NC0025534_Permit (Issuance)_20060419

NPDES DOCUMENT :MCANNINO COVER :SHEET
di le,
AO Ilk
ANN
AIN
AWN
411114,
AMIN
AI Ilk
AIL
ANN
.41110,
Adak
1111110,
ask
NPDES Permit:
NC0025534
Hendersonville WWTP
Document Type: ,...
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Staff Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
April 19, 2006
- This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse side
INN

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
April 19, 2006
Mr. Lee Smith
Water and Sewer Utilities Director
P.O. Box 1760
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28793
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0025534
Hendersonville WWTP
Henderson County
Dear Mr. Smith:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of
the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge
permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently
amended).
The permit authorizes the City of Hendersonville to discharge up to 4.8 MGD
(6.0 MGD upon expansion) of treated wastewater from the Hendersonville WWTP to
Mud Creek, a class C water in the French Broad River Basin. The permit includes
discharge limitations /or monitoring for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
ammonia, total suspended solids ('FSS), dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, total
residual chlorine, lead, copper, zinc, dieldrin, heptachlor and chronic toxicity.
The following modifications have been made in this permit:
• The addition of summer and winter weekly average limits for NH3. This is
done to concur with the Code of Federal Regulations [40 CFR 122.45 (d)].
The summer and winter weekly average NH3 limits at 4.8 and 6.0 MGD will
be 6.0 mg/land 12.0 mg/1, respectively.
• The results of the priority pollutant analyses submitted by your facility
detected the presence of several pesticides. Dieldrin and heptachlor were
among those present in three 2004 effluent pollutant scans. Limits for these
parameters will become effective 18 months from the effective date of the
final permit. If within the 18 months, Hendersonville can demonstrate that
N car. in
/aturat
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Letter to Mr. Smith
Page 2
these are not pollutants of concern, you may request in writing the removal
of these permit requirements.
• An annual effluent pollutant scan has been added to fulfill EPA's application
requirement for major municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Special
Condition A. (5.) of this permit details this requirement.
• Effluent limitations for cadmium, cyanide, mercury, and selenium will be
deleted from the permit based on analysis of submitted effluent data that
indicated that there is no reasonable potential for these parameters to
exceed the water quality standard. These parameters will be monitored
quarterly in the pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Plan.
• Effluent monitoring for silver will be deleted from the permit based on
analysis of submitted effluent data that indicated that there is no reasonable
potential for this parameter to exceed the North Carolina action level
standard. This parameter will be monitored quarterly in the pretreatment
Long Term Monitoring Plan.
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, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless
such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does
not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits, which may be required by
the Division of Water Quality, or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local
governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Asheville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Bobby Blowe/Construction Grants and Loans
EPA/ Region IV attn. Marshall Hyatt
PERCS/Jon Risgaard
Permit File
Central Files

Permit NC0025534
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Hendersonville
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Hendersonville Wastewater Treatment Plant
139 Balfour Road
Henderson County
to receiving waters designated as Mud Creek in the French Broad River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective June 1, 2006.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2010.
Signed this day April 19, 2006.
W. Klimek, P.E., Director
vision of Water Quality
Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0025534
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or
discharge are hereby revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit
bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to
operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions,
requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
City of Hendersonville is hereby authorized to:
I. Continue to operate an existing 4.8 MGD wastewater treatment system with the
following components:
♦ Influent pump station
• Dual mechanical bar screens
• Dual grit chamber
• Dual aeration basins
• Three centrifugal blowers,
• Dual clarifiers
• Recycle pump stations
♦ Dual effluent filters
• Ultraviolet disinfection
• Dual gravity thickeners
• Sludge dewatering
The facility is located at the Hendersonville Wastewater Treatment Plant, 139
Balfour Road, near Balfour, Henderson County, and
t11 girt- O
�
5 /�RG
2. Upon issuance f an Authorization to Construct permit from the Division of
Water Quail n d submission of the engineers certification for expansion,
operate a wastewater treatment facility up to a design flow of 6.0 MGD (Phase II
construction) , and
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the locations specified on the attached
map into Mud Creek, classified C .waters in the French Broad River Basin.

4.8 and 6.0 MGD Outfall
NC00025534 - City of Hendersonville
Latitude (4.8 and 6
Quad #;
Stream Class:
Receiving Stream:
Permitted Flow;
MGD discharge): 35°21' 11"
Longitude (4.8 and 6 MGD discharge): 82°27'52"
F9SW/Hendersonville
C
Mud Creek
4.8 and 6.0 MGD
Sub -Basin: 04-03-02
Berkeley
Ball P.
North
VAT
1117-491
City of Hendersonville
NC0025534
City of Hendersonville WWTP

Permit NC0025534
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginting on the effective date of this permit and lasting until
expansion above 4.8 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
I., . V rr. , -
c �:, "_x: � ��i •tl' 3
;;'.�-tpx� . � . �� ..'^Y•� rFei. fi „env : i�
f• "• j "%'. 4 m $ . " 23 :
.�? . °x „ -..s :� t�,.. �� �n�s.`� A ry.: f
' '',, :,�.� E
i� 'CS .r-
r ;rid"'
�
' aG :.
t�wy ,� ONIT ° ' I F "
f .#. �. r :. : tea c *
.� �
ai O `�
r� ' er if,g"��''�
. _ f . , 'r .•s
_ a2r -r.9k
' s n {� . ar7���
-�� {{,
�� ail
r� "iF „�A•
^�1•' 1.nl1
••�y�
�.d.i.k+? '
a�- C �}a�
`
_s.X
� r el
`
.� !.:�.aa.d ea !,•4i
'''• �' ���h�a�±�A: "
Flow
4.8 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day (202C)2
(April 1- October 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
.
BOD, 5-day (20QC)2
(November 1- March 31)
20.0 mglL
30.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
NH3 as N
(April 1- October 31)
2.0 mglL '
6.0 mg/L
•
Daily
Composite
E -
NH3 as N
(November 1- March 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
• E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature (2C)
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
E
pHs
Daily
Grab
E
Total Lead
34 µg/L
119 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Dieldrin7
•
Monthly
Composite
E
Dieldrins •
0.052 ug/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Pollutant Scan
Annually
See A. (5.)
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. E: Effluent, I: Influent, U: Upstream in Mud Creek above outfall; D: Downstream at NCSR 1365.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected
three times per week during June, July, August and September and once per week during the
remaining months of the year.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The total residual chlorine limit and monitoring requirements are only applicable if facility uses
chlorination for disinfection.
5. Whole effluenttoxicity will be monitored using the Pass/Fail Chronic Toxicity test with
Ceriodaphnia at 18%. See A. (3.).
6. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
7. Monitoring requirement may be deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.
8. Limitations will be effective eighteen months from issuance of the permit. These limits may be
deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts

Permit NC0025534
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning upon expansion above 4.8 MGD and lasting until expiration,
the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample _
Type
Sample Location1
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day (20°C)2
(April 1- October 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
BOD, 5-day (20°C)2
(November 1- March 31)
20.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
NH3 as N
(April 1- October 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N
(November 1- March 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature (9C)
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
E
pH6
Daily
Grab
E
Total Lead
34 µg/L
119 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Dieldrin'
Monthly
Composite
E
Dieldrine
0.042 ug/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Heptachlor?
Monthly
Composite
E
Heptachlor8
0.084 ug/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Pollutant Scan
Annually
See A. (5.)
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. E: Effluent, I: Influent, U: Upstream in Mud Creek above outfall; D: Downstream at NCSR 1365.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected
three times per week during June, July, August and September and once per week during the
remaining months of the year.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The total residual chlorine limit and monitoring requirements are only applicable if facility uses
chlorination for disinfection.
5. Whole effluent toxicity will be monitored using the Pass/Fail Chronic Toxicity test with
Ceriodaphnia at 21%. See A. (4.).
6. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
7. Monitoring requirement may be deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.
8. Limitations will be effective eighteen months from issuance of the permit. These limits may be
deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts

Permit NC0025534
A. (3.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) —4.8 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 18%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
February, May, August and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes. '
• •
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in.a failure- or ChV below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the
two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered -oh the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for .which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number,
county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area
of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the
address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed
no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NC0025534
A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) - upon
expansion above 4.8 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 21%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, uuarteriu monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Certodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
February, May, August and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the
two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition. of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number,
county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area
of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the
address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed
no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NC0025534
A.(5.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table
below (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall
represent seasonal (summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless
otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method
detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as provided by the appropriate
analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
0il and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodbromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR PPA1 or in a form approved
by the Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the
NPDES Unit at the following address: Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection
Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

J�ttED S14 .
Ark "3
02
q< PRO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JAN 2 3 2006
Ms. Jackie Nowell
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
Hendersonville WWTP - Permit No. NC0025534
Dear Ms. Nowell:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR NPDES MOA, we have completed review of the
draftpermitspecified above and have no comments or objections to its conditions. We request
that we be afforded an additional review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the
draft permit prior to issuance or if significant comments objecting to it are received. Otherwise,
please send us one copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable O1 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

Draft Permit review
Subject: Draft Permit review
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:17:54 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hi Jackie, I have reviewed NC0025534 - Hendersonville WWTP, and have no comments.
Thanks for forwarding it.
-John
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web Page: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1 2/14/2006 10:57 AM

Re: Staff Report for Waynesville (NC0025321)/Transylvania Co.
Subject: Re: Staff Report for Waynesville (NC0025321)/Transylvania Co.
From: Keith Haynes <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:34:21 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
David and I have talked about the 80% and are in agreement that it is no longer necessary. Otherwise,
"issue permit as drafted"! It is; however, in Haywood County!
Jackie Nowell wrote:
Keith Haynes wrote:
Before I respond with a "reissue permit as proposed" I think it would be a good idea to see a
draft. What say you?
Jackie Nowell wrote:
Keith Haynes wrote:
It would be mine. I have not seen a request for a staff report.
Jackie Nowell wrote:
Hey Keith,
Hope you're doing well. I am looking for a recent staff report on the Waynesville
WWTP. I don't know if its yours or not, I saw that you had done some inspections
on it in the past. If its not yours, could you let me know, who I should be
bugging? I would like to send it out to public notice next week.
Keith Haynes - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Okay, this is my formal request for a staff report for the Waynesville WWTP. Thanks,
4/12/2006 11:20 PM

Re: Staff Report for Waynesville (NC0025321)/Transylvania Co.
Jackie
Keith Haynes - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Ok, will forward you a "draft" draft permit...if you understand what I'm saying. Actual draft permit
that goes to notice may vary just a little, it has not been peer reviewed by an EEII as yet.
1. Note the inclusion of a TRC for 28 ug/1, that will become
effective 18 months after the the issuance of the permit.
2. Previous permit gave them 80% removal for BOD5 and TSS due to I&I
problems and SOC stipulations. This condition will be removed
since facility seems to be at 95% removal for these parameters now
and SOC no longer in effect. The Town has said that they will ask
that 80% removal remain in the permit. I told David Smith of the
Town that my data review for the last 2 years shows that they no
longer need it. Any input from the region on this issue?
3. Previous limits for cyanide, cadmium, mercury and nickel will be
dropped in this permit. My analysis showed no reasonable
potential to exceed wq standards. Should continue to monitor
quarterly for these parameters in the pretreatment LTMP.
Let me know if any comments. Will send this permit to notice on March 1.
Thanks
Jackie
Keith Haynes - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
2 of 3 4/12/2006 11:20 PM

PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617 •
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE
A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and application of NC General Statute
143.21, • Public law 92-500 and other lawful standards and regulations, the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to ISSUE
LI discharge NationalPollutant
totthhesperson(s)lilistedtion belowseffectem ive 45 days from athc
publish date of this notice. •
Written
afternthe publish date of this notice. sed All commt ents accepted be iprior is
permit date TheeDirectorrof in the thefinali Division ofnWater regarding
uality mayedecidestc
hold a public meeting for the proposed permit should the Division receive c
gignificant degree of public interest. •
trtodtisetnsupporting
information on
file used t
determine conditions present in the draft permit revailableupon requ se
fordir (format onfto the NC Division oof Water Quality at the ants boveor add esssor
callhethe Point permit numberh at (attached)3 in 8anyxcommunication. lnterestec
persons may also visit the Division of Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury
Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. tc
feview information on file.
the Town of Newland has applied for renewal of NPDES permit N00021857
for its wastewater treatment facility discharging to the North Toe 'River, c
C-Trout water in. the French Broad. River Basin. The facility is currently
permittedn10 discharge up to 0.32 MGD and, after expansion, 0.6 MGD. Am
Iced! This discharge maylimPact future allocation of the receiving quality
tream lim
Royal Oaks, Inc. (200 Golfwatch Road, Canton, NC 28716) has applied for
HaywoodoCounty. This facility Springdaleeatedomestic wastClub ewater is
the residual chlorine and fecal coliform are water d qualityBlimited in the per
knit. This discharge may limit future allocations in the East Fork Pigeor
River.'•
NPDES Permit Number NC0025534, City ofHendersonville, Hendersor
-314 County, has applied for renewal of its permit for a facility dischargins
treated domestic and industrial wastewater to Mud Creek in the .French'
proud River Basin. Currently BOD5, NH3, fecal coliform, dissolved oxy
gen, residual chlorine, lead, and other parameters are water quality lim
lied. This discharge may affect future allocations in this portion of the re
teiving stream.
The City of Hendersonville (305 Williams Street, Hendersonville, NC 28793)
has applied for renewal of permit NC0042277 for its WTP in Henderson
i,L' County. This permitted facility discharges filter -backwash wastewater tc
Brandy Branch in the French Broad River Basin. Currently total residua
chlorine is water quality limited. This discharge may affect future alloca
tions in this portion of the Brandy Branch.
28705)nhaseapplied for Board
of
Education
rmit (72 Ledger
for the T pton iH ll El
ementary School WWTP. This permitted facility discharges treated domes
4u tic wastewater toRaccoon Creek in the French Broad River Basin. Cur
rently ammonia nitrogen, fecal coliform and total resrdudi chlorine. are wa
ter quality limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in'this por
lion of Raccoon Creek.
The Mitchell County Board of Education (72 Ledger Road, Bakersvllle, NC
28705) has appliedfor renewal of permit NC0066737 for the Mitchell High
school WWTP. This permitted facility discharges treated domestic waste,
Melbned this 23rd, January 2006
L.W water to Cranberry Branch In the. French Broad River Basin. Current)cr
ammonia nitrogen,fecal coliform 'and total residual chlorine are wate
duality limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in this portior
)(the Cranberry Branch.
The. Town of Bakersvllle has applied for renewal off located NPDES
Permit
e
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SS.
NORTH CAROLINA
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly commissioned, qualified and
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared Cassandra Lohr, who, being first duly
sworn, deposes and says: that she is the Legal
,Billing Clerk of The Asheville Citizen -Times,
ngaged in publication of a newspaper known as
The Asheville Citizen -Times, published, issued,
and entered as second class mail in the City of
Asheville, in said County and State; that she is
authorized to make this affidavit and sworn
statement; that the notice or other legal
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached
hereto, was published in The Asheville Citizen -
Times on the following date:January 23, 2006 in
which said notice, paper, document or legal
advertisement were published were, at the time of
each and every publication, a newspaper meeting all
of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-
597 of the General Statues of North Carolina and
was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of
Section 1-597 of the General Statues of North
Carolina.
plan 4C0025481 for the Bakersville wastewater treatm
j•
Mitch
fIl County. This permitted facility discharges treated wastewater to Cane
:reek in the French Broad River Basin. Currently, total residual chlorine is
water quality limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in this
,ortion of the receiving stream.
The Town of Spruce Pine (P.O. Box 189, Spruce Pine, NC 28777) has appliec
This per•' worn to and subscribed before me the 23rd day of
for renewal of permit NC0082767 for its WTP in Mitchell County,
mitted facility discharges filter -backwash wastewater in Beaver Creek it
the French Broad River Basin. Currently total residual chlorineis wateranuary 2006
quality limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in this portion
of Beaver Creek.
The Town of Newland has appliedfor renewal of NPDES permit NC0021857
for its wastewater treatment facility discharging to the, North Toe River, c
',.) ,C-Trout water in the French Broad River Basin. The facility is currently
'monia-nitrogenrsand rtotalpres dual rchlorinedarelcurrentlY.water6qual tt. Alim
�lied. This discharge may impact future allocations of the receiving stream.
.{4 tuary 23, 2006
• (1933)
ure o
person making attitavit)
Mary Public)
Ala A
y Col mission expires the 3rd
2J08.
rn
?0.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NC0025534
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Hendersonville WWTP
Applicant Address:
PO Box 1760; Hendersonville, North Carolina 28739
Facility Address:
139 Balfour Road, Hendersonville, North Carolina
Permitted Flow
4.8 MGD and 6.0 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic and Industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Class IV/Active; Renewal
County:
Henderson County
_
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Mud Creek
Regional Office:
Asheville
Stream Classification:
C
NC Grid / USGS Quad:
F9SW/Henderson
303(d) Listed?
Yes
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
Subbasin:
04-03-02
Date:
1/18/2006
Drainage Area (mi2):
98
•
Lat. 35° 21 11" N Long. 82° 27' 52" W
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
34.9
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
46.8
30Q2 (cfs)
69.5
Average Flow (cfs):
186
IWC(%):
17.6(at4.8
MGD), 21.1 (at
6.0 MGD)
SUMMARY OF FACILITY INFORMATION AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
The City of Hendersonville has requested renewal of it NPDES permit. Since the last renewal
the Hendersonville WWTP has upgraded to a design flow of 4.8 MGD, with future plans to
expand to 6.0 MGD. The plant discharges into Mud Creek, a class C water in the FRB02
subbasin. The WWTP serves approximately 11,700 persons in the City of Hendersonville and
the Town of Laurel Park.
The Authorization to Construct permit for 4.8 MGD was issued in June 1999 with a
modification for additional equipment in May 2001. Construction to 4.8 MGD was completed in
March 2002. The construction included the relocation of the outfall further downstream of the
previous discharge point, which resulted in a larger drainage area and a higher 7Q10 flow.
Oxygen consuming limits for BOD5 = 10 mg/L (summer): 20 mg/L (winter), NH3 = 2 mg/1
(summer): 4 mg/L (winter), and Dissolved oxygen= 5 mg/1 were assigned upon the expansion to
4.8 MGD. The same limits will be applied at 6.0 MGD.
Hendersonville currently has an active pretreatment program with Long Term Monitoring Plan.
There is one non- categorical SIU and two CIUs. The pretreatment program is compliant and it
is recommended that the full pretreatment program be continued in the upcoming permitting
cycle.
RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION
Mud Creek is listed on the North Carolina 2003 303d list of impaired streams. The stream has
a fair or poor bioclassification at several DWQ monitoring sites and is impaired due to habitat
degradation from point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The upgrade and expansion of the
Hendersonville WWTP is now producing higher quality effluent discharging into the stream.
Several water quality initiatives and management strategies have been introduced to improve
Mud Creek.
Faci Shoot.
NPDES VCOO25S34 RLll wal

TOXICITY TESTING
Current Requirement: Chronic Toxicity P/F @ 18 %: FEB MAY AUG NOV
Upon expansion to 6.0 MGD: Chronic Toxicity P/F C@ 21 %: FEB MAY AUG NOV
The Hendersonville WWTP has a very good toxicity testing record. All toxicity tests from
February 2001 to October 2005 have been passed.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Overall compliance with existing limits is very good. Permit limit violations have occurred
infrequently.
2003: Flow violation in May (NOV issued), Fecal coliform in September
2004: Flow violation in September (due to Hurricanes Frances and Ivan).
Total Lead violations in July and August (NOV issued)
INSTREAM MONITORING
Upstream Site: Above the outfall; Downstream site: At NCSR 1365
A review of instream data during the critical months of April through October 2004 and 2005/
showed that overall water quality. Instream DO values are generally well above the water
quality standard of 5 mg/1 upstream and downstream of the Hendersonville WWTP. Instream
fecal coliform counts are often above the 200/100 mL monthly average, both upstream and
downstream of the WWTP. During a period from June through August 2005, upstream fecal
values ranged from 1450 to 1911 / 100m1. Corresponding downstream fecal values ranged from
700 to 940/ 100m1. It is recommended that instream monitoring be continued at the existing
frequency.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS :
A reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was performed for all monitored metals. Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) from January 2004 to October 2005 were reviewed for evaluation of
this facility. In addition, Priority Pollutant Analysis data submitted from February, May, and
August 2004 was reviewed. The results for the existing metals at 4.8 MGD and 6.0 MGD are
summarized in the table below.
Table 1: Results of Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for City of Hendersonville. A
check next to the metal indicates that reasonable potential exists.
DceRo tmafien�i?
Parameter
Qw = 4.8 MGD
gw = 6.0 MGD
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
4
,J
Copper
4
4
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
4
4
Cyanide
Mercury
Selenium
The existing NPDES permit limits are: Cadmium, Cyanide, Mercury, Selenium, and Lead
Also includes effluent monitoring for copper, zinc, and silver. See attached RPA results.
• The analysis of the following parameter did show reasonable potential to exceed both
the acute and chronic allowable concentrations. The maximum predicted concentration
was greater than the allowables and therefore the weekly average and a daily maximum
limits will remain in the NPDES permit at both wasteflows: Lead
• The analysis of the following parameters did show reasonable potential to exceed the NC
action level. Per NCDWQ procedure, no limit will be recommended and since there are
Fact Sheol.
NPDES `C0O25S34 Rci ;.a1
1'agc 2

no chronic toxicity problems, it is recommended that 2/month monitoring be continued
for these parameters: Copper and zinc.
• The analysis of the following parameters did not show reasonable potential to exceed the
acute or the chronic allowable concentrations. The maximum predicted concentrations
were less than the allowable and therefore no limit or monitoring in the NPDES permit
will be required. These parameters will continue to be monitored quarterly in
Hendersonville's pretreatment LTMP: Cadmium, cyanide, mercury, selenium, and
silver
• The following pesticides were detected in the 2004 PPA data submitted with the
application. A modified RPA was done due to the limited number of data points. The
pesticides detected were heptachlor, dieldrin, endosulfan, lindane, alpha BHC, and beta
BHC.
o For the pesticides where the actual data value(s) did not exceed the allowable
concentration, there will be no action taken. No monitoring or limit will be
recommended. The parameter will be sampled yearly during the required
pollutant scan: endosulfan, lindane, alpha BHC, beta BHC, and heptachlor at
4.8 MGD only.
• Endosulfan = 0.16 ug/1: allowable concentrations = 1.3 ug/1 at 4.8 MGD
and 1.05 ug/1 at 6.0 MGD
• Lindane = 0.052 ug/1: allowable concentrations = 0.260 ug/1 at 4.8 MGD
and 0.210 ug/1 at 6.0 MGD
• alpha BHC = 0.056 ug/1: allowable concentrations = 0.127 ug/1 at 4.8
MGD and 0.103 ug/1 at 6.0 MGD
• beta BHC = 0.082 ug/1: allowable concentrations = 0.442 ug/1 at 4.8
MGD and 0.357 ug/1 at 6.0 MGD
• Heptachlor= 0.079 ug/1 and 0.086 ug/1: allowable concentration = 0.104
ug/1 at 4.8 MGD
o For the pesticides where the actual data value(s) did exceed the allowable
concentration, a monthly monitoring schedule is recommended and limits will
become effective 18 months from the issuance date of the permit. The facility is
encouraged to aggressively determine the source of the pesticides. If prior to the
18 month date, it can be demonstrated that these are not pollutants of concern,
the facility may submit a written request for removal of the pesticide
requirement. The parameter will be sampled monthly with the 18 month
limitation schedule: dieldrin and heptachlor at 6.0 MGD only.
• Dieldrin = 0.064 ug/1: allowable concentrations = 0.052 ug/1 at 4.8 MGD
and 0.042 ug/1 at 6.0 MGD
• Heptachlor= 0.079 ug/1 and 0.086 ug/1: allowable concentration = 0. 084
ug/1 at 6.0 MGD
Additional data that was detected:
Bis 2 ethylhexyl phthalate, Three values ranging from 30 ug/1 to 38 ug/1: a
laboratory contaminant that is not present in Hendersonville effluent but is added
during the lab sampling process. No monitoring or limit will be required.
Aluminum (1.1 ug/1)- no monitoring or limit due to high concentration in NC soils.
Barium (0.016 ug/1) and chloroform (5.2 ug/1) - no monitoring or limit. These
parameters will be sampled annually in the effluent pollutant scans.
Fad :Shoo:
NPDES :NC'00 255 34 Ront v. al

