NC0025542_Permit (Issuance)_20100128

NPDES DOCUMENT ! CANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0025542
Catawba WWTP
Document Type: (
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
January 28, 2010
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re -sr -erne side

• ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
January 28, 2010
Mr. Mick W. Berry, City Manager
City of Hickory
P.O. Box 398.
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit No. NC0025542
Hickory - Catawba WWII)
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Berry:
In accordance with the application for discharge permit received, the Division is forwarding
herewith the subject NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently
amended).
The City of Hickory had requested major modifications to the Catawba Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The request was the expansion of the treatment plant from 0.225 MGD to 3.0
MGD. It has been determined that this expansion will be in phases with the first phase to 1.5
MGD and the subsequent phase to the requested 3.0 MGD. Please note that on the effective ,
date of this permit, May 1, 2010, the Hickory - Catawba WWTP will be categorized as a major
facility and the annual permit fee will be increased to $3,440.
The final permit authorizes the City of Hickory to discharge municipal wastewater from
the Catawba Wastewater Treatment Plant to Lyle Creek, a class WS-IV CA water in the Catawba
River Basin. The permit includes discharge limitations/or monitoring for flow, BOD5, ammonia
nitrogen, total suspended solids, total residual chlorine, fecal conform, copper, zinc and chronic
toxicity.
The following modifications in the December 2nd and September 9th drafts remain in the
final permit:
i
• At the expanded wasteflow of 1.5 MGD, effluent limits for BOD5 and NH3 are modified to
10 mg/1 and 2 mg/1, respectively. This would be equivalent to the loading of BOD5=5
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity\ Atfirmative Action Employer
ORe NorthCarolina
Naturally

Letter to Mick Berry
Page 2
mg/1 and NH3 = 1 mg/1 at 3.0 MGD. WASP model results predicted that tertiary limits
would protect instream dissolved oxygen standards in Lyle Creek. The limits at 1.5 MOD
will be year round limits with no differentiation during the summer and winter months.
• Upstream and downstream monitoring for conductivity and pH will be dropped at the
wasteflows of 1.5 and 3.0 MGD based on current Division procedures for 100% domestic
dischargers.
• There has been a modification in the upstream and downstream monitoring frequency for
total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll a. These parameters will now
be monitored weekly in the summer and monthly in the winter. It has been determined
that this frequency would provide sufficient nutrient data for the development of future
water quality models or TMDLs.
• The following procedure has been recently implemented by DWQ: Total residual chlorine
(TRC) compliance level changed to 50 ug/1. Effective March 1, 2008, the Division received
EPA approval to allow a 50 ug/1 TRC compliance level. This change is due to analytical
difficulties with TRC measurements. Facilities will still be required to report actual
results on their monthly discharge monitoring report (DMR) submittals, but for
compliance purposes, all TRC values below 50 ug/1 will be treated as zero. A footnote
regarding this change has been added to the effluent limitations pages in the permit.
• The addition of effluent pages, chronic toxicity special conditions, annual pollutant scans,
and instream monitoring requirements for the expanded wasteflows of 1.5 and 3.0 MGD.
• Effluent monitoring for total nitrogen and total phosphorus will increase to monthly upon
expansion to 1.5 and 3.0 MGD.
• Effluent monitoring for total zinc will increase from monthly to twice per month upon
expansion to 1.5 and 3.0 MGD, based on analysis that indicated the reasonable potential
• to exceed the allowable chronic and acute allowable concentrations.
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
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 Jacquelyn Nowell at
telephone number [phone].
1
Coleen H. Sullins
cc: EPA Region IV (ecopy)
Mooresville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section (ecopy)
DEH/ Mooresville Regional Office
PERCS/attn: Dana Folley (ecopy)
Aquatic Toxicology Unit (ecopy)
Steve Reid/Technical Assistance Unit (ecopy)
Steve Coffey/CG&L (ecopy)
NPDES File
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
O
NorthCarolina
Naturally

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 Hickory
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Hickory — Catawba WWTP
End of 6th Avenue NW
North of Catawba
Catawba County
to receiving waters designated as Lyle Creek in the Catawba River Basin in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I,11, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective May 1, 2010.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2015.
Signed this day January 28, 2010
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

It • i
Permit Number NC0025542
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 Hickory is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.225 MGD wastewater treatment facility with the following
components:
• Dual bar screens
• Two aeration basins
• Two secondary clarifiers
• Chlorine contact basin (gas disinfection)
• Dechlorination
• Instrumented flow measurement (with recorder)
• An aeration sludge holding tank
The facility is located at Hickory -Catawba WWTP, Sixth Avenue NW, north of Catawba, Catawba
County.
2. Upon receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Water Quality, construct and operate
an expanded facility to 1.5 MGD, and
3. Upon receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Water Quality, construct and operate
an expanded facility from 1.5 MGD to 3.0 MGD, and
4. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Lyle Creek,
classified WS IV CA waters in the Catawba River Basin.
•

Latitude:
Longitude:
Quad #:
Stream Class:
Receiving Stream:
Permitted Flow:
� ll
Lcp-5
1 r
Facility Information
35°42'55" Sub -Basin:
81°04'25"
E 14NE
WS-IV CA
Lyle Creek
0.225, 1.5, and 3.0 MGD
03-08-32
City of Hickory -Catawba WWTP
NC0025542
Catawba County

Permit Number NC0025542
A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion to 1.5 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Dm
Location'
Flow
0.225 MGD
Continuous
,—
Recording
I or E
BOD5 2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
NH3-N
2/Month
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E
pH3
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 ug/1
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
E
Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Zinc
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 +
TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
1. Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent,
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of
the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4;
Limitation/monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection. The Division shall
consider all effluent total residual chlorine values reported below 50 µg/1 to be in compliance with the
permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North
Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/1.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 2.1%; February, May, August, November. See A (5.) Special
Conditions of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit Number NC0025542
A. (2). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Beginning upon expansion above 0.225 and lasting until expansion to 1.5 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Tie
Location'
Flow
1.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD52
10.0 mg/1
15.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
NH3-N
2.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform4
Variable
Grab
U, D
pH5
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine6
28 ug/1
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
- E .
Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+THIN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Chlorophyll a4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Chronic Toxicity?
Quarterly
Composite
- E
Pollutant Scan°
' Annual
Composite
E
Notes:
1. Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U- Upstream, D- Downstream
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 6.0 mg/1.
4. Instream monitoring will be required for this parameter. See Special Condition A.(4). for location and frequencies.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater' than 9.0 standard units.
6. Limitation/monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection. • The Division shall consider all
effluent total residual chlorine values reported below 50 AO to be in compliance with the permit. However. the
Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including
field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/1.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F ® 15%; February, May, August, November. See A (6.) Special Conditions of the
Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
8. See A. (7) Special Conditions of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

t
Permit Number NC0025542
A. (3). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
Beginning upon expansion above 1.5 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated
wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
'Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Type
Location'
Flow
3.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD5 (Apr 1 thru Oct 31)2
5.0 mg/1
7.5 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
BOD5 (Nov 1 thru Mar 30)2
10.0 mg/1
15.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
NH3-N (Apr 1 thru Oct 31)
1.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
NH3-N (Nov 1 thru Mar 30)
2.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,1
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E,I
Dissolved Oxyen3
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform4
Variable
Grab
U, D
pH5
Daily •
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine6
28 ug/1
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
- E
Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen4
Variable
Grab
U, D
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus4
_
Variable
Grab
U. D '
Chlorophyll a4
Variable
Grab
U. D
Chronic Toxicity?
Quarterly
Composite
E
Pollutant Scan8
Annual
Composite
E
Notes:
1. Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent. U- Upstream, D- Downstream
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 6.0 mg/1.
4. Instream monitoring will be required for this parameter. See Special Condition A(4). for location and frequencies.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
6. Limitation/monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.• The Division shall consider all
effluent total residual chlorine values reported below 50 µg/1 to be in compliance with the permit. However, the
Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including
field certified), even if these values fall below 50 pg/1.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F ® 26%; February. May, August, November. See A (7.) Special Conditions of the
Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
8. See A. (8) Special Conditions of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit Number NC0025542
A. (4.) Instream Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on expansion above 0.225 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee shall
monitor Lyle Creek as specified below:
Location
Parameter
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Upstream of WWT at Highway 10
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
Upstream of WWTP at Highway 10
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
Upstream of WWTP at Highway 10
Fecal Coliform
Variable'
Grab
Upstream of WWTP at Highway 10
Total Nitrogen
Variable2
Grab
Upstream of WWTP at Highway 10
Total Phosphorus
Variable2
Grab
Upstream of WWTP at Highway 10
Chlorophyll a
Variable2
Grab
Downstream of WWTP at mouth of Lyle Creek
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
Downstream of WWTP at mouth of Lyle Creek
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
Downstream of WWTP at mouth of Lyle Creek
Fecal Coliform
Variable'
Grab
Downstream of WWTP at mouth of Lyle Creek
Total Nitrogen
Variable2
Grab
Downstream of WWTP at mouth of Lyle Creek
Total Phosphorus
Variable2
Grab
Downstream of WWTP at mouth of Lyle Creek
Chlorophyll a
Variable2 ' _
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = 3/Week (June 1— September 30) and weekly (October 1— May 31)
2. Variable=1/Week (June 1— September 30) and monthly (October 1— May 31)

q
Permit Number NC0025542
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) CO 0.225 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 2.1%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, ouarterIq monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent
versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months
as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998)
or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. If reporting pass/fail results using the
parameter code TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If reporting Chronic Value results
using the parameter code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
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.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR & all AT Forms
submitted
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.

