FAIL
91 PASS
92. LATE
93 PASS
94 PASS
P,P
PASS
PASS
--
---
FAIL
PASS
•••
-
PASS FAIL
PASS -
LATE LATE
PASS.PASS -
FAIL
---
••-
--
FAIL FAIL
PASS -
PASS,PASS •••
PASS,PASS -
FAIL
---
--
---
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS '
--
••-
--
STATES V1LLE771IRDCPB3J WWII' PERM CIIRLIM:39%
NC0020591/001 Begin:6/1/90 Frequency: Q P/F A JAN APR JUL OCT NonComp:
County:IREDELL Region: MRO Subbasin: YAD06
PF: 4.00 Special
7Q10:9.8 1WC(%):39 Order
90 PASS
91 PASS
92 LATE
93 PASS
94 PASS
--
-
PASS
-
-
--
•--
-•
-
PASS
PASS
LATE
PASS
--
LATE
-
•••
•-
•-
-
PASS
PASS
PASS,PASS
PASS
---
--
--
-
---
--
-
PASS
NFI
PASS
PASS
•--
--
--
•--
•--
---
STEVCOKNIT PERM CIIR LIM:99%
NC0003450/001 Bcgin:3/1/90 Fnqucncy: Q P/F A JAN APR JUL OCT NonComp:
Counly:DUPLIN Region:WIRO Subbasin:CPF22
PF: 5.0 Special SOC: 9/17/92-10/1/95 CIIR P/F MONIT Q 90% A
7Q10: 0.09 IWC(%):99 Order.
90 --
91 FAIL
92 FAIL,F
93 37.0
94 77.6
--
-
FAIL
21.0
LATE
-
-•
FAIL
<15.0
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
<15.0
-• '
FAIL
37.0
55.0
--
FAIL
<15.0
37.0
FAIL
FAIL
55.0
37.0
--
FAIL
21.0
21.0
-
FAIL
21.0
37.0
FAIL
FAIL
37.0
55.0
PR
FAIL
<15.0
55.0
--
FAIL
FAIL
.55.0
-
STOKES CO. BOARD OF EDUCATION PERM CIIR LIM:9%(GRAB)
NC0044954/001 Begin:4/1/92 Frequency: Q P/F A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp:
County:STOKES Region: WSRO Subbasin: ROA01
PP:0.0173 Special
7Q10: 0.27 IWC( ):9.0 Oak,:
90 •-
91 -
92 -
93 NI
04 -••
-
-
-
PASS
PAS::
-
--
-
-»
-
-
-
•--
-
-
NI
FAIL
--
-
NI
H
-
-
NI
---
"'
-
NI
FAIL
--
--
NI
PASS
"-
---
NI
•••
-
--
NR
PASS
-
•--
NI
-••
STONEVILLE W W1P PERM: 4811R AC LIM 66% (DAPII OR CERIO)
NC0028011/001 Bcgin:4/1/93 Frcqucncy: Q A SEP DEC MAR JUN NonComp:SINGLE
County: ROCKING'IAM Regian:WS12O Subbasin:ROA02
PP:0:250 Special
7Q10: 58.6 IWC(%):0.39 Order:
Y 90 -
91 NONE'
92 ---
03 >BO'
94 --
--
--
--
•--
-
>90
NONE'
>90'
>00'
-
•--
-•-
--
--
--
--
---
>90
LATE
>90'
>00'
-
N3
--
-
-
---
--
--•
NI
NONE'
71.90'
M
---
•-
---
•-•
--
-•
••-
>11O'
10
>90'
N1
>90.0'
STOWI PHIARR MILLS PERM CHR L1M:1.2%
NC0004812/001 Begin:7/1/88 Frequency: Q P/F JAN APR JUL OCT NonComp:
County:GASTON Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB36
PF: 1.00 Special
7Q10' 125.00 IWC(%):1.22 Order
90 PASS
91 PASS
92 PASS
93 PASS
94 Bt
---
-
--
--
PASS
---
--
-
---
141
Ni
PASS
PASS
PASS
bt
-
-
--
N3
-
--
PASS
bt
PASS
PASS
-
Ill
---
-
-
PASS
---
••-
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
-
--
•-
---
---
-•-
•--
SUGAR HILL TRUCK STOP PERM CUR LAM: 2.4%
NC0029831/001 Begin:8/1/93 Frequency: Q P/P A MAY AUG NOV FEB NonComp:SINGLE
County:McDOWE11. Region: ARO Suhbasin:C77130
PF:0.005 Special
7Q10: 0.320 IWC(%):2.36 Order.
90 --
91 ---
92 17.68'
03 >100'
94 -
--
-•
35.35'
>100'
PASS
- -
--•
•••
---
---
'
68.2'.>100'
---
--
---
>100'
PASS
--
---
>100'
---
'-'
---
>100'
•--
---
---
>100-
PASS
•--
Nl
51.76'
---
---
Ill
>100'
---
---
Nl
>100'
B1
--
>tDO'
>100'
NWPASS
SUGAR MOUNTAIN UTILITIES PERM CIIR LIM: 72%; WHEN PF 1.0 CHR LIM 84%
NC0022900/001 Begin:9/1/93 Froquency: Q P/F A JAN APR JUL OCT NonComp:SINGLE
County: AVERY Region: ARO Subhasin: WATDI
PF:0.50 Special
7Q10: 0.30 IWC(%):52.49 Onkel
Y 90 PASS
91 PASS
92 PASS
93 PASS
94 PASS
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
FAIL
PASS
PASS
PASS
--
---
•-
-
-
--
-
-
FAIL
PASS
FAIL
PASS
PASS
---
Na
•--
--
--
PASS
--
FAIL
PASS
PASS
PASS
•--
--
--
-
LATE
--
--
--
SWIFT TEXTILES PERM:48IHR LC50 AC LIM 69%(CERIO OR DAPH) (4/I/94 h
NC0001406J001 Bcgin:1/1/92 Fnaqucncy: Q A JAN APR JUL OCT NonComp:
Counly:IIARNETT Region:FRO Subbasin:CPFI3
PF: 2.50 Special
7Q10: 586 IWC(%):0.66 Order:
90 NONE' -
91 813.1' -
92 38,39' 56.21'
93 >99.0' -
94 LATE,>98.78' 61.30'
-
--
56.21'
--
71.25'
NONE'
94.7'
66.84'
89.79'
-
-
89.87'
-
-
-
-
-•-
NONE'
70.71•
98.81'
66.44'
--
--
--
53.36'
---
--
NI
NONE'
69.B'
83.44'
40.0'
-
--
--
-••
38.07'(s)
--
---
--
66.93'
0 2 consecutive failures = significant noncompliance Y Pro 1990 Dnta Available
LEGEND:
PERM = Pemrit Requirement LET = Administrative Letter - Target Frequency = Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly; DM- Bimonthly; SA- Semiannually: A- Annually: OWI)- Only when discharging: 1)- Discontinuedouitorint: nvprireutem: IS- ('ooJurunl; md,•1mnJrnt sillily
Begin = Flirt month rcnuirud 7Q 10 = Receiving stream low Bow criterion (cfs) A = quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon single failure Months that testing must occur - ex. JAN,APR.JUL,OCT NonComp = Current Compliance Requirement
IT= Permitted flow (MGD) IWC% = Instrcam waste concurtmtion P/F = 1 ass/Fad chronic test AC = Acute CIIR = Chronic
Data Notation: f - Fathead Minnow; • - Ccriodanhnia so.: my - Mvsid shrimp: C6V - Chronic value: P - Mortality of stated percentage nt highest concentration: at - Performed by DEM Act Tog Group; hi - Bad test
Reporting Notation: --- = Dam not required; NR - Not reported; ( ) - Beginning at -Quarter Facility Activity Status: 1- Inactive. N - Newly Issued(ro construct); I1- Active but not discharging; t-More data available for month in question SIG = OW signamn• needed
48

e Page 1
0
Note for Susan Wilson
From: Coleen Sullins
Date: Wed, Apr 13, 1994 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: statesville - 4th creek
To: Susan Wilson
ai = Mc,7
I would get regional input on this. I do not have a problem with two flow limits if the region
does not, but, I also am wary of this type request. I would suggest that we require that the
6MGD limits kick in when they reach 80% capacity (since that is when we start putting
people on sewer moratoriums). How close to this are they? See what the region thinks on
this also. We have insisted in the past that once the facility is built the new limits become
effective, so we need to proceed cautiously with Statesville. Let me know. Coleen
From: Susan Wilson on Fri, Apr 8, 1994 10:49 AM
Subject: statesville - 4th creek
To: Coleen Sullins
statesville has capacity for 6 mgd and has built to 6 mgd, but had requested during the
previous permit that limits for 4 mgd be given because they were well under the 4 mgd and
could not meet the metals limits for 6 mgd. when i did wia last time i recommended only
limits for 4 mgd (in hindsight i should not have done this as this is yanking flow from the
facility- but i had talked to the facility and there was a letter from the facility in '90 requesting
the 4 mgd limits only). so, the previous permit was issued at 4 mgd only. the facility had no
objections to this in the draft comments. now they are requesting that they have limits for 4
mgd and 6 mgd. I'm not sure how to handle this now. it seems that any facility could come
in and say they were underloaded and request limits for the lower flow when they have the
capacity for higher flow.
oK `ct w K . 64oJ) llzs. T• LP iIIM t T s -�vg- .4,cb
rbo 4- /u4 D.
Ku Lj

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0031836
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
City of Statesville
Fourth Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: 4.0 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 69 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 31 %
Comments:
Ia--(. 1110(11.
RECEIVING STREAM: Fourth Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-06
Reference USGS Quad: D15SE (please attach)
County: Iredell
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 7/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles
s T r �/t /C9-
Requested by: Date: 1/6/94
Prepared by: [ /� Date:
Reviewed by �� (� `r Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
Ciskt.
\\ to tkkt.
¶cS
Drainage Area (mi2
) Cll, S Avg. Streamflow (cfs): /1 ,
7Q10 (cfs) it, p Winter 7Q10 (cfs) /g. b 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC Lk.3 % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring/:
Parameters 60I 7a 14 ./ Peer/j Candu�f iV,
Upstream � : Location /DU 4 hoJ� o *A//
Downstream /
>f
Effluent
Characteristics
Location al e�30g
Summer
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (1.tg/1):
TP
TN (mg/1):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
10,617,
Comments: I}'t a/3 ms-rii±ora'r)q r4)i/l be, eQoyt e,
�-47 rough C 7 / `!
Winter
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
4.0 4.0
17 27
12 18
5 5
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Daily Max.
5.5
--139
244
69
14

