NC0024244_Permit (Issuance)_19921104

NPDES DOCUHENT =CANNINI; COVER MEET
NC0024244
Albemarle / Long Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Correspondence
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
November 4, 1992
Thins document is printed on reuse paper - iippaore any
content on the rreszerse aide

Adjudications 1
Albemarle, City of
Permit No. j'NC0024244
WQRS:
Rex Gleason
Issued:12/20/91
County: Stanly
'Reviewer:Dale Overcash
Mooresville Regional Office Petition Date: 1/21/92
Attorney: Billy Godwin :Case No. 92 EHR0069 Memo to AG:
Region Req 1/24/92 Env Sci Req:;; 1/24/92 :>A::; Resolved:
Recv: 2/14/92;;:;,;:;. Recv.i 2/3/92,,,.Revised Permit:`:.:
.;:<}T;T::{:;}}:}::;.;} ech Sup Rego! 1/24/92`€€>' GH2O Req:<............./00/
Items Adjudicated: ;>}?>»aa> »> > }s }s: Recv. 2/22/92;.}}.}} Recv..; 00/00/00
Suspended Solids removal limits of 62 %.
Downstream sampling point at SR1960.
Chronic toxicity limits.
.....................
......................
.....................
......................
.....................
3/2/92
11/4/92
:y:'
T�$'•
vi2{'tS.:�}:$%::#<�;,;•.
'i
n
4k•T;{.rt.•ne$'t:
�:#..;
' t•:y{i#i}#•c Ti• i4;T::}'T.
y
Y%>{
..:..:T,
tiRq'a}{':$..
T::
::.•y
.;�;�::•'}}£;;•}::
gy•4t?E•:
. ti}
;.J.:• •'
y}
7.0.:•S
::llllj
.::r.rT:Ta:4i.n+::$.•{
AtT.
i.
::;<'.,v:::a::;:}:}T}S#}:n;:TTf:v#..:r{{;;.::Xii:{:
11
';>3:
--yy..
'L, ,ti..12.ja
t ::
...:.
t•.vv;`{y.;.;:ir.fS.'
.Ct:•..
h.y '{}:::ia
+per
..

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
November 4, 1992
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Don P. Duncan
City of Albemarle
P.O. Box 190
Albemarle, NC 28002
Subject: NPDES Permit No. NC0024244
Albemarle Wastewater Treatment Facility
Stanly County
Dear Mr. Duncan:
In accordance with your Petition for Contested Case Hearing filed on January 21, 1992,
and subsequent Notice of Withdrawal dated March 2, 1992, we are forwarding herewith the subject
permit. The permit has been modified as follows:
• Modification of the whole effluent toxicity testing requirement to 90%
• Relaxation of the instream monitoring at the end of NCSR 1960 to only monthly
monitoring during the months of June, July, August and September.
All other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and in full
effect. These modifications are 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 December 6, 1983.
It is our understanding that this modification will resolve all items contained in the Petition
for Contested Case Hearing. If this is not the case, the City of Albemarle should notify us
immediately, but no later than ten (10) days following receipt of this letter. Unless such demand is
made, this decision shall be final and binding.
•
44.
Pollution Prevention Pays ,„X
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]!'
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer ,"

Mr. Duncan
Page Two
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Randy L. Kepler at
telephone number 919/733-5083.
Sincerer
A. Preston oward, J
cc: Permits and Engineering Unit
Office of the Attorney General

Permit No. NC0024244
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
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,
City of Albemarle
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Long Creek WW'TP
NCSR 1900
Southwest of 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, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective November 4, 1992
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 1994
Signed this day November 4, 1992
A. Preston Howard, Jr. iing'Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0024244
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Albemarle
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate and maintain the existing wastewater treatment facilities consisting of
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, chlorine contact basin,
instrumental effluent flow measurement, twelve in -plant screw lift pumps, aerobic digestors,
dissolved aeration floatation units and sludge holding tanks located at Long Creek WWTP,
NCSR 1900, Southwest of Albemarle, Stanly County (See Part IlT of this Permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Long
Creek which is classified Class C waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic. Discharge Llmltationi Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Samale
Monthly Avg Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency Iype Location
Flow 16.0 MCA Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C** 10.0 mg/I 15.0 mg/I Daily Composite E,
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I Daily Composite E, I
NH3 as N 2.0 mg/I 3.0 mg/1 Daily Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml Daily Grab E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine Daily Grab E
Temperature Daily Grab E,U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) Monthly Composite E
Total Phosphorus Monthly Composite E
Chronic Toxicity** Quarterly Composite E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream above discharge point, D - Downstream (1) at the end of NCSR 1960 and (2) - 3.9
miles below discharge at NCSR 1967.
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) at the upstream site and at the downstream site 3.9 miles below
discharge at NCSR 1967. Once -per -month monitoring shall be conducted during the summer (June through September) at the downstream
site at the end of NCSR 1960.
**See Part III, Condition F; Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; March, June, September, and December.
***See Part III, Condition G.
****The monthly average effluent BOD5 concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (85% removal). The monthly
average effluent Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 38% of the respective influent values (62% removal).
*****The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristic.
Pollutant Analysis****
Conductivity
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Discharge Limitation:
L nits (specify
Monthly Avg Weekly Avg. Daily Max
2.0 ug/I
52.0 ug/I
53.0 ug/I
26.0 ug/I
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Annually
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Requlrementz
Sample
Type
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
"Sample
Location
E
U, D
E
E
E
E
E
E

A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic.
Discharge Limitation:
Monthly Avg
Flow 1 6. 0 MGD
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C***" 20.0 m g / I
Total Suspended Residue*" 30.0 mg/I
NH3 as N 4.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen*****
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity**
Weekly Avq. Daily Max
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
6.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Requirements
SamDIQ
Tyoe
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
I or E
E, I
E, I
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
E,U,D
E
E
E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U Upstream above discharge point, D - Downstream (1) at the end of NCSR 1960 and (2) - 3.9
miles below discharge at NCSR 1967.
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) at the upstream site and at the downstream site 3.9 miles below
discharge at NCSR 1967. Once -per -month monitoring shall be conducted during the summer (June through September) at the downstream
site at the end of NCSR 1960.
**See Part III, Condition F; Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; March, June, September, and December.
***See Part III, Condition G.
****The monthly average effluent BOD5 concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (85% removal). The monthly
average effluent Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 38% of the respective influent values (62% removal).
*****The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/I.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristic.
Pollutant Analysis***
Conductivity
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Discharge Limitation:
Units (specify
Monthly__gyg Weekly Avg,. Daily Max
2.0 ug/I
52.0 ug/I
53.0 ug/1
26.0 ug/I
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Annually
*
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Requirements
Sample
Type
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
E
U, D
E
E
E
E
E
E