Y , T
Permit Number NC0025542
A: (6.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) @ 1.5MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 15%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarteriti monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent
versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months
as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998)
or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. If reporting pass/fail results using the
parameter code TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If reporting Chronic Value results
using the parameter code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
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.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR & all AT Forms
submitted.
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.

f •
Permit Number NC0025542
A. (7.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) @ 3.0 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 26%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarteriq monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent
versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months
as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998)
or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. If reporting pass/fail results using the
parameter code TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If reporting Chronic Value results
using the parameter code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
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.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR & all AT Forms
submitted.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, dnd 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.

y . .
Permit Number NC0025542
A. (8.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The Permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the attached table (in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). Samples shall represent seasonal variations. Unless otherwise indicated,
metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N) Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC) 1,1•dichloroethylene Bis (2•chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen 1,2-dichloropropane Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite 1,3•dichloropropylene 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Kjeldahl nitrogen Ethylbenzene Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease Methyl bromide 2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus Methyl chloride 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids Methylene chloride Chrysene
Hardness 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Di-n•butyl phthalate
Antimony Tetrachloroethylene Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic Toluene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium 1,1,1•trichloroethane 1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium 1,1,2-trichloroethane 1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium Trichloroethylene 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper Vinyl chloride 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead Acid -extractable compounds: Diethyl phthalate
Mercury P-chloro-m-cresol Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel 2-chtorophenol 2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium 2,4-dichlorophenol 2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver 2,4-dimethylphenol 1,2-diphenyihydrazine
Thallium 4,6•dinitro-o-cresol Fluoranthene
Zinc 2,4-dinitrophenol Fluorene
Cyanide 2-nitrophenol Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds 4-nitrophenol Hexachtorobutadiene
Volatile organic compounds: Pentachlorophenol Hexachlorocycto-pentadiene
Acrotein Phenol Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile 2,4,6-trichlorophenol lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene Base -neutral compounds: Isophorone
Bromoform Acenaphthene Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride Acenaphthylene Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene Anthracene N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane Benzidine N•nitrosodimethytamine
Chloroethane Benzo(a)anthracene N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether Benzo(a)pyrene Phenanthrene
Chloroform 3,4 benzofluoranthene Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane Benzo(ghi)perytene 1,2,4-tichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane Bis (2-chtoroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- A MR PPA1 or in a form approved by the
Director within 90 days of sampling. The report shall be submitted to the following address: Division of
Water Quality, Surface Water Protection Section, Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.

Mrs-
DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0025542
HICKORY-CATAWBA WWTP
AMENDMENT TO FACTSHEET
12/1/2009
Based on comments received from the City of Hickory and additional discussion and
evaluation with Division staff, the following modifications are recommended in the re -
noticed draft permit of 12/1/2009
1. It is recommended that instream monitoring for conductivity and pH can be dropped
at the wasteflows of 1.5 and 3.0 MGD based on current Division procedures for 100%
domestic dischargers.
2. It is recommended that the monitoring frequency for TN, TP and chlorophyll a be
reduced. It has been determined that the reduction in monitoring will still provide
enough nutrient data for the development of future water quality models or TMDLs.
The parameters TN, TP, and chlorophyll a will be monitored weekly in the summer
and monthly in the winter.
3. At the expanded wasteflow of 1.5 MGD, it is recommended that limits for BOD5 and
NH3 be modified to 10 mg/1 and 2 mg/1, respectively. This would be the equivalent
loading of BOD5 = 5 mg/1 and NH3 = 1 mg/1 at 3.0 MGD. WASP model results
predicted that at 3.0 MGD limits of BOD5 = 5 mg/1 and NH3 = 2 mg/1 would protect
dissolved oxygen in Lyle Creek. The limits at 1.5 MGD would be year round limits
with no differentiation during the summer and winter months.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
DRAFT PERMIT TO PUBLIC NOTICE: 12/2/2009
PERMIT SCHEDULED TO ISSUE: 1/21/2010 (TENTATIVE)
STATE CONTACT:
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION OR ON THE ATTACHED
PERMIT, PLEASE CONTACT JACKIE NOWELL AT [phone] OR
[e-mail].
NAME:
DATE:
/17//of
City of Hickory -Catawba WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Modification
Page 5

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
MEMORANDUM
A7A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
December 2, 2009
To: Britt Setzer
NC DENR / DEl I / Public Water Supply Section Regional Engineer
Mooresville Regional Office
From:
Subject:
Jackie Nowell
NPDES Western Program
Review of Draft Permit NC0025542
City of Hickory -Catawba WWII)
Catawba County
-
Dee Freeman
Secretary
, IddnS iai}gM III I' J
anl3a3N
600Z 0 3 3 a
03WO Ieuoi6a j am saloolry
Q3AI333a
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by January 4,
2010. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at 919-807-6386 or e-mail to
[e-mail].
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Signed
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated effluent
limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
Date:
12/7/67
North Carolina
Naturally

Nowell, Jackie
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:30 PM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: Re: Re -Notice of Hickory -Catawba WWTP draft permit NC0025542
EPA has no comments on this revised draft permit.
1

North Carolina ) ss
Mecklenburg County)
The Charlotte Observer Publishing Co.
Charlotte, NC
Affidavit of Publication
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
ATTN DINA SPRINKLE
NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES
1617 MAIL SERVICE CTR
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
REFERENCE: 30045571
6415988 Wastewater Discharge
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of The Charlotte Observer
Publishing Company, a corporation organized and
doing business under the laws of the State of
Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as The
Charlotte Observer in the city of Charlotte,
County of Mecklenburg, and State of North Carolina
and that as such he/she is familiar with the
books, records, files, and business of said
Corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication, the attached advertisement was
inserted. The following is correctly copied from
the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation
and Publication.
PUBLISHED ON: 12/04
AD SPACE:
FILED ON:
NAME:
140 LINE
12/11/09
TITLE:
DATE:
In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my han
day and year aforesaid.
Notar
Public Notice
• North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
• 1617 Mail Service Center.
Raleigh, NC 27699.1617
Notice of Intent 10 Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
proposes to Issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below.
acceptecomments
until 30 idays after thhe puble ish date of tosed he notice.ermit ) The Director o1 the NC Division of Water Quality (DWG) may hold a
public hearing should there be a significant degree of public
interest. Please mad comments and/or information requests to
DWO at the above address. Interested dersorts may visit the DWQ
at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC to review information on
tile. Additional information oh NPDES permits and this notice may
be found on our website: www.ncwaterquality.org, or by calling.
[phone]. •. .
The Lincoln County requested renewal of permit NC0088722 for
Killian Creek WWTP in Lincoln County; this facility discharge is
treated municipal wastewater to Killian Creek, Catawba River
Basin.
Dawson International Properties requested renewat of NPDES
permit NC0086487 for its Albemarle facility in Stanly County; this
permitted discharge is treated groundwater to the Poplin Branch,
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin.
The City bf Hickory 0 requested major modification of permit
NC0025542 for Hickory- Catawba WWTP in Catawba. County: this
permitted discharge is treated municipal wastewater to Lyle
Creek, Catawba River Basin.
Caldwell County.Schoois requested renewal of NPDES permit
NC0050075 for Collettsvilie Elementary School Facility
discharges treated wastewater to Johns River in theCatawba
River Basin. Currently, no parameters are water quality limited.
R.L. Bush requested renewal'pf permit NC0043231 for the Cedar
Rock CountryCiub WWTP in Caldwell County. Facility discharges
treated domestic wastewater 10 an unnamed tributary to Lower
Creek in the Catawba. River Basin. Ammonia ni)royen, fecal
coliform and total residual chlorine are water quality limited.
•
Caldwell County Schools requested renewal of NPDES permit
NC0030783 for Baton Elementary School. This facility discharges
treated wastewater into Stafford Creek in the Catawba• River
Basin. Total residual chlorne fecal coliform and ammonia
nitrogen are water quality limited."
..
The City of Gastonia requested renewal of permit NC004007o for
its Water Treatment ,Plant in Gaston. County;. this permitted
discharge is treated filter -backwash wastewater to an unnamed
tributary to Long Creek in the Catawba River Basin.
The Town of McAdenville requested renewal of Permit NC0020052
for the McAdenville WWTP in Gaston County; this permitted
discharge is treated wastewater to the South fork Catawba River
in the Catawba River Basin.
Carolina Water Service. Inc. of NC requested renewal of permit
NCD033421 for the College Park WWTP In Gaston County; this
permitted discharge is treated domestic wastewater to Little Lang
Creek in the.Catawba River Basin: •
Burlington Industries requested renewal of permit NC0043320 for
'the Budington Industries/ Richmond Plant in Richmond County;
this permitted discharge is treated Industrial and sanitary
wastewaters to Hitchcock Creek. Yadkin•Pee Dee River Basin.
LP6415988
and affixed my seal, the
My Commission Expires May 17, 2011
y Commission Expires: _/_/_

Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream:
Comment(s):
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:
Hickory -Catawba VYWfP
NC0025542
Lyle Creek
gage number not available
02.1424.4500
HA10
11.40 miles squared
15.96 cfs
4.70 cfs
7.50 cfs
9.90 cfs
must be < 400 sq. miles
73.00 sq. miles
1.1
Drainage Area Ratio:
[ new DA / Da at gage
Weighted Ratio:
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
80 cfs
13.00 cfs
19.37 cfs
27.62 cfs
Continue
6.40 :1
Inappropriate Site
-0.80 : 1
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
leighted s7Q10 per Report Equation:
eighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
11
73.00 miles squared
1.1
Inappropriate Site
Inappropriate Site
Inappropriate Site
Inappropriate Site

ICKORY
Public Utilities
October 14, 2009
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NCDENR- DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
City of Hickory
Post Office Box 398
Hickory, NC 28603
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: kareerci.hickory.nc.us
RE: Draft NPDES Permit NC0025542; Hickory —Catawba WWTP
Dear Ms. Nowell:
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide comment regarding the Draft NPDES
Permit received for the Hickory —Catawba WWTP Renewal and Permit for Upgrade/
Expansion to 1.5 MGD and eventual 3.0 MGD. The particular components of concern
are the incremental discharge limits for 1.5 MGD and 3.0 MGD, the discharge limit for
NH3-N and the Upstream and Downstream sampling regimen.
The City would like to request an incremental decrease in the effluent limits as
published in the Draft permit for the 1.5 MGD and 3.0 MGD Upgrade/Expansion. As
written the discharge limits are identical for the expanded Wastewater Treatment
Facility for the 1.5 MGD and 3.0 MGD Upgrades/Expansions. If the discharge was
looked at on a Mass Loading Basis, the receiving stream should beable_toassimilate a
loading for BOD5 at 1.5 MGD of 10m /I monthly average_and 15 mg/I weekly average
d a summer mot#gs,- The City would respectfully request that the Department review
this limitation and consider an amendment to allow for an incremental reduction in the
discharge limit.
The City was required to complete a Waste Assimilation Model for this discharge to
expand by the Department. The City contracted with ENSR, Inc and HSMM Engineers
to perform this study of Lyle Creek and Lake Norman to determine the ability of this
waterbody to assimilate additional Wastewater Treatment Facility discharge. Through
the course of this study and model it was determined the Lyle Creek could assimilate
T IH3-N at 2 mg/I in the discharge at 3.0 MGD. Therefore, the City would like to request
2/ at the discharge limit for NH3-N be established at 2mg/I for the 1.51-/MGD
Upgra• a Expansion anig er. £ gam t e i y con rac e• wi R, Inc to perform
this mode an. the Department has reviewed and accepted the model as adequate.

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
October 14, 2009
Pg 2 of 2
Lastly, the City respectfully requests that the Department review the Upstream and
Downstream monitoring regimen that is stipulated at 1.5 MGD and 3.0 MGD discharge
limits. Instream Monitoring requirements detail for the City to test for Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll -A upstream and downstream of the discharge point
three times per week during the summer months and one time per week during the
winter months, along with standard parameters. Lyle Creek traverses a portion of the
County which includes Agricultural uses, Farming and Pasture Lands, Residential and
Commercial uses and a Golf Course; therefore the contribution of this discharge to algal
growth and nutrient enrichment is going to pale in comparison to all the other sources.
Testing for these three parameters alone will result in $2,250.00 in expenses per week
during the summer months, not including staff time. That could result in approximately
$36,000.00 for testing these three parameters alone during the summer months. Staff
has reviewed our existing NPDES permits and several other discharge permits along
the Catawba River and these parameters are not tested for in any other NPDES permits
that we have reviewed.
Lyle Creek is tributary to Lake Norman and Lake Norman was rated as Supporting in
the Lake and Reservoir Assessment recently released by the Environmental Sciences
Section. DWQ rated this Lake has having very good quality water and Oligotrophic
productivity. There were no reported instances of water quality standards exceedences
with most samples being non -detectable. Lake Norman has 32,510 Acres of surface
area, has an average depth of 33-ft and holds approximately 3.4 Trillion gallons.
Discharge from the City of Hickory Hickory —Catawba WWTP will not negatively impact
Lake Norman or Lyle Creek. The City of Hicko res ec quests that..the
Department give some considers ion o reducin t stream Mo
tra Ilona parame ers of DO, tem erature, conductivity, Fecal Coliform and pH due to
t e en ous inancia urden the Draft Permit • oses, specifically during the summer
mon s.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and for the opportunity to provide
comment on the Draft permit. We look forward to a mutually beneficial permit. Should
you have any questions please do not hesitate contacting me at 828-323-7427 or via
email at [e-mail].
Respectfully,
Mr. Kevin B. Greer, PE
Assistant Public Services Director- Public Utilities
PC: Mr. Chuck Hansen, PE, Public Services Director
Mr. Jacob Reid, El, Utilities Engineer
Mr. Shawn Pennell, Collections System Manager

0 0.5
Lake Norman and Surrounding Water Supply Watershed (WSWS) Intakes
e e d Cree-
c
Miles
1 2 3 4 • Intake Munidpaity = WSWS Protected Area
e Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:38:30 PM C:1MLF_PROJECTS\MISC1LakeNorman_JackieNowell_18aug09.mxd n WS Critical Area
map is only as good as the data available when it was printed and is not intended to replace any rule, regulation or classification schedule.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality I http:Uh2o.enr.state.nc.us 1512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604 [phone]
Balls Creek_
11Yr4-Iv
Statesville-
Creek
Cornelius
WS-Iv Huntersville
Davidson
r*
c„,
Creek,
S-I1

GENERAL NPDES PERMIT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Spray Irrigation:
Connect to Regional Sewer System: unavailable
Subsurface: Unsuitable
Other Disposal Options:
2. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application:
3. List any items that you would like the Stormwater & General Permits Unit to obtain through an
additional information request. Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Recommended Additional Information
Reason
DEH
WS IV NSW
4. List specific Permit requirements that you recommend to be removed from the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each condition:
Recommended Removal
Reason
5. List specific special requirements or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in
the permit when issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Recommended Addition
Reason
6. Recommendation: ® Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office;
❑ Hold, pending review and approval of required additional information by Stormwater & General
Permits Unit; ❑ Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
Reminder: attach inspection report if Yes was checked for 2 d
7. Signature of report preparer:
Abe&
FORM: STORMWATER & GENERAL PERL'iITS-RRO 09/03
3

Nowell, Jackie
From: Hyatt.Marshall©epamail.epa.gov
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: RE: re NC0025542 - Hickory Catawba WWTP
EPA has no comments on this draft permit.

