NC0023906_Permit (Issuance)_20010928

NPDES DOCUNENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0023906
Wilson — Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
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:
September 28, 2001
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore sorry -
content on the resrerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
AVA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 28, 2001
Mr. Charles W. Pittman, III, Deputy City Manager
City of Wilson
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
Subject: Adjudicatory Settlement/ Final
Permit
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES Permit Number NC0023906
Wilson County
Dear Mr. Pittman:
In accordance with the application for a permit for effluent discharge from the City of
Wilson's municipal wastewater management facility, the Division is forwarding herewith the City's
NPDES permit renewal. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994.
Based on additional information submitted by the City of Wilson and further review
of the conditions set forth by the permit, the Division agreed, through the adjudicatory
settlement, (1) to eliminate the limit requirement for cadmium (after review of most recent
effluent data) and, (2) place a statement/ condition in the permit allowing Wilson to meet
monthly average NH3-N limits of 2 mg/1 (summer) and 4 mg/1 (winter) through June 30, 2004.
The City will be required to meet NH3-N limits of 1 mg/1 (summer) and 2 mg/1 (winter) after
July 1, 2004 (with compliance required during July 2004). Because those limits will become
effective after the expiration of this permit, the City agreed "not to contest limits of 1 and 2 so
long as those limits were generally applicable to other similarly situated discharges." Should
the City believe that the modified language contained in this permit not be representative of the
settlement agreement, please contact Susan A. Wilson at (919) 733 - 5083, ext. 510 as soon as
possible. The attached permit, with all changes incorporated, is final and binding.
To restate some of the issues of concern previously raised with this permit, all streams
in the Neuse River Basin (NRB) have been designated as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) as a
result of algal bloom problems in the estuary. The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission recently adopted rules establishing the Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive
Waters Management Strategy for the reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen inputs. The point
source rule (15A NCAC 2B.0234) is intended to reduce total nitrogen (TN) discharges by 30% by
2003. All facilities with permitted flow greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD are receiving a TN
limit in this permit cycle. This final permit contains a total nitrogen limit to comply with the
point source rule for the Neuse River Basin.
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 - TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/ 1 0% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Mr. Charles W. Pittman, III
City of Wilson
Page 2
This permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Susan Wilson at
telephone number [phone], ext. 510.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.
w/attachments
Adjudicatory Settlement/ FINAL PERMIT
City of Wilson, Hominy Creek WWMF
Cc: Central Files
NPDES Permit File
Roosevelt Childress, EPA Region IV
Russell Brice, Manager, Hominy Creek WWMF, P.O. Box 10, Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Point Source Compliance & Enforcement
Technical Assistance & Certification
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Raleigh Regional Office
Anita LeVeaux, Attorney General's Office

Permit No. NC0023906
- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Water Quality Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek Wastewater Management Facility
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Wilson - Hominy Creek WWMF
Old Stantonsburg Road
Wilson
Wilson County
to receiving waters designated as Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River Basin
in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective November 1, 2001.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2003.
Signed this day September 28, 2001.
Original Signed 8y
David A. Goodrich
Gregory J. Thorpe, Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES No. NC0023906

Permit No. NC0023906
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek Wastewater Management Facility
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 12 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of
mechanical bar screens, manual bar screen, grit chamber, preaeration, primary
clarifiers, biological phosphorus removal, extended aeration basins, secondary
clarifiers, polishing ponds, tertiary filters, methanol feed system, chlorination and
dechlorination, post aeration, and anaerobic digesters located at Hominy Creek
WWMF, Old Stantonsburg Road, Wilson, Wilson County, and
2. After completion of construction (permit issued February 24, 1998) and submittal of
Engineer's Certification, operate a 14 MGD expanded wastewater treatment facility
consisting of (including that listed above): primary clarifier distribution structure,
primary effluent collection/distribution structure, addition of three aeration basins,
modified aeration basins to accommodate the Bardenpho process for biological
nutrient removal, replacement of existing final clarifier No. 1, five tertiary filters,
methanol storage and feed facilities, chlorination/dechlorination storage and feed
facilities,
3. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into Contentnea Creek which is classified C Sw-NSW waters in Neuse
River Basin.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES No. NC0023906

Quad: E27NW
Latitude: 35°40'37"
Longitude: 77°54'51"
Stream Class: C-Swamp NSW
Subbasin: 30407
Receiving Stream: Contentnea Creek
NC003071 6
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWTP
North
SCALE 1:2J1000

A. (l.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above
12 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge 12 MGD of municipal wastewater from outfall
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Eft I%�eri C `" izcterist y
:::. `;
jx�►H°
rs3�tir�}y..i r
_w.� ..i�T'�.
Monitoring Requrrerrie_nts� � t
;;
y.�.•.f K�]lr .~•Zk .7v �i
;;;-.�r t
..i r cf. �"tF7
�.
._ la ,:k }.t� i
J.S�.iVGJ'�%.�r..��i,•�R�"��iii�.��lif
` f �i- {'.y��
��i �-i� 1 1 �rS I���j{.'�/�}iy��'—eL� jT ig:i'
f�-�.s.,�-��!`��i.-:.r��. lt�p���y+.1w�x,�+.ti •.�Yiti _'F
:`jr�� Monthly'
�$� z. �S�`i1 �
Aerag
..yµil.;.^+Sf•
Weekiyay
S., }s;'m� t'•�
Averag
: Dai - _
I.7. t 3".�,
� ; Nl�
'
easurement
Sample Ty`M1e
h,
�..'...a�s1` .�s G �.
Sain �1e i
CWf�
.-.�
Flow
12 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day (202C)2
[April 1- October 31]
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent &
Effluent
BOD, 5 day (202C)2
[November 1- March 31 ]
10.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent &
Effluent
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent &
Effluent
NH3 as N [April 1- October 31) 11
2.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N [Nov.1- March 31] 11
4.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
•
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N + TKN) 5
No Effluent Limit (mg/I)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
No Effluent Limit (lb/month)
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
157,680 lb/year (Annual Mass Loading) 6
Annually
Calculated
Effluent
Total Phosphorus 7
2.0 mg/L (Quarterly Average)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Temperature (2C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (2C)
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Chronic Toxicity()
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Cadmium
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chromium •
54 pg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Mercury9
0.013 pg/l
- Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Zinc
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Silver
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
pH10
6-9
Daily
Grab
Effluent
(Footnotes on next page)
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES No. NC0023906

A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
(Continued)
Footnotes:
1. Sample locations: Upstream at Old Blackcreek Road and downstream at NC Highway 222.
Stream samples shall be grab samples and shall be collected 3/Week during June - September
and 1/Week during the remaining months of the year. Instream monitoring is provisionally
waived in light of the permittee's participation in the Lower Neuse Basin Association.
Instream monitoring shall be conducted as stated in this permit should the permittee
end its participation in the Association.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 7.0 mg/1.
4. Total residual chlorine monitoring is required only if chlorine or a chlorinated compound is
used as a disinfectant (or elsewhere in the process).
5. See Special Condition A. (3.), Total Nitrogen Monitoring.
6. The annual mass loading limit for total nitrogen shall become effective with the calendar year
beginning on January 1, 2003 unless it is provisionally waived per Special Condition A. (4.),
Annual Limits for Total Nitrogen.
7. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected
weekly during the calendar quarter (January -March, April -June, July -September, October -
December).
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) P/F at 90%: February, May, August, and November [see
Special Condition A.(5)]. Toxicity monitoring shall coincide with metals monitoring.
9. The quantitation limit for mercury shall be 0.2 ug/1 (0.2 ppb). Levels reported at less than 0.2
ug/1 shall be considered zero for compliance purposes.
10. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
11. Refer to Special Condition A. (7) regarding implementation of more stringent NH3-N limits.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES No. NC0023906

A. (2.) . EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
During the period beginning on the expansion above 12 MGD and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge up to 14 MGD of municipal wastewater from outfall 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
`Merit Charaali -- -1 j
L-
"'
•h`�~
;Meath" 4"'Requ ferried-- ,:
Ytir
m�iLs S"i s "R •?1• N .�l f �ya
fle•
r.
'] 'M. i^4L- ilk•
t Is
4,4
•+.
Ir 1
y,
i w =(ji
kyd.11
�„ � a: r �� +..
.��Y i:. J •, .4t ....• n. ��.
` Me
• 7!'y}
ty r
4„ = "z
,..
w-�: MonthR
+
Week1yrr -
-
1 vera..•
� sr.'; ' .. ;�,...� ,.
.
D"ai `
. s..r.stircu.a�n.
1. Measuremen ;
tom.>v bwx
6 Sample T p
. - ,.. t.�-..
,. I Salk- �."`
. = ,
ocaffon:
:,�, _ • =
=
- j
. - -„_ I .:+ .,!%" M.,c.�
--. Averag
F 1 .z--...,. , �.
v Maximum
,.� ���:��� ...
Frequency =
...... ..
Flow
14 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day (202C)2
[April 1— 0ctober 31]
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/I
Daily
_
Composite
Influent &
Effluent
BOD, 5 day (202C)2
[November 1— March 31]
10.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/l
Daily
Composite
• Influent &
Effluent
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
•
Daily
Composite
Influent &
Effluent
NH3 as N [April 1— October 31] 12
2.0 mgll
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N [Nov. 1 — March 31] 12
4.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Fecal Coliform (geometric mn) 11
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine4
18 pg/l
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N + TKN) 5
No Effluent Limit (mg/l)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
No Effluent Limit Ib/month
( )
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
157,680 lb/year (Annual Mass Loading) 6
Annually
Calculated
Effluent
Total Phosphorus 7
2.0 mg/L (Quarterly Average)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Temperature (2C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (2C)
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
3/Week
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Chronic Toxicity8
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Cadmium
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chromium
53 pg/l
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Mercury9
0.013 pgll
• Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Zinc
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Silver
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
pH10
6-9
Daily
Grab
Effluent
(Footnotes on next page)
City of NVi!son
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES�No. NC0023906

A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
(Continued)
Footnotes:
1. Sample locations: Upstream at Old Blackcreek Road and downstream at NC Highway 222.
Stream samples shall be grab samples and shall be collected 3/Week during June - September
and 1/Week during the remaining months of the year. Instream monitoring is provisionally
waived in light of the permittee's participation in the Lower Neuse Basin Association.
Instream monitoring shall be conducted as stated in this permit should the permittee
end its participation in the Association.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved -oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 7.0 mg/1.
4. Total residual chlorine monitoring is required only if chlorine or a chlorinated compound is
used as a disinfectant (or elsewhere in the process).
5. See Special Condition A. (3.), Total Nitrogen Monitoring.
6. The annual mass loading limit for total nitrogen shall become effective with the calendar year
beginning on January 1, 2003 unless it is provisionally waived per Special Condition A.(4.),
Annual Limits for Total Nitrogen.
7. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected
weekly during the calendar quarter (January -March, April -June, July -September, October -
December).
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) P/F at 90%: February, May, August, and November [see
Special Condition A.(5)]. Toxicity monitoring shall coincide with metals monitoring.
9. The quantltation limit for mercury shall be 0.2 ug/1 (0.2 ppb). Levels reported at less than 0.2
ug/1 shall be considered zero for compliance purposes.
10. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
11. Refer to Special Condition A.(6.).
12. Refer to Special Condition A. (7.) regarding implementation of more stringent NH3-N limits.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES No. NC0023906

A. (3.) TOTAL NITROGEN MONITORING
The Permittee shall calculate the annual mass loading of total nitrogen as the sum of monthly
loadings, according to the following equations:.
(1) Monthly Mass Loading (lb/mo) = TN x Q x 8.34
where:
TN = the average total nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the composite
samples collected during the month
Q = the total wastewater flow discharged during the month (MG/month)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
_ . (2) Annual Mass Loading (lb/yr) = E (Monthly Mass Loadings) for the calendar year
The Permittee shall report the total nitrogen concentration for each sample and the
monthly mass loading in the appropriate self -monitoring report and the annual mass
loading of total nitrogen in the December self -monitoring report for the year.
A. (4.) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN
(a) The Neuse Nutrient Management Strategy rule for point sources (1) provides that
annual mass limits for total nitrogen shall be included in the permits for all
dischargers with permitted flows (as defined in the Strategy) greater than or equal to
0.5 MGD and that those nitrogen limits, including the limits in this permit, shall
become effective with the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2003.
(b) The Neuse rule also provides that members of a group compliance association shall
not be subject to individual annual mass limits for total nitrogen. At the time of permit
issuance, the Permittee had expressed interest in joining such an association.
Accordingly,
(1) the total nitrogen limit in Condition A(1) of this permit is deemed waived
provided that the following conditions are met:
(i) a formal agreement between the association and Environmental
Management Commission, as outlined in 15A NCAC 2B. 0234, is
established and is in effect; and
(ii) the Permittee is a party to said agreement; and
(iii) the association and the Permittee substantially conform with the
agreement.
(2) So long as the total nitrogen limit in Condition A.(1.) is waived, the group
nitrogen allocation established pursuant to the agreement referenced above and
any subsequent amendments is hereby incorporated as an enforceable part of
this permit.
(c) If the Division determines, at any time during the term of this permit, that these
conditions are not being met, it shall notify the Permittee in writing of this
determination and of its basis. The consequence of such a determination shall be that
the Permittee's annual mass limit for total nitrogen and its effective date shall be
reinstated immediately. The Division shall accept and consider written responses
received from the Permittee and/or the association within thirty (30) days of the
original notice before making a final decision and will provide that decision in writing.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES No. NC0033906

A. (4.) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN (cont'd.)
(d) The Permittee shall notify the Division in writing within five (5) working days if, at any
time during the term of this permit, the Permittee elects not to join the association, or
if it withdraws or otherwise loses its membership in the association. Notification shall
be sent to:
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Footnote:
(1) Neuse River Basin - Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Wastewater
Discharge Requirements (15A NCAC 2B. 0234).
A. (5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, _quarteriu monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of February, May, August, and November. Effluent sampling for
this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or
ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent
versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of
the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the
lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The
definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical
methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES No. NC0023906

A. (5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) (cont'd.)
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
• and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or
approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be
measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring
is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity
(AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the
month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The
report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate
environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up
testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial
monitoring.
A. (6.) Fecal Conform Compliance Condition
Should the City of Wilson be deemed by the Division of Water Quality to be chronically
noncompliant with the weekly average and/or monthly average fecal coliform limit after
completion of the expansion to 14 MGD, the City shall submit plans and specifications within 90
days after notification by the Division. The plans and specifications shall provide for an
adequately designed chlorine disinfection facility. If another method of disinfection is proposed, it
should conform to conventional design parameters, as well as any minimum requirements
specified by the Division. Bidding and subsequent construction of the project shall commence
immediately after the issuance of the Authorization to Construct permit.
A. (7.) Effective Date for More Stringent NH3-N Limits
Based on the resolution of the permit adjudication, with agreed upon language submitted July 13,
2001, the limits of 2 mg/1 (April 1- October 31) and 4 mg/1 (November 1 through March 31) shall
be in effect until July 1,, 2004, at which time new limits of 1 mg/1 and 2 mg/1 shall become
effective. The permittee agrees that it will not challenge the new limits when this permit is
renewed so long as such limits are generally applicable to major dischargers in the Neuse River
Basin.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES No. NC0023906

POYNER SPRIJILL! t_.P
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
July 13, 2001
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Re: City of Wilson, 00EHR1292
Dear Ms. LeVeaux:
ee
H. Glenn Dunn
Attorney -at -Law
Direct Dial: 919.783.2842
[e-mail]
www.poynerspruill.com
Other offices: Charlotte, Rocky Mount
RECEIVED
Jul-
�. ATTORNEY UENER> ..
,•..,,ir..rr--qal Division
I am writing in response to your letter of June 22, 2001, in which you stated that DWQ
accepts the City of Wilson's offer to meet ammonia limits of 1 and 2 on or before July 1, 2004.
You said in your letter that your clients would agree to this condition, provided that upon the
expiration of the permit on May 31, 2003, the City of Wilson would not object and contest the
ammonia limits of 1 and 2. In a subsequent telephone conversation, I said that my clients would
agree not to contest limits of 1 and 2 so long as those limits were generally applicable to other
similarly situated dischargers. You asked that I suggest language to that effect that could be
included in a permit condition. The following is our suggestion.
We suggest that limits be shown in the appropriate columns on page A. (2.) "EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS IN MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL" to show 2.0 mg/1 (April 1
through October 31) and 4.0 mg/1 (November 1 through March 31). Then show in parenthesis
next to those two limits the future limits of 1.0 mg/1 and 2.0 mg/1 with a footnote adjacent to
each. The corresponding footnote would state the following:
The limits of 2.0 mg/1 April 1 through October 31 and 4.0 mg/1
November 1 through March 31 shall be in effect until July 1,
2004, at which time new limits of 1.0 mg/1 and 2.0 mg/1 shall
become effective. The permittee agrees that it will not challenge
the new limits when this permit is renewed so long as such limits
are generally applicable to major dischargers in the Neuse River
Basin.
I hope this provision is acceptable to the DENR and that we can conclude this matter. As
I understand it, the permit will be changed to reflect our final agreement on limits and there will
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27612 • P.O. Box 10096, Raleigh, NC 27605.0096 • 919.783.6400 Tel • 919.783.1075 Fax

POYNERLTSPRUILL L.L.P.
Anita LeVeaux
July 13, 2001
Page 2
be no settlement agreement, but rather the City of Wilson will dismiss the contested case with
prejudice once it has accepted the revised permit. Don't hesitate to contact me to discuss this
matter further.
Sincerely,
H. Glenn Dunn
HGD:sam
RALEIGH/018031-003/305184 v. I

ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
June 22, 2001
H. Glenn Dunn, Esq.
Poyner & Spruill, L.L.P.
P. O. Box 10096
Raleigh, NC 27605-0096
RE: City of Wilson, 00 EHR 1292
Dear Mr. Dunn:
REPLY TO:
Anita LeVeaux
Environmental Division
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
We are in receipt of your letter and proposed offer to settle dated June 8, 2001. In that letter
you indicated that your clients are prepared to meet ammonia limits of 1 and 2 on or before July 1,
2004. My clients have reviewed your proffer and agree to this condition, provided that upon the
expiration of the permit on May 31, 2003, your clients do not object and contest the ammonia limits
of 1 and 2. If you have any questions in this regard please feel free to call me at the above phone
number.
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
ALV/jj
48914

POYNEROSPRUILLL.L.P
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
June 8, 2001
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Re: City of Wilson — Contested Case
Dear Anita:
H. Glenn Dunn
Attorney -at -Law
Direct Dial: 919.783.2842
[e-mail]
www.poynerspruill.com
Other offices: Charlotte. Rocky Mount
RECE1VED
JU?' . 1
N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Environmental Division
I am writing in response to your offer of settlement in the above -referenced matter. As I
understood your offer, it was that DENR would agree to place a limit for NH3 as N of 2 mg/1
(summer) and 4 mg/1 (winter) into Wilson's NPDES Permit to be effective three (3) years from
the date of issuance of the Permit, which would be until September 1, 2003. After that date, the
limits would go to 1 mg/1 and 2 mg/1.
Wilson officials are disappointed that DENR did not accept their proposal to have the 2
mg/1 and 4 mg/1 limits remain in effect until the monthly average flow from the permitted outfall
exceeds 12 mgd for three months in any consecutive six month period. We felt that that was a
very fair proposal since 12 mgd is the flow for which Wilson has been permitted at the higher
NH3 limit. We ask that DENR reconsider this proposal.
If DENR continues to reject our proposal and prefers to write the 2/4 limits into the
Permit for a specific time period, then the City proposes that that time period be three (3) years
from the date of execution of the settlement agreement. The three (3) year period was mentioned
in a settlement meeting earlier this year and it was Wilson's understanding that it was proposed
to be from the time of settlement. This schedule will allow Wilson ample time to plan for the
improvements necessary to meet the 1/2 limits, to fund the improvements, and then to combine
construction with some sludge improvements that Wilson intends to make in the future.
Combining the two projects will result in significant savings to the City, and we believe that
DENR should be amenable to this since it is DENR which gave Wilson's engineers incorrect
limits to start with.
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27612 • P.O. Box 10096, Raleigh, NC 27605.0096 • 919.783.6400 Tel • 919.783.1075 Fax

POYNER&SPRUILLLLP
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
Anita LeVeaux
June 8, 2001
Page 2
I hope that your client will agree to the settlement. We consider a fair one under the
circumstances. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
H. Glenn Dunn
HGD:dl
RALEIGH/018031-003/301973 v. 106/08/01

POYNERDSPRUILLL.L.R
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
May 7, 2001
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Re: City of Wilson - NPDES Permit
Dear Anita:
H. Glenn Dunn
Attorney -at -Law
Direct Dial: 919.783.2842
[e-mail]
www.poynerspruill.com
Other offices: Charlotte, Rocky Mount
RECEIVED
MAY Oyc.
N.C. Ai-FORNEY GENERA(_
Division
I am writing on the behalf of the City of Wilson to propose an approach to settling the
contested case regarding this matter. Wilson can accept all of the permit conditions to which it
has previously objected except the limit for NH3 as N of 1 mg/1 (summer) and 2 mg/1 (winter).
As you know from our discussions, Wilson was given speculative limits of 2 mg/1 and for 4 mg/1
and this was never revised and, in fact, was stated as the applicable limit in the environmental
impact assessment that was later approved by DENR. In view of the additional expense that
would be caused in making the necessary improvements to comply with the lower limit, Wilson
believes a delay in the application of the limits is fair and, based on my conversations with you,
DWQ is amenable to considering delay in application of the limits until the permit is renewed on
May 1, 2003. Wilson does not believe that a deadline of less than two years would give adequate
time to make the improvements required to meet such a limit. Instead, we request that the
provision be written as follows:
The Department and the City of Wilson (the "City) hereby agree
that the NH3 as N limits of 2.0 mg/[April 1 — October 31] and 4.0
mg/1 [November 1- March 31] which the City is authorized to
discharge under NPDES Permit No. NC 0023906 (the "Permit")
shall remain in effect until the monthly average flow from the
permitted outfall exceeds 12 mgd for three months in any
consecutive six month period and shall continue in effect for an
additional two year period (the "Construction Period") starting on
the last day of the third month in such six month period, at the end
of which the limits for NH3 as N shall become 1.0 mg/1 [April 1 —
October 31] and 2.0 mg/1 [November 1 — March 31], as specified
in the Permit or any renewal thereof. At the beginning of the two-
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27612 • P.O. Box 10096, Raleigh, NC 27605.0096 • 919.783.6400 Tel • 919.783.1075 Fax

