NC0036196_Permit (Issuance)_20060316

NPDES DOCUMENT 5CANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0036196
Clark 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:
March 16, 2006
Thiec document is printed on reuse paper - igzzore arty
content on the reirerse side

OftwATF�
pG QUA
r NCDENR
1
Michael F. Easley
Govemor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
March 16, 2006
Mr. Martin D. Wilson
Public Works and Utilities Director
City of Newton
PO Box 550
Newton, North Carolina 28658
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0036196
Newton - Clark Creek WWTP
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Wilson:
• 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 May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently
amended) .
The permit authorizes the City of Newton to discharge up to 5.0 MGD of treated
wastewater (with an expansion flow to 7.5 MGD) from the Clark Creek WWTP to the
Clark Creek, a class C water in the Catawba River Basin. The permit includes
discharge limitations /or monitoring for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal conform bacteria, total residual chlorine, cyanide,
arsenic, copper, zinc, and chronic toxicity.
The following modifications have been made in this permit that were not
included in the November 23, 2005 draft permit. Thank you for the in-depth
comments submitted by the City dated December 21, 2005.
• The wastewater treatment components have been updated to four gravity
thickeners. The two sludge holding tanks have been eliminated.
• The facility map has been modified to indicate the correct discharge point for
the Newton WWTP.
• The sample type for cyanide has been changed from composite to grab.
• The requirement for a BMP report has been deleted since the City has
already submitted the report.
N` Carolina Vatura!!ij
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
623-6748
1-877-
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Acton Employer — 50% Recycledll0% Post Consumer Paper

Letter to Mr. Wilson
Page 2
• The color monitoring requirement has been deleted since there has been a
consistent decline in the presence of color in Newton's effluent. First, the
number of color contributors to the Newton WWTP has been reduced.
Observations from Division staff indicate a visual improvement in the
effluent and no apparent impact in the receiving stream. A review of the
influent, effluent and downstream color data for the past three years also
shows a reduction in the color. Based on this information, it is
recommended that color monitoring be removed.
• The parameter, total suspended residue has been changed to total
suspended solids, per recommendation of staff of EPA Region IV.
• The footnote numbering has been corrected in Sections A. (1) and A. (2).
The following modifications in the draft permit of November 23, 2005, will
remain.
• There will be the addition of summer and winter weekly average limits for
NH3. This is done to concur with the Code of Federal Regulations [40 CFR
122.45 (d)]. The summer and winter weekly average NH3 limits at 5.0 MGD
will be 18 mg/1 and 35 mg/1, respectively. At 7.5 MGD, the summer and
winter weekly NH3 average limits will be 6.0 mg/1 and 12.0mg/1,
respectively.
• Weekly average and daily maximum limits for cyanide have been included in
the permit at both wasteflows based on an analysis of submitted effluent
monitoring data, that indicated there is reasonable potential to exceed the
water quality standard. At 5.0 MGD, the weekly average and daily
maximum limit are 8.9 ug/1 and 22 ug/1, respectively. At 7.5 MGD, the
weekly average and daily maximum limit are 7.6 ug/1 and 22 ug/1,
respectively.
There was a review of the reasonable potential analysis and effluent data
used in the analysis. There was one cyanide value of 12 ug/1 that was a
sample from the primary effluent grab. This value was removed from the
analysis. However based on the remaining data used in the analysis, there
was still reasonable potential to exceed the allowable concentration. The
consistent passing of the chronic toxicity test does not eliminate the need to
limit cyanide in the effluent, since the reasonable potential analysis also
predicted an exceedance of the acute allowable concentration.
• A weekly average limit for arsenic has been included in the permit at both
wasteflows, based on an analysis of submitted effluent monitoring data, that
indicated there is reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard.
At 5.0 MGD, the weekly average arsenic limit is 89 ug/1 and at 7.5 MGD, the
weekly average arsenic limit is 76 ug/1. If within twelve (12) months of
sampling, Newton can demonstrate that arsenic is not a pollutant of concern
(ie, twelve samples taken that are below detection level), you may request in
writing, the review and removal of this permit requirement.
• Total zinc will be monitored twice per month at the expansion flow of 7.5
MGD based on results of the reasonable potential analysis, which showed
that the NC action level standard could be exceeded.
• Total residual chlorine limits of 28 ug/1 at 5.0 MGD and 26 ug/1 at 7.5 MGD
have been added to reflect the Division's current policy for protection against

Letter to Mr. Wilson
Page 3
chlorine toxicity instream. If a method different than
chlorination/dechlorination is used, the total residual chlorine limit will not
be applicable.
• An annual effluent pollutant scan has been added to fulfill EPA's application
requirement for major municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Special
Condition A. (6.) of this permit details this requirement.
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 this letter.
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B
of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative
Hearings, 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 or 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 any questions or need additional information, please. contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Mooresville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
EPA/Region IV Attn: Marshall Hyatt
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
PERCS/Jon Risgaard /e copy
Permit File
Central Files

Permit No. NC0036196
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DRAFT 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 Newton
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Clark Creek WWTP
1407 McKay Rd (SR 2014)
Newton, North Carolina
Catawba County
to receiving waters designated as Clark Creek in the Catawba River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III,
and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective May 1, 2006.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2010
Signed this day March 16, 2006.
I Al J W. Klimek, P.E., Director
sion of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0036196
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge
are hereby revoked, and as of this 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.
City of Newton
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 5.0 MGD single stage activated sludge wastewater
treatment facility located at the Clark Creek WWTP, 1470 McKay Rd (NC SR 2014),
Newton, Catawba County, and consisting of the following treatment components:
■ influent pump station
• mechanical screening
• two aerated grit chambers
• lime addition
• two primary clarifiers
• four aeration basins
• three secondary clarifiers
• two dual media filters
• dual chlorine contact basins/disinfection
• dechlorination
• four gravity sludge thickeners
■ post aeration
• standby power
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division, expand the wastewater
treatment facility to 7.5 MGD.
3. Discharge from said treatment works (via Outfall 001) into Clark Creek, a Class C water in
the Catawba River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.

Facility Information
Latitude: 35°37'34" Sub -Basin: 03-08-35
Longitude: 81°13'55"
Quad #: E14NW
Stream Class: C
Receiving Stream: Clark Creek
Permitted Flow: 5.0.7.5 MGD
North
Newton - Clark Creek WWTP
NC0036196
Catawba County

Permit No. NC0036196
A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above 5.0 MGD or permit expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximurr
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
5.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20°C 2 (Summer)
15.0 mg/1
22.5 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E,I
BOD, 5-day, 20°C 2 (Winter)
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E,I
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E,I
NH3 as N (Summer)
6.0 mg/1
18.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N (Winter)
12.0 mg/1
35.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E
Total Residual Chlorine
28 ug/1
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform (geom.mean)
200/100 mi
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
E
pH4
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+No3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Arsenic
89 ug/1
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Cyanide
8.9 ug/1
22 ug/1
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity5
' Quarterly
Composite
E
Color6
Monthly
Composite
E
Color6 (Summer)
Monthly
Grab
U, D7
Fecal Coliform (geom. mean)
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Temperature
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Conductivity
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Notes:
1. Sample locations: E- Effluent, I- Influent, U- Upstream at NCSR 2014, D- Downstream at NCSR 2007.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85%
removal).
3. The daily effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 56%: March, June. Sept., and December: refer to Special Condition A (3).
6. For color monitoring refer to Special Condition A (5).
7. Upstream/downstream samples shall be collected 3/Week (June -September) and 1/Week (October -May).
(Summer) = April 1- October 31
(Winter) = November 1 - March 31
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit No. NC0036196
A. (2). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning upon expansion above 5.0 MGD and lasting until permit expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee
as specified below:
.
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximun
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
7.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20°C 2 (Summer)
15.0 mg/1
22.5 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E,I
BOD, 5-day, 20°C 2 (Winter)
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E,I
Total Suspended Solids 2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E,I
NH3 as N (Summer)
2.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N (Winter)
4.0 mg/1
12.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E
Total Residual Chlorine
26 ug/1
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform (geom.mean)
200/100 mi
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
E
pH4
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (No2+No3+TxN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Arsenic
76 ug/1
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Cyanide
7.6 ug/1
22 ug/1
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
E
Color6
Monthly
Composite
E
Color6 (Summer)
Monthly
Grab
U, D7
Fecal Coliform (geom. mean)
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Temperature
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Conductivity
3/Week7
Grab
U, D7
Notes:
1. Sample locations: E- Effluent, I- Influent, U- Upstream at NCSR 2014, D- Downstream at NCSR 2007.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85%
removal).
3. The daily effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units. •
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 66%; March, June, Sept., and December: refer to Special Condition A (4).
6. For color monitoring refer to Special Condition A (5).
7. Upstream/downstream samples shall be collected 3/Week (June -September) and 1 /Week (October -May).
(Summer) = April 1- October 31
(Winter) = November 1 - March 31
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit No. NC0036196
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (3). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)- For 5.0 MGD Discharge
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Certodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 56%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterhl 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 March, June, September, and December. 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, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch 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 Branch at the address
cited above.
Should the pennittee 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."
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 No. NC0036196
A. (4). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)- For 7.5 MGD Discharge
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 66%.
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 March, June, September, and December. 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, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch 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 Branch 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.
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 No. NC0036196
A. (5). EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table
below (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent
seasonal (summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise
indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and
the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-di n itro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
lsophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

Permit No. NC0036196
> Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form
approved by the Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be
submitted to the DWQ Central Files at the following address: Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0036196
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Newton- Clark Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 550 Newton, N.C. 28658
Facility Address:
407 Mckay Road (NCSR 2014) Newton NC 28658
Permitted Flow
6. MGD
Type of Waste:
omestic and industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
Facility Classification
W
County:
Catawba
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Clark Creek
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
C
USGS Topo Quad:
E 14NW
303(d) Listed?:
Yes
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
Subbasin:
03-08-35
Date:
November 18, 2005
Drainage Area (mi2):
29.3
)
' `" r
F'_-
Summer 7910 (cfs)
6
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
10
Average Flow (cfs):
35
IWC (%):
56 at 5.0 MGD
66 at 7.5 MGD
Primary SIC Code:
4952
SUMMARY OF FACILITY INFORMATION AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
The City of Newton has requested a permit renewal for the Clark Creek WWTP. The
existing 5.0 MGD WWTP discharges into Clark Creek, a class C water, in CTB35
subbasin. The plant serves a population of approximately 20000 people.
!L'; en1
The biritiatatvIrWWTP is an existing 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility, with an
expansion phase to 7.5 MGD. The facility has requested that the 5.0 MGD effluent
page be omitted and the 7.5 MGD effluent page become effective. Based on the
Authorization to Construct permit issued in April 2004, the improvements to the plant
do not allow for expansion to 7.5 MGD.
The improvements made to the plant since the last permit renewal include:
replacement screening and conveying equipment at the influent pump station,
replacement of lime slurry tanks and thickener mechanisms, replacement of primary
and secondary clarifier mechanisms, weirs, baffles, and scum box, renovation of
effluent filters, and other assorted piping and appurtenance changes.
Newton currently has an active pretreatment program with Long Term Monitoring
Program. There are seven non -categorical significant industrial users (SIU) and two
categorical industrial users (CIUs) discharging to the system. It is recommended that
the full pretreatment program for the Clark Creek WWTP be continued in this
upcoming permitting cycle.
RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION:
Clark Creek is listed on North Carolina's 2003 303(d) list of impaired streams. There
are several impaired segments. Newton Clark Creek WWTP discharges into a segment
that is impaired for biological integrity. Potential sources include municipal point
sources. There is a TMDL required for the 2.5 mile impaired segment.
The most recent biological assessment of Clark Creek at SR 2014, Newton's upstream
sampling site in September 1990 was Fair. The most recent biological assessment at
36196 Newton Clark Creek WWII' Fact Sheet.
• NPi).r,S Renewal
Page 1

SR 2012 just downstream of the Clark Creek WWTP was in July 2000 and the rating
was Fair. This same site was rated fair in September 1990.
TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirement at 5.0 MGD: Chronic Toxicity P/F 56%; March June
September December
Requirement at expansion flow of 7.5 MGD: Chronic Toxicity P/F © 66%; March
June September December
The Clark Creek WWTP overall has a very good toxicity testing record. All toxicity tests
have been passed since its last failure in December 2002. Passes for two consecutive
monthly tests followed the failure. In summary, 11 of 11 tests have been passed since
the last fail.
Recommendation: Renewal of existing chronic toxicity test © 56%. Upon expansion
to 7.5 MGD, the chronic toxicity test will be 66%.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
The Newton Clark Creek WWTP has an excellent compliance history. There have been
no NOVs for conventional parameters. Only one NOV for a toxicity test in December
2002. (see TOXICITY TESTING SECTION)
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Color
The City of Newton is required to conduct instream color monitoring above and below
its discharge point. Data submitted in years 2003 through June 2005 indicate that
instream color is lower than in the previous years. The highest upstream color
occurred in September 2004.
Effluent color values seemed to be getting lower.
The facility has not submitted a color reduction study as requested per the special
color condition in the last permit renewal. Recommend that instream color
monitoring remain in the permit, although data indicated that instream color is being
reduced.
Newton Color Data (Units-ADMI)
Date Upstrm Eff Dwnstrm
Jun-05 19.4 40.2 25.7
May-05 17 29.3 22.1
Apr-05 12.8 22.6 15
Mar-05 ND 30 ND
Feb-05 ND 34 ND
Jan-05 ND 53.1 ND
Average 16.4 34.9 20.9
Date Upstrm Eff Dwnstrm
Dec-04 ND 35 ND
Nov-04 ND 27.6 ND
Oct-04 ND 27.8 ND
Sep-04 170 28.3 152.2
Aug-04 27.6 30 34.4
Jul-04 83.4 28.2 76
36196 Newton Clark Creek WWII-) Fact Sheet
NYI)I S Renewal
Page 2

