NC0023965_Permit (Issuance)_20070709

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0023965
Wilmington Northside WWTP
Document Type:
f
'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:
July 9, 2007
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore slimy
content on the resrerse side

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
July 9, 2007
Ms. Mary Ann Hinshaw
Acting Public Utilities Department Director
City of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1810
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit NC0023965
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
New Hanover County
Dear Ms. Hinshaw:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North
Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
This final permit includes the following changes from your current permit:
>The existing twice per month monitoring for cyanide, copper, silver and zinc has been reduced to once
per month. These' parameters presented no reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards and
the City has had an exemplary effluent toxicity testing record. The cyanide monitoring is kept in the
permit to collect data on the 16 MGD expansion phase. The City may request cyanide to be deleted if
twelve (12) months data after the expansion show no detection.
➢Monitoring for mercury has been deleted from this permit because effluent data showed no
detection. The City should continue monitoring through the Long Term Monitoring Plan
(LTMP) in the pretreatment program.
➢ In light of the pending completion of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to address dissolved
oxygen (D.O.) in the Lower Cape Fear watershed, condition A. (8.) has been added to the draft permit.
This condition reiterates the Division's ability to reopen the permit and modify any limits deemed
necessary after completion of the TMDL.
>The City was required by the previous NPDES Permit to submit a CORMIX Model (or equivalent)
providing additional information regarding end -of -pipe dilution at the 16.0 MGD expansion for both
existing and new discharge line diffusers. A special condition has been added to this permit (See
Special Condition A. (7.)). The intent of the dilution model is to confirm that the discharge creates no
chronic toxicity impacts. If you need more information on CORMIX Model, contact Teresa Rodriguez
at [phone] extension 553.
>An effluent pollutant scan has been added to the permit. This scan is required to fulfill EPA's
application requirement for all major municipal wastewater treatment facilities (see condition
A. (9)).
Carolina
aturailif
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwateraualitv.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

> An Enterococci bacteria limit has been added to this permit. This is a new bacterial indicator standard for
marine waters adopted by the Environmental Management Commission. The effective date for the revised
rule was May 1, 2007. However, the City's Enterococci limit will be implemented six months after the
effective date of the permit. The City is required to monitor Enterococci beginning on the effective date of
the permit. The City may contract with a private laboratory for the monitoring whilst the City makes
arrangement to get certification for its laboratory. The fecal coliform monitoring and limit expire when
the Enterococci limit becomes effective.
> In regards to the 16 MGD expansion phase, the Enterococci bacteria limit will be effective on May 1,
2008, six months after the scheduled installation of the Uttraviolet (UV) disinfection unit. If construction
is delayed by circumstances beyond the City's control, the City may request the Division to alter the
compliance schedule provided the new date is not more than 120 days after May 1, 2008 (40 CFR
122.63).
> The total residual chlorine limit of 28 ug/L has been changed to 13 ug/L to comply with the acute criteria
for salt -water bodies established by EPA (EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).
This limit is required with the 16 MGD expansion. The Division understands that ultraviolet (UV)
disinfection will be used upon expansion, so this limit may not be applicable. Please refer to Condition A.
(11.).
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable
to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt
of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that 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 or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management
Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Agyeman Adu-Poku at telephone
number [phone], extension 508.
cc: Central Files
NPDES File*
Sincerely,
cO) 074,,
.4a>Coleen H. Sullins
Wilmington Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
EPA Region IV/Roosevelt Childress, Section Chief
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
PERCS

Permit NC0023965
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
(NPDES)
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 Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of Wilmington
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater Treatment Plant
2311 North 23rd Street, Wilmington.
New Hanover County, North Carolina
to receiving waters designated as the Cape Fear River within the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV
hereof.
This permit shall become effective August 1, 2007.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2011.
Signed this day July 9, 2007.
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0023965
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The City of Wilmington is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate and maintain the existing 8.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility located at the
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP, 2311 North 23rd Street, Wilmington, New Hanover County,
discharging through outfall 001 and consisting of the following wastewater treatment components:
• mechanical bar screen
• grit removal device
• dual primary clarifiers
• dual trickling filters
• an aeration basin
• dual secondary clarifiers
• effluent pump station
• chlorine disinfection facilities
• manually -controlled de -chlorination facilities
• end -of -pipe effluent diffuser [three each, 11-inch diameter -ID iron pipes diffusing over a 90° radius]
• primary and waste -activated sludge pump stations
• sludge thickening facility
• anaerobic digesters with gas storage
• sludge de -watering facilities
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct (ATC) permit (issued September 29, 2004) from the
Division of Water Quality, and submitting an acceptable Engineer's Certification Form to the
Division at completion of construction, begin operating new facilities sufficient to treat 16.0 MGD
of wastewater, and
3. Discharge from said treatment facilities through parallel effluent force mains (see Special Condition
A. 6.), at locations specified on the attached map, into the Cape Fear River, a waterbody classified
as SC waters within the Cape Fear River Basin.

I; o Do«nstr:eaut ample ' or
.
1'a DI located 4,2 miles
downstream of the dis lt�ar-gam,
City of Wilmington
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
Receiving Stream: Cape Fear River Drainage Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
Latitude: 34° 14' 27" N Sub -Basin: 03-06-17
Longitude: 77° 57' 10" W Permitted Flow: 8.0/16.0 MGD
Stream Class: SC Grid/Ouad: K 27 NW / Wilmington, NC
Facility
Location
not to scale
TNorth
NPDES Permit No. NC0023965
New Hanover County

Permit NC0023965
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [8.0 MGD]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 8.0 MGD or
permit expiration [whichever comes sooner], the permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from
Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:.
EFFLUENT
PARAMETERS
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
' _; MONITORING
" `REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Locution1
Flow
8.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20° C2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I and E
Total Suspended SolidsZ
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I and E
NH3 as N
3/Week
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 3
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Enterococci (geometric mean) 4
35/100 ml
276/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine5
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
pH6
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 -N + NO3 -N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Cyanide
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Silver
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
E
Acute Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
. E
Dissolved Oxygen 8
Variable 9
Grab
U1, U2, D
Temperature 8
Variable 9
Grab
U1, U2, D
Footnotes:
1. I = influent; E = effluent; U1 = upstream in the NE Cape Fear River at the U.S. Highway 421 crossing; U2 = Upstream at Muddy
Point; D = downstream at the Port Authority.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent
value (i.e., 85% removal is required).
3. Monitoring and limit for fecal coliform will expire when revisions to rule 15A NCAC 2B become effective. Monitoring for fecal
coliform begins on the permit effective date. Calculate Fecal Coliform using the geometric mean (see procedure Part II, Section A ,
Paragraph 9b).
4. The limit for Enterococci becomes effective on May 1, 2008. Daily monitoring is required beginning on the permit effective date.
Calculate Enterococci using the geometric mean (see procedure Part II, Section A, Paragraph 9b) See Condition A. (10.).
5. If chlorine disinfection is implemented, then the total residual chlorine monitoring will apply. If no chlorination is used, then the total
residual chlorine monitoring does not apply.
6. pH shall not fall below 6.8 nor exceed 8.5 standard units.
7. Acute Toxicity— (Ceriodaphnia dubia 24-hour) no significant mortality at 90 %; February, May, August and November; refer to
Special Condition A. (3).
8. Stream Sampling — deferred to the Lower Cape Fear River Program by Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Should membership in
this association terminate for any reason, the Permittee shall immediately inform the Division of Water Quality in writing and
immediately resume instream monitoring as presented in this permit.
9. Variable Frequency — Stream sample shall be collected 3/Week during the summer months of June, July, August, and September;
samples shall be collected Weekly during the rest of the year.
Units: mg/L = milligrams per liter ml = milliliters
MGD = million gallons per day NO2-N = Nitrite Nitrogen
NO3-N = Nitrate Nitrogen TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Discharge shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
Annual Priority Pollutant Analysis also applies to this permit [see Special Condition A. (9.)].

Permit NC0023965
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [16.0 MGD]
Beginning upon receipt of the Engineer's Certification for completion of the 16.0 MGD expansion and lasting until permit
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001 and 002. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
PARAMETERS
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS '
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Monthly .
Average
Weekly '
Average <
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
. Sample
Type
° Sample :
Location1
Flow
16.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20° C2
(Apr 1 - Oct 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
BOD, 5-day, 20° C2
(Nov 1 - Mar 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
Total Suspended Solids'
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
NH3 as N (Apr 1 - Oct 31)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N (Nov 1 - Mar 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean )3
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Enterococci (geometric mean)4
35/100 ml
276/100 nil
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
13.0 ug/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
pH
> 6.8 and < 8.5 standard units
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 -N + NO3 -N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Cyanide
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Silver
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
E
Acute Toxicity 8
Quarterly
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen 9
Variable 10
Grab
U1, U2, D
Temperature 9
Variable 10
Grab
U1, U2, D
! ootnotes:
1. I = influent; E = effluent; UI = upstream in the NE Cape Fear River at the U.S. Highway 421 crossing; U2 = Upstream at Muddy Point; D =
downstream at the Port Authority.
2. The monthly average effluent BODs and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (i.e., 85%
removal is required).
3. Monitoring and limit for fecal coliform will expire when revisions to rule 15A NCAC 2B become effective. Monitoring for
fecal coliform begins on the permit effective date. Calculate Fecal Coliform using the geometric mean (see procedure Part
f7 Section A, Paragraph 9b.).
4. The limit for Enterococci becomes effective on May 1, 2008. Daily monitoring is required beginning on the permit effective date. Calculate
Enterococci using the geometric mean (see procedure Part II, Section A, Paragraph 9b) See Condition A. (10.).
5. If chlorine disinfection is implemented, then the total residual chlorine limit of 13 ug/L will apply. if no chlorination is used, then the
total residual chlorine monitoring and limit do not apply. See Condition A. (11.).
6. Daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not fall below 6.0 mg/L
7. Permittee can request for the monitoring to be deleted if twelve (12) months of effluent data show no detection.
8. Acute Toxicity - (Ceriodaphnia dubia 24-hour) no significant mortality at 90 %; February, May, August and November; refer to Special
Condition A. (3).
9. Stream Sampling - deferred to the Lower Cape Fear River Program by Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Should membership in this association
terminate for any reason, the Permittee shall immediately inform the Division of Water Quality in writing and immediately resume instream
monitoring as presented in this permit.
10. Variable Frequency - Stream sample shall be collected 3/Week during the summer months of June, July, August, and September; samples shall be
collected Weekly during the rest of the year.
Units: mg/L = milligrams per liter µg/L = micrograms per liter
MGD = million gallons per day ml = milliliters
NO2-N = Nitrite Nitrogen NO3-N = Nitrate Nitrogen
TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Discharge shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
Annual Priority Pollutant Analysis also applies to this permit [see Special Condition A. (9.)].

Permit NC0023965
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITION
A. (3.) ACUTE TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using protocols defined in the North Carolina Procedure
Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute Toxicity In A Single Effluent Concentration" (Revised
July, 1992 or subsequent versions). The monitoring shall be performed as a Ceriodaphnia dubia 24-hour static test. The
effluent concentration at which there may be at no time significant acute mortality is 90% (defined as treatment two in the
procedure document). Effluent samples for self -monitoring purposes must be obtained during representative effluent
discharge below all waste treatment. The tests will be performed during the months of February, May, August and
November.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form
(MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGE3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-2
(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
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association
with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be
measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should 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 any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin
immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in
the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to
quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements 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 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. (4.) HISTORICAL PERMIT LIMITS
The Division recognizes that prior to issuance of this permit, the City of Wilmington James A. Loughlin
Wastewater Treatment Plant was permitted to discharge with secondary limits of 30 mg/L of BODS, 30 mg/L of
TSS, and no limit for NH3 as N. At the previously permitted flow of 8.0 MGD, these limits translate

Permit NC0023965
approximately to mass loads of 365 tons per year (tpy), BOD5, 365 tpy of TSS, and 244 tpy of NH3 as N
(assuming 20 mg/L). The mass loads described in this paragraph will be one factor the Division considers when
developing future wasteload allocations resulting from the TMDL process or when considering future expansion
requests for the James A. Loughlin WWTP.
A. (5.) ANTI -BACKSLIDING
The BOD5 and ammonia nitrogen (NH3 as N) limits in this permit may be replaced with less stringent limits
without violating state and federal anti -backsliding provisions if:
1) circumstances predicating the issuance of this permit have materially and substantially changed;
2) there are material and substantial changes to the facility;
3) new information comes available (such as the determination of a TMDL); or
4) new regulations become promulgated,
provided that the Division deems such modification appropriate and consistent with applicable laws and
regulations.
If the pennittee assembles information relevant to the above criteria, including but not limited to, information
based on calibrated modeling or similar reliable studies of the Cape Fear River Basin, the Permittee may submit
this information in support of a request to modify this permit (pursuant to 40CFR 122.62 and 122.44). The
Division will review this modification request and provide written determinations, including appropriate
justification of its decisions (40CFR 124.5). Finally, the Division will make every reasonable effort to review and
respond to this request without undue delay.
A. (6.) STIPULATION OF PARALLEL FORCE MAINS
By Authorization to Construct (ATC) for expansion to 16 MGD, the Division of Water Quality approved a new
effluent force main and outfall (with diffuser) approximately parallel to the existing effluent force main. The
Permittee shall sample final treated effluent upstream of any flow split to effluent pump stations or discharge
force mains. The Division of Water Quality acknowledges separate outfalls, however due to the single sampling
regime conducted prior to splitting, and the relative proximity of the discharge lines and outfalls, the Division
shall designate and regulate this discharge as a single outfall. Should conditions change or problems arise, the
Division may reopen this permit to designate separate outfalls, if needed.
A. (7.) EFFLUENT MIXING MODEL
The City of Wilmington shall submit a CORMIX Model (or equivalent) providing additional information
regarding end -of -pipe dilution no later than 12 months after an engineer's certification for the completion of
16.0 MGD expansion is issued. The model shall address dilution at the approved 16.0 MGD increased flow
rate into the Cape Fear River for both the existing and the new discharge -line diffusers.
A. (8.) PERMIT RE -OPENER: TMDL IMPLEMENTATION
The Division may, upon written notification to the Permittee, re -open this Permit in order to incorporate
or modify effluent limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other permit conditions when
it deems such action is necessary to implement TMDL(s) approved by the USEPA.

Permit NC0023965
A. (9.) SPECIAL CONDITION — ANNUAL PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform effluent Priority Pollutant (PPA) scans in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 for all parameters listed in the
attached table. The Pern ittee shall sample approximately annually except to provide seasonal variation (perhaps in different calendar
quarters). Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine, total residual (TRC)
1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid -extractable Compounds '`
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-creso
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile Organic Compounds
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral Compounds
lsophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylanune
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA 1 or in a form approved by the Director, within 90 days
of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to each the NPDES Unit and Central Files to the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

Permit NC0023965
A. (10.) ENTEROCOCCI
An Enterococci bacteria monthly average limit has been added to this permit. This is a new bacterial
indicator standard for marine waters adopted by the Environmental Management Commission. The effective
date for the revised rule is May 1, 2007. However, the City's Enterococci limit will become effective May 1,
2008. The City is required to monitor Enterococci until the limit becomes effective.
A. (11.) TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
An EPA acute criteria of 13 ug/1 total residual chlorine has been implemented in this permit [ref. EPA
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006]. The limit shall be implemented 18 months from
the effective date of the permit.
During this interim monitoring period, should interference issues occur and/or the facility not be able to
consistently meet or measure to values of 13 ug/1 total residual chlorine, the Division of Water Quality's
Laboratory Section/Laboratory Certification Unit should be contacted at (919) 733 — 3908. The
Certification Unit can then evaluate the effluent data and assist with any outstanding issues.

DENR / DWQ /NPDES Unit
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NC0023965
INTRODUCTION
The City of Wilmington — James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater Treatment Plant, herein
called Northside or the permittee, requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to discharge treated wastewater to the waters of the state. The City requested
timely renewal of their permit, so they are currently operating under the permit issued
September 22, 2004. This Fact Sheet summarizes background information and rationale used
by the Division to determine permit limits and monitoring frequencies.
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Northside is a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) utilizing a Grade IV conventional
treatment system to treat domestic and industrial wastewater. The treatment system utilizes an
influent pump station, a mechanical bar screen, grit removal device, dual primary clarifiers,
dual trickling filters, aeration basin, dual secondary clarifiers, chlorine contact chamber, and
anaerobic digester, and sludge de -watering facilities. Table 1. Summarizes the receiving
stream characteristics and facility description. The permittee has a phased limit to expand the
facility to 16 MGD. Wilmington received an Authorization to Construct permit to expand to
16 MGD on September 29, 2004. Construction is currently underway.
Table 1. James A. Loughlin WWTP
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Wilmington / James A. Loughlin WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O Box 1810 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Facility Address:
2311 North 23`d Street, Wilmington, North Carolina
Permitted Flow:
8 MGD and 16 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic 99 % / Industrial 1 %
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
County:
New Hanover
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Cape Fear River
SC
Regional Office:
State Grid / USGS Quad:
Wilmington
K 27 NW/ Wilmington
NC
303(d) Listed?
Yes
Permit Writer:
Agyeman Adu-Poku
Subbasin:
03-06-17
Date:
05/09/2006
Drainage Area (mi2):
NA
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
Tidal
30Q2 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs):
IWC (%):
Tidal
Tidal
NA
Lat.34° 14' 27" N (proposed); 34° 15' 47"N (existing)
Long. 77° 57' 10" W (proposed); 77° 57'10"W (existing)
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES Permit NC0023965
Page 1

Northside is a major municipality in New Hanover County, serves 66,411 people, and four
significant industrial users. The facility has permitted phased limits of 8 and 16 MGD. For
the past two years, monthly average flow varied within the range of 5.8 — 9.8 MGD as
reported in the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The permittee is a member of the
Cape Fear Monitoring Coalition, and all its in -stream monitoring is conditionally waived for
the duration of its membership in the Coalition. Northside has four significant industrial users
(-r1 % of the total flow) and a full-scale pretreatment program. The permit will continue to
require Northside to implement its pretreatment program.
BASINWIDE PLAN
The Cape Fear River [18-(71) a] from Toomers Creek to Snows Cut (5,616.7 acres) is
impaired for aquatic life because the dissolved oxygen standard was violated. The dissolved
oxygen standard for SC waters is 5 mg/l. The Division is developing a TMDL to address
D.O. in the Lower Cape Fear River and estuary. We expect to complete the study in 2008
and also expect that the completed TMDL will call for BOD and ammonia (NH3-N) limits
for wastewater dischargers (Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 2005).
Dischargers will monitor nutrients at the frequencies set in their existing permits, which
should be consistent with those in the 2B .0508 rules. The permit will include a re -opener
Special Condition allowing the Division to incorporate monitoring requirements or other
conditions during this permit term if necessary to support water quality studies (Supplement
to NPDES Permitting Strategies Cape Fear River Basin, 2006).
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION (WLA)
The last waste load allocation was done in May 1996 and developed effluent limits and
monitoring requirements considering discharge under tidal conditions [in -stream waste
concentration (IWC) not readily calculable]. For the expansion phase to 16 MGD, tertiary limits
have been required until further information becomes available via the final TMDL. The
Division views these limits and monitoring requirements appropriate for renewal.
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE (TRC)
The Division acknowledges the pending Authorization to Construct (ATC) for UV disinfection,
and also Wilmington's existing chlorination and manual de -chlorination facilities.
The permittee currently uses chlorine for disinfection. The Division has implemented a Total
Residual Chlorine (TRC) limit to protect aquatic life in the waters of the State and has adopted
an aquatic life standard for TRC. A TRC limit of 13 ug/1 has been added to this permit for the
expansion phase. Monitoring shall apply only if chlorine is used by the facility.
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0023965
Page 2

ENTEROCOCCI BACTERIA STANDARD FOR COASTAL WATERS
An Enterococci bacteria monthly average limit has been added to this permit. This is a new
bacterial indicator standard for marine waters adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission. The expected effective date for the revised rule is May 1, 2007. However, the
City's Enterococci limit will be implemented six months after the effective date of the permit.
The City is required to monitor Enterococci until the limit becomes effective. The Division is
still working on a weekly average limit so a weekly average limit may be added to this draft
permit after the work is concluded. (This is a federally mandated requirement. Refer to 40 122.45
(d)(2)).
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS (RPA)
To establish a list of pollutants of concern (POCs), the Division examined Northside's permit
application, pretreatment data, two years of Discharge Monitoring Reports (January 2004 through
December 2006), and the basin plan.
The 2004 to 2006 LTMP data set were evaluated for arsenic, copper, cyanide, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, silver, selenium, phenol, and zinc. There was no
detection for most of these parameters. RPA were performed on all the parameters that were
detected, see the results below. Also, evaluation of the priority pollutant analysis in the permit
application indicated detection for chloroform and mercury; however, none of these pollutants
presented reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standard.
Reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was performed on the following parameters based on
monitoring required in the current permit:
Copper — The maximum predicted concentration was determined to be greater than the allowable
concentration. However, because this parameter is an action level standard and the City has had
an excellent toxicity record, no limit will be require and monitoring will be reduced to 1/month.
Cyanide — There was no detection in the effluent data reviewed so no RPA was performed.
1/month monitoring is required in this permit.
Mercury - Monitoring for mercury has been deleted from this permit because effluent
data showed no detection. Coalition data showed no detection upstream of the
discharge and no nearby downstream data was available. The City should continue
monitoring through the LTMP in the pretreatment program. The LTMP requires
quarterly monitoring.
Silver - There was no detection in the effluent data reviewed so no RPA was performed.
Because this parameter is an action level standard and the City has had an excellent toxicity
record, no limit will be require and monitoring will be reduced to 1/month.
Zinc - The maximum predicted concentration is slightly less than the allowable concentration.
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0023965
Page 3

However, because this parameter is an action level standard and the City has had an excellent
toxicity record, no limit will be require and monitoring will be reduced to 1/month.
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TEST
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Acute P/F (Quarterly)
001/002: 24 Hour Acute P/F @ 90%
001/002: 24 Hour Acute P/F @ 90%
February, May, August, and November
The permittee has passed all the seventeen WET tests from February 2003 to February 2007.
See the attached WET testing summary.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
DWQ — The Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO) staff conducted an annual facility inspection
and Wes Hare prepared a staff report dated January 24, 2007. The facility was in satisfactory
condition and in compliance with the NPDES permit at the time of the inspection. One issue was
the flow, which was addressed by the September 29, 2004 ATC. Issues with the City's collection
system are being addressed under a separate regulatory mechanism.
DMR records indicated the facility had several compliance issues during January 2004
through March 2007 reporting period. The City had BOD5 monthly average, Ammonia
Nitrogen weekly average and monthly average flow exceedances. As the City addresses its
flow issues and the plant expands to 16 MGD, these compliance excursions will likely be
alleviated.
EFFLUENT MIXING MODEL
The City was required by the previous NPDES permit to submit a CORMIX Model (or
equivalent) providing additional information regarding end of pipe dilution at the 16.0 MGD
expansion for both existing and new discharge line diffusers. Although the City has done
extensive dilution modeling, the intent of this condition, as previously recommended by EPA
Region 4, is to perform a dye study and update/calibrate any existing dilution models to
ensure there are no chronic toxicity impacts (This permit assumes and evaluates acute
toxicity impacts).
PROPOSED CHANGES
• Recent Expansion to 16 MGD. The previous permit issued on September 22, 2004
included phased limits of 8 and 16 MGD. In September 2004, facility requested and
received an ATC for upgrade from 8 to 16 MGD, which included:
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0023965
Page 4

➢ Addition of new screening and grit removal facilities, and new effluent pump
station
> Addition of two new primary clarifiers (105 ft diameter) and primary sludge
pumps
> Addition of four (4) aeration tanks (1.55 MG each) with fine bubble diffusers
(four blowers at 5000 icfm)
> Two (2) new secondary clarifiers (130 ft diameter)
> New secondary sludge pumps/pump station
> Four (4) deep bed filters (10 X 70 ft)
> Two (2) backwash tanks and two (2) backwash reclaim tanks (and associated
pumps), two (2) air scour blowers, with diversion of backwash to head of
plant
> UV disinfection (four channels, 360 lamps) and associated equipment
designed for 40 MGD peak flow.
> Four (4) pumps and associated piping for in -plant reuse of treated effluent,
effluent Parshall flume, post aeration diffusers
➢ New parallel effluent force main and diffuser to the Cape Fear River
> Two (2) new, 3M gravity belt thickeners
> One rotary drum thermal dryer and associated equipment
> New generator with automatic transfer switch
> Odor control facility
An engineer's certification for the completion of the upgrade to 16 MGD has not been
received, as the expansion to 16 MGD is currently under construction.
• Priority pollutant scan has been added to fulfill EPA's permit renewal application
requirement for major municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
May 9, 2007
July 2, 2007
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Agyeman Adu-Poku at [phone] ext. 508.
NAME: Aiiernvi
cttit —Poktit
DATE: 5 /9lv7
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0023965
Page 5

References
1. NPDES Permit Application Standard Form 2A, City of Wilmington, received by
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina, July 2006.
2. NPDES Regional Staff Report and Recommendations for the Renewal, for the
City of Wilmington, NPDES Permit No. NC0023965, Wilmington Regional
Office, January 2007.
3. NPDES Permit No.NC0023965 issued to the City of Wilmington with expiration
December 2006.
4. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, North Carolina Department of
Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina, October 2005.
5. NPDES Waste Load Allocation Work Sheet, NPDES Permit No. NC0023965, the
City of Wilmington, North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1996.
6. NPDES Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results, February 2003 through February
2007, North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, Environmental Services Section, Aquatic Toxicology Unit,
Raleigh, North Carolina, 2007.
7. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) for Effluent (DEM Form MR-1) and
instream monitoring (DEM Form MR-3), NPDES NC0023965 for the Northside,
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, Central File, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2007.
8. Limits and Monitoring for Cyanide & Metals, North Carolina Department of
Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina, 1996.
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0023965
Page 7

