NC0021181_Fact Sheet_20191112

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO021181
Permit Writer/Email Contact Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: November 12, 2019
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
0 Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Belmont / Belmont WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 431, Belmont NC 28212
Facility Address:
298 Parkdale Drive, Belmont NC 28212
Permitted Flow:
5.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 83% domestic, 17% industrial'
Facility Grade.
Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Bar screen, Grit removal, Aeration, Clarification, Chlorination,
Dechlorination
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Gaston
Region
Mooresville
'Based on actual flows provided by PERCS for the calendar year 2017; permitted industrial flow is 0.9
MGD or 18% of total permitted flow.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Belmont had
submitted an NPDES permit renewal application on January 5, 2010. Because of various issues related to
nutrient ownership, trades, allocations, and future connection to a Charlotte Water wastewater treatment
Page 1 of 12

facility, the draft permit, after going through a public comment period in 2011, was placed on hold pending
their resolution. To update the renewal application, the following was provided by the Permittee:
• three new effluent pollutant scans,
• four new second species toxicity test results; and
• effluent and upstream Total Hardness data.
A Nutrient Allocation Transfer Agreement between the City of Charlotte and the City of Belmont was
signed by City Managers of each city and became effective on May 3, 2018. This agreement allows for the
transfer of nutrient (Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus) allocations from the City of Charlotte to the City
of Belmont WWTP for the period during which the City of Charlotte's Joe C. Stowe, Jr. Regional Water
Resources Reclamation Facility (Stowe WRRF) undergoes construction, including the connecting of the
Belmont collection system to Stowe WRRF. Once the construction is complete, all nutrient allocations will
be transferred from Belmont WWTP to Stowe WRRF. See Section 6: Other TMDL/Nutrient Management
Strategy Considerations for more details.
This facility serves a population of 9,500 residents and operates a pretreatment program with one
Significant Industrial User (SIU): Spartan Dryer (textile).
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Belmont WWTP discharges into the Catawba River downstream of Mountain Island Lake, which has a
nominal year-round regulated release of 80 cfs. An adjusted control release of 95 cfs was determined by
adding the flow from the drainage area downstream of the dam (15 cfs).
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Catawba River (arm of Lake Wylie)
Stream Segment:
l l-(122)
Stream Classification:
WS-IV, B; CA
Drainage Area (mi2):
2015
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
95 (control release)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
95 (control release)
30Q2 (cfs):
95 (control release)
Average Flow (cfs):
95 (control release)
IWC (% effluent):
8%
303(d) listed/parameter:
This segment is listed as impaired for PCB Fish Tissue
Advisory on the NC 2018 Final 303(d) list.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Lake Wylie TMDL / nutrients (TN/TP). TP mass limits
effective January 2015, TN mass limits effective April 2017
due to Chlorophyll -a impairment. State-wide Mercury TMDL.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-08-34 / 03050101
USGS Topo Quad:
G14NE, Belmont, NC
The receiving water lies in the Lake Wylie Chlorophyll -a TMDL Management Area. The TMDL was
approved by the EPA in 1996 to address eutrophication of the lake and its major tributaries along the
Page 2 of 12

Catawba River. See Section 6: Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations for information regarding nutrient
limits related to the TMDL.
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data is summarized in Table 1 for the period February 2015 through January 2019.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit
Limit
Flow
MGD
1.697
5.549
0.832
MA 5.0
BOD5
mg/L
4.2
> 110
< 2.0
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
BOD5 removal
%
97.6
99.2
92.5
85
TSS
mg/L
9.3
250
< 1
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
TSS removal
%
94.3
98.0
81.9
85
NH3-N
mg/L
0.34
94.0
< 0.1
Total Residual Chlorine
µg/L
27.5
128
< 15
DM 28
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
#/100 mL
9
2,420
1
WA 400.0
MA 200.0
DO
mg/L
8.7
14.7
4.2
Temperature
°C
19.7
31.2
5.0
pH
SU
6.9
8.8
6.2
6.0 - 9.0
TN
mg/L
18.0
49.0
0.4
TP
mg/L
2.2
4.6
0.1
1 MA = Monthly Average, WA = Weekly Average, DA = Daily Average, DM = Daily Maximum.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this permit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Fecal Coliform,
Temperature, and Conductivity. Instream monitoring locations are at the US Hwy 74 bridge (upstream) and
one mile downstream of the discharge.
Page 3 of 12

Dissolved Oxygen is a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Review of submitted instream data from
February 2015 through January 2019 found the DO standard of 5 mg/L to be mostly maintained except for
a period in September -October 2016, when DO was below the standard in the upstream as well as effluent
and downstream sites. Ranges of DO by location are: 4.4-14.0 mg/L upstream, 4.7-13.2 mg/L downstream,
and 4.2-14.7 mg/L effluent.
Temperature is a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Review of submitted instream data for the period
above found temperatures seasonally exceeded the standard of 29°C for upper piedmont and mountain
waters at all locations, and temperature differences between up- and downstream locations were on average
0.2°C, below the standard increase of 2.8°C. Two occurrences of temperature increase above the standard
increase were found, both in January 2016. These increases were due to the discharge, but neither exceeded
the 29°C stream temperature standard. Ranges of Temperature by location are: 6.5-33.2°C upstream, 6.0-
33.2°C downstream, and 5.0-30.1 °C effluent.
Conductivity is a parameter of concern due to industrial discharges; the Belmont WWTP has an active
pretreatment program with one SIU. Review of submitted instream data for the period above found
conductivity values to be similar overall between sites with averages of 70.1 umhos/cm (range: 10-312
umhos/cm) upstream and 67.8 umhos/cm (range: 42.9-121 umhos/cm) downstream. Two outlier values
were recorded upstream at 177 umhos/cm on 12/15/2014 and 312 umhos/cm on 12/27/2017. No effluent
data are available as effluent monitoring of Conductivity is not in the permit.
Fecal Coliform is a parameter of concern for aquatic life and human health. Review of submitted instream
data for the period above found geometric mean coliform counts to be higher upstream (57/100 mL, range:
1-71,000/100 mL)) than downstream (23/100 mL, range: < 1-4,600/100 mL). Concurrent effluent coliform
counts were lower on average than at either instream location (geomean = 9/100 mL, range: < 1-2,420/100
ML).
Overall, instream data show no apparent effect from the effluent of any of the four monitored parameters.
No changes are proposed.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): One violation was reported
since May 2013 (past five years): TSS weekly average exceedence on 7/25/2015, which proceeded to an
enforcement case.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests (one was invalid), as well as all 4
second species chronic toxicity tests, sampled on 2/9/2015, 5/11/2015, 11/9/2015, and 12/7/2015.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection, conducted
on February 19, 2019, reported that the facility was well maintained and operated with no issues noted.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixiny, Zones
Page 4 of 12

In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMLY model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming, Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: NA
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia (NH3-N) are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic
criterion of 1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic
criteria, utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -
Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: Currently the
permit has a 28 µg/L daily maximum limit for TRC and no limits for NH3-N. Both parameters were
reviewed in the attached NH3/TRC Wasteload Allocation (WLA) spreadsheet using the annual 7Q10 of 95
cfs. The spreadsheet calculated a TRC allowable concentration capped at 28 µg/L, which is maintained in
the permit as a limit.
The spreadsheet calculated NH3 N allowable concentrations of 10.6/31.8 mg/L monthly/weekly average
for summer and 21.2 mg/L monthly average for winter (the winter weekly average is > 35.0 mg/L, thus
monitoring only is required). The permit since the facility upgrade to 5.0 MGD in 1991 did not include
ammonia limits, based on DWQ Technical Support review that year. Review of submitted effluent data
from February 2015 through January 2019 showed most data to be well below these concentrations, except
for one daily value of 94 mg/L in October 2016 and a 31 mg/L in June 2017. However, these daily values
did not result in an exceedence of either the monthly or weekly WLA-calculated allowable concentrations
(Fig. 1). Therefore, the monitor -only requirement for Ammonia will be maintained in the permit.
Page 5 of 12

Effluent NH3 Allowable Concentrations (Cw)
WkAvg
♦ MO. Avg MACw
WACw
35
30
— —�
25
�20
—1
1—; --�--
! 1
r -
1 t
E 15
1
1 i i 1
i 1 1
10
"---
5
•
0
u. - - -
o1pti1�01\~oy¢
O1y
O1(o O,y(o oy1 oy1
O,y's.y0
0��\~01�
Figure 1. Effluent Ammonia -Nitrogen data against WLA-calculated
allowable concentrations.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of '/2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between February 2015
and January 2019. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria: None
Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was > 50% of the allowable concentration: Cyanide.
No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Copper, Lead, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Zinc
o Note: Several parameters are required pretreatment monitoring as toxicants and will
continue to be monitored accordingly.
POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
Page 6 of 12

o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 8%
effluent concentration will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury, approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/L) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value
of 47 ng/L.
Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
4
4
6
4
1
Annual Average Conc. n
1.9
1.4
10.3
6.7
3.5
Maximum Conc., n
3.47
2.12
43.50
20.10
3.54
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
159.1
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required (Table 2). However, since the facility is > 2 MGD and quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1
ng/L) are reported, a mercury minimization plan (MMP) will be added to the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The Belmont WWTP is subject to the Lake Wylie Nutrient TMDL, which was approved by
the USEPA in 1996. The TMDL states that all facilities must meet a summer limit of 6 mg/L Total Nitrogen
(TN) and an annual limit of 1 mg/L Total Phosphorus (TP). These limits translate to load allocations of
74,960 lb/summer TN and 21,309 lb/yr TP for Belmont WWTP.
Page 7 of 12

