NC0081256_Permit Issuance_20170106

ROY COOPER
Gmenim
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
January 6, 2017
Mr. Robert W. Pickett
WTP Superintendent
121 N. Pendleton St.
High Point, NC 27260
Subject: NPDES PERMIT ISSUANCE
Permit Number NCO081256
Frank L. Ward WTP
Class PC-1
Guilford County
Dear Mr. Pickett,
Dimao,
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached final NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant
to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this permit
shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local
governmental permits which may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Brianna
Young of my staff at [phone].
Since sly,
S. Jay Zimmerman,
cc: NPDES Unit
Central Files
Winston-Salem Regional Office
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919 807 6300 919-807-6389 FAX
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater-permits

Permit NCO081256
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of High Point
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Frank L. Ward WTP
121 North Pendleton Street
High Point
Guilford County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts
I,115 III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective February 1, 2017.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on August 31, 2021.
Signed this day January 6, 2017.
WE
SArlimmerman, P.G. `'
rector, Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 9

Permit NC0081256
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The City of High Point
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to discharge filter -backwash wastewater from a conventional water treatment plant. This
facility is located at the Frank L. Ward WIT, at 121 North Pendleton Street, in High Point, in
Guilford County.
2. Discharge from the South Lagoon via outfall 001 at the location specified on the attached map into
an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek, classified WS-IV* waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
3. Discharge from the North Lagoon on an as -needed basis via outfall 002 (approximately 400 feet
upstream of outfall 001) into an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek, classified WS-IV* waters in
the Cape Fear River Basin.
Page 2 of 9

Permit NCO081256
Part I
A. (l.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
[I 5A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 15A NCAC 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001 or outfall 002. Simultaneous discharge from both
outfalls is prohibited. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified
below:
V-` '•: :. 'Ay.� !-.. /'�. �.t ijCfi/'.�y�+� ti
i .F'R V s.1 g�.V���� iY1 110 -- j
y
1` elG��V6i-d I
t �� T �.. j\�
- .• , i Fi�.��/•� 11
- L
OWNa3..2i
V.
Y,A fa _`"' y_ a !!!�! ��
's .a]
=ir
* � OO � M
N sn.. `' 71
f '�i ,
�'....h Y c
Flow 50050
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids C0530
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH 00400
z 6.0 s.u. ands 9.0 s.u.
Weekly
Grab*
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine2 50060
17 Ng/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity OW70
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Aluminum 01105
Quartedi
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron 01045
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper 01042
Quartedy3
Grab
Effluent
Manganese 01055
Quartedy3
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride4 00951
1800 Ng/L
Monthly3
Grab
Effluent
Hardness — Total as
CaCO3 or Ca + M 516 00900
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Hardness — Total as
CaCO3 or Ca + M 516 00900
Quarterly3
Grab
Upstream
Ammonia Nitrogen? C0610
Quarteriy3
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorous (TP) C0665
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (TN) C0600
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring$ TGP38
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. The permittee shall submit discharge monitoring reports electronically using the Division's
eDMR system. See Condition A. (4.).
2. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 µg/L to be in compliance
with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported
by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below
50 µg/L.
3. Monitoring should be performed in conjunction with toxicity testing.
4. Fluoride limit and monitoring requirements apply only if the Permittee backwashes with
fluoridated finished water.
Page 3 of 9

Permit NCO081256
5. Instream monitoring for hardness is not provisionally waived if the Permittee is a member of a
Monitoring Coalition.
6. Sampling for hardness, copper, and zinc shall all coincide with sampling for chronic toxicity.
7. Ammonia Nitrogen should be monitored if the Permittee uses choramines (adds ammonia to
chlorinated water) or secondary disinfection prior to backwashing.
8. Ceriodaphnia dubia 7-day pass/fail test @ 90% concentration. See Condition A. (2.) for toxicity
testing requirements. Toxicity testing should be performed during the months of January, April,
July and October, and sampling should coincide with sampling for parameters covered by
footnote 3.
All samples must be collected from a typical discharge event.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY MONITORING (QUARTERLY)
[15A NCAC 02B .0500 et seq.]
The permittee shall conduct quarterly chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010, or subsequent
versions.
The effluent concentration defined as treatment two in the procedure document is 90 %. The testing
shall be performed as a Ceriodaphnia dubia 7-day pass/fail test. The tests will be performed during the
months of January, April, July and October. These months signify the first month of each three
month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this testing must be
obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code
TGP311. Additionally, DWR Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30
days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine
of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
the waste stream.
Page 4 of 9

Permit NCO081256
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then
monthly monitoring will begin immediately. Upon submission of a valid test, this monthly test
requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (3.) PERMIT RE -OPENER: NUTRIENT MONITORING
[G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
Pursuant to N.C. General Statutes Section 143-215.1 and the implementing rules found in the North
Carolina Administrative Code at 15A NCAC 2H.0112 (b) (1) and 2H.0114 (a) and Part 11 sections B-12
and B-13 of this permit, the Director may reopen this permit to require supplemental nutrient monitoring
of the discharge. The purpose of the additional monitoring will be to support water quality modeling
efforts within the Cape Fear River Basin and shall be consistent with a monitoring plan developed
jointly by the Division and affected stakeholders. In addition, the results of water quality modeling may
require that limits for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus be imposed in this permit upon renewal.
A. (4.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
[G. S. 143-215.1(b)]
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program
reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective on December
21, 2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this
permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.)
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D. (6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Signatory Requirements
Reporting
Records Retention
Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting Requirements [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)1
Page 5 of 9

Permit NCO081256
The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic
Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) intemet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and
submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the state's
eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility
being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband
access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted
and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or
altemative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the
mailing address above. See "How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below.
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following
the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the
commencement of discharge.
Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the following compliance
monitoring data and reports, when applicable:
• Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;.
• Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports.
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to Request a
Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below).
2. Electronic Submissions
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9), the permittee must identify the initial recipient at the time
of each electronic submission. The permittee should use the EPA's website resources to identify the
initial recipient for the electronic submission.
Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities means the entity
(EPA or the state authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program) that is the designated entity
for receiving electronic NPDES data [see 40 CFR 127.2(b)].
Page 6 of 9

Permit NCO081256
EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic reporting tool for
each type of electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to access and use the
appropriate electronic reporting tool will be available as well. Information on EPA's NPDES
Electronic Reporting Rule is found at: http://www2.gpa. ovg /compliance/final-national-pollutant-
dischar,ge-elimination-s stem-nnnpdes-electronic-reporting-rule.
Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the "Reporting Requirements" section above.
3. How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting
The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To obtain an
electronic reporting waiver, a permittee must first submit an electronic reporting waiver request to
the Division. Requests for temporary electronic reporting waivers must be submitted in writing to
the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date the facility would be
required under this permit to begin submitting monitoring data and reports. The duration of a
temporary waiver shall not exceed 5 years and shall thereupon expire. At such time, monitoring data
and reports shall be submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is
granted a new temporary electronic reporting waiver by the Division. Approved electronic reporting
waivers are not transferrable. Only permittees with an approved reporting waiver request may
submit monitoring data and reports on paper to the Division for the period that the approved
reporting waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are found on
the following web page:
h!W://dgg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
4. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)]
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part II,
Section B. (I 1.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II,
Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR
reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North
Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit
the following web page:
bU://dgg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make
the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
V certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
Page 7 of 9

Permit NCO081256
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
5. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)1
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the
date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.41].
Page 8 of 9

FACT SHEET FOR EXPEDITED PERMIT RENEWALS
This form must be completed by Permit Writers for all expedited permits which do not require
full Fact Sheets. Expedited permits are generally simple 100% domestics (e.g., schools, mobile
home parks, etc) that can be administratively renewed with minor changes, but can include
facilities with more complex issues (Special Conditions, 303(d) listed water, toxicity testing,
instream monitoring, compliance concerns).
Basic Information for Expedited Permit Renewals
Permit Writer/Date
Brianna Young 10/19/2016
Permit Number
NC0081256
Facility Name
City of High Point — Frank L. Ward WTP
Basin Name/Sub-basin number
Cape Fear/03-06-08
Receiving Stream
UT to Richland Creek
Stream Classification in Permit
WS-IV
Does permit need Daily Max NH3 limits?
No limit; monitoring already resent
Does permit need TRC limits/language?
Existing
Does permit have toxicity testing?
Already resent
Does permit have Special Conditions?
Yes — nutrient reo ever
Does permit have instream monitoring?
No
Is the stream impaired (on 303(d) list)? For
whatparameter?
Yes - fecal coliform, fish tissue mercury (Nar,
FC, NC , fish community fair ar, AL, F
Any obvious compliance concerns?
No
Any permit mods since lastpermit?
No
Current expiration date
8/31 /2016
New expiration date
8/31 /2021
Comments received on Draft Permit?
No
• Regulatory citations added
• Total hardness monitoring added
• Footnotes added for fluoride, ammonia nitrogen
• Monthly average limit added for fluoride based on RPA — reasonable potential to exceed
allowable concentration
• Monthly monitoring for fluoride added
Most Commonly Used Expedited Language:
• 303(d) language for Draft/Final Cover Letters: "Please note that the receiving stream
is listed as an impaired waterbody on the North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List.
Addressing impaired waters is a high priority with the Division, and instream data will
continue to be evaluated. If there is noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and
stream impairment can be attributed to your facility, then mitigative measures may be
required".
TRC language for Comaliance Level for Cover Letters/Effluent Sheet Footnote:
"The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 µg/L to be in
compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit
all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified),
even if these values fall below 50 µg/L."

