NC0024244_Permit (Issuance)_19941010

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNINO COVER SHEET
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:
October 10, 1994
Thin; documerit ias printed an reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerase aside

CONTINUING TO DISCHARGE
tit! 1 1990
PERM: S.
If the ultimate disposal of wastewater from the East Bend Industrial Park were to
remain as a point discharge of treatment plant effluent at the present location,
modifications to the treatment plant would be imperative to achieve the effluent
quality of 5 ppm BOD and 2 ppm NH3 which will be required. A dual train plant
and standby power will also be required by DEM. Rough estimates for completing
these modifications are in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. The modifications to the
plant will reduce its capacity to 5000 GPD, thus necessitating the installation of a
second treatment unit if additional capacity should be required. Extending the
discharge downstream several hundred feet to the confluence of a second stream may
enable the County of maintain the 30/30 limits, but the requirements for the dual
train plant and standby power will remain. The possibility of these limits being made
more stringent in the future is another item which must be considered. The disposal
of wastewater treatment plant sludge will also continue to be a matter of concern for
this facility.
The estimated cost of operating this treatment plant, approximately $12,000 per
year, far exceeds the revenue generated by present user fees. The hopes of
recovering the expense for improvements which may be required to continue to
discharge are quite small.
CENTRAL FILE COPY

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Don P. Duncan
City of Albemarle
P.Q. Box 190
Albemarle, NC 28002
Dear Mr. Duncan:
AWA
EDEF-1 I F
October 10, 1994
Subject: Permit Issuance
NPDES Permit # NC0024244
City of Albemarle - Long Creek WWTP
Stanly County
In accordance with your application for discharge permit received on September 17, 1993, we are
forwarding herewith the subject State - NPDES 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 US Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6, 1983.
In response to your draft permit comment letter dated September 9, 1994, the following comments&"
are offered:
• Downstream sampling point - Monitoring at NCSR 1960 will remain in the permitAEM•'s'
regional office staff have determined that this location is accessible provided proper safety
precautions are followed. Monitoring frequency during the summer months has been
increased from monthly to weekly (still less than the typical 3/week in most similar cases'} to
gather more reliable data. This monitoring requirement may be modified in the future based
on the more extensive monitoring data.
• Color - Monitoring requirements are not based on proximity to water supply intakes. The
color monitoring data will be used to determine what color levels are currently being
discharged from plants treating dye house wastewater, their effects on the receiving waters,
the need (if any) for limits and the impacts that limits might have on existing facilities. The
City may submit monitoring data after completion of twelve sampling events to the Division
for review and possible reduction or removal of this monitoring requirement.
• Chronic toxicity testing - The criteria for passing this test is not necessarily based on the test
sample producing 15 offspring per organism. The control sample must produce at least 15
offspring per sample to constitute a valid test. However, if the control sample were to
produce more than 15 offspring per sample, and the test sample produce less than that value,
then that would constitute a failed test. Therefore, the pass/fail determination cannot be based
on 15 offspring per organism regardless of control performance.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicative hearing upon written request within thirty
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150E of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless
such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice 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 Environmental Management or permits required by the Division of Land Resources,
Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mr. Greg Nizich at telephone
number 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
"David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Mooresville Regional Office
Aquatic Toxicology, Kristie Robeson
Compliance
Central Files

Permit No. NC0024244
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF - —1t eNAGEM NT • A/ GZ
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 Wastewater Treatment Plant
I--1-904 /o yo Co61 e. 4 .
S e IQjbemarIG
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 Dect,i„bpi 1 1999..
zaa"
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on November 30, ice"
Signed this day Oiber._1}94
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
T , , , 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
instrumented flow measurement, preaeration basins, primary clarifiers, trickling filters,
mechanical aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, gravity tertiary filters, chleiine in,
instrumented effluent flow measurement, twelve in -plant screw lift pumps, aerobic digestors,
dissolved aeration floatation units and sludge holding tanks located at Long Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant, NC --SR 1900, Albemarle, Stanly County
OW* and o'o Colo4 4t(. �cl
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.

