NC0026441_Permit Issuance_20080829

Mr. Joel J. Brower
Town Manager
P.O. Box 769
Siler City, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Brower:
27344
Zo 0
August 29, 2008
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
NCO026441
Siler City W WTP
Chatham County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject
permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of
Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15,
2007 (or as subsequently amended).
As recommended by the hearing officer's report, the following changes have been made to the draft
permit you were sent on September 12, 2007:
➢ A winter total phosphorus (TP) limit of 2 mg/L has been added to the permit. This limit will take
effect January 1, 2010. Weekly monitoring will be required until the limit takes effect.
➢ The frequency of total nitrogen (TN) monitoring has increased from monthly to weekly. The
reporting requirement has also been expanded. The facility will now be required to report TN,
NO2+NO3, and TKN.
➢ Additional instream monitoring requirements and locations have been added. In addition to the
two sampling locations on the Rocky River, your facility will be required to monitor two
locations on Loves Creek upstream and downstream of the discharge. Because of the site specific
concerns for nutrient water quality impacts to Loves Creek and the Rocky River, these specific
locations may not be waived or exempted by participation in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin
Association monitoring program. These data may be collected and submitted by the Upper Cape
Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA) if desired but remain the responsibility of the permit
holder for the life of this permit. The instream monitoring requirements will become effective six
months from the effective date of the final permit to allow the City time to confer with the
UCFRBA and the DWQ Coalition Coordinators concerning the monitoring changes.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
_ mriformine to Chap-ter1S013 of the._Niirtb-Carnlina_General Statutes. and filed with thr OffirP of_.._.._._____
Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such
demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification -or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone] N,OpNy�d�Caro ina
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ ,/VatllCttI
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

NC0026441 y
Issuance of NPDES Permit
Mr. Joel Brower
legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or
permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other
Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Toya Fields at telephone
number [phone].
Since
oleen H. Sul
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
NPDES Unit
Marshall Hyatt, EPA Region IV
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Sara Morrison, PERCS Unit
Jennie Atkins, Ecosystems Unit, Environmental Sciences Section
Nora Deamer, Basinwide Planning Program
Friends of the Rocky River c/o John D. Runkle, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC, 27515-3793
2

a
Permit NCO026441
t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
NPDES
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Town of Siler City
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Town of Siler City WWTP
370 Wastewater Plant Road
Chatham County
to receiving waters designated as Loves Creek within the Cape Fear River Basin, in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II,
III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effectiv October 1, 2008.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight October 31, 2011.
Signed this day August 29, 2008.
6YiMn H. Sullins, Dire*r'
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 7

Permit NCO026441
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of this permit
issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate
and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The Town of Siler City is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue discharging 4.0 MGD of treated process -contact and domestic wastewater from a
treatment facility consisting of
• Automatic and manual bar screens
• Grit collection unit
• Influent pump station
• Aerobic digester
• Filter backwash holding station
• DAF Unit
• Four (4) equalization basin
• Sludge transfer station
• Lime tower
• Alum feed station
• Dual oxidation ditches
• Dual secondary clarifiers
• Four (4) tertiary filters
• Chlorine contact chamber
• Sulfur dioxide addition
• Solids removal area (screened and separated; trucked offsite as byproduct)
This facility is located at the Siler City WWTP on Wastewater Plant Road near Siler City in Chatham
County.
2. Discharge from said wastewater treatment works through Outfall 001 into Loves Creek (see
attached map), a stream classified as C waters within the Cape Fear River Basin.
Page 2 of 6

Permit NC0026441
A. (2) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Pazanefer
Sam Ie T e
laiibiicic _ =
Measuremertreueny
Dissolved Oxygen
Grab
LCU, LCD, RRU, RRD
3/Week (June - Sept),1/Week (Oct -May)
Temperature
Grab
LCU, LCD, RRU, RRD
3/ Week Qune - Sept), 1/Week (Oct -May)
Total Phosphorus
Grab
LCU, LCD, RRU, RRD
Monthly
TKN
Grab
LCU, LCD, RRU, RRD
Monthly
NO3-N + NO2-N
Grab
LCU, LCD, RRU, RRD
Monthly
Footnotes:
1. LCU' Loves Creek, upstream of the discharge; LCD- Loves Creek, downstream of the discharge and above
the confluence with the Rocky River; RRU - Rocky River, upstream of the confluence with Loves Creek;
RRD - Rocky River, downstream of the confluence with Loves Creek.
2. Monitoring requirement takes effect April 1, 2009.
3. All monitoring is required to be performed at the abovementioned monitoring locations. Instream
Monitoring may be performed by the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association as outlined in the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the association and the permittee. If so, the data is to be
collected and submitted to DWQ in accordance to the terms of the MOA. Should membership in this
association terminate for any reason, the permittee shall immediately notify the Division's NPDES Unit in
writing and resume responsibility to monitor and report the above parameters as specified in this permit.
A. (3) NUTRIENT REMOVAL OPTIMIZATION PLAN
Due to concerns about nutrient loads to Loves Creek and the Rocky River, the Siler City WWTP
is required to develop a Nutrient Removal Optimization Plan. This plan should evaluate
sources of nitrogen (particularly nitrates) and phosphorus to the wastewater plant, provide
information on current removal rates, and discuss ways to optimize nutrient removal using the
current wastewater treatment process. This study shall be submitted within one year from the
effective date of this final permit.
A. (4) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, ua� rterl� monitoring using test procedures outlined in
the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase H Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of -any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
Page 4 of 6

Permit NC0026441
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning with the effective date and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge through Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified
below:
��Jiilr'L
TT�
y M(�yR�l�Sit�
y f s [����
Monthly
Week%y
Daily
'=Measureament
1 Sample
, Samgle
Average..
f ;vera a �'
Maxia►um
ire nen
? r.. , e
Zocatons`
Flow
4.0 MGD
Continuous
RecordingInfluent
or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
(April 1 thru October 31)
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 1
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
(November 1 dwu March 31)
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 1
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
April 1 thru October 31
NH3 as N
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
(November 1 thru March 31
Fecal Coliform
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
(geometric mean
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
17 µg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average > 6.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg/L)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
TKN (mg/L)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus 2
0.5 mg/L (quarterly average)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
1 du u September 30
-(April
Total Phosphorus2-3
2.0 mg/L (quarterly average)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
October 1 through March 31
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/ Month
Composite
Effluent
Chloride
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity4
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan6
Annual
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective
influent value (i.e., 85% removal is required).
2. Compliance with the Total Phosphorus limits shall be based on a calendar -quarter average of weekly samples.
3. The winter Total Phosphorus limit shall take effect on January 1, 2010. Weekly monitoring is required until the limit
takes effect.
4. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90 %; quarterly during March, June, September, December [see A. (4)].
5. Instream monitoring shall be performed in accordance with A. (2).
6. See A. (5).
Effluent shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 6

Permit NC0026441
following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Envirorunental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/ physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the
report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to
the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR & all AT
Forms submitted.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
Page 5 of 6

Permit NC002644.1
A. (5) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below (in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal (summer,
winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as
"total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as
provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2--Moroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-4fichloroethylene
Bis (2-d-loroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Total Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetraddoroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,2-didlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-triddoroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-diddorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidme
Lead
Acid -extractable compounds:
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic compounds:
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral composa:ds:
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-d-loroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director,
within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
Page 6 of 6

NCDENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET AMENDMENT
FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
Siler City WWTP
� ♦ T# .�E� �^-�' r�aa t ' '� A'� .� t 3 � 3 = ,.. E S , . -' E ^� { f z . z
(1.) Facility Name:
Siler City WWTP
__
(2.) Permitted Flow MGM
4.0 MGD
(6.) Coun •
= Chatham Coun
(3.) Facility Class: IV _._._.__.____._._._......,.._.._.._...._____...._...._._.__
(7.) Regional Office: Ralei h
.._____----- ------------ _.___._.___.._____.._.___.__.___._.__.__._.................. _ .
(4.) Pretreatment Pro a=
Full LTM_P
(8.) USGS Topo Quad:
3 E21NW
(5.) Permit Status:-
Renewal
(9.) USGS Quad Name:
_
Siler City
(1.) Rece_i_vin Stream:
Loves Creek
_...._._._.__.__._......._._._._._._._.
(..7.)_._D_...r_._ai_n.._._a Area (mi2):
_._._.__�
17.9
........................................... _ ._._._._. ._....
(2.) Sub -basin:
;_ 03-06-12
(8.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.25
(3.) Stream Assessment Unit:
17-43-10c
��—
(9.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
7 0.4
(4.) Stream Classification:
C
(10.) 30Q2 (cfs):
_
(5.) 303(d) Status:
Listed
(11.) Average Flow (cfs).
1
_...._._....._._._...._.._....._...._..._...._...._._._._.___._._........_._.
(6.) 305(b) Status:
..._._._._._.._.__......._..
F Aquatic life -
_..............._.._._._._._..._._..__.8.7.___..__.._._._._____._._._....___...._.......
(12.) IWCy%o:
96.1
Impaired biological
integrity;
f
I. Proposed Changes Incorporated into Permit Renewal
As a result of the hearing officer's recommendations, the following changes have been added to
the final permit:
A winter total phosphorus limit of 2 mg/L has been added to the permit. This limit will
take effect in the January following the facility's submission of their nutrient
optimization plan. Weekly monitoring will be required until the limit takes effect.
Total nitrogen reporting has been broken out into its components. The facility will now
have to report TN, NO2+NO3, and TKN. The monitoring frequency has increased from
monthly to weekly.
Additional instream monitoring locations have been added. In addition to the two points
currently being sampled by the Upper Cape Fear Association, the facility will also be
required to monitor on Loves Creek, up and downstream of the discharge. This
monitoring will be required, regardless of who performs the monitoring. Jennie Atkins
of the Environmental Sciences Section will help facilitate discussions between the River
Basin Association and the facility. The instream monitoring requirements will take place
6 months from the effective date of the final permit.
II. State Contact Information
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Toya Fields at [phone], extension 551.

NCDENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
Siler City WWTP .
Facility Information
(1.) Facility Name:
Siler City WWTP
(2.) Permitted Flow MGD):
4.0 MGD
(6.) County:
Chatham COUnty
(3•) Facility Class:
IV
(7.) Regional Office:
Raleigh
(4.) Pretreatment Program:
Full LTMP
(8.) USGS Topo Quad:
E21NW
(5.) Perini Status:
Renewal
- (9.) USGS Quad Name:
Siler City
Stream Characteristics
(1.) Receiving Stream:
I-oves Creek
(7.)Drainage Area (111i2):
7.9
(2.) Sub -basin:
03-06-12
(8.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.25
(3.) Stream Assessment Unit:
- - -
17-43-10c
-
(9.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.4
(4.) Stream Classification
C
(10.) 30Q2 (cfs):
(5.)303(d) Status:
I Listed
j (11.) Average Flow (cfs)
_
1 8.7
K) 305(b) Status:
Aquatic fife -
1 (12.) IWC %:
96.1
Impaired biological
integrity
Proposed Changes Incorporated into Permit Renewal
• Add yearly PPA requirement.
• Cu, Zn, and chloride data showed reasonable potential to exceed action level standards,
therefore monitoring will remain in the permit. The facility will be required to monitor
for these pollutants twice monthly, to correspond with frequencies required by 15 NCAC
2B .0500 regulations.
• The WAS limit and monitoring requirement will be removed from this permit and
should not continue to be monitored through the facility's LTMP program.
• Mercury and fluoride data did not show reasonable potential to cause an exceedance of
water quality standards, therefore monitoring for these parameters will be removed from
the permit. They should continue to be monitored through the facility's LTMP.
• Due to concerns about impacts to Loves Creek and the Rocky River, the facility will be
required to develop a Nutrient Removal Optimization Plan. This plan should evaluate
sources of nutrients (particularly nitrates) to the wastewater plant, provide current removal
rates, and discuss ways to optimize nutrient removal using the current wastewater treatment
process.
• Remove oil and grease limit and monitoring requirement.
II. Summary
The 2005 Cape Fear River Basin Plan lists 2.9 miles of Loves Creek (from Chatham Avenue to the
Rocky River) as impaired for aquatic life because of "fair" benthic community ratings at three sites.
The 2006 303(d) list gives potential sources as stormwater (MS4 NPDES) and the WWTP. The basin
plan goes on to state "a stressor study completed in the Loves Creek watershed indicated toxic
chemicals in runoff from Slier City are the main stressors to the benthic community. Streambank
erosion, sedimentation, and excessive algal growth are also stressors. The WWTP was not the main

NPDES Permit Fact Sheet - 07/31 /08
Page 2
Siler City WWTP
NCO026441
stressor, and agricultural land uses are also a source. The survey noted runoff from animal
operations in the upper watershed might be contributing nutrients and bacteria to the creek." The
basin plan recommends that DWQ continue to monitor the Loves Creek watershed and work with
DSWC to evaluate if BMPs can be implemented to reduce nutrients from animal operations in the
watershed.
The basin plan also notes that the "Rocky River from the dam at Siler City water supply to Varnal
Creek (6.7 mi) is not rated for aquatic life because of numerous reports of nuisance periphyton
growth in the river. During summer months algal mats have been observed to cover areas down to
the confluence with the Deep River. No criteria were exceeded at site BA373; however nutrient levels
were elevated. The Siler WWTP, as well as agriculture and residential activities, are potential sources
of nutrients."
The Siler City WWTP currently has total phosphorus and ammonia limits that are more stringent
than those of many similar facilities statewide. However due to concerns about impacts to Loves
Creek and the Rocky River, the facility will be required to develop a Nutrient Removal Optimization
Plan. This plan should evaluate sources of nutrients (particularly nitrates) to the wastewater plant,
provide current removal rates, and discuss ways to optimize nutrient removal using the current
wastewater treatment process.
III. Compliance Summary
DMR Data Review
Monthly average DMR data was reviewed for the period of January 2005 through June 2007.
That data is summarized below in Table 1. Monthly average flows are at 65% capacity with
maximum monthly average flows at 79% capacity. In July 2006, DWQ sent the City a Guidance
Document for WWTP Expansions based on an average flow for the 2005 calendar year of 67%
capacity. Facilities approaching 80% of their design hydraulic load are encouraged to begin the
planning process to address their increasing flows.
Table 1: Summary of Monthly Average DMR data-1/05-6/07
Fecal
Flow
Temp.
TRC
BOD
NH3-N
TSS
(#/100
D.O. -
TN
TP
Oil &
(MGM
(0.0
1 ( L)
(m )
(m L)
(m L)
mL)
(m )
(m )
pH
I Grease
Avg
2.60
20.52
<10
1.99
0.06
0.90
19.38
8.68
30.39
1.30
7.33
0.06
Max
3.19
28.78
<10
6.41
0.46
5.88
81.60
10.78
43.60
3.43
7.79
1.37
Min
2.07 "
12.60
<10
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.70
6.96
15.50
0.09
6.91
0.00
Limit
4
17
30
200
>= 6
0.5 (s)
6-9
30
10 (s)
2 (
The facility had one permit limit violation during the review period, which was a violation of the
pH minimum. The calculated value was 5.9 s.u.
This facility currently has an oil and grease limit of 30 mg/L. This is not a standard requirement
for a municipal wastewater plant, and may have been added to the permit several permit cycles
ago based on DWQ concerns. At this time, oil and grease levels are very low, therefore the limit
and monitoring requirements will be removed from the permit.

NPDES Permit Fact Sheet - 07/31/08
Page 3
Instream Data Review
Siler City WWTP
NCO026441
Siler City WWTP is a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA). The
UCFRBA performs instream monitoring on the Rocky River at a station 900 feet upstream of the
confluence with Loves Creek, and another station 4 miles downstream. Instream data was
reviewed for the 3 yr period of January 2004 through December 2006. A data summary is
provided in table 2. Based on this data, it does appear that the Rocky River is experiencing
elevated nitrate/nitrite levels, however since this station is over 4 miles downstream of the
WWTP, its impact is unclear. The river is also experiencing high Zn, Al, Fe, and Mn levels,
however there is little difference between values recorded at upstream and downstream stations.
Table 2: Summary of UCFRBA Data from 2004-2006
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
O (mg/L)
6.96
13.10
3.00
8.15
15.20
4.10
H (su)
7.01
8.06
6.39
7.17
7.91
6.50
Conductance
umhos/cm)
107.34
261.00
77.00
375.86
1005.00
113.00
Fecal Coliform
(colonies/100 mL
182.94
1100.00
7.00
238.22
2800.00
8.00
SS (mg/L)
4.89
14.00
1.00
5.98
38.00
1.00
Turbidity (NTU)
7.65
37.20
1.00
6.85
25.80
0.40
NH3- N (mg/L)
0.06
0.45
0.01
0.05
0.19
0.02
KN_N (mg/L)
0.65
1.40
0.20
0.72
1.20
0.40
02 / NO3_N (mg / L)
0.48
4.02
0.02
7.83
36.40
0.24
P (mg/L)
0.09
0.26
0.01
0.27
1.59
0.03
d (ug/L)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Cr (ug/L)
<10
<10
<10
<5
<5
<5
Cu (ug/L)
3.73
6.00
2.00
4.10
6.00
2.10
i(ug/L)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
b (ug/L)
<10
<10
<10
<10
21.00
<10
Zn (ug/L)
15.50
21.00
11.00
17.11
30.00
10.00
1(ug/L)
267.67
926.00
93.00
261.09
774.00
56.00
e (ug/L)
1082.94
1730.00
574.00
731.13
2000.00
56.00
Mn (ug/L)
321.50
474.00
169.00
As (ug/L)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Hg (ug/L)
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
RPA Analysis
The facility is required to monitor for copper, fluoride, MBAS, mercury, zinc, and chlorides as
part of the NPDES permit. RPAs were performed for all of these parameters.
Cu, Zn, and chloride data showed reasonable potential to exceed action level standards, therefore
monitoring will remain in the permit. The facility will be required to monitor for these pollutants
twice monthly, to correspond with frequencies required by 15 NCAC 2B .0500 regulations.
There is no MBAS standard for class C waters. It is unclear why the facility has historically been
required to monitor for this parameter. It may have been a carryover from concerns or policies
that were in effect prior to 1990. An RPA was performed for this parameter using the water

NPDES Permit Fact Sheet — 07/31 /08
Page 4
Siler City WWTP
NC0026441
supply standard (which is not applicable and was only used for the sake of comparison) of 500
pg/L, and the effluent showed no reasonable potential to exceed this value. The MBAS limit and
monitoring requirement will be removed from this permit and should not continue to be
monitored through the facilities LTMP program.
Mercury and fluoride data did not show reasonable potential to cause an exceedance of water
quality standards, therefore monitoring for these parameters will be removed from the permit.
They should continue to be monitored through the facility's LTMP.
The facility is also required to monitor for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, molybdenum —
nickel,
nickel, and selenium, as part of its pretreatment program. Only molybdenum was detected
during the 2-yr data review period. The reported values were 6, 7, and 18 pg/L. There is no class
C WQ standard for molybdenum, and the reported values are far below the 160 pg/L water
supply standard (mentioned for the sake of comparison).
As a requirement of the permit application package, the facility submitted three priority pollutant
analyses. Values of chlorodibromomethane, chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, bis(2-
ethlyhexyl)phthalate, and methylene chloride were detected, however there are no relevant NC
water quality standards or EPA criteria for these parameters.
WET Test Results
Siler City W WTP has a chronic whole effluent toxicity testing requirement at 90% effluent
concentration. Since March 2003 they have passed 18/20 WET tests. In March 2004 there was a
failure. The facility was required to test in the following two consecutive months and failed one
of those tests. Those failures triggered the Division's Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy and
Siler City was required to definitively rule out copper and zinc as causes of effluent toxicity.
Their submittal indicated no correlation between copper and zinc concentrations and toxicity test
results. Since that time there have been no WET failures.
Correspondence File Review/Compliance History
As previously stated, there have been no violations of the facility's permit limits (with the
exception of the above mentioned WET test failures) from January 2004 through June 2007.
Inspection reports indicate that the facility is properly maintained and has made efforts over the
years to better organize their filing systems. Several inspections did note, however, that there is
not enough standby power to operate the entire facility. The generator can only operate the
influent pump station, bar screen, and grit removal processes. The inspector recommends that
the town consider adding generator capacity to avoid a potential discharge of partially treated
wastewater to Loves Creek in the event of a power outage.
IV. Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: September 12, 2007
Permit Scheduled to Issue: December 1, 2007
V. State Contact Information
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Toya Fields at [phone], extension 551.

Re: NCO026641- Siler City WWTP
Subject: Re: NC0026641- Siler City WWTP
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:38:32 -0400
To: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Thanks for the opportunity to review the changes to the permit based on
the hearing officer's report. EPA has no comments on any of the
changes to the proposed permit.
1 of 1 8/29/2008 10:35 AM

Siler City HO report
Subject: Siler City HO report
From: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:11:52 -0400
To: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
CC: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>, Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>, Toya Fields
<[e-mail]>
Coleen,
Based on the information gathered since our meeting on this topic. I have made some
slight modifications to my recommendations.
NPDES Permit recommendations
1) I am recommending a year round TP limit (0.5 - summer; 2.0 - winter). 2) i am
recommending that an additional downstream monitoring site be located closer to the
Loves Creek/Rocky River confluence. The parameters to be monitored would be the same
as the existing downstream monitoring location.
General Recommendations
3) A watershed analysis should be conducted on the Rocky River watershed to determine
the significant threats to water quality, major contributors of pollutants, and
potential solutions to water quality threats.
4) 1 have removed the recommendation regarding the reservoir release schedule.
Continued cooperation and participation by Siler City in the Reservoir Management
Team is a permit condition of the 401 issued for the second dam, and therefore would
be duplicative.
Do you want me to go back and edit my HO report based on these recommendation
changes? Thanks.
Brian
1 of 1 8/21/2008 4:55 PM

Michael F. Easley, Governor
� William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1
r Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
July 14, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Coleen Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality U
From: Brian Wrenn, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting Unit
Ed Beck, Supervisor, Surface Water Protection Section, W1 mington Regional Office
Subject: Report and Recommendations: Town of Siler City WWTP
NPDES No. NCO026441
Loves Creek (Class C), 303(d) listed for Impaired Aquatic Life, Cape Fear River Basin
Chatham County
On the evening of April 17, 2008, Ed Beck and Brian Wrenn served as Hearing Officers for a public hearing in
the Town of Siler City in Chatham County. The hearing was requested due to community concerns regarding
the re -issuance of NPDES Permit No. 0026441 for the Town of Siler City wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
History/Background
The facility is located on the east side of the Town of Siler City in Chatham County at 370 Wastewater
Treatment Plant Rd. The current WWTP came online in 1994. The facility has a permitted flow of 4.0 million
gallons per day (MGD) and discharges to Loves Creek. Loves Creek is deemed Class C waters of the State and
is listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for impaired aquatic life. The draft permit proposed several
changes (See Attachment I). These changes are listed below:
• An annual pollutant scan would be added.
• Monitoring frequencies for copper, zinc, and chlorides would be reduced to twice monthly to correspond
with the requirements in 15 NCAC 2B .0500.
• MBAS limit and monitoring requirements would be removed. Past monitoring data has not shown the
potential to exceed water quality standards.
• Mercury and fluoride monitoring requirements would be removed. Past monitoring data has not shown
the potential to exceed water quality standards. Mercury and fluoride monitoring would continue to be
required through the Long Term Monitoring Plan.
• Oil and grease limits and monitoring would be removed. Very low levels have been present in the
WWTP effluent.
• A Nutrient Removal Optimization Plan (NROP) would be required. The NROP would evaluate nutrient
sources to the WWTP, provide current removal rates, and discuss ways to optimize nutrient removal
using the current wastewater treatment process.
NYow Carolina
aturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
Internet h2o.encstate.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX t919) 733-9612
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 2 of 7 `
Site Visit
DWQ staff members were given an extensive tour of the wastewater treatment plant. The facility appeared to be
well maintained and competently operated. The wastewater staff was knowledgeable and informative.
Public Hearing
The April 17th public hearing was held at the request of several individuals many of whom are associated with
a local community group, Friends of the Rocky River. Submitted written comments prior to the hearing are
contained in Attachment II. An announcement of the hearing was published in the local paper (Attachment III).
Fifty-five people attended the public hearing excluding ten Division of Water Quality staff members and the
hearing officers. The registration list is contained in Attachment IV. Ms. Toya Fields of the NPDES Program
gave a brief presentation of DWQ's permitting procedures, summarized the history of the permit and pertinent
technical data. She also addressed concerns expressed in the previously submitted written comments about the
permit renewal. The facility was represented by Mr. Joel Brower, Town Manager, Town of Siler City. Mr.
Brower gave a brief history of the WWTP and the current application renewal. He also discussed the amount
of funds spent on upgrades to the WWTP as well as to the collection system. Twenty-four attendees registered
to speak and did so or donated their time to another speaker. Most of the speakers expressed concerns regarding
re -issuance of the permit as proposed. Only three speakers were in favor of re -issuing the proposed draft Permit
No. 0026441. Attachment V contains written comments and documentation received during the hearing.
The primary points of the commenters are as follows:
1) Several commenters requested that DWQ re-classify the Rocky River as a Nutrient Sensitive Waters of
the State.
Response
Although algal blooms have occurred on a regular basis in the Rocky River indicating that a nutrient
problem exists, re -classifications of surface waters of the State are not regulated under the NPDES program.
Re -classifications are made through the Planning Section based on public requests and water quality
monitoring data. These comments have been forwarded to the Planning Section.
2) Several commenters requested that DWQ conduct a watershed analysis to identify all of the pollutant
sources within the Rocky River watershed.
a. Commenters advocated improvement of local zoning ordinances and sedimentation control measures.
b. Commenters advocated better enforcement of existing land use and sedimentation control measures.
c. Commenters advocated implementing stream buffer and stormwater control ordinances.
Response
NPDES Permit No. NC0026441 is applicable only to activities at and discharges from the Siler City
WWTP. Other activities in the watershed such as land use planning, buffer protection, and zoning
ordinances are not regulated by Permit No. NC0026441. However, a watershed analysis could prove useful
in determining the pollutants creating the greatest stress upon the Rocky River, the sources of these
pollutants, and the major contributors of these pollutants. Analysis of the data could provide solutions to
the water quality issues being experienced by the Rocky River. Furthermore, Chatham County has recently
received Clean Water Act Section 319 grant money to study the Rocky River watershed and to develop
water resource management strategies. These comments have been forwarded to the Planning Section.
3) Several commenters advocated tighter regulation on the land application of biosolids.
a. Commenters referenced the need for monitoring runoff of biosolids from land application sites.
b. Commenters referenced the need for additional monitoring of biosolids to include phosphorous, fire
retardants, antimicrobial chemicals, endocrine disruptors, and pharmaceuticals.
c. Commenters referenced the need for wider setbacks for land application and lower application rates.

Town of Siler City WWTP
pagb of 7
Response
NPDES Permit No. NC0026441 is applicable only to activities at and discharges from the Siler City
WWTP. Land application of biosolids is regulated under a separate non -discharge Permit no. WQ0003226
and is not applicable to Permit No. NC0026441. These comments have been forwarded on to the Aquifer
Protection Section of DWQ, the regulatory section for land application of biosolids.
4) Several commenters advocated addressing inflow and infiltration associated with the sanitary sewer
collection system.
Response
Based on rainfall data and corresponding flow spikes to the WWTP, it appears that the Town of Siler City
does have an inflow and infiltration problem. The Town has spent $1.75 million in upgrades to the
collections system, but it appears that additional upgrades are necessary. However, NPDES Permit No.
NC0026441 is applicable only to activities at and discharges from the Siler City WWTP. The operation and
maintenance of the sanitary sewer collection system is regulated under a separate non -discharge Permit No.
WQCS00056. These comments have been forwarded on to the Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and
Collection Systems Unit of DWQ.
5) Many commenters were in favor of requiring additional monitoring for parameters such as
pharmaceuticals, fire retardants, dioxins, pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, and MSRA.
Response
Based on the size of the Town of Siler City and the make-up of the municipal wastewater influent, it is not
anticipated that pollutants such as pharmaceuticals, fire retardants, dioxins, pesticides, herbicides, PCBs,
and MSRA would be a significant problem. Furthermore, concentrations of many these pollutants are often
removed through the sludge wasting process. The sludge is then treated to EPA standards, monitored; and
properly land applied as required under non -discharge Permit No. WQ0003226 issued to the Town for land
application of biosolids. In addition, the WWTP will be required to conduct an annual pollutant scan. This
scan includes several pesticides and herbicides and other pollutants mentioned as concerns.
6) A majority of the commenters requested that the copper, zinc, and chlorides monitoring remain at the
current monitoring frequencies.
Response
Monitoring for copper, zinc, and chlorides will continue to be required. However, the frequency will be
modified to correspond with 15 NCAC 2B .0500. This is an appropriate frequency and in accordance with
our regulations.
7) Many commenters requested additional upstream and downstream monitoring along the Rocky River.
Response
This is a reasonable request. It appears that there are many sources of pollutants, especially nutrients, in the
Rocky River watershed. However, it is difficult to determine what contribution the WWTP makes to the
pollutant loading. The downstream monitoring location is approximately four miles downstream of the
confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River and is currently monitored by the Upper Cape Fear River
Basin Association (UCFRBA) through an MOA with the Town of Siler City. To better understand what
impact the WWTP is having on downstream water quality, it is prudent to require an alternate or additional
monitoring location closer to the confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River. This would provide a
more representative picture of the impact of the WWTP and also a better understanding of other potential
sources of pollution from non -point sources.
One complication in adding or relocating a monitoring point is access to the river. No public roads cross the
Rocky River between the confluence of Loves Creek and the current downstream monitoring point. Land
along this section of the Rocky River is privately owned and gaining access would require a formal

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 4 of 7
agreement with the landowner. However, many of the attendees and speakers at the public hearing who are
in favor of additional protections for the Rocky River are landowners along the river. An access agreement
may be possible with one of these landowners.
Another point of consideration is the additional costs associated with extra monitoring locations and
parameters. According to Jennie Atkins of the NPDES Discharge Monitoring Coalition Program, additional
monitoring locations and parameters can be cost prohibitive for the monitoring coalitions. It is possible that
staff from the WWTP could conduct the monitoring less expensively than the UCFRBA. To keep costs
down the additional location should be monitored for dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, salinity,
pH, TN (weekly), and TP (weekly).
8) Several commenters including US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
raised concerns regarding impacts to threatened and endangered species and Natural Heritage Areas.
Response
At this time, it is unclear what the specific threats to any threatened and endangered species or Natural
Heritage Areas are. Although the Rocky River appears to be stressed due to excessive algae growth, the
specific threat(s) and the source(s) of the threat to the resources have not been fully determined. Therefore,
it is the hearing officers' opinion that no requirements be placed in the NPDES permit specifically
addressing the protection of threatened or endangered species or Natural Heritage Areas. However, these
resources and the impacts to them should be studied as part of the Rocky River watershed analysis
discussed above.
9) Several commenters requested that the Nutrient Removal Optimization Plan (NROP) deadline be
shortened to 6 months and include a "re -opener" clause to allow for modifications to the WWTP based on
the results of the NROP.
Response
It was clear from the comments received that the commenter would like a quicker turn -around time on the
NROP. However, the WWTP will need adequate time to adjust and experiment with the operation of
WWTP to maximize the nutrient removal capabilities and to determine any effects of seasonality on the
operational efficiency of the WWTP. This includes time for laboratory analysis of the monitoring data as
well as analysis of the monitoring results and any associated costs of operation. Based on these time needs,
a one-year period is an appropriate amount of time to complete the NROP. Furthermore, the draft permit
will expire in late October 2011. Should it be determined that new technologies are needed to adequately
remove nutrients from the wastewater, the time period from the completion of the NROP to the required
application renewal deadline would allow the Town to determine what technologies are needed and how to
fund the upgrades to the WWTP. In short, the timeframe requirements of the NROP are appropriate.
10) A majority of the commenters requested that the nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) monitoring be
enhanced.
Response
Based on the annual algal blooms observed in the Rocky River, it is clear that a nutrient problem exists.
The source of the nutrients is unclear, but it seems prudent to require additional nutrient monitoring of the
WWTP effluent. It is the opinion of the hearing officers that weekly monitoring for Total Nitrogen (TN) be
added to the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements. Currently, compliance for the Total
Phosphorous (TP) is measured as a calendar quarter average of the weekly samples. Compliance for the TP
should be determined based on the monthly average of the weekly samples. Once the results of the NROP
and the watershed study have been analyzed, DWQ can determine if additional or modified limits for
nutrients are appropriate for the WWTP.

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 5 of 7
• 11) Many commenters were in favor of continuing monitoring for mercury and fluoride.
Response
Monitoring data for the review period has shown that mercury and fluoride concentrations have been well
below permitted limits. The WWTP did have two isolated mercury samples that exceeded the permitted
limit in 2003, but this was likely due to sample contamination and not indicative of the effluent
characteristics. In response to the violations, the WWTP operator changed the mercury sampling method
and no further violations have occurred. Based on this information, it is the opinion of the hearing officers
that mercury and fluoride monitoring and effluent limitations be removed from the permit. Mercury and
fluoride will continue to be monitored through the Long Term Monitoring Plan associated with the
pretreatment program.
12) Many commenters advocated continued monitoring for oil and grease and MBAS.
Response
The WWTP currently has a limit for oil and grease of 30 mg/L. Oil and grease is not a standard monitoring
parameter for a municipal WWTP, but had been included prior to the upgrades made to the WWTP in 1994.
Oil and grease concentrations for the review period (January 2005 through June 2007) were very low.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the hearing officers that monitoring for oil and grease be removed from the
permit.
The MBAS monitoring requirement was a hold -over from the monitoring requirements prior to the WWTP
upgrades in 1994. No standard for MBAS exists for Class C waters of the State. The water supply standard
for MBAS (500 µg/1) was used as a method of comparison. During the review period, the effluent has
shown no reasonable potential to exceed this conservative standard. Therefore, it is the opinion of the
hearing officers that monitoring for MBAS be removed from the permit.
13) Many of the commenters noted that reduced flow to the Rocky River due to the upstream reservoirs has
exacerbated the pollutant loading problems.
Response
In light of the recent drought conditions and the increased growth to Chatham County, adequate drinking
water supplies will have an extremely high value to the Town. However, it appears that the reduced flows
in the Rocky River due to the upstream reservoirs along with the nutrient inputs from various sources have
caused a synergistic effect resulting in the annual algal blooms. This was a major concern expressed during
the public hearing for the construction of the second reservoir for the Town of Siler City. The hearing
officer's report for the Reclassification of the Two Segments of Rocky River from Class WS-III and C to
Class WS-III CA, November 6, 2003, indicated that the minimum and pulse release schedule for the
proposed reservoir would be at no point lower than the flow release of the existing reservoir. In many
cases, the flow release will be higher than the flows prior to construction of the first reservoir. It is
recommended that the Task Force organized as part of the Environmental Management Commission's
recommendation on the Reclassification of Rocky River continue its efforts to determine an appropriate
release schedule to maintain the health of the Rocky River.
14) Many commenters stated that the WWTP has a poor compliance history.
Response
Based on the Monthly average Daily Monitoring Report (DMR) data for the review period of January 2005
to July 2007, the facility appears to be well run and operating properly. The facility had one permit
violation during the review period for pH (5.9 s.u.). The monthly average flows are approximately 65% of
capacity. Prior to January 2005, the WWTP had experienced some compliance issues; however, the last
three years of monitoring data have been* very good. It is the opinion of the hearing officers that the
compliance history does not raise significant concerns regarding the functionality or operation of the
WWTP.

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 6 of 7
Y
15) Several commenters were in favor of Siler City upgrading the WWTP to add new treatment processes
for additional nutrient removal and disinfection.
Response
Although the DWQ is in favor of any WWTP installing the best available technology for wastewater
treatment, it is the opinion of DWQ and the hearing officers at this time that the Siler City WWTP has
adequate technology to properly treat the wastewater influent for nutrients and fecal coliform. The Nutrient
Removal Optimization Plan will serve as a measure of the WWTP's ability to achieve increased nutrient
removal. Based on the results of the plan, DWQ may re-evaluate the need for additional treatment
processes.
16) A number of commenter advocated more strenuous pretreatment requirements for industrial contributors
to the WWTP.
Response
On October 21, 2005, an NOV was issued to the Town of Siler City for violations related to the
pretreatment program. Specifically, the violations were related to continual excess flow from the Gold Kist,
Inc. (now Pilgrims Pride) facility without civil penalty assessment from the Town of Siler City. However, it
is important to note that these excess flows from the Pilgrims Pride facility did not result in violations of the
effluent limitations for the WWTP. With the closing of this facility, no further excess flows from SIUs are
anticipated.
Pretreatment permits are issued to the Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) by the Town with technical input
from DWQ. DWQ will continue to work with the Town to ensure that the SIUs are treating their effluent in
a manner that does not compromise the wastewater treatment abilities of the WWTP. These comments have
been forwarded on to the Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and Collection Systems Unit of DWQ.
As hearing officers for the April 17, 2008 public hearing proceedings for the re -issuance of NPDES permit
number NC0026441 for the Town of Siler City WWTP, it is recommended that the permit be re -issued with
the following modifications to the current draft:
• The WWTP should monitor for Total Nitrogen on a weekly basis. Compliance for Total Phosphorous
should be determined on a monthly average of weekly monitoring.
• Downstream monitoring should be enhanced. The downstream monitoring location should be located
closer to the confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River, or an additional monitoring location
should be added between the existing location and the confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River.
The parameters currently monitored at the existing downstream location should be monitored at the
alternate or additional monitoring location.
In addition to the recommendations made regarding NPDES Permit No. 0026441, the hearing officers
recommend the following measures to address the overall threats to the Rocky River:
• A watershed analysis should be conducted on the Rocky River watershed to determine the significant
threats to water quality, major contributors of pollutants, and potential solutions to water quality threats.
• The Town of Siler City should continue to work with stakeholders to determine a proper reservoir
release schedule to ensure that the Rocky River has sufficient flow to maintain its best use classification
and provide adequate habitat for threatened and endangered species along the Rocky River.
If you have questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact Brian Wrenn at 919-
733-5715 or Ed Beck at 910-796-7215.

.Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 7 of 7
s
Attachments
cc: Rick Shiver, Assistant Director for Regional Operations
Chuck Wakild, Deputy Director
Paul Rawls, Surface Water Protection Section
Alan Clark, Planning Branch
Jimmie Overton, ESS
Kim Colson, Aquifer Protection Section
Susan Wilson, NPDES Program
Toya Fields, Western NDPES Program
Matt Matthews, Point Source Branch
Danny Smith, Raleigh Regional Office
Ed Beck, Wilmington Regional Office

104
- ��j
-- --

NORTH CAROLINA
CHAT HAM COUNTY
"Ire Chathno, News
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, person-
ally appeared
Florence Turner , who being
first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he (she) is
Accounts Receivable Clerk
(Owner, partner, publisher, or other officer or employee
authorized to make this affidavit)
of The Chatham News Publishing Co., Inc., engaged in the publication of a
newspaper known as, The Chatham News, published, issued, and entered as
second class mail in the Town of Siler City, in said County and State; that
he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement; that the
notice or legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in The Chatham News on the following dates:
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document, or
legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every such
publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications
of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a quali-
fied newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statues
of North Carolina.
This 1 3 day of
of person making
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this
day of
Notary
MY Commission expires:
pft�'A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO BE HELD BY
THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
SUBJECT: A public hearing has
been scheduled concerning the
proposed issuance of the following
NPDES permit:
Existing permit number
NCO026441 for the Slier City
Wastewater Treatment Plant,
located east of Slier City off US64
(Chatham County) for the
discharge of 4.0 MGD (four million
gallons per day) of treated
wastewater into Loves Creek in the
Cape Fear River Basin.
PURPOSE: The Town of Slier City
has applied for the renewal of the
existing NPDES permit
NCO026441 to treat existingg
wastewater flows from 702
residents and four significant
industrial users.
On the basis of preliminary staff
review and application of Article 21
of Chapter 143, General Statutes
of North Carolina, and other lawful
standards and regulations, the
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission pro-
poses to issue the permit as
proposed. The Director of the
Division of Water Quality pursuant
to NCGS 143-215.1 (c)(3) and
Regulation 15 NCAC 2H, Section
.0100 has determined that it is in
the public interest that a meeting
be held to receive all pertinent
Public comment on whether to
issue, modify, or deny this permit.
PROCEDURE: The hearing will be
'conducted in the following manner:
• 1. An explanation of the North
Carolina Environmental Manage-
ment Commission's permitting
procedure will be resented by the
Division of Water Quality.
• 2. An explanation of the action for
which the permit is required may
be made by the applicant.
• 3. Public Comment - Comments,
statements, data and other
information may be submitted in
writing prior to or during the
meeting, or may be presented
orally at the meeting.— ert r ons
desiring to speak will indicate this
intent at the time of registration at
the meeting. So that -all persons
desiring to speak may do so,
lengthy statements may be limited
at the discretion of the meeting
officer. Oral presentations that
exceed three minutes should be
accompanied by three written
copies, which will be filed with
Division staff at the time of
registration.
• 4. Cross examination of persons
presenting testimony will not be
allowed; however, the hearno
officer may ask quesfiods =for
clarification.
• 5. The hearing record may be
closed at the conclusion of the
meeting.
WHEN: April 17, 2008 at 7:00 pm
(Registration begins at 6 pm)
WHERE: Main Courtroom, City
Hall, 311 N. Second Ave., Slier
City, NC 27344
INFORMATION: A copy of the
draft NPDES permits and a map
showing the location of the
discharges are available by writing
kle or calling: Ms. Dina Sprin, NC
Division of Water Quali /Point
Source Branch, 1617 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
-- 27699-1617. Telephone number
[phone], extension 363.
The applications and other
information are on file at the
Division of Water Quality, 512
North Salisbury Street, Room 925
of the Archdale Building in Raleigh,
North Carolina and at the Division's
Raleigh Regional (3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609). They
may be inspected during normal
officer hours. Copies of the
Information on file are available
upon request and payment of the
costs of reproduction. All such
comments and roauests-regarding
this matter should make reference
to the permit number listed above.
M13,ttc

Motor Fleet Vehicle Rates
Vehicle Class
Vehicle Models
Base Monthly
Lease Rate
Per Mile Rate (over
1050 miles per
month)
Sedan - Compact Electric
Leaf, Bolt
$192.00
$0.24
Sedan -Compact Hybrid
Volt
$213.00
$0.26
Sedan - Compact
Focus
$181.50
$0.23
Sedan - Midsize'
Fusion, Malibu
$213.00
$0.26
Sedan - Full Size, Hybrid
Camry, Camry Hybrid,
Impala
$223.50
$0.27
Sedan - Full Size Law
Enforcement
Caprice, Police
Interceptor Sedan
$360.00
$0.40
Sedan - Full Size Law
Enforcement
Charger LE
$297.00
$0.34
Light Duty Truck
F=150, Silverado 1500,
Colorado
$318.00
$0.36
Truck - Light Duty - Law
Enforcement
F-150 LE
$360.00
$0.40
Truck -Medium Duty
F-250
$496.50
$0.53
Truck- Heavy Duty
F-350
$601.50
$0.63
Cab and Chassis Truck 19,500
F-550
$738.00
$0.76
Cab and Chassis Truck - 25,500
F-650
$822.00
$0.84
SUV -Compact, Hybrid
Escape Hybrid,
Journey
$265.50
$0.31
SUV- Midsize
Traverse, Equinox,
Explorer, Pathfinder
$360.00
$0.40
SUV - Full size
Tahoe, Durango,
Expedition
$454.50
$0.49
SUV - Extra Large
Suburban
$570.00
$0.60
SUV -Mid Size Law
Enforcement
Interceptor Utility
$402.00
$0.44
SUV - Full Size Law Enforcement
Durango SSV
$423.00
$0.46
SUV - Full Size Law Enforcement
Tahoe PPV
$454.50
$0.49
Van - Compact -Cargo
NV200, Transit
Connect
$276.00
$0.32
Van - Compact - Passenger
Caravan, Transit
Connect
$307.50
$0.35
Van - Medium Duty Cargo
Transit T250
$318.00
$0.36
Van - Medium Duty Passenger
Transit T250
$318.00
$0.36
Van - Medium Duty Electric c/v
E-Transit T250
$328.50
$0.37
Van - Heavy Duty - Cargo
E-350, Transit T350
$328.50
$0.37
Van - Heavy Duty Passenger
Transit T350, Transit
15 passenger
$349.50
$0.39

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
January 17, 2008
To: Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of ter Quality
Through: Paul wl
Section Chie , Surface Water Protection
Matt Matthews A^'"
Supervisor, Point Source Branch
Susan A. Wilson V
Supervisor, West m NPDES Program
From: Toya Fields 1br-
Western NPDES Program
Subject: Siler City WWTP
Summary of Comments Received on draft NPDES Permit NCO026441
The abovementioned draft permit was sent to public notice on September 12, 2007. During the comment
period 28 individuals and organizations submitted comments on the draft permit. Represented
organizations include NC Wildlife Resource Council, US Fish and Wildlife, Chatham County, Keepers of
the Rocky River Streamwatch, Friends of the Rocky River, Chatham County Environmental Review
Board, Chatham County Democratic Party, Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities, and the Rocky
River Heritage Foundation. 25 letters requested that the Division hold a public hearing on the draft
pemut. Those requests include one from the Chatham County Board of Commissioners who voted 4-0 to
approve a motion requesting that the Division hold a hearing.
All of the comments express concern that the health of the Rocky River appears to be deteriorating due to
drought conditions, excessive nutrients, and increased development in the area. Excessive algal growth
has become common and severely limits recreational activities. On July 16, 2007 the Chatham County
Board of Commissioners created a Rocky River Stakeholders Group which includes the Siler City Board
Commissioners as well as business and citizen groups. The purpose of the stakeholders group is to help
develop a watershed management plan. The stakeholders group has been working in conjunction with
staff from DWQ's Planning Section.
Many commenters feel that the Siler City W WTP is not being held accountable for its contribution to the
poor health of the receiving stream and that the NPDES permit does not go far enough to protect the
waterbody. Some request that additional ambient monitoring, nutrient targets, metals monitoring, and
compliance milestones be placed in the permit. There is also concern that the success of the newly
formed stakeholders group may be compromised if the permit does not include several stakeholder
recommendations and reopener clauses. Although the draft permit did include a nutrient optimization
plan, many feel that the study will need to be reviewed and actions taken within the term of the permit
cycle.
The attached table contains a more detailed comment summary.
Staff recommends that a public hearing be scheduled for this draft permit based on the significant level of
public interest.

Attachment 1: Comment Summary for Draft Permit NC0026441- Siler City WWTP - Chatham County
COMMENT SUMMARY
Comments on draft permit: 28
Summary of comments on draft permit.-
4 1 year compliance for nutrient study is too long
2 Need to develop nutrient targets
25 Request for public hearing
2 Need long term strategy to improve WQ issues
14 Concerned about deterioration of water quality and quantity (algae blooms, green color, drought, etc.)
5 Concerned about runoff impacts of increased development
3 Concerned about impact of planned upstream reservoir
1 WWTP is a significant source of nutrients
1 Stream is degraded such that uses are not being met
7 Habitat of the Cape Fear Shiner
1 Copper and Zinc limits should be added
3 Permit should require increased ambient monitoring (UCFRBA monitoring is inadequate)
2 Past problems have been documented and remain unresolved. Need some accountability.
2 Permit should include further recommendations from stakeholder group
2 7Q10 is outdated and needs to be revised
1 Pretreatment permit needs to be revised based on current contributions
2 Stream should be designated nutrent sensitive based on 2B .0223
1 HO recommendations from reclass hearings in 2003 direct DWQ to evaluate impact WWTP has on instream nutrients.
1 Permit should include reopener to implement results of nutrient optimization study before expiration of permit cycle.
1 TP should be included in the nutrient optimization plan,
6 Permit incorrectly removed monitoring and limits for certain parameters
3 Permit conditions will impact efforts of recently created stakeholder's group

J��tEn ST,,1.0
� A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY �
w REGION 4
n ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
$ e
�Fti rO 61 FORSYTH STREET
It PROSE° ATLANTA,,GEORGIA 30303-8960
SEP 2 0 2W
Ms. LeToya Fields
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUB7: Draft NPDES Permit
Siler City WWTP
Permit No. NCO026441
Dear Ms. Fields:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed review of the draft
permit referenced above and have no comments. We request that we be afforded an additional
review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the draft permit prior to issuance or if
significant comments objecting to the draft permit are received. Otherwise, please send us one
copy of the final permit when issued.
Sincerely,
ry,>� Nye
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
? ^ 2007
Internet Address (URL) . http://w .epa.gov
RecycledlRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

Fw: Siler City Wastewater
Subject: Fw: Siler City Was er
From: "Elizabeth Self' <elizabeth.self@nctn. net>
Date: Wed,12 Dec 2007 14:40:49 +0000
To: [e-mail]
715'^ zl I C3/
ce'd C o 6 -�/2 g
Paul,
I need an answer on this as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Elizabeth
Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry
-----Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Hudson (Research)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:35:20
To:<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Siler City Wastewater
Elizabeth,
Anything on this. I feel like we need to respond in
some way before this request gets any staler.
Thanks,
Jeff
-----Original Message -----
From: Elizabeth Self [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:59 AM
To: Jeffrey Hudson (Research)
Subject: Re: Siler City Wastewater
I'm checking with Paul Rawls
find out anything. I'll let
Thanks and apologies for the
Elizabeth
Sent from my Verizon Wireless
to see if he was
you know.
delay.
BlackBerry
able to
1 of 3 12/13/2007 10:53 AM

Fw: Suer City Wastewater
The Town is meeting all of its permit limits, but every
time there is a permit renewal there is a
lawsuit.
Our permit renewal is being held up now by a lawsuit
(Permit #NC0026441) .
The Friends of the Rocky River (FORR) are claiming;
without scientific proof that the Town is damaging the
water quality of the Rocky River. They claim that
nutrients Phosphorus and Nitrogen are causing algae
0blooms on the river.
A wastewater says specialist that Phosphorus is the
P Y P
primary nutrient that limits algae growth in
freshwaters and the Town is meeting the requirements of
the permit. He says that the plant converts Nitrogen to
its most oxidized form Nitrate Nitrogen, but we are not
equipped to remove Nitrate Nitrogen. We would need to
Denitrify14 the Nitrate Nitrogen. He says that a better
g Y
option would be a facultative lagoon added on to our
current plant. It would provide nutrient remove by
photosynthetic algae, allow for a constant flow from
the wastewater plant and provide for emergency storage.
If our permit were ever changed to a pounds per day
limit (total daily maximum limit) we would have the
flexibility to release from the lagoon at a steady
rate.
The unfortunate thing about this is that we would
probably not qualify for this if it were a low interest
loan; we have had to borrow a lot of money for the
reservoir project. If it's a grant we might qualify for
at lease enough to do a feasibility study and start the
permitting process.
As far as the river being stressed now, you know what a
severe drought we are in (everyone's water resources
are stressed). Any help you could provide would be
greatly appreciated.
pc6c/e-S5
2 of 2 ` 12/13/200710:54 AM

NORTH CAROLINA
CHATHAM COUNTY
lie Chatham News
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, person-
ally
Florence Turner
first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he (she) is
Accounts Receivable Clerk
(Owner, partner, publisher, or other officer or employee
authorized to make this affidavit)
who being
of The Chatham News Publishing Co., Inc., engaged in the publication of a
newspaper known as, The Chatham News, published, issued, and entered as
second class mail in the Town of Siler City, in said County and State; that
he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement; that the
notice or legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in The Chatham News on the following dates:
9c aCZ)
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document, or
legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and everysuch
publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications
of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a quali-
fied newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statues
of North Carolina.
fL 1 l
This d day of
(Signature of person making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this a 0
day of 7- C cc 7
PUBLIC NOTICE a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL 'E
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER ;H
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617 ig
NOTIFICATIION OF INTENT TO:.I,
ISSUE A NPDES WASTEWATER,'
PERMIT b:
On the basis of thorough sta !
review and application of N
General Statute 143.21. Public IaJJJJJJJJ
92-500 and other lawful standard
and regulations, the North Carolin
mission proposes to issue
National Pollutant Discharg
Elimination System (NPDES
wastewater discharge permit to the-
person(s) listed below effective 4
days from the publish date of thi
notice.
Written comments regarding th'
proposed permit will be acceptel
until 30 days after the publish dat�
of this notice. All comments
received prior to that date are.
considered in the finar
determinations regarding that
proposed permit. The Director of
the NC Division of Water Quoin ,
may decide to hold a publi r
meeting for the proposed permli
should the Division receive a
Indicant degree of public interest:
opies of the draft permit an4.
other supporting information on fill
used to determine conditions;
present in the draft are availabl.
upon request and payment of the,
costs of reproduction. Ma
comments and/or requests fo ,
information to the NC Division o'
Water Quality at the above addre
or call Dina Sprinkle (919) 733-
5083, extension 363 at the Point -
Source Branch. Please include the
NPDES permit number (attached)
in any communication. Interested
persons may also visit the Division
Of Water Quality at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604-1148 between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review
information on file.
Slier City (P.O. Box 769, Siler City,
NC 27344) has applied for renewal
of NPDES permit NCO026441 for
the Siler City WWTP in Chatham
County. This permitted facility
discharges 4 MGD of treated
wastewater to Loves Creek in the
Cape Fear River Basin. Currently
BOD, ammonia nitrogen, total
phophorus, and total residual
chlorine are water quality limited.
This discharge May affect future
allocations in this portion of the
Cape Fear River Basin. S20,1tc
Notary Public
My Commission expires: .41 ` 6 7 - cZ 016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Siler City WWTP
NCO026441
Tana Period 2005-2007
Ow (MOD)
4
7010S (Cis)
0.25
701OW (ds)
0.4
3002 (ds)
0
Avg. Stream Flow, OA (ds)
8.7
Recwing Stream Loves Creek
WWTP Class IV
1WC 0 7010S 96.124
0 701OW 93.939
0 3002 WA
0 OA 41.611
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Cw = 4 MCD
STANDARDS &
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA M
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Ncwas/ IMP
a /dt MmPmdAr AgmwbbCw
(1)
Cm wk AM#
Acute: 7
per
NC
7 AL 7.3
uglL
130 130
47.6
_ _ _ - - -
- - -
_
Chronic: - 7 •
-
Max predicted > ellowable.-
AL parameter. retain tnomwfrq
Acute: WA
Fluoride
NC
1.8
mg/l
130 130
1.7
L�
---------------------------------
Max predated < allowable
Remove limlt. Contfnue.mon to through LIMP
Acute: WA
/Mercury
NC
12
2
nglL
130 95
7.9
_--___-
- --- --- --- --
Chronic: 12
_-
Max predicted c anowable
Remove Omit Contlriue monh thr h LTMP
Acute: 67
L/Ibna
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
130 130
207.4
--___-
__ _- - - - - - ---
Chronic: 52
Max predicted > aGowabie.
AL parameter, retain monitoring
NC
230 AL
mg/L
10 10 484.4
Acute: WA
-
•--_, _ _- -_ _-- - - ----- -.
VLlhtoride
Note: n<12
-
ChrOnk: - - 239_
Max predicted > allowable.
Lfmfted data set
AL parameter, retain monItcring
Acute: WA
MBAs
NC
500 N
AL
130 38
310.5
V
--•- -
Chronic s2o
- ---
Mex predicted«.eltawable: Remov9rrdUmonitorbtg
THIS IS A WATER SUPPLY STANDARD (N/A) ;
Acute: WA
0 0
NIA
- - - - - - -----
Chronk: inor O Type
-- - - --- -
I
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
- - --- - --- -.-.
Chronic: error @Type
•- - - - - -
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
- -- ---- --- -----------
Chronic error Q
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
___ - - - - - -.-_- ---
Chronc~ t O Type -- - - - -
in0_
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
__ _- - _ - - - - - - - - -•
- -_-
Chrome: znor_Q T_ype
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
-
-- --- ---•- --- ----- ---
Ctuordc: error Q
- -
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
_L
--- --- -----
Chronic: inor O Type'
- --- - -
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
- - - --.-_-.-_-
Chronic: itrot A Type •- ---- -
Acute: WA
0 0
WA
--------------------------
Chronic: irror Q Type -- -
Legend• " Freshwater Discharge
C - Carcinogenic
NC a Noncarab"enic
A a Aesthetic
26441_rpaids, rpa
9/10/2007

WDES/A uifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form.
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART: PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form
Check all that
apply
back from PERCS.
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
you (or NOV POTW).
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific
POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next
permit renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA
if changes.
I
Date of Request
9/5/2007
municipal renewal
X
Re uestor
To a Fields
new industries
Facility Name
Siler City WWTP
WWTP expansion
Permit Number
NCO026441
Speculative limits
Re ion
Ralei h
stream reclass.
Basin
Cape Fear
stream relocation
7Q10 change
other
l
other
)plicable PERCS staff:
1110ther Comments to PERCS:
CPF - TBA (to Dana in mean time)
CTB, CHO, LUM, NEU, ROA - Dana Folley (523
BRD, FRB, NEU - Monit Hassan (371)
HIW. LTN. TAR. YAD - Tom Ascenzo (526)
,RCS: PRETREATMENTSTAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
itus of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
E13b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below STMP time frame:
Most recent-
Flow, MGD Permitted Actual Time ed d for Actual Next Cycle:
Industrial 1.613 1.9003 2005
Uncontrollable n/a 0.7885 2005
POC In
LTMP!
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required
bv EPA*
Required
by 503
Sludge"
POC due
to SIU"•
POTw POc
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Frog
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
BOD
X
4
Q
TSS
X
4
Q
NH3
X
4
Q
Arsenic
x
4
Q
Cadmiurix'
x
4
Q
Chi'olniunl;°, .
X
4
Q
GQpper� z
x
4
Q
Cyanide
4
Q
Lead.
x
4
Q
Mercury
x
4
Q
Molybdenum
X
x
4
Q
N1ckel t, . :..
x
4
Q
Silver
4
Q
Selenium
x
4
Q
Zinc =
x
4
Q
Total Nitrogen
4
Q
Phosphorus
X
4
Q
WAS
x
4
Q
Fluoride
x - NPDES monitoring requirement
4
Q
oil & qrease
not sure why included
1
4
Q
= Quarterly
A = Monthly
all data on
NO (attach data)l
f all data is not on DMRs
et me know and I will contact
,he City to get data.
data ins readshee
YES (email to writer) x
monthly date
:o 3/2005
`Always ui°the LTMP/STMP " Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW "" Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
omments to Permit Writer (ex explanation of any POCs• info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
requency increases to once per month the year before the HWA due. Next HWA due 9/2008.
PIRF_SHerC1ty_2007.xis
Revised: July 24, 2007

5 Gk 1 P")n� rF'1e I u A G� IcA�en ry
D1to r,b cc�Prn�hw.�J{
A e e of Value '1 �
WASA al Cabanua Cainry-Rocky RhierVJVJfP
MSDot Buncombe County -French Broad River WRF
LaunnDurg Maxton Airport Commission WWiP
Johnston County DPU _Central Johnston County WJJTP
Facility
y,wlies
31-36 5
I I S.w.ao"
aA;,
w 60'S
0 Sao ?
� aos
Li�..3o•e
ao'a
', i 3:..Io•s
14lei .
5;A 30's
Q,w-a.o•5
--- 5 ma's
e.... 10.5
II
III
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
p�J e, r A 0 2 rA ( Q 'fir')!

a�
a
-' ) i f
L�GG(J��
�) L
Lit i �'Wr. /(}}(f
� U
a
/� 1`i�' V<`�iM��L G�J .�. l%.4r(G� ;`�-� a2/ "I ✓lQ � ���0�.
n
r 1p���.<.�c,� ,�,�'-- ^��n� �p �
Nil / C��Jf�cJ�� �l�^ v (nC CrC�Q T1v

�i G11C 4QuiG�; �� C cb-�e Y =G J-,
I

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(This form is best filled out on computer, rather than hard copy)
Date: June 7, 2006
To: NPDES Discharge Permitting Unit
Attn. NPDES Reviewer: Nowell
County: Chatham
Permitee: Town of Siler Citv
Application/ Permit No.: NCO026441
Staff Report Prepared By: Christopher Wu
Project Name: Town of Siler City WWTP
SOC Priority Project? (Y/1) N If Yes, SOC No.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. This application is (check all that apply): ❑ New ® Renewal
❑ Modification
2. Was a site visit conducted in order to prepare this report? ® Yes or ❑ No.
a. Date of site visit: June 7, 2006
b. Person contacted and telephone number: Curtis Brown; [phone]
c. Site visit conducted by: Christopher Wu
d. Inspection Report Attached: ® Yes or ❑ No.
EC EL VE
4 D
JUN 1 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE ©RANCH
3. Keeping BIMS Accurate: Is the following BIMS information (a. through e. below) correct?
® Yes or ❑ No. If No, please either indicate that it is correct on the current application or the
existing permit or provide the details. If none can be supplied, please explain:
Discharge Point: (Fill this section only if BIMS or Application Info is incorrect or missing)
(If there is more than one discharge pipe, put the others on the last page of this form.)
a. Location OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number:
d. Latitude/Longitude OK on Application ❑, (check at htto://www.tot)ozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Latitude: Longitude:
e. Receiving Stream OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Receiving Stream or affected waters:
a. Stream Classification:
b. River Basin and Sub basin No.:
c. Describe receiving stream features and downstream uses:
For NEW FACILITIES Proceed to Section C. Evaluation and Recommendations
(For renewals or modifications continue to section B)

r
NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND WASTE(S) (renewals and modifications only)
1. Describe the existing treatment facility: The Town of Siler City WWTP is permitted to discharge at a
rate of 4 MGD and consists of. manual and mechanical bar screens, grit collection unit, influent pump
station, aerobic digester, filter backwash holding station, DAF unit, 4 equalization basins, sludge
transfer station, lime tower, alum feed station, dual oxidation ditches, dual secondary clarifiers, four
tertiary filters, chlorine contact chamber, sulfur dioxide addition, and a solids removal area.
2. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the facilities? N Yes or ❑ No.
Operator in Charge: Curtis Brown Certificate # (Available in BIMS or Certification Website)
Back- Operator in Charge: David Hicks Certificate #
3. Does the facility have operational or compliance problems? Please comment: No.
Summarize your BIMS review of monitoring data (Notice(s) of violation within the last permit cycle;
Current enforcement action(s)): None.
Are they currently under SOC, ❑ Currently under JOC, ❑ Currently under moratorium ❑? Have
all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit, SOC, JOC, etc. been complied with? ❑ Yes
or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Residuals Treatment: PSRP N (Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, Class B) or
PFRP ❑ (Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, Class A)?
Are they liquid or dewatered to a cake?
Land Applied? Yes N No ❑ If so, list Non -Discharge Permit No. WQ0016247
Contractor Used: Synagro
Landfilled? Yes ❑ No® If yes, where?
Other?
Adequate Digester Capacity? Yes N No ❑ Sludge Storage Capacity? Yes N No ❑
Please comment on current operational practices:
5. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this
permit? ❑ Yes or N No. If yes, please explain:
C. E VAL UA TION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: has the facility evaluated the non -discharge options available? Give
regional perspective for each option evaluated:
Spray Irrigation: N/A
Connect to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
Other Disposal Options: N/A
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 2

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application:
3. List any items that you would like NPDES Unit to obtain through an additional information
request. Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Recommended Additional Information I Reason
4. List specific Permit requirements that you recommend to be removed from the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each condition:
Recommended Removal I Reason
5. List specific special requirements or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in
the permit when issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Recommended Addition I Reason
6. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office;
❑ Hold, pending review and approval of required additional information by NPDES permitting
office; ® Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
Reminder. attach inspection report if Yes was checked for 2 d.
7. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of WQS regional supervisor:
Date: /110 6
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03
3

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
NC0026441, Town of Siler City WWTP Renewal Cape Fear
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject to, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes M No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs.
b. Number of CIUs.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F1.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name:
Mailing Address: East Third Street
F1A. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
process wastewater generated from poultry slaughter and packing processes; washdown water; water into product; broiler/cooling tower
blowdown
F1.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s):
Raw material(s):
F1.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater Flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
650,000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater Flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F1.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 8 7550-22.
Page 18 of 27

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
NC0026441, Town of Siler City WWTP
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F1.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F1.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes ® No (go to F.12)
F1.10.Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
171.11I.Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F1.12.Remedlatlon Waste. Dom the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) ® No
F1.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F7.14.Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F1.15. Waste Treatment
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 19 of 27

OR
.r
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
` NC0026441, Town of Siier City WWTP Renewal Cape Fear
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F-3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F2.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages as
necessary.
Name: Mastercraft Fabrics, L LC
01� I Mailing Address: 1311 East Eleventh Street
Siler City, NC 27344
so F2.4. industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
textile weaving, dye slashing andfor sizing; domestic; cooling water, boiler/cooling tower and washdown water.
am F2.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Matedal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Textile products
fflw� Raw material(s):
F2.6. Flow Rate.
C. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
e" (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or Intermittent.
98 000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system In
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
m* F2.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
ow
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
A"
P"
No
0"
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 20 of 27

r
r
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
NC0026441, Town of Siler City WWTP
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F2.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the 51 U. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g..
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F2.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by tuck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes ® No (go to F.12)
F2.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Tuck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F2.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amoun Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F2.12.Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that It will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) ® No
F2.13. Waste Origin. Descdbe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLAIRCRAfor Other remedial waste originates (of is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F2.14.Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F2.15. Waste Treatment
C. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
d. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 8 7550-22.
Page 21 of 27

AM
� o
cT
-� FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
NC0026441, Town of Siler City WWTP Renewal Cape Fear
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION: E -0 1
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F3.3. Significant industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages as
necessary.
Name: Gold Kist Inc
00! Mailing Address: 602 South Chatham Avenue
Slier City, NC 27344
rR F3.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the Industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Process wastewater generated from poultry slaughter and packing at the facility; washdown wastewater; domestic; boilericooling tower,
om Iand wastewater generated from the manufacture of pork meat products from Chatham Foods, Inc.
F3.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Matodal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
MR I Principal product(s): poultry slaughter and aackina
Raw material(s):
FJ"
F3.6. Flow Rate.
e. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system In gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or Intermittent.
a" 1 650 000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
f. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged Into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
MW
so
MW
N"
am
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F3.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standard% which category and subcategory?
all�
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 22 of 27

r
4 FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
NC0026441, Town of Siler City WWTP
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F3.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the Vestment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F3.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it In the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes ® No (go tc F.12)
F3.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F3.11.Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F3.12. Remedlation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) ® No
F3.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste odginates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F3.14.Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F3.15. Waste Treatment
e. Is this waste heated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment work$?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
I. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 23 of 27

04
a
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
' NC0026441, Town of Siler City WWTP Renewal Cape Fear
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works,
rg copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F5.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages as
�., necessary.
Name: Brookwood Farms. Ina
em I Mailing Address: 1015 Alston Bridge Road
Siler City. NC 27344
mo I F5.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SlU's discharge.
Discharge of process wastewater generated from the processing of country ham and pork barbecue from neighboring facility;
domestic; washdown water, cooling water, boiler/cooling tower.
F5.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): country ham and pork barbecue
neq --
Raw material(s):
F5.6. Flow Rate.
g. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge Into the collection system In gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
35000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
h. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flaw discharged into the collection system In
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or Intermittent.
00 gpd ( continuous or Intermittent)
F5.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
M"
P"
x"
PM
mm
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 24 of 27

r
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
NC0026441, Town of Siler City WWTP
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
F5.6. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F5.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has It in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by took, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes ® No (go to F.12)
F5.10.Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F5.11.Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F5.12.Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) ® No
F5.13. Waste Origin. Descdbe the site and" of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F5.14.13ollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F5.15.Waste Treatment -
g. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
h. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
r.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA fortes 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 25 of 27

1`
OXIDATION DITCH - 2 REQUIRED
W/ JET AERATION, BASIN VOLUME
. 2,20 MG EACH BASIN. DETENTION
TIME - 26.4 MRS. TOTAL DITCH
VOLUME . 4.4 MG.
FLASH MIX BASIN FLOCCUTAIOR CLARIFIER - 2 REO'D
3 MIN. DETENTION 90' DM SEFRINO ZONE
AT A.D.F . AD mV LOADING RATE - 350 GAL/DAY- SF
0 FULL SURFACE SKIMMER
ll=--Ll1At- 11
24' O.I.P
A- 01 FROTH CONTRDI LINE
TERTIARY FILTRATION - 4 ZONE GREENLEAF
LOADING RATE • � QQppmn/SF FOR PEAK FLOW
THAU BACKWASH ACTUAL LOAOIAIG
t 2 9P'^/SF AT A.D.F. 4.OmyA
TON D f 1 n
Moue" EXt6RNG
IA. 1 MANHOLE
NO. 6
EXISTING
C+RORtd CMIACT 6ASIN
lI LB 12 0-L RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE LINE
H SUPPLY PUMP
18- 0.1, FORCE LM6I j IB-�SO SUBMERSIBLE PUMP
IT111 L41' D.I. $CYY LKNE CAPACITY w DODO apm
INFLUENT PUMP STATION) AT 20 FT T.O.H.
GRIT REMOVAL CHAMBER A-75/47 HP PUMPS 24' 0.1. FILTER BrPA55
REMOVAL GF /63 MESH CAP m - ].zs0 CPU i
(OOLIAAL CHAMENT BERS- SCREENING) NANKIN. PARTICLE (2.65 S.P.C.) R AT 61 FT. T.O.H. rqN-POT) C PANT WATER PUMP MOH -THICKENED SLUDGE ROLLING
I BAR RACECK OPENINHANRCALLY GS
1/ - 6- RECIRCULATION 3 � 18' ILL SLUDGE DRAW -OFF 2-15 ho TURBINE PUMPS A(ND AEOBC DIGESTION
Ld—hs ' AA1� . 7.D.N.Wm CAPAC7TY . IE
507580 GAL OR 6 DAYS
16- PARSMALL FUME AND
ULTRksClf= FLOW METER
NIX U1 E
ND. 7
LWw10LE
MG. 13
CAPACITY . 1200
3 O 2S FT T.O.H.
ION ZONE 3
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS)
- 507,580 GAL
od1sTIA
EXISTING SPUTTER
BOX NO. 2
10- D.11 WASTE ACTN11 F1
SLUDGE LINE II
I
e' PVC GRAVITY DECANT LINE - —u — e i
- — �0 CHEMICAL SPAT AREA AND
EMERGENCY SLUDGE HOLDING
(EXISTING AEROBIC DCESTORS)
EX51ING JUNCTION Ir - EXI.II4� e- D I l
BOX NO. 2 EXISTING SPLRIER BOX EOUALLZATON ZONE 4
(E1tlSTiNO TTRIFICATON BASIN) tI
I.APACRY . 792.730 GAL nn"
O
SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMP S7AFO4
EXISTING t6' C.L {d6TRIG SLUDGE RETURN PUMP STATION)
9 t a GOT) -RUPP S HP PUMPS
c CAPACITY + 6.30 GPM O 17 Fr ',D N
e" C.I. EXISTING 18- CL n
"a.IE
xo. t 1
e
EXISTING r C.1. DRAIN LINE
DISSOLVED AIR FLOAUTON
SLUDGE THICKENER MAP)
LOADING FATE . OL5 LB/HR-SF
SOLDS EXCLUDING
FLOAttyC DECANTER -
LlF
EFFLUENT WEIR
WITH ULTRASONIC
FLOW METERS (2)
CASCADE AERATOR
EXISTING
MAMIOLE
N0. 7
TWO �
DAF I'm Pump
2
e- 0.1. FORCE MUN
BACKWASH SQUIDS HOLDING 1-20 HP SUBMERSIBLE
(1/4 OF EXISTING AERATION BASIN) PUMP PER BASIN
ILA
APACITY - 452,166 CAL CAPACITY . 1 250 GPM
4
—rn�] �
O 40 FTTD,1L
EOUALRATION TRANSFER PUMP STATION
EQUALIZATION ZONE 2 (EXISTING USE -MAINTAINED)
EQUALIZATION BASIN) 2 GORMAN-RUPP 7 1/2 HP PUMPS
Opl.ING
CAPACITY - 9S I.S60 GAL.
6' D.I. THICKENER DECANT SINE
f
BA {AFTER SIN ILOpfX:AlIONS}
EOM+uZATION PUMP STATION
MST= INFLUENT PUMP STATION)
3 GORM"-RUPP 30/15 HP PUMPS
EQUALIZATION ZONE I •••••"••••" "•••
Lt/2 EXrsTING SEDIUENTATION BASIN)
APACITY �. 1-9.070 GAL EQUALIZATION FLOW TRAIN
TOTAL EQUALIZATION VOLUME = 2.41 MGAL.
dIST61G e• LINE
EMERGENCY SLUDGE MAMA
(EXISTING SLUDGE DRYING
EMERGENCY SLUDGE
4 la,C J ZONE 2 2MNL t �I
Ir
2?NE 4
THICKENED SLUDGE HOLDING •'
TNCXENED SLUDGE HOLDING
AND AEROBIC DIGESTION
AND AEROBIC DICES71DN
(]/4 OF EXISTING AERATION BASIN)
1/2 OF EXI$TLNG SED. BASIN)
CAPACITY . 904,332 GAL OR
ACITY - 159,070 CAL OR
75 DAYS O 6R SOLIDS
9 DAYS O 6x SOLIDS
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT FLOW TRAIN
TOTAL SLUDGE CAPACITY = 90 DAYS

I
0
I
I
0
It
UMMICE GATE
+
90.6'
N 6+00
+
I.P.
r
N
Y
N
+
x
62.5' 78
4G.9
T9.4'
SB.S' 84'59'
is
N
1�ry0 Y7
q
Y1 m
s
B1CKeNSM F10LD11x'
1E19.0•
12,
30' 0
A£
A110 DAf (EN-20)
®
n
AERATOR CHLDmw
CONTACT_
(s-26j
4.
is Sl
1�
11IIE1IEI�iD
SPYING CATE
41
(e; )AEROBIC I10iDIgG
F1L� 1
S11x1AGE
n
DDE-TOM
EN-t6
'Rp 41'
2j
EPS�
BLONu AREA A'
THICiin HOLDING
(ax
(EN -le) !-�
®
58.4'
}
N
111Kxf1 n 12 HOLDING
® �(
d'PAEROBIC
DOGESTM
57.4'
36S• pig 92.1'
to
n
S
� �
N 4+00
�
10'R s R
j°°�
43' � N
h
1LDcctll colt
N0.12
(S-le)
74'
t1OtLlliAlDq
(S-le)
SOX
btP
®
76.4'
,AjiSAiBUILDING
we
-�
y
E��M1I
l�
FLASH YDf
(S-14)
� ►
��2S�,�el
#
R
48La
NEW 6' CF MI—UNK FENCE
�
4
15 S' o
ct
�I
n
0
5
N 2+00
I.P.
I.P.
69.1'
94.9' n
m
888
8
12
54.00
89.1'
94.9'
E'
+
(a+
03
37 4'
N
ILLI
_§
N 0+00 W !J W ILLI
la! L 11AJ
8
g
HOBBS. UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES. P.A.
CONSL1MA DMMKM
x
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
TOWN OF SILER CITY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CHATHAM COUNTY. NORTH CAROUNA
PLANT LAYOUT

^Ir
-------------
a �. � ' 11 nl�� Via• � p i � i �
�1/1 • ` Y ".+i'J�. _,; (. I I .. f.S� 1_- `/i �"1 '�� MMn7?r�' }/'r
3 r '�Ah+���� �J��' A' r /rt I .i �. > , - �� ✓ ill �/ ��1 I ° \ J' 1�>,�
jj 1 1
h ✓ I' _ I l I $fw Yf'n � I �
tL 4
`• _ ,o; � �� G' it : --L.� j ,; �` � ' ��,\
4��\ � �ilrNehyMmM. I \\ i ✓ — / \ /�� c� //,/ \I . -7��
en"N.
Q � a 11} ♦ 1 I � •. �l l
�_r la f to "34,g1✓ il.°�`,� � / 1 �� � � � ° j ' � "
l �� (-� i °_ ..I l� r r � � i t � I� ` �" - �ll r` -1 11 'Y f �: j l . /� ✓ � -
-
• I I \ A � 1 1'
LJ � • J, (. ilia - \ v J��� _/.-VA• /(,
-- L_- 4- •=
SILERCITYVWVfP
t TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP
0 1,0 2,500 fi,000
25Feet