NC0031836_Permit (Issuance)_20100707

NPDES DOCUMENT :MCANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
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:
July 7, 2010
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse Bide

ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
July 7, 2010
Mr. Joe Hudson
City of Statesville
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Iredell County
Dear Mr. Hudson:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 17, 2007 (or as subsequently amended.)
This final permit includes the following changes from the draft permit sent to you on January 20, 2010.
• Regarding Total Mercury, Footnote 5, under Section A. (1.) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements (4 MGD), has been changed to read as follows: The facility is allowed 18 months from
the effective date of the permit to comply with the total mercury limit. After 24 data points are
collected the facility may request DWQ to determine if there is still reasonable potential to exceed the
water quality standard. If no reasonable potential exists, the Division may remove the limit and/or
reduce the monitoring frequency.
• Regarding Total Phenols, Footnote 6, under Section A. (2.) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements (6.0 MGD), has been changed to read as follows: The facility is allowed 18 months
from the time it becomes subject to the 6 MGD Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
before the Total Phenols limitation takes effect. After 24 data points are collected the facility may
request DWQ to determine if there is still reasonable potential to exceed the EPA criteria. If no
reasonable potential exists, the Division may remove the limit and/or reduce the monitoring frequency.
Statesville may submit this request in conjunction with the review of its mercury data or wait until the
facility becomes subject to the 6 MGD Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements before
submitting a request for the review of the phenols data.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1.877-623-6748
Internet. www.ncwaterquality,org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

MI the eh ashes made in the draft permit are retained in this permit as follows:
• Total Mercury - A chronic limit of 27 ng/L (Section A. (1). 4 MGD Effluent Limitations page) and
22 ng/L (Section A. (2). 6 MGD Effluent Limitations page) has been put in the permit as a
monthly average and daily maximum limitation. Monitoring was increased from quarterly to
weekly.
• Total Phenols - A limit of 816 ug/L has been put in the permit as a monthly average and daily
maximum for total phenols in the 6 MGD Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements,
Section A. (2).
• The wording in Section A. (3) and Section A. (4) has been changed and the following paragraph
added: If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the
results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted
on the Discharge Monitoring Report and all AT Forms submitted. Please review the Sections and
possible changes in form codes.
Please note that the receiving stream, Fourth Creek, is listed as an impaired waterbody on the North Carolina 303(d)
Impaired Waters List. Addressing impaired waters is a high priority with the Division, and instream data will continue
to be evaluated. If there is noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and stream impairment can be attributed to your
facility, then mitigative measures may be required.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to you,
you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing Upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of thls letter.
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may require modification revocation and
reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits.may be required.
If you have questions concerning this permit, please contact Julie Grzyb by e-mail ([e-mail]) or
phone at [phone].
leen H. Sullins
/
Enclosure NPDES Permit NC0031836 (Final Permit)
cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
e-copy:
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
EPA Region 4 (Final Permit and fact sheet)
Ecosystems Unit/Attn. Carrie Ruhlman
PERCS Unit
1617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Natural/ff.

Permit No. NC0031836
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance 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
693 Bell Farm Road
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, II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective August 1, 2010.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 30, 2014
Signed this day July 7, 2010.
Cole n H. Su lips, Director
iiidiDivision of Water Quality
" By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0031836
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The City of Statesville is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate (at a permitted flow of 4.0 MGD) the existing 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment
facility that includes the following components:
> Influent pump station
> Perforated panel style bar screen system with a washer & compactor
> Two extended aeration basins with mechanical aerators
> Waste and return sludge pumps
> Secondary wet well
> Three secondary clarifiers
> Chlorine disinfection
> De -chlorination system using sodium bisulfite
> Aerobic sludge digester
> Gravity belt thickener
> Sludge filter press
> N-Viro soil process residuals stabilization
This facility is located at the Fourth Cheek WWTP on Bell Farm Road near Statesville in
Iredell County.
2. When the average flow discharged from the facility exceeds 3.6 MGD, operate the existing 6.0
MGD facility under the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements listed in Part I. A.
(2.) and Part I. A. (4.) of this permit.
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Fourth
Creek, classified C waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
• 1 f

Latitude: 35°46'36" USGS Quad #:
Longitude:80°47'15" D15SE .
N
Not to
SCALE
Fourth Creek WWTP
NC00031836
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
River Basin:
Sub-Basin#/8-Digit HUC:
County:
Fourth Creek
C
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
03-07-06 / 03040102
Iredell

Permit NC0031836
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (4.0 MGD)
During the period beginning on the -effective date of the permit and lasting until the average flow discharged
exceeds 3.6 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT'
CHARACTERISTICS
`; ...'.:....
LIMITS `
. to , s,
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
4:
. Monthly
* ' Average.
Weekly:
" Average,;'
Dail
.Y,
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency"
Smill*y
Type
' , i 1
Sample Location
` .
Flow V. .
4.0 MGD •
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C xi
(April 1 to October 31)2
17.0 mglL
25.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C '1
(November 1 to March 31)2
27.0 mglL
40.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2 ./
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mglL
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 -N j
(April 1 to October 31)
12.0 mg/L
35.0 mglL
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 -N • 0
(November 1 to March 31)
18.0 mg/L
35.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3 ✓
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen `/
3/Week
Grab
& Downstream
Fecal Coliform J
(geometric mean)
2001100 mL
4001100 mL
Daily
Grab
_Upstream
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine J
28 µg&L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature '/
3/Week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
pH4 \ /
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury5
27 ng/L
27 ng/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan
See A. (5.)
Annual
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Upstream = at NCSR 2316. Downstream = approximately 0.5 miles downstream from the outfall. Upstream
and downstream samples shall be grab samples collected 3/week during June, July, August and September then
once per week during the rest of the year. (As a participant in the Yadkin Pee Dee Diver Basin Association, the subject
facility is not responsible for conducting the instream monitoring requirements as stated above. Shouldyour membership in the
agreement be terminated, you shall no/6 the Division immediately and the instream monitoring requirements specified inyour permit
will be automatically reinstated)
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the .
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. The facility is allowed 18 months from the effective date of the permit to comply with the total mercury
limit. After 24 data points are collected, the facility may request DWQ to determine if there is still
reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard. If no reasonable potential exists, the Division
may remove the limit and/or reduce the monitoring.
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 45%: January, April, July & October (see special condition A. (3.)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0031836
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (6.0 MGD)
During the period beginning when the average flow discharged exceeds 3.6 MGD and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as stiecaified below:
EFFLUENT } .:;
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
t l }
; ,•
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average .
Weekly;
Average . ,:
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency :'
Sample
Type , .
Sample Locationl
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
(April 1 to October 31)2
17.0 mg/L
25.5 mg/L
- Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
(November 1 to March 31)2
27.0 mg/L
40.5 mg/L
Daily
_
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 -N
(April 1 to October 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 -N
(November 1 to March 31)
4.0 mglL
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
31Week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Fecal Coliform ,
(geometric mean)
200 / 100 mL
400 : 100 mL
Daily
Graa
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
28 µglL
Daily
Grab
—
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
31Week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
pH4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury5
22 nglL
22 ng/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phenols6
816 uglL
816 uglL
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity?
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan
See A. (5.)
Annual
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Upstream = at NCSR 2316. Downstream = approximately 0.5 miles downstream from the outfall. Upstream
and downstream samples shall be grab samples collected 3/week during June, July, August and September then
once per week during the rest of the year. (As a participant in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Association, the sub/ect
facility is not responsible for conducting the instream monitoring requirements as stated above. Should your membership in the
agreement be terminated you shall notj the Division immediately and the instream monitoring requirements specified in your permit
will be automatically reinstated)
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. See Section A. (1) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, Notes: # 5 on Total Mercury
6. The facility is allowed 18 months from the time it becomes subject to the 6 MGD Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements before the total phenols limitation takes effect. After 24 data points are collected, the
facility may request DWQ to determine if there is still reasonable potential to exceed the EPA criteria. If no
reasonable potential exists, the Division may remove the limit and/or reduce the monitoring frequency.
Statesville may submit this request in conjunction with the review of its mercury data or wait until the facility
becomes subject to the 6 MGD Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements before submitting a request
for the review of the phenols data.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 55%: January, April, July & October (see special condition A. (4)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. •

Permit NC0031836
A. (3.) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (Quarterly) for 4.0 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia
dubia at an effluent concentration of 45 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina
Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of January, April, July and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months
as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February
1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a
detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods,
exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring
Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. If reporting pass/fail results using the parameter code
TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If reporting Chronic Value results using the parameter
code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30 days after
the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total
residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required
during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate
monitoring requirements or limits.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such monitoring shall
be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR and all AT Forms submitted.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival,
minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test 'and will
require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the
initial monitoring.

Permit NC0031836
A. (4.) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (Quarterly) for 6.0 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia
dubia at an effluent concentration of 55 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina
Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions The tests will be
performed during the months of January, April, July and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES perrnitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months
as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February
1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a
detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods,
exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring
Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. If reporting pass/fail results using the parameter code
TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If reporting Chronic Value results using the parameter
code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30 days after
the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total
residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required
during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate
monitoring requirements or limits.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such monitoring shall
be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR and all AT Forms submitted.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival,
minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will
require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the
initial monitoring.

Permit NC0031836
A. (5) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The,Permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the attached table. The analytical •
methods shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether parameters
are present in concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples shall represent seasonal variations.
Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-dichloroethyiene
Bis (2-ch€oroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyi) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Kjeklahl nitrogen
Ethyibenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
011 and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachtoroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Tr€chloroethylene
1,4-dichbrobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dich!orobenzid€ne
Lead
Acid -extractable compounds:
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury (Test Method 1631 E)
P-ciloro-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenoi
2,4-dinitroto€uene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dinitroto€uene
Silver
2,4-dimethy€phenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-aesol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile onranic compounds:
Pentachbrophenol
Hexachlorocycio-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitn'le
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chbrobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenyiamine
2-chloroethyhrinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichbrobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichbroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- A MR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director within
90 days of sampling. The report shall be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.

