NC0040797_Wasteload Allocation_19930630

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNIN1i COVER :SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0040797
Henry Fork 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:
June 30, 1993
Thing document is printed on reuse paper - ignore a.ny
content on the reYerae aide

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0040797
PERMITTEE NAME: City of Hickory
FACILITY NAME: Henry Fork Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major .\1
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: 9.0 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 66 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 33 %
Comments:
PIRF requested. Joe will have it.
RECEIVING STREAM: the Henry Fork River
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-08-35
Reference USGS Quad: E13NE (please attach)
County: Catawba
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 7/31/95 Treatment Plant Class: class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
no change within three miles.
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by,
Randy Kepler
'TaoL (3) )
Date: 4/14/93
Date: 470/f 3
Date: Li
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
J,t,MAI
L//,s15 3
741os
r
Drainage Area (mil ) /02 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): /6 7
7Q10 (cfs) ?7 Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
37 30Q2 (cfs) 60
Toxicity Limits: IWC 3 % AcuteChronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameteric ` r
Y � � J
Upstream
Downstream Y Location ,JJA
a)fh,,, /v T. SF'C. ,,,6,_:,_
Location My? w.wt-
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
/9
30 6)9)
NH3-N (mg/1)
, 6.-
4,2 C6J9)
D.O. (mg/1)
5
S
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Zuv
Zw
pH (SU)
(- 9
6 - 2
4;I(4
,2f
-2d
c4p4.14),,, Coi /6�
e4r,h JM �J /V
6.0 (wq)
/ 9( 7 ((JP)
Mdd (ur/
0A-41Cuja)
.asj cam)
73 Cw9)
do (u(GL)
c✓wr(UUC/.2/
Is CW9)
0.0(104)tivr
Comffi'6nts:
,
c1416 w,d
PLOTTED

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
S ubbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 7405
City of Hickory -Henry Fork WWTP
NC0040797
66% Domestic / 33% Industrial
Existing
Modification
Henry Fork River
C
030835
Catawba
Mooresville',
Kepler
4/15/93
E13NE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
0214302060
1990
102
27
39
167
60
34
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting expansion of existing NPDES permit from 6.0 MGD to 9.0 MGD. Technical
Support recommends approval of expansion and assignment of attached limits.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineerin
Date: 51 gb/6 3
Date:
Date: 6727n
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:

2
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (14/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
6.0 6.0
23 30
9 nr
5 5
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
9.0 9.0
19 30
2.5 6.2
5 5
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
28 28
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
WQorEL
WQ
WQ
WQ
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow BOD5,NH3
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

3
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
Endrin (ng/):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/l):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Chloride (mg/1):
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Mercury (ug/1):
Fluoride (mg/1):
Recommended Limits
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/l):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Chloride (mg/1):
TOXICS/MEFALS
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail Qrtrly
26%
34%
FEB MAY AUG NOV
Daily Max.
7.8
7.8
195
monitor
343
98
monitor
20
monitor
(ug/1) 112
0.05
monitor
Daily Max.
6.0
147
monitor
258
73
monitor
15
0.04
Qrtrly monitoring
Limits Changes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information
Failing toxicity test
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
WQ or EL
WQ
WQ
WQ
WQ
WQ
WQ
Parameter(s) Affected
Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb,CN,Hg
_X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: 100 ft above outfall
Downstream Location: 1) State Road 1143 2) Highway 10 @ South Fork Catawba River
Parameters: Temperature, DO,Fecal Coliform,Conductivity, Color
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name Hickory - Henry Fork WWTP Permit # NC0040797_ Pipe # 001 _
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is _34 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall
perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first
test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of_
FEB MAY AUG NOV__. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 27 cfs
Permitted Flow 9.0 MGD
IWC 34 %
Basin & Sub -basin 030835
Receiving Stream Henry Fork River
County Catawba ( /Date 5/dy/93
Recommended by:
161-4
S/O!/01 //4"-te___
QCL PIF Version 9/91

,�,,, / .k, ,,d / 0. s g whi4 �--
/44 /1-"owelly--
ao
23"" t /
"14-2t0-244 DAy 9 Z

