NC0055786_Wasteload Allocation_19880415

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIN`: COVER SHEET
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
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
April 15, 1988
This document is printed Cln reuse paper - ignore arty
content on the reYerse side

PERMIT NO.: NC00 ,51S
C'/7G/
FACILITY NAME• �cxihs�h
/( ��> i !3"i•G /
Facility Status: G PROPOSED
(circle one
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
TJ)
Permit Status;�EENEWAL CA11ON UNPERMrrTED NEW
(circle one)=
Major Minors_
Pipe No:
Design Capacity (MGD):
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow)*
Corameats:
S, 5-
RECEIVING STREAM: / t4 // c,ee ,&
Class -
Sub -Basin:
7 Li'f D3-0 7-0 7
Reference USGS Quad: /? / (please attach)
County: •)e)-z-i cis o ti
Regional Office: As Fa Mo Ra Wa Wi c `�
(circle us)
Requested By:
Prepared By:
Reviewed B
Date: / a /8 % 7
Date:
Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
{
,. ,,,
/,///o/g7
+352
2 14,
Drainage Area (mi ) "'
Avg. Streamflow (cfs)• ) Co 5
7Q10 (cfs) 5.17 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC `Z % (circle one) Acute i( Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream
Downstream
GG
Do, �eu Co�� r045, c�&{u� tug7ti
1.re tiff -
Location
Location
srs 6 „I
gA., drldic.—
Ifl Q i t'(i, L. a U et(
Effluent
Characteristics
:Su y�+i
�E.!'
�a �I'j
►'n cu•
BOD5 (mg/I)
i 0
CZ 63112,
3
72.
4--
CR. (AA,
I-)
NH3 N (mg/1)
7-
D.O. (mg/1)
(o
%
Ni (if-
O
TSS (mg/1)
.3u
3c)
Pt3 6 J/�-)
37
F. Col. (/100m1)
I �p p
i oar
c k) �/�
`�
l0
pH (SU)
(- 9
L -ci
J
fY)ercur v
I.-
6 , Z
( ,
(
ve.-a.:.
yA
/
1e r�C te,�°
(b_)
a , 3 ` _
1, / if
1.C<.d✓f'1/l1evi: e"((`-er ✓✓1thirlar; _g
omm a:
Cype

v
L
• Request No. :4350
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Permit Number : NC0055786
;=aci 1 ity Name : CITY :OF LEXINGTON REGIONAL WWTP
Type of Waste : 94% DOMESTIC, 6% INDUSTRIAL
_tt,tl!s EXISTING
Receiving Stream : ABGOTTS CREEK
Stream Class : C
' ubbas i r : 0:G704 030701
County : DAVIDSON Drainage Area (sq rni) . 182
Reg on.il Office . WINSTON-SALEM Average Flow (cfs) : 105
Requester . T. CHRIST Summer 7Q10 (cfs) : 5.17
Date of Request . 12- 10-07 Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Quad : D 18 SW 30Q2 (cfs)
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMIT
Ma4'1L Avet0 . week'
. Summer QWi nter Ave�a
Wasteflow (mgd): 5.5 5.5
5-Day f3OD (mg/1): 5 10
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1) : 2 Li
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6 6
TES (mg/1) : 30 DO
Fecal Col i form (#/ 1 00I7r1) : 1 000 1 000
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
MG (ug/1) : 0.2 0.2
-- MONITORING _.
Upstream (Y/N): V Loc. tion: I-05 BRIDGE
Downstream (Y/N) : Y Location:. HWY 47 BRIDGE
COMMENTS
TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT ATTACHED.
;D ug/ ,
CR ug/1 /2
NI ug/1 80
f B ug/1 37
CN ug/1 10
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. NRCD
MAR gi __I30§
L IVision cr
Environmental hilanwnvnt
Winston•Salam Reg, WIN
RECOMMEND EFFLUENT MONITORING FOR CU, ZN, AND AG IN ADDITION TO STANDARD
EFFLUENT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.
RECOMMEND INSTREAM MONITORING FOR DO, JECAL COLIFORMS, CONDUCTIVITY, ZINC,
AND TEMPERATURE.
PER AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LEXINGTON, THIS SHOULD BE A 1 FEAR• PERMIT
Recommended by
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support Supervisor - .-Z3•41
Regional Supervisor In - .' ,s/-8
�l —/
Permits & Engi r� -:�r'i ng._, � �'t ._. 7'./rl 7
Water Quality :3ectic::�n Ci it?,'0
..ef �
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES PR n 1988
1.2

