NC0069841_Wasteload Allocation_19950712

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNINO 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 12, 1995
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reverse aide

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0069841
PERMI i 1 BE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Union County Department of Public Works
Union County Wastewater Treatment Plant #2
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 1.9 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 80 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 20
Comments:
Expansion from current maximum of 1.3 MGD upon relocation to
North Fork Crooked Creek .
RECEIVING STREAM: North Fork Crooked Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-12
Reference USGS Quad:—GS-W-- cam- /(; S E. (please attach)
County: Union
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 10/31/99 Treatment Plant Class: III
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
1
Requested by: Greg Nizich ' k' Date: 5/2/95
Date: 7//2-/?r
Prepared by: aitti,„
Reviewed by: ( 104 (t,1 Date: l i
9�� is> °t"-� 3 9 ,14,/L () 5—
a_ /z
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
CA45
.51219S
73a3
2 t/v3 Av Drainage Area (mi ) /3� g. Streamflow (cfs): 43
7Q10 (cfs) D Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 05 30Q2 (cfs) t 23
Toxicity Limits'tWC 90 % Acu
Instream Monitoring: Ceti "�a �/ (914f14)
Parameters Coxdttc:ilrfyi 226'. /ecaX co%' o✓'M1, temp.
Upstream ✓ Location S00 -'f
Downstream 0? /obafi»fS Location 0 y %. 0ltwn
z) 5, /siy
Cor
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
1.9
1.9
BODS (mg/1):
5.0
10.0
NH3N (mg/1):
2.0
4.0
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1):
30.0
30.0
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200.0
200.0
pH (SU):
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
17.0
17.0
Oil and Grease (mg/1):
N/A
N/A
TP (mg/1):
monitor
monitor
TN (mg/1):
monitor
monitor
Meas. Freauenc
Conductivity
monitor
3/week
Lindane *
monitor
Quarterly
1,1 Dichloroethene *
monitor
Quarterly
Tetrachloroethene *
monitor
Quarterly
Trichloroethane *
monitor
Quarterly
Copper
monitor
Monthly
* Monitor for one year. After one year the facility may have
the option of requesting removal of these compounds
from the permit.

EXI TIN e
DISCHAR
.LOClow
BASE MAP: USGS MATTHEWS QUAD
PHOTO REVISED 1980
USGS BAKERS QUAD
PHOTO REVISED 1987
LOCATION MAP
CROOKED CREEK WWTP
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE:
I" = 2000'

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requester:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request #
Union County Wastewater Treatment Plant #2
NC0069841
Domestic 80%, Industria1 20%
Existing
Renewal - Modification
North Fork Crooked Creek
C
03-07-12
Union
Mooresville -
Greg Nizich
5/2/95
G 16SE
8303
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
13.65
0
0.08
13
0.23
100
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
DEM has denied Union County's request to expand discharge beyond 1.0 MGD to the South
Fork Crooked Ck. because the creek has zero 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows. Union Co. has been granted
a permit to discharge 1.3 MGD once the outfall has been relocated from South Fork Crooked Ck.
to North Fork Crooked Ck. On March 27, 1995 (and modif. on 4/28/1995) DEM issued an A
to C to expand the plant to 1.9 MGD and build a —3.4 mile long pipeline to discharge effluent into
the North Fork Crooked Ck.
grit -has -been -gated, As of March 1995 visible construction of the new outfall pipeline or
expansion of the plant had not yet begun (per. comm. Mike Parker-MRO).
Mike Parker's May 16, 1995 staff report incorrectly states that Advanced Electronics is one of
two SIUs. Joe Pearce in Pretreatment reports that Advanced Electronics is out of business and that
a new circuit board manufacturer, American Circuits, has been denied a permit by Union Co. to
discharge into its system. Joe states (per. comm. 5/25/95) that the denial is in adjudication. Union
County's permit application lists Radiator Specialties as the sole industrial contributor at 90,000
gpd. Radiator Specialties has a groundwater pretreatment permit and is not a true SIU.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
klv' i 29 7146 %1G!T (AzY /f77f, e/(LD Fp< / .
A/M-7- Is -7-21-1 ezifs or -7-& mot t 4---aiveg-4/6„1-,-5-1;9
�/V
©� c
Ant Sul �ancA

2
.�
Recommended by: ata4z-g-td i�i67//�./U.�'y
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: COIL
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
Date:
Date: C WU-
Date: 6/2f/95—
J U L 1 t995

3
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
Oil and Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil and Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
1.0 1.0
5.0 10.0
2.0 4.0
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
1.3 1.3
5.0 10.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0
6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
N/A N/A N/A N/A
monitor monitor monitor monitor
monitor monitor monitor monitor
Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter
1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.9
5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0
6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor
monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor
LIMIT CHANGES DUE TO:
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
No limit changes with the exception of wasteflow.
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

4
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
Conductivity
Lindane
1,1 Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethane
Copper
Recommended Limits
Conductivity
Lindane
1,1 Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene*
Trichloroethane -
Copper
TOXICS/METALS
Chronic P/F limit QRTLY
90%
90%
February, May, August, and November
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Meas. Frequency
3/week
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Monthly
Meas. Frequency
3/week
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Monthly
/Mon !o 7 f oxz�o►�-. �9f f yco►}z- flu �1, fy
oPZco�- o � u��� rem 6 v t,� o if 7`Aic4-G Go o df r� pz1
LIMIT CHANGES DUE TO:
home -
No limit changes.
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.

DoWh5"eaki4 /oceti/on : 2 focali'on3 �s/ m;, dojdnS7%"EA44 And a/ S1f/5/1/.
5
UI,
p rwAwi loud/ )01 : / /#Ga fie -A — So0 J byJSfiY,a.tl
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: - �- - Sec a ‘ape_TOr' doh, '7 Yin /GGa /' dh
Downstream Location:.)
Parameters: Conductivity, D.O., Fecal Coliform, Temperature
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Instream monitoring locations will be determined after consultation with Mike Parker-MRO
because of the low flow, pooling characteristics of the N. Fork Crooked Ck. Tentatively,instream
Assessment may recommend two downstream monitoring locations: 1/4 mi. downstream and at
SR1514. The upstream location depends on Mike Parker's observations of the stream and how far
upstream the effluent may travel during low or zero flow conditions.
Monitoring locations will be forwarded ASAP.
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
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 brivo,co. GV UI/ / / iP 2
Permit* 11)6006r 9Syl pipe* ov /
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 90 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quaneriy monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thi days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
e/bru , AlAt1 // zM sI, 2oliE 6 c'L Effluent umpling 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 Forrn (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(w ithin 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 62, C, cfs
Permitted Flow /• 9 MGD
IWC /0 0 %
Basin & Sub -basin 03--07-) Z
Receiving Stream thv'IA Fir,& Gk..
County ancrru
QCL P1F Version 9/91
Recommended by:
a,,he,,d).Aztp
Date 7//

06/12/95 09:19 HDR CHARLOTTE 4 919 733 9919
June 5, 1995
it/6.006g8qI
Post -it' Fax Note
7671
Qate02/9S
From
pa6sIP. 2
To —Pot.) sfi FR ! r
'Co,/oapt..�c
ER / c
44.%/ G /
M
Co.
"1 ,�
Phone it
Phone1�.itI
Fax M / �el%7�3 '
9Q/9
Fax K
Mr. Mike Shalati, Director
Union County Public Works Director
P. O. Box 987
Monroe, NC 28111-0987
NO.038 PO01/002
L A /ys 9/
R
hi'
az
Re: FNSI and Environmental Assessment
Upgrade and Expansion of Crooked Creek WWTP
HDR Project No. 00240-017-018
Dear Mike:
It is my understanding the NCDEM has sent a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) to
the State Clearinghouse, and that the 30-day review period expires on June 6, 1995. I also
understand that the only comments received to date adverse to the issuance of this FNSI are from
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission based upon a survey which they conducted.
In their May 18, 1995, letter, Mr. Richard B. Hamilton, Assistant Executive Director of the
Wildlife Resources Commission states:
"Based on the results of the survey and the similarity of the habitats except for the
point -source discharge, we believe that the aquatic resources of North Fork
Crooked Creek would be adversely impacted from the addition of this point -
source discharge. Therefore we recommend that Union County pursue one of the
alternatives that does not require relocating the discharge to North Fork Crooked
Creek."
Wildlife Resources appears to favor the option of continuing to discharge at the existing Crooked
Creek site, an option not permissible by DEM, or taking a new South Fork Crooked Creek site
for discharge, resulting in a considerably higher cost ($518,000 present worth cost) to Union
County.
Concerning the Wildlife Resources Commission Survey Report, we offer the following:
1. The Crooked Creek WWTP was not required to dechlorinate the effluent in
the past, but dechlorination now is practiced and therefore the adverse impact
on the aquatic biota should be reduced. The new North Fork Crooked Creek
discharge permit will also be dechlorinated.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of North Carolina
Suite 1400 Telephone
128 S. Tryon Street 704 338-1800
Charlotte, North Carolina Fax
28202-5001 704 338-6760
1

