NC0024970_Permit Modification_20020221

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024970
McAlpine Creek WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Meeting Notes
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
February 21, 2002
Thins document is printed on reuuae paper - ignore a.ay
content on the rest -ex -me aside

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
February 21, 2002
Mr. Douglas Bean
CMUD Administrative Division
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28216
A7A
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification
Permit NC0024970
CMUD McAlpine Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Gullet:
On March 1, 2001, a final permit for the subject facility became effective. As per the settlement agreement
signed by CMUD, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality on January 15, 2002, this permit must be modified to include a phosphorus limit. This
major modification request was submitted to the Division on January 15, 2002 and acknowledged on February 1,
2002 and contains the terms of the agreement applicable to the phosphorus limit at McAlpine Creek (as well as the
conditions relating to the three CMUD plants as a whole). The permit has been modified in accordance with the
settlement agreement.
Please find enclosed the revised permit pages. The revised pages should be inserted into your permit. The
old pages may then be discarded. All other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged
and in full effect. This permit modification is issued under the requirements of North Carolina General Statutes 143-
215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit modification 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 a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions concerning this permit modification, please contact Natalie Sierra at (919) 733-
5083, extension 551.
cc; Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
--NPDES Unit
Point Source Compliance and Enforcement
US EPA Region 4
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Sincerely,
r dory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer VISIT US ON THE INTERNET C© http://h2o.enr.state.nc.usINPDES

1
Permit NC0024970
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 Utility Department
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
McAlpine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
On US Highway 521
South of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
to receiving waters designated as McAlpine 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 May I, 2002.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 8, 2006.
Signed this day February 21, 2002.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0024970
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on May 1, 2002 and lasting until February 27, 2006. the Permittee is authorized
to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample Location1
Flow
64.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day (20°C)2
April 1- October 31
4.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E, I
CBOD, 5-day (20°C)2
November 1 - March 31
8.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Residue2
15.0 mg/L
22.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N (April 1- October 31)
1.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N (November 1-March 31)
1.9 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine'
17 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E _
Total Phosphorus5
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Chromium
51 µg/L
204 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E ,i,,
Lindane
0.01 jig/
Weekly
Grab
E'
Copper
2/Month
Composite
E, U, D
Cyanide?
5 µg/L
15 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
Lead
26 µg/L
34 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Silver
2/Month
Composite
E
Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E, U, D
Mercury5
0.012 lug/
Weekly
Composite
E
Molybdenum
2/Month
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D- Downstream. For instream
monitoring requirements, see Part A. (3.).
2The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and total suspended residue concentrations shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent value.
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4 The daily average limit for total residual chlorine shall be 28 µg/L.
5 See Part A. (5.). for additional nutrient monitoring information.
6 Whole effluent toxicity shall be measured by Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90 %. Samples
shall be taken quarterly during the months of March, June, September and December. See Part A.
(4.).
7 The Division of Water Quality shall consider all cyanide concentrations reported below 10 ug/L to
be "zero" for permit -compliance purposes only.
8 The quantitation limit for mercury shall be 0.2 ug/1 (0.2 ppb). Levels reported at less than 0.2 ug/1
shall be considered zero for compliance purposes.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0024970
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on February 28, 2006 and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample Location1
Flow
64.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day (20°C)2
April 1- October 31
4.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
- E, I
CBOD, 5-day (202C)2
November 1— March 31
8.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Residue2
15.0 mg/L
22.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N (April 1— October 31)
1.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N (November 1—March 31)
1.9 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
17 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus5
Monthly Average: 1,067.0 lbs./day
12-month Average: 534 lbs./day
Monthly
Composite
E
_
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Chromium
51 µg/L
204 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
El 0 ,0 ,
Lindane
0.01 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
Copper
2/Month
Composite
E, U, D
Cyanides
5 µg/L
15 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
_
E
Lead
26 µg/L
34 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Silver
2/Month
Composite
E
Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E, U, D
Mercury5
0.012 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Molybdenum
2/Month _
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D- Downstream. For instream monitoring
requirements, see Part A.(3.).
2 The monthly average effluent CBODs and total suspended residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value.
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4 The daily average limit for total residual chlorine shall be 28 µg/L.
5 The 12-month average limit will remain in effect until such time as the total combined discharge limit
stipulated in Part A. (5.) comes into effect. Once the total combined discharge limit is effective, the 12-month
average limit is 826 lbs./day for all three CMUD plants (McAlpine, Irwin and Sugar Creek WWTPs) combined.
See Part A. (5.). for additional information on this limit. Part A. (6.) describes the methodology for calculation
of the monthly average and 12-month limits.
6 Whole effluent toxicity shall be measured by Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90 %. Samples shall be
taken quarterly during the months of March, June, September and December. See Part A. (4.).
7 The Division of Water Quality shall consider all cyanide concentrations reported below 10 ug/L to be "zero" for
permit -compliance purposes only.
8 The quantitation limit for mercury shall be 0.2 ug/1 (0.2 ppb). Levels reported at less than 0.2 ug/1 shall be
considered zero for compliance purposes.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0024970
A.(5.) TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LIMIT
As stipulated by the 2002 Settlement Agreement between Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Department (CMUD), the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC
DHEC) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ), CMUD's McAlpine Creek WWTP,
Sugar Creek WWTP and Irwin Creek WWTP must comply with a limit of 826.0 lbs/day. This limit is
defined as an effluent limit for total phosphorus from the total combined discharge from the three
referenced CMUD wastewater treatment plants (based on a 12-month rolling average). The
methodology for calculating the annual average is described in Part A. (6.).
The compliance dates for the limit are as follows. If CMUD 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 McAlpine Creek WWTP of 534.0 lbs/day (based on a 12-month rolling
average) as of February 28, 2006 (as stipulated in Part. A. (2.) of NPDES Permit NC0024970). If
however, CMUD decides not to pursue construction activities, associated with phosphorus removal,
at either the Sugar Creek WWTP or the Irwin Creek WWTP, the total phosphorus annual average limit
applicable to the loading from all three WWTPs, shall become effective on February 28, 2006.
A. (6.) 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 Loading (lb) = Days x TP x Qw x 8.34
where:
Days = the number of discharge days in that month
TP = the arithmetic average of total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) obtained via composite
samples 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 loadings for the
previous 12 months inclusive of the reporting month:
12
(2) 12-Month Mass Loading (lb/yr)= Tema (inclusive of reporting month)
Where:
TPma is defined as the total phosphorus monthly average mass loading.
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. (5)). 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.

• 4-
Reporting Month:
Beginning Month:
Ending Month:
Total Phosphorus Worksheet for Irwin, Sugar and McAlpine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants
Month used for calculating mass loadings for month 1
Month used for calculating mass loadings for month 12
Irwin Creek WWTP's
Monthly Average
Total Phosphorus
Mass Loading
NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP's
Monthly Average
Total Phosphorus
Mass Loading
NC0024945
McAlpine Creek WWTP's
Monthly Average
Total Phosphorus
Mass Loading
NC0024970
Monthly Average
Total Phosphorus
Mass Loading
from all three
facilities
Month 1 {lb./day}
Month 2 {lb./day}
Month 3 (lb./day}
Month 4 {lb./day}
Month 5 {lb./day}
Month 6 {Ib./day}
Month 7 {lb./day}
Month 8 {lb./day}
Month 9 {Ib./day}
Month 10 {Ib./day}
Month 11 {lb./day}
Month 12 {Ib./day}
Sum {Ib./day} I
I
I
I
Annual
Average {lb./day}
Note: The total phosphorus mass loadings for the current reporting month should be entered for Month 1.

•
(07)
CHARLOTTE.
January15, 2002
Mr. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Subject: Request for Permit Modification
McAlpine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0024970
Dear Secretary Ross,
By this letter, Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities ("Utilities") requests modifications to the subject NPDES
permit. This request is made pursuant to the January 15, 2002 Settlement Agreement between NC
DENR, SC DHEC, and the City of Charlotte.
Specifically, Utilities requests the following modifications:
1. Extend the term of the permit from June 30, 2005, to February 28, 2006. The resultant NPDES
Permit will then have an effective term from March 1, 2001 through February 28, 2006.
2. Include limits for phosphorus discharges in the effluent as described below:
a. The effluent limit for total phosphorous from the total combined discharge from
McAlpine Creek WWTP, Sugar Creek WWTP, and Irwin Creek WWTP shall not exceed
826 lbs/day based on a 12-month rolling average.
b. If the City conducts construction activities at either Sugar Creek WWTP or Irwin Creek
WWTP as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the Total Phosphorous Limit, the
Total Phosphorous Limit shall apply collectively to the Sugar, Irwin, and McAlpine
Creek Plants on February 28, 2007.
c. If the City does not conduct construction activities at either the Sugar Creek Plant or the
Irwin Creek Plant as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the Total Phosphorous
Limit, the Total Phosphorous Limit shall apply collectively to Sugar, Irwin, and
McAlpine Creek Plants on February 28, 2006.
d. If the City conducts construction activities at either the Sugar Creek Plant or the Irwin
Creek Plant as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the Total Phosphorous Limit,
an effluent limit for total phosphorous not to exceed 534 lbs/day based on a 12-month
rolling average shall apply to the McAlpine Creek Plant on February 28, 2006 and shall
stay in effect until the Total Phosphorous Limit becomes effective.
Administrative Division 5100 Brookshire Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28216 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities

e. Whether or not the City conducts construction activities at either the Sugar Creek Plant or
the Irwin Creek Plant as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the Total
Phosphorous Limit, an effluent limitation for total phosphorous of 1,067 lbs/day averaged
on a monthly basis shall apply to the McAlpine Creek Plant commencing February 28,
2006.
3. Any deadline or date of applicability established by the modifications to this permit shall be
extended for the duration of any event of force ;najeure, which shall mean any event arising
from causes beyond the control of the party subject to the deadline or date of applicability
that causes a delay in or prevents the performance of any of the conditions under this
Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to:
a. acts of God, fire, war, insurrection, civil disturbance, explosion or natural catastrophes;
b. restraint by court order or order of public authority;
c. inability to obtain, after the exercise of reasonable diligence and timely submittal of all
applicable applications, any necessary authorizations, approval, permits, or licenses due
to action or inaction of any governmental agency or authority; and
d. delays caused by compliance with applicable statutes or regulations governing
contracting, procurement or acquisition procedures, despite the exercise of reasonable
diligence by the party subject to the deadline.
We are enclosing a check in the amount of eight hundred sixty ($860) for the required permit
modification fee.
Please let me know immediately if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Douglas O. an
Director
Cc: David Goodrich, NC DWQ
Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office NC DWQ
Barry Gullet
File

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT made and entered into this MIX day of
January, 2002 by and between, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control ("SCDHEC"), an agency of the State of South Carolina, the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality ("NCDWQ"), an agency of the State of North
Carolina, and the City of Charlotte (the "City"), a North Carolina municipal corporation.
RECITALS
1. SCDHEC has filed a Petition for Contested Case Hearing (the "Contested
Case Petition"), Case No. 01-EHR-0856, in the North Carolina Office of Administrative
Hearings, regarding the decision of NCDWQ to grant National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit NC0024970 (the "McAlpine Creek NPDES Permit") to the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department ("CMUD").
2. CMUD currently has pending with NCDENR applications to renew
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit NC0024937 (the "Sugar Creek
NPDES Permit") and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
NC0024945 (the "Irwin Creek NPDES Permit").
3. The parties desire to settle this matter and have agreed to enter into this
Settlement Agreement.
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT
1. Recitals. The recitals are incorporated by reference.
2. Effluent Limitations for Total Phosphorous. With regard to effluent
limitations for total phosphorous from the City's McAlpine Creek wastewater treatment
plant, Sugar Creek wastewater treatment plant and Irwin Creek wastewater treatment

plant (individually the "McAlpine Creek Plant", the "Sugar Creek Plant", and the "Irwin
Creek Plant", and collectively, the "Plants") the parties agree as follows:
a. The effluent limit for total phosphorous from the total combined
discharge from the Plants shall not exceed 826 lbs/day based on a 12-month rolling
average (the "Total Phosphorous Limit").
b. If the City conducts construction activities at either the Sugar
Creek Plant or the Irwin Creek Plant as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the
Total Phosphorous Limit, the Total Phosphorous Limit shall apply to the Plants on
February 28, 2007.
c. If the City does not conduct construction activities at either the
Sugar Creek Plant or the Irwin Creek Plant as part of its efforts to achieve compliance
with the Total Phosphorous Limit, the Total Phosphorous Limit shall apply to the Plants
on February 28, 2006.
d. If the City conducts construction activities at either the Sugar
Creek Plant or the Irwin Creek Plant as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the
Total Phosphorous Limit, an effluent limit for total phosphorous not to exceed 534
lbs/day based on 12-month rolling average shall apply to the McAlpine Creek Plant on
February 28, 2006 and shall stay in effect until the Total Phosphorus Limit becomes
effective.
e. Whether or not the City conducts construction activities at either
the Sugar Creek Plant or the Irwin Creek Plant as part of its efforts to achieve compliance
with the Total Phosphorous Limit, an effluent limitation for total phosphorous of 1,067

lbs/day averaged on a monthly basis shall also apply to the McAlpine Creek Plant
commencing on February 28, 2006.
f. If the City conducts construction activities at the Sugar Creek Plant
as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the Total Phosphorous Limit, an effluent
limitation for total phosphorous of 334 lbs/day averaged on a monthly basis shall also
apply to the Sugar Creek Plant commencing on February 28, 2007.
g.
If the City conducts construction activities at the Irwin Creek Plant
as part of its efforts to achieve compliance with the Total Phosphorous Limit, an effluent
limitation for total phosphorous of 250 lbs/day averaged on a monthly basis shall also
apply to the Irwin Creek Plant commencing on February 28, 2007.
3. McAlpine Creek NPDES Permit Modification. Within five (5) business
days of the date of this Settlement Agreement, the City will submit to NCDENR a written
request that the McAlpine Creek NPDES Permit be modified as follows:
a. To include the effluent limits for total phosphorous described in
Section 2 of this Settlement A reement to the extent such limits apply to the McAlpine
Creek Plant; and
b. To extend the expiration date from June 30, 2005 to February 28,
2006.
NCDENR shall take all required actions with regard to the request for permit
modification as expeditiously as is reasonably possible and without any unreasonable
delay.
4. McAlpine Creek Plant Authorization to Construct. The Parties
acknowledge that the City will be conducting construction activities at the McAlpine

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

' period on the modification of the McAlpine Creek NPDES Permit and the renewal of the
Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek NPDES Permits.
9. Force Majeure. Any deadline or date of applicability in this Settlement
Agreement shall be extended for the duration of any event of force niajeure, which shall
mean any event arising from causes beyond the control of the party subject to the
deadline or date of applicability that causes a delay in or prevents the performance of any
of the conditions under this Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to:
a. acts of God, fire, war, insurrection, civil disturbance, explosion or
natural catastrophes;
b. restraint by court order or order of public authority;
c. inability to obtain, after the exercise of reasonable diligence and
timely submittal of all applicable applications, any necessary authorizations,
approval, permits, or licenses due to action or inaction of any governmental
agency or authority; and
d. delays caused by compliance with applicable statutes or
regulations governing contracting, procurement or acquisition procedures, despite
the exercise of reasonable diligence by the party subject to the deadline.
10. Notices. Any notice, communication, or statement required or permitted
to be given pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be in writing and deemed to have
been sufficiently given when delivered in person or sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, or by any other delivery service providing a signed receipt of
delivery, to the addresses for the other parties set forth as follows, or to such other
address that a party may by written notice designate:

a. To SCDHEC:
Director, Water Facilities Permitting Division
Bureau of Water
SC DHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
With a copy to:
General Counsel
SCDHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
b. To NCDENR:
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Supervisor
NPDES Group
Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
c. To the City:
Director
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28216-3354
With a copy to:
H. Michael Boyd
Deputy City Attorney
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2841
and

Benne C. Hutson
Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P.
P.O. Box 31247
Charlotte, North Carolina 28231
11. Total Maximum Daily Load Participation. In the development of the
total maximum daily load for phosphorous in the Catawba River Basin ("TMDL"),
SCDHEC will use a process that is open to the public and will continue to provide
NCDWQ, the opportunity to participate prior to public notice of the proposed TMDL.
SCDHEC will provide the City and other North Carolina entities that may be affected by
the TMDL the same opportunity to participate in its development prior to public notice.
SCDHEC will provide notice of the opportunity to participate in the development of the
TMDL to NCDWQ, the City, and all entities specified on a list to be provided by
NCDWQ.
12. Default. In the event of a default by a party, any non -defaulting party
may bring suit against the defaulting party to enforce the terms of this Settlement
Agreement.
13. No Admission of Liability. By entering into this Settlement Agreement ,
none of the Parties makes any admissions of law or fact with regard to any of the matters
relevant to any claims that were or could have been asserted in the Contested Case
Petition.
14. Modification. This Settlement Agreement may not be modified except in
writing signed by all the Parties.
15. Entire Agreement. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this
Settlement Agreement constitutes the agreement between the Parties and that all prior or

contemporaneous written or oral agreements with respect to these matters are merged into
this Settlement Agreement.
16. Successors and Assigns. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding
upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and
assigns.
17. Choice of Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by,
construed in accordance with, and enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of North
Carolina without resort to choice of law principles.
18. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original but all of which together shall
constitute but one and the same instrument.
[SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]

•
..
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
By: kae-PLY
Printed Name: Alton C. Boozer.
Title: Chief, Bureau of Water

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF
WATER QUALITY
By:
Printed Name: /7/00 ,4 . 60047e/c7ii
Title: 4� WAi lT SPev/so

CITY OF CH
By: sc-,1
Printed Name:
Title: J \y Q
OTT
g • Clee4AA"
ooauqs O. -ZEt9lV

February 11, 2002
CHARLOTTE_
Mr. Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit, N.C. Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Modification of NPDES Permit NC0024970
McAlpine Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Weaver:
We recently received a letter from you dated February 1, 2002, acknowledging receipt of our
subject permit modification request and check. Your letter states that the Division received this
request on January 25, 2002. That date is incorrect. The request was hand delivered by Doug
Bean to Mr. Bill Ross, Mr. Dave Goodrich, and Ms. Natalie Sierra at a news conference in
Charlotte on January 15, 2002.
Utilities was required by the settlement agreement with NC DENR and SC DHEC to submit this
permit modification request within 5 business days of the execution of the settlement agreement.
Since that agreement was executed on January 15, it is important that you correct the receipt date
of the request.
The settlement agreement also requires Utilities to comply with a rather aggressive schedule for
completion of the phosphorus reduction project. Although we agreed to begin design prior to
receiving the permit modification, we would appreciate a prompt turn -around of our
modification request for this highly visible and very important project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Barry M. Gullet, PE
Deputy Director
Cc: Dave Goodrich
Mooresville Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NC DENR Central Files
Mike Boyd
Jackie Jarrell
Administrative Division 5100 Brookshire Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28216 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities

SUMMARY OF CMUD/DWQ/SCDHEC
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 2001, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC) filed a Petition for a Contested Case in the North Carolina Office of
Administrative Hearings regarding the renewal of NPDES Permit No. NC0024970, the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) McAlpine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
primary complaint on the part of SCDHEC has been that the permit was renewed without a
phosphorus limit. Nearly all of South Carolina's municipal dischargers to the mainstem Catawba
(upstream of Lake Wateree) have been given phosphorus limits, generally equivalent to 1 mg/L.
The McAlpine Creek WWTP permit had a phosphorus optimization study special condition that
stipulated preparatory requirements for the facility to ready itself for the upcoming phosphorus
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMD).
Since the summer, SCDHEC, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
and CMUD have been working towards achieving consensus on an appropriate phosphorus limit
for the McAlpine Creek WWTP. The understanding has been that this decision will also affect
DWQ's permitting strategy for three additional municipal permits: CMUD - Irwin Creek WWTP,
CMUD - Sugar Creek WWTP, and Union County - 12-Mile Creek WWTP.
The final settlement agreement includes the terms of the limits for all three CMUD
plants. A similar strategy will be used by DWQ to limit phosphorus in the Union County permit.
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Limits at McAlpine Creek WWTP
Based upon a construction schedule provided by CMUD during the settlement
proceedings, the compliance date for the total phosphorus limit at the McAlpine Creek WWTP is
set for February 28, 2006. At this time, the McAlpine Creek WWTP must meet a 534 lbs./day
total phosphorus limit. This limit is to be calculated as a 12-month rolling average. It
corresponds to a 1 mg/L limit at McAlpine Creek's permitted flow of 64 MGD.
This limit, as well as the monthly mass cap described below, shall be incorporated into a
major modification to NPDES Permit NC0024970 with special condition language to be included
with reference to the Irwin and Sugar Creek WWTPs. Since SCDHEC's stipulation was that any
limit come into effect prior to the expiration date of the permit, the permit expiration date will
also be modified to February 28th, 2006 (instead of June 30, 2005). This puts the permit out of
sync with the Basinwide schedule, but is within the five years allowable for a permit term under
federal regulations.
Bubble Limit
A major point of the settlement agreement is the idea of a bubble limit. This refers to a
mass limit for total phosphorus that applies to discharge at the three CMUD plants combined.
This type of a limit would give CMUD more operational flexibility with regard to phosphorus
removal.
The bubble limit, to be calculated as a 12-month rolling average, is 826 lbs./day of total
phosphorus from all three CMUD plants. This corresponds to a 1 mg/L phosphorus limit at
permitted discharge for the three plants. If CMUD conducts construction activities at either the
Sugar or Irwin Creek plants, the compliance date for this bubble limit will be February 28, 2007.

