NC0020591_Fact Sheet_20191217

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO02O591
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: August 1, 2019
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2°a 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 Statesville Third Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 1111, Statesville, NC 28687
Facility Address:
444 Third Creek Road, Statesville, NC 28677
Permitted Flow:
6.0 MGD (two-phase) / 8.0 MGD Expansion. Expansion to 6.0 MGD
Phase I was completed in October 2015.
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal: 83.6 % Domestic, 16.4 % Industrial'
Facility Class:
Grade 17V
Treatment Units:
Bar screens, Screw pumps, Grit removal, Anaerobic/anoxic basin with
oxidation ditch nutrient removal, Clarification, Chlorine disinfection,
De -chlorination, Aeration, Aerobic digestion
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Iredell
Region
Mooresville
'Calculated from permitted industrial flow of 0.986 MGD provided by PERCS.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Statesville had
submitted an NPDES permit renewal application dated September 4, 2013. This facility serves a population
of 26,971 residents and operates a pretreatment program with six Significant Industrial Users (SIUs): three
Page 1 of 18

metal finishing plants, two textile and one laundry facility. The Division received a partial Engineer's
Certification dated June 15, 2015 and final certification dated October 29, 2015 for the upgrade to 6.0 MGD,
Phase I. The completed Engineer's Certification was received after the permit expiration date of June 30,
2014. Therefore, the 4.0 MGD effluent sheet and all reference to this flow tier have been removed from the
permit.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Third Creek
Stream Segment:
12-108-204
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
55
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
13.2
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
17
30Q2 (cfs):
21
Average Flow (cfs):
56
IWC (% effluent):
41 at 6.0 MGD and 48 at 8.0 MGD
303(d) listed/parameter:
This segment is not listed as impaired in the 2016 Final
303(d) list.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Third Creek TMDL for Turbidity (2011); Statewide TMDL
for Mercury (2012)
Subbasin4WC:
03-07-06 / 03040102
USGS Topo Quad:
E15NW / Shepherds, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data is summarized in Table 1 for the period November 2015 through February 2019, following
completion of the system upgrade from 4.0 to 6.0 MGD on October 29, 2015.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit 1
Flow
MGD
0.9
4.2
0.1
6.0
BOD5
m
3.6
24.0
< 2.0
MA = 12.0
(Apr 1 - Oct 31)
WA = 18.0
BOD5
m
20.3
< 2.0
MA = 24.0
(Nov 1 - Mar 31)
WA = 36.0
BOD5 removal
%
96.3
99.0
91.5
>_ 85
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
4.3
48.8
< 2.5
MA = 30.0
(TSS)
WA = 45.0
Page 2 of 18

Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit 1
TSS removal
%
96.6
99.8
92.3
> 85
Ammonia (NH3-N)
(Apr 1 - Oct 31)
mg/L
0.5
13.6
< 0.1
MA = 2.1
WA = 6.3
Ammonia (NH3-N)
(Nov 1 - Mar 31)
mg/L
0.4
6.7
< 0.1
MA = 4.7
WA = 14.1
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
8.6
13.4
6.2
DA > 5.0
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
#/100 mL
15
8,100
1
MA = 200
WA = 400
Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC)
µg/L
20.0
< 20.0
20.0
DM = 28
Temperature
°C
18
27
9
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
502
1,968
156
Total Phosphorus (TP)
mg/L
4.32
9.36
0.36
Total Nitrogen (TN)
mg/L
6.15
16.90
1.90
TKN
mg/L
1.93
16.80
0.84
NO2 + NO3
mg/L
4.21
7.82
0.10
TP Load
lb/mo
968
1,485
352
TP Load
(Jan 1 -Dec 31)
lb/yr
12,088
13,843
10,771
36,530
TN Load
lb/mo
1,425
2,346
830
TN Load
(Jan 1 - Dec 31)
lb/yr
17,591
18,089
17,278
182,650
pH
SU
7.3
8.1
6.3
6.0-9.0
Total Mercury
ng/L
3.59
27.7
< 1
MA = 12
DM=36
Total Copper
µg/L
18.4
1 ^`
< 2
Total Zinc
µg/L
38.3
70
< 10
Total Silver
µg/L
< 1.4
< 5.0
< 0.5
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
µg/L
12.4
43.9
110.0
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
Page 3 of 18

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), Temperature, Fecal
Coliform, and Conductivity. The current permit lists three instream monitoring locations: U =
approximately 100 ft from the discharge; D1 = 1.9 miles downstream of the discharge at NCSR 2359; and
D2 = 3.5 miles downstream at NCSR 2362. These locations were established in 1989, with D2 representing
the DO sag predicted in a Level B model at 3.4 miles downstream. D1 was placed closer to the discharge
point because the facility's average flow at the time was 1.48 MGD, about half the permitted flow of 4.0
MGD. The upstream location was changed from its original location at NCSR 2342 to —100 ft from the
discharge point because the original location was over a mile from the discharge. The Level B model was
rerun in March 2018 for a nearby facility with more recent data. The model confirmed the DO sag location.
Instream monitoring data collected by Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA, monitoring
coalition) at monitoring stations Q3900000 (upstream) and Q3932000 (downstream) from November 2015
through December 2018 were reviewed. Monitoring Station Q3900000 is located at NCSR 2342, the
original permitted upstream location. Monitoring Station Q3932000 is located at NCSR 2359, the permitted
D 1 location.
Dissolved Oxygen is a parameter of concern for aquatic life. The data analyzed for the period specified
above did not show any values below the DO standard of 5.0 mg/L at either instream station. The effluent
DO during this time ranged from 6.8-11.9 mg/L, with higher summer minima and lower winter maxima
than either instream location (Upstream range: 6.5-10.9 mg/L, Downstream range: 6.3-10.7 mg/L). DO
was found to decrease significantly from upstream to downstream (paired two -sample t-test: t = 10.7, p <
0.001), suggesting that the effluent is negatively impacting the receiving stream DO.
Temperature is a parameter of concern for aquatic life. The data analyzed for the period specified above
indicated that the temperature standard of 29°C for mountain and upper piedmont waters was not exceeded
at either instream station. The effluent temperatures ranged from 11 — 26 'C. Paired upstream -downstream
data did now show any increase from upstream to downstream greater than the standard 2.8 °C with the
maximum increase being 0.9 °C, despite this increase being statistically significant (paired two -sample t-
test: t = -7.2, p < 0.001). The effluent therefore appears to be impacting the receiving stream temperature.
Conductivity is a parameter of concern due to industrial dischargers. The facility operates a pretreatment
program with six Significant Industrial Users (SATs): three metal finishing plants, two textile and one
laundry facility. The data analyzed for the period above showed that the downstream conductivity to be
greater than the upstream (paired two -sample mean t-test: t = -13.1, p < 0.0001). Conductivity averages
were: upstream = 111 µmhos/cm (range: 79-132 µmhos/cm); downstream = 125 µmhos/cm (range: 99-
146 µmhos/cm). Concurrent effluent conductivity was substantially higher with an average of 497
µmhos/cm (range: 262-701 µmhos/cm). The effluent does appear to contribute to the instream
conductivity; instream conductivity monitoring will be maintained in the permit.
Fecal Coliform is a parameter of concern for aquatic life and human health. The data analyzed for the period
specified above showed no difference between the two stations (paired two -sample mean t-test: t = -0.8, p
= 0.4). Coliform geometric means were: upstream = 99 cfu/100 mL (range:40-1400 cfu/100 mL);
downstream = 126 cfu/100 mL (range: 46-1000 cfu/100 mQ. Concurrent effluent coliform counts were
substantially lower with a geometric mean of 16 cfu/100 mL (range: 2-6000 cfu/100 mL). The effluent
does not appear to impact the instream Fecal Coliform. Given this fording and the fact that the receiving
water is not impaired due to Fecal Coliform, instream monitoring for Fecal Coliform is not required and
will be removed from the permit.
Page 4 of 18

Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) are parameters of concern for aquatic life as excess
nutrients are a cause of algal blooms. The receiving water lies upstream of High Rock Lake, which is
impaired for Chlorophyll -a as a result of excessive nutrient loading. DWR is addressing this concern by
developing a nutrient TMDL, management strategy and/or criteria. Although not required in the permit,
instream nutrient concentrations are being monitored by the YPDRBA, of which Third Creek WWTP is a
member, and instream data are available for review.
instream nutrient data analyzed for the period from November 2015 through December 2018 showed no
difference between monitoring stations for TN (paired two -sample t-test: t = 0.02; p = 1.0), but TP tested
higher at the downstream station (paired two -sample t-test: t = -5.57; p < 0.0001). Concurrent effluent data
were much higher than instream values on average for both TN and TP (Table 2).
Table 2. Instream and effluent average (range) nutrient concentrations (mg/L) from samples
collected November 2015-December 2018 at Third Creek WWTP.
Parameter
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Total Nitrogen
1.12 (0.48-3.07)
6.33 (2.29-9.88)
1.11 (0.33-3.03)
Total Phosphorus
0.09 (0.02-0.53)
4.84 (1.30-9.36)
0.19 (0.05-0.73)
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA)
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past S years): The facility has reported two
BOD limit exceedences over the past five years: on July 4, 2015 and July 31, 2015; and one NH3-N limit
exceedence on October 7, 2017. The BOD violations each resulted in a Notice of Violation (NOV); the
NH3-N exceedence resulted in a Notice of Deviation (NOD).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed all 16 of 16 quarterly chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity tests, as well as all
four second species (fathead minnow) chronic toxicity tests, collected in August 2013, October 2013,
January 2014 and April 2014. Four additional fathead minnow tests, in January, April, July and October
2017, also passed.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection
(compliance evaluation), conducted January 31, 2019, indicated that the facility appeared to be well
maintained and operated. The most recent pretreatment compliance inspection was conducted on January
19, 2019 and reported that the City's industrial pretreatment program (i.e., for Third Creek and Fourth
Creek WWTPs combined) was being properly implemented with no compliance issues noted.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin-, Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
Page 5 of 18

If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMLX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 1 SA NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current BOD
limits 12/24 mg/L summer/winter at both 6.0 MGD and 8.0 MGD flows are more stringent than TBELs.
The BOD limits are based on the speculative limits determined via a Level B model for a proposed 9.0
MGD flow expansion on November 30, 2005. No changes are proposed.
Ammonia and Total Resdual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for Ammonia -Nitrogen (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 NH3-N and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current Ammonia
limits for the 6.0 MGD flow tier were placed in the permit in a modification in 2012 based on Instream
Waste Concentration (IWC)-based calculations. The current Ammonia limits for the 8.0 MGD flow tier
were previously placed in the permit in the 2011 renewal based on speculative limits for a prior proposed
expansion to 9.0 MGD. Allowable concentrations were calculated at 8.0 MGD, but were found to be slightly
less conservative than the speculative limits. Therefore, the 9.0 MGD speculative limits were placed in the
permit at 8.0 MGD. The current TRC limits at 6.0 and 8.0 MGD were placed in the 2011 permit and 2012
modification based on IWC-based calculations.
Ammonia and TRC have been reviewed in the attached Wasteload Allocation (WLA) sheet. The IWC-
based calculations were performed using the 7Q10 streamflows of 13.2 cfs summer and 17.0 cfs winter at
the 6.0 and 8.0 MGD flow tiers. At both flow tiers the TRC limit is capped at 28 µg/L and will be maintained
in the permit. The calculations yielded the same Ammonia results as previously run for the current permit
at 6.0 MGD. At 8.0 MGD the calculations yielded the same results as previously calculated, which are
slightly less conservative than those in the current permit. Ammonia limits at both flow tiers will be
maintained. No changes are proposed.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of '/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
Page 6 of 18

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 from December 2015
through February 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 Monitorine. 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: Copper and Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at 6.0 and 8.0 MGD.
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was > 50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Chromium at both flow tiers, and will be deferred to the pretreatment Long Term Monitoring
Program (LTMP).
• No Limit or Monito ' : 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, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium,
Silver, and Zinc at 6.0 and 8.0 MGD.
o Silver results were all below detection, with those from PPAs higher than those from
quarterly monitoring for pretreatment LTMP. The difference was due to different labs
testing via different methods. The Permittee shall report to the lower reporting limit in all
tests.
• 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 at 6.0 or 8.0 MGD.
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 at 6.0
or 8.0 MGD.
o Antimony and Chloroform were detected in the pollutant scans. Neither parameter will
receive a limit or monitoring, since as part of a limited dataset, no sample exceeded the
allowable discharge concentration.
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 lternative 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: Third Creek WWTP is a Major POTW discharging complex
wastewater with chronic WET limits of 41 % effluent at 6.0 MGD and 48% at 8.0 MGD at a quarterly
sampling frequency. The WET limits are based on Instream Waste Concentrations (IWC) calculated from
the two discharge flow tiers and summer 7Q10 of 13.2 cfs. No changes are proposed.
Page 7 of 18

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.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: From a review of effluent data since the
system upgrade to 6.0 MGD in October 2015 through January 2019, no mercury limit is required since no
annual average mercury concentration exceeded the WQBEL at either the 6.0 or 8.0 MGD flow tier, and
no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL (Table 3). Because the facility is > 2 MGD and mercury
was detected in quantifiable levels (> 1 ng/L), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) is required. The current
limits have been removed and an MMP special condition has been added to the permit.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary.
Parameter
2015
2016
2017
2018
201�
No. of Samples
2
12
12
12
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
2.3
1.2
3.5
6.0
Maximum Conc., ng/L
3.40
3.39
8.41
27.7
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L at 6.0 MGD
29.0
WQBEL, ng/L at 8.0 MGD
24.8
Other TMDL/Nutrient Manement Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The facility lies in a section of Third Creek upstream of a section impaired for Turbidity that
received a TMDL for this parameter in 2011. According to the TMDL, Permittees that discharge directly
to, or upstream of the impairment, yet still downstream of an unimpaired ambient monitoring site are subject
to the TMDL. Third Creek WWTP lies upstream of Ambient Monitoring Station Q3932000, which is at the
upstream boundary of the impairment, and therefore is subject to the TMDL. However, calculated TSS
loads at the permitted maximum of 30 mg/L resulted in an insignificant contribution of 0.4542 tons/day or
3.4% of the total TSS load at Ambient Monitoring Station Q3934500 at the downstream end of the
impairment. As a result, no reduction in TSS is required for Third Creek WWTP per the Turbidity TMDL,
and therefore no permit changes are proposed for this parameter. Review of effluent data since the facility
upgrade in 2015 revealed an average of 4.3 mg/L TSS, which is well below the permitted maximum.
The current permit contains tiered nutrient limitations at 6.0 MGD Phase I and II with the latter phase limits
carried over to 8.0 MGD upon expansion (Table 4). These limits were set in light of a potential nutrient
strategy or TMDL for High Rock Lake, which is impaired for Chlorophyll -a, pH and Turbidity.
Chlorophyll -a and pH impairments are associated with algal blooms that are caused by excessive nutrient
loadings to the lake. The facility is a potential source of nutrients to High Rock Lake as the receiving stream
flows to High Rock Lake via the Yadkin River. Weekly effluent Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous
Page 8 of 18

monitoring have been in the permit since 2001 to aid in the development of a High Rock Lake nutrient
management strategy, and nutrient loading limits were placed in the permit in 2011 (Table 4).
Table 4. Nutrient Loading limits and compliance schedule under current permit.
Design Flow
Total Nitrogen
Loading (lb/yr)
Total Phosphorus
Loading (lb/yr)
Phase Compliance
Date
6 MGD Phase I - Interim
182,650
36,530
October 1, 2016
6 MGD Phase II - Final
76,321
15,768
October 1, 2019
8 MGD
76,321
15,768
---
More specifically, the final annual nutrient load limits (for 6.0 MGD Phase II and 8 MGD) were calculated
in 2009 from average monthly loads calculated from data collected in 2006-2008. Average monthly flow
for that period was 1.3 MGD; average effluent nutrient concentrations were 19.1 mg/L TN and 4.0 mg/L
TP. The resulting average daily loads (209.1 lb/mo TN and 43.2 lb/mo TP) were then multiplied by 365
days/yr for the final annual load limits in Table 4.
Final Annual Load Limit = avg MGD x avg nutrient conc./day x 8.34 x 365 day/yr
The interim load limits (for 6.0 MGD Phase I) were calculated using half of the average nutrient
concentrations noted above (i.e., 10.0 mg/L TN and 2.0 mg/L TP) for a permit modification in 2012.
Interim Annual Load Limit = 6.0 MGD x (half of avg nutrient conc./day) x 8.34 x 365 day/yr
The facility had completed Phase I upgrade to 6.0 MGD as described in the Engineer's Certification dated
October 29, 2015. Since that time, three years of data had accumulated for nutrient loading, averaging
12,211 lbs/yr TP load and 17,591 lbs/yr TN load. Although these loadings met the above limits, the facility
had expressed concerns about meeting the limits per the current permit compliance schedule for 6.0 MGD
Phase II, and requested a permit modification via correspondence to DWR in May -December 2014 to
extend the 6.0 MGD Phase II Compliance Date to October 1, 2026. A second letter from the Permittee,
dated April 19, 2018, requested further extension to October 1, 2029, citing the slowed development of the
High Rock Lake nutrient TMDL/management strategy. A discussion was held on June 7, 2018 and an
extended compliance date was agreed for October 1, 2027 to encompass one permit cycle plus 1.5 years to
accommodate facility upgrade efforts to meet the more stringent nutrient limits at the permitted flows. The
agreed -upon extended compliance date will be added to the permit, replacing the current one of October 1,
2019.
The current permit has a special condition describing a nutrient reopener to adjust the permit should the
High Rock Lake TMDL or nutrient management strategy be implemented before the facility expands to 6.0
MGD Phase II. The Division is working with the North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan
Scientific Advisory Council to develop criteria for TN, TP or related parameters. The nutrient reopener will
be modified to include nutrient criteria along with nutrient TMDL and/or management strategy options to
be developed.
The current permit has a special condition with formulae to calculate monthly nutrient mass load. One of
the parameters used in the calculation is total monthly flow. To aid in ensuring that loading data are
calculated accurately, and for consistency with other NPDES permits containing similar nutrient load
conditions, monthly flow monitoring is will be added to the permit.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
Page 9 of 18