DENR/DWQ
FINAL FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0031836
.Cl
OP,
Faci1 • Naine4 �`, s , ` .ti> x ; :
Fourth Creek WWTP, City of Statesville
t
` ?enriitt�e'd low• F j �' �':
4.0 — 6.0 MGD
•!. Vih 1.;ir 1 •' iY.iv
County- ,- �1¢ -r
Iredell
Facility Cl asr '_ s;
IVERegonal
O#ae `,„ :}
Mooresville
Faeility/Permi Sfatus: ` r'
... 1 > /{ r }
(i.e, New 11odi cation
t . t {2 r � 7 °w w • �S� '
-,1
xxs in o Ren0 _.. �,.�. .=��Y„ ..
Renewal
JSGS�rTo b Quad:x�-�• �4ri
; 45 �Ft +. 3�k s :f} �f t l -' , to }+
f ''� t }, am-
f i srit� S� s `I, o t t
.. ti �` hg ..y �a,�ir,
e. f � .. s : 4 » r
D15SE
* GtT.11:4-ttgi
:ece�ing
Fourth Creek
303d Listed
Yes
..�. '11x�ra
' stiedi;,..lass f aaiip •
C
t 1.
r� t
11.3
03-07-06
16.0
Assessn ent flfl ;
D_ramage�::�
12-108-20a3
46.5
Avera e F1Qv cfs �'{' k
?vr
46.5
45/55
r r<-
;Q1;
7.5
•
Under development
SUMMARY
This facility is a major municipal treatment plant operating in Iredell County that serves 25,000
people in Statesville. The City has a separate sewer collection system. The facility has
permitted flows of 4.0/6.0 MGD discharging into the Fourth Creek. During the past 4 years the
annual average flow has been 2.98 MGD. The City of Statesville has 4 significant industrial
users (SIU) and a full-scale pretreatment program. All four SIU's are subject to Metal Finishing
Categorical Standards (40 CFR 433) and discharge a total process flow of 37,000 gpd (1.2%) to
the Fourth Creek WWTP. The permit will continue to require the City to implement its
pretreatment program.
Fourth Creek was originally listed on the 1998 303(d) list for biological impairement as well as
being impaired for turbidity and fecal coliform. A fecal coliform TMDL was completed on Dec.
19, 2001 which required no reduction on the permittee's part maintaining the limit at 200/
100mL. A TMDL for turbidity was completed on Nov. 22, 2004, shortly after the current
permit was issued. It allowed for the facilities maximum permitted TSS concentration of 30
mg/L at 4 MGD (1001 lbs/day) to the Fourth Creek WWTP. In 2009, US EPA recognized that
the organic nature of TSS from municipal facilities does not contribute to ambient turbidity
levels. Therefore, this allocation will not be put into the proposed permit. The primary cause
of turbidity and fecal coliform impairment was cited as being due to non -point source
pollution.
The stream Assessment Unit (AU)# 12-108-20a was split up into 3 different reaches
which are all covered by the Fecal and Turbidity TMDLs. The Permittee is within AU#
12-108-20a3, from SR2316 to SR1272, a 7.8 mile stretch which is still recognized as
being impaired for aquatic life because of 2003 bug and fish samples. Currently, a
TMDL for nutrients/turbidity is under development for High Rock Lake. Fourth Creek
eventually flows into High Rock Lake and is likely to be affected by the results of the
TMDL.

COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
DMRs have been reviewed for the period of January 2006 through October 2009.
A summary of effluent data is presented in Table 1, below.
Table 1: Average Monthly DMR Data Summary; 2006-October 2009.
Avg
•:Flow
(MGD)
2.98
Total':':
esidual
Chlorine
(µme)
20
3.41
0.79
5.1
Fecal
(#/100 InL)
67
8.8
7.52
2.13
Max
8.7
32
46.1
12.4
33
7900
17
20.2
11.9
Min
1.6
20
<2
<1
<1
<1
5.1
1.67
0.13
Limit
4.0
28
17; 25.5
(s)
27; 40.5
(w)
12; 35
(s)
18; 35
(w)
30.0;
45.0
200; 400
> 5.0
Monthly average; weekly average
The facility has a good compliance record. During the review period, no NOVs (notices of
violation) were issued.
A compliance evaluation inspection conducted on February 16, 2009 found the WWTP well
maintained and operated. It was noted that the sludge drying beds, post aeration and sludge
thickener have been removed and de -chlorination added since the last permit renewal. The
SIUs were recognized as having possible toxic impacts to the surface waters. No major
problems were identified and the permit was recommended for renewal.
TOXICITY TESTING:
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Chronic P/F (Ceriodaphnia).
001: Chronic P/F @ 36% (4MGD)/55% (6 MGD)
001: Chronic P/F @ 45% (4MGD)/55% (6 MGD)
January, April, July, and October
The facility has passed all 20 of its WET tests during the past 5 years (2005-2009). The
previous in -stream waste concentration (IWC) at 36% appears to have been a calculation error
and will be changed to 45% at 4 MGD. (IWC (%) = (Qwasteflow/Qwasteflow + Q7g10s)*100),
therefore, IWC = 4 MGD/(4.0 MGD + 4.84 MGD) *100 = 45 %.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCANS
Five Priority Polluntant Scans were submitted and reviewed. The results were used in the
reasonable potential analyses performed on the metals. The only other parameter resulting in
quantities of concern was phenols so a RPA was performed on phenols as well. See the section
on Reasonable Potential Analysis.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Instream monitoring is required for temperature and dissolved oxygen; however,
monitoring is conditionally waived based on the facility's participation in the Yadkin -
Pee Dee Monitoring Coalition. An analysis of upstream and downstream monitoring
data at Stations Q3720000 and Q3735000 showed that the facility has some negative
influence on the conductivity and fecal coliform levels in the stream water (table is

attached). Data does not indicate that the facility has a noticeable impact on stream DO,
temperature, or turbidity.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Currently, there is no required monitoring for metals in the NPDES permit. As part of the
City's Pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Program(LTMP) the following metals are
monitored quarterly: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, CN, Pb, Hg, ,Mo (optional), Ni, Ag, Se (optional), and Zn.
Reasonable potential analyses were conducted on all the metals and a table with the results is
attached.
❖ No reasonable potential to violate water quality standands exists for As, Cd, Cr, CN, Pb,
Mo, and Se. These parameters will continue to be monitored under the facility's
Pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Program with Mo and Se being optional.
❖ Cu, Zn and Ag showed reasonable potential to violate water quality standards. Due to the
facility's toxicity record, limits for these action level standards will not be implemented, but
monitoring quarterly through the Pretreatment LTMP will remain.
.•.
Mercury showed a reasonable potential to violate water quality standards so a chronic limit
will be put in the permit as a monthly average and daily maximum limitation. Monitoring
will be increased from quarterly to'weekly and listed in the permit.
❖ The five priority polluntant scans showed phenols in the effluent ranging from
< 10 ug/L to 92 ug/L. The North Carolina water quality standard for phenolic
compounds is an organoleptic limit of 300 ug/L in Class C waters to prevent
fish -flesh tainting or impairment. A RPA was performed using the 300 ug/L
phenolic standard and the effluent at Fourth Creek did not show a reasonable
potential to violate water quality standards at 4 MGD. A reasonable potential to
violate water quality standards at 6 MGD was shown so a limit for phenols was
placed in that Effluent and Monitoring Page.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
• Mercury showed a reasonable potential to violate water quality standards. A
chronic limit of 27 ng/L (4 MGD) and 22 ng/L (6 MGD) has been put in the permit
as a monthly average and daily maximum limitation. Monitoring was increased
from quarterly to weekly. The facility is allowed 18 months from the effective date
of the permit to comply with the mercury limit. This time period is allowed in order
for the facility to assess and address the sources of mercury to the plant's influent.
• Phenols showed a reasonable potential to violate water quality standards at 6
MGD. A limit for phenols was placed in the 6 MGD Effluent and Monitoring
Page. The facility will be allowed 18 months from the effective date of the
permit to comply with the Total phenols limit should they switch to the 6 MGD
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: January 20, 2010 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: July 6, 2010 (est.)
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Julie Grzyb at [phone].