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
• Summer and winter weekly average NH3 limits, 6 mg/1 and 12 mg/1, respectively, will
be given at 4.8 MGD and 6.0 MGD.
• An annual pollutant scan will be added to fulfill EPA's major municipal application
requirement
• Effluent limitations for cadmium, cyanide, mercury, and selenium will be dropped due
to no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard instream.
• Effluent monitoring for silver will be dropped due to no reasonable potential to exceed
the NC action level standard instream.
• An eighteen -month limitation schedule will be added to the permit for dieldrin and
heptachlor. Limits will become effective 18 months from the effective date of the permit.
Prior to the effective date of the limit, monthly monitoring will be given.
All other existing limits and monitoring requirements will remain, as is the
previous permit.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
January 18, 2006
Est. March 13, 2006
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact J kie Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
DATE: /.
2w(0
NAME: DATE:
!Fact
NPDES S NC002.5534 Ren' wal
rasa' 4

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Hendersonville WWTP
NC0025534
Time Period 1/2005-10/2005,1/2004-6/2004
Qw (MGD) 4.8
7010S (cfs) 34.9
7010W (cfs) 46.8
3002 (cfs) 69.5
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 186
Reeving Stream Mud Creek
WWTP Class 4
/WC (%) ® 7Q 10S 17.572
® 7Q10W 13.717
® 30Q2 9.6699
® OA 3.8462
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Qw = 4.8 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(I)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WW1 RFAY/
Chromic Acute
n !Dirt Wax Prod Cw A3owabraQv
Arsenic
NC
ug/L
0 0
WA_
Acute: N/A
50 a<
-
Chronic: 285
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: N/A
hro_ __
Cnic: 67.2--------------------------
-------
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
94 0
9.7
Acute: 15
.________----.--------------
Chronic: 11.4
All values below detection level. Recommend deletion of
limit. Continue quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LIMP.
Chromium
NC
50 1.022
ug/l
1 0
Note: n<12
Limited data
WA
set
Acute: 1,022
Ch_ ic: __2_5_
Ins _ffken_dat_to_d_r_ine_R__ecm_end co-ntinue_
monitoring in pretreatment LTMP
Copper
NC
7 Al. 7.3
ug/L
37 35
36.3
Acute: 7
Shows RP to exceed acute allowable.
Recommend continued 2/month monitoring in permit.
_ _ _
Chronic: 39.8
Cyantde
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
90 0
5.0•
Acute: 22
__ _____
Chronic: 28.5
____ __ ______
Alt values below detection level. Recommend deletion of
limit. Continue quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LTMP.
Fluoride
NC
1,800
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: N/A
_ _ ___ _ _
Chronic: 10,244
-_ -
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
88 7
805.0
Acute: 34
_ _ _ _
Chronic: 142.3
Shows RP to exceed acute and chronic allowable cores.
Recommend continuation of Omit
------------------.-----------
---
Mercury
NC
ug/L
73 67
0.0148
Acute: WA
_ _ _
Chronic: 0.0683
_ _-- _ _ --_ _ _ _ _ _---_ _
Shows no RP to exceed chronic allowable. Recommend
drop limit and monitor quarterly in pretreatment LTMP.
0.012 1>.0.0002
Molybdenum
A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: WA
_ _ __ _ _
Chronic: 89888INi8
- -•-----•--------------.---------
3.500 F
Nickel
NC
88 261
ug/L
3 3
Note: n<12
Limited data
57.5
set
Acute: 261
Shows no RP to exceed either allowable. Recommend
continued quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LTMP.
Chronic: 500.8
Phenols
A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: N/A
_ _ __ _ _-_---_-.-_-_-_-.-_-_-_-_-_
Chronic: 26.0
-.-
1 N -r
Setenium
NC
5.0 56
ugli.
92 4
6.8
Acute: 56
__ _________
Chronic: 28.5
_____ ____
Shows no RP to exceed chronic: allowable. Recommend
drop timlt and monitor quarterly in pretreatment LTMP.
Silver
NC
0.06 At. 1.23
ug/L
45 0
1.0
Acute: 1
Chronic: 0.34
All values below detection level. Recommend
continue quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LTMP.
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
37 36
174.0
Acute: 67
__ _______________-
Chronic: 285
__ ______
Shows RP to exceed acute allowable. Recommend
continued 2/month monitoring in permit.
'Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
" Freshwater Discharge
25534rpa2006, rpa
1/17/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Hendersonville WWTP
NC0025534
Time Period 1/2005-10/2005
Ow (MGD) 6
7010S (cfs) 34.9
7010W (cis) 46.8
3002 (cfs) 69.5
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 186
Rec'ving Stream MudCreek
WWTP Class 4
IWC (%) @ 7010S 21.041
® 7Q10W 16.578
® 3002 11.802
® QA 4.7619
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Qw=6MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWQS/ )IFAY /
Ch►ark Acub
n IDot MsxProd Cw Maws& Cw
Arsenic
NC
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: N/A
501.5‹
_ _ _•_ _ __
Chronic: 238
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: WA
_ _ __ _ —•
Chronic: 55.1—•---------•—•—•—•—•-----•—•---.—
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
94 0
9.7
Acute: 15
_ _ __ _ __
' Chronic: 9.5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Atl values below detection level. Recommend deletion of
limit. Continue quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LIMP.
Chromium
NC
50 1,022
ug/L
1 0
Note: n<12
Umtted data
WA
set
Acute: 1,022
_ _ __ _ __
Chronic: 238
_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _
lnsuittclent data to detemrHne RP. Recommend contlnued
monitoring in pretreatment LTMP
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
37 35
36.3
Acute: 7
Shows RP to exceed acute and chronic allowable.
Recommend continued 2/month monitoring in permit.
_ _
Chronic: 33.3
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
90 0
5.0
Acute: 22
__ ____
Chronic: 23.8
_ _____ _ _____
All values below detection level. Recommend deletion of
limit. Continue quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LTMP.
Fluoride
NC
1,800
ug/L
0 0
WA
Acute: N/A
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 8.555
~•—•—•---•-----•—•—•-------------
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
88 7
805.0
Acute: 34
_ _
ronic:. .—.
Chronic:18.8
Shows RP to exceed acute and chronic allowable cons.
Recommend continuation of limit
—•— —••—•—•—•—•—•—•---------•——• •—
Mercury
NC
ug/L
73 67
0.0148
N/A
__ •_____—___•
Chronic: 0.0570
_____ __—__
Shows no RP to exceed chronic atlowable. Recommend
drop limit and monitor quarterly in pretreatment LTMP.
0.012 ><0.0002
Molybdenum
A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: N/A
.—______________-----------------------
Chronic: itetll8rt*0
3.500 =
Nickel
NC
88 261
ug/L
3 3
Note: n<12
Limited data
57.5
set
Acute: 261
Shows no RP to exceed either allowable. Recommend
continued quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LTMP.
Chronic: 418.2
Phenols
A
ugfL
0 0
WA
Acute: WA
_ _ __ _ ____—•—•—_—•—•—•—.—•—•—
Chronic: 21.0
•—•—•—•—_—
1 N
Selenium
NC
5.0 56
ug/L
92 4
6.8
Acute: 56
__ ____
Chronic: • 23.8
__ _____ ___
Shows no RP t0 exceed chronic allowable. Recommend
drop limit and monitor quarterly in pretreatment LTMP.
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
45 0
1.0
Acute: 1
__ _______
' Chronic: 0.29
______ ___
All values below detection level. Recommend —•—•—•—
continue quarterly monitoring in pretreatment LTMP.
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
37 36
174.0
Acute: 67
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 238
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ —
Shows RP to exceed acute allowable. Recommend
continued 2/month monitoring in permit.
• Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
25534rpa2006.exp6. rpa
1/17/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
3
5
6
8
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanide
Data
Data BDL_112DL
Results
Date
Data
8DL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BOL4172DL
Results
1
Oc1.2005
. <.
0.5
Std Div.
0.9135
1
Ocl.2005
16
16.0
Sid Dev.
5.6750
1
Oct-2005
'
5
5.0
Std Dee.
0.0000
1
2
<
0.5
Moan
0.6968
2
17
17.0
Mean
13.5081
2
5
5.0
Mean
5.0000
2
3
0.5
C.V.
1.3110
3
20
20.0
C.V.
0.4201
3
Yi
5
5.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
4
<
0.5
n
94
4
23
23.0
n
37
4