A nutrient allocation transfer agreement between the City of Charlotte and City of Belmont became
effective May 3, 2018. This agreement allows for a multi -step process of allocation transfers from three
WWTPs (Belmont, Mt. Holly and the former Clariant Corp. WWTPs) to one future regional WWTP under
the Lake Wylie TMDL. The agreement allows Charlotte Water to transfer TN and TP load allocations from
the Clariant Corp. WWTP to Belmont and Mt. Holly WWTPs until Charlotte's regional WWTP is
constructed and the connections from Belmont and Mt. Holly collection systems are tied to it. After
construction of the regional WWTP and connections to it are made, all nutrient allocations will be
transferred from Belmont and Mt. Holly to the new plant.
In light of the allocation transfer agreement, the following nutrient limits will be added to the permit as
implementation of the TMDL: TN seasonal load limits of 8 8,65 6 lb/summer and 115,4491b/winter, and TP
annual load limit of 21,309 lb/yr. These load limits represent nutrient allocations established in the TMDL
plus those Charlotte Water transferred from the former Clariant Corp. WWTP. A special condition further
describing the load limits has been added to the permit.
To calculate nutrient loading, monthly monitoring of TN Load and TP Load as well as Total Monthly Flow
will be added to the permit. A special condition describing calculation and reporting of nutrient loads will
also be added to the permit. Monitoring of TN and TP concentrations will be increased from 2/month to
weekly as recommended in the 2010 Catawba River Basin Plan. To check TN calculations, weekly
monitoring of TN constituents Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Nitrate + Nitrite (NO3-N + NO2-N)
concentrations has been added to the permit.
A review of submitted data from February 2015 — January 2019 and calculated nutrient loads revealed that
TN and TP loads are below their respective limits with calculated monthly loading (Table 3). The facility
should be able to meet the proposed limits without difficulty.
Table 3. Effluent Nutrient Loading Summary.
TN Summer
(lb/season)
TN Winter
(lb/season)
TP Annual
(lb/year)
Maximum
61,038
40,265
12,131
Proposed Limit
88,656
115,449
21,309
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 1 SA
NCAC 2H. 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 1 SA NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
Page 8 of 12

7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/L
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg1 for BODs/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge)
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YESINO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
No effluent parameters have reduced monitoring frequencies.
Page 9 of 12

For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 1
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
MA 5.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505.
Required to calculate monthly based
Total Monthly
No requirement
Add to permit
TN/'TP nutrient mass for limits
Flow (MG/mo.)
compliance with Lake Wylie TMDL
permitting strategy.
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
BODS
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
standards: 40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406.
Total Suspended
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
Solids (TSS)
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
standards: 40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406.
Limits were not recommended at
expansion to 5.0 MGD in 1991.
Ammonia-N
WLA-calculated allowable
(NHs-N) (mg/L)
Monitor Daily
No change
concentrations (MA = 10.6/21.2
mg/L summer/winter) are well
above effluent data (average = 0.34
mg/L). 15A NCAC 2B .0500.
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
No chaw
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100 mL
NCAC 2B .0200.
Total Residual
DM 28 µ
No chan
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
Chlorine (TRC)
WLA calculations.
Dissolved Oxygen
Monitor Daily
No change
Protection of the DO standard, 15A
(DO) (mg/L)
NCAC 2B .0500.
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0500.
Temperature (°C)
Monitor Daily
No change
State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
.0500.
Page 10 of 12

Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Required to monitor N species and
Total Nitrogen
Monitor weekly;
to calculate TN load for limit
(TN)'
Monitor 2/Month
Report TN, TKN and
compliance per Lake Wylie TMDL
NO2-N + NO3-N,
NO2-N + NO3-N
permitting strategy, and to comply
TKN (mg/L)
separately
with NC Chlorophyll -a WQS. 15A
NCAC 2B.0200.
WQBEL. Required TN allocation
Monitor monthly;
per Lake Wylie TMDL permitting
No requirement
Seasonal Limits:
strategy plus transferred allocations
88,656 lb/summer
from Clariant Corp. by City of
115,449 lb/winter
Charlotte to Belmont per agreement,
5/3/2018.
Required to calculate TP load for
Total Phosphorus
limit compliance per Lake Wylie
(TP)
Monitor 2/Month
Monitor weekly
TMDL permitting strategy, and to
comply with NC Chlorophyll -a
WQS. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
WQBEL. Required TP allocation
per Lake Wylie TMDL permitting
TP Load
No requirement
Monitor monthly;
strategy plus transferred allocations
YM 21,309 lbs
from Clariant Corp. by City of
Charlotte to Belmont per agreement,
5/3/2018.
Cyanide
No requirement
Monitor quarterly
RP not found; predicted max > 50%of
allowable conc.
Quarterly Ceriodaphnia
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Chronic Toxicity
dubia Pass/Fail at 8%
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
effluent
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per permit
Scan
Report annually
cycle, add second
40 CFR 122
species toxicity testing
Monitor effluent and
Revised water quality standards and
Total Hardness
No requirement
instream, upstream of
EPA's guidance on hardness -
discharge
dependent metals
Total Mercury
No requirement
Add MMP Special
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Condition
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Electronic
requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
accordance with EPA Electronic
InNo
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
' MGD = Million Gallons per Day, MA = Monthly Average, WA = Weekly Average, DM = Daily
Maximum, DA = Daily Average, YM = Yearly Maximum.
13. Public Notice Schedule
Permit to Public Notice: 05/13/2011, 08/22/2019
Page 11 of 12

Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Gary
Perlmutter at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable)
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES, since the first
draft only. No comments were received from the Permittee, USEPA, DWR Regional Office or any other
party to the draft permit sent to public notice on August 22, 2019.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
Changes since the draft Permit sent to public notice on May 13, 2011:
• Quarterly monitoring for Cyanide was added based on RPA results.
• Adjustments were made to the nutrient load limits and their effective dates per the nutrient
allocation transfer agreement between the City of Charlotte and City of Belmont, effective May 3,
2018.
• Hardness monitoring of the effluent and upstream were added based on WQS Triennial Review,
approved in 2016, that addresses hardness -dependent dissolved metals.
• The map was revised by removing "diffuser" at the point of effluent discharge per comments by
the Permittee.
• A Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP) special condition was added in accordance with the 2012
statewide Mercury TMDL and re-evaluation of submitted data.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable)
• Completed Pretreatment Information Request Form
• Final 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments — 303(d) List, page 39
• Effluent DMR data summary charts
• BOD and TSS removal calculations sheets
• Instream monitoring data and charts
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations page
• WET testing summary, page 8
• Water Compliance Inspection Report
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheet
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet
• Implementation of Instream Metals Standards - Freshwater
• Mercury TMDL Evaluation data and table
• TN & TP loading charts and summary statistic tables
• Nutrient Allocation Transfer Agreement between City of Charlotte & City of Belmont
• Projected Nitrogen and Phosphorus Limits — Lake Wylie Nutrients TMDL
• PWS memo, completed by Mooresville Regional Office
Page 12 of 12

NPDES/A uifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
' PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check all that apply from PERCS: -
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should be
Date of Request 12/12/2017
municipal renewal x on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Requestor Ron Berry
new industries (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name Belmont W WTP
W WTP expansion - Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number NCO021181
Speculative limits in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region Mooresville
renewal.
stream reclass. - Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin Catawba
outfall relocation - Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other changes.
other
check applicable PERCS staff:
i Other Comments to PERC:
BIRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR - Sarah Bass 807-6310Only need data for 2017
X Vivien Zho
CHO, HIM, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
- Monit Hassan (807-6314
PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved
Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
X 3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
X 3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time period
for Actual
STMP time frame:
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.farml2_2017.x1sx
Revised: July 24, 2007

W
0�
VA
0
rl
O
Ln
M
0
C
c
Q
bL
U Ln
U
a
z
3i
u
Oj
LL
i I
i
o I
O:
�;
N:
cuO
u;
¢
L
_0
I
LL
C
i cu
7
i
Ln
0
LA
L
.
U-)
LL
m
L
1
U
pia
C
Q '
I
0
N
LA
r'
a;
OD:
N
i i
a
Co
o
Z .
N !
00
s!
Y 1
O:
.a
3
O!
M
3.i
OA
J
>
Q;
CO
C,
a .
3
c0
w
O
(U
`
c
O;
4O
U
!
Q
U
,may
YY
>
LL
W
E
-
Qi
C
C�
R
49
CO
w
g
3
¢
C
U
L
:
d
Q '
�
b
U '
c
3
V :
+1
U
O
U _!
Gct
C
E
v'
E
O
a0i
o
ux
LL
W
zl
U
Q) z
3 ! U
Oi LL
>
�I y
a. o
¢
L
O
u;
¢' -C
1 Q
N
LL
� _ 7 >
C � t
ri � LL
t0 1 O M m
LA J
O fLf
O
� Eta
Q
0
3 y >
C �O
o U !; J ¢
W c
3 c O:
.ii L
I— Y
CL
4-'
Y 1 ¢ O U
f0 E U
J r6 m L
CO a)
W vi 7
> fL.
3 �
cc cu
.0 ! �
ca
3 °
O; : V0 W w
Q dD !' a-' 41
72:14- =
Q L I (A u' u
Ln C
Do — E
E L
O U
m
�,�, x
LL--! B W
N
N
WA
rl
C
J
�
H G1
C � U
O'
` c
LL
a. L 1
M j 1 ?_'
c L C
o: 7 i--
L Ch
mN
C c
L
O OL'
Z m
U
n L
M O,
z .
o v
y :41
. s
3 ) 40
O
3' Y
N
GJ N
f0
I
m
CC ! a j
W � N
cu
CO V) O
c
a W U
}� 4-
Q Q v
U O �
w
s
0
LL
m
Ln
N
i
ri
rl
M
N
rl
v
ei
rl
O
OD
O
ro
u Un
(yn
0
fD
n
Uf
is
r
w Gl d ! GJ I
U U ; u
c to m 0D
E =o =a ; =o
In v o a
a 0! o
x X X
6 W W W
N
l0
N
4-
0
0)
m
O
OD
a

Belmont WWTP Effluent Monitoring NC0021181
Flow
Mo. Avg Limit
6.00
5.00 --- ---
4.00
0
3.00
2.00 0f tiff ff
f•f!`'�0f N,} f�f•�00f fi*0f•f•0ff,0f0ff fff
1.00
0.00
. N oy°` oy� oy(0 oy(0 oyA o,A oy o�00 oy�
OIK~�\�
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Wk Avg ♦ Mo Avg - Wk Limit — — — Mo Limit
50
45
40
35
30
o�0 25
E 20
15 ■
10 A;f'AA
0
oya
oya
oyh
'y
oy�O oy�O oy� oy� oy� oy�' oy�'
y\�y�ti 'b\y��ti aKV~\� �\yo�ti Ao\���ti h\yy�ti
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Wk Avg ♦ Mo Avg Wk Limit Mo Limit
70
60
50
40
E 30
♦ �, ♦�'
20 ` A A
A
10 ♦_ po
0
oya oy° oyoy� oy(O oy oyA
ti
Summary
Statistics
n
1461
Average
1.697
SD
0.548
Min
0.832
Max
5.549
Summary
Statistics
n
999
Average
4.2
SD
5.1
Min
2
Max
110
_Summary
Statistics
n
998
Average
9.3
SD
10.8
Min
1
Max
250
Page 1 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/14/2019