LFlow NI-13-N
Date.„1,;,",(y1GD),-. f30S2..(Ing/1).(mg/L) TSS (mg/L) pH (su
1 /1 /2004
6.1
13.5
19.9
4.81
7.16
2/1/2004
6.7
15.7
21.8
4.57
7.21
3/1/2004
6.3
16.3
20.1
4.53
7.22
4/1/2004
5.9
15.7
21.3
4.05
7.22
5/1/2004
6.1
19.0
16.0
4.36
7.06
6/1/2004
5.8
14.4
7.7
6.93
6.68
7/1/2004
6.3
14.4
10.5
3.70
6.92
8/1/2004
7.6
16.6
7.1
5.65
6.85
9/1/2004
8.6
13.1
6.7
4.06
6.78
10/1/2004
6.8
16.4
12.7
3.50
6.96
11/1/2004
6.2
15.1
14.4
2.88
6.97
12/1/2004
5.9
13.6
13.8
4.08
6.93
1/1/2005
6.0
15.5
14.8
4.07
7.04
2/1/2005
5.9
16.8
19.9
4.22
7.23
3/1/2005
6.0
17.2
18.4
4.80
7.16
4/1/2005
6.6
16.1
16.2
4.63
7.04
5/1/2005
6.7
15.1
14.3
4.45
7.03
6/1/2005
7.0
18.3
15.7
4.02
7.02
7/1/2005
6.7
11.8
10.9
3.03
6.93
8/1/2005
7.1
14.9
11.9
3.77
7.00
9/1/2005
7.6
19.6
12.1
5.57
7.01
10/1/2005
8.8
12.4
11.0
4.93
7.01
11/1/2005
6.2
18.0
15.3
5.85
7.19
12/1/2005
6.3
22.6
17.0
7.38
7.19
1/1/2006
6.1
19.2
20.1
11.89
7.21
2/1/2006
6.1
14.8
21.1
5.29
7.27
3/1/2006
6.3
17.5
20.5
4.22
7.18
4/1/2006
5.8
17.1
17.2
3.94
7.04
5/1/2006
5.8
13.7
12.5
3.92
6.95
6/1/2006
6.2
16.0
15.1
3.99
7.07
7/1/2006
6.2
14.9
13.6
3.59
7.13
8/1/2006
7.5
19.9
16.2
6.21
7.09
9/1/2006
9.8
17.9
16.5
6.23
7.21
10/1/2006
8.o
16.0
21.8
4.85
7.27
11/1/2006
7.8
20.9
21.3
6.84
7.26
12/1/2006
7.2
10.3
20.1
3.72
7.16
Average
6.7
16.1
15.7
4.85
7.07
Maximum
9.8
22.6
21.8
11.89
7.27
Minimum
5.8
10.3
6.7
2.88
6.68

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q1Ow (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Source(s)
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
IV
NC0023965
001
16.0
Cape Fear River
SC
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Jan., 2004 - Dec., 2006
DMR
LTMP
BIMS
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Name
Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Copper
NC
0.003
AL
0.006
mg/L
Cyanide
NC
0.001
N
0.001
0.01
mg/L
Lead
NC
0.025
N
0.221
mg/L
Mercury
NC
25
2.0
ng/L
Nickel
NC
8.3
75
ug/L
Silver
NC
0.1
AL
1.9
ug/L
Zinc
NC
0.086
AL
0.095
mg/L
npdes rpa-16MGD, input
5/1/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
Date Data BDL=1I2DL Results
1 Jan-04 0.005 0.005 Std Dev. 0.0024
2 Feb-04 0.005 0.005 Mean 0.0057
3 Mar-04 0.004 0.004 C.V. 0.4218
4 Apr-04 0.004 0.004 n 65
5 May-04 0.00s 0.005
.6 Jun-04 0.005 0.005 MuIt Factor = 1.4000
7 Jun-04 < 0.002 0.001 Max. Value 0.015 mg/L
8 Jun-04 < 0.002 0.001 Max. Pred Cw 0.021 mg/L
9 Jul-04 < 0.002 0.001
10 Jul-04 0.004 0.004
11 Aug-04 0.005 0.005
12 Sep-04 0.003 0.003
13 Oct-04 0.005 0.005
14 Nov-04 0.004 0.004
15 Nov-04 0.004 0.004
16 Dec-04 0.006 0.006
17 Dec-04 0.005 0.005
18 Jan-05 0.009 0.009
19 Jan-05 0.00s 0.005
20 Feb-05 0.007 0.007
21 Feb-05 0.005 0.005
22 Mar-05 0.006 0.006
23 Mar-05 0.006 0.006
24 Apr-05 0.006 0.006
25 Apr-05 0.006 0.006
26 May-05 0.006 0.006
27 May-05 < 0.002 0.001
28 Jun-05 0.003 0.003
29 Jun-05 0.006 0.006
30 Jul-05 0.007 0.007
31 Jul-05 0.005 0.005
32 Aug-05 0.005 0.005
33 Aug-05 0.008 0.008
34 Sep-05 0.004 0.004
35 Sep-05 0.003 0.003
36 Oct-05 0.005 0.005
37 Oct-05 0.007 0.007
38 Nov-05 < 0.002 0.001
39 Nov-05 0.005 0.005
40 Dec-05 0.008 0.008
41 Dec-05 0.005 0.005
42 Jan-06 0.007 0.007
43 Jan-06 0.006 0.006
44 Feb-06 0.007 0.007
45 Feb-06 0.007 0.007
46 Mar-06 0.006 0.006
47 Mar-06 0.006 0.006
48 Apr-06 0.006 0.006
49 Apr-06 0.007 0.007
50 May-06 (Loos 0.006
51 May-06 0.007 0.007
52 Jun-06 0.013 0.013
53 Jun-06 0.007 0.007
54 Jul-06 0.009 0.009
55 Jul-06 0.015 0.015
56 Aug-06 0.0t 0.010
57 Aug-06 0.006 0.006
58 Sep-06 0.006 0.006
59 Sep-06 0.005 0.005
60 Oct-06 0.006 0.006
199
200
npdes rpa-16MGD, data
- 1 - 5/1/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Zinc
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
Date
Feb-05
Feb-05
Mar-05
Mar-05
Apr-05
Apr-05
May-05
May-05
Jun-05
Jun-05
Jul-05
Jul-05
Aug-05
Aug-05
Sep-05
Sep-05
Oct-05
Oct-05
Nov-05
Nov-05
Dec-05
Dec-05
Jan-06
Jan-06
Feb-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
Apr-06
May-06
May-06
Jun-06
Jun-06
Jul-06
Jul-06
Aug-06
Aug-06
Sep-06
Sep-06
Oct-06
Oct-06
Nov-06
Nov-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Data
<
<
<
BDL=1/2DL
0.021 0.021
0.024 0.024
0.01 0.005
0.019 0.019
0.012 0.012
0.0i 0.005
0.03 0.030
0.01 0.005
0.027 0.027
0.032 0.032
0.018 0.018
0.015 0.015
0.022 0.022
0.014 0.014
0.007 0.007
0.01 0.010
0.012 0.012
0.01 0.010
0.017 0.017
0.016 0.016
0.006 0.006
0.006 0.006
0.01 0.005
0.026 0.026
0.01 0.005
0.016 0.016
0.01 0.005
0.019 0.019
0.016 0,016
0.016 0.016
0.019 0.019
0.013 0.013
0.021 0.021
0.01 0.005
0.02 0.020
0.007 0.007
0.021 0.021
0.01 0.005
0.013 0.013
0.01 0.005
0.013 0.013
0.01 0.005
0.017 0.017
0.024 0.024
0.005 0.005
0011 0.011
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
0.0077
0.0140
0.5457
46
1.6800
0.032 mg/L
0.054 mg/L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
0.0
N/A
0
0
-2-
npdes rpa-16MGD, data
5/1/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
James A. Loughlin (Northside) VVWTP
NC0023965
Time Period Jan., 2004 - Dec., 2006
Qw (MGD) 16
7Q10S (cfs) 0
7Q10W (cfs) 0
30Q2 (cfs) 0
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 0
Reeving Stream Cape Fear River
WWTP Class N
IWC (%) © 7Q10S 0
Q 7Q10W 0
© 3002 0
QA 0
Stream Class SC
Outfall 001
Qw=16MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS 8
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWQSI
Chronic
%FAV/
Acute
n
I1Det. Max Predcw AllowableCw
Copper
NC
0.003
•
AL
0.0058
mg/L
65
60
0.021
Acute:
_ _ _
Chronic
0.0058
- _ _
N/A
2/month monitoring is recommended _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(Action level parameter)
Zinc
NC
0.086
AL
0.095
mg/L
46
36
0.054
Acute:
_ _ _
Chronic
0.095
_ _ _
NIA
2/month monitoring is recommended _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(Action level parameter)
•Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
resnwarer orscnarge
npdes rpa-16MGD, rpa
6/19/2007

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Source(s)
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
Iv
NC0023965
001
8.0
Cape Fear River
SC
0.0
0.0 ,
0.0
0.0
Jan., 2004 - Dec., 2006
DMR
LTMP
BIMS
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Name
Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Copper
NC
0.003
AL
0.0058
mg/L
Cyanide
NC
0.001
N
0.001
0.01
mg/L
Lead
NC
0.025
0.221
mg/L
Mercury
NC
25
2.0
ng/L
Nickel
NC
8.3
75
ug/L
Silver
NC
0.1
AL
1.9
ug/L
Zinc
NC
0.086
AL
0.095
mg/L
npdes rpa, input
5/1/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
NC0023965
Time Period Jan., 2004 - Dec., 2006
Ow (MGD) 8
7Q10S (cfs) 0
7Q10W (cfs) 0
30Q2 (cfs) 0
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 0
Reclring Stream Cape Fear River
WWTP Class IV
IWC (%) @ 7Q10S 0
@ 7Q10W 0
@ 3002 0
@ QA 0
Stream Class SC
Outfall 001
Qw=8MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS/
Chronic
/,FAV/
Acute
n
# eet liar Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
0.003
AL
0.0058
mg/L
65
60
0.021
Acute: 0.0058
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2/m_on_th
Chronic N/A
monitoring is-recommended-o_mmended_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(Action level parameter)
Zinc
NC
0.086
AL
0.095
mg/L
46
36
0.054
Acute: 0.095
_ _ _ _ _ _ _2/mon_th
Chronic: N/A
monitoring Is recommended _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(Action level parameter)
'Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
resnwarer vlscnarge
npdes rpa, rpa
6/19/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Jan-04 0.005 0.005 Std Dev. 0.0024
2 Feb-04. 0.005 0.005 Mean 0.0057
3 Mar-04 0.004 0.004 C.V. 0.4218
4 Apr-04 (Loos 0.004 n 65
5 May-04 0.005 0.005
6 Jun-04 0.005 0.005 Mult Factor = 1.4000
7 Jun-04 < 0.002 0.001 Max. Value 0.015 mg/L
8 Jun-04 < 0.002 0.001 Max. Pred Cw 0.021 mg/L
9 Jul-04 < 0.002 0.001
10 Jul-04 0.004 0.004
11 Aug-04 0.005 0.005
12 Sep-04 0.003 0.003
13 Oct-04 0.005 0.005
14 Nov-04 0.004 0.004
15 Nov-04 0.004 0.004
16 Dec-04 0.006 0.006
17 Dec-04 0.005 0.005
18 Jan-05 0.009 0.009
19 Jan-05 0.005 0.005
20 Feb-05 0.007 0.007
21 Feb-05 0.005 0.005
22 Mar-05 0.006 0.006
23 Mar-05 0.006 0.006
24 Apr-05 0.006 0.006
25 Apr-05 0.006 0.006
26 May-05 0.006 0.006
27 May-05 < 0.002 0.001
28 Jun-05 0.003 0.003
29 Jun-05 0.006 0.006
30 Jul-05 0.007 0.007
31 Jul-05 0.005 0.005
32 Aug-05 0.005 0.005
33 Aug-05 0.008 0.008
34 Sep-05 0.004 0.004
35 Sep-05 0.003 0.003
36 Oct-05 0.005 0.005
37 Oct-05 0.007 0.007
38 Nov-05 < 0.002 0.001
39 Nov-05 0.005 0.005
40 Dec-05 0.008 0.008
41 Dec-05 0.005 0.005
42 Jan-06 0.007 0.007
43 Jan-06 0.006 0.006
44 Feb-06 0.007 0.007
45 Feb-06 0.007 0.007
46 Mar-06 0.006 0.006
47 Mar-06 0.006 0.006
48 Apr-06 0.006 0.006
49 Apr-06 0.007 0.007
50 May-06 0.006 0.006
51 May-06 0.007 0.007
52 Jun-06 0.013 0.013
53 Jun-06 0.007 0.007
54 Jul-06 0.009 0.009
55 Jul-06 0.015 0.015
56 Aug-06 0.01 0.010
57 Aug-06 0.006 0.006
58 Sep-06 0.006 0.006
59 Sep-06 0.005 0.005
60 Oct-06 0.006 0.006
199
200
-1-
npdes rpa, data
5/1/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Zinc
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
Date
Feb-05
Feb-05
Mar-05
Mar-05
Apr-05
Apr-05
May-05
May-05
Jun-05
Jun-05
Jul-05
Jul-05
Aug-05
Aug-05
Sep-05
Sep-05
Oct-05
Oct-05
Nov-05
Nov-05
Dec-05
Dec-05
Jan-06
Jan-06
Feb-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
Apr-06
May-06
May-06
Jun-06
Jun-06
Jul-06
Jul-06
Aug-06
Aug-06
Sep-06
Sep-06
Oct-06
Oct-06
Nov-06
Nov-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Data
BDL=1/2DL
0.021 0.021
0.024 0.024
0.oi 0.005
0.019 0.019
0.012 0.012
0.0+ 0.005
0.03 0.030
sot 0.005
0.027 0.027
0.032 0.032
0.016 0.018
0.015 0.015
0.022 0.022
0.014 0.014
0.007 0.007
0.0' 0.010
0.012 0.012
0.01 0.010
0.017 0.017
0.016 0.016
0.006 0.006
0.006 0.006
0.01 0.005
0.026 0.026
o.oi 0.005
0.016 0.016
o.oi 0.005
0.019 0.019
0.016 0.016
0.016 0.016
0.019 0.019
0.013 0.013
0.021 0.021
0.01 0.005
0.02 0.020
0.007 0.007
0.021 0.021
0.ot 0.005
0.013 0.013
0.61 0.005
0.013 0.013
o.01 0.005
0.017 0.017
0.024 0.024
0.005 0.005
o.or1 0.011
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
MuIt Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
0.0077
0.0140
0.5457
46
1.6800
0.032 mg/L
0.054 mg/L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
0.0
N/A
0
0
-2-
npdes rpa, data
5/1/2007

QBF_data
Down Stream Data
Station Nui Date Time Depth Temp_rmk DOxygen DOxygen_i pH field pH-rmk Conductan Conductan Fecal Coli. Fecal_Ca Suspendec Suspendec Turbidity Turbidity_n
B9800000 1/6/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 10.8 7.2 7971
B9800000 1/6/2004 1/0/1900 6.2 10.7 7.2 9300
B9800000 1/6/2004 1/0/1900 12.5 10.3 7.2 17514
B9800000 6/1/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 5.4 7.4 18127
B9800000 6/1/2004 1/0/1900 4.7 5.3 7.4 20188
B9800000 6/1/2004 1/0/1900 9.5 5.6 7.5 22758
B9800000 5/4/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 6.3 7 3082
B9800000 5/4/2004 1/0/1900 6.1 6.3 7 6193
B9800000 5/4/2004 1/0/1900 12.2 6.5 6.7 11335
B9800000 6/16/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 5.1 7.5 15208
B9800000 6/16/2004 1/0/1900 5 4.6 7.6 16608
B9800000 6/16/2004 1/0/1900 10 4.8 7.7 23571
B9800000 2/3/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 11.2 7.5 15935
B9800000 2/3/2004 1/0/1900 5.2 11.7 7.7 8633
B9800000 2/3/2004 1/0/1900 10.5 11.7 7.8 9209
B9800000 3/9/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 9.3 7.1 573
B9800000 3/9/2004 1/0/1900 6 9.3 7 1001
B9800000 3/9/2004 1/0/1900 12 9.5 6.8 6288
B9800000 4/6/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 8.7 7.4 15260
B9800000 4/6/2004 1/0/1900 5 8.5 7.5 18159
B9800000 4/6/2004 1/0/1900 9.9 8.6 7.5 25416
B9800000 5/9/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 7.3 7.4 13468
B9800000 5/9/2005 1/0/1900 6.5 7.1 7.4 16596
B9800000 5/9/2005 1/0/1900 12.9 7.5 7.4 23036
B9800000 5/17/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 5.7 7.4 10136
B9800000 5/17/2005 1/0/1900 5.8 5.6 7.6 11940
B9800000 5/17/2005 1/0/1900 11.7 5.7 7.5 26809
B9800000 3/22/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 8.4 7.4 16695
B9800000 3/22/2006 1/0/1900 5 8.3 7.4 19203
B9800000 3/22/2006 1/0/1900 10 8.4 7.5 23067
B9800000 2/14/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 10.1 7.6 9066
B9800000 2/14/2006 1/0/1900 5.2 9.8 7.6 10500
B9800000 2/14/2006 1/0/1900 10.4 9.7 7.6 15954
B9800000 7/12/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 5.7 7.4 15461
B9800000 7/12/2005 1/0/1900 6 4 7.3 23057
B9800000 7/12/2005 1/0/1900 12 3.9 7.2 28210
B9800000 7/25/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 4.1 7.3 13315
B9800000 7/25/2005 1/0/1900 6 4 7.4 17599
B9800000 7/25/2005 1/0/1900 12.4 4.1 7.5 23028
B9800000 4/11/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 8.2 7.5 20195
B9800000 4/11/2006 1/0/1900 6 7.8 7.6 21720
B9800000 4/11/2006 1/0/1900 12 7.7 7.6 26873
B9800000 6/7/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 5.8 7.2 5566
B9800000 6/21/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 5.4 7.5 18740
B9800000 8/16/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 3.7 6.8 7752
B9800000 8/16/2005 1/0/1900 5.7 3.1 6.9 12328
19 8 11.6
335 12 6.3
79 8 7.3
21 7 6.6
19 15 17
15 10 7.2
40 17 3.7
11
9
11
11
41
18 3.3
13 9.5
9 4.3
8 6.4
11 8
Page 1

QBF_data
B9800000 8/16/2005 1/0/1900 11.4 3 6.9 16734
B9800000 8/2/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 4.4 7.1 7530 164 10 4.9
B9800000 8/2/2005 1/0/1900 5.4 3.2 7 12706
B9800000 8/2/2005 1/0/1900 10.8 2.9 6.9 25610
B9800000 8/10/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 5.4 7.5 13529 18 9 6.3
B9800000 8/10/2004 1/0/1900 5.6 4 7.6 18180
B9800000 8/10/2004 1/0/1900 11.3 4 7.6 33567
B9800000 8/25/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 3.9 6.5 189
B9800000 8/25/2004 1/0/1900 6.1 3.6 6.6 432
B9800000 8/25/2004 1/0/1900 12.2 3.7 6.6 2670
B9800000 7/13/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 4.1 7.5 16513 97 10 7.8
B9800000 7/13/2004 1/0/1900 5.5 3.7 7.6 21387
B9800000 7/13/2004 1/0/1900 11 3.7 7.6 30717
B9800000 9/14/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 4.1 6.4 800 43 12 24
B9800000 9/14/2004 1/0/1900 5.9 4.1 6.4 908
B9800000 9/14/2004 1/0/1900 11.7 3.6 6.6 4672
B9800000 9/29/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 5.6 7.3 6784
B9800000 9/29/2004 1/0/1900 6.3 6 7.5 13111
B9800000 9/29/2004 1/0/1900 12.7 6 7.6 15051
B9800000 1/0/1900 0.1 5.6 7.2 20891 32 6 5.8
B9800000 1/0/1900 5.3 5.4 7.3 26055
B9800000 1/0/1900 10.5 5.7 7.4 28295
B9800000 11/3/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 6.5 7.3 18369 69 6 4.9
B9800000 11/3/2004 1/0/1900 6.3 6.5 7.5 28423
B9800000 11/3/2004 1/0/1900 12.6 6.5 7.7 34263
B9800000 12R/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 8.5 7.3 8882 19 3 4
B9800000 12/7/2004 1/0/1900 5.6 8.2 7.5 10467
B9800000 12R/2004 1/0/1900 11.3 7.7 7.7 21377
B9800000 2/22/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 10 7.8 15350 19 10 7
B9800000 2/22/2005 1/0/1900 5.7 9.7 7.8 19037
B9800000 2/22/2005 1/0/1900 11.5 10 8.1 25216
B9800000 3/14/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 10.3 7.7 1130 20 18 21
B9800000 3/14/2005 1/0/1900 6 10 7.5 7143
B9800000 3/14/2005 1/0/1900 12 9.8 7.4 9724
B9800000 4/5/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 7.4 6.7 134 49 13 17
B9800000 4/5/2005 1/0/1900 6 7.3 6.7 133
B9800000 4/5/2005 1/0/1900 12.1 7.3 6.7 133
B9800000 1/11/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 9.5 7.4 13616 49 6 5.3
B9800000 1/11/2005 1/0/1900 6 9.3 7.7 21103
B9800000 1/11/2005 1/0/1900 12 9.4 7.8 23200
B9800000 6/21/2005 1/0/1900 5.7 5.4 7.5 23400
B9800000 6/7/2005 1/0/1900 6.2 5.2 7.3 13325
B9800000 6/21/2005 1/0/1900 11.5 5.4 7.6 27565
B9800000 6/7/2005 1/0/1900 12.5 5.4 7.4 20520
B9800000 1/10/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 9.6 6.7 343 52 18 14.2
B9800000 1/10/2006 1/0/1900 6.4 9.4 6.9 447
B9800000 1/10/2006 1/0/1900 12.8 9.5 7.3 1114
B9800000 9/8/2005 1/0/1900 11.7 5.8 7.8 38700
Page 2

QBF_data
B9800000 10/4/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 4.9 7.2 23005 55 19 7
B9800000 10/4/2005 1/0/1900 5.5 5.4 7.4 28425
B9800000 10/4/2005 1/0/1900 11 5.6 7.5 31448
B9800000 9/20/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 3.9 7 9444
B9800000 9/20/2005 1/0/1900 6.2 3.9 7.1 14500
B9800000 9/20/2005 1/0/1900 12.5 3.9 7.2 17750
B9800000 11/1/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 5.8 7 16472 18 8 4.7
B9800000 11/1/2005 1/0/1900 5.4 5.7 7.1 18686
B9800000 11/1/2005 1/0/1900 10.8 5.9 7.2 20871
B9800000 ###Itif#IN 1/0/1900 0.1 9.6 7.2 3944 45 13 9.5
B9800000 1/0/1900 5.5 9.4 7.3 5057
B9800000 1/0/1900 11 9.2 7.6 7029
B9800000 9/8/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 5.4 7.6 28511 0 8 5
B9800000 9/8/2005 1/0/1900 5.9 6 7.7 34247
Page 3

QBF data
Chlorophyl Chlorophyl NH3_N NH3_N rrr TKN_N TKN_N_rr NO2_NO3, NO2 NO3 TP TP_rmk Cd
0.04 0.71 0.48 0.06
6.2 0.07 0.53 0.47 0.09
1.4 0.04 0.88 0.42 0.09
0.02 U 0.5 0.45 0.05
0.02 U 0.66 0.01 U 0.09
0.03 0.67 0.34 0.04
4.4 0.02 0.78 0.45 0.1
0.11 0.56 0.3 0.07
0.08 0.84 0.11 0.08
22.9 0.06 1.03 0.27 0.11
0.1 0.75 0.34 0.08
13.5 0.02 U 0.79 0.37 0.1
Page 4
Cd_rmk Cr
Cr rmk Cu Cu_rmk Ni

QBF data
4.5 0.05 0.89 0.17 0.11
8.7 0.02 U 0.66 0.31 0.08
2.9 0.11 0.65 0.27 0.13
0.7 0.02 0.8 0.21 0.12
0.05 0.59 0.22 0.02
1.3 0.02 U 0.73 0.35 0.13
0.02 U 0.3 0.47 0.09
0.02 U 0.67 0.52 0.07
0.04 0.62 0.6 0.1
0.03 0.78 0.23 0.1
0.1 0.6 0.39 0.06
0.07 1.49 0.03 0.06
Page 5

QBF' data
,41
0.02 0.56 0.13 0.05
0.11 1.07 0.17 0.04
0.1 0.93 0.45 0.06
7.9 0.03 1.17 0.26 0.24
Page 6:

Ni rmk Pb
Pb_rmk Zn Zn_rmk Al AI rm
QBF_date
Fe rmk Mn Mn rmk Arsenic As rmk Hg Hg rmk Comments

1d
QBF data
UP E-palm afiktifc,
Coalition Station Nu Date Time Depth Temp i DOxygen DOxygen_ pH_field pH-rmk Conductan Conductan Fecal_Colt Fecal Coli Suspendec Suspendec Turbidity Turbidity _r
LCFRP B9580000 7/14/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 3.8 6.3 160 29 1
LCFRP B9580000 1R/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 s 9.5 5.9 115 9 3
LCFRP B9580000 6/2/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 4.5 6.4 176 50 5
LCFRP B9580000 5/5/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 5.3 6.1 109 64 4
LCFRP B9580000 2/4/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 12.1 6 117 34 3
LCFRP B9580000 3/10/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 7.1 5.7 109 17 5
LCFRP B9580000 4/8/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 7.6 6 161 18 3
LCFRP B9580000 9/7/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 4.9 6.4 189 55 3
LCFRP B9580000 5/4/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 6 6.4 148 22 6
LCFRP B9580000 3/15/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 8.2 6.6 139 52 5
LCFRP B9580000 2/22/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 10.9 6.5 203 18 3
LCFRP B9580000 7/11/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 3.1 6.1 138 82 3
LCFRP B9580000 4/11/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 7.5 6.9 187 35 3
LCFRP B9580000 6/8/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 3.6 6.1 121 43 3
LCFRP B9580000 8/3/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 3.5 6.1 135 9 2
LCFRP B9580000 8/11/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 3.8 6.2 121 6 2
LCFRP B9580000 9/15/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 3.4 5.5 100 U 120 4
LCFRP B9580000 10/13/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 3.9 6.1 128 64 3 U
LCFRP B9580000 11/3/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 4.3 5.9 172 25 3 U
LCFRP B9580000 12/8/2004 1/0/1900 0.1 8.6 6.3 150 28 3 U
LCFRP B9580000 2/9/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 10.7 5.4 143 16 2 U
LCFRP B9580000 3/9/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 10.2 5.5 121 37 4
LCFRP B9580000 4/6/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 6.1 6.3 110 23 3
LCFRP B9580000 1/12/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 11.1 6.4 159 37 3
LCFRP B9580000 1/11/2006 1/0/1900 0.1 9 6.1 108 50 2
LCFRP B9580000 10/5/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 3.5 5.9 153 5 B2 4
LCFRP B9580000 11/1/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 7.3 6.2 125 18 2
LCFRP B9580000 12/14/2005 1/0/1900 0.1 8.9 6.1 139 36 2
Page 1