Part III Permit No. NC0024244
F. a - IRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 90% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date
of this permit during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling
for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all
treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
G. POLLUTANT ANALYSIS MONITORING CONDITION
The permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants annually at the effluent from the treatment plant.
The discharge shall be evaluated as follows: 1) A pollutant analysis of the effluent must be
completed annually using EPA approved methods for the following analytic fractions: (a)
purgeables (i.e., volatile organic compounds); (b) acid extractables; (c) base/neutral extractables;
(d) organochlorine pesticides and PCB's (e) herbicides; and (f) metals and other inorganics. The
Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (APAM) Requirement Reporting Form A and
accompanying memo, to be provided to all discharges affected by this monitoring requirement,
describes the sampling and analysis requirements and lists chemicals to be included in the

pollutant analysis. This monitoring requirement is to be referred to as the "Annual Pollutant
Analysis Monitoring Requirement" (APAM).
2) Other significant levels of synthetic organic chemicals must be identified and approximately
quantified. For the purpose of implementing this requirement, the largest 10 GC/MS peaks in the
purgeable, base/neutral extractable, and acid extractable fractions (or fewer than 10, if less than 10
unidentified peaks occur) for chemicals other than those specified on the APA Requirement
Reporting Form A should be identified and approximately quantified as stated in the APAM
Reporting Form A instructions. This part (item 2) of the APAM requirement is to be referred to as
the "10 significant peaks rule".

/2z
0X07k-,
d6c,4 1.0,4 ,Q_c
--7as 74(6e44/tat/We (.5 .
"-st J eauA vi—
A0,t1 14/42-t% Gelz,t;./ 14,4 it).c
lb ISSve'
4,/ i2e/1,4i-qc
Jt s-o Z9,,g J emu-- 7
wide-, f 4 J
I( I a/ccr7C5
Aha,v.,
Ig1/7„---t-,_

Adjudications 1
Permit No. iiNC0024244 Issued: -• 12/20/91 :Reviewer: Dale Overcash
WQRS: Rex Gleason Mooresville Regional Office
Attorney: Billy Godwin
Region Reg: 1/24/92
Recv: 2/14/92
Petition Date: 1/21/92
Memo to AG:j
3/2/
Recv 2/3/92 Revised Permit::=
Tech Su R 1/24/92 GH2O R O0700/00
Recv: 2/22/92; Recv
Items Adjudicated00/00/00... . .
rrrrrrrrr:<;r:,�r::rr.;att::a:•;::::•rrrr:r:a.>r;r:<.:rrr>rrrrrr: > ....•.....................:... : ......
Suspended Solids removal limits of 62 %.
Downstream sampling point at SR1960.
Chronic toxicity limits.
Case No. 92 EHR0069
Env s 1/24/92
Resolve
>w•
i�: ir:: '`
:.: arrrr•
r��{•r {.• :...
:^:•.'
: • . rr rr.... r
%i�`'% .
nYh . . •�{•iry
{•rr:•:;:{f •:
r i5�..•
:G �
�;:
ti,�.•rf�,� r
[,,,,'
"Y . ,
.»rm:•:rr rr
�:\rom:{•:ti
r ,
'•'�l'�o'.hd:,�;?fe'���.
yt ' :
: f{:
i
.
11))
it
ki
�
:{wrr,,k +4jr rY.
i {
}. �'.2t�be:
•8.
�a::i{7e�v
'aaee6aac�:
....; . •
`}Yv`J >T°'o-?..{x
1
d....:-•. ;. ¢
<tS t{�r. x:$.
�th;t�
..
nj (2 ((tz,
c-‘e/
Cigeti)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNNTY OF STANLY
CITY OF ALBEMARLE
Petitioner,
v.
IN THE OFFICE OF TM
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FILE NO. 92 EHR 0069
)
a Veil.
)
) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
) OF PETITION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, ) D� �i�l
HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES ) i
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEM) NT
E
Respondent. ) MAR 6199:icEGMAn:
14111
Div. cr �r c4TON�6E
a!r�Fcra�s
Petitioner hereby withdraws its petition for a contested case hearing.
No further proceedings are needed or required to resolve the contested case
captioned above.
This the 2nd day of March
,1992
Petitioner/Authority for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached NOTICE OF
WITHDRAWAL on by having same placed in the United States Mail bearing
sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and addressed as
follows:
Attorney General's Office
Environmental Protection Section
PO Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
March 2 , 1992
(Date) Petitioner/Attorney for Petitioner

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. Don P. Duncan, Superintendent
Water/Waste Treatment Plants
City of Albemarle
PO Box 190
Albemarle, NC 28002-0190
Dear Mr. Duncan:
George T. Everett, Ph. D.
Director
February 27, 1992
Subject: NPDES Permit No. NC0024244
City of Albemarle WWTP
Stanly County
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has reviewed your letter of
January 16, 1992, and subsequent adjudication dated January 21, 1992. The three items of
concentration in the letter and adjudication are addressed in this letter in the same sequence as
listed in you letter.
The DEM has evaluated the additional influent and effluent data submitted in your letter
and has determined that no additional changes can be made to the percent removal in the permit
issued December 20, 1991. Three conditions must be met to receive a lower percent removal
limit. These conditions are: (1) the facility must be meeting its effluent limits; (2) to meet the
percent removal requirements, the treatment works would have to achieve significantly more
stringent limitations than would otherwise be required by the concentrations -based standards;
and (3) the less concentrated influent wastewater is not the result of excessive I/1
(inflow/infiltration). For the percent removals of 62 percent and greater, it appears that
these three conditions may have been met. For percent removals less than 62 percent, it is
obvious that there was excessive I/1.
After reviewing all circumstances associated with the instream monitoring, the DEM
agrees to relax the instream monitoring at the end of NCSR 1960 to only monthly monitoring
during the months of June, July , August and September. Information submitted to this office by
Mooresville Regional Office staff indicate that the stream can be accessed by following the power
line right-of-way. Due to the need for this data, it is felt that someone can be properly
equipped to obtain this data on a once -per -month basis.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

1
Mr. Duncan
Page Two
The DEM has been working with Albemarle since 1989 to resolve the toxicity
problems at the wastewater treatment plant. As stated in the letter of December 20, 1991, the
DEM intended to give Albemarle one year of monitoring only, but it took two years to resolve the
percent removal, the instream, and toxicity issues. Consequently, the limit must be included in
the permit and it must become effective immediately. The division can reduce the limit from
94% to 90% and change the limit to a Phase II requirement based on new DEM protocol.
The DEM has included a copy of a DRAFT NPDES Permit with the changes highlighted in
this letter. If you concur with these changes, please notify the DEM and staff will issue the
permit. Additionally, please complete the attached Notice of Withdrawal of Petition and forward
the original to the Office of Administrative Hearings and a copy to our office. If you do not
concur, please notify the DEM and the staff will proceed with the adjudication process. A
response must be submitted to the division by March 31, 1992. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Dale Overcash or me at [phone].
cc: Ms. Brenda Smith
Ar:Da1e -Overcash
Sincerely,
teve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section

