NC0024244_Permit (Issuance)_20050610

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024244
Albemarle / Long Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File
- Historical
Renewal Application
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
June 10, 2005
This documeat is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
• pt content on the reYerse side

c1)
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 10, 2005
Mr. Gary O. Smith II
WWTP Superintendent
Post Office Box 190
Albemarle, North Carolina 28002-0190
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit NC0024244
City of Albemarle WWTP
Stanly County
Dear Mr. Smith:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved lour application for renewal
of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES
discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994
(or as subsequently amended.)
The following modifications to the permit have been made since the March 16,
2005 draft permit:
• The monitoring frequency for upstream color monitoring has been changed
to 2/month to coincide with the effluent and downstream color monitoring
frequency.
• The instrumented effluent flow measurement has been corrected to the
instrumented influent flow measurement.
• A centrifuge and a batch feed indirect heat sludge dryer have been added to
the treatment components of the facility.
• The Division, in consultation with EPA has agreed to a variance of the 85
percent removal requirement for Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Based on
review of influent and effluent data, the monthly average effluent TSS
concentration shall not exceed 18 percent of the respective influent value (82
percent removal) in the summer months (April 1 through October 31) and
shall not exceed 32 percent of the respective influent value (68 percent
removal) in the winter months (November 1 through March 31).
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone]
FAX [phone]
On the Internet at htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

Permit NC0024244
City of Albemarle WWTP
Page 2
These modifications were included in the March 16, 2005 draft permit:
• A daily maximum limit for Cadmium was deleted from the permit. The
reasonable potential analysis indicated that an effluent limit was no
longer required. Cadmium will continue to be monitored quarterly in
the Pretreatment Program's Long Term Monitoring Plan.
• Summer and winter weekly average limits for ammonia nitrogen have
been added to reflect the Division's current policy. The weekly average
limit is established based on a ratio of 3:1 (weekly average: monthly
average) for municipal dischargers. The corresponding weekly average
limits for ammonia nitrogen at the flow of 16.0 MGD are 6.0 mg/1 for
the summer and 12.0 mg/1 for the winter.
• A total residual chlorine limit of 18 ug/1 has been added to reflect the
Division's current policy for protection against instream chlorine
toxicity. The limit for total residual chlorine shall become effective
upon completion of the installation of a disinfection system but no
later than 18 months from permit issuance. If a method different than
chlorination/dechlorination is used, the total residual chlorine limit
will not be applicable. See Part I. A. (2.) of the permit.
• A daily maximum limit of 5.3 1.4/1 was included for Cyanide. A limit
was necessary because the reasonable potential analysis indicated
that the maximum predicted concentration was greater than the
allowable concentration.
• A daily maximum limit of 0.012 µg/1 was included for Mercury. A limit
was necessary because the reasonable potential analysis indicated
that the maximum predicted concentration was greater than the
allowable concentration.
• A daily maximum limit of 5.3 µg/1 was included for Selenium. A limit
was necessary because the reasonable potential analysis indicated
that the maximum predicted concentration was greater than the
allowable concentration.
If Albemarle has twelve (12) consecutive months of cyanide, mercury, and/or
selenium values below the detection levels, then the City may submit a written
request asking DWQ to re-evaluate the assignment of the limits in the NPDES
permit.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained
in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter.

Permit NC0024244
City of Albemarle WWTP
Page 3
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B
of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless
such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please notice that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the
requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this
discharge. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other
permits, which may be required by the Division of Water Quality, or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any
other Federal or Local governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
SUSAN A. WILSON
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Mooresville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
EPA/Region IV
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Pretreatment Unit
NPDES Permit File
Central Files

Permit NC0024244
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER.UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of Albemarle
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Coble Avenue Extension
Albemarle
Stanly County
to receiving waters designated as Long Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective July 1, 2005.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 2009.
Signed this day June 10, 2005.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
SUSAN A. WILSON
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0024244
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as
of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive
authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and
provisions included herein.
The City of Albemarle is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate and maintain the existing 16.0 MGD wastewater treatment system consisting of the
following components:
➢ Mechanical bar screens
➢ Dual gravity grit chambers
> Influent lift station
➢ Parshall flume with instrumental flow measurement
> Preaeration basins
➢ Primary clarifiers
➢ Trickling filters
> Mechanical aeration basins
➢ Secondary clarifiers
➢ Gravity tertiary filters
➢ Chlorination and dechlorination
➢ Instrumented influent flow measurement
➢ Twelve in -plant screw lift pumps
> Aerobic digesters
> Centrifuge
➢ Batch feed indirect heat sludge dryer
➢ Sludge holding tanks
This facility is located in Albemarle on the Coble Avenue Extension at the Long Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant in Stanly County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Long Creek, classified C
waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

Latitude: 35°23'46" Sub -Basin: 03-07-13
Longitude: 80°11'55"
Quad #: F18SW
Stream Class: C
Receiving Stream: Long Creek
Permitted Flow: 16 MGD
Facility
oci
Lo
cation
North
City of Albemarle Long Creek WWTP
NC0024244

Permit NC0024244
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Pernuttee is authorized to
discharee from outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Pennittee as specified below:
,..1�•xio4s
sM' A i.
' 1 ,
}$ Si x „
tl f ,y - Y". I.y _ 1
d as ti r! 55 •h
e.
✓� ..� S::. V YY
i�' 4., V. '� *Sd'
a iTS srw
•r ¢
� i
r
1I ri0��N S,
y ;
'r... �lF�.- i
5. {..',�, n-•
•I 4 iir A '^^
'y
,•" Y. .: f A T
r �if
�, i .. n.✓ r i'7',
i fJ1 ¢ = ke
4 l yr t
F ...t'?X 3A t'. .•
i 1 A
rota t
�,,.eS�
{{r. q e ,� t .t a �. _
E '•.!'
_aa�sj�.. :. ;:
,f- -�i !E:. f. iihP4 s7.4ZiF��F3 .+`..s ...A
:..�.. ��5• J? Rj
.Lr<
=.i p'• '7
r. ..
�,,, -T
.. r-A^Y
z
ifl a
... - a
Ate!
�.-.I�
@�i �`'''��"�..j
3 4 i ° ei
J. x
�h, rt.i f i 1111 .,`
i•"
.,, '
#� y: ..... A �iY' "4
is
.� .
� 7-
< .�7 fie`
-fy 5� � �
.+. s 5
_ i e}.W4,1
v:� .. :Ce �Tr:�i.
.'' ! ". �.Y* .+..
� � . �',,
3 ..{d .a-�': ..
exr. '��, ri ..+n-.a.A� 5'aL�.'3
Flow
16.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C (April 1 to
October 31)2
10.0 mg/1
15.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C (November 1
to March 31)2
20.0 mg/1
30.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/I
•
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N (April 1 to October 31)
2.0 mg/I
6.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N (November 1 to March
31)
4.0 mg/I
12.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygenl
See Note 1
Grab
Upstream, Downstream)
& Downstream2
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
18 ugll
Daily
Grab
. Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature'
See Note 1
Grab
Upstream, Downstream)
& Downstream2
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 +
TKN)
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Conductivity' :.
See Note 1
Grab
Upstream, Downstream)
& Downstream2
Total Chromium ..
_ _
53.0 p g/l
Weekly
. Composite
Effluent
Total Cyanide
5.3 ug/I
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury
0.013 ug/l
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.3 ug/l
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Color (ADMI)1
2/Month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream3
Color (ADMI)6
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
pH7
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Upstream = Upstream above the discharge point. Downstream) = Downstream at the end of NCSR 1960. Downstream2 =
Downstream 3.9 miles at NCSR 1967. Downstream3 (for color samples) = approximately 200 yards downstream from the discharge
point. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected once per month in the winter
(October through May) and once per week during the summer (June through September), unless otherwise noted.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS concentration shall not exceed 15 percent of the respective influent value (85 percent
removal). The monthly average Effluent Total Suspended Solids concentration shall not exceed 32 percent of the respective influent
value (68 percent removal) in the winter months (November 1 through March 31) and shall not exceed 18 percent of the respective
influent value (82 percent removal) in the summer months (April 1 through October 31).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
4. See Part I. A. (2)
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriod phnia) at 90%: March, June, September, & December (see Part I. A. (3)).
6. See Part I. A. (4).
7. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0024244
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (2.) TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
The limit for total residual chlorine shall become effective upon completion of the installation of a disinfection system but no later
than 18 months from the issuance of the permit (January 1, 2007). If a method different than chlorination/dechlorination is used,
the total residual chlorine limit will not be applicable.
A. (3.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at
an effluent concentration of 90%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed
during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit, then
multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North
Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest concentration
having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment
of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further
statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form
(MR-1) for the months, in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for
the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days after the end
of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all concentration/response data,
and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent
toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the permittee will
complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe
number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report
shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required during
the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring
requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival,
minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NC0024244
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A.. (4.) COLOR REOPENER AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
This permit will be modified or revoked and reissued to incorporate color limitations and /or revised monitoring requirements in
the event color testing or other studies conducted by the permittee or the Division indicate that color has rendered or could
render the receiving waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the
palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the water for any designated use.
Color monitoring should consist of ADMI monitoring as specified below. All samples taken should have complete descriptive
recordings of the color in the sample container including hue (distinctive characteristics and tint), clarity (clearness of the color
sample) and luminance (brightness or glowing quality) of the sample as it looks in the collection container. Descriptions of stream
color should also be recorded when color samples are collected.
Color samples should be analyzed as follows:
➢ At natural pH;
➢ Free from turbidity (true color); and
➢ Samples shall be analyzed in accordance with the provisions of Method 2120.E.4 as described in the 18th edition of
Standard Methods for the examination of Water and Wastewater. Using a narrow -band scanning
spectrophotometer to produce a COMPLETE spectral curve of the visible spectrum (350-750 nm), calculate and
report results in ADMI values for true color values at the samples ambient pH value. All color data including visible
observations should be submitted with the monthly DMRs.

J%4ccED SrlT$`
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
� YW 411REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
x1.
04,,. vRotE°�\o 61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
APR 2 8 2005
Ms. Jackie Nowell
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
City of Albemarle WWTP - Permit No. NC0024244
Dear Ms. Nowell:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR NPDES MOA, we have completed review of the
draft permit specified above and we have no comments or objections to its conditions. We request
that we be afforded an additional review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the
draft permit prior to issuance or if significant comments objecting to it are received. Otherwise,
please send us one copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division •
D)
r<a
� !I 1
MAY 2 2005 .J
- WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

City of Albemarle
North Carolina
Office of Mailing Address
Public Utilities P. O. Box 190
Treatment Plants Albemarle, N. C.
[phone] 28002-0190
April 28, 2005
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
N. C. DENR
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJECT: Requests for modifications
Draft NPDES Permit
Perm it NC0024244
City of Albemarle WWTP
Stanly County
Dear Ms. Nowell:
I am writing you this letter in response to our conversation we had on April 28, 2005.
During the conversation you pointed out effluent data detections for Selenium, Cyanide, and Mercury in
previously submitted DMRs. I agree with your findings and cannot find any evidence to discredit this data.
The mercury data may be questionable as it states a number at the detection level but not less than. However, I
do request that the monitoring frequency be reduced from weekly to monthly for each of these parameters.
For each of these parameters you pointed out one excursion that led to including a daily maximum limit in our
NPDES permit. Analyzing these parameters on a weekly basis will cost approximately $7,000 annually. That
seems quite a penalty for one excursion in the last 4 years. If comparison influent sampling is conducted, then
the cost doubles to $14,000 annually. I do not feel this fair and it is probably more costly than if we were
fined.
Also, 1 would like to propose that if 12 consecutive months of effluent data shows no detection of these parameters, that
the limits be removed for these parameters and monitoring revert back to Long Term Monitoring Plan frequencies.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me at [phone], by fax [phone] or e-mail
garvsmith .ci.albemarle.nc.us. Your consideration in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Gary O. Smith, II
Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment
z
MAY 2 2005
_ I
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
DENR - WATER QUALITY

