NC0066516_Fact Sheet_20210609

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO i6516
Permit Writer/Email Contact Min Xiao, [e-mail]:
Date: 11/02/2020
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Fuquay-Varina/ _terrible Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
401 Old Honeycutt Rd., Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
Facility Address:
5812 Hilltop Rd., Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
Permitted Flow:
3.0 MGD/6.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
Major Municipal/99.3% domestic, 0.7% industrial (based on permitted
industrial flow of 0.02 MGD)
Facility Class:
Class IV
Treatment Units:
Bar screens, grit removal, 5-stage BNRs, secondary clarifiers, disc
filters, UV, sludge holding tank, 3-belt filter presses
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y
County:
Wake
Region
Raleigh
Page 1 of 15

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Town of Fuquay-Varina has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal for the Terrible Creek WWTP in October 2018. This facility
serves a population of 11,900 residents and operates a pretreatment program currently with one
Categorical Industrial User (CIU). The facility has an Outfall 001 that discharges to Terrible Creek, which
is currently classified C-NSW waters in Neuse River Basin. The 3 MGD expansion has been completed
for the facility in 2018, as a result, the 1.0 MGD flow tier has been removed from the permit.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Terrible Creek
Stream Segment:
27-43-15-8-(2)
Stream Classification:
C-NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
9.9
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.51
30Q2 (cfs):
0.96
Average Flow (cfs):
11
IWC (% effluent):
100%
303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes/Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation & Neuse
River Nitrogen TMDL
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
03-04-03/03020201
USGS Topo Quad:
E23SE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of November 2018 through October
2020. The plant modification for 3 MGD expansion was completed in 2018.
Table 3. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Page 2 of 15

Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit
Limit
Flow
MGD
1.21
3.61
0.519
MA 3.0
BOD summer
mg/1
< 2.18
9
0.5
WA 7.5
MA 5.0
BOD winter
mg/1
<2.10
5.7
0.7
WA 15.0
MA 10.0
NH3N summer
mg/1
<0.11
2.5
<0.1
WA3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter
mg/1
<0.21
6
<0.1
WA6.0
MA 2.0
TSS
mg/1
< 2.71
15
0.1
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
pH
SU
6.4
8.2
6
60<pH<
9.0
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
< 4.17
600
< 1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
DO
mg/1
8.4
10.4
7
DA >5.0
TRC
µg /1
No data. Report only if chlorine is used
for backup disinfection
DM 570.0
compliance)
Temperature
° C
21.33
28.4
14.4
Monitoring
TN Load
lbs/year
2018: 34898 lbs/year
2019: 20745 lbs/year
68,489
lbs/year
TP
mg/1
1.1
5.3
0.05
2.0 mg/1
Total Copper
mg/1
< 0.005
0.011
< 0.002
Monitoring
Total Zinc
mg/1
0.07
0.11
0.03
Monitoring
Total Mercury
ng/1
1.59
3.4
< 0.2
Monitoring
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Page 3 of 15

Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
fecal coliform. Because the facility is a participant in the Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA), the
instream monitoring requirements are waived. There is an LNBA monitoring station J4980000
downstream of the discharge, after the confluence of Terrible Creek and Middle Creek. Data were
reviewed from July 2017 through June 2020. There is no upstream monitoring station available.
Table 4. Downstream Data Summary at LNBA Monitoring Station J4980000
Parameter
Unit
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/1
6.1
12.1
8.0
Temperature
deg c
4
27.2
19.7
Fecal Coliform
cfu/100 ml
50
2400
274.9
(geomean)
Conductivity
uS/cm
95
437
200
Note: Instream data are summarized for the period of July 2017 through June 2020.
DO: the range for downstream DO was 6.1 to 12.1 mg/L. The instream DO data indicated a minimum
daily average of 5.0 mg/L was maintained in the receiving stream [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211(6)].
Temperature: the range for downstream temperature was 4 deg c to 27.2 deg c. The maximum instream
temperature was less than 32 deg c for lower piedmont and coastal plain waters, which met the
requirement per 15A NCAC 02B .0211(18).
Fecal Coliform: the fecal coliform samples were only taken once per month, but some results were
relatively high. A review of the violations from July 2017 through June 2020 indicated there was no limit
violation for effluent fecal coliform during that period. This downstream station J4980000 is located after
the confluence of Terrible Creek and Middle Creek. There are several NPDES facilities which discharge
to Middle Creek. A monitoring station J4868000 is downstream of these facilities. The fecal coliform data
from station J4868000 indicated an average of 217.4 cfu/100 ml. Other point sources/non-point sources
along the Terrible Creek may also contribute to the instream fecal coliform measured at station J4980000.
Conductivity: the previous permit did not have instream monitoring requirements for conductivity,
because the Town used to have an active Short Term Monitoring Program but was not accepting flow
from any SIUs. However, currently the Town operates a full pretreatment program with one Categorical
Industrial User (CIU). As a result, monitoring requirements for instream conductivity and effluent
conductivity have been added to this permit.
This permit renewal maintains the instream monitoring requirements for dissolved oxygen, temperature,
and fecal coliform, but also added monitoring requirements for instream conductivity.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): Yes
Page 4 of 15

Name of Monitoring Coalition: Lower Neuse Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): From November 2015
through October 2020, the facility reported two Fecal Coliform limit violations in 2017, three BOD5 limit
violations, one flow limit violation, seven NH3-N limit violations, and one TSS limit violation in 2018,
and two TP limit violations in 2020. Most of these violations have been proceeded to enforcement cases.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 20 of 20 quarterly chronic toxicity tests. The facility also passed all
second species chronic toxicity tests in October 2018, November 2018, December 2018, and January
2019.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
on 12/2/2019 reported that all treatment units were in operation, and records were kept and maintained as
required by the permit.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Limits for BOD5
were based on a WLA from 1990 and tertiary treatment requirements for effluent dominated streams. Per
15A NCAC 02B .0206 (d), if the 7Q10 flow is zero, and the 30Q2 flow is greater than zero, effluent
limits for new or expanded discharges of oxygen consuming waste shall be set as BOD5=5 mg/1, NH3-
N=2 mg/1 and DO=6mg/l. Because this rule is for new or expanding discharge, the limits at 3 MGD
remain the same as the ones in the draft permit. At 6 MGD, the DO limit has been corrected from 5 mg/1
to 6 mg/1, and BOD5 limits for winter have been corrected from 10 mg/1 to 5 mg/1 as monthly average and
from 15 mg/1 to 7.5 mg/1 as weekly average. Since the winter BOD5 and summer BOD5 limits are the
same after the revision, there are no seasonal limits for BOD5 at 6 MGD.
Page 5 of 15

Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1 (summer) and 1.8 mg/1 (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1 (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: There are no
proposed changes for NH3 limits. The existing limitations are protective, see the attached NH3/TRC WLA
calculations at 3 MGD and 6 MGD. It is noticed that the winter ammonia limit at 6 MGD was 1.9 mg/1
based on the WLA calculation, but the limit was rounded to 2 mg/1 in the last permit.
For TRC, given that the facility utilizes only ultraviolet for disinfection and no chlorine is present on the
site as backup disinfection, the total residual chlorine (TRC) limit and monitoring requirement have been
removed from the permit at both the 3.0 and the 6.0 MGD flow tiers.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of Y2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between February 2016
and October 2020. Based on the dataset, reasonable potential to violate state WQS was shown for copper
and zinc. Per the discussion with the Town, it is understood that the facility completed its 3 MGD
expansion and went into operation in June 2018. The Town constructed a brand new 3 MGD plant on the
same site as the former 1 MGD plant. The design of the old and new facilities is completely different, as a
result, the effluent quality is different. Therefore, for copper and zinc, the data being used for RPA start
from June 2018. Copper still shows reasonable potential to violate WQS so limits have been added into
the permit. Zinc does not show reasonable potential to exceed WQS, however, depending on the data
which comes back on the next permit cycle, the facility could end up with a limit. In summary, the
following permitting actions are proposed for this permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Copper
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: Beryllium
(defer to LTMP), Zinc (quarterly monitoring)
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
Page 6 of 15

standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Arsenic, Cadmium, total Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Nickel, Selenium, Silver,
Total Phenolic Compounds
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: NA
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: NA
Attached are the RPA results, as well as a copy of the guidance entitled "NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards".
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MA4Ps) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table . Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2016
2017
2019
2020
# of Samples
1
1
3
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
1.9
3.4
1.2
Maximum Conc., ng/L
1.87
3.40
2 cfs
Page 7 of 15

TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
12.0
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. However, since the facility is >2 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1
ng/1), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) has been added to the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
Neuse River Nitrogen TMDL and Nutrient Management Strategy
The Neuse River estuary has an extensive history of nutrient -related water quality impacts and was
classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters in 1988. Nutrient Management Strategy rules were first adopted in
December 1997 and modified in 2000 and 2020. The wastewater discharge rule, 15A NCAC 2B .0713
(formerly .0234), established requirements for control of Total Nitrogen (TN) from point source
discharges. It requires TN limits for all dischargers with a permitted capacity of 0.5 MGD or greater and
allows the transfer of allocation among the Neuse dischargers so long as the total of estuary allocations
and loads do not exceed those allowed in the 1999 TN TMDL. The rule also sets technology -based limits
for Total Phosphorus (TP).
The wastewater rule provides a group compliance option through which interested dischargers can work
collectively to comply with an aggregate TN limit. This approach allows the members some flexibility in
meeting the TN targets of the TMDL. The dischargers establish a group compliance association and apply
for a group NPDES permit to which the association and its members are co-permittees. All conditions of
the members' individual permits remain in full effect except for the TN Load limits. The co-permittee
members are deemed to be in compliance with the TN limits in their individual permits and are subject
instead to the aggregate limit in the group permit. The group's TN limit is the sum of the members' active
estuary allocations.
The Neuse River Compliance Association was formed in 2002 and, at this writing, comprises 24 members
and 27 treatment facilities. Its group NPDES permit, NCC000001, was last re -issued December 12, 2018.
The Town elected to not join the Association and so remains subject to the TN Load limit in this
individual permit.
Nitrogen Allocations and Offset Credits
Per the Neuse wastewater rule, 15A NCAC 02B .0713 (formerly 02B .0234), the Town of Fuquay-Varina
was assigned a base Total Nitrogen (TN) discharge allocation of 67,579 lb/yr. This was the basis for its
original (2003) TN discharge limit. It has since connected two smaller utilities and acquired their
allocations, so its holdings and limit are now 68,489 lb/yr TN, as summarized in the table below.
Based on its location in the basin, the facility was assigned a transport factor of 50%; thus, its current
discharge allocation is equivalent to a load of 34,244 lb/yr delivered to the estuary. (Transport factors and
delivered loads come into play when transferring allocation or offset credits to or from a discharger.)
Table 6. Allocations and Offset Credits — 6.0 MGD
SOURCE
ALLOCATION AMOUNT
STATUS
Estuary
(Ib/yr)
Discharge
(Ib/yr)
Assigned by Rule
33,790
67,579
Active
Connection of Southside MHP (NC0030724)
1
506
Active
Page 8 of 15

Connection of Wake Technical C.C. (NC0025631)
202
404
Active
TOTAL
34,244
68,489
Active
(Individual values are rounded to the nearest lb/yr.)
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107(c) (2) (B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
Page 9 of 15

may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The Town requested a reduction in monitoring frequency for BOD5, Ammonia (requested in 2021), TSS
and Fecal Coliform. However, the Monitoring Frequency Reduction guidance has been clarified to
primarily apply to existing permitted flows with a minimum three-year sampling data to demonstrate
consistent, long-term treatment performance under modified conditions. The facility was not operated at
the current 3 MGD until July 2018. Therefore, the monitoring frequencies for BOD5, TSS and Fecal
Coliform cannot be reduced until at least 3-year data are obtained and assessed. A footnote has been added
to A. (1.) in the permit to indicate the permittee can request reduction in monitoring frequencies to twice
per week with three years of satisfactory data (presently there are 34-month data available and two
additional satisfactory consecutive months will be required) per the Monitoring Frequency Reduction
Review Guidance for exceptionally performing facilities.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
The limits and monitoring at 1.0 MGD flow tier have been removed from the permit since the completion
of 3.0 MGD expansion. Permit conditions, limits, and their proposed changes for 3.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD
are summarized in Table 7 and Table 8.
Page 10 of 15

A. Table .. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 3.0 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
1
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 3.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BODS
Summer:
No change
1990 WLA/ tertiary treatment
requirement for effluent dominated
streams (letter dated Jan. 10, 1990)
MA 5.0 mg/1
WA 7.5 mg/1
Winter:
MA 10 mg/1
WA 15 mg/1
NH3-N
Summer
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
State WQ criteria. 15A NCAC
2B.0200
MA 1.0 mg/1
WA 3.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 2.0 mg/1
WA 6.0 mg/1
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
DO
> 5 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
TRC
DM 17 ug/1
No requirement
The facility uses only UV for
disinfection, and no chlorine is
onsite as backup disinfection.
Conductivity
No requirement
Daily grab
15A NCAC 2B .0505. The Town
currently has one CIU.
Temperature
Daily grab
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Nitrogen
Load
68,489 lbs/yr
No change
Neuse River Nitrogen TMDL and
Nutrient Management Strategy
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/1 (quarterly
average)
No change
Neuse River Nitrogen TMDL and
Nutrient Management Strategy
Total Copper
Quarterly Monitoring
MA 15.7 ug/1
DM 22.4 ug/1
WQBEL. Reasonable potential was
found to exceed WQ standards
Total Zinc
Quarterly Monitoring
No change
WQBEL. Predicted Max > 50% of
allowable concentration
Page 11 of 15

Total Mercury
Annually monitoring
No requirement
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Implementation.
Instream
sampling
requirement
Temperature, DO,
Fecal
Added Conductivity
15A NCAC 2B. 0200 and 15A
NCAC 2B .0500. The Town
currently has one CIU.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 90%
effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
Three times per permit
cycle
No change
40 CFR 122
Mercury
Minimization
Plan (MMP)
No requirement
Add MMP Special
Condition
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Implementation.
Electronic
Reporting
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
B. Table 8. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 6.0 MGT
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 6.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BODS
MA 5.0 mg/1
WA 7.5 mg/1
Winter BODS limits
are the same as
summer limits, so
there are no seasonal
BODS limits at 6
MGD
1990 WLA/ tertiary treatment
requirement for effluent dominated
streams (letter dated Jan. 10, 1990)
15A NCAC 02B .0206 (d) — for 6
MGD specifically
NH3-N
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
State WQ criteria. 15A NCAC
2B.0200
MA 1.0 mg/1
WA 3.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 2.0 mg/1
WA 6.0 mg/1
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /I00m1
WA 400 /I00m1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
DO
> 5 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Page 12 of 15

pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
TRC
DM 17 ug/1
No requirement
The facility uses only UV for
disinfection, and no chlorine is
onsite as backup disinfection.
Conductivity
No requirement
Daily grab
15A NCAC 2B .0505. The Town
currently has one CIU.
Temperature
Daily grab
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Nitrogen
Load
68,489 lbs/yr
No change
Neuse River Nitrogen TMDL and
Nutrient Management Strategy
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/1 (quarterly
average)
No change
Neuse River Nitrogen TMDL and
Nutrient Management Strategy
Total Copper
Quarterly Monitoring
MA 15.7 ug/1
DM 22.4 ug/1
WQBEL. Reasonable potential
was found to exceed WQ
standards
Total Zinc
Quarterly Monitoring
No change
WQBEL. Predicted Max > 50% of
allowable concentration
Total Mercury
Annually monitoring
No requirement
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Implementation.
Instream
sampling
requirement
Temperature, DO,
Fecal
Added Conductivity
15A NCAC 2B. 0200 and 15A
NCAC 2B .0500. The Town
currently has one CIU.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 90%
effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
Three times per permit
cycle
No change
40 CFR 122
Mercury
Minimization
Plan (MMP)
No requirement
Add MMP Special
Condition
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Implementation.
Electronic
Reporting
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Page 13 of 15

Permit to Public Notice: 03/9/2021
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact:
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Min
Xiao at [phone] or via email at min.xiao(ancdenr.gov
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
1. The permittee made a comment on April 13, 2021 to request a minor change of the component
list. The description of solids dewatering facility has been modified as two (2) 3-belt filter presses
with gravity thickening ability.
2. The 7Q10 for the receiving stream is zero while 30Q2 is greater than zero. Per 15A NCAC 02B
.0206 (d), for the expanded discharges of 6 MGD, oxygen consuming waste shall be set as BOD5
= 5 mg/1, NH3-N = 2 mg/1, and DO = 6 mg/1. As a result, the winter BOD5 limits have been
corrected to 5 mg/1 as monthly average and 7.5 mg/1 as weekly average, and the daily average of
DO has been corrected from 5 mg/1 to 6 mg/1.
3. Footnote 12 has been added to A. (1.) in the permit to indicate the Permittee can request reduction
in monitoring frequencies to twice per week with three years of satisfactory data (presently there
are 34-month data available and two additional satisfactory consecutive months will be required)
per the Monitoring Frequency Reduction Review Guidance for exceptionally performing
facilities.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
Pretreatment Information Request Form
• Monitoring Report Violations Summary
• Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
• 2" d Species Testing Results
• WWTP Compliance Inspection Report
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations — 3 MGD & 6 MGD
• RPA Sheets — 3 MGD & 6 MGD
o Input Information
o Data Analysis
Page 14 of 15

o Results Summary
o Dissolved to Total Metal Calculation
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
Page 15 of 15

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request
Requestor
Facility Name
Permit Number
Region
Basin
6/30/2020
Min Xiao
Terrible Creek WWTP
NC0066516
Raleigh RO
Neuse River Basin
Check all that apply
municipal renewal
new industries
WWTP expansion
Speculative limits
stream reclass.
outfall relocation
X be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
you (or NOV POTW).
7Q10 change
other
check applicable PERCS staff:
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
Vivien Zhong {807-6310)
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
Monti Hassan (807-6314)
other
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form
back from PERCS:
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should
- 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, tact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA
if changes.
Other Comments to PERCS:
-Facility is currently rated 3 MGD wtih 0 non-catagorical Sills and 1 CIU
listed in its application (by October, 2018), and is listed in POTW with
pretreatment spreadsheet.
PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status 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 Sills and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
v
Flow, MGD
Industrial
Uncontrollable
Permitted Actual Time period for Actual
n/a
Most recent:
Next Cycle:
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
BOD
TSS
NH3
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Silver
POC due to
NPDES/ Non- Required by
Disch Permit EPA*
Limit
Required
by 503
Slud - e**
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
4
4
4
4
4
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
IFEN
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
Q M
STMP time frame:
—I
Q = Quarterly
M = Monthly
Is all data on DMRs?
YES
NO (attach data)
Is data in spreadsheet?
YES email to writer
NO
*Always in 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 concem to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer (ex., explanation of any POCs: info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
FIA 1441 --Vitt I.A POTS Ne ° tofo ct(p) yi A-K11 Park rr‘ W1 I Cl
f
11 A.
PERCS Form_Terrible Creek WWTP_ NC0066516.xlsx
Revised: July 24, 2007

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Violation Action:
Subbasin:
Param Nam(
Major Minor: %
COUNTY: Wake
FACILITY: Town of Fuquay-Varina - Terrible Creek WWTP
NC0066516
F
5
W
a
Limit Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
o )
O
H
2
J
W
O ct
H CO
2 W
2
PARAMETER
LOCATION
J
J
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
fa) N u) N u)
o U O U o U O U o U
D c D c D c D c D c
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
o E o U E U U E
O'a O V 2 V O V 2
a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0
c C c C c
W W w W w
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to NOV
c c
a) a) a) a)
a) a) a) 2 2 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) m m
a) a) a) i i a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
N D N-a asc.)
_ D _ D -0 N-0 N-0 N D N D N D N-0 N-0 N-0 N D
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a`) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) > a) > a)
> -a > -a > -a a)D a) -a >-a >-a >-a >-a >-a >-a >-a >-a <0 <0
Q a) Q a) Q a) o a) o a) Q a) Q a°)i Q a°)i Q a°)i Q a) Q a°)i Q a°)i Q a) T a) >, a)
>' U >' o �' O O O O O �' U >' U �' U �' U >' U >' U �' U >' O O U
Y x Y x t X Ur X Ur X t x Y X t X t X Y X Y X t X Y X a) x a) x
W ww W W w c W ww c W c W ww ww c W ww W 17= W
O > > O O O O O O O a) ( (
a) a)
V N N coco N N co
0o
O co M O W M L() N L(j
N V N co (n
co71- O) Off) co
V co N O) co I— co N co
V V M W O) N N O N
O N O (f) N W (O (f) 6) N N
r
O O
(n O O
V V
N
N (O (0 N (O N N
E E
rnrn rnrn0)rnrnrnrnrnrnrn c) o
E E E E E E E E E E E E E
41- 41-
Y Y Y Y Y p Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) >, >,
a) a) a) a) a) c a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
Ya) Y
X X X X X o X X X X X X X
Lc) u) u) u) u) U u) u) u) u) u) u) u)
co co co N- N- co co co co co co co co O O
N N
M (0 O O) O O O O O) (0 \ N
M N N M N M M N M O M M
(O (0 V (n (0 V (n (n (n (O M (0
o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N
U U U a a 2 a a
2 O C O C O C O C O C O C O C (0 (0
a) c a) c a) c LL U LL U `O C F '� F 'o F 'o F '� F 'o F 'o F 'o as c as c
o 'O 0 'O 0 'O 2 u) 2 u) O as T a) a) a) a) a) a) 2 o 'O N 'O
o (o o (o o m v v 'g o- 'c - 'c 'c 'c 'c 'c 'c o (o o (o
m m O a) O a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 a) F F
c c c o o c o E 0 E o E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E o c c
m m m CD U_ (i _ 0 E E o E o E o E o E o E o E o 0 0
O o O o O o 2 2 .S m< 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 o 0 0 0
6 0 6 0 N 0 E m E m 3 c' c' c' c' c' c' c c 0 QU
0 Q Q o o O a,Z a,Z a,Z 0)Z 0)Z 0)Z 0)Z o 0
O O 0 o o L 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 s s
m m m U U Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 a a
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « «
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
Q
LL
H
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z H
co co co I— N- co co co co co co co co O O
N N
E a O co co co co co co co co co co co co co O
0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
H d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 W COCOV (n coV (f) (f) (f) co co co
O ct
O O c)O c)c)O c) c) O c) O c) c) O
2

N
N
O
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Violation Action: %
Subbasin: %
Param Nam( %
0
E
La
z
U
(t
LL
Major Minor:
s
a)
R
z
0
W
COUNTY: Wake
FACILITY: Town of Fuquay-Varina - Terrible Creek WWTP
NC0066516
F
5
W
a
Limit Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
H
2
J
LL
O ct
Q
z W
2
FREQUENCY
PARAMETER
LOCATION
Proceed to
rn
E
Enforcement Case
Monitoring Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
o
0
LL W
O j
Q
zW
2
PARAMETER
LOCATION
J
J
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
No Action, BPJ
c c c c c c c c c c c c c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
U o U U U U U U U U U U U
C C C C C C C C C C C C c
a) () a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
CT a a a a a a a a a a a a
o s
u
o E E o
rn rn E rn rn rn rn rn
E E 0 0 = = m E E E E E
w ! ! co
>, E
> Y Y Y Y >. >. Y Y Y
7 >i >i >i >i
c X X X X = = 0 a) a) X X X
< L() in L() in 0 0 2 L() L() u)
in N- co r— co r— co 0 0 rn 0 N- co
\ O M O 0 - 0 V lf) N M O
co O N O N co co M O O O O N
CV (0 (0 (0 M 0) (0 0 r- (0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N
N U U La'Vo La'Vo
U U LL U_
m m m
a)c a)c U U o o o o o o o o
(n 0 .2 0 .2 emu) emu) F F m a) m a) m
o m 0 m v v o a) a) E E E
TT 3 F m^ o 0 0 0 0 0
45. E a) c a) c U t U t F F 3 Z Z Z Z E E E o
(6 T U T U u_ L.L
Z.
Q❑ O❑ O E o E o ) ) LT_ = = Q U Q U E U
N (o In („) m m Q Q O_ O_ c ' c ' c
To 0 0 o o O O a) a) 0)Z 0)Z a)Z
c 0 0 CT)0 U U L � O O O
c m to 0 Z Z
Z 2 2
c c c c c c c c c c c c c
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
W W W W W W W W W W W W W
Q
LL
H
D O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O r` co r` co r` co 0 0 0) 0 r` co
z
E c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a
2 W CV O O O CO O) (0 0 r— O
0 c O O O O O O O O O O 0
2

N
N
O
N
a
0
N
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Violation Action: %
Subbasin: %
Param Nam( %
Facility Name: %
Major Minor:
a)
z
0
W
COUNTY: Wake
FACILITY: Town of Fuquay-Varina - Terrible Creek WWTP
NC0066516
F
5
W
0
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
FREQUENCY
PARAMETER
LOCATION
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOV
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOV
c c c c c c c c c c c
O O O O O O O O O O O
as as RI RI RI RI as as RI RI as
O O O O O O O O O O O_
> > > > > > > > > > >
U U U U U U U U U U
CU C C C C C C C C C C
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
a- a a a a a a a- a a a
2
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
0
H
2
J
LL W
O — Ts— — U — — — 0 ❑
E E N N E E 0)0) 0) 0) 0) 0) E E E I— CO
a
Q D W
}
U
Y >. Y Y Y Y >. >. >. z
>, W
a) C a) a) a) a) C C a) ❑
a) c3 3 3 3 3cFs ffs ffs O
a) O x 7 x x x x 7 7 7 Ct
cFs
2 u) 0 u) u) u) u) 0 0 0 LL
z
0) CO CO CO CO N- CO CO CO N- CO 0
W
I H
In O O C O 0 O O a s
O O
O CO N CO N N N CO CO co d❑
O — co i CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
us as >, TO '� 1 1a)
To C N Q -6 -O ❑
o a3 a3
~ a a) a) .2 a) C.2 0 a) C
m_ s o U us = m us = ,,c,a)
_O 2 c N N = (f C O C
z O O _ U Q O3 Ts ) a) .
c a) 2 F O F O 2 0
Ea) a) -c U U a)
a) 2 U w (n fa
2 z O d❑ U o
U o
Z 1.--
Zinc, Total (as Zn)
Zinc, Total (as Zn)
Zinc, Total (as Zn)
C C C C C C C C C C C
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
W W W W W W W W W W W
PARAMETER
LOCATION
J
J
a
LL
C
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tii 0
0) CO CO CO CO N- CO CO CO N- CO O
zF
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ce
N N N N N N N N N N N C 0 0
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — I— a
0 0) — � (.00) CO CO 2 W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c
a)
Proceed to NOV
Late/Missing DMR
0 0
0 O
0
N
0

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
O O
I I
O 0
MarJun Sep Dec
Cr
O
v
LL i LL
d d d d d 2
f0
-1
Li Li
zZ cc
3
Q
▪ Q ' H ▪ Q
00
VD O O
E ti E O E O
.( .( .(0
m m m .
0] LL co CZ co CZ
LL LL LL
V
0
VI
0
Feb May Aug Nov
01
O
v
cc • 01
Q ^ 1 d d d d d
C
O
00
N
cc
NC0021547/001
Franklin WWTP
NonComp: Single
chr lim: 1.6%
O
ti
C
00
0]
'
C a a a a
tri
NC0002852/001
Franklinton WTP, Town of
Chr Monit: 90%
z a a a
OLL
1 d d d LL d 1 d d
O
cc
C
O
00
N
00
O
C
f0 fl-
O O
V c _
Q a a LL LL a 2
C
LL
W O
O O FqO O O
O
V
NC0007552/001
Freemason WTP
Acu Fthd 24 hr PF Mo
co
-1
O
'
LL 2
V
0
VI
0
MarJun Sep Dec
O
z
c
m
CU
f0
C
O
V
NC0066516/001
Fuquay-Varina (Terrible Crk) WWTP
NonComp: Single
chr lim: 90% @ 1, 3
Begin: 1/1/2016
O
1 d d d d d
LL
V
0
VI
0
Ln
O
Q
f0
0
cc
O
00
N
00
NC0084786/001
Furniture Illustrators, Inc.
O
v
O
O
NonComp: Single
chr lim: 90%
02 2 2 2 2
LL
2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
Page 47 of 121
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs

Effluent Toxicity Report Form -Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Date:11 /1 /2018
Facility: Fuquay Varina
Lgbprat�y: Meritech, Inc.
NPDES # NC00 66516
Signature of Operator in F(espya Bible Charge
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
Pipe #:
County: Wake
Comments!
MAIL ORIGINAL TO:
Water Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
Division of Water Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C.27699-1621
Test Initiation Date/Time
% Eff.
Control
Rep!.
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
22.5
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
45
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
75
90
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
100
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Water Quality Data
Control
pH (SU) Init/Fin
DO (mg/L) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
High Concentration
pH (SU) !nit/Fin
DO (mg/L) !nit/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
Sample
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Chlorine(mg/L)
--mp. at Receipt ('C)
Dilution H2O Batch #
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
FVTC
1
2
3:55 PM
3
4
Avg Wt/Surv. Control
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1.016
0.890
0.967
0.823
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.885
0.793
0.850
0.758
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.780
0.877
0.847
0.710
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.680
0.951
0.822
0.807
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.716 0.998
0.794
0.698
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.845
0.834
0.905
0.762
Day
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
0.924
100.0
0.924
100.0
0.822
100.0
0.804
100.0
0,815
100.0
0.802
100.0
0.837
Test Organisms
r Cultured In -House
Fr Outside Supplier
Hatch Date: 10/22/18
Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8.02 1
7.82
8.17 /
7.99
8.08 /
7.90
8.15 /
8.14
8.27 /
8.04
8.26 /
7.86
8.22 /
7.86
7.84 /
6.68
7.53 /
7.40
7.90 /
6.80
7.45 /
7.72
7.95 /
7.46
7.68 /
6.89
7.70 /
6.73
24.4 /
24.0
24.9 /
24.6
25.8 /
24.8
24.3 /
24.7
24.2 1
24.8
24.4 /
24.2
24.1 /
25.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.18 1 7.53
7.19 / 7.73
7.33 / 7.66
7.23 / 8.04
7.81 1 7.82
7.83 / 7.63
7.50 / 7.60
8.28 1 6.88
7.85 / 7.45
7.79 / 6.88
7.91 / 7.60
7.95 / 7.24
7,59 1 6.85
7.74 / 6.67
24.5 1 24.6
25.0 / 25.0
25.5 / 24.8
25.1 1 24.3
24.5 / 24.4
24.9 / 24.3
25.3 / 24.7
1
2
3
10/22/2018
10/24/2018
10/25/2018
24.0
24.0
24.0
58
58
60
35
41
39
476
492
500
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
1326
44
53
201
1327
1328
42
48
54
52
206
224
Survival Growth
Normal r,J ri
Hom. Var. f' 1E
NOEC 100 100
LOEC >100 >100
ChV >100 >100
Method Steel's Dunnett's
Overall Result
ChV
>100
Stats
Conc.
22.5
45
75
90
Survival
Critical Calculated
10 18
10
10
10
18
18
18
Growth
Critical Calculated
2.41 1.5785
2.41
1.8557
2.41 1.6786
2.41 1.8865
100
10
18
2.41 1.3475

Effluent Toxicity Report Form -Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test Date:11/28/2018
Facility: Fuquay Varina NPDES # NC00 66516
L bor tory: Meritech, Inc
Signature of Operator in Responsible Charge
2-) i
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
Pipe #: County: Wake
Comments
MAIL ORIGINAL TO:
Water Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
Division of Water Resources
t621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Test Initiation Date/Time 11/13/2018
% Eff.
Control
Repl.
Surviving #
Original #
W/original (mg)
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
22.5
45
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
75
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
90
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
I 100
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Water Quality Data
Control
pH (SU) Init/Fin
DO (mglL) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
High Concentration
pH (SU) Init/Fin
DO (mg/L) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
Sample
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Chlorine(mg/L)
13. at Receipt (°C)
Dilution H2O Batch #
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Conductivity (umhoslcm)
1
2
4:25 PM
3
4
Avg Wt/Surv. Control
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.850
0.697
0.769
0.801
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.791
0.632
0.748
0,767
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.608
0.651
0.739
0,768
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.714
0.736
0.706
0.743
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.717
0,687
0.693
0.752
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.679
0.708
0.667
0.733
Day
% Survival
0.779
100.0
Test Organisms
r Cultured In -House
►_ Outside Supplier
Avg Wt (mg) 0.779 Hatch Date: 11/12/18
% Survival 100.0 Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
0.735
100.0
0.692
100.0
0.725
100,0
0.712
100.0
0.697
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8.03 /
7.99
8.15 /
7.96
8.07 /
7.73
8.13 /
7.97
8.13 /
8.07
8.22 /
7.92
8.11 1
7.69
7.88 /
7.36
7.79 /
7.73
7.87 /
6.75
7.62 1
7.83
8,05 1
7.50
8.17 /
7.34
7.69 /
6.55
25.1 /
24.1
24.5 /
24.5
24.7 /
24.6
25.0 /
24.3
25.0 /
24.5
25.4 /
24.5 ,
24.0 /
24.6
a
1
2
3
4
5
6.95 / 7.65
7,12 / 7.70
7.17 / 7.63
7.37 / 8.04
7.92 / 8.07
8.05 1 7.78
7.50 / 7.71
8.18 / 7.44
8.04 / 7.18
8.22 / 7.00
8.19 / 7.85
8.12 1 7.47
8.03 / 7.20
7.92 / 6.45
25.7 / 24.6 25.5 1 24.7
24.8 / 24.2
24.8 1 24.7
25.9 / 25.2 ,
25.3 / 24.7
24.8 / 24.9
1
2
3
11/12/2018
11/14/2018
11/15/2018
24.0
24,0
24.0
54
50
48
51
56
56
479
384
399
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.6
1,4
1.6
1333
1334
42
44
53
52
185
200
1335
1336
44
44
55
48
195
187
Survival Growth
Normal
Hom. Var. JT]
NOEC 100
LOEC >100 >100
ChV >100 >100
Method Steel's Dunnett's
100
Overall Result
ChV
>100
Stats
Conc.
22.5
45
75
90
100
Survival
Critical Calculated
10 18
10 18
10 18
10 18
10 18
Growth
Critical calculated
2.41 1.1986
2.41 2.3502
2.41 1.4597
2.41 1.7945
2.41 2.2096

Effluent Toxicity Report Form -Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Date:12/14/2018
Facility: Fuquay Varina
Labors Ty: Meritech.inc.
Signature of Operator In Responsible Charge '
NPDES # NCOO 66516
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
pe #:
Comment-s1
County: Wake
MAIL ORIGINAL TO:
Water Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
Division of Water Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Test Initiation Date/Time 12/4/2018
Eff.
Control
Repl.
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
22.5
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
45
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
L 75 I Surviving #
Original #
Wtloriginal (mg)
90
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
100
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Water Quality Data
Control
pH (SU) Init/Fin
DO (mg/L) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
High Concentration
pH (SU) Init/Fin
DO (mg/L) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
Sample
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Chlorine(mg/L)
ip. at Receipt (°C)
Dilution H2O Batch #
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
1
2
4:36 PM
3
Avg Wt/Surv. Control
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.628
0.652
0.644
0.530
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.675
0.554
0.499
0.576
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 1
10
0.591
0.705
0.699
0.563
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
0.613
0.594
0.611
0.551
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
0.687
0.620
0.695
0.648
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
0.600
0.581
0.620
0.574
Day
0.614
% Survival r 100.0
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
0.614
100.0
0.576
100.0 I
0.640
97.5
Avg Wt (mg)F 0.592
Survival[ 97.5
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
0.663
97.5
0.594
Test Organisms
i" Cultured In -House
i? Outside Supplier
Hatch Date: 12/3/18
Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8.09 /
7.92
8.20 17.93
8.21 /
8.16
8.27 /
7.83
8,21 1
7.72
8.20 /
7.87
8.07 /
7.81
7,71 /
7.09
7.66 /
7.27
7.69 /
6.96
7.68 /
6.88
7.68 1
7.47
7,85 /
6.48
7.52 /
6.99
24.8 /
24.5
24.8 /
24.6
24.4 1
25.2
24.7 /
24.5
25.4 1
24.9
25,2 /
24.9
24.9 /
24.1
0
2
3
4
5
6
7.19 /
7.80
7.50 /
7.86
7.00 /
7.43
7.18 1
7.36
6.95 /
7.16
8.22 1
7.02
6.74 /
7.12
8.35 /
7.04
7.59 /
7.19
8.39 /
7.11
7.72 /
7.09
8.26 /
7.42
7.85 /
6,41
8.32 1
6.83
25.1 /
25.6
25.2 /
25.4
24.9 /
25.9
25.3 /
24.3
25.0 /
24.6
i 24.7 /
25.0
25.7 1
25.3
1
2
3
12/3/2018
12/5/2018
12/6/2018
24.0
24.0
24.0
48
58
60
56
27
14
422
469
478
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.3
1.8
1,8
1337
42
55
199
1338
1339
44
44
57
58
219
233
1340
1341
42
44
59
51
213
209
Survival
Normal
Horn. Var. rl
NOEC 100
LOEC
ChV
Method
Growth
r)
100
>100 >100
>100
>100
Steel's Dunnett's
Overall Result
ChV
>100
Stats
Conc.
22.5
Survival
Critical
10
Calculated
18
Growth
Critical Calculated
2.41 1.0135
45
10
18
2.41
-0.7027
75
10
16
2.41
0.5743
90
10
16
2.41
-1.3243
100
10
16
2.41
0.5338

Effluent Toxicity Report Form -Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Date:1 /17/2019
Facility: Fuquay Varina
Laboratory: Meritech�Inc.
NPDES # NC00 66516
Signature of Operator in Re§ponsible Charge
x
Signature of of Laboratory Supervisor
Pipe #:
County: Wake
Comments
MAIL ORIGINAL TO:
Water Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
Division of Water Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Test Initiation Date/Time
Eff.
Control
Repl.
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/orlginal (mg)
22.5
45
75
90
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
100
Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Water Quality Data
Control
pH (SU) Init/Fin
DO (mg/L) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
High Concentration
pH (SU) init/Fin
DO (mg/L) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
Sample
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Chlorine(mglL)
gyp. at Receipt (°C)
Dilution H2O Batch #
Hardness (mglL)
Alkalinity (mg1L)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
1/8/2019
1
2
4:33 PM
3
4
Avg Wt/Surv, Control
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
0.683
0.748
0.587
0.728
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.776
0.711
0.683
0.658
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
0.614
0.794
0.533
0.658
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.790
0.638
0.616
0.684
10
10
- 10
10
10
10
10
10
0.775
0.565
0.679
0.664
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
0.785
0.585
0.709
0.657
Day
% Survival
0.724
95.0
Avg Wt (mg)1 0.687
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
% Survival
Avg Wt (mg)
95.0
0.707
95.0
0.650
97.5
0.682
100,0
0.671
97.5
0.684
Test Organisms
r Cultured In -House
Outside Supplier
Hatch Date: 1/7/19
Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT
0
2
3
4
5
8.01 /
7.85
7.98 1
7,81
8.23 /
8.12
8.26 1
8.08
8.28 /
7.98
8.22 /
7.99
8.24 /
7.71
7.71 /
6.95
7.29 /
7.04
7.87 /
7.26
7.76 /
7.74
8.15 1
7.53
8.15 /
7.41
7.89 /
6.56
24.5 /
25.2
24.6 /
24.9
24.6 /
24,0
25.2 /
24.3
24.5 /
24,7
24.4 /
24.1
24.6 /
24.2
2
3
4
5
8
7.41 1
7.97
7.54 /
8.03
7.44 /
7.99
7.80 /
8.14
7.89 /
7.92
7.65 /
7.92
7.70 /
7.73
8.26 !
6.84
7.53 /
7.25
8.15 /
7.10
7.68 /
7.74
8.11 /
7.25
8.45 /
7.28
8.20 /
6.32
25.1 /
25.8
24.3 /
25.0
25.7 /
25.2
24.6 1
24.7
25.9 /
24.9
25.3 /
24,1
25.2 1
24.5
1
2
3
1/7/2019
1/9/2019
1 /10/2019
24.0
24.0
24,0
46
48
46
72
80
75
465
488
490
` <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Ir 1.8
1.8
1.9
1348
44
50
193
1349
1350
44 44
55 52
2081 236
1351
46
54
217
Normal
Horn. Var.
NOEC
LOEC
ChV
Method
Survival
ri
ri
100
>100
>100
Steel's
Growth
PI:
FI
100
>100
>100
Dunnett's
Overall Result
ChV
>100
Stats
Conc.
22.5
Survival
Critical
10
Calculated
18
Growth
Critical Calculated
2,41 -0.3544
45
10
19
2.41
0.6354
75
10
20
2.41
0.0778
90
10
22
2.41
0.2723
100
10
20
2.41
0.0432

United States Environmental Protection Agency
E PA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 IN 2 I5 �-I 3 I NC0066516 I11 121 19/11/26 117
Type
18 [ =
Illiiiiiiii
73I I 174
L�
Inspector Fac Type
19 G I 201
21111111i illliliiiIIiiillliilIliii
Reserved
1 751
166
I I I I I I 180
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
671I 70I4 I 711I 72 I N I
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Terrible Creek WWTP
NCSR 2751 Hilltop Rd
Fuquay Varina NC 27526
Entry Time/Date
10:OOAM 19/11/26
Permit Effective Date
16/01/01
Exit Time/Date
11:45AM 19/11/26
Permit Expiration Date
19/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Adam Parker Stephenson/ORC//
Chris E Grimes/ORC/919-753-1013/
Chris E Grimes/Superintendent Utilities/919-753-1013 /
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Adam Mitche11,401 Old Honeycutt Rd Fuquay Varina NC
27526//919-552-1401/9195527481 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mitchell S Hayes DWR/RRO WQ/919-791-4200/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

31
NPDES yr/mo/day
NC0066516 111 121 19/11/26
117
Inspection Type
18 [j
(Cont.)
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The subject NPDES permit was issued January 01, 2016 and expired April 30, 2019. The permit is
currently under review.
The 3.0 MGD Class WW-3 WWTP consists of the following units: three (3) EQ basins; influent pump
station with six (6) pumps; mechanical coarse bar screens; 1/4- inch mechanical bar screens; grit
cyclone and classifier; two (2) five -stage conventional BNR basins; two (2) secondary clarifiers; RAS
pump station; two (2) Leopold Ultrascreen disk style filtration units; two (2) UV disinfection channels,
each with two service and one redundant bank of UV lamps; ultrasonic effluent flow meter; cascade
aeration; WAS pump station; one (1) aerated sludge holding tank; gravity belt thickeners; two (2) three
belt filter presses; truck loading facility for off -site composting.
At the time of inspection, all units were in operation. The three EQ basins were empty. All six influent
pumps were in operation. Screenings and grit are conveyed to a dumpster to be landfilled. The color of
the influent in the BNR reaeration zone appeared to be chocolate brown. There was no foaming.
Caustic is being fed to reduce total phosphorus. Weirs in both secondary clarifiers were clean with no
obstruction. Effluent flowing off the weirs appeared clear. Sludge blanket depths in both secondary
clarifiers were one foot. Both UV channels were in operation. Effluent flowing in the UV channels and a
the outfall appeared clear with no foaming. Gravity belt thickeners and the belt filter presses were in
operation. Sludge was being dewatered and loaded onto a tractor trailer truck.
Discharge Monitoring Reports for the review period February 2018 through September 2019 for
compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. The following are noted: Enforcement case
MV-2018-0013 for Quarterly monitoring violations for Total Zinc and Total Copper for March 2018. This
case is still open. Enforcement case LV-2018-0211 for ammonia nitrogen monthly average violation for
April 2018. This case is closed. Enforcement case LV-2018-0236 for monthly and weekly ammonia
nitrogen violations for May 2018. This case is closed. Enforcement case LV-2018-0299 for BOD weekly
violation, exceeding permit flow limit, and exceeding weekly ammonia nitrogen limit for June 2018. This
case is still open.
Commercial lab results, chain of custody records, and bench sheets were compared with data
submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) for the month of September 2019. No
discrepancies were noted.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0066516
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019
Owner - Facility: Terrible Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment: Permit expired April 30, 2019.
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operatc
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•
•
•
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0066516
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019
Owner - Facility: Terrible Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Effluent meter is used for reporting.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment:
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Comment: VWVTP has two (2) five -stage conventional BNR basins.
Solids Handling Equipment
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
Is storage adequate?
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0066516
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019
Owner - Facility: Terrible Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Comment: Sludqe is land applied by McGill Environmental System of NC under permit WQ0006816.
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
Is storage adequate?
Are backup pumps available?
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Comment: Caustic is fed to reduce TP.
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADAtelemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Page# 5

Permit: NC0066516
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019
Owner - Facility: Terrible Creek wwTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Grit Removal
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth) • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Sludge blanket in both clarifiers was one foot.
Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: All 3 EQ basins were empty at the time of inspection.
Nutrient Removal
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0066516
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019
Owner - Facility: Terrible Creek VVM/TP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Nutrient Removal
Type
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
Comment: Caustic feed is used to reduce TP.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Type of operation:
Is the filter media present?
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Is the filter free of growth?
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
Yes No NA NE
Biological
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Cross flow
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: VWVTP utilizes 2-Leopold Ultrascreen disk style filtration units. Each filter unit consists of
stainless steel mesh media mounted on circular disks.
Disinfection - UV
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
Are UV bulbs clean?
Is UV intensity adequate?
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
Is there a backup system on site?
Is effluent clear and free of solids?
Comment: Both UV channels were being used at the time of inspection.
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0066516
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019
Owner - Facility: Terrible Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Comment: Generator is operated under load every Monday
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Comment: sample is collected using time / volume base.
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment:
Effluent Pipe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ • ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NC0066516
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019
Owner - Facility: Terrible Creek VWVfP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Page# 9

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Terrible Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0066516
Prepared By: Min Xiao
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
3
0
0.51
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
0
3
4.65
17.0
0
100.00
17
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
0
3
4.65
1.0
0.22
100.00
1.0
0.51
3
4.65
1.8
0.22
90.12
2.0
Total Residual Chlorine No TRC limit or monitoring since the WWTP uses only UV for disinfection.
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Terrible Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0066516
Prepared By: Min Xiao
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
6
0
0.51
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
0
6
9.3
17.0
0
100.00
17
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
0
6
9.3
1.0
0.22
100.00
1.0
0.51
6
9.3
1.8
0.22
94.80
1.9
(round to 2 in the permit)
Total Residual Chlorine No TRC limit or monitoring since the WWTP uses only UV for disinfection.
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
O O O v
O O O
O O O
O O W
N V O
0.
m o O
N
N
L 0
a> a LL > d
� 0
y 'o a10i > - m m
O O O N
HHH
V V V V
W r W
0 00
N N N
1
H N M v. W r W M O H N M v. W r W O O N M v. W r W M O N M v. W r W M O N M v. W r N O O N M v. W r W
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M v v v v v v v v v v.........
Upstream Hardness
Q Q Q
0 0 0
0 0 0
tl) >
W n U c
BDL=1/2DL
H N M V W W r N 0) O H N M V W W r W M 0 N M V W W r W M 0 N M V W W r W M O N M V W W r W 0) O N M V W W r W
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V V V V V V W W W W W W W W W
Effluent Hardness
2
EEE
r O O v O O O
W o O
v uW)(W0
r 0 O
HOM
M o
m m
to �
0 9 l m >
m a m > o
CtnU c .2 Q�
JOMMO
O W W O
W W W V
1
H N M V W W r W M O H N M v. W r W O O N M v. W r W M O N M v. W r W M O N M v. W r W O O N M v. W r W
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M v v v v v v v v v v.........

U
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
V V V
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V V V V V V (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 V) )0
Total Phenolic Compounds
NOOV
O) O O
N (0 O
o r N
O) N O
M M V 0)
1
N N N N NN N N NN M M M M MW M M M M V V V V V V V V V V V V 4') 4') 4') 4') 4') . 4') 4') 4"i 4"i
E
0
(0 N O V
N N O
N N O
V r N
O O O
J ,-,-N-(0
p r
N O
O
J
m
0
NNN
V V V V
N-N M V (0 N r N 0) O 1-N M V (0 N r N 0) O N M V (0 N r N 0) O N M V (0 (0 r N 0) O N M V (0 N r N 0) O N M V (0 N r N
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V V V V V V (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0
0
O . O V
N M O
N M O
1-0).
1- N- O
V V V V
1
N N N N NN N N NN M M M M MW M M M M V V V V V V V V V V V V 4') 4') 4') 4') 4') . 4') 4') 4"i 4"i

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
a
cc
J
V V V V
N-N M V W W r W M O N-N M W W r W W O N M W W r W W O N M W W r W W O N M V W W r W M O N M W W r W
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M.1Nr, V V V V V V W W W W W W W W W
O O O
0 0 0
"'W
o O
o
0 0
v v v v
W W r W
O N O O
O NYi�
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M W W W W W W W W W
0
C
o.
U
W W x-r
N r W N-
W M
NWO
m
12,Y3
R'tnU0
33
r O r
V O
� W
ii
oSa
om
m m
J W M W M r N M W M r W M r
0 O
N
II
J
G
a0
0
WWWW,,-NVNI.MNI.WWNWON
O �
W W W W W W W W W W O O O O O O
N N O NNNN
O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N_ N N N_ N N N
ONW'-0 -MF'NWMNWNNN
N N-
f0 O) M W W W W � N M M W O) NI.W N-
1-N M V W W r W M O N-N M W W r W M O N M W W r W W O N M W W r W W O N M W W r W M O N M V )0 W r W
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M NrNrNrV )0 )0 )0 )0 )0 )0 )0 )0 )0
F W
W
a w E
romium, Total
O O O
0.0
)0 N O
NWO
O N O
MM
11
W O W
NM r
(1 U
'�-' ,T; a LT > d
y a a10i > - m m

N M V
N N N N N N NN N N M M M M MW MW M MV� V V V V V V V V )0 O O O O O O. O
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
O
O
O
a
0.0V
(0,0
N M O
m f0
o
JJ
M.
DO
.0.
W o ,
N N V
N W
ii U
ova
" 7C m
m
✓ V V V
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V V V V V V W W W W W W W W (0
0
m O O
0 0 0
mom
N O
J W W
0
N
J
0
O O N N
✓ V V V
0 0 0
N N N N
O N Y"i 4
1
N N N N NN NN N N M M M M M M MW M MVVVVVVVVVV W W W W W W W. W
0
Par17 & Par18
000.4.
O O O
0 0 0
N V 0
v o
m o o
N W M
N
ovU
a
A = X X
000..
✓ V V
W W r W
000
N N N
O N In 4
N N N N N N NN N N M M M M M M MW M MVVVVVVVVVV LL"i LL"i LL"i LL"i LL"i . LL"i. LL"i
V 0 0 V
N.0
V N O
r W W
N N O
JJ
MM
OD
.00
.0.
( V O m
W N

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
0) CO CO r
. r m
c
✓ M
N • O
N
y a 9 >
C n U 0
• o co
• N
N
„ U
osa
• d
- m m
J O c- r 0 0 M M f0 N CO c M • 0)
p N m v r 0 0) M' N r 0 r f0 M r f0
N
J
0
m
fa
p
O r 0 (0 M M CO COCOCI0)
N COr 0 0) M; 0) r 0) r f0 C') r 0)
m CO CO m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0
N N O N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N
f0 f0 c f0 0 0 M f0 O 4') -A-
N W
N\ N M N M N N N
f0 O M l0 f0 0) 0) th M O O) 4"i

Metal Translators
/95% Confidence U
95% Probabilit
a
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Table 1. Project Information
C./
0
0
1-
E
as
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
co
E
E
J
O)
7
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
O)
1
J
sao
1
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
co
C
J
sao
7
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
O
co
O
340
Z
(
6.5483
1752.0276
co
z
Cc'))
CO
N
(\I
N
185.7971
663.1703
z
LO
0
W
248.9536
CO
Q
Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U_
j
U
U
U
150
0
O
230
300
227.9028
z
15.6981
0
00
7.2402
2000
73.6578
25.0000
CO
O
250.9900
U
U
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
Aquactic Life
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
7
N
CO
Cadmium
N
-a
O
L
0
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
♦ Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
N
>
Zinc
O
tC
a
N M V N Z3 P... COO) 0 N O V N CO N COO) 0 N O V
O O O O O O O O N N N N N
tC t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0
a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a s
a a a a a a a e
0
LC)
0
0
0
z
0
0
0
0
Y
N
0
n
O
0
0
M
0
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
T.
0
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
0
0
7
O
' • w
M 3 • `. 0 N
O O N 0 O
0
0 • M
56 mg/L (Avg)
NO UPSTREAM HARDNESS DATA
J
E
0
J
E
0
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
0
Combined Hardness Acute

Terrible Creek WWTP
COMBINED HARDNESS
i 1- co CD
C. 10 C.
O O) C. C.
4- - O 1CO
0 N 1- V >
co 1- N >
N o r N
2 _ O O o)) W cri N U
L
:Q v N
}i U O p a a U
CO H o 0 o 0
H LO 3 • L) L)
n
O II
O (/)
c i_
0
v Z
o a
O I—
a)a
—, p
CS M
.0 2 2ao
o C N
fie)N
0/ C.
CO
O
U
a =
W
L N
d
U
CS
S O 43,
O O O o co c.
OOOIom� d
L M O O O O' F
ca
U • 0 0 0 0 0"
• 0 0 o a a E
da3' da , s 'o
NC0066516
E
0
RECOMMENDED ACTION
N- o RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw No
Monitoring required
N- o RP , Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
defer to LT M P
- ----------------------------
Cd reported at levels < 0.5 ug/I for the past year, at
levels < 2 ug/I for the past several years.
N- o RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr Vl.
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Limited dataset, all samples < 5 ug/I.
Limited dataset, most recent samples < 0.5 ug/I.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw No
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
ri # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 340.0
Chronic (FW): 150.0
Max MDL = 10 _ _ _
Chronic (HH) 33.7
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 65.00
Chronic: 6.50
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 6.548
Chronic: 1.085
Max MDL = 2
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 361.9
No value > Allowable Cw
Tot Cr value(s) < 5 and < Cr VI Allowable Cw
4 1 7.8 Max reported value = 3
Note: n <9 C.V. (default)
Limited data set
Acute: 22.39
Chronic: 15.70
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 22.0
Chronic: —5-.0—
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 185.797
Chronic: 7.240
Max MDL = 10
Acute (FW): 663.2
Chronic (FW) 73.7
13.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
6.48
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
2.590
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
145.0
C.V. (default)
13.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
12.950
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
O
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 4
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
N
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
sewn
lbd
N
v
o
v
N
o--1
N
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
O
'4
M
w
o
O
v,
w
v
1.0851 FW 6.5483
o
o
M
15.6981 FW 22.3889
N
N
w
v
7.2402 FW 185.7971
73.6578 FW 663.1703
w
Y
0
0
0
0
Z
Z
0
Z
0
z
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
=
a)J
Cadmium
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium, Total
Copper
w
'o
co
a
co
a)U
w
Y
Z
O
N
a

0
0
9-
{F
0
Terrible Creek WWTP
No yalue > Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Chronic (WS): 25.0 — ---------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
Limited dataset, most recent samples < 2 ug/I.
-----------------------------
Ag reported at levels < 1 ug/I for the past year, at
levels < 5 ug/I for the past several years.
Acute: 249.0
Chronic: -----251.0--- -----------------------------
No RP , Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw -
No value > Allowable Cw apply Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: 56.0
Chronic: 5 0
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 1.187
Chronic: 0.060
Max MDL = 5
ility/95% Confidence Using Metal T
2 Note: n <9 C.V. (default)
nil,Limited data set
13.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
6.475
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
00
00
4 0
Note: n<9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
s
s
reshwater RPA - 95% Probab
25.0000 WS
v
w
v,
00
w
o
0
250.9900 FW 248.9536
LL
CD
LO
CD
CD
0
0
U
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
w
Y
v
Z
E
2
C
y
co
2
V)
C
N

Metal Translators
/95% Confidence U
95% Probabilit
a
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Table 1. Project Information
C./
0
0
1-
E
as
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
co
E
E
J
O)
7
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
O)
1
J
sao
1
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
sao
7
J
co
C
J
sao
7
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
O
co
O
340
Z
(
6.5483
1752.0276
co
z
Cc'))
CO
N
(\I
N
185.7971
663.1703
z
LO
0
W
248.9536
CO
Q
Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U_
j
U
U
U
150
0
O
230
300
227.9028
z
15.6981
0
00
7.2402
2000
73.6578
25.0000
CO
O
250.9900
U
U
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
Aquactic Life
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
7
N
CO
Cadmium
N
-a
O
L
0
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
♦ Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
N
>
Zinc
O
tC
a
N M V N Z3 P... COO) 0 N O V N CO N COO) 0 N O V
O O O O O O O O N N N N N
tC t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0
a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a s
a a a a a a a e
0
LC)
0
0
0
z
0
0
0
0
Y
N
0
n
O
0
0
M
0
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
T.
0
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
0
0
7
O
' • w
M 3 • `. 0 N
O O N 0 O
0
0 • M
56 mg/L (Avg)
NO UPSTREAM HARDNESS DATA
J
E
0
J
E
0
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
0
Combined Hardness Acute

Terrible Creek WWTP
COMBINED HARDNESS
v io CO
L N CO CO
O CO V
4— N I- CD
0 N N CO >
M N >
N aoomaoz
E4 > o o m m v U
L
✓
:Q v N
4- U O p a a U
CO o o
CO F" o 0 o U
O ' 3 • 0 0 0 3-
n II
0
O (/)
0c .-
v Z
o a
O I—
a)a
—, p
.0 ▪ 2 2ao
o C N
fie)N
0/ O
M
O
U
a =
W
L N
XI d
U
S O 43,
O O O o co 0
OOOtom� d
L co O O O O— F
U "
• 0 0 o a a E
da3' da , s 'o
NC0066516
E
0
RECOMMENDED ACTION
N- o RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw No
Monitoring required
N- o RP , Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
defer to LT M P
- ----------------------------
Cd reported at levels < 0.5 ug/I for the past year, at
levels < 2 ug/I for the past several years.
N- o RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr Vl.
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Limited dataset, all samples < 5 ug/I.
Limited dataset, most recent samples < 0.5 ug/I.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw No
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
ri # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 340.0
Chronic (FW): 150.0
Max MDL = 10 _
Chronic (HH) 21.8
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 65.00
Chronic: 6.50
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 6.548
Chronic: 1.085
Max MDL = 2
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 331.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Tot Cr value(s) < 5 and < Cr VI Allowable Cw
4 1 7.8 Max reported value = 3
Note: n <9 C.V. (default)
Limited data set
Acute: 22.39
Chronic: 15.70
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 22.0
Chronic: 5 0
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 185.797
Chronic: 7.240
Max MDL = 10
Acute (FW): 663.2
Chronic (FW) 73.7
13.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
6.48
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
2.590
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
145.0
C.V. (default)
13.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
12.950
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
O
4
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 4
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4
N
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
sewn
lbd
cl
v
o
v
cl
o
N
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
O
M
w
o
V)
O
v
VD
w
v
1.0851 FW 6.5483
o
o
M
15.6981 FW 22.3889
(-1
N
w
v
7.2402 FW 185.7971
73.6578 FW 663.1703
w
Y
V
V
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
a)J
Cadmium
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium, Total
Copper
w
'o
co
a
co
a)U
I)=
Y
Z
O
N
a

Terrible Creek WWTP
L
0
4-
C
E4
L
r
4-
C0
y
0
0
C
.a
C
0
La
4-
is
O
L
a
La
0)
a
L
0
4-
t
N
L
u_
NCOO66516
Monitoring required
Limited dataset, most recent samples < 2 ug/I.
-----------------------------
Ag reported at levels < 1 ug/I for the past year, at
levels < 5 ug/I for the past several years.
No RP , Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _
Chronic (WS): 25.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 56.0
Chronic: 5 0
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 1.187
Chronic: 0.060
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 249.0
Chronic: 251.0
No value > Allowable Cw
C.V. (default)
13.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
6.475
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
00
00
7
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
s
s
u
u
u
N
o
25.0000 WS
w
,
00
w
O
O
250.9900 FW 248.9536
0
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
z
w
Y
v
z
E
2
C
y
co
2
V)
C
N

Date: 1/28/2021
))
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
\)}
facility's LTMP/STMP):
parameters to PERCS Branch to m
stp
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
4
!
± Z -® !! \±\\!j\
2 {®J.\)�!\\\!)\\\ {2;2!)\ «Q;J>/;�/\f\ .
- ° °;!!a)§=� !
=)2222!!!\)/§§! ;!!;:l! l=�a2
§!!#;f@!5§�u1# c =I- °
[!��e.. §rf% 1,”,;=f/;)#�
g!«!2§!!«3§;7\)}]{))ikk k§;�:# ;7u- �!l.Ea &
.11
6! !;e!�,
, f!!|;)!3}7)#=27!
2§§ ®:11 _fu p7,,i2r!#§2!'"ff n (/�\°:§
k\2f!!�2laE;£a;2®,fel=2e��E�-.E
2,1 ;!§!l;�a!! )\
7iNT!I�Pl�°I;�.f�,�:�-���._����
�«\)]f= Gil=>!!,rl-rl;a�==e�E,
4 311%11!!;!§\§\f,lf#!f
;=;«;i�ƒ:a2®#yf2t/§9!q
k-!Q!)!&32f))«{123)®!`]a2;##;!e!§
!!`!®k`2!&ik{;\}!®�=,§E®,lE�e22�
_ =,�_
irm

Date: 1/28/2021
))
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
}
facility's LTMP/STMP):
parameters to PERCS Branch to m
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
4
!
± Z -® !! \±\\!j\ `
2 J.\)�!2i ;11)\\\ \k{�2�2!)\ «Q;J>/;�/\f\ .
- °
=)2222!!!\)/§§! ;!!;:l�=�! ,}l4=2j!I
c =I- ° §f
[!o §rf' #�
g!«!2§�:# ;!®fy 7!l.Ea &
.11
6! !{!;e!|=�l:�.a�,
, !|;)!34.;,#.1,1E s,P4 §
2§§®-iffkf!f(/\°:§
kE�-.E
§�!!l;�a!! |!ff\
I�Pl��
, �24f §
7iNT!4 311%11§
=;«;i�yf2t/§{()7)
k-!Q!)!&32f))«{12]2;##;!e!§
!!i`!®k`2!&ik{;\}!®�=,§E®,lE�e22�
_ =,��:
irm

Permit No. NC0066516
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* { 1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[ln hardness1-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NC0066516
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NC0066516
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [SS(1+1 [10 6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0066516
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
139.47
DMRs
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
50.33
DMRs
7Q10 summer (cfs)
1.80
BIMS
1Q10 (cfs)
1.51
Calculated from 7Q10
Permitted Flow (MGD)
12.0
BIMS
Date: 1/28/2021
Permit Writer: Min Xiao
Page 4 of 4

N
J J
0
N Oo o
C C
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
I
Cr
% -1
N
% -1
N
%-1
No Limit Required
MMP Required
Facility Name: Terrible Creek WWTP
0
0 N
N
-1
I I
J
LJJ
CO
Cf
4-
U
O 0
O 0
O 0
0
-1
Cf
N
Permitted Flow =
a)
co
O) O)
cI N 7,1 m
ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
N
% -1
N. co CO t N N O
co O M O O
(-N.
N
0 r` co rn
O f� O
- N 0 O
0) co
� O co �
O O O O
03/30/20 <
05/27/20 <
O
N
1.0
CO
O

C7
2
m
Terrible Creek WWTP
• 75,
•
ct
Acji
N
0
N
0
N
m
N
ri
01
—1
c-I
0
N
m
O
m
00
O
N
0
N
O
N
Ol
N
00
00
N
c-I
0
N
N
O
N
# of Samples
J
0.0
J
W
CO
J
0.0
J
W
CO

N
J J
0
N Oo o
C C
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
I
Cr
% -1
N
% -1
N
%-1
No Limit Required
MMP Required
Facility Name: Terrible Creek WWTP
0
0 N
N
-1
I I
J
LJJ
CO
Cf
4-
U
O 0
O 0
O 0
O (D
0
-1
Cf
N
Permitted Flow =
a)
co
O) O)
cI N 7,1 m
ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
N
% -1
N. co CO t N N O
co O M O O
(-N.
N
0 r` co rn
O f� O
- N 0 O
0) co
� O co �
O O O O
03/30/20 <
05/27/20 <
O
N
1.0
CO
O

C7
2
Terrible Creek WWTP
• U
•
ct
Acji
N
O
N
O
N
m
N
ri
01
-1
c-I
0
N
m
O
m
00
O
N
N
O
N
Ol
N
00
00
N
c-I
0
N
N
O
N
# of Samples
J
0.0
J
W
CO
J
0.0
J
W
CO

Buncombe County MSD
NCOO24911
k
k
»= e m m t e t o e= e= e»
w g g @@@ 0@ N g@ m w@
_ _ = e e = _ = e = = e = _ _ _
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
\ \ \ \ \ 00
r $ 4 6 & \ E
k / ® � < k
LL
/
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
g e e e e\\
2 i 9 t® a
y . \ e & \ E
/ < / / / \
< e
m
October-21
November-21
December-21
e e m» e#» o e e e# e e e m e e m e e o# t»# o= o
co m o e@ m @ w m g f@ w w g@ N w e m w@@ f e g f@ g
_ _ = m » » cri e =eeem = » _ » _ _ _ _ _ » » _ _ = e = _
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
January-17
N
/ \ \ \ » f cu
M ƒ / 4 6 & \ E
/ -, - < 0
m
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
% CO _ CO _ \ CO \
7\ e e e a%
S . / § \ E a
/ < > 2 2 \ /
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
Overall TSSD removal rate
k
k
e o m e# e e m o m= e o e t
o o @ @ @ @ @ @ @ o @ o
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
0 \ 0 0 0 0 \
ro $ ; 4 d & \
k / < 2 k
LL
/
E
qj
m
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
g e e e e\\
7/ t t t 4
y . \ 6 & \ E
/ < / / / \
< e
m
October-21
November-21
December-21
» m» m» e e#_» t m m# t e» m» o e t e m» e e# t m
m w f w@ o o g w@@ f m o f@ o o o@@@ w@@ 0- m o
_ _ _ » _ = e e = = e e » _ _ _ » = e e = _ _ _ _ = e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
January-17
N
/ \ \ \ » f cu
c / % & 6 \ E
/ < /
m
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
\ \% CO _ CO
\ e,-I CO
,-Ia%
'� E/S k °/ < -, k V$
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
Overall BOD removal rate