06/12/95 09:19 HDR CHARLOTTE 4 919 733 9919
NO.038 P002/002
.lvIr. Mike Shalati, Director
June 5, 1995
Page 2
2. Union County has an NPDES permit, Authorization to Construction, and all
other permits to discharge 1.3 mgd into North Fork Crooked Creek. The
County desperately needs to have additional capacity. If this FNSI is
approved, Union County would be discharging up to 1.9 mgd into North Fork
Crooked Creek.
3. During the survey of North Fork Crooked Creek, the survey biologists found
one shell of a dead Savannah lilliput, a threatened mussel species.
We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if here are
questions.
Very truly yours,
UDR Engineering, Inc. of North Carolina
enneth M. Barrett, P.E.
Vice President
KMB/nct'"
L

Tec4A7Ur G u1a
WWI.z _ CO, wWTP 2
19i5c41, Iota/Aril//v4ft CY&thc' (k,
W.nfer 7Q10 ' ,7 CA.
P � ,gow)
�w
42e UPI(/w(C4
l = (ac)
Sin 179 / __.c��, � W 7Q/0
Ilsvctzer AvviKAvi Z, 4/, Foi-1 (roand (4.
/ro/. ya//me. S; F /- Crao a
/9/1/6/2 (.15 = Z,9y c75
= (45
'4750L
7,6
(z,qc)(b -c) f Av7 c3P75 Jc Al? fo, Ogc
T= 9,Y7
?/q7°6-9.75,6 = y,72°C.-
- GO�C / ; I�ur�'r►_ Lvi i ler /o r�' 7t; 3t/ G,�1 i - �aeak.
G i s 4_ fA4 7 e0 fif G e
Z, 8 aG 5/A I I J,1 6%71 _ o7-c jl 4474 /-2'tr—
) .
Qw; geTe
QwfRe

/40.6(o / 5 r,4./c0- :
Gu. flu wcs /56//' (Q /)
/ey. Z. 6� .
(�77 Tz
Qw Qiz
2,s = '1„,19,4) DOF(Y?75)
755(,)w t vf) = et, 0,6) $ k3F
7, c5-�- 0,60V = 94 Qw f 0,0
-a,05 Qv,/
—o,2 g
?t, Dfld9 o'L 0, 705'/146-P
wG woih/
n/G/ L h f,
/;1-
6/Cee01111 /AA 2, o/e4/(Am/te.e. ST of
.i(/&pj il / t,/ w/l4 !/o trvf / f% Gt/ wa f e lib y
Pi f kv/n- r // k ceo/ fo c/0 5e fo Gtn41.-.11,Z'`
au T C yvl. J y /i'a vel/Pt f `' 3, 9 PR p.;vi--€ c_
h 1 />^-t fits /1J '7%' /; YGL Creoi
c+�/ -
Gcre251h9 f% c.ia 4, V:v/a 'flq f Z. 9 'C 57�d.

Summary
Union Co. - Crooked Creek WWTP #2
May 31, 1995
AHM
On July 26, 1993 Union Co. was granted an Authorization to Construct (A
to C) for expansion of the Crooked Creek WWTP #2 from 0.65 MGD to 1.0 MGD.
Currently, this facility has a permit (NC0069841) to discharge 1.0 MGD into
South Fork Crooked Ck. Due to growth in the region Union Co. wanted to
increase its discharge. Subsequently, the County applied for and was granted a
permit effective August 1, 1993 to continue discharging 1.0 MGD into South
Fork Crooked Ck. and expand to 1.3 MGD once an A to C was submitted to the
DEM. This permit expired October 31, 1994 before an A to C for 1.3 MGD was
granted. Consequently, the County could not discharge 1.3 MGD into South
Fork Crooked Ck.
Early in 1994 (before the permit expired) Union Co. applied for a
renewal of its 1.3 MGD permit but the WLA was denied by Michelle Wilson on
July 13, 1994 because the South Fork Crooked Ck. has 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows equal
to zero. It is not readily apparent from the file why a 1.3 MGD permit was
originally granted to a facility discharging to a zero flow stream. However,
the decision to grant the August 1, 1993 permit was most likely made as a result
of discussions held at several meetings with Union Co. Subsequent
correspondences by DEM with Union Co. have stated that the County will not be
allowed to increase its discharge into South Fork Crooked Ck. above 1.0 MGD in
the future because the creek has critical flows equal to zero. As a result, Union
Co. proposed relocating its outfall from South Fork Crooked Ck. to North Fork
Crooked Ck. which has 7Q10=0 and 30Q2>0. DEM approved this plan and issued
Union Co. a permit effective February 1, 1995 to continue discharging 1.0 MGD
into South Fork Crooked Ck. as well as, after receipt of an A to C the County can
begin discharging 1.3 MGD into the North Fork Crooked Ck.
On April 28,1995 the County received an A to C for expansion of the
plant's facilities to accommodate a 1.3 MGD discharge flow. Currently, Union
Co. has applied for a permit to discharge 1.9 MGD into the North Fork Crooked
Ck. and DEM is reviewing this application.

C r' A.6A1 fl 'tv CA141,e, /4XtexA.- / r f4 / opo5CI As c'2
Local h. oh / /I/rork (roohel Clc
an/ G0_ Gu14/T✓' - Z
Lt N1 I rrf N O f0°w al /I `�Ol l�vt.c. LT /%
propoSea/ Iw'7t,4 /oca2 , RA, f1
��Y 5.tc 2 w Aid a / cA Id a ,praX.. iyPktt
ataxia /oc.r t map )
— For tt -#z
/3,yn
c70/0 = OFs
w7Q10 = OOg CFs
3Qz=0,z3cfs
G1vj _ / 3 cis
• 76/d uputRo. =
• W7Q/0 t4ha- If
• 3OQZ y po=
Gt 6-5
0 cfs/ Z
0, 00 Sq 7 c Ps Atli 2-
/ y c 2
a3 cfs
/ 3, `/ in, L Z
/K4 z.
D,(7 /7/6 cF5/i2t.�
O. 9 70 /5- c/014,c

qt1115
ANM
Gr�fi�Q,,f Flow CAA 1IJ
, ✓' flu- prop s d ® /A,61 /ovQacit- , , %y n:,• NoGv/? s / a'
fi _ = /3 6 5" Z (su- ,d,1_ s,%
Y w1� : Flow (c Fs) = a ` e/r0 (f/m L) aI9 ( 5%
7Q /o = 0 c fs
• W7qM = A OO517 c f5/Mi Z' /3.61-' 2= 0,08/5- c s
,30QZ = 0,017// cfs/rat 2 /3,65 r Z3y2 Cf5
• a v) = 0,97015 a'5/w14* /3, 6fMA. Z
d`
/ k. ry d5 d U(�t// �a/ �oa �/�f/�'i". h f ro.,�'. 7!�
r r� �
57Q/0 = a cfs
W7Q/0= 615
300l = 0,23 c s
/3 cis
l3,11 .Cfs