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requester:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WAS"111,OAD ALLOCATION
Request #
City of Statesville - Fourth Creek WWTP
NC0031836
69% Domestic / 31% Industrial
Existing
Renewal
Fourth Creek
C
03-07-06
Iredell
Mooresville -06
Susan A. Wilson
1/6/94
D15SE
7715 MC. 1YET'T': of
ENVIFLONMEN'T, HEALTH;
% NA rwwRAd. RESOURCES
PEE 9 1994
iV1SION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OfF14
Stream Characteristic:
USGS Hydro. Area
Calculation Method
Drainage Area (nu2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
Region HA10:
Regional Equation
4
.5
11.0 (7.5) _i
18.0 (11.3)
46.5
45.3
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
New USGS flow guidelines caused the 7Q10 estimate to drop from 11.0 cfs to 7.5 cfs, which
caused the Level-B model to predict a DO sag of 4.66 mg/1 using the existing limits. This
predicted over allocation will need to be addressed in the implementation of the Yadkin River
Basinwide Plan. Since this is a renewal with no modifications no limit changes are warranted at
this time.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
.71
T / pfAh( G 0 r E comer c r S ci(r `/ko cc-6)1 . (jav W 4,?ar . ,
prj
Recommended by: e• Le 2' Date:
Reviewed by
( �� 0114 Date: 01/q4
Inseam Assessment: �.frc� /
Regional Supervisor: i . I C-, e.. %/ems Date: 2/7 7/5
Permits & Engineering: aet-e/7-elj �f ,fiof/r�� Date: 3//9t/
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
1 ct=i 0

2
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (1.1.g/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
4.0 4.0
17 27
12 18
5 5
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Recommended Limits: RECOMMEND COMPLETE ADOPTION OF EXISTING LIMITS.
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/l):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Iron (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Silver (ug/1):
Recommended Limits
TOXICS/METALS
Chronic Ceriodaphnia
P/F @ 36%
Retain existing limit
January, April, July, October
Daily Max.
5.5
139
monitor
244
69
monitor
14
monitor
monitor
monitor
C J A-►'JY o f = E 5E WI -row
oLIMP?
7
RECOMMEND COMPLETE ADOPTION OF EXISTING LIMITS
_X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: at least 100 ft. upstream
Downstream Location: at SR #2308
Parameters: DO, Temp., Fecal Coliform, Conductivity
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDPITONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) _Y_ (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysis
if modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? 6 (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.
� `T f �z .. f' lee tub.4 !logo cit. ri-vt?"/

Facility Name , WWt 5t) I.c l'th (. r. IAA)* 7 Permit # A/c O i g3 (o Pipe # �
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is No % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
Ala r7 , kr T:4 1 Oc+ . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 1I cfs
Permitted Flow y. a MGD
IWC 3lo, O %
Basin & Sub -basin 03-07- 3(c.
Receiving Stream JouC_re ek
County TP_d-l(
Recommended by:
.e, Ago&
Daie /qt
QCL PIF Version 9191

ii a 3:Ase_ ,--,
_ ___ __ 7 f -(//zad osigeAA-(4,
<'i�� 6� Vl iJi,'_ .o‘frici(e,v< ._/rA, ' 4,*-,,,-L/
, ,, /(/7 . c1 4 - '''V'X t
d o i35 = /‘i s'► �- = /.D_ ,-cat (,, �- �CJ 0-
/979 - 4. ooi.. -= 1t)
J
41f):- _A
60os
/73--00
75
--eci I-
v✓zt4 �,.a'n2 G�
.r -
7611()= 11,0 cFs.) 60005
wq/L._ ,
J .4444:67
a /1_40 f()
A-4/Lq
4
APIs AS 4

( 0 , b ( ii 1
__LA) kite,a
_11C) c2;:rye/AL.-e-
edue( ,ams_
?ge#1(47:Lri47
,ez-x-ez,v12„e7t4 i11 dQ 4€4,41
AA)C74a-
iczovicAL- ,cloypiotd_____.b,14/
102f4h__
Wow-
11
11.414-{
lajej.),L

944, c
_ MC_
Izzy 66,,A• oeezic,
4,7ze,
4-g)zicd 2.K.Z4( x.,45.461/wryv S474v,z,i( •>.(f}u7-
,`//4
f_TZ
re,/ iLle/egiidL Z:0
cvE iorndpee-,
wr
true __21161 4LID 11/166. a.
, an, m. _ p(,-,,,___.".t,__ 4,-.7;?F
Ot, fris(
on n'Adeh .fr CctolinLq
C A c_uni. (Ayvv 1361 fi----
Ai icke,1 .c(i
(.ca 01 (061 a% it_
C\ 1 n iote. 14
J
771m1,61
vt_04,1 .7_Kgri(afiltzial
t1_Cd4
-472.1:{Y 441a-4 ?20761151C4I-
____/171..0tAGOU4 - f
---f • 7
dAe. '&3464e? 4J-
LYthetLC(241( Rj- :10c-
•-•7 fO 1 Lc).t

dead C
fritA
,S GP-6 (
. c<o-G1 -'
V
leL02,3 dzia att._64,1J:14,:, -4 !:-/-e-,4
?Q Q_
c
> 2t,5c
-e7A-31/7__ e.eitf _ >Ye- .'ic:?!)-(•_otij_
-ewe-6 i;;I)croli.L___ iittztd - .)-zez,i
4obc.e..
L o'er
/X-ILO --)4-4/0-XIA___ "LW ,A11,4
'Cr77-e(41/e/61 7Q14)
> ✓ Le 41 A Ot t �l1/L n!-kk
%tom -ara4 - -a,v
!?, 7
2;;I C.+�
Awo--1, ,4-to ..datatei
h744 4e. iiFvodu WiAL,
w-Lit 6:;) d41(,;Lie-x: Am". ,otot,t
On-
0Os
a- ieV) L

olfreAta
6,4x0,445/aL/A,e7c._
/6,14.tz
‘Z,a
A-017u c-7&
IA)
(cri(f,
r -
L
//AR&
X,074_wk"--,be
AQA-4774-1 f.-0V
e4,44tZ
>56,
-m(4 4zji nwzi
021, 14h4/ 4R)2&,eirm
JY,6t_
A;,4 Aur/PL Aciti
012 t iitri4 )tartuel a/4,e7( 4-4,1A.4
iPt 40 iourA (.41,0-t)7& Atwvotwz.,
ke.44t4 3 rtq / UfidiATAI/m1 deru-SP,
ox,d 4,/,)e_0( &yik;th-td
,x,d( crit. ,04)6zovnt
J-1/44id-' YIL2.

PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW 02/02/94
Discharger:
Receiving stream:
Stream Class:
7Q10:
Design flow:
Actual flow:
Percent industrial:
IWC:
Statesville 4th Creek
Fourth Cr.
C
11.0
4.0
2.8
31.0%
36.0
cfs
mgd
mgd
%
NPDES Permit No.:
Subbasin:
NC0031836
Actual Actual Total Permitted Total Observed
Domestic Industrial Actual Industrial Permitted Effluent
Pollutant Standard Removal Load Load Load Load Load Conc.
(ug/1) Eff. (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (Ibs/day) (lbs/day) (ug/1)
Cadmium 2 S 50% 0.120 0.010 0.13 0.113 0.233 31.7
Chromium 50 S 71% 0.610 0.352 0.96 3.006 3.616 32
Copper 7 AL 77% 1.590 0.110 1.70 1.933 3.523 61.9
Nickel 88 S 37% 1.100 0.260 1.36 2.954 4.054 140
Lead 25 S 50% 0.640 0.140 0.78 0.943 1.583 58
Zinc 50 AL 79% 1.470 0.200 1.67 3.180 4.650 103
Cyanide 5 S 96% 0.490 0.718 1.21 0.092 0.582 31
Iron 1 AL 90% 25.030 0.583 25.61 34.940 59.970 1868
Silver 0.06 AL 99% 0.250 0.000 0.25 0.563 0.813 37
Arsenic 50 S 0.00 0.000
Predicted Predicted Predicted
Allowable Effluent Effluent Instream Based on Based on Based on
Allowable Background Effluent Conc Conc Conc ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVED
Load Conc Conc ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent
pbs/day) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data
Cadmium 0.33 0 5.548 2.780 4.986 11.413 Limit Limit Limit
Chromium 14.25 0 138.710 11.940 44.879 11.521 Monitor Limit Limit
Copper 2.52 0 19.419 16.734 34.678 22.285 Monitor Monotor Monitor
Nickel 11.55 0 244.129 36.669 109.305 50.403 Limit Limit Limit
Lead 4.13 0 69.355 16.691 33.883 20.881 Limit Limit Limit
Zinc 19.68 0 138.710 15.009 41.788 37.082 Monitor Monitor Monitor
Cyanide 10.33 0 13.871 2.068 0.996 11.161 Limit Monitor Limit
Iron 0.83 0 2.774 109.617 256.655 672.515 Monitor Monitor Monitor
Silver 0.50 0 0.166 0.107 0.348 13.321 Monitor Monitor Monitor
Arsenic 4.13 0 138.710 0.000 0.000 0.000

Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.8 :1
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
11 7010 (CFS)
4 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.2 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
36.05 IWC (%)
47.16 Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
200/1o0m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
11
4
6.2
1.0
0.22
36.05
2.38
18
4
6.2
1.8
0.22
25.62
6.39
2/2/94

PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW 01/24/94
Discharger:
Receiving stream:
Stream Class:
7Q10:
Design flow:
Actual flow:
Percent industrial:
IWC:
Statesville 4th Creek
Fourth Cr.
C
7.5
4.0
2.8
31.0%
45.3
cfs
mgd
mgd
%
NPDES Permit No.:
Subbasin:
NC0031836
Actual Actual Total Permitted Total Observed
Domestic Industrial Actual Industrial Permitted Effluent
Pollutant Standard Removal Load Load Load Load Load Conc.
(ug/1) Eff. (Ibs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (ug/1)
Cadmium 2 S 50% 0.120 0.010 0.13 0.113 0.233 31.7
Chromium 50 S 71% 0.610 0.352 0.96 3.006 3.616 32
Copper 7 AL 77% 1.590 0.110 1.70 1.933 3.523 61.9
Nickel 88 S 37% 1.100 0.260 1.36 2.954 4.054 140
Lead 25 S 50% 0.640 0.140 0.78 0.943 1.583 58
Zinc 50 AL 79% 1.470 0.200 1.67 3.180 4.650 103
Cyanide 5 S 96% 0.490 0.718 1.21 0.092 0.582 31
Iron 1 AL 90% 25.030 0.583 25.61 34.940 59.970 1868
Silver 0.06 AL 99% 0.250 0.000 0.25 0.563 0.813 37
Arsenic 50 S 0.00 0.000
Predicted Predicted Predicted
Allowable Effluent Effluent Instream Based on Based on Based on
Allowable Background Effluent Conc Conc Conc ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVED
Load Conc Conc ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent
(lbs/day) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data
Cadmium 0.26 0 4.419 2.780 4.986 14.331 Limit Limit Limit
Chromium 11.00 0 110.484 11.940 44.879 14.466 Limit Limit Limit
Copper 1.94 0 15.468 16.734 34.678 27.983 Monitor Monotor Monitor
Nickel 8.91 0 194.452 36.669 109.305 63.290 Limit Limit Limit
Lead 3.19 0 55.242 16.691 33.883 26.220 Limit Limit Limit
Zinc 15.19 0 110.484 15.009 41.788 46.564 Monitor Monitor Monitor
Cyanide 7.97 0 11.048 2.068 0.996 14.014 Limit Monitor Limit
Iron 0.64 0 2.210 109.617 256.655 844.476 Monitor Monitor Monitor
Silver 0.38 0 0.133 0.107 0.348 16.727 Monitor Monitor Monitor
Arsenic 3.19 0 110.484 0.000 0.000 0.000

Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.2 :1
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7.5 7010 (CFS)
4 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.2 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
45.26 IWC (%)
37.56 Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (°/a)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
7.5
4
6.2
1.0
0.22
45.26
1.94
11.3
4
6.2
1.8
0.22
35.43
4.68
1 /24/94

January 27, 1994
NOTE TO BASIN FILE
YADKIN RIVER BASIN
SUBBASIN 03-07-06
The WLA for Statesville's Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) was completed as an
existing / renewal on January 26, 1994. Since there were absolutely no modifications to
the facility the permit was renewed with existing limits. However, updated USGS
procedures from the "Low- Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina" guidelines
caused the 7Q10 estimate to drop from 11 cfs to 7.5 cfs. The decreased flow caused the
Level-B modeling analysis to predict DO sag of 4.66 mg/1 under critical conditions. The
predicted over allocation of Fourth Creek is a matter that will need to be addressed in the
issuance of permits for the Yadkin River Basin Plan.
Two additional areas of the permit will be affected by the decreased stream flow. The
limits for metals will become more stringent as per mass balance analysis with less dilution
in stream (if the previously employed spreadsheet method is used). The IWC% will also
need to be changed for the Toxicity Test requirement. These areas can also be addressed in
the implementation of the basin plan.
It should also be noted that in Fourth Creek there is a strong potential for interaction
between Statesville's facility and the discharges for Southern States Fertilizer
(NC0082821) and Cooleemee WWTP (NC0024872). This section of the creek may need
to be studied more closely for the basin plan. There is a Level-B model covering all three
of these facilities in the Southern States Fertilizer WLA file. The model is well constructed
and uses the most recent flow estimates, but Cooleemee's design flow may have increased
since it was done.
Please see the wasteload file on this facility for more details and information.
cc: Wasteload File
Michelle Wilson

76(0(63C6
FACILITY NAME: •
SiA1-664
�C831 LLB ` CV 6 NPDES -NO. N000
6
/. RE.GION:
Ko
This facility has no SIUs and : should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing, a pretreatment program..
Please include the following conttions
Program Development
Phase I due / /
Phase II due / /
Additional Conditions
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment
(attached)
Please include the following conditions:
Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS
SITJ FLOW - TEAL: NYC
- COMPOSITION:
TEXTILE: • iCD
METAL FINISHING: MGD
OTHER: ND
MGD •
•
MGD
HEADWIDlaCS REVIEW
. PASS
PARAMETER
!THROUGH. DAJZY . IOAD IN : LBS/LAY ACTUAL
;ALLOWABLE DOMESTIC PERMrril.) INDUSTRIAL % REMOVAL
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
Phenol
Other
e re n. 0
RIVED: L / 3 ' �l 1/ REVIEWED BY : ; ' : 1 r 1 /21.
,
Ae t,.# S t U1 s o " u " creek s ,'Ace 0101, L 7Nt- P 0140, Lr been red uiarA-4 ,
r

q2.0 6z563
R.--CY.3ESTER:r—AN PL•E-g,
S CA-176Sv
TY NAME: Fb Cap \.../ \-41-1? -,.141)DES NO. NCOO 3
DATE: G /25/9a. REGION:1102.66.146
PE:a4c,r; CONDITIONS COVERING PRETREAMENT
REG
1,••••• •••••••••
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatrrent program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Develogrent
Phase I due / /
Phase II due 77
Additional Conditions
JUN 2 5 1992
(attached)
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT f3Ritiefie include the following conditions:
Program Implementation
..• Additional Conditions
WED
(attached)
••
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS' (Sills) CONTRIBUTIONS
SIU FLOW -
- COMPOSTI'ICN:
6.85 MGD
'TEXTILE: • .0 . Lich5
METAL FINISHINV: 0.3 (3
OTHER: & A.s-s
PAPe4 o 3 v„.
MGD
MGD
MD
MGD
MGD
MGD
HEACTAORKS REVIEW
PASS
PARAMETER ;THROUGH
;MMBLE
cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
PhenAl.
Other r e--
o,2,1
f 0
AL
Lcie,
AL.
0 • f3 3
b(0
,
° ‘V 0A--"(6A .
DAILY
DCMESTTC
-2.552•
0 .61
.5 q
, 0
417
25.o3
WAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL
PERMITELD T-DURIAL REMOVAL
•
,004(.1 561(
.35Z /*
.110 -7.2_45`
, 6-7 - 37
,1 LIO
200 7--
_
,5 B3
cr
RECEIV: C / 2/ q2- REVIEWED BY:
REIURNED:

LONG TERM MONITORING PLAN REQUEST FORM 414,
03C
i
FACILITY: SVA i E>�; e
-7
NPDES NO.: lJC C G ZC t 91
EXPIRATION DATE: / 3 i 711--
REGION: Al 40
P&E REQUESTOR: S tit) i So it-)
DATE: 2 /3 /91T
INDICATE THE STATUS OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAM:
1) THE FACILITY HAS N4 ► ■ OUL r. ► OT HAVE PRETREATMENT LANGUAGE.
2) THE FACILITY HAS OR IS DEVELOPING A PREATREATMENT PROGRAM.
3) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REGARDING THE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ATTACHED.
-z(i/TLf ArA
54-e-(
i LTA di�,� re�ei �e,� 2 f oaf �`1,
— i'c k\-a- cAeL )1e'gre- -t-il,,c.
c . V 1vti^46 sap) i vt. -Ii-u‘,1(e/vN neitN) w\ a) b r i /4 144-7
7
ti\tIceti--t, C-ci4e.1
7/q L ,� � �� kaf
0 7 I
ee �+ Q✓�, ` eico 1444,35- S'l kc2 j rii^S.-i I ) d&ie ')3 S.- I'.tt7_
-444.4uAci
IJ--
c ►^2 vq.P.dcd

Date
Sampled
NH3N
0. 13
i--cQ -93 . /0
0. rt
ta- -7-3 a l7
u,l
.0\o
RECEIVED
FEB 1 0 1994
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT UNIT
MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 3RD CREEK EI'I'LUEN
(mg/1) J,IvvV\I \ Y\ L
BOD
1.14
8
09
q
COD
b
20
qq•
�a3
l 9,3
TSS
7
la
27
Cd
Io
11
ll
16
K
Pb __N1
/So
15-0
Fed
rA
7' 35o
/4 13: /6,2 . 3
fro I30 /2 3 366

Date
Sampled
NH3N
(r9C.61f,
Yl o Caro o}• 1;
i-2‘1-c0
9-*
9--/5
.';,o
.1`-)
.l4
.1 (0
.a5
./9
418
l llJ
MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 3RD CREEK EFFLUENT
jcji) LUC3 I
BOD
Cz,,
3,0
13.46
I!,
1 6,5
shy
COD
36.0
1-/t0'
3�.D
ii"i
cp I
�9
51
86
(mg/1)
TSS • Cd
i
t-)
a14,
LA'
7q , 3 3
q.33
11.61
Cr
3,o
(s0
400
Cu
50
/1
Pb
i2a
9.0
1
6,5
33.5
:.5I I(1
97
7�D
,0210
7�.
96,
70
9l
ai
is
gio
3 /
Ni Zn �eW9JL
Ag -H-j-
L4, (, 51.0
6.Lk La .
.0c17
b .GAS
37 -26 paillp
autf
71511 sale
07.9 11c ;.I(4.
.(to. 11 a 4 3o .764
z 3D ,3)q
iii45 'LI UP
.34 ftisg
z3 y3g
L3 3P
43 ,
L 3 , /3s

(Yic)-116 i n IP
MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 3RD CREEIC EFFLUENT
(mg/1)
t.
Date
Sampled

MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 4TH CREEIC EFFLUENT
• (mg/1)
eAriz
Date
Sampled
NH3N
BOD
COD
TSS
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Ag
_Fig
Ia S
. )5
1
(D c0
33
L j
Lrl
;S
Pp)
V
eL 53
3
a-9-93
,/4
4
ko
4,1
..r6
a /,1
.55110
�1
3
3�
ra-g03
. t3
go.
As
4LI
2/
(A
P
/C�
ita
,406

MONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 4TH CREEIC EFFLUENT
(mg/1)
3rkka ft,01 uk,11‘d J
rC
3
t
-17_y3 'OP
1� /a 4.5 Flo ab z,,2 • 49l

Date
Sampled
NI-3N
UONITORED POLLUTANTS IN 4TH CREEIC EFFLUENT
(mg/1)
BOD
COD TSS Cd
Cu
NOttioin )V
Pb
Ni Zn Ag
7-1I-5/ .9G
.30
v 33
J/7t
s og
w,
10.
ay,a
3'7 9 H.(1)
s
'7 2 ‹.11c ,
Le I 4 q 41.0 <40
a
9.0
qi
•
• —A Li)
1 9. ,
5 .�
• i
f •
Ip.SS
45 • io
'1C
.40 (O.
42t ti.a <tio
zip0
`4.0M •/.3
1-11.0 ) 1.3o 4100
34;1 . �r
/153 Lb
)2.0
5.0
10.0
88
13
aq
35"
29
ai
Z IQ
11.Ca•1
V,
6)f3
- 30
q1
Cg`i
531
3:76
1O.D
45-
31.0
Fe
it
L-/,O
I
,145 .15
30 3 .23
50 1. 0 )45'
`3(a . 037 .13'
30 I .;.. 1
.5 1, P..�3
5-
1
137
P7s
a,ax .a9
sa .69)4.i�'
3_3 371 ,ai .1^C

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 20, 1994
MEMORANDUM
1O: COLEEN SULLINS
THRU: CARLA SANDERSON et
RUTH SWANEK kcs
FROM: MICHELLE WILSON 41!K d'j 03, 0 7 0
SUBJECT: Statesville -Third Creek
NC0020591
Iredell County
ITEM #4 Mercury monitoring should be dropped from the NPDES permit.
It is included in the Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP).
I requested monitoring for Mercury due to the types of SIUs
and the lack of data for this toxicant. The LTMP data will be
sufficient to evaluate the need for a limit at next permit renewal.
The data used to determine whether a limit is necessary for Cyanide and
Cadmium is attached. The facilities' effluent concentrations exceeded the
allowable for both toxicants. In addition, the toxicant analysis concluded the
maximum predicted concentrations, for cyanide and cadmium, would exceed
the allowable concentration which is necessary to protect water quality in
Third Creek. Higher daily maximum concentrations may be allocated if a
facility agrees to perform additional monitoring. (i.e. monitor 5 times per
week) to meet a weekly average limit.
Cyanide (ug/1):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Daily Maximum
51.6
12.8
Weekly Average
12.9
5.2
Given the above set of limits, the permittee will only have to monitor once per
week if the first sample is equal or less than the weekly average limit.