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B Hunt, Jr, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Director
April 26, 1993
Ms. Susan McNeely
Chemist
City of Hickory
P.O. Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
Subject: Long Term Monitoring Plan Review
City of Hickory
NPDES # NC0040797
Catawba County
Dear Ms. McNeely:
The pretreatment staff of the Division of Environmental Management has reviewed a long-term
monitoring plan (LTMP) for updating the City of Hickory's headworks analysis submitted by the City of
Hickory and received by the Division on January 28, 1993. The program design is submitted as
requested following the Pretreatment Program Audit conducted in May 1992. The Division's review of
your long-term monitoring plan is conducted to verify that the activities needed to establish reliable local
pretreatment limits through site -specific headworks (i.e., establishment of monitoring locations,
identification of sampling frequencies, and a determination of the pollutants of concern) have been
addressed. The review indicates the program design as submitted is in very good order. However,
there is one item that may need modification and the following comment is offered:
1. Pollutants of Concern. The Division notes that all pollutants in the NPDES permit are
included in the LTMP as discussed in the guidance. However, several of these pollutants
may not be appropriate for the standard LTMP monitoring frequencies . The pollutants are
Conductivity, Total Nitrogen, Phosphorus, _(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, Endrin and
Fluoride. These pollutants may not be appropriate for the following reasons:
• The City's NPDES permit does not have a limit for Conductivity, Total Nitrogen, and
Phosphorus, and these pollutants require WWTP specific limits to develop a
headworks analysis. No monitoring is required for these pollutants in the LTMP,
although some monitoring for nutrients may be beneficial in identifying potential
sources should NPDES limits for nutrients be imposed in the future.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington 395 Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

• Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and Endrin have only recently been added to City's NPDES
permit and to the Division's knowledge sources of these pollutants have not been
identified. The Division recommends that the City of Hickory propose a reduced
monitoring plan for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and Endrin to aid in identifying sources.
After the sources have been identified, then the LTMP can potentially be further
modified.
• Fluoride is expected to be in the wastewater treatment plant's discharge primarily due to
its addition at the water treatment plant, but its concentration is expected to be less than
the 1.8 mg/1 limit . As such, the Division has developed a fluoride LTMP procedure,
as follows:
"For POTW's without permitted fluoride industrial discharges, inclusion of fluoride
in the LTMP is not required; however, if effluent monitoring indicates flouride
concentrations greater than 1.5 mg/1 then a fluoride source identification plan
involving minimal monitoring must be implemented."
The minimum source identification plan would include a review of water treatment plant
fluoride concentrations and 3 consecutive days of trunkline monitoring, or 3
consecutive days of SIU monitoring. This plan would not be considered complete until
the source is identified and controlled. It must also be noted that elevated fluoride
effluent concentrations have been attributed to inadequate water treatment plant fluoride
control, a few industrial user process discharges (for instance, coil-coating/can making
or semiconductor manufacture), and the concentrating of the water supply in recycle
systems.
Please begin immediate implementation of your long-term monitoring plan excluding or modifying the
frequency of any of the aforementioned pollutants as the City deems appropriate. If the City does choose
to modify the LTMP, then please resubmit the revised LTMP to this office by June 19, 1993.
If you have any questions or comments, please call Julia Storm, the Division's Pretreatment Coordinator,
or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
JosePearce
Environmental Engineer
jrp/hickltmp.001
cc: Keith Haynes - Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
Pretreatment Unit

,/ .
L iAli
tJ
/2
/
,03
•
r AJrr
! / / /! , sr r`
l
J2c) g
a )?tic%4Le,�
/
/.A
0
}:7
J
7 S
r/7 /ri3 J!

l'! i/J , • .5 Z
_ • 1
s4.
..7/ 9z- Tz
735 _30 ?o
a_j(e
144 0,d5IU
77()§7.
•44re'''
:3
t.
-4-1.
•
°Zi
7,
le 7 •
-
t - -
6 L,L. /022
•
J

r.-
•
<-9 z
6914t4PP--1 •
4-
/2C,f • r„)
/30- 2-C P
2
/
f; / ()
/1-fiA /VI LI:.1AZ-
-7 •
-