If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: The current permit has a tiered
compliance schedule for nutrient (TN and TP) loading at 6.0 MGD, Phase I by October 1, 2016, and at 6.0
MGD, Phase 11 by October 1, 2019 (Table 4). Phase I was completed in October 29, 2015 and thus that part
of the compliance schedule will be removed from the permit. The City of Statesville has requested a
modification to the Phase 11 compliance date to be extended to October 1, 2026 to allow "the addition of
treatment components for improved nutrient removal." The City then submitted a second request in April
2018 to further extend the compliance schedule to October 1, 2029, citing the slowed High Rock Lake
nutrient TMDL/management strategy development. After discussion with the City, the Phase 11 nutrient
compliance schedule has been extended to October 1, 2027.
A three-year compliance schedule has been added to meet the proposed limits for Copper and Bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate. The proposed compliance schedule includes annual milestones of: 1) a requirement
for the Permittee to submit an Action Plan, 2) a requirement for the Permittee to submit a summary report
of actions taken, and 3) a requirement to meet compliance with the limits by the end of the schedule period.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (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
BOD51TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BODs/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justication for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS 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
Page 10 of 18

9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): 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.
The current permit has no reduced monitoring frequencies of effluent parameters.
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:
All permit conditions for the 4.0 MGD design flow have been removed. Since the receipt of the final
Engineer's Certification, dated October 29, 2015, for the facility expansion to 6.0 MGD design flow, the
limits and permit conditions associated with 6.0 MGD, Phase I (Table 5), are proposed as current. Permit
conditions, limits and their proposed changes for 6.0 MGD, Phase II and 8.0 MGD design flows are
summarized in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 3t 6.0 MGD, Phase I.
Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
6.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Page 11 of 18

Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change'
Basis for Condition/Change
Total Monthly
No requirement
Monitor monthly
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Flow (MG/mo)
and Total Phosphorus mass loads.
Summer
MA 12.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Speculative limits for a
BOD5
WA 18.0 mg/L
No change
proposed 9 MGD in Finding of No
Winter
Significant Impact and Environment
MA 24.0 mg/L
(NCDENR-DWQ 2010).
WA 36.0 mg/L
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406
Summer
WQBEL. Calculation results based
MA 2.1 mg/L
on NC's use of EPA criteria in
NH3-N
WA 6.3 mg/L
No change
developing 1.0 mg/L summer and
Winter
1.8 mg/L winter values in wasteload
MA 4.7 mg/L
allocations to protect against NH3-N
WA 14.1 mg/L
toxicity. See attached WLA sheet.
Dissolved Oxygen
> 5 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
No change in effluent.
NCAC 2B .0200. Receiving stream
(geometric mean)
WA 400 /100 mL
Remove instream
not impaired due to coliform;
monitoring.
instream values higher than effluent
values.
TRC
DM 28 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
WLA Calculation
Temperature (°C)
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508.
Conductivity
(µmhos/cm)
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508.
15A NCAC 02B .0508; weekly
Total Nitrogen
Monitor weekly
No change
monitoring was set in 2001 for
(TN) (mg/L)
development of nutrient
management strategy.
TKN (mg/L)
Monitor weekly
No change
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B
.0508.
NO3-N + NO2-N
Monitor weekly
No change
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B
(mg/L)
.0508.
Anticipated Nutrient Management
TN Load (lb/mo)
Monitor monthly
No change
Strategy / TMDL for High Rock
Lake
TN Load
Calculated annual load from
(Jan 1 Dec 31)
182,6501bs/yr
No change
effluent TN concentrations and
monthly flows from 2006-2008.
Page 12 of 18

Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
15A NCAC 0213.0508; weekly
Total Phosphorus
Monitor weekly
No change
monitoring was set in 2001 for
(TP) (mg/L)
development of nutrient
management strategy.
TP Load (lb/mo)
Monitor monthly
No change
Anticipated Nutrient Management
Strategy/TMDL for High Rock Lake
TP Load
Calculated annual load from
(Jan 1 Dec 31)
36,530 lbs/yr
No change
effluent TP concentrations and
monthly flows from 2006-2008.
PH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15ANCAC
2B .0200
Ceriodaphnia pass/fail
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Chronic Toxicity
at 41 % effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B .0200 and
15A NCAC 213.0500
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards,
Total Hardness
No requirement
Monitor quarterly
approved in 2016, need effluent and
instream hardness data for
calculations of permit limitations.
MA 28.3 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
DM 35.9 µg/L
exceed allowable discharge
Total Copper
Monitor quarterly
Add 3-yr compliance
concentration (Cw) found in
schedule
Reasonable Potential Analysis
(RPA).
WQBEL. No reasonable potential to
Remove from permit.
exceed allowable discharge Cw
Total Silver
Monitor quarterly
Analyze to the lower
found in RPA; all effluent data were
reporting level of the
non -detects. Non -detects in PPAs
procedure in PPAs
were above allowable
concentrations.
No reasonable potential found to
Total Zinc
Monitor quarterly
Remove from permit
exceed allowable discharge Cw;
max Cw < 50% of allowable Cw.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
MA 2.6 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
phthalate
Monitor quarterly
Add 3-yr compliance
exceed allowable discharge Cw
schedule
found.
Remove from permit.
In accordance with 2012 Statewide
Total Mercury
MA 12 ng/L
Add Mercury
Mercury TMDL Implementation,
DM 36 ng/L
Minimization Plan
per facility size and monitoring data
(MMP).
criteria.
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per permit
No change
40 CFR 122
Scan
cycle
Electronic
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
'MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
Page 13 of 18

Table 6. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 6.0 MGD, Phase II.
Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change'
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
6.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly
No requirement
Monitor monthly
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Flow (MG/mo)
and Total Phosphorus loads.
Summer
MA-12.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Speculative limits based
BOD5
WA 18.0 mg/L
No change
on 9 MGD in Finding of No
Winter
Significant Impact and Environment
MA 24.0 mg/L
(NCDENR-DWQ 2010).
WA 36.0 mg/L
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406
Summer
WQBEL. Calculation results based
MA 2.1 mg/L
on NC's use of EPA criteria in
NH3-N
WA 6.3 mg/L
No change
developing 1.0 mg/L summer and
Winter
1.8 mg/L winter values in wasteload
MA 4.7 mg/L
allocations to protect against NH3-N
WA 14.1 mg/L
toxicity. See attached WLA sheet.
Dissolved Oxygen
> 5 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
—
NCAC 2B .0200
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
No change in effluent.
NCAC 2B .0200. Receiving stream
(geometric mean)
WA 400 /100 mL
Remove instream
not impaired due to coliform;
monitoring.
instream values higher than effluent
values.
TRC
DM 28 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
WLA Calculation
Temperature (°C)
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508.
Conductivity
(µmhos/cm)
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508.
Total Nitrogen
(TN) (mg/L
Monitor weekly
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508.
TKN (mg/L)
Monitor weekly
No change
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B
.0508.
NO3-N + NO2-N
Monitor weekly
No change
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B
(mg/L)
.0508.
TN Load (lb/mo)
Monitor monthly
No change
Anticipated Nutrient Management
Strategy/TMDL for High Rock Lake
TN Load
76,321 lbs/yr, effective
Effective date
extended to October 1,
Extension granted per discussion
(Jan. 1 — Dec. 31)
October 1, 2019
2027
with Permittee.
Page 14 of 18

Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
15A NCAC 02B .0508; weekly
Total Phosphorus
Monitor weekly
No change
monitoring was set in 2001 for
(TP) (mg/L)
development of nutrient
management strategy.
Anticipated Nutrient Management
TP Load (lb/mo)
Monitor monthly
No change
Strategy / TMDL for High Rock
Lake
Calculated annual load from effluent
TP Load
15,768 lbs/yr, effective
Effective date
TP concentrations and monthly
(Jan. 1 —Dec. 31)
October 1, 2019
extended to October 1,
flows from 2006-2008. Extension
2027
granted per discussion with
Permittee.
PH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Ceriodaphnia pass/fail
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Chronic Toxicity
at 41% effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B .0200 and
15A NCAC 2B .0500
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards,
Total Hardness
No requirement
Monitor quarterly
approved in 2016, need effluent and
instream hardness data for
calculations of permit limitations.
MA 28.3 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
Total Copper
Monitor quarterly
DM 35.9 µg/L
exceed allowable discharge Cw
found.
Remove from permit.
WQBEL. No reasonable potential to
Analyze to the lower
exceed allowable discharge Cw
Total Silver
Monitor quarterly
reporting level of the
found; all effluent data were non -
procedure in PPAs
detects. Non -detects in PPAs were
above allowable concentrations.
No reasonable potential to exceed
Total Zinc
Monitor quarterly
Remove from permit
allowable discharge Cw found; max
Cw < 50% of allowable Cw.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
phthalate
Monitor quarterly
MA 2.6 µg/L
exceed allowable discharge Cw
found.
Remove from permit.
In accordance with 2012 Statewide
Total Mercury
MA 12 ng/L
Add Mercury
Mercury TMDL Implementation,
DM 36 ng/L
Minimization Plan
per facility size and monitoring data
(MMP)
criteria.
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per permit
No change
40 CFR 122
Scan
cycle
Electronic
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
'MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
Page 15 of 18

Table 7. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 8.0 MGD.
Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
8.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly
No requirement
Monitor monthly
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Flow (MG/mo)
and Total Phosphorus loads.
Summer
MA 12.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Speculative limits based
BODs
WA 18.0 mg/L
No change
on 9 MGD in Finding of No
Winter
Significant Impact and Environment
MA 24.0 mg/L
(NCDENR-DWQ 2010).
WA 36.0 mg/L
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406
Summer
MA 1.7 mg/L
WQBEL. Speculative limits based
NH3-N
WA 5.1 mg/L
No change
on 9 MGD in Finding of No
Winter
Significant Impact and Environment
MA 4.1 mg/L
(NCDENR-DWQ 2010).
WA 12.3 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
> 5 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
—
NCAC 2B .0200
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
No change in effluent.
NCAC 2B .0200. Receiving stream
(geometric mean)
WA 400 /100 mL
Remove instream
not impaired due to coliform;
monitoring.
instream values higher than effluent
values.
TRC
I)M 28 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
WLA Calculation
Temperature (°C)
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508.
Conductivity
(µmhos/cm)
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508.
Total Nitrogen
(TN) (mom)
Monitor weekly
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508.
TKN (mg/L)
Monitor weekly
No change
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B
.0508.
NO3-N + NO2-N
Monitor weekly
No change
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B
(mg/L)
.0508.
Anticipated Nutrient Management
TN Load (lb/mo)
Monitor monthly
No change
Strategy / TMDL for High Rock
Lake
TN Load
Calculated annual load from effluent
(Jan. 1 —Dec. 31)
76,321 lbs/yr
No change
TN concentrations and monthly
flows from 2006-2008.
Page 16 of 18

Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change'
Basis for Condition/Change
Total Phosphorus
(TP) (mg/L)
Monitor weekly
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Anticipated Nutrient Management
TP Load (lb/mo)
Monitor monthly
No change
Strategy / TMDL for High Rock
Lake
TP Load
Calculated annual load from effluent
(Jan. 1 Dec. 31)
15,768 lbs/yr
No change
TP concentrations and monthly
flows from 2006-2008.
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Ceriodaphnia pass/fail
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Chronic Toxicity
at 48% effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B .0200 and
15A NCAC 2B .0500
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards,
Total Hardness
No requirement
Monitor quarterly
approved in 2016, need effluent and
instream hardness data for
calculations of permit limitations.
MA 24.8 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
Total Copper
Monitor quarterly
DM 32.0 µg/L
exceed allowable discharge Cw
found.
Remove from permit.
WQBEL. No reasonable potential to
Analyze to the lower
exceed allowable discharge Cw
Total Silver
Monitor quarterly
reporting level of the
found; all effluent data were non -
procedure in PPAs
detects. Non -detects in PPAs were
above allowable concentrations.
No reasonable potential to exceed
Total Zinc
Monitor quarterly
Remove from permit
allowable discharge Cw found; maxpredicted
Cw < 50% of allowable
Cw.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
phthalate
Monitor quarterly
MA 2.0 µg/L
exceed allowable discharge Cw
found.
Replace with Mercury
In accordance with 2012 Statewide
Total Mercury
MA 12 ng/L
Minimization Plan
Mercury TMDL Implementation,
DM 36 ng/L
(MMP)
per facility size and monitoring data
criteria.
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per permit
No change
40 CFR 122
Scan
cycle
Electronic
requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
accordance with EPA Electronic
InNo
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
'MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
Page 17 of 18

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 06/27/2019
Per 15A NCAC 211.0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO; no comments were
received from Permittee, Regional Office, EPA or any other party
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Pretreatment Information Request Form
• Effluent monitoring summary tables and charts
• Instream monitoring data and charts
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations sheet
• WET Testing and Self Monitoring sheet, page 102
• Fathead Minnow (2' species) WET test lab reports from 8/2013, 10/2013, 1/2014 and 4/2014
• Compliance Evaluation Report, 01 /31 /2019
• Pretreatment Compliance Inspection Report, 1/19/2019
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheets for 6.0 and 8.0 MGD design flows
• RPA Spreadsheet Summaries for 6.0 and 8.0 MGD design flows
• Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheets for 6.0 and 8.0 MGD design flows
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater memo
• Mercury Data Statistics tables for 6.0 and 8.0 MGD design flows
• Phase II extension request letters, 2014 and 2018
Page 18 of 18

