NC0023973_Permit (Modification)_20041214

NPDES DOCUMENT :SCANNING; COVER SHEET
NC0023973
Wilmington Southside WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
f
Permit Modification E
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
December 14, 2004
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse side

Michael F. Easley, Govemor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, PE, Director
Division of Water Quality
December 14, 2004
Mr. Hugh T. Caldwell, P.E.
Director of Public Utilities
City of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit Modification
NC0023973
M'Kean Maffitt (Southside) WWTP
3436 River Road, Wilmington
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
In response to the City of Wilmington's adjudication of the subject permit, (permit effective March
1, 2004), and in keeping with subsequent settlement negotiations and agreements (see Fact Sheet
Addendums No.1 and No.2), the Division of Water Quality (the Division) hereby issues this permit
modification. This permit is issued to the City of Wilmington pursuant to the requirements of North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994, or as subsequently amended.
The Division revised the permit according to the following modifications based on new
information and revised data submitted by the Permittee:
• Metals -- Total Zinc and Total Silver have been removed from the permit as
contaminants of concern (COCs). The permittee shall monitor these parameters
through the Pretreatment Program.
• Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing -- Permittee has requested permission
to replace test species daphnia pulex, intending to use ceriodaphnia dubia as the
primary test species. The Division has no objections, and has therefore
incorporated WET Test Method TGE3B into the permit.
• BOD-5-day and TSS Percent Removal — Effluent TSS removal percentage shall
remain at 85%. Per agreement between the Division, EPA Region 4, and the
Permittee, the monitoring parameter BOD 5-day has been removed from the permit
and CBOD 5-day (Code 80082) has been added. CBOD shall appear with limits
to discharge of 25.0 mg/I (Monthly Average), and 40.0 mg/L (Weekly Average).
Percentage removal (influent relative to effluent) shall remain at 85%.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
NCDENR
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

City of Wilmington
M'Kean Maffitt (Southside) WWTP
Issuance of NPDES Permit MOD -- NC0023973
Page 2
• Map Correction — Errors in describing the discharge outfall location have been
corrected for this permit modification.
This permit is not transferable except after notifying the Division of Water Quality. The Division
may require modification, or revocation and re -issuance of this permit. Please notice that this permit
does not affect your legal obligation to obtain other permits required by the Division of Water
Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or other federal or local
governments.
If you have questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact Joe Corporon at
[Joe.Corporon cr ncmail.net] or call [phone], extension 597.
Respectfully,
..--Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Enclosure: FINAL NPDES Permit NC0023973
Cc: Wilmington Regional Office, Water Quality Section;
NPDES Unit; '
Aquatic Toxicology Unit,
Pretreatment Unit;
EPA Region 4;
[DRAFT Permit and Fact Sheet Addendum No 2]
[DRAFT Permit and Fact Sheet Addendum No. 2]
[DRAFT Permit and Fact Sheet Addendum No. 2]
[DRAFT Permit and Fact Sheet Addendum No. 2]
[DRAFT Permit and Fact Sheet Addendum No. 2]
+

Permit NC0023973
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 provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations
promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended,
City of Wilmington
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from outfalls located at the
M'Kean Maffitt Wastewater Treatment Plant
3436 River Road, Wilmington
New Hanover County
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, and III
hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2005.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2006.
Signed this day December 14, 2004.
'Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

w' # d
Permit NC0023973
Supplement to Cover Sheet
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as
of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive
authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and
provisions described herein.
City of Wilmington
is hereby authorized:
1. to continue discharging 12.0 MGD of domestic and industrial wastewater from the existing
wastewater treatment facility consisting of
• force main interceptor vault
• standby manual bar screen and comminuter
• dual (2) mechanical bar screens, each with grit removal and storage unit
• splitter box
• dual (2) primary clarifiers
• dual (2) trickling filters (180 feet diameter)
• short-term aeration basin
• splitter box
• three (3) screw lift pumps
• chlorine disinfection facilities
• dual (2) secondary clarifiers
• return activated sludge pumping station
• flash mixer for chlorine gas
• dual (2) chlorine contact chambers
• outfall structure with flow meter
• lift -station generator, automatically activated (with back up generators)
• primary and waste -activated sludge pump stations
• sludge: two gravity -belt thickeners, two filter presses; four digesters (3 hot); alkaline stabilization,
covered storage area
• solids land application
located at the M'Kean Maffitt (Southside) Wastewater Treatment Plant, 3436 River Road,
Wilmington, New Hanover County, and
2. to discharge from said treatment facility through Outfall 001 at a specified location (see attached
map) into the Cape Fear River, a waterbody classified as SC waters within the Cape Fear River
Basin.

Permit NC0023973
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the permit effective date and lasting until expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge
treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
' �, .�... j �j T �-
t FFLUENT . I� trot - 'T
• c Q�7L� Y• ' •r
t , k : ' ., r Ti � p r #,-
: �� „ - . --
�-�..ta�.
Y •�k r'
@,. -x��p`^sr-,
r 3 r a, "'�.
.
.:s�.br `��. d .s
}' . i:. ., ' i
4 i 0 �a s , f { . '''
r
I R " 1y `
- ?•-q
$ :kF . 0 �� 1Jr .
MonthlyT
; ve�rage�..
We y `
2.—A
, ,; .w dement
•
r - ue�nc 2
;k Sample
' ` '3'P Sal ..
pr1e
' .L'9cat io&
Flow (MGD)
12.0
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day, 20° C 2
25.0 mg/L
40.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I and E
Total Suspended Solids 2
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
Total Residual Chlorine4
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
pH5
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (No2 + No3 + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Cyanide 6
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Acute Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen 8
Variable 9
Grab
U, D
Temperature 8
Variable 9
Grab
U, D
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: I = influent; E = effluent; U = Upstream at a point equidistant between the radio tower due north of
the WWTP and the northern end of the dredge spoil island immediately west of the outfall; D = downstream at a point
equidistant between the mouth of Barnards Creek and the southern end of the dredge spoil island.
2. The monthly average effluent for Total Suspended Solids and effluent CBOD5 concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of
the respective influent value (i.e., 85% removal is required).
3. Calculate Fecal Coliform using the geometric mean (see procedure Part II. Section A ,Paragraph 9b)
4. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) monitoring shall apply only if chlorine is used. With the adoption of a TRC Standard
for saltwater, this permit may be reopened to include a TRC limit.
5. pH shall not fall below 6.8 nor exceed 8.5 standard units.
6. Total Cyanide: Levels reported below 10 µg/L will be considered zero for permit compliance purposes.
7. Acute Toxicity — (Ceriodaphnia dubia, 24-hour) No significant mortality @ 90 %, March, June, September, and
December [see Special Condition, Section A. (2.)J
8. Stream Sampling — the permittee has deferred receiving -stream sampling to the Lower Cape Fear River Association by
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Should this MOA terminate for any reason, the Permittee shall immediately inform
the Division of Water Quality in writing and immediately resume instream monitoring in accordance with this permit.
9. Variable Frequency — Stream samples 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 MGD = million gallons per day
BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand ml = milliliters
Discharge shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

•
Permit NC0023973
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITION
A (2). 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 March, June, September, and December.
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.

December 9, 2004
NC0023973
Permit Modification No. 2
Page 1 of 1
Fact Sheet -- Addendum No. 2
RE: Modification of NPDES Permit NC0023973
M'Kean Maffitt (Southside) WWTP
3436 River Road, Wilmington
New Hanover County
In an effort to resolve the final issue of BOD5 "percent removal," Wilmington Southside
proposed to substitute reporting BOD5 with CBOD5. After conferring with EPA Region 4
(Marshall Hyatt), the Division agrees with the permittee that the following substitution, including
revised permit limits, protects water quality.
Therefore, in lieu of the BOD5 limits, the division will substitute:
CBOD5 (Code No. 80082) with permit limits of
25 mg/1 -- Monthly Average
40 mg/1 — Weekly Average
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions re
contact Joe Corporon (jde.co
i
NAME:
(
in any of
rp.ron@n.
Percentage removal rate — 85%.
above information or on the referenced permit, please
il.net] or call [phone] ext. 597.
DATE:e1

Re: BOD vs. CBOD -- Wilmington Southside
Subject: Re: BOD vs. CBOD -- Wilmington Southside
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:04:30 -0500
To: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
CC: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>, Mark McIntire <[e-mail]>
Joe, Thanks for following up on our proposal. I didn't realize the
limit would change to 25 mg/1. I think it is still doable and preferable
but we'll need a little more time to consider the implications.
Hugh
Joe Corporon
<joe.corporon@ncm To:
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
ail.net> cc: Dave Goodrich
<[e-mail]>, Mark McIntire
Southside
<[e-mail]>
11/10/2004 02:53 Subject: BOD vs. CBOD -- Wilmington
PM
Hugh, I forwarded your proposed solution to "persent removal" to Marshall
Hyatt at EPA Region 4.
Joe Corporon wrote: Marshall, thanks for your input. We have a possible
solution to the issue.
Wilmington has offered to comply with 85% removal using CBOD. Would this be
acceptable to EPA?
Marshall Hyatt answered: yes, 85% removal based on CBOD5 limits of 25
mg/1 monthly avg and 40
mg/1 weekly avg based on 40 CFR Part 133 would be acceptable.
Hugh, this trade is fine with DWQ. Please clarify for me. Is Wilmington
willing to trade its BOD limits for the CBOD limits listed above?
1 of 1 11/15/2004 2:10 PM

BOD vs. CBOD -- Wilmington Southside
Subject: BOD vs. CBOD -- Wilmington Southside
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:53:30 -0500
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
CC: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>, Mark McIntire <[e-mail]>
Hugh, I forwarded your proposed solution to "persent removal" to Marshall Hyatt at EPA Region 4.
Joe Corporon wrote: Marshall, thanks for your input. We have a possible solution to the issue.
Wilmington has offered to comply with 85% removal using CBOD. Would this be acceptable to EPA?
Marshall Hyatt answered: yes, 85% removal based on CBOD5 limits of 25 mg/1 monthly
avg and 40
mg/I weekly avg based on 40 CFR Part 133 would be acceptable.
Hugh, this trade is fine with DWQ. Please clarify for me. Is Wilmington willing to trade its BOD limits for
the CBOD limits listed above?
1 of 1 11/10/2004 2:54 PM

Re: re proposed permit mod for Wilmington Southside, NC0023973 -...
b
Subject: Re: re proposed permit mod for Wilmington Southside, NC0023973 - BOD5 % removal waiver
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:28:36 -0500
To: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
yes, 85% removal based on CBOD5 limits of 25 mg/1 monthly avg and 40
mg/1 weekly avg based on 40 CFR Part 133 would be acceptable.
1 of 1 11/10/2004 12:47 PM

