NC0069841_Wasteload Allocation_19940713

NPDES DOCUMENT :;CANNING COVER SHEET
NC0069841
Crooked Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
July 13, 1994
This dacit m ent is prirnted on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rexerse'side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0069841
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Union County Department of Public Works
Union County WWTP #2
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 1.3 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
Also permit for flow of 1.0 MGD - WLA request attached
RECEIVING STREAM: South Fork Crooked Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-12
Reference USGS Quad: G16SW
County: Union
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 10/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: III
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
Requested by: Greg Nizich�;' Date: 2/17/94
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Dw -
Date: //
1(�4,,(,fkA6- - Date: �7
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
tMMW
ZA «lgA-
7150
Drainage Area (mi2 ) 6 , 09 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 5, I
7Q10 (cfs) G Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
0 30Q2 (cfs) 0
Toxicity Limits: IWC / 00 % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
F. Col. (/100 ml)
pH (SU)
Summer
CNNv
Winter
Comments:
r1 C '',..';. ,.:•:.
giazeil
r-

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request #
Union County Dept. of Public Works, WWTP #2
NC0069841
Domestic - 80% Industrial 20%
Existing
Renewal
South Fork Crooked Creek
C
030712
Union
Mooresville
Greg Nizich
2/17/94
G 16SW
DIYISlON Of 1994
MOaC fSpj if �y� 0�Ta( fAl
7750 flef
yA( CffICE FNT
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Dale:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
0212475157
10/1/91
6.09
0
0
5.1
0
100
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
THIS REQUEST IS BEING DENIED. As stated in the 11/12/93 letter from Mr. Donald Safrit to
facility, no new or expanding discharges of oxygen-conseuming waste are allowed at sites where
the 7Q10=0 and 30Q2=0. The definition of a new or expanding facility [15A NCAC 2H
.0103(14)(d)] includes "any increase in treatment plant hydraulic capacity which has not received
an A to C..." Additionally, 15A NCAC 2H .0138(a) allows the Division to eliminate the excess
capacity if no A to C has been applied for during the term of their existing permit. Therefore, any
expansion above the existing 1.0 MGD would be considered an expansion to a zero -flow stream
and would not be allowed.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering: !,
Date:
Date:g $ G/
Q -/�70J Date: �<90
�.12r Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: `] U N 1 7 1994
RECETIED
MAY 2 0 1994
DEHNR RAL RC)

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0069841
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Union County Department of Public Works
Union County WWTP #2
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 1.0 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
Also permit for flow of 1.3 MGD - WLA request attached
RECEIVING STREAM: South Fork Crooked Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-12
Reference USGS Quad: G16SW
County: Union
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 10/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: III
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
Requested by: Greg Nizich "5?)
Prepared by: /C�` �c
C,
Reviewed by: / j 0 4.F . 9--S-YL-
3��.� (w) 33
Date: 2/17/94
Date:
7
3
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
i A )
7.6\ 43
`►'1 S i
Drainage Area (mi2 ) , U vj Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 5, /
7Q10 (cfs) 0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) C0 30Q2 (cfs) Q
Toxicity Limits: IWC /(2() % Acutf"/r C 9 %
Instream Monitoring: lX, Nov, Fcl3/ �lyy -
Parameters /) . 0 • i,, /</
+ /%�'��i' , ,v)• ( /,'�Z: �, I�
Upstream Y Location P. /r'u.)/ MGD R ofike�,ro /Ydr
Downstream P.71.v n'
7 Location �� .C',P l 50i ddw�rs�a�
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
5
/ n
NH3-N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
30
. (
F. Col. (/100 ml)
2G'0
pH (SU)
G -
6. - `%
T k Chito 4
/ 7
/7
-i"N
— 'rum /by
/non, f-oL -
`ifr1hn (04/l)
imp/%
Vt oniJp/
1,/ ri; diklio e gene, (Gj1/)
rnoM//Vv
p"h11J Y
fi ch%r)Or
(- I) m012 r r
m0/1/kiz
-I: r( Nov-, e beee
0:,y,//) Mon iby
mun/r'
d11ur1;
C I) I)-e r (ug ll)
�� 14/0111-OY
Comments: ,1E � . /.�/ c/`// /Reim) ,
PL

