NC0006190_Permit Modification_20050103

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIN`: COVER SHEET
NC0006190
Maiden Plant WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 3, 2005
This document is pririted on reuse paper - igriore shy
corzterit on the reYerse side

ATA
NCDENR
Gene Hudgens, Plant Manager
Delta Apparel, Inc.
100 West Pine Street
Maiden, North Carolina 28650
Dear Mr. Hudgens:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
January 3, 2005
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification
Permit No. NC0006190
Delta Apparel -Maiden Plant
Catawba County
A Final NPDES permit issued on May 15, 2002 was contested by Delta Apparel
primarily due to concerns associated with the effluent color limitations. Subsequently,
a Settlement Agreement signed by Delta Apparel and the Division on August 27, 2004,
specified revised effluent color requirements that are incorporated into this final
permit modification. This permit modification is issued pursuant to the requirements
of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9,
1994 (or as subsequently amended).
This permit modification is similar to the draft modification sent to public notice on
November 11, 2004, and includes the changes listed below. Please replace the old
pages in your permit with the modified pages attached to this cover letter.
• Modify the permit expiration date from July 31, 2005 to May 31, 2006.
• Add Special Condition A(3)- Toxicity Identification Evaluation- requiring the
permtttee to prepare a TIE upon chronic WET test results less than 11%
effluent.
• The color permitting requirements are now contained in Special Condition A(4).
Modify effluent color limits to 1200 ADMI and phasing down to 863 ADMI (or
lower) beginning 10/1/2005. Modify summer instream color monitoring from
monthly to weekly. Add a requirement for weekly instream color photos from
Maiden Salem Road bridge located approximately two miles downstream. Add a
requirement for polymer optimization in accordance with Delta's Polymer
Optimization Plan, until Delta implements a new color treatment technology or
ceases direct discharge. Add a requirement for the permittee to implement one
additional color reduction technology by 10/1/2005, provided color is still a
component of their wastestream. Add a requirement for quarterly progress
reports detailing color reduction technology selection and implementation.
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
DENR Customer Service Center 1 800 623-7748

rti
Delta Apparel
NC0006190
Page 2
• Monthly DMR reporting requirements associated with this permit modification
will become effective upon the permit modification effective date (i.e.,
2/ 1 /2005). Until that time, the permittee must continue to comply with
monthly DMR reporting requirements contained in their 1996 NPDES permit.
Please note that the receiving stream (Clark Creek) is listed as an impaired water on
North Carolina's 303(d) list. The stream segment containing the Delta discharge is
listed as biologically impaired due to unknown causes, while the most downstream
segment is listed as impaired due to copper, fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity. If
there is noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and degradation of Clark Creek
can be attributed to point source dischargers, then mitigative measures may be
necessary.
This permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not
affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit modification, please contact Tom
Belnick at telephone number [phone], extension 543.
Sincerely,
an W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: U.S. EPA Region 4
Donna Lisenby, Catawba Riverkeeper, 2295 Starnes Road, Edgemoor, SC 29712
Mooresville Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
NPDES File

Permit No. NC0006190
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,
Delta Apparel, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Maiden Plant
100 West Pine Street
Maiden, North Carolina
Catawba County
to receiving waters designated as Clark Creek in the Catawba River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III,
and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective February 1, 2005.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2006.
Signed this day January 3, 2005.
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0006190r`
A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until permit expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge treated process wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
E
;,.,,,i .c
..r T_'-. ,'....,..f
f
•
i _ .A.A.
©
LIMrr�-tA
R --
NIQR.,iNG. liftL
NF
%t.
-lMl�L
-:hell L
yyy.
__ _e.• __
l�
',."'..._
Y
v_ zi
1MremeSample
-
TrOe‘
_
t ^
t
t SampeZraon'
5 '._ram: �_
Flow
1.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
162 pounds/day
325 pounds/day
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
COD
2900 pounds/day
6800 pounds/day
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
785 pounds/day
1853 pounds/day
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
3.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
Sulfide
8.0 pounds/day
16.0 pounds/day
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Phenols
4.0 poundslday
8.0 pounds/day
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
437 pg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
PH
6 < pH < 9
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen2
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Chloride
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Sulfates
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity3
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Color4
1200 ADMI (through 9/30/2005)
863 ADMI (beginning 10/1/2005)
Weekly
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Color (April - October)
Weekly
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Total Copper (April - October)
Monthly
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week5
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Temperature
3/Week5
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Conductivity
3/Week5
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Notes:
1. Sample locations: Upstream = at NCSR 2007. Downstream = at NCSR 1274.
2. The daily effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
3. Chronic Toxicity (Certodaphnta) at 11%; March, June, September, December; refer to Special Condition A (2) and A(3).
4. The phased effluent color limits may be adjusted downward based on past performance. Compliance with the 1200 ADMI
limit is based on a 6-month rolling average of weekly samples, while compliance with the 863 ADMI limit is based on a
monthly average of weekly samples. Refer to Special Condition A (4) for a complete explanation of effluent color limits
and color requirements.
5. Instream samples shall be collected 3/Week (June -September) and 1/Week (October -May).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit No. NC0006190
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A (2). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 11%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlii monitoring using test procedures outlined in
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions using the following effluent concentrations: 44%, 22%, 11%, 5.5%, and 2.75%. 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 will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no
detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a
detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code THP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
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 Branch no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or
tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving
stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or
limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than
the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit No. NC0006190
A (3). TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION (TIE)
Should any whole effluent toxicity test produce a chronic value less than 11%, the permittee will
undertake toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) using the procedures described in Toxicity
Identification Evaluation: Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I, EPA/600/6-91 /005F,
May 1992 or similar methods. A final report will be generated and submitted to the address below no
later than 60 days following the initial test producing a chronic value less than 11%. The primary
objective of the TIE activity will be to confirm or rule out polymer as the source of toxicity.
The report detailing findings of the TIE is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
A (4). COLOR PERNIITTING REQUIREMENTS
Effluent Color Limits. Effluent color limit requirements are summarized in Table 1 below. The
permittee is initially subject to a 6-month average limit of 1200 ADMI. After the initial period, the color
limit may be lowered based on the permittee's performance over the past 12-month period, and
compliance will be based on a rolling 6-month average. Finally, beginning October 2005, a color limit of
863 ADMI (or lower based on previous 12-month performance) will become effective, with compliance
based on a monthly average. For the entire permit cycle, all weekly effluent color results will be reported
on applicable monthly discharge monitoring reports, as well as required compliance calculations.
Table 1. Effluent Color Limits
Effluent Color Limit
Compliance Reporting Date
Compliance Calculation
1200 ADMI
September 2004 DMR
Six -Month Average. For the
initial period (from the date of
permit issuance until 9/30/04),
the permittee will calculate a 6-
month average of weekly
samples, and report this value on
its September 2004 DMR.
1200 ADMI (or lower). The
effluent color limit will be re-
evaluated by the Division at 6-
month intervals (9/30/04,
3/31/05, 9/30/05). During this
period, the limit may be lowered
based on the average effluent
color concentration attained by
the permittee over the preceding
12 months.
Monthly, beginning with
September 2004 DMR
Six -Month Rolling Average.
Beginning with the September
2004 DMR, the permittee will
calculate a rolling 6-month
average of weekly samples
collected over the previous 6
months. For example, the
September 2004 DMR will
include the rolling 6-month
average for the period 4/ 1 /04-
9/30/04, while the October
2004 DMR will include the rolling
average for the period 5/ 1 /03-
10/31/04. The rolling 6-month
average compliance calculation
will continue through September
2005.
863 ADMI (or lower). The effluent
color limit will be set at 863
ADMI (or lower) beginning
October 1, 2005. The color limit
may be lowered based on the
average effluent concentration
attained over the preceding 12
months.
Monthly, beginning with October
2005 DMR.
Monthly Average. Beginning with
the October 2005 DMR,
compliance will be based on a
monthly average of weekly
samples.

Permit No. NC0006190
Color Monitoring. The permittee will conduct color monitoring of instream stations (upstream,
downstream) on a weekly basis during each summer season (April -October). The permittee will record
whether a color plume was observed around the outfall pipe during the weekly instream sampling events,
and include that information on the monthly discharge monitoring report. Influent and effluent samples
will be collected weekly for color on a year-round basis. Color samples will be analyzed for ADMI color at
natural pH. Effluent/influent samples will consist of 24-hour composites, while instream samples will be
collected as grab samples. Samples will be analyzed by a state certified laboratory. The influent
monitoring station will need to be located prior to polymer addition.
Weekly Instream Color Photos. The permittee will take color photos of Clark Creek at least weekly at
the Maiden Salem Road Bridge located approximately two (2) miles downstream of its outfall. This
information will be reported in the Quarterly Progress Report (see below).
Polymer Optimization. The permittee will maximize the amount of polymer added for color reduction in
accordance with Delta's Polymer Optimization Plan dated June 27, 2003, or subsequent plan
modifications approved by the Division. The Polymer Optimization Plan shall be followed by the permittee
until either Delta implements a new color treatment technology or ceases direct discharge of its
wastewater. The permittee may evaluate whether other polymers may be more effective at removing color,
or are more cost-effective. If a new polymer is selected, polymer optimization with the new polymer will
follow the same conditions specified above, or alternative conditions that are subsequently approved by
the Division. The permittee will report the daily polymer dosage, the polymer type, and cost of polymer
addition on a quarterly basis with the Quarterly Progress Report (see below).
Color Treatment Technology Evaluation and Implementation. The permittee will hire two (2)
independent consultants to conduct a color reduction evaluation during the first year of this permit. The
evaluation will examine the technical feasibility and cost of additional color treatment technologies (for
example, filtration, ozonation, chlorine pretreatment with indirect discharge to POTW). The permittee will
implement one of the additional color reduction technologies by October 1, 2005, provided color is still a
component of Delta's influent waste stream. The permittee will also evaluate the purchase of additional
land for wastewater storage and/or treatment.
Pollution Prevention/Best Management Plan. The permittee will prepare a Pollution Prevention/Best
Management Practices (BMPs) report. This report will address the potential for the facility to reduce
effluent color by incorporating pollution prevention measures and/or BMPs prior to treatment. This
report will include an evaluation of the dyeing process, including meeting with dye vendors to look at the
potential for dye reformulation and substitution, to improve dye fixation rates. The report will also
investigate whether any BMPs could be implemented that would reduce the amount of color discharged to
the treatment plant. The permittee may do this work independently, or request voluntary assistance from
the North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance.
Quarterly Progress Reports. The permittee will communicate frequently with DWQ during the color
treatment technology evaluation, and will submit a quarterly progress report to the NPDES Permitting
Unit detailing technology selection and implementation. The quarterly progress reports are due January
15, April 15,( July 15, and October 15 of each year until completion of technology implemenation and
compliance with the 863 ADMI limit has been achieved. The quarterly reports will also include weekly
col -down ittream pictures, daily polymer addition and polymer type, and cost of polymer addition. The
quarterly reports are to be sent to the following address:
NC DWQ/ NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Color Reopener. If data show that water quality standards for color are being violated by the discharge
permitted by the terms of this permit, then the Director may reopen this permit for the purpose of
imposing additional requirements pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114. Alternatively, if future conditions
change and color is no longer a component of the influent wastestream, then the permittee may request a
permit modification to remove color permit requirements.
A (5). AMMONIA REOPENER
The Division may re -open this permit to require daily maximum limits for ammonia. After calculating
allowable concentrations, the Division will perform an analysis of past ammonia data to determine if there
is a reasonable potential for this discharge to exceed these potential limits. If there is, this permit will be
re -opened. If there is not, the permit will not be re -opened, but will contain daily maximum limits for
ammonia upon renewal.

Jacieo sro�s
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.. YW REGION 4
i �`�% ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
y� \r 61 FORSYTH STREET •=- ..,
y44 PAOZ'C'' ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
. 2004
NOV 24ZOO
Mr. Tom Belnick
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit Modification
Delta Apparel Maiden Plant
Permit No. NC0006190
CCfr?it1 - L14
DEC 4 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Dear Mr. Belnick
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed review of the draft permit
modification referenced above and have no comments. We request that we be afforded an additional
review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the draft permit modification prior to issuance
or if significant comments objecting to it are received. Otherwise, please send us one copy of the final
modified permit when issued.
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

quick comment on NC0006190, Delta Apparel
Subject: quick comment on NC0006190, Delta Apparel
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:04:17 -0500
To: [e-mail]
found a typo:
Part A.4., Quarterly Progress Reports, line4 - "implementation" is
misspelled.
will send a no comment letter.
1 of 1 11/29/2004 9:46 AM

•
\V4
/ c,
PUBLIC NOTICE
, STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMIS-
SION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1517
NOTIFICATION OF IN-
TENT TO ISSUE A NPDES
WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough
staff review and application
of NC General Statute
143.21, Public law 92-500
and other lawful standards
and regulations, the North
Carolina Environmental
Management. Commission
proposes to issue a Nation-
al Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES)
Wastewater discharge per-
mit to the person(s) listed
below. efective 45.siays,
ftpm the publish date cif
0.thug
firotidrE0 ! a,3 f
Written comrhents
regard-
ing the proposed permit will
be accepted until 30 days
after the publish date. .of this
notice. All comments re-
ceived prior to that date are
considered in tha' final de-
terminations regarding the
proposed permit. The Direc-
tor o1 the NC Division re-
ceive a significant degree of
public interest.
Copi2s of the draft permit
and other supporting infor-
mation on file used to deter-
mine conditions present in
the draft permit are availa-
ble upon request and pay-
ment of the costs of repro-
duction. Mail comments
and/or requests for informa-
tion to the NC Division of
Water Quality at the above
address or call Ms. Carolyn
Bryant at [phone],
extension 520. Please in-
clude the NPDES permit
number (attached) in any
communication. Interested
persons may also visit the
Division of Water Quality at
512 N. Salisbury Street, Ra-
leigh, NC 27604-1148 . be-
tween the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to re-
view information on tile.
Delta Apparel, Inc., located
in Maiden, NC, has applied
for a modification to NPDES
permit NC0006190, which
permits discharges of treat-
ed process wastewater to
Clark Creek in the Catawba
River Basin.
Pub: November 12, 2004.