QBF_data
Chlorophyl Chlorophyl NH3_N NH3_N_mr TKN_N TKN_N_mr NO2_NO3. NO2 NO3. TP TP_rmk Cd Cd_rmk Cr Cr rmk Cu Cu_rmk Ni Ni_rmk
0.03 0.69 0.16 0.11
0.02 U 0.66 0.53 0.05
0.03 0.73 0.29 0.1 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.02 U 0.97 0.29 0.13
0.02 U 0.68 0.01 U 0.05 2U 25 U 0.2 U 10 U
0.02 U 0.72 0.01 U 0.07
0.02 U 0.8 0.23 0.07 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.03 1.16 0.08 0
0.02 U 0.89 0.18 0.08
0.05 0.61 0.18 0.04
0.06 1.03 0.36 0.04 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.05 0.93 0.26 0.15
0.08 1.03 0.27 0.07 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.1 0.86 0.09 0.08 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.04 0.89 0.03 0.12 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.02 U 0.85 0.09 0.1 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.13 0.86 0.04 0.12
0.02 U 0.99 0.02 0.08 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.03 0.91 0.08 0.06
0.07 0.83 0.16 0.07 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.02 0.54 0.73 0.04 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.02 U 0.5 0.49 0.06
0.02 U 0.88 0.14 0.06 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.02 U 0.59 0.39 0.04
0.03 0.98 0.08 0.04
0.03 1.21 0.03 U 0.07 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
0.03 1.26 0.12 0.04
0.03 1.03 0.32 0.03 2U 25 U 2U 10 U
Page 2
1�

QBF_data
Pb Pb_rmk Zn Zn_rmk AI AI_rmk Fe Fe_rmk Mn Mn_rmk Arsenic As_rmk Hg Hg_rmk Comments
10 U 10 U 446 733 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 540 528 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 481 725 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 352 456 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 18 263 579 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 482 884 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 398 1060 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 512 965 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 659 1110 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 369 615 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 363 386 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 475 665 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 531 757 10 U 0.2 U
10 U 10 U 405 453 10 U 0.2 U
Page 3

Private - NSWWTP Expansion/Upgrade Project Construction Schedul...
Subject: Private - NSWWTP Expansion/Upgrade Project Construction Schedule - NSWWTP and
SSWWTP NPDES Permit Renewals
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:47:07 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Agyeman - In accordance with our 06/20/2007 discussions on the draft permit
renewals for the City's NSWWTP and SSWWTP, you had requested I forward the
NSWWTP Expansion/Upgrade project schedule to you. This schedule had an
impact on (1) when chlorine residual limits would apply at NSWWTP and
SSWWTP due to the application of chlorine for disinfection; (2) our desire
for a second enterococci "break-in" period due to the transition from
chlorine chlorination/sodium bisulfite dechlorination at the existing 8 MGD
secondary WWTP to tertiary filtration/ultraviolet disinfection at the
expanded/upgraded 16 MGD advanced WWTP; and (3) subsequent availability of
the decommissioned sodium bisulfite dechlorination equipment to be reused
and relocated to the SSWWTP to serve as its dechlorination system;
otherwise, the SSWWTP would not have a means of achieving the more
stringent chlorine residual limit being imposed. The schedule was to serve
as the support for incorporating assurances of DWQ flexibility in permit
administration in your response to the 06/14/2007 concerns/issues raised
by the City upon its review of DWQ's draft permits.
We hope the schedule will enable you to craft an appropriate explanation of
your flexible permit administration approach. Please contact me should you
have any questions. As offered, we look forward to receiving an advance
copy of your intended responses to these and other issues raised for our
consideration prior to issuance of the final permits.
Regards, Ken.
(See attached file:
Kenneth L. Vogt Jr.,
Wastewater Treatment
City of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington,NC 28402-1810
910.341.7890 (PH); 910.341.4659 (F); 910.470.8701 (M)
ken.vogt®wilmingtonnc.gov
Schedule for DWQ.pdf)
P.E., B.C.E.E.
Superintendent
Content -Type: application/pdf
Schedule for DWQ.pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 6/22/2007 1:59 PM

Ac#lvity
ID
10 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
_ 11 NOTICE TO PROCEED _ — —
80000 SEQUENCE "A" WORK_ ONLINE
_
90000 PRO J_ETECT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
_95000 COMPLEPUNCH LIST _
100000 FINAL. COMPLETION
100 - SCREENING & GRIT REMOVAL
26870
GRIT - COMMISSION
200 - PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
30450 'PRIM
Orig Total Cal % , Early
Dur IFl . ID
Start.
100 05DECO5A 05DECO5A
-14: 2 0 03MAR08-
-43; 2 0 ;11DEC08
_ 42 -3 t1 1 • 0 126E608 11 FEB09
•
0 -44 2 0 11FEB09
SCREENINGS & GRIT FACILITY
COMMISSION CLARIFIER
250 - PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP STATION
EQUIPMENT
0 33; 1
113111103
31230 PSPS - COMMISION PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 10 ! 77
300 - AERATION BASIN
11710 AERA - COMMISSION AERATION
325 - BLOWER BUILDING
16530 IBLOW - COMMISSION BLOWER
BASIN
BUILDING
350 - EXISTING FINAL CLARIFIERS 1 AND 2
39360 XFCL - COMMISSION XFCL
375 - AS PUMP STATION NO. 1
14500 ASP1 - COMMISSION ASPS1
400 - SECONDARY CLARIFIERS 3 AND 4
32420 ;SC34 - COMMISSION SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
20
-10
1;
1
20 51 1
10 . -31' 1
20
111111
El
O 30NOV07 28DEC07
0 02MAY08 E22MAY08
14JUL08
0 03MAR08
O .13SEPO7 100CT07
0 ;30JUN08
05FEB08
28NOV08
O 23NOV07
11 DECO8
20DECO7
-30, 1 0 04AUGO8 ;22AUG08
425 - AS PUMP STATION NO. 2
15500 •ASP2 - COMMISSION ASPS2 5 I -31
450 - *TERTIARY FILTERS
20410 • FILT COMMISSION FILTER SYSTEM
500 - UV DISINFECTION FACILITIES
35300 ,UV - COMMISSION UV STRUCTURE
550 - EFFLUENT PUMP STATION NO 2
19390 • EPS2 - COMMISSION PUMP STATION
575 - EFFLUENT PUMP STATION NO. 1
38074 XEPS - COMMISSION EPS1
650 - SLUDGE THICKENING FACILITIES
42625
XSTF - COMMISSION GRAVITY BELT THICK
700 - ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
17760 DIG - COMMISSION DIG
BLDG &
DIG4&5
20 91
20
1 I 0 19AUG08 25AUGO8
100CT07
1 0 13SEPO7 ;100CT07
100CTO7
0 0 :11MAR08 07APR08
210CT08 ; 270CT08
0 `13SEPO7
91 •
20 91
0 146
1 I 0 13SEPO7
• 5 2. 1 0
20
-19
1
O 106FEB08 104MAR08
2007 � % ' ' 1
.M_LJ1.�A _J_ S I_CL.I. N1 I J LF 1 M L/L I_M L.L • A 1 S1Q,LN i .QI�..1_ M _
.L.St1.! I Lll1_L 11f1 . f . I ' ! : 11-ts-L-1_1 1 A-L I.:L.LL. I 1 LTU A I-L-1 LL .LL.L I LI,.L. 1_` .I W_ ! t-LLJ LLI4 t.l 1.:=.
I
-*SEQUENCE "A" WORK ONLINE
PROJECT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION • :
COMPLETE PUNCH USTD
FINAL COMPLETION— :
•
L --VGRIT- COMMISSION SCREENINGS & GRIT FACILITY
PRIM - COMMISSION CLARIFIER EQUIPMENT
PSI?S - COMMISION PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP STATION[ — _-=V
iwir AERA 4 COMMISSION AERATION BASIN
L]EV--- ' VBLOW - COMMISSION BLOWER BUILDING • • —•
XFCL - COMMISSION XI=CLv-
•
MAN ASP1 - COMMISSION ASPS1 .
SC34 - COMMISSION SECONDARY CLARIFIERSV-Ifir
- COMMISSION ASPS2 - -
VFILT- COMMISSION FILTER SYSTEM
-VUV - COMMISSION UV STRUCTURE
VEPS2 - COMMISSION PUMP STATION •
XEPS - COMMISSION EPS1 L1/ -- - - V
XSTF - COMMISSION GRAVITY BELT THICKLY
'DIG - COMMISSION DIG BLDG & DIG 4 & 5
Start Date
Finish Date
Data Date
Run Dale
05DEC05
11FEB09
25MAY07
22JUN0710:25
0 Primavera Systems, Inc.
ZIESSEEMENEMEEMV Early Bar
— — •— — •V Float Bar
Progress Bar
Critical Activity
11.19
Crowder Construction Company
James Loughlin WWTP Upgrade
Area Grouping - All Activities
Sheet 1 of 2
Date __ •
Checked _! _Approved

Activity
Descriptlok.
25 - GAS BURNER FACILITIES
23290 GAS - COMMISSION GAS BURNER FACILITY
40 - EXISTING ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
36510 XDIG - COMMISSION SYSTEMS
750 - DEVVATERING FACILITIES
18510 DWTR - COMMISSION DEWATER BUILDING
775 - LIQUID SLUDGE TRUCK LOAD STATION
27040 LOAD - COMMISSION LOAD
800 - SEPTAGE RECEIVING STATION
33330 SEPT - COMMISSION
10ft otal CaI Early Eaiy•
Dui*. Fl ID Start. • Ofilsh
15 -17, 1 0 14JANO8 01FEB08
25NOV08
15
-19
1 0 .05NOV08
20 , 2 1 0 '01APRO8 ;28APR08
10 41
850 - ODOR SCRUBBER FACILITIES
28540 ODOR - COMMISSION ODOR CONTROL. FACILITY 10
no
02JANO8
0 290CT07
198 1 0
875 - AERATION PROCESS BLDG
12410 1APB - COMMISSION AERATION PROCESS BLDG 20; 33
890 - PORTABLE EQUIP STORAGE BLDG
29110 PORT - ENERGIZE PORTABLE STORAGE BUILDING
900 - FILTRATE PUMP STATION
21170 FPS - COMMISSION FILTRATE PUMP STATION
925 - EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING
40026 IXOPS - COMMISSION CONTROL ROOM
11JANO8 124JAN08
04DECO7
02JANO8
0 ; 110CTO7 110CT07
146 1 0 19JUL07 25JUL07
20 1281 1 0 t24JUL07 20AUGO7
10
313, 1
JLoLNJiJLE±MLeim LEDA LA
.1.1.6-U-LL1 1 J.L1.1.111-1 LLI1 I I 1 I 1.1.14-LW I I 1.:1111.11 I U-LULLI 1 L.L.U. .11-1 ILLL U-L1.i U-1.1
larGAs - COMMISSION GAS BURNER FACILO
•___
XD1G COMMISSION SYSTEMS".
LDWTR - COMMISSION DEWATER BUILDING
.•._ ___.• _.• • •. •
' • VLOAD COMMISSION LOAD
•
®SEPTVSEPTi COMMISSION
•
. , .
/VW —
:— vothR- COMMISSION 0
, ! .
•
VAPB - COMMISSION AERA11ONPROCESS BLDG
. -VPORT ENERG
YFPS - COMMISSION FILTRATE PUMP STATION _ _
.Vi(OPS - COMMISSION CONTROL ROOM
Start Date ODE=
Finish Date 11FEB09
Date Date 25MAY07
Run Date 22JUN07 10:25
© Primavera Systems, Inc.
Early Bar
• • • Float Bar
4IIMMIMMir Progress Bar
ipm••••=mmir critical Activity
JL19
Sheet 2 of 2
Crowder Construction Company Date
Revision .
•
._... 4_
James Loughlin 1NWTP Upgrade .
Area Grouping - All Activities * _ t__

Re: City ofW'ton comments on draft permit NC0023965
Subject: Re: City of W'ton comments on draft permit NC0023965
From: Agyeman Adu-Poku <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:04:49 -0400
To: Linda Willis <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Linda,
Thanks for the comments. NPDES concurs with WiRO on most of the issues raised by the
City in both permits. However, the following two items are the sticking
point I want to clarify;
2. Question whether the Fecal Coliform limits will be dropped or reduced since the
Enterococci are implemented. /WiRO: SB and SC will only have to comply with fecal
coliform bacteria monitoring and limitations until revised rule is effective
according to the permitting guidance given July 28, 2006. I've been a little curious
about the fact that stream standards exist for fecal coliform bacteria and by EPA
rules, we are to ensure protection of these standards for surface waters. . . how can
we give a permit that does not have limitations that would at a minimum demonstrate
that the discharger is not discharging that pollutant above the stream standard? How
can we eliminate this requirement?
To my understanding, the new enterococci Bacteria standard replaces fecal coliform
standard for SB and SC waters. The memo dated July 28, 2006 states "limit and
monitoring for fecal coliform expires on January 1, 2007". Based on this, a footnote
has been added in the permit for clarification.
/6. WiRO: CBOD should have never been in the previous permit, that was an oversight
by the Division. The permit should maintain the limit and monitoring requirements
for BOD-5Day. No exceptions.
/During the 2004 permit renewal, the permittee specifically requested for CBOD5 in
lieu of BOD5, and after DWQ conferring with EPA region 4 (Marshall Hyatt), the
Division agreed with the permittee to substitute BOD5 with CBOD5. This is a quote
from the 2004 factsheet -addendum No. 2.
Based on this fact, the CBOD5 correction will be made as the City requested.
/I hope this is helpful. I will go a head and address these issues with the City and
if you have any more comments, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Thanks a lot,
Agyeman
//
Linda Willis wrote:
Hello Ageyman,
I reviewed the City's comments on the draft permit and their request for changes.
Our comments are as follows:
1. The request to delay daily monitoring for enterococci for three months after
the permit is issued: /WiRO: Effluent monitoring for Enterococci should remain as
drafted since there are local laboratories (in Wilmington) that can provide the
analytical services to provide that data until the City is certified to run the
analyses in their lab. Many other dischargers in this area will have to do the
same, no exceptions have been given./
The request to delay limit until 6 months after the start up of the UV system at
the new plant: /WiRO: Effluent limitations should remain as drafted since the
permit allows for upset provisions, provided the City can demonstrate that the
exceedance was beyond their control. Permittees are given the opportunity to
1 of 2 6/21/2007 3:05 PM

Re: City of W'ton comments on draft permit NC0023965
4
request remission and rescission which provides an avenue for the City to
exercize, should unusual circumstances exist. Therefore, there is no reason why
the limit should not remain as drafted./
2. Question whether the Fecal Coliform limits will be dropped or reduced since the
Enterococci are implemented. /WiRO: SB and SC will only have to comply with
fecal coliform bacteria monitoring and limitations until revised rule is effective
according to the permitting guidance given July 28, 2006. I've been a little
curious about the fact that stream standards exist for fecal coliform bacteria and
by EPA rules, we are to ensure protection of these standards for surface waters. .
. how can we give a permit that does not have limitations that would at a minimum
demonstrate that the discharger is not discharging that pollutant above the stream
standard? How can we eliminate this requirement? /
3. and 4. The City's non objection to reduced monitoring for metals and cyanide.
/WiRO: no comment, no objection/
5. and 6. Low level chlorine limitations apply after expansion and if imposed in
the 16 MGD, would not be less than 20 ug/L. /WiRO: If the facility is currently
dechlorinating and required to do so, why not impose the limit on the 8 mgd page?
Please impose the limits given by the EPA's National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria, 2006./
7. Anti backsliding policy concluding statement: /WiRO: has no objection to their
request./
8. Effluent Mixing Model provided by the City. /WiRO: no comment required./
AgyemanAdu-Poke <agyeman.adupoku(i ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality-NPDES Unit
2 of 2 6/21/2007 3:05 PM

City of W'tOn comments on draft permit NC0023965
Subject: City of W'ton comments on draft permit NC0023965
From: Linda Willis <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:41:20 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Hello Ageyman,
I reviewed the City's comments on the draft permit and their request for changes.
Our comments are as follows:
1. The request to delay daily monitoring for enterococci for three months after the permit is issued:
WiRO: Effluent monitoring for Enterococci should remain as drafted since there are local laboratories
(in Wilmington) that can provide the analytical services to provide that data until the City is certified to
run the analyses in their lab. Many other dischargers in this area will have to do the same, no
exceptions have been given.
The request to delay limit until 6 months after the start up of the UV system at the new plant: WiRO:
Effluent limitations should remain as drafted since the permit allows for upset provisions, provided the
City can demonstrate that the exceedance was beyond their control. Permittees are given the
opportunity to request remission and rescission which provides an avenue for the City to exercize,
should unusual circumstances exist. Therefore, there is no reason why the limit should not remain as
drafted.
2. Question whether the Fecal Coliform limits will be dropped or reduced since the Enterococci are
implemented. WiRO: SB and SC will only have to comply with fecal coliform bacteria monitoring and
limitations until revised rule is effective according to the permitting guidance given July 28, 2006. I've
been a little curious about the fact that stream standards exist for fecal coliform bacteria and by EPA
rules, we are to ensure protection of these standards for surface waters... how can we give a permit
that does not have limitations that would at a minimum demonstrate that the discharger is not
discharging that pollutant above the stream standard? How can we eliminate this requirement?
3. and 4. The City's non objection to reduced monitoring for metals and cyanide. WiRO: no comment, no
objection
5. and 6. Low level chlorine limitations apply after expansion and if imposed in the 16 MGD, would not
be less than 20 ug/L. WiRO: If the facility is currently dechlorinating and required to do so, why not
impose the limit on the 8 mgd page? Please impose the limits given by the EPA's National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006.
7. Anti backsliding policy concluding statement: WiRO: has no objection to their request.
8. Effluent Mixing Model provided by the City. WiRO: no comment required.
1 of 2 6/21/2007 11:13 AM

.s D STil
,, A i) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
VWW REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
° 61 FORSYTH STREET
41.qt PRoly ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JUN 0 7 2007
Mr. Agyeman Adu-Poku
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
Wilmington Northside WWTP
NPDES No. NC0023965
Dear Mr. Adu-Poku:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed review of the draft
permit referenced above and have no comments. We request that we be afforded an additional
review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the draft permit prior to issuance, or if
significant comments objecting to the draft permit are received. Otherwise, please send us one
copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
RecycledlRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

crIYOF '�'`�
GTON
NORTH CAROLINA
VIA FEDEX OVERNIGHT
June 14, 2007
Mr. Agyeman Adu-Poku
Environmental Engineer
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re : NPDES Draft Permit Comments
Permit No. NC0023965
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
Dear Mr. Adu-Poku:
City Manager
102 North Third Street
PO Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402-1810
910 341-7800
910 341-5839 fax
wilmingtonnc.gov
Dial 711 TTY/Voice
Lit3
Vi
JUN 1 5 2007 lit
DE.1
We have completed our review of the draft renewal permit dated May 9, 2007 and
received on May 11, 2007. Following are our comments:
1. A. (1) and A. (2) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements and Special
Condition A. (10) requires daily monitoring for Enterococci bacteria with a limit
becoming effective six months after the effective day of the permit. The daily
monitoring is required to begin on the permit's effective date. This monitoring
requirement is unique to marine water dischargers and few commercial
laboratories are qualified to perform the analysis. We are requesting that the
daily monitoring requirement become effective three months after the permit's
effective date to allow time for purchasing media and supplies, implementing
testing procedures, participating in vendor supplied quality control studies, and
gaining certification from DWQ's Laboratory Certification Unit.
Start-up of the 16 MGD plant operation includes major process changes to
include addition of filtration and UV disinfection. Transitioning from chlorination
to filtration/UV brings the opportunity for different process performance and
possible limit exceedance. We are requesting that the limit should take effect 6
(six) months from start-up of the filtration and UV processes for the16 MGD plant.

Page 2 City of Wilmington
Permit No. NC0023965 James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
2. A. (1) and A. (2) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for fecal
coliform bacteria continue to be daily and continue to have a monthly and weekly
limit. In light of the newly added Enterococci bacteria monitoring and limits
requirements, will the fecal coliform monitoring and/or limits be reduced or
eliminated?
3. A. (1) and A. (2) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements have
eliminated mercury monitoring and have reduced the frequency of copper, silver,
and zinc monitoring. We agree with these monitoring reductions.
4. A. (1) and A. (2) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements have reduced 0,lam, ,
cyanide monitoring to monthly. Our review of effluent cyanide monitoring results c\1
for over three years indicates that there have been no detections for cyanide:tS
We are requesting that cyanide monitoring be eliminated from our permit. v,.�
t
5. A. (2) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements and Special Condition A. Y'n
(11) impose low level total residual chlorine monitoring and an effluent limit. Our
interpretation of the requirement is that low level total chlorine monitoring will �� 3 �,
become effective when expansion to 16 MGD is completed and does not apply to a �, a
our present 8.0 MGD permitted operation. A limit of 13 pg/L will take effect 18 u v- •
(eighteen) months following issuance of the permit. Expansion of the James A. �s`'`
Loughlin WWTP includes the addition of filtration followed by UV disinfection. cilr"'-
We will be discontinuing chlorination of wastewater effluent and, as your cover
letter indicates, this limit will not apply to our permitted operation at 16 MGD.
6. A. (2) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements and Special Condition
A. (11) require an effluent total chlorine daily maximum limit of 13.0 pg/L. We
interpret that this requirement applies to the expanded 16 MGD plant rather than
to the present 8.0 MGD operation. We are concerned whether a limit of 13.0 yt,01-'r,e4
pg/L may be accurately measured with presently available analytical
instrumentation. Discussions with laboratory staff representing other NPDES rL
dischargers indicate that chlorine measurements below 20 pg/L can be �} �•R''
challenging and particularly prone to interferences. If the 13.0 pg/L limit cannot.
be achieved analytically, will the limit be modified to account for this issue?
7. A. (5) Anti -Backsliding Special Condition Tacks a concluding statement included
within the previous permit that should be reinserted. "If the Permittee assembles
information relevant to the above criteria, including but not limited to, information
based on calibrated modeling or similar reliable studies of the Cape Fear River
Basin, the Permittee may submit this information in support of a request to
modify this permit (pursuant to 40CFR 122.62 and 122.44). The Division will
review this modification request and provide written determinations, including
appropriate justification of its decision (40CFR 124.5). Finally, the Division will
make every reasonable effort to review and respond to this request without
undue delay."

Page 3 City of Wilmington
Permit No. NC0023965 James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
8. A. (7) Effluent Mixing Model Special Condition requires that we submit a model
which provides information about dilution at the increased 16 MGD flow rate for
the existing and new discharge -line diffusers. The effluent mixing model has
been previously submitted to NC DWQ on February 11, 2005 and again on May
4, 2007. We are attaching another copy of the information with this letter.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments associated with this draft NPDES
permit. Feel free to contact me at [phone] with any questions.
Sincerely,
0,,,,, 44,,,,,Q.,
Mary Ann Hinshaw
Acting Public Utilities Department Director
cc: Sterling Cheatham, City Manager
Frank Styers, Deputy Public Utilities Director
Ken Vogt, WVVTD Superintendent
Jeff Cermak, Plant Supervisor
Tom Pollard, City Attorney
Ed Beck, Surface Water Protection Section, DWQ
Bruce Shell, County Manager, New Hanover County
Robert Simpson, Town Manager, Town of Wrightsville Beach

Re: comments on Wilmington Northside - NC0023965
Subject: Re: comments on Wilmington Northside - NC0023965
From: Agyeman Adu-Poku <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:31:00 -0400
To: [e-mail]
In 2004 permit renewal, EPA recommended that "the draft permit include a provision
that dye studies and/or modeling be conducted
during the next permit to more accurately evaluate the extent of mixing of the
expanded discharge". Hence the CORMIX model requirement.
In February 2005, permittee wrote to the Division that "the City has caused the
preparation and submittal of "3-D EFDC Water Quality Model of the Lower
Cape Fear River and its Estuary", Tetra Tech Inc. May 2001, in support of its NPDES
permit application and proposed effluent limitations. Chapter 4 specifically
addressed the discharge dilution analysis".
In essence, the permittee just took Discharge Dilution Analysis performed in 2001
for Lower Cape Fear to satisfy the permit requirement. And in our review of the
reference document indicated inadequate information to justify the claim. Based on
this information, the Division could not accept that portion of the Discharge
Dilution Analysis to satisfy the permit requirement. Thus, we are requiring them to
get it done.
We are giving the City enough time to weigh their options because a dye study is a
viable option.
I hope this is helpful.
Thanks,
[e-mail] wrote:
thanks for getting these to me.
re #9, am still not sure what is going on. what was inadequate about
what they gave you and how will the submittal required by this permit be
different? why does the next submittal need to wait for the expansion
to be completed?
thanks!
AgyemanAdu-Poku <agyeman.adupokuRncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality-NPDES Unit
1 of 1 6/7/2007 2:31 PM

Re: comments on Wilmington Northside - NC0023965
Subject: Re: comments on Wilmington Northside - NC0023965
From: Agyeman Adu-Poku <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:57:28 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Marshall,
Here are my responses to your comments;
[e-mail] wrote:
will you be able to respond to these by Wed June 6? thanks.
PERMIT
comments 1-3 and 7 apply to both A.1 and A.2
1. fecal coliform - as written, fecal monitoring and limits apply even
when the enterococci limit becomes effective. Is that what you meant?
If not, the permit needs revision to reflect that.
No, fecal coliform monitoring and limit will expire when the enterococci limit
becomes effective. NC new rule became effective May 1, 2007 but we cannot take
fecal coliform until EPA approves NC new rules. The footnote has been revised. See
the attached new revision.
2. enterococci - since this permit was drafted and sent here, I've had
discussions re Carolina Beach with Gil and Bob Sledge and they agreed to
include a weekly avg limit of 276/100 ml. Do you intend to use that
weekly avg limit here?
Yes, 276/100m1 weekly average has been added.
3. fecal coliform and enterococci - both monthly avg limits are
calculated by geometric mean. The Southside permit included a specific
reference to Part II for the enterococci calculation. Does that cite
need to be included here?
Yes, the citation has been added.
4. TRC - in the Southside permit, an 18-month compliance schedule was
given in A.1. Here, it appears that no TRC limit applies in A.1. A.1
and A.2 do not reflect an explicit schedule, but one is given in A.11.
Is that the correct date? If so, why wasn't it incorporated into A.1
and A.2, as was done with Southside?
Well, the facility is expanding to 16 MGD,
2009 so we assumed that A.2 will not need
the compliance schedule. And also the A.1 will not need the TRC limit because of
the expansion phase.
5. pH - is misspelled as PH in A.1.
Corrected
scheduled to be completed by the end of
1 of 2 6/6/2007 4:57 PM

