NC0020664_Fact Sheet_20200610

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO2O664
Permit Writer/Email Contact Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]:
Date: August 28, 2019
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources / NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Spindale/Spindale WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 186, Spindale, NC 28160
Facility Address:
Ecology St., Spindale, NC 28160
Permitted Flow:
3.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 80% domestic, 20% industrial'
Facility Class:
Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Screening, Grit Removal, Extended Aeration, Clarification,
Chlorination, and Dechlorination
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Rutherford
Region
Asheville
' From permitted industrial flow of 0.6 MGD.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Spindale has applied
for an NPDES permit renewal for its Spindale WWTP, received by DWR on January 30, 2018. A more
complete application was received on March 12, 2018 with three PPAs and two 2nd species toxicity test
reports, the latter from June 2014 and September 2015. Two additional 2nd species toxicity tests, from
December 2016 and December 2018, were located in the DMR files.
Page 1 of 14

This 3.0 MGD facility serves a population of 4,248 residents in the Town of Spindale. The WWTP treats a
combination of domestic and industrial wastewater with a pretreatment program involving three significant
industrial users (SIUs). The SIUs include: Spindale Colormasters LLC (textiles), The Timken Corp. (CIU
433 — Metal Finishing), and Ultimate Textiles, Inc. (textiles).
The permit had 3.0, 4.5 and 6.0 MGD flow tiers since 2004, wherein the 3.0 MGD flow tier was introduced
in response to a decrease in flow resulting from a loss of industrial users. The permit was modified in 2015
to remove the 4.5 and 6.0 MGD tiers to address the facility's AtC application for refurbishment and rerate
the design flow from 6.0 to 3.0 MGD. The Permittee agreed that the higher flow tiers were no longer needed.
The 2015 modification also included a revised Supplement to the Permit Cover Sheet to reflect changes in
accordance with the planned 3.0 MGD design refurbishment construction. The AtC 020664A02 was issued
in October 2015 with a corrected version issued in March 2016.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001/Catheys Creek
Stream Segment:
9-41-13-(6)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (miz):
41.6
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
20
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
26
30Q2 (cfs):
35
Average Flow (cfs):
62
IWC (% effluent):
19%
303(d) listed/parameter:
Fish Community
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
State-wide Mercury TMDL
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Broad/03-08-02/03050105
USGS Topo Quad:
F 11 NW/Rutherfordton South, NC
The receiving stream segment of Catheys Creek is split into two assessment units (AU), with the dividing
line at the confluence with Hollands Creek, just upstream of Spindale WWTP's Outfall 001 (Fig. 1). AU
9-41-13-(6)a, upstream of the discharge, is not impaired according to the NC Final 2018 303(d) list, with
benthos and fish community parameters meeting criteria according to the 2018 Integrated Report. AU 9-
41-13(6)b, into which Spindale WWTP's effluent discharges, is impaired for Fish Community, exceeding
criteria in 2004, as listed in the Final 2018 Integrated Report. The Hollands Creek segment flowing into
Catheys Creek [AU 9-41-13-7-(3)b] is also impaired for Fish Community. The 2015 Catheys Creek Fish
Community Summary Report rates this stream as a Good -Fair bioclassification, noting that recolonization
of certain species following droughts may be affected by the Spindale WWTP effluent. All above AUs are
meeting criteria for benthos.
Page 2 of 14

Figure 1. Receiving waters of Spindale WWTP per the 2018 Integrated Report categories. Blue line =
Supporting (Category 1); red line = Impaired (Category 5); diamond = WWTP Outfall.
`--AU 9-41-13-(b) Creek
LJ • y µ 5
C _,treek to
flo
�� ,ram. �� : � ' i - �.-����' ` • � �.
.'` J `7
A management plan was developed for the Catheys Creek watershed in 2005 by the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program and EarthTech, from studies to investigate sources of pollution and degradation as
well as to identify potential stream and wetland restoration projects. The watershed was divided into 14
sub -watersheds, which were then ranked based on three watershed functions: water quality, hydrology and
habitat. The studies found that the watershed as a whole showed signs of moderate functional degradation
in terms of hydrology, water quality and habitat. The sub -watershed where the Spindale WWTP discharges
into was ranked low to moderately low in watershed functionality with higher pollutant concentrations
found downstream of Spindale. The sub -watershed that Spindale WWTP discharges into was not one of the
four selected for restoration and management focus.
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized in Table 1 for the period of August 2015 through July 2019.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001.
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit 1
Flow'
MGD
0.86
7.10
0.02
MA = 3.0
MA = 22.5
BOD
mg/L
6.5
48.0
0.0
WA = 38.2
BOD removal
%
97.8
99.7
92.2
> 85
TSS
mg/L
11.2
37.0
< 2.5
MA = 30.0
WA = 45.0
TSS removal
%
92.3
96.3
87.5
> 85
Page 3 of 14

Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit'
NH3-N
mg/L
1.3
10.2
0.0
MA = 10.0
WA = 30.0
DO
mg/L
12.9
6.2
DA > 6.0
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
#/100 mL
16
365
MA = 200
WA = 400
TRC
µg/L
18
49
0
DM = 28 3
pH
S.U.
7.3
8.3
5.9
6.0 — 9.0
Temperature
°C
18.2
28.5
1.7
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
mg/L
10.98
31.93
2.52
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
3.09
4.96
0.09
Total Copper
µg/L
37
69
1 u
Total Selenium
µg/L
2.8
< 5.0
< 2.5
Total Silver
µg/L
2.7
< 5.0
< 2.5
Total Zinc
µg/L
96
218
9
Chloride
mg/L
177
385
42
'MA = Monthly Average, WA = Weekly Average, DM = Daily Maximum; DA = Daily Average.
2 Average for CY2018 = 1.14 MGD, 38% of design flow.
'Values < 50 µg/L considered compliant.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this permit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Temperature,
Conductivity and Fecal Coliform. The instream monitoring locations in the current permit are NCSR
1510/Hudlow Road (upstream) and NCSR 1549/Rock Corner Road (downstream). However, the discharge
coordinates place it upstream of the Hudlow Rd bridge, thus upstream of the upstream location listed in the
permit. Discussion with the ORC instead places Outfall 001 just downstream of the Hudlow Rd bridge, and
the Upstream location 100 yd upstream of the bridge. Google Earth places these locations with the following
coordinates:
• Upstream: 32°22'54" N, 81°53' 18" W (not specified in current permit)
• Outfall 001: 32°22'52" N, 81 °53' 16" W (32°22'52" N, 81 °53' 18" Win current permit)
During a site visit on September 20, 2019, the Upstream location was verified as upstream of the discharge
in Catheys Creek, and Outfall 001 was found to lie just downstream of the confluence of Hollands Creek
Page 4 of 14

and Catheys Creek. The current upstream sampling site lies upstream of the confluence; and Hollands Creek
is impaired for fish community, as is Catheys Creek downstream of the confluence. It would be preferred
to have the upstream sampling below the confluence; however, the Outfall location and a proposed location
just upstream of it and at or downstream of the confluence were found not to be safely accessible. Hardness
data collected directly above the outfall but below the confluence and at the current upstream location in
September and October 2019 were similar with an overall range of 15-18 mg/L, below the default value of
25 mg/L. Therefore, the current upstream location is maintained in the permit. Also, the description and
coordinates of the Outfall and Upstream locations were corrected in the permit and on the permit map.
Instream data of each above parameter were charted and tested for up- and downstream differences of paired
data using paired two -sample t-test for means. Comparisons were also made with concurrent effluent data.
The instream data were retrieved from submitted DMRs ranging from June 2016 through July 2019.
Instream DO remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Summer minima at both
stations were above the standard of 5.0 mg/L (15A NCAC 02B .0211). Upstream DO ranged 6.89-15.37
mg/L and downstream DO ranged 7.00-16.00 mg/L. No statistically significant differences were found
between paired up- and downstream values on a given day (t = 0.68, p > 0.1). Concurrent effluent DO
ranged 6.15-12.93 mg/L. The effluent does not appear to effect instream DO.
Instream Temperature remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Summer maxima at
both stations were below the standard of 29°C for mountain and upper piedmont waters (15A NCAC 02B
.0211). Upstream ranged 0.3-23.6°C and downstream ranged 0.9-24.0°C. Upstream temperatures tested
higher than those downstream (t = 4.82, p < 0.001) with an average decrease from up- to downstream of
0.21 °C. Maximum up- to downstream increase was 2.60°C, below the 2.8°C increase standard for mountain
and upper piedmont waters (15A NCAC 02B .0211). Concurrent effluent temperatures ranged 1.7-28.3°C.
The effluent does not appear to affect the instream temperature.
Instream Conductivity remains in the permit due to facility's receiving wastewater from industrial users.
Review of instream conductivity showed ranges of 31-84 µmhos/cm (upstream) and 39-104 µmhos/cm
(downstream), with downstream values significantly higher on average (t =-31.23, p < 0.0001), suggesting
an effect by the effluent. There is no effluent data to compare against, as Conductivity monitoring is not in
the permit. Therefore, effluent Conductivity monitoring has been added to the permit.
NC DWR permitting guidance states that instream monitoring for Fecal Coliform is not required unless the
receiving water is impaired due to coliform or is a Class B waterbody. The receiving stream is a Class C
water and is not listed in as impaired due to coliform in the NC Final 2018 303(d) list. Downstream coliform
counts (geometric mean =126 cfu/100 mL; range: 8-470 cfu/100 mL) appeared lower on average than those
upstream (geometric mean = 159 cfu/100 mL; range: 12-880 cfu/100 mL), while concurrent effluent
coliform counts were substantially lower (geometric mean = 14 cfu/mL; range: < 1-330 cfu/100 mL).
Therefore, Fecal Coliform is not required and instream monitoring for it has been removed from the permit.
No changes are proposed to the permit for instream monitoring of DO, Temperature and Conductivity.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO.
Name of Monitoring Coalition: N/A
5. Compliance Summary
Page 5 of 14

Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): From September 2014 through
August 2019, one violation resulted in an action: a pH value of 5.9 on 3/18/2019, resulting in an issuance
of a Notice of Deficiency.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from March 2015 through March
2019. Among the four 2nd species tests reported, three passed and the fourth, sampled in December 2018,
failed.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection,
conducted on 6/11/2019, reported that the facility was clean and neat in appearance, and records were up
to date. The most recent pretreatment compliance inspection was also conducted on 6/11/2019 and reported
no compliance issues.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA.
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: BOD limits are based
on a water quality model and shall be maintained in the permit.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: Ammonia limits
in the permit are based on the water quality model. The 3.0 MGD discharge has a monthly average limit of
10.0 mg/L (summer and winter) to correspond with the original modeled ammonia limits based on oxygen
consumption. Toxicity -based Ammonia was reviewed in the attached Wasteload Allocation (WLA) sheet
using the flow design of 3.0 MGD and receiving stream low flows of summer 7Q 10 = 20 cfs and winter
7Q 10 = 26 cfs. The resulting allowable concentrations were 4.4/13.2 mg/L monthly average/weekly average
for summer, and 10.6/31.8 mg/L monthly average/weekly average for winter. Since the existing limits are
Page 6 of 14

more stringent than the winter allowable concentrations, only summer limits have been reduced in the
permit.
A review of DMR data from August 2015 through July 2019 against the proposed limits show that the
lowered summer limits can be met, but with some difficulty. The ORC attributed the elevated values to
cold temperatures, and does not take issue with the proposed limits.
NH3- Proposed Limits
Wk Avg. I Mo. Avg WA Limit - - MA Limit
4M
30
25
20
UO
E 15
10 - -
5 ♦�♦ - - -
y ♦ •
0 ♦♦♦- i
oti° oti�' oti�O � tioti� otiA
ooti�' oti�' otio oti�'
yo\�A\ti �\yh\ti y\T
The current TRC limit of 28 µg/L was first established in the permit in 2004 as capped to protect against
acute impacts in the receiving water per the then new TRC policy. WLA calculations for TRC also cap the
allowable concentration at 28 µg/L. The current TRC limit has been maintained in the permit.
Reasonable Potential AnalysisRPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of %2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected from September 2016
through June 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 Monitoriniz. 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, Silver
o Silver is to be analyzed and reported to the lower reporting level of the procedure.
• 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: None.
Page 7 of 14

No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Chlorides, Total Phenols, Total Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Selenium, Zinc.
o Cadmium, Lead are to be reported to the lower reporting level of the procedure.
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.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This facility is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at
19% effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency. The WET limit is based on the Instream Waste
Concentration (IWC) as calculated from the design flow of 3.0 MGD and the receiving stream 7Q10 of 20
cfs (WET Permitting Limits and Monitoring Requirements guidance memo, 8/2/1999).
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 (> I 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: A Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP)
special condition was added to the permit in 2013. During a site visit on 9/20/2019, the MMP plus several
completed mercury survey sheets were reviewed and found complete. Submitted low level mercury data
from November 2016 through March 2019 were reviewed for TMDL evaluation. All data were detected
with no averages exceeding the TBEL of 47 ng/L and no individual values exceeding the WQBEL of 63.6
ng/L (Table 2). Because the design flow is > 2 MGD and mercury was detected in the effluent, an MMP is
required. Therefore, the MMP special condition has been reworded to maintain the MMP.
Page 8 of 14

Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
2
3
4
1
Annual Average Cone. ng/L
15.4
10.1
14.4
12.5
Maximum Cone, ng/L
20.10
13.00
19.90
12.50
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
63.6
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: NA.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: A 4-yr compliance schedule has been
added for Total Copper and Total Silver limits to allow for additional data collection and development and
implementation of a compliance strategy.
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 mg1L
BODs/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BODs/TSS for Weekly Average). YES.
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA.
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES.
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA.
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge)
Page 9 of 14

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 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (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 213.0500; 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.
Monitoring frequencies follow 15A NCAC 213 .0500 for all 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
Table 3. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes.
Page 10 of 14

Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 3.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
BOD5
MA = 22.5 mg/L
WA = 38.2 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. Based on model results
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 on
MA = 4.4 mg/L
NC's use of EPA criteria in developing
NH3-N
MA = 10.0 mg/L
WA = 13.2 mg/L
1.0 mg/L summer and 1.8 mg/L winter
WA = 30.0 mg/L
Winter:
values in wasteload allocations to
MA = 10.0 mg/L
protect against NH3-N toxicity (see
WA = 30.0 mg/L
WLA sheet attached).
DO
DA > 6.0 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard 15A
—
NCAC 2B .0200.
No change for
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
MA 200 /100 mL
effluent. Remove
NCAC 2B .0200. Division guidance
Fecal Coliform
WA 400 /100 mL
instream
for instream monitoring (receiving
stream not Class B or impaired for
monitoring.
coliform).
Total Residual
DM = 28 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ acute standard,
Chlorine (TRC)
15A NCAC 2B .0200
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200.
Temperature
Monitor daily
No change
State WQ reporting requirements 15A
NCAC 2B .0500.
Conductivity
No requirement
Add daily
State WQ reporting requirements 15A
monitoring to permit
NCAC 2B .0500.
Total Nitrogen
Monitor quarterly
No change
State WQ reporting requirements 15A
(NO3 + NO2 + TKN)
NCAC 2B .0500.
Total Phosphorus
Monitor quarterly
No change
State WQ reporting requirements 15A
NCAC 2B .0500.
Chronic
Ceriodaphnia dubia
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
Toxicity Test
Pass/Fail at 19 /0
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
effluent
2B.0500.
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
Add effluent and
Water quality standards, approved in
Total Hardness
No requirement
2016, need effluent and instream
upstream monitoring
hardness data for calculations of permit
limitations.
Page 11 of 14

MA = 45.7 µg/L
DM = 53.4 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
Total Copper
Monitor quarterly
Add 4-yr
exceed allowable discharge
compliance schedule
concentration found.
Parameter in
Current Permit'
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Remove from
No reasonable potential to exceed WQ
Total Selenium
Monitor quarterly
standard; maximum predicted value <
permit
50% of allowable concentration.
MA = 0.3 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
Total Silver
Monitor quarterly
DM = 1.7 µg/L
Add 4-yr
exceed allowable discharge
compliance schedule
concentration found.
Remove from
No reasonable potential to exceed WQ
Total Zinc
Monitor quarterly
standard; maximum predicted value <
permit
50% of allowable concentration.
Remove from
No reasonable potential to exceed WQ
Chloride
Monitor quarterly
standard; maximum predicted value <
permit
50% of allowable concentration.
Mercury
Revise MMP to
In accordance with 2012 Statewide
Total Mercury
Minimization Plan
require its
Mercury TMDL Implementation, per
(MMP)
maintenance
facility size and monitoring data
criteria.
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per
No change
40 CFR 122
Scan
permit cycle
Add Electronic
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Electronic Reporting
No requirement
Reporting Special
Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
'MGD = Million gallons per day, MA = Monthly Average, WA = Weekly Average, DM = Daily Maximum.
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 11/02/2019, 01/29/2020, 03/25/2020.
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
No comments to the third draft, sent to Public Comment on March 25, 2020, were received by the Permittee,
EPA, DWR Regional Office or any other party.
14. NPDES Division Contact:
Page 12 of 14