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WAS 1ELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 7751N.c. DEPT. OF
Union County Dept. of Public Works, WWTP #Z.NVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
NC0069841 & NATURAL RESOURCES
Domestic - 80% and Industrial 20%
Existing
Renewal
South Fork Crooked Creek
C
030712
Union
Mooresville 7i�
Greg Nizich
2/17/94
G16SW
MAY 20 1994
OIVISI OF Ei:`r':Mi%?E1;TAL (:`.hN6E3 ENT
MO RESV'JLLE RECIONAL CFF CE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
0212475157
10/1/91
6.09
0
0
5.1
0
100
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility presently has an A to C for lmgd. This facility is actually 20% Industrial. They
have a Groundwater Remediation tie -on which pretreats the GW before it reaches this facility and
an Electoplater which uses a copper solution. The GW facility (90,000) gpd must meet their limits
and pass their WET test to continue discharging to Union County WWTP #2. Presently they are
not operating due to limit violations. Many POCs will be monitored in the LTMP (see special
condition on page 4). Recommended existing conventional limits, except NH3N changed to 2
and 4.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
it2,774 77 GECE- P7cA) O 1...1,0, 4-►JE d COp/2c / r 17.7 Als - /3C—L/€ /E _„V,1 r.,t)=t7'r
T a771 Toleicff j S --c,44.06,1e7L-17 ,5.w Iz-Q /sr .A1f/A/� . — r:=
7 QR
,AP�/j'r "QEzcp/l2fM�/T /.� D.t/,-Y G, / I�b�J /� G/KCI�HS-T.�j[/� ram' i�/N�E To5c/caTS/ S ..,,.
PResFe✓T 5 y %V0 %jam JoiQK /$ P3e/A/4, PLfQSu6'. ; a bi(ad iv) "' G7_'.7'r,
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Inseam Assessment: (at& (//itdbt Date: 5 /R 4-
Regional Supervisor: 0, C-er-„)-71 Date:
Date:
/`g)r%`tPermits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
JUN 1 1994

2
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 1.0 1.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10
NH3N (mg/1): 1 1.8
DO (mg/1): 6 6
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): 17 17
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Recommended Limits:
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 1.0 1.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10
NH3N (mg/1): 2 4
DO (mg/1): 6 6
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 mi): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (4/1): 17 17
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Limit changes due to:
NH3N new procedure/standard/regulation
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

3
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
APAM:
Conductivity:
Lead (ug/1):
Recommended Limits
Lindane (ng/1):
1,1 dichloroethene (ug/1):
tetrachloroethene (ug/l):
trichloroethene (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
TOXICS/METALS
Chronic P/F limit QRTLY
90%
90%
AUG, NOV, FEB, MAY
Daily Max.
monitor
monitor
monitor
1/year
3/week
monthly
Daily Max. WQ or EL
monitor
monitor
monitor**
monitor**
monitor**
monitor
1/year
quarterly
quarterly
quarterly
quarterly
monthly
** Facility was informed (12/20/91) about having to monitor for these POCs at permit renewal.
This monitoring should coincide with whole -effluent toxicity monitoring.(AUG, NOV, FEB,
MAY) Facility can require Radiator Specialty to perform and pay for organics monitoring.
A reopener clause should be placed in the permit to allow for additional limits on these or other
toxicants should the whole -effluent toxicity testing results indicate toxic effects.
Limit Changes due to:
All monitoring requirements are due to the lack of data for these parameters of Concern.
Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

r
4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: at least 100 feet upstream from effluent
Downstream Location: at SR 1501 downstream from effluent
Parameters: D.O. Temperature, Fecal Coliform, and Conductivity
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
If the LIMP is reduced or deleted the Technical Support Branch would need to be notified so if
necessary Parameters of Concern will be monitored in the permit. The LTMP includes: As, Cd, Cr, Ci
Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn.
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name V i1 i U ,n e-U thdil
w Permit # NV) (M/ 1 Pipe # 00 /
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is 9e % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
6 , /+/t% I/. GE/5 . /Y,'h V . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any 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 any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit 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
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0
Permitted Flow
IWC it 4
Basin & Sub -basin
cfs
/.(i MGD
Foy etverk
Receiving Stream S
County Lin, --7
Recommended by /' /
42
Dale ..S//k/99
QCL PIF Version 9/91

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
December 20, 1991 Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Regional Officesp 0. Box 159
Asheville Indian Trail, North Carolina 28079
704/251-6208
FayctteviIIe
919/486-1541
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Raleigh
919/733-2314
Washington
919/946-6481
Wilmington
919/395-3900
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
Mr. Darrell Hinnant
Radiator Specialty
Subject: Radiator Specialty
Pretreatment Permit No. 698410001
Union County (NC0069841)
Dear Mr. Hinnant:
In accordance with your application for a pretreatment permit,
received by the Division of Environmental Management bn October
30, 1990, along with additional information received on June 18,
August 14, December 2, and December6, 1991, we are forwarding
herewith the draft pretreatment permit and permit synopsis for
the subject project. Under separate cover, we are also
forwarding a copy of the permit and other attachments to Union
County for their review. Please review each section of the
permit carefully, and if you have comments concerning the draft
permit, please submit them to this office as soon as possible.
As you may know, Union County must approve the permit before the
Division can issue it. Of particular concern to this proposed
project is the impact of the pretreatment permit on the County's
NPDES permit number NC0069841. Based on the limits included
in the draft permit, the discharge would not be considered a
Significant Industrial User, and thus the County would not be
required to develop a Division approved pretreatment program.
However, monit re irements for 1,1-dirh�nroethene,
tetrachloroethene, and tric oroethene would be included in
Union County's NPDES permit number NC0069841 upon renewal if
the permit to Radiator Specialty were issued as presently
drafted. If the County so chooses, it would be acceptable to
the Division if this mnnl tori nrr warn narfnrmai7 'nd mid for by
Radiator Specialty.
Please be aware that upon issuance of the pretreatment permit
you will have an official thirty day comment period to respond
with any objections to the issued permit.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prcven;ion Prvs
A., Fnu', A . a_..__ r—_'____