Facility Name C t o-� j
Permit # /UG00 $ 57$'6)
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIRJ"MENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time : •exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *February 1987) or subsequent•versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 6,2—% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform guarter(y monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from
issuance of this permit during the months of Meet Z'tte Se . Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data -shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit maybe re -opened and modified toinclude.alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within.30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute a failure of permit condition.
7Q10 S. i 7 cfs
Permited Flow ,S'.: S"' MGD
.IWG% Z•2
Basin & Sub -basin 03-01=07
Receiving Stream b b f C r e e
County ZQ,Vt S NJ t
�l Date (1,� = 21
Recommended by:
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at GZ%, Mai' Jwn Set See Part .3 , Condition r.
c,

Pollutant
oRETREATA1ENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
Discharger: City of Lexington
Receiving stream: Abbotts Creek
Stream Class c
USGS Zone:
7Q10: 5.170 cfs
Design flow: 5.500 mgd
Actual flow: 3 mgd
Percent industrial: 6.0
IWC: 62.2 %
03/21/88
Actual Actual
Allowable Domestic Industrial
Standard/AL Removal Load (a) Load Load
(mg/1) Eff. . (1 bs/day) (lbs/day) (l bs/day )
Cadmium 0.002 M 92% 1.32 0.050 0.110
Chromium 0.05 6 70a1° 11.02 0.870 0.520
Copper 0,015 AL 02% 4,41 1.060 0.860
Nickel 0,05 6 32% 3.89 0.370 0.750
Lead 0.025 6 81% 6.96 0.870 1.350
Zinc 0.05 AL `1� 10. '1 7 3.050 1.640
Cyanide 0.005 5 7459°� 0.65 0,710 0.170
Mercury 0.0002 6 66% 0.08 0.010 0.010
Silver 0,01 AL 94% 8.82 0.090 0.020
Total USGS Predicted Allowable
Influent Background Effluent Effluent
Load Reserve Conc Conc (b) Conc (c)
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
--------
Cadmium 0.16 1. 1 6 0.0005 > 0.0032
Chromium 1.39 9.63 0.013 0.0133 > 0.0724
Copper 1.92 2.49 0.004 0.0138 > 0.0217
Nickel 1.12 2.77 0.0304 > 0.0803
Lead 2.22 4.74 0.005 0.0168 > 0.0371
Zinc 4.89 5.28 0.012 0.0508 > 0.0730
Cyanide 0.88 -0.23 0.0144 > 0.0080
Mercury 0.02 0 . 06 0.000,0001 >-hurettet "o.000tF)
.Silver 0.11 3.71 0.0003 0.0161

North Carolina Division Of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Technical Services Branch
Intensive Survey Unit
27 January 1988
MEMORANDUM
To: Trevor Clements
Thru: Jay Sauber
From: Howard Bryant
4-t-744
Subject: Lexington BOD Longterm (100 % - seeded)
Date Collected: 25 August 1987
(1010)
Collector: H.Quidley
Setup: 26 August 1987
(1010)
Day BOD NH3 TKN NOX TOT N Reos
0 0.06 2.0 22.0 24.0
5 1.1 0.10 1.2 20.0 21.2 9
10 2.1 0.18 2.7 22.0 24.7 8
15 2.7 0.14 2.6 19.0 21.6 7
20 3.5 0.02 1.2 23.0 24.2 6
26 4.0 5
30 4.3 0.02 1.0 18.0 19.0 5
35 5.0 4
40 5.7 0.02 1.0 20.0 21.0 4
50 6.8 3
60 7.3 3
71 7.8 %1,,.:. - 3
83 8.43
100 9.0 ,- i %c4 I. )If 3
154 10.4 1
Comments: Cary Lab B0D5: 1.3mg/1. pH: ?
Sulfite: 'drops Binlodate: 1 drop
Total phosphorus: 7.5 mg/1
Test evaluation: good