If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Gary
Perlmutter at [phone] or via email at g_ary_perlmutterkticdenngov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes, the Permittee
provided comments, all of which were considered. Initial comment responses triggered a second Public
Comment period by the insertion of a compliance schedule to the draft permit. Comments to the second
draft by the Permittee triggered a third Public Comment period due to the Permittee's request and
justification to extend the compliance schedule by one year. No comments to the third draft were received.
Comments to the first draft:
• The Town requested an extension of the comment period, stating that it was unaware of the
comment due date, and unaware of the public notice. As the permit writer responded to a similar
extension inquiry by the facility's consultant engineer, the Division does not make extensions to
any one party in the interest of fairness to all stakeholders in the public comment period. An
affidavit for the public notice was received by DWR, stating a publication date of November 2,
2019. The comment period ended December 5, 2019.
• The Town requested acceptance and review of additional effluent copper and silver data collected
over a three-week period ending December 17, 2019. The town argues the limits in the draft permit
"may have been based in part on incomplete or faulty data."
• The Town requested a "grace period" [i.e., a compliance schedule] of at least six months for Copper
and Silver limits to become effective, allowing time for increased sampling and investigation of
possible sources.
• The Town requested moving the upstream sample point to a safer location yet to be specified.
While the proposed location is argued to be accessible via the bridge only, the permit writer visited
the location off of a small turnout with the ORC and consultant engineer to observe the outfall.
The proposed upstream location is accessible from the outfall location. To make the upstream
location more representative of the receiving water, it needed to be at or downstream of the
confluence of Hollands and Catheys creeks, and upstream of the outfall.
The above comments were addressed to the Permittee via e-mail, explaining the comment period and
providing a pdf of the Public Notice affidavit. The Division allowed the Permittee's request for time to
collect additional data and propose an alternate upstream sampling location. The Permittee's response was
received on January 9, 2020.
The Permittee's response included a request for a one-year delay in implementing the Copper and Silver
limits to allow time for further sampling to be reassessed via an RPA, providing one set of influent and
effluent data collected in December 2019. The original upstream location was proposed as the safest
location for sampling.
Comments to the second draft:
• Minor technical details (e.g. BOD limit term in summer, effective date, Silver non -detects at < 0.5
µg/L demonstrate compliance for limits below detection) were questioned for clarification.
• A reference to water quality standards and criteria was requested.
• The Permittee asked if 2nd species toxicity tests could be submitted electronically.
• The Electronic Reporting section was requested to be modified to allow for e-mail submittals.
Page 13 of 14

• The Permittee proposed extension of the Silver and Copper compliance schedule from 3 to 4 yrs,
with the development of the action plan delayed from the first to second year to allow for 2 yrs of
data collection for an RPA reassessment.
These comments were addressed via teleconferences with the Permittee, ORC and consultant engineer in
March 2020. All technical changes were made to the draft permit, a link to the NC Water Quality Standards
table was provided, and the compliance schedule was extended to four years. The revised draft was then
sent for a third Public Comment period, to which no comments were received.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• Minor technical corrections were made (BOD limit was corrected from summer to year-round in
agreement with current permit; effective date updated to 2020).
• The Priority Pollutant Scan special condition was modified to allow for electronic reporting of
PPAs and 2nd species toxicity testing.
• A 4-yr compliance schedule has been added to meet Copper and Silver limits.
• The original upstream monitoring location was reinstated for safe access, finding that comparative
Hardness data between the original location and the proposed location were similar at < 25 mg/L.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• PERCS Information Request form
• Final 2018 NC 303(d) list, page 1
• Final 2018 NC Integrated Report, pages 12, 25
• Fish Community Summary Report, Catheys Creek sample page
• Broad River Basin Plan: Catheys Creek Watershed (DWQ 2009)
• Effluent summary charts and tables
• BOD and TSS removal calculator output tables
• Instream Monitoring data and charts
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations page
• WET testing and Self -Monitoring Summary, page 106
• Permit and Pretreatment Compliance Inspection Reports
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheet
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• Dissolved Metals Implementation — Freshwater
• Effluent, upstream hardness results
• Mercury WQBEL/TBEL Evaluation data and summary table
• Spindale comments to the draft permit, DWR response, and Spindale follow-up
• Spindale comments to the 2nd draft permit, DWR response as 3" Fact Sheet Addendum
Page 14 of 14

NPDES/A uifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check all that apply
from PERCS:
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should be
Date of Request 8/27/2019 municipal renewal x
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Re uestor Gary Perlmutter new industries
(or NOV POTW).
Facility Name S indale WWTP WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number NCO020664 Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region Asheville stream reclass.
renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin Broad outfall relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check applicable PERCS staff: Other Comments to PERCS:
BIRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
X Vivian Zho 807-6310 Facility is rated 1.9 MGD wtih no SIUs listed in its applicaation, and is not
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD listed 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 SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (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, MGD Permitted Actual Time penodfor Actu 1
STMP time frame.
Industrial Wt_ V
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
Next
Cycle:
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Required by
Required
POC due
POTW POC
STMP
LTMP
d
Parameter of
e
m
Concern (POC)
Disch Permit
EPA*
by 503
to SIU ***
(Explain
Effluent
Effluent
0
°a
Check List
Limit
Sludge—
9 '"
below **-
)
Fre q
Fre q
Q = Quarterly
M = Monthly
BOD
V
4
Q
M
_14TSS
4
101
M
NH3
V
4
Q
M
Arsenic
4
Q
M
Cadmium
ti
4
M
Chromium
4
M
Copper
4
M
Cyanide
4
1 CA
M
/s all data on DMRs?
Lead
4
1 Q1
M
YES
15
Mercury
4
1 Q1
M
NO attach data
Molybdenum
V
4
1 Q
M
v
Nickel
4
1 Q
M
Silver
4
Q
M
Selenium
4
1 Qj
M
d
Zinc
-1
NZ4
1 Qj
M I
Is data in spreadsheet?
4
101
M
YES (email to writer
4
1 C4
M
NO
4 M
4 Q M
_
4 Q M
4 Q M
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or oomposte (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
Comments to Permit Writer ex., explanation of any POCs• info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
3 stus VKXtrA,I f-'Ms,� Z191V t
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.forrn.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007

C
{A
m
m
O'
O
m
C c
C
' T
L
O
E NI
L 1
Q mLn' V
O; M,
O:
U L
-. a UJ
m : -0
O E
G1 Z
Q
� a
41 o
o�'>
� J
U Q
X
O U
Y I OI
GJ ! In M
v
O' 1
CL
E
= L L
L _Gi
L
M = �w
N Ili L cL
�-' N O
�a
c'
.1
a
c
0
0
ao;! �
cIO
Y L
i f6 I L
o E O
LY
VI ; 0 OD
4,
CC Y ''L J �
C� y'
N
G J�
Y-
O O
tuD E U i
C co oaC.
v 4-1 VI N
.29
di
ro
y' Ln
U p
c *z •;°
m M ro c� +O, N
O L
m U V
Q `V aci a
co E E
d
L X
LL � W
LM
O
O
LO
O
M
O
ra
O
I-
ca
In
f0
N
N
G1
E
z
v!
i
O
N
m Ln
V
7
a-�
O
•L �
41 v:.
L +=
U L
U
c
O c
E 15'
a y
h 41
U
X
W
LL
i LL
C
Ia
Y
a�
A'
LL
W
L
p
U
�
>
>
O
...
c
+�
va
V
.01
(6
G
Q41
o
@
U I
'L
W
+ -
c
_@
L
4
«�
�
Co
�
H
tD �
V
�
U
N ;Lv__
aci
C1D
c
o'
E
E
v
v
O
N
X
11
W
i
O
v
4+
m Ln
U
L ,
N!
�C I
E
7
z
I
LL i
� L i
N
LL I
C
[4- p 7
L E
c i 67 E
N p
N E V
L H
m
0-1
LL
m
v
Q
-0
�
� I
O
-�
pp
co
E
41
O
+1
L
Y
O
�o
O
�
p
V
r
L
In
s=
y
Y
o
`^
i
U
�
O
:9
C
�
d
O
u
!
a
y l
440 .
m
�
U
V
w
c
O:
U
(U
i
E
E
CA
an
��
O
X
Ll
IA
Q
W
J2
N
l0
N
4-
0
N
tl0
m
a

W,
c
ul
m
A
N
�o
0
m
a.
0
IZ
M
M
C
i m
d
GC oC
'a m
O
L
m m
L.
dA
L
r_
u
Z
W
1-1
O
N
)I14
E
z
0
z!
O
Q
y
M
N
1
=
Q
f Ln
N
O
U
O
N
O
N
L,
O
p CD
U N
N
CD
N
O
I
I
aa)
a
IA
a
m
N I
m
`
m `
m
Z
to
f0
ai
aJ
= —
•L.
vi
•L
m
U
y.r
41
L
U
L
L
U 41 1
i 1
U
U
U
to..
-
C
ajto
U!
pp'!
qp
-0
E
C
i =a
E
C
m
N I
+�
N
m
++
m
wX
a� :
vl
+
Ln
W ++ :
v cu !
N
(UC�
QJ
N
LL,
Ci
X:
X
Q
l�_,Q
W
w
t
N
N
iaio
0
v
3
'
U
+�
U r-1
Ln
4 �
0
� �
Lr)
j
ra
ra
l a l
O
OI
Y
}.
txo I
J j
>3
0
C
J_
V
m
O
a-+
cu
L
Y
a)
++
N
U
O
U
Z .
'O
C
m
IE
QJcu
U
LL
I 2
U
U
in 0
LL!
a
++ ar
w
u
CA¢
L
++ I ar
U
ul
M
o
ul
o
u}
z
v
o
v
w
Ln
ti
E
0
E
ro
0
E
o
U-cu
�p
N
L1
co
M
71
to
U
Ls
LL
LL
J
i
¢
m
s
+Lv+
0
m
al
LL
Q
m
Z
co
E
o
�
v
0
N
L
L
C
CO
L
an
L.L
L
U-
r L
L
E
CI
z
O
lu
'�;
Q
I
=3
u
O
.5
aj
ra
to
Ln
tD
in
a>
>
C
v
_
�
rV
U
Cto
E
C
;�
cu
C
N
X
¢
0
Lu
cn
0
as
cu
U
m
Y
~
U
3:
LL
U
i
41
rr
o
o
� 1
C
0
Ln
J
¢
L
fa
Z
u
C=
Ln
P
U
a
a1
ro
Z
!�
�I-
V
a�
V
0
m
L
�
ca
U
O
�
.-
L
ar
Ln
_
m
v
E
E
a,
O
rEa
U
H
Li-
a
L
Ln
ii
L.L
m
Rr
.-1
nil
N
Q1
4-
0
N
a--1
a)
fC
a
L
O
O_
a)
aU
i-+
OD
aj
c
U
z
co
O
N
rn
0
(V
m
m

0
M
Z
00
O
cu
E
E
m
z
z
<
C) rn r,4
-i
<
—6 C) 0
.2
w
41
CL
m
CU
>
4v
(U
fj
4-j U
Cio i
cu 0
tn
w 40
Z)Q
X
U-1
to i
CID
m
CU
V) ii
0',
CL
0-
=
Q)
Y
cu
Qj
Ln :L
-
<
m
Y ,
-
<
Q)
"
S
0
0
0-:
t.0
x
<
u
x
cu
<
LL
6
u
V)
0
4�
u
w
6
U
0
kn
LL-
M C)
:3
m
0 QJ 4,
0
C
<
4-
0
0
G.
V)
UCc
0
Cc
Q,
:3
0
a)
Gl
-ld
:3
u
Ln
Ln
tn.
0
E
E 0
Ln
E
0
41�
0
U-
m c
Cu
r-
-
&LL
CQ-
r- I
0
41
V)
m
bJD
0) tjo
E
i
w
E
V)
a)
I cu t (V
X
Lu-
CU
M
�
Z
U
LL,
L.L
tn
LL 1 Z
4—
U
O
M, M
Z E
OJ
V) a
E
0
= 0
4 u
(A
Ln
L: :
LL -i
cu
CID
z
<
r-j
to
C'J
0 C)
.2
cu
y
Ln
CU
-r
Q)
cu
4--
a)
41
4,
a
tw
U-
(U
to
E
V)
Ln
u
u
tn
<
x
LU
x
N
� I
0
(D
41
U 10 1 ri Ln
ca
cu
0
-C
aj I
u
Ln
>-
. Z
iI (U
U:
W
m
u
LL LL
I-
u
U
to
0
4-J
(U
m
IM
" i LL
W
0
Im
4-
U)
Y
C
cl)
tA
14-
u
Z
E' 1
u
41
(U Ln
r
ail tn
E
E 0
0
0
1
U F-
LL,
CID
LL LL
cm
-4
4-
0
Ln
r,4
w
cto
cc
a.
41
0
CL
aj
co
cu
u
z
00
ci

FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Waterbody
Location
Station ID
Date
Bloclassificatlon
CATHEYS CR
US 221
AN
06/16/15
Good -Fair
County
8 digit HUC Latitude
Longitude
Elevation (�
Reference Site
RUTHERFORD
03050105 35.459009
-81.978921
930
N❑
Level IV Ecoregion
Drainage Area lmf)
Stream Width (m) Stream Depth (m]
Southern Inner Piedmont
13.3
7 1 0.3
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (? 1 MGD or < 1 MGD and within 1 mile)
NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
NGne
_
Landuse (%)
Forest
Developed
Impervious
Cultivation
Grass/Herb/Shrub
Wetland
Water
Barren
1992
90.1
0.3
no data
8.1
no data
0.0
0.3
1.2
2001
69.9
3.6
0.2
12.0
8.3
0.1
0.8
3.1
2006
67.5
3.6
0.2
13.2
13.3
0.1
0.8
1.4
Water Quality Parameters
2004
2010
2015
Temperature (°C)
12.8
22.6
22.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
10.5
7.9
7.2
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
52
57
63
pH (s.u.)
6.7
6.4
6.0
Habitat Assessment Scores (max score)
2015
Channel Modification (5)
5
Instream Habitat (20)
12
Bottom Substrate (15)
3
Pool Variety (10)
6
Riffle Habitat (16)
7
Bank Erosion (7)
6
Bank Vegetation (7)
6
Light Penetration (10)
10
Left Riparian Score (5)
5
Right Riparian Score (5)
5
Total Habitat Score (100)
65
Water Clarity I Slightly turbid, but became extremely turbid when walking in the ch I Substrate: Sand, gravel
Sample Date
Sample ID
Species Total
NCIBI Score
NCIBI Rating
06/16/15
2015-56
12
46
Good -Fair
06/10/10
2010-42
12
46
Good -Fair
03/23/04
2004-07
13
52
Good
Data Analysis
Watershed -- drains northern Rutherford County, west of the US 221 corridor; no NPDES permitted dischargers or municipalities in the watershed; tributaryto
the Second Broad River. Habitat - moderate quality instream habitats; side coarse woody debris snags; infrequent stick and gravel riffies. Water Quality --
low flow; specific conductance typical for a Piedmont stream, has ranged from 52 pS/cm to 63 pS/cm during past three monitoring cycles. 2015 -- only one
Intolerant Species present (Highback Chub), the intolerant species Fieryblack Shiner and Santee Chub were absent; decrease in the trophic metric scores
(Percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores and Percentage of Insectivores) was offset by the increase in sunfish diversity (the addition of Green Sunfish and
Bluegill) resulting in no net change in the NCIBI Score or NCIBI Rating. 2004-2015 - only 16 species known from the site, including 8 species of cyprinids, 3
Intolerant Species, 3 species of sunfish, 2 species of suckers, but just 1 species of darter; dominant species is the Piedmont Shiner (2004 and 2010) and the
Bluehead Chub (2015) whose dominance increased two -fold since 2010 (from 21 % to 48%); Carolina Fantail Darter is the only species of darter that has been
collected at this site, other darter species (i.e., Seagreen Darter, Tessellated Darter, and Piedmont Darter) along with the Greenfin Shiner and Northern Hog
Sucker are not known or extremely rare from this part of the Second Broad River watershed, so the low darter diversity may be natural; some diversity metrics
were consistently lower than expected compared to a reference site; re -colonization of this stream by species such as Greenfin Shiner, Fieryblack Shiner,
Santee Chub, and Tessellated Darter following droughts may possibly be affected by the effluent from the downstream Town of Spindale's W WTP (Q„ = 4.5
MGD). Recommendation - continue basinwide monitoring of this site in 2020 to document any change in the landuse.
Most Abundant
Species
Bluehead Chub (176, 48%
Non -indigenous
Species
Green Sunfish (3)
Imperiled
Species
None

