NC0055786_Draft Permit_19900420

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNIN` COVER :MEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0055786
Lexington Regional WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
PraP em, 71)
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
April 20, 1990
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re'rerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 20, 1990
Robert B. Smith, Jr.
One West Center Street
Post Office Box 1734
Lexington, North Carolina 27293-1734
RE: City of Lexington v. DEHNR, DEM,
89 NRC 0143 and 89 EHR 0770
Dear Mr. Smith:
John C. Hunter
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Edwin L. Gavin 11 Robin N. Michael
David G. Heeter Elizabeth E. Rouse
James C. Holloway John P. Barkley
Robert R. Gelblum J. Peter Rascoe, III
Attached please find a copy of a draft permit for the City
of Lexington. The contents of this draft should mirror the
agreements which were reached by both parties, regarding the
heretofore contested provisions of the City's subject NPDES
permit.
Please inform me if the attached draft is still acceptable
to the City. If it is I will prepare a Settlement Agreement
which will include a condition for Respondent's issuance of the
attached permit when Petitioner voluntarily withdraws its
outstanding request for the above -styled administrative hearing.
Sincerely,
Robin Michael
Agency Legal Specialist
RM/ sd
cc: Steve Tedder (w/o enclosure) VTrevor Clement (w/o enclosure)
George Everett (w/o enclosure)
FCflVED
•PPS,
990,
6i ;)FORT BRANCH
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Afzt:(3 Gui L2>6.,A3*
4-(/q/?0
-sym.g, 06.c 0J-L-vc_cs-JA/-1;&1/4A., kji,„49
6,p,tc,1r•
ocr‘. —> L( tn be-44-e_ (-41-e- TowLA
kl2e5H (acic?
Co- Lsc,o•-1. M40 Akt 74
1)0t32__ --44-vva^g
co-ezfc)27 o-y .
C A4-(-0411 lL-1/(1(
(0.
. 1.0V cz3j0 crA4-4A
sz+F
L
�5
mc,a-L2ct.eg
( j Afx,:i z3
a-Ag -P.kAA9 rexplaut
OrAZI-L`c d& to.
(62 -C<,,J(c4

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 5, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lexington WLA File
FROM: Ruth Swanek
SUBJECT: Adjudicated Items on NPDES Permit (NC0055786)
Abbotts Creek (030707)
Davidson County
The City of Lexington and DEM have been negotiating the
facility's NPDES permit (see adjudicatory file in Level C files for
all correspondence) since last June, and have finally settled.
This memo outlines the changes made to the drafted in March, 1989.
The following limits will apply:
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Fecal Col (/ 10 0 ml)
pH (SU)
Lead (ug/1)
Mercury (ug/ 1)
In addition effluent
lowing metals:
Summer
5
2
6
30
200
6-9
45
0.2
Winter
10
4
6
30
200
6-9
45 (Daily Max)
0.2
(Daily Max)
monitoring will be required for the
Cyanide: Monthly monitoring at detection less than 0.01
Cadmium: Monitor weekly, use graphite furnace technique
Nickel: Monitor twice a month
Silver: Monthly monitoring using
level less than 5 ug/1)
fol-
mg/1
graphite furnace (detection
DEM also agreed to reevaluate the cyanide and silver monitor-
ing requirements after one year of data have been submitted. Data
collected between June and September, 1989 will be included in the
data analyzed even though the City was using higher detection lev-
els than 5 ug/1 for silver during these months.
All other limits (toxicity) and monitoring requirements will
remain unchanged in the permit.

MAR 3 G 1990
l C! °r;�► . 'F URT EtRA.NCH
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and''Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor March 29, 1990 John C. Hunter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary General Counsel
Robert Smith, Esq.
Post Office Box 1734
Lexington, North Carolina 27293-1734
RE: City of Lexington v. NRCD, DEM,
89 EHR 0770, 89 NRC 0143
Dear Mr. Smith:
Office of General Counsel
Edwin L. Gavin 11 Robin N. Michael
David G. Heeter Elizabeth E. Rouse
James C. Holloway John P. Barkky
Robert R. Gelblum J. Peter Rascoe, III
Pursuant to the City of Lexington's (City's) request the
Department has analyzed the City's lead and cyanide data. Based
upon this analysis it was determined that the lead limit should
remain intact due to the fact that influent concentrations to the
plant have reached 400 µg/1, and effluent concentrations have
been 11.4 µg/1.
The Department, however, is willing to reduce the cyanide
limit to a monthly monitoring requirement if the City agrees to
continue monitoring at a low detection level (i.e. <0.01 µg/1).
The monitoring data analyzed by Burlington Research Lab showed
influent and effluent concentrations less than detection (0.01
µg/1). The former limit was mainly the result of the default
domestic loading assumption which was high.
If the above compromise is accepted, and if you agree to the
changes that we came to consensus on at our last meeting, then a
draft permit should be drawn up for your review so that the
above -styled case can be dismissed. Please inform me regarding
your response to the Department's offer regarding the limits for
cyanide and lead.
Sincerely,
Q/ .
/\4x-Q-1°
Robin Michael
RM/dab
cc: Steve Tedder
Trevor Clements
Steve Mauney
PO. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
William W. Cobey, jr., Secretary
March 20, 1990
.MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Robin Michael
Office of General Counsel
Trevor Cleme
St $ : Tedder
Ruth ' SwanekVs5
City of Lexington Lead and Cyanide Limits
NPDES No. NC0055786
Davidson County
I have analyzed Lexington's lead and cyanide data submitted by
Roger Spach in his letter of February 7. The lead limit should
remain intact since the influent concentrations have reached
400 ug/l, and the effluent concentrations have been 11.5 ug/1 which
is high enough to warrant a limit.
The cyanide limit may be reduced to a monthly monitoring
requirement if the City agrees to continue monitoring at a low
detection level (i.e. < 0.01 ug/1). The monitoring data analyzed
by Burlington Research Lab showed influent and effluent concentra-
tions less than detection (0.01 ug/1). The former limit was mainly
the result of the default domestic loading assumption which was
high.
You should note that we have contacted the City about this
issue, and they requested a written response. If you have any
questions, please call Trevor or me at -5083.
cc: Central Files
Steve Mauney
Polutlon Pravendon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A n con .,1 iir.nnrl....i1.. A AS.+....1.... A ^Fig... Crnnli.. raw

03/01/90 ver 3.1 TOXICS REVIEW
Facility: Lexington
NPDES Permit No.: NC0055786
Status (E, P, or M): E
Permitted Flow: 5.50 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 2.72 mgd
Subbasin: 030707
Receiving Stream: Abbotts Ck I PRETREATMENT DATA I----EFLLUENT DATA---- I
Stream Classification: WSIII-B I ACTUAL PERMITTED! I
7Q10: 6.70 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + 1 FREQUENCY I
IWC: 55.99 4 I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic)
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total 1 Eflluent Criteria I
Pollutant AL/Crt'a Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load 1 Conc. Violationsl
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 4 (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (t/d) (#/d) 1 (uq/1) (#vio/#sam)1
-------- 1-------- 1 -------- ------ 1
Cadmium S 2.0 I 924 1 I
Chromium S 50.0 1 89% 1 1 I
Copper AL 7.0 1 904 1 1 N
Nickel S 88.0 1 394 1 I P
Lead S 25.0 1 814 ( I U
Zinc AL 50.0 1 84% 1 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 0.00 1 594 0.20 0.02 0.23 0.05 0.248 1 I
Mercury S 0.012 1 864 1 1 S
Silver AL 0.060 1 944 1 1 E
Selenium S 5.0 1 804 1 1 C
Arsenic S 50.0 1 80% 1 1 T
Phenols S NA 1 1 1 I
NH3-N C 1 1 1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 1 1 1 N
I--------------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D----- ----MONITOR/LIMIT--------- I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
1 Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on 1 Recomm'd INSTREAM
Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 FREQUENCY Monitor.
Pollutant 1 Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 Effluent Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/l) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I Monitor. (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 1 1.47 3.572 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
Chromium S 1 26.74 89.296 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
Copper AL 1 4.12 12.501 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 MONTHLY NO
Nickel S 1 8.49 157.161 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
Lead S 1 7.74 44.648 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
Zinc AL 1 18.38 89.296 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 MONTHLY NO
Cyanide S 1 0.72 8.930 4.089 4.486 0.00 Limit Limit 1 NO
Mercury S 1 0.01 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
Silver AL 1 0.06 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 MONTHLY NO
Selenium S 1 1.47 8.930 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
Arsenic S 1 14.70 89.296 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
Phenols S 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO
NH3-N C 1 0.000 0.00 1 NO
T.R.Chlor.AL 1 30.361 0.00 1 NO
0.00 1 NO

MEMO
TO: I revo ►'
DATE:
SUBJECT:
to pre frea(rn i f ✓eu 'ero, fao 1, hl 5hou.Jcl veCel ue e t fonicte.
mi Guy-) y )OF au-k_ I compuied t Actual Permi 1/cd
nd . Cupr,i d.e._ Lmc! CorvecHc t mil rlof a C°4//z 3
note_5) A60 laooffer vrn lad. Fol/vo,/2
5Ict -low ttoru) L353moo
Teeple, .05z rY)6��
(Y),c.
�1M
en dormc load = ,71 kbic(
PAindiect yn cl , opp4l lb/et
(Ac (va-( incc . C&-lump 6 (ant )
p
North Carolina
Department of Envi ronmerltl
Health, and Natural Resources

C\anJd Aro yes
LOQcL 7 z Lex.:-12 4-ri✓lthNnj + CO i Oo - -
/00 f . 03 .+ , 003 . .13 4- . DI S
ct
D.01 , - TVICi = 2F/ 5, 219 KZ
Irk c- toed o Oa m11 4135 Hold 0'JCJ 0
Acittak mod. z .OUo'f f , 00? + , 0/5 _ c 0334
4milbd znd 1=1 Obo 33 1 . ` . 0 t/ 33
Pl6hoci 2 :
rnu,c- a• - kaq
C•-)r)vgallc. Load = . Ul m I £ = • 203 'bid
on 5, Di LtbD )

02/27/90 ver 3.1 TOXICS REVIEW
Facility: Lexington
NPDES Permit No.: NC0055786
Status (E, P, or M): E
Permitted Flow: 5.50 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 2.72 mgd
Subbasin: 030707
Receiving Stream: Abbotts Ck I ---------PRETREATMENT DATA--------------I----EFLLUENT DATA---- I
Stream Classification: WSIII-B I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I
7Q10: 6.70 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I
IWC: 55.99 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic)
Stn'd / Bkg I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I
Pollutant AL/Crt'a Conc. I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violations)
(ug/1) (ug/1) I % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)1
-------- I --------- I I
Cadmium S 2.0 I 928 1 I
Chromium S 50.0 I 89% I I I
Copper AL 7.0 I 90% I I N
Nickel S 88.0 I 39% I I P
Lead S 25.0 I 81% I I U
Zinc AL 50.0 I 84% I 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 0.00 I 59% 0.44 0.02 0.46 0.05 0.480 I I
Mercury S 0.012 I 86% I 1 S
Silver AL 0.060 I 94$ I 1 E
Selenium 5 5.0 I 80% I I C
Arsenic S 50.0 I 80% I I T
Phenols S NA I I 1 I
NH3-N C I I 10
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 I I I N
I I I
I I I
I I I
I--------------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D MONITOR/LIMIT I--ADTN'L RECMNDTN'S-- 1
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I I
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on 1 Recomm'd INSTREAM 1
I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I FREQUENCY Monitor. 1
Pollutant I Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 Effluent Recomm'd ? I
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I Monitor. (YES/NO) I
I--------- -------- --------- I 1
Cadmium S 1 1.47 3.572 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO I
Chromium S 1 26.74 89.296 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO I
Copper AL I 4.12 12.501 0.000 0.000 0.00 I MONTHLY N0 1
Nickel S 1 8.49 157.161 0.000 0.000 0.00 I NO 1
Lead S 1 7.74 44.648 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 NO I
Zinc AL 1 18.38 89.296 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 MONTHLY NO I
Cyanide S 1 0.72 8.930 8.280 8.676 0.00 Limit Limit I NO I
Mercury S 1 0.01 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.00 I NO I
Silver AL I 0.06 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 MONTHLY NO I
Selenium S I 1.47 8.930 0.000 0.000 0.00 I NO I
Arsenic S 1 14.70 89.296 0.000 0.000 0.00 I N0 I
Phenols 5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I NO I
NH3-N C 1 0.000 0.00 I NO I
T.R.Chlor.AL I 30.361 0.00 I NO I
0.00 I NO I
I I I