Belmont WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO021181
Ammonia -Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Effluent
100
90
80
70
60
mad
50
E
40
30
20
10
0
T
O,A
�\yh\�
y\hy\~
�\y�\�
�\�\�
o,\~�V
Summary
Statistics
n
999
Average
0.34
SD
3.19
Min
0.1
Max
94
Total Residula Chlorine (TRC)
Effluent
Limit Compliant
140
120
100
_ 80
•
E 60
•
20
Az Mai
0
z
O,h
�\y'b\'L
Fecal Coliform
Wk Avg Mo Avg Wk Limit Mo Limit
J 1,000 r
E - — --
100 . • ■ t �
% •i ■ t1f •
10
all-
41 ■ ■■
w 1 . •
E
�oyosoya �oyh �oy� �oy� �oy� �oy�
A\yh\ y\\ \y�\ \�\ \,vti\ a\yo\ yo\,��\ h\yh\
Summary
Statistics
n
1000
Average
27.5
SD
7.7
Min
15.0
Max
127.5
Summary
Statistics
n
1000
Average
9
Min
1
Max
2420
Page 2 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/14/2019

Belmont WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO021181
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
16
14 =
12 S• •• •
10 * '
E • _ ■
6 % 1 • •
4 •
2
0 L
11
�ti �\yh�ti 4,11 �\y�\ti �\6�ti ,v�ti o\~ 1o\���ti h�1�\~
35
30
25
20
u
15
10
5
0
tiA
\,yo
\,y0
Temperature
r •
•
oyo
Qj
oy�o
z
oti�
oti�
otiw
oy�
oti�
,`�'L
y\~
1\yh�'L
�\y��L
�\O\ti
pH
Effluent
L. Limit
U. Limit
10
9
8
•
7
dL•
•
•
6
IF-
5
4
O,-
O,�
O,�
O,� O,�
-OX
~\�
�$)
y\�ti�ti
�\y�\ti
h�tiy\�
Summary
Statistics
n
1000
Average
8.69
SD
1.42
Min
4.15
Max
14.7
Summary Statistics
n 1000
Average 19.7
SD 6.0
Min 5.0
Max _ 31.2
Summary
Statistics
n
1000
Average
6.9
SD
0.2
Min
6.2
Max
8.8
Page 3 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/14/2019

Belmont WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO021181
Total Nitrogen (TN)
60
50 •
40
J
o� 30 •
E Y U �' • •
10 • • • % ••• • •
O,y O,O O,O O,1 O,A 0
4,11 �Olv C\Kcl I\yo�ti yo\",�\ti
Total Phosphorus (TP)
5.0
4.5 •
4.0 • • •
• • • • •s •
3.5 • •� • �•
J 3.0 C. • •i i • C • , i ItoA •
end 2.5 • •• •n,% • P% a.} • •A M +i • • • �ti • •
96
1.0 •• • 'i • • • •
05 � • • •
0.0 _� _
O,� O,h O,O 5V O,� O,� ONO OO,,
ti \1y\� ti\, Ib\N 1 \11 ti tip\~ a\��\~ yo\�,�\ti h\,y\�
Summary
Statistics
n
212
Average
18.0
SD
4.9
Min
0.4
Max
49.0
Summary
Statistics
n
232
Average
2.2
SD
0.8
Min
0.1
Max
4.4
Page 4 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/14/2019

Monthly BOD Average Result
Month
Influent
Effluent
Removal Rate (%)
February-15
194.85
14.58
92.52
March-15
185.45
10.51
94.33
April-15
164.05
10.73
93.46
May-15
158.50
5.99
96.22
June-15
168.18
6.65
96.04
July-15
136.41
6.09
95.53
August-15
120.71
5.45
95.49
September-15
154.05
4.16
97.30
October-15
183.64
2.33
98.73
November-15
346.72
3.07
99.12
December-15
251.33
4.30
98.29
January-16
149.42
3.94
97.36
February-16
208.90
4.82
97.69
March-16
178.64
2.83
98.41
April-16
174.81
2.90
98.34
May-16
197.57
2.49
98.74
June-16
134.73
2.60
98.07
July-16
183.15
2.16
98.82
August-16
128.96
2.06
98.41
September-16
128.57
1.63
98.73
October-16
144.48
1.66
98.85
November-16
148.95
3.08
97.93
December-16
148.50
3.17
97.87
January-17
119.40
6.58
94.49
February-17
225.65
6.29
97.21
March-17
185.57
5.17
97.21
April-17
178.42
4.29
97.60
May-17
163.64
3.36
97.95
June-17
124.14
3.48
97.20
July-17
155.15
5.51
96.45
August-17
137.96
3.70
97.31
September-17
129.55
2.63
97.97
October-17
139.82
2.13
98.48
November-17
176.32
2.14
98.79
December-17
195.79
1.82
99.07
January-18
223.81
3.59
98.40
February-18
178.50
4.63
97.41
March-18
179.52
4.36
97.57
April-18
217.43
4.27
98.04
May-18
190.00
5.41
97.15
June-18
177.00
2.28
98.71
July-18
167.62
1.59
99.05
August-18
154.65
1.17
99.24
September-18
137.63
1.37
99.01
October-18
135.57
1.77
98.69
November-18
208.68
1.99
99.05
December-18
160.00
3.99
97.51
January-19
167.62
2.75
98.36
February-19
March-19
Summary
Statistics
n
48
Average
97.59
SD
1.515
Min
92.52
Max
99.24

Monthly TSS Average Result
Month
Influent
Effluent
Removal Rate (%}
February-15
148.25
20.75
86.00
March-15
218.18
21.64
90.08
April-15
135.52
24.53
81.90
May-15
152.00
6.42
95.78
June-15
131.41
8.12
93.82
July-15
185.45
7.94
95.72
August-15
100.00
9.04
90.96
September-15
131.81
4.91
96.28
October-15
154.41
4.57
97.04
November-15
426.39
11.08
97.40
December-15
264.67
9.86
96.28
January-16
204.63
10.23
95.00
February-16
204.57
15.04
92.65
March-16
175.91
6.99
96.03
April-16
174.81
6.65
96.20
May-16
212.52
6.02
97.17
June-16
253.18
11.25
95.56
July-16
228.70
5.67
97.52
August-16
171.09
5.29
96.91
September-16
138.76
6.11
95.60
October-16
161.67
6.07
96.25
November-16
139.47
13.47
90.34
December-16
119.85
8.56
92.86
January-17
142.70
24.71
82.69
February-17
192.50
21.10
89.04
March-17
148.61
9.63
93.52
April-17
158.42
6.34
96.00
May-17
203.59
6.60
96.76
June-17
147.18
5.35
96.37
July-17
160.85
7.13
95.57
August-17
163.83
5.35
96.73
September-17
172.00
7.57
95.60
October-17
161.36
7.55
95.32
November-17
180.58
4.42
97.55
December-17
185.26
3.78
97.96
January-18
183.33
5.18
97.17
February-18
204.15
11.30
94.47
March-18
187.52
10.21
94.56
April-18
272.86
7.66
97.19
May-18
205.91
12.45
93.95
June-18
168.10
4.81
97.14
July-18
238.00
7.56
96.83
August-18
262.61
7.02
97.33
September-18
141.53
5.14
96.37
October-18
138.78
6.33
95.44
November-18
150.21
12.03
91.99
December-18
124.56
8.51
93.17
January-19
150.76
7.20
95.22
February-19
March-19
Summary
Statistics
n
38
mean
94.28
SD
3.89
min
81.90
max
97.96

Belmont WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO021181
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
O
Upstream s Effluent • Dnstream
Standard
16
14
Q
12
-
10
J
8
/
6
4
2
0
1
f k
�tib
oyb
Olyh
oy�o Otis oyA O11
'L
'
Ci 01�
'
oye
11
4\",
%-V 10\�,`\'L
Gi\
35
30
25
u 20
15
10
5
0
,yb
\,ti0
\,y0
6
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
n 352
350
352
Average 8.1
8.3
8.1
SD 1.6
1.4
1.5
Min 4.4
4.2
4.7
Max 14.0
14.7
13.2
Temperature
O Upstream Effluent Dnstream
il
Standard
41
k
�
Okyb
Otis
O,yro
O,yro
oy�
oy�
oyO,y�
oye
�'L
,\
ti�'L
,ti�'L
,��'L
�\1y�'4
�\y�\'L
�\��'L
b\y��'L
y\y4'L
Summary Statistics
_
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
D-U dill.
n
352
350
352
352
Average
23.7
22.0
23.8
0.2
S D
7.0
6.1
7.2
0.9
Min
6.5
5.0
6.0
-3.8
Max
33.2
30.1
33.2
3.0
Page 1 GB Perlmutter, 3/14/2019

Belmont WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO021181
Conductivity
Upstream Dnstream
350
300 °
E 250
200
0
= 150
100 O
50
0
6, Ohl O,h O,O OO,� O,� O,O O,� O,O
\moo\ti \yh\ti 11\11 4,10 \�\ti \�,�\ti \1o\ti 10\�,�\ti 11\1" ti
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Dnstream
n
208
208
Average
70.1
67.8
SD
22.9
13.9
Min
10.0
42.9
Max
312.0
121.0
Fecal Coliform
C Upstream Effluent Dnstream
10,000
O O O ° ° Q
•Q °O ®Oi3 • ° ° •4 �O
1,000
�° °'
® °
E
O
®
r
a o
~
0
'�
0
100
C) •
ar
10 rig+
• 'a.t
0•{ plr i r �CJ
�•
y
VO
Oy� Oy1
\��\�01�
�o ,y'L
\�1\�O�O
1 'y
\tip\�OyO
� �
\,OKT \�A\�Oy� \tih\T
A ,y0 h
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
n
350
350
352
Geomean
57
9
23
Min
1
1
1
Max
7100
2420
4600
Page 2 GB Perlmutter, 3/14/2019

kE
[
a�
<
E
•
, �
\
}
} \
2
p
0
t
)
{
>
w
..
a.
2
.
z
k�k�CL
��
0
k\�\��
=
J\
■
}
3 L
f W
a
co
3
(
/
k5
o
5
e
(L
k
'
§
OD
m
}
CMm
0
S
))e
n
•
)>
°
.
..
z
0 �
7k
§
�
m
OD
_
L) CO
$
\
{§
§
k
k
§
�
^
a a
`
k c
LU
/
\
\
\
B
>
E
f
2
2
J
m
§
§
3
a:
[#
E
3f
7
m
§
$
°C
§0
°
k
\
}
•
,
0
!
_
(
k
0
U.
) z
6
I E
£
2
!
o
§
2 L
/
£
w
£
m
p
■
#
a
[
�8
§CD
8
8
w
k
9
B
I
&
`
g
�&[
z
#
K
§
\
§ E
\
§
7
;
j
0
LU
\