POYNER SPRUILLL.L.P
Anita LeVeaux
May 7, 2001
Page 2
year construction period, the City shall submit to the Department
plans for the facilities necessary to meet the 2.0/1.0 mg/1 limits,
and shall develop in collaboration with the Department a
reasonable schedule for obtaining necessary permits and for
verifying progress in construction of such facilities.
We hope that this proposal will be satisfactory to the DENR. We believe that has the
advantage of being tied to a time when Wilson reaches on a somewhat regular basis the level at
which DWQ believes limits of 1 mg/1 and 2 mg/1 become appropriate.
Please let me know your clients' response to this proposal. If it is workable, we can
discuss how to write form for the settlement document. If you have any questions, do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
H. Glenn Dunn
HGD:sam
RALEIGH/018031-003/260614 v.1

COVER
SHEET
FAX
To: Ken Schuster
Dave Goodrich
Susan Wilson
Randy Jones
Fax #: Programmed
Subject: Town of Wilson
Date: January 11, 2001
Pages: 1, including this cover sheet.
FYI:
Glenn Dunn, the Attorney for the Town of Wilson, called requesting that the meeting
scheduled for tomorrow be canceled for approximately 4 weeks because his clients have not been
able to gather all of the necessary information needed to calibrate the model that they were going
to rely upon at the meeting. Accordingly, they would like to reschedule for a later date. If this
delay is problematic please notify me of the same as soon as possible. Also, if you have any
questions, please feel free to call.
Thanks, Anita
From the desk of...
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WILSON
City of Wilson, a North Carolina
Municipal Corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
N.C. Dept. of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR A
CONTESTED CASE IfEARINra
- c
>--1
_- �F
-1-r;
N
0
The City of Wilson ("City") hereby asks for a contested case hearing as provided for by
G.S. 150B-23 because the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality has issued the City a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Permit Number NC0023906 (the "Permit") containing certain conditions that the City believes
are unnecessary or otherwise objectionable. A copy of the Permit is attached hereto. In
summary, the City objects to and contests the following provisions/conditions of the Permit:
(a) the assumed low flow in the receiving stream of 1.4 cubic feet per second;
(b) the parameters for cadmium, chromium, and mercury;
(c) NH3-N limits of 1 mg/1 summer and 2 mg/1 winter;
(d) Inclusion of the month of April in the summer season for which more stringent
limits apply; and
(e) Influent monitoring requirements for flow, BOD5 and total suspended solids.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
r --P
4 L)nt`911.1 HEALTLI
�!'ZSQ LH 1
CEg
Because of these facts, the agency has:
deprived me of property;
ordered me to pay a fine or civil penalty;
X otherwise substantially prejudiced my
rights; and based on these facts the agency
has exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
X acted erroneously;
X failed to use proper procedure;
X acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
X failed to act as required by law or rule.
*****************************************************************************
Date: au3u st 292a0 Your telephone number [phone]
Print your address:
Poyner & Spruill, L.L.P.
P.O. Box 10096
Raleigh, NC 27605-0096
Print your name: H. Glenn Dunn (Attorney for City of Wilson)
Your signature:

****************/ ***1\*************************�i' !�*******************
CERTIFICATE 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:
Daniel F. McLawhorn, Esq.
Process Agent for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
512 Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
30
This tha tl'day of /,lt�u,�¢ ,2000.
By:
H. Glenn Dunn, Esq.
2

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
1
Facility Name
Wilson
Parameter =
Cd
AL
11 /00-,
NPDES #
NC0023906
Standard =
2
4/1
G (0
i
Qw (MGD)
14
7Q10s (cfs)
1.4
Date
n
BDL=1/2DLuaI
Data
RESULTS
1 WC (%)
93.94
11/3/00
1
1
<.2
Std Dev.
0.4403613
c'ving Stream
Contentnea Creek
9/1/00
2
1
<2
Mean
0.4316154
Stream Class
C sw NSW
9/8/00
3
1
<2
C.V.
1.0202632
9/15/00
4
1
<2
FINAL RESULTS
9/22/00
5
1
<2
Cd
9/29/00
6
1
<2
Mult Facto
2
Max. Pred Cw
2
ug/I
8/4/00
7
1
<2
Max. Value
1
pg/lhii
Allowable Cw
2.1
ug/I
8/11/00
8
1
<2
Max. Pred
2
pgliiiii
pg/iiiii
Max. Value
1
8/18/00
9
1
<2
Allowable C
2.13
8/25/00
10
1
<2
7/7/00
11
1
<2
7/14/00
12
0.1
<.2
(,)101-)C ,
‘1140u E t S
iiiil
7/21/00
13
0.1
<.2
Yb 1)1.-
J
7/28/00
14
0.1
<.2
CogsViv/
rt Je )
6/2/00
15
1
<2
F /tic k4oNy7
AIlon u1
5/5/00
16
1
<2
3/3/00
18
1
<2
2/4/00
19
1
<2
2/18/00
20
1
<2
1/7/00
21
1
<2
12/3/99
22
1
<2
11/5/99
23
1
<2
10/1/99
24
1
<2
9/3/99
25
1
<2
8/6/99
26
1
<2
7/2/99
27
1
<2
6/4/99
29
0.02
<.04
6/11/99
30
0.025
0.05
5/7/99
31
0.05
0.1
4/1/99
32
0.02
<.04
3/5/99
33
0.02
<.04
2/5/99
34
0.02
<.04
1/8/99
35
0.05
0.1
11/30/00
36
0.1
<.2
12/7/00
37
0.1
<.2
12/14/00
38
0.1
<.2
12/21/00
39
0.1
<.2
12/28/00
40
0.1
<.2
1/4/01
41
0.1
<.2
1 /11 /01
42
0.1
<.2
1/16/01
43
0.1
<.2
1/22/01
44
0.1
<.2
1/29/01
45
0.3
0.3
2/5/01
46
0.1
<.2
2/12/01
47
0.1
<.2
2/19/01
48
0.1
<.2
2/26/01
49
0.1
<.2
7/30/01
'PAGE1

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
3/5/01
50
0.1
<.2
3/12/01
51
0.1
<.2
3/19/01
52
0.15
<.3
3/25/01
53
0.1
<.2
4/2/01
54
0.3
0.3
4/9/01
55
0.1
<.2
4/16/01
56
0.1
<.2
4/23/01
57
0.1
<.2
4/31/01
58
0.1
<.2
5/7/01
59
0.1
<.2
5/14/01
60
0.1
<.2
5/21/01
61
0.1
<.2
5/29/01
62
0.1
<.2
6/5/01
63
0.1
<.2
6/11/01
64
0.1
<.2
6/18/01
65
0.1
<.2
6/25/01
66
0.1
<.2
67
7/30/01
'PAGE 2

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Wilson
Parameter=
Cd
AL
6/00-6/01
NPDES #
NC0023906
Standard =
2
pug/I
Qw (MGD)
14
7Q10s (cfs)
1.4
Date
n
BDL=1/2DLuaI
Data
RESULTS
IWC (%)
93.94
11/3/00
1
1
<.2
Std Dev.
0.3958434
c'ving Stream
Contentnea Creek
9/1/00
2
1
<2
Mean
0.3445652
Stream Class
C sw NSW
9/8/00
3
1
<2
C.V.
1.1488201
9/15/00
4
1
<2
FINAL RESULTS
9/22/00
5
1
<2
Cd
9/29/00
6
1
<2
Mult Facto
2.5
iiiii
Max. Pred Cw
0.75
ug/I
8/4/00
7
1
<2
Max. Value
0.3
1194iiii
Allowable Cw
2.1
ug/I
8/11/00
8
1
<2
Max. Pred 1
0.75
jig/[='
Max. Value
0.3
8/18/00
9
1
<2
Allowable C
2.13
pgAiiii
8/25/00
10
1
<2
7/7/00
11
1
<2
7/14/00
12
0.1
<.2
7/21/00
13
0.1
<.2
7/28/00
14
0.1
<.2
("/u.r.i4
03 Ac1k,t.
6/2/00
15
1
<2
V v 6i A5
MApA„ um Nor
11/30/00
16
0.1
<.2
�,L
12/7/00
17
0.1
<.2
I��,/9
tit
/ L
12/14/00
18
0.1
<.2
12/21/00
19
0.1
<.2
(*
12/28/00
20
0.1
<.2
1/4/01
21
0.1
<.2
1/11/01
22
0.1
<.2
1/16/01
23
0.1
<.2
1 /22/01
24
0.1
<.2
1 /29/01
25
0.3
0.3
2/5/01
26
0.1
<.2
2/12/01
27
0.1
<.2
2/19/01
28
0.1
<.2
2/26/01
29
0.1
<.2
3/5/01
30
0.1
<.2
3/12/01
31
0.1
<.2
3/19/01
32
0.15
<.3
3/25/01
33
0.1
<.2
4/2/01
34
0.3
0.3
4/9/01
35
0.1
<.2
4/16/01
36
0.1
<.2
4/23/01
37
0.1
<.2
4/31/01
38
0.1
<.2
5/7/01
39
0.1
<.2
5/14/01
40
0.1
<.2
5/21/01
41
0.1
<.2
5/29/01
42
0.1
<.2
6/5/01
43
0.1
<.2
6/11/01
44
0.1
<.2
6/18/01
45
0.1
<.2
6/25/01
46
0.1
<.2
7/30/01
•
'PAGE 1

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility_ Name
NPDES #
Qw (MGD)
7010s (cfs)
IWC (%)
eying Stream
Stream Class
Wilson
NC0023906
14
1.4
Parameter =
Standard =
93.94
Contentnea Creek
C sw NSW
FINAL RESULTS
Cd
Max. Pred Cw 1.9
Allowable Cw 2.1
Max. Value . - - - ----- --__ ----- -- 1
ug/I
ug/I
Cd
2
AL
pg/I
11 /00-1 /99
n BDL=1/2DL Actual Data RESULTS
1 r----- 1 <2 -�-- i Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
2 1 <2
3 1 <2
4 1 <2
5 1<2
6 1 <2
7 1 <2
8 1 <2
9 1 <2
10 1 <2
11 0.1 <.2
12 0.1 <.2
13 0.1 <.2
14 1 <2
15 1 <2
16 1 <2
17 1 <2
18 1 <2
19 1 <2
20 1 <2
21 1 <2
22 1 <2
23 1 <2
24 1 <2
25 1 <2
26 1 <2
27 1 <2
28 0.02 <.04
29 0.025 0.05
30 0.05 0.1
31 0.02 <.04
32 0.02 <.04
33 0.02 <.04
34 0.05 0.1
35
0.439545448 i
0.7207352941
Mult Facto
Max. Valu - 1 Ng/k
Max. Pred
Allowable 1 2.13 erg/I
0.6098569771
1/10/01 'PAGE 1

JUL. -27' O1(FRI) 16:46 WILSON WASTE WATER
TEL:[phone]
P. 001
Post -it' Fax Note 7671
DeV. 29..4 Rem► �,,
To crs4J k/j o, /
mR ss!/i 5r/ce.
ccdp"Wchente-1116
ca C.-4 de (4.hhailk,
Phone H-
Rhone
Fax 49/1— 75 —o'7 9
Fax 'A i"./J A-2249
City of Wilsoi. f t f • Z,i1
Results for Low Level Detection Limits for Cadmium
on Effluents Samples from June 2000 -- June 2001
Date of Collection
Result in ug/L
06/13/00-06/14�•
< 0.2
06/27/00-06/28/00
_
<0.2
07/13/00-07/14/00
<0.2
07/20/00-07/21/00
_
<0.2
07/27/00-07/28/00
<0.2
08/17/00-08/18/00
__-
<0.2
08/24/00-08/25/00
0.3
09/14/00-09/15/00
<0.2
09/21100 09/22/00
<0.2
09/28/00-09/29/00
_
<2
10/05/00-10/06/00
<2
_ 10/12/00-10/13/00
<2
10/19/00-10/20/00
<2
10/26//00-10/27/00
<2
11/02/00-11/03/00
<2 :
• 11130/00-12101/00
_ _
<0.2
_
12/07/00-12/08/00
<0.2
12/14/00-12/15/00
<0.2
12/21/00-12/22/00
<0.2
12/28/00-12/29/00
<0.2
01/04/01-01/05/01
_
<0.2
01/11/01-01/12/01
<0.2
01/16/01-01/17/01
<0.2
01/22/01-01/23/01
<0.2
01/29/01-01/30/01
0.3
02/05/01-02/06/01
<0.2
02/12/01-02/13/01
<0.2
02/19/01-02/20/01
<0.2
02/26/01-02/27/01
<0.2
03/05/01-03/06/01
<0.2
_• 03/12/01-03/13/01
_
<0.2

JUL.- 27' 01(FRI) 16 : 46 WI LS0N WASTE WATER
TEL:[phone] P. 002
Date of Collection Result in ug/L
03/19/01-03/20/0/ <0.2
03/15/01-03/26/01 <0.2
04/02/01-04/03/01 0.3
04/09/01-04/10/01 _ <0.2
04/16/01-04/17/01 <0.2
04/23/01-04/24/01 <0.2
04/31/01.05/01/01 <0.2
05/07/0105/08/01 <0.2
05/14/01-05/15/o l <0.2
05/21/01-05/22/01
05/29/01-05/30/01
<0.2
_ <0.2
06/05/01.06/06/01 <0.2
06/11/01-06112/01
06/18/01-06/19/01
06/25/01-06/26/01
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2

CITY OF WILSON
tJUokth Ctuto&&eta
INCORPORATED 1849
27894-0010
Wastewater Management
Facility
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NCDENR'DWQ
NPDES Permits Group
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification Request
NPDES Permit NC0023906
City of Wilson
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Vi--5v/e/
Wa/q
October 31, 2000
•
The City of Wilson request a modification to NPDES Permit NC0023906 to
replace reporting BOD, 5 day with CBOD, 5 day. According to Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition, Part 5210 A, "Measurements
that include nitrogenous demand generally are not useful for assessing the oxygen
demand associated with organic material."
The nitrogenous oxygen demand is exerted by the nitrifying organisms during the
nitrification process that occurs in secondary treatment. These organisms are not present
in raw influent or primary effluent in sufficient numbers to cause oxidation of nitrogen
forms. 'Using an inhibitory' chemical can pre'veiit this interference with the oxygen
demand.
Attached are comparison values between BOD and CBOD. These values
demonstrate the interference caused by the nitrogenous demand.
1 /Z-1 /0I - F la 55 VA- 1;r2-1 cE. `TI-IN (AA sT i c - u-ItrM 174 1,W"A. t T of
501)/L 60D5 (, -,4riz -wi (o
Lou .3 nu..) ,
PC-.&5E (ZEP - 1,tA4-t
P.O. BOX 10 a WILSON. NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 • TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX: [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

Mr. Goodrich
Permit Modification
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call me at (252)
399-2491. Your attention to this request is appreciated.
/e,e,t,'‘_t_
Russell P. Brice
Water Reclamation Manager
Cc: Charles W. Pittman, III
Barry Parks
Debra Collins
Jim Cauley
Bill Ross
ACA

DATE
BOD
CBOD ,,,, ll,),)
09/07/2000
<1.0
(0.9)
<1.0
(0.8)
09/08/2000
<1.0
(0.4)
<1.0
(0.4)
09/11/2000
1.7
1.4
I,
09/12/2000
<1.0
(0.96)
1.4
'' ,`,.
09/13/2000
1.8
1.1
09/14/2000
3.4
2.1
i , '
09/15/2000
1.4
<1.0
(0.8) 1 i q
09/18/2000
2.2
1.3
I, 7
09/19/2000
1.6
1.4
I , I
09/20/2000
1.7
1.4
1 , 2.
09/21 /2000
2.5
1.6
1
09/22/2000
•
1.7
1.5
l ,1
09/25/2000
5.6
4.0
1.4
09/26/2000
12
-
3.2
5.5
09/27/2000
1.7
1.0
► ./
10/02/2000
3.4
1.9
tie
10/03/2000
2.2
1.6
I . i
10/04/2000
2.0
2.1
0 ,S
10/05/2000
4.0
2.2
I ,
10/06/2000
2.0
1.2
I i -7
10/09/2000
2.4
2.2
1,1
10/10/2000
2.3
1.6
I ,
10/11 /2000
2.0
1.6
I.3
10/12/2000
2.5
1.8
I.4
10/13/2000
2.2
2.4
6.9
10/16/2000
3.9
3.1
1,S
10/17/2000
3.0
1.6
I .9
10/18/2000
3.5
2.5
t ,1
10/19/2000
2.8
1.6
,
10/20/2000
2.7
1.2
, 2)
10/23/2000
3.0
1.9
1, b
10/24/2000
it,;,
7, r
w_
10/25/2000
1.
Effluent
4._.._ 1,5
31

Re: City of Wilson
\I/4 So NJ
!.)Coo
Subject: Re: City of Wilson
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 09:02:45 -0400
From: Susan Wilson <susan.a.wilson©ncmail.net>
To: Jimmy Pridgen <[e-mail]>,
Keyes McGee <[e-mail]>
sorry it took
resolution of
signature.
As far as the
1.4 cfs.
me awhile - had to dig the file out of Dave's office. After
the adjudication - the permit is done and is just waiting Dave's
7Q10s goes, Jimmy is correct - we slightly modified the flow to
Qavg flow was not used in the permit (we generally just work with 7Q10s flows),
but I would agree that 7.6 cfs is probably OK for your purposes (and
defensible).
Jimmy Pridgen wrote:
> Keyes and Susan,
> The 7Q10 value is actually 1.4 cfs. This is referenced from the most recent
> issued NPDES permit from summer 2000. (See transmittal letter dated
> 07/31/2000) The new NPDES permit is not officia l l in effect yet. There
> are still some discrepancies that are being worked out, but I think the 1.4
> cfs is final, as far as I know. Even though NCDENR said 1.4 cfs (was
> originally 1.3 in draft permit), the City felt that 7.6 cfs was more
> representative. This is the required m7nimum release from Buckhorn
> Reservoir to Contentnea Creek when the reservoir is 70% or more full.
> Even if I assume average flow of 7.6 cfs, I get 4.89 MGD for average stream
> flow. This yields a 5% MAHL for Methylene Chloride of 85.6548 lbs/day. I
> only have 1.15 Ms/day allocated to industry. should not be a concern.
> Keyes, please double check the values to be entered into Organic HIA for
> 7Q10 and Average Stream Flow. Are they supposed to be MGD as indicated, or
> should they be cfs which is the normal units for reporting these values?
> Thanks for everyone's help
> Jimmy Pridgen
> Pretreatment Coordinator
> City of Wilson
> Water Reclamation Facility
> P.O. Box 10
> Wi 7son, NC 27894-0010
>
> Phone: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Pager: [phone]
> E-mail: jpridgen@wi 7sonnc. org
original Message
> From: "Keyes McGee" <Keyes.McGee0ncmai7.net>
> To: "Susan Wilson" <susan. a. wi lson@ncma i 1. net>
> Cc: <jprid enOwi 7sonnc. org>
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:51 AM
> Subject: C7ty of Wilson
> > Susan,
> >
> > The City of Wilson is having to do a Pharmaceutical Organics Headworks
> > Ana 7ys7 s (o-HWA) . This Headworks requires both the 7Q10 and the average
> > stream flow for the receiving waters being discharged into. I do not
> > normally work with this POTw, so my knowledge is low about their
> > situat7on. I need to know Wilson's 7Q10 and the average flow of their
> > receiving waters. Does their effluent go into Hominy or Contentnea
1 of 2 9/11/01 9:07 AM

Re: City of Wilson
> > Creek? This is confusing.
> >
> > Mr. Jimmy Pridgen, the City of Wi lson's Pretreatment Coordinator, says
> > the POTW'S NPDES was issued based upon a 7Q10 of 1.47 MGD. The DWQ
> > Fi 1 maker Pro database shows a 7Q10 of 0.84 MGD.
> > Please give me a call, I would appreciate your insight. Thank you.
> >
> > --
> > Keyes McGee, E.I.
> > Environmental Engineer 1
> >
> > Pretreatment Un i t
> > Division of Water Quality
> > Department of Environment and Na tura 1 Resources
> >
> > Telephone: [phone], Extension: 580
> > Facsimile: [phone]
> >
> > NC-DENR, DWQ, PRETREATMENT
> > 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
> > RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
> >
2 of 2 9/11/01 9:07 AM

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax Jul 16 '01 14:19 P.01
r-Z-7-1-1r
M EE l
fo_ Susan Wilson
Pax #: Programmed
Subject: City or Wilson
Date: July 16, 2001
rages: 3, including this cover sheet,
COMMENTS:
Susan,
FAX
This seems reasonable especially since they (the Petitioners) have been extended every
courtesy. Please advise. If acceptable, l will respond via a letter as we discussed.
From the desk of..,
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attomey general
Department Of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
(919) 719-eseu
Fax: [phone]

WATER 8. LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Jul 16 '01 14:19
U7%la/.ruu1 1a:14 Nit LLUt2i.31U/0 crumm a arsIAJ41...L. LAW/
P. 02
L V V M **VW
PDYNER SPRU ILL L.L.R
ATTU R NETB .AT -LAW
July 13, 2001
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
,eta LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
EDvnomnental Division
Post Office Box 629
R u1eigl, North Carolina 27602-1 29
Re: City of Wilson, 00E1E1292
n. oterak 1'me
Attorney -at -um
Dist Dial: 919.783.2842
hgthunggpOrtergzliaCCm
www.poynerp+uf! Leom
.othtr Rmcc=: Chador Abdcy Mount
Dear Ms. LeVeaux:
1 am wriling in response to your letter of Juue.ZZ, 2001, in which you stated tit DWQ
aacepis the city of Wilson's old to meet ammonia limits of 1 and 2 an or before rely 1, 2004.
You said m your letter that your clients would agree. to thia condition, provided that upon the
epiration of the permit on May 31, 2003, the City of Wilson would not object and contest the
ammonia limits of 1 and.2. In a subsequent tcicpbone conversation, I said that my clits would
awe not to contest limits of 1 and 2 so long as those Limits were generally applicable to other
early situated diargars. You asked that I. suggest language to that effect that could be
included in a permit condition. The following is our suggestion_
We suggest that emits be shown in the appropriate columns on page A. (2.) "EFFLUENT
LNITATIONS IN MONrr'oR1NO REQWRP NTS - i iAL„ to show 2.0 mall (April 1
through October 31) and 4.0 mg11(November 1 through March 31). Then show in parenthesis
suit to those two limits the future limits of 1.0 mg/1 and 2:0 mall wfb. a footnote adjacent to
each. The ceding footnote would state the following:..
The limits of 2.0 w tl April I through October 31 end 4.0 mg11.
November 1 march. 31 shall be in effect mmti1 July 1,
2004, of which time new limits of 1.0 mgti juld 2.0 rag/l shams
become effective. The peimiittee ages that it will not challenge
the new limits when this permit is renewed solong as such .limits
arc. generally applicable to major dischargers in the Neuse River
I hope this provision is acceptable to the DON'R. and that we can conclude this matter. As
I understand it, the permit will be changed to reflect our final agreement on limits and theme will
26D0 eIetvabud Avenue. RelaiDh. NJ ; 27612 q P.D. Box 1013S6, Raleigh. NG 27605_00515 • B12.783.6400 Tel [phone] Fax