05/17/93 ver 3.1 TOXICS REVIEW
Facility: HICKORY -HENRY FORK WWTP
NPDES Permit No.: NC0040787
Status (E, P, or M) : E
Permitted Flow: 9.0 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 3.8 mgd
Subbasin: '030835
Receiving Stream: HENRY FORK RIVER I PRETREATMENT DATA 1----EFLLUENT DATA ----
Stream Classification: C I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI
7Q10: 27.0 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + 1 FREQUENCY
IWC: 34.07 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic 1 OBSERVED of Chronic
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total 1 Eflluent Criteria
Pollutant AL Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load 1 Conc. Violations
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 8 (#/d) (t/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) 1 (ug/1) (#vio/tsam)
Cadmium S 2.0 1 92S 0.1 0.0 0.13 1.3 1.410 1 6.0
Chromium S 50.0 1 89% 1.3 1.1 2.36 6.5 7.790 1 0.0 1 I
Copper AL 7.0 1 90% 1.6 0.0 1.59 0.8 2.420 1 150.0 1 N
Nickel S 88.0 1 39% 0.6 0.1 0.62 1.2 1.730 1 0.0 1 P
Lead S 25.0 1 81% 1.3 0.2 1.51 1.7 3.040 1 40.0 1 U
Zinc AL 50.0 1 89% 4.6 0.4 5.00 1.0 5.550 1 445.0 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 1 59% 1.1 0.3 1.33 1.1 2.170 1 30.0
Mercury S 0.012 1 86% 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.2 0.230 1 0.0 1 S
Silver AL 0.06 1 94% 0.1 0.0 0.10 4.4 4.470 1 0.0 1 E
Selenium S 5.00 1 0% 1 1 C
Arsenic S 50.00 1 0% 1 1 T
Phenols S NA 1 0% 1 1 I
Chloride AL 230.0 1 0% 1 291,000.0 1 0
Fluoride S 1,800.0 1 0% 1 1,870.0 1 N
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D MONITOR/LIMIT 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream 1 Recomm'd
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on 1 FREQUENCY INSTREAM
I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Pollutant Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 based on Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data 1 OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 4.42 5.871 0.326 3.595 2.04 Monitor Limit Limit 1 NCAC YES 1 A
Chromium S 80.42 146.774 8.274 27.310 0.00 Monitor Limit 1 NCAC NO I N
Copper AL 12.39 20.548 5.072 7.713 51.10 Monitor Monitor Monitor 1 Weekly YES 1 A
Nickel S 25.52 258.323 12.053 33.633 0.00 Monitor Limit 1 NCAC NO 1 L
Lead S 23.28 73.387 9.119 18.408 13.63 Limit Limit Limit 1 NCAC NO 1 Y
Zinc AL 80.42 146.774 17.518 19.457 151.59 Monitor Monitor Monitor 1 Weekly YES I S
Cyanide S 2.16 14.677 17.340 28.355 10.22 Limit Limit Limit 1 NCAC YES 1 I
Mercury S 0.02 0.035 0.000 1.024 0.00 Limit Monitor 1 NCAC NO 1 S
Silver AL 0.18 0.176 0.191 8.548 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 Monthly NO
Selenium S 0.88 14.677 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 R
Arsenic S 8.85 146.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 E
Phenols S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 S
Chloride AL 675.161 99131.87 S.O.P 1 NCAC YES 1 U
Fluoride S 5283.871 637.03 1 NCAC NO 1 L
I I T
i 1 S

1
NPDES PRETREATMENT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
Ltr of
FACL ITY NAME: 1'Ij 6.Ng\9 Fb'Rt< WM( Z r7 NPDES NO. NCOO /-1 7
yqN CY 1 DATE: .41 / 14 /93 REGION: 1`40S��lC��
PERMIT CONDITIONS COVERING P
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program..
Please include the following conditions:
Program Development-7
Phase I due / /
Phase II due / /:
Additional Condition
(attached)
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions: /
✓ Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS
SIU FI.OW - T rAL:
- ODMPOS I'TION :
TEXTILE:
METAL FINISHING:
OTHER: 140 ?!7A L
I 3 -2-- MGD
• 1gLi8) MGD
MD
10d MID
,067 (0 MGD
,130v MGD
HEADWORKS REVIEW
PARAMETER
Cd
cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
PASS
:THROUGH •
AILOMBLE
3.10
1
Zt18
,3,9n
CN n,3 l
Phenol
Other Fi !t . 23
r ,
DAY WAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL
DOMESTIC
b,0t
1,3
I,Sq
,o
.I O.
PERMIT.) INDU TRIAL % REMOVAL
I .; (4 A 8 q Z
6.03 it() sq
0.$3 tom (v R.o
t i I$ ,0"b 3e1
1.13 ,1q 1 5 I
0,9S ,yZ E39
1 . l b � 2s � Sol
,
APR R
: ! 9/E/q5 REIEWID BY: 3 1ci
RETURNED:q / l / q3
GY, Ato4 a n a (- ic_*)