Jun-04 46 73.6 25.8
May-04 16.3 28.4 17.6
Apr-04 28.4 26.8 43.7
Mar-04 6.4 30.4 7.7
Feb-04 30 38.1 19.5
Jan-04 11.2 36.5 14.1
Average 46.6 34.2 43.4
Date Upstrm Eff Dwnstrm
Dec-03 23.5 39.3 27.2
Nov-03 15.2 35.6 12.7
Oct-03 12.8 34.2 13.7
Sep-03 39.4 32.2 15.4
Aug-03 13.4 22.8 12.9
Jul-03 30.4 34.2 33.7
Jun-03 33.4 51 42.2
May-03 27.1 30.1 36.1
Apr-03 19.9 45.7 29.7
Mar-03 17.7 97.2 65
Feb-03 23.1 40.5 19.6
Jan-03 25 60.3 20.7
Average 23.4 43.6 27.4
Fecal Coliform
Instream fecal coliform data shows violations of the fecal standard both upstream and
downstream of the Clark Creek WWTP. Upstream fecal values from April through
October 2003 through 2005 range from 228/ 100m1 to 2765/ 100m1. Most upstream
fecals are over 1500/ 100m1. Because these numbers are so high, the downstream
values are also extremely high, regardless of the treatment of the Clark Creek WWTP
and its effluent fecal numbers. Downstream values during the same time period
range from 120/ 100m1 to 4512/ 100m1. Clark Creek is impaired for fecal coliform
further downstream of the Clark Creek WWTP.
Copper
Instream copper monitoring was required due to TMDL development for copper. .
Facility, was allowed to cease instrearn copper monitoring in October 2003 due to
sufficient data collection. Upstream and downstream sampling of copper showed no
problems. Upstream data in 2003 ranged from <2 ug/1 to 7.3 ug/1 (only 1 value just
slightly above the action level standard of 7 ug/1). Downstream data ranged from <2
ug/1 to 5.4 ug/1. All data values below the action level standard.
Dissolved Oxygen
There have been no DO values below the 5 mg/1 standard either upstream or
downstream of the Clark Creek WWTP.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS:
Analysis was conducted using discharge monitoring reports from January 2003
through June 2005. A permit modification was done in 2002 that included DMR data
from 2002 so that data was not used in this RPA analysis. Since most data taken
from quarterly LTMP, I did not have twelve data points for most parameters although
data from Priority Pollutant Analyses were also included.
i )6196 Newton Clark Creek WWTP F tct Sheet.
NPDl:S Renewal
1'agt� 3

The parameters that were analyzed were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper,
cyanide, fluoride, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, toluene
and aluminum. See attached RPA results.
• The analysis of the following parameters did not show reasonable potential to
exceed either the acute or the chronic allowable concentrations. The maximum
predicted concentrations were less than the allowable and therefore no limit or
monitoring will be required. These parameters will continue to be monitored
quarterly in the Newton's Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) : Cadmium,
chromium, fluoride, lead, mercury, molybdenum, toluene, and nickel.
• The analysis of the following parameters did show reasonable potential to exceed
the NC action level. Per NCDWQ procedure, no limit will be recommended due to
there being no chronic toxicity problems with the facility. It is recommended that
2/month monitoring be continued in the permit for these parameters: 1) Copper
and 2) Zinc at 7.5 MGD only.
• The analysis of the following parameter did show reasonable potential to exceed
the Federal Criteria. Per NCDWQ procedure, no limit or monitoring will be
recommended since this constituent is not bioavailable. Past information
indicates that aluminum may be leaching from the NC soils. In addition, Newton
is consistently meeting its chronic toxicity limit. It is recommended that no
monitoring or limit be given for this parameter: Aluminum.
• The analysis of the following parameters did show reasonable potential to exceed
the NC action level based on the detection level of the parameter. However, all
reported values were below detection. In addition there are no chronic toxicity
problems. Per NCDWQ procedure, no limit or monitoring in the NPDES permit will
be recommended. . It is recommended that monitoring be continued in the
pretreatment program LTMP for the following parameters: 1) Silver. 2) Zinc at
5.0 MGD only.
• The analysis of the following parameters did show reasonable potential to exceed
both the acute and the chronic allowable concentrations. The maximum predicted
concentrations were greater than the allowable and therefore a limit will be
required.
• Cyanide will have a weekly average limit of 7.6 ug/1 and a daily maximum
limit of 22 ug/1 at 5.0 MGD. At 7.5 MGD, the weekly average limit will be
8.9 ug/1 and the daily maximum limit will be 22 ug/1.
• Arsenic will have a weekly average limit of 89 ug/1 at 5.0 MGD and 76 ug/1
at 7.5 MGD.
• The analysis of the following parameter did show reasonable potential to exceed
the chronic allowable concentration. However, the hit occurred two years ago in
March 2003, and all of the quarterly data values since that time were below
detection. It is recommended that no limit or monitoring be recommended for the
NDPES permit. Facility should continue to monitor quarterly in the pretreatment
LTMP: selenium.
3(3196 Newton Clark Creek WWII-) Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 41-

PROPOSED CHANGES:
The following modifications have been made to the permit:
• The requirement for an annual effluent scan will be added to the permit.
• The addition of total residual chlorine limit. Facility will not need an eighteen -
month implementation schedule since chlorination/dechlorination is installed.
• The addition of weekly average NH3 limits at 5 and 7.5 MGD.
• The addition of 2/month monitoring for zinc at 7.5 MGD.
• The addition of cyanide limits based on RPA results
• The addition of an arsenic limit based on RPA results.
ALL OTHER EXISTING PERMIT LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WILL
REMAIN THE SAME.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 11/23/2005
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 01 / 16/2006
Projected Effective Date of Permit: 03/01/2006
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please co tact Jackie Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
Date: fi Zd(',C--
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
Naive: Date:
361E)6 Newton Clark Creek WWTP Fact Sheet.
NPI)FS Renewal
Page 3

AMENDMENT TO FACTSHEET
THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE FINAL PERMIT THAT WILL BE
ISSUED TO NEWTON.
• The color monitoring requirement has been deleted since there has been a consistent
decline in the presence of color in Newton's effluent. First, the number of color
contributors to the Newton WWTP has been reduced. Observations from Division
staff indicate a visual improvement in the effluent and no apparent impact in the
receiving stream. A review of the influent, effluent and downstream color data for the
past three years also shows a reduction in the color. Based on this information, it is
recommended that color monitoring be removed from the final permit.
• The wastewater treatment components have been updated to four gravity
thickeners. The two sludge holding tanks have been eliminated.
• The facility map has been modified to indicate the correct discharge point for
the Newton WWTP.
• The sample type for cyanide has been changed from composite to grab.
• The requirement for a BMP report has been deleted since the City has already
submitted the report.
Note: Newton had requested that cyanide and arsenic be removed from the permit.
Reasonable potential analysis showed that both parameters needed to be limited based
on data submitted. The recommended limits will remain in this permit. After twelve
months of data, Newton can ask that we reevaluate based on new data. Newton wants to
look at doing site specific standards or toxicity tests for these parameters. Told him to
talo Aq Tox about the study. ,Ilk
Date
3/I y/zeo
36196 Newton Clark Creek WWII' Fact. Sheet.
Nl'I)ES Renewal
Page