Boards I
• ,
-
r
,
•••
41104
bi4
0111.) b nronbit
141-1 be(
ILI ‘0 10 Itod-e,"
444dAm 44441/c44,cotin•,Acati4
4')
Ln v/ Mot& ovie‘ iL/6
is.11A./ pios EF-Ffche 2/1(os
.441 04% foi, : Se -Feb
6
..;
.;IIIIIIIIIII
'1
Page

NCDENR / DWQ
FACT SHEET
FOR NPDES PERMIT MODIFICATION
Delta Apparel, Inc.
NPDES No. NC0006190
Facility Information
(1.) Facility Name:
Delta Apparel's Maiden Plant
(2.) Permitted Flow,MGD:
1.0 MGD
(6.) County:
Catawba
(3.) Facility Class:
III
(7.) Regional Office:
Mooresville
(4.) Facility Status:
Existing
(8.) USGS Topo Quad:
E 14SW
(Maiden NC)
(5.) Permit Status:
Major
Modification
I 1
ara Stream eteristics
I.... ....' ..w. .. __.i_i .._d _... � .. „i.,, ... 1. ..w....e......aYa...........v a., .-.. .. .. .. ....,..i w ram .. ...... .. .......�...
.•......
(1.) Receiving Stream:
Clark Creek
(2.) Subbasin:
030835
(8.) Drainage Area (mi2):
66.00
(3.) Stream Index No.:
11-129-5-(0.3)
(9.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
12
(4.) Stream Class:
C
(10.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
25.5
(5.) 303(d) Listed:
YES
(11.) 30Q2 (cfs):
34
(6.) 305(b) Status:
(12.) Average Flow (cfs):
78.00
(7.) Use Support:
PS .
(13.) IWC (%):
11 % at 1 MGD
PROJECT NOTES
• This is a major permit modification for Delta Apparel, Inc., a major industrial textile facility
(1.0 MGD, Grade III) which knits, dyes, and manufactures cotton t-shirts. The facility
discharges 100% process wastewater to Clark Creek in the Catawba River Basin, while all
domestic wastewater is treated at the Town of Maiden WWTP.
• The permittee contested their Final NPDES Permit issued on 5/15/2002, primarily due to
effluent color limits imposed in that permit. Since that time, the facility has been operating
under the terms of their previous permit, which did not include color limits. A Settlement
Agreement signed 8/27/2004 included revised effluent color requirements, which are
incorporated into this permit modification (see below). This permit modification is subject
to Public Notice.
Conditions Incorporated into Major Modification
Proposed Conditions
Parameters Affected
Basis, for Con On
Modify permit expiration date
from July 31, 2005 to May 31,
2006.
Permit Expiration Date
Per Settlement Agreement.

•
Delta Apparel, Inc.
NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Page 2
NPDES No. NC0006190
Add condition requiring
permittee to prepare a TIE upon
chronic WET test result less
than 11% effluent.
Special Condition A(3)- Toxicity
Identification Evaluation (TIE)
Per Settlement Agreement. The'
TIE requirement will help
determine whether polymer
addition causes toxicity during a
failure event.
Modify effluent color limits to
Special Condition A(4)- Color
Per Settlement Agreement.
1200 ADMI and scaling down to
Permitting Requirements
Instream color in Clark Creek
863 ADMI (or lower) beginning
and the South Fork Catawba
10/1/2005. Modify summer
River subbasin was a major
instream color monitoring from
water quality issue addressed
monthly to weekly. Add
requirement for weekly instream
color photos from Maiden Salem
during the last permit renewal.
Road bridge located
approximately two miles
downstream. Add requirement
for polymer optimization in
accordance with Delta's Polymer
Optimization Plan, until Delta
implements a new color
treatment technology or ceases
direct discharge. Add
requirement for permittee to
implement one additional color
reduction technology by
10/1/2005, provided color is
still a component of their
wastestream. Add requirement
for quarterly progress reports
detailing color reduction
technology selection and
implementation.
Proposed Schedule for Issuance of Permit Modification
Permit Modification to Public Notice: 11 / 17/2004
Permit Modification Scheduled to Issue: 01/03/2005
State Contact
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached
permit, please contact Tom Belnick at [phone], extension 543.
NPDES Recommendation by:
(4/144 tore
//4-01/
Date
Page 2
Version: November 9, 2004

DELTA'S POLYMER OPTIMIZATION PLAN: (1) To optimize polymer addition to
Delta's wastewater stream to remove the largest amount of color based on the total
water flow of Delta's wastewater system and the amount ofcolor that is available for
treatment within the wastewater resulting from varying dye formulations; and (2) To •
optimize polymer addition as stated above without causing a failure of Delta's chronic
toxicity permit limitation.
METHODS: Once per month, during the final.week of the month, the vendor
technician and Delta Apparel staff will review previous weeks ADMI data and chronic
testing data (to the extent available). The vendor technician will then take six 500m1
samples from the untreated aeration basins. Five of the samples will be placed in a 5-
gang mixer and labeled as: a. control, b. 80ppm, c. 100ppm, d. 120ppm, and e.
140ppm: Sample b will be dosed with 80ppm of polyrrier, sample c with 100ppm, sample
d with 120ppm and sample e. with 140ppm. The samples will be allowed to mix for 3
minutes pursuant to vendor protocol. The five samples will be compared visually by
vendor and Delta Apparel staff to determine which dosage reduces color most effectively
when compared to each other and the control(a) containing untreated effluent. An Ad
Hoc platinum cobalt spectrophotometer will be available for a numertal reading to assist
with comparison. Utilizing the previous weeks' testing data and the current jar test
comparison, a dosage for the upcoming month will be set for both clarifiers based on the
dosage that best removed color in the jar test. (See Note Below). All data will be
recorded. A time dated photograph will be taken of all samples in a Macbeth Color Light
Box under the daylight setting. The five samples will then be sent to Delta Apparel's
color lab for ADMI testing on site and the data recorded. The sixth untreated sample will
be sent to an outside lab for ADMI testing. All of this data will also be reviewed by an
outside consultant on a monthly basis. These methods will continue for the two year
period as set forth in the modified permit. Should a chronic toxicity violation occur and it
is determined that the violation was related to polymer dose, polymer dose may be
adjusted as necessary with the assistance of the vendor to levels which do not
jeopardize chronic toxicity based on available data.
Note: The dosage is in parts per million per 850,000 gallons. This takes into
account the flow going into the waste water system (currently varies from 600,000-
950,000 gallons per day). Utilizing this dosage method, the polymer dose is
metered into the system based on the current flow rate which maintains
consistent dosage.
The above method is acceptable to Delta because it takes into account the color
being introduced into the WWTP, the flow of the WWTP, the previous weeks' test
data for ADMI and the most current Chronic Toxicity tests.
%AJIhICTni1 1')'!A 1170.,1

O O L/ cc-Mem co % - in) ►1 ;v/ nPi 4.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CATAWBA
DELTA APPAREL, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF
WATER QUALITY,
Respondent.
;•-. ,IN THE OFFICE OF
AD.MI3TRATIVE HEARINGS
02 EHR 1017
Z1104 AUG 21 A I!: 05
)
) cF 0,
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
>+i l:1i c,1 ! t'L i icvd 1
S)ntr' ;,I4‘fe
C flk tt ✓`J1 C > ) 1= (MI I }
r;
Ji
Q)1((/ p.Pin►;f-c,)
Sc'/ 1f,}1 (.Vl /{ ✓q ('€,+Ze V
Sr.-tI'A(11w�CO
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this the 27th day of August,
2004, by and among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, through
its Division of Water Quality (hereinafter "the Division"), Delta Apparel, Inc. ("Delta"), Donna
Lisenby as the Catawba Riverkeeper, and the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc. including all
its affiliated Lakekeeper and Coverkeeper program and volunteers ("Riverkeepers") (collectively
"the Parties").
WHEREAS, there is presently a contested case entitled Delta Apparel, Inc. v. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, case number 02 HER
1017, pending in the North Carolina Administrative Court before Administrative Law Judge Sammie
Chess, Jr. ("the Contested Case") ; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this agreement to resolve the Contested Case and
to address issues regarding colored effluent in the Catawba River Basin in which the Parties each
have an interest; and

WHEREAS, Delta holds North Carolina NPDES Permit No. NC0006190 ("the Permit") for
operation of an existing wastewater treatment works which discharges wastewater to Clark Creek, a
Class "C" water of the State of North Carolina in the Catawba River Basin ' ("The Basin");
), and
WHEREAS, the Division identified color effluent within the Basin as an issue to be
addressed in future permitting action within the 1995 Catawba River Plan; and
WHEREAS, Donna Lisenby, personally and on behalf of the Riverkeepers, provided
comments to the 1995 Basin Plan and is interested in minimizing the aesthetic impacts of colored
effluent in the Basin; and
WHEREAS, Delta applied for renewal of its Permit on January 26, 2000 and participated in a
color study of the Basin;
WHEREAS, subsequent . to the Color Study, and continuing throughpresent, Delta
voluntarily began adding polymer to its effluent to reduce color, and
WHEREAS, after the results of the color study were received, the Division formulated a
permitting policy for the color dischargers in the South Fork Catawba River Basin; and
WHEREAS, within the color permitting policy, the Division recommended placing a color
limit on Delta's discharge which would reflect a ninety percent (90%) removal of colo
r from Delta's
untreated discharge. The 90% color reduction was placed in Delta's draft permit dated d July 25,
2001; and
WHEREAS, the Division collected comments on
public hearing and through a public comment period.
comments concerning Delta's draft permit; and
Delta's draft permit at an August 2001
Delta and the Riverkeepers provided

WHEREAS, in part based on Delta's data and comments, the Division incorporated a phased
limit in Delta's final permit expressed as absolute effluent ADMI values. To determine the phased
numerical limits, the Division used the highest monthly average of colored influent from October
2001 and calculated various percent removals (85%,.87.5%, and 90%); and
' WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002, the Division issued Delta's final permit containing a phased
limit of 863 ADMI per month in the first year calculated using weekly monitoring data. Thereafter,
the color limit is phased to 720 ADMI in the second year, and thereafter lowered to a limit of 575
ADMI; and
WHEREAS, Delta's most current color data (from August 2001 through November 2002)
demonstrates that it is unable to immediately comply with the effluent limitations for color set forth
in the Permit using polymer addition; and
WHEREAS, Delta initiated this Contested Case regarding the Permit on July 29, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Donna Lisenbyand the Riverkeepers did not intervene in Delta's contested case,
but have maintained a presence at settlement discussions and allege an interest in removing color
from Clark Creek and the Basin; and
THEREFORE, in consideration of the obligations and duties set forth in this Agreement, and
the compromise and dismissal with prejudice of Delta's Contested Case, the Parties voluntarily and
knowingly execute this Agreement and agree as follows:
1. The Division will issue to Delta a modified NPDES permit containing provisions
which effectuate the following conditions:
Delta's NPDES permit will expire in May 2006;
3

B. Delta's NPDES permit will incorporate the terms of Exhibit 1 to this
Agreement.
2. Delta will review measures it can take at its facility to improve dissolved oxygen
levels in Clark Creek.
3. The Riverkeepers agree not to reveal the content of settlement discussions with any
third parties.
4. The Riverkeepers agree not to offer comments to or challenge the efforts of the
Division and Delta to modify Delta's NPDES permit to reflect the terms and conditions of Exhibit 1
or to bring any legal action or legal claim in any forum, administrative,civil or criminal, against.
Delta or the State of North Carolina relating to Delta's color effluent and/or chronic toxicity from the
execution of this Agreement until the expiration of Delta's modified NPDES permit.
5. Upon the effective date of the modified NPDES permit containing the substance of
the terms outlined in sub -paragraphs 1(A) and 1(B) of this Agreement, Delta will, within 30 days,
file a voluntary dismissal of the Contested Case with prejudice. Delta is not requited under this
Agreement to dismiss its Contested Case if the public notice and comment process results in a
material change to the provisions contained within Exhibit 1. A material change includes but is not
limited to a change to the following within Exhibit 1: ADMI color standards, color compliance
schedules or the manner in which compliance is determined, monitoring requirements, chronic
toxicity compliance and monitoring, toxicity identification evaluation and/or the polymer
optimization plan.
4

6. The Parties agree that no Party admits liability of any sort and that the permit
modification and subsequent dismissal of the Contested Case are made to terminate further
controversy.
7. • Each party has fully read this Agreement before signing and acts voluntarily and with
full advice from counsel.
8. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to its
subject matter and may not be amended or modified except in a writing signed by all Parties.
9. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed against any party hereto
by reason of such party being deemed to have drafted or structured such provision.
10. In the event that any provision or portion of this Agreement is found to be void or
invalid for any reason, then such provision or portion shall be deemed to be severable form the -
remaining provisions or portions of this Agreement and it shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions, which portions shall be given full effect as if the void or invalid provision or
portion had not been included herein.
11. This Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts. Any
signature required by this Agreementmay be transmitted via telecopier, and any signature so
transmitted shall be as binding as the original.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
5

00/2G/2004 11:14 8284269307
DELTA APPAREL Fri PAS 02
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the in iea have monied thin instzumeat in multiple originals, one of
whieb is owlodOod to have bon stained byeach patty, and each ufwbieb is deemed an original
fbr all purposes, With an intended effective data as act itatb above.
North Carolina Depattrrient of Environment
and Natonl Resources, Division of ater Quality
Donna Liseabyon behalf of t .o
Catawba Rim:d s
7

WATER 8 LAND SECTION Fax :[phone]
Aug 23 ' 04 13 :16 P. 08
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this instrument in multiple originals, one of
which is acknowledged to have been retained by each party, and each of which is deemed an original
for all purposes, with an intended effective date as set forth above.
Delta Apparel, Inc.
North Carolina Dep ent o f Environment
d Natural' an Resources. Division of Water Quality
Donna Lisenby on behalf of the
Catawba Riverkeepers
6

Aug 24 04 09:46a CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER 70437316GS
p.8
INWETNESSEOF, the Parties have executed this instrument in multiple originals, one of
which is aclarowledged to have been retained by each party, and each of which is deemed an original
for all purposes, with an intended effective date as set forth above.
Delta Apparel, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
Donna Lisenbyloti behalf of
Catawba Riverkeepers
7

Re: delta mills- NPDES permit
Subject: Re: delta mills- NPDES permit
From: "Don Laton" <dlaton©ncdoj.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:45:23 -0400
To: <tom.belnick©ncmail.net>
i think everything is on track. the agreement was signed. the case dismissed. I believe
it's time for the permit mod.
i understand that some documents may not have gotten to you. they were sent (again?)
by interoffice mail today.
touch base with me when you get to the modification part. let's discuss.
thanks.
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
dlatonnncdoj.com
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Laton, Don
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:[e-mail]
N:Laton;Don
END:VCARD
1 of 1 10/26/2004 9:27 AM