NC0024244 - TSR removal
Subject: NC0024244 - TSR removal
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:44:24 -0400
To: "Hyatt.Marshall Cap epamail.epa.gov" <Hyatt.Marshall @ epamail.epa.gov>
CC: Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Hello Marshall,
Attached is a file that shows the winter and summer % TSR removals
for the Albemarle WWTP. The data shows how much lower the % TSR
removal is in the winter months. The summer months show a higher
removal percent but still do not consistently meet the 85% removal
criteria. Based on the information shown, NCDWQ recommends that for
the winter months (November 1 through March 31), Albemarle must meet
a percent removal limit of 68%. For the summer months (April 1
through October 31), we recommend that they must meet a percent
removal limit of 82%. The data indicates that while the summer
removal numbers have improved above the permitted 62% percent
removal limit, the low influent TSR values are a hindrance to
meeting the 85% removal.. A review of the earlier file sent to you
with the removal data will show more clearly that the influent TSR
numbers for the Albemarle WWTP are drastically lower than typical
municipal wastewater. Our recommendations are based on the average
of the percent removal for the summer and winter months for the
years 2001 through 2004. Based on this information we recommend the
continuance of the variance for the % removal for TSR to the
recommended 68% for the winter months and 82% for the summer
months. Please review and contact me with your opinion.
Thanks,
Jackie Nowell
1 of 1 5/5/2005 2:44 PM

about:blank
Hello Gary,
We are still in the process of reviewing the removal data and determining what we
will do. I have a time set up on Monday to talk with my supervisor to discuss all the
Albemarle issues. I did receive your written comments last week and am also
reviewing them.
Regarding your comments on the metals, I used effluent and long term monitoring
data to do my analysis. There were reported values, along with a multiplication
factor that is applied, that indicated these metals may have the potential to exceed
the permit limit. In order to run the analysis, we need at least twelve data values. If
a metal is only sampled quarterly, we would have to go back three years to get the
twelve data points for a valid analysis, therefore data in year 2002 could be used.
For example with 1) Cyanide, since its sampled in the LTMP, we had to go back a
couple of years to get twelve values - there was a reported value of 30 ug/1 in March
2002. That is the value that indicated a reasonable potential to exceed the permit
limit.
2) Selenium - a reported value of 6.2 ug/1 in June 2004. While the only value
above detection, it was a fairly recent reported value and indicated potential to
exceed the permit limit.
3) Mercury - a reported value of 0.2 ug/1 in August 2003 indicated potential to
exceed the permit limit.
If there is a question as to whether the data value is valid, ie lab error or something,
it must be documented and supported by the lab.
Based on the data above, effluent limits were proposed for the metals in question.
Smith, Gary wrote:
Jackie,
I received your voice mail concerning the TSR Removal. I
understand what
you are saying and will hope that you can be as lenient as
possible when
setting the required TSR percent removal for the permit.
Another reason I am writing this e-mail to you, is to make sure
you received
my comments and requests for modifications of the draft NPDES
Permit
NC0024244. You should have received this letter some time last
week.
1 of 2 4/26/2005 11:12 AM

Month
Effluent TSR (mg/1)
Influent TSR (mg/i)
% Removal
Flow (MGD)
Feb-2003
23
27
14.81
11.92
Mar-2002
20
41
51.22
10.98
Mar-2004
20
41
51.22
9.86
Mar-2001
18
38
52.63
11.25
Jan-2002
17
36
52.78
11.41
Feb-2004
17
40
57.50
11.16
Dec-2002
13
31
58.06
11.37
Nov-2002
13
33
60.61
10.94
Jan-2003
13
40
67.50
8.93
Feb-2002
11
39
71.79
10.90
Dec-2001
10
45
77.78
7.40
Dec-2004
8
38
78.95
8.51
Jan-2001
11
55
80.00
8.51
Feb-2001
11
56
80.36
9.69
Jan-2004
9
47
80.85
7.87
Nov-2001
8
54
85.19
7.36
Dec-2003
9
61
85.25
8.10
Nov-2003
5
60
91.67
7.75
Nov-2004
6
72
91.67
9.02
Winter only
95th perc
average
median
<85% removal onl
91.67
• 67.89
71.79
9.63
Month
Effluent TSR (mg/1)
Influent TSR (mg/I)
% Removal
Flow (MGD)
Feb-2003
23
27
14.81
11.92
Mar-2002
20
41
51.22
10.98
Mar-2004
20
41
51.22
9.86
Mar-2001
18
38
52.63
11.25
Jan-2002
17
36
52.78
11.41
Feb-2004
17
40
57.50
11.16
Dec-2002
13
31
58.06
11.37
Nov-2002
13
33
60.61
10.94
Jan-2003
13
40
67.50
8.93
Feb-2002
11
39
71.79
10.90
Dec-2001
10
45
77.78
7.40
Dec-2004
8
38
78.95
8.51
Jan-2001
11
55
80.00
8.51
Feb-2001
11
56
80.36
9.69
Jan-2004
9
47
80.85
7.87
Winter only
95th perc
average
median
80.51
62.40
60.61
Month
Effluent TSR (r
Influent TSR (mgi
% Remove
Flow (MGD)
Apr-2003
24
35
31.43
14.01
May-2003
20
48
58.33
12.42
Jun-2003
13
43
69.77
12.28
Apr-2002
13
46
71.74
9.60
JuI-2003
10
39
74.36
10.58
Apr-2001
11
47
76.60
8.92
Sep-2004
10
47
78.72
11.15
Jun-2001
9
50
82.00
9.02
Apr-2004
10
57
82.46
8.10
May-2001
8
47
82.98
8.53
Oct-2002
8
47
82.98
9.96
Oct-2001
8
52
84.62
8.22
Aug-2003
7
46
84.78
10.94
Aug-2001
7
50
86.00
8.13
Jul-2001
7
52
86.54
7.81
Jun-2002
7
52
86.54
6.80
May-2004
8
60
86.67
7.95
Oct-2004
5
39
87.18
8.48
May-2002
6
48
87.50
7.68
Sep-2001
6
56
89.29
8.05
Sep-2003
5
49
89.80
8.41
, Jun-2004
5
49
89.80
7.38
Aug-2004
5
49
89.80
7.59
Sep-2002
4
40
90.00
7.81
Aug-2002
4
48
91.67
6.72
Oct-2003
5
60
91.67
8.08
JuI-2002
5
68
92.65
5.71
Jul-2004
4
64
93.75
6.44
Summer only
95th perc
average
median
92.30
82.13
86.27
8.81

Month
% Removal
Jan-2001
80.00
Feb-2001
80.36
Mar-2001
52.63
Apr-2001
76.60
May-2001
82.98
Jun-2001
82.00
JuI-2001
86.54
Aug-2001
86.00
Sep-2001
89.29
Oct-2001
84.62
Nov-2001
85.19
Dec-2001
77.78
95th Per
87.77
average 80.33
Jan-2002
52.78
Feb-2002
71.79
Mar-2002
51.22
Apr-2002
71.74
May-2002
87.50
Jun-2002
86.54
JuI-2002
92.65
Aug-2002
91.67
Sep-2002
90.00
Oct-2002
82.98
Nov-2002
60.61
Dec-2002
58.06
95th Per
92.11
average 74.79
Jan-2003
67.50
Feb-2003
14.81
Apr-2003
31.43
May-2003
58.33
Jun-2003
69.77
JuI-2003
74.36
Aug-2003
84.78
Sep-2003
89.80
Oct-2003
91.67
Nov-2003
91.67
Dec-2003
85.25
95th Per
average
91.67
69.03
Jan-2004
80.85
Feb-2004
57.50
Mar-2004
51.22
Apr-2004
82.46
May-2004
86.67
Jun-2004
89.80
JuI-2004
93.75
Aug-2004
89.80
Sep-2004
78.72
Oct-2004
87.18
Nov-2004
91.67
Dec-2004
78.95
95th Per
average
92.60
80.71

City of Albemarle Long Creek WWTP TSR Removal
Month
Effluent TSR (mg/I)
Influent TSR (mg/l)
% Removal
Flow (MGD)
>85% Removal
Jan-2001
11
55
80.00
8.51
No
Feb-2001
11
56
80.36
9.69
No
Mar-2001
18
38
52.63
11.25
No
Apr-2001
11
47
76.60
8.92
No
May-2001
8
47
82.98
8.53
No
Jun-2001
9
50
82.00
9.02
No
Jul-2001
7
52
86.54
7.81
Yes
Aug-2001
7
50
86.00
8.13
Yes
Sep-2001
6
56
89.29
8.05
Yes
Oct-2001
8
52
84.62
8.22
No
Nov-2001
8
54
85.19
7.36
Yes
Dec-2001
10
45
77.78
7.40
No
Jan-2002
17
36
52.78
11.41
No
Feb-2002
11
39
71.79
10.90
No
Mar-2002
20
41
51.22
10.98
No
Apr-2002
13
46
71.74
9.60
No
May-2002
6
48
87.50
7.68
Yes
Jun-2002
7
52
86.54
6.80
Yes
Jul-2002
5
68
92.65
5.71
Yes
Aug-2002
4
48
91.67
6.72
Yes
Sep-2002
4
40
90.00
7.81
Yes
Oct-2002
8
47
82.98
9.96
No
Nov-2002
13
33
60.61
10.94
No
Dec-2002
13
31
58.06
11.37
No
Jan-2003
13
40
67.50
8.93
No
Feb-2003
23
27
14.81
11.92
No
Mar-2003
34
24
-41.67
14.18
No
Apr-2003
24
35
31.43
14.01
No
May-2003
20
48
58.33
12.42
No
Jun-2003
13
43
69.77
12.28
No
Jul-2003
10
39
74.36
10.58
No
Aug-2003
7
46
84.78
10.94
No
Sep-2003
5
49
89.80
8.41
Yes
Oct-2003
5
60
91.67
8.08
Yes
Nov-2003
5
60
91.67
7.75
Yes
Dec-2003
9
61
85.25
8.10
Yes
Jan-2004
9
47
80.85
7.87
No
Feb-2004
17
40
57.50
11.16
No
Mar-2004
20
41
51.22
9.86
No
Apr-2004
10
57
82.46
8.10
No
May-2004
8
60
86.67
7.95
Yes
Jun-2004
5
49
89.80
7.38
Yes
Jul-2004
4
64
93.75
6.44
Yes
Aug-2004
5
49
89.80
7.59
Yes
Sep-2004
10
47
78.72
11.15
No
Oct-2004
5
39
87.18
8.48
Yes
Nov-2004
6
72
91.67
9.02
Yes
Dec-2004
8
38
78.95
8.51
No
29
Months out of
48 didn't meet
>85 % Removal

Winter % TSR Removals
Jan-2001
80.00
Feb-2001
80.36
Mar-2001
52.63
Nov-2001
85.19
Dec-2001
77.78
average
75.19
Jan-2002
52.78
Feb-2002
71.79
Mar-2002
51.22
Nov-2002
60.61
Dec-2002
58.06
average
58.89
Jan-2003
67.50
Feb-2003
14.81
Nov-2003
91.67
Dec-2003
85.25
average
64.81
Jan-2004
80.85
Feb-2004
57.50
Mar-2004
51.22
Nov-2004
91.67
Dec-2004
78.95
average
72.04
vera
•
•
•
•
Summer % TSR Removals
Apr-2001
76.60
May-2001
82.98
Jun-2001
82.00
Jul-2001
86.54
Aug-2001
86.00
Sep-2001
89.29
Oct-2001
84.62
average
84.00
Apr-2002
71.74
May-2002
87.50
Jun-2002
86.54
Jul-2002
92.65
Aug-2002
91.67
Sep-2002
90.00
Oct-2002
82.98
average
86.15
Apr-2003
31.43
May-2003
58.33
Jun-2003
69.77
Jul-2003
74.36
Aug-2003
84.78
Sep-2003
89.80
Oct-2003
91.67
average
71.45
Apr-2004
82.46
May-2004
86.67
Jun-2004
89.80
Jul-2004
93.75
Aug-2004
89.80
Sep-2004
78.72
Oct-2004
87.18
average
86.91
•
•
Winter yearly ges Summer yearly averages
2001 75.19
2002 58.89
2003 64.81
2004 72.04
67.73 V00
Never hit 85% removal
in the winter months
(Nov 1 - March 31)
2001 84.00
2002 86.15
2003 71.45
2004 86.91
82.13
Meet 85% removal in
summer in 2 of 4 years. Another year averaged 84% removal
(April 1 - November 30)