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax :[phone] Jul 16 '01 14:20
U 7 /15/2UU1 15 :14 FAA V107001075 alnri K !k O:M1i4,L LLrY
r ; r
P. 03
Ut2 'U1J)
—POYNERR5PRUILLT,J_
Anita LeVcaux
July 13, 2001
%se 2
be no settlement agreement, but rater the City of Wi :Fill amiss the contested case with
psejud cc once it has wed the revissa permit. Don't hesitate to contact me to discuss this
matter farther.
Sincerely,
EL Glenn Dunn •
EGD:sam
RAIEG1U01Eo31•10913asi lid v3

PUYNERO5PRUILLL.t_p .
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
•
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Re: City of Wilson — Contested Curse
Dear Anita:
96t,wr r-
gI,lvo
s13%1v3
3 q(2.. k-oµ
1\Ion
June 8, 2001
inn Dunn
toy-ttt-Law
t Dial; 919,783.2842
ingpoytterspruill.com
poyne rspnnu.com
Otter offices; Charlotte, Rocl y :Mount
RECEIVED
JUt! Lt 1 Ott.
N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL.:
Environmental Division
I am writing in response to.your offer of settlement in the above -referenced matter. As..1
understood your offer, it was that DENR would agree to place a limit for NH1 as N of 2 mg11
(summer) and 4 mg/I (winter) into.: Wilson's NPDES Permit to be effective three (3) years from
the date of issuance of the Permit, Which would be until September 1, 2003. After that date, the
limits would go to 1 mg/1 and 2
Wilson officials are disappointed that DENR did not accept their proposal to have the 2
mg/1 and 4 mg/1 limits remain in effect until the monthly averas;e flow from the permitted outfaF1
exceeds 12 mgd for three months -in any consecutive six moLith period. We telt that that was .a
very fair proposal since 12 mgd is. the flow for which Wilson has been permitted at the highisr
NH3 limit. We ask that DENR reconsider this proposal.
If DENR continues to reject our proposal and prefers to write the 2/4 limits into tli:e
Permit for a specific time period, then the City proposes that that time period 'be three (3) years
from the date of execution of the settlement agreement. The three (3) year period was mentioned
in a settlement meeting earlier this year and it was Wilson's understanding that it was proposed
to be from the time of settlement, This schedule will allow Wilson ample time to plan for the
improvements necessary to meet the 1/2 limits, to fund the improvements, and then to combine
construction with some sludge improvements that Wilson intends to make in the future.
Combining the two projects will result in significant savings to the City, and we believe that
DENR should be amenable to this since it is DENR which gave Wilson's engineers incorrect
limits to start with.
360C3 Glenwnnd Avanuc, Raleigh. NC 27312 • P.O, Box 10096, Raleigh, NC 27605,0096 * 919.783.8407 Tel • 919.183.10'5 l=ax
O0 'd 9T : ST TO, VT unf 99L9-9TL-6T6: Xed NOI103S GNd1 8 ealdl1

POYNE IR..ki SPRI_ IL_L ��.A
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
Anita LeVeaux
June 8, 2001
Page 2
I hope that your client will agree to the scttictcnt. Wc consider a fair one under the
circumstances. If you have arty questions don't hesitate to contact me.
IIGD:dl
RAI.EIUi1U018031-003301973 v.1 0til011/01
Sincerely,
H. Glenn Dunn
£0'd ZZ:ST TO, VT unf
99L9-912.-616: xP3 NOI193S QNd5 '8 Naldlrl

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] May 8 '01 11:15 P.02
vuo U f / tUU. 11; 14 rm. ULU Y*0 . uyo *PUYNrit & SPRUILL*
w aax/oo3
2
fAJ 2001
PUYNET112115PRUILL
ATTORNEYS• AT•I.AW
May 7, 2001
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney G nvxa1
I.O. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh. North Carolina 27602.0629
Re: City of Mon - NPDES Permit
Dear Anita:
FL Gnu Duaa
Attorney-a=Law
Direct Diet 919_783_2842
Iteduan@poyagrapruiLoom
wwwpoynasenall aan
Other avow Cbveiatte, Rocky Moat
5/11 tikmAlp Irk - :1 D
{ 5 tAJA-s cczerAPAS,
Necbzr, To tot- - To ,
b C L A- covAI E'f2.-
I In writing *gm the behalf of the City of Wilson to .proposo an app*o cL UP gaoling the
contested. ease regarding this mattcr.. Wilson can accept ell. of the Permit conditiaos to which it
has previously objcctcd except the limit for NH,.as N of 1 mg/1 (summer) and 2 mg/I (wdntec).
As you know fro= our discussions, Wilson was given speculative omits oft mg/1 and for 4 row
and this was never revised and, in fact, was stated as the applicable limit in the environmental
impact assessment that was later approved by DENR. la view of the additional expense that
would be caused in making the necessary improvements to .comply with the lower limit, Wow
believes a delay in the application of the limits is..ffairir and, based on my conversations wiUt yo
DWQ is amenable to considering delay in applicEolon of tbbe=limits until the permit is renewed on
May 1, 2003. Wilson does not believe that a deadlinb aim than two years would give adcquatc
time to make the improvementsimpNtvements required to meet such a limit Instead, we request that the
provision be written as follows:
The Department and the City of Wilson (tic "City) hereby agree
that the N :13 as N limits of 2,0 m ApaiI 1—:October 31] and 4.0
mg/1 [November 1- doh 311 which the City is authorized to
discharge =der NPDES permit No. NC 0023906 (the "Permit")
shall remain in effect until the monthly average flaw from the
permitted ou fall exceeds 12 mrgd for three months in any
consecutive six month period ands shall, coat hue in affect for as
add tionat two year period (the "Conslructton.Pe rod') staffing on
thi last day of the third myth In such six meitth period, at the end
of which the limits for NfB3 as N shall become 1.0 mg/1 [April 1—
October 31] and 2.0 mg/l [,November 1— Iviarch 31], as specified
in the Permit or any renewal thereof At the beginning of the two-
••••••11.11ERT.
31300 fillanwecd Avenue, Raleigh, NC 271312 • R.O. Elox 10dsa. Raleigh, IBC 271105.00813 • 818.703.13400 Tel
WE' w- o
OPPeari
�, 5t`7
C
5(tkii:r TA-
sr1
• 91 $.78©.1075 nut

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax May 8 '01 11:15 P. 03
Uosut/AUui if:io r44 ULU rod AUYD StrUY.PIBH lc brKULLAL41
% v/YJ! V VJ
PO i NER 5PRUILLLLR
Mite LeVern=
• May 7, 2001
Page 2
year construction mod, the city shall silica to the Defeat
plans for the yes necessary to mixt the 2.0/1-0 mel limits, -
and. shall develop in collaboration with the Department a
reasonable schedule for ebtaiOug necessary permits and for
verifying progress in construction of such facilities.
We hope that this proposal. will be satisfactory to ilia DENR. Wa balicvy that bee the
advantage Oar being tied to a t me Which Wilson Veltract3 on a 3oicWhat regular bass the level at
which DWQ belicvcs Qf I mgi1 and 2 ngitiboocailo ppropsit©
Please let ma lmow your clients' respbn a to this proposaL If it is wicable. we can
discuss how to write form for the settlement do cut. If you. have my questions, do not
hesitate to camfaetme.
Sincerely,
' a Glenn Dunn '
HGDiaa
StALEMPA18031.0030A0614xI

City of Wilson WWMF
Results for Low Level Detection Limits for Cadmium
on Effluents Samples from June —September 2000
Date of Collection
06/13/00-06/14/00
06/27/00-06/28/00 .
07/13/00-07/14/00 ✓
07/20/00-07/21/00 ✓
07/27/00-07/28/00
08/17/00-08/18/00 1
08/24/00-08/25/00 2
09/14/00-09/15/00 '
09/21/00=09/22/00
Result in u
< 0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.3
<0.2
<0.2

Aquatic Sciences Consulting
15751 Bushy Park Rd
Woodbine, Maryland 21 797
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
June 27, 2000
Mr. Russell Brice
Manager, Wastewater Treatment
City of Wilson
3100 Old Stantonsburg Rd
Wilson, NC 27893
Re: City's Discharge Permit (NC0023906) Issued by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR)
Dear Mr. Brice:
As requested, I have reviewed the subject draft permit with emphasis on the issues you raised,
particularly the proposed seasonal limits for ammonia -nitrogen, proposed limits for metals
(cadmium, chromium, nickel and selenium) and the proposed influent monitoring requirements.
A copy of the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for the current and upgrade flows
of 12 and 14 mgd, respectively, is shown in Appendix A.
In summary, I believe there is justification for not setting limits for cadmium, nickel and
selenium. My review also indicates that future ammonia -nitrogen limits (upon completion of the
upgrade) should be significantly higher than the proposed 1.0 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L for summer
and winter, respectively, based on the new federal criteria promulgated in December 1999. In
addition, although I did not have time to review the basis for the influent monitoring
requirements in the draft permit, I have questions about the need for daily monitoring. The
findings of my review, including recommendations for the final permit, are described below.
Critical Low Flow for Contentnea Creek
The Burkhorn Reservoir Dam was recently approved for impoundment and the minimum release
for the lowest reservoir storage is 1.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 0.905 million gallons per day
(mgd). DENR's approval letter is shown in Appendix B. The approved minimum release is
slightly higher than the seven-day low flow average for a ten-year period (7Q 10) used by DENR
for permitting the city's treatment plant discharge (i.e., 1.3 cfs or 0.84 mgd). Although this
increased low flow will not significantly affect the proposed permit limits, DENR should note
this change in the permit and revise the permit limits accordingly.

Russell Brice
City of Wilson
Page 2
June 27, 2000
Proposed Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel and Selenium Limits
DENR prepared a fact sheet, shown in Appendix C, which summarizes their analysis for
determining the "reasonable potential" for exceedance of water quality standards for selected
metals and cyanide. DENR used final effluent data for the period January 1998 through
December 1999 in their reasonable potential analysis (RPA), which is shown in Appendix D.
As part of the RPA, it is important to consider the potential effect of treatment plant
modifications or industrial user discharges on the concentration of pollutants of concern. In
reviewing the metals data, it is apparent that nearly all of the higher effluent concentrations were
reported prior to October 1998. The trend in lower effluent metals concentrations since
September 1998 is depicted in Figure 1. The decrease in metals levels coincides with the
permanent bypass of the fine solids settling basins (i.e., ponds taken out of service September
1998). The basins were originally designed for enhanced clarification of effluent suspended
solids; however, poor solids settling led to effluent violations of five-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BODS) and ammonia -nitrogen (Hazen & Sawyer, 1993) and the basins were
subsequently taken out of service.
C:ITEMPIPermit Review Letter (Jun 23 00).doc
06/29/00 7:18 AM

Russell Brice
City of Wilson
Page 3
June 27, 2000
Figure 1. Trend in Effluent Metals Concentrations [Note: apparent increase in nickel and
selenium since July 1999 is due to higher minimum detection level (MDL); values shown
are <MDL]
The bypass of the fine solids settling basins is a major treatment process change that apparently
has significantly affected (improved) final effluent metals concentrations. The basins are similar
to eutrophic natural ponds or lakes such that anaerobic conditions occur when organic solids
settle to the bottom and biological activity consumes the available oxygen. Evidence of low
oxygen levels in the basins was gathered during monitoring in 1997 (see Appendix E). Under
oxygen -reduced conditions, it is well-known that iron and manganese are cycled from sediments
to the water column (Wetzel, 1975). Other metals, including chromium, copper, mercury,
selenium and zinc can also be mobilized from sediments or settling particles to the water column
by chemical reaction under oxygen -reduced conditions or microbial transformation (Langston
and Bebianno, 1998; Huang et al., 1995). Of course, physical mixing during the spring and fall
overturn can also increase metals levels in lake or basin surface waters. These phenomena
appear to be likely reasons for the higher metals concentrations observed in the city's effluent
35.00
J
30.00
= 25.00
,0
cu 20.00
v 15.00
U 10.00
_N 0
03 5.00 A A 0 II ®Q
a ■•
0.00 AAA
Jan-98 Apr-98 JuI-98 Nov-98 Feb-99 May-99 Aug-99 Dec-99
Date
prior to October 1998.
Fine Solids Basins
Taken Out of Service
C:\TEMP\Permit Review Letter (Jun 23 00).doc
06/29/00 7:18 AM
Cadmium
® Nickel
A, Selenium

Russell Brice
City of Wilson
Page 4
June 27, 2000
DENR's reasonable potential analysis was repeated using data that are more representative of
existing effluent quality (i.e., October 1998 through December 1999). In the case of cadmium,
the minimum detection limit (MDL) for analyses since July 1999 was much higher than previous
analyses (i.e., 2 µg/L vs. 0.04 µg/L). DENR uses one-half of the MDL for the RPA (i.e., 1 µg/L
and 0.02 µg/L, respectively); however, the maximum detected value when the lower MDL was
used for analysis was only 0.13 µg/L. These results show that the 2 µg/L MDL is much higher
than the observed effluent concentrations of cadmium; therefore, the data set should not include
the values since July 1999. A total of 10 data points were used for the cadmium RPA
(September 1998 - June 1999), which is above the minimum number of data points
recommended by DENR. The city plans to conduct future cadmium analyses using the lower
MDL. A total of 16 data points were used for the RPA for chromium, nickel and selenium.
The results of the RPA are shown in Table 1 and Appendix F. The RPA shows no reasonable
potential for exceedance of the water quality standards for cadmium., nickel and selenium. These
results indicate that permit limits for cadmium, nickel and selenium are not necessary given the
very low probability of exceedance of the water quality standards.
Proposed Seasonal Limits for Ammonia -Nitrogen
As discussed, the ammonia -nitrogen limit is based on water quality criteria, which consider the
toxicity of ammonia instream. For the past several years, EPA has been reevaluating the original
ammonia criteria that were developed in 1987. In December 1999, EPA issued revised criteria
that better incorporates the effect of pH and temperature on ammonia toxicity and addresses the
C:ITEMP\Permit Review Letter (Jun 23 00).doc
06/29/00 7:18 AM

Russell Brice
City of Wilson
Page 5
)une 27, 2000
Table 1. Reasonable Potential Analysis Using Representative Effluent Data
(Oct 1998 - Dec 1999)
Statistics
Metal
Cadmium Chromium Nickel Selenium+
No. of Data Points 10 16 16 16
Maximum (ug/L) 0.13 23.00 12.00 1.00
Standard Deviation (ug/L) 0.04 6.09 3.27 0.39
Coefficient of Variation 0.86 1.21 0.90 0.64
Multiplier* 4.50 4.80 3.60 2.70
Max. Predicted Effluent Conc. (ug/L) 0.59 110.40 43.20 2.70
Allowable Effluent Conc. (ug/L)** 2.13 53.23 93.69 5.32
Max. Predicted > Allowable Conc.? No Yes No No
* Statistical multiplying factor from EPA (1991).
** Allowable effluent concentration based on 1.4 cfs (0.905 mgd) creek flow.
Water quality standard * (14 mgd + 0.905 mgd)/14 mgd.
+ Used effluent data for Sep 1998 - Jun 1999.
time period for averaging ammonia effects (see Federal Register, December 22, 1999 in
Appendix G and EPA, 1999). EPA's review showed that chronic effects should be averaged over
a 30-day period rather than the previously adopted 4-day period. The revision effectively
increases the chronic criteria by 2 to 2.5 times.
DENR's proposed ammonia limits are based on the old ammonia criteria (personal
communication, Susan Wilson, DENR, June 27, 2000). Obviously, the limits should be revised
to reflect the current criteria, which are shown in Appendix H.
Ammonia limits were estimated using the new criteria and the results are summarized in Table 2
and Appendix I. The ammonia criteria were derived from EPA's updated criteria tables
(Appendix H). The criteria were selected using the maximum temperature and pH for the
summer (April to October) and winter (November to March) periods (Burlington Research, Inc.,
1999-2000). The criteria for protection of the early life stage of fish were used for the April to
October period and the criteria for protection of juvenile and adult fish (non -spawning) were
used for the November to March period. The wasteload allocation for ammonia was then
C:ITEMP\Permit Review Letter (Jun 23 00).doc
06/29/00 7:18 AM

Russell Brice
City of Wilson
Page 6
June 27, 2000
Table 2. Revised Chronic Ammonia Criteria and Estimated Permit Limits (mg/L)
Low Flow Case Chronic Wasteload Long -Term Maximum Monthly Avg
Criteria* Allocation (WLA)** Average (LTA) Daily Limit (MDL)+ Limit (AML)+
Apr - Oct 2.25 2.40 1.87 2.40 2.39
(Early Life Stage
Present)
Nov - Mar 3.85 4.10 3.20 4.10 4.09
(Early Life Stage
Absent)
* Based on pH and temperature of 6.9 and 29°C for Apr - Oct 1999/2000 and 7.6 and 15 °C, respectively, for
Nov - Mar 1999/2000. Data collected by Lower Nuese River Basin Association.
• based on 1.4 cfs (0.905 mgd)
+ MDL and AML derived using 30-day averaging period and 30 samples, respectively.
calculated using the 7Q10 flow value of 1.4 cfs. The subsequent calculation of the long-term
average (LTA) concentration and the maximum daily and average monthly limits incorporates
the new 30-day averaging period recommended by EPA (Federal Register, December 22, 1999).
The estimated permit limits show that the summer/winter limits should be 2.3 and 4.1 mg/L,
respectively. It should be noted that the maximum daily and average monthly limits are the same
because the long-term average (LTA) concentration is averaged over thirty days (one month). A
monitoring frequency (n) of thirty samples was selected for the average monthly limit calculation
because EPA recommends that the "n" value "should not be less than the averaging period upon
which the criterion value is based" (Federal Register, December 22, 1999, p 71976).
Influent Monitoring Requirements
The draft permit includes daily monitoring requirements for influent BOD5 and TSS. Percent
removals of BOD5 and TSS by the treatment plant are relatively consistent; therefore, it seems
that weekly influent monitoring should be sufficient. Further review of the federal and state
regulations is needed to confirm this monitoring requirement.
C:ITEMP\Permit Review Letter (Jun 23 00).doc
06/29/00 7:18 AM

Russell Brice
City of Wilson
Page 7
June 27, 2000
References
Burlington Research, Inc. 1999 - 2000. Lower Neuse River Basin Association (LNBA) Summary
Reports.
Federal Register, December 22, 1999. Water Quality Criteria; Notice of Availability; 1999
Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia., Vol. 64, No. 245, pp. 71974-71980
Hazen & Sawyer, 1993. Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Study. Prepared for the
City of Wilson, March 1993.
Huang, C.P., C.R. O'Melia and J.J. Morgan (ed). 1995. Aquatic Chemistry: Interfacial and
Interspecies Processes. American Chemical Society.
Langston, W.J. and M.J. Bebianno (ed). 1998. Metal Metabolism in Aquatic Environments.
Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, U.K.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality -
based Toxics. Control. EPA-505-3-90-001. EPA Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Ammonia. EPA-822-R-99-014. EPA Office of Water.
Wetzel, R.G. 1975. Limnology. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA.
Aquatic Sciences Consulting (ASC) appreciates the opportunity to assist the city of Wilson.
Please call me at [phone] if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
John A. Botts
Principal Scientist
C:ITEMP\Permit Review Letter (Jun 23 00).doc
06/29/00 7:18 AM

WILSON WASTE WATER
BIG SHEET log 7
April, 1997
Rou S1LL
f1 Pr1. Digesrer
pH
TSS
TYSS BDD
NH3
TEMP
DO XTS
XTys
['Lott
eTcarb 15
MS
pH
TEMP
FIN
co2
VA
BA
VA/RADATE
•
-•...
•
;'.:5:66•
16:;
.. 0,8,`.
�.,.�:.
:�'i391ti�,
:. � �,
'••::.
T.3:?
„
;:n.::•..
264:.�2MC.:
�d+ a,.
w 2 7.2
< 1
< 1.0 4
6.53
17
2.1 4.5
64.0
16464
7.2
2T
33120
140
"`,130;
3100
`276111•
140.0
-'.
I.0•: 11.
7-4:1":.19•
••1-1; ':,s2
;:4:6:0-
...' :'.:::
•'..:: _• . •
7.
13+c
4
4.0 8
r 5.28
20
2.8 6.3
60.0
25835
100
7.3
25
250
2300
250.00
F
S.: 5 •..
..::.
6 i_
26815
27600
s
•c{..
"- 3i56
�Q� •.
'�:•
-•83•b :2M380n
:44?#¢.
.•:96
2900"
": b:fi10
_:6;7:� 1:. ;,'iltd'::..^:3:•:
7 8 7.1 16 8.0 3
4.14
i4 07,.::
"• .i1::"
19 0.3 5.3
20..:::•A:z -
62.0 24326
§1;0. Waal
NM -•�... ..::
°.. :•
7.1
'::''ems:.':;.
36
.<<
9268
::::1)40:
-'.,:::.....:2:.4.-
190
2900
:z as
190.00
X.Z.filik
.,: -4
0.3 5.3
62.0 28101
100
7-2
36
114111
340
2000
340.00
T 10 7.0 17 5;1 3
3.30
18
:..
7 f•
43999
..
11. • 7:0" $a?.. 3-'' • 3.�1
1!!
O Z:: ; 5,6
:.6¢.0. :.
:'"• • ::...
:.:
..
=
i2978
S 12
"
...
._.
...
r
337
':
.
.• 39
••480•
...
250
7.0'
12422
2500
480 DD
4.0 6 3.53
19
3.0
60.0
32423
': idol`
r
''
15 :':•: ,4.: ' : 4 0'. . '2 . '4r.07
' 8;:
'.:2.9% :.i1.0:::61;.0
;.27714.
::: ":.
" _:::"•
{ 7_0,
• .;��.:
:: C.=:19 99
7 .`.7.,0•
6.9 6 6.0 3 4.55
19
0.2 5.9
61.0
23109
4.2
57.0
7.2
29
130
-
2000
•
130.00
w16
: 4:45
:. 1Q:,
::0:r4::.
', 61,0
. .
-.7'.:'.
:..
•_
•
. . .1g0
... ...
..
Ili
T 17 &8 • 11 .. 11•.0 •
60.0
...Wl34:
100
F 18 7.1 6.0 9 2.99
19
0.5
19
__-_
S 20
• ::::
"'
, :;:: 9:.:: .:.. '3
11,:
:.,0:1_'. ;.':bi7;':'60
0";
:..::.:'-":.
;`:.'' :•' :::.::• . :
: • ••::
.21: .4.61
.i::20;::
19
0.6 6.3
61.0
100
22 7 2 V 4.0 a 5.54
-.;'.,
"3 •5 28'
_:013'
'5-
•.6-4.'
•...
• ;:
.: n
.:::j
-
.f: ...
...•.
.
:«%i.
11. ::45::11M.
..16
6.0
62.0
100
24 6.9 < 1 < 1.0 ' 4
3.44
16
0.5
1
Era - "6.9'- 111.. .14 '-5
:5 10
=19•:.
:0:4;
...'g:1
:61:1.
..1i '
.•
28
S :
•
4
7
6.57
20
0. 3
5.0
64.0
100
M 28 6.9 9
6.0
.
:z.•,_.:"••
WINIIINEIREE
2 •IL§ •-1?4
: . 3':'�544�•
.4.0
: fib:'_
_ _
:p oo'
.:,...•;:
.•..:
II 30 6.9 7
.:.:•-'
4
5.90
19
0.9
5.3
62.0
_-�-�_-
7
1,1S 4
4.81
19
0.9
5.6
61.8
24600
150 4.2
57.0
32
37059
217
2508
217.17
AyG
6.1 17
11'.0' 11
7.47
20
3.0
6.3
66.0
33632
300 4.2]
57.0
7.3
40
114111
480
3100
480.00
MAX
NIX 6.7 < 1
< 1.0 2
2_v9
16
0.1 4_5
60.0
13956
100 4.2
57.0
7.0
25
9268
96
2000
96.00