A7A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
MEMORANDUM
To:
September 9, 2009
Britt Setzer
NC DENR / DEH / Public Water Supply Section Regional Engineer
Mooresville Regional Office
From: Jackie Nowell
NPDES Western Program
Subject:
Review of Draft Permit NC0025542
City of Hickory -Catawba WW TP
Catawba County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by September 23,
2009. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at 919-807-6386 or e-mail to
[e-mail].
RESPONSE: (Check one)
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated effluent
limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Hickory - Catawba WWTP
NC0025542
Time Period 10/2005 - 6/2009
Qw (MGD) 0.225
7QIOS (cfs) 16
7QIOW (cfs) 29
30Q2 (cfs) 34
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 84
Reeving Stream Lyle Creek
WWTP Class II
!WC (%) © 7Q 1 OS 2.1332
@ 7Q1OW 1.1883
@ 30Q2 1.0153
© QA 0.4135
Stream Class WS-IV CA
Outfall 001
Qw = 0.225 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
•
NC WQS /
Chronic
'/: FAV /
Acute
n
# Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
65
0
19.0
Acute: 7
_ _ _
-Chronic--- 328 ----------------------------
RP shown to exceed the acute allow. conc.
Recommend monthly monitoring
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
45
45
355.0
Acute: 67
_ _ _ _ _
[Chronic: 2,344------------------------------
RP shown to exceed the acute allow. conc.
Recommend monthly monitoring
* Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
** Freshwater Discharge
25542rpa09.xls, rpa
9/8/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Hiickory - Catawba WWTP
NC0025542
Time Period 10/2005 - 6/2009
Qw (MGD) 1.5
7Q 10S (cfs) 13
7Q 10W (cfs) 19.4
30Q2 (cfs) 27.6
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 80
Rec`ving Stream Lyle Creek
WWTP Class II
IWC (%) @ 7Q 10S 15.171
@ 7Q 10W 10.702
@ 30Q2 7.7694
@ QA 2.8242
Stream Class WS-IV CA
Outfall 001
Qw=1.5MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
,
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
'/: FAV/
Acute
n
# Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
65
0
19.0
Acute:
_
----
Chronic:
7
----------------------------------
46
RP shown to exceed the acute action level
Recommend monthly monitoring
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
45
45
355.0
Acute:
_ _ _
Chronic:
67
_ _ _
330--------------------------------
RP shown to exceed the chronic and acute allowable conc.
Recommend 2/month monitoring
* Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
** Freshwater Discharge
25542rpa09exp15.xls, rpa
9/4/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Hiickory - Catawba WWTP
NC0025542
Time Period 10/2005 - 612009
Qw (MGD) 3
7Q108 (cfs) 13
7Q1OW (cfs) 19.4
30Q2 (cfs) 27.6
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 80
Reeving Stream Lyle Creek
WWTP Class II
IWC (%) @ 7Q1OS 26.346
@ 7Q10W 19.335
@ 30Q2 14.419
@ QA 5.4932
Stream Class WS-IV CA
Outfall 001
Qw = 3 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
Ili
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Y. FAV/
Acute
n
# Dot Max Pre(' Cw Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
-
65
0
19.0
Acute: 7
_ _
Chronic: --27 --
I
RP shown to exceed the acute action level
Recommend monthly monitoring
------------------------------
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
45
45
355.0
Acute: 67
_ _ _ _ _ _ --
Chronic: 190
RP shown to exceed the chronic and acute allowable conc.
Recommend 2/month monitoring
------------------------------
Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
25542rpa09exp3.xls, rpa
9/4/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
5
15
Copper
Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Oct-2005 <A 38 19.0 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 <? 38 19.0 Mean 19.0000
3 38 19.0 C.V. 0.0000
4 t°!j 38 19.0 n 65
5 <; 38 19.0
6 < 38 19.0 Mult Factor = 1.0000
7 <i 38 19.0 Max. Value 19.0 ug/L
838 19.0 Max. Pred Cw 19.0 ug1L
9 c 38 19.0
10 ;;c 38 19.0
11 '< 38 19.0
12 <: 38 19.0
13 :i 38 19.0
14 <' 38 19.0
15 < 38 19.0
16 •:<. 38 19.0
17 c;l 38 19.0
18 c 38 19.0
19 `c 38 19.0
20 =<`. 38 19.0
21 <` 38 19.0
22 < 38 19.0
23 <! 38 19.0
24 ' ci 38 19.0
25 38 19.0
26 < 38 19.0
27 <' 38 19.0
28 <! 38 19.0
29 ' c' 38 19.0
30! 38 19.0
31 <' 38 19.0
32 < 38 19.0
33 c 38 19.0
34 <; 38 19.0
35 ! 38 19.0
36 < 38 19.0
37 <' 38 19.0
36 <' 38 19.0
39 ,'<i 38 19.0
40 < 38 19.0
41 c: 38 19.0
42 `c 38 19.0
43! 38 19.0
44 :..<l 38 19.0
45 < 38 19.0
46 < 38 19.0
47 ‹'. 38 19.0
48 - < 38 19.0
49 < 38 19.0
50 38 19.0
51 <' 38 19.0
52 <_' 38 19.0
53 ' <! 38 19.0
54 c; 38 19.0
55 < 38 19.0
56 s: 38 19.0
57 < 38 19.0
58 <' 38 19.0
59 <: 38 19.0
60 <;, 38 19.0
61 <, 38 19.0
62 <. 38 19.0
63 < 38 19.0
64 . < 38 19.0
65 Jun-2009 <' 38 19.0
66
67
68
69
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Oct-2005 60. 60.0 Std Dev. 37.8525
2 52. 52.0 Mean 87.3111
3 C.V. 0.4335
4 n 45
5 70. 70.0
6 Mult Factor = 1.5300
7 Max. Value 232.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 355.0 ug/L
9
10 65. 65.0
11
12 103. 103.0
13 74. 74.0
14 70. 70.0
15
16 107. 107.0
17
18 66. 66.0
19
20 93. 93.0
21 59. 59.0
22
23 65. 65.0
24 51. 51.0
25 57. 57.0
26
27
28 131. 131.0
29
30
31
32
33 50. 50.0
34
35 101. 101.0
36 63. 63.0
37 79. 79.0
38
39 72. 72.0
40 98. 98.0
41 98. 98.0
42
43 74. 74.0
44
45 51. 51.0
46 110. 110.0
47 44. 44.0
48
49
50 154. 154.0
51
52
53
54
55 106. 106.0
56
57 119. 119.0
58 94. 94.0
59
60 110. 110.0
61 77. 77.0
62
63 61. 61.0
64 46. 46.0
65
66 52. 52.0
67
68 46. 46.0
69 58. 58.0
-1-
25542rpa09exp3.xls, data
9/4/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80 Apr-2009
81
82
83
84
113. 113.0
131. 131.0
128. 128.0
181. 181.0
85. 85.0
232. 232.0
87. 87.0
86. 86.0
- 2 -
25542rpa09exp3.xls, data
9/4/2009

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No
To: Western NPDES Unit
Surface Water Protection Section
Attention: Jackie Nowell
Date: June 15, 2009
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: Catawba
Permit No. NC0025542
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Mailing Address
1. Facility and address: City Of Hickory -Catawba WWTP
P.O. Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
2. Date of investigation: June 11, 2009
3. Report prepared by: Michael L. Parker, Environmental Engineer II
Physical Address
6th Avenue NE
Catawba, NC 28609
4. Directions to site: From the jct. of NC Hwy 10 and 6th Avenue, NE, in the Town of
Catawba, travel east on 6th Ave., NE. The WWTP is located at the end of 6th Ave., NE.
5. Discharge point(s). List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35 ° 42' 55"
Longitude: 81 ° 04' 25" USGS Quad No.: E 15 NE
6. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Lyle Creek.
a.
b.
c.
Classification: WS-IV CA
River Basin and Subbasin No.: Catawba 030832
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The receiving
stream is a large creek that not only discharges to Lake Norman, but is likely
affected by lake level fluctuations given the location of the outfall to the main
body of the lake. Effective mixing of the effluent may be affected as this stream
enters into the lake during periods of high lake levels. Lake Norman is used as a
source of water supply and for primary and secondary recreation.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 3.0 MGD (Proposed Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the WWT facility? 0.225 MGD

c Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: The existing facilities consists of dual bar screens, two
aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, chlorine contact basin (gas disinfection),
instrumented flow measurement, and an aerated sludge holding tank.
d. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities:
Additional wastewater treatment facilities will be necessary in order to accept and
treat flows up to 3.0 MGD however, there were no additional treatment
components submitted with the modification request.
g.
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: chlorine is added to the wastewater prior
to discharge.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Not required at this time.
3. Treatment plant classification: Presently Class II. Classification may change upon
expansion to 3.0 MGD.
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: Additional monitoring
and/or limitations may be necessary pending the promulgation of the effluent limitations
for the proposed 3.0 design flow.
2. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: This facility is neither under an
SOC nor is one being considered at this time.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Hickory (the City) has requested that the subject permit be modified to allow
for an increase in the permitted flow from 0.225 MGD to 3.0 MGD. This increase is necessary to
accommodate anticipated domestic and commercial flow expected from the southeastern part of
the County where residential and commercial growth is planned. This area of the County is
currently served with a mix of septic systems and private wastewater treatment systems — many
of which are at or near their hydraulic capacity. The expansion of the subject facility will allow
the future development of this area by providing municipal sewer service and eliminating failing
septic systems. On a side note, the City has applied for, and received approval to construct
upwards of 40K feet of sewer to serve development planned for this WWTP's service area.
These permits, however, have been issued as "construction only" and no flow is to be transported
through these lines until such time as this NPDES permit modification has been approved and the
City has received an ATC for the proposed expansion.

The City has submitted a preliminary engineering alternatives analysis for this expansion;
however, changes/modifications to these proposed components may be necessary pending the
receipt of the proposed effluent limitations. Significant changes are not, however, expected with
regards to the IWC.
Pending receipt and approval of the draft permit, it is recommended that the subject
permit be modified as requested.
ture of Report Preparer
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Date

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
IENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
March 23, 2009
Kevin D. Smith, PE
HSMM
1460 John B. White, Sr. Blvd, Suite 1-C
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29306
RE: EA/FONSI: Hickory -Catawba WWTP
DWQ#13704
Dear Mr. Smith:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On March 19, 2009, the State Clearinghouse deemed the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act review on the above
project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse). It is now acceptable to proceed with your permit
applications through the Division of Water Quality for the proposed project. No further actions on the Environmental
Assessment are required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator
Attachments: (SCH Sign Off Letter, FONSI)
Cc: Rob Krebs — MRO
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity \Affirmative Action Employer
Ng7thCarolina
7V'atura/Iij