Re: comments on Wilmington Northside - NC0023965
6. why isn't there a percent removal requirement in A.1 for BOD5 and
TSS and for TSS in A.2? That would be a basis for EPA objection.
85% removal is added to both A.1 and A.2.
7. in the units sections, recommend adding NO2-N, NO3-N, and TKN.
Corrected
8. In A.2, for DO, shouldn't there be a footnote that says that the 6.0
mg/1 limit is a daily minimum?
Corrected
9. re A.8 - The previous permit required that a CORMIX model be
submitted which assessed the 16.0 MGD discharge. It's not clear to me
what was done with that information in conducting the RPA analyses for
this permit or in evaluating what permit limits to apply here. This
permit seems to repeat the same requirement to submit a CORMIX analysis.
Pls explain what was done with the info submitted in the previous permit
and why the requirement seems to be repeated.
The permittee provided a document for that requirement but we thought that was not
enough so we are
requiring Northside to provide CORMIX model after completion of the expansion.
FACT SHEET:
10. NPDES Staff Report and Recommendation The Date of
Investigation is cited as 9/28/07. This is incorrect.
I think our regional staff made a typographical error.
Thanks a lot for your comments. These are very helpful.
Agyeman Adu-Poku <agyeman.adupoku(2 ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality-NPDES Unit
2 of 2 6/6/2007 4:57 PM

comments on Wilmington Northside - NC0023965
Subject: comments on Wilmington Northside - NC0023965
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:54:45 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
will you be able to respond to these by Wed June 6? thanks.
PERMIT
comments 1-3 and 7 apply to both A.1 and A.2
/7 1. fecal coliform - as written, fecal monitoring and limits apply even
when the enterococci limit becomes effective. Is that what you meant?
If not, the permit needs revision to reflect that.
2. enterococci - since this permit was drafted and sent here, I've had
discussions re Carolina Beach with Gil and Bob Sledge and they agreed to
include a weekly avg limit of 276/100 ml. Do you intend to use that
weekly avg limit here?
3. fecal coliform and enterococci - both monthly avg limits are
calculated by geometric mean. The Southside permit included a specific
reference to Part II for the enterococci calculation. Does that cite
need to be included here? \4,
4. TRC - in the Southside permit, an 18-month compliance schedule was
given in A.1. Here, it appears that no TRC limit applies in A.1. A.1
and A.2 do not reflect an explicit schedule, but one is given in A.11.
Is that the correct date? If so, why w sn't it incorporated into A.1 ���
and A.2, as was done with Southside? IIA,,,ppIA 1'
5. pH - is misspelled as PH in A.1. �` L.3..)
� fi . /lam '�`��Y'(� 1't ' cA .&CLA ,-
6. why isn't there a percent removal requirement in A.1 for BOD5 and ./ QAp
TSS and for TSS in A.2? That would be a basis for EPA objection. C fr,oxid /
7. in the units sections, recommend adding 02-N,, NO3-N,
8. In A.2, for DO, shouldn't there be a footnote hat says that the 6.0
mg/1 limit is a daily minimum? l,.7 L4
9. re A.8 - The previous permit required that a CORMIX model be
submitted which assessed the 16.0 MGD discharge. It's not clear to me
what was done with that information in conducting the RPA analyses for
this permit or in evaluating what permit limits to apply here. This
permit seems to repeat the same requirement to submit a CORMIX analysis.
Pls explain what was done with the info submitted in the previous permit
and why the requirement seems to be repeated.
FACT SHEET:
and TKN.
10. NPDES Staff Report and Recommendation The Date of
Investigation is cited as 9/28/07. This is incorrect.
srPrc.c-=
1 of 1 6/1/2007 2:46 PM

• C......
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER .
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Said County and State,
•
pul
Th
PUBUCNOTICE `::
STATE OF NORTH':
.CAROUNA - v...
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL'SERVICE,
CENTER ;
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT
TO ISSUE A NPDES"
WASTEWATER PERMIT
On= the basis of thorough
staff review : - and'
application^of NC General
Statute:-; •143.21, -Public
la it :,492-500' and' 'other.
lawful..-4, standarts ,,-ancr
negufattffonsF �0':�o�
Carolina-:>Envv - .,;',Worth
ManegerneneCo sfon
• proposes _ to -i. Issue ,a
National _ Pollutant.
-Discharge s Ii natlarr;
-waystewateri - rge-
permit- to the�persoiis)
listed below__e ve #5
days from - the- ubl h
date of this notice
Written :_ I. comments:
regarding the proposed'
permit -will accepted
until.,•30'•da s after.the"
publish . . .da a •• of ; this
notice..; ->All comments,
- received p(ior . ':to ;':.that••
date :'are';oensidered :In
the final determinations
regarding •. the ._ proposed
permit. The = Director of
the NC -Division of Water' •
Quality may decide to.
hold .a public hearing -for -
the proposed. =j -permit
should . the Division
receive a stjnlficant'
degree,of publir.interest••
Copies of the •draft:pe nit
' and t. other : ';au porting'
information on ,f le used •
to determinecondi ons -.
' present: t in +:'the- `draft.
.permit -are area ilable;,upcn
,quest- and t.ay Ebel* iof
the-, sts' of .teprtd} ctiaii i,
'-Mali ,!.COMments:.. a►tdtor•
requests .ori'Inforrnation•
.1:04the-':; NC l?Divisioii tot -
Water Quality at the
above address, or call Ms.
Frances Candelaria `• at
(919): 733-5083;
'extension ; S20 at the
Point Source : Branch
Please include. the NPDES
permit number (attached).
- in r .any -:Communication:
Interested - persons =tmay
also` isit the >Divisiofi : of •
Water.: Quality`;at'
Salisbury • StreetrRa(eigh;.
C_->27604,1l'48 between
6ihours ":.of .8.00 ,]a`mc .
rid ;5:00 p.m to. review •
(nfot ietion
The' Clty of = Wilrningto•
(2311 • North .3rdeet;:,
Wilmington, orth
Carolina)-happlied
a renewal foff.-.NPDES'
Permit • ,NC0023965 ;for
'Northside- WWTP in 'New
Hanover Cdunty. • This
tity
.dischaarrgees ` :8 ' MGD/16ed
MGD .treated ;wastewater':
to... th.e ape {:Fear....River
within the-- `Cape ',Fear-.
River Basin. The, following
parameters, are,:.currently
water .qquality,' limited:
RODS, 'TSS - ammonia
nitrogen`(NH3 as N), fecal
coliform,` To i _'.Residual
it
'
f ''�°.44,olec9 ICI( C t
1- inf ill i iiis""
laforegoing affidavit with the advertisement thereto annexed it is adjudged by the Court that the said
roperly made and that the summons has been duly and legally served on the defendant(s).
T. Weil-Tallmadge
Who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to the law, says that he/she is
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING MANAGER
of THE STAR -NEWS, a corporation organized and doing business under the Laws of the State of
North Carolina, and publishing a newspaper known as STAR -NEWS in the City of Wilmington
PUBLIC NOTICE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT On the basis
of thorough staff review and application of NC Gen
was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper in space, and on dates as follows:
S/131x
And at the time of such publication Star -News was a newspaper meeting all the requirements and
qualifications prescribed by Sec. No. 1-597 G.S. of N.C.
Title: CLASSIFIED ADVER. MGR
Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me this 1 S 4 1'`' day of
, A.D., 1.0 Di
� ,,tffilii111114,`
•
-s
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my��o A41%and
year aforesaid.
•;)„,.,,„ .
My commission expires
f
114 4k day of A U C• ,20 11
Clerk of Superior Court

Re: cmc values for toluene?
Subject: Re: cmc values for toluene?
From: Justin Dent <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 08:45:40 -0400
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
CC: Connie Brower <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<Agyeman. [e-mail]>
Susan/Agyeman,
EPA does not have a CCC or CMC listed for toluene, but I have calculated values based
off of data from ECOTOX. The chronic criteria for saltwater is 370 ug/L and the
acute value is 3700 ug/L. Let me know if you have any more questions.
Thanks,
Justin
Susan Wilson wrote:
Connie/Justin -
does EPA have any CMC values for Toluene into saltwater bodies? or do we just go
by human health values for organisms only? all i saw was the human health values
(Agyeman is working on the permits for Wilmington)
*Susan A. Wilson, P.E.*
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
(919) 733 - 5083, ext. 510
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
1 of 1 5/9/2007 10:17 AM

[Fwd: Re: Wilmington CS permit WQCS00012]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Wilmington CS permit WQCS00012]
From: Deborah Gore <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 07:05:28 -0400
To: Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>, Agyeman Adupoku
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Poupart <[e-mail]>
Please see Dean's reply below regarding the status of the Wilmington CS permit. Let
me know if you need any further info.
Deborah
Subject: Re: Wilmington CS permit WQCS00012
From: Dean Hunkele <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:34:43 -0500
To: Deborah Gore <[e-mail]>
CC: Ed Beck <[e-mail]>, Jeff Poupart <[e-mail]>
Deborah,
The two studies are complete and the final reports are due out any time. However, it
will take some time for us to go through them to determine what we think needs to be
done and included in the permit. Many items associated with the NEI force main
system (currently under sewer extension moratorium with possible no tap moratorium if
another break occurs) will end up in a SOC that we expect to enter into.
Another complicating issue is that we expect the City to merge with New Hanover
County Water & Sewer District (WQCS00061) into an Authority by late March/early
April, thus we would need to merge the two permits together. Consequently, any
schedules we come up with would need to be applied to both "systems" as they would
become a single Permittee and it makes no sense to renew the permit to only have to
re -issue it again shortly thereafter.
I know that the District does not have any ownership names on their pump stations and
the City's signs on their stations are not adequate, but we have not pushed that
issue with the pending merge. Also, I know that the City probably has some outfalls
/right-of-ways that need to be cleared or access gained for O&M -- not sure about the
District.
I would let the City continue to operate under their
them together.
Dean Hunkele
Environmental Specialist
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
Direct Phone:
Main Phone:
Fax:
Address:
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
[phone] (NEW)
[phone]
[phone]
127 Cardinal Drive Ext
GO CANES!
http://www.caneshockey.com/
expired permit until we merge
MI, i —? 1-461 W't't- t-lo'.P oFF
oN UJ't,MtAS-ropiS ?EnMII Fbe-
csNf/id.
/EatS
` 4re' Co 6trro^l sysTuu
5c6z.4 iF,:0 1 ss w es
Frw/ls5 ' .
5 s j'$ri
Deborah Gore wrote:
Dean,
Once again I am trying to get caught up on the CS permits. Have the studies that
you were waiting on been completed? If so, what kind of schedules need to be
1 of 2 5/9/2007 10:16 AM

[Fwd: Re: Wilmington CS permit WQCS00012]
included? I'm going to try to put blinders on until I get through these - there's
just so much going on its hard to get any one thing finished.
See ya,
Deborah
Deborah Gore
Environmental Engineer
PERCS Unit
Re: Wilmington CS permit WQCSOOO12
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 5/9/2007 10:16 AM

mixing zones
Subject: mixing zones
From: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 16:41:38 -0400
To: Agyeman Adupoku <[e-mail]>
CC: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Hey Agyeman,
This questionaire is geared more towards mixing zones, but we ask the same type of
questions for any model. Look at the sections on "plume characterization" and "plume
impacts". If this is a tidal discharge, we really need to get a good idea of what
the plume "looks" like. The plume will have a certain shape and there will be
variations in concentration through that shape.
The model Wilmington provided gives you effluent concentrations (where? it isn't
clear) at certain time periods during the tide. But what is their reference point?
Were they giving dilution at the outfall? Perhaps they were, but we also want to
know: where does the discharge plume go? Does it accumulate in a certain physical
area? Does the concentration of effluent increase over time as a result of
accumulation? Their analysis leaves a lot of questions unanswered. We need for them
to "characterize the plume". We're concerned about the accumulation (and transport)
of toxicants.
Just some thoughts. Lemme know if you need anything.
Susan- cc'ing you in case you need this info for your talk with Marshall.
Toya
Toya Fields - [e-mail]
Environmental Engineer I
Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
Tel: [phone] x 551
Fax: [phone]
Mixing Zone notes2.doc'
Content -Type: application/msword
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 5/9/2007 2:59 PIS'[

Northside, Southside Wton NPDES permit drafts
Subject: Northside, Southside Wton NPDES permit drafts
From: Linda Willis <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 13:48:24 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Agyeman,
I received your call regarding these two. I visited with Ed on these and he had no
specific concerns relating to their renewal. Wes wrote the Northside staff report
some time ago. More stringent limits had already been agreed upon in the last permit
for the Northside, so we have a good feel for what to expect in the draft. No
heartburn here concerning the Division eliminating some of the metals monitoring
requirements based on past data. We look forward to seeing the draft.
With the exception of the enteroccoci limit/monitoring as specified in the July 28,
2006 memorandum concerning proposed Enterococci Bacteria Std for Coastal Waters, no
significant changes to either northside or southside are expected. The requirement
to monitor TN and TP is already in both permits, which covers the Lower Cape Fear
Strategy (2006) memo. Southside chlorinates, so a TRC limit would be expected. The
staff report for Southside will be forthcoming, Wes is working on that one.
Any questions, feel free to give me a call 796-7343.
Linda
Linda Willis <linda.willis@ ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer I •
Surface Water Protection Section
Division Of Water Quality
1 of 1 5/7/2007 2:10 PM

Private - COW NPDES Permit Renewal - NSWWTP
Subject: Private - COW NPDES Permit Renewal - NSWWTP
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:12:40 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Agyeman,
I appreciate your 05/03/2007 inquiry to clarify several points prior to
releasing draft permits for public comment and also your advising of DWQ's
intended action of the City's request to incorporate the phased limit
special condition.
Responding to your request for clarification,
1. With Mr. Caldwell's retirement, all administrative issues pertaining to
the City's NPDES permits for the NSWWTP and the SSWWTP should be directed
to Ms. Mary Ann Hinshaw, Acting Public Utilities Department Director. All
other information remains the same.
2. Special Condition A7 of the current NSWWTP NPDES permit, submission of
the effluent mixing model, has already been addressed. The City's
02/11/2005 correspondence responded to this requirement; a copy accompanies
for your review and use. Hopefully, you will determine that this
submission satisfies the permit requirement and will not have to be
repeated in the current renewal.
It is my understanding that if these clarifications meet your needs, the
City and the public can expect availability of draft NPDES permits for
review and comment within the next week or so.
Regarding the City's request for incorporating phased effluent limits, you
indicated that DWQ could not consider accommodating this request at this
time due to the Cape Fear River Estuary low DO TMDL not being finalized.
You indicated that DWQ would be formally advising the City of this
determination in the cover/transmittal letter. We also discussed that
this determination would not preclude reopening this issue for
reconsideration when the TMDL was finalized. While the City would
obviously have preferred resolution of this issue at this time, we
understand the regulatory constraints discouraging or prohibiting such
accommodation from occurring. However, we are nonetheless pleased that
there may still be the potential for consideration of phasd limits and/or
the City's participation in a pollutant credit/trading program at some time
in the future. Thanks so much for working with the City is this matter.
Please advise should you have any further questions or comments.
Regards, Ken.
(See attached file: NS.2006.A7.pdf)
Kenneth L. Vogt Jr., P.E., B.C.E.E.
Wastewater Treatment Superintendent
City of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington,NC 28402-1810
910.341.7890 (PH); 910.341.4659 (F); 910.470.8701 (M)
[e-mail]
NS.2006.A7.pdf
Content -Type: application/pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 5/4/2007 2:10 PM

WLk9L°N
February 11, 2005
Mr. Alan W. Klimek, PE, Director/Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit NC 0023965
Special Condition A7-Effluent Mixing Model
Dear Mr. Klimek:
'fp, FEB 4-111/
Li h;
The issuance of the referenced permit was accompanied by Special Condition A.7 which
stated that:
A.7.
"Prior to renewing this permit, the City of Wilmington shall submit a CORMTX
Model (or equivalent) providing additional information regarding end -of -pipe
dilution. .The model shall address dilution at the approved 16.0 MGD increased
flow rate into the Cape Fear River for both the existing and the new discharge -line
diffusers."
DWQ offered the following explanation to support its imposition of Special Condition
"The Division has reviewed Permittee submittals and modeling efforts to evaluate
effluent -mixing conditions in the Lower Cape Fear River. To date, these appear
insufficiently detailed to define end -of -pipe dilution. Due to the lack of detail and
the permitted discharge increase, the EPA has voiced concerns about potential
future impact."
The City has gone throe& significant effort and expense to produce the referenced
documentation. Specifically, the City has caused. the preparation and submittal of "3-Dirninional
EFDC Water Quality Model of the Lower Cape Fear River and its Estuary", Tetra Tech Inc. May
2001, in support of its NPDES permit application and proposed effluent limitations. Chapter 4
specifically addressed the Discharge Dilution Analysis.
Public Utilities Department
Administration Division • P.O. Box 1810 • Wilmington • North Carolina • 28402-
1810 .
[phone] phone • [phone] fax

Mr. Alan W. Klimek
February 11, 2005
Page Two
Chapter 4 of the referenced document is being submitted herewith in fulfillment of
Special Condition A.7. Please advise of it's acceptance for this purpose or advise of specific
actions required by DWQ which would result in its acceptance.
If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information please feel free to
contact me.
Yours very truly,
Val....r77ageuree
Hugh T. Caldwell; P.E.
'Director of Public Utilities
cc: ."Kenneth L. Vogt, Jr., Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment
• JeffCermak, Wastewater Supervisor -, Northside Plant
Wyatt Blanchard, New Hanover County Engineering
Greg Thompson, New Hanover County Engineering
Tony Boahn, McKim & Creed
Ron Taylor, Hazen & Sawyer
Trevor Clements; Tetra Tech

4 - DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
The calibrated and verified hydrodynamic model was applied to evaluate near field and far
field mixing and transport of the Wilmington Northside and Southside Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) effluents. The concept of dilution was used to quantify the degree of mixing and
the transport of the effluent in the Cape Fear system. For each treatment plant, a conservative
tracer having concentration CQ was introduced into the plant effluent. The hydrodynamic and
transport model was- then used to simulate the distribution of the tracer in the system for a two
month period encompassing June and July 1998. The July monthly mean flows in the Cape Fear,
Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers were 29.42 ems (1036 cfs), 1.93 cms (68 cfs), and 2.01
cms (71 cfs), respectively. Tracer concentrations were predicted to reach a quasi -steady state,
i.e., the concentration time variation in all cells of the model repeated with each subsequent tidal
cycle,. by the last week of July. The dilution of the effluent during the last tidal cycle in each
model cell was then determined by
(4.1)
where D is the dilution and C is the concentration in the cell of interest. The following two
sections summarize the results of the near and far field dilution analyses.
4.1 Near Field Dilution
The near field dilution analysis was conducted to determine the mixing and dilution of the
effluents in the immediate vicinity of the plant discharges. For the Northside treatment plant, two
approaches were used. The first simple approach assumed that the effluent is instantaneously
mixing in the horizontal model cell in which the discharge is located. Since the Northside
discharge has a two nozzle submerged diffuser, the second approach used a jet -plume sub -model.
The EFDC.model includes an embedded version of the JETLAG (Lee and Cheung, 1990, -
•
Hamrick,1998) jet -plume model. The JETLAG model is based on the Lagrangian formulation
used in the UM component of the US EPA's PLUMES model (Baumgartner, Frick, and Roberts,
1994). The JETLAG model has been extensively tested against CORMIX1(Jirka, Doneker, and
Hinton, 1996) by Davidson and Pun (1998) who conclude that the two models provide
quantitatively similar predictions of mixing and dilution from single port discharges over a wide
range of conditions. The JETLAG model embedded in EFDC allows the two-way interaction
between nearfield and far field processes, with the EFDC far field model providing dynamic
ambient conditions for JETLAG, with JETLAG appropriately transferring the equivalent far field
source to EFDC. For the jet -plume based analysis, the two port Northside diffuser head is
represented by a dynamically equivalent single port discharge. Since the Southside treatment
plant does not have a submerged discharge structure, only the first approach was used.
The results of the near field dilution analysis are summarized in Table 4.1. For the Northside
discharge, accounting for the mixing dynamics of the submerged discharge structure results in
approximately 30 percent greater dilutions in the model cell where the discharge is located. The
Northside discharge is located in a high energy region of the river system with tidal mixing
dominating the dilution process. The Southside discharge is located is a less energetic region and
has correspondingly lower near field dilutions. The model cell in which the Northside discharge
is located has a surface area of approximately 0.07 square kilometers and a mean depth of
STetra Tech, Inc. 4-1

Chapter 4
May 2�01 DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
approximately 10. meters. The model cell in which the Southside discharge is located has a
surface area of approximately 0.11 square kilometers and a mean depth of approximately 1.meter.
Thus the model grid constrained volume of the Northside discharge cell is approximately 6 times
that of the Southside discharge cell which is consistent with the results of the simple dilution
approach. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the Northside and Southside near field dilutions over two
tidal cycles.
4.2 Far Field Dilution
Dilution of the Northside and. Southside treatment plant discharges were determined in all
model cells. Table 4.2 summarizes dilutions at a number of selected locations of interest. At
Navassa, the dilutions from both treatment plants are lower at the bottom of the water column
than at the surface. During the relatively low flow in the Cape Fear River during the simulation
period, there is upstream intrusion of salinity well past Navassa. This upstream salinity intrusion
is accompanied by a tidally averaged, density driven transport upstream in the bottom portion of
the water column and downstream in surface portion (Hamrick, 1979). The upstream average
transport is responsible for an increased upstream transport of material from the treatment plants
near the bottom and a compensating decreased in the upstream transport near the surface. The
strength of this two -layered, upstream -downstream net transport is approximately proportional to
the salinity gradient. A different situation is observed 6 miles upstream in the Northeast Cape
Fear River at station NCF6. Although, salinity is present at this station, the much lower .
freshwater discharge from the Northeast Cape Fear River results in a weaker salinity gradient and
net two layer circulation. As a result, dilutions at the bottom and surface of the water column are
approximately the same.
Dilution of the Northside effluent is greater in the bottom layer at the downstream main
estuary stations, M61, M54, and M42, due to a compensating effect of the smaller bottom layer
dilution upstream in the Cape Fear River. For the Southside effluent, the higher surface dilution
at the upstream M61 station is consistent with the salinity intrusion effect. At the two
downstream stations, M54 and M42, higher bottom dilutions of the Southside effluent occur,
consistent with that observed for the Northside effluent at.downstream stations. Figures 4.3-4.5
show two tidal cycle plots of the Northside.effluent dilution at Navassa, NCF6, and Marker 61.
Figures 4.6-4.9 show two tidal cycle plots of the Southside effluent dilution at Markers 61, 54,
and 42.
The far field dilution analysis can be used to make a very simplified estimation of the impacts
of the Wilmington treatment plant effluents on low dissolved oxygen near Navassa and NCF6. If
ultimate biochemical oxygen demand was simplistically represented as conservative tracer, the
contribution of the Northside effluents BOD„ to the oxygen deficit at Navassa could be crudely
estimated as
BODu BODu
DOS = --- +
D nort?ulde D southsrde
Using minimum dilutions of 300 and 391 for the Northside and Southside effluents at
Navassa (from Table 4-2), and ultimate BOD's of 35 mg/liter for both effluents (from Figures 5-2
and 5-3), equation (4.2) gives a contribution to the dissolved oxygen deficit of approximately 0.2
mg/liter during summer low flow conditions. A similar calculation for six miles up the Northeast
Cape Fear River gives a value of 0.17 rag/liter. These simple estimates can be viewed as
conservative since the minimum bottom layer dilution rather than the tidally average dilution over
(4.2)
4-2 S Tetra Tech, Inc.

Chapter 4 May 2001
DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
both layers has been used, and the effects of oxidation between the discharge and the points of
interest have been neglected. It is also noted that the value of 0.2 mg/liter is near typical field
instrument sensitivity.
The general conclusion that can be drawn from the discharge dilution analysis is that both of
the Wilmington treatment plant discharges are well diluted by natural physical mixing processes .
in the river system. Model predicted dilutions at various locations in the river system are very
consistent with classical estuarine circulation patterns which lend credence to the results. Using
the dilution predictions in conjunction with Equation 4.2 as the basis for a simple analysis, the
two Wilmington discharges in combination are estimated to be responsible for approximately 0.2
mg/liter or less of dissolved oxygen deficit in dissolved oxygen impaired regions of the river
system.
® Tetra Tech, Inc. 4-3

May 2001 Chapter 4
DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4-1, NEARFIED NORTHSIDE EFFLUENT DILUTION, BASED ON JET -PLUME ANALYSIS APPROACH.
Dilution Facto
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
- -Bottom
—II—Surface
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
FIGURE 4-2. NEARFIELD SOUTHSIDE EFFLUENT DILUTION, BASED SIMPLE ANALYSIS APPROACH.
Dilution Factor
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
---Bottom
—0--Surface
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
4-4
STetra Tech, Inc.

3
}
(meter 4 May't
DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4-3. DILUTION OF NORTHSIDE EFFLUENT AT NAVASSA.
STetra Tech, Inc. 4-5

Jchapter4
.
may 2�1 DISCHARGE DILUTION. ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4-4. DILUTION OF NORTHSIDE EFFLUENT 6 MILES UP THE NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER.
900
800
700
600
300
200
100
0
•
—,ir—Bottom
—up—Surface
•
•
•
•
1 2 3 4 •5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24
Hour
4-6 S Tetra Tech, Inc. •

Chapter 4 May 2001
DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
FIGURE $5. DILUTION OF NORTHSIDE EFFLUENT AT CHANNEL MARKER 61.
. 600
500
400
0
5
0
u.
O 300
la
7
c
200
100
0
— a—Bottom
— 0—Surface
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
STetra Tech, Inc. 4-7

I Chapter 4
May 2C01 DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4-6. DILUTION OF SOUTHS[0E EFFLUENT AT CHANNEL MARKER 61.
wv
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
.
'
•
4—Bottom
-4,-S1uface
4-8 S Tetra Tech, Inc.

}
Chapter 4 May m i
DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4-7. DILUTION OF SOUTHSIDE EFFLUENT AT CHANNEL MARKER 54.
Dllvtlon Facto
400
950
300
260
200
150
100
50
0
..}—Bottom
TS uttace
I it
1 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
STetra Tech, Inc. 4-9

May 2001 Chapter4
DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4-8. DILUTION OF SOUTHSIDE EFFLUENT AT CHANNEL MARKER 42.
450
400
350
300
250
•
.2
2i 200
a
150
100
50
0
. -st-Bottom
• -..—Surface
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
4-70 0 Tetra Tech, Inc.