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Newton -Clark Creek WWTP
NC0036196
Time Period 1/2003 -6/2005
Ow (MGD) 5
70105 (cis) 6
7010W (cfs) 10
3002 (ds)
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (ds) 35
Recbing Stream Clark Creek
WWTP Class 4
IWC (%) 0 7010S 56.364
0 7010W 43.662
® 3002 N/A
® QA 18.129
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Ow = 5 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
MC MS/ fi FAV/
quark Acute
n I DA W.xPrrd Cw ADor<a6N CN
Arsenic
NC
ug/L
11 1
Note: n<12
Limited data
133.6
set
Acute: NIA
Max. pred. Conc. Will exceed the chronic allowable.
Recommend: Weekly avg. limit for Arsenic
50 l'
—
Chronic: 89
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
1 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
WA
set
Acute: N/A
_ _ _
Chro_nic::_#VALUEI-
---- ------- — —•------- -------
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
10 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
2.0
set
Acute: 15
_ _ __ _ _
Chronic: 3.5
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
ailowablie conc. No_limit or monitoring reco_mmended.
Continue to monitor !n the pretreatment LTMP
Chromium
NC
50 1,022
ug/L
11 2
Note: n<12
Limited data
17.6
set
Acute: 1.022
_ _ ______
Chronic: 89
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
ailowabile conc. No limit or monitoring recomm_e_nde_d. __
Continue to monitor In the pretreatment LIMP
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
56 55
35.0
Acute: 7
__ _
Chronic: 12.4
Although exceeds the acute and chronic allowable conc.
DWQ procedure does not recommend limit for action level
unless not passing chronic tox test. Newton is consistently
passing test. Reocmmend 2/month monitoring
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
10 3
Note: n<12
Limited data
54.0
set
Acute: 22
_ _ _ _ _ —~--
Chronic: 8.9
Max. pred. Conc. Exceeds acute and chronic aitowabtes.
recommend daily max. and weekly avg. CN limits
------ --------•---- --•—•---
Fluoride
NC
1,800
ug/L
10 9
Note: n<12
Limited data
2,208.0
set
Acute: N/A
_ _ _ _ ___
Chronic: 3,194
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
Max. pied. cons. Does not exceed the chronic allowable c rr
No limit or monitorng recommended. Monitor In LTMP
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ugFL
10 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
21.3
set
Acute: 34
_ _ ___ _ _
Chronic: 44.4
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
allawabtle c_onc. N_o limit or monitoring reco_mm_e_nd_e_d. _
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP
Mercury
NC
ug/L
8 4
Note: n<12
Limited data
0.0132
set
Acute: N/A
_ -_ _ __
Chronic: 0.0213
_-_ _•_ — _ —• _ _ _ _ _
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the chronic allowable car
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor in LTMP
0.012 J0.0002
Molybdenum
A
ug/L
11 7
Note: n<12
Limited data
97.5
set
Acute: WA
_ __ _ __
Chronic: ########
_ _-_ — _ _- _ _ _
Max. pred. cons. Does not exceed the chronic allowable COI
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor in LIMP
3.500 '
Nickel
NC
88 261
ug/L
11 3
Note: n<12
Limited data
15.4
set
Acute: 261
_ _ _ _
Chronic: 156.1
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
aiiowablie conc. No timit or monitoring recommended. _
nti
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP
Phenols
A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: N/A
_ _ •_ __----•—•—•—•—•---•--_-_--•—•_•_•_•_
Chronic: 5.5
1 N I
Selenium
NC
5.0 56
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Umited data
9.4
set
Acute: 56
_ _ __ _
Chronic: 8.9
Since all values below detect since one hit (5 ug/t) in 2003
recommend continued monitoring in the LIMP
-------------•-----------
.
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
6.1
set
Acute: 1
_ _ _ _
Chronic: - 0.11—••-•--••-•-••--•—•
At values below detection. Recommend sliver be monitored
in the LTMP since faculty passes all toxkxty tests
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
,Limited
11 11
Note: nc12
data
84.2
set
Acute: 67
_
' Chronic:---89----•—•---•-----•---•—•—•—•—•—•---•1
Max. pred. Exceeds acute allow. Recommend zinc be
monitored in the LTMP since faculty passes ail toxicity tests
• Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
•• Freshwater Discharge
newtonrpa2005. rpa
3/2/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
6
Cyanide
Date Data
1 Jun-2005 <
2 Mar-2005
3 Dec-2003
4
5
6 Mar-2003
7 Dec-2004
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BDL=1/2DL Results
5 5.0 Std Dev.
12 12.0 Mean
5 5.0 C.V.
• 5 5.0 n
< 5 5.0
18 18.0 MuIt Factor =
< 5 5.0 Max. Value
• 5 5.0 Max. Pred Cw
< 2 5.000
10 10.000
4.4783
7.5000
0.5971
10
3.0000
18.0 ug/L
54.0 ug/L
- 1 -
newtonrpa2005, data
3/2/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Newton -Clark Creek WWTP
NC0036196
Time Period 1/2003 -6/2005
Ow (MGD) 5
70105 (cis) 6
7010W (ds) 10
30Q2 (ds)
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cis) 35
Reeving Stream Clark Creek
WWTP Class 4
IWC (%) ® 7Q10S 56.364
7Q 10W 43.662
® 3002 NIA
QA 18.129
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Ow = 5 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWQS/ %FAV/
Chromic Acute
n /Dst Mu PiedCw MYows&On
Arsenic
NC
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
133.6
set
Acute: N/A
Max. pred. Conc. Witt exceed the chronic allowable.
Recommend: Weekly avg. limit for Arsenic
50 > .
Chronic: 89
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
1 0
Note: n<12
Llmited data
N/A
set
Acute: NIA
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: pVALUEi^--------------_--_----_------—
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
10 0
Note: n<12
United data
2.0
set
Acute: 15
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 3.5
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
atlowabtte conc. No_limit or monitoring recommended. _
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP
Chromium
NC
50 1,022
ug/L
11 2
Note: nc12
Limited data
17.6
set
Acute: 1,022
_
Chronic:_ ______
89
Max. prod. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
atiowablte conc. No limit or monitoring recommended.
_______
Continue to monitor In the pretreatment LTMP
Copper
NC
7 Al. 7.3
ug/L
56 55
35.0
Acute: 7
_ __
Chronic: 12.4 -unless
Although exceeds the acute and chronic allowable conc.
DWQ procedure does_ not recommend_limit for action level
not passing chronic lox test. Newton is consistently
passing test. Reocmmend 2/month monitoring
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
11 3
Note: n<12
Umited data
49.5
set
Acute: 22
_ _ _ _ _
' Chronic: 8.9 _.
Max. pred. Conc. Exceeds acute and chronic atlowabtes.
recommend Bally max. and weeldy av$. Cy limits.____
—�� �—�
Fluoride
NC
1,800
ug/L
10 9
Note: n<12
Limited data
2,208.0
set
Acute: WA
•___ ___________
Chronic: 3,194
____ _
Max. pred. cone. Does not exceed the chronic allowable cot
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor In LIMP
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
10 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
21.3
set
Acute: 34
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 44.4
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
altowablte conc. No_limit or monitoring recommend_ed. _
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP_
Mercury
NC
ug/L
8 4
Note: nc12
Limited data
0.0132
set
Acute: N/A
__ ____
Chronic: 0.0213 -
_______ ___._____
Max. pred. cone Does not exceed the chronic allowable cor
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor in LTMP
0.012 [:5'.0.0002
Molybdenum
A
ug/L
11 7
Note: n<12
Limited data
97.5
set
Acute: N/A
_ _ __ __
Chronic: 95 5i5tiritt
___ ____ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _
Max. pred. cone Does not exceed the chronic allowable cor
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor in LTMP
3,500
Nickel
NC
88 261
ug/L
11 3
Note: n<12
Limited data
15.4
set
Acute: 261
_ _
_ _ _-1-5-6—
Ch ronic: 156.1
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
atlowabtle conc. No limit or monitoring reco_mmended. _
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP
Phenols
A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: WA
_ _ __ ________________________._._____
Chronic: 5.5
+
1 N J'
Selenium
NC
5.0 56
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
9.4
set
Acute: 56
__
. Chromic: 8.9 -----------•—•-----•---------------
Since all values below detect since one hit (5 ugll) in 2003
recommend continued monitoring in the LTMP
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
6.1
set
Acute: 1
_ _ _
. ic: i~— —.—.---.—
Chron0.1
All values below detection. Recommend silver be monitorec
in the LTMP since facility passes ail toxicity tests
-- -.—.—.—.---.—.—.
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
11 11
Note: n<12
Limited data
84.2
set
Acute: 67
Chronic: _--89---
Max. pred. Exceeds acute allow. Recommend Six be
monitored In the LTMP since facility passes all toxicity tests
---- ----- ------_--------�1
'Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
36196rpa2005Hgrev. rpa
11/21/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Newton -Clark Creek WWTP
NCO036196
Time Period 1/2003 6/2005
Ow (MGD) 7.5
7Q10S (cfs) 6
7010W (cfs) 10
3002 (cfs)
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 35
Rec'ving Stream Clark Creek
WWTP Class 4
/WC (%) ® 7010S 65.957
® 7010W 53.757
® 3002 WA
QA 24.933
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Ow = 7.5 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWQS/ %FAV/
Chronic Acute
n toot Max PndCw amiable air
Arsenic
NC
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
133.6
set
Acute: N/A
Max. pred. Conc. Will exceed the chronic allowable.
Recommend: weekly average Omit for Arsenic
50
•
Chronic: 76
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
1 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
WA
set
Acute: N/A
_ _
Chroni_c: _#VALUEI—•—•—•—•—•—•---•—•-----•—•—•—•—
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
10 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
2.0
set
Acute: 15
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 3.0
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
allowable conc. No limit or m_____ monitoring recommended.
_ _
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP
Chromium
NC
50 1,022
ug/L
11 2
Note: ne12
Limited data
17.6
set
Acute: 1,022
_ _ ______
Chronic: 76
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
allowable conc. No limit _ mit or monitoring recommended.
ded. _
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP -
Copper
NC
7 Al. 7.3
ug/L
56 55
35.0
Acute: 7
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 10.6
Although exceeds the acute and chronic allowable conc.
DW_Q procedure does_ not recommend__Omit for action Level
unless not passing chronic tox test. Newton is consistently
passing test. Reocmmend 2/month monitoring
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
11 3
Note: n<12
Limited data
49.5
set
Acute: 22
_ _ _ _ _ —~
Chronic: 7.6
Max. pred. Conc. Exceeds acute and chronic allowables.
recommend daily max. and weekly avg. CN limits
•—•— —
—•—••-•—•—•——•—•---•—•—•—
Ftuorlde
NC
1,800
ug/L
10 9
Note: n<12
Limited data
2,208.0
set
Acute: N/A
__ _ __________________
Chronic: 2,729
Max. pred. cons Does not exceed the chronic allowable c rr
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor in LTMP
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
10 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
21.3
set
Acute: 34
_ _ __ _ _
Chronic: 37.9
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
ended.
allowable conc. No Limit or m_ monitoring recomm____-
_
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP
Mercury
NC
ug/L
8 4
Note: nc12
Limited data
0.0132
set
Acute: N/A
_ _ •_ _ __
Chronic: 0.0182
_•_ _•_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Max. pred. cons Does not exceed the Chronic allowable cor
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor in LTMP
0.012 1...,0.0002
Molybdenum
A
ug/L
11 7
Note: n<12
Limited data
97.5
set
Acute: WA
__ ____
Chronic: ###i####
_—__-__—_—•_______
Max. pred. cons. Does not exceed the chronic allowable cer
No limit or monitoring recommended. Monitor in LTMP
3,500 I..
Nickel
NC
88 261
ug/L
11 3
Note: n<12
Limited data
15.4
set
Acute: 261
Chronic: 133.4
Max. pred. conc. Does not exceed the acute or chronic
allowable conc. No Limit or monitoring recommended. __
Continue to monitor in the pretreatment LTMP
Phenols
A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: N/A
_onic: •_ __--•----—•—•—•—•—•---•-------•_
Chr4.0
—•
1 N V�
Selenium
NC
5.0 56
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Llmtted data
9.4
set
Acute: 56
_ _ ___ _ —,•—•-----------•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•r
Chronic: 7.6
Since al values below detect since one hit (5 ug/I) in 2003
recommend continued monitoring in the LTMP
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
11 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
6.1
set
Acute: 1
_ _
Chronic: --0. 4—r--------------------••----
All values below detection. Recommend sliver be monitorec
in the LTMP since facility passes al toxicity tests
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67•
ug/L
,Llmtted
11 11
Note: n<12
data
84.2 .
set
Acute: 67
_
Chronic: •— 76-------------------•—•—•—•—•—•
Max. pred. Exceeds acute allow. Recommend zinc be
monitored in the LTMP since facility passes al toxicity tests
--- 1
• Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
36196rpa2005Hgrev.7.5mgd, rpa
11/21/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
1
Arsenic
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Jun-2005 !;< 5.0 2.5 Std Dev. 5.2764
2 Mar-2005 < 5.0 2.5 Mean 4.0909
3 Dec-2003 < 5.0 2.5 C.V. 1.2898
4 < 5.0 2.5 n 11
5 < 5.0 2.5
6 Mar-2003 20.0 20.0 Mult Factor = 6.6800
7 Dec-2004 < 5.0 2.5 Max. Value 20.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 133.6 ug/L
9 Sep-2004 < 5.0 2.5
10 < 5.0 2.5
11 < 5.0 2.5
12 ;r< 5.0 2.5
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 r.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 r't.
29
30
31
32'.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Mar-2004 <. 1 0.5 Std Dev. #DIV/0!
Mean 0.5000
C.V. #DIV/0!
n 1
Mult Factor= N/A
Max. Value 0.5 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw N/A ug/L
-1-
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
11/20/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
3
4
Cadmium
Chromium
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.2582
1
< 2 1.0
Std Dev.
1.4169
2
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.7000
2
< 5 2.5
Mean
2.2818
3
Dec-2003
<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.3689
3
Dec-2003
< 5 2.5
C.V.
0.6210
4
<
2
1.0
n
10
4
< 5 2.5
n
11
5
<
2
1.0
5
< 5 2.5
6
Mar-2003
<
2
1.0
Mult Factor=
2.0400
6
< 5 2.5
Mult Factor=
2.9900
7
Dec-2004
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
1.0 ug/L
7
Dec-2004
2.7 2.7
Max. Value
5.9 ug/L
8
<
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.0 ug/L
8
Sep-2004
< 2 1.0
Max. Pred Cw
17.6 ug/L
9
"':<
1
0.50
9
Jun-2004
< 2 1.0
10
<
1
0.50
10
Mar-2004
5.9 5.9
11
11
Mar-2004
< 2.0 1.0
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
{
17
18
18
19
19
20
t
20
21
r
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
r
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
"i;'-'
33
34
34
35
35
36
g.
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
11'
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
3•-
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
- 2 -
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
11/20/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
5
6
Copper
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4.2
4.2
Std Dev.
3.9833
1
<
5
5.0
Std Dev.
4.4599
2
12
12.0
Mean
8.2321
2
12
12.0
Mean
7.9091
3
10
10.0
C.V.
0.4839
3
Dec-2003
<
5
5.0
C.V.
0.5639
4
6.6
6.6
n
56
4
c
5
5.0
n
11
5
9.8
9.8
5
<
5
5.0
6
5
5.0
Mult Factor =
1.5200
6
18
18.0
Mult Factor =
2.7500
7
Dec-2003
6.3
6.3
Max. Value
23.0 ug/L
7
Dec-2004
<
5
5.0
Max. Value
18.0 ug/L
8
7.5
7.5
Max. Pred Cw
35.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
49.5 ug/L
9
8
8.3
9
<
5
5.000
10
8
7.5
10
<
2
5.000
11
8
8.3
11
10
10.000
12
Sep-2003
8
7.6
12
12
12.000
13
7
7.3
13
14
Aug-2003
9
9.3
14
15
9
8.8
15
16
8
7.8
16
17
10
10.0
17
18
3
3.0
18
19
7
6.5
19
20
5
4.6
20
21
7
6.8
21
22
8
8.1
22
23
6
6.4
23
24
8
8.2
24
25
Dec-2004
4
3.8
25
26
26
27
5
5.2
27
28
3
3.4
28
29
8
7.8
29
30
6
5.5
30
31
6
5.7
31
32
5
5.4
32
33
9
8.9
33
34
7
7.0
34
35
11
11.0
35
36
5
5.0
36
37
9
8.7
37
38
9
9.0
38
39
23
23.0
39
40
3
2.6
40
41
22
22.0
41
42
7
7.2
42
43
<
2
1.0
43
44
11
11.0
44
45
12
12.0
45
46
11
11.0
46
47
4
3.5
47
48
8
7.9
48
49
11
11.0
49
50
9
8.5
50
51
f;
11
11.0
51
52
8
8.0
52
53
15
15.0
53
54
16
16.0
54
55
9
9.0
55
56
8
8.0
56
57
7
7.0
57
58
58
-3-
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
11/20/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
7
8
Fluoride
Lead
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1100
1100.0
Std Dev.
274.6634
1
Dec-2005
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
1.9384
2
1000
1000.0
Mean
882.0000
2
Dec-2003
<
10
5.0
Mean
3.8200
3
Dec-2003
760
760.0
C.V.
0.3114
3
<`.
5
2.5
C.V.
0.5074
4
700
700.0
n
10
4
Sep-2003
<
10
5.0
n
10
5
<' 500
250.0
5
10
5.0
6
800
800.0
Mult Factor=
1.8400
6
8.2
8.2
Mult Factor=
2.6000
7
Dec-2004
1200
1200.0
Max. Value
1200.0 ug/L
7
Dec-2004
5
2.5
Max. Value
8.2 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
2208.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
21.3 ug/L
9
1,100
1100.0
9
<
5
2.5
10
1,000
1000.0
10
<
5
2.5
11
910
910.0
11
<
5
2.5
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
-4-
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
11/20/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
9
10
Mercury
Molybdenum
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
<
0.0010
0.0005
Std Dev.
0.0011
1
15
15.0
Std Dev.
13.9786
2
0.0028
0.0028
Mean
0.0020
2
21
21.0
Mean
39.0000
3
Dec-2004
0.0015
0.0015
C.V.
0.5715
3
Dec-2003
'<
100
50.0
C.V.
0.3584
4
0.0042
0.0042
n
8
4
<
100
50.0
n
11
5
0.0013
0.0013
5
<
100
50.0
6
0.0016
0.0016
Mull Factor =
3.1800
6
Dec-2004
'"
22
22.0
Mult Factor =
1.9500
7
Dec-2003
0.0015
0.0015
Max. Value
0.0042 ug/L
7
Mar-2003
<
100
50.0
Max. Value
50.0 ug/L
8
0.0027
0.0027
Max. Pred Cw
0.0132 ug/L
8
47.0
47.0
Max. Pred Cw
97.5 ug/L
9
9
30.0
30.0
10
10
49.0
49.0
11
11
45.0
45.0
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
�.y
58
-5-
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
11/20/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
11
13
Nickel
Phenols
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.6639
2 < 5 2.5 Mean 3.4545
3 Dec-2003 6.4 6.4 C.V. 0.4817
4 5.2 5.2 n 11
5 < 5 2.5
6 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 2.4100
7 Dec-2004 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 6.4 ug/L
8 Nov-2004 Max. Pred Cw 15.4 ug/L
9 < 5 2.5
10 < 5 2.5
11 < 5 2.5
12 6 6.4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Nov-2004 Std Dev. NO DATA
Mean NO DATA
C.V. NO DATA
n 0
Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value 0.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw N/A ug/L
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
- 6 - 11/20/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
14
15
Selenium
Silver
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
< 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.8442
< 5 2.5 Mean 2.7545
Dec-2003 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.3065
< 5 2.5 n 11
< 5 2.5
Dec-2004 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.7800
Mar-2003 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 5.3 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 9.4 ug/L
< 5 2.5
< 5 2.5
5 5.3
< 5 2.5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 < 2 1.0 Std Dev. 0.7568 1
2 < 2 1.0 Mean 1.5455 2
3 Dec-2003 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.4897 3
4 < 5 2.5 n 11 4
5 < 5 2.5 5
6 Dec-2004 < 2 1.0 Mult Factor = 2.4400 6
7 Mar-2003 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L 7
8 Max. Pred Cw 6.1 ug/L 8
9 < 2 1.0 9
10 < 2 1.0 10
11 < 2 1.0 11
12 < 2 1.0 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
- 7 - 11/20/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
32 32.0 Sid Dev. 10.7551
45 45.0 Mean 33.4545
Dec-2003 21 21.0 C.V. 0.3215
22 22.0 n 11
39 39.0
38 38.0 Mult Factor = 1.8300
Dec-2004 "' 38 38.0 Max. Value 46.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 84.2 ug/L
18 18.0
23 23.0
46 46.0
Mar-2004 46 46.0
36196rpa2005Hgrev, data
- 8 - 11/20/2005

Facility Name
NPDES #
Ow (MGD)
7Q10s (cfs)
!WC (%)
Rec'ving Stream
Stream Class
Newton WWTP
NC0031696
7.5
6
65.96
clark creek
C
Toluene
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Aluminum
FINAL RESULTS
7.5
16.7
2.5
Max. Pred Cw 910
Allowable Cw 131.9
Max. Value 350
Parameter =
ug/1
ug/I
ugn
ug/l
TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Toluene
Standard = 11 pgll
Parameter = Aluminum
Standard =
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1 0.5 <1 Std Dev. 1.032795559
2 0.5 <1 Mean 1.3
3 0.5 <1 C.V. 0.6
4 0.5 <1
5 0.5 <1
6 0.5 <1 Mult Facto 31
7 2.5 <5 Max. Value
8 2.5 <5 Max. Pred
9 2.5 <5 Allowable (
10 2.5 <5
11
12
13
14
2.5 pg/i
7.5 pg/i
16.68 pg/i
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
87
pgll
n 3DL=1/2D'ctual Data RESULTS
1 100 100 Std Dev. 106.6458313
350 350 Mean 212
230 230 C.V. 0.503046374
300 300
50 <100
50 <100 Mult Factor' 2.6
270 270 Max. Value 350 pgll
250 250 Max. Pred ( 910 pg/l
280 280 Allowable C 131.90 pg/i
240 240
Pare
Sta
11 /21 /2005

Facility Name
NPDES #
Ow (MGD)
7Q10s (cfs)
IWC (%)
Reeving Stream
Stream Class
Newton WWTP
NC0031696
5
6
56.36
clark creek
C
Toluene
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Aluminum
FINAL RESULTS
7.5
19.5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw 910
Allowable Cw 154.4
Max. Value 350
Parameter =
ug/l
ug/l
ug/I
ugll
TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Toluene
Standard = 11 lag/l
Parameter = Aluminum
Standard = 87 pg/I
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1 0.5 <1 Std Dev. 1.032795559
2 0.5 <1 Mean 1.3
3 0.5 <1 C.V. 0.6
4 0.5 <1
5 0.5 <1
6 0.5 <1 Mull Facto
7 2.5 <5 Max. Value
8 2.5 <5 Max. Pred
9 2.5 <5 Allowable C
10 2.5 <5
11
12
13
14
3
2.5 IigA
7.5 pgA
19.52 pgA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
n 3DL=1/2D'ctual Data RESULTS
100 100 Std Dev. 106.6458313
350 350 Mean 212
230 230 C.V. 0.503046374
300 300
50 <100
50 <100 Mull Factor' 2.6
270 270 Max. Value 350 pg/l
250 250 Max. Pred ( 910 lag/l
280 280 Allowable C 154.35 lag/l
240 240
Par
Ste
11 /21 /2005

CITY OF
"THE HEART OF CATAWBA COUNTY"
December 21, 2005
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NC Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit Response
Permit No. NC0036196
Newton -Clark Creek WWTP
Catawba
Dear Ms. Nowell:
P.O. Box 550 • Newton, NC 28658 . [phone]
n
J AN - 3 2006
The City of Newton appreciates the draft NPDES permit issued by the Division on
November 23, 2005 for our comment and review. The following is a review of
comments, most of which you and I discussed by phone.
Supplement To Cover Sheet #1 should be updated to include four gravity
thickeners and eliminate two holding tanks.
Facility Information Map indicates the location of an abandoned WWTP. The
map submitted in the permit application is correct and I have included a copy of this map
in this response.
A.1 Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements states Total Cyanide as a
composite sample. This should be a grab sample.
Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, Special
Conditions, A.(5), requires a Pollution Prevention Best Management Practices (BMP)
report. The previous or present NPDES permit also has this requirement to which the
City of Newton complied and submitted this report in November 2003. This report was
mailed to Mr. Alan Klimek and I have included a copy for you. The City of Newton
requests that this requirement be removed from the permit.