Please review especially the conditions on pages 2 and 14 of the
draft permit concerning the requirement -to obtain an
Authorization to Construct prior to commencement of construction
and/or installation of any pretreatment units. For information
concerning this Authorization to Construct, please contact Ms.
Carolyn McCaskill of the Division's Permits and Engineering
Unit at [phone].
If you have any questions regarding the draft permit, please
call me at 919/733-5083.,
Sincerely,
J. Trevor Clements
Assistant Chief
Water Quality Section
DRF
cc with attachments:
Edward C. Fiss, Jr., P.E., AWARE Environmental Inc.
Mike Shalati, Director of Public Works, Union County
Regional Supervisor
Central files

%Ors
b
orb( rn -g if Copper -0).-
U
UY ✓ le;thi vovr U 2
�y28'cu ,710tjtL' L, _pM
Leff rl N1) ES' bdf So- ;
rh
ti
6.66 rtic,--! y G C 54'r
1 le v,n. - rb 107,4) s
41- a P 'sj '7; lut"li A -Tex +c
o)-12veymac% PaA a av7u
Wei 7 i4f
,1
LT rrtP (%0
d
docti
tc.A.5(-)P?.:gi
); I rt, `)`.ezu.-/-6/C‘vi`'
a ?

Chapter 4
Long Term Monitoring Plan Guidance
Section E. Special Case Discussions
• To develop a headworks analysis for COD or CBOD it is recommended that COD or
CBOD monitoring be completed at the same time as BOD monitoring. This
monitoring will establish a COD/CBOD/BOD ratio. From this ratio, the COD,
CBOD, or BOD can be linked to the NPDES limited pollutant.
• Fluoride is not a Pollutant of Concern unle Fluorid included in an SIU permit.
As "Fluoride is expected to be in the waste ater-treatment plant's discharge primarily
due to its addition at the water treatment plant, but its concentration is expected to be
less than the 1.8 mg/1 limit . As such, the Division has developed a fluoride LTMP
procedure, as follows:
"For POTWs without permitted fluoride industrial discharges, inclusion of
fluoride in the LTMP is not required; however, if effluent monitoring indicates
flouride concentrations greater than 1.5 mg/1 then a fluoride source identification
plan involving minimal monitoring must be implemented."
The minimum source identification plan would include a review of water treatment
plant fluoride concentrations and 3 consecutive days of trunkline monitoring, or 3
consecutive days of SIU monitoring. This plan would not be considered complete
until the source is identified and controlled. It must also be noted that elevated
fluoride effluent concentrations have been attributed to inadequate water treatment
plant fluoride control, a few industrial user process discharges (for instance, coil-
coating/can making or semiconductor manufacture), and the concentrating of the
water supply in recycle systems."
Chapter: LTMP Guidance
Filename: LTMP (E)
Revision Date: September 1, 1993
Chapter 4
Section E
Page 1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 4, 1994
Mr. Mike Shalati
Director of Public Works for Union County
P.O. Box 987
Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0987
Subject: Union County Crooked Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0069841
Union County
Dear Mr. Shalati:
This is in response to your letter of February 2, 1994 regarding the expansion of the above -referenced
wastewater treatment facility from 1.3 MGD to 1.9 MGD. In that correspondence you listed three
potential solutions to the problem of allowing additional wastewater flow to the South Fork Crooked
Creek WWTP (#2):
• further study of the 30Q2 flows
• amending the permit to allow an expansion at existing mass loading
• piping all or a portion of the effluent to a positive flow stream
The Division understands the problems in Union County regarding future growth and the scarcity of
positive flow streams which can receive and assimilate treated wastewater. In an attempt to locate sites
with positive flows under critical conditions, USGS flow estimates were requested for three locations in
this watershed:
1) South Fork Crooked Creek at Union County WWTP #3 (NC0031186);
2) North Fork Crooked Creek near Benton's Crossroads (one mile above SR 1514); and
3) Crooked Creek downstream of the confluence of North and South Forks.
All three of these sites were estimated to maintain positive flow under 30Q2 conditions. These locations
should be considered for an alternate discharge site.
As you are aware, the flow at your existing site is estimated to be zero under these conditions. As
stated in the November 12, 1993 letter from Mr. Donald Safrit to you, no new or expanding discharges of
oxygen -consuming waste are allowed at sites where the minimum average flow for a period of seven
consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in ten years (7Q10) and the minimum average
flow for a period of 30 consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in two years (30Q2) both
equal zero [15A NCAC 2B .0206(d)]. Please note that the definition of a new or expanding facility [15A
NCAC 2H .0103(14)(d)] includes "any increase in treatment plant hydraulic capacity which has not
received an authorization to construct..." Additionally, 15A NCAC 2H .0138(a) allows the Division to
eliminate the excess capacity if no Authorization to Construct has been applied for during the term of your
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

