NC0023876_Wasteload Allocation_19900904

NC Z3Si(o
j3uPir,vncL�m,s ouT�►- w WTP_—_
_-----
2loZQ7.gy= -ZAP ��5
- -- - - - I a! l,A- _ A _1_2-_Nt4 = �!t = 2 -i - 7EZ C Os= 3.0'.--
'�'�
ADM.LN LS �2A Zj �L �� CTI ✓ M- G w- ` - _ AI � F-
K_14 Per—M I T
--- -_ — PP vlo Soc 8`�-l_3_�._i�2-f����E�FfQ2o�l5_LLt�rrA > Lo✓J _A✓�i� To _ Ftpi> f_}1�.��Tio�/A-L- -
--
--._
--- -- oC
-
a -
'- G�4d°`sAQu�si �2So�Oo= c�P_�75=e[JtJ - - - -
V
�r to N — -
nm.
_WSFLO_ _W.AN_T_S_-A.5-�CA_L- -uM_!.'�_0_F _ZQU__cor.DNrES_�G-2_LO_c7__M.Q.,__=-----------_--_-_ _ --. --

1, �Z
i;
< . 1�u�u N�j �til so urN M W TP 5A W
,�07J-OGpz
A LAi+\ Anlc-,6 CpjE�rc
C N V4
jf 6124a Ct. oV- w S1Z O D. F(MAAJ of POE 2e,4TM EIJ Nt✓c=
,I
co
iz25 PoN r7�> ram, sic
o!;I%1Qu�i i c lox. !(q s �IL-� Co�2�SPon1l�C� ne, Ouk-x— SoC,
Itl
- 7h-Ii;y 19-�COAMeN% Mor1VL-y C2 I/ t T�s� i�uc, (MO,vr�1�y ru�� ���✓� ,
II� C
�7oxicrTy 2e--5ui-T5- f=0/2 !NG PA -Si" y&A2.
I S/e9- F IIgD — /�o- PE(Z L�An,)tL fZo�c (A I k) 9/7
�I 9 /e,-
rm
uN o GP-- 79 l os CON D tTivn/ S
vq 1-UES ?1ASF-0 oN AV,50Ac, YfFtq eL Y FLo (,v OF
-7. /`5-7 vt AJC 7. /071 nrtcrD� 3, 2- c/s = 79, Y-)
1 LQNG�Jy/1�'!i 0 5
CLl (Avg , yAN -, (Z A/Lt l/AWE SWGA,,4 (Cit, yC2t-y A�V(t)
78 (9,9) = 7, 7
�l ZjrL C4 v4 L t m;eq-ran VI? we) Z• la) = 40, oo cwse, ro ASb P,- b)
5r• VALuc = Od % 8 (D• Z) 7— pp 6,
•illlLelj E. 5Ay5 Ar>ptNq 7o/QeSTIC f1Oc4 -5-Hc L,2> Nvi ArF-CCT 7-oX(C(Ty
{� PACILITY bIA5 F(R) 411�14 CQ �cF11��n1C/s. AtAVUA&I-(F &A5EP DAJ g,S��,,�� 3,Z CIS
C4 U 0 VV 4 t 3 L 7/o, 6 2
1'
t,

Division of Environmental Management
August 7, 1990
Memorandum
To: Don Safrit
From: Mike Scoville KIDS
Thru: Ruth Swanek
Trevor Cleme
Subject: Revisions of Instream Monitoring Requirements for Burlington Southside
WWTP (NPDES No. NC0023876, Alamance County)
In response to objections by the City of Burlington about the inaccessibility of
the instream monitoring sites contained in the NPDES permit for their Southside WWTP,
DEM staff made a site visit to the Haw River on July 31, 1990. This reconnaissance
trip revealed that adequate sampling is not possible on a regular basis at some of the
required sites, and that instream water quality problems may occur in Saxapahw Lake.
In light of all the available information at this time, Technical Services recommends that
the subject permit be modified to reflect the following instream monitoring
requirements. No other aspect of the permit should be changed.
Frequency Parameters
1. Alamance Creek, upstream at NC 87 a
2. Alamance Creek, downstream at SR 2116 a
3. Saxapahaw Lake, upper, middle, and lower ` b
4. Below Saxapahaw Lake at SR 2171 ' c
5. Haw River at SR 1005 ' c
Frequency
` = 3/week June September, 1/week October - May
= 1/week July September only
Parameters
a = Temperature, DO, fecal coliform, conductivity, and color all year, TP
and PO4 July - September
= Depth integrated samples at 1-meter intervals of temperature. DO.
conductivity, and pH: surface samples only of TP and PO4, and monthly
surface samples of chlorophyll -a.
= Temperature. DC conductivity. pH. Note: at Site " monitoring should be
required in both the east and the west channels whenever there is flow in
both.
�cu nav--' - =mems regarding this matter, please contact me.
cc: Central Files

n4 r+
Not f� Sca�L
1�auu River
us65 >•-0�0'1 LS0000 �t
7Q(OS.3Y.6 �F3 PA = 60C ,:t
1.41 2
7nc�1-1_83,5-cFs
w} 7Qtw 44 CFs -- ---
. 30Qj a too C6
Torn
__—
A56S st Oiog651851
L=
Dh- 41,46
LIV k
1�WS 0.4 cF:
Z100
--
USGS iF
020g6S"($'75 �°13��Y
DA = 6i4 -,a
OA = ss3 AS
7q(Os .45
GSGSoto46567�0
51 r/�1
-34
7Q(OW=iscf>
DA=617 w.Z
30Q2=il�ofs
aA---
cis
70(OS- 393041
45,
6w1,MH A
,AS6s if 021096V 1305
�:I�tIYr '—
DA - AZ
QA " M cfs
7QloS = 3,o c%
7QlOL/ = 20.0 If-5
3002 = 24.0 cf5
vS6s it vzog659a0�
546(2 7
DA = q61 rF,
04 qo3 ck
701.)5- 5H
31501i - 16: cF,
�n M�jts
� ,63
�c SS
1.54
—USGS taaOg6Sf24 ��(•y�►7
QA , 73.0 cf>
70imS o.50 [fs
74(ou- *-to t45
s�Qz g,o rfs
1
T
,5
AG
6
5M
1,2
us65toi.0464Z101 ,xlti(P-(
A74-
QA = ac . F>
0.10 <(;
7QW�l= 2.00 cFs
3002,- Z.30 45 7'SS
1 1
Q, ®� SaXapahaw j
y71 �
�'- 'J

CITY OF Bur ington
TELEPHONE,(919), 22-3133 • BO5O1358
]tTH. CiAIi.L� NA 27214'
STEPHEN R. SHOAFy ^N
UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR / FIELD OPERATIONS
JUL 3 0 1990
TECHWAL SUPPORT BRANCH
Mr. Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
July 23, 1990
1�y
JUL 26 199r
WATER ''t."ALITY
SECTION
Subject: Stream monitoring requirements in NPDES Permit No.
NC0023876, Burlington- South WWTP, Alamance County
Dear Mr. Tedder:
As the Operator in Responsible Charge for the South
Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant, I am requesting a clar-
ification of the NPDES permit conditions that become effective
August 1, 1990. While preparing for the August 1 implementa-
tion, we noticed that we had overlooked the changes in stream
sampling locations in the draft and final permit. When we
used the map to identify the locations, we realized that we
had a problem.
The problem is one of getting representative samples from
the Haw River. On July 17 and 18 Randall Kornegay, Director
of Public Works and Utilities, A. D. Isley, Laboratory
Manager, and I travelled down both sides of the Haw River
looking for suitable sites for sampling. At three of the
sites, the only sampling locations are from the bank. These
samples will not represent the main flow of the river, and may
be artificially high in turbidity, coliform bacteria, and
temperature. They may also be low in dissolved oxygen due to
the effects of the temperature and a lack of reaeration by
mixing. At high flows the river will not be accessible from
the bank.
Below is an itemized listing of the sites in the permit
with comments about the sampling conditions:
1. The upstream sample location on Big Alamance Creek
at the NC Highway 87 Bridge remains the same and caused no
problems.

2. The upstream sampling point on the Haw River below
the upper Swepsonville Dam does not .allow access to the main
channel. On the west side of the river, the tick -infested
undergrowth will be flooded during high flows. On the east
side, access to the river is blocked by the Virginia Mills
derivation canal from the dam to a point over 200 yards down-
stream. At the abandoned Virginia Mills treatment plant we
can get to the edge of the river. On either side, we will not
have access to a good, representative sampling point.
3. The #1 downstream sampling point on the Haw River
below the confluence with Big Alamance Creek and above the
lower Swepsonville Dam presents similar problems. We can get
to the river bank by crossing private property on either side
of the river. There is no access to the main channel. The
sample would have to be collected from the bank which is a
questionable sampling practice. During high flows, the river
will not be accessible.
4. The situation at the Saxapahaw Dam is no better. We
can access the river bank, but this will not represent the
main flow of the river. The cattails along the edge will in-
terfere with our sampling. We are trying to contact the owner
of the hydroelectric facility for permission to sample from
their building. This would still limit us to the edge of the
river, but we might be away from the muddy edge.
5. The bridge over the Haw River at SR 1005 is down-
stream from Saxapahaw. If .there is an active permitted dis-
charger in Saxapahaw, then we feel that the SR 1005 location
should be their responsibility. Our latest information leads
us to believe that Dixie Yarns is discharging to the river.
If there is no discharger at Saxapahaw, then'we have no
objection to this sampling location.
The City is currently sampling the Swepsonville Road
Bridge about 130 yards upstream of the upper Swepsonville Dam.
This is a requirement of the East Burlington WWTP NPDES
permit. The two upstream and one downstream samples within 1
1/4 miles of stream reach at Swepsonville seems like an
overkill. In light of the sampling problems, the State may
wish to revise the sampling locations.
The City is also currently sampling at the Saxapahaw
Bridge. The bridge allows us to access the main river
channel. This point, downstream of the dam, would be elimi-
nated in the new permit.
X

We will begin using our new sampling locations August 1
unless notified to do otherwise. It is my feeling that in
order to get meaningful data, the sampling locations need to
be changed. Due to the logistical problems and questionable
value of the data, I am requesting that you review the permit
conditions and change the sampling locations. You may contact
me at [phone] if you have further questions
Sincerely
Stephen R. Shoaf
PC: Randall Kornegay:
City of Burlington
Larry Coble:
Winston-Salem Regional Office

Division of Environmental Management
June 28, 1990
To: Dale Overcash
From: Mike Scoville ODS
Thru: Ruth Swanek
Trevor Clements
Subject: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit For Burlington Southside WWTP
(NPDES No. NC0023876, Alamance County)
I have reviewed the comments of W.R. Baker regarding the subject NPDES permit
and offer the following responses:
1. The permit expiration date is a Permits and Operation Branch issue. The
Division's basin -wide permitting strategy would schedule this permit for renewal in
January 1991, but it is apparent that not enough new information will be gained by that
time to change the permit limits. If the expiration date is different than the basin
schedule would indicate, Technical Support should be notified. Forwarding a copy of the
draft permit to the Technical Support Branch would serve this purpose. In this case, a
copy was requested but never received.
2. This issue should be handled by Permits and Operations.
3. The fecal coliform limit is not related to the amount of wasteflow. Revisions
to NCAC 2B .0211 (b)(3)(E) in October 1989 require a monthly geometric average
fecal coliform limit of 200/100 ml for every discharger in the state. This requirement
cannot be changed.
4. EPA requires water quality based limits to be in terms of concentration.
While impact on receiving streams is caused by the amount of pollutant discharged, the
flow is not unrelated. This is especially true when the effluent dominates the stream and
the effluent concentrations largely determine instream concentrations, as is the case
with the Burlington South WWTP discharging 12.0 MGD to Big Alamance Creek, a stream
with a 7Q10 of 3.0 cfs. North Carolina industries are issued mass -based limits only
when they are effluent guideline limited and not water quality, limited. Mass -based
limits can be added to the Burlington permit; but compliance with the concentration
limits would still be required.
5. Per standard Division procedure, chlorine limits (based on toxicity) and
effluent dechlorination are required for all new and expanding discharges. Since
Burlington is "prepared to install and operate the dechlorination facilities," these
requirements should not be a problem. and should not be changed.
6. The mercury limit in the Burlington Southside WWTP permit is not related
to the drinking water standard or the measurement threshold. In October 1989 the
North Carolina instream standard for mercury was changed from 0.2 ug/I to 0.012 ug/I.
The new mercury limit is in accordance to the new standard (NCAC 26 .0211
(b)(3)(L)(x)) and should not be changed.

7. The cyanide limit was not a 'last minute addition of a new standard," nor was
it added "as an afterthought." Pretreatment headworks information submitted to the
Division by Burlington indicates the presence of cyanide in the effluent in concentrations
that require an effluent limit. Division procedure is to require an effluent limit for, a
parameter if the predicted instream concentration (based on pretreatment headworks
information) is greater than one tenth of the instream standard for that parameter.
Effluent monitoring is required if the predicted instream concentration is between
1/100 and one tenth of the instream standard. Based on recent pretreatment headworks
analysis, the levels of cyanide in the Burlington Southside effluent meet the criteria for
an effluent limit. This requirement should not be changed.
8. Instream monitoring is not a responsibility of DEM, it is a responsibility
that comes with the privilege of discharging to state waters. NCAC 2B .0505 - .0508
places the responsibility of_ instream monitoring on the facility discharging the
pollutants. Furthermore, per NCAC 2B .0508 (b)(2), the Division reserves the right
to require the most beneficial monitoring, especially for major facilities that discharge
to streams that are at or near their assimilative capacity. Summer instream monitoring
for PO4, total phosphorus, and long-term BOD should remain intact in the permit.
Long-term BOD tests, although demanding, time consuming, and expensive,
provide more valuable data than BOD5 tests. BOD5 does not provide any estimation of the
ultimate BOD (BODu), nor does it provide an accurate estimation of BOD decay. Long-
term BOD yields this information as well as allowing for the separation and
quantification of carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) and nitrogenous BOD (NBOD), and the
calculation of the CBOD/BOD5 ratio. Long-term BOD, not BOD5, is used in most water
quality modeling analyses. It should also be kept in mind that long-term BOD monitoring
is required only once per month rather than the three per week frequency that would be
required for instream BOD5 monitoring.
Technical Support is looking into the mentioned dam construction on the Haw
River and the implications it has on the proposed water quality studies. If this
information is necessary for the permit issuance please let me know.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact me.
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Central Files

Of O O_l�'�11"1t0�1
TELEPHONt ;919 227-3603 • Box 1358
\TORTH CAROLI\A 27216
May 29, 1990
Dr. George T. Everett, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
RE: Draft Permit
South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Dr. Everett:
WILLIAM R. BUDDY BAKER
CITY MAWAGER
((IPP'}�1 r1,,
`0 1�
Comments regarding the South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant's
draft permit has been sent to Mr. Dale Overcash. These comments are attached
for your review.
We hope these comments and suggestions will be helpful to you in the
ultimate determination of a discharge permit with reasonable criteria for this
plant. Also, we consider it essential. that we be aQQQr-ded the privile e of
meeting with you at a convenient time prior to .ssu.nee of -a final perms .
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
me or Mr. Randall Kornegay, Public Work/Utilities Director (222-5130). Thank
you for your cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
CN _
W. R. Baker
City Manager
WRB/vh
Attachment
PC: A. R. Kornegay
Steve Shoaf
Piedmont Olsen, Inc.

COHMENTS ON PROPOSED PERMIT FOR " 11E'y 1 TA
BURLINGTON WASTEWATER TR� TA qW
We feel that the draft permit receiv6dc ,,,�y; tzeM t� in the middle of May
1990 (the permit was dated January 22)�#is inconsisteCseveral respects
with agreements that were reached in tale meeting of March 29,t.1990 between
representatives of the City, its consultants, and DEM personnel. At that
time, we discussed in detail the nature and seriousness of problems faced by
Burlington with permit conditions that had been proposed earlier and requested
reconsideration of several items. We supported those requests with
information about the receiving stream and the lack of identifiable impacts on
it by discharges from the current plant, as well as specifics about
improvements in discharge quality that could be expected to result from the
proposed plant upgrades. We requested an increase in the permitted plant flow
from 9.5 MGD to 12.0 MGD and assured DEM that we could limit discharge from
the new facilities to mass loadings of BOD, suspended solids and ammonia no
greater than those now allowed under the permit for 9.5 MGD, in spite of the
change in flow.
Our discussion included consideration of local dam construction that
could require occasional changes in stream flows patterns. That situation
makes it infeasible to initiate meaningful "Level C" analyses of the Haw
River, suggested by agency personnel, before sometime in 1993. We also
volunteered that Burlington would be willing to participate if DEM decides to
conduct the stream studies at that time.
Accordingly, if the Level C studies indicate a need for new standards,
those could not be identified and implemented accurately before 1994. Only
then could sound design be initiated on any plant modifications that might be
appropriate beyond those already planned for immediate construction under the
permit now being issued. Allowing reasonable time for design, regulatory
review, and construction probably would place completion of such facilities at
1997, or later.
All of those considerations lead to a conclusion that this permit
reasonably could be issued for at least five (5) years without jeopardizing
the stream in any way. To the contrary, the currently planned upgrades will
improve discharge quality substantially over the next several years.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event of problems with stream quality, pollution
control laws and terms of the discharge permit would provide ample legal basis
for intervention by DEM as may be necessary at that time.
The following paragraphs identify the portions of the draft permit that
we feel should be modified, as well as the specific changes that we are
requesting.
1. The proposed expiration date of December 31, 1992 is meaningless in
the context of permitting a flow through the new facility of 12.0
MGD because it barely will be completed at that time. Actually, it
probably will be necessary to apply for' another peer. _t '. e.fc~e . 1'
of the plant modifications even go on line. This fails to provide
time to evaluate either performance of the extensive plant;
additions or impacts of those changes on the stream, e3pecia'_1 iI:
view of dam construction now underway and the infeasibility of
conducting Level C analyses before then. We feel that the
term should be at least five (5) years, for reasons discussed
earlier, and request that the expiration date be changed to
December 31, 1995.