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF HICKORY-CATAWBA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
Pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. § 113A-1, et
seq.), an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed expansion of Hickory -
Catawba Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in two phases. The first phase of construction will
expand the WWTP from 0.25 million gallons per day (MGD) to 1.5 MGD and from 1.5 MGD to 3.0
MGD in the second phase. Expansion to this capacity will consist of the construction of a new facility
adjacent to the current WWTP and will include a mechanical bar screen and grit chamber in the
headworks; aeration basins for biological treatment; clarifiers for solids removal; a return activated sludge
pump station; a chlorine contact chamber for disinfection; and dechlorination facilities. Also, a new
building to house controls, office space, and a process laboratory will be constructed onsite. Biosolids
will be collected onsite in a holding tank and then sent to the City of Hickory's composting facility.
Effluent will be discharged to Lyle Creek.
Six alternatives for the treatment and discharge of the increased wastewater flows are considered in the
EA: no action; optimum operation of existing facilities; land application; reuse of reclaimed water;
regionalization; and a new upgraded and expanded Hickory -Catawba WWTP. Upon consideration and
evaluation of each alternative, the sixth alternative was found to be the most viable.
While construction of the new facilities may result in temporary increases in sedimentation and erosion,
noise levels, and dust in the immediate vicinity of the construction area, these and other direct impacts
have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable during project planning and design. Local
topography will be altered around the new facilities to facilitate operations and maintence and the
management of stormwater. Impacts to the floodplain of Lyle Creek will be minimized. Contractors will
utilize best management practices (BMPs) specified in an Erosion and Sediemnt Control Plan to limit soil
loss, erosion, the possibility of contamination during construction, and to prevent future erosion of
disturbed soils. Direct impacts to fish and their aquatic habitat will be minimized by these erosion control
measures. Also, an existing forested buffer along Lyle Creek will be left undisturbed by the proposed
project. However, approximately 3 acres of forest will be disturbed on the existing WWTP site to allow
for construction of the new facility. Displaced wildlife are expected to relocate to surrounding forested
areas. Increased noise levels associated with construction equipment would be limited to daytime hours
to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent property owners. The expanded Hickory -Catawba WWTP will
incorporate odor control processes as necessary to minimize the migration of nuisance odors offsite.
While the volume of effluent introduced into Lyle Creek will increase, the discharge limits for the WWTP
will allow for the assimilation of the treated effluent without detrimental environmental impact. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred that the proposed project should not impact federally listed
species. The proposed project should not result in significant negative direct impacts on local land use;
jurisdictional wetlands; prime or unique agricultural lands; public lands and scenic, recreation and state
natural areas; known areas of archaeological or historic value; or groundwater. Also, the proposed project
should not result in the introduction of any toxic substances during either the construction or operation of
the facility.
Secondary and cumulative impacts may result from the expansion of the Hickory -Catawba WWTP and
are outlined in detail within the EA. State and local programs to mitigate impacts in the project area are
described in detail within the EA and include stormwater management initiatives; the Catawba River
Basin Riparian Buffer Rules; and the County's Unified Development Ordinance. The City of Hickory
and Catawba County have worked extensively with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and USFWS to modify current and develop new ordinances for addressing watershed protections
(including buffer requirements) and sediment and erosion control measures. Also, Hickory will

coordinate with appropriate authorities to prevent impacts to potential habitat for the dwarf -flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis nan fora) and the Catawba crayfish ostracod (Dactylocythere isabelae).
Based on the findings of the EA, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained therein, and review
by governmental agencies, the Division of Water Quality has concluded that the proposed project will not
result in significant impacts to the environment. This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are
prerequisites for the issuance of Division of Water Quality permits necessary for the project's
construction. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared for this project. This FONSI
completes the environmental review record, which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
2 February 2009

t 60,ort. -770,_ lua-L
g(4'
\ Ltd Sk4,6w\ hAtAl
4114% _
itb Frk,i)&ta-/[44?
for-41-sc
6,A_ /04 44 0(1 ft-Kr
I/1'12 k 19e*
NobAcit‘IL
Laid 6,)91,4.1/
fltf
OtP-A
CI
liffilYz4,11

HSMM
1460 John B White Sr Blvd, Suite 1-C, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29306
T 864.597.0590 F 664.597.0583 www.hsmm.com
NCDENR/ DWQ
Attn: NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
March 10, 2009
Dear Sir/Madam:
Subject:
City of Hickory — Catawba WWTP
Hickory, NC
NPDES Application
60091044.202.3
Enclosed please find Form 2A NPDES Application for the expansion of the City of Hickory — Catawba WWTP
facility. A check in the amount of $1030.00 is included. Please contact me should you have any questions or
need additional information at 864-597-0850 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
HSMM
54--
Kevin Smith, PE
Project Engineer
cc: Kevin Greer, P.E., City of Hickory
Hannah Stallings, NCDENR
Gene Haynes, HSMM
Jim Tindall, P.E., HSMM
RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH

FACILITY NAP%.",NO PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba WWTP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTIO"'. REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIlt
Catawba
= .., .,ram-T % v ..q.: !�.'{!+t 'ft; •�' �t' 1P1.ti'..
•. 4 `'F 5 t i7ti,� ` ! Y^r- r 'i .,•'", {� .,�, tk t '
FORM �t rs ffyy � �
'
y�x H.•` 1:wiYC -•.
1 ` 4 �r . _ •�t..�. • .f I Q r�: �
2A .; ..
7.
•
NPDES .. -... ....-.
,. .,,,
- -.... _ .�'. ..
• ....... . ... ... , .4.•6.L.,srs,..y.kEt•7 �1iuli1 J9MY4ia :
APPLICATION OVERVIEW •
,. •. . ._ .
'' '+ , 1,":5 `
! °•'
Form 2A has been developed in a modular format and
consists of a "Basic Application
Information" packet
and a "Supplemental Application Information" packet. The Basic Application Information packet Is divided
into two parts. All applicants must complete Parts A and C. Applicants with a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.1 mgd must also complete Part B. Some applicants must also complete the Supplemental
Application Information packet. The following Items explain which parts of Form 2A you must complete.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A. Basic Application Information for all Applicants. All applicants must complete questions A.1 through A.8. A treatment works
that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States must also answer questions A.9 through A.12.
B. Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow 2 0.1 mgd. All treatment works that have design flows
greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day must complete questions B.1 through BE.6.
C. Certification. All applicants must complete Part C (Certification).
E
\!Ef
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION: •
,
D. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States and meets
one or more of the following criteria must complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data): Mi..., R v 0 200,
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
ALIT'''
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the information. DEN R - WATER QUALITY
�U(fn
E. Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the follovin fo IrhrlbTn cc1L I GEt tr rRAiKt
Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to nave a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of toxicity testing.
F. Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
significant industrial users (SIUs) or receives RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete Part F (Industrial User Discharges
and RCRPJCERCLA Wastes). SIUs are defined as:
1. All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N (see instructions); and
2. Any other industrial user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works (with certain
exclusions); or
b. Contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the treatment plant; or
c. Is designated as an SIU by the control authority.
G. Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a ccmbined sewer system must complete Par G (Combined Sewer
Systems).
ALL.APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE PART C (CERTIFICATION)
Page 1 of 9
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 755D-8 & 7550-22.

c
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba WWTP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
' RIVER BASIN: '
Catawba
�
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION . ' ' • •
PART A. BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLICANTS: '
All treatment works must complete questions A.1 through A8 of this Basic Application Information Packet
A.1. Facility information.
Fadlity Name City of Hickory— Catawba Wastewater Treatment Plant
Malting Address PO Box 398
Hickory. NC 286_03
Contact Person Shawn Pennell
Title Collodion System Superintendent
Telephone Number [phone]
Facility Address End of 6th Avenue NE
(not P.O. Box) Catawba. NF 28609 '
A.Z. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:
Applicant Name City of Hickory
Mailing Address PO Box 398
Hickory. NC 28603
Contact Person keyiaB. Greer. PE
Jitle . Assistant Public Services DirectorrPublic Utilities
Telephone Number [phone]
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
® owner el operator
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this pemdt should be directed to the facility or the applicant.
0 facility Si applicant
A3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any existing environmental permits that have been Issued to the treatment works
(include state -Issued permits).
NPDES NC0025542 PSD
UM Other
RCRA Other
A.4. Collection System Information. Provide infommatlon on ntiunidpalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
Name Population Served Type of Collection System Ownership
Hickory Cptawba Collection System 1110 Separate Mural
Future 28.77Q Seoerate Mumidna(
Total population served 29.684
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA fortes 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 2 of 9

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba WWf P, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
A.6. Indian Country.
a. Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
❑ Yes ® No
b. Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
D Yes El No
A.8. Flow. indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (Le., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the
average daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period
with the 12th month of "this year occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal.
a. Design flow rate 3.0 foropooed) mgd
jwo Years Aoo Last Year
b. Annual average daily flow rate 0.030 0.031
'This Year
0,038
c. Maximum daily flow rate 0.080 0.122 0.190
A.7. Coflectlon System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
® Separate sanitary sewer 100 °r6
0 Combined storm and sanitary sewer °6
A.8. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
a. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses:
i. Discharges of treated effluent 1
ii. Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent 0
ill. Combined sewer overflow points
iv. Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks)
v. Other
b. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? 0 Yes
If yes, provide the following for each surface Impoundment:
Location:
0
0
® No
Annual average daily volume discharge to surface lmpoundment(s) mgd
Is discharge 0 continuous or 0 Intermittent?
c. Does the treatment works land -apply treated wastewater? 0 Yes CO No
If yes, provide the following for each land aopllcatlon site:
Location:
Number of acres:
Annual average daily volume apptied to site: mgd
Is land application 0 continuous or
0 intermittent?
d. Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works? _ __ . _ _ _ --- __^ - - _ - -- ®..Yes _ ❑ .No
EPA Form 3510-ZA (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550.8 8 7550-22. Page 3 of 9