Albemarle TSR % removals
Average % TSR Removal
95th Percentile
Years 2001 - 2004
76.4
91.7
Year 2001
80.3
87.8
Year 2002
74.8
92.1
Year 2003
69.0
91.7
Year 2004
80.7
92.6
28 values <85 % removal
67.7
84
All winter months
67.9
91.7
(November through March
Winter months, <85% removal
62.4
80.5
Summer months only
82.1
92.3
(April through October)
/v04 1 - Mom- 31
/keit.
vii^-
16ctil
Top L i %
SuAourefe-
4 y �rc-A.2

Albemarle TSR % removals
Average % TSR Removal
95th Percentile
Years 2001 - 2004
76.4
91.7
Year 2001
80.3
87.8
92.1
Year 2002
74.8
Year 2003
69.0
91.7
Year 2004
80.7
92.6
28 values <85 % removal
67.7
84
All winter months
67.9
91.7
(November through March
Winter months, <85% removal
62.4
80.5
Summer months only
82.1
92.3
(April through October)
I
I

City of Albemarle WWTP
Influent and Effluent TSS data
2004-2005
Qw Inf TSS Eff TSS % removal
Jan-04 7.87 49 9 82
Feb-04 11.16 40 17 58
Mar-04 9.85 41 20 52
Apr-04 8.096 57 10 83
May-04 7.95 60 8 87
Jun-04 7.376 49 5 90
J u I-04 6.438 64 4 94
Aug-04 7.588 49 6 88
Sep-04 11.15 47 10 79
Oct-04 8.478 39 5 87
Nov-04 9.02 72 6 92
Dec-04 8.51 38 8 79
Jan-05 9.22 38 11 72
Feb-05 10.42 47 16 66
Total 123.1 690.0 135.0 1109.0
Average 8.8 49.3 9.6 79.2

Environmental Protection Agency
(i) The 30-day average shall not ex-
ceed 25 mg/l.
(ii) The 7-day average shall not ex-
ceed 40 mg/1.
(iii) The 30-day average percent re-
moval shall not be less than 85 percent.
(b) SS. (1) The 30-day average shall
not exceed 30 mg/1.
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed
45 mg/1.
(3) The 30-day average percent re-
moval shall not be less than 85 percent.
(c) pH. The effluent values for pH
shall be maintained within the limits
of 6.0 to. 9.0 unless the publicly owned
treatment works demonstrates that: (1)
Inorganic chemicals are not added to
the waste stream as part of the
treatment process; and (2) contribu-
tions from industrial sources do not
cause the pH of the effluent to be less
than 6.0 or greater than 9.0.
[49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984; 49 FR 40405, Oct.
16,1984]
§ 133.103 Special considerations.
(a) Combined sewers. Treatment
works subject to this part may not be
capable of meeting the percentage
removal requirements established
under §§ 133.102(a)(3) and 133.102(b)(3), or
§§ 133.105(a)(3) and 133.105(b)(3) during
wet weather where the treatment
works receive flows from combined
sewers (i.e., sewers which are designed
to transport both storm water and san-
itary sewage). For such treatment
works, the decision must be made on a
case -by -case basis as to whether any
attainable percentage removal level
can be defined, and if so, what the level
should be.
(b) Industrial wastes. For certain
industrial categories, the discharge to
navigable waters of BODS and SS per-
mitted under sections 301(b)(1)(A)(i),
(b)(2)(E) or 306 of the Act may be less
stringent than the values given in
§§ 133.102(a)(1),
133.102(a)(4)(i), 133.102(b)(1),
133.105(a)(1), 133.105(b)(1) and
133.105(e)(1)(1). In cases when wastes
would be introduced from such an in-
dustrial category into a publicly owned
treatment works, the values for BOD5
and SS in §§ 133.102(a)(1), 133.102(a)(4)(i),
133.102(b)(1), 133.105(a)(1),
133.105(b)(1), and 133.105(e)(1)(i) may be
adjusted upwards provided that: (1) The
§133:103 §1
permitted discharge of such pollutants, ME
attributable to the industrial category, lin
would not be greater than that which me
would be permitted under sections eel
301(b)(1)(A)(1), 301(b)(2)(E) or 306 of the me
Act if such industrial category were to me
discharge directly into the navigable ha'
waters, and (2) the flow or loading of str
such pollutants introduced by the in- ery
dustrial category exceeds 10 percent of do
the design flow or loading of the pub- cox
licly owned treatment works. When not
such an adjustment is made, the values ter
for BOD5 or SS in §§ 133.102(a)(2), cer
133.102(a)(4)(11), § 133.102(b)(2), exc
133.105(a)(2), 133.105(b)(2), and exc
133.105(e)(1)(ii) should be adjusted pro- plu
portionately. flo'
(c) Waste stabilization ponds. The Re- the
gional Administrator, or, if appro- plu
priate, State Director subject to EPA lon
approval, is authorized to adjust the (E
minimum levels of effluent quality set wal
forth in § 133.105 (b)(1),. (b)(2), and (b)(3) wet*
for treatment works subject to this or,
part, to conform to the SS concentra- aut
tions achievable with waste stabiliza- per
tion ponds, provided that: (1) Waste loaf
stablization ponds are the principal reqi
process used for secondary treatment; §§ 1:
and (2) operation and maintenance data 13�
indicate that the SS values specified in 133.
§ 133.105 (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) cannot vid4
be achieved. The term "SS concentra- den
tions achievable with waste stabiliza- wor
tion ponds" means a SS value, deter- con
mined by the Regional Administrator, con
or, if appropriate, State Director sub- rem
ject to EPA approval, which is equal to due
the effluent concentration achieved 90 was
percent of the time within a State or mom
appropriate contiguous geographical wor
area by waste stabilization ponds that can,
are achieving the levels of effluent cent
quality for BOD5 specified in reqt
§133.105(a)(1). [cf. 43 FR 55279]. star
(d) Less concentrated influent waste- infli
water for separate sewers. The Regional fron
Administrator or, if appropriate, State clea
Director is authorized to substitute ei- ing
ther a lower percent removal require- min
ment or a mass loading limit for the cent
percent removal requirements set forth cess
in §§ 133.102(a)(3), 133.102(a)(4)(iii), CFB
133.102(b)(3), 102.105(a)(3), 133.105(b)(3) critf
and 133.105(e)(1)(iii) provided that the ita
permittee satisfactorily demonstrates inch
that: (1) The treatment works is con-
sistently meeting, or will consistently valu
491

§ 133.104
40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-02 Edition)
meet, its permit effluent concentration
limits but its percent removal require-
ments cannot be met due to less con-
centrated influent wastewater, (2) to
meet the percent removal require-
ments, the treatment works would
have to achieve significantly more
stringent limitations than would oth-
erwise be required by the concentra-
tion -based standards, and (3) the less
concentrated influent wastewater is
not the result of excessive I/I. The de-
termination of whether the less con-
centrated wastewater is the result of
excessive I/I will use the definition of
excessive 1/1 in 40 CFR 35.2005(b)(16)
plus the additional criterion that in-
flow is nonexcessive if the total flow to
the PO°TW (i.e., wastewater plus inflow
plus infiltration) is less than 275 gal-
lons per capita per day.
(e) Less concentrated influent waste-
water for combined sewers during dry
weather. The Regional Administrator
or, if appropriate, the State Director is
authorized to substitute either a lower
percent removal requirement or a mass
loading limit for the percent removal
requirements set forth in
§§ 133.102(a)(3), 133.102(a)(4)(iii),
133.102(b)(3), 133.105(a)(3),
133.105(b)(3) and 133.105(e)(1)(iii) pro-
vided that the permittee satisfactorily
demonstrates that: (1) The treatment
works is consistently meeting, or will
consistently meet, its permit effluent
concentration limits, but the percent
removal requirements cannot be met
due to less concentrated influent
wastewater; (2) to meet the percent re-
moval requirements, the treatment
works would have to achieve signifi-
cantly more stringent effluent con-
centrations than would otherwise be
required by the concentration -based
standards; and (3) the less concentrated
influent wastewater does not result
from either excessive infiltration or
clear water industrial discharges dur-
ing dry weather periods. The deter-
mination of whether the less con-
centrated wastewater results from ex-
cessive infiltration is discussed in 40
CFR 35.2005(b)(28), plus the additional
criterion that either 40 gallons per cap-
ita per day (gpcd) or 1500 gallons per
inch diameter per mile of sewer
(gpdim) may be used as the threshold
value for that portion of the dry weath-
er base flow attributed to infiltration.
If the less concentrated influent waste-
water is the result of clear water indus-
trial discharges, then the treatment
works must control such discharges
pursuant to 40 CFR part 403.
[49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984, as amended at 50
FR 23387, June 3, 1985; 50 FR 36880, Sept. 10,
1985; 54 FR 4228, Jan. 27, 19891
§ 133.104 Sampling and test proce-
dures.
(a) Sampling and test procedures for
pollutants listed in this part shall be in
accordance with guidelines promul-
gated by the Administrator in 40 CFR
part 136.
(b) Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
or total organic carbon (TOC) may be
substituted for BOD5 when a long-term
BOD:COD or BOD:TOC correlation has
been demonstrated.
§ 133.105 Treatment equivalent to sec-
ondary treatment.
This section describes the minimum
level of effluent quality attainable by
facilities eligible for treatment equiva-
lent to secondary treatment
(§ 133.101(g)) in terms of the param-
eters—BOD5, SS and pH. All require-
ments for the specified parameters in
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this sec-
tion shall be achieved except as pro-
vided for in § 133.103, or paragraphs (d),
(e) or (f) of this section.
(a) BOD5. (1) The 30-day average shall
not exceed 45 mg/l.
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed
65 mg/1.
(3) The 30-day average percent re-
moval shall not be less than 65 percent.
(b) SS. Except where SS values have
been adjusted in accordance with
§ 133.103(c):
(1) The 30-day average shall not ex-
ceed 45 mg/l.
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed
65 mg/l.
(3) The 30-day average percent re-
moval shall not be less than 65 percent.
(c) pH. The requirements of
§ 133.102(c) shall be met.
(d) Alternative State requirements. Ex-
cept as limited by paragraph (f) of this
section, and after notice and oppor-
tunity for public comment, the Re-
gional Administrator, or, if appro-
priate, State Director subject to EPA
492