Al
O
p
O
Y
o x x x x
Q^
Q I
N
yYp IL
N
V o
a
N Lo
C c
ry N
z l
Z
d
2 a o
z l
N N
Z^ m m m
Z
v
i.i
ii
Li ti o�
i.i
u
N d d d
O_
O
O
n
O
O_
m
CL
O
Ul
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
Ul
O
VI
O
N N N N
O d d d d
O Li Li LL U.
O I • I
O '
O I I . I
O 2 2 S 2
d
a
z
z
O
O
00
Y
o
O
O
�o
Q
n
m
E
w
Ln v
Q
E
o
$
LL
$
LL
i
IL
a
C LL
�'
Lo
LL
n
LL
pQ
CLn
l I I
C
y I
2
y l 10
-
�
Ln 2 S 2
y l I I
4
Ln I I
N
.a
LL
n
c11
L
LL
O_
pQ
O
Ln
rl
Z
00
3
0
3
0
3
m"
3
a
M
u
3
a
ii
3
Q
oc
Q
Q
N N VNI tNll
co
INII N
Nto
d
Q
F
N
¢
10 N N
Q d d d d
�
I I
Q
G
m m
Q a Li Li a
U
I I I I
Q
a
N
O
p
C
O
C
O
C
C
C
Ln
C
Ln
CL
n
a
m
m a
m
a
m
a
INit N N N
1 d d d d
LL LL LL LL
1. . I I
. . I .
. . . .
2 2 2 x
O
O
H
Obi
F
K
O
O
O
O O
O
O
K
p
N
c
Q
cr
Q
2
K
�ct
0
m
s
Lr
Lr
LY
a�i
a
fLfa
N
a
m
m N
ic
8
a
b
d a a
N
d
LA
1n
n
in
O
Ln
m
tLci
t
11
E
91
o
CL
`w
E
S
E
Y E
f
E
V
N
U
W
O
a
m O
m
O
C
O
C
z
N N
Q a a d
CO
c
z
---—
Q LL LL LL LL
°o
z
I I
Q I
Q
z
I I
Q I
O
z
I
Q'
d
c
z
Q 2 2 x S
10
m
11
c
C
c
c
c
z
+
jLn
u
U
U
(OJ
U
pc
U
2
t
m
T
o
C
a
L
m
' LL
E
I
Mo
�x x 2 x
I
z
N
C,
N
~O
~O
Ao
rl +'
L••1
C
p
>
N
G.
m
2
W
m
rn
M
°��°
_
m
Q
ry
n L
U
V
a
N
u
Q
E
41
t0
00
o
N
o
t0
a
1�
o
N
a
m
o
OV
lJ
LL . I
(pl
Ll I
V
�l m m m a
U
lL I I
OU
LL n m
U
UL
N
Z
Z
Z
d d d
Z
2
M La
d d d
Z
f0
V
a• I
alD-I
n
w
y
m
N
L
tko
C
�
N
N
8
C11
o
C4
E
V
D_
Y
C
W
N
S N N N N
a)
ti= m m m
LL LL
•m
1
00
1 I
00
1 1
l70
1
2 2 2 2
(.7
m
d O_ d d
m
Ll lLL
m
m
m
a)
m
'O
m
O
C
C
L
2
d
LL
C
C
d
V
II
v
Y
Ln LO n 00
14 sd � r4
O O O
Ln tD n 00
'-I rl rl rl
O O O O
Ln LD n 00
'-I 'i 'l ei
O O O O
O_
Ln LD r o0
c-1 '-I '-1 a -I
0 0 0 0
d
t
$
Ln %D r, oo
Ln LD n 00
O O O O
d
Ln w r, w
Ln tD n DD
d
3
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
?'
N N N N
0 0 0 0ii
N N N N
C
LU
O
LL
a
C
a+
LL
d
c
C
ar
LL
a
c 0-
c
a
w
LL
a
a/
w
L
m
y
m
N
o v
0'a
E
t
o
N
y
i
LL
m
V
m
CO
m L)
m
U
co

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C.20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 (ti i 2 15 1 3 I NCO021181 I11 121 19/02/07 I17 18 [2l 19 I s j 201 I
211 11 1 1 1 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved
67 t.o 70 71 IN I 72 L �, i 731 I 174 751
L—I LJ I I I I I I I I I I80
Section B: FacilityData
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES cemtit Number)
11:50AM 19/02/07
06/02/01
Belmont VWVTP
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
298 Parkdale Rd
Belmont NC 28012
01:10PM 19/02/07
10/06/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)lrities(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Sandra Marie Craft/ORC/704-825-3791/
Tanya Anne Setzer/ORC/704-825-3791/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Sandra Marie Craft,929 Edgemont Ave Belmont NC
28012/ORC/704-825-379111048250514 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers - Date
Ori A Tuvia MRO WQ/1104-663-1699/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
W. Corey Basinger Division of Water Quality/l704-2:
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
3 NC0021181 11 12 19/02/07 17 18 I „ I
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO021181 Owner - Facility: Belmont WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/07/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
Yes
No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑
❑
V
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
M
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
®
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The subject permit expired on 6/30/2010; however, the Division received the permit
renewal
application package on 1/5/2010. The facility continues to adhere to the requirements of this
permit until a new permit is reissued. The City implements an approved industrial
pretreatment program.
Record Keeping
Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
UU'
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
L
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
L
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
MI
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report#o users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
k
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
❑
❑
❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
❑
❑
❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO021181
Inspection Date: 02/07/2019
Record Keeping
Owner - Facility: Belmont yWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The records reviewed during the inspection were organized and well maintained. DMRs
COC, ORC logs and process control data were reviewed for the period May 2018 through
December 2018. At the time of the inspection the inspector instructed the ORC to use the
collection date of toxicity sampling for reporting date rather than the day the sample was
tested.
Laboratory
Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
■
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
❑
❑
0
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: Influent and effluent analyses (including field) are performed by Shealy
Environmental
Services. Inc. (Certification #329). ETT Environmental. Inc. (toxicity) has also been
contracted to provide analytical support.
Influent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The subiect permit requires composite BOD and TSS influent samples. Facility staff
conducts bi-monthly aliquot verifications.
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
0 ❑ 1113
Page# 4

Permit: N00021181 Owner -Facility: Belmont 1MIyrP
Inspection Date: 02/07/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Comment: The subiect permit reciuires composite and grab effluent samples. Regular aliquot
verfications are performed and documented on both sarnolers (influent and effluent).
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
sampling location)?
Comment:
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? E ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: The facility appeared to be properly operated and well maintained. The ORC and staff
incorporate a comprehensive process control program with all measurements being_
Properly documented and maintained on -site
Bar Screens
Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
i=
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Screenings and grit are disposed at the County Landfill
Page# 5

Permit: NCO021181
Inspection Date: 02/07/2019
Owner - Facility: Belmont WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
❑
❑
❑
(if units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The influent flow meter is calibrated auarterly and was last calibrated on 1/1612019 by
EWS.
Aeration Basins
Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
E ❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑ ❑
E
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
E ❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
❑ ❑
❑
■
Comment: The facility is equipped with two aeration basins (inactive aertion basin has been out of
service for more then 10 years and would require maintenance): however, only one aeration
basin is used due to low influent flows. Sodium hydroxide is added to the influent prior to the
aeration basin to maintain appropriate alkalinity/pH levels
Secondary Clarifier
Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both secondaries were operational and in service.
Page# 6

Permit: NCO021181
Inspection Date: 02/07/2019
Owner - Facility: Belmont VWVrP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place?
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies oh site?
a
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfection -Gas
Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
■
❑
❑
❑
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
0
❑
❑
❑
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
■
❑
❑
❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
100000007244
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: The chlorination and dechlorination systems are serviced annually
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?
Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
❑
❑
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
IL
❑
❑ ❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
W-
❑
❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ V ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ K ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
N ❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
W ❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
is ❑
❑
❑
Page# 7

Permit: NCO021181
Inspection Date: 02/07/2019
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Owner - Facility: Belmont WVVrP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: The influent flow meter is calibrated ouarteriv and was last calibrated on 1/16/2019 by EWS
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? a ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: The effluent appeared clear with no floatable solids or foam.
Aerobic Dialester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
11M
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The facility is equipped with two aerobic digestors and a sludge holding tank. The drying
beds have been taken out of service for several years. Digested bio-solids are land applied.
by a contract company under the authority of Permit No. W00003281.
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
❑
❑
M
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The facility is equipped with one standby enerator that is tested weekly and put under load
monthly. The City also participates in the load management proram.
Page# 8

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Belmont WWTP
PermitNo. NCO021181
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 95
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 95
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
95
s7Q10 (CFS)
95
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
7.75
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
7.75
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
7.54
IWC (%)
7.54
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
225
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
10.6 /jA
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
95
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
5
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
7.75
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
13.26 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
7.54
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
21.2 p4 A
,6-3..4 ,gyp
Total Residual Chlorine 3 `J ' 0
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia {as NH3-N]
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/l
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/l
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