D AT-
/ll Pl Arrn)/ -.Tire c
1 9/
02 A. iiAaa 44d „ °An
azi 94
NHS c / (ior sT Cam,,, l�clLi
ORD-�LS I3
92
s Re5o„ ,-/4J P s
1#4,-9g
___7:23 taiyyt R07,
sg,---/ v___
-1 ,sc���„/),, Or Ie 1� R c id (4,
3 AIR 9Q
g /1,091
Ree-id /Voice or Ai-ick.t.i...e

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF STANLY
CITY OF ALBEMARLE
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES )
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Respondent. )
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FILE NO. 92 EHR 0069
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
OF PETITION
Petitioner hereby withdraws its petition for a contested case hearing.
No further proceedings are needed or required to resolve the contested case
captioned above.
This the 2nd day of March , 19 9
i
Petitioner/Authority for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached NOTICE OF
WITHDRAWAL on by having same placed in the United States Mail bearing
sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and addressed as
follows:
Attorney General's Office
Environmental Protection Section
PO Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
March 2, 1992
(Date)
Petitioner/Attorney for Petition
ECEIVED
MAR 41992
N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Environment3I Protection Section

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Memorandum
To: Don Safrit
From: Carla Sanderson
Through: Ruth Swanek CL
Subject: Albemarle, City
NPDES Permit No.
Stanly County
Adjudication of
February 11, 1992
of
NC0024244
downstream sampling point at SR 1960
Tel,/ : o/n4c,
bIIY Gobw„„J,I
In response to Mr. Duncan's adjudication of the NPDES Permit for the City of
Albemarle's first downstream monitoring location, I offer the following:
In July, 1990 DEM collected instream data to verify the need for year-round
instream monitoring at the requested first downstream location at SR 1960.
Since this location proved critical, DEM requested regional staff to accompany
Mr. Duncan to the site to verify its accessibility. On December 4th, 1991, I
received a telephone call from Tony Parker (Mooresville Regional Office) who
verified the site accessible. He said that he visited the site with Mr. Duncan
and through discussions with him it was noted that the site could be accessed.
Tony Parker then followed up with a compliance evaluation inspection in which he
explains the site visit with Mr. Duncan (see attached).
Per 15A NCAC 2B.0505, sampling points may be established instream for at least
one upstream location and not more than three downstream locations to measure
impacts of the discharge to the receiving stream. Technical Support has used
the option of requiring more than one downstream location when the permitted
wasteflow is greater than 1 MGD and a modeling analysis shows continued affects
on the stream for several miles below the outfall location. Since the City of
Albemarle is permitted at 16 MGD (current actual discharge is averaging -8 MGD)
and the instream dissolved oxygen values reflect levels below the standard, at
the first downstream location, it is necessary for both downstream locations to
remain a requirement of the City of Albemarle's permit.
Attachment
cc: Tony Parker

• f4-r-tFri
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Albert F. Hilton, Regional Manager
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 9, 1991
Mr. Don Duncan
City of Albemarle
Post Office Box 190
Albemarle, North Carolina 28002
Subject: Compliance Evaluation
Inspection
City of Albemarle
NPDES Permit No. NC 0024244
Stanly County, NC
Dear Mr. Duncan:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Compliance Evaluation
Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the subject
facility on December 3, 1991, by Mr. Tony R. Parker of this
Office. The Report should be self-explanatory.
If you have any questions concerning this Report, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Parker or me.
Enclosufe
cc:
TRP:se
Sincerely,
D. Rex Gleason, P. E.
^� Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Roger 0. Pfaff, EPA
tanly County Health Department
s. Carla Sanderson, DEM/Raleigh
919 North Main Street, Mooresville, N.C. 28115 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
NPDES Compliance Inspection Report
Section A: National Data System Coding
Transaction
U
Inspection Type
C
18
361 I
Reserved
671 1 1 169
1
Code NPDES
2
u
3
1N1C)01012141214141
11
Inspector Fac. Type
ISI 19u 20 u 21 11 1
Remarks
yr/mo/day
121911111210131
17
Remarks
1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1
Facility
Eval. Rating
u
70
BI
N
71
QA
N
72
Reserved
135
166
731-1--174 751 1 I 1 1180
I Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected
City of Albemarle
NCSR 1900
Stanly County, North Carolina
Entry Time
0930
NAM
UPM
Exit-Time/Date
1135 911203
Name(s) of On -Site Representative(s)
Mr. Don Duncan
Title(s)
ORC/Superintendent of
Public Works
Phone No.(s)
704/982-0131
Name, Address of Responsible Official
Mr. Don Duncan
Post Office Box 190
Albemarle, North Carolina 28002
Title
Phone No.
FlContacted
Yes Noil
Permit Effective Date
840501
Permit Expiration Date
890430*
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection
(S=Satisfactory, M=Marginal, U=Unsatisfactory, N=Not Evaluated)
N
S
S
S
Permit*
Records/Reports
Facility Site Review
Operations & Maintenance
S
S
S
N
Flow Measurement
Laboratory
Ef f /Rec . Waters
Sludge Disposal
N
S
Pretreatment
Compliance Schedules
Self -Monitoring Program
Other:

Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
*PERMIT
New Permit (issued January 8, 1990) is currently being contested.
Compliance status, is therefore, based on old Permit.
RECORDS/REPORTS
Records, reports and calibration logs are maintained in accordance with
Permit requirements.
FACILITY SITE REVIEW
1. All major mechanical equipment appeared to be operational and
functioning properly.
2. One of the primary clarifiers had developed a leak in the retaining
wall. Repairs have been scheduled.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The facility appeared to be adequately operated and maintained. There
appears to be adequate staffing and personnel to perform the necessary
tasks associated with running the facility.
FLOW MEASUREMENT
Flow is measured in accordance with Permit requirements.
LABORATORY
The on -site lab appeared to be well equipped for the required analyses.
Good record keeping was noted.
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)
1Tony R. Parker
Agency/Office/Telephone
DEM/MRO/[phone]
Date 911204
I 1
Signa re of Reviewer
Agency/Office
Date
Regulatory Office Use Only
Action Taken
Date
Compliance Status
f:=1 Noncompliance
Compliance