If CMUD decides not to conduct construction activities at either plant in order to achieve
compliance, the bubble limit will come into effect on February 28, 2006. This is identical to the
compliance date at the McAlpine Creek plant.
Special condition language will be included in the Irwin and Sugar Creek WWTP permits
regarding the compliance date.
Mass cap
In order to be protective of the water quality at the downstream lakes in South Carolina,
SCHEC requested that monthly mass caps also be included as part of the total phosphorus limits
at the three CMUD plants. This would also ensure optimized operation of the plants at all times.
The mass caps at the three plants take the form of a monthly average mass limit and
correspond to a concentration limit of 2 mg/L at maximum permitted flow. At McAlpine Creek,
this limit is 1,0671bs. /day of total phosphorus beginning February 29, 2006. At the Sugar and •
Irwin Creek plants, the mass caps only come into effect if construction activities are pursued at
each plant. At Sugar Creek WWTP, the limit is 334 lbs./day with compliance commencing on
February 28, 2007. At Irwin Creek WWTP, the limit is 250 lbs./day with compliance
commencing on February 28, 2007.
TMDL
As part of the settlement agreement DWQ requested a provision for full inclusion in the
TMDL process for both DWQ and all affected NC entities (to be provided in a list by DWQ).
APPLICABILITY TO PERMITTING PROCESS
The three CMUD permits will have the bubble limit included as a special condition.
Monitoring for phosphorus will be included in the regular effluent limit pages. Mass caps will
also be included in the effluent limit pages, with a footnote specifying applicability (for Sugar and
Irwin Creek plants) and compliance dates.
The Union County - 12 Mile Creek WWTP shall have a mass limit equivalent to 1 mg/L
at the permitted flow. As with the three CMUD plants, compliance for this limit is to be judged
as a rolling annual average. Special monitoring language is being developed for this situation. It
is also recommended that the phosphorus optimization study special condition from the original
McAlpine Creek WWTP permit be included in this permit to allow DWQ time to review the
County's preparations for the impending phosphorus TMDL.

(CfX
CHARLOTTK
CHARLOTTE•MECKLENBURG
UTILITIES
June ,2001
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Phosphorus Reduction Feasibility Study
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities seeks the services of a qualified consulting engineering firm to
prepare a feasibility study of phosphorus reduction at McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek, and Irwin
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants. This study is required by the recently renewed NPDES
Permit for the McAlpine Creek WWTP.
Plant and Watershed Characteristics:
All three of the plants involved in this study are advanced treatment facilities using conventional
activated sludge processes followed by effluent filtration and disinfection/dechlorination.
McAlpine Creek WWTP is permitted to treat 64 mgd and is currently treating average daily flows
of about 45 mgd. Sugar Creek is permitted for 20 mgd and is treating about 17 mgd and Irwin is
permitted for 15 mgd and is treating about 10 mgd. Typical phosphorus concentrations in the
effluent are as follows:
Plant Effluent concentration of P
McAlpine 3.2 mg/1
Sugar 5.7 mg/1
Irwin 2.2 mg/1
Lower influent loading at Sugar Creek and a corresponding reduction in effluent concentrations
are expected due to imminent changes in industrial loading upstream of the Sugar Creek Plant. A
slight reduction is also expected at McAlpine Creek.
The streams receiving the discharges of each of the three plants eventually converge into Sugar
Creek and later into the Catawba River. The Catawba River flows into Lake Wateree which
South Carolina has determined to be eutrophic and which is the reason NC DENR has required
this study.
Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek WWTP's have the ability to divert portions of their influent flow to
Page 1 -- RFQ, Phosphorus Reduction Feasibility Study

McAlpine Creek WWTP for treatment. Sugar Creek WWTP routinely transfers all primary and
waste activated sludge to McAlpine Creek WWTP for treatment and dewatering.
Scope of Services:
The selected consulting firm will be required to review and further develop the information
presented in a study titled "Identification of Nutrient Discharge Control Opportunities at the
McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek, and Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Facilities." This study
was prepared by Aware Environmental. The executive summary of this report is attached.
Also attached is an excerpt of the current NPDES permit for McAlpine Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant. This attachment outlines NCDENR's specific requirements of the study to be
performed. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities has expanded the study scope to include Sugar and
Irwin because these plants all discharge into streams that are tributaries to Sugar Creek.
In order to meet the deadline set forth in the permit, the complete report must be delivered
to Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities on December 3, 2001.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities expects that the study will be conceptual in nature, and will be
based on limited data. The study report should present of a series of options to reduce effluent
phosphorus concentrations to 2.0 mg/1, 1.5 mg/1, 1.0 mg/1, and 0.5 mg/1 at each of the plants.
Each option would include a cost estimate, list of assumptions, and potential issues involved.
The study would also include an evaluation of the potential for providing more extensive
treatment at one or more of the three plants that would result in the same mass loading to the
receiving stream as reducing each individual effluent concentration to a lesser extent.
Meeting(s) with NC DENR staff may also be required.
Note: The above scope represents the Owner's requirements at this time. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
reserves the right to change this scope (either reductions or additions).
Submittal Requirements:
Interested firms must submit six copies of their qualifications no later than , 2001 at noon.
Submittals must be no more than 10 one-sided, single spaced pages (exclusive of cover) with a font size
of at least 12. (This includes all attachments). Submittals must include:
Firm Qualification: Provide a brief description of the services your firm provides, list
any sub -consultants you propose to use and describe their respective roles and
qualifications. Indicate whether any of these are M/WBE firms. Also discuss manpower
resources available to your firm that you will commit to the project, and out of what
office these resources are available. Due to the deadline imposed by the State, workload
of the project team will be an important factor for the selection committee.
Related Project Experience: Key in the selection of this consultant is whether the
project team has an established positive working relationship with NC DENR Also
Page 2 -- RFQ, Phosphorus Reduction Feasibility Study

important is the team's current experience and knowledge of a) advanced wastewater
treatment processes; b) biological and chemical phosphorus treatment methods; c)
operation optimization at existing plants; and d) creative ideas to maximize efficiency.
For each similar study that your firm has completed, include a project summary, identify
the owner and list the name and phone number of a contact person who was directly
involved in the study. In addition, indicate which member(s) of your proposed project
team had key roles in the projects, and what those roles were. Include in this section the
name of at least one ORC (operator in responsible charge) at a wastewater treatment
plant who is familiar with your project team's capabilities.
Resumes of Key Personnel: List the key members of your project team and include a
brief description of their related project experience, education, and pertinent
registrations. Particular emphasis should be placed on the project manager.
Local Office: Indicate what percentage of your work will be based in the Charlotte area.
Also indicate which members of the project team will be local. Preference will be given
to firms with significant local representation.
Project Approach: Describe the general tasks required to fulfill project requirements
and your firm's approach to completing those tasks in the most timely and effective
manner possible.
Schedule: Depending on number and thoroughness of submittals received, the Selection Committee
plans to have either a short list or a final selection within two weeks of receipt of qualifications. Oral
interviews may or may not be required of some or all of the firms that are considered.
Selection Committee: The selection committee will be composed of Utilities' plant staff, engineering
staff, and may include representatives from NC DENR. Contacts from consultants for marketing
purposes is discouraged. The Project Manager should be contacted regarding questions concerning
clarifications on the submittal or the selection process.
Proposals must be received by noon eastern standard time on , 2001 and should be addressed to:
Ms. Julie McLelland, P.E.
Project Manager
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28216
Page 3 -- RFQ, Phosphorus Reduction Feasibility Study

Any questions regarding the above project or this request can be directed to Julie McLelland at (704)391-
5126, email [e-mail].
This selection process is open to all professional engineering consulting firms licensed to perform work
in North Carolina.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Julie L. McLelland, P.E.
Project Manager
Page 4 -- RFQ, Phosphorus Reduction Feasibility Study

WATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
\O`�O 9pG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G) I r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D, Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
t
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
I hereby delegate to David A. Goodrich, Supervisor of the NPDES Unit, the authority to settle contested
case 01 EHR 0856, brought by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control to
challenge NPDES permit No. NC0024970 issued for the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department's
(C.M.U.D.) McAlpine Creek wastewater treatment plant, and to execute the Settlement Agreement, which
resolves the permit limits for total phosphorus in the NPDES permits for C.M.U.D.'s McAlpine, Sugar, and
Irwin Creek wastewater treatment plants.
This the day of January, 2002.
Greg J. Tpe, Ph.D
Acting Dire or
Division of Water Quality
C2)
0
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
wicrA
AL3
NCDENR
Customer Service
1 800 623-6748
1

201 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
PO Box 31247 (28231)
[phone]
direct: 704-343-2060
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
December 19, 2001
VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Jill B. Hickey
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-629
Samuel J. Finklea, III
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Re: SCDHEC v. NCDENR and CMUD/Settlement Issues
Dear Jill and Sam:
I am writing in response to Sam's letter to me dated December 17, 2001. Although from
Sam, I understand the letter is the response of both DHEC and DENR to my letter dated
December 7, 2001. Hence, this response is addressed to both of you.
For ease of reference, we will address the issues raised in the order they appear in Sam's
letter.
Proposed Schedule
We appreciate your recognition that you "have not been privy to the detailed analysis"
the City did to prepare the schedule included with our December 7 letter. However, it may be
helpful for you to better understand what that detailed analysis included.
What the City has proposed to do at the McAlpine plant is not a typical construction
project. The phosphorous upgrades that the City has offered to make as part of its settlement
offer are additions to an already crowded construction schedule at that plant over the next five
years. As of the -date of our November 9 meeting, the City had already begun or had scheduled
eight to ten capital projects at the McAlpine plant with a total cost of over $100 million. Less
than two weeks after the November 9 meeting, during the week of Thanksgiving, the City

Jill B. Hickey
Samuel J. Finklea, III
December 19, 2001
Page 2
Ain? &et? I
d
scheduled and held a meeting with all of the firms responsible for these projects to determine
how the phosphorous work could be done in a timely fashion while being coordinated with the
performance of all the other work either ongoing or already planned. Following that meeting
there were numerous telephone calls and other contacts to resolve issues and questions and refine
and finalize the schedule.
As a result of all of that work, we were able to present the detailed schedule included
with our December 7 letter. This is an aggressive schedule for work at the largest POTW in the
two Carolinas where a number of other necessary, scheduled and funded projects were already
underway or planned. Furthermore, we are offering to begin work on this project now and not at
some time in the future. If either DHEC or DENR has specific suggestions as to how the
schedule may be shortened, we would be happy to consider them. Absent such suggestions, we
have not identified any ways to compress the schedule.
With regard to DENR's request to have 90 days to approve authorizations to construct
provided the City submits a complete application, we have two concerns. First, as proposed, the
90-day clock does not start to run until the application is deemed complete and there is no
deadline for DENR to make a completen
interim deadline after the City makes
is complete. We would propose
application.
ermination. We believe there needs to be a short
on for DENR to determine that an application
adline be 15 days after submission of the
Second, our proposed schedule • s based on 60-day approvals by the State and other
permitting agencies. We are willing to agree to DENR's 90-day proposal. However, everyone
must recognize that with a 90-day time limit for the DENR, the City's proposed schedule will be
automatically extended 30 days until May 3, 2006. Furthermore, current regulations require
DENR to act on authorizations to construct within 90 days. 15A N.C.A.C. 2H.0112(a). The
City has been working from the premise that time is of the essence in completing the work at
McAlpine and thus has gone to great lengths to establish an aggressive design, construction and
start up schedule, in short doing things faster than it normally would. In light of this principle,
we would hope that DENR might reconsider its position on this issue.
Finally, there is one clarification we need to make to the schedule included with our
December 7 letter. The City is willing to begin selection of and negotiation of a contract with a
consultant prior to the effective date of the permit modification contemplated by the proposed
settlement. However, the City will not authorize work to begin under the contract until the
permit modification is effective. The City will commit to submitting its permit modification
request on January 15, 2002, assuming the City Council approves the settlement the night before.
North Carolina regulations then require a 45-day public notice period on DENR's intent to issue
the modification. 15A N.C.A.C. 2H.0109 and .0114. Thus the March 1, 2002 date for beginning

Jill B. Hickey
Samuel J. Finklea, III
December 19, 2001
Page 3
design work will be delayed. The length of that delay will depend on when DENR can begin the
public notice period.
o summarize, based on the . •' osals in Sam's letter, the end date of the City's proposed
sedule will be extended 30 day (to account for DENR's 90-day processing of the
uthorization to construct.) Th ity will begin the selection of and negotiation of a contract
h a contractor im ui - = ' . e y following City Council approval. However, work on the design
and pre u .i . ion of plans and specifications will not begin until the permit modification becomes
effective. Performance of that and all subsequent phases of this project will run from that date.
DENR will need to provide guidance as to what that date will be.
Force Majeur
With the exception of the first of our seven enumerated assumptions (Charlotte City
Council approvals following the settlement), we believe all of the other items are contingencies
that are outside the City's control and thus truly constitute force majeur events. We believe
DHEC's proposed settlement language, with some modifications, can be used to incorporate
these concepts into a final agreement. Enclosed is a blacklined version of that proposed
language that highlights our suggested changes. We will await your response to these proposed
changes.
Monthly Phosphorous Limits
We have reviewed and believe we understand your rationale for a short-term permit limit
in addition to the rolling annual limit. However, it is our understanding that the impacts of
phosphorous on the environment are related not to concentrations of phosphorous but rather to
the mass load of phosphorous into the lakes and the resulting in -lake concentration. In light of
this and the fact that the volume of the lake remains relatively constant more so that the flow
rates from treatment plants and feeder streams, it would seem that a monthly mass limit would be
more appropriate.
Recognizing this, we would propose a combined monthly mass limit equivalent to 2 mg/1
at the permitted flow rates of the three plants. This would be a monthly average of 1,651 lbs/day
from the three plants. This limit would become effective five years after the effective date of the
renewed permit for Sugar Creek, five years after the effective date of the renewed permit for
Irwin Creek, or the completion of the McAlpine phosphorous upgrades, whichever occurred last.
If the McAlpine project is completed before then (which is likely going to happen), that that
plant would be subject to an interim monthly mass limit equivalent to 2 mg/1 at 64 mgd, or 1,067
lbs/day averaged on a monthly basis.

Jill B. Hickey
Samuel J. Finklea, III
December 19, 2001
Page 4
The combined limit for all three plants will allow for the flexibility, operational and
otherwise, that the City needs, a need that both DHEC and DENR have recognized throughout
our settlement negotiations. At the same time, the focus will remain on the loading of
phosphorous coming into South Carolina, which has been the primary focus of all the settlement
discussions.
Sugar and Irwin Creek Phosphorous Controls and Schedules
Sam's letter raises two issues with regard to phosphorous management at the Sugar and
Irwin Creek plants. First, it asks for an explanation of the City's phosphorous strategy for these
two plants. Although our primary focus, as all the parties concurred was appropriate, has been
on the McAlpine plant, as part of the phosphorous reduction feasibility study required by the
current permit, the City has considered approaches for the Sugar and Irwin plants. This has
included an identification of future flow scenarios, analysis of influent characteristics, design and
construction limitations at the plants, and development of treatment scenarios based on different
phosphorous effluent limits and application of chemical treatment, biological treatment or some
combination of the two.
Through this work, 18 different alternative scenarios were identified for the Irwin Creek
plant and 12 were identified for the Sugar Creek plant. Based on this preliminary analysis, the
most likely approach for Irwin Creek will be a chemical phosphorous removal process that will
include, among other things, the conversion of at least one secondary digester to a primary
digester, the construction of chemical feed facilities, and solid handlings improvements. At
Sugar Creek, the most likely approach will be a biological removal process that will include,
among other things, a new final clarifier, new anaerobic and anoxic basins, and various new
digesters.
Second, Sam's letter requests that dates be established by which the phosphorous limits
will become effective for Sugar and Irwin. We are very concerned about this request and the
discussion of it in the letter. Since the initial meeting of the parties in August, the City believes
there has been a consensus that there should be an overall mass limit for the three plants and that
the focus of the initial efforts should be on McAlpine as it is the largest of the plants and the
plant where the greatest amount of phosphorous reduction can be obtained. Furthermore, there is
already a permit in place for McAlpine so the City has no uncertainty regarding its legal
requirements as it develops and implements its phosphorous reduction project there.
The same is not the case with regard to Sugar and Irwin. Although what follows repeats
what I already said in my December 7 letter and what a number of City representatives have said
at our meetings and in other contacts, it appears we need to say it yet again. First, any schedules
for projects at Sugar and Irwin will be dependent on other terms and conditions of the renewed
permits. If those permits require the City to undertake other projects at those plants, the nature

Jill B. Hickey
Samuel J. Finklea, III
December 19, 2001
Page 5
of those projects may impact the type and/or nature of any phosphorous reduction projects at
those plants. At McAlpine we knew what the other projects were when we developed plans for
the phosphorous project. We do not know that at Sugar or Irwin. To commit to schedules now
without such knowledge would be, to say the least, foolish on the City's part.
Second, the waste load allocation for phosphorous is to apply to all three plants so that
the City has flexibility to determine how that limit is allocated among the three plants. Problems
encountered at and the effectiveness of the efforts at McAlpine will need to be evaluated to
determine what actions need to be taken at Sugar and Irwin.
Third, all parties have recognized for some time that the greatest reductions in
phosphorous loading can be achieved at the McAlpine plant. If we are to develop schedules now
for Sugar and Irwin, the work at McAlpine will be delayed and a settlement cannot be reached by
January 7.
For all of these reasons, the City will agree to achieve compliance with the mass -based
limit for phosphorous within five years of the effective dates of the renewed permits for the
Sugar and Irwin Creek plants. Without the permits, the City cannot agree to anything else at this
time. Please keep in mind that the City timely filed for renewal of both of those permits so the
timing of when the five years begins to run is solely within the control of DENR.
Finally Sam's letter proposes that the City "does not need to explain its strategies or share
its timetables if it will agree that the limits for Sugar and Irwin shall take effect at the same time
as the limit for McAlpine." Since the City has explained its strategies and shared its timetables,
no response to this proposal is necessary.
Interim Limits
We agree with your position on this issue.
Stakeholder Process with TMDL
Like DENR, the City wishes to be involved in a meaningful stakeholder process for
South Carolina's TMDL development and allocation process and concurs with DENR that this
should be reflected in the settlement agreement.
Next Steps
We hope that this letter resolves all of the remaining issues regarding settlement of this
matter. If not, with the holidays next week and the impending January 7 deadline, further
exchanges of letters may not be the most efficient way to proceed. We should consider a

Jill B. Hickey
Samuel J. Finklea, III
December 19, 2001
Page 6
conference call or, if absolutely necessary, a meeting as the final attempt to reach definitive
settlement terms. No City representatives will be available next week due to the Christmas
holidays.
Please get back to me as to if, how and when we should proceed from here.
Sincerely,
Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P.
Benne C. Hutson
BCH
cc: Douglas O. Bean (via electronic mail)
Barry Gullet (via electronic mail)
H. Michael Boyd (via electronic mail)

The Division of Water Quality shall provide written notice as soon as practicable
that a specified extension of time has been granted or that no extension has been granted.
An extension shall be granted for any scheduled activity delayed by an event of force
majeure, which shall mean any event arising from causes beyond the control of CMUD
that causes a delay in or prevents the performance of any of the conditions under this
settlement agreement including, but not limited to: a) acts of God, fire, war,
insurrection, civil disturbance, explosion or natural catastrophes; b) adverse weather
conditions, c) restraint by court order or order of public authority; d) inability to obtain,
after exercise or reasonable diligence and timely submittal of all applicable applications,
any necessary authorizations, approval, permits, or licenses due to action or inaction of
any governmental agency or authority; e) delays caused by compliance with applicable
statutes or regulations governing contracting, procurement or acquisition procedures,
despite the exercise of reasonable diligence by CMUD; f) failure of suppliers to provide
equipment or components that meets specifications and is not defective; g) failure of
CMUD's consultants or contractors to fully and satisfactorily complete their work
provided CMUD exercises due diligence in attempting to obtain full and satisfactory
completion; and h) failure of the plant and equipment to perform as designed and
intended to meet the effluent limit for phosphorous.
Events which are not force majeure include by example, but are not limited to,
unanticipated or increased costs of performance or changed economic circumstances.