<
5
5.0
n
90
4
5
<
0.5
5
19
19.0
5
<
5
5.0
5
6
<
0.5
Mutt Factor a
1.9400
6
16
15.0
Mutt Factor =
1.5600
6
<
5
5.0
Mutt Factor =
1.0000
6
7
e
0.5
Max Value
5.0 ugt
7
14
14.0
Max Val,*
23.0 ago.
7
c
5
5.0
Max. Value
5.0 ug2
7
e
0.5
Max Fred Cw
9.7 ug4.
8
20
20.0
Max Prod Cw
36.3 ug2
8
-':<;
5
5.0
Max Prod Cw
5.0 ug2
8
9
4
0.50
9
17
17.0
9
5 5
5.000
9
10
<
0.50
10
16
16.0
10
5
5.000
10
11
<
0.50
11
8
8.1
11
5
5.000
11
12
<
0.50
12
11
11.0
12
5
5.000
12
13
<
0.50
13
16
16.0
13
;;
5
5.000
13
14
c
0.50
14
12
12.0
14
" e.
5
5.0
14
15
<
0.50
15
t2
12.0
15
5
5.0
15
16
<
0.50
16
17
17.0
16
<
5
5.0
16
17
<
0.50
17
15
15.0
17
<
5
5.0
17
18
<
0.50
18
22
22.0
18
<
5
5.0
10
19
<
0.50
19
19
19.0
19
<
5
5.0
19
20
<
0.50
20
13
13.0
20
5
5.0
20
21
<
0.50
21
16
15.0
21
4
5
5.0
21
22
0.50
22
7
6.9
22
<:
5
5.0
22
23
e
0.50
23
i'
14
14.0
23
<
5
5.0
23
24
e
0.50
24
Jan-2004
2
1.0
24
<;
5
5.0
24
25
<
0.50
25
2
2.3
25
'.<
5
5.0
25
26
0.50
26
2
1.0
26
<"
6
5.0
26
27
<
0.50
27
_
8
7.7
27
<
5
5.0
27
28
<
0.50
28
6
5.8
28
<
5
5.0
28
29
c
0.50
29
7
7.4
29
5
5.0
29
30
<
0.50
30
12
12.0
30
<:
5
5.0
30
31
<
0.50
31
9-
7
6.6
31
<
5
5.0
31
32
0.50
32
'
13
13.0
32
<-i
5
5.0
32
33
c
0.50
33
13
13.0
33
<
5
5.0
33
34
0.50
34
19
19.0
34
5
5.0
34
35
. 0.50
35
19
19.0
35
5
5.0
35
36
<
0.50
38
Jun-2004
tea
16
16.0
36
<
5
5.0
36
37
0.50
37
18
18.0
37
a.
5
5.0
37
38
<
0.50
38
38
<
5
5.0
38
39
0.50
39
x
39
<
5
5.0
39
40
c
0.50
40
-
40
<
5
5.0
40
41
a
0.50
41
41
c
5
5.0
41
42
0.50
42
42
<
5
5.0
42
43
<
0.50
43
43
<.
5
5.0
43
44
<
0.50
44
44
h
5
5.0
44
45
<
0.50
45
45
a-
5
5.0
45
46
<
0.50
46
46
5
5.0
46
47
a
0.50
47
47
5
5.0
47
48
Od4004
< 13 5.00
48
48
5
5.0
48
49
< 13 5.00
49
iV
49
5
5.0
49
50
< 1) 5.00
50
50
5
5.0
S0
51
< 13 5.00
51
51
;4g
5
5.0
51
52
Aug-2004
c
OS0
52
52
'2?
5
5.0
52
53
OS0
53
53
5
5.0
53
54
4
0.50
54
54
5
5.0
54
55
c
0.60
55
55
5
5.0
55
56
< 2
1.00
56
56
5
5.0
56
57
e
0.50
57
57
`^ryi
5
5.0
57
58
4
0.50
58
58
5
5.0
58
59
0.50
59
{
59
5
5.0
59
60
c
0.50
60
60
psi
5
5.0
60
61
<
0.50
61
-
61
i
5
50
61
62
0.50
62
62
5
5.0
62
63
4
0.50
63
63
5
5.0
63
64
0.50
64
64
5
5.0
64
65
c
0.50
65
65c`
5
5.0
65
66
<
0.50
66
{
68
"
5
5.0
66
67
<
0.50
67
�£
67
5
5.0
67
68
<
0.50
68
68
5
6.0
68
69
<
0.50
69
69
5
5.0
69
70
<
0.50
70
70
*$'4
5
5.0
70
71
<
0.50
71
71
$;{
5
5.0
71
72
0.50
72
72
si
5
5.0
72
73
<
0.50
73
73
1%
5
5.0
73
74
<
0.50
74
74
5
6.0
74
75
<
0.50
75
75
'4
5
5.0
75
76
<
0.50
76
76
5
5.0
76
77
<
0.50
77
77
5
5.0
77
78
<
0.50
78
76
5
5.0
78
79
<
0.50
79
79
5
5.0
79
80
<
0.50
80
80
5
5.0
80
81
4
0.50
81
81
5
6.0
81
82
<
0.50
82
82
5
5.0
82
83
<
0.50
83
83
'
5
5.0
83
84
<
0.50
84
84
5
5.0
84
85
<
0.50
85
a5
5
5.0
a5
86
e
0.50
86
86
5
5.0
86
87
<
0.50
87
87
4
5
5.0
B7
88
4
0.50
88
88
5
5.0
88
89
c
0.50
89
89
$
5.0
89
90
<
0.50
90
90
5
5.0
90
91
0.50
91
91
91
92
<
0.50
92
-
92
92
93
<
0.50
93
93
93
94
4
0.50
94
94
94
95
95
95
a5
25534rpa20O8.eip8, data
1/17/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
9
11
13
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Date Date
8DLa1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL_1120L
Results
1
On-2005
0.0020
0.0020
Std Doe.
0.0016
1
Sep-2005 17
17.0
Sld Dev.
5.1316
1
2
0.0014
0.0014
Moen
0.0023
2
Ju12005 7
7.0
Mean
12.6667
2
3`_
0.0016
0.0016
C.V.
0.7070
3
Mar.2005 14
14.0
C.V.
0.4051
3
4
0.0023
0.0023
n
73
4
0
3
4
5
0.0039
0.0039
5
5
6
'
0.0010
0.0010
Mu0 factor:
1.6400
6
Mull factor =
3.3800
6
7
0.0023
0.0023
Max. Value
0.0090 use.
7
Max Value
17.0 uyL
7
8
0.0026
0.002e
Max Prod Cw
0.0148 uy4
8
Max Prod Cw
57.5 u0L
8
9
0.0020
0.0020
9
9
10
0.0000
0.0001
10
10
11
'
0.0019
0.0019
11
11
12
--
0.0011
0.0011
12
12
13
0.0010
0.0005
13
13
14
--
0.0010
0.0005
14
14
YINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN�n o�nNNNNNNNinNNN00NN ONOOON Nan NNNNNtV tV IV NtV {yNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
cJNNNNcJ N.�iN NtJNNNNNNIJCitVly ai �u of of ci oiri tVNNN1v {J C11��rv�i ui Cia ��ciN �iNN NN�iNNNtti tJ t�i ni ci t�i t�i tti wi tJ
elNiv V v'4VVYYVVVYVVvVVvV VYVVvvvV vVv Nvvrt .y
"s g
15
4 ;
0.0017
0.0009
15
15
16
41
0.0027
0.0027
18
16
17
0.0022
0.0022
17
17
18
;.
0.0028
0.0013
18
19
19
0.0025
0.0012
19
19
20
0.0018
0.0018
20
20
21
0.0021
0.0021
21
21
22
�?.;
0.0014
0.0014
22
22
23..
0.0014
0.0014
23
23
24
0.0026
0.0026
24
24
25
May.2005
-
0.0010
0.0005
25
25
26
0.0033
0.0033
26
26
27
0.0011
0.0011
27
27
28
09012
0.0012
28
28
29
0.0016
0.0018
29
29
30
0.0014
0.0014
30
30
31
-
0.0020
0.0020
31
31
32
0.0034
0.0034
32
32
33
0.0017
0.0017
33
33
34
Mar-2005
0.0055
0.0055
34
34
35
•.
0.0039
0.0039
35
35
36
'.
0.0050
0.0050
38
-"
36
37
0.0059
0.0059
37
37
38
..
0.0025
0.0025
38
'q=,
38
39
s
0.0013
0.0013
39
39
40
0.0013
0.0013
40
40
41
ss:
0.0075
0.0075
41
."
41
42
0.0071
0.0071
42
42
43
0.0013
0.0013
43
43
44
0.0013
0.0013
44
44
45
0.0015
0.0015
45
'-
45
46
0.0027
0.0027
46
48
47
Jun-2004
0.0090
0.0090
47
47
48
0.0018
0.0016
48
48
49
0.0013
0.0013
49
49
50
0.0015
0.0015
50
.
50
51
Jan-2004
kr
0.0015
0.0015
51
51
52
0.0016
0.0016
52
52
53
0.0013
0.0013
53
53
54
0.0027
0.0027
54
54
55
`_.
0.0022
0.0022
55
55
56
0.0026
0.0026
56
56
57
0.0028
0.0026
57
57
58
0.0018
0.0018
58
58
59
0.0017
0.0017
59
59
60
Y
0.0016
0.0016
80
60
61
'0
0
0.0020
0.0020
61
61
62
0.0038
0.0038
62
62
63
�.
0.0047
0.0047
63
10
63
64
i
0.0020
0.0020
64
64
85
'R��
0.0027
0.0027
65
65
66
--
0.0015
0.0015
se
66
67
0.0032
0.0032
67
67
68
0.0012
0.0012
68
68
69
0.0015
0.0015
69
69
70
0.0018
0.0018
70
70
71
$,�
0.0014
0.0014
71
71
72
0.0021
0.0021
72
72
73
0.0017
0.0017
73
73
74
74
+ :
74
75
75
75
76
76
lt
76
78
8
78
79
79
79
80
80
80
81
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
83
84
84
84
85
85
85
86
86
86
87
87
87
89
88
ea
89
5'
89
89
90
90
90
91
91
91
92
92
1
92
93
93
93
94
94
94
95
95
.,
95
25534rpe2006.em6. data
1/17/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
14
15
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Dato
Dala
BDLA/2M
Results
Data Data
BDL=172DL
Results
Date
Data
8DL-1/2DL
Results
01.1•2005
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.6574
1
Oct-2005 e 2
1.0
Std Day.
0.0000
1
Oc1.2005
64
84.0
Std Day.
19.8457
5
2.5
Mean
2.6554
2
e 2
1.0
Mean
1.0000
2
3
65
65.0
Mean
59.6216
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.2476
3
Nay.2005 < 2
1.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
Nov-2005
57
57.0
C.V.
0.3329
<
5
2S
n
92
4
c 2
1.0
n
45
4
73
73.0
n
37
<
5
2.5
5
2
1.0
5
64
64.0
5
2.5
Mu8 Fervor =
1.1600
6
Sep•2005 <
2
1.0
Mutt Factor .
1.0000
8
"
62
52.0
Wit Factor .
1.4600
<
5
2.5
Max Value
5.8 u9L
7
<
2
1.0
Max Value
1.0 ug/L
7
ti
40
40.0
Max Value
120.0 WI-
<
5
2.5
Max Pred Cw
6.8 ug/L
8
<
2
1.0
Max Pied Cw
1.0 u9/L
B
46
48.0
Mex Fred Cw
174.0 unit.
0
5
2.5
9
<
2
1.0
9
48
48.0
<.
5
2.5
10
e
2
1.0
10
tt§?:
81
81.0
5
2.5
11
Jun-2005 <
2
1.0
11
58
56.0
<
5
2.5
12
e
2
1.0
12
35
35.0
5
2.5
13
May-2005 <
2
1.0
13
May2005
Y'--.
52
520
5
25
14
<
2
1.0
14
110
110.0
<
5
2.5
15
<
2
1.0
15
-r
41
41.0
5
2.6
16
<
2
1.0
16
0g
51
51.0
5
25
17
<
2
1.0
17
56
56.0
<
5
2.5
18
c
2
1.0
18
59
59.0
5
2.5
19
<
2
1.0
19
59
59.0
5
2.5
20
<
2
1.0
20
50
50.0
5
2.5
21
<
2
1.0
21
v
56
56.0
<
5
2.5
22
<
2
1.0
22
120
120.0
5
25
23
<
2
1.0
23
53
53.0
51ay-2005
5
2.5
24
Dec-2004 <
2
1.0
24
*.
94
94.0
5
2.5
25
<
2
1.0
25
Jan-2004
68
66.0
<
5
25
28
c
2
1.0
26
64
64.0
5
5.1
27
e
2
1.0
27
76
76.0
6
5.8
28
e
2
1.0
28
10
5.0
<
5
2.5
29
<
2
1.0
29
86
86.0
<
6
2.5
30
<.
2
1.0
30
59
59.0
5
2.5
31
2
1.0
31
69
69.0
5
2.5
32
<
2
1.0
32
52
52.0
5
2.5
33
2
1.0
33
49
49.0
<
5
2.5
34
<
2
1.0
34
?/
65
65.0
5
2.5
35
2
1.0
35
_
53
53.0
5
25
36
2
36
t<=:
52
52.0
<
5
2.5
37
<
2
7.0
37
48
413.0
5
2.5
38
<
2
1.0
38
<
5
2.5
39
'4
2
1.0
39
<
5
2.5
40
<:
2
1.0
40
5
2.5
41
<'.
2
1.0
41
sT
5
2.5
42
2
1.0
42
5
2.5
43
2
1.0
43
5
2.5
44
<
2
1.0
44
5
25
45
<
2
1.0
45
5
2.5
46
46
Aug-2004
<
5
2.5
47
47,.
<
5
2.5
48
48
<
5
2.5
49
49
5
2.5
50
50
<
10
5.0
51
51
5
2.5
52
52
5
2.5
53
53
<
5
2.5
54
54
5
2.5
55
55
5
2.5
56
56
5
2.5
57
57
5
2.5
58
58
5
2.5
59
59
5
2.5
60
60
5
2.5
61
61
<
6
2.5
62
-
62
5
2.5
63
63
5
2.5
64
64
5
25
65
65
<
5
2.5
e6
66
5
2.5
67
67
5
2.5
68
68
5
2.5
69
69
6
2.5
70
70
5
2.5
71
71
b
2.5
72
72
5
2.5
73
73
5
2.5
74
74
5
25
75
75
5
2.5
76
76
<
5
25
77
77
5
5.1
7B
78
6
5.8
79
79
5
2.5
80
80
5
25
81
%rys
81
<
6
2.5
82
I;i
82
<
5
2.5
83
83
5
2.5
84
84
<
5
2.5
85
85
<
5
2.5
86
86
5
2.5
87
87
<
5
2.5
88
88
<
5
2.5
89
89
5
2.5
90
90
5
2.5
91
91
<
5
2.5
92
92
93
93
94
'f
04
95
.....
95
25534rpa2006.e;r6. data
1/17/2006