Chapter 4
DISCHARGE DILUTION ANALYSIS
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF NEAR FIELD DILUTION ANALYSIS
May 2001
Dilution Criteria
Minimum
Northside Plant
Dilution
Maximum
Northside Plant
Dilution
Minimum
Southside Plant '
Dilution
Maximum
Southside Plant
Dilution
Near Surface Dilution in Discharge
Cell using Simple Approach
248
613
36
•
109
Near Bottom Dilution in Discharge
Ce11 using Simple Approach
241
331
33
63
Near Surface Dilution in Discharge
Cell Using Jet -Plume Approach
332
797
_
.
Near Bottom Dilution in Discharge
Cell Using Jet -Plume Approach
303
- 420
Dilution at Maximum Plume Rise
4.5
25.4
TABLE 4-2. FAR FIELD DILUTION AT SELECTED LOCATIONS
Dilution Criteria and Location
Minimum
Northside Plant
Dilution '
Maximum
Northside Plant
Dilution
. Minimum
Southside Plant
Dilution
Maximum
Southside Plant
Dilution
Near Surface Dilution at Navassi
(jet -plume approach)
791
(799)
3103 .
(3372)
1160
4054
Near Bottom Dilution at Navassa
(jet -plume approach)
300
(325)
448
(500)
391
.
609
Near Surface Dilution at NCF6
Get -Plume approach)
359
(356)
803
(813)
464
-
1105
Near Bottom Dilution at NCF6
(jet -plume approach)
357
(356)
799
(809)
464
1099
Near Surface Dilution at M61
(jet -plume approach)
301
(307)
375
(374)
327
474
_
Near Bottom Dilution at M61
(jet -plume approach)
443
(455)
489
(495)
269
291
Near Surface Dilution at M54
364
439
184
355
Near Bottom Dilution at M54
.400
493
203
255
Near Surface Dilution at M42
418
650
222
338
Near Bottom Dilution at M42
543
787
274
400
ffig Tetra Tech, Inc.
4-11

NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request 3/13/2007
Facility
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
Permit #
NC0023965
Region
WIRO
Requestor
Agyeman Adu-Poku
Pretreatment A-F Towns- Dana Folley (ext. 523) •
Contact G-M Towns- Jon Risgaard (ext. 580)
N-Z Towns- Deborah Gore (ext. 593)
COMMENTS TO PRETREATMENT UNIT:
PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (circle all that apply)
3) the facility has (or is developing) a Pretreatment Program
3a) is Full Program with LTMP
Flow Permitted MGD Actual MGD
Industrial 0.252 0.114
Domestic
L
ISI
T
MP
Pollutant
Check List
NPDESINon.
Discharge
Permit Limit
Required
by EPA'
Required by
503 Sludge"
POC due to SIUr"
Slte specific POC (Provide Explanation)""
STMP
Frequency at
effluent
LTMP
Frequency at
effluent
BOD
X
Q
TSS
X
Q
NH3
X NPDES MONITOR REQ
Q
Arsenic
X
Q
,%
_Cadmium;.
,%
X
Q
,%
CFirog* - :
4
Q
%J
Goppe .
,%
X
X NPDES MONITOR REQ
Q
Cyanide
X NPDES MONITOR REQ
Q
,%
heals'
4
X
Q
Mercury
X
X NPDES MONITOR REQ
Q
Molybdenum
X
Q
,/
'_N.�ct ell.:
4
X
Q
Silver
X NPDES MONITOR REQ
Q
Selenium
X
Q
4
Z, "� c`
f
X
X NPDES MONITOR REQ
Q
CBOD
X
Q
COD
X
Q
TKN
X
Q
TOT PHOS
X NPDES MONITOR REQ
Q
AL
X
Q
IRON
• X
Q
CHLORIDE
X
Q
FLORIDE
X
Q
BARIUM
X
Q
?Always in the LTMP
"Only in the LTMP if the POTW land applies sludge
"'Only in LTMP while the SIU is connected to the POTW
NN Only in LTMP when the pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ex-Chtorides for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
all LTMP/STMP effluent data
on DMRs?
Yes X
Q=Quarterly
M=Monthly
No(attach data)
Comments:
available in spreadsheet?
Yes No X
version 1018/03
NPDES_Pretreatment.request.form.031008
Revised: August 4. 2000

Flow
% Industrial
% Domestic
Permitted
Actual
STMP
time
frame
LTMP
Pollu
tant
CheC
k
List
POC
due to
NPDES/
Non-
Dischar
ge
Permit
Limit
Require
d by
EPA*
Require
d by
503
Sludge*
*
POC
due to
SIU***
Site
specific
POC
(Provid
e
Explana
tion)****
STMP
Frequen
cy at
effluent
LTMP
Frequen
cy at
effluent
BOD
4
Q M
TSS
4
Q M
NH3
4
Q M
Arsenic
4
Q M
Ni.
}ad`mium
4
Q M
Chromium
f
4
Q M
Copper
Ni
4
Q M
Cyanide
4
Q M
V%
Lead'
Ni
4
Q M
Mercury
4
Q M
Molybdemum
4
Q M
J
Nickel
Ni
4
Q M
Silver
4
Q M
Selenium
4
Q M
/
Z nc
Ni
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
*Always in the LTMP
**Only in the LTMP
*** Only in LTMP while
**** Only in LTMP
Q= Quarterly
M=Monthly
Comments:
if the POTW land applies sludge
the SIU is connected to the POTW
when the pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ie-Chloride tc
a POTW who accepts Textile waste)

Re: [Fwd: Northside and Southside Permit renewals (Wilmington)]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Northside and Southside Permit renewals (Wilmington)]
From: Agyeman Adu-Poku <Agyeman.Adupoku®ncmail.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:27:30 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: Gil Vinzani <[e-mail]>, Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Hi Linda,
I have just been assigned Wilmington Northside and Southside permit renewals. I am
hoping that I can get them to public notice by March 28 and be issued by May 21st
assuming that no public hearing is requested.
I want to point out that enterococci'standard will not be applicable in this case
because the receiving stream is a freshwater.
I am planning on a site visit to these plants on 3/15. I know you are pretty busy
this time of the year, however if you have time, you are welcome to come alone with
me to the site visit otherwise I can make the trip by myself. Thanks a lot.
Agyeman
Gil Vinzani wrote:
As we discussed. Please get back to Linda. Thanks,
Gil
Subject:
Northside and Southside Permit renewals (Wilmington)
From:
Linda Willis <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:13:38 -0500
To:
[e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]
CC:
gil.vinzani®ncmail.net
Hello,
I had an inquiry from Dolores Bradshaw asking when the NPDES permit might be
issued and what changes they
might expect for each. . .NC0023965 and NC0023973
I can relay the following (based on permitting guidance) but want to run it by you
before responding to Dolores.
28 ug/L daily limit with monitoring frequency of daily (Class IV) facility (based
on June 19, 2003 guidance from Colleen that all permit renewals will impose.the
TRC limit.
Total Nitrogen 1/ month frequency with no limit (based on LCF strategy
Subbasins 30617, 30621-30624)
Total Phosphorus 1/month frequency with no limit (same as above)
Enterococci (geom mean) 35/100 ml Monthly average limit with meas. freq of daily
(class IV) (No upstream/downstream monitoring since existing permits do not
require U/D fecal monitoring.
1 of 2 3/7/2007 3:28 PM

Re: [Fwd: Northside and Southside Permit renewals (Wilmington)]
ib
Do you all agree those would be the only changes, or have I missed something?
Linda Willis
AgyemanAdu-Poku <agyeman.adupokuRncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality-NPDES Unit
2 of 2 3/7/2007 3:28 PM

To: NPDES Permitting Unit
Surface Water Protection Section
Attention: Jackie Nowell
Date: 01/24/07
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: New Hanover
Permit No. NC0023965
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
Facility: City of Wilmington
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
Wilmington, NC
Mailing: City of Wilmington Public Utilities
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
2. Date of Investigation: 09/28/07
3. Report Prepared by: Wes Hare
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Geoffrey Cermak [phone]
5. Directions to Site: Travel north on 23rd St. from Market St. The facility is located on
the left (west) side of 23rd (NCSR 1302) across from the airport.
6. Discharge Point, List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 34° 15' 47" Longitude: 77° 55' 19"
U.S.G.S. Quad No: K 27 NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Wilmington, NC
7 Topography (relationship to flood plain included): This site is approximately 25-30
feet AMSL.
8. Location of nearest dwelling: Approximately 0.25 mile.
9. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Cape Fear River
a. Classification: Class "SC" Waters
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: CPF 17 (03-06-17)
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: This is a
tidal section of the Cape Fear used for commercial shipping and recreational
boating/fishing.

PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 8.0 MGD
b. What is the current permitted flow limit? 8.0 MGD.
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility? 8.0 MGD.
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to
Construct issued in the previous two years: An ATC (number 0023965A01)
was issued September 29, 2004. Proposed items are listed below, in "f'.
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed
wastewater treatment facilities: Existing facilities consist of: mechanical
influent bar screen, grit removal, dual primary clarifiers, dual trickling filters,
effluent pump station, chlorine disinfection facilities, dechlorination facilities,
effluent diffuser, primary and waste -activated sludge pump stations, sludge
thickening facility, anaerobic digesters with gas storage, and sludge dewatering
facilities.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities:
This facility is currently in the process of expanding/modifying the plant to treat
16 MGD. This construction is permitted by the aforementioned ATC and
includes the following:
• Addition of new screening and grit removal facilities
• Addition of two new primary clarifiers (105 ft. diameter) and primary sludge
pumps
• Addition of four aeration tanks (1.55 MG each) with fine bubble diffusers (four
blowers at 5000 icfm)
• Addition of two new secondary clarifiers (130 ft. diameter); two existing
clarifiers (90 ft.) to remain
• Addition of new secondary sludge pumps/ pump station for both the two
existing and two new secondary clarifiers
• Addition of four deep bed filters (10ft. by 70 ft. each)
• Addition of two backwash tanks and two backwash reclaim tanks (and
associated pumps), two air scour blowers, with diversion of backwash to head
of plant
• Addition of UV disinfection (four channels, 360 lamps) and associated
equipment designed for 40 MGD peak flow
• Addition of four pumps and associated piping for in -plant reuse of treated
effluent
• Addition of effluent Parshall flume
• Addition of post aeration (aeration diffusers in effluent sampling area, as well
as backwash tank area)
• Addition of effluent sampling area

g•
• Addition of equal split piping to the existing effluent pump station and the new
effluent pump station
• Refurbishment of existing effluent pump station to add five new effluent pumps
rated at 5 MGD each (with flow to the existing effluent force main and diffuser
to the Cape Fear River)
• Addition of new effluent pump station with three effluent pumps rated at 10
MGD each
• Addition of a new parallel effluent force main and diffuser to the Cape Fear
River
• Refurbishment of existing thickening facilities (two refurbished belt filter
presses), two new belt filter presses and associated thickening equipment
• Addition of two new, 3M gravity belt thickeners
• Addition of sludge truck loading station
• Addition of one rotary drum thermal dryer and associated equipment
• Addition of a new generator with automatic transfer switch to accommodate
the new treatment units (and retention of existing generator)
• Additional chemical feed systems, piping, valves, control equipment and
appurtenances
• Addition of odor control facilities, septage receiving station, supply building and
waste gas facilities
• The existing aeration basin and blower will be retained for possible future use
in some capacity
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: none known
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Existing.
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: The City of Wilmington utilizes
WQ0001271 for land application of solids.
3. The compliance history for this facility within the past permit cycle is as follows:
There were two monthly average flow exceedances, one 10/05 and another 9/06.
4. Treatment plant classification: Class 4
5. SIC Code(s): 4952
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public
monies (municipals only) involved? Files do not demonstrate any documentation
where CWMTF monies are involved
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: N/A

4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Not done.
5. Other Special Items: None
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This facility generally produces a quality effluent within permit limitations. The only
issues noted are for flow, which are addressed by the 9/29/04 ATC. As noted, the
facility is undergoing substantial construction to expand and upgrade. This will allow
them to effectively treat increased flow and more stringent parameter limits. It is
recommended the permit be reissued to the City of Wilmington in accordance with
the CFR Basinwide plan for the Northside WWTP (NC0023965).
c
Sigrrature of Report Preparer
C394,0,g0,-Was_j, ko-k_Ej
Water Quality Regi6nal Supervisor
cc: WiRO NPDES Permit File
Central Files
Date

GTON
PUBLIC UTTId"1'!ES
June 30, 2006
EXPRESS MAIL DELIVERY / RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mrs. Carolyn Bryant
NC DENR/ DWQ/ Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit Renewal
Application — NC0023965
Attn: Mrs. Jackie Nowell , Permit Reviewer
Dear Mrs. Nowell:
We are pleased to submit this NPDES permit renewal application package for the referenced facility. The
following documents have been provided for your review:
1. One (1) original and two (2) copies - executed Form 2A NPDES (EPA Form 3510-2A Rev1-99).
2. One (1) original and two (2) copies - pre -construction / existing 8.0 MGD facility
a. topographic map of the facility's extended area;
b. facility site plan (both 8.0 MGD and 16.0 MGD facilities shown);
c. facility process schematic;
d. narrative description of the process schematic and water balance summary
3. One (1) original and two (2) copies post -construction / expanded and upgraded 16.0 MGD facility
a. topographic map of the facility's extended area;
b. facility site plan (both 8.0 MGD and 16.0 MGD facilities shown);
c. facility process schematic;
d. narrative description of the process schematic and water balance summary
Additionally, we have included one (1) original and two (2) copies of a letter regarding the inclusion of certain
special conditions in the final NPDES permit language. We request that this letter be considered as a formal
part of the application submittal package.
We trust that you will find this information complete and satisfactory for review. If you have any questions or
require further information to expedite this process, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours very truly,
Hugh T. Caldwell, P.E.
Director of Public Utilities
cc: Sterling Cheatham, City Manager
Mary Ann Hinshaw, Deputy City Manager
Bruce Shell, County Manager
Greg Thompson, County Engineer
Ken Vogt, Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment
Tom Pollard, City Attorney

June 30, 2006
EXPRESS MAIL DELIVERY / RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mrs. Carolyn Bryant
NCDENR / DWQ / Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit
Special Conditions — NC 0023965
Attn: Mrs. Jackie Nowell, Permit Reviewer
Dear Mrs. Nowell:
During 2004 discussions concerning the NPDES permit for the expansion/upgrade of the above
referenced facility we were directed to include with the permit application any proposed special
conditions covering issues of critical concern to the City and County. We included special
conditions for three key issues: (1) acknowledging the City's current mass Toad allocation and the
significant Toss of mass load allocations involved in receiving a NPDES permit containing DWQ's
policy -based BOD (5 mg/I) and NH3 (1 mg/I) limits; (2) use of phased limits until DWQ's Cape
Fear River Estuary (CFRE) TMDL process is completed; (3) complete avoidance of any anti -
backsliding controversy. Except for the phased limits, these conditions were incorporated into the
permit.
While the City and the County were pleased to have been issued a NPDES permit for the
Northside Wastewater Treatment (NSWWTP) under both present and future loading conditions,
we were disappointed that DWQ did not respond favorably to our request for phased limits. We
believe that, given our particular circumstances, phased limits are a wise and prudent approach
towards ensuring water quality improvement within the Cape Fear River without compromising
either the City's, County's, or DWQ's position in this regard. As such, we continue to believe
inclusion of a special condition incorporating phased limits is appropriate, and we continue to
request it be included within the upcoming NPDES permit renewal process.

Tetra Tech (TTI) performed modeling for the City/County in support of the NPDES permit for the
NSWWTP. To our knowledge, the model is technically adequate. This model determined that
loadings from the expanded/upgraded NSWWTP will have little if any impact upon Cape Fear
River DO depletion and that non -point sources constitute the predominant cause of Cape Fear
River DO depletion within the Cape Fear River. We have not received any information from DWQ
disputing these findings.
Being mindful of DWQ's 5/1 policy -based limits for new or expanding point sources exceeding 1
MGD, the NSWVVTP expansion/upgrade has always been designed for this requirement. We
believe we've made a compelling case for the proposed 15/10 limits and have requested 15/10
limits be imposed until such time as it has been demonstrated that 5/1 limits are necessary. Even
if DWQ asserts that some uncertainty exists in the City's documentation, then this uncertainty
should be identified and reconciled if possible before imposing the 5/1 limits. Finally, a TMDL
study addressing low DOs within the Cape Fear River Estuary is currently underway. The
imposition of the 5/1 limit may not be required, or at the very least may be premature. We have
planned and designed the upgrade and expansion to achieve the policy based limits, but still take
exception to the immediate imposition of the 5/1 limits. We are not convinced that implementation
of 5/1 by the NSWWTP without further non -point source control will bring about the improvement
of DO envisioned by DWQ. For all these reasons, we have repeatedly requested phased limits as
being a practical and reasonable approach to correcting any perceived DO depletion occurring in
the Cape Fear River.
In summary, the City's modeling has demonstrated no appreciable water quality improvement
would result from imposing DWQ's policy -based limits within the NPDES permit for the NSWWTP
Expansion/Upgrade. Indeed, recent trends reveal decreasing Toad contributions from the
estuary's point sources has not produced a corresponding improvement in estuary water quality
(ref accompanying TTI 01/16/2003 Technical Memorandum). Thus, there is no significant
technical driving force for DWQ to impose the loss of allocation associated with policy -based
limits at this time.
Despite our concerns and the uncertainties described herein, the City and County have
committed to proceed with making the improvements necessary to expand the NSWWTP to 16
MGD with the capability to meet DWQ's policy -based limits when necessary. It is our hope that
this excess capability could be effectively used within a future waste load trading program.
To address this issue while still meeting the DWQ objective of protecting water quality in the
lower Cape Fear River, we request that the following additional condition be included in the final
NPDES Permit language for the City's Northside 1W TP.

s_
Northside NPDES Permit Special Condition
Issue: Phased Limits
Proposed Permit Condition: Assimilative capacity within the Cape Fear River estuary has not
been established with any degree of certainty. Moreover, certain areas within the estuary have
been classified as impaired, are 303 (d)-listed, and are the subject of TMDL establishment. The
Permittee has functioned as a regional facility and has accepted wastewater from small facilities
with high concentrations of BOD and NH3 as N. Such regionalization is beneficial in reducing the
total discharge of BOD and NH3 as N to the Cape Fear River. In order to continue the benefits of
regionalization and avoid being unduly restrictive without good cause and sound scientific
justification, and , in particular, taking such actions lacking completion of the TMDL process,
NCDENR herby approves the imposition of phased limits as follows:
1. Until the assimilative capacity/waste load allocation/TMDL process is completed and
resolved;
16 MGD; 15 mg/I BOD%; 30 mg/I TSS; 10 mg/l NH3-N operation and effluent limits.
2. Upon completion and resolution of the assimilative capacity/waste load allocation/
TMDL process, the operation and effluent limits may be adjusted to '16 MGD; 5 mg/I
BOD; 30 mg/I TSS; 1 mg/I NH3 or to values in between these and the interim limits as
technically supported by the outcome of such process.
We would appreciate a written response concerning the proposed special condition. If the above
special condition is not acceptable to NCDENR, then we respectfully request the opportunity to
discuss what would be acceptable.
If I can provide any additional information, please let me know. Thank you for your consideration.
Yours very truly,
i - I/
Hugh T. Caldwell, P.E.
Director of Public Utilities
cc: Sterling Cheatham, City Manager
Mary Ann Hinshaw, Deputy City Manager
Bruce Shell, County Manager
Greg Thompson, County Engineer
Ken Vogt, Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment
Tom Pollard, City Attorney

TETRA TECH, INC.
3200 Chapel Hill - Nelson Highway
Cape Fear Building - Suite 105
P.O. Box 14409
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Telephone: [phone] Telefax: [phone]
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Hugh Caldwell
Ken Vogt
Wyatt Blanchard
Jason Doll
Trevor Clements
Results of Dissolved Oxygen and Pollutant
Loading Trend Analyses
Date: January 16, 2003
Project: City of Wilmington
Pjn: 10572-01
Tetra Tech performed a detailed evaluation of the ambient dissolved oxygen data used by NCDWQ as the
basis for including a segment of the Cape Fear River estuary on the 303(d) List submitted to the USEPA.
Additionally, advanced statistical analyses were performed to determine if ambient dissolved oxygen
(DO) data or data for point source loads of oxygen demanding wastes exhibit significant trends over time
in the Cape Fear Estuary. The methods and results of these analyses are presented in this memo.
Evaluation of 303(d) Listing Source Data
To arrive at the decision to include a 5000-acre segment of the Cape Fear Estuary on the 303(d) List as
impaired by low DO levels, NCDWQ evaluated data from its ambient monitoring station network from
September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1998. Communications with Cam McNutt, NCDWQ basinwide
management coordinator for the Cape Fear River Basin, have indicated that the data were evaluated
against the daily average instream dissolved oxygen standard of 5.0 mg/1, as opposed to the instantaneous
minimum standard of 4.0 mg/1. However, DWQ currently uses the instantaneous minimum standard to
evaluate waterbodies for DO impairment (McNutt, 2003).
Within the time period reflected by the dataset evaluated by DWQ, two hurricanes made landfall in the
immediate Lower Cape Fear Region. Hurricane Bertha made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane
(Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale) near Wrightsville Beach on the evening of July 12, 1996, and Hurricane
Fran made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane near the mouth of the Cape Fear River on the evening of
September 5, 1996. Prolonged periods of depressed instream dissolved oxygen levels in the Cape Fear
Estuary followed each storm with conditions approaching anoxia at several monitoring locations after
Fran (Mallin et al., 1997).
The 303(d) listing status of a waterbody is based on the use support status determined per section 305(b)
of the Clean Water Act, which requires that states periodically evaluate each waterbody, and based on
available data, determine whether water quality within the waterbody is adequate to support its designated
uses. Per the 305(b) requirement, at the time the segment of the Cape Fear River estuary in question was
evaluated, NCDWQ assigned use support ratings to each indicating whether they are "Fully Supporting,"

Trend Analysis Memo January 16, 2003
"Supporting but Threatened," "Partially Supporting," or "Not Supporting" their designated uses. Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states place waters that are rated "Not Supporting" or
"Partially Supporting" on a list of Impaired Waters, referred to as the 303(d) List. Section 303(d) also
requires that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be determined for any waterbody that is impaired by
a specific identifiable pollutant or pollutants. The intent of the TMDL is to identify sources for the
specific pollutant(s) and reduce the pollutant loads from those sources to the extent necessary to improve
water quality to a level that will restore the uses deemed impaired. It should be noted, that in its current
application of use support evaluation, per 305(b), that NCDWQ has consolidated use support ratings into
three simpler categories; "Supporting," "Impaired," and "Not Rated." The latter category applies for
waterbodies for which data are insufficient to provide for a definitive rating.
NCDWQ staff have previously indicated, and Mr. McNutt confirmed, that dissolved oxygen data
collected during periods when the system was either sustaining or recovering from the effects of
hurricanes were not excluded when the frequencies of DO standard violations that instigated the listing
status were determined. Based on NCDWQ's analysis, incidents of violations of the 5.0 mg/I standard
were determined to be greater than 10% at five ambient monitoring stations, leading to placement of a
5000-acre segment of the estuary and Livingston Creek on the state's 303(d) List. The five stations are
listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Ambient Stations with >10% violations of 5 mg/1 DO
Station
STORET
Livingston Creek near Reiglewood
B8450000
Hale Point Landing
B9020000
Navassa
B9050000
Channel Marker 60
B9800000
Channel Marker 54
B9820000
To evaluate the appropriateness of the 303(d) listing status of the estuary segment in question, STORET
data were assembled for the four stations located in the estuary mainstem. The Livingston Creek station
was excluded from this analysis because it is located on a tributary outside the area of concern in this
memo. The dissolved oxygen data from these stations covering the specific data window evaluated by
NCDWQ were isolated and the percentage of monitoring events were tabulated for three scenarios: 1) DO
reported below 5.0 mg/1; 2) DO reported below 4.0 mg/1, and 3) DO reported below 4.0 mg/1 with periods
reflecting hurricane impacts removed. Previous analysis of monitoring data by the Lower Cape Fear
River Program indicated that dissolved oxygen levels in the estuary following Hurricane Bertha returned
to normal around the end of August and that the low DO impacts of Hurricane Fran extended well into
October (Mallin et al., 1997). For purposes of this analysis, data reported during the month that the
hurricanes made landfall and during the following month were removed in scenario #3. The hurricane
data screening resulted in the removal of data from July — October of 1996. No other data were excluded
from the tabulation in scenario #3. The results of the DO data tabulations are reported in Table 2.
Table 2. Percentage Occurrence of Selected DO Monitoring Events
Station
DO reported < 5.0
mg/1
DO reported < 4.0
mg/1
DO reported < 4.0 mg/1
(hurricane data removed)
Hale Point Landing
30%
7%
7%
Navassa
29%
13%
11%
Channel Marker 60
27%
14%
12%
Channel Marker 54
21%
7%
6%
OTETRATECN, ANC.
2

Trend Analysis Memo January 16, 2003
The percentages reflected in Table 2 show that if NCDWQ were to evaluate DO violations using the
instantaneous standard of 4.0 mg/1, rather than 5.0 mg/1, the number of stations reporting violations
greater than 10% of the time in the estuary would be reduced from 4 to 2. Once the data are weighed
against a standard of 4.0 mg/1, the additional action of removing data reported during hurricane impact
periods from consideration has only minimal effect on the percentage of violations experienced at each
station. If NCDWQ had utilized the standards and approach outlined herein to evaluate DO data for the
Cape Fear Estuary, one possible outcome may have been that a portion of the estuary would still have
been placed on the 303(d) List, but the size of the listed area may have been significantly less than the
area currently listed. Additionally, the two remaining stations barely exceed the threshold for designation
as "partially supporting," which may have prompted NCDWQ to examine other factors before deciding to
list the segment (e.g., long-term trends, naturally occurring low DO in swamp waters draining to the
estuary, etc.).
Trend Analysis Methods
Dissolved Oxygen Data
Dissolved oxygen data were obtained from NCDWQ and from Legacy STORET data. Three stations
were selected for analysis based on location and period of record. The stations were Cape Fear River at
Navassa (B9050000), NE Cape Fear River at US 117 near Wilmington (B9740000), and Channel Marker
54(B9820000). These three stations were chosen for the analysis because they offered the longest
available monitoring records and because they are each located either directly within or immediately
adjacent to the 303(d) listed portion of the Cape Fear estuary. Only DO measurements within one foot the
water surface were evaluated, because historical depth stratified monitoring data has consistently
indicated strong mixing with little vertical stratification in the estuary. One outlier was removed from the
dataset — 0.4 mg/1 at the NE Cape Fear station in February 1998. Observations associated with hurricane
events were also removed as discussed in the previous data evaluation. We performed the trend analyses
on data from 1981 through 2002 at the Channel Marker 54 and NE Cape Fear stations, and from 1984 to
2002 for the Navassa station. Data recorded prior to 1984 were not available for Navassa. Truncated
versions of the available data sets, from 1991 through 2002, were also examined for trends.
Figures 1 through 3 show the dissolved oxygen observations for the three stations selected. The hurricane
event observations that were not used in the analysis are shown in red.
TETRATECH.INC.
3

Trend Analysis Memo
Figure 1. DO data for the Cape Fear River at Navassa (no trend detected)
16
Navassa
January 16, 2003
-+- DO
• Hurricane Obs.
'84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01
Figure 2. DO data for the Northeast Cape Fear River at US 117 near Wilmington (no trend detected).
Northeast Cape Fear
16
14
12
10
E 8
0
6
4
2
0
'81 '62 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02
t DO
• Hurricane Obs.
TETRA TECH, INC.
4