WILSON WASTE WATER
BIG SHEET pg 6
April, 1997
one/ Pond 1 Bard 2
RAIN MAX
I
Air
NIN Air
pH
TSS
TV5S
KO
RH3
TEMP
D0
pH
TSS
7VSS
B00
NH3
TEN
00
DATE
�
i
5:67
16
0-:4:
: "
lb •>
"•.�'�.
�
':�!•;
7:D
3
�.d�" ...Z4
• 4
7.� ..
_ .�+.
I.E
.....
-
'T-�.:,";.;
V 2
20
6
7.8
1
< 1.0
6
6.72
19
0.2
7.4
1
< 1.0
4
6.46
18
0.6
22
' s- •
':9.:0
:<.-1
1 1,.0
..14; ::¢:50.:.;''
'0:4.•
:. .:-,
' ":3.::r'2.0
as'
T;13
::.Q:9-`
F4
4.
28
8
7.2
5
< 1.0
9
5.47
24
1.5
7.2
5
3.0
8
6.05
21
2.5
... . :1
9 6
-
•:T
<<iTi-::��'?7...'.:i?"^•
:•LSD:.
�'•::?
° °:6�Q.
:4::':;•3';:�
..21•``O.Z;
.
'6:�
�•?:.:
�ti;0.
4 _
+C:0
..3 �1•
-a3..
�li
8
28
8
7.1
12
2.0
3
4.87
20
0.9
7.1
24
14.0
3
5.21
20
0.5
T
ti
; -1.
:4: ..'9..
:• •:.'.CO'
: 1'?Q:.•
..;O:Z::
.1' 1 ••
_ 4,
..i2=0
.: :
%`4sO'
T 10
18
5 6.9
25
6.7
6
4.07
18
0.2
6.9
21
4-0
4
3.39
18
0.3
•0:.,;•
-
•:0:'•
•:; 3 '
.. _ 10
:.3
..:i.33"..
..
:�9�.•
1•ib•
'>'r'.1:..
---., 4..._
COL
�_ " •ti-'
•-4.i;}i'
`•?:19 •
:
F 1l
•_
. , :f.�
. •;
_ _
S 12
'7.0
19,
2.1�
1.1
8
6
3.74
19
2.6
M 14 0.2
25
7 7.0
6
6.0
8
4.02
..:19�;,'..-f
i 11 "
' 19
5..: •::7,1:•
:"•:5.A.1:O'..:;
.... '••
_1.,.•,:Vi9...--2
o•:
•!"t.;1:
-.:.�.•
51.0
::::•.4•
"4:447'
-
T.
22
3 6.8
L4.0
4
5_10
20
0.3
7.-
9
d
4
4.96
20
0.6
Y 16
13:
.9,0
ice.
.!� :
• 0 ;q
. 43'•
•'10•� i'T.1.:.:'.:'.1f
:1d.0:
:7:
•;4.40.•.:19'...
�:5•
,
.•7.? -
.. •
�7••9
•• •
....
F.18
18
4 6.9
8 1
8_0
7
3.79
19
0.9f
6.8
T
7_8
7
3.75
19
0-7
_
9 20
"'
A: 1: -
-25•
5 ,`6:9.
: 75'
. . :
;r'.: :.:;
21'• '
: 1.5
7.1 s
? :
-:. •
•" :_5y
: 4. :
:40
: 0:
T 22 0.9
- ..
29
:
11 7.0
13
/+n
d
S.11
19
0.5
7.1
9
5.0
5
5.38
19
0.4
:- •
.. 1Q,. .•,641:.
%i'
:.0:'
•.:4::"6:'1d:
:18'-':'......1-2:
.--
3Z
.c6"
< i.10
T 24 0.1
.13
9
7 6.9
1
1_0
5
4.86
18
0.9
7.0
8
4.0
7
3
18
0.2
` `
!�
a Sty
•:7. : .9
10`
. :8•:O
- "1:::
'3 i66;
-
„•:19::_•
-i1=9
.i&4.-
'10
:6 0:.
1:tr.y.'
.,19:•
. . .
�"
x•; -
...
_
....
;'..
:::.
,.4:
'9.66
:. ..'
9lJ'9
T
~r0.5`
11
0.7
22
8
7.0
12
7.Or
O.i
6.7
.0
•
6.12
' `
2D
-e7
..8
:11-.:.
„.
' (:7-
-5 b.
•:
": ::{
,.5.74
, •, 0,
1 Oi
. 9•
' "
:.:3._
~',;At Y
.-10'
35i,:::..
0.5
V 30
0.5
21
22
6
7
...
6.9
6
5
4.0
4.5
4
5
5.78
5.06
20
19
0.6
0.9
6.9
13
9
9.3
4.9
5
5
5.75
4.98
20
19
D.8
AVG
29
15
9.0 25
10.6
14
6.72 24
2.4
8.5
24
14.0
15
7.13
21
2.6
MAR
0.9
16
0.1
6.5
1
< 1.0
1
3..39
16
0.2
M111
�
c0.I
9
0 _
6.8 < 1
< 1.0
1
3-79

A'I SON WASTE WATER
BIG SHEEP pg 7
May, 1997
Pond 3
Ram Sludge
11 Pri. Digester
pH
TSS
TV•SS
HOD
HH3
TEMP
DO
%TS
%TVS
FLOWBicerb
XIS
%TVS
pH
TEMP
FLOW
CO2
VA
BA
VA/BA
DATE
7 J.
TA:
:: 3-
:t:1;0
:....3:•
5.33
': "'2:;
:... ....
...
..
........
_..
•._.
__
...
F 2
6-8
4
4.0
4
7.36
20
0.3
5.2
62.0
78512
•
IIIIIIIMIIIIMIIIIM
S 4
33120
M:5
:..Z:1:.
`..6:
.:3:0
.'.:3.
'7:10:-_
207.
4;0.
.'.5t0:.76i•.0
.. -..•
.....
•-
•
:...
•-
... .
.
_...
T 6
7.7
12
6.0
6
7_22
20
0.2
5.1
60.0
4.5
4.8
7.2
220
3000
220.00
11•:':7
E:;'?.8'.:•
"4-'.
'::'i:::
4::
.. 6 . •
_ ' x1::_:....Z.
' . }:Q::i60.o:
,;;' ..
.::156'
. -..
... ......
.
1 8
6.5
10
4.0
4
6.83
23
0.8
5.1
61.0
200
f,.g
:-:7.,1i'.
-'
.;
::.. 5':.
�G.89
:a:: .9-2
. �
4.S
'}bZ�.O
.:.'�
300i
.
-
....
s 10
_. ..
100
M 12
7.3
13
8.0
8
8.41
21
0.4
4.4
60.0
'SA
:: 22-
• :1'.5'^
.:..4:3
60.0::_
.. " :, :'•:
-: •200:
::..
4-
Y 14
7.1
9
4.0
7
6.12
21
1.1
4.1
63.0
400
: '• ..4:1
; 62. O.;
. ' ....
•_
•
` _•
.. ....
IIIIIII
F 16
7.6
2
1.0
9
7.82
21
4.0
63.0
200
s 18
KAI
7i7:0.
' ::
'. 2.0
_. -. i. •
14.' 0::::?.33'•:
•::940r
,::'4:4'
:--62.0
..... . • "
. '•
-: ....
..
_--
"....:.
T 20
6.9
2
2.0
12
18.20
24
0.5
4.2
63.0
•
'
...
U:21
•.:..:T,0:'•
:::'-18'-
;1e 80
: -'24•.
:: Ot1.::
•..4ra
.'44 ::
..
:::::21**
•..
•...
• ...
T 22
- 7.1
22
10 0
' 17-
20 1
-xi
- 0 6
4:7`
A?.0
200,
-
-F'23
_•.T'1:".
• :•
?Pr::'1
:0•
:: '
2�:7Q:
:'�%�
.O:a::
:i '
t .:.
Od
....
:-
r ;:
4�
. ...•-
S 24
-�
-�-5
11556
200
-_
s:
'.....
:
,:
....
.....,..
M 26
--
8855
100
Mi`:7.0.
11 28
7.0
.'-I0':.7.:4:0,
:i:
26:
2•T•'
,.-;- .;.'12-_P'....«..;:.
.:,104
..:
...
'
14
12.0
13
21.50
21
0.8
5.4
60.0
100
-_
..
T.2Q
..7�1:•
,.}`{t�
-.d�-.
'(�;•
,:22t.:-
5.,7;
f�i:-i}:
.,^
-
....
F 30
1.0�
.;-25."
12
6.0
-
12
10.90
23
5.4
60.0
.
10
5_8
9
12.26
21
1.3
4.8
61.4
9787
182
4.5
4.8
70331
220
3000
220.00
7.8
26 16_0
17
25.30 24
4.0
5.7 63_0
11556
400
4.5
4.8
---7:2
99360
220
3000
220_00
MIN
6.5
2 < 1_0
3
5.33 2
0.2
4.0 60_0
aa55
50
4.5
4.8
7.?
53120
220
3000
220.00

L.4
Cs3
E- •
CsJ
ir=
BIG SHEET pg
May, 1997
°TILER
Pond 1 Pawl 2 1
RAIN
MAX AI r
Kim AS r
pH
TSS
TVSS
8C0
SH3
TEMP
DO
pH
TSS
1VSS
re
NH3
TEMP
DO
DATE
-t :
• - - : '.-.-
:-. .;
..:-.11.--.-
-1.8.
---:-...:.:4.:
..:-Z-..0.-
; ; .:..,.
: .;71:
:::: '21-:-.
: • .1434..
.--454-9::
:
iiigli:
i:3:-.11.1'3.::-•
:- 4.93.
: 3 .-.
".- O.:A.::
.1
F 228
10
6.8
8
8.0
5
6.94
2Z
0,5
6.9
16,
16.a
7
6. Ti
21
0.6
•
• •
s 4
WI.
:'•;:90--'
••••:Z.':'
-•-' -ef:'T.
:-.7-41:i.-
--#::-.':'-'6-':3)-'-''
`.'• ft
':6=ir
..::;..tt-M-i:1
..:.T.TO -•
.--.' --- -..-;
..::-.4,..i1.7•;".:',:.:5::
:.•633'
T 6
25
15
8.0
8
4.0
5
6.58
20
0.3
8.1
10
4.0
8
7.46
20
0.3
i. 1
•-..: • -
.: :?7::::
:::::;-;14:••••:•
::::1'.F.4.:-,
..'.....k..7..
A4:- :
-'-."-.9
--: ;10-
:::::.g:
--:--:ti;3-•-a••:.sr-tia.
-•.- - :.4::
:-...,',,..,4:
:,-,::--.*T.-'
::CI-S.
lf.'
1 8
26
14
7.0
14
< 1.0
8
6.59
21
0.3
6.8
18
< 1.0
8
6.52
21
0.4
F:'..:9
-I' ••;:•:
-;." • ?Fif''
. 1: :9-...
:17.....1....-
•-:,.--:8-:
- 5..3;
.- :.::..-'..7,,:.
-7.63:
.:-::::0:-:::
. ::.c(Itt,..
7.0:-
•::•-:•-••9••••••
r;••••!'.'
••:••••••::: 7.
'::.• a; i k •
-::-.Z4.:-
-; 02
s la
s11..-
-..: • ::"
•
. . . .
.
.. ..... .
. .... ....
.. . ,
.. -- ...- ..„
m 12
25
6
7.1
11
13.3
8
5.5.7
21
0-3
7.3
1.7
13.3
-4
9
8.46
20
':
0.2
t:- )3
' .:::
':-: Z - '
-:: :19:::-•
.: 7.%1'::
.:-.).! :--9::
-0.61
" : ' :-:
.:: 7-OZ'',7:W:--;
-...A 61. :
:... :
"--!:-.-'-P--
6•
-: 7:-.63
:girl
:4:0::
11 14
24
10
7.8
9
4.0
6
9.07
21
1.4
7.4
8
4.0
6 .
8.53
22
1.4
110:
- :
.
:::: .17.'t.
"'7fft.';:
:::, 24:
..Attl•
...-:•.-R-
:4-:•44:
.;.::4•:-
`:•11.4!"
' ...I._ -5 ':
.... !Ai:::
i ......;*
• i -•::;:: 8 . '
::••Rtgi:
• ...:n3'-•
.....gi?.:
F 16
•ZIS'...
28
10
7.2
22
19.8
8
6.55
22
3-0
7.2.----2
2-0
8
7.26 4
21
2.9
... -
-.:".:- •
-- ;
.,... -A.:Z.
;:-: -.....:-:..::
;..:17?.:--.7-•
s le
7..
: ....
- :-..-
...-.N :=.
..:;.:13-':,
,...-::(101:
-lit:
--•:..:;30Y.
':1.?:0:
_'_' z-14:':
'ft! R.SI •
\ •.•-• •:•2-4-.;
T 20
33
24
6.7
24
0.9
6.8
ZS
18-0
15
18.90
24
1-6
21
-z.0:1-::
..za:::.i
11:11:-...::;.
:i7§fi:4,-;
1'....;',.0:.t
`:1.:i0
- 6.;,7_ •
.:-' • 7:0‘:
7:475.7
'.: :: 1.5;
49; 5.0-
7 72
7c
13
r_ 7
2A
id, n
IA
74 an
?4
n c
._ 7 1
an
1A ,n
14
77.411
N.
n. 1.
T.--
".....'.
-.:.*- fs-''.
-: • :1?: ::'
-
a
...: ..1*- .
:-2));.40L
:-;-. ,,V i:.;
:::: 9 4„
...74:::
;::.:..:.*?..,;
-::; gpioi:
:-...-sIg,....
-7p,c0:
:::,:.4...?
s 24
v.
.
S...
--:--..-- --'.'
-
.::
:: ,--'-i-.-.;
--;--•.1.
• '-.
;' .-:---,;:::1....-:
:%:;,?.;::.:2"..•••:-.-,-;
:-
..,:::',:,;-:;::
-.-..-.1. - -
-. - :
-' :-:-.---'-;
':' ::-...: -.-"
.": ".. '.
• .... '''-‘. -.
..-....-
-.• :'.--.
.."'-i!.....".'
.
1426
..
• '.0s4---
- : 11: •
'. -:::'.4.i.t::S,
.:1f.,6.,,736-f
'1.!at..ti•
.: :.14,:.
240,.,
•,....7:4.:
,61iifirz:.
:14.....:-...Z..1.i:....::.:14;.;:--21;i•
:1-1.-:6:0::'.
l 28
22
9
7.1
24
12-0
14
21.10
22
1.0
7.0
30
18.0
12
20-90
22
0-2
-...ti.754.
: -._•!:2D:.
-:. -IVA:
...:;- -...:,-;,.
.;8.-i. _ -
::::Xt 7
i_Y:._ :.:1.:
• _-r,D •
' --.: 7::
-•;-- .Vik
::--- z ::..-*,?!-.;,
.:...if..9---
::::::?M'i
F 30
27
:::•-,:::
....• : i.:,
.f.----:;•-=`•7c'
- ••• • ••-:.::
• •
- - .:.-4:.-.::
• ;.:":::::
';:,::;:;:-;:r.
' :-.:::::;..,:
:::::; •.?-:
'f.:f:-.„
,•'-•: 'T.:' :f.,,::..f'-,:.`-:
..:,i:;;.:::
';:,:,F.• ;„:,...4
AVG
0.2
26
12
.: '
17
10-9
10
11-70
22
0.9
19
10.0
10
11.73
22
0_9
141X
0.4
33
24
8.0
45
27.5
16
26.00
24
3.0
8.1
70
47.5
16
23.10
24
2.9
MIN
0.1
22
6
6.7
2
< 1.0
3
5.57
20
0.2
6.7
2<
1.0
5
4.93
20
0-2

13.1G SHE.ET p g 7
March, 1997
Pond 3 RNA Sludie $1 Pri. Digester
pH
TSS
TVSS
BCD
N113
TEMP
DO
%TS
XIV5
FLOW
IF
Bicarb
%TS
XTV:3
pH
TEMP
FL
�12
VA
BA
vA/A
DATE
-
••••••
S.:-.1.
•
.
....,
••••••.
- • "
:•"••...
-'•••
.076.
. . ••
•••:•-•
• ....
„ .:
.
s 2
, 18437
';.;•.
••:2900..200.:00
4- • 3
• • 6.9
• 14.:
: - 4 :-:
2:6.'6.1
7 . 18 ,
• 0:5 -
• :•-ft:7
: 63,9
-.26971:
. : •••
• ••• •••
.:•::•••••••
•:•:.7.ai .
.. 14-
24848:
.. -..:::• •
:-.•zoll:
t 4
7.2
..•2
8
1.0
3
5.70
17
0.8
4.6
62.0
21001
I
7.3
28815
,
62
281:0
62.00
it... 5
.:7.4. .
: 2.
i Ira
••••••::5•::
....:7t.34
•-• ‘...19-.:.i.:.0,2i•
...4.-.8•.:.!0.-.6.--...32ap3-
: - - :
' -.--7••
-:' ::--:
::. • '
.,:-:,:
:•...-. :m274:
';,:-17::.
200..:
MR
209•14
T 6
7.0
.•
34
24.0
6
5.69
17
2.3 _
7.4
77.0
4.6463
7_4
27
25197
130
2900
130.00
•1,•:.7
:..:,5. .itf..:-
:
' '.41....d.
:.-...•.f.::4".
;....7.32'
-*'• 14•••••
-0;3.:
.... 5 ..,...44,0;'1'.,•.--:.3a3fl•
-
- -...
'z'.......
.-..7.3';
":.:2t?./.:
..-%-e--';:-.
':.*.:1'..,.;)‘..-',..:.;MO:
K;.4800:
0040
5 e
33034
62327 .
8-9
-• . -..
• •.
:.:"::..:.:.
••••:'••
:/.•••:••:.•.-...-
•
. ::.
•• •.,.-••••
• •
:.::•71.1.1
"•••
•••••:.:•::;•:••,;;,
.,.......
.'- -;44160;a:.:,•;::::
..--.:: ...;
:•..:"•....:
;...:...•::.
M 10
H7.0
20
12.0 '
8
5.34
17
1.3
5.1
61.0'
30295
7_1
360
2300
350_00
-.--•••-••
T:at
..z...0
: it!
: ..7.:0 P
.."4-:
. -..-18-
''. -2.4'
"...:5'....4'...].:•660..
!, --s.: Am.!,
• .:-/:
'..1..:•:::•:•::
:';'.•:::.:
:: ::
• •17-41.
.
. .......•
w 12
7_2
.
4
2.0
13
...,...
4.09
17
0.8
5.0
65.0
41233
7.3
27
16596
54
2600
54.00
1:.•13,
• 7z:.
• 5 .,
-3..0.-
' :::?:.
::5.97.
*TO':
115;!-
..:•4.-•.•••.048.•:.::-.00.0:
: '1•--.*:
:.-:::
."-.•••••:.:•::•:!;17.4.-!
••1?•••••
•••••....691-00-:%.-..-
.. •
.'. .150:
.:Rigir::
450:'00
7_50
F 14
7-3
6
3.D
3
7.63
16
0.2
4.9
64.0
21997
7.6
25465
8
2700
....,-.....
6"..1$.
•
• '
:.•-•'-....-
:: ':::.
.. • ..:
- -:
......'•':'
. ". :'..: :,
•:•• ....IMP.
`... '• • '
. : .1
;s: •
. • 1
•••'• •
-. -'.1E, -
••• .• :-...*:
..,.. .
.
.. .
14.9;00I
s 16
....,••••••
.
..
13175
P111.
• A:
...8
4-.. •
14-
• -54i.
- 16 ''':
2...0:
:3.4.
.403;0
;•',' 21$6‘i
• . ..
::
..-;:.'....:
:-:•7:3,.;
.. ... .....
' • -.49064'
:::':,.'....
IX.,
';-150.
T 18
6.9
6
< 1.0
2
4.21
17
2.1
5.3
63.0
25534
7.2
....-:.
110
3000
110.00
.•-::. ;
.--.12•
: •.4:0;
••••.`..'•::5;.-
:.•-4.:14 :•
- 15.
:•:2:8-.
.*•.5,5;
:•.64`..0-:•.:,•••••-••3
0
-'..:"- '
••• rn.
-,..,:t......f..::::.:-••,17:4
.•.: 35. :
::,::23399.
..- . .:- ..
;,:2400.::.
:0010 :
.19Qi`..,
160.00
.151
T 20
7.8
11
< 1.0
3
6.38
17
0.2
5.6
64.0
7.3
34
65958
160
3300
..al
...-49:
:.: ,fr
-..< 1.:,G:.
:.•::-.4:.
.3'.96.
-:':.16,...::•1•Z01.
,..:S.:6,
... .
'•••••;:i.;;.;;..,
:.::, .
:••:.:;.:
''.i.:1-a'..
- .A:,.
..-H--. :.::-:
'.-
.::.128..:;33.(4.;;
po:.:oo.
s ,2
.
......
....
13712
- ....-•-•
---,--.,.'
,..,„
.., .:::,:tt":.
• -•
. :.
•-.: •.•
........
1124
6.8
.
5
5.D
3
3.04
16
2.9
5.1
62.0
20552
7.4
27
34159
92
3700
92.00
:g...:4
::.`444:.
1. 4
.. ?sii•
::..-2..
.4.*
.. -Jr.
.1:2,72
• 7.50
.?wo.
::::31144.4.
- -..;5
::-. -
:.-: .•• •
...).113.:';'•33/7.:4.140(1::':7::::•'•-.:40'
...*.q.
Kicoo
Y 26
7.2
5
3.0
3
3.47
16
0.5
5.2
64.0
27123
7.6
31
33120
100
3300
100.00
...,.. '.-.
.-. • .
4;0_
': :". 2;
:4;11.38:
• z:111.
..1".1•
- .6.7."310...
:..-.:. ;togr.
. .-- •
s.
..::;.-..:.
.:-4..d..
- •
.• ...,..:•....:,.•
..."::::1.
::43;
ig.
.z.----:90
F 28
9632
:3 -
21,
•:..•:';,. :-'•
.. ;: •
"::.:::•
-.• -..:.•-••••:".•
:-*; •
.:! • .- _:',
:.- •:::... •
..- ,- .. ..
•;:;.-:::6Z3,-:-
-,,
••• '1'.
'14'.. --
• .:: .:.
:. .....-
17: •••••:..•:...;
-
-
0: -1;)•..•
.•':..
5 30
...
.
.:::.•
12251
I-
P1735
AVEI8
53:07.--.•
:'''..4:-:
.--•:..
.
4.2
:;....4%
-
4
::-.6,42...t.:13
5.23
17
:-..140-:
1,3
;:-.f1=1:4
5-3
....0 4;
64.2,
' z.:-:2466r
24438
.":- •:::
......:;`::...?
:,•:;:':::::;,,..;,.'",-A),
-:•.417::-..-:.--Z-.
32
1- i'
38305
:.'.--,::::--:',
:1:10*-.
148
:11601/•:
2995
- .;,'.'.
139.92
MAX
7.8
34
24.0
14
7063
19
2.9
7.4
77.0
44463
.
. ..
. ....
, ..1
.
43
69100
360
3700
360.00
MIN
6.3
1
4 1.0
i____
2
3.04
15
0.2
4.6
61.0
5623
7.1
14
13712
8
2100
7.50

