NC0024937_Permit Issuance_20120420

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type: i
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
April 20, 2012
Thus docurnerit is printed on reu+ae paper - ignore any
content on the reszerae aide

ern
bENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E. Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 20, 2012
Ms. Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E., Superintendent
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP
Facility Class IV
Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Jarrell:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal
and modification for expansion up to 28 MGD of the subject permit. The expanded
flow of 8 MGD will be via a new Outfall 002. Accordingly, we are forwarding the
attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of
Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
The final permit authorizes Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) to discharge
treated municipal wastewater from the Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to
Little Sugar Creek, a class C water in the Catawba River Basin. The permit includes
discharge limitations/or monitoring for flow, BOD5, ammonia nitrogen, total
suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, total residual chlorine, fecal coliform, total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, and copper, along with other parameters.
The Division received comments on the Sugar Creek WWTP draft permit from
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities.
The receiving stream, Little Sugar Creek, is listed as an impaired waterbody
on the North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List. There is an EPA approved
Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Irwin, McAlpine, Little
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]
Internet www.ncwateraualitv.orq
Ncne CaI'011ri3
7laturaIIy
An Equal opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer

Ms.Jarrell
April 20, 2012
Page 2 of 4
Sugar, and Sugar Creek Watersheds. Addressing impaired waters is a high priority
with the Division, and instream data will continue to be evaluated. If there is
noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and stream impairment can be
attributed to your facility, then mitigative measures may be required.
The following modifications are included in the final permit.
• The total residual chlorine limits have been removed from the permit
based on the effluent being treated by ultraviolet disinfection system.
There is no longer a backup chlorine gas disinfection system at the
Sugar Creek WWTP.
• The weekly average and daily maximum limits for total zinc have been
removed from the final permit. Re-evaluation by staff of South
Carolina and North Carolina determined that there was no reasonable
potential to exceed the South Carolina water quality standards and the
effluent limits could be removed from the final permit. Total zinc will
continue to be monitored in the pretreatment long term monitoring
program
• The effluent monitoring frequency for total copper will be reduced to
quarterly and the weekly average and daily maximum limits of 15 ug/1
and 22 ug/1, respectively, will remain in the permit. Quarterly
monitoring for copper will provide sufficient effluent data for
evaluation at the next permit renewal. Instream monitoring for total
copper will continue in both Sugar and Little Sugar Creek.
• Instream monitoring for total chromium has been removed from the
following station sites based on a review that showed several years of
not detectable data: IC 1, MC 1, MC2, LSC1 and LSC3. All other
parameters will continue to be monitored at these sites.
• In condition A.10. Effluent Pollutant Scan, updated language has been
included that indicates the years that the pollutant scans must
performed. In addition, 1) mercury must be sampled using EPA
Method 1631 E, 2) P-chloro-m-cresol has been corrected, 3) the DWQ
Water Quality Section has been corrected to . the Surface Water
Protection Section and 4) the address for data submittal has been
updated.
• The list of treatment units on the supplement to permit cover sheet
has been amended based on information submitted by CMU.
• An effluent page for 8 MGD of wasteflow for a proposed facility and a
new outfall 002 has been added. Effluent limits applied at 8 MGD will
be the same as existing limits at Outfall 001.

Ms.Jarrell
April 20, 2012
Page 3 of 4
• Weekly average and daily maximum limits and monitoring
requirements for cadmium, chromium, and cyanide will be removed
from the permit based on the results of the reasonable potential
analyses. The analyses of data indicated there was no potential to
exceed the water quality standards instream. These parameters will
continue to be monitored in the facility's pretreatment program's long
term monitoring plan.
• Quarterly monitoring for total phenolic compounds has been added to
the permit based on the results of a reasonable potential analysis
which indicated the potential to exceed the water quality standard.
• The footnote regarding cyanide practical quantifiable level has been
removed because cyanide is no longer limited or monitored in the
permit.
• The monitoring frequency for total nickel has been modified to
monthly instead of weekly, based on revised Division procedures. This
modification allows sufficient data to be collected for evaluation at the
next permit renewal.
• The active permit condition regarding Daily Maximum Fecal Coliform
Limit has been removed because the effective date has occurred. A
daily maximum limit of 1000/ 100m1 for fecal coliform is given for both
outfall 001 and the proposed outfall 002.
• Minor language has been modified in condition A.7. Chronic Toxicity
Permit Limit. In addition, a new paragraph regarding data submittal
had been added (second paragraph from the end of the condition) .
• The permit condition A. 8.Total Phosphorus Limit has been modified
and the paragraph regarding construction at the Irwin Creek and
Sugar Creek WWTPs by February 2006 has been removed because the
effective dates have occurred.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in
this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing
upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This
request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings,
6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a
demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect
the legal requirements to obtain other permits, which may be required by the Division
of Water Quality, or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits may be
required.

Ms.Jarrell
April 20, 2012
Page 4 of 4
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone].
(tti
Sincerely,
16 .4
harles Wakild, P.E.
Attachments
cc: EPA/Region IV (ecopy)
SCDHEC/ Jeff Debessonet, 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201
Mecklenburg County/Meredith Moore, John McCulloch (ecopy)
Mooresville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section (ecopy)
Aquatic Toxicology Unit (ecopy)
PERCS/Attn: Deborah Gore (ecopy)
NPDES File
Central Files

Permit NC0024937
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities - Sugar Creek WWTP
5301 Closeburn Road
Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
to receiving waters designated as Little Sugar Creek in the Catawba River Basin in
accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions
set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective June 1, 2012.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2015.
Signed this day April 20, 2012.
Charles Wakild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

♦
Permit NC002493.7
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises
under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) is hereby authorized to:
Continue operation of a 20.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant with a discharge through
outfall 001, consisting of the following treatment units :
• Four mechanical bar screens (with 200 MGD peak capacity)
• One 130 MGD grit removal facility with dual vortex grit collectors
• Dual 250 GPM grit pumps
• Screw Conveyor System
• Influent sampling station
• Influent pump station (with four low head pumps with 70 MGD peak capacity and seven
• high head pumps with 120 MGD peak capacity)
• Three FMC bar screens (rated at 35 MGD each)
• Two Pista grit removal (rated at 50 MGD)
• Two grit classifiers
• Belt conveyor system
• Main lift pumps (3 150 hp and 1 - 100 hp variable frequency drive pumps)
• Four primary clarifiers
• Primary/raw sludge pump station (pumps primary sludge to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• Six aeration basins (diffused air)
• Three blowers (two multistage centrifugal blowers and one single stage centrifugal blower)
• pH adjustment
• Six secondary clarifiers
• RAS pump station (Eight 25 hp pumps and three 50 hp pumps)
• WAS pump station (Two 60 hp pumps that pump to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• One 40 MGD (peak flow) open channel, low pressure ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system
• Ten deep bed filters using anthracite
• Four effluent filter pumps
• Effluent flow measurement
• Cascade aeration
• Three (3) 2,200 kW stand-by generators
• Two (2) 20 MG flow equalization basins
• Two Wet odor scrubber units
• One dry odor scrubber unit
The facility is located at the CMU Sugar Creek WWTP [5301 Closeburn Road, Charlotte]
in Mecklenburg County.
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct permit from the Division, construct the
facilities necessary to treat up to 8 MGD of municipal wastewater and discharge from
proposed outfall 002.
3. Discharge wastewater from said facility at the locations specified on the attached map
through outfall 001 into Little Sugar Creek, currently classified C water in the Catawba
River Basin.

r f f: 6� .I /!r: aa•! 1 �• Y -. i K - T y " ■
G7r.'. ii '� r S't,•�+/'i�'i`. �,$!� �.ci�, `;/ �or�''tZ , fi• �, :�.`ti ^ .•, y, vl�tj,� �� • �_ ILAId�a
�r.TV1Fi. y,n rl ti ,y� �+, c+a. ; . • r C f fir 1 I /� iA.t. l f. i� j�('�
1 �-lvis.va:i in�cn.rit wF:� 6ili T'e: _ K..9..1I fiVa .ftLICYa?1 ~ i 6AxN, it W'•V,- ` Il(!. 'IN
t4rwa_.. r�
Sugar Creek WWTP - NC0024937
USGS Quad Narne: Weddington
Receiving Stream: Little Sugar Creek
Stream Class: C
Subbasin: Catawba = 03-08-34
Lat.: 33°09'O8"
Long.: 80°51'19"
HUC#: b305010301
Facility
Location,
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities

Permit NC0024937
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge treated municipal and industrial wastewater from outfall 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
y
` ttiiiiitii iiae
uuf' \ ✓i:>�.; J" .Ye`M "t`:'�7:f '9i'.:.�Y:ZtlCZ.'t
,„e: ' ! , 't - l:.�m iti 2'rVi r5
_�saCS'^!1'='tSYi.�j^L"`�°y�'�h*�.t-.F>': -..., .
c „ M tIitonl1 JRTi Nniote►h t
s
'. -. }:ii '.T.j' Y'. t���j.__.,_
r' -i - ,,'• y cCiS �''4-
`
C `yi. Jr J�:L S.1i v
p, y�� • '1r 1
��':.t�,��Y:«�irM�4`°���..�p:�:�o-�.'�-: .'S. :`f1+
y�yr,%�
',•, " `. x' ti' • s . - 'y
Ct3 �.. Q f•�;. }�%. .�'
� Y i �
,4(i ��3�.C¢le��>' �� f,�. WG�' A,� >�..t
'''...''
P+� �� ,r .� ,{-r s
ter}, 3'`: , 4.. .. - ,i
,, ,, . • :,
s > . > 'i* ..•; 7 @ �r
A,. ,, '�: �' ' _ .. ;YII "tif ,k.„ �. .. �.-
yti
fk ., '� ik?C*-,
. 1 Y :.."�1k7^'
L�. !f ... ) -
M. P'
Yt• itf . T.. e 1 .*'
2 .'• y 4'2
'
5i �� -S .1r. ♦
:i..k4 i�:G..:..�J:r�'A.'r.'�'��La: �G.�v.. �r!+wl��.i�.�;
- s •�r•-
yt�i �
F°a Ili
.xse.�...
�
.
� tl..
r ..ii ••
3, .d�%{c'.i
. -
m �fl'.'p`.+ . _Q
1 k 4 F
...+p•:. '�
.,,�,. �
� �
i ' �1 ♦ e
..izvr.:vKs ..ra.
.,,� �s�avc �
s a en �
,.s.>. :.r e e e4
suss
-, ..r
5
i
I* .n
x ,...��.
srLx a pie
... r... ..
Flow
20.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Summer)2.3
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Winter)23
10.0 m2IL
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2 .
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
,
Composite
I, E
NH3-N (Summer)3
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E I
NH3-N (Winter)3
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved 0xygen4
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200/ 100mI
400/ 100 ml
1000/ 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Not less
than 6.0 S.U. or
greater than 9.0 S.U.
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus5
See Special Condition A. (8.) and A. (9.)
Monthly
Composite
E
Nickel, Total
97.7 µg/L
261.0 µg/L
Monthly
Composite
E
Copper, Total 6.7
15.0 µg1L
22.0 µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phenolic Compounds
Quarterly
Grab
E
Chronic Toxicity8
Quarterly
Composite
E
Effluent Pollutant Scan9
Footnote 9
Footnote 9
E
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: I- Influent, E - Effluent.
2. The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85 % removal).
3. Summer is defined as the period from April 1 through October 31, while winter is defined as November 1
through March 31.
4. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
5. See Special Conditions A. (8.) and A. (9.) for total phosphorus limit and reporting requirements.
6. If CMU decides to develop site -specific standards, the proposed course of action should be consistent with
"Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for Metals" EPA-823-B-94-001, February
1994. The Division and EPA will review the proposed course of action and may provide comments.
7. The limits stipulated are based on "total recoverable'. Alternatively, the permittee may request limits based on
total dissolved as allowed under South Carolina standards.
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90%: February, May, August, November (see Special Condition. A. (7.)).
9. The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit. (See Special
Condition A. (10).
Definitions:
MGD - Million gallons per day mg/L - Milligram per liter ml - Milliliter
µg/L - Micrograms per liter CBOD - Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Pew -snit NC002493.7
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -FINAL
During the period beginning upon expansion above 20 MGD into outfall 001 and lasting until
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated municipal and industrial wastewater
from outfall 002. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
1 fiiha//��}.�.����p,.�/��,��aa ; _t:
K� ffeWsilik
't
?' c'9
.%��r�,j Tr.
f'�'
• '::`
�
Y �'.'J4� fvJ
h
'y e,`.
�� K n ��.
L3.x
.��;:4Y�yn�.j�/���i../,,�/o�r;�
�• "L'.i"' a
f �..
M�{ ��.
li{Vl,l; !iiRe iiiiI,eiaCii iiWY 4-'
,i.. .:,, .-/;""�j�
� K .� �
i`4" sL,,X.. �.
�i i+iit �V��T`. � ..h,.�.
S C... Li.
,r
-
�tt.Iv,Y�
�t ��k
'.•+' 7 .r 6 { � Jr f � G
.• z r ,
I t t t ...
•.v} _fi�rr zqd
.. �.'"
Ag��
b' h 1
�-
etT'
6... .ax
lk-..
,A eragel(II
-+." vk
�,. !v' ~�
um
:ctS•rr•.?� ti
44,44 •t ,e
� 'i`�
Freq a eye
�,•L++�^�
t - S
: type w;
•t.-t).. ,.t.
,vw;
'1
h� �'� �' S .
Flow
8.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Summer)2.3
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Winter)2,3
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
1, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3-N (Summer)3
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3-N (Winter)3
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved 0xygen4
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200/ 100m1
400/ 100 ml
1000/ 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Not less
than 6.0 S.U. or
greater than 9.0 S.U.
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus5
See Special Condition A. (8.) and A. (9.)
Monthly
Composite
E _
Nickel, Total
97.7 µg/L
261.0 µg/L
Monthly
Composite
E
Copper, Total 6,7
15.0 µg1L
22.0 µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phenolic Compounds
' Quarterly
Grab
E
Chronic Toxicity8
Quarterly
Composite
E
Effluent Pollutant Scan9
Footnote 9
Footnote 9
E
Footnotes: •
1. Sample Location: I- Influent, E - Effluent.
2. The monthly average effluent CBODs and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85 % removal).
3. Summer is defined as the period from April 1 through October 31, while winter is defined as November 1
through March 31.
4. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
5. See Special Conditions A. (8.) and A. (9.) for total phosphorus limit and reporting requirements.
If CMU decides to develop site -specific standards, the proposed course of action should be consistent with
(--9>
"Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for Metals" EPA-823-B-94-001, February
1994. The Division and EPA will review the proposed course of action and may provide comments.
7 The limits stipulated are based on "total recoverable". Alternatively, the permittee may request limits based on
total dissolved as allowed under South Carolina standards.
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90%: February, May, August, November (see Special Condition. A. (7.)).
9. The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit. (See Special
Condition A. (10).
Definitions:
MGD - Million gallons per day mg/L - Milligram per liter ml - Milliliter
µg/L - Micrograms per liter CBOD - Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Permit NC0024937
A. (3.) Irwin Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor Irwin Creek as specified below:
•` :, r,•a.ti
• �
F tattoo
• J" �
.: ] y_ _ gyp..
•My,-=] ?. .� F:T
Sx<' r- a -.. �` tS ..4 S'..S
'4-.
v 7
�.�,y( y
TMY..x' x"�jr�.,7 Y,�3. �. � f{..� �. i�} =��7C, �-i, � : y f-.S
�s,.�s . a_r •< ;�v
4 �t +} ~P� aR�Ti
•r ..I: 1 �♦i 4 1
-
Siena . W,���!E(!fi
�a.,r,, �. �� -t'" i� +._-,,....: ..r1 _ , v.tc4_ , - . :.6
iY�Wr...W�l Y t�� y��yS�{`(!.�{fl�
C'+�.L ;',2 3.�pi_`. r g ;R unwell_ ? r i.'-
"AE-Y..:.(.i. _h'�"� ',SY"SR'3'i'Giiir% "R '��2,'�, "mot`^!:-,�. Y.a.
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
ICI
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 - September 30) and monthly (October 1-- May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1, MC1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
A. (4.) McAlpine Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor McAlpine Creek as specified below:
,.
3
♦
�-.• !
, .t
ne
,.♦„.. ' Fi°' `¢'ji�*''�'Y��:.,�+' S` "y .6 0.,.i':..
`~ r ftc lg jQ.�`h�l 7r r-
; k J6 JL t4 1 { Ka �as y
�. rr•11 .rr... {� ny l f .ti' :55 r a k n. tit a ) t-- -4' 2..3�,+., ti.ez 3Y}' .7.,
R. .� .S. y `� .Z :) �r„V.. .S. '. 4 S � ;� �
Kai sr+.$J,].' + •.... , j... -�, ;'i. 1 ,.,,t'r t. Y)' k� `� •rY�: • .ti
kl{r': ' • v4- r ,,,_ :` X1t �..1 _.. y�i A 3 �'� ''44 �Y ¢¢
.i .....X. _4 ::Zk'�iy� YaI �� ♦.L�'w� ��.sw'iL
. ♦ s'.-
°
Lr
��,• . . '1'Z.� C'
•Ya >. h..!-. c
�;:. :4;•? <
..l ..ie`�'.�{. .�X
��..
.ri
._ M
- i �'S.♦.
,� •. .�
.t:Ji. - ,qtr..�-�
- ���}{Y�
M r�
..6
.
..♦ ..
1"
• `"+Fr KPY
,! i .s
4 , 1
•. S irt_:,>
♦ 5.-�++..T.yy't
"..X+Y"a,L.
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Copper
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1- September 30) and monthly (October 1- May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1, MC1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.