/1y41
5/zz/' 5
/i"a r'vl A,, ' Avg C /c u //, f, s
W roc t t -iP S3oS (s/Z/9s)
e,, Crooh.ei Ch.. Wwrp9 firo5e5 re/gal4
ifs o u f fAi/ /''/�/rorSefh faith_ h_ Croo a Ck .
Norf� fo,rt fo
ovo%y' fo { etna /ke.
fiIlf!v1e.nt paor5 uuur4L1r ,
fftt I ec , /oct /' m miff SLiol.vf i z% rer es7 JJ
d i 5 c /l.44),t, /et a. c I11'6 lei�i(-9 r - 77 /),9 OGt/ 1
%� . Gt/Ct/tlq.1I`O1S Aly/y 70 �k- kkelt-6M. O
/ 4., /v ,I,i cJ LL/A 7, y A JJi f L %�,
f, Safe # � (st i7 c m p) th ac%vio1ia
all. pined h y wio v/nj & d cat /oca&-)2 f4e#10L.
5/Ye 2 an, 13. l/ ter, Z (cq lc. 47 Pt56-S )
//hin D./7. a. 2.53 / � Z (�t/. G15II) a /o/v my) a
rh c/v a I'm A rya for --44- rc k e5 feJ c_✓i 5 c Aram
r_
/oca yt. 0?'c /GIA ,ay.rh 6Y 4_ Cro o k6 j Ck
�, 6 s .144., 2.

ftif �� "6c1
!ii �•
BASE MAP:
RE • ES -D
CAR.
41,9A N
EXIS1IN
DISCHAR
-LOCATION''
5 n
USGS MATTHEWS QUAD
PHOTO REVISED I980
USGS BAKERS QUAD
PHOTO REVISED I987
LOCATION MAP
CROOKED CREEK WWTP
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE:
I" = 2000'

o5SIFR:A0iOr,
N
MA i • Fl FF. WS N. C.
E I -24 000
o
1 •e.1.••i
.
1971
' °REVISED 1988 ,N CONTOUR TEITVAL IC? FEE, 4 ,.•-;2--.4-;•,.
NATIONAL Gr.0t,f TIC VERTICAL 117.11Ift r•F 1020 • • •
•
11 _ SERIFS VR. -..6 ......
..., ..,„swL3
.1 I;) ..'.... . i ...,°..f•--.• .
•.:, '.
_- - •••• .ht ..:,1,, StJ, V! C rI•
-., • gZ... ''.-c'•".;..'.: s-s'--r,11 ...,.t,
. - 'C•I:.7..1'-
....
- ,la , .
Pc, :'-'•':
Cie
1
-.,..• ...T- 4a;VIOR :WI li; , i.,-• ri•1/. r t ..\ - • • f.—o i,"f'
• •
-
.'. • a1:n';':' ' 0.-;.I%.,Si:1. SttePoole V •. : 'i.
,... ;,..v.;":„,......,,,,...., ,,,..,,,,..., •
, • . .
., cps.. `...
,-.• ,' • .., , ( ,..,..
..:.
. ,,.,-- / p/.,.,.--..,• ....,((----), .,',...„.k•"'-.-,,.)-,,--::,. .- —.,..,.,/c,,,v
-
-
-
-•
-.F.....,
.
i •
' ----
•
.. '•)..fi'-l: • • ,.
4•
.i.;-"-:II•-1.;
..' - -11.--.-:. • "*,.
!
f
f1 s...."—..—.,.!.„..rt..... 4.... ‘.,, ‘.,
..,.:,... :
' .-, ,ht-",..,• -:.-,,:.)::,,,-,c_-.:
.,..r-. ,\,.:))
,— "'1; ::.
-
. •f:
,..,.--.-.-'.•:;;---;.•Th
-• '.i
•:.1:/ .
•...
.•,
--* .- - --•-•
.
•
0
'‘„
( . :•'1
' • j: • , • Xt.
• • ' .0
).
•
••••
•
)
----.. I
v '•:.'"
• \--...i;_. I.k.
..•
i • !,
.. ...
. t 4' , l' /.... •
',...:, - • ..-,'.•:.-:.---.....!!!
. \IL . „tcC.11-:•L'a•--_..}. • /1.›.......e.
.t... r';-' • -•'' V 1
. - ..-
.• .
1 „.—.. ....
N...--
"
,....4,,,,1/2 ....._ .t. ..
.,,,4-7,,,),, ..• . '..,. -9. `-, (.
•.,,
2 •
• I'.
• < • 0,1i/
• '
•
- .
\P.D. .....
•
r. •
;..."1:•"‘ j ' , •
•..
•,.. —
e - .
• , 0 : • 'N. .4,:f • . •
•
43:;').)•';
r •
• ": •
' 4 • -"'
.1" •
•
• •
•
••
•
("rs(1 • ' rj.
g- • ,1 • ( • •
••
• 000 • • • • • 1 • • a
1 :
• t
' '',, '-:- -:-.''• -•,.: ............. "2 : 1,..,-..,,:?` - -:-••• -
• •• .. . :".4 ; #
:Of° . . ,.. — - .‘,...,,-,, 0
1,----- • i ',, .. 0,3 miles klew SR 150, .od XO miles SW of Benton; esossfoads. NC
.. •-• ..f." 1,), J.> \.. s . Q A . 14.0 eft
• at :. ;.•
w20i0 . 0.0113 cr.,
%...• i .1
., ..'A
• ' / ' .6 ).' \ s s ..,.:-.,
J 47.:1,;, . ic,N.
,•\,-.- la A.. 11.9 mi2
..,,,, 1611 find 2.7 miles Welt of Batumi moss/c.d. NC
D.A.. 131 mil
W7Q10. 0011 cfs :)..I.A.(17. ., /-1‘1 •si .4r-s1..- .
S2Q10. 0 el" 30(71. 0.23 c ft ?;:.j. \ ---1_.6.,..•-j,..0:- t." 71.-1'N' s ,_-_,...1:, ..1.1•01r:
Silt t3 P ...` . i-7•-•• ' ' •
lt;.1An.tiljes5 ctx,„17.., SR 1001 and 0.3 Mlles NW of Bottom el ..... oadf. NC: ;.. , • t‘e.. 1,..,•_\
, 'il.... Nf...... --:)....r '..-74:,_, :`.-..i ..:... •
•
•• so,
"
OA 3: 0 a; wnon 0.20 cfg
Milk • .1\
t° - n.0 3002 0.60 ell •
cakuhrici 4 as-5

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
May 18, 1995
Mr. Michael Wolfe
HDR Engineering Inc
128 South Tryon ST Suite 1400
Charlotte NC 28202
SUBJECT: Aquatic Survey of the Crooked Creek Subbasin for Union
County Environmental Assessment for Crooked Creek
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Project No. 691
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission have completed a mussel survey of the Crooked Creek
Subbasin in Union County. The attached survey was performed as
part of our regular scheduled work and is provided for use by
Union County as part of their Environmental Assessment for moving
an outfall from South Fork Crooked Creek to North Fork Crooked
Creek. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), Section 201 of the Clean
Water Act, and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The survey revealed a significantly greater (100% greater)
diversity of mussel species and a significantly greater (1,418%)
abundance of these animals in North Fork Crooked Creek than in
South Fork Crooked Creek. A small vulnerable population of the
Savannah lilliput (Toxoplasma pullus), a state listed and federal
candidate species, should be considered to exist in North Fork
Crooked Creek based on a valve of this species that was found.
There was no evidence to suggest that the Savannah lilliput still
existed in South Fork Crooked Creek. Additionally, two non -
listed species were found in North Fork Crooked Creek that were
absent in South Fork Crooked Creek. The habitat, impacts from
land use, and non -point source pollution appeared similar for the
two tributaries. The one recognizable difference is the point-