Facility Name
NPDES #
Ow (MGD)
7010s (cfs)
IWC (%)
eying Stream
Stream Class
hendersonville wwtp
nc0025534
6
186
4.76
Mud Creek
C
heptachlor
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
dieldrin
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
endosulfan
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
lindane
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
alpha BHC
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
beta BHC
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
0
FINAL RESULTS
Parameter =
Standard =
heptachlor
0.004
Ngn
TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter = dieldrin
Parameter= endosulfan
Parameter=
Standard = I 0.002l pgA Standard =1 0.051pgA Standard =
n BDL=1/2DLctual Data RESULTS
8/2004 1 0.079 0.079 Std Dev. 0.004949747
5/2004 2 0.086 0.086 Mean 0.0825
3 C.V. 0.059996939
4
5
6 Mult Faded
0.1204 ugli 7 Max. Value
0.084 ug/l 8 Max. Pred
0.086 9 Allowable (
10
0.8448 ugll 11
0.042 ug/l 12
0.064 13
14
2.112 ugA 15
1.050 ugA 16
0.16 17
18
0.6864 ugA 19
0.210 ugA 20
0.052 21
22
0.7392 ugA 23
0.103 ugA 24
0.056 25
26
1.0824 ugA 27
0.357 ug/l 28
0.082 29
30
1.41
0.086 pg/l
0.1204 pgA
0.084 pgA
n 3DL=1/2Dl tual Data RESULTS n 3DL=1/2Dkctual Dat RESULTS n
8/2004 1 0.064 0.064 Std Dev. #DIV/0! 5/2004 1 0.16 0.16 Std Dev. #DIV/01 5/04 1
2 Mean 0.064 2 Mean 0.16 2
3 C.V. #DIV/0! 3 C.V. #DIV/0! 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
6 Mult Factor) 13.21 6 Mult Facto 13.21 6
7 Max. Value 0.084 pg/1 7 Max. Value 0.16 pgA 7
8 Max. Pred ( 0.8448 pgA 8 Max. Pred t 2.112 pg/l 8
9 Allowable C 0.042 pg/ 9 Allowable C 1.05 pg/l 9
10 10 10
11 11 11
12 12 12
13 13 13
14 14 14
15 15 15
16 16 16
17 17 17
18 18 18
19 19 19
20 20 20
21 21 21
22 22 22
23 23 23
24 24 24
25 25 25
26 26 26
27 27 27
28 28 28
29 29 29
30 30 30
1/17/2006

I
lindane
0.011
TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter = alpha BHC
PO Standard = I 0.0049I pgll
3DL=1/2Dl\ctual Dab RESULTS
0.052 0.052 Std Dev. #DIV/0! 2/04 1 0.056 0.056 Std Dev. #DIV/01 2/04 1 0.082 0.082 Std Dev. #DIV/0!
Mean 0.052 2 Mean 0.056 2 Mean 0.082
C.V. #DIV/0! 3 C.V. #DIV/0! 3 C.V. #DIV/0!
4 4
5 5
Mult Facto 13.21 6 Mutt Facto 13.21 6 Mutt Factor! 13.21
Max. Value 0.052 pg/l 7 Max. Value 0.056 pg/I 7 Max. Value 0.082 pg/l
Max. Pred ( 0.6864 N91! 8 Max. Pred i 0.7392 pg/I 8 Max. Pred c 1.0824 pg/l
Allowable C 0.21 pg/i 9 Allowable C 0.10 pg/I 9 Allowable C 0.36 pg1
Parameter= beta BHC
Pat
Standard = I 0.0171 p9/! Si
n 3DL=1/2DActual Data RESULTS n 3DL=1/2DIActual Data RESULTS
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
1/17/2006

Facility Name
NPDES #
Qw (MGD)
7010s (cfs)
IWC (%)
,c'ving Stream
Stream Class
hendersonville wwtp
nc0025534
4.8
186
3.85
Mud Creek
C
heptachlor
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
dieldrin
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
endosulfan
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
lindane
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
alpha BHC
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
beta BHC
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
0
FINAL RESULTS
0.1204
0.104
0.086
0.8448
0.052
0.064
2.112
1.300
0.16
0.6864
0.260
0.052
0.7392
0.127
0.056
1.0824
0.442
0.082
Parameter =
Standard =
heptachlor
0.004
n BDL=1/2DLctual Data
8/2004 1 0.079 0.079
5/2004 a 0.086 0.086
3
4
5
6
ugf 7
ugf 8
9
10
ug/l 11
ug/l 12
13
14
ug/l 15
ug/t 16
17
18
ug/t 19
ugA 20
21
22
ugA 23
ugA 24
25
26
ugA 27
ugA 28
29
30
TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter= dieldrin
Parameter= endosulfan Parameter=
Standard = I 0.0021Ng/ Standard = I 0.05I pg/l Standard
RESULTS n 3DL=1/2Dbtual Data RESULTS n 3DL=1/2Dkctual Dat RESULTS n
Std Dev. 0.004949747 8/2004 1 0.064 0.064 Std Dev. #DIV/01 5/2004 1 0.16 0.16 Std Dev. #DIV/0! 5/04 1
Mean 0.0825 2 Mean 0.064 2 Mean 0.16 2
C.V. 0.059996939 3 C.V. #DIV/01 3 C.V. #DIV/0! 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
Mull Facto,' 1.41 6 Mult Factor) 13.21 6 Mult Factor 13.21 6
Max. Value 0.086 pgA 7 Max. Value 0.064 Ng/i 7 Max. Value 0.16 pg/l 7
Max. Pred . 0.1204 pgA 8 Max. Pred ( 0.8448 Ng4 8 Max. Pred t 2.112 pgA 8
Allowable ( 0.104 pgA 9 Allowable C 0.052 pg/l 9 Allowable C 1.30 Ng/! 9
10 10 10
11 11 11
12 12 12
13 13 13
14 14 14
15 15 15
16 16 16
17 17 17
18 18 18
19 19 19
20 20 20
21 21 21
22 22 22
23 23 23
24 24 24
25 25 25
26 26 26
27 27 27
28 28 28
29 29 29
30 30 30
1/17/2006

lindane
0.011
TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter = alpha BHC Parameter = beta BHC Par
pgli Standard =1 0.00491p9/I Standard = MEM Ng/I Si
3DL=1/2Dlkctual Data RESULTS n IDL=1/2DActual Data RESULTS
0.052 0.052 Std Dev. #DIV/0! 2/04 1 0.056 0.056 Std Dev. #DIV/0!
Mean 0.052 2 Mean 0.056
C.V. #DIV/0! 3 C.V. #DIV/0!
4
5
Mult Factor 13.21 6 Mult Facto,
Max. Value 0.052 N9/1 7 Max. Value
Max. Pred ( 0.6864 Ng/I 8 Max. Pred
Allowable C 0.26 RA 9 Allowable
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
13.21
0.056 Ng/l
0.7392 NgA
0.13 NgA
n 3DL=1/2DIActual Data RESULTS
2/04 1 0.082 0.082 Std Dev. #DIV/0!
2 Mean 0.082
3 C.V. #DIV/0!
4
5
6 Mutt Facto 13.21
7 Max. Value 0.082 pg/I
8 Max. Pred 1 1.0824 pg/I
9 Allowable C 0.44 Ng/1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1/17/2006

r4luw 4-vrit• Y-r°wt
Z vo
Osd.i4?00retyi 6
1-) L y; 8ti1:cJ
e-- 6i°M J
Facility: hendersonville
NPDES#: nc0025534
Receiving Stream: mud creek
Comment(s):
gage number not available
Low Flow Record Station Number:
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Qave per Report Equation:
s7Q10 per Report Equation:
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
30Q2 per Report Equation:
03.4470.0000
HA1 0
110
198.00 cfs
40.00 cfs
53.00 cfs
79.00 cfs
must be < 400 sq. miles
98.00 sq. miles
1.9
186 cfs
30.41 cfs
44.53 cfs
64.05 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 0.89 : 1
[ new DA / Da at gage Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.85 : 1
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
98.00 miles squared
1.9
186 cfs
34.88 cfs
46.83 cfs
69.46 cfs

OFFICERS:
Fred H. Niehoff. Jr.
Mayor
Ron Stephens
Mayor Pro-Tem
Chris A. Carter
City Manager
January 24, 2005
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
"The City of Four Seasons"
NC DENR/Water Quality/Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn: Mrs. Valery Stevens
Subject: Renewal Application Permit NC0025534
Hendersonville WWTP
4.8 & 6.0 MGD
Henderson County
Dear Mrs. Stevens:
CITY COUNCIL:
BARBARA VOLK
MARY Jo PADGETT
RON STEPHENS
JON LAUGHTER
The NPDES permit referenced above will expire on December 31, 2005. In compliance with Federal (40CFR 122) and state (15A
NCAC 2H.0105(e)) regulations, enclosed is the application for renewal of the City of Hendersonville's NPDES permit. EPA forms 1
and 2A are enclosed, as are required maps, priority pollutant analyses and required toxicity tests results.
The City of Hendersonville currently holds a permit containing limitations for 4.8 mgd and 6.0 mgd. By application, the City of
Hendersonville desires to renew the permit with both sets of limitations.
The City holds a current permit for disposal of Class A residuals by land application. The City is currently not operating under this
permit but is disposing of excess residuals by hauling dewatered sludge for disposal at a class D lined landfill located in South
Carolina.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 828-697-3011.
Sincerely,
ee Smith
Water & Sewer Utilities Director
City of Hendersonville
z
Cc: file
Enclosure: NPDES Renewal Application
Hendersonville WWTP
F " if1 7')5
145 Fifth Avenue East
Hendersonville. NC 28792-4328
P.O. Box 1670
Hendersonville. NC 28793-1670
www.cityofhendersonville.org
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Table 7 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-02
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption
Recreation
Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting
201.5 mi
T 0.0
68.3 mi
0.0
Impaired
74.6 mi
0.0
8.2 mi
0.0
Not Rated
60.6 mi
12.0 ac
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
336.7 mi
12.0 ac
0.0
76.5 mi
0.0 ac
0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting
150.7 mi
0.0
0.0
68.6 mi
325.9 ac
Impaired
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Not Rated
181.9 mi
30.8 ac
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Data
274.3 mi
397.6 ac
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
867.1 mi
440.4 ac
0.0
Total
606.9 mi
428.4 mi
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
867.1 mi
440.4 ac
68.6 mi
325.9 ac
Totals
All Waters*
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
68.6 mi
325.9 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
2.3.1 Mud Creek Watershed
Mud Creek [AU# 6-55c and d]
2000 Recommendations
Mud Creek was Impaired due to habitat degradation from point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. Nonpoint sources included urban and stormwater runoff as well as agricultural land
use. The Hendersonville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was operating under a Special
Order of Consent (SOC) during the 2000 basin plan. The facility was under construction to
increase its flow capacity and was meeting the effluent limits of the SOC. Local agencies were
to assist in providing technical assistance and financial support for best management practices
(BMPs) associated with a local dairy operation. Land -of -Sky Regional Council of Governments
was to form a stakeholder group that was to develop an implementation plan to improve the
water quality throughout the watershed.
Current Status
Mud Creek, from Little Mud Creek to the French Broad River (13.2 miles), is currently Impaired
because of Poor or Fair bioclassification at sites B-4, SB-17, SB-18, SB-55, and F-1. Additional
Chapter 2 - French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 18

