NC0045993_Wasteload Allocation_19950131

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0045993
Teledyne ALLVAC WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Denial
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 31, 1995
Thus document its prirated oa reuse paper - ignore any
coateat on the re'ernse aide

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0045993
PERMI 11EE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Facility Status: Existing
Teledyne Allvac
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor �l
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow): 100 %
Comments: Die- e-a6l/ "s_ pow CorASi' /.)•A5-
.1 Cook - c4.7,,1,
IJ w 4
44p(1,,' 0A AGE blL//4L{
CEIVING STREAM: Richardson Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03.-07-14
Reference USGS Quad: H16NE
County: Union
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
/
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed b
iL
6/23/94
Modeler
Date Rec.
N1 trIn1
10124(14
Drainage Area (mi2 ) 3 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 45
7Q10 (cfs) 0, / 5 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0 . Z. 30Q2 (cfs) (j. 5
Toxicity Limits: IWC 6 7 %
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters ,L> , /,4 �% , re-yti
Upstream /y Location /tuft- 1//0sh'eika YYV"
Downstream Location » . 0..
ps/raa-sn frd i '7 NesA' J?�1 _ ,440
I r. rn -•1
7A1S
Acut hronl P/F a�
41.
a
Oil and
pH (SU):
Chromium (#/day):
Nickel (#/day):
Cyanide (#/day):
Lead (#/day):
NH3N (mg/1):
Flouride (#/day):
Zinc (#/day):
Copper
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity:
Com ments:
i)ici/t, alltd, ba-c
Mon Avg Day Max
10 15
7.5-9 7.5-9
0.012 0.03
0.03 0.045
0.043 0.105
0.072 0.151
21.08 48
2.7 mg/1
monitor
monitor
monitor monitor
P/F @
Week Avg
v4
Day Max,
7.4 ug/1 * 29.6 ug/1
37 ug/1 * 50 ug/1
J CCiiI/
�r� �, r- un l
1

rr
MEMO
TO: F—Ar7 LQ 4'J56.-.5.4 .4.1.J.! 6p.-p r-
DATE /Z-3 1 4
41/
SUBJECT: N £2OL1 `3
J "`' 7kj i1 J 6.9 d:5LLA-ex
�r241," 4L-‘14 �^x2 (101Cit ?:)a 1.2
A- AA4- GG V 1.1 �J cat t a L vim`
-14- -t-e'5 r(v J,24 4-AL
ve.6-ta -L fi e v, O ✓ s v..t. . as d
kw-t-
40 cloj- la--(titv ;+- it-6e143e-d Qior
r (-41/(j tLuL-
w L L&A-e_ 4- . .
tit:1.4j Fit-l-iu, rg4-0 -14-2 pr( i 5
FronLs.) "T (j.,,K d' ±j
+ zoo pd0 eiaLL
C v�'
North Carolina Departrineni of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources c�
Printed on Recycled Paper

N.C. DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENT. HEN!.'*Ti.
8' NATURAL RESOU P.'
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
Teledyne Allvac
NC0045993
Industrial - 100%
Existing
Renewal
Richardson Creek
C
030714
Union
Mooresvill
-&gas=
6/23/94
H16NE
, 0o ct4
>7r2 I
JAN 6 1995
Request # 789I5SION OF ENVIRONMENTAL . AD,...,i
MOCRLSVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
0212522222
11/30/88
53
0.15
0.2
45
Q 0.5
67.4
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
DEM met with Thurman Horne and Consultant about the special condition in their
permit, which requires them to perform a flow study. A study was completed, USGS
reviewed and decided the study was not acceptable due to the unique situation in
Richardson Creek. I asked Mr. Home if CFR 40 471.32 and 471.62 applied to Teledyne
Allvac's process. Mr. Horne agreed that the Effluent Guidelines should apply to this
facility and he sent DEM a copy of his off-lbs. Sean Goris, the permit engineer,
determined the limits based on the data submitted and the Effluent Guidelines. The original
Effluent guideline limits were less than the WQ standards. Therefore, DEM took a tour of
the plant to better understand how the guidelines should be applied. As a result new
guideline limits were calculated. Meanwhile, Robert Mason from USGS determined the
7Q10 to be zero at the discharge location. Since the facility is existing and not
modifying DEM has decided on a 7Q10 = 0.15 (the original 7Q10 determined by USGS in
1988 #2.1252.2222). The WQ limits were based 7Q10 = 0.15 cfs and wasteflow = 0.200
MGD (maximum expected: given by facility in their application). The allowable for
NH3N 2(s) & 4(W) mg/l to protect against in stream toxicity; however, facility received
guideline limit due to also having a Chronic P/F WET test. The highest monthly average
wasteflow for the last 3 years was 0.119 mgd and the daily max was >0.160 mgd.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: Date: /
Instream Assessment: //. _ %� G �li:� Date: 1
Regional Supervisor: l6.. /f Date: ;/�s
Permits & Engineering: 'is. i . �ii Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
FEB 0 1 1995

Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
Flow (MGD):
Oil and Grease (mg/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
pH (SU):
Fluoride (mg/1):
Copper (µg/1):
Zinc (µg/1):
Temperature:
Chronic Toxicity:
Recommended Limits
2
TOXICS/METALS/CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Chronic limit P/F Qrtly
P/F @ 19 used 0.0492 mgd
P/F @ 67% used 0.200 mgd Highest
Feb, May, Aug, Nov
Daily Max.
0.0492
15
459
6-9
9.4
P/F @ 19%
Monthly Avera
10
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
k
f
ci
Rtrit WA*
0), '10 1 I S. i 'i
Li; I S LS'i 02'1vg'1
U20 I r c
�.( )-, og'1 65'1
N; 3 Uuo/l
Mon Avg Day. Max WQ or EL Week Avg Day MaxWQ EL
Flow (mg/1): fi 44- f bV
Oil and Grease 10 15
pH (SU): 7.5-9 7.5-9
Chromium (#/day): 0.012 0.03 '
Nickel (#/day): 0.03 0.045
Cyanide (#/day): 0.043 0.105 Guideline 7.4 ug/1
Lead (#/day): 0.072 0.151 Guideline 37 ug/1
NH3N (mg/1): 21.08 48
Flouride (#/day): 2.7 mg/1
Zinc (#/day): monitor
Copper monitor
Temperature monitor monitor
Chronic Toxicity: P/F @ 68%
Limit Changes due to application of
1) Effluent Guidelines for Nickel 40 CFR 471.32 (BAT) subpart (c), (k) and (z) and for
Titanium 40 CFR 471.62 (BAT) subpart (b), (h), and (v). Subparts include rolling contact cooling water,
forging contact cooling water, sawing and grinding contact cooling water and miscellaneous wastewater
respectively for each process. Allowable masses from each process were added together to derive the final
limit.
WQ
(6-9)EL/BPT(7.5-10)
Guideline
Guideline
* 29.6 ug/1 WQ
* 50 ug/1 WQ
Guideline
WQ
EL
2) pH limit came from 40 CFR 471.31 and 471.61 (BPT)
3) NH3N allowable to protect against instream toxicity is 2mg/1 (s) and 4 mg/1 (w), facility
received guideline limit because they also have a WET test. If facility fails WET test we might want to
consider adding
NH3N (AT).
* 4) Cyanide and Lead: Higher daily maximum concentrations may be allocated if a facility performs
weekly monitoring. For implementation purposes, the Permittee may choose to collect multiple samples for the week
and base the number of analyses run on the outcome of the first sample. If the first sample is in compliance with the
weekly average limit, then no more analyses need to be run for that week. If, on the other hand, the first sample is above
the weekly average, then more samples will need to be analyzed and ensure compliance with both the weekly average and
daily maximum limits.
5) WET test concentration change due to 7Q10 =0.15 cfs and wasteflow = 0.200 mgd.
** see attachment for further justification
_X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of the
immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based effluent limitations
for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: 100 ft upstream from effluent on Richardson Creek
Downstream Location: Downstream from effluent but upstream from NCSR 1751 (Approx. 0.3 miles downstream fro!
effluent)
Parameters: Temp, pH, Cond,
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities?
Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional office
recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) _N_ (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old assumptions
that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? _N (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name T /✓h e /�%/A/0fi — /'J7ohio, �l ~ //Permit # / C0O 45993 Pipe # d l
y
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is 6 7 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
fP/ , Oay , 41/, Nov . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0• / S cfs
Permitted Flow t' MGD
IWC 6 7.1 %
Basin & Sub -basin Y0307/4
Receiving Stream Kit/wimp ire, k
County `/mart
D. 2-00 0760 wa! used 710 rJe k" ,,iihf
Recommended by:
7/11/41‘
Date /z/is/91
/WC . 0.2001116D i1 ga. 0141%•410,1
Per NA DES 4/ "/Irakorl.
expecifcf wasie,C/oW
QCL PIF Version 9/91

Guideline
Guideline
WQ limit
WQ limit
Guideline
WQ limit
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
NH3N mg/l
Fluoride
Copper
Zinc
WET test
TELEDYNE
Instream Assessment Recommendations
USING 7Q10=0.15 CFS AND QW=0.200 MGD
Monthly avg Weekly Avg Daily Max
Ibs/day Ibs/day ug/I Ibs/day ug/I
0.012
0.03
0.043 7.4
0.072 37
21 .08
monitor
monitor
TBA
*
*
*
0.03
0.045
0.105
0.151
48
*
29.6
50
*
2.7 mg/I
Support for using 0.2 mgd (max daily flow) and not 0.119 (max mon avg):
1993 data submitted in 8/94 report showed wastewater discharge averaging 0.12-0.15 MDG over
the time frame of 1-2 weeks for some months
1993 data also showed highest wastewater flows in one month (Nov) did not correlate with rainfall
1991 DMR data show reported flow >0.160 MGD for over 2 weeks
Was production high then? Lately it has not been according to T. Horne at site visit.
Page 1

Teledyne Allvac Monroe Plant
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
ugll
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
1ELEDYNE
NC0045993 Richardson Creek
EFFLUENT GUIDELINE LIMITATIONS
Ibs/day ug/I @0.0011 MGD
Mon avg Dal Max Mon avg
0.012
0.03
0.043
0.072
21.08
11.8
0.03
0.045
0.105
0.151
48
29.41
1308
3270
4690
7848
2298000
1286000
Dal Max
3270
4900
11400
16400
5232000
3206000
ALLOWABLE WATER QUALITY LIMITS
Weekly Averages
IWC=100% IWC=1.12% IWC=38% IWC=55%
ug/I Dilution=89 Dilution = 2.6 Dilution = 1.81
WQ Standards @0.0011 MGD @ 0.06 MGD @ 0.119
50 4450 130 91
88 7832 230 160
5 445 13 9
25 2225 65 45
1000 89000 2600 1815
1800 160000 4700 3267
ALLOWABLE WATER QUALITY LIMITS
ug/I @0.06 MGD
Mon avg Dal Max
24 60
60 90
86
144
42000
23600
210
302
96000
59000
IWC=67.6%
Dilution=1.48
@ 0.200 MGD
74
131
7.4
37
2000
2673
ug/I @ 0.119 MGD
Mon Avg Day Max
12 30
30 45
43 106
73 152
21240 48360
11890 29630
Daily Maximum @ 0.200 MGD Daily Max
1/2 FAV 1/2FAV'DIL Detect Level Weekly Avg 5'wk avg-?
984.3 1456.8 50 74 296
789 1167.7 40 131 524 IWC=67.6%
22 32.6 5 7.4 29.6 DILUTION=1.48:1
33.8 50 100 37 85
No value N/A 50 1485 5940
No value N/A No value 2673 N/A
?=Dectection level or weekly average which ever is higher
ug/I @ 0.200 MG[)
Mon avg Dal Nax
7.2 i 8
18 ,t7
25.8 i 3
43 9C.5
12638 28777
7074 17632
Page 1

Teledyne Allvac Monroe
NC0045993 Richardson Cre(
0.200 mgd
0.15 7010
Parameter
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia (s)
Standard Allowable
µg/I µg/I
50.0 74.24
88.0 130.66
5 7.42
25.0 37.12
1000 1484.81
Ammonia (w)
1800 2672.66
Fluoride
Copper
Zinc
1 800 2672.66
7.0 10.39
50.0 74.24

Teledyne Allvac
Richardson Creek
NC0045993
Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.48 :1
Wasteflow = 0.200 MGD
7010=0.15 cfs
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
0.15 7010 (CFS)
0.2 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.31 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
67.39 % IWC (%)
25 Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
0.15
0.2
0.31
1.0
0.22
67.4 %
1.38
0.2
0.2
0.31
1.8
0.22
60.8 %
2.82