page -2-
Union County Crooked Creek WWTP (#2)
April 4, 1994
existing permit. Therefore, any expansion above the existing 1.0 MGD would be considered an expansion
to a zero -flow stream and would not be allowed.
As you discussed in your letter, a low -flow analysis at the existing discharge point could be
undertaken. However, such a study would necessarily take 111 least one summer or more to complete. It is
expected that the results would yield the same information as past USGS flow estimates, so this approach
should be carefully considered. No expansion would be allowed until completion of the study, since this
would be a violation of our administrative code.
The option of obtaining a hydraulic expansion under equivalent mass loadings is a policy issue
currently under evaluation by the Water Quality Section. However, there are several important water
quality concerns posed to staff which need to be resolved prior to a formal policy decision. These issues
in combination with the fact that the existing discharge is into a zero -flow stream places the Section in a
position that would not favor approval of such a request in the forseeable future.
The Division recommends Union County seriously consider relocating their outfall from this
wastewater treatment plant to a ositiv izegytlow stream. This may enable an expansion of the existing
WWTP with minimal impact to ttie water quality of the receiving stream. Additionally, relocating the
discharge to a positive flow stream should provide for future growth needs.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Donald Safrit, Assistant Chief, Technical
Support Branch or Mr. David Goodrich, NPDES Group Supervisor at [phone].
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
cc: Technical Support Branch
Mooresville Regional Office

^/C D 66 9c?- /
-9Pa
I.3 416A
Qw.;C
a- 7--z.4- /6-ki)
- ,
3/y¢
/YI1itJ
/es,
oecAV wt. ,
/4-? /44, noi 4te-fri
/'_r herh5
ci- ,s1711 d fs c
`I iv 1 S e /�1�I6,. . /3 /1-16d
Gle w !l f I e gm. tvan 4/
sArea-r4A w/ T 7410 4- 364 .
arLi,1
0.
/✓j /V741-2 d

U/1,,ol ewn �j �� � 7750
tQQ00069 84 k 61/604
'how)
was ma sieQ,ej /?'&'. Q W le,f- ka 1, 3
Bo_D 5" 5 N f13Ai = 2 1),0 (o S76110 = 0 0 ?5
Level ` pvedtJk prea AD sal 4, ry
o.
I ► 90 An/ /es .o'o )ns/y& # An-' e ff/aetii‘.
.not ueP0/ Le, "nu de / Cew�ao
Z..eh"lJ C/49 SkeQe.,z1, 7eLe_ /.I !i/OQom/
Gly//2 1'evt1 Z S�
300 Piped- Cow a_ iv itr--cGA
eKpa els6 h 4
1, 3 wa 6-6 ea'►ta-e7) o �' be_ 4'tV(tO /;`H Writ/ ;"'� _ ._ _fr' i "�.+h'..
-ExpavtsA r, s to� � Wi�]- j a 1lu weiJ k I I q MO Q) ,
F/' iS Gi/mo//
PrGt.yl6vlGj 0,$5 MI d �Ov /JrJ2c/ 2/93-//9q
/�
/70b12v, a `la_1/ hi H-12_ �lit%J/) hai /ei-
cd/oca/-ec/. 9U,Oo0�P� Lvov„ PollakrS���'�;
4
inemo dD &&o L(Lti 10 4 /93
-f-i-o,ti, Cu sa.ri(Ali L(o .
Vile_ At/ re.r�iVei ah 19 C k I. D #116 (7/93).
ilk kAle.ver Cu r UV- pe r)114 illaJ 1.l., if' ni i:r. A ' r- i, 0 vi- i , 3 ri-ig o I
il'l�e►yu/-7ve &Al IsiJ C valliaXv177o /04
O,i'sv 1ii&s Qvio;IA. Jos lv�° Sni-e 1ech1v,)
j{Vu.vvipW- c.��r-e`Yted1P-71o1i. FaaIivr Sena�
�1
Oy -11,L-rwiP--- bovdll/ tiht. p //en 6
W,l't VtU.ifl�l, 40 �'Ult pYOt��JiO�M %.,1' I-WV�4,b, 011i0►, Ct4�
expaN�S e[cc �koxe-•
A