Permit NC0024937
A. (5.) Sugar Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor Sugar Creek as specified below:
s_,.
r tf
.J'.'
.+gyyt -:i 1
(D�
ash;. d
;. x ♦ �
1.
••
(� N'
.�- x..i'. SC'i
ro y +eft ! ++� .� Y y _ c i� t�� M.C2:s 1. i:t.µ S
< :; ., ; z foe �- r
.�.^ Sri{{.� l}1."r {�wE.. Y�'M .A�•. •y,\•I"5.. ♦ `�Gh;, �:�.. if•�y�'} �',i �.. \'(..•`
` ; k�t'7 • �r[[!�� "�7:• kVy) `!Y A' :.{Y LL _'.h`
i.!'. :�F 'lc R �""�••
t .Er:.s;..',�9. p,s'de;r%+ `c z..54/a' 3.*.. .,. ...r
�-
� x t-� '4w-.. :.. .....� fA � .i'4 y�
�'✓ f l cP %,f�CMl�(, �i �p't ti '. h.. 'V .' f � f'
aaA •: i.'� . : `. ! Sy�~�[t •
•.:., -4 �`. .- a+l '4 .. r Y \'. �1�.} .V �W x }n..4, l. •[(,
a'w0'�Y�."i•�-. rO;�.•?✓Ii<..<•......1)1':`r..,.:�,.=.ti�•�(Gtfi;.=.'yE.,%K'�.i)(i �:v�:3w:5',.l•-"i'��J�.'J��W3L��ti%!"i�'yx-y..^.:`1. 3.-.
�S - t .x:'
e et• -
i CJ�i�..`.`.'.r!.,U''• 4.'Ci ;:
.r1, C� ' - �`y
✓�_ ��xl!�i* {'ViS..a1
�^. * .S"<:;T
1Z4 �A5�.. :Y ;it
;.• I h•. 1
�:aa"�T`v.....,,�f .a .-x',�s '::.':.
�{ 't
a � u a ent.
j ,�y ,Y.
� (y �j q f�
K�, C
•t !-
�c �•,\
7••i r�=' Y -
• a- . . ��•4 j
_.S�•..t.u.^s-.��3. n,�
G e
-•Y.." _ -'i
�� { y"
M1.S �l-+i
S Y"Z ,.
�• �� � '
6 1y�'
�.�...'•:
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variables
Grab
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Temperature
Variables
Grab
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variables
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Temperature
Variables
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Conductivity
Variables
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variables
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Temperature
Variables
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Conductivity
Variables
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Copper
Monthly
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
pH
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Ammonia (NH3-N)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Nitrate/Nitrite
(NOX)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Orthophosphate
Weekly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1— Sept 30) and monthly (Oct 1— May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1,
MC 1 and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar
Creek WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the
McAlpine Creek WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.

c
Permit NC0024937
A. (6.) Little Sugar Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee
shall monitor Little Sugar Creek as specified below:
-' io
�1•'•'
C K .d
.�'
` ��
�' .. s
..au._ar::..:.�_,_..._c
<. �;; i e-.S". �. .zK- ,.xa., :ka\ -* 's'7t' �'.e�.: . ,A ,.. ' .^e.. "a`?#y':..: :;t.
�, : f :,°•5 ,} ,j:.„4ai�• y�y{ y� ��C ,a .���'lr. �Y,x�. YYYttt .1.` �f' '{•� :Y s
b.k `..�, ' W3.S cY:,'.'J^ 7-`t 4 " e',✓ ';A. .dl`. �w4'v.,=Sr-tr'S yY`i`Yr,.
`:tikY
it.: .•..� . .4 c:s?..li1�S, ,�. > �,\A '",•'l'i . .{ ... .
,Q.��� -'�% :� �. -� u•-�:��`r£f '�, � , :'�,.� siq� r c� �.,, y� '�' o-'
' '$�."' f ^k Y `. c.4.= , , N �: ,' .<,, r.. '},1y n P.:?r"`,
� .. r.t.,.'
.^' &'{w: `' wC`x .
�q (w ..x:��i1 1..
`e�. ' �%'x, i '.D y'x• 2Q
-:'.:c:3�"<1...'_S,4":
;a��- .Yv � � `� s F
yr 7t� � rt'
'� ......-.., -_..._
r n . ._;pits., . ..
'�.y4�,5�;�t:
. f� w.i
f� /{ \.•
Ner���
is'; •"='� ti .a x
v*S. ti., �;`"[�4n
._�. . -. ....
y., .' .'4€; •:'.o
��#tf'�.+�,���. 7'.
A ��n`..
- rvs;y
V��.:,
r`�:�st�.c.�'�. „-r
f' ^' 5 x .{+. "'
...-.. .. ..,.... . ,..
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable1
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable1
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Temperature
Variable1
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Copper
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1— Sept 30) and monthly (Oct 1— May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1,
MC 1 and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar
Creek WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the
McAlpine Creek WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
The revised instream monitoring program, no longer requires monitoring of station LSC2. The
LSC2 designation continues to refer to the sampling station on Little Sugar Creek downstream of
the Sugar Creek WWTP at Archdale Road; however, this station is inactive.

i
Permit NC0024937
i
A. (7.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly) at 20 MGD (001); at 8 MGD (002)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90.0%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, Quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ccr iodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent
versions. The tests will be performed during the months of February, May, August, and November. Effluent sampling
for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as
described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. If reporting pass/fail results using the
parameter code TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If reporting Chronic Value results
using the parameter code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR DWQ / Environmental Sciences Section•
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days
after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address
cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, the results of such monitoring
shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR & all AT Forms submitted.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an
invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the •initial monitoring.

4
Permit NC0024937
A. (8.) Total Phosphorus Limit
As stipulated by the 2002 Settlement Agreement between Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
(CMU), the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ), CMU's McAlpine Creek WWTF, Sugar Creek w-wrp and
Irwin Creek WWTP must comply with a combined 12 month rolling average limit of 826.0 lbs/day as of
February 28, 2006. This limit is defined as an effluent limit for total phosphorus from the total
combined discharge from the three referenced CMU wastewater treatment plants (based on a 12-month
rolling average). The methodology for calculating the annual average is described in Part A. (9.).
A. (9.) Total Phosphorus Monitoring
The Permittee shall calculate a 12-month rolling average mass loading as the sum of monthly
loadings, according to the following equations:
(1) Monthly Average (lbs./day) = TP x Qw x 8.34
where:
TP = the arithmetic average of total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) obtained via composite samples (either daily,
weekly, or monthly average values) collected during the month
Qw = the average daily waste flow (MGD) for the month
8.34= conversion factor, from (mg/L x MGD) to pounds
The 12-month rolling average mass loading is defined as the sum of the monthly average loadings for
the previous 12 months inclusive of the reporting month:
12
(2) 12-Month Mass Loading (lbs./day)= E TPma : 12 (inclusive of reporting month)
•
Where:
TPma is defined as the total phosphorus monthly average mass loading (calculated above).
The monthly average and 12-month average mass loadings shall be reported on the attached worksheet
and submitted with the discharge monitoring report for McAlpine Creek WWTP. The first worksheet is
due with the discharge monitoring report, 12 months from the effective date of the total phosphorus
limit (referenced in Special Condition A. (8)). In the interim period between the effective date and the
requirement to submit the attached worksheet, the total phosphorus monthly average mass loadings
should be reported on the discharge monitoring report for the respective facility.
The Permittee shall report the total phosphorus concentration for each sample on the appropriate
discharge monitoring report for each facility. Reporting of and compliance with the phosphorus limit
shall be done on a monthly basis.

Permit NC0024937
A. (10.) Effluent Pollutant Scan
The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below. One scan
must be performed in each of the following years: 2013, 2014, and 2015. Analytical methods shall be in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether parameters are present in
concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples should be collected with one quarterly
toxicity test each year, and must represent seasonal variation [Le. do not sample in the same quarter every year].
Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury -(EPA Method 1631E )
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1, 1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chloropbenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dib enzo (a,h) anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1, 2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitro sodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Reporting. Test results shall be reported on DWQ Form- A MR-PPA 1(or in a form approved by the
Director) by December 31 st of each designated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the
following address: NCDENR/DWQ/Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1617.