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
arameter =
Cyanide
Standard =
5
µg/I
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
1
11
11
Std Dev.
2.80476
2
12
12
Mean
9
3
7
7
C.V.
0.31164
4
6
6
5
6
6
6
10
10
Muft Factor =1
1.6
7
12
12
Max. Value
14
µg/I
8
11
11
Max. Pred Cw
22.4
µg/I
9
8
8
Allowable Cw
12.9
µg/I
10
14
14
11
5
5
12
8
8
13
11
11
14
6
6
15
11
11
16
6
6
17
18
9/20/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter-
Cadmium
1
Standard=
. 2
Wg/l
n
BDL.1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
1
16.1
16.1
Std Dev.
11.25415674
2
18.9
18.9
Mean
19,07142857
3
19.6
19.6
C.V.
0.590105597
4
18.7
18.7
5
21.9
21.9
6
6.5
6.5
Mint Factor = .
2.6
'Rite
7
33.5
33.5
Max. Value
Wg/I
8
17.9
17.9
Max. Pred CIA
132.34
µg/I
9
16
16
Allowable Cw
5.2
Nil_
10
16
16
11
50.9
50.9
f
12
10
10
13
11
11
14
10
10
15
16
17
18
9/20/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAGE

Pavuwu �� W k PV qx Wee/z1AV d l uhon x Yz plc/ Sin (hut
51.( ZZup" 56vol.( 6 to",
Cd.. 5.2 v(1l.( ao,$ 5 uoli 12,g
V'lC=397
Dr IVho = 1INC _ 0.39 _ Z, SC9
/ I
Pr ( +910,5 r S'I Yt [� � {,t I_ 0/� t/
Orkx Wei
are � cis 51; 6 vy l P l2 , q 71
Codyn,vvm 12,8 ,2 5,2 u?
Stiob I d vGi'es k rovn
C�atmr 5Z 13
CG.d ram, „w 1 3 5
121 5.2 a ti 4' (,n t kr 6-, L4ILH

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Statesville -Third Creek WV'
NPDES #
NC0020591
Ow (MGD)
4
7,210s (cfs)
9.8
/WC (%)
38.75
Reeving Stream
,
Third Creek
Stream Class
__
N1.NNMMIN.MN_.._.._.N.._NN.�
,_N_.._._N_.._N_C.._..___.._.._._
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
_ 132.34
Allowable Cw
5.2
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
207.2
Allowable Cw
129.0
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
166.4
Allowable Cw
64.5
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
420
Allowable Cw
227.1
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
78
Allowable Cw
0.2
Iron
Max. Pred Cw
0.8702
Allowable Cw
2.6
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
22.4
Allowable Cw
12.9
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
840
Allowable Cw
129.0
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
254.8
Allowable Cw
18.1
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0'
9/20/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAGE

cf\)
t. I3 S
_ Cor5
1 I c 7t) s.90) to)
6.4
z-5-o
>glit)-47,5
4,(41‘\ (4, f.k,
dta
/al I to
4.9t) 0. (47
5.11 III `j' ) ( 1
31q1 74) cam,% 7.8j
g.8
V4F-y 11 70,
E'u9$ __to I I( I 10,74
(Lop �Z
11/13 __ j iecbic)
tt :71 10
i(o/014-/ 61.0
36.
1/1-5 97, LH g
so,q1-
66,,o, 74,0 -
......... ..
(oi col
6,) '7? 4C
r
Q !7.8,/S2.
/*dr A&L6 —
7n Mter "re14,y
AvgiA Gs), -0(c__
rxdo m
et-1& kfr'S
Cr C.44 twivak_r
Nie UrTadi

1,0 1311
6,4) 3, (0191 c.-7,
CNI
&&--( Z .5 (3c)
61(411 0(5)
o . N
044?
(5)( )
-- Tirtio.67
zo , 141
4J-
3e2,t4
.1 .3i Lcit(ogic.;1
z .6 (lb()
+.0
ZcL
Z.Z•5 k
Lt_ _2/ Zi 41(4)
6..51
)
101 1(1) Zo, I 8,ZZ-
, zel 74
Y, 43, 12
17 1Z 17 z_ci
1
13., 501' It, 11)8
ZviIi 13 --
Lz.5-(3,
.Z Z, 0
e- o
) 3o
Wcli, 41/ 4,0 fi56.0-
)
to 4- zZ
70, of44,0

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
T0:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 30, 1994
SUSAN WILSON
CARLA SANDERSON
MICHELLE WILSON ?VIA)
Statesville -Third Creek
NC0020591
Iredell County
Go 9/30/94 ryLe.fr--
Item 1:
North Carolina's current procedure for protecting an instream criteria
involves an analysis considering the standard and dilution at the point of
discharge. Until we develop new procedures for the state, these methods apply
to all discharges. However, higher daily maximum concentrations may be
allocated if a facility performs weekly monitoring. For ,implementation
purposes, the Permittee may choose to collect multiple`&athe week and base
the number of analyses run on the outcome of the first sample. If the first
sample is in compliance with the weekly average limit, then no more analyses
need to be run for that week. If, on the other hand, the first sample is above
the weekly average, then more samples will need to be analyzed and ensure
compliance with both the weekly average and daily maximum limits. The
following are the daily maximums and the weekly averages for the parameters
of concern.
Cadmium (ug/l):
Chromium (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Lead (ug/I): *
Daily Max
8' ft.�
Weekly average
5.2
516 129
908 227.1
51,(9 12.9
%5 86,7 61, 5
* Acute level with dilution is lower than weekly average; therefore, a daily
max limit of 64.5 ug/1 only should be given in permit.
Item 2:
Due to the fact that the facilities maximum effluent concentration is
lower than the allowable (maximum predicted is greater than the allowable)
and this is a new requirement, the facility should be allowed to monitor only
for the first year and then the limit should apply for both Chromium and
Nickel. Due to the variability of the data, a safety factor was applied to highest
recorded value to determine whether or not a limit was needed.

Item 3:
I recommend at least monthly monitoring. However, the monitoring
frequency should be based on facility class to ensure equality between
permits.
Item 4:
In the staff report, Kim Colson recommended monitoring for Chlorides
and MBAS. MBAS because the City's effluent contains surfactants. Mercury is
included in the LTMP; therefore, it can be dropped from the NPDES permit.
Conductivity requirement should be the same as existing permit. Selenium
appeared in last two APAMs, it is not included in the LTMP and it should be
monitored so we can gather more data to determine whether or not a limit is
necessary.

D1
Weeks V
Allav4
IWUr, u�/L
0110 tip c ;) blq (tit L
clef lit_
Legoi
- i Y 4,130 /9 ikuutto dv
S'K ah L J)/kn--
1Da.I L rna_X
Dum /� F1 *icif loho
!a� 56
d7-7r ! 40
I (al 5
C4-.5 l6U
O L = r4„di him ckLcel
(11 I0'0v1
uUs RD\AJ = mG, ,2 c
"7QIO = � c S
�(2
0l•39 2-•5�
I, (7
$�X�76=la4z
aax i,(c)
33,gx1_,(/
35,
pllou61k'1
070.
51�
514
xS-foo
54 4--,> aaa.5
/p-114 i 3d/9g
f '.$x 256' = 7-523.7
'78, 2. 5- 5 = 20 2-3 0
.33izS,(OO ±Bz5Z2a X 2,56ei 56,Li
33.5' )(L.SlHf
I W" =
bats/ /PG.X 'h We,-Anif S.'/o
/2- k 711
CY = 5/6 v /4°
Cv! 5/.
Pb 16•7 ud/l

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter=
Cadmium
1
Standard =
, 2+
µg/l
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
1
16.1
16.1
Std Dev.
11.25415674
2
18.9
18.9
Mean
19.07142857
3
19.6
19.6
C.V.
0.590105597
4
18.7
18.7
5
21.9
21.9
6
6.5
6.5
Mult Factor =
2.61
7
33.5
33.5
Max. Value
_ _ _ _ _
�� �� �� �� �50.9
µg/I
8
17.9
17.9
Max. Pred Cw
132.34
µg/l
9
16
16
Allowable Cw
5.2
µg/l
10
16
16
11
50.9
50.9
12
10
10
13
11
11
14
10
10
15
6/29/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
larameter =
Chromium
Standard = 50 µg/I
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
1
30
<60
Std Dev.
16.5
2
30
<60
Mean
23.46
3
15.9
15.9
C.V.
0.703
4
25.1
25.1
5
0.97
0.97
6
11.4
11.4
Mutt Factor =
2.8
7
74
74
Max. Value
74
8
26
26
Max. Pred Cw
207.2
9
26
26
Allowable Cw
129.0
10
26
26
11
5
<10
12
5
<10
13
28
28
14
22
22
15
26
26
16
24
24
17
18
i
c,
1i)
6/29/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAGE '

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter =
Nickel
Standard =
88_,Jtg/I
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
1
8.4
8.4
Std Dev.
47.098
2
9.1
9.1
Mean
64.835
3
87.91
87.91
C.V.
0.7264
4
2.95
2.95
5
30
<60
6
30
<60
Mutt Factor =
2.8
7
29
29
Max. Value
150
µg/I
8
60
60
Max. Pred Cw
420
µg/I
9
70
70
Allowable Cw
227.1
µg/I
10
60
60
11
120
120
12
40
40
13
90
90
14
120
120
15
150
150
16
130
130
17
18
6/29/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAGE

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
NPDES #
Statesville -Third Creek WV
NC0020591
Ow (MGD)
7Q10s (cfs)
IWC (%)
Reeving Stream
Stream Class
4
9.8
38.75
Third Creek
C
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
132.34
Allowable Cw
5.2
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
207.2
Allowable Cw
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
166.4
Allowable Cw
64.5
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
420
Allowable Cw
227.1
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
78
Allowable Cw
0.2
Iron
Max. Pred Cw
0.8702
Allowable Cw
2.6
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
22.4
Allowable Cw
12.9
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
840
Allowable Cw
129.0
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
254.8
Allowable Cw
18.1
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
p
6/29/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAG

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 29, 1994
Memorandum
To: Michelle Wilson
From: Susan A. Wilson
Subject: Statesville -Third Creek
NC0020591
Iredell County
Please review the attached comments regarding the Statesville -Third Creek draft permit.
...alp On Item 1, we may offer weekly average/daily maximum for the limited metals (please
provide), especially cadmium; Item 2, we may agree to one year of monitoring before
implementation of the limit; Item 3, this is based on the classification of the facility (Class
IV) and will not be changed; Item 4, please provide written justification for the derivation
of these parameters (since only quarterly monitoring is required, this does not seem
excessive).