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba WWTP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
,
If yes. describe the mean(s) by which the wastewater from the treatment works is discharged or transported to the other treatment works
(e.g.. tank thick, pipe).
Bio-solids are transported via tanker W a Class 'A" composting faggtitv
If transport Is by a pasty other than the applicant. provide:
Transporter Name Citv of Hickory Public Utilities
Mailing Address P9 Box 398
tiiCkon. NC 28603
Contact Person Shawn Pennell
Title Collection System Superintendent
Telephone Number 1828) 323-7530
Egr each treatnnt works that receivesthts discharge, provide the following:
Name CiW of Hickory Regional composting Facility
Mailing Address 3200 2.01' Avenue SE
Newton. NC 20658
Contact Person Wayne Carrot
Title Chief Operator
Telephone Number (828) 465-14Q1
If known, provide the NPDES permit number of the treatment works that receives this discharge
Provide the average daily flow rate from the treatment works into the receiving facility. mgd
e. Does the treatment works discharge or dispose of its wastewater In a manner not included
in A.8. through A.8.d above (e.g.. underground percolation. weft Injection): ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, provide the following for each disease! method:
Description of method (including location and size of site(s) if applicable):
Annual daily volume disposed by this method:
Is disposal through this method 0 continuous or 0 Intermittent?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1.99). Replaces EPA tonne 7550.6 & 7550.22. Page 4 of 8
i

FACILITY NAMEANO PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba W TP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES:
If you answered "Yes" to question A.B.ti, complete questions A.9 through A.1 a onceior each outfal) (Including bypass points) through
which effluent is discharged. Do not Include Information on combined sewer overflows In this section. If you answered "No" to auestlon
MA go to Part B, "Additional Appllcatton Information for Applicants with a Des{gn Flow Greater than or Equal to 0.1 mgd."
A.9. Description of Outfall.
a. Duffel, number p01
b. Location Catawba 28809
(City or town, it applicable) (Zip Code)
Catawba )4C
(County) (State)
35' 42' 55' 81' 04' 25'
(Latitude) (Longitude)
c. Distance from shore (if applicable) 12 ft.
d. Depth below surface (if applicable) N/A _ ft.
e. Average deity flow rate 3.0 (oroaosed) 0.038 (current) mgd
f. Does this outfail have either an intermittent or a periodic discharge? 0 Yes ® No (go to A.9.g.)
if yes, provide the following information:
Number f times per year discharge occurs:
Average duration of each discharge:
Average Sow per discharge: mgd
Months in which discharge occurs:
g. Is outfall equipped with a diffuser? 0 Yes ® No
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters.
a. Name of receiving water Lyle Cheek
b. Name of watershed (if known)
United States Soil Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code Of known):
c. Name of State Management/River Basin (if known): Catawba River Basin
United States Geotogical Survey &digit hydrologic cataloging unit code Of known):
d. Critical low ttow of receiving stream (if applicable)
acute ds chronic Summer —16 : Winter — 29 cis
e. Total hardness of receiving stream al critical low Row (if applicable): mg/l of CaCO3
EPA Porn 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA toms 75504 & 7550-22. Page 5 of 9

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba WWTP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
A.11. Description of Treatment
a. what level of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
Primary gi Secondary
® Advanced ❑ Other. Describe:
b. Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable):
Design BOD5 removal or Design CBOD5 removal 98 e�
Design SS removal 88
Design P removal 88
Design N removal 96
Other
c: What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfall? if disinfection varies by season, please describe:
Sodium Hvoochlorite
If disinfection is by chlorination is dechtortnation used for this outall?
Does the treatment plant have post aeration?
Yes
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ No
96
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
parameters. Provide the indicated effluent testing required by the pemtttting authority for each outfail through which effluent Is
dlscharned. Do not Include information on combined sewer overflows In this section. Ati information reported must be based on data
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QAIQC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QAIQC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart
Outfall number: 001
PARAMETER
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
AVERAGE DAILY VALUE
Value
Units
Value
Units
Number of Samples .
pH (Minimum)
6.2
s.u.
pH (Maximum)
8.1
s.u.
Flow Rate
0.195
MGD
0.038
MGD
274
Temperature (Winter)
14
°C
11
°C
63
Temperature (Summer)
27
°C
22
°C
130
• For pH please report a minimum and a maximum day value
POLLUTANT
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
MUMDL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (Report one)
BOD5
5.4
mgll
1.6
mg/I
39
SM 52108
2 mgll
_
CBOD5
-
.
-
.
FECAL COLIFORM
8
#l100 mI
2
Geometric
mean
40
SM 9222D
11100 mI
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
11.2
mail
3.9
m1il
_ 39
SM 2540D _
2 mgil
END OF PART A.
.,- REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
_.. .... _ .... _ .. .OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COAAPLETE •
EPA Form 3510.2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA ferns 7550-6 it 7550-22.
Page 9 of 9

•
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba WVVTP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART B. - ADDITIONAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS WITH A DESIGN FLOW GREATER THAN OR
EQUAL TO 0.1 MGD 000,000 gallons per day).
All applicants with a design flow rate t 0.1 mgd must answer questions 8.1 through 8.6. All others go to Part C (Certification).
L
8.1.
8.2.
B.3.
B.4.
B.5.
Inflow and Infiltration. Estimate the average number of pitons per day
3.500 gpd
that flow Into the treatment works tram inflow and/or Infiltration.
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and infiltration.
Topographic Man. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries. This
map must show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit more than one map if one map does not show fhe entire
area.)
a. The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
b. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment works and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include mittens from bypass piping. if applicable.
c. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground.
d. Welts. springs. other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1) within Y. mile of the property boundaries of the treatment
works, and 2) listed in public record or otherwise known to the applicant.
e. Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored, treated, or disposed.
I. If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail,
or special pipe, show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and ail
backup power sources or redunancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g..
chlorination and dechlorinatton). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram.
Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s).
Are any operational or maintenance aspects (related to wastewater treatment and effluent quality) of the treatment works the responslblttty of a
contractor? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes. list the name. address, telephone number, and status of each contractor and describe the contractor's responsibilities (attach additional
pages if necessary).
Name:
Maihng Address:
Telephone Number. I
Responsibilities of Contractor.
Scheduled Improvements and Schedules of implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several Improvements, submit separate responses to question 8.5
for each. (If none. go to question 8.6.)
a. list the outfail number (assigned In question A.9) for each outfatl that is covered by this implementation schedule.
001
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by Local. State. or Federal agencies.
❑ Yes ® No
EPA Form 3510.2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 7 of 9

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba WWTP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
c. If the answer to B.5.b is "Yes," briefly describe, Including new maximum daily Inflow rate (if applicable).
d. Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed below. as
applicable. For improvements planned Independently of local, Slate, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as
applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MMIDDIYYYY
- Begin Construction 08 ( 01 / 2009 / /
- End Construction 08 / 01 (2010 1 /
- Begin Discharge 08 / 01 (2010 / /
_
- Attain Operational Level 08 / 3i / 2010 / 1
e. Have appropriate penitsictearances conceming other FederalVState requirements been obtained? ® Yes 0 No
Describe briefly: Environmental Assessment has received a rQNSI and the Ennineegne Alternatives Analysis has been approved.
B.S. EFFLUENT TESTING DATA (GREATER THAN 0.1 MGD ONLY).
Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following parameters. Provide the Indicated
effluent testing required by the permittIng authority for each outfall through which effluent is discharged. Do not Include information
on combine sewer overflown !n this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with CIA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate
CIA/QC requirements for standard methods for anatytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a minimum effluent testing data must be
based on at least three pollutant scans and must be no more than four and on -half years old.
Outfall Number 001
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL METHOD
MUMDL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
AMMONIA (as N)
0.2
Mg/I
<0.10
Mg/t
39
SM 4500 NH3F
0.1 mg/1
CHLORINE (TOTAL
RESIDUAL, TRC)
<20
ugll
<20
ug/I
76
SM 4500 CI G
20 ug/I
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
10.9
Mgfl
7.5
Mg/I
39
SM 4500G
0.1 mg/I
TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN (TKN)
6.2
Mg/I
3.0
Mgfl
3
EPA 351.2
0.50 mg/I
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE
NITROGEN
19
Mg/1
17.4
M�
3
EPA 353.2
0.20 mgll
OIL and GREASE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PHOSPHORUS (Total)
1.9
Mg/I
1.6
Mg/I
3
SM 4500 PE
0.30 mgfl
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(TDS)
_
-
.'
OTHER -
-
-
-
-
�� ' • . . END.OF PART B. - • •
.. REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER.PARTS -;
• - • ., OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE , . , • • . . .•
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-8 s 7550-22.
Page 8 of 9

•
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Hickory -Catawba VWVfP, NC0025542
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Major Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Catawba
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART C. CERTIFICATION •
All applicants must complete the Certification Section. Refer to Instructions to determine who Is an officer for the purposea of this
certification. All applicants must complete ail applicable sections of Form 2A, as explained In the Application Overview. indicate below which
parts of Form 2A you have completed and aro submitting. By signing this certification statement, applicants confirm that they have reviewed
Form 2A and have completed all sections that apply to the facility for which this application (s submitted.
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting:
® Basic Application Information packet Supplemental Applcatlon Information packet:
❑ Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
❑ Pad E (Toxicity Testing: Btcmonitoring Data)
❑ Pad F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRAlCERCLA Wastes)
❑ Part G (Combined Sewer Systems)
ALL APPUCANTB MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION. . •
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and ail attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel property gather and evaluate the Information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief. true,
accurate. and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information. Including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations.
Name end official title Mick W. Bern,. Citv Manager
Signature G-f..€4,7r-----
•
Telephone number f828) 323-7412
Date signed Zc(a C
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assure wastewater treatment practices at the treatment
works or identify appropriate permitting requirements.
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
NCDENR/ DWQ
Attn: NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
EPA Form 3510--2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA tonne 75504 & 7550-22. Page 9 of 9