ADDENDUM TO FACT SHEET 7-1-10:
Comments from Statesville on the draft permit were received on February 10, 2010. A response
to Statesville's comments was sent from DWQ on April 5, 2010. Additional comments were
received from Statesville on April 21, 2010. DWQ responded to these comments on June 21,
2010. On June 24, 2010 Statesville sent a letter agreeing to the changes in the footnotes for
Total Phenols and Total Mercury recommended in the letter dated April 5, 2010. Statesville's
primary concern is being able to extend the time needed to comply with the Total Mercury or
Phenols limitation if significant mitigative measures are needed.
US EPA had two comments regarding Statesville's Fourth Creek WWTP draft permit. As
requested, the parameter name for mercury was changed to "Total Mercury". In addition, to
address US EPA's request for an interim requirement in the mercury and phenols compliance
schedules, Statesville may submit data to DWQ to determine if there is still reasonable potential
to exceed water quality standards after 24 samples are taken. Footnotes 5, under Section A. (1.)
and Footnote 6, under Section A. (2.) were amended in the final permit to address both
Statesville and US EPA comments.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
I<
1
Date
Temperature (°C) - 10
DO (mg/L) - 300
Conductance umhos/cm) - 94
Fecal Coliform (colonies/100
Turbidity (NTU) - 82079
2
.
Upstream
Station
Q3720000
Down-
stream
Station
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
33
9/10/2007
24.20
23.80
6.60
6.70 172.00
193.00
21.00
27.00
9.40
8.80
34
9/24/2007
22.60
23.10
6.30
6.40 173.00
158.00
35
10/8/2007
24.20
24.00
6.60
6.50 153.00
170.00
35.00
31.00
8.90
11.00
36
11/12/2007
9.90
10.30
10.10
9.80 184.00
203.00
23.00
29.00
21.00
19.00
37
12/10/2007
11.30
11.70
9.10
9.20
208.00
219.00
43.00
43.00
12.00
9.30
38
1/14/2008
7.00
7.30
11.40
11.60
183.00
203.00
56.00
52.00
6.30
7.70
39
2/18/2008
11.50
11.90
9.90
9.40
228.00
260.00
150.00
108.00
15.00
16.00
40
3/10/2008
8.30
8.60
10.80
11.00
144.00
162.00
70.00
60.00
19.00
26.00
41
4/21/2008
14.50
14.70
8.20
8.30
130.00
148.00
60.00
53.00
6.40
9.60
42
5/5/2008
18.00
18.10
8.30
8.60
125.00
151.00
63.00
49.00
6.50
9.80
43
5/19/2008
18.00 17.80
8.00
7.80
155.00
176.00
44
6/9/2008
27.50 27.20
5.80
5.90
142.00
131.00
76.00
63.00
12.00
11.00
45
6/23/2008
23.40 23.50
6.30
5.90
183.00
205.00
46
7/14/2008
25.90
26.40
6.30
6.10
207.00
224.00
112.00
290.00
26.00
24.00
47
7/28/2008
25.40
25.00
6.20
6.40
203.00
190.00
48
8/11/2008
26.80
27.00
5.90
6.10
182.00
212.00
86.00
56.00
5.00
6.40
49
8/25/2008
23.80
23.40
6.70
6.80
182.00
209.00
50
9/8/2008
24.10
25.00
6.40
6.30
166.00
181.00
106.00
110.00
9.70
9.30
51
9/22/2008
22.10
22.60
7.90
7.50
159.00
170.00
52
10/6/2008
18.20
18.60
8.00
8.10
141.00
162.00
108.00
150.00
7.00
7.00
53
11/3/2008
14.60 14.80
9.30
9.40
155.00
130.00
Up
160.49
228.00
83.00
170.00
76.00
84.00
3.60
3.70
54
12/8/2008
7.20 7.40
11.00
11.20
Down
8.10
11.60
5.40
153.00
Down
175.37
260.00
106.00
54.00
76.00
Down
55.72
290.00
23.00
5.80
8.70
55
Up Down Up
Average 18.40 18.53 8.10
Max 27.50 27.20 11.40
Min 5.80 6.00 5.70
Up
50.28
150.00
19.00
Up Down
15.08 15.80
55.00 55.00
3.60 3.70
56
57
58

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
1<
1
Date
Temperature (`C) - 10
DO (mg/L) - 300
Conductance (umhos/cm) - 94
Fecal Coliform (colonies/100
Turbidity (NTU) - 82079
2
Upstream
Station
Q3720000
Down -
stream
Station
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
Q3720000
Q3735000
3
1/23/2006
7.40
7.30
10.40
10.60
218.00
192.00
32.00
48.00
13.00
16.00
4
2/20/2006
5.80
6.00
10.20
10.40
209.00
231.00
62.00
43.00
7.40
7.60
5
3/13/2006
15.50
15.60
10.90
11.30
130.00
151.00
50.00
51.00
5.60
6.30
6
4/10/2006
14.10
13.60
10.70
10.30
167.00
140.00
24.00
37.00
5.30
6.70
7
5/8/2006
14.80
14.60
11.20
11.40
174.00
201.00
27.00
30.00
19.00
21.00
8
5/22/2006
17.50
18.20
9.50
10.00
119.00
143.00
9
6/12/2006
22.60
22.10
7.10
7.20
141.00
160.00
43.00
54.00
55.00
40.00
10
6/26/2006
24.20
23.80
7.00
6.50
181.00
218.00
11
7/17/2006
25.80
26.30
5.70
5.40
160.00
189.00
26.00
23.00
11.00
15.00
12
7/24/2006
24.40
24.00
6.90
6.40
144.00
170.00
13
8/14/2006
24.20
25.10
6.60
6.30
146.00
162.00
32.00
28.00
21.00
27.00
14
8/28/2006
23.60
24.10
7.00
6.80
211.00
186.00
15
9/11/2006
24.40
24.80
6.80
6.30
192.00
221.00
29.00
23.00
23.00
22.00
16
9/25/2006
20.10
20.40
7.30
7.80
83.00
106.00
17
10/16/2006
14.70
14.20
8.60
8.80
106.00
117.00
19.00
36.00
4.10
6.00
18
11/13/2006
16.20
16.00
8.30
8.50
130.00
139.00
• 37.00
32.00
7.80
8.50
19
12/11/2006
13.20
12.80
9.00
9.30
122.00
107.00
42.00
32.00
5.70
7.20
20
1/22/2007
7.70
7.50
10.70
10.80
147.00
132.00
29.00
35.00
50.00
55.00
21
2/12/2007
7.20
7.30
11.10
11.30
129.00
145.00
29.00
32.00
5.50
7.10
22
3/12/2007
9.30
9.60
10.10
10.20
165.00
183.00
33.00
50.00
17.00
19.00
23
4/16/2007
12.70
13.00
9.40
9.20
151.00
206.00
52.00
54.00
55.00
45.00
24
5/7/2007
15.20
15.40
8.40
8.40
172.00
197.00
22.00
37.00
13.00
10.00
25
5/21/2007
21.60
22.00
7.20
7.10
110.00
137.00
26
6/11/2007
22.30
22.10
6.50
6.60
209.00
229.00
28.00
24.00
21.00
23.00
27
6/25/2007
23.70
24.10
7.00
7.10
142.00
158.00
28
7/9/2007
24.90
25.50
- 6.10
5.80
147.00
181.00
• 24.00
28.00
19.00
29.00
29
7/23/2007
25.40
25.70
6.50
6.30
168.00
142.00
30
8/13/2007
26.40
26.40
5.90
6.00
163.00
184.00
31
8/27/2007
24.90
25.20
6.00
6.20
144.00
167.00
31.00
28.00
11.00
10.00
32