4/ 13/2012 PER JMN
Amendments to the Factsheet
The following modifications were included in the final permit based on additional
information received during the public notice process and re-evaluation of data:
• The total residual chlorine limits have been removed from the permit
based on the effluent being treated by ultraviolet disinfection system.
There is no longer a backup chlorine gas disinfection system at the
Sugar Creek WWTP.
• The weekly average and daily maximum limits for total zinc have been
removed from the fmal permit. Re-evaluation by staff of South
Carolina and North Carolina determined that there was no reasonable
potential to exceed the South Carolina water quality standards and
the effluent limits could be removed from the final permit. Total zinc
will continue to be monitored in the pretreatment long term
monitoring program.
• The effluent monitoring frequency for total copper will be reduced to
quarterly and the weekly average and daily maximum limits of 15 ug/1
and 22 ug/1, respectively, will remain in the permit. Quarterly
monitoring for copper will provide sufficient effluent data for
evaluation at the next permit renewal. Instream monitoring for total
copper will continue in both Sugar and Little Sugar Creek.
• Instream monitoring for total chromium has been removed from the
following station sites based on a review that showed several years of
not detectable data: IC 1, MC 1, MC2, LSC1 and LSC3. All other
parameters will continue to be monitored at these sites.
• In condition A.10. Effluent Pollutant Scan, updated language has
been included that indicates the years that the pollutant scans must
performed. In addition, 1) mercury must be sampled using EPA
Method 1631 E, 2) P-chloro-m-cresol has been corrected, 3) the DWQ
Water Quality Section has been corrected to the Surface Water
Protection Section and 4) the address for data submittal has been
updated.
• The list of treatment units on thesupplement to permit cover sheet
has been amended based on information submitted by CMU.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Sugar Creek WWIP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 8

DENR/ DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0024937
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities/Sugar Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
4222 Westmont Drive, Charlotte NC 28217
Facility Address:
5301 Closeburn Road, Charlotte NC 28217
Permitted Flow
20 MGD; requesting expansion to 28 MGD
Type of Waste:
Municipal (domestic and industrial)
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal and expansion
Facility Classification
IV
County:
Mecklenburg
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Little Sugar Creek
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
C
USGS Topo Quad:
G15NE
303(d) Listed?:
Yes
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
HUC#:
Subbasin:
03050103
03-08-34
Date:
8/26/2011
Drainage Area (mi2):
40.8
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
3.4
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
5.5•
Average Flow (cfs):
47.0
IWC (%):
90%
Primary SIC Code:
4952
SUMMARY OF FACILITY INFORMATION
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) has requested renewal and modification of the NPDES
permit for the Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The application was received on
December 1, 2009, the permit expired on May 31, 2010 and has been administratively extended
by the Division.
The existing WWTP with a design flow of 20.0 MGD discharges into Little Sugar Creek, a class
C water. Average flow in 2006 was 13.4 MGD, which is 67% of capacity, in 2007 was 13.2
MGD which is 66% of capacity and in 2008 was 12.1 MGD which is 60% of capacity. The
wasteflow from the plant is municipal and the Sugar Creek WWTP serves slightly more than
77,000 persons.
Facility expansion
The 2009 application states that CMU is proposing to expand the facility from the current 20.0
MGD facility to a 28.0 MGD facility. This is the Phase I of a two phase expansion to 34 MGD.
The facility submitted an environmental assessment for this expansion, received a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) in January 2009 and is in the design phase of the expansion to 28
MGD. Preliminary plans for this upgrade and expansion include the addition of a new facility
and a new outfall (002) to be added to the west side of Little Sugar Creek. The new facility will
add an anoxic zone at the head of aeration basins and phosphorus removal by the addition of
metal salts. CMU has indicated that the new outfall will be approximately 800 feet upstream of
existing outfall. Because of the close proximity of the outfalls and the fact that influent flow
will only come in the existing east side of the plant and be transferred over to the new west side
plant, DWQ will consider them as one outfall. DWQ has informed CMU that this new outfall
will have the same limits as the existing outfall for all parameters.
The existing 20.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisted of the following treatment units:
• Three FMC bar screens (rated at 35 MGD each)
• Pista grit removal (rated at 50 MGD each)
• Grit Classifiers
• Conveyor System
• Influent sampling station
• Influent pump station (2-150Hp variable frequency drive pump, 1-150Hp lift pump,
1-100Hp lift pump)
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Sugar Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1

• Four primary clarifiers
• One 1.2 MG raw/primary sludge storage tank
• Primary/raw sludge pump station (pumps primary sludge to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• Four Trickling filters (Inactive)
• Eleven aeration basins (diffused air) (6 active, 5 standby)
• Five blowers (two positive displacement blowers, two multistage centrifugal blowers,
one single stage centrifugal blower)
• pH adjustment (NaOH)
• Six secondary clarifiers
• RAS pump station (eight 25Hp pumps, one 60 Hp pump, and one 30Hp pump)
• WAS pump station - pumped to McAlpine WWTP
• Chlorine disinfection
• Sodium bisulfite dechlorination
• One deep bed filter using anthracite
• Four effluent filter pumps
• Effluent flow measurement
• Cascade aeration
• Backup power
• 20 MG equalization basin (under construction)
The Sugar Creek WWTP has had additional construction since the renewal in 2005 and several
new treatment components have been added. The new units include:
• Four mechanical bar screens (with 200 MGD peak capacity)
• One 130 MGD grit removal facility with dual vortex grit collectors
• Dual 250 GPM grit pumps
• Influent pump station (with four low head pumps with 70 MGD peak capacity and
seven high head pumps with 120 MGD peak capacity)
• One 40 MGD (peak flow) open channel, low -pressure ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
system
• Sodium hypochlorite disinfection system for on -site water reuse
• 2,200 kW stand-by generator
• One 20 MG flow equalization basin
• One 3000 CFM dry scrubber odor control system
The Division received signed engineering certifications confirming the addition of these units.
The treatment plant has a Pretreatment Program and a Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) as
it receives flow from several Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial
Users. (see Attachment G in the application).
It is recommended that the existing pretreatment program continue to be implemented
during the next permitting cycle.
RECEIVING STREAM
The receiving stream is Little Sugar Creek and is classified C in the Catawba River Basin.
Three segments of Little Sugar Creek are listed on the North Carolina 2010 303d impaired
streams list from the source to the North Carolina/South Carolina State Line. The Sugar
Creek WWTP is located in the segment from the source of Little Sugar Creek to Archdale Road.
The impairment is for several parameters including copper, ecological/biological integrity in
benthos and fish community, fecal coliform, water column mercury for fish consumption, and
turbidity.
The permit will continue to include the existing effluent limitations for total copper and total
zinc at the existing and expanded flows to protect for downstream water quality protection in
Little Sugar Creek and Sugar Creek in South Carolina. Quarterly chronic toxicity testing at
90% will remain in the permit at both flows. The Sugar Creek WWTP has passed all quarterly
chronic toxicity tests since March 2006, a total of 23 tests. These results indicate that
effluent copper and zinc are not problematic in regards to the whole effluent toxicity tests.
There is an EPA approved Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Irwin,
McAlpine, Little Sugar, and Sugar Creek Watersheds. This TMDL was developed by the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection with active participation by the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Sugar Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 2

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ), Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) and United States
Geological Survey (USGS). Effective on October 1, 2005, a fecal coliform daily maximum limit
of 1000/ 100m1 was added to the Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek and McAlpine Creek permits. This
daily maximum fecal coliform limit was renewed in this permit.
The elevated mercury in Little Sugar Creek was sampled at a DWQ random ambient station in
2007 and 2008. The Little Sugar Creek site was in a highly urbanized area in Charlotte at East
Morehead St., approximately 4 miles upstream of the Sugar Creek WWTP. ESS reports that 3
of 24 samples (12.5%) at the East Morehead St. station were above the mercury standard
therefore, the entire segment was listed as impaired. The Sugar Creek WWTP does not have a
mercury limit in the existing permit, however there is monitoring through the pretreatment
program. The evaluation of effluent mercury data through a reasonable potential analysis,
indicated that there was no reasonable potential to exceed the mercury standard instream. The
current procedure of allowing no instream dilution and protecting at the end of the effluent
pipe for the mercury water quality standard of 12 ng/1 resulted in no reasonable potential. The
highest recorded effluent mercury value was 5.9 ng/ 1. It would appear that the Sugar Creek
WWTP did not contribute to the mercury impairment in this segment of Little Sugar Creek
based on its downstream location to the sampling site and low effluent mercury values.
The elevated instream turbidity values in Little Sugar Creek are more than likely from nonpoint
sources in the watershed.
NUTRIENT CONDITION
A permit condition regarding total phosphorus limits has been included in the permits for
CMU's Irwin Creek WWTP, Sugar Creek WWTP and McAlpine WWTP based on a settlement
agreement that was reached between CMU, SC, and DWQ. This condition will be updated in
the Irwin Creek permit to the same condition in the McAlpine permit. Based on this condition,
phosphorus limits are included in the McAlpine Creek WWTP permit per a settlement
agreement in 2002. Any actions regarding construction of nutrient removal components at the
Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek plants prior to 2006 did not occur, therefore the Sugar Creek and
Irwin Creeks WWTPs do not have individual TP limits. This condition will be in the renewal
permit for Sugar Creek. All CMU plants have been submitting phosphorus data as required by
the agreement and the 12 month rolling average limit of 826.0 lbs/day has been met since
February 28, 2006. (It should be noted that CMU's application states that during the
expansion of the Sugar Creek WWTP, there will be metal salts added to the proposed primary
and secondary clarifiers of the expanded facility to remove some phosphorus. The existing 20
MGD facility will also have chemical phosphorus removal added to its treatment.)
Total Phosphorus Limit Condition
As stipulated by the 2002 Settlement Agreement between Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
(CMU), the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) and
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ), CMU's McAlpine Creek WWTF, Sugar
Creek WWTP and Irwin Creek WWTP must comply with a combined 12 month rolling average
limit of 826.0 lbs/day as of February 28, 2006. This limit is defined as an effluent limit for
total phosphorus from the total combined discharge from the three referenced CMU wastewater
treatment plants (based on a 12-month rolling average). The methodology for calculating the
annual average is described in Part A. (9.).
Deleted paragraph
This paragraph of the condition is deleted in the renewal permit because the 2006 and
2007 dates have passed: ' If CMU conducts construction activities associated with phosphorus
removal at either the Sugar Creek WWTP or the Irwin Creek WWTP, the annual average limit of
826.0 lbs/day (based on the collective discharge from all three plants) shall become effective
February 28, 2007. Said construction activities will also trigger an effluent limit for total
phosphorus for the Irwin Creek WWTP of 250.0 lbs/day (based on a monthly average) as of
February 28, 2007 (as stipulated in Part. A. (1.) of NPDES Permit NC0024945). If however,
CMU decides not to pursue construction activities, associated with phosphorus removal, at
either the Sugar Creek WWTP or the Irwin Creek WWTP, the total phosphorus annual average
limit applicable to the loading from all three WWTPs, shall become effective on February 28,
2006."
TOXICITY TESTING:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Sugar Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

Current Requirements: At 20 MGD, Chronic Toxicity P/F at 90%; Feb May Aug Nov;
Since the last renewal in April 2005, the facility has passed all quarterly toxicity tests except
one in February 2006. The February 2006 test failure was followed by two tests in March and
April 2006 as required. Both toxicity tests in March and April 2006 were passes. The facility
has passed all quarterly tests since then.
Recommendation: renewal of quarterly chronic toxicity test at 90%. These toxicity test
limits should continue to be applied at 20 MGD and at the proposed 8 MGD facility for
expansion.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
Overall, the Sugar Creek WWTP is in compliance with existing permit limits. There were
enforcement actions and penalties assessed in 2007 and 2009. The two violations in 2007 were
nickel and fecal coliform limits. The assessments in 2009 were for fecal coliform violations.
CMU paid penalties of $581.50 in 2007 and $1335.30 in 2009. There have been no
enforcement actions since that time.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
The Sugar Creek WWTP conducts extensive instream monitoring along with other nearby CMU
WWTPs, Irwin Creek and McAlpine WWTPs. The results of the Sugar Creek WWTP's monthly
instream monitoring are recorded in the discharge monitoring report for the McAlpine WWTP
(NC0024970)
Parameters: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, pH, Conductivity, Nitrate/nitrite, TKN, TP, ortho
phosphorus, chromium, copper, zinc, hardness.
Upstream station - LSC 1: Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP.
Downstream stations: LSC3: Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway
51.
There are five stations on Sugar Creek downstream of its confluence with Irwin and McAlpine
Creeks.
Upstream and downstream data from critical summer months of June, July, and August in
2009 and 2010 was reviewed. In June 2010, there was one copper value upstream of the
Sugar Creek WWTP that was above the 7 ug/1 standard, however there were no exceedances of
the copper standard in any downstream station.
There were fecal coliform violations at the downstream station, SC4, Sugar Creek downstream
of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51. A review of the metals monitored showed no
exceedances of instream water quality standards for chromium, copper and zinc at any of the
downstream stations.
Recommend: Continuation of instream monitoring of all existing parameters and existing
monitoring frequencies.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Data submitted in discharge monitoring reports and PPAs from 2007 through 2009 were
evaluated and a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was done to determine whether effluent
limitations or monitoring should be included in this permit renewal. The RPA and effluent data
is attached to the factsheet and the results are summarized below:
o Weekly average and daily maximum limits and monitoring requirements for
cadmium, chromium, and cyanide will be removed from the permit based on
the results of the reasonable potential analyses. All sampled data was below
detection levels. The analyses indicated there was no reasonable potential to
exceed the North Carolina water quality standards in the receiving stream.
Cadmium, chromium and cyanide will continue to be monitored in the long
term monitoring plan of the pretreatment program.
o Regarding mercury, the RPA indicated no reasonable potential to exceed
the water quality standard for mercury. No limits or monitoring will be
added to the permit. North Carolina has a statewide mercury
impairment of all streams and based on EPA guidance and
recommendation, all dischargers must be protective of the mercury
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Sugar Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 4

