NC0064050_Draft fact sheet_20220125

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0064050
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Cassidy Kurtz/Diana Yitbarek, [e-mail]
Date: January 25, 2022
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES 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 Apex / Apex WRF
Applicant Address:
PO Box 250, Apex, NC 27502
Facility Address:
300 Pristine Waters Dr., Apex, NC 27502
Permitted Flow:
3.6 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal
Facility Class:
Class IV
Treatment Units:
Bar screens, grit screw classifies/conveyors, influent pump station,
oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers with covered weirs, traveling
bridge sand filters, UV disinfection, cascade aeration, drum sludge
thickener, aerated sludge holding tanks, back-up generators
Pretreatment Program (Y/N):
Y
County:
Wake
Region:
Raleigh
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background:
The Town of Apex applied for an NPDES permit renewal for the Apex WRF at 3.6 MGD. This facility
serves almost 19,000 residents within the town, and has a pretreatment program that serves one
Page 1 of 12

categorical industry (Tipper Tie — aluminum drawing). The facility has primary Outfall 001. Apex WRF
previously had a contractual agreement with the City of Raleigh permitting Apex WRF to send up to 1
MGD of raw sewage to Raleigh's Neuse River WWTP. This agreement expired January 1, 2015 and was
not renewed. The Western Wake Regional WRF (NC0088846) began accepting wastewater from the
Town of Apex in August 2014, which reduced the influent flow to Apex WRF by more than 60%.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001— UT to Middle Creek
Stream Segment:
27-43-15-(1)
Stream Classification:
C — NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
1.10
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0
30Q2 (cfs):
0
Average Flow (cfs):
1.3
IWC (% effluent):
100% at 3.6 MGD (capped at 90% for toxicity testing)
303(d) listed/parameter:
No, the UT to Middle Creek is not listed in the 2020 303(d)
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Sub-basin/HUC:
Outfall 001: 03-04-03 / HUC: 03020201
USGS Topo Quad:
E23NE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2016 through May 2020.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit
Limit
Flow
MGD
1.19
3.82
0.729
MA 3.6
Total Monthly Flow
mgal/month
36.32
52.91
27.56
BOD summer
mg/1
2.22
6
< 2
WA 7.5
MA 5.0
BOD winter
mg/1
2.35
8
< 2
WA 15.0
MA 10.0
Page 2 of 12

TSS
mg/1
2.68
12.5
< 2.5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N summer
mg/1
0.11
0.78
< 0.1
WA 3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter
mg/1
0.18
2
< 0.1
WA 6.0
MA 2.0
DO
mg/1
7.81
10
6.4
DA > 5.0
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
1.28
6343
< 1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
TRC
1..tg/1
No data; UV disinfection
DM 17.0
(< 50
compliance)
Temperature
° C
21.94
29
13
TKN
mg/1
1.03
2.1
< 0.1
NO2-N +NO3-N
mg/1
2.37
4.2
<0.1
TN
mg/1
3.55
5.9
2.1
TN load
lbs/year
See "Other TMDLs/Nutrient Management
Strategy Considerations" (p. 7)
40,547
lbs/year
TP
mg/1
0.686
2.9
< 0.1
QA 2.0
pH
SU
7.06
7.8
6.6
6.0 <pH <
9.0
Total Copper
mg/1
2.58
7
< 2
Total Zinc
mg/1
56.2
88
38
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average,
QA-Quarterly Average
4. Instream Data Summary
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:
Page 3 of 12

The current permit requires instream monitoring as summarized in the table below.
Table 2. NC0064050 Permit Instream Monitoring Requirements
Parameter
Sample Type
Collection Time
Frequency
Location'
Dissolved Oxygen
Grab
Summer and Winter
See Notes 1, 2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
Temperature
Grab
Summer and Winter
See Notes 1, 2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
pH
Grab
Summer and Winter
See Notes 1, 2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
Total Phosphorus
Grab
Summer
2/Month2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
TKN
Grab
Summer
2/Month2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
NH3 as N
Grab
Summer
2/Month2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
Total Nitrogen
Grab
Summer
2/Month2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
PO4
Grab
Summer
2/Month2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
Chlorophyll -a
Grab
Summer
2/Month2
Upstream, D1, D2,
D3
Footnotes:
1. Upstream: above the outfall. D1: Downstream at NCSR 1301; D2: Downstream at NCSR 1152; D3:
Downstream in Sunset Lake (dam's walkway) at Sunset Lake Lodge. Stream samples for dissolved
oxygen, pH, and temperature shall be collected three times per week during the months of June, July,
August, and September, and weekly during the remainder of the year.
2. As a participant in the Lower Neuse Basin Association, Inc. (LNBA), the subject facility is not
responsible for conducting the instream monitoring requirements summarized above. Should your
membership in the Association be terminated, the Division shall be immediately notified and all instream
monitoring requirements will be immediately reinstated.
LNBA station J4690000 is approximately 4.25 miles downstream of the facility in Middle Creek, and
there are no upstream coalition stations. There are no other NPDES permitted dischargers along this
segment of Middle Creek. Station J4690000 data from March 2016 through December 2019 is
summarized in the table below. This permit maintains the same instream monitoring requirements, with
the condition that this instream monitoring is waived provided the facility maintains membership in the
LNBA.
Table 3 Summary of Downstream Data (LNBA Station J4690000)
Parameter
Average
Max
Min
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
7.99
13.2
6.1
Temperature (°C)
19.1
26.5
4.1
PH (s.u.)
6.97
7.7
6.5
Phosphorus (mg/1)
0.27
0.76
0.06
TKN (mg/1)
0.85
3.09
0.2
NH3 as N (mg/1)
0.12
0.72
0.02
Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/1)
0.87
1.8
0.26
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA)
Page 4 of 12

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations from January 2016 to September 2020.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 19 of 20 quarterly chronic toxicity tests (one failed test in August
2019, but passed the subsequent test in September 2019), as well as 6 second species chronic toxicity
tests.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in February 2019 reported that the facility was compliant.
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 1SA 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: Limitations for
BOD are based on 15A NCAC 02B .0206(d), the Division's zero flow policy, because the receiving
stream has zero 7Q10 flow. These limits were implemented in 2000 when the facility expanded to 3.6
MGD. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.
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: TRC limits are
based on the attached wasteload allocation. Ammonia limits are based on 15A NCAC 02B .0206(d), the
Division's zero flow policy, because the receiving stream has zero 7Q10 flow. These limits were
implemented in 2000 when the facility expanded to 3.6 MGD. There are no proposed changes.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
Page 5 of 12

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 January 2016
and May 2020. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, 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: None
• 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: Cadmium,
Copper
o Cadmium: Predicted max (1.25 ug/L) > allowable Cw (1.141 ug/L); however, only 1
detect (1 ug/L - 11/2016), all others < 1 and <0.5 ug/L. Apply quarterly monitoring
o Copper: Predicted max > 50% of the allowable concentration, but no value > allowable;
apply 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
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Arsenic, Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Zinc
• 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: None
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: None
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.
Page 6 of 12

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 (MMPs) 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/l) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Table 4. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
# of Samples
4
4
4
4
2
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.8
0.7
Maximum Conc., ng/L
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.26
0.8
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
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit:
The Environmental Management Commission adopted Nutrient Management Strategy rules in December
1997, classifying the entire Neuse River Basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. The point source rule
(recodified April 2020 - 15A NCAC 02B .0713 (formerly T15A NCAC 2B .0234)) sets Total Nitrogen
(TN) discharge limits for all point source dischargers larger than 0.5 MGD. The EMC readopted these
rules, effective April 1, 2020.
The rule also allows dischargers to form a group compliance association and work together to reduce
nitrogen; this option allows the association members added flexibility in controlling nitrogen discharges.
At the same time, the association is subject to a group NPDES permit ensuring that the association and its
individual members are accountable if they exceed the applicable nitrogen limits. Under the rule, there are
three types of TN limit in the Neuse:
1. the individual limits in the dischargers' individual permits,
2. the aggregate limit in an association's group NPDES permit, and
3. the individual allocations/limits for each Association member, also in that association permit.
A discharger may be subject to the first type of limit, or to the second and third, but never to all three at
the same time. The discharger is first subject to the TN limit (if any) in its individual NPDES permit. If
becomes a co-Permittee to a compliance association's group NPDES permit, it is then governed by the TN
limits in that permit. If the association complies with its group TN limit in a given year, all members are
Page 7 of 12

deemed to be in compliance with their individual allocations/ limits in the group permit. If the association
exceeds its limit, the members then become subject to their individual allocations/ limits as well.
Regardless of which permit governs a TN discharge, allocations/ limits will likely change over time as the
dischargers purchase, sell, trade, lease, or otherwise transfer nitrogen allocations. The Division will
modify the affected permits as necessary to ensure that the limits are kept up to date and reflect any such
transactions.
Under the new rule, the Town receives a TN Load limit of 40,547 lb./yr., a calendar year limit. This limit
will be calculated annually. In addition to this limit, the Permiee will be required to report total monthly
flow, total kjeldahl nitrogen and the sum of nitrate and nitrite in addition to the existing requirement to
report monthly total nitrogen concentrations and loads.
The Town is a member of the Neuse River Compliance Association at this time. So long as it remains a
co-Permiee member, it is deemed to be in compliance with the TN limit in this permit, and its TN
discharge is governed instead by the Association's group NPDES permit, effective January 1, 2019.
Total Nitrogen Annual Loads:
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020 (through
May)
TN (lbs/year)
12,434
11,483
13,476
13,628
6,002
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)
Municipals
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
Page 8 of 12

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
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.
The Facility meets the approval criteria for monitoring reduction for BOD, TSS, Ammonia, and Fecal
Coliform; therefore, the sampling frequency for these parameters has been updated from daily to twice
per week.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
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
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 3.6 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly
Flow
Monitor & Report
(MG/month)
No change
15A NCAC 2B — Used in calculation
of Total Nitrogen Loading
Page 9 of 12