sites at SB-22 and SB-23 are Not Rated (1.9 miles) and Not Impaired (2.7 miles) because data
from these sites were inconclusive or too small to rate.
Most of the data collected in this watershed during the assessment period was part of the DWQ
Watershed Assessment and Restoration Program (WARP) funded by the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). This intensive survey collected the following data: benthic
macroinvertebrate; stream habitat assessment; morphology and riparian zone condition; water
quality sampling to evaluate stream chemistry and toxicity; and characterization of watershed
land use, conditions and pollution sources (NCDENR-DWQ, October 2002b). The study area
included the Mud Creek watershed and its major tributary streams (discussed below).
The study found that aquatic organisms in the creek are impacted by toxicity, habitat
degradation, storm flow scour from urban areas, and widespread stream degradation. Pesticides
and urban toxicants are thought to be the cause of toxicity. Channelization, lack of riparian
vegetation, and upland sedimentation are all potential causes of habitat degradation. Nutrient
overloading is also widespread. The biological community may also have been adversely
impacted by a four-year drought (1998 to 2002), although nonpoint source runoff impacts may
have been minimized during this time.
A group of local stakeholders have organized as the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council.
This group has developed a watershed plan and is moving into the implementation phase with
the support of a full-time watershed coordinator housed at the Henderson County Cooperative
Extension Service Center (NCCES). Working with the council, the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) helped develop a local watershed plan. The plan identifies sources of habitat and
water quality impacts and makes recommendations to address these issues. Refer to Current
Water Quality Initiatives for more information.
Hendersonville WWTP completed construction activities in March 2002. The newly constructed
aeration facility is producing high quality effluent. The SOC has been removed and the facility
is currently meeting its operating limits.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Mud Creek watershed to study the causes of
toxicity. Management strategies were developed as part of the WARP study, and DWQ
recommends that the following strategies be implemented:
• Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the developed portions of the watershed.
• A program to address toxic inputs from developed areas should be created and
implemented including source reduction and stormwater treatment methods.
• Stream channel restoration activities.
■ BMPs to prevent pesticides from entering streams, including practices applicable to
apple orchards.
■ BMPs to minimize livestock access to streams.
• Post -construction stormwater management strategies, especially in rapidly developing
areas, should be developed by Henderson County or the local municipality.
Chapter 2 — French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 19

• Henderson County should develop local sediment and erosion control programs or
NC Division of Land Resources (DLR) should refine its present program, with
specific provisions to address smaller sites and road and site development on steep
slopes.
• A watershed education program should be developed.
DWQ encourages the efforts of the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council and will partner
with them as they implement management strategies in the watershed.
Water Quality Initiatives
Several water quality initiatives are underway throughout the Mud Creek watershed. Henderson
County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) in conjunction with the NRCS has closed
three abandoned animal waste systems; installed 19 agrichemical handling facilities; converted
70 acres of conventional till vegetables to no -till farmland; purchased two precision sprayers to
reduce pesticide over spray; installed 2,663 feet of fence to exclude livestock; and installed five
watering tanks. Over $600,000 of funds from EQIP and the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program
(NCACSP) was spent to install the BMPs. The district is currently seeking additional funds to
purchase more precision sprayers and to examine the use of pheromone mediating mating
disruptors.
In addition to the local SWCD, the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council was formed and
consists of a diverse group that strives to improve and protect water quality throughout the Mud
Creek watershed. The council has developed management strategies grouped into the following
four categories: 1) stormwater; 2) nonpoint source pollution from agricultural activities; 3)
habitat degradation; and 4) upland sources of sediment (Mud Creek Watershed Restoration
Council, April 2003). Goals and objectives for each of these categories are listed below.
(1) Stormwater: Strategies are listed to address the volume, velocity and quality of post -
construction runoff from existing and future roads and commercial and residential
development.
• Educate citizens and businesses on stormwater issues and BMPs; create an awards
program.
• Develop or refine stormwater management and floodplain development ordinances.
• Reduce impervious surfaces that create stormwater runoff and pollution; review
building codes for low impact development opportunities.
(2) Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agricultural Activities: Strategies are listed to reduce
pesticides, nutrients, sediment, and bacteria and other agriculture related nonpoint source
pollution.
• Promote innovative pest management practices to minimize pesticide drift.
• Work with willing landowners to stabilize streams, establish vegetative buffers, and
implement animal waste practices.
Chapter 2 — French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 20

(3) Habitat Degradation: Strategies include those that improve aquatic habitat needed by
aquatic organisms to survive and reproduce in a stream. The recommendations address the
causes of habitat degradation including sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of
riparian vegetation, loss of riffles or pools, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour (i.e.,
flow that washes away habitat).
• Restore the most critically eroding streams and restore native vegetation along all
streams.
• Educate landowners about the importance of riparian buffers.
• Protect high priority wetlands and riparian buffers in the watershed.
(4) Upland Sources of Sedimentation: Strategies also include those that reduce sediment
pollution from construction activities and unpaved roads and driveways.
• Consider the benefits of a local sediment and erosion control program.
• Educate excavators and the public about how to control erosion.
• Reduce sediment pollution from unpaved roads, eroding roadbanks and roadside
ditches.
Land use/cover information for the watershed was determined using 2001 aerial photography
with an Integrated Pollution Source Identification (IPSI) system developed by the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA). IPSI is a geographical information database that utilizes a number of
physical factors to aid in identifying and prioritizing issues affecting water quality. From IPSI, it
was determined that 45 percent of the land area is forest; 25 percent is used for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes, and 23 percent consists of agricultural use including row
crops, orchards, and cattle and horse pastures. Significant channelization and floodplain
alteration has occurred throughout the watershed during the last 150 years. Woody debris is
sparse, and the aquatic habitat is generally poor throughout the watershed. Without appropriate
water quality protection, increasing urbanization in the watershed will likely exacerbate existing
water quality problems. For additional information on local water quality initiatives in the Mud
Creek watershed and contact information, refer to Chapter 16.
Because of the water quality problems noted throughout the Mud Creek watershed, it has been
identified by NCEEP as one of 28 local watersheds in the basin with the greatest need and
opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. A local watershed plan was completed in
2003 and incorporated into the management strategies listed above. NCEEP is initiating two
wetland restoration projects (totaling 15 acres) and one 2,000 linear foot stream restoration
project in the Mud Creek watershed. Construction will begin in 2005. For a copy of the local
watershed plan, visit www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Mud Creek/mudcreek.htm.
Bat Fork [AU# 6-55-8-ib]
2000 Recommendations
Bat Fork was Impaired due to habitat degradation from nonpoint source inputs including
agriculture as well as urban and nonurban development. Bat Fork could benefit from local
initiatives that might include the formation of a citizens group to conduct stream cleanup efforts,
assess the watershed for specific pollution sources, and identify possible solutions to nonpoint
sources of pollution. Local agencies could pursue funding opportunities to reduce nonpoint
Chapter 2 — French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 21

)1;%/a/
.e004-,4 dig/if
do O79
0,0.6)6
Calfi.✓ 0,Oi:`f
0,1'40
/,Nd4.e, CO$ 2
Se/c- Qr VCR`''
Cal o e2-
,75'
)c/uf
30sty lie
a (0/6
.4X141e't
4%%IAI/ r.;
i©yam
ff
�3 j/e
Uzc'[/-�
04'
ff v /r
;e z741)1

1ql i, N gock!C(1)4 u 1 6 E/44 (
A/uiv4s-v7
Modeling unit response to July 16, 2002 memo from Roy Davis regarding re-evaluation of the Mud
Creek effluent management strategy in the French Broad.
Notes
Roy Davis argument:
Requirement of 10 mg/L BOD5 and 2 mg/L NH3-N for new Mud Cr. discharged should be lifted.
Doesn't know for sure why limits tightened several years ago. Assumes limits based on modeling
since they are more stringent that what secondary treatment would yield.
Problem assumed to be taken care of by update of Hendersonville plant in recent expansion.
Recommends that DWQ modify the effluent requirement policy and drop it from the next basin
plan.
Suggests that limit requirements close to Hendersonville may remain at 10 & 2.
Recommends that we apply limits based on local hydrologic zones and not zone of influence (lower
Mud Cr. where DO problems have occurred).
Septic tank permit denied for owner in upper Mud Cr. Had permit at one time, but allowed it to
expire. Reapplication denied because of unspecified siting rules change. Has examined
alternatives but results of this not reported. Says that lot in question is "several miles" from
where DO problems observed.
Listed for turbidity and fecal coliform (actually, this is incorrect. Mud Cr. is listed for turbidity and a
biological impairment, not fecal coliform anymore).
Talked to Andrea and Mike from WARP and says that oxygen consuming is not a problem in upper
Mud Creek.
Initial thoughts:
Jackie's document makes a good point that limits were developed based on modeling of the whole
watershed after DEW realized an over -allocation existed. (Is there a Level B and a Qual2e
for Mud Cr. - both referenced).
I checked with Andrea on their work and she said that DO does not appear to be a problem in the
upper watershed, but still is in the lower watershed. Nutrients have been a problem in the
upper watershed, but reclamation of a poorly managed dairy farm in the last year may have
rectified that. Will check on 2002 data and get back to us. Generally says that the watershed
"doesn't need more abuse and would rather not see another point source go in".
I agree with Jackie that someone did work on this and set a policy that has not been fully
implemented. Hendersonville has room left to expand according to their permit. The guy
had a septic permit and didn't act on it.
The question is: should we check the models for this one small discharge?
I don't know where the models are for one. Also, Roy would need to get more particulars in
terms of location and quantity of discharge expected.
The watershed has a biological impairment and needs less pollutant loading, not more.
My recommendation is to deny the request to change the policy for the time being. I don't think it
is worth our effort to run the models given the whole picture (biologically impaired
watershed, Hendersonville current flow under permitted flow, landowner slacked on
previous septic permit).

Response to June 16, 2002 memo from Roy Davis' regarding re-evaluation of the Mud
Creek management strategy in FRB.
-Strategy was based on discovery of over -allocation of effluent limits for dischargers to Mud
Creek. Level B model results predicted DO violations at the mouth of Mud Creek with all
dischargers at permitted loads (i.e. existing limits). This included Hendersonville @ 6.0
MGD and at its existing location in Mud Creek above the confluence of Clear Creek. Even
with the removal of some discharges via connection to the Hendersonville WWTP, the
QUAL2E model still predicted DO violations in Mud Creek.
Roy argues that with the relocation and upgrade of the Hendersonville facility, we may need
to look at changing the strategy of giving all new and expanding dischargers 10/2/5 limits per
the Mud Creek strategy. New facilities that are some distance from the Hendersonville
WWTP and other dischargers included in the model, may need to be afforded some leniency
in their limits. But this would probably require a review of the QUAL2E model and the
inclusion of new dischargers to see how it impacts the model results.
Data review:
Checked instream monitoring data — there have been no violations of the DO standard in the
monthly average values for the past two years. There was one exceedance with an upstream
DO value of 4.7 mg/I in June 2001. The monthly average values for all upstream fecal
coliform has exceeded the 200/100m1 limit since 2000. However, there were only three
exceedances of the fecal coliform standard downstream of the outfall and they all occurred in
2000. There have been no fecal coliform exceedances since July 2000.
My thoughts:
In my experience, whenever DWQ has developed a management strategy for a watershed or
basin, we have never ignored or deviated from the recommended strategy. In the case of the
Mud Creek strategy, Hendersonville has not expanded to 6 MGD yet and this is the
wasteflow that was included in the QUAL2E modeling effort. In the past couple of years,
the stream may have been at 7Q10 and the recommended management strategy limits may
still be appropriate. The strategy did cover the entire watershed, which may have been too
broad, BUT it is in place and has been adopted and followed by DWQ up to this point.
I don't think that enough time has passed for the strategy to be scrapped in its entirety.
Hendersonville has been under SOC for a couple of years. Just recently, the Hendersonville
plant completed its expansion and upgrade to a wasteflow of 4.8 MGD. This is still less than
the 6.0 MGD that was addressed in the Mud Creek strategy and there still appear to be
several individual dischargers in the Mud Creek/Clear Creek watersheds. Mud Creek is
listed on the 303d for fecal and TSS, even though these could be from nonpoint sources. I'm
not sure that we should eliminate the strategy especially since we have not seen the effects of
the expanded Hendersonville WWTP on Mud Creek.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regiovaal Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
WATER QUALITY SECTION
July 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Coleen Sullins, Chief
Water Quality Section
THROUGH: Forrest Westall
Water Quality Regio
FROM: Roy Davis
Environmental Engineer
ervisor
ORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
RONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT: Section Policy Regarding Effluent Limits for
New and Discharges to Mud Creek
French Broad River Basin
The time has arrived to consider changing the Water Quality Section policy
regarding establishing effluent limits for new discharges of treated
wastewater into Mud Creek. The Water Quality Section has for several years
had a policy of imposing a BOD5 limit of 10 mg/1 and an NH3-N limit of 2
mg/1 for any new or expanded discharge anywhere in the Mud Creek drainage
in the French Broad River Basin. I rather suspect that we tightened down
on the discharge of oxygen consuming waste because of possible DO problems
in Mud Creek below the City of Hendersonville's WWTP which would place the
problem near its mouth. The Mud Creek drainage stretches for a distance of
approximately fifteen miles from its mouth, in a southerly direction, to a
point near the Transylvania County line. Our policy has been that no
matter how far removed from the problem segment new and expanded discharges
would receive very tight limits on oxygen consuming waste.
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville North Carolina 28801 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/l0% post -consumer paper