CATHEYS CREEK (HOLLANDS CREEK)
WATERSHED
HUC 030501050403
(Part of the Second Broad River Watershed)
GENERAL WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
Catheys Creek is a tributary to the Second Broad River. It is located in
central Rutherford County and originates in a forested area north of the
Town of Rutherfordton near the McDowell -Rutherford county line. The
stream flows southeast until it reaches the Second Broad River, just north
of Forest City. Catheys Creek, Mill Creek, Hollands Creek and Case Branch
were all sampled during the most recent assessment period (Figure 9-1).
Land use throughout the watershed is a mix of commercial and residential
properties with agricultural (row crops and pasture) and forested land in the
headwaters.
WATER QUALITY OVERVIEW
In addition to basinwide sampling, DWQ collected benthic and fish samples
throughout the watershed in 2003 and 2004 as part of a special study for the
Watershed Restoration Program (WRP), now the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) (NCDENR DWQ, August 2003 and NCDENR DWQ, April
2004). Chemical and physical parameters were also evaluated through
ambient monitoring sites (December 2004). Data collected during these
studies were evaluated and used to determine causes and sources of
degradation and to develop a watershed management plan (August 2005).
Sedimentation, point source pollution, stormwater runoff and historic
mining activities were identified as the primary factors affecting watershed
function in the Catheys Creek watershed.
WATERSHED AT A GLANCE
COUNTIES
Rutherford
MUNICIPALITIES
Ruth, Rutherfordton,
Spindale, Forest City
PERMITTED FACILITIES
NPDES WWTP:
3
NPDES Nondischarge:
0
NPDES Stormwater:
6
Animal Operations:
0
MONITORED STREAM MILES
(AL)
Total Streams:
32.2 mi
Total Supporting:
17.8 mi
Total Impaired:
8.6 mi
Total Not Rated:
5.9 mi
Several of the streams segments are supporting; however, portions of both Catheys and Hollands Creeks are
Impaired in the aquatic life category. Mill Creek is also Impaired in the aquatic life category (Table 9-1).
9.1

.z i • a � /'
fNJI /
� a
r
rr .
(D
r�
O
a
�\ O f� �� N A• �V
W
O v N
W
}a
a C
re
AW co
A A/
0
D ".a
r �;o
3 Cl)oll
A
fA Z Z �
� � 0 � � Z co� TI 7. K �%
;u p N N� O O p O O 5 r.
O N = G O R o `�• tQ
S. G G .d► 10
n y fD W 2
-9' IQ N C O 7 (�
N
7 C a
N p
`Z 0
>.
>o N
CD
3 N
C)
c
X
.mA
V
1
N
D
N
m
n
O
z
v
W
O
a
v
X
m
c
w
Ul
O
O
O
w
GI!

Flow to Read this Document
This document was written to correspond with our new Online Geographic Document Distribution (OGDD)
tool using Google Earth". If you are unable to use Google Earth"", this document provides maps and associated
water quality information and a discussion of water quality trends occurring in the watershed. Google Earth,
is an independent software program which can be downloaded to a personal, business, and most local and state
government computers; the program allows you to view satellite imagery of the earth's surface along with location
identifiers. DWQ's Basinwide Planning Unit created a "transparency" add on layer to Google Earth' with basinwide
water quality data, which allows a user to locate their watershed, pinpoint a waterbody and use support ratings,
find a location of a permit and provides links to PDF watershed reports. For more information on how to download
Google Earth'"" and DWQ's data visit DWQ's Basinwide Planning's OGDD website. Please contact Melanie Williams
for more information at [e-mail] or 919-807-6447.
Impaired streams are those streams not meeting their associated water quality standards in more than 10 percent
of the samples taken within the assessment period (January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006) and impacted
streams are those not meeting water quality standards in 7 to 9 percent of the samples. The Use Support report
provides information on how and why water quality ratings are determined and DWQ's "Redbook" describes
in detail water quality standards for each waterbody classification. For a general discussion of water quality
parameters, potential issues, and rules please see "Supplemental Guide to North Carolina's Basinwide Planning:
Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality Plans".
TABLE 9-1: MONITORED STREAM SEGMENTS IN THE CATHEYS CREEK WATERSHED
ASSESSMENT LENGTH 2O08 I R POTENTIAL STRESSORS DWQ
UNIT NUM"FR STREAM NAME (MILES) CLASS. CAT. IMPAIRED IMPACTED (POTENTIAL SOURCES) SUBBASIN
9-41-13-(0.5) Catheys Creek 15.2 WS-V 2 - Fecal Coliform Bacteria 03-08-02
(Animal Operations)
Habitat Degradation
(General Agriculture/
Pasture, Stormwarer Runoff)
9-41-13-(6)a Catheys Creek 1.9 C 2 Habitat Degradation 03-08-02
(General Agriculture/
Pasture, Impervious Surface)
9-41-13-(6)b Catheys Creek 1.9 C 5 X Fecal Coliform Bacteria 03-08-02
Habitat Degradation
(General Agriculture/
Pasture, Stormwarer Runoff)
9-41-13-3 Mill Creek 4.5 WS-V 5 X Habitat Degradation 03-08-02
(Impoundment)
9-41-13-7-(1) Hollands Creek 3.9 WS-V 3a - Habitat Degradation 03-08-02
(Impervious Surface)
9-41-13-7-(3)a Hollands Creek 0.7 C 2 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 03-08-02
Habitat Degradation
(Impervious Surface,
Natural Conditions,
Stormwarer Runoff)'
Natural Impacts
(Stormwater Runoff)
9-41-13-7-(3)b Hollands Creek 2.2 C 5 X Habitat Degradation 03-08-02
(Impervious Surface,
Stormwarer Runoff)
k,9 41-13-7-4 Case Branch (Cox 1.9 C 3a - 03-08-02
1 Branch)
"The 2008 IR Categories definitions can be found on the first page of Appendix 3-A
9.3

CURRENT STATUS OF IMPAIRED 8t IMPACTED WATERS
Catheys Creek watershed as a whole shows signs of moderate functional degradation in terms of water quality,
hydrology and habitat. Sedimentation was identified as a significant problem throughout the entire watershed, and
when compared to the upstream (rural) areas of the watershed, nutrients, metals, fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity
were higher at sites sampled within and downstream of Spindale. Field assessments also revealed stream channel and
floodplain alterations from historic mining operations and the clearing of several large forested tracts were contributing
to an increased amount of nonpoint source runoff and sedimentation. Several opportunities were identified for better
management of land and water resources. A few of these are discussed under Local Initiatives, and all are listed in the
Watershed Management Plan (EarthTech, August 2005).
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
A total of six benthic sites were sampled in Catheys and Hollands Creeks in June 2003. The sites were sampled shortly
after heavy rain events, and DWQ biologists noted that the stream water levels were high, indicating a recent rain
event. Many of the streams were also turbid. In March 2004, a total of four fish sites were sampled in both creeks. DWQ
biologists noted that habitat quality varied from very good to very poor depending on land use, geology, slopes, soils, and
streamflow. Most low gradient streams around Spindale and Rutherfordton are extremely sandy, often lacking aquatic
habitat areas. Higher gradient streams, or those in the more forested areas of the watershed, have a rocky substrate.
CATHEYS CREEK
Sites AB15 and AF1 are the most upstream sites in Catheys Creek watershed. They were selected to represent that
portion of the watershed above the urban areas of Spindale and Rutherfordton where land use is a combination of
agriculture and forest with some residential areas. Site AB15 received a Good -Fair benthic bioclassification. Site AF1
received a Good fish bioclassification. Embedded, sandy substrate and a lack of cobble -riffle habitats contributed to the
poor instream habitat.
Benthic samples were also collected on Catheys Creek upstream and downstream of the confluence with Hollands Creek.
Site AB13 is upstream of the confluence and land use in the immediate vicinity is a mix of forest, agriculture, and
residential properties. SiteAB13 received a Good -Fair benthic bioclassification. Major habitat concerns included eroding
streambanks and the lack of instream habitat (i.e., infrequent pools).
Sites AB14 and AF3 are downstream of the confluence. These sites are also downstream of permitted WWTP facilities
and approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the confluence with the Second Broad River. Land use is a mix of hayfields
(inactive pasture), residential properties and forestland. In June 2003, DWQ biologists noted that the streambanks had
been severely scoured (likely during recent rain events), and many were eroding. Site AB14 received a Good -Fair, an
improvement from the Fair it received in 2000. Site AF3 received a Fair, an improvement from the Poor it received in
2000. Even though both sites improved, this section of Catheys Creek (AU# 9-41-13-(6)b) is still Impaired for aquatic life
due to the Fair fish bioclassification.
HOLLANDS CREEK
Site AB26 is the most upstream site sampled on Hollands Creek. Stream width here was less than 3 meters (drainage
area less than 3 square miles); therefore, a bioclassification could not be assigned to this site (Not Rated). A few rubble -
boulder riffles were found, but most of the streambed was sand and red silt. DWQ biologists noted that much of the
streambed silt likely originated from streambank erosion. Even though site AB26 was Not Rated, biologists believe that
the low taxa richness and abundance suggest water quality and/or habitat problems. The Catheys Creek Technical
Advisory Committee identified the headwaters of Hollands Creek as a focus area for stream restoration in the Catheys
Creek watershed management plan published in August 20C
Sites AB27 and AF2 had a habitat that was quite different from other sites on either Hollands or Catheys Creeks. Most
streams throughout the river basin are very sandy with silt, but this stream segment consisted of a mostly boulder
and rubble substrate with moderate gradient plunge pools and rocky runs. This reflects a change in geology rather
than a change in land use. Site AB27 received a Good -Fair benthic bioclassification. Site AF2 received a Good -Fair
fish bioclassification. During the time of fish sampling, DWQ biologists observed periphyton (algae) covering all of the
instream substrate. Periphyton growth is an indicator of nutrient enrichment from point source and/or nonpoint source
runoff.
9.4

Downstream, the boulder -rubble substrate found at sites AB27 and AF2 was replaced by an unstable sand -silt substrate at
sites AB28 and AF4. Site AB28 received a Good -Fair benthic bioclassification. No significant changes in water quality were
identified; however, the Good -Fair was an improvement from the Fair bioclassification this site received in 2000. Site
AF4 received a Fair fish bioclassification. Instream habitats were extremely poor and included one plunge pool created
by concrete slabs used for channel stabilization. Streambanks were highly eroded, and the riparian zone consisted
primarily of lawns with a few trees. This section of Hollands Creek (AU# 9-41-13-7-(3)b) remains Impaired in the aquatic
life category.
MILL -REEK
Mill Creek is a tributary to Catheys Creek and was sampled in an effort to find a high quality site in the upper part of
the watershed. DWQ biologists noted that the stream had good habitat characteristics, but only eleven species were
collected. Many of these were pollution tolerant species. A high water temperature (220C/720F) recorded during the
time of sampling suggested an upstream impoundment or discharge of some kind. Although the biologists did not note a
pond, impoundment or discharge pipe during the time of sampling, a review of 1993 land use maps indicated that there is
a pond in the upper part of the Mill Creek sub -watershed. Site AB34 received a Fair benthic bioclassification. Mill Creek
(AU#.9-41-13-3) is Impaired in the aquatic life category. The Catheys Creek Technical Advisory Committee identified
Mill Creek as a focus area for stream restoration in the Catheys Creek watershed management plan published in August
2005.
Ir' - -E BRANCH
Case Branch (also known as Cox Branch) is a tributary to Hollands Creek and drains the northern portion of Spindale. Land
use consists of residential and commercial properties. It was sampled as an urban reference stream. Biologists expected
to find severe water quality problems. Conductivity was high (124 µmhos/cm), but habitat was surprisingly good and a
few pollution intolerant species were identified. Stream width here was less than 3 meters; therefore, a bioclassification
could not be assigned to site AB12 (Not Rated).
Case Branch was also identified as a potential problem area during the assessment phase of EEPs local watershed planning
process. In May 2004, DWQ and EEP staff walked much of Case Branch and its tributaries to pinpoint pollution sources.
Problem areas that were identified include a DOT stormwater pond near partially uncovered salt piles and construction
materials (i.e., metal, bricks, concrete, and other refuse) in two unnamed headwater tributaries. DWQ and EEP staff
also noted that both unnamed headwater tributaries had deeply incised streambanks (15 to 20 foot high) (NCDENR DWQ,
November 2004). The Catheys Creek Technical Advisory Committee identified Case Branch as a focus area for stream
restoration in the Catheys Creek watershed management plan published in August 2005.
CHEMICAL- PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
To provide supplemental information to support the EEP local watershed planning efforts in the Catheys Creek watershed,
DWQ conducted chemical -physical monitoring at seven sites - two on Catheys Creek, one on Hollands Creek, and five on
unnamed tributaries. Periodic sampling was conducted under baseflow conditions at five sites from January to August
2004. Sampling was also conducted under stormflow conditions on three different occasions during the same time period.
Baseflow is defined as conditions present at least 48 hours after a measurable precipitation event. Stormflow samples
are collected during the rising stream stage event, during or after a precipitation event. Fecal coliform bacteria,
suspended residue, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen, copper, zinc, manganese, iron,
and aluminum were consistently higher in stormwater samples than samples collected under baseflow conditions.
These results are consistent with other studies and illustrate how sediment and other pollutants can enter a waterbody
(December 2004).
Sampling also indicates that chromium, mercury and copper may be metals of concern to this watershed, particularly
around areas known for historic gold mining operations. Mercury used in the mining process may remain in the floodplain
soils and in the streambeds. Further testing (i.e., sediment toxicity testing) is needed to determine if the levels are
harmful to aquatic life. Fish tissue samples are also suggested in order to establish the level of mercury and other metals
in the fish thus allowing the determination of a human health hazard for fish consumption (NCDENR DWQ, December
Under baseflow conditions, ambient monitoring showed that the water quality standard for fecal coliform bacteria was
exceeded at five sites. Current methodology requires additional bacteriological sampling for streams with a geometric
mean greater than 200 colonies/100 ml or when concentrations exceed 400 colonies/100 ml in more than 20 percent
of the samples. These additional assessments are prioritized such that, as monitoring resource become available, the
9.5

highest priority is given to those streams where the likelihood of full -body contact recreation is greatest. None of the
waters in the Catheys Creek watershed are classified for primary recreation (Class B); therefore, it was not prioritized
for additional sampling during this assessment period. Potential sources of elevated bacteria levels include failing septic
systems, straight pipes and nonpoint source runoff from pasture and foresdands (NCDENR DWQ, December 2004).
SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES
No significant compliance issues were identified for the permitted facilities in the Catheys Creek watershed; however,
two facilities received several notices of violations (NOVs) during the last two years of the assessment period.
The White Oak Manor WWTP (Permit NC0030139) received NOVs for exceedences in TSS and fecal coliform bacteria.
The facility is permitted to discharge 0.015 million gallons per day (MGD) to Catheys Creek. The most recent inspection
(August 2006) resulted in an NOV being issued for improper equipment operation (i.e., grease removal and secondary
clarifier sludge removal). Solids were also observed in the streambed below the outfall.
The United World Mission WWTP (Permit NC0032174) received NOVs for exceeding the permit limit for ammonia. It is
permitted to discharge 0.02 MGD to Cherry Creek. Technical assistance provided by DWQstaff (June 2007) determined that
the violation was due to a combination of regular maintenance and improper chemical treatment after the maintenance
was performed.
DWQAsheville Regional staff will continue to work with both facilities to ensure that the facilities remain in full compliance
with permit limits.
LOCAL INITIATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
In collaboration with local stakeholders and resource professionals, EEP, the Watershed Education for Communities and
Officials (WECO) and Earth Tech were able to develop the Catheys Creek Watershed Management Plan. The planning
efforts included public meetings, the formation of a technical advisory committee (TAC), spatial analysis and field
sampling to accurately characterize watershed issues. Follow the link above for a full copy of the report.
Sedimentation, point source pollution, stormwater runoff and historic mining activities were identified as the primary
factors affecting watershed function in the Catheys Creek watershed. Accelerated stream channel erosion was observed
at many sites and was attributed to past channelization and livestock access in the upper reaches and high -velocity
flows from stormwater runoff in the lower reaches. Drainage from large pasture areas with livestock, faulty/vandalized
sewer collection and septic systems and straight piping are believed to be contributing to high fecal levels. Chromium,
mercury and copper may be a concern due to historic gold mining operations throughout the watershed. Because of
the potential for metal contamination in the floodplain soils and streambeds, specific site investigations should include
interviews to determine the history of mining on the property as well as visual inspections for clues such as spoil piles
and channel alterations. Typical stream channel and floodplain restoration projects can cause tremendous disturbance
to the streambed and floodplain soils and could potentially release buried sediment -bound metals into the environment.
Toxicity tests are also recommended to determine impacts on the aquatic life.
As part of the planning process, the Catheys Creek watershed was divided into fourteen sub -watersheds. By using
geographic data (i.e., land cover, soils, terrestrial habitat and hydrography), water quality data, interviews and visual
observations, it allowed for more specific watershed characterization and identification of stressors and sources on the
sub -watershed scale. The sub -watersheds were ranked based on water quality, hydrology and habitat function. Four sub -
watersheds were identified for focused restoration plans and included the Mill Creek sub -watershed, the William Branch
sub -watershed, the headwaters of Hollands Creek sub -watershed, and the Case Branch sub -watershed.
Causes and sources were identified along with goals, strategies and BMPs; thus resulting in specific recommendations
for these four sub -watersheds. Many of the goals included reducing stormwater runoff, reducing the sediment load,
and reducing the nitrogen, phosphorus and metals entering the surface waterbody. Many of the BMPs included livestock
exclusion and buffer restoration, streambank stabilization, bioretention areas, construction wetlands, and wet detention
ponds (EarthTech, August 2005).
9.6