BOD5
Summer:
MA 5.0 mg/1
WA 7.5 mg/1
Winter:
MA 10.0 mg/1
WA 15.0 mg/1
Frequency Daily
Updated frequency to
2/ week
WQBEL. Based on protection of DO
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. The
Facility meets the approval criteria
for monitoring reduction
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
Frequency Daily
Updated frequency to
2/ week
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406. The Facility meets the
approval criteria for monitoring
reduction
NH3-N
Summer:
MA 1.0 mg/1
WA 3.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 2.0 mg/1
WA 6.0 mg/1
Frequency Daily
Updated frequency to
2/ week
WQBEL. Based on protection of
State WQ criteria. 15A NCAC
2B.0200. The Facility meets the
approval criteria for monitoring
reduction
DO
> 5.0 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
Frequency Daily
Updated frequency to
2/ week
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200. The Facility meets
the approval criteria for monitoring
reduction
TRC
DM 17 ug/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Temperature
Monitor Daily (°C)
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508
TKN
Monitor & Report
Weekly (mg/1)
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0713, Nutrient
Mgmt. Strategy, Neuse River Basin
NO3-N + NO2-N
Monitor & Report
Weekly (mg/1)
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0713, Nutrient
Mgmt. Strategy, Neuse River Basin
TN
Monitor & Report
Weekly (mg/1)
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0713, Nutrient
Mgmt. Strategy, Neuse River Basin
TN Load
Monitor & Report
(pounds/month)
40,547 pounds/year
(annual mass loading)
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0713, Nutrient
Mgmt. Strategy, Neuse River Basin
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly Average 2.0
mg/1
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0713, Nutrient
Mgmt. Strategy, Neuse River Basin
pH
6.0 — 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Page 10 of 12

Total Copper
Monitor & Report
Quarterly (ug/L)
No change
Based on Reasonable Potential
Analysis (RPA); No RP, Predicted
max > 50% of Allowable Cw —
Appy Quarterly Monitoring
Total Zinc
Monitor & Report
Quarterly (ug/L)
Remove Monitoring
Based on Reasonable Potential
Analysis (RPA); No RP, Predicted
Max < 50% of Allowable Cw — No
Monitoring Required
Total Cadmium
No requirement
Add Quarterly
Monitoring
Based on Reasonable Potential
Analysis (RPA); Predicted Max >
Allowable Cw, however, only 1
detect < allowable Cw - Apply
Quarterly Monitoring; BPJ
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
3x per permit cycle
No change
40 CFR 122. Permittee shall monitor
in 2023, 2024, 2025
Mercury
Minimization Plan
(MMP)
Required
Continue MMP
Special Condition
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Electronic
Reporting
Required
No change
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
Permit to Public Notice: 10/16/2020
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.
The draft permit was sent to the permittee, EPA Region 4, DWR Raleigh Regional Office, DWR Aquatic
Toxicology Branch, DWR Ecosystems Branch, and DWR Operator Certification Program. The permittee
submitted comments; no additional comments were received.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Cassidy Kurtz at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No):
Page 11 of 12

If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
16. Fact Sheet Attachments
1. NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
2. BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
3. Mercury TMDL Calculations
4. Pretreatment Information Form
5. RPA Sheets: Input Information; Data Analyzed; Results Summary; Dissolved to Total Metal
Calculation
6. WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
7. NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
8. Water Compliance Inspection Report (February 1, 2019)
9. Application Addendum
10. Mercury Minimization Plan Submittal (September 2020)
11. RRO Site Visit (Date of Visit: Nov. 27, 2018)
12. Monitoring Reduction Evaluation
Page 12 of 12

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Apex WRF
PermitNo. NC0064050
Prepared By: Cassidy Kurtz
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
3.6
0
0
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
3.6
5.58
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)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Total Residual Chlorine
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)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
0
3.6
5.58
1.0
0.22
100.00
1.0
0
3.6
5.58
1.8
0.22
100.00
1.8
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

0
N
0
N
m
01
LL
cc
a)
Q
NC0064050
0
cc
cc
N 1� l0 c-I Ol m d- to m c-I t0 O t0 Li) t0 m O tr.) oo N Ln
O O) N l0 Ln N Ln N l0 d' 01 O c 1 01 01 01 CO CO 1� l0 N N
Ol 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Ol 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
01
Ol Ol
i'37
u. —
tea)
co E
co C
LL Q N
Ln
October-19
November-19
December-19
O O
O N
N N N 0 0 0 ON '37
ii S N N N a-,
co c
V)
October-20
November-20
December-20
Ol Ol O Ol Ol t0 00 N N c-I m N Ol l0 m Ln m 1� N m Ol O O m
m O) Ol N N N 00 00 Ln N Ln m O Ln lfl N N N N o0 00 oo oo lfl 00 lfl N O) o
0o Lri ri o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o ai
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
January-16
lfl N
l0 , n r�-1 n n `, 00 00
i c-1 l0 l0 l0 l0 c-1 i i i i `� N ci i i i i `� 00 00 00
i rl c-I c-I N i S rl c-I r-I • -I1:2 a) i S rl > r-I
`�' .c c tn
= E - E E co = '� c E E E f6CO '� > °)
1— co a = an N N a) = s_ co a = an a) o N co a co =
LL V) Z 0 V)
I\
[
a
Ln
Lip
O
01
Overall TSSD removal rate
0
cc
cc
t
c
0
2
m 1� Cr Ln t0 Ol oo to d- N N oo O) c 1 c ) Ln Ln N
N O O O co r, CO 01 01 N ci Ol c-I c-I N N c-I N O o0 c-I O O
Ol Ol Ol O) 00 00 00 DO DO o0 O) 00 O) O) O) O) O) O) O) 00 O) O) O)
Ol Ol Ol O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O)
00
00
00 '37
cI + N
E
OOA te.,
Q
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
01
Ol Ol 1
iOl Ol Owl
(6
U = .•• a) > i E
CO C 7
V)
October-19
November-19
December-19
i" s 0 0 0 0
N (-NI N
co i >. ) E
(0 c 7
CO _a 2 Q 2 a
V)
October-20
November-20
December-20
c-I c-I N Ol Ol O N Ln c-I N 00 t0 Ol N m t0 Ol m m Ln c-I O c-I d- N o0 c-I N
co d- Ln Ol 00 Ol Ol N c-I O N N 00 N Ol O Ol Ol Ol c-I c-I N N N c-I O O O N m
00 1: 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 00 00 00 Ol 00 00 00 O) Ol O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O)
O) Ol O) Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol O) O) O) Ol O) Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol O) Ol Ol
January-16
t0 lfl
c-1 LO t0 c5
c-I l0 l0 l0 c-I
s I I 1 -0
co 0E
11 Q a)
V)
October-16
lfl Lc, N
i i c�-1 N N N N 71 - i
i s a�
EE�i0.Q(coc,�Eo
o a") c Q) 2 Q Q a ('
z 0 a)
ul
November-17
December-17
January-18
O
O
Overall BOD removal rate

m
c-I J J
N 0A 0.0
C C
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
O n
N
c-I
I
J
W
CO
O M
c-I
Cr
N
Permitted Flow =
ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
N
c-I
ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
N
O
ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
O) l0 00 Ol N LO LO L.f) L.f) N l0 L.f) L.f) 00
O O O O .-1 O O O O ,40 0 0 0
O) l0 00 N Ol N LD LD L.f) L.f) N l0 L.f) L.f) 00
O O O O .-1 O O O O ,40 0 0 0
v v v
l0 l0 l0 10 00 00 00 CO Ol 01 Ol 0')Ln
O O
N O) \ Ol 00 \ l0 00 I• \ l0 r l0 \ L.f)
N Ln 00 � N Ln 00 N Ln 00 N Ln 00 N Ln

M
▪ •
ct
O
ct
z
\ /1
LL V--I
CC
X yy
N • N
N
N
N
O
A0
N
O
c-I
c-I
N
N
J
dA
J
w
CO
H
J
dA
J
W
CO
Cf

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you aet this form back
Check that
f
from
all apply
Notify PERCS If LTMP/STMP data we said should be
Date of Request
11/28/2018
municipal renewal
X
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Requestor
Cassidy Kurtz
new Industries
(or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Apex WRF
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0064050
Speculative limits
In LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Raleigh
stream redass.
renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet,•RPA.
Basin
Neuse
outfall relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS staff:
Oth omments to PERCS:
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
Vivlen Zhong (807-6310)
adlity Is rated 3.6 MGD wtih 1 CIU listed In the renewal application (Tipper
X
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
Tie - Aluminum clips) and Is listed on the POTWs with pretreatment
spreadsheet.
Monti Hassan (807-6314)
programs
PERCS
Status
V
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time period for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
b . 015
(
i -1
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
,00
Next Cycle:
POC In LTMPI
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required by
EPA*
Required
by 603
Sludge**
POC due
to slu••'
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
✓BOD
✓
✓
4
QM
✓TSS
✓
V/
4
Q M
Quarterlry
✓
NH3
V
V
4
Q M
_=
M oM nfhly
t/Arsenic
V
�
4
Q M
-'1
Cadmium
4
Y
✓/
4
Q M
%l
Chromium
4
4
Q M
J
Copper
4
V.
t,V.
4
Q M
V
Cyanide
v----/
4
Q M
Is all data on DMRs?
JLead
N/
✓
;/
4
Q M
YES
Mercury
t.,
4
Q M
NO (attach data)
V
Molybdenum
4
Q M
Vl
,Alickel
4
,V--
✓
4
Q M
✓
Silver
4
Q M
,/Selenium
i,'
4
Q M
4
Zinc
Al
\/-
4
Q M
Is data in spreadsheet?
✓
Zetal Nitrogen
t/
1/-
4
Q M
YES (email to writer)
./Phosphorus
V"-'----
4
Q M
NO
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
`Always In the LTMP/STMP •• Only In LTMP/STMP If sludge and app or composts (dif POCs for Incinerators) _
"•" Only In LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW •"' Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit_Writer lex., explanation of any POCs: Info you have on IU related Investigations Into NPDES problems):
INN I f p-tx NON() GLA1 Pi ec ,‘,1( surly iljnete filth' i. ")s C if0-l1 y 11*s
1,—
�-I 0-'4'- I'
•
PERC NPDES Pretealmentrequestform.may2016 (00000002)xlex
Revised: July 24, 2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
O O 0 M
O O 0
O O 0
0.0
O N O
c ❑ c
W a N
R n U c
J J
m m
0..
N N
J [0 l0 . . . . . . . 0) . .... ... .
O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
J
0
O
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
W W W W r r r W W W m M M M mm 0 0
N N
O O O N N O O N O O O N O O O N N O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N V m 0 0 ia r. r 0 N V i0
N U)0�N 0�N U)o .N[0 W WA N[0
N M V[ l0 I- W 0) O N-N M V In W r W 0) O N M V[ l0 I- W 0) O N M V[ l0 I- W 0) O N M V In W r W 0) O N M V[ l0 I- 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[0 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 I0
Upstream Hardness
N
2
J J J
m m m
EEE
0 0 o 0 0
0 0 0
N N N
00
00
N 0
N N
7 �
A �
N p
I ❑ c d N >
O >
J[0
❑ N
J
m
N-N M V 1 l0 I- W 0) O N-N M V In (0 r W 0) O N-N M V 1 l0 I- W 0) O N-N M V 1 l0 I- W 0) O N M V In (0 r W 0) O N-N M V 1 l0 I- 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I0 0)
Effluent Hardness
2
J J J
mmm
EEE
M v W r 0 W 0
.000 O W 0
W N W m W
N of o
v n W
d 0
m m
d m
I O c d >
E a m o> 0
R'cqU c, Q�
J N W M W W 0 W M N W N l0 l0 l0 0 N 0
❑ v W r W (0 m y 10 10 v io io io 10 (0 co c0
N
J
m
O
O
W 00 M W W 0 W M N W N l0 l0 l0 0 N 0
v W r W (0 m v co u) v co co co co (0 co (0
m m m mW c0W r r r r r r r r r W
0 0
O O O N N N N O O O O N O 0 0
N N N M N N N N N N N
N l0 0 m 0 N M V 10 f0 r 0 0) N
N-N M V In W r W 0) O N-N M V In (0 r W 0) O N M V 1 l0 I- W 0) O N M V 1 l0 I- W 0) O N M V In (0 r W 0) O N M V 1 l0 I- 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I0

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
a
Chromium, Total
a
m m v m
mm
.
N O
41.
z ❑ c
W � N
R q U c
J I- N M N-M M N-N N N M N-N M N-N N M N-
0
J
CO
O
O
, N M N M M N N N N M N N M N N N M N
mmmmr rrr mmm mmmm °)O)00
N N
0 0 o N N O O N 0 0 o N 0 0 o N N 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N V m m C W w In r W N V In
N In In N In N In 00 N In
N M V K) m I- m O) O N-N M V K) m I- m O) O N M V K) m I- m O) O N M V K) m I- m O) O N M V K) m I- m O) O N M V K) m I- m
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V V V V V K) K) K) K) K) K) K) K) K)
O O O M
O O O N-
O O O
0.0
O N O
z ❑ c
a 9
R A U c
BDL=1/2DL
O
O
J J
m m
MM
0..
N N
...................
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
...................
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
mmmmr rrmmm'Ammm °)O)oo
N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N NQQ N N N N NQ N N NN N N N
N In 00N In 00N In 00N In 00'-N In
N M V K) m I- m O) 0,-N M V K) m I- m O) O N-N M V K) m I- m O) O N-N M V K) m I- m O) O N M V K) m I- m O) O N-N M V K) m I- m
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V M V V V V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MM
Mvmm .00
m r m,- N O In
r V m O N
V M N-N-
0 0 0
z ❑ c
a 9
R A U c
O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N
O O O O O O
J
O
CO
O
O
V
a
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
mmmmr rrrmmm mmmm °)O)00
N N
0 0 o N N O O N 0 0 o N 0 0 o N N 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N V m m C tp r w 0 r W N V In
N n m N n m N n m n m 00 '-NO
N-N M V In m I- m O) O N-N M V In m I- m O) O N M V 0 m 0- m O) O N M v 0 m I- m O) O N M V In m I- m O) O N M V 0 m I- m
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V M V V V V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
O O 0 m
O O 0
O O 0
LO
O N O
❑ c
W a N
n U c
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
J
m
u) V)III III III III III III III III III III III III III III0) 0) 0)
✓ V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
CO CO CO O r I� I� 00 00 03 CO m m 03 O O
N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N
N V m m- C f0 r r f0 N
N 0) � 0) 0 N 0)• 0 N 0) 0 W N 0)
• N M V K) O r CO O) O r N M V K) O r CO 0) 0 N M V 0) O r CO 0) 0 N (0 V 0) O r CO 0) 0 N M V K) O r CO O) O N M V 0) O r CO
N N N N N N N N N N M co co co co co co co co co V V V V V V V V NI-
0 O 0 CO
O O 0 N—
O O
O O
❑ c
W a 9
ren U c
J J
O O 0
V)
J
O
J
co
m
O
O
✓ V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
CO CO CO O r I,- I, 00 00 00 ° m m m O) 0 0
N N
O o 0 N 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N V m m C f0 r r f0,s2 V In
N K) 0 N 0) 0 N 0) 0 N 0) 0 N 0)
• N M V K) O r CO O) O r N M V K) O r CO O) O N M V 0) f0 r CO O) O N M V 0) f0 r CO 0) 0 N M V 0) f0 r CO O) O N M V 0) f0 r CO
N N N N N N N N N N M co co co co co co co co co V V V V V V V V V

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
E
7
N
O O O M
O O O
O O O
O O O
o 6 o
. ❑ c
U
cq�U
❑
J
❑
m
❑
O O O O O 000000 0000 0000
✓ V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
mmm fOr rrrmmm mmmm °)O)OO
N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N NNN N NN N N N N N N N N N
N V m m C 0 r r 0 RI,52 V 0
N i0 0; N LOW N i0 (. N i0 W W N i0
N-N M V K) m I- m °) O N M V K) m I- m °) O N-N M V 00,000,0 N-N M V 0) m I- m °) O N M V K) m I- m °) O N-N M V 00,0
NNNNN N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V
O O m
O O O
O O O
O O O
o 6 o
. ❑ c
U
cqU
0
J
❑
m
❑
Par17 & Pad S
O
J J
1 1
000
o � �
O O O O O 000000 0000 0000
✓ V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
CO CO CO f2r rrm m mmmm °)O)oo
N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
NNNQQ N N N N N QNNN RI N N N
N V m'- V m C 0 0 r'- 0 N'- N 0N i0 m N i0 m N i0 m N m W N i0
N-N M V K) m I- m °) O N M V K) m I- m °) O N-N M V 00,00M0 N-N M V 0) m I- m °) O N M V K) m I- m °) O N-N M V 00,00
NNNNN N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V
1.1
av�
Molybdenum
W
a
.0 m m
M r
r M
.0 N
O N O
. ❑ c
W a U
a n U c
J J
m m
vor
L
J K) 0) iU iU iU iU iU iU iU iU iU iU iU iU 0) 0000
❑ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
J
CO
❑
✓ V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
mmmf2r rrr mmm mmmm °)O)OO
N N
O O O N N O O N O O O N O O O N N O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N 463 mm CcOmr s rc0 5.`11,2 4.0
N cnm�N N Lnm Lnm c
N-N M V K) m I- m °) O N M V K) m I- m °) O N M V00,000,0 N M V 0) m I- m °) O N M V K) m I- m °) O N M V 00,0
NNNNN N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
0
0.
o <<<
Q Q Q Z Z Z
<rr
0 0 0
0 0 0
zzz
c 0 c
a N
re co �U c
BDL=1/2DL
• N M Q l() co r co co, O r N M Q K) co r O O) 0 N M Q i[l co r O O) 0 N M co r O O) 0 N M NI-K) cor coO) O N M Q i[) cor O
NNNNN N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M Q NI- NI- Q NI- Q NI- NI- Q
N
N
A
0
Q u r
U
O o
O
• N N
cv o
c 0 c
N
re co c
J J
co O Q
O rn
corn
J N NO NO O N Q r O O O r K) O O N O
❑ O Q K) Q O 0) 0) O 0) 0) O 0) Q 0) Q r co Q M
II
J
0
m
0
O
CO NO NO O N Q r co co O r NO O
CO Q K) NI-fo K) K) co K) K) co co N O
I-- co Q M
co co co mr rrr OOO cammm °)O)oo
N N
O O O E. E. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N• N N N N N N N N N N N
N V m17. Q mOBC f0 r Io co N N L
N 0) 0 � N i0 0 N i0 0 N 00 W N i0
• N M Q l() co r 0 O) O r N M Q K) co r 0 O) 0 N M Q i[l co r 0 O) 0 N M Q i[) co r 0 O) 0 N M Q 0) co r 0 co, O N M Q i[l co r 0
NNNNN N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
a i
U d
W O
d U
N c
O
N
a
N m
O O
O O
O) CO
N
c 0 c
W a 9
ren U
J J
W O)
CO O In
CO O N
•• In
N M
J
O N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O
J
0
m
O
O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
✓ V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
co co comer r rr 0300 °m mm °)O)oo
NN N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O
NNN NN NNN NNN NNOO N V m,_ Q m 0 r r c0 N V In
N n m N n m N n m N n m oo N n
• N M Q l() co r 0 co, O r N Cl Q K) co r o co, O N M Q i[l co r 0 O) 0 N M co r 0 O) 0 N M NI-K) cor 0 co, O N M Q i[l cor 0
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M Q NI- NI- Q NI- Q NI- NI - NI-

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
0
0
.0.
W � N
R n U c
BDL=1/2DL
aaa
Z Z Z
N M V LO (0 f- W O) O N-N M V (n (0 r M O) O N-N M V 0) (O I- O O) O N-N M V K) (0 I- M O) O N M V K) (0 I- M O) O N-N M V 0) (O I- O
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 (n K) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0
0
a
Q H F
0 O 00
U Z Z
_ a
=o
Ki�c
BDL=1/2DL
0
N-N M V (n (0 r M O) O N-N M V (n (0 r O O) O N M V 0 (O I- O O) O N M V 0) (O I- O O) O N M V (n (0 r M O) O N M V 0 (O I- O
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 In

Metal Translators
/95% Confidence U
95% Probabili
a
ce
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Table 1. Project Information
J
a
d
u
0
U
0)
O
E
N
J
0)
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
E
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
1
J
0)
1
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
C
_J
0)
7
J
0)
1
J
0)
1
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
J
0)
7
O
N-
N
O
o
a-)
Q
Z
0
0
6.9424
1850.8990
co
Q
Z
23.8485
22
200.0897
701.8638
Q
Z
56
1.3316
263.5021
LL
=
1
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
2
LL
5
LL
LL
LL
150
10
6Z
7
230
300
240.7639
16.6235
N
1,800
7.7972
12
2000
77.9554
25.0000
N
(0
0
O
265.6575
U
C.)C.)
Z
C.)
z
C.)
Z
C.)
Z
Z
C.)
Z
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
C.)
Z
Z
U
Z
C.)
Z
Z
U
Z
C.)
Z
C.)
Z
C.)
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
T
in
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
E
0
C
a)
to
N
>
o
C
Na)
O
a
N M V 0) CD I- CO 0 0 — N CO V 0) CD I,- CO Q> 0 N C1 V
2 O O O O O O O N N N N N
tc to to to to to to N A A A t0 to to to to to to to to to to to
0_ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Apex WRF
>—
0
o
o
0
0
Z
o
0
3.600
Unnamed tributary to Middle Creek
03020201
Z
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.00
59.88 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L (Avg)
59.88 mg/L
59.88 mg/L
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
Data Source(s)

Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
IQ�
parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP
COMMENTS (Ident
rn
co
s.
Z
s.
8.
� c
0 m
E
E
U
E
r
U
E
E
E
E
E
E
L
E
3
2
N
E
2
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator

E
0
LL
Ce 0
X 0
O w
Q Z
RECOMMENDED ACTION
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw No
Monitoring required
NA
Predicted Max > Allowable Cw, however, only 1
detect < allowable Cw - apply Quarterly Monitoring
See Total Chromium
See Total Chromium
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
No RP , Predicted Max >_ 50 % of Allowable Cw
apply Quarterly Monitoring
No detects, all samples <5 ug/I
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw No
Monitoring required
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
Il # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 340.0
Chronic (FW) 150.0
Max MDL 5
Chronic (FIII) 12.3
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 6.942
Chronic 1.141
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 1,850.9
Chronic: 240.8
Acute: 16.0
Chronic: 11.0
Max reported value = 2.5
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 23.85
Chronic 16.62
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 22.0
Chronic 5.0
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 200.090
Chronic 7.797
Max MDL = 5
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic 2,000.0
Max MDL = 10
Acute (FW): 701.9
2.5
NO DETECTS
0
ry
z
z
2.5
NO DETECTS
,o
`O
5.0
NO DETECTS
2.500
NO DETECTS
5.7
NO DETECTS
o
a,
-
a,O
O
O
O
o
a,
a,
O
oo
O
o,
O
a,
S.INf1
5, tO
c4
aon
on
bn
bn
bn
lbd
o
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Applied
Chronic Acute
Standard
©
v
M
w
0 0
1.1414 FW 6.9424
240.7639 FW 1850.8990
w
16.6235 FW 23.8485
N
w
7.7972 FW 200.0897
xx
x
o
N
Ill
Y
0 0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
Z
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
R
W
J
Molybdenum
a
0
0
a

a
cts
d
LL
I.L.
a 0
X 0
O w
Q Z
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
NA
No detects, all samples <10 ug/I; permittee shall
sample to the lowest reporting value (<1 ug/I)
No detects, all samples <5 ug/I and <1 ug/I; permittee
shall continue sampling to lowest reporting level (<1
ug/I)
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Chronic (FW): 78.0
Max MDL L10__ ___
Chronic (WS): 25.0
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 56.0
Chronic 5.0
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 1.332
Chronic 0.060
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 263.5
Chronic 265.7
No value > Allowable Cw
'5
U
I°7
Iv
I
U
I°
Iv
I
Acute:
Chronic:
7
U
to
Iv
I
5.0
NO DETECTS
5.0
NO DETECTS
3.325
NO DETECTS
z
z
z
z
a
60
y
a
tiL
y
a
oO
ep
w
cq
77.9554 FW 701.8638
25.0000 WS
tel
w
tel
VD
M
M
w
o
0
265.6575 FW 263.5021
0
z
0
z
0
z
0
z
z
Y
U
z
Y
U
z
Selenium
0
_
N

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
] �
D \
66
§ §
■
{
8
NC0074390f001
Anson County WTP
(
§
3
)
2! '
"5 ] ] ] ]
c)
LL
) 2 ) J
0
Jan Apr lul Oct
D
ƒ
/
z
Apex Oil Company Greensboro Terminal
/
Acu Fthd 24 hr PF Lim
Begin_ 1f1f2017
k
_ , § _
a
2..
� k |
0
0
4,5
ƒ
County: New Hanover
MonComo:
Apex Oil Company, Inc.
Fthd 24hr LC50 Moni
]
X
k
m§
'
LL.
0
0
Feb May Aug Nov
{
8
Apex Water ReclamationFaciny
j
MonComp: Single
§
rl
126
kg
0
a
2..
a.
0
0
4,5
3
Appalachian State WTP
a
k
0.> IL:! !
u
a '
Feb May Aug Nov
\
0
a
\
Aquadale Quarry -Hedrick Irid-002
Fthd24PF Begin: 311f2009
Z c Z
! ! ! !
Page 4of122
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is acdve), s =Split test between Certified Labs

Permit No. NC0064050
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 Apnl 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, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/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 1..ig/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-[lnhardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1.136672-[lnhardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[lnhardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[lnhardness]-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[In 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 hardness1-4.705 }
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. NC0064050
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 hardnessl+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[1n hardnessl+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 Freshwaterhardness-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)°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 N o. N C0064050
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 + s7Q 10, 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 =
Ctotal
1
1 + { [Kpo] [sso+a)] [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) (Cwgs) — (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 s7Q 10)
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. NC0064050
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)]
59.88
Effluent pollutant scans/DMR data
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25.0
Default value
7Q10 summer (cfs)
0.0
Previous Fact Sheet
1Q10 (cfs)
0.0
RPA calculation
Permitted Flow (MGD)
3.6
Previous permit/Fact Sheet
Date: 9/22/2020
Permit Writer: Cassidy Kurtz
Page 4 of 4

Rai COOPER
n.rrnor
NIICHAEL S. REGAN
LINDA CULPEPPER
•I'v,Prh�^ti<<!
. - vironmental Quality
February 1, 2019
Drew Havens, Town Manager
Town of Apex
PO Box 250
Apex, NC 27502
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Apex Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit No. NC0064050
Wake County
Dear Mr. Havens:
On January 29, 2019, Match Hayes of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted an inspection at the
subject facility. The assistance of Lori Advent, laboratory supervisor, Tom Munson, lead operator,
David Hardin, water resources specialist, and yourself with this inspection was greatly
appreciated. Below is a list of findings developed from the inspection and review of the permit:
1. The permit became effective October 1, 2014 and expired April 30, 2018. The permit
is currently under review. Please continue to operate under the last issued permit until
the permit is renewed.
2. The 3.6 MGD Class WW-4 Water Reclamation Facility consists of the following units:
two (2) mechanical bar screens and one (1) manual bar screen; two (2) grit screw
classifiers /conveyors; influent composite sampler; influent flow meter; influent pump
station with four (4) pumps; three (3) oxidation ditches; four (4) secondary clarifiers
with covered weirs; four (4) traveling bridge sandfiiters; two (2) banks of ultra -violent
disinfection; effluent flow meter; effluent composite sampler; cascade aeration; drum
sludge thickener; three (3) aerated sludge holding tanks, one (1) at 1 MG, one (1) at
0.5 MG, and one (1) at 0.25 MG; three (3) on -site back-up generators.
3. At the time of operation, both mechanical bar screens were in operation and being
used concurrently. One grit chamber was being operated due to low inflow. One
oxidation ditch was offline due to low inflow. The other two oxidation ditches were on
line with one being operated as an oxic zone and the other as an anoxic zone. Influent
appeared tan in color in the oxic zone with foam covering less than one -quarter of the
tank. Two out of four secondary clarifiers were being operated due to low inflow.
Sludge judge reading in the 14-foot sidewall depth was two and a half feet. Both UV
disinfection banks were in operation. Effluent appeared clear flowing over the cascade
aeration and into the UT to Middle Creek. The 1 NIGD sludge holding tank was one -
North Carolina Department of Environmental Qua ity Div sion of Water Resources Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Dnve 1628 Ma 1 Service Center Raleigh, North Carcl na 27699-1628
010 701 ,1^4111

third full, the 0.5 MGD sludge holding tank was one -quarter full and the 0.25 MGD
sludge holding tank was empty. The rotary drum thickener was in operation.
4. Sludge is hauled to the Western272 dry tons of sludge was ReclamationFacility
inll Z018 further
processing. Records indicate that
5. Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period October 2017 through November 2018
were reviewed for compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. There
were no violations for the review period.
6. 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
November 2018. No discrepancies were noted.
7. The laboratory was checked in a cursory manner. Al! instruments, meters, probes,
photometric cells are maintained in good condition. Temperatures on all equipment
are checked against an NIST thermometer. All standards, reagents and consumables
used are within expiration dates. The fecal coliform bath was 44.5 degrees C and the
BOD incubator was 20.1 degrees e calibrationlog ths� Theor l meters is kept last calibrationup to date.
was done
Flow meters are calibratedonce every six months.
November 2, 2018.
I want to thank everyone involved with this inspection. If you have any questions about this
letter or the inspection, please contact Mitch Hayes at 919.791.4261 or by email at
mitch.hayesncdenr.gov
cc: permit, central files
Sincerely,
Rickolich, LG, Assistant Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Operations Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NC DEQ
4.2A1—N
North Carol na Department of Environmental Quality D vis on of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1617 Ma I Service Conn Ra eiah, North Carolina 27699-1617

EPA
Un ted States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D C 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Section A: National Data System Coding (. e PCS
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040.0057
Approval exp res 8-31-98
Transaction Code NPDES y-lmolday Ir section Type Inspector Fac Type
La]2 LJ 3 I NCDr64050 111 12 1 19/01 29 117 18 If j 19 11.1 I
= 20I
211II l I I 1 1 1 111 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, Il i. III r6
Inspection Work Days
67I
Facility Self-Mcrito,;ng Evakat Rai r
70 L1
B 1 OA Reserved
71 I_._J 72 I N I 73 i I I74 75+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I80
Section B Facility Data
Name and Locaion of Facil.ty Inspected i,For Industrial Users dischargiig to POTW also nclude
POTW name and NPDES permit Number.
Apex Water Reciamat:, n Fac lity
300 Pristine Waters Dr
Apex NC 27502
Name(s) cf 0ns ie Representative(s)/T tles(s:/Phone and Fax N.;rr,bu-(s
111
David A Hardin1CRC1919-249-33661
John Cratch/Supenntendent WWTP/919-249-3400/
John David Crat:hJORCl919-249-33601
Name, Address of Respons ble Official/Title/Phone and Fax N.,mber
John David Crat%_h PO Box 250 Apex NC 275020250///
Contacted
No
Entry TmelDate
10 00AM 19101 /29
Permit Effective Date
14/10/01
Exit Time/Date
11 30AM4f 19101 /29
Other Fac lity Data
Section C• Areas Evaluated During Inspect on (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Expiration Dale
18/04. 30
II Permit Flow Measurement gg Operations & Ma ntenance Records Reports
Self -Monitoring Program II Sludge Handling Disposal 131 Facility Ste Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
El Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comrnents (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 RRO WO11919-791-42001
Signature of Management 0) Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete
002, OA 2-0
/ Pate
r
Page#

NPDES yrlmolday
NC0064050 111 12L 19101/29
117
I- pe-t :n Type
18 LI,
(Cont.)
Section D Summary of Finding/Comments ;Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The 3.6 MGD Class WW-4 Water Reclamation Facility consists ofthe
ec li cing units two (2)
s I onveyors..
mechanical bar screens and one (1) manual bar screen two (2) g s three (3)
influent composite sampler; influent flow meter. influent pump station with four (4) pumps
oxidation ditches; four (4) secondary clarifiers with covered weirs four (4) traveling bridge sandfilters..
two (2) banks of ultra -violent disinfection; effluent flow meter. effluent composite sampler cascade
aeration; drum sludge thickener; three (3) aerated sludge holding tanks, one (1) at 1 MG one (1) at 0.5
MG, and one (1) at 0.25 MG; three (3) on -site back-up generators
At the time of operation, both mechanical bar screens were in operation and being used concurrently.
One grit chamber was being operated due to low inflow. One oxidation ditch was offline due to low
inflow. The other two oxidation ditches were on line with one being operated as an oxic zone and the
other as an anoxic zone. Influent appeared tan in color in the oxic zone with foam covering less than
one -quarter of the tank. Two out of four secondary clarifiers were being operated due to low inflow.
Sludge judge reading in the 14-foot sidewall depth was two and a half feet. Both UV disinfection banks
were in operation. Effluent appeared clear flowing over the cascade aeration and into the UT to Middle
Creek. The 1 MGD sludge holding tank was one-third full the 0.5 MGD sludge holding tank was
one -quarter full and the 0.25 MGD sludge holding tank was empty The rotary drum thickener was in
operation.
Sludge is hauled to the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility for furti-er prccess.ng. Records
indicate that 272 dry tons of sludge was hauled in 2018
Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period October 2017 through November 2018 were reviewed for
compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements There were no violatons for the review
period.
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 November 2018. No
discrepancies were noted.
The laboratory was checked in a cursory manner. All instruments meters, probes, photometric cells
are maintained in good condition. Temperatures on all equipment are checked against an NISI
thermometer. All standards, reagents and consumables used are within expiration dates. The fecal
coiiform bath was 44.5 degrees C and the BOD incubator was 20.1 degrees C. A calibration log for all
meters is kept up to date. Flow meters are calibrated once every six months. The last calibration was
done November 2, 2018.
1
Page#

Permit: NC0064050
Inspection Date: 01/29/2019
Owner - Facility apex Water Reclamation Facility
Inspection Type. Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
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
Yes No NA NE
(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? 05100
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? •❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Permit is currently under review.
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
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•
•
Name of person performing analyses •
Transported COCs
•
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? 11000
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWO? • ❑ ❑ ❑
(If the facility is = or n 5 MOD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator ❑ ❑ E1❑
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? 11000
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0064050
Inspection Date: 01/2912019
Owner - FacHity• Apex Water Reclamation Facitity
Inspection Type Ccmpl mice Eialuation
Record Keeping
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
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: Effluent appeared clear with little foam.
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: Flow meter was last calibrated 11.02.2018.
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: flow meter was last calibrated 11.02.2018
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: There are 3 sludge holding tanks. The 1 MGD was one-third full: the 0.5 MGD was,
one -quarter full: and the 0.25 MGD was empty.
Solids Handling Equipment
Is the equipment operational?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
11000
❑ ❑1i❑
Yes No NA NE
DLDD
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
® ❑ ❑ ❑
DDDD
Yes No NA NE
C1❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
D ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Yes No NA NE
MOOO
* ❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0064050 Owner - Facility: Apex Water Reclamation Fat lity
inspection Date: 0112912019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
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?
Comment: Thickned sludge is hauled to Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility in Cary.
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 SCADA telemetry 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: Manual bar screen is used for back-up.
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
II ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
I11000
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
I/ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ Cl El
• ❑ ❑ ❑
MI ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ Cl ❑
Yes No NA NE
El ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
IN ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0064050
Inspection Date: 01129120i9
Owner - Facility: Apex Water Reclamation Facility
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Grit Removal
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment: One grit chamber was being operated due to low inflow.
Secondary Clarifier
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?
1s 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?
1s the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approxlmat aly ' . of the sidewall depth)
Comment Two out of 4 secondary clarifiers were betna ooerated due to low inflow. Weirs are kept
covered. Effluent appeared clear flowing over weirs.
Yes No NA NE
MI ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
Oxidation Ditches
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover Tess than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mgll)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 mill in 30 minutes)
Yes No NA NE
Ell ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
111 ❑ ❑ ❑
NI ❑ ❑ ❑
12 ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
El ❑ ❑ ❑
Ell ❑ ❑ ❑
El ❑ ❑ ❑
El ❑ ❑ ❑
El ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
&a ❑ ❑ ❑
ID ❑ ❑ ❑
1/1 ❑ ❑ ❑
IS ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
❑❑ ❑1M
Comment: Two aerations were being operated due to low inflow. One basin is used as a oxic zone. the
other is used as an anoxic zone
Yes No NA NE
Nutrient Removal ® 0 0 0
# Is total nitrogen removal required? ® ❑ 0
0
# 1s total phosphorous removal required?
Page# 6

Permit: NC0064050
Inspection Date: 01/29/2019
Owner - Facility: Apex Water Reclamation Facility
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Nutrient Removal
Type
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
Comment:
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?
Comment: There are 4 traveling bridge sandfilters in use.
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 banks are being utilized.
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?
Comment: There are three back-up generators that are operated once a week under load.
Yes No NA NE
Biol.igical
❑ •❑ ❑
II ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Down flow
MOOD
NODE
13 El El CI
❑ ❑ E1❑
13❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
Yes No NA NE
MODE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
121 ❑ ❑ ❑
DDD
El El El
❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
BODO
11❑ ❑ ❑
BODO
LI❑ ❑ ❑
® ❑ ❑ ❑
11000
Page# 7

Permit: NC0064050
Inspection Date: 0112912019
Owner - Facility Apex Wale- Re._famauan Fadty
Inspection Type. C:.mpl a-.e Evaluat.cn
Pumps-RAS WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment.
Laboratory
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters(exduding field parameters; performed by a certified lab?
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+?- 0.2 degrees?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +1- 1.0 deg7ees?
Comment. Oil and grease. metals. and cyanide are analyzed b / Environment 1 Bioassay is analyzed
by EPS. The WRF laboratory analyzes all other parameters
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
11 ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
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:
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)?
Yes No NA NE
C3 CI CI
I ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
El ❑ ❑ ❑
11 ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
El ❑ ❑ ❑
1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Q ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
IR ❑ ❑ ❑
111 ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
D ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
ID ❑ ❑ ❑
El ❑ ❑ ❑
El ❑ ❑ ❑
E3 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR
122.21(j)(1)
1.1
Email address of facility contact [e-mail]
1.2
Applicant email address [e-mail]
1.3
Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge N/A
1.4
Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge N/A
1.5
Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)? (Check all that apply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
El Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section 1-1 Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
/ 301(h)) Section 302(b)(2))
Ltd Not applicable
1.6
Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works N/A
40 CFR
122.21(j)(6)
1.7
Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Number of SIUs
Number of ClUs
1
1
40 CFR
122.22(a) and (d)
1.8
Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submifted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name (print or type first and last name)
John Cratch
Official title
WRF Manager
Signature
Date signed R 01170 w

Town of Apex Mercury Minimization Plan Implementation Summary —Sept. 2020
The Town of Apex implemented a Mercury Minimization Plan on April 1, 2015 per NPDES permit
NC0064050. Implementation efforts are summarized as:
• Apex WRF laboratory has examined reagent MSDS to assure no mercury components are
present as ingredients. All daily use thermometers are alcohol based or electronic, and not
mercury.
• Town of Apex website lists mercury thermometers as hazardous waste to be disposed of
properly at Wake County landfill hazardous waste collection.
• With the promulgation of 40 CFR Part 441, the Town of Apex has identified and surveyed all
dentist in the Town for exemptions from the rule or installation of approved amalgam removal
equipment.
• The Town conducted an Industrial Waste Survey, required of the pretreatment program, in
November 2019, and did not identify any industries requiring further mercury -related inquiries.
• The Apex WRF influent and effluent is monitored quarterly for low-level mercury per the Apex
pretreatment program Long Term Monitoring Plan. Results do not warrant any further
investigations at this time.
Enclosures:
1. Apex Mercury Minimization Plan
2. Apex Dental Office 40 CFR 441 Compliance Survey result table
3. Example of 40 CFR 441 compliance survey
4. Industrial Waste Survey result table and NC DEQ approval letter

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Model Mercury Minimization Plan
Background
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources
(DENR), has issued a statewide total maximum daily load (TMDL) for mercury. The TMDL responds to
a statewide fish consumption advisory for mercury. The TMDL calls for a 67% reduction in mercury
levels from the year 2002 baseline mercury loading. The ultimate goal of the TMDL is to ensure safe -
levels of mercury in fish throughout North Carolina for human consumption.
As explained in the TMDL, 98 percent of mercury in North Carolina waters comes from atmospheric
sources — the vast majority of which are located outside of the State. Under the Clean Water Act,
atmospheric deposition of mercury into surface waters is regarded as a nonpoint source. Minor amounts
of mercury are discharged directly into surface waters by industrial and municipal point sources as a
group. Specifically, the TMDL determined that point sources contribute less than two (2) percent of the
annual mercury loadings to State waters. The TMDL allocates two percent of the statewide allowable
loadings collectively to the point source sector. This does not mean that an individual discharger may not
have significant Ievels of mercury in its discharge in terms of local water quality considerations. While
we expect such instances to be rare based upon the Department's review of statewide mercury data,
dischargers with higher mercury loadings will be expected to implement more aggressive mercury
controls.
Notably, unlike any other source, local governments actually reduce mercury loadings in the environment
by first filtering mercury out in the treatment of public drinking water (particularly where the source of
raw drinking water is surface water) and then a second time when wastewater is treated.
In order to implement the two percent point source sector waste Load allocation, the Department has
developed a point source permitting strategy which is located at
httpa/portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl/tmdlslmercury . The Environmental Management
Commission has approved both the TMDL and the Permitting Strategy. The permitting strategy calls for
certain point sources to develop and implement mercury minimization plans (MMPs). For POTWs, an
MMP will be required if the facility has (1) a permitted design capacity of more than two million gallons
per day and (2) mercury at quantifiable levels in their effluent. MMPs feature best management practices
and have been implemented successfully in numerous states around the county. The attached document
is Town of Apex's MMP.
Typically, MMPs focus on pretreatment controls -- a local government's interaction with non -domestic
users of its sewer system as well as outreach to the public at large regarding the proper use and disposal of
household products containing mercury.
The MMP approach is intended as a reasonable, low-cost approach toward making some progress toward
managing the two percent loading statewide from point sources. Mercury treatment and even testing is
very expensive and does not make sense to reduce a small part of the already insignificant two percent
overall point source annual loading to State waters.

Town of Apex
MODEL MUNICIPAL MERCURY MINIMIZATION PLAN
April 1, 2015
SECTION I - PURPOSE
The purpose of this Mercury Minimization Plan ("MAP") is to describe best management practices
through which the Town of Apex will seek to reduce the amount of mercury discharged into its system
and, ultimately, to the environment. The WIMP compiles mercury reduction -related efforts to -date and
potential future action items. It is designed to be a working document to help guide the Town of Apex in
its efforts to control mercury loadings discharged into its Publicly -Owned Treatment Works (POTW) by
users of the sewer system. Such a reduction in loadings to the sewer system should translate to a
reduction in the amount of mercury which is discharged from the treatment plant. The management
practices summarized below may also help control some of the mercury reaching our storm sewer system
as well.
SECTION II — FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The Town of Apex operates a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), including a collection system
and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that serves Apex, North Carolina.
The Apex Water Reclamation Facility is permitted to treat 3.6 MGD of wastewater. The plant operates
three oxidation ditches, four secondary clarifiers, tertiary filters, ultraviolet disinfection, and three aerobic
sludge digesters.
Most municipal treatment plants are not designed to remove mercury and it is exceedingly expensive to
do so to very low levels. Incidental mercury removal occurs through typical municipal treatment with
trace levels of mercury (and other metals) ending up in solids removed from the raw wastewater.
Mercury is not used in the treatment processes at the WWTP. Mercury may be introduced into the sewer
system through a variety of sources, such as from industrial users, laboratories, and other businesses.
Residual deposits of mercury are also possible in the sewer system from historic practices. Finally, trace
amounts from household products and atmospheric deposition (both wet and dry) contribute to sewer
system mercury loadings.
While there is typically some mercury contributed to public sewer systems statewide, it is usually in
minute quantities and comprises a tiny portion of the already insignificant statewide loading for all point
sources - just two percent of the annual mercury loadings to all State waters.
The effluent from the treatment plant has never received a violation for mercury or exceeded the NC
Water Quality Standard for mercury.

SECTION III— PROGRAM PLAN
A. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL NON -DOMESTIC SOURCES CONTRIBUTING
MERCURY TO THE POTW
Within 24 months from the NPDES required 180-day period for development of an MMP, the Town of
Apex will evaluate available information to assess the potential for non -domestic users of the sewer
system to contribute mercury to the system. The information to be reviewed may include: (1) POTW
influent and effluent mercury data and trends; (2) industrial user permits and associated mercury
monitoring data; (3) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); (4) state hazardous site registry and the National
Priority List relating to mercury contamination; and (5) historical records of industrial sites which have
contributed mercury loadings to the sewer system.
The Town of Apex may also survey and evaluate the following common sources of mercury in its service
area: (1) dentist offices; (2) hospitals; (3) laboratories; (4) auto recyclers; and (5) other potential sources
of mercury based on existing information.
The Town of Apex may request that industrial users review mercury concentrations in high -volume
process chemicals and demonstrate that the mercury concentrations are below industry average. The
Town of Apex may request that alternative sources for chemicals be explored if the mercury levels are
determined to be significantly higher than would normally be expected.
The evaluation of potential non -domestic sources of mercury to the sewer system will be updated every
five years, as warranted by prior sampling results and any additional new potentially significant sources to
the system.
B. ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES
This MMP identifies reasonable and cost-effective control measures to minimize mercury being
discharged into the POTW. Below is a listing of initial BMPs for this POTW.
Pollution Prevention
Substances used at the WWTP will be evaluated to determine if they contain mercury or mercury -based
compounds. Any such chemicals will be evaluated for substitution with non -mercury -containing
substances.
Housekeeping, Spill Control and Collection, and Education
The Town of Apex may develop procedures to minimize the possibility of any spill or release at the
WWTP involving mercury containing substances. The Town of Apex may add mercury identification
and proper disposal to ongoing and future operator training procedures.
Public Outreach
The Town of Apex may make available educational information regarding sources of household mercury
and appropriate use/disposal practices. This information may be posted on the Town of Apex's website.
The availability of this information will be highlighted in annual outreach to the Town of Apex's
customers. The Town of Apex will also facilitate public awareness regarding community collection

points for mercury -containing products from residents/customers for proper disposal. Periodic reminders
of such collection programs will be provided as part of Town of Apex's ongoing public outreach.
Laboratory Practice [if applicable]
The Town of Apex operates a laboratory for purposes of complying with state and federal monitoring and
sampling requirements. The laboratory is a potential source of small quantities of mercury -containing
compounds. Laboratory employees will be trained in the proper handling and disposal of these materials.
The laboratories have also replaced mercury thermometers with non -mercury thermometers, whenever
practical.
C. TRACKING AND MONITORING
In order to assess the implementation of the control measures, the Town of Apex proposes to undertake
the following evaluations beginning after the first full year that this MMP is implemented:
1. Survey annually at least ten percent (10%) of any non -domestic users identified as
possible significant sources of mercury to the POTW;
2. Track the implementation of the programs outlined above;
3. Monitor influent mercury at least annually. Require significant non -domestic sources of
mercury to monitor periodically, as warranted; and
4. Measure effluent mercury as required by the NPDES permit.
These efforts will allow the Town of Apex to establish a baseline of influent and effluent mercury levels
to assist in identifying any trends in mercury contributions from domestic and non -domestic users of the
sewer system. This baseline will be tracked annually.
SECTION IV — IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL MEASURES
The Town of Apex will implement the control measures summarized in Section III over the permit term
and will update this MMP as warranted.
SECTION V - REPORTING
A summary of the MMP activities will be submitted as part of the NPDES permit renewal process.

H
tl'
D
3
N
0 L)
a (
u
0
• 3
a
a u
• C
x ro
a Jo.
• E
U
c 0
o E
z o
Compliant
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
m
— a
=
o a
z 4_
x
Exempt
x
x
x
x
x
Y
2/24/2020
0
NO
in
2/24/2020
5/1/2020
6/4/2020
O
N
N
N
3/2/2020 I
0
O
M
0
N
N
0
NO
i/1
O
N
N
N
2/24/2020
O
O
=
i/1
2/24/2020 I
0
NO
N
N
7/28/2020 I
0
N
LO
2/24/2020 1
o
M
(11
a.)m
E
o
u
N
C
ro
a
d
co
@J
01
u
0
nchaffeePea rthlink.net
o
U
wm
_
E
N
a
coMI
C
0
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
staff@ beaversfa mi lvd a ntistrv.com
[e-mail]
E
o
=
fa
E
x
0)
44
a
0
d
MI
]
Si
E
o
u
y
a
E
_
as
C
6
u
'4
infoPcentra[caro[inaoralsureerv.com
E
P
u
au
E
a
t_.
OU
L
0
[e-mail] I
E
V
oro
Y
o
a
O
c
[e-mail]
kellvviauddsPgmail.com
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
sabinedds@gmai].com
E
0u.
E
to
@.)
in
a
a
C
el
OA
N
i
i
73
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
telephone
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone] I
00
coCO
00
01
01
H
01
[phone]
01
coo
c0
en
01
H
01
[phone]
[phone]
V
+`•
Q1
?
n
N
Cr,
i--I
01
rt
N
,--t
N
a1
N
d1
H
O1
[phone]
o0
00
M
m
NN
m
O1
H
O1
0
o1
N
n
01
01
H
01
[phone]
00
1.
00
n
A
01
rT
H
O1
V
o
N
m
(0
T
H
01
[phone]
m
N
00
N
cif
M
m
H
al
m
encn
H
l0
in
M
m
N
O1
t`
N!
00:
N
M:
01:
ri:
01
: 01
.-1
d-
H
: rn
M
01
rr
01
[phone]
N
00
CO
00
no
m
01
ci
01
[phone]
m
m
'cf
N
N
m
01
H
01
[phone]
[phone]
0
O
H
ti•
LA
rn
M
61
H
01
4-,
to
0
0
o
Dr. Edward Altherr
Dr. John Kitzmiller
Dr. Ryan Burleson
Dr. Tina Shih
Dr. Nancy Chaffee
I Dr. Vinay Chirnalli
H
C
Y
<+
C
3
a
o
v.
2
m
Q)
ro
Cuu
•
Q
Dr. Paul Beavers
Dr. David Draper
Dr. Rachae[ Shuette
Dr. Sarah Barker
Dr. Bretttt Alvey
Dr. Gabriel Fritz
Dr. John Cordes
Dr. Rylan Hansen
1 Dr. Terese Walters
Dr. Ken Leahy
Dr. Nicole LeCann
Dr. Jean You
Dr. Dustin Prusik
Dr. Kelly F. Viau
Dr. Christina Maresca
Dr. Craig Dorion
1 Dr. Thomas Pezdek
I Dr. Sabine Schtakeff
Dr. Jeff Reintgen
1 Dr. Edward Shrader
1 Dr. Alena Spielberg
Dr. Brian Leech
Altherr Orthodontist
Apex Dental Group
Apex Endodontics
Apex General Dentistry
Apex Prosthodontics
Apex Smiles 1
Atkins Dentistry 1
Bass & Watson Family Dentistry
Beavers Family Dentistry
ro
Y
C
a
0
a
V
a
m
Blue Ridge Family Dentistry
Cardinal Family Dentistry
Carolina Orthodontics & Children's Dentistry
Central Carolina Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
Dr. John Cordes
Hansen Dentistry
Apex Family Dentistry
Leahy Family Dentistry
LeCann Family Dentistry
Little Tooth Company (Childrens Dentistry of Apex)
Olive Chapel Family Dentistry
Peak City Family Dentistry
Peak Endodontics
NC Periodontics & Implant Center
Pezdek Dental Care
Prime Family Dental
Reintgen Family Dental
Riccobene Assoc.
Spielberg Orthodontics
Triangle Family Dentistry
N
N
(0
t
in
Lc
N
0
Cn
H
HH
H
HHHri
a-1
.-i
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m

ONE-TIME COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR DENTAL DISCHARGERS
40 CFR Part 441 Effective Date: July 14, 2017
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category
General Information
Name of Facility:
B2codcr,S b. fJuy.ors 6-05 .PLi
Physical Address:
to ► 4 49. cL 4„. Si.
aaex NC- 2 S62-
MailingAddress:
(0 1 q t•-%. CLA,5(-1n Si-.
Apcw Nc- 2.7sU2-
Facility Contact Name and Title:
Sal,' r.ic 4 ay. ,.
Phone:
q1C-3tP2.-69.6.1 Email ' , �e.c.vers -cart; i7 dcNti:a.4r7
,ciN--
Owner/
Operator(s)
'Sc,.- -4"- '. VSeavcfs , Nllar% U. ,v r .
L s~ . 13ecorcfs
Facility Offliicial (per 40 CFR Part441.50(a)(2)) Nam9 and Title
CSignatory
Jets c�.s.: P. Bec j Ps. - r ?r[Szat,..l
Phone:
gi9•iL.2-Q%41 Email ]~inesaucr4clot %. . g{w+.at(4 rc..—
Names of Licensed Dentists currently in this practice
'
e-'r-4.s
?.
&c ..te_rs
bbS
yYiUr It..
E .
Rtw(c s
bbS
i..ce.L
C .
t]Ghud-t'b
bbS,
Please select one of the foliowin
171
This practice Is a dental discharger subject to this rule and does place and/or remove dental amalgam.
Complete sections A, B, C, D, E and F
D
This practice Is a dental discharger that exclusively practices one or more of the following dental
specialties exempted in 40 CFR Part 441.10(c): oral pathology, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral
and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, periodontics, or prosthodontics.
Complete section F only
❑
This practice is a dental discharger that does not place dental amalgam, and does not remove amalgam
except in limited emergency or unplanned, unanticipated circumstances (per 40 CFR Part 441.10(f))
Complete section F only
❑
This practice Is a dental discharger that does not discharge dental amalgam wastewater to a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) because:
LI The practice discharges dental process wastewater to a septic tank
❑ The practice collects dental process wastewater for transfer to a Centralized Waste
Treatment Facility (CWT).
❑ Other
_
Complete section F only

Section C
Design, Operation and Maintenance of Amalgam Separator/Equivalent Device
riaNar
EJ
ael�o...u.e ....ury,..w ...... � ....-�.-........,;,.
The amalgam separator (or equivalent device) is designed and is operated and maintained to
meet the requirements in §441.30 or athird-party service provider is under contract with this
facility to ensure proper operation and maintenance in accordance with § 441.30 or § 441.40.
Provide name & address of service provider:
M
The amalgam separator (or equivalent device) is operated and maintained by the dental facility staff
to meet the requirements in 40 CFR Part441.30 or Part441.40.
Provide a description of the practices employed by the dental facility to ensure the proper operation and
maintenance 1n accordance with 40 CFR Part 441.30 or 441.40``:,, � 44
D �c. co,..-Ati- aiS 4 i r-5,pc.ait % .4. 4.c. cori.415c,,r., Separ 4,4rr W C vi4 t
4..t,+,b..14.a-- k,eAs v co,..Sy..,, 0,..cl. Kv.,.44 plotcli,s.
c 1,
V t", 14trb 0...t_ A..s c,,c,Ct b.st." a... 4..dfi +•Ailed r�k; (t_r.
12) W i4)— kc-F14cCr.<r.r.4 ..}j 14cAt wc taclut re., i q, .iS 4.4
4,1po-6 Co ••`atous -ia ol:spcse ram - wcr.%'4C.
Section D
Best Management Practices (SMP)Certifications
The above named dental discharger is implementing the following BMPs as specified In
40 CFR Part 441.30(b) or 40 CFR Part 441.40(b) and will continue to do so.
• Waste amalgam including, but not limited to, dental amalgam from chair -side traps, screens,
vacuum pump filters, dental tools, cuspidors, or collection devices, is not discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works (e.g., municipal sewage system).
• Dental unit water lines, chair -side traps, and vacuum lines that discharge amalgam process
wastewater to a POTW must not be cleaned with oxidizing or acidic cleaners that may increase the
leaching of solid mercury. Prohibited cleaners include but are not limited to: bleach, chlorine,
iodine and peroxide that have a pH lower than 6.0 or greater than 8.0.

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
(sent via email: David.HardinPapexnc.org)
David Hardin, Water Resources Specialist
Town of Apex
P.O. Box 250
Apex, NC 27502
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
February 11, 2020
Subject: Pretreatment Review of Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
Town of Apex (NPDES Permit No. NC0064050)
Wake County
Dear Mr. Hardin:
The PERCS Unit of the Division of Water Resources has reviewed the updated Industrial Waste Survey
(IWS) for the Town of Apex. The IWS was received by the Division on November 22, 2019.
The review indicates that the IWS is adequate and meets the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2).
Proper implementation of an Industrial Waste Survey is required by Part IV, Section D, of your NPDES
permit.
Please remember it is the responsibility of the POTW to continue efforts to ensure that any Significant
Industrial Users (SIUs), as defined by NCAC 15A 2H .0903(b)(30) (A) through (D), are identified and
subsequently added to the Town's pretreatment program. This includes evaluation of new Ills before
they commence discharge and evaluation of existing Ills determined to be not SIUs that make changes to
their process.
Next IWS Due Date: The IWS was conducted in 2019. Yourjiext updated IWS is due on November 30,
2024, unless conditions at the POTW change significantly and thus warrant an earlier submittal.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with the Pretreatment Program. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Monti Hassan at [phone] [email: [e-mail]].
mh/apex.iws.2019
ec: Central Files (LF}
PERCS Unit
Cheng Zhang, RRO
t1ORTH GAMMA
�+isfpt�ahy:
Ham.
666374CA4137462...
Monti Hassan
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1161i Mall Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1611
919,707.9000

If Non -Domestic Flow Discharge
Explanation of why SIU permit
is or isn't needed
(i.e. Non contact cooling water
or metal finishing or non -
categorical, <25,000 gpd and
<5% MAR,)
Non -contact cooling water,
non -categorical
Domestic only
Not in business at this address
Wholesaler
Distribution facility
\
a
Q
i
Domestic only
Not in service area
Not in service area
Not in service area
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Not in service area
Description of
Business
CNC Machining
Automation Systems
Commercial Printing
Liquid Petroleum
Wholesaler
Tool Distribution
Center
Industrial Fastener
Distributor
Robotic Equipment
Tool & Die Job
Shop
CNC Machining
Metal Panels
Microbrewery
Building Supply
io u
?t\B/ a &
�k\�\
r
� a.--.
S\
\%
UQw
.
/
a
\
k
.
/)7
©82
A k /
of
4,
k�
2
q
2
%
,
»77,7
-\k Q
£
S
m
r
G
y
%
2
2
en
m
3
\�Q�J
U«mA
\tea°§k�
E
QZr t
\
\
a
x/0§k
Industry Name
(include all industries
sent short forms and
all industries in NC
Manufacturers
Register)
Accu-Tool, Inc.
Allied Automation Inc.
Apex Printing Company
Apex Propane Services,
Inc.
Apex Tool Group, LLC
Assembly Fasteners,
Inc.
ATI Industrial
Automation
Barbour Machine
Company
Barnes Precision
Machine, Inc.
Bissette Roofing, Inc
Brueprint Brewery
Builder's First Source,
Inc.
0
0

If Non -Domestic Flow Discharge
Explanation of why SIU permit
is or isn't needed
(i.e. Non contact cooling water
or metal fmishing or non -
categorical, <25,000 gpd and
<5% MALL)
Automobile stereo installation
Domestic only
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Retail / Sewing
Not in service area
Septic tank
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Not in business at this address
Not in business at this address
\
ƒ
Q
Not in service area
Not in business at this address
Not in business at this address
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
\
k
Q
Description of
Business
A/V Display
Components
Wheel Chairs
Pavement Marking
Window Treatments
Wooden Furniture
Concrete
Computer Storage
Equipment
Security Screening
Equipment
Commercial
Cabinets
4..;
_0 ,_, /
'2
§k
w
,° /
§41
/�
Embroidery
Precast Concrete
Rotary Die Tools
Abrasives
Wholesaler
U§\
u& 2 o a
\(2J•
2
\ {A E
V) g g
UAQ
k
/
k
k
x
k
ile /d7
]2\
A a ,,
yV
rq °�
�\
%
/
2
3
ea
2
4§_\
dkkCt
£
±
N
e
3
N
\
9
S
o §
2 t
U—mA
R
4-1
a: °a§
%o CV
577�©/
k
R
#
a
a
¥
Industry Name
(include all industries
sent short forms and
all industries in NC
Manufacturers
Register)
Cary Audio Design,
LLC
Chesapeake Rehab
Equipment / Numotion
Clark Pavement
Marking
Designers Workroom,
Inc.
DSH Woodworking
Eagle Rock Concrete,
LLC
EMC Corporation
Fanlight Corporation /
Rapiscan Systems
Forbes Custom
Cabinets, LLC
/
0
ƒ
Homes & Land of
Durham
d
° '8
d bD 0
/&
MC Precast Concrete,
Inc.
Madern USA, Inc.
Merritt Precision
Technology, Inc.

If Non -Domestic Flow Discharge
Explanation of why SIIJ permit
is or isn't needed
(i.e. Non contact cooling water
or metal finishing or non -
categorical, <25,000 gpd and
<5% MAIM)
Not in business at this address
Not in business at this address
\
CA
/
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Distributor
Distributor
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Not in business at this address
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Existing categorical SIU (467)
Permit 0002
Description of
Business
.
.H
\
\
Pottery / Ceramics
Hose Fitting
Distributor
Polyurethane film
Building Material
Petroleum products
distributor
Glass Beads
Water Treatment
Propane Truck
Assembly
Concrete
Filtration Systems
/
(
§
/
Office System
Fabrication
Packaging
Equipment & Clips
/\(
_
til
~°
CD(k�t
^0�k§
%a te
/)a
§
UAL
/
<
k
k
/n_
aw¢
\\6
±
»
a
w
/
®
G
N
d
%g
kk
C
N
%
2
N
%
-
N
b
92277
Aqa#§Fo
2
00
_3
y
2
CD
0/
\J
S•$$
k
/
c 8 \ § 2
8 2 & 2 \ ]
fix$\=/
\
W
/
Industry Name
(include all industries
sent short forms and
all industries in NC
Manufacturers
Register)
Millennium Print Group
New Morning Imports
On -Site Hose
Pacrim Inc. / Polyzen
.
/
.
m
S
.
.]
\
/
/
0
(LI
Production Reliance
LLC/ Hydro Water
Treatment
Propane Trucks &
Tanks
Ready Mix Concrete
Smart Flow
Technologies
Southern Peak Brewery
SPS Corp.
Tipper Tie I
Cr)

If Non -Domestic Flow Discharge
Explanation of why SIU permit
is or isn't needed
(i.e. Non contact cooling water
or metal finishing or non -
categorical, <25,000 gpd and
<5% MAI L)
Categorical SRI (467)
Permit 0010
Not in business at this address
Distributor
Non -categorical, <25,000 gpd
Not in service area
Not in business at this address
Description of
Business
Packaging
Equipment & Clips
Condiments
Medical Instruments
0
4:1
,n
o
-H
w
Snaps Distributor
a 0 0 0 r°R laO
Re s. I. sq o
Qr 0 43
_,
p
l d .0
4 o 0
G�
VAtan
aa
o d
a> S as
Aw 0.1
`n
d_-
w M
o v,
A F
10/23/19
V
eci o s. cti '�
cr,0
N
Cr,
vzaER
CID
Pl u o q m
O a) 0 v'
U41 Z�- �.fl
Industry Name
(include all industries
sent short forms and
all industries in NC
Manufacturers
Re 'ster
Tipper Tie II
Vintage South, Inc.
Visitech Systems
Weststax Precision
Woodpecker
Enterprises
Zoron Manufacturing

J
Fnvironmen tal
Quality
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: ® NPDES Unit ❑ Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Cassidy Kurtz
From: Vanessa E. Manuel
Raleigh Regional Office
NPDES Permit No.: NC0064050
Facility Name: Apex WRF
County: Wake
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -
discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are applicable.
RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
DEC 072018
Water Resources
a. Date of site visit: 2018Nov27 Permitting Section
b. Site visit conducted by: Vanessa E. Manuel
c. Inspection report attached? n Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: John D. Cratch and their contact information: (919) 249 - 3360 ext.
e. Facility address: 300 Pristine Waters Drive, Apex, NC 27502
2. Discharge Point(s): 001
Latitude: 35° 42' 30" Longitude: 78° 50' 03"
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: UT to Middle Creek
Classification: C-NSW
River Basin and Sub -basin No.: Neuse; 03-04-03
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS N/A
1. Facility Classification: (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If no, explain:
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc.) consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site (property lines, wells, etc.)? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes n No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? n Yes n No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
9. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions (Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme:
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: John Cratch Certificate #: 16857 Backup ORC: Lori L. Avent Certificate #: 991629
Backup ORC: David A. Hardin Certificate #: 991627
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities:
Influent pump station (with 4 submersible pumps); backup influent pump station; influent flow measurement via
an in -line mag meter; mechanical bar screens (n=2); backup manual bar screen; grit chambers (n=2) with screw
conveyors & screw compactors; oxidation ditches (n=3) with 2 setup for aerobic operation and 1 setup for anoxic
operation; splitter box with 4 gates; secondary clarifiers (n=4) with 12-ft. weir height and 52-ft. diameter each;
scum pump station with 2 submersible pumps; RAS pump stations (n=2) with 2 submersible pumps each; plant
drain pump station with 2 submersible pumps; MLSS recycle pump station with 3 submersible pumps; tertiary
filters with traveling bridge (n=4); ultra -violet disinfection; backup tablet chlorine disinfection; effluent flow
measurement via 18-inch Parshall Flume; cascade aeration; aerobic sludge digestors (n=3); drum sludge
thickener; sludge loading / decant pump stations (n=2) with 2 pumps each; truck loading pad; and emergency
generators (n=3).
Proposed flow: N/A
Current permitted flow: 3.6 MGD
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be important
for the permit writer to know (i.e., equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in facility ownership,
etc.).
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc.) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or n No
If no, please explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑ Yes or ® No
If no, please explain: The description of the existing treatment units does not include the following: influent
flow meter; backup influent pump station; backup manual bar screen; scum pump station; RAS pump stations;
plant drain pump station; MLSS recycle pump station; drum sludge thickener; sludge loading / decant pump
stations; truck loading pad.
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? n Yes n No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O ,
,/
0 ,
II
O ,
„
0 ,
II
O ,
„
0 ,
II
O ,
„
0 ,
II
O ,
„
0 ,
II
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ® Yes or n No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: No DMR violations during 2-year period Oct. 2016 —
Sep. 2018.
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
14. Check all that apply:
® No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
,❑ Notice(s) of violation ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle, please explain the status. Has the RO been
working with the Permittee? Is a solution underway or in place?
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ®No III N/A
If yes, please explain:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item
Reason
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
5. Recommendation: n Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
❑ Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
® Issue
❑ Deny ( lease state reasons:
6. Signature of report preparer:
Date:7
Signature of regional supervisor: ar7
Date: 2 i f
/c
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5

* Green highlight is user input
Apex WRF
Class IV/3.6 MGD
O
Lc)
10/2018 - 10/2021
Diana Yitbarek
12/21/2021
00
up
O
o
z
co
Facility Class/Flow:
Permit No.
Review period (use
3 yrs)
Evaluated by
Date
LL
10
a+
U
To
O
a
a
}
}
}
}
}
}
t�I
A
N r
C > • N
Xt Q. cut]
A
ZZZZZZ
O
0 0
0 0
O
w r
gO 2 O 0
C >
n•
O
N
V
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
000
V
}
•
>- >- >- } }
r'4
o
cr
V
1 C O C U
?. 0 N 10 LL L
M E E 0
0 0 0 ci 0
O
ci
0
N
0
0
N
}
}
}
}
}
}
N
N
Lfl
Lfl
N
N
Lfl
O
m
N
N
Lfl
ci
0
0
Lfl
00
Lfl
ci
0
0
O
n
n
0
Q n
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
u
0
U
(0
E
O
C
O
C
v
f0
w
0
N
N
0
O
co
v v
V >.
> 01
C >
O o
u
cn
N co
>. N
o -c
O_ O
E
0)
`O 3
= O
co co
LL O
m .>
co co
cU
co
U
v
8
0
0
co
0
Ll 0 c-I O
Lfl
O
ci
O
m
0
0
N
Ln
Lf1
Lfl
m
0
O
O
J J J J J 0
\ \ \ \ \ 0
00 00 00 00 00 c-I
E E E E E
Data Review
01
E
E
0
0
m
BOD (winter)
F
v
E
E
m
O
E
E
Ammonia (winter)
Fecal Coliform

z
rn
z
c E
r
s_ v) 0
a)N
>- ~ 0
U
> ❑
O U
+n CO U1
o a a L
to a)a)fl' z r0 (v a)� > v s_
aH, z
ro > ry
> ° n
cu
v L ro LO L _,
• N _ d iD
N < H 0o E 3 ;°
4_, y m w +`O U1
C 0LO LO o o y
L 0 O
O O
a)00 E 'E ON ry
UJ '— = — r0
(0 y.+ y., O O v
r0 O UJ >-
(0 > UJ in
U ro
Q To rp Q Q X v Q
v c a v a v v
° E E 0° 0p O y
y 'i 0 s- v v O
U U UJ 41 i ro .-
c O > > (0 Ln
y 0 0 (0 (0 -O - O
.,_ - O >' >- O O 0
0 y :'' -cL' v
ro
O U C C Q Q O
O '> — O O 3
(0 O -EE E UJ >
U a) a)> > }'
O = L L d d E
U1
v Q Q r v
v 0D
U1 > v O Q ? >` (L
Q( U d d d >
L E i UJ v (p
(0 dro c c •
O UJ r0 Q
> n Y Y v v +
> 0
w Y Y c
Q v w 0
to c 0 a, d E
a N y = O O C
O
,5 w 0 N N y +�+ O
=
U O U v N Ln O
(0 O _t to d d (0
-6 (0 N C C to 00 -6
> 0 CO d .—
c• v 0 v E E fl- fl- °;
CD v v -O U U E UJ
Q a, N
C.)O v ` Ln > O
E O E E 7 ,( N
f0 O 0 - (v
•C L _t CO 00 L.(1 O L
}+ >, UJ >- i i c-I N >-
�+ y �' (0 (0cu O C
U U
cl w L w v v • �"' w
y F.) LE
_c a)
a)L
Q Z H H H_ J H
Q c-I N M Li") l0 r- CO
0
e-cf3968502
-o
-o
c
Conclusion: The facility meets the approval criteria for monitoring reduction for BOD, TSS, ammonia, and Fecal Coliform

Implementation
lementation
E
15
co
0 0 2 IZF O
4 os • co
VI0 it,•
E� ? co a» N a�'m Ei"p 0
Q C = •a _cLi- Ea E
..i au , Q) N w ,o a1 -›...0 .— E
• 3 i�9 C 0 to
la E Q
.Q • — a • O 8 W alrb C
To O
-o co t+ O E U p VF 413 a)d) E O d6 C O. a) U .E i O
• _ _
• E o a .=
a �= W.. o
E
co 0
o
w Ew
C L_ Eo m
• mps -, 00 -P-° E 0 - --o m 0
▪ a -=aa.i
S4
O z +- is GO DO 5 "� ei (�}
S6 CI -CO y E O 3 0 E_cZ
C - _ a� C
_ a) U
�} .. O D
u-o 2 p 3 O ID E
`Q — Cmo o -
. Q� _s_m� ID °b o o Pa i
E CD a =v C° Oaa. aly-o oZ-LoDE02
a- _8 E
3 CO 6 [3 [7 p�'s
D. as ax O X ) 3 E
• }, Cr v, $ ▪ ., - 4— -v I -
M , ,5 •s , 03 a 6r y. v '
Q} 7 C `M 0 Q} C ad co a) c qj
"' E D i9 O= a3 di pq O. CD C
• L0 • 17 =5 77 C 2 = V o 3 C w 3 N
O 80 04E' a▪ ) COy) a
❑ 4j LT CV 41 3 N as '2 +A �O a 'V 4 C
• u CC i6 pay 3 C "4
• • 0 • 2s G 2 E w