standard of 12 ng/1 at the end of the effluent pipe, without allowance for
stream dilution. RP results indicate the Sugar Creek WWTP is
protective of this standard. CMU should use the most sensitive test
method, EPA Method 1631E, when sampling for mercury in the LTMP.
o The existing nickel limits and monitoring requirements will remain in the
permit. There was reasonable potential shown to exceed the nickel water
quality standard instream. The monitoring frequency for nickel will be
modified from weekly to monthly based on revised Division guidance .
o Existing limits for copper and zinc will remain in the permit. Because of the
proximity of the CMU treatment plant to the South Carolina (SC) State line,
these limits were placed in the previous permit for protection of SC water
quality standards. CMU, SCDHEC, EPA and DWQ all concurred with the
limits that were previously developed in 2005. The analysis of effluent data
for both parameters indicated the reasonable potential to exceed these
allowable concentrations. The monitoring frequency will be modified to
monthly per revised Division guidance.
Some additional LTMP data was also evaluated by RPA; arsenic, lead, molybdenum,
selenium, and silver. None of these parameters showed reasonable potential to exceed
water quality standards and should continue to be evaluated and monitored in the
pretreatment LTMP.
PPA data (2009 — 2011) evaluated included chlorinated phenols and total phenols.
• There was a limited dataset for total phenols with 3 datapoints for total phenols
and two values were below detection. There was reasonable potential to exceed
the estimated allowable concentration based on this limited data therefore
quarterly monitoring is recommended for total phenols.
• Chlorinated phenols data was evaluated from 2007-2009 PPAs. There were 12
datapoints and all were below detection. The chlorinated phenolic compounds
included in this analysis were 2-chlorophenol, 2,4 dichlorophenol, 2,4,6
trichlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol. Based on this analysis, there was no
reasonable potential and no limits or monitoring was recommended for
chlorinated phenolic compounds.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
The following modifications have been made to the permit:
• An effluent page for 8 MGD of wasteflow for a proposed facility and a new outfall 002
has been added. Effluent limits applied at 8 MGD will be the same as existing limits at
20 MGD.
• New treatment units from construction efforts have been added to the supplement to
permit cover sheet.
• The active permit condition A.(6) Daily Maximum Fecal Coliform Limit has been removed
because the effective date has occurred.
• Weekly average and daily maximum limits and monitoring requirements for cadmium,
chromium, and cyanide will be removed from the permit based on the results of the
reasonable potential analyses.
• Quarterly monitoring for total phenolic compounds has been added to the permit based
on the results of a reasonable potential analysis.
• Total residual chlorine limits remain in the permit but two footnotes have been added to
the effluent pages. The first note states that the limit is applicable only when chlorine
is used for disinfection and the second states the applicable measurement protocol.
• The monitoring frequency for copper, nickel and zinc is now monthly instead of weekly
based on revised Division guidance.
• Minor language has been modified in Chronic toxicity test condition. In addition a new
paragraph regarding data submittal had been added (second paragraph from the end of
the condition).
• The condition for the total phosphorus limit has been modified and the paragraph
regarding construction at the Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek WWTPs by February 2006
has been removed.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Sugar Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 5

• In condition A.9. Effluent Pollutant Scan: 1) mercury should be sampled using EPA
Method 1631 E, 2) P-chloro-m-cresol has been corrected, 3) the DWQ, Water Quality
Section has been corrected to the Surface Water Protection Section.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 09/14/2011
Permit Scheduled to Issue (estimated): 11/7/2011
STATE CONTACT:_
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact J kie Nowell at [phone].
NAM 4 DATE: 97/,Y/4")q
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
RO SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE: DATE:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Sugar Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 6

•
October 20th, 2011
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
Complex Permitting Unit
NC DENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Draft Permit No. NC0024937 —Sugar Creek WWTP, Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Nowell,
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) has received and reviewed draft permit No.
NC0024937 issued to Sugar Creek WWTP. Based on our review of the draft permit, we are submitting
the following comments for your review and consideration in the issuance of our final permit:
•� The draft permit expiration date is listed as May 31, 2015. This will give us a new permit
for Tess than five (5) years. We would like to be issued a full five (5) year permit.
• ✓ An older version of standard conditions was included in our draft permit. Will you be
including the most recent version (8/2011) in our final permit? If so, we would like to
/see this in a draft form prior to issuance of the final permit.
• The treatment units list is inaccurate. At the time the permit application was submitted,
in November, 2009, we were anticipating moving forward with the expansion and
upgrade of the plant in the near future. Please find attached an amended equipment
list submitted as Attachment A
•.7 Please note that the equipment list includes alkalinity adjustment, without specifying
chemical to be used. We are currently in the process of conducting chemical trails with
lime and MgOH. At the end of the triais, we will choose a chemical for alkalinity
supplement and pH adjustment.
• Chlorine Gas Disinfection and Sodium Bisulfate Dechlorination have been removed from
the treatment units list. This equipment has been removed from the property, and as a
result, Sugar Creek WWTP no longer has this to use as a back up to our UV disinfection
system.
•I We are requesting that the total residual chlorine limits be removed from the permit.
As indicated in you cover letter, this would be applicable only in the event that
chlorination is ever used for backup disinfection. The equipment for chlorine
disinfection and sodium bisulfate dechlorination, as mentioned above, no longer exists
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Environmental Management Division
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

at Sugar. In addition, no bulk chlorine is being stored onsite for the purpose of
disinfection of the effluent. Since we have no means of backup disinfection using
chlorine and no bulk chlorine stored onsite, we feel that having a total residual chlorine
limit is not applicable to the permit.
We are requesting that the Zinc limit be removed from the permit. The RPA used 200
data points and our maximum predicted cw was 78.8ug/L. With a permit limit of
228ug/L we have no potential to exceed the limit and are requesting it to be removed
from the permit.
We are requesting that that the copper daily max limit of 22ug/L and the weekly max
limit of 15ug/L be removed from the permit. The RPA used 200 data points with a max
predicted concentration of 10.8ug/L. Since we have no potential to exceed the water
quality standard we are requesting that the limits be removed from the permit.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or need any additional information, please call me
at 704/336-4460. If I am not available, please call Dawn Padgett at 704/201-9144. We appreciate your
consideration of our comments and look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
e Le_ Lvr'r a y
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Superintendent
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217

Appendix A
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities is hereby authorized to:
Continue operation of a 20 MGD wastewater treatment plant with a discharge through outfall 001,
consisting of the following treatment units:
• Four mechanical bar screens (with 200 MGD peak capacity)
• One 130 MGD grit removal facility with dual vortex grit collectors.
• Dual 250 GPM grit pumps
• Screw Conveyor system
• Influent sampling station
• Influent pump station (with four low head pumps with 70 MGD peak capacity and seven high
head pumps with 120 MGD peak capacity)
• Three FMC bar screens (rated at 35 MGD each)
• Two Pista grit removal ( rated at 50 MGD each)
• Two grit classifiers
• Belt Conveyor system
• Main lift pumps (3 150 hp and 1-100 hp variable frequency drive pumps.
• Four primary clarifiers
• Primary /Raw sludge pump station ( pumps to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• Six aeration basins (diffused air)
• Three Blowers ( two multistage centrifugal blowers and one single stage centrifugal blower)
• pH adjustment
• Six secondary clarifiers
• RAS pump station ( Eight 25 HP pumps, three 50 HP pumps )
• WAS pump station ( two 60 HP pumps that pump to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• One 40 MGD (peak flow) open channel, low pressure ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system
• Ten deep bed filters using anthracite
• Four effluent filter pumps
• Effluent flow measurement
• Cascade aeration
• 3 - 2,200 kW standby generators
• 2- 20 MGD flow equalization basins
• Two Wet odor scrubber units
• One dry odor scrubber units

October 20t", 2011
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
Complex Permitting Unit
NC DENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Draft Permit No. NC0024937 —Sugar Creek WWTP, Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Nowell,
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) has received and reviewed draft permit No.
NC0024937 issued to Sugar Creek WWTP. Based on our review of the draft permit, we are submitting
the following comments for your review and consideration in the issuance of our final permit:
• The draft permit expiration date is listed as May 31, 2015. This will give us a new permit
for Tess than five (5) years. We would like to be issued a full five (5) year permit.
• An older version of standard conditions was included in our draft permit. Will you be
including the most recent version (8/2011) in our final permit? If so, we would like to
see this in a draft form prior to issuance of the final permit.
• The treatment units list is inaccurate. At the time the permit application was submitted,
in November, 2009, we were anticipating moving forward with the expansion and
upgrade of the plant in the near future. Please find attached an amended equipment
list submitted as Attachment A
• Please note that the equipment list includes alkalinity adjustment, without specifying
chemical to be used. We are currently in the process of conducting chemical trails with
lime and MgOH. At the end of the triais, we will choose a chemical for alkalinity
supplement and pH adjustment.
• Chlorine Gas Disinfection and Sodium Bisulfate Dechlorination have been removed from
the treatment units list. This equipment has been removed from the property, and as a
result, Sugar Creek WWTP no longer has this to use as a back up to our UV disinfection
system.
• We are requesting that the total residual chlorine limits be removed from the permit.
As indicated in you cover letter, this would be applicable only in the event that
chlorination is ever used for backup disinfection. The equipment for chlorine
disinfection and sodium bisulfate dechlorination, as mentioned above, no longer exists
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Environmental Management Division
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

at Sugar. In addition, no bulk chlorine is being stored onsite for the purpose of
disinfection of the effluent. Since we have no means of backup disinfection using
chlorine and no bulk chlorine stored onsite, we feel that having a total residual chlorine
limit is not applicable to the permit.
• We are requesting that the Zinc limit be removed from the permit. The RPA used 200
data points and our maximum predicted cw was 78.8ug/L. With a permit limit of
228ug/L we have no potential to exceed the limit and are requesting it to be removed
from the permit.
• We are requesting that that the copper daily max limit of 22ug/L and the weekly max
limit of 15ug/L be removed from the permit. The RPA used 200 data points with a max
predicted concentration of 10.8ug/L. Since we have no potential to exceed the water
quality standard we are requesting that the limits be removed from the permit.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or need any additional information, please call me
at 704/336-4460. If I am not available, please call Dawn Padgett at 704/201-9144. We appreciate your
consideration of our comments and look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
KLC-k-•:€-. Gf/T •fi.- --0
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E.
Superintendent
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217

Appendix A
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities is hereby authorized to:
Continue operation of a 20 MGD wastewater treatment plant with a discharge through outfall 001,
consisting of the following treatment units:
• Four mechanical bar screens (with 200 MGD peak capacity)
• One 130 MGD grit removal facility with dual vortex grit collectors.
• Dual 250 GPM grit pumps
• Screw Conveyor system
• Influent sampling station
• Influent pump station (with four low head pumps with 70 MGD peak capacity and seven high
head pumps with 120 MGD peak capacity)
• Three FMC bar screens (rated at 35 MGD each)
• Two Pista grit removal ( rated at 50 MGD each)
• Two grit classifiers
• Belt Conveyor system
• Main lift pumps (3 150 hp and 1-100 hp variable frequency drive pumps.
• Four primary clarifiers
• Primary /Raw sludge pump station ( pumps to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• Six aeration basins (diffused air)
• Three Blowers ( two multistage centrifugal blowers and one single stage centrifugal blower)
• pH adjustment
• Six secondary clarifiers
• RAS pump station ( Eight 25 HP pumps, three 50 HP pumps )
• WAS pump station ( two 60 HP pumps that pump to McAlpine Creek WWTP)
• One 40 MGD (peak flow) open channel, low pressure ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system
• Ten deep bed filters using anthracite
• Four effluent filter pumps
• Effluent flow measurement
• Cascade aeration
• 3 - 2,200 kW standby generators
• 2- 20 MGD flow equalization basins
• Two Wet odor scrubber units
• One dry odor scrubber units

Nowell, Jackie
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:11 PM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Cc: Belnick, Tom
Subject: NC0024937, Sugar Creek WWTP in Charlotte NC
Hello Jackie,
I just confirmed with Gina Fonzi our SC permit reviewer that she has no comments on your draft for Sugar
Creek. I was waiting for her feed back before giving you my "no comment"
response. Please proceed with issuance at your earliest convenience.
Also, I want to thank you for sending such a thorough package to review. It really helps.
Sincerely,
Pamala Myers
Environmental Engineer and Technical Advisor
Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division
Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Atlanta, GA 30303
404.562.9421
404.562.8692 (fax)
1

North Carolina ) ss
Mecklenburg County)
The Charlotte Observer Publishing Co.
Charlotte, NC
Affidavit of Publication
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
NCDENR/DWO/POINT SOURCE B
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
REFERENCE: 40508896 DINA
013676/6601187 PUBLIC NOTICE NORTH
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to Law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of The Charlotte Observer
Publishing Company, a corporation organized and
doing business under the laws of the State of
Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as The
Charlotte Observer in the city of Charlotte,
County of Mecklenburg, and State of North Carolina
and that as such he/she is familiar with the
books, records, files, and business of said
Corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication, the attached advertisement was
inserted. The following is correctly copied from
the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation
and Publication.
PUBLISHED ON: 09/18
AD SPACE:
FILED ON:
NAM
58 LINE
09/22/11
In Testim ny Whereof I have hereunto
day and ar aforesaid.
Not
Expires May 27, 2016
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
proposes to issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after the publish date of this notice. The
Director of the NC Division of Water Quality (DWG)) may hold a
public hearing should there be a significant degree of public
interest. Please mail comments and/or information requests to
DWO at the above address. Interested persons may virsit the
DWQ at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC to review
information on file. Additional information on NPDES permits and
this notice may be found on our website:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ps/npdes/celendar, or by
Calling [phone].
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities requested renewal and
modification of permit NC0024937 for Sugar Creek WWTP in
Mecklenburg County: this permitted discharge is treated
municipal wastewater to Little Sugar Creek in the Catawba River
Basin.
LP13676
TITLE: Cif fi'_kCB�� i
DATE: D t
set my hand and affixed my/ seal, the
•
ion Expires: _/_/_

NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
AU Number AU Narro
AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
Category Parameter Reason tier Rating
Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
Catawba River Basin Sugar Creek Watershed 0305010301
Catawba River Basin Catawba River Subbasin 03050103
Catawba River Basin Sugar Creek Watershed 0305010301
Q 11-137-1 Irwin Creek From source to Sugar Creek 11.8 FW Miles C
5 Copper Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2006 2010
4s Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
2004 1998
Standard Violation Recreation 2008 2008
5 Lead
4t Turbidity
5 Zinc
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2006 2008
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2000
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2006 2010
0 11-137-8a Little Sugar Creek
5 Copper
From source to Archdale Rd 11.6 FW Miles C
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2008
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2008 2008
4s Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
•
2007 2010
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation 2008 1998
4t Turbidity
5 Water column Mercury
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2010
Q 11-137-8b Little Sugar Creek
5 Copper
Standard Violation Fish Consumption 2008 2010
From Archdale Rd to NC 51 5.5 FW Miles C
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2006 2010
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2007 1998
4s Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2007 2010
Standard Violation Recreation 2008 1998
Q 11-137-8c Little Sugar Creek
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From NC 51 to North Carolina -South 3.0 FW Miles C
Carolina State Line
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life 1983 2000
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
4t Turbidity
Q 11-137-9a
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)
5 Ecological/biological i.itegrity Benthos
Standard Violation Recreation 21108 1998
Data Inconclusive Aquatic Life 2008 2000
From source to SR 3356, (Sardis Rd) 8.5 FW Miles C
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
1987 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation 2008 1998
NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 3031d} List EPA Approved Aug 31, 201 9/20/2010 Page 28 of 145

NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters ..,
All13R123 Watersiri NC are In Category 5.,303'(d) list for Mercury_due to statewide fishy cgnspmptlon advice for several Rsh species
AU_Number AU Name AU Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
Category Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
Catawba River Basin Sugar Creek Watershed 0305010301
Q 11-137-9b
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos
From SR 3356 to NC 51
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
6.3 FW Miles C
1987 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation
Recreation
2008 1998
Q 11-137-9c
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From NC 51 to NC 521 4.6 FW Miles C
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 2000
5 Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Fair Bioclassification
Aquatic Life
2004 2000
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 1998
• 11-137-9d
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From NC 521 to North Carolina -South 1.0 FW Miles C
Carolina State Line
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
1992 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2006 1998
® 11-137-7 McCullough Branch
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From source to Sugar Creek 3.1 FW Miles C
Poor Bioclassification
Aquatic Life • 1990 1998
Q 11-137-9-5 McMullen Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From source to McAlpine Creek 13.8 FW Miles C
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2008 2010
. ® 11-137a Sugar Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From source to below WWTP, SR 1156, 0.3 FW Miles C
Mecklenburg
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 1998
® 11-137b Sugar Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From SR 1156 Mecklenburg to Hwy 51 10.9 FW Miles C
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2007 2000
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 2000
® 11-137c Sugar Creek
5 Copper
From Hwy 51 NC/SC border 2.5 FW Miles C
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2006 2010
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 2000
Catawba River Basin
Q 11-138-3
Sixmile Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Twelvemile Creek Watershed 0305010302
From source to North Carolina -South 8.8 FW Miles C
Carolina State Line
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 2006
NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 201 9/20/2010 Page 29 of 145

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form
Check that
backfrom PERCS:
all apply
Notify PERCS
Date of Request
2/4/2011
municipal renewal
x
if LTMP/STMP data we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
Requestor
Jackie Nowell
new industries
you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
CMU-Sugar
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific
Permit Number
NC0024937
Speculative limits
POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next
Region
MRO
stream reclass.
permit renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
Catawba
stream relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA
other
if changes.
other
check applicable PERCS staff:
Other Comments to PERCS:
x
CTB, CHO, LUM, NEW, ROA - Dana Folley (523)
HIW, LTN, NEU, YAD - Monti Hassan (371)
BRD, CPF, FRB, TAR - Sarah Morrison (208)
PERCS
Status of
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
4-)-facititytfas no SIU's, does have Division Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
approved
-
-2-)-faeitity-halo SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
}<,
3) facility has Sills and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV' if program still under development)
}C
3a) Full Program wit LTMP
`--3b)-Modlfted
Program with STMP ;.1
4}additional Pretreatment listed below
STMP fr 4ne�j
conditions regarding attached or ; /
ti
Mpst recent:
/
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time period f9r Actual
` »ext Cycle:
Zr/llll�i��
Industrial
/ . (-A-(4_,
n, c,' i .
; r)d r; , •-
9 , C ?
/
Uncontrollable
nla
/.1-,-1-"
'
POC in
LTMP/
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List —_
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required
by EPA*
Required
by 503
Sludge**
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)*"*
(STMP
ffluent
Fret{
/-
LTMP
Effluent
Freq-,
'See
-gM
C.,e 0%-)
v
,
J
v
TSS
v'
✓
4
M i
Q = Quarterly
NH3
V
i
c----4
\M I
M = Monthly
v
Arsenic
V
4'
'M i
J
Cadmium
v
4
„
V
�4
M7
4
Chromium
✓
d
v
4,,
M
Copper
V
d
V
✓
4;
V1I
,
Cyanide
V
v
4
all data on DMRs?
'1
Lead
4
V
✓
1T VIVI)
YES
x
v
Mercury
v
V4
yv1
NO (attach data)
1.
Molybdenum
v
V
)
M
4
Nickel
✓
If
V
V
A`,/
M
Silver
✓
°M4
,'
Selenium
v
frl—le"
M I
v
Zinc
V
4
v
✓
4
M :
data in spreadsheet?
V
Total Nitrogen
C
M i
YES (email to writer)
h
v
Phosphorus
v
,/
iM '
NO
i' C.' 'm
,4
(,M ;
--/ 4
Q M
M
/�4'Q
Q M
'Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge I nd app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
sugarpirf
Revised: July 24, 2007

CMU-Sugar Creek WWTP
NC0024937
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Qw (MGD) = 20.00
1QIOS (cfs) = 2.84
7Q10S (cfs) = 3.40
7Q10W (cfs) = 5.50
30Q2 (cfs) = 8.70
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 47.00
Receiving Stream: Little Sugar Creek
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC Q 1Q10S = 91.61%
IWC ®7Q1OS = 90.12%
IWC ([ 7Q1OW = 84.93%
IWC ® 30Q2 = 78.09%
IWC ((1� QA = 39.74%
Stream Class: C
aGe141--s "Outfall 001
iS ' Qw = 20 MGD
a 04/
d
�1 27Z//2 /
CHRONIC TEST CONCENTRATION = DEFAULT %
=93-,
PARAMETER
(1)TYPE
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)co
a
Z
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Applied
Standard
%z FAV /
Acute
p
# Det Max Pred Allowable Cw
Cw
Copper (AL)
NC
15
FW(7Q10s)
22
ug/L
200
200
11
Acute: 22.0
—__ _ _---- _ _-_
Chronic: 15.0
\o value > Allowable C\\
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP for AL. No limit or monitoring in permit. Defer
to LTMP. SC concurs w/ decision.
Zlnc(AL)
NC
FW(7Q10s)
228
ug/L
200
200
78.8
Acute: 228.0
___ _ _----__ —
Chronic: 0.0
200 value(s) > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ — _ _ _
No RP for AL. No limit or monitoring in permit. Defer
to LTMP. SC concurs w/ decision.
(i
0
N/A
Acute:
_ _ _
------------•---------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
—----------
Chronic:
---------------------------
0
0
N/A
Acute:
— ----------•---------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
—--------------------
Chronic:
-----------------
Page 1 of 1
24937rpa001CuZn2012v2,rpa
2/22/2012

CMU-Sugar Creek WWTP REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0024937
Qw (MGD) = 20.00
1Q1OS (cfs) = 2.84
7Q I OS (cfs) = 3.40
7Q 1 OW (cfs) = 5.50
30Q2 (cfs) = 8.70
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 47.00
Receiving Stream: Little Sugar Creek
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC @ 1Q10S = 91.61%
IWC @ 7QIOS = 90.12%
IWC @ 7QIOW = 84.93%
IWC @ 30Q2 = 78.09%
IWC @ QA = 39.74%
Stream Class: C
Outfall 001.
Qw=20 MGD
CHRONIC TEST CONCENTRATION = DEFAULT %
= 90 %
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
J
a
N
H
Z
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Applied
Standard
'h FAV /
Acute
n
# Det. Max Pred Allowable Cw
Cw
Copper(AL)
NC
15
FW(7Q10s)
22
ug/L
200
200
11
Acute: 22.0
_ _—_—__ __—_
Chronic: 15.0
No value > Allowable Cw
-----------------------_---.
No RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag F-e,CI) however must apply
existing limits for protection of SC std.
Zinc(AL)
NC
50
FW(7Q10s)
228
ug/L
200
200
78.8
Acute: 228.0
- _- _----_ —5-5:3 - 55.5
II value(s) > Allowable Cw
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply existing acute limit
for protection of SC std.
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - ---------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - ---------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
____ ----------
Chronic:
----------------------------
-
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- ---------------------------------------•
Chronic:
Page 1 of 1
24937rpa001CuZn.xlsm, rpa
8/24/2011

CMU- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations for Copper Limits-414200Z
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Copper
mA bA mC bC dissolved fractions
acute chronic
0.9422 -1.700 0.8545 -1.702 96% 96%
X / )-04K- C/.11/ ice
eZvAtCs-0
Hardness
63
In(85) 4.143135 In(85) 4.143135
{0.9422(4.143135)+(-1.700)} = 2.203662 {08545(4.143135)+(-1.702)} = 1.838309
exp 2.203662 = 9.05812 exp 1.838309 = 6.285897
copper dissolved fraction 96% = 8.695795 WQS dissolved copper dissolved fraction 96% = 6.034462 WQS dissolved
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
Stream flow in MGD
20 MGD
3.4 CFS
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
20 MGD
3.4 CFS
2.1973248 Stream flow in MGD 2.197325
Combined Flow 22.1973248
Combined Flow 22.19732
WLA dissolved/pound 1.60981499 WLA dissolved/pound 1.117134
WLA ug/I 9.651169003 WLA ug/I 6.697445
Calculated Dissolved I 0.437
WQBEL - total recove 22.08505493 WQBEL - total recove 15.32596

o £✓a 51,
941-14 c dino 6 3 mei(
yovio4f/
d,,,firivi %SS 2,3a rxr/Q.
or6/itic,
;corc/Sf4-

CMU- Sugar Creek WWTP
Calculations for Zinc Limits
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Zinc
mA bA mC bC dissolved fractions
acute chronic
0.8473 0.884 0.8473 0.884 97.8% 98.6%
K /Stine um 173
2 M -L
Hardness
63
In(85) 4.143135 In(85) 4.143135
{0.9422(4.143135)+(-1.700)} = 4.394478 {08545(4.143135)+(-1.702)} = 4.394478
exp 4.394478 = 81.00234 exp 4.394478 = 81.00234
copper dissolved fraction 97.8% = 79.22029 WQS dissolved copper dissolved fraction 98.6% = 79.86831 WQS dissolved
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
Stream flow in MGD
20 MGD
3.4 CFS
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
20 MGD
3.4 CFS
2.1973248 Stream flow in MGD 2.197325
Combined Flow 22.1973248
Combined Flow 22.19732
WLA dissolved/pound 14.66571064 WLA dissolved/pound: 14.78568
WLA ug/I 87.92392468
Calculated Dissolved I 0.385
WLA ug/I 88.64314
WQBEL - total recove 228.3738303 WQBEL - total recove 230.2419

CMU- Sug
Calculations
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Zinc
mA bA mC bC dissolved fractions
acute chronic
0.8473 0.884 0.8473 0.884 97.8% 98.6%
Hardness
63
In(85) 4.143135
{0.9422(4.143135)+(-1.700)}
exp 4.394478
copper dissolved fraction
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
97.8%
28 MGD
3.4 CFS
Stream flow in MGD 2.1973248
Combined Flow
30.1973248
WLA dissolved/pound: 19.95128834
WLA ug/I
Calculated Dissolved I
WQBEL - total reco
119.6120404
0.385
= 4.394478
81.00234
79.22029 WQS dissolved
In(85) 4.143135
(08545(4.143135)+(-1.702)}
exp 4.394478
copper dissolved fraction
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
98.6%
28 MGD
3.4 CFS
Stream flow in MGD 2.197325
Combined Flow 30.19732
WLA dissolved/pound: 20.11449
WLA ug/I
120.5905
WQBEL - total recove 313.222
L/,-24,7 5 C 4.A4
w/�LpLo! gitIG
4.394478
81.00234
79.86831 WQS dissolved