Union Co 201 Crooked CK 2 May 18, 1995
Aquatic Survey
source discharge to South Fork Crooked Creek from the wastewater
treatment plant.
We had consented to allow Union County to pursue grant money
but advised that it might be necessary to modify their plans
including relocating the proposed outfall, if the aquatic survey
revealed that aquatic resources could be significantly impacted.
Based on the results of the survey and the similarity of the
habitats except for the point -source discharge, we believe that
the aquatic resources of North Fork Crooked Creek would be
adversely impacted from the addition of this point -source
discharge. Therefore, we recommend that Union County pursue one
of the alternatives that does not require relocating the
discharge to North Fork Crooked Creek.
We will appreciate Union County's efforts to help protect
these valuable aquatic resources. If we can provide further
assistance, contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
pit 6. 4,44 .
Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Executive Director
OFA/ofa
cc: Honorable John Lentz
Honorable James Black, Jr.
Reginald Sutton, DEM, Construction and Grants, DEHNR
1/bave Goodrich, DEM, NPDES Section
Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Janice Nicholls, Biologist, USFWS
John Alderman, Nongame/Endangered Species Project Leader
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program
Survey Report
to
Habitat Conservation Section
11 May 1995
Project: Survey of Crooked Creek Subbasin in Union County for the
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
NCWRC Survey Biologists: John Alderman and Mark Hartman
Introduction
The federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter is presently known
from South Carolina and North Carolina. In North Carolina, the
species is restricted to 2 small creek systems in Union County -
Goose Creek and Waxhaw Creek. It is possible that small
populations exist in other nearby creeks.
Through Section 6 funding, the Commission is surveying for other
extant populations. Crooked Creek was planned for survey work
during this fiscal year. Because of local government needs in
Union County, Commission biologists planned the survey for 8 - 9
May 1995.
Five areas were chosen as survey stations. Station 950508.1 is
located in woodland above and below SR 1547 in Crooked Creek.
Stations 950509.1 and 950509.3 are located in North Fork Crooked
Creek in woodland above SR 1004 and SR 1504, respectively.
Stations 950509.2 (above SR 1004) and 950509.4 (below SR 1504)
are located in South Fork Crooked Creek in woodland.
Station 950508.1 in Crooked Creek provides good habitat for
freshwater mussels. Substrates consist of various combinations
of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and bolder. The overall habitat
can be characterized as riffle -pool -riffle habitat.

Station 950509.1 in North Fork Crooked Creek and station 950509.2
in South Fork Crooked Creek have substrates composed of various
combinations of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Station 950509.3
in North Fork Crooked Creek and station 950509.4 in South Fork
Crooked Creek have very good mussel habitat with substrates
composed of various combinations of silt, sand, gravel, cobble,
bolder, and bedrock. The overall habitat for both stations can
be characterized as riffle -pool -riffle habitat.
Methods
At each survey station, the survey biologists utilized a
combination of visual and tactile searches of substrates to
collect mussels during a 1.0 man-hour timed search. (A 0.5 man-
hour search was completed at station 950508.1.) After each timed
search, the mussels were separated by species or species
complexes, counted, and returned to the creeks.
Results and Discussion
Results of the mussel surveys of the Crooked Creek Subbasin are
provided in Table 1.
There is a significant difference in mussel diversity and
abundance in North Fork Crooked Creek compared with South Fork
Crooked Creek. Mussel species diversity was at least 100%
greater and live mussel abundance was 1,418% greater in North
Fork Crooked Creek compared with South Fork Crooked Creek. Also,
the Savannah lilliput exists in North Fork Crooked Creek. This
species only occurs at 8 sites in Georgia, South Carolina, and
North Carolina. The population in North Fork Crooked Creek
should be considered very small and highly vulnerable to
extirpation.
The differences in diversity and abundance in the 2 headwater
tributaries of Crooked Creek cannot be accounted for by levels of
sedimentation, nutrient loading from poultry houses, or stream
flow. Sedimentation is a problem in both the North and South
forks of Crooked Creek, and poultry houses are common in both
subbasins. Although stream flow is less in South Fork Crooked
Creek, high mussel diversity and abundance have been seen in
other North Carolina streams with significantly less flow than
South Fork Crooked Creek. (These streams also have significant
land use impacts.) Other factors, such as the presence of a
relatively large point source on South Fork Crooked Creek, may
account for the differences in mussel communities in the 2
Crooked Creek tributaries.

Table 1. Freshwater mussel species in the Crooked Creek Subbasin
in Union County, North Carolina. Unless otherwise noted, counts
are of live animals.
CREEK
ISTAMON
I SPECIES
I COUNT
Crooked Cr.
950508.1
Eastern elliptio
Elliptio complanata
5
Carolina creekshell
Villosa vaughaniana
(State listed SC and
federal C2 species)
_
1
North Fork
Crooked Cr.
950509.1
Elliptio species
complex
79
Carolina lance
Elliptio angustata
1
Uniomerus species
5
Savannah lilliput
Toxolasma pullus
(State listed T and
federal C2 species)
1 valve
Eastern creekshell
Villosa delumbis
2 shells
North Fork
Crooked Cr.
950509.3
.
Elliptio species
complex
171 •
Carolina lance
Elliptio angustata
1
Uniomerus species
1
Eastern floater
Pyganodon cataracta
1 shell
South Fork
Crooked Cr.
950509.2
Uniomerus species
1
Carolina lance
Elliptio angustata
1 shell
South Fork
Crooked Cr.
950509.4
Elliptio species
complex
16

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 27, 1995
Mr. Michael Shalati
Union County Public Works
P.O. Box 218
Monroe, North Carolina 28111
SUBJECT: Future Service for Crooked Creek WWTP
Union County
Dear Mr. Shalati:
E I -I N I
I am writing in response to the letter from Mr. G. Eric Williams of HDR Engineering, Inc.
concerning future planning requirements for the North Fork Crooked Creek plant in Union
County. DEM (Division of Environmental Management) can appreciate the County's
desire to put forth planning efforts necessary for growth in the future. As you know we
have discussed at length the planning efforts with the County for wastewater disposal
needs.
Since 1993, DEM and Union County have been negotiating the options for a discharge that
will service the Crooked Creek area. The existing WWTP on South Fork Crooked Creek
will not be allowed to expand since the 7Q10 and 30Q2 estimates are equal to zero cfs. It
was determined that the highest amount of wasteflow needed to service the area would be
1.9 MGD. Therefore, the County decided to relocate to North Fork Crooked Creek where
there is a positive 30Q2 flow estimate and an expansion to 1.9 MGD will be allowed.
In August 1994, DEM responded to a request for speculative limits for wasteflows up to
2.5 MGD at the North Fork Crooked Creek location. While DEM recognizes the possible
need for additional flow to service the area, we are concerned with allowing increases to the
relocation site until we know more about the North Fork Crooked Creek system.
Discharges are allowed to 7Q10=0 and 30Q2>0 flow streams but they must meet advanced
tertiary limits. We are currently looking at areas where discharges have been allowed to
these low flow streams. In some cases recorded instream data show the potential for
impacts to water quality. In light of this, DEM would like to determine possible water
quality impacts once the relocation to North Fork Crooked Creek is complete and the
discharge has occured during critical periods.
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

In addition to the above, DEM and Union County are currently working out the details to a
proposed discharge on Twelve Mile Creek. Supposedly this discharge will service Union
County's wastewater disposal needs. The request for a proposed expansion to 6 MGD for
the North Fork Crooked Creek Plant appears contradictory to the proposal for a Twelve
Mile Creek Plant. As discussed at numerous meetings, Union County should develop a
comprehensive wastewater management plan in order to determine the most cost effective,
efficient option for waste disposal and at the same time minimize water quality impacts.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this matter. I can be reached at (919)
733-5083, ext. 519.
qona
cerely,
ld L. Safn`f, P.
Assistant Chief for Tec al -Support
Water Quality Section
cc: G. Eric Williams - HDR Engineering, Inc.
Permits and Engineering Unit
Central Files

April 3, 1995
Mr. Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. D.E.H.N.R.
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
F7.1, ro v ii."
,Rts
(APB 5199
Re: NPDES Permit Application for Crooked Creek WWTP Discharge
Dear Mr. Safrit:
Per our telephone conversation on Friday. March 31, 1995, enclosed please find a map showing the
revised location of the new discharge point for the Crooked Creek WWTP. There were two key reasons
for moving the discharge point which are as follows:
1. To locate the discharge point precisely where you pinpointed in your letter of August 31, 1994
would require dissecting a large tract of farmland with the effluent force main. In an attempt
to locate the effluent force main at a point where the property owner would be least affected it
was determined that the force main should be located along a property line. If the effluent
force main was located along the western most property line, the discharge would be upstream
of the discharge point identified in your letter, and it was assumed that this would not be an
approved location. As a result, the effluent force main was located at the eastern most
property line which is downstream of the point identified in your letter.
2. The route that the effluent force main would have followed to reach the discharge point
identified in your letter parallels a small tributary to North Fork Crooked Creek. In comments
received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, it was recommended to
consider a discharge point a minimum of 100 feet downstream of the point identified in your
letter to help maintain water quality and provide riparian travel corridors for wildlife.
When the NPDES permit application for 1.9 MGD is submitted, the discharge location will be as shown
on the attached map.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
HDR Engineering, Inc. of North Carolina
G. Eric Williams, P.E.
Project Manager
GEW/ljj
Enclosure
cc: Mike Shalati w/attachment
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of North Carolina
Suite 1400 Telephone
128 S. Tryon Street 704 338-1800
Charlotte, North Carolina Fax
28202-5001 704 338-6760
I
•