0/40.'1E-
//*
7,4-J
Ioizday 3?
0/Zenrr y9
si
b(itt
/0
797.0a
f-0
'7, 3
7"1r /b /4..4/%4
rq
5 -0 8,oy
//icy
/v
f
8z�
?.87
lf),
-Yetvt-
4/3 re-eo/c_._
-itott G6

r5S
ifs Au
11//zat 77- 5
-440;lt ,-('2--
/ 21 Leo,/ 38 (
f itisw" 9-s-i
r..
/ 1 ,zz..--,
zAnc" 7 ova
_ _ Ad-rfi,
/4. /c'y 2— ( 5-30) rft-i-t-
/
_
y/baur.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
APR 1 5 2005
Alan W. Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quat`ity
North Carolina Dep ment of Environment and
Natural Resourc s
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
innti
WI,
2005
OF AMER QUALST`l
'�IDIR TORS OFFICE
SUBJ: Review of Draft NPDES Permit
City of Albemarle Long Creek WWTP - NPDES No. NC0024244
Dear Mr. Klimek:
The EPA, Region 4, is in receipt of the draft permit for the above referenced facility. The
current permit contains a total suspended solids percent removal requirement of 62%, which we
view as a waiver from the secondary treatment requirements at 40 Code of Federal Regulations
Section 133.103. That waiver has been carried over and retained in the draft permit. Based on
our review, insufficient information has been provided to justify continuance of that waiver in the
draft permit.
Because the information provided is inadequate to determine whether the draft permit meets
the guidelines and requirements of the Clean Water Act, I request that data regarding influent and
effluent levels of this parameter and other documentation sufficient to justify a special consideration
and waiver under 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 133.103 be provided. Pursuant to
federal regulatory requirements and language of Section VII.A. of the North Carolina/EPA
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
this letter constitutes an interim objection to the issuance of this permit.
In accordance with the MOA and federal regulations, the full period of time for review of
this draft permit will recommence when the requested information is received by this Office. I look
forward to receipt of the information. If you have any questions, please call me or have your staff
contact Mr. Marshall Hyatt at 404/562-9304.
Sincerely,
ames D. Giattina, Director
Water Management Division
cc: Gary Smith, City of Albemarle
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable O1 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

Marshall's comments on CMUs and Albemarle
Subject: Marshall's comments on CMUs and Albemarle
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:43:44 -0400
To: Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
(Since you don't like walk-ins, you get to read a long email)
Talked with Marshall, regarding CMU plants: 1) he's okay with the 6 month compliance
schedule for fecal, considering that originally they had asked for 12 months. 2) he's also okay
with allowing CMU the option of doing a WER. EPA would like to review their plan of study
and implementation plan. He also said to let CMU know that if the WER indicates that more
stringent limits should be applied, then CMU would be bound by the results. They cannot
decide not to accept the results. 3) Also ok with more stringent NH3 limits.
So, I can proceed to finalize the CMU permits . y1Ppl act 5U 2 (LNovirid-6I WOUL.11
NMt6 ib Alfr v-*J2- Afuµa.-a-
Albemarle --- He recognizes that Albemarle has a problem, influent TSS values are as low as
he's ever seen. But he thinks there is a seasonal component to their problem, the winter
months,esp. Feb. and March are when they have the problem. He has a two fold
recommendation for us to ponder -- 1) Continue with a % removal less that 85% but not as
low as 62% because he doesn't think that 62% is warranted.. He looked at the average cYo
removal from 2001 -2004 and by his calculations it was 80%, 75%, 63%, 81%, respectively.
the average of the 4 years was 75%. We could think about what we would recommend.
2) make the variation of the % removal for basically the winter months only since those
appear to be the problem times. We could designate what the winter months would be. Then
come up with what percent removal we would allow for those months.
I told him that I don't think that last option had ever been done, but that I would consult
with staff and get back with him. the first option to increase % removal from 62% up to some
number is the easiest thing to do. The winter only option will take some more work. Do you
have a sagely recommendation?
Uci 13A11AT,15
Do A 9 G -.")Tl L& on.) A-t-T14S
4A-1/41 FT `jou (m6, lk0-2 -, N4 f« o,n.
w.tnli ti& WAu k-1D r �5 Do 5e,A-so.JA1- ,r,g71 or-1 oti1 7►1 47 12- 2 &/4T(Le ON Sun,•AA;Erlttio�l i�2- S
Cs t D , .cARM 5)
A-A!p r.I vAr7ra2../ 1 '16,4 LE
rs
�-tk
jP L - Ate'
cjti4 ra.P 01/T rT)
1 of 1 4/14/2005 4:52 PM

City of Albemarle
North Carolina
Office of Mailing Address
Public Utilities P. O. Box 190
Treatment Plants Albemarle, N. C.
[phone] 28002-0190
April 11, 2005
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
N. C. DENR
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJECT: Requests for modifications
Draft NPDES Permit
Permit NC0024244
City of Albemarle WWTP
Stanly County
Dear Ms. Nowell:
APR 1 3 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
The City of Albemarle received the draft NPDES Permit NC0024244 for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant on March 21, 2005. After review of this document, there are several
concerns about how these new additional requirements will impact the City of Albemarle. The
following is a summary of objections and comments on the new changes incorporated in the
proposed permit:
Item 1. Daily Maximum Limits for Selenium, Cyanide, and Mercury
Many of these objections will be nearly the same as I stated in August 2000. The above -mentioned
items have never been limited in past NPDES permits. What is the rationale for issuing limitations on
these parameters at this time? The City of Albemarle has passed the Chronic Toxicity requirement
consistently over the past few years. The letter states these limits are proposed due to "the
reasonable potential analysis." Again I ask, what data is this analysis based on?
The data the City of Albemarle has collected for Mercury is not extensive. The discharge limit of
0.013 ug/1 of Mercury is below the detection level of 0.2 ug/1 that has been reported by this facility for
the majority of the data collected since 2001. Using the new low-level mercury technique Albemarle
has not reported any effluent values near the discharge limit; the greatest value reported being
0.00889 ug/l. , , a , _ o, Z J 4)

The accuracy of laboratory results for Cyanide at the 5.3 ug/1 discharge limit is very questionable. I
understand several other municipalities have raised this topic. Looking over the data obtained
between 2001-2004, I have seen two instances were the City would have exceeded the limits for
Cyanide. However, I question the accuracy of these results, due to their respective influent values.
There has been no detection of Selenium in the effluent since 2001 and I cannot recall any detection
prior to that date either. - U . Z 1-
The City feels there is not significant evidence to issue Daily Maximum Limits for Selenium, Cyanide,
and Mercury.
The City of Albemarle requests that the Daily Maximum Limits for Selenium, Cyanide, and Mercury
be removed from the proposed NPDES Permit. The City of Albemarle proposes that monitoring be
continued for the above -mentioned parameters as listed in the Long Term Monitoring Plan. If
monitoring should indicate problems then limits may be in order.
Item 2. Total Residual Chlorine Limit
The City of Albemarle objects to a Total Residual Chlorine Limit, but is aware that this is now policy
for all dischargers.
Albemarle has a very crude and antiquated dechlorination system that is not adequate to completely
dechlorinate during high flow situations at the facility. Viewing past DMRs one will notice that
during high flow situations Albemarle WWTP normally discharges some residual chlorine. This
doesn't occur during normal flow conditions. This condition was never thought to be a critical issue
in the past, since during high flow situations the receiving stream flow was very high as well and the
discharge should be little or no impact.
It is mentioned in the cover letter for the draft NPDES permit that the chlorine limit shall become
effective no later that 18 months from permit issuance. The City of Albemarle requests that the
chlorine limit not become effective until 18 months after permit issuance. The 18 months should give
the City enough time to budget and install improvements to the dechlorination system so it can handle
high flow situations.
Item 3. Color (ADMI) Monitoring Requirements
This is an error that was not picked up in Albemarle's existing NPDES permit. The reason being that
the cover letter submitted with the existing NPDES permit stated the instream monitoring frequency
for Color was the same as the previous NPDES permit. The Upstream and Downstream3
measurement frequency for Color (ADMI) should be 12/month)to coincide with Effluent monitoring
frequency for Color.
C✓ (. %/ (
2

Item 4. Items in Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet
The following win items should be deleted: Dissolved -air flotation ' s (destroyed in great flood in
1997) and Instrumented effluent flow measurement (should be influent).
The following items should be added: Centrifuge and a batch feed indirect heat sludge dry
If you have any questions feel free to contact me at [phone], by fax [phone] or e-mail
[e-mail]. Your consideration in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Gary O. Smith, II
Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment
3

comments on NC0024244 - City of Albemarle Long Creek
Subject: comments on NC0024244 - City of Albemarle Long Creek
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:06:10 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
sorry for the delay in getting these to you. will you be able to
respond by COB, Tues Apr 12? thanks Marshall
1. In Part A.1, recommend changing "total suspended residue" to
"total
suspended solids" in both the table and footnote #2.
2. re Hg, shouldn't the permit require use of Method 1631E? If
so
shouldn't the sample type be grab?
3. re footnote #2, the 38 % removal limit for TSS appears to be
rolled
over from the previous permit. Such a waiver must be
re -demonstrated at
each permit renewal. The fact sheet contains no rationale or any
demonstration required by 40 CFR Part 133.103 for renewal of this
waiver
from secondary treatment requirements in the reissued permit. W/o
such
a valid rationale based on some section of 40 CFR Part 133.103, EPA
will
object to its inclusion.
1 of 1 4/11/2005 2:33 PM

Draft Permit Review
Subject: Draft Permit Review
From: John Giorgino <j ohn.giorgino @ ncmail.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:55:37 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hi Jackie, I have reviewed Permit #NC0024244, City of Albermarle.
No comments. Thanks for forwarding it.
-John
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web Page: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1 3/23/2005 4:06 PM

PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE
A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review
and application of NC General Statute
143.21. Public law 92-500 and other lawful
standards and regulations, the North
Carolina Environmental Management
Commission proposes to issue a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge permit to
the person(s) listed below effective 45
days from the publish date of this notice.
Written comments regarding the proposed
permit will be accepted until 30 days after
the publish date of this notice. All
comments received prior to that date are
considered in the final determinations
regarding the proposed permit. The
Director of the NC Division of Water
Quality may decide to hold a public
meeting for the proposed permit should
the Division receive a significant degree of
public interest.
Copies of the draft permit and other
supporting information on file used to
determine conditions present in the draft
permit are available upon request and
payment of the costs of reproduction. Mail
comments and/or requests for information
to the NC Division of Water Quality at
the above address or call the Point Source
Branch at [phone], extension 520.
Please include the NPDES permit number
(attached) in any communication. Interest-
ed persons may also visit the Division of
Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review
information on file.
City of Albemarle Wastewater Treatment
Plant, NPDES Permit Number
NC0024244, Stanly County, has applies
fro renewal of its permit discharging treat-
ed wastewater to the Long Creek in the
Yadkin River Basin. Currently BOD5,
NH3, Dissolved Oxygen, total residual
chlorine, fecal coliform and other parame-
ters are water quality limited. This dis-
charge may affect future allocations in this
portion of the receiving stream.
March 20, 2004

Fact Sheet - NPDES Permit
Long Creek WWTP
NPDES No. NC0024244
Facility
Receiving Stream
Facility Name:
City of Albemarle — Long
Creek WWTP
Receiving Stream:
Long Creek
Permitted Flow (MGD):
16.0 MGD
Subbasin:
030713
Facility Class:
IV
Index No.:
Facility Status:
Existing
Stream Class:
C
Permit Status:
Renewal
303(d) Listed:
No
County:
Stanly
Use Support:
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Drainage Area (mi2):
64
USGS Topo Quad:
F18SW
Summer 7010 (cfs)
1.6
Winter 7010 (cfs):
9.5
30Q2 (cfs):
4.7
Average Flow (cfs):
64
IWc (%):
94
FACILITY OVERVIEW
The facility is currently permitted for 16 MGD. The wastewater treatment system consists of the
following components:
> Mechanical bar screens
> Dual gravity grit chambers
> Influent lift station
> Parshall flume with instrumental flow measurement
> Preaeration basins
➢ Primary clarifiers
> Trickling filters
➢ Mechanical aeration basins
> Secondary clarifiers
➢ Gravity tertiary filters
> Chlorination and dechlorination
> Instrumented effluent flow measurement
> Twelve in -plant screw lift pumps
> Aerobic digesters
> Dissolved -air flotation units and
> Sludge holding tanks
The facility serves the City of Albemarle (-15500 persons), Stanly County (-2800 persons) and the
Town of New London (-275 persons).
City of Albemarle has a full pre-treatment program with a Long Term Monitoring Plan and has 4
SIUs (Significant Industrial Users) and 1 CIU (Categorical Industrial User) per its application.