Name: City of Albemarle
Permit Number: NC0024244
Summary of Findings/Comments
(Continued)
EFFLUENT/RECEIVING WATERS
The effluent was light pink in color with a moderate amount of foam
noted. The source of the foam should be determined and corrected.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Sludge is currently land applied. Land Application Permit No. WQ0002616
was issued (renewed) on February 28, 1990 and expires January 31, 1995.
SELF -MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Self -monitoring data was reviewed for the period 11/90 through 9/91.
2. Toxicity failures were reported in April, June and August, 1991.
3. Elevated copper and zinc levels were reported for the entire review
period. Stream action levels may have been compromised during this
period.
PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM MONITORING LOCATION
The City of Albemarle has contested one of the downstream monitoring
locations (at the end of S. R. 1960). During this inspection the
inspector and Mr. Duncan visited the proposed site. A previous site visit
was made by DEM staff (Joe Crabb and Keith Haynes) in 1990 and they had
noted that the site appeared to be accessible. Mr. Duncan had previously
noted that the site had no trespass signs at the entrance. During this
visit trespass signs were noted; however, the signs were on adjacent
property. Access was by driving to the end of S. R. 1960 and then down
a dirt drive to a pig enclosure. There were no trespass signs around the
enclosure (one strand of electric fence). From this point access to the
creek is by walking along a low voltage power line for approximately
200-300 yards. Mr. Duncan previously stated that rattle snakes frequent
the area in summer months. This is probably true, however, a person
equipped with snake chaps, boots and a radio should have no problem.
The area could also be cleaned '
by mowing. Mr. Duncan stated that Union
Electric maintains the power lines. This inspector advised Mr. Duncan
that it appeared that the site was accessible and that his concerns were
valid; however, with some caution and site preparation there should be no
problem collecting samples at this location provided permission is
granted by Union Electric and/or other land owners.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 11, 1992
MEMO TO: Don Safrit
FROM: Rex Gleason
PREPARED BY: Michael Parke0/19
SUBJECT:
City of Albemarle
NPDES Permit No. NC0024244
Stanly County
vet fltrd ;to
This Office has conducted a review of the petition filed
with the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning the subject
Draft Permit and offers the following comments.
1. Suspended Solids removal efficiency of 62%.
Data supplied by the City indicates that with a few
exceptions, compliance with the proposed removal efficiency
has been achieved. Low influent SS concentrations do not
appear to be the result of Infiltration/Inflow, but rather
industrial wastewater from various textile dyeing
operations. The Director, however, may substitute a lower
removal efficiency or a mass loading limit provided the City
can meet the requirements of 40 CFR 133.103(d).
2. Downstream Sampling Point at SR 1960.
At the request of Technical Support, site visit by MRO
personnel revealed that access is attainable at the proposed
downstream sampling location at the end of SR 1960. Due to
the importance of the data in determining downstream WQ
impacts, it is recommended that the downstream monitoring
location remain in the Permit.
3. Chronic Toxicity.
Comments concerning this matter should be obtained from the
Aquatic Toxicology Group.
If you have any questions, please advise.
MLP

err'
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 29, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Safrit
THROUGH: Ken Eagleson
FROM: Larry Ausley
SUBJECT: Comments on City of Albemarle WWTP petition
NC0024244 Stanly County
I have reviewed the referenced petition and have the following comments on the
City's objections to permit chronic toxicity limitations. • •
1) In the petition, the city objects to the use of the chronic toxicity test on the'
contention that one absolute value for reproduction of the test organisms exposed to the
effluent which results in "Fail" is greater than other absolute values of reproduction of
exposures which result in "Pass". The City makes the comparison of an absolute value
that is "sufficient enough for control water" which I am assuming to be our quality
assurance standard of 15. This argument does not take into account the basic scientific
assumption which is the basis for the analysis. That basis is that each and every test is
performed as a controlled experiment with effects of the effluent on test organisms
compared directly to effects on control organisms, all of which represent one
homogenous and otherwise random population. Since it is expected that any biological
population will have normal cycles of reproduction, growth, feeding, etc., it would not
be valid to make absolute comparisons to any given standard. This is why the
statistical analysis comparing control vs. treatment is made for each individual test.
This analysis determines, to a given level of statistical certainty (99% in this case)
whether reproduction is suppressed by exposure to the effluent. The minimum
absolute value of 15 young per female that is placed on control populations is simply a
limit made to insure that the analysis is performed and completed in a manner that
provides at least a minimally acceptable environment. Of the tests reported by the
facility (see attached)which failed since 7/89 (total of 15 failures) only five had effluent
treatment reproduction greater than 15 (33% of the tests rather than 50% as claimed by
the facility). These results indicated percent reduction of effluent treatment
reproduction vs. concurrent control populations ranging from 17% to 33%. Failures
where effluent treatment reproduction was less than 15 showed percent reductions from
34% to 96% of concurrent controls.
North Carolina Water Quality Standards, 15 NCAC 2B.0202, define chronic
toxicity as any harmful effect to populations and do not specify any acceptable
percentage of harmful effect. In summary therefore, the test methodology proposed
presents us with a defined statistical certainty whether an effect has occurred and the
objection raised has no merit in science or regulation.
2) The City additionally references a March 15, 1989 letter which objects to this
same test on the basis that "there is no economically feasible way to consistently meet
this limit with both the large percentage of industrial waste in the WWTP effluent and
low 7Q10 in Long Creek". Twelve monthly chronic toxicity tests were reported by the
facility in 1991. Eight of these analyses passed, four failed. No two consecutive
failures were reported for the year. Thus, for 1991, the facility was in compliance with

chronic toxicity limitations. This type of compliance history cannot support this
objection.
3) The March 15, 1989 letter requests that fathead minnows be utilized in lieu of
Ceriodaphnia dubia as the required test species. The N.C. Water Quality Program has
to date not written any permits which require the EPA seven day fathead minnow
survival and growth chronic test, nor are programs in place that can adequately perform
compliance testing using this analysis. The following request by the city also indicates
that acute rather than chronic limitations are being requested by the city.
4) The City states that it would accept acute toxicity testing as an alternative to
chronic testing using the assumption that "results from acute testing are more
reproducible and reliable than chronic results". Simply stated, acute toxicity testing
cannot provide results sensitive enough to protect the receiving stream from chronic
impact, as required by regulation. The Albemarle WWTP discharge, as currently sized
and located must receive chronic toxicity limitations by current permitting policy
established from 15 NCAC 2B.0200 regulations.
If I can provide you with further information, please advise.
cc:Rex Gleason
Central Files

•
Albemarle Test Results
Jul-89
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
16
L
2
7
L
3
25
L
4
29
L
5
25
L
6
24
L
7
20
L
8
23
L
9
21
L
10
14
11
10
L
12
23
L
AVG REP %MORT P/F
19.75 I 8.3
T
Aug-89
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 1 0
1
15
7
15
5
14
5
18
16
13
14
17
17
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
24
2
14
3
25
4
28
5
20
6
26
7
27
8
18
9
15
10
27
11
24
12
27
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
FI
AVG REP %MORT P/F
FI
22.9 I 0
T
Sep-89
CONTROL
1
15
2
19
3
17
4
15
5
18
6
16
7
23
8
17
9
19
10
18
11
23
12
19
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
'10
11
12
18.3 I 0
1
AVG REP %MORT PIF
37 38
L L
32
L
36
L
31
L
38
L
41
L
38
L
44
L
31
L
35
L
36
L
36.4 I 0
FI
TREATMENT
Oct-89
CONTROL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
27.8 I 0
30
30
24
21
30
34
31
33
25
30
21
25
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
AVG REP %MORT P/F
37
L
36
L
29
L
32
L
32
L
27
L
39
L
34
L
38
L
32
L
31
L
33
L
33.3 I 0
TREATMENT
Nov-89
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
8
2
12
3
11
4
11
5
9
6
12
7
18
8
8
9
13
10
12
11
18
12
11
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
11.9 1 o
1
F1
AVG REP %MORT P/F
22
25
23
22
28
20
24
25
24
23
22
26
23.7 I 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T
Dec-89
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
19.7 I 0
21
26
21
20
19
18
22
17
21
19
14
18
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
F1
AVG REP %MORT P/F
25
25
26
30
27
31
26
26
22
29
23
24
26.2 I 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T
Jan-90
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Feb-90
CONTROL
TREATMEN
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
7
2
5
3
6
4
8
5
7
6
6
7
1
8
10
9
6
10
3
11
10
12
9
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
6.5 I 0
1
FI
AVG REP %MORT P/F
10
21
11
21
22
12
26
18
18
18
16
27
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
7.58 1 0
8
8
9
5
3
10
8
7
5
10
11
7
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
26
2
14
3
15
4
11
5
14
6
24
7
19
8
14
9
15
10
20
11
14
12
6
AVG REP %MORT P/F
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
11
10
13
8
13
10
9
12
18
9
9
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AVG REP %MORT PIF
11
15
21
21
11
15
12
24
21
21
15
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
5
9
10
6
6
15
9
5
13
4
11
8
L
L
L
L
L
L
L

