NC0026123_Fact Sheet_20221207

Page 1 of 24

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0026123

Permit Writer/Email Contact: Nick Coco, [e-mail]
Date Initiated: August 29, 2022; initial draft submitted for public comment 5/9/2018 (see Section 14. Fact
Sheet Addendum for more information)
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017

Permitting Action:
☒ 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: City of Asheboro/Asheboro WWTP
Applicant Address: P.O. Box 1106, 146 N Church Street, Asheboro, NC 27204
Facility Address: 1032 Bonkemeyer Drive, Asheboro, NC 27203
Permitted Flow: 9.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 92.1% domestic, 7.9% industrial 1
Facility Class: Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Bar screen, Grit removal, Parshall flume, Primary clarifiers, Trickling
filters, Secondary clarifiers, Nitrification with aeration, Final clarifiers,
Tertiary sand filters, Chlorination, De-chlorination, Cascade aeration,
Sludge thickening, Digesters, Dewatering.
Pretreatment Program (Y/N) Yes
County: Randolph
Region Winston-Salem
Footnote.
1. Permitted industrial flow is 0.712 MGD.

Page 2 of 24

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Asheboro has applied
for NPDES permit renewal, received by DWR on 3/21/2016. A draft permit was public noticed in May
2018; comments were received, and the permit was modified for a second public notice (see Sect 13 and
14 below). This facility serves a population of ~25,676 residents and operates a pretreatment program with
15 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), 7 of which are Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). In addition, the
Asheboro WWTP is receiving 1,400 gpd wastewater from the Randolph County School Bus Maintenance
Garage groundwater remediation project. However, this is not considered a SIU.

CIUs include: Energizer Manufacturing, Inc. Plant 2 (CIU 461: battery manufacturing), Garco, Inc.
(renamed Covanta Environmental Services, CIU 437: centralized waste management), Matlab, Inc. Plant
4 (CIU 433: metal finishing, not yet constructed), Matlab Plant 5 (CIU 433: metal finishing), Matlab Plant
8 (CIU 433: metal finishing), Premier Powder Coating (CIU 433: metal finishing), and Starpet, Inc. (CIU
414: organic chemical, synthetic fibers and plastics).

Non-categorical SIUs include: Acme McCrary (renamed MAS US Holdings, textiles), Bossong Hosiery
(textiles), Energizer Manufacturing, Inc. Plant 1 (battery parts manufacturing), Georgia Pacific
(corrugated paper products), Kayser Roth (textiles), MOM Brands (food processing), Randolph Packing
(meat processing), Wells Hosiery (textiles), and Waste Management of the Carolinas Great Oak Landfill
(landfill leachate).

The average industrial flow rate was 0.386 MGD from January 2021 through January 2022. The
uncontrollable flow was 3.56 MGD for that same period. The facility has a DWR-approved Full
Pretreatment Program with a Long-Term Monitoring Program (LTMP) for its SIUs.

Solids management is handled via land application, permitted under WQ0001684.

2. Receiving Waterbody Information

Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001/Hasketts Creek
Stream Segment: 17-12
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area (mi2): 11.6
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): -
30Q2 (cfs): 0.2
Average Flow (cfs): 12
IWC (% effluent): 90
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
This stream segment is impaired for Copper and Benthos.
The 2022 Integrated Report also notes data inconclusive for
1,4-dioxane and fecal coliform
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Statewide TMDL for Mercury
Subbasin/HUC: 03-06-09 / 03030003
USGS Topo Quad: D19SE Randleman, NC

Page 3 of 24

The Haskett Creek Watershed Action Plan notes that water quality data collected at ambient monitoring
stations above and below the Asheboro WWTP over the past ten years suggests that stormwater runoff
and other nonpoint sources of pollution are contributing to water quality impacts above the Asheboro
WWTP. The two parameters of utmost concern are fecal coliform (a form of bacteria) and turbidity
(water clarity), although high turbidity is likely leading to greater biological impacts. High turbidity and
sedimentation can kill algae, which are a major food source for benthic macroinvertebrates, and smother
benthic organisms and fish eggs. Potential sources of fecal coliform include stormwater runoff, pet or
animal waste, or leaking sewage or septic systems, while high turbidity is most likely caused by
stormwater runoff, soil erosion, and a lack of riparian vegetation. While point source pollution is not a
major concern for the watershed, it is likely that this facility is contributing to some of the water quality
impacts downstream. Water quality data collected below the Asheboro WWTP typically shows higher
levels of conductivity and copper than those collected above the plant. Biological assessment samples
also indicated a noticeable decline of benthic macroinvertebrates below the WWTP (See Instream Data
Summary for additional data analysis).

3. Effluent Data Summary

Effluent data is summarized below for the period January 2018 through August 2022 for Outfall 001.

Table 1. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit 1
Flow 2 MGD 4.05 15.488 1.655 MA = 9.0
BOD summer mg/L 2.4 9.3 < 2.0 MA = 5.0
WA = 7.5
BOD winter mg/L 3.4 16.9 < 2.0 MA = 10.0
WA = 15.0
BOD Removal % 99.0 99.7 97.8 ≥ 85
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) mg/L 5.1 72.7 < 2.0 MA = 30.0
WA = 45.0
TSS Removal % 98.4 99.7 96.4 ≥ 85
Ammonia (NH3-N)
summer mg/L 0.15 2.03 0.1 MA = 2.0
WA = 6.0
Ammonia (NH3-N)
winter mg/L 0.4 9.12 < 0.10 MA = 4.0
WA = 12.0
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) mg/L 8.2 10.71 6 DA ≥ 6.0
pH SU 7.0 7.63 6.0 Between 6.0 and 9.0
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean) #/100 mL 18 > 4839 < 1 MA = 200
WA = 400
Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC) µg/L 15.6 48.7 < 15.0 DM = 17 3
Temperature °C 20.6 28.7 9.4 Monitor & report
Conductivity µmhos/cm 957 1760 238 Monitor & report

Page 4 of 24

Total Chromium µg/L 5.3 10.7 < 5.0 MA = 50
DM = 1033
Total Mercury ng/L 1.7 4.6 < 1.0 MA = 12
DM = 36
Total Nitrogen (TN) mg/L 14.0 28.16 0.53 Monitor & report
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 1.65 5.16 < 1 Monitor & report
Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3) mg/L 12.6 25.00 0.53 Monitor & report
Total Phosphorus (TP) mg/L 0.35 1.61 < 0.05 Monitor & report
Dibromochloromethane µg/L 8.4 17.2 < 5.0 Monitor & report
Bromodichloromethane µg/L 17.5 36 < 5.0 Monitor & report
Chloride mg/L 159 247 71.5 Monitor & report
Total Copper µg/L 6.6 11.8 3.5 Monitor & report
Total Zinc µg/L 23.2 100 < 10 Monitor & report
1,4-Dioxane 4 µg/L 116 1011 < 1 Monitor & report
Footnotes.
1. MA = monthly average, WA = weekly average, DA = daily average, DM = daily maximum.
2. Average flow for CY2020 = 4.218 MGD, 47% of permitted flow.
3. Concentrations < 50 µg/L are considered compliant.
4. Monthly monitoring required beginning December 2017 per Division letter sent in October
2017 with increased monitoring beginning December 2020. Data are inclusive from January
2018 – September 2022.

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/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).

If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this permit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
from three locations: one upstream approximately 800 feet above the outfall in Hasketts Creek (U), one
downstream at NCSR 2128 (D1) and one additional downstream at NCSR 2261 (D2).

Instream monitoring is provisionally waived so long as the Permittee maintains membership in the Upper
Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA). The permit instream monitoring locations correspond to
the ambient monitoring stations B4870000 (U), B4890000 (D1), and B4920000 (D2) [station locations
displayed in Figure 1, shown below]. Data from U and D2 were obtained from the Monitoring Coalition
Coordinator and span from June 2017– June 2022; data from D1 were provided by the Ambient Monitoring
System (AMS) Coordinator for the same period. While sampling at both UCFRBA stations were conducted

Page 5 of 24

on corresponding dates, AMS station data was typically collected within the same week as the UCFRBA
samples. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Instream data summary
Parameter Units Upstream Downstream 1 Downstream 2
Average Max Min Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 16.5 29.4 1 18.3 28.7 8.7 18.4 30.4 2.8
DO mg/l 9.1 13.1 4.8 9.2 11.97 6.4 9.4 13.8 6.4
Conductivity µmhos/cm 115 219 60 594 1095 267 170 350 96
Fecal
Coliform #/100mL (geomean)
465 12000 9 (geomean)
333 10000 35 (geomean)
176 11000 4
*Data from June 2017 – June 2022

Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05

Dissolved Oxygen (DO): DO did not drop below the instantaneous stream standard of 4 mg/L [per 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed at either downstream location. The daily average
downstream DO was greater than 5 mg/L for the period reviewed at both locations. It was concluded that
no statistically significant difference between upstream DO and DO at both downstream monitoring stations
exists. Additionally, no statistically significant difference was observed between DO at both downstream
sample locations. Instream DO monitoring has been maintained.

Temperature: The standard maximum of 32°C for lower piedmont and coastal plain waters as defined in
15A NCAC 02B .02011 (18) was maintained at all stations. Instream temperatures were not collected
synchronously among the three sites, therefore assessing for compliance with the 2.8°C increase from up-
to downstream standard (15A NCAC 2B .0211) is not practical. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference between upstream temperature and temperature at both downstream monitoring
stations exists. Additionally, no statistically significant difference was observed between temperatures at
both downstream sample locations. Instream temperature monitoring has been maintained.

Conductivity is a parameter of concern because of industrial discharges. The permit does not currently
require instream monitoring, but the facility has an active pretreatment program with multiple SIUs, and
instream data are available from the three stations. The data analyzed indicate that a statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream conductivity. Concurrent effluent conductivity was
observed as consistently greater than that of the upstream. As effluent conductivity appears to increase
conductivity in the stream, effluent conductivity monitoring has been proposed.

Fecal Coliform: The permit does not currently require instream monitoring, but the 2022 Integrated Report
notes fecal coliform as inconclusive with regard to determination of impairment, and instream data are
available from the three stations. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference between
upstream fecal coliform and fecal coliform at both downstream monitoring stations exists. Additionally, no
statistically significant difference was observed between fecal coliform levels at both downstream sample
locations. As such, instream fecal coliform monitoring has not been added.

Total Copper: Hasketts Creek downstream of Asheboro is impaired for Total Copper (7 µg/L standard for
aquatic life in freshwater) per the 2022 NC Integrated Report. Instream copper monitoring is not required
in the permit, but data are available from D1 as monitored by the DWR Ambient Monitoring System
(AMS). Review of data from January 2020 – September 2022 found the average total copper concentration

Page 6 of 24

(4.3 µg/L) to be below the calculated hardness-dependent chronic standard of 5.12 µg/L and the maximum
total copper concentration (6.0 µg/L) to be below the acute standard of 7.25 µg/L. Instream total copper
monitoring has not been added to the permit at this time but will continue to be monitored at the AMS
station.

Nutrients
The Deep River stream segment 17-(10.5)d1 from Hasketts Creek to Gabriels Creek is impaired for
Chlorophyll a (exceeding 40 mg/L standard for aquatic life), but the immediate stream segment upstream
in the Deep River [17-(10.5)c] is not impaired according to the 2022 NC Integrated Report. This pattern of
impairment suggests that sources in Hasketts Creek are contributing to the impairment in the Deep River
(Fig. 1). Due to this downstream impairment, additional instream analysis was conducted for Inorganic
Nitrogen (NO2+NO3), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorous (TP)
from data collected by the UCFRBA and AMS at the three instream locations.

Figure 1. Map of Asheboro WWTP with instream sampling locations and impairment designations.

Instream and effluent nutrient data has been summarized below in Table 3. While no statistically significant
difference was observed between upstream TKN concentrations and TKN concentrations at either
downstream location, the same cannot be said for NO3+NO2, TN, or TP. Instream patterns of nutrient
concentrations were largely consistent among parameters: nutrient concentrations are lowest upstream,
increase substantially just downstream of the discharge and decrease further downstream but still appear
consistently elevated at D2 compared to upstream. These patterns indicate effluent impact on the instream.

Page 7 of 24

Table 3. Instream and effluent nutrient concentration averages and ranges (in parentheses) from
June 2017 – June 2022. Values are in mg/L.
Parameter Upstream (U) Effluent Downstream (D1) Downstream (D2)
Nitrate-Nitrite
(NO3+NO2)
0.24
(0.02–1.63)
12.6
(0.53–25.0)
7.5
(0.53–19.0)
0.87
(0.06–4.23)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN)
0.72
(0.20–4.74)
1.66
(<1–5.16)
1.1
(0.7–2.2)
0.85
(0.20–2.88)
Total Nitrogen (TN) 0.98
(0.022–6.37)
14
(0.53–28.16)
8.6
(1.42–20.3)
1.76
(0.62–4.62)
Total Phosphorus (TP) 0.05
(0.02–0.425)
0.35
(< 0.05–1.610)
0.24
(0.03–2.0)
0.09
(0.038–0.179)

Based on this information, which includes monitoring coalition data, instream monitoring for TN, TP, TKN,
NO2+NO3, and ammonia has been added at a frequency of 1/month.

1,4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane is an emerging contaminant of concern, identified as a likely human carcinogen. Elevated
concentrations of 1,4-Dioxane were found in the Cape Fear River Basin during the EPA Third Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule sampling program from 2013-2015. In response to this finding, the Division
conducted an initial stream survey of the Cape Fear River Basin (NCDWR 2016: 1,4-Dioxane in the Cape
Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Initial Screening and Source Identification Study), which found
multiple sites with elevated concentrations. Among the highest concentrations detected were in Hasketts
Creek downstream of the Asheboro WWTP discharge with an average of 291 μg/L (range: 147–478 μg/L)
from samples collected June 2015–May 2016. Subsequent sampling within Hasketts Creek and the Deep
River by AMS found continued elevated concentrations downstream of Asheboro WWTP discharge and
detectable concentrations in upstream locations of both waterbodies (Table 4). Instream samples were
collected at Hasketts Creek locations U and D1, and at Deep River locations up- and downstream of the
confluence with Hasketts Creek. The Deep River upstream location is at AMS station B4800000, 2.62 miles
upstream of the confluence. The Deep River downstream location is located at AMS station B5100000,
13.7 miles downstream of the confluence and below the discharges of two other WWTPs.

Table 4. Instream and effluent 1,4-Dioxane concentrations in Hasketts Creek and the Deep River,
2018-2022.
Location No.
Samples Dates Sampled Average Minimum Maximum
Hasketts Creek - upstream 9 Jun 2018 – Apr 2019 1.3 0.54 2.2
Hasketts Creek - downstream 27 Jan 2020 – Sep 2022 102.2 900 1.9
Deep River - upstream 3 Jul – Aug 2018 2.6 2.3 3.0
Deep River - downstream 3 Jul – Aug 2018 12.8 3.4 23
Effluent 29 Jan 2018 – Sep 2022 213 < 1 1011

Based on resulting patterns indicating effluent impact on the receiving waterbodies and to assess
background concentrations of 1,4-dioxane to better analyze the discharge, instream monitoring for 1,4-
Dioxane has been added to the permit. Instream 1,4-dioxane monitoring is to be conducted at a 2/Month
frequency and shall be conducted at previously established instream locations upstream and at D1 and D2.
Instream 1,4-dioxane sampling shall be conducted in concurrence with effluent 1,4-doxane sampling.
Sampling for instream 1,4-dioxane may be waived as long as the Monitoring Coalition samples 1,4-dioxane

Page 8 of 24

at the nearest upstream and downstream locations, at a minimum frequency of monthly, and the City has
obtained approval from DWR - NPDES Permitting Unit that the upstream and downstream stations being
monitored by the Coalition are representative of the receiving stream for this discharge. If the Coalition
terminates instream 1,4-dioxane sampling at either of the approved stations, the City will immediately
notify the Division and resume sampling for instream 1,4-dioxane.

Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association

5. Compliance Summary

Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): From August 2017 through
August 2022 the facility reported no limit violations.

Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 18 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from March 2018 through June 2022,
as well as all most recent four (4) required second species chronic toxicity tests, sampled September 2018,
December 2019, March 2020 and June 2021.

Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent compliance evaluation
inspection, conducted on January 27, 2022, found the facility to be well-operated and maintained. The
inspection report has been attached. The most recent pretreatment inspection was conducted on May 10,
2022, also found the facility’s pretreatment program in compliance.

6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)

Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).

If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA

If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA

Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L 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 based on a 1994 wasteload allocation model for oxygen-consuming waste which determined
limitations based on zero flow streams. No changes are proposed.

Page 9 of 24

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/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (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 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.

Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
Ammonia-Nitrogen limits (2.0/6.0 mg/L monthly/weekly averages for summer; 4.0/12.0 mg/L
monthly/weekly averages for winter) in the permit are based on a 1994 wasteload allocation model for
oxygen-consuming waste which determined limitations based on zero flow streams. Toxicity-based
Ammonia was reviewed in the attached Wasteload Allocation (WLA) sheet using the flow design of 9.0
MGD and receiving stream 7Q10 low flow of 0.0 cfs for both the summer and winter values. The resulting
allowable concentrations were 1.0/3.0 mg/L monthly average/weekly average for summer, and 1.8/5.4
mg/L monthly average/weekly average for winter. Because the toxicity-based limits are more stringent,
they will be placed in the permit.

Review of DMR data from January 2018 through August 2022 revealed that the facility has not
demonstrated an exceedance of the proposed monthly and weekly winter average limits since January 2018
(Fig. 2). As such, it appears that the City can consistently meet the new limits and a compliance schedule
is not necessary.

Figure 2. Asheboro WWTP effluent monthly average (MA) and weekly average (WA) Ammonia-N
concentrations (mg/L) with their respective proposed limits for potential compliance evaluation.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1/10/2018 2/14/2019 3/20/2020 4/24/2021 5/29/2022mg/LProposed Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Wk Avg Mo Avg MA Limit WA Limit

Page 10 of 24

The current TRC limit of 17 µg/L was reviewed via the attached WLA spreadsheet and was found to be
protective. The current TRC limit will be maintained in the permit.

Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants

If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level / 95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of ½ 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 2018
and September 2022. 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: Bromodichloromethane (MA 31.6 µg/L), Silver (MA 0.06 µg/L, DM 2.4
µg/L), 1,4-Dioxane (MA 21.58 µg/L – See Other WQBEL Considerations section for more
information)
• 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: Chloride,
Selenium, Dibromochloromethane, Copper
o Chloride – RP found, 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (22): If chloride is determined by the waste
load allocation to be exceeded in a receiving water by a discharge under the specified 7Q10
criterion for toxic substances, the discharger shall monitor the chemical or biological
effects of the discharge - Monitoring will be maintained in conjunction with toxicity tests.
• 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, Cadmium, Total Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, 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: NA
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: NA
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since as part of a limited
data set, they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Chloroform, Total Phenolic Compounds, Beryllium

Total Selenium and Total Silver had been sampled at PQLs of 10 µg/L and 5 µg/L, respectively, up until
July 2019, after which the City achieved PQLs of 1 µg/L for both parameters. Data using the less sensitive

Page 11 of 24

test methods were not incorporated in the RPA, as sufficient samples were available using the lower PQL
methods. The City shall continue to test for total silver and total selenium using the lower, sufficiently
sensitive test methods.

If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.

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: The facility is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at
90% effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.

Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA’s mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (~2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) 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/L.

Table 5. Mercury Effluent Data Summary

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Number of Samples 12 13 12 12 8
Annual Average Conc. ng/L 1.7 2.4 1.5 1.3 1.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L 3.50 2.90 3.30 3.60 4.60
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 (Table 5). Because the facility is > 2 MGD and has reported quantifiable levels of mercury
(> 1 ng/L), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) will be added to the permit.

Page 12 of 24

Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The receiving water lies in the Deep River section of the central portion of the Cape Fear River
Basin, an area identified for nutrient criteria development in the North Carolina Nutrient Criteria
Development Plan, Version 2.0 (NCDWR 2014). The current permit has monthly monitoring requirements
for Total Nitrogen (TN), Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen (NO2-N + NO3-N), and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
in recognition of a nutrient strategy for the Upper Cape Fear River in addition to surface water monitoring
and reporting requirements under 15A NCAC 02B .0500 . The current permit also has a nutrient re-opener
Special Condition, which has been maintained. No changes are proposed regarding effluent limitations at
this time.

Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: The emerging
contaminants 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS family of compounds were evaluated for potential WQBELs.

1,4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane (CASRN 123-91-1) is a synthetic industrial chemical that is completely miscible in water.
Synonyms include dioxane, dioxan, p-dioxane, diethylene dioxide, diethylene oxide, diethylene ether and
glycol ethylene ether (EPA 2014). 1,4-Dioxane is an emerging contaminant considered to be a likely human
carcinogen that is highly mobile and does not readily biodegrade in the environment. It is found in
groundwater and surface water sites throughout the United States. EPA risk assessments indicate that the
drinking water concentration representing a 1×10-4 cancer risk level for 1,4-Dioxane is 35 μg/L and 1×10-6
risk level for 1,4-Dioxane is 0.35 μg/L (EPA 2013, EPA IRIS 2013).

References:
• EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. EPA Technical Fact Sheet- 1,4-Dioxane,
January 2014, SDMS Doc ID 575107.
• EPA. 2013. Toxicological Review of 1,4-Dioxane (with Inhalation Update) in Support of Summary
Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). EPA 635-R-11-003F.
• EPA IRIS. 2013. 1,4-Dioxane (CASRN 123-91-1). www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0326.htm.

An initial stream survey of the Cape Fear River Basin (NCDWR 2016: 1,4-Dioxane in the Cape Fear River
Basin of North Carolina: An Initial Screening and Source Identification Study ) found multiple sites with
elevated concentrations. Among the highest concentrations in that survey were found at Study Site NCSU24
in Hasketts Creek just downstream of the Asheboro WWTP discharge with an average of 291 μg/L (range:
147–478 μg/L) from data collected June 2015–May 2016. DWR issued a letter, dated October 31, 2017,
requiring monthly effluent monitoring beginning December 2017 with samples analyzed using the recently
approved EPA Method 624.1. From January 2018 through September 2022, a total of 123 effluent data
points were submitted, with an average of 116 μg/L (range: < 1–1011 μg/L).