000%
NPDES/A uifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
Check all that apply
-Form
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you oet this form back
from PERCS:
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should be
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
(or NOV POTW).
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
changes.
Date of Request
10/23/2018
municipal renewal
X
Requestor
Gary Perlmutter
new industries
FacilRy Name
Third Creek WWTP
WWTP expansion
Permit Number
NC00 0591
Speculative limits
RegionlMoonisville
stream reclass.
Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
outfall relocation
7Q10 cha a
ntharl
check applicable PERCS staff: Other Comments to PERCS:
BIRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
Vivien Zhon 807-6310 Facility is rated 6.0 MGD wtih six SIUs listed in its applicaation, and is listed
x CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD in POTW with pretreatment spreadsheet.
Monti Hassan 807-6314)
PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIUs, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGDJ
Permitted
Actual
Time period for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
U
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
Next Cycle:
d
e -
St fD
iC
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
BOD
TSS
POC due to Required
NPDES/ Non- Required by POC due
by 503 *ti
Disch Permit EPA* Sludge"" to SIU
Limit
POTW POC
(Explain
below)—*
STMP
Effluent
Freq
L P
Effluent
Fr
Q = Quarterly
M = Monthly
40
M
4
4
Q M
Q M
NH3
Arsenic
4
Q M
Cadmium
/
4
Q M
Chromium
ti
4
Q M
Copper
/
✓
4
Q M
Cyanide
l
4
Q M
Is all data on DMRs?
Lead
/
/
4
Q M
YES
Mercury
/
4
Q M
NO attach data
Molybdenum
/
4
Q M
Nickel
/
.�
4
Q M
Silver
.�
4
Q M
Selenium
4
Q M
Zanc
f
4
Q M
Is data in spreadsheet?
Total Nitrogen
4
Q M
YES email to writer
Phosphorus
4
Q M
NO
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M',
/Always in ute t- I Mrrb I Mr -- only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composts (dif POCs for incinerators)
** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
3 fib Crgc LJWTp 11A 5 +kl
r1� Ih��e• la�lt►`rj, CkYYJL#A\f
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.form.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020591
�[•1r.5
Mo Avg Limit
7.0
6.0
5.0
0 4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 rrrrr#rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr� r
0.0
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Wk Avg Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
40.0
35.0
30.0
J 25.0
0 20.0
E 15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
oyh
yeti
50
45
40
35
30
o� 25
E 20
15
10
5
0
tih
!69 oti� oti� oti� ZP OP otio
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Wk Avg ♦ Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
Summa
Statistics
n
1214
Average
0.9
SD
0.5
Min
0.1
Max
4.2
Max monthly avg
1.5 MGD
25% of limit
Summary Statistics
Summer
!F
n
447
Average
3.6
SD
2.8
Min
2.0
Max
24.0
Winter
n
385
Average
3.1
SD
1.6
Min
2.0
Max
20.3
Summary
Statistics
n
832
Average
4.3
SD
2.7
Min
2.5
Max
_ 48.8
Page 1 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Effluent Monitoring
NCO020591
16
14
12
J 10
ob 8
E 6
4
2
0
Ammonia (NH3-N)
Wk Avg Mo Avg WA Limit
A IN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Effluent Limit
MA Limit
16.0
14.0
12.0
J 10.0 •
tz 8.0
E 6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
O10 O,A
Temperature
30
25
20
15
e y
10
5
0
O,O Q0 56N O,^ O,O O,� O,O
Summary Statistics
Summer
n
447
Average
0.5
SD
1.2
Min
0.1
Max
13.6
Winter
n
385
Average
0.4
SD
0.5
Min
0.1
Max
6.7
Summa�r rr
Statistics
n
832
Average
8.6
SD
1.0
Min
6.2
Max
13.4
Summary Statistics
n
833
Average
18.4
SD
4.4
Min
9
Max
_ 27
Page 2
GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020591
Conductivity
2,500
2,000
E 1,500
N
0
E 1,000
m
500
•
0
O,A O,A O, O,� OC
\tiy\� ti\�1\~ w\tio\� 1151 ti o\tip\� t\tio\ti o\��\�
1
Total Phosphorus (TP)
10.0
9.0 ♦�•
8.0
7.0 •y♦s •
6.0
a 5.0 ♦♦40
• •♦�i s♦ • •♦ ♦i
4.0 •♦ • �♦ ♦NZ♦ • s
2.0
♦'�►♦ • •i
1.0 ♦ • ♦ •
0.0 •
otio'
otio
otio
otio
otio
otio'
otio
otio
o\�
4T
\�
A�ti
otio\T
o�4T
a�1o\T\\�
h�14P
Total Nitrogen (TN)
TKN NO2+NO3 TN
18
16
14
12 •
10 ♦ + • +
E •
6
4' '►'�;
* f * # •
2 '; A6L J �
o
otio' otio otio otio otio otio otio otio
SummaryStatistics
n
833
Average
502
SD
136
Min
156
Max
1968
Summary_
Statistics
n
175
Average
4.32
SD
2.03
Min
0.36
Max
9.36
Summary
Statistics
TN
n
3
Average
12,088
SD
1,582
Min
10,771
Max
13,843
NO2 + NO3
n
3
Average
12,088
SD
1,582
Min
10,771
Max
13,843
TKN
n
175
Average
4.32
SD
2.03
Min
0.36
Max
9.36
Page 3 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020591
TP Load
1,600
1,400
1,200 •• •• ♦ •
c 1,000
• ♦ •♦
800 ♦• ♦• •
E •
600
400
f
200
0
tih do do ti� ti� � titi� do
vl �
TN Load
2,500
2,000 l
J ,1,500
t
E 1,000
500
0
10
RIP
�\yy�ti y\~ o\y��ti �\o�ti o\�ti\ti �\yo\ti
O,0
OIP
pH
y Effluent L. Limit U. Limit
10.0
9.0
8.0
H 7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
-
—
oti�'
otio
otio
otio
oti1
Otis'
otio otio
'\ISO
0��4'�
a�1��ti
y0��A\V h�ti4\
Summary Statistics
Monthly
n 40
Average 968
SD 304
Min 352
Max 1,485
Annual
n 3
Average 12,088
SD 1,582
Min 10,771
Max 13,843
Summary
Statistics
Monthly
n
40
Average
1,425
SD
378
Min
830
Max
2,346
Annual
n
3
Average
17,591
SD
435
Min
17,278
Max
18,089
Summary
Statistics
n
832
Average
7.30
SD
0.34
Min
6.30
Max
8.10
Page 4
GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Effluent Monitoring
NCO020591
Mercury (Hg)
♦ Effluent — — — MA Limit — DM Limit
40
35
30
25
'11 20
c
15
10
O,� O,A O00 O00
ti
Total Copper (Cu)
120
100
80
J
60
40
20
0
-
-
—�
00
ci
otio
oti�
oti"
oti�
(i
Qti
I\\tih\�
ti\�y\�\ti�\�
�\�\ti
�\�,v�ti
a\tio\T
�o\�,�\'L
Total Zinc (
80
70
60
50
J
m 40
30 • ♦ •
20 •
10
0 - -
o`'
Summary
Statistics
n
41
Average
3.55
SD
4.49
Min
1.00
Max
27.70
Summary
Statistics
n
16
Average
18.37
SD
28.08
Min
2.00
Max
- 105.00_
Summar v Statistics
n
16
Average
38.31
SD
16.52
Min
10.00
Max
70.00
Page 5 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020591
Total Silver (Ag)
6.0
5.0
4.0
J
o� 3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 -. .
oy
O,b
O,O
O,A
O,�
O,90
O,lb
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phtha late
50.0 r
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
J
nQ 25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
♦
♦ 4
5.0
0.0
,�
"ZI
O�6
O,� O,- O,- %V
O00
5SN
�
ti�
w3\b�ti a�ti~\� a��o\�
OP,,��ti
Summary
Statistics
n
16
Average
1.38
SD
1.80
Min
0.50
Max
_ 5.000
Summary
Statistics
n
14
Average
12.42
SD
9.06
Min
10.00
Max
43.90
Page 6 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020591
Dissolved oxvsren (DO) (m_a/L)
Date Upstream Effluent Dnstream Standard
2015-11-091
8.51
11.91
8.3
5.0
2015 12-07-
10.4
7.91
10.4
5.0
2016-01-11
10.9i
11.2
10.7,
5.0
2016-02-22
101
9.2
9.9.
5.0
_9.8
_ 9.5
8.2
_ 8._1
9.71
_ 9.4
5.0
5.0
_2016-03-211
2016-04-18
2016-05-16
8.8
9.6
9.31
8.7
7.5
5.0
5.0
20_16-05-2_7
7.8
2016-06-13
2016-06-27
- --7.4
6.9
8.7
8.8�
7.3
6.81
5.0
5.0
2016-07-18
2016-07-28
...__6.9
6.5
-_ 7.8'
-_ 6.81
6.4,
5.0
5.0
2016-08-15
_ 7.3
^ 7.1
_ __7.5
_ _8
s 8
_
_ _ 7.1
6.9
5.0
5.0
2016-08-29
2016-09-191
_
6.9{
_
7.91
_ ` - 6.8
5.0
2016-09-29
6.91
8.11
_ 6.7
5.0
2016-10-17
81
_
-
-7.9j
5.0
2016-11-14
_
10.1
_8.91
_ 9.1�
-___ -_
_ 10.21
5.0
2016-12-12
10^15
8
9.9
5.0
2017-01-17
_
10.26
10.11
7.6
7.6.
9.8
10
5.0
5.0
_2017-02-13
2017-03-27
- -
-8.21
6.9�
8.1
5.0
2017-04-241
6.9
S.2
6.7
5.0
2017-05-081
-7-6
8.8�._7.41
5.0
2017-05-221
7.1
8�
6.9�
5.0
2017-06-19
7.2
8.2
6.9
5.0
2017-06-291
- 7
_
d 8.2
_ _
6.9
5.0
f 2017-07-17+
- _.._. 7.
7.6
-
5.0
f 2017-07-271
- - 6.51
7.-S
_6.7
6.5
5.0
2017-08-141
7.11
7.9
_ 6.71
5.0
E 20_17 08 24
6
6.3
5.0
2017-09_-18
-_'- 6.91
_7.8
- - 8.1-
6_._8�
5.0
2017-09-28
- 71
8
6.8
5.0
12017-1.0-16
7.2
8.2
6.9
5.0
2017-11-13
i 9.81
8.3
9.7
5.0
1 201.7-12-111
10.81
8.3
�' 10.5
5.0
2018-01-22
2018-02-19�
2018-03-19
10.1
. 9.9__..
9.6
i - 8,8
8.2I
i 8.1
� 10
9.8
i 9.3
5.0
5.0
� 5.0
1 2018-04-09
_ _......__ ...._
9.4
_-__--. _..
7.8_
_.._._
9.3
5.0
2018 05 14
.7.5
7.3
-7.2
5.0
2018-05_-30
6.7
7.4.
6_._6
5.0
2018-06-18
7.2
8
6.8
5.0
2018-06-28
-_6.9
7.9
6.61,
5.0
2018-07-16
7.4j
6.8
7
5.0
2018-07-26
7
8.4
5.0
2018-08-10r
7.V
- 8 4�
_ _ _6.8�
7T3�
5.0
Page 1 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020591
Dissolved oxvaen (DO) (ma/L
Date
Upstream Effluent
Dnstream
Standard
2018-08-27.
7.1
7.9.
7.2
5.0
2018-09-20-
7.7
7.9
7.3
5.0
2018-09-291
7.9
7.4
5.0
2018-10-171
8.3
8.3;
8
5.0
2018-11-07'
8.7,
8.7i
8.5-
5.0
2018-12-05,
9.9,
10.3'
9.7,•
5.0
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
N
53
52
53
Average
8.1
8.3
8.0
SD
1.4
0.9
1.4
Min
6.5
6.8
6.3
Max
10.9
11.9
10.7
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
�k- Upstream Effluent Dnstream Standard
14.0
12.0
10.0
&0
an
E 6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Page 2 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020591
Fecal coliform W100 mL
Date Upstream Effluent Dnstream
2015-11-09
1541
23]
2201
2015-12-_071
74
1291
1_0_01
2016-01-11
...881_
2016-02-22
2016-03-2_1
__ 88
86
17
-24
1381
_ 128'l
2016-04-18
T �- - __. 110
__ ...--.
- 111
_
_ 139,
2016-05-16
_2_016_-0613
9
"_...__._..._-116129
_
261
--
T--__1341
108
2016-_07-18
86
C
25 j
1201
2016-08-151
1121-
11
146�
2016-09-19!
108
13�
_
1441�
2016-10-17
_
Y _..
71
2016-11-14j_
_ _14_1
64
_ ....___.
_. 71
_130j
90i
2016-12-12
_ _ _
-_86
9�
-
---_ _98
2017-01-17
70E
18
86
017-02-13i_-.-
1.
71__......__._
92
1017-03,-37
_._ ._ _58.
741
__-
....,_
7
102
2017-04-24 .
131
6000
_
230
2017-05-08
21
74i
2017-06`191__
—4"`l-
68
_
1061
2017-07-17
58,
5
35
_ �86
2017-08-141
621
2017-09-181
701
9
98
2017-10-16
56
11
68k
2017-11-13,
2017-12-11
58
661
- 60i
581
86
90
2018-01-221
761
92
2018-02-19 E-
_ ... -4
_
_5
51
..
....._82 E
2018-03-19 i
136;
-
- 9
46�
- V901
2018-04-R
66i
5
2018-05-1
66j
5
90
2018-06-181
701
5
_
` �V 88
2018-07-1
76k
3�
96
2018-08-27
_. _.... ....
_62-
_..
--_5,
_72l
2018 09-201
4301
6(
4801
2018-10-1711
4901
3300
-11�
936
2018-11-07
1400
550
2018-12-051
580
51
10001
Page 3 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring
NC0020591
Fecal coliform {#/100 mL�
Date Upstream Effluent Dnstream
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
N
38
38
38
GeoMean
99.3
15.9
126.0
SD
239.2
1094.4
213.9
Min
40
2
46
Max
1400
6000
1000
Fecal Coliform
--A— Upstream Effluent
Dnstream
10,000
1,000
JC
C
0
100
10
1
-
ti5
3ti ti00 o� titi
do
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one -tail
t Critical one -tail
P(T<=t) two -tail
t Critical two -tail
_ Upstream
Dnstream
151.1053
174.7632
57194.15
45741.05
38
38
0.709303
0
37
-0.83676
0.20405
1.687094
0.4081
2.026192
Conclusion: no difference between upstream and downstream coliform counts.
Page 4 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020591
Specific conductance (Wcm)
Date Upstream Effluent Dnstream
2015-11-09' 106 5841 119,
2015-12-071 121 3861 1301
_2016-01-11� 126 416 1391
2016-02-22 �123 593 143,
2016-03 21- 107 646i_ 146
2016-04-18 , 109 118
�2016-05-16 108) 4401 _ 1191
-20"16-05-i7j-�----�_-113 -_-^--V-�5571--_ -�- 117
2016-06-13 119w _- -670 - 132J
2016-06 - -`121j 529 141
2016-07-18"� - - 121... 4481 _ _ - 1291
-- � -_
2016-07-28 _ F _ 108 497 _ 119 1'
2016-08-15 _ 1041 473 1191
2016-08-29 116E 535 134�
--�f_.._ ..__.._
2016-09-19 124 142
_459' _ _� _—
2016-09-291 120 406 144�
2016-10-17 116_- 493 - -131
2016-11-14 114 6351 118
2016-12-12
2017 01-17 _ _112J 4161 129`
2017-02-113, 106 _570 116
1-�017-03-27 981 43511' 1061
12017-04-24 96 E 262' 106
12017-05-081 119 43_71 _ _ -1261
12017-05-22 110 512 1191
I2017-06-191 94 4801 122
2017-06-29 118 477 133
1.2017-07-17 -- 106 - 327 - 1371
2017-07-27 1 119 4751 14_6
2017_08-141 1061 516 1411
2017-08-24 1291 639 141
2 017-0918 1191 447 125
2017-09-28j 1091 5191 127
2017-10-16 1291 589[ T 136
2017-11.13 -91 539� - �-114
2017-12-111 1061 6201 _ _- 121�
2018-01-22 105-1 482� 116
2018-02-19 1 108 4111 117
18-03-191. 1141 392f 129
2018-04-09 110 484i 126
2018-05-141 119 580 _ 129J
2018-05 1322E 3661 1411.
2018-06-181 125 7011 139I
2018-06-28, 1191 5291 - 1431
2018-07-16 _1211 _ _ 524 _ 140_jI
2018-07-26 - 110 V 525 133
2018 08-10 79 463 100
Page 5 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020591
Svecific conductance Wlcm
Date
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
2018-08-27-
116!
5361
120,
2018-09-20
85 `;
431 !
99
2018-09-29 i
89''
104':
2018-10-17
94
324,
101?
' 2018-11-07
1041
432'
103
2018-12-05
91'.
334ii
99.
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
N
53
52
53
Average
111.0
497.4
125.5
SD
11.8
98.3
13.5
Min
79
262
99
Max
132
701
146
Specific Conductivity
—� Upstream 2, Effluent —0 Dnstream
800
700
600�
0 00
4
0 00 lr�
V
300
200
100
0
a�, Oti aw o3 O°� oa do Oy
ti5y� ti5V �oyc,
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream
Dnstream
Mean
111.03774
125.5283
Variance
138.53701
181.06168
Observations
53
53
Pearson Correlation
0.8044196
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
52
t Stat
-13.105652
P(T<=t) one -tail
2.078E-18
t Critical one -tail
1.6746892
P(T<=t) two -tail
4.156E-18
t Critical two -tail
2.0066468
Conclusion: downstream conductivity is higher than upstream conductivity.
Page 6 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020591
Temperature, water Idea Q
Date Upstream Effluent Dnstream D-U Diff Standard
2015-11-09 12.3 181 12.7 ( 0.4 29.0
2015-12-07 8 14 -- 8.8 0.8 29.0
2016-01-11�_ .5.8 14, 6.1 0.3 29.0
2_016-02-221 J89
67 1 7� 0.3 29.0
2016-03-21 ____18 8.9 0 29.0
2016-04-18 12.5 16113 0.5 29.0
� _ _61 _. _ - __-_
2016-0 5-16� 13.9 201_ _ _ 14.41 0.5 29.0
k` 2016-05-27� 20.2 21� 20.61 0.4 29.0
2016-06-13p --21.5 __.______.23` 21.8 0.3 29.0
2016-06-2723.1 24 23.2 0.1 29.0
2016-07-181 25.1�- 251 _ 25.7 0.6 29.0
2016-07-281 _26_6j___ . -_26! 27.5 0.9 29.0
2016-08-15 24.41 26�Y 24.6 0.2 29.0
2016-08-29! - - 23.4 - 25 - 23.6 0.2 29.0
_i _ 22.7j_- .T_.---_
2016-09-19 - - 23.6 24 ^-- 23. 0.2 29.0
2016-09-29
--f -` 24 23 0.3 29.0
2016-10-17^ 15:5E - 21_ 15.7j 0.2 29.0
T2016-11-141 10I 18' 10.1 0.1 29.0
2016-12-121 6.8 16 6.9 0.1 29.0
2017-01-17 _ 9.2 -' T 16 - 9.9 0.7 29.0
2017-02-131 11.2E 151 11.3 0.1 29.0
2017-03-27 E 14.1 171..,14.3 p 0.2 29.0
_20_1_7-04-24I 13.9, 18 i _ ... _. 14.1 0.2 29.0
2017-05-08 E 141 17 14.3 0.3 29.0
2017-05-22A 19.7� _ 21 19.8 0.1 29.0
2017-06-1923.4 23 i_ _24 0.6 29.0
2017-06-29 21.3 .1 2.1._6 0.3 29.0
_2
-2017.07-17 23.4 31j _ 24 0.6 29.0
2017-07-271 25.21 25.4 0.2 29.0
2017-08-14..23.7 24i 24 0.3 29.0
._-_.._ _.--_..--
2017-09-18 20.6E 22f 21 0.4 29.0
r 2017-09-28 - - 23.2i - - - 22; ' 23.3 0.1 29.0
2017-10-16 18.917 23 19.4 0.5 29.0
2017-11-131 7.9 -- ~17 -_ 8.2 0.3 29.0
2017-12-111 --- 4.3 12 - 5 0.7 29.0
2018-0142E - 4.9 11: _ 5.1 0.2 29.0
2018-02-19 10.6 151 10.91 0.3 29.0
2018-03-19 Ili 151 11.2E 0.2 29.0
2018-04-09 10.61 16; 10.9 f 0.3 29.0
2018-05p14� -- _-20- - 22� .,20 0.3 29.0
2018-05-30 23.4j__ 22= 23.6 0.2 29.0
2018 06-181 23.2E 23' 23.61 0.4 29.0
2018-06-28j 24.4E 23E 24.6 0.2 29.0
2018-07-16g 24.21 25; 24.8 0.6 29.0
2018-07-261 24.5 23 24N0.3 29.0
M2018-08-10� ! ~ 25.11 �- 24 24.5 -0.6 29.0
2018-08-27 � 22.1 231 22.3 0.2 29.0
Page 7 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020591
.Temperature, water (deg C]
Date
Upstream Effluent
Dnstream D-U Diff
_
Standard
2018-09-20j
22'
23
21.9'
-0.1
29.0
2018-09-29�
22.7
22.1'
-0.6
29.0
2018-10-17i
19.2,
22
19.2
0
29.0
2018-11-071
13.1,
18
13.2
0.1
29.0
2018-12-05
8.7
13-
8.W
0.1
29.0
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
D-U Diff
N
52
51
52
52
Average
17.2
20.0
17.5
0.3
SD
6.8
4.1
6.8
0.3
Min
4.3
11
5
-0.6
Max
26.6
26
27.5
0.9
Temperature
—Ar-- Upstream
Effluent E Dnstream
Standard
35
30
25
20
U
15
10
5
0
yh
3ti yw
o(0 titi yo
y� yh
°X
°� °�
°3 °� °°
do oy
b -ICI
ION
IV IV
Page 8 GB Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Nutrient Monitoring NCO020591
Total Nitrooen (TN) (mall)
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
TN
Date NO2+NO3 TKN Upstream
NO2+NO3 TKN Dnstream
2015-11-09
. 0.591
1.09' 1.68
7.57
0.65
0.48
1.13
�2015-12-07I
- _ 1.02-
_--_0.21 1.22
6.36
0.921
0.21
1.13
12016-01-11
_ 1
0.25I 1.25
4.73
0.951
- -
0.24
1.19
2016-02-22
{ 2016-03-21
j 0.8_9
- - 0.59,�
_0.2 1 1.09
- �_ 0.2 0.79
4.61
8.14
0.82
- 0.57
0.2
0.25
1.02
0.82
2016-04-18
_
2016-05-16
0.61
�- 1.38
_ _ 0.34 0.95
0
-^ 0.22° 1.6
6.59
4.17
0.62
_
-� 0.88
0.25
-0.281
0.87
1.16
1 2016-06-13
12016-07-181
__ 0.63'
0.54,
_0.A 0.83
0.2 0.74
7.49
4.89
_ 0.82
�_ 0.68
Y 0.231
0.321
1.05
1
2016-08-15
�. .__
_- 0.56
- - _
- 0.32� 0.88
5.99
_ _
_ _ �0.731
0.381
1.11
1 2016-09-191_
2016-10-17
. 0.37
0.51
- �0.29 0.66
0.32 0.83
_ .. 0.27 0.64
6.32
7.09
6.07
_ -0.63
0.69
- 0.391
0.431
1.02
1.12
j 0.82
1 2016-11-14
0.371
0.52
0.3
- N-0.28
2016-12-121
2017-01-171
-0.668[
0.71
_0.29 0.97
0.31
5.52
0.71--
0.99
1
1.02
7.71
0i85j
1.27
2017.02-13
-
0.681
^ _ -
_ 0.26 0.94
0.49 0.86
1-._.__._ -
7.73
7.48
0.69
0.44
_ -- -0.42
0.33
_ 0.62
1.02
1.06
2017 03 27
- -
-- _
I _ 0.37�
2017-04-24
1.22
1.85 3.07
8.29
0.97
2.06
3.03
2017-05-08
0.721_
_. 0.74 1.46
8.2
-_� _ 0.77
-_ -_ T0.261
1.03
2017-06-19
2017-07-171
0.85
0.59,
0.43, 1.28
0.42
6.26
_ 0.66°
_ 0.53
_ _ 0.43°
0.52�
1.09
2017-08-14
0.46�
- 1.01
0.39 0.85
3.26
2.29
0.441
0.42
1.05
0.86
-1 -
j 2017-09-
------
0.481
---
0.32' 0.8
5.41
0.53
0.34
0.87
2017-10-161
_
0.351
0.45 0.8
--
8.38
_
0.43�
0.47
0.9
p
0.66
_-
6
0.3
_ _.
2017-11-13�
_
_0.18j-
_
0.3� 0.48
7.24
1.02
2017-12-11
_ 0.73
j 0.43 j 1.16
4.86
0.69
--
0.35
1.04
2018-01-22.
1.07
^ - 0.32 1.39
6.29
- -
-0.02
- - --
0.31
0.33
1 2018-02-19
0 0.951
0.48 1.43
5.57
0.91
0.4
1.31
12018-03-19
0.611
0.29 0.9
5.75
0.61
0.36
0.97
2018-04-09
0.6I
0.321 0.92
6.32
0.54s
0.32
0.86
201-8-05-141
6-181
0.68
0.661
-� - 0.411 1.09
0.441 1.1
- -
6.54
4.99
0.75
- 0.71-
-- T-
0.45
� 0.38
1.2
1.09
j.?OI
2018-07-161---
0.571
0.471 1.04
6.35
0.7i--
0.38
1.08
2018-08-271
-
0.61
[ 0.48 f 1.09
7.12
_ _ 0.72
° 0.49
1.21
2018-09_201_
0.831
0.63 1.46
9.88
0.621
0.68
1.3
! 2018-10-17�
-
0.77
0.5 1.27
5.46
0.831
0.63
1.46
2018-11-07
0.71
0.46 1.16
7.53
0.67i
0.431
1.1
2018-12-05
0.91
_ 0.78, 1.68
5.99
0.83i
0.951
1.78
Page 1 GB Perlmutter 4/5/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Nutrient Monitoring
NCO020591
Summary Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
N
38
38
38
Average
1.12
6.33
1.11
SD
0.44
1.51
0.39
Min
0.48
2.29
0.33
Max
3.07
9.88
3.03
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Upstream Effluent Dnstream
12
10
8 r
j R
4 F
yob
Or°
yo
L'1
°5titi
Q
`LOy�
�O,yro
�O,yta
�O,y1
ti0y�
ti0y�
ti0y�
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream
Dnstream
Mean
1.115526
1.114737
Variance
0.189663
0.149966
Observations
38
38
Pearson Correlation
0.779382
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
37
t Stat
0.017568
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.493039
t Critical one -tail
1.687094
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.986078
t Critical two -tail
2.026192
Conclusion: no differences found between upstream and downstream TN averages.
Page 2 GB Perlmutter 4/5/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Nutrient Monitoring
NCO020591
Total Phosphorus (TP1
Date Upstream Effluent Dnstream
2015-11-091 _ 0_.05 3.89 _ 0.08
-2015 y12-07 0.02 _
� � � - 3.81 � 0.06
2016-01-11! 0.071 2.661.-_ _ 0.08
2016-0_2_-22 0.04 2.031 _ _ _0.05
2016-03-211 0.03 5.4' 0.071
2016-04-18 j 0.041 6.51 0.121
2016-05-16 .. 4 05.1 0.11
2016-06-131 0.051 7.03 0.211
_2016-07-18; _ 0.271 5.33 � 0.17
- 2016-08-15 _ 0.08j 7.09i 0.33�
2016-09-19 0.041 7.11 0.39
2016-10-17 0.06 7.951_ _ 0.33
2016-11-141 pW 0.02 5.08I W 0.23
2016-12-12! 0.114.91 _ 0.18
2017-01-171 _ 0.031 6.51 0.25�
2017-02-13 .02 0 07.51 _ _ _ .21
2017-03-271 _0.09 4.781-_ 0.19j
2017-04-24-_0-553� 4.26� _ �0.73�
2017-05-08 _ 0.051 5.08 141
2017-06-19� � 0.131 2.44' _0.16
2017-07-17 1 0.06 3.171.0.11
2017-_08-141 0.07i 2.09 0.12
2017-09-18 0.121 3.471 0.191
2017-10-16 0.05 7.381 0.3
2017-11-131 _0.191 3.5 �0.05�
2017-12-11 0i�0441 3.51 0.11
2018-01-221 0.02 6.351 0.14
2018-02-191 _ _ 0.09 3.21 ! 0.35�
2018-03-19 0.04 3.03!_-�0.13
2018-04-09 i 0.031 2.311 OA8
2018-05-14-_......0.07! 5.03! 0.16
2018-06-18 1 0.0_7 3.88 0.15
2018-07-16 _ 0.07 9.131 0.42
_2018-08-271 0.041 9.36 _ _ 0.26
2018-09-20 0_.131 4.931 0.23�
2018-10-171 _ 0.081 1.3! 0.12
2018-11-071_ 0.071 3.2 _ _ 0.11.
2018-12-051 0.02 4.47!. - -0.07�
Page 3 GB Perlmutter 4/5/2019