Albemarle Test Results
Apr-90
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Jun-90
CONTROL
TREATMEN
JuI-90
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Aug-90
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Sep-90
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Oct-90
CONTROL
1
21
2
22
3
25
4
25
5
24
6
27
7
25
8
27
9
27
10
22
11
25
12
24
AVG REP %MORT P/F
24.5 I 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
11
2
18
3
5
4
13
5
13
6
12
7
15
8
5
9
5
10
8
11
9
12
16
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
10.83 I 0
FI
AVG REP %MORT P/F
18
11
25
23
12
16
12
27
12
11
14
14
16.25 I 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20 1 0
11
23
19
18
19
29
22
18
24
21
18
18
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PI
AVG REP %MORT P/F
34
27
29
37
29
36
39
20
32
29
38
32
31.83 l 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
23
2
15
3
24
4
24
5
27
6
29
7
28
8
30
9
28
10
24
11
31
12
27
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
FI
25.83 ( 25
AVG REP %MORT P/F
12
14
19
26
20
23
29
23
18
15
19
21
19.92 I 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
P
1
14
2
15
3
19
4
23
5
18
6
15
7
14
8
15
9
14
10
18
11
18
12
16
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
16.58 I 8.33
AVG REP %MORT P/F
25
17
30
14
22
19
21
25
14
17
22
27
21.08 1 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15.83 I 16.67 1
26
17
21
22
17
24
12
0
20
18
0
13
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AVG REP %MORT P/F
20
22
14
28
15
17
32
19
18
22
22
17
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
TREATMENT
Jan-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Feb-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
10
5
6
8
7
8
10
9
8
12
10
7
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AVG REP %MORT P/F
11
13
16
39
34
24
25
15
39
18
23
30
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
19
18
12
19
14
16
29
13
12
24
13
26
21
15
21
19
15
21
19
23
5
AVG REP %MORT P/F
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
45
24
38
40
45
40
44
39
39
36
40
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
AVG REP %MORT P/F
19
19
6
12
19
18
19
24
19
32
16
14
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
22
17
15
16
19
21
11
24
19
25
25

Albemarle Test Results
Apr-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
16
2
18
3
19
4
9
5
15
6
16
7
19
8
26
9
17
10
16
11
17
12
16
AVG REP %MORT P/F
17 I 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T
May-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
7.5 I 0
5
0
8
18
0
0
15
0
13
16
10
5
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
FI
AVG REP %MORT P/F
15
26
21
24
19
15
15
25
6
16
21
16
1825 I 0
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T
Jun•91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
21.17 I 0
24
20
37
25
9
16
26
18
15
17
27
20
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
PI
AVG REP %MORT P/F
17
L
15
L
15
L
14
L
15
L
15
L
15
L
15
L
16
L
16
L
16
L
17
L
15.5 I 0
FI
T
JuI-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Aug-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Sep-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
4
7
0
8
0
9
3
10
0
11
0
12
0
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
0
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.58 I 100 I
AVG REP %MORT P/F
20
26
9
16
14
5
19
16
17
20
19
23
17 I 15.17
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19
L
17
L
12
L
16
L
15
L
15
L
14
L
8
13-
L
9
10
11
12
15.17 I 0
1
18
L
9
L
17
L
17
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PI
AVG REP %MORT P/F
24
L
25
L
27
L
27
L
22
L
31
L
24
L
27
L
24
L
21
L
26
L
19
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
12
19
14
14
16
11
20
15
20
22
22
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AVG REP %MORT P/F
18
16
10
15
16
16
14
17
15
24
19
18
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T
Oct-91
CONTROL
TREATMEN
Nov-91
CONTROL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
17
19
17
19
5
16
16
16
12
14
18
17
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
18
21
21
6
20
13
23
11
17
17
15
LLLLLLLLLLLL
AVG REP %MORT P/F
1
15
2
20
3
23
4
16
5
16
6
7
7
17
8
17
9
20
10
23
11
13
12
22
L
L
L
L
L
L
16
2
25
3
14
4
23
5
20
6
21
7
8
8
18
9
17
10
20
11
16
12
26
AVG REP %MORT P/F
L
L
L
TREATMENT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
20
20
23
23
26
23
20
26
21
21
23
L
L
L
L
L

STATE OF NORTII CAROLINA
COUNTY OF(I) Stanly
IN THE OFFICE OIL
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
(2) City of Albemarle )
Petitioner, )
(Your Name) )
) PETITION
VERSUS ) FOR A
) CONTESTED CASE HEARING
(3) Di vis i on of Environmental
Respondent. M a n a gem6 n t
(The State Agency or Board about which )
you are complaining) )
I hereby ask for a contested case hearing as provided by G.S. 150-B-23 because the
(4) Permit Limits has (briefly state facts showing how you believe you have
(name of agency)
been harmed by the state agency or board)
SPP attached
(if more space is needed, use additional sheets and attach)
(5) (Check all that apply):
Because of these facts, the agency has:
deprived me of property;
ordered me to pay a finc or civil penalty; or
has otherwise substantially prejudiced my rights; and based on these facts the agency
has exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
acted erroneously;
failed to use proper procedure;
acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
failed to act as required by law or rulc.
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, first being duly sworn, say that this petition is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters stated on
information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true.
SWORN TO AND SUI3SCRIIBED BEFORE ME
(11) 2Z _ap,-) g2 (6) January 21, 1992
Date
(12) `/,kk
, rr Signature
(13) GT dtt 1 ?u ISLAC-
Mk of person authorized to administer oaths
(7) h C
Your Signature
(8) City of Albemarle
(14)MyCommission Expires: iO-3-e (p (9)P 0 Box 190, Albemarle, NC 28002-0190
Your Address
(15) (Scnl)
(10) ArcaCoLle004 ) 98'2-01 31 17 . 7S_l)
Your l depilorte Number
Mail the original to the Office of Administrative Hearings, I'.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh. N.C. 27611.7447 and mail a copy
to the State agency involved.
tk - (revised 03-01-90)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State agency named below by depositing a
copy of it with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage or by delivering it to the
named agency.
Served on: (16) George T. Everett, Director
(name)
(17) Division of Environmental Management
(agency)
512 North Salisbury St.,
(18) P 0 Box 276.$7
(address)
Ra 1 e i gh , NC 976.31
(19) This the 21st day of January
(20) City of Albemarle
Petitioner
, 19 92
by Don Duncan
tk - (revised 08-01-90) 11-06