As allowed by this same section of the permit, the City of Newton requests that
color monitoring requirements be removed from the permit based on the DMR color
monitoring data for the past several years and the following comments included in DENR
Compliance Inspection Reports.
Compliance Inspection 11/17/2000 Mr. John Lesley: Mooresville Regional
Office, Effluent Receiving Waters: "The effluent was clear with no visible suspended
solids or foam. The receiving stream, Clark Creek, did not appear to be impacted by the
discharge."
Compliance Inspection 03/26/2002: Mr. John Lesley, Mooresville Regional
Office, Effluent/Receiving Waters: "The effluent was clear with no visible suspended
solids or foam. The receiving stream, Clark Creek did not appear to be impacted by the
discharge."
Compliance Inspection 06/10/2003: Mr. John Lesley, Mooresville Regional
Office, Effluent/Receiving Waters: "The effluent was clear with no visible suspended
solids or foam. The receiving stream, Clark Creek did not appear to be impacted by the
discharge."
Compliance Inspection 03/10/2004: Mr. John Lesley, Mooresville Regional
Office, Effluent Pipe: Comment: "Effluent discharge was clear with no solids/foam."
Compliance Inspection 05/19/2005: Mr. Wes Bell, Mooresville Regional Office,
Effluent Pipe: "The effluent appeared clear with no floatable solids and trace foam
(entrained air). The receiving stream did not appear to be negatively impacted."
The following is a response to the permit modifications listed by the Division:
The City of Newton concurs with the Division per summer and winter weekly
✓average limits for effluent NH3.
The City of Newton disagrees with the data and reasoning used to add weekly and
daily maximum limits for Total Cyanide for the effluent. First, I used the Reasonable
Potential Analysis (RPA) that you kindly sent me and added Total Cyanide data collected
in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. I then deleted one of the 12ug/L entries because it
appeared to be a duplicate and I could not confirm another 12ug/L result per my data.
The 03/06/03 18u entry wa d asis allowed._b_ythe-permit Writer a flier. The
resulting RPA calculations gave a Max. Pred. C. of 16.7ug/L based on the 12ug/L Max.
Value. I added this additional data which totals 108 sampling points for the Division to
consider in evaluating the real need of a Total Cyanide effluent limit. I have included this
modified spreadsheet in this response. Ev th u h
indicates the need for monitoring and„ imits., the City objects to this requirement based on
the following reason.

The Division with EPA approval uses the bioassay toxicity test to determine if the
receiving waters are protected and if a pollutant may have an environmental impact on a
receiving stream, which is one of the most important aspects of a NPDES permit. Below I
have listed Total Cyanide results collected during Bioassay testing and Bioassay testing
results:
Date
Total Cyanide, ug/L Bioassay results
03/04/99 3.2 pass
06/03/99 <2.5 pass
09/09/99 <5 pass
12/09/99 <5 pass
03/09/00 <5 pass
07/13/00 <5 pass
10/05/00 <5 pass
03/08/01 <5 pass
06/07/01 <5 pass
09/06/01 <5 pass
12/06/01 5 pass
03/07/02 7 pass
06/06/02 <5 pass
09/05/02 2.1 pass
12/05/02 <5 fail
Multi -dilution toxicity testing was conducted as required by the permit for January and
February of 2003 and resulted in no toxicity effects at 100% dilution. That is 100%
dilution, not our routine 56% dilution. This fact cast a great doubt concerning the
reliability of the single lab toxicity failure of 12/05/02. Beginning in March 2003 each
Bioassay test has been conducted by two independent labs and there has not been one
DMR reportable failure to date.
01/13/03 pass
02/10/03 pass
03/06/03 18 pass
06/12/03 <5 pass
09/11/03 <5 pass
12/05/03 <5 pass
03/04/04 10 pass
06/10/04 <2 pass
09/16/04 <5 pass
12/09/04 <5 pass
03/10/05 12 pass
06/23/05 <5 pass
09/15/05 <5 pass

1/_ x,
ti's
e 0
pit.'•
qJ•
As you can tell this WWTP has passed Bioassay testing with a concentration of Total
Cyanide as high as 45ug/L which when diluted to our stream the concentration the
Bioassay tested sample would have been 25.2ug/L. It is clear from the facts presented
here that stand alone Total Cyanide testing results are a faulty premise to base any
reasonable potential environmental affects on a receiving stream or to implement any
additional monitoring or limitations. The City of Newton would welcome a possible
funded study to determine the toxicity effects of Total Cyanide of our effluent waste
stream. One example maybe the "real world" environmental impact of Cyanide and or
Total Cyanide to a receiving stream as related to its volatility. This study would aid other
dischargers and would protect the waters of the State without adding unnecessary NPDES
burdens on wastewater dischargers. The City of Newton agrees that Cyanide is a toxic
substance and is a pollutant of concern and should be adequately monitored and would
agree to 1/month monitoring of Total Cyanide, including during Bioassay testing.
Consequently, the City of Newton strongly disagrees with any effluent monitoring
requirements or limits for Total Cyanide in this permit.
Concerning the proposed weekly effluent Arsenic limits and monitoring. I used
the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) that you sent me and added data from 1999,
2000 and 2001. I then deleted the 03/20/05 20ug/L entry as is allowed by the permit
writer as a flier. The resulting calculations demonstrate a Max. Pred. C. of 8ug/L, well
below the stream water Quality Standard of 50ug/L. The City requests that the effluent
Arsenic monitoring requirements and limits be removed from the draft permit based on
the updated RPA calculations.
The City concurs with the Division at this time concerning a Zinc monitoring
requirement of 2/month pursuant to obtaining an Authorization To Construct and
expanding the permitted flow to 7.5 MGD.
The City concurs with the Division concerning an effluent total residual chlorine
`/ limit of 28ug/L.
The City concurs with the Division to perform an annual priority pollutant scan
7 over the next 5-year permit cycle that shall include seasonal variations (summer, winter,
fall and spring).

It is the purpose of this WWTP and the Division to protect our waters for all of
our neighbors downstream with defensible science, updated monitoring data and sound
reasoning. The City staff and I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Division
to discuss any of the issues I have covered in this response before the Division issues a
final or binding NPDES permit to the City. Thanks again to the Division for allowing the
City 30 days to comment on this draft NPDES permit. If you have any questions please
feel free to contact me at 828.695.4346.
Respectfully Yours,
Dannygmon
WWTP Superintendent
City of Newton
Attachments
cc: Mooresville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
EPA / Region IV Attn: Marshall Hyatt
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
PERCS / Jon Risgaard
Willis Engineers

•,*
N. i":". „,.....• ..,......,;-- ..______ ....
j/
- ,., ,,..3-.., .'.. , ,,,,,--. • .., ,,,.,..,..; ;-- ,,,'
i.- ( -. •
\ 1‘...‘ - —v •".,1: ' . I --,.. - -V,.
-,,, '7 '':,,,• ' • '`,' ..:?;----• ‘. . _
. ,.:_ •••=-7- ,•:,..-:":,-.,...,:i..,:-, .
, ..,., ,,.... : ,- , :.,- N '•,, .!..
• , - , ';'• ..' C 4
. -.7'2 .1, • " /"IN•sij ' . ---'
- -; •
, I \ - \--; c, / , -•••• -
", ' , • • . -''. --- -,
. ..
•..,-.,,,,,,
...„... • I i 1':'," '........it
--•;,',,-..',.__'/
0) i 11 4...,•••••••I -, • ,.,1 - - .'-
1 ' — —' . _..)
''://' '''....e ' ' ''.. \------"'; - ' ' ..• ..... ....,
•••-, s,
• 1 , V ) \ -.... , . . . •
, I ' ' •-; -1 : . .I •
• ), ,,• . -0\ • km: )`,, 'i , ',.. . .;-,.,- , .' - --- , •i,....', • ,, „ . - ;
' / ' 1 - --il c -- --',•••' . ' ••••—•• ••-• • '''',..•-, ---: ,.;. •!•••,:* : 1 ------.. ., ‘--- .
-. .. _
I ..] • • 'in\ . - ,.•.:•' '•,,,' .., ' T.---,"... --• '''..-',A,' .• .:,• .,- / /•,, - .,,------
......) ...;
I- :•'''..,. _ ••,‘,--. . '-- -.••• -2.-. :;/-•.: . • . ,, ..„-,
, ,_..- • , .::',-. ./ ••••...„,- -.::-:\ -,-.:„ - .„...,:, . .1 ' -'-, • .-- . ,
).• • \ \ , .. . ,. .1.--
,..,
..•'. '-; / ' ,. --, .. ;.•
I . ../. ( - '\.. --"' - •
.--.
., .-•-'7:\' '., • '.
.) •'„..'•• \ '
',.. / .,..—....--•-- ,,,,..,„j• LaI.,•,:;.•••:,..,-
`...: 7 s.........,_ .. ..- ,. __/_...„,.
.7
--"/
....,
..--• I • \ L .- -
•• _T:,
,,,,,---------1 ' (,:r.(,...--..-.'.-..s..........,...:... .. DISCi-fARPE
- _.•-4 , .„,,
:,.., --... .- POINT 00,V - - , - -- ,".' ' '''''''::. ,'''' . .:.•_.- ,
-....t
. • ,.• .. •'• -. --...„........./ ..,..:
-..
, . 1 .• ,4
, • , ..- • --'1." ,
. i
/
(..„ ..--
,. ..
A•rn cave.
i, • , • • , -•• -:•-••.-.-,s-- - - -- •---- . -------*--,-/I .• Ic- CU-AK - -
- • •
__. .' ' -N,/ 1.1 ---• , '''...- ..,.. . ,•-•-..,:-,, , .....; 'i, ,.,' : CREEK (/
• — \ ;MI/
•
,...... ,, •••• ' - ''''-- . \‘ '-' ''''''
'', ,/,' --..--., * .- --- - '-• = 1
•--_,
r •,. - -- .....-.0. v i
-,...
.'"- L4=''''"(''''' ' ' \ „•/(' \
• .
Se.;.F.t: ' - •,'"- , ,t -.- , .--- --'-__,'
--).:2:2•'1 ',t P"`--
' '
'` \j ',-(6-- -''.)t-',•1 '‘,/ / /.'f'f.- ' ; ' '-'-',,:. f' ----.-• •
,,, ,.., ,, 1
. • ' . s .e/•!..... .
•',..:. •
."" `•-• •
•
•
-r
/
• •
•, I
• V
'
IMES ENGINEERS
CITY OF NEWTON
CLARK CREEK WWTP
JANUARY 2005
1" =
2000'
949.037
2

CITY OF
"THE HEART OF CATAWBA COUNTY"
11/25/03
P.O. Box 550 • Newton, NC 28658 • [phone]
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: NPDES NC0036196 A (5)
Color permitting requirements for tier 2 facility
Dear Mr. Klimek:
On behalf of the City of Newton I am submitting to the Division the Pollution Prevention
/ Best Management Practices (BMP) report required by permit NC0036196. If you have
any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 828.695.4346
Sincerely,
Danny Sigmon, Superintendent
City of Newton
cc: Mooresville Regional Office
NPDES Unit

ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Gary Hunt, Director
November 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Sigmon:
Please find the attached color reduction reports for the following facilities Catawba Valley Finishing,
Catawba Sox, Moretz Mills, Paul Lavitt Mills, Southern Hosiery, and Triad Packaging. All of these facilities
have received these reports and had a chance to comment on the color reduction options provided. Please
contact me at 336-249-1480 if you have any questions or corrections.
Sincerely,
John Burke
1639 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1639
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.p2pays.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 100% Recycled 1100% Post Consumer Paper

Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Color Reduction Assessment
Catawba Valley Finishing
Newton, North Carolina
DPPEA
John Burke
September 23, 2003
Post Office Box 29569, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-9569
Telephone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]
Catawba Valley Finishing - 1 - October 20, 2003

Disclaimer
This report is intended to offer information and guidance for identifying
opportunities and options for waste reduction. Compliance with
environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the sole
responsibility of each business. All legal and regulatory references
within this document are intended only for informational purposes and
are not to be taken as reliable sources of legal reference. Businesses
should contact the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities for
current regulatory requirements as well as for interpretation and
implementation. All references and vendor materials (when available)
mentioned in the report are included. Mention of a vendor or
manufacturer does not represent an endorsement by the State of North
Carolina. Neither the State ofNorth Carolina nor the authors of this
report are responsible for practices or procedures implemented by
individual firms.
Catawba Valley Finishing - 2 October 20, 2003