.L�
J
d
a
rd+
Q
0
c
L.
d
t1
c
O
V
U
ro
U
T
a
N
m
�
d
0
3
c
cc
ea
a
~
N
d
Cm
cc
cr
c
D
z
`c_
J==
rn
rn
rn
J
J
v
J
o
J
rn
�
�•
J
J
as
J
`en
�
rn
F.
�`
rn
J
rn
J
rn
n
0
E>
o>
Z>>
_
=L
z
E
E
z
C
p
m
N
coN
O
ti
0
N
0
Z
N
M
L6
Z
.
CD
N
't
n
ui
Cl)
Z
W
N
C
t6
�
V1
3:
f'
a
s
v'
cyyn
s
2
m
u
LL
2
V
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
L-
LL
tl.
Sy
LL>
[i
LL
LL
S
r
0)
CVpp �
o
o
�
O
ti
N
M
N
r
C,rml
U
Z
C
C
u
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
0
z
U
Z
U
Z
U
0
Z
U
Z
U
Z
u
z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
a€
_
Jpp
n
4
:�
JJ�
J
J
J�
n
W
a
_
JJp
n
I
Z
i
�
t-'
ti
E
E
a
E
•E
a
o
y
c
n>
c
p
E
o
�{
2
E
J
Q
:E
cP
.
U
U
U
U
z
N I+f H A W O) O N t7 a N O A O Qf O N P•1 V
Q O Q Q Q
W W co W W W
a. d IL IL d d
W W W W W A W W W Ip W N W W W
d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 d d d d d
o
Uo
o
eo
c
0
c
3
0
uoi
Z
U
�
a
3
o
m
�
a
Z
c°i
;
vs
c
E
v
_
3
a
0
d:>_
3 o
m
2
U
E
`
21
Q
a
li
Z
0 M
K
2
N El
t ! 1 1a
t ! I lob
1 1 I IN E
a
!" A
al¢I�,IJIm�
0
0 0 0 f-
O
O O r
l l cQ N l� 2to
to .a.
1 1 I INC
! 1 I IMP
! r 1 Ili
I 1 1 Ian
I 1 i lao
I I�1
1 lol;
U Q
Wiwi, to 0�
cI IaIa
of=I=l=
d;g
a
w a
2
n 3 w
mt �il�
N u
0 o d o
�0M�w��lci�c°aoC
o191ElE
1
a�
C N
v
w Cl)
co
CN
N

� °�
ao
C N
a�
��

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use 'PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness
va've=" then "COPY'
fA ar�mum nsri
s se
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1/2/2017
38
38
Std Dev.
2.3452
3/13/2017
37
37
Mean
34.5000
3/14/2017
33
33
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3/15/2017
33
33
n
6
3/16/2017
33
33
10th Per value
33.00 mg/L
3/17/2017
33
33
Average Value
34.50 mg/L
Max. Value
38.00 mg/L
H2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
uaa -PASTE SPEM
Upstream Hardness vawea" thon'COP
wxw%um Wtr
pozm - a!
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results j
3/13/2017
20
20
Std Dev.
0.8944
3/14/2017
22
22
Mean
20.4000
3/15/2017
20
20
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3/16/2017
20
20
n
5
3/17/2017
20
20
10th Per value
20.00 mg/L
Average Value
20.40 mg/L
Max. Value
22.00 mg/L
21181 RPA, data
3/1412019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
V30'P/4STE SPEGAL
Arsenic
vevW thPon-Copr
R►a-.imum dxtb
potMS = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/1/2015
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0-250P
2
7/1/2015
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.6944
3
10/1/2015
<
1
0.5
C.V.
0.3612
4
1/1/2016
<
1
0.5
n
18
5
4/1/2016
<
1
0.5
6
7/1/2016
<
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1.24
7
10/1/2016
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
1.0 ug/L
8
1/3/2017
<
1
0.5
Max. Fred Cw
1.2 ug/L
9
1/5/2017
<
1
0.5
10
1 /25/2017
<
1
0.5
11
4/6/2017
<
2
1
12
7/7/2017
<
1
0.5
13
10/512017
<
2
1
14
1/4/2018
<
2
1
15
4/5/2018
<
2
1
16
7/12/2018
<
2
1
17
10/4/2018
<
2
1
18
1/4/2019
<
2
1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
21181 RPA, data
-2- 3/14/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/7/2013
< 0.4 0.2
Std Dev.
2
5/7/2014
< 0.4 0.2
Mean
3
1125/2017
< 0.4 0.2
C.V. (default)
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
US*"PASTE 5PE
values' then `0
}units = bE
0.2000
0.6000
3
3.00
0.20 ug/L
0.60 ug/L
Cadmium
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/1/2016
<
0.1
0.05
Std Dev.
2
4/1/2015
<
0.1
0.05
Mean
3
7/1/2015
<
0.1
0.05
C.V.
4
10/1/2015
<
0.1
0.05
n
5
A/1/2016
<
0.1
0.05
6
4/1/2016
<
0.1
0.05
Mult Factor =
7
7/1/2016
<
0.1
0.05
Max. Value
8
10/1/2016
<
0.1
0.05
Max. Pred Cw
9
1/5/2017
<
0.1
0.05
10
1/25/2017
<
0.1
0.05
11
4/6/2017
<
0.1
0.05
12
7/7/2017
<
0.5
0.25
13
10/5/2017
<
0.5
0.25
14
1/4/2018
<
0.5
0.25
15
4/5/2018
<
0.5
0.25
16
7/12/2018
<
0.5
0.25
17
10/4/2018
<
0.5
0.25
18
1/4/2019
<
0.5
0.25
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
4ee'FASIF SFECtA:
vawcs' then 'Cc,' .
W. Aimon.
0.1278
0.7852
18
1.54
0.250 ug/L
0.385 ug/L
•3-
21181 RPA, data
3/14/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
'PASTE
Parl0
NMSPECIAL
Una 'PASTE SPECIAL_
Total Phenolic Compounds
valudS-Ift "'Copt
Chromium Total
vatues IhAn'COPY'
Waxkwjm data
'
WAXlmum Qala
pvintt • 6b
paints = 5A
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
2/7/2013
25 25
Std Dev.
_
8.6603
1
1/1/2015
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.503
2
5/7/2014
< 20 10
Mean
15.0000
2
4/1/2015
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.3750
3
1/26/2017
< 20 10
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
7/1/2015
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.2233
4
n
3
4
10/1/2015
<
5
2.5
n
18
5
5
1/1/2016
<
5
2.5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
4/1/2016
<•
5
2.6
Mult Factor =
1.15
7
Max. Value
25.0 ug/L
7
7/1/2016
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
75.0 ug/L
8
10/1/2016
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.9 Ng/L
9
9
1/5/2017
<
5
2.5
10
10
1/25/2017
<
5
2.5
11
11
4/6/2017
<
5
2.5
12
12
7/7/2017
<
5
2.5
13
13
10/5/2017
<
5
2.5
14
14
1/4/2018
<
5
2.5
15
15
4/5/2018
<
0.5
0.25
16
16
7/12/2018
<
5
2.5
17
17
10/4/2018
<
5
2.5
18
18
1/412019
<
5
2.5
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
21181 RPA, data
-4- 3/14/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal
Copper
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/1/2015
8.1
8.1
Std Dev.
2
4/1/2015
12
12
Mean
3
7/1/20 15
9.5
9.5
C.V.
4
10/1/2015
6.3
6.3
n
5
1/1/2016
12
12
6
411/2016
11
11
Mult Factor =
7
7/1/2016
12
12
Max. Value
8
10/1/2016
14
14
Max. Pred Cw
9
1/5/2017
19
19
10
1/25/2017
11
11
11
4/6/2017
11
11
12
7/7/2017
8.1
8.1
13
10/5/2017
29
29
14
1/4I2018
9.1
9.1
15
4/5/2018
16
16
16
7/1212018
8.4
8.4
17
10/4/2018
14
14
18
1/4/2019
7.6
7.6
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
UK- "FAST€ SPECi
1'alwt" 1'neri"CQF
Wit rrnum 4 na
r'amt, = 5t
12.1167
0.4361
18
1.30
29.00 ug/L
37.70 ug/L
Parl2
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
1/1/2015
<
10
5
Std Dev.
2
4/1/2015
<
10
5
Mean
3
7/1/2015
<
10
5
C.V.
4
10/1/2015
<
10
5
n
5
1/112016
<
10
5
6
4/1/2016
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
7
7/l/2016
<
10
5
Max. Value
8
10/1/2016
14
14
Max. Pred Cw
9
1/5/2017
<
10
5
10
1 /25/2017
13
13
11
4/6/2017
34
34
12
7/7/2017
<
10
5
13
10/5/2017
10
10
14
1/4/2018
15
15
15
4/5/2018
<
10
5
16
7/12/2018
21
21
17
10/4/2018
24
24
18
1/4/2019
<
10
5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
(W 'PASTE SPED
Vatves" Vie'. "Ln'
W.ix miun. data
rzCdrts =.!,e
10.33
0.8185
18
1.56
34.0 ug/L
53.0 ug/L
-5-
21181 RPA, data
3/14/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
--- - -
Us* -PASTE SPECIAL
Lead
- en 'COPY.
vaiwesm
Ynwnum dole
Pd"tz = SE
Date
BDL=112DL
Results
1
1/1/2015
<
1
0.5
Sid Dev.
0.0000
2
4/1/2015
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.5000
3
7/1/2015
<
1
0.5
C.V.
0.0000
4
10/1 /2015
<
1
0.5
n
18
5
1/1/2016
<
1
0.5
6
4/1/2016
<
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1.00
7
7/1/2016
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
0.500 ug/L
8
10/1/2016
<
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
0.500 ug/L
9
1/5/2017
<
1
0.5
10
1/25/2017
<
1
0.5
11
4/6/2017
<
1
0.5
12
7/7/2017
<
1
0.5
13
10/5/2017
<
1
0.5
14
1/4/2018
<
1
0.5
15
4/5/2018
<
1
0.5
16
7/1212018
<
1
0.5
17
10/4/2018
<
1
0.5
18
1/4/2019
<
1
0.5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
j Molybdenum
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
1/1/2015
<
10
5
Std Dev.
2
4/1/2015
<
10
5
Mean
3
7/1/2015
<
10
5
C.V.
4
10/1/2015
<
10
5
n
5
1/1/2016
<
10
5
6
4/1/2016
<
10
5
MultFactor=
7
7/1/2016
<
10
5
Max. Value
8
10/1/2016
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
1/5/2017
<
10
5
10
4/6/2017
<
10
5
11
7/7/2017
<
10
5
12
10/5/2017
<
10
5
13
1/4/2018
<
10
5
14
4/5/2018
<
10
5
15
7/12/2018
<
10
5
16
10/4/2018
<
10
5
17
1/4/2019
<
10
5
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
UU "PASTE SPECI
vWues" Then -COP
Ua iwnu "U
pohlp a 58
5.0000
0.0000
17
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
-6-
21181 RPA, data
3/14/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Silver
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
1/1/2015
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
2
4/1/2015
<
1
0.5
Mean
3
7/1/2015
<
1
0.5
C.V.
4
10/1/2015
<
1
0.5
n
5
1/1/2016
<
1
0.5
6
4/1/2016
1
1
Mult Factor =
7
7/1/2016
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
8
10/1/2016
<
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
9
1/5/2017
<
1
0.5
10
1/25/2017
<
1
0.5
11
4/6/2017
<
1
0.5
12
7/7/2017
<
1
0.5
13
10/5/2017
<
1
0.5
14
1/4/2018
<
1
0.5
15
4/5/2018
<
1
0.5
16
7/12/2018
<
1
0.5
17
10/4/2018
<
1
0.5
18
1/4/2019
<
1
0.5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Us=_.. -PASTE SPECIAL Par21
Values"even "COPr' .
Maximum data aa;nm
0.5278
0.2233
18
1.15
1.000 ug/L
1.150 ug/L
USE "PASTE SPELL
Values" than "COP'•
Maxlmum date poir
Date
Data
BDL=II2DL
Results L
1
1/1/2015
83
83
Std Dev.
_
26.0914
2
4/1/2015
75
75
Mean
69.9444
3
7/1/2015
44
44
C.V.
0.3730
4
10/1/2015
41
41
n
18
5
1/1/2016
48
48
6
4/1/2016
120
120
Mult Factor =
1.25
7
7/1/2016
35
35
Max. Value
120.0 ug/L
8
10/1/2016
71
71
Max. Pred Cw
150.0 ug/L
9
1/5/2017
120
120
10
1/25/2017
60
60
11
4/6/2017
110
110
12
7/7/2017
37
37
13
10/5/2017
73
73
14
1/4/2018
74
74
15
4/5/2018
72
72
16
7/12/2018
71
71
17
10/4/2018
73
73
18
1/4/2019
52
52
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-8-
21181 RPA, data
9/2612019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18 APao
9
- the "PASTE SPECi:
Nickel Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data coins
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date D
1 1/1/2015 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.7948 1 1/1/2015
2 4/1/2015 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.6333 2 4/1/2015 <
3 7/1/2015 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.3138 3 7/1/2015 <
4 10/1/2015 < 5 2.5 n 18 4 10/1/2015 <
5 1/1/2016 5.1 5.1 5 1/1/2016 <
6 4/1/2016 < 5 2.5 MultFactor= 1.21 6 4/1/2016 <
7 7/1/2016 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 5.1 Ng/L 7 7/1/2016 <
8 10/1/2016 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 6.2 ug/L 8 10/1/2016 <
9 1/8/2017 < 5 2.5 9 1/5/2017 <
10 1/25/2017 < 5 2.5 10 1/25/2017
11 4/6/2017 < 5 2.5 11 4/6/2017 <
12 7/7/2017 < 5 2.5 12 7/7/2017 <
13 10/5/2017 < 5 2.5 13 10/5/2017 <
14 1/4/2018 < 5 2.5 14 1/4/2018 <
15 4/5/2018 < 5 2.5 15 4/5/2018 <
16 7/12/2018 < 5 2.5 16 7/12/2018 <
17 10/4/2018 < 5 2.5 17 10/4/2018 <
18 1/4/2019 < 5 2.5 18 1/4/2019 <
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
46 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 I 57
58 58
Selenium
ate
BDL=112DL
Results
1.1
1.1
Std Dev.
1
0.5
Mean
1
0.5
C.V.
1
0.5
n
1
0.5
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1
0.5
Max. Value
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
1
0.5
3.7
3.7
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.6
5
2.5
use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY".
r.tazimu data Puints
yr
1.6000
0.6917
18
1.48
3.7 ug/L
5.5 ug/L
21181 RPA, data
-7- 9/2612019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par22
lUma•pySrE
Par23
SMCLRL
�ovr
TDS
v"i"" , `""`''COP
Antimony
taY
MWAMWA eaU
V*MEU = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
I
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/7/2013
640 640
Std Dev.
140.0000
1
2/712013
9.4 9.4
Std Dev.
2
5/7/2014
680 680
Mean
580.0000
2
5/7/2014
8.8 8.8
Mean
3
1/25/2017
420 420
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
1/25/2017
23 23
C.V. (default)
4
n
3
4
n
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
ug/L
7
Max. Value
680.000000 mg/L
7
Max. Value
ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
2040.00000 mg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
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
I
58
58
21181 RPA, data
-9- 3/14/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Uw'PASTE SPECIAL
- --- -
U"'PAS TE SPECAL
- ----
0
yaluea' then -cop
. Msximmm dAt3
ChlorOfoffn
vafuu• then "Pony-
Maximum Eats
Pm" 56
wrnt9 = 5E
1
Date Data
2/7/2013 <
BDL=1/2DL
5 2.5
Results
Std Dev.
1.8475
Date Data BDL=112DL
1
80308
13.7333
2
5/7/2014
5.7 5.7
Mean
3.5667
2
0.6000
3
1/25/2017 <
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
3
4
n
3
4
5
5
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
23.000000 Ng/L
7
Max. Value
5.700000 Ng/L
7
69.000000 Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
17.100000 ug/L
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
I
58
58
21181 RPA, data
-10- 3/14/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Utr "PASTE SPEC]AL
_
tlas±rsun n.,±.
wwlit
Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
N/A
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
21181 RPA, data
311412019