Statesville / Third Creek WWTP Instream Nutrient Monitoring NCO020591
Summanv Statistics
Upstream
Effluent
Dnstream
N
38
38
38
Average
0.09
4.84
0.19
SD
0.09
2.02
0.13
Min
0.02
1.3
0.05
Max
_ _ 0.53
9.36
0.73
Total Phosphorus (TP)
—Upstream Effluent Dnstream
10.00
�r
1.00
J
OD
E
0.10 r
0.01
*�I
tih
3ti
ti00
°�
titi
O�
O,
04i
,Z
�/
IQ
am
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream
Dnstream
Mean
0.085
0.189211
Variance
0.008734
0.01751
Observations
38
38
Pearson Correlation
0.523975
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
37
t Stat
-5.57354
P(T<=t) one -tail
1.19E-06
t Critical one -tail
1.687094
P(T<=t) two -tail
2.37E-06
t Critical two -tail
2.026192
Conclusion: Downstream TP is higher than upstream TP.
Page 4 GB Perlmutter 4/5/2019

0 0-
0 c
o
� U
rn
N
C
t0
N
L
O
'~ N
G7
N m
5 Z
E
0
m12
c�c
i
O
IL
W
ix
Z € E c_
0 a Z
p LL
a
m
IL
2
LU
w
d
O
U Z
o
Z
a' O
c0 Z
z $
c S
0 m
o
m
a
z°
Im
Z
��
���
o a m
a m
a m
Q
a cmi
T
9 Yw
"'w
�c�
fsLt
mw
o
mo
2
m
m
e > I
CD
O
M
M n
O
w
�Q w
J J
O
O
~
f�
ei <
C6
r
N fG
9'
U
~
aD
N
N
M
m
LL w
Z a
E
E
r_
E
5 w
}
U
Z
Z
m
m
m
3
3
t
3
LU
X
X
O
X
LL
M.
ip
O
z
O
Ln
U�
m
5 o
0
a
'o
U
U
2
m
m
o c
m C
m C
m C
H C
o
o
'c
`N" C
`N' C
o C
E E c
a
m
ID
0
ID
10
E c
ULZ
U
U
m
O
C
m
Z
m
m
Z
Z
0
o W W W W
J
n Ln co rn
0 0 0 0
N N N N
O O O