WOMBLE Or
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
A PRO-C:G1OKAt. II 11FD
LU .ULLIIY LU?4'AV1
One Wes: Fourth Street
Winston-Salem. NC 27 I U t
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web stte: www.wcsr.com
May 14. :n03
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
919-716-6766
Mary Penny Thompson, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box. 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Stan B. Green
Direct Phone: [phone]
Direct Fax: [phone]
Email: sgreen(u)wcsr.com
Sta /1/49 /
Re: Delta Apparel, Inc. ("Delta' j v. DEAR; File No. 02 EHR 1017
,-- frith k6
Dear Mary Penny:
In advance of our settlement meeting on May l 5, 2003, Delta Apparel Inc. ("Delta") provides
this summary to outline its position regarding the reposed permit modification entitled Supplement
to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements ("proposed permit modification") which you
previously forwarded. While this summary is not intended to be exhaustive, it should provide a good
starting point for our discussions.
Comparing the proposed permit modification with Delta's existing permit, including the
terms of our January 22, 2003 settlement agreement, we highlight below the following changes
which appear in the proposed permit modification. For each change, Delta provides its initial
comments.
Section A(2) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (ORTRLY)
�� • The existing permit states that "[t]l.e permit holder shall perform at a minimum,
j\0 quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the North Carolina Ceriodaphnia dubia
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. In the proposed modification. the phrase "the `North Carolina Ceriodaphnia
dubia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure' Revi:,ed February 1998, or subsequent versions" is
deleted. Also the phrase "using the following effluent concentrations: 44%, 22%, 11%, 5.5%, and
2.75%" is added at the end of the sentcncc.
Comments: Delta has no comments at this time.
\iikTH C;tR:.I INA SO'. Til

wohiBLE or
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
PLI
Mary Penny Thompson, Esquire
May 14, 2003
Page 2
• In the fifth paragraph, first sentence, t'ie phrase "for the pass/fail results and THP3B
for the Chronic Value" is deleted.
Comments: Delta has no conunents at tJ,.i� time. 4\4�} q � i f
P041Section A(3) Chronic Toxicity Monitoring 4f�t �'� 5� r.lta
-f°.`• Section A(3) is entirely new and repeals the chronic toxicitymonitaring requirements
of Section A(2) for the months of January, Febrility, April, May, July, August, October, and
November. Under its current permit, Delta is not required to test its chronic toxicity during these
months. We also note that should Delta fail chronic toxicity in any of these added months, it must
report the violation and be subject to enforcement.
Comments: Delta does not understand this change in light of the parties' settlement
discussions. First, the parties' January 22, 2003 settlement agreement did not
contain or contemplate increased chronic toxicity monitoring requirements.
In fact, the topic of increasing monitoring requirements has never been
discussed by the parties. Second, Delta previously understood that chronic
toxicity is an issue which the; parties determined would not be addressed
within the settlement due to complications surrounding the Special Order on
Consent (SOC) process. Instead, Delta understood that as a result of specific
concessions by the parties, the chronic toxicity requirements would not be
changed within the settlemen'. agreement or within the permit modification.
As way of background, at thz inception of our settlement discussions and
within the January 22, 2003 settlement agreement, the parties anticipated that
a SOC would be used to allow Delta to experiment with increased polymer
doses without being subject to chronic toxicity limitations. By so doing,
Delta could and would be regiired under the settlement to increase polymer
use until it experienced chronic toxicity failure without being subject to
enforcement action by DENR.. It was the parties' hope that this plan would
help identify how much po'.ymer Delta could utilize in the treatment of its
wastewater without threatening its chronic toxicity permit limitations.
In order to implement the parties' plan, the chronic toxicity limitation of
Delta's existing permit would be "relaxed" so that Delta would not be subject
to NOVs and/or penalties by DENR for violations. Because the limitation
would be "relaxed," a SOC would be required. Unfortunately, subsequent
investigation and discussion. revealed that entering into a SOC would be
overly time consuming and difficult. As a result, settlement discussions

WOMBLE pr
CARLYLE
SAND$IDGE
& RICE
Mary Penny Thompson, Esquire
May 14, 2003
Page 3
focused on a method to avoic the SOC process. In these discussions, Delta
indicated that in order to bring this matter to conclusion, it was willing to do
two things: First, Delta wo'ild agree (as it did in the January 22, settlement
agreement) to increase polymerdoses at its Maiden facility over the next two
years until a new color removil technology was implemented; Second, Delta
would agree to take the risk that polymer dose increases would cause chronic
toxicity violations. In exchFnge, Delta indicated that polymer dose increases
must be conservative and coi.ld not he expected to test the chronic toxicity
violation threshold_ Delta understood that its compromise would obviate the
need to alter or address chronic toxicity within the settlement or permit
modification.
In light of the above, Delta c:an not agree to Section A(3). Delta remains
willing to increase polymer use on a conservative basis and take the risk of
a chronic toxicity violation. However, Section A(3) increases Delta's
regulatory burden and provides a more stringent chronic toxicity limitation
than its current permit requ:ies.
Section A(4)Toxicity Identification Evaluation.'fIEn e��
• This entire Section is new and provides that if Delta reports a chronic toxicity value
less than 11%, then Delta must undertake an evaluation using the specified procedures. A final
report is required and submitted within 60 days following the initial test which indicates the chronic
value less than 11%. The primary objective of this provision, as stated, is to confirm or rule out
polymer as the source of toxicity.
Comments: As stated above, Delta does not understand this change in light of the parties'
settlement discussions. DeIt . does not recall that this change was discussed
or contemplated during settlement negotiations. This Section will increase
Delta's regulatory burden notwithstanding that, as stated directly above, Delta
is willing to conservatively increase polymer use and accept the risk of
chronic toxicity failure. Delta does not wish to spend its resources
determining whether a chronic toxicity violation was caused by polymer
addition. Instead, the more efficient plan is to focus resources upon
reviewing technology other than polymers to reduce effluent color.
Section A(5) Color Permitting Requirements
• Section A(5) has been substantially revised and contains multiple sub -parts. Delta
addresses each below:

Lso 4441/
W OMBLE Er
CARLYLE r
SANUKIDGE
& RICE
PLL(
Ak0A Ilk 0l1%1 wlj add
rtm
/ary Penny Thompson, Esquire
May 14, 2003
.) 4 Page 4
Effluent Color Limits: This provision was generally contemplated by settlement
discussions. Notwithstanding, color compl..a nee is based on four months of weekly sampling
data for each quarter.
1,Comments:
9
a
r�
Due to production variables, color compliance should be determined
quarterly and based on 12 months of weekly sampling data.
Color Monitoring: Thi s provisi on was gerierally contemplated by settlement discussions.
Comments: Delta has no continents at the tim £(,
6(lt
Weekly Photos and Stream -flow Measurement) 'l'his provision was generally
contemplated by se t-distf fissions, ever, stream -flow monitoring was not
previously addressed by the parties.
Comments: Delta has no comments at this time, but points out that stream -flow
monitoring has not previously been addressed by the parties' settlement
discussions. This requireit e: it further increases the regulatory burdens upon
Delta. I ty'"4 t1) 0''� \c�� a,jz
PO
Polymer Optimization; These concepts w generally discus uring settlement
negotiations. However, the amount of pol:yraer in ease ispecified a 10 11 n .per month
until either (1) color is no longer removed or( 2) a'chronic toxicity on occurs.' The
provision also contains a requirement tha. Delta evaluate o er polymers. Fina y, the
polymer increase/optimization has no ternii nation date-i.e., this requirement does not ce e
after new technology is employed at the en i of the two year period. CYLA tilt,
Comments:
While Delta is not opposed to the idea of polymer optimization in conc
the specific requirements of this provision present some problems. First, as
discussed above, Delta is wiling to increase the level of polymer dose on a
conservative basis while risking chronic toxicity violations. However, the
specified ten gallons per nx•nth is not a conservative dose increase and will
result in chronic toxicity V olations in the future. Delta can not agree to
increase polymer use until a chronic toxicity violation occurs. Thus, the level
of polymer dose increase specified by this provision is too high and seeks a
goal (chronic toxicity vic1 Lion) to which Delta can not agree without an
SOC. Second, unless otherwise a part of its technology review by
coincidence, engaging in continued studies of other types of polymers is a
waste of time and money. Delta's tests to date indicate that the product
- _currently_in us 's the best product to remove color. Furthermore, Delta's
LideVi
1140(11 j
m4 li 1- i1 9u` .
_ w ( CST
S - 3'1) 71v-4
roc a Jo
i5o74I1
01.\ 6U if
44, I-
011
s if fR
j CI).
CIA
9'?

WOMBLE Mr
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& Rici
PLLC
Mary Penny Thomason, Esquire
May 14, 2003
Page 5
tests show that the color removal capacity of polymers at its facility is limited
and has virtually reached its m a>:imum point. Delta believes that the goal of
all parties is to "fix" the color issue efficiently by implementing new
technology after physical plant construction, rather than relying on polymers
which, as demonstrated over the last few years, reach a point of diminishing
returns. This provision therefore should be removed. Finally, polymer
optimization should only occur during the first two year period of the permit
modification. As currently dratted, the provision would require continued
optimization, even if no polyrr.e-s were needed at the facility to reduce color
in the third year.
Color Treatment Technology Evaluation and Implementation: This provision was
generally contemplated by settlement negotiations. However, although filtration and
�1 ozonation technologies were discussed. they vi e-e not mandatory requirements of settlement.
d �� khan
D''k� bti Comments:(belta has no major comments this time. However, the language stating
wyy A
141a161-M p
',a -
S6
ekit
5V NI,
4a
Pollution Prevention/Best Management Plan : This provision was generally contemplated
by settlement negotiations.
that filtration and ozonation technologies must be considered should be
changed to make these technologies suggested areas of study rather than
mandatory. Furlhei more, Delta would also like to make clear that the option -
of sending its wastewater to the City of Maiden after pre-treatment must be
considered a viable technology -which it can employ to address color.
Comments: Delta has no comments at this time.
Quarterly Progress Reports: This provision was generally contemplated by the settlement
negotiations.
Comments: Delta has no comments at this time.
Color Reopener: This provision was not discissed in settlement discussions.(
Comments: Delta has no comments at this t'me.
Section A(6) Ammonia Reopener
• This Section appears to be same as Del:a's current permit

W OMBLE Er
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
RICE
PLLC
Mary Penny Thompson, Esquire
May 14, 2003
Page 6
Comments: Delta has no comments at this. time.
*******0*
In conclusion, there remain many issues which must be addressed by the parties. These
include, among other things, (1) the number of weeks which will be used to determine color
compliance, (2) the appropriate level of polymer dose increases, and the goal of such increases, (3)
the requirement that Delta evaluate different polymers, and (4) the specification of filtration and
ozonation in technology review, and (5) the inclusion as an acceptable new technology the possibility
of sending Delta's wastewater after pre-treatment to the City of Maiden. We believe these issues
can be adequately addressed through continued negotiations. However, Section A(3) and A(4) which
contain new chronic toxicity monitoring and investigation requirements are unacceptable. These
requirements increase (1) Delta's regulatory burden, (2) costs (running the test, etc.) and (3) the
likelihood of enforcement. Delta believe:, that th':se provisions are unnecessary and must be
removed from any agreeable permit modification.
We look forward to discussing these issues with you on May 15, 2003.
Very truly yours,
/AA_
Stan B. Green
cc: Gene Hudgens
Lori Hinnant
Clark Goodman

Delta Kills
Subject: Delta Mills
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:31:06 -0500
From: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Tom,
We tested the facility on 8/15/01 and got a chronic value of <3%.
Let me know if you need more information.
Matt
Matt Matthews
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
v-[phone]
f-[phone]
MailTo:[e-mail]
A few observations and much reasoning lead to error;
many observations and a little reasoning to truth.
--Alexis Carrel
Wk) (o)f&1 dJ4)L?
reta htke
On poi/NI 40-AY = Ypi
1 of 1 1/16/03 2:33 PM