NC Division of Water Quality
Planning Section — Modeling & TMDL Unit
Technical Memorandum
May 22, 2008
TO: Kathy Stecker, Modeling and TMDL Unit
FROM: Pam Behm, Modeling & TMDL Unit
CC: Susan Wilson, Western NPDES Unit
Sergei Chernikov, Western NPDES Unit
Jackie Nowell, Western NPDES Unit
Dianne Reid, Basinwide Planning Unit
Hannah Stallings, Basinwide Planning Unit
Trish MacPherson, Biological Assessment Unit
RE: Lyle Creek WASP Model Review
The Modeling and TMDL Unit (MTU) has reviewed the documentation listed below to
evaluate the effect of a 3.0 MGD discharge from Catawba WWTP (NC0025542) on
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in Lyle Creek. A summary of the MTU's review is
provided below:
1. Documentation:
a. Wasteload Allocation Study for the Hickory Catawba WWTP, Catawba North
Carolina (ENSR - Dec. 2007) - The initial modeling report submitted to DWQ.
b. Memorandum from Ken Heim, ENSR to Pam Behm, DWQ, April 24, 2008,
Subject: Comments Regarding the WASP Model of the Catawba River - After
initial review of the December 2007 report, MTU reported to the Western NPDES
Unit that the report was not complete as submitted and more information was
needed to evaluate the model. ENSR responded with the memorandum.
c. DVD containing model input files: "Lyle Creek Model DYNHYD/WASP Input
files 12401-001 ", ENSR 4/28/08 — Submitted to DWQ with the memorandum in
response to an MTU comment that DWQ should have all relevant model files.
2. Limitations and Uncertainty:
As always, there is uncertainty associated with interpretation of the model results.
Uncertainty results from: (1) limitations within the WASP model framework, (2)
assumptions made during model development, and (3) model calibration.
Limitations specific to the Lyle Creek Model include: (1) the modeling time period is
less than a month, although the time period does represent worst case conditions
(August 2007, during a drought), (2) there are limited data points available for

calibration, and (3) calibration results were provided for 2 out of the 7 monitoring
stations.
Pages 3-18 to 3-20 of the December 2007 Report document the results of model
calibration, with the DO calibration provided on page 3-20. Model predictions are
vertically averaged and represent average DO throughout the water column. The
difference between measured and predicted DO is as high as 1.5 mg/L at times.
In order to better understand the uncertainty associated with the model predictions,
ENSR provided a sensitivity analysis in the memorandum at DWQ's request. ENSR
evaluated the sensitivity of model predictions to changes in several key parameter
rates. The most sensitive parameter is the sediment oxygen demand rate, which is
estimated from ranges found in literature to be 4.0 g/m /day in the model. See Figure
7A in the memorandum for the results of the sensitivity analysis.
The MTU recognizes the complexity of the analysis done to develop the Lyle Creek
Model. Significant fieldwork was performed to provide site -specific information for
model development. This included dye studies, collection of chemical and physical
parameters, and flow gages. However, due to the limited number of data points,
sufficient conclusion on the accuracy of the calibration and the level of uncertainty
cannot be determined. Therefore the interpretation of model results and
determination of speculative limits should be viewed carefully in light of this
limitation.
3. Results of Loading Scenarios:
Three loading scenarios based on possible permit limits for a discharge of 3.0 MGD
were evaluated for this effort. Details on the three scenarios are provided in the
December 2007 Report on pages 4-1 and 4-2. Results of the three scenarios at
monitoring station LC7 (Lyle Creek near mouth) are provided in Figure 4-1 (page 4-3
of the report). As shown in Figure 4-1, Scenarios 1 and 2 both result in DO
concentrations below 5.0 mg/L at times during the model runs, while DO remains
above 5.0 mg/L for Scenario 3. Therefore, Scenario 3, 3.0 MGD flow with limits
consistent with tertiary treatment and effluent aeration. is the most viable option for
consideration of an expansion o discharge into Lyle Creek.
The December 2007 Report provided modeling results only at station LC7, which is
the most downstream monitoring station. The memorandum (mentioned above in
bullet lb) resulted from DWQ's initial response that impacts of the discharge should
be evaluated throughout Lyle Creek, not just at the most downstream monitoring
station. The memorandum contains plots of DO longitudinally (Figure 1A) and as a
time -series at each monitoring station (Figures 2A-6A). At no point in the modeling
time period does Scenario 3 result in DO below 5.0 mg/L.
Figure 1 provided below shows the locations of the monitoring stations and their
associated model segments. Figures 2-9 provided below contain additional plots
comparing current conditions (referred to as "calibration") with Scenario 3. MTU
generated these figures using the model input files provided by ENSR.

It should be noted that, as shown in Figure 1A of the memorandum and in Figures 8-9
below, DO decreases longitudinally to just above 5.0 mg/L at the confluence with the
Catawba River. The model predicts downstream DO concentrations will be higher
than current conditions for Scenario 3, however the decreasing DO trend remains (see
Figures 8-9 below). In addition, reversing flows occur in Lyle Creek due to
hydropower dam releases. Because of this, MTU recommends that if s e�culative
limits are issued for this • . d be frequent monitoring at this
downstream site to ensure that DO levels do not fall • e ow . i m
4. The model was not evaluated for nutrients (e.g. total phosphorus (TP) and total
nitrogen (TN)). This discharge is not far from the confluence of Lyle Creek with the
Catawba River/Lake Norman and the expansion to 3.0 MGD represents a huge
increase from the current flow and potential nutrient load coming into Lake Norman
from Lyle Creek. Therefore, to protect Lake Norman from degradation MTU
L ecommends that ' f speculative limits are issued the Western NPDES Unit should
consider the current end future TP and TN loads, and issue appropriate limits on both
an
5. MTU is concerned about the effect of the increased discharge on the channel
morphology of Lyle Creek and the quality of the benthic community. This expansion
will result in a permitted flow that is 13 times greater than what is currently
permitted. Flows in Lyle Creek were calculated to be 4.8 cfs on 8/20/07 at Station
LC2, which is just upstream of the discharge. This equates to about 3.1 MGD_So, in -
ermitted discharge at 3.0 MGD will double the in -stream flow under
(similar flow conditions.
DWQ should ensure that such a significant increase in flow does not increase erosion
of the stream banks and impact the benthic community. MTU recommends that the
DWQ Environmental Sciences Section (particularly Biological Assessment) have the
opportunity to comment on the possible effect of the increase in discharge on the
stream morphology and the condition of the benthic community.
6. MTU's interpretation of model results is based on model documentation and review
of model input files. Specific questions about model development should be directed
to ENSR.

C
4-
0
SSOSa8a8{888pyy8888POP888p� 8p.
E W 9m0 W {p09mm01pNOn12 VggOt;gT
r
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M a N b r a m H
F'1-f-1-I-1-F FFF-F- 1-t-1-FF FFF 4- -
�"=IoScogg40Slocr-sgssr-sr-g
Q� � '��m,nao��ln,niooarnrrrrrrrvr-
cts.-
L r H
> CO :~
N RS
V� � ; r _ ''% "
= L "SSSSSSSSSSSSSSpSpSS�ppSSS
W 4Oa 0 YY YY4Y8IN4OY}YS Y14O 0
ti V 00
O
rFrFrr-Frrl![If°rr-
F
00000000000000000000000000000000
g0O 0000 000004$g$g$ § § §s 8.s��� sg
n0 Fia�i $nw $ n nnnnnn
4-
��n In eh o�"rvn Oln rOr roTo.-�Nv v>�G NN N �
��r�rr�°��t=ref-�r•��-•r•��i=�•r��r~rr�r
c
�
m fll
cd
c c
N O
U
15 4.0
N m
(r0 • N
W
E
Z
c
Model segmentation and locations of monitoring stations.

•
8.5
8
7.5
a)
▪ 7
O 6.5
0
6
5.5
DO - Segment 151 (at the discharge)
5
7/31 814 8/8 8/12 8/16 8/20
Date (2007)
- Calibrated Scenario 3
Figure 2. DO (mg/L) at Segment 151, the location of the discharge. Calibrated refers to
conditions as they existed in August 2007 and Scenario 3 represents the expansion to 3.0 MGD
with tertiary treatment and DO of 6.0 mg/L.
8.5
8
7.5
ca ▪ 7
O 6.5
0
6
5.5
DO - Segment 153 (below the discharge)
l
5
7/31 8/4 8/8 8/12 8/16 8/20
Date (2007)
- Calibrated Scenario 3
Figure 3. DO (mg/L) at Segment 153, downstream of the discharge.

Figure 4. DO (mg/L) at Segment 164.
7.5
6.5
J
� 6
O
5.5
5
DO - Segment 175 (LC7)
,.i
4.5
7/31 8/4 8/8 8/12 8/16 8/20
Date (2007)
Calibrated Scenario 3
Figure 5. DO (mg/L) at Segment 175, the location of monitoring station LC7.

Figure 6. DO (mg/L) at Segment 181.
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
J
i% 6.5
E
p 6.0
0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
DO - Segment 182 (at Catawba R.)
''v,O,
$
Nit'
7/31 8/4 8/8 8/12 8/16 8/20
Date (2007)
Calibrated Scenario 3
Figure 7. DO (mg/L) at Segment 182, at the Catawba River.