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Fourth Creek WWTP
NC0031836
Time Period 0
Ow (MGD) 4
7Q10S (cfs) 7.5
7Q10W (cfs) 11.3
30Q2 (cfs) 16
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 46.5
Reclving Stream Fourth Creek
WWTP Class IV
IWC (%) ® 7Q10S 45.255
® 7Q10W 35.429
613002 27.928
I� QA 11.765
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Qw=4 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
ill
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WO/
Monk
%FAY/
Awns
n / Ant itirhid Cw Ain ab/e 0,
Arsenic
C
50
ug/L
16 0
5.0
Acute: WA
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic 425
No reasonable potential to violate_ standards. _ _
Monitoring will be maintained in the Pretreatment LTMP.—
Chlorides
C
230.0
mglL
11 11
Note: n<12
Limited data
104.3
set
Acute: N/A•
_ _ .
Cisronic 1,955�-
no reasonable potential to vibrate water quaf�t r stds._ _ _
_—�—� _
Cadmium
NC
2
15
ug/L
16 0
1.0
Acute: 15
__— _
Chronic 4
No reasonable potential to violate standards. _ _
Monitorinwsllg be minta ained in the Pretrme eatnt LTMP.
Chromium
NC
50
1,022
ug/L
18 0
2.5
Acute: 1,022
_ ___ __
Chronic: 110 —
_
MoNoreasonablepotentialtovtotatestandards. _
nitoring wttl be ma marred in the Pretreatment LTMP
Copper
NC
7
Al.
7.3
ug/L
16 10
159.6
Acute: 7
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 15
Reasonable potential to violate standards. _ _
Action level std., maintain monitoring in Pretreatment LTMF
Cyanide
NC
5
N
22
10
ug/L
16 0
5.0
Acute: 22
_ ___ __
Chronic 11
onitoNo reasonable potential to violate_ standards. _
Mdng WITbe maintained in the Pretreatment LTMP.
Lead
NC
25
N
33.8
ug/L
16 0
5.0
Acute: 34
_ ___ _
Chronic 55
No reasonable potential to violate_ standards. _ _
Monitoring %t l be maintained in the Pretreatment LTMP.
Mercury
NC
12
2.0000
ng/L
16 11
39.2400
Acute: N/A
_ ______Reasonablepotentialtoviotatestandards.
Chronic 27
—_—.___
Add iimlts and increase sampling to weekly.
Molybdenum
A
3,500
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
92.5
set
Acute: WA
_ _ _
Chronic 12,532
No reasonable potential to vblate_standards. _ _ _
Optional monitoring wilt be maintained in the Pretreatment
LTMP.
Nkkel
NC
88
261
ug/L
16 1
26.6
Acute: 261
._ _
Chronic 194
No reasonable potential to violate standards. _
Monitoring witi be maintained in the Pretrement atLTMP.
Phenols
•
A
300
N
ug/L
5 4
Note: n<12
Limited data
997.3
set
Acute: N/A
_ _ -_ _ _
Chronic: 1,074
No reasonable potential to v_iola_te_s_tandard_s. __.—_—
Setentum
NC
5.0
56
ug/L
16 0
5.0
Acute: 56
_ _-_ __
Chronic 11
No reasonable potential to violate standards. ___
Optional monitoring w81 be maintained in the Pretreatment
LTMP.
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
1.23
ug/L
16 0
2.5
Acute: 1
_ __ _Reasonable
Chronic --"0
potential to violate standards. _
Action level std.. maintain monitoring in Pretreatment LTMF
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
16 11
244.5
Acute: 67
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic 110
n level Reasonable potential to violate standards.
Actiostd., maintain monitoring ii Pretreatment LTMF
1
'Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
"Freshwater Discharge
Fourth Crk rpa 2009.xls, rpa
1/19/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Fourth Creek WWTP •
NC0031836
Time Period 0
Ow (MGD) 6
7Q10S (cfs) 7.5
7Q10W (cfs) 11.3
30Q2 (cfs) 16
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 46.5
Reeving Stream Fourth Creek
WWTP Class IV
!WC (%) @ 7Q10S 55.357
7Q10W 45.146
(� 30Q2 36.759
QA 16.667
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Qw=6MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
01
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Pc WQS/ IS Pily/
Chronic tat.
n 0 Dot lair Prod Or Allowable tar
Arsenic
C
50
ug/L
16 0
5.0
Acute: N/A
_ _ _
Chronic: 300
'Chronic:
No reasonable potential to violate_ standards. _ '_
nitori Mong will be maintained In the Pretreatment LTMP.
Chlorides
C
230.0
rnglL
11 11
Note: n<12
Limited data
104.3
set
Acute: N/A
_
Chronic: - 1__ ------
No reasonable potential to violate standards.
----------- --- __
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
16 0
1.0
Acute: 15
_ _ _ _ _MoNo
Chronic — -4
reasonable potential to violate_ standards. _
nitoring wWl be maintained in the Pretreatment LTMP.
Chromium
NC
50 1.022
ug/L
16 0
2.5
Acute: 1.022
__ _
Chronic: 90
No reasonable potential to violate standards. _ _
onito Mring w fl be maintained in the Pretreatment LTMP.
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
uglL
16 10
159.6
Acute: 7
_ _ .____Reasonablepotentiattoviolatestandards.
Chronic: 13
_ _
Action level std., maintain monitoring in Pretreatment LTMF
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
16 0
5.0
Acute: 22....
_ _ _. _ _-_No
Chronic �9
reasonable potential to violate_ standards. _ _
Monitoring will be maintained to the Pretreatment LTMP.
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
16 0
5.0
Acute: 34
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 45
No reasonable potential to violate_ standards. _ _
Monitoring will be maintained in the Pretealment LIMP
Mercury
NC
12
2.0000
rg/L
16 11
39.2400
Acute: N/A
_ _
Chronic:. _ 22
Reasonable potential to violate standards. ___. _-_
Add omits and increase sampfing to weekly
Molybdenum
A
3,500
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
92.6
set
Acute: N/A
Chronic _ _ _ 9,522 _
No reasonable potential to violate_etandards. _
Optional monitoring wUl be maintained in the Pretrtmentea
LIMP.
Nickel
NC
88 261
uglL
16 1
26.6
Acute: 261
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 159
No reasonable potential to violate standards. _ _
Monitoring wit be maintained in the Pretreatment LTMP.
Phenols
A
300 N
uglL
5 4
Note: n<12
Limited data
997.3
set
Acute: N/A
_ _ _
Chro_nic_ _ _ 816
Reasonable eotential to violate standards. _ __ _ _ _ _ _
A Umlt wit be added to 6 MGD Effluent page.
Selenium
NC
5.0 56
ugli
16 0
5.0
Acute: 56
Cc ___9_._
hroni
standards. _
Noreasonablepotentialtoviolateedth
Optional monitoring will be maintainin e Pretreatment
LTMP.
Silver
NC
0.06 Al. 123
ug/L
16 0
2.5
Acute: 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 0
Reasonable potectial to violate standards. _ _
n l
Actioevel std., maintain monitoring in Pretreatment LTMF
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
16 11
244.5
Acute: 67
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 90
Reasonable potential to violate standards. _
Action level std , maintain monitoring in Pretreatment LTMF
• Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
•• Freshwater Discharge
Fourth Crk 6.0 MGD rpa 2009.xls, rpa
1/192010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
1
2
(
3
Arsenic
Chlorides I
Cadmium
Date Data
BDL*112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL*112DL
Results
Date Data
BM. *112DL
Results
1
91t4/2oo9 14.
10.0
5.0
std Der.
0.0000
1
9r1412009
so
50.0
Sid Der.
13.4037
1 9114f2009
2.00
1.0
sat Der.
0.0000
2
6182009
10.0
5.0
Mean
5.0000
2
618/2009
11.9
11.9
Mean
38.9638
2 8/8/2009
2.00
1.0
Mean
1.0000
3
3/09009 '°
10.0
5.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
3191009
25.8
25.9
C.V.
0.3440
3. 302000
2.00
1.0
C.V.
0.0000
• 4
1/1212009
10.0
5.0
n
18
4
12/812008
50.5
50.5
n
11
4 1/12/2009
2.00
1.0
n
1e
5
12/8/2008
10.0
5.0
5
93/8/2008
54.8
54.8
5 - 12/8/2008 *'4'
2.00
1.0
..
8
91812008
10.0
5.0
Mutt Fader *
1.0000
8
.
53.8
53.8
Milt Fedor *
1.9100
6 • 902008
2.00
1.0
Mutt Factor *
1.0000
8192008
7
8/9i►200e "
-10A
5.0
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
3/101200e
.40.1
40.1
Max. Value
. 54.8 mg/1
7 6192008 ,
2.00
• 1.0
. Max. Value
. 1.0 mil.
8
3110/2008
10.0
5.0
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
8
12/10 2007
41.1
41.1
Max. Peed Cw
104.3 mg/1
8 3/10/2008
2.00
1.0
Man. Prod Cyr
1.0 ug1L
9
12/10/2007
10.0
5.0
9
9/10/2007
29
28.8
9 12/10/2007
2.00
1.00
10
9/10/2007 s
10.0
5.0
10
3/5/2007
,
41
40.8
•
10 9/10/2007
2.00
1.00
.
11
•71912007
10.0
5.0
11
8/11/2007
. t;
32
31.8
11 71912007
2.00
1.00
12
9115/2008 a,
10A
5.0
12
•12
9/15/2000 _41j
2.00
1.00
13
ttno2oo6 �.
10.0
5.0
13
•
�
13 11/102008 ;-4',
2.00
1.00
14
10/202000
10.0
5.0
14
?i•
14 102012008 '<,
2.00
1.00
• 16
minor 0r 1''4,
6/11/2007 `41
to.o
10.0
5.0
5.0
15
18
''',
M
15 3/5/2007 r c.
16 miaow7 :'4;
zoo
zoo
1.00
1.00
17
!' -�}
17
i�A
17 iTii
18
• .
18
;;
18
•
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
a
9
10
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
to
17
18
Data Data
9r1412009
8/8/2009 tie;
3/9/2009 C{
1/12/2009 ,
12182006 .20
mace
619/2008 t(
3/10/2008 '
12/102007 i»
91/012007 DO
71912007 ;t
9/15/2008 !1
11/102008 r•�i
tonord006 ts4
3/5/2007 � jv
en new psi;
!:.k
• R5
to
10
10
10
10
10
. 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
BDL*1/2DL
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Results
std Der.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mutt Factor* *
Max. Value
Max. Prad Cw
•
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
16
1.0000
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
to
Date Data
9/192009 ,
8/3/2009• .
3118/2009 0
1/1212009
12/912008
2/9/ W8/2000
8/9r2008
12/10/2007
911012007
719/2007
9/15/2008 ��t1
11/10/2000 4'#
10/20/2000 iiii
3/5/2007
6111/2007 ;?
3/12/200e ,-
1.8
1.99
4.88
2
4.41
7.76
3.4
.
10.9
2.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
02
4.7
12
BDL*1/2DL
1.0
1.0
4.7
1.0
4.4
7.8
3.4
10.9
2.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.2
4.7
1.0
Results
8td Der.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mutt Fedor *
Max. Value
Max Pred Cw
2.9851
3.2889
0.9082
16
3.60
10.9 ng/L
39.2 tgf .
-
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
Date
9/1412009
e/812009
. 3/92009
• 1/12/2009
12/82008
918/2008
'. 6/92008
.12/102007.
. 9/10/2007
3/5/2007
8/112007
3/1a2008
.
Data
t
p4,
•
iL, •
1
;t
ilk .
.
341
,•
t
till
..
BDL*1120L
100 50.0
100 50.0
100 50.0
1 0.5
100 50.0
100 50.0
100 50.0
100.0 50.0
100.0 50.0
100.0 50.0
100.0 50.0
Results
std Deer.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mutt Factor *
Matz. Value
Max. Prod Cw
•
14.92
45.50
0.33
11
1.8500
50.0 ug/L,
92.5 ugll.