Civic
P./ujd F.ree.ot(i
t , em . .�'(
• if�'li
%t.'
r
nt r .alio• a
•
'f,

A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0024244
During the period beginning on the effective dale 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:
Flow
BOD, 5 day, 20°C"
Total Suspended Residue'
NH3 as N
Dissolved •Oxygen'3
b,ssniwiJ eyY
FFee car Co l if9� geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Monthly Avq.
16.0 MGD
10.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
2.0 mg/I
Weekly Avg.. Daily Max
15.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
200.0 ,100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
T m er ture
otal Nitroc.en (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity'
SR_N7.
-.*tample locations: E ,ffluent, T - Influent, U - Upstream above
D2 -
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
3D7il
4,444
3D/a i
.Daily
D.il
sva
Requirements
Sample *Sample
Type Location
Recording I or E
Composite E, I
Composite E, I
Composite E
Grab= J It
Grab E, lam)
Grab ELi Ag z
Grab E,1T
Composite Ell Z
Composite E
l nthlyTh
ischarge point,, .� 6r diu rst 9i°_r x. /6 mi4r r
- ■ owns rean ap . r
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream sam
sam
dii ing th
_eawr►sl++ev-,4 44uarterly Composite
? l.cu °"r E
xima
e
y
yar
cam site and at D2.
Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; March, June, September, and December.
The monthly average effluent BOD5 concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (85% removal). he
eckly monitoring sha
c con
u
See Part III, Special Condition H.
sir
" *" The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
-6(..\ai The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard unitfr ri —s all -be monitored -daily c c ucw-lay-g-kab sample.
1< — 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
Conductivity
'Chromium
1.--Copper
1."-Zinc — - - - --
Color (ADMI)
oTO
1
Discharge Limitation!
Units (specify
Monthly Avq Weekly Avg. Daily Max
53.0 ug/I
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
X 3/tip
Weekly
2/Month
2/Month -
2/Month
bout ly
Requirements
Sample
Crab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
bra
*Sample
Location
U,
E
E
E
E,U,Dr ' V3

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 16.0 MGD
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C*** 20.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue*** 30.0 mg/I
NH3 as N 4.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 mi
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity**
Weekly Avg. Daily Max
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Requirement:
Sample *Sample
Type Location
Recording I or E
Composite E, I
Composite E, I
Composite E
Grab E, U, D
Grab E, U, D
Grab E
Grab E, U, D
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream above discharge point, D = D1 & D2, D1- Downstream at the end of NCSR 1960,
D2 - 3.9 miles below discharge at NCSR 1967; D3 - Downstream approximately 200 yards below the 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 during the summer (June through September) at the upstream site and at D2. Weekly monitoring shall be conducted
during the summer (June through September) at D 1.
** 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).
**** Sec Part III, Special Condition H.
*****The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mgh.
The pH shall not he less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall he 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
Conductivity
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Color (ADM!)
Discharge Limitation:
Units (specify
Monthly Avg Weekly Avg. Daily Max."
53.0 ug/I
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
*
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
2/Month
Requirement:
Sample *Sample
Type Location
Grab U, D
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E,U,D3

•
ti r
••
w
Part III Permit No. NC0024244
G. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant
i nificant mortality is 90% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
e 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.
H. 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 ,ann'pies 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