WILSON WASTE WATER
BIG SHEET pg 6
March, 1997
01RER Pond 1
Pond 2
RAIN
MAX Air
NIM Air
PR
TSS
1VSS
B00
R113
TEMP
D0
p11
TSS
TVSS
8Co
NR3 '
TE1?
00
DATE.
4-.
• ....
.. ...
.. "
. `•
-•-: • :-
.: :
.:...
.• •...:
•
S 2
. ..
_
M. 3
0 4-'
: ' 24 •
12-.,
••7.0-1
::1.•q:
',:::
AM:
. •'IIt•
Ci...
:.7.:4.:
.. 4
c IA.
3•
•;5:94:
,.18 ,'.'0:3::
T 4
21
6
7.3
12
5.0
5
6.36
17
0.4
7.2
7
3.0
3
5.32
16
0.5
....
• ...5'.;
' ::,1_0.
4
'8,06
11: •
. 15:
•..
.
T 6
0.3
24
15
7.0
24
14.0
6
11.80
17
1.9
7.1
72
46.0
15
5.90
17
73
F}l
-• •
`;15; ••:
1•:
-:7.0-
3
..•P:T
, ;:y:.
•1.1-,,00M1
...AC':
:6111•:
, :7..0:
,.:.4.
.. T.j..
-'':.:
13:5
,.,10• :.
:1.3. „
s 8
•
` :
+
j
M 10
22
5
7.0
14
8.0
7
5.66
19
0.3
7.0
14
10.0
6
5.15^
17
0.3
Y.11:
: `•
':7-...7.0
7;
: -3t0
:;._ 2..
5.71
'- :16'
; 3.d•�
:1 0:
•:i..5`
1
:. .0
; ::5.::G:Br
3
{::18.;
•2:6:
u 12
..:
24
7
7.5
6
i_0
3
5.21
16
0.4
7_2
' 4
1-0
5.88 '
18
0.3
T,-13
.:::::
".:115•••
.-..-.
.• 4`
..7:•T.
. ;S
H3:;0:::.::3:
-6:03.�
;:'1g.:.
:fl:5.`.:7:3:•
":::$
- .5.0'
.3:
':1
::_17.
'.0':6'.
F 14
0.8
19
10
7.1
7
3..0
4
6.57
17
0-1
7.2
9
2.0
6
6.98
17
0.5
5:15•
•::::....
....:..
5 16
N 17
",0_3-:
18,.,
. ''0:•.•
..7:1
- ' ¢;',{
4;d•
.. 14-
::T1-63_.
,18.
:la::
.•:T:O.'
.-.y¢''
14-0
::%16 ..
431
;I7'..i:0
17
3:
0.9 ,
T 18
24
10
6.9
4
1_0
2
4.69
19
0.3
6.8
5
3.0
3
3.72
11'•14.
.-.0:4::
•... 74::.
:..9...
, .6:9::
.::.4Z
4 D'
• ::::7•'
:.3:;92•
.' 15:-
:'' :IA '
7:•.-k8'
- -:a'
a''S•a.
-.;;'i:b;
:-3a?8,..
= '3•:
.•;2:3..`
T 20
0.2
12
6
7.1
12
c 1.0
3
5.56
17
0.6
7.5
4_0
5.67
17
0.3
&. 1
` ...
- • 211'
• 5...
: • 6a1,.
:. '4
- .14
,... 4
4.i-.
. • :14:•
• 3i4
::bp:
< ;4_0
::$.i
: A7 :-
•'=O'er=
5 22
S_23
rN 24
:
..:
'::
:..
11
T
6.8
3
3.0
4
3.04
16
2_3
6.8
5
5.0
< 0
3.05
16
2.8
T:25.
.23:
'• _.3 '•
..:0:1•
.. 'S:
•.•' {
.:2•
:446
: Aa'.A-
•0.:;
.:.6.1i
,.. : -.
•:::..4
_ ..:
-':.A;*••"•i7
•
1 5:.
u 26
0.4
23
12
7.0
7
6.0
3
3.88
20
0.8
7.0
5
5.0
3
3.86
18
0.8
T 27
, .•
,.. :.
: 6 •
. 6.8•.
•, :1-
1 .1;4
•.• .. '•-..:4•.58
1 ;.16.:
• :6:33
,6 9
..`
••5.75
''•5.
,-. •
• -'
:.d 6:.
F 28
-_
-
!u
OgY *••:a
AVO 0.4'
Z7-
21
" :: -::
7
'...1j9
...`.r
7
" '
4..
3.7
. ::3
4
:'
3.66
:1V .. .
18
a2,k:
1.6
.. .
•• _W.
10
:,:.Q.
5.9
;.N� .:7��:
5
5.52
Md
17
v.1..�.
1.0
No 0.8
27
15
7.7
24
14.0
14
11.80
20
15.0
7.5
72
46.0
16
13.50
18
2.8
HIM 0.2
11
• -0
6.1
1
< 1.0
2
3.04
15
0.1
6.1
4
4 1.0
4 0
3.05
15
0.3

BIG SHEET pg 7
February, 1997
-' Pond 3 Raw Sluts t1 Fri. Digester
pH
TSS
TVS$
BOD
NO3
TEMP
DO
%IS
Bfcerbj %TS
%TVS
pH
TB'P
FLON
CO2
VA
BA
VA/BA
DATE
s 2
-+--
12226
26214
M 3
a
:;.7.1
7.`
.•'6.0
-:.•3'•
i
� :.
'•'::
• 7;3•
•• :3L:::
•:..,..•
}
:?6DO:
:a4�1R
r 4
.
7.0
8
1.3
2
®
�
18669
7.3
24
87891
290
3800
290.00
•..,".:.:2-0
' :2,'
-.. 4':60.:
:: ' ' 1a f
' ' ::: i
,; 4.::
;:7.3;:
' ' 27.:
:ZQ- -•:
100
20D:00
i 6
6.9
8
12.0
5
5_24
14
0.9
4.9
60.0
13478
7.3
27
340
3800
340.00
i
"•:. 256TT:
s.°-::.r•:.
;:r:`:
•, •; -`
• 7_2..
"-'.7,T:"
'. .. ...
300.9::
2...0':00
s 8
19192
16990
..,. 228 0
:-;:.::_....
:; ..
' .
,
....:;:
.`-::_:`:'.:
•::.::
5 9
:' ....
7
keit
18721
7.3
35
48380
290
3600
90.0
20
M 10
11
6.8
:.. 1.4.
1_0
:
::::..
. .:::...7
�':'
- ..:
7Z0.
•.-...
ik0-•004
...
T
Y 12
:6'.9
7_3
1
1 _0
..
3
.
-. '7:3
'27
100
3800
100.00
4.Q
5
• ..:...
:::} ..
';-'T.4 ::::
;26:-:
.7TT 8
F :: .:,
•:160
,1500 '
160 Qd
F 14
7.110
4.0
7.3013
3.54.762.023371
7.3
23
49680
360
3500
360.00
515
33120'
.
.--,-
.....7;2'
. :,
`:.':' :..:...:.::,`•
--.:.i.xy.-_:A500::::1440.
7.2
27
100
3600
108.00
T 16
6.9
4
3.0
1
4.35
13
5.0
4.3
62.019107
s? :�4
�?:.a;
:.::�..<
.t_n'
': • �'
��:87
.•:1x�:.
�-= _5:a=
,:r3:3•
.:::64;�.
, .. �•
i::, ... ..:
- .
_;.: ti .
:::: !b ..
:: c _.:::::::-:
•:: • ::'
::: f70 •
'-3200 .
12o;9 4
7 20
7.4
7
3.0
3
4.57
1b
5.8
4.4
63.011130
7.4
60
2800
60.00
F:2f
•'7.0:
8
;3:
:4:91
.17�,
z•b;
_.0:
63a1
t
-..,.<.
� .
72
----.,_r'.....
•. :5.4230
. ...
.. ••3..00;:;•10Q:b6
.'"-SS._
47809
•
140
3300
140.00
N 24
7.3
6
1.0
7.2
T 25•
b2t0:
.....
••
•::."•.' •
..1 ;
L_!
90
120
3300
120.00
5.62
6.9
2708931
9'1481
166
30
166.45
RAG
6
3.0
0
3
.
0
64.0
158855
T.{
360
9 00
360.00
MAX
7.6
7.1
23 16998
60
'-'
60.00
MIN
6,8
< 1
f 14
1
3.14
13
0.1
. 3.3
60.0
11130
;1

WILSON WASTE WATER
JUN. -21' OO (WED)
BIG MEET pg 6
February, 1997
OTHER
Pored 1
Pond 2 .1
75S
TV39
SOD
HH3
TEMP
DO
RAIN
MAX Air
MIN Air
pH
Tss
TVSS
HOD
NH3
TEMP
DO
pH
DATE
•y
� s 2
MI; `-
.-- • ;
••21
•2.
...T-3'
. .9
9.0
?:: 5
5.i.
..:• 15-.-
. O.4:
`7:2
::::•-•
•i5:0
:;•..4.,
5:90
-:'•16-:,
:0:4 •'
T 4
•.::
20
10
7.0
10
6.0
4
2.72
14
2.5
6.9
7
1.3
2
3.96
-;
14
3.3
•
,:.
..
i.
4 1
.
15.`'=
.OzK;;
is '7c2'
' .. Zp-..•
'7:0
;;` 2
SICK:.
�.. 15�•
:. ;04.1
T 6
12
2
7.1
8
< 1.0
3
5.36
15
0_2
7.0
10
4.0
3
5.62
14
0.3
..1 ::
; .... 4'.::
: 7.:
°:-:t .:..4_:1,:0
.. ''4:-'',5..
:.'`145.-.•
v; .:
rZ_4.-.:
.-:6:-
.1:... -
.::';'.-5
;6' •
-:.t+......
.•'o_ `
s s
.. _
v.,......
:�r,.
2.1
M 10
19
2
7.2 '
4
4.0
3
3.91
14
0.5
7.0
8
4.0
3
3.67
13
T:1.1
•
•.,._..:
:. q.
:.:•• •:
•-6.9•
12
. Q-O
:" .:4.
..5.-03::
16
:4tt1 .
:6,$-
:.:..14:
•,l41U
r.''3
.5, 9::`:-:LG'.-
:: T.:. 1''
5.92
14
2.6
5I 12
12
•.:
7.3
7
2.0
S
4.90
14
0.4
7.2
1
c 1.0
3
1 1;"
...:13
:.' • 3.::
"7:2
.: 3':
5:0'
=''3''
6e :.'
1 _
.: ;3t4;
"Ti'.�,:
`. b:
: •4:0
.:..: :
. 5..4�
7.71
1�`.:
'r1 7:.
F 14
0.9
3
1
6.9
10
3.0
3
5.64
14
7.0
7.0
9
4.0
4
13
3.1
316
NO
:..
v,_..
-2•=
t: 7.3::
is 6
'• 5.[f
... 3:
,4:+lh.
16•'
2•2:::
7,4
�•• •4'
:20I
' 3:
4i0O
'14::..:4:t,
1 18
18
-3
7.2
6
3.0
1
422
13
1.4
6.7
5
5.0
3
4.59
13
0.4
y 1¢
•." Q;.,
; ;.
_6.9
;a8
•4:0:•
.::'3:
:4,67..
:X/'::
0:3�
6:9
.:`o:S-
::2:0
L
3;
::.4 •87:'
';'4t':.5
r 20
, :>
21
9
7.2
6
.-
5_0
3
5.56
16
5.2
7.2
10
6.0
3
5.23
16
5.4
•••::
F.t
-
a
..'T:.
:J4 :
, '4_'
: 6.4.
.... 2..
4r
_ .-47 -
.•i . :
' .8:7.:
-. 11'
$: •
• :
•• 4:65
: as
.,:.-
.
S 22
.' .
..
r- r-
r
,
.
~
,
:7.2:
-k'
i 24
iM•25
7.1
6
1.0
3
6. 55
15
0.8
4.0
3
5.60
15�
3.1
'16'
: •••5'::.
:1_4.:
-'.13.-•
. :7.0;
. 3`
'.: .
•
-.J. -.
':1:-.. .
- .:l0:.
--;`54(
- ,
' 8.
.:;1,5•::
-f-'! ..:-2:::
w 26
.
14
1
7.9
5
4.0
4
10.10
15
9.2
7.5
4
2.0
3
10.00
15
9.5
,if:#::
T
:7.5' =
-
'
:•7,i1'
:9:
• `-7:0
....3•
.1.4 0:._'19.:
;.9.: ••
: -:1_
. :••-
:•55:t4.:
= t
"8 6
. '17"
.27
F 28
AVG
0.9
28
17
.
19
5
6.9
_'
c 1
7
c 1.0
4.1
2
3
9.20
5.89
18
15
0.6
2.1
7.0
c 1
6
c 1.0
3.3
1
3
7.62
5.92
18
15
1.4
2.7
MAX
0.9
28
19
7.9
13
, 9.0
5
11.20 19
9.2 7.5
14
8.0
5
10.00 18
9.5
MIN
0.9
3
-3
6.7
4 1
4 1.0
1
I 2.72 13
0.2 6.7
c 1
c 1.0
1
3-67 13
0.3,

BIG SHEET pg 7
January, 1097
Pond 3 Raw Sludge St Pr1_ Digester
.
pQl
Tsp
T.V.S.
co8
NH3
TEMP
D0
ITS
XTVS
FLOW
Bicar `
%TS
%TVS
ph
TEMP
FLOV
CO2
VA
6A
VA/04
DATE
T 2
b.8
9
T_0
d
4.43
15
3.1
4.6
64.0
T0495
7.2
39
55
2800
f :'.3
b;4
.: 8
::.4.0
6
- 4,�1
15`
:: • 1';9 '
• : 4:5'
:' 61.O.
•`,.109d '
'-. .: •
;•
:.:...::120.
• .2b... ,'
ua,UQ
S .4
..
..
,
.:...:•
•••••-:::::
:
M 6
6.6
4.0
4.12
3.4
4.1
63.0
12493
_7.2
11
3400
200.00
54 8
T.3
< 1
< 1.0
4
4.65
15
2.8
33765
89
3200
69.00
F 10
7.6
2
2.0
8
7.45
14
4.0
4.7
61.0
11748
210
zacio
210.00
m
1:
S 12
--
•1
„
32436
MEI7.1.
:.
,
I.:42.
-.-:13.
'5.5:
,
rf•
:''-•
:,
.:,,
., ,,
T 14
1.0
3
4.05
®
3.7
5.4,
62.0
15657
7.3
40
190
3500
190.00
w 15
a
,
• 3:47.
• .15":
3-.0._:
,
.27672.
•.......
':'
•" T�3.�
.-_:.40'�
_• '•:34"b18;
.1
` 31id::1e
R►1
T 166.6
8�3.21
IA
0.3
4.4
61.0
24485
7.3
106496
1
3400
90.00
F 17
��
.. 1.D
.... 3'
4:18
1�
:. ;0•:
': 5.9
' 61:0
' ...134Qy
:...
7: :..
1 ,
00031.3.
S 1a
:.
14316
r
33120
M 20
„ 22 M
R T
.3 n
xRU
T.r,
100
2900
100.00
r :23
MEM:i
-0
...::3"
:$4".
1t
::::
:-.
'• :7i0_
-..??P
10.
01.600
®
1.0
35.15
14
0.3
4,8
63.0
28122
7.2
26
300
2500
300.00
13.21
14
3.8
5.0
3 0
15033
7.4
18183
120
3100
120.00}
T
81
4.0
3
3.40
13
0.2
4.6
62-- _01
2r0;:440
_�
_
22508
100
3300
100.00
T 30
7.1
12
.
6
3:2_
59.8
151097
36
35858
- 157
3038
157.33
AVG
MAX
9.0
9
7.45
16
6_4 5.9
64.0
7049543
106496
300
3500
300.00
2
2.54
12
0.2 4.0
6.0
6620
_ 1
21
11626
_
55
2500
55.00
MTM
6_4
4 1
4 1.0

•
WILSON WASTE WATER
BIG SHEET pg 6
January, 1997
Prod 1
Rand
RAIN
MAX Air
MO Air
pli
TSS
"MS
KO
11I13 To, DO p11
TSS
TVSS
80D
NH3
TeP
DO
DATE
'
.
:..
�T
- .
..:`.i'::•
T 2 0.4
19
5
6.8
9
8.0
5
1.40 15 2-6 6.8
7
2.0
4
4.76
15
9.4
F i3
.13:••
•..9-;
•r"6:8
•i. •:'6•
2.0
::5..::i:45.
.'.15. •• '•-0.4:. '• 6.a.
• .::b
.. • '
...•
. ...
.. ..
31
.'•-.::-
,
:
j
, 2::
; _7�
M 6
2
22
10
6.7
3
3.0
2
3.8816 2.2 6.7
6
2.0
3. 88
16
•::.
11
.
7: ; 0:1 E:
l
• 17 :.Eird[s••
4 0..
- ' 4 •'
. `:4�27:';'',;:16: .1.`2. : 7;?:.
° •:: r":;
'^i:'5..0
.- i`• i .
...,;(6..::.1
::11,;6
,,7
M 8
15
< 1.0
5
5.39 15 1.7 7.5
< 1
< 1.0
6
4.85
15
2.7
_
1 1
5'.
4
1 0
4'
G=9K::: �iab''. KM
: 6.0.•
:113 . '
` ;5_ :,
F 10 0.1
8
y3 7.3
4
4.0
12
7.55 15 0.3
7.3
5
5.0
14
7.75
14
3.2
:_
:• :_;:
o
.4.:110
5 12
_'_
)1.'• ..
9'=
'IS '. ,`•:.4:
-i..b. ..:-.;:A.: .
-'4:31; .4.1 :.:::.b;i4.:
7s`:
'..':;1..
J __:.'%
. 14`.
.:Tr4:
1 14
5
.
-7 7.1
.. _:
1:
.,
1.0 2
3.94 14 0.5
6.9
< 1
< 1.0
2
IllaaS
13
1.5
.
• 77 .y •. ..
• <-.i:..
1•.0 a•
•...3.T7• -0,6..
.:TA
•....`4
•;.•1:Q:
;.:;.f'.
:1.68
I6
$.i
T 16 0.4
15
4 6.6
10
5.0 3
3.38 0.3
6.7
7
6.0
3
3.42
15
'
5.2
FAT ":-:' ' ::
• 14 .
:-6' MI
MI
1.1r- .. -4
"3;53'
' • 1O
4:69'
lg..
;g7.CG:
S 18 �
•
11 20
--�
---
-
MI
•11:.
-1. :1:•
`6
.:.ti
:3
_ ._ . :3-'
4:3[
.
4
5.77 15 0.6 ? 1
7
5.9
4
5-39
1.3
>':s '-.1:1:1;.
-_ Tr::
••.';12":. ?hi'..::':4.
= •6,0
- .1."-:':3•16'-:.15':
.0; : •'-:6;4.:...-18
;'i5'O:
..'3'
•i 2g.
:6
F 24
20
7.0
2
1.0
3
3.83 14 0_3
7.0
7
5.0
2
3.92
14
2.6
27 MI:
• •:12 :-••
7.11,if
:.: :•T:.:•'Z:O
:::. :5'•:
Ma Mi " Q
' '
t D x
iiiiagERNIMAMEE
1 2b
17
8 7.2
21
11.1
3
3.19 14 2.8
7.0
22
11.1
4
14
2.2
).4....,
- Z-•'•:1.%'A:
wk :__
, ; 2.84 '
•-;'1;'
:.34"
t�
::RZ
• .-4011
.:aft:5:_;
�3.g7�7�
':.art
T 30 0_1
9
•
1 7.2.2
4
4.D
2
3.36
14
0.3
7.4
5
Z.D
2
3.66
13
wg
2.9g
��g
AV8 0.3
13
- 1
6 3.9
4
4.31
15
1.5
7
3.8
4
4.58
14
4.3
MAX 1.1
22
12 • 9.1
21 12.0
12
7.56
16 5.7
7.5
22
11.1 14
7.75
16
27.0
1.40
12 0.2 6.7
< 1
< 1.0 1
3.42
12
1.3
0.1
5
-11 6.7
' 1 < 1.0
2
MIN

♦
City of Wilson
Revised Reasonable Potential Analysis for Selected Metals
Cd Cr Ni Se
Date Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL
3-Dec-99 < 2.00 1.00 < 5.00 2.50 < 5.00 2.50 < 2.00 1.00
10-Dec-99
17-Dec-99
23-Dec-99
31-Dec-99
5-Nov-99 < 2.00 1.00 < 5.00 2.50 < 5.00 2.50 < 2.00 1.00
12-Nov-99
19-Nov-99
24-Nov-99
1-Oct-99 < 2.00 1.00 < 5.00 2.50 < 5.00 2.50 < 2.00 1.00
8-Oct-99
15-Oct-99
22-Oct-99
29-Oct-99
3-Sep-99 < 2.00 1.00 < 5.00 2.50 < 5.00 2.50 < 2.00 1.00
10-Sep-99
24-Sep-99
6-Aug-99 < 2.00 1.00 < 5.00 2.50 < 5.00 2.50 < 2.00 1.00
13-Aug-99
20-Aug-99
27-Aug-99
2-JuI-99 < 2.00 1.00 < 5.00 2.50 < 5.00 2.50 < 2.00 1.00
9-JuI-99
16-Jul-99
23-JuI-99
30-JuI-99
4-Jun-99 < 0.04 0.02 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.40 0.40
11-Jun-99 0.05 0.05 < 0.70 0.35 4.00 4.00 0.40 0.40
18-Jun-99
25-Jun-99
7-May-99 0.10 0.10 < 0.70 0.35 < 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
14-May-99
21-May-99
28-May-99
1-Apr-99 < 0.04 0.02 4.20 4.20 2.00 2.00 < 0.30 0.15
9-Apr-99
16-Apr-99
23-Apr-99
30-Apr-99
5-Mar-99 < 0.04 0.02 < 0.70 0.35 2.00 2.00 < 0.30 0.15
12-Mar-99
19-Mar-99
26-Mar-99
5-Feb-99 < 0.04 0.02 1.60 1.60 < 2.00 1.00 < 0.30 0.15
12-Feb-99
18-Feb-99
26-Feb-99
8-Jan-99 0.10 0.10 5.90 5.90 4.00 4.00 0.80 0.80
15-Jan-99
22-Jan-99
29-Jan-99