BASE MAP: USGS MATTHEWS QUAD
PHOTO REVISED 1980
USGS BAKERS QUAD
PHOTO REVISED 1987
I -ER
Eon Emit -meting,
LOCATION MAP
CROOKED CREEK WWTP
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE:
I" = 2000'

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
March 15, 1995
Mr. Michael Shalati, Director
Union County Public Works
P. O. Box 218
Monroe, North Carolina 28111
AVI
IC) I-1 N 1
SUBJECT: Union County - Crooked Creek ,
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Value Determination/Eligibility
Review
Dear Mr. Shalati:
This is to advise of the State requirement that a value determination/eligibility
review must be completed and any comments/concerns satisfactorily resolved before
State Loan funding can be approved for the subject project. We will perform this
review upon completion of the plan review and issuance of approval by the Water
Quality Section. Attached is the "In -Progress Review Checklist" with details of the
items which will be evaluated during this review.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Bennie Goetze, Jr., the State Project Review Engineer, at [phone], ext 625.
Sincerely,
W. S. Hoffman, Supervisor
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Design Management Unit
Attachment
BG:vk
cc: HDR, Inc.
Mooresville Regional Office
Mr. Allen Wahab
Mr. Joe Martin
Mr. Tom Fahnestock
Ms. Colleen Sullins
Mr. Donald Safrit
Ms. Ruth Swanek - Mr. Bennie Goetze, Jr. - DMU - SBF
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

March 3, 1995
Mr. Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
Assistant Chief for Technical Support
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Future Service for Crooked Creek WWTP
HDR Project No. 00240-017-018
Dear Don:
As you are aware, Union County has employed HDR to design an effluent pumping station and force
main to convey the discharge from the Crooked Creek WWTP to North Fork Crooked Creek in order to
comply with your requirements. In performing this work, one of their major concerns is to protect this
investment for future expansions of the Crooked Creek WWTP.
`A A 1
To assist the County with future planning requirements, please provide us with speculative effluent limits
on North Fork Crooked Creek for a discharge of 6 MGD. This flow projection is based on the following
assumptions:
1. The sewer service area for the Crooked Creek WWTP would be expanded to include areas
that would flow by gravity to the WWTP or could reasonably be pumped to the WWTP
from the Crooked Creek basin and would coincide with areas currently served by the
Union County water system.
2. Development of this area would include two residences per acre.
3. The number of people per household is assumed to be 2.5.
4. Eighty percent of the planning area is assumed to be developable.
5. Wastewater per capita flowrates and maximum monthly peaking factors are equal to those
presented in the updated 201 Facilities Plan.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
HDR Engineering, Inc. of North Carolina
• 41'‘;< WAY1LA4W
G. Eric Williams, P.E.
Project Manager
GEW/det
cc: Mike Shalati
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of North Carolina
Suite 1400
128 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
28202-5001
Telephone
704 338-1800
Fax
704 338-6760

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 25, 1995
MEMORANDUM
'1O: Monica Swihart
FROM: Michelle Wilson/1
THRU: Ruth Swanek 'C3
Carla Sanderson
Coleen Sullin
Donald Sa
SUBJECT: Union County Department of Public Works
Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Plant Expansion and Relocation
EA report included in 201 Facility Plan Revision
Project # 691
Union County Yadkin 03-07-12
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed the
Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. of
North Carolina for the relocation of Union County's outfall pipe to
North Fork Crooked Creek approximately 1.0 miles upstream of NCSR
1514 and 2.7 miles west of Bentons Crossroads and for the expansion
of the Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Facilities design
capacity from 1 MGD to 1.9 MGD. The draft EA addresses all the
concerns the Instream Assessment Unit has regarding the relocation
and expansion of the facilities' design capacity to 1.9 MGD.
The Union County 201 Facilities Plan (project number 691)
includes a response letter to a request for speculative limits from
Donald Safrit, the Assistant Chief for Technical Support in the Water
Quality Section, dated August 31, 1994. This letter includes
speculative limits for 1.5 MGD, 1.9 MGD and 2.5 MGD at all three
proposed relocation sites. Due to the fact that this discharge exceeds
one-third of the 7Q10 of the receiving stream, if the facility would
like to expand anytime in the future beyond the proposed 1.9 MGD

e
design capacity, the preparation of an additional environmental
assessment (EA) will be required. DEM will not accept a permit
application for a project requiring an EA until the document has been
approved by the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been
sent to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
cc: HDR Engineering, Inc. of North Carolina
Mooresville Regional Office
Permits and Engineering
Central Files

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
November 28, 1994
The Honorable Scott Howard, Mayor
Village of Lake Park
6515 Mimosa Street
Indian Trail, North Carolina 28079
SUBJECT: Evaluation of possible discharge locations for the Village of Lake Park
Goose Creek and/or North Fork Crooked Creek
f/n;tn (Vfl�vi
Dear Mayor Howard:
I am writing in response to Mr. Moorefield's request for possible discharge
locations for the proposed municipality, the Village of Lake Park. This request has been
reviewed by the Technical Support Branch and instream flows have been determined by
United States Geological Survey (USGS).
The proposed location on North Fork Crooked Creek is considered an intermittent
stream; it has no natural flow during 7Q10 conditions, but it does have a natural 30Q2 flow
equal to 0.25 cubic feet per second (cfs). According to DEM current regulations, as stated
in 15 NCAC .0206 (d) (1), where the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream is estimated to be
zero and the 30Q2 flow is estimated to be greater than zero, effluent limitations for new or
expanding discharges of oxygen consuming waste will be set at BOD5 = 5 mg/1, NH3N =
2 mg/1 and DO = 6 mg/1, unless it is determined that these limitations will not protect water
quality standards. As you may be aware, the Union County Public Works Department
(UCPWD) has expressed an interest in discharging into this stream. If Union County
plans to build a regional WWTP in this area, it would be to everyone's benefit that a
common wastewater management facility be pursued. Therefore, it is recommended that
representatives for the Village of Lake Park contact UCPWD and discuss a regional
WWTP before any decision is made regarding pursuit of a discharge permit.
Goose Creek has a higher low flow estimate with a positive 7Q10 equal to 0.16 cfs
and a 30Q2 equal to 0.87 cfs; however, it already has several discharges and it is a habitat
for an endangered species. The United States Fish and Wildlife (USF&WL) agency has
expressed concerns about any new discharges into Goose Creek due to the endangered
species which rely on the quality of the Goose Creek Watershed for their survival. You are
also advised to discuss this matter directly with the USF & WL agency.
Please be advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the Division
will issue an NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into these receiving waters. It
should be noted that a new facility involving an expenditure of public funds or use of
public (state) lands, will be required to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when
wasteflows: 1) exceed or equal 0.5 MGD, or 2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of the
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

Letter to Mayor Howard
-Page 2-
receiving stream. DEM will not accept a permit application for a project requiring an EA
until the document has been approved by the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been sent to the
state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
The EA should contain a clear justification for the proposed facility and an analysis
of potential alternatives which should include a thorough evaluation of non -discharge
alternatives. Non discharge alternatives or alternatives to expansion, such as spray
irrigation, water conservation, inflow and infiltration reduction or connection to a regional
treatment and disposal system, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a surface
water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable
waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is
required to be implemented. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a
significant adverse affect on the quality of the environment, an Environmental Impact
Statement would be required. Monica Swihart of the Water Quality Planning Branch can
provide further information regarding the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy
Act.
This information should provide some assistance in your planning endeavors. As
previously mentioned, final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a formal
permit application has been submitted to the Division. If there are any additional questions
concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Ruth Swanek or Michelle Wilson of my
staff at [phone].
erely,
c51A
Donald L. Safrit,
Assistant Chief for
Water Quality Section
DLS/MMW
cc: H. L. Moorefield; Frank C. Cockinos & Associates, Inc.
Chris Matthison; Matthison Company, Indian Trail, NC
Michael Shalati, Union County
Mooresville Regional Office
Permits and Engineering Unit
Construction Grants
Centrai riles
pport