REFERENCES
EarthTech. August 2005. Catheys Creek Technical Watershed Assessment - Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
EarthTech. February 2005. Catheys Creek Critical Area Report Summary for the Technical Advisory Committee. Prepared
for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
EarthTech. February 2004. Catheys Creek Technical Watershed Assessment - Initial Waterhsed Characterization and
Sampling Plan. Prepared for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. December 2004. Water Quality Monitoring in Catheys Creek and Tributaries in the
Broad River Basin: Summary Results January - August 2004. Prepared for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP).
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. November 2004. Technical Brief: Case Branch Investigation. Prepared for the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. April 2004. Fish Community Assessments of Catheys and Hollands Creeks. Prepared by
the Biological Assessment Unity (BAU).
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. August 2003. Catheys Creek/Hollands Creek Watershed Restoration Program Study.
Prepared by the Biological Assessment Unity (BAU).
NCSU Watershed Education for Community and Local Officials (WECO). Winter 2005. Catheys Creek Newsletter.
NCSU Watershed Education for Community and Local Officials (WECO). Spring 2005. Catheys Creek Newsletter.
9.7

Spindale WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020664
Flow
Mo. Avg. Limit
3.5
3.0 —
2.5
p 2.0
� 1.5 • �
• +
1.0 ••r ••Mo••••00 0 a S.M••r••••••••••••• • • •
0.5 •
0.0 s ._
oti° otio' oti�O otio otio otio otio' otio otio otiC'
,� y\'Y titi�y\�
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Wk Avg. Mo. Avg WA Limit MA Limit
50
45
40
35 M
30 !
on 25
20
15 +-$•a�
10
5
40 A;
otio otio' 0, (0 oti6 otio otio Is, otio' otio otio
� y\`ti �\���ti \�\ti �\�,v�ti t\yo�ti yo\��\ti h�tih\� titi�y\�
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
• Wk Avg. ♦ Mo. Avg WA Limit MA Limit
50
45
40
35
30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0 -,
■
E 20 • • i �'
• ♦ ! •
15
15� • + 44
r
0
otia otio' otio . V otio otio 00 otio otio'
160, �\o�ti -1\'ti�ti
Summary
Statistics
n
1441
Avg
0.86
SD
0.54
Min
0.02
Max
7.10
Summary
Statistics_
n
988
Avg
6.5
SD
7.6
Min
0.0
Max
48.0
Summary
Statistics
n
988
Avg
11.2
SD
6.9
Min
2.5
Max
37.0
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/9/2019

Spindale WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020664
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Wk Avg. Mo. Avg WA Limit MA Limit
35
30
25
20
E 15
10 — — — ——— — — — — — — — — — — -
5
0—�
O,� O,O O,O O,1 O,1
��\ti\ti
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Effluent Limit
14
12
10 ♦+ M
J g
bn
E 6
4
2
0 -
O,�
O,h
O,O
O,6
O,A
-S"y\L\��\'L\O\'L\�,L\'L\10\`L
Fecal Coliform
Wk Avg. Mo. Avg WA Limit MA Limit
1,000
___■__
E __--� s�- - - -
100-•1
10s4�■ ■�
AS • It' V
O,O O,O
y�\�,�\ti y � C�\�ti\ti �\yo\i yo\�,�\ti h\1h\ti y�\ti\ti
Summary
Statistics
n
989
Avg
1.3
SD
2.3
Min
0.0
Max
10.2
Summary
Statistics
n
987
Avg
8.2
SD
1.2
Min
6.2
Max
12.9
Summary
Statistics
n
988
Geomean
16.5
Min
1.0
Max
365.0
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/9/2019

Spindale WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO02O664
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Effluent Limit Compliant
60
50
i
40
♦ ♦ f
30 L` ♦--
20 •
10 •
0
oy°` oti5 °tio °ti° °tip oti� °tip °tip °tie otia
titi\SAT �\y4T ti\\� 4�
pH
Effluent L. Limit i U. Limit
9.5
9.0 -
8.5
8.0 A AL
7.5
<^ 7.0 ♦ •
6.5 = ♦ ♦ «
6.0 - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - ♦ - - - V -
5.5
5.0
4'0
Temperature
30
25
s
20
15
10
5
0
e O,h °10 °10 Otis
titi\ 1\\ y\ 4 o,\ \ '°\ `'\ ti
Summary
Statistics
n
988
Avg
18.3
SD
7.7
Min
0.0
Max
49.0
Summar Statistics
n
988
Avg
7.3
SD
0.3
Min
5.9
Max
8.3
Statistics
.Summary
n
988
Avg
18.2
SD
6.2
Min
1.7
Max
28.5
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/9/2019

Spindale WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020664
Total Nitrogen
35
30
25
` 20
E 15
10
5
0
\�°y��O y LO,(O
y°\ti h\y ° yti\
Total Phosphorus
6
5
4
J
Sao 3
E
2
1
0
%)1 h\ti°yh 6 (0
Total Total Copper
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
0
o
y
Summary
Statistics
n
17
Avg
10.98
SD
8.37
Min
2.52
Max
31.93
Summary
Statistics
n
17
Avg
3.09
SD
1.39
Min
0.09
Max
4.96
Summary Statistics
n
17
Avg
37
SD
17
Min
10
Max
69
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/9/2019

Spindale WWTP Effluent Monitoring NCO020664
Total Zinc
250
200
150
J
to
100
50
0
-
-�
-
-
O,�
otih
o,�
6N
O,�
o,�
O,�
y�\��\ti
A
Chloride
450
400
350
300
250
00
E 200
150
100
50
0
-ZIP 0otio o'� otiA 00 o) oti0'
a\tio\~ do\tip\� y\tih\� titi\y\�
Summary
Statistics
n
17
Avg
96
SD
58
Min
9
Max
218
Summary Statistics
n 15
Avg 177
SD 85
Min 42
Max 385
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/9/2019

O qT rn
to 00 01
Ln 00
N to
O L•n tD to
tD m Ol Nt
-i
m
V
h
ri
N M
v
N N
h
tD
cc
C
Qn
(n O
a
cn
00
01
O
�
Ei
C
G
O
L
Ln
0
I
m
Q
Q_C
Q
O
CC�
y
C Q�
C
C Q c)
Z
C
.-. Ln N m Ln --t O tD e4 N r4 M m O w ri 00 m Ln
h O -! .00 h ri Ln m 00 m h m O iF m ri m O
m e-I In ri m M N tD L6 N 00 ri 00 h N N 4 Ln
� 00 G1 01 41 O1 Q1 01 01 01 01 00 01 00 00 � Ql 01 O1
ci00 00 00 00 C1 of rq 00 00 `� 00 ri r-I (n (n r-I 01
OM O L � r 00 00 4 O L w 0) ?& `V 0) cn 0) a, ri 0) r�-I N N N N O N O O N
lV C L0 Ln 0J L L _ ++ > �` N N
LL LN Z Q LL Q N O O w LL
N z o
L
_T
0 o M h 00 00 C1 m 0n m O " 00 h m 00 m M tD CO 'fit Ln tD 01 00 N 00 h N lD tD
N O0 N Ln to M h ei r-I•en h h ri m * tD w 00 ch Ln D1 O h CC O O et O M tO
E O1 01 O�1 M OCi M1 m cn cn m M M m m cn cn 4m (n W 00 00 00 Ln QN1 m w M -t 01 Q1 0�0
Ln
Ln w
Q ~ Ln LD
Ln .mi•I tD e0-I tD tD -1 tD � rj h h rhi h h
cd CN �• �` i w w w'D rirh-I `� ` rl CO
C 3 E C C N 3 L •Ltu >• .l? f0 M U �+ N H 0) -0 - L
Q o y aJ Q Q U41 > u a Q 3 Q u > u c
0 N Z o -''� N O Z p, LL Q Ln 0 Z o
to
N
G1
u
-q N tD ri m mt w r-I q t m w ri
M r-I O r-1 ri mI;r� m M 00 [t 00 -e O m O tD N
tD 00 01 01 m m m m m Ln rri 00 00 h 00 ci 01 01 co
Q1 t71 Q1 01 M M O M M M M M M M C i (n M M M
3 00 00 00 00-1 00 00 O1
ai L t ? )o 00 Do 00 L L L `-4 0) Ql Q1 ri L r I rq cn ei N O O
ri e-1 0) )C L t r� l (3) r♦ 0) +j i 0I i N N ON N O
O i cu
L •Q M C 3 CU 0 E C 3 3 i L to C �` 3 Q f0 M U• L A 6 4. ++
'Q LL Q N O p w � 0) Q Q Q U O N LO 0J Q
Vf Z O LL Lii Z O LL p
L E
t �
m [t M m m m to tD N tD h Ln ri Ln Ln ri h cn Ln N tt h tD 00 ri 00 m "I m co
O v t Ln w m O m Ln Ln w 00 m m 00 P. ri m N rj N N M N O Ln N N lD DD
O) 01 01 h 00 01 01 L71 M 00 h 00 00 00 01 01 Q1 h M N Ln 00 4 Ln 00 h Ln iF tD Ct L
D1 m 01 01 01 01 01 M a1 01 01 01 01 C1 Q1 01 C1 01 O1 C1 01 m (n cn a1 cn M m >
>
OLnLn Ln tD
:D m Ln Ln r-I ri lD W tD tD ei t0 r�i e�-1 h h rh-1 h �h..i
O C t/f w -0 -D i cc L ri ei �+ 0) i 0J OJ 00
ri ri h N ` L L
V Q C- O w M OJ Q Q U> u m 01 Q 3 Q u> u c
Z Ln�ZO�LL Ln zpLL Q )0Z )