Catawba Valley Finishing: Color Reduction Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The City of Newton and Catawba Valley Finishing requested assistance from the Division of Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in assessing opportunities for reducing effluent
color. The City of Newton was required by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to perform a
color reduction assessment to identify best management practices for the major sources of color in its
wastewater. Catawba Valley Finishing was identified by the City of Newton as a source of color. Color
testing of Catawba Valley Finishing's effluent was 98 ADMI with adjusted pH on 7/26/01.
On September 231.d, John Burke, of DPPEA, met with David Hayes, Dyehouse Manager, to discuss
current operations and sample selected dyebath discharges. The following report provides information
on the generation of color from the Catawba Valley Finishing's operations and options for potentially
reducing the level of color.
2.0 Facility Background and Color Analysis
Catawba Valley Finishing bleaches, dyes and finishes cotton/nylon blended hosiery. Direct and acid
dyes are used for dyeing the hosiery. The facility operates 1 shift 5 days per week. Currently, 95% of
production is white goods and 5% dyed goods. The dyehouse is equipped with three 200-pound paddle
dye machines that operate at a 25:1 liquor ratio. The facility currently produces an average of 3,500
pounds per day of finished hosiery and discharges approximately 30,000 gallons per day of wastewater.
DPPEA targeted dark shade dyeing of the hosiery for color analysis
due to relative large impact these shades have on effluent color.
DPPEA sampled one dyebath to estimate the percent exhaustion of
dye on the hosiery for a black shade direct and acid dyeing. Figure
1 provides the procedure used for the black shade. DPPEA
performed a visual determination of the exhaustion for this shade
by comparing the spent bath color to a series of diluted samples of
the initial dyebath (i.e. 65%, 75%, 85%, & 95% dilution).
Based on this analysis, the black shade was estimated at 80% dye
exhaustion at the time of the dyebath drop. Final fixation of
dyestuff will be impacted by rinses other processing steps and was
not evaluated through this analysis. Fixation of direct dyes on
cotton goods is typically in the range of 70 to 95% and acid dyes on
nylon is 80 to 93%1. The final fixation of dye for this dyeing
would probably be within this range based on the estimated
exhaustion.
Figure 1 Black Shade
190 lbs in 200 lbs paddle tub
Procedure
Add direct dye
Add acid dye
Add wetting agent
Add soda ash
Raise temp to 190°F
Add Salt
After 15 minutes
Add Salt
Hold 20 minutes
Drop bath
4.0%
1.0%
4.0%
0.5%
2E6.3%
26.3%
3.0 Color Reduction Options
While it appears that Catawba Valley Finishing's dyeing procedures are achieving typical exhaustion
based on this onetime analysis, the facility may want to consider the following options for improving
exhaustion or maintaining the current level of exhaustion. Catawba Valley Finishing may already be
doing some of these things.
1 Best Management Practices for Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry, EPA/625/R-96/004
Catawba Valley Finishing - 3 - October 20, 2003

Dyeing
> Maintain lowest achievable liquor ratio. Underloading machines will increase liquor ratios and may
result in reduced exhaustion. If feasible smaller lots should be matched to smaller tubs. Larger tubs
could be marked for a lower fill level for smaller loads that maintain the lowest achievable liquor
ratio while still allowing circulation of goods in the tub.
> Optimize time -temperature profile scheme to achieve maximum exhaustion of dye. Work with dye
supplier to identify most appropriate profile for darker shades. Rate of temperature rise, final hold
temperature and length of exhaustion phase will impact final exhaustion.
> Optimize salt and alkali additions to achieve maximum exhaustion.
> Reduce dependence on auxiliaries like dye levelers that impede exhaustion.
> To reduce excessive color discharges schedule darker shade dyeing along with lighter and white
goods as opposed to doing large amounts of dark shades on one day, if feasible.
Housekeeping
➢ Keep dyestuff room dry and use dry clean-up practices to minimize addition of dyes to wastewater.
➢ If the facility is required to rinse dye containers use dry clean-up procedures to remove residual dye
before rinsing.
Catawba Valley Finishing 4 October 20„ 2003

Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Color Reduction Assessment
Catawba Sox
Newton, North Carolina
DPPEA
John Burke
September 24, 2003
Post Office Box 29569, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-9569
Telephone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]
Catawba Sox - 1 - October 20, 2003

Disclaimer
This report is intended to offer information and guidance for identifying
opportunities and options for waste reduction. Compliance with
environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the sole
responsibility of each business. All legal and regulatory references
within this document are intended only for informational purposes and
are not to be taken as reliable sources of legal reference. Businesses
should contact the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities for
current regulatory requirements as well as for interpretation and
implementation. All references and vendor materials (when available)
mentioned in the report are included. Mention of a vendor or
manufacturer does not represent an endorsement by the State of North
Carolina. Neither the State of North Carolina nor the authors of this
report are responsible for practices or procedures implemented by
individual firms.
Catawba Sox 2 October 20, 2003

Catawba Sox: Color Reduction Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The City of Newton and Catawba Sox requested assistance from the Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in assessing opportunities for reducing effluent color. The City of
Newton was required by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to perform a color reduction
assessment to identify best management practices for the major sources of color in its wastewater.
Catawba Sox was identified by the City of Newton as a source of color. Color testing of Catawba Sox's
effluent was 196 ADMI with adjusted pH on 7/26/01.
On September 24111, John Burke, of DPPEA, met with Alan Anthony, Dyehouse Manager, to discuss
current operations and sample selected dyebath discharges. The following report provides information
on the generation of color from the Catawba Sox's operations and options for potentially reducing the
level of color.
2.0 Facility Background and Color Analysis
Catawba Sox bleaches, dyes and finishes cotton/nylon blended hosiery. Direct, acid and neutral reactive
dyes are used for dyeing the hosiery. The facility operates 1 shift 5 days per week. Currently, 85% of
production is white goods and 15% dyed goods. The dyehouse is equipped with 1 - 200 pound, 2 - 100
pound, 1 - 50 pound and 1 - 25 pound Rome paddle dye machines that operate at a 30:1 liquor ratio and 2
- 200 pound Braun dye machines that operate at 10-1 liquor ratio. The facility currently produces an
average of 8,000 pounds per day of finished hosiery and discharges approximately 70,000 gallons per day
of wastewater.
DPPEA targeted dark shade dyeing of the hosiery for color analysis
due to relative large impact these shades have on effluent color.
DPPEA sampled one dyebath to estimate the percent exhaustion of
dye on the hosiery for a black shade direct and acid dyeing. Figure
1 provides the procedure used for the black shade. DPPEA
performed a visual determination of the exhaustion for this shade
by comparing the spent bath color to a series of diluted samples of
the initial dyebath (i.e. 75%, 80%, & 85% dilution).
Based on this analysis, the black shade was estimated at 80% dye
exhaustion at the time of the dyebath drop. Final fixation of
dyestuff will be impacted by rinses other processing steps and was
not evaluated through this analysis. Fixation of direct dyes on
cotton goods is typically in the range of 70 to 95% and acid dyes on
nylon is 80 to 93%'. The final fixation of dye for this dyeing
would probably be within this range based on the estimated
exhaustion.
Figure 1 Black Shade
118 lbs in 100 lbs Paddle tub
Procedure
Add direct dyes
Add acid dyes
Add dechlor
Add wetting agent
Add lubricant
Add leveling agent
Raise temp to 200°F
Hold 10 minutes
Add Salt
Hold 30-40 minutes
Drop bath
2.4%
1.3%
0.5%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
40%
3.0 Color Reduction Options
While it appears that Catawba Sox's dyeing procedures are achieving typical exhaustion based on this
onetime analysis, the facility may want to consider the following options for improving exhaustion or
maintaining the current level of exhaustion. Catawba Sox may already be doing some of these things.
1 Best Management Practices for Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry, EPA/625/R-96/004
Catawba Sox - 3 - October 20, 2003

Dyeing
➢ Maintain lowest achievable liquor ratio. Underloading machines will increase liquor ratios and may
result in reduced exhaustion. If feasible, smaller lots should be matched to smaller tubs. Larger tubs
could be marked for a lower fill level for smaller loads that maintain the lowest achievable liquor
ratio while still allowing circulation of goods in the tub.
➢ Optimize time -temperature profile scheme to achieve maximum exhaustion of dye. Work with dye
supplier to identify most appropriate profile for darker shades. Rate of temperature rise, final hold
temperature and length of exhaustion phase will impact final exhaustion.
➢ _ Optimize salt and alkali additions to achieve maximum exhaustion.
➢ Reduce dependence on auxiliaries like dye levelers that impede exhaustion.
➢ To reduce excessive color discharges schedule darker shade dyeing along with lighter and white
goods as opposed to doing large amounts of dark shades on one day, if feasible.
Housekeeping
Catawba Sox's dyestuff room appeared very well maintained and had no drains located in it.
➢ Keep dyestuff room dry and use dry clean-up practices to minimize addition of dyes to wastewater.
➢ If the facility is required to rinse dye containers use dry clean-up procedures to remove residual dye
before rinsing.
Catawba Sox - 4 October 20, 2003

Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Color Reduction Assessment
Moretz Mills
Newton, North Carolina
DPPEA
John Burke
September 25, 2003
Post Office Box 29569, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-9569
Telephone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]
Moretz Mills - 1 - October 20, 2003

Disclaimer
This report is intended to offer information and guidance for identifying
opportunities and options for waste reduction. Compliance with
environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the sole
responsibility of each business. All legal and regulatory references
within this document are intended only for informational purposes and
are not to be taken as reliable sources of legal reference. Businesses
should contact the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities for
current regulatory requirements as well as for interpretation and
implementation. All references and vendor materials (when available)
mentioned in the report are included. Mention of a vendor or
manufacturer does not represent an endorsement by the State of North
Carolina. Neither the State of North Carolina nor the authors of this
report are responsible for practices or procedures implemented by
individual firms.
Moretz Mills 2 October 20, 2003

Moretz Mills: Color Reduction Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The City of Newton and Moretz Mills requested assistance from the Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in assessing opportunities for reducing effluent color. The City of
Newton was required by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to perform a color reduction
assessment to identify best management practices for the major sources of color in its wastewater.
Moretz Mills was identified by the City of Newton as a source of color. Color testing of Moretz Mills'
effluent was 105 ADMI with adjusted pH on 7/26/01.
On September 25th, John Burke, of DPPEA, met with Bennet Hanchey, Dyehouse Manager, to discuss
current operations and sample selected dyebath discharges. The following report provides information
on the generation of color from the Moretz Mills' operations and options for potentially reducing the
level of color.
2.0 Facility Background and Color Analysis
Moretz Mills bleaches, dyes and finishes mainly cotton/nylon and acrylic/nylon blended hosiery. Direct,
acid and basic dyes are used for dyeing the hosiery. The facility operates 3 shifts 6 days per week.
Currently, 40% of production is white goods and 60% dyed goods. The dyehouse is equipped with 1 -
150 pound and 4 - 100 pound paddle dye machines that operate at a 30:1 liquor ratio and 3 - 600 pound
and 1 — 200 pound Braun dye machines that operate at 20:1 liquor ratio. The facility currently produces
an average of 8,000 pounds per day of finished hosiery and discharges approximately 70,000 gallons per
day of wastewater.
DPPEA targeted dark shade dyeing of the hosiery for color analysis
due to the relative large impact these shades have on effluent color.
DPPEA sampled one dyebath to estimate the percent exhaustion of
dye on the hosiery for a navy shade direct and acid dyeing. Figure
1 provides the procedure used for the navy shade. DPPEA
performed a visual determination of the exhaustion for this shade
by comparing the spent bath color to a series of diluted samples of
the initial dyebath (i.e. 75%, 50%, 40%, 35% & 25% dilution).
These samples were also sent off for ADMI analysis.
Based on this analysis, the black shade was estimated at a 40% to
50% dye exhaustion at the time of the dyebath drop. Testing
results showed an ADMI value for the initial dyebath .of 99,300 and
the spent dyebath with a value of 48,160. Final fixation of dyestuff
will be further impacted by other processing steps and was not
evaluated through this analysis. Fixation of direct dyes on cotton
goods is typically in the range of 70 to 95% and acid dyes on nylon
is 80 to 93%'. The final fixation of dye for this dyeing would
probably be well below 50% based on the estimated exhaustion.
Figure 1 Navy Shade
88 lbs in 100 lbs paddle tub
Procedure
Add dye assistant 1
Add dye assistant 2
Add lubricant
Add scour
Add direct dyes
Add acid dyes
Run 5 minutes
Raise temp to 205°F
Run 10 minutes
Add Salt
Run 10 minutes
Add Salt
Run 5 minutes
Add Salt
Run 30 minutes
Drop bath
1.2%
1.0%
2.0%
0.3%
3.2%
0.7%
6%
1 8%
36%
I Best Management Practices for Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry, EPA/625/R-96/004
Moretz Mills - 3 - October 20, 2003

3.0 Color Reduction Options
There may be some opportunities for Moretz Mills' to increase exhaustion of its dark shade dyeing to
reduce effluent color as well as reduce dye costs. Based on the procedure provided in Figure 1, Moretz
may want to try the following options for increasing exhaustion and reducing color discharges if not
already in use:
> Discuss with dye suppliers the compatibility of direct dyes used in shade formulation.
> Maintain lowest achievable liquor ratio. Underloading machines will increase liquor ratios and may
result in reduced exhaustion. If feasible, smaller lots should be matched to smaller tubs. Larger tubs
could be marked for a lower fill level for smaller loads that maintain the lowest achievable liquor
ratio while still allowing circulation of goods in the tub.
> Optimize time -temperature profile scheme to achieve maximum exhaustion of dye. Work with dye
supplier to identify most appropriate profile for darker shades. Rate of temperature rise, final hold
temperature and length of exhaustion phase will impact final exhaustion.
> Optimize salt and alkali additions to achieve maximum exhaustion.
> Reduce dependence on auxiliaries like dye levelers that impede exhaustion. Assess the benefit of the
scour agent and/or dye assistants that may be impeding the exhaustion of dyes.
> To reduce excessive color discharges schedule darker shade dyeing along with lighter and white
goods as opposed to doing large amounts of dark shades on one day, if feasible.
Housekeeping
Moretz Mills's dyestuff room appeared very well maintained and had no drains located in it.
> Keep dyestuff room dry and use dry clean-up practices to minimize addition of dyes to wastewater.
Consider avoiding the use of floor cleaning equipment in the dyeroom or use dry clean-up procedures
prior to wet cleaning of the floor.
> If the facility is required to rinse dye containers use dry clean-up procedures to remove residual dye
before rinsing.
Moretz Mills - 4 October 20, 2003

Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Color Reduction Assessment
Paul Lavitt Mills
Hickory, North Carolina
DPPEA
John Burke
October 1, 2003
Post Office Box 29569, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-9569
Telephone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]
Paul Lavitt Mills - 1 - October 20, 2003