Young, Brianna A
From:
Young, Brianna A
Sent:
Thursday, December 22, 2016 11:16 AM
To:
'WENDELL PICKETT'
Cc:
TERRY HOUK, DERRICK BOONE
Subject:
RE: Comments on the Draft NPDES permit for Frank L. Ward WTP - NC0081256
Attachments:
TRCCompLevel-20090710-DWQ-SWP-NPDES.pdf,, WTP- Strategy-October-2009-DWQ-
SWP-NPDES.pdf
Good morning Wendell,
Please see responses to your comments below:
Comment 1 regarding TRC:
Facilities are to report whatever value the lab reports. Do not report values as < 50 ug/L. The limit for TRC is 50
ug/L. All values below 50 ug/L shall be considered in compliance. If a value of 10 ug/L is recorded by the lab,
please report 10 ug/L on your DMR. If a value of 30ug/L is recorded by the lab, please report 30 ug/L on your
DMR. However, your facility will not be considered out of compliance for the 30 ug/L value despite being above
the permit limit of 17 ug/L. Please see the attached document titled "TCCompLevel" (also available at
httD://r)ortal.ncdenr.oriz/c/document librarv/Ret file?uuid=99de4cdb-b175-4e14-a189-
Ob9eb1e4dc55&aroupld=38364) for a review of this policy
Comment 2 regarding WETTesting:
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Monitoring is to continue to be performed on a quarterly basis. According to the
strategy used for Water Treatment Plants, WET testing is to continue for the duration of the permit, and is not
allowed to cease. Please see the attached document titled "WTP Strategy" (also available at
htto://Dortal.ncdenr.ore/c/document librarv/¢et file? uuid=8f96746c-995e-4071-8587-
9138e6bd48c3&sroupld=38364) for a review of this policy
Given these documents reflect our strategy, the permit shall be issued as is.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Regards,
Brianna Young
Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 919-807-6388
Brianna.Youna(a)ncdenr.gov
Mailing address:
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
W. "Nothing Compares -

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: WENDELL PICKETT[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 7:09 AM
To: Young, Brianna A <[e-mail]>
Cc: TERRY HOUK <[e-mail]>; DERRICK BOONE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments on the Draft NPDES permit for Frank L. Ward WTP - NCO081256
Good Morning Brianna,
I have attached our comments regarding the draft permit for our NPDES permit NCO081256. I will
follow this email with a hard copy as requested by you earlier. If you have any questions, please contact
me by email or phone. Thank you.
Regards
Wendell
lk26ert `wende fOwicett
11*4 oe
Public Services/Plants Divison
Water Plant Superintendent
Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant—NCO241O2O
P.O: Box 230
High Point NC27261
Phone [phone]
Fox(336)822-7079
wendell.oickett(Mhiahoointnc. oov
NCAWWA Best Tasting Water
1990, 2007 and 2011

Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Wager Quality
May 1, 2008
To: NPDES Permittees
Subject: Total Residual Chlorine 50 ug/l Compliance Level
In a previous letter dated August 14, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) notified
NPDES permittees that water/wastewater treatment facilities with Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC) effluent limits would be required to use analytical methods that produce detection levels
below their permit limit by July 1, 2002. [Note: TRC permit limits are typically set between 17
to 28 ug/l for discharge to freshwater systems, and 13 ug/l for discharge to saltwater systems].
This requirement was based on an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) audit of the NC
enforcement program. It was also necessary to ensure water quality protection and compliance
with state monitoring regulations [15A NCAC 2B.0505(e)(4)].
Since that time, DWQ has received several inquiries regarding difficulties with the new
analytical methods, primarily focused on 1) lack of precision with field instrumentation at low
TRC levels for both water and wastewater treatment plants; and 2) manganese interference with
TRC measurement at several water treatment plants. Some facilities have overcome these
problems through various changes, such as: 1) switching dechlorination chemicals; 2) adding a
second dechlorination feed; 3) changing analytical methods; 4) incorporating manganese
correction; 5) switching to LTV disinfection; 6) removing sludge from water treatment plant
settling basins. Also, the DWQ Laboratory Certification staff have provided extensive field
assistance for the new lab methods. Still, some analytical issues remain. In response to the
permittee's concerns, the Division is providing the following changes to its TRC requirements:
u TRC Compliance Level Changed to 50 upA. DWQ continued discussions with EPA
regarding analytical difficulties with TRC measurements, and in March 2008 received
EPA approval to allow a 50 ug/l TRC compliance level. This will not change the
analysis, annual verification of meter performance, or data reporting, but simply how the
reported values will be evaluated by DWQ from a compliance standpoint. Facilities will
still be required to report actual results on their monthly DMR submittals, but for
compliance purposes all TRC values below 50 ug/l will be treated as zero. For example,
if the facility has a TRC limit of 17 ug/l and reports a TRC value of 40 ug/l on the DMR,
this value will be considered compliant under this new policy. This new compliance
level is effective March 1, 2008 (beginning with March 2008 DMR submittals).
DWQ will continue to incorporate TRC effluent limitations into NPDES permits for all
water/wastewater treatment facilities that discharge chlorine -bearing wastestreams to surface
waters. While this new TRC compliance level of 50 ug/l is effective beginning March 1, 2008, it
will be incorporated into existing NPDES permits with TRC effluent limits upon permit renewal.
At that time, the following TRC footnote language will added to the Effluent Limitations Sheet:
"The facility shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC certified laboratory including
field certified. However, effluent values below 50 ug/l will be treated as zero for compliance
purposes."
Division of Water Quality, Pont Source Branch Telephone [phone]a
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 FAX [phone] *Caro
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Intemet at ht1v://h2o earsbte ncuF1
An Equal Oppo tun ty/AfRrindve Action EmplWer

Page 2 of 2
May 1, 2008
TRC 50 ug/l Compliance Memo
DWQ reserves the right to modify this policy in the future as analytical methods evolve. If you
have questions about the content of this letter, please contact Tom Belnick at [phone],
extension 543. If you need assistance with your TRC analytical methodology, please contact
Gary Francies with the DWQ Water Quality Lab at [phone]
Sincerely,
—/)? 'at `fY7
Matt Matthews, Supervisor
Point Source Branch,
2

r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
Memorandum
To: Jeff PouP art
Through: Tom Belnick
From: )PLChan
e Grzyb
Date: 14/2009
Re: ges to Water Treatment Plant Strategy (October 2009)
I. Flow Limit and Monitoring
• Remove Flow Limit on all WTPs
Unlike Wastewater treatment plants, flow data has not been used as much in the design of
backwashing treatment units. Also, flow data from Discharge Monitoring Reports will be available
to perform Reasonable Potential Analyses. Finally, WTP strategy still precludes new or expanding
RO/IE plants to freshwater streams.
• Require Continuous flow monitoring for Conventional and RO facilities discharging
50,000 gallons per day. (previous policy ? 10,000 gpd)
Facilities discharging less than 50,000 gpd and intermittent dischargers require instantaneous flow
measurements along with the duration. Many facilities with wastewaters less than 50,000 gpd
discharge to POTWs or are considering discharging to a POTW. The WTP strategy which includes
additional testing by the Perm ittees is facilitating such decisions and removing the necessity for
smaller facilities to purchase recording equipment seems prudent at this time.
Note: Ion Exchange and Green Sand WTPs require instantaneous flow measurements along with the
duration. The monitoring frequency for flow should be as frequent as the minimum frequency of
monitoring for any parameter listed.
H. Calcium and Magnesium (Conventional NVTPs, not parameters of concern in other WTPs)
• Remove monitoring for calcium and magnesium from the Conventional WTP effluent page.
There is no Water Quality Standard for Calcium or Magnesium. As a result, there is no limit to
compare the data obtained from monitoring these parameters.
M. Changes to toxics monitoring:
• Conventional WTP Effluent page: To make permitting less complicated, monitoring for fluoride,
zinc, copper and iron were changed to quarterly sampling to align with quarterly sampling of
aluminum, manganese and toxicity testing. Previously it was monthly if discharge < 0.5 MGD and
2/month if discharge > 0.5 MGD.
• Green Sand VVTP Effluent page: To make permitting less complicated, monitoring for fluoride,
zinc, manganese and iron were changed to quarterly sampling. Previously it was monthly if
discharge < 0.5 MGD and 2/month if discharge > 0.5 MGD.
1617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Rath, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919-807-M t FAX: 919M7-64921 Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 North Carolina
Internet t+Yww.navaterqualily.org An�atura!!r�
Equal QppoRun►ty 1 Aftmfive Actim Empbyer

• Ion Exchange WTP Effluent page: To make permitting less complicated, monitoring for copper,
chloride, iron, manganese, lead, zinc, ammonia nitrogen and fluoride were changed to monthly
sampling. Previously it was monthly if discharge < 0.5 MGD and 2/month if discharge > 0.5 MGD.
• Membrane WTP Effluent page: To make permitting less complicated, monitoring for arsenic,
copper, chloride, iron, fluoride, zinc, and ammonia nitrogen were changed to monthly sampling.
Previously it was monthly if discharge < 0.5 MGD and 2/month if discharge > 0.5 MGD.
Quarterly and Monthly samples will supply adequate data to evaluate toxicity test results and to perform RPAs.
IV. Turbidity
Added turbidity monitoring to all WTP permits to address US EPA Region IV memo dated
2-25-09. Permittees discharging to impaired streams for turbidity will receive a turbidity
limitation.
1617 Mail Service Center, Ralegh. North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] � Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal OpporWty 1 Affirmative Action Employer
"oe
NftnCazolina
dvatura!ly

NPDES PERAHMNG STRATEGIES FOR POTABLE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
October 2009
Background
In 1992, the Division of Water Quality (Division) implemented a general water treatment plant (WTP) permitting
strategy that was intended to apply to all types of WTPs. However, after further research and discussion, it was agreed
that different technologies in water treatment yield very different pollutants of concern and impacts on the environment.
As a result, four permitting strategies were developed specifically geared towards certain water treatment processes. This
document summarizes the permit application and permit development procedure for WTPs and serves as a reference tool
for permit writers and permittees. Other available resources include Assessment and Recommendations for Water
Treatment Plant Permitting: Findings of the Water Treatment Plant Workgroup, and the Conventional WTP Report, both
of which further explain the collaborative interdepartmental effort and data study that went into the development of these
permitting approaches.
L PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS
An NPDES permit application is available on the NPDES website. The application is titled Standard Form C-
WTP and can be used for all WTPs, regardless of technology. This application differs from those used in the past in that
new applicants are required to submit a complete source water analysis and an engineering alternatives analysis that fully
explores all feasible alternatives to a surface water discharge. New facilities using ion exchange (IE) or reverse osmosis
(RO) technology are also required to perform a water quality model. New IE (includes water softeners) and RO
discharges will not be permitted in freshwater unless it is demonstrated that the environmental impact would be minimal.
Based on their potential impacts to aquatic life all new IE and RO facilities, and conventional WTPs with a
discharge of over 0.5 MGD, must also initiate a tiered notification process that will serve to alert other divisions and
agencies through the Customer Service Center (CSC). The notification process, as illustrated in Figure 1, is initiated
when a new or expanding WTP project is first presented to a permitting agency or the CSC. When an agency is first
contacted, it becomes that agency's responsibility to direct the applicant to the CSC and notify a CSC permit coordinator.
Figure 1— Water Treatment Plant Notification Flowchart
Water Treatment Plant Notification Process
Potential Applicant
Acronym Key:
tstlning/deagn phase
Permitting Agency
DW Q -Der of Water Oustd y
(DEN. DWO, DWR, OLR, OCM)
DEH - Div of Environmental
Health
41
OLR - 01v of Land
Permit Coordinator
Resourcas
DWR -Div of Water
r
Resources
Tier 1 Notification
AC OE -US Army Corps of
Engineer&
OCM - DN of Coastal
Manag ement
DWO DEN pLR DWR
AGOE OCM oup 11 WRC USFWS NHP
NstFS
OMF -Div of Marine
Fisheries
t1pllC8n
WRC-NC Wlldth
Resources Corn mission
wall formal appbcatfon
Ag Permitting ency
USFWS - US Fish and
wreur. Service,
(OEM, DWQ, DWR. DLR. DCM)
NNP • NC Natural Heritage
Program
j
NMFS - National MarM*
Permit Coordinator
Fisheries service
SEPA - Slate
Customer Semee Grater
Envit amental Parity Act
Permsti g Agencies
Tier M Notification
CommentlRevrew Agencies