Re: re proposed permit mod for Wilmington Southside, NC0023973 -...
Subject: Re: re proposed permit mod for Wilmington Southside, NC0023973 - BOD5 % removal waiver
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:54:06 -0500
To: [e-mail]
Marshall, thanks for your input. We have a possible solution to the issue.
Wilmington has offered to comply with 85% removal using CBOD. Would this be acceptable
to EPA?
[e-mail] wrote:
we need to talk asap.
I had a chance to review the data in the spreadsheet. If I am
interpreting it correctly, the avg influent BOD5 level for the period
May 1999-April 2004 (last 5 yrs) was 187; the avg influent level for
the period May 2000-April 2004) was 197. These values do not represent
less concentrated influent; they are fairly typical of domestic influent
BOD5 levels.
Although less concentrated influent is cited as the basis for the
waiver, it does not appear appropriate to me. I will have to object
unless we talk so I can understand what is happening here. I'm
basically free all day today and tues.
thanks Marshall
1 of 1 11/10/2004 12:48 PM

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
OCT 0 6 2004
Alan W. Klimek, Director
Division of Water • ality
North Carolina P epartment of Environment and
Natural Re • urces
1617 Mail : ervice Center
Raleigh C 27699-1617
SUBJ: Review of Draft NPDES Permit Modification
City of Wilmington Southside WWTP
Permit No. NC0023973
Dear Mr. Klimek:
fCT 1 1 2004
DIV. OF WATER QUALITY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in receipt of the draft permit modification
for the above referenced facility on September 7, 2004. Based on settlement negotiations between
your office and the permittee to resolve a permit appeal, the draft permit modifies the biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) percent removal requirement from 85% to 80%. The fact sheet cites the
special consideration for less concentrated influent at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) §
133.103(d) as the basis for this modification.
Under 40 C.F.R. § 133.103(d), to substitute a lower percent removal requirement for
BOD5, the permittee needs to meet the following factors: 1) that the facility consistently meets its
effluent concentration limits, but cannot meet its percent removal requirements due to less
concentrated influent; 2) to meet the percent removal limits, a more stringent limitation is needed
than would otherwise be required by the concentration -based standards; and 3) the less
concentrated influent is not due to excessive infiltration and inflow.
We have reviewed the underlying monthly influent and effluent BOD5 data that were
submitted. For the period May 1999-April 2004, we have calculated the monthly average influent
BOD5 level to be 187 mg/1. Based on the data provided, our review also indicates that October
1999 was the last time that the facility did not meet a minimum of 85% removal for BOD5.
The influent data cited above do not represent less concentrated influent. The data also
indicate that it has been five years since the facility failed to meet its 85% BOD5 removal
requirement. Based on this information, we conclude that the facility has not demonstrated that it
has less concentrated influent and is not able to meet percent removal requirements, as required by
the first factor in 40 C.F.R. § 133.103(d) cited above.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Posiconsumer)

2
Because the requisite demonstration identified in the first factor in 40 C.F.R. § 133.103(d)
above has not been made, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing a specific
objection to the draft permit modification that substitutes a lower BOD5 percent removal
requirement, pursuant to Section III.B.1. of the North Carolina/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) and federal regulations. The authority for this specific objection is 40 C.F.R. §§
123.44(c)(1), (4), and (7).
To resolve this specific objection, the draft permit must contain a BOD5 percent removal
minimum requirement of 85%. I request that you redraft the permit to address the specific
objection expressed above and submit a proposed final permit and a revised fact sheet to EPA for
review under the provisions of Section III.B.3. of the MOA. If you have any further questions,
please contact me or have your staff contact Mr. Marshall Hyatt of my staff at 404/562-9304.
Sincerely,
mes D. Giattina, Dlf ector
ater Management Division
cc: Hugh T. Caldwell, P.E., City of Wilmington

To Hugh Caldwell and Ken Vogt
RE: Wilmington Southside Settlement Agreement
Gentlemen, we have an unresolved issue concerning Southside WWTP.
I have provided our settlement Final documents and revised Fact Sheet Addendum to
Marshall Hyatt (EPA, Region 4) for his review and approval.
After data review, Marshall responded by saying, "These [GODS] values do not represent
less concentrated influent [1999-2004 —187 mg/L; 2000-2004 —197 mg/L]; they are fairly
typical of domestic influent BOD5 levels. Although less concentrated influent is cited as
the basis for the waiver, it does not appear appropriate to me. I will have to object..."

CITY of WILMINGTON
North Carolina
P.O. BOX 1810
28402
September 28, 2004
Mr. Edwin Lee Gavin, II
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TDD [phone]
[phone]
FAX [phone]
RECE3\IED
SEP 2 9 '404
N.C. ATTORNE. •( GENERAL
Environmental Division
Re: City of Wilmington v. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality Acting by Authority of the EMC (04 EHR 0506)
Dear Ed:
Enclosed are two (2) signed copies of the Settlement
Agreement in this contested case. After signature by the State,
please return a fully signed copy to me for the City's records.
Upon receipt of the final revised permit, I will be prepared to
file a dismissal of this case with prejudice. Thank you for
your assistance. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas C. Pollard
City Attorney
TCP/cl
Enclosures
cc: Hugh Caldwell, Director of Public Utilities

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
CITY OF WILMINGTON
Petitioner
v.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY ACTING BY AUTHORITY
OF THE EMC,
Respondent
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARING
04 EHR 0506
AGREED SETTLEMENT
The parties to the above -styled contested case, by and through their authorized
representatives, do hereby enter into this AGREED SETTLEMENT, on the following terms:
1. This case arose out of Respondent's issuance of North Carolina NPDES Permit no.
NC0023973 to Petitioner on 25 February 2004, for the operation of the M'Kean Maffitt
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the discharge of treated wastes therefrom to the Cape Fear
River. The permit's effective date was 1 March 2004. Petitioner timely filed a contested
case petition to contest certain terms of the permit. Petitioner's contested case petition
contends that Respondent erred in issuing the 1 March NPDES permit as follows:
a. by incorrectly stating the location of the instream monitoring point;
b. by imposing an 85% removal requirement on effluent BOD5;
c. by continuing to require the use of daphnia pulex as the test organism in whole
effluent toxicity (WET) testing; and
d. by imposing a twice monthly minimum effluent monitoring frequency for total zinc
and total silver.
2. Petitioner and Respondent have identified modifications which, if granted, will revise the
1 March NPDES permit and resolve this contested case. Those modifications appear in the
draft NPDES permit, marked as Exhibit A and attached to this Agreed Settlement.
3. No later than the date of the signature below which is last by date, Respondent will cause the

publication, in accordance with N.C. GEN. STAT. § 143-215.1(c), of notice of intent to grant
the modifications to the 1 March NPDES permit, as the modifications appear at Exhibit A.
4. No later than 60 days following publication of this notice of intent, if there is no public
hearing, or, if there is significant public interest and a public hearing is held, within 90 days
following the consideration of the matters and things presented at the public hearing, and
pursuant to review of the major permit modifications in Exhibit A by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent will grant or deny the modifications to the
1 March NPDES permit as they appear in Exhibit A. If Respondent's action is to deny the
NPDES permit modifications, then this settlement is void and of no further effect. However,
if Respondent's action is to grant the modifications, the 1 March NPDES permit shall be
thereby modified. Furthermore, no later than 30 days following the date of receipt of notice
that the modifications have been granted, Petitioner will file a voluntary dismissal with
prejudice of the contested case in the Office of Administrative Hearings, and will serve a
copy of the voluntary dismissal on Respondent.
5. This Agreed Settlement will take effect on the date of the signature below which is last by
date.
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA FOR THE CITY OF WILMINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
(Date) / (Date) 9'L0¢"
David A. Goodrich Hugh( aldwell
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
Director of Public Utilities
A F n
(Date) v c, �/�v'i1`-ec-Z (Date) `'1�L4710/
Edwin Lee Gavin II Thomas C. Pollard, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 1810
9001 Mail Service Center Wilmington, NC 28402
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
2

Permit NC0023973
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 provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations
promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended,
City of Wilmington
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from outfalls located at the
M'Kean Maffitt (Southside) Wastewater Treatment Plant
3436 River Road, Wilmington
New Hanover County
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, and III
hereof.
This permit shall become effective 1, 2004.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2006.
Signed this day , 2004.
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0023973
Supplement to Cover Sheet
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as
of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive
authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and
provisions described herein.
City of Wilmington
is hereby authorized:
1. to continue discharging 12.0 MGD of domestic and industrial wastewater from the existing
wastewater treatment facility consisting of
• force -main interceptor vault
• standby manual bar screen and comminuter
• dual (2) mechanical bar screens, each with grit removal and storage unit
• splitter box
• dual (2) primary clarifiers
• dual (2) trickling filters (180 feet diameter)
• short-term aeration basin
• splitter box
• three (3) screw lift pumps
• chlorine disinfection facilities
• dual (2) secondary clarifiers
• return activated sludge pumping station
• flash mixer for chlorine gas
• dual (2) chlorine contact chambers
• outfall structure with flow meter
• lift -station generator, automatically activated (with back up generators)
• primary and waste -activated sludge pump stations
• sludge: two gravity -belt thickeners, two filter presses; four digesters (3 hot); alkaline stabilization,
covered storage area
• solids land application
located at the M'Kean Maffitt (Southside) Wastewater Treatment Plant, 3436 River Road,
Wilmington, New Hanover County, and
2. to discharge from said treatment facility through Outfall 001 at a specified location (see attached
map) into the Cape Fear River, a waterbody classified as SC waters within the Cape Fear River
Basin.

Permit NC0023973
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the permit effective date and lasting until expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge treated
wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Flow (MGD)
12.0
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20° C 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I and E
Total Suspended Solids 2
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
Total Residual Chlorine4
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
pH5
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Cyanide 6
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Acute Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen 8
Variable 9
Grab
U, D
Temperature 8
Variable 9
Grab
U, D
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: I = influent; E = effluent; U = Upstream at a point equidistant between the radio tower due north of
the WWTP and the northern end of the dredge spoil island immediately west of the outfall; D = downstream at a point
equidistant between the mouth of Barnards Creek and the southern end of the dredge spoil island.
2. The monthly average effluent for Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective
influent value (i.e., 85% removal is required); and effluent BOD5 concentrations shall not exceed 20 % of the respective
influent value (i.e., 80% removal is required).
3. Calculate Fecal Coliform using the geometric mean (see procedure Part II. Section A ,Paragraph 9b)
4. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) monitoring shall apply only if chlorine is used. With the adoption of a TRC Standard
for saltwater, this permit may be reopened to include a TRC limit.
5. pH shall not fall below 6.8 nor exceed 8.5 standard units.
6. Total Cyanide: Levels reported below 10 µg/L will be considered zero for permit compliance purposes.
7. Acute Toxicity — (Ceriodaphnia dubia, 24-hour) No significant mortality @ 90 %, March, June, September, and
December [see Special Condition, Section A. (2.)]
8. Stream Sampling — the permittee has deferred receiving -stream sampling to the Lower Cape Fear River Association by
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Should this MOA terminate for any reason, the Permittee shall immediately inform
the Division of Water Quality in writing and immediately resume instream monitoring in accordance with this permit.
9. Variable Frequency — Stream samples 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 MGD = million gallons per day
BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand ml = milliliters
Discharge shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0023973
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITION
A (2). 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 March, June, September, and December.
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.