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00300 - Oxy en Dissolved DO m L
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream Dnstream
Effluent
Standard
6
1
2016
6/1/2016
8.2
8.3
7.00
5.0
6
2
2016
6/2/2016
8.1
8.3
7.01
5.0
6
6
2016
6/6/2016
7.9
7.9
6.42
5.0
6
7
2016
6/7/2016
8
8
6.62
5.0
6
8
2016
6/8/2016
8.3
8.4
6.58
5.0
6
13
2016
6/13/2016
8.1
8.1
6.59
5.0
6
14
2016
6/14/2016
8.2
8.2
7.15
5.0
6
15
2016
6/15/2016
7.9
7.9
7.36
5.0
6
20
2016
6/20/2016
8.5
8.4
6.31
5.0
6
21
2016
6/21/2016
8.3
8.4
6.87
5.0
6
22
2016
6/22/2016
8.1
8.1
6.76
5.0
6
27
2016
6/27/2016
8.1
8.2
6.8
5.0
6
28
2016
6/28/2016
8
8
6.81
5.0
6
29
2016
6/29/2016
8.1
8.1
6.89
5.0
7
5
2016
7/5/2016
7.9
7.9
7.48
5.0
7
6
2016
7/6/2016
7.8
7.9
7.04
5.0
7
7
2016
7/7/2016
8.1
8.1
7.22
5.0
7
11
2016
7/11/2016
7.9
8.2
7.17
5.0
7
12
2016
7/12/2016
8
8
7.19
5.0
7
13
2016
7/13/2016
8.2
8.2
7.13
5.0
7
18
2016
7/18/2016
8.1
8.1
7.01
5.0
7
19
2016
7/19/2016
8.1
8
6.95
5.0
7
20
2016
7/20/2016
8.3
8.3
7.12
5.0
7
25
2016
7/25/2016
9.4
9.5
8.25
5.0
7
26
2016
7/26/2016
7.8
7.9
6.79
5.0
7
27
2016
7/27/2016
7.6
7.7
6.74
5.0
8
1
2016
8/1/2016
8.1
8.13
6.84
5.0
8
2
2016
8/2/2016
7.72
7.7
6.58
5.0
8
3
2016
8/3/2016
7.92
7.98
6.71
5.0
8
8
2016
8/8/2016
7.65
7.67
7.07
5.0
8
9
2016
8/9/2016
7.76
7.8
6.85
5.0
8
10
2016
8/10/2016
7.79
7.82
6.87
5.0
8
15
2016
8/15/2016
7.87
7.84
6.7
5.0
8
16
2016
8/16/2016
7.96
7.92
6.67
5.0
8
17
2016
8/17/2016
6.89
8.06
6.89
5.0
8
22
2016
8/22/2016
8.06
8.02
6.71
5.0
8
23
2016
8/23/2016
8.07
8.05
6.8
5.0
8
24
2016
8/24/2016
8.19
8.09
6.82
5.0
8
29
2016
8/29/2016
8.47
8.43
6.98
5.0
8
30
2016
8/30/2016
8.42
8.28
6.94
5.0
8
31
2016
8/31/2016
8.23
8.13
6.93
5.0
9
6
2016
9/6/2016
8.25
8.15
6.86
5.0
9
7
2016
9/7/2016
8.26
8.21
6.92
5.0
9
8
2016
9/8/2016
8
7.95
6.68
5.0
9
12
2016
9/12/2016
8.19
8.13
6.77
5.0
Page 1
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00300 -Oxygen,
Dissolved (DO] lrt2a/t1
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effluent
Standard
9
13
2016
9/13/2016
8.29
8.19
7.1
5.0
9
14
2016
9/14/2016
8.36
8.26
6.97
5.0
9
19
2016
9/19/2016
7.96
7.83
6.7
5.0
9
20
2016
9/20/2016
8.18
8.15
6.94
5.0
9
21
2016
9/21/2016
8.61
8.74
7.37
5.0
9
26
2016
9/26/2016
8.09
7.99
6.92
5.0
9
27
2016
9/27/2016
8.05
8
7.3
5.0
9
28
2016
9/28/2016
8.27
8.24
7.29
5.0
10
4
2016
10/4/2016
8.48
8.37
7.55
5.0
10
11
2016
10/11/2016
8.88
9.07
8.02
5.0
10
18
2016
10/18/2016
8.81
9.03
7.79
5.0
10
25
2016
10/25/2016
9.56
9.5
8.39
5.0
11
1
2016
11/1/2016
8.06
8.36
8.4
5.0
11
8
2016
11/8/2016
9.83
9.34
8.52
5.0
11
15
2016
11/15/2016
9.36
9.73
9.27
5.0
11
22
2016
11/22/2016
10.6
10.6
8.92
5.0
11
29
2016
11/29/2016
9.85
9.37
9.31
5.0
12
6
2016
12/6/2016
9.64
9.96
9.07
5.0
12
13
2016
12/13/2016
10.4
9.79
10
5.0
12
20
2016
12/20/2016
10.2
9.74
9.21
5.0
12
29
2016
12/29/2016
10.2
10.1
9.64
5.0
1
3
2017
1/3/2017
9.94
9.8
10
5.0
1
10
2017
1/10/2017
11.2
11.2
10.2
5.0
1
17
2017
1/17/2017
9.6
9.51
8.96
5.0
1
24
2017
1/24/2017
9.65
9.54
8.77
5.0
1
31
2017
1/31/2017
10.7
10.8
8.7
5.0
2
7
2017
2/7/2017
10.1
9.56
9.4
5.0
2
14
2017
2/14/2017
10.1
9.98
7.92
5.0
2
21
2017
2/21/2017
9.42
9.4
6.3
5.0
3
8
2017
3/8/2017
12
12.1
8.31
5.0
3
14
2017
3/14/2017
9.92
10.3
8.88
5.0
3
21
2017
3/21/2017
9.49
9.41
8.48
5.0
3
28
2017
3/28/2017
10.1
14.1
7.87
5.0
4
4
2017
4/4/2017
8.9
8.68
6.75
5.0
4
12
2017
4/12/2017
8.94
8.82
7.85
5.0
4
18
2017
4/18/2017
8.56
8.51
8.07
5.0
4
25
2017
4/25/2017
9.09
8.98
8.33
5.0
5
2
2017
5/2/2017
8.7
8.6
7.7
5.0
5
9
2017
5/9/2017
9
9.1
7.9
5.0
5
16
2017
5/16/2017
8.5
8.4
7.5
5.0
5
23
2017
5/23/2017
8.1
8.1
7.4
5.0
5
30
2017
5/30/2017
8.1
8.1
7
5.0
6
1
2017
6/1/2017
9.14
9.26
7.43
5.0
6
2
2017
6/2/2017
8.04
8.26
6.69
5.0
6
5
2017
6/5/2017
8.05
8.02
6.78
5.0
Page 2 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00300 - Oxygen,
D►ssolved (DO) (maIL)
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream Dnstream
Effluent
Standard
6
6
2017
6/6/2017
10.52
10.46
8.82
5.0
6
7
2017
6/7/2017
12.49
12.62
10.15
5.0
6
12
2017
6/12/2017
9.95
10.11
8.18
5.0
6
13
2017
6/13/2017
8.31
8.44
7
5.0
6
14
2017
6/14/2017
7.85
7.98
7
5.0
6
19
2017
6/19/2017
8.48
8.57
7.01
5.0
6
20
2017
6/20/2017
7.87
7.85
6.5
5.0
6
21
2017
6/21/2017
7.76
7.61
6.51
5.0
6
26
2017
6/26/2017
7.4
7.4
7
5.0
6
27
2017
6/27/2017
7.2
7.5
7.04
5.0
6
28
2017
6/28/2017
7.5
7.5
8.31
5.0
7
3
2017
7/3/2017
9.63
9.57
9.57
5.0
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
7.89
7.84
6.57
5.0
7
6
2017
7/6/2017
8.21
8.17
6.52
5.0
7
10
2017
7/10/2017
8.4
8.09
6.52
5.0
7
11
2017
7/11/2017
7.91
7.5
6.57
5.0
7
12
2017
7/12/2017
8.7
8.32
6.51
5.0
7
17
2017
7/17/2017
8.69
8.69
7.09
5.0
7
18
2017
7/18/2017
9.41
9.27
7.66
5.0
7
19
2017
7/19/2017
7.78
7.57
7.02
5.0
7
24
2017
7/24/2017
7.74
7.61
7
5.0
7
25
2017
7/25/2017
7.95
7.84
7.06
5.0
7
26
2017
7/26/2017
7.96
9.09
7.52
5.0
7
31
2017
7/31/2017
8.36
8.36
6.52
5.0
8
1
2017
8/1/2017
8.35
8.3
6.82
5.0
8
2
2017
8/2/2017
8.42
8.48
7.27
5.0
8
7
2017
8/7/2017
7.7
7.73
7.33
5.0
8
8
2017
8/8/2017
7.88
7.85
7.09
5.0
8
9
2017
8/9/2017
8.52
8.56
7.47
5.0
8
14
2017
8/14/2017
10.18
10.09
7.05
5.0
8
15
2017
8/15/2017
7.31
7.33
7
5.0
8
16
2017
8/16/2017
7.83
7.73
6.88
5.0
8
21
2017
8/21/2017
8.42
8.54
7.52
5.0
8
22
2017
8/22/2017
7.97
7.94
7.03
5.0
8
23
2017
8/23/2017
8.16
8.17
7.15
5.0
8
28
2017
8/28/2017
9.25
9.29
8.08
5.0
8
29
2017
8/29/2017
9.3
9.38
8.55
5.0
8
30
2017
8/30/2017
10.23
10.35
9.32
5.0
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
8.72
8.67
7.82
5.0
9
6
2017
9/6/2017
8.5
8.43
7.84
5.0
9
7
2017
9/7/2017
9.73
9.65
8.68
5.0
9
11
2017
9/11/2017
11.95
11.43
10.22
5.0
9
12
2017
9/12/2017
11.3
11.26
10.47
5.0
9
13
2017
9/13/2017
9.75
9.75
8.96
5.0
9
18
2017
9/18/2017
8.36
8.33
7.25
5.0
Page 3
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00300 - Ox
err Dissolved DO
m L
Month
Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effluent
Standard
9
19
2017
9/19/2017
9.96
9.86
8.56
5.0
9
20
2017
9/20/2017
10.19
10.14
8.56
5.0
9
25
2017
9/25/2017
9.49
9.32
7.71
5.0
9
26
2017
9/26/2017
8.97
8.75
7.41
5.0
9
27
2017
9/27/2017
8.12
7.85
6.63
5.0
10
3
2017
10/3/2017
7.4
7.3
7.2
5.0
10
10
2017
10/10/2017
7.2
7.1
6.72
5.0
10
17
2017
10/17/2017
7.3
7.3
6.9
5.0
10
24
2017
10/24/2017
6.9
7
7.69
5.0
10
31
2017
10/31/2017
7.5
7.4
8.21
5.0
11
7
2017
11/7/2017
9.92
9.74
9.15
5.0
11
14
2017
11/14/2017
11.02
10.87
9.18
5.0
11
21
2017
11/21/2017
11.52
11.48
9.41
5.0
11
28
2017
11/28/2017
11.65
11.58
9.49
5.0
12
5
2017
12/5/2017
10.85
10.83
8.28
5.0
12
12
2017
12/12/2017
11.98
12.06
10.22
5.0
12
19
2017
12/19/2017
11.29
11.31
10.26
5.0
12
28
2017
12/28/2017
12.48
12.2
10.73
5.0
1
2
2018
1/2/2018
13.5
13.92
11.95
5.0
1
8
2018
1/8/2018
13.2
12.6
11.65
5.0
1
16
2018
1/16/2018
11.9
12.49
10.03
5.0
1
22
2018
1/22/2018
11
10.77
10.05
5.0
1
29
2018
1/29/2018
9.9
10.03
9.12
5.0
2
5
2018
2/5/2018
10.11
9.67
8.95
5.0
2
12
2018
2/12/2018
9.35
9.7
9.05
5.0
2
19
2018
2/19/2018
8.2
7.85
7.9
5.0
2
26
2018
2/26/2018
8.03
7.88
7.53
5.0
3
5
2018
3/5/2018
9.1
8.72
8.35
5.0
3
13
2018
3/13/2018
9.87
9.64
9.14
5.0
3
20
2018
3/20/2018
9.81
9.78
9.55
5.0
3
27
2018
3/27/2018
9.19
8.86
8.69
5.0
4
3
2018
4/3/2018
9.49
9.2
8.37
5.0
4
9
2018
4/9/2018
9.64
9.85
8.92
5.0
4
16
2018
4/16/2018
9.24
8.95
8.67
5.0
4
23
2018
4/23/2018
9.45
9.25
9.08
5.0
4
30
2018
4/30/2018
8.79
8.78
8.36
5.0
5
7
2018
5/7/2018
9.13
9.22
9.63
5.0
5
14
2018
5/14/2018
8.39
8.42
7.63
5.0
5
21
2018
5/21/2018
9.27
9.04
8.51
5.0
5
28
2018
5/28/2018
8.02
8.02
5.0
6
4
2018
6/4/2018
8.15
8.43
7.7
5.0
6
5
2018
6/5/2018
8.41
8.33
7.62
5.0
6
6
2018
6/6/2018
9.28
9.22
8.02
5.0
6
11
2018
6/11/2018
9.03
9.04
8.04
5.0
6
12
2018
6/12/2018
8.98
8.94
8.05
5.0
Page 4
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00300 - Oxycgen,
Dissolved (DO) {Mglk
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream Dnstream
Effluent
Standard
6
13
2018
6/13/2018
8.35
8.39
7.57
5.0
6
18
2018
6/18/2018
8.6
8.35
8.35
5.0
6
19
2018
6/19/2018
8.41
8.2
7.5
5.0
6
20
2018
6/20/2018
8.95
8.91
9.07
5.0
6
26
2018
6/26/2018
7.79
7.6
7.35
5.0
6
27
2018
6/27/2018
7.92
7.81
7.22
5.0
6
28
2018
6/28/2018
8.03
7.94
7.1
5.0
7
2
2018
7/2/2018
7.63
7.59
7.2
5.0
7
3
2018
7/3/2018
7.7
7.72
7.31
5.0
7
5
2018
7/5/2018
8.52
8.36
7.42
5.0
7
9
2018
7/9/2018
8.42
8.41
7.6
5.0
7
10
2018
7/10/2018
8.55
8.57
7.82
5.0
7
11
2018
7/11/2018
8.18
8.23
7.55
5.0
7
16
2018
7/16/2018
7.63
7.68
7.24
5.0
7
17
2018
7/17/2018
8.19
7.77
7.18
5.0
7
18
2018
7/18/2018
7.72
7.6
7.78
5.0
7
23
2018
7/23/2018
8.05
8.14
7.48
5.0
7
24
2018
7/24/2018
7.97
7.92
7.41
5.0
7
25
2018
7/25/2018
8.07
7.97
7.55
5.0
7
30
2018
7/30/2018
8.42
8.37
7.98
5.0
7
31
2018
7/31/2018
8.08
8.1
7.68
5.0
8
1
2018
8/1/2018
8.23
8.19
7.63
5.0
8
6
2018
8/6/2018
7.7
7.64
7.26
5.0
8
7
2018
8/7/2018
7.75
7.76
7.26
5.0
8
8
2018
8/8/2018
7.78
7.72
7.18
5.0
8
13
2018
8/13/2018
7.76
7.78
7.3
5.0
8
14
2018
8/14/2018
8.22
8.16
7.61
5.0
8
16
2018
8/16/2018
7.9
8.08
7.4
5.0
8
20
2018
8/20/2018
7.71
7.72
7.98
5.0
8
21
2018
8/21/2018
8.05
8.03
7.66
5.0
8
22
2018
8/22/2018
8.55
8.43
8.02
5.0
8
27
2018
8/27/2018
7.94
7.89
7.72
5.0
8
28
2018
8/28/2018
9.16
9.15
8.56
5.0
8
29
2018
8/29/2018
7.9
7.78
6.15
5.0
9
4
2018
9/4/2018
7.63
7.57
7.17
5.0
9
5
2018
9/5/2018
7.62
7.56
7.15
5.0
9
6
2018
9/6/2018
7.57
7.58
7.02
5.0
9
10
2018
9/10/2018
7.95
7.9
7.67
5.0
9
11
2018
9/11/2018
7.91
7.83
7.5
5.0
9
12
2018
9/12/2018
8.42
7.4
7.95
5.0
9
17
2018
9/17/2018
7.78
7.56
6.6
5.0
9
18
2018
9/18/2018
7.78
7.67
7.17
5.0
9
19
2018
9/19/2018
7.92
7.89
7.26
5.0
9
24
2018
9/24/2018
8.24
8.1
7.42
5.0
9
25
2018
9/25/2018
8.28
8.17
7.57
5.0
Page 5
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00300 - Oxygen,
Dissolved (DO) (mo/t)
Month
Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effluent
Standard
9
26
2018
9/26/2018
8.02
7.85
7.49
5.0
10
1
2018
10/1/2018
8.25
8.22
8.19
5.0
10
8
2018
10/8/2018
8.2
8.18
7.6
5.0
10
16
2018
10/16/2018
8.54
8.41
8.05
5.0
10
22
2018
10/22/2018
10.22
10.22
8.77
5.0
10
31
2018
10/31/2018
10.39
10.07
8.52
5.0
11
5
2018
11/5/2018
9.65
9.5
8.8
5.0
11
13
2018
11/13/2018
9.01
9.06
9
5.0
11
19
2018
11/19/2018
10.91
10.65
8.88
5.0
11
26
2018
11/26/2018
10.6
10.27
8.85
5.0
12
3
2018
12/3/2018
10.66
10.37
8
5.0
12
12
2018
12/12/2018
11.75
11.44
9.71
5.0
12
17
2018
12/17/2018
11.09
10.69
9.45
5.0
12
27
2018
12/27/2018
10.97
10.52
9.37
5.0
12
31
2018
12/31/2018
9.95
9.55
8.82
5.0
1
7
2019
1/7/2019
10.78
10.49
9.61
5.0
1
14
2019
1/14/2019
10.06
9.45
9.27
5.0
1
22
2019
1/22/2019
12.65
12.29
11.14
5.0
1
30
2019
1/30/2019
10.94
10.52
10.12
5.0
2
4
2019
2/4/2019
13.64
12.98
11.44
5.0
2
11
2019
2/11/2019
15.37
15.23
12.93
5.0
2
18
2019
2/18/2019
11.62
11.13
9.36
5.0
2
26
2019
2/26/2019
11.28
11.03
9.88
5.0
3
4
2019
3/4/2019
10.71
9.84
9.18
5.0
3
11
2019
3/11/2019
10.8
10.56
9.08
5.0
3
18
2019
3/18/2019
13.25
13.18
10.85
5.0
3
25
2019
3/25/2019
10.38
10.22
9.17
5.0
4
1
2019
4/1/2019
10.69
10.48
9.03
5.0
4
8
2019
4/8/2019
9.58
9.51
8.63
5.0
4
15
2019
4/15/2019
9.32
16
8.52
5.0
4
23
2019
4/23/2019