Total Phosphorus (pounds per year)
1000000
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
TP limit = 1 mg/I
Total Phosphorus Load for CMUD WWTPs Combined
TP limit = 2 mg/I
TP limit = 3 mg/I
IJTotal Projected TP Load
(All CMUD Plants)
■Actual TP Load (2000-
2001, all CMUD Plants)

a
ll!PTER g LPN SECT -MN Fax :[phone]
Dec 12 '01 9:26 P.01
r • ,
•
bc/INA
•
TTY— tilitfc' or .N )1-1k1 c:nr-t)li�t�t
ttr,} ( c,rr1 ;.It r, ! )t ;l-(till r)t 11( „I l;rti(r<
\I Irtlf.\I \ ,d \11,\I. ( �
1 • + r I ;,,C ,_r,
It.\:JO(:I!
rE/.Tn, f rv,_IV ITT. P S'xrr• rT
ro:
c-�•tc�f 6ao�ur.v
I'rLinV ir') .!il•nrwii
l:.rx , 11 �r •I,r.r, ',,.
PROM: G 7�
NUMBER OF P;\CIS (rlNc[.uurti'C TRANsNrrr-r L SHEET):
CON Frnm RECEIPr cl' DocL';NrE;v`r•(s) IF yr;1RKLD HERE:
COMjE;NTS.
(2),� s a.-yt p7t.2e
A L
r_•P) 43596%=
o,L. /(J2/.%--~_ ,

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax Dec 12 '01 9:26 P.02
al Hickey - 2TIER
Rationale for a concentration limit.
We have agreed to a monthly mass limit equivalent to 1 rng/1 at Rill flow, measw ed using a
rolling annual average, for all three plants. A. second litnit (e.g., concentration) is necessary for
several reasons. The downstream impoundments can absorb some variability in phosphorus
loading hut arc not completely indifferent to the rate of loading; a short -tern limit is necessary to
protect the lakes during low -flow conditions and to prevent concentration spikes which could
cause localized eutrophication. A monthly concentration limit would ensure that nuisance algal
blooms would not develop downstream, blooms which can develop in 14 days or leis. The
water quality standard of 0.06 mg/1 for phosphorus in the downstream reservoirs is t? be met at
all times, not just as an annual average. EPA's NPDES Permit Writer's Manual
(EPA-S33-B-96-003), page 112 (section 6.5.1) states that "The objective is to establish permit
limits that result in the effluent meeting the WLA under normal operating condition virtually all
the time." Further it states, "In effect, the limits crust force treatment plant performance levels
that, after considering acceptable effluent variability, will only have low statistical p 'obability of
exceeding the WLA and will achieve the desired loadings." From this, it is clear that you set
limits to insure a certain measure of treatment plant performance. Setting a monthly limit that
assesses only annual data would not accomplish this goal. Concentration limits are the best way
to insure plant performance.
In addition, EPA regulations, NC regulations, and SC regulations require a shortl-term limit in
addition to the long-term limit; see, e.g., 40 CFR I22.45(d): "Continuous discharge. For
continuous discharges all permit effluent limitations, standards, and prohibitions, in9luding those
necessary to achieve water quality standards, shall unless impracticable be stated as ... (2)
Average weekly and average monthly discharge limitations for POTWs."
Finally, 40 CFR122.41(e) requires operation of all installed controls at all time and a
concentration limit in the permit will verify such operation.
We think a concentration limit of 2 mg/1, reported as a monthly average, satisfies all these
considerations.
R:190471SETTLE\:ier

a.
f
North Carolina } ss
Mecklenburg County}
The Knight Publishing Co., Inc.
Charlotte, NC
Affidavit of Publication
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
WATER QUALITY BUDGET OFC
PO BOX 27687
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
REFERENCE: 20076845
4282774 modify npdes
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of the Knight Publishing Company a
corporation organized and doing business under the
laws of the State of Delaware, and publishing a
newspaper known as The Charlotte Observer in the
city of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg and State
of North Carolina and that as such he/she is
familiar with the books, records, files and
business of said Corporation and by reference to
the files of said publication
the attached advertisement was inserted. The
following is correctly copied from the books and
files of the aforesaid Corporation and
Publication.
PUBLISHED ON: 10/16
AD SPACE: 44 LINE
FILED ON: 10/18/01
NAME: T'W. lrt ',it Y 9 ul 1 ll'l (1 k TITLE:
DATE:
In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal,
day and year aforesaid.
Notice of Intent
To Modify NPDES Discharge
Permit NC0024970
SUBJECT The Division of Water
Duality plans to estabksh a scted-
u!e off compliance on a new lin- i
dane limit in the existent NPDES
Permit for the Charlotte Meriden -
burg utilities Department (CMUD)
- McAlpine Creek Wastewater
Treatment plant (NC0024970)
PURPOSE The facility fisted above
discharges into McAlpineCreek In
the Catawba River basin. A com-
pliance schedule lasting until Feb-
ruary 28. 2002 has been granted
in order to meet a newly imposed
undone limit.
INFORMATION:A copy of the ex-
isting NPDES permit and a map
showing the location of the dis-
charge is available by writing qr
calling:
Ms. Natalie Sierra
NC DENR-DWO•NPDES Unit
1617 Mai $ervice Center
Raleigh,North Carolina27699-1617
Telephone number: [phone].
extension 551
The tan of
permit e
Divisionot er Duality. Archdale
Building, 512 North Salisbury
Street (Room 925), Raleigh, North
Carolina, It maybe Inspected dur-
ing normal office hours. Copies of
the information on 1leare available
'Von Payment otthe
6P4282774
Notary:
0.44) My Commission Expires: //_
the
N1y ".i 47j;
200(3

onto ST44., UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
�een Sullins, Chief
W er Quality Section
orth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North' Carolina 27699-1617
NOV 1 9 ZOvi
SUBJ: Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) - McAlpine Creek
Wast tV.atw_ ml.at.e,k Plant - 17TPWLQ Permit 11/4:uber NC002 98
Dear Ms. Sullins:
In accordance with the EPA/NC Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), we have completed
the review of the modification for the above referenced North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit and have no objections to this proposed permit modification. However
EPA does recommend that the NPDES permit contain interim reporting dates for the submission
of reports of progress towards meeting the lindane limit.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Ms. Caroline Ejimofor
of my staff, at 404-562-9309.
Sincerely,
oosevelt Childress, Chief
NPDES and Biosolids Permits Section
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division

>/VfC4/p5114411
lPre. e corlse
M'Itri? pv,.(444-- kepik
ho,c me Thei,1.- Cern ki W me.,6471
a Aar calce-r.
'age- /mvin/7 4ffiroac4 #10000C.
tidy (50nut... 4,-VG a 'tidy
dancr h 4 reet figr,464-- deo& .
L
042mlions Iclali : A Ifni; 1 pi la conrifetc-c,
hti-G -kkat ale.netc keyemk-7W,i4firairan otrAfte•
*Feun
delife4 ge,e("AhA(e..
54thentwm4- tivudwitvif
A-mly 5
ill8c'/C/Mt49 -7
V14€C- I 19 tft I IL I
z
ter a
7
eel ":111triiitIA.
viitt
4,1;e1u4

MhuteilOtTfrS Pg-oPnatkl---
WI- I 5 5C `, gei2 CajTS

111-_©1
ociA
.F0/0/e,thil91/
eariti6titttf
Poo
444.4cf/ "774,9170/.
g...1E_Le 7 ifeY
Aykif-d t;56ele-tmirty Ave j #0./71/ er(c1
VOI 06/ 1/01 s'/er (e�(evi
7 y/s ;11
pcfre
5-CP/1.
07404170\i 714Q
' 1/4Atet
le a /
a %71- if17'
fed
inf
1/,(1:14. W‘177,#) ‘e--1/ e('
,,,f7446E1/:,st azed
. Oice
t/241/ "'Rio reedinti974- deihtfii9
tir
9 _ -— - _4rcheead-s
�- f ..
/ /Intl _>Jr15-44 ANA1114-4-- cyr74X • ce,75 _
z. -3 _6tz.,1 col/ova)
> &-f-boe, Nim1/41
'7'' eiN5T
? — v s epir-
/07.--,ry
/e19/Z
>
e
a /z,-4"
I :7
7474
..r
tip role Rc4tilaita�
Afj:7
Air gilt425 LA/ CL—IP
// — .1775/141 ,Cjee
Redi"Tr MICIAWs5E 7790 fid iti6rr YA-)L .)
r�-
r
,4 4.44-41( hfift
Sigt91,4-)

9wo,
fib? Adiv e6l-nia/-06"( Cs0
I
ilowf? `#(2 44 clef
b/relf.cf,e-/ ete- /11
/60 . kve
finc vfty lee inannod g:s.
c1714
• rievuern it/111171.1- eift* 41:74,4r
1.
ri-nr6560(
ghal f` A._0142y *mod a4/4=Tc.
• Tirn ivt:7 t%'Srio# •
P C
.• 1174/4L. ave._ ivy kfee( _1040( .
• mica tie„_ty et arc)/ -bd, It 4
yyl. _
- halt..kOt . 145- rrsoPp fit coo" sada
• reakild_ ,c44144/e..
(14,17,04 knotatiw
eAryni Di-
114Afilat fich eta+L.
WA- wade( !My ikfiv j+) frmitet 41r4_,
4 3c kap, te > yzotr, .

011•••••••••
HCAJIuIQ
hi 4. --r?
Procadiey utileptifiWzotHon t
Pretf41- eTeN b")
1. /2./31101
Mod GI'
ectic.ern
- MAA awile.fitstiFcal)."-) 12) st.ct,o/k..
" 17.wied iwpm,441
ot/ 1-1/91 '11-44ciell- •
Dva
Wu" scte;c.
ivr,C1 6rvist% in elf p(yrvi rt$1Y1c1-7?31.5;
ci-f6C
e tiefr Ili
• 4_4112i-a
Aced -re bnolf-4 11.4
•
! ,
• /lfvij t ,t4,07, 01,
A a 4-tad/
a- 77 n /.1 i7e4r les
o5-wer61 kietee4.1aKe97
C0712lifirl td/ 4 S-727.5 et /rue( 4,7

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Nov 16 '01 11:26 P.03
1'1/rIs/20o1 11;24 FAX [phone]Y W11111 71nLma
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
201 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 26202
PO Box 31247 (28231)
[phone]
direct: 704-343-2060
fax: [phone]
beanahutson@uaitkhe leas.com
VIA E-MAIL
VIA FACSINLILE
Ji11 B. Hickey
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-629
November 8, 2001
Samuel J. Finl;lea, III
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Strcet
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Re: SCDHEC v. NCDENR and CMUD/Settlement Proposal
Dear Jill and :tam:
The C.ty of Charlotte would propose to resolve the pending Petition for Contested Case
regarding the McAlpine Creek POTW on the following terms:
1, The City will agree to a phosphorous limit for the McAlpine POTW of 534
pounds per day measured as a rolling annual average. The City will have designed and awarded
a contract to construct any improvements or modifications to the McAlpine POTW to meet this
limit by the I'.xpiration of the current permit (June 30, 2005). A more detailed schedule is
enclosed. Thc: City will voluntarily apply to NCDENR for a permit modification to include these
items in its existing NPDES permit.
2. The City will agree to a phosphorous limit for the Sugar Creelc POTW of 167
pounds per day measured as a rolling annual average with compliance to be achieved within five
years of the effective date of the renewed NPDES permit for Sugar Creek.
3. The City will agree to a phosphorous limit for the Irwin Creelc POTW of 125
pounds per day measured as a rolling annual average with compliance to be achieved within five
years of the cll:ective date of the renewed NPDES permit for Irwin Creek.
ARLA ITA
C#AkL TTE 6REEM411010
AILEIRH WW1
NGWOW

WATER & LAND SECTION ;Fax:[phone]
31 /0S/2001 11: Z7 FAX [phone] SMITH HUMS
Nov 16 '01 11V P. 04
W 003/004
Jill B. Hickey
Samuel J. Finklea, III
November 8, 001
Page 2
4. By the last date when all POTWs are to have achieved comp; fiance with their
respective phosphorous limits, the combined limit for the plants will be 826 pounds per day
measured as a rolling annual average with the allocation of this limit to the individual POTWs to
be determined by the City at its discretion.
5. The parties will enter into a Settlement Agreement or other documentation
evidencing the; terms of this resolution. The documentation will provide, among other things,
that this settlement resolves all of' SCDHEC's issues regarding the current kilcAlpine Creek
NPDES permit, that SCDHEC will dismiss its pending Petition for Cont9sted Case with
prejudice, and that SCDHEC will not make any comments, raise any objections O otherwise take
any adverse actions with regard to inclusion of these phosphorous limits in the renewed Sugar
Crock and Irwin Creek NPDES permits at any time.
Sincerely,
SMI - ' LMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
e C. Hutson
Enclosure
cc: Douglas D. Bean
Barry Gullet
H. Michael Boyd
Jill Hickey

zom-
Fa.x:919 716-6766
WATER & LAND SECTION
McAlpine
rake Penni llodfic tion
kct Engineer
lepat: Mud Esotneedno Wntra-A
Oast in prupresss
Design Conglete
Apply tor Auarorietioriho Construct (ATC)
Receive ATC
disc forCenstnrcton edS
Receive Bids
Award contract.?
dor Wbtkhes
Cms6u�ion (end dale unknown)
urent NPDES Permit Eagles 6f3O 5
SugaiRrwin
HP issues Draft Permits
ennui, Pr for Pinta Ccarne is conSl edee
D€HNR Issues Foal Permit
PerrnitBeeones tffecne
Select Engineer
Negotiaie&Award Engineering Ccrelract
Design n progress
Design
Apply for ATC
Receive ATC
Advcrfsso ror Core ucsoo Bids
R.:o..In. Bids
ward Cunlea(e)
entrance Mobilizes t
ConsWClion in Progress
Compls.%Carsbuclion
Plant Sart Up
Pont Cowes into CtrnabricesritnPermi li�rils
Deadline forCorrpliance
‘4,a/`''1'r`r
1'F:I OC:11 TOOZ/RO/TT
t9
0

Screening level model results
10/22/01
SCENARIO
TP = 1 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
No non -point source reductions
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS ASSOCIATED PERMIT
CONCENTRATION RANGE LIMITS FOR SC AND NC
IN FISHING CREEK PLANTS
RESERVOIR
0.11
NC = 1 mg/L
SC = 1 mg/L
TP =0 mg/L for all NC discharges
TP =1 mg/L for all SC discharges
No non -point source reductions
0.08
NC = 0 mg/L
SC = 1 mg/L .
TP =0 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
No non -point source reductions
0.06
NC = 0 mg/L
SC = 0 mg/L
TP = 1 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
Non -point sources eliminated
0.10
NC = 1 mg/L
SC = 1 mg/L
TP = 1 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
'Non -point sources eliminated
Background phosphorus levels
set to zero
0.06
NC = 1 mg/L
SC = 1 mg/L
TP=0.5mg/LforallNCandSC
discharges (BAT)
BMPs implemented for 25%
reduction in non -point source
contribution
0.08
NC = 0.5 mg/L
SC = 0.5 mg/L
TP= 0.5 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges (BAT)
No non -point source reductions
0.09
NC = 0.5 mg/L
SC = 0.5 mg/L
TP= 0.18 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
No non -point source reductions
0.07
NC = 0.18 mg/L
SC = 0.18 mg/L
TP= 0.18 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
BMPs implemented for 25%
reduction in non -point source
contribution
0.06
NC = 0.18 mg/L
SC = 0.18 mg/L
TP= 0.31 mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
No non -point source reductions
0.08
NC = 0.31 mg/L
SC = 0.31 mg/L
g
TP= 0.31mg/L for all NC and SC
discharges
BMPs implemented for 50%
reduction in non -point source
contribution
0.06
NC = 0.31 mg/L
SC = 0.31 mg/L
Table 1. Possible scenarios for phosphorus contributions to Fishing Creek Reservoir. Phosphorus
concentrations in Fishing Creek are based on Jim Bowen's screening model (10/9/01 version)

®Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework - [DAwarmt51CatawbalCatawba.wsm]
SO©
Fle Edit Yew Mode Scenario Dgcu Module Window
�4'Ckl P1+01%1 :k62,i 41J
Lake Wylie
Fishing Creek
Lake
Great Falls
Reservoir
Cedar Creek
Reservoir
Aston' q;Quick
Lake Wateree
IMicrosofl Word - Document
12 MicrosoftWord-Doc...
ISk TE
litte
$44,•0
Jri ram„
Watershed Analy...
TER
Help _J8J xf
Arial :5 NUM
NG:OGAM ..