Upstream
Sample Point
Downstream
City of Wilmington
M'Kean Maffitt (Southside) WWTP
Receiving Stream: Cape Fear River Drainage Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
Latitude: 34° 09' 56" N Sub -Basin: 03-06-17
Longitude: 77° 56' 56" W Permitted Flow: 12.0 MGD
Stream Class: SC Grid/Quad: K 27 NW / Wilmington, NC
Facility
Location
not to scale
North
NPDES Permit No. NC0023973
New Hanover County

re proposed permit mod for Wilmington Southside, NC0023973 - BO...
Subject: re proposed permit mod for Wilmington Southside, NC0023973 - BOD5 % removal waiver
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:33:56 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
I know that the proposed mod to allow 80% as the limit for BOD5 percent
removal is to resolve an appeal with the City. I have looked at the
spreadsheet that you sent and I have very serious questions about why
any waiver is needed. I need to talk to you about this to ensure that I
am reading the table correctly. I also have asked and must know what
specific section of 40 CFR 133.103 is the waiver based on. That is not
cited in your fact sheet.
Our deadline for responding to the proposed mod is Oct 6. I want to
discuss this with you, but if I can't, I will have to send an objection
letter. I am out of the office today after 10:30, but am in Fri, Mon,
Tues. Pls let me know when is the earliest we can discuss this.
thanks Marshall
ji/af
8P-(70-(>1
Irmij
`"1—/ Ce"YI51 I
AibC)e-c /4-
r[
«-\
2) ,lzSf S
1-sc,-() [4 gCt
< ryd,47;47)
C
1 of 1 9/30/2004 11:26 AM

w fG',t�.

Facility Name =
NPDES It =
Qw (MGM_
7Q10s
!WC ('Ai)
Wilmington (Southside) WWTP
NC0023973
12
0
100.00
FINAL RESULTS
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
3.54
0.10
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
Number
of data points
HITS
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
0.2879
2.1
0.1379
33
5
I.18
3.00 pg/I
3.54 µg/I
0.10 µgll
Parameter =
Standard =
Silver
0.10
Date n < Actual Data BDL=1/2DL
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
JuI.98
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99 1 3.0
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99 2 <
JuI-99
Aug-99
Sep-99 3 <
Oct-99
Nov-99 4 < 2.0
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00 5
Apr-00 6 < 2.0
May-00
Jun-00
Jul-00
Aug-00 7 < 2.0
Sep-00
Oct-00 8 <
Nov-00
Dcc-00
Jan-01 9 2.0 2.0
Feb-01 10 < 2.0 1.0
Mar-01 11 2.0 2.0
Apr-0I 12 < 2.0 1.0
May-01 13 < 2.0 1.0
Jun-01 14 < 2.0 1.0
Jul-01 15 < 2.0 1.0
Aug-0I 16 < 2.0 1.0
Sep-01 17 < 2.0 1.0
Oct-01 18 < 2.0 1.0
Nov-01 19 < 2.0 1.0
Dec-01 20 < 2.0 1.0
Apr-97 21 3.0 3.0 LTMP data
Aug-97 22 < 2.0 1.0 LTMP data
Nov-97 23 < 2.0 1.0 LTMP data
Mar-98 24 < 2.0 1.0 LTMP data
May-98 25 < 2.0 1.0 LTMP data
Aug-98 26 < 2.0 1.0 LTMP data
Nov-98 27 < 2.0 1.0 LTMP data
Jun-99 28 <
3.0
2.0
2.0 1.0
2.0
2.0 1.0
1.0 LTMP data
2.0 2.0
1.0 LTMP data
1.o LTMP data
2.0 1.0 LTMP data
2.0 1.0 LTMP data
Nov-99 29 < 2.0 1.0
Mar-00 30 3.0 3.0
Feb-02 32 < 2.0 1.0
May-02 33 < 2.0 1.0
LTMP data
LTMP data
14A

P'e1e.seeneseneecem Poll
7471022111
11
MIL MILTS
RESULT'S
Sul Ik,
ltece
cr.
losJ
A...I.I..(. Mn .,A
we . .aewrwa MUI..In11.
2.aw
el.w
!L.•w 1 2110 21en
Ap•w
41 •w
leave 2 120 12le
1r1-w
3,119 3 c Inn yn
Oel-w
ti..•w a 29 re 29u
0...91
L.AeI
1'.I.rn
ll.in S 17.n IT11
A2.•d1 e. a non 7n
11y in
Roam
RAitl
.).g10 7 c 14117 111
Sep.nl
Qlin } Inn inn
S.rm
11ee•n1
Jre-111 9 Is el {F0
WAS In 13 i1 tin
11.41 11 22n 27n
AP-n1 12 172. t 2 n
llq.nl I? ton Pen
Poem, Ii 171i Itn
1.1171 13 tin 1111
.W,ill in 111n I1tn
S.pi11 17 c Inn an
0111i1 I} a lent to
N..fil 19 17n 1711
Uw111 2A I4 el Ibn
An.17 21 17n 17n
.b,.97 I2 inn P1n
7 97 1111 11 n
11.•97 21 111e 1141
11y•9'1 ri 1}.b Ian
A.,AI 21. 12u 1241
0041 27 . ton So
F.1.02 21
Sly-112 79
tTl.IP o 'o
tIMP Ose0
ITMP OOIO
LIMP ow.
ITMPOOto
LIMP onto
li1.SP U7t0
LTM.IP we.
ITMP data
ITMP ost0
ITMP alto
LTMP OOf.
OAP OOtO

Wilmington, NC Public Utilities Department Wastewater Treatment Division
Treatment Plant Loadings SOUTHSIDE 23973
< 85% removal Altered to permit limit @ Permittees request
Date
Jan, 1997
Feb, 1997
Mar, 1997
Apr, 1997
May, 1997
Jun, 1997
Jul, 1997
Aug, 1997
Sep, 1997
Oct, 1997
Nov, 1997
Dec, 1997
Jan, 1998
Feb, 1998
Mar, 1998
Apr, 1998
May, 1998
Jun, 1998
Jul, 1998
Aug, 1998
Sep, 1998
Oct, 1998
Nov, 1998
Dec, 1998
Jan, 1999
Feb, 1999
Mar, 1999
Apr, 1999
May, 1999
Jun, 1999
< 85% removal, but with limit violation
Permit Actual
SSWWTP
IBODC
162.8
164.5
163.9
169.1
167.2
181.4
172
190.9
177.8
187
175.6
176.5
165.5
136.8
162
166.3
183.5
170
189
177
129
191
191
201
176
186
198
195
165
191
SSW\ASSWWTP
EBOD( %BODrem
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
81.
81.7
82.3
82.1
83.5
82.6
84.3
83.1
84.0
82.9
83.0
81.9
78.1
81.5
82.0
83.7
82.4
84.1
83.1
76.7
84.
83.9
84.8
84.6
81.8
84.3j
SSWWTP
EBODC
17.3
18.1
22.3
19.2
12.1
18.5
21.6
19
20.4
20.3
21.4
20.4
18.4
18.3
20.7
23
21.6
28
22
21
22
27
30
29.6
24
23
30
30
25
25
Actual
SSWWTP SSWWTP
%BODrem ITSSC
137.3
89.0 128
86.4 164.9
88.6 144.8
92.8 150.3
89.8 192.8
87.4 164.2
90.0 204.1
88.5 193.2
89.1 189.3
87.8 191.5
88.4 189.3
88.9 164.9
86.6 175
87.2 158.8
86.2 141.7
88.2 157.9
83.5 146.3
88.4 151.2
88.1 148.5
82.9 135.3
85.9 139.9
157.5
85.3 158.4
86.4 169
87.6 159
156
154
84.8 155
86.9 179
Permit
SSW W. SSWWTP
ETSSC %TSSrem
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30 85.3
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
78.2
76.6
81.8
79.3
80.0
4.4
84.5
84.2
84.3
84.2
81.8
82.9
81.1
78.8
81.0
7911
80`
77.8
77.8
78.6
81.0
81.1
82.2
81.1
80
80.5.
80.6
83.1
Actual Actual
SSWWTP SSWWTP
ETSSC %TSSrem
2.5 98.2
2.6 98.0
2.7 98.4
2.3 98.4
1.7 98.9
1.9 99.0
2.3 98.6
1.6 99.2
2.3 98.8
1.6 99.2
2.2 98.9
3.6 98.1
2.9 98.2
3 98.3
3.8 97.6
4.2 97.0
3.5 97.8
2.5 98.3
2.2 98.5
2.8 98.1
3.2 97.6
3.7 97.4
4.7 97.0
4.5 97.2
4 97.6
4.5 97.2
3.7 97.6
3.8 97.5
3.4 97.8
3.2 98.2