•
•
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
4
3
6
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
1
2
3
4
5
8 '
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
1e
Date
9I1412009
8/82009
31912009
1/12 2009
12182006
91812008
81912008
3l102008
121102007
911012007
/20
71907
9/152008
11/1012008
10202008
3152007
6/11/2037
Ohs
»ti
J
t
4
+
it
pr •
V
,�,
8DL.1120E
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.3
5 2.5
5 2.5
5.0 2.5
5.0 25
5.0 2.5
5.0 2.3
5.0 2.5
5.0 2.5
5.0 2.5
5.0 2.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mull Factor •
Max. Value
Max Prod Cw
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
18
1.0000
2.5 ug/L7
2 5 ug/L
,, 1
2
3
4
5
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
19
Date Data
9/142009 4
81812009
3/9/2009
1/122009
12I812008
9182008
6/9/2008
3/1012008
12/102007
9/1012007 :f
7/9/2007 K"
9/152008 ,
11/102008 .,'
1020/2008 +
3/52007 n41
6/11/2007 4C
%..
2
25
38
3
30
10
23
12
2
2
7
19
4
8
2
2
BDL■120L
1.0
12.5
38.0
3.0
30.0
10.0
25.0
12.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
19.0
4.0
8.0
1.0
1.0
Results
Std 0ev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mull Factor ■
Max. Value
Max. Red Cw
11.5235
10.6438.
1.0627
18
4.2000
38.0 ug/L
159.8 WI.
1
2
3
4
• 5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
ie
bate Data
9/142009 t 2: 10.00
6182009 ;8 10.00
31912009 "S' 10.00
1/122009 5.00
12/82008 F 10.00
9/8/2008 ' 10.00
6192Q08 Ili 10.00
31102008 ; 10.00
121102007 t+es 10.00
011012oo7 ;'l1 to.00
719/2007 :si 5.00
9/15/2008 =e- 3.00
11/102008 144 5.00
t01202008 i" S 5.00
3/5/2007 tt; 10.00
-6/112007 y<•: 10.00
V
BDL•1/2DL
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00•
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Risldts
SW Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mull t Faa
Max Value
Max. Pled ticl
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
18
1.0000
5.0 uyL
5.0 i 4
• REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
11
12
13
•
Nickel
-
Phenols
Selenium
Date
1 9/142009
2 8/82009
3 /3/912009
4 11122008
S 12/82008
8 9/82008
7 B/9200e
8 12/1412007
91102007
10 7192007
11 0/152008
12 11/t0/2008
13 1020/2006
14 3/52007
15 6/11/2007
16 3/102008
17s
18
Data
e;
y
1
c;
4,
41
=
h„.Z�
+3ri
'�' '
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
14
10
10
10
10
10
10
BDL•1/20L
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
14.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mull Factor ■
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
•11
2.2500
5.3625
0.4045
18
1.9000
14.0 uy .
28.8 u91L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Date Data
1020/2000 t
7/9/2007 4s?
91152008
11/1012008
1/122009
`,
•
#::!
•
�.
:fix
'i
14
10
92
29
13
BDL•12DL
14.0
5.0
92.0
29.0
13.0
Results
Std Dev.•
Mean
C.V.
n
Mull Facbr •
Max. Value
Max Prod Cw
35.4020
30.8000�
1.1569
5
10.8400
92.0 ug/L
997.3 ug/L
1
2
3
5
8
7 '
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 •
15
16
17
18
Date Data
9114/Z009 ;
8182009 �t
3192009 � s
e192ooes'
12/102007 1.. 4•
9/1012007 W.
7/92007 1t"
91152008 is
11r102008 (t%
192012038 s<
s13/2007 '
8/11/2007 IQ
3/102008 :"4`
9/8/2008 = <•1
1/122009
4 ;
.,
::+ ,
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
BDL.120L
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Results
Std Dev,
Mean
C.V.
n
MLA Factor •
Max. Value
Cw
Maxug/L
.
00000
5.0000
0.0000
18
1.0000
5.0 ugA.
5.0ug/L9

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
14
15
SIIver
Zinc
Date
Data
BOL.112DL
Results
Date Data
BDL•112DL
Results
1
9114/2009
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
9/142009
47
47.0
Std Dev.
29.0334
2
6/8/2009
5
2.5
Mean
2.5000
2
818/2009
<.4
25
12.5
Mean
41.9063
3
3/9/2009
5
2.5
C.V.
0.0000
3
3/9/2009
SI
50
50.0
C.V.
0.6928
4
12/8/2008
.
5
2.5
n
16
4
12/8/2008
fi;
74
74.0
n
16
5
918/2008
5
2.5
5
9/812008
59
59.0
6
61912038
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.0000
6
619/2008
75
75.0
Mutt Factor =
2.8100
7
12/10/2007
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
7
12/10/2007
{
10
5.0
Max. Value
87.0 ug/t.
8
9/10/2007
5
• 2.5
Max. Pred Cw •
2.5 uglL
8
9/10/2007
4v
10
5.0
Max Pred Cw
244.5 uglL
9
7/9/2007
5,
2.5
9
7/9/2007
41
. 41.0
10
9/15/2008
•
5'
2.5
10
• 9/15/2008
74
74.0
11
11/10/2008
5
2.5
11
11/10/2008
V
87
87.0
12
10/20/2008
5
2.5
12
10/2012008 :
66
68.0
13
3/5/2007
5
2.5
13
3/512007 k<i
10
5.0
14
6/11/2007
5
2.5
14
6/112007 k1,1
10
5.0
15
3/10/2008
5
2.5
15
3/10/2008
33
33.0
16
1/122009
5
2.5
18
1/122009 t�''r�
32
32.0
17
17
,,Lt
18
1
18
-5-
Fourth Crk rpa 2009.xls. data
1/19/2010

ft[tESUtIle
J. (0. Buy 1111 • 'tateyuillr, Kurth Tarulina 28687
June 24, 2010
Ms. Julie A. Gryzb, Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 - 1617
RE: NPDES Permit No. NC0031836
Fourth Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Statesville, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gryzb:
p� JUis 3 L013
IL�
DENR-WATER QUALITY
POUT." ' CE BRANCH
We are in receipt of your letter dated June 21, 2010 concerning the draft NPDES Permit for the Fourth Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. We want to thank you for your attention to our concerns about the draft permit.
We can appreciate the State's desire to be consistent in dealing with the compliance schedule in the permit, but
we hope you can understand the complexities related to these issues and the City's ongoing commitment to
confirm that mercury and phenols are not an issue at the Fourth Creek plant. Your assurance that there are
sufficient options to address any unforeseen issues that may arise related to the proposed compliance schedule is
helpful. We are counting on the Division to assist us should such a situation develop. As a result of these
conclusions, the City of Statesville does not plan to further contest the permit as drafted.
If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
CITY OF STATESVILLE
JOE HUDSON
Director of Water Resources
cc: Mr. Robert Hites, City of Statesville
Mr. Jerry Byerly, City of Statesville
Mr. Andy Lovingood, P.E., McGill Associates, P.A.
Mr. Forrest Westall, P.E., McGi11 Associates, P.A.

1�
rr��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
June 21, 2010
Mr. Joe Hudson
City of Statesville
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Subject: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit
Permit NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Iredell County
Dear Mr. Hudson:
We received Statesville's response to my letter dated April 5, 2010. Statesville suggests that the
timeframe in the Footnotes for mercury and phenols be revised to 27 months. This would allow
Statesville 18 months to comply with the limits after the new data is submitted and the RPA for each
parameter, reevaluated. When a permit is issued with a new limitation, additional time for compliance
is not put in the permit unless the permittee submits a detailed compliance schedule on actions (ie.
construction of additional treatment) to be taken to achieve the new limitation. Generally, a permittee
can receive a 12 to 18 month compliance schedule to address the collection of additional data so a
new reasonable potential analysis can be performed. If the new RPA results in the limit becoming
effective, the facility then has time to proceed with additional mitigative measures and/or propose a
permit modification if more time is needed and a new compliance schedule is necessary. The
Division maintains that 18 months is sufficient time for this process to occur.
Note that the 18 months for the Total Phenols limit does not start until the facility becomes subject to
the 6 MGD Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements listed under Section A(2). Therefore,
if sampling is initiated and submitted along with the mercury sampling while Fourth Creek is subject
to the 4 MGD Effluent Limitations, the facility will have sufficient time to investigate the source of
phenols.
We would like to proceed with the issuance of this permit. The final permit will be issued on June
28th with all the corrections identified in the letter sent to you on April 5, 2010. If you do not believe
this will be satifactory please call and discuss this matter with me as soon as possible; however, it
may be necessary for the Division to proceed without Statesville's concurrence on this issue.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
No Carolina
atura!!y
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

Respectfully,
cc: NPDES Unit
Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office/ SWPS
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] l FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
(
ulie A. Grzy
Environmental Engineer, NPDES Unit
N°AhCarolina
Vaturaiij
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

Titu of
3ttttesuille
V. (OD. Jug 1111 • 'tatesuille. Nnrtll (Carolina 28687
Ms. Julie A. Grzyb
NPDES Unit, Western Program
Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Grzyb:
@Tarig
APR 212010
DE1,i WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
RE: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit
Permit NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Iredell County
Thank you for your April 5, 2010 letter in response to the City's comments on the subject
NPDES Permit. Your response addressed our three basic issues with the draft: the cover
letter language for facilities discharging to or that may impact 303(d) listed waters, the
basis of the difference in NH3-N limitations (ammonia) for 4 MGD versus 6 MGD, and
our request for the opportunity to collect additional data to further evaluate the Fourth
Creek Plant's potential to impact the water quality standards for mercury and phenols in
our receiving stream.
We believe that your response addresses these issues for the most part and would like to
offer the following comments that follow your three numbered points:
1) The substitute language for the cover letter your letter suggests in relation to
potential impacts of our facility on the 303(d) listing of Fourth Creek provides a
flexible statement of DWQ's objective for addressing the stream impairment.
2) We appreciate your providing the background on the basis for the difference in
NH3-N for the 4 MGD page and the 6 MGD page. We certainly realize that this
difference existed in previous permits, but were unsure of how the change
occurred. I hope you realize that our basic concern was to make sure that we can
comply with the future limitation. Understanding this difference is important to
our planning, approval, funding, design and construction of the plant's expansion
at some time in the future.
3) Your response recognizes the possibility that additional monitoring for mercury
and phenols may justify the removal of these limitations. We concur with the

objective of providing additional effluent data and having the Division reevaluate
the reasonable potential of our violating the water quality standards for these
parameters. Because of the logistics of making this effort, we would request
some revision in the proposed language to reflect the time necessary to complete
collection, analysis, and submittal of the new data along with the time process
required for you to complete your reevaluation. In accordance with the expected
permit monitoring frequency, it would require six months to provide the
additional 24 data points for each parameter. The laboratory results may take
another 30 days and the agency's review will require some time for completion.
The current draft allows 18 months from the issuance date to comply with the
limitations proposed. We suggest that this time frame be revised to 27 months to
allow for the full reevaluation of the need for the limitation. We propose this
because it is possible that the updated reasonable potential analysis could continue
to require a limitation. In the unlikely event this should occur, we would still
request having approximatelyl8 months to perform whatever analysis, monitoring
or investigation that would allow us to assure compliance before the limit would
take effect.
I want to make it clear that we appreciate your recommendation to use all of our
resources to determine if there are any definable sources of mercury and phenols
in our collection or treatment systems. The City will certainly do that, but we
have already made and continue to provide a significant effort to look for possible
sources. We have not yet found any. We are proceeding with this monitoring
effort to reevaluate holding on to the strong belief that reasonable potential
doesn't in fact exist. However, it would only be prudent to retain as much time in
the compliance schedule as reasonably possible to expand our efforts in the event
that additional monitoring shows reasonable potential.
It is the City's intention to proceed as quickly as possible to gather the necessary data to
revisit the reasonable potential analyses. As soon as the final permit language is
developed, we would request the opportunity to take a look at that before the renewal is
officially issued. Once an appropriate revised permit is in place, we will begin to develop
the data for this effort.
Again, thank you for your consideration and work to address our concerns. If you have
any questions, please let me know. I will be glad to discuss this with you further.
Sincerely,
Joe Hudson
Director of Water Resources
cc: Rob Hites
Larry Pressley
Jerry Byerly
Andy Smith

ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 5, 2010
Mr. Joe Hudson
City of Statesville
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Subject: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit
Permit NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
Iredell County
Dear Mr. Hudson:
We received Statesville's comment letter on its draft permit sent on January 20, 2010. The three main areas of
concern in your letter included: the standard langauage used in the letter for facilities located on impaired
waters, the reason why the 6 MGD ammonia limits are so much Tess than the 4 MGD effluent limits, and a
request for additional monitoring to reassess the reasonable potential of a violation for mercury and phenols.
Each area of concern is discussed below.
1) Statesville's concerns over the standard language used in permit lettters to all facilities located on an
impaired stream have been documented and your comments will be carefully considered. Older boiler
plate language will be used as follows in Statesville's final permit cover letter:
"Please note that the receiving stream, Fourth Creek, is listed as an impaired
waterbody on the North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Addressing impaired waters is
a high priority with the Division, and instream data will continue to be evaluated. If there is
noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and stream impairment can be attributed to your
facility, then mitigative measures may be required".
2) The reason for the degree of difference in ammonia limitations from 4 MGD to 6 MGD is due to a
change in the 7Q10 flow documented from USGS around 1994. 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 6 MGD ammonia limitations were developed using the lower 7Q10 and were
listed in both the 1994 and 2001 Fourth Creek WWTP permits. A copy of the ammonia wasteload
allocation at 7.5 cfs is attached.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
NgifthCarolina
7Vatura/Iy
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Acton Employer

3) While Statesville demonstrates reasonable potential to violate the water quality standards for mercury
and phenols, effluent concentrations of mercury and phenols from Fourth Creek are below the proposed
effluent limitations. As you suggested, additional montoring has a good likelihood of demonstrating that
the facility's effluent would not have a reasonable potential to violate Water Quality Standards.
According to US EPA any timeframe exceeding one year to meet the limitations must have a compliance
schedule. Therefore, we suggest changing footnote 5 under Section A. (1.) and footnote 6 under
Section A.(2.) to read as follows:
Footnote 5. Under Section A. (1.):
Total Mercury — The facility is allowed 18 months from the effective date of the permit to comply with the Total
Mercury limit. After 24 data points are collected the facility may request DWQ to determine if there is still
reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard. If no reasonable potential exists, the Division may
remove the limit and/or reduce the monitoring frequency.
Footnote 6. Under Section A. (2.):
Total Phenols— The facility is allowed 18 months from the time it becomes subject to the 6 MGD Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring Requirements before the Total Phenols limitation takes effect. After 24 data points are
collected the facility may request DWQ to determine if there is still reasonable potential to exceed the EPA
criteria. If no reasonable potential exists, the Division may remove the limit and/or reduce the monitoring
frequency. Statesville may submit this request in conjunction with the review of its mercury data or wait until the
facility becomes subject to the 6 MGD Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements before submitting a
request for the review of the phenols data.
Statesville will have the option of monitoring for phenols in conjunction with mercury so a review of
reasonable potential for both parameters can occur at the same time or Statesville can wait till the Fourth Creek
WWTP is subject to the 6 MGD conditions under Section A.(2.) before monitoring for phenols. This type of
language has been approved by EPA in the past and we think it suits both EPA's requirements and Statesville's
concern that additional samples will result in no reasonable potential to violate standards. Regardless, it would
be prudent for Statesville pretreatment personnel to evaluate possible sources of Total Phenols and Total
Mercury and to initiate measures to eliminate or control the discharge of both to the sewer system.
The Division would like to proceed with the issuance of Fourth Creek WWTP's Final NPDES permit with the modifications
listed above. If you have any questions or concems with the recommendations please contact me by email
([e-mail]) or call me at [phone].
Respectfully,
G.
Julie A. Gay
NPDES Unit
cc: NPDES Unit
Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office/ SWPS
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
Nose Carolina
�tura!!y
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina ) ss
Mecklenburg County)
The Charlotte Observer Publishing Co.
Charlotte, NC
Affidavit of Publication
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
DINA SPRINKLE
NCDENR/DWQ/POINT SOURCE BRANCH
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
REFERENCE: 30063432
6430976 Lincoln cty/statesvi
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to Law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of The Charlotte Observer
Publishing Company, a corporation organized and
doing business under the laws of the State of
Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as The
Charlotte Observer in the city of Charlotte,
County of Mecklenburg, and State of North Carolina
and that as such he/she is familiar with the
books, records, files, and business of said
Corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication, the attached advertisement was
inserted. The following is correctly copied from
the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation
and Publication.
PUBLISHED ON: 01/24
AD SPACE:
FILED ON:
NAME:
76 LINE
TITLE: 1.7
DATE:
114CM.91i1
Public Notice •
North Carolina Environmental Maiagement
Commission/NPDES Unit .
1617 Mail Serbice CenteRaler
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDESWastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Manacement Commission
proposes In issue a NPDES waslewa:e- discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after the publsh date of this notice. The
Directpublicor of hearing shouNC livision d there ofWater
aesignificant degree may
hold a
public
interest. Please mall comments and/or information requests to
at 512 N. Salsbury Sal the above treet Rress.. aleigh, Ned C toorevi may
00
file. Additional information on NPDES permits and this notice may
be found on our web&le: www.ncwatorquality,org, or by calling
[phone]..
Lincoln County requested renewal of permit NC0084573 tot the
Lincoln County WTP in Uncoln County; this permitted discharge
is treated filler backwash wastewater to Lake Norman (Little Creek
Arm) in the Catawba River Basin.
The City of Statesville requested renewal of permit NC0031836 for
the Fourth Creek WWTP in Iredell County: this permute I discharge is treated municipal wastewater to Fourth Creek, Yadkin
Pee -Dee River Basin.
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. requested renewal of permit
NO0060593 for the Spinnaker: Bay. Condominiums WWTP in
Catawba County; this permitted discharge is treated' wastewater
to -Lake Norman '(Mountain -Creek Arm) In the Catawba
River Basin.
CP6430976
In Testimony Whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal, the
day and year aforesaid.
Votary:
My Commission Expires May 17, 20 i 1
My Commission Expires: _/_/_

NC0031836
Facility: Fourth Creek WWTP
Discharge to: Fourth Creek
Stream class and index #: C
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/l)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.8 :1
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7.5 7Q10 (CFS)
6 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9.3 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
55.36 IWC (%)
30.71 Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7.5
6
9.3
1.0
0.22
55.36
1.63
minimum = 2
7Q10 (CFS) 11.3
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 9.3
STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 45.15
Allowable Concentration (mg/l) 3.72
minimum = 4
Note: New USGS flow guidelines caused the 7Q10 estimate to drop from 11 cfs to 7.5 cfs. Limits for
6.0 MGD flow were based on the new 7Q10 estimate. Limits for 4.0 MGD were based on old
estimate.

Qit of
ftt#esuiUe
1 . (► . Lax 1111 ' 'tateSuille, Nartll 'Carolina 28&87
February 10, 2010
Ms Julie A. Grzyb
NPDES Unit, Western Program
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Ms Grzyb:
i
1:2 r- ©f2 o
FEB 192010
DENR-WATER �lUAury
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
RE: Draft NPDES Permit # NC0031836
Fourth Creek WWTP
City of Statesville, North Carolina
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the draft NPDES permit for our Fourth Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Your January 20th letter recommended that we review the draft carefully
and also provide a brief summary of some of the proposed significant changes to the conditions in our
current permit. Based on our review, the City of Statesville would like the opportunity to work with the
Division concerning several of the permit conditions. In some cases, we would like to discuss ways we
can further evaluate the proposed limits prior to them becoming effective; and in at least one area, we
would like to better understand the basis of the limits. Representatives of the City have been in touch
with your office concerning these points, but we believe additional discussion is needed. As a result, we
would request that the Division delay issuance of a final permit until we can work our way through these
issues and resolve as many of our questions as possible prior to the issuance of the renewal permit.
In relation to mercury and phenols limits, we believe that the monitoring we collected — which the
Division used to determine that a `reasonable potential" to violate water quality standards exists - is
limited, and that additional monitoring has a good likelihood of demonstrating that the facility's effluent
would not have a reasonable potential to violate water quality standards. In addition, should additional
monitoring demonstrate `reasonable potential" results, the compliance period currently proposed for both
parameters may not be sufficient to evaluate the potential sources (if they exist) in our system and to
develop a reasonable compliance plan. A compliance schedule for these parameters should reflect the
complexity and difficulty of finding any sources and in developing appropriate measures to reduce any
contribution of these pollutants and comply with the limit. We believe it is important to develop a mutual
understanding of the need for these limits and to make sure that if it is demonstrated that there is a need
for these limits that the Division give us an appropriate schedule to have the measures and controls, which
are necessary to assure compliance, in place.