9.52
9.37
8.07
5.0
4
29
2019
4/29/2019
9.15
9.17
8.1
5.0
5
6
2019
5/6/2019
8.67
8.67
7.69
5.0
5
13
2019
5/13/2019
8.61
8.61
7.94
5.0
5
20
2019
5/20/2019
8.35
8.3
7.39
5.0
5
28
2019
5/28/2019
8.04
8.11
7.18
5.0
6
3
2019
6/3/2019
9
8.98
7.15
5.0
6
4
2019
6/4/2019
8.61
8.63
7.25
5.0
6
5
2019
6/5/2019
9.67
9.73
8.18
5.0
6
10
2019
6/10/2019
8.47
8.22
8.31
5.0
6
11
2019
6/11/2019
8.59
8.47
7.9
5.0
6
12
2019
6/12/2019
8.59
8.54
7.61
5.0
6
17
2019
6/17/2019
8.14
8.16
7.36
5.0
6
18
2019
6/18/2019
8.08'
8.01
7.29
5.0
6
19
2019
6/19/2019
8.51
8.51
7.52
5.0
Page 6 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00300 - Oxygen, Dissolved (DO) lmg/L1
Month Day
Year
Date
6
24
2019
6/24/2019
6
25
2019
6/25/2019
6
26
2019
6/26/2019
7
1
2019
7/1/2019
7
2
2019
7/2/2019
7
3
2019
7/3/2019
7
8
2019
7/8/2019
7
9
2019
7/9/2019
7
10
2019
7/10/2019
7
15
2019
7/15/2019
7
16
2019
7/16/2019
7
17
2019
7/17/2019
7
22
2019
7/22/2019
7
23
2019
7/23/2019
7
24
2019
7/24/2019
7
29
2019
7/29/2019
7
30
2019
7/30/2019
7
31
2019
7/31/2019
Upstream
Dnstream
Effluent
Standard
8.44
8.43
7.57
5.0
8.22
8.2
7.47
5.0
8.15
8.18
7.05
5.0
7.98
8.03
7.16
5.0
7.92
7.93
7.08
5.0
7.97
8.01
7.1
5.0
7.72
7.77
7
5.0
7.75
7.73
6.91
5.0
7.8
7.86
7.01
5.0
7.84
7.84
7.05
5.0
7.88
7.9
7
5.0
7.75
7.81
6.72
5.0
7.74
7.79
6.81
5.0
7.74
7.81
6.86
5.0
8.43
8.42
7.04
5.0
8.07
8.06
7.04
5.0
8.18
8.13
7.02
5.0
8.4
8.36
7.27
5.0
n
288
288
287
Avg
8.88
8.86
7.86
SD
1.32
1.38
1.13
Min
6.89
7.00
6.15
Max
15.37
16.00
12.93
Data in bold are corrected values that originally lacked decimals.
18
16
14
12
J 10
nn 8
E 6
4
2
0
Dissolved Oxygen
Upstream Effluent Dnstream Standard
O,A 0 O,� 0
Page 7 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00300 - Oxygen, Dissolved {DO] (mg1L)
Month Day Year Date
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream Dnstream Effluent Standard
Upstream
Dnstream
Mean
8.88184028
8.861458
Variance
1.7524311
1.900134
Observations
288
288
Pearson Correlation
0.92969699
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
287
t Stat
0.67892165
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.24886731
t Critical one -tail
1.65018021
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.49773462
t Critical two -tail
1.96826411
Page 8 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00010 -Temperature, Water Deg. Centigrade
Month Day
Year
Date
6
1
2016
6/1/2016
6
2
2016
6/2/2016
6
6
2016
6/6/2016
6
7
2016
6/7/2016
6
8
2016
6/8/2016
6
13
2016
6/13/2016
6
14
2016
6/14/2016
6
15
2016
6/15/2016
6
20
2016
6/20/2016
6
21
2016
6/21/2016
6
22
2016
6/22/2016
6
27
2016
6/27/2016
6
28
2016
6/28/2016
6
29
2016
6/29/2016
7
5
2016
7/5/2016
7
6
2016
7/6/2016
7
7
2016
7/7/2016
7
11
2016
7/11/2016
7
12
2016
7/12/2016
7
13
2016
7/13/2016
7
18
2016
7/18/2016
7
19
2016
7/19/2016
7
20
2016
7/20/2016
7
25
2016
7/25/2016
7
26
2016
7/26/2016
7
27
2016
7/27/2016
8
1
2016
8/1/2016
8
2
2016
8/2/2016
8
3
2016
8/3/2016
8
8
2016
8/8/2016
8
9
2016
8/9/2016
8
10
2016
8/10/2016
8
15
2016
8/15/2016
8
16
2016
8/16/2016
8
17
2016
8/17/2016
8
22
2016
8/22/2016
8
23
2016
8/23/2016
8
24
2016
8/24/2016
8
29
2016
8/29/2016
8
30
2016
8/30/2016
8
31
2016
8/31/2016
9
6
2016
9/6/2016
9
7
2016
9/7/2016
9
8
2016
9/8/2016
9
12
2016
9/12/2016
Upstream Dnstream D-U dill Effluent Standard
20.2
20
-0.2
23.7
29
20
20.4
0.4
24.1
29
19.9
21.1
1.2
25.4
29
20.2
20.8
0.6
25
29
18.2
18.5
0.3
24.3
29
21.2
21
-0.2
26.2
29
21.1
20.8
-0.3
26
29
22
21.8
-0.2
25.8
29
18.8
18.8
0
26
29
19.8
19.3
-0.5
25.7
29
21.6
21.7
0.1
26.2
29
21.2
22.2
1
27.2
29
21.1
21.7
0.6
26.7
29
20.1
21
0.9
26.4
29
23.6
23.3
-0.3
27.3
29
23.6
22.2
-1.4
27.3
29
23.1
21.8
-1.3
27.1
29
21.5
21.3
-0.2
27.2
29
21
21
0
26.5
29
21
22.1
1.1
26.7
29
22.9
21
-1.9
27.4
29
22.5
21.6
-0.9
27.1
29
22.2
21.4
-0.8
27
29
22.2
23.8
1.6
27.9
29
23
23.8
0.8
28.2
29
23
23.9
0.9
28.1
29
23.5
22.3
-1.2
28.3
29
23.4
22.3
-1.1
28
29
23.1
21.4
-1.7
27.8
29
22
23.7
1.7
27.3
29
22.4
23.5
1.1
27.3
29
23.1
22.9
-0.2
27.4
29
23.5
23.5
0
28.1
29
23.1
22.4
-0.7
27.5
29
23.2
22.7
-0.5
27.8
29
21
22.1
1.1
27.4
29
19.9
21.2
1.3
27
29
20
21.1
1.1
26.6
29
21.5
20
-1.5
26.7
29
21.2
20.1
-1.1
26
29
21.7
20.1
-1.6
26.4
29
18.6
18.2
-0.4
24.2
29
18.5
19.5
1
24.2
29
18.1
20.1
2
24
29
21.1
19.7
-1.4
25.6
29
Page 1 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00010 - Temperature, Water Dea. Centrarade
Month Day
Year
Date
9
13
2016
9/13/2016
9
14
2016
9/14/2016
9
19
2016
9/19/2016
9
20
2016
9/20/2016
9
21
2016
9/21/2016
9
26
2016
9/26/2016
9
27
2016
9/27/2016
9
28
2016
9/28/2016
10
4
2016
10/4/2016
10
11
2016
10/11/2016
10
18
2016
10/18/2016
10
25
2016
10/25/2016
11
1
2016
11/1/2016
11
8
2016
11/8/2016
11
15
2016
11/15/2016
11
22
2016
11/22/2016
11
29
2016
11/29/2016
12
6
2016
12/6/2016
12
13
2016
12/13/2016
12
20
2016
12/20/2016
12
29
2016
12/29/2016
1
3
2017
1/3/2017
1
10
2017
1/10/2017
1
17
2017
1/17/2017
1
24
2017
1/24/2017
1
31
2017
1/31/2017
2
7
2017
2/7/2017
2
14
2017
2/14/2017
2
21
2017
2/21/2017
3
8
2017
3/8/2017
3
14
2017
3/14/2017
3
21
2017
3/21/2017
3
28
2017
3/28/2017
4
4
2017
4/4/2017
4
12
2017
4/12/2017
4
18
2017
4/18/2017
4
25
2017
4/25/2017
5
2
2017
5/2/2017
5
9
2017
5/9/2017
5
16
2017
5/16/2017
5
23
2017
5/23/2017
5
30
2017
5/30/2017
6
1
2017
6/1/2017
6
2
2017
6/2/2017
6
5
2017
6/5/2017
Upstream
Dnstream
D-U diff
Effluent
Standard
20.7
19.5
-1.2
25.1
29
20.1
19.6
-0.5
25
29
19.5
21.5
2
25.5
29
19.6
20.9
1.3
25.1
29
19.5
19.7
0.2
24.8
29
21.1
19.6
-1.5
25.1
29
21.1
19.5
-1.6
24.5
29
20.4
19.4
-1
24.4
29
17.8
17.8
0
22.1
29
12.4
11
-1.4
18.5
29
15
15.1
0.1
19.5
29
10.8
10
-0.8
16.3
29
16
16.1
0.1
18.3
29
9.1
8
-1.1
15
29
7.1
7
-0.1
12.2
29
4.1
4.6
0.5
10
29
10.5
10.7
0.2
11.7
29
10.3
9
-1.3
11.7
29
7
9.1
2.1
9.1
29
7.1
6.8
-0.3
9
29
8
8.5
0.5
11.9
29
9.9
9
-0.9
10.4
29
2
1.5
-0.5
6.7
29
11.5
10.5
-1
12.5
29
10
10.1
0.1
13.2
29
4.1
4
-0.1
9.9
29
8.6
8.8
0.2
10.5
29
7.1
6.6
-0.5
11
29
9.4
9.6
0.2
12.6
29
12.4
13
0.6
15
29
7.4
7.1
-0.3
10.7
29
10.4
9.9
-0.5
12.2
29
15.7
15.7
0
16.7
29
15.1
14.6
-0.5
17.3
29
13
13.8
0.8
16.7
29
17.8
17
-0.8
19.4
29
15
15
0
17.1
29
17.1
16.9
-0.2
20.4
29
15
15.1
0.1
17.7
29
17.8
17
-0.8
20
29
19.1
19
-0.1
22
29
20.1
18.7
-1.4
22.4
29
18.4
18.1
-0.3
22.5
29
19.5
19
-0.5
23
29
19.6
19.1
-0.5
23.6
29
Page 2 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00010 - Temperature. Water Deq. Centigrade
Month Day
Year
Date
6
6
2017
6/6/2017
6
7
2017
6/7/2017
6
12
2017
6/12/2017
6
13
2017
6/13/2017
6
14
2017
6/14/2017
6
19
2017
6/19/2017
6
20
2017
6/20/2017
6
21
2017
6/21/2017
6
26
2017
6/26/2017
6
27
2017
6/27/2017
6
28
2017
6/28/2017
7
3
2017
7/3/2017
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
7
6
2017
7/6/2017
7
10
2017
7/10/2017
7
11
2017
7/11/2017
7
12
2017
7/12/2017
7
17
2017
7/17/2017
7
18
2017
7/18/2017
7
19
2017
7/19/2017
7
24
2017
7/24/2017
7
25
2017
7/25/2017
7
26
2017
7/26/2017
7
31
2017
7/31/2017
8
1
2017
8/1/2017
8
2
2017
8/2/2017
8
7
2017
8/7/2017
8
8
2017
8/8/2017
8
9
2017
8/9/2017
8
14
2017
8/14/2017
8
15
2017
8/15/2017
8
16
2017
8/16/2017
8
21
2017
8/21/2017
8
22
2017
8/22/2017
8
23
2017
8/23/2017
8
28
2017
8/28/2017
8
29
2017
8/29/2017
8
30
2017
8/30/2017
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
9
6
2017
9/6/2017
9
7
2017
9/7/2017
9
11
2017
9/11/2017
9
12
2017
9/12/2017
9
13
2017
9/13/2017
9
18
2017
9/18/2017
Upstream Dnstream D-U dill Effluent Standard
20.7
20.7
0
23.6
29
19.6
18.4
-1.2
23.3
29
20
19.1
-0.9
23.6
29
20.5
20.5
0
23.7
29
20.4
19.5
-0.9
24
29
22.5
20.2
-2.3
25.9
29
20.8
19.9
-0.9
25.4
29
20
21
1
25
29
19
18.2
-0.8
24
29
19.5
17.7
-1.8
23.9
29
17.1
15.8
-1.3
23
29
20.7
20.8
0.1
20.8
29
21
20.9
-0.1
25.6
29
20.4
19.9
-0.5
25.5
29
20.9
21
0.1
26
29
21.3
22.4
1.1
26
29
21.4
22.1
0.7
24.6
29
21.6
21
-0.6
25.7
29
21.6
20.8
-0.8
24.6
29
21.2
21.5
0.3
25
29
22.1
22.5
0.4
26.1
29
21
21.7
0.7
26
29
21.7
22.2
0.5
25.7
29
19.7
18.8
-0.9
24.3
29
19.4
19.7
0.3
23.2
29
20.4
19.7
-0.7
23.4
29
21.6
21.7
0.1
23.5
29
21
21.5
0.5
23
29
19.8
19.7
-0.1
23.8
29
23
22.5
-0.5
23.7
29
23.6
22.9
-0.7
23.9
29
22.7
23.4
0.7
25.3
29
22.4
21.5
-0.9
25.6
29
22.4
21.9
-0.5
25.2
29
22.2
21.9
-0.3
25.5
29
19.2
19.8
0.6
23.3
29
19.7
18.9
-0.8
23.3
29
19.4
19.5
0.1
19.9
29
18.5
18.9
0.4
21.3
29
19.4
18.5
-0.9
21.4
29
17.6
16.7
-0.9
20.3
29
16.7
16.4
-0.3
19.3
29
16.6
16.5
-0.1
18.6
29
16.4
16.5
0.1
18.9
29
19
18.8
-0.2
22.1
29
Page 3 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00010 - Temperature, Water Dec. Centrarade
Month Day
Year
Date
9
19
2017
9/19/2017
9
20
2017
9/20/2017
9
25
2017
9/25/2017
9
26
2017
9/26/2017
9
27
2017
9/27/2017
10
3
2017
10/3/2017
10
10
2017
10/10/2017
10
17
2017
10/17/2017
10
24
2017
10/24/2017
10
31
2017
10/31/2017
11
7
2017
11/7/2017
11
14
2017
11/14/2017
11
21
2017
11/21/2017
11
28
2017
11/28/2017
12
5
2017
12/5/2017
12
12
2017
12/12/2017
12
19
2017
12/19/2017
12
28
2017
12/28/2017
1
2
2018
1/2/2018
1
8
2018
1/8/2018
1
15
2018
1/15/2018
1
22
2018
1/22/2018
1
29
2018
1/29/2018
2
5
2018
2/5/2018
2
12
2018
2/12/2018
2
19
2018
2/19/2018
2
26
2018
2/26/2018
3
5
2018
3/5/2018
3
13
2018
3/13/2018
3
20
2018
3/20/2018
3
27
2018
3/27/2018
4
3
2018
4/3/2018
4
9
2018
4/9/2018
4
16
2018
4/16/2018
4
23
2018
4/23/2018
4
30
2018
4/30/2018
5
7
2018
5/7/2018
5
14
2018
5/14/2018
5
21
2018
5/21/2018
5
28
2018
5/28/2018
6
4
2018
6/4/2018
6
5
2018
6/5/2018
6
6
2018
6/6/2018
6
11
2018
6/11/2018
6
12
2018
6/12/2018
Upstream
Dnstream
D-U dill
Effluent
Standard
18.7
19
0.3
22.3
29
19.7
18.9
-0.8
22.5
29
20
18.9
-1.1
23.1
29
19.3
18.9
-0.4
22.8
29
18.8
19.1
0.3
23.3
29
15.2
14.6
-0.6
19.3
29
21
21.6
0.6
23.5
29
14.3
14.3
0
19.5
29
15.6
15.7
0.1
18.3
29
10.4
9.5
-0.9
13.2
29
16.2
16.3
0.1
17.9
29
11
10.6
-0.4
12.3
29
7.9
8
0.1
10.5
29
5.9
5.9
0
8.5
29
10.5
10
-0.5
11.5
29
5.7
5.5
-0.2
7.2
29
7.9
8
0.1
6.9
29
4
3.3
-0.7
6.5
29
0.7
1
0.3
2.9
29
0.3
0.9
0.6
1.7
29
2.4
2.6
0.2
29
6.6
6
-0.6
6.8
29
9.3
9.4
0.1
11
29
6.6
5.9
-0.7
8
29
11.3
11.8
0.5
13.4
29
11.8
11.8
0
13.2
29
14.7
14
-0.7
16.5
29
8.3
8.3
0
10.2
29
7.2
7
-0.2
8.9
29
14
13.5
-0.5
13.1
29
11.3
10.8
-0.5
11
29
13.3
13.4
0.1
14.6
29
11.2
10.7
-0.5
12.6
29
14
14
0
15
29
13.9
13.1
-0.8
15.6
29
12.4
13.3
0.9
15
29
16.8
15.9
-0.9
17.4
29
19
20
1
21.8
29
16
18.6
2.6
22.3
29
20.6
20.4
-0.2
29
20.6
20
-0.6
23.2
29
19
19.6
0.6
22.6
29
19.3
19
-0.3
22.9
29
21.7
21.5
-0.2
22.5
29
20.7
20
-0.7
22.9
29
Page 4 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00010 -Temperature, Water Deter . Centigrade
Month Day
Year
Date
6
13
2018
6/13/2018
6
18
2018
6/18/2018
6
19
2018
6/19/2018
6
20
2018
6/20/2018
6
26
2018
6/26/2018
6
27
2018
6/27/2018
6
28
2018
6/28/2018
7
2
2018
7/2/2018
7
3
2018
7/3/2018
7
5
2018
7/5/2018
7
9
2018
7/9/2018
7
10
2018
7/10/2018
7
11
2018
7/11/2018
7
16
2018
7/16/2018
7
17
2018
7/17/2018
7
18
2018
7/18/2018
7
23
2018
7/23/2018
7
24
2018
7/24/2018
7
25
2018
7/25/2018
7
30
2018
7/30/2018
7
31
2018
7/31/2018
8
1
2018
8/1/2018
8
6
2018
8/6/2018
8
7
2018
8/7/2018
8
8
2018
8/8/2018
8
13
2018
8/13/2018
8