Jul, 1999 184 30
Aug, 1999 188 30
Sep, 1999 138 30
Oct, 1999 139 30
Nov, 1999 169 30
Dec, 1999 169 30
Jan, 2000 134 30
Feb, 2000 140 30
Mar, 2000 159 30
Apr, 2000 158 30
May, 2000 205 30
Jun,2000 197 30
Jul, 2000 175 30
Aug,2000 162 30
Sep,2000 153 30
Oct, 2000 175 30
Nov,2000 195 30
Dec,2000 187 30
Jan,2001 186 30
Feb, 2001 201 30
Mar, 2001 186 30
Apr, 2001 207 30
May, 2001 227 30
Jun, 2001 212 30
Jul, 2001 209 30
Aug, 2001 208 30
Sep, 2001 205 30
Oct, 2001 208 30
Nov,2001 216 30
Dec, 2001 242 30
Jan, 2002 228 30
Feb, 2002 175 30 f-
Mar, 2002 171 30
Apr, 2002 170 30
May, 2002 173 30
Jun, 2002 157 30
Jul, 2002 197 30
83.7
84.0
78.31
78.4
82.2!
82.2
77.6
78.6
81.1I
81.0
85.4
84.8
82.9i
81.51
80.4
84.6:84.6'
84,0
85.1
85.5
86.8
85.8
85.6
85.6
85.4
85.6
86.1
87.6
86.8
82.91
82.5
82.4
82.7
80.9
84.8
25 86.4 178 30 r 83.1 5.6 96.9
21 88.8 172 30 82.6 3.9 97.7
23 83.3 131 30 r 77.1 3.5 97.3
30 78..4 115 30 73.9 3.1 97.3
21 87.6 135 30 77.8 2.5 98.1
21 87.6 132 30 77.3 4 97.0
14 89.6 139 30 78.4 5.1 96.3
14 90.0 130 30 t 76.9 4.7 96.4
23 85.5 140 30 78.6 4.4 96.9
22 86.1 142 30 78.9 4 97.2
22 89.3 168 30 82.1 3.3 98.0
20 89.8 166 30 81.9 3.4 98.0
20 88.6 155 30 IP 80.6 3 98.1
22 86.4 143 30 79.0 3 97.9
21 86.3 133 30 77.4 2.9 97.8
19 89.1 138 30 78.3 2.8 98.0
26 86.7 156 30 r 80.8' 3.5 97.8
25 86.6 149 30 7 ° 5.7 96.2
27 85.5 144 30 79 5.9 95.9
18 91.0 170 30 82.4 5.4 96.8
18 90.3 163 30 81.6 4.7 97.1
19 90.8 188 30 84.0 4.6 97.6
19 91.6 181 30 r 83.4 2.9 98.4
24 88.7 161 30 81.4 3.5 97.8
18 91.4 167 30 82.0 3.2 98.1
20 90.4 191 30 84.3 2.9 98.5
16 92.2 150 30 80.0 4.8 96.8
18 91.3 166 30 81.9 3.3 98.0
19 91.2 160 30 814113.9 97.6
19 92.1 166 30 81.9 3.6 97.8
23 89.9 154 30 IL 80A 5.1 96.7
19 89.1 176 30 - 81r. 4.6 97.4
21 87.7 158 30 81.0 3.7 97.7
23 86.5 177 30 83.1 3.2 98.2
18 89.6 182 30 83.5 2.4 98.7
21 86.6 174 30 82.8 2.6 98.5
24 87.8 191 30 841 3.2 98.3

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Wilmington Southside -- New Data for Ag and Zn
NC0023973
Time Period 0
Qw (MGD) 12
7Q10S (cfs) 0
7Q10W (cfs) 0
30Q2 (cfs) 0
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 0
Rec'ving Stream Cape Fear
WWTP Class IV
IWC (%) @ 7Q10S N/A
@ 7Q10W N/A
@ 30Q2 N/A
@ QA N/A
Stream Class SC
Outfall 001
Qw=12MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWCS/
Chronic
14FAV/
Acute
n
# Det. Max Pred Cw AllowableCw
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
1.9
ug/L
28
2
4.8
Acute: 2
Chronic:LU #VAE!
AL = if no tox, Monitor only 2/Month
---_—_—_----------------- ------
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
23
19
643.5
Acute: 67
Chronic:#VALUE!
AL = if no tox, Monitor only 2/Month
---_— ---_—_—_—_—_-------_—_----
* Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
23973 New Data Ag and Zn, rpa
8/12/2004

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Silver
Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Feb-00 3.0 3.0 Std Dev. 0.4163
2 Mar-00 < 2.0 1.0 Mean 1.1071
3 Apr-00 C.V. 0.3760
4 May-00 n 28
5 Jun-00
6 Jul-00 < 2.0 1.0 Mult Factor = 1.6000
7 Aug-00 < 2.0 1.0 Max. Value 3.0 ug/L
8 Sep-00 Max. Pred Cw 4.8 ug/L
9 Oct-D0
10 Nov-00
11 Dec-00
12 Jan-01 < 2.0 1.0
13 Feb-01 < 2.0 1.0
14 Mar-0I 2.0 2.0
15 Apr-01 < 2.0 1.0
16 May-01 < 2.0 1.0
17 Jun-01 < 2.0 1.0
18 Jul-01 < 2.0 1.0
19 Aug-01 < 2.0 1.0
20 Sep-01 < 2.0 1.0
21 Oc1-01 < 2.0 1.0
22 Nov-01 < 2.0 1.0
23 Dec-01 < 2.0 1.0
24 Jan-02
25 Feb-02 < 2.0 1.0
26 Mar-02
27 Apr-02
28 May-02 < 2.0 1.0
29 Jun-02
30 Jul-02
31 Aug-02 < 2.0 1.0
32 Sep-02
33 Oct-02
34 Nov-02 < 2.0 1.0
35 Dec-02
36 Jan-03
37 Feb-03
38 Mar-03 < 2.0 1.0
39 Apr-03
40 May-03 < 2.0 1.0
41 Jun-03
42 Jul-03
43 Aug-03
44 Scp-03 < 2.0 1.0
45 Oct-03
46 Nov-03 < 2.0 1.0
47 Dec-03
48 Jan-04 < 2.0 1.0
49 Feb-04 < 2.0 1.0
50 Mar-04 < 2.0 1.0
51 Apr-04 2 1.0
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Dec-96 0\ 18.0 18.0 Std Dev. 27.5953
2 Jan-97 15.0 15.0 Mean 19.0435
3 Feb-97 27.0 27.0 C.V. 1.4491
4 Mar-97 13.0 13.0 n 23
5 Apr-97 10.0 10.0
6 May-97 12.0 12.0 Mult Factor = 4.5000
7 Jun-97 14.0 14.0 Max. Value 143.0 ug/L
8 Jul-97 -"all"" 143.0 143.0 Max. Pred Cw 643.5 ug/L
9 Aug-97 < 10.0 5.0
10 Sep-97 < 10.0 5.0
11 Oct-97 13.0 13.0
12 Nov-97 16.0 16.0
13 Dcc-97 18.0 18.0
14 Jan-08 17.0 17.0
15 Feb-98 14.0 14.0
16 Mar-98 20.0 20.0
17 Apr-98 10.0 10.0
18 May-98 12.0 12.0
19 Jun-98 14.0 14.0
20 Jul-98 22.0 22.0
21 Aug-98 10.0 10.0
22 Sep-98 < 10.0 5.0
23 < to.o 5.0
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
gri
-2-
23973 New Data Ag and Zn, data
8112/2004

f
Ed Gavin to Joe -- 11 Aug04 — e-mail:
Two weeks ago on Friday you informed me that this case would settle, and I informed
you that if we had not settled it by this week we would of necessity start discovery. I also
informed you that there would be time only for one single round.
Please arrange to meet with me tomorrow afternoon for half an hour to give me your
discovery needs: documents you want, things you want admitted, questions for which
you have no answers.
Let me know the time you want to meet and I will walk over to your office.
rAc,Nuc&L(- .1rd- 34r-3kcoc
C-6 06cf
)1/ fr,

[Fwd: Re: Southside Stuff]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Southside Stuff]
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:25:37 -0400
To: joe corporon <[e-mail]>
FYI...
Original Message
Subject:Re: Southside Stuff
Date:Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:32:54 -0400
From:Ed Gavin <[e-mail]>
To:<dave.goodrich @ ncmail.net>
Thank you. The date by which you must complete all discovery is August 30. If the case is not resolved by August
5 I will need to meet with you to prepare your discovery requests. This will allow one round for the following:
identification of their experts, the subject matter of their testimony, a short statement of opinions to which they will
testify, and a summary of the grounds for the opinions; the documents supporting their position on unresolved
issues; and the factual basis for their claims. Be aware that if both the 85% reduction parameters (TSS and BOD)
are not resolved, then Tommy Pollard will take them to hearing. That means that even though you now think that
one is resolved, if the other is not, the agreement on the one is out the window.
T»> Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]> 07/23/04 10:51AM »>
I spoke with Hugh a couple of days ago, and we both believe that we are very close to settlement. The case will
settle.
1 of 2 8/11/2004 2:47 PM

[Fwd: Re: Southside Stuff]
Ed Gavin wrote:
David --can you brief me on what's happening here? On July 12, when I returned from vacation, I asked Joe for a
briefing on case developments. The communication below is the only response I've had. Are you going to settle
this case? If not, we need to meet Monday so that I can complete the discovery requests and get them out to the
other side.
Thanks,
Ed
»> Joe Corporon <[e-mail]> 07/21/04 04:34PM »>
Hugh, I just touched base with Dave. He said you had not received our
input in writing. Sony, I thought I sent you something right after our
phone conversation. I have some thoughts drafted but need to review
with Dave. I will be out of town in training for the next two days.
We'll send you info on monday July 26.
Thanks.
2 of 2 8/11/2004 2:47 PM

Page 1 of 1
From: "Joe Corporon" <[e-mail]>
To: "Ed Gavin" <[e-mail]>; "Dave Goodrich" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: Wilmington Southside
Good morning, Councilor Gavin,
1) Have received Wilmington's comments that ceriodaphnia dubia is tentatively working as TOX
species. , (
2) Have revisited RPA for Ag and n considerin: new received data set. Be as ised, both still
show RP (Ag max predicted = ",5max allowed g/L. Zn max predicte• . 1 max allowed
mg/L) RP = YES = Action Leve = monitor only, no imit; frequency depends on flow, Class IV =
2/Mont y).
•
Therefore, No apparent changes to the Final Permit regarding metals. A \��'< ?/ r s ?
3) Have located relevant DWQ memo discussing permitting guidance as, Limits and Monitoring for
Cyanide and Metals (April 28, 1999) from Bethany Bolt through Dave Goodrich (note Table, Page 1).
No e-copy; will fax.
4) RE: % removal -- Revised BOD5/TSS data suggest no revision for TSS; but appear to indicate a
possible BOD5 reduction to 83%, based on Dave's assessment; let's discuss as point of negotition.
5) Dave to set up conference call (?) with permittee.
More later, thanks,
Joe
Ed Gavin wrote:
I have sent you the BOD and TSS spread sheets. and the Zinc table. Tommy Pollard will have someone send you a request identifying what
Wilmington wants as the the WET test organism. That will be a starting point. When you get it phone me. I think it may be that Wilmington may
use either organism. Tommy understands that what they test under the permit must be reponed. I understand from him that Wilmington has been
testing c. dubia at 100% and observes no problems. Perhaps they will relent on c. dubia.
ca
8/11/2004