Disclaimer
This report is intended to offer information and guidance for identifying
opportunities and options for waste reduction. Compliance with
environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the sole
responsibility of each business. All legal and regulatory references
within this document are intended only for informational purposes and
are not to be taken as reliable sources of legal reference. Businesses
should contact the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities for
current regulatory requirements as well as for interpretation and
implementation. All references and vendor materials (when available)
mentioned in the report are included. Mention of a vendor or
manufacturer does not represent an endorsement by the State of North
Carolina. Neither the State of North Carolina nor the authors of this
report are responsible for practices or procedures implemented by
individual firms.
Paul Lavitt Mills 2 October 20, 2003

Paul Lavitt Mills: Color Reduction Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The City of Newton and Paul Lavitt Mills requested assistance from the Division of Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in assessing opportunities for reducing effluent color. The City
of Newton was required by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to perform a color reduction
assessment to identify best management practices for the major sources of color in its wastewater. Paul
Lavitt Mills was identified by the City of Newton as a source of color. Color testing of Paul Lavitt Mills'
effluent was 184 ADMI with adjusted pH on 4/16/03.
On October 1st, John Burke, of DPPEA, met with Roger Rector, Dyehouse Manager, to discuss current
operations and sample selected dyebath discharges. The following report provides information on the
generation of color from the Paul Lavitt Mills' operations and options for potentially reducing the level
of color.
2.0 Facility Background and Color Analysis
Paul Lavitt Mills bleaches, dyes and finishes hosiery blends of cotton, nylon, and acrylic. Direct, acid
and basic dyes are used for dyeing the hosiery. The facility operates 1 shifts 5 days per week.
Currently, 25% of production is white goods and 75% is dyed goods. The dyehouse is equipped with 1 —
240 pound, 1-150 pound, 2 - 100 pound, 2 - 50 pound and 1 - 25 pound paddle dye machines that
operate at a 30:1 liquor ratio and 1— 600 pound Braun dye machine that operates at a 20:1 liquor ratio.
The facility currently produces an average of 1,500 pounds per day of finished hosiery and discharges
approximately 30,000 gallons per day of wastewater.
DPPEA targeted dark shade dyeing of the hosiery for color analysis
due to relative large impact these shades have on effluent color.
DPPEA sampled two dyebaths to estimate the percent exhaustion of
dye on the hosiery for a black and navy shade basic and acid
dyeing. Figure 1 provides the procedure used for the black shade
and Figure 2 provides the procedure used for the navy shade.
DPPEA performed a visual determination of the exhaustion for
these shades by comparing the spent bath color to a series of
diluted samples of the initial dyebath. The dilutions for the black
shade were 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% and for the navy shade 50%,
60%, 70%, and 80%.
Based on this analysis, the black shade was estimated at 65% dye
exhaustion at the time of the dyebath drop and the navy shade 75%.
Final fixation of dyestuff will be impacted by additional processing
steps and was not evaluated through this analysis. Fixation of
direct dyes on cotton goods is typically in the range of 80 to 93%
and acid dyes on nylon is 80 to 93%1. The final fixation of dye for
this dyeing would probably be below this range based on the
estimated exhaustion.
Figure 1 Black Shade
402 lbs in 600 lbs Braun
Procedure
Add dechlor
Add leveler
Add wetter
Add lubricant
Run 5 minutes
Add acid dyes
Add direct dyes
Run 5 minutes
Heat to 205°F
Run 10 minutes
Add salt
Add salt
Add salt
Run 10 minutes
Drop bath
0.2%
0.9%
1.9%
0.9%
1.9%
3.9%
6.9%
10.4%
1 ; .4%
1 Best Management Practices for Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry, EPA/625/R-96/004
Paul Lavitt Mills - 3 - October 20, 2003

3.0 Color Reduction Options
Based on Paul Lavitt Mills' effluent color analysis and the
evaluation of the dyeing operations, there may be some
opportunities to reduce color discharge through increasing
exhaustion and final fixation on dark shade dyeings. Paul Lavitt
Milts should consider some of the following practices to increase
dye exhaustion. The mill may already be doing some of these
things.
Dyeing
➢ Maintain lowest achievable liquor ratio. Underloading
machines will increase liquor ratios and may result in reduced
exhaustion. If feasible, smaller lots should be matched to
smaller tubs. Larger tubs could be marked for a lower fill level
for smaller loads that maintain the lowest achievable liquor
ratio while still allowing circulation of goods in the machine.
The higher liquor ratio in the black shade dyeing may have
impacted dye exhaustion.
> Optimize time -temperature profile scheme to achieve maximum
exhaustion of dye. Work with dye supplier to identify most
appropriate profile for darker shades. Rate of temperature rise, final hold temperature and length of
exhaustion phase will impact final exhaustion of acid, direct, and basic dyes.
➢ Optimize salt additions to achieve maximum exhaustion. Emphasize to operators the importance of
staggering the salt additions during the dye cycle to aid exhaustion.
Figure 2 Navy Shade
45 lbs in 50 lbs Paddle Tub
Procedure
Add dechlor
Add leveler
Add lubricant
Run 5 minutes
Add acid dyes
Add direct dyes
Run 5 minutes
Heat to 205°F
Run 10 minutes
Add salt
Add salt
Add salt
Run 10 minutes
Drop bath
0.2%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
3.5%
5.8%
8.6%
l 4.4%
> Reduce dependence on auxiliaries like dye levelers that impede exhaustion. Addition of scouring
agent in black shade may have impacted dye exhaustion.
Housekeeping
Paul Lavitt Mills' dyestuff room appeared very well maintained and had no drains located in it.
> Keep dyestuff room dry and use dry clean-up practices to minimize addition of dyes to wastewater.
> If the facility is required to rinse dye containers use dry clean-up procedures to remove residual dye
before rinsing.
Paul Lavitt Mills 4 October 20, 2003

Division of Pollution Prevention and.
Environmental Assistance
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Color Reduction Assessment
Southern Hosiery
Hickory, North Carolina
DPPEA
John Burke
September 30 , 2003
Post Office Box 29569, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-9569
Telephone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]
Southern Hosiery - 1 - October 20, 2003

Disclaimer
This report is intended to offer information and guidance for identifying
opportunities and options for waste reduction. Compliance with
environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the sole
responsibility of each business. All legal and regulatory references
within this document are intended only for informational purposes and
are not to be taken as reliable sources of legal reference. Businesses
should contact the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities for
current regulatory requirements as well as for interpretation and
implementation. All references and vendor materials (when available)
mentioned in the report are included. Mention of a vendor or
manufacturer does not represent an endorsement by the State of North
Carolina. Neither the State of North Carolina nor the authors of this
report are responsible for practices or procedures implemented by
individual firms.
Southern Hosiery 2 October 20, 2003

r
Southern Hosiery: Color Reduction Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The City of Newton and Southern Hosiery requested assistance from the Division of Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in assessing opportunities for reducing effluent color. The City
of Newton was required by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to perform a color reduction
assessment to identify best management practices for the major sources of color in its wastewater.
Southern Hosiery was identified by the City of Newton as a source of color. Color testing of Southern
Hosiery's effluent was 4941 ADMI with adjusted pH on 4/29/03.
On September 30th, John Burke, of DPPEA, met with Darron Alton, Dyehouse Manager, to discuss
current operations and sample selected dyebath discharges. The following report provides information
on the generation of color from the Southern Hosiery's operations and options for potentially reducing
the level of color.
2.0 Facility Background and Color Analysis
Southern Hosiery bleaches, dyes and finishes hosiery blends of cotton, nylon, acrylic, and wool. Direct,
acid and basic dyes are used for dyeing the hosiery. The facility operates 2 shifts 4-5 days per week. A
majority of production is dyed goods. The dyehouse is equipped with 1 - 300 pound, 5 - 100 pound, 4 -
50 pound and 1 - 25 pound paddle dye machines that operate at a 30:1 liquor ratio. The facility currently
produces an average of 1,500 pounds per day of finished hosiery and discharges approximately 30,000
gallons per day of wastewater.
DPPEA targeted dark shade dyeing of the hosiery for color analysis
due to relative large impact these shades have on effluent color.
DPPEA sampled one dyebath to estimate the percent exhaustion of
dye on the hosiery for a black shade basic and acid dyeing. Figure
1 provides the procedure used for the black shade.
During this procedure the dyebath boiled over loosing a significant
portion of the bath that had to be made up with fresh water
resulting in a dilution of the bath. Due to this, the actual
exhaustion will be lower than the estimate made from the visual
analysis. DPPEA performed a visual determination of the
exhaustion for this shade by comparing the spent bath color to a
series of diluted samples of the initial dyebath (i.e. 70%, 75%, &
80% dilution).
Figure 1 Black Shade
88 lbs in 100 lbs Paddle tub
Procedure
Add leveler
Add basic dyes
Add salt
Raise to 140°F
Add acid dyes
Raise to 210°F
Hold 50 minutes
Drop bath
2.2%
2.9%
5.7%
1.9%
Based on this analysis, the black shade was estimated at 75% dye exhaustion at the time of the dyebath
drop. Again, the actual exhaustion at the time of the drop will be lower than this value due to the dilution
that occurred during dyeing procedure. Final fixation of dyestuff will be impacted by additional
processing steps and was not evaluated through this analysis. Fixation of basic dyes on acrylic goods is
typically in the range of 97 to 98% and acid dyes on nylon is 80 to 93%'. The final fixation of dye for
this dyeing would probably be well below this range based on the estimated exhaustion and considering
the dilution that occurred during the dyeing procedure.
' Best Management Practices for Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry, EPA/625/R-96/004
Southern Hosiery - 3 - October 20, 2003

3.0 Color Reduction Options
Based on Southern Hosiery's effluent color analysis and the evaluation of the dyeing operations, there
may be some opportunities to reduce color discharge through implementation of some of the following
practices. Southern Hosiery may already be doing some of these things.
Dyeing
> Implement better controls or procedures for controlling the temperature rate of rise and maximum
temperature to minimize boil-overs. Boil-overs have a negative impact of effluent color as well as
shade repeatability.
> Optimize time -temperature profile scheme to achieve maximum exhaustion of dye. Work with dye
supplier to identify most appropriate profile for darker shades. Rate of temperature rise, final hold
temperature and length of exhaustion phase will impact final exhaustion of acid and basic dyes.
> Maintain lowest achievable liquor ratio. Underloading machines will increase liquor ratios and may
result in reduced exhaustion. If feasible smaller lots should be matched to smaller tubs. Larger tubs
could be marked for a lower fill level for smaller loads that maintain the lowest achievable liquor
ratio while still allowing circulation of goods in the tub.
> Optimize salt additions to achieve maximum exhaustion. Salt acts as a retarding agent for basics
dyes.
> Reduce dependence on auxiliaries like dye levelers that impede exhaustion.
Housekeeping
Southern Hosiery's dyestuff room appeared very well maintained and had no drains located in it.
> Keep dyestuff room dry and use dry clean-up practices to minimize addition of dyes to wastewater.
> If the facility is required to rinse dye containers use dry clean-up procedures to remove residual dye
before rinsing.
Southern Hosiery 4 October 20, 2003

Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Color Reduction Assessment
Triad Packaging
Conover, North Carolina
DPPEA
John Burke
October 7, 2003
Post Office Box 29569, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-9569
Telephone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]
Triad Packaging - 1 - October 20, 2003

Disclaimer
This report is intended to offer information and guidance for identifying
opportunities and options for waste reduction. Compliance with
environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the sole
responsibility of each business. All legal and regulatory references
within this document are intended only for informational purposes and
are not to be taken as reliable sources of legal reference. Businesses
should contact the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities for
current regulatory requirements as well as for interpretation and
implementation. All references and vendor materials (when available)
mentioned in the report are included. Mention of a vendor or
manufacturer does not represent an endorsement by the State of North
Carolina. Neither the State of North Carolina nor the authors of this
report are responsible for practices or procedures implemented by
individual firms.
Triad Packaging 2 October 20, 2003

Triad Packaging: Color Reduction Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The City of Newton and Triad Packaging requested assistance from the Division of Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) in assessing opportunities for reducing effluent color. The City
of Newton was required by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to perform a color reduction
assessment to identify best management practices for the major sources of color in its wastewater. Triad
Packaging was identified by the City of Newton as a source of color.
On October 7th, John Burke, of DPPEA, met with Ronnie Gunter, Maintenance Manager, to discuss
current operations. The following report provides information on the generation of color from the Triad
Packaging's operations and options for potentially reducing the level of color.
2.0 Facility Background
Triad Packaging produces
cardboard packaging for
various industrial uses.
The plant operates two
printing lines that utilize
water -based inks to label
packaging. Wastewater
from the clean up of the
printing machines and
other equipment is treated
to remove the inks and
discharged.
Triad Packaging operates a
chemical treatment system
to remove color from the
wastewater. The system
utilizes polymers to
coagulant inks and filters
them with a filter press.
Triad has had some _ l
treatment issues related to
the system that have
resulted in colored effluent
discharged to the sewer.
Figure 1 provides a sketch
of the system.
Figure 1
1500 Gallon Tank
pH adjust w/ sulfuric acid
coagulant ES 402 4 gals/day
flocculant ES 2200A 5 gals/day
Polymers from ESCO in Conover
175 G
Tank
175 gallons per day
2000 Galion Tank
Filter press
100 gallon
tank, y
► Pumped to Sewer
3.0 Reducing Effluent Color
While the treatment system can effectively remove color, there appear to be several operator and system
design issues that can lead to the discharge of color to the effluent. Triad Packaging should consider the
following practices or system modifications to reduce the discharge of color.
➢ Place signage on any sinks or other drains in the plant that do not discharge to the treatment system
that inks are not to be discharged in those drains.
Triad Packaging - 3 - October 20, 2003

> Install a high level cut off float for the mixing tank. Overflows from this tank are caught in the
treated water tank that can then be discharged to the sewer. While the operators have the ability to
pump contaminated water from the treated water tank back to the mix tank, there are probably many
cases when this contaminated water is simply discharged to the sewer.
> Reroute drain line from the filter press to the 1500-gallon holding tank. Currently the drain line
underneath the filter press discharges to the treated water tank. When there are pressure
malfunctions on the filter press, the drain line will send contaminated waste to the treated water tank
that can be discharged to the sewer.
> Enclose or relocate pressure switch for the filter press to eliminate inadvertent reduction of pressure
on press causing blowouts.
> Place signage on treated water tank requiring treated water to be returned to mix tank if color is
apparent in the water instead of discharging to sewer.
Triad Packaging - 4 - October 20, 2003