W
Go
v
rn
Oq g
Q I
O I ^ I
Q I
Q I
O
w
ao
a
m
OO
N N N
N
x x 2 x
Z
Z I i I �. ,
m N m
m m m
z
N I
m
V
l.1
^
v
u
u
d d d
d
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
n
N
_
Q N N
Vm m'
N IN/1
0 m m
N N
m m I
IN/1 IN/1 N
O m m A m
d 0.LL
d d
d d
d d N d
N
m
d
Z
c
y
c
V
C
Z
V
O
i:r
p
Q
Q
G)
Q
G)
t
L
C
^
l
I
�-
l
1 N
N U0
N
a
I
c
c
y N
a
y
h a a a
m
lx
O
O
�
M
eat
�
ID
m
m
rn
N
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
v_
p-
Q-
z
Qx x x x
u
Q I
T
Q I
}
Q
Q I x
l
c
o
c
o
c
a
c
�►
c
�
m
m
Li:
d
m
Li:
d
m
lL
d
m
cl:
d
I
m
a
a
a
O
v N
OO tNll
N -
vNi ,Nil
cc N
A �I m m I
d d
m m
1 d LL
m m I
d d
m � A m
1 d d I
1
A
O
C N
1
A
d
N
O
GG
O
C
ci
ci
C
.4
0CY
O
11
O
O
14
GOr
cr
I
�q
^
m
d
°C
U
n
'^
Cl
Gc
n
LL
n
I
r
n
c Ln
c
c
n
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
w
fto
to
w
CID
m
a
m
N
4
Gr
m
w
at
N
m
d OO
N N N
N
S 2 2 2
g
I„
g
N N
m
m m m
g d d d
N
m
d l
ar
C
G)
C
n A
GD
�
C
w
C
G)
to
C
IA
E
iA
IA
4A
N
lu
E
Z
EO
v`
E
o
cECi
ci°o
v
uE
3
C
OD
O
C
O
GOC N
N
C
OZ
m '
dLL
m m
dm
dZ
Z
Q
Y
?
N
T
T
N
m
Y
c
c
c
c
d
c
>
>
+
>
>
U
m
f U
41
V
U
O
V
c
O
@1
en
g
gCL
20oN
a°
a:
O ^ GG
O
O
D1
A
O
¢t
O
O
N
D
E
Z-
E
E
E
N
E
a
m
=
m
=
to
=
Ln
L
W
L
0
L
0
L
V
m
L
i
V
M
V
m
V
N
U
O
O
cG m � q
O
u.
O
ti
O
N N N
N N
Z
� 2 2 2 2
UZ
n Z 4 06 I
z
I I
Z
l I � I I
Z
� a a a
a m
ti
Q
O
N
.m-i
N
N
N
en•)
N
I
N
b
M
G\0
C00N
F
3
C
o N
o o N
d
1S
C
N N d N N
N
C_
d
~ I ,
(v
t0 LL LL m
3
W
G)
1 N N
m m
0 N
of
m m m
s
GG
W
1 N N N N
m m a m m
G)
Y
GG
G)
1 I ,
m
m
c n d
m
d d
D. d d
3
m
d d N d d
o
m
Y
cc
N
4a
A
Z
•
V
.a.
N
•
L
�
O
N
N lD n m
u1 tD n m cn
)n lD
n m M
'O
Ln ID n m (n
O
LO B n
GG D1
i
0 a
0
O O O O O
t
d
0 0 0 0
N N N N
d
0 0 0
N N N N N
LL
0 0
N N
0 0
N N N
H
N N N N N
N
O O O
N N N
O O
N N
C
LLd
QJ
a
a
N
•O
N
a
v
a
a
-
N
M
'
iA
U
N
V
V1
U
VI
U
V)
L)
O
N
OD
a
V
C
J

.....:. _.iv_.,"-' c' r:Q:. :i:::.....:......• .__..ti _ii:.}a'�...,r --. -= i::r -..:......__..... .. :. ---�. ....::...x _=.. _'-'. ..:.w:.c::::....
1�
0
*ETS
6 Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
April 26, 2014
Ms. Robbie Jones
Prism Laboratories
PO Box 240543
Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
RE: ETS PROJECT NUMBER: 9711
Dear Ms. Jones:
PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Enclosed are toxicity test results for samples from the Statesville Third Creek WWTP received by
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. April 071hrough April 11, 2014.
Parameter Test Procedure EPA Method
Code Number Final Result
Fathead Minnow (Pimephdes promelas)
THP6C Larval Survival and Growth, EPA-821-R-02-013 ChV > 100%
Test Method 1000.0
Note. CbV = Chronic Value. A numeric value representing the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no
detectable impairment of survival or growth and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of survival or
growth.
If this test was performed as an NPDES requirement or by Administrative Letter, please enter the ChV
value >100% on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the collection date
April 07, 2014 using the parameter code THP6C.
Additionally, please sign and submit the original DWQ Aquatic Toxicity Form (AT-5) by
May 31, 2014.
If you have any questions concerning these results, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely
Gi99t.�t�i
Jim S inner
Laboratory Director
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
The results in this reT,:,rt relate to the samples submitted for anal sis._
North Carolina Certificate Numbers: Biological Analyses: 37, Drinking Water: 37786, Wastewater: 600
South Carolina Certificate Number: Clean Water Act: 99053-001

iy
OET
4 Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
January 27, 2014
Ms. Robbie Jones
Prism Laboratories
PO Box 240543
Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
RE: ETS "PROJECT NUMBER: 9503
Dear Ms. Jones:
PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Enclosed are toxicity test results for samples from the Statesville Third Creek WWTP received by
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. January 07 through January 10, 2014.
Parameter Test Procedure EPA Method
Code Number Final Result
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)
THP6C Larval Survival and Growth, EPA-821-R-02-013 ChV > 100%
Test Method 1000.0
Note: ChV - Chronic Value. A numeric value representing the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no
detectable impairment of survival or growth and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of survival or
growth.
If this test was performed as an NPDES requirement or by Administrative Letter, please enter the ChV
value >100% on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR 1) for the collection date
January 07, 2014 using the parameter code THP6C.
Additionally, please sign and submit the original DWQ Aquatic Toxicity Form (AT-5) by
February 28, 2014.
If you have any questions concerning these results, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
r�
Ji
i.T Sumner
Laboratory Director
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirely, without the written consent of Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis. _
North Carolina Certificate Numbers: Biologicaf Analyses: 37, Drinking Water: 37786, Wastewater: 600
South Carolina Cert fcate Number: Clean Water Act: 99053-001
pnism 402- 0119 -01

E..-.-,TS
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
October 30, 2013
Ms. Robbie Jones
Prism Laboratories
PO Box 240543
Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
RE: ETS PROJECT NUMBER: 9289
Dear Ms. Jones:
PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Enclosed are toxicity test results for samples from the Statesville Third Creek WWTP received by
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. October 07 through October 11, 2013.
Parameter Test Procedure EPA Method
Code Number Final Result
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)
THP6C Larval Survival and Growth, EPA-821-R-02-013 ChV > 100%
Test Method 1000.0
Note: ChV = Chronic Value. A numeric value representing the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no
detectable impairment of survival or growth and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of survival or
growth.
If this test was performed as an NPDES requirement or by Administrative Letter, please enter the ChV
value >100% on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form. (MR-1) for the collection date
October 06, 2013 using the parameter code THP6C.
Additionally, please sign and submit the original DWQ Aquatic Toxicity Form (AT-5) by
November 30, 2013.
If you have any questions concerning these results, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
(2:Sumner
Laboratory Director
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis. _
North Carolina Certificate Numbers: Biological Analyses: 37, Drinking Water: 37786, Wastewater: 600
South Carolina Certificate Number: Clean Water Act: 99053-001

PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
August 30, 2013
Ms. Robbie Jones
Prism Laboratories
PO Box 240543
Charlotte, NC- 28224-0543
RE: ETS PROJECT NUMBER: 9140
Dear Ms. Jones:
Enclosed are toxicity test results for samples from the Statesville Third Creek WWTP received by
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. August 05 through August 09, 2013.
Parameter Test Procedure
Code
EPA Method
Number Final Result
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)
T IP6C Larval Survival and Growth, EPA-821-R-02-013 ChV > 100%
Test Method 1000.0
Note. ChV = Chronic Value. A numeric value representing the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no
detectable impairment of survival or growth and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of survival or
growth.
If this test was performed as an NPDES requirement or by Administrative Letter, please enter the ChV
value >100% on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the collection date
August 04, 2013 using the parameter code THP6C.
Additionally, please sign and submit the original DWQ Aquatic Toxicity Form (AT-5) by
September 30, 2013.
If you have any questions concerning these results, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
tm unner
Laboratory Director
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for anal sis.
North Carolina Certificate Numbers: Biological Analyses: 37, Drinking Water. 37786, Wastewater: 600
South Carolina Certificate Number: Clean Water Act: 99053-001

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C.20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 [ j 2 15 I 3 1 NCO020591 Ill 12 19/01/31 17 18 LC 19 1 ! j 20I ]
211 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 f 6
I
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved
67 2.0 70 LJ Id I 71 IN —JI 72 i lti j 73 �74 751 1 1 1 1 1 1 180
-1
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 permit Number)
09:25AM 19/01/31
12/06/01
Third Creek WWTP
444 Third Creek Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Statesville NC 28687
11:30AM 19/01/31
14/06/30
Name(s) of Onske Representative(s)fritles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Scott Austin/ORC/704-878-3438/
Name, Address of Responsible Officialfritle/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Todd A Smith, PO Box 1111 Statesville NC 28687/Operations Manager/704-878-3438/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program M Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review EffludntlReceiving 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
Wes Bell MRO WOVO4-663-1699 Ext.2192/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Andrew Pitner MRO WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.21
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020591 li 121 19/01/3, 1 17 18 ICI
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO020591
Inspection Date: 01/31/2019
Owner -Facility: Third Creek WWTP
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
M
❑
110
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
❑
a
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The permit renewal package was received by the Division on 2/23/12.
The facility description will need to be undated during the oermit renewal process to include
all approved WWTP upgrades to 6 MGD.
The City of Statesville implements an approved Industrial Pretreatment Program.
The last compliance evaluation inspection was performed by DWR staff on 4/6/17.
Record Keeping
Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
1111
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
(if the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
❑
❑
❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
0
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
ILI
Page# 3

Permit: NCO020591
Inspection Date: 01/31/2019
Record Keeping
Owner • Facility: Third Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The records reviewed durinci the inspection were or anized and well maintained. Discharge
Monitoring Reports edmrs were reviewed for the period January 2018 through December
2018. No effluent limit violations were reported and the facility complied with all
permit -required monitoring frequencies.
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?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
0
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ❑ ❑ M ❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: Influent and effluent analyses are performed by the Ci 's Fourth Creek WWTP Laboratory
Certification #181 . Meritech Inc. low level mercury and toxicft has also been contracted
to provide analytical support. The laboratory instrumentation used for field analyses
appeared to be properly calibrated/verified.
Influent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
a
❑
❑
❑
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
M
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The subject permit requires influent BOD and TSS composite samples.
The composite
sampler was collecting 150 mi. aliquots and the internal sampler temperatures was less
than three degrees Celsius at the time of the inspection. The facility
staff perform daily
checks and monthly calibrations at a minimum on the sampler.
Effluent Samplinfl
Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
M❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
N
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Page# 4

Permit: NCO020591
Inspection Date: 01/31/2019
Effluent Sam lin
Owner • Facility: Third Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Yes No NA NE
If ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The subiect permit requires composite and crab effluent samples. The composite sampler
was collecting 150 mi. aliquots and the internal sampler temperatures was less than two
degrees Celsius at the time of the inspection. The facility staff perform daily checks and
monthly calibrations (at a minimum) on the sampler.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and ❑ ❑ ❑
sampling location)?
Comment: The Division has conditionally waived the instream monitoring requirements due to- the City's
participation in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association.
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable �{ ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: The wastewater treatment facilitv appeared to be Dropedv operated and well maintained.
The ORC and staff implement a comprehensive process control program with all
measurements being properly documented and maintained on -site.
The facility is equipped with a SCADA system to assist the wastewater staff with the
facility's operations.
Bar Screens
Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
is
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent
Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
® ❑
❑
❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO020591
Owner - Facility: Third Creek WW7P
Inspection Date: 01/31/2019
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pumo Station - Influent
Yes No NA NE
Are float controls operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
❑
❑
M
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Screenings and grit are disposed at the Coin Landfill.
Oxidation Ditches
Yes No NA NE
Are the aerators operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
M
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
14
❑
❑
❑
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
❑
❑
M
❑
Comment: Both oxidation ditches were operational: however, one ditch was in service due to
low
influent flows. Each oxidation ditch is eciuipoed with anaerobic and anoxic basins all
o erational . Facility staff continue to add animal feed and a microbial nutrient as
food/nutrient supplements due to the low influent loading. Sodium bicarbonate is also added
on as as -needed basis 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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0020591 Owner - Facility: Third Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 01/31/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Yes No NA NE
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/< of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both secondary clarifiers were operational; however, only one clarifier was in service due to
low influent flows.
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place?
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
❑
❑
❑
K
Comment:
Disinfection -Liquid
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Cl
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The total residual chlorine levels in the chlorine contact basin are checked on a daily basis.
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
❑
❑
1U
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑
❑
19
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
EI
❑
❑
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
M
❑
Comment: The facility is eguipped with two storage tanks and chemical feed pumps for the sodium
bisulfite. Containment is adeauate and no leaks/spills were observed.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ lu. ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0020691 Owner - Facility: Third Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 01/3112019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
S
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: The flow meters (influent and effluent) are calibrated twice Per year and were last calibrated
on 9/6/18 by Carolina Technical Services, Inc.
Effluent Pipe
Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑
❑
IS
❑
Comment: The effluent appeared tea -colored with no floatable solids or foam. The receiving stream did
not apoear to be negatively impacted.
Aerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
M❑
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
a
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both digesters are eauipped with surface aeration.
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 8

Permit: NCO020591
Inspection Date: 01/31/2019
Solids Handling Equipment
Owner - Facility: Third Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The facilitv is eauiooed with two belt presses. One of the belt presses was in the process of
being repaired.
Dewatered bio-solids are transported City staff) to the Fourth Creek WWTP for further
processing and distribution (Sta-Lime) under the authority of Permit No. W00006245. The
City also has a Land Araplication Permit MQ0014543) as a back-up disposal option.
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
❑
❑
le
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both standby enerators were operational and in service. The generators are out under load
once every ten days (at a minimum) and serviced quarterly by a contracted company.
Page# 9

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 (ti 2 IS 1 3 I NCO020591 11 12 19/01n0 _117 18 L o j 19 ICI 201 I
21IIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIII it r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved --
67 2.0 701d I 71 [„ I 72 I ti I 731 1 174 751 III I I I I80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:30AM 19/01/10 12/06/01
Third Creek WWTP
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
444 Third Creek Rd
Statesville NC 28687 12:30PM 19/01/10 14/06/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)rritles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
///
Name, Address of Responsible Ofricial/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Lenwood F Hudson, PO Box 1111 Statesville NC
NO
286871111 /Director/704-876-3438/7048788655
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
0 Pretreatment
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)
Wes Bell
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
MRO WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.21921
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Date
Date
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NCO020591 I11 121 19/01n0 117 18 i p i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The City currently has 10 SIUs with 8 being CIUs. All SIUs were sampled and inspected in 2018. No `
SIUs were in SNC for limits and/or reporting. ( 6 S t J s F-a+'ti 3 ti Cc ) 4 S i J S r-M a T!t Cd /\
Records were organized and well maintained. The City's Industrial Pretreatment Program was being
properly implemented.
Page#

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Statesville - Third Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NCO020591
Prepared By: G.B. Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 6
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 13.2
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 17
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
13.2
s7Q10 (CFS)
13.2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
9.3
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
9.3
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
41.33
IWC (%)
41.33
Allowable Cone. (ug/1)
41
Allowable Cone. (mg/1)
2.1 rA A
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
17
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6
(if DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
9.3
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
2.42 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
35.36
Allowable Cone. (mg/1)
4.7 f'L
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia as NH3-N
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Statesville - Third Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0020591
Prepared By: G.B. Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 13.2
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 17
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly, Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
13.2
s7Q10 (CFS)
13.2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
8
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
8
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
12.4
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
12.4
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
48.44
IWC (%)
48.44
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
35
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.8
,L�
V�F
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
17
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
8
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
12.4
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
2.06
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
42.18
n
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
4.0
r1 N
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia Jas NH3-N
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