�r
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
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 applica-
tion of NC General Stat-
ute 143.21, Public law 92-
500 and other lawful
standards and regula-
tions, .the North Carolina
Environmental Manage-
ment Commission pro-
poses to issue a National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPQES) wastewater dis-
charge permit to the per-
son(s) listed below effec-
tive 45 days from the
publish date of this no-
tice: .
Written comments re-
garding the proposed
pennit will be accepted
until 30 days after the
publish date of. this no-
tice. All comments re-
ceived prior to that date
are considered in the fi-
naldeterminations re-
garding the proposed
permit. The Director 'of
the NC Division of Water
Quality may decide . to
hold a public meeting for
the , proposed permit
should the Division re-
ceive a significant degree
of public interest.
Copies of the draft permit
and other supporting.in-
formation on file used to
determine conditions
present in the draft per-
mit are available upon
request and payment of
.the costs of reproduction..
Mail " comments and/or
requests for information
to the NC Division of Wa-
ter Quality at the above
address or calf Ms. Caro,
lyn Bryant at (919) 733-
5083, extension 520. •
Please include the NPDES
• permit number (attached)
in any communication.
Interested persons may
also visit the Division of
Water Quality at 512 N.
Sallsbury Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604-1148between
the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5i00 p.m. to review
information on file.
City of Wilmington
M'Kean Maffitt (South -
side) WWTP, NPDES per-
mit No. NC0023973. has
applied to modify its
permit discharging to the
Cape Fear Rive Basic
within the Cape Fear
River Basin. Fecal coli-
form is water -quality lim-
ited. This discharge may
affect future wasteload
allocations within this
drainage.
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Said County and State,
DIANE P. KEENAN
Who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to the law, says that he/she is
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING MANAGER
of THE STAR -NEWS, INC., 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 N
was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper in space, and on dates as follows:
9/41x
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 .C.
•
Title: CLASSIFI D ADVER. MGR
Swor or affirmed to, and subscribed before me this q 4 day of
se ( ember , A.D., & ol-
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and
year aforesaid.
Notary Public
My commission expires 05 day ofAILS"f 2003
e aforegoing affidavit with the advertisement thereto annexed it is adjudged by the Court that the said
properly made and that the summons has been duly and legally served on the defendant(s).
of
Clerk of Superior Court

NPDES Permit, Wilmington WWTP
Subject: NPDES Permit, Wilmington WWTP
From: "Lees.Sabo" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:37:39 -0400
To: carolyn bryant <[e-mail]>
CC: j d potts <[e-mail]>, Christine Miller <[e-mail]>, Lees Sabo
<[e-mail]>
Ms. Bryant,
Please send a copy of the draft permit modification to the Southside
Wllmington WWTP NPDES # NC0023973 to me at the following address:
Lees Sabo
PO Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Thank you.
Environmental Specialist II
Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality
Division of Environental Health. DENR
of,b-
1 of 1
9/13/2004 6:56 AM

NCDENR/DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Section/Point Source Branch
April 28, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: NPDES Unit, Pretreatment Unit, Point Source Compliance and Enforcement Unit,
Regional Officessy�,,
Through: Dave Goodrich�X
From: Bethany Bolt `&
Subject: Limits and Monitoring for Cyanide and Metals
Various approaches to toxicant monitoring and limits have prevailed in NPDES permits in the past, resulting in
inconsistencies statewide. In addition, controversies surrounding analytical methods for parameters like cyanide (CN)
and mercury (Hg) have complicated compliance determinations for some facilities. This memo describes and clarifies our
current approach to implementing chemical specific toxicant monitoring and limits, including CN.
Determining Need for Limits and Monitoring Frequencies
Upon renewal, a permit writer determines whether or not a limit is necessary based on reasonable potential analysis (see
Attachment A). The 7Q10 (summer) flow is used for calculating allowable concentrations of toxicants with aquatic life
standards and human health standards that are non -carcinogenic (e.g., CN); the average flow (Q) is used for carcinogens
(e.g., benzene); and 30Q2 flow is used when applying aesthetic standards (e.g., phenolic compounds). Monitoring should
then be given in accordance with the table below:
• a . Z:, •: iabl ! Qten s E �L
1 JA1 J ! e, li{J 1 �*' -Xl C •�. L.
4._ :%•'"°; L� J v-T'C'?.
' NJ 1 ! k a4'.. LISS'i.. ! Y q i
ia"... _ i' `�A'wi�b -%-
. .'
;':: • "':'. .:
No —Monitoring on y
Month y
2 Mont.
Yes— Limit
2/Month
Weekly
Monitoring should also be specified to occur in conjunction with any Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) monitoring at the
facility, so that future data may be compared with WET test results.
Exceptions to Monitoring Frequencies:
• Unless a limit applies, a municipality that already monitors for a particular toxicant as part of its Long Term Monitoring
Plan (LTMP) does not need to monitor the parameter as part of the permit.
• If the past twelve (12) months of data indicate levels are below quantitation or detection limits (especially for industries),
monitoring may be reduced to quarterly.
Quantitation Levels
The lowest quantifiable level of a chemical in a sample is the "quantitation level." Depending upon the sensitivity of the
analytical instrument and techniques used, various quantitation levels apply for different parameters. In light of information
available regarding cyanide measurement techniques, the Division feels it is reasonable to specify the total CN quantitation
level (QL) as 10 µg/1 (10 ppb). This information should be footnoted on the effluent page(s). Cyanide values reported as
<10 µg/1 should be considered compliant with the permit limit.

t
4/28/99 Memorandum, p. 2 of 3
Limits and Monitoring for CN and Metals
Exceptions to Quantitation Levels:
Towns such as Winston-Salem have conducted studies to demonstrate to the Division that a quantitation level other than 10
µg/1 should apply. Winston-Salem invested significant effort into conducting a thorough, site -specific study in order to
determine a QL suitable for its own wastewater.
The Division is also now specifying the total mercury QL as 0.2 µg/1 (also footnoted on the effluent page). It is worthy to
note that EPA has proposed a new method for analyzing mercury (Method 1631), which has a quantitation level (referred to
by EPA as Minimum Level, or MI) of 0.0005 µg/1 (0.5 ng/1). However, the Division's laboratory feels this method poses
quantitation problems in complex wastewaters and has not yet accepted Method 1631 as appropriate for effluent monitoring
in North Carolina (only accepted for drinking water analysis).
For reference, the following ranges of quantitation levels (referred to by our lab as "Practical Quantitation Levels," or PQLs)
are achievable for these commonly monitored metals: Cadmium (Cd)— 1-10 µg/1, Chromium (Cr)-- 5-100 µg/l, Copper
(Cu)— 2-20 µg/1, Nickel (Ni)-- 5-100 µg/1, Lead (Pb)— 5-100 µg/l, and Zinc (Zn)— 10-2000 µg/l. The NPDES permit only
requires that the test procedure produce data below the permitted limit, if possible; therefore, laboratory QLs may vary with
the facility's calculated limit.
Compliance Periods: Daily Maximum and Weekly Average Limits
In the past, a daily maximum limit for a toxicant was the oy limit placed in the permit. This limit was based on the water
quality standard. Because North Carolina adopted standards based on chronic criteria, the Division imposed a daily maximum
limit to protect against both chronic and acute effects (a daily maximum reflects acute criteria, and a weekly average reflects
chronic). Some treatment plants experience periodic violations of this daily maximum limit, however, and have requested
t1-at their limit be moved to a weekly average —a value more reflective of the chronic basis. The Division has agreed to
.odify toxicant limits for these facilities by including a new daily maximum limit equal to one half of the Final Acute Value
('/ FAV) established by EPA'. The 1/2 FAV is given directly, without taking into account dilution, because the undiluted
pollutant must meet acute criteria (i.e., the daily maximum limit must protect for an acute exposure of aquatic life to the
effluent as it initially enters surface waters).
The process is different for mercury, however. Because this element readily converts to the extremely bioaccumulative
methyl -mercury form, the Division has not deemed the 2 FAV for Hg (2.4 µg/1) an acceptable daily maximum limit at this
time. To solidify its policy on applying limits for metals, the Division will now consistently apply daily maximum and
weekly average limits for CN and metals (except Hg) for all facilities with reasonable potential to exceed allowable -
concentrations. Daily maximum limits shall be the lfi FAV; and weekly average limits shall be based on the water quality
standard and dilution at the appropriate flow conditions (see mass balance in Attachment A).
Some older permits may not be consistent with this practice. Previously, the diluted 'k FAV was compared to four times the
weekly average, and the permit writer chose the more stringent of the two as the daily maximum. The method was
developed to prevent a facility from violating both limits with one measurement, but the Division no longer applies this
policy (the rationale being that a violation of both limits is no more reprehensible than a violation of one limit with just one
data point.)
I From December 5, 1993 Memo to Instream Assessment Unit from Dave Goodrich (Attachment C).

4/28/99 Memorandum, p. 2 of 3
Limits and Monitoring for CN and Metals
Exceptions to Quantitation Levels:
Towns such as Winston-Salem have -conducted studies to demonstrate to the Division that a quantitation level other than 10
' µg/I should apply. Winston-Salem invested significant effort into conducting a thorough, site -specific study in order to
determine a QL suitable for its own wastewater.
The Division is also now specifying the total mercury QL as 0.2 µg/1(also footnoted on the effluent page). It is worthy to
note that EPA has proposed a new method for analyzing mercury (Method 1631), which has a quantitation level (referred to
by EPA as Minimum Level, or ML) of 0.0005 µg/1 .(0.5 ng/1). However, the Division's laboratory feels this method poses
quantitation problems in complex wastewaters and has not yet accepted Method 1631 as appropriate for effluent monitoring
in North Carolina (only accepted for drinking water analysis).
For reference, the following ranges of quantitation levels (referred to by our lab as "Practical Quantitation Levels," or PQLs)
are achievable for these commonly monitored metals: Cadmium (Cd)— 1-10 µg/I, Chromium (Cr)— 5-100 µg/1, Copper
(Cu)— 2-20 µg/1, Nickel (Ni)— 5-100 µg/1, Lead (Pb)— 5-100 µg/1, and Zinc (Zn)— 10-2000 µg/1. The NPDES permit only
requires that the test procedure produce data below the permitted limit, if possible; therefore, laboratory QLs may vary with
the facility's calculated limit.
Compliance Periods: Daily Maximum and Weekly Average Limits
In the past, a daily maximum limit for a toxicant was the only anit placed in the permit. This limit was based on the water
quality standard. Because North Carolina adopted standards based on chronic criteria, the Division imposed a daily maximum
limit to protect against both chronic and acute effects (a daily maximum reflects acute criteria, and a weekly average reflects
chronic). Some treatment plants experience periodic violations of this daily maximum limit, however, and have requested
that their limit be moved to a weekly average— a value more reflective of the chronic basis. The Division has agreed to
modify toxicant limits for these facilities by including a new daily maximum limit equal to one half of the Final Acute Value
(/ FAV) established by EPA'. The 'k FAV is given directly, without taking into account dilution, because the undiluted
pollutant must meet acute criteria (i.e., the daily maximum limit must protect for an acute exposure of aquatic life to the
effluent as it initially enters surface waters).
The process is different for mercury, however. Because this element readily converts to the extremely bioaccumulative
methyl -mercury form, the Division has not deemed the 1 FAV for Hg (2.4 µg/1) an acceptable daily maximum limit at this
time. To solidify its policy on applying limits for metals, the Division will now consistently apply daily maximum and
weekly average limits for CN and metals (except Hg) for all facilities with reasonable potential to exceed allowable -
concentrations. Daily maximum limits shall be the 'fi FAV, and weekly average limits shall be based on the water quality
standard and dilution at the appropriate flow conditions (see mass balance in Attachment A).
Some older permits may not be consistent with this practice. Previously, the diluted '/z FAV was compared to four times the
weekly average, and the permit writer chose the more stringent of the two as the daily maximum. The method was
developed to prevent a facility from violating both limits with one measurement, but the Division no longer applies this
policy (the rationale being that a violation of both limits is no more reprehensible than a violation of one limit with just one
data point.)
' From December 5, 1993 Memo to Instream Assessment Unit from Dave Goodrich (Attachment C).