grOU � wade is l vz, --r-e.-iti, 5/1/IA
Wa DTh ? re vlepSke&e, Do va a G4 -r m0►',4s
3-une S1)Li,�,Se��, oaf,N�✓
°wkc 5 3.3 , 3,1 , ark% ,. I2' ) 1,35
6,5 , (� r9 7,0 7, &3 ,
Waill• Ivy
G r eci Nr 2 di , lA) e4 f -ct
-Peer POQ .',- hJ Pot S
is civop
-eXparc1,
11)r
Aluminum
sloc. e
C tiler 4
Coppr &4
Lead
10(D
elntor i4L4O0O
Flow; tik_
7-rl
8-6,4.144 it
P
CC ra` PYD7vt
41Z, 111042 I
1•
r
lit CaS-.
s h04- heir.
T£
allow

1-3/94 /vo oec6on. o'- l«(' it
. C L-7
u/b v/Q
3/ i Igq0//60 0 ;9 5/3a5
474 576-//7a0 95/6-0 7
/9q /P65//7o o 364 /WS--
''/ 9.3 /g5s1/ 9Yo q,; / s'o
///73 ago/ 7s o ga/3 72'
/0113 I/o /S 35 i 37, I//.27,5
q/l`3 /7ao/PAC0 /70 /j�`/
S�q3 7.200/9•9/0 alo z1/4-i
7/53 /, 70/ems go a93/76l
6/53 /06S"� 330 /3/ 07
5193 7a®o / 5,6,15 j 553/i117/
- 3 ///D//36o /257j/- 2
3/53 a6,55/35S/.- a60/%oo
423 1635 %/ b'yS' /qS-A61
1193 3600/13/0 493111S7j
/�93 �/W,2 Pv° h z_e Ji cove c/ecAoY)
zi.ohn-e o. 6 7 ujel
Hlum)nurl-,
C d ,\., l0 v. % L
z/hc. 103 v IL
Ba r v rr 1 1118A
C�,lori c , 5/000 u j/
ciao vl 11
/o ?77r0.60
fa, 7„21 /o, -7s
/1,6o//P/7
7, 864, 701
�So /1 05
7, 0o /7,35
41, V71/4,/ 7
7,41s"1/4 ,a5
oS
7, 2S(/7,36
/?„:2y
q�osfs,43
03///,36,
/3,/.1//d,vy

E
HEADWORKS LTMP FOR CROOKED CREEK
(ACTIVATED SLUDGE / AEROBIC DIGESTION WITH LAND APPLICATION)
A. SAMPLING POINTS
1. Influent
2. Effluent
3. Sludge Disposal
4. SIU - Radiator Specialty
5. SIU - Advanced Electronics
B. P.O.C.
1. NPDES - BOD, TSS, NH3
2. Land Application - As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni,
Se, Zn, % solids, sludge to disposal flow.
3. EPA - Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zr
4. Advanced Electronics - Ag, Cn, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn
5. Radiator Specialty - N/A
C. DETENTION TIME - NO
D. FLOW
Flow 1 = will be monitored
Flow 2 = will be monitored
E. SIU MONITORING
Per industrial user permit.

f�.
F. SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Sampling Point
1. Influent
2. Effluent
3. Sludge Disposal
4. SIU's
G. SAMPLING PLAN
Freaue
ch H.W.A. and per NPDES
requireme s
.W.A. and per NPDES
uirements
Per Sludge Application Permit
and 503 regulations
Per SIU Permit requirements
P.O.C.
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
BASIN
ACT. SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
LAND APP.
As
✓
✓
N/A
✓
Cd
`�
N/A
,./
Cr
V
✓
N/A
Cu
'7
`/
N/A
✓
Pb
✓
N/A
N/A
Hg
V
N/A
Mo
'/
N/A
✓
Ni
N/A
✓
Se
V
N/A
Zn
✓
v/
N/A
✓
Flow
N/A
/
N/A
✓
Solids
N/A
N/A
N/A
/
BOD
V
✓
N/A
N/A
TSS
✓
N/A
N/A

H. DETECTION LEVEL AND SAMPLE METHOD
P.O.C.
DETECTION LEVEL
SAMPLE METHOD
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Zn
BOD
TSS
CN
Ag
NH3
0.01
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.01
0.0002
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
2
2
0.01
0.005
0.1
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite

m
0
S039 OIIRHa 39asils
:��
9
ti
N
0
S''3fliU�) 1,1O+1vuIxc:
r l
�r—
t
t%
u
1 1
L_J
C
/