�� W
o a_
F �
Z w
i
■
G':
C••
c;
a:
O
GT
zr.
O)
Of
O7
Lr
vi
n,
Im
O
C
m
3
E
z
7
7.
7.
7
G
u:
ti
CD
tp
O
co
G
_C
^�
Cl)
M
¢
n
(:
C
C7
Z
Of
Z
In
O
O
Ir
M
P
Nto
O
l7p
C
LL
Lt
_
LL
U-
U-
LUL
U.
ES�-..
LLi
LL
i
u-
9
IfU-
i
�•
MOD
7
�
Mf
CD
N0
0
o
n
tL'
Z
co
ccO
-
b7
14:
p
O
O
r.
�
r
Lo
LO
U)
N
co
N
U
(U
U
-yy�
L)
C
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
L ))
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
<
Z
z
!�
L
Zym
z
z
z
z
z
Z
z
x
Z
Z
z
z
Z
Z
Z
y
x
"�-'
S
:C
:C
'.%
:C
`=
W
;C
!C
N
is
f6
J
J
Q
Q
Q
Q
!,
Q
G
9
Q
cl
Q
E
E
Q
Q
i,
t
Q
S
3:
S
S
S
A
r
v
u
u
U
E
E~
Cid
o
o
Q
E
a
y
T
?
E
y6y�,
v
4
E
E?
o
Z
Z
fA
IV
LU
L
o
L
U
Ci
L
L
2
fA
4 4 0 • Q o o
Lo La m A La m a W � a m a W m m w `La `a `w m W as w m
a a d d a d a d a d LL a a a a a a a d d a d a a
3
=
O
E
K
O
oC
o
=
W
``a
I
Y
d
U
Imo,
0
NU
U
Z
O
o
Lo
N
U
'cc
o
o U
CD
M
LO
c
F
Li
t i �W
I 1 I Ia
I I I 1S
I I 1 I?
1 1 1 1�
to
! a I �,1 IN
N O
ri r`
O O C
9JIEiEE2
o,{Ei�{AIL
N tO
�
EI4IaiIOION
LoINI"'1�I, -v
ICI 1 Iz
1 1 i IE-0
1 1 1 IoN
1 1 I
1 1 1
ItoN
1� E
I 1 I Iow
I 1 oIY
V �
N
L91 ml mlm
LU
o
ial'i"E
0 °IL`aI`v
;tea
t
o
�
w 3 = Ln
; I �I�I�
U)
W
0 0 CY a� o
R M °'
of wI El E
w!D1coiIoo
,E
a
❑
C
4
� CD
C
(L
CD
m
LO
O
N

0
4
U)
C
V
ram+
d
m
0)
C co
� II
V N
C
'C Z
0a
Os QQ
IL
0
S
Lo
W
IL
Y T
d
�V Lo
V O
N
'0 O
t V
F- Z
0) M m CD h Q
0! M O O
NMrfOm
M Cl) N
r M en
to M
A Cl) m O �
6i M 09 m N
N 90 G
It a Cl)M U
y II II II 11 II h
U o 0 0 o d(yU
Faaa���
3uuu
I I
I
I
I
I
I
g6
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I L
I
Z
I I
I
I
I
I
I
eN
I tm
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
a
I I
E
0 ;
o
LD
w
I I 'v
I cr
I Q
I Q
I
I
E y
t o
I Q
p
m
o>
E E
W
l
I
•'-
a
I I
I o
I o
I o
I
I
Q L°
t o
I o
O
1I 1I
E
Q
E
0
0
E
F>
Ig
g
g
g„
I I
I
I D
19
I
Ia
I N
I A.
Im
I I
I
I
I
I
I
��
I
I
Z
Z
Z
Z
a-jv
z
I I
o la IN
I
,a„ IM
I
M Iv
I
O Iq
I
N Ioo
I
„ 110
N
I
00 1m 3
I
I"
3
r IM In
v I�
o IN
I�
a I
M IN
m
M IN d
Nr I� C
N
I
I
;
I 3
3
••
i �lix .I
i� II
i� II
i� .I
i�
i�
� Q
i� �
i� a
w
d
I g AI O
o 14
7 I A
I" o
va
d
IQI
d Iu x
d IU A
d IU R
d IU
d IU
d IU
d IU >
a
o
Z
d
U � IUI
d
I N
I z
LU
p
3Ln
a
LU
U
b
ri
m
mCD
o v tW
d
d
U
v oo
p
M
Z
z
OV
N
vOi
W
A
o
CDo
co
o
o
o
w
3t
a is
VI b
a 0
VI
U
C y
C d
M C •E
.�-i
M C 'C
o
o
z a
z 'a
-1Od
o
a
W
U
M
M
01
("I
Mcq
a,
N
H
d
7
c
U
W
a
O
a
N
O
O
a
O
a
O
a
o
a
a
a
CDa
v
G
�
Z
Z
U
c
d
V V
2
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
2
9
r
O
m
O.
E
-
E
E
o
~
in
v
W 'C
m m
f `
C
>
-
>
E
V
u
E
E
E
3
E
a
a
U
c
m
U
Q <
m
U
m
t
t
a
La
v
U
r
U
tu EL 9
N
a�
p
cD
�o
LA
oA
N
0
m
a

1.
0
rn
c
H
m
2
e
IL
I
10
I Iz
I
I
IZ
I
Iz
Iz
J
I
I
I�
to
I la
I I
I
I
I
I
la
to
I
Im
Im
I
I�
I la
I
I
I�
I
la
Iw
i0
is
ICD
c
I g
v
Im
v
I IR
I o
I o
,v
lia
.c
I o
�v
Im
lid
E
I�
I I��
I E
I E
�o
I
'Q
I1e
a
I n
I'Q
2
I
�
la
I la
I
1
la
I
la
�9
la
g'
g'
F
F
I m
la.�
I IaS
I m
I m
lo=�
I�
lar
lam
z°
I z°O
I I z° 2
I z°
1 z°
I z° m
w
I O
�K c
I z m
�� c
I z° 2
I
I�
I
d Ioo
3
I I
I-� 31� 3
I
0o I_
I
n I�
I
v Ivy
I
d In �j
3
Ip
CY
3
I„
d I$
i°
0o
O im
o iM �i�
N i�
i-
i �
i�
0 a
0 d
0
z IN 3
Z 1^" s
z loo
O
a
Iis
h
I A dl� A
?in11
I
I
d IU
IU >
I�° >I >
d IU
d ICU w
Q IU a
4 IU >
¢ IU >
d IU i
I
1 zd
iuZICz
I i
1 2
I z
I
I z
I z
vn h
EN,
o q
qa
°° W
M
01
vi
v1
o W
4 W
7
c> d
N b
N j
M;
d
m
a is
VI d
a `a
VI
R d
R
w
Cy
za
z'
i
=
=L
=L
H
vo'i
oo
O
p
b
M
n
M
h
�O
tn
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a
a a
a
o
a
a
a
a
x
M
O
p
M O
O� O
O O
wl
b
O
O
N
['1
cD
O
N
vt vi
r-
oo
O
N
Z
2
Z Z
Z
z
z
U
Z
Z
m
m
A
L
E
a
v
m
m
O
m 'm
u cYi
?
c
m
a
c
_
m
E
P
J
T
Z 2
m
M
N
L
C
O
w
m

n
C•
i�:
CA
'a�
0'
G
a
"
C
C
-i%
'"%
of
Zr.
"al
-1
D
a
0
4
U
Q
N
N
c0
c0
Q
n
ca
F
N
c0
M
a
N
0
Ici
M
co
ti
Z
0)
co
N
Z
n
Lo
M
O
O
U.�
a�
d¢
T
T
T
tL
LL
LL
LL
u-
LL
LL
L
LL
LL
N
tc)
M
C
O
N
Q
O
CC
C
C)
SV
N
O)
O
CD
0N
00
N
,C7
CO
r.
Z
O
N
rGG
r
X�
co
co
O
p
M
O
h
ui
W)
N
O
L)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
z
Z
2
z
z
Z
z
Z
Z
2
i
Z
2
z
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
Z
e
w
J
J
%
�
c
�
-i
n
In £
_3
-j
d
0
t
a10i
c
c¢
v
c
Q
'v
c
Q
c
t'
6
Q
Q
r
Q
E'
C
c
G
Q
m
m
m
Q
=
=
S
x
C
n
c
m
C.;
�
c
j
c
E
a
c
u
E
E,
F
E
E
a+
r
_
c
,La.
OE
—0C
¢
D
Q
''
Z
Z
fA
IV
t
0
fF?
U
5
a-
�
Q
t
t
E
Q
U
i�
IL
�
Q
U
`co
�
U
U
r
U
y
v
�}
m
s
CV
0 0 < In pw o o o �n m r ro m N N
co 0 m W W 3 �o A t `m m `A `m `m m m m A `m 0 m m is m
A. a a d a o a d d d d a a a a d a a d o. a a a a
�i 1 1 lW
i 1 t la
1 1 1 l(D
I 1 1 Imo'
rn m
c
o,l wi I to
QI¢I �
NCD o
r O (J
—
O
C
o 0 0 0
N O O O Ci J J E E !'
U c� c�
O O OD '2
CD
.M- N ccOco' o> I E I 147
EI�IOI�I0 N
Z
O
1O01 N I�I'`r1 N'O
I"'1 t !Z E.
I I I I 1 E O
1 I I ( N
I I I I !co
I I I i'aN
E
I t 1 Iow
I
a
�
d U
E a
C7
u)
m
m
z
a
IL
; c
— >
.c
E
z'
v
E
In. to
o
0
v
ti
ZOLLw2V)
1 IOI�
I IVt�
3
i t l 0
al Ole 0
LU
o
d
mlelalc
=
Iz
V
a
3
y
cEpt=I
XlEl elm
'o
Y
aa;
I �I-I�
u
a
❑
CDo CY 0
Q Q
31'a�I EI E
O O 0
W.=.V.C)
0
m f'1 r-
0
❑
O
Lo
0
O
N

T 0
o�
O �
� u �
00
rn
W
Z
Z v n
� � o
U Q U
O
" a�a�otim
to >Or_r���
O rM M N N
oa�
2 Fo°a�g�
� II 333�
C y
L:
'L7 Z
0
°a
a
N
C
a o
LO o
O
r M
a
a �
y of
� V
LOr7OO OO'O
H O W N 0 0 0�
d O G /M 1+ r 6t
V 00 r r r N O f
II II II II II II
pc�'wwww
rp -a a a ?-,a �
V] rn N Q b0
3 O 0 0 0
a d d M 3 .F)
on
m
IL Q
Y �
d �
L �
ci N
N
'a O
L V
F— Z
s'
i
iZ
Z
I I
I
I
I
I
1
cAl
I
i �,
1
i co
a
I I L
I
I L
I R
I
I
��
E;
t o
g
la
w
I I c
I 'a
I c
I Q
I
I
E m
t o
I
O
,
�
I
I
I
?
£EZ
I
ICD
v
w
tI o
1I
t oa
I :O
�
Q3
m
w
E
E
E
E
>
m.5
I I g
I g
I g
I g
I
I
4� 2
I W
ii rr
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I=
I0.
S't
I I
1
w
I
ID
I
I
IL
I
I�
I I
I Z
z
Z
�v
I
Z�Z
I I
r- Irn IN
I
N IN
I
r- Ioo
I
O' I.•
I
° Irn
I
I�
N
I
v, 10,
I
et
M �p
Ir
3
Iw
Q\
IM
M IN
I'
r�
IN �
(�
aa,
p
z
cq
N
,,
d
1~
I
I
I
>
co
I
N
I N
I O
I
I
b
I 0
I
o
i3 Iljx II
j 11
iii II
I6 11
Iu
I8
UI
Io^
IQ
I
gIJ
l
p
l
j
A
w
Q
¢
v
v
c
I
v c
z
vIu
z
w
3:
IL
w
U
d
M
N
7
0
O N
Q
Q
V
V oo
o
M
Q
ri Q
MS Q
?o
O
?c
z
z
CD
N
h
Z
o
�z
o
z
Al
dc
d
d
�
qo
o
o
o y
o
o
>°
..
at
a a
VI 9
o� ee
VI '0
U
>~
M
za
z�
SIM
lbd
Q
y
N
ON
w
U
In
O
l�
C4
N
z
U
w
W
IX
.d 'O
O
O
a
O
a
r^y
O
a
O
O
a
O
a
o
a Go
M
a
¢
w
w
w
w
0
Z
I-.
V
O
N
to
U
Z
M
O
N
CD�
y
U U
z
z
Z
Z
2
Z
z
2
a
0
£
_
m
o
~
N
L
W
C C
a+
2
C
U
u
7
E
7
E
CL
CL c
c
a a
MO
i,
m
r
i
Q
e
a
c
IL
m
U
U
r

@G
MG
W
0
0
c
H
m
C
0
D
m
V
C
m
'O
C
0
No
t�
t�l9
Of
10
0
a
A
e
o�
a
m
3
t
H
m
V
LL
IL
I
IZ
I IZ
I
I
IZ
I
IZ
IZ
i
E
J
I
Iz
I Iz
1
1la
Iz
r
I�
I�
I�
I�
I la
I D
1 D
la
t o
la
Iw
I
to
I I
I cL.
I c
to
I
la
I�
Iv
I
Iv
I�
t o
Im
I Im
I `o
I
I co
Im
L
t o
Im
Im
I
I�
E
I
I�
I
I�
I�CL
I
I 'a
pL
I I'
1 0
c
E
I t�
I -' '�
g�
I a
m
I :5
I :5 U
I
la
I la g'
I
I
la F
I
e�
la g'
eT
la F
I �
la•t�R
I la..c�.
I 3"i
I �
Id °
I t
ja o
ia.o
z
lz°m
1 Iz2
l
l
Izz
I
10 0
1z0
z
z°
I
I�
I
d IR
I I
I
I
v 1�MIM
I
I
V]
IN
fA M
I�c
V) N
3
to1N
N
m
n n
�i.2 ^
,�
i o A
a
a
i A
¢
d
d
iv
iv >
>i
i >
iv
d iv
iu >
iv cd
iv >
i
I
I za
Ivzz
I
I
I z
I
I zl
I
w
o �
�
In
O
O
O
of
M
N
M
en
0 R
VI ti
O., R
VI 9
tl Y
C
M ei
E
M ai r
z :"a
z
i
i
i
..r
M
M
O
a
a
a
a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
x
�
x
0 O
N
In
b �
n N
O
O
N
Z
Z
Z Z
Z
Z
Z
U
Z
Z
W
A
E
A
L
°
€
m
u u
m
>
u
c
y
o
E
o
J
T
Z Z
m
N
h
N
L
Q
O
-6
L
N.
V
m