C
a
z
W
W
z Lu E
H n N
A �
>
3 o ¢ w
c
N N W a m m
x x
�+ xa V E
OE
U Q U >-w w w
min to in n m
M h P. N .0
n 0 0 0 P. Q
O OA 0 C! 00 (�
n N b H M
N N N 00
my
>_oil�l�rl�3
ti II II 11 II II y
U
Ua e�
U V U U z
0
S
n
O
wJ
x
JS
r.o0o0 3
0vno0oo m
49 h O) C1 0) G1
II II II II II II
N d 00
O O o
W PC.
d
b
rn
eu
Q
iz
i
i
N
I �
I�o
Iv
I
I
'v g'
lij �
lc3j
z
I I o
I LD
10
la
I
I
E c
la
la
g
IZ
l
I
r
a
I Iz
.91
10
I
la
I
I
O
o;
_
la r
O
I�
o
rE�
o._
w
I I
E
I E
I�
Ie
I
I
Ie �
Ie
w
I I-
I z
I�
Iy
I
I
ft-as V
V O
IN g'
I�
I
Ig
I
I
I
_j�
Ica
C
IX.
U
I IN
t o
Io
I0�
I
I
LDm�
I0o
I00
I Iv
I v
Iv
Inc
I
I
1v�;E
I
Ism
la c
I
I
_ m y
I gLI
a.
1
II
II
a
�
z E
Imo°.05
I z
z
Iz
°M.
IzgI
zm
CL
lzws
I I
K I�
I
loo
I
IN
I
a I� 3
3
I
Io
I
.. loo
N
I
I °O 3
ry q
I
ry I 3
M
U
Irn IN
� I�
v loco.
M
lrn U
O '?
� l�
� Iv
�
� Ic U
v Ie U
N
M I~ I~
I
I
z IMI~
m
r.
l
I a
>
to
w
d
i Q
i¢
f�
Q I¢
I�
Q IJ�
A
I C
7 I s=
,"i•O
IU
IU
IU >
IU
IU
Q
1 >
d I >
i
x
Iv I�
x
I i
I
1 z
I
I
z
I z
I z
w
r
O
3
ti
'
ti
W
U
N
N
O d
0000
M
�
z
10
2
U z
2
v
a
W
H
h
77
Q
�
O W
O
'•-�
O
O
O
�
n
VI
VI 9
C u
C y
�+
00
M C •C
00
M O .=
O
O
00
00
00
,o
a,
O
�
N
r-
N
0
a
U
a
0•
W
y �
U
.-.
m
y
y
y
p
a o
F
a N
a
n
a
n
o
o
n
a
CV
a
W
a
M
0
a
s
00
O
O
10
vi
Z
4
A
°
M
n
00
w
y
U U
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
c
0
o
o: LU
E
c
E
E
r
m
a
w
c c
0 1210
Z`
3
v
U
E
E
2
0. c
a a
m
ci
c
d
d
m
U
U
L
V
0
r
00)
N
0 N
co
N
O
a

O
CD
2
to
C
ul
Cr.
s
L
IL
a
I
I
I IZ
Iz
I
IZ
IZ
I
IZ
I
IC.)
I
I
I
I
I c
I la
la
I
la
to
1�
I
I�
I
is
i
10
I z
I IL
I�
I g
Iv
Iv
I M
I Z
a
•�
I
I
I I g
I
I
I g�
I�aI�
I
I
I
I 1�,9
I�.�
t
I
Imo$
I�
I
I�
I Z
I Z
I Iz
Izo
t o
Izo
Izo�
I z°
Iz°
v Io
Uj
d I"
`^ Igo Iw;
3
vIM U
vn I
�_ 3
U
envn I
N � U
o"o 00o B
V] N�O
IN
3 0 3
U
a*, I~
3 v 3
U
V]
d I°D,
3 0 3
Vi
to
00 M
I
O nj
IC
M y M y
ro
\D y
I d
M O ^�
M I o
•.. 0.
to
O N N
O IN
O I In
I
3
z
m
g:
1110
n
D IOfyI�
oy
A
i�
IU x
IU K
o I� c�
A A
IU c
Q
IU
¢ t3
IU c
¢ F td
IU c
Q
Iv 'o
Q
IU
¢
IV
-
I
I¢
Iv zlv zo
I Z
I -.
I z
I z
I z
I z
I
g
CD e
r�
v W
o
vi
v
o
b
g •`o
o •"o
Z
g
z
z
•�
d
O
O
-•
N
•'"
W
MON
r
Vi
Vi
Vi 9
C y
C y
C d
00
o'O
oyo
o^o
�o
M Q E
M O C
M O
p
z a
za
z:a
8
1
>
00
N
N
ell
O
h
M
M
C
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a
a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
w
3
3w 3
w
w
w
3
3
3
7
g
N O
�D
M
I
Z
2
Z Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
E
3
E
€
m
m m
m
c
E
Q
O
Z
m
A
H
N
F
C
Q
=
U
i

N
g
>
0
2
O
114:q -
Ra $
„ k
/
<< k
22 2
I£ f
iLL
m
D k
}
§&q@}k$.m
eLn/
°m
f
a�m"Lo
ku�
�mno<m_n_wm
a;
-
RLnr.-0
oo�{zwwf-
§)
tm
om
)`
a
�2
§kkk
k)�
§§
` k)■aoo�
aao
wd
�!�(f
|.
)§Qe
cf«
°©
:«
<\
kI
0
cc
co
'/
o
tLU
�
���\�c
B#
,
�
■&k§&��k2�=
,�...��
_S%
E
L)22
22m��
.
===OOL
u,
uuuu�.zz_�
2