Page 1
Note for Michelle Wilson
From: Coleen Sullins
Date: Sun, Oct 30,1994 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: Speculative Langauge
To: Michelle Wilson
File(s): Union County 12-mile2
Michelle - enclosed is a modified version of the letter (the second paragraph marked by
bolded quotation marks). Also, fyi, the USF&WL folks are objecting to discharges into
Goose Creek as a result of a population of endangered species in that creek. You may want
to refer Union County to USF&WL. Let me know what you think. Coleen
From: Michelle Wilson on Mon, Oct 17, 1994 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: Speculative Langauge
To: Coleen Sullins
File(s): Union County 12-mile2
Spec letter you requested.
From: Coleen Sullins on Sat, Oct 15,1994 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: Speculative Langauge
To: Michelle Wilson
Michelle - I looked for a copy of a speculative letter and could not find one. Would you
mind sending me a copy over the mail and I will use it to propose a modification. Thanks
Coleen
From: Michelle Wilson on Thu, Oct 13,1994 3:07 PM
Subject: Speculative Langauge
To: Coleen Sullins
Coleen I was hoping to get the speculative langauge you talked about on our Monroe trip. I
have to respond to a proposed WWTP for a new Town they want to build in Union county
which asked for possible discharge into Goose Creek or North Fork Crooked Creek. I want
to make sure they don't assume we are giving them approval like 12-mile Creek. I would
like to respond the first of next week. Thanks.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 19; 1994
Memorandum To: Michelle Wilson Gr
n
From: D. Rex Gleason
Prepared By: Kim H. Colson` 2, —
Subject:
Village of Lake Park
Possible WWTP
Union County, NC
This Office has reviewed the proposeddischarge
locations for a possible WWTP for the Village of Lake Park
and offers the following comments:
1. While both discharge sites have positive 30Q2 flow, the
receiving streams may not be appropriate since there
are existing facilities upstream of both locations.
2. Union County Public Works Department (UCPWD) has
expressed an interest in discharging into these
streams. If Union County plans to build a regional
WWTP in this area, it would be inappropriate to permit
this facility.
3. Goose Creek has a higher low flow estimate; however, it
is a habitat for an endangered species.
4. It is recommended that representatives of the Village
contact UCPWD and discuss a regional WWTP before any
decision is made regarding a possible permit.
If you have any questions concerning this matter,
please advise.

'HE INTERIOR
SURVEY. - -
LE
536
537
-1/ s( . '---, ) 0-7"„_-/— rn,_3 L----\--,.
,:j5, . r, c7
i�/-C\f�`=
_t`
•„,
r/f��
`,
�' gl ;, i�
�
TON
1 N. < —1— -- --'i'7' 2 a
! i:l't
�.— —
• ✓ h ( ter, , 1 `
35'
x63 /
s%
•••..
539,
4854 11 NE
(MIDLAND)
\,
-----`--TF1 = =-1 585
•1 /_
,_ :: Cem '
iQ , / ' Union Grove Ch
r
4.
600,
• eb
•
\r "\
} I 600
•
.—__ `� _ !• \•642 1
•

UNION COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike Shalati, Director
September 14, 1994
Mr. Don Safrit, P.E.
Assistant Chief for Technical Support
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. D.E.H.N.R.
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-0535
RE: Schedule of Events for Relocation of
Crooked Creek WWTP Discharge
Dear Don:
As you requested, attached please find a flowchart which outlines
the schedule of events for relocating the current discharge from
our Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to a new site.
We acknowledge receipt of the speculative limits for the potential
discharge sites and HDR is currently evaluating the sites.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ake,
Qedi
Mike Shalati
Director, Union County Public Works
MS/jk
P.O. Box 987 . Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0987 . Phone: [phone] . Fax: [phone]

M
UNION COUNTY -CROOKED CREEK WWTP
FLOWCHART OF EVENTS
DEM HOLDS PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR
REVIEW OF 1.3 MGD
EXPANSION
0 WEEKS
DEM ISSUES SPECULATIVE
LIMITS FOR POTENTIAL
DISCHARGE SITES
3 WEEKS
HDR DESIGNS
OUTFALL FOR
1.9 MGD DISCHARGE
20 WEEKS
1 WEEK
HDR EVALUATES SITES
3 WEEKS
UNION COUNTY SELECTS
SITE AND SUBMITS NPDES PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR 1.3 MOD
2 WEEKS
2 WEEKS
HDR PREPARES
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR 1.9
MGD AT NEW SITE
12 WEEKS
DEM ISSUES FONSI
14 WEEKS
UNION COUNTY SUBMITS NPDES PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR 1.9 MGD AND REQUESTS
REBATING OF WWTP TO 1.9 MGD
2 WEEKS
DEM REVIEWS OUTFALL PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, NPDES PERMIT
APPLICATION AND RERATING REQUEST FOR
1.9 MGD DISCHARGE AT NEW SITE
26 WEEKS
DEM ISSUES AUTHORIZATION TO
CONSTRUCT FOR OUTFALL, NPDES
PERMIT FOR 1.9 MGD AND RERATES
WWTP FOR 1.9 MOD
2 WEEKS
BID OUTFALL LINE
4 WEEKS
CONSTRUCT OUTFALL LINE
34 WEEKS
DEM REVIEWS PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR 1.3 MGD MODIFICATIONS
11 WEEKS
DEM ISSUES AUTHORIZATION TO
CONSTRUCT FOR WWTP MODIFICATIONS
AND NPDES PERMIT FOR 1.3 MGD
1 WEEK
BID 1.3 MOD WWTP MODIFICATIONS
(PERMITTED FOR 1.3 MGD AT
CURRENT DISCHARGE LOCATION)
4 WEEKS
1
CONSTRUCT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MODIFICATIONS
62 WEEKS
PROJECTS COMPLETE
(1.9 MOD DISCHARGE
RELOCATED TO NEW SITE)
09/13/94

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
August 31, 1994
Mr. Mike Shalati, Director of Public Works
Union County Public Works Development
Post Office Box 987
Monroe, North Carolina 28111
.4317,
[D E H N F c\Q) c06
ov
CJ
SUBJECT: Speculative Effluent Limits for Union County Public Works
Yadkin 030712 N C 00 41811
Dear Mr. Shalati:
The request for speculative effluent limits for discharges of 1.5 mgd, 1.9 mgd, and
2.5 mgd at the three (3) alternative discharge points has been reviewed by this Division.
The three proposed discharge locations, described in the April 4, 1994, letter to you from
Mr. Steve Tedder, are highlighted on the attached map.
All three alternative discharge locations have a 7Q10 equal to zero and a positive
30Q2; therefore, the effluent limits will be the same at each location and wasteflow based
on 15 A NCAC 2B .0206(d). The tentative limits are:
Wasteflow (MGD)
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100m1)
pH (SU)
Chlorine (µg/1)
Summer
1.5, 1.9, 2.5
5
2
6
30
200
6-9
17
Winter
1.5, 1.9, 2.5
10
4
6
30
200
6-9
17
In order to receive final permit limits, a formal application will have to be submitted to the
Division's Permits and Engineering Unit.
Under current Division of Environmental Management (DEM) procedure,
dechlorination and chlorine limits are now recommended for all new or expanding
dischargers proposing the use of chlorine for disinfection. An acceptable level of chlorine
in your effluent is 17 µg/1 to ensure protection against chronic toxicity. The process of
chlorination/dechlorination or an alternate form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation,
should allow the facility to comply with the total residual chlorine limit.
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