Office of
Treatment Plants
(704) 9 2.0I it
City of A ibemncrrle
North Carolina
January 16, 1992
George T. Everett, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
P 0 Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Subject: Modification to NPDES
Permit No. NC0024244
City of Albemarle
Stanly County
Dear Dr. Everett:
11,O1,n-I,!i/le%%
.`xun' • l vn
The City of Albemarle received the a!love sul , act permit dated
December 20, 1991. The permit, has three lini.s_ is which need to
be modified or deleted. We would like to co.ne to Raleigh to
meet with you and your staff to discuss the following:
1. Suspended solid removal limits of 62%.
2. Downstream sampling point at SR 't 1960 .
3. Chronic toxicity limits.
If a meeting cannot be arranged with you and your staff we feel
that we must ask for an adjudicatory hearing. I called Dale
Overcash and asked that he forward to me t!: proper forms to
request the hearing.
The City of Albemarle staff has always !•:ors,7:d with the staff
of the Division of Environment Management will strive to
meet all the new permit requirements, but w'. feel that some of
the requirements need to be modified.
Enclosed is a copy of correspondence and ov_: responses to the
permit limits we hope to discuss with you your staff.
1. Suspended Solids Removal - The 6 2'., .-emova_l requirement
is lower than the original proposed 8 Even with a 62 ;
removal limitation, the wastewater trr_'.;..ment plant would
have violated this condition for five ;::')nths during the
time period of January 1988 thru Dccc .:' :r 1991. During
the five months (Jan. 1988, March 19. Oct. 1989, Jan.
1990 and Jan. 1991) , the 30 mg/L, ::cl for. suspcndcd

Page 2
George T. Everett
January 16, 1992
solids discharge was met. The City of 1'..lbemarle requests
a lower percent removal limit in the NPI'ES Permit as is
allowed by 40 CFR Part 133.103 (d) regumtions . Enclosed
you will find data for a three year period (Jan. 1988 thru
Dec. 1991).
2. Downstream Sampling Point (SR ##1960) - we received a
letter from the Division of Environmental Management that
is dated October 11, 1990 from J. Trevor Clements, Asst.
Chief Water Quality Section in reference to SR #1960. See
the enclosed copy of the letter. In a 2otter addressed to
Mr. Arthur Mouberry dated March 15, 1989 (item '.) we
asked that the proposed sampling location be deleted from
the NPDES Permit. See enclosed copy of the letter to Mr.
Mouberry.
3. Chronic Toxicity Requirements - Enclosed is data that
was conducted by Pace Labs that indicate the pass/fail
for the City of Albemarle WWTP effluent (94 %) for the
months of July, August, and September 1991. The date
indicates the samples from July and September hacl lower
effluent reproduction than the August sample, and these
samples were considered compliant. The sample from August
was considered a failure even though the reproduction was
sufficient enough for control water. Since 1939, nearly
50% of these failures were attributed to the same situation
This seems to be a major fallacy in judging compliance.
See enclosed copy of letter dated March 15, 1939 addressed
to Mr. Arthur Mouberry (item '! 4) .
Your earliest response to the above mentioneel items would be
very much appreciated.
S .nc,rely
opy-
Don P. Duncan, Superintendent
Water/Waste Treatment Plants
DPD : sw h
Enclosures

(MG/L)
FLOW(MGD) TSS EFF TSS INF PERCENT
MONTH AVG AVG AVG REMOVAL
Jan-88 12.14 21 33 36.4
Feb-88 9.68 18 95 81.1
Mar-88 10.33 20 79 74.7
Apr-88 9.12 13 74 82.4
May-88 8.23 12 84 85.7
Jun-88 8.61 18 98 81.6
Jul-88 7.82 11 77 85.7
Aug-88 8.92 12 69 82.6
Sep-88 10.00 10 48 79.2
Oct-88 8.30 18 66 72.7
Nov-88 9.43 22 58 62.1
Dec-88 7.22 21 68 69.1
Jan-89 9.77 17 64 73.4
Feb-89 8.52 23 104 77.9
Mar-89 13.92 26 57 54.4
Apr-89 12.21 20 79 74.7
May-89 11.11 19 137 86.1
Jun-89 9.88 14 85 83.5
Ju1-89 8.03 21 263 92.0
Aug-89 9.65 15 64 76.6
Sep-89 10.78 20 68 70.6
Oct-89 11.84 18 45 60.0
Nov-89 9.63 19 53 64.2
Dec-89 10.13 30 82 63.4
Jan-90 12.36 23 57 59.6
Feb-90 13.11 27 168 83.9
Mar-90 11.50 21 139 84.9
Apr-90 10.00 21 95 77.9
May-90 11.60 20 122 83.6
Jun-90 8.61 24 177 86.4
Ju1-90 7.03 19 351 94.6
Aug-90 7.56 18 105 82.9
Sep-90 7.04 14 339 95.9
Oct-90 11.61 21 106 80.2
Nov-90 8.41 20 57 64.9
Dec-90 9.16 24 167 85.6
Jan-91 12.23 29 52 44.2
Feb-91 8.46 18 60 70.0
Mar-91 12.14 16 54 70.4
Apr-91 9.30 13 66 80.3
May-91 8.66 15 75 80.0
Jun-91 9.22 12 81 85.2
Ju1-91 7.78 16 102 84.3
Aug-91 8.81 14 100 }6.0
Sep-91 6.79 13 99 36.9
Oct-91 6.45 11 77 85.7
Nov-91 6. 4 2 14 98 55.7
Dec-91 5 . 94 19 72 7; . 6
AVERAGE 9.49 18.33 99.35 76.7

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street . Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mr. Don Duncan
City of Albemarle
PO Box 190
Albemarle, NC 28002-0190
Dear Mr. Duncan:
December 20, 1991
Subject: Modification to NPDES
Permit No. NC0024244
City of Albemarle
Stanly County
In accordance with your request for Permit modification received January 25, 1990,
we are forwarding herewith modifications to the subject permit. These modifications are to: (1)
allowing the instream monitoring to remain at the existing downstream sampling location, but
with an additional downstream monitoring location at the end of NCSR 1960; and (2) require a
removal efficiency of 62% for total suspended residue. The 62% removal efficiency must remain
in your permit. As explained in a letter to you on February 8, 1990, the DEM reviewed 19
months of data and found that Albemarle could consistently meet its limitation in 17 of the months.
The other two months had removal efficiencies of 54 and 36 percent, respectively, which is
inconsistent with the data for the seventeen months. Also, this limitation is well below the mean
annual removal efficiency. This determination is consistent with the federal guidelines. Attached
is a revised permit which reflects the changes.
The division originally intended to allow one year of toxicity monitoring before the limits
became effective. However, it has taken nearly two years to resolve the downstream monitoring
locations. As a result, the division feels that monitoring in lieu of a limit is not warranted.
These modifications are 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 December 6, 1983.
• Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Duncan
Page Two
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this
permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form
of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 11666,Raleigh, North
Carolina 27604. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mr. Dale Overcash at
telephone number 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Donald Safrit for
George T. Everett
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Mooresville Regional Supervisor
Compliance
Central Files