Once the CSC has been contacted they will distribute a notice, via email, summarizing the proposed project to the
appropriate agency contacts. Tier I notification should begin for new or expanding WTPs upon initial contact by the
applicant, regardless of project stage. Following Tier I notification, each agency will determine its level of involvement
(i.e. requests for additional details, participation in meeting, etc.). Tier H notification should begin when a significant
development in the process has occurred, such as when a permit application has been filed or an environmental document
has been submitted. Throughout the process, CSC will coordinate communication with the agencies and the applicant.
Additional notifications may be necessary to update agency representatives of important developments or to coordinate
meetings. Again, these various tiers of notification will only include a summary of developments. Agency involvement is
discretionary. The notification process concludes once all applicable permits are issued.
As previously mentioned, this process should only apply to new IE/RO facilities and conventional plants with a
predicted discharge of greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD. Conies of proposed draft permits for these facilities should also
be forwarded to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Resource Commission.
No inter -agency notification will be required for greensand filter systems.
H. PERMIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MEMBRANE AND ION EXCHANGE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
2.1 Background
In 2002, the Division established an inter -departmental Workgroup, which then led to the development of a
technical subcommittee tasked to study the impacts of membrane and sodium cycle cationic ion exchange WTPs on
receiving waters. The subcommittee first identified potential environmental concerns and then conducted an analytical
study, data review, and analysis of several existing WTPs in North Carolina. Foremost amongst water quality concerns
were the total residual chlorine (TRC) and chloride levels present in discharges and the potential toxicity of these
pollutants on the receiving stream Based on the results of the analytical study, the following permitting strategy has been
adopted for all WTPs using membrane and ion exchange technologies.
Portions of this strategy pertaining to the use of "membrane" technologies will primarily involve reverse osmosis
(RO), nanofiltration (NF), microfiltration (MF), and ultrafiltration (UF) processes for the treatment of groundwater.
Though less common, electrodialysis/electrodialysis reversal (ED/EDR) processes also use membrane technology and
should be guided by the membrane permitting strategy. Other portions of this document pertain to WTPs using ion
exchange (IE) as a primary or secondary component of the treatment system. It is important to determine whether any
part of the permittee's water treatment process uses an ion exchange system. If so, their permit may incorporate relevant
components of this strategy, however the permit writer should use discretion when considering relative volumes of
wastewater components. These technologies (both membrane and IE) are of particular concern because they concentrate
dissolved solids, generating highly concentrated wastestreams. The wastes can have a toxic effect on the receiving water,
particularly if the system is freshwater in nature. For this reason, new discharges from membrane and IE WTPs should
not be Dermitted into freshwaters unless it can be demonstrated that the environmental im cts would be minimal. All
new 1E/R0 dischargers must perform dilution modeling.
2.2 Pollutants of Concern:
Based on a review of actual data from existing IE and RO facilities, iron, copper, chloride and zinc showed
reasonable potential to exist in concentrations that may exceed water quality standards. In addition, arsenic and fluoride
seem to pose a particular concern for membrane WTPs, while manganese and lead were typically found in significant
concentrations in IE process effluent. Chlorine was determined to be a parameter of concern for IE's in general, however
it is important to note that TRC could potentially be problematic for any facility that chlorinates its finished water. Any
treatment prior to discharge (i.e. feed disinfection, pH adjustment, antiscalant additives) should be considered when
determining permit limits. The only additives that should be introduced prior to separation of product water and reject
stream are acids (to reduce deposits) and corrosion inhibitors. Any other additives might introduce additional pollutants
of concern. Facilities must obtain approval and request a permit modification for any significant change that would alter
the characteristics or nature of the discharge. Tables 1 and 2 provide sample effluent limits and summarize the minimum
recommended monitoring requirements for membrane and IE WTPs.
-2-

Table 2.1: Monitoring Re uirements or Membrane WTPs
The monitoring requirements included below identify various pollutants of concern including conventional parameters,
nutrients, and toxicants. A brief rationale for the inclusion of these contaminants can be found in Appendix A. Other
toxicants were not included because they were either not detected or rarely detected in the effluent data surveyed. However,
if a pollutant specific problem is detected in the receiving stream, effluent, or source water then a monitoring requirement may
be added for that parameter. Likewise, if data indicate that a pollutant is not present in the facility's discharge, that parameter
may be dropped from the requirements. Limits should be added if the facility shows reasonable potential to exceed water
quality standards for toxicants. New facilities should monitor for pollutants of concerns regardless of whether or not there is a
water quality standard. Monitoring requirements can be re-evaluated during subsequent renewals.
Notes to permit writers:
1. Sampling locations: Ea Effluent, U= Upstream of discharge location, D= Downstream of discharge location.
2. Continuous monitoring is required for facilities discharging > 50,000 gpd. Instantaneous measurement or estimates are
allowed if the permitted flow is less than 50,000 gpd. Duration of discharge should be noted in log books.
3. The facility may petition to have DO and temperature monitoring removed from the permit after monitoring for 1 permit
cycle.
4. Footnote for permit: Limit and monitor only if the facility adds chlorine or chlorine derivatives to water that is eventually
discharged. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/l to be in compliance with the
permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified
laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 ug/l.
5. If the receiving stream is impaired for turbidity a daily maximum limit should be given. See Appendix A for limit and
footnote.
6. Facilities under 0.05 MGD should only monitor for nutrients if discharging into a NSW.
7. See Table 5.2 for WET Test Requirements and Appendix B for monitoring language.
_ !�' � i�; \'> ? \ �
,�aP>' F2�. e. ��� I3 ��f�tl �\.'(�
��',t'' 3 'Y s 31 .,'.i
f t" ,
.jr1�i++b.b7!<'J! . �'�'�.j 'c �;. �> d . '1; - Z'fY �iF`.l(�µ .�•'u•�µ.�., }�'ti1 �'4
'.t(Fj. 7y�.,} tY�F✓i ff �. H'"r� ��j��4 N r.Y d'Si���y��`*'C�"' ~
MT :a 'S. ..tW - "J /' F A "
2 o w _.� -� � �'f �`��''t`c A r
�;:� .r.H. _
•, }' ✓. -
�
't a -; ''
..�?:w.:. ♦� -1:
;A. i`C=S �S t?,5i?.�' y.{
L F' �y, 'wl -M rif, I^r '�'.
t - 3•� `>rY.. a f� r- - � >ts ' tr f 5',
K3 r.� "5 eal`� c
r
T
., � [ <y '•
. -•'*". Y t � \ .
{{
�Lii i '� \.` j�F
'?S ` � YIW�
`ems:'. l ✓t
c • f � f t � �,
�� < C
o�Lf{RRU��
Flow2
Continuous
Recording
E
Tem rature3
See Table 5.1
Grab
E,U,D
Dissolved en3
See Table 5.1
Grab
E,U,D
Salmi
See Table 5.1
Grab
E,U,D
Conductivi
See Table 5.1
Grab
E,U,D
pH
Freshwater: 6.0 — 9.0 s.u.
Saltwater: b.8 — 8S s.u.
See Table 5.1
Grab
E,U,D
Total Residual Chlorine4
Freshwater:17-28 µg/L
Saltwater: 13
See Table 5.1
Grab
E
Total Dissolved Solids
See Table 5.1
Grab
E
Turbidi s
See Table 5.1
Grab
E
Total Arsenic
Limit based on potential
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Copper
Limit based on tential
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Chloride
Limit based on potential
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Iron
Limit based on potential
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Fluoride
Limit based on potential
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Zinc
Limit based on potential
Monthly
Grab
E
Ammonia Nitrogen
Limit
based on potential
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (TN)6
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus (TP)5
Quarterly
Grab
E
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitorin �
Quarterly
Grab
E
-3-

Table 2.2: Monftorin Requirements forlon Exchange WTPs
The monitoring requirements included below identify various pollutants of concern including conventional parameters,
nutrients, and toxicants. A brief rationale for the inclusion of these contaminants can be found in Appendix A. Other toxicants
were not included because they were either not detected or rarely detected in the effluent data surveyed. However, if a pollutant
specific problem is detected in the receiving stream, effluent, or source water then a monitoring requirement may be added for
that parameter. Likewise, if data indicate that a pollutant is not present in the facility's discharge, that parameter may be
dropped from the requirements. Limits should be added if the facility shows reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards for toxicants. New facilities should monitor for pollutants of concerns regardless of whether or not there is a water
q ality standard. Monitorinj requirements can be reevaluated during stibsequent renewals.
Composite
EFFLUENT
LIMITS'
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
E