North Carolina Division 0f Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Technical Services Branch
intensive Survey Unit
27 January 1988
MEMORANDUM .
To: Trevor .Clements
Thru: Jay Sauber
From: Howard Bryant (d-
Subject: Lexington BOD Longterm
Date Collected: 29 September1987 Setup: -30 September 1987
(1325) (11 1-0)
Collector: H.Quidley
_ . Day BOD NH3 TKN _ NOX TOT N Reps •
0 _ 0.05 1.3 20.0-. 21.3
5 1.5 0.07 1.3 19.0 20.3 6
9 2.2 5
12 2.5 - - 5
15 3.0 . 5 �.
20 -3.4 0.02 1.0 21.0 22.0 5
25 4.0 4
30 4.4 0.02 1.0 19.0 20.0 4
40 5.1 3
50 5.6 �,, l AJIc t = : 3
65 6.4 ..�, 3.
n
79 6.9 2
119 8.2 cc, _, 2
Comments: Cary Lab BOD-5 = 1.3 mg/I
Sulfite: 1 drop but sample was seeded because
collector said it was chlorinated.
Total phosphorus = 6.9 mg/1
Test evaluation: good

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 12, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Yvonne Bailey
1
FROM: Steve Tedder �.;A
1.
SUBJECT: Dal's Position on Lexington's Letter of 1.-25-88
I have discussed Mr. Weisner's letter with my staff and my current
position on each of Lexington's comments are as follows:
A. Mercury Limits
1) A 0.3 pg/1 mercury weekly limit is not acceptable. The most
recent fish sampling (October, 1987) shows that there is still a
substantial mercury problem below the discharge. At the Highway 47
sampling station (which is 1.2 miles below Lexington's discharge),
the percentage of fish tissue samples (from all species) violating
the FDA action level of 1.0 mg/kg increased from 24% in 1986 to 38%
in 1987. The percentage of largemouth bass fish tissue samples
violating the FDA criteria increased from 42% in 1986 to 64% in
1987. This clearly indicates that there is bioaccumulation occur-
ring in the fishery below the discharge site.
2) Yes. The 0.2 ug/1 mercury limit will be in effect until
May 31, 1989. During this one year period (5-31-88 to 5-31-89),
DEM will be reviewing the water quality standard for mercury in
conjunction with the EPA mandated triennial review process. If the
State's water quality standard for mercury is subsequently revised,
then Lexington's mercury limit will also be revised at the end of
the 1 year permit.
3) This is essentially Lexington's problem. For the last several
years we have been advising them to stay with the lower mercury
limits and use them as a means of securing funding for filters. We
did so because we felt that North Carolina would eventually lower
the mercury limit to correspond with the revised EPA Criteria Docu-
ment recommendation of-0.012 nil.' Lexington chose instead to
consistently oppose DEM on this issue. Interestingly, they present
thisdichotomywithin the comments that I am addressing with this
memorandum. Comment 1 concerns Lexington's wish for a higher
mercury limit, while this comment is concerned with losing funding
if they accept a higher limit. I believe that it would be in
Lexington's best interest to adhere to a consistent policy and then
accept the consequences of their decision.