Permit NC0050903
RECEIVING STREAM
The City of Albemarle — Long Creek WWTP discharges treated municipal and industrial wastewater
to Long Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. The stream classification of this segment of the
Long Creek is C. The receiving stream has a use rating of Supporting.
Instream monitoring is required for temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity and color. There is
a discrepancy about the frequency of the instream monitoring. MRO staff noted that the facility will
probably request modification of the frequency to reflect the requirements in the 1994 permit.
Current instream monitoring sites are as follows —as in the November 1, 2000 permit:
Upstream above the discharge point
Downstream) = Downstream at the end of NCSR 1960
Downstream2 = Downstream 3.9 miles at NCSR 1967
Downstream3 (for color samples only) = approximately 200 yards downstream from the discharge
point
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be
collected once per month in the winter (October through May) and once per week during
the summer (June through September.)
Review of instream data showed that in 2003 and 2004, the dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/1
was met at all stations upstream and downstream of the WWTP. However, in 2001 and 2002, there
were summer months where upstream and downstream instream DO averages were below the
standard of 5 mg/1. Based on this data, we recommend that the instream monitoring frequency
remain at once per week in the summer and once per month in the winter.
.---Instream color data
There has been a reduction in the color in ADMI detected downstream of the discharge. However,
there is still apparent color in the stream, therefore we recommend continuation of the instream
color monitoring program.
TOXICITY TESTING
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic P/F
Existing Limit: 001: Chronic P/F @ 90%
Recommended Limit: 001: Chronic P/F @ 90%
Monitoring Schedule: March, June, September, and December
The facility had passed all quarterly toxicity tests from March 2000 until March 2003, when there
was a failure. The follow-up test was late, but was followed by two Passes. Since June 2003, the
facility has passed all toxicity tests.
COMPLIANCE HISTORY
The Town appears to have had an excellent compliance record for the past three years with minimal
violations.
In 2002, all permit limitations were met.
In 2003, all permit limitations were met with the exception of two BODS violations in April and
May and a TSS exceedance in March and a toxicity failure in March.
Through November 2004, all permit limitations are being met.
2

Permit NC0050903
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
The following metal parameters are limited or monitored in the NPDES permit: Chromium,
Cadmium, Copper and Zinc.
Data for the following parameters was reported in the discharge monitoring reports and a
RPA was also done: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Cn, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, and Zn. The facility is under a
full pretreatment program.
Reasonable potential analysis was conducted based on data from 2001 through 2004. Results and
data analysis are attached.
RPA RESULTS:
Based on the Reasonable Potential Analysis: (See attached results)
• Limits should be deleted for cadmium based on RPA.
Cadmium results had eighty one (81) reported values and all were below detection.
There was no reasonable potential to exceed the allowable concentration. The weekly
average and daily maximum limit can be removed. Quarterly monitoring for cadmium,
will be applied.
• Limits for cyanide, mercury and selenium should be added based on the RPA.
The results for these three constituents had max. predicted values that exceeded the
allowable concentrations. All showed reasonable potential to exceed the allowable
concentrations. .
• 2/ month monitoring for copper and zinc should be continued in the permit.
RPA results showed the maximum predicted value exceeding the allowable action level
concentration.
•
• Limit for chromium of 53 ug/1 should continue to be included in the permit. The
parameter showed reasonable potential to exceed the allowable effluent concentration.
• Results of the RPA for arsenic, lead, nickel and silver showed no reasonable
potential for exceedance of allowable concentrations. No limits or monitoring for
these parameters are needed.
PROPOSED CHANGES
• Addition of daily maximum limits and/or weekly average limit for cyanide, mercury and
selenium.
• Deletion of weekly average and daily maximum limits for cadmium.
• Summer and winter weekly average limits for ammonia nitrogen have been added to the
permit, based on DWQ procedure for all NPDES dischargers.
• The addition of a TRC limit of 18 ug/1 based on DWQ procedure. Facility will be given an
18 month compliance schedule to meet the limit.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: March 16, 2005 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: June 1, 2005 (est.)
3

Permit NC0050903
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Ja e Nowell at919) 733-5038 ext. 512.
/pc/
GIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
DATE:
NAME: DATE:
RO SUPERVISOR: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
4