Coleen Sullins
Memorandum
July 15, 2002
Page Two
Hendersonville has a permit to discharge treated wastewater to Mud Creek
approximately five miles above the point where Mud Creek enters the French
Broad River. Hendersonville finished construction of its new 4.8 MGD WWTP
on March 26 of this year. Final limits became effective on the last
day of June, 2002. I have to assume that these final limits are based upon
modeling and are more stringent than secondary limits (BOD5-10 mg/1 summer
and 20 mg/1 winter, NH3-N 2 mg/1 summer and 4 mg/1 winter) in order to
correct downstream DO problems. With the completion of the new WWTP and
compliance with final limits.we will have addressed the DO problem in Mud
Creek associated with the permitted discharge of wastewater in this section
of the stream. With the next version of the French Broad River Basin Plan,
it is time to modify our policy regarding establishing effluent limits for
new and expanded discharges in the Mud Creek Basin. In fact, so that we
are riot placed in a position of having to explain to potential new
dischargers that we are proposing to impose more stringent limits than
secondary in response to a problem that was associated with the
Hendersonville WWTP, we should modify the policy immediately and then drop
it from the next French Broad River Basin Plan.
For proposed discharges of wastewater in close enough proximity to the
Hendersonville point of discharge, it makes sense to restrict the discharge
quality to be consistent with the Hendersonville limits. This is true in
a couple of ways. First, the possibility of having a measurable effect on
the DO profile of Mud Creek is much greater if the proximity of a new
discharge actually influences the oxygen consuming load to the segment
(this "zone of influence" could be established through some modeling
analysis). Second, if a new discharge is near the Hendersonville sewer
service area, we would want to encourage connection to the system rather
than promoting the proliferation of package plants in the county.
Because of the size and scope of the Mud Creek drainage, it will not be
possible to accommodate all development economically or environmentally
through the Hendersonville wastewater collection system. In these "remote"
sections of the basin, the effluent limits shouldbe set to meet the water
quality standards within the "local" hydrologic zone and the assimilative
capacity there, not the situation near the mouth of Mud Creek. Our policy
on establishing effluent limits in the Mud Creek watershed should be
directed at specific water quality issues and it should be fair to all
potential users of the water. We do need to encourage "regionalization" of
wastewater management, but the reality of geographical limitations needs to
be considered as well.
For example, I am now in conversation with the owner of a lot toward the
head of Mud Creek which has been turned down by the Henderson County Health
Department for a conventional septic tank -drain field system to serve a
proposed home. He has examined all alternatives, including the acquisition
59 Woodfm Place, Asheville North Carolina 28801 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

• 0
Coleen Sullins
Memorandum
July 15, 2002
Page Three
of additional land to develop an on -site system. In fact, this site was
originally approved by the County Health Department, but the permit
expired. Because siting rules have changed since that initial permit, a
new permit could not be approved. Today, due to the current policy, I am
forced to tell him that he must apply for an individual NPDES Permit for
his few hundred gallons of sewage. Typically, this site would be eligible
for the use of a general, septic tank/sand filter system, but because such
a system cannot achieve the limits required by the current policy, a
general permit is not an option. Generally, the ARO doesn't support the
use of these permits, but in cases of "pre-existing" lots with no other
options, the general permit is the only way to allow owners to use their
property (provided there is a receiving• stream of sufficient size
available). An individual permit is not economically or environmentally
supportable because, if issued, would contain limits more stringent than
secondary limits, require an ORC and self monitoring. His lot is several
miles upstream from the Mud Creek segment where DO problems have not been
observed.. ,
According to the May, 2000 French Broad River Basin Plan, Mud Creek is
classified as non -supporting due to turbidity and fecal coliform. The
action I am proposing is in no way related to the problems described in the
Basin Plan. As further background I would note that Andrea Leslie and
Mike McDonald in the WQ Section are involved in a two year study to
determine why Mud Creek is in the shape that it is in and what can be done
to improve the situation. In my conversations with them, I am not hearing
that oxygen consuming waste is in anyway a problem.
Thank you for your consideration. I will be glad to discuss this with you
or any of the WQ staff that helped develop the existing limitation policy
on Mud Creek.
xc: Darlene Kucken
Dave Goodrich
Laurie Moorehead
MUD CREEK1.02V2, TXTRMD
tl 2°-
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville North Carolina 28801 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

7C re.„„el /1(,)Cv6LA
- otak`/ZX 3.63Z 7,h7j, �l �t`7•�
l/ l •� . �� l.✓,e,47ct 4 l-0lYm 2 A-(44/rf-ve-/--
/T-l#0.
Ci£E(6. /SS
13,,Apk_ ps
363 �
... 79)(61 3 ! ,
1 QW % /7, ` c6

Icc
6.7 /u 3�3�
SiL/36s�
AAA,
6. 7 24• s' 'Z
S�d 7, 3 /6• / `/L 7 7 / . 5- /S Y
i$ z 7, 9 i 7 /Y/ 8, / /� s c s`
'60/ A5-- // y 2/0 E 8,S.- /2,/ SZ
7/6/ 7, / /7,
3 93 7, L /9. y /SG
f/o( ( Zl, o 3S' &.3 7-1..s /Zs'
7/6/
6/6,
c.S Zo,a 339
G. 6 l9,
576/ 7,3 l6, y y9 y
t`7 / Y /3• $-
z v7
(6706 it IZ,L Z/7
yea a 7. 0 /7. 7 y6u
81/oi (9.L Z0
7(0 6 to. / Zo,
6/0u 6.5" 2v.2 YY7.
.7"cd 7 /a s' 3?8
woo 4' /Z. 6 ,? o F
Y . /3,/ 73
7, / 78,3 / 3 y
6 /66
6./ 2/,3 3o5
6, Z zd, 7 5 3
7,0 (7,3 /9."
S.
cAdc

f7 llia'703-1,e2 C.JA✓/i
Urt)/ A
/7/
Z/J/ 2,72/7
3/0/ 3, del/
Y7( Z,77Y7
0/ .2,07/
6/6 l 2, 68 .5Y
7/ i L. 7 V9.3
86 I •3, U Z Z.�'
D1r2,,C.7:3zfrt��
ZoQ2. Su,

Permit Versi Facility County Region Outfafl Month Day Year Comment Parameter Sample UoM Value Modifie CeII Type Loc
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 1 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 4.192 RPDLYMAX EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 1 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 2.436 RPDLYMIN EFF -
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 1 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 2.949 RPMONAVC EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 2 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 3.618 RPDLYMAX EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 2 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 2.37 RPDLYMIN EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 2 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 2.767 RPMONAVC EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 3 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 3.944 RPDLYMAX EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 3 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 1.254 RPDLYMIN EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 3 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Estimate mgd 2.939 RPMONAVC EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 4 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Recorder mgd 2.896 RPDLYMAX EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 4 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Recorder mgd 1.959 RPDLYMIN EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 4 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Recorder mgd . 2.391 RPMONAVC EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 5 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Recorder mgd 3.078 RPDLYMAX EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 5 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Recorder mgd 2.01 RPDLYMIN EFF
NC0025534 1.00 City of Hendersonville - Her Henderson Asheville 001 5 2002 50050 - Flow, in conduit or thru Recorder mgd 2.52 RPMONAVC EFF

PERMIT NUMBER: NC0025534
FACILITY NAME: City of Hendersonville - Hendersonville WWTP
CITY: Hendersonville COUNTY: Henderson
OUTFALL: 001
EFFLUENT
PERIOD ENDING MONTH: 12 - 2001
REGION: Asheville
DMR 12 Month Calculated
PAGE 1 OF 5
00010
deg c
Temperature,
Water Deg.
Centigrade
00187
mg/1
Toxicity
00300
mg/1
DO, Oxygen,
Dissolved
00310
mg/1
BOD, 5-Day (20
Deg. C)
00340
mg/1
COD, Oxygen
Demand, Chem.
(High Level)
00400
su
pH
00500
mg/1
Solids, Total
00530
mg/1
Solids, Total
Suspended
1 - 01
30
30
10.36
7.71
18.81
6.3 - 7.3
14.6
2-01
30
30
11.92
7.27
17.96
6.9 - 7.4
13.1
3 - 01
30
30
11.79
7.13
28.07
7 - 7.2
25
4 - 01
30
30
15.24
6.75
16.1
6.8-7.4
8.7
5 - 01
30
30
18.62
6.46
20.76
6.9 - 7.5
10
6-01
30
30
21.5
6.02
12.3
7 - 7.4
10.5
7-01
30
30
22.82
5.93
17.56
6.6 - 7.5
12
8.01
30
30
23.64
5.73
14.33
7 - 7.6
7.6
9 - 01
30
30
21.61
6.04
12.59
6.8 - 7.4
13.9
10-01
30
30
18
6.3
20.88
6.7 - 7.4
20.7
11-01
30
30
16.078947
9.8
16.921053
6.6 - 7.5
14.052632
12-01
30
30
14.263158
7.415789
13.984211
6.1 - 7.5
10.368421

PERMIT NUMBER: NC0025534
FACILITY NAME: City of Hendersonville - Hendersonville WWTP
CITY: Hendersonville
COUNTY: Henderson
PERIOD ENDING MONTH: 12 - 2001
REGION: Asheville
DMR 12 Month Calculated
PAGE 2 OF 5
00545
ml/1
Solids,
Settleable
00600
mg/1
Nitrogen, Total
(as N)
00610
mg/1
Nitrogen,
Ammonia Total
(as N)
00665
mg/1
Phosphorus,
Total (as P)
00720
ug/1
Cyanide, Total
(as Cn)
00951
mg/1
Fluoride, Total
(as F)
01002
mg/1
Arsenic, Total
(as As)
01027
ug/1
Cadmium, Total
(as Cd)
1 -01
1.54
1.76
0
2-01
12.1
1.28
3.2
1.3
0
3-01
3.49
2.25
0
4-01
1.8
2
0
5-01
15
2.19
5.1
1.5
0.3
6-01
0.47
2.65
0
7-01
1.12
0.75
0
8-01
12
0.25
3.4
0.5
0
9-01
0.22
1.25
0
10-01
0.99
1.6
0
11 - 01
12
0.634211
3.9
0.8
0
12-01
0.223684
0.5
0.725

