NC0050105_Wasteload Allocation_19900629

f � -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph. D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
June 29, 1990
Mr. Ken Fanfoni
Public Works Commission of the
City of Fayetteville
PO Drawer 1089
Fayetteville, NC 28302-1089
Dear Mr. Fanfoni:
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit NC0050105
Fayetteville's Rockfish Creek WWTP
Cumberland County
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has reviewed your letter of May 18,
1990. The DEM has addressed each item in your letter in the same format that you presented it
to the division. Our comments are as follows:
1. You are correct in stating that the permit was drafted from the permit that was in
effect two permits ago. The 6.0 MGD pages have been corrected to reflect NH3 as N
monitoring and instream monitoring that is required in the current permit.
2. The North Carolina water quality standard for fecal coliform in freshwater Class C
streams is 200/100m1 per NCAC .0211(b)(3)(E). The NCAC was modified effective
October 1, 1989 to require all classes of streams to meet the 200/100m1 standard.
All new permits, modified permits, and permit renewals issued since October, 1989
have been issued with this limitation. This is the maximum allowable monthly
geometric mean and will not be changed in the Rockfish Creek WWTP permit. If
Fayetteville cannot meet this limit, you should contact the Division's Fayetteville
Regional Office to resolve the problem through a Special Order by Consent.
3. After a review of the permit, the DEM acknowledges that two errors have been detected
in the permit. The downstream monitoring site should be 200 yards above Lock & Dam
#3. Also, the DO limit should be "not less than 6.0 mg/I."
4. The DEM has reviewed your comments concerning the long-term BOD sampling and
has decided to remove this requirement from the NPDES Permit.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everette, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Fanfoni
Page Two
The DEM is ready to issue this permit. If no response is received from you by June 30,
1990, the permit will be issued as drafted with the corrections stated above. If you have any
questions regarding this permit, please contact Mr. a Overcash at (919) 733- 5083.
Si
George T erett
cc: Mr. Mick Noland
Mr. Dale Overcash

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street s Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everette, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Pollution Prevendon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Division of Environmental Management
Memorandum
To: Dale Overcash
From: Mike Scoville II\D5
Thru: Ruth Swanek 'RC-5e
June 7, 1990
Trevor Clements _01-''
Subject: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit For Fayetteville's Rockfish
Creek WWTP (NC0050105, Cumberland County)
I have reviewed the comments regarding the subject NPDES permit from Mr.
Fanfoni of the Fayetteville Public Works Commission, and offer the following responses:
1. It is acceptable that the instream NH3-N monitoring requirement be deleted
from those permit pages that reflect the unmodified 6.0 MGD WWTP, as was changed in
1 988.
2. The North Carolina water quality standard for fecal coliform in freshwater
Class C streams is 200/100m1 per NCAC .0211(b)(3)(E). This is the maximum
allowable monthly geometric mean for all North Carolina discharges and should not be
changed in the Rockfish Creek WWTP permit.
3.a) The WLA for this facility mistakenly recommended the downstream
monitoring site to be 200 yards above Lock & Dam #2. It should be 200 yards above
Lock & Dam #3 as noted by Mr. Fanfoni.
b) The DO limit should be "not less than 6.0 mg/I."
4. It is correct that no recognized standard procedure formally exists for the
measurement of log -term BOD. There are some draft documents outlining the procedure,
however, and if Fayetteville's laboratory should have any questions regarding any aspect
of the test, they should feel free to contact Howard Bryant of the Environmental Sciences
Branch, who performs all of the long-term BOD tests for the Division. He gladly
consults people on the long-term BOD procedure. Information pertaining to the test and
offering Howard's help was recently sent to the Fayetteville laboratory. Mr. Fanfoni
should also be reminded that any test for any parameter can potentially generate
unreliable data, regardless of the status of it's written procedure; the Division has been
generating very reliable long-term BOD data for years without a recognized formal
written procedure.
Although the BOD5 values for Fayetteville's upstream, downstream, and effluent
samples are relatively low, there is a great deal of benefit to be gained from running
long-term BOD tests rather than BOD5 tests. BOD5 does not provide any estimation of
the ultimate BOD (BODu), nor does it provide an accurate estimation of BOD decay.
Long-term BOD yields this information as well as allowing for the separation and
quantification of carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) and nitrogenous BOD (NBOD), and the
calculation of the CBOD/BOD5 ratio. Long-term BOD, not BOD5, is used in most water
quality modeling analyses.