The Division issued a letter to Asheboro requesting the City develop and submit a corrective action plan
for 1,4-Dioxane reduction by September 23, 2019. The requested plan was submitted in a timely manner,
received on August 1, 2018, outlining the City’s aim to continue monitoring and coordinating with
industrial users toward reduction of 1,4-Dioxane entering the WWTP. The SIU Starpet has been identified
as a significant source of 1,4-Dioxane. In 2019 Starpet had requested an Authorization to Construct from
the City to install a prebuilt KOCH Modular System consisting of a 72’ stripper column along with a
reboiler, shell, and a tube condenser & heat exchanger. The treatment system was installed and implemented
in November 2020 according to Asheboro’s 2020 Pretreatment Annual Report.

Page 13 of 24

Division regulations applicable to 1,4-Dioxane limitations:
• 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a)(4)(B) identifies that for the flow design criteria for effluent limitations,
the average annual flow for toxic substances shall be used to protect human health.
• 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a)(2)(B) identifies for carcinogens, an unacceptable exposed risk level is
1×10-6 or greater.
• 15A NCAC 02B .0216(4)(d) Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-IV Waters
identifies that no discharge of sewage “…shall be allowed that have an adverse effect on human
health or that are not treated in accordance with the permit or other requirements established by the
Division...”

1,4-dioxane is completely miscible in water and resistant to biodegradation. It is assumed that
concentrations of 1,4-dioxane discharged from the WWTP will be equivalent at the direct discharge to
Hasketts Creek, a class C waterbody, and the nearest downstream water supply (WS-V) boundary, located
in the Deep River 1.0 mile upstream of Tysons Creek and 43.5 miles downstream of the outfall . As such,
allowable discharge concentrations were calculated for both the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek
and for the nearest downstream water supply (WS-V) boundary, and the more restrictive concentration was
selected for protection of downstream uses. The water supply boundary is for the Deep River (Gulf-
Goldston) water supply watershed, whose water supply intake is currently inactive. Each allowable
discharge concentration was calculated considering the applicable receiving stream’s Average Annual Flow
(AAF), appropriate Instream Target Value (ITV) and the facility’s permitted design flow. Note that WS-
V boundary is also classified as High-Quality Waters (HQW). As the facility is neither new nor expanding,
15A NCAC 02B .0224(c)(G) has not been applied. However, should the facility pursue expansion, toxic
substances shall be limited at ½ the normal standard at design conditions.

For the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek, an ITV of 80 µg/L for non-water supply waters at an
AAF of 12 cfs and a permitted design flow of 9.0 MGD (13.95 cfs) was considered. This calculation yielded
a chronic allowable discharge concentration of 149 µg/L. When considering the downstream WS-V waters,
a 1×10-6 risk level ITV of 0.35 µg/L for water supply waters at an AAF of 846 cfs (calculation estimated
by USGS for WS-V boundary of Gulf-Goldston WS watershed) and a permitted design flow of 9.0 MGD
(13.95 cfs) was considered. This calculation yielded a chronic allowable concentration of 21.58 µg/L. The
allowable discharge determination based on direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek is insu fficiently
protective of downstream water supply uses. As such, the chronic allowable discharge concentration of
21.58 µg/L has been used in determination of permitting actions.

Based on a review of the effluent data, the WWTP demonstrates a reasonable potential to exceed both the
EPA drinking water heath advisory (HAL) of 35 µg/L and the state water supply (WS) ITV of 0.35 µg/L
for 1,4-Dioxane at the nearest downstream water supply boundary. As the reported effluent concentrations
of 1,4-dioxane are greater than 35 µg/L, the facility discharges to non-WS waters with downstream WS
waters, and reasonable potential to exceed applicable ITV at downstream WS boundary has been
demonstrated, this facility is considered Action Level Tier 2 based on the 2022 DWR NPDES Strategy for
1,4-dioxane. As such, weekly monitoring and limits have been added to the permit. Recognizing that 1,4-
Dioxane is an emerging contaminant and industrial users are just now understanding its impact and use in
materials, a phased implementation compliance schedule has been included in the permit. In Asheboro’s
case, the future phase 1,4-Dioxane target must not increase the concentration of 1,4-Dioxane at the water
supply boundary.
Considering the existing effluent concentrations experienced at the facility, the first phase d limit was
calculated to be the 50th percentile value of the effluent data submitted from January 2018 through
September 2022. This initial phased limit was calculated after removing detection values identified as
outliers (Z score > 3 or < -3), resulting in a limit of 55.7 µg/L. The second phase is set at the EPA HAL of

Page 14 of 24

35 µg/L. The third and final phased limitation is set at 21.58 µg/L based on chronic allowable discharge
concentration calculated at the water supply boundary.

Daily maxima limitations have been calculated for each phase from the chronic monthly average
limitations. Derivation of the maximum daily limit is based on EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD,
USEPA 19911) recommendations.

According to the TSD, developing final permit limits for pollutants affecting human health is somewhat
different from setting limits for other pollutants because the exposure period is generally longer than 1
month. Therefore, the EPA-recommended approach for setting water quality-based limits for human health
protection with statistical procedures is as follows:

• Set the AML (Average Monthly Limit) equal to the WLA (to meet the instream target value of 0.35
µg/L)
• Calculate the MDL (Maximum Daily Limit) based on effluent variability and the number of
samples per month using the multipliers provided in TSD Table 5-3.
This approach ensures that the instream criteria will be met over the long -term and provides a defensible
method for calculating an MDL.

The daily maximum final limit was developed using the recommended approach in TSD Section 5.4.4, for
human health protection. Input variables for the multiplier table consulted (TSD Table 5-3) included:
• A coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.8 based on the most recent 58 data points (July 2021 –
September 2022) and after removing Z-score-identified outlier values,
• AML exceedance probability of 95th percentile,
• MDL exceedance probability of 99th percentile,
• A weekly sampling frequency (n = 4/month).

The table yielded a multiplier of 2.29, which was applied to the average monthly limits of 55.7 µg/L, 35.0
µg/L, and 21.58 µg/L to obtain the maximum daily limits of 127.6 µg/L, 80.2 µg/L, and 49.4 µg/L,
respectively.

Monthly averages for effluent data reported from January 2018 through September 2022 have been
calculated and compared to the proposed monthly average phased limitations below in Figure 3.

1 USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits.

Page 15 of 24

Figure 3. Asheboro WWTP effluent Monthly Average 1,4-dioxane data versus three proposed phased
Monthly Average limitations

Effluent data from January 2018 through September 2022 has been compared to the proposed daily
maximum phased limitations below in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Asheboro WWTP effluent 1,4-dioxane data versus three proposed phased Daily Maximum
limitations
1
10
100
1000
10000
11/11/2017 12/16/2018 1/20/2020 2/23/2021 3/30/2022
Monthly Average 1,4-Dioxane Concentration [ug/L]Date
Proposed 1,4-Dioxane MA
1,4-dioxane Effluent Data Phased Target I MA Phased Target II MA Final Phased Target III MA
55.7 µg/L
35 µg/L
21.58 µg/L
1
10
100
1000
10000
11/11/2017 12/16/2018 1/20/2020 2/23/2021 3/30/20221,4-Dioxane Concentration [ug/L]Date
Proposed 1,4-Dioxane DM
1,4-dioxane Effluent Data Phased Target I DM Phased Target II DM Final Phased Target III DM
127.6 µg/L
80.2 µg/L
49.4 µg/L

Page 16 of 24

Effluent data has been submitted for both the Asheboro WWTP and Starpet ranging from December 2020
through September 2022. A visual representation of this data is provided in Figure 5, below. Please note
that the 1,4-dioxane concentration axis was reduced in range for clarity of the graph. Four (4) Sampling
events occurred during this review period where 1,4-dioxane concentrations greater than 1,000 ug/L were
observed in the Starpet effluent.

Figure 5. Comparison of Asheboro WWTP and Starpet Effluent 1,4-dioxane Concentrations

Review of this data demonstrates instances where 1,4-dioxane was detected at a higher concentration in the
Asheboro effluent than in the Starpet effluent. While some of these instances followed a large spike in
Starpet effluent 1,4-dioxane, others do not appear to follow a spiked event. Based on this review, it has
been concluded that either 1,4-dioxane is somehow being trapped in the components Asheboro WWTP’s
treatment works and released over time, leading to varying degrees of effluent spikes, or there exists another
industrial user that is contributing to the 1,4-dioxane loading entering the Asheboro WWTP. The City has
noted that an additional contribution of 1,4-dioxane to the plant’s influent is coming from the Waste
Management of the Carolinas Great Oak Landfill. Data provided from the landfill demonstrated 1,4-dioxane
levels ranging from 26,000 ug/L to 66,300 ug/L (sampling conducted from April to July 2021). To better
understand the influent 1.4-dioxane levels entering the facility, a requirement has been added that the City
conduct an investigation into all potential sources of 1,4-dioxane and provide a report to the Division within
2 years of the effective date of the permit.

See the three-phase compliance schedule incorporating the various phased limitations below:

NPDES Permit limits have been calculated for a three-phase compliance schedule:
• Phase I – Initial Limit:
o Effluent MA limit of 55.7 µg/L and DM limit of 127.6 µg/L, based on the 50th percentile
of reported effluent concentrations from January 2018 through September 2022, becomes
effective 1 year after the effective date of the permit.
o Within 1 year of the permit’s effective date, the Permittee shall submit to DWR an Action
Plan for Division approval, summarizing the strategy or actions to be taken to achieve
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
9/26/2020 4/14/2021 10/31/2021 5/19/2022 12/5/20221,4-dioxane Concentration [ug/L]Date
Asheboro WWTP vs Starpet Comparison
Asheboro WWTP Effluent Starpet Effluent

Page 17 of 24

compliance with the nitrate limitations. This Action Plan shall include an assessment of
identified 1,4-dioxane sources. Action Plan updates regarding actions taken to come into
compliance with Phase II and III limitations shall be submitted to the Division annually.
o Within 2 years of the permit’s effective date, the Permittee shall submit to DWR a report
of actions taken with regard to identified sources in order to achieve compliance with
permit limits. Updates on actions taken shall be submitted to the Division annually.
• Phase II – Interim Limit:
o Effluent MA limit of 35 µg/L and DM limit of 80.2 µg/L, based on the EPA Drinking
Water HAL value, becomes effective beginning three (3) years after the effective date of
the permit.
o Action Plan updates regarding actions taken to come into compliance with Phase III
limitations shall be submitted to the Division annually.
• Phase III – Final Limit:
o Effluent MA limit of 21.58 µg/L and DM limit 49.4 µg/L, based on 1×10-6 risk level at
the water supply boundary, becomes effective beginning five (5) years after the effective
date of the permit. 

Implementing this phased Compliance Schedule, Monthly Average and Daily Maximum limits along with
weekly monitoring, reporting and notification requirements have been added to the permit. Additionally,
requirements for modification and reissuance of Industrial User Permits to ensure compliance with the
interim and final 1,4-dioxane limits as well as for the notification of downstream drinking water utilities
when effluent 1,4-dioxane concentrations exceed the current interim limit have been added to the permit.

PFAS
Asheboro WWTP had participated in a basin-wide survey for the emerging contaminants PFAS chemical
group in 2019. Three rounds of influent sampling were conducted in July, August and September 2019. In
June 2022, EPA issued interim updated drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, and final
drinking water health advisories for PFBS and GenX. Please note, EPA's Health Advisory Levels (HALs)
for PFAS are non-enforceable and non-regulatory, and only provide technical information to state agencies
and other public health officials on health effects, analytical methods, and treatment technologies associated
with drinking water contamination.
The 2019 influent data collected at the Asheboro WWTP has been summarized below for PFOA, PFOS,
PFBS and GenX and compared to the June 2022 interim updated drinking water health advisories (See
Table 7.).

Table 7. 2019 Investigative Monitoring Influent PFAS Summary

Parameter Average
Influent (ng/L)
Maximum
Influent (ng/L)
Minimum
Influent (ng/L)
2022 Updated Drinking Water
Health Advisory (ng/L)
PFOS 19.3 19.8 18.8 interim1
PFOA 10.6 11.7 9.47 interim1
PFBS Non-detect Non-detect Non-detect 2,000
GenX2 Non-detect Non-detect Non-detect 10
1Interim PFOS and PFOA values can be found https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-
and-pfos#:~:text=2022%20Interim%20Updated%20PFOA%20and,those%20EPA%20issued%20in%202016.
2During the 2019 investigation, GenX analysis was only conducted in one of the three events.

Page 18 of 24

To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
While not immediately downstream, WS-V classified waters exist approximately 43.5 miles downstream
of the discharge. As the Asheboro WWTP has a pretreatment program and has demonstrated influent PFAS
levels greater than the interim updated drinking water health advisories, monitoring of PFAS chemicals
will be added to the permit at a frequency of quarterly. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing
PFAS in wastewater is not currently available, the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a
compliance schedule which delays the effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar quarter
beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR 136 published in the Federal
Register. This date may be extended upon request and if there are no NC-certified labs.

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: A three-phase 5-year compliance
schedule is proposed for 1,4-Dioxane limit followed by a final limit. Per Permittee request, a 3-year
compliance schedule for total silver with WER option has been added to the permit. The City informed the
Division in an 11/29/2022 email that they do not require a compliance schedule for bromodichloromethane.

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 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(l) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations

Page 19 of 24

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): YES

If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: Based on the reasonable potential
analysis (RPA) showing no reasonable potential to violate state water quality standards, the limits and
monitoring requirements for total chromium and total zinc have been removed from the permit. Based on
the Mercury TMDL evaluation showing no annual average mercury concentration exceeded the WQBEL,
and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, the limits and monitoring requirement for total
mercury have been removed from the permit.

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 City of Asheboro requested 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform based on
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities on November 18, 2022. The last three years of the facility’s data for
these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on this
review, 2/week monitoring frequency has been added for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform. Please
note that the proposed ammonia limitations were used when assessing ammonia criteria.

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. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.

Page 20 of 24

12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions

Table 4. Current Permit Conditions 1 and Proposed Changes
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 9.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5
Summer:
MA 5.0 mg/L
WA 7.5 mg/L
Winter:
MA 10 mg/L
WA 15 mg/L
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change to limits; Monitor and
Report 2/Week
WQBEL. Determined via WLA
conducted in 1995, and for protection
of DO standard (15A NCAC 2B .0200).
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
TSS
MA 30 mg/L
WA 45 mg/L
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change to limits; Monitor and
Report 2/Week
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards /
40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406.
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
NH3-N
Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/L
WA 6.0 mg/L
Winter:
MA 4.0 mg/L
WA 12.0 mg/L
Monitor and
Report Daily
Summer:
MA 1.0 mg/L
WA 3.0 mg/L
Winter:
MA 1.8 mg/L
WA 5.4 mg/L
Monitor and Report 2/Week
Add instream monitoring 1/Month
WQBEL. Based on protection of State
WQ criteria. 15A NCAC 2B.0200;
2022 WLA review; 2012 DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities; No compliance schedule –
facility meets revised limits
consistently. Based on Instream Data
Summary
DO > 6 mg/L No change WQBEL. For protection of the DO
standard. 15A NCAC 2B .0200.
pH 6.0 – 9.0 SU No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
.0200.
Fecal
Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
WA 400 /100 mL
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change to limits; Monitor and
Report 2/Week
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
.0200. 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding
the Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Total
Residual
Chlorine
DM 17 µg/L No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of State
WQ criteria. 15A NCAC 2B.0200;
2022 WLA review

Temperature Monitor daily No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
02B .0500

Page 21 of 24

Conductivity Monitor effluent
daily
No change to effluent.
Add instream monitoring upstream
(U) and downstream (D1 and D2)
15A NCAC 2B.0500, added based on
instream conductivity review
demonstrating effluent impact on
receiving stream.
Chloride
Monitor
quarterly in
conjunction with
Chronic Toxicity
test
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, Based on
RPA and 15A NCAC 2B.0211 (22). RP
shown; apply quarterly monitoring in
conjunction with toxicity tests, per 15A
NCAC 02B .0211(22)
Total
Hardness No requirement Add quarterly effluent monitoring
Surface Water Monitoring, Hardness-
dependent dissolved metals water
quality standards, approved in 2016;
upstream hardness not required due to
0 cfs 7Q10.
Total
Chromium
MA = 50 µg/L
DM = 1033 µg/L Remove from permit
No reasonable potential was found,
maximum predicted value < Cr-VI
allowable concentration.
Total Copper Monitor
quarterly No change
Surface Water Monitoring, Based on
RPA, 2022 303(d) listing and Integrated
Report: Receiving water is impaired
due to copper. No RP , Predicted Max
≥ 50% of Allowable Cw - apply
Quarterly Monitoring
Total
Mercury
MA = 12 ng/L
DM = 36 ng/L
Remove limits from permit.
Add Mercury Minimization Plan
(MMP)
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Total Silver No requirement
MA = 0.06 ug/L
DM = 2.4 ug/L
Monitor and report Monthly at
lower reporting level of procedure
3-year compliance schedule with
WER option
WQBEL. Based on RPA. RP shown -
apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Total
Selenium No requirement Quarterly monitoring at lower
reporting level of procedure
Surface Water Monitoring, Based on
RPA. No RP , Predicted Max ≥ 50% of
Allowable Cw - apply Quarterly
Monitoring
Total Zinc Monitor
quarterly Remove from permit
Based on RPA. No reasonable potential
found in RPA, but maximum predicted
value < 50% of the allowable
concentration.
Dibromochlo
romethane
Monitor
quarterly No change
Surface Water Monitoring, Based on
RPA. No reasonable potential found in
RPA, but maximum predicted value >
50% of the allowable concentration.

Page 22 of 24

Bromodichlo
romethane
Monitor
quarterly
MA = 31.6 µg/L
Monitor and report Monthly
WQBEL. Based on RPA for NC
Instream Target Value. RP shown -
apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Total
Nitrogen Monitor monthly No change to effluent; Add
instream monitoring 1/Month
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B.0500; nutrient criteria development
in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin.
Based on Instream Data Summary
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Monitor monthly No change to effluent; Add
instream monitoring 1/Month
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B.0500; nutrient criteria development
in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin.
Based on Instream Data Summary
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Nitrogen
Monitor monthly No change to effluent; Add
instream monitoring 1/Month
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B.0500; nutrient criteria development
in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin.
Based on Instream Data Summary
Total
Phosphorus Monitor monthly No change to effluent; Add
instream monitoring 1/Month
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B.0500; nutrient criteria development
in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin.
Based on Instream Data Summary
1,4-Dioxane
Monitor monthly
per letter sent in
October 2017
Add 3-phase compliance schedule
Monitor 1/week grab

Add 2/month instream
monitoring.
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 02B and
protection of downstream water usage:
Phased limitations based on 50th
percentile of effluent levels, EPA
drinking water HAL of 35 µg/L and NC
human health criterion of 0.35 µg/L at
downstream water supply water.
PFAS No requirement Add quarterly monitoring with
delayed implementation
Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
pretreatment facility with downstream
WS; Implementation delayed until after
EPA certified method becomes
available.
Chronic
Toxicity
Quarterly
Ceriodaphnia
dubia Pass/Fail at
90% effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
2B.0500
Effluent
Pollutant
Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
Update sampling years to 2024,
2025, 2026. 40 CFR 122
Electronic
Reporting No requirement Add Electronic Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015 and Phase II 2020
update.
Nutrient
Reopener for
TN and TP
Special
Condition No change Upper Cape Fear River nutrient strategy
requirement.
1 MGD = Million Gallons per Day, MA = Monthly Average, WA = Weekly Average, DM = Daily Max.

Page 23 of 24

13. Public Notice Schedule

Permit to Public Notice: 05/09/2018

Permit to Second Public Notice: 12/6/2022

Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.

14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable)

Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes. Comments were
received from the City of Asheboro (Permittee), dated 5/31/2018. These include:
• Why were mass-based NH3 limits not inserted as requested as an alternative to concentration-based
limits? If mass-based limits not allowed, then requested 3 yr compliance schedule.
• Explain Chloride RPA factors and results.
• Cyanide limits appeared to be based on lab data that were found to be resulting from instrument
interference; requested removal of limits and monitoring
• Requested 2-yr compliance schedule for bromodichloromethane (The City submitted a follow-up
on 11/29/2022 informing the Division that this schedule is not necessary)
• Explain legal basis and calculation of 1,4-dioxane limits
• Explain discrepancy between Asheboro’s limits and DAK America’s monitoring only requirements
for 1,4-dioxane
• Explain shortened permit term (4 not 5 yrs)
Comments were also received electronically on 6/8/2018 from multiple municipalities expressing water
supply 1,4-Dioxane concerns, the need to consider downstream water supply waters and any additional
sources in developing permit limits, and to reduce the 1,4-Dioxane compliance schedule. Comments were
provided by the Fayetteville Public Works Commission, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, City of
Sanford, and Town of Cary.

Comments and DWR responses are attached.

If Yes, list changes (from previous public notice) and their basis below:
Note: This is not a comprehensive list of all changes from the current permit.
• Based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) showing no reasonable potential to violate state
water quality standards, total cyanide limits and monitoring requirements have not been added to
the permit.
• 1,4-dioxane limitations have been revised based on calculations pertaining to downstream WS
water uses. See Other WQBEL Considerations section above
• A three-phase five-year 1,4-Dioxane compliance schedule has been added. See Other WQBEL
Considerations section above.
• Chromium monitoring requirement was removed, based on an RPA with updated Total Chromium
data not showing a reasonable potential to exceed the Chromium-VI water quality standard.
• Copper monitoring will be maintained based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) predicting
a maximum effluent total copper concentration that is greater than half of the allowable discharge
concentration based on state water quality standards.