NCOO85359 - Union County - 12 Mile Creek WWTP
Assessment of Effluent Nutrient Loadings
9/21/01
Date Flow
(MGD)
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
JuI-98
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Jun-00
JuI-00
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Nov-00
Dec-00
Average
0.8448
0.8353
0.8033
0.7931
0.6608
0.5999
0.7145
0.7676
0.8358
0.7467
0.7724
0.7894
1.0081
0.9383
0.904
0.8245
0.8503
0.7573
0.7342
0.7607
0.8235
0.9214
0.8426
0.8344
1.0316
1.3041
1.0548
1.0242
0.9532
0.919
0.8919
0.9867
1.0753
0.9887
1.0316
1.0735
0.939
Total Phosphoru:
(mg/L)
Total Phosphoru;
(lb/day)
1.0 7.0
2.0 13.9
3.0 20.1
0.0
2.9 16.0
4.0 20.0
3.4 20.3
3.0 19.2
3.9 27.2
4.1 25.5
2.4 15.5
3.4 22.4
0.48 4.0
2.6 20.3
2.9 21.9
2.6 17.9
2.3 16.3
3 18.9
3.2 19.6
1.7 10.8
1.7 11.7
1.8 13.8
1 7.0
1.3 9.0
0.34 2.9
1 10.9
1.2 10.6
0.14 1.2
1.5 11.9
4.2 32.2
6 44.6
2.5 20.6
3.9 35.0
2.1 17.3
0.51 4.4
0.4 3.6
2.015 15.270
Temperature
(deg C)
12.23
12.2
13.5
16.57
20.0
23.4
25.27
24.42
23.87
20.22
17.52
16.66
14.25
14.17
14.13
17.33
19.1
21.59
23.95
23.97
22
20.09
18.19
15.67
13.86
13.53
16.47
17.05
19.15
21.77
23.09
23.77
22.84
20.64
18.5
15.06
*data contained herein was culled from the monthly averages posted on gkpr

NC0024970 - CMUD McAlpine Creek WWTP
Assessment of Effluent Nutrient Loadings
9/20/01
Date
RAW DATA
MASS LOADING
Flow
(MGD)
Total Phosphorus
(mg/L)
Total Phosphorus
(lb/day)
Temperature
(deg. C)
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
JuI-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Jun-00
JuI-00
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Nov-00
Dec-00
42.4032
42.2928
39.1741
38.7666
38.929
38.624
35.7412
37.2332
35.039
38.9319
35.69
37.239
41.8558
47.0368
43.8177
44.216
43.4461
41.361
41.2893
47.4754
50.5473
40.4916
41.6933
40.247
2.1
3.9
3.4
4
3.9
2.1
2.6
2.5
3.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
4.4578
2.862
6.2083
5.84
6.1681
6.5136
6.19
6.0521
6.4
6.2043
6.954
5.8263
742.6
1375.6
1110.8
1293.3
1266.2
676.5
775.0
776.3
993.6
487.0
387.0
403.7
1556.1
1122.7
2268.8
2153.6
2235.0
2246.9
2131.5
2396.3
2698.0
2095.2
2418.1
1955.7
16.05
16.4
16.65
19.42
21.55
24.18
25.9
27.09
25.25
22.28
20.98
17.81
16.28
15.44
18.28
19.58
22.77
26.2
27.15
27.6
25.97
23.58
20.53
16.58
*data contained herein has been culled from the facility's 2000-2001 Discharge Monitoring Reports

NC0024937 - CMUD Sugar Creek WWTP
Assessment of Effluent Nutrient Loadings
9/20/01
RAW DATA
MASS LOADING
Date
Flow
Total Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Temperature
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(deg. C)
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Jun-00
Jul-00
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Nov-00
Dec-00
Average
15.5745
13.7764
13.2032
13.9243
14.3787
14.2366
16.7
14.7161
16.2
16.0548
14.9366
14.2419
15.9096
15.2586
14.6451
15.1366
13.8935
13.771
14.0806
13.9548
14.32
12.5774
13.39
13.5354
14.52
4.585
5.4238
6.3954
6.7571
6.92
5.3909
4.0545
4.7583
4.5904
4.5285
5.7047
5.6904
4.4578
2.862
6.2083
5.84
6.1681
6.5136
6.19
6.0521
6.4
6.2043
6.954
5.8263
5.60
595.6
623.2
704.2
784.7
829.8
640.1
564.7
584.0
620.2
606.4
710.6
675.9
591.5
364.2
758.3
737.2
714.7
748.1
726.9
704.4
764.3
650.8
776.6
657.7
672.25
*data contained herein was culled from the monthly averages posted on gkpr
16.73
17.25
17.41
20.9
22.8
25.5
27.09
28.54
26.76
23.85
21.66
18.89
16.28
15.44
18.28
19.58
22.77
26.2
27.15
27.6
25.97
23.58
20.53
16.58

NCOO24945 - CMUD Irwin Creek WWTP
Assessment of Effluent Nutrient Loadings
9/20/01
Date Flow
(MGD)
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
J u I-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Jun-00
JuI-00
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Nov-00
Dec-00
Average
10.6
10.33921
10.6933
10.8166
10.3645
10.1533
10.1354
10.5451
10.7133
10.5322
9.52
9.7225
10.4903
10.6689
10.3645
10.9933
8.787
9.7533
9.1967
9.8064
10.5666
6.558
9.06
8.0322
9.934
Total Phosphorus
(mg/L)
2.6
2
2.45
2.3
1.5
2.2
1.8
2
2.9
3.4
1.8
2.1
2
2
1.8
1.2
1.4
2.3
2.8
1.6
3.8
1.9
3.4
1.8
2.210
Total Phosphorus
(lb/day)
229.9
172.5
218.5
207.5
129.7
186.3
152.2
175.9
259.1
298.7
142.9
170.3
175.0
178.0
155.6
110.0
102.6
187.1
214.8
130.9
334.9
103.9
256.9
120.6
183.891
Temperature
(deg C)
15.05
15.6
15.76
19.96
21.95
24.77
26.57
27.86
25.42
22.38
20
16.58
14.21
13.64
16.8
18.24
22
25.85
26.7
26.95
25.08
21.53
17.86
13.91
*data contained herein was culled from the monthly averages posted on gkpr

USGS Station
2176750
Station Description
McAlpine Cr below McMullen Cr nr F
Agencies monitoring at these locations •
USGS gage DWQ CMUD MCDEP (subset) DHEC
214676115
C968 (McAlpine Cr at
SC SR 2964 at Camp
Cox, SC
MC2 (Downstream of
McMullen and
McAlpine Cr
confluence at SC
9aaeI
USGS WQ
MC45A (McAlpine Cr CW226 (McAlpine Cr
at US Hwv 521) atRte521)
CW064 (McAlpine Cr
at S 29-64)
0
O
Q

Agencies monitoring at these locations
USGS Station
Station Description
USGS gage
DWQ
CMUD
MCDEP (subset)
DHEC
USGS WO
Sugar Creek Proper
2146211
Irwin Creek at Statesville Ave/US Hv
X
MC19 (Irwin Cr 42)
Statesville Ave)
2146300
Irwin Cr nr Charlotte
X
C88965 (Irwin Cr at
Irwin Cr WWTP)
2146315
Taggart Cr at West Blvd
X
MC52 (Taggart Cr at
Billy Graham Pkwv)
2146348
Coffey Cr at NC Hwy 49 nr Charlotte
X
MC25 (Coffey Cr
NC Hwv 49)
SC2 (Downstream of
Irwin and Sugar Cr
confluence at
Arrnwnnri Rrfl
MC23A (Sugar Cr
Arrowood Rd)
SC3 (Downstream of
Irwin and Sugar Cr
confluence at Nations
Ford Rril
MC26 (Sugar Cr 0
Nations Ford Rd)
2146381
Sugar Cr at NC Hwy 51 nr Pineville
X
C905 (Sugar Cr at
NC 51 at Pineville)
SC4 (Downstream of
Irwin and Sugar Cr
confluence at Rte 51)
MC27 (Sugar Cr CO
NC Hwy 51)
2146800
C979 (Sugar Cr at SC
Hwy 160 nr Fort Mill)
SC5 (Downstream of
McAlpine and Sugar
Cr confluence at Rte
IAn)
CW013 (Sugar Cr at
SC 160 E of Fort
Mill)
CW036 (Sugar Cr on
Sec Rd 36)
Little Sugar Creek
2146409
L Sugar Cr at Med Ctr Dr
X
214672825
Briar Cr above Shamrock Rd
X
214645022
Briar Cr ab Colony Rd
X
2146470
Little Hope Cr at Seneca PI
X
2146507
Little Sugar C at Archdale Dr
X
LSC2 (Downstream of
Sugar Cr WWTP at
Archdale Rd)
MC32A (L Sugar Cr,
Archdale Dr)
2146530
Little Sugar Cr at NC Hwy 51 at Pine
X
C921 (L Sugar Cr at
NC Hwy 51 at
Pineville)
MC49A (L Sugar Cr,
NC Hwy 51)
LSC3 (Downstream of
Sugar Creek WWTP
at Rte 5211
McAlpine Creek
2146600
McAlpine Cr at Sardis Rd near Char!
X
C937(McAlpine Cr at
Sardis Rd. Charlotte)
MC38 (McAlpine Cr,
Sardis Rd)
2146670
Four Mile Cr below Elm Lane W nea
X
MC40A (Four Mile
Cr, Elm Ln)
2146700
McMullen Cr at Sharon View Rd nr C
X
MC42 (McMullen Cr
0 Sharon View)

eoweto.'s *de/
e e
#ia no cewc rieef ;r1/461( /cflai;.if
71" e e/l4q,e4., iler7Wito17'07-7
)4474.5
47,5
sia4-41.21:9
- 144- wni, ev,145.110-4( (6'409 it)

J% S•r4l
2� A yJ
q
02
19.
4C PRojE�'•l
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL•PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Mr. Samuel L. Finklea, III
Chief Counsel for EQC
Office of General Counsel
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Dear Mr. Finklea:
AUG 1 7 2001
AUG 2 3 2001
DIV, OF WATER DUALITY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
DoP(-
Thank you for your April 27, 2001, letter and your May 9, 2001, petition outlining your
concerns with the re -issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for the McAlpine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), NC0024970. This facility
is located in the Catawba River Basin, which spans both the States of North Carolina and South
Carolina. This permit was issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources on January 31, 2001, and was effective on March 1, 2001. It covers the discharge
from a major municipality into McAlpine Creek, approximately one mile upstream from the
point where McAlpine Creek flows into South Carolina. EPA understands your primary
concerns to be the lack of an appropriate total phosphorus limit and North Carolina's failure to
provide South Carolina with copies of the fact sheet, the permit application, and the proposed
permit, as required by 40 CFR §124.10(e), prior to permit issuance for the McAlpine Creek
NPDES permit.
Clearly, under the Clean Water Act (CWA), NPDES pc-mits cannot be issued that do not
ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards in all affected states (40 CFR
§122.4(d)), as expressed in your petition. This fact applies regardless of whether the affected
state has been provided notice as required by the CWA and regulations. Additionally, you note
in your petition that North Carolina did not provide South Carolina with copies of the fact sheet,
the permit application, and the proposed permit prior to issuance as required by 40 CFR
§124.10(e). If North Carolina did not provide you with appropriate notice and opportunity for
comment, this would be considered a flaw in the permit. South Carolina is within its rights to
raise these issues in a permit challenge to North Carolina.
The federal regulations at 40 CFR § 124.10(e) lay out the responsibility of a state issuing
NPDES permits to send a copy of all proposed permits, fact sheets, and permit applications for
dischargers which affect another state to that state prior to permit issuance. Additionally, the
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

2
failure to notify an affected state is justification for the Director to modify or revoke and reissue
an NPDES permit, in accordance with 40 CFR §122.62(a)(10). EPA considers these regulations
an important foundation for meeting water quality standards in all states and complying with
them a critical component of NPDES Program Authorization per 40 CFR § 123.25. Under 40
CFR § 122.2, since North Carolina has an approved state program, "Director" refers to the State
Director, not the EPA Regional Administrator. Therefore, North Carolina has the discretionary
responsibility to take this action. South Carolina sent a request for draft and final permits for the
McAlpine Creek WWTP to North Carolina in a letter dated December 20, 2000, and has
documented that it did not receive this information. Additionally, South Carolina has
documented violations of water quality standards due to excessive phosphorus. For these
reasons, it would appear that cause exists under 40 CFR §122.62(a)(10) for South Carolina to
request a permit modification.
EPA Region 4 recognizes the critical oversight role it plays in ensuring that NPDES
permits are issued incorporating the appropriate state and federal requirements. South Carolina's
concerns with nutrient enrichment in the Catawba River Basin are valid and EPA does have a
responsibility to ensure that State Regulation 61-68.E.9.a.-e., effective June 22, 2001, requiring a
0.06 mg/1 Total Phosphorus in -lake numeric standard is met. In light of this responsibility, we
will be reviewing each and every municipal permit in the Catawba River Basin issued in North
Carolina, as described in a letter dated July 1, 2001, and sent to Ms. Coleen Sullins, Water
Quality Section Chief, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Enclosure).
Additionally, we appreciate South Carolina's submittal of every municipal permit issued in the
Catawba River as requested by EPA R4 in a letter dated July 1, 2001. These permits will be
reviewed with respect to the appropriate federal regulations, i.e., reasonable potential procedures
outlined in 40 CFR §122.44(d), state water quality standards, and in the time frame outlined in
the North Carolina and South Carolina Memorandum of Agreements. In the future, EPA will
provide written comments, as appropriate, to the permitting authority, affected state, and facility,
for each of these facilities within the appropriate time frame.
Furthermore, EPA Region 4 is in the process of reviewing South Carolina water quality
modeling reports and information listed in your April 9, 2001, letter as well and the September
1997, "Water Quality Model and Monitoring Needs Assessment for Lake Wateree, SC" prepared
by the Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering of the University of South Carolina. EPA Region 4 is evaluating this
information with respect to appropriate nutrient loadings from point and non -point sources. We
are also analyzing State Regulation 61-68.E.9.a.-e. publishing a 0.06 mg/1 total phosphorus in -lake
numeric standard for the Piedmont and Southeastern Plains ecoregions of the State and how this
standard would apply to upstream dischargers, such as the McAlpine Creek WWTP.

3
EPA Region 4 appreciates the efforts South Carolina is taking to protect its water
resources from excessive nutrient pollution, as evidenced bythe many municipal NPDES permits
issued in the State with enforceable total phosphorus limits. It is our hope that prompt
discussions among the States of North and South Carolina and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility
District can produce a satisfactory resolution to this issue that will provide strong environmental
protection for the Catawba River Basin.
Sincerely,
A. Stanley Meiburg
Acting Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc: William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary, NCDENR
R. Lewis Shaw, Deputy Commissioner, SCDHEC
Greg Thorpe, Division of Water Quality, NCDENR'
Alton Boozer, Chief, Water Pollution Control, SCDHEC
Douglas O. Bean, Director, Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility District

Table 1. Results of scenario run with decay equation Pt=Po*exp(-kt) where k=0.00011 s-1. Phosphorus uptake in the downstream lakes
was assumed as follows: 25% uptake in Fishing Creek Lake, 20% in Great Falls Reservoir, and 15% in Cedar Creek Reservoir
CMUD-McAlpine Creek WWTP (2001)
CMUD- Sugar Creek WWTP (2001)
CMUD - Irwin Creek WWTP (2001)
Town of Rock Hill WWTP
City of Lancaster WWTP
2001 Flow 2001 Effluent Phosphorus Est. Distance from Fishing
(MGD) Concentration (mg/L) Creek Lake (m)
44 3.25 32733
14.5 5.57 46722
10 1.67 51583
9.5 1 33503
(assumed)
2.6 1 8253
(assumed)
Phosphorus Load at Lake Wateree
(kg/day) (kg/year) (lb/year)
4.3 1568.1 3457.6
0.1 19.7 43.4
0.0 6.3 13.9
0.8 299.1 659.5
2.8 1030.9 2273.0
Table 2. Results of a second scenario run with decay equation Pt=Po*exp(-kt) where k=0.00011 s-1. Phosphorus uptake in the downstream lakes
was assumed as follows: 25% uptake in Fishing Creek Lake, 20% in Great Falls Reservoir, and 15% in Cedar Creek Reservoir. A 50% reduction to
the phosphorus load reaching Wateree was fixed in this scenario. Effluent concentrations corresponding to the 50% reduction goal were
determined accordingly.
CMUD-McAlpine Creek WWTP
CMUD- Sugar Creek WWTP
CMUD - Irwin Creek WWTP
44
14.5
10
1.63
2.78
0.91
785 1730.374
10 21.67515
3 6.9678

mow-
e0&-14;6,15
OINDIPHeclaK pro/.
j vo ✓G m,1-5 `r'yrj4 cer/Lekva4-4, 7fd',ei1ckl1.t''
Alof orpsd P/mit-
Aloe( &css ogpFr* i `cce,
- /Q ,-Svt6s f 6'dye 7 tm)
.i1vp a t/ai�r�' fn7c.47s
1,(41 oft r,1. ter -ism s
�h�f5 (-7-1740-.5 per -,al 7 e 7 rz,ph !
• Ci pr112.07 4 /of, pn b/i c a#doh.
• Ur/e IC 4friffti Q/( P11 .
("{""end., fork.
a/nt' rii4ky- keg, ft.-itc(0-0k7.
7
• /014,4 171? ✓ en j/jhr2�tr cU .
• 9/1 ' 1/20 (pi,coec.7 4/ dk , l* s C.
• b j/.,J: Ocl 4•Axe- as , �' /21 4 -- Ca/delW.
-
6V--E-1°T% 5 - Tt$ oi- C/rriml ZA , o,J�r
4J o ate-,t(ce, pitwfs
- ctwv- c•7nd s r T"y. Oog2ca o)
WorkA, vi P • r tgf__

rx,(7.,it -fr i2/1 /dr/
• r five-t J a' k'
• �le•f+w►o � h4 Tr re rr . 4714, y ►�f� C
• l ,7#t�4() `• •
4 �
•L, (�of 2,1.5/4.o.5 fr, ILc,Irfa.43-.
✓a -(p(4S Su yc e % •
.c J * Cis . „actu ip k-
; €, UU , . ` Iritom- er(y 6
`44 fri(te( p knito:rza.
-- 6/ kiov. I,eock r,
)�'YI > ;r f vaoLS
• 0 D'5 34ye•t& ? f" finem1 .
• J miri3 - cic opt+mi¢a17.00 s-k cty.
• r ..5yferill 15 i nvo fve4.
- —rr 7v. tss.
. `FP 5.M- .'S ^,P
• 5 ( E7.
? 90% o(4 /c5
7 F M = 1- f (.- .
C4f-a = nWC, a IL.
Wt`vx.�efi4r')-t rein!'(-f:
ove 4 Th Er
c-1 - firms
trprave„ .
i,4 la 140 acmes poP Tr(- 4itu'
j�
ecceAfs
.eve.,I)
out5f-Aw 41evt_sevc caLot

am k/Q N
—517, • tivvv_Laj__Am-111•1--.f-Alcc_. -lp ettev4-1-"treort-c_
`s ,-duos o o-h tfxb: n%/s
02- PR.t9P AZ
VtiGtaf_ _ trciAm4 c_
�fi l tv144A111 vne, de IA* we/0( 4 V 12 -f weer
• CA,�. a cokAftu/ a c
00 - && f erK fG� Seoul
> VeiL%p llw4 l4l �O �G - ha( TWA
v/
Cron fop ro,k, 104'5 ca,r •
via.,v� is G ra4Wok•
r. ��) ;�'u4) kat (s
Ater' NIG�r rG "(Z-; S.
I II , f 4' fit .