4 i• •
of stream color -should -also be recorded when color samples are collected.
Color samples should be analyzed as follows:
a) at natural pH
b) free from turbidy (True Color); and
c) 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's ambient pH value. All color data including visual observations should be submitted
with the monthly DMRs.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
October 6, 1994
Memorandum
To: Greg Nizich
From: Carla`Sanderson'
Through: Ruth Swanek '-5
Subject: City of Albemarle Comments on Draft
NPDES Permit No. NC0024244
Stanly County
I have reviewed the September 9, 1994 letter concerning the recently drafted permit for the
City of Albemarle and have the following response to the comments:
1) Downstream Sample Point at SR #1960 - In July, 1990 the City of Albemarle
performed a dissolved oxygen (DO) stream profile on Long Creek below the
Albemarle WWTP outfall and extending 4 miles down the creek. The temperature
and DO measurements indicated a location on the creek where a DO sag occurs
approximately 2.0 miles below the discharge (near the SR 1960 location). This DO
sag location was further verified by a Level B modeling analysis. Therefore,
instream monitoring was recommended at SR 1960 in addition to the 2nd
downstream location at SR 1967 at the last permit renewal. Since Mr. Duncan, the
Superintendent for Albemarle, claimed that access is difficult, summer monitoring
only was recommended at the SR 1960 location.
Instream data was collected at SR 1960 once per month in the summer months
(June through September). The data should be collected weekly during the
summers months (the same as the other two instream locations) and the summer
mohould be listed as April through October). These instream monitoring
Focations should remain a part of the NPDES permit requirements for the City of
Albemarle. The City has a permit to discharge 16 MGD into a stream with 7Q10 =
1.6 cfs (IWC = 94%). Per 15A NCAC 2B.0505, sampling points shall be
established in the receiving waters at one or more upstream locations and at one or
more downstream locations. Due to the large volume of wastewater permitted to
this stream and occasional substandard DO concentrations instream, the two
downstream monitoring locations are justified.
2) Color monitoring - Effluent, upstream and downstream monitoring for color was
recommended in the recent draft for permit renewal. Wastewater treatment facilities
that discharged colored wastewater and are located on streams with small dilution
ratios or upstream of water supplies have been targeted to monitor color as part
of their NPDES permit. Hopefully this data will provide an allowable level of color
instream at specific locations in the state. Currently, DEM has given no
indication of when limits may be developed for color.
Please let me know if you have any comments concerning the above.
cc: Central Files
MRO

1
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0024244
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
City of Albemarle
Long Creek WWTP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 16.0 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 38
Industrial (% of Flow): 62 %
Comments:
City requests that the downstream monitoring at NCSR 1960 be
dropped because unsafe. Region says not unsafe so decision should be
made if additional data is needed.
RECEIVING STREAM: Long Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-13
Reference USGS Quad: F18SW
(please attach)
County: Stanly
Regional Office:
Previous Exp. Date: 5/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: Class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
Requested by:
Randy
Kepler
by:
504r 9-y,
Reviewed by: c L C, ` ",_
'7 `7 (.-J-) (5) .3'D ')
Date:
Date:
Date:
10/25/93
hp
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
rm 5
//zd'i3
%r, 7 y
I r
Drainage Area (mi2
) L Avg. Streamflow (cfs): Oc/
7Q10 (cfs) %. (o Winter 7Q10 (cfs) Q.5 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC qy % Acute/
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Above effluent
Downstream Location: 1) below discharge approximatly 1.6 miles near SR 1960
2) below discharge approximatly 3.9 miles at SR 1967
Parameters: DO, Temperature, Fecal Coliform, Conductivity.
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
The operator should ensure monitoring at the first location downstream is the same frequency
(weekly) as the second downstream monitoring location in the summer months only (Apr -Oct).
r cn
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (1.tg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Wasteflow (MGD):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/l):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Arsenic (ugfl):
Mercury (ug/1):
Silver (ug/1):
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
10 16
2 4
5 5
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
Monitor Monitor
Monitor Monitor
Monitor Monitor
Daily Max.
16.0
LTMP
53.0
monitor
LTMP
LTMP
monitor
LTMP
LTMP
LTMP
LTMP
WitAter
cois,<011-) mom-' (4,t Eipu u v, .eu-�/ w
Comments: Gt-be72 Q L i& 7 �iSG%Y,e/IG� Q a1,i L L i 571z.,
/a4
s1-u0-iC t -2l as E. CO), /
/ii`.SUGcl p,7St°iW , 0rco /u/Le, punt, jerkti,ta4440