Mr. Fanfoni cited in his letter a 1967 textbook that "demonstrated" BOD5 is
generally 70-80% of the ultimate BOD for domestic wastewaters. It has been the
experience of the Division that this is rarely the case, especially for large plants
achieving tertiary treatment. These facilities tend to discharge a more resilient BOD
that would not normally be detected unless the BOD test was run for a long period of time.
As for the instream samples, the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville drains a very large
basin which receives and transports all kinds of wastewater. A stream sample in the
lower part of a basin will also contain a very resilient BOD. In fact, almost all Division
long-term BOD samples from the Cape Fear River show a BODu/BOD5 ratio of 5 or
greater (>= 500%). These samples all had BOD5 values in the range of the Fayetteville
samples, but none had a BODu less than 3.0 mg/I as Mr. Fanfoni would expect them to be.
Long-term BOD data is much more informative and useful as a monitoring parameter
than is BOD5, and the Division reserves the right to require the most beneficial
monitoring (per 15 NCAC 2B .0508 b2), especially from major facilities discharging to
streams that are at or near their assimilative capacity.
Technical Support maintains that there is technical, logical, analytical, and legal
justification for the long-term BOD monitoring requirement in the Rockfish Creek
WWTP NPDES permit. The long-term BOD test can provide very reliable and useful
data. Fayetteville is not the only facility to have this requirement included in it's
permit; it is very likely that long-term BOD requirements for major dischargers will
increase in the future, since monthly long-term BOD data is more useful than weekly
BOD5 data.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me.
cc: Mick Noland, FRO
Central Files

THOMAS M. McCOY. CHAIRMAN
W. LYNDO TIPPETT. VICE CHAIRMAN
ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY
WILLIAM H. OWEN, III. TREASURER
TIMOTHY WOOD, GENERAL MANAGER
irawira
Caw/ , 715/3t
b,.‘•
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
Electric & Water Utilities
May 18, 1990
Mr. Dale Overcash
Supervisor, NPDES Permits
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health And Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RE: Comments On Proposed/Permit
Permit No. NC0050105
Rockfish Creek WWTP
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Overcash:
508 PERSON STREET
P.O. DRAWER 1089
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28302-1089
TELEPHONE (AREA CODE 919) 483-1382
RECEIVED
MAY 2 ;> 1990
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
i
The Public Works Commission of Fayetteville has reviewed the draft NPDES Permit
No. NC0050105 for the Rockfish Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. This permit
renewal addresses the expansion of the plant to 12 MGD within the next several
years. Our comments on this draft permit are as follows:
1. Please refer to the "Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements" pages
for the existing 6 MGD plant. These limits are proposed to be effective
from the date of the permit until the expansion to 12 MGD is completed.
Both the summer (April 1 - October 30) and winter (November 1 - March
31) sheets appear to have used an old version of our current modified
permit.
In particular, the location of downstream monitoring and the frequency
of stream monitoring for NH3-N are copied from the original permit issued
on September 30, 1987. However, this permit section was modified on
January 5, 1988 such that the downstream sampling location was changed
and the NH3 N sampling requirement for stream samples was deleted (see
attachment). We would request that our existing permit conditions, as
modified in 1988, be retained until the expansion to 12 MGD is completed.
2. Still referring to the proposed limits on our "existing" plant, we see
no need to modify the fecal coliform requirement to 200.0/100 ml, down
from 1000.0/100 ml. The Cape Fear River is a Class C stream in the Cape
Fear River Basin, and has a 7Q10 of 675 cfs. Our instream waste
contribution is only 1.4 percent of the minimum expected stream flow.
The N.C. Water Quality Standard for fecal Coliforms in freshwater
Class C Streams is 1000/100 ml. The average upstream and downstream fecal
counts for the past year were 389/100 ml and 218/100 m1, respectively.
The Rockfish Creek WWTP effluent average fecal count of 283/100 m1 is
well within our current 1000/100 ml limit and does not appear to be
adversely affecting the Cape Fear River quality.
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER "

MAY 2, 1990
4 RECEIVED
Page 2
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
Unless this change reflects a ste-wide NCDEHNR requ4
a1Lement for
all NPDES permits, we seriously question'`the technical justification for
this level of treatment for our situation. Although this may warrant
further discussion at the 12 MGD permit flow, we object to making this
change to our existing limits at our existing flow.
3. The summer/winter effluent limit pages for the expanded 12 MGD facility
contain some apparent errors. The first error is in the downstream
sampling location. We sample near Lock and Dam No.3, not No. 2.
Secondly, the daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration
states that the level "shall not exceed 6.0 mg/1". PWC would certainly
prefer the permit to read this way, but we believe that it is not written
the way it was intended by the State.
4. Our final comments relate to the requirement for long-term BOD testing
of our effluent and stream samples. PWC strongly objects to the inclusion
of this monitoring requirement for a number of reasons which are described
below.
The long-term BOD test is not a recognized test with an approved
procedure. Neither the EPA nor Standard Methods have published a
standardized evaluated test procedure. The NC Division of Environmental
Management should not have the authority to use the enforcement -based
NPDES permitting process to require the use of a "draft" test procedure
which may generate unreliable data.
Part III, Condition I states that the test must be run from June
through September, for durations of 60 days (stream) or 90 days (effluent).
The 1989 average data for the Rockfish Creek WWTP for the time period
June through September is as follows:
Location 5-day BOD (mg/1)
Upstream 1.5
Effluent 2.1
Downstream 1.5
The range of BOD levels we attain in our current testing is at or
below the reliable detection limit of the BOD test. Section 5210B.6.(b)
of Standard Methods states that, for the 5-day BOD test, "a lower detection
limit of 2 mg/1 is established by the requirement for a minimum DO
depletion of 2 mg/1". If our BOD levels are this low in the 5-day BOD
test, what added benefit is there in running the test for 60 to 90 days?
If there is so little oxygen demand present after 5 days, it is unlikely
that the long-term test will be any more reliable. It has been
demonstrated that the 5-day BOD is generally 70-80 percent of the ultimate
BOD for domestic, wastewater (Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers, Sawyer
and McCarty, 1967). Assuming that the ultimate BOD is 130 percent of
our 5-day data, that would predict stream BOD's of 2.0 mg/1 and effluent
BOD's of 2.7 mg/1. The Public Works Commission sees absolutely no value
in running a test for 90 days using unproven procedures when the predicted
results are less than 3.0 mg/1 BOD.

age 3
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 1990
PERMITS R EPN:!NFFRINr,
The U.S. EPA Laboratory in Cincinnati, OIio is working on a p Rposed
Ultimate BOD Test. This procedure may be in' orporated as SectionH 5210C
of the next Standard Methods, but will be specifically noted as a
"proposed" procedure. Paragraph 3.b.2 of this draft procedure states
the following with regard to wastewater samples: "As a rule of thumb,
the ultimate BOD of the diluted sample should be in the range of 20 to
30 mg/1". With our effluent concentrations in the range of 2-3 mg/1 BOD,
it makes us further question the validity and practicality of using this
procedure on our effluent.
We believe that there is no technical, logical, analytical, or legal
justification for the long-term BOD monitoring requirement to be put into
our NPDES permit. It is our further understanding that a similar
requirement was put into an NPDES permit for the City of Greensboro in
1986 and later revoked by Mr. R. Paul Wilms of NCDEM when the test was
proven to be inconclusive, unreproducible, and totally unreliable. Having
this monitoring requirement in our NPDES permit is not acceptable to the
Public Works Commission.
At this point we have no further comments on that draft NPDES permit. We
hope that our comments will be evaluated and incorporated into the final permit.
Please contact me if you would like to discuss any of these comments in greater
detail. Your time and consideration in this matter is appreciated.
KF:mc
cc:
Mick Noland
Don Register
Dickie Vinent
Tim Wood
Linda Locklear
Theresa Pereira
Very truly yours,
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
if
Ken Fanfoni, P.E.
Director of Water/Sanitary
Sewer Systems

RECEIVED
MAY 2, 1990
PERMITS g Fkir,1NFFP,ru
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
January 5, 1988
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Mr. Ken Fanfoni, P.E.
Public Works Commission
City of Fayetteville
PO Drawer 1089
Fayetteville, NC 28302
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Fanfoni:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Permit Modification
Permit No. NC0050105
Rockfish Creek WWTP
Cumberland County
I
0n September 30, 1987, the Division of Environmental Management
issued NPDES' Permit No. NC0050105 to the Public Works Commission of the
City of Fayetteville. A review of our file has indicated that an error
was inadvertently made in the permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding
herewith modifications to the subject permit to correct the error.
These permit modifications change the downstream monitoring site for all
pollutants that have a stream sampling requirements in the permit.
Please find enclosed amended M3 pages which should be inserted into
your permit. The old M3 pages should be discarded. All other terms and
conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and in full
effect. The permit modifications are issued pursuant to the requirement
of North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of
Agreement between North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection
Agency.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements
contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you may request a waiver
or modification pursuant to Regulation 15 NCAC 2B .0508(b) by written
request to the Director identifying the specific issues to be contended.
Unless such request is made within 30 days following receipt of this
permit, this permit shall be final and binding. Should your request be
denied, you will have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. Part II,
B.2. addresses the requirements to be followed in case of change in
ownership or control of this discharge.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

• s•
Mr. Ken Fanfoni
Page Two
January 5, 1988
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 1990
PERMITS R. Fkx;1tJURIK,
This permit does not affect the legal requirement to obtain other':
permits which may be required by the Division of Environmental Management
or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may
be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mr.
Dale Overcash, at telephone number 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Fayetteville Regional Office

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0050105
PERNIITTEE NAME: PWC - City of Fayetteville / Rockfish Creek
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 12.0 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 99 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 1 %
Comments:
The permit modification request is to increase the design flow to 12.0
MGD.
RECEIVING STREAM: Cape Fear River
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-06-15
Reference USGS Quad: H23 (please attach)
County: Cumberland
Regional Office: Fayetteville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 9/30/92 Treatment Plant Class: Class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Lula Harris Date: 3/13/90
Prepared by: /) .S cod& Date: 3/2 7/7 U
Reviewed by: 'Va k C Date: 4Q 7/40
qo_
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
G
1 z
NH3-N (mg/1)
z
D.O. (mg/1)
6
6
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Zoo
Zoo
pH (SU)
6-9
6_1
iKeconnintAe,c41�end-
Mon: iv r, rt‘i
o; Co.ci &I:1,Am
cont,r , Ito,
J
d AM► z :r c..
i
efC1,(t.A1- shov.l
)
(1 tut elect
For Lt-fib o,.
`f
er -I►�U. Sarv- ,
kS -flA iAS7ttYG
1.1 yVloil ctor,rlq
S'S I A +IAu
SuMMllr ( 71/4^
r
— SeatMLe_ /
Comments:
11.4.0nsl Sur/lhur (Sufic- Sapknbrr) moa;loi,n:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
MD5
3` 14Ago
S�ZI
Drainage Area (mi2 ) t(y 2 0 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): jt/G O
7Q10 (cfs) 675 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) q70 30Q2 (cfs) goo
Toxicity Limits: IWC 2.7 % Acute hronic
�1nron�C/Ctr�oraPhnia /Qri•y
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters Teri 1-(.4 ) b0 -Fecotl col: ,(M) conluct;L'L
Upstream Y Location Al- 4 u_ 130tif Ramp
Downstream y Location zoo r.i s , s+Ka fti of Lock
se-
lotuntk 1on'-7trrt
D . 5/4
See. a {tc&c Lo✓rTL (iv? T O b rev: rt r1M Al

THOMAS M. MCCOY, CHAIRMAN
W. LYNDO TIPPETT. VICE CHAIRMAN
ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY
WILLIAM H. OWEN. 1I1, TREASURER
TIMOTHY WOOD. GENERAL MANAGER
NatVa
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
Electric & Water Utilities
February 22, 1990
Mr. M. Dale Overcash
Supervisor, NPDES Permits
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health And Natural Resources
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
RE: NPDES No. NC0050105
Rockfish Creek WWTP
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Overcash:
508 PERSON STREET
P.O. DRAWER 1089
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28302-1089
TELEPHONE (AREA CODE 919) 483-1382
i
t
RECEIVED
i:EB 28 1990
PERMITS a ENGlNEER!rJ
Enclosed please find Standard Application Form A for the
expansion of the Rockfish Creek WWTP from 6 MGD to 12 MGD.
I believe that the issues of the Environmental Assessment and
the engineering proposal have been previously addressed by our design
engineering firm, Black & Veatch of Asheboro, North Carolina. In
our discussions with Black and Veatch, it was indicated that
submission of our application at this time would be appropriate.
A check is enclosed for the application fee of $400.
Since the design is already underway, it is obviously of utmost
importance that we have reliable information on the discharge limits
which must be met. We would appreciate your staff conducting a waste
load allocation on this plant at your earliest opportunity. Please
consider- the option of setting our minimum Dissolved Oxygen limit
at 6.0 mg/1 instead of 5.0 mg/1. This is a realistic goal for us
to meet as shown by our previous four years of operation.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Very truly yours,
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
Ken Fanfoni, P.E
Director of Water/Sanitary
Sewer Systems
I
6
i
** AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER **

Request No.: 5621
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Status:
Receiving Stream:
Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Quad:
City of Fayetteville - Rockfish Creek WWTP
NC0050105
99% Domestic, 1% Industrial
Existing/Modification
Cape Fear River
C
030615 Drainage area:
Cumberland Summer 7Q10:
Fayetteville Winter 7Q10:
Lula Harris Average flow:
3/13/90 30Q2:
H2 3
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT
Wasteflow (mgd) :
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1) :
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal coliform (#/100m1):
pH (su) :
LIMITS
4420 sq mi
675 cfs
970 cfs
4460 cfs
ci" c f s
mi.„"2, ,, J u
f„,,„,,,,.,,.,.,.r.,,,,, @lam
MAR 22 1990
ENV. MANAGEMENT
Toxicity Testing Req.: Chronic/Ceriodaphnia Qrtrly FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
Summer
12
6
1
30
200
6-9
Winter
12
12
2
30
200
6-9
MONITORING
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: At the Highway 87 Boat Ramp
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: 200 Yards Upstream of Lock & Dam 2
COMMENTS
Modification is a flow expansion from 6 to 12 MGD.
Recommend instream monitoring for temperature, DO, fecal coliform, and
conductivity. In the summer (June - September), recommend 1/month
instream and effluent monitoring of long-term BOD; all samples to be
taken on the same day (see attached).
Recommend effluent monitoring for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
ScolAIG.
C. SwadA,,
Date: 4151q0
Date:
Date:
Date:
APR 18 1990
31/5Igo
3-.22- 710
3(24 (=.

•
10/89
Facility Name Fa
ck k C
\N TP Permit# tkooSoIo5
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 2,7 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from
issuance of this permit during the months of 10,A, r , 141 , .Ott . Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
. code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
k Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoringindicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure. to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 675 cfs
Permited Flow 12.0 MGD Recommended by:
IWC% 27
Basin & Sub -basin o306 is 41.1�Receiving Stream earFear tZ;,tcr D.
County Gurnec land. Date / fist 1a
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 2.7 %, 3aA) Aft, 3uu1, oct , See Part 3 , Condition H .

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

t=o7e ctA - ZotciLk Csa.<
Capi 1ek River
CIrtoL
tlitakiptis
C.c e. Fe ac
Mt1j wCrL
(2 ill460
C. SeeL w rVt
oar
1) w C -ice cn,S(do
yC) M, v (
fo fs
(Nat
fact( Vt
val(A-wJ 4n.S
(ui1.E.)
Z.c J r c n -t" _ S�-c M ILu r
viA4.1V1,a -1-0
L m rS lottit bye et
L?llIjL iL r
1nShI a r
ni 3
IIji kA o� c-t Gu 1 r
Y f
A v z -t f l cos at".(1
o S,IA no -S 4 S `tin 61,1 ‘.'eS
,(A
41j-
r tics
t For ,;t&
c.,S��
J so limy.
wf«
()L&)L/er/!S
tx ra
-�.- s, ,ticks; n

03/11/9b
ver 3.1
Facility:
NPDES Permit No.:
Status (E, P, or M) :
Permitted Flow:
Actual Average Flow:
Subbasin:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
7010:
IWC:
Stn'd / Bkg
Pollutant AL/Crt'a Conc.
(ug/1) (ug/1)
Cadmium S 2.0
Chromium S 50.0
Copper AL 7.0
Nickel S 88.0
Lead S 25.0
Zinc AL 50.0
Cyanide S 5.0
Mercury S 0.012
Silver AL 0.060
Selenium S 5.0
Arsenic S 50.0
Phenols S NA
NH3-N C
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0
Pollutant
Cadmium S
Chromium S
Copper AL
Nickel S
Lead S
Zinc AL
Cyanide S
Mercury S
Silver AL
Selenium S
Arsenic S
Phenols S
NH3-N C
T.R.Chlor.AL
TOXICS
Fayetteville - Rockfish Creek WWTP
NC0050105
M
12.00 mgd
4.39 mgd
30615.00
Cape Fear River
C I ACTUAL
675.00 cfs 1 Ind. +
2.68 % 1 Domestic
Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total
Eff. Load Load Load
(#/d) (#/d) (#/d)
92% 0.49
76% 0.06
82% 2.60
32% 1.30
814 2.43
77% 3.89
59% 1.30
0%
0*
04
0#
06
06
0%
0.01
0.00
0.11
0.02
0.33
0.42
0.50
0.06
2.71
1.32
2.76
4.31
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D
REVIEW
1---------PRETREATMENT DATA--------------I----EFLLUENT DATA---- I
PERMITTED!
Ind. + I FREQUENCY
PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic!
Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I
Load
(#/d)
0.75
Load
(#/d)
4.641 I
MONITOR/LIMIT
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream
Conc. using using Conc. Based on
Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL
Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading
91.89 74.581 1.081 0.000 0.00 Monitor
765.72 1864.516 0.413 0.000 0.00
142.93 261.032 13.318 0.000 0.00 Monitor
475.65 3281.548 24.581 0.000 0.00
483.61 932.258 14.318 0.000 0.00 Monitor
799.01 1864.516 27.059 29.144 0.00 Monitor
44.82 186.452 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.04 0.447 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.22 2.237 0.000 0.000 0.00
18.38 186;452 0.000 0.000 0.00
183.77 1864.516 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.00
633.935 0.00
Based on
PERMITTED
Influent
Loading
Monitor
Conc.
(ug/1)
Violations!
(#vio/#sam)1
II
IN
IP
IU
IT
IS
IE
Ic
IT
II
I0
IN
I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
I Recomm' d
Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM
OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Effluent I based on Recomm'd ?
Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Limit I
IA
IN
IA
I L
IY
I5
II
I S
IR
IE
IS
Iu
I L
IT
IS

INSTREAM SELF -MONITORING DATA
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Discharger: fo, rgei Lk ?WC - RocLC:sii (trck �t/wTT Permit No.: NC00 501O5
Receiving Stream: , '; of r Sub -basin: b 3o61 S
Upstream Location: N,'JL0,Y g7 c300,+�
,� Ace Downstream Location £ Pon T
Upstream Downstream
DATE TEMP D.O. BOD5 COND TEMP D.O. BOD5 COND
DEC-90 6
NOV-90
OCT-90
SEP-90
AUG-90
JUL-90
JUN-90
MAY-90
APR-90
MAR-90
FEB-90
JAN-90 1,5 ,,, 1 _ji_ _, _ II, Z 1,6
DEC-89 4.6 12, I 1,2 6,/ 11,7 1, 3
NOV-89 N, 3 t _L_Ii_ ___Lid_ g, 6 I .1
OCT-89 18%4 7,5 .0 Ig, 0 -16 .2
SEP-89 z12 6,1 (4,0 1,3 211, 2 5-,is( N,t-r) 1.2
AUG- 8 9 25 , E 5,7 _ I , S 25', ? S.. V,1 g) 1. H
JUL-89 26,F� S,6 �Z 24,g c.s 0.8) [.g
JUN-89 26 5,1r 1.6 26,3 5,5(4,ej I,6
MAY-89 20 6.1 I.T 2o, 7, 0 119
APR-89 15 .3 _ _ L.st Is,s _ILL_ z.o
MAR-89 i, 3 q.9 i , o to, l _
FEB-89 1o,g R,q 1.l it, $ q,4 z.s
JAN-89 , I,S Vo,o io,s 2.0
DEC-88 '_ lo, 6 I, 6 r (0,0 ►. 3
NOV- 8 8 13 12z.5 13 e. ST Z, 3
OCT-88 _0_ Q, Z. 3, H 7, 9 1, s
SEP-88 2_ 6,S 111 2-S 6, o I,
AUG-88 3v 6, z 20 30 .S.Y (&i &) 4 ►.7
JUL-8 8 28 7.-2 2.3 2? b, 6 1,1.
JUN-88 26 6,5 ,o 6,6 I,1
MAY-88 .____ 711,7 2_2-. (.5 1.6
APR-88 _IL_ 2 G 0 _I_ S. _ILL
MAR- 8 8 l2 _ 1.3 (z I, 6 I , S
FEB-88 1 )1,q 12 ___ t1.3 Z,o
JAN-88 s r2. '2- 'f,2 12.6 r,4
DEC-87 _l__ 11.4 I,1 Nfl,-) .32- _ 11,? I.3 Nt(3= 2.11
NOV-87
OCT-87
SEP-87
AUG-87
JUL-87
JUN-87
MAY-87 •
APR-87
MAR-87
FEB-87
JAN-87

d• •
•
11 let
CC11"SvrM -02 1
for to,2t milt
a

INSTREAM SELF -MONITORING DATA
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Discharger: Mo/tsit40 Permit No.: NCH o37t1
Receiving Stream: (TTc-taa- (iZ ve r Sub -basin: 030615-
Upstream Location: 6,0- i-o-6,( Downstream Location.
at-c kx C Sa n. a 6, ..,, 1 WO;
l�1vvvl tUpstream 90 Downstream
DATE TEMP D.O. BOD5 CONDTZMIL.6_!7DEC-90 o9s !:7 °Ds (1)n2
NOV-90
OCT-90
SEP-90
AUG-90
JUL-90
JUN-90
MAY-90 (I
APR-90
MAR-90 ql`
FEB-90 )
JAN-90 v _ __ 11E 3q �2 3,� 11. O. 3v
\v
Imo- 3S Io,r 2,7 ZS
NOV-89 I 15 I, I `Iw S,s 1, o 140 ss,1 i,s 39
OCT-89 7, g 1, 3 3.?.5 '.2- 1, 9 '2 3 1, 3(,4 s) 33,3
SEP-89 5,g ►.2 Y0.3 7,�z 1,6 yu 5.r.(s.7) 3.I Ys,3
AUG-89 S,g 1,7 50.6 6,9 1,4 SO,S 6,6 z.z 4g,C
JUL-89 S.6 Z,t S6,5 6,6 zid 5-4.7 s 1 z,) 1.2. 52.S
JUN-89 c,IM z,s -iN,E c.'.1( ) z3 Gam, S s'l (33) ti,9 70
MAY-89 C,3(2,) 6,6 Io, 7, 6.S II,L1 I.3(1,i) g,r 7,3
APR-89 g_� _ID_ SS,3 8,N LT 3, 7,s� 6,o(►7.$) 38,3
MAR-89 S.7 I,Z g,9 I.s � 7. +.9 s2
FEB-89 to z,S 62 _1st_ 2, a 1 t_ 2,s- 53
JAN-89 _IA Z.7 61 10,'3 '22 _ 10,1 2.1 3S
DEC-88 (2,1 2,5 68 (0,2_ _IL2- _L7 o s r,0 yo
NOV-88 CS' 1,2 q2 S. T o•q 12,. o 11 1, z '17
OCT-88 G,g Z, z
o,S g,1 1, 6 72.s 7,7 ,s 63,s
SEP-88 Ali_ l , I 41.E 7. S '4, ° 6 7 7, 3 2.7 VI
AUG-88 5.0(.1,0 36- 6 ,2. 6,9 (5) '. 7(2,K 6•s I, Y strut
JUL-88 s,N (0) 8,3(2 ) 56,s 7, 2 2, 0 Sq,B 6,& 3,S s7
JUN-88 5',6 y7.2,q) Z.y 15- z.2 Gs-,C 7. S' C.7 60
Co-1(s) G,(s) 2,6 S4 7.0 1, I ss.s 7,3 1,4 '15
APR-88 ' J I,g 50 86 2, o '-17 g. 3 2,7 37, S
MAR-88 q,4i 3,o Si q 2, IL_'1,2 y,2 32
FEB-88 12,7 2 KR 'o, lA so _LP__ t,7 3K
JAN-88 1Z,q 1,2 SI Il.7 '43 7S I(,C 6,0 V(
DEC-87 79 2,1 9•2,7- iris( z,Sr 63
NOV-87 gY 2-, 0 220 Rid 1,7 -. 3 z.7 $1
OCT-87 7,S 6,,I6 7, C Z,o
SEP-87 7,2 3,1g ,, , JUL-87
AUG-87 Zg Z Win Z.?) 1,2 z�,6 07,0 ( y
Z$, �{,I z,y) Z.Viet ! , Y 3, S
JUN-87 ZG.� 41,3 .,7) Z, ( u,c OW 3, o
MAY-87 z2, 5. ,5-30.y' 1,2 11,3 ls3 z,o
APR-87 t5, 1, o 1.4 133 T.3 2,9
MAR-87
FEB-87
JAN-87