Trend Analysis Memo
January 16, 2003
Figure 3. DO data for the Cape Fear River at Channel Marker 54 (no trend detected).
16
2
0
Channel Marker 54
• Hurricane Obs.:
'81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02
Discharger Data
Data were obtained from NCDWQ and the City of Wilmington for major facilities discharging BOD5 and
ammonia from January of 1994 through October of 2002. Previous point source pollutant loading
assessments by NCDWQ have shown that, based on actual summer effluent data from 1998 and 1999,
90% of the total point source based oxygen demanding pollutant load to the estuary comes from three
facilities — International Paper, and the Wilmington Northside and Southside WWTPs (NCDWQ, 1999).
For that reason, we chose to focus our analysis on those three point sources.
For each of the facilities, monthly loads of BOD5 and ammonia were estimated using monitoring data. In
most cases, BOD5 and ammonia were reported as a daily concentration. Daily load was calculated on
days where both daily concentration and daily flow data existed. The one exception was BOD5 from
International Paper, which was already reported as a daily load. These daily loads were then averaged on
a monthly basis, and multiplied by the number of days in the month to obtain the monthly load. There
were a few cases where monthly loads had to be estimated differently:
• Daily discharge data were not available from NCDWQ at the time of this writing for Southside
during 1999. As a result, City of Wilmington monthly discharge data were used for this period.
• Ammonia data were not reported on a routine basis during 1994-1996 at International Paper.
Missing values were set equal to a value in the same season. Three seasons during that time frame
had no values, so an average of the previous and next season was used to estimate values for
those seasons. A total of 28 values were estimated using these methods.
TETRATECH. INC.
5

Trend Analysis Memo
January 16, 2003
• Data were not available to estimate BOD5 during November 2001 at International Paper. There
was also an apparent reporting error for January 1997 at International Paper. Both values were
estimated by taking the average of the value for the previous month and the subsequent month.
Monthly BOD5 loads were converted to CBODu using multipliers provided in the previous loading
analysis from NCDWQ (NCDWQ, 1999). Monthly ammonia loads were converted to NBODu using a
multiplier of 4.5 (the stoichiometric ratio for the amount of DO required for the oxidation of ammonia).
Both constituents (CBODu and NBODu) were summed into a monthly BODu for each facility, which
were then summed into a total monthly BODu for all three facilities (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Total monthly BODu loads for 3 largest point sources (with trend line).
Total BODu (NBODu + CBODu)
Combined total from International Paper, Northside, and Southside
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
O
-fl 1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Trend Analysis
There are several factors that may influence the value of an observation at a given point in time. For
instance, the time of year influences both DO and BODu observations. This seasonal influence can be
readily seen in the DO observations as increasing and decreasing cycles on an annual basis. The seasonal
influence is less apparent in the BODu data, but the peaks during winter months are easy to see.
Statistical analysis can be used to describe seasonal cycles and account for their influence on the data.
Another factor that may influence observations through time is trend. A trend exists if the data values are
generally increasing or decreasing through time. The purpose of this analysis is to discern if a trend is
present in the DO observations and in the BODu effluent loads.
Th
TETRA TECH. INC.
6

Trend Analysis Memo January 16, 2003
The Seasonal Kendall Test and Seasonal Kendall Slope Estimator (Gilbert, 1987) were selected as the
most appropriate statistical tools for detecting a trend in both the dissolved oxygen observations and the
aggregated BODu data. Any statistical test that detects trend must either remove the seasonal influence on
the data first, or not be affected by it. The Seasonal Kendall Test offers several benefits for detecting
trends in data with a seasonal influence. It is not influenced by a few missing values (as is the case with
the DO data), each season is evaluated independently of the other, and the data do not have to be normally
distributed (which is often the case with water quality data).
One important step in using the Seasonal Kendall Test is determining the best way to define the seasons.
While we are accustomed to using calendar seasons, the test allows for defusing seasons on a monthly
basis (or any other arbitrary time period). We evaluated the data divided into monthly seasons and
quarterly seasons. For any given season (monthly or quarterly), all the values in that month or quarter
were averaged into a single representative value, a requirement of the Seasonal Kendall Test.
Another consideration in using the Seasonal Kendall Test is to make sure that the combination of
seasonality and trend describe the time -dependent relationships in the data. If the seasonality and trend
are removed from the data, but the data still show a relationship through time, then it is possible that the
calculated trend is not accurate. In terms of statistics, this is evaluated by measuring the autocorrelation
(or correlation through time) of adjacent points in time. If one point in time is correlated to the next point
in time after seasonality and trend are removed, there is a relationship in addition to seasonality and trend
that is not being accounted for. This is often the case when narrowly defined (such as monthly) seasons
are used. When this occurs, it is considered appropriate to then apply the Seasonal Kendall Test to
aggregate the data to broader (e.g., quarterly) seasons. The autocorrelation of adjacent points in time is
still evaluated, of course, after the quarterly data have seasonal and trend components removed.
Results of Trend Analysis
Dissolved Oxygen
The Seasonal Kendall Test was applied to the datasets from the three stations, both on the entire datasets
and on datasets from 1991— 2002. When the data were evaluated using monthly seasons, there was
significant autocorrelation on adjacent points in time, well above a 95% confidence limit. However, the
autocorrelation was small for data evaluated on a quarterly basis, well below the 95% confidence limit.
This indicated that using the Seasonal Kendall Test on quarterly data was appropriate.
In all the analyses performed, there was no evidence of trend either on the full datasets or on the 1991-
2002 datasets. In each case, the probability of trend was well below the 85% confidence limit reported in
the WQStat software.
Discharger Data
The Seasonal Kendall Test was applied to the combined BODu monthly load for the three facilities from
1994 — 2002. When the data were evaluated using monthly seasons, there was significant autocorrelation
on adjacent points in time, well above a 95% confidence limit. However, the autocorrelation was small
for data evaluated on a quarterly basis, well below the 95% confidence limit. This indicated that using
the Seasonal Kendall Test on quarterly data was appropriate.
The Seasonal Kendall Test showed a highly significant trend (well above a 95% probability level) for
declining levels of BODu from 1994 through 2002. The slope of the trend line determined by the
Seasonal Kendall Slope Estimator was —62,290 lbs of BODu per year. The trend line is shown in Figure 4.
TETRATECH, CNC.

Trend Analysis Memo January 16, 2003
Conclusions
A significant downward trend was detected in the total oxygen demanding pollutant loads from the three
facilities that comprise 90% of all point source loads to the Cape Fear Estuary. Extrapolated over the nine
years of data considered in this analysis, the downward trend represents an overall load reduction of
approximately 25%. Despite this substantive reduction in point source loading, no discernable trend was
discovered in ambient dissolved oxygen data for the stations selected, whether the data were examined
from 1984 through 2002 or 1991 through 2002 (the later period corresponding more closely to the record
of point source data examined). If point source discharges were a significant contributor to the dissolved
oxygen deficits observed in the Lower Cape Fear, one would expect to find an upward trend in ambient
dissolved oxygen levels in response to the evident load reduction. The absence of a detectable trend in
dissolved oxygen data provides further evidence that calls into question the assumption that discharges
are a major factor in dissolved oxygen levels within the estuary.
The conclusions of this trend analysis further support the findings of the previous EFDC modeling
analysis developed by Tetra Tech for the City and New Hanover County. The EFDC model showed that,
even when all discharges were completely eliminated from the study area, the resulting increase in
predicted dissolved oxygen levels averaged 0.3 mg/1 or less over the summer season (May — October) at
all stations for which model output was generated. The conclusions of this analysis also provide further
support to the conclusions of the EFDC modeling analysis regarding the impacts of the Wilmington
WWTP discharges in specific. The EFDC analysis indicated that if the current actual pollutant loads
from Wilmington Northside and Southside WWTP discharges were completely eliminated, the resulting
increase in predicted summer season dissolved oxygen levels would average less than 0.03 mg/I, with a
maximum predicted increase of only 0.07 mg/1 in the Channel Marker 61 vicinity. Taken together, the
results of this trend analysis and the conclusions of the EFDC model indicate that reducing discharge
limits at either or both of the Wilmington WWTPs to advanced tertiary treatment levels (BOD5 = 5.0 mg/I
and NH3N = 1.0 mg/1) is unlikely to produce a measurable increase in ambient dissolved oxygen levels.
REFERENCES
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution
Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, NY. 320 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2001. 3-Dimensional EFDC Water Quality Model of the Lower Cape Fear and Its
Estuary. 150 pp.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1999. Point Source Loading Analysis Table prepared by
Andy McDaniel for Presentation to Lower Cape Fear River Program Technical Committee. 2 pp.
Mallin, Michael A., Posey, Martin H., Moser, Mary L., Shank, G. Christopher, McIver, Matthew R.,
Alphin, Troy D., Ensign, Scott H., and Merritt, James F. 1997. Water Quality in the Lower Cape Fear
River System, 1996-1997. University of North Carolina — Wilmington, Center for Marine Science
Research. 255 pp.
McNutt, Cam. 2002. Personal communication, NCDWQ Basinwide Management Planning Coordinator,
Cape Fear River Basin.
S
TETRA TECH, gNC.
8

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
FORM
2A
NPDES
NPDES FORM`'2A APPLICATION OVERVIEW
APPLICATION OVERVIEW
Form 2A has been developed in a modular format and consists of a "Basic Application Information" packet
and a "Supplemental Application Information" packet. The Basic Application Information packet is divided
into two parts. All applicants must complete Parts A and C. Applicants with a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.1 mgd must also complete Part B. Some applicants must also complete the Supplemental
Application Information packet. The following items explain which parts of Form 2A you must complete.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A. Basic Application Information for all Applicants. All applicants must complete questions A.1 through A.8. A treatment works
that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States must also answer questions A.9 through A.12.
B Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow z 0.1 mgd. All treatment works that have design flows
greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day must complete questions B.1 through B.6.
C Certification. All applicants must complete Part C (Certification).
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
D. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States and meets
one or more of the following criteria must complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the information.
Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the following criteria must complete Part E (Toxicity Testing
Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of toxicity testing.
Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
significant industrial users (SIUs) or receives RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete Part F (Industrial User Discharges
and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes). Sills are defined as:
1. All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N (see instructions); and
2. Any other industrial user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works (with certain
exclusions); or
b. Contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the treatment plant; or
c. Is designated as an SIU by the control authority.
. Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a combined sewer system must complete Part G (Combined Sewer
Systems).
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE PART C (CERTIFICATION)
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FAi:ILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART A. BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLICANTS:
All treatment works must complete questions A.1 through A.8 of this Basic Application Information Packet.
A.1. Facility Information.
Facility Name James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater Treatment Plant
Mailing Address Post Office Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
Contact Person Kenneth L. Vogt Jr., P.E
Title Wastewater Treatment Superintendent
Telephone Number [phone]
Facility Address 2311 North 23id Street
(not P.O. Box) Wilmington, NC 28401
A.2. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:
Applicant Name City of Wilmington
Mailing Address Post Office Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
Contact Person Hugh T. Caldwell, PE
Title Director of Public Utilities
Telephone Number [phone]
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
X owner X operator
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this permit should be directed to the facility or the applicant.
❑ facility X applicant
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any existing environmental permits that have been issued to the treatment works
(include state -issued permits).
NPDES NC0023965 Other Air Permit No. 09541 R00
UIC Other WQ0011869 (Class A Solids)
Other Stormwater GP NCG110000/COC110063 Other WQ 0001271 (Class B Solids)
A.4. Collection System Information, Provide information on municipalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
Name Population Served Type of Collection System Ownership
City of Wilmington 28,633 Separate Municipal
New Hanover County 37,778 Separate Municipal
Total population served 66,411
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

l
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
.6. Indian Country.
a. Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
❑ Yes x No
b. Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that Is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
❑ Yes x No
A.6. Flow. Indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (i.e., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the
average daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period
with the 12th month of "this year" occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal.
a. Design flow rate Pre expansion) upgrade protect construction - 8 mod
Post expansion/ upgrade protect construction -16 mod
Two Years Ago (CY 2003) Last Year (CY 20041 This Year (CY 2005)
b. Annual average daily flow rate 6.8 mod 6.5 mad 6.7 mad
c. Maximum daily flow rate 11.2 mod 11.8 mad 18.1 mad
A.7. Collection System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
x Separate sanitary sewer 100 %
❑ Combined storm and sanitary sewer N/A
A.8. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
a. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.? X Yes 0 No
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses:
i. Discharges of treated effluent
II. Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent
iii. Combined sewer overflow points
2 (one existing and one proposed)
0
0
iv. Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks) 0
v. Other N/A
b. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? ❑ Yes
If yes, provide the following for each surface impoundment:
Location:
X No
Annual average daily volume discharge to surface impoundment(s) mgd
Is discharge ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
c. Does the treatment works land -apply treated wastewater? 0 Yes X No
If yes, provide the following for each land application site:
Location:
Number of acres:
Annual average daily volume applied to site: mgd
Is land application f ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
NPDFaS Ft �a e�i�ioi SD i irg or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works? ❑ Yes X No

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES:
If you answered "Yes" to question A.8.a, complete questions A.9 through A.12 once for each outfall (including bypass points) through
which effluent is discharged. Do not Include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. If you answered "No" to question
A.8.8. go to Part B. "Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow Greater than or Equal to 0.1 mgd."
A.9. Description of Outfall.
a. Outfall number 001 (existing); 002 (proposed)
b. Location Wilmington 28401
(City or town, if applicable) (Zip Code)
New Hanover
(County)
NC
(State)
34° 14'27"N (proposed): 34° 15'47"N (existing) 77° 57'10'W (proposed): 77° 55'19'W (existing)
(Latitude) (Longitude)
c. Distance from shore (if applicable) 145' (existing): 288' (proposed) ft.
d. Depth below surface (if applicable) 25' (existing): 31' (proposed) ft.
e. Average daily flow rate 8 ( existing): 8 (proposed) mgd
f. Does this outfall have either an intermittent or a periodic discharge? 0 Yes x No (go to A.9.g.)
If yes, provide the following information:
Number f times per year discharge occurs:
Average duration of each discharge:
Average flow per discharge: mgd
Months in which discharge occurs:
g. Is outfall equipped with a diffuser? x Yes ❑ No
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters.
a. Name of receiving water Cape Fear River
b. Name of watershed (if known) Cape Fear River
United States Soil Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code (if known):
c. Name of State Management/River Basin (if known): Cape Fear River
United States Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code (if known):
d. Critical low flow of receiving stream (if applicable)
acute N/A
cfs
03030005
chronic NIA cfs
e. Total hardness of receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable): N/A mg/l of CaCO3
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
A.11. Description of Treatment (Post -Expansion/ Upgrade Protect Construction)
a. What level of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
x Primary x Secondary
x Advanced ❑ Other. Describe:
b. Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable):
Design BOD5 removal or Design CBOD5 removal 98
Design SS removal 98 %
Design P removal %
Design N removal 95 %
Other N/A
c. What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfall? If disinfection varies by season, please describe:
UV Disinfection
If disinfection is by chlorination is dechlorination used for this outfall? ❑ Yes x No
Does the treatment plant have post aeration? 0 Yes x No
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
parameters. Provide the Indicated effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent Is
discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All Information reported must be based data
on
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart.
Outfall number: 001 Data Summary for January 2003 through December 2005
PARAMETER
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
AVERAGE DAILY VALUE
Value
Units
Value
Units
Number of Samples
pH (Minimum)
6.4
SU
pH (Maximum)
7.8
SU
f `
Flow Rate
18.1
MGD
6.7
MGD
1096
Temperature (Winter) 11/o1-03r31*'
24.0
°C
17.4
°C
301
Temperature (Summer) 04/01-1or31 —
28.0
°C
24.2
°C
444
" For pH please report a minimum and a maximum daily value "" per NPDES NC0023965
POLLUTANT
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
METHOD
ML/MDL
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
BOD5
>68
mg/L
15
mg/L
731
SM 5210B
2
DEMAND (Report one)
CBOD5
8
mg/L
5
mg/I
4
SM 510B
2
FECAL COLIFORM
>60,000
CFU
1
CFU
746
SM 9222D
1
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
70
mg/L
5
mg/L
744
SM 2540D
1
END OF PART A.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
BASIC, APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART B. ADDITIONAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS WITH A DESIGN FLOW GREATER THAN OR
EQUAL TO 0.1 MGD (100,000 gallons per day).
All applicants with a design flow rate z 0.1 mgd must answer questions B.1 through B.6. All others go to Part C (Certification).
B.1. Inflow and Infiltration. Estimate the average number of gallons per day that flow into the treatment works from inflow and/or infiltration.
0.79 MGD (per City of Wilmington / New Hanover County Master Plan, 2005 update, prepared by McKim & Creed, PA)
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and infiltration.
Ongoing sewer maintenance program and continuing efforts to identify and correct excessive I/1 problems.
B.2. Topographic Map. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries. This
map must show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit more than one map if one map does not show the entire
area.)
a. The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
b. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment works and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable.
c. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground.
d. Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1) within ''/ mile of the property boundaries of the treatment
works, and 2) listed in public record or otherwise known to the applicant.
e. Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored, treated, or disposed.
f. If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail,
or special pipe, show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all
backup power sources or redunancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g.,
chlorination and dechlorination). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram.
B.4. Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s).
Are any operational or maintenance aspects (related to wastewater treatment and effluent quality) of the treatment works the responsibility of a
contractor? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, list the name, address, telephone number, and status of each contractor and describe the contractor's responsibilities (attach additional
pages if necessary).
Name: Svnagro Central, LLC US Filter/ Siemens/ Davis Process
Mailing Address: 7014 East Baltimore Street 2650 Tallevast Road
Baltimore, MD 21224 Sarasota, FL 34243
Telephone Number: [phone] [phone]
Responsibilities of Contractor: Residuals Management Odor Corrosion Control Program
B.5. Scheduled Improvements and Schedules of Implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
a. List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this implementation schedule.
001 (existing); 002 (proposed, see schedule)
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
❑ Yes x No
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
c. If the answer to B.5.b is "Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow rate (if applicable).
d. Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed below, as
applicable. For improvements planned independently of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as
applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
- Begin Construction 12/05/2005 / /
- End Construction 12/04/2008 / /
- Begin Discharge 01/04/2009 / /
- Attain Operational Level 03/04/2009 / /
e. Have appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements been obtained? ❑ Yes No
Describe briefly:
B.6. EFFLUENT TESTING DATA (GREATER THAN 0.1 MGD ONLY).
Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following parameters. Provide the indicated
effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is discharged. Do not Include information
on combine sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate
QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a minimum effluent testing data must be
based on at least three pollutant scans and must be no more than four and one-half years old.
Outfall Number: 001 Data Summary for January 2003 through December 2005 for all parameters except Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS). TDS Data Summary for May 2003 through April 2006.
POLLUTANT
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
METHOD
ML/MDL
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
AMMONIA (as N)
63.8
mg/L
15.1
mg/L
285
SM 4500 NH3-F
1.00
CHLORINE (TOTAL
RESIDUAL, TRC)
1,660
pg/L
147
pg/L
746
SM 4500 CI-G
100
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
9.3
mg/L
7.0
mg/L
382
SM 4500 O-G
0.1
TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN (TKN)
30.3
mg/L
18.3
mg/L
36
EPA 351.4
0.1
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE
NITROGEN
16.0
mg/L
6.27
mg/L
37
EPA 300.0
0.05
OIL and GREASE
12.0
mg/L
<5.0
mg/L
156
SM 5520 B
5.0
PHOSPHORUS (Total)
3.50
mg/L
2.62
mg/L
36
SM 4500 P-E
0.05
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(TDS)
356
mg/L
348
mg/L
3
EPA 160.1
10
OTHER
END OF PART B.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
BASIC APPLICATION. INFORMATION
PART C. CERTIFICATION
All applicants must complete the Certification Section. Refer to instructions to determine who is an officer for the purposes of this
certification. All applicants must complete all applicable sections of Form 2A, as explained in the Application Overview. Indicate below which
parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting. By signing this certification statement, applicants confirm that they have reviewed
Form 2A and have completed all sections that apply to the facility for which this application is submitted.
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting:
x Basic Application Information packet Supplemental Application Information packet:
x Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
x Part E (Toxicity Testing: Biomonitoring Data)
x Part F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCtA Wastes)
❑ Part G (Combined Sewer Systems)
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations.
Name and official title HughPE Public Utilitiesti�Directoror
JT. Caldwell,
Signature rri,--/% , JIC e2u/-CS[�
Telephone number [phone]
Date signed
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assure wastewater treatment practices at the treatment
works or identify appropriate permitting requirements.
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
NCDENRJ DWQ
Attn: NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant Industrial users
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject
X Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SlUs) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 2
b. Number of CIUs. 2
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
ot, an approved pretreatment program?
Users (ClUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Unifirst Corporation
Mailing Address: 1821 Dawson Street
Wilmington, NC 28403
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Uniform rental and laundry service
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Uniforms, Mats, Mops, Aprons, Shop Towels
Raw material(s): 2-Butoxyethanol, Sodium trisulfate anhydrous, Dipropvlene glycol methyl ether, alkylpolyethoxy glycol, Sodium hydroxide,
Ethanol, Dialkyl dimethvlammonium chloride, Hydrofluosilic acid, Isopropyl alcohol
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
43,666 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
collection system in gallons per
into the collection system
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
680 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards 0 Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
0 Truck 0 Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION '
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
0 Continuous 0 Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Del Laboratories
Mailing Address: 1830 Carver Drive
Rocky Point. NC 28457
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacture of cosmetic and over the counter pharmaceuticals (OTC). Compounding only.
F.6. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Cosmetics. including nail lacquers, OTC pharmaceuticals creams. lotions. and ointments
Raw material(s): Nail lacquer. Acetone. Ethyl Acetate, Sorbitol solution 70%, Com syrup. Isopropyl alcohol cosmetic. PEG 400 NF,
Glycerin USP 96%. Propylene glycol USP. Standapol ES-2, Dermol 89. Stearvl alcohol-NF. White petrolatum USP, Calcium hydroxide 802. Hetoxol
J, Hydrogen peroxide 35% Standamul 318. Isopropvl alcohol USP. Sodium silicate. CA. thionlvcolate. Pea 3350 NF. Calcium carbonate, Sodium
thioglvcolate, Kenwee. Aculvn 22, Safflower oil, Butvlene glycol. Eutanol/Standamul. Microfine polyethylene PWD, Aloe vera gel, Potassium
hydroxide, Sesame oil, Anhydrous glycerin. Cetvl alcohol, Benzocaine USP. Cellulose aum. Acetone NF. Citric Acid USP. Nitrocellulose solution,
Drvstar 300 crystals. Vegelatum Clean, Crovol PK 70, Propylene carboneate. Stepanol AM
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or Intermittent.
4.710 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
5,944 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
b. Categorical pretreatment standards
X Yes
X Yes
❑ No
O No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 439. Subpart D
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: aaiPharma, Inc.
Mailing Address: 1726 North 23ro Street
Wilmington, NC 28405
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Pharmaceutical clinical supply. niche and pharmaceutical manufacturing. research/development. Formulating and compounding subcategory.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Formulating and compounding pharmaceutical capsules and tablets
Raw material(s): Starches. Sugars, Microcrvstalline cellulose. Magnesium stearate, Talc. Methylene chloride, PoIvdimethvIcvdosiloxanet
Silicone, Methimazole, Altretarmine, Rifampin. Moo/cline, Citric acid, Hydrochloric acid, Solum laurel sulfate. Caldum stearate, Azathioprine,
Propoxvphene, Acetominophen, Aspirin. Caffeine. Procarbazine, Trospium chloride, Fluconazole. Sodium citrocline, Diclofenac. CIP 100. 200. and
300 solutions.
F.6. Flow Rate.
e. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
521 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
f. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
2.632
gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
b. Categorical pretreatment standards
X Yes
X Yes
❑ No
❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 439. Subpart D
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
0 Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
James A. Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC0023965
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Coming Incorporated
Mailing Address: 310 North College Road
Wlminaton, NC 28405
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacture of optical waveeuide fibers
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Optical waveeuide fibers
Raw material(s): Silica tetrachloride Germanium tetrachloride.Silicone fluid. Chlorine. Fluomated compounds.
F.6. Flow Rate.
g. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
32,523 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
h. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
24.734 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

Summary of Biomonitoring Test Information: 4th Quarter 2001 - 1st Quarter 2006
Northside WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0023965
Ouffall 001
Part E. Toxicity Testing Data
Year Month Outfall Sample Sample Collection Testing
Identification Date
Date
% Effluent Result Method
Test
Report
2001
November
001
Effluent
November 5-6, 2001
November 7, 2001
90
PASS
EPA 600/4-90/027F
Daphnia pulex
November 21, 2001
2002
February
001
Effluent
February 5-6, 2002
February 7, 2002
90
PASS
EPA 600/4-90/027F
Daphnia pulex
March 12, 2002
May
001
Effluent
May 7-8, 2002
May 9, 2002
90
PASS
EPA 600/4-90/027F
Daphnia pulex
May 22, 2002
August
001
Effluent
August 6-7, 2002
August 8, 2002
90
PASS
EPA 600/4-90/027F
Daphnia pulex
September 3, 2002
November 22, 2002
N
November
001
Effluent
November 5-6, 2002
November 7, 2002
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Daphnia pulex
2003
February
001
Effluent
February 4-5, 2003
February 6, 2003
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Daphnia pulex
March 3, 2003
May
001
Effluent
May 6-7, 2003
May 8, 2003
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Daphnia pulex
May 20, 2003
August
001
Effluent
August 5-6, 2003
August 7, 2003
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Daphnia pulex
August 22, 2003
November
001
Effluent
November 4-5, 2003
November 6, 2003
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Daphnia pulex
November 25, 2003
November
001
Effluent
November 4-5, 2003
November 6, 2003
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
November 25, 2003
2004
February
001
Effluent
February 10-11, 2004
February 12, 2004
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
March 5, 2004
M
May
001
Effluent
May 4-5, 2004
May 6, 2005
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
June 1, 2004
August
001
Effluent
August 3-4, 2004
August 5, 2004
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
August 26, 2004
November
001
Effluent
November 2-3, 2004
November 4, 2004
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
November 18, 2004
2005
February
001
Effluent
February 1-2, 2005
February 3, 2005
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
March 8, 2005
M
May
001
Effluent
May 3-4, 2005
May 5, 2005
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
June 7, 2005
August
001
Effluent
August 2-3, 2005
August 4, 2005
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Au s ust 30, 2005
November
001
, Effluent
November 1-2, 3005
November 3, 2005
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012
Ceriodaphnia dubia
November 29, 2005
2006
February
001
Effluent
February 7-8, 2006
February 9, 2006
90
PASS
EPA 821-R-02-012 _
Ceriodaphnia dubia
March 8, 2006 ;
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

Northside WWTP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
6. Facility Description (Existing 8 MGD)
Present Operating Status:
The James A. Loughlin Wastewater Treatment Plant (Northside WWfP), owned
and operated by the City of Wilmington, currently provides wastewater treatment
for a design average flow of 8 million gallons per day (MGD). The Northside
WWfP serves the northern portion of the City of Wilmington and surrounding
areas of New Hanover County. Wastewater from the system is collected in
pumping stations throughout the City and County. Influent wastewater from the
City's force main enters the plant through bar screen and grit removal facilities.
The County has a separate force main that enters the plant downstream of the
screenings and grit removal facilities at the primary clarifier distribution box. The
primary clarifier distribution box splits flow to two treatment trains consisting of
one clarifier and trickling filter in each train. Each train is rated at 4 MGD. The two
primary clarifiers are provided to remove a portion of the influent BOD5 and
suspended solids in order to reduce the organic loading on the biological
treatment system. Primary clarifier effluent flows to the two 160' diameter trickling
filters with rock media to provide a fixed film biological treatment of the
wastewater. Effluent from the trickling filters is combined in the trickling filter
recirculation pump station. Effluent from the trickling filters in excess of the
recirculated flow enters the intermediate pump station and is pumped to the
aeration basin. The aeration basin uses a coarse bubble diffused air aeration
system to provide additional biological treatment. The aeration basin provides an
aerated detention time of 2.5 hours at the design flow. Blowers located in the
adjacent blower building supply air to the diffuser system. Effluent from the
aeration basin flows to a splitter box that divides the flow to two secondary
clarifiers. In the secondary clarifiers activated sludge settles for return to the
aeration tank. Return activated sludge from the underflow of the secondary
clarifiers flows by gravity to the intermediate pump station where it is combined
with the trickling filter effluent and pumped to the aeration basin. Clear liquid
above the settling solids overflows the effluent weirs and flows to the flash mix
chamber and chlorine contact basin. Secondary clarifier effluent in the chlorine
contact basin is disinfected by the addition of chlorine solution for the reduction of
disease -causing bacteria. Effluent from the chlorine contact tank is dechlorinated
with sodium bisulfite and then flows to the effluent pump station wet well and is
pumped through the effluent force main to the discharge point at the Cape Fear
River.