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
City of Albemarle
NC0024244
38% Domestic / 62% Industrial
Existing
Renewal
Long Creek
C
030713
Stanly
MRO
I d 1pef (*oo.2.1
10/25/93
F18SW
ReqUeSe#C. DE
EENVIRONMEN , AVM,
& NATURAL RESOURCES
JUN 211994,
iaT
DlVlS1kG 9gi iILEE MOM M Ufa
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Renewal of facility without modification. Primary issue with this renewal still involves the
instream monitoring at SR1960. The City would like to have this location discontinued, but the
requirement should remain in the permit. This location is -1.6 miles downstream from the outfall
and has been determined to be the critical D.O. sag point location. In the past, the location has
been verified by the region for accessibility. The facility should monitor this station on the same
frequency as the other instream locations during the summer months only. Currently the
c_monitomg t this station is once a month and the data is not adequate to determine impacts.
Region please comment on putting a color monitoring requirement in the permit (EU&D).
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
du u g ruin d . 7Irc/e'
2.1248.8415
1988
64
1.6
,
9.5
64
4.7
94 , , .:�
r-7-1d rr
ri
1 CD
v cr
Recommended by: alit&A-
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
P Se : rvLC0 `P-e CY-
1A4ciotg-e-r`- Date:
k5tucLuti_
Date: ('O.
Date:
Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: JUL 1 6 1994
e-v lcL M•L-
covirde
CL

2
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 1016 16
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1): 2 4
DO (mg/1): 5 5
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): Monitor Monitor
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1): Monitor Monitor
TN (mg/1): Monitor Monitor
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD): 16 16
BOD5 (mg/1): 10 461915
NH3N (mg/1): 2 4
DO (mg/1): 5 5
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): Monitor Monitor
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1): Monitor Monitor
TN (mg/1): Monitor Monitor
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

3
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
Wasteflow (MGD):
Cadmium (ug/l):
Chromium (ugll):
Copper (ug/l):
Nickel (ugll):
Lead (ugll):
Zinc (ug/1):
Recommended Limits
Wasteflow (MGD):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ugll):
Copper (ug/l):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/l):
Zinc (ug/l):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Arsenic (ug/l):
Mercury (ug/1):
Silver (ugll):
TOXICS/METALS
Chronic /Ceriodaphnia - P/F
94%
90%
Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec
Daily Max.
16.0
2.0
52.0
monitor
53.0
26.0
monitor
Daily Max.
16.0
LTMP
53.0
monitor
LTMP
LTMP
monitor
LTMP
LTMP
LIMP
LTMP
WQ or EL
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
DMR data showing values all below detection Cd, Ni, Pb
Note: LIMP indicates parameter monitored in
pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Plan.
x Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Above effluent
Downstream Location: 1) below discharge approximatly 1.6 miles near SR 1960
2) below discharge approximatly 3.9 miles at SR 1967
Parameters: DO, Temperature, Fecal Coliform, Conductivity.
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
The operator should ensure monitoring at the first location downstream is the same frequency
(weekly) as the second downstream monitoring location in the summer months only (Apr -Oct).
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? \f (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.
5yl11.0195i 5 5 L/1L P 1 QfrXit ri'
ire /24i 3

Facility Name S44,j, Ot di hu mate Permit #0.lJL�4loWii Pipe # 00
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
ThA effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is 10 % (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
.�Vf �e C t . Effluent sampling for this testingshall beperformed at the NPDES
� � %� %� P g
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample, must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of .the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 ). cfs
Permitted Flow / Ci MGD
C 9ro
Basin & Sub -basin 0,3070
Receiving Stream L C� Cf lW
County 10r1 lam, "
Recommended by:
QCL PIF Version 9/91