((t-c‘crAS
tre-S_
�(ne. N PDE ?Ekrot 7 PoR 7Hff PAc.rL�-,
sSuEel 3 i3 rJe-`-cAPED
4� 1S (-z67(1L HE'1r>vLpr1C 1-i,it7 41....,EFla.
r
0 b I
ENb DN croft r ry 2 I►•�-o •-' ?H � � Nt2
�tN �
Pt -FL OtZ toe I, I A4i 7 •
na c, 1- H A'I 7H M 1 f'/i"oM7dr4'y
r (A v ,✓0
S TA 8LI S 11 CO t i f J N G S HE SCE r ,y4F7
t, 1-16,..E-tJE- 2 1 F fEL -7 NA-7-f{-r�s
(ZE0S-17F.D
'AC N 1 T o 4-1 ,v G P _Co P —TH Est c.r i Tr'rexAty
G E A 0 A G 2r frr r FA L d P Pr Oa T f '4
nn on1 r t o6ZI "/ G
AR. LE
41 103

STREAM DATA
INSTREAM SELF -MONITORING DATA
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Discharger: II/ v - /1 /v}, 6.7K,
Receiving Stream:/ 6,./G/euq/
Upstream Location:
DATE
Dec-9
Nov-9
Oct-9
Sep-9
Aug-91
Jul-91
Jun-91
May-91
Apr-91
Mar-93
Feb-9i
Jan-93
Dec-9
Nov-9
Oct-9
Sep-9
Aug-9
Jul-9
Jun-9
May-9
Apr-9
Mar-9
Feb-9
Jan-9
Dec-80
Nov-fp
Oct-80
Sep-V.4
Aug -el
Jul-80
Junift
May -it
Apr-10
Mar-”
Feblf
Jan-q9
TEMP
D.O.
COND.
Permit No. ^IG6ogo797
Sub -basin: 0.)0 f36—
Downstream Location:
FECAL COLT. *OS
1
1
1
1
G. (' t 0,3 3V/44i 462
1.
- 9 7 s 67
r' /44 1,o /i6
17 4c) 69
.2d 71 /7u
- /1 8, /0 3
/l‘ 1.6 6t5-
/,2 9, / /yZ
/
// e. 9 c 3
/7 01', z zo y
.2 7,7 /‘2
.22 7 S" / 73
.24 7, i 24 /
/7 p,/ SG6
2.3
Zfrdie
f9
/V6
66
67
77
1,7
76
s7
v9.
Id
7G
6o
S8
TEMP
D.O.
COND.
FECAL CO /5'w
7 !o, z 5.2, 7 //e/
q 7.b 7/
/Y 79 4'3--
/7 7.7 /:4
2/ 7, / 360
/I A 3 ?
/ t, I, )4 7Y
/z 8, 9 /07
Ia Y.Y /Z9
/y 7.7 9S
22 7 / yo3
47 7 Z 20 J
-24 7, y /,30
/7 79 7d9
2.
GS
87
Page 1
2.3
Zfrdie
f9
/V6
66
67
77
1,7
76
s7
v9.
Id
7G
6o
S8
TEMP
D.O.
COND.
FECAL CO /5'w
7 !o, z 5.2, 7 //e/
q 7.b 7/
/Y 79 4'3--
/7 7.7 /:4
2/ 7, / 360
/I A 3 ?
/ t, I, )4 7Y
/z 8, 9 /07
Ia Y.Y /Z9
/y 7.7 9S
22 7 / yo3
47 7 Z 20 J
-24 7, y /,30
/7 79 7d9
2.
GS
87
Page 1
2.
GS
87
Page 1

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 14, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Swihart 11
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell)
THRU: Ruth Swanek iC3
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: Henry River Hydroelectric Project
Project No. 93-0796
Catawba County
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the letter from Mr. Mike Allen stating
his intention to apply for the FERC license for the subject project. From the information
provided, our files indicate that the dam is located upstream of a major discharger, the
Hickory -Henry Fork WWTP. The facility is a 6.0 MGD plant with some plans for
expansion in the future. Current effluent limitations for oxygen -consuming constituents
and metals were developed using a 7Q10 flow of 27 cfs. It is Technical Support's
recommendation that the 7Q10 flow be maintained below the Henry River Dam, in order to
protect water quality conditions downstream.
A search for additional dischargers and a review of ambient water quality data
could not be made due to time constraints. We will reserve additional comments until the
actual application for the license is completed and potential water quality effects will be
addressed more completely.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
cc: Rex Gleason
WLA File