IIitg of
-tateSti% 'd
7
tle
11. OP. 18nx 1.1.11 * OtuteuuiUe, North Carolina 28827-1.11.1
June 15, 1994
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Statesville - Third Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Permit No. NC0020591
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The City of Statesville (the "City") is in receipt of draft permit NPDES No. NC0020591
(the "draft permit") prepared by the Division of Environmental Management ("DEM") for the
City's wastewater treatment facility at Third Creek. The City appreciates the opportunity to
comment on this draft before a final permit is issued. We have set forth our comments and
concerns below.
1. The City believes that the cadntium limit was wrongly derived and should be
recalculated. Our understanding is that the cadmium limit in our draft permit was calculated as
follows: (Maximum in-sprmn concentration) x (dilution factor). Pursuant to 15A NCAC
2B.0211(b)(3)(L)(li) the maximum in -stream concentration for cadmium is set at 0,4 for trout
waters and 2.0 for non -trout waters. Our research indicates that this in -stream concentration is
unreasonably stringent. The State adopted these values based upon EPA guidance published in
1985, Alnbient Watr Qu?ity Criteria for Cadmium - 1984, USEPA, Office of Water. Jan.
1985. EPA, however, has significantly revised its position on the derivation of the water quality
criteria for cadmium since the publication of this document. See Interim Guidance on
• • f A • . : ' f • r - , USEPA, Office or Science
& Technology, May 1992 and Guidance Document on Dynamic Modeling, and Translators,
August 1993, USEPA, Office of Water Policy, and the Memorandum entitled Technical
knee on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, USEPA, Office
of Water, October 1, 1993 (hereinafter "memorandum").
I .ti9•
n
!! P IS
on
c.0'd 6T66££L6T6T
a. d31.t 3 /831¶T 1 I n , WOeld Wdss : o 1766T-0J90

£0 • d -P Ao1
Mr. David A. Goodrich
June 15, 1994
Page 2
The subsequently published guidance documents recognize that the water quality criteria
for cadmium was too stringent. While EPA develops new criteria, EPA recommends that states
accept site specific criteria, Memorandum p.5. The site -specific criteria can be derived using
a variety of methods including the Recalculation Procedure and the water -effect ratio method as
set forth in Intexim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for Meng,
USEPA, Office of Water, February 1994. The City would like to use these methods to
recalculate its cadmium limit.
2. The City believes the effluent limits for chromium and nickel in the draft permit
should be replaced by a monitoring requirement. The limits for chromium and nickel are new,
the current permit only requires monitoring for these parameters. The City has duly monitored
these parameters since 1990 and the results have indicated no instance of excen chromium or
aek Permit limits are, therefore, unnecessary, rather, the City should be required to continue
monitoring for these parameters. , . .-rJ - ;C-
3. The City does not believe that increased monitoring is justified for copper, zinc
and silver. The permit increases the City's monitoring responsibilities from one time per month
to twice a month for these parameters. This increase appears unjustified; our monitoring data
indicate that these parameters are well within acceptable limits. The requirement of increased
monitoring of these parameters, therefore, will require the City to incur unnecessary costs.
.�
4. The City believes that the permit unjustifiably requires monitoring for new
parameters. The permit requires monitoring for five new parameters: selenium, chlorides,
methylene -blue active substances ("MBAS"), mercury and conductivity. These new
requirements are burdensome and unnecessary. As specified in the City's application, selenium,
mercury and MBAS are not present in the City's effluent. Further, the City is not aware of any
rationale for the requirement that chlorides and conductivity be monitored.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. The City would like to meet with the
DEM staff to discuss these concerns before a final permit is issued.
Sincerely,
L. F. "Joe" Hudson, Jr., Director
Water/Wastewater Treatment
LFHisg
£0•d 6T66££L6T6T
01 d31 .WM 311 I n d W0 Jd Wd9s : Z0 1766T-ST-90

14- /)'?c k' 09-4)_
cicie/7\ .
24,t
?l9 75Z 9300
3 7
7/ -A
_._moo `a 7e-_56-83
Pck•kwvu,.1 Gk‘l a1 Tro-.A.eAv. A). lv • ,Z`i-1
9/9. 78Z- 830o
it
it
(.5 EceA,
ceA_./7-c->" /
ive 4-6
‘4.\&
cc f-e
%-cryv__.1.1-0,J,Ip-
'1JOo� la-c/). _'0006,4073 � i''v-rp.J 4) 'I%}lrrl,yyt
WicLixA ►Ni\e%cQrrno.„?
DE:m
M Rd
Tx-eryubk-sylt:4 __-
g._c6rr?frIA __F.Xd. GLi'J 6rt

c_S ziarifte Atae-&;:2 4-14/99(
eya_AV
f&7ve,e,e77e/f../, fifiaase 66C-2/s-ein9e havi9. liece- 41ee
cr-1./22-e_ai (-4;2e. e4;opee..2e-ciee' eazativ e2;ce.e
epiToinc ,7ce NPoes --p)scbiereo( di.&(--"t6 121P//9-3
2- (SitrWc. ‘.eia-,7xtpe deeyzrep.
aiwicce a74
74it
Chasrah
2I Z911
car/-7CL7 t. i%Vferzezt
6zat A72 7%b:LeeeaCZ7 <S-71-ze7-ed
f/ a124_1QAto_q:reere.v)
Alle,31747a Goe,AC-2___ARI%e --&) 13e LYt-)z-d pei-
_sa_i_lhz 0i2pgit aw2e
t4i7tr Z-)-tir FCalyx
11z,z 2ece-a-fre
4v_yiri24_71_7
6/1261br h2a(2* ---"ke,a9/2 5ife 17:7-Iee
ettiet/4'7i -eVde, -Z73
icr 7e./2e- ai4;77, sacece
e di*
ka76 /4a2/eig
Dp
leo zez.c7
/4 ce4pic

e
S/'d9e- Cs' ,tit??? 2 /20C
6cocieef c: p-c __ I__ '_ Cam.
`a G .// % -ram',
kee. �fr.Ce (need `f9 04(,e(ee &It d
• e('eycam /i �, -
are aG cG ' I/� P c.3 '%saf 0 ..4 &_
0 %-taf1//lleice J cuiiniz ECG y //a2 -
f //
k� Tome�%
+ 262 . -eke r - etc
cass.`rs t /.6A, hr.G Y c

pzoi_es7 ,s-cc Qz&__7/P 7; aeree/Zee)
J-bie66 A;e 4.ee)ftic4,_.zegezed
‘l--ZC) 62- hez-ie-e4, 41/2ee7.4
ea2C-e- G-06-2 ezrxe.e.,<2,7ae,r,eea_ae
rhae- ,eereeez.
atoov__kee,,4rzcze-ea
•X'e>ri /A-?
ao-A. e-/4-aalez
/We7Cilsfl (ea l76tii,aLct,e orzz, 7k log-J'It 7 )
hask../gdy jkied 12/447-
t/it_6Leaye. -tD g-e_ey) .a.xJ #96e?
/61 A13.2 141/2-
Ce.".4e>LC-a SV-" S1e456P--
agrIviCee,
-
09>
Sec

c� ✓u i-f`o ✓1 2,
Cii
Cdk 1� a 1.e_ct,v,�, s� d -- 7v
L_ FL,,z L,Ja. 4---�
-4-o
C_C
ck q ,_,,.. we k (apic
4J
21__ Gv-f cc. vv0/ '" //074- //W
_
/1 (/‘— (AAA ii
-
_Ab_k_i
agwt elu� il'e&
C&'
_St
•Oreac
) i
:-64i_Lziteet-- .,3////9 __

l 0,7 ?'O//,7 athyc
S'`G?c°vte7‘— /7 ea/7 ar.
G- Sv
Jinef Cr
GL4.6 J rC
iviaufills-(rstrd 6Y Gam/
&Jwil7-idetee)

Z191c, .g:L2466-ei
Re 6/12) `Zecac.
Aze)hec.? /(.7s Itre-e-C
..eseex,
ae 290
60-11,o ttede per..e7;/,4j/oseece-ze9 4ced-
cia/
&-/9.6aL Ae6ce
aere.222.9 7 mo?a,y_____
79
lazie,(2 (f-e.,4 yet,
aiwz&x_ ariM
-eireterae
20770-- at'e-e
.6•4 Caazczae ii=edweel
fieir7z,
rm-aee /4_40c ce,t-z(zega,_i izz/

Page 1
Note for Don Safrit
From: Dennis Ramsey
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 1994 10:31 AM
Subject: STATESVILLE SLUDGE LANDFILL1NG
To: Steve Tedder
cc: Coleen Sullins; Don Safrit
STEVE
YOU SENT ME A COPY OF RICHARD BRIDGEMAN'S MEMO ON THE SUBJECT
SLUDGE. FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, MY COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
IF THE PERMIT APPLICATION HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED WITH THE
CURRENT SLUDGE ANALYSIS, WE COULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THE PERMIT.
SINCE THE CITY'S PERMIT WAS PROCESSED AND ISSUED BASED ON SLUDGE
THAT WAS CLASSIFIED HAS NONHAZARDOUS, THE LANDFILLING OF
HAZARDOUS SLUDGE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PERMIT (CONDITION VI. 2).
THE DIV OF SOLID WASTE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TELL THE CITY NOT TO
LANDFILL ANY MORE SLUDGE IN THE DEM PERMITTED SITE, IF THE SLUDGE
EXCEEDS THE HAZARDOUS LEVELS.
WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON AN SOC, BUT THE
ULTIMATE RESTING PLACE FOR THE SLUDGE WILL HAVE TO BE NEGOTIATED
BY THE CITY WITH THE DIV OF SOLID WASTE.
THANKS
DENNIS
3/(i/Y.K
(.1Q1'
gtt.,,,Lt& GvotikiH
°Lk-6 -/-1`nAx-
1,4A/.._.) ,A„,2g.T-1/4y( P14
Ak) 3,1(0,1 fAA.ZA
Pe 5114-1444--
-(4 3/01 A'64.1^--) 44r°
/LL(Ac/miLL ' C�`��

. MAR-04-1934 13: 47 FROM DEHNR NtCRES) I I I
TO DEM RALEIGH P.01
Post -It'" brand fax t ansrhittal memo 7671
► of Pages ► E
TO s+Q.vQ.
' r
Q),.
Frq fYl
�y111 eiv,
/�
co.
CO.
Dept.
Phore itFax!
1 ?,! � ).
s,
1
q I ct 1 L
Fe%x o 7"
.. 6 0, c p
o
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 4, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Tedder
FROM: D. Rex Gleason
PREPARED BY: Richard BridgemanZ
i
SUBJECT:
City of Statesville
Third Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0020591
WQ0004040 (Sludge landfill permit)
Iredell County
MAR 199
Your guidance is requested. A prologue is needed to set the
stage. On January 23, 1993 the City of Statesville, in response to
Permit Cadmium and Cyanide effluent limits violations, requested
a Special Order by Consent. The City requested until July 1, 1997
to achieve compliance. Subsequent discussion with the City
resulted in a revised plan to provide for an immediate redress to
limits noncompliance. The plan basically consisted of the removal
of old heavily contaminated sludge from the system, for which a
three month period was requested. The City expected to be in full
compliance by May 31, 1993. In response to the revised plan, and
with concurrence from Raleigh, by memorandum dated February 24,
1993 this Office forwarded a draft suggested administrative letter
for the Director's signature, to be issued in lieu of an SOC. This
was done because proposed activities would be completed prior to
the earliest possible issuance of an SOC.
Before action could be taken on the aforementioned draft
letter, the City requested a 30 day extension, or to June 30, 1993,
to achieve compliance. A revised draft letter was forwarded to
Raleigh on June 8, 1993. Two more such extension requests were
forthcoming. Each month it had seemed as though compliance was
within reach, but it was also becoming evident that the problem was
more complex than realized and would require time to resolve. For
one thing, there appeared to be five times more sludge to remove
than first anticipated. For another, even though aeration basin #1
had been cleaned by the end of September, 1993, after repeated
flushing and refilling effluent cadmium concentrations were still
above influent levels. Aeration basin #1 was back in operation by
December, 1993, but the problem still existed.