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Albemarle - Long Creek WWTP
NC0024244
Time Period 1/2001-10/2004
Ow (MGD) 16
7Q10S (cfs) 1.6
7Q10W (cfs) 9.5
30Q2 (cfs) 4.7
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 64
Reeving Stream Long Creek
WWTP Class IV
1WC (%) @ 7010S 93.939
® 7Q10W 72.303
® 30Q2 84.068
® QA 27.928
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Qw =16 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WDS/
Chronic
14 FAV 1
Acute
n
0 Del Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
NC
50
ug/L
15
0
2.5
Acute: WA
, _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
Chronic: 53
No limit or monitoring required in NPDES permit. Will
continue to be monitored in the Pretreatment LTMP - _ _
Cadmium
NC
2
15
ug/L
81
0
1.0
Acute: 15
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _
Chronic: 2
No limit or monitoring required in NPDES permit. Will
continue to be monitored in the Pretreatment LTMP _ _ _
Chromium
NC
50
1,022
ug/L
81
6
59.0
I Acute: 1,022
__ _ _-_____
Chronic: 53
I emit of 53 ug/I to be continued in the permit.
___________________________
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
81
80
147.4
I Acute: 7
Chronic: 7
Continue with 2/month monitoring in the permit
Cyanide
NC
5
N
22
10
ug/L
14
I Acute: 22.0
7 125.7 _ _-_ _-_
Chronic: 5.3
II
_ ___ _ _ _ _ _-__ ____-_ _ _
Addition of a limit of 5.3 ug/I to the permit
Lead
NC
25
N
33.8
ug/L
80
0
Acute: 34
10.9 _ _ - _
Chronic: _ _ —2-7—
No limit or monitoring required in NPDES permit. Will
continue_to be monitored in the Pretreatment LTMP - _ - r
Mercury
NC
0.012
0.0002
ug/L
14
4
Acute: N/A
0.5120 _ _ _-_-___
Chronic: 0.013
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-___
Limit of 0.013 ugfl should be added to permit
Nickel
NC
88
261
ug/L
91
0
11.1
Acute: 261
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 94
No limit or monitoring required in NPDES permit. Will
continue to be monitored in the Pretreatment LTMP
Selenium
NC
5.0
56
ug/L
15
1
11.0
Acute: 56
_ _ _-_-_-_
Chronic: 5.3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_- _-_-____
Limit of 5.3 ug/I to be added in the permit.
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
1.23
ug/L
15
2
24.9
i Acute: 1
Chronic: 0
No limit or monitoring required in NPDES permit. Will
continue to be monitored in the_ Pretreatment LTMP _ _
Highest value was 3 yrs old in 2001. Next highest value
(2.3) was just above the detection level
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
92
91
i Acute: 67
88.9 !
Chronic: 53
Continue 2/month monitoring in the permit.
* Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
24244.rpa2004, rpa
2/24/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Aug-2004 < 5.0 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 Jun-2004 < 5.0 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 Feb-2004 < 5.0 2.5 C.V. 0.0000
4 Nov-2003 < 5.0 2.5 n 15
5 Aug-2003 < 5.0 2.5
6 < 5.0 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.0000
7 < 5.0 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L
8 Dec-2002 < 5.0 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 ug/L
9 < 5.0 2.5
10 < 5.0 2.5
11 < 5.0 2.5
12 Nov-2001 < 5.0 2.5
13 < 5.0 2.5
14 < 5.0 2.5
15 < 5.0 2.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
200
-1-
24244.rpa2004, data
1/14/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Cadmium
Chromium
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Oct-2004
<
2
1.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
Oct-2004
<
40
20.0
Std Dev.
4.6947
2
<
2
1.0
Mean
1.0000
2
<
40
20.0
Mean
20.9012
3
<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
<
40
20.0
C.V.
0.2246
4
<
2
1.0
n
81
4
<
40
20.0
n
81
5
<
2
1.0
5
<
40
20.0
6
<
2
1.0
Mult Factor =
1.0000
6
<
40
20.0
Mult Factor =
1.1800
7
<
2
1.0
Max. Value
1.0 ug/L
7
<;
40
20.0
Max. Value
50.0 ug/L
8
<
2
1.0
Max. Pred Cw
1.0 ug/L
8
<.
40
20.0
Max. Pred Cw
59.0 ug/L
9
<
2
1.00
9
<
40
20.0
10
<
2
1.00
10
<
40
20.0
11
<
2
1.00
11
- _
40.0
40.0
12
<
2
1.00
12
27.0
27.0
13
<
2
1.00
13
40
20.0
14
<
2
1.00
14
<
40
20.0
15
<
2
1.00
15
<.
40
20.0
16
<
2
1.00
16
<
40
20.0
17
<
2
1.00
17
<t
40
20.0
18
<
2
1.00
18
<.
40
20,0
19
<
2
1.00
19
<
40
20.0
20
<
2
1.00
20
<
40
20.0
21
<
2
1.00
21
<,;
40
20.0
22
<
2
1.00
22
<s'
40
20.0
23
<
2
1.00
23
<'
40
20.0
24
<
2
1.00
24
<:
40
20.0
25
<
2
1.00
25
<.
40
20.0
26
<
2
1.00
26
<','
40
20.0
27
<
2
1.00
27
<
40
20.0
28
<
2
1.00
28
4z
40
20.0
29
<
2
1.00
29
24.0
24.0
30
Dec-2003
<
2
1.00
30
Dec-2003
<1
40
20.0
31
<
2
1.00
31
<=
40
20.0
32
<
2
1.00
32
<
40
20.0
33
<
2
1.00
33
<
40
20.0
34
<
2
1.00
34
<,
40
20.0
35
<
2
1.00
35
<.,
40
20.0
36
<
2
1.00
36
<`
40
20.0
37
<
2
1.00
37
<
40
20.0
38
<
2
1.00
38
12.0
12.0
39
<
2
1.00
39
<
40
20.0
40
<
2
1.00
40
<;j
40
20.0
41
<
2
1.00
41
<'
40
20.0
42
<
2
1.00
42
<
40
20.0
43
<
2
1.00
43
<
40
20.0
44
<
2
1.00
44
<„
40
20.0
45
<
2
1.00
45
<
40
20.0
46
<
2
1.00
46
;: a
40
20.0
47
<
2
1.00
47
40.0
40.0
48
<
2
1.00
48
40
20.0
49
<
2
1.00
49
<
40
20.0
50
<
2
1.00
50
<
40
20.0
51
<
2
1.00
51
<
40
20.0
52
<
2
1.00
52
<
40
20.0
53
<
2
1.00
53
<
40
20.0
54
<
2
1.00
54
<
40
20.0
55
<
2
1.00
55
<
40
20.0
56
<
2
1.00
56
<
40
20.0
57
<
2
1.00
57
<
40
20.0
58
<
2
1.00
58
<
40
20.0
59
<
2
1.00
59
<
40
20.0
60
<
2
1.00
60
<
40
20.0
200
200
- 2 -
24244.rpa2004, data
1/14/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Oct-2004
40
40.0
Std Dev.
20.6761
1
Aug-2004
<
5
5.0
Std Dev.
6.6815
2
80
80.0
Mean
50.0000
2
Jun-2004
5
5.0
Mean
6.7857
3
50
50.0
C.V.
0.4135
3
2
5.0
C.V.
0.9846
4
80
80.0
n
81
4
Nov-2003
<.
2
5.0
n
14
5
50
50.0
5
<
2
5.0
6
60
60.0
Mult Factor =
1.3400
6
'44y tool
6
5.0
Mult Factor =
4.1900
7
60
60.0
Max. Value
110.0 ug/L
7
AlegifTood
4
5.0
Max. Value
30.0 ug/L
8
70
70.0
Max. Pred Cw
147.4 ug/L
8
Sep-2002
<
2
5.0
Max. Pred Cw
125.7 ug/L
9
40
40.0
9
_<
2
5.000
10
80
80.0
10
Mar-2002
30
30.000
11
50
50.0
11
Jan-2001
4
5.000
12
60
60.0
12
Apr-2001
3
5.000
13
30
30.0
13
Aug-2001
<
2
5.000
14
40
40.0
14
Dec-2001
3
5.0
15
40
40.0
15
16
50
50.0
16
17
30
30.0
17
18
40
40.0
18
19
60
60.0
19
20
40
40.0
20
21
40
40.0
21
22
50
50.0
22
23
30
30.0
23
24
40
40.0
24
25
110
110.0
25
26
50
50.0
26
27
40
40.0
27
28
30
30.0
28
29
30
30.0
29
30
Dec-2003
50
50.0
30
31
70
70.0
31
32
50
50.0
32
33
60
60.0
33
34
50
50.0
34
35
90
90.0
35
36
80
80.0
36
37
80
80.0
37
38
110
110.0
38
39
50
50.0
39
40
60
60.0
40
41
80
80.0
41
42
70
70.0
42
43
30
30.0
43
44
40
40.0
44
45
50
50.0
45
46
40
40.0
46
47
50
50.0
47
48
30
30.0
48
49
30
30.0
49
50
50
50.0
50
51
30
30.0
51
52
20
20.0
52
53
40
40.0
53
54
30
30.0
54
55
30
30.0
55
56
30
30.0
56
57
60
60.0
57
58
20
20.0
58
59
20
20.0
59
60
<
20
10.0
60
200
200
-3-
24244.rpa2004, data
1/14/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Lead
Mercury
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Oct-2004
<
20
10.0
Std Dev.
1.1783
1
Jun-2004
0.009
0.009
Std Dev.
0.0508
2
<
20
10.0
Mean
9.8125
2
Mar-2004
0.005
0.005
Mean
0.0873
3
<
20
10.0
C.V.
0.1201
3
Dec-2003
0.008
0.008
C.V.
0.5824
4
<
20
10.0
n
80
4
4cif 20.53
0.200
0.200
n
14
5
<
20
10.0
5
ti
<
0.200
0.100
6
<
20
10.0
Mult Factor =
1.0900
6
<
0.200
0.100
Mult Factor =
2.5600
7
<
20
10.0
Max. Value
10.0 ug/L
7
Dec-2002
<
0.200
0.100
Max. Value
0.200 ug/L
8
<
20
10.0
Max. Pred Cw
10.9 ug/L
8
<
0.200
0.100
Max. Pred Cw
0.512 ug/L
9
<
20
10.0
9
<
0.200
0.100
10
<
20
10.0
10
<.
0.200
0.100
11
<
20
10.0
11
Nov-2001
<
0.200
0.100
12
<
5
2.5
12
<
0.200
0.100
13
<
20
10.0
13
<
0.200
0.100
14
<
20
10.0
14
<;
0.200
0.100
15
<
20
10.0
15
16
<
20
10.0
16
17
<
20
10.0
17
18
<
20
10.0
18
19
<
20
10.0
19
20
<
20
10.0
20
21
<
20
10.0
21
22
<
20
10.0
22
23
<
20
10.0
23
24
<
20
10.0
24
25
Dec-2003
<''
20
10.0
25
26
<
20
10.0
26
t
27
<
20
10.0
27
to
28
<
20
10.0
28
29
<
20
10.0
29
30
<
5
2.5
30
31
<
20
10.0
31
32
<
20
10.0
32
33
<
20
10.0
33
34
<
20
10.0
34
35
<
20
10.0
35
36
<
20
10.0
36
;_
37
<
20
10.0
37
a"`
38
<
20
10.0
38
39
< ii
20
10.0
39
40
<
20
10.0
40
41
<
20
10.0
41
42
<
20
10.0
42
43
<
20
10.0
43
44
<
20
10.0
44
45
<
20
10.0
45
46
<
20
10.0
46
47
<
20
10.0
47
48
<
20
10.0
48
49
<!..
20
10.0
49
50
<
20
10.0
50
51
<
20
10.0
51
52
<
20
10.0
52
53
<
20
10.0
53
54
<
20
10.0
54
55
<
20
10.0
55
56
<
20
10.0
56
57
<
20
10.0
57
58
<l
20
10.0
58
59
<
20
10.0
59
60
<
20
10.0
60
200
200
-4-
24244.rpa2004, data
1/14/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Nickel
Selenium
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Oct-2004
<
20
10.0
Std Dev.
1.5460
1
Aug-2004
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.9553
2
<
20
10.0
Mean
9.6703
2
,Td1J leoj!
6.2
6.2
Mean
2.7467
3
<
20
10.0
C.V.
0.1599
3
Feb-2004
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.3478
4
<
20
10.0
n
91
4
Nov-2003
<
5
2.5
n
15
5
<
20
10.0
5
<
5
2.5
6
<
20
10.0
Mult Factor =
1.1100
6
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.7800
7
<
20
10.0
Max. Value
10.0 ug/L
7
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
6.2 ug/L
8
<
20
10.0
Max. Pred Cw
11.1 ug/L
8
Dec-2002
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
11.0 ug/L
9
<
20
10.0
9
<
5
2.5
10
<
20
10.0
10
<
5
2.5
11
<
20
10.0
11
<
5
2.5
12
<
5
2.5
12
Nov-2001
<
5
2.5
13
<
20
10.0
13
<
5
2.5
14
<
20
10.0
14
<
5
2.5
15
<
20
10.0
15
<
5
2.5
16
<
20
10.0
16
17
<
20
10.0
17
18
<
20
10.0
18
19
<
5
2.5
19
20
<
20
10.0
20
21
<
20
10.0
21
22
<
20
10.0
22
23
<
20
10.0
23
24
<
20
10.0
24
25
<
20
10.0
25
26
<
20
10.0
26
27
<
20
10.0
27
28
<
20
10.0
28
29
<
20
10.0
29
30
<
5
2.5
30
31
<
20
10.0
31
32
<
20
10.0
32
33
<
20
10.0
33
34
<
20
10.0
34
35
<
20
10.0
35
36
<
20
10.0
36
37
<
20
10.0
37
38
<
20
10.0
38
39
Dec-2003
<
20
10.0
39
40
<
20
10.0
40
41
<
20
10.0
41
42
<
20
10.0
42
43
<
20
10.0
43
44
<
5
2.5
44
45
<
20
10.0
45
46
<
20
10.0
46
47
<
20
10.0
47
48
<
20
10.0
48
49
<
20
10.0
49
50
<
20
10.0
50
51
<
20
10.0
51
52
<
20
10.0
52
53
<
20
10.0
53
54
<
20
10.0
54
55
<
20
10.0
55
56
<
20
10.0
56
57
<
20
10.0
57
58
<
20
10.0
58
59
<
20
10.0
59
60
<
20
10.0
60
200
200
-5-
24244.rpa2004, data
1/14/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Silver
Zinc
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Aug-2004<
2
1.0
Std Dev.
1.3855
1
Oct-2004
20
20.0
Std Dev.
13.2071
2
Jun-2004
<
2
1.0
Mean
1.4400
2
40
40.0
Mean
35.5435
3
Feb-2004
<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.9622
3
50
50.0
C.V.
0.3716
4
Nov-2003
<
2
1.0
n
15
4
40
40.0
n
92
5
<
2
1.0
5
30
30.0
6
2.3
2.3
Mult Factor =
3.9500
6
30
30.0
Mult Factor =
1.2700
7
<
2
1.0
Max. Value
6.3 ug/L
7
50
50.0
Max. Value
70.0 ug/L
8
Dec-2002
<`'
2
1.0
Max. Pred Cw
24.9 ug/L
8
60
60.0
Max. Pred Cw
88.9 ug/L
9
<
2
1.0
9
30
30.0
10
<
2
1.0
10
40
40.0
11
<
2
1.0
11
20
20.0
12
Jan-2001
<
2
1.0
12
30
30.0
13
<
2
1.0
13
30
30.0
14
<
2
1.0
14
20
20.0
15
Nov-2001
6
6.3
15
20
20.0
16
16
20
20.0
17
17
20
20.0
18
18
-
40
40.0
19
19
40
40.0
20
20
40
40.0
21
21
30
30.0
22
22
30
30.0
23
23
40
40.0
24
24
.
50
50.0
25
25
s
40
40.0
26
26
60
60.0
27
27
40
40.0
28
28
50
50.0
29
29
40
40.0
30
30
40
40.0
31
31
40
40.0
32
32
20
20.0
33
33
30
30.0
34
34
20
20.0
35
35
':i
30
30.0
36
36
60
60.0
37
37
20
20.0
38
38
20
20.0
39
39
50
50.0
40
40
Dec-2003
60
60.0
41
41
50
50.0
42
42
40
40.0
43
43
40
40.0
44
44
40
40.0
45
45
50
50.0
46
46
60
60.0
47
47
70
70.0
48
48
40
40.0
49
49
50
50.0
50
50
40
40.0
51
51
60
60.0
52
52
40
40.0
53
53
30
30.0
54
54
40
40.0
55
55
40
40.0
56
56
40
40.0
57
57
40
40.0
58
58
40
40.0
59
59
30
30.0
60
60
<"
20
20.0
200
200
20.0
20.0
-6-
24244.rpa2004, data
1/14/2005

1^,1 : / Jo
NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request .1 - ylo 5COMMENTS TO PRETREATMENT UNIT:
Facility
Al- 1 "Yv1Ale 1.-r
Permit #
Region
Y11 12-o •
Requestor
VLt-wl!.QL,
Pretreatment F I owns- Dana Folley (ext. 523
Contact G-M Towns- Jon Risgaard (ext. 580)
N-Z Towns- Deborah Gore (ext. 593)
PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (circle all that apply)
1) the facility has no SIU's and does have a Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) the facilit has no SIU's and does not have a Division approved Pretreatment Program
3 the facility has ( euaispirig)-a Pretreatment rogram
3a1 is Full Program with LTMP or 3b) is Modified Program with STMP
4) the facility MUST develop a Pretreatment Program - Full Modified
5) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached o listed below
Flow Permitted MGD dual MGD 11103
Industrial p a .7ritgb
ST P ti ame:
m s ecen
.1
,15 O 1
6�PA.
i-04119
n cycle
Domestic � l Q �h
L
s
t )
T
MP
Pollutant
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/Non-
Discharge
Permit Limit
Required
by EPA'
Required by
503 Sludge•'
y./��
1 I
•
I L-i ( (4-
F--�
POC due to SIU"'
Site specific POC (Provide Explanation)""
STMP
Frequency
effluent
V
at
LTMP
Frequency at
effluent
‘/
BOD
L-
tvs,
4
M
•-/
TSS
L
i'✓1
4
Q
M
;./NH3
4
Q
M
✓
Arsenic
L
4
Q
M
J
Cadmium
L
J
L
4
Q
M
Chromium
L
d
i_
4
Q
M
d
Copper
M
V
L
L.._
4
Q
M
Cyanide
ir-.
4
Q
M
f
Lead
I
L
L
4
Q
M
%/
Mercury
t...
4
Q
M
t/
Molybdenum
I.
4
Q
M
J
Nickel
4
Q
M
l
Silver
i-.
4
0
M
1f
Selenium
a,
4
Q
M
7
Zinc
1+'1
v
is
4
M
r✓
GOD
4
0+61
(r--
4
`ZT-o
1.-4
M
er)1.0yr
4
Q
M
4
M
4
M
'Always in the LTMP
"On y in the LTMP if the PO land appl es sludge
dge
-• Only in LTMP while the U is connected tr tt'e PO7w
---• Only in LTMP when th pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ex•Chtorides for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
all LTMP/STMP effluent data
on DMR. S atoll". -
Yes v ( � �`
O= Quarterly
No (attach data)
M=Monthly
Comments:
.
0 Y‘.(!'� i__.._ P 010 N45
available in spreadsheet?
Yes No
_1L.
version 10/8/03
WrYv`44 1111 1(2°
•tPUF S_Pretreatment.request.torm.031008
tev.sad. August 4. 2000
X o6