4
•
City of Wilson
Revised Reasonable Potential Analysis for Selected Metals
Cd Cr Ni Se
Date Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL
4-Dec-98 0.13 0.13 23.00 23.00 5.00 5.00 0.40 0.40
11-Dec-98
18-Dec-98
23-Dec-98
30-Dec-98
6-Nov-98 < 0.04 0.02 4.80 4.80 < 2.00 1.00 < 0.30 0.15
13-Nov-98
20-Nov-98
25-Nov-98
2-Oct-98 < 0.04 0.02 14.00 14.00 12.00 12.00 < 0.30 0.15
9-Oct-98
16-Oct-98
23-Oct-98
30-Oct-98
8-Sep-98 2.30 2.30 7.00 7.00 < 2.00 1.00 30.00 30.00
14-Sep-98
21-Sep-98
28-Sep-98
3-Aug-98 < 0.04 0.02 11.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 0.60 0.60
10-Aug-98
17-Aug-98
24-Aug-98
31-Aug-98
6-JuI-98 < 0.04 0.02 < 0.70 0.35 4.00 4.00 0.50 0.50
13-Jul-98
20-Jul-98
27-Jul-98
1-Jun-98 0.15 0.15 78.00 34.00 34.00 < 0.30 0.15
8-Jun-98
15-Jun-98
22-Jun-98
29-Jun-98
4-May-98 0.62 0.62 27.00 27.00 30.00 30.00 5.80 5.80
11-May-98
18-May-98
25-May-98
26-May-98
6-Apr-98 < 0.04 0.02 16.00 16.00 9.00 9.00 6.30 6.30
13-Apr-98
20-Apr-98
27-Apr-98
2-Mar-98 < 0.04 0.02 < 0.70 0.35 3.00 3.00 0.50 0.50
9-Mar-98
16-Mar-98
23-Mar-98
30-Mar-98
2-Feb-98 < 0.04 0.02 1.10 1.10 < 2.00 1.00 2.60 2.60
9-Feb-98
16-Feb-98
23-Feb-98
5-Jan-98 < 0.04 0.02 2.20 2.20 4.00 4.00 0.60 0.60

City of Wilson
Revised Reasonable Potential Analysis for Selected Metals
Cd Cr Ni Se
Date Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL Value 1/2 DL
No. of Data Points 10.00 16.00 16.00 16.00
Average 0.05 5.03 3.63 0.61
Maximum 0.13 23.00 12.00 1.00
Minimum 0.02 0.35 1.00 0.15
Standard Deviation 0.04 6.09 3.27 0.39
Coefficient of Variation (CV) 0.86 1.21 0.90 0.64
Multiplier (99th percentile) 4.50 4.80 3.60 2.70
Max Predicted Effluent Conc. 0.59 110.40 43.20 2.70
Water Quality Standard 2.00 50.00 88.00 5.00
Allowable Conc. Based on 0.84 mgd 2.12 52.99 93.27 5.30
Reasonable Potential? No Yes No No
Allowable Conc. Based on 10 mgd 3.63 90.85 159.89 9.08
Reasonable Potential? No Yes No No

•
71974 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 245/Wednesday, December 22, 1999/Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-6513-6)
Water Quality Criteria; Notice of
Availability; 1999 Update of Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 304(a)(1)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announces the publication and
availability of the 1999 Update of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia (1999 Update), containing
EPA's recommended ammonia criteria
for the protection of freshwater aquatic
life. These criteria are EPA's
recommendations for States, Territories,
and authorized Tribes to use as
guidance in adopting water quality
standards. Water quality standards form
the basis for establishing enforceable,
water quality -based effluent limitations
in CWA permits. These criteria
constitute the Agency's current
recommended Section 304(a) criteria for
ammonia, and will continue to serve as
such until EPA publishes a revision. In
August 1998, EPA published the 1998
Update of Ambient Water Criteria for
Ammonia and asked for public
comment. The 1999 Update published
today incorporates revisions made in
response to comment on the 1998
Update, and supercedes all previous
freshwater ammonia criteria.
ADDRESSES: "Obtaining the Document."
A copy of the document, 1999 Update
of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia (EPA-822-R-99-014) may be
obtained from the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, by contacting:
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications. (NSCEP),
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
45242-2419, Phone: [phone];
International: 1/513-489-8190, E-mail:
[e-mail].
The document, and a fact sheet that
provides an overview of the criteria
document, may be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ost/
standards/amonsub.html.
"Examining the Adrainistrative
Record." The Administrative Record
supporting EPA's recommended
ammonia criteria for the protection of
freshwater aquatic life is available under
docket number W-98-20 at the Water
Docket, Room EB-57, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460 on Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. For access to docket materials call
[phone] for an appointment. The
record contains material that EPA relied
on to support the recommended criteria
contained in the 1999 update. A
reasonable fee will be charged for
photocopies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Thompson, Standards and
Applied Science Division (4305), U.S.
EPA, Office of Science and Technology,
401 M. Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460; [phone];
[e-mail].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background on Criteria Program
II. Background on Development of this
Criteria Document
III. Response to Comments on 1998 Update
A. Ammonia pH Relationship
B. Ammonia Temperature Relationship
IV. Summary of the 1999 Ammonia Criteria
V. Implementation of the Final 1999
Ammonia Criteria
A. Design Flow and Averaging Period
B. Early Life Stage Absent (ELS-Absent)
Provision
C. State and Tribal Adoption of Ammonia
Criteria
VI. Threatened or Endangered Species
I. Background on Criteria Program
Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1)) directs EPA to
publish and periodically update
ambient water quality criteria. These
criteria are to reflect the latest scientific
knowledge on the identifiable effects of
pollutants on public health and welfare,
aquatic life, and recreation. These
criteria serve as guidance to States,
Territories, and authorized Tribes in
adopting water quality standards under
Section 303(c),of the CWA that protect
aquatic life from acute and chronic
effects of ammonia. Water quality
standards provide a basis for controlling
discharges or releases of pollutants.
Under the CWA, States and Tribes are
to establish water quality criteria to
protect designated uses. State and tribal
decision makers retain the discretion to
adopt water quality criteria on a case -
by -case basis that differ from this
guidance when appropriate and where
supported by local data. In this notice
EPA is announcing the publication and.
availabiliI of the Agency's most recenti
calculation of water quality criteria for
freshwater ammonia.
Ambient water quality criteria
developed under Section 304(a) are
based on data and scientific judgments
on the relationship between pollutant
concentrations and effects on aquatic
life, human health, and the
environment. Section 304(a) criteria do
not reflect consideration of economic
impacts or the technological feasibility
of meeting the chemical concentrations
in ambient water.
II. Background on Development of the
Ammonia Criteria Document
In 1985, EPA published Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia-
1984, which contained criteria
concentrations for protection of
freshwater aquatic life. The Criterion
Maximum Concentration or CMC,
which applied to short (acute) exposure,
and the Criterion Continuous
Concentration or CCC, which applied to
longer (chronic) exposure, varied
primarily with pH and the type of
fishery involved. On July 30, 1992, EPA
revised its recommended value for the
CCC through a memorandum "Revised
Tables for * * * Freshwater Ammonia
Concentrations."
In late 1996 EPA undertook a review
and revision of the CCC for ammonia, in
response to public interest in the
criterion. As part of this process, EPA
undertook peer review of a draft
criterion (June 5, 1997). The results of
this peer review are included in Peer
Review Report for EPA's Addendum to
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Document for Ammonia, dater) October
9, 1997. On August 18, 1998, EPA
published the 1998 Update of Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia and
solicited public comment. Today, EPA
is publishing the 1999 Update of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia, which incorporates changes
made in response to public comment on
the 1998 Update. The ammonia criteria
published today supersede all previous
freshwater aquatic life ammonia criteria.
The water quality criteria in the 1999
Update pertain only to fresh waters.
They do not change or supersede the
EPA criterion for ammonia in salt water,
published in Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Ammonia (Saltwater)-1989.
EPA aquatic life criteria consist of
acute and chronic criteria
concentrations, applicable averaging
periods (i.e., the duration used in
comparing ambient water concentration
to water quality criteria), and allowable
excursion frequencies. The criteria
published today are based on a revised
temperature dependency of the CCC
(chronic criterion), and modification of
the 4-day criterion provision from 2.0 to
2.5 times the CCC. As a result, the acute
criterion for ammonia remains
dependent on pH and fish species (i.e.,
salmonids versus non-salmonids), and
the chronic criterion for ammonia is
now dependent on pH and temperature.
In addition, at lower temperatures the
chronic criterion is also dependent on

• Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 1999 / Notices 71975
the presence or absence of early life
stages of fish.
III. Response to Comments on 1998
Update
EPA considered all comments
submitted on the 1998 Update.
Responses to comments are contained in
the document Response to Comment on
the 1998 Update of Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Ammonia. The two
most significant issues raised in the
comments were the pH relationship and
the temperature relationship used for
the chronic criterion (CCC); that is, how
the CCC changes as a function of pH and
as a function of temperature.
A. Ammonia pH Relationship
In the 1998 Update, the pH
relationship of the CCC was different
than the pH relationship of the CMC.
Notably, in the pH range from 8.0 to 6.5,
the CCC increased less quickly with
decreases in pH than did the CMC.
Some commentors expressed concern
that because so much more data are
available to derive the acute
relationship than the chronic
relationship, it would be better to apply
the acute relationship to the chronic
criterion.
EPA does not agree that the chronic
pH relationship should be the same as
that of the acute pH The data for
smallmouth bass and for daphnia
unequivocally demonstrate that the
acute -chronic ratio changes with pH,
and therefore that the chronic
relationship should not be the same as
the acute relationship. While there may
be alternative ways of accounting for
this difference, EPA believes that the
approach it has taken, to derive the
chronic relationship directly from the
available chronic data for smallmouth
bass and daphnia, is scientifically
appropriate and reasonable. Thus, for
the 1999 Update, EPA has not changed
the chronic pH relationship.
B. Ammonia Temperature Relationship
In the derivation of the 1998 Update,
the data used by EPA indicated that the
sensitivity of fish does not change
significantly with temperature, either
for acute or chronic exposure. However,
some commentors expressed concern
that the 1998 chronic criterion would
change with temperature if invertebrates
are considered.
In response to these comments, EPA
re-examined the available data for
invertebrates, which were from a study
by Arthur et al. (1987), as referenced in
the 1998 and 1999 Updates. The Arthur
et al. data suggested a temperature
relationship for invertebrates but not for
fish. In the 1998 Update, EPA did not
use the Arthur et al. data because the
authors were concerned that other
variable factors in their tests might have
had a potential to confound their
results. In re-examining their data in
response to comments, however, EPA
found that the fish data from Arthur et
al. showed behavior quite similar to that
from numerous other investigators, that
is, little relationship with temperature.
Consequently, EPA concluded thatthe
potential confounding factors were
unlikely to have much effect on the
results; and that the Arthur et al. (1987)
result& could be used to define a
temperature relationship for
invertebrates.
In contrast to the fish data, the
invertebrate data from Arthur et al.
(1987) show a significant and consistent
relationship of increasing lethal
concentration (decreasing toxicity),with
decreasing temperature. Because the
two most sensitive species in the
chronic data set are invertebrates, a
temperature dependency for the effect
concentrations for these species results
in an overall temperature dependency
for the ammonia chronic criterion.
Therefore, EPA's 1999 Update contains
a temperature dependent chronic
criterion for ammonia. This temperature
dependency does not affect the acute
criterion, because none of the acutely
sensitive species in the acute data set
are invertebrates.
IV. Summary of the 1999 Ammonia
Criterion
In natural waters ammonia exists in
two forms, un-ionized NH3, and ionized
NH4,+with equilibrium controlled by
temperature and pH. Whereas the 1984/
1985 criteria were derived based on un-
ionized ammonia, which required a
relationship with temperature, the
criteria published today are expressed
only as total (un-ionized plus ionized)
ammonia.
Based on differences in species acute
sensitivity, different CMC values were
derived for waters where salmonids
(e.g., trout and salmon) are present and
waters where salmonids are not present.
Such distinctions in species chronic
sensitivity were not apparent, however.
Consequently the CCC does not vary
with the type of fish present.
The acute criterion or CMC is
unchanged from 1998. The values vary
as a continuous function of pH and are
not dependent on temperature. For
example, as seen in Table 1 below, at
pH=7 the values are 24.1 mg N/L for
salmonid fish (trout and salmon)
present, and 36.1 mg N/L for salmonids
absent. Whereas at pl1=8 the values are
5.62 mg N/L for salmonids present, and
8.40 mg N/L for salmonids absent.
TABLE 1.—AMMONIA CMC VALUES
BASED PH AND FISH SPECIES
pH
CMC mg N/L
Salmonids
present
Salmonids
absent
7
8
24.1
5.62
36.1
8.40
The chronic criterion or CCC varies as
continuous function& of temperature
and pH. At lower temperatures, the
values also depend on whether early life
stages of fish are present or absent. To
illustrate its general behavior, the table
below (Table 2) shows example values
of the CCC under a few different
temperature and pH conditions.
TABLE 2.—AMMONIA CCC VALUES BASED ON TEMPERATURE, PH, AND EARLY LIFE STAGES OF FISH
Temperature
CCC mg N/L
Early life stages of fish
present
Early life stages of fish
absent
pH=7
pH=8
pH=7
pH=8
0° C
10° C
20° C
30° C
5.91
5.91
4.15
2.18
2.43
2.43
1.71
0.897
9.60
7.91
4.15
2.18
3.95
3.26
1.71
0.897

• 71976 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 245/Wednesday, December 22, 1999/Notices
V. Implementation of the Final 1999
Ammonia Criteria
A. Design Flow and Averaging Period
The use of aquatic life criteria for
developing water quality based permit
limits and for designing waste treatment
facilities requires the selection of an
appropriate waste load allocation
model. Dynamic models are preferred
for the application of aquatic life criteria
in order to make best use of the
specified concentrations, durations, and
frequencies. If dynamic models cannot
be used, then an alternative is steady-
state modeling. Because steady-state
modeling is based on various
simplifying assumptions, it is less
complex, and might be less realistic,
than dynamic modeling. However, since
steady-state models are easier to apply,
they are used more often than dynamic
models.
An important step in the application
of steady-state modeling to streams is
calculating the design flow. States and
Tribes can refer to Appendix D of the
Technical Support Document for Water
Quality -based Toxics Control (TSD) for
EPA's recommended design flow, as
well as EPA's basis for its design flow
recommendations.
In the TSD, for aquatic life, EPA
recommends design flows for both the
criterion maximum concentration (CMC,
or acute criterion) and the criterion
continuous concentration (CCC, or
chronic criterion). For the CMC, EPA
recommends the 1B3 (the lowest one -
day flow based on a three-year return
interval when flow records are analyzed
using EPA's 1986 DFLOW procedure) or
the 1Q10 (the lowest one -day flow based
on a ten-year return interval when flow
records are analyzed using extreme -
value statistics). For the CCC, EPA
recommends the 4B3 (the lowest four -
day flow based on a three-year return
interval when flow records are analyzed
using EPA's 1986 DFLOW procedure) or
the 7Q10 (the lowest seven-day flow
based on a ten-year return interval when
flow records are analyzed using
extreme -value statistics).
For ammonia, EPA continues to
recommend the 1B3 or the 1Q10 as the
design flow for the CMC. Even though
EPA's recommended design flow for the
CCC, as stated in the TSD, is based on
a 4-day average, EPA's, design flow
guidance can be applied to the 30-day
averaging period of ammonia. Therefore,
for the CCC for ammonia, EPA
recommends the 30B3 for the design
flow, if flow records are analyzed using
EPA's 1986 DFLOW procedure. In
addition, EPA believes that the 30Q10
and the 30Q5 are at least as protective
as the 30B3. Therefore, if flow records
are analyzed using extreme -value
statistics, EPA also recommends the
30Q10 or the 30Q5 as the design flow
for the CCC for ammonia. As explained
in the 1999 Update, within this 30-day
period, no 4-day average concentration
should exceed 2.5 times the CCC.
Consequently, the design flow should
also be protective of any 4-day average
at 2.5 times the CCC. EPA believes that
in the vast majority of cases, the 30Q10
is protective of both the CCC (which, for
ammonia, is associated with a 30-day
average) and any 4-day average at 2.5
times the CCC. If the ammonia CCC is
implemented using the 30Q10, no
further conditions are necessary.
However, if a State or Tribe specifies the
use of the 30Q5, then the State or Tribe
should demonstrate that a 7Q10 (the
lowest average 7-day once -in -ten-year
flow using extreme -value statistics) is
protective of 2.5 times the CCC, to
ensure that any short term (4-day) flow
variability within the 30-day averaging
period does not lead to shorter -term
chronic toxicity. Since the 7Q10
approximates the 4B3 (the lowest
average 4-day once -in -three year flow
using EPA's 1986 DFLOW procedure),
EPA recommends the 7Q10 be used to
evaluate if any 4-day average within the
30-day averaging period will exceed 2.5
times the CCC. The comparison of the
30Q5 at one: times the CCC to the 7Q10
at 2.5 times the CCC is stream -specific;
a State or Tribe utilizing this approach
should adopt both the 30Q5 at one times
the CCC and the 7Q10 at 2.5 times the
CCC into its standards and specify that
the more stringent be used.
In adopting a freshwater aquatic life
CCC for ammonia, based on the 30-day
averaging period recommended in the
1999 Update, the procedures for
calculating NPDES permit limits should
be modified from those described in the
TSD. The equations (and corresponding
"multiplier tables") presented in the
TSD assume a 4-day averaging period
and are summarized below:
The acute long term average (LTA.) is
determined from the acute wasteload
allocation (WLAa) using the equation:
LTA. = WLAaeto.5a2-za)
where a2 =1n (CV2 + 1)
The chronic long term average (LTA,, is
determined from the chronic wasteload
allocation (WLAc) using the equation:
LTA, = WLAceto.sa4-za4)
where a4 = In (CV2/4+1)
A comparison of the LTA. and LTAc is
then performed and the minimum value
is selected (LTAMIN). The maximum
daily limit (MDL) is then calculated
from the LTAMIN using the equation:
MDL = LTAMIN e[za-o.5a2]
where a2 = In (CV2+ 1)
The average monthly limit (AML) is
calculated from the LTAMIN using the
equation:
AML = LTAMIN eta°-o.5a4)
where a2. = In (CV2/n + 1)
The value of "n" in the calculation of
the AML is based on an assumed
monthly effluent monitoring frequency
for the permittee. In general, the "n"
value should be set equal to the actual
monitoring frequency that will be
required of the permittee. However, if
the AML is based on the LTAc (i.e.,
LTAMIN = LTAc), the TSD recommends
that the value of "n" be set no lower
than 4 (corresponding to the 4-day CCC)
to ensure that the AML does not exceed
the WLAc.
Since the 1999 Update recommends a
30-day averaging period for deriving the
CCC, the equation for determining the
LTAc should be modified as follows:
LTA, = WLAceto.5al-za3p)
where a30 =1n (CV2/30+1)
The comparison of the LTA. and LTAc
is then performed in the same manner
and the MDL and AML are calculated
from the LTAMIN.
Consistent with the guidance
regarding the calculation of an AML
using a 4-day CCC, the value of "n"
(assumed monitoring frequency) used in
the AML calculation should not be less
than the averaging period upon which
the criterion value is based. For a more
detailed discussion of the selection of
an appropriate value for "n" in limit
development, refer to Section 5.5.3 of
the TSD.
B. Early Life Stage Absent (ELS-Absent)
Provision
EPA is establishing a provision in its
ammonia criteria that allows for a
relaxation of the CCC when early life
stages (ELS) of fish are not present,
since, at low ambient water
temperatures, adult and juvenile fish are
less sensitive to ammonia toxicity than
are early life stages of fish. EPA has
concluded that it would be appropriate
to relax the ammonia CCC, as ambient
water temperature decreases, in
waterbodies where early life stages are
not present. This provision, based on
ELS absent, applies only to the
recommended aquatic life chronic
criterion for ammonia, and any new or