11R-O4-1994 13:47 FROM DENNR MOORESO I LLE
TO DEM PALE I GH P.02
Mr. Steve Tedder
Page Two
March 4, 1994
In November, 1993 it was discovered that the old metals -
entrained sludge that had been removed from aeration basin #1 and
disposed of in eight monofil trenches on site, in accordance with
Permit No. WQ0004040, contained cadmium above the hazardous waste
regulatory level. Subsequent meeting(s) between the City and staff
from the Hazardous Waste Section of the Division of Solid Waste
Management resulted in an agreement not to bury any more sludge
until further sludge characterization could be completed. Indeed,
the City thought that DSWM regulations precluded further disposal.
On January 24, 1994 DSWM issued a Notice of Assessment to the City.
There is a concurrence between the Facility Assessment Unit
and this Office that negotiations relative to the SOC should be
resumed. To this end, a meeting was held at this Office on
February 24, 1993 between the writer, Joe Hudson (Director of the
City's Water/ Wastewater Treatment), George House (Environmental
Attorney for the City), and David Huff and Douglas Vaughn (both
with Peirson &. Whitman Architects and Engineers). Mr. House
contends that removal of sludge from the aeration basins and
digester is not subject to the jurisdiction of DSWM. At this
meeting it was determined that activities begun in February, 1993
(removal of old sludge from the treatment system) could not be
resumed and completed until the violation of DSWM regulations was
redressed. The City proposes to, as quickly as allowed, continue
with cleaning out the other aeration basin and the digester, and to
pour concrete liners in the two aeration basins and digester.
By letter (attached) dated February 28, 1994 the City asked
for our help in resolving the jurisdiction question. A meeting at
Statesville's Fourth Creek WWTP has been scheduled for March 14,
1994 at 10:30 AM. It is our understanding that both the City and
DSWM will be represented by legal counsel. Brenda Smith, Richard
Bridgeman, and I plan to attend. After review of the matter,
please advise this Office (or the Attorney General's Office) of the
need for other attendees. Any further assistance would be
appreciated; this Office wants to proceed with SOC negotiations.
For your information, the Director was faxed a copy of the City's
February 28, 1994 letter.
Please advise if you have questions.
Enclosure
cc: Brenda Smith
Kent Wiggins
RMB

.trR-04-1534 13:4S FRCM DEl44R MOORESVILLE
TO DEN RALEIGH P.03
QIUU of
#tt#eouille
$1. O. No 1111 • edatesuillt, north Carolina 28887-1111
Febniary 28, 1994
Ms, Brenda Smith
DEM Regional Supervisor
Mooresville Regional Office
State of North Carolina
Department of Health & Natural Resources
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: Third Creek WWTE
City of Statesville
Dear Ms. Smith:
On February 24, 1994, I and other representatives of the City of Statesville met with Mr.
Richard Bridgeman of your office to discuss the serious operational problems which the City of
Statesville faces in trying to operate its wastewater treatment plant in accordance with Permits
No. NC0020591 and WQ0004040 under the constraints imposed by Mr. Jesse W. Wells of the
Hazardous Waste Section during an on -site conference on November 30, 1993 and in his
subsequent letter of January 24, 1994.
Statesville obtained an amendment to WQ0004040 on June 17, 1993 to allow it to remove
the 20+ years of accumulated solids from Aeration Basin 1, Aeration Basin Z and the Digester.
Statesville's consulting engineers believe the removal of these accumulated solids may
significantly reduce the amount of cadmium being discharged into Third Creek and possibly
allow Statesville to meet the cadmium effluent limits of Permit No, NC0020591. Because
Statesville cannot remove the accumulated solids in the bottom of the Digester and Aeration
Basin 2 and collect there in the monofili permitted by WQ0004040, the treatment plant Cannot
be cleaned to determine if it can meet the current cadmium effluent limits of NC0020591 and
is in danger of being unable to treat the current influent load,
We have discussed this problem with outside environmental counsel: George W. House
and the firm of Brooks Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., P. O. Box 26000,

MAR-04-1994 13:48 FROM DEI+R MOORESVILLE TO DEM RALEIGH P.04
uk-4i-1vvw 10J• oJri'1 rfwi'a Z' v j LLC WM 1 CRi WMZ 1 CWM I CR IU 00001 .10 r . Iw
•
Ms. Brenda Smith
February 28, 1994
Page 2
Greensboro, NC 27420. After researching this matter, Mr. House has advised is that the
activities of removing solids from Aeration Basin 1, Aeration Basin 2 and the Digester and
depositing them in the Non -Discharge System's permitted under W(100004040 is under the
jurisdiction of water Quality Section and should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Solid
Waste Section. The construction and use of monofitls to collect excess solids has been an
integral part of Statesvii le's entire NPDES treatment system for a number of years. These
monofills comply with the requirements of 15A NCAC 02H .0200 and are designed to prevent
migration of contaminants and are continuously monitored for groundwater impacts.
Mr. House advises that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ($RCRA") excludes
from the definition of solid waste "solids or dissolved material in domestic sewage." North
Carolina has codified the RCRA exemption in N.C. Caen. Stat. Sec. 130-290(a)(35) (the North
Carolina Solid Waste Management Act) and clearly states that the term "solid waste does not
include:
`solid or dissolved material in:
(1) domestic sewage and sludges generated by treatment
thereof in sanitary sewage collection, treatment of
disposal systems which are designed to discharge
effluent to surface waters;"
Mr. House is of the opinion that the monoills developed and operated under WQ0004040
fall within this exemption and Mr. Wells' oral and written instructions are inappropriate.
Regardless of whether our outside envi on en counsel's opirloti is correct, Stateavi]1e
requests authorization to continue to remove the solids from Aeration Basin 2 and the Digester
and collect then in the monoftll as contemplated under WQ0004040. This material is
substantially the same as the material previously collected in the monofill before November 30,
1993 from Aeration Basin 1. If there is a cadmium problem over which the Solid Waste Section
has jurisdiction, at least all of the materials will be collected in one place in a monofili which
is capable of stabilizing. that cadmium until a decision can be made whether any further
rexnediation is necessary. This is clearly preferable to discharging cadmium to Third Creek.
•

.MAR -04-1994 13:49 FROM DEN+R MOORESL)ILLE
V4
TO DEM RALEIGH
P. 05
Brenda Smith
February 28, 1994
Page 3
Statesville requests your help in expediting a resolution to this matter.
Sincerely,
L. F. "Joe- Hodson, Ir., Director
Water/Wastewater Treatment
LFH/sg
cc: Keith Masters
Jesse Wells
TnTa P.04
TOTAL P.05

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
F ru r►j
A PAm dai-w
onlq . po
Facility Name
Statesville -Third Creek WV
NPDES #
NC0020591
Qw (MGD)
4
7Q 1 0s (cfs)
9.8
/ WC (%)
38.75
Third Creek
Rec'ving Stream
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
132.34
Allowable Cw
5.2
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
207.2
Allowable Cw
129.0
Lead
Max. Pred Cw
166.4
Allowable Cw
64.5
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
420
Allowable Cw
227.1
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
78
Allowable Cw
0.2
Iron
Max. Pred Cw
0.8702
Allowable Cw
2.6
Cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
22.4
Allowable Cw
12.9
Zinc
Max. Pred Cw
840
Allowable Cw
129.0
Copper
Max. Pred Cw
254.8
Allowable Cw
18.1
Selenium
Max. Pred Cw
16
Allowable Cw
12.9
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
t is�ih�{ Lin,“
RecCDr en ae.CL Li (1
Exiskrj rn;f
eo114 tntltA-Urn;
RL rrioni Fav-
ItL PIO ;€)
not' noin df.cv"
• n'1 b a rl:D r
2/25/94 Completed by Michelle Wilson using long term monitoring data 9/17/92 to 12/8/93 PAGE 1

S+41-tsvi Ile - Thir d Creek WWTP NCO° a0511
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ugf)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.6 :1
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
9.8 7010 (CFS)
4 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.2 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
38.8 % IWC (%)
44 Allowable Concentration (mgA)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
2001100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mgn)
9.8
4
6.2
1.0
0.22
38.8 %
2
17
4
6.2
1.8
0.22
26.7 %
6