TX &dieIL i4/0�t3 (kvo/»ly-41)
7-q>a f i cev-e) !H Za DO (4'1/45 /j°1.7`4
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary September 18, 2C
FACILITY REQUIREMENT YEAR JAN FEB \IAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
DAK Americas. LLC (DuPont) Pcnn 24hr prfac Iim: 90•/. Bhd
NC0000663/001 Begin:9/I/2002 Frcqucncy; Q + Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Brunswick Region: WIRO Subbasin: CPFI7
PF: 2.3 Special
7Q10: 918 IWC(%):0.38 Order:
NonComp:Singlc
1996 Pass — Pass — Pass Pass
1999 Pass — Pass Pass --- •-- Pass
2000 BI --- — Pass — Pass --- --- Pass
2001 pass — Pass — — Pass -- NR'Pass
2002 Pass — — Pass — Pass
Dallas W WTP Pcnn chr lim: 90% 1998 — — — — — — — •-- --• —
NC0068888/001 Bcgin;3/I/2002 Frcqucncy: Q Fcb May Aug Nov + NonComp:SINGLE 1999 — — — — — —
County: Gaston Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB36 2000 — -- — — — -- — — —
PF: 0.75 special 2001 — — — -- — -- — .-. -. —
7010: 0.075 IWC(%)93.93 Order: 2002 — Fail <12.5 82.2 Fail NR/Fail 66.08
Dan River Inc. Harris Facility Pcnn chr lim: 0.75%
NC0083275/001 Begin:2/1/1999 Frequency: Q + Mar Jun Scp Dcc
County: Rutherford Rcgion: ARO Subbasin: BRD02
PF: 0.91 spacial
7Q 10: 186 IWC(-/. )U.75 Order:
+ NonComp:Single
1998 >100 — >100 — — >100 — — >100 --- -- >100
1999 — — Pass — — Pass — — Pass — Pass
2000 — — Pass — — Pass — -- Pass -- — Pass
2001 — — Pass — — Pass — Pass -- Pass
2002 — — Pass — -- Pass
Dare County-(RO)J001 Pcrm 24hr p/f ac monit: 90% mysid
NC00701571001 Bcgin:5/1/1995 Frcqucncy: Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
County. Darc Region: WARO Subbasin: PAS56
PF: NA Special
7Q10: 0 IWC(%):NA Order:
NonComp:
1998 Pass
1999 Pass
2000 BI
2001 Pass
2002 Pass
BI
Fail,Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
— — Fail,Pass — Pass
— Pass — Pass
— Pass — Pass
— Pass -- — Pass
— Pass
Dare Connty-(RO)/002 Pcnn 24hr p/f ac monit: 90% mysid
NC0070157/002 Begin:5/1/1995 Frequency: Q P/F Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Dare Region: WARO Subbasin: PAS56
PF: NA Spez;d
7Q10: 0 I W C(%):100 Cyder:
NonComp:
1998 Pass
1999 Pass
2000 BI
2001 Pass
2002 'ail. Pass
Pass
Pass
Fall
Pass
Pass
Fail.Pass
Pass --- — Pass
Pass Pass
Pass •- — Fail Failt
Pass -- •- Pass
Fail.Fail Pass
Delta Mills Pcnn chr Jim: 110: if cxp 1.5MGD chr lint 16%
NC0006190/001 Bcgin:6/I/2002 Frcqucncy: Q Mar Jun Sep Dec + NonComp:Single
County Catawba Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB35
PF: 1.0 Spain
7Q 10: 12 I WC(%):I 1 Order:
1998 --
1999 --
2000 —
2001 —
2002 —
3,
16
31 1
Late
31
Bt
15.6.15.6 —
156 —
>44 —
31 — .•• 16
15 -- 31
31 — 156
15.6 — — 31.1
Denton WRTP Pcml chr lim: 90% 1998 — Pass — Pass Pass ••• -- Fail,Pass
NC0026689/001 Bcgin:4/I/2001) Frcqucncy: Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp: Single 1999 — Pass •- — >90 — --- 51.0 73.48 >90 >90
County: Davidson Region: WSRO Subbasin: YADO8 2000 — 21.2 >90 — 36.7 >90 -- Pass — -- Pass
PF: 0.30 Spacial 2001 — Pass — — Pass -- -• Fail>100 NR Pass Pass
7Q10: 0.0 IWC(%):100 Omer: 2002 — Fall >100 NR/>100 Pass — Pass
Dixie Yarns, Inc. Pcnn chr lim: 90% (Grab)
NC0083763/001 Begin:5/1/2000 Frcqucncy: Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Sternly Rcgion: MRO Subbasin: YADI2
PP: 0.072 Special
7Q10: 0 IWC(%):100 Order:
+ NonComp:Singlc
1998 — Pass — Pass -- Late Pass Pass
1999 Pass — — NR/Pass — — Fail Pass -- NR Pass
2000 Fail Pass — Pass — -- Fail >100 >100 NR Pass —
2001 Faa.Pass >100 97.5 Late H H H -- H Fail >100 >100
2002 Pass -- — Pass — — NR
Duke Power -Allen 002 Pcrm chr lim: 16% (Grab)
NC0004979/002 Begin:7/1/2002 Frcqucncy:Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Gaston Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB34
PF: 11.6 Special
7Q10: 95.0 IWC( %):16 (nfce
+ NonComp:Singlc
1998 Pass — — Pass — — Pass — — Pass
1999 Pass — — Pass — Pass — — Pass —
2000 Pass — — Bt -- — fate Pass Pau"
au -- --
2001 pass — — Pass — P2Ss — — Fail >64 >64
2002 >92 — — >64 — Pass
Duke Power•Belews Creek/003 Penn chr lim: 19-/ (Grab) 1998 — Pass — — Pass •-• — Pass
NC0024406/003 Begin:6/1/2002 Frcqucncy: Q Fcb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Singlc 1999 — Pass — — Pass — Pass
County: Stokcs Region: WSRO Subbasin: ROA01 2000 — Pass — — Pass — Late
PF: NA Special 2001 — Pass — Pass — Pass
7Q10: 80.0 1WC(%):NA Order: 2002 — Pass — — Pass •-
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Y Pre 1998 Data Available
LEGEND:
PERM - Permit Rcquircmcnt LET - Administmhvc Lcttcr - Target Frcqucncy = Monitoring frequency. Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly; RM• Bimonthly; SA- Semiannually; A- Annually; OWD- Only when discharging: D- Discontinued nlonnonng requirement
Begin = First month required 7Q10 = Receiving stream low Bow criterion (cfs) += quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon failurc or NR Months that testing must occur • ex. Jan Apr. Jul. Oct NonComp = Current Compliance Rcquircmcnt
PF = Permitted Row (MGD) IWC%= Insttcam waste concentration P/F = Pass/Fail tent AC = Acute CHR = Chronic
Data Notation: f - Fathead Minnow; • - Ccriodaphnia sp.; my - Mysid shrimp; ChV • Chronic value; P • Mortality of stated perecntagc at highest concentration; at - Performed by DWQ Aquatic Tox Unit; bt - Bad test
Reposing Notation: --- = Data not required; NR - Not reposed Facility Activity Status; I - Inactive. N - Ncwly Issucd(To construct); H • Active but not discharging; t-Morc data available for month in quastion: • = ORC sigmaturc needed
17

WFIOLE EFFLUENTr"nCITY TESTING 0[SELF-MONITORING SUMMARY) Fri, Dcc 14, 1990
FACILITY
CULP INC.
NPDES8: NC0001651
County: GUILFORD Region: WSRO
PF: 0.001
7Q10: 0.8 IWC(%):0.19
REQUIREMENT YEAR )AN
PERMIT ACUTE LIMIT: >209e '86
Begin: 6/l/8'7 F:equencY- Q . '87 —
Months: '88
SOC/JOC Req: '89
'90
CULP INC.
\'POESN: N03069574
County: GUILFORD Region: WSRO
PF:.001
7Q10: 0.8 IWC(%):0.19
PERMIT ACUTE LIMIT: >20% '86
Begirt 6/1/87 Froquaney: Q .87 —
Months: JUL OCT JAN APR '88 —
SOC/JOC Req: '89 —
90 —
CLIP LNC.
"PDES/I: NC0069582
County: GUILFORD Region: WSRO
PF:.001
7Q10: 0.8 IWC(%):0.19
PERMIT ACUTE LMIT: >20% '86
Begin: 6/1/87 FroquencY. Q '87 —
Months: JUL OCT JAN APR '88 —
SOC/JOC Req: '89 —
90 —
DALLAS WWTP
NPDES8: N00068888
County: GASTON Region:MRO
PF: 0.75
7Q10: 0.075 I W C(%): 93.9 3
DARCO WATER SYSTEMS. LNC
NPDESI: NC0028509
County: DURHAM Region: RRO
PF: 0.005
7Q10: 0.00 I W C(%):100.00
LETTER ACUTE TARGET:SIGNIF MORT REDUCTION '86
Begun 10/1/89 Fmqueney: M '87
Mouths: '88
SOC/JOC Req: '89 —
90 >90
OFiLLYE (3/87) '86 —
Begin: 00/00/DO Frequency. D '87 NR
Mouths: '88
SOC/JOC Rcq: '89
'90
DARE CO LANDFILL
\PDES8: NC0049140
County: DARE
PP: 0.16
7Q10: 0.00 IWC(%):100.00
C(%):100.00
Region: WARO
LETTER ACUTE TARGETSIGNWF MORT REDUC '86
Begin:12/1/89 Pregoe:tcy. M '87
Months: '88
SOC/JOC Req: '89 —
90 120
DAVIE COUNTY WWTP
NPDES8: NC0024872
County: DAVIE
PF:1 S
7Q10: 106
Region: WSRO
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT: 2.0%
Begin:6/1/87 Frcqucrxy: Q P/F
Months: JUL OCT JAN APR
'86
'87 —
'88 —
SOC/JOC Req: '89 LATE
IWC(%):2.14 90 PASS
DELTA MILLS
NPDESO: NC0006190
County: CATAWBA
PF:1.0
7Q10:0.20
Region: MR0
IWC(%):88.6
DENTON WWTP
NPDESI: NC002.6689
County: DAVIDSON Region: WSRO
PF:0.3000
7 Q 10: 0.000 I W C(%):100.0 0
iER.M1fr CHRONIC LMrT: 89%
Begin 6/1/88 F..y Y. Q P/F
Months: JAN APR JUL OCT
SOC/JOC Req:
PERMIT CHRONIC LMR: 99%
Begin: 7/1/90 Frequency: Q P/F ,
Months: FEB MAY AUG NOV
'86
'87
'88
'8
9
'86
'87
'88
SOC/JOC Req: '89 —
90 NONE
DESIGN TECILNOLOGIFS LN 1/7/88 CROFT NPDES AS PIPE 003
YPDESN: N00067679 Begirt 00/00/00 Frequency: D
County: ROBESON Region: FRO Mrmths:
PF: 0.048 SOC/10C Req:
7010: 0.20 I W C(%): 27.03
'86 —
'87 -
'88 1
'89
90
72 >90
NR
>90 53.9
PASS
PASS
(PASS)
PASS
NR
NONE
JUL AUG SF.P
N
>90 NR NR NO- NE NR
74.2 >90 >90 NR
PASS
PASS
FAIN. 67ChV,F 1
AIL
PASS
(PASS)
(PASS)
NR
PA- SS
PASS
PASS
NR
PA- SS
NR
(PASS)
(—)
NR
0 2 consecutive failures = significant noncompliance Y 1985 data available
IFGF_ND: ..
PF=I}tmired Bow (MGD), 7Q10=Recciving streams low flow criterion (cfs), IWC%=Instream waste concentration, Begin=Pint month required. Frequencym(Monitoring frequency): (Q-Quarterly, M :Monthly, BM•Bimonthly; SA-Semiarmuallr, A -Annually:
)WD.OnIy c =:: eo g; tiscontinucd marr:orusg requ icenr..0 IS -Conducting independent study], P/F=Pass/Fail chronic bioassay, AoAcute, Chr=Q ronie, ,=quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon single failure,
Da:a Notation): If=Fe.: eed Mirm r, ..-Ceriortapitniasp., my=Mvsid shrug, ChV=Chronic value, P=Mortality of stated percentage at highest concentration. at=Performed by DE.'.1 Aq Toe Group, bt=Bad test].
i:tenoning Notation): i•—=Data not required, \R=N A:epacted, ( )=Bcgi-utmg of Quarter]. (Facility Aaivuy Status': (I=inactive, :.Newly IssuerYTo comnuct). II=Active but not discharging)
OCT
NR
NR
NONE
>90•
NR
NR
PASS
NONE*
NOV
bt
NR
PASS
DEC
FAIL
NR
"R
(—)
32.;• NONE.
NR
•
•
13

WHOLE EFFLUENTTOXICITY TESTING 0(SELF-MONITORING SUMMARY] Mon. Jan 16. 1995
1N. AI1G SF.P QCT NOV
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY RN 16.87• 33.84'
FACR.TCY RB.RM CUR
20.2' NONE' NONE' NONE' 93.9' NONE' NONE' FAIL NR
B7 69.4B' 60.99' 38.7' 55.4 35.4 PASS—
DARE CO LANDFB L PERM CHR LiM: 90% 92 61.2' — — — — — PASS — — FAIL
—
•
p/F d 1TII MAY AUG NOV NonComp:SINGLE 93 FAIL Na PASS
NC0049140/00l Begin:lI/1192 FregKncrd Q FAIL LATE FAIL LATE NR
Re ion: WARO Subbasin: CFIOSI 94 _ FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
County:DARE 8
I'F:0.16 Special SOC: 6/22l92-11/I/94 CHR PM' MON1T Q 90% (NO A) 85 — _ _
Order' PASSmy PASSmy —
7Q10:0.00 ]WC(%):100.00 91 — — PASSmy PASSmy PASSmy LATE — y — PASSmy — LET AC 7 AK S1CrN MOIL 12411k MY — — LATE PASSmy PASSmy — — —
S PASSmy PASSmy
— — PASSmy — — r- FAI1my PASSmy
PASSmy —
PASSmy — — PASSmy —
DARECUUNTY-RL?VERSLOSMOSIS/002 Noncom 92 PASSmy
NC0070157/002 Begin:7/30/91 Frequency: Q P/F JAN APR JUL OCT P: 92 PASSmy
County:DARE Region: WARO Subbasin: C11055 93 FASmy1
Special 95
91
7F: NA Orden
DAYCO CORP. LET CIH2 TAR:23% 02
NC0000329/001 Begin:12/12194 Frequency: Q P/V A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp: 92
County:lHAYWOOD Region: ARO Subbasin:FRI305 D3
Special 95
Order. 7Q10: 5.6 IWC(%):23.0 9
DELTA MILLS P2-PERM CUR LIM:1 I% 9
NC0006I90/001 Begin:1/1/92 Frequency: Q P/F MAR JUN SEP DEC NonComp:Avg ChV 9
County:CATAWBA Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB35 94 — —
PF: 1.0 Special' der: 95
7Q10: 0.20 1WC(%):88.6 Or91 —
DENTON WWTP PERM CIIR LIM:90% 92141
NC0026689/001 Begin:9/1/94 Frequency: Q P/F A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp:SINGLE 92 —
County:DAVIDSON Region: WSRO Subbasin: YAD08 93 _-
Special 95
PF:7010: 0.0 IWC(%): 100 0.30 Order.
9
DICKTI/L CULLIGAN, INC. LET: 241IR LC50 AC 90% FTHD (GRAB) 921 — _ _ — —
MONTHLY NonComp:
—
County CART Eegin:92919R Frequency: M 93 — — _ — —
Counry:CARTEREC Region: WBiO Subbasin: 94 —
Special 95 — .-
7F: Order. — — — — — — — —
7Q10: TIDAL CWC(%): 91 — — — — — — —
DUKE POWER TRAINING/TECH C. Frequency:
PERM: 24HR P/F AC MONCC 90% CERIO; BEGIN 4/1/95 241 B2 — — — — —— — — — —
A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp:SINGLE — — — — — — — FAIL
County: 55/OOl Begin:4/1/94 . Frequency: Q 93 — — FAIL — — PASS
County: MFLIO FNBURG Region: MRO Subbasin: CCD32 94 — —
Special 95 —
PF:0.0200 Orden — — PASS — — PASS
7010:80.0 IWC(%):0.03 Bt PASS — PASS— — — PASS —
PERM CIIR LIM:11% (GRAB) PASS — PASS — _ PASS —
DUKE 04979/•ALLFN 002 92 PASS PASS — — PASS —
Co ty:GA TO IIegin:12/1/89 Frequency: Q P/F A JAN APR JUL OCT NonComp: — — — — � PASS
93 PASS PASS PASS
County:GASTON Region:MRO Subbuin:C77134 94 PASS —
Speeial 95 - PASS
PF:7.6 Order: — — PASS
7Q10:95.0 1WC(%):11.0 B1 — PASS — — PASS — — PASS — PASS
PERM CUR LIM:33% (GRAB) 91 — PASS — — PASS-.- — PASS
DUKE 24406 03 BeWSCRF�K/003 — PASS — — PASS — PASS
Co County
STOKE Begin:3/ll93 Frequency: Q P/F A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp:SINGLE 93 — PASS — — — — PASS —
PF:7. STOKES Region: WSRO Subbasin: ROA 94 — PASS —PASS
Y• Special 95 _ — —
7F:7.T Order. _ — — —
7QIo:24.0 IWC(%):33.0 9t — — — — — — — -.. — —
DUKBPOWER.BELEWS5/1/93 /005 PERM: 24HR P/F AC LIM 90% 92 — — — — N N N N N
A FEBMAY AUG NOV NonComP:SINGLE N N N N N N
County:ST KE Degin:Sl1/93 : WSRO Q93 N — N N N N
County:STOKES Region:WSRO Subbuin:ROA01 94 _- N
special on
PP: -- rnde,:
10111: LAKE I W t'l'4�1: NA
f ::C
PASS —
FAIL FAIL
FAIL PASS
PASS
FAIL
PASS
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
NRJFAIL
PASS
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL PASS — rR
PASS — — PASS —
FAIL PASS — FAIL PASS
PASS — — PASS
f,R
0 2 consecutive fnilurcfiu
s = aignint noncompliance Pre 1991 Dann Available
ce to D- Discontinued monitoring requitement; IS -Conducting independent stu
OWD-whendischarg' g:
LEGEND: Frequency = Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly: M- Monthly; BM- Bimonthly; SA- Semiannually; A- Annually; Only NonComp = Current Compliance Requirement
OCT
B= Firsmonth Requitement LET010 = Administrativeegsa Later -Target )gl =
Benin = First teouired 7Q10 =Receiving stream low Bow interior (cfs) P/F = quarterly Pass/Fad chronic increases to
Acute monthly upon CL le failure Months that testing must occur - ex. IAN,AFR,IUL,
c
Data
o Notation: flow Fathead
Minnow:
- 94odaoam wrote .: my - on
aired; NR - Not reported; ( ) - Beginning of Quarter Facility Activity Status: 1- Inactive, N - Newly Issued(To
construct); II - Active but not discharging; t-More data available for month in question SIG = ORC signature needed
Data Permitted
to f (MO Minnow; • - lnsirea waste
so.: my - Mvsidoshrimp: ChV - Chronic avalue:s/Fa I - Mortalitves of stated = Acute
at highest = Chronicniion: al - Performed by DEM Tox Eval Grout: bl - tat
nia
Reporting Notation: ••• =Data not required;

/ ,/ h - C'/ 4Alt 61...ct.4
United States Department of th
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Tom Belnick, Environmental Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality, NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Tom:
ai61iE0\][!
I i NOV 1 3 2002
L�
DENR-\DATER OUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
J
November 8, 2002
In response to your request for low -flow data, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is providing low -
flow characteristics for the partial -record site on Clark Creek at Lincolnton (station id 02143260, drain-
age area 91.2 mi2). The estimated low -flow characteristics that are provided on the attached sheet are
based on analysis of discharge records collected at the site. Please note that the flow estimates do not
account for the presence of any diversions or regulation, present or future, which may occur upstream
of the request site.
As of the 2002 water year, a total of 113 discharge measurements are listed on record for the partial -
record site covering the period 1947 through 2002. For the low -flow analysis, discharge records at
three continuous -record sites in the vicinity of the request location were used as index sites: Sta.
02143000, Henry River near Henry River; Sta. 02143040, Jacob Fork at Ramsey; and Sta. 02143500,
Indian Creek near Laboratory. Correlation of the discharges at the partial -record site (02143260) with
concurrent discharges at each of the index sites resulted in relations that were used to derive the indi-
vidual low -flow discharges which were then averaged to determine the low -flow discharge for each
statistic (see attached sheet).
In your request, you inquired about the 30-day, 2-year (30Q2) low -flow discharge as being of particular
interest. The results of this analysis indicate that the 30Q2 low -flow discharge is estimated to be about
40 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). Based on the drainage area of 91.2 mi2, this 30Q2 estimate is equiv-
alent to 0.44 cubic feet per second per square mile ([ft3/s]/mi2). This yield is very comparable to that
(0.42 [ft3/s]/mi2) predicted using the low -flow regional relations presented in USGS Water -Supply
Paper 2403, "Low -flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina," (Giese and Mason, 1993).
Examination of the 30Q2 yields of nearby sites listed in Table 1 of the report indicates the yield at the
request site (0.44 [ft3/s]/mi2) falls well within the range of 30Q2 yields at the nearby sites.
Please note that these data are preliminary and subject to revision pending approval for publication by
the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, and are made available through the cooperative program
of water -resources investigations with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at [phone].
Enclosure
Sincerely,
I. Curtis Curtis Weaver
Hydrologist
[phone] • FAX [phone]

,SUMMARY OF LOW -FLOW ESTIMATES IN RESPONSE TO REOUEST
REQUEST NO: 91617 SITE NO: 01 DATE: 11/01/2002
SOURCE: NC DENR ACTION: Existing
STATION NUMBER: 02143260 STATION TYPE: Partial -record (02)
STATION NAME: Clark Creek at Lincolnton, NC
LOCATION: At bridge at Secondary Road 1008, at Lincolnton, and 0.2 mile upstream from mouth
LATITUDE: 35°28'30" LONGITUDE: 81 ° 16'00"
QUANDRANGLE NAME AND NUMBER: Lincolnton West [F-13-NE1
COUNTY CODE: Lincoln [ 1091 STATE CODE: NC [371 DISTRICT CODE: NC [371
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03050102 ENR BASIN CODE: 03-08-35
DRAINAGE AREA: 91.2 mi2
Flow statistics as follows:
AVERAGE FLOW: Estimated using 1.2 ft/s/ 2 109 ft3/s see note U
ANNUAL 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.2094 f 3/s/mi2 19.1 ft3/s see note �J
ANNUAL 30Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.4474 ft3/s/mi2 40.8 ft3/s see note [ AI
WINTER 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.3531 ft3/s/mi2 32.2 ft3/s see note LA]
l
ANNUAL 7Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.3783 ft3/slmi2 34.5 ft3/s see note [ Al
NOTES:
[A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the request site.
[B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff characteristics observed at nearby streams.
[C] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 "Low -flow Characteristics
of Streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993).
[D] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 and in conjunction with
streamflow records collected at or near the request site.
[E] See remarks.
These data are considered provisional and subject to revision pending approval by the Director, USGS.
REMARKS:
• Low -flow estimates based on analysis of discharge records at site. Correlation analyses used three nearby
index sites: Sta. 02143000, Henry River near Henry River; Sta. 02143040, Jacob Fork at Ramsey; and Sta.
02143500, Indian Creek near Laboratory.
• Requested by Mr. Tom Belnick, N.C. Division of Water Quality
ENTERED BY: JCW FEE CHARGED: $ 0

Date: q /17 10,-
Time: -
3/D
TELEPHONE RECORD IJ€11Ii.
Project: 01 i )'
❑ Return MO Mrs. C. ✓h Wa7(�e1
Call to Address
J
❑ Call from
Subject:
Representing: U3 6-S
Telephone: [phone]oY3 FAX
30 aL /aetric Cf()&
NOTES/ SUMMARY
aO?JV3Z-6000 C', rt &,'eR kco/ i»i
S+z4hn �
-i& qtvit Y,culcklahon Qb9& 14i ,oQL. 3$cfi
COv AvuiI,'.< Cak r needy shto
* Ito co•b¢; 1 .1n
h 4 /0�- oPd4 �� r :!o7iI it q jg7'A1ztj-f,�
C4.'h ced cec4/C - eThsitik 4 30Q1- = G7ej
n1= !0V+ "tDI-'will jii id/47 oiAd oh*/ -Py - #_
itos 1111 14 )41
-
NEEDED FOLLOW-UP ACTION(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
BY WHOM/WHEN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
cc:
Signed

OBS STA_' UM
STA_NAME
841 020817 8430
842 0210577810
843 0210453603
844 0210553593
845 021135886)
846 0208421820
847 02.48421815
848
849 0208834543
850 0208634542
851 0217690700
852 0217690740
853 0217690715
854 .02175'90730
855 0217690710
856 0217690750
857 0208364610
858 . _035 L 70- 700
859 0351750300
860 0351563300
861 0344656513
862 0344656623
863 0215056203 -
6 4 t12I3 5 T5
.865 0209226152
866 0208111395
861 .....0208 t416810-...
868 0212540930
869 0212540920
40 0-21.Z54ij U
871 020535500)
872 02125409.05
a r.3 02oSnI
874 0208056205
875 0205324425
. 8T"6 O208-rUU6 23.
877 0208700825
878 0214326000
879 0214310300
880 0214322400
881 0214317203
8SZ _ U21431Z-600
883 0212408090
884 021.2.409103
CEDAR C TRIB NR FRANKL_INTON NC
CFR AT RIEGELW,OOD NC _
CFR BL ROCKFISH C NR .FAYETTEVILLE NC
CFR NR ELIZABETHTOWN NC
CHAMP C TRI3 AT MTH AT' FLAT ROCK NC
CHAPEL 3 AT MTH NR CH:JCOWINITY NC_
CHAPEL 3 3L US 264 NR CH000 uINITY NC
0208421805 :CHAPEL 3 TRIB AT CHOCJWINITY NC
CHARLES 8 AT SR 1236 '?1R RJSEW30D NC
CHARLES B TRIB AT ROSEWOOD NC
CAATO0GA R NR CASHIERS NC
CHAT0OGA R TRIB BL CASHIER-S LAKE NR CA
CHATTDGA h TRIB AT. CASHIERS MC
CHATTOOC,A R AT SR 1113 AT CASHIERS NC
CHATTOOGA R TRIB AT C-IASHIERS NC
CHATT00GA R TRIS AT MTH NR CASHIERS NC
CHEEKS MILL C AT MTH .SAND AT PENNY HILL
C #.E0AH R AT JOHNS.ON NC
CHEOAH R AT TAP0C0 NC
,CHE0AiH rR NR ROB8INSVILLE NC
CHERRY 6 AB SR 1503 AFi BALFOUR NC
CHERRY 3 AT MTH AT BAL FOUR NC
CHERRY C TRIB AT MTH ''dR UNION MILLS NC
HHcRRY7C TRIB NUR UN.Io MILLS NC
CHERRYTREE B NR PINK inLL NC
CiICKA C TRIB NR DREWNC
CAT:O0 T-FH... R GREMESLAND NC
CHINKAPIN C AB NC 200 NR JNIONVILLE N
CHINKAPIN C BL SR1617 AT JNIONVILLE N
LH 1NKAPIN-C 33L SRT62T NR UIVI-0NViLLEEC
CrfINKA:PIN' C NR COLERATIN NC
CHINKAPIN- C TRIB AT UNI"ONVILLE NC
CHISKA CNA DREW -NC
CHOCKOYETTE C AT MTH *T WE L3 ON NC
CHOWAN R TRIB AT WINTON N:
CHY 7.1 P Cis 7.NR DUR`--EAM NC_ _._ ... _ ..... _ ...
CHUNKY PIPE CK TRIB .N ROCKY KNOLL NC
CLARK C AT LINCOLNTOM NC-) _
-CLARK-C NR.HICKORY 'VC A. 00
CLARK C Nei MAIDEN NC
CLARK C NR NEWTON NC
CLARK- C NR.TART-OWN -Nrc
CLARKE C AB SR. 1448 NR COX MILL NC
CLARKE C AT PLEASANT .;ROVE NC
THE SAS SYSTEM 15:18 TUESDM, JANUARY 20, 1998 16
DATE BAS_COUE
850716
870529
851216
860723
030301
030617
030615
030616
860911. 030703
851002 030307
851002. 030307
851002 030307
830623 030405
830623 030405
880805 031301
8.80805 031.301
850711 031301
850812 031301
350812 031301
880805 031301
881122 030303
821101 040404
821101 040402
860421 040404
860805 040302
850805 040302
871117 030802
871117 030802
871030 030411
833727 030210
890424 030305
860507 030714
860507 030714
86050T -u3a7 L4
830720 030101
910 709
830727
910219
830929
WZ1029_..
821029
840823
841205-
8 60623
860623
030714
030210
030208
030101
03E4crI
03040E
4 030835
030835
030835
030835
8412057
030835
850729 030711
FIR11114 or171.1
QUAD DR_AREA AVG_Q MIN_3OQ2 SUM_7QIO WIN_7Q10
C 2 5 S W 4.9 5
J26 5301 5831
H23 4730 4860
124 5015 5150
A16SE 0.15 0.2
E30SW 1.91 2
E3OSE 1.42 1.6
E3OSE 0..06 0.1
F26NE 2.1 2.5
F26NE 0.36 0.4
G6SE 2.83 .10
G6SE 1.26 4.4
GO6SE 0.06 0.2
GG6SE 1.1 4.2
GO6SE 0.6 2.3
GO6SE 2.49 9
D28SE 3.9
1.6 0.4
1007 398
e 378
960 400
0.07 r 0
,C..- 0
0
O 0
0 4; 0
O A.0
2.5 1.1
1.1 0.5
0.05 0
1 9t 0.4.
0.5 0.2
2.2 3 0.9
4.5 0.36 -? 0.13
FO.3NE . 177 510 . 151 , 67.8 113
FO3NW: 215
FO3SE 55.3
FO9SW 0.39
FO9SW 0.42
F11NW 0.66
F 1NWM0.OT
G28SW 1.65 2
C3OSE 0,2 0.2
E 30S W 60 66
G17SW 5.76 5.2
G16SE 1.39 1.2
GI TSW 8.56 .7
C31NE 8.9 10
G16SE 0.02
C3OSE 1.34
B28NE ! 2144
0.02
1.5
'20
831 0.00 0
tZ3SF - 0.9-
O.9
G23SE 0.06 0.0s
F13NE 91.2 107
E13NE 6:23 7.3
EI4SW 68.6 80
EI4NW 29.3 35
El -WE- 14.8 17
F16NW 27.8 30
F1 F 3W 7R-2
619 187 82.3 137
166 w 21 35
0.6 0.3 0.07 0.2
0.7 0.3 �� 0.07 0.2
1 0.4 \ 0.?_ 0.3
O ,& 0 0
O t 0 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
1.2
742
662
700
0.07
0
0
0
1.3
0.6
0.05
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.18
0.7 M 0.3 0.3
0 `` - -0 0
0 0___ _.-_.._..___._.________..
2 , 0.6 • 1.7
O 0 0
07- % 0 ~ ----- _
3.
34
13
7
3.4
0
15
1.8
12
6
4
1.6
1. _A
0
36
22
10
6.
2.8
•
5'
4,
9•
9
0
qb
0