2.31nstream Monitoring
Both RO and IE WTPs will require instream monitoring. This requirement may be waived for facilities
discharging to zero flow streams. For discharges where no water quality model was performed, the facility should
monitor 50 feet upstream and at least 100 feet downstream of the outfall. For discharges where a model was performed,
locations should be determined on a case -by -case basis, but should take in consideration the size and shape of the effluent
plume.
Ill. PERMIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
3.1 Background
Following the completion of the MJRO report, a second workgroup was formed whose objectives dealt
exclusively with concerns associated with the discharge of filter backwash from conventional treatment processes. This
report summarizes NPDES permitting strategy recommendations for conventional water treatment plants based upon
chemical and physical data from various facilities around North Carolina. The assessment and strategy detailed here
applies only to those facilities using surface water sources and the referenced technologies.
Most of the state of North Carolina (west of I-95) uses surface water as a drinking water source. It is generally
recognized that the water quality issues associated with surface water are those relating to particulate matter,
microbiological content, color, taste and odor. Conventional treatment processes are designed to address these water
quality issues. A conventional treatment process is described by the American Water Works Association as including
coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation, usually followed by filtration and disinfection.
3.2 Pollutants of Concern
-Aluminum, calcium, magnesium, and manganese were detected effluent data from the five conventional WTPs
used to supply data for this report. All five facilities had high maximum predicted concentrations for these parameters,
therefore they are considered to be pollutants of concern and should be monitored. However, after further consideration
monitoring for calcium and magnesium was removed since there are currently no water quality standards for these
parameters in North Carolina. Zinc should be monitored if a permittee uses zinc orthophosphate as a corrosion inhibitor.
In addition to pH, flow, and total residual chlorine, which will be limited, the permit writer may need to determine
the necessity of a limit for some other parameter of concern that may have been identified in the application. DWQ will
perform a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) on any available data to determine the need for monitoring or limits. For
existing facilities collecting toxicant data, the RPA would employ these data. The reasonable potential procedure may also
be used as a tool for analyzing the source water of proposed water treatment plants. Table 3 provides sample effluent
limits and summarizes the minimum recommended monitoring requirements for conventional WTPs.
-5.

-1-able 3.1: Monitoring Requirements For Conventional WTPs
The monitoring requirements included below identify various pollutants of concern including conventional parameters, nutrients,
and toxicants. A brief rationale for the inclusion of these contaminants can be found in Appendix A. Other toxicants were not
included because they were either not detected or rarely detected in the effluent data surveyed. However, if a pollutant specific
problem is detected in the receiving stream, effluent, or source water then a monitoring requirement may be added for that
parameter. Likewise, if data indicate that a pollutant is not present in the facility's discharge, that parameter may be dropped from
the requirements. Limits should be added if the facility shows reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards for toxicants.
New facilities should monitor for pollutants of concerns regardless of whether or not there is a water quality standard. Monitoring
requirements can be re-evaluated during subsequent renewals.
r
�+
������ �S
Y7-ij:�
• t; " _ t Z Y .. � J / b i '4 -
��3�Y<%���t:r �', Z4.ox) ra , ,.�i �'�.•d'4d•'X�� ��.•�``�"r
�. A:n 1�{ f �Sd yi
! Ay'ff�J ,»� .• M��� �Y�ts r} �.�� •4 -r tf f -fir} :-t '� �
(
•s S' ¢ •Ni%a t 4' � �°�, Y?.`ia .`aT.'%,l'
� r �� _, r .
x°`n�s .at i :S J'���wE��•.�i , �t
� ::•r tiC _ .: rr < -, v .� � . 4��',c-.
£'. �,���'� a rki�7A����j Y i
S .� •r *}•,•. .y, _. J 'rL. � Ri a
���r a
_ sf�,i �•3 u...A�.-�i? wL�_:�Ja•+".,J.•"�. i. .�
��v::.�a .�r, �7! S� _�Y � vlyry��A4-•f���.�.4! �.y{
t'F .
���r, ty 1%,, i� �� a•�x 4y �/, -Y� �
Flow'
Continuous'
Recording '
Effluent
TSS
30 m
45 m
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Freshwater: 6.0 — 9.0 s.u.
pH
Saltwater. 6.8 — 8.5 s.u.
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine2
Freshwaters:l7- 28 µg/L
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Saltwater.13
Turbidity4
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Aluminum
Limit based on potential
Quarterl 10
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
Limit based on potential
Quarterl 10
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Limit based on potential
Quarterl 'O
Grab
Effluent
Manganese
Limit based on potential
Quarterly'0
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride 3
Limit based on potential
Quarterl '0
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc 6
Limit based on
tential
Quarterl 10
Grab
Effluent
Ammonia Nitro en7
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen s
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitoring9
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes to hermit writers!
1. Continuous discharges > 50,000 gpd are required to perform continuous (frequency), recording (sample type) flow
measurements. For intermittent discharges, instantaneous flow monitoring is required and the duration of the discharge must
be reported. The monitoring frequency for flow should be the same as the most frequently monitored parameter listed.
Instantaneous measurement or estimates are allowed if the permitted flow is less than 50,000 gpd.
2. Footnote for permit: Limit and monitor only if the facility adds chlorine or chlorine derivatives to water that is eventually
discharged. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/l to be in compliance with the permit.
However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory
(including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 ug/l.
3. Monitor month if discharge is < 0.5 MGD and monitor weed if discharge is ?0.5 MGD.
4. If the receiving stream is impaired for turbidity a daily maximum limit should be given. See Appendix A for limit and
footnote.
5. Fluoride should be monitored if the Permittee backwashes with fluoridated finished water.
6. Zinc should be monitored if the Permittee adds zinc orthophosphate as a corrosion inhibitor prior to backwashing.
7. Ammonia Nitrogen should be monitored if the Permittee uses choramines (adds ammonia to chlorinated water) for secondary
disinfection prior to backwashing.
8. Facilities under 0.05 MGD should only monitor for nutrients if discharging into a NSW.
9. See Table 52 for WET Test Requirements and Appendix B for monitoring language.
10. Parameter should be monitored in conjunction with toxicity test.
-6-

IV. PERMIT DEVELOPMENT FOR GREENSAND WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
4.1 Background
The following permitting strategy applies to new and existing water treatment plants using greensand filtration to generate
potable water from groundwater. This categorization would also include many community well systems, "iron filters", and
"manganese filters" as long as they do not backwash filters with a sodium solution. The permit writer should contact the facility to
verify that there is not a briny discharge. This permitting strategy does not apply to any other kind of cationic exchange unit used
in water treatment. If any portion of the water treatment process includes an ion exchange/water softener unit, then the RO-IE
Permitting Strategy will apply as well.
Typically, a greensand filtration unit is preceded by the use of an aeration tower along with potassium permanganate to
oxidize dissolved iron in the ground water. The particulate ferric hydroxide (and some minor quantities of soluble ferrous material) is
then removed via filtration through a manganese based greensand media. Greensand is a proprietary material that does not require
sodium cycle regeneration, only backwash with finished (potable) water. Since the discharge from such a facility is not as saline as
that from a sodium cycle cationic exchange unit, this may be considered a more environmentally friendly technology for the treatment
of groundwater. For that reason, unlike other types of ion exchange systems, non -discharge options are sometimes an alternative and
should be explored for new permits. Filter backwash water is usually collected in a settling basin, and the supernatant is then
discharged to surface waters or a regional treatment works.
4.2 Pollutants of Concern
Typical chemical additives to such treatment systems are an anti-scalant (such as zinc orthophosphate), fluoride, chlorine
and potassium permanganate.
'fable 4.1: MOtutorin2 Requirements ror Greensand WTYs
The monitoring requirements included below identify various pollutants of concern including conventional parameters, nutrients,
and toxicants. A brief rationale for the inclusion of these contaminants can be found in Appendix A. Other toxicants were not
included because they were either not detected or rarely detected in the effluent data surveyed. However, if a pollutant specific
problem is detected in the receiving stream, effluent; or source water then a monitoring requirement may be added for that parameter.
Likewise, if data indicate that a pollutant is not present in the facility's discharge, that parameter may be dropped from the
requirements. Limits should be added if the facility shows reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards for toxicants. New
facilities should monitor for pollutants of concerns regardless of whether or not there is a water quality standard. Monitoring
requirements can be re-evaluated during subsequent renewals.
a.: r i k d ✓�. w
MI.] X.,tN
Y�' • / v £w�isryryl r {I1s , (_a{Z_ k 7✓:
f 1 �`f��r s�`T`i Ae..`"k1+S'C v `I`',•�"' �a - t - ti �dr �.
�� `� n s i
k `���F'i. �-�»,� Y �,
-.: .. -. .
�y� �
lfr{ �. �z. ;• a
�
r:�N + a� +f r(���t C,,,.
�C i2 .'
k '
{
q f.
} t..r r >
1rs� �
"*^r>�,
f�r-k�.s: /,„7 •�i• y*_.S Y r.
♦Y Y
{a a`� y s`f". 11�.�
sic �
1t�
�'.�`C �' Y
�'+f� wt�r'.�
�., _}fir_.:
f,or .p ,.;
��A
r�'`ttr r
Wi.�: :"
Instantaneous
Flow
See footnote
went
or Estimate
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Freshwater. 6.0 — 9.0 s.u.
pH
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Saltwater: 6.8 — 8.5 s.u.
Freshwaters:17- 28 µg/L
Total Residual Chlorinez
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Saltwater.13
Turbidity4
I
See footnote3
Grab
Effluent
Fluorides
I
Limit based on potential
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
Limit based on potential
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc'
Limit based on potential
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese
Limit based on potential
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes to permit writers:
1. For instantaneous flow monitoring, the duration of the discharge must be reported in addition to the total flow. The
monitoring frequency for flow should be as frequent as the minimum frequency of monitoring for any parameter listed.
2. Footnote for permit: Limit and monitor only if the facility adds chlorine or chlorine derivatives to water that is eventually
discharged. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/l to be in compliance with the permit.
However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including
field certified), even if these values fall below 50 ug/1.
3. Monitor month if discharge is < 0.5 MGD and monitor weekly if discharge is >0S MGD.
4. If the receiving stream is impaired for turbidity a daily maximum limit should be given. See Appendix A for limit and footnote.
5. Fluoride should be monitored if the Permittee backwashes with fluoridated finished water.
6. Zinc should be monitored if the Permittee adds zinc orthophosphate as a corrosion inhibitor prior to
-7-

V. IMPLEMENTATION
5.1. Monitoring Frequency
In order to be consistent with the monitoring guidance employed for other permits across the state, monitoring
frequencies will be based on the flow divisions used to defrie facility class in the 15A NCAC 08C .0302 regulations.
Requirements described in 15A NCAC 2B .0508(d) for water supply plants were used as guidance. Table 5 summarizes
the monitoring requirements. After sufficient data have been collected (eight to 12 data points over at least one year) the
per mittee may petition for a reduction in monitoring.
Table 5.1: WTP Monitoring Requirements
If a parameter is not currently limited but requires a limitation based on potential, increase sampling frequency by one
degree (Quarterly Monthly, Monthly-. 2 Month)
Conventional Parameters (except flow)
Facility Class
and Toxicants
(Effluent and Instream)
Permitted Flow <0.5 MGD
If limited - 2/Month
Not limited - Monthly
Permitted Flow 2 0.5 MGD
If limited -Weekly
Not limited - 2/Month
5.2. Kole Effluent Toxicity Testing
Membrane, ion exchange, and conventional WTPs should be required to conduct quarterly WET tests for monitoring
purposes. Eventually, the Division may choose to use this data to develop additional policy. The type of WET test
conducted will vary depending on receiving stream characteristics. In addition, the level of available dilution and tidal
effects will determine whether the facility should perform an acute or chronic test, while the type of water (freshwater or
saltwater) will determine which organism should be used. Table I summarizes WET -testing requirements. Appendix A
includes sample WET language.
Greensand filter systems will not be required to monitor whole effluent toxicity.
Table 5.2: WET Test Requirements- Monitor Only
_
Test
Dilution
IWC < 0.25%
Acute 24-hour Pass/Fail at 90%
IWC 2 0.25%
Chronic test at IWC (maximum 90%)
Tidal Effects
Modeled Tidal discharge
Chronic test at chronic xrdxing zone characteristics
Tidal Discharge- not modeled'
Acute 24-hour Pass/Fail at 90%
Freshwater
Acute test organism: Fathead minnow
Chronic test organism: Ceriodophnia dubia
Water Type
Acute test organism: Fathead Minnow OR Mysid Shrimp
Saltwater
OR Silverside Minnow (permittee's choice)
Chronic test organism: Mysid shrimp 2
Notes:
1. Applies to existing dischargers only.
2. Pernittee may choose to conduct comparison studies showing Cedodaphnia dubia to be greater than or equal to Mysid Shrimp in
degree of sensitivity to the facility's effluent.
-8-

5.3. Peer Agency Review
At a minimum, the permit writer should consider providing a copy of draft permits for all membrane and ion
exchange facilities and major permits for conventional water treatment plants to the following agencies:
➢ Division of Marine Fisheries (for saltwater discharges),
➢ US Fish and Wildlife Service,
➢ Wildlife Resources Commission
➢ Division of Environmental Health.
Draft permits proposing a discharge to shellfish waters (SA) must also be sent to the Shellfish Sanitation for
review.
Permits for greensand filter systems will not require inter -agency notification.
5.4. Special Considerations — SA Waters
SA waters are, by default, classified as High Quality Waters. Therefore, limits should be calculated using % the water
quality standard. Draft permits proposing a discharge to SA waters should be sent to the Shellfish Sanitation for review.
-9-

APPENDIX A. RATIONALE FOR PARAMETER INCLUSION
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Conductivity (IE and RO facilities)
Conductivity provides information on the inorganic nature of a wastewater by tracking the relative concentration of ions.
By requiring effluent and instream monitoring of conductivity, it may be possible to assess some of the ionic impacts of
the discharge on the receiving stream.
Dissolved Oxygen (IE and RO facilities)
Low dissolved oxygen concentrations were observed in the effluent of the facilities evaluated. A facility may petition
DWQ to reduceteliminate DO monitoring requirements if they can demonstrate that the discharge has no
significant impact on DO levels in the receiving stream.
Flow
Flow is an important consideration for dilution modeling and mixing zone calculations. Continuous flow monitoring is
required for all but intermittent discharges, Green Sand and Ion Exchange WTPs. Flows will not be limited but
more accurate flow data will be gathered as continuous flow monitors are installed The maximum monthly average flow
in the most recent three-year period (in which there was a representative discharge) will be used as the facility's flow
when performing an RPA.
Permittee's are generally allowed 6 months to purchase and install a recorder after it is budgeted by the City. This means
allowing 6 to18 months to install a recorder depending on City's budget cycle.
Temperature (IE and RO facilities)
Literature reviews indicate that temperature is a potential cause for concern. If a permittee can demonstrate that its
discharge is not significantly impacting temperature in the receiving stream, the permittee may petition DWQ to
reduceleliminate the temperature monitoring requirements.
Total Suspended Solids (all types except RO)
Total suspended solids can be a good general indicator of potential toxicity and may be present in elevated concentrations
in the wastestream. Since some existing WTPs only have minimal treatment prior to discharge, TSS limits may need to
be phased in over a period of time to allow for the construction of new treatment facilities.
pH
Some of the chemicals used in water treatment can depress or raise pH, and as such, it should be monitored and limited
For discharges to fresh waters, pH will be limited in the range of 6.0-9.0 standard units. For salt waters, pH should be
limited between 6.8 and 8.5 standard units.
Salinity (IE and RO facilities only)
If effluent salinity is much higher than the salinity of the receiving stream, there may be localized acute toxic effects.
Turbidity
Turbidity in water is caused by suspended matter such as clay, silt, and organic matter and by plankton and other
microscopic organisms that interfere with the passage of light through the water (American Public Health Association,
1998). Turbidity is closely related to total suspended solids (TSS), but also includes plankton and other organisms.
Turbidity itself is not a major health concern, but high turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
microbial growth. It also may indicate the presence of microbes (U.S. EPA Office of Water, Current Drinking Water
Standards .
Turbidity will not be limited except for facilities that discharge to a receiving stream which is impaired for
turbidity. (10 NTU for trout waters, 25 NTU for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, 50 NTU
freshwaters)
The Permittee can choose either limit as follows:
1) Upstream and downstream sampling.
Footnote:
The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50 NTU. if the
instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the discharge cannot cause turbidity
to increase in the receiving stream. or
2) Sample the effluent and put a turbidity limit of 50 NTUs as a daily maximum. (use if zero low -flow)
-10-

IL TOXICANTS
Arsenic (RO facilities only)
For membrane systems, average values of arsenic were slightly below the aquatic life standard and the maximum values
observed exceeded standards.
Chloride (IE and RO facilities)
Foremost among the water quality concerns for ion exchange and membrane plants are the levels of chlorides present and
the effect of these discharges on the receiving stream.
Copper (IE, RO, and conventional systenzs)
A data survey indicated the potential for copper to be present in concentrations exceeding NC water quality standards
(WQS). While average values were slightly below the aquatic life standard, maximum detected levels exceeded the
standards. Since this is an action level parameter, it will be monitored but not limited unless toxicity can be linked to the
presence of this parameter in the potable water byproduct.
Fluoride
Fluoride can be a pollutant of concern for conventional. IE and greensand systems if potable, fluoridated water is used for
backwash water.
In membrane plants, fluoride levels can be quite high if the source water contains fluoride. In many of the facilities
sampled, fluoride levels in membrane WTP discharges showed reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards.
Iron
Iron is typically a primary pollutant of concern for all types of water treatment processes. This parameter should be
monitored (with no limit) since no WQ standard currently exists.
Lead (IE systems only)
Lead values present in the IE discharges studied demonstrated the potential to exceed NC water quality standards.
Manganese (all facilities except RO)
Similar to Iron, manganese is a frequently occurring parameter of concern. The Water Quality standard for Manganese
discharged to PS class waters is 200 ug&.
Total Residual Chlorine
Chlorine is introduced through the use of finished water in the filter backwash process, and adds a toxic component to
backwash effluent. Note that it's also possible for chlorine to mask toxicity from other sources. Using non -chlorinated or
dechlorinated water sources during the backwash process can reduce TRC toxicity, however if a WTP discharges filter
backwash water and uses chlorinated water in the backwash process, the discharge will receive a TRC limit from 17-28
µg/L as a daily maximum (for freshwaters). All Saltwater dischargers should receive a daily maximum limit of 13 µg/L.
Most plants will need to build dechlorination facilities to achieve this level in their discharge. All permits with a TRC
limit shall include the following footnote on the Effluent and Monitoring page:
The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/l to be in
compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and
submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field
certified), even if these values fall below 50 ug/l.
Zinc
Zinc is a pollutant of concern for all types of facilities. This is an action level parameter and should be monitored without
a limit.
III. NUTRIENTS
Ammonia
The ammonia nitrogen results at conventional water treatment plants indicated very low levels in the potable water by-
product. It is important to note, however, that none of the facilities surveyed use chloramination to disinfect the source
water. DEH regional office staff has suggested that facilities using chloramines for disinfection should have finished
- 11 -

water ammonia levels between 0.2-0.5 mg/L but may have levels higher than this. For this reason, those conventional
treatment facilities using chloramination will be required to monitor ammonia nitrogen on a quarterly basis.
A review of data for iE and RO plants indicated that levels of ammonia nitrogen were considerably higher than
background. In addition, a number of WTPs discharge to nutrient sensitive waters, making the need to monitor effluent
nutrient levels necessary. Therefore, IN and TP will be monitored quarterly. When sufficient effluent data have been
collected, the need for nutrient limits will be assessed on a case -by -case basis.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nutrient monitoring will be added for all facilities except greensand filters. Monitoring should be added according to
basin specific requirements, in order to be consistent with other dischargers throughout the state
IV. WET TESTING
Because of the potential toxic effects of WTP discharges, all WTPs (except greensand filters) will be required to monitor
for toxicity. Limits will not be implemented at this time.
V SAMPLE TYPE
Membrane and Conventional WTPs
Although variability may occur between plants and within a particular facility, the Woxkgroup felt that grab samples were
adequate to characterize the effluent. After reviewing existing data, the consistency in the individual source water and the
treatment process over time suggests that grab samples are appropriate.
Ion Exchange WTPs
Over the course of the regeneration cycle, the effluent characteristics can experience significant variability. Composite
samples should be collected for all parameters except flow, total residual chlorine, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
pH. These parameters can only be measured properly using grab samples. An exception to the composite sampling is
provided by 15A NCAC 2B.0505 (C), which states that facilities with design flows under 30,000 gallons per day may use
grab samples to characterize their effluent.
IV. ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS OF CONCERN
Additional parameters of concern, rust notably metals, may be identified in the application package and source water
data. Source water data should be entered into a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) in order to assess the need for
limits. Such determinations are to be made on a case -by -case basis.
-12-

APPENDIX B — SAMPLE WET MONITORING LANGUAGE
CHRONIC TOXICITY MONITORING (QRTRLY)
The permittee shall conduct quarterly chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia
Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration defined as treatment two in the procedure document is XX%. The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The tests will be performed
during the months of and . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form
(MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original)
is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the end of
the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association
with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be
measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the permittee
will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit
number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the
form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the pernttee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately. Upon submission of a valid test, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months
specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring
requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival,
minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will
require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial
monitoring.
S. 1. lli'1'i lil I t Lit, (!+ i I A.,. 6'0t If
-13-

Robert Wendell Pickett
Water Filtration Plant
121 PENDLETON STREET
HIGH POINT, NC 27260
NORTH CAROLINNs INTERNATIONAL CITY
December 19, 2016
Brianna Young
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Comments on the Draft Permit NCO081256
Frank L. Ward WTP
Class PC-1
Guilford County
Dear Ms. Young,
We have reviewed the draft permit received on December the 5d' and have two comments:
Footnote 2 on page 3/9 indicates that any value tested that is below 50 ug/L will be in
compliance with the permit, but in the limits portion of the permit shows 17 ug/L. This
seems to contradict itself Does this mean we need to report all values tested as < 50
ug/L?
2. Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring is to be performed on a quarterly basis and is to be
tested during January April. July and October. The City of High Point has performed 13
tests from April of 2015 to November 2016. All tests passed. High Point is requesting
approval to cease quarterly testing for toxicity if no failures occur during the first two-
year period. If there is a failure within the first two years, the sampling shall continue
until there are four consecutive passes then sampling should cease.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft permit and look forward to your reply on these
issues before issuing the final permit.
Sincerely, n ��
, FQV7�
Wendell Pickett
Water Plant Superintendent/ORC
CHP Water Filtration Plant, P.O.230, High Point, NC 27261 USA
336.883.3410 Fax:[phone]

WaterResources
eNVIPONMENTAL QUALITY
December 1, 2016
PAT MCCRORY
Uairmnr
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
t'reminry
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Pimtlor
MEMORANDUM Q� Q
To: Er
' son ✓`1 0 7r n r Y i IqG��. �ecyeo.,o� ���I�aer
NC DEQ / DWR / Public Water Supply
Winston-Salem Regional Office
From: Brianna Young
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NCO081256
Frank L. Ward WTP
Guilford County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this
form by December 30, 2016. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact
me at 919-807-6388 or via e-mail [brianna.younga ncdenr.gov].
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly,
the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the
designated water quality standards.
❑ Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
❑ Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
[LI1gIZC-Ib
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919 807 6300 919-8076389 FAX
https:lldeq. ne.govlaboutldivisionslwater-resourceslwater-resources-permitstwastcwatcr-brancWnpdes-wastewater-permits

Robert Wendell Pickett
Water Filtration Plant
121 PENDLEfON STREET
HIGH POINT, NC 27260
December 19, 2016
Brianna Young
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Comments on the Draft Permit NCO081256
Frank L. Ward WTP
Class PC-1
Guilford County
Dear Ms. Young,
;o
W NW ` sizos
NOR-n i CAROLINNS INTERNATIONAL CHFm
RECEIVEDINGDEUDWR
DEC 2 9 7016
Water Quality
Permitting Section
We have reviewed the draft permit received on December the 5w and have two comments:
1. Footnote 2 on page 3/9 indicates that any value tested that is below 50 ug/L will be in
compliance with the permit, but in the limits portion of the permit shows 17 ug/L. This
seems to contradict itself. Does this mean we need to report all values tested as < 50
ug/L?
2. Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring is to be performed on a quarterly basis and is to be
tested during January April. July and October. The City of High Point has performed 13
tests from April of 2015 to November 2016. All tests passed. High Point is requesting
approval to cease quarterly testing for toxicity if no failures occur during the first two-
year period. If there is a failure within the fast two years, the sampling shall continue
until there are four consecutive passes then sampling should cease.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft permit and look forward to your reply on these
issues before issuing the final permit.
Sincerely,
Wendell Pickett
Water Plant Superintendent/ORC
CHIP Water Filtration Plant, P.O. 230, High Point, NC 27261 USA
336.883.3410 Fax:[phone]

Greensboro News Record''
Advertising Affidavit
200 E. Market St
Greensboro, INC. 27401
[phone]
NCDENR - DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
IBT PROGRAM, WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
BRANCH
1611 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699
PO Number Order Category Description
NOTICE OF INTEN 0000289809 Legal
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission/
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. INC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES
Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission proposes
to issue a NPDES wastewater dis-
charge permit to the person(s) listed
below- Written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be accept-
ed 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 degree
of public interest. Please mail com-
ments and/or Information requests
to DWR at the above address. Inter-
ested persons may visit the DWR at
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
to review information on file. Addi-
tional Information on NPDES permits
and this notice may be found on our
website: http://deq-nc.gov/about/di
visions/water-resources/wate r-
resou roes -perm its/wastewater-
branch/n pdes-wastewate r/pu b I ic-
notices,or by calling [phone].
The City of High Point requested re-
newal of permit NC008125G for the
Frank L Ward WTP in Guilford Coun-
ty; this permitted discharge is treat-
ed filter backwash wastewater to an
unnamed tributary to Richland Creek
in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Thomas L. Monroe requested renew-
al of NPDES permit
NC0055913/Monroe's Mobile Home
Park W WTP/Guilford County. Facili-
ty discharges to Polecat Creek/Cape
Fear River Basin. Currently BOD,
ammonia nitrogen, dissolved oxy-
gen, fecal coliform, and total residu-
al chlorine are water quality limited.
Aqua North Carolina, Inc requested
yenewal of permit NCO088927 forithe
Meadow Ridge Subdivision WTP in
Guilford County; this permitted dis-
charge is treated filter backwash
wastewater to an unnamed tributary
to Kings Creek, Roanoke River Basin -
Account Number
4019534
Date
November 20, 2016
Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/ NPDES Ur
Publisher of the
Greensboro News Record
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Guilford, North Carolina, duly commissioned,
qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared the Publisher
Representative who by being duly swom deposes and says: that he/she is the Publisher's
Representative of the Greensboro News Record, engaged in the publishing of a newspaper
known as Greensboro News Record, published, issued and entered as second class mail in
the City of Greensboro, in said County and State: that he/she is authorized to make this
affidavit and sworn statement: that the notice or other legal advertisement, a copy of which
is attached hereto, was published in the Greensboro News Record on the following dates:
11/20/2016
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper document, or legal advertisement
was published was, at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all
the requirementsandqualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina.
(signature ofpers along eidavit)
�/� f tom. / ,- -�v�
Swom to and subscribed before me the, M day of 1 Dwi n
L=LAMB
STATE LINA(Notary Public)
GUMYCOMM6-15-19
I THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU

IWC Calculations
Facility: Frank L. Ward WTP
NC0081256
Prepared By: Brianna Young
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 1.6
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0
Enter w7Q10 cfs : 0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
2.48
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
2.48
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Cone. (ug/1)
17
Allowable Cone. (mg/1)
1.0
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0
Monthly Average Limit:
20011o0mi DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.6
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
2.48
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Cone. (mg/1)
1.8
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Cone > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/I (summer) and 4 mg/I (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/I (year-round)
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)
NPDES Server/Current VersionslWLA; TB 1/16/2009

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Usina Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORIN W25
Facility Name
Frank L. Ward WTP
W WTP/WTP Class
PC-1
NPDES Permit
NCO081256
Outfall
001
Flow, own (MGD)
1.600
Receiving Stream
UT to Richland Creek
HUC Number
0303000301
Stream Class
WS-IV:'
QApply WS Hardness WQC
70105 (cfs)
0.00
7Q10w (cfs)
0.00
3002 (cfs)
0.00
QA (cfs)
0.00
1010s (cfs)
o.0
Effluent Hardness
25 mg/L (Avg)
Upstream Hardness
r_
I
25 mg/L (Avg)
Combined Hardness Chronic_
________
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _25 m IL_ _______
—mg—IL
Combined Hardness Acute
�
25
Data Sources)
L rHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Par03
Pal
Parts
Pa ptim
Part]
Parts
Parts
Pal
Pal
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par1t
Pal
Paris
Paris
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Wes Type Chronic Ameieer Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/lNS
NIA
uglL
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
uglL
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
INC
0.5899
FW
3.2396
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Ufa
NCI
300
A
I
ug1L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
117.7325
FW
905.0818
uglL
Chromium VI
Aquatic Ufa
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pi
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
7.8806
FW
10.4720
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Ufa
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Ufe
INC
2.9416
FW
75.4871
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ri
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
j
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
37.2313
FW
335.2087
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
INC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.2964
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
126.7335
FW
125.7052
ug/L
9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to totalmetais_nodetects_limiteddefaults 2016_822, input
11/1/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Effluent Hardness
Uw RASTE SPECW.
411"'^'"roOPr
H2
Upstream Hardness
Ux'PASTE SPECIAL
°i""'"°"'COPY"
Parin S ParD2
Mnlmum 4.4 .
panu • 5a
p"Im. vSa.
Date Data aDL=112DL Results
Data
Data BDL=1r2DL Results
Data Data
25 25 Std Dev.
WA
1
25 25 Std Dev.
N/A
1
Mean
25.0000
2
Mean
25.0000
2
C.V.
O.ODDD
3
C.V.
0.0000
3
n
1
4
n
1
4
10N Per value
25.00 mg/L
5
I th Per value
25.D0 mg4
5
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
6
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
6
Max. Value
25.00 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00 mg4.
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
dD
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
60
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Us.•PASTESPECM
Arsenio
v.1u.: u°"•Cavr
. M.zFnum tl.0
p°imv=58
ODL-112DL Results
SW Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mutt Factor =
WA
Max. Value
WA ug/L
Max. Preal C.
WA ug/L
9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_disa to totalmetals_nodetects_limiteddebults 2016_822. data
-1- 11/1=16

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ara3
Uw RASTE SPECNL
Par04
Vee TAaIEaPE
Paros
U. TASTE WECIAL- Pr
98ryIIlUm
Nluoe'tMn YOPY'
Cadmium
VelYu'laan'COPV'
ChIODdBB
Voluse' then 'C(Wa '.
.Maximum dale
,Maximum 4ela
Mexlmum 4ele pdinne
porms So
Pointe-58
18
Data Dab
RDL=120L Results
Data Data
BDL=V2DL Results
Date Data
SOL=I2DL Reaulls
1
Std Dee.
NO DATA
1
Std Den.
NO DATA
1
SM Dee.
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
0
4
n
0
4
n
a
5
5
5
8
Mult Factor =
WA
6
Mult Factor =
WA
6
Mult Factor =
WA
7
Max. Value
WA ug'L
7
Max. Valle
WA u9A.
7
Max. Value
WA nldL
8
Max. Fred Cw
WA UWL
8
Max. Fred Cw
WA ug/L
8
Max. Prel1 C.
WA nWL
9
9
9
0
10
10
11
11
2
12
12
3
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
i6
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
3fi
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
4d
45
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
54
55
55
55
56
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
58
9595 Final FIN RFA w_uDstream aug date Wumn dissto WalmeUds_mWete4l5_limiteddelaulls 2016_822, data
-2- 11/12016

6
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Chlorinated Phenolic Compountls
vela.: �M.•coPr
Wtlm m,
Total Phenolic Compounds
poim.
Data Data a0L=1l2D1. Results
Data
Data BDL=12OL Result,
SW Dev.
NO DATA
1
aid De,
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
n
0
4
n
5
Malt Factor =
WA
6
Mull Factor=
Max. Value
WA u9tL
7
Max. Value
Max. Pmd Cw
WA u9tL
8
Max. Pled Cw
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
46
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Uae'PASTESPECNL
Par08
TAS ESPEC
Perils
Chromium IIIue:
n.n•covv
. MUFnum Cc
v.w.r I'—, 'COPY
Meannim d.�e
"rots = 58
pdm.= 58
Data
1
Data B I.-InDL
DATA
Dab Da
1
NO DATA
NO DATA
2
DATA
Nno
2
NO DATA
3
DATA
3
0
4
o
4
5
5
WA
6
WA
6
WA uglL
7
WA yyL
7
WA u9fL
8
Mu. Pred Cw
WA y98.
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
9595 Final FW WA w upstream av9 data cdumn_diss to lotalmetals_nodetects_limileddefau8s 2016_822. data
.3. 1111QO16

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Chromium Vl
Vtluei tMn'C
Chromium, Total
Nlw�'IMn'GCPT
CDidp87
V.!Z tMn
ae:�nan mb
.N.amum mb
.144mumM
pnlnb as
pdnLL= 58
polnb ey
b BDL=I2DL
Date Dab BDL=I2DL
Date
Dab
BDL=12DL
Ste
Std Des
NO DATA
1
Sld Do,
51d Dev.
NO DATA
1
392015
<
5
2.5
StdResults
Dev.
Ste Dev.
0.00W
n
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.5000
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
5/132015
6/172015
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.0012
n
0
4
n
0
4
711f2015
<
5
2.5
n
12
5
5
7/152015
<
5
2.5
Mull Fedor =
WA
6
Mull Factor =
WA
6
8262015
5
2.5
Mull Factor=
1.00
Max. Value
WA ag/L
7
Max. Value
WA pglL
7
10212015
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.50 ug/L
Max. Free Cw
WA Ug/L
a
Max. Pre0 Cw
WA pgIL
8
11/182015
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS u9IL
9
9
12/WO15
<
5
2.5
10
10
1/N2016
<
5
2.5
11
11
M192016
<
5
2.5
12
12
W72016
<
5
2.5
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
5]
57
58
58
Cyanide
Data Data BDL-12DL
9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream evil data cdumn_dlss to totalmetals_nedetacts_limitedeefaults 2016_822, data
-4- 11/12016

Mulmum 4 b
i>oinM1 =59
Reaulte
Std Dev
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Facor = WA
Max. Value WA uA
Max. Pmd Cw WA ug8
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Fluoride
Veitthen 'COPY "
MexLnYT Mle
points =5a
Dab
DaM
BDL=1250
RelStd
Dale
42V2015
110
50
fire Dev.
197.9621
1
6/172015
<
10
5
n
Mean
/31.5110
2
155
155
C.V.
1.Si 10
3
7/152015
155
113
n
11
4
8/262015
8282015
ti3
113
5
10212016
712
71.2
Mult Faetpr =
2.T7
6
11/182015
713
713
Met. Value
713.0 u9fL
7
IM015
<
100
50
Max. Fred C.
1976.0 u9A.
8
102016
100
50
9
4202016
<
100
50
10
672016
<
100
50
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
39
40
41
42
43
I
44
45
46
47
49
49
50
I
51
!
52
53
54
55
i
56
57
58
Lead
BDL-112DL Resulle
Sid Den.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mull Facfm =
Max. Value
Max. Pled CW
Wluae'then "COPY"
. Mexlmum data
P h,,e= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
WA
WA tglL
WA uglL
Date Data BDL-112DL Results
8td Dev
Mean
C.V.
n
Mutt Factor=
Max. Value
Max. Rred C.
-5-
9595 Final FW RPA w_ups"am avg data column eiss to totalmalals_nadetects_Ilmlleddefaulls 2016 822, data
11/12016

M .rxx n5.
polnM v
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
WA
WA nglL
WA ng1L
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Molybdenum
INe TABTESPEC
vau.: ma.
-copr.M.A.um
Par176 Par18
Nickel
mM
pduM=sa
Date Data BDL=IRDL Results
Date Data
BDL-InDL Reaulta
Ste De,
NO DATA
1
Sal Oev.
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
n
0
4
5
Mull, Factor
WA
6
Mull Factor=
Max. Value
WA ug&
7
Max. Value
Max. Pred C.
WA ug/L
8
Max. Prod C.
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
5o
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
V.lu.: Own roopr
. Mulmum tl.le
pdn1. a 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
WA
WA p9IL
WA pgf-
Selenium
7.-.
lihimil
pMay. t
Date Data BDL-"MDL Results
SW De,
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor=
WA
Max. Value
WA
Max. Rad Cw
WA
9595 Final FW RPA w_upslream avg data columndiss to totalmetals_nodetects_limileddetaults 2016_822. data
6- 1111/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
PW20
Pa21
PaM
Pat
uw..."MSPECIAL
Zinc
ur'P TESPEC
Yeluea"IFsn"COPY
exlmum Beta
D
uv"Pa STE SPEC
Velma'tFen'COPY"
Veluei IM1en'COPY
$11V6!
.Mmlmum data
.M.xlmom data
b v Sa
pvlpe v 58
P.M. s Sa
Data Data
1
BDL=1/2DL Results;
Std De,
NO DATA
Date Data
1
BDL=IQDL Reauib
Sid Da,.
NO DATA
Data Data
1
BDL=112DL Reaulb
Std Do,
NO DATA
1
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
4
n
0
4
n
0
4
n
0
4
5
5
5
5
6
Mult Factor
WA
6
Mull Factor =
WA
6
Mult Factor=
WA
6
uglL
7
Max. Value
WA u92
7
Max. Value
WA u9fL
7
Mm. Value
WA
7
ugfL
8
M.. Pred Cw
WA u91L
8
Max. Fred Cn,
WA u9IL
8
Max. Fred Cw
WA
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
it
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
to
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
3D
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
30
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
Cl
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
9595 Final RPA._upstream av9 data column dies tototalmetals_nodatects_limiteddefaulls 2016 822, data
-7- 1111=6

s
Date Data
D
vame•u.�rooa
Mulmum dm
pwm.. se
BDL=IQOL
SwResults
De,
NO DATA
n
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor
WA
Max. Value
WA
Max. Fred C.
WA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
D
0 TAS Esl
v.amx- 1
lesidinurn
pdnla v,
Date Data BDL=WDL Resulb
Sid Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
o
0
Mutt Factor
WA
Max. Value
WA
Max. Fred Ow
WA
D vxlws eun•coe
—,-u- NM
pd.M.as
Dab Dab BDL-1/20L Results
Sell Dev. NO DATA
Mean NO DATA
C.V. NO DATA
n 0
Mult Factor= WA
Max. Value WA
Max. Pretl Ow WA
9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data solumn_de , to toblmelals_nodetecb_limiteddebulls 2016_822, data
.11. 11/12016

Frank L. Ward WTP a Outfall 001
NCO081256 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95%Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1.6 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 1.60
1Q10S(cis)= 0.00
7QI0S (cfs) = 0.00
7QI0W(CIS)= 0.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 0.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 0.00
Receiving Stream: UT to Richland Creek HUC 0303000301
WWTP/WTP Class: PC-1
IWC% @ IQIOS = 100
IWC%@7QIOS= 100
IWC%@7QIOW= 100
IWC%@30Q2= 100
IW%C@QA= 100
Stream Class: WS-IV:'
COMBINED HARDNESS (m¢/L)
Acute = 25 mg/L
Chronic = 25 mg/L
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Effluent Hard:0 value, 100 mg/L
Effluent Hard Avg = 25 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
r
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
O
Chronic Standard Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
111
a.
z
M
Acute (FW): 340.0
Arsenic
C
150 FW 340
ug/L
---------------------------------------------
0 0
N/A
Chronic (FW): 150.0
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS
ug/L
Chronic (HH): 16.0
Acute: 65.00
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW 65
ug/L
0 0
N/A
_ __
______________________ _ _
Chronic: 6.56
Acute: 3.240
Cadmium
NC
i "'06
ue I
0 0
N/A
_
Chronic-_—_-0.590
Acute: NO WQS
Chlcndes
NC
'_3rl PAi
mg/L
0 (I
N/A
_ _ _ _
__ ___ _____ _ ___
Chronic: 230.0
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
I A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ _
- --i- --
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
— --
Chronic:
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A
ug/L
0 0
N/A
___ _ _ __
__ ___ ___ _ _
Chronic: 300.0
Acute: 905.1
Chromium 111
NC
117.7325 FW 905.0818
µg/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ _ -
—I1Z7
— __ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __
Chronic:--
--
Acute: 16.0
Chromium Vl
NC
II FW 16
pg/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ __ _ ------------------------------
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
0 0
N'A
9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to lotalmetals_nodetects_limiteddelaulls 2016_822, rips
Page 1 of 3 11/1/2016

Frank L. Ward WTP z Outfall 001
NCO081256 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1.6 MGD
Acute: 10.47
No detects
Copper
NC
7.8806 FW 10.4720
ug/L
12 0
NO DETEC7
_ -____
_ _ _ _ _ __
Chronic: 7.88
_ _____ _
No detects
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 22.0
Cyanide
NC
5 FW 22
10
ug/L
0 0
N/A
___ ___ __
__ _ _ _ _ _ ___
Chronic: 5.0
Acute: NO WQS
Fluoride
NC
1800 FW
ug/L
II 5
1,975.0
Chronic: 1,800.0
RP shown- apply Monthly Monitoring with Dmil
No value> Allowable Cw
Acute: 75.487
Lead
NC
2.9416 FW 75.4871
ueL
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ _
nic:
Chro_____2.942 _
--__—_____________—_—_____
Acute: NO WQS
Mercury
NC
12 FW
OS
ng,L
0 0
N/A
_____ _ __ ----------------------------
Chronic: 12.0
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic: 2,000.0
Acute (FW): 335.2
Nickel
NC
37.2313 FW 335.2087
µg/L
_ __
__ _ _ _ _-_ _-_-____
0 0
N/A
Chronic (FW): 37.2
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS
µg/L
Chronic (WS): 25.0
Acute: 56.0
Selenium
NC
5 FW 56
ug/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ _ _____ .............................
Chronic: 5.0
Acute: 0.296
Silver
NC
0.06 1 n'oe.t
ugfL
0 0
N/A
Chronic:0.060
Acute: 125.7
Zinc
NC
126.7335 F11115705'_
us(L
0 0
N/A
________ —
_ _
Chronic-_ —126.7 -
— __
Acute:
0 0
N/A
_ _ _
Acule,
0
N/A
_
Chronic-
Acu[e:
9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream aag data column _dissto totalmetals_rodetects_Ilmiteddefauhs 2016_822, rya
Page 2 of 3 11/1/2016

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1627
NPDES Permit Number INCO081256
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
City of High Point
Facility Name
Frank L. Ward WTP
Mailing Address
121 North Pendleton Street
City
High Point
State / Zip Code
North Carolina 27260 „EneVeD AICDE-01DWR
Telephone Number
[phone]
Fax Number
[phone]
e-mail Address
[e-mail] Water Qua i y
permitting Section
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same as above ❑
Street Address or State Road
City
State / Zip Code
County
Guilford
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, consultant or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not referring to the
Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name City of High Point
Mailing Address 121 North Pendleton Street
City High Point
State / Zip Code North Carolina 27260
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
4. Ownership Status:
Federal ❑ State ❑ Private ❑ Public X❑
Page I of 4 Version 5/20I2

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
5. Type of treatment plant:
X❑ Conventional (Includes coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, usually followed by
filtration and disinfection)
❑ Ion Exchange (Sodium Cycle Cationic ion exchange)
❑ Green Sand Filter (No sodium recharge)
❑ Membrane Technology (RO, nanofiltration)
Check here if the treatment process also uses a water softener ❑
6. Description of source water(s) (i.e. groundwater, surface water)
Surface, Two Lakes: 1) High Point City Lake, 2) Oak Hollow Lake
7. Describe the treatment process (es) for the raw water:
Raw water is brought in from either lake into an upflow clarifier where alum and a polymer
are added for coagulation and flocculation. Water is settled using a floc blanket. Water is
then sent to the filters for filtration and disinfection. Caustic is added for pH control,
Hydrofluosilic acid is added for dental health and a corrosion inhibitor is added for
corrosion control. Water is then pumped into the distribution system.
S. Describe the wastewater and the treatment process(es) for wastewater generated by the
facility:
Alum sludge is generated from blow downs from our treatment process and filter
backwashes. The waste water is diverted into 2- 10 million gallon ponds for settling.
9. Number of separate discharge points: 2
Outfall Identification number(s) 001, 002
10. Frequency of discharge: Continuous X❑ Intermittent ❑
If intermittent:
• Days per week discharge occurs: Duration:
11. Plant design potable flowrate 32 MGD
Backwash or reject flow <1.0 MGD
12. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall, including
latitude and longitude):
Unnamed tributary to Richland creek, Discharge 001 - N35 58.0539 W79 58.326
Discharge 002 - N35 58.2019 W58.3179
A map is attached.
13. Please list all water treatment additives, including cleaning chemicals or disinfection
treatments that have the potential to be discharged.
Page 2 of 4 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Alum /aluminum sulfate Yes X No
Iron sulfate / ferrous sulfate Yes No X
Fluoride Yes X No
Ammonia nitrogen / Chloramines Yes X No
Zinc -orthophosphate or sweet water CP1236 Yes No X
List any other additives below:
Aluminum Sulfate, Caustic soda (Sodium Hydroxide), 5% bleach ( Sodium Hypochlorite),
Sodium Silicate ( Polyphosphate) blend, Hydrofluosilic Acid, Aqua Ammonia ( Ammonium
Hydroxide).
14. Is this facility located on Indian country? (check one)
Yes ❑
No X❑
15. Additional Information:
Provide a schematic of flow through the facility, include flow volumes at all points in
the water treatment process. The plan should show the point[s] of addition for
chemicals and all discharges routed to an outfall [including storm water].
Solids Handling Plan
16. NEW Applicants
Information needed in addition to items 1-1 S:
New applicants are highly encouraged to contact a permit coordinator with the
NCDENR Customer Service Center.
Was the Customer Service Center contacted? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Analyses of source water collected
Engineering Alternative Analysis
v Discharges from Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis plants shall be evaluated using a
water quality model.
17. Applicant Certification
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
name of Person Signng' / Title
J" S�— f36
of Abn1icant/ Date
North tsmba General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that Any person who knowingly makes any false statement representation, or ce0caton in any application,
record, report, plan, or other document files or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that
Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21
Page 3 of 4 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by
imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5
years, or both, for a similar offense.)
Page 4 of 4 Version 5/2012

From City Lake
------ 4k,. Pump
S'tattan
Primary cado 01T
Sour
(Ci.2� MCI
"W ItImiEr- Avc,
R Rew wacr A
From 0 ik Hollow Lake (Polymer) 1
Pump
Station
Cade 014
4- pumps
Secondary source
Chemical Bulk Tanks
1- 6,000 gal. Fluoride Tank
3-10,000 gal. Caustic Tank
1- 6,000 gal. Carmlon Inhibitor Tank
1- 20,000 gal. Alum Tank ( underground)
SIWpc86wDm= —►
xxc-rro.' ,5%
Dom„ t
%ItG< --r0
� t.egoon
. �oMc7
4= NORTH
City of High Point
Ward Water FIltretldan Plant
PWS 10 02.41-020
MC, oog,1256
10 MG Tank .==4 5 Tank
ah Mbc -4Aium addit/on)
♦_F/oacufamm (Caustic soul
(Corrosion it ho'bitor)
4— rt ss unit • (Fiuodde)
Upliow Ciaritication r
Water
002-Combin tter efiiuent
(Ammonia for minesXr: cummtly in use)
(smec; ndary bl for ChtoramkmXnotcurrently in use)
/ Compilance sample
finished water code 001
(Bleach)
000
3-10,000 gals. E Bleach Tanks
400 fi
sove,tagoon
i OMC7
—mil Non compliance samples
raw WOW code 017
Coag. Code 102
sdiltled water code 1013
-► —laws tEeWM water code 002
i
I
♦Fillers
B9* wash Wain
LA(400 M
AVc. b .Zo(W4v
out
Q s•Parala!
® ,Fbm

Question 15) Addition Information
City of High Point
Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant
Solids Handling Plan
NCO081256
The Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant has (2) -10 million gallon settling ponds
for alum sludge which includes process waste and filter backwash. Solids are
accumulated for a period of about 2 years or until the ponds are approximately
three quarters full. At this time.. the City of High Point bids the sludge removal out
and awards contract to low bidder. The company that wins the contract brings in
portable centrifuges and dewaters the sludge which in turn is disposed of at the
local landfill.

Robert Wendell Pickett
Water Filtration Plant
121 N. PENDLETON ST.
HIGH POINT, NC 27260
February 8, 2016
Ms. Wren Thedford
NC DEQ/DWR/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NORTH CAROLINNS INTERNATIONAL CITY"
RECEIVEMCDEUDWR
Subject: City of High Point Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant FEB 15 2016
Permit Renewal Application and General Permit Request
NPDES # NC0081256, Guilford County Water Quality
Permitting Section
Dear Ms. Thedford:
The NPDES permit for the City of High Point Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant expires on August
31, 2016. In accordance with State and Federal regulations, the City is requesting to be put under the
NCG590000 general permit. We have reviewed the conditions of the permit and we understand that the
NPDES permit we now hold will be rescinded. This package for renewal includes: (3) copies of the
Short Form C-WTP, map of the exact location of the outfalls, schematic of flows through the facility
with chemical addition points and a copy of our Solids Handling Plan.
We look forward to working with you on the renewal of Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant's new
General permit. Please contact me at [phone] if you need any additional information.
incerel l,
o . Pickett
Water Plant Superintendent, ORC
cc: Terry Houk, Director Public Services
File
CHIP Water Filtration Plant, P.O. 230, High Point, NC 27261 USA
336.883.3410 Fax:[phone]

Weaver, Charles
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Weaver, Charles
Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:53 PM
Mickey, Mike
RE: address change - Permits - NCO081256 and NCO241020
I updated the facility address in BIMS. I'll put this in the file so the permit writer can make the change.
CHW
From: Mickey, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 20161:52 PM
To: Weaver, Charles <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: address change - Permits - NCO081256 and NCO241020
Charles — Sending this to you since Belnick is listed as the reviewer for Cape Fear Basin renewals. The facility
address (not mailing address) is changing for the Ward WTP. The address shown on page 1 of 6 in the permit
just needs to be updated at renewal. Thanks, Mike.
[e-mail]
NC DEQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources— Water Quality Programs
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Phone: [phone]
From: WENDELL PICKETT[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:23 AM
To: Mickey, Mike <mike. m ickev@ ncdenr.gov>; Boyd, Tom <[e-mail]>
Cc: BILL FRAZIER <[e-mail]>
Subject: address change - Permits - NCO081256 and NCO241020
Good Morning Gentlemen,
This email is to inform you of our address change at the Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant. As of
today, our new address will be 121 N. Pendleton Street, High Point, NC 27260.
Please let me know if there is anything else we need to do. Thanks.
Wendell
'ikg6art e{fjOendel%Ae"
Ill f ,ou
Public Services/Plants Divison
Water Plant Superintendent
Frank L. Ward Water Filtration Plant—NCO241020
P.O.Box 230
High Point, NC27261
Phone [phone]