CITY OF ALBEMARLE WWTP
WLA Evaluation
June.17, 1994
YADKIN RIVER BASIN FILES
LONG CREEK
030713
TO: File
FROM: Carla Sanderson
The dissolved oxygen standard on Long Creek where the Albemarle WWTP discharges is
below the standard of 5 mg/l upstream and downstream of the discharge during critical
summer months.
During the 1989 WLA review the instream data was reviewed and noted for instream
violations and appropriate locations for sampling. During this review it was noted that the
1st downstream location was 3.9 miles downstream. An OLD modeling analysis (1984),
predicted the DO minimum to occur 1.6 miles downstream of the discharge. Therefore, I
requested instream monitoring downstream at two locations (1.6 miles downstream off SR
1960 and 3.9 miles downstream off SR 1967) at the 1989 permit renewal.
The facility strongly opposed the 1st downstream location point because of its
inaccessibility. IAU then contacted the region and Joe Crabb from MRO confirmed it
accessible (Joe does not work in MRO any longer). Since the facility still felt this was a
constraint on them, we had them perform a DO profile of the Creek during the Summer of
1990 to prove the minimum DO at mile 1.6 ( see submitted data from the facility letter data
Aug. 2, 1990 from Region). This data showed the minimum DO to be at the location where
SR 1690 comes near the creek.
Since Mr. Duncan, the Superintendent for Albemarle, claimed that access is difficult,
summer monitoring only was recommended at the 1.6 mile point (letter dated Oct. 11,
1990).
Mr. Duncan submitted an adjudication of the NPDES permit in January, 1992. Suspended
Solids, Downstream Sampling Point and Chronic Toxicity Limits were the items under
adjudication. Once again a letter was sent from the IAU verifying the need for the
downstream site at SR 1960 to be monitored.
Most' urrent &hick of i stre datas
the dis hayge an own tr t SR 1
1960 w ich wasnly s pled ce a
fis f the�O s d d ups am above
one ' of fion of instream at SR
nth du =s g the nths of June through Sept.
At this permit renewal I will continue the recommendation for monitoring at the first
downstream station at SR 1960 along with the 2nd downstream location at SR 1967.
Monitoring frequencies would be weekly at both locations and summer months should
include April through October. Monitoring at the first location on SR 1960 should be for
summer months only (Apr - Oct)

CITY OF ALBEMARLE WWTP
WLA Evaluation
June.17, 1994
YADKIN RIVER BASIN FILES
LONG CREEK
030713
TO: File
FROM: Carla Sanderson
The dissolved oxygen standard on Long Creek where the Albemarle WWTP discharges is
below the standard of 5 mg/I upstream and downstream of the discharge during critical
summer months.
During the 1989 WLA review the instream data was reviewed and noted for instream
violations and appropriate locations for sampling. During this review it was noted that the
1st downstream location was 3.9 miles downstream. An OLD modeling analysis (1984),
predicted the DO minimum to occur 1.6 miles downstream of the discharge. Therefore, I
requested instream monitoring downstream at two locations (1.6 miles downstream off SR
1960 and 3.9 miles downstream off SR 1967) at the 1989 permit renewal.
The facility strongly opposed the 1st downstream location point because of its
inaccessibility. IAU then contacted the region and Joe Crabb from MRO confirmed it
accessible (Joe does not work in MRO any longer). Since the facility still felt this was a
constraint on them, we had them perform a DO profile of the Creek during the Summer of
1990 to prove the minimum DO at mile 1.6 ( see submitted data from the facility letter data
Aug. 2,1990 from Region). This data showed the minimum DO to be at the location where
SR 1690 comes near the creek.
Since Mr. Duncan, the Superintendent for Albemarle, claimed that access is difficult,
summer monitoring only was recommended at the 1.6 mile point (letter dated Oct. 11,
1990).
Mr. Duncan submitted an adjudication of the NPDES permit in January, 1992. Suspended
Solids, Downstream Sampling Point and Chronic Toxicity Limits were the items under
adjudication. Once again a letter was sent from the IAU verifying the need for the
downstream site at SR 1960 to be monitored.
Most current check of instream data show no violations of the DO standard upstream above
the discharge and downstream at SR 1967 and only one violation of DO instream at SR
1960 which was only sampled once a month during the months of June through Sept.
At this permit renewal I will continue the recommendation for monitoring at the first
downstream station at SR 1960 along with the 2nd downstream location at SR 1967.
Monitoring frequencies would be weekly at both locations and summer months should
include April through October. Monitoring at the first location on SR 1960 should be for
summer months only (Apr - Oct)