4/28/99 Memorandum, p. 3 of 3
Limits and Monitoring for CN and Metals
Exceptions to Limits:
If the ih FAV is more stringent than the weekly average limit, then only the daily maximum limit is needed. For example,
the 1 FAV for lead is 33.8 µg/l. If the weekly average limit based on the water quality standard (25 µg/1) were 40 14/1, only
the daily maximum limit would be necessary for lead.
Also, when dilution modeling is performed (such as with FORTRON or Takeda), the daily maximum and/or weekly average
limit may be replaced by a value determined by the model.
Hopefully this clarifies the Division's current policy for applying metals and CN limits, as well as explains most
circumstances in which exceptions are made. It is our aim to more accurately represent the criteria of the standards and to
specify reasonable quantitation levels for some parameters. -
Cc: Coleen Sullins, DWQ
Caroline Ejimifor, U.S. EPA

I have read the exchange between you and Hugh Caldwell. The parties' prehearing statements
are due April 30.
Prehearing meeting 1st week in May -- It appears that you and he are attempting to set up an
informal meeting in the first week in May to attempt to resolve the contested conditions. I will
contact counsel for Wilmington and ask him if he will join me in a motion to extend the date for
the preparation and filing of the prehearing statements of the parties until the second week in
May. Of course, Wilmington should agree that all statements at the informal meeting are subject
to Rule 408 (providing that evidence of a compromise or an offer of compromise of a claim is
not admissible to prove the validity of the claim itself). If Wilmington will not agree to this --
something which I would find most unusual and do not expect --then I will not recommend this
informal meeting to you. I do not recommend any further extension of the time past the second
week in May for the filing of the prehearing statement. Your discovery must be completed by
the end of August, you have compulsory mediation which must be completed by July 7, and
there will be plenty of people, including me, who will be on extended vacations this summer, so
lots of that discovery period will be thus lost. I note in particular that my vacation will be in the
first two weeks of July (I am going to paint my living room, and then get lost in Joyce
Kilmer/Slickrock). This means that we must complete any mediation by the end of June.
You have previously informed me that our witness is Joe Corporan. Janet will tell Joe what we
require to complete the prehearing statement. Make sure that you keep Janet advised of any
development. I am going to be in and out of the office for several days, looking after my
mother's needs. Thanks!

iF°9 1 c
r(.3 /1A
efp WilCC
Vs7f
Wilmington, NC Public Utilities Department Wastewater Treatment D ion
SouthsideTreatment Plant Influent BOD and TSS Concentratio. oadings 1 Nib l
SSWWTP SSWWTP SSW SSWWTP SSWWTP SWWTP *):Ar't \
Date IBODC EBODC %: ! ' rem ITSSC ETSSC %TSSrem
Jan, 1997 162.8 81.6 137.3 3 78.2
Feb, 1997 164.5 30 81.8 128 76.6
Mar, 1997 163.9 30 81.7 164.9 30 81.8
Apr, 1997 169.1 30 82.3 144.8 30 79.3
May, 1997 167.2 30 82.1 150.3 30 80.0
Jun, 1997 181.4 30 83.5 192.8 30 84.4
Jul, 1997 172 30 82.6 164.2 30 81.7
Aug, 1997 190.9 30 84.3 204.1 30 85.3
Sep, 1997 177.8 30 83.1 193.2 30 84.5
Oct, 1997 187 30 84.0 189.3 30 84.2
Nov, 1997 175.6 30 82.9 191.5 30 84.3
Dec, 1997 176.5 30 83.0 189.3 30 84.2
Jan, 1998 165.5 30 81.9 164.9 30 81.8
Feb, 1998 136.8 30 78.1 175 30 82.9
Mar, 1998 162 30 81.5 158.8 30 81.1
Apr, 1998 166.3 30 82.0 141.7 30 78.8
May, 1998 183.5 30 83.7 157.9 30 81.0
Jun, 1998 170 30 82.4 146.3 30 79.5
Jul, 1998 189 30 84.1 151.2 30 80.2
Aug, 1998 177 30 83.1 148.5 30 79.8
Sep, 1998 129 30 76.7 135.3 30 77.8
Oct, 1998 191 30 84.3 139.9 30 78.6
Nov, 1998 191 30 84.3 157.5 30 81.0
Dec, 1998 201 30 85.1 158.4 30 81.1
Jan, 1999 176 30 83.0 169 30 82.2
Feb, 1999 186 30 83.9 159 30 81.1
Mar, 1999 198 30 84.8 156 30 80.8
Apr, 1999 195 30 84.6 154 30 80.5
May, 1999 165 30 81.8 155 30 80.6
Jun, 1999 191 30 84.3 179 30 83.2
Jul, 1999 184 30 83.7 178 30 83.1
Aug, 1999 188 30 84.0 172 30 82.6
Sep, 1999 138 30 78.3 131 30 77.1
Oct, 1999 139 30 78.4 115 30 73.9
Nov, 1999 169 30 82.2 135 30 77.8
Dec, 1999 169 30 82.2 132 30 77.3
Jan, 2000 134 30 77.6 139 30 78.4
Feb, 2000 140 30 78.6 130 30 76.9
Mar, 2000 159 30 81.1 140 30 78.6
Apr, 2000 158 30 81.0 142 30 78.9
May, 2000 205 30 85.4 168 30 82.1
Jun, 2000 197 30 84.8 166 30 81.9
Jul, 2000 175 30 82.9 155 30 80.6
Aug, 2000 162 30 81.5 143 30 79.0
Sep, 2000 153 30 80.4 133 30 77.4
Oct, 2000 175 30 82.9 138 30 78.3
Nov, 2000 195 30 84.6 156 30 80.8

Dec, 2000 187 30 84.0 149 30 79.9
Jan, 2001 186 30 83.9 144 30 79.2
Feb, 2001 201 30 85.1 170 30 82.4
Mar, 2001 186 30 83.9 163 30 81.6
Apr, 2001 207 30 85.5 188 30 84.0
May, 2001 227 30 86.8 181 30 83.4
Jun, 2001 212 30 85.8 161 30 81.4
Jul, 2001 209 30 85.6 167 •30 82.0
Aug, 2001 208 30 85.6 191 30 84.3
Sep, 2001 205 30 85.4 150 30 80.0
Oct, 2001 208 30 85.6 166 30 81.9
Nov, 2001 216 30 86.1 160 30 81.3
Dec, 2001 242 30 87.6 166 30 81.9
Jan, 2002 228 30 86.8 154 30 80.5
Feb, 2002 175 30 82.9 176 30 83.0
Mar, 2002 171 30 82.5 158 30 81.0
Apr, 2002 170 30 82.4 177 30 83.1
May, 2002 173 30 82.7 182 30 83.5
Jun, 2002 157 30 80.9 174 30 82.8
Jul, 2002 197 30 84.8 191 30 84.3
Aug, 2002 201 30 85.1 175 30 82.9
Sep, 2002 160 30 81.3 133 30 77.4
Oct, 2002 170 30 82.4 147 30 79.6
Nov, 2002 182 30 83.5 163 30 81.6
Dec, 2002 207 30 85.5 150 30 80.0
Jan, 2003 202 30 85.1 173 30 82.7
Feb, 2003 225 30 86.7 163 30 81.6
Mar, 2003 202 30 85.1 160 30 81.3
Apr, 2003 212 30 85.8 180 30 83.3
May, 2003 233 30 87.1 202 30 85.1
Jun, 2003 160 30 81.3 112 30 73.2
Jul, 2003 241 30 87.6 190 30 84.2
Aug, 2003 181 30 83.4 183 30 83.6
Sep, 2003 186 30 83.9 203 30 85.2
Oct, 2003 185 30 83.8 165 30 81.8
Nov, 2003 192 30 84.4 159 30 81.1
Dec, 2003 177 30 83.1 139 30 78.4
Jan, 2004 173 30 82.7 145 30 79.3
Feb, 2004 154 30 80.5 160 30 81.3
Mar, 2004 211 30 85.8 183 30 83.6

\K
(spA-(
Following is a spreadsheet updated with silver monitoring results for the SSWWTP effluent. You
will notice that there has been no detection of silver since March of 2001. We have confirmed
that there have been only three detections for silver since March of 2000; each of the three
detections were at or near the reporting limit used by the laboratory.
These three detections could be due to any of the following reasons:
1. Contamination of equipment or sample containers - We have instituted procedures
for preparing sample containers and equipment to eliminate contamination.
Commercial labs provide sample containers that should meet EPA preparation
requirements.
2. Contamination during field sampling - We have made a concerted effort to ensure
accuracy of data by implementing a thorough training of laboratory technicians and
compliance officers on proper field sampling techniques.
3. Contamination during laboratory analysis - Most of these analyses were performed
by commercial laboratories, certified by the State of NC. Procedures should be in
place to ensure accuracy of results. We did not request a reanalysis of the samples
to confirm the detections.
4. Exists within the sample - Our Pretreatment program began an intensive survey of
silver dischargers in 1999 and concluded the survey in 2003. The survey included on
site inspections of actual or suspected silver dischargers. We surveyed doctors
offices, dental offices, chiropractors offices, veterinary offices, photo labs, and silk
screen operations. We observed some unacceptable practices regarding the
discharge of silver. In some cases we recommended on site treatment or off site
disposal. We believe that we eliminated the discharge of some silver to our
treatment plants as a result of this campaign.
5. Exists within the sample because of a significant industrial discharge - We have
permitted only one SIU for discharging silver. This SIU has had no silver discharge
violations since 1998.
2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Jan 0.002
Feb <0.002 <0.002
Mar <0.002; <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0.003
Apr <0.002; <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
May <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
June <0.002
July <0.002
Aug <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Sept <0.002 <0.002
Oct <0.002 <0.002
Nov <0.002 <0.002
Dec <0.002 <0.002