COLUMN -WRITE ®
2
3
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
a
12c #0o/0_
Cardinat,
fU#0J021
Coble
nor 0011
u rzAeLQ , urc.JA-
p ipe. o i co2.
7 rvp owed
p raposed
2.20
z.z0
(oef
_ 35
.04,4116
135
135
.0ifff
. (a
1
1
. 27
• Zi9
IDo
/Yf��.
.00al
0;3
. 0034
2
offtex
8
10 11 12
0154- •0�4
CN
A9 CO
6D
rnil
0
O
1
00 1�
1 IT
r-,
n
COO
. 004
.00rz
p !aa8
Q. nag*
Pie
r+
39
40
© WILSON JONES COMPANY G7512 GREEN
MADE IN U.S.A

2
3
5
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
78
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
T1oW
ZOD
TES
Cd
U-.
Tb
QFerini -4ed.. —
perrniHeJ -
®A. 11 v e ittrn
A041f oL
a
a
1
1 u # 00/0
Cat -din ri L
1ui#nO21
Coble
p lf) t ii i :.(. 001 i i-5
LiE t 2
3 d 5 S.' 6
f7t#iOOdl r7(#oo04
uraeell I ZC.CrG&P.1. I- • - ex i 1 vlvt,,_ O'1- r-5
'pipe.. 0'1 pipe oz Net •h rtlif+j 0/')
9
€D1
-(Jl7-d
. of e
4-6
ff
CZ I
.ax00
091
/. l ..
1•.l
„OIL
.
.01.0
03ZZ
. 46'5
„ 1.0
-
�. zo - -
1.10
.� L
:13 3
Doc? 8
• 0008
00o z.
> 0034
I
▪ oao3
.130
9 900
99170
19:
9
,�3
. ozi
5
.03
0 2.52
.17
/7.
I I
rg
•ir)6Jt
;l e
NP L-
.Daz1
0074
— . 015
0O0
..003 ,1r
. ntru7�5
. 00
o 0b4-
L.
, Oo3
oa15
▪ DcL3.
.0001
prod
OHd
10 11 12
.00
• 057
.19
04.6
▪ 057E
610
. 0003.
L
3530. go
DI
nz
4.0001
I I
000
CII
TI 1
J
_ iL
©WILSON JONES COMPANY G7512 GREEN
MADE IN U.S.A

v ..
ur d.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John C. Hunter, Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Office of General Counsel
January 5, 1990
Mr. Robert Smith, Esq.
One West Center St.
Post Office Box 1734
Lexington, North Carolina 27293-1734
RE: City of Lexington v. NRCD, DEM,
89 EHR 0710
Thomas Hilliard, III Robert R. Gelblum
Edwin L. Gavin 11 Robin N. Michael
David G. Heeter Elizabeth E. Rouse
James C. Holloway John P. Barkley
Judith Robb Bullock
0 9 1990
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am writing in response to the City of Lexington's (City's)
counteroffer, dated October 17, 1989, in the above -styled matter
(Attached). It is my understanding that said counteroffer
referenced an offer of settlement which DEM was extended to the
City by letter dated September 19, 1989 (offer). In regards to
your counteroffer DEM makes the following responses:
1.) Cd, Pb, Ni Limits
A. Cadmium Limits: DEM accepts the City's
counteroffer on this point.
B. Lead Limits: DEM understands that the City
accepts the use of a graphite furnace technique as a
method for measuring lead. Your proposal that the
daily maximum limits be precluded from being counted
towards TRC violations is not understood and, to be
acceptable, requires further clarification.
C. Nickel Limits: It is DEM's understanding that the
City accepts its offer on this point.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A. 1=....�1 n....".......:be• Aft..._...:.... A...-- C----I----

Mr. Robert Smith
January 5, 1990
Page 2
2.) Cyanide Limit
DEM rejects the City's counteroffer regarding the
cyanide limit requirements.
3.) Silver and Cyanide Monitoring
A. The City's counteroffer on this point is accepted.
B. DEM is unable to accept the City's position on
this point. What DEM's offering the City constitutes
its standard toxicity reopener language.
DEM does not perceive any conflict between the cyanide
monitoring conditions set out in Section 2., and those
contained in Section 3., of its offer. If the City still
insists that some sort of conflict exists I recommend that
the City clarify the exact nature of the alleged conflict
either before or during our previously scheduled settlement
conference.
4.) Seasonal Toxicity Limits
DEM can not accept the City's counteroffer on this point
since to do so would be in violation of the State's rules
regarding toxic pollutants. ,(See, generally, 15 NCAC 2B
.0404 and 15 NCAC 2B .0206).
5.) Fecal Coliform Limit
DEM accepts the City's counteroffer on this point.
6.) Daily Maximum Metal Limits
DEM rejects the City's counteroffer on this point.
Finally, in regard to the City's request that certain
conditions be complied with in the event that settlement on the
proposed permits is reached, DEM makes the following additional
responses:
1. DEM will not consent to the City's request that
settlement contain a release of the City from all prior
liabilities with regard to the contested provisions of
the subject permits.

Mr. Robert Smith
January 5, 1990
Page 3
2. DEM denies the City's request that DEM drop Sections
D.7.(a)(3) and D.7.(b)(3) of Part II of the permit for
parameters analyzed by the graphite furnace.
Pursuant to your request a settlement conference has been
scheduled in this matter for January 11, 1990 at 2:00 p.m. The
location of this conference will be in the Office of Steve
Tedder, Water Quality Section Chief which is on the 9th floor of
the Archdale Building in Raleigh. I look forward to meeting at
that time. If, however, you have any questions regarding DEM's
response to your counteroffer feel free to contact me prior to
the date of the conference. I am
Sincerely,
Robin Michael
RM/dab
Enclosure
cc: Steve Tedder
Trevor Clement

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Joseph E. Slate, Jr., Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Office of Legal Affairs
October 25, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Tedder
FROM: Robin Michael'
RE: City of Lexington v. NRCD, DEM
File No. 89 NRC 0143 and 89 EHR 0710
NPDES No. NC0055786
Davidson County
Thomas Hilliard, III Judith Robb Bullock
Edwin L. Gavin II Robert R. Gelblum
David G. Heeter Robin N. Michael
James C. Holloway Elizabeth E. Rouse
Yvonne C. Bailey
Itts Heerree! Yes, The City of Lexington (Lexington) has
finally made a response to the generous settlement offer which
you allowed me to extend to it in the above -styled case. As
expected, Lexington's response is more in the form of a proposed
counteroffer than anything else. Please inform me regarding
those terms you would like the Division to accept.
Although a trial date has not been set, I would like to
contact Lexington within the next two weeks regarding our
position on its proposal.
RM/sd
cc: Trevor Clements
Dale Overcash
Larry Coble
i
RVED
r,.
OCT 2 6 1989
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

ROBERT B. SMITH, JR.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW
ONE WEST CENTER STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1734
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27293-1734
TELEPHONE: [phone]
DORIS C. GAMBLIN
October 17, 1989
Ms. Robin Michael
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
�. ! Ei1NR
i— G^Picra1 f
�� Cat��sel A
\\ �1- -
[ FCEi'VE17
OCT ,2'3
/989
Community Development
Re: City of Lexington v. NRCD, DEM
File 89 NRC 0143 and 89 EHR 0710
Dear Ms. Michael:
I am writing in response to your letter of September 19,
1989, with regard to the City of Lexington's position to
propose settlement in the above matter. In response to your
proposals, we would take the following positions:
1.) Cd, Pb, Ni Limits
2.)
A. Cadmium Limits: The City would agree to a
laboratory analysis of cadmium using a graphite furnace
technique, but we would prefer weekly monitoring
frequencies. _,.Z014i
B. Lead Limits: We would agree that the lead limit
could be replaced with a monitoring requirement used in
a graphite furnace technique with weekly monitoring
frequencies, if the daily maimum limits are not counted
towards TRC violations.
•
C. Nickel Limits: We would accept the NRCD/DEM's
position on the nickel limits. ,61ivf‘:17 ( c
mAi- ckAr trewotA--42)
P
Cyanide Limit
We cannot accept the NRCD/DEM's position on cyanide
limits. Our review of the pretreatment information does
not support the need for a cyanide limit. It is our
position that this limit was included in our permit
because of the inclusion of Duracell USA as a
significant contributing industry in our. pretreatment

-2-
program. Duracell has maintained that cyanide is not
contained in their discharge, and we have attached
copies of semi-annual monitoring data submitted by
Duracell for inclusion in the past two semi-annual
pretreatment program reports.
3.) Silver and Cyanide Monitoring
We will be willing to accept NRCD/DEM's position and
silver and cyanide monitoring on the following
conditions:
A. The City should receive credit for effluent
monitoring reported on DMR reports for June, July
and August, 1989, at 10 ug/l, and for September,
1989, not' yet reported. The City initiated this
monitoring in good faith. The 5 ug/1 detection
limit was brought in only in the September 19, 1989
letter.
B. Acceptable language be included in the permit
detailing the conditions Eor which reduced
monitoring frequencies would be incorporated into
the permit. (See attachment 3.)
Acceptable language should also be incorporated to
detail the use of toxicity testing as a reopener
mechanism. (See attachment 3.)
We would like to point out that the conditions offered in
Section 3 of the September 19, letter for cyanide monitoring
are somewhat in conflict with provisions for cyanide
monitoring of Section 2. The conflict must be resolved
before reaching agreement on the cyanide monitoring.
4.) Seasonal Toxicity Limits
5.
We believe that we can reach a settlement with regard to
your position on the seasonal toxicity limits provided
that you will agree to our position on the toxic
pollutant concentration listed in the proposed permit.
Fecal Coliform Limit
If this limit is dropped to 200/100 mis, we can
recommend to our client that we drop our objection to
this limit per amended NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3) (E).
7
O

6.) Daily Maximum Metals Limits
-3- o1;4
G`
4,<hO �<L
We can recommend that the City accept the weekly monthly it#2
limits for mercury with weekly monitoring. t�.�';1 _P. o
If we can reach a settlement on the proposed permits, we
would also request the following:
1. Upon signing of the settlement, we would like a release
from any and all prior liabilities with regard to the
contested provisions of the two effective permits.
2. We would request the dropping of Section D. 7.(a) (3) of
Part II, and Section D. 7. (b) (3) of Part II of the
permit for parameters analyzed by the graphite furnace.
To facilitate closing this matter, we would suggest amending
the current permit by reinserting Attachment 2, and revise
Part III. Copies of these proposed provisions are included
for your perusal.
If you and staff feel that we are reaching some common ground
with regard to these contested issues, we would suggest that
we have a conference iu Raleigh to discuss the finalization
of the proposed settlement.
I look forward to hearing from you in this matter.
Very truly yours
Robert B. Smith, Jr.
RBS:bc

eafiamt
MR. ROGER SPACH
CITY OF LEXINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
28 WEST CENTER STREET
LEXINGTON, NC 27292
SUIT{JECT: FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR JULY THRU DECEMBER ., 1989
FIND ATTACHED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION ON ANALYSES OF WATER FILTERED
THROUGH DURACELL'S MEMTEF:: PRETREATMENT SYSTEM FOR
DECEMBER,1 89 . ALL SAMPLES WERE TAKEN ON CONSECUTIVE OF'ERAT _,
THRU
THE MEMTEK SYSTEM. AT I NL� DAYS
FROM
09—Oct-89
POLLUTANT
SAMPLE # ANALYSIS RESULTS DAILY PERMIT
& DATE /L
_ _ _ _ ��`� mg /L
CHROMIUM 1 30ALJ(389 :0. 0 ». --- __.—
2 1 AI.JG8 c=� • c:)7
3 01SEPT89 :;0, 0;
4 05SEPT89<0.07.
MERCURY 1 30AUG89 0. 00b 0.040
2 31AUG89 0. 0(.
3 01 SEPT89 0. 00,
4 05SEPT89 0.007
SILVER 1 30AUG89
2 31AUG89 0.067
3 O 1 SEP f8ni
4 05SEPT89
INC C :l 30A1JG89
2 31 AUG89
3 01 SEPT89
4 05SEPT89
:: 0. 0 5 0
<0.050
:.0. 05I tt
.050
0.05
0.02
0.0
MANGANESE 1 3OALJG 89
2 31AUG89 n
3 01 SEF•T89
4 05SEPT89 0.10
NICKEL 1 30AUG89
2 =1AUG89
3 01 SEPT89
4 05SEPT89
CYANIDE 1 30P,UGE39
2 31AUGO9
3 01SFPTe9
4 05SEPT89
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.236
0.111
O. 2.34
0.036
ALL ANALYSIS WERE PERFORMED BY DURACELL—•NEEDHAIMI, OR I EA--
/ LABS.
ON
fon.Bkaoscer//