NPDES PRETREATMENT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
FACILITY NAME: j oW rl o f AL13eM Ai?LG NPDES NO. NCO 0 2 4 2 4 4
REQUEST R: j?Ar N K L pj /L DATE: 11 / l / c REGION: liDoizeSVItia..-1-FD
PERMIT CONDITIONS COVERING PRETREA tMENT
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Development
Phase I due / /
Phase II due / /
Additional Conditions
(attached)
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
IGNIFICANI' INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS
SIU FLOW - TClTAL:
bkSt
- COMPOSITION:
TEXTILE:
METAL FINISHING:
OTHER: •
`j
p v. �tnJ� t 11w,s 1,... ovafl i
HEADWORKS REVIEW
Mom?
MGD
MCA
MGD
MGD
.MGD
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
Phenol
Other A
RECEIVED:.
PASS
'THROUGH
i
1
ALLOWABLE
cEPek
it
t••
till .S R4
- all
DAILY LOAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL
D MEESTIC iu) INDUSTRIAL
t(
ct
t'
ct
cr
tk
REMOVAL
fV
tI
1•
134.ln ) i w, el
n o(t tY,''„ 1�v."-A/r s -- Cr%) o ✓
/ 4; REVIEWED BY: W i - / REIURNID: �jj913

paw
Yin-5
/g3
(P/a3 Jai 3
9/a319,9_,
ar hd-
"")/7,Ei I 9 D_
6j/s/a
no
SVD
a(� 5. 13i
3. c7 45%
(P6
_ do
l e kyteDo IAsc-f
a .- g ter%
a5 5.6 6b%
�. 5S%
s'/?- 5- /40 V490 C, 1(7%
g3 5 7 (pT% a4 6.1 fl°A
ac) 7.q g(%v
Jep YID %swt
ace (0-8 B�
3 5 g CpS)
03 b . '7 '7

o-r ii(b_emtAke
gaA)f/Lk c
Llehi y-r) _ . / rr1(1) L 6-rLsc CXeeLK
Le vnati (e wog'
NTS
a -a 3- ly
6 30 713
s�vv V +1 e g• 7esf tbjed
Go 4 ] -f GLry ra-a.t(t7has6 berg �-h-2 t /
c ouor1&hJ G-kY1 oifDr vl. JO 7 61-/7 aJ
SK . 1 k-t I oCec e-w �0 • N '`f nAL
o-e'u>n6-f-1-e, C 1 q6 7 •
1 k-e o u ruc/) o pvlad--&-) a-/
oy/Asp. 1O& 7 & i i5-f(-w, eroos
1uQ C - c�en Ce hoO &- ,4 are
/Zo Cbz(,tiirLCCG(. —Hu 66Jc/ cLj w co l/ YYIaki Of'
4141 % 0 1C 54-c.e aiv1- (,0k4_ cd L11
cc r c, CL vl C( vh p - ' /�--
d�s

4L1c4,(' 1n5k filteu;-/DY;11-
rn6itikt_
UpS rim
a,b Epp,ueptit
43ukz Do Cain) %cal Cat
�%3 020 Ll•of (3.D) log I&'3
qq3 02 3 ..(-t.4-/ (4-�) /D`? /5;-
243
.15 5D (3) I i0 151
6 3 a 5.3 (3.) 1T' Ago
°fot3 1 '7.5" r SS lip
-1/93-
8/613- c").3
1/ga as
1 jc
4'013 11)
�na
5 ND) 1 qc 15
5. a. (1 ao3 Qa 61
S .1 NO A 3 .29 (p
�.b ((P.2) ,36n �s1
�.. (5.) a17 021-1c0
iy( `f v
71,0 e-r) 3avv&d
(6_0 5. I qoo c9n J41 jun - $¢pf
1
- -1/ u n aiky7
@5Figl0 St�Ig67
-Tiny 66(n.ih)lcr•,/Conr) IIIt �)✓cilf.
y-{'veen)4'46 a I 5.(1)(Y0�8i3 1
a 5 5.o 1-r'7c (j3sz) a 6c. (4 Liva waz
U.c i 3� ob 1,0 [5 a-) 63 11�
a 4!., ag5 a3s) 02a- c. a.(�.1g) �l Wei
5
31.0o aoov a) 1,. f 150 79� 'ril
a� 5 4g N-6) 331r 'II
3 5.� (6.5) 81 A
a-v 7 a a, &) 35� r�73
1 1 °7.1 [�.y) a?o r�oo
a1b a�ao
a (At)lb (
a" 41 • 7 hey cl4 c� MaJ
-1-tong vIc(1.
c &Try .'-1?
0.),;(timv harilatit''
r- 0 el: op-itiAj bu I did 'cot"
60- y ryte-nA,41 uld
a ,
L G�eYt,F,I a.(- Fecrc..w -.�
itAs L;c) a- k dck.
ct4(J eeril 0 'fad WV.
ci Lu,yv_) `{' i