CMU- Su r CreeThWTP
Calculations r Copper Limits% 11/2004
Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II
For Copper
mA bA mC bC dissolved fractions
acute chronic
0.9422 -1.700 0.8545 -1.702 96% 96%
Hardness
63
In(85) 4.143135 In(85) 4.143135
{0.9422(4.143135)+(-1.700)) = 2.203662 {08545(4.143135)+(-1.702))
exp 2.203662 = 9.05812 exp 1.838309
copper dissolved fraction 96% = 8.695795 WQS dissolved copper dissolved fraction
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
Stream flow in MGD
28 MGD
3.4 CFS
2.1973248
Combined Flow 30.1973248
WLA dissolved/pound: 2.189998414
WLA ug/I
13.1294869
Calculated Dissolved I 0.437
—�1
WQBEL - total reg6ve 30.04459244
Plant permitted flow
Steam flow
28 MGD
3.4 CFS
Stream flow in MGD 2.197325
Combined Flow 30.19732
WLA dissolved/pound: 1.519753
WLA ug/I
9.11123
96%
Lot /rs jii,70
14--Lu /GL ifl Gr-4 J7,6_0)
1.838309
6.285897
6.034462 WQS dissolved

tit
2009
Instream Data for CMu-Irwin, Sugar, and McAlpine WWTPs
Jun-09 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 22.4 24.1 25.1 24.2 24.2 22.9 23.1 23.8 24.4 24.4
D0 (mg/I) 7.4 7.4 7 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.1
Conductivity (uMhos) 251 241 368 221 520 333 334 311 313 396
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 1.2 0.8 7.3 0.5 • 17 8.9 8 5.8 4.5 10.4
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 <0.3 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 0.4 1 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.44
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 0.9 <0.05 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.37
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 2.4 2.7 4.3 2.4 3.6 nr nr nr 5 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 15 <10 14 nr nr nr 11 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 118 118 102 118 154 nr nr nr 94 102
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 304 234 336
Jul-09 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 23.8 25.3 25.3 24.2 24.9 24.3 24.1 24.3 24.3 25
D0 (mg/I) 7.3 8.2 6.9 6.6 6.6 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.1
Conductivity (uMhos) 207 221 346 224 511 316 301 289 278 400
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.8 0.4 8.4 0.5 15 9.5 9.7 8.2 6.2 11.3
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.3
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 0.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.56
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.2 <0.05 0.3 1.1 1 0.8 0.5 0.45
Chromium (ug/I) <5 . <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr. • nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 2.3 5.3 6.4 3.4 3.8 nr nr nr 5.6 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 17 <10 12 nr nr nr 11 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 102 120 87 100 133 nr nr nr 94 83
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 1316 448 571
Aug-09 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 24.1 25.5 25.2 24.5 25.6 24.5 24.2 24.5 24.6 25.3
DO (mg/I) 7.5 8.1 7.0 6.5 6.7 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.3
Conductivity (uMhos) 206 201 317 208 540 309 304 279 272 386
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.8 0.6 6.0 0.4 12.0 8.2 8.6 7.0 4.7 9.1
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 <0.3 <0.3 0.5 <0.3 <0.3 0.5
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.47
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 0.9 <0.05 0.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.38
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 2.4 4.5 4.9 3.8 3.5 nr nr nr 4.3 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 13.0 <10 12.0 nr nr nr <10 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 96 73 81 87 127 nr nr nr 98 106.0
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 264 275 497
Instream monitoring stations
1C1-Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
LSC1 - Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
LSC3-Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Route 51
MC1-McAlpine Creek- Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
MC2-McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC2964
SC1-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
SC2-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
SC3-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
SC4-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
SC5-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160

2010 Instream Data for CMU - Irwin, Sugar and McAlpine WWTPs
Jun-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 24.7 25.5 25.6 24.8 24.7 24.5 24.5 24.8 25.4 25.3
DO (mg/I) 7.4 7.9 6.7 6.2 6.4 7.3 6.8 7 6.9 6.6
Conductivity (uMhos) 155 173 249 145 305 212 204 201 208 245
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.8 0.7 4 0.5 4.5 5.1 4.6 3.9 3.4 4.8
TKN (mg/I) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.44
OP (mg/I) <0.05 0.06 0.5 0.06 0.11 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.28
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 3.4 9.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 nr nr nr 6.1 nr
Zinc (ug/I) 10 12 15 <10 16 nr nr nr 19 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 70 140 66 56 68 nr nr nr 72 62
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 7785 7385 4686
Jul-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 26.8 26.7 27.5 26 26.3 26.6 26.2 26.4 26.9 27.2
DO (mg/I) 7.4 7.5 6.7 5.9 6.8 7.3 7 7.2 7.1 7.4
Conductivity (uMhos) 147 186 351 202 550 227 228 228 245 383
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) 0 <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.4 0.2 8.7 0.3 23 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.2 9.8
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 0.3 0.6 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 0.4 0.1
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.55
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.4 <0.05 0.42 •0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.44
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) <2 2.8 4.3 2.3 2.6 nr nr nr 4.3 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 26 <10 16 nr nr nr 10 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 60 86 66 92 145 nr nr nr 72 153
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 1344 416 851
Aug-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 25.3 25.4 25.8 24.5 25.7 25.4 25.0 24.9 25.1 25.6
DO (mg/I) 7.8 . 8.1 7.0 6.4 6.7 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.2
Conductivity (uMhos) 157 185 343 180 472 218 223 220 219 335
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.4 0.4 7.6 0.5 12.0 5.6 5.4 5.3 4.7 9.0
TKN (mg/I) 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.46
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.0 <0.05 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.35
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) - 2.3 4.4 5.8 3.6 4.6 nr nr nr 5.5 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 15.0 <10 21.0 nr nr nr 15.0 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 54 55 62 56 106 nr nr nr 56 81.0
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 1425 680 1983
Instream monitoring stations
1C1-Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
LSC1 - Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
LSC3-Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Route 51
MC1-McAlpine Creek- Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
MC2-McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC2964
SC1-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
SC2-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
SC3-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
SC4-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
SC5-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160

Instream Data for CMU - Irwin, Sugar and McAlpine WWTPs
Jun-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 24.7 25.5 25.6 24.8 24.7 24.5 24.5 24.8 25.4 25.3
DO (mg/I) 7.4 7.9 6.7 6.2 6.4 7.3 6.8 7 6.9 6.6
Conductivity (uMhos) 155 173 249 145 305 212 204 201 208 245
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.8 0.7 4 0.5 4.5 5.1 4.6 3.9 3.4 4.8
TKN (mg/I) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.44
OP (mg/I) <0.05 0.06 0.5 0.06 0.11 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.28
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 3.4 9.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 nr nr nr 6.1 nr
Zinc (ug/I) 10 12 15 <10 16 nr nr nr 19 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 70 140 66 56 68 nr nr nr 72 62
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 7785 7385 4686
Jul-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 26.8 26.7 27.5 26 26.3 26.6 26.2 26.4 26.9 27.2
DO (mg/I) 7.4 7.5 6.7 5.9 6.8 7.3 7 7.2 7.1 7.4
Conductivity (uMhos) 147 186 351 202 550 227 228 228 245 383
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) 0 <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.4 0.2 8.7 0.3 23 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.2 9.8
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 0.3 0.6 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 0.4 0.1
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.55
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.4 <0.05 0.42 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.44
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) <2 2.8 4.3 2.3 2.6 nr nr nr 4.3 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 26 <10 16 nr nr nr 10 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 60 86 66 92 145 nr nr nr 72 153
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 1344 416 851
Aug-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 25.3 25.4 25.8 24.5 25.7 25.4 25.0 24.9 25.1 25.6
DO (mg/I) 7.8 8.1 7.0 6.4 6.7 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.2
Conductivity (uMhos) 157 185 343 180 472 218 223 220 219 335
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.4 0.4 7.6 0.5 12.0 5.6 5.4 5.3 4.7 9.0
TKN (mg/I) 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.46
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.0 <0.05 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.35
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 2.3 4.4 5.8 3.6 4.6 nr nr nr 5.5 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 15.0 <10 21.0 nr nr nr 15,0 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 54 55 62 56 106 nr nr nr 56 81.0
Fecal coliform (/10om1) 1425 680 1983

Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Location: LITTLE SUGAR CRK AT NC 51 AT PINEVILLE
Station #: C9210000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 03050103
Latitude: 35.08502 Longitude: -80.88218 Stream class: C
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 11-137-8
Time period: 01/02/2003 to 12/12/2007
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles
results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field
D.O. (mg/L) 60 0 <4 0 0 5.8 6.2 6.8 8.4 9.6 10.5 11.5
60 0 <5 0 0 5.8 6.2 6.8 8.4 9.6 10.5 11.5
pH (SU) 60 0 <6 0 0 6.3 6.5 6.8 7 7.4 7.5 8.2
60 0 >9 0 0 6.3 6.5 6.8 7 7.4 7.5 8.2
Spec. conductance 56 0 N/A 99 211 283 333 379 411 476
(umhoslcm at 25°C)
Water Temperature (°C) 60 0 >32 1 1.7 7 8.3 12.9 20.6 25.3 27.6 32.2
Other
TSS (mg/L) 19 2 N/A 2.5 2.5 4.8 7 17 50 200
Turbidity (NTU) 60 0 >50 3 5 1.8 3.1 4.1 5.8 17.8 28.8 140
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N 60 10 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.62
NO2 + NO3 as N 60 0 N/A 0.86 2.36 4.33 5.7 7.55 10.88 14
TKN as N 60 0 N/A 0.25 0.61 0.71 0.79 0.91 1 1.8
Total Phosphorus 60 0 N/A 0.25 0.39 0.63 0.95 1.2 1.69 2.6
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al) 17 0 N/A 110 134 160 200 760 3460 9300
Arsenic, total (As) 17 17 >10 0 0 5 5 5 5 10 10 10
Cadmium, total (Cd) 17 17 >2 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Chromium, total (Cr) 17 17 >50 0 0 10 22 25 25 25 25 25
Copper, total (Cu) 17 0 >7 5 29.4 99.5 4 4 4 6 7 11 11
Iron, total (Fe) 17 0 >1000 3 17.6 91.7 290 322 355 450 910 3760 12000
Lead, total (Pb) 17 16 >25 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 11 14
Mercury, total (Hg) 16 16 >0.012 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Nickel, total (Ni) 17 17 >88 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Zinc, total (Zn) 17 0 >50 0 0 17 19 23 28 33 45 50
Fecal Coliform Screening(#1100mL)
# results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf:
57 499 29 51 100
Key:
# result number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coltiorm)
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Ambient Monitoring System Report
Catawba River Basin - December 2008
AMS-86

Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Location: SUGAR CRK AT NC 51 AT PINEVILLE
Station #: C9050000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 03050103
Latitude: 35.09067 Longitude: -80.89962 Stream class: C
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 11-137
Time period: 01/02/2003 to 12/12/2007
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles
results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field
D.O. (mg/L) 59 0 <4 0 0 5.8 6.2 6.9 8.2 9.5 10.7 12.2
59 0 <5 0 0 5.8 6.2 6.9 8.2 9.5 10.7 12.2
pH (SU) 59 0 <6 0 0 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.6
59 0 >9 0 0 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.6
Spec. conductance 55 0 N/A 138 158 240 306 342 359 438
(umhos/cm at 25°C)
Water Temperature (°C) 59 0 >32 0 0 3.1 7.5 12 19 23.4 26 28.5
Other
TSS (mglL) 19 3 N/A 2.5 3.8 5 6.2 18 62 68
Turbidity (NTU) 60 0 >50 6 10 60.6 2.1 3.8 5.1 8.9 22.8 54 150
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N 60 17 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.84
NO2 + NO3 as N 60 0 N/A 1 2.53 3.85 6.9 7.98 9.28 12
TKN as N 60 0 N/A 0.22 0.43 0.48 0.6 0.71 0.89 1.6
Total Phosphorus 60 0 N/A 0.17 0.32 0.41 0.62 0.79 1.09 1.5
Metals (uglL)
Aluminum, total (Al) 17 0 N/A 87 129 200 280 780 2780 3100
Arsenic, total (As) 17 17 >10 0 0 5 5 5 5 10 10 10
Cadmium, total (Cd) 17 17 >2 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Chromium, total (Cr) 17 17 >50 0 0 10 22 25 25 25 25 25
Copper, total (Cu) 17 1 >7 7 41.2 2 3 4 7 9 12 15
Iron, total (Fe) 17 0 >1000 4 23.5 320 320 525 670 1340 3120 3600
Lead, total (Pb) 17 17 >25 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mercury, total (Hg) 16 16 >0.012 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Nickel, total (Ni) 17 17 >88 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Zinc, total (Zn) 17 0 >50 0 0 16 17 22 24 32 38 44
100
97.8
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf:
57 458 25 44 100
Key:
# result number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Ambient Monitoring System Report
Catawba River Basin - December 2008
AMS-65

Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Location: SUGAR CRK AT SC 160 NR FORT MILL SC
Station #: C9790000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 03050103
Latitude: 35.00592 Longitude: -80.90221 Stream class: FW
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index:
Time period: 01/02/2003 to 12/12/2007
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles
results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field
D.O. (mg/L) 60 0 N/A 5.7 6.2 6.6 7.7 8.6 9.9 10.9
pH (SU) 60 0 N/A 6.2 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.6
Spec. conductance 56 0 N/A 52 175 282 340 377 440 572
(umhos/cm at 25°C)
Water Temperature (°C) 60 0 N/A 5.6 9.7 13.2 19.5 23.8 26.4 30.6
Other
TSS (mg/L) 19 0 N/A 7.3 8.2 9.5 14 50 99 370
Turbidity (NTU) 60 0 N/A 4.4 7.4 10.2 14 37 69 180
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N 55 1 N/A 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.2 0.48
NO2+NO3asN 55 0 N/A 1.1 2.86 6 7.7 10 14 17
TKN as N 55 0 N/A 0.28 0.64 0.75 0.87 1.1 1.2 1.6
Total Phosphorus 55 0 WA 0.36 0.44 0.52 0.74 0.98 1.28 2.5
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al) 17 0 N/A 260 292 365 510 920 5120 10000
Arsenic, total (As) 17 17 N/A 5 5 5 5 10 10 10
Cadmium, total (Cd) 17 17 N/A 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Chromium, total (Cr) 17 17 WA 10 22 25 25 25 25 25
Copper, total (Cu) 17 0 N/A 4 4 5 5 8 12 14
Iron, total (Fe) 17 0 N/A 650 666 760 1000 1900 7160 15000
Lead, total (Pb) 17 16 WA 10 10 10 10 10 12 20
Manganese, total (Mn) 3 0 WA 69 69 69 120 340 340 340
Mercury, total (Hg) 16 16 WA 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 02 0.2
Nickel, total (Ni) 17 16 WA 10 10 10 10 10 10 11
Zrnc, total (Zn) 17 0 WA 16 17 22 26 28 40 60
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf:
56 452 23 41 100
Jim
# result number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
96Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Conform)
Stations with less than 10 results fora given parameter were not evacuated for statistical confidence
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Ambient Monitoring System Report
Catawba River Basin - December 2008
AMS-69

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody
Location
Station ID
Date
Bioclassification
L SUGAR CR
NC 51
CB146
07/11/07
Fair
County
Subbasin
8 digit HUC
Latitude
Longitude
AU Number
Level IV Ecoregion
MECKLENBURG
34
3050103
350506
805256
0
Southern Outer Piedmont
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)
49
Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)
545
20
Stream Depth (m)
0.2
Visible Landuse (%)
Forested/Wetland
Urban
Agriculture
Other (describe)
20
80
0
0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES Number
NC0024937
Volume (MGD)
20.0
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg1L)
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
30.4
0
338
7.3
slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores max)
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
5
10
6
6
4
3
3
2
2
2
43
Substrate
Site Photograph
'Mostly sand with some boulder, rubble and gravel
EPT BI
Bioclassification
aarnpie vdLe
07/11/07
,a N
10239
....
--
—. .
8
—
6.41
Fair
08/19/02
8925
--
6
--
6.71
Poor
08/21/97
7441
—
7
—
6.92
Fair
09/19/92
5983
43
3
8.11
6.37
Poor
Taxonomic Analysis
Taxa observed in 2007 indicated a gradual increase in mayfly taxa. Only one mayfly species was collected in 1992. Three mayfly taxa were collected
in 1997. Four mayfly taxa were collected in 2002 and five mayfly taxa were collected in 2007. Mayfly taxa collected in 2007 that had not been
previously collected include Pseudocloeon propinquum, Maccaffertium modestum and Tricorythodes.
Data Analysis
This site is located below Sugar Creek WWTP and its entire watershed is located within the city of Charlotte. The bioclassification rating has
alternated between Poor and Fair since 1992. Although the site received Fair ratings in 1997 and 2007, the EPT taxa richness increased by one taxa
in 1997 and by two taxa in 2007 to make it a borderline Fair/Poor rating.

FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Waterbody
Location
Dato
Station ID
Bioclassification
LITTLE SUGAR CR
NC 51
04/24/07
CF28
Fair
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC
Latitude
Longitude
AU Number
Level IV Ecoregion
MECKLENBURG
34
03050103
35.085
-80.88277778
11-137-8h
Southern Outer Piedmont
Stream Classification
Drainage Area (mil) Elevation (ft)
49.2
Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m)
Reference Site
540
Visible Landuso (%)
Forested/Wetland
13
0.4
No
Urban
Agriculture
Other (describe)
0
80
0
20 (constructed wetland)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility District's Sugar Creek WWTP
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mglL)
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
18.1
6.9
330
6.9
Clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
3
9
3
6
3
2
2
2
2
3
35
Substrate
NPDES Number
0024937
Site Photograph
Volume (MGD)
20
'Sand and some cobble
NCIBI
Bioclassification
aarnpiu uate
04/24/07
2007-25
14
40
Fair
04/15/99
99-16
12
42
Good -Fair
06/30/97
97-65
12
40
Fair
Most Abundant Species
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Data Analysis
Watershed -- tributary to Sugar Creek; drains southern Mecklenburg County, including the City of Charlotte metropolitan area. Habitat — poor habitats:
sandy, shallow runs with willow snags and rip/rap; urban debris and tires in the stream and along the banks; periphyton atop the rocks; slight sewage odor:
black iron pipe across the stream created a riffle/plunge; artificial wetland constructed along the right shoreline. 2007 — second highest conductivity at a
fish community site in the basin in 2007; a very abundant. but tolerant community; diversity lower than expected for a streams of its size: all species gained
in 2007 were collected for the first time from the site, but their numbers were 1-4 fish/species; Eastern Mosquitofish abundant in the shallow areas;
intolerant species were absent. 1997 - 2007 — conductivity has ranged from 330 to 552 pS/cm; 19 species known from the site; the tolerant Redbreast
Sunfish has always been the dominant species: no intolerant species known from the site; total habitat scores have ranged from 30 to 35.
Redbreast Sunfish
Exotic Species
Green Sunfish
Gains — Swallowtail Shiner, Brassy Jumprock, Margined Madtom, Warmouth, and Tessellated Darter. Losses
- Creek Chubsucker. White Catfish, and Largemouth Bass

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT:
To:Western NPDES Unit
Surface Water Protection Section
Attention: Charles Weaver
Date: February 24, 2010
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Mecklenburg
NPDES Permit No.: NC0024937
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and address: Sugar Creek WWTP
5301 Closeburn Road
Charlotte, NC 28217
2. Date of investigation: February 12, 2009
3. Report prepared by: B. Dee Browder, Environmental Engineer
4. Person contacted and telephone number: Roy Purgason, CMU, [phone]
5. Directions to site: From the jct. of Tyvola Road and Park Road in Charlotte, NC turn
right into the entrance of Park Road Park off Park Road. The entrance to the WWTP is at
the end of this road.
6. Discharge point(s): Latitude: 33° 09' 08"
Longitude: 80° 51' 19"
USGS Quad No.: G 15 NE
7. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Little Sugar Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin.: Catawba

PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater: 20 MGD
b. What is the current permitted capacity: 20 MGD
c. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the
previous two years: N/A
d. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The existing
facility consists of 3(three) FMC bar screens (rated at 35 MGD each), Pista grit
removal (rated at 50 GPM each), grit classifiers, conveyor system, influent
sampling station, influent pump station, 4(four) primary clarifiers, 1 (one) 1.2 MG
raw/primary sludge storage tank, primary/raw sludge pump station (pumps
primary sludge to McAlpine Creek WWTP), 2 (two) trickling filters (inactive),
eleven(11) aeration basins (diffused air) , 6(six) active, 5 (five) standby, five
blowers (two positive placement blowers, two multistage centrifugal blowers, one
single stage centrifugal blower), pH adjustment (NaOH), six (6) secondary
clarifiers for (4) small (85' diameter), two(2) large (140' diameter), RAS pump
station (eight 25 Hp pumps, one 60 Hp pump, and one 30 Hp pump, WAS pump
station -pumped to McAlpine WWTP, sodium bisulfate declorination, one deep
bed filter using anthracite (10 cells), four (4) effluent filter pumps, effluent flow
measurement, cascade aeration, backup power (3`d generator added), 20 MG
equalization basin, SCADA.
e. Description of proposed WWT facilities: N/A
f. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: There are no toxic impacts expected.
g. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Not Needed.
2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Transferred to the McAlpine WWTP.
a. If residuals are being land applied specify DWQ Permit No.
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None at this time.
2. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: N/A
3. Alternative analysis evaluation
a. Spray Irrigation: N/A
b. Connect to regional sewer system:N/A
c. Subsurface: N/A
d. Other disposal options: N/A

PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A to C for pump station for Briar Creek relief station is complete but Briar Creek Relief Sewer is
under construction. The A to C for adding phosphorus to the splitter box is complete. The
clarifiers synthetic covers are being replaced with metal covers. This project will be complete in
spring of 2011. Some issues associated with the UV lighting and controls associated with that
system are being addressed at this time to eliminate the problems that have occurred with the
controls of that system. There is an 8 inch line that delivers primary sludge to McAlpine WWTP
that is approximately .75% solids. There is a 54 inch gravity bypass line to McAlpine. As the
improvements of the facility are completed and put in service the by-pass to McAlpine will not
be used significantly in the future. Solids will continue to be pumped to McAlpine.
A 14 MGD expansion is planned for completion by 2016. This expansion will occur in two
sequential phases -Phase I to 28 MGD and Phase II to 34 MGD. The Phase I expansion is now in
the final design phase.
The facility is well operated/anitained. It is recommended that they permit be renewed as
requested.
Signature of Report Preparer
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
h:\dsrldsr08\.dsr
( o
I Date
L /Z-t ! i b
Date

•
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
CHARLOTTES,.
Re: Permit Application for Renewal & Expansion
Sugar Creek WWTP — NPDES Permit #NC002493
Dear NPDES Unit:
Please find the enclosed application for the NPDES permit renewal and expansion at Sugar Creek WWTP.
We are proposing to expand this facility from the current 20.0 MGD toD fo �r�tm t T�pps!'rpvy�
Environmental Assessment for the expansion of the plant has been su d'�Ad sp f�
facility were received in June, 2006. POINT SOURCE BRANCH
The application includes Attachments A — H. Part G, Combined Sewer Systems is not applicable. The
following is a summary of the attachments submitted with the application:
1. Attachment A includes information required in Part A,8.d,
2. Attachment B summarizes the stream hardness data collected as a requirement of the current
permit. This is included to address the receiving stream total hardness question in Part
A.10.e.
3. Attachment C addresses the removal rates at this facility.
4. Attachment D includes the topographical map required in Part B.2.
5. Attachment E includes the schematic required in Part B.3.
6. Attachment F includes additional information related to the expansion.
7. Attachment G includes copies of the Toxicity reports completed by this facility since January
2006. This information is required in Part E.2.
8. Attachment H is the Significant Industrial User Information required in Part F.3.
The analytical data summary information reported in Part A.12 — Effluent Testing Information, B.6. Effluent
Testing Data and Part D. Expanded Effluent Testing Data include the results of all the effluent testing data
at Sugar Creek WWTP from January 1, 2006 through September, 30 2009. We also have this data
electronically and if you would like a copy of the file please do not hesitate to let us know.
Please also let us know if you have any questions, or if you need any further information. If you do, please
call Dawn Padgett, Water Quality Program Administrator, at 704/336-4448 or 704/201-9144 or Roy
Purgason, ORC of Sugar Creek WWTP, at 704/553-2124 or you may call me at 704/336-4460 or 704/364-
5430. Thank you for your assistance with this process.
Respectfully,
Thcquellne A. Jarrell, P.E.
Superintendent, Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
Cc: R. Purgason, D. Padgett
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Environmental Management Division
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
Phone: [phone]

Attachment E for Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024937 Permit Renewal and
Expansion
B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the
treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all backup power sources or redundancy in the
system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g.,
chlorination and de -chlorination). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at
influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow rates between treatment units. Include
a brief narrative description of the diagram.
Currently the flow schematic is as follows:
Sugar Creek WWTP — Process Flow Schematic (Existing Facility)
Ont
Removal
!Gritand
Screeningsto
Landfill
Primary Clarifiers
r
Primary
Sludgeto
McAlpine
Aeration
•
Secondary
Clarifiers
— NUM. ~ - - - —0
Q
WAS to
McAlpine
Post
Aeration
The influent flows through Screenings and Grit Removal at an average flow of 19.4 MGD in
2009. Following grit removal and influent sampling, a portion of the flow is diverted to the
McAlpine Creek WWMF and the remaining flows are treated at the Sugar Creek WWTP. The
average flow treated in 2009 is 12.4 MGD. Wastewater is then pumped to the primary clarifiers
and the solids out of the primaries are removed and pumped through a force main to the
McAlpine Creek WWMF at an average flow of 930,000 gallons per day (gpd). Wastewater then
flows through the plant as demonstrated above. Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) is also diverted
to the McAlpine Creek WWMF at an average flow of 190,000 gpd.

Upon completion of the planned upgrade, a new facility will be added on the west side of Little
Sugar Creek. The new facility will follow a similar flow schematic as illustrated below:
Sugar Creek WWTP — Process Flow Schematic tPronosed Ex*ransionl
Screening
(East Side
Grit
Removal
Grit and
Sc reeningsto
Landfil
Primary Clarifiers
Primary
Studgelo
McAlpine
Aeration
M-7
Metal Salt
Metal Salt
Secondary
Clarifiers
~~-11111,
---.
ICU 1111
RAS
WAS to
McAl pine Cr
Post
Aeration
The primary differences between the two, is the addition of an anoxic zone at the head of the
aeration basins to recover some alkalinity and the addition of metal salts to the primary and
secondary clarifiers to remove some of the phosphorus. The proposed project is also planned to
integrate chemical phosphorus removal to the existing facility.
The solids generated at the Sugar Creek WWTP will continue to be pumped to the McAlpine
Creek WWMF.