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 1999 / Notices 71977
revised water quality standard
incorporating such a provision is subject
to review and approval by EPA.
The 1999 Update constitutes EPA's
scientific recommendations regarding
ambient concentrations of ammonia that
protect freshwater aquatic life. EPA will
review, and approve and disapprove,
State and Tribal water quality standards
for ammonia, pursuant to section 303(c)
of the CWA and the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 131.
EPA has identified the following list
of issues regarding the implementation
of the ELS-absent provision. These
issues have been raised to EPA since the
August 1998 update. EPA is posing the
issues in a question and answer format
to provide clarification on
implementing the ELS-absent provision.
In the event that States, territories, and
authorized Tribes need further
clarification on implementing the ELS-
absent provision, they. should consult
with their local EPA Regional office.
1. What is the early life stage -absent
(ELS-absent) provision?
Under specific conditions, States and
Tribes may adjust their water quality
standards to reflect the decrease in
ammonia toxicity to adult and juvenile
fish as water temperature decreases.
Because ammonia toxicity to early life
stages of fish does nottappear to
decrease as water temperature
decreases, the ELS-absent provision is
not allowed at times of the year when
early life stages are present. This ELS-
absent provision applies only to the
aquatic life chronic criterion for
ammonia, and the adoption of this
provision, as is the case for any new or
revised standard, is subject to approval
by EPA.
The magnitude of the ELS-absent
adjustment is dependent on
temperature, and can be found in EPA's
1999 Update of Ambient Water Qaulity
Criteria (1999 Update). In the 1999
Update, the ammonia chronic criterion
is presented in two separate tables, one
for periods when fish early life stages
are present and one for periods when
fish early life stages are absent.
Therefore, when early, life stages of fish
are present, States and, Tribes should
use the ELS-present table, and when
early life stages offish are absent, States
and Tribes may use the ELS-absent
table.
2. How does EPA envision States and
Tribes implementing the ELS-absent
provision?
States and Tribes should clearly
identify in their water quality standards
the applicable ammonia criteria for all
State or Tribal surface waters for all
times of'the year. The approach a State
or Tribe may choose will differ
depending on how its water quality
program is structured.
Some factors to consider in
implementing the ELS-absent provision
are the resources available for State and
Tribal Agencies to administer site -
specific risk management decisions; the
variety of watersheds and eco-regions
within a State or Tribe; the diversity of
fisheries within the State or Tribe; and
the geographic location of the State or
Tribe. For example, a State or Tribe in
the Pacific Northwest may choose not to
modify criteria for ammonia at all, based
on the absence of early life stages of
fish, because the State or Tribe is
dominated by salmonid fisheries with
different species spawning throughout
the year. Another State or Tribe may
choose to make ELS-absent adjustments
to the ammonia criteria site -specifically,
when data or information is provided
which justifies a different, more
appropriate ammonia criterion. Many
States and Tribes already have
provisions in their water quality
standards which authorize site -specific
criteria modifications when new
information becomes available. States
and Tribes that have invested resources
in mapping the distribution of different
species within the State or Tribe may
choose to determine which waterbodies
warrant the ELS-absent provision and:
adopt seasonal ammonia criteria just for
those waters as appropriate.
EPA believes that tailoring the
ammonia criteria to different classes of
waterbodies would be the most efficient
means of administering the ammonia
criteria ELS-absent provision. State and
Tribal programs with refined,
biologically -based designated use
classification systems are best
structured for this approach. Refining
the designated use to reflect the
presence or absence of sensitive life
stages may involve an upfront
investment of resources but in the long
term, EPA believes it significantly
reduces'the administrative burden of
having to repeatedly revise the
standards site -specifically. Refined,
biologically -based use classification
systems enable States and Tribes to
efficiently tailor numerous criteria to
waterbodies with shared characteristics.
Raffled, biologically -based use
classification systems also more clearly
communicate the intended water quality
goals of a waterbody to the public.
Any approach a State or Tribe chooses
to implement the ammonia criteria must
be reflected in the State's or Tribe's
water quality standards and submitted
to EPA for review and approval. In order
for EPA to determine the scientific
defensibility of a State's: or Tribe's
approach as part of the Clean Water Act
section 303(c) review and approval/
disapproval process, EPA would want to
review information concerning the
geographic areas and the times of the
year the ELS-absent provision applies,
and would want the State or Tribe to
provide all of the data and information
the State or Tribe relied on for its
rationale.
3. Is the ELS-absent provision
considered a site -specific criterion or
could a State or Tribe establish an eco-
regional ELS-absent provision? Could a
State adopt an ELS-absent provision
state wide? If a State or Tribe uses an
eco-region approach, what factors
should it consider in determining the
ELS-absent provision for its
waterbodies?
The ELS-absent provision could be
done on either a site -specific basis, or it
may be more efficient to provide the
adjustment on a watershed or eco-
regional basis if sufficient information
and data exist. If a State. or Reservation
is sufficiently small or homogenous, it
could apply the same provision on the
same schedule state or reservation -wide.
When establishing am ELS-absent
provision on an eco-region basis, the
objective should be that -waters within
each eco-region have similar periods
when there is an absence of early life
stages of fish. There area number of
factors that a State or Tribe could use to
define its eco-regions. For example, if
the spawning period of a given species
of fish and the ambient water
temperature vary with latitude, then a
State or Tribe could use latitude to
define its eco-regions. Other factors that
a State or Tribe could use to define its
eco-regions include watershed,
elevation, and stream order. For smaller
States or Reservations, geographic
variations are likely to be less extreme,
and will have a smaller effect on
ambient water temperature and
spawning periods. As the size of a State
or Reservation increase% it becomes
increasingly important to consider the
effects of geographic variation on
ambient water temperature and
spawning periods, and it becomes more
difficult to generalize about the level of
protection afforded to the aquatic
communities. The larger the area of
consideration for the ELS-absent
provision, the greater is the need for
data or conservatism in its application.
4. Which stages of fish development are
included in the term "early life stages?'
The early life stages include the pre -
hatch embryonic period, the post -hatch
free embryo or yolk -sac fry, and the

71978 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 1999 / Notices
larval period, during which the
organism feeds. Juvenile fish, which are
anatomically rather similar to adults, are
not considered an early life stage.
The duration of the early life stages
extends from the beginning of spawning
through the end of the early life stages.
Since the duration of early life stages
can vary according to fish species, EPA
recommends that any ELS-absent
provision reflect such variations. A good
source for determining the duration of
early life stages is The American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Standard E-1241, "Standard Guide for
Conducting Early Life -Stage Toxicity
Tests with Fishes", which uses the
following durations when testing for
toxicity on early life stages (Table 3).
TABLE 3.—DURATION OF EARLY LIFE STAGE DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES
Taxon
End of early life stage development
Fathead minnow
Channel catfish
Bluegill
White Sucker
Northern pike
Striped bass
Trout, salmon, char
34 days after spawning.
34 days after spawning.
34 days after spawning.
34 days after spawning.
34 days after spawning.
46 days after spawning.
30 days after swim -up (swim -up is the stage when fry leave the nest and swim up to the sur-
face to catch food).
For taxa not listed above, the period
for early life stage development should
be based on taxonomic and life history
similarity.
5. To allow the ELS-absent provision,
should there be a complete absence of
sensitive life stages or is the presence of
very low densities acceptable, as long as
there is no threat to the overall
population? What should a State's or
Tribe's determination of absence of fish
sensitive life stages consist of? Is actual
biological survey data required, or can
a finding be based on expert opinion
from fisheries biologists? Is EPA going
to specify any minimum biological data
requirements?
To be most protective of aquatic life
in a waterbody being considered for the
ELS-absent provision, knowing that
there is a "complete absence", or "very
low densities" of sensitive life stages of
fish, would provide a high level of
confidence in allowing for the
adjustment. However, actually
measuring the "complete absence" of
sensitive life stages of fish in a
waterbody may be very difficult, if not
impossible, even with rigorous,
scientifically designed sampling efforts.
Most field sampling methods are not
designed to sample for these sensitive
life stages. In addition, "very low
densities" are difficult to accurately
measure without extensive fish
population sampling at critical times of
the year. Further, because the
conditions for implementing an ELS-
absent provision apply to all fish
species rather than to only game fish
species, there may be less field data
readily available for all fish species
comprising the aquatic community at
any given site. Therefore, the objective
should be to best identify the
timeframes during the year when
sensitive life stages are most likely not
to be present in numbers that, if chronic
toxicity did occur, would affect the
long-term success of the fish population.
To best determine when the ELS-
absent provision should be applied, all
readily available information regarding
the fish species distributions, spawning
periods, nursery periods and the
duration of sensitive life stages found in
the waterbody should be considered.
Information on waterbody temperature
might also be useful. Expert opinions
from fisheries biologists and other
scientists should be considered, and
where it can be obtained, the consensus
opinion from a diverse body of experts
may be heavily relied upon.
The determination of the timeframe
during the year when sensitive life
stages are most likely not to be present
in numbers that, if chronic toxicity did
occur, would affect the long-term
success of the fish populations, should
include a record of information
adequate to withstand public scrutiny.
EPA will use this record as the basis
upon which to approve or disapprove
the standard. The record should clearly
explain all the factors and information
considered in arriving at the
determination. EPA does not have
minimum data requirements for these
determinations; however, States and
Tribes should rely on the
preponderance of available information.
Without adequate and reliable
information, EPA would make the
judgment that sensitive life stages are
present and must be protected at all
times of the year.
6. Is the evaluation of the presence or
absence of early life stages of fish
limited to what exists in a water body
currently, or should historical data on
aquatic communities be considered?
According to the Clean Water Act,
States and Tribes are to protect existing
uses, and therefore should protect for
the most sensitive uses that have
occurred in a given waterbody since
November, 1975.40 CFR 131.12(a)(1)
and 40 CFR 131.3(e). Hence, States and
Tribes should consider both current and
historical species that have used a
waterbody for spawning and rearing
since November, 1975. Even where
water quality is protective of designated
uses, the current species composition in
a waterbody may not reflect all species
that have used the waterbody for
spawning or rearing since 1975. It is
EPA's position that any ELS-absent
provision should not prevent the return
of any species associated with an
existing or designated use. Therefore,
States and Tribes should evaluate both
current and historical data back to
Novembdr, 1975, in determining a
presence or absence of sensitive life
stages.
7. In specifying in its water quality
standards when the ELS-absent
provision applies, can a State or Tribe
rely on the same date every year based
on average annual ambient water
temperatures, or should a State or Tribe
rely on ambient water temperature
thresholds that would trigger the ELS-
absent provision?
EPA believes that the best way for a
State or Tribe to implement its ELS-
absent provision is to establish in its
water quality standards a fall and a
spring date based on historical
spawning and early life stage data.
Alternatively, a State or Tribe may

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 245/Wednesday, December 22, 1999/Notices 71979
specify ambient water temperature
thresholds that would serve as
surrogates for expected spawning and
expected absence of early life stages of
fish. Upon reaching the temperature
thresholds in the fall and spring, the
ELS-absent provision would go into
effect.
Either approach may be suitable,
however, EPA recommends the
establishment of a fall and spring date
in a State's or Tribe's water quality
standards, because such an approach is
simpler to implement in NPDES
(National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permits.
Alternatively if a State or Tribe
establishes an ambient water
temperature threshold approach, it may
specify the fall and spring temperature
thresholds in its water quality
standards. These thresholds would
subsequently be implemented through
water quality control measures (e.g.,
NPDES permitting, TMDLs). EPA, in its
review and approval/disapproval of
State and Tribal water quality standards,
may request that States and Tribes
submit detailed procedures addressing
the implementation of this alternate
approach. If the dates are decided at the
time of permit issuance, then the
ambient water temperature record (or
other condition record) for the site
would be evaluated (along with the pH
and flow record) as part of the permit
issuance process. The final NPDES
permit would include fixed dates
specifying the seasonally varying water
quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL).
Regardless of the approach taken,
States and Tribes should keep in mind
the following concepts in determining
the beginning and end of the ELS-absent
period. In the spring, a State or Tribe
should consider when (or at what
ambient water temperature) early spring
spawning is likely to occur, and set the
spring cut-off date (or temperature
threshold) accordingly. Setting a fall
start date (or temperature threshold) is
more complicated because in addition
to considering when the late summer
and early fall spawners are likely to stop
spawning, a State or Tribe should also
consider the duration of the early life
stages of the late summer/early fall
spawners. For instance, if the
temperature threshold was triggered for
the latest fall spawner on October 15,
and its early life stage is expected to last
30 days, then the ELS-absent provision
would begin as early as November 15.
However, if in the same waterbody, the
temperature threshold for spawning was
triggered for an earlier spawner on
October 1, and its early life stage lasted
60 days, then the ELS-absent provision
could begin no earlier than December 1.
Hence when using temperature
thresholds a State or Tribe needs to
consider both expected spawning, as
well as the expected duration of early
life stages of fish. Safety factors are also
appropriate where a State or Tribe is
less confident in its data for a particular
site or where there might be late
spawning populations.
8. Can a State or Tribe apply the ELS-
absent provision to an underlying site -
specific ammonia criterion?
Applying the ELS-absent provision to
a site -specific criterion depends on the
procedure used for determining the site -
specific criterion. At sites where the
Water -Effect Ratio (WER) procedure is
used, the WER would apply to both
ELS-absent and ELS-present criteria
values. (However, it has been EPA's
experience that the WER procedure has
yielded ratios close to 1.0 for ammonia.)
At sites where the Recalculation or
Resident Species procedure is used, a
State or Tribe should consider the
effects of having eliminated species
from the data set before applying the
ELS-absent provision. In many
instances, site -specific criteria are
developed: for small tributary streams
and headwater streams with lower
species diversity and fewer game fish
species. States and Tribes considering
the ELS-absent provision must protect
early life stages of all fish species, not
just species considered to be of value to
a fishery. Because the Recalculation
Procedure involves a re -derivation of
the criterion, and not merely a factor
adjustment of the criterion, a re -
derivation of a ELS-absent criteria table
should follow procedures similar to
those used in the 1999 Update.
C. State and Tribal Adoption of
Ammonia>Criteria
EPA recommends that States and
Tribes adopt numeric ammonia criteria,
applicable at all times of the year for alb
waters designated for the protection of
aquatic life or for waters whose existing
uses include aquatic life. Numeric
criteria may be adopted based on EPA's,
ambient water quality criteria for
ammonia, such criteria modified to
reflect site -specific conditions, or other
scientifically defensible methods. 40
CFR 13,1.11(b)(1). States and Tribes;
shouldadopt narrative criteria where,
numeric criteria cannot be established
or to supplement numeric criteria. 40
CFR 131.11(b)(2). Because EPA has
issued section 304(a) criteria for
ammonia, numeric criteria for ammonia
can be established. Ammonia is a
pollutant that is routinely found in the
wastewater effluent of publicly -owned
treatment works and landfill leachate, as
well as run-off from agricultural fields
where commercial fertilizers and animal
manure are applied. Ammonia is
frequently identified as a pollutant
causing or contributing to water quality
impairment when states assemble their
lists of impaired surface waters under
section 303(d). Because ammonia has
known toxic effects to aquatic life, as is
demonstrated in EPA's 1999 Update of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia, the Office of Water finds that
control of ammonia discharges is
necessary to protect aquatic life uses of
surface water across the United States.
Numeric criteria for ammonia are much
easier to implement in NPDES permits
than are narrative criteria because they
form a concrete basis for calculating the
need for and the substance of any
needed effluent limitations. In the
TMDL program, such criteria serve as a
definitive benchmark for determining
impairment of waters for listing
purposes and then as a concrete starting
point for establishing TMDL's,
wasteload allocations for point sources
and load allocations for nonpoint
sources. Further, because water quality
criteria are commonly implemented
through regulatory mechanisms such as
TMDLs and NPDES permits, State and
Tribal adoption of numeric criteria does
not have a direct impact on any given
discharger. In the case of NPDES
permits, a water quality based effluent
limit would apply to a given discharger
only if the discharge has the reasonable
potential to cause an exceedance of a
water quality criterion. In addition
under section 303(d) of the CWA,
waterbodies would be listed and TMDLs
established only where the ambient
concentrations in the water exceed the
ammonia criteria.
The adoption of numeric criteria for
ammonia will be a priority for the
triennial reviews of water quality
standards that will occur in FY2001-
2003. Beginning with FY2001, EPA
Headquarters and Regional Offices will
develop management agreements with
the states and tribes that will include
commitments to have states and tribes
adopt numeric criteria for ammonia.
Where a state does not amend its water
quality standards to inlude water
quality criteria for ammonia that will
ensure protection of designated uses,
EPA's Office of Water will recommend
to the Administrator that she act under
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act to
promulgate numeric criteria with the
goal of assuring that protective criteria
for ammonia apply in all states not later
than 2004.

M3
• 71980 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 245/Wednesday, December 22, 1999/Notices
VI. Threatened or Endangered Species
Because ambient criteria are generally
designed to protect 95 percent of all fish
and aquatic invertebrate taxa, there
remains a small possibility that the
criteria will not protect all listed
endangered or threatened species.
Consequently, EPA recommends that
States and Tribes develop more
stringent, site -specific modifications of
the criteria as necessary to protect
threatened and endangered species.
In adopting ammonia criteria for
specific water bodies, States and Tribes
may need to develop more stringent,
site -specific modifications of the criteria
to protect listed endangered or
threatened species, where sufficient
data exist indicating that endangered or
threatened species are more sensitive to
a pollutant than the species upon which
the criteria are based. Such
modifications may be accomplished
using either of the following two
procedures.
1. More stringent, site -specific
modifications may be calculated to
protect a listed endangered or
threatened species by using the Species
Mean Acute Value (SMAC) and Species
Mean Chronic Value (SMCV). Resetting
the CMC: If the CMC is greater than 0.5
times the Species Mean Acute Value for
a listed threatened or endangered
species, or a surrogate for such species,
obtained from flow -through, measured -
concentration tests, then the CMC
should be reset equal to 0.5 times that
Species Mean Acute Value. (The
empirical factor 0.5 converts from a 50
percent lethality concentration to a
minimal -lethality concentration.)
Resetting the CCC: If the CCC is greater
than the Species Mean Chronic Value of
a listed threatened or endangered
species or surrogate, then the CCC
should be reset to that Species Mean
Chronic Value. If the Species Mean
Chronic Value is not available, then the
CCC can be reset by dividing the
Species Mean Acute Value by the Acute
to Chronic Ratio (ACR) in accord with
EPA's "Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and their Uses (1985)," for
deriving a CCC for commercially and
recreationally important species; or,
2. More stringent, site -specific
modifications may be calculated to
protect a listed endangered or
threatened species by using the
recalculation procedure for site -specific
modifications described in Chapter 3 of
the U.S. EPA Water Quality Standards
Handbook, Second Edition —Revised
(1994).
Dated: December 15, 1999.
Dana D. Minerva,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 99-33152 Filed 12-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

Temperature and pH -Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)
for Fish Early Life Stages Present
CCC for Fish Early Life Stages Present, mg N/L
pH
Temperature, C
0 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
6.67 6.67 6.06 5.33 4.68 4.12 3.62 3.18 2.80 2.46
6.57 6.57 5.97 5.25 4.61 4.05 3.56 3.13 2.75 2.42
6.44 6.44 5.86 5.15 4.52 3.98 3.50 3.07 2.70 2.37
6.29 6.29 5.72 5.03 4.42 3.89 3.42 3.00 2.64 2.32
6.12 6.12 5.56 4.89 4.30 3.78 3.32 2.92 2.57 2.25
5.91 5.91 5.37 4.72 4.15 3.65 3.21 2.82 2.48 2.18
5.67 5.67 5.15 4.53 3.98 3.50 3.08 2.70 2.38 2.09
5.39 5.39 4.90 4.31 3.78 3.33 2.92 2.57 2.26 1.99
5.08 5.08 4.61 4.06 3.57 3.13 2.76 2.42 2.13 1.87
4.73 4.73 4.30 3.78 3.32 2.92 2.57 2.26 1.98 1.74
4.36 4.36 3.97 3.49 3.06 2.69 2.37 2.08 1.83 1.61
3.98 3.98 3.61 3.18 2.79 2.45 2.16 1.90 1.67 1.47
3.58 3.58 3.25 2.86 2.51 2.21 1.94 1.71 1.50 1.32
3.18 3.18 2.89 2.54 2.23 1.96 1.73 1.52 1.33 1.17
2.80 2.80 2.54 2.24 1.96 1.73 1.52 1.33 1.17 1.03
2.43 2.43 2.21 1.94 1.71 1.50 1.32 1.16 1.02 0.897
2.10 2.10 1.91 1.68 1.47 1.29 1.14 1.00 0.879 0.773
1.79 1.79 1.63 1.43 1.26 1.11 0.973 0.855 0.752 0.661
1.52 1.52 1.39 1.22 1.07 0.941 0.827 0.727 0.639 0.562
1.29 1.29 1.17 1.03 0.906 0.796 0.700 0.615 0.541 0.475
1.09 1.09 0.990 0.870 0.765 0.672 0.591 0.520 0.457 0.401
0.920 0.920 0.836 0.735 0.646 0.568 0.499 0.439 0.386 0.339
0.778 0.778 0.707 0.622 0.547 0.480 0.422 0.371 0.326 0.287
0.661 0.661 0.601 0.528 0.464 0.408 0.359 0.315 0.277 0.244
0.565 0.565 0.513 0.451 0.397 0.349 0.306 0.269 0.237 0.208
0.486 0.486 0.442 0.389 0.342 0.300 0.264 0.232 0.204 0.179
87

Temperature and pH -Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)
for Fish Early Life Stages Absent
CCC for Fish Early Life Stages Absent, mg NIL
pH
Temperature
0-7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15* 16*
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
10.8 10.1 9.51 8.92 8.36 7.84 7.35 6.89 6.46 6.06
10.7 9.99 9.37 8.79 8.24 7.72 7.24 6.79 6.36 5.97
10.5 9.81 9.20 8.62 8.08 7.58 7.11 6.66 6.25 5.86
10.2 9.58 8.98 8.42 7.90 7.40 6.94 6.51 6.10 5.72
9.93 9.31 8.73 8.19 7.68 7.20 6.75 6.33 5.93 5.56
9.60 9.00 8.43 7.91 7.41 6.95 6.52 6.11 5.73 5.37
9.20 8.63 8.09 7.58 7.11 6.67 6.25 5.86 5.49 5.15
8.75 8.20 7.69 7.21 6.76 6.34 5.94 5.57 5.22 4.90
8.24 7.73 7.25 6.79 6.37 5.97 5.60 5.25 4.92 4.61
7.69 7.21 6.76 6.33 5.94 5.57 5.22 4.89 4.59 4.30
7.09 6.64 6.23 5.84 5.48 5.13 4.81 4.51 4.23 3.97
6.46 6.05 5.67 5.32 4.99 4.68 4.38 4.11 3.85 3.61
5.81 5.45 5.11 4.79 4.49 4.21 3.95 3.70 3.47 3.25
5.17 4.84 4.54 4.26 3.99 3.74 3.51 3.29 3.09 2.89
4.54 4.26 3.99 3.74 3.51 3.29 3.09 2.89 2.71 2.54
3.95 3.70 3.47 3.26 3.05 2.86 2.68 2.52 2.36 2.21
3.41 3.19 2.99 2.81 2.63 2.47 2.31 2.17 2.03 1.91
2.91 2.73 2.56 2.40 2.25 2.11 1.98 1.85 1.74 1.63
2.47 2.32 2.18 2.04 1.91 1.79 1.68 1.58 1.48 1.39
2.09 1.96 1.84 1.73 1.62 1.52 1.42 1.33 1.25 1.17
1.77 1.66 1.55 1.46 1.37 1.28 1.20 1.13 1.06 0.990
1.49 1.40 1.31 1.23 1.15 1.08 1.01 0.951 0.892 0.836
1.26 1.18 1.11 1.04 0.976 0.915 0.858 0.805 0.754 0.707
1.07 1.01 0.944 0.885 0.829 0.778 0.729 0.684 0.641 0.601
0.917 0.860 0.806 0.756 0.709 0.664 0.623 0.584 0.548 0.513
0.790 0.740 0.694 0.651 0.610 0.572 0.536 0.503 0.471 0.442
* At 15 C and above, the criterion for fish ELS absent is the same as the criterion for fish ELS
present.
88

Appendix I
Estimated Permit Limits for Ammonia Using Updated (1999)- Federal Criteria