Northside WWTP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
Primary sludge is pumped directly to anaerobic digestion. Secondary sludge is
pumped to the sludge thickening facility and thickened on a single gravity belt
thickener. Thickened sludge is pumped to a TWAS storage tank and is then
pumped to anaerobic digestion for stabilization. Anaerobic digestion is a three -
tank series operation. Stabilized sludge is pumped from the digesters to a
digested sludge storage tank for equalization prior to being dewatered on the belt
filter presses in the sludge facility. Dewatered cake solids from the belt filter
presses are disposed of off -site. Residuals from the Northside WWTP and the
Sweeney Water Treatment Plant are processed through the Northside belt filter
presses, segregated, and transported separately to Southside WWTP for
subsequent blending with Southside WWTP residuals to produce one Class B
residual product. Solids meeting Class B stabilization criteria are land applied in
a five -county area consistent with permit number WQ0001271. The City has
alkaline stabilization facilities at the Southside WVVTP where cake solids can be
mixed with an alkaline material for further stabilization to Class A criteria before
eventual disposal consistent with permit WQ0011869.
NORTHSIDE WWTP
DESIGN DATA
8 MGD DESIGN CAPACITY
Bar Screens
Number of mechanical screens 1
Clear opening between bars 3/8 inch
Number of manual bar racks 1
Clear opening between bars 1 inch
Grit Collector
Number 1
Rated capacity of each unit 10.5 MGD
Field performance capacity (each) 7.0 MGD
Type Detritor
Diameter 16 ft

Northside WWTP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
Grit Classifier
Number
Type
Primary Clarifiers
Number
Type
Diameter
Surface area, each
Total surface area
Surface overflow at design flow
Side water depth
Volume of each tank
Total volume
Detention time at design flow
Trickling Filters
Number
Diameter
Depth of stone
Surface area, each
Total surface area
Hydraulic loading rate
Organic loading rate
Recirculation Pumps
Number
Type
Capacity
Total dynamic head
Horsepower
Intermediate Pumps
Number
Type
Capacity
Total dynamic head
Horsepower
1
Reciprocating Rake
2
Circular, center feed
85 ft
5,675 ft2
11,350 ft2
705 gpd/ft2
12ft
0.60 million gal
1.21 million gal
3.63 hr
2
160 ft
5.25 ft
20,100 ft2
40,200 ft2
0.138 gpm/ft2
224 lb/day/1000 ft3
3
Vertical Turbine
2,800 GPM
15'
20
3
Submersible
6,200 GPM
34'
105

Northside WWTP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
Aeration Tanks
Number
Length
Width
Depth
Volume
Detention time at design flow
Type of aeration
Number of diffusers
Maximum airflow per diffuser
Blowers
Number
Type
Capacity of each blower
Horsepower
Final Clarifiers
Number
Type
Diameter
Surface area, each
Total surface area
Surface overflow rate at design flow
Side water depth
Total volume
Detention time at design flow
Type of solids removal system
Scum Pumps
Number
Type
Maximum capacity of each pump
Horsepower
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Number
Length x Width x SWD
Volume of tank
1
115ft
54 ft
16.8 ft
0.780 million gal
2.3 hr
Coarse bubble diffused air
208
24 CFM
2
Centrifugal
5,000 SCFM
300
2
Circular, center feed
90 ft
6,350 ft2
12,700 ft2
630 gpd/ft2
16ft
1.5 million gal
4.5 hr
Scrapers
2
Piston
30 GPM
2
1 (Three -pass)
56' x 34' x 8'
106,600 gal

Northside VVV TP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
Chlorinators
Number 2
Capacity, each 500 lb/day
Dechlorination Facility
Number of tanks 2
Volume of each tank 1550 gal
Number of feed pumps 4
Type Diaphragm
Capacity 60 GPD
Effluent Pumps
Number 3
Capacity 3,500 GPM
Total dynamic head 86 ft
Horsepower 125
Number 2
Capacity 2,100 GPM
Total dynamic head 86 ft
Horsepower 75
Effluent Flow Measurement
Type
Diameter
Magnetic Flow meter
24 in
Primary Sludge Pumps
Number 2
Type Piston
Capacity of each pump 90 GPM
Total dynamic head 200 ft
Horsepower 10
Number 2
Type Piston
Capacity of each pump 100 GPM
Total dynamic head 60 ft
Horsepower 5
Waste Activated Sludge Pumps
Number 3
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 300 GPM
Total dynamic head 17 ft
Horsepower 10

Northside WWTP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
WAS Gravity Belt Thickener
Number
Belt width
Maximum feed rate per thickener
GBT Polymer System
Type
Number of tanks
Capacity per tank
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Pumps
Number
Type
Capacity
Horsepower
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Storage Tank
Number
Length x Width x SWD
Volume
Type of Mixer
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Transfer Pump
Number
Type
Capacity
Horsepower
Aerobic Digesters
Number
Diameter
Maximum side water depth
Volume, each
Total volume
Mixing system type
No. of mixers, per tank
1
2 meters
350 GPM
Dry, Manual Mix
2
675 gal
2
Piston
100 GPM
10
1
17.5' x 17.5' x 14
32,000 gal
Mechanical
1
Progressive Cavity
32 GPM
3
3
60 ft
18ft
381,000 gal
1.14 million gal
Cannons
6

Northside WWTP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
Digester Recirculation Pumps
Number 1
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 500 GPM
Horsepower 15
Number 1
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 400 GPM
Horsepower 15
Number 1
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 300 GPM
Horsepower 7.5
Digester Transfer Pump
Number 1
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 700 GPM
Horsepower 60
Gas Holder
Number 1
Diameter 50 ft
Storage volume 38,500 ft3
Sludge Heat Exchangers
Number 1
Capacity 1,000,000 BTU
Number 1
Capacity 500,000 BTU
Number 1
Capacity 375,000 BTU
Alum/Digested Sludge Storage Tanks
Number 2
Length x Width x SWD 17.5' x 17.5' x 22'
Volume, each 60,000 gal
Type of mixer Mechanical

Northside WWTP
2311 North 23rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
NC0023965
Belt Filter Press Feed Pumps
Number
Type
Capacity
Horsepower
Number
Type
Capacity
Horsepower
Belt Filter Presses
Number
Belt width per press
Maximum solids loading rater per press
BFP Polymer Systems
Number of tanks
Volume of each tank
Number of dry polymer preparation systems
Number of polymer dilution/feed systems
Filtrate Pumps
Number
Type
Capacity
Standby Generator
Capacity
Voltage
Fuel Tank
2
Progressive Cavity
300 GPM
20
1
Rotary Lobe
140 GPM
10
2
2 meters
2,500 Ib/hr
2
1000 gal
2
2
3
Centrifugal, submersible
300 GPM
1275 kW
4160 V
6000 gal

PLAT DATE 06/25/03 209pm FILE. NA30374\NORTnSIDEVISURES\001 by PLAWANSO1 XREF FILE • NONE
CLARIFIER
DISTRIBUTION
BOX
COUNTY
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
BAR SCREENS/
GRIT REMOVAL
FAOLITY
~1 H
CITY
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
.� PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
PS
w
TRICKLING
FILTER
G.
_ft- TRICKLING
1 FILTER
TRICKLING FILTER
PS RECIRCULATION
CLARIFIER
SPUTTER
BOX
RECIRCULATION
PUMP STATION
— INTERMEDIATE
PUMP STATION
0---••-
AERATION
TANK
RAS
c_
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
/<-
.0.-
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER_
RAS
RAS
0 i PS
PRIMARY
SLUDGE
PUMP
STATION
PRIMARY SLUDGE
PUMP STATION
PS
G
ANAEROBIC ANAEROBIC
DIGESTER DIGESTER
G.
DIGESTER
BUILDING
TWAS
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER
DIGESTER `AS STORAGE`
TWAS
STORAGE
TANK
ff�'��
V
DIGESTED
SLUDGE
STORAGE TANK
1°f �.
ALUM SLUDGE
FROM WATER PLANT 1 Q 1
ALUM SLUDGE
STORAGE TANK
THICKENING
FACIUTY
WAS
—FLASH
MIXER
BOX
WAS PUMP
STATION
DEWATERING - - OFF -SITE
FACILITY SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
i
CHLORINE
DISINFECTION
i
SODIUM BISULFITE
DECHLORINATION
EFFLUENT
PUMP
STATION
1
0
CAPE
FEAR
RIVER
CITY OF WILMINGTON
NORTHSIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

STCRIAMI01 MAWR
A•cl MORTON MO
SUITH CREEK TRIBUTARY
mem& WO.
.'""t14
. •
BoxIETIES
CD Ali Cffirf
.att;',05NIKAW_CdS?&t,s2,.' _
kI
...... --•••••••••• •
,50
• -- - . 11•10163•Z"na
. . 0411f2112.OI
2111
OrA•11.3IT
COCK; 000.1110IT r.
41.11.161aDeT/
WE —
HAW AND SAIWER
Bs4comaral Enotann 1 &MON
020AWA. Mt Cats VW
DELO DOW DION
LOADS. STAT. Ins)
111101
11100
Ma)
(65o)
CITY OF WILMINGTON
NORTH CAROLINA
wpm!.
DEPT. Or coe•ICIros
ilabno•WR newatiww
IWID(Wo. lOefl
•••••••••11
RANT
••••••••••
otrOw• BOX 0.P
I_EGEND,
F..) 009(10 rAotoxt
as ...DES TO DE m.o...
1=3 Kw ...on.
SCAM 1-.60' 01•••.)
CRY OF WILMINGTON
JAMES A LOUGHLJN WWTP
UPGRADE AND EXPANSION
COMPOSTE SITE PLAN
VIIIIIIILL_OWWWW1
Masa
[ SCAM
atm.
116211•11••••
tow••••
sPI

James A. Loughlin Wastewater Treatment Plant
Upgrade and Expansion 30% Preliminary Design Submittal
McKim & Creed, Hazen and Sawyer
Influent Screens
Manufacturers Huber Technology; Hycor Corp.
Type Step Screen
Number 2
Channel Width 4'-0"
Channel Depth 6'_0"
Maximum Flow per Screen (mgd) 20
Channel Invert Elevation 27.00
Maximum HGL Upstream of Screen 30.50
Operating Floor Elevation 33.00
Clear opening between blades (inches) A
Minimum Blade Thickness (inches) 1/12
Angle of Inclination (degrees) 45
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 5
Seotaoe Receiving Facility Screen
Manufacturers Huber Technology: Hycor Corp.
Type Step Screen
Number 1
Channel Width 31.0w
Channel Depth 6'-0"
Maximum Flow per Screen (gpm) 800
Channel Invert Elevation 16.00
Maximum HGL Upstream of Screen 17.00
Operating Floor Elevation 20.00
Clear opening between blades (inches) 1/4
Minimum Blade Thickness (inches) 1/12
Angle of Inclination (degrees) 45
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 5
Screenings Pie
Screening & Grit RemovalFacility
Manufacturers Hydropress Wallander; Hycor Corp.
Type Hydraulic Ram
Number 2
Inside Diameter (inches) 6
Capacity (cf/day) 264
Hydraulic Pack Motor Horsepower (hp) 5
Seotage Receiving Facility
Manufacturers Hydropress Wailander; Hycor Corp.
Type Hydraulic Ram
Number 1
Inside Diameter (inches) 6
Capacity (cf/day) 264
Hydraulic Pack Motor Horsepower (hp) 5
Northslde WWTP
Major Equipment Data
H&S Job No. 30375
Page 1 of 16
09/14/00

Septage Transfer Pumps
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Solids Concentration (%)
Minimum Size of Solids (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Vaughn
Chopper
2
200
50
1,800
7.5
5
3
3
3
Grit Removal Equipment (Headceils)
Manufacturers Eutek Systems
Number of Units 3
Total Number of Trays 21
Tray Diameter (feet) 12
Peak Design Flow per Unit (mgd) 13.3
Effluent Weir Elevation 37.25
Clear opening between trays (inches) 12
Minimum Sidewater Depth 15'-0"
Headloss at Peak Design Flow (inches) 12
Grit Classifiers (Slurry Cups)
Manufacturers Eutek Systems
Number of Units 3
Maximum Grit Slurry Flow per Unit (gpm) 250
Grit Dewatering Equipment (Snails)
Manufacturers Eutek Systems
Number of Units 3
Maximum Grit Slurry Flow per Unit (gpm) 25
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 2.0
Northside WWTP
Major Equipment Data Page 2 of 16 09/14/00
H&S Job No. 30375

Grit Pumps
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Solids Concentration (%)
Minimum Size of Solids (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Wernco, Heyward Gordon, Marlow, or equal
Horizontal Recessed Impeller
4
250
30
1,800
5
1 to 2
3
3
3
Primary Clarifiers
Manufacturers
Type of Sludge Collection Mechanism
Type of Scum Collection Mechanism
Number of Units
Inside Tank Diameter (feet)
Side Water Depth
Tank Bottom Slope (inches/foot)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Average Daily Flow (mgd)
Peak Hydraulic Flow (mgd)
Center Drive Mechanism
Continuous Torque — AGMA (ft lb) 59,500
Maximum Scraper Rotating Speed (rph) 1.8
Cage and Truss Design Torque (ft-lb) Not exceeding AISC allowable stresses at
120% AGMA Torque
Eimco, Envirex, Dorr-Oliver, Walker Process,
Westech, or equal
Scraper -Type
Extended Scum Beach
3
90
12'-0"
1
2.0
4
10
Primary. Sludge, Pumps
Manufacturers Robbins & Meyers (Moyno), Netzsch, or equal
Type of Pumps Progressive Cavity
Number of Pumps 3
Design Capacity (gpm) 100
Differential Pressure at Max Capacity (psi) 30
Maximum Differential Pressure (psi) 150
Maximum Pump Speed (rpm) 300
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm) 1,800
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 15
Speed Control Variable Frequency
Solids Concentration (%) 3 to 5
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches) 8
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches) 8
NoMside WWTP
Major Equipment Data
HUS Job No. 30375
Page 3 of 16
09/14/00

Fine Bubble Diffusers
Manufacturers
Type
Total Number of Diffusers
Sanitaire, Westech
Ceramic Disk and Membrane
6,800
Coarse Bubble Diffusers
Manufacturers
Type
Total Number of Diffusers
Sanitaire, Enviroquip (Austin, Texas)
Single Drop
47
NRCY Pumps
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Column Size (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Fairbanks -Morse, Worthington-IDP
Propeller
8
2,500
10.0
1,200
15
16
16•
Centrffugai Blowers
Manufacturers
Type
Number of Blowers
Design Capacity (scfm)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Lamson, Hoffman
Multi -Stage Centrifugal
2
5,500
12.5
3,600
400
Secondary Clarifiers
Manufacturers
Sludge Removal Mechanism
Scum Removal Mechanism
Number of Units
Inside Tank Diameter (feet)
Side Water Depth (feet)
Tank Bottom Slope (inchesifoot)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Average Daily Flow (mgd)
Peak Hydraulic Flow (mgd)
Continuous Torque — AGMA (ft-lb)
Header Rotating Speed (rph)
Minimum Cage and Arm Yield (ft-lb)
Elmco. Envirex, Dorr-Oliver, Westech. or equal
Hydraulic Removal Type
Extended Beach Type
2
130
14
1
0.75
5.4
13.5
21.200
1.4
61,000
Northslde WWTP
Major Equlprnent Data
MS Job No. 30375
Page 4 of 18
08/14/o0

Aeration Tank Mixers
Influent Channel Mixers
Manufacturers Lightnin, Philadelphia Mixer
Type Platform -Mounted. Vertical
Number 9
Channel Width (feet) 10
Channel Length (feet) 144
Maximum Water Level 30.00
Minimum Water Level 29.80
Operating Platform Elevation 34.00
Channel Invert Elevation 5.75
Vertical Elevation of Impeller 11.17
Minimum Impeller Diameter (inches) 65
Minimum Shaft Diameter (inches) 3.5
Maximum Speed (rpm) 30
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 3
Anaerobic Zone Mixers
Manufacturers Lightnin. Philadelphia Mixer
Type Platform -Mounted. Vertical
Number 8
Cell Width (feet) 34
Cell Length (feet) 20.5
Maximum Water Level 30.00
Minimum Water Level 29.80
Operating Platform Elevation 34.00
Channel Invert Elevation 5.75
Vertical Elevation of impeller 11.75
Minimum Impeller Diameter (inches) 74
Minimum Shaft Diameter (inches) 3.5
Maximum Speed (rpm) 30
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 5
Anoxic Zone Mixers
Manufacturers Lightnin, Philadelphia Mixer
Type Platform -Mounted. Vertical
Number 24
Cell Width (feet) 34
Cell Length (feet) 27.5
Maximum Water Level 30.00
Minimum Water Level 29.80
Operating Platform Elevation 34.00
Channel Invert Elevation 5.75
Vertical Elevation of Impeller 11.75
Minimum Impeller Diameter (inches) 74
Minimum Shaft Diameter (inches) 3.5
Maximum Speed (rpm) 30
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 5
Northside WWTP
Major Equiprnent Data
H&S Job No. 30375
Page 5 of 18
09/14/00

RAS Pumps
Manufacturers Fairbanks -Morse, Worthington
Type of Pump Horizontal Non -Clog
Number of Pumps 3
Design Capacity (gpm) 3,850
Total Dynamic Head (feet) 30
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm) 900
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp) 50
Minimum Size of Solids (inches) 4
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches) 14
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches) 14
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Size of Solids (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Fairbanks -Morse, Worthington
Horizontal Non -Clog
2
1,750
35
900
30
3
8
6
Tertiary Filtration Equipment
Manufacturers
Type
Number of Filter Cells
Size of Cell, L x W (feet)
Depth of Media (feet)
Tetra, Leopold
Deep Bed
4
70x 10
6
Filter Backwash Pumps
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Size of Solids (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Fairbanks -Morse, Worthington
Vertical Non -Clog
2
4,200
20
900
35
4
14
14
Northside WWTP
Major Equipment Data
HAS Job No. 30375
Page 6of 16
09/14/00

Filter Backwash Reclaim Pumps
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Size of Solids (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Fairbanks -Morse. Worthington
Vertical Non -Clog
2
1,500
30
900
20
3
8
8
Fitter Air Scour Blowers
Manufacturers
Type
Number
Design Capacity (sctm)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Roots, Hibon
Positive Displacement
2
1,700
8
1,800
125
Ultraviolet Disinfection Equipment
Manufacturers Wedeco-!deal Horizons, Trojan
Type of Lamp Mercury Amalgam
Peak Flow per Bank (mgd) 10.7
Total Number of Banks 4
Total Number of Lamps 320
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 30.0
Disinfection Criteria (fecal cotiforms/100 mL) 200
Minimum UV Transmittance at 253.71 m (%) 65
Minimum Dose at Peak Flow (µWslcm 30,000
Maximum Head Loss per Bank (inches) 0.2
Maximum Allowable Water Level Fluctuation
over Lamps (inches) 1.57
Maximum Effluent Depth at Lamps (inches) 40.6
Maximum Total Power Consumption (kW) 150.0
Nortnside WWTP
Major Equipment Data Page 7 of 16 09/14/00
H&S Job No. 30375

ta
Effluent Pumps
New Effluent Pump Station
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Column Size (inches)
i;.xistina Effluent Pump Stall n
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Column Size (inches)
Fairbanks -Morse, Johnston
Vertical Turbine
3 1
7,000 �„/
0 / T ( f1( j
� •.
Fairbanks -Morse, John$toa-'
( Vertical Turbine (� 1, \ ( 2 c
3,500 _ —_ _.
0
`•y f- �:,i
1.-I$
1 A0rA V1 t 4.1):,..3, a .'
75
Odor Scrubbers
Manufacturers Cellcote. Heil. Duai. U.S. Filter -Davis
Number of Scrubber Towers 1
Type of Operation Single Stage
Diameter (feet) 12
Packing Depth (feet) 10
Minimum Foul Air Flow (scfm) 36.100
Inlet H2S Concentration (ppm) 0-100
Maximum Outlet H2S Concentration (ppm) 0.1
Maximum System Pressure Drop - Fan Inlet to
Final Discharge (inches w.c.)
5.0
Scrubber Fan
Manufacturers
Type of Fan
Number of Fans
Design Capacity (scfm)
Design Static Pressure (inches w.c.)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Inlet Diameter (inches)
Ceilcote. Heil
FRP Construction, Backward -Curved
1
36,100
9.0
1,200
100
48
Northside WWTP
Manor Equipment Data
H&SJob No. 30375
Page 8 of 16
09/14/00

Scrubber Recirculation Pumps
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Ingersoll-Rand, Metpro (Fybroc), Goulds
Horizontal Centrifugal, FRP Construction
2
625
60
1,800
20
6
4
FRP Storage Tanks
Sodium Hvoochlorite Storage Tank
Manufacturers
Number of Tanks
Type of Tank
Nominal Capacity (gal)
Nominal Diameter (feet)
Sodium Hydroxide Storage Tank
Manufacturers
Number of Tanks
Type of Tank
Nominal Capacity (gal)
Nominal Diameter
Xerxes -Heil, MFG Justin, Ershigs
1
Vertical, Cylindrical
6,000
10
Xerxes -Heil, MFG Justin, Ershigs
1
Vertical, Cylindrical
6,000
10
Liquid.Chemical Metertng Pumps
Sodium Hvoochlorite Feed Pumps
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Service
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gph)
Discharge Pressure (psi)
Maximum Pump Speed (spm)
Suction/Discharge Pipe Diameter (inches)
Sodium Hydroxide Feed Pumas
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Service
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gph)
Discharge Pressure (psi)
Maximum Pump Speed (spm)
Suction/Discharge Pipe Diameter (inches)
LMI
Metering (Positive displacement, diaphragm)
0-18% Sodium Hypochlorite
2
25
30
100
1i
LMI
Metering (Positive displacement, diaphragm)
0-50% Sodium Hydroxide
2
25
30
100
Northside WWTP
Maio, Equipment Data
H&S Job No. 30375
Page9of 16
09/14100

Sodium Hypochiorite Tank Mixing Pump
Manufacturers
Type of Pump
Number of Pumps
Design Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (feet)
Maximum Motor Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (hp)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Ansimag
Magnetic Drive Centrifugal
1
240
20
1,800
3
4
3
Anaerobic Digester Covers
Manufacturers
Cover Type
Number
Diameter (feet)
Gas Storage Capacity per Cover (cf)
Eimco, Westech
Gas Holder
2
65
10,000
Digester Recirculation Pump
Manufacturers
Number
Type
Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (ft)
Pump Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (HP)
Motor Speed (rpm)
Temperature of Liquid Pumped (°F)
Suction Condition
Minimum Size Solid (Inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (Inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Wemco, Heyward Gordon, Marlow
3
Horizontal, Recessed impeller
500 (max) 350 (min)
55 (max) 32(min)
1,300 (max) 950 (min)
20
1,800
50-150
Flooded
4
4
4
Digester Transfer Pumps;
Manufacturers
Number
Type
Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (ft)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (HP)
Motor Speed (rpm)
Temperature of Liquid Pumped (°F)
Suction Condition
Minimum Size Solid (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Fairbanks -Morse, Comet!, Aurora
2
Horizontal, Non -Clog
1,000
40
20
880
50-150
Flooded
4
6
6
Northside WWTP
Major Equipment Data
H&S Job No. 30375
Page 10 of 16
09/14/00

Digested Sludge Grinder
Manufacturers
Number
Inlet Diameter (inches)
Minimum Motor Size (HP)
JWC (Muffin Monster)
2
12
4
Digester Sump Pump
Manufacturers
Number
Type
Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (ft)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (HP)
Motor Speed (rpm)
Temperature of Liquid Pumped (°F)
Suction Condition
Minimum Size Solid (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Wemco, Gould
2
Submersible
100
30
3
1,800
Ambient
Flooded
2 •
3
3
Gas Mixing System
Manufacturers
Number of Units
Type
Mixing Requirement
Sludge Plastic Viscosity
Mixers per Digester
Mixer Diameter (inches)
Mixer Location
Gas Compressor Type
Gas Compressor Capacity (scfm)
Gas Compressor Discharge Pressure (psig)
Gas Compressor Horsepower (HP)
IDI. FMC
2
Cannon
95°F ± 1°F
300 cps at 6sec'
5
30
1 at center, 4 at 213 radius
Liquid Ring Rotary
160
13.1
20
Digester Heat Exchanger
Manufacturers
Number
Heating Capacity (BTU/hr)
Sludge Recirculation Flow (gpm)
Sludge Recirculation Temperature (°F)
Influent Sludge Flow Range (gpm)
Minimum Influent Sludge Temperature (°F)
Minimum Hot Water Feed Temperature (°F)
Hot Water Flow Rate, gpm
Envirex, Walker
2
2,000,000
350 gpm
95
0-90
55
150
150
Nonhside WWTP
Major Equipment Data
H&S Job No. 30375
Page 11 of 16
09/14/00