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Jun-2005
Mar-2005
Dec-2003
Sep-2003
Jun-2003
Mar-2003
Dec-2004
5
12
5
5
5
5
Sep-2004 5
Jun-2004 2
Mar-2004 10
Sep-2005 5
Jan-2002 5
Jan-2002 2
Jan-2002 5
Jan-2002 5
Jan-2002 5
Feb-2002 5
Feb-2002 5
Feb-2002 5
Feb-2002 5
Mar-2002 7
Mar-2002 5
Mar-2002 5
Mar-2002 5
Apr-2002 5
Apr-2002 7
Apr-2002 5
Apr-2002 7
May-2002 5
May-2002 5
May-2002 5
May-2002 5
Jun-2002 5
Jun-2002 5
Jun-2002 5
Jun-2002 5
Jul-2002 2
Jul-2002 2
Jul-2002 2
Jul-2002 3
Jul-2002 2
Aug-2002 2
Aug-2002 4.4
Aug-2002 2
Aug-2002 2
Sep-2002 2.1
Sep-2002 2
Sep-2002 2
Sep-2002 2
Oct-2002 2
Oct-2002 5
Oct-2002 5
Oct-2002 5
Oct-2002 6
Nov-2002 6
Nov-2002 8
Nov-2002 5
Nov-2002 5
Dec-2002 5
Dec-2002 5
Dec-2002 5
Dec-2002 5
Dec-2002 5
Mar-2001 5
Apr-2001 5
Apr-2001 5
Apr-2001 5
2.5 Std Dev. 1.6690
12.0 Mean 2.7907
2.5 C.V. 0.5980
2.5 n 108
2.5
Mult Factor = 1.3900
2.5 Max. Value 12.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 16.7 ug/L
2.500
1.000
10.000
2.500
2.500
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.0
5.0
7.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.2
2.3
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
4.4
1.0
1.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
6.0
6.0
8.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
newtonrpa2005, data
12/16/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Apr-2001
May-2001
May-2001
May-2001
May-2001
May-2001
Jun-2001
Jun-2001
Jun-2001
Jun-2001
Jun-2001
Jul-2001
Jul-2001
Jul-2001
Jul-2001
Aug-2001
Aug-2001
Aug-2001
Aug-2001
Sep-2001
Sep-2001
Sep-2001
Sep-2001
Oct-2001
Oct-2001
Oct-2001
Oct-2001
Nov-2001
Nov-2001
Nov-2001
Dec-2001
Dec-2001
Dec-2001
Dec-2001
Dec-2001
Mar-2000
Jul-2000
Oct-2000
Mar-1999
Jun-1999
Sep-1999
Dec-1999
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.2
1.3
2.5
2.5
newtonrpa2005, data
- 2 - 12/16/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Jun-2005
Mar-2005
Dec-2003
Sep-2003
Jun-2003
Dec-2004
Sep-2004
Jun-2004
Mar-2004
Sep-2005
Mar-2002
Jun-2002
Sep-2002
Dec-2002
Mar-2001
Jun-2001
Sep-2001
Dec-2001
Mar-2000
Jul-2000
Oct-2000
Mar-1999
Jun-1999
Sep-1999
Dec-1999
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
2.5 Std Dev. 1.2666
2.5 Mean 3.6000
2.5 C.V. 0.3518
2.5 n 25
2.5
Mult Factor= 1.6000
2.5 Max. Value 5.0
Max. Pred Cw 8.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
- 1 -
newtonrpa2005, data
12/16/2005

tEO ST4i..
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
< �� W REGION 4
e ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
1:F 61 FORSYTH STREET
�rq< PROYEG, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
DEC 1 5 2005
Ms. Jackie Nowell
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
Newton — Clark Creek WWTP
Permit No. NC0036196
Dear Ms. Nowell:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR NPDES MOA, we have completed review of
the draft permit specified above and have no comments or objections to its conditions. We
request that we be afforded an additional review opportunity only if significant changes are
made to the draft permit prior to issuance or if significant comments objecting to it are
received. Otherwise, please send us one copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
20
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

comments on NC0036196, Newton - Clark Creek WWTP
Subject: comments on NC0036196, Newton - Clark Creek WWTP
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:43:03 -0500
To: [e-mail]
hope these are useful. will you be able to reply by Fri, Dec 9?
Marshall
i
1. The second paragraph on pg. 1 of the fact sheet references the
Jto'�`�
Lincolnton WWTP. I assume you mean that to say the Newton WWTP. /
2. In A.1 and A.2, recommend renaming "total suspended residue" to w/ct_C alLerci--
"total suspended solids".
3. Re CN in A.1 and A.2, shouldn't the sample type be grab?
yam
4. In A.2, the footnote number for chronic toxicity should be 5 (not 4)
and the footnote # for color should be 6 (not 5).
5. In A.5, second paragraph, the last sentence, do you mean to say
"permit modification"? /'i0Fsl/ifiss-,.,,.;.rce_
6. In the first bullet on pg. 1 of the cover letter, last sentence, I
think you meant the winter weekly avg value to be 18.0 mg/1, not 12.0
mg/l.
/lc
4)tik A�L /111f3 (Aid/ E. !3% h,4
1 of 1 12/ 1 /2005 8:14 PM

Draft Permit Reviews (3)
Subject: Draft Permit Reviews (3)
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:40:36 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hi Jackie, I have reviewed the following:
NC0034754 CommScope
,NC0036196 Newton.,
NC0060534 Brevard
I have no comments.. Thanks for forwarding them.
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web Page: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1 12/20/2005 1:25 PM

PUBLIC NOTICE .
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL''
• MANAGEMENT
COMMISSIONINPDES UNIT
' 1617 MAIL SERVICE •
CENTER ••',
RALEIGH, NC 27699.1617
NOTIFICATION OF
•INTENT TO ISSUE A
• NPDES
WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the bests of thorough staff
review and application of NC
General Statute 143.21, Pub-
lic law 92-500 and otherlawful
standards and regulations, the
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission
proposes to issue. a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion ' System (NPDES) waste-
water discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below effec-
tive '4455 days from the' publish
date of this notice:
Written comments regarding
the , , • permit will be
acre. • . until .30 days after
the publish date of this notice. -
All comments received prior to
that •date are considered in the
final determination's rnarding
• the proposed perms.: The Di-
rector of the NC Division of
Water Quality may .decide to
hold a public meeting for the
proposed permit _.should the
Division receive a significant
degree of public interest
'Copies of the draft• permit and
• other supporting information
on Cite used to determine con-
ditions present in the draft per:
mit. are available upon. request
and payment of the • costs of
reproduction. Mali comments
and/of Imposts for informa-
tion to the NC Division of Wa-
ter Quality at. the above ad-
dress or call the Point Source
Branch at [phone], ex-
tension•; 520. Please include
the NPDES permit number (a-
,ttached) in any communica-
tion. Interested persons may
• also visit .the Division of Water
Quality at 512 .N. Salisbury
Street, Raieigh, NC 27604-
1148 between the hours of
8:00 a.m.. and 5:00 p.m. to -re-
view information on file.
NPDES Permit • • Number
NC0036196, - City of Newton,
Clark Creek WWTP has ap-
plied for renewal of its permit
discharging , treated wastewa-
ter to the Clark Creek in the
Catawba River Basin. Current-
ly GODS, NH3, fecal cotform
and total residual chlorine are
waterquality limited. This dis=
cftarge may, affect future alto -
carton : this •portion of the
recehdng Stream.
PUBLISH:' November 24,
2005.
23460
NORTH CAROLINA
CATAWBA COUNTY
being first duly sworn, sa s: That he or
she is P\.k-Of the
Hickory Daily Record, a newspaper pub-
lished at Hickory, North Carolina; that in
the issues of the said newspaper for the
following days, to wit:
hoetidaRe,024 aocx
. .......... s
there appeared aced p
lines of advertising as per attached named
advertiser:
The Hickory Daily Record is a qualified news-
paper within the meaning of secti n 1-597 of the
General tatutes of N. C.
Oqu/be,
Affiant
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this day of
20
,r
My Commission Expires
Wsr t-c' " /9 , 20 Of'

Legal Notices , Legal Notices
PUBLIC NOTIGe charge may affect future al -
STATE OF NORTH locationsin, this portion of
CAROLINA - the receiving stream.
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT Pub: November 29, 2005.
COMMISSION/NPDES
UNrr Enterprise
1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER 309 North College Ave.
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617 P O Drawer 48
NOTIFICATION OF•
INTENT TO ISSUE A Newton, NC 28658
NPDES WASTEWATER
r; PERMIT •
On the basla of thorough
staffreview and application NCDENR DWQ/Point Source Branch
of', -NC' ,',,General . Statute Attn: Carolyn Bryant
14321 =;Public :law' 92-500 y and Wheel: lawful•standards 1617 Mail Service Center
and regutations, the. North
Carolina'; Environmental Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Management`: ,_Commission
3roposeg to issue a,lation-
31 Poqutant Discharge Eiimi-
iation << ' System:, (NPDES)
Nastewater• discharge. per-
mit to: the Persons) listed Date(s) Run
)etow, effective -. 45 days 1 1 /29/05
tom the publish date of this
eotice.`:
Written'`2•:..' comments
egad- t• ,;
ng the proposed pulpit will.
se • accepted unti{1.• 30;:days North Carolina
titer the ppublish date of this
toticii'a: ,All'. conlnlents re=
eived priorto that 'dateare
onsidered; Ir)=;the, finat de-
erminatlons :regarding the Catawba County
imposed permit:The Direc-
or of the_. Ng 'Division of
Niter Quality'inaa? decide to
fold a public meeting for the
rroposed permit should the Michael Willard... BEING DULY SWORN SAYS: That he is the Publisher of the OBSERVER
)ivision receive a significant
!agree of public interest..'_ NEWS ENTERPRISE, a newspaper published at Newton, North Carolina. And that it is a
copies" th9 draft•ae�n.newspaper of general circulation in Catawba County and surrounding counties. The Public Notice
' i xi`ottiet tippoiti i ; rifor-
natien"ori file used to deter- of Wastewater Permit was published in said newspaper and not a supplement thereof and is a
nine;- conditions: presentin true copy of the notice as it was published in the regular and entire edition of THE OBSERVER
he draft peitiik tinif ila
upon reque$t and'.pay- NEWS ENTERPRISE. Appearing each week, beginning on the 29th day November 2005 and
rtent of tha'osts, o1 I pra- endingthe 29th dayof November 2005 and that said OBSERVER NEWS ENTERPRISE was
luctien: MaEI; Qotoments on
nnd/or'regliest- for informs- regularly distributed to the subscribers during said period.
on, tp- theNO.- Division: of
Vater ,Rualnt . at'the.above.
ddress . or::tail the Point
e ►pure Branch_ati(919)733
083; 'eirtensk)h,1;, . 520:
lease: include the' NPDES •
ermlt number (attached)in:
ny ° ooi,;rr►uiticati�m " Inter-
sted persons may also visit .
le Division of; Watet:Oualt-
is it. 512 N. 'Salisbury
reet;°.;Ratelgh,' NC"21604-
148 beta ieef the hours ,of
:00 a m and 00 p.m. to '
aviewInformatiorsgrk f aw
,. . + =i1r9W) erv:�►
IPDES. Permit Number
Ic0036196N; City: of^,tNeii-•
m, Clark Creek WWTP has
pplied for renewal. of its
erinit discharging treated
astewater 1Q. Votif;Clark
reek -in. the Catawt 'River
asin: 'Currently, 1 OD5,
H3; fecai"colifprm aiid total
rsidual' chlorine ,.a ; water
jail*, limited. T s die
Charge Balance
60.28 60.28
Description
Public Notice
Wastewater Permit
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 29th day of November 2005
NOTARY PUBLIC JL3 t
My commission expires April 24, 2009

To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Jackie Nowell
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No
Date: May 19, 2005
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Catawba
ry
NPDES Permit No. NC0036196 "c",A'�'
MRO No.: 05-34
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and address: City of Newton -Clark Creek WWTP
Post Office Box 550
Newton, N.C. 28658
2. Date of investigation: April 29, 2005
3. Report prepared by: Michael L. Parker, Environmental Engineer II
ONUS 33Nnos INIod
unYno I31VM - NN31
SOOZ 1 Z ON ri
4. Person contacted and telephone number: Danny Sigmon, James Richards, [phone]
5. Directions to site: From the jct. of Hwy. 321 and SR 2014 (McKay Rd.) south of the City
of Newton, travel west on SR 2014 z 0.7 miles. The WWTP site will be on the left side
of SR 2014.
6. Discharge point(s), list for all discharge points: -
Latitude: 35 ° 37' 34"
Longitude: 81° 13' 55"
Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: E 14 NW
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application: Yes. Additional acreage is
available for expansion, if necessary.
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Gently rolling topography, 3-5%
slopes. The WWTP appears to be constructed above the 100 year flood plain elevation.
9. Location of Nearest Dwelling: None within 300+ feet of the WWTP site.

Page Two
10. Receiving Stream or Affected Surface Waters: Clark Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Catawba 030835
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Good flow
observed in the receiving stream (4-6 feet wide x 6-8 inches deep). Other
dischargers exist downstream of this facility. Downstream uses are consistent for
Class C streams.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater: 5.0 MGD (Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity: The Permit contains limits for both 5.0
(current hydraulic capacity) and 7.5 MGD.
c. Actual treatment capacity of current facility (current design capacity): 5.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the
previous two years.
The City is making the following changes to the WWTP per ATC No.
036196A01(issued 4-23-2004): replacement of screening and conveying
equipment at the influent pump station, replacement of lime slurry tanks and
thickener mechanisms, replacement of primary and secondary clarifier
mechanisms, weirs, baffles, and scum box, renovation of effluent filters, and other
assorted piping and appurtenance changes.
e. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The existing
WWT facilities consist of an influent lift station followed by mechanical
screening, aerated grit removal (two), lime addition, 2 primary (reactor) clarifiers,
4 aeration basins, 3 secondary clarifiers, dual media filters (two), chlorine gas
disinfection, dechlorination, 2 gravity sludge thickeners, 2 centrifuge sludge
thickeners, 2 sludge holding tanks, post aeration and stand-by power.
f. Description of proposed WWT facilities: Proposed WWT facilities are detailed in
Part III, No. 1 (d) above.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: This facility has a consistent record of
passing all toxicity tests performed in the past two years.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): This facility has an approved pretreatment
program.

Page Three
2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Residuals generated at this facility are
currently being land applied under DWQ Permit No.WQ0003902. If necessary, however,
the City can also send residuals to the City of Hickory residuals composting facility if
land application in not available.
3. Treatment plant classification: Class IV (no change from previous rating)
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater Code(s): 01 MTU Code(s): 04103
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved (municipals only)? Public monies were used in the construction of this facility.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: Per the Division's policy on
total residual chlorine (TRC), it is anticipated that a TRC limit will be added to the permit at
renewal.
3. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: This facility is neither under an SOC
nor is one under consideration at this time.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Newton requests renewal of the subject Permit. There have been no notable
additions to the existing WWT facilities or the permit since the last permit renewal, however
additional facilities are being constructed at the present time and should be included in the permit
upon renewal (see Part III, No. 1 (d) above).
Until recently, this facility discharged a significant amount of color into the receiving
stream. Subsequent to the issuance of the current NPDES permit, this facility lost several
significant textile dying operations that drastically reduced wastewater flows. As a result of the
removal of these color sources, only a trace amount of color can now be observed in the effluent.
This has resulted in a significant color reduction in the receiving stream below the WWTP's outfall.
Consideration should be given to possibly reducing the City from a Tier II color discharger to a Tier
I color discharger (only if the City's monthly analytical testing results for color supports this
reduction).

Page Four
The current permit contains effluent limits for 5.0 and 7.5 MGD. The City has requested in
this renewal that the effluent limits for 5.0 MGD be removed from the permit and that they only be
regulated by the 7.5 MGD limits. Prior to the last permit, the City had requested lower hydraulic
flow limit (4.8 MGD) be added to the permit due to a significant reduction in average daily flows,
and to avoid the 24-hour ORC staffing requirements for facilities 5.0 MGD and larger. The
Division disallowed this request, and also informed the City that an ATC request must be submitted
and approved in order for the Division to authorize the City to discharge at the higher (7.5 MGD)
flow rate. Since that time, the City has added additional wastewater sources (City of Hickory area
and City of Conover SE WWTP service area), which has boosted average daily flows.
Pending receipt and review of the draft permit, it is recommended that the City's NPDES
permit be renewed as requested.
Signature of Report Pfeparer Date
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
hAdsAdsro5 newton.sr
c)S
Date

City of Newton
Color Data
Date
Upstrm
Eff
Dwnstrm
Jun-05
19.4
40.2
25.7
May-05
17
29.3
22.1
Apr-05
12.8
22.6 15
Mar-05
30
Feb-05
34
Jan-05
53.1
Dec-04
35
Nov-04
27.6
Oct-04
27.8
Sep-04
170
28.3
152.2
Aug-04
27.6
30
34.4
J u I-04
83.4
28.2
76
Jun-04
46
73.6
25.8
May-04
16.3
28.4
17.6
Apr-04
28.4
26.8
43.7
Mar-04
6.4
30.4
7.7
Feb-04
30
38.1 19.5
Jan-04
11.2
36.5 14.1
Dec-03
23.5
39.3 27.2
Nov-03
15.2
35.6 12.7
Oct-03
12.8
34.2 13.7
Sep-03
39.4
32.2 15.4
Aug-03
13.4
22.8 12.9
JuI-03
30.4
34.2 33.7
Jun-03
33.4
51 42.2
May-03
27.1
30.1 36.1
Apr-03
19.9
45.7 29.7
Mar-03
17.7
97.2 65
Feb-03
23.1
40.5 19.6
Jan-03
25
60.3 20.7

ALA ;;
j-
PA
4,___r _
!<. 2-
A,2,04_r
l01i3
-2, i
//3?
f..7
J,
7/03
1.3
3, s
6/03
1,y
7,6
(/a3
`f, o
f/v3
4•Z
< 2--

7.1
Newton Clark Creek WWTP atelfMGD
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (I
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.5 :1
6
7.5
11.625
17.0
0
65.96
25.77
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (m
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
2001100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (m
6
7.5
11.625
1.0
0.22
65.96
1.40
7.5
11.625
1.8
0.22
53.76
3.16
11/20/2005

Newton Clark Creek WWTP at 5 MGD
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (l
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.8 :1
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
6 7Q10 (CFS)
5 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
7.75 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
56.36 IWC (%)
30.16 Allowable Concentration (m
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (m
6
5
7.75
1.0
0.22
56.36
1.60
10
5
7.75
1.8
0.22
43.66
3.84
11/20/2005

P.O. Box 550 • Newton, NC 28658 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
THE HEART OF CATAWBA COUNTY
Public Works and Utilities Department
January 20, 2005
Mrs. Valery Stephens
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: City of Newton
Clark Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit NC0036196 Renewal
Dear Mrs. Stephens:
The City of Newton hereby requests renewal of our NPDES Permit NC0036196 for Clark
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The current Permit expires on July 31, 2005. Attached
for your use are completed application Forms 1 and 2A along with the appropriate
attachments.
The City requests the Permit be issued on the basis of the 7.5 million gallon per day (mgd)
design flow rate. The Permit previously carried limits for two rates, 5.0 and 7.5 mgd. The
Permit should also reflect the improvements currently underway at the plant as approved by
the Authorization to Construct Number 0036196A01.
Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
CITY OF NEWTON
,yeL
Martin D. Wilson,
Public Works and Utilities Director
Attachments: EPA Form 1 w/attachment
EPA Form 2A w/attachments
Sludge Management Plan Summary
P.0 k
J A N 3 1 2005
wiAITY

. 2.2.1
. , .•,'
f.
' :•- '7.2' .\ \.., -:1 a ( .....- ......._ I• ., , / /
- . '.,,,,•.• , .„/
• , . ,
•
,_ 4 -,....4 : : .____.,,• ---.„..,i,:,"‘„„, , -,..
/114, . „
41;
' \ . ,_., ! S ----------A, • /20-ii ' ''.
••„\ (m3
\ ' i \---„,..s C . '`----."%, '.4... • / . 4 ._ _
: •';'-v I 1.---,": '..--f\ '-il ' ,(4'4., / / is '',. —N__.)
, —;„: ----, •-=,. j' " I 1-7----,,,_ -1 . \
• .,
Z.\ /,', , -, \ .-, •,14 ; • 1 . .. '--, .___ .1
, .
. .N...._—...› ..• 1 /.1.-' .!,--,
-....—,-r.--'.---,A..., .. •
' \ , „,,,- • ,.-. ..„„, t , ,• -k . ""-
. • ..1,, .a 4 .'-' .• 44,
,..11,-;'( , •
'
Isl •@'••• -.." . '''.. 4' '', , .-, ' •
,
A
. •
AN A\ \A\
\ '
•••
•=4— •
. • , 1„.
.•'
•••. - "'I
•
CC
•
• . .1.,
• . ; •
- ..
' I< ' • .
,_.../ ''• .• ; ..V.k. f.'
\—.....„, / el k•---7.°--
933 • /
n•-,0- ,..._,
, r (
.<-
. ....-
,...,
itI ;
1\2 I
;t0
• • •
•
\
\ A
rSeird =
11 lc'
"'.°- /"-•: \ •
CLARK:
CREEK
WWTP. (.•
)
•
. .
•,•••• t
• 5 .- t
.•
•..7k tt. priv:
I N.
4' :'
I
MMUS ENGINEERS
CITY OF NEWTON
CLARK CREEK WWTP
JANUARY 2005
1" =
2000'
949.037
2

INFLUENT
7.5 MGD
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
AND BAR SCREEN
i
_I_
\
L
DUAL MEDIA
FILTERS
CHLORINE CONTACT
BASINS AND
DECHLORINATION
DISCHARGE TO
CLARK CREEK 001
AERATED GRIT CHAMBERS
LIME ADDITION
REACTOR CLARIFIERS
AERATION BASINS
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
BIOLOGICAL },
SLUDGE
THICKENER
CENTRIFUGES
AND PUMP STATION
L
--.1 - RECYCLE PUMP STATION
L
i ,
, ,
, i
_r__of a_r_o
1_
1
i
1
TO REGIONAL
COMPOST FACILITY
OR LAND APPLICATION
PUMP STATION
uuiHis ENGINEERS
CITY OF NEWTON
CLARK CREEK WWTP
FLOW SCHEMATIC
JANUARY 2005
NO
SCALE
949.037
1

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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,
to, 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
O Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (Sills) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 7
b. Number of CIUs. 2
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: Carolina Mills 3B
Mailing Address: 301 East Zed Street
Newton
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Weavers/Dvers of cotton flannel
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): cotton flannel
Raw material(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
11842 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards 0 Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 18 of 21

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WVVf P, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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 ® 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 ® 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 AmountUnits
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.) ® No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLAIRCRA/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.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 19 of 21

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek VWVfP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
PART F.INDUSTRIAL""USER DISCHARGES ,
A/CERCLA WAST
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject to, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (Sills) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
c. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 7
d. Number of CIUs. 2
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: Catawba Sox Inc.
Mailing Address: West 25`" Street
Newton
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Knit, dve and bleach socks
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): Socks
Raw material(s): Yams. dve. bleach, peroxide, acetic acid
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. 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.
59134 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
d. 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.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
b. Categorical pretreatment standards
® Yes
❑ Yes
O No
• No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 20 of 21

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek VWVfP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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 ® 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 ® 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.) ® 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.
c. 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):
Mixing basin. screening
d. 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
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 21 of 21

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES ANDIRCRA!CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
or which receive RCRA,CERCLA,
to, 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
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SlUs) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
e. Number of non -categorical Sills. 7
f. Number of CIUs. 2
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: City of Hickory co US Filter Operating Systems
Mailing Address: 3200 20th Ave SE
Hickory
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Composting of Municipal Biosolids
F.S. 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): High Organic Biosolids Compost
Raw material(s): Wastewater biosolids. wood and wood ash amendments
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.
85197 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
f. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes CO No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WIMP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SI U caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® 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 El 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 REMEDIATIONICORRECTIVE 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.) 0 No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLAIRCRA/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.
e. 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):
f. 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 1j TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OFzFORM 2A`YOU MUST CMPLE 3E
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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,
to, 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
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
g. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 7
h. Number of CIUs. 2
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: Technibilt Ltd
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 309
Newton
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacturers of metal shopping carts and material handling equipment
F.S. 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): Shopping carts and material handling eauipment, nickel and chrome plated and powder coated
Raw material(s): Steel wire, tube and flat plate
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.
29637 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
h. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards IS Yes 0 No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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 ® 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 ® 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.) CO No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRAtor 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.
g. 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):
Chemical precipitation, flocculation. filtration. neutralization. pH adjustment. sludge drying
h. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
® Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
EIVD OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVI,TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS'
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST .COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WVVTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORIVIATION
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,
to, 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
O Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
i. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 7
j. Number of CIUs. 2
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: Special Metals Welding Products Company
Mailing Address: 1401 Burris Road
Newton
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Production of high nickel and stainless steel welding products
F.S. 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): Nickel and nickel allow coated electrodes. welding wire and fluxes
Raw material(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
i. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
10687 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
j. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
471.34
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

e •
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WVVTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the MU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® 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?
O Yes ® 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 REMEDIATIONICORRECTIVE 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?
O Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.)
® 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.
i. 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):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
O Continuous 0 Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek 1NV1/TP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
or which receive RCRA,CERCLA,
to, 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
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (Sills) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
k. Number of non -categorical Sills. 7
I. Number of CIUs. 2
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: Catawba Valley Finishing
Mailing Address: 1609 Northwest Blvd
Newton
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dyeing and finishing hosery
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe ail of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): cotton. nylon, polyester hosiery
Raw material(s): Hydrogen peroxide. dyes
F.6. Flow Rate.
k. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
38891 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
I. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd { continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits COYes 0 No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WVVTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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 ® 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 ® 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.) 0 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.
k. 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):
I. 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 .-
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek VWVTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
or which receive RCRA,CERCLA,
to, 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
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (Sills) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
m. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 7
n. Number of CIUs. 2
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: Moretz Mills Inc.
Mailing Address: 514 West 214 Street
Newton
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Knitting. seaming. bleaching. dyeing. boardina and packaging of socks
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Materlal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): cotton. nvlon and acrylic nylon socks
Raw material(s): hydrogen peroxide, chlorine bleach, salt, softeners, wetters. direct and acid dves
F.6. Flow Rate.
m. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
161811 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
n. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes El No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

o
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek VWVTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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 ® 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 ® 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.) ® 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. .
m. 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):
aeration and equalization
n. 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 ( AGEfDETERMINE
OF' FORM ZA YOU MUST COMPLETE
WHICH OTHER PARTS
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION.
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER. DISCHARGES :AND RCRAICERCLA3WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
or which receive RCRA,CERCLA,
to, 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
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
o. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 7
p. Number of CIUs. 2
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: Engineered Controls, Inc
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 247
Elon. N.C. 27244
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
LP Gas regulator manufacturer
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe ail of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): LP Gas regulators
Raw material(s): Pre -machined regulators
F.6. Flow Rate.
o. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. .
3500 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
p. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
700 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits 0 Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes 0 No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek VVWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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 0 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 0 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.) 0 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.
o. 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):
Ion exchange system
p. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
® Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
O
END, F� PART F.
REFER TO .THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW'(P 1GE 1y TO' DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF _--FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

d
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
. Newton Clark Creek WWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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,
to, 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
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
q. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 7
r. Number of CIUs. 2
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: CommScope
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 149
Newton
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Cable manufacturing
F.S. 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): Cable for video and data
Raw material(s): Copper tubing. copper wire. polyethylene pellets and oil
F.6. Flow Rate.
q. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
the collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
r. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes 0 No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards 0 Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Newton Clark Creek WWTP, NC0036196
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
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 CO 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 ® No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ 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. Remedlation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
O Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) 0 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 originate in
the next five years).
Toluene storage tanks leaked about 250 to 500 gallons between November and July 7 1993
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.)
Toluene
F.15. Waste Treatment.
q. 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):
CommScope has a groundwater remediation permit from NCDENR
r. 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
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

City of Newton
Clark Creek VIWTP
NPDES Permit NC0036196
Sludge Management Plan Summary
The City of Newton disposes of excess solids from the Clark Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, either by transporting solids to the regional compost facility or through the City's land
application program.
Primary sludge removed from the reactor/clarifiers and excess biological sludge removed at
the secondary clarifiers are pumped to holding tanks. Telescopic valves are used to decant
water off the solids as they settle. If the sludge is to be hauled to the compost facility, no
further treatment is required. Solids to be land applied are transferred to a gravity thickener
where lime is added to adjust the pH. The pH of the sludge is raised to above12.0. The
sludge pH is retested after two hours to verify that the pH is still above 12.0. After 22 hours
the pH must be confirmed above 11.5 to meet the requirements for land application.
The city routinely performs nickel analysis to confirm the nickel content is below 420 mg/kg
prior to land application. Additional testing is conducted in accordance with the City's land
application permits.