FACILITY
PHASED
FLOW
LIMIT
(MGD)
COMPLIANCE
SCHEDULE
PHOSPHORUS
LIMITS:
(mg/L)
PHOSPHORUS
LIMITS:
MASS LOADING -
BASED TP LIMIT AT
Qw (mg/L)
NAME/ PERMIT
PERMIT?
NUMBER
Monthly Average
(PPd)
The Chester Sewer
District -
Manetta Lando)
WWTP
SC0001741
Yes -
Compliance
schedule given
0.50
10/ 1 /00 -
2/28/03
Weekly 24 hour
composite mon.
Weekly 24 hour
composite mon.
3/1/01 - 9/30/05
2 (monthly ave.)
3 (weekly ave.)
4.2 (monthly ave.)
6.3 (weekly ave.)
1.01 (monthly ave.)
1.51 (weekly ave.)
Town of Fort Mill-
Fort Mill WWTP
SC0020371
Yes
Scheduled
Expansion
1.5
12/1/99 -
2/28/01 OR exp.
to 2.0 MGD
(whichever is first)
Weekly 24 hour
composite mon.
Weekly 24 hour
composite mon.
2.0
2 (monthly ave.)
No weekly limit -
12.5 (monthly ave.)
No weekly limit
0.75 (monthly ave.)
Town of Great
Falls - NC Childers
Plant
SC0021211
No
1.40
None given
2 (monthly ave.)
3 (weekly ave.)
12 (monthly ave.)
18 (weekly ave.)
1.02 (monthly ave.)
1.54 (weekly ave.)
City of Lancaster
Catawba River
Yes -
Compliance
schedule given
5.75
12/1/99 -
2/28/02
Wcckday 24 hour
composite mon.
Weekday 24 hour
composite mon.
WWTP
SC0046892
5.75
3/1/02 - exp. to
7.5 MGD
2 (monthly ave.)
No weekly limit
48 (monthly ave.)
No weekly limit
1.0 (monthly ave.)
7.5
Upon exp. to 7.5-
MGD -11 /30/04
2 (monthly ave.)
No weekly limit.
48 (monthly ave.)
No weekly limit
0.77 (monthly ave)
Lancaster County
Water & Sewer -
Indian Land
WWTP
SC0047864
Yes
Scheduled
Expansion
1.2
3/1/98 - exp. to
2.0 MGD
2 (monthly ave)
No weekly limit
16.7 (monthly and
weekly average)
1.67 (monthly and weekly
average)
2.0
Exp to 2 MGD-
4.0 MGD
2 (monthly ave)
No weekly limit
16.7 (monthly and
weekly average)
1.00 (monthly and weekly
average)
4.0
Exp to 4 MGD-
2/28/03
2 (monthly ave)
No weekly limit
16.7 (monthly and
weekly average)
0.5 (monthly and weekly
average)
City of Rock Hill
Manchester Creek
Plant
SC0020443
Yes -
Compliance
schedule given
P limits are
only on
001B - no
flow limit
4/1/00 - 2/28/03
11.000 (monthly limit)
28200 (quarterly limit)
73200 (yearly limit)
3/1/03 - 4/30/03
2 (monthly ave)
5100 (monthly ave.)
45500 (yearly limit)
City of York -
Fishing Creek
No
1.40
None given
1 (monthly ave.)
17 (monthly ave)
1.02 (monthly ave)
WWTP
SC0038156

u\90171--HAI (04
dap(
01);VC i s -CCOTA
Cyr e�►S �:� Ivan C IMF -A vv._
)� lam; � �n ��(�i�
2�+ (
°
3-) (aki) nc_st(vcD /tDc-t-c
4-) ektc.OuSt., vult v_( INGL>
I
, , 0
o
4?)\ oo ,)
6(.,0 b,0 -' H'.
65,1)\

§ 122.44
all applicable requirements of CWA and regula-
tions. These shall include conditions under
§§ 122.46 (duration of permits), 122.47(a) (sched-
ules of compliance), 122.48 (monitoring), and for
EPA permits only 122.47(b) (alternates schedule
of compliance) and 122.49 (considerations undcr
Federal law).
(b)(1) For a State issucd permit, an applicable
requirement is a State statutory or regulatory re-
quirement which takcs effect prior to final admin-
istrative disposition of a permit. For a permit is-
sued by EPA, an applicable requirement is a statu-
tory or regulatory requirement (including any in-
tcrim final regulation) which takes effect prior to
thc issuance of the permit (except as provided in
§ 124.86(c) for NPDES permits being processed
under subpart E or F of part 124). Section 124.14
(rcopcning of comment period) provides a means
for rcopcning EPA permit procccdings at thc dis-
crction of the Director whcrc ncw requirements
become effective during the permitting process
and arc of sufficient magnitude to make additonal
proceedings desirable. For Statc and EPA adminis-
tered programs, an applicable requirement is also
any requirement which takes effect prior to the
modification or revocation and rcissuance of a per-
mit, to the cxtcnt allowed in § 122.62.
(2) New or rcissucd permits, and to thc extent
allowed under § 122.62 modified or revoked and
rcissucd permits, shall incorporate each of thc ap-
plicable requirements referenced in §§ 122.44 and
122.45.
(c) Incorporation. All permit conditions shall be
incorporated cithcr expressly or by reference. If in-
corporated by reference, a specific citation to thc
applicable regulations or requirements must be
given in thc permit.
§ 122.44 Establishing limitations,
standards, and other permit condi-
tions (applicable to State NPDES
programs, see § 123.25).
In addition to the conditions established under
§ 122.43(a), cach NPDES permit shall include con-
ditions meeting the following requirements whcn
applicable.
(a) Technology -based effluent limitations and
standards bascd on effluent limitations and stand-
ards promulgated undcr section 301 of CWA or
ncw source performance standards promulgated
undcr section 306 of CWA, on case -by -case efflu-
ent limitations determined undcr scction 402(a)(I)
of CWA, or on a combination of the two, in ac-
cordance with § I25.3. For new sources or new
dischargcrs, thcsc technology bascd limitations and
standards arc subjcct to the provisions of
§ 122.29(d) (protection period).
(b)(1) Other effluent limitations and standards
under sections 301, 302, 303, 307, 318 and 405 of
44
CWA. If any applicable toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule of compliance
specified in such effluent standard or prohibition)
is promulgated under section 307(a) of CWA for
a toxic pollutant and that standard or prohibition
is more stringent than any limitation on the pollut-
ant in the permit, the Director shall institute pro-
ceedings under these regulations to modify or re-
voke and reissue the permit to conform to the
toxic effluent standard or prohibition. See also
§ 122.41(a).
(2) Standards for sewage sludge use or disposal
under section 405(d) of the CWA unless those
standards have been included in a permit issucd
under the appropriate provisions of subtitle C of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Part C of Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, or the Clean
Air Act, or undcr State permit programs approved
by the Administrator. When there are no applica-
ble standards for sewage sludge use or disposal,
the permit may include requirements developed on
a case -by -case basis to protect public health and
the environment from any adverse effects which
may occur from toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
If any applicable standard for sewage sludge use
or disposal is promulgated under section 405(d) of
the CWA and that standard is more stringent than
any limitation on the pollutant or practice in the
permit, the Director may initiate proceedings undcr
these regulations to modify or revoke and reissue
the permit to conform to the standard for sewage
sludge use or disposal.
(c) Reopener clause: for any dischargcr within
a primary industry category (sec appendix A), re-
quirements under scction 307(a)(2) of CWA as
fol lows:
(1) On or before June 30, 1981: (i) If applicable
standards or limitations have not yet been promul-
gated, the permit shall include a condition stating
that, if an applicable standard or limitation is pro-
mulgated under sections 301(b)(2) (C) and (D),
304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) and that effluent standard
or limitation is morc stringent than any effluent
limitation in the permit or controls a pollutant not
limited in the permit, the permit shall be promptly
modified or revoked and reissued to conform to
that effluent standard or limitation.
(ii) If applicable standards or limitations have
been promulgated or approved, the permit shall in-
clude those standards or limitations. (If EPA ap-
proves existing effluent limitations or decides not
to develop new effluent limitations, it will publish
a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER that the limita-
tions arc "approved" for the purpose of this regu-
lation.)
(2) On or after the statutory deadline set forth
in section 301(b)(2) (A), (C), and (E) of CWA,
any permit issued shall include effluent limitations

to meet the requirements of section 301(b)(2) (A),
(C), (D), (E), (F), whether or not applicable efflu-
ent limitations guidelines have been promulgated
or approved. These permits need not incorporate
the clause required by paragraph (c)(I) of this sec-
tion.
(3) The Director shall promptly modify or re-
voke and reissue any permit containing the clause
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to
incorporate an applicable cfflucnt standard or limi-
tation under scctions 301(b)(2) (C) and (D),
304(b)(2) and 307(a)(2) which is promulgated or
approved after the permit is issued if that effluent
standard or limitation is more stringent than any
cfflucnt limitation in the permit, or controls a pol-
lutant not limited in the permit.
(4) For any permit issued to a treatment works
treating domcstic sewage (including "sludge -only
facilities"), the Director shall include a reopcncr
clause to incorporate any applicable standard for
sewage sludge use or disposal promulgated undcr
scction 405(d) of the CWA. The Director may
promptly modify or revoke and reissue any permit
containing the reopener clause required by this
paragraph if the standard for sewage sludge use or
disposal is more stringent than any requirements
for sludge use or disposal in thc permit, or con-
trols a pollutant or practice not limited in the per-
mit.
(d) Water quality standards and State require-
ments: any requirements in addition to or more
stringent than promulgated cfflucnt limitations
guidelines or standards under sections 301, 304,
306, 307, 318 and 405 of CWA necessary to:
(1) Achieve water quality standards established
undcr section 303 of the CWA, including State
narrative critcria for water quality.
(i) Limitations must control all pollutants or
pollutant parameters (either conventional,
nonconventional, or toxic pollutants) which the Di-
rcctor determines arc or may be discharged at a
level which will cause, have the reasonable poten-
tial to cause, or contribute to an excursion above
any State water quality standard, including State
narrative critcria for water quality.
(ii) When determining whether a discharge
causes, has the rcasonablc potential to cause, or
contributes to an in -stream excursion above a nar-
rative or numeric critcria within a State water
quality standard, thc permitting authority shall use
procedures which account for existing controls on
point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the varia-
bility of thc pollutant or pollutant parameter in the
effluent, the sensitivity of the species to toxicity
testing (when evaluating whole effluent toxicity),
and where appropriate, the dilution of thc effluent
in the receiving water.
(iii) When the permitting authority determines,
using the procedures in paragraph (d)(I)(ii) of this
45
§ 122.44
section, that a discharge causes, has the reasonable
potential to cause, or contributcs to an in -stream
excursion above the allowable ambient concentra-
tion of a State numeric criteria within a State
watcr quality standard for an individual pollutant,
the permit must contain cfflucnt limits for that
pollutant.
(iv) When the permitting authority determines,
using the proccdurcs in paragraph (d)(I)(ii) of this
section, that a discharge causes, has thc reasonable
potential to cause, or contributcs to an in -stream
excursion above the numeric criterion for whole
effluent toxicity, the permit must contain cfflucnt
limits for whole cfflucnt toxicity.
(v) Except as provided in this subparagraph,
whcn the permitting authority determines, using
thc procedures in paragraph (d)(I)(ii) of this sec-
tion, toxicity testing data, or othcr information,
that a discharge causcs, has the reasonable poten-
tial to cause, or contributes to an in -stream excur-
sion above a narrative critcrion within an applica-
ble Statc water quality standard, the permit must
contain effluent limits for whole cfflucnt toxicity.
Limits on whole cfflucnt toxicity arc not necessary
whcrc the permitting authority demonstrates in the
fact sheet or statement of basis of thc NPDES per-
mit, using thc proccdurcs in paragraph (d)(I)(ii) of
this section, that chemical -specific limits for the
cfflucnt are sufficient to attain and maintain appli-
cable numcric and narrative Statc water quality
standards.
(vi) Where a Statc has not established a water
quality critcrion for a specific chemical pollutant
that is present in an effluent at a concentration that
causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an excursion above a narrative cri-
terion within an applicable State water quality
standard, the permitting authority must establish
effluent limits using one or morc of the following
options:
(A) Establish effluent limits using a calculated
numcric water quality critcrion for the pollutant
which the permitting authority demonstrates will
attain and maintain applicable narrative watcr
quality critcria and will fully protect the des-
ignated use. Such a critcrion may be derived using
a proposed State critcrion, or an explicit State pol-
icy or regulation intcrprcting its narrative water
quality critcrion, supplemented with other relevant
information which may include: EPA's Water
Quality Standards Handbook, October 1983, risk
assessment data, exposure data, information about
the pollutant from the Food and Drug Administra-
tion, and current EPA critcria documents; or
(B) Establish cfflucnt limits on a casc-by-casc
basis, using EPA's water quality critcria, published
under section 304(a) of the CWA, supplemented
where necessary by othcr relevant information; or

§ 122.44
(C) Establish effluent limitations on an indicator
parameter for the pollutant of concern, provided:
(/) The permit identifies which pollutants are
intended to be controlled by the use of the effluent
limitation;
(2) The fact sheet required by § 124.56 sets
forth the basis for the limit, including a finding
that compliance with the effluent limit on the indi-
cator parameter will result in controls on the pol-
lutant of concem which are sufficient to attain and
maintain applicable water quality standards;
(3) The permit requires all effluent and ambient
monitoring necessary to show that during the term
of the permit the limit on thc indicator parameter
continues to attain and maintain applicable watcr
quality standards; and
(4) The permit contains a rcopencr clause allow-
ing the permitting authority to modify or revoke
and reissue the permit if the limits on the indicator
parameter no longer attain and maintain applicable
water quality standards.
(vii) When developing water quality -based ef-
fluent limits under this paragraph the permitting
authority shall ensure that:
(A) The level of water quality to be achieved by
limits on point sources established under this para-
graph is derived from, and complies with all appli-
cable water quality standards; and
(B) Effluent limits developed to protect a nar-
rative watcr quality criterion, a numeric water
quality criterion, or both, are consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of any available
wastcload allocation for the discharge prepared by
the State and approved by EPA pursuant to 40
CFR 130.7.
(2) Attain or maintain a specified water quality
through water quality related effluent limits estab-
lished under section 302 of CWA;
(3) Conform to the conditions to a State certifi-
cation undcr section 401 of the CWA that meets
the requirements of § 124.53 when EPA is the per-
mitting authority. If a State certification is stayed
by a court of competent jurisdiction or an appro-
priate State board or agency, EPA shall notify the
State that the Agency will deem certification
waived unless a finally effective State certification
is received within sixty days from the date of thc
notice. If the State does not forward a finally ef-
fective certification within the sixty day period,
EPA shall include conditions in the permit that
may be necessary to meet EPA's obligation under
section 301(b)(I)(C) of the CWA;
(4) Conform to applicable water quality require-
ments under section 401(a)(2) of CWA when the
discharge affects a State other than the certifying
State;
(5) Incorporate any more stringent limitations,
treatment standards, or schedule of compliance re-
quirements established under Federal or State law
46
or regulations in accordance with section
301(b)(1)(C) of CWA;
(6) Ensure consistency with the requirements of
a Water Quality Management plan approved by
EPA under section 208(b) of CWA;
(7) Incorporate section 403(c) criteria under part
125, subpart M, for ocean discharges;
(8) Incorporate alternative effluent limitations or
standards where warranted by "fundamentally dif-
ferent factors," under 40 CFR part 125, subpart
D;
(9) Incorporate any othcr appropriate require-
ments, conditions, or limitations (other than efflu-
ent limitations) into a new source permit to the ex-
tent allowed by the National Environmental Policy
Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 el seq. and section 511 of the
CWA, when EPA is the permit issuing authority.
(See § 122.29(c)).
(e) Technology -based controls for toxic pollut-
ants. Limitations established under paragraphs (a),
(b), or (d) of this section, to control pollutants
meeting the criteria listed in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section. Limitations will be established in ac-
cordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section. An
explanation of the development of these limita-
tions shall be included in the fact sheet under
§ 124.56(b)(1)(i).
(1) Limitations must control all toxic pollutants
which the Director determines (based on informa-
tion reported in a permit application undcr
§ 122.21(g)(7) or (10) or in a notification under
§ 122.42(a)(1) or on other information) are or may
be discharged at a level greater than the level
which can be achieved by thc technology -based
treatment requirements appropriate to the permittee
under § 125.3(c); or
(2) The requirement that the limitations control
the pollutants meeting the criteria of paragraph
(c)(1) of this section will be satisfied by:
(i) Limitations on those pollutants; or
(ii) Limitations on other pollutants which, in the
judgment of the Director, will provide treatment of
the pollutants under paragraph (e)(1) of this sec-
tion to the levels required by § 125.3(c).
(f) Notification level. A "notification level"
which exceeds the notification level of
§ 122.42(a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii), upon a petition from
the permitter or on the Director's initiative. This
new notification level may not exceed the level
which can be achieved by the technology -based
treatment requirements appropriate to the permittee
under § 125.3(c)
(g) Twenty-four hour reporting. Pollutants for
which the permittee must report violations of max-
imum daily discharge limitations under
§ 122.41(1)(6)(ii)(C) (24-hour reporting) shall be
listed in the permit. This list shall include any
toxic pollutant or hazardous substance, or any pol-