To: Roger Spach, City of Lexington Dec. 15, 1988
Water Resources Department
From: Tony Shaw
The following information is submitted for Duracell's
Federal Compliance Report (July - December, 1988). If any
information is needed, please call me at 704/249-9101,
Extension 292.
All samples were taken on consecutive runs from our
Memtek.
MAXIMUM
SAMPLE # ANALYSIS RESULTS (DAILY) mg/1
POLLUTANT & DATES mg/1 NOTE 1 (PERMIT)
Chromium
Mercury
1 9/20
2 9/21
3 9/22
4 9/23
1 9/20
2 9/21
3 9/22
4 9/23
<0.1000
<0.1000
<0.1000
<0.1000
0.0100
0.0036
<0.0010
<0.0010
Silver * 1 9/20 <0.1000
2 9/21 <0.1000
3 9/22 <0.1000
4 9/23 <0.1000
Zinc 1 9/20 <0.0200
2 9/21 <0.0200
3 9/22 <0.0300
4 9/23 <0.0300
Manganese 1 11/29 <0.0600
2'11/30 <0.0600
3 12/01 <0.0500
4 12/02 <0.0300
Nickel 1 9/20 <0.1000
2 9/21 <0.1000
3 9/22 <0.1000
4 9/23 <0.1000
Cyanide 1 10/31 0.0050
2 11/01 <0.0050
3 11/02 <0.0130
4 11/03 <0.0070
.072
.040
.067
.236
.234
.036
NOTE 1: All analysis were performed by DRC - Boston, Mass.,
and Guilford Labs - Greensboro, N.C.
* These values from Guilford labs are all that was available.

DURACELL U.S.A.
a division of Duracell Inc.
305 New Highway 64 East • Lexington, North Carolina 27292 USA
Telephone [phone]
MR. ROGER SPACH
CITY OF LEXINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
28 WEST CENTER STREET
LEXINGTON, NC 27292
19—Jun-89
REF: FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR JANUARY THRU JUNE, 1989
FIND ATTACHED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION ON ANALYSES OF WATER FILTERED
THROUGH DURACELL'S MEMTEK PRETREATMENT SYSTEM FOR A PERIOD OF JANUARY
THRU JUNE, 1989. ALL SAMPLES WERE TAKEN ON CONSECUTIVE OPERATING DAYS
FROM THE MEMTEK SYSTEM.
SAMPLE # ANALYSIS RESULTS DAILY PERMIT
POLLUTANT & DATE mg/L mg/L
CHROMIUM 1 6FEB89
2 7FEB89
3 8FEB89
4 9FEB89
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.05
MERCURY 1 6FEB89 0. 0 12
2 7FEB89 0. 0 1 1
3 8FEB89 0.004
4 9FEB89 0.002
SILVER 1 24APR89 <0.050
2 25APR89 <0.050
26APR89 <0.050
4 27APR89 <0.050
ZINC 1 6FEB89
2 7FEB89
3 8FEB89 ..
4 9FEB89
MANGANESE 1 6FEEt89
2 7FEB89
3 8FEB89
4 9FEB89
NICKEL 1 6FEB89
2 7FEB89
3 8FEB89
4 9FEBB9
CYANIDE 1 5JUN89
2 6JUN89
3 7JUN89
4 8J UN89
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.03
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.072
0.040
0.067
0.236
0.111
0.234
0.06
ALL ANALYSIS WERE PERFORMED BY DURACELL DRC, GU I LFORD LR IEA LABS.

'r •
A. (1).
1 1 . . - . _.. r... -
Attachment 2
EFFLUENTLIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Summer Limits (April 1 - October 31) NPDES No. NC0055786
Daring the period beginning on the effective date of
Permittee is authorized to discharge from ontfall(s) serial
and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Lbs/day
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Monthly Avg.
Flow
BOD, 5Day, 20 Degrees C**
Total Suspended Residue**
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity ***
Pollutant Analysis ****
Mercury
Total Cadmium
Total Chromium
Total Nickel
Total Lead
Cyanide
Total Zinc
Total Silver
Total Copper
the Permit and
number(s) 001.
Other Units (Specify)
Weekly Avg.
5.5 MGD
5.0 mg/1 7.5 mg/1
30.0 mg/1 45.0 mg/1
2.0 mg/1 3.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1 6.0 mg/1
200.0/100 ml 400.0/100 ml
0.2 ug/1*****
0.3 ug/1*****
lasting until expiration, the
Such discharges shall be limited
Monitoring
Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
E, I
E, I
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent
The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent values (85%) removal).
t** See Part III, Condition I; Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 56%, February, May, August, November
****See Part III, Condition J
***** See Part III, Condition M
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
daily at

A. (1).
EFFLUENT
Attachment 2
LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Winter Limits (November 1 - March 31)
During the period begiTminz on the effective date of
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial
and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD,~5Day, 20 Degrees C**
Total Suspended Residue**
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
Fecal Coliform (geometric
Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity **-*
Pollutant Analysis
Mercury
Total Cadmium
Total Chromium
Total Nickel
Total Lead
Cyanide
Total Zinc
Total Silver
Total Copper
**kr
Lbs/day
Discharge Limitations
NPDES No. NC0055786
the Permit and lasting until expiration, the
number(s) 001. Such discharges shall be limited
Other Units (Specify)
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg.
mean)
+ TKN)
5.5 MGD
10.0 mg/1 15.0 mg/1
30.0 mg/1 45.0 mg/I
4.0 mg/1 6.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1 6.0 mg/1
200.0/100 ml 400.0/100 ml
0.2 ug/1
* * * * *
Monitoring
Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
'ug/1*****•Weekly
• Weekly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Type
*Scjjup le
Location
Recording I or E
Composite E, I
Composite E, I
Composite E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
E
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
Grab E
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent
The monthly average effluent GODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent values (85%) removal).
k** See Part III, Condition I; Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 56%, February, May, August, November
'''See Part III, Condition J
***** See Part III, Condition M
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at
the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

PART III - DRAFT AMENDMENTS
K. If the permittee, after monitoring for at least 12 consecutive
months, can provide monitoring data that indicates the total
silver and cyanide WWTP effluent concentrations are below the
detection limits or in no more than confirmed trace amounts
contained in Section III, then the monitoring requirement
measurement frequency shall be reduced to annually (once per
Year).
L. Detection limits for toxic substance monitoring shall be as
follows:
Cd 2 ug/1
Cr 20 ug/1
Cu 20 ug/1
Pb 10 ug/1
Hg 0.2 ug/1
Ni 30 ug/1
Zn • 20 ug/1
Cn 10 ug/1
Ag 5 ug/1
* The accepted detection limit for monitoring of silver
(Ag) shall be 10 ug/1 until December 31, 1989 or such
time as the City of Lexington wastewater laboratory is
certified by NCDHS for furnace level testing of silver,
whichever occurs first.
M. The limitations for toxic pollutants shall vary with flow as
follows:
C pb =2 pb (Os + Op)
Qp
C cn = WQ cn (Os + Op)
Qp
Where:
Cpb = Weekly average limitation for total
lead, ug/1
Ccn = Weekly average limitation for
cyanide, ug/1
Qs = Weekly average stream flow in Abbotts
Creek measured at USGS Gauge
Qp = Permitted monthly average plant flow,
cfs (8.5 cfs)
WQb = Water Quality Standard for lead, ug/1
(25 ug/1)
WQcn = Water Quality Standard for cyanide,
ug/1 (5 ug/1)

N. Toxicity Reopener Clause: Effluent limitations for toxic
pollutants shall be incorporated into this permit as past of a
toxicity reduction plan adopted by the City after review by
appropriate officials of the DEHNR.

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
September 12, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Michael, egal Affairs
FROM: Paul Wilms g?/
SUBJECT: DEM's Administrative Position of Lexington's Adjudicatory
Petition
NPDES No. NC0055786
Davidson County
I am writing to outline the Division of Environmental
Management's (DEM) position on the items listed in the City of Lex-
ington's Petition for a Contested Hearing. The items are addressed
as follows:
1.) Cd, Pb, Ni Limits
The cadmium limit will be replaced with a monitoring
requirement of 2 times per month. Laboratory analysis of
cadmium should be preformed using a graphite furnace technique
in order to obtain a detection limit down to 2 ug/l.
The lead limit will remain in the permit, and Lexington
should employ an accepted analytical technique which has a
detection level less than their limit of 45 ug/1. A detection
level of 10 ug/1 can be obtained using a graphite furnace.
Since the last year of weekly monitoring data for nickel
indicate concentrations below 30 ug/1 for the entire year, DEM
will replace the limit with a monitoring requirement of 2
times per month.
If monitoring data indicate that any of the metals may
cause detrimental impacts to the stream, the permit may be
reopened via the toxicity reopener clause included in the
NPDES permit.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

2.) Cyanide Limit
This limit will remain as is in the permit. Monitoring
for cyanide has already been reduced to monthly from the stan-
dard weekly requirement. The updated pretreatment information
submitted by Lexington still indicates a need to limit cyanide
based upon established DEM and EPA criteria.
3.) Silver and Cyanide Monitoring
DEM will re-evaluate the monthly monitoring requirement
after one year of appropriate monitoring data have been
submitted. The graphite furnace technique should be used to
monitor silver in order to achieve a detection level of
5 ug/l.
4.) Seasonal Toxicity Limits
Seasonal limits can only be applied to oxygen -consuming
wastes per 15 NCAC 2B.0404. 15 NCAC 2B.0206 requires the use
of the 7Q10 for•the allocation of toxic substances. The City
may increase its daily maximum metals limits by monitoring
daily for the substances as explained in item 6 of this memo.
The weekly average limits are designed to protect for chronic
instream toxic impacts under 7Q10 conditions.
5.) Fecal Coliform Limit
The permit will remain unchanged for the fecal coliform
limit. Effective October 1, 1989, all freshwaters must meet a
criteria of 200 MFFCC/100 ml per 15 NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3) (E) .
6.) Daily Maximum Metals Limits
The City may request to monitor for metals daily. The
daily maximum limit for each metal would then be adjusted
upward to provide protection for the stream from acute
toxicity. Since the stream must also be protected from
chronic toxicity impacts, a weekly average limit identical to
the existing permit limits would also be assigned. This
revision is allowable because the increased frequency of moni-
toring (i.e. from 1/week to 5/week) provides higher resolution
for determining compliance with both acute and chronic
toxicity criteria. Compliance with the weekly average limit
is evaluated by taking the average of the five daily concen-
trations collected each week. Any concentrations which were
listed as below the appropriate detection level would be input
as zeros. Based upon these criteria, the following limits
would apply:

Parameter
Weekly Avg
fug/1)
Daily Max
(ug/1)
--N4
Pb 45.0 61.0
Cn 9.0 35.0
Hg 0.2 0.3
Please contact Steve Tedder or Trevor Clements of my Water
Quality Section Staff at 3-5083 if you have any questions regarding
these matters.
RPW/RAC
cc: Steve Tedder
Trevor Clements
Dale Overcash
Larry Coble
Central Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Joseph E. Slate, Jr., Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Office of Legal Affairs
September 19, 1989
Robert Smith, Jr.
Attorney for City of Lexington
P.O. Box 1734
Lexington, N.C. 27293
RE: City of Lexington v. NRCD, DEM
File No. 89 NRC 0143 and 89 EHR 0710
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thomas Hilliard. III Judith Robb Bullock
Edwin L. Gavin II Robert R. Gelblum
David G. Herter Robin N. Michael
James C. Holloway Elirebeth E. Rouse
Yvonne C. Bailey
Pursuant to our phone conversation on September 18, 1989 I
am providing you with Respondent's position regarding the permit
provisions at issue in the above -styled contested cases.
Respondent's position on these provisions is as follows:
1.) Cd, Pb, Ni Limits
The cadmium limit will be replaced with a monitoring
requirement of 2 times per month. Laboratory analysis of cadmium
should be preformed using a graphite furnace technique in order
to obtain a detection limit down to 2 ug/l.
The lead limit will remain in the permit, and Lexington
should employ an accepted analytical technique which has a
detection level less than their limit of 45 ug/1. A detection
level of 10 ug/1 can be obtained using a graphite furnace.
Since the last year of weekly monitoring data for nickel
indicate concentrations below 30 ug/1 for the entire year, DEM
will replace the limit with a monitoring requirement of 2 times
per month.
If monitoring data indicate that any of the metals may cause
detrimental impacts to the stream, the permit may be reopened via
the toxicity reopener clause included in the NPDES permit.
2.) Cyanide Limit
This limit will remain as is in the permit. Monitoring for
cyanide has already been reduced to monthly from the standard
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

weekly requirement. The updated pretreatment information
submitted by Lexington still indicates a need to limit cyanide
based upon established DEM and EPA criteria.
3.) Silver and Cyanide Monitoring
DEM will re-evaluate the monthly monitoring requirement
after one year of appropriate monitoring data have been
submitted. The graphite furnace technique should be used to
monitor silver in order to achieve a detection level of 5 ug/1.
4.) Seasonal Toxicity Limits
Seasonal limits can only be applied to oxygen -consuming
wastes per 15 NCAC 2B .0404. 15 NCAC 2B .0206 requires the use
of the 7Q10 for the allocation of toxic substances. The City nay
increase its daily maximum metals limits by monitoring daily for
the substances as explained in item 6 of this memo. The weekly
average limits are designed to protect for chronic instream toxic
impacts under 7Q10 conditions.
5.) Fecal Coliform Limit
The permit will remain unchanged for the fecal conform
limit. Effective October 1, 1989, all freshwaters must meet a
criteria of 200 MEFCC/100 ml per 15 NCAC 2B .0211 (b) (3) (E) .
6.) Daily Maximum Metals Limits
The City may request to monitor for metals daily. The daily
maximum limit for each metal would then be adjusted upward to
provide protection for the stream from acute toxicity. Since the
stream must also be protected from chronic toxicity impacts, a
weekly average limit identical to the existing permit limits
would also be assigned. This revision is allowable because the
increased frequency of monitoring (i.e. from 1/week to 5/week)
provides higher resolution for determining compliance with both
acute and chronic toxicity criteria. Compliance with the weekly
average limit is evaluated by taking the average of the five
daily concentrations collected each week. Any concentrations
which were listed as below the appropriate detection level would
be input as zeros. Based upon these criteria, the following
limits would apply:
Parameter
Weekly Avg
(uq/1)
Daily Max
(ug/ 1)
Ni 45.0 68.0
Pb 45.0 61.0
Cn 9.0 35.0
Hg 0.2 0.3

If you have comments or if you are willing to accept
Respondent's new position regarding the above -stated provisions,
please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
T)
-1\06J "A:JA0J
Robin Michael
Agency Legal Specialist
RM/sd

THE CITY OF
NORTH
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
August 22, 1989
R. Paul Wilms
NRCD/DEM
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
LEXINGTON
CAROLINA
"GROWING WITH THE PIEDMONT"
Re: NPDES Permit #NC0055786 - Amendment to Previous Letter Dated
August 8, 1989
Dear Mr. Wilms:
I am forwarding additional materials (attached) in support of my
letter dated August 8, 1989 regarding adjudication of our NPDES
permit #NC0055786. These include:
1. Effluent DMR forms for July, 1989.
2. Silver and cyanide results for April and May.
3. Annual pollutant analysis of our effluent from samples
collected in June, 1989.
If you have further questions regarding this, please contact Roger
Spach, Supt. Water Resources at [phone].
R. Duke Whisenant
City Manager
RDW/tep
RFCEVED
cc: Dennis Roberts, City of Lexington
R.B. Smith, City Attorney AUG 2 5 1989
Roger Spach, City of Lexington
Larry Coble, NRCD/DEM Regional Office TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
Arthur Mouberry, NRCD/DEM
evor Clements, NRCD/DEM
22 WEST CENTER STREET • LEXINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27292 • PH. 704-243-2489

ti
..4 g
Burlington
Research
Analyi it al So•iviu es • Aquatic Iliu.i»ay I esting • AquaUt I uaie ity Redut tiun t valuation,
AA I CC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Post Office liox 2481 • 615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
CUSTOMER:
FACILITY:
SAMPLE:
WORK ORDER #:
SAMPLE REC'D:
REPORT DATE:
REPORT TO:
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CITY OF LEXINGTON
POTW
Wastewater Analysis
Effluent Composite
89-04-031-01
04/06/89
04/20/89
Mr. Roger Spock
PARAMETER
Cyanide, T'tl.
Silver, T'tl.
UNITS
mg/ L
mg/L
RESULTS
<0.01
<0.01

Burlington
Research
Analytu.,I Si•rvs&es • Aquatic Bioassay Iesting • Aquatic toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AAFCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Post Off is 4' Ik 2481 • 615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
CUSTOMER:
FACILITY:
SAMPLE:
WORK ORDER 11:
SAMPLE REC'D:
REPORT DATE:
REPORT TO:
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CITY OF LEXINGTON
POTW
Monthly Analysis _ May
Comp. Eff. 5/8-9/89
89-05-047-01
05/09/89
05/26/89
Mr. Roger Spock
PARAMETER
Cyanide, T'tl.
NCDEM Cerio. Mini -chronic
Silver, T'tl.
UNITS
mg/L
Pass/Fail
mg/L
RESULTS
<0.01
Pass
<0.01

Burlington
Research
Ai u�yIlcor Sdrv.cus
A . olrc: 8 oossay tesrrng
A ru,thr: IU•rirly 11d,fix 1 in 1
AAI( 1, luJUnU S ir,mCul
NPLA $ I�shny
%poiling & QQIU r1orxsimg Services
PMN Aqualrc tshOOssay t valuahOns
Mr. Roger Spach
City of Lexington
City Hall
28 West Center Street
Lexington, NC 27292
August 9, 1989
Dear Mr. Spach:
Enclosed find an APA report for the effluent samples
received by BRI June 8. I regret the delay in submitting
this report but the subcontract lab that conducted the
pesticides and PCBs just reported results for your sample.
By the end of this year BRI will be conducting ALL organics
internally and this type of delay should not reoccur.
Thank you, Mr. Spach. Please complete the first and
last page of the APA report before submitting two (2) copies
to the State.
Richard A. Diehl
Director, Environmental Laboratories
RAD/ gm
Enclosure
Post Office Box 2481
615 Huffman Mill Road
Tel. [phone]
Burlington. NC 27215

Ali • ' .- T••, ,I N '.k. t ..,.i • +ii ;;1 .0 '.•le ••� ;%," it' • l•• • •C�.',., !,•!• "7 • •1• 'Y •.r.. i'r'�.0 11: .•) !.Tt,,,,-.•,,: •i
instructions
The purpose of this document is to standardize the sampling, analysis and reporting procedures to be used
for the Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Requirement as described in the permit. in addition to the monitor-
ing and reporting requirements described herein, the permitee will meet all other relevant monitoring and repor-
ting requirements as described in the North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15 NCAC 2B .0500 - Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting. The permitee should use copies of this Annual Pollutant Analysis (APA) Form A to
report the results of the analysis. Completed forms should Include the signatures of the analytical laboratory
representative and the facility operator in responsible charge (see p.6). Mall two completed copies to: AiT: Central
Files, Division of Environmental Management, NC NRCD, P.O. Box 47647, AaIeigJ, NC127611t.-
A 24-hour composite sample must be taken from the final effluent during mid -week (Wednesday through Fri-
day). A grab sample for the volatile organic fraction must be taken when the 24-hour composite sample is completed.
The effluent must be analyzed for pollutants, including those to be identified and approximately quantified under
the 10 significant peaks rule , using appropriate EPA approved methods for each of the analytic fractions to be
analyzed, as listed on this APA Form A. Other analytical methods can be substituted only with prior, written ap-
proval of the Director of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). All chemicals (or elements) to be analyzed
• for are included in the attached tables (parts A through F of this APA Form A, each of which includes space for
the chemicals to be identified under the 10 significant peaks rule), and organics should elute in the chemical frac-
tion as listed.
Detection Limit Targets which should be met are listed on this APA Reporting Form A. Use of any higher detec-
tion limit for the purpose of this Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Requirement must be reported along with
the results of this analysis. An explanation as to wily the listed detection limit target could not be met must also
be submitted, attached to this APA Form A. Examples of acceptable reasons for not meeting a detection limit
target could be high background concentrations in a sample, or the necessity for sample fraction dilution to•brin.g
a chemical to within a detectable concentration. If a chemical is found to be below the detection limit target, report
the concentration detected as less than (or 'C') the detection limit target in the appropriate space. Chemicals
listed on the attached tables that are detected in concentrations above the detection limit targets must be quan-
tified. All chemical concentrations should be reported in units of micrograms per liter (ug/I). All metals concentra-
tions should be reported as total recoverable metal (as ug/l). The total number of peaks detected in each analytic
fraction must also be entered in the appropriate space on this APA Form A.
Chemicals to be analyzed for according to the 10 significant peaks rule (as described in item 2 of the Annual
Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Requirement in the permit) must be identified where possible using a GC/MS library
search. An estimate should be given of their concentration based on an internal standard using a known chemical
having the closest retention time. Quantitation should be approximate and will be used by DEM for planning pur-
poses. The size of the GC/MS library being utilizied must also be reported in the appropriate space, along with
other required information, at the top of this APA Form A.
• ?•

Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Requirement
Reporting Form A
I. FACILITY INFORMATION:
NPDES Permit No: (ton 5S7a Discharge (Pipe) No: G /
Facility Name: Lexington Regional WWTP
Person(s) Collecting Samples: Gisela Hedrick
Analytical Laboratory: Burlington Research, Inc.
Year: 1989
Class: 1-2:County: Day, d$o
GC/MS Library Size (number of chemicals catalogued): 44,000
II. SAMPLING:
24 hr composite for main sample / grab sample for purgeable fraction
Date Sampled: (composite sample)
Sampling begun (date, time): June 7, 1989; 8:00 am
Sampling finished (date, time): June 8, 19891 8:00 am
Date and time sampled (grab sample): June 8, 19891 8:00 am
* Approximate concentrations reported for Top Ton Peaks ars based on the ratio of the unknown peak height to the peak
height of the 40 mg/L internal standard:
Peak Height of Unknown
Peak Height of Standard (40 ug/L)
A response factor of 1.0 is assumed for all unknown compounds.
Page 1 of 9

A. Purgeable (Volatile Organic) Fraction
Number of chemicals detected in Fraction 0
Fraction STORET Number 84085
STORET
Number
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
34210
34215
34030
32101
32104
34413
32102
34301
34311
34576
32106
34418
32105
34496
34531
34501
34546
34541
34704
34699
34371
34423
34516
34475
34010
34506
34511
39180
34488
39175
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroothano
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethyleno
trans-1,2-Dichloroethyleno
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis 1,3-Dichloropropene
trans 1,3-Dicloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroothylene
Trichlorofluromethane
Vinyl chloride
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detected
(u8/1) (ug/1)
100 BDL
100 BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
10 BDL
5 BDL
6 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
5 BDL
10 BDL
5 - BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
6 BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
8 BDL
5 BDL
7 BDL
5 BDL
6 BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
5 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yea/No
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Page 2 of 9