2. The description of the existing 9.5 MGD facility is inaccurate in
several respects. We request that it be changed to reflect units
now in operation at the plant. The plant description should be as
follows:
Continue to operate the existing 9.5 MGD wastewater treatment
facility which consists of a mechanical bar screen, grit chamber,
flow equalization basin, primary clarifiers, activated sludge
basins with mechanical aerators, secondary clarifiers, tertiary
sand filtration, chlorination, chlorine contact basin, parshall
flume with continuous flow measurement, primary and secondary
sludge thickeners, and aerobic digesters with mechanical aeration
located at South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant, Boy Wood
Road, Burlington, Alamance County.
The expanded plant, designed for 12 MGD, will include a mechanical
bar screen, grit chamber, flow equalization basin, primary
clarifiers, scum removal, anoxic/anaerobic tankage related to
phosphorus removal, activated sludge aeration basins with jet
aeration, secondary clarifiers, tertiary sand filtration, jet,
chlorination, chlorine contact basin, parshall flume with
continuous flow measurement, primary sludge thickener, dissolved
air floatation secondary sludge thickener, two aerobic digesters
with jet aeration and two aerobic digesters with mechanical
aeration located at the South Burlington Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Boy Wood Road, Burlington, Alamance County.
3. In summer and winter standards for 9.5 MGD discharge, current
limitations on fecal coliforms are 1000/100ml (monthly) and
2000/100ml (weekly). As long as the flow limit remains at 9.5 MGD,
we"feel that those coliform limits should be retained as part of
extending the present regulatory standards.
4. With respect to proposed standards after expansion above 9.5 MGD,
we request that those for BOD, suspended solids, and ammonia be
changed to mass limits, as discussed during the March meeting (950
lbs/day BOD, 2377 lbs/day suspended solids, and 317 lbs/day
ammonia). It is well-known that impact on.receiving streams is
caused by the amount of potential pollutant discharged --not the
water flow. We are requesting increase only in the flow. We
understand that our neighbor states, Virginia and South Carolina,
use mass limits, as do many others. Also, we have been informed
that North Carolina industries are issued mass limits for
wastewater constituents. We fail to see why municipalities should
be denied equal access to that type of standard.
5. We note the new requirement for dechlorination of the effluent and
point out that this is the first indication that we have received
of such a requirement by DEM. Having already completed the plant
design to meet all known regulatory standards, imposition of a new
one on us now is especially objectionable. We recognize the goal
of dechlorination and reaffirm Burlington's desire to avoid any
undesirable impacts on the environment. Accordingly, we are
prepared to install and operate the dechlorination facilities, but
feel that imposition of a specific. and stringent standard at this
stage is unreasonable and unacceptable. We request that the
numerical standard be eliminated, but we do accept continued
monitoring of chlorine residual.

6. The effluent; limitation for mercury is changed with plant expansion
from the already stringent value of 0.2ug/1 to 0.014ug/l.. This ,is
not consistent with the change in flow from 9.5 MGD to 12.0 MGD,
which could be expected to produce a standard of 0.16ug/l. In
fact, all of these standards would be less than 10% of the standard
for drinking water (0.14 would be 0.7%) and all are at or below the
measurement threshold. We request that these values be revised to
reasonable and justifiable levels.
7. We do not understand why a 5.0 ug/l cyanide limit was added to the
requirements after plant expansion. There has been no discussion
by DEM personnel at any time of problems with that constituent.
This is another example of last-minute addition of a new standard,
apparently as an afterthought. We see no reason why it should be
introduced at this time and request that it be eliminated.
8. We are not aware of any justifiable reason for requiring the City
of Burlington to make periodic measurements of PO4, total
phosphorus, and long-term BOD in stream samples. That appears to
be more reasonably a responsibility of DEM. Further, the
measurement method specified in Section I for long-term BOD seems
to be unusually demanding, time consuming, and expensive, while
producing little of value to anyone. We request that those
measurements be eliminated from the permit.
9. For your information, we note that several words are omitted from
definition 5a., page 1, Part II.
10. Also, we note that Section J of Part III essentially duplicates
Section F. We suggest that Section J be eliminated.

NORTH
CAROLINA
CHATHAM
MATE
TIME
WATER
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TEI;P
DO
PH
DOD
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
CENT
MG/L
8H
H8/L
90104/11
1320
WATER
0
26.0
7.9
00/05112
1530
WATER
0
23.0
9.2
2.2
80/06/11
1320
WATER
0
80/07129
1055
HATER
0
26.0
7.2
2.0
80/08/20
1220
WATER
0
26.0
6.6
2.0
80109/17
1825
DATER
0
25.0
6.4
0.8
80110120
1435
WATER
0
21.0
8.9
1.6
81/05/21
1230
WATER
0
16.0
8.1
6.10
1.5
81/06116
900
WATER
0
28.0
6.8
6.30
2.0
81/07121
1535
WATER
0
25.0
7.1
7.81
2.1
91/08/27
1145
WATER
0
25.0
7.4
7.51
1.2
91/09/28
1458
14ATER
0
25.0
7.8
7.00
1.3
81/10/15
1315
WATER
0
18.0
8.6
7.63
1.5
82/06/22
1000
WATER
0
22A
7.7
7.06
1.1
82107/14
1025
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
7.04
2.3
82/08/16
1200
WATER
0
26.0
7.4
6.30
1.5
02/09/14
1045
DATER
0
23.0
9.2
7.20
3.1
82/10M
1250
WATER
0
21.0
7.9
6.80
1.4
83/04118
1040
WATER
is
14.0
10.8
6.80
2.0
83/05/11
1120
WATER
0
18.0
8.6
7.10
1.0
83/06/08
1118
WATER
0
21.0
7.0
6.90
2.0
83107/12
1130
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
6.90
1.3
83/08123
1130
WATER
0
30.0
6.0
7.20
1.9
83/09/23
1100
WATER
0
i9.0
10.9
7.30
1.1
83/10/04
1115
WATER
is
19.0
9.5
7.40
0.8
84/04/12
1015
WATER
0
9.0
10.9
7.40
2.0
94105/23
1300
WATER
0
23.0
8.4
7.10
1.6
04/06/13
1020
WATER
0
26.0
6.9
7.30
1.7
84/07/11
1030
WATER
0
26.0
6.9
7.60
1.2
84/08/21
1100
WATER
0
25.0
8.0
7.30
1.5
04/09125
1050
WATER
0
22.0
7.9
7.50
0.8
84/10/30
1100
WATER
0
21.0
7.5
7.40
0.8
85/04/23
1040
DATER
0
22.0
7.0
7.40
85'105/17
1i00
WATER
0
21.0
7.2
7.20
3.0
85/06/13
1030
WATER
0
24.0
8.0
7.20
85/07130
1030
WATER
0.327999
26.0
7.8
7.00
85108120
1040
WATER
0.327979
24.0
8.1
7.00
i.9
85/09/23
1050
WATER
0.327999
21.0
9.2
7.50
85/10/28
1045
WATER
0.327999
18.0
9.8
7.40
86/04/14
1120
WATER
0.327999
1910
10.9
86/05/14
1230
WATER
0.327999
19.0
6.2
7.30
0.9
86106/17
1040
WATER
0.327999
28.0
9.3
8.60
1.1
66/07/28
1330
WATER
0.327979
31.0
i0.9
9.10
86/08/27
1230
WATER
0.327999
7.20
1.1�
86/10/23
1i30
WATER
0.227997
13.0
9.9
7.30

07/04/08
1045
WATER
0.327999
12.0
10.9
5.70
67/05118
1200
WATER
0.327999
23.0
8.5
1.4
87/07/07
1715
WATER
0.327999
29.0
5.1]
87/09/24
1040
WATER
0.327999
22.0
D)j
8.40
87/10115
1210
WATER
0.327999
14.0
ii.5
B.75
88/04/21
1155
WATER
0.327999
'14.0
ii.0
6.80
80/05126
1130
WATER
0.327999
21.0
11.4
8.47
88/06/16
1225
WATER
0.327997
28.0
IV.4
8.88
88/07/11
H 05
WATER
0.327999
29.0
8.7
8.15
80/08/12
920
WATER
0.327999
20.0
1.8
7.66
88/09/12
1200
WATER
0.327999
23.0
8.6
7.93
88/10/13
1025
WATER
0.327999
14.0
10.1
7.66
B9/04J05
1235
WATER
0.327999
15.8
6.7
6.95
89/05/10
1400
WATER
0.327999
15.0
9.9
7.29
99/06/01
1215
BOTTOM
0.1
25.0
6.6
7.23
11ean.
21.7458
9.1475
6.7567
1.2
0.8
In
2.1
1.4
1.5559

510Hs10H
517H
HAW RIMER HAW RIVER NC
NORTH CAROLINA ALAMANCE
DATE
TIME
WATER
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TE14P
DO
PH
BOD
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
dFT1
CENT
MOIL
su
MOIL
81/07/14
1300
WATER
0
28.0
6.7
7.30
2.8
81/08/11
1225
WATER
0
26.0
8.0
7.50
2.1
81/09/29
1200
WATER
0
18.0
8.6
7.10
2.0
81/10/19
1325
WATER
0
13.0
7.7
6.60
4.2
82/07/07
1040
WATER
0
25.0
8.2
7.40
1.3
82/08/05
11055
WATER
0
26.0
7.6
7.40
1.0
82/09/23
1100
WATER
0
10.0
8.0
7.50
1.3
82/10/06
1157
WATER
0
23.0
7.6
7.40
1.5
03i07/19
1315
WATER
0
31.0
6.5
7.67
2.9
83/08/30
1300
WATER
0
29.0
6.1
7.61
7.6
83/09;'21
1205
WATER
0
25.0
4.0
18.0
83/10/12
Boo
WATER
0
20.0
8.5
7.20
7.6
84/07/30
1100
RATER
0
21.0
8.2
6.60
1.5
84108/21
1050
WATER,
0
2-3.0
8.0
7.30
1.4
84/09106
1100
WATER
0
20.0
8.4
7.40
1.0
64/10/01
1110
WATER
0
16.0
9.2
7.40
1.8
85/07/01
1200
WATER
0
21.0
7.4
7.40
2.2
05/00/08
1115
WATER
0.327999
24.0
7.3
8.70
1.7
85109/03
1125
WATER
0.327999
25.0
9.0
7.80
1.5
85/10/01
1105
WATER
0.327999
1910
8.2
7.70
1.0
86/07129
1115
WATER
0.327999
29.0
7.5
7.90
1.3
06/00/14
1130
WATER
0.327999
24.0
7.8
7.30
2.6
86109117
1305
WATER
0.327999
22.0
8.8
7.80
0.7
86110/21
1100
WATER
0.327999
13.0
10.1
7.60
0.8
37/07/28
1330
WATER
0.327999
30.0
8.0
0.11
1.2
871108/12
1150
WATER
27.0
6.7
7.43
87/09/21
1155
WATER.
0.327997
25.0
7.8
7.50
87/10/19
1015
WATER
0.327999
15.0
8.6
7.63
2.1
88/07/21
1130
WATER
0.327999
28.0
6.6
7.70
2.0
80/00/15
1030
WATER
0.327999
28.0
6.4
7.40
88/09/22
1120
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.6
7.40
08/10131
1140
WATER
0.327999
8.0
10.2
7.20
1.2
89/07/25
1230
WATER,
0.327999
29.0
8.1
7.80
0.9
Mears.
22.2333
7.8161
7.8225
2.1143
HAW
RIVER
NEAR
SAXAPAHAW
NC
NORTH
CAROLINA
ALAMANCE

DATE
TIME
HATER
FROM,
OF
DEPTH
TEMP
DO
PH
DOD
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
CENT
ti8/L
5L1
1)8/L
80/07i29
i112
WATER
0
23.0
6.5
7.00
1.9
80109/25
1108
WATER
0
20.0
6.0
7.20
2.3
80109/23
1220
WATER
0
23.0
5.2
7.70
1.9
80/10/30
1335
WATER
0
5.0
8.9
7.20
2.9
81/07/14
1425
HATER
0
30.0
7.3
7.50
3.3
81/08/11
1055
WATER
0
25.0
4.8
7.20
1.6
81/09/29
1045
WATER
0
18.0
7.2
7.10
1.9
61/10119
1530
WATER
0
i3.0
8.6
7.30
1.6
82/07/07
1300
WATER
0
26.0
7.3
7.00
1.6
82108/05
1250
WATER
0
27.0
7.5
6.90
1.4
82/09/23
1249
WATER
0
20.0
7.9
7.20
1.0
82110/06
1415
WATER
0
24.0
5.7
7.10
1.3
83/07119
1530
WATER,
0
31.0
7.5
7.52
1.6.
83,108/30
1450
WATER
0
29.0
4.7
7.20
2.3
83/09/21
1400
WATER
0
25.0
4.5
2.7
83110/1i
1545
WATER
0
16.0
3.2
7.07
1.7
84/07/30
945
WATER
0
21.0
8.5
6.70
1.9
84/08/21
940
WATER
0
22.0
7.2
7.10
1.6
84/09/06
945
WATER
0
21.0
7.2
7.10
i.3
84/10/0i
940
WATER
0
15.0
8.6
7.30
2.2
85/07iol
1325
WATER
0
23.0
5.7
7.40
2.4
85/08108
1230
WATER
0.327990,
25.0
7.9
7.50
85/09103
1340
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.4
7.60
85110/01
i310
WATER
0.327999
21.6
8.0
7.70
1.4
86/07/29
1430
WATER
0,327999
30.0
6.0
7.10
1.0
06108i14
1400
WATER
0.327999
26.0
7.4
7.30
86/09/17
1010
WATER
0.327999
20.0
8.4
7.40
86/10/21
1350
WATER
0.3279019
15.0
9.0
7.50
1.2
87/07128
1500
WATER
0,327999
31.0
6.8
7.60
1.()
87/08/12
1430
WATER
0.327999
29.0
6.5
7.48
87/09121
1330
WATER
0.227999
25.0
7.4
7.10
87/10/19
1215
WATER
0.327999
18.0
8.6
7.50
1.5
88/07/21
1300
WATER
0.327999
29.0
6.2
7.50
1.7
88/08/15
1145
WATER
0,327999
28.0
6.1
7.40
88/09/22
1250
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.2
7.20
80/10/31
1330
WATER
0.327999
.8.0
9.4
6.90
1.9
89/07125
1350
WATER
0.327999
29.0
7.2
7.50
0.9
Mean:
22,8108
7.0135
7.1559
1.7250
HAW RIVER HEAR Dymm, NC
NORTH CAROLINA CHATHAM

d c '
BATE
TINE
WATER
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TEMP
BB
PH
8D8
TO
DAY
HEDIUM
(FT)
CENT
118/L
5t1
196/L
80/07/29
1055
WATER
0
26.0
7.2
2.0
80/08/20
1220
WATER
0
2b.0
6.6
2.0
80/09/17
1825
WATER
0
25.0
6.4
0.8
80/10/20
1435
WATER
0
21.0
8.9
1.6
81/07/21
1535
WATER
0
25.0
7.1
7.01
2.1
8ii08/27
1145
WATER
0
25.0
7.4
7.51
1.2
81/09/28
145B
WATER
0
25.0
7.8
7.80
1.3
61/10115
1315
WATER
0
18.0
0.6
7.63
1.5
02/07/14
1025
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
7.04
2.3
82/08/16
1200
WATER
0
26.0
7.4
6.30
1.5
82/09/14
1045
WATER
0
23.0
9.2
7.20
3.1
82/10/06
1250
WATER
0
21.0
7.9
6.80
1.4
83/07/12
1130
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
6.90
1.3
83/08/23
1130
WATER
0
30.0
6.0
7.20
1.9
83/09/23
1100
WATER
0
19.0
10.9
7.30
1.1
03/10/04
1115
14ATER
0
19.0
9.5
7.40
0.0
84/07/11
1030
14ATER
0
26.0
6.8
7.60
1.2
84/08/21
1100
WATER
0
25.0
8.0
7.30
1.5
84/09/25
1050
WATER
0
22.0
7.9
7.50
0.8
94110/30
1100
WATER
0
21.0
7.5
7.40
0.8
85/07/30
1030
WATER
0,327999
26.0
7.8
7.00
85/09/20
1040
WATER
0.327999
24.0
8.1
7.00
1.8
85/09/23
1050
14ATER
0.327999
21.0
9.2
7.50
95/10/28
1045
WATER
0.327999
18.0
9.8
7.40
86/07/28
1330
WATER
0.327999
31.0
10.9
9.10
86108/27
1230
WATER
0.327999
7.20
1.1
86/10/23
1130
WATER
0.327999
13.0
9.9
7.30
87/07107
1715
WATER
0.327999
29.0
5.1
67/09/24
1040
WATER
0.327999
22.0
1.0
8.40
07/10/15
1210
WATER
0.327999
14.0
11.5
8.75
1.2
88/07/11
1105
WATER
0.327999
29.0
8.7
8.15
88/08112
920
WATER
0.321999
28.0
7.8
7.66
1.1
88/09/12
1200
WATER
0.327999
23.0
8.6
7.93
88/10/13
1025
WATER
0.327999
14.0
10.1
7.66
Kean:
22.6529
7.7794
6.7794
1.4684

s17H
HAW RIVER D HAW RIVER NC
NORTH CAROLINA ALAMANCE
0.0000
SHK
i0
300
400
310
DO
DATE
TIME
DR
WATER
DO
;Rw
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TEMP
5
Ph
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
CENT
NG/L
5u
14G£L
81/02/26
1235
WATER
0
11.0
10.7
7.80
1.8
81/03112
1330
WATER
0
12.0
11.7
7.20
1.6
81/04/21
1200
WATER
0
17.0
9.7
6.70
3.4
91/05/26
1220
WATER
0
24.0
8.2
7.20
1.2
81/06/09
1350
WATER
0
27.0
6.8
7.40
5.9
01/07/14
1300
WATER
0
28.0
6.7
7.30
2.9
91/08/11
1225
WATER
0
26.0
8.0
7.50
2.1
81/09129
1200
WATER
0
18.0
8.6
7.10
2.0
91/10/19
1325
WATER
0
13.0
7.7
6.60
4.2
81/11/03
1320
WATER
0
16.0
8.3
7.00
2.2
811/12115_
1220
HATER
{)
4,.tL-1i
t.
6.90
3.7
82101105
1240
WATER
0
6.0
11.3
6.60
4.3
82/02/04
1200
WATER
0
6.0
11.0
6.20
3.9
82/03/09
1010
WATER
0
6.0
11.3
6.30
1.9
82/04/01
1255
WATER
0
16.0
9.8
7.20
2.5
82105/20
945
WATER
0
20.0
7.3
7.00
4.4
92/06/09
1220
WATER
0
24.0
8.2
7.10
2.4
92/07/07
1040
WATER
0
25.0
8.2
7.40
1.3
82/08/05
1055
WATER
0
26.0
7.6
7.40
1.0
82/09/23
1100
WATER
0
18.0
8.0
7.50
1.3
82/10/06
1157
WATER
0
23.0
7.6
7.40
1.5
82/11/08
1102
WATER
0
10.0
9.9
6.90
1.1
92/_12/28
1300
WATER-- WATER,_
0
15.(►
_-10.4
_7.30
_ 3.i__---
lE.9
83/01/04
1330
WATER
0
8.0
i1.4
7.1ti
33/02/24
1230
WATER
0
11.0
10.2
7.20
4.3
83/03/10
1225
WATER
0
11.0
10.3
6.95
2.9
93/04/13
1330
WATER
0
17.0
9.6
7.65
3.4
83/05/26
1415
WATER
0
25.0
8.2
7.66
7.2
83/06/23
1300
DATER
0
29.0
8.0
7.65
6.5
93/07/19
1315
WATER
0
31.0
6.5
7.67
2.9
83/08/30
1300
WATER
0
29.0
6.1
7.61
7,6
83/09/21
1205
WATER
0
25.0
4.8
18.0�
83/10/12
1600
WATER
0
20.0
8.5
7.20
7.6
83/11/14
1000
WATER
0
8.0
10.4
7.00
1.6
83112105
1130
WATER_--^--('-------1L.-is---
_ 11.0
6.60 - --
2.6
84/01 112
1i3t1
WATER
0
3.0
13.4
6.60
1.9
94/02/02
1145
WATER
0
5.0
13.0
6.90
1.6
84/03/12
1115
WATER
0
8.0
11.8
6.80
1.1
84/04/02
1115
WATER
0
11.0
10.3
7.10
1.4
84/05/10
1115
WATER
0
16.0
8.9
7.40
2.4
84/06/06
1120
WATER
0
25.0
7.9
7.70
84/06125
1110
WATER
0
23.0
7.4
7.70
1.7
84/07/30
1100
WATER
0
21.0
8.2
6.60
1.5
04/08/21
1050
WATER
0
23.0
8.0
7.30
1.4
84/09/06
1100
WATER
0
20.0
8.4
7.40
1.0
84110/01
1110
WATER
0
16.0
9.2
7.40
1.8
94/11/01
1100
WATER
0
20.0
9.4
7.20
1.7
84/12/06
1045
WATER
0
7.0
11.6
7.20
5.4