14
2018
8/14/2018
8
16
2018
8/16/2018
8
20
2018
8/20/2018
8
21
2018
8/21/2018
8
22
2018
8/22/2018
8
27
2018
8/27/2018
8
28
2018
8/28/2018
8
29
2018
8/29/2018
9
4
2018
9/4/2018
9
5
2018
9/5/2018
9
6
2018
9/6/2018
9
10
2018
9/10/2018
9
11
2018
9/11/2018
9
12
2018
9/12/2018
9
17
2018
9/17/2018
9
18
2018
9/18/2018
9
19
2018
9/19/2018
9
24
2018
9/24/2018
9
25
2018
9/25/2018
Upstream
Dnstream
D-U diff
Effluent
Standard
21
20
-1
22.5
29
22.5
21
-1.5
24.9
29
22.4
21
-1.4
25.5
29
23.5
23
-0.5
25.8
29
22
22
0
24.9
29
21
21.7
0.7
24.9
29
21.7
21
-0.7
24.7
29
22.7
22
-0.7
25.7
29
22.7
22.2
-0.5
25.5
29
23.5
23
-0.5
26.1
29
19.5
18.5
-1
23.4
29
21
19.6
-1.4
23.4
29
21.8
21.6
-0.2
24.1
29
22.8
22.7
-0.1
25
29
21.9
22.3
0.4
25.3
29
22.4
22.6
0.2
25.3
29
21
20
-1
23.8
29
21
19.8
-1.2
23.4
29
21.4
21.6
0.2
23.9
29
22.1
21.6
-0.5
24.9
29
22.6
21.6
-1
25
29
21.7
20.4
-1.3
24.9
29
23
22.8
-0.2
25.6
29
22
22
0
25.3
29
22.9
21.8
-1.1
25.6
29
21.7
21.6
-0.1
25.5
29
19.6
21.4
1.8
25
29
21.7
21.9
0.2
25.5
29
22.8
22.9
0.1
25.2
29
22.7
22.1
-0.6
25.3
29
21.8
21
-0.8
25.3
29
21.1
21
-0.1
23.1
29
21.6
21.3
-0.3
24.2
29
21.2
21.6
0.4
24.9
29
22.2
21
-1.2
25.7
29
22.5
22
-0.5
25.8
29
22.6
21
-1.6
25.9
29
22.1
22.2
0.1
25.1
29
22.2
21.7
-0.5
24.6
29
22.4
21.7
-0.7
24.6
29
22.2
20
-2.2
24
29
22.6
21.1
-1.5
24.7
29
20.6
20.6
0
24.4
29
20.3
19.4
-0.9
24.5
29
20.2
19
-1.2
22.9
29
Page 5 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00010 - Temperature, Water Deq. Centfarade
Month Day
Year
Date
9
26
2018
9/26/2018
10
1
2018
10/1/2018
10
8
2018
10/8/2018
10
16
2018
10/16/2018
10
22
2018
10/22/2018
10
31
2018
10/31/2018
11
5
2018
11/5/2018
11
13
2018
11/13/2018
11
19
2018
11/19/2018
11
26
2018
11/26/2018
12
3
2018
12/3/2018
12
12
2018
12/12/2018
12
17
2018
12/17/2018
12
27
2018
12/27/2018
12
31
2018
12/31/2018
1
7
2019
1/7/2019
1
14
2019
1/14/2019
1
22
2019
1/22/2019
1
28
2019
1/28/2019
2
4
2019
2/4/2019
2
11
2019
2/11/2019
2
18
2019
2/18/2019
2
26
2019
2/26/2019
3
4
2019
3/4/2019
3
11
2019
3/11/2019
3
18
2019
3/18/2019
3
25
2019
3/25/2019
4
1
2019
4/1/2019
4
8
2019
4/8/2019
4
15
2019
4/15/2019
4
23
2019
4/23/2019
4
29
2019
4/29/2019
5
6
2019
5/6/2019
5
13
2019
5/13/2019
5
20
2019
5/20/2019
5
28
2019
5/28/2019
6
3
2019
6/3/2019
6
4
2019
6/4/2019
6
5
2019
6/5/2019
6
10
2019
6/10/2019
6
11
2019
6/11/2019
6
12
2019
6/12/2019
6
17
2019
6/17/2019
6
18
2019
6/18/2019
6
19
2019
6/19/2019
Upstream
Dnstream
D-U difF
Effluent
Standard
20.9
20
-0.9
23.4
29
20.8
20.3
-0.5
23.8
29
21
20.5
-0.5
24.2
29
18.8
19
0.2
20.8
29
10.4
10.4
0
16.2
29
11.5
11
-0.5
16.1
29
13.2
12.6
-0.6
16.2
29
10.9
10.7
-0.2
29
9.2
9.9
0.7
13.2
29
10.7
10.7
0
13
29
10.2
10.2
0
13.8
29
4.2
5.4
1.2
11
29
7.7
7.8
0.1
13.2
29
7.4
7
-0.4
11.8
29
10.6
10.7
0.1
13.7
29
9.5
9.5
0
13.2
29
7.3
8
0.7
11.3
29
4.2
4.4
0.2
10.9
29
6
5.7
-0.3
11.1
29
7.2
7.5
0.3
12
29
8.3
8
-0.3
13.6
29
8.3
8
-0.3
13.4
29
8.8
9
0.2
12.7
29
10.5
10.7
0.2
13.9
29
10.9
11
0.1
14.4
29
9.6
9.2
-0.4
14.9
29
11.7
12
0.3
14.9
29
10.7
9.4
-1.3
15.2
29
16
16
0
18.2
29
15.8
16
0.2
17.3
29
15.2
15.2
0
17.9
29
16.6
16.7
0.1
19.5
29
16.8
16.8
0
20.9
29
19.1
19.1
0
20.6
29
19.6
19.5
-0.1
22.6
29
21.3
20.4
-0.9
23.9
29
19.3
19.4
0.1
23.6
29
19.2
18.4
-0.8
23.2
29
20.2
19.8
-0.4
23.9
29
20.3
20.9
0.6
22.2
29
20.2
20
-0.2
22.2
29
19
19
0
22.2
29
21.5
21.5
0
24.1
29
21.9
21
-0.9
24.6
29
21.6
21.4
-0.2
24.6
29
Page 6 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00010 - Temraerature, Water Dec. Centigrade
Month Day
Year
Date
6
24
2019
6/24/2019
6
25
2019
6/25/2019
6
26
2019
6/26/2019
7
1
2019
7/1/2019
7
2
2019
7/2/2019
7
3
2019
7/3/2019
7
8
2019
7/8/2019
7
9
2019
7/9/2019
7
10
2019
7/10/2019
7
15
2019
7/15/2019
7
16
2019
7/16/2019
7
17
2019
7/17/2019
7
22
2019
7/22/2019
7
23
2019
7/23/2019
7
24
2019
7/24/2019
7
29
2019
7/29/2019
7
30
2019
7/30/2019
7
31
2019
7/31/2019
Upstream
Dnstream
D-U difF
21.4
20.6
-0.8
21.9
21.2
-0.7
21.2
20.4
-0.8
22.2
21.5
-0.7
22.4
22.1
-0.3
22.5
23
0.5
23.6
24
0.4
23.2
23
-0.2
23.2
23.2
0
23.2
24
0.8
23.5
22.6
-0.9
23.5
23.3
-0.2
23.6
23.4
-0.2
22.6
22
-0.6
20.4
20
-0.4
21
20.6
-0.4
21.2
20.9
-0.3
21.4
21.3
-0.1
Effluent
Standard
24.5
29
24.7
29
24.8
29
26.1
29
26.2
29
26.3
29
26.3
29
26.9
29
26.7
29
26.4
29
26.6
29
26.9
29
27.2
29
26.9
29
24.9
29
25.5
29
26.2
29
26.3
29
n
288
288
288
285
Avg
17.67
17.45
-0.21
21.20
SD
5.59
5.52
0.75
5.88
Min
0.30
0.90
-2.30
1.70
Max
23.60
24.00
2.60
28.30
Temperature
■ Upstream w
Effluent Dnstream
Standard
35
30
25
20
u
o 15
10
5
0
O,(0
QP Otis
�,\'V "S'
Page 7 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00010 - Temperature, Water Deg. Centigrade
Month Day Year Date Upstream Dnstream D-U dill Effluent Standard
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream
Dnstream
Mean
17.6673611
17.454167
Variance
31.2940529
30.523328
Observations
288
288
Pearson Correlation
0.99094763
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
287
t Stat
4.81610527
P(T<=t) one -tail
1.1865E-06
t Critical one -tail
1.65018021
P(T<=t) two -tail
2.3729E-06
t Critical two -tail
1.96826411
Conclusion: upstream temperatures higher.
Page 8 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP
Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
00094 - Conductivity lumhos cml
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream Dnstream
6
1
2016
6/1/2016
56
63
6
2
2016
6/2/2016
59
68
6
6
2016
6/6/2016
62
72
6
7
2016
6/7/2016
63
73
6
8
2016
6/8/2016
60
75
6
13
2016
6/13/2016
62
72
6
14
2016
6/14/2016
61
76
6
15
2016
6/15/2016
60
68
6
20
2016
6/20/2016
65
74
6
21
2016
6/21/2016
64
79
6
22
2016
6/22/2016
63
75
6
27
2016
6/27/2016
65
83
6
28
2016
6/28/2016
63
77
6
29
2016
6/29/2016
64
79
7
5
2016
7/5/2016
56
67
7
6
2016
7/6/2016
58
68
7
7
2016
7/7/2016
61
70
7
11
2016
7/11/2016
62
74
7
12
2016
7/12/2016
59
70
7
13
2016
7/13/2016
60
68
7
18
2016
7/18/2016
63
74
7
19
2016
7/19/2016
64
77
7
20
2016
7/20/2016
66
78
7
25
2016
7/25/2016
65
79
7
26
2016
7/26/2016
66
78
7
27
2016
7/27/2016
55
63
8
1
2016
8/1/2016
61
78
8
2
2016
8/2/2016
63
80
8
3
2016
8/3/2016
64
81
8
8
2016
8/8/2016
51
66
8
9
2016
8/9/2016
62
70
8
10
2016
8/10/2016
63
69
8
15
2016
8/15/2016
63
72
8
16
2016
8/16/2016
64
76
8
17
2016
8/17/2016
66
77
8
22
2016
8/22/2016
63
76
8
23
2016
8/23/2016
64
80
8
24
2016
8/24/2016
66
81
8
29
2016
8/29/2016
62
78
8
30
2016
8/30/2016
65
81
8
31
2016
8/31/2016
66
83
9
6
2016
9/6/2016
64
81
9
7
2016
9/7/2016
66
84
9
8
2016
9/8/2016
65
87
9
12
2016
9/12/2016
63
86
Page 1
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00094 - Conductivity[umhos cm)
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
9
13
2016
9/13/2016
65
88
9
14
2016
9/14/2016
68
90
9
19
2016
9/19/2016
67
85
9
20
2016
9/20/2016
64
88
9
21
2016
9/21/2016
66
90
9
26
2016
9/26/2016
65
93
9
27
2016
9/27/2016
64
83
9
28
2016
9/28/2016
62
76
10
4
2016
10/4/2016
67
88
10
11
2016
10/11/2016
67
91
10
18
2016
10/18/2016
65
92
10
25
2016
10/25/2016
66
98
11
1
2016
11/1/2016
67
94
11
8
2016
11/8/2016
65
90
11
15
2016
11/15/2016
65
84
11
22
2016
11/22/2016
73
86
11
29
2016
11/29/2016
63
97
12
6
2016
12/6/2016
61
90
12
13
2016
12/13/2016
66
85
12
20
2016
12/20/2016
62
84
12
29
2016
12/29/2016
61
90
1
3
2017
1/3/2017
57
82
1
10
2017
1/10/2017
63
85
1
17
2017
1/17/2017
61
82
1
24
2017
1/24/2017
60
69
1
31
2017
1/31/2017
63
81
2
7
2017
2/7/2017
62
81
2
14
2017
2/14/2017
64
82
2
21
2017
2/21/2017
63
98
3
8
2017
3/8/2017
63
76
3
14
2017
3/14/2017
59
81
3
21
2017
3/21/2017
61
79
3
28
2017
3/28/2017
55
83
4
4
2017
4/4/2017
45
45
4
12
2017
4/12/2017
62
71
4
18
2017
4/18/2017
59
62
4
25
2017
4/25/2017
48
52
5
2
2017
5/2/2017
56
63
5
9
2017
5/9/2017
56
66
5
16
2017
5/16/2017
57
67
5
23
2017
5/23/2017
55
69
5
30
2017
5/30/2017
59
76
6
1
2017
6/1/2017
63
77
6
2
2017
6/2/2017
64
76
6
5
2017
6/5/2017
65
82
Page 2
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP
Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
00094 - Conductivity
(umhoJcmJ
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream Dnstream
6
6
2017
6/6/2017
60
75
6
7
2017
6/7/2017
63
78
6
12
2017
6/12/2017
63
77
6
13
2017
6/13/2017
65
75
6
14
2017
6/14/2017
62
76
6
19
2017
6/19/2017
65
77
6
20
2017
6/20/2017
66
80
6
21
2017
6/21/2017
63
82
6
26
2017
6/26/2017
65
82
6
27
2017
6/27/2017
66
85
6
28
2017
6/28/2017
69
89
7
3
2017
7/3/2017
66
84
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
67
88
7
6
2017
7/6/2017
70
87
7
10
2017
7/10/2017
69
86
7
11
2017
7/11/2017
67
95
7
12
2017
7/12/2017
68
95
7
17
2017
7/17/2017
67
77
7
18
2017
7/18/2017
69
80
7
19
2017
7/19/2017
66
86
7
24
2017
7/24/2017
68
84
7
25
2017
7/25/2017
67
81
7
26
2017
7/26/2017
69
78
7
31
2017
7/31/2017
70
104
8
1
2017
8/1/2017
69
101
8
2
2017
8/2/2017
71
102
8
7
2017
8/7/2017
64
96
8
8
2017
8/8/2017
65
90
8
9
2017
8/9/2017
68
89
8
14
2017
8/14/2017
37
41
8
15
2017
8/15/2017
52
57
8
16
2017
8/16/2017
56
66
8
21
2017
8/21/2017
66
87
8
22
2017
8/22/2017
68
88
8
23
2017
8/23/2017
56
95
8
28
2017
8/28/2017
75
94
8
29
2017
8/29/2017
68
96
8
30
2017
8/30/2017
63
80
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
65
79
9
6
2017
9/6/2017
53
63
9
7
2017
9/7/2017
58
67
9
11
2017
9/11/2017
66
85
9
12
2017
9/12/2017
61
98
9
13
2017
9/13/2017
64
82
9
18
2017
9/18/2017
65
82
Page 3
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00094 - Conductivity
umhos cm
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
9
19
2017
9/19/2017
67
84
9
20
2017
9/20/2017
62
80
9
25
2017
9/25/2017
69
98
9
26
2017
9/26/2017
70
96
9
27
2017
9/27/2017
68
99
10
3
2017
10/3/2017
68
97
10
10
2017
10/10/2017
61
70
10
17
2017
10/17/2017
68
89
10
24
2017
10/24/2017
50
55
10
31
2017
10/31/2017
62
70
11
7
2017
11/7/2017
65
81
11
14
2017
11/14/2017
84
90
11
21
2017
11/21/2017
61
77
11
28
2017
11/28/2017
64
81
12
5
2017
12/5/2017
66
76
12
12
2017
12/12/2017
81
90
12
19
2017
12/19/2017
63
78
12
28
2017
12/28/2017
60
71
1
2
2018
1/2/2018
66
76
1
8
2018
1/8/2018
62
81
1
16
2018
1/16/2018
60
67
1
22
2018
1/22/2018
63
73
1
29
2018
1/29/2018
60
79
2
5
2018
2/5/2018
53
68
2
12
2018
2/12/2018
43
46
2
19
2018
2/19/2018
53
61
2
26
2018
2/26/2018
61
72
3
5
2018
3/5/2018
60
73
3
13
2018
3/13/2018
80
86
3
20
2018
3/20/2018
56
66
3
27
2018
3/27/2018
61
72
4
3
2018
4/3/2018
62
73
4
9
2018
4/9/2018
61
71
4
16
2018
4/16/2018
43
49
4
23
2018
4/23/2018
46
57
4
30
2018
4/30/2018
57
66
5
7
2018
5/7/2018
61
73
5
14
2018
5/14/2018
61
76
5
21
2018
5/21/2018
42
45
5
28
2018
5/28/2018
57
65
6
4
2018
6/4/2018
56
62
6
5
2018
6/5/2018
58
64
6
6
2018
6/6/2018
59
66
6
11
2018
6/11/2018
63
71
6
12
2018
6/12/2018
59
67
Page 4
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00094 - Conductivity f
umhoslcml
Month Day
Year
Date
6
13
2018
6/13/2018
6
18
2018
6/18/2018
6
19
2018
6/19/2018
6
20
2018
6/20/2018
6
26
2018
6/26/2018
6
27
2018
6/27/2018
6
28
2018
6/28/2018
7
2
2018
7/2/2018
7
3
2018
7/3/2018
7
5
2018
7/5/2018
7
9
2018
7/9/2018
7
10
2018
7/10/2018
7
11
2018
7/11/2018
7
16
2018
7/16/2018
7
17
2018
7/17/2018
7
18