STORET Compound
NUMBER
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detected
(Approximate)
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
2. Other purgeablos (up to 10 highest peaks):
(u8/1)
(u8/1)
NONE
B. Acid Extractable Fraction
Number of chemicals detected in Fraction 0
Fraction STORET Number 45582
STORET
NUMBER
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
34452
34586
34601
34606
34616
34657
34591
34646
39032
34694
34621
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Detection
Limit Target
(ug/l)
10
10
10
10
50
24
10
50
50
10
10
Concentration
Detected
(ug/1)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Page 3 of 9

STORET Compound
NUMBER
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detected
(Approximate)
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
2. Other acid extractables
(up to 10 highest peaks):
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
NONE
C. Base/Neutral Fraction
Number of chemicals detected in Fraction 1
Fraction STORET Number 45583
STORET
NUMBER
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
34205
34200
34220
39120
34526
34247
34230
34521
34242
34278
34273
34283
39100
34636
34292
34581
34641
34320
Acenapthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrone
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (ghi) perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bie(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bla(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
BLs(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Bromophonyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-Chloronaphthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chryeene
Detection
Limit Target
(ug/1)
10
10
10
44
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Concentration
Detected
(ug/1)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Page 4 of 9

C. Base/Neutral Fraction (Continued)
Fraction STORET Number 45583
STORET
NUMBER
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
34556
34536
34566
34571
34631
34336
34341
39110
34611
34626
34596
34346
34376
34381
39700
34391
34386
34396
34403
34408
34696
34447
34438
34428
34433
34461
34469
34551
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
D1-n-butyl phthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluone
2,6-Dinotrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isophorono
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrodosimethylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detected
(u811) (u401)
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
20 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
t 10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
10 BDL
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Page 5 of 9

STORET Compound
NUMBER
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detected
(Approximate)
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
2. Other base/neutrals
(up to 10 highest peaks):
(us/1)
(us/1)
U
Unknown Oxide Hydrocarbon
5
5.6
YES
D. Organochloride Pesticides and PCB's
Number of chemicals detected in Fraction
Fraction STORET Number 00188
STORET
NUMBER
0
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
39330
39337
39338
34259
39340
39350
39310
39320
39300
39560
39380
34361
34356
34351
39390
34366
39410
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dsmston
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I (alpha)
Endosulfan II (beta)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Detection
Limit Target
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.05
Concentration
Detected
(ug/1)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
NO
Page 6 of 9

D. Organochlorido Pesticides and PCB's
(Continued)
STORET
NUMBER
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
39420
39480
39755
39540
39400
34671
39488
39492
39496
39500
39504
39508
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Mlrex
Parathion (ethyl)
Toxaphene
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
2. Other pesticides (up to 10 highest peaks):
Detection
LLmit Target
(ugll)
0.05
0.5
0.06
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
Concentration
Detected
(ug/1)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NONE
E. Herbicides
Number of chemicals detected in Fraction 0
Fraction STOREY Number 00148
STORET
NUMBER
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
39730
39045
39740
2,4-D
Silvex
2,4,5-T
Detection
Limit Target
(ug/1)
50
50
5
Concentration
Detected
(ug/1)
HDL
BDL
BDL
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
NO
NO
NO
Page 7 of 9

STORET
NUMBER
Compound
2. Other pesticides (up to 10 highest peaks):
F. Metals and Other Chemicals
Fraction STORET Number 78240
Number of Metals and Other Chemicals (as listed below) detected in Sample 6
STORET
NUMBER
Concentration
Detected
�iApprpx imate )
(ug/1)
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
01104 Aluminum
01�_ Antimony
01---0 2 Arsenic
01012 Beryllium
01027 Cadmium
01034 Chromium
01042 Copper
01051 Lead
71900 Mercury
01067 Nickel
01147 Selenium
01077 Silver
01092 Zinc
2. Other inorganics:
01007 Barium
00940 Chloride
00720 Cyanide
00951 Fluoride
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detected
(us/1) (u4/1)
SO BDL
50 BDL
10
25
2
5
2
10
0.2
10
5
5
10
500
1000
20
100
10
BDL
BDL
5.7
10
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
80
BDL
34,200
BDL
560
Page 8 of 9

Signed: ;46,17;i4L4)
Analytical L rat' y Repreaenta Iwo: Richard A. Diehl
Signed:
‘, 40
Facility Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC):
Date:
r/yie iiivP�fe.
I certify that this report is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge:
►2lcC J
�J'u'ZC7Cb
Date:
Page 9 of 9

EFFLUENT
NPDES PERMIT NO: i1( DQ`55'? C. DISCHARGE NO:__ I MONTH: YEAR: 161
FACTNAME: Lc FACILITY kiM&niJ e j Iv ti plA,� CLASS:L COUNTY: �AdEci�a�l
OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (Or: CLjde K►YeU GRADE: -14
CERTIFIED LABORATORY: L,ijrj ro ,n,►,41 1,�. 61 -1t PIA-1i oncliori
rPERSON S) COLLECTING SAMPLES:
CHECK BLOCK IF ORC HAS CHANGED I
Mail original and one copy to:
AT T. Central File
Division of Environmental Management
N C Department of NRCD
PO Box 27687
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611
TIME 2400 CLOCK
2
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1!
20
21
2
21
2$
ait
v1
444
4.
26
21
28
24
30
"/
31
Avera2
Max.
Min.
50050 00010 �0010,
how
FFFO e...1
ae
INF I 1
W Cif
CCalmr Q W W
a eac b.- w
MGR
eZ
UXIT
1.qq '7h r7:
l.11 P4fig (46-
„26-
.Cvq s 10,9 <•i
I CERTIFY THAT THIS REPORT
IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO
THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
X
00515 50060 - 00310 00310
et)
G V
CZ N
• O
Sig ture of operator in responsible charge
Q0610 00500 00530 31616 0012.0 bOttini510421a5
W
aCC
Q W
r cc
ML/L MC/L MC/L MG/1 R19.14.7. _ MG/1
.4
<.I <1.6
< . 13414..:
07'30 AZ4 (4.9 <• 1 • .i {.1 4
.74 1.0 2
4 ♦ i.
. o,,I .;? '7 <.1`: U <1.
Lit ... `7'U < •1
.�..a� lo.s'_<.l
<1
MC/1 /00• MCA
G • L3.2 4 <1.6 , S I 4.
. -2S< c1.0 c .-,d <
.16
,.4-1 a52.3 .�.
.2.46 <.1.. 4
36:6 I.q <I ri..
.2.31 ems"' /4. ,s• �. u ice'" `.I. •1.1
. L1 (e.1 <. 1 •
..3 'l.o
. 1 ,.0.3
.2.01 .24 L.. i
a-34^xi
1/1
.J.31 al id < I
-? \-21 - 2 4' < 'a
.6+ .77 l q.Q <-1
,) rl , 71
• I Q a
-2.i3 02(4
a.1A X al e7.3 4.1
1.3$ a`{ 4.3 < •1
Comp.(C)/ Grnb(G)_ �j..
Monthly Limit
DEM Form MR-1 111 /84
.;
<I-b
•� < •
<1.
•
1
_• <1•6" 4.1 ..38$
g C.
576
ENTER PARAMETER CODE ABOVE
NAME AND UNIT BELOW
Y�/4
•t ALA 4tI /1�. -waJ w. ■ice L.-. M.���

-, S<ti, Nr5 1 0
.. - - ~ EFFLUENT
M Dc5�I ..o • I SCHA ENO : (01 MONTH: &IAYEAR: RVNPDES PERMIT NO _ D R _
FACILITY NAME:, t e_r,,A1IrJ (29LJ U) OiA, CLASS: J.000NTY: t.Jhll01,5(
OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (OR : (iqcL 144 GRADE:
CERTIFIED LABORATORY: l.exiAi ` 1(0bJa (j).`kC iJ1A�c.Li LlL-Lr-1
PRSON s COLLECTING SAMPLES : EL-1
I CERTIFY THAT THIS REPORT
CHECK BLOCK IF ORC HAS CHANGED
Mail original and one copy to:
ATT: Central Files
Division of Environmental Management
N C Department of NRCD
PO Box 27687
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611
IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO
•
THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. x f_ t` L-��'•�/L
Signdfure of operator in responsible charge
DATE 1
TIME 2400 CLOCK
50050
►. •• .1
• a-
C a
es - ►
e 1 ►' 2.
[)
41D+1�
COMPOSITE TIME
I
ENTER PARAMETER
NAME AN,
CODE
UNITS BELOW
ABOVE
�`
13
fa)
—
EFF ■
i —c
�§
INFD'
!.-., ....,
o ac
HRS
MCD '
Ic,1..�-�.r
..; ..:
:: .. f..
....• ..... ..
•
................
.. ..
........:......
.. 1
... ..........
�'
: .-.,
•::::t• ::' ::-::':•:
...
.. e•• .
:.w:{:
.
t Y.J. 4.
is .............
.iM'?::'
.Y.[.4.. . J.:::{":
..
.4. .
. r:•:?::
'
.. J....
••:3i:4:!•:•.....
.v.. Jr.:u.
'2�
6
{?tir
I'Ia
1
1 1
12
14
7
!..
1
0
.::ii:Rgif:Iiig
}
s...:'.a:;:l.:!:?..::;.ii:.::::::".c.19:ta.ltifigi,
,OrMIN:.
24
<ao
<ao
<
< s
3s
<ao
...:•::-
.:: ;::::
Rer .
...-.....:..:::
A..•� r,. -.,
A� ;cc ;.. V :•.v:
�
rti :.•:
v.tw: r.•:: J •:.
.}.
26
r
28
3
a�
-.
�QO
a.0
o
.
4 ••
•.
c
Average
Cad
«6
<So
40
<1P
4 —
<10
Q
Max.
4.Q6
x .4, Q
<3t)
. �.'
i..
'0::.
Min. 1
t2z)
4.36
<sb
<I6
3,2
<lb
<34Comp.(
_
C
:J f}
•}:•:v:•}:V.
Mont ly Limit
4.0
y6'6 -45:6
.Q
DEM Form M R-1.1 11 11R41

ROBERT B. SMITH, JR.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW
ONE WEST CENTER STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1734
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27293-1734
TELEPHONE: [phone]
DORIS C. GAMBLIN
August 3, 1989
Office of Administrative Hearings
P. 0. Drawer 11666
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ann
1[01959
06iW►TRIYE SEM WO
Re: City of Lexington v. State of North Carolina
(Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development)
89 NRC 0143
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed the original petition which we are
filing with you in the above matter, together with a copy of
the petition and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. I would
appreciate your filing the original with your office and
returning to us a marked file copy for our records.
We are by copy of this letter serving a copy of this petition
on the State of North Carolina Department of Natural and
Resources and Environmental Management, R. Paul Wilms,
Director; and Robin Michael, attorney for the respondent.
Very truly yours
Robert B. Smith, Jr.
cc:
Mr. Robin N. Michael
Mr. Paul Wilms—
Mr. Dennis Roberts
Mr. Roger Spach
RBS:bc
lG 15 19:;
WATERS 'QUA!
SECTION

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DAVIDSON
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
89 NRC 0143
CITY OF LEXINGTON,
Petitioner
vs.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent
PETITION FOR A
CONTESTED HEARING
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (Division
of Environmental Management)
I hereby ask for a contested case hearing as provided for by G.S.
150B-23 because the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (Division of Environmental Management) on June 1, 1989,
issued to the City of Lexington Permit ##NC0055786, to discharge
wastewater under the National Pollutant Elimination System for the
Davidson County, North Carolina, for the purpose of discharging
wastewater into Abbotts Creek in the Yadkin Pee Dee River basin.
The City, within 30 days from the issuing of the permit, notified
the Division of Environmental Management that certain parts of the
permit were unacceptable to the City of Lexington. The City sought
waivers and modifications of the conditions of its permit by
written request to the Director, by letter dated June 13, 1989,
copy of which is marked Exhibit A, and attached, and asked to be
incorporated by reference. The City is seeking amendments and
modifications to the proposed permit in the following areas:
1. Cadmium, lead and nickel limits
2. Cyanide limits
3. Silver and cyanide monitoring
4.. Seasonal limits
5. Fecal coliform limits
6. Daily maximum metal limits
On July 13, 1989, the Division of Environmental Management
advised the City that its request for modifications dated June 13,
1989 to its NPDES permit was denied. Said letter was received by
the City on July 14, 1989.