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
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
140 YcgYE SPECIAL H2
Effluent Hardness `"`r ``"" �`� Upstream Hardness
po-lnis d .A
Date Data
BDL=112DL
6/26/2017
40
40
6/27/2017
42
42
6/28/2017
47
47
6/29/2017
50
50
6/30/2017
51
51
7/10/2017
52
52
7/11/2017
51
51
7/12/2017
54
54
7/13/2017
56
56
7/14/2017
57
57
Results
Std Dev.
5.5177
Mean
50.0000
C.V.
0.1116
n
10
10th Per value
41.80 mg/L
Average Value
50.00 mg/L
Max. Value
57.00 mg/L
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
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
6/26/2017
44
44
Std Dev.
6/27/2017
30
30
Mean
6/28/2017
30
30
C.V.
6/29/2017
31
31
n
6/30/2017
31
31
10th Per value
7/10/2017
28
28
Average Value
7/11/2017
31
31
Max. Value
7/12/2017
32
32
7/13/2017
32
32
7/14/2017
35
35
V- -AGSTE Sr+Q
pc�Rti°. • 9Q
32.4000
0.1374
10
29.80 mg/L
32.40 mg/L
44.00 mg/L
-1-
205916 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/14/2015 <
10
5
Std Dev.
2
3/7/2016 <
5
2.5
Mean
3
616/2016 <
5
2.5
C.V.
4
9/12/2016 <
5
2.6
n
5
12/12/2016 <
5
2.5
6
3/13/2017 <
5
2.5
Mull Factor =
7
6/12/2017 <
5
2.5
Max. Value
8
9/11/2017 <
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
9
12/11/2017 <
2.5
1.25
10
3/1212018 <
2.5
1.25
11
6/11/2018 <
2.5
1.25
12
7/1012018 <
10
5
13
9/17/2018 <
2.5
1.25
14
12/10/2018 <
2.5
1.25
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
I 58
iha YRSTE svm
vpu n' Ow. " c4 P
ltfaalmum data
painu - 5A
2.4107
0.5171
14
1.46
5.0 ug/L
7.3 ug/L
Par03
u.e 'pes*E sMcut
Beryllium
'Jalwes'taen -Cap s
M, A4n urn data
pdm-56
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
1
7/12P2011
< 2.5 1.25
Std Dev.
0.4330
2
4/3/2012
< 0.5
Mean
0.7500
3
4/9/2013
< 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
1.25 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
3.75 ug/L
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
I 58
205916 MGD RPA, data
-2- 4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/14/2015 <
2
1
Std Dev.
2
3/7/2016 <
0.4
0.2
Mean
3
6/6/2016 <
0.4
0.2
C.V.
4
9/12/2016 <
0.4
0.2
n
5
12/12/2016 <
0.4
0.2
6
3/13/2017 <
0.4
0.2
Mult Factor =
7
6/12/2017 <
0.4
0.2
Max. Value
8
9/11/2017 <
0.4
0.2
Max. Pred Cw
9
12/11/2017 <
0.4
0.2
10
3/12/2018 <
0.4
0.2
11
6/11/2018 <
0.4
0.2
12
7/10/2018 <
2
1
13
9/17/2018 <
0.4
0.2
14
12/10/2018 <
0.4
0.2
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
vat,
M.JF n,n,m ool. r
points � & I
Date Data
0.2905 1
0.3143 2
0.9243 3
14 t 4
5
1.84 6
1.000 ug/L 7
1.840 ug/L 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
j 58
tkrS"fCIAL
Chlorides
v� �t thu• -cow+'
_
IG �.n.uatlatr plgr �= .
BDL=II2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
NIA mg/L
Max. Pred Cw
N/A mg/L
-3
20591 6 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

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 'PA$re
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
'COP '
Y° u�mmuum
po�nb � 3A
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor =
NIA
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
Max.,Pred Cw
NIA ug/L
Use 'PASTE SPEC6
Total Phenolic Compounds °Wea'rhMnaimuln rnda dnR
c
uomts • 65
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
1
7/120011
< 10 5
Std Dev.
2
4/3/2012
< 10 5
Mean
3
4/9/2013
< 10 5
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
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
15.0 ug/L
-4
205916 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date Data
1 12/14/2015 <
2 3/7/2016
3 6/6/2016
4 9112/2016 <
5 12/12/2016
6 3/13/2017
7 6/12/2017
8 9/11/2017
9 12/11/2017 <
10 3112/2018
11 6/11/2018
12 7/1012018 <
13 9/17/2018
14 12/10/2018 <
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
I
UsE"PASTE S.PEC!Al
Chromium, Total
BDL=112DL
Results
5
2.5
Std Dev.
4.8346
4
4
Mean
4.2143
3
3
C.V.
1.1472
2
1
n
14
6
6
2
2
Mult Factor =
2.04
4
4
Max. Value
20.0 Ng/L
6
6
Max. Pred Cw
40.8 Ng/L
2
1
2
2
4
4
5
2.5
20
20
2
1
Date Data
1
12/14/2015 <
2
3/7/2016
1
3
4/4/2016
1
4
6/6/2016
1
5
9/12/2016
7
6
12/12/2016
1
7
3/13/2017
10
8
6/12/2017 <
9
9/11/2017
7.
10
12/11/2017
6.
11
3/12/2018
1
12
6/11/2018
13
7/10/2018
14
9/17/2018
15
12/10/2018
2.
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
_ Un. -PASTE S-E0 o
Copper ��j�E Vol • N
rAZ, :U 1 «a!:
BDL-112DL
2
4
2
4
0
4
5
2
4
7
3
5
5
8
8
Results
1
Std Dev.
14
Mean
12
C.V.
14
n
70
14
Mult Factor =
105
Max. Value
1
Max. Fred Cw
7.4
6.7
13
5
5
8
2.8
18.5933
1.5656
15
2.26
105.00 ug/L
237.30 ug/L
-6-
20591 6 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par08
Chromium III
Date
Data BDL=772DL Results
1
Std Dev.
2
Mean
3
CV
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
u..-PASTE seem". Par09
V alVes" titan -CCWY'
NO DATA 1
NO DATA 2
NO DATA 3
0 4
5
NIA 6
N/A yg/L 7
NIA Ng/L 6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
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
I 58
Chromium VI
Date Data BDL-112DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Fred Cw
U" 'PR$TE 6PECM
ValuK•' dean "COPY
VAXJAnum data
"p Mtl•`Ja
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
NIA Ng/L
N/A ug/L
205916 MGD RPA, data
- 5 - 4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/14/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 3/7/2016 < 5 5 Mean
3 6/6/2016 < 5 5 C.V.
4 9/12/2016 < 5 5 n
5 12/12/2016 < 5 5
6 3/13/2017 < 5 5 Mult Factor =
7 6/12/2017 < 5 5 Max. Value
8 9/11/2017 < 5 5 Max. Pred Cw
9 12/11/2017 < 5 5
10 3/12/2018 5 5
11 6/11/2018 < 5 5
12 7/10/2018 < 5 5
13 9/17/2018 < 5 5
14 12/10/2018 < 5 5
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-PA1,TE SPECI
•cur
il'uz�m�m atis
rsSrAdS = '.liJ
5.00
0.0000
14
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
Par13
Fluoride
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Std Dev.
2
Mean
3
C.V.
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Fred 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
Ul , PRt:( Sri �•r'
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
NIA
NIA ug/L
N/A ug/L
-7-
20591 6 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

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
Lead
Date
BDL-112DL
12/14/2015 <
10
5
3/7/2016 <
3
1.5
6/6/2016 <
3
1.5
9/12/2016 <
3
1.5
12/12/2016 <
3
1.5
3/13/2017 <
3
1.5
6/12/2017 <
3
1.5
9/11/2017 <
3
1.5
1211112017 <
3
1.5
3/12/2018 <
3
1.5
6111/2018 <
3
1.5
7/10/2018 <
10
5
911712018 <
3
1.5
12/10/2018 <
3
1.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Fred Cw
um Par15
vm� +n■n • cop•
maximum oau
paints • Sa
Date
2.0000
0.6355
14
1.57
5.000 ug/L
7.850 ug/L
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
'PASTE SPE.Ciai,
Mercury
%W.ps, oft. 7py"
Mlxlmun tliu
-
poems • x
Data BDL=112DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A ng/L
Max. Pred Cw N/A ng/L
-8-
205916 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16
Molybdenum
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
12/14/2016 <
100
50
Std Dev.
2
3/7/2016
7
7
Mean
3
6/6/2016
8.7
8.7
C.V.
4
9/12/2016
7
7
n
5
12/12/2016
4
4
6
3/1312017
6.62
6.62
Mult Factor =
7
6/12/2017
6.46
6.46
Max. Value
8
9/11/2017
5.7
5.7
Max. Fred Cw
9
12/11/2017
4.9
4.9
10
3/12/2018
3.47
3.47
11
6/11/2018
15
15
12
9/17/2018 <
5
2.5
13
12/10/2018 <
10
5
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
usr "p:.5rok �c r,�rr Par17 & Par18
v, ,, .''o ! Nickel
A'.ERritmlr,rp a,.F� ' I
9.7192
1.2851
13
2.26
50.0 ug/L
113.0 ug/L
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
12/14/2015 <
10
5
Std Dev.
2
3/7/2016
2.59
2.59
Mean
3
6/6/2016
3.87
3.87
C.V.
4
9/12/2016
4.8
4.8
n
5
12/12/2016
2.74
2.74
6
3/13/2017
4.716
4.716
Mult Factor =
7
6/12/2017
3.8
3.8
Max. Value
8
9/11/2017
4
4
Max. Pred Cw
9
12/11/2017
3.05
3.05
10
3/12/2018
3.57
3.57
11
6/11/2018
4.62
4.62
12
7/10/2018 <
10
5
13
9/17/2018
3.94
3.94
14
12/10/2018
3.037
3.037
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
QS* -PASYC SL--- Ak
v&I
pcarts ' ..
3.9095
0.2137
14
1.18
5.0 pg/L
5.9 pg/L
-9-
20591 6 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Date Data
1 12/14/2015 <
2 3/7/2016 <
3 6/6/2016 <
4 9/122016 <
5 12/12/2016 <
6 3/132017 <
7 6/122017 <
8 9/112017 <
9 12/11/2017 <
10 3/12/2018 <
11 6/112018 <
12 7/102018 <
13 9/172018 <
14 12/10/2018 <
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
I 58
ua� Par20
Selenium VaW Xfnen-CCFPv-�
Na�umum aru
pains- Se
U" -PASTE SPEaAt-
Silver v+e�" then " cv",
µru mum dale
P&nu • 50
BDL=112DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10 5
Std Dev.
1.0645
1
12/14/2015 <
5
2.6
Std Dev.
0.9014
5 2.5
Mean
3.0357
2
3/7/2016 <
0.5
0.25
Mean
0.6875
5 2.5
C.V.
0.3507
3
4/4/2016 <
1
0.5
C.V.
1.3111
5 2.5
n
14
4
6/6/2016 <
0.5
0.25
n
16
5 2.5
5 2.5 Mult Factor =
1.30
5 2.5 Max. Value
5.0 u91L
5 2.5 Max. Fred Cw
6.5 ug/L
5 2.5
5 2.5
10 5
10 5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 9/12/2016 <
6 12/12/2016 <
7 3/132017 <
8 4/11/2017 <
9 6/12/2017 <
10 9/112017 <
11 12/112017 <
12 3/122018 <
13 6/112018 <
14 7/10/2018 <
15 9/172018 <
16 12/10/2018 <
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
I 58
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25 Mult Factor =
2.00
0.5
0.25 Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
5
2.5 Max. Pred Cw
5.000 ug/L
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
5
2.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
-10-
205916 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par2l
Zinc
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/14/2015 <
10
5
Sid Dev.
2
3/7/2016
60
60
Mean
3
4/4/2016
66
66
C.V.
4
6/6/2016
20
20
n
5
9/12/2016
28
28
6
12/12/2016
40
40
Mult Factor =
7
3/1312017
54
54
Max. Value
8
4/1112017
26
26
Max. Pred Cw
9
6/12/2017
28
28
10
9/11/2017
37
37
11
12/11/2017
70
70
12
3/12/2018
30
30
13
6/11/2018
38
38
14
7/10/2018
37
37
15
9/17/2018
34
34
16
12/10/2018
35
35
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
Vsr'PASTE eP6C",
Vawea" Vw "Gbc.'Y"
M aniv..m djLb
Points = 58
17.1270
38.0000
0.4507
16
1.35
70.0 ug/L
94.5 ug/L
�a.:' •:�ssf Sreca'
Bis(2-ethy1hexyQphthalate
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/14/2015 <
10
5
Std Dev.
10.3965
2
3/7/2016 <
10
5
Mean
7.7786
3
4/4/2016 <
10
5
C.V.
1.3366
4
6/6/2016 <
10
5
n
14
5
9/12/2016 <
10
5
6
12/5/2016
43.9
43.9
Mult Factor =
2.19
7
3/6/2017 <
10
5
Max. Value
43.900000 Ng/L
8
6/12/2017 <
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
96.141000 Ng/L
9
9/11/2017 <
10
5
10
12/11/2017 <
10
5
11
3/12/2018 <
10
5
12
6/11/2018 <
10
5
13
9/17/2018 <
10
5
14
12/10/2018 <
10
5
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
1 58
Ilitife
20591 6 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date Data
1 7/12/2011
2 4/3/2012
3 4/9/2013
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
_—I
Us*"PAsre SPECM
Antimony
values' IM6 -COPY
_ _
Fiaxrmum pau
prnnis c S6
BDL=112DL
Results
20 20
Std Dev.
40.6981
100 100
Mean
55.6667
47 47
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value 100.000000 Ng/L
Max. Pred Cw 300.000000 ug/L
Par24
Date Data
1 7/12/2011
2 4/3/2012
3 4/9/2013
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
Chloroform
Mrs�mum dam
_
polms = id
BDL=112DL
Results
7.8 7.8
Std Dev.
1.9604
5.5 5.5
Mean
7.5667
9.4 9.4
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
9.400000 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
28.200000 Ng/L
12-
205916 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

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 sPW
. Ma:tileeuen datm
ewa=y . Sp.
Date Data BDL=112DL Results _
Std Dev. NO DATA
Mean NO DATA
C.V. NO DATA
n 0
Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A
Max. Fred Cw N/A
-13-
20591 6 MGD RPA, data
4/4/2019

Lo0 oC.v,o
O O
a
W 2 a E C.,
d
� II II
y
?
Q
m p 2 2
E
E
ELL.
1pLL
c3v W
(Li
m
a
m
2
�
in
�
E m ° '
w
L
N
m 3�c M
d
40
R
U
`3� a
d
7
LL
t)
V
y
L3
N
U
a
D U
v
OO
iSJ
CCd
�
,}Q�
�O
v=oE4.0
oI-
p
,g
O�
O
om
M
o
O
d;
o
(Q
Co
O
a
m
(O
LO
w
o
eF
r
(O
r
tp
N
It
COO
M>
y+
y9� rn o
1
�C
M
r
lA
C m 0
cc
rm
Go
r0apaooZ(oa�oNo1l:
Go
(O
C.
Q
0
a
M
O
In
7
O E
V
�$
((9
(o
Cl)((5
K p y
E
N
N
M
Cc
_
Co E o
o
>tU
00
C`r
r
M
O
a~0
L
0 `o E
E
Q
p
W o
a O o
�
Q
_
E W
E
_
Z
-
E
•+
m E g
o
E N a
�„ CO U y a'
c
N
N
N
O
O
a
N
O
OD
O
O
O
int!'1
O
Cl00
M
O
CO
O
O
-O a
c
O,¢a
y
m
O
0
0
0
r
O
O
O
r
0
U Z m [p-
o Q y
(o
O
(p C7
O
W IX U
W p
H
E¢ y u
m
m
❑
a 3
w
N
a
ry
N
N
(O
U.)f
v
P Q
m 'D 1
c
`sue
C.
ova3o
'00
N E
¢
Q o c y
U U 0 C
O
UT
_>m
Q
O
N
N
U,
Cl)
r
r
0
v
(n
o
a C LL -
E
3
•s E U
Si
O
C
C
h°
A E o
u m �`a
aY O
A
S
:0 d O G
~
10
w
O R N
.5
O
101ya+1
o
v Esx
w
W
>
rL..Y
q
'C h O 0 N
0.N
E
7
7
7�99
,
v
-
v
E
E
e
eE
O
w
L
'E
2
G
G
O.
,
V
i;
V
stld,1
F F
tail
0
00f,i0

a�
4N
0 cm
■ �
C.
J �
3
to
th
� @
k §
th
7
k
E
k
Cl)
� ■
k M
i LL
L_ -
;§ !
1,0 0
|z 9
:2
50
.z
!
cx
r-rC'jo<o__<Nn $
a 2 2Qoco � -
f m KL #
8fgC4q $m#k �B
f) �drU) o� ©-
a �
o mIt� oco o0
2§§@ «ep $q $#
kkkacio� aao -o
!�7)$
2
kgFF q°CV ~ to CD
S GS
|{0
aqC'SS R
§_
LU ®�
w ��■>�_ �K
EE EE �k§� Ik
IL
��000�■ems -�
2°0�■�±�C ,
u uuuu-jzz■l ■2