PERMIT NUMBER: NC0025534
FACILITY NAME: City of Hendersonville - Hendersonville WWTP
CITY: Hendersonville COUNTY: Henderson
PERIOD ENDING MONTH: 12 - 2001
REGION: Asheville
DMR 12 Month Calculated
PAGE 3 OF 5
01034
ug/1
Chromium, Total
(as Cr)
01042
ug/1
Copper, Total
(as Cu)
01045
mg/1
Iron, Total (as
Fe)
01051
ug/1
Lead, Total (as
Pb)
01067
mg/1
Nickel, Total
(as Ni)
01077
ug/1
Silver, Total
(as Ag)
01092
ug/1
Zinc, Total (as
Zn)
01105
ug/1
Aluminum, Total
(as Al)
1 -01
350
2-01
0
800
3-01
0.022
0
0.0035
0.091
4-01
0.0057
0
0.1175
5-01
0.015
0
0.069
6-01
0.025
0.076
7-01
0.0079
0
0.0335
8-01
0.0081
0.051
9-01
0.014
0.04
10-01
0.017
0.067
11 - 01
12-01
0.012
0.055

PERMIT NUMBER: NC0025534
FACILITY NAME: City of Hendersonville - Hendersonville WWTP
CITY: Hendersonville COUNTY: Henderson
PERIOD ENDING MONTH: 12 - 2001
REGION: Asheville
DMR 12 Month Calculated
PAGE 4 OF 5
01147
ug/1
Selenium, Total
(as Se)
31616
#/100m1
Coliform, Fecal
MF, M-FC
Broth,44.5C
31616
mpn/100m1
Coliform, Fecal
MF, M-FC
Broth,44.5C
39350
mg/1
Chlordane (Tech
Mix. and
Metabolites)
50050
mgd
Flow, in
conduit or thru
treatment plant
50060
ug/1
Chlorine, Total
Residual
61401
percent
Bioassay (48
hr.)
71900
ug/1
Mercury, Total
(as Hg)
1 -01
3.2
12.1
2.6515
572.857
0
2-01
3.2
12.8
2.7217
539.5
0
3 - 01
3.2
0
24.6
3.0321
672.272
0
4-01
3.2
6.7
2.7747
648.5
0
5-01
3.2
19.7
2.5971
643.636
0
6-01
3.2
21.4
2.6854
599.523
0
7-01
3.2
24.2
3.1493
502.38
0
8 - 01
3.2
7.6
3.0225
581.739
0
9-01
3.2
11.3
3.0211
572.105
0
10-01
.3`
10.2
2.8424
662.173
0
11 -01
3.2
8.776208
2.802867
0.076
12 - 01
3.2
10.930448
2.816
546.842105
0

PERMIT NUMBER: NC0025534
FACILITY NAME: City of Hendersonville - Hendersonville WWTP
CITY: Hendersonville COUNTY: Henderson
TGP3B
pass/fail
P/F STATRE 7Day
Chr Ceriodaphnia
THP3B
percent
CHV STATRE 7Day
CHR Ceriodaphnia
1-01
2-01
1
3-01
4-01
5-01
1
6-01
7-01
8-01
1
9-01
10-01
11 -01
1
12-01
PERIOD ENDING MONTH: 12 - 2001 DMR 12 Month Calculated
PAGE 5 OF 5
REGION: Asheville

:N1800
.N1700
•N1600
N1400
N1300
NI200
NI100
;N1000
'N900
r�
NO4ES:
1.
2.
3.
STRUCTUiE LOCATION
STRUCTURE
A . _.A01.11N1 TION BV1.OiNC .
B SCREENI -Oki GRIT COIL
C AERATIO BASIN NO. 1
O AERATI BASIN NO. 2
E BLOWER 1LDING
F CLARIF* NO. 1
C CLAR*FI NO. 2
H POWER UILOINO
1 RECYCLE PUMPING STATION
J ...JNELU BUMPING. STATI
K UTILITY WING
L EFFLUEN FILTERS
U OISINFE ON BASIN
CONC
APRON
ALL CUAEI RADIU SHALL BE 25 FT
UNLESS0 E SHOWN.
ALL S1DEWA kS S BE 4 FT WIDE
UNLESS OTHEERW* E SHOWN.
CONCRETE APRONS SHALL BE 6" SIAB WITH
6X6 \ 6:6 WWF EACH FACE.
E100 ._ ..._
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCHEDULE
LOCATION
4oc•
ORNER ._...... j 2T5.00 .. 467.00,
CORN 12 7.00 ` -.4 23.001
CORNER 12 4.00 623.001
CORNER 14 8.50 623.00;
CORNER 12 7.00 911.001
OF TANK 13 5.00 1029.00
OF TANK 14 9.00 1029.0p
CORNER 1153.00 1038.00
CORNER 13E9.42 1081.0d
CORNER .._..._1227.00......11.74.0D
CORNER 130.00 • 1174.00
CORNER 1350.00 1174.0a
CORNER 1219.00 1236.00
CONCRETE
APRON
INTERSE ON
w "AT
EA CRI>.
�1�■ N1195
rarair
�
/ •711
�
� 806'
PT AT L + 90.76'
S GRID COOK.
---N1036---
E515
E200 .........- - E300 . _ ....
ELEC RI
DUKE
ELECTRIC T
FENCE
gap?. .. _ ..
7 •
FENCE CORNER
CORNER
012
5'
CONCR
APRON
E1000._ _ . E1100_ �L_ r E1200_
LOCATION SCHEDULE
1
PLANT COEOR.
1161.Q04 ... , 383.00
"B" 1389.001 383.00
"C" 1463. 440.00
"D" 1330. 1047.00
"E" 1503. , 1098.00
"F" 1454.000 1118.00
"C" 1454.00,, 1311.00
"H" 1222.00, 1311.00
• 1" 1133.001 1167.00
1133.00i. 1083.00
"K" 1066.001 1083.00
"L" 1070.00, . 981.00
1,1" 1161.00 570.00
TWO '.WIDE
„, "G"
451
"H"
PRELIMJNARY
SEP Q 41 1996 ! (l
E1300 E1400 1E1500 E1600'
• sum CAW
n iece CJW
ow se G.1W
«w JUD
50' S0' 100'
re.
wt
.R.
1!
I Ullll5ENGINEERS
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
W STEWATER FACILITIES
SITE PLAN
rat 09.
1910.003.XXY
Art
AUGUST 1996
G-2

N900
" •
. • •
.N600
N500
iN400
two°
N200
A .
R 400'
L 118.68'
/ 47.
, --•
STRUCTURE
N SLuDGE, DRYING PAD
O DEWATERING BUILDING
P THICKENER
O EXISTING DIGESToR AND WILDING
R EXISTING BELT PRESS BUILDING
// S EXISTING ADmiNisTRAION BUILDING
I 0. T SEPTAGE RECEMNG STATION
/A
1
1
1
I
NOTES:
1. AIL CURB RADIUS dHAJ..1 BE 25 FT.
UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.
2. AIL SIDEWALKS SHALL BE 4 FT WIDE
UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.
3. CONCRETE APRONS HALL BE 6" SLAB WITH
6X6 \ 6:6 WWF EACH FACE.
NEW FENCE.
REMOVE EXISTING Fru AND GATE INSIDE
I
1
1E100 if2c70//
• ag CAW
▪ CJW
rr.ac rr CJW
11•10.111 JAIO
/1
I/
1r
1 1
\
A- I7
R 400'
- 118.68'
STRUCTURE LOCATION CHEDULE
Pow( LOCATION
tni
IIFENCE CCRNER LOCATIO SCHEDULE
CORNER PLANT G 10 COOR,
N E
847.00 890.00
"0- 883.00 1122.00
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ 1,
\ \.
\ \
\ \
\ \
R 250' 4.•
157.08'
24' (TTP)
ELECTRIC
GATE
-- 5(
I A 56.
. R 70'
L 68.42'
PLANT GRID COOR.
I N E
CORNER 652.00 1016.00
\ \
\ \
\
E300 ▪ E400 E500
50'
0
50' 100'
feh
X
1E600 .E700
50' R
20' R
E800
IIIIMISENGINEERS
N"
SEE
NoTE 4
X
Ilill
I I
/
.1)
CONCRETE
APRON
E1200
rzo
ki> .(••
: •
WOO
EXISTING
FENCE
E1500 E1600
DD71 !Ar"i"'
sEp 4 t‘i
•
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
SITE PLAN
IS 10.003.0r
G 3
Al MY nn

. N i 600 ‘
i
N 1 7 00
\
N1600\
! \
:',....
.N1
i:,.. )
141400
%"' 11-)
9.014
2016
N1300 2015
-
los0
N1200
4,11100
01000
0900.
9(91
0t
irair
11 VM.
silArAiffle
bike .2.41111
4‘1,1tifrat°10,MilktiA!
_400
A0V-
Q.
.0—ne CAW
*inn. GJW
GJW
SO' 0 SO' IGO'
.1C
1E800
IMIIISENGINEERS
NE600
......\-?1";:41100 E12p0
1000,
CITY OF' HENDERSONVILLE
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
iE130 1400
MOO
)0D1)17.1pi
111._y EP n 4 1935
GRADING PLAN
131
910.003.xxf
G 4
AUGUST 1996

N300
: tJ200
111 CO
0
CAW
1001044 CJw
et GJw
+cv. J40
so' 0 SO' Io0•
me
4•1 o.
INIIIISENGINEERS
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
r 1 I,R„11 I r, FIN/
l+� � S
d_ f 11 P�: S? i: Z i N..P 0 4 1996
GRADING PLAN
19Io.003 xxr
G 5
AUGUST 1996

N1700
:N1600
'N1300
..... CAW
n+.n CJW
wK N CJW
sumo AID
Eig0
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
E2.00 . E3 _ .
SO' •
0 '•• 60' 100'
lit
16' RE
F.M.
2.88m
1
3.086 mgd
i
12' MR
4
3.686 mgd
i!)
31.747
8
12'
L.
11a) 3
—4--
81
36'
36'
MH 3
3.32mi
\L/6' F.M.
Mil/4
. 9r (600..., ' QQ
1 •
NOON
1R
(800
6' WASTE
SLUDGE F.M.
0.
(900
/P12" INFLUENT
.34mgd
E1000
1.0
,E1100 A E1200
CITY Of HENDERSONVILLE
W STEWATER FACILITIES
36'
--' ,3.3 2 6 3 . mgd
36' PLANT
EFFLUENT '• .
OUTFALL
(CONTRACT 2.
i
E1300 )E1400
l
E1300 E1600
PRELfl'ANARY SEP 0 4 1996
PROCESS PIPING PLAN
sUM.
1910.003.1W
Wi
AUGUST 1910
G.-9

N900
j N300
....r CAW
r.a. OJW
..« n CJW
es.. MD
E200 E300 E400
50' 0 50' t00'
114.4011
•
E600
X
E700
IJUIIIISENGINEERS
E800
'E90U
IE1000
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
E1100
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
i 12
12-
'' 2'
IAH 13
/61200
OUTFACE
(CONTRACT
20)
•
INTERCEPTER
80)t WITH
24 SEWER
TO OUTFACE
CONTRACT 10
E1300
/
II
IE1a\ \ E1500 E1600
k`"RLLi 1i1i R111 SEP0Ir199G
PROCESS PIPING PLAN
1910.003.XXF
r�T
AUGUST 1996
G 10

PROCES S NARRATIVE
Process units located on site include influent pumping station with bar screens designed to
handle all raw sewage delivered by 42 inch gravity sewer, all septage received at WWTP for
treatment, and waste streams from solids handling facility, consisting of gravity thickener
supernatant overflow and belt press filtrates. Additional facilities include headworks consisting
of mechanical screening and aerated grit removal; biological treatment using an activated sludge
process utilizing fine bubble aeration with single stage nitrification; circular clarifiers; recycle
pumping station; effluent polishing using low head filters; disinfection by ultraviolet light; and
cascade aeration of final effluent prior to surface discharge to Mud Creek. Design for sludge
residuals are treated as prescribed by State and Federal requirements to Class A solid, intended
for land application. Residuals are currently disposed of in class D landfill. Capability for re -use
of treated wastewater has been incorporated into plant design.

Google Local - 35.351111N 82.463056W
Page 1 of 1
ie
L c lO o a
Gf/ 1Cv pL4/ur
•
•
skiktim
2005 Google - Imagery ©2005 DigitalGlobe -,
azz dom-iur
2/1/2006

e
Po-0
400,94,410",

4 ,
•
aff /4,
gixtedo
zfitz) o