B. Winter Limits for BOD and Ammonia -Nitrogen
1 and 2) DEM will revise the winter limits to 10 mg/1 BOD_, and 4
mg/1 NH;,-N in the new one year permit. However, we have already
made Mr. Weisner aware of the fact that the previous permit was
based on a summer streamflow of 17.9 cfs (which considered upstream
permitted design flows), while USGS has recently estimated a new
actual flow summer-7Q10 of 5.0 cfs. USGS did so using the -data
furnished to DEM by Lexington. Because of the dramatic change in
this flow statistic, it is quite possible that Lexington's BOD_, and
ammonia limits will be made more stringent if additional modeling
is performed using the revised value.
In any event, DEM will ask for a more extensive instream moni-
toring program to be carried out during the life of the one year
permit. Monitoring will probably include some diurnal sampling to
be done during the period July through October, 1988. This is the
time of year when streams in the state are experiencing the most
stress.
If I can provide further clarification of DEM's position on this
matter, please feel free to contact me.
SWT:gh
cc: Trevor Clements
Arthur Mouberry
David Vogt
Jay Sauber
Larry Coble
Central Files

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
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary February 11, 1988.Director
•
Earl Weisner, Superintendent
Department of Water Resources
City of Lexington
28 West Center Street
Lexington, NC 27292
Dear Mr. Weisner:
The following is in response to the request for information as detailed
in your letter to Yvonne Bailey on 1-18-88:
1) We did not collect data in 1983 for a modeling study. Rather, data
from the original intensive survey (done in 1975) was used to calibrate
a water quality model for the section of Abbotts Creek from the USGS
gaging station at Center Street down to Highway 47. This was done in
1979 with a subsequent revision in 1982 for allocation purposes. The
allocation model was essentially the same as the original model, but
was extended upstream to the confluence of Rich Fork and Hambys Creek
and downstream 0.7 mile from the original model's lower boundary. I
have enclosed a copy of the modeling notes from the 1983 allocation.
These notes show that a stream flow of 17.9 cfs at the gaging sta-
tion was used for the summer allocation and 22.6 cfs for the winter
allocation. DEM did not use the 2.9 cfs USGS low flow statistic as an
upstream boundary condition for the model. DEM has recently received
information from USGS indicating that they have estimated (from the
data that you sent us in your letter of 11-20-87) a 5 cfs low -flow
(using actual flows) for this site. Thus, any future allocations will
be based on a design stream flow of 5 cfs.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

2) DEM did not measure flows at the Highway 47 bridge because of the
problem of lake backwater.
3) DEM did not use slope in calculating either summer or winter limits
for your facility. We do use slope as an input for our Level-B Model
for estimating velocity and reaeration via EPA approved empirical
equations. However, Lexington's limits were based on a Level-C analy-
sis employing stream calibrated data input to a Qual-II model.
4) The Level-C analysis done for Lexington was performed on an IBM
mainframe. Copies of the input/output from the Qual-II model summer
and winter allocation runs are enclosed.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at [phone],
ext. 161.
! David Vogt
Environmental Modeler II
Water Quality Section
JDV:gh
Enclosure
cc: Steve Tedder, DEM
Trevor Clements, DEM
Larry Coble, DEM
Yvonne Bailey, Legal Affairs
Central Files

Mr. David Vogt
Technical Services Section
Department of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear David,
United States Department of the Interior
GF.OLUGICAI, SU1VEY
Post Office Box 2857
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
February 10, 1988
FEB 1
s
This is in reply to your request of November 27, 1987, requesting a
recalculation of the estimate of the minimum 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) flow
value for Abbotts Creek at Lexington, NC (02121500). This analysis included
estimates for both ambient and natural flow conditions.
The analysis of flow for current ambient conditions was based on the
correlation of 104 actual flow measurements made from 1970-86 by DEM
personnel for ambient conditions, with concurrent flow data for nearby
sites. This analysis resulted in an estimate of approximately 5 cubic feet
per second (ft3/s) for the minimum 7Q10. The true value probably lies
within the range of 3-7 ft3/s (+35%).
The analysis for natural conditions was based upon the calculation of an
average unit runoff value in ft3/s/mi (cubic feet per second per square
mile) of the 7Q10 for the same nearby sites. This average runoff value was
used to estimate the 7Q10 value of 37 ft3/s for the Abbotts Creek site. We
estimate an error of estimate for this value to be +35%, thus the true value
may be within a range of 24 to 50 ft3/s.
The original estimate of 3 ft3/s for the 7Q10 as submitted to DEM on August 6,
1979, was derived from actual flow data collected at the Abbotts Creek site
from 1941-57 and should no longer be used.
If you have questions concerning this estimate, please contact us.
HCG/rl
Enclosure
cc: City of Lexington
Sincerely,
H. Curtis Gunter
Hydrologist