TELEDYNE ALLVAC
Basis for NPDES Limits - December 22, 1994
Final streamflow, and wasteflow figures used for analyses:
7Q10 Stream flow = 0.15 cfs
Wastewater flow = 0.2 MGD
Water Quality limits are given in weekly average / daily maximum
concentrations and monthly average / daily maximum loads. Load limits are
given according to federal guidelines.
STREAM FLOW
1988 USGS flow estimates at the Teledyne discharge on Richardson Creek as:
DA = 53 mi2
S7Q10 = 0.15 cfs
W7Q10 = 0.2 cfs
30Q2 = 0.5 cfs
QA=45cfs
These stream flows were disputed since the permittee claimed that the Creek was receiving
continuous leakage from the dam upstream at Lake Lee. At the request of Teledyne Allvac,
USGS calculated a new 7Q10 in 1989 based on yield flows from a Low Flow Partial
Record (LFPR) gage below the City of Monroe. DEM agreed to use the new 7Q10 (0.32
cfs) for the permit renewal and include a permit requirement to conduct a flow study in
Richardson Creek near the Teledyne Allvac discharge. The flow study requirement was
made to ensure flows in the creek were higher than the 1988 7Q10 estimate. For the
permit renewal in 1990, a 7Q10 of 0.32 cfs used to develop limits for toxics and metals.
Several attempts to determine the flow in the stream were made to no avail. The gages in
nearby streams did not correlate with stream flow from Richardson Creek since there was
the unnatural leakage from the dam. In addition, 7Q10 conditions did not occur until 1993.
The permit came up for renewal in 1994. A site visit was conducted at the Teledyne Allvac
Plant in October, 1994. The stream looked small and pooled in areas below the discharge.
The Dam at Lake Lee was also visited and no leakage was observed at that time. Union
County has characteristically low flow streams (mostly zero 7Q10 or approaching zero
7Q10). Therefore the flow coming to the Lake was presumably low at the time.
Robert Mason from USGS was contacted after the site visit to discuss the stream flow to
use at Teledyne's discharge point. Robert noted that the period of record at the LFPR was
1952-1961. Further investigation determined the discharge rates and discharge location for
the City of Monroe at that time. The City had two wastewater treatment plants both located
above the LFPR and both discharging approximately 0.5 MGD. Therefore, the flow
coming into the creek from wastewater was approximately 1.0 MGD. The estimated 7Q10
flow at the LFPR was calculated to be 1.0 cfs by Robert and other recorded calculations
were 0.5 cfs. If the wastewater flow is subtracted from the highest 7Q10 (1.0 at the
LFPR), then the natural stream flow would be estimated at zero above the wastewater
treatment plant.

,41
The Teledyne Allvac discharge is located approximately 2 miles upstream of the City of
Monroe discharge. Through further discussion with Robert Mason, it was decided that the
flow at Teledyne's discharge will remain the original 1988 flow since this estimate is closer
to the creek flow than the 1989 estimate. DEM's current policy for determining stream
flows is to not calculate and change existing (previously calculated) stream flows unless the
discharge is new, expanding or changing production. Therefore, the original USGS
estimate of 0.15 cfs 7Q10 will be used. The 0.32 cfs 7Q10 flow was used only on the
contingency that the stream flow study proved the flow to be higher than 0.15 cfs.
DESIGN FLOW (MAXIMUM DISCHARGE FLOW):
- - 1993 data submitted in 5/94 report by Cooper Environmental showed wastewater
discharge averaging 0.12-0.15 MGD in the time frame of 1-2 weeks for some of the
months reported. The data also show that the highest wastewater flows in one month
(Nov.) did not correlate with rainfall.
--1991 DMR data show reported flow >0.16 MGD for over 2 weeks
- -The 1994 NPDES permit application states that the highest expected wasteflow will be
0.2 MGD
N.C. toxics and metals standards are set to protect against chronic affects (over 7 days).
DEM protects against toxicity under worst case conditions (highest wasteflow and 7Q10).
Although it has been discussed that the discharge flow is directly related to increase in
stream flow, the report data has not always shown this to be the case. If a smaller design
flow is used to determine water quality based concentration limits, violations of the stream
standard may occur when the wasteflows increase.
MASS AND CONCENTRATION LIMITS
Limits that are given in concentration are water quality based and will also have limits in
mass based on the guidelines. Mass limits are needed since the facility will not have a
design flow limit and total loads to the creek could get high is given the extreme
fluctuation in discharge flow. All mass load limits are the guidelines.

•
Teledyne Allvac Monroe Plant NC0045993
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
ug/I
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
EFFLUENT GUIDELINE LIMITATIONS
lbs/day ug/I @0.0011 MGD
Mon avg Dal Max Mon avg Dal Max
0.012 0,03 1308 3270
0.03
0.043
0.072
21.08
11.8
0.045
0.105
0.151
48
29.41
3270
4690
7848
2298000
1286000
4900
11400
16400
5232000
3206000
ALLOWABLE WATER QUALITY LIMITS
Weekly Averages
IWC=100% IWC=1.12% IWC=38%
ug/I Dilution=89 Dilution = 2.6
WQ Standards @0.001 1 MGD @ 0.06 MGD
50 4450 130
88 7832 230
5 445 13
25 2225 65
1000 89000 2600
1800 160000 4700
1/2 FAV
984.3
789
22
33.8
No value
No value
TELEDYNE
Richardson Creek
IWC=55%
Dilution = 1.81
@ 0.119
91
160
9
45
1815
3267
ALLOWABLE WATER QUALITY LIMITS
Daily Maximum @ 0.200 MGD
1/2FAV'DIL Detect Level Weekly Avg
1456,8 50 74
1167.7 40 131
32.6 5 7.4
50 100 37
N/A 50 1485
N/A No value 2673
ug/I @0.06 MGD
Mon avg Dal Max
24 60
60 90
86 210
144 302
42000 96000
23600 59000
IWC=67.6%
Dilution=1.48
@ 0.200 MGD
74
131
7.4
37
2000
2673
L{ Li . 7. 2 O W6,0
ug/I @ 0.119 MGD ug/I @ 0.200 MGD
Mon Avg Day Max Mon avg Dal Max
12 30 7.2 18
30 45 18 27
43 106 25.8 63
73 152 43 90.5
21240 48360 12638 28777
11890 29630 7074 17632
Daily Max
5*wk avg.?
296
524 IWC=67.6%
29.6 DILUTION=1.48:1
85
5940
N/A
?=Dectection level or weekly average which ever is higher
Page 1

TELEDYNE
Instream Assessment Recommendations
USING 7Q10=0.15 CFS AND QW=0.200 MGD
Monthly avg Weekly Avg Daily Max
Ibs/day Ibs/day ug/I Ibs/day ug/I
Guideline Chromium 0.012 * 0.03 *
Guideline Nickel 0.03 0.045 *
WQ limit Cyanide 0.043 7.4 0.105 29.6
WQ limit Lead 0.072 37 0.151 50
Guideline NH3N mg/I 21.08 48
WQ limit Fluoride * * 2.7 mg/I
Copper monitor
Zinc monitor
WET test TBA- 0✓00'G P F Q 676I`:
Support for using 0.2 mgd (max daily flow) and not 0.119 (max mon avg):
1993 data submitted in 8/94 report showed wastewater discharge averaging 0.12-0.15 MDG over
the time frame of 1-2 weeks for some months
1993 data also showed highest wastewater flows in one month (Nov) did not correlate with rainfall
1991 DMR data show reported flow >0.160 MGD for over 2 weeks
Was production high then? Lately it has not been according to T. Horne at site visit.
nod wU k 4,1,1 Ible 4( 1 S , ve }NL-T k-eSJ � ( +Lt 5 La
wQI, �-of2(J/9(w)
i; 1 �� �j +� ►- WET �Ps4 -�'�0 h we. M► �' wp N +a Q „e f -t,�y� �—C rfAy-,
�Le ( r e nt iA1 a-t .
Page 1

Teledyne Allvac Monroe
NC0045993 Richardson Cre(
0.200 mgd
0.15 7Q10
Parameter
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia (s)
Ammonia (w)
Fluoride
Copper
Zinc
Standard Allowable
F µgJI
50.0 74.24
88.0 130.66
5 7.42
25.0 37.12
1 000 1484.81
1 800 2672.66
1 800 2672.66
7.0 10.39
50.0 74.24

Teledyne Allvac
Richardson Creek
NC0045993
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.48 1
Wasteflow = 0.200 MGD
7010=0.15 cfs
0.15
0.2
0.31
17.0
0
67.39
25
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
0.15
0.2
0.31
1.0
0.22
67.4
1.38
0.2
0.2
0.31
1.8
0.22
60.8
2.82

Teledyne Allvac Monroe Plant NC0045993
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
ug/I
Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide
Lead
Ammonia
Fluoride
Mon avg
0.012
0.03
0.043
0.072
21.08
11.8
EFFLUENT GUIDELINE LIMITATIONS
Ibslday ug/I @0.0011MGD
Dal Max Mon avg Dal Max
0.03 1308 3270
0.045 3270 4900
0,105 4690
0.151 7848
48 2298000
29.41 1286000
11400
16400
5232000
3206000
ALLOWABLE WATER QUALITY LIMITS
Weekly Averages
IWC=100% IWC=1.12%
ug/I Dilution=89
WO Standards @0.0011 MGD
50 4450
88 7832
5
25
1000
1800
1/2 FAV
984.3
789
22
33.8
No value
No value
445
2225
89000
160000
IWC=38%
Dilution = 2.6
@ 0.06 MGD
130
230
13
65
2600
4700
TELEDYNE
Richardson Creek
IWC=55%
Dilution = 1.81
@ 0.119
91
160
9
45
1815
3267
ALLOWABLE WATER QUALITY LIMITS
Daily Maximum @ 0.119 MGD
1/2FAV'DIL Detect Level
1781.6 50
1428.1 40
39.8 5
61.2 100
N/A 50
NIA No value
Weekly Avg
91
160
9
45
1815
3267
ug/I @0.06 MGD
Mon avg Dal Max
24 60
60
86
144
42000
23600
90
210
302
96000
59000
IWC=67.6%
Dilution=1.48
@ 0.200 MGD
74
131
7.4
37
2000
2673
0.0 4)61)
ug/I @ 0.119 MGD ug/l @ 0.200 MGD
Mon Avg Day Max Mon avg Dal Max
1 2 3 0 7.2 18
30 45 18 27
43 106 25.8 63
73 152 43 90.5
21240 48360 12638 28777
11890 29630 7074 17632
Daily Max
5*wk avg-?
364
640
36
125
7260
N/A
?=Dectection level or weekly average which ever is higher
Page 1

TELEDYNE
Instream Assessment Recommendations
Monthly avg Weekly Avg Daily Max
Ibslday Ibs/day ug/I Ibslday ug/I
Guideline Chromium 0.012 0.03 *
Guideline Nickel 0.03 0.045
WQ limit Cyanide 0.043 9 0.105 36
WQ limit Lead 0.072 45 0.151 61
v.d,t1i,, WO limit NH3N mg/I 21.08 • 48 •
WQ limit Fluoride 3,267
Page 2

Teledyne Allvac Monroe
NC0045993 Richardson CreE
0.119 mgd
0.15 7Q10
Parameter Standard Allowable
ilgil JI
Arsenic 50.0 90.74
Cadmium 2.0 3.63
Chromium 50.0 90.74
Copper 7.0 12.70
Beryllium 6.5 11.80
Lead 25.0 45.37
Mercury 0.012 0.02
Nickel 88.0 159.70
Selenium 5.0 9.07
Silver 0.1 0.11
Zinc 50.0 90.74

Teledyne Allvac
Richardson Creek
NC0045993
Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 1.81 .1
Needs a NH3N limit for summer
0.15
0.119
0.18445
17.0
0
55.15 %
31
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
200/10om1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
0.15
0.119
0.18445
1.0
0.22
55.2 %
1.63
0.2
0.119
0.18445
1.8
0.22
48.0 %
3.51
11/21/94

4 11:21 a 704 _ 642 CITY OF MONROE P.01
.(),
ti)ci*"
�0 1968
. ‘3- 1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
CITY OF MONROE
P.O. BOX 69 • MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA 28111.0069
FAX [phone]
Average. Monthly Flow in MGD
for Monroe Wastewater Treatment Plant
the only record we have is for December - 1.767
the only records we have are for .lanuary - 2.208, February - 3.272, & March - 3.074
annual monthly average 2.761 (no information for March and April)
annual monthly average 3.421 (no information for April and May)
annual monthly average 3.159
annual monthly average 3.534
annual monthly average 3.193
annual monthly average 3.487
annual monthly average 3.834
annual monthly average 3.59
annual monthly average 3.785
1979 annual monthly average 3.919
1980 annual monthly, average 5.028
tahlwinworda • gag d
,)
o
412)5
a Phu 11L-13 \o-
I - jet -o16.a Creep - 6,5
a-)1-1,elyt
pui- (4/u kat '6 o _,
(L,e,e e taGe,k ` ue
? ' *
Post -It" brand fax transmittal memo
7671 #of pe9e $. +
Min , c he_ l ie_. (1)� l
�
Fro rn FrFrdP r: 1(
co.
co.
CO3rn.
Dept.
Phone o'oil . - LI6 m
a ;
Faglq.1.) . eJI l ai
icl
Fax
�x-
$L3 33,53
�tv��. 46.y iq9� -Ci� � S�-efsa/

Mckilt)
0,141_ auppoe 10 IA12 CIA ea l J 4911(. iJ/4/49n-
(h61211k1ly 61:91nQ4inP --Mc%) ConC¢vn-ia�l�e. vccu)
C�a1cul�c' d i/.�J c�� 7 � � ew ,(tioc� it, laced-fi 4-r. �
`ice X % s ,ce6c5i,04 'Ig to aaoor u lie
eon�u. hue �haxe - �u� l!° u �6c �c r'��ow
t�C a. 11,9 abB2/te tke `fie a Ad
air&I i21 i/w' ' (jk-4/�clo ¢ uiJ r� a 11A ('C�i4-
,1� �sv�d �w �--{'Y�iSta..� -F� 6 (U66-). Oikujo_e Gt-q
Cax(o))-errh7e4Fet-y6P•
'171_ e-YYw 04 -4-AL �c� `T? �
vnu.c .I� "bat��'/l oa� hc�uQ
4011644 e212-eltjs eon 0p 1A),-"..

Page 1
Note for Michelle Wilson
From: Carla Sanderson
Date: Fri, Sep 16, 1994 9:43 AM
Subject: Teledyne Allvac
To: Michelle Wilson
I ended up talking to Sean again about this one. When I converted the required #/d into
concentration the limit would have been less than the standard- and I know we should not be
giving limits less than the standard.
Anyway, Sean said he would contact Thurman and talk to him about the information he sent
and the corresponding guidelines and limits that will apply to them.
This one will be on the backlog in December so we need to stay on top of it. Whenever you
get any more input from Sean please come and let me know.
Thanks!

„e",747, iztLA,„{- A.4„,„
TELEDYNE ALLVAC - MONROE PLANT
Table I -A: Nickel alloy effluent limitations based on single pass through process and once
through contact cooling water
Parameter
Remelt
(120,000#)
GFM
(16,000#)
Rolling
(30,000#)
Total
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Chromium
.00324
.00804
.00011
.00029
.00033
.00084
0.004
0.009
Nickel
.00804
.012
.00029
.00042
.00084
.00126
0.009
0.014
Fluoride
.5736
1.296
.02
.045
.0597
0.135
0.653
1.486
Note: All units in lbs.

TELEDYNE ALLVAC - MONROE PLANT
Table I-B: Titanium alloy effluent limitations based on single pass through process and once through
contact cooling water
Parameter
Remelt
(18,000#)
Press
(50,000#)
GFM
(45,000#)
Rolling
(26,000#)
Total
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Cyanide
.00103
0.00248
.0006
.00145
.00054
.00131
.00153
.00369
.004
0.009
Lead
.00171
0.0036
.001
.0021
.0009
.00189
.00235
.00533
.006
0.013
Zinc
.00524
0.0125
.003
.0073
.00275
.00657
.00775
.01854
.019
0.045
Ammonia
0.502
1.143
.293
.663
.2637
.5985
.7436
1.693
1.802
4.099
Fluoride
0.226
0.509
.132
.2975
.268
.1188
.335
0.757
0.961
1.682
Note: All units in lbs.

TELEDYNE ALLVAC - MONROE PLANT
Table II - A: Nickel alloy effluent limitations based on *actual passes through process
and once through contact cooling water
Parameter
Remelt
(120,000#)
GFM
(16,000#)
Rolling
(30,000#)
Total
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Chromium
.00486
.01206
.00011
.00029
.0059
.0151
.019
.027
Nickel
.01206
.018
.00029
.00042
.0151
.0227
.027
.041
Fluoride
.8604
1.944
.02
.045
1.0746
2.43
1.955
4.419
*Avg. no. of passes thru Remelt = 1.5
Avg. no. of passes thru Rolling = 18
Note: All units in lbs.

TELEDYNE ALLVAC - MONROE PLANT
Table II-B: Titanium alloy effluent limitations based on **actual passes through process and once
through contact cooling water
Parameter
Remelt
(18,000#)
Press
(50,000#)
GFM
(45,000#)
Rolling
(26,000#)
Total
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Cyanide
.00258
.0062
.0006
.00145
.00054
.00131
.02754
.06642
.031
0.075
Lead
.00428
.009
.001
.0021
.0009
.00189
.0423
.09594
.048
0.1089
Zinc
.0131
.0313
.003
.0073
.00275
.00657
.1395
.33372
.158
0.379
Ammonia
1.255
2.858
.293
.663
.2637
.5985
13.3848
30.474
15.197
34.5935
Fluoride
.565
1.273
.132
.2975
.268
.1188
6.03
13.626
6.995
15.315
** Avg. no. of passes thru Remelt = 2.5
Avg. no. of passes thru Rolling = 18
Note: All units in lbs.

TELEDYNE ALLVAC - MONROE PLANT
Table III -A: Nickel alloy effluent limitations based on actual passes through process and
number of contact cooling water *recycles before discharge
Parameter
Remelt
(120,000#)
GFM
(16,000#)
Rolling
(30,000#)
Total
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Chromium
.0486
.1206
.0011
.0029
.059
.151
.19
.27
Nickel
.1206
.180
.0029
.0042
.151
.227
.27
.41
Fluoride
8.604
19.44
.20
.450
10.746
24.3
19.55
44.19
Note: All units in lbs.

TELEDYNE ALLVAC - MONROE PLANT
Table III-B: Titanium alloy effluent limitations based on actual passes through process and number of •
contact cooling water *recycles before discharge
Parameter
Remelt
(18,000#)
Press
(50,000#)
GFM
(45,000#)
Rolling
(26,000#)
Total
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Mon.
Avg.
Daily
Max.
Cyanide
.0258
.062
.0060
.0145
.0054
.0131
.2754
.6642
.31
.75
Lead
.0428
.09
.010
.021
.0090
.0189
.423
.9594
.48
1.089
Zinc
.131
.313
.03
.073
.0275
.0657
1.395
3.337
1.58
3.79
Ammonia
12.55
28.58
2.93
6.63
2.637
5.985
133.848
304.74
151.97
345.935
Fluoride
5.65
12.73
1.32
2.975
2.68
1.188
60.3
136.26
69.95
153.315
* Avg. no. of recycles of contact cooling water before discharge is equal to daily flow of contact
cooling water into ponds divided by the average daily discharge from the pond (into Richardson Creek)
Avg. no. of recycles = daily contact cooling water usage
avg. daily discharge
= .450 MGD
.043 MGD
= 10.5 use 10
Note: All units in lbs.

Allowable effluent concentrations based on effluent
guidelines (using avg. daily flow = .043 MGD)
Mass (#/day)
Concentration (mg/L)
Parameter
Mon. Avg.
Daily Max.
Mon. Avg.
Chromium
6 oil .19
.27
.531
(1 053
Nickel
0 0 , , .27
.41
.754
0,075
Fluoride
C/5 89.50
,�197.51
250
25U
Cyanide
0,031 ' 31
.75
.866
0 . Gga
Lead
0.04$ .48
, , - 1.089
1.341
), ,3 4
Zinc
�� 1.58
3.79
4.413
J
Ammonia
�151.97
�� �345.94
424 . 50
J
Example: Chromium
Avg. flow=.043MGD x 8.33 lbs./gal.=.358 mill. lb./day
Allowable conc.=.19#/day Cr = .358 mill. lb./day H2O
=.531 ppm
Note: All units in lbs.

A,f;em Ate7-Ae. /-te-=„ 4-4.zpte
TELEDYNE ALLVAC (VASCO - MONROE PLANT
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
Jan. 12, 1994
:....:.�1.j,
. �'A>Mi7L
' >ka .. :. .-; .a_�.:,
+'iR.: ''=:�:.
.-..:::.:..........
a ...
'_.._�q�.r da.SiTG[�'
_. - .._ .. �"?t6.�$...., .r�. - ....._....
pip �.�y�y C
.'.. "*RR.iSCA.-Ri-'
s
u
fi'
.'i?.. _
r;[oaF_i -:E ".'"-F�
sJb'.'i�6Tat
kx;? ... =:-�
.,Wr,:
::...., r..
.-... yyyyyyyy._.. -Zt! `"
...y�(^ .....___._.....
:^"�_. .. ..-
y�// yy Y' ZYwx• �yy _... ....:t.. i {=R,
..,.a.: :.ITT�A: x...,£ yy TU_..[7,--:"^c ._fc s �T4�.'.
...R '=:�9
���y - } �1 {♦,y
�y Tlififl'.. ?:irc' - S/y�.r1 y YiY'.:
.�{tma�yy
ice. •``'_
µ..me
�y
- _��+m'"
. -?w•
........
��1•
._-. ._..3a--.' .. ...
_.--.�s."_..., .. s.-_
..::::.::..:.��i#.}:.:-..:..:.::. ��' `" ..: hf-'��Y�S•• r.�._{�
`:` '- -.yr_
;. ,:-��`Ja `.+--%'r�-.. .:f�'Si�.�`fi`:. -!s't��.. _:'' 1�i��:S:
.{�'�/�{,9
.... ...;�
-:_ .. .._.
_ .i _A?a•,,. ^.
17�:.'�i�r .. s��a* ii. .. ..
Jan '93
<-160 0.073
0.011 0.620
0.740 < 1 .0 < 1 -0 0.080
0.080 <50 <50 0.080
0.030
6.600
7.300
14.000 17.000
Feb'93
<_160 0.033
0.011 0.490
0.600 <1.1 1.200 <.02
0.020 <50 <50 0,050
0.050
7.000
7.300
13.000 14.000 P
Mar'93
<_160 0.087
0.013 0.430
0.440 5.000 6.100 <.02
<_02 <50 <50 0.060
0.060
6.300
7.100
15.000 18.000
Apr '93
<_160 0.038
0.000 0.500
0.560 1 .400 1.800 0.050
0.050 <50 <50 0.050
0.050
6.100
6.900
19.800 24.000 P
? ay'93
0.064 0.004
0.000 0.580
0.620 <1.1 1.200 <.02
<.02 <50 <50 <-02
<.02
6.100
6.800
20.000 27.000
Jun '93
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.560
0.700 <1.0 <1.0 <.02
<.02 <50 <SO <.02
<.02
6.800
7.200
10.000 19.000
Jul '93
0.159 0.023
0.000 0.640
0.720 3-800 4.000 <.02
<_02 <50 <50 <.02
<_02
6.500
7.200
20.200 21.000 P
Aug '93
0.015 0.001
0.000 0.970
1.150 1.950 2.000 <.02
<.02 <50 <50 0.020
0.020
7.100
7.100
21.200 22.000
Sept '93
0.023 0.000
0.000 1.170
1.500 3.100 4.200 0.030
0.030 <50 <50 <.02
<.02
6.800
7.300
24.000 27.000
Oct '93
0.130 0.021
0.007 0.800
0.840 1.500 1 .800 <.02
<.02 <50 <50 <.02
<.02
7.000
7.200
21.000 25.000
Nov'93
<.160- 0.118
0.041 1.100
1.400 4.150 5.200 0.020
0.020 <50 <50 0.060
0.060
7.000
7.000
16.250 17.000
Dee '93
0.153 0.104
0-053 1.230
1 .800 < 1.1 1 .200 0.050
0.050 <50 <50 0.150
0.150
7.000
7.300
14.400 15.000 P
DWI] rrxi:;
Page 1
4
4

oEm aLGxc
TELEDYNE ALLVAC /VASCO - MONROE PLANT
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
Jan. 12, 1994
MONTH
FLOW
MAX
MGO
KLOW
AVG
MGO
I- LOIN
MIN
MOD ,
Ftt)ORID(
A\.,G
c:; (MglL)
FLUORIDE
MAX
(MO.) .,;
OIL&GREASE
AVG
(Mg L)
OL&GREASE
MAX
(Mg/L) ?'
COPPER
AVG
(MgiL)
COPPER
MAX
{(Mg!L)
NICKEL
AVG
+Ug!LI
NICKEL
MAX
(Ug1L)
ZINC
AVG
(Mg/U
ZINC
MAX
IMg.LI
pH
rt.u.IMin)
pH
s,tt.{Mfix)
TEMP
AVG
DEG. C
TEMP CHRONIC
MAX TOXICITY
DEG. C (PIF)
Jan '93
<.1 60
0.073
0.011
0.620
0.740
<1.0
<1.0
0.080
0.080
<50
<50
0.080
0.080
6.600
7.300
14.000
17.000
Feb '93
<.1 60
0.033
0.011
0.490
0.600
<1.1
1.200
<.02
0.020
<50
<50
0.050
0.050
7.000
7.300
13.000
14.000
P
Mar '93
<.1 60
0.087
0.013
0.430
0.440
5.000
6.100
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
0.060
0,060
6.900
7.100
15.000
18.000
Apr '93
<.1 60
0.038
0.000
0.500
0.560
1.400
1.800
0.050
0.050
<50
<50
0.050
0.050
6.100
6.900
19.800
24.000
P
May 93
0.064
0.004
0.000
0.580
0.620
<1.1
1.200
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
<.02
<.02
6.100
6.800
20.000
27.000
Jun '93
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.660
0.700
<1.0
<1.0
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
<.02
<.02
6.800
7.200
19.000
19.000
Jul '93
0.159
0.023
0.000
0.640
0.720
3.800
4.000
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
<.02
<.02
6.500
7.200
20.200
21.000
P
Aug '93
0.015
0.001
0.000
0.970
1.150
1.950
2.000
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
0.020
0.020
7.100
7.100
21.200
22.000
Sept '93
0.023
0.006
0.000
1.170
1.500
3.100
4.200
0.030
0.030
<50
<50
<.02
<.02
6.800
7.300
24.000
27,000
P
Oct '93
0.130
0.021
0.007
0.800
0.840
1.500
1.800
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
<.02
<.02
7.000
7.200
21.000
25.000
Nov '93
<.160
0.1 18
0.041
1.100
1.400
4.150
5.200
0.020
0.020
<50
<50
0.060
0.060
7.000
7.000
16.250
17.000
Dec '93
0.153
0.104
0.053
1.230
1.800
<1.1
1.200
0.050
0.050
<50
<50
0.150
0.150
7.000
7.300
14.400
16.000
P
Jan '92
<.1 60
0.041
0.006
1.000
1.020
<7.5
<10.0
0.350
0.350
<35
<50
0.140
0.140
6.900
7.100
17.900
18.900
Feb '92
<.160
0.064
0.005
1.090
1.130
<5
<5
0.280
0.280
<50
<50
0.120
0.120
7.000
7.400
17.900
20.000
P
Mar '92
<.1 60
0.074
0.007
1.000
1.050
5.000
5.000
0.020
0.020
<50
<50
0.080
0.080
7.000
7.400
19.700
20.600
Apr '92
<.160
0.022
0.000
0.950
1.000
1.350
1.700
0.120
0.120
<50
<50
0.020
0.020
7.000
7.200
21.220
23.300
May '92
<.160
0.033
0.000
0.970
1.000
<1.0
<1.0
0.150
0.150
<50
<50
0.100
0.100
7.000
8.600
21.270
22.800
P
Jun '92
<.1 60
0.047
0.000
0.920
1.050
1.150
1.300
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
0.120
0,120
Jul '92
0.050
0.003
0.000
0.250
0.300
1.850
2.700
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
<.02
<.02
7.000
7.400
22.000
22.200
Au A '92
<.160
0.027
0.000
1.180
1.600
1.400
1.500
0.020
0.020
<50
<50
0.050
0.050
7.100
7.200100
25.600
F
Sept'92
<.160
0.011
0.000
1.110
1.400
<1.7
2.400
<.02
<.02
<50
<50
<.02
<.02
6.400
-7.000
21.400
22.800
P
Oct '92
<.1 60
<.043
0.000
0.930
1.100
<1.7
2.400
0.050
0.050
<50
<50
0.060
0.060
6.100
6.500-
19.Enr)
21.000
Nov '92
<.1 60
0.083
0.000
0.640
0.720
2.250
3.500
0.040
0.040
<50
<50
0.040
0.040
6.400
7.500
18.250
21.000
P
Dec '92
<.1 60
0.026
0.000
0.420
0.470
1.450
1.500
0.030
0.030
<50
<50
0.050
0.050
6.500
7.600
14.200
16.000
Jan '91
>.1 60
0.136
0.060
0.950
1.000
1.275
2.000
0.090
0.090
85
90
0.060
0.060
7.700
8.000
18.800
21.000
Feb '91
>.160
>.121
0.080
1.050
1.100
<.1
<.1
<.05
<.05
55
<60
7.800
8.100
19.500
20.000
F
Mar '91
>.160
0.148
0.124
1.410
1.600
0.600
<.50
<.05
<.05
55
60
<.05
<.05
7.400
8.100
20.000
21.000
P
Apr '91
>.1 60
0.132
0.076
1.005
1.150
0.260
<.50
<.05
<.05
35
60
<.05
<.05
7.100
7.300
21
23.000
May '91
>.160
0.134
0.125
10.620
, 18.300
<.50
<.50
<.05
<.05
<50
<50
0.120
0.120
7.400
7.800
.200
24.500
25.000
P
Jun '91
>.160
0.088
0.028
5.790
26.300
2.700
5.200
0.080
0.080
75
100
0.050
0.050
7.500
7.800
27.700
28.000
Jul '91
>.160
0.061
0.007
2.530
2.750
5.860 '
13.900
<.02
<.02
75
100
0.120
0.120
7.400
7.800
-'23.200
32.000
Aug '91
>.160
0.119
0.052
2.050
2.200
<.02
<.02
0.080
0.080
<50
<50
0.060
0.060
7.800
8.100
26.500
26.700
P
Sept '91
<.160
0.073
0.051
2.270
2.350
2.650
3.200
0.100
0.100
<50
<50
0.060
0.060
7.400
7.800
25.200
26.000
Oct '91
<.160
0.064
0.012
1.970
2.850
7.000
9.600
0.050
0.050
<50
<50
0.034
0.034
7.100
7.400
21.700
23.000
Nov '91
<.1 60
0.067
0.006
0.920
0.960
3.650
4.400
0.100
0.100
<50
<50
0.180
0.180
7.300
7.900
19.700
21.000
P
Dec '91
<.1 60
0.040
0.006
1.050
1.050
8.560
18.800
0.050
0.050
<50
<50
0.100
0.100
7.100
7.400
18.170
19.400
DMRJTH.XIS
Page 1

TELEDYNE ALLVAC iVASCO - MONROE PLANT
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
Jan. 12, 1994
MONTH
FLOW
MAX
4(:.ID
FLOW
AVG
MGD
Ft ow
MIN
MC'i1
Ft ticRiDE
AVG
{IV; I
FLU0R1DE
MAX
i3 .11440-l:
OIL&GREASE
AVG
;> {MTV
OIL&GREASE COPPER COPPER NICKEL NICKEL
MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX
(Mg1.1 (Mg1L) i(Mq(L) (UgtO 1Ug/L)
ZINC
AVG
(MTV
ZINC
MAX
iMgiL>
P H
s.u. Win)
P}i
s.u.(Max)
TEMP
AVG
AEG. C
TEMP CHRONIC
MAX TOXICITY
Jan '90
'90
0.160
0.070
0.000
7.100
7.200
14.000
Feb
0.160
0.046
0.000
7.000
7.300
15.500
16.000
17.000
Mar '90
'90
0.160
0.049
0.000
2.000
2.000 0.090 0.090 100 100
0.050
0.050
7.100
7.500
21.000
Apr
'90
0.196
0.075
0.000
7.800
9.200
21.800
22,000
May
'90
0.160
0.023
0.000
0.771
0.771
27.400
27.400 0.070 0.070 20 20
0.440
0.440
7.400
8.200
26.000
24.000
Jun
'90
0.032
0.002
0.000
0.751
1.150
<1
<1 <.02 <.02 35 50
0.040
0.040
7.100
7.200
25.000
28.000
Jul
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.340
1.540
-2.300
<3.8
6.600 <.02 <.02 <20 <20
0.030
0.030
7.100
7.600
28.500
25.000
Auq'90
'90
0.160
0.001
_ 0.000
1.900 - •
•
-
15.100
26.700 0.030 0.030 60 80
0.060
0.060
7.400
7.600
26.300
29.000
Sept
'90
0.000
0.000
0.000
27.000 P
Oct
'90
>.160
0.058
0.000
<1:1
1.800
<3.0
4.650 <.02 <.02 <35 <20
0.020
0.020
8.000
8.100
31.000
31.000
Nov
'90
>.160
0.065
>.001
0.360
0.700
<2.8
9.000 <.03 0.040 50 70
0.100
0.120
7.200
7.400
18.800
Dec
>.160
0.133
0.070
1.100
1.300
<1.05
2.000 0.090 0.090 70 80
0.050
0.050
7.100
8.300
15.250
19.400
17.000 P
DMRJTH.XLS

Page 1
Note for Michelle Wilson
From: Michelle Wilson
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 1994 10:31 AM
Subject: FYI *Teledyne- Monroe
To: Carla Sanderson
FYI --I just spoke with Gary Ribblet the engineer for Teledyne. He said the study has not yet
been sent to USGS also they haven't sent in the amount of off pounds produced to determine
effluent guideline limits. Thurman Home will be out till 8/30. Gary said he would try to get
in touch with him ; but, most likely they will not do any thing until Mr. Home gets back.
Mr. Horne was planning on writing cover letter. I asked for them to copy us on the cover
letter so we will know when they sent the study to USGS. I will call the 1st of next month to
find out what's the hold up.
0-/ /l IA/ ,Do r�
Mao Tp ✓/LQ /)/,1 (2 C!i , /r o A,(/v aJ,C�617
€ rte d �e�r-e
k- n4' /1/4 114-01-1-"eltJ.0-/
/ 444
/
4JH r 0 r T�
o, UM J "ro%%Cd 4 ,r7a/i 06'
61��
i ./LE�L'L'CO
cgoeid sJ
o US C9 S
caves -le v

Mee 11T-elecir RVac — I r [ 0 nrot Pia rl
ve pr6-to kt.hdes ,vrr'zi i
y /e?hh/e 1,�d-.
Ul s% Ilya/ant/4• 7 %% fro e1
Ckkih s loc.) AtAi move., /f fi
i? fLL / /Q fay a rxedili azaa/
u,�in t1 %QlU = D . 3a , fr
eberitt
7&0 ,
zd'z 4-kJ dzo-4(--e-e-e-
4,-A 7)4,, 7=-edece7ef ,6va ato4, 70/0 = ch.
0/1e.frii,t_ Aro",
l ri ✓� 7D1�/'LQ� �' 1.1 tear AI % //' 4
) /'0 I4! Con G/- 101
C00 , �1ti,f�'e 4114/
aft/

Page 1
Note for Michelle Wilson
From: Carla Sanderson
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 1994 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: Teledyne-Allvac NC0045993
To: Don Safrit; Sean Goris
Cc: Michelle Wilson; Ruth Swanek
I would would like to be involved in any correspondence or meeting with this facility. We
gave them a permit in the past with the agreement that they would evaluate instream flows.
They never did and we hit low flow in 1993. I was just looking at instream data on
Richardson Creek for the Town of Monroe and the instream DOs were down to 2 mg/1 and 3
mg/l in the '93 summer self monitoring data (above and below the WWTP). Also the
ammonia levels were high downstream (up to 9 mg/l) which reflected the levels of ammonia
in the effluent data for the Town.
Although Teledyne Allvac does not have any oxygen consuming constituents in their
wastewater, this information supports the assumption that Richardson Creek may have
reached 7Q10 low flows in 1993 and Teledyne should have performed the low flow study
during that period.
Until the summer of '93, we were receiving phone calls from T. Home stating the the flows
were not low enough to do the study. In September of '93 we received a letter from
Teledyne's consultant inquiring about the methods for determining the flow. ???
Anyway - when the meeting comes up please let me know. Michelle is working on the
WLA.
From: Sean Goris on Wed, Jul 6, 1994 10:40 AM
Subject: Teledyne-Allvac NC0045993
To: Don Safrit
Cc: Carla Sanderson; Dave Goodrich
Thurman Horne called and said he would like to set up a meeting to discuss further options
for revising the flow estimate of Richardson Creek. I know this permit has alot of history
behind it, particularly on this issue. I told him that he should talk to you and set up a good
meeting time, I will rearrange my schedule to attend. I belive Carla and Dave would be
interested in attending.

1/000459.73
-7- jealjne 141Iva,
in ill
DRHZ tW
Dock_ /NI. (na n -fril on] 1l? a-X 7/1
(o/` / 0. 08g ›-'0 .1100
7191 0.0_61 7-0, 1(00
Gill 0 filet K - moo, I(00
1191 00r13 40• 1t20
Iolyl 0 .064 40. r60 -1'/),►7k c. silo✓1d he__ ____
I1I 1I Ow 7 LO. )q0
12191 0, 0 9 0_ .eD ,. l 6 0
1192 b. Oq i z-o t o o
2L9? - Q 4 4__0_,-. /6 0
3112 o, 074 40. I
41 RZ _— Q._Qz z 40.10
492__. 0, 033 z0, uoo
(0/92 • 0_41_ S..D • 4).0
7/92 0, 003 _ O.O5a
8172 0,_p27_L4-16(1
9/5Z_ __0_,_411_ z-0.1k0_-- -
io192 C;1_-043- it). goo
111q 2 _o , o g3 '&, k
IZiq z _0. Qd6 _ _40_•t o
1173._ 0, 043 LO,[(00
43_3 4• 33_ zo.166
4Y3 0,03'7 40,40
_4193 0.03S.- z-0.l60
5i23 0•QQ - _Jo.064
------_44— 0' QDo_--- 15. 000
--_ _7 9'3 Ga3 0 . ! 5y
S I93 b • b01 0.0 t 5
93 G,00 ts, _0,023 - —

Dade
101130, ()Pt
11193 d. llg
l'1-1 c13 0 I CA
NI/Lel
0.102
0, 076
6.072
0,0,98
a.o/a
ill 4145
- - 40,1(Do
0,153
0 .1(00
oLL 9
O. Rao
0,074
010
Y_S iS O• /LY/L
U Vie_. Qvl = D. I t °I ► a v1 d '7 Q I U =_.O 3 a c fs
v r`ni_vA.a,_ _ new
C w = } I lowa%(k.. Lifititot Po 1 U L« wr erv\-ra-n a r
Cvv — C0.3a>(0 0.1E4
[15s.vrrtiru DaLL itvt s _ o- Aul At) - e U4!__`[U YQ
vr1cm1 Pow N , C-4 l V .k?s fl \ e [ ua+ D.t�
\10.1veS _ G J u I L .
NtC4 Cw = (005.04) (n' /O - 0/o.ii
A
-14.35aeL/ o , /Z4 c iS
l .0 N►c,.e( 1
o•o PIG()

riuoYi_ _ bkn i
Cw = (b, i$4 +_.0,3.2)_(
_ (o . so4) (its)/o.i2M
0.7o7z/o,A0
4 . i inl
Pmmx 0.31 c Cs
— (o.3,1)(2) /? •
Fiuov►L Q. Q�_ o.111m6t)
F1ua_I. b to 3) Cl Isbb1 013/ .
!., 13 /f1� 1� • F/vo• de L,'r,
N;ckti = (o.63)fg&Ltie.)/0.31_
55 ! 4 /0 31
is Acid! /„ i„ / G Q = o. 2.ov A2s6b

/(�D ��dctrj-io�
!esu. //3 &, S 1 rh7 Iva! v Ph 7�CYik: 2h 19114 oX •
/s c.2i- y <_ i J-
ct. co ►3-, G�, t &Ion -- o - s uv c e. - ,�o rin d � � e. i-e r
0 h 1'Zt J coo .I i t�q - Apr- - to n iz c 7L (col' l?r�. J �� leer bac k
4- coo( ,1�1� Ta j,Jer to io W do t hS . .L . / Lil1-y f2KO/Ad
-}�,� � l��v► -PV « pl/ tank pie A/Meal- cfli�
fI / � / �/�/ � , J
a /loln/e I-o diG_Adv l n k _1_1 . .pond du �1� . d y pert iS
1'Yavt
ex�s � � � a��, the _e�fls<��f
ve/s,
(,/ do -__I ccoo�
NCOO 4593
P(c1241' dSa( eVe e
Ad
/ e 7e a/ n e //lva c,
O3-o7-/a
vikaj
villein_ VtD t11scli l
v)cit v- due_ -- - _law poi() d
tOiein i- - cf.. ZIrivei) a ve n0 /
¢ _ _Q l * /1 \.Q; cLikiIJ11J _ _o 1l_ kg,
pond S%fa. e... a _p
ec__ c. ter. .
v� ±lnt "t11- D sc�a ► 1s.
I�1 _exrel) /el
va ria t k a r4 (aY/ Jo 11/1
Malft
/Vdv fur
6.2 /7;6/___Cd
1141 lillo._ Flow l ivv►;t
0, J ÷
ALcKel
F- I vo),) o�e
a(tor _o%
.J
_xx
/0
459
� I!

Tk? past I frn , h- weve- based an s 7a r( _0_,_3_
work f% = O , 0 4.7; je
�r oi[n 1 IAJC = 19 % - - -
Was c o Pvow, Gold, °Ace_ kej)o1 f-
_ j__D&I es __ _ IY1 Du( in 1 Y- ____an______
05193-0194 0.1(cU 0.000 0.01LS
05/9z - 0 9 f l3 0.OZ 70 0. 000 O.0371
05PI - o4192_ G, /31-0 0. 22G 0.0705
303d
0212.542Z RictiavdSon (t,ck @ SR1'751 , UniOn Couvlf)1 s 1v fl
c . N S (30 , Ps Ng) rctit i i2 and. _j Fa sY Ch),
Poor efct() �
� 0 1 `� CG.t _ �l !'t _- �� � _ q►�L O Ve _a E'� N'Q 1�
J ,
o f non - s u poi- 7) h due v _Al P . ttaweve v , re vtf t
S ' R. WY-S,
= 0.052 i wC = ao,o
Max')= . /60 --� c,v = 43.
0 1 C 43.770
rec1C o iionroe WS dam io SR V151 (i.5 m,I-e..6
9_0- 9! 3osIn (f prf
Ri dsov\ C reek., c s R i i i ciossic ctboyn: C "'
�t�roblevn paktuyalcvs ore: Sett, -cc.a1 , kph, alp.
IVonsurpay - c11n4- .4-- nor poir4- Source
*oUv+ion
16h) i- SJ-A hen c)04_1-s C SR 1454ct tiC
aho AA (9 hit Its dawn.s60.0 6 1 a5182 ^a no jad,Q,
Itrh
1T
Tct, lent : a lqi , 8192 , 17 3

D v. o I Ct \AJ ET ' &S'1" ,let nuj US/
� Riled
V
iGS i o� v S 1i A [�Ir-S- �{�Le 11^ �- 7C1 ue T 1$
XI c W_ _k_o d Meit -G r e.
; ' ne.ed —fie- baSecQ on -/-1'vt /iZ) i7 )
(On 0I/I-)0) tS . ///Q yy ties/ a' i/i E E.
V
m o J ran 19181 wkh &u _ boos t ors, o r�iyz
I
► is �u � l �t 41-ea i-��- _ 7 CP�1 at ►Y1 �LSC�4r
vJ
evtd: COab N got) _ _L,Q� ]�.O - (a � tiDmS �Zf,
D.p _ o 5.03, P-00 rhdero)h+
\NI-ht L k 1u
Leo tact (06 ti, k Q_ sG ke-V
. aileJr1 46161___n Ia.() .
5L4 r bi 1- AP0191-a
e l = �#- - o its)- s (�(Dote)
rirs&r- l• IG Y.Q `-Ti �AY11 _.�baQL�TYt UVYY�(�.1a— 41)
orx,ji e `s

AX a�459y3
e eikLG
�dson bee'
/001^dusiVij

Long Term Changes in Bioclassification
Long term changes in bioclassification have been noted at five BMAN locations in
the Yadkin River Basin. A negative trend was noted at Jones Creek, while positive trends
were noted at the Yadkin River, Rocky River, Long Creek, and the Little River. Trends at
several locations were complicated by between -year changes in flow, with short-term
changes due to effluent dilution, scour, or low flow during droughts.
Site Region 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Changes
Yadkin R Patterson Mtn - G-F - G - - G 0 (see text)
Elk River @ Elk R Mtn - - E - E - - 0
Yadkin R Wilkesboro Mtn - G-F F G-F G-F - G +?
Roaring R @ Roaring R Mtn G - G - E - 0 (flow related)
Yadkin R @ Elkin Pied - - G-F - G-F 0
Little Yadkin Dalton Pied - - G - G-F - 0
Ararat River @ Ararat Pied - G-F - F - F - F 0 (see text)
Muddy Creek Pied F - F - - - - 0
Yakdin R Yadkin College Pied G-F - G G - - G 0? (see text)
Hunting Creek Harmony Pied G - E - - G - 0
S Fk Yadkin Mocksville Pied - E - G - - E - 0
Third Creek Woodleaf Pied - - - G - - G-F 0 (see text)
Abbotts Creek @ I-85 Pied - F - F - - - - 0
Barnes Creek Pied - - G - G - G - 0
Uwharrie River Pied - G - G - G - G 0
Dutch Buffalo Creek Pied - - F - G-F - 0? (flow related)
Long Cr. Rocky R Spr. Pied F - - F - G-F - +
Rocky River Norwood Pied G-F G G G-F - G - G + (see text)
Big Bear Cr Richfield Pied - - - G - - G 0
Richardson Cr Fairfield Pied - - F - - F 0
Little River nr Star Pied G-F - E - - E - - +
Pee Dee R Rockingham Pied G-F G-F G-F - - G-F - G-F 0
Jones Creek nr Pee Dee Pied - - - G - G-F -?

at SF
pallii
the flow. Dominant taxa included intolerant species: Stenacron
phylax moestus and Psephenus herricki.
EPT S EPT N BI(BI EPT) Bioclass Flow
20 July 87 97 28 139 2.95(2.40) Good Low
24 July 90 88 31 134 2.82(2.32) Good Low
Fairly high NO2/NO3 concentrations have been recorded from this location. For
example, the only nutrient sample collected from this location in 1990 (February) recorded
a NO2/NO3 value of 1.40 mg/1. Average concentration for the period of record was 1.07
mg/1, with maximum values exceeding 1.30 mg/1 each year. A small school discharge
(0.05 MGD) is located just above our site on Big Bear Creek, but these nitrogen
concentrations also may be related to nonpoint source runoff.
PQ. Rocky River nr Norwood
Bioclassifications from the Rocky River at Norwood have been fairly consistent for the
period of record: High Good -Fair (borderline Good) or Good. EPT S values have ranged
from a low of 22 in 1986 to a high value of 28 in 1990. The minimum observed in 1986
was associated with extremely low flows during drought conditions. Several large point
sources are located above this site (primarily on tributaries of the Rocky River), including
the Mooresville WWTP (5.2 MGD to Dye Branch), the Concord WWTP (24 MGD to the
Rocky River) and the Monroe WWTP (7.0 MGD to Richardson Creek). These facilities
(along with many smaller dischargers) apparently have a combined instream waste
concentration large enough to impact the benthos during drought conditions. Conductivity
values during June and September in 1986 were near 600 umhos/cm, indicating the
potential impact of these dischargers during very low flows. Rex Gleason at the
Mooresville Regional Field Office noted that Carolina Solite (permited flow of 0.864
MGD), which is located approximately 6-8 river miles above the BMAN location, has
improved its treatment by adding additional settling basins.
Date Total S EPT S EPT N BI(BI EPT) Bioclass Flow
02Aug 83 73 23 134 - Good -Fair Low
24Sept 84 79 24 143 2.98(2.24) Good High
01Aug 85 76 25 154 2.67(2.23) Good Normal
24Ju1y 86 93 22 103 3.09(2.43) Good -Fair Very Low
14July 88 80 25 156 2.65(2.00) Good+ _ Low
24July 90 80 28 154 2.72(2.07) Good Low
If we compare only those years with low flow, there is evidence of improved water
quality. Good -Fair ratings were assigned in 1983 and 1986, while Good ratings were
asigned in 1988 and 1990. Very few changes were noted in the composition of the benthic
fauna between the 1988 and 1990 collections, but Plecoptera (Acroneuria) became
abundant for the first time in 1990.
PZ. Richardson Creek nr Fairfield r
Benthic macroinvertebrates have been collected from this location during surveys in
1987 and 1990. Data from both years have indicated Fair bioclassifications with very
similar Total S and EPT S, indicating that there has been no chtge in water quality
between years. This site is located below the Monroe WWTP, with a permitted flow of
seven MGD and an instream waste concentration of 97 percent under 7Q10 flow
conditions.
95

17 'LTV xtpuaddd
APPENDIX TABLE A17. YADKP4 PEE DEE RIVER BASH FRESHWATER SEGMENTS (1960.1901)
Stulon
Number Station Location Classification
Index Number
Mat
1089.91
Chemical
Raring
<
1987
Biological Rahn
1980 1989
1090
>
1901
< Overall Ralln
Use
Problem Parameters Support
Source
Rocky River, mouth a' ..ong Cr- 10 Carolina Solite Discharge C
13-17430)a
0.8
Good-Fak
ST
C
13.17-(30)b
19.3
Good
Good
9
02128000 Rocky River near Norwood
Long Creak above & below Abemarle WWTP, S1ony Co. C
13.17.31a
21.9
Fak
Fak
Sod, Focal, Nut(, BOO FS
F•P
02125120 Long Creek near Rocky River Springs al SR 1954 C
13.17-31 b
1 1.5
Good-Fak
Sad, Fecal, Nutt, BOO ST
PNP
02125000 Big Bur Creek near Richfield, SR-1134 C
13-17-31.5
21.8
ST
Good
Good
9
Lower Long Branch above Carolna Solite old dscharg. C
13-17-31.7a
0.6
Eel
F6
hP
Lover long Branch below Carolina Solite old dlscharga C
13.1 7-31.7b
1 .0
F'�a
hS
hP
Richardson Creek, sours to laka Lae WSW
13.17.38-(1)a
9.3
Fak
Fak
F6
FP
02125482 Fcharbon Creak s4 SR 1761, Union Co. C
13-17.311-(5)a
1.6
Fak
Poor
Sad Fecal. Nutr, BOONS
NP,P
Richardson Creak sl SR 1849, Union Co. C
13. 17-36-(5)c
5 8
Fak
Poor
Sad, Fecal, Nuu, BOO NS
re
Lanes Creak, Gum Log Branch to Martinville Water Supp. WSW
13.17-40 411a
22.2
Fak
Flo
FP
Wicker Branch, source to lanes Croak WSW
13-17-40-4
5.3
Fdr
Fak
F8
FP
Waxhaw Branch, source to lanes Creek WSW
13.17.40.E
6-7
Fah
Fak
FC
F•f'
0212740615 Brown Creek near Pinkerton, SR•1627 C
13-20
43.0
Fig
Sad DO 9
M
Utile Flavor Star a1 9R-1349, Monlgornary Co. WSW
13-25-(10)b
6.2
Eicoiiunt
S
near
UM* War Slur SR-1340 WSW
13-25-(10)b
9.2
Excellent
ExceManl
9
02126000 near
West Fork Little Rival, From Randolph County lino WS Ill
13.25- 15-(21
13.8
Good
9
Denson* Creek source 10 Troy* Mum Soppy WSW
13.25-20•01
5.3
Excalanl
3
Britian Creeks source lo (Jnl* River C
13-25-24
7.3
Excabent
9
02120000 Pea Dee River noar Rockingham, US Hwy 74 WSW
13-041
15.2
Good Fair
Good Fair
ST
Fp
Leak SR 1475, Richmond Co. WSII
13.39•01U11
0.0
Good Fair
ST
lihchcock at
UT Bono. Creek at SR 1475, Richmond Co. WS Ill
13-39-SU T 1
0.0
Good
S
02120527 Jones Creek near Pee Des, NC Hwy 145 C
13-42
12.3
Good
Good F*k
ST
0212955844 Marks Creek new Hamel at SR 1812, Richmond Co C
13.45•(2).
4.1
Good
Fair
Sod F6
hP,P
Marto Creek el NC 66 Richmond Co C
13.45-(2)b
2.3
Fall
Sod FS
1i'
Marks Creak u NC 86, Richmond C
13.45•(2)c
18.3
Fak
Sud F8
1i'

AA
AB
4
OTHER
AC
AD AF
AO
AH Al l AK I AL1 AM[ AP
AO
AA
6
--
e
Omer bb
OVERAIIRAnNG
AS
-Worksh••vA•encos
7
Name d Slreem
Problem Parameters
Rad
8
'
Raarenos a
Prob Par
Ran
Bg1JRelererce
Problem Parameters
ialM
Bub (P,N
SUbcat • •
Reference
Comp or Tox
Fad Name
Comp or Tot
1 0
UT Mulberry GookNS
'
Problem Par melaPar wo%
1 1
link Soave( Creek
M
1 2
Ara RI River,
M
84
1 3
Arcot RNer
Sad
J �sy'88
Sad
FS
M
N.
I 0
Topo 88
14
Ararat RNer
Sad
Sad
J Mick 86
J A9dkey?88
Sad
h6
M
M
10,40
NCFS 1988
1 6
Ararat Sher
Sod
FS
M
hP
10,40
1 6
Fauknw Creak
Sad
Sad
h6
M
J Mldoy,88
WSR WKS,88
Sod
Sad
FS
M
hP
08,10,40
T °� 88,Conlp92
Sulu Co, SM •Shdata Elem.
BOO hAi3
1 7
Lovllb Gook (Lovell
NS
M
M
40,10
t 8
Toms Creek
NS
FS
M
Kip
40,08,06
Topo 88,Com.p92,Tox92
ColCare,Frr#. Elam Prue Saex,Un Tack Auto
BOO TSS.Mi1Feces Tox
1 9
20
HoarhorN Creak
Heatherly Crook
Ps
M
M
M
hP
1 0
)0
2 1
South UTNS
M
Tope 88
Dantwry Creek
M
_?2
2 3
� Caner Creak
IF
Fi5
M
M
1 t 43
WSR WK566
2a
Barkers Creek
FS
M
hP
42
DWR,66
26
Cedar Creek„ tsg
kscW
GF
Dr
F'6
M
hP
10,40
SWCO 1988
26
Codar Crook
GF
Assoss,84
Dr Assoss,84
FS
M
27
UT Grants Creak
FS
M
28
Lithe Creek
M
2.9
LIT Nonh Pots Creek
ST
E
WRC,DIST.6
F6
M
3 0
Town Croat
Sod Fecal
Poor
Assess 1965
FS
M
M
OFR 88, Tox 93
Gdden Aga, Inc.
Tox
3 1
Town Creek
SW, Fecal
Sod Fecal
FS
M
M
32,42,43,56 11,62
SWCO OFR 1988,T0x92
3 2
UT Second Creek
Poor
Assess, 1985j
Sed, Focal
h6
M
M
32,42,43,56,11
SWCO OFR 1968, Tox
Tox
33
Abbons Creak
GF
Dr Assess 84
h6
M
,62
931Sadxy
h
Tox
34
Abbors Creek
FS
M
M
56,31
OFR1968
3 a
Abbons Creak
Turb
FS
M
M
4 0
Topo 88
3 6
Rich ForkFS
M
M
4 0
Topo 66
37
Rich ForkFocal
DS
M
M
31,32
DFR88
3 8
Rich Fork
FS
M
Sep
05,11,31,32
SCS OFR 1968
Aumen, MHP, Lamb's Nun Homo,
3 9
R h Fork
FS
M
IW p
06,11,40,31,32,63
SCS DFR 1968
Rich Fk WY
Cults pp. Co_
BOO,TSS,Feal
4 0
Hunts Fork
FS
M
M
11,40,31,32
SCS 1968
Tom. F scal
4 1
Hamby Crook
GF
Or Assess, bt
F6
M
4 2
North Hamby Creek
-
NS
M
M
40,10
SCS 88,Tox 93
Thomasville
4 3
Jlmmys Creek
MS
M
M
4 o
Topo 66
Ton
4 4
UT Lick Creek
FS
M
4 5
ITT Lick Crook
fvS
M
M
40
Topo 68
4 6
D. Croak Brandt
(Branch)
Sad
FS
M
M
40
Topo 88
4 7
Dye Creek Branch
Sod
POorAssess,
Poor
1965
suss 1985
h6
Sad
FS
M
M
40,10
Tope 88
4 8
Gaits Creek
Sad
Fat,Assosa,
1985
F6
M
Mi0,88
Sod
h6
M
NPp
40,10,03
AR0,88 Comp92
WWTP)t3v
4 9
6 0
Back Croak
ITT Reedy Crook
rSW,Fecal
F6
M
M
Mock C 88
Cry
Mock Cn,68
Sed,Focal
fS
F6
M
M
M
hP
1 6
10,32,40
,Maoroov�
Tppp 88
Mack Cn,38
6 1
MdCee Creek
h6
M
ARO 88
FS
M
M
1 0
AR0,66
52
Cloar Crook
Sod Fecal
FS
M
Med Cal 88
Sed,Fod
FS
M
PPp
10, 40,32,08
Mock Cn,88, Comp 90
Systems,
Sed,Fl
h6
M
Mock Cn,88
Sad,Foal
h6
M
M
10, 40
CWS Inc
53
Long Crook
SW,FeaI,WIBOO,Tox
Fat
Assess, 19651eca
S4d,Foca4NUI,BO0,TCal
32
Mad Gn611
64
lane in Leek
F6
F6
M
M
11
SCS 1968
6 5
lore Br Lower L B
g(--- °f�.h
M
WRC,DFST.6
F6
M
M
42,43
Long
FS
M
M
1 1
1�56
7
Br(Lower Long Bq
Rdtardson Gook
h6
M
M
11
SCS 88IST.6,90
.
Sad Fecal NknLBC't Tox
Poor
AaaPS& 198
Sod
FS
E
WSR WKS 88
Sad Focal NuSB00 Tox
f
,1)
8
Richardson Creak
Ridtsrklson
See,Foca1 Nkat,B00,Tox,
Poor IAasne,
198
Sad
FS
E
WSR WKS,88
Ssd,Feca4Nus.80D,Tda
h6
FS
M
M
M
M 134,
4, 16, 16
16, 18
WSR WKS 88
9K'
Gook �IO,Fecat,NU1,800
Tox
Poor
Assess, 198
E
WSR WKS 88
Sed F aaa�NU-BOD,Tco
NS
M
hP �4
16Q
WSR WKS 815
-�
60
Marks Ck (Evorems Lk)SSsd
Fat
Asaesyt9b
I
t6
WSR WKS,aa
61
Marks Ck (Envois Lk
( 1
SW
Fat
Assose, 196 9
Sod
Sod
R.
M�
N.
4 si43
SCS 1989,Gomp92 JHamkn
WWTP
62
Marks Ck (Erwin) Lk)
Sod
Fat
Assess, 19$9
Sad r
F6
M
SCS 1966
6 3
F6
M
M
41,43
SCS 1986
64
6 6
Sed,B00J4A,Feca1Tox
Poor
Assesa, 1965 Sod
J Mldey,88
Sed,Turb
F5
M
M
10,40
SWCO 1068, BMAN 03

UT Mulber Creek
Links Beaver Creek
Ararat River
Ararat River
Ararat River
Ararat River
Faukn.rCreek
lovils Creek oven
Danbury Creek
Caner Creek
Barkers Creek
11111=119=enzalEMETC11
Cedar Creak SR 141010 above0ua
UT Grants Crook
Ea lath Crock
UT North Pons Creek Source to N Potts Ck
Town Creek
Town Crook
From SR-2116 10 SR 2119
From SR-2019 to SR 2080
Fr MI Al WS Dam
SR 1615 Su Co,
From source 10 WWTP
WWTP to Toms Creek
Abbons Creek
Abbons Creek
Filch Fork
Rich Fork
Rich Fork
Rich Fork
Hunts Fork
E Prong L Yadkin 1r source to l Yadkin
From source to LIMN Yadkin Rhvr
From source to SR 1915
SR1915 10 Crane Oust Duke
Ab WWTP to Second Ck
SR2001 nr Lenin • on
SR200; at Ivan • on
At I-85 0avkfson Cou
Al SR-1800 nr Thomasville
SR1784 nr NC 109
SR-1792 Davidson Cou
SR-2005 Davidson Cou%
0212149619
02121500
0212147335
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
UT Mu • Cat DI WWTP C 12.42-100
Links Beaver Creek at moult, C 12.63-130
Ararat River at NC 52 B . ss Su Co C 12.72. 4.5 b
Ararat River al SR 2119 Su Co. C 12.72. 4.5 d
Ararat River at NC 52 Bus. C 12.72- 4.5 a
Ararat River at SR 2080 C 12.72- 4.5 f
Lovnas Creek at SR 1371 Su Co. C
Torus Creek at SR 1815 Su Co. C
Heaths Crepe above WWTP C
Hearne Crept below WWTP and HwIC
5 UTTEP• •L Yadkin R at NC 66 B
C
Carter Creek at SR 1624 Davie Co. C
NC 801 Davie Co
12-72.6
12.72.8. 3
12-72-14- 4
12.72-14.5a
12.72.14.5b
12.77.2UT 1
12-77.3
12.93
12-94.1a
B 12.102.13- 1
30701 0.5
30702 1.4
30703 1.1
30703 6.0
30703 3.4
30703 13.7
30703
30703
30703
30703
30703
30702
30702
30704
Cedar Crops above Oua Davie Co 12.10z•13- 2 a 30705
C 30705 3. 5
3.2
UT Grants Creek at SR 1500 C 12.110UT1
LI6s Creek at SR 1535 Rowan Co. C 12-110.3
UT North Potts Ck ab. 8 be
Town Ck ab Sabbu IAWTP
Town Creek at 185 Rowan Co.
UT Second Ck lot Rockwell nr SR1337 C 12-11 7UT2
Abbona Ck at SR2001 nr Lox Duracell C 12.119- 6 b .
Abloom Creek at Lori . on C 12.119. 8 e
Abbott, Creek all 85 Davidson Co. C 12-119. 6 1 0.0
C 12.112UT1
C 12.115.3a
C 12.115-3b
30704 0.0
30704 6.4
30704 0.0
30704 12.5
30704 2.1
30704 0.0
30707 1.4
30707 1.6
Chemical ratKCMmkal
DO 4 NH3 4
H_10 DO 4 Fee 56
ari-1792 Divklson GOu C 12-119.7f 30707 0.8 Fate
I_65`Dav_b son Coup C 12.110-7.3a 30707 5.5 Fah
J 5Qlrp to Ha Cu5R2085 C 12.119.7.4b 30707 8,9
•rsra■ r.
UT Lick Creek NC-47 Davidson Creek
Ck ab and bt 0ua C 12 119 7.4-2 30707 6.8 Poor
. aCreek Brandl C 12.126.0,5a 30708 0.5111 UT licit Ce044(
E
D • Creak BranchC f2126;O.Sb 30708 1.0 Fat i
Clark* Creek C 1317-2e Ell
30711 1.6 �I
Back Leek SR-2800 A4ritkN •. , -Goun
�eptsln _
11.11.1111.1.11.11111" MI
® C 1317-8-0.5 30711 1.0
52 _2
IIIIII
53 L• . Crook �teMI
LM1e loey_Crsok • . _
_Long lgLower L• Br,
Lon Br Lower L• B ,Car. Solge OLsd1 to ion. Ck Laver L • • Br ab Caroana Solari old di C 13.17-31-7a _MO
_
RLo n. 8r L Croak Lower Lon • Br bl Carolina Sogle 3071 3 1.8
inritne•a Monroe WS dam to SR1751 02125482 Richardson oli tlhC 13.17-31.7b J0713 1.3 _ m Rrchart/50n Creek From SR 1751 to SR T008 a Crook at SR 1751 Union G C 13.1 7.36. 5 a _
Richardson Crook at $R 1006 union G 30714 1.5 NS FS _
4
Rid/archon Creak From SR 1006 to SR 1649C t3-17.36- 5 b 30714
Marks Cdt1 veretb MarkskRichardson Creek at SR SR1812 Unbn GC 4. 1
Lk) Hamlet WS Dam to SR1812 0212955844 Marks Ck nr HamNl at T3-i 7"36. 5 0 30716 S.6
Marks Ck Everett,C 13.45-(2�b 30716 4. 1 FS
Marks Ck Evsrotb Lk Marks Creak at NC 66 Richmond Co. C 13-45. 2 is
63 iWrka Creek al NC 66 Richmond J0716 2.3 Fg _
C 13-45-(2)c 30716 16.3 Flo
6 4 The following reamt was e6Nnated Iron the
6s Mud Creek " 0 teal since Winston-SalerRs mum •N atorrnrster ..ram ma eliminate NPS •roDtem¢. 02115660 .. Creek near Mud • Crook SR- •G� d,.o..
Harr�tty Crook
North Harter Creek
m s Creek
SR•2505 Davbson Croak
Hunts Fork M SR 1792
30704 12.3
1991

RICHARDSON CREEK AT SR 1649 NEAR FAIRFIELD, NC
Summer Summary (April -October);
Observations Observs > Det
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1):
pH (SU):
Total Phosphorus (mg/1):
Ammonia -Nitrogen (mg/1):
Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen (mg/1):
Conductivity (Who):
Chlorophyll a (Corr) (µg/1):
Total Suspended Residue (mg/1):
Median
Maximum
Page 2of2
Minimum
41
41
6.5
13
2.3
41
41 `
7.2
8.09
6.2
2
2
0.98
1.6
0.35
2
2
0.04
0.05
0.02
2
2
4.8
7.6
2
41
41
303
846
117
1
1
5
5
5
11
10
3
10
_ 1
Summer Summary (June -September):
Observations
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1):
pH (SU):
Total Phosphorus (mg/1):
Ammonia -Nitrogen (mg/1):
Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen (mg/1):
Conductivity (},Mho):
Chlorophyll a (Corr) (µg/1):
Total Suspended Residue (mg/1):
Observs > Det
Median
Maximum
Minimum
23
23
6.1
9.4
2.3
23
23
7.2
7.63
6.2
2
2
0.98
1.6
0.35
2
2
0.04
0.05
0.02
2
2
4.8
7.6
2
23
23
452
846
120
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
4
8
1
Yearly Summary :
Dissolved Oxygen,
Year Obs Obs>Det Median
Max
Min
1988
12
12
8.3
14.1
2.3
1989
12
12
9.5
11.4
5.9
1990
12
12
7.65
11.1
5.1
1991
11
11
8.2
10.8
6.1
1992
12
12
8.2
14.2
5
1993
_ 9
9
7.7
_ 11
_ 5.1
Conductivity
1988
12
12
325.5
724
116
1989
12
12
215
583
117
1990
12
12
200.5
812
112
1991
11
11
198
655
85
1992
12
12
244
795
120
1993
_ 9
9
186
846
_ 118
Total Suspended Residue
1988
4
4
8
89
1
1989
4
4
4.5
10
2
1990
4
4
4
37
2
1991
3
3
4
4
1
1992
` 4
,
3
3
7
1
1993
2
2
6
9
3
1H
Year
Obs Obs>Det Median Max Min
1988
12
12
7.15
7.5
6.1
1989
12
12
7.2
7.6
6.8
1990
12
12
7.1
7.7
7
1991
11
11
7.2
7.5
7
1992
12
12
7.05
8.3
6.2
1993
_ 9
9
_ 7.2
_ 8.09
6.6
Total Phosphorus
1988
N/S
1989
1
1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1990
N/S
,
1991
1
.
1
0.35
0.35
0.35
1992
N/S
1993
N/S
I
Ammonia -Nitrogen
1988
N/S
1989
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
1990
N/S
1991
1
1
0.05
0.05
0.05
1992
N/S
1993
-
N/S
-

•
•0
Teledyne Allvac
NC0045993
FLOW HISTORY
1/9/88 First WLA was completed using:
USGS # 2.1252.2222 '88
DA=53mi2
S7Q 10=0.15cfs
W7Q 10=0.2cfs
30Q2=0.5cfs
QA=45cfs
3/6/89
Nickel
Oil and Grease
pH
IWC
Second WLA completed: wrong
recalculated:
Wasteflow,
Limits Given ` \
Wasteflow 0.288 mgd y
Fluoride 2.4 mg/1�
67 ug/1 oil
15 mg/I
6-9 (SU)
88%
limits
Limits Given
Wasteflow
Fluoride
Nickel
Oil and Grease
pH
IWC
0.124 mgd
3.2 mg/1
89 ug/1
15 mg/1
6-9 (SU)
56%
4 / 2 8 / 8 9 Letter To Thurman Home; From H. Curtis Gunter:
Enclosed a printout showing streamflow data used
to estimate low flow data at Richardson Creek at Southern Coast
Line Railroad at Moncure, N.C.
5 / 2 6 / 8 9 Letter To Arthur Mouberry @ DEM; From Thurman Horne:
Concerned about Nickel mostly and Fluoride limit.
Wants DEM to use average flow to calculate limits; because,
they claim they do not discharge during low flow periods.
Claim discharge from ponds occurs during conditions of
ground saturation which corresponds to wet weather
conditions. "When there are drought conditions, our overflow
ceases. As such, we can not discharge to the receiving stream
under S7Q10 conditions."
1 0 / 3 0 / 8 9 Letter To Thurman Horne From R. Paul Wilms:
DEM response to 5/26/89 from Teledyne Allvac.
Explained where more stringent limits came from; originally,
30Q2 was used to determine limits. However, suppose to use
S7Q10 [15NCAC 2B .0206 (a) (3)] states that "other established

modelling techniques. . . may be approved if it can be shown to
be satisfaction of the director. . .protection of aquatic life.
1 1 /21/8 9 FAX To Ms. Lula Harris From Thurman Horne:
Mr. Horne was informed that Monroe WLA was
based on an estimated S7Q10 of 0.006 cfs/mi2 or 0.43 cfs for
their 71.7 mi2 drainage area. Since Monroe is only 2.5 miles
downstream from Teledyne Allvac, Mr. Horne feels 0.006
cfs/mi2 should be used to determine their limits. "We ask that
you recognize that we are only asking for equal consideration
and that the published data supports the use of a
conservative estimate of 0.006 cfs/mi2 for our location (0.32
cfs)." Argue that they do not discharge during low flow; "
therefore, it is not reasonable to base our limitations on a
highest monthly average discharge versus lowest stream flow
conditions. If we must be evaluated based on 7Q10 conditions,
then surely we should use a more realistic discharge flow. "
Mr. Horne wants us to use the minimum monthly average flow
since this would be the closest to representing discharge rates
at 7Q10 conditions. They would be content with using the
monthly average flow = 0.0492 mgd. Quote:"allowed to use -
other modelling techniques. . " sentence.
1 1 / 3 0 / 8 9 FAX To Thomas Stockton From Mr. Horne:
FYI, evidence to support their argument about
their discharge during low flow conditions. EPA APDES
Compliance inspection report dated 10/27/87: "This facility
(Teledyne Allvac) experiences a discharge only after
significant rainfall events. The majority of the Water is
recycled back into the plant."
1 1/ 3 0/ 8 9 USGS Request # 8548
USGS agreed to comply with Mr. Home's suggestion
that the flow estimates at the Teledyne Allvac discharge
location change to reflect the higher yield estimates at the
Monroe discharge. However, the estimates used for Monroe
also include Monroe's effluent.
Station # 0212522222
DA = 53 mi2
QA = 45 cfs
S7Q 10 = 0.32cfs
30Q2 = 1.3cfs
W7Q 10 = 0.7 cfs

Average flow estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at
nearby streams and therefore, no degree of reliability is
attached. All other flow estimates are based on records
collected at or near the site, and the range indicates app.
interval in which the actual value may lie. These data reflect
natural streamflow conditions and do not account for the
effects of any diversion or regulation that may be present,
However, values submitted could be in considerable error due
to impoundment upstream in Lake Lee.
12/7/89 Notes in File from Carla Sanderson:
Response to 11/4/89 Meeting with Teledyne
representatives and DEM representatives. Ms. Sanderson
revised the limits using Qw= 0.049 mgd and S7Q 10= 0.32 cfs.
New Limits:
Fluoride 9.4 mg/1
Nickel 459 ug/l
Oil and Grease 15 mg/1
pH 6-9 (SU)
12/1 5 / 8 9 Note To File From Carla Sanderson:
Mr. Horne rejects flow parameter (0.049 mgd) as a limit
in permit.
12 / 1 8 / 8 9 Note To File From Carla Sanderson:
The flow limit was kept out of the permit and
a flow study on Richardson Creek was implemented as a special
condition of the permit. Also, monitoring for Nickel instream
will be required.
12/22/89 Letter To Mr. Horne From DEM prepared by Ms.
Sanderson:
Informed them of their new limits (above) and
special conditions that will be in their NPDES permit.
4/ 1 1/ 9 0 PERMIT ISSUED
7 / 2 0 / 9 0 Letter To DEM Gentlemen From Mr. Horne:
Enclosed a proposal for the method of measuring
and determining flow in Richardson Creek.

7 / 3 0 / 9 0 Memo To Ms. Sanderson From Trevor Clements:
"Please review the permit requirement and
determine if submitted material suffices. No need for Teledyne
to compute new flow statistics as we will require that all
statistics be generated by the USGS.
7 / 3 0 / 9 0 Letter To Gunter (USGS) From Trevor Clements:
Please review Teledyne's proposed plan for
streamflow measurement on Richardson Creek. Enclosed copy
of proposal.
7 / 3 1 / 9 0 Letter To Mr. Horne From Trevor Clements:
Asked for Teledyne Allvac to send a copy of a map
indicating the location of the proposed flow measurement.
8 / 2 / 9 0 Letter To Trevor Clements From H. Curtis Gunter:
Reviewed plan submitted by Teledyne Allvac to
make base -flow measurements at a site on Richardson Creek.
Concerns: Flow in Richardson Creek is derived from
groundwater and leakage from Lake Lee. Usual correlation
procedure with nearby index stations is inappropriate for the
site on Richardson Creek. Leakage from reservoir artificially
augments the flow. Stream appears to be pooled upstream and
downstream, creating slow velocity conditions.
8 / 6 / 9 0 Letter To Mr. Clements From Mr. Horne:
A map indicating the location of the proposed flow
measurement.
8/9 / 9 0 Letter To Mr. Horne From Trevor Clements:
Subject: Stream Flow Measurement Plan. Previous
agreed upon procedure wasn't appropriate for this site due to
unnatural conditions in Richardson Creek (i.e., leakage from
dam). Alternative procedure given. The comparison method:
An index site (02146900-12 mile Creek at Waxhaw) can be
used to compare flows. 12-mile Creek has to be at 7Q10s
levels.
2 / 21 / 9 1 Conversation With Ms. Sanderson and Mr. Horne:
Mr. Horne said he was confused about what to do
after the 8/9 Memo. (But he didn't make any effort to clarify
the low -flow study plan) He said he will call Curtis Gunter
from USGS.
1

2/21 / 91 Letter To Thurman Horne From Carla Sanderson:
Enclosed 8/2/90 Letter From Curtis Gunter.
4/2/91 Memo To File From 4/2/91 Meeting
Meeting was to Clear up low flow procedure.
4/9/9 1 Letter To Carla Sanderson From Thurman Horne:
Summarized the meeting and His understanding of
Low Flow requirements and methods.
4/1 8/9 0 Phone Conversation with Ms. Sanderson and Mr. Gunter:
He said methodology looks good but that Mr. Horne
needs to contact Harold Eddins at [phone].
4/1 8/9 0 Phone Conversation with Ms. Sanderson and Mr. Horne:
Ms. Sanderson informed Mr. Horne that he needs to
contact Harold Eddins monthly.(at least) to determine when the
flows are approaching S7Q10 conditions.
5/2/9 1 Letter To Carla Sanderson From Thurman Horne:
Letter about contact with Mr. Eddins and plans to
"keep in touch". In letter he reassures Ms. Sanderson that he is
eager to do study; but, low flow conditions do not exist.
1 1 /21 /91 Memo To file From Ms. Sanderson:
Sanderson called Harold Eddins concerning 7Q10 in
Richardson Creek. He informed her that Richardson Creek was
not under low flow conditions. He, also said leakage from Lake
Lee dam will always be so great that flows will always be in
Richardson Creek.
8 / 2 5 / 9 3 Letter To Don Safrit From John Salkowski (Cooper
Environmental):
Enclosed were Procedures for Projecting low flow
statistics at Teledyne-Allvac/Vasco Monroe, NC Facility (CEI
Project #93171). Cover letter asked to review proposal.

9 / 13 / 9 3 Letter to Mr. Salkowski From Thomas Zembrzuski
(Hydrologist):
Response to Proposal sent on 8/25/93.
1) It is not necessary to install stream level gages at each
culvert intersection for making discharge measurements.
Adequate measurements of stream depth would be obtained
while you are making the discharge measurements.
2) To be sure the individual culvert discharge
measurements aren't biased, velocity should be measured in
three subsections in each culvert. The incremental discharge of
each subsection would be added together to obtain the total
discharge of each culvert.
3)Suggest that he observe and note the water level of
Lake Lee with respect to the crest of the dam whenever
streamflow measurements are made. Documentation of any
observed leakage (photos, videotape), as well as information
can be obtained about ownership, regulation and use of Lake
Lee would also be helpful is assessing this unique situation.
9 / 2 3 / 9 3 Letter To Mr. Salkowski From Carla Sanderson:
Response to 8/25/93 letter (proposal). Letter
expressed concerns that Teledyne representatives were not
contacting Harold Eddins, as planned, during critical
conditions.
1 0 / 7 / 9 3 Sticky in File From Ms. Sanderson:
Boo Richardson from USGS said flow is so low that
sampling further downstream will be necessary. As of 7/5/94
this is the last correspondence in WLA file.
� p di hih s
To-
yy ��h hav$'
of 3/yf
1ibI194

To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Sean Goris
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: NJI,
JJUl 1 2 199t
Date: July 7, 1994
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Union
NPDES Permit No.: NC0045993
MRO No.: 94-163
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Teledyne Allvac-Monroe Plant
Post Office Box 5030
2020 Ashcraft Avenue
Monroe, N.C. 28110-0531
2 Date of Investigation: July 6, 1994
3. Report Prepared By: Michael L. Parker, Environ. Engr. II
4. Person Contacted and Telephone Number: Thurman Horne, ('04)
289-4511 (Monroe Plant).
ZS Z - 1533
5. Directions to Site: From the jct. of Hwy. 74 and Walkup
Avenue in the City of Monroe, travel east on Walkup Avenue
to the jct. with Sutherland Avenue. Turn right on Sutherland
Avenue and travel 0.2 mile to the jct. with Ashcraft
Avenue. Turn left on Ashcraft Avenue and travel ~ 0.4 mile.
Teledyne Allvac is located on the right (south) side of
Ashcraft Avenue.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge Points: -
Latitude: 34° 59' 05"
Longitude: 80° 36' 30"
Attach a USES Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site
and discharge point on map.
USES Quad No.: H 16 NE
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application:
Yes. Adequate land exists for expansion, if necessary.
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The site
has gently rolling topography and is far removed from any
flood plain.
9.
Location of Nearest Dwelling: None within 500 feet of the
WWTP site.

•
Page Two
10. Receiving Stream or Affected Surface Waters: Richardson
Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Suhhasin No.: Yadkin 030714
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: At the site inspection, the discharge
entered a receiving stream (10-15 feet wide x 4-12
inches deep) which contained excellent flow, however,
the area had experienced a significant rainfall event
the previous evening. The discharge enters the stream
at a point 1.3 miles below an impoundment (Lake Lee).
There are no other known users of the stream below the
point of discharge for any reasonable distance.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater: * MGD (Intermittent - dependent
on rainfall)
b. What is the current permitted capacity: N/A
c. Actual treatment capacity of current facility (current
design capacity): N/A
d. Date(s) and construction. activities allowed by previousATCs`issued in the previous two years: N/A
P. Description of existing or substantially constructed
WWT facilities: The existing WWT facilities consist of
two (2) cooling ponds connected in series (having a
total surface area of 3.75 acres) and an oil skimmer.
f. Description of proposed WWT facilities: N/A
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Biocidal
additives are placed in the cooling water A list of
these additives were contained in the renewal
application.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Not NPPdPr1.
2 Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
Residuals generation is not expected nor has any disposal
t scheme been developed.
3. Treatment Plant Classification: Less than 5 points; no
rating (include rating sheet). Class I.
4. SIC Code(s): 3356
Wastewater Code(s): 14, 15, 17, 21
5. MTU Code(s): 50000

Page Three
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFOPMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved (municipal's only)?
No
2 Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: None at this time.
Important SOr/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: N/A
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation
a. Spray Irrigation: Insufficient area
b. Connect to regional sewer system: A municipal sewer
system is available (City of Monroe), however, it is
doubtful that the City would accept cooling water since
the City is having difficulties with hydraulic flow.
c. Subsurface: N/A
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There have been no changes and/or modifications to this
facility since the Permit was last renewed.
Presently, Teledyne seeks resolution to an on -going dispute
with the Division over the rationale of promulgating effluent
limitations using projected WWTP hydraulic flow and 7Q10 stream,
flow when, during 7Q10 conditions, Teledyne says a discharge
would be impossible since the majority of the water generated is
recycled. Teledyne has performed a Division approved stream flow
study which may contradict USGS stream flow estimates. The
Company is in the process of setting up a meeting with PSE and
TSB staff to hopefully resolve this issue. Current regulations
(with approval from the Director) allow for a variance from using
7Q10 stream flow data in the promulgation of effluent
limitations, however, Teledyne has not submitted a formal request
to obtain such a variance. This matter will need to be resolved
prior to promulgation of the revised WLA.
It is recommended that the permit, pending a satisfactory
resolution to the issue discussed above, be renewed as requested.
Signature of Report Preparer Date
7/Y 5Z'
Water Quality Reg .I nal Supervisor Date

Chemical Monitoring Summary Report
Nlon vo.e \AAvre is -1.5 rri I rI I-- % 1-
c�ou)vt� ►� 6 n� ert bdi4 r v 011 I1 dcwn f Npaxt
RICHARDSON ©REEK AT SR 1649 NEAR FAIRFIELD, NC
cybry, Tef Fir Page 1of2
al UA
Station Number: 02125482
STORET Number. Q8917000
Water Quality Class: C
Regional Office: Mooresville
Topographic Map: G17SW
County: Union
Subbasin: 030714
Drainage Area (sq mi): 153
Average How (cfs): 103
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 0.44
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 0.52
30Q2 (cfs): 1.
® Stream
❑ Estuary
Lake
❑ Fish Tissue
❑ Fish Community
Bcnthic
Parameter Name
Units
STORET NC State
Code Criterion Min Med Max
Beginning Ending
n > Det > Crit late Date
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/1
00300
4
2.3
8.65
14.2
68
68
2
1/15/88
10/26/93
pi
SU
00400
6 - 9
6.1
7.2
8.3
68
68
0
1/15/88
10/26/93
Conductivity
µMho
00094
N/C
85
229
846
68
68
0
1/15/88
10/26/93
Chlorophyll a (Corr)
µg/1
32209
40
5
5
5
1
1
0
6/12/89
6/12/89
Fecal Coliform, MF
#/100 nil
31616
200
N/S
Total Phosphorus
mg/1
00665
N/C
0.35
0.98
1.6
2
2
0
6/12/89
8/21/91
Ammonia -Nitrogen
mg/1
00610
0.8
0.02
0.04
0.05
2
2
0
6/12/89
8/21/91
Nitrate/Nitrate-N
mg/1
00630
N/C
2
4.8
7.6
2
2
0
6/12/89
8/21/91
Total Nitrogen
mg/1
00600
N/C
N/S
Turbidity
NTU
00076
50
1.7
4.2
50
21
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Hardness
mg/1
00900
N/C
28
48
81
21
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Total Residue
mg/1
00500
N/C
110
180
490
21
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Total Suspended Res
mg/1
00530
N/C
1
4
89
21
20
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Aluminum
14/1
01105
N/C
83
345
870
4
4
0
8/21/91
5/13/93
Arsenic
µg/1
01002
50
10
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Cadmium
µg/l
01027
2
2
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Chromium
µg/1
01034
50
25
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Copper (AL)
µg/1
01042
7
2
8
18
21
15
6
2/4/88
5/13/93
Imn (AL)
µg/1
01045
1000
270
W)5
1000
4
4
0
8/21/91
5/13/93
Lead
µg/1
01051
25
10
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Mercury
µg/1
71900
0.012
0.2
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Manganese
14/1
01055
N/C
30
33.5
39
4
4
it
8/21/91
5/13/93
Nickel
µg/1
01067
88
10
21
0
2/4/88
5/13/93
Zinc (AI.)
µg/1
01092
50
10
10
81
21
8
1
2/4/88
5/13/93
Abbreviations: n=number of observations; > 1)ct=number of observations greater than the detection limit; > Crit=number of
observations greater than the criterion; N/S=No sample; N/C=No Criteria; AI.rAction Level
Notes: Median values are calculated using the detection level for samples classified as below detection. The Median vaule for
Fecal Coliform is actually the Geometric Mean value. Data includes only surface samples. Samples recorded at less than
detection are considered at the detection Level for this summary.
Station Comments:

NOrtfl uar011nd ox glcuidsgeLuenL.
Water Quality Ambient Monitoring Network
Sorted by Basin/Subbasin
1/23/90
• 02125128 • LONG CREEK AT SR 1954 NEAR ROCKY RIVER SPRINGS, NC Frequency:Monthly
Region:M00RESVILLE USGS Map:G17NE Gage: Remarks:Pa WP Subbasin:030713
• County:STANLY Class:C S7Q10: W7Q10: THQ2: DA:196 QA:200
Field: M BOD: 0 Metals: Q Mercury: 0 Hardness:M Nut Ser: Q Turbid: Q
Tot Res: Q Res Sus: 0 Arsenic: Q Col ADMI:M Copper: M
02126000 ROCKY RIVER AT SR 1935 NEAR NORW00D, NC Frequency:Monthly
Region:M00RESVILLE USGS Map:G18NW Gage:GAGE Remarks:MI Subbasin:030713
County:STANLY Class:C S7010:41 N7010:73.1 THQ2:108 DA:1372 QA:1330
Field: M BOD: 0 Metals: 0 Mercury: Q Hardness:Q Turbid: M Tot Res: M
Res Sus: M Arsenic: 0
02125482 RICHARDSON CREEK AT SR 1649 NEAR FAIRFIELD, NC Frequency:Monthly
Reglon:MOORESVILLE USGS Map:G17SW Gage: Remarks:Hp Subbasln:030714
County:UNION Class:C S7Q10:0.44 W7010:0.52 THQ2:1.17 DA:153 OA:103
Field: M BOD: 0 Metals: Q Mercury: Q Hardness:Q Turbid: Q Tot Res: 0
Res Sus: Q Arsenic: Q
02128000 LITTLE RIVER AT SR 1340 NEAR STAR, NC
Region:FAYETTEVILLE USGS Map:CMl23 Gage:GAGE Remarks:pa
County:MONTGCMERY Class:WS-III S7Q10:1.06 W7010:7.97 TH02:10.7 DA:106
Field: M BOD: Q Metals: Q Mercury: Q Hardness:0 Turbid: Q
Res Sus: 0 Arsenic: Q
Frequency:Monthly
Subbasin:030715
QA: 110
Tot Res: Q
02129000 PEE DEE RIVER AT US HWY 74 NEAR ROCKINGHAM, NC Frequency:Monthly
Region:FAYETTEVILLE USGS Map•H19NE Gage:GAGE Remarks:Ml Subbasin•030716
County: RICHMOND Class:WS-III S7010:1112 H7010:1673 TH02:2878 DA:6863 QA:7997
1 Field: M BOO: 0 Metals: Q Mercury: Q Hardness:Q Turbid: 0
Res Sus: 0 Arsenic: 0
Tot Res: Q
02129341 HITCHCOCK CREEK AT SR 1109 AT CORDOVA, NC Frequency:0uaterly
Region:FAYETTEVILLE USGS Map:F19NE Gage: Remarks: Subbasin:030716
County: RICHMOND Class:C S7Q10:25.0 N7010:68.0 THQ2:68.0 DA:134 QA:174
Field: Q BOD: 0 Metals: S Mercury: S Hardness:S Nut Ser: Q Turbid: Q
Tot Res: 0 Res Sus: Q Arsenic: S
0212955844 MARKS CREEK AT SR 1812 NEAR HAMLET, NC Frequency:Quaterly
Region:FAYETTEVILLE USGS Map:H2OSW Gage: Remarks: Subbasin:030716
County: RICHMal) Class:C S7Q10: W7Q10: THQ2: DA:12.9 QA:15.1
Field: Q BOD: 0 Metals: Q Mercury: Q Hardness:0 Turbid: Q Tot Res: Q
Ras Sus: 0 Arsenic: Q Gr/oil: Q
02129527 JONES CREEK AT NC HWY 145 NEAR PEE DEE, NC Frequency:Quaterly
Region:FAYETTEVILLE USGS Map: Gage: Remarks: Subbasin:030717
County:ANSON Class:C S7Q10: W7Q10: THQ2: DA:92.8 QA:94.6
Field: Q BOD: Q Metals: Q Mercury: Q Hardness:Q Nut Ser: 0 Turbid: 0
Tot Res: Q Res Sus: 0 Arsenic: 0
02133500 DROWNING CREEK AT US HWY /1 NEAR HOFFMAN, NC Frequency:2Monthly
Region:FAYETTEVILLE USGS Map:G21SW Gage:GAGE Remarks:MI,COLOR Subbasln:030750
County: RICHMOND Class:CSW S7010:43.2 W7010:98.2 TH02:98.0 DA:183 QA:261
Field: M BOD: Q Metals: 0 Mercury: 0 Hardness:0 Turbid: 0 Tot Res: Q
Res Sus: Q Arsenic: 0
1