MEMO
Co-04j--
9 /
DATE
SUBJECT: 24€-•&C"c--
464.11-e a/t. C/644Z
Jo z /0/5
From
North North Carolina Department of Environment,
°I Health, and Natural Resources
•nred on Flecyc'eo Paper

j
oc:
UNION COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike Shalati, Director
February 2, 1994
Mr. Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
Assistant Chief for Technical Support
Water Quality Section
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Union County, Union County Crooked Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Dear Mr. Safrit:
On behalf of Union County, I want to thank you for allowing us to
meet with you and your staff on December 1, to discuss the status
of the Crooked Creek plant, and also our ideas and goals concerning
wastewater service in Union County.
I am writing to explain to you our proposed course of action
regarding the expansion of the Crooked Creek plant. As we
discussed, the County has a serious need for additional capacity in
the Crooked Creek drainage basin. Based on engineering reports
prepared by HDR Engineering, the plant, when expanded as originally
designed, will be capable of handling approximately 1.9 MGD, as
opposed to the permitted limit of 1.3 MGD. The County wishes to
receive the benefit of this additional capacity, but understands
both the staff concerns and regulatory restrictions due to the 7Q10
and 30Q2 flows which are apparently zero at the point of discharge
from the Crooked Creek plant.
As discussed in our meeting, there appears to be three potential
solutions which will allow the plant to be expanded to a flow of
greater than 1.3 MGD. These include:
1. further study of the 30Q2 flows, in the hopes that a
positive 30Q2 would be revealed;
2. amending the permit to more stringent effluent limits, so
that the mass loading of oxygen -consuming waste to the
stream did not exceed that quantity allowed in the 1.3 MGD
permit; and
P.O. Box 987 . Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0987 . Phone: [phone] . Fax: [phone]

Mr. Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
December 20, 1993
Page 2
3. piping all or a portion of the effluent to a location
where the 30Q2 flow is above zero.
The County understands that it is necessary to wait until the
summer and fall of 1994 to perform a low flow stream analysis. In
order to keep all options open and to immediately pursue the
expansion design, Union County desires to complete the design based
on an expansion to 1.9 MGD. This design would be capable of
meeting more stringent effluent limits in order to maintain the
current mass loading in the permit. The County would submit the
design to the state for approval. The County understands that the
state may review these documents only for compliance to the 1.3 MGD
currently permitted. The plant expansion would be constructed as
soon as possible, and, if the low flow stream analysis performed in
1994 yields a 30Q2 greater than zero, then the County would then
request a permit amendment to 1.9 MGD. If the 30Q2 assessment
confirms a zero flow, then the County would decide whether to
request more stringent limits or pipe all, or a portion of, the
effluent downstream. If the pursued option is to request more
stringent limits, the County agrees that an expansion to 1.9 MGD
would be the maximum permitted capacity, and the County would not
make a future request for expanded capacity beyond 1.9 MGD at the
existing discharge point.
Again, the County appreciates your time in reviewing our concerns
with the Crooked Creek plant. We would like any comments you may
have regarding our proposed plan of action.
Sincerely,
Mike Shalati
Union County Director of Public Works
cc: Joe Readling, HDR Engineering
Ron Lewis, Acting County Manager

?J3''' '5/
..,6514Le;,
Th,,,Ayshuireenee,/,/2.s. T' S‘46. 99 �, .�✓,s9 T/
1173 Alf cH2
��2 AC.eLY,J
7/ U41 _ie-1 r
r6ci:40174 7w1/;17) `7° 60-4
acrerW
/c7 79r4Z w, K64I J 2e,/ (/ (/g7
141 S f' CI"i 'lc" ! 74` G>/- / /ay ,/or✓ in 1451- /0 ~7 i S
tkatte-xY °Is .4. (7_(41,46.(- 3 17 /pi /14 rihry,/6 6v1-'075e&4/6 is•C)
rto,✓i i- 7/fl D e / f 1 Gf-etti/W i -0s /.(s Te-A/
/1e4116 fixiil6 coX //I • Gme,/ees. c(xiir
9,J6e- T 6/e arr.fr o. ( 7aq-p, At. ie S PWEgr�� ro
atin✓ vfy
/ '� /, c�ivii✓C7 . is."44417
. 0 8 o Few)