The City recognizes our responsibility to report all monitoring data related to parameters identified
in the permit and to include those results in the calculation of our compliance status. It is our
commitment to do all we can to comply with all permit conditions.
Our ammonia (NH3-N) limitations drop dramatically for the 6 MGD discharge level. We are
unsure of the basis for this dramatic change over the 4 MGD limits. We would like to discuss this issue
and reach a better understanding of why the limit becomes much more restrictive.
Your letter refers to the presence of the Fourth Creek WWTP on the State's degraded stream list
(303(d) list under the Federal Clean Water Act). A close examination of the "use support" ratings in the
2008 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan lists the Fourth Creek WWTP, but there are a
number of cited "potential stressors." The Fourth Creek WWTP segment identified as 12-108-20a3 is the
only segment where `potential stressors" includes the WWTP discharge. We believe the characterization
of the effect of the WWTP as "toxic impacts" is not supportable. While the word "potential" indicates
that no clear "cause and effect" determination has been made, I would point out that the Fourth Creek
WWTP has a very strong compliance record and consistent compliance with our whole effluent toxicity
limit.
I am also concerned that your letter states in two paragraphs that removal of permitted discharges
might be necessary to secure the "health of the stream" and specific to the Fourth Creek WWTP, you state
that "if noncompliance with your permit's effluent limits is shown to be a direct cause of stream
degradation, the Division will recommend the removal of your facility's discharge." Typical water
pollution control management related to noncompliance or identified water quality impacts beyond
current effluent limits looks at many possible corrective actions (including additional treatment, revision
of effluent limits, etc.). Removal of the discharge is technically unrealistic, and the costs associated with
such an action are well beyond the fiscal means of the City. Let me assure you that the City is committed
to the effective operation and compliance of our wastewater facilities. We are also committed to working
with the Division to address any established water quality concerns that may be related to our facilities.
We appreciate your identification of the permit language requiring the City to continue to evaluate
treated wastewater options other than surface discharge. Statesville is very interested in the reuse of
treated wastewater and is specifically evaluating the potential in our system for use of treated wastewater
for non -potable purposes under Division regulations. We remain committed to using the most
environmentally sound, reasonably cost-effective means of managing our wastewater.
Again, let me thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft and to raise issues about the
proposed permit before it is issued. As noted, we request the opportunity to discuss our concerns and to
identify appropriate ways to address these issues while accomplishing the Division's objectives for water
quality. Please contact me to arrange an effective way to discuss our comments. My telephone number is
[phone].
Sincerely,
CITY OF STATESVILLE
JOE HUDSON
Director of Water Resources

Jl\k..ds'bh@ s��'V\fig , like- ,iAet

Grzyb, Julie
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:32 AM
To: Grzyb, Julie
Subject: comments re Statesville Fourth Creek WWTP
just a couple:
1. The parameter name for mercury should be "total mercury".
2. Because the Hg and phenols compliance schedules are longer than one year, 40 CFR Part
122.47 says there should be interim requirements and milestones for their completion, as well
as reports of progress.
V 0i:21-Q•
(An t ^^ ra_T ,ti, re_ r.°"J ' (l
rit1z rC.lnr) W ‘,
i

PHONE MEMO
Date: Jan. 19, 2010
Called: Marshall Hyatt, Region V, US EPA
From: Julie Grzyb
Subject: Turbidity TMDL for Fourth Creek
Called and asked Marshall if the TSS allocation cited for the Fourth Creek WWTP in the TMDL developed
as a result of turbidity impairment needed to be put in the Fourth Creek WWTP permit. He said no, and
referenced the EPA memo issued Feb. 25, 2009. In the memo, US EPA recognized that the organic
nature of TSS from municipal facilities does not contribute to ambient turbidity levels. Since the
industrial flow to Fourth Creek WWTP is < 1.3% it was not necessary to put the TMDL allocation into the
proposed permit.

NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request 12/15/2009
Facility
Fourth Creek WWTP
Permit #
NC0031836
Region
MRO
Requestor
Julie Grzyb
Pretreatment A-F Towns- Dana Folley (ext. 523)
Contact G-M Towns- Jon Risgaard (ext. 580)
N-Z Towns- Deborah Gore (ext. 593)
COMMENTS TO PRETREATMENT UNIT:
Permit is up for renewal, looks like they have
three Metal Finishers
PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (circle all that apply)
1) the facility has no SIU's and does have a Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) the facility has no SIU's and does not have a Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) ije acility has (or is developing) a Pretreatment Program
3a) ip Full Program with LTMP or 3b) is ed Program with STMP
4) facility MUST develop a Pretreatment Program - Full Modified
5) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or -listed below
Flow Permitted MGD Actual MGDSTMP
Industrial 0, ` 0.0 (1.40-) i
time frame:
most recent
. i ,
Domestic "] c
next cycle
_
_--�--.'�'
L
(S)
T
MP
Pollutant
Check List
POC due to
NPDESINon-
Discharge
Permit LI it
Required
by EPA'
Required by
503 Sludge**
POC clue to SIU*"
Site specific POC (Provide Explanation)****
STMP •
Frequency
effluent
at
LTMP
Frequency at
e fit
/BOD
V
✓
4
Q lM
TSS
V/
✓
4
) M
V
NH3
lee"
y"
4
,;M
r
Arsenic
✓
-"
4
Q) M
J
Cadmium
d
7
✓
4
l
q
Chromium
4
✓
4
` M
q
Copper
4
Y
V
4
M
-1
Cyanide
✓
4
M
4/Lead
'1
✓
✓
4
✓
Mercury
%/
✓
4
...)M1
Molybdenum
1(...-V
4
CAM
4
Nickel
q
✓
✓
4
/Silver
r
4
g.).M
M
M
✓Selenium
y /
r%
4
4
Zinc
4
i/
v-'
4
M
✓
,'
4
M
✓j
mot-
g,:
4
) M
4
Q M
F
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
"Always in the LTMP
"On y in the LTMP if the POTW land applies sludge
'" Only in LTMP while the SIU is connected to the POTW
"" Only in LTMP when the pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ex -Chlorides for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
all LTMP/STMP effluent data
on DMRs?
Yes
Q= Quarterly
No (attach data)
M=Monthly
Comments:
available in spreadsheet?
Yes No
version 10/8f03
NPDES_Pretreatment request form 031008 for Fourth Creek WWTP
Revised: August 4, 2000

F. Sampling Plan- Fourth Creek and Third Creek WWTP
l�tlAClr��C� v
Pollutant
Influent
(Pt. 1)
Effluent
(Pt. 2)
Aeration
(Pt. 3)
Sludge
(Pt. 4)
SIU(s)
(Pt. 5)
Uncontrollable
(Pt. 6)
BOD5
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
NH3
X
X
X
X
X
COD
X
X
X
X .:
**Chloride
X
X
Total Nitrogen
X
X
Total Phosphorus
X
X
As
X
X
X
X.
■
X
Cd
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cr
X
X
X
X
X
Cu
X
X
X
X
X
X
CN
X
X
X
X
X
Pb
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Hg
X
X
X
X
■
X
***Mo
X
X
X
X
■
X
Ni
X
X
X
X
X
X
***Se
X
X
X
X
■
X
Ag
X
X
X
X
X
Zn
X
X
X
X
X
X
Flow/Volume
X
X .
X
X
% Solids
X
*Low Level Mercury (Method 1631) is being used for both Fourth Creek and Third Creek
WWTP Influent and Effluent samples.
**Chlorides to be monitored per NPDES request.
***Molybdenum and Selenium optional sampling by WWTP for Influent and Effluent.
• SIU's will be monitored once a year (July) for Arsenic, Mercury, Molybdenum and
Selenium by Fourth Creek and Third Creek WWTP.
3

Yadkin-Peedee River Basin
South Yadkin River 8-Digit Subbasin 03040102
Assessment Unit Number
Description
Classification
Name
DWQ Subbasin Miles/Acres
Potential Stressors
Potential Sources
Use
Support
Category
Use
Support
Rating
Reason for
Rating
Parameter of Collection Listing IR
Interest Year Year Category
12-108-18-(3) Bear Creek
From a point 0.2 mile downstream of U.S. Hwy. 64 to South
Yadkin River
WS-IV 03-07-06
8.6 FW Miles
Habitat Degradation
General Agriculture/Pasture
Impervious Surface
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Aquatic Life Impaired Biological Criteria
Exceeded
Recreation Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Water Supply Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Water Quality Standards 2006
Aquatic Life
Ecological/biological lntegrity 2004 2008 5
FishCom
Fecal Colifonn (recreation) 2006 1
Water Quality Standards Water 2006
Supply
12-108-16-6-1 Dobbins Creek
From source to North Little Hunting Creek
W S-III 03-07-06
4.5 FW Miles
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Ecological/biological Integrity 2006
Benthos
I
12-108-20a1 Fourth Creek
From source to Morrison
C 03-07-06
10.2 FW Miles
Habitat Degradation
General Agriculture/Pasture
Impervious Surface
Industrial Site
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Aquatic Life Impaired Biological Criteria
Exceeded
Recreation Not Rated No Criteria Exceeded
Turbidity 2006 1998 2t
Ecological/biological Integrity 2006 1
Benthos
Ecological/biological Integrity 2003 1998 5
FishCom
Fecal Coliform (recreation) 2006 1998 4a
12-108-20a2 Fourth Creek
From Morrison Creek to SR2316
C 03-07-06
5.8 FW Miles
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Recreation Not Rated No Criteria Exceeded
Turbidity 2006 1998 2t
Ecological/biological Integrity 2003
FishCom
Ecological/biological lntegrity 2003
Benthos
Water Quality Standards
Aquatic Life
2006
1
1
Fecal Coliform (recreation) 2006 1998 4a
12-108-20a3 Fourth Creek
From SR2316 to SR1272
C 03-07-06
7.X FW Miles
Habitat Degradation
Stormwater Runoff
Toxic Impacts
WWTP NPDES
Turbidity
MS4 NPDES
Stonnwater Runoff
WWTP NPDES
Aquatic Life Impaired Biological Criteria
Exceeded
Aquatic Life Impaired Standard Violation
Recreation Impaired Standard Violation
Ecological/biological Integrity 2003 1998 4s
Benthos
Turbidity 2006 1998 4a
Fecal Coliform (recreation) 2006 1998 4a
12-108-20b Fourth Creek
From SR 1972 to SR 1985
C 03-07-06
6.7 FW Miles
Habitat Degradation
General Agriculture/Pasture
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Ecological/biological Integrity 2006
Benthos
"Draft So•essors, Sources and Watershed Information" Friday, September 12, 2008
Page /2 of40

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No
To: Western NPDES Unit
Surface Water Protection Section
Attention: Dina Sprinkle
Date: February 24, 2009
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Iredell
NPDES Permit No.: NC0031836
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and address: Fourth Creek WWTP Mailing Address
City of Statesville P.O. Box 1111
693 Bell farm Road Statesville, NC 28687
Statesville, NC
2. Date of investigation: February 16, 2009
3. Report prepared by: Samar Bou-Ghazale, Environmental Engineer II
4. Person contacted and telephone number: Andy Smith, Plant Supervisor, [phone]
5. Directions to site: I-77 North to NC Hwy 70. Travel east on Hwy 70 approximately 3
miles to the intersection with Nobors Road (SR 2357). Turn left (across from Nobors
Road) and travel approximately 1000 feet to old Hwy 70 and Bell Farm Road. Turn left
on Bell Farm Road and travel approximately 2 miles to site located on left.
6. Discharge point(s): Latitude: 35° 46' 20" Longitude: 80° 47' 10"
USGS Quad No.: D15 SE Statesville East, NC
7. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Fourth Creek.
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Yadkin 030706
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The receiving
stream is approximately 20-25 feet wide and 1-3 feet deep at the discharge point.
Pertinent downstream uses are those typical for class C water (secondary
recreation, agriculture, etc.)