NI\f-
( 5h Aeirt
B. Domestic Wastewater Flows
The City and the County provided existing domestic wastewater flow data. The City provided flow
data for it's two wastewater treatment plants, wastewater flow data from its metering and billing
records, and water use data. The County provided residential wastewater flow data. The information
provided by the City and the County is summarized in the following Table 3-3 and Table 3-4.
Selected data is included in Appendix 1..
Table 3-3: Wastewater Flows for the Northside WWTP
1997
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
(1) Based on 1997 population estimates.
GPD
4,542,581
4,631,500
4,450,226
4,199,133
4,177,323
4,445,600
4,598,806
4,597,032
4,915,033
4,682,742
4,569,133
4,889,581
54,698,690
4.558.224
Per Capita Flow {1
GPCD
69.21
70.57
67.81
63.98
63.65
67.74
70.07
70.04
74.89
71.35
69.62
75.69
833.41
69.45
Table 3-4: Wastewater Flows for the Existing Southside WWTP
1997
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
(" Based on 1997 population estimates.
Per Capita Flow
GPD (GPCD)(1
9,539,032 129.36
8,369,857 113.50
8,088,387 109.68
7,533,267 102.16
7,694,258 104.34
7,939,667 107.67
8,290,419 112.42
8,109,258 109.97
7,935,267 107.61
7,514,323 101.90
8,009,300 108.61
8,404,226 113.97
97,427,260 1,321.17
8.118.938 110.10
A review of Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show that the existing service areas have a total per capita
wastewater flow of 70 and 110 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Both the Northside WVVTPs and
Wastewater Master Plan June 2001 Page - 3-4
. riinn 2- WactAwatpr Flows
110.1.4

Page 1 of 1
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Matt Matthews" <matt.matthews©ncmail.net>
"Dave Goodrich" <Dave.Goodrich©ncmail.net>: "Joe Corporon" <Joe.Corporon©ncmail.net>
Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:42 PM
Wilmington Species Issue
Northside submitted a test for February using Cerios and passed.
Southside is listed as non -report for March.
The following is a suspense log entry from January:
1/26/04-call from pam ellis at wilmington-questions on testing on what organisms to use since no labs in
NC are certified run D. pulex. KB indicated fathead, cerio or mysid. Fac. indicated they have run some
tests using cerio and they did not have any problems with them. Pam to contact Jennifer and coordiante
with her concerning a letter to MM.
I hope this is helpful,
Matt
Matt Matthews
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
•
v-[phone]
f-(919k 733-9959
MailTo:[e-mail]
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
5/14/2004

Wilmington Species Issue
Subject: Wilmington Species Issue
From: Matt Matthews <matt.matthews @ ncmail.net>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:42:08 -0400
To: Dave Goodrich <Dave. Goodrich @ ncmail.net>, Joe Corporon <Joe.Corporon @ ncmail. net>
Northside submitted a test for February using Cerios and passed.
Southside is listed as non -report for March.
The following is a suspense log entry from January:
1/26/04-call from pam ellis at wilmington-questions on testing on what organisms to use since no labs in NC are
certified run D. pulex. KB indicated fathead, cerio or mysid. Fac. indicated they have run some tests using cerio
and they did not have any problems with them. Pam to contact Jennifer and coordiante with her concerning a letter
to MM.
I hope this is helpful,
Matt
Matt Matthews
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
v-[phone]
f- [phone]
MailTo:[e-mail]
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1 5/13/2004 6:40 AM

Re: Southside WWTP Additional Data
Subject: Re: Southside WWTP Additional Data
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:41:31 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Joe Corporon <joe.corporon@ ncmail.net>, [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], Ed Gavin <[e-mail]>, Matt Matthews
<[e-mail]>
Thanks, Hugh. Joe and I just got out of a meeting with Matt Matthews with our Aquatic Toxicology Unit.
Unfortunately, we don't have a large number of options, but hope that we can come to agreement on a course
forward.
The main problem stems from the rule that mandates that compliance data must be from a certified lab. This means
that, adjudication notwithstanding, Wilmington must do one of the following:
• Recruit a laboratory to obtain certification for daphnia pulex in North Carolina. Matt thought that there may
be some laboratories that may have a residence population of daphnia pulex. This would help the process
since laboratory methodologies and QA/QC systems may already be in place.
• The other option is to modify the permit to include a test organism other than daphnia pulex. This could be
fathead minnows, mysid shrimp, or (of course) ceriodaphnia dubia. Matt recommends ceriodaphnia dubia
be seriously considered.
The problem is that Wilmington must either modify their permit (since they're not using a certified lab) to move to
a different test organism or find a lab willing to be certified in North Carolina.
Matt did say he would be willing to run some tests for you all in an effort to help raise the level of comfort
associated with using a new test organism.
We will be back in touch with you after we evaluate the data sent in your e-mail. Please feel free to call me or
1 of 3 5/13/2004 6:41 AM

Re: Southside WWTP Additional Data
e-mail us with further thoughts on these issues. We appreciated you and Ken coming to Raleigh on Monday and
working through these issues with us.
Dave Goodrich
(919)-733-5083, ext. 517
[e-mail] wrote:
Dave & Joe,
Thank you for meeting with Ken and me on Monday regarding the Southside
renewal permit. Per our discussions, please find attached the following
additional information:
Silver effluent data indicating no detects since March of 2001 along
with a brief narrative of silver reduction efforts and possible
explanations for the detects.
A table of influent BOD and TSS data from January 1997 to present. The
table also indicates the calculated removal rate required to obtain the
permitted discharge limit for these parameters.
A copy of Table 3-4 from our wastewater master plan that calculated the
per capita flow rate at the SSWWTP. This is the total plant flow
divided by the service area population.
As you can see; our silver reduction efforts have resulted in no silver
detects since March 2001. These successful efforts indicate that there is
not a silver problem at the SSWWTP and that monitoring should not be
required.
The influent BOD and TSS data average well below 200 and there is no
excessive I/I. Lower removal rates seem appropriate in accordance with 40
CFR 133.103(d).
We are awaiting your suggestions on alternatives to address our concerns
about the WET test organism. We are also awaiting a copy of your guidance
memo for monitoring frequencies.
Thanks,
Hugh
2 of 3 5/13/2004 6:41 AM

Re: Southside WWTP Additional Data
Y
M
Hugh T. Caldwell, PE
Public Utilities Director
City of Wilmington, NC
Tel [phone]
(See attached file: Influent BOD & TSS Data.xls)(See attached file: Silver
Effluent Data.doc)(See attached file: Per capita flow data.doc)
3 of 3 5/13/2004 6:41 AM

City of Wilmington
Subject: City of Wilmington
From: "Ed Gavin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:09:48 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Dave Goodrich phoned me yesterday and related that some progress had been made on the issues raised by Wilmington in
their contested case petition, however, there is more work to be done on the following issues:
1) Zn/AG--Wilmington appeared to accept the ZN frequency. On Ag Wilmington will look for more recent monitoring data; we
will furnish the interim guidance memorandum; g 5 et)p
2) 85% removal of pollutants —we outlined the showin they need to make to return to previous permit limits. Wilmington thinks
they can make this showing; �o CFI l
Gr ic.tic'
3) WET (pulex v. daphnia) --Malt Matt ews was not in attendance in the meeting. He knows what ought to be done here, has
laid it out previously for Ken Vogt;
in tr m monitoring location --this istypographical error can be renoticed but we don't want to now. 40 . a cx�i� Fe�
4 sea� 8'r`
We need to prepare the prehearing statement in case this matter cannot be resolved by Friday, the deadline for the filing and
service of the prehearing statement. Dave nominated you to work with me on preparing the prehearing statement. I will be out
of the office Wednesday afternoon and in Mooresville working on a non -discharge civil penalty case all day Thursday. I will
have 2 hours to work with you Friday morning beginning at 10. To prepare, please gather the following information:
1) any restatement of the issues you prefer over the statement in the contested case petition;
2)- .statutes, rules, pre
3) facts supporting our position;
4) witnesses for DENR: Dave, you, Matt Matthews, all witnesses for Wilmington, others. Note that if necessary you may want to
have Matt available for a telecon on Friday morning;
5) any estimation of the length of the hearing? Two days?
See you Friday.
1 of 2 5/12/2004 8:16 AM

H-Ucif
1, a COrP"A ‹ct Clq-A ft.41
{vooN‘cLf_s ±(` (4,C' itr-a-enc L r
A* (:31,t c6.4
Nam--e0 s .
.c
C, .k ( ( . IT cE Le) W4- li % e- r
i&a-- b
-)r?-kw--(
/1-4tt.P5 ) 6K-- 2t11\h`
, 4946 Ohca--)6‘,
15
ceuv.0 ()k) ti>L_
zE- c..s % 7 ;

From: Ed Gavin
to Joe Corporon
1 1May04
Dave Goodrich phoned me yesterday and related that some progress had been made on
the issues raised by Wilmington in their contested case petition, however, there is more
work to be done on the following issues:
1) Zn/AG--Wilmington appeared to accept the ZN frequency. On Ag Wilmington will
look for more recent monitoring data; we will furnish the interim guidance
memorandum;
2) 85% removal of pollutants --we outlined the showing they need to make to return to
previous permit limits. Wilmington thinks they can make this showing;
3) WET (pulex v. daphnia) --Matt Matthews was not in attendance in the meeting. He
knows what ought to be done here, has laid it out previously for Ken Vogt;
4) instream monitoring location --this is typographical error, can be renoticed but we
don't want to now.
We need to prepare the prehearing statement in case this matter cannot be resolved by
Friday, the deadline for the filing and service of the prehearing statement. Dave
nominated you to work with me on preparing the prehearing statement. I will be out of
the office Wednesday afternoon and in Mooresville working on a non -discharge civil
penalty case all day Thursday. I will have 2 hours to work with you Friday morning
beginning at 10.:To prepare, please gather the following information:
1) any restatement of the issues you prefer over the statement in the contested case
petition;
2) statutes, rules, precedent;
3) facts supporting our position;
4) witnesses for DENR: Dave, you, Matt Matthews, all witnesses for Wilmington,
others. Note that if necessary you may want to have Matt available for a telecon on
Friday morning;
5) any estimation of the length of the hearing? Two days?

ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
To:
March 26, 2004
Jim Gulick
Senior Deputy Attorney General
From: Dan Oakley -VP
General Counsel
Re:
;1As
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
On 0 2004 417
DIV. OF WATER QUALITY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Petition for Contested Case Hearing;
City of Wilmington vs. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Attached please find a Petition for Contested Case Hearing filed by City of
Wilmington against the Division of Water Quality. Please assign an attorney to represent
the Division. Thanks.
DO:np
Attachment
cc: Al
imek (with attachment)
r_______,__________ p-7
APR r3 2003'i
I
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

RECEIVED
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
4928.AAR 26 2004
CITY of WI
North Carolina
L1v✓ P`�` r
P.O. BOX 1810
^�n 28402
March 25, 2004
Via Fax and UPS Overnite
Ms. Kim Hausen, Chief Hearings Clerk
Office of the Administrative Hearings
424 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: City of Wilmington v. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Dear Ms. Hausen:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TDD [phone]
[phone]
FAX [phone]
I am enclosing for filing the original and two (2) copies of a Petition for a Contested Case
Hearing in the above -referenced action. Please return a filed stamped copy of this Petition to me
in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. With a copy of this letter, I am serving a copy
of this Petition on Mr. Daniel C. Oakley, General Counsel for the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Thank you for your assistance with this filing. If you have
any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas C. Pollard
City Attorney
TCP/cl
Enclosures
cc: Daniel C. Oakley, Esquire

4
t
PLEASE PRINT CLFARr y OR TYPE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF (1) New Hanover
(2) City of Wilmington
(your name)
(8) Print your name:
(9) Your signature:
PETITIONER,
v.
(3) NC Dept. of Environment&Natural Resources, Div.
of Water Quality Acting by Authority of the EMC
RESPONDENT.
(The State agency or board about which you are complaining)
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PETITION
FOR A
CONTESTED CASE HEARING
I hereby ask for a contested case hearing as provided for by North Carolina General Statute § 150B-23 because the Respondent has:
(Briefly state facts showing how you believe you have been harmed by the State agency or board.)
See statement of facts attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(If more space is needed, attach additional pages.)
(4) Because of these facts, the State agency or board has: (check
deprived me of property;
ordered me to pay a fine or civil penalty; or
otherwise substantially prejudiced my rights;
(5) Date: March 25, 2004
A
at least one from each column)
• exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
• acted erroneously;
ND failed to use proper procedure;
• acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
.failed to act as required by law or rule.
(6) Your phone number: (910 ) 341-7820
(7) Print your full address: City of Wilmington, 305 Chestnut Street, P.O. Box 1810, Wilmington, NC 28402
(street address/p.o. box) (city) (state) (zip)
�- •'
CAC -
You must mail or deliver a COPY of this Petition to the State agency or board named on line (3) of this form. You should contact the agencyor
board to determine the name of the person to be served.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State agency or board named below by depositing a copy of it with the United States Postal Service
with sufficient postage affixed OR by delivering it to the named agency or board:
(10) Daniel C. Oakley, General Counsel (name of person served) (11) NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resource;
(12) 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 (State agency or board listed on line 3)
(street address/p.o. box)
/L. (city) (state) (zip code)
(13) This the r day of March
_ A 20.04
(14)
(your signature)
When you have completed this form, you MUST mail or deliver the ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY to the Office of Administrative Hearings,
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. g , 671 4
H-06 (11/99)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
CITY OF WILMINGTON,
Petitioner
vs.
THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ACTING BY AUTHORITY OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT
OF PETITION FOR A CONTESTED
CASE HEARING
The City of Wilmington, petitioner herein (hereafter referred to as "City" or "Petitioner"
hereby alleges and states in support of its petition for a contested case hearingthe following:
ng.
1. The City operates a 12 million gallon per day (MGD) wastewater treatment
facility located on River Road in the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, known as the
M'Kean Maffitt" Wastewater Treatment Plant (hereafter referred to as the "Sou
thside Treatment
lant").
2. The City operates the Southside Treatment Plant pursuant to NPDES Permit No.
NC0023973.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 143-215.1, the Citymade
application to the
Respondent for the renewal of the NPDES permit for the Southside Treatment Plant to all
ow the
continued operation of and the discharge of wastewater from the plant into the Cape Fear p River.
P

4
4. On February 13, 2004, the director of the Division of Water uali
Quality of the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, by authorityof
the Environmental
Management Commission (hereafter "Division") signed NPDES Permit No. NC0023
973 for the
Southside Treatment Plant renewing such permit until December 31, 2006. Although
g signed on
February 13, 2004, the renewed NPDES permit was not received by the Cityuntil February ary 25,
2004. This petition is being made within 30 days after the Division notified the City of its
decision on the NPDES permit as required by G.S. 143-215.1(e).
5. The renewed NPDES permit establishes certain effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other conditions for the discharge of wastewater which may cause the
Southside Treatment Plant to be immediately out of compliance with said permit conditions.
The City alleges upon information and belief that the conditions on said permit will require
additional costly modifications to the Southside Treatment Plant and that such conditions are
unnecessary to accomplish the State policy to maintain, protect, and enhance the water quality of
the waters of the State as set forth in 15 NCAC 2B.0201, G.S. 143-215 and G.S. 143-215.1 b .
The City further alleges upon information and belief that the conditions more particularly
detailed herein are arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the laws of the State and
the rules and regulations of the Environmental Management Commission, and the Division has
acted erroneously in imposing such conditions.
6. The permit issued for the Southside Treatment Plant provides in footnote 1 to
Exhibit A(1), Effluent Conditions and Monitoring Requirements, that in -stream sampling will be
P g
performed between the outfall and the dredge spoil island immediately "east" of the outfall.
Such description of the sampling point is erroneous since the spoil island is located imriiediatel
Y
"west" of the outfall.
2

7. The permit for the Southside Treatment Plant provides that the monthl
y average
effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall no
t exceed 15 per cent of the
respective influent values. The City alleges upon information and belief that the
percent removal
requirement is not necessary to accomplish State policy relating to water quality ty and is arbitrary
and capricious, and the Division has failed to use proper procedure and act as required
q by law in
establishing such percentage limitations based upon the following:
(a) 15 NCAC 2B.0406 establishes effluent limits for municipal waste water treatmen
t
discharges and does not establish any percentage removal requirement for such discharges.
(b) 40 CFR §133.102 does provide that the 30-day average percent removal for
secondary treatment shall not be less than 85 per cent, but such regulations provide exceptions
from said percentage removal requirements.
(c) 40 CFR § 133.103(d) does permit the Division to substitute a lower percent
removal requirement for the percent removal requirement established in 40 CFR § 133.102
provided that the permittee is able to demonstrate that the influent wastewater meets certain
criteria. In fact, the City's prior permit contained percent removal requirements of 79% for
BOD5 and 81% for Total Suspended Solids, based on information provided previously by the
City.
(d) Prior to the issuance of the renewal permit, the City was not provided any
information about any change in circumstances that would cause a change in the percentage
g
removal requirements as set forth in the City's prior permit and had no opportunity to present any
Y
rebutting evidence that would support the reduction of such percentage removal requirements as
authorized by 40 CFR § 133.103(d). The City can demonstrate that its influent wastewater
meets
the criteria set forth in 40 CFR § 133.103(d).
3

(e) The design of the Southside Treatment Plant as approved
PP by the Division of
Water Quality is based upon an average influent GODS concentration of 200mg/1 and average
influent Total Suspended Solids concentration of 200 mg/1, and it is no
t reasonable to impose
and achieve the 85 percent removal requirement with the lower influent co
ncentrations received
over the term of the current permit. The average influent concentration for both
BOD5 and Total
Suspended Solids at the Southside Treatment Plant is less than 200 mg/1.
(f) The City alleges upon information and belief that the effluent limitations
established by the regulations of the Environmental Management Commission and the Code of
Federal Regulations will ensure the optimum efficiencyof the
wastewater treatment plant and
achieve the water quality policies of the State.
8. The renewed permit provides in footnote 7 to Exhibit A(1) and in Exhibit A(2)
that the City will conduct quarterly acute toxicity monitoring using a -
Daphniapulex 24-hour
4 hour
static test. The City alleges that the use of Daphnia ulex as the acute toxicit
y test organism is
arbitrary and capricious and the Division has failed to use proper procedure and act as req
uired
by law and regulation in designating such test organism based on the following:
g
(a) While the City's current permit provides for the use of Daphnia pulex as a test
organism, the City has recently determined that there are now no laboratories certified by North
Carolina to conduct acute toxicity testing using Daphnia ulex. Therefore, the use of
Daphnia
ulex as a test organism is no longer available, and the City cannot comply with a permit
condition imposed by the Division.
(b) The City has requested a one-year period to evaluate use of cerioda hnia dubia
p _ as
a test organism. The use of such organism will satisfy the monitoring requirement for acute
toxicity in accordance with applicable law and regulation.
4

9. The referenced permit provides in Exhibit A(1) that the City wil
l monitor total
silver and total zinc on a frequency of two times per month. The City alleges that this
monitoring frequency is arbitrary and capricious and the Division has failed to
use proper
procedure and act as required by law and regulation in establishing such monitoring frequency
based on the following:
(a) The City has not previously been required to monitor for total zinc and tot
al
silver.
(b) While 15A NCAC 02B.0500 permits the frequency of the monitoringfor toxi
c s,
such as zinc and silver, to be defined by individual permit conditions, the presumptive frequency
is a minimum of quarterly. The Division has not given the City any justification for J the more
frequent monitoring. Upon information and belief, quarterly monitoring of total zinc and
d total
silver will be adequate to meet the water quality policies of the State.
Based upon the foregoing, the City contends that the renewed NPDES permit for the
Southside Treatment Plant should be modified to: remove or reduce the percentage removal
requirement for BODS and Total Suspended Solids; permit the City to evaluate the use of
ceriodaphnia dubia as the acute toxicity test organism; reduce the frequency monitoring for
total
zinc and total silver to quarterly; and to correct the location of the in -stream sampling points g p is as
set forth in the permit. The City also requests such other and further relief as necessaryto
address the concerns raised herein and that may be just and proper.
5

r �
This the 2Lay of March, 2004.
p.xL
Thomas C. Pollard, City Attorney
State Bar No. 8944
City of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
[phone]
[phone]
email: [e-mail]
032404L/StatementofFactsSouthTrPlant032404

imap://[e-mail]:143/f...
Subject: Wilmington Contests Southside Permit
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:05:53 -0400
To: Rick Shiver <[e-mail]>, Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>, Matt Matthews
<[e-mail]>, Charles Weaver <[e-mail]>, Bob Sledge
<[e-mail]>
Folks -
Just a heads up to let you know that Ed Gavin will represent the Division in a contested case hearing
related to the recent reissuance of the NPDES permit for the City of Wilmington M'Kean Maffitt WWTP
(Southside).
I'll ask Charles to suspend the permit limits in BIMS.
Their specific complaints are:
• Instream monitoring location is incorrect (appears to be a typographical error)
• Monitoring frequency for zinc and silver is excessive (2/month is given - they want quarterly)
• City objects to the use of daphnia pulex as a test organism (see below)
• % removal requirement for BOD5 and TSS should be removed or reduced (They claim they had no
warning that it would be changed from 79% for BOD5 and 81% for TSS to 85% for both
parameters. They believe that they have evidence demonstrating that a lower % reduction is
warranted.)
The NPDES Unit will handle the development of a Pre -Hearing statement with Mr. Gavin. We will also
attempt to address the 1st, 2nd, and 4th bullets.. Matt, I'll need your help in addressing the 3rd one. In a
nutshell, here's their argument as presented in their pre -hearing statement:
• No laboratories are certified by NC to conduct acute WET monitoring using daphnia pulex (as
required in the permit).
• City requests a one-year period to evaluate use of ceriodaphnia dubia as a test organism.
It is not clear to me whether or not they expect monitoring only during that one-year period.
1 of 1 4/8/2004 10:39 AM