Hot Water Boller
Manufacturers
Number
Minimum Boiler Net Output (BTUfhr)
Fuel
Cleaver Brooks
2
2,000,000
Natural Gas/Digester Gas
Hot Water Pumps
Manufacturers
Number
Type
Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (ft)
Pump Speed (rpm)
Minimum Motor Horsepower (HP)
Motor Speed (rpm)
Temperature of Liquid Pumped (°F)
Suction Condition
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Bell and Gossett. Taco
2
Centrifugal
300
60
1,800
7.5
1,800
150-200
Flooded
4
4
Gas Safety Equipment
Manufacturer
Types of Equipment
Whessoe-Varec, Oceco. Groth
Waste Gas Bumer
Explosion Pressure Relief Valve
Pressure Relief and Flame Trap Assembly
Flame Trap Assembly
Back Pressure Check Valve
Condensate and Sediment Trap
Low Pressure Drip Trap
Manometer
Belt: Filter Presses
Manufacturer
Number
Belt Width
Feed
Feed Solids Concentration
Maximum Liquid Feed Rate (per press)
Maximum Solids Feed Rate (per press)
Andritz, Ashbrook, or equal
4
2.0 meters
Alum Sludge
Anaerobically Digested (Primary + WAS)
Alum -1% to 3%
Anaerobicaliy Digested - 2% to 6%
150 gpm
2,000 lbsfir
Nodhside WWTP
Major Equxnent Data
H8s Job No. 30375
Page 12 of 16
09f14A00

Belt Filter Press Feed Pump
Manufacturer
Number
Type
Stages
Capacity (gpm)
Differential Pressure (e maximum flow)
Maximum Differential Pressure
Maximum Pump Speed
Maximum Motor Speed
Speed Control
Minimum Motor Horsepower
Solids Concentration
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Moyno, Netzsch, or equal
4
Progressive Cavity
2
150 (max) 40 (min)
40 psi
150 psi
250 rpm
1,800 rpm
Variable Frequency
15 HP
0% to 6%
6
6
BFP Polymer Feed Pump
Manufacturer
Number
Type
Stages
Capacity (gpm)
Differential Pressure (a maximum flow)
Maximum Differential Pressure
Maximum Pump Speed
Maximum Motor Speed
Speed Control
Minimum Motor Horsepower
Polymer Solution Strength (Range)
Polymer Feed Rate Range
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Moyno, Netzsch, or equal
4
Progressive Cavity
1
12 (max) 3 (min)
15 psi
50 psi
500 rpm
1,800 rpm
Variable Frequency
1 HP
0.156to0.4%
36 to 576 tbs./day
2
2
Dewatering Polymer Make upSystem
Manufacturer
Number
Polymer Type
Solution Strength (Range)
Maximum Make-up Capacity
Stranco, or equal
2
Dry/Granular
0.1% to 0.4%
100 IbsJhr @ 0.4% (-3,000 gph)
Gravity Belt Thickeners
Manufacturer
Number
Belt Width
Feed Solids Concentration
Maximum Liquid Feed Rate (per thickener)
Andritz. Ashbrook, or equal
2
3.0 meters
0% to 1.0% (WAS)
600 gpm
Northslde WWTP
Major Equipment Data
H&S Job No. 30375
Page 13of16
09/14/00

GBT Feed Pump
Manufacturer
Number
Type
Capacity (gpm)
Total Dynamic Head (tt)
Pump Speed (rpm)
Speed Control
Minimum Motor Horsepower (HP)
Motor Speed (rpm)
Solids Content
Suction Condition
Minimum Size Solid (inches)
Minimum Suction Diameter (Inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Fairbanks -Morse, Goulds, or equal
3
Horizontal. Non -clog
600 (max)
30
1170
Variable Frequency
7.5
1,200
0% to 1.0%
Flooded
3
4
4
GBT TWAS Collection Pumps
Manufacturer
Number
Type
Stages
Capacity (gpm)
Differential Pressure (0 maximum flow)
Maximum Differential Pressure
Maximum Pump Speed
Maximum Motor Speed
Speed Control
Minimum Motor Horsepower
Solids Concentration
Minimum Suction Diameter (Inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Moyno. Netzsch, or equal
2 (1 per GBT)
Progressive Cavity
2
100 (max) 15 (min)
40 psi
150 psi
250 rpm
1,800 rpm
Variable Frequency
15 HP
0% to 8%
Open -Throat Type
6
TWAS Transfer Pump
Manufacturer
Number
Type
Stages
Capacity (gpm)
Differential Pressure (tit maximum flow)
Maximum Differential Pressure
Maximum Pump Speed
Maximum Motor Speed
Speed Control
Minimum Motor Horsepower
Solids Concentration
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Moyno, Netzsch, or equal
1
Progressive Cavity
2
50 (max) 15 (min)
40 psi
150 psi
250 rpm
1,800 rpm
Variable Frequency
5 HP
0% to 8%
6
6

GBT Polymer Feed Pump
Manufacturer
Number
Type
Stages
Capacity (gpm)
Differential Pressure (a maximum flow)
Maximum Differential Pressure
Maximum Pump Speed
Maximum Motor Speed
Speed Control
Minimum Motor Horsepower
Polymer Solution Strength (Range)
Polymer Feed Rate Range
Minimum Suction Diameter (inches)
Minimum Discharge Diameter (inches)
Moyno. Netzsch, or equal
2
Progressive Cavity
1
12 (max) 3 (min)
15 psi
50 psi
500 rpm
1,800 rpm
Variable Frequency
1 HP
0.1% to 0.4%
36 to 576 lbs./day
2
2
Thickening Polymer Meke-up System
Manufacturer
Number
Polymer Type
Solution Strength (Range)
Maximum Make-up Capacity
Stranco
1
Dry/Granular
0.1%to0.4°%
50 tbs./hr 0 0.4% (-1.500 gph)
Northside WwTP
Major Equipment Data
H&S Job No. 30375
Page 15 of 16
00/14/00

City of Wilmington North Carolina
James A. Loughlin WWTP
Water Balance
Narrative Description
The City of Wilmington has several remote wastewater pump stations that serve the James A.
Loughlin (Northside) WWTP. Flow enters the WWTP site via three force mains which combine at
the new screening/ grit removal facility.
Preliminary treatment effluent (PTE) flows by gravity to two primary clarifiers. A primary clarifier
bypass line is provided. Primary sludge and primary scum are pumped to the anaerobic digesters.
Primary effluent (PE) flows by gravity to the new aeration tanks where it combines with return
activated sludge (RAS) from the RAS pump stations. The mixed liquor (ML) is distributed to the
aeration tanks for biological treatment.
The effluent from the aeration tanks is distributed proportionally to the four secondary clarifiers.
RAS is pumped back to the aeration tanks by RAS pump stations 1 and 2. Waste activated sludge
is wasted out of the RAS pump station discharge header and is gravity belt thickened prior to
pumping to the anaerobic digesters.
Secondary clarifier effluent (SCE) flows by gravity to the new tertiary filters. Backwash reclaim
water from the filters is returned to the head of the aeration tanks.
Filtered effluent flows by gravity to the UV disinfection facility. The plant effluent is disinfected
in four UV channels and is metered with a parshall flume at this location.
UV effluent flows to the two effluent pump stations which pump_ plant effluent to the Cape Fear
River. Either of the two pump stations has adequate capacity to pump the design average plant
effluent flow of 16 mgd. At the hydraulic peak flow of 40 mgd, both stations are required.

Water Balance
Facility Average Flow
Influent Screening Facilities (3 screens)
Flow to Process 16.0 mgd
Flow to Each Unit 5.3 mgd
Grit Removal Facilities (3 grit collectors)
Flow to Process 16.0 mgd
Flow to Each Unit 5.3 mgd
Primary Clarifiers (2 clarifiers)
Flow to Process 16.0 mgd
Flow to Each Unit 8.0 mgd
Aeration Tanks (4 tanks)
Primary Effluent Flow 16.0 mgd
Return Activated Sludge Flow 16.0 mgd
Total Mixed Liquor Flow to Aeration Tanks 32.0 mgd
Flow to Each Unit 8.0 mgd
Secondary Clarifiers (4 clarifiers)
Mixed Liquor Flow to Clarifiers 32.0 mgd
Mixed Liquor Flow to Clarifier 1 or 2 5.0 mgd
Secondary Effluent Flow from Clarifier 1 or 2 2.6 mgd
Mixed Liquor Flow to Clarifier 3 or 4 10.8 mgd
Secondary Effluent Flow from Clarifiers 3 or 4 5.4 mgd
Tertiary Filters (4 filters)
Secondary Effluent Flow to Filters 16.0 mgd
Flow to Each Unit 4.0 mgd`
Ultraviolet Disinfection (4 channels)
Flow to Process 16.0 mgd
Flow to Each Unit 4.0 mgd
Effluent Pump Stations
Total Plant Effluent Flow 16.0 mgd
Flow to Each Station See attached narrative

PLOT DATE 01/31/06 4:22am FILE= H:\30375\M1SC\PROCESS SCHEMATICS\Liquid Process Schematic by RBATCHELOR XREF FILE = NONE
COUNTY
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
SSR
CITY INFLUENT SCREENING
WASTEWATER
GRIT
REMOVAL
PTE
SEP
SEP
LEGEND
AS ACTIVATED SLUDGE
FE FINAL EFFLUENT
ML MIXED UQUOR
PE PRIMARY EFFLUENT
PS PRIMARY SLUDGE
PSC PRIMARY SCUM
PTE PREUMINARY TREATMENT EFFLUENT
RAS RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SCE SECONDARY CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
SEP SEPTAGE
SSC SECONDARY SCUM
SSR SIDESTREAM RETURN
WAS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
1 PSC
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
PS
PE
AERATION
TANKS
ML
SSC
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
RAS AS117151
EFFLUENT
PUMPING
AS
SCE
EFFLUENT
FILTERS
} FTE
ULTRAVIOLET
DISINFECTION
WAS
WILMINGTON NORTHSIDE WWTP
LIQUID TRAIN PROCESS SCHEMATIC
AS
PUMPING
FE
1FE
CAPE
FEAR
RIVER

PLOT DATE 01/31/06 4:22om FILE= H: \30375\MISC\PROCESS SCHEMATICS\Solids Process Schematic by RBATCHELOR XREF FILE = NONE
PRIMARY SLUDGE
PUMPING
_P1_0]
TWAS
SSR
SSC PSC
PS
SEP
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTERS
DG
DG
DIGESTER
GAS
STORAGE
DG
GAS COMPRESSION
AND DRYING
SYSTEM
GAS
FLARE
DS
WAS
THICKENING WAS
FACILITY ID PUMPING
ALUM SLUDGE
FROM WATER PLANT
WILMINGTON NORTHSIDE WWTP
SLUDGE
STORAGE
TANKS
SOLIDS TRAIN PROCESS SCHEMATIC
DEWATERING
FACILITY
SSR
OFF -SITE
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
LEGEND
DG DIGESTER GAS
DS DIGESTED SLUDGE
PS PRIMARY SLUDGE
PSC PRIMARY SCUM
SEP SEPTAGE
SSC SECONDARY SCUM
SSR SIDESTREAM RETURN
TWAS THICKENED WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
WAS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE

0
1o>t
f met/
ts�s
M.
RCM.
Roo. / i aya
•
goo
Pori
Lra.
room nos
Ma MOS
Amos ono
• 1 �v OM re.
0 .
e
flag
soma
groom
Wan OD GINO IV
W M MN
LR.
Rano MR
at at
OLIO .031.11
010011
ORR
woo
Li11.1.
goo so
solo ORM
� 7
AVM
•••••11 w w r.41•111110.1 4.i.••r wr.w
*MKIM&cREpD
1.1 . 1.1 55.aftholoir.w two. R.
IIAZEN M4D SAn I ER
wi4Ribs RC ORi.p, e_ loi
O R INNOL4
dui . _.
NOWAK
MOM
"PE
AarJul
:
hatv-
oo wax moos
NORM
OCIONC .
UP IMO—
rent SOW
ROOK AI,
sarei
rMOW
RICE Oft
Min .mo r�
CITY Of WLMINGT°N
JAMES A. LOUGHUN VAVTP
UPGRADE AND EXPANSION
PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC
�ROK71�1
I 1
WI RUNK

ra•
Jwt
aoAna
1
I 1
GAUD tit i a+r f---• 1
7
4-
2
asp
TT
DM ION
1
i
4
aatitt
Os'* 2
K
rwers.A�
wltNaaaawoAr -
4MclaM&CREEDw• R.rrr1� lb*Om. IMP
HAZEN AND SAWYER
hpwwww.8 WWI.. Aa
O IWO. WI WOW lro illop
CITY OF WILMINGTON
JAMES A. LOUGHLIN WWTP
UPGRADE AND EXPANSION
PROCESS 'IOW SCHEMATIC
NOTES
a •VORWP SWOP W PNWN MOM be wow OS NAL
OWNS MI ale Room at mon
GO roan
J WAIMr{ Min 1MO we MJataa
10WWWI ME WM WNW
J DOr IN wI M IMAM ,Ay OW% II
WO in
• a4 AMa; all rlww tl44 TO
WWI oar NV Mao w,rla weft
PRLOW
AWapti,WPM law
NAY AIOI w 14R
AIA AII+O WOW. M
R Mil MA
4 4'WWI 141Q
s IA1Jy M
w NNWWM
a. WE•11R
Mt WAD WSW PAWS raw
O 4' act1aM 1114
I I
WNW eat
o taricr*
Aru

, trzry;0 •440•••
_...._. _ ......._. _ •.......,.... / 1.4•:•:.••1••••3 "„ ,.e.
•.
-
..:•.• ....or ••• ...:
T D.. iii r
•-• , .. . ,
: .
•
%. k. 4.1
, • --- '''''''''' -- - , • - , — .k.,....:.,, \
VOLIWWW : ' :
• , .* i t. 1 • vv... l•
L.., ...
-- . • —...--• • ...... .
•ir
M•C V Vwv
IV*. WI
3
• *..sracw
:•sama
tam.
▪ 3103 •
Epet
•
- !TV A•11.4. •
• 0 00 06 0 000 ..... ...... .....
-
043 2,74
1.33 3•47.1 =••
WKS:
I. AI I 5ill,1* SICAA2' COpirovv •
'Doi IO4A0 :L.938C tsWit. ROCKA• SIAN:WelS
7 At. caaorpots ale TO HA= :). GAM (*MS
MI*
10
••-•••• ............... •,• • '•••
•11,
.1112.1 .16• —
......
altwoC 1",
0 — a
L
'Jag 10.311
0.0.0111,
JINIO.A.LCYCKM WAVE WATERIFILANDIT PUNT
MVO 41819.1 •Val MY I
P.M. 51 a.b •
120013 11I1IVO3 4.14.1
.04••••• ••••• ea 3•03 wt. .00 0.
0•300111 • MOO V
• MO
V11 mots113wv.e, .
rim= Mar= IMP
wwwww. V.. V. .44.1 441••• • MUNI
*AV= • .1 V
Iran10 %Ps WAY% • IV.= 0
0••• lama Na •
tASISLII241.11=2
• sal ca qv.. mi.
11 , rit_i2, .0.0 .0 • 14.433 • 333 • V
. 141104 • .0
• •
wwwcom •
•• ••• 04313 0000
• I \k.
i • i'•-• -
I.. L. • ;Gr..ale ,
MOGI
m▪ e • • • •
: • • 'W
••
•ww t•
Ow •
..... '
Pll
• IV •
• .‘0000 ;
smt\ "••
..•
340 . 031,C: •
4.3.1t .•
.c
" •
-34313043
4•••• 011,43
r.is •
;Cht:IT' ay
;••-. ! 7 LT!".
xl . -
9 • • •••,i 4../
-tax. . • •••;
WutawW43. •
1
AZT,.
itiaa
www
02111
McKIM&CREED i
21: 1. 1.-1 :3•3•
flAZKN AND SAWYER
100
CRY OF WLMNOTON
NORTH CAROLINA
. • • • • - • - _ • • - • • • • _ - • • -
MAN. V.01
.1 • not
•IWW02.3 er*.a
row. VP 110
tr.m>. :11•41
CRY OF WILMINGTON
JAMES A LOUOHUN %WM
UPGRADE AND OPANSON
pj•• 134
3 0•004•003 I•Vwel Warta
t NOM 31 VA 14.1,
w•IY. ;Tv
SITE PLAN
VONV•alr• WOW.,
ao P
•/..3400111 Pi* cl••
0.0,14103133
1101,00/3
.312 .04
rw'w SAIV fat
LI.. +Au wows
&Me VIM 01
W .4•04.
c.v. • *WM.
.1..c .. . •• ap. is
.3,....• .......
WM Al
aim_. _...
IVVJ •
' ".
iindlior •
WV M. i
. .
s WV
. . .
,-5....0.Fi
W.Va. I
,
c5
,__.. •
recauMPa

4) •
-••• „
Copyright (C) 1997. Maptech, Inc
n. W...PXYVrif A41 ,
. • IR Pater t
•,
•

C�2E FE/-'r m v 06 I_ L c &
--.Chapter_6
Water Quality Scenarios and Sensitivity Analysi
conditions. Given that the potential impacts of floodplain swamps are dramatically altered by the
extreme flow levels recorded during and after Hurricane Bonnie, the DO values discussed here
are exclusive of the September period in which instream DO was largely dictated by the affects of
the hurricane.
Conclusions from Water Quality Scenarios and Sensitivity Analyses
Combining the results of the sensitivity analyses provides for a type of DO deficit component
analysis. July 19, 1998 represents the day of lowest predicted DO for the baseline analysis prior
to the effect of Hurricane Bonnie. Using the predicted difference in DO concentration between
the baseline model run and the sensitivity runs that turned off the effect of an oxygen demand
(i.e., maximum permitted point source BOD, tributary BOD, SOD, and swamp oxygen demand),
the relative effect of each source of oxygen demand can be compared for the simulated day of
July 19. Figure 6-26 shows that SOD and swamp oxygen demand are predicted to account for
between 64% and 84% of the total oxygen demand. Therefore, the combined effect of SOD and
swamp oxygen demand is predicted to be between 2 and 4 times greater than the combined
loading from point source and tributary BOD loads during a summer critical condition day.
The current North Carolina 305(b) assessment attributes low DO in the Lower Cape Fear
River to point and nonpoint sources of oxygen -demanding waste. However, figure 6-27 shows
that tributary and maximum permitted point source loads of BOD are not by themselves expected
to cause drops in DO below 5.0 mg/1. Conversely, figure 6-28 shows that the combined effect of
SOD and swamp oxygen demand is expected to push DO concentrations below 5.0 mg/1 in the
Cape Fear mainstem near Navassa and in the Northeast Cape Fear River near their confluence for
the July 19 conditions, before point source and tributary loads are taken into account.
The consulting team has a relatively high level of confidence in the model's prediction
of point source discharge impacts on estuary dissolved oxygen concentrations because of the
excellent fit of decay rates to the long-term BOD analyses. For a simulation of 1998 water
quality, the model indicated that all point source discharges to the estuary combined accounted
for, on average, only 0.3 to 0.4 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen deficit during the critical water quality
periods in the segment of concern.
For actual waste discharges from the Northside and Southside facilities in 1998, the model
predicted that the effluents decreased dissolved oxygen levels on average by less than 0.05 mg/1
during critical summer conditions, indicating a very small impact. The model was also applied to
evaluate the impacts of expanding the City/County's combined waste flow by an additional 16
million gallons per day (i.e., from 20 MGD to 36 MGD) at different levels of treatment. The
results indicated that the maximum difference in dissolved oxygen concentrations in the estuary
would be less than 0.05 to 0.1 mg/1 when comparing treatment loads reflecting advanced
secondary treatment (BOD5 = 15 mg/L, NH3N = 4 mg/L) to loads representing advanced tertiary
treatment reflective of DWQ's proposed Basin Plan limits (BOD5 = 5 mg/L, NH3N = 1 mg/L).
Therefore, the overall effect of the more restrictive limits on instream dissolved oxygen
concentrations is predicted to be relatively small.
IN Tetra Tech, Inc. 6-6

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County are working jointly to evaluate future
wastewater collection system, treatment system, and discharge needs within the region. The
population in this popular coastal area is expected to continue increasing at a relatively rapid rate,
thereby increasing wastewater production from residential, commercial, and industrial sources.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) through its National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process must approve new or expanded wastewater
discharges.
Typically, DWQ uses water quality models to evaluate the impacts of new or expanding
discharges, and then sets NPDES permit limits reflecting minimum federal and state guidelines or
more restrictive levels when needed to protect water quality standards in the receiving water.
This is not the case in the lower Cape Fear River basin at this time, however, because DWQ does
not have a water quality model that the Division believes can be used reliably to make wasteload
allocation decisions. Instead, DWQ is making NPDES permit decisions based on policy that is
contained in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDENR, 1996
and 2000 update).
According to the Basin Plan, a segment of the Lower Cape Fear River has been assessed by
DWQ as not supporting its existing and designated uses because of dissolved oxygen standard
violations (Figure 1-1). DWQ has placed this segment on its Clean Water Act -based 303(d) list
that identifies impaired segments and prioritizes them for development of Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs). DWQ has stated publicly that it intends to develop a water quality model for
the Lower Cape Fear River to establish an appropriate TMDL, which could then be used to
support future wasteload allocation decisions. However, DWQ expects that model development
might take several years because of the complexity of the estuarine system to be simulated and
the relative cost for data collection and model calibration/validation. In the interim, DWQ plans
to use the Basin Plan policy which applies limits of 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 1 mg/1 NH3N (ammonia
nitrogen) to new or expanding discharges of oxygen demanding wastewater.
The BOD5 and NH3N limits established for the Basin Plan policy reflect the most stringent
permit requirements applied by DWQ for these parameters. In contrast, the existing NPDES
permit limits for the Wilmington Northside and Southside facilities are 30 mg/1 BOD5 with no
restriction on NH3N. These existing limits were issued long ago and reflect federally mandated
minimum secondary treatment requirements for municipal wastewater. Application of the Basin
Plan policy to expansions at either of Wilmington's existing discharges would therefore involve a
change from the least restrictive limits allowed to the most restrictive limits issued by the State.
The consulting team of McKim & Creed, Hazen & Sawyer, and Tetra Tech Inc. was hired by
the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County to fully evaluate wastewater collection,
treatment, and discharge options. The latter includes consultation on the NPDES permitting
process. The consulting team's preliminary evaluation of the ramifications of the Basin Plan
policy for BOD5 and NH3N indicated that the cost to the City and County would be high, on the
order of millions of dollars in increased treatment facility cost. Programmatically, the City and
County stand to lose substantial amounts of the existing allocations for BOD5 and NH3N (for
s Tetra Tech, Inc. 1-1

Chapter 1 April 2001
INTRODUCTION
example, 67 percent and 90 percent respectively for the Northside facility under current
expansion plans). Loss of assimilative capacity allocation is particularly important because any
BOD5 and NH3N loads given up now are potentially irretrievable in the future due to state and
federal anti -backsliding regulations.
Given the potential high cost to the City and County from application of the Basin Plan
policy, the consulting team was directed to examine the environmental benefit associated with the
policy's resulting reductions in BOD5 and NH3N loading. A three-dimensional, hydrodynamic
water quality model of the lower Cape Fear River estuary was developed by Tetra Tech to meet
this need. This report documents the model basis and it's set-up, calibration, and application to
the lower Cape Fear River.
1.2 Purpose of Modeling Project
The purpose of this project is to construct a numeric model of the hydrodynamic processes
and primary factors affecting dissolved oxygen concentrations in the lower Cape Fear River
estuary. The model is intended to address several objectives including:
• Simulation of the mixing and transport of the City/County existing and proposed future
Northside and Southside facility effluents.
• Simulation of the impact of existing and proposed future Northside and Southside
facility pollutant loads for oxygen -demanding substances.
• Evaluation of multiple sources and cumulative loads of oxygen -demanding substances
to the lower Cape Fear River estuary.
• Analysis of the various processes affecting dissolved oxygen and their relative
contribution to ambient dissolved oxygen deficit levels.
The resulting modeling analyses provide the City/County and DWQ with scientific
information heretofore unavailable for evaluating impacts on dissolved oxygen in the lower Cape
Fear River. Given the model results and corresponding reliability, local and state officials should
be able to use the modeling analyses to provide a scientific and technically -sound basis for
altering the current Basin Plan policy for allocating BOD5 and NH3N. Additionally, the
modeling results can be used to guide further water quality model development to support
DWQ's longer -term goal of establishing a TNIDL for the lower basin.
1.3 Scope and Approach for the Modeling Project
The water quality model covers the portion of the Cape Fear River below Lock and Dam No.
1 to the outlet to the Atlantic Ocean, along with the tidally -influenced portion of the Black River
and the Northeast Cape Fear River (Figure 1-2). Tetra Tech selected the Environmental Fluid
Dynamics Code (EFDC) model (Hamrick 1992a; Park et al. 1995) for this application. EFDC is a
public domain surface water modeling system incorporating fully integrated hydrodynamic, water
quality, and sediment -contaminant simulation capabilities. EFDC is very versatile and can be
used for 1, 2, or 3-dimensional simulation of rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal regions and wetlands.
The water quality component of EFDC is based on water quality kinetic from the Chesapeake
Bay Water Quality model or CE+QUAL-IC (Cerco and Cole, 1993). For this application, Tetra
Tech was tasked to develop a 3-dimensional application of EFDC to help the City/County and
DWQ gain insight as to the advantages and disadvantages of a 3D versus 2D water quality model
for the lower Cape Fear River. DWQ has proposed a 2-dimensional model for its long-term
Tetra Tech, Inc. (draft version 4) 1-2

Chapter 1 April 2001
INTRODUCTION
approach to develop a TMDL. Some vertical stratification is evident from historical monitoring
data, but less is known about lateral gradients. The EFDC application was intended to provide a
scoping level analysis for evaluating model dimensions. The results of this study indicate that a
minimum two -layer vertical resolution combined with detailed horizontal resolution, including
representation of the navigational channel, reproduce hydrodynamic processes with a high level
of confidence.
Calibration of the EFDC model was achieved using available information, plus data obtained
during two Rhodomine dye release studies performed by the consulting team in late November
and early December 2000. In addition to providing data to support calibration of the
hydrodynamic portion of the model, the dye studies provided a basis for examining near field
mixing and far field transport of the existing effluents. As part of the modeling scope, Tetra Tech
agreed to evaluate potential alternatives to existing outfall structure designs for the Northside and
Southside facilities if modeling indicated that redesign or relocation could enhance mixing in the
receiving waters. Results of these analyses are included in this report.
To the extent feasible with the model development resources provided, the level of reliability
and uncertainty in model predictions were established through predefining model performance
criteria and including sensitivity and uncertainty components in the selected model application
scenarios. The modeling team initiated its effort by pre -specifying desired accuracy levels
consistent with US EPA technical guidance for estuary waste load allocation, and proceeded with
model calibration and verification to achieve these targets. Finally, model applications included
sensitivity analyses to identify the model parameters and key assumptions that most influence
model predictions. Modeling analysis report conclusions include recommendations for additional
study that could help reduce uncertainty for areas found to be most important to the future
decision -making process.
`* Tetra Tech, Inc. (draft version 4) 1-3

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
FIGURE 1-1. SEGMENT OF THE LOWER CAPE FEAR ESTUARY LISTED AS IMPAIRED ON 303(D) LIST
NEW HANOVER
LEGEND
A/County Boundary
/\/ Streams
Wetlands
Municipalities
Open Water
303(d) Listed Segment
of Estuary
April 2001
WE
SCALE
2 0
2 &I,'es
tit, Tetra Tech, Inc. (draft version 4) 1-4