. �s '1 -.
Ce ( L.
state of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 18, 1994
Mr. Mike Shalati, Director of Public Works
Union County Public Works Department
Post Office Box 987
Monroe, North Carolina 28111
RE: Flows Tributary to Crooked Creek WWTP
NC0069841
Union County
Dear Mr. Shalati:
Afc•I'A
�EHNFt
The Permits and Engineering Unit has a number of wastewater collection projects under review for
the Union County Public Works Department. These projects include the following:
Project
Brittany Downs Estates
Lake Park, Phase 5
Providence Hill Subdivision, Phase 2
Bayside Village
Application Number
WQ0008731
WQ0008628
WQ0008702
WQ0008730
TOTAL
Proposed Flow
12,600 GPD
31,680 GPD
5,400 GPD
58,440 GPD
108,120 GPD
Prior to the issuance of these projects, the Union County Public Works Department must clarify
some of the confusion surrounding the volume of wastewater tributary to the Crooked Creek WWTP.
Crooked Creek is a 1.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant with the capability to expand up to 1.3 MGD.
According to the Division records, approximately 854,630 GPD have been permitted to be made tributary
to Crooked Creek, NOT including the above projects and associated flows. The Division also understands
that there are 11 subdivisions and commercial tracts whose wastewater flow has not yet been accounted
that were constructed without the Division's approval. These subdivisions anassociated flows are as
follows:'1- Q " I"
Project Number of Lots Proposed Flow ;
or y M'tµ ES
Wexford, Section II k° 14
// w) Clover.Bend Section I, II, III (1WF``' F' 7'73
q v'l 1. — Vesley Woods (1 4120
bow' � Hampton Meadows � � 92
Meadow Glen (v4Gr ems) 72
Anne Westwood Commerce Park, Phase I
��t P Westwood Commerce Park, Phase II
�{ lu Sandalwood IV (
i .z br)
Sandalwood II, III l 1
R•04J--Tower Industrial
Wesley Chapel
TOTAL
3Go 6Pp Gh 225
5,040 GPD 3,i 5o
26,280 GPD 16, y25
43,200 GPD Z7nq o
33,120 GPD
25,920 GPD l
43,200 GPD <=>
Flow Included in Phase I
120 45,360 GPD 2 7�. °
142 51,120 GPD 3 1, 6150
28,800 GPD
9.750 GPD g 75
639 311,790 GPD / 5 2, / -75 GPO
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Page 2
Union County Public Works Department600 (;\,ii 0 n/�9
January 18, 1994 /iµ"
tftA
Therefore the total volume of flow made tributary to Crooked Creek cbe determined as follows:
5.(4,u d f v umi'1 Co •
fn'� • % Gvokui Ck •
fed
Presently tributary to Crooked Creek
14)1(~CC°CJ 854,630 GPD
per Division records
Unpermitted flows from above
Flows associated with the projects presently
under review by the Division
311,790 GPD
108.120 GPD
TOTAL VOLUME OF WASTEWATER 1,274,540 GPD
Please note, the total volume of wastewater estimated above is in excess of the current capacity of
the Crooked Creek treatment plant.
Before any further wastewater collection systems are approved for connection or considered for
approval to Crooked Creek including those being reviewed by the Division presently, the following must
be submitted to the Division:
1. Will all the wastewater flow from above 11 subdivisions constructed without the Division's
approval ultimately be made tributary to Crooked Creek?
2. Has any of the wastewater flow from above 11 subdivisions or commercial tracts constructed
without the Division's approval been made tributary to Crooked Creek or any other wastewater
treatment plant? If so, please identify each subdivision and the facility to which they are
connected?
3. Have any of the above 11 subdivisions or commercial tracts constructed without the Division's
approval received a Water Quality permit from the Division once they were completed? If so,
please submit the name of the subdivision and the associated Water Quality permit number.
4. Have any other subdivisions or commercial tracts been constructed without the Division's
approval other than those listed?
5. When will the Union County Public Works Department submit the remaining subdivisions and
commercial tracts constructed without approval to the Division for permitting? Approximate
permitting dates should be submitted for each subdivision and commercial tract.
In addition to the above, the Division has noticed that several recent projects were submitted for
Union County rather than the Union County Public Works Department. Please explain the reason for this
change.
Please be advised, the Division does not guarantee that any of the applications presently under
review will be approved. First priority will be given to those subdivisions and commercial tracts that were
constructed without the Division's approval and whose flow may already be made tributary to the Crooked
Creek WWTP. Also, other than those subdivisions and commercial tracts constructed without the
Division's approval, no future wastewater collection systems will be accepted by the Division for review
whose wastewater flow will be made tributary to the Crooked Creek WWTP, until completion of the
expansion of the wastewater treatment facility to the permitted limits.