Letter to Mr. Shalati
- page 2 -
The instream waste concentration at all three discharge locations is 100% for the
proposed waste flows. A chronic toxicity testing requirement with quarterly monitoring
will be a condition of the NPDES permit. A complete evaluation of limits and monitoring
requirements for metals and other toxicants will have to be addressed at the time of formal
NPDES application. Information concerning these constituents is not readily available but
the Town can assume that the effluent limits (state standards) and/or monitoring for
cadmium, chromium, nickel, lead, cyanide, mercury, copper, zinc, and silver should be
included.
DEM has implemented a statewide basin water quality management initiative. Our
schedule for implementation in the Yadkin River Basin is set for 1998. The plan will
attempt to address all sources of point and nonpoint pollutants where deemed necessary to
protect or restore water quality standards. In addressing interaction of sources, wasteload
allocations may be affected. Those facilities that already have committed to high levels of
treatment technology are least likely to be affected.
It should also be noted that a facility expanding its design capacity 0.5 MGD or
more will require that an environmental document be prepared by the applicant. The N.C.
Environmental Policy Act and its associated rules require that an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) be prepared before an
application for a new facility with a wasteflow of 0.5 MGD or greater may be submitted.
The EA should contain an analysis of available alternatives which should include a
thorough evaluation of non -discharge alternatives and would also need to contain a clear
justification for the flow expansion. The proposed relocation of the 1.3 MGD discharge
will not require preparation of an EA; however, any expansion greater than 0.5 MGD of the
relocated discharge will require an EA. Review of the construction documents recently
received will commence upon the formal submission of a NPDES application for the
relocation of the 1.3 MGD flow.
This information should provide some assistance in your planning endeavors and
EA development. As previously mentioned, final NPDES effluent limitations will be
determined after a formal permit application has been submitted to the Division. If there are
any additional questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Ruth Swanek or
Michelle Wilson of my staff at [phone].
Wald . S • �:;;
Assistant Chief for Tec
Water Quality Section
DLS/MMW
cc: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Mooresville Regional Office
Permits and Engineering Unit
Construction Grants
Central Files

f3+li'.c:.RS, N. C.
ig:J.At. IF .024
1971
it)l'1)i4EVIDh1J 198?
a :,_• '. 5E- SERIES •V0 2
RO-C CLASSIFICATION
L:gtl:" ;+.!y (Sae. fiord or
-.37.7 s•:r'acc unori•'nJ suflace
..i . ..•tat- rood
�s;p'•.;alc S?nuia V S ?:ale State Route
W.
•
MA i 11 H EWS, N. C.
35080•1\6-TF-074
1971
Pl IOTOHEVISEO 1980
DMA 1?5. 11 $W— SERIES V1141
SCALE 1.24000
':•:J 0 110) )010 X;10 40C9 iota: 1403 )
=izL--' c=::l.'_I'C�—i'_:t=.i-_ t=..___c:.r__ __—__—..' •:tlQ�°:=_F
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
..
\..,. . i ti t
R xn•
•
craw.
eer
� Unto.. Drove LT
Sim al
0.3 miles below SR 1504 and 2.0 miles SW of Smoot crossroads. NC
D.A. • 14.9 snit
QA • 14.0 cfs W7Q10 0.063 e!e
S7010 - 0.0 cfs 70Q2 • 0.25 cfs ...
Site 12
IA miles above SR1514 and 2.7 mike wen of Sentons noesro 4. NC
D.A.: 13.e mi2
QA• 131 cfs W7QI0- 0A6 cls
S7Q10. 0 efs 3002. 0.23 cfs
Site 13
1.1 milts !Clow SR 1004 and 0.6 miles NW of Banton, emusosds. NC
D.A n 35.0 mi2
QA • 32.0 cfs N"1Q10 . 0.20 cls
57010 . 0.0 30Q2 • 0.60 cfs
0e tnn atC.ossrnaCi
(.1f...1.)

FRANK C. COCKINOS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
600 LEXINGTON AVENUE
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28203
August 19, 1994
NC Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Technical Support Section
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
�.e
Attention: Ms. Ruth Swanek
Reference: Possible Waste Load Allocation
Dear Ms. Swanek:
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
4f'
poi al e to t 'Cut. j .h?>
h rah 0.‘0_
Enclosed is a portion of the USGS Bakers Quadrangle indicating
two possible wastewater discharge points for the Village of Lake
Park, a new municipality. Please review these locations, one on
Goose Creek and the other on the North Fork of Crooked Creek, and
advise if either location can be used.
Should
office.
Very truly yours,
FRANK C. COCKINOS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
/ML
H. L. Moorfield, Jr., P.E.
HLM/sl
cc: Mayor Scott Howard
Mr. Chris Matthison
you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this
r
��;ia
m, cy,el i e. �I h� S�4- 1.\DL._
rn h Ltni,,r,- C ewe
Co(
�0�� ;c'-
o ire- ( 1114tl -i/L-t
p i
i
Cad hm tir
ct,03
L,-`--) . w,._
w \,c,.)-4
v

UNION COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike Shalati, Director
August 8, 1994
Mr. Don Safrit
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. D.E.H.N.R.
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-0535
RE: Union County
Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Dear Mr. Safrit:
Per attached copy of recent correspondence dated August 5, 1994,
with Mr. Steve Tedder, we are hereby re -submitting the plans,
specifications and design report that was previously transmitted to
your attention under cover letter dated June 16, 1994.
Thank you and your staff for your assistance in this important
project to Union County. For additional information, please
contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
ike S a
Director, Union County Public Works
MS/mjk
P.O. Box 987 . Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0987 . Phone: [phone]-L 8I9 . Fax: [phone]

UNION COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike Shalati, Director
August 5, 1994
•.arw Mr. Steve W. Tedder, Chief !AUG � 1991
Water. Quality Section ,�1 Ali
Division of Environmental Management " R Q ._t ' �.r
g �iJA ti �t � L
North Carolina Department of S C i I;ON.
Environment, Health and Natural Resources
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Tedder:
In accordance with recent discussions, the County is providing this
letter to relate our proposed future actions regarding the Crooked
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. In the event that stream
sampling reconfirms that the 30Q2 flows are zero near the plant,
the County proposes to locate -a discharge downstream where the 30Q2
flows are positive.
The County is resubmitting the plans and design report for the
treatment plant expansion to your staff under separate cover, with
the intent of receiving an Authorization to Construct the facility
expansion. The County understands that the Authorization to
Construct can be given for only 1.3 mgd at this time, since 1.3 mgd
is the maximum flow indicated in the current permit.
In an effort to expedite the expansion of the facility and in
anticipation of the future 1.9 mgd capacity, the design drawings
and specifications for the treatment plant expansion reflect design
conditions for treatment of 1.9 mgd. Upon receipt of the
Authorization to Construction the 1.3 mgd expansion, the County
proposes to initiate the full construction towards 1.9 mgd. In
light of this, the County would appreciate the Division's review
and comments regarding the 1.9 mgd design. While we understand
that the Division cannot permit the 1.9 mgd flow until the new
discharge location is identified and permitted, it would benefit
the County if the Division would review the plans with respect to
1.9 mgd and agree that the design is satisfactory. Our concern is
that we will initiate construction of the plant expansion in
anticipation of the 1.9 mgd permit and then later receive comments
from the Division which require revision to the plant design which
would be difficult to make after construction has begun. If the
Division could provide the County with a conditional approval of
the 1.9 mgd plant design (conditional on the future downstream
discharge), this would alleviate our concerns and would be greatly
appreciated.
P.O. Box 987 . Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0987 . Phone: [phone] . Fax: [phone]

Mr. Steve W. Tedder, Chief
August 5, 1994
Page 2
We understand that the County must commit to relocating the
additional permitted discharge to a point with a positive 30Q2
prior to your issuing the ATC. In order to make this commitment,
the County must evaluate the costs and impacts of this commitment.
Therefore, we request speculative effluent limits for discharge of
1.5 mgd, 1.9 mgd, and 2.5 mgd at the three (3) alternative
discharge points described in your April 4, 1994, letter. We will
conduct our evaluations so that, if feasible, we may commit Union
County to the discharge relocation prior to your issuance of the
ATC for the expansion to 1.3 mgd.
The County is available to discuss these issues at your convenience
and we appreciate your attention regarding this important project.
Sincerely,
fU
Mike Shalati
Director, Union County Public Works