The City is now requesting a hearing on its request for
modifications of its permit which was issued by the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (Division
of Environmental Management) on June 1, 1989.
Because of these facts, the agency has:
x deprived the petitioner of its property;
x has otherwise substantially prejudiced the petitioner's
rights;
x and based on these facts, the agency has exceeded its
authority or its jurisdiction;
x acted erroneously;
x failed to use proper procedure;
x acted arbitrarily or capriciously; and
x failed to act as required by law or rule.
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, first being duly sworn, say that this petition
is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters stated on
information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
ate
CITY OF L $ INGTON
By:
R. Duke Whisenant
City Manager
28 West Center Street
Lexington, NC 27292
[phone]
Robert B. Smith, Jr.
Attorney for City of Lexington
P. 0. Box 1734
Lexington, NC 27293
[phone]

x..
CERRTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State
agency named below by depositing a copy of it with the United
States Postal Service with sufficient postage or by delivering it
to the named agency.
Served on:
This the
R. Paul Wilms
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development (Division
of Environmental Management)
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Robin Michael
Agency Legal Specialist
N. C. NRCD
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Attorney for Respondent
day of August, 1989.
Robert B. Smith, Jr f
Attorney for City of Lexington
P. 0. Box 1734
Lexington, NC 27293
(704) 249.-6811

THE CITY OF
NORTH
OFFICE OF THE
Ci'ry MANAGER
June 13, 1989
Paul Wilms
NRCD/DEM
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
EXHIBIT A
LEXINGTON
CAROLINA
"GROWING WITH THE PIEDMONT"
Re: NPDES Permit #NC0055786, Lexington Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant — Request for Modifications & Waivers
Dear Mr. Wilms:
As per your letter of May 19, 1989, pursuant to Regulation
15 NCAC 2B .0508(b), I am requesting the following modifications and
waivers on the above permit that was effective June 1, 1989.
1) We are requesting that the heavy metals limits for cadmium,
lead, and nickel be removed. These parameters were contested in
the previous permit.
A) An average of the wastewater treatment plant's influent
concentrations submitted with Lexington's semi—annual
pretreatment report for lead and nickel (past 2 years data)
entered into the headworks analysis program from the US EPA,
shows a predicted effluent level of lead of 13 ug/1 and
nickel of 12 ug/1. These are substantially less that the
proposed limits.
B
)
The City is not aware of cadmium values available to predict
effluent concentrations within 10% of the proposed limit.
(1) Effluent monitoring results reported on the last 11
months DMR forms are all less than the detection limit
for cadmium by direct aspiration through flame
absorption spectroscophy (20 ug/1).
22 WEST CENTER STREET • LE XINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27292 • PH. 7O4-243-2419

Paul Wilms
Page 2
June 13, 1989
(2) All available effluent analyses for cadmium using the
graphite furnace also show less than the detection
limit (2 ug/1).
(3) All influent data show less than detection limit for
flame aspiration atomic absorption spectroscophy
(20 ug/1).
(4) All data for significiant contributing industries
submitted in the last 2 Semi —Annual .Reports show less
than flame detection limit for cadmium (20 ug/1).
This was listed as 10 ug/1 as per instructions from
Pretreatment Group. Some non —significant users show
trace amounts with 25 ug/1 being the maximum
concentration.
2) We are requesting that the cyanide limit be removed. This
parameter was contested under the previous permit. The City is
aware of no concentrations available which will predict an
effluent concentration within 10% of the proposed limit.
3) The City requests that both the silver and cyanide monitoring
frequencies be reduced to one per year.
The City will agree to perform the required monitoring for one
year. If those results show less than detection limits or only
a trace amount, it will agree to perform these analysis on a
yearly basis.
4) The City requests summer/winter limits for the following
parameters based upon the summer 7Q10 value of 6.7 cfs and
winter 7Q10 value of 22 cfs.
A) Toxicity testing: Under the present stream flow conditions,
this would give a summer dilution of 56% and a winter
dilution of 28%.
B) Daily maximum metals limits: The winter 7Q10 value would
increase the stream multiplier from 1.8 for toxics to 3.6.
The City feels that this request will allow for protection
of the stream and will accurately reflect stream conditions
in the area effected by its discharge.
The City is aware of 15 NCAC 2B .0404 regarding
summer/winter variations for oxygen consuming pollutants.

Paul Wilms
Page 3
June 13, 1989
It believes that neither this nor other standards prohibit
this request. It believes that this will provide for the
same level of protection of the stream.
5) The City requests a fecal coliform limit of 1000/100 monthly and
2,000/100 weekly for the period October through April. This
request is consistent with 15 NCAC 2B .0211 (F).
6) The City reserves the right to request that the "Daily Maximum"
limits for metals be changed to "weekly/monthly" limits until
such time as a clear policy statement on this enforcement
strategy is issued. We are concerned with how "daily maximum
limits" are used for determining TRC violations for compiling
the Quarterly Non —Compliance Report.
Various State officials have commented that the use of the
"daily maximum limit" was at the request of small municipalities
concerned with the expense and time involved in daily
monitoring. Lexington's biggest concern is that when its staff
tries to troubleshoot effluent problems, it would jeopardize
itself through generating additional effluent violations.
Sincerely,
Duke Whisenant
City Manager
RDW/tep
cc: Roger Spach
Dennis Roberts

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary July 13, 1989 Director
R.D. Whisenant, City Manager
City of Lexington
22 West Center Street
Lexington, NC 27292
Re: Lexington WWTP Permit Modification Request
NPDES No. NC0055786
Davidson County
Dear Mr. Whisenant:
I am writing in response to your letter of June 13 requesting
a permit modification. The questions raised in your letter are
addressed by item as follows:
(1) Cadmium, Lead, and Nickel Limits
The metals limits were based upon a mass balance tech-
nique routinely employed by the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM). Data submitted by the City in its
pretreatment headworks analysis were used in the model to
estimate actual effluent concentrations. These values were
compared to the allowable effluent concentration that will
protect the instream water quality standard at the mix point
under 7Q10 conditions. Per standard operating procedures, if
the predicted effluent concentration was within 1/10 of the
allowable effluent concentration, a limit was assigned to the
parameter.
I will not waive any of the metals effluent limitations
at this time. However, if after one year of effluent moni-
toring the data indicate that a limit can be dropped or
monitoring reduced, the State will reevaluate the permit
requirements upon request. A year of effluent monitoring is
needed to establish a representative data base which reflects
both weekly and seasonal variation. The long term average
data used in your headworks analysis program to predict
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal -Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

effluent concentrations do not provide the resolution needed
by DEM to assure that instream toxicity problems will not
occur, nor do they reflect actual effluent concentrations.
With regard to cadmium, the Division recommends that the
City continue using the graphite furnace technique to analyze
the effluent for cadmium at a detection level of 2 ug/1. If
reported self -monitoring data continue to show values below
detection, then a reduction in monitoring frequency will be
considered upon request.
(2) Cyanide Limit
The cyanide limit was also developed from the pretreat-
ment information submitted by the City. However, the cyanide
limit of 9 ug/1 is below existing detection levels for cur-
rent analytical methods. Due to this analytical limitation,
compliance will be based on showing effluent concentrations
below detection level. To meet the intent of the monitoring
requirement in the permit, it is recommended that the moni-
toring of cyanide include the selection of an approved
analytical method with the lowest possible detection and
reporting levels. The DEM Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
reports a detection level for cyanide of <10 ug/l. The labo-
ratory uses two types of methods to detect at this level: 1)
EPA Standard Methods, 412 BMD, 16th Edition; 2) 1979 Chemical
Analysis for Water and Wastewater, p. 335.2. 40 CFR, 136.3,
Table 1B lists other EPA approved methods for cyanide detec-
tion.
(3) Silver and Cyanide Monitoring
The City may request DEM to reevaluate the monthly moni-
toring frequency after one year of data have been submitted.
The State will consider changing the monitoring frequency for
silver and cyanide to annually provided the data do not show
seasonal fluctuations.
(4) Seasonal Limits
Seasonal limits can only be applied to oxygen -consuming
wastes per 15 NCAC 2B.0404. 15 NCAC 2B.0206 requires the use
of the 7Q10 flow for the allocation of toxic substances. The
City may increase its daily maximum metals limits by monitor-
ing daily for the substances as explained in part (6) of this
letter. However, the weekly average limits are designed to
protect to the chronic no effect level under 7Q10 conditions.
(5) Fecal Coliform Limit
The fecal coliform limit of 200 /100 ml is consistent
with the B classification of Abbotts Creek.

(6) Daily Maximum Metals Limits
The City may formally request to monitor for metals
daily. A weekly average limit equivalent to your existing
limits for protection to the chronic no effect level would
apply for compliance purposes, along with a daily maximum
concentration that at a minimum protects to the acute no
effect level instream. For the purposes of determining the
weekly average, daily values shown to be less than detection
will be considered equal to zero. Based upon these criteria,
your revised metals limits would be as follows:
Weekly Avg Daily Max
Parameter (ug/1) (ug/1)
Cd 4.0 9.0
Ni 45.0 68.0
Pb 45.0 61.0
Cn 9.0 35.0
Hg 0.2 0.3
This method allows more flexibility in evaluating compliance
while ensuring protection of the State's water quality stan-
dards. Should the City choose this alternative, the monitor-
ing frequency would then remain fixed as daily for the dura-
tion of the permit.
If you have any further questions regarding these matters,
please contact Trevor Clements or Arthur Mouberry of my staff at
[phone].
I hope that the Division's response is satisfactory to the
City. However, if this letter does not adequately address your
concerns, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon writ-
ten request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this let-
ter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, con-
forming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes,
and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office
Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Unless such a
request is received, the requirements contained in the reissued
permit shall be final and binding.
CC:
Arthur Mouberry
1revor Clements
Larry Coble
Central Files
Srfcer,
R. Paul Wilms
2

THE CITY OF
NORTH
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
June 13, 1989
Paul Wilms
NRCD/DEM
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
LEXINGTON
CAROLINA
"GROWING WITH THE PIEDMONT"
•
7
LiSP)
fel
•
J UNl 2,o "i38Y
Re: NPDES Permit #NC0055786, Lexington Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant — Request for Modifications & Waivers
Dear Mr. Wilms:
As per your letter of May 19, 1989, pursuant to Regulation
15 NCAC 2B .0508(b), I am requesting the following modifications and
waivers on the above permit that was effective June 1, 1989.
1) We are requesting that the heavy metals limits for cadmium,
lead, and nickel be removed. These parameters were contested in
the previous permit.
A) An average of the wastewater treatment plant's influent
concentrations submitted with Lexington's semi—annual
pretreatment report for lead and nickel (past 2 years data)
entered into the headworks analysis program from the US EPA,
shows a predicted effluent level of lead of 13 ug/1 and
nickel of 12 ug/l. These are substantially less that the
proposed limits.
B) The City is not aware of cadmium values available to predict
effluent concentrations within 10% of the proposed limit.
(1) Effluent monitoring results reported on the last 11
months DMR forms are all less than the detection limit
for cadmium by direct aspiration through flame
absorption spectroscophy (20 ug/1).
22 WEST CENTER STREET • LEXINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27292 • PH. 704-243-2489

Paul Wilms
Page 2
June 13, 1989
(2) All available effluent analyses for cadmium using the
graphite furnace also show less than the detection
limit (2 ug/l).
(3) All influent data show less than detection limit for
flame aspiration atomic absorption spectroscophy
(20 ug/l).
(4) All data for significiant contributing industries
submitted in the last 2 Semi —Annual Reports show less
than flame detection limit for cadmium (20 ug/1).
This was listed as 10 ug/1 as per instructions from
Pretreatment Group. Some non —significant users show
trace amounts with 25 ug/1 being the maximum
concentration.
2) We are requesting that the cyanide limit be removed. This
parameter was contested under the previous permit. The City is
aware of no concentrations available which will predict an
effluent concentration within 10% of the proposed limit.
3) The City requests that both the silver and cyanide monitoring
frequencies be reduced to one per year.
The City will agree to perform the required monitoring for one
year. If those results show less than detection limits or only
a trace amount, it will agree to perform these analysis on a
yearly basis.
4) The City requests summer/winter limits for the following
parameters based upon the summer 7Q10 value of 6.7 cfs and
winter 7Q10 value of 2/2 cfs.
A) Toxicity testing: Under the present stream flow conditions,
this would give a summer dilution of 56% and a winter
dilution of 28%.
Daily maximum metals limits: The winter 7Q10 value would
increase the stream multiplier from 1.8 for toxics to 3.6.
The City feels that this request will allow for protection
of the stream and will accurately reflect stream conditions
in the area effected by its discharge.
The City is aware of 15 NCAC 2B .0404 regarding
summer/winter variations for oxygen consuming pollutants.