•
- Page 3 . , " . .
• Union County Public Works Department
January 18, 1994
Refer to the subject permit application numbers when providing the requested information.
Please submit two (2) copies of all information to my attention at the address below.
Also, please note that failure to provide this additional information on or before February 7, 1994 will
subject all four (4) applications to being returned as incomplete, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0208.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact myself, Ms. Carolyn D. McCaskill or Mr.
Michael D. Allen at [phone].
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
cc: Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality
Permit File WQ0008731
Permit File WQ0008628
Permit File WQ0008702
Permit File WQ0008730

,A14:19%eio. aut-/
t_) ea. LT-
64/
J9 753
v
(70y).??.3 -6;p0
T,04."- too n_Pqrilx 6srLec0.5. _M1117!!_IP. -
-704- 336 ov
Eitit vva
Oati tuez,
ok4:. _ 10, C _ COtot in.

�lrn3
aria,' a
WR,vr / -P e To ioN To (o,44PL y,
0.0------' /3Mp ?0u96e iko
ni r eiva r4,,f 0,90," IMX—E (47- //1,74?-,( GoA1160) /1ii•//2R. Asp0
%d / /44p , f/4ivr /7 -5-(4• i/G12(/ 6 ;- rivr-711.04W7 S
ImvT 7,if b)e/ d€7 /1 /N, (76 6' l M4.;72
�/l f7o j, 8j/1577A4/ vyivo f/cee/ 5e /N 4oetpw
11,04 iD Cddgs 6
CANT etv2 ,91 GA'/O 143ez yte,4
6
6 of ef/o,/ /e& GAIVCA-s� 2 / / fir f vNf1L fflG(1./77 a_ _ _ C,Krb,i

y 74 SR1515
4--1.4 nit. —♦-
NGootd1531
UNiol Co.
e oRm 6FtLY
WARRf6 TEEtER)
176Ni6D
S. FMK CRooicED C&6614
Ncoo69941
U41014 Co. I4WTP42.
So..:
U,'isot4 Co .
5: FORK CRDoy- P CREEK
\5ID4
Nco0300 96
!Atop Co.
0.4-5 imp
NOT 8ui ix

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 24, 1993
Memorandum
To: Coleen Sullins
From: Susan A. Wilson
Subject: Union County WWTP (Crooked Creek WWTP #2)
NC0069841
This memo is compiled to provide a brief history of the Union County WWTP(s). Union County
at one time held 3 NPDES permits on Crooked Creek. Currently, the facility has only 2 NPDES
permits.
The Union County permit number NC0069531 was denied in 1992. This facility now has
connected directly to the Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (NC0069841), approximately 1 mile
downstream on South Fork Crooked Creek, s-hargrzrg.
Union County -Crooked Creek WWTP (NC0069841) has an existing permit for 1.3 MGD. The
facility has built to a capacity of 0.65 MGD with 5/2 limits. The facility recently received an A/C
for 1.0 MGD (7/93 - 1 MGD capacity could be reached without major modifications to the plant);
the current permit contains limits for 1.0 MGD and 1.3 MGD. Please refer to the attached letter
from Allen Wahab and the memo from Dave Vogt of December 1987, as to why the facility was
allowed the permit for 1.3 MGD flow, even upon the renewal WLA performed in 1992.
Union County has also held a permit (NC0031186) for an as yet unconstructed wastewater
treatment plant, approximately 4.5 miles downstream of NC0069841, on South Fork Crooked
Creek. The plant is permitted for 0.45 MGD flow at 5/1 lin-its. No A/C has been received to date
for this facility. It is very questionable whether this°`ractl�ity has positive,iow. USGS should be
consulted before the next renewal (10/31/94), if not beforehand, to determine if the facility has
positive 30Q2 (7Q10s=0.0). Dave Vogt's 1987 memo indicates that the 30Q2 for the entire south
fork of Crooked Creek is 0.0 cfs. This permit should probably be denied at the next renewal
period.
It appears that the only area of positive 30Q2 may be below the confluence of north and south fork
Crooked Creek near Highway 601 (although this is unconfirmed). This area is approximately 7
river miles below the current Union County -Crooked Creek WWTP.
cc: Carla Sanderson
Dave Goodrich
Randy Kepler

October 1, 1993
Mr. Don Safrit
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Union County Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility
Request for Speculative Limits
HDR Project No. 240-016-018
Dear Mr. Safrit:
I-D:1
Per our telephone discussion on September 29, 1993, I am following up on behalf of Union
County with a formal request for speculative limits for the Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The plant is further identified as Union County WWTP #2, Permit No. NC0069841.
The design flow for which we request speculative limits is 1.9 MGD. The flow will remain
domestic wastewater, and the discharge point into the south fork of Crooked Creek is to remain
the same.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone]. I appreciate
your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
IIDR En
eering, Inc. of North Carolina
oseph C. Readling, P.E.
Project Engineer
JCR/nct
cc: Mike Shalati
Bill Summerlin
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of North Carolina
Suite 1400
128 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
28202-5001
Telephone
704 338-1800