Permit No. NC0024244
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
vosol
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Albemarle
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Long Creek WW'TP
NCSR 1900
Southwest of 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, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective February 1, 1992
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 1994
Signed this day December 20, 1991
Original Signed By
Donald Safrit for
George T. Everett, Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0024244
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Albemarle
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate and maintain the existing wastewater treatment facilities consisting of
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, chlorine contact basin,
instrumental effluent flow measurement, twelve in -plant screw lift pumps, aerobic digestors,
dissolved aeration floatation units and sludge holding tanks located at Long Creek WWTP,
NCSR 1900, Southwest of Albemarle, Stanly County (See Part III of this Permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Long
Creek which is classified Class C waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (Aril 1 - October ober 31)
Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is a
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited uthorized to discharge from
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5 day, 20°C**
Total Suspended Residue**
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen"'
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity**
g and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Discharge Limitations
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream above discharge point, D - Downstream 1 at
miles below discharge at NCSR 1967 () the
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected once month May) and once per week during the summer (June through September). pero th i
Monthly Avg,
16.0MG0
10.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
2.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml
Weekly Avg,
15.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
3.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Daily Max
Requirements
Sample
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
'Sample
Location
I or E
E, I
E, I
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
E,U,D
E
E
E
end of NCSR 1960 and (2) 3.9
n the winter (October through
**See Part III, Condition F; Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 94%; March, June, September, and Dece
mber.
�
***See Part III, Condition G.
****The monthly average effluent BOD5 concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values
(85% effluent Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 38% of the respective influent values62removal). The monthly
( % o removal).
*****The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 m
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
l

A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued) g
Effluent Characteristics Discharge limitations Monitoring Requirements
Units (specify) Measurement Sample 'Sample
Monthly Avg, Weekly Avg, Daily Max Frequency J_ Location
Pollutant Analysis""
Annually E
Conductivity • Grab U, D
Cad
mium 2.0 ug/I Weekly Composite E
Chromium po
52.0 ug/I Weekly Composite E
Nickel 53.0 ug/I Weekly Composite E
Lead po
26.0 ug/I Weekly Composite E
Copper Monthly Composite E
Zinc
Monthly Composite E
l

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: g
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Flow
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C""
Total Suspended Residue""
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen"'
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity"
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream above discharge point, D - Downstream (1) at the end of NCSR 1960 and(2)-
miles below discharge at NCSR 1967 3.9
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected once per month in th winter (October throw h
May) and once per week during the summer (June through September). g
**See Part III, Condition F; Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 94%; March, June, September, and December.
***See Part III, Condition G.
****The monthly average effluent BOD5 concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (85% removal). The monthl
average effluent Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 38% of the respective influent values (62% removal). Y
*****The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent bygrab sample.
p
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Monthly Avg, Weekly Avg, Daily Max
16.0 MGD
20.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
4.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
6.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
Requirements
Sample
Tvge
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
'Sample
Locatior1
I or E
E, I
E, I
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
E,U,D
E
E
E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0024 244
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued) g
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Units (specify) q
Measurement Sample 'Sa mn Ie
Monthly Avg, Weekly Avg, Daily Max Frequency Type Location
Pollutant Analysis***Annually E
Conductivity • Grab U, D
Cadmium
2.0 u g / I Weekly Composite E
Chromium
52.0 ug/I Weekly Composite E
Nickel
53.0 ug/I Weekly ! Composite E
Lead 26.0 ug/I Weekly
g Composite E
Copper
Zinc Monthly Composite E
Monthly Composite E

Part III
Permit No. NC0024244
F. Chronic Toxicity Limit
This condition shall be in effect from the effective date of the permit until permit expiration.
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) ortubsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 94% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from issuance of this
permit 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.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be reopened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting (within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
G. POLLUTANT ANALYSIS MONITORING CONDITION
The permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants annually at the effluent from the treatment plant.
The discharge shall be evaluated as follows: 1) A pollutant analysis of the effluent must be
completed annually using EPA approved methods for the following analytic fractions: (a)
purgeables (i.e., volatile organic compounds); (b) acid extractables; (c) base/neutral extractables;
(d) organochlorine pesticides and PCBs (e) herbicides; and (f) metals and other inorganics. The

M1 l'w'q
• Annual Pollutant Analyses Monitoring (APAM) Requirement Reporting Form A and
accompanying memo, to be provided to all discharges affected by this monitoring requirement,
describes the sampling and analysis requirements and lists chemicals to be included in the
pollutant analysis. This monitoring requirement is to be referred to as the "Annual Pollutant
Analysis Monitoring Requirement" (APAM).
2) Other significant levels of synthetic organic chemicals must be identified and approximately
quantified. For the purpose of implementing this requirement, the largest 10 GC/MS peaks in the
purgeable, base/neutral extractable, and acid extractable fractions (or fewer than 10, if less than 10
unidentified peaks occur) for chemicals other than those specified on the APA Requirement
Reporting Form A should be identified and approximately quantified as stated in the APAM
Reporting Form A instructions. This part (item 2) of the APAM requirement is to be referred to as
the "10 significant peaks rule".

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 11, 1996
Mr. Don P. Duncan
Superintendent, Water/Waste Treatment Plants
City of Albemarle
P.O. Box 190
Albemarle, N.C. 28002-0190
Subject: City of Albemarle WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0024244
Stanly County
Dear Mr. Duncan,
The Division of Environmental (DEM) has received the data for the Long Creek
stream profile collected July 19, 1990. DEM appreciates the City's efforts to
obtain this data for review of the stream conditions. The temperature, dis-
solved oxygen (DO), and conductivity values were very informative and indicate a
DO sag location. The DO values ranged from 5.3 mg/1 to 6.8 mg/1 below the
wastewater treatment plant, a change of more than 1 mg/1. The lowest DO values
were located at approximately 1.8 to 2.0 miles downstream. This indicates a
critical location for the stream and therefore, supports the need for a monitor-
ing location approximately 2.0 miles downstream, near SR 1960.
As indicated in your letter, the stream flow at the time samples were collected
was 2.88 MGD (4.5 cfs) , which is above 7Q10 (1.6 cfs) . DEM uses the 70.10 to
develop wasteload allocations for the analysis to be considered under critical
conditions. Therefore, under the higher flow conditions, the DO is likely to be
higher.
A review of the City of Albemarle's most current (August) Daily Monitoring
Reports indicated the stream's DO values below the standard of 5 mg/1 at SR 1967
(approximately 4 miles downstream). Since the data collected during the profile
reflected the lowest DO values at milepoint 2.0, this station would be critical
for data to be collected.
In light of the above mentioned, DEM will require monitoring at the SR 1960, or
approximately 2.0 miles downstream from the discharge as well as the existing
monitoring location at SR 1967. Since the location at 2.0 miles downstream,
(near SR 1960) is difficult to access, monitoring will be required during the
Pollution Prevention Pays
P n Pcnx 77687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]^:5

a
summer months only (April -October). Monitoring requirements :or the site at SR
1967 will remain during the winter as well as the summer. D:'; intends to modify
the City of Albemarle's NPDES permit in 30 days to require the monitoring site
2.0 miles downstream as well as the existing monitoring site at SR 1967.
Please contact Carla Sanderson at [phone] if you have any further ques-
tions or comments regarding this matter.
cc:
Rex Gleason
Don Safrit
WLA File
Sincerely,
l-
T evor Clements, Asst. Chief
Water Quality Section