95/01/07
1055
WATER
0
6.0
12.0
7.20
1.6
85/02/04
1130
WATER
0
4.0
12.0
6.90
2.1
95/03105
1155
WATER
0
14.0
10.6
7.70
1.4
05/04/04
1145
WATER
0
18.0
12.3
8.70
1.6
85/05/21
1110
WATER
0.327999
22.0
8.2
7.70
1.1
85/06/10
1120
WATER
0
25.0
7.4
7.70
1.6
85/07/01
1200
WATER
0
21.0
7.4
7.40
2.2
85/08108
1115
WATER
0.327999
24.0
7.3
8.70
1.7
85/09/03
1125
WATER
0.327999
25.0
8.0
7.80
M
95/10/01
1105
WATER
0.327999
19.0
8.2
7.70
1.0
95/11105
1105
WATER,
0.327999
15.0
9.0
7.20
M
85/12/02
1100
WATER
0.3279,
0
9._8
7.30
1.9
86/01/02
1100
WATER
0.327999
5.0
7.60
1.2
86/02/25
1135
WATER
0.227999
9.0
12.4
7.80
0.8
86/03/20
1200
WATER
0.327999
12.0
9.6
7.00
2.3
86104/15
1330
WATER
0.327999
19.0
9.9
8.00
2.5
86/05/27
1230
WATER
0.327999
21.0
8.9
7.60
1.0
96/06/16
1145
WATER
0.327999
27.0
7.4
7.70
2.0
86/07/29
11i5
WATER
0.327999
29.0
7.5
7.90
1.3
86/O9/14
1130
WATER
0.327999
24.0
7.8
7.30
2.6
86/09117
1305
WATER
0.327999
22.0
8.8
7.80
0.7
GUN/&
1100
WATER
0.327999
13.0
10.1
7.60
0.8
86/11/04
1210
WATER
0.327999
18.0
9.5
7.90
86/12/11
1 320_-WATER-OM994-
Lt. _0
11.3
7.10
8 Ol/28
1150
WATER
0.387999
2.0
15.0
7.40
1.0
87102119
MO
WATER
3.28
5.0
U .2
7.50
87/03/12
1145
WATER
0.327999
.9.0
12.1
7.20
87/04/23
1420
WATER
0.327999
18.9
9.2
6.40
1.6
87/05/20
1330
WATER
0.327999
22.0
8.3
6.60
87/06/30
1138
WATER
0.327999
26.0
8.0
7.50
87/07/20
1330
WATER
0.327999
30.0
8.0
8.11
1.2
87/08/12
1150
WATER
27.0
6.7
7.43
87/09/21
1155
HATER
0.327999
25.0
7.8
7.50
87/10/19
1015
WATER
0.327999
15.0
8,6
7.63
2.1
87111/18
1130
WATER
0.327999
16.0
9.5
7.20
87/12/16
1125
HATER
0,327.939
9..0,
10.4
6.90
=
8 /O1/14
1315
WATER
0..327999
13.0
12.6
7.10
1.5
98/02/11
1155
WATER
0.327999
6.0
11.6
7.00
80/03/22
1130
WATER
0.327999
12.0
10.8
6.60
88/04/19
1335
WATER
0.327999
13.0
8.6
6.70
3.9
98/05/12
1040
WATER
0.327999
20.0
7.8
7.10
88/06/14
1045
WATER
0.327999
26.0
7.2
7.40
88/07/21
1130
WATER
0.327999
28.0
6.6
7.70
2.0
88108/15
1030
WATER
0.327999
28.0
6.4
7.40
88/09/22
1120
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.6
7.40
88/10/31
U 40
WATER
0.327999
8.0
10.2
7.20
1.2
SUMP
1115
WATER
0.327999
10.0
9.8
7.00
88/12/07
1135
WATER
0..327999
_12.9-
_7_..20
-
-89/01117
1245
WATER
0.327999
'9.0
12.6
7.60
1.9
89102/16
1130
WATER
0.327999
11.0
11.0
6.90
89/03/28
1200
WATER
0.927999
17.0
10.2
7.40
89/04/19
1240
WATER
0.327999
14.0
9.8
7.80
2.2
89/05/18
1040
WATER
0.327999
19.0
9.4
7.70
89/06/20
1105
WATER
0.327997
25.0
7.8
7.60
89/07/25
1230
WATER
0.327999
29.0
8.1
730
0.9

HAW
5MK
DATE
FROM
TO
RIVER a HAW RIVER NC
NORTH CAROLINA ALAMANCE
1027 1,067
TIME OR CADMIUM NICKEL
OF DEPTH CD,TQT NI,TOTAL
DAY MEDIUM (FT) UG/L UG/L
81/04/21
1200
WATER
0
50K
$1/07/14
1300
WATER
0
50K
01/10/19
1325
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/01105
1240
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/04/01
1255
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/06/09
1220
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/07/07
1040
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/10/06
1157
WATER
0
20K
100K
93/01/04
1330
WATER
0
20K
100K
83/04/13
1330
WATER
0
20K
100K
83/06/23
1300
HATER
0
20K
100K
83/07/19
1315
HATER
0
20K
100K
83/08/30
1300
WATER
0
20K
100K
83/10/12
1600
WATER
0
20K
100K
84/01112
1130
WATER
0
20K
100K
84104/02
1115
HATER
0
20K
100K
84/07/30
1100
WATER
0
20K
100K
84/10/01
1110
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/01/07
1055
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/04/04
1145
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/05/21
11iO
WATER
0.227999
20K
100K
85106/10
1120
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/07/01
1200
HATER
0
20K
100K
85/08/00
1115
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
05/09/03
1125
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
85/10/01
1105
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
95/11/05
1105
HATER
0.327999
20K
100K
85/12/02
1100
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
86/01/02
1100
WATER
0.3270,99
10K
50K
86/02/25
1135
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/03/20
1200
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/04/15
1330
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/05/27
1230
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/06/16
1145
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/07/29
1115
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
06/00/14
1130
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/09/17
1305
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/10/21
1100
HATER
0.327999
10K
50K
87/01/26
1150
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
87/04/23
1420
HATER
0,327999
10K
50K
87/07/29
1330
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
87/10119
1015
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
88/01/14
1315
HATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88104/19
1335
WATER
0.327999
4
50K
88/06/14
1045
WATER
0.327999
4
50K
88/07/21
1130
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/08/15
1030
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/09122
1120
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/10/31
1140
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
08/11/17
1115
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K

86/12/07
1135
WATER
0.327999
2
50K
89/01/17
1245
WATER
0.327999
4
50K
89/02/16
1130
WATER
0.327999
4
50K
89/03/28
1200
WATER
0.327999
2K
10K
89104/19
1240
WATER
0.327999
3
10K
89/05/18
1040
WATER
0.327979
3
10K
89/06/20
1105
WATER
0.327999
7
10K
89/07/25
1230
WATER
0.327999
2K
10K
HAW
RIVER
WEAR
SAXAPAHAW
NC
NORTH
CAROLINA
ALAMANCE
SMK
10
300
400
310
p 0
DATE
TINE
OR
WATER
DO
-9
bog
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TEMP
5
DAY
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
CENT
M5/L
9U
146/L
80/01/02
1425
WATER
0
2.0
13.2
1.0
80/02/07
1501
WATER
0
1.0
13.4
2.3
80/03/10
1550
WATER
0
11.0
0.4
2.1
80/04/02
1547
WATER
0
12.0
10.2
2.0
80/05/12
1430
WATER
0
16.0
9.5
2.6
80/06/09
1140
WATER
0
20.0
7.2
2.4
80/07/29
1112
WATER
0
23.0
6.5
7.00
1.9
80/08/25
1109
WATER
0
20.0
6.0
7.20
2.3
80/09/23
1220
WATER
0
23.0
5.2
7.70
1.9
80110130
1335
WATER
0
5.0
8.9
7.20
2.9
00/11/06
1256
WATER
0
7.0
10.6
6.70
2.9
80/1_2/15
1435
WATER
is
7.0
9.6
6.80
3.0
61/01/15
1315
WATER
0
I2.0
13.1
7.20
1.2
81/02/26
1030
WATER
0
10.0
10.4
6.70
2.0
81/03/12
1130
WATER
0
9.0
10.8
7.00
1.8
91/04/21
1445
WATER
0
17.0
10.4
7.30
4.2
81/05/26
1050
WATER
0
22.0
6.7
7.10
2.3
81/06/00
1535
WATER
0
27.0
6.6
7.20
2.6
81/07/14
1425
WATER
0
30.0
7.3
7.50
3.3
81/08/11
1055
WATER
0
25.0
9
7.20
1.6
81/09/29
1045
WATER
0
18.0
7.2
7.10
1.7
81/10/19
1530
WATER
0
13.0
8.6
7.30
1.6
811i1/03
1435
WATER
0
16.0
8.7
6.80
1.6
81/12115
1100
DER_-0
3�=
lOr�__7
00
2.4
1/05
1455
WATER
0
5.0
11.2
6.30
1.7
82/02/04
1040
WATER
0
6.0
10.8
6.40
4.0
82/03/09
1118
WATER
0
7.0
11.0
6.60
2.2
82/04/01
1430
WATER
0
19.0
9.1
7.10
1.8
82/05/25
1140
WATER
0
22.0
7.6
7.10
2.7
82/06/09
1410
WATER
0
24.0
7.6
7.00
2.1
82/07/07
1300
WATER
0
26.0
7.3
7.00
1.6
92/08/05
1250
WATER
0
27.0
7.5
6.90
1:4
82/09/23
1249
WATER
0
20.0
7.9
7.20
1.0
82110/06
1415
WATER
0
24.0
5.7
7.10
1.3
02/11/08
1240
WATER
0
11.0
8.5
6.70
1.3
82/ 12/ 8
1500__WATTER
0
19.0--VL
0-7
a()-2-6-
/01/04
1615
WATER
0
8.0
11.2
7.00
1.6
83/02/24
1430
WATER
0
10.0
10.4
7.10
1.5

83/03/10
1405
WATER
,'0
12.0
10.0
6.75
2.8
83/04/13
1545
WATER.
0
10.0
8.9
7.30
2.2
83/05/26
1610
WATER
0
24.0
70
7.12
1.5
93/06/23
1500
WATER
0
26.0
6.6
7.1.8
2.8
83/07/19
1530
WATER
0
31.0
7.
7.52
1.6
93/08/30
1450
WATER
0
21
4.
7.20
2.3
03/09/21
1400
WATER
0
25.0
4.5
t 7,
83/10/11
1545
WATER
0
18.0
3.2
7.0-7
1.7
83/11/14
1200
WATER
0
10.0
8.5
7.10
2.9
83/12/05
1005
WATER
0
9.0
11.2
6.00
3.3
84/01/12
950
WATER
0
3.0
13.5
6.70
3.6
84/02/02
950
WATER
0
2.0
12.7
6.80
2.7
84/03112
1000
WATER
0
7.0
11.6
6,30
0.7
84/04/02
955
WATER
0
12.0
9.9
6.70
1.3
94105110
1000
WATER
0
17.0
8.1
7.30
3.1
04/06/06
1000
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
7.30
84/06/25
1000
WATER
0
24.0
5.9
7.40
1.7
04/07/30
945
WATER
0
21.0
8.5
6.70
1.9
84/08/21
940
WATER
0
23.0
7.2
7.10
1.6
84/09/06
945
WATER
0
21.0
7.2
7.10
1.3
84110i01
940
WATER
0
15.0
8.6
7.30
2.2
84/11101
935
WATER
0
20.0
6.9
6.90
1.6
84/12/06
945
WATER
0
6.0
11 8
7.20
5,4
85/01/07
950
WATER
0
6.0
11.8
7.00
1.6
85/02/04
1300
WATER
0
5.0
11.6
6.60
85/03/05
1250
WATER
0
14.0
10.1
7.30
85/04/04
1350
WATER
0
19.0
11.0
7.90
1.4
85/05/21
1220
WATER
0.327999
23.0
6.6
7.10
85/06/10
1235
WATER
0
27.0
5.8
7.50
85/07/01
1325
WATER
0
23.0
5.7
7.40
2.4
85/09/08
1230
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.9
7.50
95/09/03
1340
WATER
0.327997
25.0
7.4
7.60
85/10/01
1310
WATER
0.927999
21.0
0.0
7.70
1.4
85/11/05
1300
WATER
0.327999
15.0
9.2
6.90
85/1_ '21� 02
1215
WATER
0.32799�13,0__9.
Z_
7a3
86/01/02
1215
WATER
0,327999
5.0
7.60
0.8
86/02/25
1315
WATER
0.327999
9.0
11.3
7.30
86/03/20
1410
WATER
0.327999
13.0
9.1
7.30
86/04/15
1030
WATER
0.327999
17.0
8.9
6.90
2.2
86/05/27
1030
WATER
0.327999
21.0
7.4
7.20
86106/16
1500
WATER
0.327999
29.0
5.3 )
7.50
8b/07/29
1430
WATER
0.327999
30.0
6.0
7.10
1.0
96/08114
1400
WATER
0.327999
26.0
7.4
7.30
86/09/17
1010
WATER
0.327999
20.0
8.4
7.40
86/10/21
1350
WATER
0.327999
15.0
9.0
7.50
1.2
86/11/04
1400
WATER
0.327999
10.0
8.2
7.60
8bif2/11
1435
IdATER
0.327999
10.0
11.4
7,10
87/01/28
1400
WATER
0,327999
3.0
14.7
6.90
1.6
87102/19
1400
WATER
0.327999
6.0
0.0
7.10
97/03112
1005
WATER
0.327999
7.0
12.0
7.20
87/04/23
1640
WATER
0.327999
19.0
9.2
6.70
1.4
87/05/20
1515
WATER
0.327999
22.0
7.7
6.60
87/06/30
1355
WATER
0,327999
28.0
8.0
7.40
87/07/28
1500
WATER
0.327999
31.0
6.8
7.60
1.0
87/08/12
1430
WATER
0.327999
29.0
6.5
7.40
87/09/21
1330
WATER
0.327997
25.0
7.4
7.10
07/10/19
1215
WATER
0,327999
10.0
0.6
7,50
1.5

87/11/18
1245
WATER
0.327999
16.0
8.6
7.32
87/12/16
1235
WATER
0.327999
9.0
10.4
6.90
88/01/14
1435
WATER
0.327999
2.0
12.4
6.00
80/02/11
1300
WATER
0.327999
5.0
11.4
6.80
88/03/22
1310
WATER
0.327999
12.0
10.1
6.80
08/04/19
1445
WATER
0.327999
14.0
8.1
6.80
88/05/12
1135
WATER
0.327999
21.0'
7.4
7.00
88/06/14
1205
WATER
0.327999
24.0
6.8
7.50
98/07/21
1300
WATER
0.327999
29.0
6.2
7.50
88/08115
1145
WATER
0.327999
28.0
6.1
7.40
80/09/22
1250
WATER
0.327999
25.0
712
7.20
88ii0/31
1330
WATER
0.327919
0.0
9.4
6.90
88/11/17
1300
WATER
0.327999
11.0
9.3
7.20
88/12/07
1245
WATER
0.327999
3.0
11.8
6.70
09/01/17
1415
WATER
0.327999
8.0
12.2
7.10
99/02/16
1300
WATER
0.327999
11.0
11.2
6.70
89/03/28
1390
WATER
0.327999
17.0
9.8
7.40
89/04/19
1415
WATER
0.327999
14.0
9.2
7.50
89/05/18
1140
WATER
0.327999
18.0
8.0
7.50
89/06/20
1230
WATER
0.327999
25.0
1.4
7.40
89/07/25
1350
WATER
0.327999
29.0
7.2
7.50
HAW
RIVER
NEAR
SARAPAHAW
PVC
NORTH
CAROLINA
ALAMANCE
SMK
1027
1,067
DATE
TIME
OR
CADMIUM
NICKEL
FROM
OF
DEPTH
CD,TOT
NI,TOTAL
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
USIL
U8/L
80/01/02
1425
WATER
0
50K
80/04/02
1547
WATER
it
50K
80/07/29
1112
WATER
0
50K
80/10/30
1335
WATER
0
50K
81/01115
1315
WATER
0
50K
100K
81/04/21
1445
WATER
0
50K
81/07114
1425
WATER
0
50K
81/10/19
1530
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/01i05
1455
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/04101
1430
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/07/07
1800
WATER
0
50K
100K
82/10106
1415
WATER
0
20K
100K
83/01/04
1615
WATER
0
20K
100K
83/04/13
1545
WATER
0
20K
100K
83/07/19
1530
WATER
0
20K
100K
83/10/11
1545
WATER
0
20K
100K
84/01/12
950
WATER
0
20K
100K
84/04/02
955
WATER
0
20K
100K
84/07/30
945
WATER
0
20K
100K
84/10/01
940
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/01/07
950
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/04/04
1350
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/05/21
1220
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
85/06/10
1235
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/07/01
1325
WATER
0
20K
100K
85/09/08
1230
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
85/09103
1340
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
1.2
2.3
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.9

85/10/01
. 1310
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
85/11/05
1300
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
85/12/02
1215
WATER
0.327999
20K
100K
86/01/02
1215
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
86/02/25
1315
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/03/20
1410
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/04/15
1030
WATER
0,327999
10K
50K
86/05/27
1030
WATER
0.327999
10K
54K
86/06/16
1500
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/07/29
1430
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/08114
1400
WATER
0.327999
lOK
50K
86/09/17
1010
WATER
0,327999
14K
50K
96/10/21
1350
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
87101120
1400
WATER,
0.327999
10K
50K
87104/23
1640
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
87/07120
1500
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
87/10/19
1215
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
88/01/14
1435
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/04/19
1445
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/06/14
1205
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
80/07/21
1300
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/08/15
1145
WATER
0.327§99
2K
50K
88/09/22
1250
WATER
0.327979
2K
54K
88/10/31
1330
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/11/17
1300
WATER.
0..327999
2K
50K
88/12/07
1245
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
89/01/17
1415
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
89/02/16
1300
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
89/03/28
1330
WATER
0.327999
2K
10K
89/04/19
1415
WATER
0.327999
2K
10K
89/05/18
1140
WATER
0.327999
2K
10K
89/06/20
1230
WATER
0.327999
2K
10K
85/07/25
1350
WATER
0,327999
2K
10K
HAW RIVER NEAR BYNUM, NG
NORTH CAROLINA GHATHAM
SMK
10
300
400
310
DATE
TIME
OR
WATER
DO
PH
80D
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TEMP
5
DAY
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
GENT
MOIL
SU
MOIL
80/04/11
1320
WATER
0
26.0
7.8
80/05/12
1530
WATER
0
23.0
9.2
2.2
80/06/11
1320
WATER
0
1.5
00/07/29
1055
WATER
0
26.0
7.2
2.0
80108/20
1220
WATER
0
26.0
6.6
2.0
00/09/17
1825
WATER
0
25.0
6.4
0.8
80110/20
1435
WATER
0
21.0
8.9
1.6
80111/19
1310
WATER
0
8.0
10.4
1.0
80/12/10
1105
WATER
0_
15.._0
10.2
1.5
----
WATER
0
6.0
14.0
7.09
2.7
81/02/18
1330
WATER
0
12.0
10.8
2.2
01/03/26
1550
WATER
0
12.0
11.4
7.24
2.4
81/05/21
1230
WATER
0
16.0
8.1
6.10
1.5
91/136/16
900
WATER
0
28.0
6.8
6.30
2.0

81/07/21
1535
WATER
0
25.0
7.1
7.81
2.1
81/08/27
1145
WATER
0
25.0
7.4
7.51
1.2
91/09/28
1458
WATER
0
25.0
7.9
7.00
1.3
81/10/15
1315
WATER
0
18.0
8.6
7.63
1.5
81/ii%18
1505
WATER
0
15.0
9.0
8.14
0.9
81/12/17
1415
WATER
0
4.0
13.0
7.10
5.5
8° // 1010 05-
WATER
0
4.0
14.4
6.96
2.7
82/02/10
1450
WATER
0
6.0
12.5
7.12
0.9
82/06/22
1000
WATER
0
22.0
7.7
7.06
1.1
82/07/14
1025
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
7.04
2.3
82/08/16
1200
WATER
0
26.0
7.4
6.30
1.5
82/09/14
1045
WATER
0
23.0
9.2
7.20
3.1
82/10/06
1250
WATER
0
21.0
7.9
6.80
1.4
82/11/09
1115
WATER
0
11.0
10.3
7.20
1.0
82/12/14
1110
WATER
0
4.0
12.4
7.00
3.3
SIT /19
12.-0
WATER
0
1.0
12.0
6.90
0.9
83/02/00
1150
WATER
0
4.0
12.2
7.10
2.1
83/03/10
1115
WATER
0
12.0
14.8
6.80
2.3
03/04/19
1040
WATER
0
14.0
10.8
6.80
2.0
03/05/11
1120
WATER
0
18.0
8.6
7.10
1.0
83/06i08
1118
WATER
0
21.0
7.0
6.90
2.0
83/07/12
1120
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
6.90
1.3
83/08/23
1130
WATER
0
30.0
6.0
7.20
1.9
83/09/23
1100
WATER
0
19.0
10.9
7.30
1.1
83/10/04
1115
WATER
0
19.0
9.5
7.40
0.8
83/11/02
1115
WATER
0
11.0
9.9
7.20
1.5
83/12/07
1130
WATER
0
8.0
10.6
7.10
3.9
84►/{1r10
1100
WATER
0
3.0
12.6
7.30
1.0
84/02/09
1115
WATER
0
2.0
12.0
7.00
1.1
84/03/14
1015
WATER
0
9.0
11.6
7.00
2.0
84/04/12
1015
WATER
0
9.0
10.8
7.40
2.8
84/05/23
1300
WATER
0
23.0 .
8.4
.7.10
1.6
84/06/13
1020
WATER
0
26.0
6.9
7.30
1.7
84/07/11
1030
WATER
0
26.0
6.8
7.60
1.2
84/08/21
1100
WATER
0
25.0
8.0
7.30
1.5
84/09/25
1050
WATER
0
22.0
7.9
7.50
0.8
94/10/30
1100
WATER
0
21.0
7.5
7.40
0.8
04/11/26
1145
WATER
0
7.0
13.0
7.50
0.9
84112Lf 4
_l I00
TER--0---u.0
11 • R
7.70
3.7
05/01/11
1015
WATER
0
5.0
11.5
85/02/20
1102
WATER
0
6.0
11.8
7.10
1.2
05/03/26
1045
WATER
0
12.0
10.6
7.10
85/04/23
1040
WATER
0
22.0
7.0
7.40
85/05/17
1100
WATER
0
21.0
7.2
7.20
3-.0
85/06/13
1030
WATER
0
24.0
8.0
7.20
85/07/30
1030
WATER
0.327999
26.0
7.8
7.00
95/08/20
1040
WATER
0.327999
24.0
8.1
7.00
1.8
85/09/23
1050
WATER
0.327999
21.0
9.2
7.50
85/10/29
1045
WATER
0.327999
18.0
9.8
7.40
85/11/19
1200
WATER
0.327999
16.0
10.2
7.30
0.9
85/1` 12/13
1155
WATER
0. 2ZQ99-10,{►
12.1
6.70
86/01/22
1110
WATER
0.327999
7.0
12.5
7.40
86/02/24
1145
WATER
0.327999
10.0
10.8
7.30
1.5
86/03/13
1114
WATER
0.327999
11.0
9.8
6.70
86/04/14
1120
WATER
0.327999
19.0
10.9
06/05/14
1330
WATER
0.327999
19.0
6.3
7.30
0.9
96/06117
1040
WATER
0.327999
28.0
9.3
6.60
1.1

06/07/28
1330
HATER
0.327999
31.0
10.9
9.10
86108i27
1230
SLATER
0.327999
7.20 1.1
86/10/23
1130
STATER
0.327999
.0
9.9
7.30
86/11/10
1145
WATER
0.327999
15.0
7.6
7.10
8�p/t1:�
t t �4
WATER
0 32?399
10.0
+{ r1
07/01122
1045
WATER
0.327999
3.0
10.5
6.60
87/02/26
1030
HATER
0.327999
5.0
11.4
2.1
97/03131
1300
WATER
0.327999
12.0
10.4
87/04/08
1045
WATER
0.327999
12.0
10.9
5.70
87/05/18
1200
WATER
0.327999
23.0
8.5
1.4
87/07/07
1715
WATER
0.327999
29.0
5.1
87/09/24
1040
WATER
0.327999
22.0
1.0
8.40
87/10/15
1210
WATER
0.327999
14.0
11.5
8.75
1.2
87/11/16
930
WATER
0.327999
10.0
11.7
7.80
87/12114
940
WATER
0.327999
7.0
10.3
7.10
88/01/25
rTfS
W ETA R
0.327999
5.0
12.8
6.75
89/02/22
1000
WATER
0.327999
6.0
12.7
8.10
1.1
88/03/15
1015
WATER
0.327999
9.0
12.8
7.05
88/04/21
1155
HATER
0.327999
14.0
11.0
6.90
89/05/26
1130
WATER
0.327999
21.0
11.4
8.47
0.8
88/06/16
1225
WATER
0.327999
28.0
10.4
8.88
89/07/11
1105
HATER
0.327999
29.0
8.7
8.15
88/08/12
920
HATER
0.327999
28.0
7.8
7.66
1.1
88109/12
1200
HATER
0.327999
23.0
0.6
7.93
88/10/13
1025
WATER
0.227999
14.0
10.1
7.66
88111/28
1300
HATER
0.327999
12.0
9.2
6.99
2.4
89/12/20
1020
HATER
0.327999
0.5
14.2
7.61
---
Bil 1/20
1045
WATER
0.327999
7.0
12.8
7.62
89/02/22
1000
HATER
0.327999
5.0
12.0
6.80
3.9
89/03/23
1130
WATER
0.327999
8.0
11.6
7.10
89/04/05
1235
HATER
0.327999
15.9
6.7
6.95
2.1
89/05/10
1400
HATER
0.327999
15.0
9.9
7.29
1.4
89/06/01
1215
BOTTOM
0.1
25.0
6.6
7.23
HAW RIVER NEAR BYNUM, NC
NORTH CAROLINA CHATHAM
5MK
1027
1,067
DATE
TIME
OR
CADMIUM
NICKEL
FROM
OF
DEPTH
CD,TOT
NI,TOTAL
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
Ugh
U8/L
80/06/11
1320
HATER
0
50K
80/09/17
1825
WATER
0
50K
90/12/10
1105
HATER
0
50K
81/02/18
1330
WATER
0
50K
100K
81/06/16
900
HATER
0
50K
100K
81/09128
1459
HATER
0
50Y,
81/11/18
1505
HATER
0
50K
100K
02102/10
1450
HATER
0
50K
100K
82108116
1200
HATER
0
50K
100K
82/11109
1115
HATER
0
20K
100K
83102/08
1150
WATER
0
20K
100K
83105/11
1120
HATER
0
20Y.
100K
B3108/23
1130
HATER
0
20K
iO4K
83/11102
1115
WATER
0
20K
100K
84102/09
1115
WATER
0
20K
100K

e . t
84/05/23
1300
WATER
0
20K
TOOK
84/08121
1100
WATER
0
20K
100K
84111/26
1145
WATER
0
20K
1OOK
85/02/20
1102
WATER
0
20K
LOOK
85/05/17
1100
WATER
0
20K
1OOK
85/06/12
1030
WATER
0
20K
TOOK
85/07/30
1030
WATER
0.327999
20K
1OOK
85/08/20
1040
WATER
0.327999
20K
LOOK
85/09/23
1050
WATER
0.327999
20K
1OOK
85/10/28
1045
WATER
0.327999
20K
TOOK
85111/19
1200
WATER
0.327999
20K
1OOK
85112/13
1155
WATER
0.327999
20K
IOOK
86/01/22
1110
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
86/02/24
1145
HATER
0.32?999
10K
50K
06/03/13
1114
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
66/04/14
1120
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
86/05/14
1330
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
86/06/17
1040
WATER
0.327999
10K
50K
86/00/27
1230
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
86/10/23
1130
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
86/11/10
1145
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
86/12/03
1130
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
87/01/22
1045
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
87/02/26
1030
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
97/03/31
1300
WATER
0.927999
IOK
50K
87/04/08
1045
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
87/05/18
1200
WATER
0.327999
IOK
65
87/07/07
1715
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
87/09/24
MO
WATER
0.327999
IOK
50K
87/10/15
1210
WATER
0.327999
IN
50K
97111/16
930
WATER
0.327999
IN
50K
87/12114
940
WATER
0.327999
IN
50K
88/01/25
1215
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/02/22
1000
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
08/03/15
1015
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88104/21
1155
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/05126
1130
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/06/16
1225
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/07111
1105
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
08/08/12
920
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
B8/09i12
1200
WATER
0.327799
2K
50K
89/10/13
1025
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
89/11/29
1300
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
88/12/20
1020
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
89/01/20
1045
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
89102/22
1000
WATER
0.327999
2K
50K
89/03/23
1130
WATER
0.327999
2K
IOK
89/04/05
1235
WATER
0.327999
2K
IOK
89/05/10
1400
WATER
0.327999
2K
IOK
89106/01
1215
BOTTOM
0.1
2K
IOK

Volt.
Relvo_St �ex M t be-�a.L ,-� S MQ
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO023876
PERMITTEE NAME: City of Burlington — Sows, �� ww-rP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major -4 Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
c / 1Z.0 -QrovoSED
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
61%
39 %
The Mrmit modification request is to increase the design flow to 12.0
MGD• r> r
RECEIVING STREAM: _Big Alamance Creek
Class: C-NSW
Sub -Basin:
03-06-02
Reference USGS Quad: C21SE (please attach)
County: Alamance
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 12/31/92 Treatment Plant Class: Class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
Iy
—Requested by: Lula Harris
Prepared by: /'Il - Sc0A
Reviewed by:
II__ /
�apMMl w 4AC�C ("b't 6 M d'SE-A (',I
n��r ltot.�-y �►. a sdrv.l�l� �'ac c.�MP lia�cc t� be
Date: 11/15/89
Date: 1 l ho
Date: t 6
ud�.d en � le�•on
Modeler
#
t^
nd
54S
Drainage Area (miZ) z6Z ,O Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 2 6�,
7Q10 (cfs) 3.o Winter 7Q10 (cfs) Zo.0 30Q2 (cfs) 2g,0
Toxicity Limits: IWC 86 % Acute hronic
Instream Monitoring:
Vl'}`0^"l (Parameters T,-mpeeaA,,w . DO.�eiuI co('ibfm . C-4J'J'VAV ' talc(
Su«tMar 1)B:y 41 +nano Creek ^+ NG 8T
naant4ot.n
al2 g Upstream y Location Q14ac-4 R�var
rf� b�Liw S.rePsenv:llt �.�
j All L3t10'J Can{t„UACA, A0V11 AL iAM
POy ,V.
Downstream Y Location 2e. &hg At saw f4Xk& r 1*^
.A4 MOAQv lay-'Fe,m Bo'D (set AE4�u1�c,l� ,) A+- SK (005'
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
9
l8
NH3-N (mg/1)
3
6
D.O. (mg/1)
6
6
TSS (mg/1)
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Zoo
Z00
pH (SU)
6-
6-q
Z
2
. �ll
! 4
C rn rt1 utM 'y/gyp
5$
'A
;� f4Ax,MUM
CO, M..NM ""j l
2
�wt� M".
ercw - t
0.0
CAt
-J L
10
1 O Z
(eM d u[!l+
Mohi'�et VI Co !
1
,/� I ji A.,d '0f
Comments: HtWs (�M�S 6.ser� on rfceni 1"Jce-b-t4l Y�WdwdtkS Q'&O�1973.
�Lc�n:$e� loa�'in' fo��GS • t�M�{ ►t`t Arj
0 9A 101* gMWlona -FoxCt ( 1

Request 5487
------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM -------------------
Facility Name: City of Burlington - Southside WWTP
NPDES No.: NCO023876
Type of Waste: 61% Domestic, 39% Industrial
Status: Modification
Receiving Stream: Big Alamance Creek
Classification: C-NSW
Subbasin: 030602 Drainage area: 262.00 sq mi
County: Alamance Summer 7Q10: 3.00 cfs
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Winter 7Q10: 20.00 cfs
Requestor: Lula Harris Average flow: 236 cfs
Date of Request: 11/15/90 30Q2: 24.00 cfs
Quad: C21SE
-------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS ------------ ------------
Proposed Existing
Summer Winter Summer Winter
Wasteflow (mgd): 12.000 12.00 9.50 9.50
BOD5 (mg/1) : 9 18 12 24
NH3N (mg/1) : 3 6 4 8
DO (mg/1) : 6 6 5 5
TSS (mg/1) : 30 30 30 30
Fecal coliform 0/100ml): 200 200 1000 1000
pH (su) : 6-9 6-9 6-9 6' 9
Chromium (ug/1) : 58 58 58 58
Cadmium (ug/1) : 2 2 2 2
Mercury (ug/1): 0.014 0.014 0.2 0.2
Nickel (ug/1): 102 102 61 61
Cyanide (ug/1) : 5 5 -rr� ll) - Z -" Mfour SLnd w"n4r'
Total Res. Cl (ug/1) : 19 19 extsCAJ AA4 toresel.
Toxicity Testing Req.: Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/Qrtrly
---------------------------- MONITORING ----------------------------------
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: 1) Big Alamance Creek at Highway 87
2) Haw River below the Swepsonville dam
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: 1) Below confluence, above first dam
2) Above the.Saxapahaw Dam 3) At SR 1005
----------------------------- COMMENTS ---------------------------
Modification is an increase of flow from 9.5 MGD. Recommend instream
monitoring of temperature, DO, fecal coliform, conductivity, and color.
Additional summer (June -September) instream monitoring should include PO4,
TP, and monthly long-term BOD. Metals limits based on pretreatment
headworks analysis. Other limits based on the decision of the Director.
BOD loadings are the same as those permitted for 9.5 MGD.
Ammonia limit is not expected to protect against instream toxicity.
Facility failed 4 out of 7 toxicity tests in 1989. Recommend
dechlorination of the effluent be required. Recommend effluent monitoring
of copper, zinc, aluminum, and color.
Recommend a reopener clause be included in the -permit allowing new limits
and a schedule of compliance to be added upon completion of a Level-C
analysis or the implementation of a basin -wide policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended by el_141_fb
Division Directo : ��Date:

10/89
Facility Name _C mq Fug �,ng i on Soui�ls,c permit # _ j�(G00 z 3876
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
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 86 °Ic (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
issuance of this permit.during the months of Apr, Ju f , Ocf � Jan Effluent
sampling for this testing -shall be performed at the NPDES pennitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All'toxicity. testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on die Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (NIR-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
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting cliemical/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 die receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure.to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 3.0 efs
Permited Flow 12.0 MGD
IWC% 86 %
Basin & Sub -basin 030607—
;Receiving Stream Zg Mamancg Creek
County A1aw1nnu
Recommended by:
/Ajj -,) -
Date y/V fD
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at &_%, Id, Qr_+, aan. , See Part 3 , Condition T. .

03/31/90
ver 3.1
;,
T O X I C
S R E V
I E W
Facility:
Burlington
Southside
WWTP
NPDES Permit No,:
NC0023876
Status (E, P, or M) :
M
Permitted
Flow:
12.00
mgd
Actual Average
Flow:
7.26
mgd
Subbasin:
030602
Receiving Stream:
Big Alamance Creek
I--------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I---- EFLLUENT DATA----
I
Stream Classification:
C-NSW
I
ACTUAL
PERMITTED[
I
7Q10:
3.00
cfs
I
Ind. +
Ind. + I
FREQUENCY
I
IWC:
86.11
%
I
Domestic
PERMITTED
Domestic I
OBSERVED
of Chronicl
Stn'd /
Bkg
I Removal
Domestic
Act.Ind.
Total
Industrial
Total I
Eflluent
Criteria
I
Pollutant
AL/Crt'a
Cone.
I Eff.
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load I
Cone.
Violationsl
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
I %
(#/d)
--------
(#/d)
--------
(#/d)
--------
(#/d)
---------
(#/d) I
-------- I
(ug/1)
--------
(#vio/#sam)I
--------- I
---------
Cadmium
--
S
----------------
2.0
I --------
I 92%
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.27
0.270 1
35.00
I
Chromium
S
50.0
I 89%
1.55
2.52
4.07
21.55
23.100 I
25.00
I I
Copper
AL
7.0
I 90%
1.89
1.37
3.26
14.41
16.300 1
31.00
l N
Nickel
S
88.0
I 39%
0.65
0.40
1.05
3.64
4.290 1
30.00
1 P
Lead
S
25.0
I 81%
1.55
0.15
1.70
1.66
3.210 l
20.00
l U
Zinc
AL
50.0
I 84%
5.43
1.90
7.33
23.98
29.410 l
126.00
I T
Cyanide
S
5.0
l 59%
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.33
0.330 I
I
Mercury
S
0.012
I 86%
0.01
0.01
0.02
I
I S
Silver
AL
0.060
I 0%
I
I E
Selenium
S
5.0
I 0%
I
I C
Arsenic
S
50.0
I 0%
I
I T
Phenols
S
NA
I 0%
I
1 1
NH3-N
C
I 0%
I
1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL
17.0
1 0%
I
I
I
I
I N
I
I
---------------
l
[
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
I
--------- MONITOR/LIMIT---------
I
1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- I
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Instream
I Recomm'd
[
1
Cone.
using
using
Cone.
Based on
Based on
Based on
I FREQUENCY
IIVSTREAM l
Allowable
CHRONIC
ACTUAL
PERMIT
using
ACTUAL
PERMITTED
OBSERVED
l Eff. Mon.
Monitor. I
Pollutant
I
Load
Criteria
Influent
Influent
OBSERVED
Influent
Influent
Effluent
I based on
Recomm'd ? I
I
(#/d)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
--------
Loading
--------
Loading
--------
Data
---------I
I OBSERVED
---------
(YES/NO) I
-------- I
---------
Cadmium
--
S
I---------
I
1.92
--------
2.323
---------
0.026
--------
0.357
30.14
Monitor
Limit
Limit
I NCAC
YES I A
Chromium
S
I
34.88
58.065
7.393
41.959
21.53
Limit
Limit
Limit
I NCAC
NO I N
Copper
AL
I
5.37
8.129
5.383
26.916
26.69
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
i Weekly
YES I A
Nickel
S
I
11.07
102.194
10.576
43.212
25.83
Limit
Limit
Limit
l NCAC
NO I L
Lead
S
I
10.10
29.032
5.334
10.071
17.22
Limit
Limit
Limit
l NCAC
YES I Y
Zinc
AL
I
23.98
58.065
19.366
77.702
108.50
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
I NCAC
YES I S
Cyanide
S
I
0.94
5.806
0.068
2.234
0.00
Monitor
Limit
I
I I
Mercury
S
I
0.01
0.014
0.039
0.000
0.00
Limit
I
I S
Silver
AL
I
0.00
0.070
0.000
0.000
0.00
I
I
Selenium
S
I
0.38
5.806
0.000
0.000
0.00
I
I R
Arsenic
S
1
3.84
58.065
0.000
0.000
0.00
1
I E
Phenols
S
1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
I
I S
NH3-N
C
I
0.000
0.00
l
[ U
T.R.Chlor.AL
I
19.742
0.00
I
I L
1
[
[ T
I
1
I
I S
I

a
EXTENDED MONITORING CONDITIONS FOR LONG TERM BOD
The City of Burlington shall collect a long-term BOD at the effluent
and at all designated instream sampling sites during July, August, and
September.
The laboratory selected to run the long-term tests shall be made aware
by the City of Burlington of the following guidelines:
1. No -Nitrogen inhibitors shall be used.
2. In addition to ultimate BOD, intermediate nitrogen series
measurements should be made upon set-up and on days 5, 15, 30,
and on the last day of the test.
3. Long-term BOD tests should be run for at least 60 days
for instream samples and 90 days for effluent samples.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 5, 1990
MWORANDUM
TO: George Everett
THROUGH: Steve Tedder
­1
FROM: Trevor Clements9`1
SUBJECT: Burlington South WWTP Expansion WLA
It is my understanding that the decision was made to move forward with per-
mitting the Burlington South WWTP expansion from 9.5 MGD to 12.0 MGD due to, in
large part, considerations involving the State Revolving Loan for this facility.
Furthermore, I understand that it was suggested to permit the expansion with the
existing permitted load for BOD5 and NH3-N held constant until a stream study
can be completed. There are difficulties with implementing this latter approach
that I think you should be aware of before finalizing the wasteload and permit:
1. The proposed effluent concentrations for BOD5 and NH3-N at the expanded flow
corresponding to the existing load (e.g 9 & 3 summer, 18 & 6 winter) are not in
line with the State/EPA-Region IV Wasteload Allocation Agreement. The Agreement
calls for an updated stream model (Level B or C) to be applied and ammonia tox-
icity to be addressed for new or expanding discharges. Limits of 1.1 mg/1 NH3-N
for the summer and 3.8 mg/1 for the winter would be required to meet the agreed
upon ammonia criteria. Current Level B modeling shows that the dissolved oxygen
water quality standard may not be protected in the receiving waters even at
limits of 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 1 mg/l NH3-N. Therefore, it is probable that EPA will
object to the permit if it is written simply holding the loading for BOD5 and
NH3-N to the existing level.
2. The proposed BOD5 and NH3-N limits of 9 & 3 do not correspond to the long
term picture for the Haw River Basin. It is misleading to provide this "interim
offer" when we are confident that limits reflecting the state-of-the-art treat-
ment technology are required. The question is not what the level of treatment
needs to be, rather it is how much wastewater at an advanced tertiary level of
treatment can the Haw River assimilate. Staff have speculated that we may
already be at the point where assimilative capacity has been exhausted. There-
fore, we are likely to be working on a plan for overall reduction within the
basin over the next few years and hopefully to be implemented during 1996 when
the Cape Fear Basin comes up within the Basin Management Cycle. If we are to
move forward with permitting expansion in this basin, we should provide efflu-
ent limitations that are true reflections of the level of technology needed,
especially since now is the time when plans and specifications are moving for-
ward and WWTP design is being considered. In two years, it may be too late or
it may cause additional cost that could have been saved if the appropriate lim-
its were provided up front. Also, a more appropriate message is sent out to the
rest of the dischargers in the basin considering expansion (we need to set a
proper precedent). Let's not perpetuate the problems which arose from short-
sighted facility planning by DEM in the late 70's and early 80's for which we
are now paying the price both in professional reputation and environmentally.

With this information in mind, I am submitting two separate wasteloads for
the Burlington South WWTP for your consideration. The first approval form
represents the recommendations of the staff and is in accordance with the
State/EPA Wasteload Allocation Agreement. The second represents the directive
that was handed down to issue limitations reflecting a constant loading. Since
the latter is not in accordance with the State/EPA Agreement and represents an
administrative decision, it will require your signature for approval. I hope
that we can move forward with the staff's recommendation, however, the staff
will abide by your final directive. The allocation and permitting process will
proceed when we receive your response.
Please let me know if further clarification is required. I would very much
appreciate the opportunity to meet with you in the near future to outline the
Technical Support Branch's strategy for basin modeling and establishing total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) in water quality limited surface waters of the
State. Your support regarding our efforts will be critical to successful
program implementation.

A`
R,S
MoD
lz ��
- 150,74 (�/j 7
i,.S
ev,� a+
4 " /L
-1 1M
- 3l C. 4 Z 1-1/1 7
(�
MGD
60,76
1jkt
q. S
lZ
V�16 D
.316.92
(L f 7y
31 . Z
M a K S t (,1�11 �/l 1

slOH517H
HAW RIVER @ HAW RIVER NC
NORTH CAROLINA ALAMANCE
!DATE
TINE
WATER
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TEMP
DO
PH
B00
T8
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
CENT
MG/L
5U
MG/L
81/04/21
1200
WATER
0
17.0
9.7
6.70
3.4
81105126
1220
WATER
0
24.0
0.2
7.20
1.2
81/06/08
1350
WATER
0
27.0
6.8
7.40
5.9
81107114
1300
WATER
0
29.0
6.7
7.30
2.8
81/08111
1225
WATER
0
26.0
0.0
7.50
2.1
81109/29
1200
WATER
0
18.0
8.6
7.10
2.0
81/10/19
1325
WATER
0
13.0
7.7
6.60
4.2
82104/01
1255
WATER
0
16.0
9.8
7.20
2.5
82/05/20
945
WATER
0
20.0
7.3
7.00
4.4
82/06/09
1220
WATER
0
24.0
8.2
7.10
2.4
82/07/07
1040
WATER
0
25.0
8.2
7.40
1.3
82/08/05
1055
WATER
0
26.0
7.6
7.40
1.0
82/09/23
1100
WATER
0
10.0
8.0
7.50
1.3
82/10/06
1157
WATER
0
23.0
7.6
7.40
1.5
83/04/13
1330
WATER
0
17.0
9.6
7.65
3.4
83/05/26
1415
WATER
0
25.0
8.2
7.66
7.2
83/06/23
1300
WATER
0
29.0
8.0
7.65
6.5
03/07/19
1315
WATER
0
31.0
6.5
7.67
2.9
93/08/30
1300
WATER
0
29.0
6.1�
7.61
7.6
93109/21
1205
WATER
0
25.0
4.8
18.0
83/10/12
1600
WATER
0
20.0
8.5
7.20
7.6
84/04/02
1115
WATER
0
11.0
10.3
7.10
1.4
84105/10
1115
WATER
0
16.0
8.9
7.40
2.4
84/06/06
1120
WATER
0
25.0
7.9
7.70
84/06125
1110
WATER
0
23.0
7.4
7.70
1.7
84/07/30
1100
WATER
0
21.0
8.2
6.60
1.5
84/08/21
1050
WATER
0
23.0
8.0
7.30
1.4
84/09/06
1100
WATER
0
20.0
8.4
7.40
1.0
94i10/01
1110
WATER
0
16.0
9.2
7.40
1.9
85/04/04
1145
WATER
0
19.0
12.3
8.70
1.6
85/05/21
1110
WATER
0.327999
22.0
8.2
7.70
1.1
85/06/10
1120
WATER
0
25.0
7.4
7.70
1.6
85/07/01
1200
WATER
0
21.0
7.4
7.40
2.2
85/08/08
1115
WATER
0.327999
24.0
7.3
8.70
1.7
85/09/03
1125
WATER
0.327999
25.0
8.0
7.90
1.5
85/10/01
1105
WATER
0.327999
19.0
8.2
7.70
1.0
86/04/15
1330
WATER
0.327999
19.0
9.9
8.00
2.5
86/05/27
1230
WATER
0.327999
21.0
8.9
7.60
1.0
86/06/16
1145
WATER
0.327999
27.0
7.4
7.70
2.0
06/07/29
1115
WATER
0.327999
29.0
7.5
7.90
1.3
86/08/14
1130
WATER
0.327999
24.0
7.8
7.30
2.6
86/09/17
1305
WATER
0.327999
22.0
8.8
7.80
0.7
86/10/21
1100
WATER
0.327999
13.0
10.1
7.60
0.8

97/04/23
1420
WATER
0.327999
18.9
9.2
6.40
1.6
87/05/20
1330
WATER
0.327999
22.0
8.3
6.60
87/06/30
1138
WATER
0.327999
26.0
9.0
7.50
07/07/28
1330
WATER
0.327999
30.0
8.0
8.11
1.2
87/08/12
1150
WATER
27.0
6.7
7.43
87/09/21
1,155
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.8
7.50
87/10/19
1015
WATER
0.327999
15.0
8.6
7.63
2.1
08104/19
1335
WATER
0.327999
13.0
8.6
6.70
3.9
88/05/12
1040
WATER
0.327999
20.0
7.8
7.10
88/06/14
1045
WATER
0,327999
26.0
7.2
7.40
88/07/21
1130
WATER
0.327999
28.0
6.6
7.70
2.0
86/08/15
i030
WATER
0,327999
28.0
6.4
7.40
88109/22
1120
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.6
7.40
88/10/31
1140
WATER
0.327999
8.0
10.2
7.20
1.2
89/04/19
1240
WATER
0.327999
14.0
9.8
7.00
2.2
89/05/18
1040
WATER
0.327999
19.0
9.4
7.70
89/06/20
1105
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.8
7.60
89/07/25
1230
WATER
0.327999
29.0
8.1
7.00
0.9
Mean:
21.6984
3.1710
7.633►
2.4366
HAW
RIVER
WEAR
SAXAPAHAW
NC
NORTH
CAROLINA
ALAMANCE
DATE
TIME
WATER
FROM
OF
DEPTH
TEMP
DU
PH
BUD
TO
DAY
MEDIUM
(FT)
CENT
MG/L
SU
MG/L
80/04102
1547
WATER
0
12.0
10.2
2.0
00/05112
1430
WATER
0
16.0
8.5
2.6
00/06/09
1140
WATER
0
20.0
7.2
2.4
80/07/29
1112
WATER
0
23.0
6.5
7.00
1.9
80/08125
1108
WATER
0
20.0
6.0
7.20
2.3
80/09/23
1220
WATER
0
23.0
5.2
7.70
1.9
80/10/30
1335
HATER
0
5.0
8.9
7.20
2.9
01/04/21
1445
WATER
0
17.0
10.4,
7.30
4.2
81/05/26
1050
WATER
0
22.0
6.7
7.10
2.3
01/06/08
1535
WATER
0
27.0
6.6
7.20
2.6
81/07/14
1425
WATER
0
30.0
7.3
7.50
3.3
81/08111
1055
WATER
0
25.0
4.8�
7.20
1.6
81/09/29
1045
WATER
0
18.0
7.2
7.10
i.9
81/10/19
1530
WATER
0
13.0
8.6
7.30
1.6
82/04/01
1430
WATER
0
18.0
9.1
7.10
1.8
82/05125
1140
WATER
0
22.0
7.6
7.10
2.7
92/06/09
1410
WATER
0
24.0
7.6
7.00
2.1
82107/07
1300
WATER
0
26.0
7.3
7.00
1.6
82/08/05
1250
WATER
0
27.0
7.5
6.90
1.4
82/09123
1249
WATER
0
20.0
7.9
7.20
1.0
82/10/06
1415
WATER
0
24.0
5.7)
7.10
1.3
83/04/13
1545
WATER
0
1B.0
8.9
7.30
2.2

r
t
,
83/05/26
1610
WATER
0
24.0
7.0
7.12
1.5
83/06/23
1500
WATER
0
26.0
6.6
7.18
2.0
83/07/19
1530
WATER
0
31.0
7.5
7.52
1.6
83/08!30
1450
WATER
0
29.0
4.7
7.20
2.3
83/09121
1400
WATER
0
25.0
4.5
2.7
83/10/11
1545
WATER
0
18.0
3.2
7.07
1.7
84/04/02
955
WATER
0
12.0
9.9
6.70
1.3
84/05/10
1000
WATER
0
17.0
8.1
7.30
3.1
84/06/06
1000
WATER
0
24.0
6.9
7.30
84/06/25
1000
WATER
0
24.0
5.9]
7.40
1.7
84/07/30
945
WATER
0
21.0
8.5
6.70
1.9
84/08/21
940
WATER
0
23.0
7.2
7.10
1.6
84/09/06
945
WATER
0
21.0
7.2
7.10
1.3
84/10/01
940
WATER
0
15.0
8.6
7.30
2.2
85/04104
1350
WATER
0
19.0
11.0
7.90
1.4
85/05/21
1220
WATER
0.327999
23.0
6.6
7.10
85/06/10
1235
WATER
0
27.0
5.8�(
7.50
85/07/01
1325
WATER
0
23.0
5.7
7.40
2.4
85/08/08
1230
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.9
7.50
85109/03
1340
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.4
7.60
95/10/01
1310
WATER
0.327999
21.0
8.0
7.70
1.4
86/04/15
1030
WATER
0.327999
17.0
8.9
6.90
2.2
96/05/27
1030
WATER
0.327999
21.0
7.4
7.20
86/06/16
1500
WATER
0.927999
29.0
5.3
7.50
86/07/29
1430
WATER
0.327999
30.0
6.0
7.10
1.0
86/08114
1400
WATER
0,327999
26.0
7.4
7.30
86107/17
1010
WATER
0.327999
20.0
8.4
7.40
06/10/21
1350
WATER
0.327799
15.0
9.0
7.50
1.2
87/04/23
1640
WATER
0.227999
19.0
9.2
6.70
1.4
87/05/20
1515
WATER
0.327999
22.0
7.7
6.60
87/06/30
1355
WATER
0.327997
20.0
8.0
7.40
87107/28
1500
WATER
0.327999
31.0
6.8
7.60
1.0
07/09/12
1430
WATER
0.327999
29.0
6.5
7.48
87/09/21
1330
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.4
7.10
87/10/19
1215
WATER
0.327997
18.0
8.6
7.50
1.5
88104/19
1445
WATER
0.327999
14.0
8.1
6.80
2.3
88/05/12
1135
WATER
0.327997
21.0
7.4
7.00
28/06/14
1205
WATER
0.327999
24.0
6.8
7.50
98/07121
1300
WATER
0.327999
29.0
6.2
7.50
1.7
88108115
1145
WATER
0.327999
28.0
6.1
7.40
88/09/22
1250
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.2
7.20
88/10/31
1330
WATER
0.327999
8.0
9.4
6.90
1.9
89/04/19
1415
WATER
0.327999
14.0
9.2
7.50
2.3
89/05/18
1140
WATER
0.327999
18.0
8.8
7.50
89/06/20
1230
WATER
0.327999
25.0
7.4
7.40
89/07125
1350
WATER
0.327999
29.0
7.2
7.50
0.9
Wean:
21.0824
7.4162
6.7613
11.9156
HAW
RIVER
WEAR
BYNUM,
NC

Request 5487
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name: City of Burlington - Southside WWTP
NPDES No.: NCO023876
Type of waste: 61t Domestic, 39% Industrial
Status: Modification
Receiving Stream: Big Alamance Creek
Classification: C-NSW
Subbasin: 030602 Drainage area: 262.00 sq mi
County: Alamance Summer 7Q10: 3.00 cfs
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Winter 7Q10: 20.00 cfs
Requestor: Lula Harris Average flow: 236 cfs
Date of Request: 11/15/90 30Q2: 24.00 cfs
Quad: C21SE
-------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS -------------------------
Proposed Existing
Summer Winter Summer Winter
Wasteflow (mgd): 12.000 12.00 9.50 9.50
BOD5 (mg/1) : 5 10 12 24
NH3N (mg/1) : 1 2 4 8
DO (mg/1) : 6 6 5 5
TSS (mg/1) : 30 30 30 30
Fecal coliform (#/100ml): 200 200 .1000 1000
pH (su) : 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
Chromium (ug/1) : 58 58 58 58
Cadmium (ug/1) : 2 2 2 2
Mercury (ug/1): 0.014 0.014 0.2 0.2
Nickel (ug/1) : 102 102 TP 61 61
Cyanide (ug/1) : 5 5 = ZI
Total Res. Cl (iig/l) : 19. 19 SammAf 4AJ w�hfic�
Toxicity Testing Req.: Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/Qrtrly.
---------------------------- MONITORING ----------------------------------
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: 1) Big Alamance Creek at Highway 87
2) Haw River below the Swepsonville dam
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: 1) Below confluence, above first dam
2) Above the Saxapahaw Dam 3) At SR 1005
----------------------------- COMMENTS -----------------------------------
Modification is an increase of flow from 9.5 MGD. Recommend instream
monitoring of temperature, DO, fecal coliform, conductivity, and color.
Additional summer (July -September) instream monitoring should include PO4,
TP, and monthly long-term BOD. Metals limits based on pretreatment
headworks analysis. Other limits BPJ based on the quality of the
receiving waters and the size of the discharge. Facility has failed 4 out
of 7 reported toxicity tests in 1989. Recommend dechlorination of the
effluent be required. Recommend effluent monitoring of copper, zinc,
aluminum, and color.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended by:
Reviewed By:
Asst Chief, Tech Support:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
Date: q1 Ldlo
Date: D
Date:
Date:

II. WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PROCEDURES
(3/16/90)
C.3.f. Assigning Chemical Specific Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
-- for protection of aquatic life or noncarcinogenic human health criteria
Under routine analyses, chemical specific effluent limits are calculated to
protect to the chronic no effect level for aquatic life instream under 7Q10 con-
ditions. Since most criteria reflect between 4 and 7 consecutive day exposure
period assumptions, it makes sense to allocate substance for protection of
chronic effect on a weekly average of daily monitoring basis. However, the cost
of monitoring frequency was taken into account by DEM in the early 1980's when
toxics first began to be limited for municipalities with significant industrial
sources. A procedure was established at that time whereby once per week or two
per month sampling only is required, dependent on the classification of the
facility. Therefore, in general, chemical specific toxic limits shall be placed
in NPDES permits as a maximum daily allowable concentration in light of this
reduced monitoring frequency.
Higher daily maximum concentrations may be allocated if a facility agrees
to perform daily monitoring (i.e. 5 samples per week, Monday through Friday).
The daily maximum limit should be established to protect, at a minimum, to pro-
vide protection from acute effects as defined in 15 NCAC 2B .0202 (1). A weekly
average limit would then be added to the permit to ensure protection of the
-
receiving waters from chronic effects. Compliance with the weekly average limi-
tation is determined by the average of the daily samples for that week. For
purposes of this calculation, samples listed at less than analytical detection
will be assumed to be zero.
Determination of the acute criteria should be based upon 1/2 the Final Acute
Value (FAV), or the Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC), for a substance as
listed in the EPA criteria document or as established under 15 NCAC 2B .0202
(1). If no FAV or CMC value is available, then 1/3rd of the LC50 for a repre-
sentative organism (i.e. fathead minnow or daphnids) may be substituted. A list
of established acute criteria will be developed and updated for reference as
specific toxicants come up for review.
Where calculation of a daily maximum limit is based upon an acute effect
level, care should be given to assure that a sample of that magnitude would not
violate the weekly average. For example, if the acute criteria resulted in a
daily maximum limit of 100 ug/l and the chronic criteria required a weekly
average of 10 ug/l, a single observation of 100 ug/l would violate the weekly
criteria even if all other samples were below detection since 100 ug/l divided
over 5 days equals 20 ug/l. When this occurs, the daily maximum limit should be
calculated using the following formula:
Daily Max. _ (5 * Weekly Average Limit) - the analytical detection level
or weekly average limit,
whichever is higher
Following through with the above example, the daily maximum applied to the
discharge (assuming a detection level of 10 ug/1) would be:
Daily Max. _ (5 * 10 ug/1) - 10 ug/l
= 40 ug/l

II. WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PROCEDURES
NOTE: For other parameters such as BOD, DEM often applies a daily maximum that
is 1.5 times the monthly average. The 1.5 multiplier does not, however, appear
to apply well to the toxics parameters since the standards for many are so low
that multiplying the weekly limit by 1.5 provides little more than a few ug/l
(or nanograms/1 in some cases) difference and in some cases would still result
in a limit below detectable levels. In addition, since we know what the acute
criterion is for the toxicant, it appears reasonable to allow up to that value
for only one day as long as the chronic criterion is met for the week.
For implementation purposes, the Permittee may choose to collect 5,samples for
the week (for substances where standard methods allow holding of sample) 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.be run for that week. If on the other hand the first sample is
above the weekly average, then all 5 samples will need to be analyzed and the
permittee must comply with both the weekly average and daily maximum limits.
-- for carcinogenic human health criteria
Limits for carcinogenic substances that are based on human health criteria
shall be input to the NPDES permit as a monthly average requirement. Monitoring
frequency shall be weekly for Class 1 and 2 facilities and weekly for Class 3
and 4 facilities. The daily maximum criteria should, in general, be input as
1.5 times the monthly average. NOTE: Remember that limits for carcinogenic
substances based upon human health criteria should be calculated using the
average streamflow rather than the 7Q10 (see SOP Manual Section C.l.b).
-- determining whether limits should be mass or concentration based
Municipal discharges will always receive their effluent limitations in terms
of concentration. Industrial discharges, on the other hand, may have federal
categorical guidelines that are applied in terms of mass. These guideline
values will need to be compared to water quality based allowable concentrations
to determine which should be applied.
Per DEM's agreement with EPA, all industries with toxics allocations that
are water quality limited shall have effluent limits in terms of both mass and
concentration. Where federal guidelines apply, both monthly average and daily
maximum effluent guidelines should be compared to water quality based limits and
the more stringent of the criteria should be applied. In some cases, monthly
average limits will be effluent guideline based and daily maximum limits will be
water quality based.
EXAMPLE: Effluent Guidelines for generic toxic "x" --
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Toxic "x" BPT 1.0. #/D 2.3 #/D
Through appropriate Division procedures for calculating toxic limits, the
water quality limit for toxic "x" turns out to be 0.065 mg/l, which corresponds
to 1.5 #/D. Since water quality toxic limits reflect the daily maximum

City or Burlington
TELEPHONE (919' 227- 3603 • Box 1358
NORTH CAROLINA 27216
WILLIAM R. BUDDY BAKER
CITY MANAGER
March 5, 1990
.• €��� lit
WA 7
Mr. Steve W. Tedder.
Water Quality Section Chief
NC Division of Envi onmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Reference: NPDES Permit No. NCO023876
Modification Burlington South WWTP
Alamance County
Your letter of February 20, 1990
Dear Mr. Tedder:
We appreciate your response to my letter of February 1, but we are
disappointed that your letter does not address many of the concerns which have
been expressed by the City of Burlington in previous conferences and
correspondence. Our concern about losing grant and loan funding allocations
continues to be of paramount consideration, and our offer to accept mass
limits for the South B_ urlingtgn Wastewater Plant remains unanswere As
stated by Mrr Randall Kornegay in the meeting in your office January 17, 1990,
the City_ of Burlington does not have resources to provide assistance to the
Water Quality Section in gathering instream data on the Haw River as suggested
in your recent letters.
Also, it is doubtful that stream data could be gathered in the summer of 1990
which would be representative of future conditions in the Haw River.
Impoundment dams are under construction on Great Alamance Creek by the City of
Bur ing orZ.�an on Back Creek by the Cities of Graham and Mebane. Construction
iv`eons and con ro this summer will likely significantly influence stream
flows - will be 1992 before both of these projects are completed, and at
that time mandated minimum in -stream release requirements aggregating 15 cfs
will significantly influence dry weather flows in the Haw River.

Mr. Steve W. Tedder
Page 2
March 5, 1990
We feel obligated to seek reconsideration of our request for mitigation of
further delay through other channels of communication because:
1. preliminary talks with DEM about expansion did not suggest further stream
studies
2. a considerable investment has already been made for plans and contract
documents
3. the loan and grant funding will be jeopardized from a continued delay.
Sincerely
/, /.�
L�
W. R. Baker
City Manager
WRB/vh
PC: William W. Cobey, Secretary, DEHNR
Dr. George T. Everett, Director, DEM
A. R. Kornegay - Public Works/Utilities Director
Steve Shoaf - Utilities Administrator
Piedmont Olsen, Inc.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environrnental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. V-7illiam R. Baker
City Manager
City of Burlington
P. O. Box 1358
Burlington, NC 28387
Dear Mr. Baker:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
March 2, 199077
L
MAR � 1990 ,y ,
SUBJECT: South Burlington WTP
Phosphorus Removal, M/R
Sludge Facilities and
Expansion Project
By letter dated January 26, 1990, this office advised Mr. Walter
Taft of your consulting engineering firm that the loan funds currently
being held for this project would have to be reassigned to another
municipality if significant project delays threatened the availability
of these funds to the State. It is anticipated that if this project is
not ready to proceed to construction by September 30, 1990 it will
become necessary to reappropriate the funds.
The City of Burlington was advised by letter dated January 20,
1990 from the Water Quality Section of this Division that a permit for
the proposed expansion of the South Burlington WHIP to 12 mgd would not
be processed until additional stream data is obtained. Since the
necessary data cannot be obtained until the summer months, it is
doubtful that the project will be ready to proceed by September 30,
1990 as currently proposed.
Assuming that the above is an accurate assessment of the current
situation, please provide this office with a schedule for either
revising the project to delete the expansion for.additional flow or
completing the necessary requirements to obtain ar;permit and proceed to
MAR 0 9 1990�
PoHudon Pmendon Pays I l=CHVddv L S1;3sPO4RI I;y,y�"�f$RI P,r S'i
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 9j19-733-7015

Mr. William R. Baker
Page 2
March 2, 1990
construction by September 30, 1990. The Construction Grants Section is
willing to work with you and/or your consultants in an effort to retain
these funds for the City of Burlington; however, we must be advised of
the City's intentions as soon as possible in order to assure that the
availability of these funds is not jeopardized.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please advise.
Sincerely,
�f
John R. Blowe, Chief
Construction Grants Section
JRB/nw
cc: Olsen Associates
George T. Everett
Winston-Salem Regional Office
1,�ve Tedder
Coy Batten
Enclosures

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
February 20, 19T®
Mr. William R. Baker, City Manager
City of Burlington
P.O. Box 1358
Burlington, NC 28387
Subject: NPDES Permit No. NCO023876 Modification
Burlington South WWTP
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Baker,
This letter is to inform you that the wasteload allocation for the pro-
posed expansion of the Burlington South WWTP to 12 MGD will not be processed
until instream data are obtained. As you are aware, instream water quality
violations have been documented in the Haw River below the Burlington dis-
charges, and inadequate data exist to properly evaluate the effect of an
increase of wastewater loading. Data required for an appropriate assessment
include hydraulics data and longitudinal water quality profiles. Specifi-
cally:
1) Time -of -Travel (TOT) data from above the Burlington East WWTP on the
Haw River and from above the Burlington South WWTP on Big Alamance Creek to
SR 1005 on the Haw River below Saxapahaw, NC. Two TOT studies are needed,
each representative of distinctly different baseflow conditions. Flow and
Cross -sectional measurements should be made during these studies.
2) One or more water quality profiles, encompassing the same reaches of
the river as the TOT studies. A water quality profile would include the
measurement of at least temperature, DO, and conductivity at frequent
intervals on the longitudinal axis. The profile(s) should include sampling
the water impounded behind the four small dams along the Haw River, and
should be depth integrated samples where applicable. The water quality
study needs to be performed in the summer, when the lower flows and
warmer temperatures facilitate a better representation of 'critical periods.
3) Long-term BOD profile. Long-term BOD with nitrogen series data
should be collected at various select sights within the study area. These
samples preferably would be taken at the time of the water quality survey.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Eaual O000rtunity Affirmative Action Emplover

The collection of the above information will require considerable time
and effort, and should be carefully planned in cooperation with DEM to
assure the data's usefulness and adequacy. I suggest that the city of Bur-
lington meet with members of my staff in the near future to develop an
effective study plan and discuss logistical difficulties. It may be pos-
sible to complete these studies this summer if action is promptly taken. As
a reminder, no increase of wasteflow will be permitted to the Haw River
until these data are available.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, or wish to
arrange a meeting with DEM, please contact Trevor Clements at (919)
733-5083.
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
cc: Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Steve Mauney
Central Files
George T. Everett
Chuck Wakild
Bobby Blowe

City of Burlington
TELEPHONE [phone] • BOX 1358
NORTH CAROLINA 27216
February 1, 1990
Mr. Steve W. Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
Environmental Management Division
Department of Natural Resources &
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
.0 i
F L B 2 3 1990;
WILLIAM R. BUDDY BAKER
CITY MANAGER
FEB .2 1990 ti "
TECHNIC I WATER-. QUALITY
Community Development
RE: South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Project for Phosphorus Removal, M/R Sludge
Facilities and Capacity Expansion
Burlington, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tedder:
This week we received a copy of Mr. John R. Blowe's recent letter to Mr.
Walter Taft indicating the jeopardy to currently reserved funding if any
additional significant delay occurs in the execution of this project. It is
also my understanding that responses to DEM review comments are virtually
complete and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids.
I am informed by Randall Kornegay that during a meeting in your office
on January 17th, you indicated a desire to work with the City of Burlington so
that the project could proceed and its funding not be jeopardized. We
appreciate your commitment to cooperative effort and we do seek your
assistance in resolving the question of an appropriate permit.
Without any attempt to enumerate details, it is fair to state that the
City of Burlington has proceeded in good faith to meet the State's mandate for
phosphorus removal and replacement of failed I/A treatment technology, and at
the same time conveniently accomplish a modest plant capacity expansion with
local funding. We certainly do not wish to lose the loan and grant funding
which has been reserved for this total project while waiting for a Level C
analysis to be completed on the receiving stream. Alternative procedures have
been discussed, and we reiterate the request of Randall Kornegay that you
consider a permit for 12 MGD flow and a mass waste loading limit derived from
the current concentration limits and hydraulic loading of 9.5 MGD.

r
9
Mr. Steve W. Tedder
Page 2
February 1, 1990
The City of Burlington has always supported all reasonable steps toward
the improvement of water quality, and in this instance we are fully committed
to the concept of not increasing the waste load on the receiving stream. We
do ask for your cooperation and assistance in allowing this project to go
forward without delay, and we also request an opportunity to again discuss
alternatives with you before any final decision is made regarding the NPDES
permit for the South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant.
WRB/vh
PC:
Dr. George T. Everett, Director
Environmental Management Division
Mr. John R. Blowe
Construction Grants Section Chief
Olsen Associates, Inc.
Steve Shoaf
A. Randall Kornegay
Sincerely,
�M
W. R. Baker
City Manager

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street ® Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor January 26, 1990
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
1990
Mr. Walter D. Taft, Jr., P.E.
Olsen Associates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 31388
Raleigh, NC 27622-1388
Dear Mr. Taft:
ALI
R. Paul Wilms
Director
SUBJECT: South Burlington WTP
Phosphorus Removal, M/R Sludge
Facilities & Fxpansion Project
This is in response to your letter of January 18, 1990 to confirm
your discussion with Coy Batten on the loan and grant funds for subject
project. You were interested in both the $2,400,000 E� M_��ant and
the $3,598,000 EPA revolving loan.
The rant ds have already hPPr apa� - and this office will
not rescin earrant due to the del However, it should be noted
that F.Y. 1990 is the last year for EPA Federal grants and the policy
may change for delinquent grants.
The City of Burlington received priority for a Federal revolving
loan from F.Y. 1989 funds. The original date for the loan was
established in the Intended Use Plan as June 1989. Due to separating
the chemical phosphorus removal, the remainder of the loan was
rescheduled to April 1990.
Please be advised that any additional significant delay will
jeopardize the loan funds currently reserved for this project. A
significant delay in this project will require this office to
reschedule the loan funds for another project to assure the funds would
not be lost to the State. We anticipate that if the project is delayed
beyond September 30, 1990, it will be necessary to re -appropriate the
funds o ano er project.
h.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

Mr. Walter D. Taft, Jr.
Page 2
January 26, 1990
We trust this information is helpful and request that this office
be kept informed on project permit schedules.
Sincerely,
John R. Bl'owe, Chief
Construction Grants Section
CB/nw
cc: City of Burlington
,water Quality Section
Winston-Salem Regional Office
SRF

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 22, 1990
T
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chuck Wakild
FROM: Steve W. Tedder,
SUBJECT: Burlington South WWTP, Expansion Request
JAN 25 1990
AIMINISPIATRIVE S[ '14CES K1 06
On January 6, 1988 the Burlington South WWTP NPDES permit was modified to
include additional phosphorus effluent limits of 2.0 mg/l. Also on August 1,
1989 rules were adopted relating to EAs/EIs procedures for projects concerning
wastewater. Burlington submitted an EA for phosphorus removal in August 1989
(see attached).
On November 1, 1989 Burlington South submitted an application to increase
the capacity of the facility from 9.5 MGD to 12.0 MGD. This expansion was not
addressed in the EA submittal. On December 28, 1989 I sent a letter to Bur-
lington explaining the need for additional stream information before the
expansion could be approved and new effluent limits established (see
attached).
On January 9, 1990 I received a letter from W.R. Baker, City Manager
(attached) and a telephone call from Walter Taft of Olsen Assoc. expressing
their concerns that I would delay this project. I met with Mr. Baker, Randall
Kornegay, Steve Short and Walter Taft and others from Olsen Assoc. on January
17, 1990 to discuss the situation.
It appears that Burlington has proceeded to design of not only the phos-
phorus removal but also the expansion from 9.5 MGD to 12.0 MGD and are ready
to bid the project. I asked those in attendance why and how they could design
such a project without a permit modification and WLA to know the limits to be
achieved. Their answer was, "We assumed nothing would change."
The situation gets more interesting from this point forward. I now
understand that they are on the 1990 Construction Grants loan priority list
for $3,598,000 and also have been approved for a failed I&A replacement grant
of $2,400,000. They say that these loans and grants would be jeopardized if
delays occur. Walter Taft called Coy Batten and Bobby Blowe on January 17,
1990 and supposedly they also said the loans would be jeopardized.
I must say that the entire process is questionable and warrants investi-
gation.
Fact: Original permit modification was for phosphorus removal.
Fact: EA submittal was for phosphorus removal.
Fact: No permit modification has been accomplished for expansion.
Fact: No WLA has been conducted for the expansion.
Fact: Additional information is required to establish supportable lim-
its.

a
r
Question: Why was EA not submitted for expansion?
Question: Why would anyone get to the point of project bid without
either WLA or permit modification to know actual effluent
limits:
Question: On what basis would we obligate $3,598,000 loan without the
above?
Question: Why are the loans jeopardized?
Recommendation
(1) Require EA to be submitted that reflects the expansion.
(2) Defer WLA until sufficient data is obtained.
(3) Protect loans and grants if feasible.
I would like to discuss as soon as possible.
SWT:ps
Attachments

COPY TO: TREVOR CLEMENTS
January 18, 1990
10 Cten Assod# s, Inc.
ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
e'
JAN 23 1990
WATER QUALITY
Mr. Coy M. Batten -SECTION
Construction Grants Section
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RE: South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Project for Phosphorus Removal,
M/R Replacement of Failed I/A and Capacity Expansion Project
Burlington, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Batten:
WILLIAM H. SKIMON. A.IA
LEON C. CHEEK, JR., P.E.
ASSOCIATES
JORN H. MAYNARD. JR.. P.E.
KARL L. HARROD
RANDY E- HILDEBRAN. P.E.
DALE N. LEE. P.E.
W. MKSUEL PEERY. A.I.A.
J. STEVEN PORTER. P.E.
T. BARKER DAMERON. P.E-
J. AUBURN HALL. JR.. R.L.S.
HOWARD W. KIMBRELL
This is to confirm our telephone conversation January 17, 1990 regarding the
effect on the status of the approved $3,598,000.00 loan and $2,400,000.00 I/A
grant for the subject project, if there is any significant delay in the
beginning of construction. The construction documents have been reviewed,
review comments have been addressed, and corrections have been completed in
anticipation of advertisement for construction bids within the next sixty (60)
days.
As you know, the Water Quality Section has recently stated that it wants to
perform a Level C analysis of the receiving stream, using City and State
resources. It is my understanding that some of the data needs to be collected
during a low flow or dry season. It is conceivable that all necessary data
collection may not be completed until the fall of 1990. If you then add
modeling time, permit review time, etc. it may well be early 1991 before new
permit requirements are known. If any major redesign is required, it could be
late in 1991 before construction begins.
I understood you to say that the State must enter into a binding agreement
with the City on the low interest loan by April 1990. I also understood you
to say that the loan would probably be lost to the City if project
construction is delayed much over six (6) to eight (8) months. Further, you
mentioned that the loan, if withdrawn from the City, could be lost to the
State of North Carolina if another qualifying project is not ready for
construction to begin in the same time frame. Insofar as potential hazard to
the grant is concerned, you stated that this would be an EPA decision. Please
verify the extent of jeopardy of grant loss for such a time delay and let me
know as quickly as possible.
OFFICES IN RALEIGH AND GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 2710 Wycliff Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27607 [phone]
P.O. Box 31388, Raleigh, NC 27622-1388 Fax [phone]

Mr. Coy M. Batten
Page 2
January 18, 1990
With so much at stake, it is critical for the City to known the impact of any
delay in construction upon the grant and loan finding already in place for
this important project.
Your prompt confirmation of the accuracy of this "statement of understanding"
from our telephone conversation will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
O�LSEEN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Walter D. Taft, Jr. .E.
WDTjr/slr
cc: Randall Kornegay w/ encl.
Steve Tedder w/ encl.
Steve Shoaf w/ encl.

January 19, 19910
MEMO FOR RECORDWA�
REFERENCE: NC DEM Meeting with Steve Tedder, January 17, 1990
Burlington South WWTP - NPDES Permit
Person attending meeting:
Steve Tedder NC DEM
Randall Kornegay Burlington Director of Public Works
Steve Shoaf Burlington Utilities Administrator
Leon Cheek Piedmont/Olsen, Inc.
Jim Lamb Piedmont/Olsen, Inc.
Walter Taft Piedmont/Olsen, Inc.
Morris Brookhart Piedmont/Olsen, Inc.
Subject of the meeting was the letter dated December 28, 1989, from
Mr. Tedder to the Burlington City Manager. The letter effectively halts
progress of the upgrading and expansion project at the South Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Plans and specifications for the project have been completed, DEM
Construction Grants Section has completed a review of the plans and
specifications, and the plans and specifications have been revised in
response to review comments. Resubmittal has been deferred until the
future of the project has been determined.
It was explained that the plans and specifications provide for a project
with three components:
1. Biological phosphorus removal
2. Modification and repairs for failed I/A components
3. Plant expansion (9.5 MGD to 12 MGD)
The project will be funded using State loan funds, EPA Grant, and local
funds.
Mr. Tedder expressed surprise that the project has gotten as far as it has
without written discharge limits being received by the City. Mr. Kornegay
recalled that Jim Brown discussed expansion with the Technical Support
Branch 18 to 24 months ago and that the limits would remain the same for
BOD and nutrients, but that metal concentrations would be more stringent.
It was conceded by all that a thorough file search has not been done.
Possible courses for the project are:
1. Delay construction until the Technical Service Branch completes its
studies. Tedder indicated that dates in the Consent Order could be
moved.
2. Determine discharge limits for the 12 MGD NPDES Permit using in -hand
stream data. This would allow the model to be run immediately.

Mr. Tedder indicated that he would request Technical Services to
provide limits on this basis. Mr. Kornegay stated that the City did
not have resources available to provide assistance in the water
quality study as suggested in the December 28 letter.
3. The City requested that mass limits be considered; e.g., issue an
NPDES permit for 12 MGD flow with permitted mass waste loading
derived from current concentration limits and hydraulic loading of
9.5 MGD..
It was not known'at the meeting what effect a delay in the project would
have on loan and grant funding which has been arranged. Mr. Taft agreed
to pursue this question with the Construction Grants Section.
Mr. Tedder indicated a desire to work with the City; he particularly did
not want to jeopardize funding which has already been arranged. He will
gather relevant information, get with the Director, and get back to the
City next week.
Piedmont Olsen, Inc.
MB/ps

City of Burlington
TELEPHONE (919; 227- 3603 • Box 1358
NORTH CAROLINA 27216
January 9, 1990
Mr. Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section. Chief
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
WILLIAM R. BUDDV BAKER
CITY MANAGER
Resources WATT
SECfj6}� 1V
RE: Your letter of December 28, 1989
South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Tedder
This letter confirms the meeting which has been arranged in your office
Wednesday, January 17, 1990 at 1:00 P.M. Randall Kornegay, Public
Works/Utilities Director, and Steve Shoaf, Utilities Administrator will attend
for the City of Burlington. In addition, our consultants, Olsen Associates,
will have three representatives attending.
As you are aware, we are very concerned about the long delay in
upgrading our South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant which will result
from the study proposed in your December letter. The project is essentially
ready to bid at this time.
We appreciate your willingness to meet with us to discuss the situation
and are hopeful that we can arrive at a solution which will allow this project
to proceed.
Sincerely,
Baker
City Manager
WRB/vh
PC: Randall Kornegay
Steve Shoaf
Olsen Associates

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary December 28, 1989
Mr. William R. Baker, City Manager
City of Burlington
P. 0. Box 1358
Burlington, North Carolina 27215
Subject: NPDES Permit No. NCO023876 Modification
Burlington South WWTP
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Baker:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
IOU
This letter is to inform you that the Division of Environmental Management
has confronted a barrier to proceeding with an NPDES permit expansion for
the Burlington South facility. In attempting to determine an appropriate
wasteload allocation for expansion of your facility from 9.5 to 12.0 MGD,
the Technical Support Branch of the Division's Water Quality Section has
encountered several information gaps which must be filled before a reliable
water quality model can be developed for application to the expanded
wasteflow. I have enclosed a copy of staff correspondence regarding this
issue for your review. Given the degree of time and effort that will be
required to gather this information, may I suggest that you and/or
appropriate representatives of the City of Burlington meet with members of
my staff in the very near future to discuss potential options for proceeding.
Please contact Trevor Clements of my staff at 919/733-5083 if you have
questions regarding this matter, or to establish a mutually convenient time
to meet in Raleigh.
cc: Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Steve Mauney
Central Files
Enclosure
Sinnccerely,
'Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 7687 Telcphone 919-733-7015

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 14, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dale Overcash
THROUGH: Ruth Swanek'PZ
Tom Stockton4
Trevor Clementse
FROM: "Mike-�Zcoville &5
SUBJECT: Proposed Expansion of Burlington Southside WWTP
(NPDES No. NC0023876, Alamance County)
The City of Burlington, currently in the process of modifying it's
Southside WWTP to enable it to meet it's TP limit, has requested an NPDES
permit modification to expand the wasteflow from 9.5 MGD to 12.0 MGD. The
City has acquired funding for the project and wishes to expand the facil-
ity's capacity at the same time the treatment modifications are made. The
Burlington Southside WWTP discharges to Big Alamance Creek approximately 0.5
mile upstream of it's confluence with the Haw River. Upstream of this con-
fluence, the Haw River receives wastewater from several dischargers; the
major wastewater sources are the Burlington East WWTP (12 MGD) and the Town
of Graham WWTP (3.5 MGD). Due to their proximity to one another, these dis-
charges interact instream. During 7Q10 flow conditions, the combination of
these three discharges constitutes approximately 51% of the streamflow in
the Haw River below Big Alamance Creek.
It is difficult to assess the potential impact of the proposed expansion
of the Southside WWTP. The permit limits for both Burlington facilities and
for the Town of Graham were derived in the late 1970s or early 1980s, and
each permit was renewed at least once without thorough analysis. The limits
in the current permits, therefore, were developed by what could now be con-
sidered inadequate modeling analyses, and were never reevaluated as modeling
procedures improved. The current proposal merits such a reevaluation.
Although the final results of a modeling analysis may reveal no water
quality problems, the analysis will provide DEM with a basis to evaluate
future expansions in this area, as well confidence in the assigned NPDES
permit limits.
A major concern of Technical Support is the effect of four small dams
along the 11.67 mile stretch of the Haw River between the Burlington East
WWTP outfall and Saxapahaw, NC. These impoundments undoubtedly lower the
velocity of the water, thereby facilitating increased temperatures and lower
DO concentrations in the water impounded by them. Unfortunately, due to the
lack of accessibility, all the available instream data (facility self -
monitoring and ambient stations) are taken either just below these dams or
well out of their zones of influence. No water quality or hydraulic data

exist for the impoundments, where the greatest impact would be expected to
occur. Also, no longitudinal water quality profiles exist along this sec-
tion of the Haw River, so there is no indication of trouble spots or of
where the DO sag(s) from the discharges occur.
Regardless of the quality of the impounded water, data from DEM's
ambient stations show occasional substandard DO concentrations in the summer
months. DO concentrations less than 5.0 mg/l have been observed at the Haw
River, NC, station (below the Burlington East WWTP), and at the Saxapahaw
station (below Burlington East WWTP, Town of Graham WWTP, and Burlington
Southside WWTP). Both monitoring sites are located below dams, indicating
that reaeration over the dams is sometimes inadequate to replenish the DO to
acceptable levels. If the DO concentrations can be less than 5.0 mg/1 below
the dams, it is highly likely that DO depletion is occurring above them.
The DO sags probably occur above the dams, where no monitoring has been per-
formed and their severity has not been measured.
Preliminary modeling analyses indicate that the Level-B model is not
adequate to evaluate this section of the Haw River. The model is especially
sensitive to the hydraulic characteristics (velocity and depth); the empiri-
cal relationships normally assumed by the model are not representative of
the Haw River. This is further complicated by the frequently changing chan-
nel characteristics caused by the small impoundments. Currently available
modeling procedures can be applied with very little confidence.
It is the opinion of Technical Support that this section of the Haw
River should be thoroughly evaluated before allowing any increase of wastew-
ater loading into it. To calibrate a model of the system adequately more
data will be required, specifically hydraulic data and water quality pro-
files that include the areas above each of the four dams. Since the waste -
load allocation request is for a modification and not a renewal, Technical
Support recommends that it not be processed until the City of Burlington
collects this data. Funding for the project is not contingent on NPDES per-
mit issuance, so the City can proceed with the construction and receive
permit limits for the expanded flow at a later date.
Time -of -travel data from two dye studies are needed from the East Bur-
lington outfall to just below the dam at Saxapahaw. Water quality profiles
are also required in this section of the river, including measurements of
temperature, DO, conductivity, and long-term BOD at selected sites. If
severe problems are revealed instream, a more intensive water quality survey
may need to be performed. Data obtained by these studies will provide DEM
the confidence to permit the expansion of the Southside WWTP with limits
that will protect water quality in accordance with North Carolina state reg-
ulations.
Accessibility will be a problem in these studies. The river is largely
inaccessible between road crossings and will be virtually impossible to boat
or canoe during low flow conditions. The City should contact the Technical
Support Branch soon so an appropriate study plan can be developed and the
logistical difficulties addressed. The first studies could be performed as
early as this spring, depending on the timeliness of Burlington's response.
If Burlington, due to financial or political reasons, does not wish to pur-
sue this action, it is possible that DEM could perform the studies when
scheduling priorities and staff availability allow. However, the City of
Burlington should be made aware that the data will be used to evaluate any

"i"+f�'.,"^�ce/s+ee�4. tR'.•- _N ^w'^T+.M S+r-�+ - -m�'T :e."r�^ - - .. . - �-.._.-�--___.__._.__.�_--__ _..___.'��.- .
future expansions of their WWTPs as well as the current proposal, and that
no increase of wastewater loading will be permitted without this informa-
tion.
cc: Steve Tedder
Steve Mauney
Alan Wahab
Central Files
0

Noi- to Sca��
RAW Rigc r
- -- - - �kw Rol
SMri—F 8E3�/� _
fibs= 35.6 cFS DA r -7
01 =Sys cfs
nrau ls3.rr� _ Qfo50-3-f
7QI0W - 114 cfs
3ogt = iee C(s
285
\
'044A 3ca�.�1.
'T r
� MOw�h
—
sGS n 12og651451
L;j.y � (��
was: 0.4 Jf .
�12'Og cycy
uses W-
ozog6Srs7s r•/s��eY
Qr) • 553 cFs
F5GSQ4Z
-I10, = 34
7g1Dw�g5�E>
61.197
A 6 �z
30Q2=IIY cfS
D - 47 M.
1010s• 35 cis
111rnu.4i.4• _
30QZ = 114 cfs
��� ;�iaAtaAce C
4
—USGS aOZog659211 lytgir7
DA - ti.%o nZ
_�� oZ og6Q 1305
rt('N1ti
— - ➢h -,at
7Qt0S -- 3.0 J5
- Ulaw� 20-0---
3002= 74.0 cis
0 020g65g400
s(uslg 7
DA, = g61 A
- -04- Ro's & -
7Qlas= 54 cfs
---?Qlu►Z�7 cfs ----- —
3002 = 163 cFs
O6
QA - 71.0 cfs
7010s> 0.50 cfs q( _ ( _ C
w02 - q,o cfs
U%OT02014tZ 1 wa.I111V
OA = ms M�
�r2rOs° o.�o c�
7Qr04Y- 2,0o cjs
1

ODS
t2.(s/r-t
wwr-P 1D m 0.63
7-
Doa,
S!6':an
0.26
3,1D
3
ion --- T9s�n_
anc
lof
3.(O
H 6,1n R ra/Ic� a"L Creek 0.06 _
Uak CCL'Gk
anU I'L _ D m _
1,71
SOQ6 an�.0 �aM
/}lamas C k
0.15
3u QIGM04t Cc,
DAM
o 6�
VS0 ' Con ♦-o w r L .. 4
o z7
Z
NSo' Cot+fo�tr
"a.-i GKtk
O'q3
�/o,r'LA Is Crcck
O.Sb
S, 26
S, 2.G
70
Z,gG
6.40
6.90
o,`a
4 Vkcrult but- _ __--
Me-A�af r-reuk 0.10
O.Ns

_40. S(LI Dnta Mp de,( S444
R"-h % R c A c hZ ck 3 2«c �, it ilea c� 5 I?eac6 4
0.63
0.26
3,08 0_06
1.73
0.5
3.10
_3.(o _5.U. _
5.26
6.90
ok Ru hod M')
1.20
1.20
1.3o I.zS
1QlOS
Rau► F �c a
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.Oo 0.00
)QtOh/
R„AAf 1
0.56
0.56
0.32
O.44
0.44 0.44
_
sel
°°"`i 2
Sc Wit,f
3:
Reacli I
I
Reufii Z
Rtac 3
teacil `1 Reac( S
Reac-�
0.5
0.66
0,27
b ,Q,�
_ 0.50 O,� o _
Z .15
.86
6.10 _
6.90
o. q S
O. Ns _ 0. 4 s _
0. 4s
Qq.j( �
1.25
f.25
j .25
1:25
1.25 1.-25
1,25
_
MOS Rundt
p.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 --.
0.00 0.00
O.Ot7
7QrowRIAA6q(rK"")
o.Ny
GAIL
0.44
0.44
o.4y 0.44
0.44
%OT CAPAL ON'%%,..l,,tj"-k - LkS-G S- __tlo,-z
T l .1 ( CA 94 IL pty t fi y

MSS
ar r �9p— a�! I'�r✓er �n,�.,�
(I
Na��G� Q11rnJ ra v /l� o�y,+
i_PNe�a�Sa'-�r
I
_S atl' �n�tPhm �tc. A(� o�VaG'a�h►C. (/iSfrC2M—��ca�y✓a�(•J—
l
Sod -pr�n,
me
lfw-1✓ ,S��S�M . i�A S14--j _lo co lCir 4✓dn
11
1
i
I
�I
11'' 11 I I
HLadh/�i�� rh0.ro-G`Kct,$1<�GS �V2r�� � Jin��y=�pi-.
U i f
IIUU��tA
I
D0 ('"�c I
M_i—lL��l /t7 �_O�—[�S1 UeSd2�/rl �v.i�c�/11 �C�/l 5i7 in1� CL. �4irtanCc.Cr�
1
-r. $ 7. z
Do- 4-- �7�-�
�I
0�g7 o.g3
I
I�
I
✓� cM����I
i 7� OG. (1,73
2.0
I
NI v i
.o lro

f�
t�� s
IZ�6�8q
' i'1o1.t�
ss.ulttir�t 4dIMG.�,dn
i
I
I %1 K.p- M a�of d iS �ri Cy c rs , J�Lt(,/ly_ a r\ S�-16vin o 6,rak.m (y i l i /1 q �U n SDVL%
IMt n 0 ( „ ay
C
'��V1 I✓ 0�� l S SBYlyrr t! �/l i1 a i /t
0 6XAI
12.0 -- 3S I2,o
LaOD HA
► 2 , o (2,0 12 , 0
2H,o - Z ,o 63,
D0�L
i
ll
l
l
063 c�U z2 ^'
2,
n r�0� 51un t/ �Co 'n nu P, P' t 1�(�� _ /, 22 V t u�e
i
— AIM ( sfPlleS�s;yn
I
—1
•
LZZ "Vt I = l S - 0 ct-5 )( ,ZZ 1"1Y ) i` ( I%
6
(.O�j I , - c� I ._3 8 mjG-

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
CITY OF BURLINGTON -
SOUTHSIDE
WWTP
Receiving Stream :
BIG ALAMANCE
CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 0.00
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 14.34
mg/l.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is .3.11
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach #
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment
1
------
5.50
---------
3.97
-------
4
Reach
1
24.00
18.00
5.00
12.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
24.00
18.00
5.00
3.50000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Segment
2
2.01
0.50
1
Reach
1
63.30
5.85
5.00
12.00000
Segment
3
0.00
4.31
6
Reach
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : CITY OF BURLINGTON
Receiving Stream : BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
Summer 7Q10 : 3.0
Design Temperature: 26.0
- SOUTHSIDE WWTPSubbasin 030602
Stream Class: C-NSW
Winter 7Q10 : 20.0
ILENGTHI
SLOPE[
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft
Idesign[
@2014
Idesignl
@20V2 Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.631
I
5.561
0.439
I
1 2.83
I I
1 0.30 1
0.23
I I
1 2.45 1
I
2.151
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.261
I
3.101
0.371
I
1 3.08
I I
1 0.28 1
0.21
I I
1 1.15 1
I
1.011
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
I.6: 1
1 -76(-1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 3.081
I
3.101
0.370
I
1 3.08
I I
1 0.28 1
0.21
I I
1 1.15 1
I
1.011
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
II,
Segment
1
I I
1 0.061
I
5.261
0.465
I
1 2.89
I I
1 0.30 1
0.23
I I
1 2.45 1
I
2.151
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1
1
.5-(,
1 I,&q
I I
I I
I
I
Segment
1
I I
1 1.731
I
5.261
0.448
I
1 2.96
I I
1 0.29 1
0.22
I I
1 2.36 1
I
2.071
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.501
I
6.901
0.484
I
1 2.85
I I
1 0.30 1
0.23
I I
1 3.35 1
I
2.941
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
2
I
1 0.501
2.861
0.249
1 2.41
1 0.54 1
0.41
1 1.05 1
0.931
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
3
I I I
1 0.661
I
6.901
0.547
I
1 3.13
I I
1 0.31 1
0.23
I I
1 3.78 1
I
3.321
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
I
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
3
I I
1 0.271
I
6.901
0.547
I
1-3.13
I I
1 0.31 1
0.23
I I
1 3.78 1
I
3.321
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
3
I I
1 0.931
I
0.451
0.248
I
1 4.66
I I
1 0.27 1
0.21
I I
1 0.11 1
I
0.101
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
3
I I
1 0.501
I
0.451
0.246
I
1 4.68
I I
1 0.27 1
0.21
I I
1 0.11 1
I
0.101
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
3
I I
1 0.901
I
0.451
0.245
I
1 4.69
I I
1 0.27 1
0.21
I I
1 0.11 1
I
0.101
I
0.48 1
Reach
5
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 3 1 2.151 0.451 0.244 1 4.70 1 0.27 1 0.21 1 0.11 1 0.101 0.48 1
Reach 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Flow 1
CBOD 1
NBOD 1
D.O. 1
1 cfs I
mg/l I
mg/l I
mg/l I
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 18.600 1
24.000
1 18.000 I
5.000
Headwatersl 34.000 1
1.500
1 1.000 1
7.060
Tributary
1 0.000 1
2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000 1
2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
1 0.000 1
0.000
1 0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
1 0.000 I
2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
1 0.000
1 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
1 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste
1 5.425
124.000 1
18.000 1
5.000
Tributary
1 0.400
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 5
Waste
I 0.000
I 0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
1 0.500
I 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 6
Waste
I 0.000
1 0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
1 0.000
1 2.000 I
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300
Segment 2 Reach 1
Waste 1
18.600 1
63.300 1
5.850 1
5.000
Headwatersl
3.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
6.730
Tributary 1
0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff 1
0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
Segment 3 Reach 1
Waste ' 1
0.000 .1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Headwatersl
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 ►
7.300
Tributary 1
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff I
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.300

Segment 3 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 5
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.075 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 6
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger,
CITY OF
BURLINGTON
- SOUTHSIDE WWTPSubbasin,
0.30602
Receiving
Stream
BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
Stream
Class: C-NSW
Summer 7Q10
3.0
Winter
7Q10
: 20.0
Design Temperature:
26.0
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY I
DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka' I
Ka I
KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/miI
fps I
ft
Idesignl
@20%
Idesignl
@20% Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.631,
I
5.561
I
0.439 1
2.83
I I
1 0.30 1
0.23
I I
1 2.451 1
I
2.151
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.261
I
3.101
I
1.051 1
0.76
I I
1 0.47 1
0.36
I , I I
1 3.27:1
I
2.871
I
0.48 1
Reach
----------------------------------------------------------------=---------------
'2
1 1
1
I
I I
I I
I
I
Segment
1
I I
1 3.081
I
3.101
I
0.556 1.
1.04
I I
1 0.34 1
0.26
I � 1
1 1.73;1
I
1.521
I
0.48 1
Reach
----------------------------------------------------------------=---------------
3
1 1
I
I
I I
-
1 11
1
1
Segment
1
1 0.061
I
5.261
I
0.556 1
1.04
I I
1 0.37 1
0.28
I I
1 2.93iI
I
.2.571
I
0.48 1
Reach
------------------------------------------------.----------------;---------------
4
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 11
1
1
Segment
1
1 I
1 1.731
I
5.261
I
0.448 1
2.96
I I
1 0.29 1
0.22
I 1
1 2.36,1
1
2.071
I
0.48 1
Reach
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
1 1
' I
I
I I
I I
I
I
Segment
1
1 1
1 0.501
1
6.901
1
0.484 1
2.85
1 1
1 0.30 1
0.23
1 I
1 3.35,1
I
2.941
I.
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
Segment
2
1
1 0.501
1
2.861
1
0.249 1
2.41
1 1
1 0.54 1
0.41
1 1
1 1.05'1
1
0,931
1
0.48 1
Reach
----------------------------------------------------------------7---------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 .1
I
I
Segment
3
I
1 0.661
6.901
0.547 1
3.13
1 0.31 1
0.23
1 3.78 j
3.321
0.48 1
Reach
-------=------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1.
1
1
1 1
1 I
I
I
Segment
3
I
1 0.271
6.901
0.547 1
3.13
1 0.31 1
0.23
1 3.78 .1
3.321
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
3
I I
1 0.931
I
0.451
I
0.248 1
-
4.66
I I
1 0.27 1
0.21
I 'I
1 0.11 '1
I
0.101
I
0.48 1
Reach
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
3
I I
1 0.501
I
0.451
I
0.246 1
4.68
I I
1 0.27 1
0.21
I I
1 0.11 1
I
0.101
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
Segment
3
I I
1 0.901
I
0.451
I
0.245 1
4.69
I I
1 0.27 1
0.21
I I
1 0.11 1
I
0.101
I
0.48 1
Reach
5-
1 I.
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 3 1 2.151 0.451' 0.244 1 4.70 1 0.27 1 0.21 1 0.11 1 0.101 0.48 1
Reach 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I Flow
I CBOD I
NBOD i
D.O. 1
I cfs
I mg/l I
mg/l I
mg/1 I
Segment 1
Reach.1
Waste
1 18.600
124.000 118.000
1
5.000
Headwatersl 34.000
1 1.500 1
1.000 1
.7.060
Tributary
1 0.000
I 2.000 I
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
l 0.000
I 2.000 I
1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
I 0.000
I 0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
l 0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 I
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 3_
Waste
1 0.000
I 0.000 1
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
1 0.000.1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste
1 5.425
1 24.000 1
18.000 1
5.000
Tributary
1 0.400
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
I 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 5
Waste
I 0.000
I 0.000 1
0.000 l
0.000
Tributary
I 0.500
I 2.000 I
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
1 0.000
I 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 6
Waste
I 0.000
1 0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
1 0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300 !
* Runoff
1 0.000
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300
Segment 2
Reach 1
Waste
1 18.600
163.300 I
5.850 I
5.000
Headwatersl 3.000
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
6.730
Tributary
1 0.000
1 2.000 I
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff
I 0.000
I 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
Segment 3 Reach 1
Waste 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Headwatersl
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
Tributary 1
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
* Runoff 1
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300

Segment 3 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 1 -0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I .0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1,000 1 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 4
Waste I' 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 5
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.075 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 I 2.000 1 1,000 I 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 6
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

MSS
I
t;
—
" -s�1Z3
l,(= o ,1�3s Q
1531
CA,46 c k G a I_.0 G
35325
At CA I?dv
0.-1 620
oo,-6q Q
0.0000
hl = I'i2.33�3 Q a* c r e = I, 0(
z3 64
0.8 020 Q h + z ` 0, g 98
3� At N c 54
1 f =
0. 10 19
q-2
Q
,W38
y-276
--- - �'-_ Ai
.105
CA
VV
28 , II Iz
.3 SG3
L
D'
'ov0o2
1.16'e
br-
--
. 5 S'66
V U. (0 Q
.z3`IZ
W = ii2.2Goy f�
4NS3
o.1740 0' s} d - F= 1 7

r-lbM 0(1 ohvsir_a.( r►�wsMrt"Ab
will Gll/C rS Tl /Vb.�• J� o! Ut4
856
Z-11
f22
3`i I
3.20
10 6
o.7S
2KS
1. 5�3
(19
134
07
13o
t, S3
9ti
as 3
�•91
308
(.�x
Ito
1213 3
_ (,C7 _
7 7_
1,6Y-----I-t37
q87
3.SS
z39
1.03
12S
232
I•$C
Z) A+ SR t7oo
At t, c sc sir
3YS 2.LA
jq
'S(D
Z. q
aK2
511q
3.7r'
tLiY 117 o.V(
IZSi
OJ
too I68' 1�6g
11to
0.417
lob I`g l.yy
512
1.51
131 37Ir Z.g9
--- --- 78,3
_
6,6
toe -� zy-- -1.22
H) A+ 5wtD5e,n u (+C
b�� L asq�rge �--
ztl p, l6 l�0 73 8 o,K3
613 0,73 zYLl 835 3.y2
ds3 0.77 zjg

t >, ! t�% k ^Y 4 � '� V. hY1'r, l., S/ �'" � ��i.'�'Y�; i. t < �} j � �'��'-'/. i Fes` �•,"t'� i Imo'` y{ 4l 4- .r.. -Ci' 7'^{.,.
—
—77
i
A. zs -----1
S3..__._:_
. 13..,1 _.._.............
. z`Z:/.._.-----Sl�J.
_ _.,,. f rti3
Jkm-
n
60
F-
�l0..
t1
iF
7
sID
4

.z9o(4
O Q
zS 7 Z
,y5 nS
(703 Q
,�3Da
3 `f G 6
L3oo
J,
U c,e
br�'F `197`G 0.5IM
a c K. 2_ (, o S 7
035
,ci %6
�5 ,7021
5 + s 9 7 ��lsu

City of Burlington
NOV 3 01989
October 3, 1989
Mr. Trevor Clements
Technical Support Branch
State of N.C.,Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Clements:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the analysis for priority
pollutants in accordance with Part III Section J of NPDES permits
NC0023876 and NC0023868. Should you have any questions or need
further information, please feel free to contact me at (919) 222-
5133.
ADI/dj
cc: files
Cordially,
Allen D. Isley,
Chief Chemist
Laboratory Section
N
S. Lexington • P. O. Box 1358 • Burlington, N.C. 27216 • (919) 22

ETE
JOHN M. OGLE
PRESIDENT
Chemical & Environmental Technology, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY SERVICES
MR. ALLEN ISLEY
CITY OF BURLINGTON
149 E. RUFFIN
BURLI'NTON, NC 27216
RE: SOUTH BURLINGTON I4WTP
P. O. BOX 12298
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N. C. 27709
PHONE [phone]
FAx [phone]
SAMPLE HISTORY
CLIENT ID CET SAMPLE DATE RECEIVED
EFFLUENT 29115 8-24-89
ANALYTICAL RESULTS-1
PARAMETER METHOD-2 ,
ALUMINUM
2.02.1
ANTIMONY
204.1
ARSENIC
206•. 2
BARIUM
208.1
BERYLLIUM
210.1
CADMIUM
213.1
CHROMIUM
218.1
COPPER
220.1
LEAD
239.2
MERCURY
242.1
NICKEL
249.1
SELENII-IJ14 *
270.. 2
SILVER
272.1
ZINC
289.1
CHLORIDE
325.3
CYANIDE
335.2
FLUORIDE
340.2
September 28, 1989
DATEIANALYZED
8-24-89
EFFLUENT
0.48
0.21
0.006
0.08
<0.001
0.007
0.014
0.020
<0.001
<0.0002
0.023
<0.001
0.004
0.126
327
<0.01
0.84
1- ALL RESULT UNITS ARE EXPRESSED IN MG/L
2 - FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 49, NO. 209,`OCTOBER 26, 1984
H ICAL & ENVIRONMENT)
0 N E. BAUR
R ANIC CHEMIST
TO 9-22-89
LL TECHNOLOGY

PESTICIDE/PCB FRACTION
METHOD: 608
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE #: 29115
Detection
Parameter
Limit(ug/1)
Aldrin
0.004
a-BHC
0.003
b-BHC
0.006
d-BHC
0.009
g-BHC
0.004
Chlordane
0.004
DDD
0.011
DDE
0.004
DDT
0.012
Dieldrin
0.002
Endosulfan I
0.014
Endosulfan II
0.004
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.066
Endrin
0.006
Endrin Aldehyde
0.023
Heptaclor
0.003
Heptac.lor Epoxide
0.083
Toxaphene
0.24
PCB-1016
nd
PCB-1221
nd
PCB-1232
nd
PCB-1242
0.065
PCB-1248
nd
PCB-1254
nd
PCB-1260
nd
Mirex
nd
Parathion
nd
BDL - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
ND -Not Detected
Results (ua./l
Federal Rec_lister, Vol. 49, No. 209, October 26, 1984.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
E
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL'
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL,
BDL'
BDL

VOLATILE ORGANICS
METHOD 624
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE #: 29115
DETECTION
LIMIT
PARAMETER (UG/L)
CONCENTRATION
(UG/L)
i
ACROLEIN
100
BDL
ACRYLONITRILE
100
BDL
BENZENE
5
BDL
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
5
BDL
BROMOFORM
5
BDL
BROMOMETHANE
5
BDL
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
5
BDL
CHLOROBENZENE
10
BDL
CHLOROETHANE
.10
BDL
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
5
BDL
CHLOROFORM
10
BDL
CHLOROMETHANE
5
BDL
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
5
BDL
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
5
BDL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
5
BDL
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
5
BDL
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
5
BDL
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
5
BDL
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
5
BDL
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
TRANS-I,2-DICHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
5
BDL
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
5
BDL
TRANS-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
5
BDL
ETHYL BENZENE
5
BDL
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
5
BDL
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
5 !
BDL
TETRACHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
TOLUENE
5
BDL
1,1,1-TR_ICHLOROETHANE
5
BDL
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
TRICHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
TRICHLOROFLUOROETHANE
5
BDL
VINYL CHLORIDE
10
BDL
XYLENES
5
BDL
BDL = BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 49, NO. 209, OCTOBER 26, 1984

BASE/NEUTRALS AND ACIDS
METHOD 625
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE #: 29115
PARAMETER
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(B)E'LUORANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(GHI)PERY'LENE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
CHRYSENE
DIBENZO)A,H)ANTHRACENE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
FL•UORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
IDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
PHENANTHRENE'
PYRENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
BASE/NEUTRALS
DETECTION
LIMIT(UG/L)
RESULTS(iUG/L)
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDI,
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL
10
BDL

PAGE #2
BASE/NEUTRALS AND ACIDS
METHOD 625.
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE #: 29115
PARAMETER
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
BD,L - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
ACIDS
DETECTION
LIMIT(UG/L)
10
10
10
10
50
50
10
50
50
10
10
RESULTS(UG/L)
FEDERAL -REGISTER, VOL. 49, NO. 209, OCTOBER 26, 1984.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
i
BDL
'BDL.
BDL
J - Indicates an estimated value. This flag is used when the mass
spectral data indicated the presence of a compound that meets the
identification criteria but the result is less than the specified
detection limit.

MENNEWE !`L.....:....1 Q. Cw..:...w.w..w6 I T wLw..l..w.. Iw..
EIE102-A Woodwinds Industrial Ct.
Cary, NC 27511 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
PROD. NO.
PROJECT NAME
South Burlington WWTP
NO.
of
CON-
TAINERS
,�ti REMARKS
p
�y
SWLERS: (SWassw.)
STA. NO.
DATE
TimE
STATION LOCATION
1
8/2
10:3
X
Plant Effluent
Relinquished by: fs4mm n/
IV-L- -0 - I&
Dater
-
/Time
I
Received by: IS/ptatttn/
Relinquished by: ISontuie/
Date/Time
Received by: IS'Meatten)
Relinquished by: IS/tww n/
Date/Time-
Received by: (Slpwnm@)
--
Relinquished by ::a ISnsuffl/— --
-A
- - Dab / Tint•
Received by; Ipm@-wn) --- --
Relinquished by: 1s*wews)
Date /Time
Receiv for t ry
/ nr/
Dab./Time Remarks
uutnoution: Wipinal Accompani« Shipment; Copy to 'FINd Files

ITE
Chemical & Environmental Technology, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY SERVICES
JOHN M. OGLE P. O. BOX 12298
PRESIDENT RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N. C. 27709
PHONE [phone]
FAx [phone]
September 28, 1989
MR. ALLEN ISLEY
CITY OF BURLINGTON
349 E. RUFFIN
BURLINGTON, N.C. 27216
RE: EAST BURLTNrTON WWWTP
SAMPLE HISTORY
CLIENT ID CET
SAMPLE DATE RECEIVED
DATE ANALYZED
EFFLUENT 29124
8-24-89
8-24-89 TO 9-23-89
ANALYTICAL RESULTS-1
PARAMETER
METHOD-2
EFFLUENT
ALUMINUM
202.1
1.82
ANTIMONY
204.1
0.22
ARSENIC
206.2
0.006
BARIUM
208.1
0.10
BERYLLIUM
210.1
0,004
CAD14IUM
213.1
0.008
CHROMIUM
218.1
0.020
COPPER
220.1
0.046
LEAD
239.2
<0.001
MERCURY
242.1
<0.0002
NICKEL
249.1
0.035
SELENIUM
270.2
0.003
SILVER
272.1
0.005
ZINC
.
28Q 1
r 075
CHLORIDE
365.'
3O5
CYANIDE
335. 2
FLUORIDE
340.2
0.77
1 - ALL RESULT UNITS ARE EXPRESSED IN MG/L
2 - FEDERAL REGISTER, V0L 49, NO. 209, OCTOBER 26, 1984
C AICAL & ENVJRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
I E kul�
HI
E. BAUR
GANIC CHEMIST
-r t~ n / i-...,

PESTICIDE/PCB FRACTION
METHOD: 608
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE #: 29114
Parameter
Aldrin
a-BHC
b-BHC
d-BHC
g-BHC_:
Chlordane
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptacicr
Hi'ptaclor Epoxide
Toxaphene
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Mirex
Parathion
BDL - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
ND -Not Detected
Detection
Limit (uq/1 )
Resulis (ug/1 )
0.004
BDL
0.003
BDL
0.006
BDL
0.009
BDL
0.004
BDL
0.004
BDL
0.011
BDL
0.004
BDL
0.012
BDL
0.002
BDL
0.014
BDL
0.004
BDL
0.066
BDL
0.006
BDL
0.023
BDL
0.003
BDL
0.083
BDL
0.24
BDL
nd
BDL
nd
BDL
nd
BDL
0.065
BDL
nd
BDL
nd
BDL
nd
BDL
nd
BDL
nd
BDL
Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 209, October 26, 1984.

VOLATILE ORGANICS
METHOD 624
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE #: 29114
DETECTION
LIMIT
CONCENTRATION
PARAMETER
(UGJL)
(UG/L)
ACROLEIN
100
BDL
ACRYLONITRILE
100
BDL
BENZENE
5
BDL
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
5
BDL
BROMOFORM
5
BDL
BROMOMETHANE
5
BDL
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
5
BDL
CHLOROBENZENE
10
BDL
CHLOROETHANE
10
BDL
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
5
BDL
CHLOROFORM
10
BDL
CHLOROMETHANE
5
BDL
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
5
BDL
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
5
BDL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
5
BDL
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENEE
5
BDL
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
5
BDL"
1,1-DICHL'OROETHANE
5
BDL
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
5
BDL
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
TRANS-I,2-DICHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
5
BDL
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
5
BDL
TRANS-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
5
BDL
ETHYL BENZENE
5
BDL
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
5
BDL
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
5
BDL
TETRACHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
TOLUENE
5
BDL
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
5
BDL
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
5
BDL
TRICHLOROETHENE
5
BDL
TRICHLOROFLUOROETHANE
5
BDL
VINYL CHLORIDE
10
BDL
XYLENES'
5
BDL
BDL = BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 49, NO. 209, OCTOBER 26, 1984

BASE/NEUTRALS AND ACIDS
METHOD 625
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE # : 29114
BASE/NEUTRALS
DETECTION
PARAMETER LIMIT(UG/L) RESULTS(UG/L)
ACENAPHTHENE
10
BDL
ACENAPHTHYLENE
10
BDL
ANTHRACENE
10
BDL
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
10
BDL
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
10
BDL
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
10
BDL
BENZO(A)PYRENE
10
BDL
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
10
BDL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
10
BDL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
10
BDL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
10
BDL
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER
10
BDL
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
10
BDL
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
10
BDL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
10
BDL
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
10
BDL
CHRYSENE
10
BDL
DIBENZO)A,H)ANTHRACENE
10
BDL
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
10
BDL
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
10
BDL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
10
BDL
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
10
BDL
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
10
BDL
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
10
BDL
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
10
BDL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
10
BDL
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
10
BDL
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
10
BDL
FLUORANTHENE
10
BDL
FLUORENE
10
BDL
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
10
BDL
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
10
BDL
HEXACHLOROETHANE
10
BDL
IDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
10
BDL
ISOPHORONE
10
BDL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
10
BDL
NAPHTHALENE
10
BDL
NITROBENZENE
10
BDL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
10
BDL
PHENANTHRENE
10
BDL
PYRENE
10
BDL
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
10
BDL

PAGE #2
BASE/NEUTRALS AND ACIDS
METHOD 625
CLIENT ID: EFFLUENT
SAMPLE #: 29114
ACIDS
DETECTION
PARA14ETER
LIMIT (UG/L )
RESULTS (UG/L )
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
10
BDL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
10
BDL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENO.L
10
BDL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
10
BDL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
50
BDL
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
50
BDL
2-NITROPHENOL
10
BDL
4-NITROPHENOL
50
BDL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
50
BDL
PHENOL
10
BDL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENO'L
10
BDL
BDL - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 49, NO. 209, OCTOBER 26, 1984.
J - Indicates an estimated value. This flag is used when the mass
spectral data indicated the presence of a compound that meets the
identification criteria but the result is less than the specified
detection limit.