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary December 15, 2004
FACILITY REQUIREMENT YEAR JAN EEL) MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
AAF/McQuay, Inc.-001 chr lira: 90% 2000 — Late
NC0083658/001 Begin:11/1/2003 Frequency: Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 2001 Pass Pass
County: New Hanover Region: WIRO Subbasin: CPFI 7 2002 --- H
PF: 0.288 Spacial
2003 __ Pass
7Q10: 0.0 IWC(%) 100 Order 2004 -- Pass
Pass
Pass — Late H
Pass •- — Pass -• Pass
H -- — H — Pass Pass
Pass — Pass — — Pass
Pass -- Pass —
AAF/McQuay, Inc.-002 chr lim: 90%(Grab) 2000
NC0083658/002 Begin :11/I/1996 Frequency.. Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov NonComp:Single 2001
County: New Hanover Region: WIRO Subbasin: CPFI7 2002
PF: 0.36 Special 2003
7Q10: 0.0 1WC(%) 100 Order 2004
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site chr lim: 2.5% 2000 -- — — — H — H — H
NC0086398/00I Begin I I/12004 Frequency: Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 2001 -- H — H — H — — H
County: Moore Region: FRO Subbasin: LUM50 2002 -- H -- — N — H — — H
PF: 0.072 Spacial 2003 — H — H — H — H
7010: 4.3 IWC(%)2.5 Onlns 2004 — -- — — — — — —
AGFA Corporation chr lim: 21%
NC00003371001 Begin:7/12002 Frequency. Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Transylvania Region: ARO Subbasin: FRBOI
PF: 2.4 Special
7010: 14.4 IWC(%) 24 Order
+ NonComp:Single
2000 Fail >48 >48 Pass — — Pass — — Pau —
2001 Pass -- --- Pass — — Pass — Pass —
2002 Pass --- Fail >48 >48 Pass — -- NR/Pass —
2003 Pass Pass — — Pass — Fail >40
2004 Pass Pass — Pass — Pass
>40
Alamae Acquisition, LLC Chr Lim: 3.2% 2000 -- — Pass — — Pass — — Pass — — Pass
NC0004618/001 Begin.7/12001 Frequency. Q Mar Jun Sep Dec + NonComp:SINGLE 2001 -- --- Pass — Pass — — Pass — -- Pass
County: Robeson Region: FRO Subbasin: LUM51 2002 -- Pass — — Pass — — Pass -- — Late
PF: 2.5 Special 2003 Pass Pass — Pass — Pass -- — Pass
7010: 120 IWC(%)3.2 Order 2004 — Pass — Pass — — Pass
Alamae Knit Fabrles-E'town Plant 24hr pff ac mom 90% Nd
NC0003522/001 Begin:6/12002 Frequency: A
County: Bladen Region: FRO Subbasin: CPF16
PF: 2.5 Special
7010: 814.0 IWC(%) 0.47 order:
2000 — 86.6 — 76.7 — — 86.6 — — 86.6
NonComp:Single 2001 -- 87.3 -- -- >100 — >100 — — >100
2002 --- >100 --- -- — — — -- —
2003 ... --. -_- Pass -_ — — _.
2004 -- Pass — — —
Albemarle WWII. chr lim: 90%
NC0024244.00I Begin 1 I/12000 Frequency: Q Mar Jun Sep Dec
County: Stanly Region: MRO Subbasin: YAD13
PF: 16.0 Special
7Q10: 1.60 IWC(%) 94 Order
+ NonComp:Single
2000 —
2001 —
2002 —
2003 —
2004 —
Pass — --- Pass / — — Late Pass
Pass -- — Pass -- -- Late Pass
Pass — Pass -- Pass
Fall Labe >100,>100 Pass --- Pass ---
Pass >100(p) >100(P) >100(P)1 Pass — Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Alcatel Network Systems Inc. chr lim: 6.1%
NC0086126/001 Begin:4/12003 Frequency. Q Marlon Sep Dec
County: Wake Region: RRO Subbasin: NEU02
PF: 0.08 Special
7Q10: 1.9 IWC(%) 6.1 Order
+ NonComp: Single
2000 Pass -- — Pass — .- Pass — Pass — —
2001 Pass -- Invalid >100 42.4 NR/Pass — — Pass — —
2002 Pass -- -- Pass — -- Pass — — Pass — —
2003 NR Pass — — Pass -- — Pass -- — Pass
2004 -- Pass — H — H
Alcoa-002 24hrp/faclim: 90%(thd 2000 -- -- Pass(s) — — Pass(s) — Passs(s) — Pass(s)
NC0004308/002 Begin 12/1/1995 Frequency: Q P/F + Mar Jun Sep Dec NonComp:Single 2001 --- --- Pass(s) — — Pass(s) -- — Pass(s) — — Pass(s)
County: Stanly Region: MRO Subbasin: YADO8 2002 -- -- Pass(s) — Pass(s) — Pass(s) — Fail(s)
PF: NA Special 2003 pass Pass(s) — — Pass(s) — Pass(s) -- — Pass(s)
7010: NA IWC(%)NA Order 2004 -- Pass — Pass(s) — — Pass(s)
Alcoa-005 chr lim: 90%
NC0004308/005 Begin 12/1/1995 Frequency. Q P/F + Mar Jun Sep Dec
County: Stanly Region: MRO Subbasin: YADO8
PF: NA Spacial
7Q10: 0.0 IWC(%) 100 Oar
NonComp:Single
2000 -- Pass(s) — — Pass(s) — — Pass(s) -- — Pass(s)
2001 --- — Pass(s) — — Pass(s) — -- Pass(s) -- — H
2002 Pass(s) — Pass — — Fags) >100(s) Pass — — Pass(s)
2003 -_ — Pass(s) — — Pass(s) — -- Pass(s) -- — Pass(s)
2004 -- — Pass -- — Pass(s) — Pass(s)
Alcoa -Oil 24hr LC50 ac monht epis Ilhd
NC0004308/011 Begin 12/1/1995 Frequency:5OWD/A
County: Surely Region: MRO Subbasin: YADO8
PF: VAR spreiat
7Q10: NA IWC(%) NA Order:
NonComp:
2000 -- — >100(s)
2001 -- >100
2002 — — >100(s)
2003 _- -. >100(s)
2004 — >100 --
K Pre 2000 Data Available
LEGEND:
PERM = Permit Requirement LET = Administrative Letter - Target Frequency = Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly; BM- Bimonthly; SA- Semiannually; A- Annually; OWD. Only when discharging; D- Discontinued monitoring requirement
Begin = First month required 7Q10 = Receiving stream low Bow criterion (c(s) += quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon failure or NR Months that testing must occur- ex. Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct NonComp = Current Compliance Requirement
PF = Permitted Bow (MGD) IWC%= Instream waste concentration P/F = Pass/Fail test AC = Acute CHR = Chronic
Data Notation: f - Fathead Minnow; • - Ceriodaphnia sp.; my - Mysid shrimp; ChV - Chronic value; P - Mortality of stated percentage at highest concentration; at - Performed by DWQ Aquatic Tox Unit; bt - Bad test
Reporting Notation: -- = Data not required; NR - Not tenoned Facility Activity Status: 1 - Inactive, N - Newly Issucd(To construct); H - Active but not discharging; f-More data available for month in question; 11 = ORC signature needed

Color in ADMI
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 -
20 -
0-
Albemarle WWTP Instream Color Data
A
PQr ,oc Poi 0 0 (<0 PQc ,J� PJo; 0 00 <<�.Q Pic ,off Q Jo; 0 02) (<ep Qc' J�. PoJ 0
Sampling months
• Ups
■ Down

10
0
Albemarle WWTP Instream DO profile 2001-2004
O0 0 0 Ol` PI O9' O1' O9' O� O1' O� 00 00 00 00 O� 00 O1)` Ol` Off` Off` O.`
PQc J� Jq 0. 06, «6,o PQ� ,J� QJQ' 06, 0e,c, ,0 PQr ,.§ Quo' 06`: 06 ? fro , �J`Pao, 06'
Sample months
--•— Upstrm —s- D1-SR1960 D2-SR1967

15)
c 4
O
0
Albemarle Instream DO 2001
Apr-01
May-01 Jun-01
Jul-01
Sample months
--Ups —II—D1 D3
Aug-01
Sep-01 Oct-01

Albemarle Instream DO 2002
Apr-02
May-02 Jun-02
Jul-02 Aug-02
Sample months
-- Ups ---D1 D2
Sep-02 Oct-02

Albemarle Instream Data 2003
11
II
Apr-03
May-03 Jun-03
Jul-03
Sample months
H-♦— Ups ---f— D1 D2
Aug-03
Sep-03 Oct-03

10
Albemarle Instream DO - 2004
Apr-04
May-04 Jun-04
Jul-04 Aug-04
Sampling months
--♦—Ups -- -D1 D2
Sep-04 Oct-04

UPSTREAM
Albemarle WWTP
2004 Self monitoring data
DOWNSTREAM
MONTH Temp
Oct-04
Sep-04
Aug-04
Jul-04
Jun-04
May-04
Apr-04
Mar-04
Feb-04
Jan-04
Dec-03
DO 3aturatior Fecal conductivity
Tem
DO Saturatior Fecal aonductivit
19
21
22
25
23
20
7.8
7.2
5.5
5.3
4.9
5.6
84%
81 %
63%
64%
57%
62%
230
935
125
144
271
6800
95
116
165
187
172
121
19
22
23
25
23
21
7.4
6.8
6
5.7
5.9
5.4
80%
78%
70%
69%
69%
61%
240
361
165
168
156
109
124
161
275
241
250
336
12
9.4
87%
73
104
12
8.1
75%
391
215
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
—
0%
Notes Ups - 1000 fit above effluent
Dwnstrm at SR 1967, D2 = 200 yds below effluent, D3 = at SR1960
DOWNSTREAM3
DOWNSTREAM2
MONTH Temp DO 3aturatior Fecal UpColor Temp DO Saturatior Cond DwnColor
Oct-04
0%
31
0%
49
Sep-04
22
6.6
76%
435
36
0%
160
62
Aug-04
24
5.6
67%
209
22
0%
331
80
Jul-04
26
5.4
67%
178
23
0%
254
55
Jun-04
24
5.3
63%
187
26
0%
275
75
May-04
0%
26
0%
82
Apr-04
0
0
0%
0
14
0
0
0%
0
62
Mar-04
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Feb-04
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Jan-04
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Dec-03
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
NC0024244 1/25/2005

e
UPSTREAM
Albemarle WWTP
200, Self monitoring data
DOWNSTREAM
'IIIONTH Temp DO 3aturatior Fecal ;onductivity Temp DO Saturatior Fecal conductivity
Oct-03
15
7.9
78%
220
154
16
7.8
79%
100
275
Sep-03
21
6.4
72%
284
118
22
6.5
74%
296
252
Aug-03
24
6.2
74%
355
106
24
6.2
74%
443
154
JuI-03
24
6.6
78%
613
141
24
6.7
80%
1228
141
Jun-03
21
7
79%
212
100
21
6.8
76%
131
142
May-03
18
7.6
80%
264
114
19
6.6
71 %
155
260
Apr-03
12
9.5
88%
480
85
13
8.9
85%
380
139
Mar-03
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Feb-03
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Jan-03
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Dec-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
Notes Ups - 1000 ff above effluent
Dwnstrm at SR 1967, D2 = 200 yds below effluent, D3 = at SR 1960
DOWNSTREAM3
DOWNSTREAM2
MONTH Temp DO 3aturatior Fecal UpColor Temp DO Saturatior Cond DwnColor
Oct-03
0%
21
0%
74
Sep-03
22
6.4
73%
328
23
0%
258
54
Aug-03
24
6.2
74%
642
38
0%
331
44
Jul-03
24
6.7
80%
834
34
0%
147
50
Jun-03
22
6.7
77%
203
36
0%
136
40
May-03
;
0%
45
0%
60
Apr-03
0
0
0%
0
30
0
0
0%
0
39
Mar-03
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Feb-03
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Jan-03
! 0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Dec-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
NC0024244 2/2/2005