Permit No. NCO021181
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1 1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
1 90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Fresbwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/l
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)) - e^(0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485)
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
VIER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)) - e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[In hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 a^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 eN0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 a^(0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700)
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 a^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) a^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.4601
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)} a^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 a^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 a^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584)
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO021181
I Silver, Acute I WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59)
Silver, Chronic Not applicable
Zinc, Acute WER*0.978 - e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic WER*0.986 - e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Anal) sis RPA
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permittin Guidance/W BELs for Hardness -De 3endent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value .(chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO021181
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness mg/L) + WOW. cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss - 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss(l+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Ow) (Cwgs) — (s7010) (Cb)
QW
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0021181
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
7Q10 summer (cfs)
1 Q 10 (cfs) _
Permitted Flow (MGD)
Date: 14 March 2019
Permit Writer: G,in Perlmutter
Value Comments (Data Source)
34.5 Provided by the Permittee
20.4 1 Provided by the Permittee
95
77.57
5.0
Previous Fact Sheets
Calculated in RPA s
Permit
Page 4 of 4

3 14/19 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Belmont WWTP NC0021181
/Permit No. :
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entn
1/5/15
4/2/15
7/1/15
10/5/15
1/7/16
4/4/16
7/6/16
10/3/16
1/9/17
1/18/17
1/23/17
4/3/17
7/3/17
10/2/17
1/8/18
4/2/18
7/2/18
10/1/18
1/7/19
1.31
3.47
1.61
1.13
2.12
1.94
0.25
1.2
43.5
7.74
4.77
1.855
1.33
2.7
20.1
1.185
2.48
3.205
3.54
Value
1.31
3.47
1.61
1.13
2.12
1.94
0.5
1.2
43.5
7.74
4.77
1.855
1.33
2.7
20.1
1.185
2.48
3.205
3.54
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
No Limit Required
MMP Required
7Q10s = 95.000 cfs WQBEL = 159.10 ng/L
Permitted Flow = _ 5.000 47 ng/L
1.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
1.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
10.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
6.7. ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
3.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019

Belmont WWTP NCO021181
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631 E)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
4
4
6
4
1
Annual Average, ng/L
1.9
1.4
10.3
6.7
3.5
Maximum Value, ng/L
3.47
2.12
43.50
20.10
3.54
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
159.1

Belmont WWTP Nutrient Loadings NCO021181
Belmont WWTP - Effluent Total Nitrogen
60
50
40
J
lob 30 •
E20
• •
Lam- .• • • ��
10 • • • -
0 � •
O,a O,A oti�' oti`0 O,O O�� O,�
ti �\~ ��ti
Belmont WWTP - Effluent TN Loading
12,000
10,000
8,000 • '
6
E 6,000
a
4,000
2,000
p -
O,yR O,yA O,yh Oy0 O,�d O�'1 Oti1 Otis Otis OtiA
y0\�A
TN_ Loading Summary
Statistics
Summer
Winter
n
4
4
Average
53,438
34,207
SD
5,079
5,424
Min
50,580
27,098
Max
61,038
40,265
Limit
88,656
115,449
Page 11
GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/14/2019

Belmont WWTP Nutrient Loadings NCO021181
Belmont WWTP - Effluent Total Phosphorus
Effluent
4.0
3.5 •� • •
3.02.5
� '�'i i •• � • i • •� i�
04
1.5 • • *8 1, •� 1 • ~� • • • o
1.0 • Jr
0.5 + •
0.0 1- '
\tio\soya 1 1 \�A\soya \y�\~oyy \3y\~oy� \y%� \"~\�oy\tip\�o1� \yh\�Oy�
�o y1 y 4 a yo h
Belmont WWTP - Effluent TP Loading
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
0
E 800
600
400
200
0 �.
\yo\ti \y
oya oya oy� oy� oy�O oy" oy- zy
y�\�,�\ti 1\yy\ti y\�y\ti�\ti o\�,v\ti\yo\ti yo\ry,�\ti h\yy\ti
TP Loading Summary Statistics
Annual
n
4
mean
11,037
SD
1,306
min
9,495
max
12,131
Limit
21,309
Page 12
GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/14/2019

too=
File: NCO089630 Charlotte - Long Creek
NCO021181 Belmont
NUTRIENT ALLOCATION TRANSFER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF CHARLOTTE AND CITY OF BELMONT
This NUTRIENT ALLOCATION TRANSFER AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is
made and entered into and deemed effective as of the 3 day of MAj , 2018, by
and between the City of Charlotte ("Charlotte") and the City of Belmont ("Belmont"), each a
"Party" or collectively the "Parties", and each a duly incorporated municipality under the laws of
the State of North Carolina.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Charlotte, acting through Charlotte Water, owns and operates the Long
Creek Pump Station ("LCPS") in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina as part of its public water
and sewer enterprise (collectively the "Charlotte System") that discharges into the Catawba River
and desires to design and construct a new regional wastewater treatment facility near the
confluence of Long Creek and the Catawba River (the "Long Creek WWTP" or "Regional Plant")
o
and make other renovations and improvements to the Charlotte System to provide wastewater
treatment capacity for multiple jurisdictions in western Mecklenburg County and water quality
protection for Lake Wylie (the "Charlotte Project").
WHEREAS, Belmont owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant (the Belmont
WWTP") in Gaston County, North Carolina (collectively the `Belmont Collection System") that
discharges into the Catawba River and Belmont desires to connect its Collection System to the
Charlotte System and decommission its WWTP in order to avoid the expense associated with
needed renovations, expansion and/or replacement that would be required to remain in compliance
with their NPDES permit issued by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
("DEQ");
WHEREAS, the Parties are subject to the Lake Wylie Nutrient TMDL (the "TMDL"), a
nutrient management plan approved by EPA Region 4 in 1996 that established the maximum
allowable loads of Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) that could be discharged under
their NPDES permits, set individual wasteload allocations (WLAs), and identified a strategy for
new and expanded discharges to the Catawba River;
WHEREAS, Charlotte needs additional nutrient allocations in order for the Regional Plant
to be issued a NPDES pennit by the DEQ that will satisfy the TMDL, and Belmont needs
additional nutrient allocations to continue operation of its Belmont WWTP in order to satisfy the
TMDL until the Regional Plant is constructed and its System is connected to the Chatlotte System
thereto;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated on or about
May 13, 2013, Charlotte purchased approximately 180 acres of real property in Mecklenburg
County from Clariant Corporation, together with 90% of the permitted Nitrogen and Phosphorous
allocations in Clariant's NPDES permit (the "Clariant Nutrient Allocation'), and Charlotte is
willing to transfer a portion of the Clariant Nutrient Allocation to Belmont while the Regional
Plant is constructed and until the connection of the Belmont Collection System to the Charlotte
System is made;
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between Charlotte and Belmont
dated August 22, 2011, (the `Belmont MOU"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A,
the Parties agreed it is in their mutual interest to participate in a regional wastewater treatment
program and established the general terms and conditions under which they would cooperate and
coordinate their efforts, including provisions for an interim transfer of portions of the Clariant
Nutrient Allocation by Charlotte. to Belmont while the Regional Plant is constructed and a
permanent transfer of said Clariant Nutrient Allocation back to Charlotte by Belmont after
completion when the Belmont Collection System has been connected thereto;
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to confirm and memorialize the nutrient allocation transfers
as set forth herein so that DEQ will approve the nutrient allocation limits and issue a NPDES
permit to Charlotte for the Long Creek WWTP and renew the NPDES permit for Belmont;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and mutual covenants
contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Transfer. from Charlotte to Belmont Pre -Regional Plant Construction
As of the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until construction of the
Regional Plant and connection of the Belmont Collection System thereto, Charlotte agrees to
transfer the portions of the Clariant Nutrient Allocations for Total Nitrogen and Total
Phosphorus to Belmont (the `Belmont Nutrient Transfer") based upon the projected totals and
limits shown in the table below.
Facility
Summer TN
Winter TN
(lb/day) (lb/season)
Annual TP
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(Ib/season)
Clariant Corp.
Long Creek Regional WWTP (future)
" 31.5
0
6,741
0
31.5
0
4,757
0
4.0
0
1 0
Mount Holly WWTP
523.2
111,973
823.5
124,345
86.0
31,405
Belmont WWTP
414.3
88,656
764.6
115,449
58.4
21,309
2

2. Transfer from Belmont to Charlotte After Regional Plant Construction
Upon completion of the Long Creek WWTP and connection of the Belmont Collection
System, Belmont agrees that it will transfer back to Charlotte the total nutrient allocation
contained in its permit which will include the Clariant Nutrient Allocations conveyed to it in the
Belmont Nutrient Transfer based upon the projected totals and limits shown in the table below so
that DEQ can modify the Charlotte NPDES permit for the Regional Plant and rescind the
Belmont NPDES permit when requested to do so by Belmont.
Facility
Summer TN
Winter TN
Annual TP
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
Long Creek Regional WWTP (future)
937.5
200,629
1,588
239,794
144.4
52,713
Mount Holly WWTP
0
0
0
0
0
0
Belmont WWTP
0
0
0
0
0
0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
Q.'0'0'n1 -4,11
ri
lerk
3
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Jones, r.4 Manager
CITY OF BELMONT
By: Ilk -
Adrian Miller, City Manager