Paul Wilms
Page 3
June 13, 1989
5
It believes that neither this nor other standards prohibit
this request. It believes that this will provide for the
same level of protection of the stream.
The City requests a fecal coliform limit of 1000/100 monthly and
2,000/100 weekly for the period October through April. This
request is consistent with 15 NCAC 2B .0211 (F).
6) The City reserves the right to request that the "Daily Maximum"
limits for metals be changed to "weekly/monthly" limits until
such time as a clear policy statement on this enforcement
strategy is issued. We are concerned with how "daily maximum
limits" are used for determining TRC violations for compiling
the Quarterly Non —Compliance Report.
Various State officials have commented that the use of the
"daily maximum limit" was at the request of small municipalities
concerned with the expense and time involved in daily
monitoring. Lexington's biggest concern is that when its staff
tries to troubleshoot effluent problems, it would jeopardize
itself through generating additional effluent violations.
Duke Whisenant
City Manager
RDW/tep
cc: Roger Spach
Dennis Roberts

Levin On G:;►1o172 wails
i�
Abbo6 CL
Q3o10-?
Cc'
Qo- 7-8.5c�s
Cup = ?Qio z Cp.-1 cG
Q� = 45. z c
'lz,Ft1V = 5.1512 = Cot
Gip = D
ccao)fco )= (j)(j)
(z5cr5YCo) zcf3)( 515te )
eta - q ,i6/1
'Ph `l2P-pv=3/ Cc cup 7" o
(g.5C8)(e0) = cis zth)� �4,541)
Cw = (e(,u�1.P
ef) `�z = 3) .uvcl,F = Cd alp: D
(5cI)(e&) O54zdS)(3).aj/J) JA.1
55.u51.! (fI)i// no/ /Nef wee" /•m,f
I/2 riti hip Cup: 0
(q'•cC-s)(Co) (15, 2 cf5Y ) At54
— mite (Ca Ad MX/ tOeetil haul)
4164'W
(aIl 1101" Mee( wry %/i/vF
412 Pay -- iSsq AAP
ltkctlu : G(
(Dalai /04 fr a. 45 ii.45Q

-f
L'e-I lil li%1...qp
• e-EAL—, . a j lx y s� s btfizA i$ a- ---
r
le"L
e .t;
�uS4� eCKe,c,J `ue.�S [t'?
AJ
Ott_ F• S -f 3 ._ 1I. S
tf.sc.rs)(Co) _ 61i)(2.q)
6. = 3. 2 ug
"074 (5-x .00 -
1.35( •b 2 , btu � tL
wte.k � 7 mai
�-' p 3
TIb �Z v= 333 =C) 0 ,a CC,�ra�►� - 3Lt -� .8
�.S („,, = ll.S (33.1) -�, '

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 5, 1989 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Michael
Office of Legal Affairs
FROM: Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section
SUBJECT: City of Lexington NPDES Modification Request
Permit No. NC0055786
I am writing in response to your memo of March 22 requesting
DEM's position on the issues raised by Lexington in its permit
modification request. I have attached a copy of a memo prepared
by Trevor Clements of the Technical Support Unit and sent to Dale
Overcash of the Permits Group on June 7, 1988, which addresses
each of the City's concerns. These comments are still valid with
respect to the existing permit.
Due to ongoing water quality studies at the time and since
the NC water quality standard for mercury was expected to change
through triennial review, Lexington's NPDES permit was issued with
a May 31, 1989 expiration date. A new NPDES permit was recently
drafted, and I have attached a copy for your information. Some
revisions were made to the existing permit, and the new draft per-
mit is currently at public notice. I expect that Lexington will
have additional comments, and we will gladly address them when
they are received.
SWT/RAC
CC:
Paul Wilms
Trevor Clements
Larry Coble
Central Files
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]I5
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 7, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dale Overcash
THROUGH: Steve Tedder
FROM: Trevor Clements
SUBJECT:
City of Lexington Wasteload Allocation
NPDES No. NC0055786
Davidson County
I have reviewed the comments regarding the City of Lexington's NPDES
permit for its Abbotts Creek WWTP submitted by Mr. Earl Weisner in his letter
dated May 23, 1988. Items in the letter are addressed below by the corre-
sponding number:
I. Metals limits for Cd, Cr, Ni, & Pb:
The limits contained in the proposed permit for metals are based upon
EPA approved state procedures. They were determined using mass balance
equations that protect water quality standards at the mixpoint instream
under 7Q10 conditions. The data submitted by Lexington in "Attachment A"
fully support DEM's application of limits for these metals. Six of the
seventeen samples measuring Pb during the past year exceeded the proposed
limit of 37 ug/l, with the maximum value (250 ug/1) exceeding the limit by a
factor of seven. Similarly, the proposed limit for Cr was exceeded three
times. Nickel values were monitored up to the proposed limit. Since DEM
applies toxi.cs limits to all discharges where a given toxicant is expected
to be within one tenth of the allowable concentration, these limits should
remain intact.
With regard to Cd, the evidence is not conclusive. If, after 12 months
of monitoring at a detection level of 2.0 ug/1 the data show no detectable
concentrations, then DEM will consider revising the limit of 3 ug/1 to a
monitoring requirement or even deletion from the permit.
Items 1. (2), (3) & (4) do not change the above conclusions.
II. Limit for Cn:
Based upon the data submitted in attachment 4, I recommend changing the
permit limit for Cn to a monthly monitoring requirement. If, after 12
months of monitoring at an appropriate detection level no detectable amounts
are measured, then DEM will consider dropping the monitoring requirement.

III. Monitoring for A,:
DEM will re-evaluate this requirement after 12 months of monitoring
data are provided by the City.
IV. Instream monitoring for conductivity:
The monitoring requirement for conductivity should remain. For expla-
nation, see memo dated 12/28/87 regarding "Instream monitoring for NPDES
Discharges."
V. Fecal Coliform Limits:
The change in this limit reflects a correction in the water quality
classification of Abbotts Creek in the vicinity of the new outfall to
WSIII-B.
Please let me know if further clarification in this matter is needed.
RD:gh
cc: Steve Mauney
Randy Dodd
David Vogt
Central File

MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 28, 1987
Regional Water Qual�fty Supervisors
Steve Tedder
Trevor Clements .,
Instream Monitoring Requirements for NPDES Discharges
There have been several inquiries from the regional field offices regarding
the rationale for changes in the instream monitoring requirements for NPDES
discharges of oxygen -consuming waste. The changes were made in an effort to
gather the appropriate information that will allow DEM to evaluate the instream
impacts attributed to the discharge. As you know, the Division is no longer
changing existing permit requirements for oxygen -consuming wastes upon permit
renewal unless there is information demonstrating that the existing limits are
not protecting water quality standards during low flow conditions. Since DEM
cannot always directly monitor all discharges within the state, staff must rely
upon the self -monitoring system for this information.
Our ultimate objective is to maintain water quality in a given water body to
assure that its designated use is protected. Therefore, we are asking the
regions to support this objective by placing as much emphasis on reviewing
instream data as is put into reviewing effluent data. Quality assurance will be.
necessary if DEM is going to place greater reliance on self -monitoring data.
Since Technical Support routinely reviews self -monitoring data for every exist-
ing discharge whose permit is up for renewal, we can provide the first phase of
screening. The regions can assist by following up on situations where Technical
Support has a question regarding the validity of the data or the appropriateness
of the methods by wz4ch..the,data is being collected. In this manner we can work
jointly to improve the information received through the self -monitoring program
so that it can be used accordingly.
- _,; Let mew assure you .that the instream data being -requested is beneficial to
the Division. Temperature, D.O., fecal coliform, and conductivity parameters
provide the minimum amount of data necessary for Technical Support to adequately
assess the impacts instream from an oxygen -consuming waste discharge. Conducti-
vity was added to the other parameters as a routine monitoring requirement
because it can add valuable insight as to the contribution of the discharge to
instream conditions. This information will help us determine whether low D.O.
concentrations downstream are due to a slug of wastewater, typical facility
operation, or to natural background conditions
We are working with the Facility Performance
requirements and to make sure that they coincide
program. A draft of all official changes (those
be sent out for your review. Please let me know
comments regarding this matter.
Unit to streamline these
with the overall monitoring
proposed for rule -making) will
if you have any questions or
cc: Bob DeWeese

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community D
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 2761
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Mr. E. Earl Weisner
Superintendent of Water Resources
City of Lexington
Department of Water Resources
28 W. Center Street
Lexington, NC 27292
Dear Mr. Weisner:
June 22, 1988
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. MCC/
JUN 24 1988
Division of
ti %1 Management
Winston-Salem Reg. Office
Subject: DRAFT Permit Comments
NPDES No. NC0055786
Lexington. Regional WWTP
Davidson County
R. Paul Wilms
Director
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letters dated May 23, 1988,
and June 6, 1988, containing comments on the subject DRAFT permit. The Division
of Environmental Management will consider your comments in making its decision
on the issuance of the permit. If you feel that your comments are not addressed
in the issued permit, you may request an ad judicatory hearing in accordance with
Chapter 150B of the General Statutes of North Carolina within 30 days of
issuance of the permit.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
DO/ls
cc: Mr. Larry Coble
•t
M. Dale Overcash, P.E.
Supervisor, NPDES Permits Group
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.Q. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

M
EM
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Vet @ cc, 30,
LV‘f
tab In'l C c_La-tS Ca.Qke-2
kaS
w,C L_
ave-g k)Co-\,.
,p<ce-w\ c-4)R—- a),
� r
(c\C2 a-,-,P a ,3-e,(Di-es-----t›-Q— c5()
LgIV (412-t
ovf-
Q�C
� r
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
March 21, 1989
Roger Spach
Superintendent, Dept. of Water Resources
City of Lexington
28 W. Center Street
Lexington, NC 27292
Dear Mr. Spach:
I am writing to address the issues you raised in your letter
of March 1. You were concerned with how the State uses CBOD,
BOD5, and BOD, in the permitting process. The Division models
instream DO as a function of instream CBOD, NBOD, reaeration, and
other parameters such as SOD, photosynthesis, and respiration
where they are deemed appropriate. The CBOD and NBOD allocations
determined by the model are converted to BOD5 and NH3 for use in
the NPDES permit since these latter parameters are more easily
measured and administered from a compliance standpoint.
CBOD is the portion of ultimate BOD attributed to the break-
down in carbonaceous material. CBOD is usually greater than BOD5
since it reflects a long term oxygen demand. Long term BOD tests
are used to provide an estimate of the ratio between CBOD and BOD5
when they are available. This is done by taking nitrogen measure-
ments periodically during the test. The change in NO.,, is used to
determine NBOD by multiplying the result by 4.57, the stoichiomet-
ric coefficient. A software package is used to estimate the
bottle decay rate and BOD, through regression analysis. CBOD is
then calculated as the difference between BOD, and NBOD. The
ratio between the calculated CBOD and the measured BOD5 can then
be determined by division.
When long term test data are not available, DEM uses
CBOD:BOD5 ratios of 1.5 for purely domestic wastewater and 2.0 for
facilities receiving both domestic and industrial wastewaters.
These assumptions are based on a cross -sectional database of long
term BOD tests collected by DEM. More recent data have shown the
CBOD:BOD5 ratio often exceeds 2.0, especially when the facility
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