UPSTREAM
Albemarle WWTP
2002-Self monitoring data
DOWNSTREAM
MONTH Temp DO 3aturatior Fecal conductivity Temp DO Saturatior Fecal conductivity
Oct-02
22
6.1
70%
480
188
23
5.8
68%
420
570
Sep-02
22
6.8
78%
513
150
22
6.5
74%
284
318
Aug-02
23
3
35%
548
179
24
5.2
62%
319
544
Jul-02
24
2.9
34%
908
175
25
4.7
57%
297
635
Jun-02
23
3.9
45%
473
192
24
5.2
62%
211
537
May-02
18
4.8
51%
70
145
19
4.6
50%
50
345
Apr-02
20
5.3
58%
45
143
21
4.4
49%
127
325
Mar-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Feb-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Jan-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Dec-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
Notes Ups - 1000 ff above effluent
Dwnstrm at SR 1967, D2 = 200 yds below effluent, D3 = at SR1960
DOWNSTREAM3
DOWNSTREAM2
MONTH Temp DO 3aturatior Fecal UpColor Temp DO Saturatior Cond DwnColor
Oct-02
0%
38
0%
76
Sep-02
22
6.3
72%
341
56
0%
327
65
Aug-02
25
4.6
56%
294
49
0%
572
102
Jul-02
26
4
49%
102
29
0%
656
137
Jun-02
24
4.2
50%
231
30
0%
675
182
May-02
0%
29
0%
84
Apr-02
0
0
0%
0
41
0
0
0%
0
52
Mar-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Feb-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Jan-02
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Dec-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
NC0024244 2/3/2005

UPSTREAM
Albemarle WWTP
2001 Self monitoring data
DOWNSTREAM
MONTH Temp DO 3aturatior Fecal ;onductivity Temp DO Saturatior Fecal conductivity
Oct-01
15
6.6
65%
145
208
16
7.4
75%
136
370
Sep-01
19
5.9
64%
259
168
20
6.2
68%
371
360
Aug-01
24
5.2
62%
548
179
24
5
59%
257
476
Jul-01
24
5.8
69%
596
152
24
5.3
63%
206
316
Jun-01
22
6.2
71%
264
162
23
5.5
64%
366
381
May-01
19
6.3
68%
7000
100
20
5.5
61%
7400
202
Apr-01
20
7.1
78%
100
113
21
6.1
68%
36
233
Mar-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Feb-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Jan-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Dec-00
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
Notes Ups - 1000 if above effluent
Dwnstrm at SR 1967, D2 = 200 yds below effluent, D3 = at SR 1960
DOWNSTREAM3
DOWNSTREAM2
MONTH Temp DO 3aturatior Fecal UpColor Temp DO Saturatior Cond DwnColor 1
Oct-01
0%
26
0%
110
Sep-01
21
6.3
71 %
407
23
0%
404
102
Aug-01
25
4.7
57%
128
25
0%
579
129
Jul-01
25
5.2
63%
249
28
0%
318
88
Jun-01
24
5.6
67%
390
32
0%
447
150
May-01
0%
34
0%
77
Apr-01
0
0
0%
0
32
0
0
0%
0
60
Mar-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Feb-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Jan-01
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
Dec-00
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
NC0024244 2/3/2005

To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Carolyn Bryant
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No
Date: January 10, 2005
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Stanly
NPDES Permit No.: NC0024244
MRO No.: 04-44
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: City of Albemarle Long Creek WWTP
Post Office 190
Albemarle, N.C. 28002
2. Date of Investigation: January 6, 2005
3. Report Prepared By: Michael L. Parker, Environ. Engr. II
JAN 1 2005
AN 3 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
4. Person Contacted and Telephone Number: Gary Smith, WWTP Superintendent, (704)
984-4630.
5. Directions to Site: From the jct of Hwy. 24-27 and SR 1900 (Coble Ave.) southwest of
the City of Albemarle, travel south on SR 1900 .0.3 mile. The WWTP site is located on
the left side of this road.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge Points: -
Latitude: 35 ° 19' 27"
Longitude: 80° 12' 56"
Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: F 18 SW
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application: Yes. Expansion area is
available, if necessary.
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Gently rolling with slopes ranging
from 2-6%. The WWTP appears to be at or very near flood plain elevation.
9. Location of Nearest Dwelling: Approx. 500± feet from the WWTP site.

Page Two
10. Receiving Stream or Affected Surface Waters: Long Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Yadkin 030713
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Flow was
observed in the receiving stream (8-10 feet wide x 6-10 inches deep) at the time of
the site inspection. Downstream uses are primarily for secondary recreation and
agriculture. IWC = 1.6 cfs
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater: 16.0 MGD (Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity: 16.0 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of current facility (current design capacity): 16.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the
previous two years: There have been no ATCs issued in the past two years.
e. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The existing
WWT facilities consist of four mechanical bar screens followed by two gravity
grit chambers, an influent lift station, a parshall flume with instrumented flow
measurement, two preaeration basins, four primary clarifiers, four trickling filters,
four mechanical aeration basins, four secondary clarifiers, a gravity tertiary sand
filter, a chlorine contact basin, sodium bisulfite disinfection, instrumented effluent
flow measurement, two aerobic digestors, and two sludge holding tanks. The
existing dissolved air flotation (DAF) units are inoperable and should be removed
from the permit.
f. Description of proposed WWT facilities: There are no proposed WWT facilities at
this time.
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Generally, this facility has a very good
compliance record for toxicity (one failure in the past four years).
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Approved.
2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied specify DWQ Permit No. WQ0002616
Residuals Contractor: City of Albemarle
Telephone No. (same as above)
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP
3. Treatment Plant Classification: Class IV

Page Three
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater Code(s): 55, 01, 59 MTU Code(s): 01103
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved (municipals only)? The WWT facilities were constructed with public monies.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
.
.
The City's current NPDES allowed for removal of the Cadmium (Cd) limit after one year
if the City collects 12 consecutive months of data that reflects Cd levels below detection
levels. Although the City had sufficient Cd monitoring data during the term of the
current permit to make such a request, none was ever submitted. Based on conversations
with City personnel during the site visit, a request to remove the Cd monitoring
requirement will be submitted as an addendum to the permit renewal.
In anticipation of the addition of a TRC limit being added to the new permit upon
renewal, a Schedule of Compliance should be included in the draft permit to allow for the
additional construction necessary for the City to comply with the TRC requirement.
There is a discrepancy in the way the instream monitoring frequencies are defined in the
current permit. The permit issued to the City on December 1, 1994 had the following
instream monitoring frequencies and locations:
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream above the discharge point. D =
D1 & D2 (should also have included D3), D1 - Downstream at the end of NCSR 1960.
D2 - 3.9 miles below discharge at NCSR 1967; D3 - Downstream approximately 200
yards below discharge. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples.
Stream samples shall be collected once per month in the winter (October through May)
and once per week in the summer (June through September) at the upstream site and
D2. Weekly monitoring shall be conducted during the summer (June through
September) at Di.
The current NPDES permit (issued November 1, 2000) defined instream monitoring
locations and frequencies in this manner:
Upstream = Upstream above the discharge point. Downstreaml = Downstream at the end
of NCSR 1960. Downstream2 = Downstream 3.9 miles at NCSR 1967. Downstream3
(for color samples) = approximately 200 yards downstream from the discharge point.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be
collected once per month in the winter (October through May) and once per week in the
summer (June through September).

Page Four
The City recognized this discrepancy in the draft of the 2000 permit and advised the
Divison in a letter dated August 21, 2000. The Division responded in a cover letter
attached to the November 1, 2000 permit that the instream monitoring frequencies had
been revised to reflect the 1994 permit, however, this was not the case as noted above.
The City will again be requesting (as an addendum to the current renewal application)
that the instream monitoring frequencies be reflective of those listed in the 1994 NPDES
permit.
3. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: This facility is neither under an
SOC/JOC nor is one being considered at this time.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Albemarle requests renewal of the subject permit. There have been no
changes or modifications to the existing WWT facilities or the permit since the permit was last
renewed. Requested changes to the permit, which should be forthcoming from the City are
addressed in Part III, No. 2 above.
Pending receipt and approval of the draft permit, it is recommended that the NPDES
Permit be renewed as requested.
Signature of Report Preparer
Date
//leis
Water Quality l gional Supervisor Date
h:ldsrldsr051albemrle.sr

I.
Albemarle WWTP Instream Color Monitoring Data (in ADMI)
Date Upstream Color Downstream Color Up/Dwn Diff
Oct-01 26
Sep-01 23
Aug-01 25
Jul-01 28
Jun-01 32
May-01 34
Apr-01 32
AVG 29
Oct-02 38
Sep-02 56
Aug-02 49
JuI-02 29
Jun-02 30
May-02 29
Apr-02 41
AVG 39
Oct-03 21
Sep-03 23
Aug-03 38
JuI-03 34
Jun-03 36
May-03 45
Apr-03 3_0
AVG 32
Oct-04 31
Sep-04 36
Aug-04 22
Jul-04 23
Jun-04 26
May-04 26
Apr-04 14
AVG I 25
110
102
129
88
150
77
50
102
76
65
102
137
182
84
52
100
74
54
44
50
40
60
3_4
52
49
62
80
55
75
82
73
61
20
52
66 41

6.5.8 Management Strategies for Controlling Color
North Carolina regulations specify that colored wastes may be discharged only in such
amounts "as will not render the receiving waters injurious to public health, secondary
recreation, or to aquatic life and the wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish,
aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses" [NCAC 15A 2B .0211
(3)(f)]. Colored discharges are generally not toxic. Potential toxicity is managed by the
regulation of specific chemical constituents and by WET testing (see Section ) The
primary issue in the regulation of color is the aesthetic quality of receiving waters and the
implication of this aesthetic quality for the designated uses of those waters.
The practical application of the above regulation must take into account the various ways
in which color manifests itself in the environment. Color in natural waters is rarely the
result of one specific chemical. Rather, a mixture of many dissolved and suspended
constituents contributes to color. The stream bed and sediments may also contribute to
color. Because color is perceived differently by different people and in different light
conditions, no general definition of color impairment can be specified by a simple set of
criteria and enforcement of the current narrative color standard can be very subjective.
In the Broad basin, discharges with a high degree of color come primarily from certain
industrial facilities and from municipal dischargers receiving highly colored industrial
effluent. While colored effluent can be discharged by a number of industries, textile
firms constitute the most significant source of color in the Broad basin.
Division staff have researched the implementation of a numeric standard, or a set of
numeric water quality standards. The Division would prefer, however, that dischargers
remove color on their own initiative. If such efforts are not successful, the Division may
proceed with the development of a numeric color standard.
In order to address the problem of discolored waterbodies and to assist facilities that are
attempting to reduce color in their effluent, the Division is developing a statewide
voluntary program in cooperation with the Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance (DPPEA). The program will focus on reducing the discharge
of colored wastewater from textile manufacturing and related industries, with a goal of
reducing instream color to the point where color -related complaints for surface waters are
nonexistent. The program will be based on bui a cooperative network between
p g �
facilities with highly colored effluent and a "mentor" group. The mentors will include
color removal experts, textile industry associations, facilities that are already
implementing color removal, and DEHNR staff members. Although color in itself is not
a toxicant, dischargers removing color from their effluent may receive the added benefit
of reducing salts, BOD and metals. DWQ and DPPEA staff are currently involved in
data collection and the evaluation of various color removal proposals. Statewide
workshops and conferences will be held in early 1998 to publicize the effort and obtain
feedback on the design of the program.

114.
Aii--/A/dose/r-
t-e—
/if/ /k�z � Ave-44/-