Page 1
Note for Joe Pearce
From: Carla Sanderson
Date: Thu, May 12, 1994 8:43 AM
Subject: Albemarle
To: Joe Pearce
I know it seems like a LONG time ago that we discussed this - but I realized that it didn't
need to get out right away since it was not to be issued until Dec. 94 (Basin scheduling).
Anyway - I just want to make sure you know what I am going to request in the final NPDES
permit (as long as you agree).
Chromium = 53.0 ug/1
Copper = monitor
Zinc = monitor
When looking at the most current data - I do not find any other parameter needing additional
requirements since monitored parameters in the DMR are all under detection.
I beleive when we discussed this before - you commented that this facility has the highest
copper and zinc for a facility that passes toxicity. Also you commented on the color. I don't
think any of the other paramters in the LTMP were of concern enough to possibly limit - am I
right?
Please let me know if you agree with this - thanks!

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
S.Co ?QV ( U
oaa.-i
11) ~ a-tp o o.-'
Y1ti.C�s Sw 0.11,
*-14-0 ‘94.-Urvu
tht-c c,' cam. ,11,,,th34v0
1 ikm+ ARTAA.-tov
vw411,1 RAYvv6.-L
Copes (A t-
Vaitfra
ISO Ic96bov
Facility Name
Albemarle WWTP
NPDES #
NC0024244
Ow (MGD)
16
7Q10s (cfs)
1.6
IWC (%)
Reeving Stream
.._.. Cr__.._.._..__93.94
Long eek
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
Cr
Max. Pred Cw
136
Allowable Cw
53.2
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
�rlv
o - ' e$ stSev. 01,011re'Ll' q)S1()
gola
5/9/94
PAGE 1

Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Joe Pearce
Date: Wed, Feb 23, 1994 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: Albemarle
To: Carla Sanderson
CEAR- Compliance Evaluation Analysis Report.
Toxicant POC's per Long Term Monitoring Plan LTMP approved are As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb,
Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn, CN, Ag. Reality is they have some of the highest Cu and Zn
concentrations that I have seen from a Municipality that passes it Aquatic Tox Test. These
Cu and Zn concentrations come from large Dye houses. (You will want to include color
monitoring, of course). The LTMP was approved on 2/9/94 and follows the model.
From: Carla Sanderson on Wed, Feb 23, 1994 10:30 AM
Subject: Albemarle
To: Joe Pearce
I am about to complete my review of this WLA. Ls there any additional information I should
know concerning Toxics? The PIRF you sent in Nov.'93 says CEAR already has effluent
limit or monitoring (what is CEAR?). A quick look at effluent limits shows everything
below detection except copper and zinc. I am about to run our new spreadsheet analysis on
this. Are there additional POCs I should know about besides Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn?
Please let me know. Thanks!

Office of
Treatment Plants
[phone]
Mr. Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
NCDEHNR
P 0 Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
iVorth Carolina
October 20, 1993
Re: Permit #NC0024244
City of Albemarle WWTP
Stanly County
Dear Mr. Tedder:
01110-1
OCT 21 1993
SE.V kT!O i
Mailing Address
P. O. Box 190
Albemarle, N. C.
28002-0190
The above referenced permit is being reviewed for renewal. We
feel that we have submitted enough' information on the down
stream sample point at NC SR #1960. Please review the infor-
mation and if at all possible please drop this sample point.
This sample point is located on private property and is a
jungle that is snake infested for approximately 1/2 mile.
The City of Albemarle is also trying to make some long range
planning and we would like to know what the discharge limits
would be if the effluent was discharged at the confluence of
Long Creek and Rocky River?
Please consider the elimination of sample point at NC SR #1960
and the long range planning of the discharge to Rocky River.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ov'L .� >
Don P. Duncan, Superintendent
Water/Waste Treatment Plants
DPD: swh