Page Two
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Type of wastewater: 60% Domestic
40% Industrial
b. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 4.0 MGD
c. Types and Quantities of Industrial wastewater: There are 3 major Industrial
dischargers into Fourth Creek WWTP. ASMO North Carolina, Tube Specialties
and Tube Tec., and discharge accordingly 95,000 GPD, 11,000 GPD and
11,000 GPD.
d. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The, existing
WWT facilities consist of influent pump station, mechanical bar screen, two
extended aeration basins with mechanical aerators, waste and return sludge
pumps, three secondary clarifiers (one is out of service and being maintained at
time of investigation), chlorination basin, de -chlorination, aerobic sludge digester,
belt press, N-Viro soil process residuals stabilization and a stand-by power
generator.
e. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: The WWTP has several industries that
may discharge toxic to surface water. Also, chlorination and de -chlorination is
added to the waste stream.
f. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): The City has an approved pretreatment
program.
2. Treatment plant classification: IV
3. Compliance Background: A review of the past two years revealed minor non-compliance
at this facility.
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: N/A
2. Important SOC or Compliance Schedule dates: This facility is neither under an SOC nor
is one being considered at this time.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Permitte, City of Statesville, is requesting permit renewal for its WWTP serving the
Fourth Creek basin of the City. The WWTP appears to be well maintained and operated at the
time of the investigation.

It should be noted that the sludge drying beds, post aeration and sludge thickener have
been removed and should be deleted from the permit. Also, de -chlorination has been added to
the facility since last permit renewal.
Pending review and approval by the Western NPDES Program Unit, it is recommended
that the permit be renewed with the above changes.
Signature of Report Pre • arer Date
/ 4 4---,
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
L/Zy/z
Date

QJittj of
*tati� utLLi
. ®. ?lax 1111 • 'tateuuille, Nortli (!larulina 28607
December 19, 2008
NCDENR — Division of Water Quality
Raleigh Central Office
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
CC: Files
Re: Permit Renewal Application
Fourth Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0031836
Dear Mr.Adu-Poku:
RECEIVED
DEC 2 9 2008
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Enclosed you will find the Permit Renewal Application EPA form 2A. The City of Statesville is
requesting the permit renewal for the Fourth Creek WWTP under the permit NC0031836. The items
highlighted in bold script indicate new or additional equipment since the last permit renewal. The
continued operation of the Fourth Creek WWTP consists of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Influent Pump Station.
Perforated panel style bar screen system with a washer & compactor.
Two extended aeration basins with mechanical aerators.
WAS and RAS pumps.
New secondary wet well.
Three secondary clarifiers.
Chlorine disinfection.
New de -chlorination system w/sodium bisulfite.
Post aeration has been eliminated.
Aerobic sludge digester.

CV of
qhs 34. kg.
'tatteSutile
. ®. L3ax 1111 • 3tatesuille, Nurtll Tarulina 28687
New 2 meter/3 belt filter press.
❖ N-Viro soil process residuals stabilization.
❖ Sludge drying beds are inoperable.
The following is a brief narrative regarding the sludge management plan for the Fourth Creek
WWTP.
• Biosolids generated at this plant are currently stabilized using an aerobic digester and
dewatered using a 2 meter/3 belt filter press. After dewatering, the residuals are transferred
by a sludge cake pump to the existing N-Viro lime process. After the N-Viro process has
been completed, the final product is made available to the local farmers at no cost. Some
residuals are land applied by a private contractor through an existing agreement held with
the City.
You will find the following attachments (A) Process Flow Schematic and (B) Water
Balance/Tank Volumes with a brief narrative of the WWTP process.
There will be more effluent sample data to follow at a later date. I will forward this data as soon
as I receive it.
Should you require more information, or if further action is required, please contact me at 878-3438
Sincerely,
Andy!Smith
Plant Supervisor, Fourth Creek WWTP

PLANT INFLUENT
o MH
BAR SCREENS
INFLUENT
PUMP STATION
DECHLORINATION
BUILDING
METERING
FLUME
i
EFFLUENT
CHLORINE
BASIN
CLARIFIERS
RAS
F AS
VVET
0 0
WELL
sPUaMP
STA.
0 ❑
AERATION
BASIN
❑ ❑
NO. 1
AERATORS
,...)
* FLOW
DISTRIBUTION
BOX
MI
FLOW
SPLITTER
BOX
WAS
AERATION
BASIN
-0 D
NO. 2
- ❑
AERATORS
LIME
STALIME
SLUDGE
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
CONVEYOR
BELT
PRESS
SLUDGE
0 PUMPS
AEROBIC
SLUDGE
DIGESTER
AERATORS
0
L - J
COVERED
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE
STORAGE
PAD
FLOW SCHEMATIC & WATER BALANCE
FOURTH CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF STATESVILLE
Attachment A

'tattt utllz
V. (!. Uux 1111 • 'tatesuille, (trulina 28.687
ATTACHMENT B
4th CREEK WWTP BREIF NARRATIVE/WATER BALANCE & TANK VOLUME
The 4th Creek WWTP utilizes a conventional activated sludge process that primarily treats domestic
waste water generated from residential areas within the city. The raw sewage enters the WWTP via 42"
gravity main and then into an 116,688 gallon wet well at the Main Pump Station. There, the flow enters
one of two perforated panel type bar screens. One of four main pumps rated at 4 MGD pumps the raw
sewage to the flow distribution box. This tank has a capacity of 52,600 gallons. At this point the raw
sewage is mixed with return activated sludge and distributed into two aeration basins with a capacity of
3 MG each. This mixed liquor gravity flows through a 20,420 gallon flow splitter box. The mixed liquor
flows into three secondary clarifiers with a capacity of 374,000 gallons each. At this point, the RAS flows
into a wet well with a capacity of 23,936 gallons and pumped back into the flow distribution box. The
effluent gravity flows from the secondary clarifiers to the three chlorine contact basins with a capacity of
175,481 gallons each. The final effluent is treated with Sodium Bisulfite for de -chlorination as it flows
through the Parshall flume.
The average flow for this facility is 3.0 MGD.

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
FA. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
X Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (Gills). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 0
b. Number of CIUs. 4
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: ASMO North Carolina
Mailing Address: 470 Crawford Road
Statesville, NC 28625
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Powder coatinq.Spot weld.sub-assembly
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): DC electric automotive motors
Raw material(s): Metals,paint,adhesives,solvents
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
15.000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
8,664 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433 Metal finishing

.FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck 0 Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
(Sills) and Categorical Industrial Users (ClUs). Provide the number
treatment works.
0
of each of the following types of
questions F.3 through F.8 and
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment
X Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users
industrial users that discharge to the
c. Number of non -categorical SIUs.
d. Number of CIUs.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER
4
INFORMATION:
to the treatment works, copy
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Tube Specialities
Mailing Address: 1401 Industrial Drive
Statesville, NC 28625
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Powder coatina
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Tubing assemblies
Raw materal(s): Metal tubinq,cleaner,sealant,paint pigments,iron phosphate solution
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
5.000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
discharged into the collection system
d. Non -process wastewater flow
rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow
the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether
2.500
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433 Metal finishing

[FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
0 Truck ❑ Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous D Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE

. FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
or which receive RCRA,CERCLA,
ot, an approved pretreatment program?
Users (ClUs). Provide the number
or other remedial wastes must
of each of the following types of
questions F.3 through F.8 and
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject
X Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
e. Number of non -categorical Sills. 0
f. Number of CIUs. 4
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
to the treatment works, copy
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Tube Tec
Mailing Address: 150 Intercraft Drive
Statesville, NC 28625
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Powder coating
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Tubing assemblies
Raw material(s): Metal tubinq,cleaner,sealant,paint pigments and iron phosphate solution
F.6. Flow Rate.
e. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
4.000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
discharged into the collection system
f. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
600 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits XYes❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433 Metal Finishing

L FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
0 Truck D Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous 0 Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE

,FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
(SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (Gills). Provide the number
treatment works.
0
of each of the following types of
questions F.3 through F.8 and
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment
X Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users
industrial users that discharge to the
g. Number of non -categorical SlUs.
h. Number ofClUs.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER
4
INFORMATION:
to the treatment works, copy
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: O.W. Slane Glass
Mailing Address: 606 Meachem Road
Statesville. NC 28625
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacture mirrors and cut glass per spec.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Mirrors and glass shelving
Raw material(s): Glass,silver,copper,mirror coatings
F.6. Flow Rate.
g. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
13.000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
discharged into the collection system
h. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
900 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes 0 No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433 Metal Finishing

F/ pLITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
City of Statesville, NC0031836
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck 0 Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
0 Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE