NC0024937_Permit Issuance_19961004

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance,'
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
October 4, 1996
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 4, 1996
Mr. J. Reed Atkinson, Superintendent
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28216
Subject: NPDES Permits Issuance
Permit No. NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP
Permit No. NC0024945
Irwin Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit Modification
Permit No. NC0024970
McAlpine Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Atkinson:
In accordance with the discharge permit applications received on March 4, 1996, the Division is
forwarding herewith the subject NPDES permits. These permits are 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 December 6, 1983.
The preceding paragraph refers specifically to permit numbers NC0024937 (Sugar Creek WWTP)
and NC0024945 (Irwin Creek WWTP). However, this letter responds to comments made in your
September 5, 1996 letter which addresses permit number NC0024970 (McAlpine Creek WWTP) as well.
Therefore. issues and concerns that apply to one, two, or all three of the permits referenced above are
addressed in this letter. The format of this letter is similar to the September 5, 1996 letter so that CMUD
can easily reference their comments and questions.
As was mentioned during the September 23, 1996 meeting at the Mooresville Regional Office
between Division and CMUD staff, Sugar Creek, Irwin Creek, and McAlpine Creek WWTPs should have
identical Instream Monitoring Requirements pages which should not contain a (U2) sample point. The
(U2) sample point is from an earlier version of the Instream Monitoring Requirements. Please disregard
any Instream Monitoring Requirements pages except the one that references 11 monitoring stations.
The McAlpine Creek WWTP permit has been modified to reflect the new stream monitoring plan and
the modified permit (including the standard Instream Monitoring Requirements page) is included in this
package.
As was agreed upon during the September 23, 1996 meeting, Tom Hunter will examine the stream
monitoring report form developed by the Division and develop a revised form to best suit CMUD's
reporting needs. Instream monitoring requirements for Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek and McAlpine Creek
WWTPs are identical and results from all 11 stations which correspond to the monitoring requirements of
all three WWTPs will be reported on the same type of form. All instream monitoring data will be
submitted with the DMR data for McAlpine Creek WWTP. CMUD will reference the McAlpine Creek
DMR on the Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek DMRs. Finally, it was agreed that CMUD would submit an
electronic copy of instream monitoring data to the Division on an annual basis.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

\Ir.
Atktt-0:i
October 4. 1996
hake 2
The mercury discussion was both informative and helpful. Because most laboratories' quantitation
limits for mercury are greater than the limits specified in the permits, the Division has added the following
footnote to the Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek WWTP permits: "The detection limit for mercury is 0.2 µg/1.
If the measured levels of mercury are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be
zero for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as < 0.2 µg/1."
It was also agreed that CMUD would examine the possibility of developing a mercury education
program. It is hoped that an education program aimed at the major mercury sources to the CMUD
WWTPs would be beneficial to water quality.
On the first of two Sugar Creek WWTP Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements pages,
the Biochemical Oxygen Demand parameter has been changed to reflect the 5-day Carbonaceous
Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
The chlorination/dechlorination discussion was also very productive. As was decided during the
September 23, 1996 meeting. all three WWTPs will have both weekly average and daily maximum total
residual chlorine limits. It is hoped that by having two limits (and specifically adding the weekly average
limit). the WWTPs will be better able to balance chlorine and sodium bisulfite addition. This balance
should eliminate the overfeeding sodium bisulfite, result in adequately treated wastewater, and not
adversely impact the stream. Specifically, Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek, and McAlpine Creek WWTPs now
have total residual chlorine weekly average limits of 21.0 µg/1, 19.0 µg/1, and 17.0 µg/1, respectively. The
daily maximum limit for all three facilities will be 28.0 µgf1.
The general comments mentioned on page three of the September 5, 1996 letter have been addressed
as follows:
- the cover sheet and supplement to permit cover sheet of the Irwin Creek WWTP permit have been
changed to indicate the correct address: 4000 Westmont Drive.
- the supplement to permit cover sheet of the Irwin Creek WWTP permit has been changed to indicate
diai die sludge storage tanks are not aerated.
- the cover sheet of the Sugar Creek WWTP has been changed to read "Catawba River Basin"
- the supplement to permit cover sheet of the Sugar Creek WWTP permit has been changed to indicate
that grit removal is part of the process description, the plant has six (6) secondary clarifiers, and the
sludge storage tanks are not aerated.
Finally, the wastewater reuse discussion was also enlightening and useful. CMUD is actively
investigating and developing potential wastewater reuse options. There is a pilot program at the Mallard
Creek WWTP which could potentially use 0.5 - 1.0 MGD for irrigation of a golf course. A second
potential pilot program would use Irwin Creek WWTP wastewater to irrigate a Mecklenburg County Parks
and Recreation golf course. CMUD staff noted that currently most incentives for wastewater reuse
originate from the water supply side, specifically in the area of water conservation. However, it was
agreed that CMUD should develop a list of wastewater reuse incentives and submit this list to the State.
CMUD and the State can then work together to further develop and expand wastewater reuse programs at
the CMUD facilities.
In Part III, Section B. Pretreatment Program Requirements, Number 11. Public Notice of the
NPDES permit, the requirement has been changed from two to four months. The four month time limit
allows the Division to complete work and processing for one compliance period before beginning the next.
A six month requirement would cause subsequent compliance periods to overlap.
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. Post Office Drawer 27447. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such demand is
made. this decision shall be final and binding.
p

Permit No. NC0024937
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Charlotte
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
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.
The permit shall become effective November 1, 1996
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on August 31, 2001
Signed this day October 4, 1996
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Mr. Atkinson
October4. 1996
Page 3
Please take note that this permit is not transferable. Part 1I. E.4. addresses the requirements to be
followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by
the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, or any other Federal
or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Paul B. Clark at telephone number
[phone], extension 580.
Sincerely.
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Mr. Roosevelt Childress. EPA
Permits and Engineering Unit
Facility Assessment Unit
Aquatic Survey and Toxicology Unit

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Charlotte
is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NC0024937
1. Continue to operate an existing 20.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of
mechanical screening, grit removal, lift pumps, four primary clarifiers, a preaeration tank,
four trickling filters, pH adjustment, aeration basins (diffused), six secondary clarifiers,
gaseous disinfection, dechlorination, tertiary sand filters, effluent flow measurement, cascade
aeration, four anaerobic digesters, four sludge storage tanks, and sludge drying beds located
at Sugar Creek WWTP, 5301 Closebum Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County (See Part III
of this permit), and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into Little Sugar Creek which is classified Class C waters in the Catawba River Basin.

UGHT•DUTV ROAD. HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE
Latitude 35°09'08" Longitude 80°51'19"
Map # G15NE Sub -basin 030834
Stream Class C
Receiving Stream Little Sugar Creek/Catawba River
Design Q 20.0 MGD Permit expires 8/31/01
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
NC0024937
Mecklenburg County
Sugar Creek WWTP

A. (2). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Permit No. NC0024937
Effluent Characteristics
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
l..cad
Mercury 5
Silver
Zinc
Footnotes:
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample Sample "
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max. Frequency IncLocation t
2.2 ug/l 5.5 ug/1 Weekly Composite E
55.0 ug/1 220.0 ug/1 Weekly Composite E
2/month Composite E, U, D
5.5 ug/1 18.0 µg/1 Weekly Grab E
28.0 ug/1 38.0 ug/1 Weekly Composite E
0.013 ug/1 0.052 ug/1 Weekly Composite E
2/month Composite E
2/month Composite E, U, D
I Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream. For instream monitoring requirements, see Part III,
Condition G.
•
5 The detection limit for mercury is 0.2 µg/I. If the measured levels of mercury are below the detection limit, then the measurement is considered to be
zero for purposes of compliance evaluation and should be reported on the DMR as < 0.2 µg/1.
The pll shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be collected at the effluent daily by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Permit No. NC0024937
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outl'all(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permitter; as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg.
I low 20.0 MGD
C1301). 5-Day, 20°C 2 (April 1- October 31) 5.0 mg/1 7.5 mg/1
CIBOD, 5-Day, 20°C 2 (November 1 - March 31)10.0 mg/1 15.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue 2 15.0 mg/1 22.5 mg/1
N I-13 as N (April 1 - October 31) 1.0 mg/I
N 1-1 3 as N (November 1 - March 31) 2.0 mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen 3
Fecal Colitorm (geometric mean) 200/100 ml 400/100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine 19.0 ug/I
Temperature
"Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity 4
Conductivity
Footnotes:
Monitoring
Measurement
Daily Max. Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
28.0 ug/I Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Daily
Rc uireincnts
Sample Sample
Location t
Recording I or E
Composite E, I
Composite E, I
Composite E, i
Composite E
Composite E
Grab E, U, D
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E, U, D
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
Grab E, U, D
Sample locations: E - Effluent, i - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream. For instream monitoring requirements, see Part III,
Condition G.
The monthly average effluenCBOD5 and total suspended residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value.
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/I.
4 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%. Samples shall be taken quarterly during the months of February, May, August, and November; See Part
III, Condition H.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be collected at the effluent daily by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Requirements for Control of Pollutants Attribute to Industrial Users.
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs
from industries using the municipal system may be present in the permittee's discharge. At
such time as sufficient information becomes available to establish limitations for such
pollutants, this permit may be revised to specify effluent limitations for any or all of such
other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or water quality standards.
2. Under no circumstances shall the permittee allow introduction of the following wastes in the
waste treatment system:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not limited to,
wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees
Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21;
b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case
Discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate
such Discharges;
c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW
resulting in Interference;
d. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at
a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW;
e. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in Interference,
but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW Treatment Plant
exceeds 40°C (104°F) unless the Division, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate
temperature limits;
f. Petroleum nil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that
will cause interference or pass through;
g. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a
quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be necessary for
the permittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR,
Part 403) to ensure compliance by the permittee with all applicable effluent limitations. Such
actions by the permittee may be necessary regarding some or all of the industries discharging
to the municipal system.
4. The permittee shall require any industrial discharges into the permitted system to meet Federal
Pretreatment Standards promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act. Prior to
accepting wastewater from any significant industrial user, the permittee shall either develop
and submit to the Division a Pretreatment Program for approval per 15A NCAC 2H .0907(a) or
modify an existing Pretreatment Program per 15A NCAC 2H .0907(b).
5. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to incorporate or modify
an approved POTW Pretreatment Program or to include a compliance schedule for the
development of a POTW Pretreatment Program as required under Section 402(b)(8) of the
Clean Water Act and implementing regulations or by the requirements of the approved State
pretreatment program, as appropriate.
Part III Page 1 of 5

B. Pretreatment Program Requirements
Under authority of sections 307(b) and (c) and 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations 40 CFR Part 403, North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3 (14) and implementing
regulations 15A NCAC 2H .0900, and in accordance with the approved pretreatment program, all
provisions and regulations contained and referenced in the Pretreatment Program Submittal are an
enforceable part of this permit.
The permittee shall operate its approved pretreatment program in accordance with Section 402(b)(8)
of the Clean Water Act, the Federal Pretreatment Regulations 40 CFR Part 403, the State Pretreatment
Regulations 15A NCAC 2H .0900, and the legal authorities, policies, procedures, and financial
provisions contained in its pretreatment program submission and Division approved modifications
there of. Such operation shall include but is not limited to the implementation of the following
conditions and requirements:
1. Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
The permittee shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved pretreatment
program;
2. Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
The permittee shall update its Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) of all users of the sewer collection
system at least once every five years;
3. Monitoring Plan
The permittee shall implement a Division approved Monitoring Plan for the collection of
facility specific data to be used in a wastewater treatment plant Headworks Analysis (HWA)
for the development of specific pretreatment local limits;
4. Headworks Analysis (HWA) and Local Limits
The permittee shall obtain Division approval of a Headworks Analysis (HWA) at least once
every five years, and as required by the Division. The permittee shall develop, in accordance
with 40 CFR 403.5(c) and 15A NCAC 2H .0909, specific Local Limits to implement the
prohibitions listed in 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b) and 15A NCAC 2H .0909;
5. Industrial User Pretreatment Permits (IUP) & Allocation Tables
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, the permittee shall issue to all significant industrial users,
permits for operation of pretreatment equipment and discharge to the permittee's treatment
works. These permits shall contain limitations, sampling protocols, reporting requirements,
appropriate standard and special conditions, and compliance schedules as necessary for the
installation of treatment and control technologies to assure that their wastewater discharge will
meet all applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. The permittee shall maintain a
current Allocation Table (AT) which summarizes the results of the Headworks Analysis (HWA)
and the limits from all Industrial User Pretreatment Permits (IUP). Permitted IUP loadings for
each parameter cannot exceed the treatment capacity of the POTW as determined by the HWA;
b. Authorization to Construct (A to C)
The permittee shall ensure that an Authorization to Construct (A to C) is issued to all
applicable industrial users for the construction or modification of any pretreatment facility.
Prior to the issuance of an Authorization to Construct (A to C), the proposed pretreatment
facility and treatment process must be evaluated for its capacity to comply with all Industrial
User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) limitations;
Part III Page 2 of 5

7. POTW Inspection & Monitoring of their SIUs
The permittee shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as described in
its Division approved pretreatment program in order to determine, independent of information
supplied by industrial users, compliance with applicable pretreatment standards. The
permittee must:
7a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per calendar year; and
7b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least twice per calendar year for all
permit -limited pollutants, once during the period from January 1 through June 30
and once during the period from July 1 through December 31, except for organic
compounds which shall be sampled once per calendar year;
8. SIU Self Monitoring and Reporting
The permittee shall require all industrial users to comply with the applicable monitoring and
reporting requirements outlined in the Division approved pretreatment program, the industry's
pretreatment permit, or in 15A NCAC 2H .0908;
9. Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
The permittee shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all pretreatment
standards promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 405
et.seq.), prohibitive discharge standards as set forth in 40 CFR 403.5 and 15A NCAC 2H .0909,
and specific local limitations. All enforcement actions shall be consistent with the Enforcement
Response Plan (ERP) approved by the Division;
10. Pretreatment Annual Reports (PAR)
The permittee shall report to the Division in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0908. In lieu of
submitting annual reports. Modified Pretreatment Programs developed under 15A NCAC 2H
.0904 (b) may be required to meet with Division personnel periodically to discuss enforcement
of pretreatment requirements and other pretreatment implementation issues.
For all other active pretreatment programs, the permittee shall submit two copies of a
Pretreatment Annual Report (PAR) describing its pretreatment activities over the previous
twelve monthsto the Division at the following address:
NC DWQ Pretreatment Group
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
Part III Page 3 of 5

These reports shall be submitted according to a schedule established by the Director and shall
contain the following:
a.) Narrative
A brief discussion of reasons for, status of, and actions taken for all Significant
Industrial Users (SIUs) in Significant Non -Compliance (SNC);
b.) Pretreatment Program Summary (PPS)
A pretreatment program summary (PPS) on specific forms approved by the
Division;
c.) Significant Non -Compliance Report (SNCR)
The nature of the violations and the actions taken or proposed to correct the
violations on specific forms approved by the Division;
d.) Industrial Data Summary Forms (IDSF)
Monitoring data from samples collected by both the POTW and the Significant
Industrial User (SIU). These analytical results must be reported on Industrial
Data Summary Forms (IDSF) or other specific format approved by the Division;
e.) Other Information
Copies of the POTW's allocation table, new or modified enforcement compliance
schedules, public notice of SIUs in SNC, and any other information, upon
request, which in the opinion of the Director is needed to determine compliance
with the pretreatment implementation requirements of this permit;
11. Public Notice
The permittee shall publish annually a list of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) that were in
Significant Non -Compliance (SNC) as defined in the permittee's Division approved Sewer Use
Ordinance with applicable pretreatment requirements and standards during the previous
twelve month period. This list shall be published within four months of the applicable twelve
month period;
12. Record Keeping
The permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years records of monitoring activities and
results, along with support information including general records, water quality records, and
records of industrial impact on the POTW;
13. Funding and Financial Report
The permittee shall maintain adequate funding and staffing levels to accomplish the objectives
of its approved pretreatment program;
14. Modification to Pretreatment Programs
Modifications to the approved pretreatment program including but not limited to local limits
modifications, POTW monitoring of their Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), and Monitoring
Plan modifications, shall be considered a permit modification and shall be governed by 15
NCAC 2H .0114 and 15A NCAC 2H .0907.
C. Construction
No construction of wastewater treatment facilities or additions to add to the plant's treatment
capacity or to change the type of process utilized at the treatment plant shall be begun until Final
Plans and Specifications have been submitted to the Division of Water Quality and written approval
and Authorization to Construct has been issued.
Part III Page 4 of 5

D. Groundwater Monitoring
The permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Water Quality, conduct
groundwater monitoring as may be required to determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted
facility with the current groundwater standards.
E. Publicly Owned Treatment Works
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be
subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants; and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that
POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the quality and
quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (2) any anticipated impact of the change on
the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.
F. Requirement to Continually Evaluate Alternatives to Wastewater Discharges
The permittee shall continually evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives and pursue the most
environmentally sound alternative of the reasonably cost effective alternatives. If the facility is in
substantial non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit or governing rules,
regulations or laws, the permittee shall submit a report in such form and detail as required by the
Division evaluating these alternatives and a plan of action within sixty (60) days of notification by the
Division.
Part III Page 5 of 5

Part I I I
G. INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETERS TO BE SAMPLED
Parameter
Freauenc
Tvne
Permit No. NC0024937
Location
Dissolved Oxygen
3/wk (Jun -Sep), 1/month (Oct -May)
Grab
ICI, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4,
SC5, LSC1, MC1, MC2
Temperature
3/wk (Jun -Sep), 1/month (Oct -May)
Grab
IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4,
SC5, LSC1, MCI, MC2
Conductivity
3/wk (Jun -Sep), 1/month (Oct -May)
Grab
IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4,
SC5, LSC1, MC1, MC2
pH
3/wk (Jun -Sep), 1/month (Oct -May)
Grab
SC5
Ammonia (NH3) .
Weekly (Jan -Dec)
Grab
SC5
Nitrate/Nitrite (NOX)
Weekly (Jan -Dec)
Grab
SC5
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN)
Weekly (Jan -Dec)
Grab
SC5
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Weekly (Jan -Dec)
Grab
SC5
Orthophosphate (PO4)
Weekly (Jan -Dec)
Grab
SC5
Copper
1/month (Jan -Dec)
Grab
IC1, SC1, LSC1, LSC2,
MC1, MC2
Cadmium
1/month (Jan -Dec)
Grab
MC1, MC2
Zinc
1/month (Jan -Dec)
Grab
IC1, SC1, LSC1, LSC2,
MC1, MC2
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Irwin Creek
1. Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP (IC 1).
Su .. r Creek
1. Downstream of Irwin and Sugar creeks confluence at Yorkmont Road (SC1).
2. Downstream of Irwin and Sugar creeks confluence at Arrowwood Road (SC2).
3. Downstream of Irwin and Sugar creeks confluence at Nations Ford Road (SC3).
4. Downstream of Irwin and Sugar creeks confluence at Route 51 (SC4).
5. Downstream of McAlpine and Sugar creeks confluence at Route 160 (SC5).
Little Sugar Creek
1. Upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP (LSC1).
2. Downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Archdale Road (LSC2).
3. Downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Route 521 (LSC3).
McAlpine Creek
1. Upstream of Discharge (MC1).
2. Downstream of McMullen and McAlpine creeks confluence at SC2964 (MC2).
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Instream sampling should continue to be coordinated to
reduce redundant sampling for the CMUD-McAlpine, Sugar Creek, and Irwin wastewater treatment facilities. It is
recommended that monitoring be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek, and McAlpine Creek WWTPs are identical. All
instream monitoring data will be submitted with the DMR data for McAlpine Creek WWTP. Please refer to
McAlpine Creek WWTP DMR data for any instream monitoring data pertaining to Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek,
and/or McAlpine Creek WWTPs.

a
Part III Permit No. NC0024937
H. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures
outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina
Chronic Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction
or significant mortality is 90 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to
establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty
days from the effective date of this permit during the months of February, May,
August, and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed,
using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to
the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical
measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response
data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported
if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then
monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed.
Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified
above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of 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 and appropriate environmental controls, shall
constitute an invalid test and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial
monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance
with monitoring requirements.

PART IV
ANNUAL ADMINISTERLNG AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE REQUIREMENTS
A. The permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within 30
(thirty) days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0105(b)(4) may cause this Division to initiate action to
revoke the permit.

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.:NC0024937
PERMITTEE NAME: CITY OF CHARLOTTE
FACILITY NAME:SUGAR CREEK WWTP
FACILITY STATUS: EXISTING
PERMIT STATUS:RENEWAL
MAJOR: X
PIPE NUMBER:001
DESIGN CAPACITY:14.67 MGD
DOMESTIC (% of Flow):83%
INDUSTRIAL(% of Flow):17%
COMMENTS:
MINOR:
RECEIVING STREAM: LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
CLASS: C
SUB -BASIN 03-08-34
REFERENCE USGS QUAD: G15NE (Please attach map)
COUNTY: MECKLENBURG
REGIONAL OFFICE:MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
PREVIOUS EXPRATION DATE:8/31/96 TREAT. PLANT CL:IV
CLASSIFICATION CHANGES WITHIN THREE MILES: NONE
REQUESTED BY: t PA L CLA
DATE:. 3/ 1 1 /96
PREPARED BY:. .�-P / ' / DATE:. (a/G y�
REVIEWED BY DATE:
Imp a! s s 1713 Id
Modeler
Date Rec.
Number #
Z M nl
3 c I I I b
1.(-SK
Drainage Area (mi2) Avg. Streamflow (cfs) `f7
7Q10 (cfs) 3.174 Winter 7Q 10 S. 5- 30Q2 (cfs) a 7
Toxicity Limits: IWC 90 %
Instream Monitoring:
Acute / hronicc�
Upstream Locarion: 1) Little Sugar Creek just upstream of discharge
2)Sugar Creek just above the confluence with Little Sugar Creek
Dowamoarn Location: Little Sugar Creek At A+cbdak Rd.*
Link Sugar Creek At Hwy 521 @ Pinevilie
Parameters: Temperature. DO, conductivity. fecal coliform, pH.
Special Iostrearn monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Additional lustream monitoring for copper, zinc, and cyanide @ Little Sugar Creek Jut('
upstream of discharge. Only parameters to be monitored 6 Little Sugar Creek at
Archdale Rd are copper, zinc, and cyanide.
Summer: 3 times per week for DO, temp. conductivity, pH. Weekly for fecal military/
Monthly for all parameters.
.......... ...,.. ... �. ram. �.........
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
SUMMER
WINTER
3OD5 (mg/1)
C
/0
NH3 as N (mg/1)
/
2
D.O. (mg/1)
6
TSS (mg/1)
/ S
/$
Fecal Col. (/100 ml)
2 p0
Zoo
pH (SU)
'-
1?
;,...,Cu l,,2)
I) Al
iis17.14y
C.425vft1)M (cti/Z)
Sf
224,
LE9zt Cy7G) l
28
38
6,44
s, s
/8
�%,,,.v,s'
/r/frwez) (ig
O. o /3
O. QJ2
COMMENTS:

March 1, 1996
RECEIVED N1AR V 4 1996
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Environmental Management/WE Unit
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
SUBJECT: RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR
NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0024937
CMUD - SUGAR CREEK WWTP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Enclosed please find one original and two (2) copies of the NPDES Permit
Application for the subject project for your review and approval. A check
in the amount of $400.00 is attached as payment for processing the
permit application.
The Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) requests replacing
item F. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Requirement (Quarterly) in Part III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS of the current permit with CHRONIC TOXICITY
PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY).
Please call me at [phone] if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
AI LOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITY DEPARTMENT
Henry,L. Forrest
Assistant Director
cc: Reed Atkinson
File
Water Distribution Division 2035 Patton Avenue Charlotte. NC 28216 704/336-2564
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department

IUP
Count
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
1
1
2
21
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Allocation Table
Town, WWTP name= > CMUD- Sugar Creek WwTP
NPDES /I= > NC0024937
Headworks last approved: March 8, 1993
Allocation table updated: 02/01/96
Permits last modified: 02/01/96
Industry
Names
(please list alphabetically)
7
8
9
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
Industry
Permit/Pip
number
Category or
type of
Industry
Original
Effective
Date
Date
Permit
Expires
FLOW
Permit Limits
BOD
Permit Limits
TSS
Permit Limits
Ammonia
Permit Limits
Cadmium
Permit Limits
Chromium
Permit Limits
Copper
Permit Limits
MGD gal/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/I Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load Ibs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Barnhardt MFG.
0003/001
Textile
04/24/95
12/31/98
0.7000
513.8746
3000.00
85.645769
500.00
0
0
0.023981
0.1400
0.051387
0.3000
C & T Refinery
0642/001
Veg. Oil Refinery
07/01/93
12/31/96
0.2000
251.7986
420.00
719.42446
1200.00
0
0.041966
0.0700
0.071942
0.1200
0.131894
0.2200
Caporale Engraving
5000/001
Metal Finisher
07/01/94
06/30/97
0.0040
235.012
7.84
250
8.34
0
0.050959
0.0017
1.708633
0.0570
0.080935
0.0027
Catawba Charlab •
0575/001
OCPSF
05/15/92
04/30/95
0.0050
719.4245
30.00
479.61631
20.00
0
0
0.095923
0.0040
0.095923
0.0040
0.095923
0.0040
Char/Meck Hosp. Auth.
0211/001
Laundry
07/01/93
06/30/96
0.0620
234.9733
121.50
250
129.27
0
0.050089
0.0259
0
0
Clariant Corporation
0427/001
R & D
01/01/96
08/31/01
0.0180
234.9454
35.27
250
37.53
0
0
0.34972
0.0525
0.29976
0.0450
Consolidated Engravers
0290/001
Metal Finisher
04/01/95
03/31/99
0.0120
419.964
42.03
250
25.02
0
0.04996
0.0050
1.709632
0.1711
2.070344
0.2072
Federal Textile Engravers
0468/001
Photo
07/01/93
03/31/98
0.0020
700.2398
11.68
799.76019
13.34
0
0
5
0.0834
1.498801
0.0250
Fleischmann's Vinegar
0434/001
Food
01/01/94
06/30/97
0.0090
2664.535
200.00
532.90701
40.00
0
0
0
0
General Steel Drum
5001/001
Metal Finisher
07/01/94
06/30/95
0.0663
234.9975
129.94
250.00814
138.24
0
0.043042
0.0238
1.05002
0.5806
1.280062
0.7078
Hardcoating, Inc.
0170/001
Metal Plater
07/01/93
06/30/96
0.0090
235.012
17.64
249.93339
18.76
0
0.050626
0.0038
1.710631
0.1284
0.969891
0.0728
Highland Mills
5002/001
Textile
01/01/96
06/30/00
0.0850
1128.509
800.00
375.22923
266.00
56.42545
40.00
0
0.987445
0.7000
0.279306
0.1980
ICI Americas
0008/001
Textil Chem.
07/01/93
12/31/95
0.0064
1405.126
75.00
936.7506
50.00
0
0
0
0.281025
0.0150
Isomat
0493/001
Metal Finisher
04/01/94
03/31/97
0.0250
169.0168
35.24
288.00959
60.05
0
0.070024
0.0146
0.44988
0.0938
0.50024
0.1043
James Waste Oil
0433/001
Oil Recy.
04/01/93
03/31/96
0.0200
1175
195.99
250
41.70
0
0.02518
0.0042
0
0.158273
0.0264
Keeter Dixon Pearre
0212/001
Textile
05/01/93
04/30/96
0.0200
449.6403
75.00
250
41.70
0
0
0
0.179856
0.0300
Mercy Hospital
0159/001
Laundry
09/15/93
09/30/96
0.0200
235.012
39.20
250
41.70
0
0
0
0.20024
0.0334
Mitchum Inc.
0412/001
Food
05/01/95
04/30/98
0.0300
1398.881
350.00
1638.689
410.00
0
0.067946
0.0170
0
0
National Linen
0097/001
Laundry
05/31/95
05/31/00
0.1300
999.8155
1084.00
999.81553
1084.00
0
0.018447
0.0200
0.100535
0.1090
0.450101
0.4880
National Textile Engravers
0200/001
Metal Finisher
12/01/93
06/30/96
0.0060
324.94
16.26
250
12.51
0
0.259792
0.0130
1.710631
0.0856
2.070344
0.1036
Norfolk Southern RR (Liddell)
0649/001
Maint. Facilty
04/01/92
05/31/95
0.0075
235.012
14.70
250.03997
15.64
0
0.04956
0.0031
0.380496
0.0238
0.19984
0.0125
Norfolk Southern RR (N. Tryon)
0674/001
Switch Yard
04/01/92
05/31/95
0.0050
235.012
9.80
250.1199
10.43
0
0.05036
0.0021
0
0
Pepsi Cola
0149/001
Food
12/01/95
09/30/00
0.0620
1063.665
550.00
251.41177
130.00
13.53756
7.00
0
0.483484
0.2500
0.251412
0.1300
Perfecting Corporation
0419/001
Metal Finisher
07/01/92
10/31/95
0.0120
235.012
23.52
250
25.02
0
0.129896
0.0130
1.709632
0.1711
2.070344
0.2072
President's Baking
0424/001
Food
01/30/95
09/30/99
0.0140
1712.915
200.00
1027.7492
120.00
0
0
0
0.428229
0.0500
Rohm & Haas (Orr Rd)
5003/001
OCPSF
01/25/95
09/30/98
0.0690
1216.418
700.00
695.0961
400.00
0
0.03823
0.0220
0.052132
0.0300
0.06951
0.0400
Shop towel Rental Service
5134/001
Indust. Laundry
04/01/92
05/31/95
0.0320
600.0075
160.13
399.99251
106.75
0
0.049835
0.0133
0.14988
0.0400
0.799985
0.2135
1 Southern Wipers
0005/001
Textile
06/01/92
12/31/95
0.0106
1436.926
127.03
923.82698
81.67
0
0.13574
0.0120
0
1.097235
0.0970

IUP
Coun
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
-19
20
'21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Allocation Table
Town, WWTP name= > CMUD- Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES 11= > NC0024937
Industry
Names
(please list alphabetically)
Industry
Permit/Pip
number
Category or
type of
Industry
Cyanide
Permit Limits
Lead ,
Permit Limits
Nickel
Permit Limits
Silver
Permit Limits
Zinc
Permit Limits
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Barnhardt MFG.
0003/001
Textile
0
0.023981
0.1400
0.102775
0.6000
0
0.178143
1.0400
C & T Refinery
0642/001
Veg. Oil Refinery
0
0.107914
0.1800
0.479616
0.8000
0
0.689448
1.1500
Caporale Engraving
5000/001
Metal Finisher
0.050959
0.0017
0.098921
0.0033
1.498801
0.0500
0.239808
0.0080
0.200839
0.0067
Catawba Charlab
0575/001
OCPSF
0
0
0.239808
0.0100
0
0
Char/Meck Hosp. Auth.
0211/001
Laundry
0
0
0
0
0.320067
0.1655
Clariant Corporation
0427/001
R & D
0
0.19984
0.0300
0.2498
0.0375
0
250
37.5300
Consolidated Engravers
0290/001
Metal Finisher
0.04996
0.0050
0.429656
0.0430
2.380096
0.2382
0.14988
0.0150
0.69944
0.0700
Federal Textile Engravers
0468/001
Photo
0.29976
0.0050
0
2.5
0.0417
2.5
0.0417
1.001199
0.0167
Fleischmann's Vinegar
0434/001
Food
0
0
0
0
1.332268
0.1000
General Steel Drum
5001/001
Metal Finisher
0.300031
0.1659
0.260063
0.1438
1.469955
0.8128
0.139979
0.0774
0.910041
0.5032
Hardcoating, Inc.
0170/001
Metal Plater
0.09992
0.0075
0.39968
0.0300
2.37943
0.1786
0.239808
0.0180
1.400213
0.1051
Highland Mills
5002/001
Textile
0
0.119904
0.0850
0.112851
0.0800
0
0.400621
0.2840
ICI Americas
0008/001
Textil Chem.
0
0.56205
0.0300
0.3747
0.0200
0
1.124101
0.0600
Isomat
0493/001
Metal Finisher
0.129976
0.0271
. 0.4
0.0834
0.50024
0.1043
0.2
0.0417
0.4
0.0834
James Waste Oil
0433/001
Oil Recy.
0
0.670264
0.1118
0.218225
0.0364
0
0.380096
0.0634
Keeter Dixon Pearre
0212/001
Textile
0
0
0
0
0.29976
0.0500
Mercy Hospital
0159/001
Laundry
0
0
0
0
1.5
0.2502
Mitchum Inc.
0412/001
Food
0
0.11191
0.0280
0
0
0
National Linen
0097/001
Laundry
0
0.258255
0.2800
0.152186
0.1650
0.05
0.0542
0.507286
0.5500
National Textile Engravers
0200/001
Metal Finisher
0.64948
0.0325
0.429656
0.0215
2.380096
0.1191
0.239808
0.0120
0.509592
0.0255
Norfolk Southern RR (Liddell)
0649/001
Maint. Facilty
0
0.230216
0.0144
0
0
0.30056
0.0188
Norfolk Southern RR (N. Tryon)
0674/001
Switch Yard
0
0
0
0
0.199041
0.0083
Pepsi Cola
0149/001
Food
0
0.154715
0.0800
0.193394
0.1000
0
0.483484
0.2500
Perfecting Corporation
0419/001
Metal Finisher
0.159872
0.0160
0.429656
0.0430
1.0002
0.1001
0.09992
0.0100
0.65048
0.0651
President's Baking
0424/001
Food
0
0
0
0
0.685166
0.0800
Rohm & Haas (Orr Rd)
5003/001
OCPSF
0
0
0.208529
0.1200
0
0.347548
0.2000
Shop towel Rental Service
5134/001
Indust. Laundry
0
0.199715
0.0533
0.09967
0.0266
0.049835
0.0133
0.749775
0.2001
Southern Wipers
0005/001
Textile
0
0
0.213791
0.0189
0
0.825754
0.0730

IUP
Count
29
30
Allocation Table
Town, WWTP name= > CMUD- Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES #= > Nl~0024937
Headworks last approved: March 8, 1993
Allocation table updated: 02/01/96
Permits last modified: 02/01/96
Industry
Industry
Category or
Original
Date
FLOW
BOD
TSS
Ammonia
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Names
Permit/Pip
type of
Effective
Permit
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
(please list alphabetically)
number
Industry
Date
Expires
MOD gal/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/I Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load Ibs/day
Unifirst Corp. # 212
0498/001
Indust. Laundry
04/01/95
03/31/98
0.0300
879.2966
220.00
599.52038
150.00
0
0.051958
0.0130
0.09992
0.0250
0.451639
0.1130
Woonsocket
0260/001
Textile
04/01/95
03/31/00
0.0600
223.8209
112.00
167.66587
83.90
0
0
0.667466
0.3340
0.11191
0.0560
Column Totals= >
1.7318
0
609.5438
8803.77
364.29362
5261.57
3.254124
47
0.01949
0.2815
0.221509
3.1993
0.242495
3.5024
Total allowable for Indstry (lbs/day), MAHL minus Dome tic Loading (Ibs/day)= >
Total Permitted for Industry (Ibs/day), Column totals from IUP limits listed above (Ibs/day)= >
Allowable loading left (Ibs/day), Total Allowable for Industry minus To al Permitted (Ibs/day)= >
Percent Industrial loading still available (%), Allowable oading left / IAL (%)_ >
18725.82
8803.77
9922.05
52.99%
14027.77
5261.57
8766.2
62.49%
47
-47
ERR
0.7519
0.2815
0.4704
62.56%
18.2205
3.1993
15.0212
82.44%
19.2794
3.5024
15.777
81.83%

IUP
Count
29
30
Allocation Table
Town, WWTP name= > CMUD- Sugar Creek WWI?
NPDES #= > NC0024937
Industry
Industry
Category or
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Salver
Zinc
Names
Permit/Pip
type of
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
Permit Limits
(please list alphabetically)
number
Industry
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/1 Load lbs/day
Conc. mg/l Load lbs/day
Unifirst Corp. /,/ 212
0498/001
Indust. Laundry
0.079936
0.0200
0.879297
0.2200
0.11191
0.0280
0.4996
0.1250
0.999201
0.2500
Woonsocket
0260/001
Textile
0
0.159872
0.0800
0.171863
0.0860
0
0.59952
0.3000
Column Totals= >
0.019435
0.2807
0.117737
1.7005
0.261244
3.7732
0.028824
0.41631
3.011726
43.499
Total allowable for Indstry (lbs/day), MARL minus Dome
Total Permitted for Industry (lbs/day), Column totals from IUP limits
Allowable loading left (lbs/day), Total Allowable for Industry minus To
Percent Industrial loading still available (%), Allowable
1.7578
0.2807
1.4771
84.03%
7.8036
1.7005
6.1031
78.21%
14.6437
3.7732
10.8705
74.23%
11.6404
0.41631
11.22409
96.42%
20.9731
43.499
-22.5259
-107.40%

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE CMUD SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
This description is taken from the 1995 Residuals Management Contracts RFP.
Section 4.2 and 3.4.2. describe the plan at Sugar Creek Plant.
The Request for Council Action section indicates the status of
the current and future three year contract.
Copy of DEHNR letter dated March 31, 1995 indicating status of
land application Permit No. WQ0000057
4. Description of Water and Wastewater Facilities
Following are brief descriptions of the treatment processes and residuals management
issues at each of CMUD's facilities. These descriptions are intended as background
information for the site evaluations. which are required of each Proposer for Contract
B - Transport and Land Application of Residuals.
4.1. McAlpine Creek WWTP
4.1.1. The McAlpine Creek WWTP is the largest of the five CMUD
wastewater treatment plants. serving a U-shaped area that includes
most of south Charlotte and much of its suburban areas to the east and
west. Its first phase was built in the 1960's and it has undergone
several additional expansions. It has a permitted capacity of 48 mgd
currently, and will soon begin an expansion to 64 mgd which is
scheduled to come on-line in 1997. The treatment plant consists of
two secondary treatment trains (North and South plants) with common
headworks, tertiary treatment. and residuals treatment processes. The
treatment process is summarized as follows:
Influent screening
Grit removal
Influent flow equalization
• Primary clarification
• Secondary treatment using trickling filters and aeration
basins
• Secondary clarification
• Effluent filtration
• Chlorination/Dechlorination
• WAS thickening using centrifuges
• Primary sludge thickening using gravity thickeners
• Anaerobic digestion
City of Charlotte Page I17-10
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
p:Iwbllprojecticmudlrm-complsec-4 doc

• Digested sludge storage in a 1.2-million gallon tank
• Dewatering using solid -bowl centrifuges
4.1.2. Residuals production from McAlpine Creek WWTP averaged 27 dtpd
in 1994. Residuals from the dewatering facilities can be either sent to
the new Residual Management Facility (RMF) or to a truck loadout
station for land application. Dewatered residuals are currently stored
in converted trickling filters prior to being loaded and land applied. It
is anticipated that these storage facilities will be taken out of service
once the RMF begins operation. A flow schematic of the solids
process and projected solids balances for the average, maximum month
and peak day conditions are shown in Appendix B.
4.1.3. CMUD and the RMF operator will determine the quantity of residuals
to be processed by the RMF. The minimum amount shall be 15 dry
tons per day (dtpd). on average. In general. processing of additional
residuals (above 15 dtpd) from the McAlpine Creek WWTP in the
RMF will be preferred over transport of residuals from other facilities
to the RMF. Also, the preferred management of alum residuals from
Franklin WTP is to transport them to the RMF for co -composting with
biosolids. The remainder of the residuals shall be land applied.
Coordination will be required on the amount of dewatered residuals to
be processed in the RMF and the amount to be land applied, as
described under Section V - SCOPE OF SERVICES AND
CONTRACT PROVISIONS.
4.2. Sugar Creek WWTP
4.2.1. The Sugar Creek WWTP is one of CMUD's oldest wastewater
facilities. initially built in the 1920's with several subsequent upgrades.
It serves a primarily developed area in central, east. and south
Charlotte. and is currently undergoing an upgrade to a permitted
capacity of 20 mgd, which will be on-line by 1996: .,The treatment
plant has the following processes:
• Influent screening
• Grit removal
• Primary clarification
• Secondary treatment using trickling filters and aeration
basins
• Secondary clarification
• Effluent filtration
• Chlorination/Dechlorination
City of Charlotte
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
Page IV-11
p: I wbll projecticmudlrm-comp Lsec-4. doc

• Anaerobic digestion
• Digested sludge storage
• Dewatering using sand drying beds
4.2.2. Residuals production from Sugar Creek WWTP averaged 8.5 dtpd in
1994. Residuals from the dewatering facilities can be either trucked to
the new RMF at McAlpine Creek WWTP or land applied. Land
application is the preferred option. In general, residuals would be
transported to the RMF only under circumstances adverse to land
application or storage. CMUD and the RMF operator must approve
- and coordinate the transport of dewatered residuals from Sugar Creek
WWTP to the RMF at McAlpine Creek WWTP. A flow schematic of
the solids and solids balances for the average, maximum month and
peak day conditions are shown in Appendix B.
4.3. Irwin Creek WWTP
4.3.1. The Irwin Creek WWTP is another one of CMUD's oldest facilities,
having been built initially in the 1920's at about the same time as the
Sugar Creek WWTP. It serves the primarily developed, older sections
of central, north, and west Charlotte. The plant currently has a
permitted capacity of 15 mgd. The treatment plant has the following
components:
• Influent screening
• Grit removal
• Primary clarification
• Secondary treatment using trickling filters and aeration
basins
• Secondary clarification
• Effluent filtration
• Chlorination/Dechlorination
• Anaerobic digestion
• Digested sludge storage
• Dewatering using belt filter presses or drying beds
4.3.2. Residuals production at Irwin Creek WWTP averaged 9.5 dtpd in
1994. An estimated 25 percent of this residuals production consists of
alum residuals from Vest and Franklin WTPs.
Alum residuals from CMUD's two existing water
treatment plants are discharged into sewer and flow to the Irwin Creek
WWTP. New facilities at the water treatment plants will eliminate a
City of Charlotte
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
Page IV-12
p:1 wb 11 project f cmud l rm-comp lsec-4. doc

majority of the alum residuals flow into the Irwin Creek WWTP.
Alum residuals from the Franklin WTP will be dewatered onsite and
transported by the Contractor to the McAlpine Creek RMF for
processing. Filter backwash water from the Vest WTP will continue to
be conveyed to Irwin Creek WWTP via the existing sanitary sewer;
residuals from the sedimentation basins at Vest WTP will be thickened
onsite and trucked by the Contractor to the Irwin Creek WWTP solids
facilities, combined with the digested biosolids, and dewatered.
Dewatered residuals will be transported to land application or the
McAlpine Creek RMF for processing. A flow schematic of the solids
process and solids balances for the average, maximum month and peak
day conditions are shown in Appendix B.
4.4. Mallard Creek WWTP
4.4.1. The Mallard Creek WWTP serves the northeastern portion of
Mecklenburg County. The original plant was constructed in 1979 with
expansion in 1991. The plant's current permitted capacity is 6.0 mgd
with a current average daily flow of 4.0 mgd. The plant has the
following components:
• Influent screening
• Grit removal
• Primary clarification
• Secondary treatment using trickling filters and aeration
basins with biological nutrient removal
• Secondary clarification
• Effluent filtration
• Disinfection by using ultraviolet (UV) light
• Anaerobic digestion
• Thickening using centrifuges
• Dewatering using centrifuges or drying beds
4.4.2. Residuals production from Mallard Creek WW'TP averaged 1.13 dtpd
in 1994. Dewatered residuals from the centrifuges are either loaded
into trailers provided by the land application contractor or to onsite
storage prior .to pickup by the land application contractor. A flow
schematic is shown in Appendix B.
4.5. McDowell Creek WWTP
4.5.1. The McDowell Creek WWTP is located in the northern part of
Mecklenburg County. It began operation in 1979. The plant is
City of Charlotte
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
p: I wbll project Icm ud lrm-comp lse c-4. do c
Page IV-13

3.3. Local Requirements and Issues: The Contractor shall comply with the
following local requirements:
3.3.1. CMUD currently has an agreement with Union County to provide
wastewater residuals to farmers in Union County at no charge for five
years beginning in March 1992. It is anticipated that toward the end of
this five year period, CMUD will seek approval from Union County to
continue to operate the land application program in Union County. The
Contractor shall work with CMUD in maintaining this relationship.
3.3.2. ' The Contractor shall maintain excellent working relationships with the
landowners. Periodic work shops shall be held to inform the landowners
of the current status of the program and of any changes.
3.3.3. The Contractor shall maintain equipment in a condition that is
acceptable to CMUD to maintain a positive image.
3.3.4. The application equipment shall be pre -washed in the field to control
environmental impact.
3.3.5. The Contractor shall develop a spill protection plan for transport and for
land application sites. and submit the plan to CMUD prior to beginning
operations.
3.3.6. Residuals dewatered by mechanical means or on drying beds shall be
transported in approved vehicles. The volume of each vehicle shall be
measured. Each vehicle shall be loaded to its measured capacity. Each
load shall be covered, if required, with an approved cover as. per local
and/or State regulations.
3.4. Scope of Work at Each Facility Where Residuals are to be Removed: The
following describes anticipated scope of work under Contract B related removal
of residuals from each water and wastewater treatment facility. Proposers are
required to assess actual operating conditions at these facilities on their
mandatory site visits.
3.4.1. McAlpine Creek WWTP: The Contractor shall remove. load, transport
and land -apply residuals from the McAlpine Creek WWTP. The
residuals shall be in either liquid form (4% - 10% solids content) or in a
cake form (dewatered using centrifuges, 18% - 25% solids content). The
amount of residuals available for land application depends upon the
operation of the RMF. The RMF will process a minimum amount of 15
dtpd of residuals from McAlpine Creek WWTP. CMUD shall determine
City of Charlotte
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
Page V-23
p: fwbllprojectkmudlrm-complrec-S.doc

the amount of residuals that are in excess of the minimum amount that
will be land -applied or sent to the RMF for processing. The Contractor
and CMUD shall determine the amount of residuals that will be removed
in the liquid form. It is anticipated that few residuals will be removed as
liquid from any of the plants except the Vest WTP.
3.4.2. Sugar Creek WWTP: The Contractor shall remove, load, transport,
and land -apply residuals from the Sugar Creek WWTP. The residuals
shall be in cake form (45% - 55% dry solids) from drying beds. The
Contractor shall provide any storage required, in the form of truck
trailers, to store removed residuals and make drying beds available for
plant operations. At no time shall the Contractor prevent the plant from
using the drying beds because of a backlog of residuals. CMUD may, at
its opinion, require the Contractor to transport dewatered residuals from
the Sugar Creek WWTP to the McAlpine Creek WWTP for processing
at the RMF.
3.4.3. Irwin Creek WWTP: The Contractor shall remove, load, transport and
land -apply residuals from the Irwin Creek WWTP. In the normal
operating mode the residuals shall be in cake form (16% - 25% dry
solids) from belt filter presses. In the event that the belt filter presses are
out of service or not operating. the residuals shall be dewatered using
drying beds (45% - 55% dry solids). The Contractor shall provide any
storage required. in the form of truck trailers. to store removed residuals
and make drying beds available for plant operations. The residuals from
the Irwin Creek WWTP contain thickened alum residuals hauled from
the Vest WTP.
The Contractor shall provide
any storage required to continue the normal operation of the Irwin Creek
WWTP and prevent the shutdown of the dewatering operation. CMUD
may, at its opinion. require the Contractor to transport dewatered sludge
from the Irvin Creek WWTP to the McAlpine Creek WWTP for
processing at the RMF.
3.4.4. Mallard Creek WWTP: The Contractor shall remove, load, transport
and land -apply residuals from the Mallard Creek WWTP. In the normal
operating mode the residuals shall be in cake form (16% - 25% dry
solids) from centrifuges. In the event that the centrifuges are out of
service or not operating, the residuals shall be dewatered using drying
beds (45% - 55% dry solids). The Contractor shall provide any storage
required to prevent shutdown of the dewatering operation and continue
the normal operation of the Mallard Creek WWTP.
City of Charlotte
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
Page V-24
p:1 wbll project lcmud1rm-comp fret-5. doc

3.4.5. McDowell Creek WWTP: The Contractor shall remove, load, transport
and land -apply residuals from the McDowell Creek WWTP. The
residuals shall be in cake form (45% - 55% dry solids) from drying beds.
The Contractor shall provide any storage required to ensure that drying
beds are available for plant operations. At no time shall the land
application contractor prevent the plant from using the drying beds
because of a backlog of residuals.
3.4.6. Vest WTP: The Contractor shall remove, load and transport thickened
alum residuals (approximately 2-4 percent dry solids content) from the
Vest WTP to either the Irwin Creek WWTP or to the Franklin WTP for
further processing.
3.4.7. Franklin WTP: The Contractor shall remove, load and transport
dewatered alum residuals from the Franklin WTP to the RMF at the
McAlpine Creek WWTP. In the event that CMUD requires liquid
(thickened) residuals to be removed, they shall be transported to the
Irwin Creek WWTP for future processing.
3.4.8. North Mecklenburg WTP: The Contractor shall provide the necessary
rolling stock and equipment to receive thickened residuals at the loading
station and land apply to the 10 two -acre plots via soil injection. A
storage lagoon will be provided to allow four months of residuals
storage during the winter months.
3.5. Scope of Work at the Land Application Sites: The following provisions
apply to Contract B work at the land application sites.
3.5.1. Liquid residuals shall be transported in completely -enclosed tanker
trucks with water tight seals.
3.5.2. Dewatered residuals from the wastewater treatment facilities shall be
transported by the Contractor in vehicles equipped with spill guards, full
mud flaps, and sealed tailgates to approved land application sites.
3.5.3. Dewatered residuals shall be deposited on the fields, load into cake
spreaders and distributed on the field from the spreader. The cake
spreader boxes shall either be a type which can be pulled behind a farm
tractor or the box will be mounted on the frame of a high flotation land
application vehicle.
3.5.4. Acceptable locations for residuals unloading or staging areas shall be
determined by the Contractor's certified operator and approved by local
City of Charlotte
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
p: l wbllprojecticmudlrm-complsec-S. doc
Page V-25

agencies. Residuals are unloaded in staging areas to allow coverage of
the field from one field border and proceeding to the opposite border to
prevent the unloading vehicles from having to drive through areas where
residuals have been applied.
3.5.5. Residuals shall be incorporated into the soil by discing within 48 hours
after the residuals have been applied. Discing shall not occur on pasture
and hay fields or on cropped fields where the farmer has adequate crop
residue and wants to maintain a no -till or minimum tillage system.
3.5.6. " Adequate control of the application rate for each site must be
maintained. The Contractor shall develop a method acceptable to the
City and in compliance with all regulations and permits.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CONTRACTOR and CITY have caused this Agreement to be
signed and sealed in their respective names by their respective, duly authorized representatives.
ATTEST/
WITNESS:
SECRETARY (IF INCORPORATED)
(AFFIX SEAL IF INCORPORATED)
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CONTRACTOR
BY: (Seal)
NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON
SIGNING ON BEHALF OF
CONTRACTOR:
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
BY:
City of Charlotte
Residuals Management Contracts RFP
Page V-26
p: l wb ll project lcm ud l rm-comp lrec-I doc

Request for Council Action
Land Application of Residuals - Professional Services Contract
Action:
Approve a Professional Services Contract with
AMSCO, Inc. to Conduct Land Application of
Residuals from CMUD water and wastewater
treatment facilities for `$2,031,540 for a three year
period.
Staff Resource: Doug Bean
Policy: Competition Plan adopted by Council on July 25, 1994
Explanation of The Utility Competition Plan includes Land Application
Request: (trucking and application) of Residuals from CMUD Water
and Wastewater Treatment Plants.
A formal request for qualifications/proposals was issued and
formal proposals were accepted. Qualifications/proposals
submitted were reviewed and evaluated by a six -person
Evaluation Team, consisting of two citizen members of City
advisory committees, two non-CMUD members of City staff
and two members of CMUD's management staff. A short
list was developed from the evaluation of the technical
proposals and the cost proposals of the short listed firms
were opened. The Privatization Advisory Committee as well
as the CMUD Advisory Committee have been involved
in this complete process. The two committees have reviewed
and approved of the steps throughout this competition effort
and the decisions of the Evaluation Team.
The Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department and BioGro
submitted a joint proposal for the land application of
residuals. When the cost proposals submitted by
CMUD/BioGro and AMSCO. Inc. were opened. AMSCO
was the low bidder.
The contract start date is_projecteLI to be July 1996. The
term of the contract is three years with two. optional one
year extensions.

Funding:
Background:
Fund 7101- First Year Funding $665,690 -Distribution;
Vest WTP, Center 609 ($27,790), Franklin WTP,
Center 615($86,382), Irwin Creek WWTP, Center 624
($99,672), Mallard Creek WWTP, Center 629 ($33,224),
McDowell Creek WWTP, Center 614 ($19,934), Sugar
Creek WWTP, Center 623 ($99,672), and McAlpine Creek
WWMF, Center 628 ($299,016). Obj. Code 198 for
centers 609 and 615. Obj. Code 199 for remaining centers.
This work was previously being completed under a contract
with BioGro Systems. The land application service was
placed as a candidate for competition as Contract B (one of
two contracts in Residuals Management). Contract A, the
other contract, is for the Operation and Maintenance of the
new Residuals Management Facility.
Attachment: No
Responsible Dept. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility
Agenda Date Req. January 29, 1996
Consequences if Agenda Date is Delayed or Action is Deferred.
Execution of Contract and Issuance of Notice to Proceed Work will be delayed.
Contact Person for Questions from the City Manager's Office:
Kathy Freeze - 391-5104 Kim Eagle - 39 1 -5 1 94
Does this action require a Budget Ordinance? No
Does this action require an Ordinance amending the City Code? No
Is a resolution necessary? No
NOTE: This item was approved by the Charlotte City Council
on January 29, 1996.

CMUD Solids Handling Competition
• Proposals were received on October 23 for the operations and maintenance of the new
solids handling facility (RMF) at McAlpine Creek Wastewater Management Facility .
The RNIF is a new facility scheduled for completion in the spring of 1996. Due to the
newness of the facility and the resulting lack of operating history and performance records,
only one proposal was received. The Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department made
the proposal jointly with BioGro, a private firm specializing in solids processing.
The CMUD/BioGro joint team proposal represents a savings of approximately $559,200
in operation and maintenance costs over the three year contract period, when compared
with the Engineer's estimate.
• On January 29, 1996 City Council awarded the contract for the land application of
residuals. Three proposals were submitted and a short list was developed from the
evaluation of technical proposals. Cost proposals were opened from the CMUD/BioGro
team and AMSCO, Inc. located in Clemmons, North Carolina. It was recommended that
the contract for land application of residuals be awarded to AMSCO, the low bidder.
Savings are estimated at approximately $492,900 for the three year period when compared
to existing contract prices.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 31, 1995
Ms. Trine Mendenhall, Administrative Officer
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28216
r
13 , i="j-:..
Subject: Permit No -' r-' `"...
Subs - •.._.:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department
Land Application of Wastewater Residuals
Cabarrus, Union and Mecklenburg Counties
Dear Ms. Mendenhall:
In accordance with your renewal request received on January 17, 1995, we are forwarding
he
rewith Permit No. WQ0000057, dated March 31, 1995, to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility
Department for the continued operation of a wastewater residuals land application program.
Please be advised, Field No. UN 5-16 (Terry and Doug Byrum) has been deleted from the land
application program per the Groundwater Section due to the presence of bedrock within one (1) foot of
ground surface.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until February 28, 2000, shall void Permit
No. WQ0000057 issued October 13, 1994, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as
specified therein. Please pay particular attention to the monitoring and reporting requirements contained in
this permit. Failure to establish an adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required operational
information will result in future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements. or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the
right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days, following. receipt of
r n written petition,conforming, .o C ^••tf, 1.••.B of North
. �'h�c request must be in tilt- QiT1 t a .,,,:1tUrITal..b - a
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hea.iiigb, L � ;n^ a ,�
Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Michael D. Allen at
[phone].
Sincerely,
LI a) ne-t.,
A. Prest6 i Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Cabarrus County Health Department
Union County Health Department
Mecklenburg County Health Department
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Mooresville Regional Office, Groundwater Section
Groundwater Section, Central Office
Training and Certification Unit (no revised rating)
Facilities Assessment Unit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ ' 0% post -consumer paper

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 8458
City of Charlotte -Sugar Creek Plant
NC0024937
83% Domestic / 17% Industrial
Existing
Renewal
Little Sugar Creek
C
030834
Mecklenburg
MRO.�, 4
Clark
3/11/96
G15NE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2): 40.8
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 3.4
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 5.5
Average Flow (cfs): 47
30Q2 (cfs): 8.7
IWC (%): 90%
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting renewal of existing NPDES permit. Sugar Creek plant has undergone
expansion to 20 MGD since last application. Previous '91 WLA established oxygen -consuming
limits of 5/1/6 & 10/2/6, TSS=15, Fecal =200, for the protection of Little Sugar Creek. Per 1995
DMRs ,currently having problems meeting NH3 and Hg. Will recommend renewal of all existing
oxygen -consuming limits, metals limits and Chronic toxicity test. Will recommend nickel limit be
deleted and monitored per pretreatment program.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
7-5 / T , SOFT y CLN n A)LI E 4 2-( Trills (n/Sffe„,01
/iiiho --/e (F, f °S rye ,s-A6t i1- 4PPJi c'/ 4,-6u-7
4-rxer Ny 4 ,ifa& /64e 5e et -oRP/41427—/ TzleAtiC, ,e744'&
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: ( L
Regional Supervisor: 6 !) �
Permits & Engineering: A147://(_,
�alS�/-rd G
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
Date: 4/24/96
Date: OLqq(1
Date: s/a/s
Date:
MAY 2 5 1996
GtJOGILc7 /155e$ �� O� �< i t1/4)
iiQi 6 // A X/''/l F 11,4nle/E-A1T/ JJ/ TD1€/ - SSis /vl
�5 N1/ 7 42449 /o i/e t- 4/C gib v* P:g,e/v11 � ,

2
F.Yi¢tinE i.imi a•
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 14.67 14.67
BODS (mg/1): 21 30
NH3N (mg/1): 8 nr
DO (mg/1): 5 5
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (14/1): monitor monitor
Temperature monitor monitor
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Recommended Limits:
a w&L.. a 0 wku
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD): 20 20
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10 WQ
NH3N (mg/1): 1 2 WQ
DO (mg/1): 6 6 WQ
TSS (mg/1): 15 15
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (14/1): 19 19
Temperature (C): monitor monitor
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

3
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit
Recommended Limit
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
@ 20 MGD
Cadmium (ug/l)•
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/l):
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Silver (ug/1):
Recommended Limits
@ 20 MGD
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Silver (ug/1):
TOXICSIMETALS
Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
87%
90%
FEB MAY AUG NOV
Wkly Avg.
2.2
55
monitor
98
28
monitor
5.5
0.013
monitor
Wkly Avg.
2.2
55
monitor
28
monitor
5.5
0.013
monitor
Limits Changes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information
Failing toxicity test
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Daily Max.
5.5
220
monitor
392
38
monitor
18
0.052
monitor
Daily Max.
5.5
220
monitor
38
monitor
18
0.052
monitor
WQ or EL
WQ
WQ
WQ
WQ
WQ
Parameterls) Affected
Ni - will be monitored thru
LIMP
X Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: 1) Little Sugar Creek just upstream of discharge
2)Sugar Creek just above the confluence with Little Sugar Creek
1)St tle,Creek At SC Hwy 270
Downstream Location: Little Sugar Creek At Archdale Rd.*
Little Sugar,Creek,At Hr51' _@ ,Pineville- —
Little Sugar Creek At Hwy 521 @ Pineville
Parameters: Temperature, DO, conductivity, fecal coliform, pH, TP OP; NH3; PION; NOX—
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Additional instream monitoring for copper, zinc, and cyanide @ Little Sugar Creek just
upstream of discharge. *Only parameters to be monitored @ Little Sugar Creek at
Archdale Rd are copper, zinc, and cyanide.
Summer: 3 times per week for DO, temp. conductivity, pH. Weekly for fecal coliform
Monthly for all parameters.
Winter: Monthly for all parameters except no monitoring for TP and OP.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name City of Charlotte -Sugar Creek WWTP _ Permit # NC0024937_ Pipe # 001 _
CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit 48 hour acute toxicity as lethality in an effluent concentration
of 90 % nor measure a quarterly arithmetic average chronic value less than this same percentage of
waste. The chronic value will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest concentration having
no statistically detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a statistically detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The presence of 48 hour acute
toxicity will be determined using Fisher's Exact Test at 48 hours from test initiation. Collection methods,
exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are defined in The North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure (July, 1991) or subsequent versions.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using these procedures to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed within thirty days from the effective
date of this permit during the months of FEB MAY AUG NOV . 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 measures 48 hour acute toxicity or a
chronic value less than that specified above, then multiple concentration testing shall be performed, at a
minimum, in each of the two following months.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code THP3B
for the Chronic Value and TGA3B for the 48 hour Acute Toxicity measure (Pass/Fail). Additionally,
DEM Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine
of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
the waste stream.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate retesting (within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will
constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 3.4 cfs
Permitted Flow 20 MGD
IWC 90 %
Basin & Sub -basin CTB34
Receiving Stream Little Sugar Creek
County Meckelnburg
R
‘_ (r
ate � 4/24/96
ommended by:
//41
QPIIL Version 7/91

Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
From: Carla Sanderson
Date: Wed, Jun 5, 1996 8:23 AM
Subject: FW: SUGAR & IRWIN CR INS MONITORING
To: Jackie Nowell
FYI - see below andf proceed with the WLA per Ruth's suggestions.
From: Ruth Swanek on Wed, Jun 5, 1996 8:09 AM
Subject RE: SUGAR & IRWIN CR INS MONITORING
To: Carla Sanderson
Cc: Dave Goodrich
If they challenge us on it, we have no basis for keeping it in the permit. We had it in there in
the past because Fishing Creek Reservoir is downstream of Sugar Creek. However, a
review of SC maps indicates that the reservoir is several miles downstream, and Sugar Creek
enters the Catawba River above the reservoir. So, not only will it be diluted from Catawba
River, but I would assume that Fishing Creek Res. has similar characteristics to Lake Wylie
(Le. flushes well in mainstem, and nutrients not a major issue on mainstem). In addition,
there is an ambient site on the Sugar Creek mainstem below all the Charlotte plants that will
characterize nutrients from the Charlotte area. The monitoring will do nothing for water
quality - I would rather see Charlotte put the monitoring resources into something that will
help WQ in the area - perhaps work further with its stormwater program? (Of course, the
city fathers could move the funds to something totally unrelated).
From: Carla Sanderson on Wed, Jun 5, 1996 7:57 AM
Subject: FW: SUGAR & IRWIN CR INS MONITORING
To: Ruth Swanek
Ruth - I was wondering why we were droppiing all the monitoring. I know that we have
gathered alot of data already, but why do we want to drop completely? I think we discussed
this before, but I do not think they were complaining about the monitoring, so why can't we
keep it for a record of what is going on out there?
From: Jackie Nowell on Tue, Jun 4, 1996 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: SUGAR & IRWIN CR INS MONITORING
To: Carla Sanderson; Ruth Swanek
Carla, I know you had some concerns about dropping some of the nutrient monitoring. Did
you get a chance to discuss w/ Ruth? These WLAs have gone to notice and I need to get the
finallized WLA down to Mary in P&E>
From: Ruth Swanek on Wed, May 22, 1996 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: SUGAR & IRWIN CR INS MONITORING
To: Jackie Nowell
Cc: Carla Sanderson
Sounds good to me.
From: Jackie Nowell on Wed, May 22, 1996 3:13 PM
Subject: SUGAR & IRWIN CR INS MONITORING

Page 2
To: Carla Sanderson; Ruth Swanek
Per Dave's comments concerning the instream monitoring for the subject facilities. For
your review.
A comprehensive monitoring plan was established in 1989 to get clear DO profiles on the
receiving streams, (with the Sugar Creek QUAL2E model predicting the DO sag to occur in
S.C.). Also the sampling was to determine if nutrients were a problem, to protect the
Fishing Creek reservoir in S.C. In addition with both Irwin and Little Sugar Creeks having
a bioclass rating of poor, the monitoring of the point sources could provide info on potential
WQ problems.
A review of the instream nutrient data shows that these plants are contributing to nutrient
loading in the streams, however without a nutrient strategy in place and the SC reservoir
being several miles downstream, this requirement should now be modified.
---It is recommended that instream monitoring for NH3, NOX, TKN, TP, and OP be
dropped from the CMUD-Sugar, Irwin, and McAlpine permits.
---It is also recommended that in the Sugar Creek permit, the monitoring sites @ Steele Creek
at SC Hwy 270 and Little Sugar Creek A Hwy 51 @ Pineville be dropped. In the McAlpine
permit, the downstream station @ Heritage USA may be dropped. This leaves two
downstream stations, near the mouth of McAlpine and Sugar Cr @ Hwy 160 in S.C. (DO
sag pt.)

SUGAR CR WWTP.INS NUTRNT DATA
Date
Station
NH3
NOX
TKN
TP
OP
Date
Station
NH3
NOX
TKN
TP
OP
10/ 12/95
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
0.66
0.90
<0.03
<0.03
10/26/94
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
0.40
1.50
0.29
0.07
HWY 51
<0.1
5.90
0.80
0.24
0.21
HWY 51
0.40
0.60
1.50
0.49
0.23
HWY 521
<0.1
7.10
2.10
2.70
0.19
HWY 521
0.30
0.60
2.20
0.67
.0.24
STEELECR
<0.1
0.30
0.60
-
-
STEELECR
<0.1
0.40
2.90
1.00
0.06
9/21 /95
AB OUTFALL
0.10
0.72
0.50
<0.03
0.05
9/15/95
9/20/94
AB OUTFALL
0.10
0.25
0.60
<0.03
<0.03
HWY 51
<0.1
6.10
0.90
<0.03
0.24
9/15/95
HWY 51
0.20
4.00
3.10
3.00
3.20
HWY 521
0.60
ND
1.10
1.50
0.85
HWY 521
0.20
3.00
1.20
0.38
3.60
S
STEELECR
<0.1
0.50
0.50
<0.03
0.08
9/15/95
STEELECR
<0.1
0.30
0.50
<0.03
0.03
8/10/95
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
<0.5
0.05
0.05
8/30/94
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
0.30
<0.5
0.11
0.11
HWY 51
<0.1
4.70
<0.5
0.31
0.21
HWY 51
0.10
3.10
1.00
5.03
1.50
HWY 521
<0.1
7.20
1.80
1.70
1.70
HWY 521
0.10
2.00
5.60
1.48
1.50
S
STEELECR
0.70
<0.5
0.08
0.04
STEELECR
<0.1
0.60
2.00
0.15
0.14
7/13/95
AB OUTFALL
ND
<0.1
<0.5
0.06
<0.03
7/21 /94
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
HWY 51
ND
5.80
<0.5
0.35
0.29
HWY 51
0.70
ND
ND
ND
ND
HWY 521
ND
5.00
<0.5
1.60
1.40
HWY 521
<0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
S
STEELECR
ND
0.40
<0.5
0.10
<0.03
STEELECR
0.60
ND
ND
ND
ND
6/27/95
AB OUTFALL
0. /0
0.40
0.50
0.08
<0.03
6/20/95
6/23/94
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
1.30
0.10
0.20
0.10
HWY 51
0.10
3.60
0.70
0.34
0.28
HWY 51
6.40
7.00
1.40
1.90
1.45
HWY 521
0.20
3.70
0.90
1.30
1.30
HWY 521
6.10
5.50
2.40
1.50
1.40
STEELECR
0.70
0.50
0.50
0.10
<0.03
STEELECR
<0.1
0.20
0.60
0.11
0.60
5/23/95
AB OUTFALL
0.10
0.49
0.50
0.09
<0.03
5/18/95
5/31/94
AB OUTFALL
0.10
0.10
1.00
0.06
<0.05
HWY 51
0.10
3.80
0.80
0.30
0.17
HWY 51
8.20
2.00
9.10
2.80
2.20
HWY 521
2.80
3.70
1.00
3.30
2.70
HWY 521
8.10
2.00
8.50
2.50
<0.05
S
STEELECR
0. /0
3.90
<0.5
0.09
0.08
STEELECR
0.10
0.40
2.50
0.07
1.90
4/25/95
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
0.75
<0.5
<0.03
<0.03
4/11/95
4/1 1 /94
AB OUTFALL
0.10
0.23
0.40
<0.05
<0.05
HWY 51 .
<0.1
4.40
0.70
0.06
0.13
HWY 51
1.50
5.40
1.40
2.10
2.07
HWY 521
0.40
3.80
1.40
2.50
3.00
HWY 521
1.40
5.40
1.20
2.32
2.06
STEELECR
<0.1
0.30
<0.5
<0.03
<0.03
STEELECR
<0.1
0.20
0.50
0.06
<0.05
Page 1

SUGAR CR WWTP.INS NUTRNT DATA
Date
Station
NH3
NOX
TKN
TP
OP
10/ 11 /9 3
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
0.03
0.2
<0.05
<0.05
HWY 51
0.20
9.8
1.1
5.58
5.45
HWY 521
0.10
10.1
1.10
5.69
5.61
STEELECR
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.07
0.05
9/7/93
AB OUTFALL
0.10
0.19
0.33
0.1
<0.05
HWY 51
0.20
7.4
1
4.29
3.99
HWY 521
0.10
6.9
1
4.13
3.92
STEELECR
<0.1
0.3
0.15
0.07
0.05
TN
8/9/93
AB OUTFALL
0.10
1.13
0.5
0.08
0.05
HWY 51
0.1
4.6
0.8
0.99
0.87
HWY 521
0.1
3.9
0.7
1
0.79
STEELE CR
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.21
0.14
7/6/93
AB OUTFALL
0.1
0.83
0.6
0.09
<0.05
HWY 51
0.2
4.3
1.2
0.88
0.8
HWY 521
0.2
4.6
1.3
0.95
0.8
STEELECR
<0.1
0.6
<0.5
0.06
<0.05
6/7/93
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
0.98
0.6
0.11
<0.02
HWY 51
0.1
8.4
6.2
3
2.7
HWY 521
0.1
8.7
2.1
2.9
2.7
STEELECR
<0.1
0.9
0.6
0.08
0.05
5/13/94
5/ 1 1 /93
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
0.9
0.6
<0.05
<0.05
HWY51
0.1
6.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
HWY 521
0.1
7.2
1.6
1.8
1.6
STEELECR
<0.1
1
0.6
<0.05
<0.05
4/14/95
4/5/93
AB OUTFALL
<0.1
1.59
0.9
<0.05
0.05
HWY 51
0.1
3.8
1.2
0.61
0.61
HWY 521
0.2
3.5
1.1
0.47
0.5
STEELECR
<0.1
0.2
<0.5
0.07
0.07
Page 2

600e- ate.w -P
1-
6 36 3
a e
/,.
fi6/
let‘s-11-4- 4t/wie
Arte,A. ( `' -- e/l
L!'11/00 .
(f
CAW ite(
Ze0-14,-.3
7rj.,1-1
,ilbz,, is
4rt 4?`t- Ible/ej r7V
94/A,e1 641-
- - - ° 0:4 it/I6 ,euLl'- / /7/,e
zc tiles e,, .zA /�4d,r, 6J/to

aft__
-Wt---Cit/(or etrs u7/5 aAnk
A at laje. A-ar 74 4, g4-2
(;te&Ce /4+1-,77- AZZ
f'4*- ai-5 Lt. ‘- 101 tedAjt
-W�4
,r �

-2 Y93 7 Q
— Y Ag.i. %ea. StL_
r''(2va:✓
,,/
4#z%<5 jjt
77t'
/Ale?,/ J
f J ,�
_ - G%
p-
X0,6ok„, kc
4-fre(reeft,,5, Te-.0 19.41/4--,,,
riKr0

L
fi /di77-6&t 72-5
n-e
De
r, -r,4- �.
/4e44--1-----
� ~ 73 i -/�
p/tte��
zOi72
CPX ti ffm, ��, ��

75-4 v dG -C4I c/
. 4A-
I
flufv12Ao(- (,J4712(
�; Ot-ri(Lbq - dtt
/K'7
4"
[,/1
!
O <d.
d,v
< Z
it/Lt.sf

CMUD-SUGAR CREEK WWTP JMN
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK 4/12/96
030834
Facility requesting renewal of existing NPDES permit. One of three large CMUD facilities
in Mecklenburg Co. area, along with CMUD-Mcalpine Creek and Irwin Creek plants.
Because of the size of receiving stream, facility has been given extremely tight limits for
expansion to 20 MGD.Permitted for 14.67 and 20 MGD.
Existing limits @ 14.67 MGD: @ 20 MGD
Summer Winter Summer Winter
BODS 21 mg/1 30 mg/1 CBOD5 5 mg/1 10 mg/1
NH3-N 8 mg/1 nl NH3-N 1 mg/1 2 mg/1
DO 5 mg/1 5 mg/1 DO 6 mg/1 6 mg/1
TSS 30 mg/1 30 mg/1 TSS 15 mg/1 15 mg/1
Fecal 200 200 Fecal 200 200
pH 6-9 6-9 pH 6-9 6-9
Wkly Avg. Dly Max. Wily Avg. Dly Max.
Cadmium 2.3 µg/1 5.7 µg/1 Cadmium 2.2 µg/l 5.5 µg/1
Chromium monitor monitor Chromium 55 µg/1 220 µg/1
Nickel 101 µg/1 404 µg/1 Nickel 98 µg/1 392 µg/1
Lead 29 µg/1 39 µg/1 Lead 28 µgf 1 3814/1
Cyanide 5.7 14/1 19 µg/1 Cyanide 5.5 14/1 18 µg/1
Mercury 0.012 µg/1 0.056 µg/1 Mercury 0.013 p.g/1 0.052 µg/1
Silver monitor monitor Silver monitor monitor
Copper monitor monitor Copper monitor monitor
Zinc monitor monitor Zinc monitor monitor
Chlorine monitor monitor Chlorine 19 µg/1 19 µg/1
Chronic Ceriodaphnia. 87% Chronic Ceriodaphnia 90%
P/F Qrtrly P/F Qrtrly
Conversation w/ Jeff Bouchelle - CMUD had applied for an SOC from the Division
a while back. The request was held up in the review process and was never issued to
CMUD. In the meantime, CMUD went ahead and started construction for the upgrading of
the Sugar Creek plant to meet the proposed limits. The facility was also starting to fail
limits for metals, NH3, etc. EPA has placed CMUD-Sugar Creek on the QNCR-Quarterly
Non -Compliance Report. The State has to work to get Sugar Creek off this list. The
Division still has not issued an SOC for the Sugar Creek plant and something has to be
done. Jeff indicated that CMUD has not found out why plant is not meeting limits.
Telecon w/ Richard Bridgeman, MRO - Repeated same info as from Jeff. SOC
requested by CMUD but was never issued. (SOC drafted in Nov. 1993) CMUD started
construction and got to the end of the construction schedule before SOC was put into
effect. Completed construction on upgrade in September, 1995. Sometime in the review
process, CMUD had been told that in lieu of an SOC, the attorney general would draft them
a letter with similar language and schedules like an SOC, but the letter was never sent to
CMUD. In the meantime, EPA has placed the Sugar Creek plant on its QNCR for at least
the past 6 quarters (may have been on longer). Per Richard, normally, if a facility is on the
QNCR for two quarters, a 309 letter is written to the Division to get the facility on schedule
within 30 days or EPA will take over.

CMUD-SUGAR CREEK WWTP
page 2
MRO responded to the 309 letter when the application for renewal was received, explained
that facility had upgraded and was working on coming into compliance. I asked about
why expanded plant having problems meeting limits. DMRs showed facility failing NH3,
Hg; Cd and Pb had one monthly failure each in 1995. Richard's data indicated violations
for NH3 in Jan thru March, '96: Hg in Jan. and Feb. '96, CBOD5 and TSS in Mar. '96,
High TSS numbers in April.
During construction, CMUD anticipated problems with DO. Problems w/ nitrifiers being
killed off, can't resolve nitrifiers in cold weather. Also had problems with wet winter,
digesters down for renovation, high solids inventory built up in the plant. Sent some waste
to McAlpine. Also had high flow creating problems, flow sometime peaked out @ 80
MGD. This indicates some possible I&I problems. Oxygen blowers were to be the
ultimate resolution for the NH3 problem.
Asked about instream Cn values below the Sugar Creek plant, reported 5 µg/1 in Feb. '96
and Aug '94, 4 µg/1 in Aug '95. Cu and Zn values also greater than action levels reported
downstream. Rchard noted that Little Sugar Creek is located south of all Charlotte's urban
area and receives all runoff, illegal discharges, and surcharging of manholes and he's not
surprised about number of pollutants found instream.
According to Richard, CMUD had now been asked to re -request an SOC by Operations
Branch. CMUD will not pay for new SOC, MRO will just make adjustments and date
changes to existing, unissued SOC . No additional flow will be requested therefore no
need for instream assessment. The expansion and improvement project has already been
completed by CMUD.
Toxicity Analysis: Review indicates that all limits for metals should be renewed, with
the exception of nickel which can be reduced to quarterly monitoring or dropped if
monitored thru pretreatment program. Cu and Zn should continue to be monitored monthly
since instream values greater that the action levels for both parameters have been recorded
downstream in Little Sugar Creek. Ag can be monitored thru pretreatment or quarterly in
NPDES permit.
Toxicity Testing: Chronic Phase II @ 87% @ 4.0 MGD, and 90% @ 20 MGD. Failed
test in May 1993 but passed for three consecutive months following; Failed again in Feb.
1994 but passed three consecutive months following. Passed all tests in 1995.
Recommend renewal of all limits and toxicity test r quirement Ni Jimit can
be dropped.1 4-0. r , , s4ii ,qi/ ROC ad I d4
d� �j,
Ttiart,4 N4.54i Jur- 6-4- 5.-hf€ei A ma-t
Ab9Des 4.4 ,_yk, -A-fic
— 0 va.4 Z
ll�i 1
JMN
-fo G--S
e„_ta Cc/ -2
_0,2 Znr-fo

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
CMUD-Sugar Creek WWTP
NC0024937 '
NPDES #
Qw (MGD)
20
7Q10s (cfs)
3.4
!WC (%)
Little Sugar Creek
90.12
Reeving Stream
Stream Class
C
i
FINAL RESULTS 1
Cd
Max. Pred Cw
48.3 ugA
Allowable Cw
2.2lugA
Max. Value
21
Cr
i
Max. Pred Cw
57.6 ug/l
Allowable Cw
55.5i ug/1
Max. Value
361
Ni
Max. Pred Cw
75.4' ugA
Allowable Cw
97.7i ugA
Max. Value
58
Pb
Max. Pred Cw
21061ugA
Allowable Cw
27.7 ug/1
Max. Value
810
Cn
Max. Pred Cw
21'ug/I
Allowable Cw
5.5 ug11
Max. Value
14
Hg
'
Max. Pred Cw
12.74 ug/1
Allowable Cw
0.0 ug l
Max. Value
4.9
Cu
'
Max. Pred Cw
127.5ugA
Allowable Cw
7.8 ugil
Max. Value
751
Zn
Max. Pred Cw
20001ug/I
Allowable Cw
55.5 ug/1
Max. Value
1000
Ag
Max. Pred Cw
68.81 ugA
Allowable Cw
0.1 V ug/I
Max. Value
43
4/19/96 PAGE 1

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
f
eelarroJCv
Facility Name
CMUD-Sugar Creek WWTP
NC0024937 '
NPDFS #
Ow (MGD)
14.67
7Q10s (cfs)
3.4
Reeving Stream
tittle Sugar Creek
Stream Class
C
=
1
FINAL RESULTS
Cd
!
Max. Pred Cw
48.31 ug/1
Allowable Cw
2.3! ug/1
Max. Value
21
Cr
1
Max. Pred Cw
57.6 ugll
Allowable Cw
57.5 ug/l
Max. Value
361
Ni
Max. Pred Cw
75.4'• ug/1
Allowable Cw
101.2hugA
Max. Value
58
Pb
_
Max. Pred Cw
21061 ug/I
Allowable Cw
28.71 ug/1
Max. Value
810
Cn
Max. Pred Cw
211 ug/I
Allowable Cw
5.7l ugA
Max. Value
141
Hg
I
Max. Pred Cw
12.7411.41
Allowable Cw
0.0i ug/1
Max. Value
4.91
Cu
i
Max. Pred Cw
127.51ugA
Allowable Cw
8.0i ug/1
Max. Value
751
Zn
1
Max. Pred Cw
2000 ugll
Allowable Cw
57.5 ugA
Max. Value
1000
Ag
Max. Pred Cw
68.81 ugA
Allowable Cw
0.11 ugA
Max. Value
431
4/15/96 PAGE 1

CMUD-Sugar Creek WWTP
Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ugA)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.1 :1
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
3.4 7010 (CFS)
20 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
31 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
90.12 IWC (%)
18.86 Allowable Concentration (mgll)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
200h00m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mgll)
3.4
20
31
1.0
0.22
90.12
1.09
5.5
20
31
1.8
0.22
84.93
2.08
NC0024937
4/19/96

CMUDSUGAR CREEK WWTP
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
MONTH Temp DO Saturation Fecal Conductivity Temp DO Saturation Fecal Conductivity
Oct-95
17
9.1
94%
19
7.5
81%
Sep-95
22
8.6
98%
1984
193
23
7.1
83%
5925
327
Aug-95
27
7.5
94%
776
201
26
6.1
75%
1300
355
Ju1-95
27
7.5
94%
1095
195
27
7.1
89%
629
327
Jun-95
23
7.6
89%
3020
157
24
6.6
78%
7823
255
May-95
23
8.2
96%
1729
180
23
#VALUEI
2478
3473
Apr-95
18
8.9
94%
441
222
18
6.5
69%
227
402
Oct-95
0%
20
8
88%
Sep-95
0%
23
7.4
86%
236
278
Aug-95
i 0%
I
I 28
6.8
87%
475
294
Jul-95
0%
28
6.6
84%
90
243
Jun-95
0%
24
6.9
82%
1207
264
Notes Ups -Sugar Cr above outfall
Dwn1-Highway 521 0 Pineville, Dwn2-Hwy 51 0 Pineville
Aug.95- Dwn1 DO's of 4.4 (24th) , 4.6 (29th)
Apr 95-Dwn 1 DOs of 4.6 (21 th)
May 95 Dwn2 - Temp-22, DO- errors
Apr. 95 Dwn2 - Temp-19, DO - 7.2, FC-174, Cnd - 349
NC0024937 4/24/96

CMUD-SUGAR CREEK WWTP
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
MONTH Temp DO Saturation Fecal Conductivity Temp DO Saturation Fecal Conductivity
Oct-94
15
9.1
90%
725
200
16
7.7
78%
>579
370
Sep-94
22
8.6
98%
1984
193
20
7
77%
>1305
368
Aug-94
22
7.7
88%
>1057
184
23
6.3
73%
>1287
333
Jul-94
24
7.3
87%
>2305
158
25
6.1
74%
>802
349
Jun-94
23
8
93%
1213
172
24
6.1
72%
>1234
389
May-94
17
9
93%
350
210
19
7.3
79%
257
398
Apr-94
17
9.1
94%
>252
226
18
7.6
80%
436
354
Oct-94
0%
16
7.9
80%
>573
370
Sep-94
0%
20
7.2
79%
>1374
372
Aug-94
0%
23
6.4
75%
>1621
335
JuI-94
0%
25
6.3
76%
875
355
Jun-94
0%
24
6.2
74%
>1846
389
NC0024937
Notes Ups -Sugar Cr above outfall
Dwn1-Highway 521 @ Pineville, Dwn2-Hwy 51 @ Pineville
4/1 7/9 6

CMUD-SUGAR CREEK WWTP INSTREAM METALS DATA cmud.sugar ins metals
Date
Ups Cn
Dwn Cn
Ups Ag
Dwn Ag
Ups Cu
Dwn Cu
Ups Zn
Dwn Zn
Feb-96
3
5
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
Jan-96
<2
4
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
Dec-95
<2
<2
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
Nov-95
<2
<2
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
Oct-95
<2
<2
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
Sep-95
2
<2
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
Aug-95
4
4
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
JuI-95
15
<2
<30
<30
<30
<50
61
Jun-95
2
3
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
May-95
2
2
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
Apr-95
<30
<30
<50
<50
Mar-95
2
2
<30
<30
<30
<30
<50
<50
Feb-95
2
2
<10
<10
<10
13
<50
<50
Jan-95
<2
<2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
Dec-94
<2
<2
<10
<10
13
14
<50
<50
Nov-94
3
2
<10
<10
<10
10
<50
63,
Oct-94
<2
<2
<10
<10
20
19
79
75
Sep-94
<2
3
<10
<10
<10
10
<50
<50
Aug-94
3
5
<10
<10
<10
13
<50
<50
Jul-94
<2
3
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
Jun-94
<2
<2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
May-94
<2
2
<10
<10
<10
14
<50
<50
Apr-94
<2
<2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
Mar-94
<5
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
Feb-94
<5
<5
<10
<10
<10
20
<50
<50
Jan-94
<5
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
Page 1

W1101.E EF11.1.1F.NT 'TOXICITY
IA( !MY
TESTING Col SELF-MON ITORING SUMMARY I Fri. Mar 15, 1996
R)IhII4.1MJ/NI YEAR LAN
92 -
Nimeonip•SIN(iLli 93 --
94
Ilk .•.
erk LY1S'I'P
Ne11040d1111001 11,•1:int//1/1/1 I.
rowdy M..411,01.1111: ltegion
r, I)
twit tint IWO'. 0.1 0
1114141 CI IR LIM .11)'3.
remieney Q l'a• A 1.e1/ May Aug Nov
MI01 Subb.wia Y Al /11
specitl
t mIer
11.13
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
MAR_
MAY PIN IliL
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Passl
*A11111•111. Alpine WLS1 I" l'2•PERM 1 '1111 LIM 9014.
Isi 012.19 Maltil Item; I I/1/91 Insioency Q PA' A Mai Jun
t lllll Reg ttttt Mkt) Subhasin. ("16.14
1'1' MO Spe. ial
/I110 0 I IWO: i .1 li . /1g1er
1.1111,1/-13131/4133c11 4., . W‘VTII. I'l 133'11111111 Ins. 72'4.; 8 pf 1 S 1' 1 clu lim /6•1-. if pf n111.-2 i Y
Non(' t As g
Y 02
93
94 Pass
N4'0010277/0111 Ilegin 11/1/95 Fwiliwncy: Q A Jan Apr Jul 1 ki Non(' p.SIN) ill.li
t ' ; Mit Idenbuig Region MR)) Subliasin el 01.1
PI; 11111 Sir,131
/OW 1 ,11 Mi c , /2 09 I hail
1'2 PloRld I '11R 1.111/41• %Pt . 941.4. IN .I/1/9S
11111111-Simar Cr. L1 LL 1 P
NI '002191110111 Begin I I/I/91 Iris./envy; Q PA. A Feb May Aug Nov Nome
t 'minis Mei Ideals.): Region MR1) Sublimity CI 644
1'1 11 61
6,01, 1 sii 15,,, ,, . , ,,,, ,,,, 1 1 lider
C1i1.13 A111,1,1111 Perin 2.11ir ac p/I 1011..104. ern° tit I high ((Mil,'
19( lmsdii osask. ikTin. 111P)n Frequency. t) 111, A Feb May Aug Nov N0'8.0101. Single
I 'omit y Itaisylvania Region: AR(1 Subbasiw FR110
PI" NA spy-, inI
71)11) 0 it Ira V: i NA link.:
Coat•. Amer it nit. low. Perin 245. IA .w law 'NM Curio iit Dapli (11),,),) 92
N1 'I91(1(110111001 111411111 1/1/46 1 fl•tillellty Q l'/1A Fel. May Aug Nov No,( 'iiiiirSingle 93
(*minty 1 Gue.ylvanta Reg - ARO Subbasin• FRI1 94
spei1.8 95
96
p Avg Chi/
92
93
94
95
96
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
94 >90 0-
96 19.913*
11)
Pa,
>9.,
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
>95
>90 0* >90 0'
66 7' >100.
MISS
Pass
Pass
Pass
>95
48 2' >90'
Ft 25' 32.20'
Pass
Pass
>99
I ad
>90
22 876'
>100
ad Pass
Pass
Pass
>90
Pass
80.S
>90
>95
>95
• ...
>90' 69.11P
21 9 11.05
Pass
Pass
Lan)
l'ass
s -
_NOV
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
>90*
>100
>99
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
40.15'
93.71
>90
>90
92 47
. >Ith
72 g•
84 54'
>100
- a
Pass
l'ass
Pass
•--
63 9'
N11/29 91'
i00
I'I' NA
/4)111 1% 1%411'1 );NA
(... imis American -Sevier Plant
Nt 3100-12-11/001 flegin-9/1/94 liequency: Q NI' A I'd. May Aug Nov
t ' lllll ity Mak/well
PI" 2110
/1)11) IS 00 IWO,: i 1.1 /11
key: , A1211 titibbasin:e11130
special
tinier l'IlIM CI1R LIM I VA.
reini chr lint; 2 11%
i i.eciii 1 iy 1 iir-Riwky Mount
':i ; , • . ; 460(11 Ilegin:1/1/95 Fristuency: Q 191' A Feb May Aug Nov
tissondie Region; RR() Sublimin. '1 A1012
pi win' sm., ial
/1)10 60 0 INVI V ;1 2 t 1 lok,
.i.g.rittriis Leasing eurporidion•093
NCII0c1(271/1/1 I; Ilegin! I/1812 Frequency; Q 191" A Feb May Aug Nov
t'ountylhiliii
PI" VAR
/1)11) oil [WI VT 110110
Remise WIRO Sahli:win; I TI'2.2
Special
(kiwi PERM (111( LIM; 911.4;
PERM Al' I.1111 NO At' 1,1111/ (GRAB,
(Mgr iiii i• Leasing ( 'orpora thin/1103
NIO0C).29 6001 lkistr9/1/91 Firqueney: Q I'iI A Mar Jim Sep Ike ('Jon( 'map;
Couto y 111.8k,0 Reg , 1420 Sullbstiis' l'IT It%
(111) sari la!
6)111 1;10 'NI PM V/ i 0 IQ Mks
1.1i1tM 4101k 1.1511 A1' 1.1M• C031,
Ciogentris Leasing-1mm MIL
N1'00594017003 Dept 1/1/95 l'nsluetWY, (..) A Feh May Aug NOV
County; Robemn Region: FR(1 Subba14in•11.1111451 .
11.15 Sr., tal
lt)111 1200 'WI V4.1.0 SS I ham
Noneom1,:SIN(41.1i
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pas.;
Pass
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Nimeomp Single 93 -
96
Pass
Pass
PSS%
Pass
l'ass
l'ass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Noneomp Single 93 --
96 •-•
92 --
91.
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Passl
Passl
Passl
Passl
F ad
Pi1S5
Pass
Pass
Pass
Passl
Pass!
Passl
PasS
l'ass
Fad
Pass
Pass
No0( ',imp SINGI.1i
SP,
96
>100'
>100'
>100'
>100'
>100'
>1110'
>100'
>100'
>100'
>100'
>100'
>100
Pass
Pass)
Passl
Pass!
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fad
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
l'ass
Pass
Late
Pass
80.6 t•
>100'
+100'
>100
Pass
Passl
Passl
Passl
Pass
0 2 cow...wive failim s = sigitilli mi nonr 11113111e Y Pie 1992 Data Available
11•111,1 , Permit Requirement IFT = Adminismitive Lener largo Frequency .., Moon. ine licquen, y Q Qii.iiicrly:141. Monthw
ly.. IIM Bisinthly: SA Seimannually: A. Annually, OWIL I /nly whim deatiaiging. I) Discontinued monitoring requirement, 1S• Conducliag independent study
I It il"NI) •
Item.. rust onsilli nsmiteil 74)1(1, Receiving siwant low flow criterion (cfsl A - into wily iiiiiiiiim lag mi rca,c, to monthly upon milli. Imbue Months that lestinp, mist occur - es. JAMAS/R.1111J a •11. NonComp = eurnsit Compliance Remo...win
11- ..; Pei united Bow 0,1(11)i 1Wel.,..- 'mama wane concentration l'/F -: 1...../1..10 L Ilium, te.i At' , Acute 1.1111 - Chronic
Data Mamma: f - Fathead Minnow: • • eerindanhina sn : my - Mysid shrimp: ehV • (lima, salt), I' Momility o) stated percentage 9 highew concentialson: al Perfumed bv 1/111,1 I,,R lival Group: 19 - BA 11,1
Rrinnung Notation'-' = Data not tequitcd; NR - NIS reported; 1 ) - Beginning of Quarter twilit), Activity Status: 1 - Inseltve, 6 - Newly Issued( I.. consiruist. 11 • Active but noi dwelt:wiling: 14 More dal. t a, .ol.thle for month in question
II I = ORC signature needed

51-,
<— t 02,14(6.O000
�— CAOD- I(u)in CX.
li
7
or
Arrowoed L f
E
• k�
s.a.e. (Sy)
� J
0•
•
Sri
^fit I1Lo_ic��
4J
su5a CK
tefose OZ. 14u6.o 1
a
rn(,1
Gay_ oz. 6000
C'.nx,p - fie. Cr