Page 24 of 24

• Based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) predicting a maximum effluent total selenium
concentration that is greater than half of the allowable discharge concentration based on state
water quality standards, quarterly monitoring for total selenium has been added to the permit.
• Based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) showing reasonable potential to violate state
water quality standards, total silver limits and monitoring requirements have been added to the
permit.
• To provide an opportunity for the City to develop a plan to assess sources of total silver in order
to come in compliance with the proposed limits, schedules of compliance have been added to the
permit. See Other WQBEL Considerations section above.
• Based on resulting patterns indicating effluent impact on the receiving waterbodies and to assess
background concentrations of 1,4-dioxane to better analyze the discharge, instream monitoring
for 1,4-Dioxane has been added to the permit.
• Based on review of instream data, instream conductivity, TN, TKN, NO2+NO3, ammonia, and TP
monitoring has been added to the permit
• Based on NPDES guidance regarding the reduction of monitoring frequencies in NPDES permits
for exceptionally performing facilities, monitoring requirements for BOD5, NH3-N, Total
Suspended Solids and Enterococci have been reduced to twice per week.

15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable)

• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards – Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Pretreatment Information Form
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Assessment
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Chemical Addendum
• Application Addendum
• 2022 NC Integrated Report (Hasketts Creek Listing)
• USGS Flow Estimation for WS boundary
• City of Asheboro 2020 Pretreatment Annual Report, page 7
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Name WQS Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Asheboro WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class Grade IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health
Water Supply C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0026123 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.5031 FW 9.5406 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD)9.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Hasketts Creek Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03030003 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 324.6023 FW 2495.4158 ug/L
Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 µg/L
7Q10s (cfs)0.00 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A µg/L
7Q10w (cfs)0.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 22.7043 FW 33.6311 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs)0.20 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA (cfs)12.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs)0.00 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 11.6442 FW 298.8096 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 86.25 mg/L (Avg)Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Upstream Hardness 51.93 mg/L (Avg)Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 86.25 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 106.1413 FW 955.6324 µg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 86.25 mg/L Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A µg/L
Data Source(s)Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 2.4939 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 361.8812 FW 358.9451 ug/L
Par22 Bromodichloromethane Human Health C 17 HH µg/L
Par23 Dibromochloromethane Human Health C 21 HH µg/L
Par24 Chloroform Human Health C 2000 HH µg/L
Follow directions for data entry. In some cases a
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from. Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
To appy a Model IWC %: Once the
"Flow, Qw (MGD)" and and the
"CHRONIC DILUTION FACTOR =
" values are entered, the 7Q10s
(cfs) flow is calculated and
displayed. Enter the calculated
"7Q10s (cfs)" flow value in Table 1.
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Effluent data from DMRs from January 2018 - Aug
2022, three PPAs and Hardness data provided by
the Permittee.
C
CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Apply WS Hardness WQC
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, input
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2
Effluent Hardness Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/8/2017 99.8 99.8 Std Dev.13.0463 1 8/29/2016 106 106 Std Dev.21.5387
2 7/12/2017 108 108 Mean 86.2455 2 9/13/2016 40 40 Mean 51.9333
3 12/5/2019 86 86 C.V.0.1513 3 10/19/2016 49 49 C.V.0.4147
4 12/12/2019 76 76 n 11 4 11/2/2016 69 69 n 12
5 12/19/2019 58 58 10th Per value 76.00 mg/L 5 12/6/2016 28 28 10th Per value 34.50 mg/L
6 12/23/2019 94 94 Average Value =86.25 mg/L 6 1/11/2017 73 73 Average Value =51.93 mg/L
7 3/5/2020 84 84 Max. Value 108.00 mg/L 7 2/2/2017 39 39 Max. Value 106.00 mg/L
8 3/12/2020 88.2 88.2 8 3/7/2017 49 49
9 3/20/2020 84.3 84.3 9 4/11/2017 53 53
10 3/30/2020 79.4 79.4 10 5/10/2017 34 34
11 6/24/2021 91 91 11 6/8/2017 43.7 43.7
12 12 7/12/2017 39.5 39.5
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 1 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/23/2018 <2 1 Std Dev.0.5382
2 2/14/2018 <2 1 Mean 1.1375
3 3/6/2018 4.2 4.2 C.V.0.4731
4 4/18/2018 <2 1 n 56
5 5/22/2018 <2 1
6 6/5/2018 <2 1 Mult Factor =1.01
7 7/24/2018 <2 1 Max. Value 4.2 ug/L
8 8/15/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 4.2 ug/L
9 9/13/2018 <5 2.5
10 10/17/2018 <2 1
11 11/6/2018 <2 1
12 12/4/2018 <2 1
13 1/10/2019 <2 1
14 2/12/2019 <2 1
15 3/5/2019 <2 1
16 4/16/2019 <2 1
17 5/22/2019 <2 1
18 6/4/2019 <2 1
19 7/25/2019 <2 1
20 8/6/2019 <2 1
21 9/10/2019 <2 1
22 10/10/2019 <2 1
23 11/7/2019 <2 1
24 12/5/2019 <5 2.5
25 1/8/2020 <2 1
26 2/13/2020 <2 1
27 3/5/2020 <2 1
28 4/7/2020 <2 1
29 5/20/2020 <2 1
30 6/2/2020 <2 1
31 7/14/2020 <2 1
32 8/19/2020 <2 1
33 9/15/2020 <2 1
34 10/22/2020 <2 1
35 11/11/2020 <2 1
36 12/8/2020 <2 1
37 1/13/2021 <2 1
38 2/16/2021 <2 1
39 3/2/2021 <2 1
40 4/14/2021 <2 1
41 5/21/2021 <2 1
42 6/24/2021 <2 1
43 7/28/2021 <2 1
44 8/19/2021 <2 1
45 9/14/2021 <2 1
46 10/27/2021 <2 1
47 11/10/2021 <2 1
48 12/7/2021 <2 1
49 1/13/2022 <2 1
50 2/17/2022 <2 1
51 3/8/2022 <2 1
52 4/13/2022 <2 1
53 5/12/2022 <2 1
54 6/7/2022 <2 1
55 7/18/2022 <2 1
56 8/11/2022 <2 1
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 2 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Beryllium Cadmium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/17/2016 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.0000 1 1/23/2018 <0.5 0.25 Std Dev.0.0334
2 12/5/2019 <1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 2/14/2018 <0.5 0.25 Mean 0.2545
3 3/5/2020 <1 0.5 C.V. (default)0.6000 3 3/6/2018 <0.5 0.25 C.V.0.1313
4 6/24/2021 <1 0.5 n 4 4 4/18/2018 <0.5 0.25 n 56
5 5 5/22/2018 <0.5 0.25
6 Mult Factor =2.59 6 6/5/2018 <0.5 0.25 Mult Factor =1.00
7 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 7/24/2018 <0.5 0.25 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 1.30 ug/L 8 8/15/2018 <0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw 0.500 ug/L
9 9 9/13/2018 <0.5 0.25
10 10 10/17/2018 <0.5 0.25
11 11 11/6/2018 <0.5 0.25
12 12 12/4/2018 <0.5 0.25
13 13 1/10/2019 <0.5 0.25
14 14 2/12/2019 <0.5 0.25
15 15 3/5/2019 <0.5 0.25
16 16 4/16/2019 <0.5 0.25
17 17 5/22/2019 <0.5 0.25
18 18 6/4/2019 <0.5 0.25
19 19 7/25/2019 <0.5 0.25
20 20 8/6/2019 <0.5 0.25
21 21 9/10/2019 <0.5 0.25
22 22 10/10/2019 <0.5 0.25
23 23 11/7/2019 <0.5 0.25
24 24 12/5/2019 <1 0.5
25 25 1/8/2020 <0.5 0.25
26 26 2/13/2020 <0.5 0.25
27 27 3/5/2020 <0.5 0.25
28 28 4/7/2020 <0.5 0.25
29 29 5/20/2020 <0.5 0.25
30 30 6/2/2020 <0.5 0.25
31 31 7/14/2020 <0.5 0.25
32 32 8/19/2020 <0.5 0.25
33 33 9/15/2020 <0.5 0.25
34 34 10/22/2020 <0.5 0.25
35 35 11/11/2020 <0.5 0.25
36 36 12/8/2020 <0.5 0.25
37 37 1/13/2021 <0.5 0.25
38 38 2/16/2021 <0.5 0.25
39 39 3/2/2021 <0.5 0.25
40 40 4/14/2021 <0.5 0.25
41 41 5/21/2021 <0.5 0.25
42 42 6/24/2021 <0.5 0.25
43 43 7/28/2021 <0.5 0.25
44 44 8/19/2021 <0.5 0.25
45 45 9/14/2021 <0.5 0.25
46 46 10/27/2021 <0.5 0.25
47 47 11/10/2021 <0.5 0.25
48 48 12/7/2021 <0.5 0.25
49 49 1/13/2022 <0.5 0.25
50 50 2/17/2022 <0.5 0.25
51 51 3/8/2022 <0.5 0.25
52 52 4/13/2022 <0.5 0.25
53 53 5/12/2022 <0.5 0.25
54 54 6/7/2022 <0.5 0.25
55 55 7/18/2022 <0.5 0.25
56 56 8/11/2022 <0.5 0.25
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 3 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05 Par07
Chlorides Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/6/2018 105 105 Std Dev.45.1468 1 6/24/2021 <20 10 Std Dev.3.1458
2 6/5/2018 154 154 Mean 160.9 2 3/17/2016 <5 2.5 Mean 5.6250
3 9/13/2018 137 137 C.V.0.2806 3 12/5/2019 <10 5 C.V. (default)0.6000
4 12/4/2018 137 137 n 26 4 3/5/2020 <10 5 n 4
5 3/5/2019 71.5 71.5 5
6 6/4/2019 150 150 Mult Factor =1.1 6 Mult Factor =2.59
7 9/10/2019 178 178 Max. Value 247.0 mg/L 7 Max. Value 10.0 ug/L
8 12/5/2019 159 159 Max. Pred Cw 276.6 mg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 25.9 ug/L
9 3/5/2020 182 182 9
10 4/7/2020 100 100 10
11 9/15/2020 247 247 11
12 12/8/2020 177 177 12
13 1/13/2021 191 191 13
14 2/16/2021 83.2 83.2 14
15 3/2/2021 101 101 15
16 4/14/2021 197 197 16
17 5/21/2021 200 200 17
18 6/24/2021 152 152 18
19 7/28/2021 180 180 19
20 8/19/2021 202 202 20
21 9/14/2021 223 223 21
22 10/27/2021 198 198 22
23 11/10/2021 189 189 23
24 12/7/2021 212 212 24
25 3/8/2022 140 140 25
26 6/7/2022 118 118 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-
Values" then
"COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
- 4 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10 Pa11
Chromium, Total Copper
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/23/2018 <5 2.5 Std Dev.1.6920 1 1/23/2018 6.9 6.9 Std Dev.1.5802
2 2/14/2018 <5 2.5 Mean 3.0679 2 2/14/2018 6.6 6.6 Mean 6.4946
3 3/6/2018 <5 2.5 C.V.0.5515 3 3/6/2018 8 8 C.V.0.2433
4 4/18/2018 <5 2.5 n 56 4 4/18/2018 6.7 6.7 n 56
5 5/22/2018 <5 2.5 5 5/22/2018 5.4 5.4
6 6/5/2018 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.01 6 6/5/2018 7.2 7.2 Mult Factor =1.00
7 7/24/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Value 10.7 µg/L 7 7/24/2018 5.8 5.8 Max. Value 11.80 ug/L
8 8/15/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 10.8 µg/L 8 8/15/2018 6.2 6.2 Max. Pred Cw 11.80 ug/L
9 9/13/2018 10.7 10.7 9 9/13/2018 7.5 7.5
10 10/17/2018 9.9 9.9 10 10/17/2018 6.1 6.1
11 11/6/2018 6.4 6.4 11 11/6/2018 7.2 7.2
12 12/4/2018 <5 2.5 12 12/4/2018 7.4 7.4
13 1/10/2019 5.8 5.8 13 1/10/2019 9.6 9.6
14 2/12/2019 <5 2.5 14 2/12/2019 6.5 6.5
15 3/5/2019 <5 2.5 15 3/5/2019 5.6 5.6
16 4/16/2019 <5 2.5 16 4/16/2019 3.5 3.5
17 5/22/2019 5.1 5.1 17 5/22/2019 5.7 5.7
18 6/4/2019 <5 2.5 18 6/4/2019 5.9 5.9
19 7/25/2019 <5 2.5 19 7/25/2019 5 5
20 8/6/2019 <5 2.5 20 8/6/2019 6 6
21 9/10/2019 <5 2.5 21 9/10/2019 6.7 6.7
22 10/10/2019 5.4 5.4 22 10/10/2019 9.5 9.5
23 11/7/2019 <5 2.5 23 11/7/2019 5.4 5.4
24 12/5/2019 6 6 24 12/5/2019 <10 5
25 1/8/2020 <5 2.5 25 1/8/2020 7.6 7.6
26 2/13/2020 <5 2.5 26 2/13/2020 5.6 5.6
27 3/5/2020 <5 2.5 27 3/5/2020 7 7
28 4/7/2020 <5 2.5 28 4/7/2020 5.6 5.6
29 5/20/2020 <5 2.5 29 5/20/2020 6.7 6.7
30 6/2/2020 <5 2.5 30 6/2/2020 10.4 10.4
31 7/14/2020 <5 2.5 31 7/14/2020 5.6 5.6
32 8/19/2020 <5 2.5 32 8/19/2020 5.6 5.6
33 9/15/2020 <5 2.5 33 9/15/2020 5.2 5.2
34 10/22/2020 <5 2.5 34 10/22/2020 5.4 5.4
35 11/11/2020 <5 2.5 35 11/11/2020 4.6 4.6
36 12/8/2020 <5 2.5 36 12/8/2020 5.2 5.2
37 1/13/2021 <5 2.5 37 1/13/2021 5.5 5.5
38 2/16/2021 <5 2.5 38 2/16/2021 3.7 3.7
39 3/2/2021 <5 2.5 39 3/2/2021 4.2 4.2
40 4/14/2021 <5 2.5 40 4/14/2021 6.1 6.1
41 5/21/2021 <5 2.5 41 5/21/2021 7.7 7.7
42 6/24/2021 <5 2.5 42 6/24/2021 9 9
43 7/28/2021 <5 2.5 43 7/28/2021 7.7 7.7
44 8/19/2021 <5 2.5 44 8/19/2021 6.7 6.7
45 9/14/2021 <5 2.5 45 9/14/2021 7.9 7.9
46 10/27/2021 <5 2.5 46 10/27/2021 11.8 11.8
47 11/10/2021 <5 2.5 47 11/10/2021 6.9 6.9
48 12/7/2021 <5 2.5 48 12/7/2021 9.1 9.1
49 1/13/2022 <5 2.5 49 1/13/2022 7.3 7.3
50 2/17/2022 <5 2.5 50 2/17/2022 6.2 6.2
51 3/8/2022 <5 2.5 51 3/8/2022 5.4 5.4
52 4/13/2022 <5 2.5 52 4/13/2022 5 5
53 5/12/2022 <5 2.5 53 5/12/2022 6.1 6.1
54 6/7/2022 <5 2.5 54 6/7/2022 5.3 5.3
55 7/18/2022 <5 2.5 55 7/18/2022 6.2 6.2
56 8/11/2022 <5 2.5 56 8/11/2022 6 6
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 5 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12 Par14
Cyanide Lead
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/6/2018 <10 5 Std Dev.0.0000 1 1/23/2018 <2 1 Std Dev.0.4316
2 6/5/2018 <10 5 Mean 5.00 2 2/14/2018 <2 1 Mean 1.1339
3 9/13/2018 <10 5 C.V.0.0000 3 3/6/2018 <2 1 C.V.0.3806
4 12/4/2018 <5 5 n 26 4 4/18/2018 <2 1 n 56
5 3/5/2019 <5 5 5 5/22/2018 <5 2.5
6 6/4/2019 <5 5 Mult Factor =1.00 6 6/5/2018 <2 1 Mult Factor =1.01
7 9/10/2019 <5 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 7/24/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
8 12/5/2019 <5 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L 8 8/15/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.525 ug/L
9 3/5/2020 <5 5 9 9/13/2018 <5 2.5
10 4/7/2020 <5 5 10 10/17/2018 <2 1
11 9/15/2020 <5 5 11 11/6/2018 <2 1
12 12/8/2020 <5 5 12 12/4/2018 <2 1
13 1/13/2021 <5 5 13 1/10/2019 <2 1
14 2/16/2021 <5 5 14 2/12/2019 <2 1
15 3/2/2021 <5 5 15 3/5/2019 <2 1
16 4/14/2021 <5 5 16 4/16/2019 <2 1
17 5/21/2021 <5 5 17 5/22/2019 <2 1
18 6/24/2021 <5 5 18 6/4/2019 <2 1
19 7/28/2021 <5 5 19 7/25/2019 <2 1
20 8/19/2021 <5 5 20 8/6/2019 <2 1
21 9/14/2021 <5 5 21 9/10/2019 <2 1
22 10/27/2021 <5 5 22 10/10/2019 <2 1
23 11/10/2021 <5 5 23 11/7/2019 <2 1
24 12/7/2021 <5 5 24 12/5/2019 <5 2.5
25 3/8/2022 <5 5 25 1/8/2020 <2 1
26 6/7/2022 <5 5 26 2/13/2020 <2 1
27 27 3/5/2020 <2 1
28 28 4/7/2020 <2 1
29 29 5/20/2020 <2 1
30 30 6/2/2020 <2 1
31 31 7/14/2020 <2 1
32 32 8/19/2020 <2 1
33 33 9/15/2020 <2 1
34 34 10/22/2020 <2 1
35 35 11/11/2020 <2 1
36 36 12/8/2020 <2 1
37 37 1/13/2021 <2 1
38 38 2/16/2021 <2 1
39 39 3/2/2021 <2 1
40 40 4/14/2021 <2 1
41 41 5/21/2021 <2 1
42 42 6/24/2021 <2 1
43 43 7/28/2021 <2 1
44 44 8/19/2021 <2 1
45 45 9/14/2021 <2 1
46 46 10/27/2021 <2 1
47 47 11/10/2021 <2 1
48 48 12/7/2021 <2 1
49 49 1/13/2022 <2 1
50 50 2/17/2022 <2 1
51 51 3/8/2022 <2 1
52 52 4/13/2022 <2 1
53 53 5/12/2022 <2 1
54 54 6/7/2022 <2 1
55 55 7/18/2022 <2 1
56 56 8/11/2022 <2 1
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 6 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16 Par17 & Par18
Molybdenum Nickel
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/23/2018 35.9 35.9 Std Dev.49.5015 1 1/23/2018 <2 1 Std Dev.4.2677
2 2/14/2018 169 169 Mean 51.7125 2 2/14/2018 2.3 2.3 Mean 3.5661
3 3/6/2018 123 123 C.V.0.9572 3 3/6/2018 2.2 2.2 C.V.1.1967
4 4/18/2018 21 21 n 56 4 4/18/2018 2.3 2.3 n 56
5 5/22/2018 29.3 29.3 5 5/22/2018 <2 1
6 6/5/2018 67.4 67.4 Mult Factor =1.02 6 6/5/2018 3.3 3.3 Mult Factor =1.02
7 7/24/2018 59.8 59.8 Max. Value 272.0 ug/L 7 7/24/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Value 33.0 µg/L
8 8/15/2018 63.2 63.2 Max. Pred Cw 277.4 ug/L 8 8/15/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 33.7 µg/L
9 9/13/2018 272 272 9 9/13/2018 33 33
10 10/17/2018 59.9 59.9 10 10/17/2018 9 9
11 11/6/2018 37 37 11 11/6/2018 4.7 4.7
12 12/4/2018 92.8 92.8 12 12/4/2018 3.8 3.8
13 1/10/2019 27.1 27.1 13 1/10/2019 6.4 6.4
14 2/12/2019 22.3 22.3 14 2/12/2019 6.3 6.3
15 3/5/2019 <10 5 15 3/5/2019 2.9 2.9
16 4/16/2019 17.6 17.6 16 4/16/2019 2.3 2.3
17 5/22/2019 108 108 17 5/22/2019 3.7 3.7
18 6/4/2019 25.1 25.1 18 6/4/2019 3.1 3.1
19 7/25/2019 30.3 30.3 19 7/25/2019 3.8 3.8
20 8/6/2019 28.4 28.4 20 8/6/2019 3.7 3.7
21 9/10/2019 38.2 38.2 21 9/10/2019 4.5 4.5
22 10/10/2019 82 82 22 10/10/2019 3.9 3.9
23 11/7/2019 55.9 55.9 23 11/7/2019 3.5 3.5
24 12/5/2019 <50 25 24 12/5/2019 <10 5
25 1/8/2020 37.2 37.2 25 1/8/2020 2.3 2.3
26 2/13/2020 17.2 17.2 26 2/13/2020 2.5 2.5
27 3/5/2020 14 14 27 3/5/2020 5 5
28 4/7/2020 21.6 21.6 28 4/7/2020 2.8 2.8
29 5/20/2020 126 126 29 5/20/2020 2.5 2.5
30 6/2/2020 34.8 34.8 30 6/2/2020 2.8 2.8
31 7/14/2020 43.7 43.7 31 7/14/2020 3.9 3.9
32 8/19/2020 24 24 32 8/19/2020 2.9 2.9
33 9/15/2020 159 159 33 9/15/2020 3.1 3.1
34 10/22/2020 28 28 34 10/22/2020 4.7 4.7
35 11/11/2020 15.8 15.8 35 11/11/2020 3.3 3.3
36 12/8/2020 38.7 38.7 36 12/8/2020 <2 1
37 1/13/2021 24.1 24.1 37 1/13/2021 2.4 2.4
38 2/16/2021 <10 5 38 2/16/2021 2.1 2.1
39 3/2/2021 <10 5 39 3/2/2021 <2 1
40 4/14/2021 17.8 17.8 40 4/14/2021 2.4 2.4
41 5/21/2021 22.1 22.1 41 5/21/2021 2.8 2.8
42 6/24/2021 33 33 42 6/24/2021 4 4
43 7/28/2021 22.1 22.1 43 7/28/2021 3.6 3.6
44 8/19/2021 29.3 29.3 44 8/19/2021 <2 1
45 9/14/2021 32.7 32.7 45 9/14/2021 2.9 2.9
46 10/27/2021 32.9 32.9 46 10/27/2021 3.3 3.3
47 11/10/2021 125 125 47 11/10/2021 2.8 2.8
48 12/7/2021 47.4 47.4 48 12/7/2021 3 3
49 1/13/2022 42.1 42.1 49 1/13/2022 2.6 2.6
50 2/17/2022 30.3 30.3 50 2/17/2022 2.3 2.3
51 3/8/2022 28.5 28.5 51 3/8/2022 <2 1
52 4/13/2022 43.2 43.2 52 4/13/2022 <2 1
53 5/12/2022 83.7 83.7 53 5/12/2022 2.2 2.2
54 6/7/2022 151 151 54 6/7/2022 2.2 2.2
55 7/18/2022 25 25 55 7/18/2022 2.6 2.6
56 8/11/2022 40.5 40.5 56 8/11/2022 <2 1
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 7 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19 Par20
Selenium Silver
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/25/2019 1.5 1.5 Std Dev.0.6416 1 7/25/2019 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.3797
2 8/6/2019 <1 0.5 Mean 0.9703 2 8/6/2019 <1 0.5 Mean 0.5973
3 9/10/2019 2.1 2.1 C.V.0.6612 3 9/10/2019 <1 0.5 C.V.0.6357
4 10/10/2019 2.6 2.6 n 37 4 10/10/2019 <1 0.5 n 37
5 11/7/2019 <1 0.5 5 11/7/2019 <1 0.5
6 1/8/2020 <1 0.5 Mult Factor =1.14 6 1/8/2020 <1 0.5 Mult Factor =1.14
7 2/13/2020 <1 0.5 Max. Value 2.6 ug/L 7 2/13/2020 <1 0.5 Max. Value 2.600 ug/L
8 3/5/2020 <1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 3.0 ug/L 8 3/5/2020 <1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.964 ug/L
9 4/7/2020 1.2 1.2 9 4/7/2020 <1 0.5
10 5/20/2020 <1 0.5 10 5/20/2020 <1 0.5
11 6/2/2020 <1 0.5 11 6/2/2020 <1 0.5
12 7/14/2020 <1 0.5 12 7/14/2020 <1 0.5
13 8/19/2020 <1 0.5 13 8/19/2020 <1 0.5
14 9/15/2020 <1 0.5 14 9/15/2020 <1 0.5
15 10/22/2020 <1 0.5 15 10/22/2020 <1 0.5
16 11/11/2020 <1 0.5 16 11/11/2020 <1 0.5
17 12/8/2020 <1 0.5 17 12/8/2020 <1 0.5
18 1/13/2021 <1 0.5 18 1/13/2021 <1 0.5
19 2/16/2021 <1 0.5 19 2/16/2021 <1 0.5
20 3/2/2021 <1 0.5 20 3/2/2021 <1 0.5
21 4/14/2021 1.2 1.2 21 4/14/2021 <1 0.5
22 5/21/2021 1.4 1.4 22 5/21/2021 <1 0.5
23 6/24/2021 <1 0.5 23 6/24/2021 <1 0.5
24 7/28/2021 <1 0.5 24 7/28/2021 1.2 1.2
25 8/19/2021 2.1 2.1 25 8/19/2021 1.3 1.3
26 9/14/2021 1.4 1.4 26 9/14/2021 <1 0.5
27 10/27/2021 <1 0.5 27 10/27/2021 2.6 2.6
28 11/10/2021 <1 0.5 28 11/10/2021 <1 0.5
29 12/7/2021 2 2 29 12/7/2021 <1 0.5
30 1/13/2022 1.9 1.9 30 1/13/2022 <1 0.5
31 2/17/2022 <1 0.5 31 2/17/2022 <1 0.5
32 3/8/2022 <1 0.5 32 3/8/2022 <1 0.5
33 4/13/2022 1 1 33 4/13/2022 <1 0.5
34 5/12/2022 2.1 2.1 34 5/12/2022 <1 0.5
35 6/7/2022 1.6 1.6 35 6/7/2022 <1 0.5
36 7/18/2022 1.3 1.3 36 7/18/2022 <1 0.5
37 8/11/2022 1.5 1.5 37 8/11/2022 <1 0.5
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
- 8 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21 Par22
Zinc Bromodichloromethane
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/23/2018 24.6 24.6 Std Dev.17.1465 1 3/8/2018 6.3 6.3 Std Dev.10.2278
2 2/14/2018 18.5 18.5 Mean 21.6804 2 6/5/2018 24.4 24.4 Mean 16.1456
3 3/6/2018 33.8 33.8 C.V.0.7909 3 9/13/2018 18.6 18.6 C.V.0.6335
4 4/18/2018 18.7 18.7 n 56 4 12/6/2018 <5 2.5 n 18
5 5/22/2018 20.4 20.4 5 3/7/2019 <5 2.5
6 6/5/2018 12.5 12.5 Mult Factor =1.01 6 6/6/2019 20.6 20.6 Mult Factor =1.44
7 7/24/2018 <20 10 Max. Value 100.0 ug/L 7 9/12/2019 26.6 26.6 Max. Value 36.000000 µg/L
8 8/15/2018 <20 10 Max. Pred Cw 101.0 ug/L 8 12/5/2019 8.94 8.94 Max. Pred Cw 51.840000 µg/L
9 9/13/2018 <20 10 9 3/5/2020 9.02 9.02
10 10/17/2018 10.2 10.2 10 6/4/2020 19.4 19.4
11 11/6/2018 24.9 24.9 11 9/30/2020 17.4 17.4
12 12/4/2018 56.7 56.7 12 12/10/2020 11.7 11.7
13 1/10/2019 82.9 82.9 13 3/4/2021 10.3 10.3
14 2/12/2019 53.1 53.1 14 6/24/2021 26.9 26.9
15 3/5/2019 35.1 35.1 15 9/30/2021 33.1 33.1
16 4/16/2019 20.5 20.5 16 12/9/2021 10.7 10.7
17 5/22/2019 16.9 16.9 17 3/10/2022 5.66 5.66
18 6/4/2019 <20 10 18 6/9/2022 36 36
19 7/25/2019 16.7 16.7 19
20 8/6/2019 25.7 25.7 20
21 9/10/2019 27.4 27.4 21
22 10/10/2019 25.2 25.2 22
23 11/7/2019 17.8 17.8 23
24 12/5/2019 34 34 24
25 1/8/2020 32.9 32.9 25
26 2/13/2020 22 22 26
27 3/5/2020 29 29 27
28 4/7/2020 13 13 28
29 5/20/2020 16.9 16.9 29
30 6/2/2020 24.8 24.8 30
31 7/14/2020 15.7 15.7 31
32 8/19/2020 13 13 32
33 9/15/2020 15.3 15.3 33
34 10/22/2020 20.2 20.2 34
35 11/11/2020 15.2 15.2 35
36 12/8/2020 <10 5 36
37 1/13/2021 11.3 11.3 37
38 2/16/2021 20.2 20.2 38
39 3/2/2021 11.7 11.7 39
40 4/14/2021 17 17 40
41 5/21/2021 100 100 41
42 6/24/2021 18 18 42
43 7/28/2021 19.9 19.9 43
44 8/19/2021 10.7 10.7 44
45 9/14/2021 14.2 14.2 45
46 10/27/2021 17.8 17.8 46
47 11/10/2021 16.1 16.1 47
48 12/7/2021 16.8 16.8 48
49 1/13/2022 36.9 36.9 49
50 2/17/2022 14.3 14.3 50
51 3/8/2022 11.1 11.1 51
52 4/13/2022 <10 5 52
53 5/12/2022 11.2 11.2 53
54 6/7/2022 <10 5 54
55 7/18/2022 <10 5 55
56 8/11/2022 13.3 13.3 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 9 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par23 Par24
Dibromochloromethane Chloroform
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/8/2018 <5 2.5 Std Dev.5.1615 1 3/17/2016 13.4 13.4 Std Dev.8.4346
2 6/5/2018 7.4 7.4 Mean 6.6161 2 12/5/2019 19 19 Mean 21.7250
3 9/13/2018 <5 2.5 C.V.0.7801 3 3/5/2020 21.1 21.1 C.V. (default)0.60
4 12/6/2018 <5 2.5 n 18 4 6/24/2021 33.4 33.4 n 4
5 3/7/2019 <5 2.5 5
6 6/6/2019 6.26 6.26 Mult Factor =1.54 6 Mult Factor =2.59
7 9/12/2019 13 13 Max. Value 17.200000 µg/L 7 Max. Value 33.40 µg/L
8 12/5/2019 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 26.488000 µg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 86.51 µg/L
9 3/5/2020 <5 2.5 9
10 6/4/2020 10.1 10.1 10
11 9/30/2020 5.55 5.55 11
12 12/10/2020 <5 2.5 12
13 3/4/2021 <5 2.5 13
14 6/24/2021 12.2 12.2 14
15 9/30/2021 16.6 16.6 15
16 12/9/2021 8.28 8.28 16
17 3/10/2022 <5 2.5 17
18 6/9/2022 17.2 17.2 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
- 10 -
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, data
10/13/2022
Asheboro WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0026123 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 9 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 9.0000 WWTP/WTP Class:Grade IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 0.00 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 100 Acute = 86.25 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 0.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 100 Chronic = 86.25 mg/L
7Q10W (cfs) = 0.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W = 100
30Q2 (cfs) = 0.20 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 98.58657244
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 12.00 IW%C @ QA = 53.75722543
Receiving Stream:Stream Class:C
PARAMETER RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Applied
Standard Acute n # Det.Max Pred Cw
Acute (FW):340.0
Arsenic C 150 FW 340 ug/L
56 1 4.2 Chronic (FW):150.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS ug/L Chronic (HH):18.6
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:65.00
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L 4 0 1.30
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:6.50
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 1
Acute:9.541
Cadmium NC 1.5031 FW 9.5406 ug/L 56 0 0.500
Chronic:1.503
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 1
Acute:NO WQS
Chlorides NC 230 FW mg/L 26 26 276.6
Chronic:230.0
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A ug/L 4 0 25.9
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:304.3
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 20
Acute:2,495.4
Chromium III NC 324.6023 FW 2495.4158 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:324.6
Acute:16.0
Chromium VI NC 11 FW 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:11.0
Tot Cr value(s) ≥ 5 but < Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 56 7 10.8
Acute:33.63
Copper NC 22.7043 FW 33.6311 ug/L 56 55 11.80
Chronic:22.70
No value > Allowable Cw
Max reported value = 10.7
No RP , Predicted Max ≥ 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 µg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No detects at < 1 ug/L. No monitoring or limits
required.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No detects at < 5, < 10 ug/L and < 20 ug/L. No
monitoring or limits required.
RP shown; apply quarterly monitoring in conjunction
with toxicity tests, per 15A NCAC 02B .0211(22)PQLUNITSTYPE
Allowable Cw
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTSNC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Hasketts Creek HUC 03030003
Page 1 of 2
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, rpa
10/13/2022
Asheboro WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0026123 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 9 MGD
Acute:22.0
Cyanide NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L 26 0 5.0
Chronic:5.0
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10
Acute:NO WQS
Fluoride NC 1800 FW ug/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:1,800.0
Acute:298.810
Lead NC 11.6442 FW 298.8096 ug/L 56 0 2.525
Chronic:11.644
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 2000 HH ug/L 56 52 277.4
Chronic:2,000.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute (FW):955.6
Nickel NC 106.1413 FW 955.6324 µg/L
56 45 33.7 Chronic (FW):106.1
No value > Allowable Cw
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS µg/L Chronic (WS):25.0
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:56.0
Selenium NC 5 FW 56 ug/L 37 15 3.0
Chronic:5.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:2.494
Silver NC 0.06 FW 2.4939 ug/L 37 3 2.964
Chronic:0.060
37 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:358.9
Zinc NC 361.8812 FW 358.9451 ug/L 56 48 101.0
Chronic:361.9
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Bromodichloromethane C 17 HH µg/L 18 16 51.84000
Chronic:31.62366
2 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Dibromochloromethane C 21 HH µg/L 18 9 26.48800
Chronic:39.06452
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Chloroform C 2000 HH µg/L 4 4 86.50600
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:3720.43011
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP , Predicted Max ≥ 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
No RP , Predicted Max ≥ 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
No detects < 2 and < 5 ug/L. No monitoring or limits
required.
All results < 10 ug/L considered compliant. No
monitoring or limits required.
Page 2 of 2
26123 FW RPA UPDATED, rpa
10/13/2022
REQUIRED DATA ENTRYName Stream ClassTypeChronicModifierAcute PQL UnitsFacility NameAsheboro WWTPPar011,4-Dioxane C C 80 HH 1 µg/LWWTP/WTP ClassGrade IVPar021,4-Dioxane WS C 0.35 WS 1 µg/LNPDES PermitNC0026123Par03Outfall001Par04Flow, Qw (MGD)9.000Par05Receiving StreamHasketts CreekPar06Stream ClassCPar07HUC Number3030003Par087Q10s (cfs)0.00Par097Q10w (cfs)0.00Par1030Q2 (cfs)0.20Par11QA (cfs)12.00Par121Q10s (cfs)0.00Par13WS BarrierGulf-Goldston WatershedPar14Latitude34.48437Par15Longitude-79.44746Par16Receiving StreamDeep RiverPar17Stream ClassWS-V; HQWPar187Q10s (cfs)N/APar197Q10w (cfs)N/APar2030Q2 (cfs)N/APar21QA (cfs)846.00Par221Q10s (cfs)Par23Data Source(s)Par24Par25Par26Par27Par28Par29Par30Par31Par322018 Generic RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence1,4-dioxane data from July 2021 - September 2022. QA used was estimated by USGS for the downstream WS-V boundary of Gulf-Goldston WS watershed. 1,4-dioxane biodegradation negligible, and concentration discharged assumed equivalent direct discharge point and downstream WS; More restrictive Cw allowable based on downstream WS-V selectedTable 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of ConcernTo appy a Model IWC %: Once the "Flow, Qw (MGD)" and and the "CHRONIC DILUTION FACTOR = " values are entered, the 7Q10s (cfs) flow is calculated and displayed. Enter the calculated "7Q10s (cfs)" flow value in Table 1.MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58Follow directions for data entry. In some cases a comment menu list the available choices or a dropdown menu will provide a list you may select from. Error message occur if data entry does not meet input criteria. CHECK TO APPLY MODELCHECK IF HQW OR ORWCopy of 9595 GENERIC RPA2018_01 - 1,4-Dioxane, input12/5/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
1,4-Dioxane
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/8/2021 88.4 88.4 Std Dev.123.1529
2 7/16/2021 153 153 Mean 83.7071
3 7/20/2021 34.2 34.2 C.V.1.4712
4 7/23/2021 55.7 55.7 n 58
5 7/30/2021 115 115
6 8/6/2021 334.4 334.4 Mult Factor =1.0000
7 8/13/2021 25.2 25.2 Max. Value 636.0 µg/L
8 8/20/2021 55.6 55.6 Max. Pred Cw 636.0 µg/L
9 8/27/2021 64.6 64.6
10 9/1/2021 58.9 58.9
11 9/10/2021 70.2 70.2
12 9/17/2021 63.9 63.9
13 10/1/2021 37.5 37.5
14 10/8/2021 44.5 44.5
15 10/15/2021 114 114
16 10/21/2021 548 548
17 10/29/2021 636 636
18 11/19/2021 5.04 5.04
19 11/22/2021 10.3 10.3
20 11/5/2021 75.3 75.3
21 11/12/2021 3.82 3.82
22 11/19/2021 5.04 5.04
23 11/22/2021 10.3 10.3
24 12/3/2021 59.7 59.7
25 12/10/2021 2.7 2.7
26 12/17/2021 11.3 11.3
27 12/21/2021 2 2
28 1/7/2022 102 102
29 1/14/2022 26.9 26.9
30 1/20/2022 3.06 3.06
31 1/28/2022 25.2 25.2
32 2/4/2022 74.7 74.7
33 2/11/2022 107 107
34 2/18/2022 34.6 34.6
35 2/25/2022 133 133
36 3/4/2022 25 25
37 3/11/2022 136 136
38 3/18/2022 44.3 44.3
39 3/25/2022 15.1 15.1
40 4/1/2022 46.3 46.3
41 4/8/2022 16.75 16.75
42 4/12/2022 28.7 28.7
43 4/22/2022 82.8 82.8
44 4/29/2022 11.3 11.3
45 5/6/2022 63.2 63.2
46 5/13/2022 22.8 22.8
47 5/20/2022 31.9 31.9
48 5/27/2022 135 135
49 6/3/2022 21.9 21.9
50 6/10/2022 48.5 48.5
51 6/17/2022 20 20
52 6/24/2022 144 144
53 7/8/2022 149 149
54 7/22/2022 449 449
55 8/5/2022 66.8 66.8
56 8/12/2022 33.8 33.8
57 9/16/2022 45.9 45.9
58 9/23/2022 25.9 25.9
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 1 -
Copy of 9595 GENERIC RPA2018_01 - 1,4-Dioxane, data
12/5/2022
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSISAsheboro WWTP Outfall 001
NC0026123 2018 Generic RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Qw = 9 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 9.0000 Qw (MGD) = 9.0000 WWTP/WTP Class:Grade IV WWTP/WTP Class:Grade IV
1Q10S (cfs) = 0.00 1Q10S (cfs) = NO 1Q10s DATA IWC% @ 1Q10S = 100 IWC% @ 1Q10S = N/A
7Q10S (cfs) = 0.00 7Q10S (cfs) = NO 7Q10s DATA IWC% @ 7Q10S = 100 IWC% @ 7Q10S = N/A
7Q10W (cfs) = 0.00 7Q10W (cfs) = NO 7Q10w DATA IW%C @ 7Q10W = 100 IW%C @ 7Q10W = N/A
30Q2 (cfs) = 0.20 30Q2 (cfs) = NO 30Q2 DATA IWC% @ 30Q2 = 98.5865724 IWC% @ 30Q2 = N/A
Avg. Stream Flow,
QA (cfs) = 12.00 Avg. Stream Flow,
QA (cfs) = 846.00 IWC% @ QA = 53.7572254 IWC% @ QA = 1.622187336
Receiving Stream:
Hasketts
Creek HUC
3030003
Receiving Stream:Deep River
HUC 3030003 Stream Class:C Stream Class:WS-V; HQW
PARAMETER
Chronic Applied Standard Acute n # Det.Max Pred Cw
Acute:NO WQS
1,4-Dioxane C 80 HH(Qavg)1 µg/L 58 58 636.0
Chronic:148.82
6 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
1,4-Dioxane C 0.35 WS(Qavg)1 µg/L 58 58 636.0
Chronic:21.58
45 value(s) > Allowable Cw
RP shown - apply limit with Monthly
Monitoring
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Less stringent than protection of
downstream water uses. Apply WSPQLUNITSTYPEAllowable Cw
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTSNC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Page 1 of 1
Copy of 9595 GENERIC RPA2018_01 - 1,4-Dioxane, rpa
12/5/2022
Reduction in Frequency EvalautionFacility:Permit No.Review period      (use 3 yrs)Approval Criteria:Y/N?YYNData Review UnitsWeekly average limitMonthly average limit50% MA3‐yr mean (geo mean for FC)< 50%?200% MA# daily samples >200%<15?200% WA# daily samples >200%< 20?# of non‐monthly limit violations> 2?# civil penalty asessment> 1?Reduce Frequency? (Yes/No)BOD (weighted) mg/L 8.5 5.66667 2.8 1.8087015 Y 11.3 0 Y 0 N 0 N YTSS mg/L 45 30 15 0.6311432 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N YNH3 (weighted)mg/L 4 1.33333 0.7 0.1313479 Y 2.67 3 Y 0 N 0 N YFecal Coliform #/100 400 200 100 6.3818497 Y 800 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y1. Not currently under SOC2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA violationsAsheboro WWTPNC002612308/2018 ‐ 07/2021
10/13/22 WQS = 12 ng/L V:2013-6
Facility Name
/Permit No. :
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 0.000 cfs WQBEL = 12.00 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow = 9.000 47 ng/L
1/11/18 <1 0.5
2/8/18 3 3
3/8/18 1.1 1.1
4/5/18 1.2 1.2
5/3/18 2.8 2.8
6/7/18 1.6 1.6
7/12/18 1.6 1.6
8/9/18 1.2 1.2
9/13/18 3.5 3.5
10/4/18 1.8 1.8
11/8/18 1.7 1.7
12/6/18 <1 0.5 1.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
1/10/19 2.9 2.9
2/7/19 1.3 1.3
3/7/19 2.5 2.5
4/4/19 2.7 2.7
5/2/19 <1 0.5
6/6/19 1.1 1.1
6/27/19 1.3 1.3
7/11/19 1.7 1.7
8/8/19 <1 0.5
9/12/19 <1 0.5
10/3/19 <1 0.5
11/7/19 <1 0.5
12/19/19 2.1 2.1 1.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
1/9/20 1.7 1.7
2/6/20 2.3 2.3
Asheboro WWTP / NC0026123 No Limit Required
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
MMP Required
3/5/20 2.3 2.3
4/9/20 1.5 1.5
5/7/20 <1 0.5
6/4/20 3.3 3.3
7/9/20 2.6 2.6
8/6/20 <1 0.5
9/17/20 1.4 1.4
10/8/20 <1 0.5
11/5/20 1.1 1.1
12/10/20 <1 0.5 1.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
1/7/21 1.1 1.1
2/4/21 <1 0.5
3/4/21 <1 0.5
4/8/21 1.5 1.5
5/6/21 3.6 3.6
6/25/21 1.4 1.4
7/8/21 <1 0.5
8/5/21 <1 0.5
9/16/21 <1 0.5
10/7/21 1.3 1.3
11/4/21 2.2 2.2
12/9/21 1.8 1.8 1.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021
1/13/22 1.4 1.4
2/3/22 1.3 1.3
3/10/22 1.8 1.8
4/7/22 <1 0.5
5/5/22 4.6 4.6
6/9/22 <1 0.5
7/7/22 <1 0.5
8/4/22 1 1 1.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2022
Asheboro WWTP / NC0026123
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
# of Samples 12 13 12 12 8
Annual Average, ng/L 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5
Maximum Value, ng/L 3.50 2.90 3.30 3.60 4.60
TBEL, ng/L
WQBEL, ng/L
47
12.0
IWC Calculations
Facility: Asheboro WWTP
NC0026123
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):9
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):0
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/l)Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
s7Q10 (CFS)0 s7Q10 (CFS)0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)9 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)9
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)13.95 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)13.95
STREAM STD (UG/L)17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)100.00 IWC (%)100.00
Allowable Conc. (ug/l)17 Allowable Conc. (mg/l)1.0
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS)0
Monthly Average Limit:200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)9
(If DF >331; Monitor)DESIGN FLOW (CFS)13.95
(If DF<331; Limit)STREAM STD (MG/L)1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)100.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/l)1.8
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/l
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/l
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/l (summer) and 4 mg/l (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/l (year-round)
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP 10/13/2022
Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)
January-18 97.82 July-20 99.30 January-18 96.47 July-20 99.02
February-18 97.96 August-20 99.25 February-18 97.29 August-20 99.04
March-18 97.92 September-20 99.34 March-18 97.50 September-20 98.89
April-18 98.69 October-20 99.23 April-18 98.24 October-20 99.01
May-18 99.04 November-20 99.13 May-18 98.71 November-20 99.01
June-18 99.27 December-20 98.63 June-18 99.07 December-20 98.44
July-18 99.44 January-21 98.92 July-18 99.43 January-21 98.73
August-18 99.22 February-21 98.40 August-18 99.30 February-21 97.50
September-18 98.97 March-21 98.50 September-18 98.20 March-21 97.74
October-18 98.98 April-21 98.61 October-18 98.02 April-21 97.96
November-18 98.59 May-21 98.77 November-18 97.53 May-21 97.72
December-18 98.36 June-21 99.14 December-18 96.89 June-21 98.60
January-19 98.63 July-21 99.25 January-19 97.09 July-21 98.75
February-19 98.20 August-21 99.29 February-19 97.45 August-21 99.22
March-19 98.16 September-21 99.26 March-19 97.45 September-21 99.03
April-19 98.90 October-21 99.26 April-19 98.31 October-21 98.79
May-19 99.19 November-21 99.33 May-19 99.03 November-21 98.20
June-19 99.16 December-21 99.09 June-19 99.16 December-21 97.81
July-19 99.26 January-22 98.34 July-19 99.25 January-22 96.50
August-19 99.32 February-22 98.88 August-19 99.35 February-22 98.15
September-19 99.40 March-22 98.44 September-19 99.36 March-22 96.85
October-19 99.33 April-22 98.92 October-19 99.24 April-22 98.36
November-19 99.14 May-22 99.20 November-19 99.11 May-22 98.79
December-19 98.80 June-22 99.36 December-19 97.42 June-22 99.27
January-20 98.48 July-22 99.63 January-20 96.59 July-22 99.44
February-20 97.82 August-22 99.53 February-20 96.13 August-22 99.44
March-20 98.35 September-22 March-20 97.04 September-22
April-20 98.74 October-22 April-20 97.57 October-22
May-20 98.73 November-22 May-20 97.33 November-22
June-20 99.14 December-22 June-20 98.36 December-22
Overall BOD removal rate 98.89 Overall TSS removal rate 98.21
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 52 NC0026123 22/05/10 P S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Asheboro WWTP
1032 Bonkemeyer Dr
Asheboro NC 27203
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
10:00AM 22/05/10 12/08/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Other Facility Data
12:00PM 22/05/10 16/09/30
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
John N Ogburn,PO Box 1106 Asheboro NC 272041106/City
Manager/336-626-1213/3366261218
Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Patricia Lowery DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9691/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
22/05/10
Inspection Type
P3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On May 10, 2022, a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) was performed by Tricia Lowery of the
Winston-Salem Regional Office. Sarah Laughlin and Bobby Crandall was present for the inspection.
The purpose of this inspection was to determine the effectiveness of the Asheboro's pretreatment
program, which includes reviewing the files, POTW plant performance, industry monitoring data, and
adherence to the enforcement response plan (ERP).
Background
This is a 9.0 MGD permitted facility. The city has 14 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), 7 of which are
categorical. The publicly owned treatment works (POTW) had no pretreatment related violations in
2021.
POTW Interview
There are no plant problems related to pretreatment issues. Weekly dioxane sampling with
DEQ-DWR is ongoing and conducted every Friday. No SIU’s were SNC for 2021. The pretreatment
program has 33 dental offices and all in are compliance with program.
Pretreatment Program Elements Review
The Headworks Analysis (HWA) was last approved on 6/30/2017. The next HWA is due 6/1/2022.
The IWS was last approved on 5/8/2018. The next IWS is due 4/15/2023.

The Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO) was approved on 11/5/2012.
The Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) was submitted on 1/12/2020 and approved on 2/5/2020.
The Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) was submitted 2/18/2020 and approved on 5/7/2020.
LTMP File Review
The Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) is being conducted at the proper locations and frequencies
(2/year).
Industrial User Permit (IUP) File Review
A review of the file for Covanta (#5049) revealed that the monitoring data was well organized and
compliant.
A review of the file for Bossong (#0822) revealed that the monitoring data was well organized and
compliant.
A review of the file for Premier Power Coating (#3734) revealed that the monitoring data was well
organized and compliant.

The slug control plan for Covanta (#5049) was in good order.
The slug control plan for Bossong (#0822) was in good order.
The slug control plan for Premier Power Coating (#3734) was in good order.
Action Items
No other action items were noted.
NC0026123 17 (Cont.)
Page#2
Permit:NC0026123
Inspection Date:05/10/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Asheboro WWTP
Pretreatment Compliance
Yes No NA NE
Page#3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Alex Lowe
Permittee-Facility Name
NPDES Permit Number WWTP expansion
Stream reclass./adjustment
Outfall relocation/adjustment Hasketts Creek 12
C 0
1/1/2018 to 6/1/2022 34.46.00 79.47.06
9.0 Designed Flow,
mgd 9.0
# IUs
# SIUs
# CIUs
# NSCIUs
# IUs w/Local
Permits or Other
Types
#IU Activity
1 SIC 2253
2 40 CFR 437
3 SIC 3692
4 SIC 3692
5 SIC 2653
6 40 CFR 403
7 SIC 2252
8 SIC 3479
9 SIC 3479
10 SIC 3479
11 SIC 2043
12 SIC 3479
13 SIC 2011
14 40 CFR 414.4
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to § 503.43)
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill:
8) other
7/30/2022
Matlab Plant 5 pH, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc, TTO 9/30/2022
Energizer Manufacturing Plant 2 Chromium, Cyanide, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Silver, Zinc (plant responsible for battery manufacturing)7/30/2022
Matlab Plant 8 pH, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc, TTO 9/30/2022
MOM Brands pH, COD 7/30/2022
a. WWTP Capacity Summary
b. PT Docs. Summary
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
IU Non Conventional Pollutans & Toxic Pollutant
pH, COD, Chromium
pH, COD, TKN, O&G, Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver, Tin, Thalium, Vanadium, Zinc,
Bis (2ethylhexyl) phthalate, Carbazole, o-Cresol, p-Cresol, n-Decane, Fluoranthene, n-Octadecane, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
pH, COD, TKN, Mercury, Nickel (plant responsible for washing of batteries and battery parts)
pH, COD
Randolph Packing pH, COD, TKN, Zinc
Great Oak Landfill pH, COD, TKN, Cyanide, Chloride, Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel,
Selenium, Silver, Tin, Titanium, Vanadium, Zinc, various others (see IUP)
6/22/2021
Kayser Roth pH, COD, Copper 7/30/2022
Matlab Plant 4 pH, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc, TTO 7/30/2022
WQ0001684Sludge Permit No:
f. Receiving Stream
7/30/2022
7Q10 update
Bossong Hoisery Mill Inc.
Chemical Addendum Submittal Date 4/7/2022
IWS approval date 5/8/2018
HWA-AT approval date 6/30/2017
eDMR data evaluated from:
NPDES Permit Effective Date
Outfall II
Outfall I
Starpet Inc.
7/30/2022
d. IU Summary
Outfall Long.
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form
c. POC review due to:
QA, cfs:
7Q10 (S), cfs:
Nick Coco
1. Facility's General Information
Date of (draft) Review
NPDES Permit Writer (pw)HWA-AT/LTMP Review
e. Contact Information
Date of (final) Review Municipal NPDES renewal Regional Office (RO)
Sarah Laughlin, [e-mail]
Version: 2022.09.28
RO PT Staff Patricia Lowery RO NPDES Staff
Facility PT Staff, email
Receiving Stream:
Stream Class
Oufall Lat.
Receiving Stream:
Stream Class
Oufall Lat. NPDES Permit Writer7
14
Industrial User (IU) Name
Comment:Recommend adding 1,4-Dioxane to Great Oak Landfill and Starpet pollutant list
Asheboro WWTP
NC0026123
New Industries
Winston-Salem
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date
Other POC review trigger, explain:
YES NO
The nearest downstream water supply (WS-V) boundary is located in the Deep River 1.0 mile upstream of Tysons Creek and 43.5 miles downstream
of the outfall
Comments:
Current Permitted Flow, mgd
14
7L/STMP approval date:5/7/2020
2. Industrial Users' Information.
QA, cfs:
7Q10, cfs:
Outfall Long.
0.712
Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfall(s)?
7/30/2022
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
IUP Effective Date
7/30/2022
Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC
Covanta Environmental Solutions
Energizer Manufacturing Plant 1
7/30/2022
Premier Powder Coating pH, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc, TTO 7/30/2022
pH, COD, Cyanide, Lead, Zinc, various others - note 1,4-Dioxane is not in the IUP, but is sampled
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
Sludge Disposal Plan:Land Application
Page 1 POC Review Form
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
%
Removal
Rate
PQL from
L/STMP, ug/l
Required PQL
per NPDES
permit
Recomm.
PQL, ug/l
Flow Monthly Continuous
BOD Monthly Daily
TSS Monthly Daily
NH3 Monthly Daily
Arsenic Monthly 2.0
Barium Monthly
Beryllium(5)Monthly
Cadmium(1)Monthly 0.5
Chromium(1)Monthly 5.0
Copper(1)Monthly Quarterly 2.0
Cyanide Monthly
Lead(1)Monthly 2.0
Mercury(5)Monthly 0.001
Molybdenum Monthly 10.0
Nickel(1)Monthly
Selenium Monthly Quarterly 1 ug/L 1.0
Silver Monthly Monthly 1 ug/L 1.0
Zinc(1)Monthly 10.0
Sludge Flow to Disposal Monthly
% Solids to Disposal Monthly
Oil & Grease Monthly
TN Monthly
TP Monthly
PFAS 1633 Monthly Quarterly
1,4 Dioxane 1/Week 1 ug/L
Manganese Monthly
Chlorides Quarterly
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA-PT requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
Please use orange font and strikethrough for POC that may be removed from L/STMP POC list/sampling plan
Blue shaded cell (D60:H81):Parameters usually included under that POC list
180 days after effective (date):Permit writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES
POC
Required by
EPA PT(1)
POC due to
Sludge (2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC (4)
6. Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
L/STMP
Effluent Freq.
PQLs review
Comment
POC in L/STMPParameter of Concern
(POC) Check List
NPDES
Effluent Freq.
NPDES Permit Effective Date
4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
PW: Find L/STMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
5. Comments
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in L/STMP:
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to L/STMP due
to POTWs concerns:
NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
Page 2 POC Review Form
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary Arclin USA Inc.+NC0000892/001chr lim: 0.39%Ceri7dPFBegin:7/1/2013Freq:QFeb May Aug NovNonComp:SingleCounty:ChathamRegion:RROBasin:CPF077Q10:40.0IWC:0.39SOC_JOC:PF:0.10JFMAMJJASOND2018‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass Pass‐‐Pass‐2019‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐2020‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐2021‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐2022‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Ardagh GlassNC0083038/001ANNUAL: 24hr LC50 Fthd24AcBegin:5/1/2015Freq:ANonComp:County:VanceRegion:RROBasin:TAR027Q10:0IWC:100.0SOC_JOC:PF:0.50JFMAMJJASOND2018‐‐‐‐‐H‐‐‐‐‐‐2020‐‐‐‐‐H‐‐‐‐‐‐2021‐‐‐‐‐H‐‐‐‐‐‐2022‐‐‐‐‐H‐‐‐‐‐‐Asheboro WWTPNC0026123/001chr lim: 90%Ceri7dPFBegin:8/1/2012Freq:QMar Jun Sep DecNonComp:SingleCounty:RandolphRegion:WSROBasin:CPF097Q10:0.0IWC:100SOC_JOC:PF:9.0JFMAMJJASOND2018‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐>100(P) Pass‐‐Pass2019‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass >100(P)2020‐‐Pass >100(P)‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass2021‐‐Pass‐‐Pass >100 (P)‐‐Pass‐‐Pass2022‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐‐‐‐‐Asheville DeBruhl WTPNC0056961/001chr monit: 29% (GrabCeri7dPFBegin:4/11/2017Freq:QJan Apr Jul OctNonComp:SingleCounty:BuncombeRegion:AROBasin:FRB027Q10:1.1IWC:12.3SOC_JOC:PF:0.1JFMAMJJASOND2018 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2019 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2020 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2021 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2022 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐‐‐‐Asheville Northfork WTPNC0035807/001chr Monit: 22%Ceri7dPFBegin:4/1/2017Freq:QJan Apr Jul OctNonComp:SingleCounty:BuncombeRegion:AROBasin:FRB027Q10:1.7IWC:42.2SOC_JOC:PF:0.8JFMAMJJASOND2018 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2019 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2020 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2021 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2022 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐‐‐‐Page 5 of 117Legend:  P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Cape Fear River BasinDeep
AU ID
AU NumberAU Name
Description
AU LengthArea AU UnitsClassification
DEEP RIVER
4126
17-(10.5)b
From US 220 business to Subbasin 03-06-08 and 03-06-09 boundary
2.2 FW MilesC
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
2022 Water Quality Assessments
Water Temperature (32ºC, AL, LP&CP)1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/l, AL, FW)1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW)1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW)1 Meeting Criteria
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles)1 Meeting Criteria
Chloride (230 mg/l, AL, FW)3a Data Inconclusive
Flouride (1.8 mg/l, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
1,4-Dioxane in Water (80 µg/l, AL, FW)3a Data Inconclusive
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW)3a Data Inconclusive
DEEP RIVER
4128
17-(10.5)d1
From Haskett Creek to Gabriels Creek
2.7 FW MilesC
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
2022 Water Quality Assessments
Water Temperature (32ºC, AL, LP&CP)1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/l, AL, FW)1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW)1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW)1 Meeting Criteria
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles)1 Meeting Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW)3a Data Inconclusive
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/l, AL, NC)5 Exceeding Criteria
Page 108 of 13466/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT -Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 52 NC0026123 22/01/27 C S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Asheboro WWTP
1032 Bonkemeyer Dr
Asheboro NC 27203
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
10:30AM 22/01/27 12/08/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Other Facility Data
12:10PM 22/01/27 16/09/30
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
John N Ogburn,PO Box 1106 Asheboro NC 272041106/City
Manager/336-626-1213/3366261218
Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Program Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Alex Lowe DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9689/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
22/01/27
Inspection Type
C3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On January 27, 2022, Alex Lowe of the WSRO conducted a routine Compliance Evalauation
Inspection at the City of Asheboro WWTP. ORC Mike Wiseman was present throughout the
inspection.
In the interview with Mr. Wiseman, the state of the POTWs permit was discussed. A current permit is
in administrative review, but is awaiting the results of the Cape Fear study.
A review of three randomly chosen months of laboratory data and DMR submissions found all data to
be properly reported. The POTW permit is currently expired, and the renewal application is under
administrative review. It is not expected to be approved until the completion of the Cape Fear study
on emerging contaminants.
A tour of the facility with Mr. Wiseman demonstrated a well-maintained system, and no operational
issues were uncovered. With influent flows of only 33%-50% of maximum design rate, proper steps
are being made to ensure retention time and thorough treatment are being achieved.
This facility was found to be in permit compliance.
NC0026123 17 (Cont.)
Page#2
Permit:NC0026123
Inspection Date:01/27/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Asheboro WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
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?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Permit awaiting results from the Cape Fear study. Permit renewal underway.Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain-of-custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
All DMRs and lab data kept for at least five years (observed folders dated back to
2012). Random spot checks of DMRs and laboratory results for three months in 2021
demonstrates accurate reporting of effluent parameters.
Comment:
Page#3
Permit:NC0026123
Inspection Date:01/27/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Asheboro WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Grit removal by vortex.Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# 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?
Temperature of auto sampler kept below 6 C. Temperature reading last calibrated
March 12, 2021.
Comment:
Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated?
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Page#4
Permit:NC0026123
Inspection Date:01/27/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Asheboro WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
Comment:
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately ¼ of the sidewall depth)
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately ¼ of the sidewall depth)
Three final clarifiers on site, only two running to increase retention time.Comment:
Page#5
Permit:NC0026123
Inspection Date:01/27/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Asheboro WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Trickling Filter Yes No NA NE
Is the filter free of ponding?
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter’s distribution arms?
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
Are the filter’s distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
Comment:
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin’s surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l)
Three 40 HP blowers on site for each aeration tank. All in working order at time of
inspection.
Comment:
Disinfection-Liquid Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination?
Comment:
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
Page#6
Permit:NC0026123
Inspection Date:01/27/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Asheboro WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Flow over steps to aerate. No residual foaming 150 feet downstream.Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# 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?
Ultrasonic flow meter used as primary effluent flow recorder.Comment:
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:
Page#7
9/8/2021
Mail - Perlmutter, Gary - Outlook
USGS response to DWR USGS Low Flows request # 2021-145 (dated 2021/08/13) for Deep River Moore County...RE: [EXTERNAL] Low -
flow request approval
Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Wed 9/8/2021 11:29 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hill, David A <[e-mail]>; Kebede, Adugna <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J<[e-mail]>; Dowden, Doug
<[e-mail]>; Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>; Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.
Gary,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for a location on the Deep River adjacent to the end of NC Secondary Road 1617 (Trivett Road) near
Glendon in northeast Moore County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC, Raleigh office) does not indicate a previous low -flow determination
for the point of interest, identified by the adjusted lat/long coordinates (35.48437, -79.44746) associated with the email dated 08/13/2021 from the DWR USGS
Low Flow portal following your request submission.
No USGS discharge records are known to exist for the point of interest.
In the absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis, estimates of low -flow characteristics at ungaged locations would be determined
by assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area, or cfsm) at nearby sites where estimates have previously been
determined.
A basin delineation completed using the online USGS StreamStats application for North Carolina (https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/) indicates the drainage area for
the point of interest (StreamStats adjusted coordinates 35.48437, -79.44747 NAD83) is 853 sqmi, which confirms the drainage area submitted as part of the
request information.
For the record:
(1) The low -flow estimates provided below are patterned after an identical approach used earlier this year to respond (via emails dated February 23, 2021) to two
separate low -flow requests (#108 and #110) for the Deep River.
(2) The low -flow estimates provided below do not account for the presence of the upstream High Falls dam and the impounded reach on the Deep River
upstream from this dam. Please be aware the USGS techniques used to provide estimated low -flow discharges for streams and rivers are not applicable to
impounded reaches. The estimated low -flow discharges would not be meaningful for impounded reaches where the storage characteristics and circulation
patterns of the impoundment are additional components of the flow dynamics within these streams and rivers.
For streams in northern Moore County, low -flow characteristics published by the USGS are provided in the following reports:
(1) The first is a statewide report completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, "Low -flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and
Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available at httmapubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2403/report.pdf. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on
data through 1988) via regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and 400 sqmi and not considered or known to be affected by
regulation and/or diversions.
(2) The second is a basin -wide report for the Cape Fear River basin published in 2001. It is USGS Water -Resources Investigations Report 01-4094, "Low -flow
characteristics and discharge profiles for selected streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998 " (Weaver and Pope, 2001). An online version of
the report is available through http://nc.water.usgs.gov/reports/wri014094/. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through 1998) for
continuous -record gaging stations and partial -record sites within the Cape Fear River basin. The report also provides low -flow discharge profiles (7Q10, 30Q2, winter
7Q10, and 7Q2) for the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries within the basin.
(3) The third is a statewide report published in March 2015. It is USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5001, "Low -flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics
for selected USGS continuous -record streamgaging stations in North Carolina through 2012" (Weaver, 2015). The report is available online at
http LLpubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5001/. The report provides updated low -flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics for 266 active (as of 2012 water year) and
discontinued streamgages across the state where a minimum of 10 climatic years discharge records were available for flow analyses.
Low -flow characteristics estimated for point of interest:
The USGS SAWSC currently operates two streamgages on the Deep River having long-term continuous records of discharge. The upstream active streamgage is on the
Deep River at Ramseur in Randolph County (station id 02100500, drainage area 349 sqmi) with discharge records dating back to the 1923 water year. The downstream
active streamgage is on the Deep River at Moncure in Lee County (station id 02102000, drainage area 1,434 sqmi) with discharge records dating back to the 1930 water
year.
The USGS also operated a discontinued continuous -record streamgage from July 1993 through September 1996 on the Deep River near Glendon in Lee County (station
id 0210106600, drainage area 859 sqmi). Because of the short-term record available for this site, low -flow techniques applicable to continuous -record streamgages with
a minimum of 10 climatic years record cannot be applied to this streamgage. However, low -flow techniques applicable to partial -record sites are applicable to this
streamgage. A MOVE.1 analysis (Helsel and Hirsch, USGS Techniques and Methods 4-A3, published 2020) can be completed for a correlation between two streamgages,
in which discharge records at the short-term site are correlated with the discharge records at the long-term streamgage.
(a) Two MOVE.1 analyses were completed. The first analysis correlated the daily mean discharges for July 1993 through September 1996 between the Ramseur and
Glendon streamgages (correlation coefficient 0.9). The second analysis correlated the daily mean discharges for the same period between the Glendon and Moncure
streamgages (correlation coefficient 0.963).
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADRjNGZkNGYwLWNjOTctNGQ4MS1 hZDQ3LWJjMGMOYmRiN2M3NwAQADGLyKwk3UB4v%2FIR... 1/3

9/8/2021 Mail - Perlmutter, Gary - Outlook
(b) Using the published low -flow characteristics (Weaver, 2015) at the Ramseur and Moncure streamgages, each of the MOVE.1 equations were used to compute the
estimated low -flow characteristics for the discontinued Glendon streamgage. Using the respective drainage areas at the three streamgages, the equivalent low -flow
yields (cfsm) were then determined for the low -flow characteristics at the three streamgages. For the discontinued Glendon streamgage, the final provisional unit low -
flow yields were averaged from the two separate MOVE.1 analysis results.
(c) The unit low -flow yields for the point of interest were then pro -rated on the basis of drainage area between the average yields at the discontinued Glendon
streamgage and yields for the upstream Ramseur streamgage.
(d) The drainage area for the point of interest (853 sqmi) was then applied to pro -rated low -flow yields to determine the estimated low -flow discharges (in cubic feet per
second, or cfs). The resulting low -flow discharges estimated for the point of interest are as follows:
Annual 7Q10 discharge = 19.5 cfs (equivalent to 0.0228 cfs per sqmi)
Annual 30Q2 discharge = 78.2 cfs (equivalent to 0.0917 cfs per sqmi)
Winter 7Q10 discharge = 39.3 cfs (equivalent to 0.0461 cfs per sqmi)
Annual 7Q10 discharge = 50.0 cfs (equivalent to 0.0586 cfs per sqmi)
NOTE: Given the close proximity of the point of interest (853 sqmi) to the downstream discontinued continuous -record streamgage near Glendon (859 sqmi), the above
estimated low -flow characteristics are practically identical to the low -flow characteristics determined for the streamgage.
Reference table for above -described analysis steps:
USGS station
Drainage area
(sqmi)
7Q10
(cfs)
7Q10 (cfsm)
30Q2
(cfs)
30Q2
(cfsm)
W7Q10
(cfs)
W7Q10
(cfsm)
7Q2
(cfs)
7Q2
(cfsm)
Comment
02100500
349
13
0.0372
46
0.1318
26
0.0745
30
0.0860
USGS SIR 2015-5001 (Weave
Point of interest
853
19.5
0.0228
78.2
0.0917
39.3
0.0461
50.0
0.0586
Low -flow yields pro -rated by
0210106600
859
19.5
0.0227
80.4
0.0936
42.4
0.0494
49.8
0.0580
Based on MOVE.1 analysis u:
0210106600
859
19.4
0.0226
76.3
0.0888
36.2
0.0421
50.3
0.0586
Based on MOVE.1 analysis u:
Average
19.5
0.0226
78.4
0.0912
39.3
0.0458
50.1
0.0583
For the average annual discharge, an average unit flow was determined for the mean daily discharges published in Table 5 on page 77 of USGS SIR 2015-5001 for the six
sites within the Deep River basin (site index numbers 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 202, and 203). The average unit flow was computed to be 0.9914 cfs per sqmi drainage
area.
Average annual discharge = 846 cfs (equivalent to 0.9914 cfs per sqmi)
Please note:
(1) The estimated flows are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
(2) The information provided in this message is based on a preliminary assessment and considered provisional, subject to revision pending collection of future
data and further analyses.
These provisional streamflow statistics are provided via the DWR USGS Low Flows cooperative agreement between the USGS and the N.C. Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: jcweaver@usg.5,ggy
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: https://www.us�s.gov/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
From: Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 10:27 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>; Hill, David A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>; Montebello,
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADRjNGZkNGYwLWNjOTctNGQ4MS1 hZDQ3LWJjMGMOYmRiN2M3NwAQADGLyKwk3UB4v%2FIR... 2/3

9/8/2021
Mail - Perlmutter, Gary - Outlook
Michael J <[e-mail]>; Dowden, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Low -flow request approval
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding.
Your request has been approved and will be forwarded to USGS. A response from USGS usually takes 7 - 10 business days.
Request Flow Statistic Approval
Request ID: 145
Requestor: Gary Perlmutter
Requestor e-mail: [e-mail]
Requestor Phone: [phone]
Local Government:
Public Water Supply:
Consultant:
Contact:
Reason: Permit
River/Stream: Deep River
Drainage Area (sq. mi.): 853
Latitude: 35.48437
Longitude: -79.44746
Other Information:
Statististics: ["7Q10","30Q2","Average Annual","7Q10 - Winter"]
Approved by: Dowden, Doug
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADRjNGZkNGYwLWNjOTctNGQ4MS1 hZDQ3LWJjMGMOYmRiN2M3NwAQADGLyKwk3UB4v%2FIR... 3/3

Asheboro WWTP (NC0026123) Public Comments and Responses
Page 1 of 4

Comments to the draft Asheboro WWTP NPDES permit (NC0026123) were received from the City of
Asheboro, dated 5/31/2018. Comments and responses are below:
• Comment: “The WWTP staff requested mass based limits for ammonia in lieu of concentration
based limits during the March 29, 2018 meeting at the WWTP [site visit]. Upon review of
historical data, mass based limits are attainable. What was the rationale for not using mass
based limits in the draft permit? Asheboro is requesting a three year compliance schedule to
research alternative treatment options that will allow for consistent compliance if mass based
limits are not allowed.”

Response: Concentration-based limits are in the permit because EPA water quality criteria for
ammonia (i.e., 1.0 mg/L summer, 1.8 mg/L winter) are expressed as concentrations, not mass, and
are based on concentration-based toxicity studies. An updated review of effluent data shows that
the Asheboro WWTP has not reported a weekly average or monthly average ammonia
concentration that is greater than the proposed limits since January 2018. As the facility is
consistently meeting the proposed limitations, a compliance schedule does not appear necessary
and has not been added to the permit.

• Comment: “Chloride has consistently been sampled in conjunction with Toxicity testing in
previous permit cycles. Asheboro has never failed toxicity based on the chronic results and has
had an excellent track record for passing toxicity testing. Explain what factors, data and
calculations the Reasonable Potential Analysis are based on and confirm how this number is
obtained.”

Response: The RPA was conducted on 15 sample concentrations ranging from 68 to 300 mg/L,
collected from March 2014 – December 2017. The RPA results showed that the chloride standard
of 230 mg/L could be violated with a maximum predicted value of 351 mg/L. However, since
Asheboro is passing toxicity tests, only monitoring is required. This is consistent with 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 (22): If chloride is determined by the waste load allocation to be exceeded in a
receiving water by a discharge under the specified 7Q10 criterion for toxic substances, the
discharger shall monitor the chemical or biological effects of the discharge - Monitoring will be
maintained in conjunction with toxicity tests. Asheboro should use this permit cycle as an
opportunity to assess sources of chloride and how it can reduce this pollutant so that the allowable
discharge concentration can be achieved in the next permit cycle.

• Comment: “Staff reviewed historical influent and effluent data for Cyanide collected since 2010.
During this time no samples ever resulted in above detect for the influent. However, a period of
seven days in September of 2015, three effluent samples resulted in a detection of cyanide. Upon
review of the lab bench sheets, the data indicates that there was an interference with the test
method in these samples and therefore these data points should have not been used or reported. A
copy of relevant bench sheets are attached with this correspondence. All samples collected from
March 2, 2010 to June 4, 2015 and after September 22, 2015 have been recorded as non-detects
<0.01mg/L (one was <0.005mg/L). The maximum data point used to show reasonable potential
for cyanide should not be considered in light of this interference as it is not an accurate reflection
of Asheboro WWTP effluent. Asheboro requests the limit and monitoring requirements for
cyanide be removed.”

Response: A Reasonable Potential Analysis review has been conducted based on the last 4.5
years of effluent data (March 2018 – June 2022). Based on the reasonable potential analysis
(RPA) showing no reasonable potential to violate state water quality standards, total cyanide
limits and monitoring requirements have not been added to the permit.
Asheboro WWTP (NC0026123) Public Comments and Responses
Page 2 of 4

• Comment: “Asheboro Staff is actively exploring alternatives in how to meet the new
boromodichloromethane limit. We would like to request a two year compliance schedule to
evaluate our disinfection process and determine how to effectively reduce our
bromodichloromethane concentrations but continue to properly disinfect the wastewater in order
to continue to protect the stream end environment.”

Response: The City informed the Division via email notification on 11/29/2022 that a
bromodichloromethane compliance schedule is no longer requested.

• Comment: “Asheboro staff is aware of the concern associated with 1,4 dioxane and will be able
to comply with the terms of the three year compliance schedule. However, Asheboro is not
inclined to regulate an industry that may be discharging 1,4 dioxane based on the inconclusive
data regarding the health effects of this parameter and the lack of enforceable stream standards.
We feel identifying the sources of this contaminant is crucial. However, any sources found should
have ample opportunity to provide options of reducing or eliminating the contaminant while
properly budgeting funds which are anticipated to be substantial. Asheboro believes after the
sources are identified, then a set of standards should be developed and limits applied. Staff would
like an explanation of the legal basis and calculations for the 149 µg/L limit in this draft permit.”

Response:

Division regulations applicable to 1,4-Dioxane limitations:
• 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a)(4)(B) identifies that for the flow design criteria for effluent limitations,
the average annual flow for toxic substances shall be used to protect human health.
• 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a)(2)(B) identifies for carcinogens, an unacceptable exposed risk level is
1×10-6 or greater.
• 15A NCAC 02B .0216(4)(d) Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-IV Waters
identifies that no discharge of sewage “…shall be allowed that have an adverse effect on human
health or that are not treated in accordance with the permit or other requirements established by
the Division...”

The previously identified allowable discharge concentration of 149 µg/L for 1,4-Dioxane was
based on a Reasonable Potential Analysis for the human health criterion of 80 µg/L in non-water
supply waters. The non-WS criterion was based on a calculated 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk from
fish consumption per 15A NCAC 02B .0208.

1,4-dioxane is completely miscible in water and resistant to biodegradation. It is assumed that
concentrations of 1,4-dioxane discharged from the WWTP will be equivalent at the direct
discharge to Hasketts Creek, a class C waterbody, and the nearest downstream water supply (WS-
V) boundary, located in the Deep River 1.0 mile upstream of Tysons Creek and 43.5 miles
downstream of the outfall. As such, in this reevaluation, allowable discharge concentrations were
calculated for both the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek and for the nearest downstream
water supply (WS-V) boundary, and the more restrictive concentration was selected for
protection of downstream uses. The water supply boundary is for the Deep River (Gulf-
Goldston) water supply watershed, whose water supply intake is currently inactive. Each
allowable discharge concentration was calculated considering the applicable receiving stream’s
Average Annual Flow (AAF), appropriate Instream Target Value (ITV) and the facility’s
permitted design flow.
Asheboro WWTP (NC0026123) Public Comments and Responses
Page 3 of 4

For the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek, an ITV of 80 µg/L for non-water supply
waters at an AAF of 12 cfs and a permitted design flow of 9.0 MGD (13.95 cfs) was considered.
This calculation yielded a chronic allowable discharge concentration of 149 µg/L. When
considering the downstream WS-V waters, a 1×10-6 risk level ITV of 0.35 µg/L for water supply
waters at an AAF of 846 cfs (calculation estimated by USGS for WS-V boundary of Gulf-
Goldston WS watershed) and a permitted design flow of 9.0 MGD (13.95 cfs) was considered.
This calculation yielded a chronic allowable concentration of 21.58 µg/L. The allowable
discharge determination based on direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek is insufficiently
protective of downstream water supply uses. As such, the chronic allowable discharge
concentration of 21.58 µg/L has been used in determination of permitting actions.

Based on a review of the effluent data, the WWTP demonstrates a reasonable potential to exceed
both the EPA drinking water heath advisory (HAL) of 35 µg/L and the state water supply
Instream Target Value (WS ITV) of 0.35 µg/L for 1,4-Dioxane at the nearest downstream water
supply boundary. As the reported effluent concentrations of 1,4-dioxane are greater than 35 µg/L,
the facility discharges to non-WS waters with downstream WS waters, and reasonable potential to
exceed applicable ITV at downstream WS boundary has been demonstrated. As such, weekly
monitoring and limits have been added to the permit. Recognizing that 1,4-Dioxane is an
emerging contaminant and industrial users are just now understanding its impact and use in
materials, a phased implementation compliance schedule has been included in the permit. Please
see the fact sheet for additional information regarding 1,4-dioxane permitting actions.

• Comment: “Staff has discovered a NPDES permit issued to DAK Americas (permit # NC0003719
– included with this correspondence) dated March 20, 2018 in the Cape Fear River Basin –
direct discharge to the Cape Fear River. This industry has the potential to be a significant
discharger of 1,4 dioxane based on their manufacturing process as well as toxic review inventory
submitted annually to EPA. This industry is only required to monitor annually and report
according to the newly issued permit. This appears to be a discrepancy and Asheboro staff does
not understand the difference in permit requirements Staff feels if we are held to this standard
then it should be included in the reasonable potential analysis for all state issued permits and all
permit holders should be held to the same set of standards.”

Response: The DAK Americas permit has a monitoring only requirement for 1,4-Dioxane to
determine whether this facility discharges the contaminant in detectible amounts, given the
concern of 1,4-dioxane in the Cape Fear River basin as a whole. The only historical 1,4-Dioxane
data generated by the facility was in 2003, well before the implementation of EPA Test Method
164.1 in 2017, and under a process that has since changed. Asheboro has generated sufficient data
to perform an RPA.

• Comment: “Staff would like an explanation as to why the term for this permit is only four years.
NPDES permits are typically written for 5 year terms. It is understood that we have been
operating on an expired permit for some time but shortening the term of the new permit to four
years is a burden not only for city personnel bur also DEQ.”

Response: The permit term has been revised to be 5 years.
Asheboro WWTP (NC0026123) Public Comments and Responses
Page 4 of 4

Comments were received from Mick Noland (Fayetteville Public Works Commission, PWC), Jim
Fletchner (Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, CFPUA, Wilmington), Victor Czar (City of Sanford), and
Jeff Adkins (Town of Cary) via e-mail on June 8, 2018. All commenters represent municipalities with
water supply concerns of 1,4-Dioxane. Comments are summarized as follows:
• All commenters ask the Division to consider the designated uses of the river downstream in 1,4-
Dioxane limit development.
• PWC, CFPUA and Sanford representatives request that other sources of 1,4-Dioxane be
considered in developing limits.
• CFPUA cites the EPA health advisory for 1 in 10,000 cancer risk of 35 µg/L in drinking water.
• Sanford cites the water supply criterion of 0.35 µg/L and requests DEQ conduct an analysis to
determine if the 149 µg/L limit is protective of the 0.35 µg/L criterion at the WS-IV classified
water downstream at the confluence of Governors Creek with the Deep River.
• CFPUA requests the compliance schedule be reduced; PWC and Sanford request a 2 yr
compliance schedule
• PWC requests a public hearing
• PWC will consider legal action should DWR not consider downstream WS and other sources in
limits development

Response: Please see the response to the City of Asheboro’s above comment and the revised Other
WQBEL Considerations section of the fact sheet, with pages 16 and 17 focusing on the 1,4-dioxane
compliance schedule for more information.

1
Coco, Nick A
From:Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, December 5, 2022 1:06 PM
To:Coco, Nick A; mrhoney
Cc:Montebello, Michael J; Mike Wiseman; Judy Smith
Subject:RE: [External Sender] RE: [External Sender] [External] RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro
WWTP Draft Courtesy Copy
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
Report Spam. 

Hi Nick,

Thank you for taking time and meeting with me to discuss our permit further.

The City of Asheboro is requesting the full 5 year compliance schedule for 1,4 dioxane. We believe Industry
in Asheboro will need this time to investigate and install treatment units to reduce 1,4 dioxane discharges in
order to meet the final compliance limits.

Thank you,

Sarah W. Laughlin
Technical Services Manager
Water Resources Division
City of Asheboro
[phone] ext. 218
[e-mail]

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third 
parties. 

From: Coco, Nick A [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:36 AM 
To: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>; Mike 
Wiseman <[e-mail]>; Judy Smith <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External Sender] RE: [External Sender] [External] RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft 
Courtesy Copy  

Hi Michael, 

2
We understand your concerns and have added some language to the footnote to allow for the sampling to be handled 
by the coalition (see below for footnote language). We do not have an issue with the coalition conducting the sampling, 
so long as we are receiving at least 1/month data. Additionally, if the coalition does not conduct sampling for the 
parameter, it will fall back on the City to resume sampling. 

“Instream 1,4‐dioxane sampling shall be performed on concurrent days with effluent 1,4‐dioxane sampling.  If the 
Permittee is a member of the Monitoring Coalition Program, sampling for instream 1,4‐dioxane may be waived as long 
as the Monitoring Coalition samples 1,4‐dioxane at the nearest upstream and downstream locations, at a minimum 
frequency of monthly, and the Permittee has obtained approval from DWR ‐ NPDES Permitting Unit that the upstream 
and downstream stations being monitored by the Coalition are representative of the receiving stream for this discharge. 
The Permittee is responsible for submitting instream 1,4‐dioxane test results with its permit renewal application 
package. If the Coalition terminates instream 1,4‐dioxane sampling at either of the approved stations, the Permittee will 
immediately notify the Division and resume sampling for instream 1,4‐dioxane.” 

Do you have time today for a quick MS Teams call? This would only take 10‐15 minutes and is regarding the 1,4‐dioxane 
compliance schedule. 

Thanks, 
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) 
Engineer III  
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit 
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting 
Office: (919) 707‐3609 
[e-mail]  
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams** 

Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699‐1617 

From: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 11:02 AM 
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>; Mike 
Wiseman <[e-mail]>; Judy Smith <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External Sender] RE: [External Sender] [External] RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft 
Courtesy Copy  

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
Report Spam. 

3
Nick, 

Thank you for this response.  We appreciate your cooperation as we continue this process.  Your comments are 
satisfactory.  However, we still have some concern with the 1,4‐dioxane sampling requirements.  We understand the 
importance of investigating background concentrations. Unless the samples are hydraulically paired, a grab sample on 
the same day as the effluent is immaterial.  The samples aren’t associative without hydraulically paring them.  We have 
been completely receptive and cooperative with everything DEQ has requested of us concerning 1,4 but this sampling 
places somewhat of a burden on us.  We aren’t currently staffed to do this sampling and the two bridge sites aren’t safe 
locations.  The contract lab for the UCFRBA is already doing sampling at these sites and we would like to coordinate with 
them to do this sampling while they are there. 

You consideration of this request is greatly appreciated.   

Thank you, 

Michael D. Rhoney, PE
Water Resources Director
Water Resources Division
336-626-1201, ext: 258
www.asheboronc.gov

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed 
to third parties. 

From: Coco, Nick A [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 3:04 PM 
To: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>; Mike 
Wiseman <[e-mail]>; Judy Smith <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External Sender] RE: [External Sender] [External] RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft 
Courtesy Copy  

Hi Michael, 

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to review the draft permit and submit these comments. Please see 
below for responses to each: 
4

1. The September 30 expiration is a remnant of the basinwide scheduling for NPDES permit renewals. I had it in as 
a placeholder, but will remove it and just have Month xx, 2027 for now to avoid confusion. The term of the 
permit is going to be 5 years. 
2. That was an oversight on my part. I jumped the gun getting this out to you. Please see the revised version 
attached, which includes the reduced frequency. 
3. Upstream hardness has not been added to the permit, for the reason you had listed. I will revise the language 
used in that email to remove reference to upstream hardness sampling when preparing the cover letter. 
4. I will remove the compliance schedule for bromodichloromethane in the draft permit. Thank you for letting me 
know. 
5. The instream 1,4‐dioxane data will be used to understand background concentrations. I have changed the 
footnote language from “in conjunction with” to “on concurrent days with.” The goal is to have the 2/month 
instream samples be taken on days where effluent samples are taken. This does not have to be down to the 
minute, but the concurrent data provides clearer conclusions. Please see response 1 for the 5‐year term. 
6. We will provide this as an attachment to the cover letter. 
7. Permittees are responsible for tracking the Federal Register, but we will also be sending notifications to 
permittees with this requirement. 
8. 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (11) (b) states, “With the exception of mercury, aquatic life standards for metals listed in 
this Sub‐Item shall apply as a function of the pollutant's water effect ratio (WER). The WER shall be assigned a 
value equal to one unless any person demonstrates to the Division's satisfaction in a permit proceeding that 
another value is developed in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition" 
published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA‐823‐B‐12‐002), which is hereby incorporated by 
reference, including subsequent amendments and editions, and can be obtained free of charge at 
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/. Alternative site‐specific standards may also be 
developed when any person submits values that demonstrate to the Commission that they were derived in 
accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, Recalculation Procedure or the 
Resident Species Procedure", which is hereby incorporated by reference including subsequent amendments and 
can be obtained free of charge at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/.” 
Additionally, as you had noted,  15A NCAC 02B .0211 (11) (c) (viii) [for chronic silver] as well as 15A NCAC 02B 
.0211 (11) (e) [for acute silver] incorporate the WER as a multiplicative factor when calculating the standards. 
DWR is also willing to consider other methods to achieve compliance with the proposed silver limits. 

Please confirm that the City believes a 5‐year compliance schedule is necessary for achieving compliance with the 
proposed 1,4‐dioxane effluent limitations. 

Please let me know if you would like to have a follow‐up call to discuss any of these bullet items or would like further 
clarification on anything related to the draft permit.  

Best, 
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) 
Engineer III  
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit 
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting 
Office: (919) 707‐3609 
[e-mail]  
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams** 

Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699‐1617 
5

From: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 4:34 PM 
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>; Mike 
Wiseman <[e-mail]>; Judy Smith <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External Sender] [External] RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft Courtesy Copy 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
Report Spam. 

Good afternoon, 

The City of Asheboro NPDES Permit Comments/Concerns are itemized below: 

1. Please verify that this permit will be for less than 5 years based on the September 30, 2027 expiration date. 
2. It doesn’t appear that we were granted Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies for BOD, TSS, Ammonia and Fecal 
in NPDES permits for exceptionally performing facilities as requested. Was there an error in our request 
submission or was this just overlooked and didn’t get changed? 

3. The email on 11/21/2022 states upstream hardness sampling is required but Asheboro did not see it in the 
permit on A.(1.). Was it listed in another location? Asheboro has a 7Q10 of zero so upstream hardness testing is 
not needed or relevant to our site. 

4. We would like to request the Bromodichloromethane compliance schedule be removed. We feel confident we 
have made enough internal operational changes since the last draft was published to meet the current limit and 
a compliance schedule is no longer necessary. 

5. 1,4 Dioxane instream sampling – What is the data collected being used for? We would like to have the effluent 
and instream pairing requirement removed (footnote 13). This puts an undue hardship on our staff. Samples are 
not hydraulically paired when collected together so Asheboro does not understand the reasoning for this 
requirement. Please explain or remove the requirement for pairing. The 1,4 Dioxane final limit goes into effect 
at the end of year 5 but our permit isn’t good for 5 years. Is that acceptable or was it an oversight (See comment 
1 on less than 5 year permit). 

6. We would like NCDEQ to provide a list of Downstream Utilities and the ORC/Owner contact information for 
A.(6.) (g) notification requirement. 

7. A.(8.) PFAS Monitoring Requirement – Will NCDEQ send a letter to notify permit holders once the method is 
approved or are we expected to track this internally and be aware. 
6

8. According to 40 CFR 131.36, a WER does not change the Chronic Silver limit – See below. 15A NCAC 02B .0211 
(11) (c) states chronic silver is WER time 0.06 ug/L. Can DEQ Staff confirm in writing that performing a WER will 
result in multiplying 0.06 ug/L times WER to result in a new NPDES silver limit? We need to know what our 
options are for a compliance schedule. Will DEQ consider other methods? 

I will be glad to discuss any of these items with you as needed. 

Michael D. Rhoney, PE
Water Resources Director
Water Resources Division
336-626-1201, ext: 258
www.asheboronc.gov

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed 
to third parties. 

From: Coco, Nick A [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 2:11 PM 
To: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>; Mike 
Wiseman <[e-mail]>; Judy Smith <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External Sender] [External] RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft Courtesy Copy 

Hi Michael, 

Thank you very much for the update. I look forward to seeing your summary. 

Best, 
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) 
Engineer III  
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit 
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting 
Office: (919) 707‐3609 
[e-mail]  
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams** 
7

Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699‐1617 

From: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 2:08 PM 
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>; Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>; Mike Wiseman 
<[e-mail]>; Judy Smith <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft Courtesy Copy 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
Report Spam. 

Nick, 

We finished our review yesterday.  I hope to sit down this afternoon and summarize everything before the end of the 
day. 

Michael D. Rhoney, PE
Water Resources Director
Water Resources Division
336-626-1201, ext: 258
www.asheboronc.gov

8

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed 
to third parties. 

From: Coco, Nick A [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 1:42 PM 
To: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]>; Sarah Laughlin <[e-mail]>; Mike Wiseman 
<[e-mail]>; Judy Smith <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External Sender] NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft Courtesy Copy 

Hi all, 

I just wanted to follow up on this to make sure that December 1 is still an attainable timeline for your review. With the 
holiday, I’m sure many folks were out of town or at the very least offline. Do you need a little bit more time to conduct 
your review and provide comments? If so, what would you say is a reasonable timeline for you? 

Thanks in advance, 
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) 
Engineer III  
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit 
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting 
Office: (919) 707‐3609 
[e-mail]  
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams** 

Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699‐1617 

From: Coco, Nick A  
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 10:36 AM 
To: Michael Rhoney <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
[e-mail] 
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Grzyb, Julie <[e-mail]>; Graznak, Jenny 
<[e-mail]>; Snider, Lon <[e-mail]> 
Subject: NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP Draft Courtesy Copy 

Hi all, 

9
As we discussed on our call last Thursday, please see attached for a courtesy copy of the draft version of NPDES permit 
NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP. I’ve also listed below the changes being made to the permit, but please note that I am 
basing the changes off of the current active permit and not that first draft. The summary of changes: 

•             Per the results of instream waste concentration (IWC)‐based calculations for ammonia‐nitrogen, ammonia 
nitrogen limits have been revised [See A.(1.)].  
•             Based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) showing no reasonable potential to violate state water quality 
standards, the limits and monitoring requirements for total chromium and total zinc have been removed from the 
permit [See A.(1)].  
•             Based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) showing reasonable potential to violate state water quality 
standards, total silver, bromodichloromethane, and 1,4‐Dioxane limits and monitoring requirements have been added to 
the permit [See A.(1)].  
•             Based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) predicting a maximum effluent total selenium concentration 
that is greater than half of the allowable discharge concentration based on state water quality standards, quarterly 
monitoring for total selenium has been added to the permit [See A.(1)].  
•             To provide an opportunity for the City to develop a plan to assess sources of total silver and 
bromodichloromethane in order to come in compliance with the limits in Section A.(1.), schedules of compliance have 
been added to the permit [See Special Conditions A.(4.) and A.(5.)].  
•             To provide an opportunity for the City and their industries to develop a plan to assess sources of and implement 
technology to control discharges of 1,4‐Dioxane in order to come in compliance with the limits in Section A.(1.), a 
preliminary 5‐year phased schedule of compliance has been added to the permit [See Special Condition A.(6.) Schedule 
of Compliance for 1,4‐Dioxane Limitations]. We do request that you confirm and provide additional information that the 
proposed 1,4 dioxane compliance schedule is consistent with EPA memo (related to compliance schedules) from James 
Hanlon (Office of Wastewater Management) dated May 10, 2007 (attached). 
•             Based on the Mercury TMDL evaluation showing no annual average mercury concentration exceeded the 
WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, the limits and monitoring requirement for total mercury 
have been removed from the permit [See A.(1)]. 
•             Based on Mercury TMDL evaluation showing mercury values reported at levels > 1 ng/L and since the permitted 
flow is greater than 2 MGD, Special Condition A.(7.) Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP) has been added to the permit.  
•             Based on review of instream conductivity indicating the facility effluent appears to influence downstream 
conductivity levels, instream conductivity monitoring has been added to the permit [See A.(1.)]. The Permittees’ 
instream sampling requirement for this parameter is provisionally waived as long as the Permittee is a member of the 
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association.  
•             Based on resulting patterns indicating effluent impact on the receiving waterbodies and to assess background 
concentrations of 1,4‐dioxane to better analyze the discharge, instream monitoring for 1,4‐Dioxane has been added to 
the permit [See A.(1.)]. 
•             A special condition to monitor effluent PFAS chemicals quarterly has been added to the permit, to be effective 
six (6) months after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 method published in the Federal Register [See 
Special Condition A.(8.) PFAS Monitoring Requirements]. 
•             The Division is implementing dissolved metals standards in all permits, per the 2016 revisions to State water 
quality standards. As such, the NPDES Permitting Unit will need site‐specific effluent hardness data and instream 
hardness data, upstream of the discharge, for each facility monitoring these metals in order to calculate permit 
limitations. Effluent hardness and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, have been added to the 
permit at a monitoring frequency of quarterly [See A.(1.)].  
•             Some of the wording has changed in Special Condition A.(2.), Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit, please review each 
paragraph carefully.  
•             Special Condition A.(3.) has been modified to include the specific three years in which the Effluent Pollutant 
Scan shall be performed (2024, 2025, and 2026). In addition, at the end of the Special Condition, 2nd species Toxicity 
Testing Requirements for municipal permit renewals per Federal Regulations [40 CFR 122.21(j)(5)] have been added.  
•             A notation was made concerning the Electronic Reporting Rule – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule – Phase 2 
Extension. EPA extended the Phase 2 deadline to December 21, 2025.  
10
•             Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program 
reports. The requirement to continue reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR’s Electronic 
Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application has been added to your NPDES permit [See Special Condition 
A.(10.)].  
•             Parameter codes have been added to the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements [ See A.(1.)].  
•             Regulatory citations have been added to the permit. 

Please feel free to follow up with me with any questions. We are requesting that you submit any comments or provide 
any supplemental material regarding this draft permit by December 1, 2022. I appreciate your time and look forward to 
hearing from you after you have a chance to review. 

Best, 
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) 
Engineer III  
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit 
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting 
Office: (919) 707‐3609 
[e-mail]  
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams** 

Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699‐1617 

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR 122.21(j)(1)
1.1
1.2
Email address of facility contact [e-mail]
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.)
Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section 1-1 Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
Section 302(b)(2))
301(h))
Not applicable
1.6
addr
ess ress of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works
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 CIUs
14
7
40 CFR 122.22(a) and (d)
1.8
Certification Statement
1 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 submitted.
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 N. Ogburn, III
Official title
City Manager
Date signed„4

CAS number
Method Number (if
Applicable)
123-91-1 624.1
335-67-1
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
1763-23-1
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
375-22-4
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
375-73-5
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
335-77-3
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
335-76-2
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
307-55-1
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
375-92-8
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
375-85-9
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
355-46-4
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
307-24-4
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
68259-12-1
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
375-95-1
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
754-91-6
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
2991-50-6
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
2355-31-9
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
2706-91-4
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
2706-90-3
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
376-06-7
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
72629-94-8
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
2058-94-8
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
62037-80-3
PFAS by LCMSMS
Compliant with Table B-15
of QSM 5.1 or Latest
Version
3 Influent Samples taken in July,
August & September 2019. See
attached summary sheet
***PFAS Method Not a Certified Method per 40 CFR Part 136***40 CFR Part 136 does not list a PFAS Method at this time***
Pollutant (Required)Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge
Estimated Concentration (If
Known)
1,4 Dioxane
Starpet Inc., IUP #2228, is categorical 40 CFR 414.40. During the
Esterification process, 1,4 Dioxane is produced as a byproduct. Starpet
installed a 1,4 dioxane treatment system and it was put in service
November 20, 2020.
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, contains 1,4 Dioxane in the discharge.
No treatment has been installed to date. Great Oak is a Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill.
Discharge varies. See attached
data summary sheet.
110000570944
EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP 001
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
10.59 ng/L
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
19.27 ng/L
Perfluorobutanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
ND
Perfluorodecanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
1.50 ng/L
Perfluorododecanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
2.36 ng/L
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
ND
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
8.13 ng/L
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
ND
Perfluorohexanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
11.55 ng/L
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
0.68
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
3.52 ng/L
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
ND
2-(N-Ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
1.36 ng/L
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
0.73 ng/L
Perfluorononanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
1.29 ng/L
Perfluoropentanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
8.6 ng/L
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
3.8 ng/L
2-(N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
ND
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
ND
Gen-X
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
ND
PFAS - Others specific to Landfill Leachate
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
Unknown
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
2.38 ng/L
Perfluoroundecanoic acid
Great Oak Landfill, IUP #4953, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.
Asheboro accepts Leachate. Landfills are known and suspected sources
of a variety of PFAS compounds
1.68 ng/L
POTW Name:City of Asheboro WWTP NPDES #:
CAS Number Analyte Name Acronym 7/10/2019 *8/8/2019 *9/5/2019 *
335-67-1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA 9.47 10.6 11.7
1763-23-1 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFOS 19.8 18.8 19.2
375-22-4 Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA <2.54 U ND U ND U
375-73-5 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBS <2.54 U ND U ND U
335-77-3 Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid PFDS <2.54 U ND U 24.4
335-76-2 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA <2.54 U ND U 4.51
307-55-1 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA <2.54 U ND U 7.07
375-92-8 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS <2.54 U ND U 2.03
375-85-9 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA 4.62 ND U 5.95
355-46-4 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS <2.54 U ND U ND U
307-24-4 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA 8.74 B 13.5 12.4
68259-12-1 Perfluorononanesulfonic acid PFNS <2.54 U ND U 2.19
375-95-1 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA <2.54 U ND U 3.87
754-91-6 Perfluorooctanesulfonamide PFOSA <2.57 U ND U ND U
2991-50-6 2-(N-Ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid N-EtFOSAA <2.54 U ND U 4.09
2355-31-9 2-(N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid N-MeFOSAA <2.54 U ND U ND U
2706-91-4 Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid PFPeS <2.54 U ND U ND U
2706-90-3 Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA 25.8 ND U ND U
376-06-7 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTeA <2.54 U ND U 11.4
72629-94-8 Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTriA <2.54 U ND U 7.15
2058-94-8 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA <2.54 U ND U 5.04
62037-80-3 Gen-X HFPO-DA ND U
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
Sum of PFOA and PFOS 29.27 29.4 30.9
Total 68.43 42.9 121
Influent Grab (ng/L)
NC0026123
Enter data ONLY in blue cells!
Date Research & Analytical
Laboratories, Inc. NC #34
Meritech Inc. NC
#165
Pace Analytical NC
#12
NC DEQ DWR
*Not Certified*
12/7/2017 98.7 *Not Certified*89.0
1/11/2018 937 1590
2/1/2018 882 1140
3/1/2018 212
4/5/2018 397
5/9/2018 75.7
6/13/2018 77.7
7/17/2018 48.0
8/22/2018 764
9/11/2018 182
10/25/2018 31.6
11/8/2018 58.3
12/6/2018 217
1/9/2019 167
2/5/2019 613
3/13/2019 159
4/17/2019 228
5/8/2019 37.0
6/4/2019 46.5
7/10/2019 49.2
8/22/2019 423
9/4/2019 18.2
10/22/2019 184
11/19/2019 64.7
12/10/2019 200
1/16/2020 166
2/19/2020 208
3/3/2020 571
4/1/2020 102
5/6/2020 149
6/9/2020 79.3
7/16/2020 120
8/12/2020 232
9/2/2020 199
10/8/2020 <2.0
11/17/2020 72.6 110*
12/2/2020 <1.0
12/9/2020 <1.0
12/15/2020 1.23 3.3*
12/21/2020 <1.0
12/29/2020 6.12
1/7/2021 3.05
Asheboro WWTP Effluent Grab 1,4 Dioxane Data (ug/L)
1/13/2021 3.19 3.6*
1/21/2021 4.06
1/27/2021 8.21
2/2/2021 4.01
2/10/2021 31.4
2/16/2021 20.5 46.0*
2/25/2021 32.9
3/2/2021 18.1
3/10/2021 93.8
3/16/2021 145 200*
3/25/2021 133
3/30/2021 316
4/7/2021 77.2
4/15/2021 58.3
4/22/2021 14.1 15.0*
4/28/2021 20.8
5/5/2021 4.86
5/13/2021 19.7
5/19/2021 18.3
5/24/2021 147 290*
6/2/2021 27.2
6/9/2021 26.6
6/17/2021 143
6/22/2021 88.8 130*
6/29/2021 35.9
7/8/2021 88.4
7/16/2021 153 240*
7/20/2021 34.2
7/23/2021 55.7 82.0*
7/30/2021 115 220*
8/6/2021 34.4 64.0*
8/13/2021 25.2 25.0*
8/20/2021 55.6 82.0*
8/27/2021 64.6 96.0*
9/1/2021 58.9 120*
9/10/2021 70.2 100*
9/17/2021 63.9 83.0*
9/24/2021 98.6 140*
10/1/2021 37.5 38.0*
10/8/2021 44.5 68.0*
10/15/2021 114 270*
10/21/2021 548 920*
10/29/2021 636 940*
11/5/2021 75.3 130*
11/12/2021 3.82 6.0*
11/19/2021 5.04 7.2*
11/22/2021 10.3
12/3/2021 59.7 65.0*
12/10/2021 2.7 4.1*
12/17/2021 11.3 38.0*
12/21/2021 <2.0
1/7/2022 102 130*
1/14/2022 26.9 22.0*
1/20/2022 3.06
1/28/2022 25.2 22.0*
2/4/2022 74.7 110*
2/11/2022 107 180*
2/18/2022 34.6 74.0*
2/25/2022 133 190*
3/4/2022 25.0 33.0*
3/11/2022 136 190*
3/18/2022 44.3 Not Received
3/25/2022 15.1 Not Received
4/1/2022 Not Received Not Received
DARSWEIL L. ROGERS, COMMISSIONER
WADE R. FOWLER, JR., COMMISSIONER
EVELYN 0. SHAW, COMMISSIONER
D. RALPH HUFF, III, COMMISSIONER
DAVID W. TREGO, CEO/GENERAL MANAGER
OWN UTILITY
June 8, 2018
VIA EMAIL: [e-mail]
Mr. Gary Perlmutter
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
955 OW WILMINGTON RD
P.O. BOX 1089
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28302-1089
TELEPHONE [phone]
WWW.FAYPWC.COM
Subject: Fayetteville Public Works Commission Comments on Draft NPDES Permit for City of
Asheboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (NC0026123); Randolph County, NC
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water Resources
(DWR) issued a public notice of the draft NPDES permit for the City of Asheboro's Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) on May 9, 2018 and the comment period is open through June 8, 2018.
Located within the Cape Fear River basin, this facility discharges to Hasketts Creek which is a
tributary of the Deep River. This WWTP has a pretreatment program for the applicable
industries that discharge to its collection system. Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC)
has a surface water intake on the Cape Fear River downstream of this discharge and is providing
comments on this draft permit based on protecting its and other water systems water supplies.
PWC has reviewed the draft permit considering the known levels of 1,4-dioxane, an emerging
contaminant, in the Cape Fear River. PWC is providing relevant background information and
presenting alternatives to the proposed permit limit for 1,4-dioxane. This is a very important
public health issue for water supplies in the Cape Fear River basin and we believe a public
hearing is appropriate to get additional public comment before issuance of the final NPDES
permit.
Background on 1,4 Dioxane
Monitoring data in the Cape Fear River watershed collected by both DWR and a researcher at
North Carolina State University (NCSU) has identified the presence of 1,4-dioxane. This
chemical is most often used as a stabilizer in chlorinated solvents, paint strippers, and waxes. It
is found as an impurity in antifreeze and aircraft deicing fluids, is a by-product in the
manufacturing of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, and may be present in manufactured
food additives, food packaging materials, and pesticides. It moves easily from soil to
groundwater, as it does not stick to soil particles but is soluble in water. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) technical fact sheet for 1,4-Dioxane, dated November 2017, further
characterizes it as completely miscible in water, making it highly mobile and not readily
biodegradable in the water environment.
Described by the (EPA) as a "likely human carcinogen," this chemical compound is also
identified by the EPA as an emerging contaminant. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services also considers 1,4-dioxane as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."
BUILDING COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS SINCE 1905
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Mr. Gary Perlmutter
Page 2
June 8, 2018
EPA's risk assessment resulted in a drinking water health advisory with an associated estimated
lifetime cancer risk of one in one million at a concentration of 1,4-dioxane of 0.35 µg/L. Human
exposure may occur through ingestion of contaminated food (including fish from contaminated
waterways) or water and through skin contact. Conventional WWTPs and water treatment plants
are not capable of removing this compound. With these characteristics, PWC is concerned with
how and where this compound enters the Cape Fear River watershed upstream of its drinking
water intake.
In accordance with the water quality standards regulations (15A NCAC 02B.0208), DWR
calculated protective values for 1,4 Dioxane (CAS # 123-91-1) are 0.35 ug/L in Water Supply
classified waters, and 80 ug/L in Class C waters. The calculation of 0.35 ug/L is protective of
consuming water and consuming fish (WS Classified waters). The 80 ug/L is based upon the
risk of consuming only potentially contaminated fish (Class C). These numbers are based upon
the carcinogenicity of the compound from information obtained from the US EPA IRIS
database.
1,4-Dioxane in the Cape Fear River
Monitoring of this compound in the Cape Fear continues to show its presence in both main
tributaries, the Deep and Haw Rivers, as well as in the Cape Fear River. DWR completed a study
from 2014 through 2016 on the Cape Fear River Basin and published results in February 2017.
Monitoring is continuing and so far, four primary sources were identified, with three identified as
municipal WWTPs. This further supports the premise that the municipal treatment facilities are
not removing 1,4-dioxane with current treatment practices, and sources are likely industrial
facilities discharging to the WWTPs. This study includes conclusions that further reductions will
be necessary to achieve federal and state health advisory levels in the Cape Fear River.
City of Asheboro WWTP Draft NPDES Permit
The City of Asheboro's draft NPDES permit includes a limit of 149 µg/L of 1,4-dioxane with a
compliance schedule of 3 years. Based on the information provided in the fact sheet for the draft
NPDES permit, PWC believes this limit is not sufficient to protect downstream water supplies.
Also, since downstream waters currently have 1,4-Dioxane levels above the water supply
criterion, we believe the compliance schedule is too slow . Table 1 includes the data and
parameters used by DEQ to arrive at a limit of 149 µg/L. Using the combined flows from the
discharge and the annual average streamflow as reported in the fact sheet as well as the instream
criteria of 80 µg /L, one can derive the calculated proposed permit of 149 µg/L. This calculation
was made under the assumption that all Hasketts Creek loading of 1,4-dioxane is entirely
attributed to the Asheboro WWTP and there are no upstream sources. However, such an
assumption seems to be inherently unreasonable in light of the information cited above.
Table 1
City of Asheboro Draft NPDES permit parameters
Parameter Units
Permitted discharge 9 MGD, converted to 14 cfs From fact sheet
Annual average streamflow
12 cfs From fact sheet
Instream criteria
80 µg/L To be met in mixing zone

Mr. Gary Perlmutter
Page 3
June 8, 2018
Water Supply Watershed Considerations
PWC is concerned that the approach used above to calculate the draft permit limit for 1,4-
dioxane improperly considers only the Class C waters near the discharge and not the water
downstream classified for water supply (WS) (as required by 15A NCAC 02B .0203
PROTECTION OF WATERS DOWNSTREAM OF RECEIVING WATERS). These concerns
are outlined below for the Deep River water supplies as well as for PWC's water supply in the
Cape Fear River further downstream.
Deep River — The calculation of the Asheboro permit limit for 1,4-dioxane does not consider
downstream WS waters nor other sources of this contaminant in the Deep River watershed.
Hasketts Creek discharges into the Deep River and literature shows that 1,4-dioxane is not
readily biodegradable in the water environment. Thus, the mass discharged can be assumed to
move downstream with little or no losses through sedimentation or biodegradation. Sampling
conducted by NCSU has detected low levels of 1,4-dioxane in the Deep River upstream of the
confluence with Hasketts Creek. In addition, the water supply (WS) segment for former Gulf-
Goldston Sanitary District intake and Lee County/Sanford is located on the Deep River before its
confluence with the Haw River. At this location, the water supply criterion of 0.35 µg/L should
be met. Using watershed size and the USGS gage at Moncure (downstream of the Lee County
intake), it is estimated that the annual average stream flow is approximately 1,000 cfs. Using that
as a dilution factor, the loading from the Asheboro WWTP alone would produce an instream
concentration of 2.0 ug/L at the Gulf-Goldston and Lee County/Sanford (WS) segments. This
value is well above 0.35 µg/L and would be much higher during low flow conditions that
frequently occur.
PWC has estimated the permit limit that would be necessary to meet the WS criterion at Gulf-
Goldston. Using the estimated average annual stream flow of 1,000 cfs and a water supply
criterion of 0.35 µg/L, the permit limit from Asheboro WWTP would need to be less than 15
µg/L if the Asheboro WWTP is the only source of 1,4-dioxane considered. DWR should also
consider other sources of 1,4-dioxane which would lower this permit limit further.
Cape Fear River
PWC has also been conducting monthly monitoring for 1,4-dioxane upstream of its intake as
well as at its intake. Data collected since May 2014 show an average instream concentration of
2.5 µg/L, as shown in Table 2 (at end of letter). This value is also above the water supply
criterion of 0.35 µg/L. DWR monitoring results included in the 2-year report published in 2017
show similar levels, with most records between 2 and 4 µg/L. If Asheboro WWTP were the only
1,4-dioxane source at 149 µg/L at permitted flow contributing at PWC's intake, it is estimated
that the concentration would still be above the water supply criterion at about 0.45 µg/L. This
estimate was made using the average annual stream flow at Cape Fear River USGS gage
02104000 in Fayetteville. Under low flow conditions approaching the 7Q10 flow, the
concentration would be above 4 ug/L at Asheboro's permitted flow and above 2 ug/L if they
were discharging at 50 percent of their permitted flow. Clearly, DWR needs to consider
downstream WS waters in calculating permit limitations for dischargers. Efforts are needed
throughout the Cape Fear River basin to reduce discharges of 1,4-dioxane to receiving streams.
Request for Public Hearing
We believe the issue of 1,4-dioxane has been flying under the radar because of other emerging
contaminant issues in the Cape Fear River and that many people are unaware of concerns over
this contaminant. Since Asheboro is the first of several NPDES permits in the river basin that
will have limitations for 1,4-dioxane, we believe DWR should conduct a public hearing to fully
inform the public and get public and water utility concerns over their approach to regulating this
contaminant.

Mr. Gary Perlmutter
Page 4
June 8, 2018
Concluding Comments
PWC appreciates your consideration of our requests for protection of, the Cape Fear River as a
water supply source for PWC and many other communities in the Cape Fear River basin, through
continued efforts to reduce 1,4-dioxane entering in the watershed. Clearly, the proposed permit
limit included in Asheboro WWTP's draft NPDES permit is not low enough to protect
downstream water supplies and should be reconsidered. Treatment technologies including
oxidation approaches can be used by either the Asheboro WWTP or the industrial facilities
discharging into the Asheboro WWTP to reduce 1,4-dioxane. We believe further efforts to
inform the public and get input on this contaminant is necessary.
Even with continued dilution downstream in the Cape Fear River, 1,4-dioxane inputs from the
Deep River and Haw River are resulting in concentrations higher than the 0.35 µg/L water
supply criterion at PWC's intake. PWC believes the situation in the river basin and the rules
require that as other NPDES permits are renewed in the watershed, additional WWTPs will
receive limits for 1,4-dioxane such that the combined discharges will not result in levels that are
higher than the criterion at classified water supply segments. We also believe that an appropriate
compliance schedule for meeting these requirements is 2 years, rather than the 3 years proposed
in the Asheboro draft NPDES permit since current levels well exceed the 0.35 ug/L water supply
criterion. We believe expedient actions are needed to reduce 1,4-dioxane levels sufficiently to
protect human health for drinking water supplies and that compliance can reasonably be
achieved within 2 years. The cost of compliance should be borne by either Asheboro or the
industries that discharge into the Asheboro WWTP rather than the innocent downstream users..
If DWR does not begin to consider downstream water supply uses as well as the multiple sources
of this pollutant in watershed in the development of NPDES permit limits, PWC will consider
administrative and legal appeals to protect its water supply. If you have any questions or require
further information concerning this letter please feel free to contact Mick Noland at (910) 223-
4733 and [e-mail].
Respectfully submitted,
Fayetteville Public Works Commission
Mick Noland
Chief Operations Officer
Water Resources Division
Cc: Linda Culpepper
Shelia Holman

Table 2 Table 2
Data Collected by Fayetteville Data Collected by Fayetteville
PWC PWC
P.O. Hoffer P.O. Hoffer
WTF Intake WTF Intake
(µg/L) (µg/L)
5/13/14 3.90 6/14/16 1.80
6/12/14 2.90 7/20/16 2.90
7/10/14 5.70 8/23/16 0.59
8/4/14 3.80 9/20/16 1.50
9/4/14 2.10 10/26/16 0.67
10/23/14 2.50 11/28/16 1.40
11/12/14 9.60 12/27/16 1.20
12/9/14 2.40 1/26/17 5.00
1/13/15 2.10 2/22/17 4.80
2/11/15 1.80 3/16/17 1.90
3/17/15 1.60 4/5/17 2.30
4/7/15 2.40 5/3/17 0.81
5/13/15 4.50 6/20/17 2.20
6/16/15 2.20 7/13/17 0.76
7/15/15 1.50 8/15/17 0.66
8/18/15 2.50 9/19/17 3.00
9/22/15 4.80 10/12/17 2.30
10/28/15 2.30 11/14/17 2.50
11/11/15 0.99 12/11/17 2.40
12/28/15 0.28 1/10/18 5.40
1/11/16 1.30 2/21/18 3.90
2/24/16 1.50 3/13/18 1.70
3/16/16 1.20 4/11/18 1.60
4/13/16 1.40 Note: Data collected by
Fayetteville PWC
5/11/16 3.90

Water Resources Division
146 N Church Street
PO Box 1106
Asheboro, NC 27204-1106
May 31, 2018
CITY OF
ASHEBO0
NORTH CAR O L I N A
Mr. Gary Perlmutter
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Services Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Comments for Draft Permit NC0026123
Tel: [phone] Ext. 258
Fax: [phone]
RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
JUN 0 7 2018
Water Resources
Permitting Section
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
Thank you for your work in preparation of the above referenced permit. City of Asheboro
Wastewater Treatment personnel have some questions and concerns regarding monitored
contaminants and limits listed in the draft permit. Asheboro would like some modifications to the
draft permit before final issuance. The following notes and requests should be considered before
issuing the final NPDES permit.
The WWTP staff requested mass based limits for ammonia in lieu of concentration based limits
during the March 29, 2018 meeting at the WWTP. Upon review of historical data, mass based
limits are attainable. What was the rationale for not using mass based limits in the draft permit?
Asheboro is requesting a three year compliance schedule to research alternative treatment options
that will allow for consistent compliance if mass based limits are not allowed.
Chloride has consistently been sampled in conjunction with Toxicity testing in previous permit
cycles. Asheboro has never failed toxicity based on the chloride results and has had an excellent
track record for passing toxicity testing. Explain what factors, data and calculations the Reasonable
Potential Analysis are based on and confirm how this number is obtained.
Staff reviewed historical influent and effluent data for Cyanide collected since 2010. During this
time no samples ever resulted in above detect for the influent. However, a period of seven days in
September of 2015, three effluent samples resulted in a detection of cyanide. Upon review of the
lab bench sheets, the data indicates that there was an interference with the test method in these
samples and therefore these data points should have not been used or reported. A copy of the
relevant bench sheets are attached with this correspondence. All samples collected from March 2,
2010 to June 4, 2015 and after September 22, 2015 have been recorded as non -detects <0.01mg/L
(one was <0.005mg/L). The maximum data point used to show reasonable potential for cyanide
should not be considered in light of this interference as it is not an accurate reflection of Asheboro
WWTP effluent. Asheboro requests the limit and monitoring requirements for cyanide be
removed.
Asheboro Staff is actively exploring alternatives in how to meet the new bromodichloromethane
limit We would like to request a two year compliance schedule to evaluate our disinfection process
Home of the NC Zoological Park

NC 0026123 Draft Permit Comments
5/31/2018
Page 2 of 2
and determine how to effectively reduce our bromodichloromethane concentrations but continue
to properly disinfect the wastewater in order to continue to protect the stream and environment.
Asheboro staff is aware of the concern associated with 1,4 dioxane and will be able to comply with
the terms of the three year compliance schedule. However, Asheboro is not inclined to regulate an
industry that may be discharging 1,4 dioxane based on the inconclusive data regarding the health
effects of this parameter and the lack of enforceable stream standards. We feel identifying the
sources of this contaminant is crucial. However, any sources found should have ample opportunity
to provide options for reducing or eliminating the contaminant while properly budgeting funds
which are anticipated to be substantial. Asheboro believes after the sources are identified, then a
set of standards should be developed and limits applied. Staff would like an explanation of the
legal basis and calculations for the 149 ug/L limit in this draft permit.
Staff has discovered a NPDES permit issued to DAK Americas (permit # NC0003719 — included
with this correspondence) dated March 20, 2018 in the Cape Fear River Basin — direct discharge
to the Cape Fear River. This industry has the potential to be a significant discharger of 1,4 dioxane
based on their manufacturing process as well as toxic review inventory submitted annually to EPA.
This industry is only required to monitor annually and report according to the newly issued permit.
This appears to be a discrepancy and Asheboro staff does not understand the difference in permit
requirements. Staff feels if we are held to this standard then it should be included in the reasonable
potential analysis for all state issued permits and all permit holders should be held to the same set
of standards.
Staff would like an explanation as to why the term for this permit is only four years. NPDES
permits are typically written for 5 year terms. It is understood that we have been operating on an,
expired permit for some time but shortening the term of the new permit to four years is a burden
not only for city personnel but also DEQ.
Please carefully consider all of the above comments before issuing a final permit. Written
clarification on all questions posed in this correspondence is requested. I will be glad to discuss
any of these concerns with you and appreciate your prompt and thorough response to this matter.
Respectfully,
xc:PtrAtk
Michael D. Rhoney, PE
Water Resources Director
Enclosures
eCopy: Mr. Gary Perlmutter
Ms. Julie Grzyb
Mr. Jeff Poupart
Mr. John N. Ogburn, III
CITY OF
ASHEBOJO
WATER RESOURCES

Asheboro WWFP Cyanide
Date
Influent
Effluent
3/2/201
jV;. 4psY
<0.01
3/4/2010
<0.01
No1,1, Y "
6/8/2010
<0.01
<0.01
9/14/2010
<0.01
<0.01
12/7/2010
<0.01
<0.01
1/18/2011
<0.01 W.01
2/17/2011
<0.01 <0.01
3/3/2011
<0.01 <0.01
4/19/2011
<0.01 <0.01
5/11/2011
<0.01 <0.01
6/7/2011
<0.01 <0.01
7/14/2011
<0.01 <0.01
8/18/2011
<0.01 <0.01
9/22/2011
<0.01 <0.01
10/4/2011
<0.01 <0.01
11/15/2011
<0.01 <0.01
12/6/2011
<0.01 <0.01
1/10/2012
<0.01 <0.01
3/6/2012
<0.01 <0.01
6/12/2012
9/11/2012T
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
12/4/2012
<0.01 <0.01
3/5/2013
<0.01 <0.01
6/4/2013
<0.01 <0.01
9/17/2013
<0.01 <0.01
12/12/2013
<0.01 <0.01
3/4/2014
<0.01 <0.01
6/19/2014
<0.01 <0.01
9/9/2014
<0.01 <0.01
12/4/2014
<0.01 <0.01
3/10/2015
<0.01 <0.01
3/24/2015
<0.011 ,14,6`fiWA
6/2/2015 <0.01 <0.01
6/4/2015yyy,y,q"pje <0.005
9/15/2015 <0.01 0.018
9/18/2015 ViVi 0.012
9/21/2015 } Alai 0.017
SeeAttached
LailiDeft
sus
9/22/2015.9tIVII <0.01
9/23/2015 ,iy,1,40,y <0.01
12/8/2015 <0.011 <0.01
1/13/2016 <0.01 <0.01
2/11/2016 <0.01 <0.01
3/14/2016 <0.01 <0.01
4/14/2016 <0.01 <0.01
5/5/2016 <0.01 <0.01
6/14/2016 <0.01 <0.01
7/14/2016 <0.01 <0.01
8/17/2016 <0.01 <0.01
9/13/2016 <0.01 <0.01
10/19/2016 <0.01 <0.01
11/2/2016 <0.01 <0.01
12/6/2016 <0.01 <0.01
3/7/2017 <0.01 <0.01
6/8/2017 <0.01 <0.01
9/19/2017 <0.01 <0.01
12/5/2017 <0.01 <0.01
3/6/2018 <0.01 <0.01

= ¥ILAe4) "t"UNWV
4)
4
0
3
7
3
43
G
0
oq
a
LA
a o © q
a fi
C
G
60g9gggi
").9
it*Httetit
q o o© o 0
la O 4 O N
e• lN ti� -fi N
o a
O
7.;'
t
0 0
o
C 4 as
co3
r
0
co
0
z
3
0
z
3
N
0
5
(71
o�
a
Z a
m
na
j rF
CD O
CO

ra40 g6ONAV
A
m
c
X
X14
X
I o
0o
•
0
A
Zv
0
1
o
0
cy.;
i\ A n
0 p
o a
74.
Es
o
Q.
5 to
0
Z
0 3
0
0 z
m
a
0
m
tD
0
Q!
O 0)
O
o
ZQ
0 a
me
a
CO a
V N

%4,
t
i!&
165 o
c
gi I 1
_to
cn
Q
t •C 6
IA
C3 , a ,
o co
a
Orr 4Cs °go
fa
I la
csJ
O
CO
~� z
33
3
101
0
,U
0,
o
C
SO 0 IL
0 CD
Err0
0 8
0
o.
01
0 co
Za
tea
mcD
3
o
CO 0.

= )10840 TONAV
3
3
U
a
0
H.
n
� � I
0
m
R :{1
0
0 3
I{a
O O t') O 3 o p
0
esz;74- !so
W °Im
0 e a G 0
G 2 D g
w .a a
N (A cQ i
o b
G it)
O cc Ss
b ° o o
oN-
IL4
0
z
3
n
z
0
n3i
CD
o
1.4 po} "1f
toCD
47 O
Ao
on
0
P
o�
0
Zco
o a
m
ma
V 03
421.

P.O. Box 3729
Sanford, NC 27331-3729
June 8, 2018
Julie A. Grzyb
1634 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
Dear Ms. Gryzb,
Citu i f$attfrith
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Victor I. Czar, P.E.
Public Works Director
The following is a statement of our concerns regarding the pending issuance of a discharge permit to the
City of Asheboro, North Carolina.
We received the Asheboro permit that is going to public notice on May 9th, 2019. As we understand it,
the 1,4-dioxane limit of 149 ug/L is based on the 80 ug/L water quality criteria for Class C waters and the
instream dilution factor to which they are entitled. We feel it's important to review this limit to make
sure it is protective of downstream water uses. 15A NCAC 02B .0203 states "Water quality based
effluent limitations or management practices for direct or indirect discharges of waste or for other
sources of water pollution will be developed by the Division such that the water quality standards and
best usage of receiving waters and all downstream waters will not be impaired." In reviewing the NC
Surface Water Classifications map it appears there is a WS1 and WS IV classification just downstream of
the confluence of the Deep River and Big Governors Creek, where the criteria for water supplies is 0.35
ug/L. As such, we feel DEQ should conduct some type of analysis to determine if the 149 ug/L limit is
protective of the 0.35 ug/L criteria at the downstream water supplies.
In developing permit limits to reduce 1,4-Dioxane in the Asheboro discharge, the Division of Water
Resources (DWR) does not appear to have considered downstream water supply use in the river basin.
Thus, the permit limit for 1,4-Dioxane appears to be at least 10 times higher than it should be to protect
downstream water supplies. The calculation of the permit limit also did not consider other sources of
1,4-Dioxane in the river basin. Asheboro's NPDES permit is the first of several to be issued this summer
in the river basin that will address 1,4-Dioxane levels. We believe it is important that DWR address this
issue comprehensively with the perspective of water supply use throughout the Cape Fear River basin,
and not just based on contaminant concerns near the point of discharge. Additionally, since the known
sources of Dioxane have been aware of this problem for a number of years, the City of Sanford believes
that compliance should be achieved in two years given the exposure of citizens located downstream
that are drinking the water.

Thank you for your time concerning this matter. We look forward to your consideration.
Sincerely,
Vigor I. Czar, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Sanford, NC
VC/vrc
Cc: Jessica C. Godreau

Perlmutter, Gary
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jeff Adkins <[e-mail]>
Friday, June 08, 2018 9:36 AM
Perlmutter, Gary
Jamie Revels
[External] Comments on Draft NPDES Permit for City of Asheboro's Wastewater
Treatment Plant
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Mr. Perlmutter,
On behalf of the Town of Cary, I am submitting comment on the Division of Water Resources' (DWR) Draft NPDES permit
for the City of Asheboro's Wastewater Treatment Plant. A public notice of the draft NPDES permit was posted May 9,
2018. The Town is interested in protecting water supplies which utilize the Cape Fear River and its tributaries. Cary has
reviewed the draft permit considering the known levels of 1,4-dioxane, a contaminant of emerging concern, in the Cape
Fear River. While Cary's water supply is Jordan Lake (Haw River Basin) and Asheboro's discharge does not directly impact
the Town's water supply, adequate treatment for 1,4-dioxane is a very important public health issue for water supplies
in the Cape Fear River basin, and the approach taken for Asheboro is likely to influence permit limits established for
other discharges which would be upstream of Jordan Lake as well.
DWR completed a study from 2014 through 2016 on the Cape Fear River Basin including monitoring for 1,4-Dioxane; the
results were published in February 2017. Monitoring is continuing and so far, four primary sources were identified, with
three identified as municipal WWTPs. It appears that municipal treatment facilities are not capable of removing 1,4-
dioxane with current treatment practices, and sources are likely industrial facilities discharging to the WWTPs. This study
includes conclusions that further reductions will be necessary to achieve federal and state health advisory levels in the
Cape Fear River.
One of the sources of 1,4-Dioxane in the Deep, Haw and Cape Fear Rivers is the City of Asheboro's wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) discharge into a tributary of the Deep River. We ask that DWR consider downstream water use
in the river basin in developing permit limits to reduce 1,4-Dioxane in the Asheboro discharge. Asheboro's NPDES permit
is the first of several to be issued this summer in the river basin that will address 1,4-Dioxane levels. We believe it is
important that DWR address this issue comprehensively with the perspective of water supply use throughout the Cape
Fear River basin, and not just based on contaminant concerns near the point of discharge.
We appreciate DWR's efforts to ensure applications for NPDES discharge permits protect downstream water use and
public health, and encourage you to further consider the appropriate limits to place on 1,4-Dioxane for this and similar
discharge permits. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information.
Best Regards,
Jeff Adkins
C. Jeff Adkins, PE
Water Resources Manager
TOWN Of CARY
PO Box 8005 I Cary, NC 27512-8005
1

316 N. Academy Street I Cary, NC
Office: [phone] I Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
E-mail sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Perlmutter, Gary
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jim Flechtner <[e-mail]>
Friday, June 08, 2018 12:07 PM
Perlmutter, Gary
Beth Eckert; Lindsey Hallock; Carel Vandermeyden; Frank Styers; Peg Hall Williams
[External] Draft Permit Comment
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Mr. Perlmutter,
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) provides drinking water to approximately 200,000 people in the City of
Wilmington and greater New Hanover County. We maintain and operate three drinking water systems, and our largest
system uses the Cape Fear River as its source water. After reviewing the City of Asheboro's draft NPDES permit, we have
concerns regarding the draft 1,4 Dioxane permit limit of 149 ug/L and its potential to impact our community's drinking
water supply.
The EPA has established a lifetime drinking water health advisory level for this compound of 200 ug/L and a health
advisory for one in ten thousand cancer risk at 35 ug/L. While health advisory levels are non -enforceable, they are
meant to provide public water suppliers with necessary guidance to ensure they are protecting public health to the best
of their ability.
Many water treatment plants are not able to remove 1,4 Dioxane. Others, such as our Sweeney Water Treatment Plant,
remove approximately 66% (on average) of the concentration that enters our intake at Lock & Dam #1. As a result, many
of the public drinking water intakes downstream of this segment of the basin will have the potential to be impacted by
the discharge of this compound.
In developing permit limits for 1,4-Dioxane in the City of Asheboro discharge, we ask that the Division of Water
Resources (DWR) consider both the designated uses of the river downstream of this discharge location and other
sources of this compound that may be affecting levels in the River. Treating for these compounds at the source, in a
manner consistent with existing drinking water health advisory levels, will minimize impacts to downstream
communities that may otherwise be required to install or increase treatment at the cost of their communities to ensure
protection of public health.
Additionally, because the existence of 1,4 Dioxane in wastewater discharge has been recognized for several years, we
request the draft compliance timeline of three years should be reduced to ensure downstream exposure to this
compound is minimized as quickly as possible.
Asheboro's NPDES permit is the first of several that may be issued this summer that will address 1,4-Dioxane levels. We
appreciate the efforts of DWR to communicate with other users of the River, and to issue limits for compounds such as
1,4-dioxane. CFPUA believes it is important to address this issue comprehensively by considering water supply uses
throughout the Cape Fear River Basin.
Regards,
James R. Flechtner, PE
Executive Director
1

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
910-332-6669
2

PUBLIC NC IFICATIOM
NONE — No SIU's in SNC
SIU's with NO VIOLATIONS
• 12 SIU's were violation free in 2020.
• Bossong, Energizer Plant 1, Energizer Plant 2, Georgia Pacific,
Kayser Roth, MAS, Matlab #4, Matlab #8, Premier Powder
Coating, Starpet and Wells Hosiery.
CONSENT ORDERS AND COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
• No consent orders or compliance schedules
A i u C AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMA i R.
The city of Asheboro received an email on April 15, 2019 from
Starpet (#2228) requesting an Authorization to Construct for the
installation of a pretreatment system to remove 1,4 Dioxane. The
Authorization to Construct was signed and issued April 15th 2019.
Starpet was authorized to install a prebuilt KOCH Modular System
consisting of a 72' stripper column along with a reboiler, shell and
tube condenser and heat exchanger. The tower arrived at the
facility on January 14th 2020. Due to COVID 19 and the weather,
the pretreatment system began 24 hour operation on November
20th.
SIU'S WITH MISSING DAT,
None
NON-SIU SNC
• None
• 3 permitted Non-SIU's
Dental Amalgam Rule
Total number of dental offices — 28 with 100% compliance.
7