u1X1111RF.MANT YEAR JAN FEB MAR AI'R MA BIN 1u1. AU(: SEP OCT
S'!ALLINGS ()II. COMPANY FRESUWAY w 4 PERM CIIR LIM:90% (GRAB)
NC0080811/001 Begin:3/I6/92 Ftcquenry: Q P/F A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp:Single 91 -, _- - /I
91 N - -
pi:, N- -
Region: RRO Sul hasin: TAR02 - N N N
ASpecial County: NASI I b 93 N N
94
Y 90 -- FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL NR FAIL FAIL FAIL PASS
\fANI.IiYtYWII' 1'IiKM C11R (.IM:747F __ PASS -. - PASS FAIL f3i --
FAIL
91 FAIL PASS PASS PASS
CCU0County.UAST Begin:4/1/91 :MOO Q P/F JAN APR JULOCI NonComp: 92 PASS -- -- FAIL PASS -- -PP::0.AS•(ON Region: MkS Suhhaxin: (:7T13i PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASSFAIL FAIL
93 FAIL FAIL
Special PP: 0.5
94
der.
7Q10 0.27 IWC(>i):74 Or90
TAR ENTERPRISE PERM AC MONI'r:FruD 2411R LC50 GPIS (GRAB) 91
N00022217/001 Begin:10/1/90 Frequency: 5 OWD/A NonComp:9<^
County WAKIE Reginn: RRO Subhnsin: NL•1103 Oi
1'F: N/A Special 94
7t,310, 0.0 ta'('rro: 100.0
1 )nlee
suit INTER PRISE -PAW CREEK PERM:48 LIR AC MONfr IIPIS (CIiOIOOR DAM!, GRAB) : m C9
op -
NC7IX022187/001 Bcpirr9JI/84 I�ngncncy:50W1)/A Non92 ••_
--
County:MIiCKI.FNEIIk(t Region: MILO Stil+hasin: (TB;W der: 93 45.06'
Special 04
7Q10: 0.0 I\\'('(`^): 100.0 Or
Y 90 FAIL 15.6' _. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL 57.45 FAIL FAIL FAIL
PERM CUR LIM: 999r
1fAk WWI•p
NC005 548AX11 Begin:9/I/91 Frequency: Q hb nt
A JAN AI'It JUL OCT NonCnp: 91 <15 FAIL FAIL FAIL 38.7 FAIL 21.2 FAIL 21.2 FAIL 39
92 <15 61 61.2 FAIL,21.2 - 61.0 61.0 21.0 21.0 <15.0 21.0
11C1)6•MON'RiO�11;1ty Region:PRO Svhbasin:CPhIO 93 39.0 61.0 21.0 1Fl 21.0.39.0 <15.0 39.0 21.0 39.0 39.0 21.0
Special 94
7010 0.(y.1 IW(1%1:100.00
y 90 FAIL P,P FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL PASS PASS
PASS STA IILSVILLE. FOUR c III CREEK WWII' I'1(R\t ('l A LIM:36'F' 91 PASS PASS PASS PASS ••- PASS
P: LATE LATE --- PASS PASS --- PASS
County I3NW1 Bcgitc.Vl/93 FnyuO Q b A JANDO6 APR JUL OCT Noncom SINGI.I: 92 LATE PASS --- PASS,PASS ••- PASS
Cnunty:IRIiDIiI.L Region: MOO Subhaxin: YAD06 93 PASS - PASS,PASS --- Special 94
PI, .t 0 Order
71):0 I f) I\t'('f �.1'36.(11 ... S_.. PASS ... ... PASS -•-
�.. _ 90 PASS _ I.�j
PASS PASS --- -'
tifA 0020591/t 1 Perin hilts wtY'fl PERM CDR JAN A)'O 91 PASS ---
t_'Ostl /E Begin hilrn(I Ft•y(I) Q Rl' A JAN API{ ill. nCr NonComp: PASS --- LATE LATE - PASS,PASS -- PASS -..
92 LATE PASS PASS
County:I:tYlk13111+1,1, R.I:I,�n- \IliS Suhbasin: YAIX)(' 93 PASS --- --- PASS
PI : fY: oat
oat,. . p4 _
7O; i1. v.;: 11\'l �/;i�l.:i9 FAIL --' ... FAIL FAIL tSi
90 ---
tif\(f 7:{fl PERM CDR I.1\t:99'k 91 FAIL -• FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
N(•(4Yy11)1 11OI Begin:3/1/90 Frequency: Q PA' G JAN APR JUL OGT NonComp: FAIL 37.0 <15.0 55.0 21.0 21.0 37.0 <15.0
92 FAIL.F FAIL FAIL
('aunt rl)I'PLIN Region: WII20 tiuI O': 9/CWF22 93 37.0 21.0 <15.0 <15.0 55.0 37.0 37.0 21.0 37.0 55.0 55.0
pi. ; tl Spn,al ti(u• vn719z-uulr)s rint Wnr MnNrl' (? rxr><• 94
IWC(7 ):99) order:
>90.0'
>100' >100' >100•,>100- >100'
tit( )KI•S (n. BOARD GF EDLICAfll)N PERM CIIR LIM:97 (GRAB) 91 --• •••
N('C{i:ail' 4/001 Begin:4/I/92 lInvluency: Q PIP A Ilia MAY AUG NOV NonComp: 92 -- _ pp PB Na
Region: N'Skf) tiuhhasin: ROA01 ._. FAIL H FAIL PASS PASS
Comm.STOKES 93 PASS
' �peei•d
1, ntll
I+oIct 94
PERM: 4811K AC LIM 669E (DAPII OR CBRIO) Y 90 __ >90E I•Ft NONE'
S I I C002S .I.1/001VI'1 91 NONE' NONE' - •.,
A SEP DEC MAR JUN NonComp:SlNGl.li _•• >90' >gD• 71.90'
Count:k11A1U1 11A1.4/1A)i Impn nn•:O 9Y ...f•Fi >00'
('ount2:k(x:KINC;IIAh( Regirnr.WtiSO Sul+hnsin:kOA02 93 >90' -•• >90' >90'
,'r n 2s0 Special 94
,(,III 5s n IwciI'I;n.3o
Onfer'.
0 2 consecutive failures = significant noncompliance Y Pre 1990 Data Available
L.IIGFND' Frequency Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly: BM- Bimonthly: SA- tictni:mnunlly: A. Annually. OW D- Only when discharging: D- Discontinued monitoring requirement; IS- Conducting
PERM = Permit Requirement o1-= Administrative latter - Target Frcq Y = gg
Begin = First month n•uuired 7Q 10 = Receiving steam low flow criterion (efs) 1,ri = (pi:Melly chronic test increases to mouth ark ly upon single= failure
Months that testing must occur - ex. JAN.APR•JUL,OCT NonComp = Current Compliance Requirement
ail
I'P = Notation:
flow (V.ld low: ' ='.stoat, nia s crntt-rntmvtur �•Tox
C:
�J ,onion: f -Ian - Minnow: ' - Ca•rinoI(. N a so.: nry • Af 1 shriven; CIO/ - Chmnic value: P - Mortality of stated rrrtemacc at highest o,I0 concentration: al - Performed by >0) d AIt Gmun: bl -Bad test
Rep, < . = Dater non requited: Nit - Not repotted: t ) - Be innir, • f Quarter Facility Activity Status: I • Inactive•, N _ NewlyIssued(To cnnstnetl: II - Arlive but not discharging: t•Mnre data available for month in question SIG =OKC signature needed
Reporting Nnuui,+I. F F o y y• 48

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 12, 1994
\ MEMORANDUM
TO: , D. REX GLEASON
THRU: , y \,CARLA SANDERSON
'RUTH SWANEK
CCA
FROM: MICHELLE WILSON /f%if1L4)
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment
City of Statesville -Third Creek
NPDES Permit No. NC0020591
Iredell County
EMC WQ No, 93-03
Summary and Recommendations:
The Technical Support Branch has completed the instream assessment for the City
of Statesville -Third Creek WWTP. The Town is requesting an increase in domestic flow
of 0.090 MGD, an increase in industrial flow of 0.100 MGD and a relaxed Cadmium
limit. With the addition of 0.190 MGD flow to the highest monthly average flow of
1.8158 MGD, the plant will reach a flow of 2.0058 MGD, which is less than the facilities
current flow limit of 4 MGD. The Winston-Salem Regional Office has recommended a
flow limit of 4.0 MGD and a Cadmium limit of 33 ug/l.
The facility tested sludge at the bottom of tl\e basin which indicated high leachable
levels of cadmium. The sludge was dewatered input into the land i11 pnsite. The
dewatering has resulted in violations of the cadmium effluent limit. 'Modified cadmium
limit recommended in the SOC is based on statistical calculations performed by
Mooresville Regional Office; 33 ug/1 is the lowest concentration the facility will be able to
comply with given the current condition of the problem and th treatment processes during
the SOC period. Supernatant from the dewatering of sludge irout-of-service digester d
aeration basin will be pretreated to reduce cadmium concentrations and then pumped�t1h-
---sertiee WWTP over a 35 day period. Even with an effective sludge wasting prograni,and
further chemical treatment to reduce cadmium concentrations, it is expected that effluent\
cadmium concentrations will rise'during this period. At the requested post SOC
wasteflow, 2.0058 MGD, the allowable concentration of cadmium necessary to protect
water quality in the receiving stream is 20.8 ug/1. This post-SOC flow, 2.0058 MGD,
should also be a limit during the period of the Special Order of Consent.
?,{
Cod () /) ' `ib or 9"4cuttA k worMA c0rn1,5/.e,
,14ect, ifs e.vanu -4
6)1A-7-6 kt-6 eadationt ouVA),0 rqd Aavv.
fivyt- gefactv ,,TkiclusVAA-d -(1&-ko 2.0tYz.),()

Background Information:
The City of Statesville WWTP discharges into Third Creek, which is a class "C"
stream in the Yadkin River Basin. The drainage area at the point of discharge is 55 square
miles. In 1989, the United States Geological Survey determined the following flows at
the discharge site: summer 7Q10 = 9.8 cfs, winter 7Q10 = 17 cfs, 30Q2 = 21 cfs and
average flow = 56 cfs. The river is fast moving with a stream bed gradient of about 3 1/2
to 4 feet per mile.
The facility has a history of Cadmium limit violatiolis. For nearly two years the
City has attempted to reduce pollutant concentrations through the removal of old sludge
fr.. ,the system. One of two aeration basins was cleaned, but effluent concentrations
con . to be above influent cadmium loadings, apparently because metals are leaching out
of the .asin's clay base and because some old sludge remains between the clay base and the
concret apron around the top of the basin. Currently, the facility's digester and the second
aeration basin are out of service.
Th- Division of Solid Waste Management/Hazardous Waste Section has found that
the sludge ' the digester and the out -of -service aeration basin is hazardous because of
twenty years of accumulated metals -entrained sludge which predates the local industrial
pretreatment pr gram. Currently, as any new waste sludge is generated it is sent through a
filter press, with 'the supernatant being returned to the "clean" aeration basin and the dried
sludge being taken Doff site for final disposal.
Compliance'will require the continued removal of old sludge from the system and
the renovation of existing facilities, including adding concrete liners to the two aeration
basins and the digester. `Turing this time of facility renovation the City expects continued
effluentadmium limit violations.
C
Analysis and Discussion:
Under routine analyses, chemical specific effluent limits are calculated to protect to
the chronic no effect level for aquatic,life instream under 7Q10 conditions. Since most
criteria reflect between 4 and 7 consecutive day exposure period assumptions, it mak
sense to allocate;;substance for protection`of chronic effect siti`- weekly averagetio any
menitor-ing-basis. However,, the cost of monitoring frequency was taken into account by
DEM in the early 1980's when toxicants first•began to be limited for municipalities with
significant industrial sources. A procedure wa`s.established at that time whereby once per
week or two per month sampling only is required, dependent on the classification of the
facility. Therefore, in general, chemical specific toxic limits-4144e placed in NPDES
permits as a maximum daily allowable concentration in light of this reduced monitoring
frequency.
Higher daily maximum concentrations may be allocated if a facility performs
weeldy monitoringy The daily maximum limit should be established -to -protect t-a
_ inimum to -provide protection from acute effects as defined in 15 NCAC 2B .0202 (1).
A weekly average limit would then be added to the permit to ensure protection of the
receiving watersrfr�m-chrome effects Compliance with the weekly average limitation is
determined by the -average of the daily samples)for that week.
Determination of the acute criteria should be based upon 1/2 the Final Acute Value
(FAV), or Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC), for a substance as listed in the EPA
criteria document or as established under 15 NCAC 2B .0202 (1). The actual value which
is equal to the allowable daily maximum concentration necessary to protect water gpafity in
the receiving stream is calculated by multiplying the 1/2FAV by dilution. Where
calculation of a daily maximum limit is based upon an acute effect level, care should be
given to ensure that a sample of that magnitude would not violate the weekly average. Fo
example, if the acute criteria resulted in a daily maximum limit of 100 ug/1 and the chronic

criteria required a weekly average of 10 ug/l, a single observation of 100 ug/l would
violated the weekly criteria even if all other samples were below detection since 100 ug/l
divided over 5 days equals 20 ug/l. When this occurs, the daily maximum limit should be
calculated using the following formula:
Daily Max. = (5 * Weekly Average Limit) - the analytical detection level
or weekly average limit,
whichever is higher
The calculations used to determine the allowable Cadmium daily maximum at the pre-SOC
and the post-SOC flows are as follows:
�. Flow Week Avg
2.0058 MGD 8.3 ug/1
1.8158 MGD 9.0 ug/1
evel 1/2 FAV* Dilution-,wiiv,-,''- 't
5 ug/1 4.15:1
2 y{/1 5 ug/1 4.48:1
*EPA Criterion for Cadmium is 1.79 ug/1, but 5.0 ug/1 should be used as 1/2 the FAV per
an investigation by Planning.
65)
`�
\, ,y e
Q c, ,
\c, .
, ,,0
e ,t1,
Daily Maximum (ug/l)
Flow 1./2FAV*Dilution 5*Week Avg-#
2.0058 MGD 544.15 = 20.75 N 5*8.3A3 = 33\2
1.8158 MGD 5*4.48 = 22.40 5*9.0-9.0~= 36.0
V times dilution ensures that a sample would not violate the weekly average
be adopted over the other daily maximum which was calculated.
-ntration of cadmium necessary to protect water quality at the post-SOC
JC flow are as follows:
MGD
.8 MGD
Daily Max,
20.8 ug/1
22.4 ug/1
Weekly Avg
8.3 ug/1
9.0 ug/1
poi rr yid L cdol L du,n w(nte{ V�nol pc b)e,
U
cc: Mang Wilburn
Richard Bridgeman, MRO
Central Files