DIVISION OF ENITIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
February 10, 1988
Yvonne Bailey
Steve Mauney
Trevor Clements
FROM: Steve W. Tedder, Acting Chief �[
Water Quality Section fJ
SUBJECT: Lexington Abbotts Creek WWTP
Jay Dauber
Dave Vogt
Arthur Mouberry
LI167----
This correspondence is to advise each of you of a
meeting scheduled with the City of Lexington concerning
effluent limits in their NPDES permit.
The meeting will be held on February 23, 198R, at
10:30 a.m. in the 9th floor conference room in the
Archdale Building. Your attendance is requested.
cc: Dennis Ramsey
Larry Coble

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
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Office of Legal Affairs
January 25, 1988
Yvonne C. Bailey
Judith Robb Bullock
Edwin L. Gavin II
MEMO Robert R. Gelblum
David G. Heeter
TO: Steve Tedder Thomas Hilliard, III
James C. Holloway
FROM: Yvonne C. Bailey (,47/1� Robin N. Michael
Paul B. Stam, Sr.
RE: City of Lexington
Request for Hearing
Attached is the City's response to my letter of December
31st.
Please have your staff review the letter and send your
comments to me.
Mr. Weisner wants to meet and discuss this matter in
February. You agreed to set up a meeting, including Construction
Grants. For now, the only bad days are February 4, 5, 12, and
19.
Thank you.
YCB/sd
cc: Margaret Plemmons/Larry Coble (no attachment)
Arthur Mouberry
Trevor Clemmons
Walter Taft
Attachment
J
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

QJitg of ?exingitan
Department of ; ater iteoources
28 M. Ceuta £+treet
Etxtngton. N.01. 27202
January 18, 1988
Ms. Yvonne C. Bailey
Agency Legal Specialist
DEM, NRCD
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611=7687
Re: Request for Hearing - NPDES Permit #0055786
City of Lexington - Davidson County
AH WQ 83-7
Dear Ms. Bailey:
As per your letter of December 31, 1987, the City will make the
following comments regarding the proposed permit's, limits:
A. Mercury Limits
1) The City will agree to accept the 0.20 ug/1 mercury limit
for a monthly limitation if it is also offered a 0.3 ug/1
weekly limit.
It is our_. opinion that this will in no way cause an
increase in the level of mercury being discharged and
will be consistent with weekly limits issued other
municipalities. We are aware that these limits in no way
substitute for pretreatment. We feel that a 0.3 weekly
limit is necessary to better protect us from unexplained
"blips" of mercury noted in our daily NPDES monitoring
data.
2) As per the "year" duration of the mercury limit offer,
the present permit expires May 31, 1988. We would like to
know if we are correct in assuming that this limit will
be carried over to the renewed permit.
3) If the City does accept the 0.2 ug/1 monthly limit,
I feel that the City will loose support from the "Grants"
section for an effluent filter to further reduce mercury
loading on the Abbotts Creek arm of High Rock Lake. If the