has tertiary treatment. The allocation developed for Lexington
assumed a ratio of 2, and samples collected on September 27, 1987
yielded an average ratio of 1.9.
Some facilities would rather monitor CBOD5 than BOD5. A
CBOD:CBOD5 ratio could be determined if CBOD5 is preferred for
permitting purposes. This would involve DEM collecting samples
for three long term BOD tests and splitting a portion of each
sample to measure CBOD using a nitrogen inhibitor. The samples
would have to be taken on three different days to reflect the nor-
mal fluctuations in plant operation. It is important to note that
the CBOD:CBOD5 ratio is expected to exceed the CBOD:BOD5 ratio
since CBOD5 is less than BOD5. Subsequently, the CBOD5 limit
would probably be lower than the BOD5 limit. Unless a permit is
modified to include a CBOD5 limit, compliance with BOD5 limits is
to be determined without the use of nitrogen inhibitors.
The NBOD allocation determined by the model is related to the
NH3 limit by stoichiometry. The NBOD limit is divided by 4.5 to
obtain the NH3 limit.
You also requested information on how the Division will
address other dischargers in the area. Other permitted discharg-
ers to the Abbotts Creek basin will be evaluated as their permits
come up for renewal. If data indicate a facility is causing or is
predicted to cause stream degradation, its limits will be subject
to revision. The monitoring data collected by Lexington, High
Point, Thomasville, and DEM should help provide a basis for evalu-
ating the limits of all facilities. The Division is planning to
develop a water quality model for the entire Abbotts Creek wat-
ershed. This model will be used to assist in permitting decisions
for all existing and proposed facilities in the basin. The moni-
toring data you provide will aid DEM in the development of this
model.
You were also concerned with the impact of the three land-
fills in the area on the water quality. If you are aware of land-
fill leachate potentially impacting groundwater or surface water
quality, please contact the Winston Salem Regional Office.
Your letter also raised questions concerning the proposed
monitoring schedule. Monitoring LX1 (Abbotts Creek at US 29/70)
will yield useful information about the water quality being
released from Lake Tom-A-Lex. The data you submitted to this
office show DO concentrations as low as 2.5 mg/1 at this site.
Due to these measurements and the need to document both loadings
and concentration, it is recommended that flow measurements be
made at the time of the sample.
It is our recommendation that the draft permit include moni-
toring at LX4 (Abbotts Creek at Highway 47) three times per week
from May to September. It is standard procedure for major dis-
chargers to monitor their downstream site at this frequency during
the summer months. We are aware that the DO recorded at the lower
depths may be low, and this is not affecting the frequency of

monitoring.
You also requested that you only measure soluble levels of
orthophosphorus. Since we are interested in the total phosphorus
loading to the system, you should sample either total orthophos-
phorus or total and soluble orthophosphorus. Soluble readings
only will underestimate the load of orthophosphorus to High Rock
Lake.
If you have any questions concerning these matters, please
contact myself, Randy Dodd, or Ruth Clark of my staff at
[phone].
CC:
Steve Mauney
Central Files
WLA File
Sincerely,
J. Trevor Clements, Supervisor
Technical Support Unit

L.ttt cif iC.xingtun
EpurtmEnt of Water itteantrcrti
28 ii1 . Colter trc t
;Lexington, .L. 27292
March 1, 1989
Trevor Clements
Supervisor Technical Support Group
NRCD/DEM
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: "Specific Instream Monitoring Requirements" proposed for
inclusion in the NPDES permit for the City of Lexington's
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - NC0055786
Dear Mr. Clements:
As per your letter of February 20, 1989 and our meeting of February
15, 1989, our department has the resources available to commit to
the instream monitoring requirements proposed in your letter for the
period May 15, 1989 through August 15, 1989.
Acceptance of the NPDES permit conditions must come from Lexington's
City Council. At present, I feel that our department has sufficient
information available on the proposed monitoring to start informing
the City Council of the proposed permit conditions and to start
studying the implications of this monitoring. However, acceptance
of these as conditions of the NPDES permit will have to follow
procedures normal to the permitting process.
Based upon a meeting held in High Point between representatives of
Lexington, Thomasville and High Point there is a verbal agreement to
coordinate sampling days and to take flow measurements at
appropriate points. Personnel of the local USGS office have agreed
to assist in setting up flow measurement sites.
I feel that the following areas should be considered at some time in
regard to loading on the receiving stream:

A. BOD vs CBOD
B. "Long Term" or "Ultimate" BOD
C. Other permitted and non -permitted discharges
D. Leachate from the three (3) landfills located in this
drainage area
I will also request that the following areas of the proposed
monitoring be considered:
A. Station LX1 - Abbotts Creek at US 29/70
There is no release from the lake other than overflow. I
would suggest that this monitoring be discontinued when Lake
Thom-A-Lex is less that full. At this time, there is only a
trickle of water flowing at this point. I am worried that
monitoring data collected during this time could confuse
later data compilations.
B. Station LX4 - Abbotts Creek at Highway 47
I want to confirm that there will not be an increase in
weekly monitoring related to D.O. levels less than 5.0. We
are monitoring at a point where there is a layering of
different water due to the influence of High Rock Lake.
Under normal water conditions we may register D.O.'s of less
than 5.0 at the lower levels being monitored.
C-. Orthophosphorous
Consider requiring soluble readings only.
If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Roger Spach
Supt. Water Resources
RAS/tep

u:oo55?Ica •3
Pb Lian
£:Mthk Cat detection
1 fie. J
Cd • one - 3raphi fe.
Ai; Hondry
bons-tb4T &in coda reeocduaie et_yr.
l
ae„rofg_rQ listr71'
recce
.61
da.Fs
(frnm_Sgd: en)
1 dam ` krtd • V4J flax .4,.n•6
No � w�. c rks - mo _fay

Z .4 �
' , Y THE crry OF
OCT 2 7 198 ► NORTH
TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
July 22, 1988
"GROWING WITH THE. PIEDMONT"
Natural Resources & Community Development
512 1. Salisbury St.
PO Boz 2 7 " 8 7
Raleigh, I`C 2':611-7687
CAROLINA RECE1/ED
SEP 8 1.988
PERMITS & EtVG!NELRINfG
�N '• ♦..Y 1i 1 �i •III .: •. 1�•.
j.
•i1 '
Re: NPDES Permit #NC 0055786 - Regional Waste•=: t*,r
Request for modifications and waive ,- ) the
Lexington
Dear Mr. Wilms:
t
Raiatgh. NC
•
Treatment Aus 5 1`
City of
T r:.-7
(° L 'r; L J TY
SECTION
As per your letter of June 30, 1988, please consider the letter
dated May 23, 1588 as amended by the letter dated June 6, 1988
from Mr. Earl Weisner, Supt. Dept. Water Resources as our
request for modification of various conditions of the above permit.
We received acknowledgement of the letter dated May 23, 1988 but as
of this time have not received any response.
We are also requesting a waiver on the monitoring requirements for
silver, cyanide and conductivity until such time as this matter is
resolved and if necessary until we retain proper equipment and
certification to perform these tests.
We are very concerned that the monitoring frequency for conductivity
has apparently been increased from "monthly" in the draft permit to
"daily". I am requesting justification for this increase.
Mr. Wilms, we at the City of Lexington take pride in the quality .
effluent our Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges. We are
committed to protecting the water quality of the High Rock Lake by
taking care of our discharge; however, we feel that the proposed
charges which we have contested will not contribute to protecting
water quality. We have not been shown the necessity for the charges
we are contesting. The enforcement of metals limits in particular
is redundant with areas covered by the Pretreatment Group.
I want to point out that we have accepted the increased monitoring
requirements of this permit at a cost to the City of from $ 7,000 to
22 WEST CENTER STREET • LEXINGTON. NORTH CAROI.INA 27292 • PH. 704-243-2489

7
$ 10, 000 per. ,year and .from 15 to 20 additional man -days year. We are committed to protect the environment but we
fdoono per
feel that the provisions we are contestingcontribute not
protection of the environment. to the
Sincerely,
Duke Whisenant
City Manager
cc: Mayor Harold Bowen
Ernest P. Cain
Mike Mickey
Larry Coble
Kyle Williams

Jut,/ 3
May 23, 1988
zttU
b{lItArzw.
Mit (Atm..,
. ,
Ghftr•
exing tUf AA' Gf114 .a`41. .
Department of du 9eo ourreo
28 M . (lenter *tree
Eexingtun, ti. QI. 27292
r.
Mr. R Paul Wilms
N.C. Dept Natural Resources & Community Development
512 N. Salisbury St.
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687
Re: Request for justification or review of several provisions
proposed for the renewal permit #NC0055786 for the City of
Lexington - Lexington Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
44.4.4k thigr.
tl1: F
law
'JWN i12.8
aERMITS & ENS tNEERiNG
Dear Mr. Wilms:
After reviewing the notice of intent to issue the above permit and
reviewing the proposed conditions of the renewal permit, I am
writing to request a justification or review of the following
requirements of the proposed permit:
1.
Metals Limits for:
a. Total Cadmium
b. Total Chromium
c. Total Nickel
d. Total Lead
The effluent limit and monitoring requirements for Cyanide.
The monitoring requirements for Silver.
The monthly conductivity monitoring requirements.
V. The fecal Coliform limits.
In support of this request, I am submitting the following
information and comments:
1.
Effluent limits for total Cadmium, total Chromium,
Nickel, total Lead. ,.-
(1) Attachment #1 to this letter lists eff,uent
total

concentrations of the above metals we have determined
over the past year.
(2) It is my understanding that these limits were derived
from our I.U. #0011, Duracell, USA's Federal categorical
monitoring requirements. Attachment #2 lists self
monitoring data submitted over the past year by Duracell
personnel as well as our own data. The pretreatment
group has received this data on a semi-annual basis.
(3)
Our past six months of effluent acute bioassay
analysis have shown "no observed toxicity".
(4) Attachment #3 is a copy of the "Headworks Analysis"
submitted with our last semi-annual report. We are
"required" to submit this analysis to the State's
Pretreatment Group every six (6) months. One of the
key features of this program is assuring water quality
through industrial pretreatment and allocation loading
of heavy metals to our industrial users.
In summation, I feel that there is no demonstrated need for limits
on the above listed metals. The Pretreatment Group already has
sufficient mechanisms in place to safeguard water quality criteria
and the City has already submitted a plan of action to deal with
demonstrated effluent toxicity problems. I feel that these limits
present a "double jeopardy" situation which over laps existing
programs and plans.
II. The effluent limit and monitoring requirement for Cyanide.
In addition to the comments in I. above, I will add that the only
reason this limit is on the permit is the present battery
manufacturer on our wastewater treatment system. Duracell
personnel assure us that cyanide is not used in their process.
Attachment #4 consists of self -monitoring data for.cyanide
submitted by Duracell. The commercial laboratory submitting the
data did detect trace amounts of cyanide in the pretreated
discharge from Duracell (about 10-15% of Duracells' total
discharge). We do not feel that the levels detected here are
sufficient to warrant the effluent limit and monitoring requirement
for cyanide proposed in our NPDES Permit.
III. The monitoring requirement for Silver.
As per our comments on cyanide,'please review Attachment #2.
Duracell does use silver in it's batteries; however, we do not
believe the way it is used will result in elevated levels of silver
in Duracell's discharge. We do not feel that there is potential
for problems with effluent silver levels to warrant the monitoring
requirements.
IV. The monthly conductivity monitoring requirement
It is my understanding that this is a general requirement being

placed on all "major" permits. I have been told that it's main
purpose is to track pollution.
Attachment #5 is a listing of conductivity readings received with
acute bioassay analysis over the previous six (6) months. I feel
that while several of these are above the range for treated
domestic wastewater discharge (200-400 umhos) that the numbers are
sufficiently low to request that this requirement be reduced to a
quarterly frequency so that we may use the results available.
If this request is not granted, I would request that this
monitoring be delayed until such time as we can retain the proper
equipment and certification to conduct this analysis in our own
laboratory facilities.
V. The fecal Coliform limits
I am concerned that this limit has been dropped at a time when we
are required to hold effluent chlorine residuals to an absolute
minimum. I would request that this limit be increased to the
1000/2000 limits in the old permit.
If I can answer any questions regarding this, please contact me at
[phone], Ext. 244.
Sincerely,
E. Earl Weisner
Supt. Water Resources
cc:
Regional Office
Arthur Mouberry
R.B. Smith
Duke Whisenant
Roger Spach
200
f o jz 2 7)
�1
•
N1),4-