MEMORANDUM TO: Ruth Swanek
FROM: D. Rex Gleason
Richard Bridgeman
PREPARED BY:
DEC 2 1994
,d.a�,L JV3T: ►Jril�!$�is�.�P�
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN
►21
November 30, 1994 ry chel(e_ v k -
2le0q�-. h cil e . ( c
LT . dc%t an SOC., for 'tow c.S
befo(e, ?). i�„iPicalk) we do
(1o+ l%kk s+v►nc3 fine.hxl,)
hi.c r 4-h0Y 0.UOWGkfie a qk vt-
e(Mee - mc)►-ljbr,r1c5 (Cw411 � VG.
SUBJECT: Request for Instream Assessment in3irearn tt) - how do P°b(xc(
Addition Flow Under SOC hm'45 campcua t 0 0LI)able ?
City of Statesville - Third Creek WWTP Ccl acute valuk lowce
NPDES Permit No. NC0020591 4410.n p►.Ar si-conCard alhotth`f
EMC WQ No. 93-03 teJ ,e,�-��ed
Iredell County Cole uu`c
'la nq v" 15.5 ('nft firm Ci m
L j aidacit.Lct- ry Li L n+
Enclosed please find a request for an Instream Assessment for i-o 4o
the subject facility. The request is made to provide a basis for Ocxv►r,e
allowing additional flow in excess of current 12-month average.;d
Please advise if additional input is required. 1211q
Enclosure (Le} " 44C tiou Can'l-
,mee} deptihe.e d th
RMB Calo,Lobc, COLA of CALLA__
Loot/ r-lco4 1

.
0
REQUEST FORM FOR INSTREAM ASSESSMENT FOR 67b SOC
NAME OF FACILITY: City of Statesville/Third Creek WWTP
COUNTY: Iredell
REGION: Mooresville DESIGN FLOW: 4.0 MGD
RECEIVING STREAM: Third Creek SUBBASIN: YADO6
BACKGROUND DATA:
A. Why is SOC needed? Facility has a history of Cadmium
limit violations. For nearly two years the City has
attempted to reduce pollutant concentrations through the
removal of old sludge from the system. One of two of the
aeration basins was cleaned, but effluent concentrations
continue to be above influent cadmium loadings,
apparently because metals are leaching out of the basin's
clay base and because some old sludge remains between the
clay base and the concrete apron around the top of the
basin. Currently, the facility's digester and the second
aeration basin are out of service.
The Division of Solid Waste Management/Hazardous Waste
Section has found that the sludge in the digester and the
out -of -service aeration basin is hazardous because of
twenty years of accumulated metals -entrained sludge which
predates the local industrial pretreatment program.
Currently, as any new waste sludge is generated it is
sent through a filter press, with the supernatant being
returned to the "clean" aeration basin and the dried
sludge being taken off site for final disposal.
Compliance will require the continued removal of old
sludge from the system and the renovation of existing
facilities, including adding concrete liners to the two
aeration basins and the digester. During this time of
facility renovation the City expects continued effluent
Cadmium limit violations.
B. History of SOC requests:
1. Monthly average waste flow prior to any SOC:
1.8158 MGD
Time period averaged: 10/93 - 9/94
2. Previously approved SOC's: N/A
3. Flows lost from plant (facilities that have gone
off line) : N/A
4. Current SOC Flow request: 0.1900 MGD

5. Total plant flow post-SOC (sum of original flow
and SOC flow minus losses): 2.0058 MGD
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? N/A
CURRENT SOC REQUEST:
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is
a combination, please specify percentages. Based on the
past 12 month average of new water and sewer tap
applications, the City is requesting an additional
unspecified domestic wastewater flow of 0.090 MGD. The
City is currently very restrictive in allowing any new
industrial wastewater flows or increases in existing
industrial wastewater flows; however, for contingency or
as a safety factor the City is requesting an additional
unspecified industrial wastewater flow of 0.100 MGD.
B. What type of industry? Unspecified.
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
PARAMETER
Flow
BOD5
TSR
NH3
D.O.
Fecal Coliform
* Cadmium
Cyanide
Lead
Chronic Toxicity
LIMIT
4.00
30.0/30.0
30.0/30.0
13.0/No limit
5.0/No limit
200.0/200.0
33.0/33.0
12.9/12.9
64.5/64.5
P/F @ 39 %
* Denotes change from final Permit
#/# Summer/Winter limits.
UNIT
MGD
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
#/100 ml
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
limitations.
D. What is the basis for these limits? Modified Cadmium
limit is based on statistical calculations. Supernatant
from the dewatering of sludge in out -of -service digester
and aeration basin will be pretreated to reduce cadmium
concentrations and then pumped to in-service WWTP over a
35 day period. Even with an effective sludge wasting
program and further chemical treatment to reduce cadmium
concentrations, it is expected that effluent cadmium
concentrations will rise during this period.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 25, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Randy Kepler (with attachment)
FROM: Susan A. Wilson(
THROUGH: Ruth Swanek '(--5
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: City of Statesville - Fourth Creek (NPDES No. NC0031836)
Fourth Creek, Yadkin River Basin
Iredell County
The Technical Support Branch has received Statesville's comments regarding their draft
permit.
In the memo to D. Rex Gleason (MRO), in which you were copied, the Technical Support
Branch recommended that mercury be monitored for one year after the effective date of the
permit. After a year, the proposed mercury limit of 0.033 p.g/1 would apply.
After further consideration, the Technical Support Branch (TSB) recommends that a
mercury monitoring requirement be implemented for the life of this short term permit;
mercury should be monitored year round in accordance with the classification of the facility
(1/month). Due to the Yadkin basinwide permitting strategy, this permit is scheduled for
an interim reissue date of July 1994. This may provide the City of Statesville more time to
address the potential mercury problem.
At the next permitting period in July 1994, TSB will review Statesville's effluent
monitoring and Long Tenn Monitoring Plan data to determine if a mercury limit is
necessary.
TSB defers to P&E to comment on the monthly efficiency removal standard for TSS and
BOD5.
cc: Joe Pearce, Pretreatment Unit (no attachment)

DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 8, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: D. Rex Gleason
FROM: Susan A. Wilson pki
THROUGH: Ruth Swanek RCS
Carla Sanderson(��'
SUBJECT: City of Statesville - Fourth Creek (NPDES No. NC0031836)
Fourth Creek, Yadkin River Basin
Iredell County
The Technical Support Branch has received your request on behalf of Joe Hudson,
Director -Statesville Fourth Creek WWTP, to include a schedule to meet the proposed
mercury limit.
Elevated mercury levels have been found in the facility's 1992 Priority Pollutant Analysis
and also during an onsite study conducted by the Aquatic Toxicology Unit in 1990. For
these reasons, a mercury limit 0.033 µg/1 was proposed for the upcoming permit renewal.
The Technical Support Branch concurs with the Region's request for a schedule of
compliance for the mercury limit. TSB recommends that the Statesville Fourth Creek
WWTP monitor for mercury for 12 months after permit issuance. After 12 months, the
proposed mercury limit will apply.
cc: Coleen Sullins (Randy Kepler), P&E
Joe Pearce, Pretreatment Unit

DEC 2 : 1�
- ECHN!CAL SUPPORT PORT BYfANC!
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 17, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO: Trevor Clements
FROM: D. Rex Gleason Dpc
PREPARED BY: G. T. Chen a`
SUBJECT: Request for Suspension of Mercury Limit
NPDES Permit No. NC0031836
Statesville Fourth Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Iredell County, NC
This Office is in receipt of a letter dated December
11, 1992 from Mr. L. F. "Joe" Hudson, Jr., Director of
Water/Wastewater Treatment Plants, City of Statesville,
requesting the suspension of a newly recommended limit for
Mercury (0.033 ug/1) for the subject facility. Our records
indicate that a new permit for the facility has not been
issued at this time.
Mr. Hudson indicated in his letter that in the last six
(6) annual priority pollutant analyses on the subject
facility, mercury only appeared in the latest test results.
Mr. Hudson advised that the subject facility was not
desgined to remove mercury. Due to insufficient data on the
pollutant in question, he is not able to determine how
efficient the plant is with regard to the removal of mercury.
Currently, the City of Statesville is conducting a survey to
identify the source(s) of pollutant.
In view of these facts, the Mooresville Regional Office
recommends that a time schedule for the facility to comply
with the new mercury limit be included in the renewed
Permit. Alternatively, the City may request a Special Order
by Consent which will include a compliance schedule to meet the
limit in question.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
advise.
cc: Don Safrit
gtc

124-
!Iittt of
:z....yr.uLtil
! t:a, tf
4 #tatesuitle
. (f. /lnx 1111 •'tateauille, Nurtli Carolina 28677
February 11, 1993
Ms. Coleen Sullins
Dept. of Environmental Health
& Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Draft Permit
NPDES No. NC0031836
Dear Ms. Sullins:
Water/Wastewater Treatment Plants
704-878-3438
ok F7 I /Z�
No'
lA ctN 0707oc SNTtia fIh
P-F (C�L' • dui..
We have reviewed the referenced Draft Permit. We are willing to accept all proposed
limits with two exceptions. Those are the Mercury limit and the monthly efficiency removal
standard for TSS and BOD.
The efficiency removal limit is impossible to meet when Influent flows are low in TSS.
„, ; `� Whether or not 85 % efficiency is achieved or not has no effect on the actual pollutant load going
to the receiving stream when numerical limits are met. Therefore we see no need for this
requirement.
The Mercury limits are in effect from November 1-March 31 and we find them
unacceptable. Our reasons are as follows:
1. Our discussions with the Mooresville office led us to believe we
would be monitoring without limits which would allow us to track
down sources and take appropriate action. We realized we would
ultimately have to have limits and are currently taking steps to
deal with the problem.
2. The 4th Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is not designed to remove
the mercury and we do not have enough data currently to determine
how effective the plant actually is in removing mercury. Two (2)
tests run in November, 1992 indicated an influent concentration of

Page 2
Draft Permit, NPDES #NC0031836
February 11, 1993
0.59 ug/1 effluent and 0.21 ug/1 effluent (11-19-92), and an effluent
concentration of <0.20 ug/1 on 11-12-92. No influent sample was taken
on 11-12-92.
3. We have distributed questionnaire surveys to the dentists and hospitals
discharging to our sanitary sewer system in order to begin the search
for the mercury contributor. We have sampled the hospital charges as
well. The results_ of these surveys and samplings will be available
soon. We have also personally contacted other industrial dischargers
who may use mercury in their processes. As you are aware, the detection
of a pollution source is a difficult process and can take a considerable
amount of time. However, our Pretreatment Staff is continuously working
on this problem.
4. Out of the last six (6) annual priority pollutant tests on the 4th Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent, mercury only appeared on the most
recent. There has not been any great changes in wastewater loadings over
the last year. Therefore, the appearance of mercury in the test results
this time is all the more puzzling.
Based on this reasoning, it is requested that a mercury limit NOT be imposed at this
time, but rather the requirement for monitoring only be initiated. The City of Statesville
will continue with its own plant housekeeping efforts and pretreatment efforts in order to
find the mercury source, and hopefully, eliminate it.
If you would like to discuss this further, we will be pleased to meet with you at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
L. F. "Joe" Hudson, Jr., Director
Water/Wastewater Treatment
LFH/sg
cc: Carol Rogers
Steve Lambert
Mike Acquesta