Projected Nitrogen and Phosphorus Limits
Lake Wylie Nutrients TMDL
Catawba River Subwatershed
October 17, 2018
This document describes how the NC DEQ Division of Water Resources proposes to set TN and
TP limits for the existing Clariant Corporation, Belmont, and Mount Holly WWTPs and the
proposed Charlotte - Long Creek Regional WWTP from the present until the regional plant
comes online. These four NPDES facilities are subject to the Lake Wylie Nutrient TMDL and
discharge to the Catawba River. The permittees reviewed the February 10, 2017, draft of this
document and offered no comments or objections.
Background and Purpose
The Lake Wylie Nutrient Management Strategy is a TMDL approved by EPA Region 4 in 1996
for the North Carolina portion of Lake Wylie'. The strategy established allowable loads of Total
Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) in the lake and its major tributaries. It also set
individual wasteload allocations (WLAs) for six POTWs and one industrial WWTP (now a
POTW) and a strategy for new/ expanding discharges. It specified that nutrient limits for other
industrial WWTPs should be set based on BAT determinations at each facility.
The Division has since implemented the TMDL through the NPDES permits of the affected
dischargers. The TN and TP limits have been expressed in different ways - concentration or
mass load, seasonal or annual - according to the circumstances of each permit.
The City of Charlotte proposes to construct a new regional WWTP that will discharge to the
Catawba River. The City must acquire nutrient allocations for the new. plant in order to satisfy
the TMDL. Toward that end, it has purchased TN and TP allocations from Clariant Corporation
and has entered into agreements with Mount Holly and Belmont for the connection of their
collection systems to the regional system. Under the agreements, Charlotte will transfer the
Clariant allocations to the two cities while the regional plant is constructed and the connections
made. Belmont and Mount Holly will, in turn, connect and transfer all of their allocations back
to Charlotte for the regional plant.
In order to execute these transfers, the Division of Water Resources must ensure that all nutrient
limits for the affected facilities are expressed as mass loads (rather than concentrations) and for
similar compliance periods (seasonal or annual).
Rationale
The TMDL sets the nutrient allocations/ limits for the individual facilities as average
concentrations and as the equivalent daily mass loads. It sets TP allocations as the annual
average values and TN allocations for POTWs as season -long averages for the summer season
only (Apr -Oct).
Three industrial facilities, including Clariant, completed BAT determinations and received
technology -based, facility -specific limits for TN and TP. In contrast to the POTWs' limits, all of
the industrial limits were set as the annual average of daily mass loads.
All of the affected dischargers' permits include annual limits for TP, though some are expressed
as concentrations, others as mass loads. Setting all TP limits as annual mass loads provides the
necessary form and consistency and has minimal impact on the dischargers.
1 For the purposes of the TMDL and its implementation, Lake Wylie is defined as the Catawba River and its
tributaries from the Mountain Island Lake Dam to the Lake Wylie Dam

All of the permits also include (or will include) TN limits. However, achieving consistency is
more challenging here. Some of these limits are seasonal, and one is annual; some are
concentrations, others are mass loads.
The TN limits can be converted to mass loads, but either the industrial limits must be switched
from annual to summer -only limits or, alternately, the POTWs' limits must be switch from
summer -only to annual limits. Because the industrial limits are technology -based, reducing
them to summer -only values would violate state and federal antidegradation policy. On the
other hand, switching the POTWs limits to annual values, while a potential added burden and
not required by the TMDL, does align them with the industrial permits.
To gain year-round coverage, the TN limits could simply be set as annual limits; however,
summer limits would still be required to satisfy the TMDL requirements. Setting TN limits as
separate seasonal limits would also provide the necessary coverage, but it has certain
advantages: it separates summer limits (specified by the TMDL) from winter limits (not
specified), and the two limits do not overlap.
Proposed Approach
The Division proposes to use the following approach to set TP and TN limits to resolve these
differences:
1. Set annual mass TP limits (pounds per calendar year) equivalent to 1.0 mg/L TP for
POTWs and equivalent to the approved BAT determinations for industry.
2. Set summer -only mass TN ]units (pounds per season) equivalent to the allocations given in
the TMDL for POTWs and the BAT determinations for industry.
3. Set winter -only mass TN limits (pounds per season) equivalent to 12.0 mg/L TN for
POTWs and the BAT determinations for industry.
Setting the POTWs' winter limits equivalent to 12 mg/L TN, or twice the summer equivalent
concentration, is meant to provide the necessary year-round coverage while limiting the
potential burden to the POTWs.
The attached tables provide details of the proposed allocations and limits for the four facilities
for the next several years, as Charlotte moves forward with the regional plant project. The
results at each step are summarized more briefly below.
Projected Nutrient Limits
Ste 0: Nutrient Allocations - Catawba River
This table summarizes the allocations already established for the three existing facilities,
expressed as seasonal or annual mass loads. (See the attached tables in lk_zvylie-nuts limits -
proposed revisions-20171116.x1sx for details of their derivation.)
Facility
Summer TN
Winter TN
Annual TP
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/year)
Mount Holly WWTP
300.2
64,251
-
-
50.0
18,265
Belmont WWTP
350.3
74,960
-
-
58.4
21,309
Clarlant Corp.
318.5
68,159
318.5
48,094
40.0
14,600
2
Lk Wylie - Catawba River subwotershed - phased NP limits - final - 20181015
11111201911:10 AM

Step 1: Transfer [-om Clariant to Charlotte
Charlotte has purchased approximately 90% of Clariant's TN and TP allocations: 287 lb/day TN
and 36 lb/ day TP. The Division will modify Clariant's permit to reflect the transfer and to
express its reduced limits as summer and winter mass TN loads and an annual mass TP load.
The allocations before and after the transfer are as follows:
Facility
Summer TN
Winter TN
Annual TP
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/year)
Clariant Corp.
318.5
68,159
318.5
48,094
40.0
14,600
90% to Charlotte:
-287.0
-61,418
-287.0
-43,337
-36.0
-13,140
Remaining (10%):
31.5
6,741
31.5
4,757
4.0
1,460
Long Creek Regional WWTP (future)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Purchased from Clariant:
287.0
61,418
287.0
43,337
36.0
13,140
Initial Allocations:
287.0
61,418
287.0
43,337
36.0
13,140
Note: The summer and winter TN limits are based on the same daily load value but are
significantly different due to the different lengths of the seasons: 214 days for summer (Apr -
Oct) and 151 days for winter (Nov -Mar). The TP limits are based on daily loads times 365 days.
Sfe; 2: Transkr from Charlotte to Belmont and Mount Holly
Belmont and Mount Holly have entered into agreements with Charlotte to connect to the new
Long Creek plant, which is projected to come online in the next five years. In the meantime,
Charlotte will transfer its nutrient allocations to Belmont and Mount Holly so that they are not
forced to upgrade their plants to meet their TN and TP limits. The two cities have agreed on
how to divide the added allocations to meet their needs, and these values are shown in the table
below.
The resulting limits are projected as follows. The limits for Belmont and Mount Holly are the
sum of the POTWs' allocations and the additional allocation from Charlotte.
Facility
Summer TN
Winter TN
Annual TP
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/year)
Clariant Corp.
31.5
6,741
31.5
4,757
4.0
1,460
Long Creek Regional WWTP (future)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mount Holly WWTP
523.2
111,973
823.5
124,345
86.0
31,405
Belmont WWTP
414.3
88,656
764.6
115,449
58.4
21,309
The Division will renew the Belmont permit and modify the Mount Holly permit to include the
new limits and will issue Charlotte's Long Creek permit at the same time. Initially, the Long
Creek permit will show nutrient allocations and limits of zero, because they have been
transferred to the other permits. This will be revised in the next step.
Step 3: Transfer from Belmont and Mount Holly to Charlotte
Upon completion of the Long Creek plant and connection of the Belmont and Mount Holly
collection systems, the two cities' allocations will transfer to Charlotte and the Long Creek
permit.
3
Lk Wylie - Catawba River subwatershed -phased NP limits -final - 20181015
2/111201911:10 AM

To enact the transfers, the Division must act on all three permits simultaneously. It will modify
the Charlotte permit to include the transferred allocations and resulting limits and, presumably,
rescind the Belmont and Mount Holly permits at the Cities' request.
The projected limits are as follows:
Facility
Summer TN
Winter TN
Annual TP
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(lb/day)
(lb/year)
Long Creek Regional WWTP (future)
937.5
200,629
1,588
239,794
144.4
52,713
Mount Holly WWTP
0
0
0
0
0
0
Belmont WWTP
0
0
0
0
0
0
Step 4: Phased Limits r Charlotte - Lon ■ Creek Re ionaI WWTP
Charlotte currently plans to build the Long Creek plant in two phases: 15 MGD to start, then
expansion to 25 MGD when needed. By the time the plant is operational, the City will hold
allocations equivalent to 937.5 lb/ day TN summer, 1,588 lb/ day TN winter, and 144.41b/ day
TP.
In the initial 15 MGD phase, these allocations exceed the 6.0 mg/L TN and 1.0 mg/L TP
standards established in the TMDL, as well as the 12.0 mg/L value now set for winter TN.
Therefore, the Division expects to calculate the plant's nutrient limits as the mass loads
equivalent to the set concentrations at the 15 MGD design flow. The remainder of each
allocation will be held in reserve, and the permit will apply the active allocations as limits and
also note the reserve allocations.
Once the plant expands to 25 MGD, the full allocations can be applied and will be equivalent to
4.5 mg/L TN summer, 7.6 mg/L TN winter, and 0.7 mg/L TP at full design flow.
The allowable limits for each phase are as follows:
Facility
Summer TN
Winter TN
Annual TP
(mg/L)
(lb/day) 1
(lb/season)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(lb/season)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(lb/year)
Long Creek RWWTP (Holdings)
-
937.5
200,629
-
1,588
239,794
-
144.4
52,713
Phase 1: Limits @ 15 MGD
6.0
750.6
160,628
12.0
1,501
226,681
1.0
125.1
45,662
Phase 1 Reserve
186.9
40,001
86.8
13,113
19.3
7,052
Phase 2: Limits @ 25 MGD
4.5
937.5
200,629
7.6
1,588
239,794
0.69
144.4
52,713
Phase 2 Reserve
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Lk Wylie - Catawba River subwatershed - phased NP limits - final - 20181015
1121/201911:10 AM

ROY COOPER
GomW
MR34AEL&REGAN
Sewmoeiy
UNDA aXPEPPER. WORTH CAROUNA
August I6,201.9
MEMOM"DUM
To: Clinton Co*
14C DBQ DWR / PWS Reeo I nal Engineer
Mooresville Regional Ofte
From: c1aryperimmar
.919-707-3611.
NPI)ES Unit
Subject: Review. of Draft NPDES Permit NCO021 181
Bolmont VIVM
Casten County
MOM intimate below your aswYA position or viewpoint on ft draft permit and return this form by September 19,
2019. If you have IMY.questions on the draft permit, please, feel free to contact M at the telephone number shown
above.,
.-kESPONS133: (Check am)
COAM with the issuance of this permit provided the ficility is %mrated and maintained pror*. the stated
effluent Emits met i to MscharM and the &wJzV does not contravene the designated water quality
sta%dEl . I - am Tr
Concurswith n'suanoc of dw above permit,
•
eeedideas too MR
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based an re w'ns stated below, or attached:
A

Attachment 1
I have no appreciable expertise in implementation of the Clean Water Act requirements and have
minimal understanding of the information provided. As a result, I have no basis for opposing the permit.