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
July 29, 1994
via fax
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Charles Baker
HDR Engineering, Inc.
(704) 3-76-394
V7(10
From: Steve W. Tedder, Chi
Water Quality Section
Subject: Crooked Creek WWTP
Union County
7:51r:A
LDEEF-INJ lI
In accordance with our conversation today, I wanted to provide my thoughts in a written
format due to the flurry of activity associated with Union County and their immediate needs
for not only short-term wastewater management but more importantly, long-term
management needs.
As discussed, the Division would allow an expansion of the existing wastewater treatment
facility to 1.3 MGD at the existing site with the commitment from Union County that the
discharge from the Crooked Creek facility would be relocated to a receiving stream with a
positive 30Q2, within a reasonable time period. The best long-term solution would be to
select a site that can assimilate the maximum expected wasteflow from this service area.
According to staff, Union County has been provided a general location where 30Q2 flows
become positive and Union County has indicated that 1.9 MGD is the reasonable design
flow for this service area.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
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

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 30,1994
Mr. Mike Shalati, Director of Public Works
Union County Public Works Department
Post Office Box 987
Monroe, North Carolina 28111
RE: Union County Public Works Department
Reduction in Wastewater Flows
Union County
Dear Mr. Shalati:
kiT4711
�EHNR
On March 21,1994, the Division received your request for a reduction in flow rates on all
residences made tributary to both the Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Dry Fork
Wastewater Treatment Facility. Your letter requested the Division allow the reduction of wastewater flows
from 120 GPD per bedroom as required by the North Carolina Administrative Code to 240 GPD per
household for single family residential units. In support of your request, documentation and water
consumption data was supplied from households located in Union County. On April 7,1994, after a
preliminary review by the Division, additional information and water consumption data was requested.
This information was provided to the Division on May 31,1994.
An evaluation has been completed by the Division in accordance with 15A NCAC .0219(1)(3)
using the water consumption data provided from seven (7) different subdivisions. The data submitted
included twelve (12) months of data from November 1992 to October 1993 for all seven (7) subdivisions
and thirty (30) consecutive days of water consumption data from April 21,1994 to May 20,1994 for
Hampton Meadows subdivision. From the water consumption data and documentation submitted, the .
Division was able to determine the following:
1. The peak months for the monthly flows submitted were June, July, and August.
2. According to the monthly consumption records submitted for Hampton Meadows subdivision,
the peak month was July, however, daily consumption records were submitted for April 21 to
May 20.
3. Using the monthly water consumption data for the months of June, July, and August, the
Division eliminated several homes which did not appear to be occupied and therefore did not .
consume any water during these months.
4. Upon reviewing the monthly water consumption records for the seven (7) subdivisions and
eliminating several of the homes, the following three (3) highest water consumption rates were
calculated:
Subdivision Peak Month GPDJHome
Wexford July 1993 324
Wesley Woods June 1993 313
Cloverbend June 1993 260
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 Public Works Department
June 30,1994
•
The average flow rate for these homes would be 299 GPD per home. However, this flow rate
has not been calculated in accordance with 15A NCAC .0219(1)(3). By using the monthly
flow rates, only an average daily flow rate could be determined for thirty (30) days or thirty-
one (31) days and not the upper 10% of the daily flow rates as required by the regulations.
5. Upon reviewing the daily water consumption records for Hampton Meadows and eliminating
several of the homes that did not consume any water, the following three (3) highest water
consumption rates were calculated:
Day Number of Homes GPD/Home
April 25 82 249
April 30 84 280
May 2 84 239
The average daily flow rate for these homes was calculated to be 256 GPD per home.
However, these daily flows are not from the peak month, therefore this average flow rate could
be significantly higher.
In view of the information submitted and the problems noted above, the Division of Environmental
Management will allow the use of 300 GPD per residence on the following permit applications currently
under review by the Division may:
Project
Wexford, Section II
Hampton Meadows
Clover Bend I, II, and III
Wesley Woods
Meadow Glen Subdivision
Sandalwood If and III
Sandalwood IV
Application Number Number of Lots
WQ0008881
WQ0009077
WQ0009078
WQ0009O87
WQ0009218
WQ0009230
Q�
14
92
73
120
72
142
126
The Division does not feel there has been sufficient evidence submitted to justify granting a flow
reduction for any future wastewater collection systems located in Union County. Although the Division
feels comfortable with the number of homes involved in the study, approximately 420 households, the
monthly water consumption records are not in accordance with 15A NCAC .0219(1)(3) and the daily water
consumption records for Hampton Meadows were not taken during the peak month which appear to be
either June, July, or August. However, because the above subdivisions have been constructed without a
permit and the wastewater flows are presently tributary to the Union County Public Works Department's
treatment plants, the Division will issue operation permits for these wastewater collection projects.•
Please be advised, no future wastewater collection systems permit applications submitted by the
Union County Public Works Department or any wastewater collection system made tributary to the
Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Dry Fork Wastewater Treatment Facility will be
accepted by the Division until the remaining flows made tributary to the these treatment facilities can be
properly determined. There have been several discussions between the Division and the Union County
Public Works Department on wastewater flows tributary to the treatment facilities. However, according to
Division records, the wastewater flows currently tributary to the treatment facilities are as follows:

•. Page 3
Union County Public Works Department
June 30,1994
Crooked Creek WWTP (NPDES limit -1.3 MGD, WWTP Design Flow -1.0 MGD)
Month (1994) Average/'low (MGD)
January .9366
February .8833
March .9162
April .9127
Dry Fork Wastewater Treatment Facility (WQ0000600 limit - 0.100 MGD)
Month Average Flow (MGM Maximum Daily Flow (MGM
December 1993 .185 .335
January 1994 .119 .411
February 1994 .162 .554
March 1994 .185 .704
These flows do not include any wastewater flows permitted by the Division that have not yet been
made tributary to the subject wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, until these treatment facilities are
upgraded to handle additional flow or the flows are reduced to the treatment facilities, no additional
wastewater collection permit applications will be processed by the Division. In addition, by copy of this
letter, the Union County Building Inspections Department is being informed of the problems that are
associated with these treatment facilities and therefore recommend that no additional homes be made
tributary to the Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility (NPDES Permit No. NC0069841) and the
Dry Fork Wastewater Treatment Facility (Permit No. WQ0000600).
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Carolyn D.
McCaskill or Mr. Michael D. Allen at [phone].
Sinc rely,
A. Preston Howard, J
cc: Union County Building Inspections Department
Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality
State Engineering Review Group
Permit File WQ0008881
Permit File WQ0009077
Permit File WQ0009078
Permit File WQ0009087
Permit File WQ0009218
Permit File WQ0009230
Permit File WQ0009231

June 16. 1994
Mr. D. a Safrit. Assistant Chief
Technical Support Branch
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Department of Environment. Health.
and :Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh. NC 27626-0535
Re: Permit No. ACA069841
Crooked Creek No. 2
Wastewater Treatment Facility, Union County
.Application for Authorization to Construct
Dear Mr. Safrit:
Attached please find three sets of plans, specifications, and the design report for the expansion of
the Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. As we recently discussed via telephone, HDR has
designed this expansion to provide adequate treatment at a flow rate of 1.9 MGD.
In past conversations and meetings, we recognize that to obtain a permit for a flow of 1.9 MGD
requires additional work. The three potential means of obtaining the permit to discharge 1.9 MGD
which have been discussed are: (1) to determine that the 30 Q2 of the stream at the current discharge
point is greater than zero, (2) to maintain the same waste load to the stream for all constituents, (3)
pipe the effluent downstream to a point where the 30 Q2 is greater than zero. Over the next few
months. HDR will be reviewing the feasibility of each of these alternatives.
At this time. HDR requests that the State review the expansion design with respect to the 1.3 MGD
design flow which is currently referenced in the permit.
Y eVieW fee is being forwarded to you under separate cover.
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me or Eric Williams at (704) 338-
1800.
Respectfully submitted,
HDR Eng'neeriijg, Inc. of North Carolina
Joseph C. Readlin ! P.E.
Project Manager
JCRJdet
Enclosures
cc: Mike Shalati e/
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of North Carolina
Suite 1400 Telephone
128 S. Tryon Street 704 338-1800
Charlotte, North Carolina
28202-5001

cc:
1
UNION COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike Shalati, Director _
February 2, 1994
r�
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 28i . 1-0987 . Phone: [phone] . Fax: [phone]

Id L. Safrit, P.E.
e�,,,ber 20, 1993
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 -MI3D. 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