8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
E 6.5
0
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
DO Longitudinal Profile 8/9/07
Hickory WWTP
Discharge
0 20 40 60 80 100
Segment
120
Calibrated Scenario 3
140
160
180
Figure 8. DO longitudinal profile for 8/9/07 at 10:36.
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
J
`v) 7.0
E
p 6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
DO Longitudinal Profile 8/14/07
Hickory WWTP
Discharge
•
0 20 40 60 80 100
Segment
120
Calibrated Scenario 3
140
160
180
Figure 9. DO longitudinal profile for 8/14/07 at 15:24.

Town of Catawba Upgrade of WWTP
l 1 T
•
Subject: Town of Catawba Upgrade of WWTP
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:51:36 -0500
To: Alex Marks <[e-mail]>
Alex,
The NPDES Unit has no comments on the subject project. The facility's NPDES permit
was renewed at its existing design flow of 0.225 MGD in August 2005. They also
submitted a speculative request in May 2005 for expansion to 2.0 MGD, however DWQ did
not provide speculative limits at the time. Based on the the location of the
discharge point, they were advised that a more complex model, the Water Quality
Analysis Simulation Program (WASP6) would be the best tool to determine the
expansion limits. Staff contact information for additional information was provided.
Please contact if any questions.
Jackie
1 of 1 12/5/2005 6:52 PM

•
HSMM
November 14, 2005
Ms. Chrys Baggett
N.C. State Clearinghouse
1302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1302
Re: Environmental Assessment
Town of Catawba Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
Catawba, Nora Carolina
HSMM Commission No. 60708
Dear Ms. Baggett:
Hayes, Seay, Mattern. & Mattern, Inc. (HSMM) has been contracted by the City of Hickory, North
Carolina, to design an upgraded system to replace the existing Town of Catawba Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) (NPDES Permit No. NC0025542). As shown on the attached Site
Location Map, the existing WWTP is located at 104 6th Avenue NE in the Town of Catawba. The
proposed WWTP will be built on undeveloped acreage at the same approximately four -acre site. A
proposed site layout map showing the location of the existing WWTP and the proposed structures is
also enclosed. The existing building and WWTP are identified on the layout map. All other
features are proposed as part of the upgrade design.
Please advise us if you see any environmental aspects of the project that require permitting or that
will need to be specifically addressed in the Environmental Assessment we are preparing for the
project. If you have questions, please contact me at 540.857.3284 or [e-mail].
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
HSMM
Lori C. Livingston
Environmental Scientist
LCL/baw
Enclosures: As noted
Copy to: Mr. Richard Anderson, HSMM
NOV 3 0 2005
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS
i5 ^ankiin Food PC_: 13446 Roanoke Vf 24034 Tel:[phone] ;; nsmm@hsm- _c:n wwN. srrrr com

3NON3tl gw41.0osNCo1PNW/-RASH
NOSONWfl 6l:YI:OL SOOZ/Yl/ll YQ ZO 3'%%CND_\N*o\oo+3\9oLo9\s3II3s00009\:n
L ainoiJ
80L09
SOOZ 'AON
(31ONvaad110 VNI1OLIVO HlhON 'VBMV1`d0 SOSf :308flQS)
VNllOa'd0 H1ION 'HGMd1d0
1NYld 1.1131NIVall 831VM31SVM
V8MV1V0 dO NMOl
iN3WSS3SSV 1b1N3NNOaIAN3
dAN NOI1d001 311S
71A VallYY1 V NN31lYN 'AV3S 'S3xxHN
RONNYN SE3td9P3 SL33UUDYY
NNSH
.00017
,000Z
,000Z=„
0 ,005 ,000 L
TWOS OIHd' JD

DIGESTOR
EXISTING YMWXP
BUILDING
LYLE CREEK
HSMM
FIFTY YEARS
CIVIL
TOWN OF CATAWBA WWTP
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
1 60708 1

1
'-,
A Npdesminor092403shp
Streams.shp
Usgs_nc.shp
Dotprimrds.shp
• N pd es major092403_cam.s hp
• N pd es_ww_100103_dwg s hp
Major_hyd ro grap hy_p olys.s hp
Major_hydrography_ares.shp
Lyle Creek
/ \ 1 \ 1;of LP?.
r ''
S-.., ' �F -i,
/,.r. _
ti i / ) . atawba R,iver.(Lk jJorman
.'.. 1L f
l J `.\./ ) , (, J(
1
a- 1 ,r-L1 �r-- 1 l� f' 1 1 1
1 '
1✓0b...%G
_0 ��
s : r�,t,,:
I` 1 1 v
•� \ 1 -�+ J" �. _ \ �f•

Re: [Fwd: Hickory -Catawba WWTP]
•
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Hickory -Catawba WWTP]
From: Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:33:33 -0400
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: Pamela Behm <[e-mail]>, Dave Toms <[e-mail]>
Thanks for waiting Jackie. I did speak with Dave Toms, the basinwide planner, about this expansion as
well. Comments for you and/or Hickory:
• You indicated the Lyle Creek Level B model showed the dissolved oxygen standard would be
protected. Looking at a map, I don't think a Lyle Creek Level B should be applied to a discharge
that is essentially at a mouth or cove. Does the Level B go into the Catawba River and evaluate
impacts to the river and headwaters of Lake Norman? If not, this is something that needs to be
considered before providing speculative limits, particularly since this is an 8-fold increase in
effluent discharge. (This project is not currently on our list of projects; if you need for us to do
this, it would be at least 6 months before we get to it and longer for completion.)
• Both Dave and I think that the additional nutrient load is not a concern for Lake Norman as a
whole. There are no eutrophication issues in this lake at this time. However, this discharge is
going into a wide area (almost a cove), so there may be some localized impacts. See below
recommendations about monitoring.
• I assume that with this size of an expansion, regular instream monitoring will be added to the
NPDES permit. This includes upstream and downstream temperature, DO, pH, and conductivity
several times per week. A downstream location in the Catawba River/Lake Norman should be
considered in addition to a monitoring location in the Lyle Creek mouth. The station in the Lyle
Creek mouth should probably include chlorophyll a (frequency: monthly, duration: May to
October, collection method: depth -integrated sample). I also assume that effluent nutrient
monitoring will become part of the permit.
• As of now I am neutral on the need for a diffuser.
Copying Dave Toms and Pam Behm to this email. If further issues arise, or Hickory decides to model,
please contact Pam directly and cc me to emails.
Thanks
Michelle
Jackie Nowell wrote:
A gentle reminder.
Subject:
Hickory -Catawba WWTP
From: Jackie Nowell <j ackie.nowell @ ncmail.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:52:26 -0400
To: Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
1 of 2
8/22/2005 11:45 AM

Re:- [Fwd: Hickory -Catawba WWTP]
•
To: Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
Hey Michelle.
The subject facility has requested spec limits for expansion from 0.225 MGD to 2.0 MGD. This is
the former Town of Catawba WWTP (Catawba County), purchased by Hickory earlier this year.
This plant discharges into Lyle Creek near the mouth. This is just as Lyle Creek widens before its
confluence with the Catawba River above Lake Norman. There is a management strategy in place
for Lyle Creek which says any expanding dischargers will get limits of 8/2/6 (summer) and 16/4/6
(winter) due to potential overallocation in the Lyle Creek watershed. (There are a number of small
municipals discharging to Lyle Creek and its tributaries. A Level B model was run years ago, that
included all the dischargers and the above limits were determined to be protective of DO. This
strategy has been in place since the late '80s - early '90's and has not been updated).
I ran a prelim Level B model at the expansion flow of 2 MGD and it would appear that limits of
8/2/6 etc. would protect the DO standard in Lyle Creek. I need to look at it more closely. My
questions are: Are there any problems in Lake Norman, that an expansion like this would effect? If
the expansion is permitted, should we require a diffuser? Are there any measure for TP/TN that
should be included ?
We received this spec mid June and I should respond to them by end of July. Any suggestions,
input, etc.?
Hit me back via email or call with any recommendations (or warnings). Thank you much
Jackie
Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
NC Division of Water Quality
Modeling & TMDL Unit
2 of 2 8/22/2005 11:45 AM

[Fwpl: Re: Nutrient models for lakes]
f
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Nutrient models for lakes]
From: Pamela Behm <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:23:57 -0400
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>, Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Sorry - I have no idea why I wrote BASINS for the model - I meant to write BATHTUB.
A good example to refer to is the Roberson Creek TMDL (should be on the modeling and
tmdl unit website).
Original Message
Subject: Re: Nutrient models for lakes
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:46:59 -0400
From: Pamela Behm <[e-mail]>
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>, Susan Wilson
<[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Hi Susan and Jackie -
I'm sorry that I haven't been able to follow-up sooner on your Hickory -Catawba WWTP
questions. Because this is a wide -area, like a cove, we would recommend the BASINS
nutrient response model be used. As for how to assess local impacts, that's really a
combination of both modeling and monitoring. These are really brief answers to your
questions. Let me know if you'd like to discuss further.
Thanks,
Pam
michelle woolfolk wrote:
Attached is a copy of lake nutrient TMDL guidance I issued last month. It has a
list of preferred models (and a bunch of other stuff).
Michelle
Pam Behm <[e-mail]>
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Modeling and TMDL Unit
1 of 1 10/3/2005 9:38 AM