metfr,,t,
Cramerton discharge location, there is a large pink -colored piece of abandoned
dredging equipment, which appears to pose a safety hazard.
rusted
3.3 RIVER FLOWS
Much of the sampling was conducted under dry weather and low flow conditions. There was
very little precipitation throughout the summer of 2000 and this resulted in low water levels
and flows. The data show very low flow conditions in the South Fork, Clark Creek and Indian
Creek. A summary of the 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows for each discharger and two of the flow
monitoring locations is presented in Table 3-1. The North Carolina state regulations (15A
NCAC 2B .0206) define 30Q2flow and 7Q10 flow as follows:
• 30Q2 flow - the minimum average flow for a period of 30 consecutive days that has
an average recurrence of once in two years
• 7Q10 flow - the minimum average flow for a period of seven consecutive days that
has an average recurrence of once in ten years
Based on the available information, the 30Q2 or 7Q10 flows have not been determined by the
NCDENR or NC USGS for the flow monitoring location on Clark Creek at N. Grove Street.
A summary of the river flows in the South Fork, Indian Creek and Clark Creek for the dates of
the sampling events are presented in Table 3-2. The average daily flows for the South Fork
and Indian Creek are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. These data indicate that
during a significant portion of the monitoring period, the river flows in the South Fork were
well below 30Q2 conditions and were below 7Q10 conditions in Indian Creek. The figures
show that for the month of October and early part of November, the river flows were
consistently low for an extended period of time.
3.3.1 Regulatory Significance of 30Q2
The 30Q2 flow is a significant factor for assessing compliance with aesthetic water
quality standards. The North Carolina regulations state that a discharger in compliance
with its effluent limitation for color is not in violation of an aesthetic water quality
standard, irrespective of whether the specific discharge is the cause of an aesthetic
33
FINAL 3/01

problem in the river, while the river flow is less than the 30Q2 flow. Regarding
deviations from water quality standards, the North Carolina regulations (15A NCAC 2B
.0206) state the following:
"Deviations from a specific water quality standard resulting from discharges
which are affirmatively demonstrated to be in compliance with water quality
based effluent limitations of that standard will not be in violation pursuant to
G.S. 143-215.6 when the actual flow is significantly less than the design flow."
3.3.2 South Fork
Based on the flow data presented in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1, the average daily flow in
the South Fork was below the 30Q2 flow for all the sampling events from the June 13
sampling event through the November 14 sampling event, except for the summer wet
weather sampling events. By analogy to 15A NCAC 2B.0206, aesthetic problems in
the stream attributable to dischargers, are not considered a violation of water quality
standards according to the North Carolina regulations when stream flow is less than the
30Q2 flow. The summer wet weather sampling events occurred on July 25, September
6 and September 19. For several of the sampling events, flow was especially low. The
average daily flow for the July 11, August 22 and October 17 sampling events
approached 7Q10 flow conditions.
3.3.3 Indian Creek
Based on the flow data presented in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2, the average daily flow in
Indian Creek was below the 30Q2 flow for all the sampling events from the June 13
sampling event through the November 14 sampling event, including the wet weather
sampling events. Similar to the situation of the South Fork, aesthetic problems in the
stream caused by dischargers, are not considered a violation of water quality standards
according to the North Carolina regulations, when stream flow is less than the 30Q2
flow. The following observations should also be noted from the data:
• For the August 22 sampling event, the average daily flow was 8.4 cfs, which is
6% below the summer 7Q10 flow of 8.9 cfs.
AiN)
cik Nt.f
\ 4A\-
‘N- i\
1/44%
\so
vi‘
")
fr%
ootebr
34
FINAL 3/01

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
• For the November 14 sampling event, the average daily flow was 17 cfs, which
is 26% below the winter 7Q10 flow of 23 cfs.
• For the July 11 and October 17 sampling events, the average daily flow was 1 %
and 9% above the 7Q10, respectively.
These data indicate that stream flow conditions were extremely low during the sampling
program.
3.3.4 Clark Creek
Flow was manually monit ed in Clark Creek at the North Grove Street bridge in
Lincolnton, NC. The USGS and the NCDENR have not comuted 30Q2 and 7Q10
ha 17
7% `%o
Q
" coluAt .54"5 f-iftwdzoliewo
eo
flows for Clark Creek. Based on the flow data for the South Fork and for Indian Creek
and visual observations during sampling events, it is estimated that the flow in Clark
ZCreek from the June 13 sampling event through the Novembet 14 sampling event was
below 30Q2 flow conditions during the dry weather sampling events, and possibly
\Q4\( \ Burin wet weather sampling events too.
03A
g P g
\O`
c Go
1Z
35
FINAL 3/01

1.
1
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF RIVER 7Q10 AND 30Q2 VALUES`)
Discharge Point/Location
7Q10 in River at
Specified Location
p
30Q2 in River at
Specified Location
(cfs)
Summer 7Q10
(cfs)(2)
Winter 7Q10
(cfs)(2)
Flow Monitoring Locations:
South Fork USGS Station
125
235
305
Indian Creek USGS Station
23
28`)
8'9—__
Clark Creek at N. Grove St.
/
Not Available
of Available
Not Available
5
30
3
Discharge Locations:
Hickory WWTP
27
39
60
Lincolnton WWTP
77
140
190
Gastonia WWTP
109
200
272
Yorkshire Americas WWTP
123
200
289 (Est.)(3'
Pharr Yarns WWTP
125
228
310
Cramerton WWTP
125.8
230
315 (Est.)(3)
Delta Apparel WWTP
lb
25.5
34
Cherryville WWTP
6.1
16
19
(1)
(2)
(3)
Values obtained from NC USGS and NCDENR.
Summer 7Q10 — April through October
Winter 7Q10 — November through March
Yorkshire Americas WWTP and Cramerton WWTP 30Q2 values estimated by interpolating 30Q2
data and distance between discharge points as shown in Table 2-3. 30Q2 data was not available
from NCDENR or NC USGS.
36
FINAL 3/01

1
0
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF FLOW DATA
Sampling
Date
South Fork (Lowell)
USGS Station No. 2145000
Indian Creek
USGS Station No. 2143500
Flow in Clark
Creek at N.
Grove St. (‘) ''
(cfs)
Avg. Daily
Flow
(cfs)
Daily Range
of Flow
(cfs)
Avg. Daily
Flow
(cfs)
Daily Range
of Flow
(cfs)
4/11/00
601
455-728
54
51-55
70
4/25/00
1060
690-1300
139
90-140
180
5/16/00
438
430-445
42
40-42
72
5/31/00
360
308-386
32
32-33
70
6/13/00
272 )L 3<)&1-
210-368
21 L 3oQ'-
21-23
62
6/27/00
239
160-352
23
17-35
65.2
7/11/00lin
148-125
9
7.6-22
[44.2-)
7/25/00
428
310-545
25
22-33
65.2
8/8/00
r254
167-377
10
8.2-12
50.0
8/22/00
166
161-169
8.4 ‘
7.7-9.8
(41.01
9/6/00
417
351-496
13
11 15
5' "
9/19/00
424
283-589
21
12-29
170.0
10/3/00
221
217-224
11
9.8-13
50.0
10/17/00
190
185-197
9.7
8.7-10
50.0
11/14/00
286
264-320
17
13-19
51
305
(110e ,n
),n
10'
L = 30 C)Z
cop,W4.4�,
30Qt uZ 13PS e‘ievd-
U i /i5.PJ
J13foApiwd-,44 ti/tt tt;o
37
FINAL 3/01

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
RESULTS FROM THE SOUTH FORK CATAWBA
RIVER WATER QUALITY ALLIANCE
COLOR STUDY
Prepared for:
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Prepared by:
AWARE Environmental Inc.
9305-J Monroe Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28270
Prepared on Behalf of:
South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance, Inc.
c/o City of Gastonia
1300 North Broad St.
Gastonia, NC 28054
AEI Job No. N417-01
AEI Document No. 41701r016
March 2001
1

•
•
•
Date: q 11.11°1—
lime: -
TELEPHONE RECORD Project: 1J€I4k 111 i) 1 L
❑ Return MrJ Mrs. Ci 1 11 1,u'ei Uzi
CaII to Address o teDli
❑ CaII from
Subject:
Representing:
Telephone: [phone]oY3 FAX
3o at 79ktJ/C/ttJc &(C)(
NOTES/ SUMMARY
S+hwi Q21'I31b OOO CA4,tt c,re m X /rncok6.',
prisvfotii. fervh Gh, = eri
-CMdrh* I&1,4tot(€'ttkt1IkI A and fJbv'%k17 ( 'dike) 3$cfi
can Annill-< Cak i needed( °,
eeded(• cosf;
— s fi.1)k dP4M'17 rl
�a l'j 77
NEEDED FOLLOW-UP ACTION(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
BY WHOM/WHEN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
cc:
Signed

OBS STA_NUM
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851 02176907
63-2---0217690740
853 0217690715
854 0217590730.
8 5-5- 0-217 6 9 0 710
856 0217690750
857 0208364510
858 0351700503
859 0351750300
860 0351563300
861 U3446566T5
862 034465662D
863 0215056203
-�_8-6.4 0215056153
365 0209226152
846 02:04111345
_ ..- 8-67- 0 1784416 3 I5-
868 0212540930
869 0212540923
_--BTU 0ZI.4541.15U
871 02.05355000
872 0212540905
...-. _.. 8T 3 --o zD 8 rrr39D
874 0208056205
875 0205324425
876 1)0870082J
877 020870082.5
(878 021432.60
879 _ 0214
880 0214322400
881 0214317200
882 - W 4312-60'0c
883 021.2408090
020817 843D
0210577810
0210453603
0210 5535 90
021135886D
0208421820
0208421815
020:842.180a
0208834543
0208834542
STA_NAME
CEDAR C TRIB NR FRANKLINT.]N NC
CFR AT RIEGELWOOD NC _
CFR BL ROCKFISH C NR=AYETTE VI LLE NC
CFR NR ELIZABETHTOWN NC
CHAMP C TkI8 AT MTH AT` FLATROC_K NC
CHAPEL 3:, AT MTH NR CHOCQ4INITY NC
CHAPEL 3 31 US 264 NR CHOCO4INI.TY NC
CHAPEL 3 TR1B AT CHOC3WINI.TY ..PVC
CHArRLES B AT SR 1236 NR ROSEWOOD NC
CHARLES L TRIB AT ROSEWOOD NC
00 C-IATOOGA R NR CASHIERS NC
CHATOOGA R TRIB 8L CASHIERS LAKE NR CA
THE SAS SYSTEM 15:18 TUESDAY+ JANUARY 20, 1998 16
DATE BAS_C00E QUAD • DR_AREA AVG_A MIN_30Q2 SUI.L7Q10 WIN_,7Q10
850716 030301 025SW'
870529 030617 J26
851216 030615 H23
860723 030616 I24
860911. 030703 A16SE
851002 030307 E30S W
851002 03030.7 E3OSE
851002 030307 E3OSE
330623 030405 F26NE
830623 030405
880805 031301
CHATTOGA R. TRIB AT CASHIERS NC
CHATTLIOGA R AT SR 11 i3 AT CASHIERS NC
CHAT OOGA R TRIB AT Ci ASHI ERS NC
CHATTOOGA R TRIB AT MTH NR CASHIERS NC
CHEEKS MILL C AT MTH AND AT PENNY HILL
EDAM R AT JOHNSON NC
CHEUAH R AT TAPOCO NC
,CHEOAH R NR RJBBINSVIL_LE NC
CHERRY 8 AB SR 1503 AT BALFOUR NC
CHERRY 3 AT MTH AT BALFOUR NC
CHERRY C TRIB AT MTH NR UNION MILLS NC
CHERRY C TRIB NA77UNICINVMILLS NC
CHERRYTREE 3 NR PINK :HULL NC
CHICKA C TRZB NR ORES NC
c4r:oo AT-MTH FIR 3Fci1MESLAND NC
CHINKAPIN C AB NC 200 NR JNIONVILLE N
CHINKAPIN C BL SR1617 AT JNIOMVILLE N
LHINKAPIN L 51 SRT62T NR 13MrUNVILLE N
CAIN.KAPIN C NR COLER.A1IN N:
CHINKAPIN C TRIB AT U IONVIL LE NC
C7-IISKA NR DkU :C
CHOCKOYETTE C AT 4TH AT WELDON NC
CHOrlAN R TRIB AT WINTJN NC
CHUNKY P II' C K . NRW DURLI AM' KC
CHUNKY PIPE CK TRIB N ROCKY KNOLL NC
CLARK C AT LINCOLNTD!4 NC .l
".CLARK C NR HICKORY ` C n l��
CLARK C NR MAIDEN NC
CLARK C NR NE,JTON NC
CLARK C. NV -STAR
C LA RKE C AB SR 1448 NR COX MILL NC
-rIAQKP r AT DI CACAMT '^D:'lt,c Air
880805 031301
850711 031301
850812 03130i
350812 031301
880805 031301
881122 030303
921101 040404
821101 040402
360421 040404
860805 040302
850805 040302
F26NE
G6SE
4.9
5 301
4730
5015
0.15
1.91
1.42
0.06
2.1
0.36
2.83
5 1.6 0.4
5831 1007 398
4860 378
5150 960 400
0.2 0.07 0
2 . .- 0
1.6 s 1 0
0.1 0 0
2.5 0 g> 0
0.4 0 0
10 2.5 1.1
G6SE 1.26 4.4
GO6SE 0.06 0.2
GO6SE 1•I 4.2
GO6SE 0.6 2.3
GO6SE 2.49 9
D28SE 3.9 4.5
FO.3NE 177"� 7510
FO3,NW- 215
FO3SE 55.3
FO9SW 0.39
FO9SW 0.42
871117 030802 F114W 0.66
871117 030802 F11N'W 0.07
871030 030411 G28SW • 1.65
830727
890424
030305
860507 030714
860507 030714
860 50T Z330T14
930720 03010L
913709 030714
830727 030210
910219 030208
830929 030101
B-ZI U Z9 0 U4Q'1
821029 030401
340823 + 030835
841205 030835
860623 030835 EI4SW 68.6
860623 030835 E14N i 29.3
84T21:10301135- ET3NE .. _ -I+: 8--
850729 030711 F16NW 27.8
neatrnti I' C 1a r14:441L1
n
619
166
0.6
0,7
1
2
030210 C3OSE 0.2 0.2
E30S'W 60 66
G17SW 5.76 5.2
G16S E 1.39 1.2
G17S156 --T.T-
C31NE 8.9 10
G16SE 0.02 0.02
C3OSE 1.34 1.5
328NE • 21.4 20
831 0.03 0
rZ35E- IS: ...
C23SE 0.06 0.06
F13NE 91.2 107
E 13N Ci.2 3 7.3
80
35
--i-7
30
1.1
0.05
1
0.5
i. 2
0.36
0.5
0
0.4
5
51 67.8 113
187 r4 82.3 137
21 35
0.3 0.07 0.2
0.3 �' 0.07 0.2
0.4 0.2 0.3
1.2
742
662
700
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
j 0.6
0.05
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.13
▪ * •0
O 0
O 0
0 NA 0
0
.• . 0
. - CY -
0.1 ' 0.3
3.
34
1.3
3.4
0.6
1.2
0.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
N
0 0
2 3 0.6 1.7
0 0
0-
eJ 0
15 36.
1.8..... - 2�6
12 22
6 10
0
0
1.6 2.8
11
•
1
1
1
1

•
Date: q II 7 101---
Time: Ct • 3AD
A6-�nr7
TELEPHONE RECORD Project• 1JtI4t
❑ Return Mr./ Mrs. C .1( ! i Weavi Representing: V J 6-.1
Call to Address Gt• tel)
❑ Call from
Subject:
Telephone: 914 -S--7 I - tloY3 FAX
30 fit ,./ C/a, k Cree 1L
NOTES! SUMMARY
Crt'eR r O?JV3)OOO — CAirft 3,40tWit terth/rncuh.3v1 S+ihn
cfs
via o cu.lctilkhoq a na( e3hoh frif 10(k. 6 3 6 cl)
Cd r1 /ftt4II( cult no Cost; rt %In
s b 4 k s a hi- oPd4j7 vl = 107 i�r-rat) 'iv j9 7'4
NEEDED FOLLOW-UP ACTION(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
BY WHOM/WHEN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
cc:
Signed

TABLE 5-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF GENERAL OBSERVATIONS - DISCHARGE PLUMES WITHIN MIXING ZONE
•
• Discharge
..., : 1. r. s... ,..
. .:.( ..I. .. •.
:I,-.y,.
yy fs' •. e,:t
i� :�� +7
.,n{�i�
Receiv=
, ,<_ ing k
Wit..
S m•.
:: i f
`e .;' 1,•J ..
,...N
-k. •. v
- i ��jj}S
W
Has
plume:
s .
ever been '
i o' erved,
a t
Ink
� , � ,
��:` . y :a
�
li
. f...„. F ��.
�'4
��:
�= event ?
�Yhat is the °•
ram;
';:frequency,
.
` that a ; ...lame `:
, ; .,. p
v -observed;
i
ri
,; ;� I' ,� -� �
��...,.. ,� r.
�r
� �:i'�
- .. som 1 na..�
•r,, i_ •
t
tea7.4,?,..
b ;
: rl .zi
^, * tcal
color ue
�� s•,.
off ;
rey
,rtz�
« CM%,..
�•:
le ;
. •r
= a 'l
T ecal
. Ypi..
color/line
o f plume �
head::
g
.. R' v.3k�':4 1 �
... v.�„
��. i s�
,..disc ar a-,:
*•Y'
�R.T.. '�
Wldtlt
':of plume'body,and
.. 5 � p� ume,tail
,: (ft, and
`ws
; ,
:.. . .
% of river
} .�
•- ` Poigt of plume
. dissipation, no
visible sign of .
�
"
, � .,..�x.., ft �
— - �, . _ -� �--�
General Observations
,... ;
i • 't ,f. S t r'
i .LR- � � .�. it r In '•f.-.
r ..
Ix l+ v•.<.Xx ..v.
, 4 � a-: ' ! " 1.•'t'. J•
�.
I �
y
i t4e�:tET�
i .:
�+I ,.k-i F•ra �
f N t 'i t•:i.'t 1
.AF
.<'
� a � aF
.l t-
♦.. (, Y'}I
.:• , '�3.f..
f,.i' .y
.:.{'n s a
r.ii
bt.
t ..� t
.al.; V .�
N A �Y.
1
Pharr
Yarns
WWTP
South
Fork
No
0%
light to
dark
orange-
reddish
brown
not
applicable
not
applic-
able
not
applic-
able
not applicable
No plume observed during sampling events.
Cramerton
WWTP
South
Fork
Yes
100%
v. pale
smokey
gray
black
• 10 ft.
• 5% to
10%
• 25 ft.
• 15%
20 ft.
<400
ft.
Discharge color is a pale, smokey gray color. Plunie at discharge
pipe is a darker grayish black. Plume is noticeable at discharge
pipe, but tends to mix and fade quickly after 50 ft. Plume is not
very noticeable from center of stream in boat. Because discharge
color is very Tight, plume color is heavily faded within -100 ft.
and barely noticeable thereafter.
Delta
WWTP
Clark
Creek
Yes
100%
dark plum
black
(opaque)
dark plum
black
(opaque)
• 15 ft.
• 50%
(body
only)
• 30 ft.
• 100%
200 ft.
(only
during
rain
event)
> 8.3
miles
k Head of plume is plum black at discharge pipe and very noticeable
Pin the stream. Color of body of plume is a dark plum black.
Plume completely mixes across width of stream at -325 ft.
downstream from pipe and stream becomes a plum color. Deeper
areas appear darker plum/black. Color does not fade well, even at
downstream bridges. Stream remains plum color through Clark
Creek (8.3 miles) and during very low tows contributes to the
blacker color in the South Fork. Plume dissipated within 200 ft.
following significant precipitation.
Cherryville
WWTP
Indian
Creek
Yes
100%
various
shades of
v. pale
grays and
pinks
shades of
dark
purple
• 5 ft.
• 33%
• 15 ft.
• 100%
can't
follow
- 2.9
miles
Discharge color is very pale with little visible color. At discharge
pipe, plume is clear shade of plum and is typically very noticeable.
Color mixes and becomes very pale during high stream flows.
During lower stream flows (below 30Q2), discharge may turn
water in stream a pale purplish pink at downstream bridge. Max
distance downstream discharge color ever observed during
sampling is at Sample Location Y-3, 2.9 miles from discharge
pipe. Color barely visible at this point and not readily
distinguishable.
(LI This value is the Percentage of sampling events that a Plume was observed at the discharge location out of a total of 15 samnlini, event'
(2) Color/Hue of plume at the discharge pipe, which is where the plume is least dispersed and the highest amount of color is noticeable.
(3) Access to Cramerton plume is limited and requires boat rental. Therefore only 3 events performed during study.
82
FINAL 3/01

WOMBLE
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web site: www.wcsr.com
July 22, 2002
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
336-889-6530
The Honorable Sammie Chess, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714
STAN B. GREEN
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Fax: [phone]
E-mail: Sgreen®wcsr.com
RECEI V
ED
JUL 2 3 2002
N.C.ATiO,NtYttNE
FrIvh-nnmta tf4 I tiltcinRAL
r2
Re: Delta Apparel v. N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
02 EHR 1017
Dear Judge Chess:
Pursuant to the June 20, 2002 Order for Prehearing Statements entered in this matter,
enclosed please find the Preheating Statement of Petitioner Delta Apparel, Inc. We are also serving
a copy of the Prehearing Statement on counsel for the other parties in this matter.
We also point out that within Section 2 of the Delta's Prehearing Statement, reference is
made to three sources which we believe will be included in the administrative record provided by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (At this time, DENR has not
produced the administrative record). Accordingly, we do not attach them as exhibits to our
Prehearing Statement at this time. If you are in need of the materials, please let us know and we will
immediately forward them to your attention.
Thank you for your assistance.
Veryruly yours
Stan B. Green
SBG:mfe
Enclosure
GEORGIA / NORTH CAROLINA / SOUTH CAROLINA / VIRGINIA / WASHINGTON D.C.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CATAWBA
DELTA APPAREL, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION
OF WATER QUALITY,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
02 EHR 1017
PREHEARING
STATEMENT OF
PETITIONER DELTA
APPAREL, INC.
Petitioner, Delta Apparel, Inc. (Delta), files this Prehearing Statement, through counsel and
pursuant to the June 20, 2002 Order of the Honorable Sammie Chess, Jr., Administrative Law Judge.
Delta reserves the right to amend this statement as this matter progresses.
1. The Issues To Be Resolved and Statutes, Rules, and Legal Precedent Involved:
On January 26, 2000, Delta submitted a renewal application for a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit for its facility in Maiden, North Carolina to the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ). After
working in cooperation with DWQ regarding specific permit conditions and submitting written
comments during the permit's public hearing process, Delta received its final permit from DWQ on
May 27, 2002. Notably, the final permit contains certain improper provisions regulating the color
content of Delta's effluent. Delta objects to its permit and states as follows:
a. Issues:
The issues involve whether DWQ deprived Delta of property; exceeded its
authority and jurisdiction; acted erroneously; failed to use proper procedure;
acted arbitrarily or capriciously; and/or failed to act as required by law or
rule, and including but not limited to:
whether DWQ's July 5, 2001 Memorandum entitled "NPDES Color
Permitting Policy," as applied to Delta and as used by DWQ in
formulating, drafting and making its final decision regarding the
provisions within Delta's NPDES permit constitutes a rule which was
not promulgated in accordance with North Carolina Administrative
Procedure Act;

ii. whether the limitations/restrictions within Delta's NPDES permit
pertaining to color are arbitrary and capricious (or otherwise in
violation of law), including, but not limited to:
A. DWQ's use of an "influent" to "effluent" comparison as the
basis for and calculation of Delta's color limitations;
DWQ's reliance upon the specific percentage reduction
values of 85% and 87.5% and 90% comparing influent to
effluent as Delta's color limitations;
DWQ's selection of the American Dye Manufacturers
Institute ("ADMI") testing methodology as the sole measure
of Delta's color limitations and the aesthetic quality of
Clark's Creek, tributaries of the South Fork Catawba River or
the South Fork Catawba River;
DWQ's use of 863 ADMI (first 12 months), 720 ADMI (next
12 months), and 575 ADMI (remainder of permit) as Delta's
color limitations;
E. DWQ's reliance on its July 5, 2001 Memorandum entitled
"NPDES Color Permitting Policy" in setting Delta's color
limitations.
iii. whether DWQ's determination that the color limitations/restrictions
within Delta's permit are economically and/or technologically
feasible is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance
with law.
b. Statutes, Rules, and Legal Precedent Involved:
i. The statutes involved include:
A. The North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes;
B. Water and Air Resources, Chapter 143, Article 21, Part 1 of
the North Carolina General Statutes.
ii. The rules involved include N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 2B et seq.,
including any agency interpretation or legislative history of the same.

iii. The primary legal precedents involved are those cases discussing
statutory and regulation interpretation, administrative procedure and
the requirements for agency decisionmaking.
2. A Brief Statement of the Facts and Reasons Supporting the Party's Position on
Each Matter in Dispute:
Delta manufactures textiles at its facility in Maiden, North Carolina and uses
different colored dyes as required by market orders for its products (such as tee-
shirts). As a part of its manufacturing operations, Delta discharges treated effluent
to Clark's Creek in Catawba County pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by DWQ. On January 26, 2000, Delta
Apparel, Inc. applied for a renewal of its NPDES Permit.
Beginning in the Fall of 1999 and continuing during the time it was seeking
a renewal of its NPDES permit, Delta voluntarily participated as a group member in
the South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance ("the Alliance") to collect data
concerning the presence of effluent color in the tributaries of and within the South
Fork Catawba River. The Alliance agreed to provide this data to DWQ. The
Alliance's data consisted of analytical color measurements (ADMI units), visual
observations, and photographs twice per month from April through November 2000
for the receiving streams of the Alliance group members. The data only indicated
whether color was present in such streams and did not provide any other information
such as plant production variables. For instance, in Delta's case, the data did not
include variables such as overall production levels, bleach to dye ratios, production
of high dye content formulas to meet market demands, market demand for dyed
textiles, and whether processes were available to remove effluent color. The data
also did not provide any information considering what degree of color reduction
would increase aesthetic quality of the receiving streams.
Based solely upon the Alliance's color observations in the South Fork
Catawba River receiving streams, DWQ prepared an NPDES Color Permitting Policy
and indicated that the "policy will be incorporated into NPDES permit renewals."
(June 26, 2001 letter to John Shuler from David A. Goodrich for Coleen H. Sullins,
Chief, Water Quality Section of DWQ). The State has never regulated color within
Delta's NPDES permit and has in fact admitted that "there are no data to show that
the colored effluent is posing a human health concern, or that color is a source of
impact on the aquatic biota." (June 5, 2001 NPDES Color Permitting Policy). The
Policy contained four tiers of action; Delta was classified as a "Tier 4 facility." The
Policy provided that "Tier 4 facilities will receive color reduction limits (90% color
reduction between influent and effluent) to be implemented by the permit effective
date."
Independent from its participation in the Alliance, during the NPDES renewal
application process, Delta began to voluntarily study color removal from its effluent.

As a part of its studies, Delta worked diligently to formulate an effective process for
color removal. Thus far, the more effective process is the addition of polymers to the
wastewater. The polymers demonstrate an ability to remove some color from Delta's
effluent. Nevertheless, inconclusive evidence exists as to the factors which impact
polymer effectiveness in removing color. Moreover, evidence supports that polymer
dosage may affect the ability of Delta to meet other permit limitations, such as
chronic toxicity. DWQ did not have Delta's data prior to issuing its Color Policy or
prior to issuing Delta's draft permit.
On July 25, 2001, Delta received its draft NPDES permit which, among other
things, provided a 90% limitation on color comparing influent to effluent ADMI
color. There was no data available to DWQ regarding influent to effluent
comparisons or to support its choice for a 90% reduction. Thereafter, on August 28,
2001, DWQ held a public hearing on Delta's draft permit, and Delta submitted
written comments to DWQ objecting to the limitations/restrictions relating to color
effluent. In particular, Delta pointed out, among other things, that (1) the Color
Policy was in effect a rule which had not been passed in accordance with the North
Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, (2) the 90% color reduction and the method
of determining the reduction was arbitrary since DWQ had no technical data
connecting DWQ's choice for a percentage reduction with its alleged observation that
color needed to be addressed, and (3) the color limitation was not technologically
feasible because the factors involved in Delta's ability to remove effluent color were
not understood.
On September 21, 2001, Delta provided additional comments again objecting
to the color limitations and provided technical data generated during its voluntary
color removal trials at its facility. Since that time, DWQ has not discussed with
Delta any alternatives relating to color effluent although DWQ requested and Delta
provided additional color removal data on December 28, 2001.
On May 27, 2002, Delta received its final permit with an effective date of
June 1, 2002. The final permit, among other things, denotes Delta a "Tier 4 facility"
and provides a phased effluent color monthly average restriction of 863 ADMI for
the first 12 months, 720 ADMI for the next 12 months and 575 ADMI for the
remainder of the permit. As stated by DWQ, "the average monthly effluent limit of
863 ADMI represents an 85% color reduction from Delta's highest reported average
monthly influent concentration ... and this treatment level is technologically
attainable. The final phased ADMI limit of 575 ADMI represents a 90% color
reduction from the highest reported monthly average influent concentration." (May
15, 2002 DWQ letter from Gregory J. Thorpe to Gene Hudgens). DWQ's decisions
regarding these limitations have been based on insufficient evidence and are
arbitrary. Furthermore, DWQ continues to rely upon the NPDES Color Policy which
constitutes a rule not promulgated in accordance with North Carolina Administrative
Procedure Act. Delta has continually objected to DWQ's color limitations and on
June 18, 2002 filed the action herein.