Permit No. NCO020591
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/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
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
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)) • e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.915l[In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[In hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[In hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 a^{0.8190[In hardness]+0.6848)
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700)
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) • eAll .273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[In hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO020591
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 I WER*0.986 - e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/W BELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
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. NCO020591
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness m + WO 10 cfs *Avjz. Upstream Hardness mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, 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 -+' { [Kp.] [ss(I+a)] [10-6]
}
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under, a sheet labeled DPCs.
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 = (s7Q 10 + Ow) (Cwgs) — 07010) (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)
s7Q 10 = 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 s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0020591
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
The permit writer enters the most Tecent 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.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
50.0
Permittee's 2017 samples
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
32.4
Permittee's 2017 samples
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
7Q10 summer (cfs)
13.2
j Projectfiles
1Q10 (cfs)
10.93
RPA, calculations memo 21412010
Permitted Flow (MGD)
6.0 / 8.0
BIMS and project f les
Date: —May 9 2019
Permit Writer: Gary Perlmutter
Page 4 of 4

8.0 MGD WQBEL = 24.77
4/4/19 WQS = 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name
/Permit No.: Statesville Third Creek WWTP / NC0020591 No Limit Required
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 13.200 cfs WQBEL = 29.03 ng/L
L Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow = 6.000 47 ng/L
11/6/15
1.1
1.1
12/4/15
3.4
3.4
1/8/16
1.9
1.9
2/5/16
1
0.5
3/3/16
1.7
1.7
4/1/16
<
1
0.5
5/13/16
<
1
0.5
6/3/16
<
1
0.5
7/1/16
<
1
0.5
8/12/16
<
1
0.5
9/1/16
<
1
0.5
10/6/16
3.39
3.39
11/4/16
1.58
1.58
12/2/16
1.82
1.82
1/6/17
1.9
1.9
2/10/17
2.43
2.43
3/3/17
3.74
3.74
4/7/17
1.52
1.52
5/10/17
1.83
1.83
6/2/17
4.86
4.86
7/7/17
4.47
4.47
8/3/17
1.99
1.99
9/5/17
7.13
7.13
10/6/17
8.41
8.41
11/3/17
1.8
1.8
12/1/17
1.51
1.51
1/5/18
3.85
3.85
2/9/18
4.89
4.89
3/2/18
1.81
1.81
4/6/18
1
1
5/4/18
4.51
4.51
6/1/18
2.82
2.82
7/12/18
1
1
8/2/18
10.6
10.6
9/7/18
27.7
27.7
10/5/18
2.66
2.66
11/8/18
8.32
8.32
12/7/18
2.54
2.54
1/8/19
4.71
4.71
2/1/19
3.6
3.6
2.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
1.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
3.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
6.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
4.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
G.B. Perlmutter 4/4/2019

8.0 MGD WQBEL = 24.77
Statesville - Third Creek WWTP / NCO020591
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631 E)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
2
12
12
12
2
Annual Average, ng/L
2.3
1.2
3.5
6.0
4.2
Maximum Value, ng/L
3.40
3.39
8.41
27.70
4.71
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L 6 YVG,
29.0
G.B. Perlmutter 4/4/2019

Ot40, t f
i3
V. (9. NOX 1111 • Otatesuille. Nort4 &rolitta 20687
December 9, 2014
Mr. Tom Belnick
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: City of Statesville
Third Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
NPDES Permit No. NC0020591 Renewal
Schedule Revision Request
Dear Mr. Belnick,
Office 4 the City Manager.
Larry P. Pressley
7c-+-878-5585 Phone 7c'-878-)514 fax
I �ressleg6�statesvillenc.net
Statesville
RECEIVEDIDENR1 W'I
OEC 2014
water QUI1
Permitting Se 3ori
The City of Statesville submitted to you a letter dated August 12, 2014 outlying the need to revise
the nutrient limits compliance schedule for our Third Creek WWTP. Since that time the City
through its consultant, McGill Associates, has had several additional discussions with you
concerning this renewal and the critical importance of a schedule revision.
As we noted in the August letter, the City is in the process of completing a major upgrade of the
Third Creek WWTP and is on schedule to complete that project by Fall 2015. This upgrade
includes increased biochemical oxygen demand treatment, biological nutrient reduction capability
and an expansion of the facility's pennitted discharge capacity. Nutrient reduction is a
requirement of the current permit and compliance schedule. The permit calls for, in section A.
(6), compliance with Phase I limitations by June 1, 2016. As noted, the City is on schedule to
complete its upgrade in accordance with this schedule.
The second component of the permit's compliance schedule calls for additional nutrient reduction
capability and compliance with the Phase H effluent limitations by June 1, 2019. However, this
schedule component includes the following statement:
"Any nutrient control strategy or TMDL developed for High Rock Lake will override the
Phase H Final Limits (Section A.(3.)) and the final nutrient effluent discharge limitations
and the time schedule will be adjusted to reflect the results and allocations determined by
such strategy or TMDL."

Due to the current status of the Division's effort to develop a Nutrient Control Strategy or TMDL
for High Rock Lake, the City strongly believes the current schedule for Phase II is not realistic
and should be revised in the renewal permit for Third Creek. Revision of the Phase H schedule at
this time does not represent an issue for the Division based on the above statement.
There are several compelling reasons for a revised schedule. Primary is the fact that
implementation of the Division's EPA approved Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP) is
proceeding. That Plan includes the State's commitment to the completion of an assessment of
High Rock Lake and the development of a nutrient control program. The schedule for completion
of the High Rock Lake effort is included in the NCDP, but that schedule has many public review
and comment steps, extensive stakeholder involvement, and the consideration and evaluation of
any final strategy by an appointed scientific advisory council and an implementation committee.
Rule -making will follow these processes and there are many ways that the process may be
delayed. The NCDP notes that these associated processes represent significant effort and could
impact the indicated schedule. $ecause the tiering of the Division's completion of a nutrient
management strategy for High Rack Lake is central to the Third Creek WWTP's final effluent
limitations, the permit's compliance schedule should be revised.
In addition to the primary basis for a schedule revision, there are other important considerations
that must be included in renewal of the permit. The City included these points in the August
letter, be they are reiterated bel&v; for your reference:
One basis for the Division's inclusion of Phase II limits is the EPA's stated policy of "not
allowing an increase in current pollutant loading directly related to a 303(d) listing when
facility is expanding its capacity". The completion of the Phase I upgrade will actually
result in the reduction of nutrients discharged by the Third Creek WWTP for an
extended period of time, likely through the next two permit cycles and longer.
The City has committed a large allocation of our wastewater management and financial
resources to the current facility upgrade project. The undertaking of a project of this
magnitude represents 6tensive planning and coordination. An additional upgrade
project immediately after the current project is a questionable burden considering that
a nutrient strategy is not in place for High Rock Lake and there is no scientific
justification for the Phase II limits other than keeping nutrient loading the same as it is
from the current facility flow and discharge level.
The current Third Creek upgrade project represents the. most aggressive "on the
ground" nutrient management effort in the High Rock Lake watershed. Most major
municipal WWTPs in the watershed will be required to develop a compliance schedule
to meet reduction levels based on their ability to fund, develop, construct and put in
operation an upgraded W\AITP after a nutrient management program is in place.
Further upgrade of what will be essentially a "new" WWTP at Third Creek before other
facilities are even required to plan their upgrades is clearly not equitable.
The City of Statesville remains committed to fully comply with all established water quality
requirements at our facilities. We are taking concrete steps to provide appropriate levels of
treatment at our Third Creek WWTP. We believe this goal is best met by working with DWR to
revise the Phase II schedule in the existing NPDES Permit.
2

On the basis of the justification provided in this letter and the discussions that we have had with
you, the City requests that the following revision be made to our existing compliance schedule for
Phase 11:
A. (7) COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR PHASE I INTERIM AND PHASE II —
FINAL NUTRIENT PERMIT LIMITATIONS AT 6 AND 8 MGD
The permittee shall comply with the Phase I Interim effluent limitations listed in Part I,
Section A.(2.) by October 1, 2016. This timeframe provides for the conversion of the
biological process to an 6xidation ditch process with biological nutrient removal. Phase I
will result in expanding the facility's capacity from 4 MGD to 6 MGD with interim
limitations.
The permittee will comply with the Phase H (6 MGD) Final Nutrient effluent limitations
listed in Part I, Section A.(3) by October 1, 2026. This timeframe provides for the
addition of treatment C'ttinrroatents for improved nutrient removal.
Any nutrient control strategy or TMDL developed for High Rock Lake will override the 6
MGD and 8 MGD final nutrient effluent discharge limitations (Sections A.(3.) and A.
(4)), and the time schedule will be adjusted to reflect the results and allocations
determined by such a strategy or TMDL. The permit may be reopened and modified
accordingly.
The proposed revision shifts theJimeline to an appropriate compliance date. As noted above,
because of the reopener language in this condition, the Division has the flexibility to implement
the provisions of the NCDP whenever that nutrient management strategy is completed.
The City appreciates your consideration of this revision. We request that this modification be
done as quickly as possible and the Third Creek WWTP permit renewed. Please contact me if
you have any questions concerning this request. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
CITY OF STATESVILLE
Larry . Pressley
City Manager
eriwbod F. Hudson, Jr.
Director of Water Resources
cc: Julie Gryzb, Division of Water Resources
Forrest Westall, PE, McGill Associates
Andy Lovingood, PE, McGill Associates
Joel Whitford, PE, McGill Associates
3

4
CITY of
lae
NORTH CAROLINA
Larry Pressley, City Manager
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
[phone]
April 19, 2018
Ms. Julie Gryzb
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Gryzb:
DECEIVED/DENROWR
APR 24 2018
Water Resources
Permitting Section
RE: NPDES Permit No. NCO020591 Renewal
Third Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
City of Statesville, North Carolina
The City of Statesville is requesting DWR to complete its renewal of the Third Crek
WWTP NPDES permit to adjust the compliance dates for Phase II nutrient limits. As you know,
the City submitted its renewal request in October 2013, in compliance with the current (expired)
permit. The City and its representatives have had numerous contacts with DWR since that
submittal to communicate the critical need to revise the compliance schedule in the permit
relative to future nutrient reduction efforts. Specifically, the City of Statesville submitted to the
Division letters dated August 12, 2014 and December 9, 2014 outlying the need to revise the
Phase II nutrient limits compliance schedule for our Third Creek WWTP. Following this
correspondence, the City by direct communication and through its consultant, McGill Associates,
has initiated email communication and discussions with the Division concerning this permit
renewal and the importance of a schedule revision.
In accordance with our permit, the City previously completed a major upgrade of the
Third Creek WWTP in 2015. The upgrade included increased biochemical oxygen demand
treatment, biological nutrient reduction capability, and expanded the facility's discharge
capacity. This plant upgrade and the associated nutrient reduction capability was a requirement
of the current (expired) permit and compliance schedule. The permit calls for, in section A. (6),
compliance with Phase I limitations by June 1, 2016. As noted, the City completed its upgrade
well in advance of the compliance date.

Ms. Julie Gryzb
April 18, 2018
Page 2
As we have noted and discussed with the Division, the Phase II component of the
permit's compliance schedule calls for another upgrade of the plant to achieve additional nutrient
reduction by October 1, 2019. However, this schedule component includes the following
statement:
"Any nutrient control strategy or TMDL developed for High Rock Lake will override the
Phase II Final Limits (Section A.(3.)) and the final nutrient effluent discharge limitations
and the time schedule will be adjusted to reflect the results and allocations determined by
such strategy or TMDL."
During the negotiation process for the current (expired) permit, it was made very clear
that the objective of the Phase II requirements was to reflect the completion of the High Rock
Lake nutrient management program. Due to the current status of the Division's effort to develop
a Nutrient Control Strategy or TMDL for High Rock Lake, the current schedule for Phase II is
not reasonable or realistic and must be revised now for the renewal permit to reflect the expected
timeline for developing a final nutrient control approach for High Rock Lake. Revision of the
Phase II schedule at this time is appropriate because it properly reflects the intent of the current
permit language and does not represent a water quality issue.
As noted in the previous correspondence and discussions, there are several compelling
reasons for a revised schedule. Primary is the fact that implementation of the Division's EPA
approved Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP) is still proceeding for High Rock Lake.
That Plan includes the State's commitment to the completion of an assessment of High Rock
Lake and the development of an appropriate nutrient control program as needed to address any
eutrophication issues with the Lake. The NCDP's Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) has not
completed its work on High Rock, nor has the Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC)
weighed in on the provisions of the application of specific criteria. While the schedule for
completion of the High Rock Lake effort was included in the NCDP, progress on that effort has
been delayed. Even when there is a decision on the basis of the strategy and its provision, the
process must involve the CIC, and many public review and stakeholder steps must be completed
before a strategy is finalized. Extensive stakeholder involvement is planned, and the
consideration and evaluation of any final strategy will require Environmental Management
Commission action. Rule -making is likely to follow these processes and there are many ways
that the process may be delayed. The NCDP notes that these associated processes represent
significant effort and could impact the schedule as it appears in the NCDP. Because the timing
of the Division's completion of a nutrient management strategy for High Rock Lake is central to
the Third Creek WWTP's final effluent limitations, the permit's compliance schedule should be
revised to reflect this uncertainty and the significant efforts and costs related to funding,
designing and construction of any plant upgrade.

Ms. Julie Gryzb
April 18, 2018
Page 3
In addition to the primary basis for a schedule revision, there are other important
considerations in renewing the permit. The City included these points in the 2014 letters, but
they are reiterated below for your reference:
• One basis for the Division's inclusion of Phase II limits is the EPA's stated policy of "not
allowing an increase in current pollutant loading directly related to a 303(d) listing when
facility is expanding its capacity". The completion of the Phase I upgrade has resulted in
the reduction of nutrients discharged by the Third Creek WWTP over the loading that
existed prior to the upgrade. In essence, the City, in meeting Phase I limits at current
(and future) plant flows, assures that the plant will not increase loading over the level that
existed before the upgrade.
• The City invested a large amount of wastewater management and financial resources to
upgrade the plant (completed in 2015). The undertaking of this major project represented
extensive planning, coordination, and cost to the City. An additional upgrade project is
an unreasonable and unjustified burden considering that at this point no decision has been
made on a final nutrient strategy for High Rock Lake. There is no water quality
justification for the Phase II limits in the current permit.
• The completed Third Creek upgrade project represents the most aggressive "on the
ground" nutrient management effort in the High Rock Lake watershed. The major
municipal WWTPs in the watershed (and perhaps smaller systems as well) will be
required to develop a compliance schedule to meet reduction levels based on their ability
to fund, develop, construct, and put in operation an upgraded WWTP after a nutrient
management program is in place and in effect. Further upgrade of what is essentially a
"new" WWTP at Third Creek before other facilities are required to plan their upgrades is
clearly not equitable.
On the basis of the justification provided in this letter and the discussions that we have
had with you, the City requests that the following revision be made to our existing compliance
schedule for Phase II:
A. (7) COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR PHASE II — FINAL NUTRIENT
PERMIT LIMITATIONS AT 6 AND 8 MGD
The permittee has already complied with the Phase I Interim effluent limitations listed in
Part I, Section A.(2.)
The permittee will comply with the Phase II (6 MGD) Final Nutrient effluent limitations
listed in Part I, Section A.(3) by October 1 2029. This timeframe provides for the
addition of treatment components for im roved nutrient removal.

Ms. Julie Gryzb
April 18, 2018
Page 4
Any nutrient control strategy or TMDL developed for High Rock Lake will override the
6 MGD and 8 MGD final nutrient effluent discharge limitations (Sections A.(3.) and A.
(4)), and the time schedule will be adjusted to reflect the results and allocations
determined by such a strategy or TMDL. The permit may be reopened and modified
accordingly.
The proposed revision shifts the timeline to an appropriate compliance date considering
that our earlier letter and recommendation was submitted more than three years ago. As noted
above, because of the reopener language in this condition, the Division has the flexibility to
implement the provisions of the NCDP whenever that nutrient management strategy is
completed.
The City appreciates your consideration of this revision. We request that this
modification be done as quickly as possible and the Third Creek WWTP permit renewal issued.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this request. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
CITY OF STATESVILLE
Larry Pssley, PE
ML fi City ager
Cc: Linda Culpepper, Director of DWR
Jim Gregson, Deputy Director DWR
Jeff Poupart, DWR
Lynn Smyth, City of Statesville
Chuck Smith, City of Statesville
Forrest Westall, PE, McGill Associates
Joel Whitford, PE, McGill Associates
Enclosed -