Attachment A for Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024937 Permit Renewal and
Expansion
Part A. 8. d. Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater
to another treatment works?
At this time, Sugar Creek WWTP diverts approximately 35% or seven (7) MGD
of the influent flow to McAlpine Creek WWMF, NPDES Permit #NC0024970,
after preliminary screening and grit removal. They also divert solids from the
primary clarifiers through a slip line to McAlpine at an average flow rate in 2009
of 930,000 gallons a day at an average of 0.9% solids. The Waste Activated
Sludge (WAS) is also diverted to McAlpine Creek WWMF at an average flow
rate of 189,000 gallons a day at 0.67% solids.
Upon completion of the expansion of this plant, flow diversion will not occur
routinely. The influent flow that is currently diverted will be treated on -site with
flow diversion taking place during extreme wet weather events, a process upset,
or a prolonged maintenance event.
,—__The solids generated at Sugar Creek WWTP will continue to be diverted to
McAlpine Creek WWMF. These flows are expected to increase proportionately
to the increase in the amount of flow treated at the facility (by approximately
40%)

Hardness Data Summary
Sugar Creek WWTP
Date
Upstream Downstream
LSC1 LSC3
7/17/2007 65 61
8/14/2007 95 64
9/18/2007 71 54
10/23/2007 77 56
11/19/2007 90 65
12/10/2007 87 60
1/23/2008 96 80
2/19/2008 96 84
3/3/2008 102 116
4/9/2008 89 75
5/7/2008 98 92
6/25/2008 73 94
7/15/2008 65 57
8/12/2008 138 74
9/8/2008 122 77
10/7/2008 114 81
11/17/2008 102 71
12/15/2008 82 98
1/21/2009 90 79
2/10/2009 122 82
3/23/2009 95 77
4/16/2009 102 170
5/19/2009 72 72
6/9/2009 118 102
7/14/2009 120 87
8/3/2009 73 81
9/8/2009 113 73
10/21/2009 90 77
average 94.89285714 80.67857143
maximum 138 170
minimum 65 54
median 95 77

Attachment C for Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024937 Permit
Renewal and Expansion
A.11.b.Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable)
This facility has not been expanded in over 30 years and does not have any existing
design removal rates. However, as part of the expansion of this facility an influent flow
and loading criteria to be used for design of the Phase I Expansion and Phase II
Expansion have been developed. Please see the chart below for this information.
Parameter
Design Condition
Phase I
Expansion
Phase II
Expansion
Flow (MGD)
Annual Average
23.3
Maximum Month
28.0
34.0
Maximum Day
64.2
Influent BOD
Annual Average (mg/L)
213
213
Annual Average (lbs/day)
41,500
Maximum Monthly (lbs/day)
53,900
60,400
Maximum Day (lbs/day)
95,450
Influent TSS
Annual Average (mg/L)
201
201
Annual Average (lbs/day)
39,100
Maximum Monthly (lbs/day)
51,200
57,000
Maximum Day (lbs/day)
159,900
Influent TKN
Annual Average (mg/L)
29.6
29.6
Annual Average (lbs/day)
5,800
Maximum Monthly (lbs/day)
8,800
8,400
Maximum Day (lbs/day)
12,760
Influent NH3-N
Annual Average (mg/L)
18.0
18.0
Annual Average (lbs/day)
3,500
Maximum Monthly (lbs/day)
4,000
5,100
Maximum Day (lbs/day)
8,600
Influent TP
Annual Average (mg/L)
4.46
4.46
Annual Average (lbs/day)
870
Maximum Monthly (lbs/day)
1,070
1,270
Maximum Day (lbs/day)
2,870

!. oo o
;
' '4' f
r -A� •i—t ' T it I
.•�1 r ���i �j i�--��:_ ,�.�--\ ram
� a. .
/ xi.. , / /!— \/6 1
1 I../ /;.: / ' ./ PI / \ f
- I �� r;-,`/ - �
'Q. Oi/\ s�•
,
•_
iN
- ,
rC"I, !\/(1 ,,'/- / II. r.! -/Jpd� .' •/. I�•♦•�,�`. —4T,-";
`; , -_=_�---\ \ //,// - , j'/ -- �
el,_ -/ ,
oa, • • )14°•_
•
s.
l r I f _`v \ 1%'_—,% v ;� ,/ /' / J�, / i
I �I + - , \_ \ ,\// . :vim %! / \ / Z ^ r h t
f a j•_I , ,_/ / 1� ~ �, e. /.. ✓ /i ' I 7 i ( 1
Jrf ,—r 1i,I I I / °.1 O j` 1� � , . •• �' •I t ��
El
, ( '1 \_1 I i �1 \ / \ //\
/' t~1 ' % \ l t�\�/�/` ��-� /\.f .! 1 / 1\' . X� ,/ I
/ \• + t ,\.. \/`r.•,-,y
'w ` _1
l / �\ / c /,/
1/ p. /. ',9 / / '\' \ ' •
...�. ;.\ \_
''� /\ •/ ,/ �= r/`.f _6 �` i I /t\ ~ '`I i/ / ' —`` 1 1 ` ' //�
1� �" �..--! /. I '!r •
.1..'"'' \/ ' 1. 1 1,-- i,/'' \

Attachment F: for Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024937 Permit Renewal and Expansion
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities' future wastewater projections indicate a need to expand the Sugar Creek
WWTP from 20 to 34 mgd by the year 2016. In order to match existing expansion requirements with
increasing wastewater flows, this expansion has been proposed to occur in two sequential phases — Phase I
Expansion to 28 mgd, and Phase II Expansion to 34 mgd. The Phase I Expansion is now in the final design
phase.
During the planning and environmental permitting phase, a range of process design alternatives was
considered. The technical analysis included an assessment of process performance, capital cost opinions,
operation and maintenance costs, integration of Utilities' sustainability goals, and site layout considerations.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was also completed, submitted to the applicable regulatory agencies,
and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) received for the expansion of the Sugar Creek WWTP to 34
mgd. The EA and planning efforts used speculative limits received from NC-DWQ as the basis of the
wastewater facility design.
The proposed Sugar Creek WWTP expansion includes:
■ Continued use of the existing East Side (of Little Sugar Creek) facilities.
■ Phase I Expansion on the West Side to a rated capacity of 12 mgd (total 28 mgd).
■ Phase II Expansion on the West Side to a rated capacity of 18 mgd (total 34 mgd).
• Use of Conventional Activated Sludge for the East Side and West Side facilities.
■ Integration of chemical phosphorus removal into the process design.
• Integration of a Modified Lutzinger-Ettinger (MLE) process into the West Side expansion.
• Continued transfer of primary and waste activated sludge to the McAlpine Creek WWMF.
■ Integration of sustainable design elements into the project.
The current schedule for start-up of the Phase I Expansion is the third quarter of 2014.

Attachment H for Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024937 Permit
RenewalandExpansion
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: ALSCO
Mailing Address: 365 Dalton Ave.
Charlotte, NC 28234
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Industrial laundry -hospital and restaurant linens
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): clean hospital and restaurant linens
Raw matcrial(s): Detergent, sour, water, soiled linen
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater
discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
84.784 gpd (x continuous or
intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater
flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any
problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Unifirst Corporation
Mailing Address: PO BOX 584
Newell, NC 28126
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Industrial Laundry
F.B. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Uniforms. mops, floor mats and wiping cloths
Raw material(s): Detergents, boosters, starch, sour, bleach, solvent, antichlor,
powder packs of dry shop towel dye, biosweep mop treatement, boiler room and
DAF chemicals
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
64,103 gpd (X continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

f
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Hardcoatings, Incorporated
Mailing Address: 2601 Lucena Street Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Clear and color anodizing of aluminum parts, includingpre- and post -treatment steps of
cleaning, etching. deoxidizing. dyeing, sealing and rinsing.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Anodized Aluminum
Raw material(s): Sulfuric Acid, Sodium Hydroxide, Borax, Trisodium Phosphate. Nitric
Acid, Glycerin, Glycolic Acid, Flubonic Acid, Sodium Gluconate, Ferric Acid, Sodium
Fluoride, Ferric Sulfate, Organic Dyers of various colors, Ferric Ammonium Oxalate
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
2513 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 433.17
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Rohm and Haas Company
Mailing Address: 6101 Orr Road
Charlotte, NC 28213
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Latex Emulsions (Poly Vinyl Acetates) -batch polymerization of vinyl acetates, acrylic esters,
acrylonitrile and acrylic acids for the textile, carpet and paint industry.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Latex Emulsions
Raw material(s): vinyl acetates, acrylic esters, acrylonitrile and acrylic acids
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
25,490 gpd continuous
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits: Yes
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
414 OCPSF Subpart D, and Thermoplastic Resins
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
111 Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: HazMat Transportation and Disposal Inc.
Mailing Address: 210 Dalton Ave.
Charlotte, NC 28237
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Facility receives offsite wastewater from oil/water separators, carwash recycle systems and other
water soluble oily contact wastewater for treatment to remove oils and other pollutants before
discharge into the sanitary sewer.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s):Treated oily contact wastewater.
Raw material(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater
discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
11,052 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater
flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 437 Subpart B
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any
problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Water Systems
Mailing Address: 4302 Raleigh Street
Charlotte. NC 28213
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Steel fabrication/manufacturing of well water tanks.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): well water tanks
Raw material(s): CRDQ steel sheets, commercial quality steel Butyl rubber, iron phosphate,
alkaline cleaner, powder coating, braze flux, drawing lubricant, urethane enamel paint, M.E.K.,
mineral oil and silver solder.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
6.000 gpd continuous (Things are slowing down for them.
Layoff in January)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits: N/A
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433 Metal finishing
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3.
F.4.
F.S.
F.6.
F.7.
F.B.
Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Allied Metal Finishing, Incorporated
Mailing Address: 2525 Lucena Street
Charlotte, NC 28206
Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Chromium, Nickel and Tin electro Latin
pa ro uc s d-taNIaterial(s). Desc ' he principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Electroplating
Raw material(s): Sparkleen 359, Pickle ASHD, NiSO4, NiCr, H3B04, Nickel Plus II, Chromic Acid.
NaOI-I. Chromic Acid, H2SO4,
Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater
discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
2.549 gpd (yes continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater
flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
N/A gpd (N/A continuous or N/A intermittent)
Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433 Metal Finishing
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any
problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Kellogg Snacks, Charlotte Bakery
Mailing Address: 933 Louise Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28205
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
wastewater generated by the cleaning of bakery equipment and mixers, conveyors
and associated equipment
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): cookies, Keebler, Famous Amos. Murray Biscuits, McDonalds
Raw material(s): sugar, flour, eggs, shortening, chocolate chips, flavorings, honey,
water. cinnamon. raisins,
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
4800 gpd continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

i.
i
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Cargill, Inc.
Mailing Address: 5000 South Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28217
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Vegetable 0il Refinery that processes multiple types of crude oils including soybean, sun flower, canola, cottonseed,
palm, palm kemel, coconut and peanut.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Vegetable Oil
Raw material(s): Crude vegetable oils. NaOH. acid activated clays. hydrogen gas, nickel catalyst
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater
discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
167,897 gpd (yes continuous or - intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater
flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
N/A gpd (N/A continuous or N/A intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits Yes
b. Categorical pretreatment standards No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.S. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any
problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Barnhardt Manufacturing Company
Mailing Address: 1100 Hawthorne Lane
Charlotte, NC 28205
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Bleaching of cotton from raw fiber and processing cotton carding. Produce dental products
with bleached cotton and produce filter media (bonded) with cotton, rayon and
polypropylene.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Materiat(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): cotton
Raw material(s): cotton, peroxide caustic, and miscellaneous bleached chemicals
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
333,187 gpd (yes continuous or _ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
N/A gpd (N/A continuous or N/A intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits Yes
b. Categorical pretreatment standards no
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address 'leach SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Carolinas HealthCare Systems — Linen Services
Mailing Address: 2828 Poplar Street
Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Washing, pressing, drying, folding, shipping of cleaned soiled hospital linens and laundry
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): clean hospital laundry and linens
Raw material(s): enzymes, surfactants, bleach, sour, caustic, detergents, dual quat sanitizer
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater
discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
66,200 gpd (X continuous or _ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater
flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any
problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: American Circuits
Mailing Address: 513 24th Street
Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacturer of printed circuit boards which generates wastewater from electrolytic
etching. copper and gold rinses and photo developer rinse water.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): printed circuit boards for a variety of uses.
Raw material(s): copper clad fiberglass laminates, electroless and electroplating
copper, photo imaging chemicals and etching chemicals.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
1268 gpd continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 433.17
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Charleston Spar, Inc.
Mailing Address: 3901 Pine Grove Circle
Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
a mix of pH neutralized, filtered waste stream from rinsing tanks of the anodizing process
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Aluminum marine products
Raw material(s): aluminum, stainless steel, caustic, sulfuric acid, anodizing chemicals, powder
coating paints, 409
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater
discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
2800
gpd continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater
flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory? 433.17
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any
problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
0 Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

r -r
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Southeastern Metal Products Inc.
Mailing Address: 1420 Metals Drive
Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Mann facture of metal parts by stamping, machining, fabrication and welding into assemblies
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): contract metal parts and assemblies
Raw material(s): steel, aluminum, plastic, and phosphatizing chemicals for cleaning
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater
discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
1270 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater
flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent.
3300 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
El Yes El No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 433.17
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any
problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

•
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Norfolk Southern Railway -Roadway Shop
Mailing Address: 312 W. Liddell Street.
Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Cleaning and maintenance of railway maintenance equipment
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Railroad maintenance equipment
Raw material(s): Steel, paint
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
4109 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
4200 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.