lutant specifically identified as thc method to con-
trol a toxic pollutant or hazardous substancc.
(h) Durations for permits, as sct forth in
§ 122.46.
(i) Monitoring requirements. In addition to
§ 122.48, thc following monitoring rcquircmcnts:
(1) To assurc compliancc with permit limita-
tions, requirements to monitor.
(i) Thc mass (or othcr measurement spccificd in
the permit) for cach pollutant limited in thc per-
mit;
(ii) Thc volumc of effluent dischargcd from
cach outfall;
(iii) Othcr measurements as appropriatc includ-
ing pollutants in internal wastc streams under
§ 122.45(i); pollutants in intakc water for nct limi-
tations undcr § 122.45(f); frequency, rate of dis-
chargc, etc., for noncontinuous dischargcs undcr
§ 122.45(c); pollutants subject to notification rc-
quircmcnts under § I22.42(a); and pollutants in
scwagc sludgc or othcr monitoring as specified in
40 CFR part 503; or as determined to be ncccssary
on a casc-by-case basis pursuant to section
405(d)(4) of thc CWA.
(iv) According to tcst procedures approved
under 40 CFR part 136 for thc analyses of pollut-
ants having approvcd mcthods undcr that part, and
according to a tcst proccdurc specified in thc per-
mit for pollutants with no approvcd methods.
(2) Exccpt as providcd in paragraphs (i)(4) and
(i)(5) of this scction, rcquircmcnts to report mon-
itoring rcsults shall bc cstablishcd on a casc-by-
casc basis with a frcqucncy dcpcndcnt on the na-
ture and cffcct of the dischargc, but in no casc Icss
than oncc a ycar. For scwagc sludgc use or dis-
posal practices, requirements to monitor and rcport
results shall be cstablishcd on a casc-by-casc basis
with a frcqucncy dcpcndcnt on the nature and ef-
fect of thc scwagc sludgc use or disposal practice;
minimally this shall bc as spccificd in 40 CFR
part 503 (where applicable), but in no casc less
than once a year.
(3) Rcquircmcnts to report monitoring rcsults
for storm watcr dischargcs associatcd with indus-
trial activity which arc subjcct to an cfflucnt limi-
tation guidclinc shall bc cstablishcd on a casc-by-
casc basis with a frcqucncy dcpcndcnt on the na-
ture and effect of thc dischargc, but in no cast less
than oncc a year.
(4) Rcquircmcnts to rcport monitoring rcsults
for storm water dischargcs associatcd with indus-
trial activity (othcr than thosc addrcsscd in para-
graph (i)(3) of this scction) shall bc established on
a casc-by-casc basis with a frequency dependent
on thc nature and cffcct of thc dischargc. At a
minimum, a permit for such a dischargc must rc-
quirc:
(i) Thc dischargcr to conduct an annual inspcc-
tion of thc facility site to identify arcas contribut-
47
§ 122.44
ing to a storm water discharge associatcd with in-
dustrial activity and evaluate whether measures to
reduce pollutant loadings identified in a storm
watcr pollution prevention plan are adequate and
properly implemented in accordance with the
terms of thc permit or whether additional control
measures arc needed;
(ii) Thc discharger to maintain for a period of
three years a record summarizing the results of the
inspection and a certification that the facility is in
compliance with the plan and the permit, and idcn-
tifying any incidents of non-compliance;
(iii) Such report and certification be signed in
accordance with § 122.22; and
(iv) Pcrmits for storm water discharges associ-
ated with industrial activity from inactive mining
operations may, where annual inspections arc im-
practicable, require certification once every three
years by a Rcgistcrcd Professional Engineer that
thc facility is in compliance with the permit, or al-
ternative requirements.
(5) Permits which do not require thc submittal
of monitoring result reports at lcast annually shall
rcquirc that thc permittcc rcport all instances of
noncompliance not reported undcr § 122.41(1) (I),
(4), (5), and (6) at least annually.
(j) Pretreatment program for POTWs. Require-
ments for POTWs to:
(1) Identify, in terms of character and volumc of
pollutants, any significant indircct dischargcrs into
thc POTW subject to pretreatment standards undcr
scction 307(b) of CWA and 40 CFR part 403.
(2) Submit a local program whcn rcquircd by
and in accordance with 40 CFR part 403 to assurc
compliancc with pretreatment standards to the ex-
tent applicable undcr section 307(b). Thc local
program shall be incorporated into the permit as
described in 40 CFR part 403. The program shall
rcquirc all indircct dischargers to the POTW to
comply with thc reporting requirements of 40 CFR
part 403.
(3) For POTWs which arc "sludge -only facili-
ties," a requirement to develop a pretreatment pro-
gram undcr 40 CFR part 403 when thc Director
determines that a pretreatment program is nec-
essary to assure compliance with Section 405(d) of
thc CWA.
(k) Best management practices to control or
abatc the dischargc of pollutants when:
(1) Authorized under section 304(c) of CWA
for the control of toxic pollutants and hazardous
substances from ancillary industrial activities;
(2) Numeric effluent limitations arc infcasiblc,
or
(3) The practices are reasonably necessary to
achieve effluent limitations and standards or to
carry out the purposes and intent of CWA.
(1) Reissued permits. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (1)(2) of this section whcn a permit is

§ 122.44
rcncwcd or rcissucd, interim cfflucnt limitations,
standards or conditions must bc at !cast as strin-
gent as the final cfflucnt limitations, standards, or
conditions in thc previous permit (unlcss thc cir-
cumstances on which thc prcvious permit was
bascd havc materially and substantially changcd
sincc thc timc thc permit was issucd and would
constitute causc for permit modification or revoca-
tion and rcissuance under § I22.62.)
(2) In thc casc of cfflucnt limitations established
on the basis of Section 402(a)(1)(B) of the CWA,
a permit may not be renewed, reissued, or modi-
ficd on thc basis of cfflucnt guidclincs promul-
gatcd undcr scction 304(b) subscqucnt to thc origi-
nal issuancc of such permit, to contain effluent
limitations which arc less stringcnt than thc com-
parable effluent limitations in the prcvious permit.
(i) Exceptions —A permit with rcspcct to which
paragraph (I)(2) of this section applies may be re-
newed, reissued, or modificd to contain a less
stringcnt effluent limitation applicablc to a pollut-
ant, if —
(A) Material and substantial altcrations or addi-
tions to the pctmincd facility occurred after permit
issuance which justify thc application of a less
stringcnt effluent limitation;
(B)(1) Information is availablc which was not
availablc at thc time of permit issuance (other than
revised rcgulations, guidance, or test methods) and
which would havc justified thc application of a
less stringent effluent limitation at thc timc of per-
mit issuancc; or
(2) The Administrator determines that tcchnical
mistakes or mistakcn interpretations of law were
made in issuing the permit under section
402(a)(I)(b);
(C) A less stringent effluent limitation is ncc-
cssary because of events over which the permittcc
has no control and for which thcrc is no reason-
ably available remedy;
(D) The permince has received a permit modi-
fication undcr scction 301(c), 301(g), 301(h),
30I (i), 301(k), 301(n), or 3 16(a); or
(E) Thc pet -mince has installed thc treatment fa-
cilities required to mcct thc effluent limitations in
the previous permit and has properly operated and
maintaincd thc facilities but has nevertheless been
unablc to achicvc thc prcvious effluent limitations,
in which casc the limitations in the reviewed, re-
issued, or modified permit may reflect thc Icvcl of
pollutant control actually achicvcd (but shall not
bc less stringcnt than required by effluent guide-
lines in cffcct at thc timc of permit rcncwal,
rcissuancc, or modification).
(ii) Limitations. In no event may a permit with
respect to which paragraph (1)(2) of this section
applics be renewed, reissued, or modificd to con-
tain an cfflucnt limitation which is Tess stringent
than rcquircd by effluent guidelines in cffcct at the
48
timc thc permit is renewed, reissued, or modified.
In no event may such a permit to discharge into
waters be renewed, issued, or modified to contain
a less stringent effluent limitation if the implcmcn-
tation of such limitation would result in a violation
of a watcr quality standard undcr section 303 ap-
plicablc to such waters.
(m) Privately owned treatment works. For a pri-
vatcly owned treatment works, any conditions ex-
pressly applicablc to any user, as a limited co -per -
mince, that may be necessary in the permit issued
to the trcatmcnt works to ensure compliancc with
applicablc requirements under this part. Alter-
natively, the Director may issuc scparate permits
to the treatment works and to its users, or may re-
quire a separate permit application from any uscr.
Thc Director's dccision to issue a permit with no
conditions applicable to any user, to impose condi-
tions on one or more users, to issuc separate per-
mits, or to require separate applications, and thc
basis for that dccision, shall be stated in thc fact
sheet for the draft permit for thc treatment works.
(n) Grants. Any conditions imposed in grants
madc by the Administrator to POTWs under scc-
tions 201 and 204 of CWA which are reasonably
necessary for thc achievement of effluent limita-
tions undcr scction 301 of CWA.
(o) Sewage sludge. Requirements under section
405 of CWA governing the disposal of sewage
sludgc from publicly owned treatment works or
any other treatment works treating domestic sew-
age for any use for which regulations have been
established, in accordance with any applicable rcg-
ulations.
(p) Coast Guard. Whcn a permit is issued to a
facility that may operate at certain times as a
mcans of transportation over water, a condition
that the discharge shall comply with any applica-
blc regulations promulgated by thc Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating, that establish specifications for safe trans-
portation, handling, carriage, and storage of pollut-
ants.
(q) Navigation. Any conditions that thc Sec-
retary of thc Army considers necessary to ensure
that navigation and anchorage will not be substan-
tially impaired, in accordance with § 124.58.
(r) Great Lakes. When a permit is issued to a
facility that discharges into the Great Lakes Sys-
tem (as defined in 40 CFR 132.2), conditions pro-
mulgated by the Statc, Tribe, or EPA pursuant to
40 CFR part 132.
[48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 31842,
Aug. 8, 1984; 49 FR 38049, Sept. 26, 1984; 50 FR 6940,
Feb. 19, 1985; 50 FR 7912, Feb. 27, 1985; 54 FR 256,
Jan. 4, 1989; 54 FR 18783, May 2, 1989; 54 FR 23895,
June 2, 1989; 57 FR 11413, Apr. 2, 1992; 57 FR 33049,
July 24, 1992; 60 FR 15386, Mar. 23, 1995]

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Ms. Coleen Sullins
Water Quality Section Chief
NC Dept. of Environment and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Ms. Sullins:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is initiating a review of all
municipal permits in the Catawba River Basin. We will be reviewing these permits with a focus
on the inclusion of appropriate nutrient limits that would be protective of all receiving waters. In
light of this effort, EPA Region 4 requests, in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA Region 4 and the State of North Carolina, that all proposed National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal permits for the Catawba River Basin be sent
to EPA for review when drafted. The proposed permits should be transmitted with the
appropriate fact sheet, application, and supporting materials used to develop permit conditions.
Since the Catawba River Basin spans more than one state, please ensure that all proposed
permits, fact sheets, and permit applications for dischargers which affect another downstream
state are sent to that state for review and comment.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. EPA looks forward to working with
North Carolina to ensure the issuance of NPDES permits that are protective of the environment.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone] or Mr. Roosevelt Childress, Chief,
NPDES & Biosolids Section at 404/562-9279.
Sincerely,
6Jud-E
Carol L. Kemker, Acting Chief
Permits, Grants, & Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
cc: Alton Boozer, SCDHEC
Internet Address (URL) • http://www,epa,gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRAT V'E HEARINGS
MECHLENBURG CouNTX, NORTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Department of Health and )
Environmental Control, )
.)
Petitioner, )
)
-v- )
)
North Carolina Department of Environment )
and Natural Resources, Charlotte ' )
Mecklenburg Utility Department, North )
Carolina Environmental Management )
Commission, )
)'
Respondent. )
-� — )
PETITION FOR CONTESTED CASE HEARING
• INTRODUCTION •
1. In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23, petitioner, the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control ("SC DHEC") hereby petitions for a contested
case hearing regarding the decision df the North Carolina Department of Environment and
. Natural Resources ("NC DENR") to grant a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit to the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department ("CMUD").
2. SC DHEC is an agency ofthe State of South Carolina responsible for administering
the NPDES permit program pursuant to the South Carolina Pollution Control Act, S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 48-1-10 to -350 (1987), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly
rcfcrrcd to as the Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et. seq.
1
60 'd 6V: L TO, SI un f
992.9-9TL-6T6: xuJ NOI133S QNdl 13 d3ldl'l

JU USDYCTION AND VENUE
3 - Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § ..150D-23, the Office of Administrative Hearings has
juri diction of this proceeding. In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15013-24(a)(2). venue of
this proceeding is proper in Mecklenburg County.
PARTIES
4. SC DHEC is authorized to bring and maintain actions to any out the purposes of the.
South Carolina Pollution Control Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-50. Specifically, SC DHEC has the
authority to "abate, control and prevent pollution." S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-20. South Carolina is
an "affected State" within the meaning of section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §
1342 and 40 C.F.R. parts 122.4, 122.44, 122.62 and 123.44, as well as N.C. Admin. Code tit.
15A, r.2D.1112.
5. The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission ("Commission"), is an
agency of the State of North Carolina. The Commission is authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143- •
215.1 and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to issue NPDES permits.
6. The NC DENR is an agency of the State of North Carolina. The Commission has
delegated the authority to issue NPDES permits to NC DEM. under N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A,
r. 211.0112 (1993).
7. The CMUD is a statutory :body established to construct, own and operate sewage
collection lines and waste water treatment and disposal facilities' serving the City.of Charlotte,
North Carolina.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. North Carolina i4sues NPDES permits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1. Any
2
OT 'd 6V:1 T0, SZ unf 99L.9-9TL-616: XEd NOI103S QNd5 '8 31df

NPDES permit granted by North Carolina must conform to the requirements of the Clean Water.
Act and the water quality regulations promulgated by the U.S. EPA.
9. Under EPA's regulations;.011 Statc-issued NPDES permits must provide for
"compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected States." 40 C.P.A. §
122.4(d)(1996). Similarly, North Carolina's water quality rules provide that "[njo permit maybe'
issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable
water quality standards and regulations 'of all affected states." • N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A,
r.2H.0112(c)(1993).
10. NPDES Permit No. NC0024970 allows CMUD to discharge wastewater from a
wastewater treatment plant owned by CMUD, which discharges into McAlpine Creek.
11. The discharge point for the McAlpine Creek waste water treatment plant is
approximately one stream mile upstream from the point where McAlpine Creek flows into South
Carolina. McAlpine Creek flows into Sugar Creek which flows into the Catawba River.
12. McAlpine Creek, Sugar.Creek, and the Catawba River are waters of the State of
South Carolina for which water quality standards have been established by •25 S.C. Ann. Reg. 61-
68 and 61-69.
13. Water quality in the lower Catawba is demonstrably affected by phosphorus loading.
The NPDES Permit at issue authorizes the discharge of up to 64 million gallons per day without '
limits on phosphorus. South Carolina is actively imposing phosphorus limits on all South • • •
Carolina dischargers to address the documented nutrient problems in the lower Catawba and
Waterec Rivers. DHEC has documented violations of water quality standards due to excessive
phosphorus loading in Sugar Creek and in the Catawba River.
3
TT •d 6b:2. TO, ST unf
992.9-9TL-6T6: X J NOI LMS QNITI niUM

14. Median total phosphorus concentrations from Sugar Creek, McAlpine Creek and
Little Sugar Creek as they flow into South Carolina exceed the Mecklenburg County surface
water quality action level for streams. Total phosphorus concentrations in the Catawba River
remain elevated from the confluence with Sugar Creek into the headwaters of Lake Wateree.
Preliminary loading calculations indicate that over 50% of the phosphorus load g to the
Catawba River is coming from the Sugar Creek, Irwin Creek and McAlpine Creels CMUD waste
water treatment facilities.
15. Prior to the issuance of the permit,.DHEC staff contacted staff of NC DENR to
discuss the phosphorus problem in the Catawba River Basin. Over a two-year period staff from •
both agencies met and exchanged information relating to the issue.
16. DIEC staff has submitted written requests to NC DENR staff asking to be notified
of draft and proposed final permit decisions for discharges in the North Carolina portions of the •
Catawba River watershed, which includes those portions of McAlpine Creek located in North •
Carolina. The last such request was: sent on December 20, 2000.
17. On January 30, 2001, NC DENR staff notified CMUD of its issuance of NPDES •
Permit No. NC0024970 for the Mo ipine Creek plant. NC DENR did not notify SC DREC of
this decision.
18. On April 9, 2001, NC,DENR staff transmitted a copy of the reissued permit to SC •
DEC staff Because South Carolina is an "affected State" it should have been notified by
CMUD or NC DENR of the pending permit decision in order to have an opportunity to comment
and, if necessary, voice any objections to the permit.
4
Zl 'd OS: L 10, SI ant
99Z9-912.-616.x2J NOI103S QNd5131bm

VIOLATIONS OF LAW
19. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1 5013_23 (a), an agency decision cannot be sustained if the
agency: 1) exceeded its authority or jurisdiction; 2) acted erroneously; 3) failed to use proper
procedure; 4) acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or 5) failed to act as required by law or rule.
20. The NPDES permit at issue allows CMUD to discharge waste water in a manner that
does not adequately provide for compliance with the South Carolina water quality standards. As
a result, the NC DENR's decision to grant the permit was in excess of its authority, and was
erroneous, arbitrary and capricious.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF •
WH REPORE, petitioner respectfully requests:
1. That this petition by filed in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23, and that a
contested case proceeding be commenced.
2. That the decision to issue the permit dated March 1, 2001 be overturned.
3. That petitioners be granted•any other relief as may be appropriate.
CHARLES M. CONDON •
• Attorney General
TREVA ASHWORTH-
Deputy Attorney General
KENNETH P. WOODINGTON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 11549
[phone]
PACii. R. DICHINSON, .TR.
NC Bar #20510
5 it). t D�sr7Zon-Sr; .A,.-
LT 'd OS:/ TO, ST unr 99L9-9TL-616: xPJ NOI13 S UNI.$1 '8 9. WP1

2001
Colu bia, SC
R:199471DRFTPETz.WPD
6
Lcwis & Roberts, P.L.L.C.
301 South McDowell St., Suite 400
Charlotte, NC 28204
SAMUEL L. FIN'KLEA, I
SC Bar #2015
ELIZABETH G. HOWARD
SC Bar #1 0261
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
[phone]
t 'd OS: Z TO, SI un f
99Z9-9IZ-6I6:xe3 NOI13 S 081'8 d31111

0
CHARLOTTE
June 14, 2001
Mr. R. Lewis Shaw, PE
Deputy Commissioner, S.C. DHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201-1708
1
0
Subject: June 13 Meeting follow-up
Dear Lewis:
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday. I believe that we now have a better understanding of
the issues and your position.
I also wanted to confirm the next steps in the process that we all agreed to at the conclusion of
the meeting. DHEC, DENR, and CMUD are to each consult individually with our respective
legal counsel as to how we can maintain our legal rights and privileges while we work on
resolving technical issues. The attorneys may need to confer with each other to discuss
appropriate legal options. These internal discussions would be followed up by a meeting of all
three parties. The purpose of that meeting would be to see if a strategy can be developed
whereby the technical issues can be addressed while not compromising anyone's legal position.
I suggest that we try to schedule this meeting within the next few weeks if possible.
Please let us know if there are any other issues that need to be addressed. We look forward to
working with you on these important water quality issues.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Doi
Douglas O. Bean
Director
Cc: Alton Boozer
Jeff deBessonet
Coleen Sullins
Dave Goodrich
File
Administration Division 5100 Brookshire Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28216 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities

01-01e. A-67 IA) Kr°
TA M
CIA
:lc • 1-ficorq
Nv5 C EKKILVILA-C
qfJo.I
oeltvak ____ ff,' ertite(tor/.. An. • fiq cenric At fi
a ildVe 5 r s� ' 4�4, 2411 prerzett.wes
&VI - roeLls 176 fceigexcl ey 111,1,„t. , pt,c,44 Mt:
Kayak( r effilf: I i pritfoit_174.144 4.;.',14 //y h'cce
e(g.Y7 And ,ik cil/ccia.
• Nif-,) Pit TA/
J/S5fo'
> cii(9-,1114 M Y ''f WDf,7
� yob
✓codr. caw 3e.rr• --- 5.6z-zel7S"

1\107741 t4C7 4eiN1
•
cif, •-f — ( L 1 / In? 1 cis at rcSfrt 17 -or f"-..----5--
e/reptk;i
hili IC54' ( 1-17'lekt i 00 .
-
Wt tri- 1 4.14.- c.<4 5 VI tAj (-1 e41 cerv4iro .
Afiail‘te-ei,
(15c( rti 'h'zi .e---P
*12. P-t--)7-) P444 it firec
_ I
title!" dtt( 4,1/4. ;;,,.r. "44re rIt yee:,p pv, k... Ktsciel •
i
fidr
ity_c
za ft./74 imie/w(:
> No skefer 1 ((g cc (1-4-c t > ovu- v•A•rvo•sema I
> &el/broiro-iel inAl4e9et itti.;1752- 14 •
/1/114 I eihr/sa pwri- WAV,P.F k //,(
,91477 /r, 47/1/3‘
4,4,9frye.
.5: ilia...4 44,-4 . 4,1/ //tre?.,t) a'4.1e_rie-t4
(02-0/17 44-
/ 2
c')(7 L
4-- 1V-iy75/2"71
Mellivi°7 4,0 4-4,..e_ ty,A;41-i--e411. 4-4- pucce--€› -r-o (9c
11c-11441,d •
17j lq, Cyv,e-4 fiC '174.clk-/ •
• Mc..K.L ev de-(.01 pkr;'fti,154x_jd.-i
. A
offec-444-1LIrAt
iwo1 h1 i, rit !Ake .
. • • <

Sugar Creek
Watershed
® N.C. Wastewater Treatment Plants
0 S.C. Cities - Lakes
Ai Interstate rCity Jurisdictional Limits
A/ Highways n 8-Digit Hydrologic Units
NMajor Streams 1 North Carolina
Tributaries
• NC Wastewater
Treatment Plants
- Reservoirs
Impaired
by Phosphoms
North Carolina
South Carklina
Lake waterer
03050104
DHEC
PROMOTE PROTECT PROSPER
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control

CMUD-Sugar Creek
Phosphorus Loading Assesment
Qw
Qave (2000)
Qave (2001)
Phosphorus Loading Array
Actual data
Using Q =
14.5 MGD
2000
2001
TP limit = 1
TP limit = 2
TP limit = 3
TP limit = 1
Using Qw = TP limit = 2
20 MGD
aitainTP limit = 3
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
20 MGD
14.21 MGD
14.36 MGD
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
[P]ave (2000-2001)
[P]ave (2000)
[P]ave (2001)
Phosphorus load Average Phosphorus
(lb/day) Concentration (mg/1)
687.93
667.31 5.57
120.93 1
241.86 2
362.79 3
168.6 1
337.2 2
3
505.8
5.81
Potential Phosphorus Loadings for CMUD- Sugar
Creek WWTP
TP limit = 1 mg/I
TP limit = 2 mg/I
TP limit = 3 mg/I
5.76 mg/1
5.81 mg/1
5.57 mg/1
0 (2000 P load)
111(2001 P load)
❑ Q=44MGD - Theoretical
TP load
❑ 0=64 MGD -
Theoretical TP load

CMUD-McAlpine Creek
Phosphorus Loading Assesment
Qw
gave (2000)
Qave (2001)
64 MGD
43.31 MGD
43.54 MGD
Phosphorus Loading Array
2000
Actual data 2001
TP limit = 1 mg/1
Using Q = TP limit = 2 mg/1
44 MGD
TP limit = 3 mg/1
TP limit = 1 mg/1
Using Qw = TP limit = 2 mg/1
64 MGD
TP limit = 3 mg/1
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
[Piave (2000-2001)
[Piave (2000)
[Piave (2001)
Phosphorus load Average Phosphorus
(lb/day) Concentration (mg/1)
1155.76 3.20
1178.76 3.25
366.96 1
733.92 2
1100.88 3
539.52- 1
1079.04
1618.56
3
2
Potential Phosphorus Loadings for CMUD- McAlpine Creek WWTP
TP limit = 1 mg/I
TP limit = 2 mg/I
CMUD-Irwin Creek
Phosphorus Loading Assesment
TP limit = 3 mg/I
3.22 mg/1
3.20 mg/1
3.25 mg/1
O (2000 P load)
IN (2001 P load)
❑ Q=44MGD - Theoretical
TP load
❑ Q=64 MGD -
Theoretical TP load

QW
Qave (2000)
Qave (2001)
15 MGD
9.62 MGD
10.00 MGD
Phosphorus Loading Array
Actual data
Using Q =
44 MGD
Using Qw =
64 MGD
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
2000
2001
TP limit= 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
[P]ave (2000-2001)
[Piave (2000)
nave (2001)
Phosphorus load Average Phosphorus
(lb/day) Concentration (mg/1)
173.79 2.17
139.22
83.40
166.80
250.20
126.45
252.9
379.35
1.67
1
2
3
1
2
3
Potential Phosphorus Loadings for CMUD- Irwin
Creek WWTP
TP limit = 1 mg/I
TP limit = 2 mg/I TP limit = 3 mg/I
2.07 mg/1
2.17 mg/1
1.67 mg/1
M (2000 P load)
■ (2001 P load)
❑ Q=44MGD - Theoretical
TP load
❑ Q=64 MGD -
Theoretical TP load

CMUD TOTAL LOADING TO SUGAR CREEK BASIN
McAlpine Creek WWTP
Actual data
Using Q = 44
MGD
Using Qw = 64
MGD
2000
2001
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
Sugar Creek WWTP
Actual data
Using Q = 14.5
MGD
Using Qw = 20
MGD
2000
2001
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
Irwin Creek WWTP
Actual data
Using Q = 10
MGD
Using Qw =15
MGD
2000
2001
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
Phosphorus load
(lb/day)
1155.76
1178.76
366.96
733.92
1100.88
539.52
1079.04
1618.56
Phosphorus load
(1b/day)
687.93
667.31
120.93 •
241.86
362.79
168.6
337.2
505.8
Average Phosphorus
Concentration (mg/1)
3.20
3.25
1
2
3
1
2
3
Average Phosphorus
Concentration (mg/1)
5.81
5.57
1
2
3
1
2
3
Phosphorus load Average Phosphorus
(lb/day) Concentration (mg/1)
173.79 2.17
139.22
83.40
166.80
250.20
126.45
252.9
379.35
1.67
1
2
3
1
2
3

ANNUAL MASS LOADING
Actual data
Using Q = 64 MGD
Using Qw = 20 MGD
Using Qw = 15 MGD
2000
2001
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
Irwin Creek
173.79
139.22
McAlpine Creek
1155.76
1178.76
539.52
1079.04
1618.56
Phosphorus load (lb/day)
WWTP
Sugar Creek
687.93
667.31
168.6
337.2
505.8
126.45
252.9
379.35
Assuming all plants are operating at maximum permitted flow, this translates to
the following *annual* mass loadings:
TP limit = 1 mg/1
TP limit = 2 mg/1
TP limit = 3 mg/1
2000
2001
McAlpine Creek
196924.8
393849.6
590774.4
421854
430246
Phosphorus load (lb/year)
WWTP
Sugar Creek Irwin Creek
61539 46154.3 304618
123078 92308.5 609236
184617 138462.8 913854
251095 — 63434 736382
243568 50817 724630
Total

Total P (Ibs/year)
1000000
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
TP limit = 1 mg/l
Annual Mass Loadings for Phosphorus in Sugar Creek
TP limit = 2 mg/I
TP limit = 3 mg/I
❑ McAlpine Creek (Q=64MGD)
® Sugar Creek (Q = 20 MGD)
❑ Sugar Creek (Q= 15 MGD)
McAlpine Creek (Actual Flow 2000-2001)
® Sugar Creek (Actual Flow 2000-2001)
0 Irwin Creek (Actual Flow 2000-2001)
III Total Loading (maximum permitted flow)
®Total Loading (Actual Flow 2000-2001)
LEI

• 1 Ja\le0 srq".
T le% YJ
W
c<3/4,rq< PRO-C "
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JUN 11 2001
Ms. C een Sullins
Wat Quality Section Chief
NC ept. of Environment and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Ms. Sullins:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is in receipt of a March 9, 2001,
letter to Mr. Barry M. Gullet of the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD),
Administrative Division, from Mr. Kerr T. Stevens, Director, Division of Water Quality, NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), which transmit revised pages to
the CMUD McAlpine Creek WWTP 2001 Permit. It appears that the revised pages would allow
for the deletion of the Lindane limit and the inclusion of a compliance schedule for one year,
with a subsequent limit for Lindane for the CMUD McAlpine Creek WWTP, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, NC0024970. The letter further states that the
CMUD permit for this facility can be revised by inserting the new pages in the permit and
discarding the "old" pages.
The CMUD permit for the McAlpine Creek WWTP was issued on January 30, 2001, and
was effective on March 1, 2001. All limits, including the Lindane limit, were fully effective and
enforceable on March 1, 2001. It appears that the March 9, 2001, letter attempts to modify this
permit. EPA considers any removal of an effective limit and the substitution of a one year
compliance schedule to be a major modification as defined in 40 CFR§ 122.62. All major
modifications of NPDES permits are subject to the public notice requirements of 40
CFR§ 124.10. In addition, all major modifications of major POTW's greater than 1.0 MGD, of
which this facility qualifies, must be sent to EPA for review at the time of public notice in
accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the State of North Carolina and EPA
Region 4 in accordance with 40 CFR§ 123.24.
EPA's initial review of the McAlpine Creek WWTP NPDES permit file indicates that the
Lindane limit was appropriate in the permit effective March 1, 2001. 40 CFR§ 122.44(d)
requires that if a discharge causes or has reasonable potential to cause a water quality standards
excursion than that permit must contain a limit. The fact sheet for NC0024970 states that a
reasonable potential analysis was performed for Lindane concluding that reasonable potential for
pollution from this pollutant existed and that a limit was necessary. It appears that sufficient
information to support this decision was available since Lindane was monitored in the previous
permit issued on November 13, 1995, twice per month and the permit issued on September 16,
1991, required monitoring monthly.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumer)

r '
2
Additionally, in accordance with 40 CFR§ 122.44(1), all reissued permits must be at least
as stringent as the previous permit, unless certain exceptions are met. None of the reasons listed
in this regulation are addressed in the March 9, 2001, letter and therefore based on EPA's
review, it appears that antibacksliding was not addressed.
In summary, based on EPA's review, the major modification of the McAlpine Creek
WWTP NPDES permit, effective on March 1, 2001, appears to be procedurally inconsistent with
the NPDES regulatory requirements. EPA finds it is missing the appropriate public notice
requirements, was not sent to EPA Region 4 for review prior to issuance, changes a limit which
was based on reasonable potential, and does not address antibacksliding requirements. EPA
requests that the State evaluate our concerns and present a strategy for remedy of this issue by
July 9, 2001.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any further questions, please feel
free to call me directly at [phone] or call Ms. Dee Stewart of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
se.
Carol L. Kemker, Acting Chief
Permits, Grants, & Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
cc: Mr. Barry M. Gullet, CMUD Administrative Division
Alton C. Boozer, SCDHEC
Dempsey Benton, NCDENR
Linda Rimer, EPA

• North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
TO: Bill Ross
FROM: Dempsey Benton
DATE: June 6, 2001
MEMORANDUM
if
SUBJECT: Phosphorous Nutrient Removal from Wastewater
AVA
NCDENR
Pursuant to your inquiry, the City of Raleigh did implement a chemical feed
process which allowed for a significant reduction in phosphorous concentrations in
wastewater effluent.
The City used ferrous sulfate to achieve odor reductions in the pump stations, and
to achieve lower phosphorous levels. A summary report is attached. As noted, it was
possible to get the phosphorous concentration down to about 1.0 PPM which was well
under the State's NPDES limit of 2 PPM for the treatment plant.
(dbphos)
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North 1..._
Phone: 919 — 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 — 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
_. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER — 50% RECYCLED / I O% POST CONSUMER
JUN 1 2 2001
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POi !R E :("NCH

/2001 12:39 919-890-3600
PUBLIC UTILITIES PAGE 01
Dale Cris
From:
Date Crisp [crispd @ raleigh-nc.orgi
Sent:
t Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:31 PM
To: Dempsey Benton
.
Subject: Subj . TP info you requested
Y'm faxing you now the report I sent to you back in
995, when
N dieclast
e�didi. Oa comprehensive
review of your TP performance � NRTrIWTP as part of thI do not have a current summary to
TP
performance results since then have been similiar, but
date I can send you. I'm also faxing you the reportand
ipress
nfo hrelease we did in 1988 to
City Council on the initial TP success story.
P t ais
We are currently feeding approximately 900,000 gals. per year of ferrous sulfate @ $0.23
per gallon for an estimated total cost of $207,000 per year Theee, threete (3)anchemical
storage and feed facilities we built located along C
Interceptors cost the City approximately $600.000 each. Thep ower t erecost tafor operatingothese
facilities is minimal ($100 per month each) and personnel
y low to
($500 per month) , since the sewer pump station mechanics check and off-load chemicals at
stored
these faCs.].a.CieS while they are out
checking
howthe
mu hpump
morestations.
sluclg2Facilities
(biosolids) rwe produce
by SC,ADA, system• Anunknown cost however
because we remove TP by chemical precipitation rather thanbiologically.
iolo icad lly. I'm sure0this is
a significant cost but we have never tried to pin this d
r
year for; this additional 0&M cost (i.e. 10% of sludge disposal program cost).
Let me know if you have questions. Dale
H. Dale Crisp, P.E.
Raleigh Public Utilities Director
(919)-890-3400 fax [phone]
1

00 05 / 2001 12 : 39 919-890-3600
PUBLIC UTILITIES PAGE 02
October 27, 1995
TO: City Manager
FROM: Asst. Public Utilities Director
RE: Update on Total Phosphorus Concentration in Neuse River
WWTP Effluent
Listed on the attached table is the monthly average total
phosphorus concentrations for the Neuse Plant since January,
1987. The statewide phosphate detergent ban took effect January,
1988. Permanent phosphorus removal capability was implemented by
the City January, 1989, but temporary / pilot facilities in
October, 1988. I've attached a copy of the initial report we
provided to City Council in November of 1988 regarding this
Matter. We have continued to track the plant's performance in
regard to phosphorus effluent concentration. The permit
compliance limit of 2.0 PPM (a quarterly average of weekly
samples) became effective in May, 1993. The City begun
compliance with this limit in the first quarter of 1990. I have
also attached a copy of the letter of appreciation the city
received from NCDEM for voluntary compliance and reduction of
phosphorus, well in advance of the compliance limit becoming
effective.
H. Dale Crisp

06/14/2001 12:39 919-890-3600
PUBLIC UTILITIES PAGE 03
NEUSE RIVER WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL PHOSPHORUS DATA
monthly averacre tots xihosp orr.?s (PPM
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Jan 6.2 3.7 2.6' 2.2 0.70 0.31 0.67 0.88 1.06
Feb 5.9 3.3 2.3 1.8 0.84 0.40 1.02 1.40 0.63
Mar 5.0 3.3 1.8 2.0 0.76 0.39 0.62 1.15 0.62
Apr 5.4 3.4 2.6 1.2 0.96 0.87 0.9 1.50 0.98
May 6.9 3.3 2.8 1.4 0.88 2.43 0.97 1.58 0.76
Jun 7.5 4.4 2.7 0.9 0.89 1.73 1.49 1.61 0.64
Jul 6,8 3 , 8 2.2 1,7 1.09 1,37 1.62 1,28 1,17
Aug 7.7 3.4 2.2 1.4 0.53 1.29 1.57 1.57 1.50
Sep 6.2 3.4 2.9 1.4 0.62 1.38 1.64 2.10 1.25
Oct 5.5 2.8 2.9 0.9 0.73 1.27 1.27 1.44 1.33
Nov 5.4 1.7 2.6 0.7 0.48 1.17 1.28 2.19 1.29
pec 4.7 2.9 2.4 0.7 0.48 0.93 1.16 2.02 1.48
avg 6.1 2.4 2.5 1.3 1,13 1,10 1.18 1.56 1.06

0010
,gyp
C/41UL /t ,4 flee (3(K
(qt-f) /101...P pi/474W 1/1/75-6 -/7 47Crfroi:Ic.
ct dylerla lyy5-(1414eav k Ya7+44
/moo c1 ce
• Fer n1 f ��- bk-
• �D%"4 !✓/`- /. J Q b(fi fl Gia I /1 /Ga 7 i)n_s D .
5 bjs // of"- ,e V,rli/c.F/G C kit(O✓✓,h sues, s
, A/ r /7H {1-,..6e7- cif -7 /.
(,7 4te P' /41 6 K,ffwwtl ClAzd - /tze. G wfs,s1
lb6 Goa ` 4,6( �/ Pkti4
FrM it irretcri-s4 /v1 y .
• 1G j4•7% in MY.
•
-4vel ud/b'(Tot./f��J
01.5.<-US51011,5 . f
1.4417Lg7 7-/v FA- ,
,Ai 'ram 9 4?iP
G.IM' / ,tom/t, G1.
• Zenf_`f€,vwr C4pot r 7 1951 45 . 'a cA,.>
6° -7070 Tr ey/iyibt/(-1-c6( t'frtctk.5
A4,15:1,6,- A tvutd.-/-7 diC 4 4. hi:y4
otlAs- t f✓ca,v4
4nvl rep itlr 11 be Git I 4

R
r^
•
(Cf))
€HARLOTTK
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
UTILITIES
REGIONAL SOLUTIONS TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IN THE CAROLINAS:
POSITIONS OF CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
In the ongoing debate over a proposed regional treatment facility in South
Carolina (SC), the position of Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities has frequently been
misinterpreted and misrepresented. To clarify our position:
1) Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is not involved in the South Carolina
regional wastewater treatment plant currently being discussed.
2) If asked to participate in the proposed plant, Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities would decline due to financial and environmental concerns.
3) Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities shares the goal of protecting our
natural resources and is actively taking steps to improve water
quality.
4) Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities supports regional cooperation and is
eager to work with North Carolina (NC) and SC neighbors on regional
solutions to water quality issues.
1. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is not involved in the SC regional plant
currently being proposed.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities has firmly and consistently maintained since 1995
that any regional wastewater treatment plant in SC had to be developed by, and
be right for, SC. Furthermore, if such a proposal were developed, Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Utilities would like the chance to consider being a customer and not
an owner. We established this position after a group of local governments in SC
and Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities conducted a study of regional wastewater
treatment alternatives in 1994. At that point it was evident that a number of
issues needed to be addressed by SC partners before any consideration should
be given to NC entities.
In 1995, York, Lancaster and Chester counties formed the Tri-County
Wastewater Management Planning Committee to study regional solutions with
SC goals in mind. The latest proposal — by a group working with the Catawba
May 17, 2001 Contact: Doug Bean, 704-399-2221
[e-mail]

4
1-
2
.
' Indian Nation to build a private SC wastewater treatment plant near Bowater — is
a result of Tri-County discussions. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is not a
member of the Tri-County committee, and is not involved in any of their
proposals. We applaud the group's efforts to seek regional solutions, and — as
we have consistently maintained — would welcome the opportunity to respond to
any formal proposals that may come forward.
As of this date, Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities has not received any formal
proposal to participate in or be a customer of the SC regional plant near Bowater
as brought forth by the Catawba Indian Nation and its partners. We have not
worked with, encouraged, or given support to this proposal. Any characterization
of Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities as the developer, organizer or leader of the
plan to build a large regional wastewater treatment plant near Bowater and the
construction of a large sewer interceptor line to it along the Catawba River is
false. This is an issue best addressed by SC entities.
2. If asked to take part in the proposed plant, Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities would decline.
The fact is, even if Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities received a formal proposal
from the Catawba Indian Nation and its partners, we have concerns about the
current proposal and have already concluded the plant is not the best solution for
us economically or environmentally.
While a large plant near Bowater would serve a considerable portion of SC, it
would be very expensive for NC. Mecklenburg County's proximity to the plant
location would require more than 18 miles of sewer line to be installed — some of
it measuring up to seven feet in diameter. This pipe installation would be very
expensive and since Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities would be the primary
customer, the majority of the capital and ongoing costs would fall on us.
We have also heard the concerns of many people in both states about the
potential environmental impacts of building a large pipeline along a segment of
the Catawba River. We share these concerns and do not believe this is an
alternative that best protects the environment.
3. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities shares the goal of protecting our natural
resources and is actively taking measures to improve water quality.
The five municipal wastewater treatment plants in Mecklenburg county have
been characterized as large producers of pollution that are not being maintained
and operate under less stringent standards then those in SC. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Plants operated by Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities are
modern, well -maintained plants and millions of dollars per year are invested in
maintaining these facilities.

3
Since most of our plants discharge into small streams, they are subject to some
of the most stringent quality limits in the state, which are comparable to any in
SC. Our plants consistently meet their quality standards, and in many cases the
treated wastewater effluent discharged from the plants is cleaner than what is
present in the receiving stream.
Perhaps drawing the most attention is the issue over the presence of
phosphorous in SC bodies of water, the source of this phosphorous and what
can be done to reduce it. In Mecklenburg County, Lake Wylie and some coves of
Mountain Island Lake are nutrient -sensitive bodies of water and any discharge
into these waters requires nutrient removal. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
meets this requirement for its single plant that discharges into Mountain Island
Lake; none of the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities plants discharge into Lake
Wylie. Additional studies need to be undertaken by the State of North Carolina to
determine the sources of phosphorous in NC waters, how it moves downstream,
and subsequently what limits would be appropriate for NC treatment plants.
In the meantime, Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities has heard the concerns in SC
and voluntarily begun looking at ways of reducing phosphorous levels coming
from Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities treatment plants. By working with one
industry to keep a major source of phosphorous out of our plants, we expect to
see a 50 percent reduction coming from the Sugar Creek treatment plant, and
another significant reduction coming from the McAlpine treatment plant. A study
evaluating further phosphorous reduction at several plants has also been
completed.
Working on treatment plants is not our only effort to ensure good water quality.
Millions of dollars have been added to our capital budget to expand our
maintenance of the collection system. We support efforts by other agencies in
Mecklenburg County to protect water sources, such as the Surface Water
Improvement and Management program, stream buffers and limits on total
maximum daily loading from point- and non -point pollution sources. In addition,
we facilitate and promote strong environmental stewardship through participation
with a number of organizations, including the Bi-State Catawba River Task
Force, Voices & Choices, numerous stakeholder groups, marine commissions
and others.
We realize that much still remains to be done to protect the Catawba and we are
committed to doing our part.
4. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities supports regional solutions.
Although the proposed regional plant and line is not financially or environmentally
feasible for Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities, we continue to believe in regional

4
cooperation for water and wastewater planning. We currently have regional
agreements with three governmental units in NC and two in SC. These
agreements have been very effective. In some cases, Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities provides a service for other entities and in some cases we purchase
services. We take the position that it does not matter who provides the service.
What does matter is that local governments form partnerships to plan for water
and wastewater services on a regional basis in order to lower costs for our
customers and improve water quality in our rivers and streams.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is a regional agency that provides for public
health through the delivery of clean drinking water and protects the environment
through the collection and treatment of wastewater. As we plan for our future in
Mecklenburg County, we stand ready to work with all our nearby neighbors —
including SC — on regional water and wastewater planning efforts.

'.H E C
PROMOTE PROTECT
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201-1708
COMMISSIONER:
Douglas E. Bryant
BOARD:
Bradford W. Wyche
Chairman
William M. Hull, Jr., MD
Vice Chairman
Mark B. Kent
Secretary
Howard L. Brilliant, MD
Brian K. Smith
Louisiana W. Wright
Larry R. Chewning, Jr., DMD
PROSPER
P(A/v
June 26, 2001
Mr. Douglas O. Bean
Director
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28216
RE: McAlpine WWTP
Our meeting of June 13, 2001
Dear Mr. Bean:
Thank you for your letter of June 14, 2001. I agree generally with your summary of
the meeting with this clarification. As we make plans to meet again and as I stated,
we are not planning at this point to postpone the schedule regarding the permit
appeal and the hearing process. Certainly we are open to any settlement discussion
but don't want to delay this hearing process while we discuss technical options for
addressing the concerns we have raised. We believe that a permit limit for
phosphorus is required and that a productive meeting will start with agreement by all
parties on this point.
1 look forward to meeting with you again soon.
Sincerely,
R. Lewis Shaw, P.E.
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality Control
cc: Coleen Sullins
Alton Boozer
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

NC0024970 - CMUD McAlpine Creek WWTP
Assessment of Effluent Nutrient Loadings
5/10/01
by: Natalie Sierra
RAW DATA
Date Flow Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus
(MGD) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1/12/00 39.03 1.5
1/27/00 48.78 10
2/4/00 48.56 1.2
2/28/00 47.24 11
3/6/00 43.29 2.1
3/13/00 40.54 8.6
4/5/00 46.07 10.7 3.4
5/11/00 47.38 10.7
5/16/00 43.56 3.2
6/8/00 41.75 13 3.8
7/6/00 39.45 11.3 4.9
8/3/00 44.49 3.2
8/31 /00 52.3 20.3 4.1
9/14/00 45.6 23 3.4
10/5/00 34.45 9.6 3.8
11/1/00 33.39 10.7 3.7
12/7/00 40.33 13.9 3.3
1/2/01 41.17 7.9 3.1
1/7/01 39.91 3.1
2/1/01 40.32 3.3
2/6/01 40.64 3.8
2/13/01 42.97 484.9 2.9
2/19/01 43.29 2.8
2/21/01 41.87 13.7 3.9
2/27/01 42.47 3.3
3/5/01 51.22 8.5 2.9
3/8/01 42.99 3.4
3/13/01 44.99 3.8
3/20/01 47.95 2.9
3/26/01 46.23 3
MASS LOADING
Date
Total Nitrogen
(lb/day)
Total Phosphorus
(lb/day)
1/12/00
1/27/00
2/4/00
2/28/00
3/6/00
3/13/00
4/5/00
5/11/00
5/16/00
6/8/00
7/6/00
8/3/00
8/31/00
9/14/00
10/5/00
11/1/00
12/7/00
1/2/01
1/7/01
2/1/01
2/6/01
2/13/01
2/19/01
2/21/01
2/27/01
3/5/01
3/8/01
3/13/01
3/20/01
3/26/01
4068.3
4333.8
2907.7
4111.2
4228.1
488.3
486.0
758.2
1306.4
1162.5
4526.5 1323.1
3717.8 1612.2
1187.3
8854.5 1788.3
8747.0 1293.0
2758.2 1091.8
2979.7 1030.3
4675.3 1110.0
2712.5 1064.4
1031.8
1109.7
1288.0
173773.5 1039.3
1010.9
4784.0 1361.9
1168.9
3631.0 1238.8
1219.0
1425.8
1159.7
1156.7
SUMMARY TABLE
Total N Total P
(lb/day) (lb/day)
Average 15050.6 1150.5
Maximum 173774 1788.3
Minimum 2712.5 486.0

LI(rrf 1" "
Irt/7, vri ,... ' // ' 10 / ji(!G".. /'I/f i/v/rvvIW/
it01,t)1(17
6 / ta5r, 4t e , , .
mon_ick
2:5v,,,,e, 4 (o% ,le. . ThccGja-5-- .71--ay
1ty;rc.G k(✓
�- �' Ale USe,/1-1,/g4- % 11 tom.
lid
l ( .
_5A,m_61_ti
MOM SI
' Witki -- iijdzig 4 A efiV;1_6±7_4i,-771i-141
t iti 4 • -
tk-,e4.7
f re ' a ..�5( - t/ t"
ill�� .
y
IFS'
b yf
-jU/i/ /( we (90t 75 e-e50 a
7//m/'/i /ftL- ,ciffrbec eyaik &1 . .
371/10t, ,
. . . , r _i _.,1_ r v., •
6 . o' 17k.. e
t(5 .
- 4/ men ktfth/ w2g-1-
• A rC[w d. Gt IC/L-/t dir);//41 eGca. de cls�
Th4PL Apilv 7P4 alon/ct" tnek1e. .
> tilake.:, cut lore oirect
— 01441 rnai

PFR.27 222 = cr= r-•{ —_C =L—EPL OF :�PTER
N0.411 F.1/2
-w -•
P'0.
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201-1708
COMNUSSIONER:
Doug!& E, Bryant
BOARD:
Bradford W. Wye:::
Chairman
Vl illia^.t' M. Hail.: r., MD
Vrcc Chalet;.'-'3
Mark B. Kcnt
Secretary
Howard L. Brtlivn4 MD
Brian K. Smith
Louiaiana W. Wright
Lary R. Chewing, Jr., DMD
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Telephone [phone] Fax 89S-3367
April 27, 2001
Mr. A. Stanley Meibt1rg
Acting Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta; C-eorgia 30303.8960
Mr. Barry M. Gullet
C_LD Administrative Division.
5100 Brookshire Boulevard .
Charlot'e; NC 28216
20 a 2
MAY
2 9 2001
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
William. G. Ross, Yr., Secretary
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Reissuance ofNPDES Permit NO. NC0024970
McAlpine Creek WWTP
Decision issued January 31, 2001; effective March 1, 2001
Gentlemen:
This is to notify you that the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, as the agency responsible for administering the Clean
Water Actin South Carolina, objects to the above -referenced permit for the
following reasons.
The McAlpine Creek WWTP is located on McAlpine Creek
approximately one mile from the South Carolina border. Attch 1, Catawba
River Basin Watershed Report, map of Sugar Creek Watershed. McAlpine
•
•
•
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

FFF.27.2CC1
Li -EC ELF,EFL CF kFTER NO.411 F.2/2
Creek flows into South Carolina and its water ultimately flows into the
Catawba River and then. the Wateree River. South Carolina is therefore an
affected state within the meaning of Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. § 1342(b), and 40 C.F.R. Parts 122,4,122.44(d)(4),122.62(d)(10), and
124.10(c)(1)(iii). Water quality in McAlpine creek in South Carolina and in
the lower Catawba is demonstrably affected by *phosphorus loading. Attch 2,
"A. Special Water Quality Assessment of Sugars Creek ..,," Technical Report
No. 004-94; Attch 3, No ipoint-Source Assessment ... in the lower Catawba
River Watershed; Attch 4, State of South Carolina Section 303(d) List for
2000, May 2, 2000, Staff of the North Carolina Department of Environment
End Natural Resources recognizes this fact; DENR disputes DHEC's figures,
but concedes that "CMUD point sources [i.e., the three waste water treatment
plants, including the McAlpine Creek plant] account for 38% of the Total]
P[hospl:orus] point source load...." Attch 5, memorandum from Woolfolk to
Swanek, September 24, 1998.
On December 20, 2000, Alton Boozer, chief of the Bureau of Water,
wrote Coleen Sull;rs, chief of the DENR Water Quality Section, and
explicitly requested to be notified of draft permits and pending permit
decisions for discharges to the Catawba River watershed. Attch 6, Boozer to
Sullins, December 20, 2000. Despite this request, and despite the obligation
imposed by the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations, DHEC did not receive
any notice of the reissuance of NPDES Permit No. NC0024970 until April 9, ,
2001. Attch 7, copy of leter from Stevens to Gullet, dated March 9, 2001, •
and date -stamped April 9, 2001. No notice of this permit decision was
published in the Federal Register. No notice that the permit had been
transmitted to EPA Region 'V was provided to DHEC, DEC considers that
it received legally sufficient notice only on April 9.
Permit No.. NC0024970 authorizes discharge of up to 64 million
gallons per day witho s. any limits on phosphorus. As an affected state, South
Carolina objects; such a discharge has a substantial likelihood of adversely
affecting water quality in South Carolina and contributing to violations of
South Carolina water quality standards set forth in 25 S.C. Code Ann,
Regulation 61-68. Southi.Carolinais actively imposing phosphorus limits on
all South Carolina dischargers to address the documented nutrient problems in
the lower Catawba and Wateree Rivers. If DHEC had been provided timely
notice, as requested by Mr. Boozer and required by Federal regulations, we
would have provided this information and additional information to DENR
and to EPA in support of Our objection.
In order to protect our appeal rights, we will have to commence legal
action no later than close of business on May 9,2001. NC General Statutes
§ 150B.23 and NC Administrative Code Title 15A.0308(b). If meaningful
measures are instituted to address our objection:we may be able to withdraw

FPF . a7.2e "
•
c -
ti=F! C= kFTE.
NC.411
any such action; however, at this time we intend to proceed.
If 1 can answer any questions or provide: additional information, please
let me know.
Sincerely, ta-Vb1-,
Carlisle Roberts,
General Counsel
Samuel L. Finklea,111
Chief Counsel for EQC
Attachments:
Attch 1, Catawba River Basin Watershed Report, map of Sugar Creek
Watershed
Attch 2, "A Special Water Quality Assessment of Sugar Creek .,.," Technical
Report No. 004-94
Attch 3, "Nonpoint-Source Assessment ... in the lower Catawba River
Watershed"
Attch 4, portion of State of South Carolina Section 303(d) List for 2000, May
2, 2000
Attch 5, memorandum from Woolfolk to Swanek, September 24, 1998
Attch 6, Boozer to Sullins. December 20, 2000
Attch 7, copy of letter from Stevens to Gullet, dated March 9, 2001, and date -
stamped April 9, 2001
cc: Hon. Charles M. Condon
Attorney General of South Carolina
Cr.1WATER1303(D)1010425.wpd

2.QO 'PPP . 27. rEe1;ev = . �Cc� �es...s''�cL =,U =EFL C= kFTF L?ITR
•• r�rwwaavGtrib.labl
NC.412 P.1/2
htrp:/Avww.scstatehouse.net/bil]s/82.htni
1 of 2
Product of the State House Network-L?ITR
Scroll to History Page
Scroll to Previous Versions Links List
Scroll to Full Text
Download This in Microsoft Word97 format
Bill 82
wa....vu44r
Indicates New Matter
Current status
Bill Number: :
Type of Lec_slati o =:
Inn oth. cjrc Body:
Introduced rate:
Primary Sponsor:
All Sponsors:
Drafted oBill
Number:
:
� �
Companion ill NL`',tot'__ :
Res :dins Body:
current Committee:
Sub_ ect :
Post-1t° Fax Not 7671
Senia,-al Bill GB
Le ventis
Leventis, Ford, Reese.
1: \council\bills\nbd\11112ac01. doc
3:.03
Senate
Judiciary Committee 11 SITSewage services, county council,
contracts ;or; sewage treated by facilities;
Water and Sewer, Solid Waste
Fis Cory
Sody Date Acton Description Com Leg Involved
2O0=oi:7
Senate 20010:.=0
ComoaT No. 3103
Introduced, read first time,
referred to Committee
Versions of This Bill
11 SJ
Product of the State House Network LPITR
`i, n o7. ..:N�. N�l�!l .G�i. it,' • .G. l.. i•G! .1:'j. ,..: is �..,: �v,•h;lM..,�
('Text matches Drrited bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)
i
A BILL
TO AMEND SECTION 6-1 5-20 CODE OF r
M -�, LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,1976, RELATING TO
AUTHORIZING GOVERNMENTAL ENTITLES TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITLES FOR COLL.ECTr T
F
SEWAGE, AND TO A MND SECTION 1410, RELATfl G. TO DISPOSAL, AUTHORIZING TR ZING COT T
TO OPERATEWATERr T AUTI30RYz?�TG COUNTIES
CONTRACT T SHALL AND SEWEFACILITIES, IN BOTH, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A
CONTAIN A PROVISION PROVIDING THAT MORE THAN TEN
4/2 7/012:23 PM

-L ITR
t• � � �� .� vevi..b... •..• • •vzS...St.. - ., .� Y `jVJL4L41lViiiS:.11CL .�
a-
NO.412 F.2/2
http:/Iwww.scstntehouse.net/b111s/82..bnn
2 of2
PERCENT OP THE SEWAGE TREATED BY THE SEWER. FACILITIES MAY BE GENERATED
PROM 07.7TSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1, Section 5-1 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 6-15-20; Every governmental entity shall bo is empowered to enter into contracts with other
governmental entities for the collection of sewage, for the disposal of sewage, and for the treatment of
sewage, and to that end shall bc is jointly and severally empowered to construct, operate, maintain,
enlarge;, and. improve sewer facilities designed for use by the parties to the contract. k The contract
may provide for the joint ownership of .he sewerfacilities or for the ownership of i the facilities by
any or Tie con*racting parties; provided, in &bleb that event, the remaining parties shall bo are
empowered to utilize such the sewer facilities to the extent provided for in the contract, However, under
no circurnstancesshall a contract contain a Drovision providing that more than ten percent of the Sewage
treated" by the sewer facilities may be venerated from outside the boundaries of this State."
SECTION 2, Section 4.-55-1410(D) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(D) Every county governing body is authorized to enter into contracts in connection with the providing
of water or sewer services, or both, and facilities with persons, private corporations, municipal
corporations; nub'_ic bodies, public agencies, special purpose districts, the State of South Carolina or any
agencies thereof; and with the United. States Government or any agencies thereof. However. under no
ctrcuxns:arces sha . a contract contain a. *provision proyidine_tbat more than ten percent of the sewaa e
treated by :he sewer facLities may be venerated from outside ide the boundaries of this State."
SECTION 3. This. act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
State HouseNetwork-LPITR@http://vvww,scstatehouse.net
This web page was last Updated on April 4, 2001 at 2:29 PM
4/27101 2:23 PM

ee-ifen.or44;_.
‘ .
,
sa. a Gt‘/-1..-.,4 le
/rit e7-1441-:
7
(7); OP" ••
PA2ev:/Z-COO 9,7 02
64.440C AfC O‘T- u?
7at
4 e k

J,-aN 21 '99 11:19 FROM WS—RCKHILL
UMWMMINIPINNIMIwa, TO
f
2600 Bull art':
Calizruubi2, SC 2fl0l .l704
Wes K Sen;th
liszvizei cocady
PI QS ' R
Mr. Niec Stegall, Utilities Director
City cif Redo Hill
IP. 0, Box 11706
Rack Hill, SC 24731
PAGE.001
Post --it" Fax Note
7671
+rom
Date ►
Pesee
ToLIf1 iegi 4Q 1
T
Co/Dept.
Co.
Phone A
Plono 0
Fax
FaxA
Rock Hill. Wastewater Tit Facility
NPDE,S Penult SC0020443
Yaz1c County
:Dear Mr. Stegall:
'This letter is in scfareaca to our correspondence and meetfiig related to the plupa ed effluent
lauitz fbr Rock 'till facility at the expanded flow c pacify Of 20 MGA.
To suaunatize the discIIstioAs:
(1) The NPDES pcauit will be revoked said retssned to plado the 20 MGD petit
limits page to etitcz.
C2) A cam schedule will be ridded to toteti the proposed phospboros limits of
1251bslday to be completed by 1I112003.
(3) An internal placed
mass limit of 11,000
'73,00Q Ibs/ysu would placed in effect immediately
(4) An interim ,phospliortts concertration limit 0!
fa afk t with the pezmit chauge.
If this dots sat epee with your recollection of the ova► please let me kilow, Whcn you
your a� of tbesc co i out ire iyili proceed with the pe o ini g groom. You
would of cora-se, have tlm sty to provide con=e4 cai tha dry N_FDFS, pen it, whoa
we prepare it.
�
dense do not hesitate to cal meat 898-4228, if youhaysff ArtfEtionnl quesa s-
i
Sincerely,
mouth, Z3,200 Ibs/7art r sad
the NEWS paean 1044 u.u'x.
& Report would be placed
ktalusci L Maaxbelln Manager
Oomestio Wastewater Permitting section
IF: left delitsso net, Director, Water Facilities fitting Division
Al Win, EQC Catawba District
SOUTH CAROLI.NA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
O1/21 '99 11:09 TOTAI. PAGE 'A01 **