Recalculation of Ammonia Limits Based on 1999 Federal Criteria Update
Case #1: Based on Contentnea Creek 7Q10 Flow of 0.84 mgd
Applicable Ammonia Criteria
Apr - Oct:
Max Creek Temp (°C)
Max Creek pH (s.u.)
29 Jul
6.9 Oct & Aug
Chronic Criterion for Early Life Stage - Present (Apr - Oct) 2.25 mg/L as nitrogen
Nov - Mar:
Max Creek Temp (°C)
Max Creek pH (s.u.)
15 Nov & Mar
7.6 Jan
Chronic Criterion for Early Life Stage - Absent (Nov - Mar) 3.85 mg/L as nitrogen
Acute Criterion (based on max pH of 7.6 and assuming 11.4 mg/L as nitrogen
salmonids are present)
Wasteload Allocation (WLA)
Acute WLA (WLAa) (using 7Q10 flow; 1Q10 flow nobavailable)
Effluent flow (Qe)
Receiving water flow (Qw)
Water quality criterion (WQC)
WLAa = [WQC * (Qe + Qc)/Qe]
WLAa = [+11.4*(14+1.3)/14]
WLAa = 12.08 mg/L
14 mgd
0.84 mgd
11.4 mg/L
Chronic WLA (WLAc) for Early Life Stage Present (using 7Q10 flow; 30Q10 flow not available)*
Effluent flow (Qe)
Receiving water flow (Qw)
Water quality criterion (WQC)
WLAc = [WQC * (Qe + Qc)/Qe]
WLAc = [+11.4*(14+1.3)/14]
WLAc = 2.38 mg/L
14 mgd
0.84 mgd
2.25 mg/L
Chronic WLA (WLAc) for Early Life Stage Absent (using 7Q10 flow; 30Q10 flow not available)*
Effluent flow (Qe)
Receiving water flow (Qw)
Water quality criterion (WQC)
WLAc = [WQC * (Qe + Qc)/Qe]
14 mgd
0.84 mgd
3.85 mg/L

WLAc = [+11.4*(14+1.3)/14]
WLAc = 4.08 mg/L
* Note: EPA's 1999 Criteria Update recommends using the 30Q10 or 30Q5 flow
Long -Term Average (LTA) Calculation
Chronic LTA (LTAc)
Coefficient of variation (CV)
Z score (based on 99th percentile probability)
@230 = In(CV2/30+1)
©230 = 0.011929
@30 = 0.109218
LTAc for Early Life Stage Present
LTAc = WLAc * e(0.5@23o-z@3o)
LTAc = WLAc * e(0:5(In(CV2/30+1)-z@30
LTAc = 1.86 mg/L as nitrogen
LTAc for Early Life Stage Absent
LTAc = WLAc * e(0.5@230-z@3o)
LTAc = WLAc * e(0.5(In(CV2/30+1)-z@3o
LTAc = 3.18 mg/L as nitrogen
Calculated Limits
0.6 assumed
2.326
Maximum Daily Limit (MDL) for Early Life Stage Present
MDL = LTA* e(z@-0.5*@2)
MDL = LTA* e(z@-0.5*(In(CV2/30+1)
MDL = 2.38 mg/L as nitrogen
Maximum Daily Limit (MDL) for Early Life Stage Absent
MDL = LTA * e(z@-0.5*@2)
MDL = LTA* e(z@-0.5*(In(CV2/30+1)
MDL = 4.08 mg/L as nitrogen
Average Monthly Limit (AML) for Early Life Stage Present
AML = LTA* e(z@30-0.5*@23o)
AML = LTA * e(z@30-0.5*(In(CV2/30+1)
AML = LTA * 1.28 (Note: 1.28 value taken from EPA, 1991)
AML = 2.38 mg/L as nitrogen

Average Monthly Limit (AML) for Early Life Stage Absent
AML = LTA * e(z@30-0.5*@23o)
AML = LTA * e(z@30-0.5*(In(CV2/30+1)
AML = LTA * 1.28
AML = 4.08 mg/L as nitrogen

Recalculation of Proposed Ammonia Limits Based on 1999 Federal Criteria Update (Includes EP
Case #2: Contentnea Creek Flow Based on Minimum Dam Release of 0.905 mgd
Applicable Ammonia Criteria
Apr - Oct:
Max Creek Temp (°C)
Max Creek pH (s.u.)
29 Jul
6.9 Oct & Aug
Chronic Criterion for Early Life Stage - Present (Apr - Oct) 2.25 mglL as nitrogen
Nov - Mar:
Max Creek Temp (°C)
Max Creek pH (s.u.)
15 Nov & Mar
7.6 Jan
Chronic Criterion for Early Life Stage - Absent (Nov - Mar) 3.85 mg/L as nitrogen
Acute Criterion (based on max pH of 7.6 and assuming 11.4 mg/L as nitrogen
salmonids are present)
Wasteload Allocation (WLA)
Acute WLA (WLAa) (using 7Q10 flow; 1 Q10 flow not available)
Effluent flow (Qe)
Receiving water flow (Qw)
Water quality criterion (WQC)
WLAa = [WQC * (Qe + Qc)IQe]
WLAa = [+11.4*(14+1.4)/14]
WLAa = 12.14 mg/L
14 mgd
0.905 mgd
11.4 mg/L
Chronic WLA (WLAc) for Early Life Stage Present (using 7Q10 flow; 30Q10 flow not available)*
Effluent flow (Qe)
Receiving water flow (Qw)
Water quality criterion (WQC)
WLAc = [WQC * (Qe + Qc)/Qe]
WLAc = [+11.4*(14+0.905)/14]
WLAc = 2.40 mg/L
14 mgd
0.905 mgd
2.25 mg/L
Chronic WLA (WLAc) for Early Life Stage Absent (using 7Q10 flow; 30Q10 flow not available)*
Effluent flow (Qe)
Receiving water flow (Qw)
Water quality criterion (WQC)
14 mgd
0.905 mgd
3.85 mg/L

WLAc = [WQC * (Qe + Qc)/Qe]
WLAc = [+11.4*(14+0.905)/14]
WLAc = 4.10 mg/L
* Note: EPA's 1999 Criteria Update recommends using the 30Q10 or 30Q5 flow
Long -Term Average (LTA) Calculation
Chronic LTA (LTAc)
Coefficient of variation (CV)
Z score (based on 99th percentile probability)
@230 = In(CV2/30+1)
@230 = 0.011929
@30 = 0.109218
LTAc for Early Life Stage Present
LTAc = WLAc * e(0.5@230-z@3o)
LTAc = WLAc * e(0.5(In(CV2/30+1))-z@30)
LTAc = 1.87 mg/L as nitrogen
LTAc for Early Life Stage Absent
LTAc = WLAc * e(0.5@230-z@3o)
LTAc = WLAc * e(0.5(In(CV2/30+1 ))-z@30)
LTAc = 3.20 mg/L as nitrogen
Calculated Limits
0.6 assumed
2.326
Maximum Daily Limit (MDL) for Early Life Stage Present
@230 = In(CV2+1)
@230 = 0.307485
@30 = 0.554513
MDL = LTA * e(z@-0.5*@2)
MDL = LTA * e(z@-0.5*(In(CV2+1)))
Z score (based on 99th percentile probability) 2.326
Z score (based on 95th percentile probability) 1.645
MDL = 3.99 mg/L as nitrogen
Or, MDL = LTA * 2.13 (Note: 2.13 value for 95th percentile taken from EPA, 1991)
MDL = 3.98 mg/L as nitrogen

Maximum Daily Limit (MDL) for Early Life Stage Absent
MDL = LTA * e(z@-0.5*@2)
MDL = LTA * e(z@-0.5*(In(CV2+1)))
Z score (based on 99th percentile probability) 2.326
Z score (based on 95th percentile probability) 1.645
MDL = 6.83 mg/L as nitrogen
Or, MDL = LTA * 2.13 (Note: 2.13 value for 95th percentile taken from EPA, 1991)
MDL = 6.81 mg/L as nitrogen
Average Monthly Limit (AML) for Early Life Stage Present
AML = LTA * e(z@30-0.5*@230)
AML = LTA * e(z@30-0.5*(In(CV2/30+1)
AML = 2.22 mg/L as nitrogen
Or, AML = LTA * 1.19 (Note: 1.19 value for 95th percentile taken from EPA, 1991)
AML = 2.22 mg/L as nitrogen
Average Monthly Limit (AML) for Early Life Stage Absent
AML = LTA * e(z@30-0.5*@230)
AML = LTA * e(z@30-0.5*(In(CV2/30+1)
AML = 3.81 mg/L as nitrogen
Or, AML = LTA * 1.19 (Note: 1.19 value for 95th percentile taken from EPA, 1991)
AML = 3.81 mg/L as nitrogen

Re: Report #1; Wilson WWTP Cadmium Reporting
Subject: Re: Report #1; Wilson WWTP Cadmium Reporting
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:58:24 -0500
From: Vernon Ray Boling <[e-mail]>
Organization: Laboratory Certification, Chemistry Laboratory
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Susan Wilson wrote:
> Unfortunately, since the meeting was postponed for several weeks, I have
> not picked the file up again. Do you still need the dates of the cadmium
> samples reported on the DMR that I gave you? I will try and pull that out
> again and do it if need be. I thought from my last e-mail (or
> conversation) with you guys that there data checked out OK - they had just
> been using 2 different labs or something - can't quite remember now?
>
> Dear Susan,
1. Do I still want the dates the cadmium data was reported?
Yes.
2. Did the data check out OK?
Maybe, I am still trying to coordinate who reported the data on which day. It
would be helpful if Wilson personnel explained whose data was used for each
day in question.
3. Why? It seems that Tritest Lab and BRI Lab have different reporting limits
and that may be the difference that you see.
> Sincerely,
> V. Ray Boling, Jr.
> DENR, DWQ
> Chemistry Laboratory
> 1623 Mai 1 Service Center
> Raleigh NC 27699-1623
1 of 1 1/31/01 9:39 AM

NC0023906
Facility: Wilson
Discharge to: Contentnea Creek, C-Sw NSW
Stream class and index #:
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.1 :1
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
1.4 7Q10 (CFS)
14 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
21.7 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
93.94 IWC (%)
18.10 Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
200/100m I
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
1.4
14
21.7
1.0
0.22
93.94
1.05
5.2
14
21.7
1.8
0.22
80.67
2.18

Wilson
NC0023906
Examples of Instream data collected by the City
Upstream D1 (NCSR 1606) D2 (NCSR 1622) D3 (NCSR 1628) D4 (Hwy 222)
(1/2 mile from briidge at Black Crk Rd)
Date Temp DO Temp DO Temp DO Temp DO Temp DO
9/20/00 24 6.1 25 5.1 25 6 24 4.7 23 5.1
9/22/00 25 4.4 25 4 24 5 24 4.7 24 4.7
9/27/00 20 3.8 21 4.5 21 4.8 21 4.8 22 5
8/9/00 28 5.6 28 5 28 4.1 28 3 28 3.4
8/10/01 28 5 31 5.3 28 5.9 28 2.8 28 3.2
8/11/00 29 5.9 28 5.2 28 5.3 28 2.9 28 2.9
8/16/00 28 6 27 6 28 5.5 27 4.7 27 3.5
8/18/00 27 5.4 27 5.7 27 4.6 27 4.6 27 4.9
Same scenarios for July, June, May
10/5/99 21.5 6.9
10/26/99 15 5
21.6 5.4 21.4 4.2 21.1 2.6 21.1 3.2
15 5.9 15 5.5 15 5.5 15 4.9
NOTE: These are only some examples of the City's instream data. In some months there was and upward trend after DO's <5 and in some
instances there was a downward trend in the DO. No trend analysis has been performed on the data. However, it is obvious that DOs are
depressed along Contentnea Creek in this area (as demonstrated by the City's data and DWQs ambient data).

EXAMPLES: FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF NEUSE NSW MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
ON POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES
Current Conditions
Potential Future Conditions
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e) (i)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Flow
(MGD)
TN
(mg/1,
conc.
equivalent_
TN
(mass
allocation)
Flow
(MGD)
TN
(mg/1,
conc.
equivalent)
TN
(mass
allocation)
TN
(est. BAT
concentration
& mass a uiv.)
Total TN mass over
allocation and
subject to offset
payment
Total Offset
Payment
Wilson
14
3.7 mg/1
157,680
lbs/yr
20
2.59 mg/1
Less than BAT
157,680
lbs/yr
3.0 mg/1 (500
lbs/day)
= 182,500
lbs/yr
182,500 - 157,680
= 24,820 lbs/yr
$ 16.4 M
Ref. 15A NCAC 2B .0234 Neuse River Basin - NSW Management Strategy: Wastewater Discharge Requirements.
Parts (7) and (8) refer to new and expanding facilities, respectively.
FOOTNOTES (next page)

EXAMPLES: FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF NEUSE NSW MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
ON POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES
FOOTNOTES
(a) Current permitted/design flow.
(b) The concentration equivalent (mg/1) of the total yearly nitrogen mass allocation. This value is calculated as follows (for Wilson):
PF * conc. * 8.34 = Allocation/365 d
Conc = (157,680 lbs/yr * yr/365 d) / 14 * 8.34
= 3.7 mg/1
(c) The total nitrogen annual mass allocation (this has been set and pre -determined with implementation of the temp. rule).
(d) Hypothetical future permitted flow.
(e) The concentration equivalent (mg/1) of the total annual nitrogen mass allocation based on the hypothetical permitted future flow. This value is calculated
similarly to that shown in (b):
PF(future) * conc. * 8.34 = Allocation/365 d
Conc. = (157,680 lbs/yr * yr/365d) / 20 * 8.34
= 2.6 mg/1
(f) The total nitrogen mass allocation (same as (c)).
(g) The Division has made the assumption that at this time 3.0 mg/1 TN is Best Available Technology - it's possible a facility may be able to achieve a lesser
concentration. Should a facility prove that a lesser (or greater) value is feasible, the offset calculation may be adjusted accordingly. The calculation is as
follows:
Allocation = PF(future) * 3.5 mg/1 * 8.34
= 20 * 3.0 * 8.34
500 lbs/day * 365d/yr
c* 182,500 lbs/yr
(h) The facility must pay the difference between what their present annual mass nitrogen allocation is and what the calculated load at BAT of 3.0 mg/1 is. This
means paying the difference between the load at 2.6 mg/1 (concentration based on allocated load) and 3.0 mg/1 for the future flow of 20 MGD (in the case of
Wilson)
Offset load = Load at 3.0 mg/1 & 20 MGD - Allocated load
= 182,500 - 157,680
= 24,820 lbs/year
(i) As stated in the rule, the offset cost must be determined based on $11 lb TN/yr for a period of 30 years at 200 %.
Total offset cost = Offset Load * $11 lb TN/yr * 30 yr * 2
=24,820* 11 *30*2
= $ 16.4 M
2

57/zr,44tA.,
sx/.4c, 541622 1619
ae (6 i/zom gkfa ciA 4.) I
-r 0 7— Do T fro
c( 20 Li , 25 26., 0
`LA
7/22 zo 3,18
29 .
2,2 6
p z
P
r
1,0 5:0 2 1 1,7
2.1 Is 71 4,0 Z/, 8
ZS , 0 2g 2
3/ -5,3 20 ? 2'0 z-,8
20 5, 7-
27 ie 5; 5- 77 4,7
2-7 5-,7 77 1,& 27, 4;6
/14#9/1 114-kuS 64,1, b 55 T4 .111
3.`"iv-577L 44 IN z A45 Loc.4512_
I/zoo 2-6
_ZE9 5 7 2& •2G, +7
1,40 Aupky (A) 5r
< 5 iv/ te10-11-4) 771-1,—,e2 w,J5Ti2C44,14)
z/% 10 LI- c2 1 3 6.0
fe-fi
/s-
4240 v;- C,0
& 5-, 1
/5- •54')
/ 3
Roy 22-z
0
2/, 1-,Z , 6
ez?
2/, I 3,Z
-
J.s--

i(# a
00
Z (Sx
/00 < z ()
7/6o 42. f 42,(3x)
6/co
VI° L-2-
LZ
Zla L2
7((Gz 7
,off- 0, oS
5 of
1/ 4,o
4-. Qf-
1l1" :o1-
tig oil

(COU/wr - � ,J - car/ . x/S f te5 6h4t,
fre?564-Cc 5 (9•F PA* (Aim!) gasitSe5
-- Gr ttv _
A114- ' I'u(r Mk 1??* - 5 tot( 7-2 6-1
PWri/f 4160 ; /??7
Alf-6 N c-/& (7 aF
50G , �c 2/1
4,9/vs 9Pitir
iv'v /? 7 P,-h„ 1 s s 9 4 ( Trr--4.
lce?e
/ f suei> i!l%
W11-90N' - 1l1,9uc6 G,lAc17 2 2.
/ 9-TIoN ,fi N"T Sl -g. g 3 -At °r
l t z• i4- 5 10 ,✓_
lrtlt zlo wo 4 1-P iu 77^/y ( 2
CHIV4 r2ow 5 cc,icz g e. Pe
6P� G(Z1 rA'�s t ¢ Auc-1✓'5
5,061 ;14. 7 ?
IN )// 1-Of l r— • ,
BP /413 -/� ; 7ff 'Zo2 /�l�r - /Vciair

cfrw OtW569 kii0 /17(1)71-6, t eau/VP!, 15
No1jN
661AetV5 PIT TAt Ar 10(41047 peteopma-:=. otr-- if
I4Udl Q e.64) 5U ( r
P14
ebv> v'/c5D
) 1 C- M &4-1- 7 T C -/- t y Mom- ( z_
4-i y Gvotr ram' ®g /from
piikee flc99/4/4 — CBs 7 rAt c 5rki>f 4D49'
/°d>"i i�Z h 11,1-1 00J _
4 rg-c fry pr- earl" iIA -
er iirt9y 661A/ 51‘711-1.
r 11 Ai/ ,5?..142pC
PervAte
-2 / / ,k/L
Ad Le
/47 c ` i it
miy, .1 2-
We
N/eAJ #A 1t-a 0-0T& d,V,'E a/4-y
-� bet C 15 - Ze _ AuT se/
4 5 OZ - c1531

Mom' i/ i fliow
ekee, epew Ler_y.,/& preocat-r_ (6;z- civm-noz-)
/00 Mve eL (M(.ue4-i` 4.. Xic_ -,try / 4-Pb
pue ,D N -7 5T Y - ,f"z Roc/Atf /s) 7
Olk 144nr r rt 5 67ct 4.6 of Com Pu,vJG£ - ct crk4N
ttee2 72. /-1-- &If AVAJ i
s �g
$
3 `(� --� 4'0 ( Z rq;r- - oP 3
S ..L' ( (/IF. fcsq-r
L(Mrr (`> P/2,9T6cr h
Mr) ... OPd>o cccAt, 1 Yoh 4 1-L-
5k'1 s �►`'' i- Qppo ,e-t (g t7y veaJe cG4u s rr f -i'6,4 r7'
114#01-27. 6ceree 44y — cat Avow P 24t;
MO- AYE r 7a MOa'r Ai i At .
•-- loth r,:yowi s je c weR-WU'( t {ate 'k i7"
1111451- t►tu % nirx,J,
CJ L V ^' SA<r y Corr aiu1r W i 14, inter �pn1
Utz 14 itt6b -�

fw J Pe -
Ateriktf5 ci) JAirp
,jvil J RD wow
wob ; si1AI.F Di o . ©4-
72461.)
/Ll 5 ff Po u Sidi c AA - efze jr
I Cie-
�lD (d--lbuLt a
&5m,)Y �,Scuss'W/5 77,.E
LAAw P Dry C L' •} 2-gr-f-/N 1 Q(c65
'born , 75I S 7 AL/ it))
�iei �ezr- `14
/U07-- eLc cd g 5 gt it4 L
77 s' 4 7 r.cl,c NEy 'Uc ' $660W 0-CZ
to lJ �z
froa
14r/4— 171 10-J(fci c4 Mon/r /7 5PE2te'
avid /d Acaittfr^1T> %7/f u't Di*GiaLS -
Cog %04. .7-71
4e,' es? 10 Att. Arm% % Y (•e7

4(4-7t)
j7AI G c e,J O06 ser &P 4.(6 itis $ems og
tz-1 o N i•✓vor,itsie),
p . 71(. K4- ifr. kot-
• ` TM4,17-Fit /A* 5rit i rhvi* NtoNer
'IAA 125 A4 fM f 0 64�f d�cl

. 1 (
oC
Af
50 A)
g:7‘4,J v-K/e7A-eS
trittuf #49AiihS
4..5 5-e glitzce
eiZaries 44°'
Ikg-9-rf °pro/
),J Ca) 2.390(,"
14A.Zrs-il hj
C/1.'y 094 44.) so,,J
(2, 4f /say!
zf
_ 6/-ez4 4_ DIA-41 la_
atoeleicA-
zac.q
aila/A/Ppe5Goit
Ai& Art1-11 Oorp-ic&
S-00 $?19
7 /- 241
033:2122_-
as-a -319--- A32y
-35,9
r/5-S33-71s-z
-//e-, 733
(71q 733-013rk<Sa
tqJ ;

kWCT/ d/% A:59"/ - 49 6itires/gP - Cife /17-6.
11/4iy f _ pa( q%5
im Gi > f7ow rocrvoie mild 6c. affmar{zee�'
Qa4 esti (
eit410, /w13
640111eice, — /V7 ,fec. „2 ,y,/t__
*Pei ,,Or/ ce'k, emV-vind &et, h;or 0/77)
dichie adi 5-e
- z /7f /1-rc 1-14.e.it• Pc- eon+ z
yds 4 1/4/05/- p-17 7 7 /4 ta-5
> 4,,,-„ffpn/ftetir; t, et" /vl prdoe-
, l my /v113
/t/ /i»,iL,s ok kelei oyr foar. J%1 �3o*,s 6(p&
Qyiri-� Weft/
>. otifi5 444. 4 611 Cellar, / /iv R/1/.017 .
cRse /irr.14 ca/ctii/ahn.11/tPla5' /KC Orilt4 110711talettj 6,°r1b0Sle,
CP �r.
tpd ra.0 I I ntaid$ a CI. e.-&
1,014y Q' l6� /Q, a�roi Zo7t44� thf2.v/. Atze;/04Y .( �� .
Al&/44
A c°�/o(�f� yells 4��� ��d"), mew
��%� 5 i�ror�4 ? drNauYci„defb-n 3 or z(Yrs.
eri f/14 blifrotAvrvm* .
AY( emir/mat eApor /nit
-4( ridlo✓►l has a Afitt'41'141-6(' ✓16l6
1X I
qq70 4/-R enssi,
WI- hew dire e.d inarafk97-,Aap
�-6
-/D'/cJ'.
condcet euia4eir dxi G

Lok) otw
5chAd. cerr. 7/4t_ 14/. 47, .
_WM Okla Worn
- - y-4u el el 6.pgy7ff)/Duji(9(552-ea „vf-
7/41115 &of
5-4( A y itmee,,i-rie4es.
4 ett, (r/e{e-{,-
11011 bV//
4111014 Pepia.
. sfriye 4a,14,5rl J
. SST 0d0.
JIA7 /1101/1
/1441'S LI/14 tic
tIv
G'd .(1 1. Glus 4/1 o. Z, o. 1fj avid tg
/;1 /97g,
(opaer Gl L(fe
16491
rtAdettr
Roll-1771 is a roGh9
9 0- Yeicr gra
z000
a.�- it?
(2'
yes
• Rot atirnilf-,cejj
no -Amd44.� "1
pJ14a'