City of A lbeinarle
.North Carolina
Office (,t
Treatment Plants
(O4) 9R2-01:I March 15. 1989
Mr. Arthur Mouberr'
Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P O Box 27687
Raleigh NC 27611-7687
RE: Draft NPDES Permit No. NC 0024244
Dear Mr. Mouberrv:
I'. O. Box 190
• 1 /hc',,,a:Ie. \ . c'
The City of Albemarle has received the draft of the proposed NPDES
Permit No. NC 0024244 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. After review
of this document, there are several concerns about how certain discharge
limitations and conditions in this permit will affect the City of
Albemarle. Under the present circumstances, it is felt that unless
several of these requirements are modified, it will not be economically
feasible for the WWTP to be in total compliance with the new NPDES
Permit. For this reason, the City of Albemarle opposes several items in
this permit. The following is a summary of objections and comments on
the discharge limitations in the proposed permit.
Item 1. Sampling Point at NCSR 1960
In the draft permit, it is stated that there are to be two sampling
locations downstream of the WWTP discharge on Long Creek. In the past
the City has been using the sampling point on NCSR 1967 for downstream
samples. The newly proposed sample location at the end of NCSR 1960 has
been inspected by the City staff and found to be inaccessible. To get
to Long Creek and collect samples, one would have to cross 1/4 mile of
posted private property, fight through heavy vegetation, and encounter
an embankment that is too steep for some four wheel drive vehicles.
In order to make this area suitable for monitoring, the City would have
to negotiate a right-of-way from NCSR 1960 to Long Creek and perform a
considerable amount of landscaping. For these reasons, the City
requests that the proposed sampling location at NCSR 1960 be deleted
from the NPDES Permit.
Item 2. Percent Removal of Total Suspended Residue
The total suspended residue effluent limitations in the draft permit are
identical to those in our present NPDES Permit. However, in the
proposed permit there is the additional requirement that there be a
minimum of 85% removal of total suspended residue basted on respective

Mr. Arthur Mouberry
03-1 5-89
influent values. Due to the low concentration of suspended residue in
the WWTP influent, there is no way an 85% removal can be achieved. The
reason for the low solids concentration is not excessive I/I, but that
the influent flow is 62% industrial (textile dvehouses). It should be
noted that in the past the WI:TP has consistently met its suspended
solids concentration discharge limitations. Based on the average
influent solids loading, the suspended residue concentration that would
have to be achieved if the 85 removal provision is involved, would only
be 1/3 of the allowed concentration in the proposed permit. It is
stated that if all conditions in 40 CFR 133.103 (d) are met, a lower
percent removal may be substituted in the NPDES Permit. As has been
shown above, all of the criteria in this regulation is being met.
Therefore, the City requests that the percent removal provision for
total suspended residue be deleted entirely.
Item 3. 7Q 10 Flow
Due to the low 7Q 10 Flow in Long Creek, the City of Albemarle requests
a variance in which all effluent limitation would be based on the actual
daily flow in Long Creek. The City of Albemarle plans to install a flow
metering station directly upstream from the WWTP discharge into Long
Creek for this purpose. Also, the City of Albemarle plans to utilize
City Lake to regulate the flow in Long Creek by releasing water from the
lake into the stream during low flow conditions. This would give the
City of Albemarle WWTP discharge limits which are more tolerable than .
are currently proposed.
Item 4. Chronic Toxicity Limits
The proposed limit that will have the most impact on the City of
Albemarle is the chronic toxicity requirement. The effluent toxicity
analysis has been conducted on the WWTP discharge since August 1988, on
a monthly basis. During this time, the effluent has consistently failed
to achieve satisfactory results. The City staff has met with local
industry on several occasions during the last 15 months to discuss ways
to reduce the toxicity in the WWTP effluent. In April 1989, these
industries will conduct toxicity bioassays on their discharges to
determine the probable causes of this problem. In December 1988, the
City began utilizing lime stabilization for primary sludge. This
process should facilitate additional removal of heavy metals from the
WWTP effluent, which could reduce the toxicity. Also, the City has the
capability to dechlorinate the effluent, and plans to do so during low
flow conditions in Long Creek to reduce toxicity.
A. The City cf Albemarle requests that there be no
chronic toxicity limitations in the NPDES Permit.
The reason being that there is no economically
feasible way- to consistently meet this limit with
both the large percentage of industrial waste in the
t%TP influent and low 7Q 10 flew in Long Creeh. In

Mr. Arthur Mouberry
03-15-89
3
order for the City of Albemarle 1 TP to meet the proposed
chronic toxicity limit, local industry would not be
competitive and would be forced to relocate or cease
operations entirely.
B. The City of Albemarle requests that the fathead
minnow be utilized as a test species rather than the
ceriodaphnia in the bioassays. In Section .0202
(30) of the NC Water Quality Standards, is a list of
sensitive species for aquatic toxicity testing which
may be utilized in accepted procedures. Included in
this list (Item (d)) is the genus for fathead
minnows.
C. The City of Albemarle would accept acute toxicity
testing as an alternative to chronic testing limits.
The main reason for this request is that results
from acute testing are more reproducible and
reliable than chronic results.
The City of Albemarle requests that all of these modifications be
implemented in our NPDES Permit. If the NC Division of Environmental
Management disapproves of these changes, the City requests that there be
an adjudicatory hearing before the proper authorities. The reason for
the hearing request is that the City of Albemarle cannot accept the
NPDES Permit as it now exists. The amount of funds that would be
required to achieve compliance with all of these proposed requirements
would be disastrous to the economy of the City and its constituents.
The City believes that all of the parties involved in this process would
want to avoid creating a situation of that nature. All considerations
and cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions, call myself or Gary Smith at the above
number.
Sincerely,
Don P. Duncan, Superintendent
Treatment Plants
DPD/ljl
cc:file
Mayor and City Councilmembers
Ray Allen, City Manager
Calvin Chandler, Director W/S Dept

0
EFFLUENT AVG. CONTROL AVG.
MONTH REPRODUCTION REPORDUCTION PASS/FAIL
July 1991115.17 17.00 Pass
August 1991 16.50 24.75 Fail
September 1991 15.50 1G.50 Pass