NC0024937_Permit Issuance_20050429

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document e:
Permit Issuance )
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
April 29, 2005
Thins document is printed on reuse paper - signore any
content on the reYerse side

Mb
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 29, 2005
Ms. Jacqueline Jarrell
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28216
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0024937
CMU - Sugar Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Jarrell:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for issuance of the
subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit.
This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended.)
The permit authorizes Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities to discharge up to 20 MGD of
treated wastewater to Little Sugar Creek, a class C water in the Catawba River Basin. The
permit includes discharge requirements for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), ammonia, fecal conform bacteria, total residual chlorine, total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, nickel, copper, zinc and pH.
Please note the following changes from the proposed final permit of September 1,
2003:
• Based on additional review of the reasonable potential analysis, the effluent limit and
monitoring requirement for silver has been removed from the NPDES permit. All the
reported effluent values are below detection; therefore no potential for exceeding the State
action level exists. Silver will continue to be monitored during the long term monitoring plan
of the pretreatment program for the Sugar Creek treatment facility.
• There have been revisions to the total copper and total zinc limits that are included in this
permit for the protection of South Carolina waters. Upon receipt of additional information
from CMU and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC),
DWQ is including the permit limits that have been mutually agreed upon. Attached is a
summary document that illustrates how the limits were derived. The weekly average and
daily maximum limitations for copper are 15 µg/L and 22 µg/L, respectively. The daily
maximum limit for zinc is 228 µg/L.
If CMU decides to develop site -specific standards, the proposed course of action should
be consistent with "Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios
for Metals" EPA-823-B-94-001, February 1994. As previously mentioned, these
Ngnrethlimitations have been implemented based on protection of South Carolina waters and a fi7
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone] • 1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

J
Permit NC0024937
41
standards. South Carolina standards allow for NPDES limit development based on the
dissolved fractions for copper and zinc. Since the limits specified in this permit are
based on "total recoverable", CMU may request limits for copper and zinc based on the
total dissolved fraction.
• A schedule for compliance for the daily maximum Fecal Coliform limit has been granted and
must be met by October 1, 2005.
• The site for downstream monitoring station LSC3 has been changed from Route 521 to
Highway 51 to allow safe access for CMU personnel per the October 18, 2004 minor permit
modification.
• This permit will expire on May 31, 2010 and will place the CMU permit back on schedule in
the Catawba River Basin. The expiration date will allow the milestone date stipulated in the
2002 Settlement Agreement to occur within the term of this permit.
The following changes were previously noted in the September 1, 2003 final proposed
permit:
• The draft permit contained monthly average limits for ammonia. In addition to the monthly
average limit proposed in the draft permit, the final permit contains a summer 3.0 mg/L
weekly average ammonia limit and a winter 6.0 mg/L weekly average ammonia limit. The
weekly average requirements are necessary to comply with federal regulations.
• Based on comments received during the public comment period, the total phosphorus
condition has been modified to reflect the requirements of the 2002 Settlement Agreement.
• Based on comments received during the public comment period, a Fecal Coliform daily
maximum limit of 1000/ 100 ml has been added to the permit. The new limit is consistent
with the EPA approved Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Irwin,
McAlpine, Little Sugar, and Sugar Creek Watersheds. This TMDL was developed by the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection with active participation by
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ), Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) and
United States Geological Survey (USGS). As previously noted, this limit will become effective
on October 1, 2005
• Based on comments received during the public comment period, the summertime instream
monitoring frequency has been modified to weekly. The draft permit did not reflect the
modifications to the monitoring frequency implemented in 2001. Therefore, the summertime
instream monitoring frequencies were modified to be consistent with this modification.
• Based on comments received during the public comment period, the footnotes have been
corrected establishing the practical quantitation limits and reporting requirements for
cyanide. The permit requires that the permittee use analytical methods capable of
quantifying the pollutants below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated
must be reported down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure.
If no approved methods are determined capable of achieving minimum detection and
reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the most sensitive (method with
the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must be used.
• Based on comments received during the public comment period, compliance with the total
residual chlorine limit will be based on a daily average.

Permit NC0024937
• In response to the new NPDES municipal application data requirements, DWQ is reinstating
annual effluent pollutant scans into municipal permits. Special Condition A. (10.) of this
permit details this requirement. Be advised that pollutant scan data are required to be
submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report Form for the appropriate month. Upon
renewal of this permit, CMU should reference these data in completing the application.
In addition to the effluent pollutant scan monitoring requirements stipulated in the
new NPDES municipal applications, facilities discharging greater than 1 MGD or having a
pretreatment program are required to conduct additional whole effluent toxicity monitoring
prior to submittal of the permit renewal application. This additional toxicity monitoring
must be completed on a second species (one other than the species specified in the permit)
and include either four tests quarterly within one year prior to the application submittal or
annually beginning immediately. Though this monitoring is not a condition for this permit,
the facility should make plans to conduct this additional monitoring.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this
permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the
form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be
final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the
legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water
Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management
Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
�R{GSa,�v H iWILSOI�NED �
Su
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Mooresville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section
US EPA - Region IV
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control/Jeff Debessonet
2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201
Mecklenburg County WQP/ Rusty Rozzelle 700 N. Tryon St. Suite 205 Charlotte NC 28202
Central Files
Pretreatment Unit/Dana Folley (e-copy)
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
NPDES File

—
Permit NC0024917
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIIVIINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions 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,
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities - Sugar Creek WWTP
5301 Closeburn Road
Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
to receiving waters designated as Little Sugar 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.
This permit shall become effective June 1, 2005.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2010.
Signed this day April 29, 2005.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
SUSAN A. WILSON
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Latitude: 33
Longitude: 80
Quad #:
Stream Class:
Receivina Stream:
Permitted Flow:
09'08"
°51'19"
G1SNE
C
Little Sugar Creek
20.0 MGD
Sub -Basin:
03-08-34
CMU — Sugar Creek WWTP
NC0024937
Facility
Location
x
North

i
- Permit NC0024937
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue operation of a 20.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant with a discharge
through outfall 001, consisting of the following treatment units :
• Three FMC bar screens (rated at 35 MGD each)
• Pista grit removal (rated at 50 MGD each)
• Grit Classifiers
• Conveyor System
• Influent sampling station
• Influent pump station (2-150Hp variable frequency drive pump, 1-150Hp lift pump,
1-100Hp lift pump)
• Four primary clarifiers
• One 1.2 MG raw/primary sludge storage tank
• Primary/raw sludge pump station (pumps primary sludge to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• Four Trickling filters (Inactive)
• Eleven aeration basins (diffused air) (6 active, 5 standby)
• Five blowers (two positive displacement blowers, two multistage centrifugal blowers,
one single stage centrifugal blower)
• pH adjustment (NaOH)
• Six secondary clarifiers
• RAS pump station (eight 25Hp pumps, one 60 Hp pump, and one 30Hp pump)
• WAS pump station - pumped to McAlpine WWTP
• Chlorine disinfection
• Sodium bisulfite dechlorination
• One deep bed filter using anthracite
• Four effluent filter pumps
• Effluent flow measurement
• Cascade aeration
• Backup power
• 20 MG equalization basin (under construction)
The facility is located at the CMUD Sugar Creek WVVTP [5301 Closeburn Road,
Charlotte] in Mecklenburg County.
2. Discharge wastewater from said facility at the location specified on the attached
map through outfall 001 into Little Sugar Creek, currently classified C waters in
the Catawba River Basin.

Permit NC0024937
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated municipal and industrial wastewater from outfall 001. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
ILI ITS
MONITORTNC REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average.
Weekly
Average
Dailyr
Average .
. t_
. Daily .. '
Maximum
c lMeasurem~ent l
Frequency -.. !
; Sample: -
, Type
Sample
Locations
Flow
20.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Summer)2,3
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Winter)2,3
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3-N (Summer)3
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3-N (Winter)3
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved 0xygen4
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200/ 100mI
400/ 100 ml
1000/ 100 mI5
Daily
Grab
E
pH
> 6.0 and < 9.0
standard units
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine
19 µg/L
28 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus6
See Special Condition A. (8.) and A. (9.)
Monthly
Composite
E
Cadmium, Total
2.2 µg/L
15.0 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Chromium, Total
55.5 µg/L
1022.0 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Cyanide, Total?
5.5 µg/L
22.0 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
Nickel, Total
97.7 µg/L
261.0 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Copper, Total 8,9
15.0 µg/L
22.0 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Zinc, Total 8,9
228.0 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity 10
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: I- Influent, E - Effluent.
2. The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85 % removal).
3. Summer is defined as April 1 through October 31, while winter is defined as November 1 through March
31.
4. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
5. See Special Condition A. (6.) for compliance schedule for daily maximum Fecal Coliform limit.
6. See Special Conditions A. (8.) and A. (9.) for total phosphorus limit and reporting requirements.
7. The Division shall consider all cyanide concentrations reported below the practical quantifiable level (currently
10 µg/L), using the most sensitive method (as stipulated in Part II, Section D, Paragraph 4 of the standard
conditions), to be "zero" for permit -compliance purposes only.
8. If CMU decides to develop site -specific standards, the proposed course of action should be consistent with
"Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for Metals" EPA-823-B-94-001,
February 1994. The Division and EPA will review the proposed course of action and may provide comments.
9. The limits stipulated are based on "total recoverable". Alternatively, the permittee may request limits based on
total dissolved as allowed under South Carolina standards.
10. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnio.) at 90.0%: February, May, August, November (see Special Condition. A. (7.)).
Definitions:
MGD - Million gallons per day mg/L - Milligram per liter ml - Milliliter
CBOD - Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand pg/L - Micrograms per liter

Permit NC0024937
A. (2) Irwin Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor Irwin Creek as specified below:
aliOn.1D,
t Locatiaiii _,
1
. Paramete�rr.:j...,.MpflftoriflgiRequfremeflts•+-
,�
s..rementi u c,L;1,� pe2M
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 - September 30) and monthly (October 1- May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC 1, MC1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
A. (3) McAlpine Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor McAlpine Creek as specified below:
^'�
D
,;oaation= : �, ' ; ( :; . •3 ;: ,' '
' f i. fit °xr" :. rf
1
t! �
.. .. .-... ... ... �...s“.xK.=..J_.r..2—... -...L .sw .,r,.v
Parareter
, x r 'Y^'^ 1,
_
L.�....:..�L }..,«r�- ...I ..... G:.J
`Measurement3ampRe1
q -TM'- , ,h..= `
Frequency 1
.S:-....�. a.._. . ._,-.1...,,
'.LW - s
` Type
.+.... ......... .,...ti
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Copper
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Zinc
Monthly ,
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 - September 30) and monthly (October 1- May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1, MC1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.

Permit NC0024937
A. (4) Sugar Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor Sugar Creek as specified below:
tioi
1 _
s a;
_ !!WOO!
, i Paramneter�
!Measurement
;Frequency
i i
; $amplel
; 'type' i
I
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Copper
Monthly
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
pH
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Ammonia (NH3-N)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Nitrate/Nitrite
(NOX)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Orthophosphate
Weekly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 — September 30) and monthly (October 1 — May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC 1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1, MC 1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.

Permit NC0024937
A. (5) Little Sugar Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor Little Sugar Creek as specified below:
.tatio
AID:
Locaion ,1
fl
-,, ; :. -.: ...:..:......- . a
Parametei ,
i eas�uremen#
Fr� ueno, :
iSpe,Snf
T e 1
YP:
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP .. .
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Copper
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 — Sept 30) and monthly (Oct 1 — May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC 1, SC 1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC 1 MC 1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
The revised instream monitoring program, no longer requires monitoring of station LSC2. The LSC2
designation continues to refer to the sampling station on Little Sugar Creek downstream of the Sugar
Creek WWTP at Archdale Road; however, this station is inactive.
A. (6) DAILY MAXIMUM LIMIT FOR FECAL COLIFORM
The daily maximum limit for fecal coliform shall become effective no later than six (6) months from the
issuance of the permit (October 1, 2005).

Permit NC0024937
A. (7) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90.0%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent
versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxieity Test Procedure" (Revised -February
1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of February, May, August,
and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent
discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February
1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B
for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be
sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
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.

f
Permit NC0024937
A. (8) Total Phosphorus Limit
As stipulated by the 2002 Settlement Agreement between Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
(CMU), the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) and the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ), CMU's McAlpine Creek WWTP, Sugar Creek
WWTP and Irwin Creek WWTP must comply with a limit of 826.0 lbs/day. This limit is defined as an
effluent limit for total phosphorus from the total combined discharge from the three referenced CMU
wastewater treatment plants (based on a 12-month rolling average). The methodology for calculating
the annual average is described in Part A. (9.).
If CMU conducts construction activities associated with phosphorus removal at either the
Sugar Creek WWTP or the Irwin Creek WWTP, the annual average limit of 826.0 lbs/day (based on the
collective discharge from all three plants) shall become effective February 28, 2007. Said construction
activities will also trigger an effluent limit for total phosphorus for the Irwin Creek WWTP of 250.0
lbs/day (based on a monthly average) as of February 28, 2007 (as stipulated in Part. A. (1.) of NPDES
Permit NC0024945). If however, CMU decides not to pursue construction activities, associated with
phosphorus removal, at either the Sugar Creek WWTP or the Irwin Creek WWTP, the total phosphorus
annual average limit applicable to the loading from all three WWTPs, shall become effective on
February 28, 2006.
A. (9) Total Phosphorus Monitoring
The Permittee shall calculate a 12-month rolling average mass loading as the sum of monthly
loadings, according to the following equations:
(1) Monthly Average (lbs./day) = TP x Qw x 8.34
where:
TP = the arithmetic average of total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) obtained via composite
samples (either daily, weekly, or monthly average values) collected during the month
Qw = the average daily waste flow (MGD) for the month
8.34= conversion factor, from (mg/L x MGD) to pounds
The 12-month rolling average mass loading is defined as the sum of the monthly average loadings for
the previous 12 months inclusive of the reporting month:
12
(2) 12-Month Mass Loading (lbs./day)= ETPma =12 (inclusive of reporting month)
Where:
TPma is defined as the total phosphorus monthly average mass loading (calculated above).
The monthly average and 12-month average mass loadings shall be reported on the attached
worksheet and submitted with the discharge monitoring report for McAlpine Creek WWTP. The first
worksheet is due with the discharge monitoring report, 12 months from the effective date of the total
phosphorus limit (referenced in Special Condition A. (8)). In the interim period between the effective
date and the requirement to submit the attached worksheet, the total phosphorus monthly average
mass loadings should be reported on the discharge monitoring report for the respective facility.
The Permittee shall report the total phosphorus concentration for each sample on the
appropriate discharge monitoring report for each facility. Reporting of and compliance with the
phosphorus limit shall be done on a monthly basis.

Permit NC0024937
A. (10) Effluent Pollutant Scan
The permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following
parameters:
Ammonia (as N) Trans-1,2-dichloroethyiene
Chlorine (total residual, TRC) 1,1-dichloroethylene
Dissolved oxygen
Ni rate/Nitrite
Kje!dahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrite
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chborobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chtoroethane
2-chloroethylvinyi ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichtoroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dich oropropytene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrach to roetha ne
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichtoroethane
1,1,2-trlchloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chtoro-m-creso
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethytphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzoftuoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perytene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chtoroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chtorophenyi phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichtorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoiuene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocydo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
tndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
> The total set of samples analyzed during the current term of the permit must be representative of
seasonal variations.
> Samples shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with analytical methods approved under 40
CFR Part 136.
> Unless indicated otherwise, metals must be analyzed and reported as total recoverable.
> Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by
the Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to each the
NPDES Unit and the Compliance and Enforcement Unit to the following address: Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Section, , 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

Permit Number NC0024937
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Amendment to Fact Sheet For NPDES Permit NC0024937
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name4:
Applicant Address4:
Facility Address4:
Permitted Flow2.4,2:
Type of Wastez4J:
Facility/Permit Status4:
County2.4•2:
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream2.4:
Stream Classification12:
303(d) Listed?5:
Subbasin2:
Drainage Area (mi2): [calculated]
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)6:
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)6:
Average Flow (cfs)6:
IWC (%):
Primary SIC Code:
Regional Office:
USGS Topo Quad:
Permit Writer:
Date:
Factsheet Amendments
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities — Sugar Creek
5100 Brookshire Blvd.
5301 Closeburn Road
20.0 MGD (Grade IV — Biological)
Municipal (Domestic and Industrial)
Renewal
Mecklenburg
Little Sugar Creek
C
Yes — Fecal Coliform, biological community
03-08-34
40.8 mi2
3.4 cfs
5.5 cfs
47.0 cfs
90%
4952
Mooresville
Charlotte East (G 15 NE)
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
April 1, 2005
The following amendments have been made to the factsheet dated July 11, 2003 and have been
incorporated into the final permit dated April 22, 2005 for the CMU-Sugar Creek WWTP.
• Based on additional review of the reasonable potential analysis, the effluent limit and
monitoring requirement for silver has been removed from the NPDES permit. All the
reported effluent values are below detection; therefore no potential for exceeding the
State action level exists. Silver will continue to be monitored during the long term
monitoring plan of the pretreatment program for the Sugar Creek treatment facility.
• There have been revisions to the total copper and total zinc limits that are included in
this permit for the protection of South Carolina waters. Upon receipt of additional

Permit Number NC0024937
information from CMU and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC), DWQ is including the permit limits that have been mutually agreed
upon. Attached is a summary document that illustrates how the limits were derived.
The weekly average and daily maximum limitations for copper are 15 ug/1 and 22 ug/l,
respectively. The daily maximum limit for zinc is 228 ug/1.
If CMU decides to develop site -specific standards, the proposed course of action should be
consistent with "Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for
Metals" EPA-823-B-94-001, February 1994. The Divison of Water Quality and EPA will
review the proposed course of action and may provide comments. As previously
mentioned, these limitations have been implemented based on protection of South Carolina
waters and standards. South Carolina standards allow for NPDES limit development based
on the dissolved fractions for copper and zinc. Since the limits specified in this permit are
based on "total recoverable", CMU may request limits for copper and zinc based on the total
dissolved fraction.
• A schedule for compliance for the daily maximum fecal coliform limit has been granted
and must be met by October 1, 2005.
• The site for downstream monitoring station LSC3 located on Little Sugar Creek has been
changed from Route 521 to Highway 51 for safe access for CMU sampling personnel per
the October 18, 2004 minor permit modification.
• The draft permit contained monthly average limits for ammonia. In order to protect
North Carolina's ammonia standards, the limitations for ammonia have been revised. In
addition to the monthly average limit proposed in the draft permit, the final permit
contains a summer 3.0 mg/L weekly average ammonia limit and a winter 6.0 mg/L
weekly average ammonia limit
• This permit will expire on May 31, 2010 and will place the CMU permit back on
schedule in the Catawba River Basin. The expiration date will allow the milestone
date stipulated in the 2002 Settlement Agreement to occur within the term of this
permit.
The following changes were previously noted in the July 11, 2003 factsheet:
> Based on comments received the permit expiration date has been extended to February 28,
2007. Extending the expiration date will allow the milestone date stipulated in the 2002
Settlement Agreement to occur within the term of this permit.
➢ Based on comments received during the public comment period, the total phosphorus
condition has been modified to reflect the requirements of the 2002 Settlement Agreement.
➢ Based on comments received during the public comment period, a fecal coliform daily
maximum limit of 1000/ 100 ml has been added to the permit. The new limit is consistent
with the EPA approved Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Irwin,
McAlpine, Little Sugar, and Sugar Creek Watersheds. This TMDL was developed by the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection with active participation by

Permit Number NC0024937
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ), Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) and
United States Geological Survey (USGS).
➢ Based on comments received during the public comment period, the summertime instream
monitoring frequency has been modified to weekly. The draft permit did not reflect the
modifications to the monitoring frequency implemented in 2001. Therefore, the summertime
instream monitoring frequencies were modified to be consistent with this modification.
➢ Based on comments received during the public comment period, the footnotes have been
corrected establishing the practical quantitation limits and reporting requirements for
cyanide. The permit requires that the permittee use analytical methods capable of
quantifying the pollutants below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated
must be reported down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure.
If no approved methods are determined capable of achieving minimum detection and
reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the most sensitive (method with
the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must be used.
➢ Based on comments received during the public comment period, compliance with the total
residual chlorine limit will be based on a daily average.
➢ In response to the new NPDES municipal application data requirements, DWQ is reinstating
annual effluent pollutant scans into municipal permits. Special Condition A.(10.) of this
permit details this requirement. Be advised that pollutant scan data are required to be
submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report Form for the appropriate month. Upon
renewal of this permit, CMU should reference these data in completing the application.
In addition to the effluent pollutant scan monitoring requirements stipulated in the new
NPDES municipal applications, facilities discharging greater than 1 MGD or having a
pretreatment program are required to conduct additional whole effluent toxicity monitoring
prior to submittal of the permit renewal application. This additional toxicity monitoring must be
completed on a second species (one other than the species specified in the permit) and include
either four tests quarterly within one year prior to the application submittal or annually
beginning immediately. Though this monitoring is not a condition for this permit, the facility
should make plans to conduct this additional monitoring.
The above statements include all the changes made to the CMU- Sugar Creek WWTP permit
Issuance Date: April 22, 2005
Effective Date: June 1, 2005
Expiration Date: May 31, 2010
STATE CONTACT:
If yo wave any questions on any of the above information, please contact Jackie Nowell at 919-
733 • I : ext. 512
aG
DATE: A—

;
The calculations used to convert the dissolved metal criterion for copper or zinc to
the total recoverable form in the permit, based on the partitioning of the metal with
suspended solids, are described in EPA's "The Metals Translator: Guidance for
Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion" (EPA 823-B-
96-007, June 1996). The Guidance provides the following equation (Equation 2.7,
Guidance @ 10) to determine the dissolved fraction of the metal based on ambient total
suspended solids (TSS).
where:
1
fD (1+Kp xm)
fo = dissolved fraction of the metal, decimal
Kp = partition coefficient, L/mg
m = TSS, mg/L
[Eqn. 2.7]
The Guidance also provides an equation to determine the partition coefficient (Kp) for
various metals, including copper and zinc. This equation is provided in Table 3
(Guidance @ 6) as:
where:
Kp=KpoxTSS" [1]
Kp = partition coefficient, L/kg
Kpo = metal -specific partition coefficient at 0 mg/l TSS, LJkg
for copper, Kpo =1.04E+6
for zinc, Kpo =1.25E+6
TSS = ambient total suspended solids, mg/l
a = metal -specific coefficient
for copper, a =-0.7436
for zinc, a =-0.7038

Note that equation [1] defines the partition coefficient with the units L/kg while equation
2.7 defines the partition coefficient with the units L/mg. To make these two forms
compatible, divide the results from equation [1] (i.e., L/kg) by 1,000,000 mg/kg to
convert them to the proper units (i.e., L/mg) for equation 2.7.
Then, for the ambient TSS of 2.15 mg/1 for Irwin Creek and the ambient TSS of
2.30 mg/1 for Sugar Creek, we calculate the following dissolved fractions for copper and
zinc.
Table 1
TSS-Dependent Dissolved Fraction
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
Parameter
Copper
Zinc
Copper
Zinc
TSS
2.15
2.15
2.30
2.30
TSSa
2.15-0.7436
0.566
2.15 -0.7038
0.583
2.30-0.7436
0.538
2.30 -0.7038
0.556
Kp (Equ. 1)
0.589
0.729
0.560
0.696
(1+Kpx in)
2.266
2.568
2.288
2.600
fp (Equ. 2.7)
0.441
0.389
0.437
0.385
The final limits for each metal are determined by dividing the waste load
allocation, expressed as the dissolved form of the metal, by the dissolved fraction given in
Table 1. The dissolved water quality standard, used to establish the waste load allocation,
is determined as the product of the hardness -based water quality standard and the
dissolved fraction associated with the hardness -dependent standard.
Page 2

1 1_ I 1 1 1Sugar Creek - Copper calculations
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Copper
mA
bA
mC
bC
dissolved fractlons
acute
chronic
0.9422
-1.700
0.8545
-1.702
96%
96%
Hardness
63
In(85)
4.143135
In(85)
4.143135
{
{0.9422(4.143135)+(-1.700))
=
2.203662
08545(4.143135)+(1 702))
=
1.838309
exp
2.203662
=
9.05812
exp
1.838309
=
6.285897
copper dissolved fraction
96%
=
8.695795
WQS dissolved
copper dissolved fraction
96%
=
6.034462
WQS dissolved
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
1
I
Stream flow in MGD
2.1973248
Stream flow in MGD
2.197325
I
Combined Flow
22.1973248
Combined Flow
22.19732
WLA dissolved/pound;
1.60981499
WLA dissolved/pound:
1.117134
WLA ug/i
9.651169003
WLA ug/I
6.697445
Calculated Dissolved I
0.437
1
WQBEL - total recover
22.08505493
WQBEL - total recover
15.32596

1 I 1 I _I [Sugar Creek - Zinc calculations
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Zinc
mA
bA
mC
bC
dissolved fractions
acute
chronic
0.8473
0.884
0.8473
0.884
97.8%
98.6%
Hardness
63
In(85)
4.143135
In(85)
4.143135
{
{0.8473(4.442651)+(-0.884))
=
4.394478
{0.8473(4.442651)+(-0.884)}
=
4.394478
exp
4.394478
=
81.00234
exp
4.394478
=
81.00234
copper dissolved fraction
97.8%
=
79.22029
WQS dissolved
copper dissolved fraction
98.6%
=
79.86831
WQS dissolved
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
Stream flow in MGD
2.1973248
Stream flow in MGD
2.197325
I
Combined Flow
22.1973248
Combined Flow
22.19732
WLA dissolved/pound:
14.66571064
WLA dissolved/pound:
14.78568
WLA ug/1
87.92392468
WLA ug/i
88.64314
Calculated Dissolved f
0.385
I
WQBEL - total recover
228.3738303
WQBEL - total recover
230.2419

Creek Plant as part of its efforts to comply with the Total Phosphorous Limit and those
effluent limits on total phosphorous in Section 2 of this Settlement Agreement that
specifically apply to the McAlpine Creek Plant. The Parties further acknowledge that the
City will have to obtain from NCDENR an authorization to construct before those
construction activities can begin. Within 20 days after receiving the City's application
for an authorization to construct, NCDENR will determine and notify the City as to
whether or not the application is complete. Within 60 days after receiving a complete
application, NCDENR will determine and notify the City as to whether or not the
authorization to construct has been granted.
5. Sug_ar Creek Plant and Irwin Creek Plant Construction. By February
28, 2004, the City will notify SCDHEC and NCDENR as to whether or not it intends to
perform construction activities at either the Sugar Creek Plant or the Irwin Creek Plant as
part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the Total Phosphorous Limit.
6. Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek NPDES Permits. NCDENR shall issue
NPDES Permits for the Sugar Creek Plant and Irwin Creek Plant with effluent limits for
total phosphorous and with construction notification requirements consistent with the
provisions of Sections 2 and 5 of this Settlement Agreement, respectively.
7. Dismissal of Contested Case Proceeding. Within five (5) business days
of the date of this Settlement Agreement, SCDHEC shall take all necessary actions to
dismiss with prejudice the Contested Case Petition.
8. Duty of Good Faith. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement
embodies their mutual agreement and agree to act in good faith consistently herewith in
all matters related hereto, including without limitation any public hearing or comment

SC 2000 303(d) LIST
AQUATIC LIFE AND RECREATIONAL USES
LISTED ALPHABETICALLY
WATERBODY
IMPAIRED SITE
STATION
NUMBER
BASIN
COUNTY
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT
IMPAIRED
USE
CAUSE
PRIORITY
SOUTH FORK OF FISHING CREEK
SOUTH FORK OF FISHING CK. ON CR 50, 10 MI NE OF CHESTER.
CW-007
CATAWBA
CHESTER
03050103060
AL
BIO
3 -
SOUTH FORK OF THE EIDSTO RIVER
S FORK EDISTO RVR AT SC 39
E-011
EDISTO
BARNWELL
03050204030
REC
FC
3
S FORK EDISTO RVR AT SC 302
E-021
EDISTO
AIKEN
03050204010
REC
FC
3
SOUTH PACOLET RIVER
S PACOLET RVR AT S-42.866 1 MI SE CAMPOBELLO
B-302
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105160
REC
FC
2
SOUTH RABON CREEK
SOUTH RABON CK ON DIRT RD BETWEEN SC 101 & S-30-76
S-322
SALUDA
LAURENS
03050109030
REC
FC
2
SOUTH SALUDA RIVER
SOUTH SALUDA RIVER AT S-23.101
S-087
SALUDA
GREENVILLE
03050109020
REC
FC
3
SOUTH SALUDA RVR AT SC 186
S-299
SALUDA
GREENVILLE
03050109020
REC
FC
3
SOUTH TYGER RIVER
SOUTH TYGER RVR AT S-42-63
B-005
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107010
REC
FC
2
SOUTH TYGER RVR @ SR 242
B-005A
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107010
AL
BIO
3
SOUTH TYGER RIVER
SOUTH TYGER RVR AT SC 290 3.7 MI E OF GREER
B-263
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107010
REC
FC
3
SPEARS CREEK
SPEARS CK AT US 601
CW-166
CATAWBA
KERSHAW
03050104090
REC
FC
3
SPIVEY CREEK
SPIVEY CK AT 5-42-208 2.5 MI SSE OF LANDRUM
B-103
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105160
REC
FC
2
SPRING GROVE CREEK
SPRING GROVE CREEK AT S-14-26
SC-009
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111010
AL
CU
3
SPRING GROVE CREEK AT S-14-26
SC-009
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111010
REC
FC
3
SPRING GROVE CREEK AT S-14-26
SC-009
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111010
AL
PB
3
STEELE CREEK
STEELE CK AT S-46.22 N OF FORT MILL
CW-009
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103028
REC
FC
2
STEELE CK AT S-46-270
CW-011
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103028
REC
FC
3
STEELE CK AT S-46-98
CW-203
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103028
REC
FC
2
STEELE CR. @ US BY-PASS 21
CW-681
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103028
AL
810
3
STONEY FORK CREEK
STONEY FORK CRK. @ SR 121 & 72
CW-697
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103060
AL
BIO
3
STONO RIVER
STONO RVR AT SC 700
MD-026
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
03050202070
AL
DO
2
STONO RVR AT S-10-20 2 MI UPSTRM OF CLEMSON EXP STA
MD-202
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
03050202050
AL
DO
2
STONO RVR AT S-10.20 2 MI UPSTRM OF CLEMSON EXP STA
MD-202
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
03050202050
REC
FC
2
STONO RIVER AT ABBAPOOLA CREEK
MD-206
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
03050202070
AL
DO
1
SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CK AT SC 160 E OF FORT MILL
CW-013
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103028
REC
FC
2
SUGAR CK AT SC 160 E OF FORT MILL
CW-013
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103028
AL
CR
3
SUGAR CK AT SC 160 E OF FORT MILL
CW-013
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103028
AL
CU
3
SUGAR CREEK AT S-46-36
CW-036
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103028
REC
FC
2
SUGAR CK US OF CONFLUENCE W/ MCALPINE CK
CW-246
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103028
REC
FC
2
SUGAR CK US OF CONFLUENCE W/ MCALPINE CK
CW-246
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103028
AL
BIO
3
TAILRACE CANAL
TAILRACE CANAL AT DOCK RESTAURANT BOAT SUP
SC-033
SANTEE
BERKELEY
03050201010
AL
CU
2
TAILRACE CANAL AT DOCK RESTAURANT BOAT SUP
SC-033
SANTEE
BERKELEY
03050201010
AL
PH
2
TAWCAW CREEK
TAWCAW CK AT S-14-127 3.2 MI S OF SUMMERTON
ST-018
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111040
AL
CU
2
TAWCAW CK AT S-14-127 3.2 MI S OF SUMMERTON
ST-018
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111040
AL
DO
2
TAWCAW CK AT S-14-127 3.2 MI S OF SUMMERTON
5T-018
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111040
REC
FC
2
TAYLORS CREEK
TAYLORS CRK . @ SR 75
CW-695
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103060
AL
BIO
3
THICKETTY CREEK
THICKETTY CK AT SC 211 2 MI AB JCT WITH BROAD RVR
B-062
BROAD
CHEROKEE
03050105130
REC
FC
3
THICKETTY CREEK AT S-11.164
B-095
BROAD
CHEROKEE
03050105130
REC
FC
3
THICKETTY CK AT SC 18 8.3 MIS OF GAFFNEY
B-133
BROAD
CHEROKEE
03050105130
REC
FC
3
THOMPSON CREEK
THOMPSON CK AT S-13-243 0.8 MI NE OF CHESTERFIELD
PD-246
PEE DEE
CHESTERFIELD
03040201062
REC
FC
2
THREE & TWENTY CREEK
THREE & TWENTY CREEK AT S-04-280
SV-111
SAVANNAH
ANDERSON
03060101100
REC
FC
3
THREE & TWENTY CREEK @ SR 29
SV-735
SAVANNAH
ANDERSON
03060101100
AL
BIO
3
TIMS BRANCH
TIMS BR AT SRP ROAD C
SV-324
SAVANNAH
AIKEN
03060106100
REC
FC
3
TINKER CREEK
TINKER CK AT UN# CO RD 1.7 MI SSE OF UNION
B-287
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
3
TINKER CK AT S-44.278, 9 MI SSE OF UNION
B-336
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
3
TINKERS CREEK
TINKERS CK AT S-12-599
CW-234
CATAWBA
CHESTER
03050103070
AL
BIO
3
TINKERS CK AT S-12.599
CW-234
CATAWBA
CHESTER
03050103070
REC
FC
3
TODDS BRANCH
TODD'S BR AT S-29-564 1.5 MI NE OF KERSHAW
PD-005
PEE DEE
LANCASTER
03040202070
REC
FC
2
TOMS CREEK
TOMS CK AT SC 48
C-072
SALUDA
RICHLAND
03050110060
REC
FC
3
TOOLS FORK
TOOLS FORK AT S-46-195 7 MI NW OF ROCK HILL
CW-212
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103060
REC
FC
3
TOSCHS CREEK
TOSCHS CK AT US 176 2 MI SW OF UNION
B-067A
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
3
TOSCHS CK AT RD TO SEWAGE PT OFF HWY S-44-92 SW OF UNION
B-0678
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
3
TURKEY CREEK
TURKEY CK 5-22-42 SW OF GEORGETOWN
MD-076N
PEE DEE
GEORGETOWN
031340207040
REC
FC
3
TURKEY CREEK AT US 521
PO-040
PEE DEE
SUMTER
03040205080
REC
FC
3
TURKEY CK AT LIBERTY ST IN SUMTER
PD-098
PEE DEE
SUMTER
03040205080
REC
FC
3
Indicates TMDLs will be done within 2 years
11
See Key

•
SC 2002 303(d) LIST
AQUATIC LIFE AND RECREATIONAL USES LISTED ALPHABETICALLY
(DRAFT)
WATERBODY NAME
STATION DESCRIPTION
STATION
BASIN
COUNTY
HYDROLOGIC UNIT
IMPAIRED USE
CAUSE
2002 Rank
• LITTLE RIVER
LITTLE RIVER AT SC ROUTE 127
8 297
SALUDA
LAURENS
03050109160
REC
FC
2
• LITTLE RIVER
LITTLE RIVER AT SC 34
5305
SALUDA
NEWB£RRY
03050109160
REC
FC
2
LITTLE RIVER
LITTLE RIVER AT S-01-24
SV-164
SAVANNAH
ABBEVILLE
03060103140
REC
FC
3
LITTLE RIVER
LITTLE RIVER AT 833-19
8V-192
SAVANNAH
MCCORMICK
03050103140
REC
FC
3
LITTLE RIVER
LITTLE RIVER AT 8-0132
SV345
SAVANNAH
ABBEVILLE
03060103140
REC
FC
2
LITTLE SALKEHATCHIE RIVER
LITTLE SALKEHATCHIE RIVER AT SC 64
CSTL•117
SALKEHATCHIE
COLLETON
03050207030
REC
FC
3
LITTLE SALKEHATCHIE RIVER
LITTLE SALKEHATCHIE RIVER AT SC 63
CSTL-120
SALI(EHATCHIE
COLLETON
03050207110
REC
FC
3
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER AT US 378E SALUDA
5-050
SALUDA
SALUDA
03050109170
AL
DO
2
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER AT US 378E SALUDA
S-050
SALUDA
SALUDA
03050109170
REC
FC
2
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER AT 8441.39 5.2 MI NE SALUDA
5-123
SALUDA
SALUDA
03050109170
AL
DO
2
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER
LITTLE SALUDA RIVER AT 8.4149 5.2111 NE SALUDA
S-123
SALUDA
SALUDA
03050109170
REC
FC
3
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK AT US 521 (IN N.C.)
CW-243
CATAWBA
MECKLENBURG
03050103020
REC
FC
2
LITTLE WATEREE CREEK
LITTLE WATEREE CREEK AT 8-20-41 5 MI E OF WINNSBORO
CW-040
CATAWBA
FAIRFIELD
03050104010
AL
DO
1
LOG BRIDGE CREEK
LOG BRIDGE CREEK AT SC 162
MD-121
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
03050202050
REC
FC
2
LONG BRANCH
LONG BRANCH ON SC 216 BL KINGS MTN PK REC AREA
B326
BROAD
YORK
03050105140
REC
FC
3
LONG CANE CREEK
LONG CANE CREEK AT 841.159
SV-349
SAVANNAH
ABBEVILLE
03060103150
REC
FC
2
LONG CREEK
LONG CREEK et FS 538 RD. CROSSING
LC-02
SAVANNAH
OCONEE
03060102-030
Al.
BIO
3
• LORICK BRANCH
LORICK BRANCH AT PT UPSTRM OF JCT WITH SALUDA RIVER
S•150
SALUDA
LEXINGTON
03050109210
REC
FC
2
LYNCHES RIVER
LYNCHES RNER AT US 52 NEAR EFFINGHAM
PD-041
PEE DEE
FLORENCE
03040202120
Al.
PH
2
LYNCHES RIVER
LYNCHES RIVER AT 8.28.42
PD-066
PEE DEE
CHESTERFIELD
03040202050
Al.
CU
1
LYNCHES RIVER
LYNCHES RIVER AT 8-28-42
PD-066
PEE DEE
CHESTERFIELD
03040202050
REC
FC
2
LYNCHES RIVER
LYNCHES RIVER AT 8C 9 W OF PAGELAND
PD-113
PEE DEE
CHESTERFIELD
03040202030
REC
FC
2
LYNCHES RIVER
LYNCHES RIVER AT 8.21.49 5 MI NW JOHNSONVILLE
P0-281
PEE DEE
FLORENCE
03040202120
AL
CU
1
MAPLE SWAMP
MAPLE SWAMP AT SC 57
P0-030
PEE DEE
DILLON
03040204030
AL
DO
2
MCALPINE CREEK
MCALPINE CREEK AT 8.29.84
CW-064
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103020
AL
BIO
1
MCALPINE CREEK
MCALPINE CREEK AT 54944
CW-064
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103020
REC
FC
2
MCALPINE CREEK
MCALPINE CREEK AT US 521, NC
CW-226
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103020
REC
FC
2
MECHANICSVILLE SWAMP
MECHANICCSVILLE SWAMP AT 831.500
P0356
PEE DEE
LEE
03040205040
REC
FC
2
MENG CREEK
MENG CREEK AT SC 49 2.5 MI E OF UNION
B-054
BROAD
UNION
03050106030
REC
FC
2
MENG CREEK TRIB
TRIB TO MENG CREEK AT CLVT ON 844-384 3 MI E OF UNION
B-243
BROAD
UNION
'03050106030
REC
FC
2
• MIDDLE SALUDA RIVER
MIDDLE SALUDA RIVER AT SC 288 2.3 MI WSW SLATER
5-252
SALUDA
GREENVILLE
03050109020
REC
FC
3
MIDDLE TYGER RIVER
MIDDLE TYGER RIVER AT 5-4243
8-012
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107040
REC
FC
2
MIDDLE TYGER RIVER
MIDDLE TYGER RIVER AT 8.4244
B-014
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107040
REC
FC
3
MILL CREEK
MILL CREEK AT 5.20.48,10 MI SW OF WINNSBORO
B338
BROAD
FAIRFIELD
03050105080
REC
FC
2
MILL CREEK
MILL CREEK it SR 73
8-780
BROAD
UNION
03050105190
AL
BIO
3
MILL CREEK
MILL CREEK AT 8C 262
C-021
SALUDA
RICHLAND
03050110010
REC
FC
3
MILL CREEK
MILL CREEK AT BENT BRIDGE RD, BL CAROLINA PLATING
S415
SALUDA
GREENVILLE
03050109040
AL
CR
2
• MITCHELL CREEK
MITCHELL CREEK AT CO RD 233 2.3 MI SSW OF JONESVILLE
13-199
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
2
MOORES CREEK
MOORES CREEK AT HWY 178
S412
SALUDA
SALUDA
03050109180
AL
BIO
3
MOTLOW CREEK
MOTLOW CREEK 0 SR 583
0-790
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105160
AL
B10
3
• MOUNTAIN CREEK
MOUNTAIN CREEK AT S-23335
B488
BROAD
GREENVILLE
03050103010
REC
FC
2
MOUNTAIN CREEK
MOUNTAIN CREEK 4 SR 279
BE-008
BROAD
GREENVILLE
03050103010
AL
BIO
3
• MUSH CREEK
MUSH CREEK AT SC 253 BL TIGERVILLE
B317
BROAD
GREENVILLE
03050107010
REC
FC
2
NASTY BRANCH
NASTY BRANCH AT S43-2517.5 M1 SW OF SUMTER
PD-239
PEE DEE
SUMTER
03040205080
AL
DO
2
NASTY BRANCH
NASTY BRANCH AT S-43-251 7.5 111 SW OF SUMTER
P04239
PEE DEE
SUMTER
03040205080
REC
FC
3
• NEELYS CREEK
NEELYS CREEK AT 246.997
CW427
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103070
REC
FC
3
NEW RIVER
NEW RIVER AT SC 170 9 MI W OF BLUFFTON
MD-118
SALKEHATCHIE
JASPER
03050208130
REC
FC
2
NEW RIVER
NEW RIVER AT SC 170 9 111 W OF BLUFFTON
MD-118
SALKEHATCHIE
JASPER
03050208130
AL
PH
2
NEWMAN SWAMP
NEWMAN SWAMP AT 8-16.449 0.0 M1 NE OF LAMAR
PD-229
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040202100
AL
DO
2
NORRIS CREEK
NORRIS CREEK AT S37-4351 MIS OF WESTMINSTER
13V301
SAVANNAH
OCONEE
03060102130
REC
FC
2
NORTH BRANCH WILDCAT CREEK
NORTH BRANCH WILDCAT CREEK AT 849391 MI S OF TRADESVII.LE
PD-179
PEE DEE
LANCASTER
03040202030
REC
FC
2
NORTH CREEK
NORTH CREEK AT JCT WITH U8 78 2.8 MI W OF CLINTON
S-135
SALUDA
LAURENS
03050109160
REC
FC
2
NORTH FORK EDISTO RIVER
NORTH FORK EDISTO RIVER AT POWER LINORTHE CROSSINORTHG 2 111 BL E-007
E-007A
EDISTO
ORANGEBURG
03050203080
REC
FC
2
NORTH FORK EDISTO RIVER
NORTH FORK EDISTO RIVER AT S-38.74 NORTHW ORANORTHGEBURG
E-099
EDISTO
ORANGEBURG
03050203050
REC
FC
2
• NORTH FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK
NORTH FORK 12 MI CREEK AT US 178 2.9 MI NORTH OF PICREEKENORTHS
SV-206
SAVANNAH
PICKENS
03080101060
REC
FC
2
• NORTH PACOLET RIVER
NORTH PACOLET RIVER AT S-42-956 8.5 M1 E LANORTHDRUM
B-026
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105150
REC
FC
2
• NORTH PACOLET RIVER
NORTH PACOLET RIVER AT 8-42.978,1 MI SE OF FINORTHGERVILLE
B-126
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105150
REC
FC
3
• NORTH RABON CREEK
NORTH RABON CREEK AT 8-3042
S-321
SALUDA
LAURENS
03050109130
NEC
FC
3
• NORTH SALUDA RIVER
NORTH SALUDA RIVER AT BRDG AB JCT WITH SALUDA RIVER E OF SC 186
8-004
SALUDA
GREENVILLE
03050109010
REC
FC
2
NORTH TYGER RIVER
NORTH TYGER RIVER AT S-42.231,11 MI OF SPARTANBURG
B-018A
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107030
REC
FC
2
• NORTH TYGER RIVER
NORTH TYGER RIVER AT US 29 7.2 MI W OF SPARTANORTHBURG
8-219
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107020
REC
FC
3
• NORTH TYGER RIVER TRIG
TRIB TO NORTH TYGER RIVER AT UNORTH9 RD 8L JACREEKSONORTH $2 EFF
B315
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107020
REC
FC
2
• OOLENOY RIVER
OOLENOY RIVER AT S4947
8.103
SALUDA
PICKENS
03050109030
REC
FC
3
OX SWAMP
OX SWAMP AT US 521
P0429
PEE DEE
WILLAMSBURG
03040205140
AL
BIO
3
• PACOLET RIVER
PACOLET RIVER AT 8.42-55 BL JCT OF N & S PACOLET R
8-028
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105170
REC
FC
3
PACOLET RIVER
PACOLET RIVER AT SC 105 6 MI AB JCT WITH BROAD RIVER
13-048
BROAD
CHEROKEE
03050105190
REC
FC
2
• PACOLET RIVER
PACOLET RIVER AB DAM AT PACOLET MILLS
BP-001
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105190
REC
FC
3
• PAGE CREEK
PAGE CREEK AT S4242581.7 M1 SE LANDRUM
8301
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105150
REC
FC
2
PEE DEE RIVER
GREAT PEE DEE RIVER AT U815 & 401
PD-015
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040201050
REC
FC
3
PEE DEE RIVER
PEE DEE RIVER AT SC 3411 MI NE DARLINGTON
PDon
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040201050
AL
CU
3
PEE DEE RIVER
PEE DEE RIVER AT US 701 2.75 M1 NE YAUHANNAH
PD461
PEE DEE
GEORGETOWN
03040201170
AL
DO
3
• PEOPLES CREEK
PEOPLES CREEK AT UNIMPROVED RD 2.3 MI E OF GAFFNEY
B-211
BROAD
CHEROKEE
03050105090
REC
FC
2
PIPE
80' TILE DISCHARGING TO DITCH ACROSS RD AT DARLINGTON STP
PD-141
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040201110
AL
DO
2
PIPE
80' TILE DISCHARGING TO DITCH ACROSS RD AT DARLINGTON STP
PD-141
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040201110
REC
FC
2
POCOTALIGO RIVER
POCOTAUGO RIVER AT US 17 AT POCOTAUGO
MD-007
SALKEHATCHIE
BEAUFORT
03050203090
REC
FC
1
POCOTAUGO RIVER
POCOTALIGO RIVER AT US 17 AT POCOTALIGO
MD-007
SALKEHATCHIE
BEAUFORT
03050208090
AL
TURBIDITY
1
• Indicates TMDLs scheduled for completion within lwa years
6

SC 2002 303(d) LIST
AQUATIC LIFE AND RECREATIONAL USES LISTED ALPHABETICALLY
(DRAFT)
WATERBODY MANE
STATION DESCRIPTION
STATION
BASIN
COUNTY
HYDROLOGIC UNIT
IMPAIRED USE
CAUSE
2002 Rank
SIX & TWENTY CREEK
6 & 20 CREEK AT S-04-29 8.2 MI SE OF PENDLETON
SV-181
SAVANNAH
ANDERSON
03060101040
REC
FC
2
SIX MILE CREEK
SIX MILE CREEK AT S-39.160
SV-205
SAVANNAH
PIENS
03060101040
REC
FC
2
SIXMILE CREEK
SIXMILE CREEK ON US 21 S OF CAYCE
C-005
SALUDA
LEXINGTON
03050110020
AL
BIO
3
• SIXMILE CREEK
SIXMILE CREEK ON US 21 5 OF CAYCE
C-005
SALUDA
LEXINGTON
03050110020
REC
FC
1
SIXMILE CREEK
SIXMILE CREEK AT 5-29-54
CW-176
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103030
REC
FC
2
SMITH BRANCH
SMITH BRANCH AT N MAIN ST (US 21) IN COLA
8-280
BROAD
RICHLAND
03050106060
AL
BIO
2
SMITH BRANCH
SMITH BRANCH AT N MAIN ST (US 21) IN COLA
B-280
BROAD
RICHLAND
03050106060
REC
FC
2
SMITH SWAMP
SMITH SWAMP AT US 501 1.9 MI SSE OF MARION
PD-187
PEE DEE
MARION
03040201150
AL
DO
2
SMITH SWAMP
SMITH SWAMP AT US 501 1.9 MI SSE OF MARION
PD-187
PEE DEE
MARION
03040201150
REC
FC
3
SMITH SWAMP
SMITH SWAMP AT 5-34-19 1 MI E OF MARION
PD-320
PEE DEE
MARION
03040201150
AL
DO
2
SMITH SWAMP
SMITH SWAMP AT S-34-19 1 MI E OF MARION
PD-320
PEE DEE
MARION
03040201150
REC
FC
2
SNAKE BRANCH
SNAKE BRANCH AT WOODMILL ST-HARTSVILLE
PD-137
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040201110
REC
FC
2
SNAKE BRANCH
SNAKE BRANCH AT RR AVE IN HARTSVILLE
PD-258
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040201110
AL
DO
2
SOUTH BRANCH WILDCAT CREEK
SOUTH BRANCH WILDCAT CREEK AT S-29.39 2 MI 5 OF TRAOESVILLE
PD-180
PEE DEE
LANCASTER
03040202030
REC
FC
1
SOUTH FORK CROWDERS CREEK
SOUTH FORK CROWDERS CREEK AT SJ6-79 4.5 MI NW OF CLOVER
CW-192
CATAWBA
YORK
03050101190
REC
FC
2
SOUTH FORK EDISTO RIVER
SOUTH FORK EDISTO RIVER AT SC 39
E-011
EDISTO
BARNWELL
03050204030
REC
FC
2
SOUTH FORK EDISTO RIVER
SOUTH FORK EDISTO RIVER AT SC 302
E-021
EDISTO
AIKEN
03050204010
REC
FC
2
• SOUTH PACOLET RIVER
SOUTH PACOLET RIVER AT 5-42-866 1 MI SE CAMPOBELLO
B-302
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105160
REC
FC
2
• SOUTH RABON CREEK
SOUTH RABON CREEK ON DIRT RD BETWEEN SC 101 8 5.30.76
5.322
SALUDA
LAURENS
03050109130
REC
FC
2
• SOUTH SALUDA RIVER
SOUTH SALUDA RIVER AT S-23-101
5-087
SALUDA
GREENVILLE
03050109020
REC
FC
2
• SOUTH SALUDA RIVER
SOUTH SALUDA RIVER AT SC 166
5-299
SALUDA
GREENVILLE
03050109020
REC
FC
2
• SOUTH TYGER RIVER
SOUTH TYGER RIVER AT S-02-63
B-005
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107010
REC
FC
2
SOUTH TYGER RIVER
SOUTH TYGER RIVER AT 5-42-242
8-005A
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107010
AL
1310
3
• SOUTH TYGER RIVER
SOUTH TYGER RIVER AT SC 290 3.7 MI E OF GREER
B-263
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107010
REC
FC
3
SOUTH TYGER RIVER
SOUTH TYGER RIVER AT S-42-86, 5 MI NE OF WOODRUFF
B-332
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050107010
REC
FC
3
SPARROW SWAMP
SPARROW SWAMP AT 5-16-697 2.5 MI E OF LAMAR
PO-072
PEE DEE
DARLINGTON
03040202100
REC
FC
3
• SPEARS CREEK
SPEARS CREEK AT US 601
CW-166
CATAWBA
KERSHAW
03050104090
REC
FC
3
• SPNEY CREEK
SPNEY CREEK AT S-42-2082.5 MI SSE OF LANDRUM
B-103
BROAD
SPARTANBURG
03050105160
REC
FC
1
SPRING GROVE CREEK
SPRING GROVE CR AT SECONDARY RD 76 BRDG
SC-009
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111010
REC
FC
3
STEELE CREEK
STEELE CREEK AT S46-22 N OF FORT MILL
CW-009
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103020
REC
FC
2
STEELE CREEK
STEELE CREEK AT S-46.270
CW-011
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103020
REC
FC
2
STEELE CREEK
STEELE CREEK AT S-46.98
CW-203
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103020
REC
FC
2
STEELE CREEK
STEELE CREEK AT US BY-PASS 21
CW-681
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103028
AL
BIO
2
STONEY FORK CREEK
STONEY FORK CREEK AT SC 121 8 72
CW-697
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103060
AL
BIO
3
STONO RIVER
STONO RIVER AT SC 700
MD-026
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
03050202070
AL
DO
3
STONO RIVER
STONO RIVER AT 5-10-20 2 MI UPSTRM OF CLEMSON EXP STA
MD-202
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
D3050202050
AL
DO
3
STONO RIVER
STONO RIVER AT ABBAPOOLA CREEK
MD-206
SANTEE
CHARLESTON
03050202070
AL
DO
3
SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CREEK AT SC 160 E OF FORT MILL
CW-013
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103020
AL
CU
1
SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CREEK AT SC 160 E OF FORT MILL
CW-013
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103020
REC
FC
2
SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CREEK AT SJ6-36
CW-036
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103020
REC
FC
2
SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CREEK US OF CONFLUENCE WI MCALPINE CREEK
CW-246
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103020
AL
BIO
1
SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CREEK US OF CONFLUENCE WI MCALPINE CREEK
CW-246
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103020
REC
FC
2
SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CREEK AT MECREEKLENBURG CO ROAD 51 (IN N.C.)
CW-247
CATAWBA
MELENBURG
03050103020
AL
CD
2
SWIFT CREEK
SWIFT CREEK AT SC 261
CW-238
CATAWBA
KERSHAW
03050104080
AL
DO
2
TAWCAW CREEK
TAWCAW CREEK AT S-14.127 3.2 MI S OF SUMMERTON
ST-018
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111040
AL
DO
2
TAWCAW CREEK
TAWCAW CREEK AT 5-14-127 3.2 MIS OF SUMMERTON
ST-018
SANTEE
CLARENDON
03050111040
REC
FC
2
TAYLORS CREEK
TAYLORS CREEK AT SR 735
CW-695
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103060
AL
BIO
3
• THICKETTY CREEK
THICKETTY CREEK AT SC 211 2 MI AB JCT WITH BROAD RIVER
8-062
BROAD
CHEROKEE
0305010513D
REC
FC
2
THICKETTY CREEK
THICKETTY CREEK AT S-11.164
B-095
BROAD
CHEROKEE
03050105130
REC
FC
2
• THICKETTY CREEK
THICKETTY CREEK AT SC 18 8.3 MIS OF GAFFNEY
8.133
BROAD
CHEROKEE
03050105130
REC
FC
2
THOMPSON CREEK
THOMPSON CREEK AT 5-13-243 0.8 MI NE OF CHESTERFIELD
PD-246
PEE DEE
CHESTERFIELD
03040201060
NEC
FC
2
THOMPSON CREEK
THOMPSON CREEK AT SC 9 1.5 MI ESE OF CHESTERFIELD
PD-247
PEE DEE
CHESTERFIELD
03040201060
REC
FC
2
THOMPSON CREEK
THOMPSON CREEK AT SC 109
PD-673
PEE DEE
CIESTERFIELD
03040201060
AL
BIO
3
THREE 8 TWENTY CREEK
THREE 8 TWENTY CREEK AT S-04.280
SV-111
SAVANNAH
ANDERSON
03060101100
REC
FC
2
THREE AND TWENTY CREEK
THREE 8 TWENTY CREEK @ SR 29
SV-735
SAVANNAH
ANDERSON
03060101100
AL
BIO
3
TIMS BRANCH
TIMS BRANCH AT SRP ROAD C
SV-324
SAVANNAH
AIKEN
03060106100
REC
FC
3
TIMS BRANCH
TIMS BRANCH AT SRP ROAD C
SV-324
SAVANNAH
AIKEN
03060106100
AL
PH
3
TINKER CREEK
TINKER CREEK AT RD TO STP 1.3 MI SSE OF UNION
8.286
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
2
• TINKER CREEK
TINKER CREEK AT UNB CO RD 1.7 MI SSE OF UNION
B-287
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
2
• TINKER CREEK
TINKER CREEK AT S-44.278. 9 MI SSE OF UNION
B-336
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
2
TINKERS CREEK
TINKERS CREEK AT 5.12-599
CW-234
CATAWBA
CHESTER
03050103070
AL
BIO
1
• TINKERS CREEK
TINKERS CREEK AT S-12.599
CW-234
CATAWBA
CHESTER
03050103070
REC
FC
3
T000S BRANCH
TODD'S BRANCH AT S-29-564 1.5 MI NE OF KERSHAW
P0-005
PEE DEE
LANCASTER
03040202070
REC
FC
2
TOMS CREEK
TOMS CREEK AT SC 48
C-072
SALUDA
RICHLAND
03050110060
REC
FC
2
• TOOLS FORK
TOOLS FORK AT S-46.195 7 MI NW OF ROCK HILL
CW-212
CATAWBA
YORK
03050103060
REC
FC
2
• TOSCHS CREEK
TOSCHS CREEK AT US 176 2 MI SW OF UNION
B-067A
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
2
• TOSCHS CREEK
TOSCHS CREEK AT RD TO SEWAGE PT OFF HWY 5-04-92 SW OF UNION
B-067B
BROAD
UNION
03050107060
REC
FC
2
TURKEY CREEK
TURKEY CREEK AT SC 9. 14 MI NW OF CHESTER
8-136
BROAD
CHESTER
03050106020
REC
FC
2
TURKEY CREEK
TURKEY CREEK 1 MI BL MILLIKEN BARNWELL OUTFALL AT CLINTON ST.
CSTL-001B
SALKEHATCIIIE
BARNWELL
03050207020
REC
FC
3
TURKEY CREEK
TURKEY CREEK AT US 521
PD-040
PEE DEE
SUMTER
03040205080
REC
FC
2
TURKEY CREEK
TURKEY CREEK AT LIBERTY ST IN SUMTER ABOVE SANTEE PRINT WORKS
PD-098
PEE DEE
SUMTER
03040205080
REC
FC
2
TWELVE MILE CREEK
TWELVE MILE CREEK AT SR 106
5-052
SALUDA
LEXINGTON
03050109210
AL
BIO
3
• TWELVE MILE CREEK
TWELVE MILE CREEK AT S-39-51 N OF NORRIS
SV-015
SAVANNAH
PICKENS
03060101070
REC
FC
2
TWELVE MILE CREEK
TWLEVE MILE CREEK AT S-39-337
SV-137
SAVANNAH
PICKENS
03060101070
REC
FC
1
TWELVEMILE CREEK
TWELVEMILE CREEK AT S-29-55 0.3 MI NW OF VAN WYCREEK
CW-083
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103030
REC
FC
2
TWELVEMILE CREEK
TWELVEMILE CREEK AT 0.29.55 0.3 MI NW OF VAN WYCREEK
CW-083
CATAWBA
LANCASTER
03050103030
AL
TURBIDITY
2
' Indicalos TMDLs scheduled for completion within Iwo years

South Carolina's 2000 3030 list
The column headings included on the South Carolina 2000 §303(d) list refer to the following:
Waterbody - Waters of the State.
Impaired Site - This column is a brief description of the location of the impaired waterbodies.
Station Number - This column refers to the Department's station code where data was collected for the
cause of impairment for the waterbody.
Basin - This column refers to one of five basins that are contained in the State.
County - Name of county location of waters of the State.
Hydrologic Unit - The number in this column refers to a standardized subbasin unit in which the
waterbody is located.
Impaired Use - This column refers to the use support impairment for aquatic life and/or recreational uses.
Shellfish harvesting and fish consumption are subsets of recreational use support. The impaired uses are
denoted as follows:
Recreational Use (Swimming): REC
Fish Consumption: FSH CON
Shellfish Harvesting: SFH
Aquatic Life Use: AL
Cause - This column refers to the problem parameter(s) that resulted in nonsupport or partial support of
the uses listed. The parameters are denoted as follows:
Cesium: CS
Chromium: CR
Contaminated Crab & Shrimp Tissue: TIS
Contaminated Sediments: SED
Copper: CU
Dissolved Oxygen: DO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria: FC
Hydrogen Ion Concentration: PH
Priority - Ranking on the §303(d) list.
Lead: PB
Macroinvertebrate: BIO
Mercury: HG
Pesticides: PEST
Phosphorus: P
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: PCB
Strontium: SR
Zinc: ZN
Area Description - This column refers to the shellfish harvesting area where data were collected for the
cause of impairment for the waterbody.
Acres - The number in this column refers to the acreage of impaired shellfish harvesting waters associated
with the site.
9

'iviarsiiau s euuuiieuis on Uivius ana Aiaemarie
Subject: Marshall's comments on CMUs and Albemarle
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:43:44 -0400
To: Susan A Wilson <Susan.A.Wilson©ncmail.net>
(Since you don't like walk-ins, you get to read a long email)
Talked with Marshall, regarding CMU plants: 1) he's okay with the 6 month compliance
schedule for fecal, considering that originally they had asked for 12 months. 2) he's also okay
with allowing CMU the option of doing a WER. EPA would like to review their plan of study
and implementation plan. He also said to let CMU know that if the WER indicates that more
stringent limits should be applied, then CMU would be bound by the results. They cannot
decide not to accept the results. 3) Also ok with more stringent NH3 limits.
So, I can proceed to finalize the CMU permits . 'f, Pfe& ! JI.Ar.2 51-tiv o,4 2. Bey uo DUL- i)
14, r r b kY-wet. N u µ$C-2
Albemarle --- He recognizes that Albemarle has a problem, influent TSS values are as low as
he's ever seen. But he thinks there is a seasonal component to their problem, the winter
months,esp. Feb. and March are when they have the problem. He has a two fold
recommendation for us to ponder -- 1) Continue with a % removal less that 85% but not as
low as 62% because he doesn't think that 62% is warranted.. He looked at the average %
removal from 2001 -2004 and by his calculations it was 80%, 75%, 63%, 81%, respectively.
the average of the 4 years was 75%. We could think about what we would recommend.
2) make the variation of the % removal for basically the winter months only since those
appear to be the problem times. We could designate what the winter months would be. Then
come up with what percent removal we would allow for those months.
I told him that I don't think that last option had ever been done, but that I would consult
with staff and get back with him. the first option to increase % removal from 62% up to some
number is the easiest thing to do. The winter only option will take some more work. Do you
have a sagely recommendation?
iitcrt w ... Ostrit4,45.
Mrre-� 'Too.cam ' G/ A9
C�Q�i 'jou (M, Ayala-, ,
�. J�S Flo 5 �oiJ - Vis rm emu 7f'144T!
� �� WD�u � I� t
fi�i R ar-ZMTr Le ON Su A. iu. vim-- M.o 1
()Nov...0 9 7 t. A. av`3LS)
kap (.4 (An-E32._ ria4 Ler's
Th5cfrt5r kM1
. of 1 4/14/2005 4:52 PM

March 11, 2005
Ms. Jackie Nowell
NC-DENR, DWQ
Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
GEBESNEESND
CHARLOTTE.
•
APR 1 2005
OF_I - W, 3't:ti QUALITY
} POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Re: Irwin Creek WWTP — NPDES #NC0024945
Sugar Creek WWTP — NPDES #NC0024937
Dear Ms. Nowell,
Thank you for allowing us to submit information about the status of our new disinfection
systems that are presently being completed at Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek Treatment
Facilities. As you are aware, these facilities were designed to meet the new fecal
coliform daily maximum limit of 1000/100 ml as required in the implementation plan for
the fecal coliform TMDL in the greater Sugar Creek Watershed. During the time that
the permits for these two facilities have been expired we have gone ahead and designed
and constructed these facilities to meet the new limits. The previous disinfection systems
at these plants used chlorine gas to disinfect but were not able to meet this daily
maximum limit.
The construction at both facilities is almost complete but we are encountering some
problems and the Design Engineer, Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM), is not ready to
sign that the project is complete. Though the UV system appears to be functioning well
at this time, we have experienced problems with the HVAC for the UV powerhouse. We
have had fuses blow in the HVAC system that has caused overheating in the powerhouse
and we want to make sure these issues are resolved before disassembling the existing
chlorine disinfection system. The HVAC system for the powerhouse will encounter the
largest strain during the hot summer months, and we need to make sure the system will
work during this time period before we can state we can meet the new daily maximum
fecal coliform limits.
We would like to request a 6-month Schedule of Compliance for completing any
upgrades we may need to the HVAC system on the UV powerhouse to make sure we can
meet the new limit. We feel that by the end of the hot summer months we should
encounter and resolve any issues we may have. In the interim, we will do everything
possible at our facilities to meet and exceed the new limit.
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Environmental Management Division
4000 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
PH: 704/357-1344

The second comment we would like to submit is about completing a Water Effects Ratio
(WER) to determine site -specific limits for copper and zinc for the Sugar and Irwin Creek
facilities. We would like a clause added to the Permits for these facilities stating that we
may conduct the WER's to determine site -specific limits and that the State would take the
WER results into consideration to adjust the permitted limits for these parameters to
reflect the site -specific limits determined in the study.
Thanks again for your consideration on these issues and for all the work you've been
doing to help us resolve the issues in this permitting process. If you have any questions
about these requests, or if you need further information, please feel free to call me at
704/357-1344, ext. 238 or Dawn Padgett at 704/357-1344, ext.235.
Sincerely,
— • f
2 acqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Superintendent
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilties

The calculations used to convert the dissolved metal criterion for copper or zinc to
the total recoverable form in the permit, based on the partitioning of themetal with
suspended solids, are described in EPA's "The Metals Translator: Guidance for
Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion" (EPA 823-B-
96-007, June 1996). The Guidance provides the following equation (Equation 2.7,
Guidance @ 10) to determine the dissolved fraction of the metal based on ambient total
suspended solids (TSS).
where:
�. 1
° (1+Kr xm)
fp = dissolved fraction of the metal, decimal
Kp = partition coefficient, L/mg
m = TSS, mg/L
[Eqn. 2.7]
The Guidance also provides an equation to determine the partition coefficient (Kp) for
various metals, including copper and zinc. This equation is provided in Table 3
(Guidance @ 6) as:
Kp = KPo xTSS°` [1]
where:
Kp = partition coefficient, L/kg
KPo = metal -specific partition coefficient at 0 mg/1 TSS, L/kg
for copper, KPo =1.04E+6
1 for zinc, KPo =1.25E+6
TSS = ambient total suspended solids, mg/1
a = metal -specific coefficient
for copper, a =-0.7436
for zinc, a =-0.7038

Note that equation [1] defines the partition coefficient with the units L/kg while equation
2.7 defines the partition coefficient with the units L/mg. To make these two forms
compatible, divide the results from equation [1] (i.e., L/kg) by 1,000,000 mg/kg to
convert them to the proper units (i.e., L/mg) for equation 2.7.
Then, for the ambient TSS of 2.15 mg/1 for Irwin Creek and the ambient TSS of
2.30 mg/1 for Sugar Creek, we calculate the following dissolved fractions for copper and
zinc.
Table 1
TSS-Dependent Dissolved Fraction
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
Parameter
Copper
Zinc
Copper
Zinc
TSS
2.15
2.15
2.30
2.30
TSS°
2.15-0.7436
0.566
2.15-0.7038
0.583
2.30-0.7436
0.538
2.30-0.7038
0.556
Kp (Equ. 1)
0.589
0.729
0.560
0.696
(1+Kp x m)
2.266
2.568
2.288
2.600
fp (Equ. 2.7)
0.441
0.389
0.437
0.385
The final limits for each metal are determined by dividing the waste load
allocation, expressed as the dissolved form of the metal, by the dissolved fraction given in
Table 1. The dissolved water quality standard, used to establish the waste load allocation,
is determined as the product of the hardness -based water quality standard and the
dissolved fraction associated with the hardness -dependent standard.
Page 2

l I I I I (Sugar Creek - Copper calculations
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Copper
mA
bA
mC
bC
dissolved fractions
acute
chronic
0.9422
-1.700
0.8545
-1.702
96%
96%
Hardness
63
In(85)
4.143135
In(85)
4.143135
{
{0.9422(4.143135)+(-1.700
=
2.203662
{08545(4.143135)+(-1.702))
=
1.838309
1
exp
2.203662
=
9.05812
exp
1.838309
=
6.285897
copper dissolved fraction
96%
=
8.695795
WQS dissolved
copper dissolved fraction
96%
=
6.034462
WQS dissolved
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
I
I
Stream flow in MGD
2.1973248
Stream flow in MGD
2.197325
I
I
Combined Flow
22.1973248
Combined Flow
22.19732
WLA dissolved/pound:
1.60981499
WLA dissolved/pound.
1.117134
WLA ug/I
9.651169003
WLA ug/i
6.697445
Calculated Dissolved F
0.437
WQBEL - total recover
22.08505493
WQBEL - total recover
15.32596

I 1 1 I I 1Sugar Creek - Zinc calculations
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Zinc
mA
bA
mC
bC
dissolved fractions
acute
chronic
0.8473
0.884
0.8473
0.884
97.8%
98.6%
Hardness
63
In(85)
4.143135
In(85)
4.143135
{0.8473(4.442651)+(-0.884)}
=
4.394478
{0.8473(4.442651)+(-0.884)}
=
4.394478
exp
4.394478
=
81.00234
exp
4.394478
=
81.00234
copper dissolved fraction
97.8%
=
79.22029
WQS dissolved
copper dissolved fraction
98.6%
=
79.86831
WQS dissolved
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Plant permitted flow
20
MGD
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
Steam flow
3.4
CFS
I
Stream flow in MGD
2.1973248
Stream flow in MGD
2.197325
I
Combined Flow
22.1973248
Combined Flow
22.19732
I
WLA dissolved/pound,
14.66571064
WLA disso
ved/pound:
14.78568
WLA ug/1
87.92392468
WLA ug/i
88.64314
Calculated Dissolved 1
0.385
WQBEL - total recovei
228.3738303
WQBEL - total recovei
230.2419

Re: CMti explanation
Subject: Re: CMU explanation
From: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:40:32 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
I was able to reproduce their calculations independently (see attached spreadsheet). So,
assuming that the hardness and TSS values provided are accurate and appropriate, I'm
OK with the numbers. You'll note that my final values are slightly off from their's,
most likely due to rounding errors. I followed strict significant figure rules for
intermediate calculations.
I also looked at the last couple of years worth of data; they had three values in excess
of the proposed chronic limit and also appear to have RP (for copper).
Matt
Jackie Nowell wrote:
Matt Matthews
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
v-[phone]
f-[phone]
Mai1To:[e-mail]
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1 2/ 15/ 2005 12:12 PM

CMUD Irwin Creek Copper Site -Specific Criterion and Limit Derivation
Acute Chronic
Hardness Conversion
TSS Conversion
Permit Limit
CMC=exp{ma[In(hardness)]+ba}(CF) CCC=exp{mc[In(hardness)]+bc}(CF)
ma 0.9422 me 0.8545
ba -1.7 be -1.702
CF 0.96 CF 0.96
Hardness 85 Hardness 85
CMC (ug/L) 11.5 CCC (ug/L) 7.8
Kp=Kpo x TSSa
TSS 2.15
a -0.7436
TSS-a 0.566
Kpo 1.04E+06
Kp 0.589
fd=1 /(1 +Kp x TSS)
fd 0.441
CMC=CMC/fd
CMC (ug/L)
26.1
PF(MGD) 15
7Q10 (cfs) 4.9
IWC (%) 83
CCC=CCC/fd
CCC (ug/L) 18
Acute Limit (ug/L) 31 Chronic Limit (ug/L) 22

• t
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Sugar CreekWWTP
NC0024937
Time Period 6 2001-7 2003
Ow (MOD) 20
7010S (cfs) 3.4
7010W (cfs)
3002 (cfs)
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs)
Rec'ving Stream Little Sugar Creek
WWTP Class IV
!WC (%) 0 7010S 90.116
0 7010W 84.932
0 3002 78.086
0 OA 39.744
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Ow = 20 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWOS/
Chronic
14 FAV/
Acute
n
I Dot Ma ProdCw AOowrbf Qv
Arsenic
NC
50
ug/L
0
0 ; WA
Acute: N/A
__ -___--
Chroni_c: 55
------•---•—•—•—•---------------
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
0
0 I N/A
Acute: N/A
__ __ _
Chronic: .16•--------------------------------•—
Cadmium
NC
2
15
ug/L
0
0
Acute: 15
NIA __
Chronic.--2----•—•—•—•—•-----------------------
Chromium
NC
50
1,022
ugll.
0
0
Acute: 1,022
NIA ._ __----------------------------•—•—•—
Chronic: �55
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
121
121
27.1
Acute: 7
--__--------_—_—.----_
1 Chronic:_8
•—•—•—•—•—•—•—
Cyanide
NC
5
N
22
10
ug/L
0
0
Acute: 22
N/A _
Chro_nic: •—•6 •------------------------•—•—•—•—•—
i
Fluoride
NC
1.800
ug/L
0
Acute: N/A
0 NIA hro_ _ 1,99_ _-----------------------------.—
Cnic: 7
—.
Lead
NC
25
N
33.8
ug/L
0
0
Acute: 34
NIA _ -____--•—.---.—.—.—.-----------------.—
Chronic: 28
Mercury
NC
0.012
0.0002
ug/L
0
0
Acute: N/A
N/A
(Chronic:---5----•—•—•—•-----•-------------------
Molybdenum
A
3,500
ug/L
0
0
Acute: WA
N/A _ _
Chronic: 4,482
—•—•---•—•------------------_____
Nickel
NC
88
261
ug/1.
0
0 NIA
Acute: 261
- C._ -----------------------—•---•—•—
hronic: �98
—•
Phenols
A
1
N
ug/L
0
0 WA
Acute: N/A
_— --
- Chronic: ' 1
--- —.--------- --- -----•—•—•—•—•—
Selenium
NC
5.0
56
ug/L
0
0 WA
Acute: 56
-- __--------.—.—.---
- Chronic: - 6
--•—•—•—•—•---.—
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
123
ug/L
121
0 WA
Acute: 1
-Chro_nic: ---( -----------------------.—.—.—•-----
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
121
Acute: 67
121 88.9 __ _ -___ —•---------------------------•—•—
Chronic: 55
—
•Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non•carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
•' Freshwater Discharge
SugarCr04run,rpa
2/10/2005

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary December 15, 2004
FACILITY REQUIREMENT YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Clinton -Larkins WPCF chr lim: 90%
NC0020117/00I Begin.2/1/2003 Frequency Q Mar Jun Sep Dec
County: Sampson Region: FRO Subbasin: CPF19
PF: 5.0 Spatial
7Q 10: 0.0 IWC(%) 100 Order
+ NonComp:Single
2000 Pass >100>100 Pass - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2001 -- - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Fall
2002 >100 >100 Pass - - >90 - - >90 - - >90
2003 _- - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2004 -- - Pass - - Pass - Pass -
CM1 Industries, Inc. -Chatham Div. chr lim: 1.9% 2000 - Pass - - Pass - Pass - - Pass
NC0005312/001 Begin9/1/1999 Frequency. Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 2001 -- Pass - - Pass -- Pass - - Pass
County Surry Region: WSRO Subbasin: YADO2 2002 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
PF: 4.0 Special 2003 _- Pass - Pass Pass Pass - - Pass
7Q10: 314 1WC(%) 1.94 Order. 2004 - Pass - - Pass -- Pass -
CMUD-Irwin Creek WWTP chr lim: 83% 9 2000 >t00 - - >100 >100 67.8 >100 >100 >100 - -
NC0024945/001 Begin 11/1/1996 Frequency. Q P/F + Jan Apr Jul Oct NonComp:Single 2001 >100 - - >100 - -- >100 - >100 - -
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB34 2002 >100 - - >100 - - >100 - -- >100 - -
PF: 15.0 Special 2003 >100 - - >100 - - 72.3,>100 >100 >100.>100(p) >100 - -
7Q10: 4.9 1WC(%) 83.0 Order. 2004 Pass - - >100 - - >100 -- -- 95.7,>100(P)
CMUD-Mallard Cr. WWTP chr Iim:90% 2000 -- >100 - - >100 - - >100 -- - >100
NC0030210/001 Begin:2/I/2004 Frequency Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:ChV Avg 2001 - Late >100 - NR >100 -- >100,>100 - -- >100
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: YADI 1 2002 - >100 - - >100 - Late >100,>100(p) >100(p) >100
PF: 6.0 Special 2003 - >100 >100 - >100 -- --- >100
7Q10: 0.64 IWC(%)94.0 Order. 2004 - Pass >100 -- >100 ---
CMUD-McAlpine WWTP chr lim: 911 %
NC0024970/001 Begin: 3/1/2001 Frequency: Q Mar Jun Sep Dec
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB34
PF: 64 Special
7Q10: 0.3 1 WC(%) 99.35 Order.
+ NunComp: Single
9 2000 - - >100 - >100 - - >100 - >100
2001 -- >100 >100 -- - >100 --- - Immlld,>100
2002 -- >100 - '100 - - x.100 -- - >100
2003 - >100 - >100 -- - >100>100(p) -- - >100
2004 - -- >100 - - >100 - 97.5 --
CMUD-McDowcllCr. WWTP chr lim 85%
NC0036277/00I Begin. 4/1/2001 Frequency: Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CT633
PF: 6.0 Special
7010: 1.80 1WC(%) 85 Order
+ NonComp:Single
9 2000 >96 - - >96 - - >96 -- e56 >96,e56 >96,>96
2001 >98 - >98 - - >96 - - >96 - -
2002 >100 - - >95 - >95 - >95 - -
2003 >95 - - >95,>95 --- >95 -- - >95 - -
2004 Pass -- >100 -- >100 - 96.2>100(P)
CMUD-Sugar Cr. WWTP chr lim: 90%, 2000 - 900 7 - - >100 - >100 - - ..xrra`-,A,4 -
NC0024937/001 Begin: 11/1/1996 Frequency: Q PiF + Feb May Aug Nov NonComp:Single 2001 - - >100 --- --- >100 - - .a100 _ -
County. Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB34 2002 - - -- >100 --- --- 92.5 - - >100 -
PF:20.0 Special 2003 - ,'yjp01 - - W5>100 >100.>100 >100.92.5 >100 - - N00 -
Order. 2004 - {> S. - -- >100 ..- --. >100 - -
CNA Holdings /Needmore Rd Landfill chr lim: 0.42% 2000 NRn100 - NROPass NR NR/Pass -- H H Late Pass
NC0079898/001 Begin 6/12004 Frequency: Q Jan Apr Jul Oct + NonComp:SINGLE 2001 NRJPass - -- Pass - -- Pass -- - Late
County Rowan Region: MRO Subbasin: YADO6 2002 Pass - - Pass - H H H H
PF: 0.288 Special 2003 NRJH - H - H Pass H H
7Q10: 106 IWC(%)0.42 Order 2004 H H - H - -- H
Pass
CNA Holdings, Inc.. chr lim: 5.8% 2000
NC0004952/001 Begin 6/1/2004 Frequency: Q Mar tun Sep Dec + NonComp:Single 2001
County: Cleveland Region: MRO Subbasin: BRD05 2002
PF: 0.8 Spatial 2003
7Q10: 20.0 1WC(%) 5.8 Order: 2004
Pass
Pass -- - Pass - - Pass -- - Fail
Pass - Pass Pass --- - Pass
Pass -- - Pass -- Pass -- -- Pass
Pass - Pass -- - Pass -- - Pass
Pass Pass Pass -
Coats American -Sevier Plant chr lim: 15% 2000 - Pass -- Pass Pass
NC0004243/001 Degin:1/12001 Frequency: Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 2001 - Pass -- Pass •- Pass
County: McDowell Region: ARO Subbasin: CTB30 2002 - Pass --- Pass -- -- Pass
PF:2.0 Special 2003 - Pass --- Pass Pass
7Q10: 18.0 IWC(%) 14.7 Order: 2004 - Pass --- -- Pass -- - Fail
c7.5
38.7
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Cogent:ix Energy -Lumberton chr lim: 0.51% 2000 - >100 >100 >100 >100 Pass
NC0058301/003 Begin 3/1/2000 Frequency Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Singlc 2001 - Pass --- --- Pass -- - Pass -- -- Pass
County: Robeson Region: FRO Subbasin: LUMSI 2002 - Pass -- -- Pass --- -- Pass -- Pass
PF: 0.45 Spatial 2003 - Pass - --- Pass -- -- Pass - -- Pass
7Q10: 120.0 IWC(%)0.51 Order 2004 - Pass - Pass -- -- Pass - -
V Pre 2000 Data Available
LEGEND:
PERM = Permit Requirement LET = Administrative Letter - Target Frequency = Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly; BM- Bimonthly; SA- Semiannually; A- Annually; OWD- Only when discharging; D- Discontinued monitoring requirement
Begin = First month required 7QI0 = Receiving stream low flow criterion (cfs) + = guarani), monitoring increases to monthly upon failure or NR Months that testing must occur - ex. Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct NonComp = Current Compliance Requirement
PF = Permitted Bow (MGD) IWC% = Instream waste concentration P/F = Pass/Fail test AC = Acute CHR = Chronic
Data Notation: f- Fathead Minnow; • - Ceriodaphnia sp.; my - Mysid shrimp; ChV - Chronic value; P - Mortality of stated percentage at highest concentration; at - Performed by DWQ Aquatic Tox Unit; bt - Bad test
Reporting Notation: -- = Data not required; NR - Not reported Facility Activity Status: 1 - Inactive, N - Newly Issued(To constmct); H - Active but not discharging; t-More data available for month in question; fl = ORC signature needed
10

(0))
CHARLOTTE,.
August 19, 2004
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permits NCO24945 (Irwin Creek) and
NCO024937 (Sugar Creek)
Dear Ms. Nowell:
r ,.i :. ,r
We are providing this information as a supplement to our July 1, 2004, letter to
Mark McIntire concerning water quality -based effluent limits (WQBELs) for the Irwin
Creek and Sugar Creek wastewater treatment plants ("WWTPs"). This letter sets forth
additional calculations for copper and zinc WQBELs factoring in TSS data -- as reflected
in the WQBEL permitting approach utilized by South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) and identified in the DHEC correspondence from Mr.
Mike Montebello to you (provided to us by e-mail dated July 14, 2004). In light of the
fact that the effect of partitioning on total suspended solids to establish WQBELs for
metals is utilized by DHEC and would not be novel, we request that this approach, which
is also recommended by EPA, be utilized by DENR in the permitting of the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utility ("CMU") WWTPs. As such, this letter sets forth revised WQBEL
calculations utilizing the TSS partitioning coefficients.
Mr. Montebello notes in his correspondence that, in the absence of actual stream
data, DHEC „se& a background TSS of 1 mg/1 which is bn +e5`hercentiie-o.f
ambient TSS data on South Carolina streams from 1993 — 2000. While we question and
reserve our right to challenge the use of the 5 percentile TSS concentration', as reflected
' Mr. Montebello also notes that DHEC uses a hardness of 25 mg/1 in the absence of actual effluent data or
based on the 10th percentile of actual effluent hardness data. To date, we have been unable to ascertain the
basis for using these specified percentiles in addition to the 7Q10 drought stream flow and the design
WWTP flow as the basis for establishing WQBELs. Neither of these approaches is required by applicable
South Carolina regulation or law. This combination of factors yields very restrictive effluent limitations
with a potential for exceedance much more remote than the once in three years upon which the water
quality standards for protection of aquatic life are based.
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Environmental Management Division
4000 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
PH: 704/357-1344

by the enclosed calculations, the copper and zinc limits should significantly change such
that it may become a moot issue.
At design flow conditions used for establishing water quality -based effluent
limitations (e.g., WWTP design flow and 7Q10 stream flow), the stream contribution is
relatively minor and the background TSS concentration has little impact. Consistent with
the approach used in the TSD2, the below calculations use the mean TSS for the effluent,
particularly in light of the fact that the combination of 7Q10 flow and design WWTP
flow already provides a very high degree of protection. These data are summarized in the
table below.
Statistical Evaluation of DMR TSS Performance Data
July 2001— June 2004
Parameter
Irwin Creek3
Sugar Creek4
Number of Observations
769
766
Mean
2.40 mg/1
2.44 mg/1
The data summarized above indicate that both facilities provide a very high
degree of treatment with average effluent TSS at 2.4 mg/l. The effluent exerts a
significant influence on the instream TSS because both WWTPs discharge to effluent
dominated streams. At drought conditions, the instream waste concentration (IWC) for
the Irwin Creek WWTP is 82.3 percents. The IWC for the Sugar Creek WWTP is 90.1
percent6. Even under the DHEC approach where the upstream flow in the receiving
water is assumed to have a background TSS of 1.0 mg/1 (e.g., the 5th percentile TSS
referenced by Mr. Montebello), the TSS after mixing would be 2.15 mg/1 for the Irwin
Creek WWTP and 2.30 mg/1 for the Sugar Creek WWTP.
These TSS concentrations, after mixing under design conditions, were used with
the partitioning coefficients identified in Mr. Montebello's correspondence to you to
2 The Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics Control (TSD; EPA, 1991)
recommends that secondary parameters, which influence toxicity, be established using EPA's DESCON
model. The model correlates these secondary parameters with flow to meet the once -in -three-year
exceedance frequency allowed by water quality criteria. If flow is not correlated with the secondary
parameter, the model will yield the mean concentration as the most appropriate for use in developing water
quality -based effluent limits.
3 The coefficient of variation, as determined using the delta log -normal statistical method in the TSD, was
0.56 indicating that the effluent TSS is not highly variable.
4 The coefficient of variation, as determined using the delta log -normal statistical method in the TSD, was
0.71 indicating that the effluent TSS is not highly variable.
5 The design conditions for the Irwin Creek WWTP are 15 MGD and 7Q10 = 4.9 cfs.
6 The design conditions for the Sugar Creek WWTP are 20 MGD and 7Q10 = 3.4 cfs.

calculate the dissolved fraction of each metal for use in calculating WQBELs for each
WWTP. The dissolved fractions (FD) for each metal are summarized below.
Dissolved Fractions Calculated from Partition Coefficients
Parameter
Irwin Creek WWTP
Sugar Creek WWTP
Total Suspended Solids
2.15 mg/1
2.30 mg/1
FD (copper)
0.441
0.437
FD (zinc)
0.389
0.385
These dissolved fractions should be used to calculate WQBELs for the total
recoverable forms of copper and zinc. As discussedous letter, th_e appropriate
hardness for establishing WQBELs for these metals is 85 mg/I for the Irwin Creek
an m or the Sugar Creek WWTP. The appropriate WQBELs based 'on
these hardness values and dissolved fractions are summarized below.
Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits
Parameter
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
Copper
Zinc
Copper
Zinc
7Q10 Flow
4.9 cfs
3.4 cfs
WWTP Flow
15 MGD
20 MGD
Hardness
85 mg/1
63 mg/1
TSS
2.15 mg/1
2.15 mg/1
2.30 mg/1
2.30 mg/1
FD
0.441
0.389
0.437
0.385
WQS (dissolved)
11.53 µg/1
102.1 µg/1
8.70 µg/1
79.2 µg/1
WLA (dissolved)
13.96 1.1g/1
123.7 µg/1
9.66 µg/1
87.9 µg/1
WQBEL
(total recoverable)
31.6 µg/1
317.5 µg/1
22.1 µg/1
228.4 1./g/1
7 The critical condition for TSS partitioning occurs at the 7Q10 flows. As instream flows increase, the
calculated WQBELs would increase.

We hope that this analysis, fully consistent with the preferred WQBEL permitting
approach of DHEC, is helpful for the DENR development of WQBELs for the CMU
WWTPs. We will soon be contacting you to arrange a meeting so that we can resolve
any outstanding issues associated with the copper and zinc limits and to assure that
appropriate WQBELs are established.
Sincerely,
-A
cqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Environmental Management Division Supt.
C: D. Padgett
B. Gullet
file

tz/fei
July 1, 2004
Mark McIntire
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
NCDENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permits NCO24945 (Irwin Creek) and
NC0024937 (Sugar Creek)
Dear Mr. McIntire:
Thank you for your recent e-mail identifying the potential approach being
considered by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
("DENR") in developing water quality -based effluent limits ("WQBELs") for the
NPDES permits to be reissued to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities ("CMU") Irwin
Creek and Sugar Creek wastewater treatment plants ("WWTPs"). CMU has concerns
associated with the underlying permitting approach that, as indicated in our telephone•
conversations, is primarily based on DENR's desire to placate perceived preferences of
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC): As such,
we request a meeting to discuss the underlying permitting issues and to explore ways of
assuring adequate protection of water quality without imposing overly restrictive
requirements upon CMU.
While we appreciate your latest e-mail and discussion we had over the phone,
shedding some light on the discussions between DENR and DHEC, CMU again requests
that you provide us copies of the written communications from South Carolina.
Although you have consistently indicated to us that you will immediately forward us the
documents, we have yet to receive the information.
Clean Water Act Requires Effluent Limitations Necessary to Meet State Water
Quality Standards
The Clean Water Act requires only that a discharger meet effluent limitations
"necessary" to meet State water quality standards. See, e.g., CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C).'
See also 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1) ("[E]ach NPDES permit shall include conditions meeting the following
requirement when applicable ... (d)(1) "Water quality standards and State requirements: any
requirements in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards
... necessary to achieve water quality standards .... ")

It does not require a discharger to meet limitations more stringent than that necessary to
meet water quality standards. As discussed below, the NPDES permitting approach,
being espoused by South Carolina and being considered by the DENR provides for the.'
development of effluent limitations much more stringent than that necessary to protect
water quality standards. Such approach is simply arbitrary.
The federal NPDES regulations identify what standards apply in the NPDES
permitting context. State permitting policies, as a matter of law, are not applicable, much
less South Carolina's unwritten, undocumented, and arbitrary ninety percent hardness
approach that they are informally asking DENR to impose. An "applicable requirement"
for a State issued NPDES permit is a "State statutory or regulatory requirement which
takes effect prior to final administrative disposition of the permit." 40 C.F.R. Section
122.43(b)(1).2
South Carolina has pointed to no State statute or regulation in its water quality
standards requiring the imposition of an ultra -conservative ninety -percent hardness value3
for developing water quality -based effluent limitations. If South Carolina was the
permitting agency and sought to impose such an off-the-cuff standard upon CMU, we
would be challenging such approach and would fully expect to prevail on the challenge.4
Surely the fact that South Carolina is asking North Carolina to use its unsupportable
approach makes it no more legal.
The following comments and analysis addresses the primary issues associated
with the proposed approach to use a ninety -percent hardness value which is irreconcilable
with the modeling of the WQBELs based upon 7Q10 historic low flows.
Evaluation of Draft WOBELs
2 Similarly, EPA's authority to object to a North Carolina issued NPDES permit effluent limitations would
need to be based upon the failure of the permit "to ensure compliance with applicable requirements" (40
C.F.R. § 123.44(c)(1)), findings made by the State misinterpreting the CWA, guidelines or regulations, or
misapplying them to the facts (§ 123.44(c)(4)) or the effluent limits fail to satisfy the requirements of §
1 22.44(d)." As demonstrated below, none of these conditions exist. Correspondence from EPA
Headquarters clearly reflects that, among other things, NPDES permits using the hardness corresponding to
the low -flow modeling conditions is appropriate and fully complies with the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations.
3 In your latest e-mail you refer to it as the "10t percentile." This letter uses the term "90`h percentile" to
refer to what your June 4, 2004, e-mail is now referring to as the "10t percentile" and uses the term "99'h
percentile" to refer to what you e-mail refers to as the "1st -percentile."
a Even if South Carolina were somehow deemed to have the requisite discretion to use a ninety -percent
hardness value when it issues an NPDES permit, such discretionary authority does not make it mandatory
for an upstream state to use such approach when it is the permit issuing authority. The only issue to be
demonstrated is whether a specific discharge level will cause a violation in another state, not does the other
state calculate effluent limits more conservatively.
2

The prior draft NPDES permits for Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek contained
WQBELs for copper, zinc and silvers based upon the 99th percentile hardness data. This
value, as communicated by DENR to CMU, was, as we were told by your predecessor,
based upon South Carolina DHEC communicating to DENR that state requirements
provided for the 99th percentile. You have indicated to us that that recent communication
from DENR to CMU now indicates that the 90th percentile for hardness to be the
percentile required by South Carolina requirements.6 As further discussed below, the
hardness to be used is that reflective of the receiving water during low flow conditions. 7
The EPA water quality criteria, incorporated by reference by South Carolina
regulation include an exceedance frequency of once in three years in addition to the
magnitude of exposure and the duration of exposure.8 Thus, designated uses of the
receiving stream, such as maintenance of a balanced indigenous aquatic community, are
achieved if the receiving stream does not exceed the numeric water quality criteria more
frequently than once in three years on average. However, the exceedance frequency was
not appropriately considered by DHEC (or DENR) when the critical conditions for the
WQBELs were established*
The WQBELs were determined for drought stream flow conditions (i.e., 7Q10
stream flow) and the permitted treatment plant flow. DENR now proposes to base the
WQBELs for copper and zinc on the 90th percentile lowest hardness concentration for the
receiving stream (58 mg/1 for Irwin Creek and 51.6 mg/1 for Little Sugar Creek). The
combination of drought stream flow and 90th percentile low hardness represents an
5 DENR informed us that the proposed WQBELs for silver will be deleted from the permit. As such, this
discussion focuses only on zinc and copper. The concerns, however, would be equally applicable to silver.
The change in the percentile being asked for by South Carolina is indicative of the fact that there is no
such legal requirement. Our consultant William Hall from Hall & Associates, Washington, D.C. spoke to
Mr. Montebello and Ms. Vickers of DHEC and was informed by them that South Carolina does not have
regulations, guidance, or policy requiring the use of the 90t percentile. In contrast, Section 61-68.E.12 of
DHEC regulations indicates that it specifically incorporates by reference the EPA criteria. These criteria,
as acknowledged by EPA Headquarters do not require the use of the 90t percentile.
In our recent telephone conversation you indicated that an e-mail from South Carolrr'ta asserts"
61-68.E.12.a.(3) requires the use of the 90'h percentile. A review of the regulation indicates that nowhere
does such regulation impose a 90th percentile requirement but instead, where hardness is between 25 mg/1
and 400 mg/l, the actual mixed stream hardness would be used. The regulation states:
If metals concentrations for numeric criteria are hardness -dependent, the CMC and CCC
concentrations shall be based on 25 milligrams/liter (mg/1) hardness (as expressed as
CaCO3) if the ambient hardness is less than 25 mg/l. Concentrations of hardness less
than 400 mg/I maybe based on the actual mixed stream hardness if it is greater than 25
mg/I and less than 400 mg/1 and 400 mg/l if the ambient hardness is greater than 400
mg/I.
on
8 See US EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper —1984, EPA 440/5-84-031 (1985) at 23; US
EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Zinc —1987, EPA 440/5-87-003 (1987) at 32. See also US EPA,
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses, NTIS PB 85-227049 (1985) at 55; 40 § 131.36(c)(2)(ii) (description of "CMC"
and "CCC").
3

extremely rare (if not impossible) event that has a recurrence frequency much less than
once in three years. Consequently, this approach results in extremely conservative
effluent limits that have no relationship to meeting applicable water quality standards.
Guidance on the appropriate hardness to use with the drought flow condition is
available from EPA in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics
Control, EPA/505/2-90-001 (1991) at 79 (commonly referred to as "TSD") and in the
Technical Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions for Steady State
Modeling (EPA, 1988). With regard to establishing waste load allocations (WLAs) using
a steady-state modeling approach (as used by the South Carolina DHEC), the TSD notes
that the "frequency and duration of ambient conditions predicted with a steady-state
model must be assumed to equal the frequency and duration of the critical receiving
water conditions used in the model." (TSD at 78-79). In order to meet the "once in three
year" return frequency specified for the water quality criteria, the 7Q10 (drought flow)
condition is used. EPA has determined that the 7Q10 already accounts for the "once in
three year" exceedance frequency (TSD at 79). Preamble to EPA regulations also
recognizes that use of the 7Q10 flow, without any additional conservative assumptions,
provides the requisite degree of protection. See, e.g., 57 Fed. Reg. 60880 (1992) ("The
three-year return interval approximates the same degree of protection as a once -in -ten-
year seven-day average low flow design condition (7Q10).")
The TSD goes on to note that steady-state models require design conditions for a
parameter such as hardness (which affects the toxicity of certain metals). Ordinarily, the
attainment of water quality goals does not require setting these multiple parameter values
at worst -case conditions (see Delos, 2000, Enclosed).9 Instead, the hardness of the
receiving water at critical flow conditions is to be used.10 A prime example of using the
corresponding receiving water hardness is reflected in the EPA computer program
DESCON which is used to determine the appropriate design conditions while fully
assuring that the calculated WLA would meet the appropriate exceedance frequency.
DESCON specifically accounts for correlations between variables such as stream flow
and hardness to derive the appropriate design condition.
9 Letter from Charles Delos, EPA to William T. Hall, Hall & Associates, October 12, 2000 at 1 ("Delos
Letter") ("The TSD supports the use of correlation analysis" and "[o]rdinarily the attainment of water
quality goals does not require setting multiple parameter values at worst case values.")
10 See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 131.36(c)(4)(ii) ("The hardness values used shall be consistent with the design
discharge conditions ... for flows.... "); Delos Letter at 2 ("If hardness is inversely correlated with flow,
then coupling low hardness with low flow would be expected to yield more protection than is intended for
the criteria or necessary for attainment of goals" and "it is appropriate to assign parameter values that could
likely occur under low flow conditions.") See also US EPA, The Metals Translator: Guidance for
Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion, EPA 823-B-96-007 (1996) at 12
("Considerations of Appropriate Design Flow Conditions for Metals .... If one were to collect samples of
... hardness... over a prolonged period (i.e., several years) then one could examine the data set to
determine which combination of conditions would result in the highest dissolved metal concentration for a
'unit load' of metal in the effluent stream. The flow regime associated with this critical condition would
constitute the design flow.")
4

The available data for Irwin Creek and Little Sugar Creek can be used to correlate
hardness with stream flow to demonstrate that it is not appropriate to use an arbitrarily
selected percentile lowest hardness concentration as the basis for establishing WQBELs.
These correlations can also be used to identify the appropriate hardness expected to occur
with the 7Q10 stream flow.
ar
dness Correlation with Stream Flow
Hardness data, collected by the North Carolina DENR and by CMU, were
correlated with stream flows monitored by the USGS to evaluate whether the design
hardness values prescribed by the South Carolina DHEC were overly conservative. The
data set for these correlations is illustrated in the Appendix A (Hardness Data and
Correlation with Stream Flow).
• Irwin Creek WWTP
For the Irwin Creek WWTP, daily stream flow data for USGS Station 02146381
(Sugar Creek at NC 51 near Pineville, NC) was correlated with hardness data from the
NC DENR Station C9050000 and CMU Station SC4 (both stations are located on Sugar
Creek at NC 51). The hardness data collected by the DENR for Station C9050000 was
for the period from January 1995 through August 2000. DENR ceased collecting water
quality data at this station after August 2000. Subsequently, CMU initiated collection of
hardness data at this same location, now designated as Station SC4, for the period from
November 2002 through March 2004. The correlation between flow and hardness for
Sugar Creek, downstream from the Irwin Creek WWTP is illustrated in Figure 1 under
low flow conditions (Le., flows less than 100 cfs).
Figure 1
140
120
10
60
40
20
0
Sugar Creek at NC 51 near Pineville, NC
17.
,`
• \‘
4
i•
•
♦
7
•
• ,•
•♦
•�•
♦♦.
••
$
♦
•♦
♦♦ •
•••♦
•
• •
-.•
• •
•
•
•
♦
•�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
.
/
.
.
.
,
.
0 10/ 20
30 40 50 60
Sugar Creek Flow (cis)
70
80
90
DENR is now proposing to use a design hardness of 58 mg/1 to calculate copper
and zinc WQBELs for the Irwin Creek WWTP. The following analysis uses a design
100
5

flow of 28.1 cfs (7Q10 = 4.9 cfs; WWTP = 15 MGD).11 Figure 1 indicates that the
instream hardness rises well above 80 mg/1 as the stream flow decreases from 100 cfs to
the 7Q10 drought flow condition. Thus, it is apparent that the selected design hardness
concentration is unnecessarily restrictive.
• Sugar Creek WWTP
For the Sugar Creek WWTP, daily stream flow data for USGS Station 02146530
(Little Sugar Creek at NC 521 at Pineville, NC) was correlated with hardness data from
the NC DENR Station C9210000 and CMU Station LSC3 (both stations are located on
Little Sugar Creek at NC 521). The hardness data collected by the DENR for Station
C9210000 was for the period from July 1997 through August 2000. DENR ceased
collecting water quality data at this station after August 2000. Subsequently, CMU
initiated collection of hardness data at this same location, now designated as Station
LSC3, for the period from November 2002 through March 2004. The correlation
between flow and hardness for Little Sugar Creek, downstream from the Sugar Creek
WWTP is illustrated in Figure 2 under low flow conditions (Le., flows under 100 cfs).
DENR is now proposing to use a design hardness of 51.6 mg/1 to establish copper
and zinc WQBELs for the Sugar Creek WWTP. The following analysis is based on a
design flow of 34.3 cfs (7Q10 = 3.4 cfs; WWTP = 20 MGD).12 Figure 2 indicates that
the typical instream hardness rises well above 60 mg/1 as the stream flow decreases from
100 cfs to the 7Q10 drought flow condition. Therefore, it is apparent that the selected
design hardness concentration is unnecessarily restrictive.
Figure 2
E
x
Little Sugar Creek at NC 521 at Pineville, NC
cao
00
80
60
\•
•
♦ ♦•
•
♦
•
♦
• ♦ * ♦
•
. ? •
•♦••
.•
•
•
•
•
40
.44 t
♦
♦
20
0
T
\ 0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Little Sugar Crook Flow (cfs)
70
B0
90
100
11 The instream waste concentration ("IWC") used in the May 29, 2004, DENR calculations is 83.2%. As
discussed below in the subsection titled "Instream Waste Concentration," the IWC should be 82.57%.
12 Again, there is a small correction to be made to the IWC. As discussed below, the IWC used in the May
29, 2004, DENR calculation is 90.9% whereas it should be 90.099%.
6

Evaluation of Appropriate Design Hardness
As discussed above, Figure 1 and Figure 2 present information to be used to
establish an appropriate hardness value for developing effluent limitations for the Irwin
Creek and Sugar Creek WWTPs to better approximate the once -in -three-year excursion
frequency that meets applicable water quality standards. As noted previously, EPA
already considers use of the 7Q10 as being a very conservative approach that, in and of
itself, provides for the once -in -three-year excursion. Furthermore, the WQBELs are
being derived by assuming that the effluent concentration will be at its highest levels
when the stream flow is at its lowest. However, a review of each facility's performance
data (See Appendix C) demonstrates that the typical discharge concentration to be much
lower. The combination of these two conditions (i.e., drought flow and discharge
effluent concentration at its highest levels) is sufficiently conservative to ensure
compliance with the authorized return frequency. Consequently, the hardness should be
set at an average concentration expected to occur when the stream is at drought flow.
• Irwin Creek WWTP
The hardness and stream flow data for the Irwin Creek WWTP were sorted by
stream flow and the hardness data were evaluated using a running average and running
median to characterize the typical hardness expected at these flows. The results of this
analysis are presented in Figure 3.
The running average or running median hardness represents the typical hardness
expected when the stream flow is equal to or less than the flow indicated on the figure.
Thus, the typical hardness upon which the permit for Irwin Creek should be based is 85
mg/1 at the design flow of 28.1 cfs. The typical hardness is greater than 80 mg/1 for
stream flows up to 84 cfs.
Figure 3
• Sugar Creek WWTP
7

Hardness (mg/1)
120
100
60
40
20
Sugar Creek at NC 51 near Pineville, NC
Typical Hardness
b
iriessosomm m ■ .ae a
Siii ® f—&--e—
♦ Running Average
o Running Median
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Stream Flow (cfs)
A similar evaluation was prepared for the Sugar Creek WWTP and is presented in
Figure 4.
Figure 4
Hardness (mg/I)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Little Sugar Creek at NC 521 at Pineville, NC
Typical Hardness
jowl gios ass isle aee
8
a
8
88
e8
• Running Average
o Running Median
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Stream Flow (cfs)
70
80
90
100
The typical hardness upon which the permit for Irwin Creek should be based is 63
mg/1 at the design flow of 34.3 cfs. In this stream, the hardness slightly increases to 66
mg/1 as the flow increases to 50 cfs.
Revised Permit Limits for Typical Hardness
8

Appropriate water quality based effluent limits for the Irwin Creek and Sugar
Creek WWTPs, based on the typical hardness expected to occur under design conditions,
are summarized in the table below.
Parameter
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
Stream Flow (cfs)
4.9
3.4
WWTP Flow (MGD)
15
20
Hardness (mg/1)
85
63
Copper Limits (µg/1)
Acute
14.6
10.1
Chronic
9.8
7.0
Zinc Limits (1.1.g/1)
Acute
126.4
89.9
Reasonable Potential Evaluation
As indicated below, CMU's discharge of zinc from the Irwin Creek and Sugar
Creek WWTPs cannot reasonably be determined to exceed the revised WQBELs These
data are illustrated on statistical distribution graphs in the Appendix C (Statistical
Distribution Charts) and are summarized below.
Summary of Performance Data for Zinc
Statistic
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
Observations
84
84
Maximum Observed
110 µg/1
75 µg/1
99th Percentile Predicted
110.4 µg/1
70.7141
Mean
55.8 µg/1
36.5 µg/1
WQBEL
126.4 µg/1
89.9141
Observations exceeding
WQBEL
0
0
In light of the fact that there is no reasonable potential for CMU to exceed the
revised WQBELs, effluent limitations for zinc should be deleted from the Irwin Creek
and Sugar Creek NPDES permits.
CMU Intent to Undertake A Water Effects Ratio Study for Copper
9

Due to the inability of CMU to meet the copper WQBELs, it intends to undertake
a water effect ratio (WER) study for both the Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek WWTPs
demonstrating that the copper limits should be higher:: As such, CMU would like to
develop a study protocol in conjunction with DENR and DHEC to assure that any
applicable requirements of both agencies are appropriately being addressed. To provide
CMU the appropriate amount of time to undertake a WER study and to avoid the
contentious nature of the otherwise proposed effluent limits for copper that would
otherwise result, we request that DENR issue CMU permits for both the Irwin Creek and
Sugar Creek WWTP which do not include copper limits but instead requires a WER
study and includes a permit reopener to address the results of the study. The permits can
be short-term permits, which can get CMU back on the prior permit issuance cycle, or
long term permits, as DENR deems appropriate to accomplish such objective.
May 29, 2004 Calculations
Your June 4, 2004, e-mail contained a document titled "Effluent Limitations
Summary for Copper and Zinc, Division of Water Quality, May 29, 2004." The
following discussions regarding hardness, mixing and instream waste concentration
pertain to the analysis set forth in the May 29, 2004, analysis. While the impact to the
CMU WQBELs is not as great as that associated with the above issues, the requested
corrections provide for further adjustment of the proposed WQBELs.
Hardness Used In DENR May 29, 2004 Calculations
Notwithstanding CMU's disagreement with the use of the 90'h percentile
hardness, we want to point out that the DNREC calculations failed to account for the
CMU data.
The effluent limits for Irwin Creek were based on a 90`h percentile hardness of 58
mg/1 from a review of 155 observations in the 17-year period of record. The record
begins in February 1983 and ends in December 2000. CMU, however, initiated
collection of hardness data in November 2002 continuing to April 2004. With the
additional 23 observations included in the record, the revised 90th percentile hardness is
60 mg/1.13
Note that these calculations ignore the design conditions used to establish effluent
limitations. The actual hardness expected when the receiving streams are at drought flow
is significantly higher than the 90th percentile hardness.
Mixing Assumptions Used in May 29, 2004 DENR Analysis
Your June 4, 2004, e-mail states "For acute limits, we are protecting for end -of -
pipe impacts during a short-term exposure period. During that period, complete mixing
t3 The data set for Sugar Creek should also be updated to include the 23 sampling results obtained by CMU
between November 2002 and April 2004 (although such data would not impact the 90th percentile
calculation.)
10

will not have occurred thus we do not account for dilution in establishing acute limits."
Complete mixing, however, depends upon a number of factors that are independent of the
permit averaging period. These factors include discharge -induced mixing, river width,
velocity of flow, water depth, and slope (see TSD @ 77). Given that the effluent flow
accounts for over 80 percent of the total flow under design conditions, mixing is
generally deemed complete for the purposes of evaluating acute toxicity due to discharge -
induced mixing. This can be confirmed by site -specific testing or by modeling.
Alternatively, EPA's TSD provides a very conservative model that could be used
to determine whether mixing is complete when the flow reaches the waters of South
Carolina, which are located more than a mile downstream in each case. The TSD notes
that, for very small streams, the distance to complete mixing is often only a few hundred
feet (TSD @ 77). This situation is most likely the case for both Irwin Creek and Sugar
Creek.
Consequently, effluent limits should have been calculated with consideration for
mixing rather than as end -of -pipe limits without mixing.
Instream Waste Concentration Used in DENR May 29, 2004 Analysis
The Effluent Limitation Summary for Irwin Creek, provided in the May 29th
analysis indicates that the instream waste concentration (IWC) for the Irwin Creek
WWTP is 83.2 percent. The fact sheet with the draft permit, dated July 11, 2003,
identifies the summer 7Q10 flow in Irwin Creek as 4.9 cfs and the design permit flow for
the Irwin Creek WWTP as 15 MGD (23.205 cfs). Together, these conditions yield a total
flow of 28.105 cfs and an IWC of 82.57%. This IWC, which is less restrictive than that
used to develop Irwin Creek's effluent limits, should be the values used to develop
WQBELs.
Similarly, the Effluent Limitation Summary for Sugar Creek provided as an
attachment to Mr. McIntire's e-mail indicates that the IWC for the Sugar Creek WWTP is
90.9 percent. The fact sheet with the draft permit, dated July 11, 2003, identifies the
summer 7Q10 flow in Little Sugar Creek as 3.4 cfs and the design permit flow for the
Sugar Creek WWTP as 20 MGD (30.94 cfs). Together, these conditions yield a total
flow of 34.34 cfs and an IWC of 90.099%. This IWC, which is less restrictive than that
used to develop Sugar Creek's effluent limits, should be the values used to develop
WQBELs.
CMU further note that Little Sugar Creek flows several miles from the Sugar
Creek WWTP discharge before the flow enters South Carolina. Similarly, Irwin Creek
flows into Sugar Creek before the combined flow enters South Carolina. Any additional
dilution provided by the drainage area prior to entering South Carolina waters should be
considered in deriving the IWC for metals limits intended to meet South Carolina's water
quality standards.
11

CMU appreciates the opportunity to address these issues with you. Establishing
copper and zinc limits for the CMU facilities that fully protects water quality but avoids
the unnecessary expenditure of limited municipal resources is important to us. As such, it
is imperative that there be open and candid dialogue between the various interested
governmental entities. As such, we request a meeting to discuss these important issues
with the objective of reaching agreement on these important permitting matters.
I will soon give you a call to set up a meeting.
Enclosure
C: D. Padgett
B. Gullet
file
Sincerely,
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Environmental Management Division Supt.
12

Appendix A
Hardness Data and Correlation with Stream Flow
13

140
120
100
E 80
x
60
40
20
0
Sugar Creek at NC 51 near Pineville, NC
• ♦
•
• •
♦
•
es, •
•
•
•
••
• ♦
•• • • • • • ••♦
•
4►
•• � • •
•♦i�
• •
• M•
•
•• • M i►• ♦ •
• • • • •
•♦
•
♦
•• ♦ ••►
I► •♦ •
•
•
•
• ••
• •
•
•
10/1/94
140
120
100
E 80
w
j 80
R
x
40
20
0
10/1/95
9/30/96
9/30/97
10/1/98
10/1/99
Date
9/30/00
Sugar Creek at NC 51 near Pineville, NC
9/30/01
10/1/02
10/1/03
• ♦
♦♦
•.;: •
•
♦
•
r♦
•♦♦
••
••
•
•
♦ ••
•
•
•
0
100
200 300 400
Sugar Creek Flow (cis)
500
600
700

120
100
.. 80
E
60
0
s
40
20
0
Little Sugar Creek at NC 521 at Pineville, NC
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
♦ ••
�•••
•
♦
♦ •
••
•
••
•
♦♦♦
•••♦••
•
••
♦$
•
•
♦•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
♦
1/1/97
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1/1/98
1/1/99
1/1/00
1/1/01
Date
1/1/02
Little Sugar Creek at NC 521 at Pineville, NC
1/1/03
1/1/04
♦•
it*
•
1•.*•*a♦•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
0
100 200 300
Little Sugar Creek Flow (de)
400
500

Appendix B
Stream Flow — WWTP Flow Correlation

20
18
16
— 14
G
0
• 12
V
c 8
E 6
4
2
0
20
18
16
a 14
0
• 12
Y
O 10
u) 6
4
2
0
Sugar Creek Flow versus Irwin Creek WWTP Flow
•
• ♦
•
• • •
• •
•
0
50
100
150 200 250 300
Sugar Creek (cfs)
350
Little Sugar Creek Flow versus Sugar Creek WWTP Flow
400
450
500
♦
•
•
♦•
•
♦
0
50
100
150 200 250 300
Little Sugar Creek (cfs)
350
400
450
500

Appendix C
Statistical Distribution Charts

Copper (ug/l)
a
c
100
10
1
Irwin Creek POTW DMR
(December 2002 - March 2004)
♦ Data
- Log-Normal Model
•
• ♦ ••
i
-2.5 -2.0
1000
I i 1 I 1
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Standard Deviation
Irwin Creek POTW DMR Data
(December 2002 - March 2004)
2.5
♦ Data
- Log-Normal Model
10-
1
-2.5 -2.0
I i 1 1 1
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
Standard Deviation
1
i 4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Copper (ug/I)
100
10
1
Sugar Creek POTW DMR Data
(December 2002 - March 2004)
• Data
Log -Normal Model
-2.5
100
10
I I I I
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
Standard Deviation
Sugar Creek POTW DMR Data
(December 2002 - March 2004)
1
I I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
• Data
Log -Normal Model
•
•
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
Standard Deviation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5

6-7-00ef
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations of copper and zinc effluent limits based on South Carolina water quality standards
1) Copper limits
SC standard/criteria for copper: CMC = 3.8 ug/1; CCC = 2.9 ug/1,
There has been a revision on hardness data used in calculating the limits. After additional
consultation with SCDHEC, it was determined to use the 10th percentile of hardness data, rather
than the minimum data value. The new hardness value used will be 51.6 mg/1 for Sugar Creek
WWTP, based on ambient data from Little Sugar Creek @ NC 51 @ Pineville.
Used the following equation to develop Cu limit
Acute = CMC= e { ma [In (hardness)] + ba }
Chronic = CCC= e {mc [In (hardness)] + bc }
ma , ba, mc, and bc are " parameters for calculation freshwater dissolved metals criteria that are
hardness dependent . Reference: SCDEC Water Classifications and Standards.
For Copper, the parameters are as follows:
ma = 0.9422
ba=-1.700
mc = 0.8545
bc = -1.702
The CMC (acute) total copper limit was estimated to be: e (0.9422(ln 51.6)+ (- 1.7) = 7.50 ug/1
The CCC (chronic) total copper limit was estimated to be: e (0.8545(ln 51.6)+(-1.702) = 5.30 ug/1,
Then using the IWC = 90.91%; 5.30 ug/1/0.9091 = 5.83 ugh —total Cu w/dilution

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations of copper and zinc effluent limits based on South Carolina water quality standards
2) Zinc limits
SC standard/criteria CMC = 37 ug/1 CCC = 37 ug/1,
DWQ used the following equation to develop Zn limit for Sugar Creek WWTP, using a revised
value for hardness of 51.6 mg/1 from ambient data.
Acute = CMC= e { ma [In (hardness)] + ba }
Chronic = CCC= e {mc [In (hardness)] + bc }
ma , ba, mc, and bc are " parameters for calculation freshwater dissolved metals criteria that are
hardness dependent . Reference: SCDEC Water Classifications and Standards.
For Zinc, the parameters are as follows:
ma = 0.8473
ba = 0.884
mc = 0.8473
bc = 0.884
The CMC (acute) total zinc limit was estimated to be: e (0.8473(1n 51.6)+ 0.884 = 68.4 ug/1
The CCC (chronic) zinc limit was estimated to be: e (0.8473(ln 51.6)+ 0.884 = 68.4 ug/1

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations of copper and zinc effluent limits based on South Carolina water quality standards
3) Silver limits
A review of the silver effluent data showed that all data was below detection level, therefore no
reasonable potential analysis was required. There was no potential to exceed the allowable
concentration. Therefore, the proposed silver limit will be removed. See attached table with
silver data.
Jacquelyn Nowell
NPDES Unit
8/09/2004

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Sugar CreekWWTP
NC0024937
Time Period 6 2001-7 2003
Ow (MGD) 20
7010S (cfs) 3.4
7Q10W (cfs) 5.5
3002 (cfs) 8.7
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 47
Rec'ving Stream Little Sugar Creek
WWTP Class IV
IWC (%) 0 7010S 90.116
0 7010W 84.932
0 3002 78.086
0 QA 39.744
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Ow = 20 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWOS/
Chronic
9FAV/
Act&
n
s .t Stu Pied LW ASowabkCw
Arsenic
NC
50
uglL
0
0
WA
j Acute: N/A
....._._._.—.--____________________.—
Chronic: 55
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: WA
_ _ _ _ _ ._
Chronic:16----------•-----•----------
____ --___
Cadmium
NC
2
15
ug/L
0
0
Acute: 15
NIA
Chromium
NC
50
1,022
ug/L
0
0
I Acute: 1,022
WA ! _
r Chronic: - _ -55•--•—•-----------------------------
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
121
121
Acute: 7
27.1 _ _ -- _------------------------
Chronic: 8 -
——.—.—.—
Cyanide
NC
5
N
22
10
ug/L
0
0
• Acute: 22
I WA Chronic:- — - 6 _--------•—.—•---•---•—•—•—•------^
Fluoride
NC
1.800
ug/L
0
Acute: N/A
0 WA __ _ _ _
Chronic: /.997
—•—•—•—•---•—•—•—•---------------
Lead
NC
25
N
33.8
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: 34
1 _
Chronic: ---28---•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•-------------
Mercury
NC
0.012
0.0002
ug/L
0
0
WA
Acute: WA
--•—•—•—•—•---•-------------------
Chronic: 0
Molybdenum
A
3,500
uglL
0
0
WA
Acute: N/A
_ _ - _ _---.-------------.—.—.—.—.-------
Chronic: 4,482
Nickel
NC
88
261
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: 261
Chronic: 98
Phenols
A
1
N
ug/L
0
0
WA
Acute: N/A
Chronic: 1
Setenium
NC
5.0
56
uglL
0
0 WA
Acute: 56
_
-Chronic: ---s -------.—.—.---.—.—.---.-----------
Sliver
NC
0.06
AL
123
uglL
121
0 i WA
Acute: 1
_ _
. Chronic: -_7). ____
_. _. _. —. ---. ---. ---______ __ ___
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
121
Acute: 67
121 ' 88.9
Chronic:---55---.—.—.—.—.—.—.-------------------
'Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
SugarCr04run, rpa
6r3/2004

Facility Name =
NPDES # =
Qw (MGD) =
7Q10s (cfs)=
1WC (%) _
CMUD-SUGAR CREEK
NC0024937
20
3.4
90.12
FINAL RESULTS
Silver
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
40.95
0.07
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
Number
of data points
Mutt Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
12.1564
13.3
0.9152
167
1.37
30.00 pg/1
40.95 pg/1
0.07 pg/1
Parameter =
Standard =
Silver
0.06
Date n < Actual Data BDL=1/2DL
Jan-99 1 1.10 1.10
Jan-99 2 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-99 3 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-99 4 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-99 5 < 30.00 15.00
Feb-99 6 < 2.00 1.00
Feb-99 7 < 30.00 15.00
Feb-99 8 < 30.00 15.00
Mar-99 9 < 2.00 1.00
Mar-99 10 < 30.00 15.00
Mar-99 11 < 30.00 15.00
Mar-99 12 < 30.00 15.00
Mar-99 13 < 30.00 15.00
Mar-99 14 < 30.00 15.00
Apr-99 15 < 2.00 1.00
Apr-99 16 < 30.00 15.00
Apr-99 17 < 30.00 15.00
Apr-99 18 < 30.00 15.00
May-99 19 < 30.00 15.00
May-99 20 2.40 2.40
May-99 21 < 30.00 15.00
May-99 22 < 30.00 15.00
May-99 23 < 30.00 15.00
Jun-99 24 < 30.00 15.00
Jun-99 25 < 2.00 1.00
Jun-99 26 < 30.00 15.00
Jun-99 27 < 30.00 15.00
Jun-99 28 < 30.00 15.00
Jun-99 29 < 30.00 15.00
Ju1-99 30 < 30.00 15.00
Jul-99 31 < 30.00 15.00
Jul-99 32 < 2.00 1.00
Jul-99 33 < 30.00 15.00
Jul-99 34 < 30.00 15.00
Aug-99 35 < 30.00 15.00
Aug-99 36 < 2.00 1.00
Aug-99 37 < 30.00 15.00
Aug-99 38 < 30.00 15.00
Aug-99 39 < 30.00 15.00
Aug-99 40 < 30.00 15.00
Sep-99 41 < 30.00 15.00
Sep-99 42 < 30.00 15.00
Sep-99 43 < 2.00 1.00
Sep-99 44 < 30.00 15.00
Sep-99 45 < 30.00 15.00
Oct-99 46 < 30.00 15.00
Oct-99 47 < 2.00 1.00
Oct-99 48 < 30.00 15.00
Oct-99 49 < 30.00 15.00
Oct-99 50 < 30.00 15.00
Nov-99 51 < 30.00 15.00
Nov-99 52 < 30.00 15.00
Nov-99 53 < 2.00 1.00
Nov-99 54 < 2.00 1.00
pg/1

Nov-99 55 < 30.00 15.00
Nov-99 56 < 30.00 15.00
Dec-99 57 < 30.00 15.00
Dec-99 58 < 2.40 1.20
Dec-99 59 < 30.00 15.00
Dec-99 60 < 30.00 15.00
Dec-99 61 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-00 62 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-00 63 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-00 64 4.60 4.60
Jan-00 65 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-00 66 < 30.00 15.00
Jan-00 67 < 30.00 15.00
Feb-00 68 2.50 2.50
Feb-00 69 < 30.00 15.00
Feb-00 70 < 30.00 15.00
Feb-00 71 < 30.00 15.00
Feb-00 72 < 30.00 15.00
Mar-00 73 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-00 74 < 2.00 1.00
Mar-00 75 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-00 76 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-00 77 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-00 78 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-00 79 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-00 80 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-00 81 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-00 82 < 5.00 2.50
May-00 83 < 5.00 2.50
May-00 84 < 5.00 2.50
May-00 85 < 5.00 2.50
May-00 86 < 5.00 2.50
May-00 87 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-00 88 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-00 89 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-00 90 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-00 91 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-00 92 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-00 93 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-00 94 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-00 95 < 5.00 2.50
Ju1-00 96 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-00 97 < 5.00 2.50
Ju1-00 98 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-00 99 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-00 100 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-00 101 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-00 102 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-00 103 < 5.00 2.50
Sep-00 104 < 5.00 2.50
Sep-00 105 < 5.00 2.50
Sep-00 106 < 5.00 2.50
Sep-00 107 < 5.00 2.50
Sep-00 108 < 2.00 1.00
Oct-00 109 < 5.00 2.50
Oct-00 110 < 5.00 2.50
Oct-00 111 < 5.00 2.50
Oct-00 112 < 5.00 2.50

Oct-00 113 < 5.00 2.50
Oct-00 114 < 5.00 2.50
Oct-00 115 < 5.00 2.50
Oct-00 116 < 5.00 2.50
Nov-00 117 < 5.00 2.50
Nov-00 118 < 5.00 2.50
Nov-00 119 < 5.00 2.50
Nov-00 120 < 5.00 2.50
Nov-00 121 < 5.00 2.50
Nov-00 122 < 5.00 2.50
Dec-00 123 < 5.00 2.50
Dec-00 124 < 5.00 2.50
Dec-00 125 < 2.00 1.00
Dec-00 126 < 2.00 1.00
Jan-01 127 < 5.00 2.50
Jan-01 128 < 5.00 2.50
Jan-01 129 < 5.00 2.50
Jan-01 130 < 5.00 2.50
Jan-01 131 < 5.00 2.50
Jan-01 132 < 5.00 2.50
Feb-01 133 < 5.00 2.50
Feb-01 134 < 5.00 2.50
Feb-01 135 < 5.00 2.50
Feb-01 136 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-01 137 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-01 138 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-01 139 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-01 140 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-01 141 < 5.00 2.50
Mar-01 142 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-01 143 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-01 144 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-01 145 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-01 146 < 5.00 2.50
Apr-01 147 < 5.00 2.50
May-01 148 < 5.00 2.50
May-01 149 < 5.00 2.50
May-01 150 < 5.00 2.50
May-01 151 < 5.00 2.50
May-01 152 < 5.00 2.50
May-01 153 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-01 154 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-01 155 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-01 156 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-01 157 < 5.00 2.50
Jun-01 158 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-01 159 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-01 160 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-01 161 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-01 162 < 5.00 2.50
Jul-01 163 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-01 164 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-01 165 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-01 166 < 5.00 2.50
Aug-01 167 < 5.00 2.50

Facility Name =
NPDES # =
(MGD) =
7Q10s (cfs)=
1WC (%) =
CMUD-SUGAR CREEK
NC0024937
20
3.4
90.12
FINAL RESULTS
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
155.3
97.7
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
Number
of data points
Malt Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
13.0799
8.5
1.5436
166
1.55
100.0 µg/l
155.3 µg/1
97.7 µg/1
Parameter =
Standard =
Nickel
88.0
Date n < Actual Data BDL=1/2DL
Jan-99 1 7.0 7.00
Jan-99 2 < 30.0 15.00
Jan-99 3 < 30.0 15.00
Jan-99 4 < 30.0 15.00
Jan-99 5 < 30.0 15.00
Feb-99 6 < 2.0 1.00
Feb-99 7 48.0 48.00
Feb-99 8 33.0 33.00
Mar-99 9 37.0 37.00
Mar-99 10 < 30.0 15.00
Mar-99 11 < 30.0 15.00
Mar-99 12 < 30.0 15.00
Mar-99 13 < 30.0 15.00
Apr-99 14 < 2.0 1.00
Apr-99 15 38.0 38.00
Apr-99 16 44.0 44.00
Apr-99 17 54.0 54.00
May-99 18 < 30.0 15.00
May-99 19 < 5.0 2.50
May-99 20 48.0 48.00
May-99 21 44.0 44.00
May-99 22 48.0 48.00
Jun-99 23 63.0 63.00
Jun-99 24 < 5.0 2.50
Jun-99 25 37.0 37.00
Jun-99 26 < 30.0 15.00
Jun-99 27 37.0 37.00
Jun-99 28 < 30.0 15.00
Jul-99 29 < 5.0 2.50
Jul-99 30 < 5.0 2.50
Jul-99 31 2.0 2.00

Jul-99 32 < 5.0 2.50
Jul-99 33 < 5.0 2.50
Aug-99 34 < 5.0 2.50
Aug-99 35 5.0 5.00
Aug-99 36 < 5.0 2.50
Aug-99 37 < 5.0 2.50
Aug-99 38 < 5.0 2.50
Aug-99 39 < 5.0 2.50
Sep-99 40 < 5.0 2.50
Sep-99 41 7.0 7.00
Sep-99 42 3.0 3.00
Sep-99 43 < 5.0 2.50
Sep-99 44 6.0 6.00
Oct-99 45 < 5.0 2.50
Oct-99 46 2.0 2.00
Oct-99 47 < 5.0 2.50
Oct-99 48 < 5.0 2.50
Oct-99 49 < 2.0 1.00
Nov-99 50 < 5.0 2.50
Nov-99 51 < 5.0 2.50
Nov-99 52 3.0 3.00
Nov-99 53 < 2.0 1.00
Nov-99 54 < 5.0 2.50
Nov-99 55 < 5.0 2.50
Dec-99 56 < 5.0 2.50
Dec-99 57 3.0 3.00
Dec-99 58 < 5.0 2.50
Dec-99 59 < 5.0 2.50
Dec-99 60 < 5.0 2.50
Jan-00 61 7.0 7.00
Jan-00 62 < 5.0 2.50
Jan-00 63 3.0 3.00
Jan-00 64 10.0 10.00
Jan-00 65 < 5.0 2.50
Jan-00 66 7.0 7.00

Feb-00 67
Feb-00 68 <
Feb-00 69
Feb-00 70 <
Feb-00 71 <
Mar-00 72
Mar-00 73
Mar-00 74
Mar-00 75
Mar-00 76
Apr-00 77
Apr-00 78
Apr-00 79
Apr-00 80
Apr-00 81
May-00 82
May-00 83
May-00 84
May-00 85
May-00 86
Jun-00 87
Jun-00 88
Jun-00 89
Jun-00 90
Jun-00 91
Jul-00 92
Jul-00 93
Jul-00 94
Jul-00 95
Jul-00 96
Jul-00 97
Aug-00 98
Aug-00 99
Aug-00 100
Aug-00 101
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
5.0
8.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
7.3
4.4
4.0
4.1
5.4
7.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
2.00
2.50
5.00
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.00
9.00
5.00
6.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
10.00
5.00
8.00
8.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
7.30
4.40
4.00
4.10
5.40
7.00
4.00
5.00
3.00

Aug-00 102 7.0 7.00
Sep-00 103 4.0 4.00
Sep-00 104 5.0 5.00
Sep-00 105 5.0 5.00
Sep-00 106 5.0 5.00
Sep-00 107 3.0 3.00
Oct-00 108 7.0 7.00
Oct-00 109 10.0 10.00
Oct-00 110 6.0 6.00
Oct-00 111 3.0 3.00
Oct-00 112 5.0 5.00
Oct-00 113 4.0 4.00
Oct-00 114 4.0 4.00
Oct-00 115 4.0 4.00
Nov-00 116 4.0 4.00
Nov-00 117 3.0 3.00
Nov-00 118 3.0 3.00
Nov-00 119 3.0 3.00
Nov-00 120 17.0 17.00
Nov-00 121 4.0 4.00
Dec-00 122 3.7 3.70
Dec-00 123 2.8 2.80
Dec-00 124 14.0 14.00
Dec-00 125 4.0 4.00
Jan-01 126 3.0 3.00
Jan-01 127 5.0 5.00
Jan-01 128 4.0 4.00
Jan-01 129 5.0 5.00
Jan-01 130 4.0 4.00
Jan-01 131 4.0 4.00
Feb-01 132 3.0 3.00
Feb-01 133 4.0 4.00
Feb-01 134 4.0 4.00
Feb-01 135 4.0 4.00
Mar-01 136 4.8 4.80

Mar-01 137 8.8 8.80
Mar-01 138 4.9 4.90
Mar-01 139 6.8 6.80
Mar-01 140 5.9 5.90
Mar-01 141 4.1 4.10
Apr-01 142 5.4 5.40
Apr-01 143 3.8 3.80
Apr-01 144 3.3 3.30
Apr-01 145 3.9 3.90
Apr-01 146 3.7 3.70
May-01 147 4.4 4.40
May-01 148 5.7 5.70
May-01 149 3.8 3.80
May-01 150 4.4 4.40
May-01 151 8.2 8.20
May-01 152 5.7 5.70
Jun-01 153 6.4 6.40
Jun-01 154 4.3 4.30
Jun-01 155 4.4 4.40
Jun-01 156 2.8 2.80
Jun-01 157 3.4 3.40
Jul-01 158 4.4 4.40
Jul-01 159 3.9 3.90
Ju1-01 160 3.2 3.20
Jul-01 161 4.5 4.50
Jul-01 162 7.4 7.40
Aug-01 163 4.4 4.40
Aug-01 164 3.1 3.10
Aub 01 165 3.0 3.00
Aug-01 166 3.6 3.60

Effluent Limitations Summary for Copper and Zinc
Division of Water Quality
May 29, 2004
Irwin Creek
IWC = 83.2%
South Carolina Water Quality standards offer the following equations for recalculation of the
chronic and acute criteria using site -specific hardness data:
CMC = e { mQ •ln hardness }Fba )
CCC= e { to •ln (hardness }fbc )
Where the CMC is the acute criterion and the CCC is the chronic criterion. Using these
equations and the constants below, we can calculate site -specific CMCs and CCCs for copper
and zinc using ambient hardness data. The ambient hardness data in this case is the 10th
percentile of a 17-year period of record - 58 mg/L.
Copper
Zinc
ma
0.9422
0.8473
ba
-1.7
0.884
me
0.8545
0.8473
b,
-1.702
0.884
CMC
8.4 µg/L
L
CCC
5.9 µg/L
90.7 µg/L' , 1S'
Daily Maximum Limitation
8.4 pg/L
. ,ag/L
Weekly Average Limitation'
7.0 .g/L
No Weekly Average
Limitation2
Notes:
1 The weekly average is intended to protect against chronic (longer -term) impacts. As such,
it is expected that over the duration of concern complete mixing will have occurred. Thus,
the weekly average limit (WAL) includes an accounting for dilution (WAL =
CCC/(IWC/ 100)).
2 For zinc, because the daily maximum is more stringent than the weekly average, no
weekly average is given. Compliance with the daily maximum will always yield compliance
with the weekly average.
CMU — Cu & Zn WLA
NC Division of Water Quality — 5/29/2004
ecc
ram
t

Cu & Zn WLA — Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
Sugar Creek
IWC = 90.9%
South Carolina Water Quality standards offer the following equations for recalculation of the
chronic and acute criteria using site -specific hardness data:
CMC = e t mu •ln (hardness)-1-ba )
CCC = e { rn •ln (hardness }i-bc )
Where the CMC is the acute criterion and the CCC is the chronic criterion. Using these
equations and the constants below, we can calculate site -specific CMCs and CCCs for copper
and zinc using ambient hardness data. In accordance with South Carolina permitting, the
ambient hardness data in this case is the 10th percentile of an 11-year period of record - 51.6
mg/L.
Copper
Zinc
ma
0.9422
r 0.8473
ba
-1.7
0.884
Mc
0.8545
0.8473
be
-1.702
0.884
CMC
7.5 µg/L
68. µgL.
(75`2 µg/L,)-��`r
68.4 ug/L
CCC
5.3 µg/L
Daily Maximum Limitation
7.5 ,ug/L
Weekly Average Limitation].
5.8 mg/L
No Weekly Average )
Limitation2 (---
n,�
Notes:
1 The weekly average is intended to protect against chronic (longer -term) impacts. As such,
it is expected that over the duration of concern complete mixing will have occurred. Thus,
the weekly average limit (WAL) includes an accounting for dilution (WAL =
CCC/(IWC/ 100)).
2 For zinc, because the daily maximum is more stringent than the weekly average, no
weekly average is given. Compliance with the daily maximum will always yield compliance
with the weekly average.

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations of copper, zinc and silver effluent limits based on South Carolina water quality
standards
1) Copper limits
SC standard/criteria for copper: CMC = 3.8 ug/1; CCC = 2.9 ug/1,
There has been a revision on hardness data used in calculating the limits. After additional
consultation with SCDHEC, it was determined to use the 1011' percentile of hardness data, rather
than the minimum data value. The new hardness value used will be 51.6 mg/1 for Sugar Creek
WWTP, based on ambient data from Little Sugar Creek @ NC 51 @ Pineville.
Used the following equation to develop Cu limit
Acute = CMC= e {ma [In (hardness)] + ba }
Chronic = CCC= e {mc [ln (hardness)] + bc }
ma , ba, mc, and bc are " parameters for calculation freshwater dissolved metals criteria that are
hardness dependent . Reference: SCDEC Water Classifications and Standards.
For Copper, the parameters are as follows:
ma = 0.9422
ba = -1.700
mc = 0.8545
bc = -1.702
The CMC (acute) total copper limit was estimated to be: e (0.9422(ln 51.6)+ (- 1.7) = 7.50 ug/1
The CMC (acute) dissolved copper limit is estimated to be:
7.50 * CMC conversion factor =
7.50ug/1 * 0.96 = 7.20 ug/1
The CCC (chronic) total copper limit was estimated to be: e (0.8545(ln 51.6)+(-1.702) = 5.30 ug/1,
Then using the IWC = 90.91%; 5.30 ug/1/0.9091 = 5.83 ug/1—total Cu w/dilution
The CCC (chronic) dissolved copper limit is estimated to be:
5.83 * CCC conversion factor =
5.83 ug/1* 0.96 = 5.60 ug/1

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations of copper, zinc and silver effluent limits based on South Carolina water quality
standards
2) Zinc limits
SC standard/criteria CMC = 37 ug/1 CCC = 37 ug/1,
DWQ used the following equation to develop Zn limit for Sugar Creek WWTP, using a revised
value for hardness of 51.6 mg/1 from ambient data.
Acute = CMC= e { ma [ln (hardness)] + ba }
Chronic = CCC= e {mc [ln (hardness)] + bc }
ma , ba, mc, and bc are " parameters for calculation freshwater dissolved metals criteria that are
hardness dependent . Reference: SCDEC Water Classifications and Standards.
For Zinc, the parameters are as follows:
ma = 0.8473
ba = 0.884
me = 0.8473
be=0.884
The CMC (acute) total zinc limit was estimated to be: e (0.8473(ln 51.6)+ 0.884 = 68.4 ug/1
The CMC (acute) dissolved zinc limit is estimated to be:
68.4 * CMC conversion factor=
68.4 ug/1* 0.978 = 66.9 ug/1
The CCC (chronic) zinc limit was estimated to be: e (0.8473(ln 51.6)+ 0.884 = 68.4 ug/1

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations of copper, zinc and silver effluent limits based on South Carolina water quality
standards
3) Silver limits
A review of the silver effluent data showed that all data was below detection level, therefore no
reasonable potential analysis was required. There was no potential to exceed the allowable
concentration. Therefore, the proposed silver limit will be removed. See attached table with
silver data.
Jacquelyn Nowell
NPDES Unit
5/10/2004

.04/6
6WAte
` s'i
16-e/ct
Zov
A t#
C92laa0o . Sv C Eck wo l° 1.
c v) 2,J
("w►cT.i vs')
6 % c. 444a..s% de61..
1r79Y'�i�j � ff = �O � (-C. ,,�✓LtjL�✓��i� �it%Li/%/
exec = e itfa.(/4 (h hLf/$ Q
c 5 e-[tc-L74 (1/
e— CO, 114Z 2/4 5-81 7(f) g, 5g 7:(41 6774- (;,,,,;`
'2—( a", grieCOv q9.74(-4* 7(70 sc (f.,/, 74:
y,A;g2 /ova? --1414',.
,te 0,96 dreaf
6,74
)73, L

.✓i %>t
Lr�C
G ( z. = 3zc,(e ccc=37cfi
G
{c iC= ep �,u a = e f �J (4 $ 0,. BC)7-, 7 s-
(-ei
eAe_ 4��-P✓ ,Q 7 4s— 4 pre w 75, 6 ye
f
Gi2�t-ti C
f
3/,.kite
,514 (-- 70-o)
Pic 5;30,02/
at„.t. G., ,eird,ra 5.-e-gx5r- 5::67.,see
cj;%e
z 5-Liz Zi3 1,7,6
e, (6C c (7,f ( (.9;02 -
P`V-C, .74 <W4704,23)
aV-4e .e - 4 o, rt' a 7 - G 7, /
C4t7c. 10c a(°7f /,/ 176 �� 6( 221/ 6.80

7‘ /i- -el
belida
;.-V7-*-(4e1,42va
c,/ A'c_ 6; ,L (
lac v, a- 10. ,x,_o 4 v 4'r
/ t 4/cE-
-
`
ft filittide.A
'
`
r cites✓ D
JZ
-
" 4
4rcc

t/,4t rirce-Li74- a(We= „Ae ,04,4-4, 4,-
se„"Adi_cgo
,4 'E— Cit v7
/c ,
tivY Q1�L
SZ-
77
�G3- f(s7 Jo
$u 3 - Sri, - `fZZB M,, a{ ;,Li0
Lfe dl o< 1 A. 14 )1/-r-f-k-tizif iiCeer
(Alt - if
/SJZj wty ,N.,-

C49
°f
---#
M.9r a 4J4A 4/„,)
:.,, r
di.2-.4k ,,,c-,_, afe---c4,%_.
4., c.,, AA,
1/ rov1
-..�
i„)E ape 4.0,.it wii/i—y t'rz ' 4:...Je--_5
1461/ 1 Lvrq,
,i4/
- T /44A) f ,. i
5,-;5,„ c„..4.. cowry ,5„._,2
Lth fri.,,, Ceszk
�/Gi✓ �-� uL vtu/fv - % a
i' %
Cireik

16-
4/1/8Lf
cev
Z003•
I
A- Ce Ate-4-t-e-- C-iee t.,/ (.2.-occ... „..,„ oci, 7 2d03
i
4fri$4 1.1-r-vE ,
JNi Zod2,-
4,e4. 5'4/tif —
j) adi/td/
AA)V Si(7 Zo
7

Re: CMU meeting on Irwin and Sugar Creek permits
Subject: Re: CMU meeting on Irwin and Sugar Creek permits
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:59:06 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>,
Jeff DeBessonet <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Jackie,
I'd rather that NC decide how they are going to deal with CMUD's
comments and then get our opinion if their comments cause you to
consider revising the draft permit. We have sent a no comment letter
based on the last draft sent to us. If you change it based on
additional comments received from CMUD, we will need to review the
revised draft; if you decide not to change it, issue the permit and sent
us a copy.
Thanks,
Roosevelt
Jackie Nowell
<jackie.nowell@nc To: Jeff DeBessonet
mail.net>
<[e-mail]>, Roosevelt
Childress/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
10/02/03 09:33 AM cc: Dave Goodrich
<[e-mail]>
Subject: CMU meeting on Irwin and
Sugar Creek permits
Good morning gentlemen,
The NPDES Unit would like to invite you to a telephone conference
with representatives of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities who will be
meeting with us on Tuesday, October 7th.
We would like to call you or your representative at 10:30 am to discuss
CMU's comments on the final proposed permits for the Sugar Creek and
Irwin Creek WWTPs. Please respond via email or telephone call
(919-733-5083 x 512) with the person and their phone number that I can
call on the 7th for the conference call.
Thank you.
1 of 1 10/2/03 2:46 PM

MIHELMS MULLISS WICKER
Benne C. Hutson
704.343.2060
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
October 2, 2003
BY CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4 Helms Mulliss & Wicker, PLLC Attorneys at Law
Charlotte Raleigh Wilmington www.hmw.com
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: NPDES Draft Permits
Permit Nos. NCO24945 and NC0024937
CMUD -- Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County
Client -Matter No. 4010660.000634
Dear Ms. Nowell:
201 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
P.O. Box 31247 (28231)
704.343.2000
f 704.343.2300
OCT - 3 2003
We represent the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department with regard to these draft
permits. On or about September 24, 2003, you provided Jacqueline Jarrell of CMUD with copies of
the proposed final NPDES permits for the Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek wastewater treatment plants.
In providing these to Ms. Jarrell, you represented that they were being provided for informational
purposes only and were not considered to be the formal issuance of the permits to CMUD.
I am writing to advise NCDENR that CMUD and the City of Charlotte are relying on this
representation in determining that the time period for their filing of an administrative appeal of these
permits has not yet begun.
According to the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, a party has 30 days to file such
an appeal following issuance of the final permit.
C616330.1

Jacquelyn M. Nowell
October 2, 2003
Page 2
If NCDENR disagrees with this position in any respect, please contact me immediately. A
failure to respond will be considered to reflect NCDENR's agreement with CMUD's and the City's
position on this issue.
Sincerely,
HELMS MULLISS & WICKER, PLLC
1
enne C. Hu
cc: Barry Gullet (via electronic mail)
Jacqueline Jarrell (via electronic mail)
H. Michael Boyd (via electronic mail)
C616330.1

RE: [Fwd: Sugar and Irwin permits]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Sugar and Irwin permits]
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:58:50 -0400
From: "Jarrell, Jackie" <[e-mail]>
To: "'Jackie Nowell' <[e-mail]>
One other issue I forgot to mention to you was regarding the fecal coliform
limit. We will be able to meet this limit once our UV disinfection is
completed. The project is scheduled to start in Jan. 2004 with completion
in Spring of 2005. This is about as fast as it can be done. The TMDL
established in Mecklenburg County was supposed to be attained through
various improvements (point and nonpoint sources) over a ten year period.
We would just like to have a SOC for the time frame to complete the
construction and installation of the UV. I will send you everything on
Monday. Thanks.
Original Message
From: Jackie Nowell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Fwd: Sugar and Irwin permits]
1 of 1 10/2/03 9:33 AM

t
CMUD Irwin and Sugar Creek WWTP
Comments from telephone call with Jackie Jarrell
10/1/03
CMU's main concern is the metals. In the calculation for the limits, where did the hardness data,
come from? They take hardness data, 72 hours before and after their discharge. Their hardness
numbers are higher. They are taken at the discharge and is more recent data, taken within the last
6 months.
The fact that there is no reasonable potential for the metals makes it hard to accept the limits for
metals.
The two plants are so far upstream from SC, having to meet these limits so far upstream.
The cost to go to these low limits, they feel it is financially irresponsible. What is the benefit?
The Industries are very concerned because they will be tightened up in their pretreatment
limitations. They are getting organized. If there is no RP for metals they are very skeptical about
applying limits.
CMU is curious about the calculation for the Ni limits.
The silver limit is below the analytical detection level. NO other silver limits are that low
nationally.
Other comments are small stuff:
Irwin Creek map — pipe 002 is no longer there
Designate in the supp page that the flow equalization basin is complete.
At Sugar Creek, the backup power is complete.
Boilerplate language- cannot be changed at this time by NPDES
Need form for submitting P calculations.

Sugar and Irwin permits
Subject: Sugar and Irwin permits
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:36:20 -0400
From: "Jeff DeBessonet" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Jackie:
Permits look fine. We would like to review site -specific
possible permit mod on metals down the road.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and factoring in
standards.
Jeff deBessonet
studies associated with a
S.C. water quality
1 of 1
9/16/03 7:46 AM

DHE C
PROMOTE PROTECT PROSPER
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201-1708
COMMISSIONER:
C. Earl Hunter
BOARD:
Bradford W. Wyche
Chairman
Mark B. Kent
Vice Chairman
Howard L. Brilliant, MD
Secretary
Carl L. Brazell
Louisiana W. Wright
L. Michael Blackmon
Larry R. Chewning, Jr., DMD
September 15, 2003
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit
N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: Sugar/Irwin CMUD Permits
Your letters of September 1, 2003
Dear Ms. Nowell:
Thank you for factoring in our input. We offer no other comments with these
final draft permits. We would appreciate an opportunity to critique a site
specific study for metals if proposed for a permit modification in the future
with these permits.
I can be reached at 803-898-4157 or at [e-mail].
L .)%
Jeffrey P. de$essonet, P.E Director
Water Facilities Permitting Division
cc: Mike Montebello
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

—
Cc_
/44, htitri
*28 tiles - /J -lcC az-r, -7) 1:/- (
;4L ,�/lr� G G ,�� — ./r `A'1 `-/ CI 1/f./ f` 7/16-
%
4 )70 Z f ,fz ( 6 S-Lc �.✓c% �.,/ /!/s✓;
O -
.47L
7/3``/ 3
41s #1fVW7
//fin• j1j �/ 4; / //J111y, �y j� ///��� Jt. /j^ TT
.0 G . ✓ �v r i,d
4,0 2 or/1,44,06d .44

sz
4„0 d.° p i c_
1
I J/-4Atitid7e-s /(.4 -4-/(bc,-
/t/4 sr- 36 Ace
/Lai, 4_ _ 70.eh
_ iz-t,-/tv"
ZaZo,
:r'- / /c,i l r
cC 'JAI/ i rv'
c z:7 /it
ti
P3odc, W/6 //wt. 4/&emPkv-14.,
P-r(itir AwcP,( 4)112t:
r [/ %(iLci
%
C4fIC
;f7t-,e y 14-i/A-e Al)i) Ag2J4
/40 Mtk X6e:ifti.,
1 a !tip£ C frc )141
)/;,4/(izi
jaik (44y4 - fruw

Ms 444e vet, At4 4i. faftYE-A
l iv lavv� oU
ice4r itJe
A I i? lak(£W:-‘,f /0,, cLi
(AWAF! 3 c,44/44d d- ceNI L t?{iA rm4
7 1
1r41 �j urn
‘Lisi c4,44 ,;if/ 46
6(4 6. ff 4,1i f...
r
divt cei(o
tiric4.;
zdzaf,
a }
7s.
r
jfjde/744 k
P)
&c_ £.-�
oye U
sin
U £
63?).441/1. CAI il,K5 w
CN

cii-iwc, /V f
L £,- a 706;6',1
lJ 664 6W9 4 2_4 r,s ?
0,7;14. l�s �f� � � %� Dgit cra
/ /044 a/LI, // 4„,e A A.f.r _
c<<' f ? (4), ". 6-17 14.
4414
� kip -w r-. •. �/ ter( 1 �r►� L 7� << J�
IA4744
f d4c4
,�%1�� f
COL Cork L£G `�" i i /.ijfv40, i,
.
Glvl S rrr�
/I /•
i n n l
7''(+^l Wee/ cE of v Tel r 4,Kcwei se-f vs4E i�/ Jg
PA/ ;t4rir
Cl/1°v te(k/ 46/4-hin /1( -11.E-4)LWC. 44i cte 4 dslicdt/csi
/hUsir r6,7ovi r 4h 4
£4 b �: ep ' CAA v

��l
/of c,t
,
7-A),
p40
4,11
'1!a/d m mot , C Z4 //;14:k #4 p
re
„) oi 0), Ca
cr-ELL 74,7,74
44341- DIG-

,t(, oa- 4 j, / .Q cult( t o
fru.e.A,
5k4"-, P
f7CM/ Sc b- wLu c- - (1 f "' 0 L ‘ 4
144
(7 tetCL
n , ;Di l�, 5
otyl
r3,r yor_vi
f,
tdeli afe if.yrw-Je4.())0c yv`rr
N� 112E
O t tate, 7 C%-4 L Jt cL r
WA(
if Lie/ I

“(,eft
Cod
le, ( Yit..! i
�,�,(J it 6�F'- 42A:01 0 L
r e (< (04-t) LI-- /14c l �/�

T_ _,
dry
cC ea/ CAittW
II�-fil-, icier i 16VolArc
11 /1
•0
3
yta f �d Z� �,�� cm);t
I
Ht.„ Ci4 ,,A!a 7‘ G✓x/L w a., 14._.'[i EJll
7
fe vt t j / L /0 v ,t, z �✓ ,4/ ,/th*Li./_,
, --in- JJ /i'ta(! E! _ Pe4
A4f C ,f A ;4.4 cC d /4,- c' ✓ i�1 /LC.v4. %-
lJ ` GLL`{ -4h c j
/(74
/ /571- 56401/04--- - /Ar-
1 1_
I5C u ,l .�- hu,} E ww 1 lei/ iFtr
I1i/ - ),� 1 C.,w/ .
I
1
I,0,, at1 - c, L%..-
Is-rD 44,44ek 53?, C/;f44,,,/
I 014WiAC ub ei , /C 28z,)
IIthi e ci, ale✓/ , 4/c . c/J' tA✓��6( e Ui Gem40r G` G)f
I

)' Pi
wiv
,r7":>o
E`X P-72L,J-
!•�
C14 (a.cV ( .1r .�
/ --
10/7
•
1

i✓
Cs.

Sugar and Irwin Draft Permits
Subject: Sugar and Irwin Draft Permits
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 16:48:13 -0400
From: "Jarrell, Jackie" <[e-mail]>
To: "Jackie.Nowell @ncmail.net"' <[e-mail]>
Thanks Jackie for talking to me about these draft permits. Here are the
questions posed at the conference call last September that Dave G. was going
to send us documentation (from the file) that the limits were based on.
1. What limits are based on South Carolina water quality standards? Dave
was going to confirm after looking at file
2. Have DHEC and EPA determined that the Sugar and Irwin discharges would
cause a violation of the South Carolina water quality standards? Did EPA
conclude that discharges from Sugar and irwin without limits for these
pollutnats would have an undue impact on interstate waters? NCDENR (Dave)
was going to provide information back to us - fact sheet
3. How did DHEC and EPA make that determination? Who was involved in making
that determination? Can we talk to those people? Can we get copies of all
documents relating to that determination?
4. Did DHEC consider any historic effluent sampling results for these
constituents in making this determination?
CMUD (We) never saw the comments from EPA and SCDHEC sent back to NCDENR on
the original proposed draft permit (March 2002 draft). Then we got the new
proposed draft June 28, 2002 with changes based on their comments. We would
like to see there comments that they sent in.
Thanks again and let me know if you want to meet to talk about all this.
Jackie Jarrell
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
4000 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
[phone]
[e-mail]
1 of 1 7/17/03 11:21 AM

CA4 — .-7604,t1 Gil-L-
CMt'g2-
ii-j . ! ``/ CA4 v�
Ce7
1014
i�
,%a44J
fJ15Jk AJi(
(474 cernA. ,a-
c / /d d ocrv, 4.+y(
1/41/0232<
ecAlk,00,a l /
.J
/7't//1A-frt,144`•
.7‘74 A tAlifka-// g",
,„,/ CAA,
eizt //I
44 lc-4—i-
04 re"
c
(ice G7 .- ,G al,D
/0
g,7 4 c /66 (
V7/0
C� a. Sc r 6 atAt
L.•7

07/11/2002 11:41 FAX
HELMS MULLISS WICKER QI004.004
Amanda Kitchen
From: .Jarrell, Jackie [[e-mail]1
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:03 PM
To; Gullet, Barry; Boyd, Mike; Benne Hutson
Cc; Bean, Douglas; Padgett, Dawn; Zabeo, Myra; Hunter, Tom; Purgason, Rny
Subject: FW: Sugar and Irwin Creek Proposed Final NPDES Permits
Irwin draft
permitv1.2.doc
161
sugar draft
permitvl,2,dac
EY1
Original Message -
From: Mike Myers [mailto:mike_myerst2ncmail.net]
Sent: wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:48 PM
To: Dee Stewart
Cc: Ryatt.Marshallcepamail.epa.gov; Dave Goodrich; Jacqueline Jarrell;
Jeff deBessonet; Michael Montebello
Subject: Sugar and Irwin Crook Proposed Final FPDES Permits
Attached are the "Fr000sed Filial P_rmits" for thc sugar and Irwin Creek
NPDES permits'. EPA should receive hard copies on Thursday (June
27th). This will satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 123.44 h(1), which
stipulates that the state must resubmit a revised permit to meet the
Re.glona1 Adnin1.atretor'b objectionb within 90 days of ree ipt of the
objection. Since the Division received the objection letter on April 2,
2002, the deadline for resubmittal of the revised permit is July 1,
2002.
Please note that the schedule of compliance language for copper, silver
and zinc has bean modified, based on EPA comments. It is my
understandix:g that these changes to the draft permit satisfy the EPA and
South Carolina objections to the draft permit.
The attached permits are for informational purposes only and are not
considered the formal issuance of the permits to Charlotte.
Thanks for your comments and review.
Mike Myers
NC DWQ
NPDES Unit
1

Zoo) feileit4/
O(-u74
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JUL 0 2 2002
i W. Klimek, Director
ivision of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Review of Proposed Final NPDES Permit
Sugar Creek WWTP
NC0024937
Dear Mr. Klimek:
L.:L: J11L 1 1 2002 (!
4c'rR - WATER C ':_iTY
POIitiT SOURCE t ti
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has received the proposed final
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit on June 27, 2002, for the.
above referenced facility. In accordance with the EPA/NC Memorandum of Agreement, we have
no objection to the issuance of the proposed final permit as it addresses EPA's March 28, 2002,
objections to the February 13, 2002, draft permit. EPA requests that we be afforded an
additional review opportunity only if any other :significant changes are made to the permit prior
to issuance, or if significant objections to the permit are received. Otherwise, please send us one
copy of the final permit when issued.
Thank you for your attention to the issues regarding the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -
Sugar Creek NPDES permit. The effort extended by your staff to work with EPA Region_ 4, the
State of South Carolina, and Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities toward an effective resolution is to
be commended. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or have your staff
contact Ms. Dee Stewart, of my staff at 404/562-9334.
Sincerely,
Beverly H. Banister, Director
Water Management Division,
cc: Ms. Jacqueline Jarrell
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities District
Alton Boozer, SCDHEC
JUL 0 3 2002
DIV. OF WATER QUALITY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30 % Postconsumer)

Re: ammonia speadsheets/Other Comments Sugar & Irwin Creek Permits
Subject: Re: ammonia speadsheets/Other Comments Sugar & Irwin Creek Permits
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:26:13 -0400
From: "Michael Montebello"<[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Jeff DeBessonet"<[e-mail]>
Mike,
I would summarize the balance of my comments on the two permits as follows:
(1 Amonia Limits
SugarmCreek P r ' oma toxicity printout dated May 15, 2002 (prepared by Mike Myers), it would appearthat a weekly limit of
i g7I summer) and 12 mg/1 (winter vould be appropriate. This is based on a multiplier of 2.5 times the chronic concentration to protect for the 4 day
avers e. m addition, it you wantetruci include a daily average of 22.1 mg/I summer & winter (based on acute toxicity) that would be acceptable.
(b) Irwin Creek Permit. Using the ammonia toxicity printout dated May 15, 2002 (prepared by Mike Myers), it would appear that a weekly limit of
6.1 mg/I (summer) and 13.1 mg/1 (winter) would be appropriate. This is based on a multiplier of 2.5 times the chronic concentration to protect for the 4 day
average. In addition, if you wanted to include a daily average of 24 mg/I summer & winter (based on acute toxicity) that would be acceptable.
--,(2) Metals Limits (both permits)
With the addition of the sampling in Section A(9), would you plan to address reasonable potential prior to the permit expiration date of 2007 for specific
i pollutants
based
(Thison is the
do a collect
ool c )d? After three years of data collection, you would have sufficient sampling data to make a reasonable potential
�} Gy
(b) The June 12 ,2002 cover letter (to CMUD) addressed that "the most sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved ?
method must be used for parameters in the permit", is this wording included in the body of the NPDES permit and does it apply to the pollutants in A(9)? j
(3) Section A(8) on the site specific limits (both permits) for site specific limits, If the pollutants of concern (like copper) are on the SC 2002 303(d) list in a
J
downstream water, there would continue to be "reasonable potential" for an effluent discharge that contains that parameter.
While we dont disagree that site specific limits could be established, these parameters should stay on the permit (as limits) to protect downstream SC
waters until the pollutants are removed from the SC 303(d) list. Any other parameters could be removed when site specific limits are established if the data
would support removal via a reasonable potential assessment.
If we can resolve these comments, this should resolve our concems.
Thanks
Mike Montebello
SCDHEC
Bureau of Water
»> Mike Myers <[e-mail]> 06/13/02 03:50PM »>
Mike,
Here are the ammonia spreadsheets. Thanks for reviewing them,l wasn't
sure that 1 was implementing things correctly. 1 will call you shortly.
Mike Myers
l ,) a_ c...)/c
c-eceP4a,4 SC
1 of 1 6/17/2002 6:58 AM

Re: Unofficial Proposed fmal CMUD permits
Subject: Re: Unofficial Proposed fmal CMUD permits
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:11:10 -0400
From: Mike Myers <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR MAIL
To: [e-mail]
Dee,
With regards to your objection to the time frame for a schedule of compliance. Let me explain the
rationale behind the schedule and hopefully that will address your concerns.
The facility was given 9 months to report on a proposed plan of action. After that the facility would
have 21 months (1.75 years) to develop site specific standards for a total elapsed time of 2.5 years. At
the 2.5 year point, the Division will reassess reasonable potential to determine the need for the limits and
if appropriate modify the permit (as the schedule is now it does not account for this activity).
As you rightly pointed out what happens if the site specific standard does not provide relief or sufficient
relief to eliminate reasonable potential. In this case, CMUD is back to the drawing board. CMUD will
need to initiate additional measures to comply with the new limits.
That leaves them 18 months to evaluate, design, obtain approvals, construct, and get into operation, the
changes required to comply with the limits. Under best case, the time breakdown for each of these
activities is as follows:
Evaluate and design - 3 months
obtain required approvals and permits - 3 months
Construction - 9 months
startup - 1 month
Now we are up to 46 months, compared to 48 months for four years. I would justify the 2 additional
months in that I really don't think they can evaluate and design in 3 months and chances are we could
not get an approval turn around in 3 months (given our current state). Really the only unknown in the
schedule from my perspective is how long it takes to develop the site specific standards. That is why I
am waiting on SC to comment, since they have extensively more experience in WER than NC.
As I am sure you are aware, just because we put a limit in the permit doesn't mean that the facility can
comply with it immediately and we routinely put schedules of compliance in permits for new limitations
to address this issue. If we were putting a new metals limit in these permits without development of a
site specific standard the schedule would likely be three years. In this case we are allowing the facility
to develop a site specific standard, and then an additional 1.5 years to come into compliance with the
new limits. So in essence we are cutting what would normally be a three year schedule of compliance
down to 1.5 years (extremely ambitious). Remember that this schedule includes both and evaluation and
implementation phase and therefore, comparing it to a "routine" schedule of compliance is not
appropriate.
I hope that this alleviates your objections, if not give me a call and we can discuss it further. But I think
four years is appropriate.
As an aside, I have a couple of additional questions. I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just
trying to understand your perspective. To get to the point, in your comments you stated that you felt that
1 year and 3 month was excessive. Correct me if I am wrong, but nowhere does it state in the federal
regs what an appropriate schedule of compliance is and to my knowledge EPA generally does not raise
issue (note the use of issue rather than objection) with schedules of compliance unless they exceed the
term of the permit. So I am unclear on the basis for this statement and any subsequent objection.
Also you stated that a revised fact sheet was required. Could you refer me the CFR citation where this is
1 of 4 6/21/2002 10:42 AM

Re: Unofficial Proposed final CMUD permits
stipulated? I would have thought that since I addressed this issue in the cover letter that would have
• been sufficient.
I hope you don't take this as me being argumentative, I am just trying to make sure that I am clear on the
requirements.
Thanks,
Mike Myers
[e-mail] wrote:
Mike,
Thank you for sending the Unofficial Proposed final CMUD permits to EPA
for review. Our initial comments follow. I understand that you will be
meeting with SC next week to discuss the compliance schedule for metals.
EPA is looking forward to getting a revised draft that addresses all of
the concerns outlined in the March 28, 2002, letter prior to June 26,
2002.
Feel free to call or e-mail if you have any questions.
Thank you
Dee Stewart
404/562-9334
1) EPA's concerns regarding Hg have been adequately addressed. North
Carolina will require EPA Method 1631 with the appropriate detection
limit of 0.005 ug/1 no later than September 1, 2003.
2) The cover letter references the possibility that the permits may be
re -opened to contain more stringent weekly average limits for ammonia,
in accordance with an evaluation to be completed by September 30, 2002.
The permit limits page also contains weekly average limits for ammonia,
as required by 40 C.F.R. 122.45(d)(2). EPA is in agreement with these
items. EPA suggests that A.1 footnote #4 be clarified to emphasize that
weekly average ammonia limits by stating that the permit may be reopened
to require different or more stringent weekly avg limits
'0 C.F.R. 122.47(a)(1) requires any schedule of compliance to be "as
..n as possible." While EPA agrees with the inclusion of the total
copper, zinc, and silver limits in these permits to ensure compliance
with SC regulations and finds the limits appropriate, EPA cannot agree
to a four year compliance schedule for these parameters without a
further rationale as to why 2 1/2 years is needed to conduct a WER. The
current compliance schedule provides 90 days for the permittee to
develop a proposed course of action for achieving these limits. The
compliance schedule further states that if the permittee chooses to
develop site -specific standards, then another 2 1/2 years will be
granted for completing this action with the Division reassessing the
need for limits at the end of that time. If site -specific standards do
not provide relief for the facility, then an effective limit is not in
place for another 1 year and 3 months. This is an excessive amount of
time to comply with an necessary water quality based limit in an NPDES
permit. EPA would object to this lengthy procedure and would require
that the facility meet the appropriate water quality based limit within
2 1/2 years from the effective date of the permit.
2 of4 6/21/2002 10:42 AM

Re: Unofficial Proposed final CMUD permits
•
4) The proposed permit transmitted to EPA should have a revised fact
sheet or rationale addressing the changes.
J5) EPA's comments regarding fecal coliform have been adequately
addressed.
16) EPA's comments regarding the inclusion of the settlement language
have been adequately addressed.
Mike Myers
<mike.myers@ncmai To: Dee Stewart/R4/USEPA/US@EPA, Marshall
1.net> Hyatt/R4/USEPAIUS@EPA
cc:
06/11/2002 01:44 Subject: Unofficial Proposed final CMUD permits
PM
Dee,
South Carolina is still reviewing the information provided. I have
talked to Mike Montebello and have sent him a copy of these proposed
permits also. He indicated that his review should be complete by the
end of this week. Based on our conversation, I anticipate that the only
changes that might result from our discussions will deal with the
schedule of compliance and the weekly average ammonia limits.
I have asked SC how they implement ammonia limits of this magnitude
especially since there is no reasonable potential to violate those
limits.
Also I have asked SC to comment on the schedule of compliance for
copper, silver and zinc. Since they have significantly more experience
in dealing with water effect ratios, I have asked them if 2 1/2 years is
reasonable. This is the only component to schedule that is unclear, the
remaining components are very ambitious and will require a very tight
schedule on CMUDs part.
If there are still issues from your perspective, please let me know.
After NC and SC get things resolved (by weeks end hopefully), I will
finalize the "proposed" final permit for your review. If there are any
changes between this version and the official "proposed" final, I will
let you know.
Mike Myers
(See attached file: Irwin draft permitvl.2.doc)(See attached file: Sugar
draft permitvl.2.doc)
Name: Irwin draft permits 1.2.doc
Irwin draft permitvl.2.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
3 of4 6/21/2002 10:42 AM

CMUD permits
Subject:
0 Date:
From:
\2v Organization:
To:
\\j
BCC:
CMUD permits
Thu, 06 Jun 2002 14:17:24 -0400
Mike Myers <[e-mail]>
NC DENR MAIL
Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>,
Michael Montebello<[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
Greetings. Sorry I have not been in contact sooner. I have been concentrating on another project lately.
Anyhow I am at a breathing point on that project and need to try and get things resolved on the Sugar
and Irwin Creek permits.
Below I have summarized my understanding of where we are with these permits. Could you review my
summary and make sure that I am accurate. If there are other issues based on your review of the data,
please let me know what those are. I have a proposal below regarding the metals limits and would like
your feedback. Also I would like to get your feedback on the ammonia issue.
If needed I would like to set up a conference call for either tomorrow or Monday. Let me know if either
of those days suits you guys.
Issues:
cSvAdditional data not included in application.
Status - (possibly resolved depending on SC's review of data) - NC has provided SC with the data
requested. Additionally, NC will include a special condition in the Sugar and Irwin Creek permits that
require annual priority pollutant analysis (PPA).
Actually, we are now adding this condition into all of our municipal permits. NC used to routinely place
this condition in permits; however, because the data provided little information and rarely indicated the
presence of anything unexpected, we discontinued requiring them about five years ago (give or take a
year). Because of the EPA Form 2A requirements for three analyses we decided to require facilities to
conduct annual PPAs to ensure that this data is collected.
Toxicity second species testing.
Status - (Resolved) Second species testing for toxicity is not proposed for this permitting cycle based on
NC's agreement with the EPA. Second species testing will be required during the next permitting cycle
as a NPDES permit application requirement. I thought we had resolved this during the conference call,
if I am mistaken let me know.
Fecal Coliform
Status - (Resolved) NC and SC have agreed to implement fecal limits consistent with the Mecklenburg
County Fecal TMDL. Therefore, both the Sugar and Irwin Creek permits will receive monthly
average/weekly average/daily maximum fecal limits of 200/ 100 ml - 400/ 100 ml - 1000/ 100 ml
respectively. This approach is acceptable to SC.
V f.v
'') o Ammonia
Status - (Potentially resolved) SC provided NC with information and spreadsheet for determining
appropriate weekly average NH3-N limits. Based on the information provided, NC calculated potential
NH3-N limits of 22.1 mg/L (year round) and 24.0 mg/L (year round) for the Sugar and Irwin Creek
permits, respectively. The remaining issue is how does SC implement ammonia limits in this range,
especially when there is no reasonable potential to violate these limits?
1 of 3 6/6/2002 2:19 PM

CMUD permits
Also of note is that these permits will be reevaluated for reasonable potential to violate NC acute
criterion for ammonia (still in development) in the fall of 2002. If reasonable potential exist then the
more stringent of the two limits will be implemented into the permits.
New EPA method 1669 and 1631 C for mercury.
Status - (Resolved) - Both the Sugar and Irwin Creek permits will contain language requiring CMUD to_
begin using EPA method 1669 by Sept 2003. Again my recollection of the earlier conference call was
that this was acceptable to SC.
Permit Expiration Date
Status - (Resolved) - NC has agreed to extend the permit expiration date consistent with the date agreed
upon for the McAlpine Creek Permits Settlement Agreement.
s{/ � TRC Limits
Status - (Potentially Resolved) - NC explained to SC that both the Sugar and Irwin Creek permits
should contain daily average TRC limits and the rationale for implementing daily average limits. The
main issue turn out to be different daily average definitions in NC and SC. Pending SC's review of NC's
boilerplate language, this issue should be resolved.
Copper, Silver and Zinc limits
Status - (Unresolved) - Proposed resolution - NC is proposing the limits outlined in the table below.
NC proposes to allow CMUD to decide whether they prefer limits based on total recoverable or
dissolved (as allowed under SC standards). The proposed limits in parentheses based on the dissolved
fraction would be applied if CMUD decided on dissolved. NC additionally proposes a schedule of
compliance to allow CMUD time to conduct water effect ratios, implement clean sampling techniques,
collect additional data and reevaluate reasonable potential, or other measures that CMUD may elect to
pursue. CMUD will be given 9 months to decide on a course of action. If CMUD elects to collect
additional data using clean sampling techniques data must be submitted to both DWQ and SC DHEC
after 2 years so that reasonable potential may be evaluated. If reasonable potential continues to exist
limits will become effective at the end of the schedule of compliance.
Standards were based on the minimum observed value for hardness in Little Sugar Creek (Sugar Creek
WWTP) and Sugar Creek (Irwin Creek WWTP) near the state line.
Sugar Creek WWTP Permit
Parameter [Proposed -Weekly Average Limit ` Proposed Daily Maximum Limit
Copper 4.3 ug/L (4.2 ug/L) �- .?ig/L (3.1 ug/L)
Silver ( - 0.44 ug/L (0.4 ug/L)
Zinc I I42.1 ug/L (41.2 ug/L)
[Irwin Creek Permit
Parameters Proposed Weekly Average Limit
Copper
Silveri
6.4 ug/L (6.1 ug/L)
Zinc;)
Proposed Daily Maximum Limit
4.7 ug/L (3.1 ug/L)
0.8 ug/L (0.72 ug/L)
I60.6 ug/L (59.2 ug/L)
Phosphorus Settlement Agreement
'` Status - (Resolved) - Both final permits will reflect the language as agreed upon consistent with the
2 of 3 6/6/2002 2:19 PM

CMUD permits
Settlement Agreement.
I think that covers all the issues. If there are other issues based on your review of the data, let me know.
Again if a conference call is in order then let me know what times work best for you.
Thanks,
Michael Myers
Division of Water Quality
919-733-5083 x508
3 of 3 6/6/2002 2:19 PM

•
United States Department of the Interior
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
April 17, 2002
Mr. Michael Meyers, Environmental Engineer
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Michael: .
In response to your request for low -flow data, the U.S. Geological. Survey (USGS) provides the following infor-
mation for the continuous -record gaging stations at Sugar Creek at NC 51 near Pineville (station id 02146381,
drainage area 65.3 mi2, period of record October 1994 through current) and Little Sugar Creek at Hwy 51 at
Pineville (station id 02146530, drainage area 49.2 mi2, period of record June 1997 through current). The low -
flow characteristics have been estimated by correlating the runoff characteristics at these short-term gaging sta-
tions with nearby long-term continuous -record gaging stations on Long Creek and McAlpine Creek. Please note
that while flow estimates were adjusted to account for the effects of major effluent discharges from upstream
wastewater treatment plants, the estimates do not account for the presence of any other diversions or regulation,
present or future, which may occur upstream of the gages.
Enclosed is a table of the low -flow characteristics at the request sites on Sugar Creek and Little Sugar Creek as
well as nearby index sites at Long Creek near Paw Creek (station id 02142900, drainage area 16.4 mi2) and
McAlpine Creek at Sardis Road near Charlotte (station id 02146600, drainage area 39.6 mi2). Additionally, the
table also present low -flow characteristics for three selected gaging stations in the Charlotte area with flows not
known to have been affected by significant diversions upstream of the sites.
Low -flow characteristics for the request sites are presented for flow conditions that (1) include the National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges from upstream wastewater treatment plants (WWTP)
on Irwin and Little Sugar Creeks as recorded at the gages, and flow conditions that (2) do not include the NPDES
discharges from these facilities (computed by subtracting the concurrent daily WWTP discharges from the daily
mean discharges recorded at the gages). Comparison of the NPDES discharge records for the periods of records
at the request sites indicated that effluent discharges accounted for 31.5 and 48.8 percent of the flows at the Sugar
Creek and Little Sugar Creek sites, respectively.
At the request sites, low -flow discharge yields, expressed in units of (ft3/s)/mi2 of drainage area, were found to
be comparable for those discharges that do not include the effects of the NPDES discharges. However, these
yields cannot necessarily be considered indicative of true "natural -flow" conditions that would be expected if
there were no urbanization effects in the basins.
Thank you for your assistance in obtaining the records of daily NPDES discharges for the facilities on Irwin
Creek and Little Sugar Creek. 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 coop-
erative program of water -resources investigations with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Nat-
ural Resources.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at [phone].
Enclosure
Copy to: Mr. Jerald B. Robinson, USGS, Charlotte, NC
Sincerely,
-e-c-090
J. Curtis Weaver
Hydrologist
[phone] • FAX [phone]

Table 1. Magnitude and frequency of annual low -flow characteristics at selected continuous -record gaging stations in
City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
[mil, square mile; climatic years, the annual period from April 1 to March 31 and identified by the year in which the period begins; (ft3/s)/mi2,
cubic foot per second per square mile; &Is, cubic foot per second; 7Q10, 7-day, 10-year low flow; 30Q2, 30-day, 2-year low flow; W7Q 10, winter
7-day, 10-year low flow; 7Q2, 7-day, 2-year low flow; NC, North Carolina highway; Hwy, highway; PR, gaging station having less than 10 years
record of daily mean discharge, treated as a partial -record site where low -flow characteristics were developed by using correlation techniques;
WWTP, wastewater treatment plant. Values shown in parentheses below each low -flow discharge are the corresponding low -flow yields in (ft3/s)/
mil
Station name
t Low -flow characteristics
I a. g
0 (ft3ls)
I r 0 >'
51) 1= .... • 2
C v O c 0 N O - N
Eps
'aE 5 c 0 v
Q O ._ Q
a.
Comments
Request sites
02146381 Sugar Creek at NC 51 near 65.3 PRa 11.0 24.3 21.1 18.2 Includes the NPDES dis-
Pineville (0.1685) (0.3721) (0.3231) (0.2787) charges from Irwin Creek
WWTP
PRa 4.7 13.0 10.8 8.9 NPDES discharges from
(0.0720) (0.1991) (0.1654) (0.1363) Irwin Creek WWTP
removed from record
02146530 Little Sugar Creek at Hwy 51 at 49.2 PRb 13.2 20.1 24.5 21.2 Includes the NPDES dis-
Pineville (0.2679) (0.4085) (0.4980) (0.4309) charges from Sugar Creek
WWTP
PRb 3.1 9.6 7.8 6.3 NPDES discharges from
(0.0630) (0.1951) (0.1585) (0.1280) Irwin Creek WWTP
removed from record
Nearby index sites
02142900 Long Creek near Paw Creek 16.4 1966- 0.7 1.9 1.7 1.3 No known significant
2000 (0.0433) (0.1177) (0.1018) (0.0811) diversions or regulation
upstream of gaging sta-
tion
02146600 McAlpine Creek at Sardis Road 39.6 1962- 1.1 4.5 3.4 2.7 No known significant
near Charlotte 2000 (0.0268) (0.1144) (0.0856) (0.0674) diversions or regulation
upstream of gaging sta-
tion.
Other nearby sitesd
02146211 Irwin Creek at Charlotte
5.97 1982-93, 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 No known significant
1998-99 (0.0419) (0.1357) (0.1173) (0.0871) diversions or regulation
upstream of gaging sta-
tion.
02146450 Briar Creek at Sharon Road at 18.5 1962-72 1.1 3.3 2.2 1.8 No known significant
Charlotte (0.0616) (0.1773) (0.1200) (0.0957) diversions or regulation
upstream of gaging sta-
tion.
02146500 Little Sugar Creek near
Charlotte
41.0 1925-49e 3.8 9.5 5.5 6.6 No known significant
(0.0924) (0.2327) (0.1351) (0.1607) diversions or regulation
upstream of gaging sta-
tion.
a. Available period of record (October 1994 through early April 2002) used in analysis.
b. Available period of record (June 1997 through early April 2002) used in analysis
c. A diversion for irrigation purposes is known to occur in the Long Creek basin upstream of the gaging station, but the diversion
amount has not been quantified and is not currently known to be significant (Jerald B. Robinson, USGS, oral commun., April 17, 2002).
d. Low -flow characteristics for these sites are presented to provide some indications of low -flow yields (in parentheses) of streams in
the Charlotte area that are not known to have had significant diversions upstream of the site.
e. For the gaging station at Sta. 02146500, the period of analyses was selected on the assumption that effects of urbanization on flows
were minimal during the period. The full period of record for this site is July 1924 through December 1977.

A 0
�� I,REGION 4
o Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z3.F d. 61 FORSYTH STREET
4
9.
�<PRO1 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
MAR 2 8 20E
Mr. Dave Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: NPDES Permit for CMUD Sugar Creek WWTP
Permit No. NC0024937
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Jr�SEO sr4r$•
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR ` 2 2002
DER QUALITY
POttil SOURCE BRANCH
We have completed our review of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit dated February 13, 2001, and provided informal comments in an e-mail
dated March 13, 2001. EPA, Region 4, also requested a review extension until March 29, 2001,
in the same e-mail. Due to some deficiencies in the revised draft permit conditions, EPA
objections and comments are detailed below, pursuant to Section III.B.1 of the North
Carolina/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and federal regulations.
Based on the reasonable potential analysis conducted by North Carolina and submitted
with the permit and fact sheet, total copper, total zinc, and total silver are reported as a maximum
predictable effluent concentration of 120.5 ug/1, 221 ug/1, and 41.0 ug/l, respectively. The draft
permit does not contain numeric limits for these parameters since North Carolina has action
levels.
However, this discharge affects waters in the State of South Carolina. Therefore, our
review also focused on protecting the water quality criteria and standards of that State. EPA did
not find hardness data in the application and assumed a hardness of 25 mg/1 as CaCO3 and used
an in -strewn waste concentration of 90% for the Sugar Creek Plant. EPA's calculations for the
resulting maximum allowable end -of -pipe values that meet South Carolina numeric criteria are:
total copper - 4.8 ug/1 (acute) and 4.0 ug/1 (chronic), total zinc - 36.0 ug/1 (acute) and 36.4 ug/1
(chronic), and total silver - 0.37 ug/1(acute) (no chronic criterion exists).
Based on the available information, comparing the maximum predicted effluent
concentrations to the maximum allowed values indicates that reasonable potential exists to
exceed South Carolina water quality standards for these three pollutants. EPA objects to the lack
of specific numeric limits for total copper, total zinc, and total silver in this draft permit. Per 40
C.F.R. § 122.4(d) and 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(4), no permit can be issued whose conditions
cannot ensure compliance and conformity with applicable water quality standards of an affected
state.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

2
Regarding fecal coliform, the draft permit's monthly and weekly average limits do
comply with North Carolina's water quality standards. However, South Carolina's freshwater
water quality standards for fecal coliform include a requirement that no more than 10% of the
total monthly samples exceed 400/100 ml. South Carolina municipal permits typically protect
this provision through a daily maximum fecal coliform limit of 400/100 ml. Because the draft
permit's fecal coliform limits do not reflect South Carolina's fecal coliform standards, .EPA
objects per 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(d) and 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(4).
All POTWs are required, unless impracticable, to include average weekly and average
monthly discharge limitations [40 C.F.R. § 122.45(d)(2)]. The draft permit does not include a
weekly average limit for ammonia. EPA, Region 4, recognizes that this is an issue that is
awaiting resolution in many NPDES permits in North Carolina. If left unresolved, the ammonia
provisions of this draft permit will be subject to EPA objection.
EPA also offers the following comments regarding mercury. The previous permit
contained a limit and compliance with that limit was based on use of a detection limit of 0.2 ug/1.
Based on subsequent "non -detects" for the reported data using that detection limit, North
Carolina determined that reasonable potential no longer exists to exceed the state mercury water
quality criterion of 0.012 ug/1 and that neither monitoring nor a limit for mercury is now required.
EPA is concerned that reasonable potential to exceed the 0.012 ug/1 mercury water quality
criterion may exist if EPA -approved Method 1631C (and Method 1669) that is now available
with a detection limit of 0.0005 ug/1 is used. The recent North Carolina Inspector General (IG)
report documented that the State should require more sensitive analytical methods as they
become available. To ensure that there is no reasonable potential to exceed the state 0.012 ug/1
mercury water quality criterion, EPA recommends that short-term monitoring for mercury be
required in this permit using Method 1631 C (and Method 1669) and that the permit contain a
reopener to include limits if the data so warrant.
The permit settlement language has not been included in the draft permit for the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) Sugar Creek facility referenced in the
January 18, 2002, agreement between the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
CMUD, and the North Carolina Environmental Commission. EPA requests that this language be
incorporated, as well as a 2007 expiration date.
We request that you redraft the permit to address the objections expressed above and
submit a proposed NPDES permit to EPA for review under the provisions of Section III.B.3 of
the MOA. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Dee Stewart at [phone].
Sincerely,
J. Scott Gordon, Chief
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
cc: CMUD

North Carolina } ss
Mecklenburg County}
The Knight Publishing Co., Inc.
Charlotte, NC
Affidavit of Publication
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
NCDENR/DWQ/BUDGET OFFICE
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
REFERENCE: 30019881
4398925 Intent to Issue
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of the Knight Publishing Company a
corporation organized and doing business under the
laws of the State of Delaware, and publishing a
newspaper known as The Charlotte Observer in the
city of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg and State
of North Carolina and that as such he/she is
familiar with the books, records, files and
business of said Corporation and by reference to
the files of said publication
the attached advertisement was inserted. The
following is correctly copied from the books and
files of the aforesaid Corporation and
Publication.
PUBLISHED ON: 02/19
AD SPACE:
FILED ON:
NAME.
102 LINE
02/25/02
.14-1,6-u-kz2o
In Testimony Whereof I have
day and ear aforesaid.
Notary
`in
TITLE:
DATE:
2425/D7
hereunto set my hand and ffixed my seal, the
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699.1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and application of NC General
Statue 143.21, Public law 92-500 and other lawful standards and reg-
ulations, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
proposes to issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPOES) wastewater discharge petit to the person(s) listed below
effective 45 days from the publish dale of this notice.
• Written comments regarding the proposed petit will be accepted
until 30 days atter the publish date of this notice. All comments •
received poor to the date are considered in the final determinations
regarding the proposed permit. The Director of the NC Division of
Water Quality may deride to hold a public meeting for the proposed
pertnt should the Division receive a significant degree of public
interest
Copies of the draft pemit and other supporting information on file
used to determine conditions present in the drat permit are available
upon request and payment of the costs of reproduction. Mail com-
ments and/or requests for information to the NC Division of Water
0uatity at the above address or call Ms. Christie Jackson at (919) 733-
5083, extension 538. Please include the NPDES permit number
(attached) in any communication. Interested persons may also visit
the Division of Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury Street. Raleigh, NC
27604-1148 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review
irdonnaton on file.
NPDES Permit Number NC0024945, CMUD - Irwin Creek W Win, 600
East Fourth Street Charlotte NC 28202 has applied for a petit
renewal fora facility located in Mecklenburg County discharging treat-
ed wastewater into Irwin Creek in the Catawba River Basin. Currently
CBOD, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, total residual chlorine, cyanide,
martyry, and nickel ere water quality limited.This discharge may
affect future allocations In this portion of the receiving stream.
NPDES Permit Number NC0024937, CMUD - Sugar Creek W WTP, 600
East Fourth Street Charlotte NC 28202 has applied for a permit
renewal for a facility located in Mecklenburg County discharging treat-
ed wastewater into Lille Sugar Creek in the Catawba River Basin.
Currently CBOD, ammonia, total residual chlorine, cyanide, cadmium,
nickel, chromium, and dissolved oxygen are water quality limited. This
- discharge may affect future allocations in this portion of the receiving
stream.
LP4398925
Cf_
My Commission Expires: __/__/__
, ikY li Jl i Tour( 1fati iacoga May , AD')

North Carolina } ss
Mecklenburg County}
The Knight Publishing Co., Inc.
Charlotte, NC
Affidavit of Publication
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
NCDENR/DWQ/BUDGET OFFICE
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
REFERENCE: 30019881
4398925 Intent to Issue
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of the Knight Publishing Company a
corporation organized and doing business under the
laws of the State of Delaware, and publishing a
newspaper known as The Charlotte Observer in the
city of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg and State
of North Carolina and that as such he/she is
familiar with the books, records, files and
business of said Corporation and by reference to
the files of said publication
the attached advertisement was inserted. The
following is correctly copied from the books and
files of the aforesaid Corporation and
Publication.
PUBLISHED ON: 02/19
AD SPACE:
FILED ON:
NAME:
In Testimony
day and year
Notary
102 LINE
02/25/02
Whereof I have hereunto
aforesaid.
`in
TITLE:
DATE:
set my
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER •
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and application of NC General
Statue 143.21, Public law 92-500 and other lawful standards and reg-
ulations, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
proposes to Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge permit to tho person(s) listed below
effective 45 days from the publish date of this notice.
• Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted
until 30 days after the publish date of this notice. All comments •
received prior to the date are considered in the final determinations
regarding the proposed permit. The Director of the NC Division of
Water Quality may decide to hold a public meeting for the proposed
Mpermh should the Division receive a significant degree of public
erest.
Copies of the draft permit and other supporting information on file
used to determine conditions present In the draft permit are available
upon request and payment of the costs of reproduction. Mail com-
ments and/or requests for information to the NC Division of Water
Quality at the above address or call Ms. Christie Jackson at (919) 733-
5083, extension 538. Please include the NPDES permit number
(attached) In any communication. Interested persons may also visl
the Division of Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604-1148 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review
information on file.
NPDES Permit Number NC0024945, CMUD - Irwin Creek WWII? 600
East Fourth Street, Charlotte NC 28202 has applied for a permit
renewal fora facility located in Mecklenburg County discharging treat-
ed wastewater into Irwin Creek In the Catawba River Basin. Currently
CBOD, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, total residual chlorine, cyanide,
mercury, and nickel are water quality limited. This discharge may
atfecl tulure alkrations in this portion of the receiving stream.
NPDES Permit Number NC0024937, CMUD - Sugar Creek WWTP, 600
East Fourth Street Charlotte NC 28202 has applied for a permit
renewal for a facility located In Mecklenburg County discharging treat-
ed wastewater Into Little Sugar Creek In the Catawba River Basin,
Currently CBOD, ammonia, total residual chlorine, cyanide, cadmium,
nickel, chromium, and dissolved oxygen are water quality limited. This
-discharge may affect future allocations in this portion of the receiving
stream.
LP4398925
C[4- _
hand and ffixed my seal, the
My Commission Expires:
iyy iN>kr,x�j)s7�!

(HARL(YTTE.
March 19, 2002
Michael J. Myers
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Draft Permits
Permit Nos. NC0024945 and NC0024937
CMUD — Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Myers:
By this letter, Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities is providing its comments on these
two draft permits. These draft permits were sent to us under cover letters dated February
13, 2002, both of which we received on or about February 18, 2002. These comments are
being provided within the 30-day public comment period established by the Division.
For ease of review, our comments are referenced either to the headings used in
your cover letters or to specific provisions of the draft permits.
Amendment to the NPDES Permit Application
You have requested that Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities sign certifications that
summaries of data from our discharge monitoring reports are, to the best of our
knowledge, "true, complete and accurate." Based on our review, there are errors in the
summaries. As a result, we cannot sign the certification
Possible Future Ammonia Limitations
Your letter states that EPA and the Division are currently discussing the need for
weekly average and daily maximum ammonia limitations. If such limits are determined
to be necessary, they can only be implemented as a major modification to these permits.
This would require the Division to prepare a Reasonable Potential Analysis for ammonia
in surface waters that could be affected by the discharge as well as giving Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities and the public opportunity to comment on the modification during
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216 704/399.2551
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department
Z.d LElZoN
rC
waLS: Z I ZOOZ .6l lidw
atd.
t
v?I-
;�' r or AVP
ty •
,r 0 Y. c r
vcvet(j4,__

a mandatory public comment period. Please confirm that the Division agrees that any
such changes will be major modifications and that the Division will comply with all legal
and regulatory requirements applicable to such modifications.
If at all possible, we would like to be involved in the discussions with the
Division and EPA on the possible establishment of ammonia limits. As you are well
aware, involving us in the negotiations with the Division and South Carolina was the key
to reaching the historic settlement on reducing phosphorous discharges since we were the
ones who had to come up with the plan and the financing to achieve such reductions.
There is every reason to believe our involvement on possible ammonia limits would be
just as helpful and productive.
Irwin Creek — Chromium Monitoring — r% 4.
0
40 CFR section 122.44(d) basically allows the State to impose monitoring
requirements and effluent limitations when the State determines that a discharge has a
"reasonable potential to cause" a violation of a water quality standard. The procedures
used to make such a determination must comply with 40 CFR section 122.44(d)(1)(ii). In
light of this regulatory standard, please explain the basis for adding a requirement for
chromium monitoring as a condition for the Irwin Creek permit when, according to your
cover letter, the "reasonable potential analysis indicates no reasonable potential .. .
Status o Irwin Creek and Status o Little Sugar Creek
In both of these sections of the cover letters, the Division states that these creeks
appear on the 303(d) list of impaired streams. Please identify what problem parameters
have resulted in each of these streams being put on the 303(d)list.
Second, both letters state that "non -point sources are the main contributor to this
degradation" that has led to the 303(d) listing. However, both letters then go on to state
that "the future may require additional control of direct point sources dischargers" and
that "CMUD may determine in the future that an alternative to surface water discharge
may be more appropriate." These statements strike us as contradictory, i.e., non -point
sources are the main contributor but more control of direct dischargers may be required.
We would like you to clarify this apparent inconsistency and would especially like to
discuss with you further our need to determine future alternatives to surface water
discharge. This discussion likely would be most productive either by telephone or in a
face-to-face meeting,
Permit Expiration Dates
The permit expiration dates in both permits are incorrect. Pursuant to section 2.b.
of the January 15, 2002 settlement agreement between the Division, South Carolina and
the City of Charlotte, the City has until, at the latest, February 28, 2007, to comply with
the total phosphorous limit of 826 pounds per day on a 12-month rolling average. This is
the limit that applies to the Irwin, Sugar and McAlpine plants. In light of this settlement
C 'd LEil 'ON
WdLS:ZI 600Z '61 'VW

Wly�l��hi?
Jooar
provision agreed to by the Division, the Sugar and Irwin permits cannot expire until
February 28, 2007.
Description of Treatment Plant — Irwin Creek
The description of the Irwin Creek treatment plaint lists four trickling filters.
However, it should be expressly noted in the list that two of these are standby units to be
used when needed.
Description of Treatment Plant — Sugar Creek
The description of the Sugar Creek treatment plant includes trickling filters. The
listing needs to expressly note that these are inactive.
In addition, the RAS pump station description is missing three return pumps.
Maps
The maps in each permit are not correct. It appears that both maps are of the
Irwin Creek facility but we are not sure. We need you to make sure that the correct maps
are included with the correct permits. Please let us know if you need our help with this.
ffluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements —CBOD, 5-Day
Each permit establishes a limit for CBOD. However, footnote number 2 that
applies to this limit refers to BODS. This should be corrected to reference CBOD5.
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements — Cyanide and Mercury
Both permits establish limits for cyanide. The Irwin Creek permit also has an
effluent limit for mercury. In each case, the effluent limits are less than the approved
laboratory detection limit of 10 ug/L for cyanide and 0.2 ug/L for mercury. Furthermore,
although the Division states that it will consider all detections less than these limits "to be
zero for compliance purposes", it still wants Charlotte Mecklenburg 'Utilities to report all
detected values of these constituents. See footnote 7 to Sugar Creek permit and footnotes
7 and 8 to Irwin Creek permit.
These effluent limits and reporting requirements are not acceptable to Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities. The purpose of detection limits is to establish a minimum 90
percent confidence level that an analyte is present at that detected amount. Results
i showing concentrations below the detection limit (commonly known as `judgment" or
"J" values) do not satisfy this 90°%o confidence factor. Such detections may (but do not
always) confirm that an analyte is present but there is no confidence that it is present at
�the level indicated.
> coal..-i-
4 Avg, w/ c Acey. ,„ 44, c v v st
v kss
.-"r-
.,:// . (6r
ewtj&D e�._ d ,se R
'd L i; l l '0N
ndH;6L 6OO6 '6L )iVN

By these requirements, the Division is requiring Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
to report false positives and concentrations as to which there is no statistical satisfaction
of accuracy. The Division cannot require the reporting of such untrustworthy or
inaccurate data. This same provision appeared in the draft permit for McAlpine but was
removed from the final permit based on the objections we have raised here. The same
result should apply to these permits.
Stream Monitoring Requirements
The stream monitoring frequency requirements are not consistent with the
McAlpine Creek permit and changes made to these requirements in that permit made by
the Division last year. Specifically, the Division agreed last year in a conference call
regarding the draft McAlpine permit that during the June to September time period, the
sampling frequency would be once per week. This provision was included in the final
McAlpine permit. These draft permits provide a sampling frequency of three times per,1_,
week. This should be changed to once per week.
Total Phosphorous Limit
There are a number of issues that need to be corrected to make the permits
consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the Division, South
Carolina and the City. These are as follows;
1. Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement requires the City to notify
SCDFIEC and the Division by February 28, 2004 of whether or not it intends to perform
construction activities at either the Sugar Creek or Irwin Creek plants to achieve
compliance with the total phosphorous limit applicable to those plants and the McAlpine
Creek plant. Section 6 of the Settlement Agreement requires that this construction
notification requirement be included as part of the Sugar and Irwin Creek permits. To
comply with the Settlement Agreement, this notification requirement needs to be added
to the permits.
2. Pursuant to Section 2.f. of the Settlement Agreement, if the City conducts
construction activities at Sugar Creek to comply with the total phosphorous limit, the
Sugar Creek plant will have an effluent limitation for total phosphorous of 334 pounds
per day averaged on a monthly basis commencing on February 28, 2007. If the City does
not do any construction at Sugar Creek, then there is no such monthly limit. Pursuant to
Section 6 of the Settlement Agreement, these requirements need to be added to the Sugar
Creek permit.
3. Pursuant to Section 2.g. of the Settlement Agreement, if the City conducts
construction activities at Irwin Creek to comply with the total phosphorous limit, the
Irwin Creek plant will have an effluent limitation for total phosphorous of 250 pounds per
day averaged on a monthly basis commencing on February 28, 2007. If the City does not
do any construction at Irwin Creek, then there is no such monthly limit. Pursuant to
LCL6 •ON tool 'b► �dw

ivtoatfeJ
Section 6 of the Settlement Agreement, these requirements need to be added to the Irwin
Creek permit.
4. We do not understand why the draft permits include formulas for
calculating annual average mass loading. The applicable standards are mass -based for on
both a monthly and annual basis. It would appear that the definitions for "monthly
average discharge" and "average annual discharge" could be used to determine the per
day discharges as required by the permit. These definitions are found in Part II.A, 5.a.
and d. In the alternative, the formulas included in the draft permits could be used
provided that the monthly and annual loadings are divided by, respectively, the number
of days in the month or rolling twelve-month period being measured.
Schedule of Co lance
Part I, Section B of both permits states that the "Permittee shall comply with Final
Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the permit unless specified below." Since
compliance with the phosphorous limitations is not required on the effective date of the
permit, those should be specified in this section.
Part Lf Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits
1. The definition of the Division of Water Quality is by the abbreviation
"DEM" or "the Division". DEM refers to the old Division of Environmental G
Management. This should be changed to DWQ. P
2. Section D.4. states that approved test methods resulting in the lowest
detection level must be used. We need to discuss with you this requirement with, regard
to analyzing for mercury at Irwin Creek. EPA recently approved two new test methods
for analyzing for mercury, methods 1339 and 1631. Method 1339 is a "clean" sampling
method requiring a clean sampling point dedicated only to mercury sampling with
samples collected by a specially trained person wearing protective clothing and using
protective equipment to prevent contamination. Method 1631, an analytical method, is a
new method that we are not aware of any laboratories in North Carolina or elsewhere c/
being certified to perform. Obviously, as you can discern from these descriptions, both
of these methods are also very expensive to perform.
This section of the permit allows other test procedures to be used if they
are specified in the permit. We would propose adding a footnote to the mercury limit in
the effluent limitations section of the permit specifying that the current method being
s used for mercury, EPA Method 245.1 can continue to be used.
(et-,
jt"` owa
3. Part III. C. of the draft permits is entitled "Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substances." The section, however, deals with toxic pollutants, which is a defined term
in the permits as well as under section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act. Please clarify if
there is a separate defined term for "Toxic Substances' and, if so, what substances are
9 'd LC l Z 'ON_
r1;d6�:Zl ION .6l�Vw

45 f- �
F6TAcf CAD
classified as "Toxic Substances:' If there are no such substances, please consider
renaming this section "Changes in Discharges of Toxic Pollutants."
Please check to see if you included the correct Part III it this permit. Part
III.C. seems to be more appropriate for an industrial direct discharger. Furthermore,
these draft permits do not contain the boilerplate language for pretreatment programs that
have been included in Part III of our previous permits.
Notice of EPA and Affected States
Please confirm and provide proof that all required information to be provided to
EPA and any other affected states, most specifically South Carolina, has been provided.
This includes the information requested by EPA for all municipal discharges in the
Catawba River as specified in its letter to Coleen Sullins dated August 2001.
We would very much like to meet or have a conference call with you and other
appropriate members of the Division to discuss the Division's response to these
comments before a final permit is issued, This could very well allow us to avoid
adjudication of the permit and eliminate the need to correct any errors or inaccuracies in
the final permit. Please let me know when you would like to schedule such a call or
meeting.
Sincerely,
0.L.L 4.alTj1
uenline Jarrell
vironmental Management Division Manager
Enclosures
cc: Barry Gullet (w/encls.)
H. Michael Boyd (w/encls.)
Benne C. Hutson (w/encls.)
L LlZ 'ON wd6S:zL NOZ '6L �b�u

09-2001
09-2001
09-2001
09-2001
VIOLATIONS (all Types) for:
Permit NC0024937
Facility Nam( %
DMRs Betweer 1-1997 and 12-2001
Region %
County
Page: 1 of 2
Report Date: 01/10/02
PERMIT: NC0024937
FACILITY: Sugar Creek WWTP
COUNTY: Mecklenburg
REGION: Mooresville
LIMIT VIOLATIONS:
DMR
04-2001
05-2001
OUTFALL
001
001
MONITORING VIOLATIONS:
LOCATION
Effluent
Effluent
PARAMETER
COLIFORM, FECAL MF, M-FC
BROTH,44.5C
COLIFORM, FECAL MF, M-FC
BROTH,44.5C
VIOLATION DATE
04/28/01
05/19/01
UNIT OF
MEASURE
1// 100nt 1
#/100m1
CALCULATED
LIMIT FROM REPORTED VIOLATION DESCRIPTION
400.00 525.56 Veekly Geometric Mean Exceed(
400.00 438.99 Veekly Geometric Mean Exceed(
DMR LOCATION PARAMETER
09-2001
09-2001 001 Effluent
09-2001 001 Effluent
001 Efilucnt
001 Effluent PH
001 Effluent SOLIDS, TOTAL SUSPENDED
OUTFALL
(101
001
REPORTING VIOLATIONS:
Effluent CHLORINE, TOTALRESIDUAL
Effluent
COLIFORM, FECAL MF, M-FC
BROTH,44.5C
NITROGEN, AMMONIA TOTAL
(AS N)
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (DO)
TEMPERATURE, WATER DEG.
CENTIGRADE
VIOLATION DATE
09/03/01
09/03/01
09/03/01
09/03/01
09/03/01
09/03/01
09/03/01
MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY
Daily — weekdays
Daily — weekdays
Daily — weekdays
Daily — weekdays
Daily — weekdays
Daily — weekdays
Daily — weekdays
VIOLATION DESCRIPTION
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
DMR
09-2001
09-2001
09-2001
09-2001
09-2001
09-2001
09-2001
OUTFALL
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
LOCATION PARAMETER
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
ALUMINUM, TOTAL (AS AL)
BOD, 5-DAY (20 DEG. C)
CHV STATRE 7DAY CHR
CERIODAPHNIA
IRON, TOTAL(AS FE)
MAGNESIUM, TOTAL(AS MG)
NICKEL, TOTAL (AS NI)
OIL & GREASE
VIOLATION DATE
09/30/01
09/30/01
09/30/01
09/30/01
09/30/01
09/30/01
09/30/01
VIOLATION DESCRIPTION
Parameter Missing
Parameter Missing
Parameter Missing
Parameter Missing
Parameter Missing
Parameter Missing
Parameter Missing

VIOLATIONS (all Types) for:
Permit NC0024937
Facility Nam(
DMRs Betweer 1-1997 and 12-2001 Region %
County %
09-2001 001 Effluent OXYGEN DEMAND, CHEM. 09/30/01 Parameter Missing
(HIGH LEVEL) (COD)
09-2001 001 Effluent P/F STAT 48HR ACU 09/30/01 Parameter Missing
CERIODAPHNIA
09-2001 001 Effluent SOLIDS, SETTLEABLE 09/30/01 Parameter Missing
09-2001 001 Effluent SOLIDS, TOTAL 09/30/01 Parameter Missing
09-2001 001 Effluent SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE 09/30/01 Parameter Missing
09-2001 001 Effluent SURFACTANTS (MBAS) 09/30/01 Parameter Missing
Page: 2 of 2
Report Date: 01/10/02

Residual Chlorine and Ammonia Toxicity Assessment
Residual Chlorine
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (U
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.1 :1
31
17.0
0
90.12
18.86
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (m
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
w7Q10 (CFS)
2001100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (m
3.4
20
31
1.0
0.22
90.12
1.09
5.5
20
31
1.8
0.22
84.93
2.08
1/10/2002
MJM
NC0024937

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Fact Sheet For NPDES Permit NC0024937
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name': Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities — Sugar Creek
Applicant Address': 5100 Brookshire Blvd.
Facility Address': 5301 Closeburn Road
Permitted Flow2'4'7: 20.0 MGD (Grade IV — Biological)
Type of Waste2•4•7: Municipal (Domestic and Industrial)
Facility/Permit Status': Renewal
County2-4-7: Mecklenburg
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream24: Little Sugar Creek
Stream Classification1'2: C
303(d) Listed?5: Yes — Fecal Coliform, biological commumity
Subbasin2: 03-08-34
Drainage Area (mi2): [calculated] 40.8 mil
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)6: 3.4 cfs
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)6: 5.5 cfs
Average Flow (cfs)6: 47.0 cfs
IWC (%): 90%
Primary SIC Code: 4952
Regional Office: Mooresville
USGS Topo Quad: Charlotte East (G 15 NE)
Permit Writer: Michael Myers
Date: November 5, 2001
Summary
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMUD) owns and operates five facilities in and around the
Mecklenburg County area, including the Sugar Creek facility. Sugar Creek WWTP is located in the
Southwestern portion of Mecklenburg County and currently has an NPDES permit to discharge up to
20.0 MGD of treated municipal wastewater through one outfall (001). CMUD submitted an application
for renewal of this NPDES permit on March 2, 2001 (183 days prior to expiration). The NPDES Unit has
reviewed the application, correspondence files, discharge monitoring reports, permit files, instream data
and other pertinent data in developing this permit. This fact sheet summarizes the rationale used to
determine permit limits and conditions.
Wastewater is treated at the Sugar Creek WWTP, using a 20.0 MGD trickling filter/extended air plant
comprised of the following treatment units:
• Three FMC bar screen (rated at 35 MGD each)
• Pista grit removal (rated at 50 MGD each)
• Grit Classifiers
• Conveyor System
• Influent sampling station
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1

• Influent pump station (2-150Hp variable frequency drive pump, 1-150Hp lift pump, 1-100Hp
lift pump)
• Four primary clarifiers
• One 1.2 MG raw/primary sludge storage tank
• Primary/raw sludge pump station (pumps primary sludge to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• Four Trickling filters
• Eleven aeration basins (diffused air) (6 active, 2 standby, 3 inactive)
• Five blowers (two positive displacement blowers, two multistage centrifugal blowers, one
single stage centrifugal blower)
• pH adjustment (NaOH)
• Six secondary clarifiers
• RAS pump station (eight 25Hp pumps, one 60 Hp pump, and one 30Hp pump)
• WAS pump station — pumped to McAlpine WWTP
• Chlorine disinfection
• Sodium bisulfite dechlorination
• One deep bed filter using anthracite
• Four effluent filter pumps
• Effluent flow measurement
• Cascade aeration
• Backup power (under construction — estimated completion July 2002)
• 20 MG equalization basin (under construction estimated completion March 2002)
Excess flow entering the headworks of this facility not treated at the Sugar Creek WWTP, is diverted to
the McAlpine Creek WWTP. The facility is base loaded at a flow rate of approximately 15.0 MGD, with
around 'A of the total flow entering the headworks diverted to the McAlpine Creek WWTP. After
treatment, wastewater is discharged into Little Sugar Creek, which is a class C stream in the Catawba
River Basin. Primary and waste activated sludge is pumped to the McAlpine WWTP.
The last wasteload allocation was conducted in 1996. Since that time, there have been no changes that
would dictate a reevaluation of the wasteload allocation, except as related to nutrients which will be
discussed later. The 7Q10 stream flow at the point of discharge is 3.4 cfs. The average and 30Q2 stream
flows at this point are 47.0 cfs and 8.7 cfs, respectively.
The 1998 permit incorporates water quality based limits for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand,
total suspended solids, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, total residual chlorine, cadmium,
chromium, cyanide, lead and mercury.
Pretreatment
The Sugar Creek facility serves a population of 121,589 in the Charlotte area and accepts a permitted
monthly industrial flow of 2.00 MGD and maintains an approved pretreatment program. The
pretreatment program has 25 permitted Significant Industrial Users, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Significant Industrial Users for the CMUD — Sugar Creek WWTP
Significant Industrial User
IUP
Number'
40 CFR Type Text
Permitted
Flow
Allied Metal Finishing, Inc.
IUP # 5005
Metal Finisher
0.02
Barnhardt MFG.
IUP # 0003
Textile
0.7 and 0.4
C & T Refinery
IUP # 642
food,Veg. Oil Refinery
0.29
Carolinas Health Care Systems
IUP # 211
Laundry
0.2
Consolidated Engravers
IUP # 290
Metal Finisher
0.016
Excel Electronics
IUP # 5004
Circut Board
0.008
Federal Textile Engravers
IUP # 468
Photo
0.003
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 2

Hardcoatings, Incorporated '
IUP # 0170
Metal Finisher
0.009
Highland Mills
IUP # 5002
Textile
0.075
Uniqema dba ICI Americas, Inc.
IUP # 0008
Textile Chem.
0.0075
Keeter Dixon Pearre, Inc.
IUP # 0212
Textile
0.02
Knight Publishing Co.
IUP # 5006
Publishing
0.034
National Linen Service
IUP # 0097
Laundry
0.33
Norfolk Southern RR (Liddell)
IUP # 649
Maint. Facilty
0.0075
Pepsi Cola
IUP # 149
Food
0.062
Murray Biscuit Company
IUP # 424
Food
0.014
Rohm & Haas (Orr Rd)
IUP # 5003
OCPSF
0.069
Unifirst Corp. # 212
IUP # 498
Indust. Laundry
0.10
Woonsocket Spinning
IUP # 260
Textile
0.045
Charleston Spar, Inc.
IUP # 0493
Metal Finisher
0.025
Southeastern Metal Products
IUP # 5010
metals
0.0208
Haz-Mat Transportation and Disposal
IUP # 5012
Oily WW Treatment
0.02
Water Systems
IUP # 5009
Well Water Tank Mfr.
0.015
Fab - Tech Industries
IUP # 5011
metals -Metal
Fabrication
0.006
Catawba-Charlab, Inc.
Textile
0.005
1. IUP - Industrial User Permit
Discharge Monitoring Report Data Review
According to the self -monitoring data, the facility is achieving ammonia removal through nitrification
(See Figure 1). Though the system is not designed for denitrification or phosphorus removal the system
is achieving some measure of both as evident from the self -monitoring data (See Figures 2 and 3). Total
phosphorus and total nitrogen averaged 3.77 mg/L and 11.51 mg/L, respectively in the effluent for the
year 2001, which are lower than the 2000 averages (average TN -13.02 mg/L and average TP - 5.74 mg/L).
Residual chlorine levels are typically within the range expected for a facility practicing dechlorination,
with an average of 1.23 µg/L, 0.70 µg/L, and 0.28 µg/L for 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively. The annual
average flows averaged 70.5%, 71.0%, and 74.0% of the 20.0 MGD permitted flow for 2001, 2000 and 1999,
respectively.
Figure 1. Influent and Effluent Ammonia Concentrations for the CMUD - Sugar Creek WWTP.
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
if.nJL�YU
50
100
150
200
250
300
— lnfuent
— Elluent
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

` Figure 1. Influent and Effluent Ammonia Concentrations for the CMUD - Sugar Creek WWTP.
Figure 2. 2000 Influent and Effluent Total Nitrogen Loadings for the CMUD - Sugar Creek WWTP.
35.0
30.0
25.0
E 20.0
0
a
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
— Influent
— Effluent
Figure 3. 2000 Influent and Effluent Total Phosphorus for the CMUD - Sugar Creek WWTP.
Total Phosphorus [mg/L]
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1
iJilt
,
�4
Jv
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
— Influent
— Effluent
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 4

Current Stream Conditions
Little Sugar Creek flows in to Sugar Creek, which eventually flows to the Catawba River in South
Carolina. Though Sugar and Little Sugar Creeks are not within the Lake Wylie drainage area, they are
within the Lake Wateree Watershed.
Little Sugar Creek is classified as a C water in the Catawba River Basin (North Carolina's classification
system). Little Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek just across the NC/SC State line. Upon crossing
in to South Carolina, Little Sugar Creek changes classified to FW water (South Carolina's classification
system), which means it is designated for primary and secondary recreation and water supply, as well as
fishing and survival and propagation of a balanced and indigenous aquatic community of flora and
fauna.
In terms of individually permitted NPDES facilities, the Little Sugar Creek watershed receives the
discharge from five dischargers, with the CMUD — Sugar Creek WWTP the largest. The Little Sugar
Creek Watershed is an extremely urbanized watershed draining the City of Charlotte, as can be seen in
Figure 4 below.
Based on DWQ sampling, the benthic community improved from 1992 to 1997 from 'poor' to 'fair'.
Though improvement was noted, a 'fair' rating is indicative of an impaired stream. Little Sugar Creek's
fish community rated as 'poor' in 1997.
Figure 4. Little Sugar Creek Watershed
RP-ORR ROAD S
STORS
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 5

Little Sugar Creek is listed as an impaired water according to North Carolina's draft 2000 303(d) list. The
problem parameters are identified as fecal coliform and poor to fair biological communities. Possible
sources for the impairment are non -point source urban runoff, and point sources.
Downstream of the discharge, Sugar Creek is impaired in South Carolina and North Carolina for fecal
coliform and impaired biological community. In South Carolina, the stream has improved from 'not
supporting' to 'partially supporting' between the 1993 to 1998 sampling events.
Nutrients
As stated, Little Sugar Creek is within the Lake Wateree watershed. According South Carolina's
Department of Health and Environmental Control, Lake Wateree and Fishing Creek Reservoir both
exhibit a trophic status of category I, which is indicative of the highest level of euthrophication. The
Division is currently working with the State of South Carolina and CMUD on nutrient control for the
McAlpine Creek WWTP, Sugar Creek WWTP and the Irwin Creek WWTP. It is anticipated a
management strategy for total phosphorus will be agreed upon and incorporated into the NPDES permits
for the three referenced facilities.
Instream Monitoring
CMUD conducts extensive monitoring of Irwin Creek, Little Sugar Creek and McAlpine Creek. Little
Sugar Creek is monitored upstream of the WWTP and downstream at two Little Sugar Creek sites.
Analysis of approximately 4 years of instream data (1998 — 2001), shows no violations of North Carolina's
dissolved oxygen standard. Copper and zinc data indicate that the normal Division assumption of zero
background is inappropriate for these parameters. Both of these parameters are action level parameters in
North Carolina, so alternative background concentrations were not calculated, since they would have no
impact on the conclusions reached from the reasonable potential analysis.
Though copper and zinc are 'action level' parameters in North Carolina, South Carolina has adopted
acute and chronic standards for both copper and zinc. The acute/chronic standards adopted by South
Carolina are 3.8/2.9 µg/L for copper and 37/37 µg/L for zinc. Copper and Zinc are monitored in Little
Sugar Creek at Archdale Road. Monitoring at this location indicates copper and zinc concentrations.
Since this monitoring station is located several miles from the NC/SC State line this data does not allow
for conclusions regarding compliance with South Carolina's standards for copper and zinc. Therefore, it
is recommended that copper and zinc monitoring move from station from LSC2 to LSC3 in Little Sugar
Creek.
Additionally, South Carolina's 2000 305(b) report list the monitoring station at CW-013 as 'not
supporting' with an identified cause of chromium and copper. The source of these metals was not
identified it is recommended that in addition to copper and zinc monitoring at station SC4 that chromium
monitoring be added to the instream monitoring program at station SC4, LSC2, and MC2.
Currently, CMUD monitors cadmium at stations MC1 and MC2. A review of data from January 1997
through October 2001, resulted in no detectable quantities of cadmium over the period of review. Since
cadmium is not identified as a potential source of impairment, it is recommended that instream cadmium
monitoring be removed from the instream monitoring program.
Compliance Summary:
Staff Reports indicate that the facility is well maintained and operated.
Sugar Creek WWTP has a very good compliance record. Over the past three years, the facility had no
violations of monthly average limits .
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 6

Toxicity Testing
. Current Requirement: Chronic toxicity limit monitored quarterly @ 90%.
The facility has a good toxicity compliance record over the past four years.
Recommended Requirement: Chronic toxicity limit monitored quarterly @ 90%.
Toxicant Analysis
Using the self monitoring data required per the NPDES permit and the approved Long Term Monitoring
Plan, reasonable potential analysis' were conducted on the following toxicants: arsenic, cadmium,
cyanide, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc. The standards used for the analysis
are consistent with the standards for a class C stream.
Refer to the reasonable potential analysis to view the data sets and results.
Arsenic — Analysis indicated that the maximum predicted concentration is less than the allowable
concentration. There will be no limit or monitoring requirement for this parameter in the NPDES permit.
Monitoring for this parameter will continue as part of the Long Term Monitoring Plan required as part of
the approved pretreatment program.
Cadmium — Analysis indicated that the maximum predicted concentration is greater than the allowable
concentration. Therefore, the weekly average limit of 2.2 µg/L shall remain as a condition for the permit.
A daily maximum limit will also remain in the permit; however, the daily maximum limit shall be
modified based on the Division's recalculation of the final acute values in 2000.
Cyanide — The analysis indicated that the maximum predicted concentration is greater than the allowable
concentration. Therefore, the weekly average limit of 5.5 µg/L shall remain as a condition for the permit.
A daily maximum limit will also remain in the permit; however, the daily maximum limit shall be
modified based on the Division's recalculation of the final acute values in 2000.
Chromium — Analysis indicated that the maximum predicted concentration is greater than the allowable
concentration. Therefore, the weekly average limit of 5.5 µg/L shall remain as a condition for the permit.
A daily maximum limit will also remain in the permit; however, the daily maximum limit shall be
modified based on the Division's recalculation of the final acute values in 2000.
Copper — The maximum predicted concentration was greater than the allowable concentration. However,
copper is a action level parameter and no standard exist. It is the Division's position that a limit is not
appropriate for an action level parameter unless the facility has demonstrated toxicity problems. Since
the facility has a good toxicity compliance record no limit will be incorporated into the permit; however,
monitoring shall remain as a condition.
Lead - Analysis indicated that the maximum predicted concentration is less than the allowable
concentration. There will be no limit or monitoring requirement for this parameter in the NPDES permit.
Monitoring for this parameter will continue as part of the Long Term Monitoring Plan required as part of
the approved pretreatment program.
Mercury — The facility has had no detectable mercury concentration greater than 0.2 µg/L since December
2000. Therefore, no limit or monitoring shall be required as a condition for the permit. Monitoring for this
parameter will continue as part of the Long Term Monitoring Plan required as part of the approved
pretreatment program.
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 7

Nickel — The maximum predicted concentration was greater than the allowable concentration. Therefore,
a weekly average limit of 97.7 µg/L and a daily maximum limit of 261 µg/L will be implemented into the
NPDES permit.
Silver - The maximum predicted concentration was greater than the allowable concentration. However,
silver is a action level parameter and no standard exist in North Carolina. It is the Division's position that
a limit is not appropriate for an action level parameter unless the facility has demonstrated toxicity
problems. Since the facility has a good toxicity compliance record no limit will be incorporated into the
permit; however, monitoring shall remain as a condition.
Zinc - The maximum predicted concentration was greater than the allowable concentration. However,
zinc is an action level parameter and no standard exists in North Carolina. It is the Division's position
that a limit is not appropriate for an action level parameter unless the facility has demonstrated toxicity
problems. Therefore, the monitoring requirement shall remain as a condition for the permit.
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY BASED LIMITS
This permit contains water quality based limits for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, total residual chlorine, total phosphorus,
cadmium, chromium, cyanide, nickel and toxicity.
PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY BASED LIMITS
This permit contains technology based limits for pH and percent removal for carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand and total suspended solids.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
15A NCAC 02H .0109 PUBLIC NOTICE
(a) Notice of Application
(1) Public notice of each complete individual NPDES permit application and each general NPDES
permit shall be circulated in the geographical areas of the proposed discharge by the Director at
least 45 days prior to any proposed final action:
(A) by publishing the notice one time in a newspaper having general circulation in said
county; and
(B) by mailing the notice to all persons or agencies listed in Subsection (c) of this Rule.
(2) The notice shall set forth at least the following:
(A) name, address, and phone number of the agency issuing the public notice;
(B) name and address of each applicant;
(C) brief description of each applicant's activities or operations which result in the
discharge
described in the NPDES application;
(D) name of waterway to which each discharge is made and a short description of the
location of each discharge on the waterway indicating whether such discharge is a new
or an existing discharge;
(E) a statement of the tentative determination to issue or deny an NPDES permit for the
discharge described in the NPDES application;
(F) a brief description of the procedures for the formulation of final determinations,
including a 30-day comment period and any other means by which interested persons
may influence or
comment upon the determinations; and
(G) address and phone number of state agency premises at which interested persons may
obtain further information, request a copy of the draft permit, request a copy of the fact
sheet, and inspect and copy NPDES application forms and related documents. Copies of
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 8

the fact sheet shall be made available free upon request. Copies of the information on file,
other than fact sheets, will be made available upon request and payment of the cost of
reproduction.
(3) Public notice for those activities covered by Certificates of Coverage issued pursuant to a
general permit and Authorizations to Construct shall not be required.
(b) Notice of Public Meeting
(1) Notice of public meeting on any NPDES permit application shall be circulated in the
geographical areas of the proposed discharge by the Director at least 30 days prior to the date of
the meeting:
(A) by publishing the notice one time in a newspaper having general circulation in said
county;
(B) by mailing the notice to all persons and government agencies which received a copy
of the notice or the fact sheet for the NPDES application; and
(C) by mailing the notice to any person or group upon request.
(2) The notice of any public meeting shall include at least the following:
(A) name, address, and phone number of agency holding the public meeting;
(B) name and address of each applicant whose application will be considered at the
meeting;
(C) name of waterway to which each discharge is made and a short description of the
location of each discharge on the waterway;
(D) a brief reference to the public notice issued for each NPDES application including
identification number and date of issuance;
(E) information regarding the time and location for the meeting;
(F) the purpose of the meeting;
(G) address and phone number of premises at which interested persons may obtain
further information, request a copy of each draft NPDES permit, request a copy of
each fact sheet, and inspect and copy NPDES forms and related documents; and
(H) a brief description of the nature of the meeting including the rules and
procedures to be followed; The notice shall also state that additional information is
on file with the Division of Environmental Management, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources at the Archdale Building at 512 North
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, and may be inspected at any time during
normal working hours. Copies of the information on file will be made available upon
request and payment of cost of reproduction.
(c) Mailing Lists. Any person may request to receive copies of all notices required under this Rule and
the Director shall mail such notice to any such person. An annual charge of twenty-five dollars ($25.00)
may be charged for any person desiring to be placed and maintained on the NPDES Permit mailing list.
The Director shall also give notice to the following for NPDES permits:
(1) State water pollution control agency for the States of Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Georgia;
(2) Appropriate district engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
(3) Lead agency responsible for preparation of plan pursuant to Section 208(b) of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq, in approved 208 areas;
(4) State agency responsible for the preparation of plans pursuant to Section 303(e) of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq;
(5) North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Health; and
(6) Any other federal, state, or local agency upon request.
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 9

' History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.1(a)(1); 143-215.1(c); 143-215.4(a); 143-215.4(c); Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. March 1, 1993; August 1, 1988; October 1, 1987; December 1,1984.
15A NCAC 02H .0111 MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
(a) Public Meetings:
(1) The Director shall provide an opportunity for the applicant, any affected state, any affected
interstate agency, the regional administrator, or any interested agency, person, or group of
persons to request or petition for a public meeting with respect to NPDES permit applications.
Any person who desires a public meeting on any NPDES permit application shall so request in
writing to the Director within 30 days following the publication date of the notice of application.
Any such request or petition for public meeting shall indicate the interest of the party filing such
request and the reasons why a meeting is warranted.
(2) The Director is delegated authority to determine if a public meeting shall be held in
accordance with G.S. 143-215.1(c)(3) and to issue public notice and conduct such meeting for the
Commission.
(3) All comments received within 30 days following the publication date of the notice of NPDES
permit application shall be made part of the application file and shall be considered by the
Director prior to taking final action on the application.
(4) Any meeting brought pursuant to this Subsection shall be held in the geographical area of the
proposed discharge or other appropriate area, in the discretion of the Director, and may, as
appropriate, consider related groups of permit applications.
(b) Adjudicatory Hearings and appeals shall be conducted in accordance with Article 3 of Chapter 150B
of the General Statutes.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.1(c)(1); 143-215.3(a)(3); 143-215.3(a)(4); 143-215.5;
143-215.1(e); Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. March 1, 1993; November 1, 1987.
15A NCAC 02H .0112 FINAL ACTION ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS
(a) The Director shall take final action on all NPDES applications not later than 60 days following notice
of intent to issue or deny, or, if a public meeting is held, within 90 days following the closing of the
record of the meeting or in the case of an Authorization to Construct permit 90 days after the receipt of a
complete application or, if a public meeting is held concerning the Authorization to Construct, within 90
days following the closing of the record of the meeting.
(b) The Director is authorized to:
(1) issue a permit containing such conditions as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of G.S.
143-215.1 and G.S. 143-215.67;
(2) issue a permit containing time schedules for achieving compliance with applicable effluent
standards and limitations, water quality standards, and other legally applicable requirements;
(3) modify or revoke any permit upon giving 60 days notice to the person affected pursuant to
Rule .0114(a) of this Section;
(4) suspend a permit pursuant to Rule .0114(a) of this Section;
(5) rescind a permit upon request by the permittee;
(6) deny a permit application:
(A) where necessary to effectuate the purposes of Article 21 Chapter 143,
(B) for a discharge prohibited by G.S. 143-214.2(a),
(C) where the Secretary of the Army finds the discharge would substantially impair
anchorage and navigation,
(D) for a discharge to which the regional administrator of EPA has objected as
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 10

provided in Section 402(d) of the Clean Water Act as amended, 33 U.S.C. Section
1251 et seq,
(E) for any point discharge which conflicts with a plan approved pursuant to Section
208(b) of the Clean Water Act as amended, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq, effective
February 4,1987.
(c) The permit applicant has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to reasonably ensure that the
proposed system will comply with all applicable water quality standards and requirements. No permit
may be issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable
water quality standards and regulations of all affected states.
(d) Permits shall be issued or renewed for a period of time deemed reasonable by the Director except in
no case shall permits be issued for a period to exceed five years.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.1(c)(4); 143-215.1(b); 143-215.3(a)(3); 143-215.3(a)(4);
143-215.1(c)(5); 143-214.2(a); 143-215; 143-215.2(a); Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. March 1, 1993; October 1, 1987; September 1, 1986; December 1,1984.
Proposed Changes
The daily maximum cadmium limit has been modified.
The daily maximum chromium limit has been modified.
The daily maximum cyanide limit has been modified
Lead limit and monitoring requirement has been deleted from the permit.
Mercury limit and monitoring has been deleted from the permit.
A weekly average and daily maximum nickel limit and monitoring requirement has been added as a
condition for the permit.
Move instream copper and zinc monitoring in Sugar Creek from SC1 to SC4
Move instream copper and zinc monitoring in Little Sugar Creek from LSC2 to LSC3.
Delete instream cadmium monitoring.
The conditions for total phosphorus have been modified in accordance with the agreement reached
between North and South Carolina.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
References
1. Division of Water Quality's Basinwide Information Management System, December 21, 2001,
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/alpha/Neuse.pdf
2. 1999. NPDES Regional Staff Report and Recommendations for the Renewal of the CMUD — Sugar
Creek WWTP, August 12,1999, Asheville Regional Office
3. 1999. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section.
4. 2001. NPDES Permit Application Standard Form A, Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department
— Sugar Creek WWTP.
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 11

5. 2000. 303(d) List of North Carolina Impaired Waters - Draft. North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Section. Copies obtained through Planning Branch, Archdale Building,
512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, North Carolina.
6. 1993. Low Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina, United States Geological Survey
Water -Supply Paper 2403. Copies obtained at U.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution, Box
25286, MS306, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225.
7. 1998. NC00249437 NPDES Permit. Issued to CMUD- Sugar Creek. Copies obtained through The
Division of Water Quality, Central Files, Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 12

State Contact
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Michael Myers at [phone] ext. 508.
NAME: DATE: v?aoa
NPDES SUPERVISOR
NAME: DATE:
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 13

Regional Office Comment
NAME:
co-pwii-te.,,c,6 fie--t
Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page13

Facility Name =
CMUD-SUGAR CREEK
10
10
30 40
Qw (MGD) =
WWTP Classification
NPDES # =
Receiving Stream
IWC (%) =
20
NC0024937
SUGAR CREEK
90.12
Reasonable Potential Summary
Stream Classification
7Q1Os (cfs) =
30Q2 (cfs)
Qavg (cfs)
3.4
8.7
47
Final Results:
W, 0-LX
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
4
2.9 µg/1
55.5 µg/1
:Implementation
!Are all reported values less than?
Its the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
'
!Monitoring
'Frequency None
Aluminum
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
96.5 µg/1
ilmpeementation
!Are all reported values less than?
!Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
i
' Monitoring
!Frequency None
Barium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
Not a POC µg/1
(Implementation
'Are all reported values less than?
:Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
1
i' Monitoring
' Frequency None
Benzene
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
72.9 µg/1
,Implementation
,Are all reported values less than?
:Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
!Monitoring
I Frequency None
13er Ilium
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
1.6 µg/1
:Implementation
.Are all reported values less than?
Its the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
. Monitoring
!Frequency None
Carbon Tetrachloride
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
5.94 µg/1
(Implementation
:Are all reported values less than?
!Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
1
' Monitoring
' Frequency None
'Cad miumm 4 6;)4.e.
/ /o ff►
11.3 µg/1
2.2 µg/l
!Implementation
,Are all reported values less than?
GIs the detection limit acceptable?
No
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
Yes
Yes
1
I Monitoring
1 Frequency 2/Month
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
1/2 FAV (non Trout)
15.0
µg/1
1/2 FAV (Trout)
2.1
µg/1
I
1/2 FAV
42
µg/1
I
Chloride
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC mg/L
255.2 mg/L
'implementation
:Are all reported values less than?
,Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
' Monitoring
I Frequency None
Chlorinated Benzenes
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/I
Not a POC µg/I
'Implementation
,Are all reported values Tess than?
:Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
�
'Monitoring
: Frequency None
Chloroform
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
Not aPOC µg/I
I Implementation
!Are all reported values less than?
Its the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
!Monitoring
I Frequency None

Facility Name =
Qw (MGD) =
IWC (%) =
NPDES # =
Receiving Stream
CMUD-SUGAR CREEK
70
90.12
NC0024937
til1GA12 (:Rl';l:lti
Reasonable Potential Summary
Stream Classification
7Q1Os (cfs)=
30Q2 (cfs)
Qavg (cfs)
/° 3° 4°
(
0
0
0
3.4
8.7
47
Final Results:
Chromium /Jc ci.-r-e-ry .S.:,.c 3/0/
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
op.../ a 4/L
121.1 µg/l
55.5 µg/1
:Implementation
1Are all reported values less than?
'Is the detection limit acceptable?
No
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
Yes
Yes
:
. Monitoring
! Frequency
2/Month
1/2 FA V I
1022
µg/1
:. oppe)
120.5 µg/1
7.8 µg/1
:Implementation
'Are all reported values less than?
!Is the detection limit acceptable?
No
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
Ycs
!Monitoring
!Frequency
2/Month
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
1/2 FAV
7.3
µg/1
1
1/2 FAV
5.8
µg/1
I
C a� n � Z. S ,w—c.... 2/1, r
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
19.9 µg/I
5.5 µg/1
'Implementation
!Are all reported values less than?
'Is the detection limit acceptable?
No
Ycs
Limit?
Monitor?
Yes
Yes
Monitoring
1 Frequency
2/Month
1/2 FAV
22.0
µg/I
i
1/2 FAV
1.0
µg/t
'
Dioxin
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC pg/l
15.5 pg/l
'Implementation
lAre all reported values less than?
lIs the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
1 Monitoring
1 Frequency
None
Flouride
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/l
1997.4 µg/l
:Implementation
'Are all reported values less than?
!Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Ycs
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
i
' Monitoring
! Frequency
None
1 lexachlorobutadiene
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/I
51.2 µg/I
'Implementation
:Are all reported values less than?
'Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
1
i Monitoring
' Frequency
None
iron
Not a POC µg/I
1.1 µg/I
Implementation
'Are all reported values less than?
j1s the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
f
1 Monitoring
I Frequency
None
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Lead dIRQ L 5N,,,,1— ir'q
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
3.2 µg/1
27.7 µg/I
'Implementation
!Are all reported values less than?
Its the detection limit acceptable?
No
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
'
!Monitoring
1 Frequency
1
None
1/2 Fav
33.8
µg/1
1
1/2 FAV
221.0
µg/1
:
Manganese
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
Not a POC µg/1
'Implementation
!Are all reported values less than?
lIs the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
i
! Monitoring
I Frequency
None

Facility Name =
Qw (MGD) =
1WC(%) _
NPDES # =
Receiving Stream
C' 1I-U-SUGAR CREEK
20
90.12
N C:0024937
SUGAR CREEK
Reasonable Potential Summary
Stream Classification
7Q/Os (cfs)=
30Q2 (cfs)
Qavg (cfs)
C
0
0
3.4
S_7
47
Final Results:
MBAS ilmplementation i
Max. Pred Cw Not a POC µg/1 'Are all reported values less than? Yes Limit? No !Monitoring
Allowable Cw 554.8 µg/1 !Is the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? No I Frequency None
rIercury atk 4 'Implementation 1
Max. Pred Cw 0.1000 µg/1 iAre all reported values less than? Yes Limit? Yes i Monitoring
Allowable Cw 0.0133 µg/1 'Is the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? Yes i Frequency 2/Month
Nickel) !Implementation i
Max. Pred Cw 155.3 µg/1 'Are all reported values less than? No Limit? Yes I Monitoring
Allowable Cw 97.7 mil 'Is the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? Yes i Frequency 2/Month
1/2 FAV
261.0
µg/I _ '
1/2 FAV
75.0
µg/l ' I
Oil & Grease Ilmplementation 1
Max. Pred Cw Not a POC mg/L 'Are all reported values less than? Yes Limit? No ' Monitoring
Allowable Cw 33.3 mg/L ;ls the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? No Frequency None
i
PCB 'Implementation
Max. Pred Cw Not a POC µg/l !Are all reported values less than? Yes Limit? No !Monitoring
Allowable Cw 0.1109 µg/I Its the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? No 'Frequency None
Silver f1/41.0 cia-Me-re--, S. 1.--2-..- 2/o-a "Implementation i
Max. Pred Cw 41.0 µg/I 'Are all reported values less than? No Limit? No , Monitoring
Allowable Cw 0.1 µg/I !Is the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? Yes !Frequency 2/Month
1/2 FAV
1.2
µg/1 I 1
1/2 FAV
1.9
µg/1 i
y
Selenium 'Implementation
Max. Pred Cw Not a POC µg/1 1Are all reported values less than? No Limit? No , Monitoring
Allowable Cw 5.5 µg/1 Its the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? No I Frequency None
Tetrachloroethane 'Implementation I
Max Pred. Cw Not a POC µg/I 'Are all reported values less than? Yes Limit? No ' Monitoring
Allowable Cw 12.32 µg/1 'Is the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? No , Frequency None
Tetrachloroethylene !Implementation
Max Pred. Cw Not a POC µg/1 'Are all reported values less than? Yes Limit? No I Monitoring
Allowable Cw Not a POC µg/l iIs the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? No i Frequency None
Total Dissolved Solids !Implementation
Max Pred. Cw Not a POC mg/L !Are all reported values less than? Yes Limit? No !Monitoring
Allowable Cw Not a POC mg/L Iis the detection limit acceptable? Yes Monitor? No 1 Frequency None
1Lc

Facility Name =
Qw (MGD) =
IWC (%) _
NPDES # =
Receiving Stream
Final Results:
(MUD -SUGAR CREEK
20
90.12
NC0024937
SUGAR CREEK
Reasonable Potential Summary
Stream Classification
7010s (cfs)_
30Q2 (cfs)
Qavg (cfs)
Ia ,0 3° 4°
C
0
0
0
3.4
8.7
47
Toluene
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/l
9.9 µg/I
;Implementation
'Are all reported values less than?
Its the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
! Monitoring
I Frequency
None
Triaklyltin
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/l
0.0 µg/1
I Implementation
iAre all reported values less than?
'Is the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
I
I Monitoring
. Frequency
None
Trichloroethylene
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/I
93.9 µg/1
!Implementation
lAre all reported values less than?
jIs the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
i
I Monitoring
; Frequency
None
Turbidity
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not aPOC NTU
55.5 NTU
'Implementation
,Are all reported values less than?
IEs the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
'
! Monitoring
I Frequency
None
Vinyl Chloride
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Not a POC µg/1
526.5 µg/1
(Implementation
;Are all reported values less than?
iIs the detection limit acceptable?
Yes
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
No
I
; Monitoring
!Frequency
None
zinc.___,
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
221.1 µg/1
55.5 µg/1
!Implementation
IAre all reported values less than?
;Is the detection limit acceptable?
No
Yes
Limit?
Monitor?
No
Yes
�
I Monitoring
i Frequency
i
2/Month
1/2 FAV
67.0
µg/1
1
1/2 FAV
95.0
µg/1
I

Effluent Monitoring Data*
MONTH
NPDES # NAME PARAMETER NAME UNITS CODE Item
NC0024937 Total
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP FLOW MGD 50050 Avg.
Max.
Min.
CBOD, (5-DAY) 20C MG/L 80082 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 00530 Avg.
Max.
Min.
AMMONIA (AS N) MG/L 00610 Avg.
Max.
Min.
FECAL COLIFORM #/100ML 31616 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE UG/L 50060 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL NITROGEN (AS N) MG/L 00600 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (AS P) MG/L 00665 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TEMPERATURE (C) DEG.0 00010 Avg.
Max.
Min.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) MG/L 00300 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL CYANIDE (AS CN) UG/L 00720 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL CADMIUM (AS CD) UG/L 01027 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL CHROMIUM (AS CR) UG/L 01034 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL COPPER (AS CU) UG/L 01042 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL LEAD (AS PB) UG/L 01051 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL SILVER (AS AG) UG/L 01077 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL ZINC (AS ZN) UG/L 01092 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL MERCURY (AS HG) UG/L 71900 Avg.
Max.
Min.
Oct 1999 Nov 1999 Dec 1999 Jan 2000 Feb 2000 Mar 2000 Apr 2000 May 2000 Jun 2000 Ju12000 Aug 2000 Sep 2000 12-Month
Summary
16.0548 14.9366 14.2419 15.9096 15.2586 14.6451 15.1366 13.8935 13.771 14.0806 13.9548 14.32 14.684
28.3 20.5 18.3 22.8 26.3 24.8 24.3 15.3 16.6 20.6 17.2 22.5 28.3
12.6 13.2 12.9 11.5 13.4 12.8 13.1 12.6 13.2 12.9 11.6 12.7 11.5
1.93 1.66 2.67 5.26 3.83 4.28 1.38 3.12 1.48 3.71 2.54 2.37 2.853
6.5 3 4.8 8.8 12.6 9 4 6.4 3.9 7.6 5.3 5.7 12.6
0 0 0 2.7 2.1 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.4 2.1 3.3 8.6 4.6 5 2.8 2.2 1.1 5.1 2.8 2.6 3.800
24.5 4.8 10.7 24 30 30 8.5 6 2.8 20 12 7.2 30
1.2 0.7 1.2 2.4 1.4 1.5 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 0
0.46 0.69 0.24 1.12 0.17 0.64 0.2 0.1 0.01 021 0.2 0.07 0.343
2.8 3.6 1.1 3.6 1.6 11 4.1 1 0.4 3.1 2.1 0.6 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
125.1 33.3 62.6 502 20.4 7.7 27.8 101.7 67.9 58.4 53.2 26.3 42.239
6000 255 1550 6000 1100 110 240 3300 800 340 260 137 6000
13 9 10 1 0 0 5 16 6 16 16 0 0
1.333 0 0 0 2.095 1.043 0 0 1.772 1.7 1.826 0 0.814
23 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 8 6 7 0 24
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.9 11 9.7 11.1 13.9 9.1 10.85 102 14.566 16.55 15.15 11.911
8.9 11 9.7 11.1 0 13.9 9.1 10.9 10.4 16.3 17.3 16.5 17.3
8.9 11 9.7 11.1 0 13.9 9.1 10.8 10 11.3 15.8 13.8 0
4.5285 5.7047 5.6904 4.4578 2.862 6.2083 5.84 6.1681 6.5136 6.19 6.0521 6.4 5.551
6.4 7.3 6.5 6 4.3 7.9 72 7.2 7 7.7 72 8.7 8.7
2.5 4 4.8 2 1.9 3.7 4.3 4.9 5.4 4.8 4.8 4.1 1.9
23.85 21.66 18.89 1628 15.44 18.28 19.58 22.77 262 27.15 27.6 25.97 21.973
26 23 20 19 17.3 19.6 20.6 25 28 28 29 28 29
22 19 17 12.4 14 16.7 18 20 23 26 27 24 12.4
7.89 828 8.73 9.24 9.34 8.62 8.6 8.36 8.02 7.75 7.63 7.59 8.338
8.3 9 9.1 102 10 9 8.9 9.1 8.3 82 7.8 8.1 10.2
7.2 7.9 8.1 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.2 8 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2
0.71 1.2111 1 0.7444 1.5714 2.1 0.4375 0.41 0.2 1.78 1.74 1.31 1.101
3.1 2.7 4 2.4 4 4.1 2.8 1.9 1.1 3 4 2.9 4.1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9333 2.2 0 0.261
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.4 7.8 0 7.8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.3333 0 0 0 2 15.8 0 0 0 0 0 1.511
0 2 0 0 0 10 79 0 0 0 0 0 79
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 3.1666 5 11.3333 7.4 7.6 5.6 5.6 3.6 5.4666 6.6 6.8 6.014
6 7 7 24 19 13 7 9 5 8.5 9 9 24
3 0 4 6 4 4 5 3 3 0 5 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0.48 0.7666 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.146
0 0 2.4 4.6 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6
0 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34.6 58.5 74.4 69.1666 76.8 101.6 109.4 56.6 37.8 36.6666 35.8 30.4 60.144
60 70 107 97 128 154 180 89 49 45 44 39 180
0 47 65 51 0 38 62 42 28 30 25 22 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
effluentdatal.xds,DataSumm
*See separate sheets for pH and tmdcity data. 12/19/2001

Effluent Monitoring Data*
MONTH
NPDES # NAME PARAMETER NAME UNITS CODE Item
NC0024937 Total
NC0024937 CMUD • SUGAR CREEK WWTP FLOW MGD 50050 Avg.
Max.
Min.
CBOD, (5-DAY) 20C MG/I. 80082 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 00530 Avg.
Max.
Min.
AMMONIA (AS N) MG/L 00610 Avg.
Max.
Min.
FECAL COLIFORM #/100ML 31616 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE UG/L 50060 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL NITROGEN (AS N) MG/L 00600 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (AS P) MG/L 00665 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TEMPERATURE (C) DEG.0 00010 Avg.
Max.
Min.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) MG/L 00300 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL CYANIDE (AS CN) UG/L 00720 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL CADMIUM (AS CD) UG/L 01027 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL CHROMIUM (AS CR) UG/L 01034 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL COPPER (ASCU) UG/L 01042 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL LEAD (AS PB) UG/L 01051 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL SILVER (AS AG) UG/L 01077 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL ZINC (AS ZN) UG/L 01092 Avg.
Max.
Min.
TOTAL MERCURY (AS HG) UG/L 71900 Avg.
Max.
Min.
Oct 2000 Nov 2000 Dec 2000 Jan 2001 Feb 2001 Mar 2001 Apr 2001 May 2001 Jun 2001 Jul 2001 Aug 2001 Sep 2001 12-Month
Summary
13.903
12.5774 13.39 13.5354 13.6935 13.8928 15.4935 13.5633 13.7029 14.0546 13.689 14.2551 14.9893 13.903
16 16 15 18.8 19.8 28 15.6 18.97 20.1 19.77 16.47 23 28
9.3 11 12.4 11.8 11.4 10.9 11.1 9.33 12.33 11 11.87 11.99 9.3
1.53 2.79 3.46 3.59 2.76 3.74 2.87 2.35 2.46 1.89 2.54 2.725
4.1 5.4 5.7 6.4 5.7 11.9 4.6 4.9 5 0 4.5 6.9 11.9
0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.7 6.3 3.2 1.6 1.7 5.4 1.7 2 2 1.5 1.1 1.9 2.675
11 24.3 11.6 10.9 12.2 39 3.8 3.7 3.4 5.2 3.2 6.7 39
0 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0
0.17 0.3 0.16 0.23 0.01 02 0.36 0.2 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.55 0.229
2 2 0.8 1.6 0.3 1.4 5.7 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 2.5 5.7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33.9 50.3 19.8 8.9 6.1 53.7 56.9 84.7 27 24.3 20.8 13.1 25.746
1600 450 182 52 91 6000 15000 6000 1100 520 560 58 15000
3 17 1 0 0 4 2 6 7 1 4 2 0
0 0 0 0 3.05 2.5 0.95 0 1.523 3 0.869 0.526 1.035
0 0 0 0 14 9 8 0 12 11 10 10 14
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.35 12.3 14.1 11.75 12.64 10.05 10.32 11.25 11.76 12.4 11.625 12.12 12.139
18.7 13.08 14.8 12.4 19.5 11.6 11.3 12.4 12.7 14.1 13.6 13.3 19.5
12 11.52 13.4 11.1 10.6 9 9.6 10 10.7 11.5 9.7 10.4 9
6.2043 6.1954 5.8263 5.6 5.9333 5.1826 4.65 4.8695 2.9681 2.2047 2 2.1473 4.482
7.5 8.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.4 5.7 5.9 4.8 2.9 3 2.8 8.1
4.2 4.8 4.7 4.7 5.1 4.4 3.8 4.2 2.2 1.3 1 1.2 1
23.58 20.53 16.58 15.57 16.7 17.04 20.11 23.34 26.08 27.01 27.92 26.48 21.745
26 23.6 18.2 16.7 18.1 18.4 22.6 24.6 27.1 27.9 28.6 27.5 28.6
21.8 17 14.3 13.1 15.3 15.3 17.5 21.7 24.6 26 25.8 24.9 13.1
7.85 8.42 9.21 9.57 9.32 9.09 8.39 8.06 7.71 7.69 7.17 7.08 8.297
82 9.2 9.8 10 9.6 9.7 8.9 8.6 8.1 8 7.5 7.5 10
7.4 7.9 8.6 9.3 9 8.5 7.9 .7.4 7.5 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.6
1.1909 1.3555 1.97 0.9222 0.9636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.534
3.1 4.7 4 3.3 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.6625 0.4333 0 0.2333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.111
2.4 1.6 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.375 0 0.75 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.169
3 0 3 0 0 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.25 3.3333 7.85 5.1666 4.75 4.5666 5.72 3.65 3.52 3.34 4 4.3 4.787
18 7 12 6 5 5.6 9.1 4.7 4 3.6 4.7 52 18
3 0 4.7 4 4 42 3.1 3.1 2.6 32 32 3.4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44.375 36.3333 71.5 48 44.75 44.5 40 38.8333 37 30 30.5 38.8 42.049
81 42 110 88 47 57 50 43 50 35 32 46 110
31 33 34 36 42 35 34 34 29 23 29 32 23
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
effluentdata 1. xls, DataSumm
See separate sheets for pH and toxicity data. 12/19/2001

Effluent Monitoring Data - pH
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 199910 7.4 6.7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 199911 7.2 6.7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 199912 7.3 6.7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200001 7.1 6.4
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200002 7.1 6.6
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200003 7.2 6.4
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200004 7.4 6.9
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200005 7.3 6.9
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200006 7.6 7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200007 7.3 6.5
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200008 7.5 6.5
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200009 7.4 6.8
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200010 7.4 7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200011 7.6 7.1
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200012 7.5 6.9
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200101 7.5 7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200102 7.6 7.3
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200103 7.4 7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200104 7.6 6.9
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200105 7.3 6.8
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200106 7.3 6.9
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200107 7.4 6.7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200108 7.4 7
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP pH 00400 SU 200109 7.3 6.8
NC0024937 Count 24
effluentdatal.xls,pH
12/19/2001

Effluent Monitoring Data - Toxicity
NPDES # FACILITY NAME
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
NC0024937 Total
PARAMETER NAME
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
CHRONIC TOX,
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
P/F 7DAY CERIODAPHNIA
CODE UNITS MONTH RESULT
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 199910 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 199911 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 199912 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200001 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200002 PASS
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200003 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200004 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200005 100
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200006 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200007 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200008 PASS
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200009 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200010 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200011 PASS
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200012 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200101 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200102 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200103 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200104 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200105 PASS
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200106 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200107 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200108 NO DATA
TGP3B PASS/FAIL 200109 NO DATA
effluentdatal . xls,Toxicity
12/19/2001

SCDHEC Ammonia Toxicity Calculation
Based on 1999 EPA Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia as adopted by S.C. DHEC R.61-68
promulgated December 14, 2000 pending approval by S.C. General Assembly and U.S. EPA
Division of Water Quality
April 23, 2001
Discharger Name:
Receiving Stream:
Date:
Analyst:
CMUD - Sugar Creek
Little Sugar Creek
May 15, 2002
Michael Myers
Input Data
Upstream Flow (cfs):
Upstream Total Ammonia Concentration (mg N/L):
Stream Temperature, Summer (deg. C):
Stream Temperature, Winter (deg. C):
Stream pH:
Discharge Flow (mgd):
Are Salmonids Present? (yes/no):
Are Fish ELS Present? (yes/no):
3.4
0.22
26
13
7.5
20
No
Yes
Instream Total Ammonia Toxicity Results
Season:
Criterion Maximum Concentration, CMC (mg N/L):
Criterion Continuous Concentration, CCC (mg N/L):
Summer
19.890
2.082
Winter
19.890
4.364
Discharge Total Ammonia Results
Season:
Max. Conc. Protecting Against Acute Toxicity (mg N/L):
Max. Conc. Protecting Against Chronic Toxicity (mg N/L):
Summer
22.05
2.29
Winter
22.05
4.82

RTC
CHARLOTTEsm
March 2, 2001
Mr. Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NC DENR / Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Renewal of NPDES Permit NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Weaver,
)IEllVE
MAR — 7
2001
POINT SOURCE RANCH
This cover letter and attached NPDES Permit Application constitute our request to renew the subject
NPDES Permit that expires on August 31, 2001. We are sending the original letter and completed
application form and two additional copies of each as directed. We understand that no renewal fee
payment is required as part of this application and that this package includes all that is required of us
to apply for this renewal.
Sugar Creek WWTP currently operates under an NPDES Permit that became effective November 1,
1996. Due to the need modernize the facility, concerns from adjoining neighborhoods for odor
control and increased awareness of capacity challenges during storm events, several upgrades and
structural verifications have been completed in this time. These changes include:
❑ New Preliminary treatment facility for screening and grit removal;
❑ Four new Influent lift pumps. Two with variable frequency drive (VFD)
o The trickling filters have been taken off-line and there are no current plans to rehabilitate and
re -start the;
❑ Two of the older small aeration tanks had small bubble diffusion systems added;
❑ Changed the air distribution system in the aeration tanks 6 — 11 to fine bubble diffusers;
❑ Installed new process blowers;
o Constructed two new secondary clarifiers. The four smaller existing secondary clarifier are still
in use with the two new;
❑ Constructed new anthracite filters
o Added dechlorination capability with sodium bi-sulfite;
o A cascade aerator was added at the effluent. When the cascade aerator was added, the
existing discharge point was filled and sealed. The pipe out of the cascade aerator is the only
discharge from Sugar Creek WWTP;
❑ The four existing anaerobic digesters were cleaned out and abandoned. All sludge is now
pumped to McAlpine Creek WWTP for treatment and thickening before disposal. Digesters
Environmental Management Division 5100 Brookshire Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28216
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities

•
CO)
CHARLOTTEsM
number one is used in case of pump failure, or a problem at McAlpine Creek UWVfP. The
remaining three abandoned digesters can be used for sludge storage, if needed.
❑ Constructed a Waste Activity Sludge (WAS) pump station to pump the WAS to McAlpine
Creek VW TP;
❑ Constructed a Primary Sludge pump station station to pump the primary sludge out of the
primary clarifiers to McAlpine Creek WVVfP
❑ The existing drying beds have been taken out of commission;
❑ The sludge storage tanks located above the drying beds have been cleaned out and
abandoned;
❑ Odor Control facilities have been installed. This includes covers over the treatment plant
headworks, primary clarifiers, incoming trunklines and selected manholes. The air from these
structures is vacuumed out to scrubbers using sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide.
Please confirm your receipt of this application. Please let me know if you need additional
information or clarification. I can be reached at [phone] or jjarrellAci.charlotte.nc.us. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
r
cqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Superintendent of Environmental Management Division
Cc: Dawn Padgett
Roy Purgason
File
Environmental Management Division 5100 Brookshire Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28216
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities

• NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Allied Metal Finishing, Incorporated
Street address 2525 Lucena Street
City Charlotte
State NC
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
County Mecklenburg
Zip Code 28206
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Copper Electroplated Products
Copper Sulfate, Boric Acid
160 batches
Ranging in 10 to
60 pieces
depending on the
size
Nickel Electroplated Products
Nickel Sulfate, Nickel Chloride, Nickel Plus II,
Same as Above
Same as above
Chrome Electroplated Products
SC 359, MLK-LC-15, AS-10, SB Maints, Cuplex
AC Maints
Same as above
Same as bove
Some or all are included in all finishing
procedures
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.020 MGD
x Continuous
4 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Barnhardt Manufacturing Company
Street address 1100 and 1200 Hawthorne Lane
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28205
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Pipe 001 -Bleached cotton
Cotton, peroxide, caustic
75,000 (batch)
Lbslday
Pipe 002 - Bleached cotton
Cotton, peroxide, caustic
50,000
(continuous)
Lbslday
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
Pipe 001
Pipe 002
0.700 MGD
0.400 MGD
x Intermittent
x Continuous
5 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU C & T Refinery, LLC
Street address 5000 South Blvd.
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28217
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address [e-mail]
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Soybean Oil
1,440,000
LbsJday max
Canola Oil
1,440,000
LbsJday max
Cottonseed Oil
1,440,000
Lbs./day max
Peanut Oil
1,440,000
LbsJday max
Palm Oil
1,440,000
LbsJday max
Coconut or Pa Kernel Oil
600,000
LbsJday max.
Total annual capacity of finished oil product is 460,000,000 lbs.
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.290MGD
x Continuous
6 of 36

o NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Carolinas HealthCare System — Linen Services
Street address 2828 North Poplar
City Charlotte
State NC
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
County Mecklenburg
Zip Code 28206
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Clean Laundry
1 million
Lbs/month
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.200 MGD
x Continuous
7 of 36

• NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 11! for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Catawba-Charlab, Inc.
Street address 5046 Old Pineville Road
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
Zip Code 28217
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Textile Processing Assistants
16,000,000
Lbs./year
Textile Scouring Compounds and
wetting agents
9,000,000
Lbs./year
Softeners (textile assistants)
4,500,000
Lbs./year
Aqueous Color Dispersions (pigments,
vat dyes)
2,500,000
Lbs./year
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.005 MGD
X Intermittent and x Continuous
8 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Charleston Spar, Inc.
Street address 3901 Pine Grove Circle
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28206
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address [e-mail]
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Aluminum Sail Boat Mast
10
Per day
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.025 MGD
x Continuous
9 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Consolidated Engravers
Street address 311 East 12th Street
City Charlotte
State NC
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
County Mecklenburg
Zip Code 28206
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Emboss and Anilox Rolls
Copper and nickel anodes, sulfuric, sulfuric,
chromic, and nitric add. Chrome oxide powder,
stainless steel wire
201day
rolls
Gravure/Textile Copper Print Rolls
Copper anodes, nickel anodes, chromic acid,
sulfuric acid, sulfamic acid, xylene, pm acetate,
photo resist, ferric chloride, hydrochloric acid.
10/day
rolls
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
.016 MGD X Intermittent Continuous
10 of 36

• NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU: Excel Electronics, INC.
Street address 513 West Twenty -Fourth Street,
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
Zip Code 28206
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Printed Circuit Boards
Copper clad glass laminates, electrotess and
electrolytic, etching, photo imaging and Mask
Screening.
8,000-10,000
Week
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.008 MGD
x Continuous
11 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Fab -Tech Industries, Inc.
Street address 1709 University Commercial Place
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28273
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Metal cabinets racks and brackets
Steel, Sheet metal, phosphating agents and
paint
200
pieces
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.006 MGD
x Continuous
12 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Federal Textile Engravers
Street address 810 Moretz Avenue
City Charlotte
State NC
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
County Mecklenburg
Zip Code 28206
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Textile Screens
Blank screens, photo emulsion
25
Saeenslday
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.002 MGD
x Intermittent
13 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Hardcoatings, Inc.
Street address
2601 Lucena St.
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28206
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Anodized Aluminum Parts
Raw Aluminum
18
Batches/day
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.009 MGD
x Continuous
14 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Haz-Mat Transportation and Disposal, Inc.
Street address 210 Dalton Avenue
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28237
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Pumping, transportation and
pretreatment of petroleum contact
water
15,000
Gallons/day
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.020 MGD
x Continuous
15 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Highland Mills, INC
Street address 340 East 16t
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28206
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Ladies Nylon Hosiery and Children's
Tights
Nylon, Elastic, Non -toxic Dyes, Packaging
Materials.
70,000 Dozen
Week
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.075MGD
x Continuous
16of36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Unidema dba ICI Americas
Street address 2130 North Tryon Street
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28206
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Proxel GXL
Proxel Press Paste, caustic soda beads,
dipropylene glycol (DPG), water
70,000
Lbs/day
Proxel BD20
Proxel Press Paste, antifoam A, keltrol RD,
Uitrazine NA, water
4,000,000
Lbs/yr
Milease T
Milease T copolymer,
antioxidant Oloa, water
28,000
Lbslday
Milease T copolymer
Polyethylene glycol, PET chips
3,000,000
Lbs/yr
Industrial Blends/Surfactant Blends
Intermediate products brought site
6,000,000
Lbs/yr
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.0075 MGD
X Continuous
17 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section III for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Keeter-Dixon-Pearre
Street address 1706 North Brevard St.
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28206
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Wiping Cloths
Scrap fabric
25,000
Ibs/week
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.020 MGD
x Continuous
18 of 36

• NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Knight Publishing
Street address 600 South Tryon Street
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28212
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Print & Publish Newspapers
1.33
Production
capacity factor
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.034 MGD
x Continuous
19 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section Ill for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Murray Biscuit Company
Street address 933 Louis Ave
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28204
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Cookies, crackers and brownies.
Flour, Sugar, Shortening, molasses, raisins,
nuts, chocolate chips.
6,800—to 7,227
Max cases per
shift.
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.014 MGD
x Continuous
20 of 36

• NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION I11. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU National Linen Service
Street address 365 Dalton Avenue
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28206
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address www.national-linen.com
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Dry fold items
Orthotex, Super Bright, F11, Brite Lite RU,
D775, Spec. Starch, DiaSize, Colraway, Tru
Sour, Fluffit, Brite 2000, Bleach
158022
Pounds a week
Cleaned Garments
Same as above
28724
Pounds a week
Dust control
Same as above
91838
Pounds a week
Cleaned boners
Same as above
242969
Pounds a week
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.330 MGD
x Continuous
21 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Norfolk Southern Railway
Street address 312 Liddell St..
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28206
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Railroad maintenance equipment
Used railroad repair machines
81
Machineslyear
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.0075 MGD
x Continuous
22 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 11I. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Pepsi Cola Bottling of Charlotte
Street address 2820 South Boulevard
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28209
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Caffeine Free
Pepsi, Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi, Wild
Cheery Pepsi, Pepsi One
Sodium Saccharin, Sodium Benzoate, Potassium
Benzoate, Aspartame, Citric Acid, Caffeine,
Ascorbic Acid, Sodium Citrate, Erythobic Add,
Red #40, Polyethylene Glycol, Phosphoric Add
Tartaric Acid, Ethyl Alcohol, Propylene Glycol,
Acesulfame Potassium malic Acid.
Maximum of
10000 cases a
day
8bottles to a 2
liter case
6 bottles to a 3
liter case
24 bottles to a 20
& 16 oz case
7 Up, Cheery 7Up, Diet Cheery 7Up,
Diet 7up
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Mountain Dew
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Sunkist Orange& Fruit Punch
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Sweppes Ginger Ale & NuGrape
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.062 MGD X Intermittent x Continuous 80% continuous Flow/ 20% batch
23 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Rohm and Haas Company
Street address 6101 Orr Road
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28213
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Latex Emulsions
200 MM LBSIYr
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.069 MGD
x Continuous
24 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU: Southeastern Metal Products.
Street address 1420 Metals Drive
City Charlotte
State NC
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
County Mecklenburg
Zip Code 28206
[phone]
[phone]
N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Fabricated and Stamped Metal Parts
Custom per Order.
Varies Greatly
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.0208 MGD
x Continuous
25 of 36

- NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Unifirst Corporation
Street address 1901 Equitable Place
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28213
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Industrial Laundry
21322
Pounds of
washing product
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.100 MGD
x Continuous
26 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 111. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Water Systems
Street address 4302 Raleigh Street
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28213
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Well Water Tanks
50per day
20 gal tanks
700 per day
2 gal tanks
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.015 MGD
X Continuous
27 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION I11. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section !!! for each Significant industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
Name of SIU Woonsocket Spinning Company
Street address 4701 Monroe Road
City Charlotte County Mecklenburg
State NC Zip Code 28205
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail address N/A
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or
consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories
should use the units of measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
Cashmere, Camel Hair, Wool Fiber
3,000 ibs of yam
per 24 hr
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or
continuous
0.045 MGD
x Continuous
28 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment A — Page 1 of 6
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Present Operating Status
Two (2) 54-inch interceptors that deliver approximately 20 MGD to the Facility serve Sugar Creek
WWTP The collection system covers approximately 100 square miles of the Charlotte area.
The wastewater passes through the Screening and Grit Removal Facility, Building #13. The Facility
contains three (3) FMC Bar Screens rated at 35 mgd each, and two (2) Pista Grit removal systems; each
unit is rated at 50 mgd each. Screened material and grit are removed weekly to the local landfill. This
building is also connected to the Facility Odor Control Facility, a field fan producing airflow of
approximately 35,000 cfm is used to ventilate and withdraw odors from the structure. Influent flow
measurement and Influent sampling are taken as the flow leaves the structure.
The Main Pump Station, Building #3, contains two (2) 10,500 gpm VFD pumps, one (1) 10,500 gpm
pump, and one (1) 6,250 gpm pump. This pumping facility lifts the influent flow to Manhole #9,
Distribution Box for the Primary Clarifiers.
Excess flow that is not treated in the Sugar Creek Facility is diverted to a 54" bypass line to the
McAlpine Creek WWTD through Manhole "D". The flow is controlled by a flow control weir wall
built into the manhole, a motorized valve placed at the bottom of the weir wall and used to lower the
level in the manhole if necessary, and by the pump combination in service. The Facility is base loaded
at a flow rate of approximately 15 mgd and the rest of the influent flow, approximately one quarter of
the total flow measured at the headworks of the Facility, is bypassed for treatment to the McAlpine
Creek Facility.
Wastewater is distributed to four (4) primary clarifiers, each measure 110 feet in diameter, 9 feet deep,
and with a capacity of 639,540 gallons each. The primary clarifiers are covered with Vapor Guard for
odor control; two field fans are used to pull the off gases to the odor scrubber. Raw/primary sludge
collected from the primary clarifiers is pumped to McAlpine Creek WWTP. The Raw Sludge Pump
Station, Building #18 houses four (4) Moyno progressive cavity pumps with a pumping rate of 100 gpm
each. The raw sludge is pumped 24 hours a day to McAlpine Creek WWTP. through an eight (8) inch
pipeline. Provisions have been made for temporary storage of Raw Sludge in Storage Tank #1. Any
stored material can be returned to the influent of the Sugar Creek Facility or drained by gravity to the
54" McAlpine Creek bypass line.
Currently the Trickling Filters are out of service due to mechanical failures, however the units are
deemed not necessary for operation of the Facility.
Wastewater flows to the Activated Sludge basins through Manholes 18, 19, 20, and. There are eight (8)
aeration basins available, two (2) of the smaller aeration basins and six (6) of the larger basins. The
smaller basins are 253 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 10.87 feet deep with a capacity of 308,560 gallons
each are used intermittently for operations and for high flow events. The larger basins are 242 feet long,
27 feet wide, and 14 feet deep with a capacity of 684,240 gallons each and are in service continuously.
Process air is provided by a combination of blowers, one (1) single stage centrifugal rated at 12,500 cfm
each, two- (2) multi stage centrifugal rated at 12,500 cfm each, and two (2) positive displacement units
rated at 5,000 cfm. All of the aeration basins are equipped with fme bubble diffusers.
A Sodium Hydroxide storage and feed station with a total capacity of 6,000 gallons is used for pH
adjustment in the aeration basins. Two chemical feed pumps, with capacity of 500 gpd are located in
Building #17.
29 of 36

' NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment A — Page 2 of 6
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Present Operating Status
The mixed liquor suspended solids is split between two (2) sets of final/secondary clarifiers. The four
(4) smaller clarifiers are 85 feet in diameter, 8.5 sidewall depth, and have a capacity of 360,800 gallons
each. The larger set of (2) clarifiers are 140 feet in diameter, 15 feet deep, and have a capacity of 1.7
million gallons each. Approximately 40% of the flow is directed to the smaller final clarifiers and the
remainder is directed to the larger final clarifiers.
There are eight (8) return activated sludge pumps located at the smaller final clarifiers, two (2) dedicated
per clarifier, also there are two (2) return activated sludge pumps located in building #7 that can be
placed into service. The larger final clarifiers have a separate pump station, Building #14, that is
equipped with three (3) return activated sludge pumps. All return activated sludge re-enters the
activated sludge system at manhole #19 along with any surface scum collected from the final clarifiers.
Waste activated sludge is removed from either Final Clarifiers #5 or #6 and is pumped to McAlpine
Creek WWTP for further stabilization. Building #14 contains two (2) progressive cavity pumps, rated at
450 gpm, used to pump the waste activated sludge to McAlpine Creek via an 8" line. Currently, waste
activated sludge is being pumped at a rate of 200,000 gallons a day to meet the process control demands
of the facility.
The wastewater flow streams from each set of final clarifiers combine at the Chlorine Contact tank.
Gaseous chlorine is used as the disinfection agent. Sodium Bisulfite is used as the de -chlorination
agent, it is injected post -final filtration.
A deep bed declining rate filter provides Tertiary Treatment. Anthracite is used as the media.
The effluent passes through a metering chamber that contains a F&P mag meter. This meter is
designated as the Facility's meter of record. The wastewater enters the cascade aerator prior to entering
the receiving stream, Little Sugar Creek.
30 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment A — Page 3 of 6
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Present Operating Status
Equipment and Tankage is presented in order of the Flow Train
Preliminary Treatment
Building #13
(3) FMC Bar Screens
(2) Pista Grit Vortex Units
(2) Grit Classifiers
(1) Conveyor System
Manhole D Excess Flow Diversion to McAlpine Creek Facility
Main Pump Station
Building #3
(2) Variable Frequency Drive Lift Pumps
150 HP
10,500 gpm
(1) Lift Pump
150 HP
10,500 gpm
(1) Lift Pump
100 HP
6,250 gpm
Primary Treatment
Primary Clarifiers
(4) Primary Clarifier Basins
Diameter 110 feet
Depth 9 feet sidewall depth
Capacity 639,540 gallons
31 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment A — Page 4 of 6
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Present Operating Status
Raw/Primary Sludge Storage
(1) Storage Tank
Diameter 85 feet
Sidewall Depth 22 feet
Capacity 1.2 million gallons
Raw/Primary Sludge Pump Station (to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
Building #18
(4) Moyno Progressive Cavity Pumps
100 gpm
Secondary Treatment
Trickling Filters (bypassed due to mechanical problems and are not needed for process control)
(4) 105 feet in diameter
4.25 feet
8,560 square feet surface area
Aeration Basin, West
Basins #1, #2, #3 inactive
253 feet long
15 feet wide
10.87 feet deep
308,560 gallons capacity each
Basin #4 & #5 Standby
253 feet long
15 feet wide
10.87 feet deep
308,560 gallons capacity each
Aeration Basins, East
Basins #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, & #11
242 feet long
24 feet wide
14 feet deep
684,240 gallons capacity each
Active
32 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment A — Page 5 of 6
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Present Operating Status
Process Air Equipment
(2) Positive Displacement Blowers
Roots
250 HP
5,000 cfin
(2) Multi Stage Centrifugal
Lamson
400 HP
12,500 cfm
(1) Single Stage Centrifugal
Turbiex
400 HP
12,500 cfm
Sodium Hydroxide (25%) pH Adjustment
(2) 3,000 gallon Storage Tanks
(2) Chemical Feed Pumps
Secondary/Final Clarification
Secondary Clarifiers, West
Basins #1, #2, #3, & #4 Active
85 feet diameter
8.5 foot sidewall depth
360,800 gallons capacity each
Secondary Clarifiers, East
Basins #5 & #6
140 feet diameter
15 foot sidewall depth
1.7 million gallon capacity each
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Secondary Clarifiers, West
(8) Gorman Rupp Pumps
25 HP
1389 Gpm
(1) Fairbanks Morris (Building #7)
60 Hp
3960 Gpm
(1) Fairbanks Morris (Building #8)
30 Hp
2660 Gpm
33 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment A - Page 6 of 6
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Present Operating Status
Secondary Clarifiers, East
(3) ITT Pumps
4,865 gpm
Waste Activated Sludge Pump Station
Building #14 — Pumped to McAlpine Creek WWTP
(2) Moyno Progressive Cavity Pumps
100 gpm
Disinfection, Chlorine
(3) Scales with three (3) 2,000 lbs cylinders manifolded together
(6) Storage for six addition cylinders
(1) W / T Chlorinator, 1,000 lbs/day
(1) W / T Chlorinator, 2,000 lbs/day
*Note — Chlorine solution is also used for algae control at each of the Final Clarifiers.
*Note — Chlorine solution will be used in the future Wet Weather Flow Equalization Basin.
Dechlorination, Sodium Bisulfite
(1) 8,500 gallon Fiberglass container in spill containment
(2) Chemical Feed Pumps
Tertiary Treatment
(1) Deep Bed filter using anthracite
(10) cells
(4) Effluent Filter Lift Pumps
9600 gpm
(2) Back Wash Submersible Pumps
(2) Back Wash Blowers
(3) Plant Water Pumps
Cascade Aerator
34 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment B
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Potential Facility Changes
Disinfection Alternatives
Evaluations of disinfection alternatives (in lieu of chlorine) are currently being investigated. A selection
and design will proceed within the next year.
Stand-by Power
Construction on this project has begun. The facility is scheduled to have two power generators installed.
Either generator will have the capacity to power the entire treatment facility. This project should be
completed by July, 2002.
Equalization Tank
An equalization tank to take excess flow during storm events is currently under construction. This basin
will contain a total of 20 million gallons of wastewater, there is three million gallons of storage in the
front basin and 17 million gallons of storage in the back basin. Completion of this project is expected in
the next 12-months.
Effluent Re -Use Project
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is negotiating a contract with an area golf course that will provide
treated effluent to them for irrigation. This would re -place the existing potable water irrigation system
located at the golf course. Efforts are underway to identify and add other customers.
35 of 36

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
Attachment C
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant — NPDES Permit #NC0024937
Narrative Description — Sludge Management Plant
Sugar Creek WWTP has decommissioned their sludge drying beds and have cleaned out the anaerobic
digesters and sludge storage tanks. Currently, primary sludge and Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) are
pumped to the McAlpine Creek WWTP thickening facilities and then pumped to the anaerobic digesters
for treatment before dewatering.
The Primary Sludge is pumped in an 8" line that has been placed on top of the 54" by-pass line from
Sugar Creek WWTP to McAlpine Creek WWTP. The sludge is pumped continuously at approximately
0.5% solids. The pumps are located in the Raw/Primary Sludge pump station using four Moyno
progressive gravity pumps that are rated at 100 gpm each. The approximate flow from this waste stream
to McAlpine is 500,000 gpd..
WAS from the secondary clarifiers is also pumped to McAlpine Creek WWTP in a separate 8" line that
is located in the same right-of-way as the 54" bypass line from Sugar Creek WWTP to McAlpine Creek
WWTP. The WAS is pumped intermittently, depending on the wasting rate for that day. The WAS is
thickened at McAlpine Creek WWTP and stabilized before disposal. The average WAS flow from
Sugar Creek WWTP to McAlpine Creek WWTP is 200,000 gpd.
In the case of pump failure or if McAlpine Creek WWTP is unable to handle the sludges from Sugar for
any reason, one of the existing and abandoned digesters may be used for emergency sludge storage.
Digester #1 is currently designed to handle this type of emergency condition. If there is a longer term
need for sludge storage, the remaining three existing and abandoned digesters may be used for storage.
The total, potential, sludge storage capability at Sugar Creek WWTP is approximately 4.8 million
gallons.
Sludge that has been stored in the Sugar Creek WWTP existing digester/storage tank(s), is removed by
gravity flow to the existing influent pump lift station or directly to the McAlpine Creek 54" by-pass line.
Due to the Sugar Creek WWTP sludge being treated and disposed out of the McAlpine Creek WWTP, a
copy of Attachment E, Narrative Description — Sludge Management Plan, from the McAlpine Creek
WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024970 Application that was submitted to your office June 1, 2000 is
included with this application.
36 of 36

Attachment E
Narrative Description — Sludge Management Plan
McAlpine Creek WWTP
A Residuals Management Plan was prepared for McAlpine Creek WWTP in 1995 in
conjunction with the NPDES Permit application for expansion to 64 mgd. The plan
describes how residuals will be stabilized, how 503 Class B requirements or Process to
Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP) requirements will be satisfied, and includes an
evaluation of storage requirements.
Since the time the Residuals Management Plan was prepared, several changes have taken
place. The Residual Management Facility (RMF) discussed in the Plan has been
completed and placed into service. This facility can produce lime stabilized and/or
composted material from dewatered biosolids. In 1998/99, Utilities used a competitive
process to obtain a 10-year contract with a private service provider for the management
of dewatered residuals from all of our five wastewater plants and three water plants. The
contract with BioGro began July 1, 1999.
The BioGro contract provides for guaranteed beneficial reuse /disposal of all biosolids
produced at the five wastewater plants for the ten year term of the contract. The
contractor has the responsibility for managing the reuse/disposal within the scope of the
agreement. Unit prices are established for land application, lime stabilization,
composting, and land -filling (material not suitable for other options). In addition, the
contractor guarantees a maximum "blended" unit price for each year as an incentive to
utilize the most cost effective methods. The prices are escalated each year based on
consumer price index fluctuations. The contractor's performance is guaranteed by
bonding and by a corporate "guarantor."
The scope of the BioGro contract includes overall planning and management of the
residuals program, receiving dewatering material at each plant site, managing and
maintaining Utility supplied storage facilities, providing additional storage facilities if
required, locating land and obtaining permits for land application sites, marketing and
sale of lime stabilized and composted material, land application of material, operation
and maintenance of the RMF, providing landfill space as necessary, and preparation of
required reports. In the event that one or more of the identified options (land application,
compost, etc) becomes unfeasible, the contractor remains obligated to re -use or dispose
of the biosolids from each plant.
Another change has been the construction of sludge storage facilities at three of the
wastewater plants. Covered storage space has been provided at Mallard Creek and Irwin
Creek WWTP's. Each of those facilities was designed to accommodate up to 90 days of
production from that plant. At McAlpine, this type of storage was not practical due to the
large surface area that would be required. Therefore, storage bins or silos were
constructed which can provide between 7- 14 days of storage capacity. There is also
storage capacity available in the RMF. Under the BioGro contract terms, BioGro is
McAlpine Creek VWVTP NPDES Permit No. NC0024970

responsible for managing the storage space and always ensuring that there is at least a
required minimum space available to receive material. They are able to do this by
operation of the RMF, appropriate operation of the land application program, and
occasionally storing material at Mallard or Irwin that is produced at other plants.
McAlpine Creek WWTP has also begun receiving primary sludge and waste activated
sludge from the Sugar Creek WWTP via two 8" diameter pipelines. The Sugar Creek
material is combined with the McAlpine Creek material for digestion, dewatering, and
disposal.
Sludge is anaerobically digested at McAlpine before dewatering via high -solids
centrifuges. Please refer to Attachment A — Plant Description — Present Operating Status
for more description of the digestion and dewatering systems.
McAlpine Creek W NTP NPDES Permit No. NC0024970

Overflow Chamber
• to McAlpine WWTP
iScreening and Grit
1
Removal
00
Centralized
Odor Scrubber
Pad
Main Lift Station
4 Primary Sludge
WAS
♦♦♦
McAlpine Creek
WWTP
Four Primary
Clarifiers
Primary
Sludge
Emergency
Storage
Cascade
Aerator
Primary sludge
Pump Station A
Trickling filters
are off-line and
bypassed
Caustic
�— Feed 0
Four Trickling
Filters
RAS
Aeration Basins
eleven (11) total
4—Scum Line
WAS Pump
Station
04
(Two Large
Secondary
Clarifiers and four
small Secondary
Clarifiers
Backwash
Return
Chlorine
Contact
Tank
Effluent
Meter and
De-Chlor
Feed Point
Effluent Filter and Plant
water Pump Station
Attachment D
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant - NPDES Permit #NCO24937

e
NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request 1/26/2001
Facility
CMUD - Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Permit #
NC0024945
Region
Mooresville Regional Office
Requestor
Mike Myers
Pretreatment Keyes McGee (ext. 580)
Contact
FMP# 5464
PRETREATMENT
Status
UNIT COMPLETES
of Pretreatment Program (circle all
1) the facility has no
2) the facility has no
3) the f
THIS PART:
that apply)
SIU's and does have a Division approved
SIU's and does not have a Division
Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
approved Pretreatment Program
Program with STMP
Full Modified
or listed below
elo in ) a Pretreatment Program
2a) is Full Program with LTMP or 2b) is Modified
Flow
% Industrial
% Domestic
4) t e aci
5) additional
Permitted
12.09
1 y b 1
conditions
cteve op a Pretreatment
regarding
Actual
12.2
Program -
Pretreatment attached
87.9
87.8
L
(S)
T
MP
Pollutant
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/Non-
Discharge
Permit Limit
Required
by EPA'
Required by
603 Sludge"
POC due to SW"'
Site specific POC (Provide Explanation)****
STMP
Frequency at
effluent
LTMP
Frequency at
effluent
BOD
N/A
Alternating Days
C-BOD
N/A
Alternating Days
TSS
N/A
Alternating Days
NH3
N/A
Alternating Days
TN
N/A
Alternating Days
TP
N/A
Alternating Days
Arsenic
N/A
Alternating Days
Cadmium
N/A
Alternating Days
Chromium
N/A
Alternating Days
Copper
N/A
Alternating Days
Cyanide
N/A
Alternating Days
Lead
N/A
Alternating Days
Mercury
N/A
Alternating Days
Molybdenum
N/A
Alternating Days
Nickel
N/A
Alternating Days
Silver
N/A
Alternating Days
Selenium
N/A
Alternating Days
Zinc
N/A
Alternating Days
'Always in the LTMP
"Only in the LTMP if the POTW land applies sludge
***Only in LTMP while the SIU is connected to the POTW
"" Only in LTMP when the pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ex -Chlorides for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
Q= Quarterly
M=Monthly
PIRF_CMUD_Irwin1
Revised: August 4, 2000

February 22, 2000
Note to File
Subject Sites:
Sugar Creek WWTP
Irwin Creek WWTP
McAlpine Creek WWTP
Mallard Creek WWTP
McDowell Creek WWTP
NPDES PERMIT NC0024937
NPDES PERMIT NC0024945
NPDES PERMIT NC0024970
NPDES PERMIT NC0030210
NPDES PERMIT NC0036277
RE: Application of lh FAV Calculation to the Subject
Sites
Joe has revised Maximum Daily Load effluent limits for only those parameters where
values increased (i.e. became less stringent) applying the latest V2 FAV calculations (see
Sue Wilson's memo dated January 2, 2000). Because this was "a minor mod at the
request of the permittee for revision of cyanide only," parameter values that would have
become more stringent, were not upgraded (per Dave Goodrich).
Therefore upon renewal of these permits, the next permit writer must
upgrade the other Daily Maximum parameters to the latest calculations.
Joe Corporon
NPDES Unit
cc. to each subject permit file