review of water quality standards after 12 months should
result in a lower effluent limit for mercury, the City feels
that it would be placed at a significant economic disadvanta
due to the loss of this grant. ge
B. Winter Limits for BOD and Ammonia Nitrogen
The City cannot accept the 10 mg/1 BOD and 2 mg/1 Ammonia Nitro
limits without being shown justification for this limit. gen
1) This limit is not consistent with the limits given other
major municipal discharges in the Abbotts Creek drainage
basin.2) g
It is inconsistent with the State's written policy
of offering limits twice of summer limits. We understand
that this policy can be altered when dealing with a reservoir;
however, we have requested justification for the necessity
for such low winter limits for over 'five years now. This
justification has yet to be forthcoming.
When work on our request for adjudication of conditions of this permit
was suspended by your letter of February, 1987 we and several of the
State's Water Quality and Grant's Section personnel were antici atin
an informal work session to resolve the areas of the permit under g
consideration. We would like to have this set up for sometime in
February if possible. If you would prefer, I will take the initiative
in setting up this session.
The City was forced to take a significant reduction in our initial 201
construction grant request. We had serious doubts about our ability
to meet these limits as we approached design capacity. We have shown
that we can meet these summer limits and also seen that in takin th
present design that we have had the reliability of winter g e
nitrification reduced. It is our opinion, that the necessity of the
two sets of winter limits we have been offered (10-2 and 5-3) has not
yet been demonstrated. We feel that if we accept these limits we will
either have to go to additional construction or face a constant
treadmill of violations and moratoriums as the plant's loadin
approaches design -capacity. g
Before any future hearings or meetings on this matter are held, I
would like to receive the following information and have at least one
week to review it:
1) any information collected in a 1983 "modeling" study on the
Abbotts Creek arm of High Rock Lake
2) any flow data (or stream heights) obtained at the Hi hwa
47 bridge over Abbotts Creek g y
3) a listing of the permits used in determining the stream slope used in calculating both our summer and winter limi
4) a computer program (floppy disc) with the "C" level

calculation in determining stream limits - if this is available
with the variable used in this calculation
Ms. Bailey, the City of Lexington greatly desires to resolve this
matter. I want to point out that we have not questioned the summer
limits. These are tough, limits to meet.
If I can be of assistance in any matters prior to such a hearing,
please contact me at [phone] Ext 248..
Sincerely,
c.eQA‘
E.Earl Weisner
Supt. Dept. of Water Resources
EEW/tej
cc: R.B. Smith - City Attorney
Duke Whisenant - City Manager
C.D. Malone - Hydro Management. Services
Larry Coble - State Regional Office
Mrs. Margaret F. Plemmons - State Regional Office,
Walter Taft - Construction Grants
4
Regional Mgr.

^
Request No. : ^L
3113
--------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Permit Number
Facility Name
Type of Waste
Status
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Requestor
Date of Request
Quad
Wasteflow
5-Day DOD
Ammonia Nitrogen
Dissolved Oxygen
TSS
Fecal Coliform
pH
Mercury
NC0055786
LEXINGTON REGIONAL
DOMESTIC
EXISTING
ABBOTTS CREEK
030701 03-07-0�
DAVIDSON
WINSTON-SALEM
STEVE TEDDER
12-16-87
:
: summer
(mgd>:
(mg/1):
(mg/1):
(mg/l):
(mg/l):
(#/100ml):
(SU):
(ug/l): 0.2 0.2
Upstream (Y/N):
Downstream (Y/N):
:
:
Drainage Area
Average Flow
Summer 7010
Winter 7010
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT
winter
Location:
Location:
MONITORING
(sq mi)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
RECEIVED
LIMITS ----------
��'~1binter
~~/�^^
summer
~~^^~
sw~=
PERMITS & EN,,�\MEER|NG
0.15 0.15
------- -------------------------- COMMENTS ------------------------------
THIS WLA IS FOR ADJUSTING ER REFLECT CHANGES IN BOTH THE
WO STANDARD AND THE DESIG���[UW . NO OTHER LIMITS OR
EXISTING MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE ADJUSTED. A COMPLETE REVIEW OF
THIS WLA WILL BE DONE uWHEN THE EXISTING PERMIT EXPIRES IN 1988.
-
� �� X��
Recommended by __Y^�����_ _w»_ A....'. Date U������-w�
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support Supervisor
Regional Supervisor
Permits & Engineering
Water Quality Section Chief
_
-
Date 9-7
.�
Date y� �
Date
Date
��N7� ���
=~`" �w ��w
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY __