NC0088366_Fact Sheet_20230727

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO088366
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: 7/10/2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
Basic Facilitv Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Harnett Regional Water/South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Applicant Address:
PO Box 1119, Lillington, NC 27546
Facility Address:
3324 Shady Grove Road, Spring Lake, NC 28390
Permitted Flow:
15.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 98% domestic, 2% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Headworks including an automatic fine screen with manual bypass, vortex
grit chamber, influent composite sampler, and flow splitter box; Three
intermittent continuous extended aeration systems with each system including
dual 126-ft by 174-ft by 18-ft depth basins providing a total aeration volume
of 17.7 MG, a 3.9 MG surge tank, fine -bubble diffusers, 12 decanter, twelve
25 Hp submersible mixers, and seven 2,300 scfin blowers; Surge tank; Nine
12.5 —ft by 52-ft traveling bridge filters; Three channel UV disinfection
system, with each channel capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5 MGD and a
total 37.5 MGD; Cascade aerator with Parshall flume and effluent composite
sampler; A sludge management facility including a 2-meter gravity belt
thickener rated at 900 dry pounds/ hour, a 2.2 meter sludge filter press rated at
2,041 dry pounds/ day with sludge feed pump, screw conveyers, Class A
residuals heated vessel rated at 2,000 pounds/ hour, lime storage silo and
delivery system, and an odor control system; Dual tertiary traveling bridge
filters, with three 12.5-ft by 52-ft units each; A lime addition system
including two 7.5 hp submersible mixers; A 1,000 KW emergency generator
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y
County:
Harnett
Region
Fayetteville
*Based on permitted flows.
Page 1 of 13

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background.- Harnett Regional Water applied
on May 5, 2022 for an NPDES permit renewal at 15.0 MGD for the South Harnett Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP), with a request for a proposed expansion tier at 17.5 MGD. On February 1,
2023, Harnett Regional Water notified the Division of the recission of the expansion request. As such, the
NPDES permit renewal process is being handled as a standard renewal with no expansion. This facility
serves a population of approximately 112,000 residents, as well as 1 significant industrial user (SIU) via
an approved pretreatment program. The primary pretreatment facility identified for the SIU sending flow
to the South Harnett Regional WWTP is the North Harnett Regional WWTP. Please see the attached
pretreatment form for additional information. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged
via Outfall 001 into the Lower Little River, a class C waterbody in the Cape Fear River Basin. Outfall 001
is located approximately 15 miles above waters designated as WS-V.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is currently composted at McGill Composting. Harnett Regional Water has the
ability to send sludge to the Sampson County Landfill.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Lower Little River
Stream Segment:
18-23-(24)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (m12):
398
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
44.4
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
91.8
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
495.5
IWC (% effluent):
34
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed*
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Cape Fear River/03-06-14/HUC: 03030004
USGS Topo Quad:
G23NW
*The stream segment of the Little River is not listed as impaired for any parameter in the 2022 Integrated
Report.
Page 2 of 13

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of July 2018 through January 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
.5
22.271
3.297
MA 15.0
BOD summer
mg/1
2.4
10
< 2
WA 7.5
MA 5.0
BOD winter
mg/1
2.5
18
< 2
WA 15.0
MA 10.0
NH3N summer
mg/1
1.0
4.6
0.1
WA 3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter
mg/1
1.1
5.8
1
WA 6.0
MA 2.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/1
2.6
10.4
2.5
MA 30.0
pH
SU
6.8
7.9
6.1
0 > pH <
6.9.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform
9/100 ml
240
< 1
WA 400
1.(geo 1
MA 200
DO
mg/l
8.4
11.8
6.4
DA > 5.0
Monitor &
Temperature
° C
20.9
29.3
12.3
Report
Monitor &
TKN
mg/l
1.6
5.78
0.4
Report
NO2+NO3
mg/l
7.4
20.04
1.37
Monitor &
Report
TN (summer)
mg/l
9.0
21.78
2.84
Monitor &
Report
TN (winter)
mg/l
9.1
16.46
3.3
Monitor &
Report
TN Load (summer)
lb/mo
12,652
21,438
7,173
Monitor &
Report
TN (summer mass) Load
lb/season
85,786
104,751
63,660
160,628
TP (summer)
mg/l
3.5
6.35
0.79
Monitor &
Report
TP (winter)
mg/l
2.8
4.48
1.15
Monitor &
Report
TP Load (summer)
lb/mo
4,831
6,566
3,012
Monitor &
Report
TP (summer mass) Load
lb/season
32,567
35,261
29,612
53,543
Total Copper
ug/l
9.3
32
< 2
DM 60.7
MA 45.2
Total Hardness
mg/l
110.5
182.5
11.5
Monitor &
Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
Page 3 of 13

4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature
upstream at least 50 feet above the discharge and downstream at least 500 feet below the discharge. As
the permittee is a member of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA), instream
monitoring requirements are provisionally waived. The nearest upstream MCFRBA monitoring station is
B7300000, located approximately 5.5 miles upstream of the outfall. The nearest downstream MCFRBA
monitoring station is B7319100, located approximately 5 miles downstream of the outfall. MCFRBA data
were also available for TKN, NO2+NO3, total phosphorous, conductivity, fecal coliform and turbidity.
Instream data from January 2018 through June 2022 are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
17.6
27.7
4.2
18.8
27.5
DO
mg/1
8.9
12.9
6.8
8.7
13.6
Hardness
mg/1
8.4
12
4
-
TKN
mg/1
0.5
0.98
0.2
0.7
4.64
0.2
NO2+NO3
mg/1
0.2
0.93
0.05
0.4
1.56
0.06
TP
mg/1
0.03
0.136
0.02
0.13
0.644
0.02
Chlorophyll -a
µg/1
-
-
-
1.3
2.91
< 1
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
47
55
57
118
47
Fecal Coliform
#/1001111
(geome100an)
6200
9
(geom91ean)
4800
15
Turbidity
NTUs
6.6
29.8
2.3
6.5
26.5
2.1
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.
Temperature is a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Downstream temperature was not greater than 29
degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature
was not greater than upstream temperature by more than 2.8 degrees Celsius during the period reviewed.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
temperature.
Dissolved oxygen is a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Downstream DO did not drop below 5 mg/L
[per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
As the facility does not discharge to class B waters, fecal coliform is not currently required in the permit.
MCFRBA fecal coliform data was reviewed, and it was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream fecal coliform. While downstream fecal coliform
was observed at levels greater than 400/100mL on occasion, these observances occurred concurrently
Page 4 of 13

with elevated upstream fecal coliform levels greater than 400/100mL. As such, instream fecal coliform
has not been added to the permit.
The facility is not currently required to conduct instream conductivity monitoring. MCFRBA conductivity
data was reviewed, and it was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream
and downstream conductivity, with downstream conductivity being observed at levels greater than that of
the upstream. As it appears the discharge may be impacting downstream conductivity, and as the facility
receives waste from an industrial user via their approved pretreatment program, instream conductivity
monitoring has been added to the permit.
Downstream turbidity was not greater than 50 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (21)] during the period
reviewed.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TP
and NO2+NO3 with downstream TP and NO2+NO3 consistently higher than that of the upstream. It was
concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TKN.
Based on instream data review and discussions with the Division's Basin Planning Branch, instream
monitoring for TP, TKN, NO2+NO3, and ammonia have been added to the permit at a monthly frequency.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations during the period reviewed (January 2018 — January 2023).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests conducted from January 2019
to October 2022. Additionally, the facility passed 4 of 4 second species chronic toxicity tests conducted
from January 2018 to December 2020.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in March 2021 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Page 5 of 13

If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed.- The current permit
limitations for BOD are based on the 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan for new and
expanding POTWs from when the facility expanded to 15.0 MGD in 2017. No changes are proposed from
the previous permit limits.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The permit does
not currently set limits or monitoring requirements for TRC due to the facility employing UV treatment
for disinfection. However, in the event of an emergency where chlorination is required as a backup or
temporary means of disinfection at the facility, a TRC limit and monitoring requirement have been added
to the permit based on the review in the attached WLA spreadsheet. Please note that TRC monitoring is
only required in the event that chlorine is used at the plant and as part of the regular Effluent Pollutant
Scans.
The current permit limitations for ammonia are based on the 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan for new and expanding POTWs from when the facility expanded to 15.0 MGD in 2017. The
ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to be
protective. No changes are proposed.
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 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 June 2018 and
November 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: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Copper, Total Chromium
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
Page 6 of 13

standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Lead, Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel,
Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Five effluent pollutant scans (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
and 2021) were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o 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: Total
Beryllium, Total Cyanide
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.
Toxici , Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, chronic WET testing at 34%
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/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
# of Samples
1
3
4
3
5
Annual Average Conc. n /L
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
Maximum Conc., n /L
0.5
0.5
1.34
0.5
0.5
TBEL, n /L
47
WQBEL, n /L
34.9
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
Page 7 of 13

limit is required. Since the facility only reported one detection of low-level mercury (> 1 ng/1), no
mercury minimization plan (MMP) condition is required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TNDDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: The Division is continuing to work towards the development of a nutrient
management strategy, permitting strategy, TMDL, and/or criteria for nutrients in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Strategies were implemented in the current permit based on the 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan, which addresses nutrients and oxygen -demanding wastewater discharges in this
basin, and includes monitoring and reporting of total nitrogen (TN), monthly mass TN load, total
phosphorous (TP) and monthly mass TP load. In addition, summer (April -October) TN and TP seasonal
load limits were calculated and implemented in the current limit based on allowable concentrations of 6
mg/1 TN and 2 mg/1 TP, resulting in summer mass limits of 160,628 lbs for TN and 53,543 lbs for TP.
The permit will be reopened if the Division requires additional monitoring or limitations to support its
water quality protection and restoration efforts in the Cape Fear River Basin.
On January 31, 2023, Harnett Regional Water submitted a letter (attached) to the Division requesting a
transfer of 55,582 lbs/summer of total nitrogen loading and 18,525 lbs/summer of total phosphorous
loading from the South Harnett Regional WWTP to the North Harnett Regional WWTP (NC0021636) to
accommodate for the increase in treated flow at the North Harnett Regional WWTP. The proposed
transfer of loading is summarized below in Table 4.
Table 4. Nutrient Transfer Request
TfY
TP
FLOW
%
CURRENT
PROPOSED
CURRENT
Pa0PO5E0
1dORTN
16-51.16D
52.4%
59 968 L65
115,550 LBS
191989 LBS
3S4S 17 LBS
MUM
154 "Go
47.6A
16D,628 LBS
105,046 LB$
53 5" L55
35,015 L65
TOM&
31,5 WD
1 1.000
220.596 LB$
220,596 LRS
73,532 LBS
73532 LBS
The transfer of loading has been included in the permit as effective upon the expansion of the North
Harnett Regional WWTP to the 16.5 MGD flow tier and notification to the Division of this change.
NCO021636 is up for renewal with expansion and will be issued with the same effective date so that the
nutrient loading transfer is completed with this renewal.
Based on review of seasonal total nitrogen and total phosphorous loadings from the South Harnett
Regional WWTP compared to the proposed nutrient loading transfer, it appears that the facility exceeded
the proposed summer total phosphorous loading limit in 2021 and was within 1,000 lbs of the proposed
summer total nitrogen loading limit in 2019. After further communication between Harnett Regional
Water and the Division, Harnett Regional Water provided an assessment of nutrient treatment capability
at the South Harnett Regional WWTP (see attached). This assessment indicates that the South Harnett
Regional WWTP will be able to achieve compliance with the tightened summer nutrient loadings with
some operational optimization and chemical addition for phosphorous control.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
Page 8 of 13

7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/1
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BODS/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: N/A
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): YES
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: Total Copper limits have been removed
with this permit and monitoring has been reduced from monthly to quarterly. After conducting the
reasonable potential analysis, no reasonable potential for total copper excursions above the standard were
found. However, the maximum predicted total copper concentration was still above 50% of the allowable
discharge concentration for total copper. As such, monitoring was maintained, but at a quarterly
frequency.
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Page 9 of 13

Harnett Regional Water was granted 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 during their 2017 renewal. Harnett Regional Water has requested
continuation of this monitoring frequency reduction as part of their renewal application. 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 maintained for
BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform.
The South Harnett Regional WWTP receives wastewater from a significant industrial user. As such, and
in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0508, effluent conductivity monitoring has been added to the permit
at a daily frequency.
To identify PFAS in waters classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, monitoring requirements are to be
implemented in permits that discharge to WS waters. As the South Harnett Regional WWTP receives
wastewater from Fort Liberty and discharges treated wastewater approximately 15 miles upstream of
waters designated as WS-V, 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 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended
upon request and if there are no NC -certified labs. Harnett Regional Water shall evaluate PFAS
concentrations in the wastewater received from Fort Liberty as part of the pretreatment update.
As the South Harnett Regional WWTP discharges 15 miles above WS-V waters, 1,4-dioxane was also
considered during this renewal. As part of their renewal application, Harnett Regional Water conducted 3
sampling events per week for a 2-week span, resulting in 6 total South Harnett Regional WWTP effluent
samples. The samples were collected on April 10, April 12, April 14, April 17, April 19 and April 21,
2023. All samples were reported as non -detect at < 2 µg/L. Based on an AAF of 495.5 cfs and the WS
ISTV of 0.35 µg/L, the allowable discharge concentration for 1,4-dioxane at this facility is 7.8 µg/L. The
South Harnett Regional WWTP receives industrial wastewater from one industrial user who is not
considered likely to contribute 1,4-dioxane. As the facility reported no detectable levels of 1,4-dioxane
during their 2-week sampling event and does not have a likely source of 1,4-dioxane entering the WWTP,
1,4-dioxane requirements have not been added to the permit at this time.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 15.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly
Flow
No requirement
Monitor and Report
Monthly
For calculation of TN and TP loadings
Page 10 of 13

BOD5
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 2010 Basinwide Water Quality
MA 5.0 mg/l
Plan, Surface Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR
WA 7.5 mg/l
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Winter:
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
MA 10.0 mg/l
for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
WA 15.0 mg/l
Monitor and report
2/Week
NH3-N
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 2010 Basinwide Water Quality
MA 1.0 mg/l
Plan, Surface Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR
WA 3.0 mg/l
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Winter:
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
MA 2.0 mg/l
for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
WA 6.0 mg/l
Monitor and report
2/Week
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/l
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
WA 45.0 mg/l
CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406 2012 DWR
Monitor and report
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
2/Week
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
WA 400 /100ml
2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 2012
Monitor and report
DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
2/Week
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
DO
> 5.0 mg/l
No change
WQBEL. 2010 Basinwide Water Quality
Monitor and report
Plan; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and report
2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily
NCAC 2B. 0500
Conductivity
No requirement
Monitor and report
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.
Daily
0500
Temperature
Monitor and report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.
Daily
0500
Total Residual
No requirement
DM 28 ug/L
WQBEL. 2023 WLA review and Surface
Chlorine
Monitor and report
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Daily (only when
chlorine is used)
Total
Monitor and report
No change
Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River
Nitrogen
Monthly
Basin; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
TN Loading
Monitor and report
No change to monitoring
WQBEL. Nutrient protection for Cape Fear
lb/month Monthly
requirements; Upon
River Basin; Surface Water Monitoring,
Summer mass
expansion of North
15A NCAC 2B. 0500
loading 160,628
Harnett Regional
lb/season; Monitor
WWTP to 16.5 MGD
and report annually
and approval of nutrient
Page 11 of 13

treatment capability
report:
Summer mass loading
105,046 lb/season
TKN
No requirement
Monitor and report
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Monthly
NO3+NO2
No requirement
Monitor and report
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Total
Monitor and report
No change
Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River
Phosphorous
Monthly
Basin; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
TP Loading
Monitor and report
No change to monitoring
WQBEL. Nutrient protection for Cape Fear
lb/month Monthly
requirements; Upon
River Basin; Surface Water Monitoring,
Summer mass
expansion of North
15A NCAC 2B. 0500
loading 53,543
Harnett Regional
lb/season; Monitor
WWTP to 16.5 MGD
and report annually
and approval of nutrient
treatment capability
report:
Summer mass loading
35,015 lb/season
Total
Quarterly
No change
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals water
Hardness
monitoring
quality standards approved in 2016
Upstream and in
Effluent
Total Copper
MA 45.2 ug/L
Remove limit; Monitor
Based on results of RPA; No RP , Predicted
DM 60.7 mg/L
and report Quarterly
Max > 50% of Allowable Cw - apply
Monitor and report
Quarterly Monitoring
Monthly
Total
No requirement
Monitor and report
Based on results of RPA; Maintain Total
Chromium
Quarterly
Chromium monitoring or defer to LTMP if
any Total Chromium sample is > 50% of but
< the Chromium VI Allowable Cw.
Add Quarterly
PT facility discharging above WS-V waters;
PFAS
No requirement
monitoring with delayed
Implementation delayed until after EPA
implementation
certified method becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 34%
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A
effluent
NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC 213.0500
Effluent
Three times per
No change; conducted in
40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan
permit cycle
2025, 2026, 2027
Electronic
Electronic
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Reporting Special
Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
Page 12 of 13

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 5/26/2023
Per 15A NCAC 21-1.0109 & .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 parry filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to Harnett Regional Water, MBD Consulting Engineers, EPA Region IV, and the
Division's Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Pretreatment Program, Monitoring
Coalition Coordinator and Operator Certification Program for review. Comments were received from the
DWR Monitoring Coalition Coordinator on June 6, 2023 requesting the addition of fecal coliform, total
suspended residue and turbidity to the suite of instream parameters required in the permit. No comments
were received from any other party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• Per discussion with the Division's Monitoring Coalition Coordinator, instream monitoring for
fecal coliform, TSS and turbidity have been added to the permit [See A.(1.)].
• As the two permits are linked via a nutrient transfer, the permit expiration has been changed from
October 31 to July 31 to match the North Harnett Regional WWTP NC0021636.
16. 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
• MFR summary
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Chemical Addendum
• Nutrient Treatability Report
• Pretreatment Review Form
Page 13 of 13

AFFP
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF NC) SS
COUNTY OF HARNETT )
The Undersigned, being duly sworn, says:
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit NCO021636 North Harnett Regional
WWTP, and NCO088366 South Harnett Regional WWTP The North Carolina Environmen-
tal Management Commission proposes to issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit
to the person(s) listed below. Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after the publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division
of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a public hearing should there be a significant de-
gree of public interest. Please mail comments and/or information requests to DWR at the
above address. Interested persons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604 to review the information on file Additional information on NPDES permits
and this notice may be found on our website: tlttps.//dea.nc.aoylic-notices-hearinos,or
by calling [phone] Harnett Regional Water [P.O. Box 1119 Lillington, NC 275461
has requested renewal and expansion of NPDES permit NCO021636 for its North Harnett
Regional WWTP, located in Harnett County. This permitted facility discharges treated mu-
nicipai and industrial wastewater to the Cape Fear River, a class WS-IV water in the Cape
Fear River Basin. Currently BOD, ammonia, fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, total residual
chlorine, pH, and summer total nitrogen and total phosphorous loading are water quality
limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in this segment of the Cape Fear Riv-
er. Harnett Regional Water (P.O. Box 1119, Lillington, NC 27546) has requested renewal
of NPDES permit NCO088366 for its South Harnett Regional WWTP, located in Harnett
County. This permitted facility discharges treated municipal and industrial wastewater to
the Lower Little River, a class C water in the Cape Fear River Basin. Currently BOD, ammo-
nia, fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, total residual chlorine, pH, and summer total nitrogen
and total phosphorous loading are water quality limited. This discharge may affect future
allocations in this segment of the Cape Fear River. 5/26/2023
That she is Representative of the The Daily Record, a
daily newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published in Dunn, Harnett County, NC; that the
publication, a copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in the said newspaper on the following dates:
May 26, 2023
This newspaper is qualified for legal advertising in
accordance with N.C.G.S. 1-597 AND 1-598
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated
on those dates.
SIG
Representative U/
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 26th day of May 2023.
ON AN 7/
•QF'
Harnett County, NC
; ,y\�Nr,o zo; • (��, :�
My commission expires: July 23, 2027
0):o4
"OTARY
PUBLIC, -
'�ONr49�9 ,•' �.•
00030975 00072418 733 0719
�'•.�FrT....
•�
NCDENR- DEO-DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
ATTN: WREN THEDFORD
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617

Coco, Nick A
From: Vander Borgh, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 12:09 PM
To: Coco, Nick A
Cc: Hill, Tammy
Subject: RE: Draft Permits North Harnett Regional WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0021636, SIC Code 4952
and South Harnett Regional WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0088366, SIC Code 4952
Hey Nick, please note this applies to the NCO088366 permit also
Thank you
Mark Vander Borgh
Sr. Environmental Biologist/Monitoring Coalition Coordinator
NC DEQ/ DWR / Water Sciences Section / Ecosystems Branch
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 4401 Reedy Creek Rd. Raleigh, NC. 27607
Mailing Address: 1621 MSC Raleigh, NC. 27699-1621
NORTH CAPMNAD E Q��
oenart �rt m e���.o�me�wi a-iity
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Vander Borgh, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 11:58 AM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hill, Tammy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Draft Permits North Harnett Regional WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0021636, SIC Code 4952 and South
Harnett Regional WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0088366, SIC Code 4952
Hi Nick,
In regard to the requirement for the reactivation of the downstream monitoring station B6400000 in the NCO021636
permit, I would recommend adding fecal, suspended residue, and turbidity to the instream parameters list to align with
the parameters collected at the other MCFBA Cape Fear River monitoring stations.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Regards
Mark Vander Borgh
Sr. Environmental Biologist/Monitoring Coalition Coordinator
NC DEQ/ DWR / Water Sciences Section / Ecosystems Branch
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

Physical Address: 4401 Reedy Creek Rd. Raleigh, NC. 27607
Mailing Address: 1621 MSC Raleigh, NC. 27699-1621
:: �AAa��ND_E Q�/I�
n,p3ft—nt of E—irpn 1al pual
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 11:21 AM
To: Vander Borgh, Mark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft Permits North Harnett Regional WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0021636, SIC Code 4952 and South
Harnett Regional WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0088366, SIC Code 4952
Hi Mark,
I hope all is well.
Please see the following links to review the draft permits and cover letters and draft fact sheets for NPDES permits
NC0021636 for the North Harnett Regional WWTP and NC0088366 for the South Harnett Regional WWTP. I have also
provided a link to the NPDES Standard Conditions for your reference. You have a 30-day period ending on 6/19/2023 to
comment, ask questions, or request an extension to review this draft permit. Please contact me with any comments you
might have.
NC0021636 Draft
Permit: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2789033&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
NPDES Standard Conditions: https://bit.ly/3k5NFaL
NC0021636 Draft Fact Sheet:
https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2802020&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
NC0088366 Draft
Permit: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2789031&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
NPDES Standard Conditions: https://bit.ly/3k5NFaL
NC0088366 Draft Fact Sheet:
https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2802171&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
Thanks, and have a nice day.
Best,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617

D E
�
NORTH CAROLINA tj/)
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.

N
Cf
a
w
Q
i
L
r O
0
U
4-
0
1
L
E
L �
a
N
d
FT
H
a)
E
Z
O
LQ
0
N
O
CDO
O
O
0
M
Z
O
�
m
Z
-
N
C6
Z
�
O
N
�N
W
N
r-
N
U)
>
>
>
>
>
LL
=
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
2
LL
>
>
LL
LL
LL
2
cm)
W
0')
00
l0
p
Ln
I-M
O
Q
N
N
O
O
N
M
N
Z
r
W
W
ON
O
O
r
N
O
r
W
xj N
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Z
Z
z
z
z
z
Q
J
fl-
J
J
J
fl-
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
N
J
fl-
J
J
J
= Un
U
U
U
U)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
=
U
Un
U
U
U
S
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
E
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
=
=
N
3
N
Q
0
0
m
U
E-
j
o
E
c
c
3
U��~
a)
a�
c
E
o
E
C
(6
U
a)
Y
U)
2
�
o
a)
E
E
�_
o
m
3
a�
J
a`)
Q
Q
t
[l
0
0
o
E
U>
U
LL
>
Z
Z
U
[n
U
U
N
t
_C
U
U
Un
U
�
c
�
O
�
t
U
N M T lfl
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
a. aR aR aR aR aR a. aR a. aR a. aR a. aR a. aR a. aR a. aR a. aR a. R
a
a
0 O
Df
M
O
O
�_
of
o
0
o
0
a:
c
z
0
L
u =
J
a
U t
❑
U)
:.i
.O
L
a
r
O
I I I I
I I I I J N
lo'Q o
-0Q�,
I�
I E 00 y
��
QI 031 JI 1.>_ m m a)
0 0 0 0Ln JIQI �,I�I� Z
LO rnIJIEI�'la�i�
U v v rn m EI rn1M1 E1� E rn
v rn v M �I EI0ILI° ° Qln
MINI3N
0
I I I 1:N
I I I lye �
1-DLL o m
I I kcaEcy
i�_
Io00
I I IzMN0
I I.I�,
1 INS
1 1=10
u
I 1
w
y
E
y1 y
yl�l�l�
0
R
V
0
C9
°
cl�l LI L
N
a
a
a
E
m
a y_
v1=1212
a
s
z
a
3
c
V- V
W
R
z'
Q
CD
CDN�
O
al i M
I I
COw
0
U
Q
i y E E
V
LL
�j
Z
O LL
2 fn
❑
n
n
M
C�
WIMIUIU
URg
O❑
7 �
U 0
N
ai Q
Q LO
co
co
000

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness
Values" then "COPY"
Upstream Hardness
Values" then "COPY"
..Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1
12/13/2021
151.2
151.2
Std Dev.
20.0369
1
Default 25 25 Std Dev.
N/A
2
12/20/2021
126.6
126.6
Mean
127.7224
2
Mean
25.0000
3
12/27/2021
151.1
151.1
C.V.
0.1569
3
C.V.
0.0000
4
1/3/2022
148
148
n
58
4
n
1
5
1/5/2022
142
142
10th Per value
102.13 mg/L
5
10th Per value
25.00 mg/L
6
1/10/2022
104
104
Average Value
127.72 mg/L
6
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
7
1/18/2022
124
124
Max. Value
165.40 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00 mg/L
8
1 /24/2022
140
140
8
9
1 /31 /2022
118
118
9
10
2/7/2022
115
115
10
11
2/14/2022
117.3
117.3
11
12
2/21/2022
159.9
159.9
12
13
2/28/2022
164.4
164.4
13
14
3/7/2022
133.6
133.6
14
15
3/14/2022
136.4
136.4
15
16
3/21/2022
135.6
135.6
16
17
3/28/2022
130.9
130.9
17
18
4/4/2022
79.4
79.4
18
19
4/6/2022
78
78
19
20
4/11/2022
142.3
142.3
20
21
4/18/2022
160
160
21
22
4/25/2022
145.5
145.5
22
23
5/2/2022
142.1
142.1
23
24
5/9/2022
113.4
113.4
24
25
5/16/2022
106.7
106.7
25
26
5/23/2022
125.6
125.6
26
27
5/31/2022
139.6
139.6
27
28
6/6/2022
98.7
98.7
28
29
6/13/2022
134.3
134.3
29
30
6/20/2022
140.2
140.2
30
31
6/27/2022
127.8
127.8
31
32
7/5/2022
106.6
106.6
32
33
7/11/2022
117.2
117.2
33
34
7/13/2022
120
120
34
35
7/18/2022
103.6
103.6
35
36
7/25/2022
119.3
119.3
36
37
8/2/2022
115
115
37
38
8/8/2022
112.4
112.4
38
39
8/15/2022
134.8
134.8
39
40
8/22/2022
130.6
130.6
40
41
8/29/2022
131.4
131.4
41
42
9/6/2022
128.3
128.3
42
43
9/12/2022
147.2
147.2
43
44
9/19/2022
135.3
135.3
44
45
9/26/2022
141
141
45
46
10/3/2022
123.6
123.6
46
47
10/10/2022
85.7
85.7
47
48
10/17/2022
129.2
129.2
48
49
10/24/2022
134.8
134.8
49
50
10/31 /2022
138.6
138.6
50
51
11 /7/2022
156.7
156.7
51
52
11 /14/2022
130.3
130.3
52
53
11 /21 /2022
165.4
165.4
53
54
11 /28/2022
137.2
137.2
54
55
12/5/2022
92
92
55
56
12/12/2022
95.6
95.6
56
57
12/19/2022
116.4
116.4
57
58
12/26/2022
128.1
128.1
58
88366 rpa, data
1 - 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
7/11/2018
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.4730
10/4/2018
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.3421
1/8/2019
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.2019
4/1/2019
<
5
2.5
n
19
7/11/2019
<
5
2.5
9/30/2019
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.13
1/7/2020
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
4/7/2020
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.8 ug/L
7/6/2020
<
5
2.5
7/8/2020
<
2
1
10/8/2020
<
5
2.5
1/5/2021
<
5
2.5
4/6/2021
<
5
2.5
7/6/2021
<
5
2.5
10/11/2021
<
2
1
1/12/2022
<
5
2.5
4/5/2022
<
5
2.5
9/8/2022
<
5
2.5
10/13/2022
<
5
2.5
88366 rpa, data
-2- 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Paf04
.Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
1
7/8/2020
< 1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
7/11/2018
<
2
10/11/2021
< 1
0.5
Mean
0.5000
2
10/4/2018
<
3
4/11/2019
< 1
0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
1/8/2019
<
4
10/20/2017
< 1
0.5
n
5
4
7/11/2019
<
5
1/19/2018
< 1
0.5
5
9/30/2019
<
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
1/7/2020
<
7
Max. Value
0.50 ug/L
7
4/7/2020
<
8
Max. Pred Cw
1.16 ug/L
8
7/6/2020
<
9
9
7/8/2020
<
10
10
10/8/2020
<
11
11
4/6/2021
<
12
12
7/6/2021
<
13
13
10/11/2021
<
14
14
1/12/2022
<
15
15
4/5/2022
<
16
16
9/8/2022
<
17
17
10/13/2022
<
18
18
4/1/2019
<
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
Cadmium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
0.5
Std Dev.
1
0.5
Mean
1
0.5
C.V.
1
0.5
n
1
0.5
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1
0.5
Max. Value
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
0.5
0.25
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.4722
0.1712
18
1.11
0.500 ug/L
0.555 ug/L
88366 rpa, data
-3- 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Chromium, Total
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
7/11/2018
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
2
10/4/2018
<
5
2.5
Mean
3
7/11/2019
<
5
2.5
C.V.
4
9/30/2019
<
5
2.5
n
5
1/7/2020
<
5
2.5
6
4/7/2020
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
7
7/6/2020
31
31
Max. Value
8
7/8/2020
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
9
10/8/2020
<
5
2.5
10
1/5/2021
<
5
2.5
11
4/6/2021
<
5
2.5
12
7/6/2021
<
5
2.5
13
10/11/2021
<
5
2.5
14
1/12/2022
<
5
2.5
15
4/5/2022
<
5
2.5
16
9/8/2022
<
5
2.5
17
10/13/2022
<
5
2.5
18
1/8/2019
<
5
2.5
19
4/1/2019
<
5
2.5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Pall
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY" Copper Values" then "COPY"
.Maximum data . Maximum data
points = 58 points = 58
4.0000
1.6346
19
1.96
31.0 pg/L
60.8 pg/L
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
5/6/2019
<
10
5
Std Dev.
2
6/3/2019
<
10
5
Mean
3
7/1/2019
<
10
5
C.V.
4
7/11/2019
4
4
n
5
8/5/2019
<
10
5
6
9/3/2019
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
7
9/30/2019
3
3
Max. Value
8
10/7/2019
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
11/4/2019
<
10
5
10
12/2/2019
<
10
5
11
1/6/2020
<
10
5
12
1/7/2020
2
2
13
2/3/2020
<
10
5
14
3/2/2020
<
10
5
15
3/4/2020
<
10
5
16
4/7/2020
<
10
5
17
5/4/2020
<
10
5
18
6/1/2020
<
10
5
19
7/6/2020
16
16
20
7/8/2020
<
10
5
21
8/3/2020
<
10
5
22
8/31/2020
<
10
5
23
9/30/2020
<
10
5
24
10/6/2020
<
10
5
25
10/8/2020
4
4
26
11/2/2020
<
10
5
27
11/30/2020
<
10
5
28
12/31/2020
<
10
5
29
1/5/2021
<
10
5
30
2/1/2021
<
10
5
31
3/1/2021
<
10
5
32
4/6/2021
<
10
5
33
5/3/2021
<
10
5
34
6/7/2021
<
10
5
35
7/6/2021
<
10
5
36
8/2/2021
<
10
5
37
9/7/2021
<
10
5
38
10/11/2021
3
3
39
10/13/2021
<
10
5
40
11/8/2021
<
10
5
41
12/6/2021
<
10
5
42
1/5/2022
<
10
5
43
1/12/2022
4
4
44
2/21/2022
<
10
5
45
3/2/2022
<
10
5
46
4/6/2022
<
10
5
47
5/2/2022
<
10
5
48
6/6/2022
<
10
5
49
7/7/2022
<
10
5
50
7/13/2022
<
10
5
51
8/2/2022
<
10
5
52
9/6/2022
<
10
5
53
9/26/2022
5
5
54
10/3/2022
<
10
5
55
10/13/2022
3
3
56
11/7/2022
<
10
5
57
12/7/2022
<
10
5
58
11/5/2018
32
32
5.4483
0.7139
58
1.00
32.00 ug/L
32.00 ug/L
-4-
88366 rpa, data
5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Cyanide
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Paf14
.Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
1
7/8/2020
<
5
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
7/11/2018 <
2
10/11/2021
<
5
5
Mean
5.00
2
10/4/2018 <
3
10/11/2017
<
5
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
1/8/2019 <
4
1/17/2018
<
5
5
n
5
4
7/11/2019 <
5
4/5/2019
<
5
5
5
9/30/2019 <
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
1/7/2020 <
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
4/7/2020 <
8
Max. Pred Cw
11.6 ug/L
8
7/6/2020 <
9
9
7/8/2020 <
10
10
10/8/2020 <
11
11
1/5/2021 <
12
12
4/6/2021 <
13
13
7/6/2021 <
14
14
10/11/2021 <
15
15
1/12/2022 <
16
16
4/5/2022 <
17
17
9/8/2022 <
18
18
10/13/2022 <
19
19
4/1/2019 <
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
Lead
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
5 2.5
Mean
5 2.5
C.V.
5 2.5
n
5 2.5
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
5 2.5
Max. Value
5 2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2 1
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
2.4211
0.1421
19
1.09
2.500 ug/L
2.725 ug/L
88366 rpa, data
-5- 5/9/2023

Par16
Date Data
1 7/11/2018 <
2 10/4/2018 <
3 1/8/2019 <
4 4/1/2019 <
5 7/11/2019 <
6 9/30/2019 <
7 1/7/2020 <
8 4/7/2020 <
9 7/6/2020 <
10 10/8/2020 <
11 1/5/2021 <
12 4/6/2021 <
13 7/6/2021 <
14 1/12/2022 <
15 4/5/2022 <
16 9/8/2022 <
17 10/13/2022 <
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Use"PASTE Par17 & Par18
SPECIAL -Values"
Molybdenum then "COPY" . Nickel
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
10 5
Mean
5.0000
10 5
C.V.
0.0000
10 5
n
17
10 5
10 5
Mult Factor =
1.00
10 5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
10 5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
Date Data
1 7/11/2018 <
2 10/4/2018 <
3 1/8/2019 <
4 7/11/2019 <
5 9/30/2019 <
6 1/7/2020 <
7 4/7/2020 <
8 7/6/2020 <
9 7/8/2020
10 10/8/2020 <
11 1/5/2021 <
12 4/6/2021 <
13 7/6/2021 <
14 10/11 /2021
15 1/12/2022 <
16 4/5/2022 <
17 9/8/2022 <
18 10/13/2022 <
19 4/1/2019 <
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10 5
Std Dev.
10 5
Mean
10 5
C.V.
10 5
n
10 5
10 5
Mult Factor =
10 5
Max. Value
10 5
Max. Pred Cw
2 2
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
3 3
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
4.7368
0.1701
19
1.11
5.0 pg/L
5.6 pg/L
-6-
88366 rpa, data
5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Paf20
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Selenium
Values" then "COPY".
SIIV2C
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data points
.Maximum data
= 58
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
7/11/2018
<
10
5
Std Dev.
1.4189
1
7/11/2018
10
10
Std Dev.
3.7697
2
10/4/2018
<
10
5
Mean
4.5263
2
10/4/2018
10
10
Mean
2.8947
3
1/8/2019
<
10
5
C.V.
0.3135
3
1/8/2019
1
1
C.V.
1.3023
4
7/11/2019
<
10
5
n
19
4
4/1/2019
1
1
n
19
5
9/30/2019
<
10
5
5
7/11/2019
1
1
6
1/7/2020
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.20
6
9/30/2019
10
10
Mult Factor =
1.80
7
4/7/2020
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
1/7/2020
10
10
Max. Value
10.000 ug/L
8
7/6/2020
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
6.0 ug/L
8
4/7/2020
1
1
Max. Pred Cw
18.000 ug/L
9
7/8/2020
<
1
0.5
9
7/6/2020
1
1
10
10/8/2020
<
10
5
10
7/8/2020
1
1
11
1/5/2021
<
10
5
11
10/8/2020
1
1
12
4/6/2021
<
10
5
12
1/5/2021
1
1
13
7/6/2021
<
10
5
13
4/6/2021
1
1
14
10/11/2021
<
1
0.5
14
7/6/2021
1
1
15
1/12/2022
<
10
5
15
10/11/2021
1
1
16
4/5/2022
<
10
5
16
1/12/2022
1
1
17
9/8/2022
<
10
5
17
4/5/2022
1
1
18
10/13/2022
<
10
5
18
9/8/2022
1
1
19
4/1/2019
<
10
5
19
10/13/2022
1
1
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
88366 rpa, data
-7- 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
ZIL1C
Values" then "COPY"
.Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
7/11/2018
80
80
Std Dev.
9.8933
2
10/4/2018
93
93
Mean
75.1053
3
1/8/2019
74
74
C.V.
0.1317
4
7/11/2019
72
72
n
19
5
9/30/2019
70
70
6
1/7/2020
76
76
Mult Factor =
1.08
7
4/7/2020
79
79
Max. Value
93.0 ug/L
8
7/6/2020
70
70
Max. Pred Cw
100.4 ug/L
9
7/8/2020
68
68
10
10/8/2020
55
55
11
1/5/2021
75
75
12
4/6/2021
87
87
13
7/6/2021
57
57
14
10/11/2021
74
74
15
1/12/2022
83
83
16
4/5/2022
67
67
17
9/8/2022
74
74
18
10/13/2022
90
90
19
4/1/2019
83
83
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
88366 rpa, data
- 8 - 5/9/2023

T"
0
0
Al
u
N LO LO In
(D O O O
M O -e O f-
N n o n n
n O (D O N
v o 0 o m
v tO O (D
O M N M W
M M N M (!
y u u u y
R O c U o 0 o d u U
r U
00 H e e e U
H
Z
0
a
Q
H
Q
f�
IO z i
O
Iz
O
Iz
i
i
o9
i
i
O
Iz
iC
i�
i
i
a)�
i
i.-
iC)
oA
C
19 I
19
19
I
I
a
19
Io
19
O
I� I
I0
I0
I
I
��
I0
to
I0
F
a
O
IQ I
O
IQ
O
IQ
I
I
C O0
°
IQ
E
I°
O
IQ
o
I° I
I°
I°
I
I
°
°
I
I c
I°
w
o
0
0
E a
E9
o
z
I� I
IL
ILO
I
I
E
ILO °
I �
I0
- m
A
O
I x I
I�al
I x
Ida
I x
Ida
I
I
I
I
E o o
O
Q
I x o
I� o
I
I
I x
Ida
420E
ITT
la
I��
O O
r
C
1 0
s
l a
F
L
m
°
a
la l
I� RE I
la
I� E
la
I�
I
I
I
I
C
la
CJ
I a
O
m
>
l
I
0 0
Z
0 0
Z
0 0
Z
..
9 J V
O Q
Z (6
' Q
i 0 0
Z
O
DD
w
�
� to qlo �1
5 to Ca
5 to Ca
5 l0
5 to
°= "
5 to °
5 to Ca
5 to Ca
IU
IU
IU
IU
IU
IU
IU
'�
'�
o
>
'�
2
U 2
2
U 2
2
a
Al
w
VI
U
VI a
0
=
0
0
=
r
F
r
z a
z a
a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
SIINn
oL oD
oD
oD
oD
oD
cn
oD
oD
oD
z
�
=L
-10d
U
p
o
CY
O'
O'
O'
O'
O'
O'
O'
0
Z
r
�
Z
cS
Y
V V
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
w
F
U U
E
E
=_
E
E
R
W
�/1 �/1
7
W
7
•�
R
E
0
E
O
E
W
C
;O
R
W
J
Q Q
a0
U
t
t
o
U
U
a
U
U
L
U
0

0
0
�
�
Al
�
O
0
iJ
iJ i
iJ
i
iJ
i\
i\ i
i\
is
i\
�
W)
i»
i» i
i»
i3 /
i»
i\
i\ i
is
iƒ =
i\
i\
i§
i\ i
i§ i
i\
i§
ij >
io o
i\
i§
i{
i{ i
i{
i-\ !
i{
i.o {
i§ E
i% D
i(D
i\ )
i\
i\ )
i/ )
i\ )
z>
)i
z>
z>
<e
z>
i
i i
i
i
i
i/
% i) \lR \
/ i=
{ i2 2
N i[ \
\
d
i
i/
i�(
\
§
§ i § %
i§ )!k >
k �/ ®
k �) )
k �/ )
//�)/
i)
i
i\
e
\
\
3
-
7
�
-
2
-
O
2
\
\ L
7
7
7
�
k
0
Ic
r
a
-
k
r
�
/_
&
\
/ /
k
■
r
LL
z
z z
z
z
z
B
.
z )
)
k
_
;
�
�
n
0
0
0
0
U
2

Permit No. NC0088366
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER* 11.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} eA10.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} of 0.9151[In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* {1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.7001
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.7021
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-1.4601
Lead, Chronic
WER* {1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e-10.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO088366
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e-10.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO088366
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + WOW, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, ma/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
_Cdiss - I
Ctotal I + f [Kpo] [ss(i+a)] [10 6]
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (le. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwgs) - (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQIO = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0088366
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
127.72
Average from December 2021 to
December 2022 DAM data
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
January 2018 to April 2022
MCFRBA data < 25 mg/L; Default
value of 25 mg/L used
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
44.4
Historical from previous fact sheet
1Q10 (cfs)
36.5
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
15.0
NPDES Files
Date: 3/3/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

R ri m�� m r, Rt w wri o I- w m m Ln N ri Ln w �o m M Rt
.�... M ri N to to to to Ln ri Ln Ol O ri ri O Ol Ol to Ln m to to m O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I I I I
p[ M M M M M M M M 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ol
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
ri r-I r-I N N N N M
N t N N N c-I c-I c-I N L N L >✓ N N N N N N N N L N L >✓ N N N M M M
N i L S N N N N +� S N N N
oo = " 'Q M c E tw o E E u 'Q m e E o E E 'Q m e
> Q a u > u Q tw a u > u Q
M " Q Ln p o w '� a Ln 0 0 o Li
�l
i
i ° N to � � O Ln N � O � l0 � � rn I- oo Ln oo Ol Ln M O O I- � oo Ln r- l0 M
0 p[ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 I- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r- 00 r- 00 00 00 00
p� Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
N
N 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol O O O
00 -1Ol Orlj
i OO 00 L L L 0) Ol Ol Ol L L L N Oi 0 0 0 0 p rj
0 L O L L
y N i L s ri r-I r-I N N ) i L S N N N Nro-
N N
E o E E L 'L to C E o E E L 'L to C m CL5 E tioD E E
Q a p o a� Q a o a� mQ a" o wa
Ln Z Ll Ln 0 Z o L.L Ln p Z
O Ol c I Ln Ol Ol N c I 00 N to c I c I M Ol I� N O l0 00 .� .° . Rt Rt ri Rt 1p r-Rt l6 Ln 3 m O N I- Rt O N Rt N ri M to m 00
� p[ 00 00 00 00 I� 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 00 00 Ol I� 00 00 00 I I I I I I
OC Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
r-I c-I N N N
iC t N N N ri ri ri N L N a) I>` >✓ N N N N N N N N L N >` >✓ N N N M M M
L i L S N N N N N N i L S N N N N N N i L S N N N
fC 0 " 'L (6 C E E E `� L 'L to C E E E `� L 'L to C
*' p � Q ao > u Q ao > u -02Q
cn L` a wo o w aNpzo LL
t
o Ln m �o o Ln oo m m m �o -:t �o r, o o r, m-:t Ln I, Ln m o m o m m m m
0 M O M M o m r-I N to m M N N Ln I, l0 l0 Ol to Ln Ln N Ln Rt O oo M to to Rt
p[ 00 00 I- 00 Ln Ln 00 00 to I-, 00 l0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 I-, 00 o0 o0 o0
� Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
lG O co co co Ol Ol Ol O O O
Q m 00 L co -1 r-I Ol 0) L Olr-i ri r-I O ON O O L O N N
M CO c I L L Qi c I I L Lrlj
N O O O O N L L
Q y N i L S r-I r-I N N i L S N N N N N N
Q00 0A N o N N CL 7 N �O N N Q 7 N N N
V Q Q- U o N a Q Q- U o N a Q CL U o N
Z Ln p Z 0 L.L Ln p Z 0 Ln
Ln p Z
M
Lq
00
C1
M
00
C1

�o
i
00
r-I
Ol
r-I
O
N
r-I
N
N
N
M
J
J
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
\\
000
000
L
0
L
O
L
O
L
O
L
O
6)
6)
6)
6)
6)
q0
q0
q0
q0
q0
N
fL6
fL6
fL6
fL6
fL6
4
�
>
>
>
>
>
M
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
f6
76
76
76
76
C
C
C
C
C
I I
J
C
Q
C
Q
C
Q
C
Q
C
Q
LLB
cf
6)
>
C
C
C
C
C
S
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
O
N
U
J
Q
O
O
Z
Z
O
O
J
Q
O
O
O
w
Ln
J
W
m
H
II
II
3
W
m
O
W
a�
+�
E
D
L
U
6)
�
a
W
M
00
00
O
O
U
a
6)
3
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
m
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
J
\00
>�
76
>
6
6
6
6
6
6-i
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
C
>
C
N
O
J
C
W
Rt
M
\tw
c-I
f6
N
Ln
L
O
I I
Ln
I I
L
6)
C
i
+'
Q
d
-O
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
7
O
W
cO
>
(n
r-I
N ..
M
`�°
E O
f6 Z
Z
>
L00
u
Ol
Ol
0
0
0
ON
r-I
r-I
r-Ia-•�
r1i
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
>E
U
\
c-I
\
r-I
\
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
\
00
N
\
N\
\
\
N
N
\
\
M
\\
M
L
6)
c
00
r-I
I-
r-
to
Ln
6
c-I
Ln
NO
Li
c-I
c-I
I�
c-I
O
\
(6
\
M
O
H

N Ln Ln Ln
N O O
O
N
cI Ln
N M O
O O O
N
O
N M
O O cI
N
C!1
M
r-I Ln
O M p 0
N O
to W
M
0 00
O c-1
U ON
Z �
a �
Ln
O
O
O
U
J
C:
o
CA
bio
bio
C
C
�+
to
H
CA
L
Q
E
>
a
C
,
J
\
°A
J
2
s v
cn
6
E
Lu
CCf
7 U
�
X
W
>f
c�
*k
Q
H

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
PermitNo. NC0088366
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 15
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 44.4
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 91.8
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
44.4
s7Q10 (CFS)
44.4
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
15
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
15
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
23.25
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
23.25
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
34.37
IWC (%)
34.37
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
49
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.5
Cap at 28 ug/L.
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain lim
Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
91.8
Monthly Average Limit:
2001100-
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
15
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
23.25
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
2.91
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
20.21
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
8.0
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain lim
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

�o
o m
qO N
O
a m
H 00 -1
o 0
p V N
= Z ON
+� cii
O
N
m
v
0
+T z O
:u 'Q T
LL
d �
v
N cTi O
c
Z
OC (u }
-
LL
M1•
A
+T+
16 C
C N
L£ O O O O
— N
•� N
M1•
N Z Z Z Z
A
N
� T �
O L ++ O
C £ 0 0 0 0
O £ — p
M1•
N }
V
T N
N o
Q O O
N
iL N A
O
Q O
N W
M1•
N } } }
a -I
V
T N
N o
N O O m
iL M A
N
O cQ N O m
N C chi N
M1•
0
Ln } } } }
V
C I� ci ci N
G i w O I, Ol
Ln Ln N Ln
M O O O O
0 Q Ln Ln I, O
Ln m O
T y m r,
C £ W m O-1 00
O ( _ O qt N
T £ Ln
1 N M O
N tow N O
i O 4
a
n:
+N+ \ \ \ O
UO bD bD ci
E E E
v
3 t E
t •v `o
a w N 3 0
V
+16+ c io
16 p O v
0 O E a)
m E
Q

HARN ETT
REGIONAL
50j
January 31, 2023
Ms. Kristen Litzenberger
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
RE: Harnett Regional Water
North Regional WWTP NPDES No. NCO021636
South Regional WWTP NPDES No. NCO088366
Nutrient Sharing Request
Dear Ms. Litzenberger:
www.harnettwater.org
PO Box 1119
700 McKinney Parkway
Lillington, NC 27546
ph: 910-893-7575
fax: [phone]
The North Regional WWTP and South Regional WWTP NPDES permits include seasonal nutrient limits in
total pounds during the winter months. The North Regional WWTP currently has a discharge volume of
7.5 MGD and the permit includes 59,968 lbs. of TN and 19,989 lbs. of TP for the period between April 1
through October 31 of each year. The South Regional WWTP permit has a discharge volume of 15 MGD
and the permit includes 160,629 lbs. of TN and 54,543 lbs. of TP for the same period of April 1 through
October 31. HRW has recently submitted a request to expand the North Regional WWTP permit from 7.5
MGD to 16.5 MGD. The speculative limits that were provided to HRW included the same poundage for TN
and TP as is currently listed in the NPDES permit.
In May 2022, HRW requested that the South Regional WWTP NPDES permit be expanded from 15 MGD
to 17.5 MGD but HRW recently withdrew that request and now requests that the permit be renewed for
a discharge volume of 15 MGD.
HRW is requesting that a nutrient sharing agreement be established between the two facilities where the
facilities have the ability to share a total of 220,596 lbs. TN and 75,532 of TP as a seasonal total poundage
limit for the two facilities.
Alternatives for sharing the nutrient load between the two facilities have been discussed with NCDEQ.
While the initial request would be for the ability to completely share between the two facilities, if that is
not possible at this time, HRW requests that a portion of the South Regional WWTP nutrient allocation be
transferred to the North Regional WWTP NPDES permit. The allocation would be based on the percentage
of flow as shown in the table below.

HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
NORTH REGIONAL WWTP NPDES NO. NC 0021636
SOUTH REGIONAL WWTP NPDES NO. NC 0088366
NUTRIENT TRANSFER REQUEST
FLOW %
TN _
CURRENT PROPOSED
TP
CURRENT
PROPOSED
NORTH
16.5 MGD
52.4%
59,968 LBS
115,550 LBS
19,989 LBS
53,543 LBS
38,517 LBS
35,015 LBS
SOUTH
15.0 MGD
47.6%
160,628 LBS
105,046 LBS
TOTAL
31.5 MGD
1.000
220,596 LBS 220,596 LBS
73,532 LBS
73,532 LBS
HRW requests that 55,582 lbs. of TN and 18,525 lbs. of TP be transferred from the South Regional WWTP
NPDES permit to the North Regional WWTP NPDES permit.
HRW appreciates the assistance from NCDEQ on this project. If we can provide any additional information,
please contact me at this office.
Sincerely,
Steve Ward
Director
cc: Michael Montebello, NCDEQ
Ken Pohlig, NCDEQ
Joe McGougan, MBD
www.harnettwater.org

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name OutFall Number
NC 0088366 S. Harnett Reg. WWTP 001
Number Eornated [oru'r wation {If
Palliord ed CAS number # Ileab;e) Reason Pollutant"ievedPresenttoAlghar a Known)
No Additional Pollutants Sampled
Signed:
Kenneth W. Fail, W istewater Sup arintendent, Han eft Regional Water

HARN ETT
REGIONAL
r is WATER
March 16, 2023
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Permitting Section — NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attention: Nick Coco
Re: NPDES NCO088366
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Request to continue Reduced Monitoring
Mr. Coco,
www.harnettwater.org
PO Box 1119
700 McKinney Parkway
Lillington, NC 27546
ph: 910-893-7575
tax: 910-893-6643
Harnett Regional Water respectfully requests to continue reduced monitoring as part of the ongoing
renewal process. I have included a copy of the original DWQ correspondence granting the permit
modification from back in 2015. Also, with the help of Mark Brantley (FRO) I am sending you the data
from 2017 through 2022 taken directly from the EDMR database for your review.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this application or needs for
additional information.
Respectfully,
Kenneth W. Fail
Wastewater Supt.
Harnett Regional Water
910-814-6470 (office)
[e-mail]

ANALYTICAL & CONSULTING CHEMISTS
F"I", -- -7441
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way, Wilmington, NC 28405 • 910,392,0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road, Manteo, NC 27954 + 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway, Jacksonville, NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
info{a,environmentalchemists.com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St, Customer PO #:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report #: 2023-07205
Project ID: 2304-0086
Lair ID Sample ID: 2304-0086-01 Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-18317 Site: 2304-0086-01 4/10/2023 9:00 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 8260D <2 pg/L 04/19/2023
Comment: A
Reviewed by:
_ kA�dt alojiL
Report #:: 2023-07205 Page 1 of t

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: ,ihq LDate
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
14113 Z Report Number: 23 _y-7ZO5
Receipt of sample: Echem Pick up V Client Delivery ❑ UPS ❑ FedEx ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES
ID NO
JJS N/Al
11. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES
10 NO
N/Al
12, If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank J9 Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 192511657 IR Gun Correction Factor °C: 0.0
❑ YES
❑ NO
3. If temperature of cooler exceeded VC, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES
❑ NO
4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
YES
❑ NO
5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES
❑ NO
7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
YES
❑ NO
10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES
❑ NO
11. Was adequate sample volume availableT
YES
❑ NO
12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES
❑ NO
13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of <2?
❑ YES
❑ NO
14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES
❑ YES
❑ NO
❑ NO
15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES
❑ NO
17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L?
❑ YES
❑ NO 1
18, Were orthophosphate samples filtered in field within 15 minutes?
# TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 NCI NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments be -ow
Note: Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples_ Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer. Who was notified, date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC.QA.002 Rev 1

oc
� M
n
W c
co
m
a
C
a
O
c
z
v
CA
v
o00
-4
0)
0
b
7
�
A
�
d
0
0
�
v
N
ID
W
f'?
_
O
R
0
a
Oo
�
Sample Type
Composite
G)
0
G)
0
G)
0
G)
0
G)
0
0
n
0
0
G)
0
G)
0
or
Grab
�
G)
�
G)
�
G}
�
Container
(P or G)
�
v
w�
Chlorine
mg/L
3
_
LAB ID
O
NUMBER
•��
NONE
HCL
H23CM
M
to
M
HNO3
C
NAON
-4
C
p
C.
THIO
Z
�
�c
OTHER
a
a
1
1
<
�A
to
CN
O
v
0
Q
tD
c
N
m
v
ch
a
n
CL
W
m v �
a m - d
z tya
y a R
Q o
o CA
M .�.U3 L
=
m �
SD
N
rn
�Z
°C
Z .�
z
c
o090
r Z
O M m M
0 0 � ic
o z o M
Z Z
.. Z
W y p
0 0
Z r
a =0
O
00rn
� C
N
f. -1 T
b O
Z V•
o
7 �^
V
W
4
N Zm
0
O O a
z O 0
x z
o ,'N
m �
r
0 0
� � 3
N X'
O
a?
' n Z
3 � pSNp
N O
A N

ANALYTICAL & CONSULTING CHEMISTS
Cameron Testing Services, Inc.
219 South Steele St.
Sanford NC 27330
Attention;
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way, Wilmington, NC 28405 • 910.392.0223 Lab - 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road, Manteo, NC 27954 ■ 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway, Jacksonville, NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
[e-mail]
Date of Report: May 02, 2023
Customer PO #:
Customer ID: 12090010
Report #: 2023-07208
Project ID: 2304-0097
Lab ID Sample ID: 2304-0097-01 Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-18319 Site: 2304-0097-01 4/12/2023 8:25 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 8260D <2 ug/L 04/18/2023
Comment:
Reviewed by: KaILCL
Report #:: 2023-07208 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client:Camar-onDate:L2:3Report Number. 23
Receipt of sample: Echem Pick up V Client Delivery ❑ UPS ❑ FedEX ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES
ID NO
e N/Al
11. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES
ID NO JKJ
N/Al
12. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank J9 Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 192511657 IR Gun Correction Factor °C: 0.0
❑ YES
❑ NO
3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6*C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES
YES
❑ NO
❑ NO
4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES
❑ NO
7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
YES
❑ NO
10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES
YES
❑ NO
❑ NO
11. Was adequate sample volume availableT
12, Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES
❑ NO
13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of <27
❑ YES
❑ NO
14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES
❑ NO
15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES
❑ NO
16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES
❑ NO
17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L?
❑ YES
❑ NO
18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HCl NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note: Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples. Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer Who was notified, date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC.QA.002 Rev ]

'a
Ca
N
�
N
o
CA
0
4
ep
b
01
O
3
0
A
v
J
N
.�.►
N
�
W
n
00
O
ch
O
w
7
O
to
0
CL
a
Sample Type
Composite
Q
0
G)Ci
G)
0
0
C7
G)
0
Q
n
0
n
0
0
G)
n
or
Grab
G7
�(7
-0�
-0�
Z1
G7
'f1
G)
�(7
-0
G)
-0
G)
�
Container
(P or G)
R1
y
Chlorine
mg/L
tp
-
LAB ID
NUMBER
NONE
HCL
H2SO4
ca
r
m
HNO3
C
NAOH
c
o
THiO
Z
�c
OTHER
a
a
f
!<
v
N
p
o
x
z
m
I�
c
o
3
m
CO D 0
v r
c z
Q. N
n fn m
WCD
to
W (P 3
O
N �
V
tp �•
tO
CA
f�
N
m X
O L.
n
o n
0 3
N V1
0 e9
3 �
t9
� 01
O —
= O m
M O �
n --I
x o
4
n
D
n
a
m
z
P9
M
z
C_
O
z
ic
M
z
n
r
0
M
S
V♦
CID
V
0 (,
o+
;N
n
( m �
a
c 3
3 bQ
w g
3
X 3.
3 m $
e N 0
3 N
A
th

ANALYTICAL & CONSl1LMNQ CHEMISTS
FF007-71
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way, Wilmington, NC 28405 • 910.392.0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road, Manteo, NC 27954 ■ 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway, Jacksonville, NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
info(G environmentalchemists.com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St. Customer PO #:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report #: 2023-07484
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect DatelTime Matrix Sampled by
23-19038 Site: 2304-0141-01 4/14/2023 8;07 AM Water Client
Test
1,4-Dioxane
Method
SW-846 Method 8260D
Comment: Pt
Reviewed by: fta
Results Date Analyzed
<2 pg/L 04/19/2023
Report # - 2023-07484 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94
Sample Receipt Checklist
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
Q1n-ZC2 C2-3
Client: T�, Date: Yf'/CR-R-Report Number: 2023- (1)1.{8�
Receipt of sample:
ECHEM Pickup"10 Client De very 11
1UPS ❑ FeclEx ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES
10 NO
® N/A
1. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES
10 NO
I 1P N/A
12. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken:
❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 lR Gun Correction Factor'C: 0.0
12 YES
❑ NO
3. If temperature of cooler exceeded VC, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES
❑ NO
4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
I1 YES
❑ NO
5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
14 YES
❑ NO
6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES
❑ NO
7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
�l YES
❑ NO
8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
CR YES 10
NO
10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES
❑ NO
11. Was adequate sample volume availableT
YES
❑ NO
12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES
❑ NO
13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of <2?
❑ YES
❑ NO
14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES
❑ NO
15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES
❑ NO
16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES
❑ NO
17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L?
❑ YES ❑ NO
18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked
at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked
for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation:
(Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s)
were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one):
H2SO4 HNO3 HCI NaOH
Time of preservation:
If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note: Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples. Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer. Who was notified, date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s)
were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC. QA.002 Rev 1

o M
`� 3
so (o
C of
a A
w r
ID
O
M
a
m
D S
.r`°
N
�
N
W
�
b
�
1
b
a
m
O
�
'�
v
Jw
Y
IY
N
�
W
n
Co
O
-4
CD
0
O
N
�
�
�nn
Sample Type
L�
Composite
Grad
G)
v
G)
-u
G)
-o
G)
v
o
m
G)
m
G)
-u
o
-o
Container
(P or G)
su
O
Chlorine
mglL
0
LAB 10
D
NUMBER
7
NONE
HCL
b
i0
H2804
M
m
HNO3
C
NAOH
co
p
THIO
Z
OTHER
a
Z
a
�
a
{
f
V7
v
x
m
3
m
Q
a
CL
W
D
o.
r
C
n
a
m
3
M
z
C
O
z
ic
m
z
r
0
x
M
ic
♦I
V +
Y
z
0

Environmental Chemists, Inc.
envirochem
6602 Windmill Way, Wilmington, NC 28405 • 910.392.0223 Lab * 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road, Manteo, NC 27954 • 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway, Jacksonville, NC 28540 * 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
info ta:environmentalchemists.com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St. Customer PO #:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report #: 2023-07486
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-19042 Site: 2304-0146-01 4/17/2023 8- 15 AM Water Client
Test
1,4-Dioxane
Comment:
Reviewed by: Ul�dn'
Method
SW-846 Method 8260D
Results Date Analyzed
<2 pg/L 04/19/2023
Report #:: 2023.07486 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.391^` '17
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client ?Q ►J _T � 1 Date: �ICZR Report Number: _ 2023- 014R o�
Receipt of sample:
ECHEM PickupAJ Client De 'very ❑ JUPS ❑ FeclEx ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES 10 NO
IM N/A 11. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES 10 NO
I 1P N/A 12. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken:
❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor °C: 0.0
YES ❑ NO
3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6*C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES
❑ NO
4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
YES
❑ NO
5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES
❑ NO
7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
tl YES
❑ NO
8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES
❑ NO
9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
I,$ YES
❑ NO
10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
f. YES
❑ NO
11. Was adequate sample volume available?'
U YES
❑ NO
12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES
❑ NO
13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of <2?
❑ YES
❑ NO
14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES
❑ NO
15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES
❑ NO
16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES ❑ NO
17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L?
O YES ❑ NO
18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked
at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked
for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation:
(Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s)
were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one):
H2SO4 HNO3 HCl NaOH
Time of preservation:
If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note: Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples. Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer. Who was notified, date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s)
were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC. Q4.002 Rev 1

0
CL
v
CD
3
N
�
N
o
N
�
m
c
fD
o
c.
0
�
v
N
�
W
n
co
O
rt
W
7
J
C
rL
W
Sample Type
Composite
G)
0
0
0
G)
0
G)
0
0
n
G)
0
or
Grab
�
L7
G)
-0
G)
-0
G}
-U
G)
-0
0
�
G)
'[I
-0
Container
fc)L-0
(P or G)
0.1
v
Chlorine
U'
W
mg/L
eo
O
O
LAB lO
0
NUMBER
NONE
HCL
�
H2SO4
�
m
HNO3
C
NAOH
C
fo
O
�
THIO
z
OTHER
n
n
}
v
y
�
o
x
x
m
o
�
1
G
sv
V
tD
CL
E
D n
v r
0-z
a N 1
n N m
(D V.
(p z
to
N
N
m X
o L.
1 0
z
n
m
N N
0) �
O �
b
A
q
k
SI
�D
= O M
z O 0
x p
0
W
ok
a
M
=Z
n
0
z
v
AO
n Z
m
> M
a
OZ
Z �
m
A
z r
v
x 0 uxi
v
yM
n
m
a
9
Z V/
� v
w
ti �
N z
0

F1000- -- -:,Oqql
envirochem
ANALYTICAL $ CONSULTING CHEMISTS
Cameron Testing Services, Inc.
219 South Steele St.
Sanford NC 27330
Attention:
Lab ID Sample ID:
23-20423 Site:2304-0175
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way, Wilmington, NC 28405 ■ 910.392.0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road, Manteo, NC 27954 • 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway, Jacksonville, NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
infb@Denvironmentalchemismcom
Date of Report: May 02, 2023
Customer PO #:
Customer ID: 12090010
Report #: 2023-08065
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
4/19/2023 9,30 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane
Comment:
Reviewed by:
LZ
SW-846 Method 82600
<2 ug/L 04/25/2023
Report # 2023-08065 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: QLOM n Iv Date:i",,Beport Number: _ 2023- VA OGS"
Receipt of sample:
ECHEM Pickup tZ Client De very ❑
JUPS ❑ FedEx ❑ Other ❑
❑
YES
10
NO
® N/A Ii. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑
YES
10
NO
IP N/A IT If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt
How temperature taken:
❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor °C: 0.0
YES
❑
NO
3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C, was Project Mgr./QA
YES
❑
NO
notified?
4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
C�
YES
❑
NO
5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES
❑
NO
6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES
❑
NO
7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES
❑
NO
8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES
❑
NO
9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
1Jd
YES
❑
NO
10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES
❑
NO
111. Was adequate sample volume available?'
YES
❑
NO
12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑
YES
❑
NO
13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of <2?
❑
YES
❑
NO
14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑
YES
❑
NO
15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑
YES
❑
NO
16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L? **
❑
YES
❑
NO
17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L?
❑
YES
❑
NO
18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation: (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HCl NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note: Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples. Obtain a new sample or
iotify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer. who was notified, date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC. QA.002 Rev 1
"C

W
I ns
�
ry
o
V
a.
I
I
A
—
v
�
N
�
W
O
o
�
3
a
N
t
C L
3
00
'a
�c
Sample Type
Composite
G)
n
G)
C7
G)
0
G)
n
G)
0
G)
0
0
n
0
0
G)
0
or
Grab
.�
Container
(P or G)
U
v
U'
m
Chlorine
mg1L
LAB ID
NUMBER
N
NONE
HCL
H2504
w
N
M
HNO3
C
-
MON
'
a
O
THiO
Z
OTHER
a
z
D
A
Vi
v
N
;a
o
v
O c
Q�
cu
c
M
N
m
m
O
rn
Z L
"rn Cv
z
X
9 o
A
n Z
M
n
rn
0
n

F""p, -- I
envirochem
ANALYTICAL & CONSULTING CHEMISTS
Cameron Testing Services, Inc.
219 South Steele St_
Sanford NC 27330
Attention:
Lab ID Sample ID:
23-20425 Site:2304-0194
Test
1,4-Dioxane
Comment:
Reviewed by:
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way, Wilmington, NC 28405 • 910.392.0223 Lab ■ 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road, Manteo, NC 27954 - 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway, Jacksonville, NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
info (oenvironmentalchemists.com
Date of Report: May 02, 2023
Customer PO #:
Customer ID: 12090010
Report #: 2023-08067
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Collect DatelTime Matrix Sampled by
4/21 /2023 7:30 AM Water Client
Method Results Date Analyzed
SW-846 Method 8260D
<2 ug/L 04/25/2023
Report #:: 2023-08067 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client:Date:
Receipt of sample: £CHEM Pickup
❑ YES 10 NO ® N/A f. Were cu
❑ YES 111 NO P N/A 2. If custod
Original temperature upon receipt °C
Client
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
rt Number: 2023- ob 06 /
Delivery ❑ JUPS ❑
seals present on the cooler?
FedEx ❑ Other ❑
seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Corrected temperature upon receipt 'C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor °C: 0.0
C� YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
11
YES
❑
NO
5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
id
YES
❑
NO
6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES
❑
NO
7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES
❑
NO
8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES
❑
NO
9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
L�
YES
❑
NO
10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES
10
NO
11. Was adequate sample volume available?'
112
EZ
YES
ID
NO
Were samples received within ro er holdin Y f
0
0
0
0
S
Y£S
YES
YES
YES
YES
YE
u
0
0
0
0
0
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
p p g Ime o
r
13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of <2?
tests?
14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L? **
17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of <0.5 m/L?
18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample preservation-
Sample(s)
by adding (circle one):
(Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
H2SO4 HNO3 HCI NaOH
of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples. obtain a new sample or
the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer, Who was notified, date and time:
latiles Sample(s)
COMMENTS:
were received with headspace
DOC. QA.002 Rev 1

14
W
o
4
fD
3
CL
K
O
A
v
ru
�,
N
R
ro
W
n
O
N
-4
w
ro
O
7
s
m
rL
3
W
�
Sample Type
Composite
G7
(�
G)
n
G)
0
Gi
0
an
0
G)
0
0
0
0
n
G)
n
or
Grab
r
k)
-g
'u
0
-0
-u
Container
(Por01
�
v
Chlorine
mg/L
3
u
n)
��
LAB Id
NUMBER
li
NONE
HCL
H2SO4
171
N
m
HNO3
C
AD
�
�'
NAOH
CL
THIO
Z
OTHER
a
z
a
A
fA
O
N
tx
o
X
p
CD
I
c
ro
N
CD
m
v
sv
C
W
co) v r
o m
Q. m - m
n N m
w w
w o
p Ul 7 v+
CD
� ,C-
to
m to m
N 3,
m
N
M
zZ
n
v
z
� 0
0
m M ; Z
0 0 � ic
o n o 9M
Z Z
M Z z
rn N p
� " n = r
3
o a Z (n 0
O v =
n
N
� m M
O V
r r/�
C1 �
z V�
Z
w
V ZfND
0
2 O M
Z O 0
z
O 01021
;-,nN
m3
m c
-
w-
3 b �c
-n
3 K m
3 !o $
in o?
� w z
0 p^p'
A �
w

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
E PA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
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 IN 1 2 IS I 3 I NCO088366 I11 121 21/03/11 I17 18 n 19 L s j 201
21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 f6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
70 L�� J � 71 1 Lj 72 L Ln, � 73 LLI74 79
J 1 1 1 1 L L j80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:30AM 21/03/11
18/02/01
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Shady Grove Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Spring Lake NC 28390
01:30PM 21/03/11
22/10/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Juan Gabriel Gutierrez/ORC/919-552-1414/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Kenneth Wayne Fail, PO Box 1119 Lillington NC 275461119//910-897-5022/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
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
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
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#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.)
31 NCO088366 I11 12I 21 /03/11 117 18 ICI
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The facility's grounds and laboratory were well -maintained. Staff were very knowledgeable about how
the plant functions. Records were available for review at the time of the inspection and were found to
be accurate. The facility's current permit is active until Oct. 31, 2021. Please submit your permit
renewal application by May 4, 2021. One backup operator is overdue for operator license renewal.
Please submit a payment as soon as possible if certification is to be maintained.
The refrigeration unit on the influent sampler was inoperable at the time of the inspection. Internal
temperature was approximately 10C. Repairs should be made as soon as possible. In the interim, the
Division recommends chilling the cabinet with ice. The backup generator is tested regularly via an
automated process. The Division encourages the plant to occasionally manually test the generator
under load. Other facilities have reported issues where automated testing indicated that proper
function, yet the generator failed during an emergency. Two reactors were not being used. Reactor
#3 is temporarily down, having recently had a blow out in an arm of the aerator array. Reactor #4 has
been out of use for some time and will likely require raking to remove plant matter that has grown on
top of a thick algae mat. As noted in a previous inspection, the facility has no back-up system to UV
disinfection.
The effluent sampler was functioning properly. The Division recommends changing the tubing that
leads into the sample container as accumulated biofilm could potentially skew water chemistry results.
Staff said the tubing would be changed before the next round of toxicity sampling.
Page#

Permit: NCO088366 Owner - Facility:
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021 Inspection Type:
South Harnett Regional 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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The permit lists a total of 15 filters, but the facility has 9 filters.
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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO088366
Inspection Date: 03/11 /2021
Operations & Maintenance
Owner - Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes
No
NA
NE
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The backup generator is tested regularly via an automated process. The Division
encourages the plant to occasionally manually test the generator under load. Other
facilities have reported issues where automated testing indicated that
proper function,
vet the generator failed during an emergency.
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
❑
■
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The refrigeration unit on the influent sampler was inoperable at the time of the
inspection. Internal temperature was approximately 10C. Repairs should be made as
soon as Dossible. In the interim. the Division recommends chillina the cabinet with ice.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0088366
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021
Owner - Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Aerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Sequencing Batch Reactors
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Duplex
Is the reactor effluent free of solids?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does minimum fill time correspond to the peak hour flow rate of the facility?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is aeration and mixing cycled on and off during fill?
❑
❑
❑
The operator understands and can explain the process?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The facility uses a constant flow system.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Down flow
Is the filter media present? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging? ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0088366 Owner - Facility:
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021 Inspection Type:
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the filter free of growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
0
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfection - UV
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are UV bulbs clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is UV intensity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there a backup system on site?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is effluent clear and free of solids?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: As noted in a previous inspection, the facility has no back-up system to UV disinfection.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Page# 6

Permit: NCO088366
Inspection Date: 03/11 /2021
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Owner - Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Yes
No
NA
NE
■
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The Division recommends changing the tubing that leads into the sample container as
accumulated biofilm could potentially skew water chemistry results. Staff said the tubing
would be changed before the next round of toxicity sampling.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment: The VWVfP is a member of the Middle Cape Fear River Bason Association. Per the
permit, while the facility is a member the upstream and downstream sampling
requirement is waived.
Page# 7

V
Z. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q Q M Q Q Q Q
V
V
O
�I
O
�I
V
V
O
O
L/)
L/)
V
O
�I
V
O
Oa a a
a
O
Oa a a a
U
�
U
O
C
O
a
a
a
LL
2
LL
LL
CL
Q
W W
L d a a
Ln
�
cc�
C
�
Ll1
O
c
Ln
Ol
c-I
c-I
o
m
ti
-
LL
L)
LL
O
0
ti
O
CO LL
LL
m
LL
LL
m
LL
LL
Ll1
�
�
N
Lf1
O
ti
a
O
O
O
O
K
c�c
m
C
C
C
O
O
O
�
�
bLO
N
K
N
K
N
K
bjO
C
C
in
in
f0
L O
o
O
O
O
C
V
C
2
C
O
0
Z
Q a a a
a
Z
Q
Z
Q^
a a a
T
T
T
7
7
7
J
V
V
Q
Ln
^
V
Z
B
LJ
O
S
G
3E
to
�Im.
C
C O
0
0
o�
j
'A
ti O
c-I
N
c-I
!
c-I
ti
�_
0
1
E
T
O
l0
J
\
ti
m
s
U
O
U
o
V
Z)
OV
V
OV
00
LL .
LL
� Z
LL
Z
Z
a
Z
a
ti
O
W
0
N
0
0
Q
x
cL
Q
..
x
C
C
uO
m
u4
ry z
0
u4
a
a)a)IT'
a a a
a a
N
m
V
pO
N
a)m
Co
m
O Z m
Q
�
-
n
T
T
1
Y
N
C
7
m O
ry m
E
m O
ry
O
V
m
O
E
o 0 0
0 0"w
0
0 0
.�
0 0
0
0 0 0
F
Y
`
7 LL
0
N
LL
LL
LL
V
2
LL
7
O N
7
O
N
7
O
N
n V
In
V
In
V
V
V
V
O
�I
O
�I
O
�I
V
V
V
O
O
O
In
ul)
ul)
pLL LL LL
a
Oa a a
o
O
\
>
LO
U
U
U
z
bLO
a
a
a
o
v
v
Q
v
O
LL
LL
�
LL
CY)
Q
cL
G
4
<
Ln
Ln
Ln
m
f0
f0
N
�
Q
Q
Z
Z
O
Ln
Ll1
_
0
Q
LL
V
�
N
O
O
O
0]
LL
LL
m
LL
LL
m
LL
LL
Q
0�
N
Z
H
N
0
O
0
O
1
1
1
W
O
O
O
V
qO
qO
qO
C
N
K
N
K
N
K
N
N
C
C
U
E
N
O_
7
fl-
m
Q
1
E
O
O
o
O
to
V
V
C
O
V
V
C
t
V
V
C
Z
_ _
Q u u d
_
LL
Z
Q d d d
d
Z
Q 1
T
T
T
7
7
7
O
V
O
V
O
V
y
O
LL
LL
o
�
L
cc
N
1
O
C
N
O
�I
O
O
O
O
O
i
E
r
^
�
0
V
W
V
W
Q
O
OV
O
OV
O
OV
LL .
LL
LL
Z
Z
a
Z
a
W
ti
ti
O
ti
O
O
LL
0
N
LL
!
x
..
H
..
O
C
hO
1 = _ _
_
C
hO
1
O
V
C
h0
1
io
v
LL LL LL
LL
O
v
.0
m
a
�.
CO
a a
a a
O
0]
1
O
O
Q
Y
1
N
m
c
O
L
�
m O
.�
o
ry m E
m o
s 0 0
0 0
s 0 0
0 0 -a,
0 0
7
LL
C
LL
C
LL
1
c
C
LL
LL
N
00
7
7
j
7
vOi
V
1°
OU.)j
V