3. A List of Proposed Witnesses:
Mr. Tom Belnick
Mr. David Goodrich
30(b)(6) DWQ witness regarding permit decisionmaking
Mr. Gene Hudgens
Potential expert witness(es) to be timely disclosed as required by the North Carolina
Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. Whether You Wish to Pursue Discovery. If so, the Length of Time Required if
Different from the Time Set Out in the Scheduling Order:
Delta will pursue discovery and anticipates that discovery will be completed by the
date set in the Court's Scheduling Order
5. Hearing Location:
Delta understands that the hearing will take place in Newton, North Carolina.
6. Estimated Length of the Hearing:
Delta estimates that the hearing will take two (2) days to complete.
7. If You Do Not Have an Attorney, Your Home and Business Addresses and
Telephone Numbers:
Not Applicable.
8. Date Ready for Hearing:
Delta should be ready for hearing the week beginning November 4, 2002.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that he is an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State
of North Carolina, is attorney for PETITIONER DELTA APPAREL, INC., and is a person of
such age and discretion as to be competent to serve process.
That on July 22, 2002, she served a copy of the attached PREHEARING STATEMENT
OF PETITIONER DELTA APPAREL, INC. by placing said copy in a postpaid envelope and
addressed to the persons hereinafter named, at the places and addresses stated below, which are the
last known addresses, and by depositing said envelope and its contents in the United States Mail at
Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
ADDRESSEES:
Secretary William G. Ross, Jr.
N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Attn: Dan Oakley
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Mary Penny Thompson
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
This the 22nd day of July, 2002.
Stan B. Green
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
a Professional Limited Liability Company
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
Telephone: [phone]
W# 1151500. I

7J(,
i,d1- J/ t711,.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX# [phone]
FAX TO:
FAX #
PHONE #
Gene Hudgens, Delta
Allen McRee, Delta
' 7Q1-428-8307
Z 6
FROM:
FAX#
PHONE #
Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
919-733-0719
919-733-5083, ext 543
DATE:
SUBJECT:
# PAGES
(including cover)
June 7, 2002
Influent Sampling Requirement
1
COMMENTS:
I talked with Richard Bridgeman of the Mooresville Region, and he
is comfortable with the current influent sampling set-up (i.e., time
composite sampler). Therefore there is no need to modify the
current influent sampling approach.
The color plume reporting requirement can be a simple "yes/no" as
to whether a plume is present, as well as an estimate of plume
length.
Let me know if you have additional questions.

n .tlu
T. 190
DELTA
AP P AR EL
May 30, 2002
D�
1 J1 U N
4 2002
1
L
U=' ? - WATER QUALITY
SOilir BRANCH
In reply to: NPDES Permit NC006190 Renewal
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
to of North Carolina
epartment of Environment and Natural Resources
ivision of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina,27699-11617
Dear Mt Thorpe,
J41b
UN0 20
DI V02 la
DIREOFRO,S oQUALJTy
Delta Apparel received our reference renewal on May 28, 2002 post marked May 23, 2002; giving us little time
to respond. However, there is one major question about Influent sampling. As Mr. Belnick of Permit and
Engineering knows from touring our facility during the color removal trials, we run Influent samples by using a
reserve sampler set up to sample every 10 minutes with a total of approximately 5 gallons of sample over a 24
hours. While this worked well for our trial, it does not meet requirements for 24 hours flow proportional
composite sample. We request that a ruling be made to approve our current method or give us adequate time to
engineer, construct and put into operation the approve sample station.
It is our understanding that the required recording of the color plume at the outfall pipe will be a yes or no
with the length of the plume from point of discharge until the color is mixed across the creek. Is the
assumption correct?
Sincerely,
Gene Hudgens
Plant Manager
GH/ja
cc: Tom Belnick
Allen McRee Plant Engineer
Files
P. O. Box 3 7; 100 W. Pine Street • Maiden, North Carolina 28650
(7.Cr4) 428-9921 • FAX V44) 428-8307 & 4 $-8312
• 1 ,r /

Re: delta !tills- inr lent sample
sN-
Subject: Re: delta mills- influent sample
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 11:16:45 -0400
From: Rex Gleason <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Mooresville Regional Office
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Tom,
Richard Bridgeman handles most requests re. flow monitoring techniques for
this office. He has spoken with Allan McCree with Delta re. this matter.
We have no problem with Delta's request.
Rex
Tom Belnick wrote:
> Hi Rex- I just received a letter from Delta requesting that their
> influent sample be allowed to be collected as a time composite (sample
> every 10 minutes over a 24-hour period) rather than 24-hour flow
> proportional sample. The time composite sampler is already onsite and
> in use. I asked Delta to talk with Mike Parker about this, but it
> sounds like he is on vacation. In the final permit, we changed the
> color limit from a 90% color reduction (between influent and effluent)
> to a numerical ADMI limit applied on the effluent. Therefore, the
> influent sample is not as critical, but we wanted to collect this data
> for the remainer of the permit to get a rough feel for removal
> percentage. I don't have a problem with their request, since the
> influent data will not be used for compliance purposes. Can you give me
> your take on this. Thanks.
> --
> Mailto:[e-mail]
> N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
> 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
> Work: [phone] ext. 543
> Fax: [phone]
Rex Gleason - [e-mail]
%TITLE%
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
919 N. Main St.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Rex Gleason <[e-mail]>
%TITLE%
NC DENR - Mooresville
Div. of Water Quality
1 of 2
6/6/02 4:54 PM

If VI, ; I s — T6 J7V, nlI F (11 R o rice, LL,
(N))A
jii-hi) 0 eo
i-t.«Qycv.) .3)3 fry J dn1141(
itV).; Yin,isr(r0/14 ofr4wh.y, eo-vi
rvricwL, Jr, Aded eo�i7
r.A! /ibo6_i
s! v:)I t kkIr o4S1kr f✓/ /i /e?vr' SJJI10-..- �• �y 0 (,

JPFG image 640x480 pixels
_Qelit( Ncc/ooI@P
file:///A l/Mvc-764f. jpi
1 of 1
5/24/2001 I2:10 PM

JPEG imze 640x480 pixels
file:///A l/M vc-765 f. j p€
f a'abi po,5 miaddhon)pos (p031 .�
q�% relt4 btoi n co/0V
1 of 1
5/24/2001 12:10 PM

JPEG inuig? 640x480 pixels
file:///Al/Mvc-766f.jpi
otdirt1 I /ye_
hi
(rv,w,71?
of
riwyk--fr cot- „rid
1 of 1
5/24/2001 12:11 PM

JPFG imae 640x480 pixels file:///AI/Mvc-767fjpl
�,1)1b-etow
Iofl
5/24/200I 12:11 PM

Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2006
Mr. Gene Hudgens, Plant Manager
Delta Apparel
P.O. Box 37
100 West Pine Street
Maiden, North Carolina 28650
Subject: Color Limit
Delta Apparel
NPDES Permit NC0006190
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Hudgens:
The Division of Water Quality (Division) has been reviewing your Quarterly
Progress reports on the color treatment technology and your monthly Discharge
Monitoring Reports. The Division commends Delta Apparel's efforts on reducing color in
the effluent; your calculated 12-month average color effluent value is 549 ADMI units,
which is a marked improvement from previous years.
According to the condition A (4.) of your permit, the effluent color limit may be
lowered based on the average effluent concentration attained over the preceding 12
months. The Division will conduct this color limit reevaluation at permit renewal, which
is scheduled to commence in February of this year. The effluent color limit in your new
permit will be 549 ADMI units or lower depending on your performance.
If you have any questions concerning this color limit reevaluation, please contact
Sergei Chernikov at telephone number [phone], extension 594.
Sincerely,
(diL-)
Susan Wilson, P.E., Supervisor
NPDES-West
Surface Water Protection Section
cc: Mooresville Regional Office/ Surface Water Protection
Central Files
NPDES Files
Todd Clark
Town of Maiden
113 West Main Street
Maiden, North Carolina 28650
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone]
FAX [phone]
On the Internet at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CATAWBA
DELTA APPAREL
Petitioner,
v.
F ij= J
0-0 JCOW7/eit
2/Zo oS
7��r �.,� , IN THE OFFICE OF
'MINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
02 EHR 1017
Off of
„Ail 01I.. ...,• , +�..
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION
OF WATER QUALITY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
It appears to the Court that Petitioner has withdrawn the petition for a contested case
hearing. Therefore, there are no further proceedings needed to resolve this matter.
NOW THEREFORE, this file is by this Order closed.
This the 7 day of February, 2005.
ammie Chess, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge
F E B 1 0 2005
i. . ; _ \ 1. • ..;LILY
FOii;T r.NCH

A copy of the foregoing was mailed to:
Stan B. Green
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
Don Laton
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27260
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
This the 7 day of February, 2005.
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714
919/733-2698
Fax: [phone]

WOMBLE pr
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web site: www.wcsr.com
February 2, 2005
Via facsimile (919-733-3478)
Ms. Maria Erwin
Deputy Clerk
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
STAN B. GREEN
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
RECEIVED
FEB 3 2005
N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Environmental Division
Re: Delta Apparel, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
02 EHR 1017
Dear Ms. Erwin:
Please find attached a copy of a Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of Petitioner Delta
Apparel, Inc. in the referenced matter.
Please note that the original and two copies of the Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice will
be mailed to your office today. Once you receive the original and copies, we would appreciate it if
you could return a file -stamped copy to us in the enclosed envelope.
SBG:rju
Very truly yours,
GEORGIA / NORTH CAROLINA / SOUTH CAROLINA / VIRGINIA / WASHINGTON D.C.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF CATAWBA 02 EHR 1017
Delta Apparel, Inc., )
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
)
N.C. Dep't of Environment and )
Natural Resources, Division of )
Water Quality, )
Respondent. )
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
COMES NOW Petitioner Delta Apparel, Inc. ("Delta"), by and through counsel, and
hereby withdraws its contested case 02 EHR 1017, and dismisses the referenced case with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
This the 2nd day of February 2005.
6 L,
Clark Goodman
North Carolina State Bar No. 19927
Stan B. Green
North Carolina State Bar No. 25539
Attorneys for Petitioner Delta Apparel, Inc.
OF COUNSEL
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
A Professional Limited Liability Company
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
Telephone: (336). 721-3600

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that he is an attorney at law Iicensed to practice in the
State of North Carolina, is attorney for PETITIONER DELTA APPAREL, INC., and is a
person of such age and discretion as to be competent to serve process.
That on the date below, he served a copy of the attached DELTA APPAREL'S
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE by placing said copy in a postpaid envelope
and addressed to the persons hereinafter named, at the places and addresses stated below, which
are the last known addresses, and by depositing said envelope and its contents in the United
States Mail at Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
ADDRESSEES:
Don Laton, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
This the 2nd day of February, 2005
Stan B. Green
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
a Professional Limited Liability Company
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
Telephone: [phone]

Delta Apparel - - Order of Dismissal Entered
AiC000blqQ
Subject: Delta Apparel - - Order of Dismissal Entered
From: "Don Laton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:30:46 -0500
To: "Beverly Coats" <[e-mail]>, "Hope Young" <[e-mail]>,
"Janet Leach" <[e-mail]>, "Kathy Cooper" <[e-mail]>,
"Sharlene Moses" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: "Don Laton" <dlaton©ncdoj.com>, <[e-mail]>
Re: Permit No. NC0006190
Delta Apparel, Inc. Maiden Plant, Catawba County
Today's mail brought our copy of the Order of Dismissal in the Delta Apparel case. ALJ
Chess entered the Order yesterday. A copy is being sent to appropriate DWQ staff.
This Order follows Petitioner's filing of a Voluntary Dismissal on Feb. 2, 2005.
Also of course, the permit with the "settlement language" has been issued.
The Attorney General's Office is closing its contested case file.
Thanks for your work on this one!
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
dlatonncdoi.com
1-
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Laton, Don
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:[e-mail]
N:Laton;Don
END:VCARD
1 of 1 2/9/2005 11:20 AM

.(e: Delta - Again!
d+C,tZ - _Se i-Yen y ✓TJ f(/mtJ Ri/ o
(c,M1� 1� �� �� z pro S
Subject: Re: Delta - Again!
From: Mary Penny Thompson <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:07:56 -0500
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
CC: Don Laton <[e-mail]>
Classic.
I don't recall the settlement agreement having any stipulated penalties, so I believe we would use
the statutory penalties. 0f course, violating the settlement agreement would link into several
factors that would increase the amount of penalty: amount of money saved by noncompliance and the
willful and intentional nature of the violation to name two.
Just my thoughts. Good luck.
Tom Belnick wrote:
Don- just when you thought it was over! I sent out the final permit modification to Delta Apparel
on 1/3/05, with an effective date of 2/1/05. The Settlement Agreement requires Delta to evaluate
and implement a second color treatment alternative by 10/1/05. I called Delta today and asked how
this effort was going, and they replied that they had stopped their evaluation, since they are
looking at connecting to the Town of Maiden. I said this doesn't matter, since that would take
several years at best, and that they must still comply with the October 1 deadline. The ORC said
he would discuss with the plant manager and get back to me. My question- if they fail to live up
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are enforcement/penalties just based on existing
wastewater regulations, or does failure to comply with a Settlement Agreement kick it up to another
level?
Mary Penny- I bet you're glad you're out of this loop!
Mary Penny Thompson <mary.p.thompson(cr�,ncmail.net>
Assistant General Counsel
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of General Counsel
1 of 1 1/14/2005 10:47 AM

Re: Delta - Again!
Subject: Re: Delta - Again!
From: "Don Laton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:29:31 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
while I want to think through this matter some more, my initial thought is that Delta must
comply with its settlement agreement. if they don't, our recourse is probably our
enforcement power. I suppose we could bring a civil action to enforce the settlement
agreement. (expensive).
you're right - - it like the Energizer Bunny or something - - not just DELTA - - but a lot of
"stuff' keeps going and going ... .
Thanks for the information.
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
dlatonincdoi.com
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Laton, Don
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:[e-mail]
N:Laton;Don
END:VCARD
1 of 1 1/14/2005 10:46 AM