2018
7/18/2018
7
23
2018
7/23/2018
7
24
2018
7/24/2018
7
25
2018
7/25/2018
7
30
2018
7/30/2018
7
31
2018
7/31/2018
8
1
2018
8/1/2018
8
6
2018
8/6/2018
8
7
2018
8/7/2018
8
8
2018
8/8/2018
8
13
2018
8/13/2018
8
14
2018
8/14/2018
8
16
2018
8/16/2018
8
20
2018
8/20/2018
8
21
2018
8/21/2018
8
22
2018
8/22/2018
8
27
2018
8/27/2018
8
28
2018
8/28/2018
8
29
2018
8/29/2018
9
4
2018
9/4/2018
9
5
2018
9/5/2018
9
6
2018
9/6/2018
9
10
2018
9/10/2018
9
11
2018
9/11/2018
9
12
2018
9/12/2018
9
17
2018
9/17/2018
9
18
2018
9/18/2018
9
19
2018
9/19/2018
9
24
2018
9/24/2018
9
25
2018
9/25/2018
Upstream Dnstream
64
72
65
73
63
76
60
75
59
69
51
54
60
67
64
74
65
75
70
78
66
74
67
76
62
80
66
80
65
81
63
75
63
74
57
64
61
71
65
78
67
80
64
74
66
77
65
69
64
73
65
77
68
79
64
81 upstream originally 644
66
75
68
77
70
78
66
82
67
73
65
71
66
80
64
77
68
81
59
75
64
73
67
80
50
56
59
66
63
70
64
78
66
79
Page 5 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00094 - Conductivity (umhos�cm
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
9
26
2018
9/26/2018
54
62
10
1
2018
10/1/2018
66
72
10
8
2018
10/8/2018
65
75
10
16
2018
10/16/2018
58
63
10
22
2018
10/22/2018
64
74
10
31
2018
10/31/2018
63
70
11
5
2018
11/5/2018
60
72
11
13
2018
11/13/2018
47
50
11
19
2018
11/19/2018
31
58
11
26
2018
11/26/2018
54
62
12
3
2018
12/3/2018
58
70
12
12
2018
12/12/2018
57
65
12
17
2018
12/17/2018
82
84
12
27
2018
12/27/2018
52
60
12
31
2018
12/31/2018
42
48
1
7
2019
1/7/2019
48
52
1
14
2019
1/14/2019
53
62
1
22
2019
1/22/2019
52
67
1
30
2019
1/30/2019
53
66
2
4
2019
2/4/2019
55
71
2
11
2019
2/11/2019
55
67
2
18
2019
2/18/2019
34
40
2
26
2019
2/26/2019
44
52
3
4
2019
3/4/2019
51
59
3
11
2019
3/11/2019
52
60
3
18
2019
3/18/2019
54
63
3
25
2019
3/25/2019
56
62
4
1
2019
4/1/2019
55
63
4
8
2019
4/8/2019
56
66
4
15
2019
4/15/2019
49
54
4
23
2019
4/23/2019
56
64
4
29
2019
4/29/2019
57
63
5
6
2019
5/6/2019
58
64
5
13
2019
5/13/2019
53
58
5
20
2019
5/20/2019
60
63
5
28
2019
5/28/2019
56
64
6
3
2019
6/3/2019
58
66
6
4
2019
6/4/2019
60
67
6
5
2019
6/5/2019
62
69
6
10
2019
6/10/2019
37
39
6
11
2019
6/11/2019
46
50
6
12
2019
6/12/2019
49
54
6
17
2019
6/17/2019
46
53
6
18
2019
6/18/2019
40
41
6
19
2019
6/19/2019
45
51
Page 6
GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO020664
00094 - Conductivity fumhoslem
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
6
24
2019
6/24/2019
59
66
6
25
2019
6/25/2019
54
60
6
26
2019
6/26/2019
59
67
7
1
2019
7/1/2019
52
58
7
2
2019
7/2/2019
53
60
7
3
2019
7/3/2019
54
61
7
8
2019
7/8/2019
61
69
7
9
2019
7/9/2019
62
72
7
10
2019
7/10/2019
64
73
7
15
2019
7/15/2019
60
68
7
16
2019
7/16/2019
62
69
7
17
2019
7/17/2019
63
72
7
22
2019
7/22/2019
62
72
7
23
2019
7/23/2019
60
71
7
24
2019
7/24/2019
63
74
7
29
2019
7/29/2019
61
74
7
30
2019
7/30/2019
64
73
7
31
2019
7/31/2019
63
72
n
288
288
Avg
61.09
74.35
SD
7.16
11.90
Min
31.00
39.00
Max
84.00
104.00
Conductivity
*Upstream A Dnstream
120
100
80AAR . 1; #
AL AL 60 ,
t 40i
E 20
0
01� oti�O otiA otiA C
oti�' oti�' oti� oti
\T w�ti0\� �\o�ti
Page 7 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0020664
00094 - Conductivity fumhos/cmt
Month Day Year Date Upstream Dnstream
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream
Dnstream
Mean
61.0902778
74.34722
Variance
51.2322396
141.6003
Observations
288
288
Pearson Correlation
0.82733396
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
287
t Stat
-31.22918
P(T<=t) one -tail
1.313E-94
t Critical one -tail
1.65018021
P(T<=t) two -tail
2.6261E-94
t Critical two -tail
1.96826411
Conclusion.: Downstream conductivity is significantly higher than upstream.
Page 8 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
31616 - Coliform,
Fecal ME MFC Broth, 44.5 C fcfu/100 mL]
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effkuent
6
1
2016
6/1/2016
150
165
24
6
2
2016
6/2/2016
110
92
2
6
6
2016
6/6/2016
130
88
18
6
7
2016
6/7/2016
135
168
6
6
8
2016
6/8/2016
115
140
76
6
13
2016
6/13/2016
60
76
7
6
14
2016
6/14/2016
100
125
8
6
15
2016
6/15/2016
130
185
41
6
20
2016
6/20/2016
60
88
8
6
21
2016
6/21/2016
135
115
1
6
22
2016
6/22/2016
56
96
14
6
27
2016
6/27/2016
60
108
1
6
28
2016
6/28/2016
155
336
3
6
29
2016
6/29/2016
125
110
18
7
5
2016
7/5/2016
440
580
34
7
6
2016
7/6/2016
520
640
52
7
7
2016
7/7/2016
125
155
7
7
11
2016
7/11/2016
56
108
6
7
12
2016
7/12/2016
118
150
4
7
13
2016
7/13/2016
110
125
24
7
18
2016
7/18/2016
64
92
8
7
19
2016
7/19/2016
110
145
16
7
20
2016
7/20/2016
56
100
43
7
25
2016
7/25/2016
125
145
57
7
26
2016
7/26/2016
115
135
47
7
27
2016
7/27/2016
460
580
90
8
1
2016
8/1/2016
130
115
41
8
2
2016
8/2/2016
110
160
54
8
3
2016
8/3/2016
72
96
120
8
8
2016
8/8/2016
500
640
63
8
9
2016
8/9/2016
130
145
16
8
10
2016
8/10/2016
145
185
61
8
15
2016
8/15/2016
145
170
44
8
16
2016
8/16/2016
110
135
24
8
17
2016
8/17/2016
135
155
134
8
22
2016
8/22/2016
115
155
220
8
23
2016
8/23/2016
68
100
95
8
24
2016
8/24/2016
125
148
57
8
29
2016
8/29/2016
110
135
72
8
30
2016
8/30/2016
60
104
6
8
31
2016
8/31/2016
100
125
84
9
6
2016
9/6/2016
68
125
34
9
7
2016
9/7/2016
130
130
28
9
8
2016
9/8/2016
105
120
10
9
12
2016
9/12/2016
130
150
6
Page 1 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
31616 - C'olifcrrm, Fecal_MF MfC Broth, 44.5 C tcfullOO mL
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effkuent
9
13
2016
9/13/2016
110
135
8
9
14
2016
9/14/2016
56
80
33
9
19
2016
9/19/2016
115
135
8
9
20
2016
9/20/2016
105
135
12
9
21
2016
9/21/2016
120
145
24
9
26
2016
9/26/2016
145
170
7
9
27
2016
9/27/2016
145
185
10
9
28
2016
9/28/2016
125
190
32
10
4
2016
10/4/2016
135
150
4
10
11
2016
10/11/2016
110
140
4
10
18
2016
10/18/2016
80
96
2
10
25
2016
10/25/2016
60
72
1
11
1
2016
11/1/2016
58
84
6
11
8
2016
11/8/2016
76
60
6
11
15
2016
11/15/2016
48
135
4
11
22
2016
11/22/2016
72
110
93
11
29
2016
11/29/2016
145
170
26
12
6
2016
12/6/2016
130
170
300
12
13
2016
12/13/2016
60
100
24
12
20
2016
12/20/2016
48
60
1
12
29
2016
12/29/2016
64
72
1
1
3
2017
1/3/2017
420
480
28
1
10
2017
1/10/2017
32
44
1
1
17
2017
1/17/2017
32
36
2
1
24
2017
1/24/2017
110
145
6
1
31
2017
1/31/2017
115
148
1
2
7
2017
2/7/2017
105
135
1
2
14
2017
2/14/2017
115
155
250
2
21
2017
2/21/2017
145
235
230
3
8
2017
3/8/2017
105
145
3
3
14
2017
3/14/2017
160
195
13
3
21
2017
3/21/2017
145
120
2
3
28
2017
3/28/2017
155
480
3
4
4
2017
4/4/2017
460
620
300
4
12
2017
4/12/2017
115
140
71
4
18
2017
4/18/2017
100
135
6
4
25
2017
4/25/2017
240
165
93
5
2
2017
5/2/2017
20
56
7
5
9
2017
5/9/2017
68
100
28
5
16
2017
5/16/2017
125
155
260
5
23
2017
5/23/2017
460
620
310
5
30
2017
5/30/2017
440
560
2
6
1
2017
6/1/2017
460
540
17
6
2
2017
6/2/2017
125
145
23
6
5
2017
6/5/2017
105
125
2
Page 2 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
31616 - Coli orm
Fecal MF MFC Broth 44.5 C lclu,1100 mt
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effkuent
6
6
2017
6/6/2017
420
560
3
6
7
2017
6/7/2017
125
160
6
6
12
2017
6/12/2017
210
185
4
6
13
2017
6/13/2017
155
270
3
6
14
2017
6/14/2017
130
165
22
6
19
2017
6/19/2017
145
125
4
6
20
2017
6/20/2017
135
155
6
6
21
2017
6/21/2017
110
125
7
6
26
2017
6/26/2017
130
110
42
6
27
2017
6/27/2017
115
145
8
6
28
2017
6/28/2017
60
84
6
7
3
2017
7/3/2017
155
175
14
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
68
104
8
7
6
2017
7/6/2017
110
135
43
7
10
2017
7/10/2017
92
44
32
7
11
2017
7/11/2017
420
480
16
7
12
2017
7/12/2017
123
105
31
7
17
2017
7/17/2017
130
110
14
7
18
2017
7/18/2017
120
155
6
7
19
2017
7/19/2017
60
80
4
7
24
2017
7/24/2017
125
115
1
7
25
2017
7/25/2017
115
140
1
7
26
2017
7/26/2017
540
460
12
7
31
2017
7/31/2017
125
100
1
8
1
2017
8/1/2017
136
115
1
8
2
2017
8/2/2017
56
96
8
8
7
2017
8/7/2017
135
180
10
8
8
2017
8/8/2017
20
36
1
8
9
2017
8/9/2017
36
56
1
8
14
2017
8/14/2017
135
155
1
8
15
2017
8/15/2017
12
20
1
8
16
2017
8/16/2017
8
12
1
8
21
2017
8/21/2017
12
20
1
8
22
2017
8/22/2017
28
56
1
8
23
2017
8/23/2017
8
12
1
8
28
2017
8/28/2017
16
24
1
8
29
2017
8/29/2017
36
84
1
8
30
2017
8/30/2017
8
12
1
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
16
28
1
9
6
2017
9/6/2017
12
28
1
9
7
2017
9/7/2017
36
56
1
9
11
2017
9/11/2017
11
16
1
9
12
2017
9/12/2017
185
145
1
9
13
2017
9/13/2017
8
12
1
9
18
2017
9/18/2017
20
44
1
Page 3 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
31616 - Coll orm, Fecal MF, MFC Broth, 44.5 C_.(_ u 1 a0 rrtL�
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream Dnstream
Effkuent
9
19
2017
9/19/2017
130
150
1
9
20
2017
9/20/2017
16
28
1
9
25
2017
9/25/2017
36
44
1
9
26
2017
9/26/2017
440
580
1
9
27
2017
9/27/2017
56
84
1
10
3
2017
10/3/2017
170
195
6
10
10
2017
10/10/2017
420
560
7
10
17
2017
10/17/2017
130
170
3
10
24
2017
10/24/2017
520
660
32
10
31
2017
10/31/2017
125
145
14
11
7
2017
11/7/2017
110
130
6
11
14
2017
11/14/2017
32
80
4
11
21
2017
11/21/2017
76
92
4
11
28
2017
11/28/2017
125
145
11
12
5
2017
12/5/2017
60
60
8
12
12
2017
12/12/2017
125
135
15
12
19
2017
12/19/2017
60
72
37
12
28
2017
12/28/2017
56
84
6
1
2
2018
1/2/2018
16
28
4
1
8
2018
1/8/2018
16
36
1
1
16
2018
1/16/2018
52
76
8
1
22
2018
1/22/2018
51
72
6
1
29
2018
1/29/2018
145
185
6
2
5
2018
2/5/2018
135
178
61
2
12
2018
2/12/2018
175
220
65
2
19
2018
2/19/2018
115
80
3
2
26
2018
2/26/2018
154
155
2
3
5
2018
3/5/2018
130
110
2
3
13
2018
3/13/2018
20
36
2
3
20
2018
3/20/2018
740
660
210
3
27
2018
3/27/2018
110
140
2
4
3
2018
4/3/2018
105
84
1
4
9
2018
4/9/2018
145
260
1
4
16
2018
4/16/2018
480
580
280
4
23
2018
4/23/2018
440
540
1
4
30
2018
4/30/2018
110
145
9
5
7
2018
5/7/2018
135
155
2
5
14
2018
5/14/2018
68
100
8
5
21
2018
5/21/2018
175
205
5
5
28
2018
5/28/2018
125
180
6
4
2018
6/4/2018
155
190
220
6
5
2018
6/5/2018
125
150
6
6
6
2018
6/6/2018
52
64
23
6
11
2018
6/11/2018
110
100
4
6
12
2018
6/12/2018
165
195
290
Page 4 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
31616 - Colifarm.
Fecal MF. MFC Broth. 44.5 C �cfu/100 mLj
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
EfFkuent
6
13
2018
6/13/2018
105
125
32
6
18
2018
6/18/2018
56
96
6
6
19
2018
6/19/2018
110
82
12
6
20
2018
6/20/2018
130
105
10
6
26
2018
6/26/2018
160
205
5
6
27
2018
6/27/2018
440
560
280
6
28
2018
6/28/2018
500
580
8
7
2
2018
7/2/2018
120
155
15
7
3
2018
7/3/2018
520
560
16
7
5
2018
7/5/2018
135
115
2
7
9
2018
7/9/2018
160
185
1
7
10
2018
7/10/2018
110
145
3
7
11
2018
7/11/2018
120
135
1
7
16
2018
7/16/2018
135
155
65
7
17
2018
7/17/2018
180
195
47
7
18
2018
7/18/2018
460
.580
250
7
23
2018
7/23/2018
160
205
8
7
24
2018
7/24/2018
440
540
6
7
25
2018
7/25/2018
420
520
260
7
30
2018
7/30/2018
460
500
26
7
31
2018
7/31/2018
420
620
24
8
1
2018
8/1/2018
400
660
57
8
6
2018
8/6/2018
100
140
94
8
7
2018
8/7/2018
115
150
15
8
8
2018
8/8/2018
60
96
41
8
13
2018
8/13/2018
180
205
61
8
14
2018
8/14/2018
123
140
42
8
16
2018
8/16/2018
440
520
95
8
20
2018
8/20/2018
440
520
26
8
21
2018
8/21/2018
108
110
310
8
22
2018
8/22/2018
110
155
290
8
27
2018
8/27/2018
130
165
250
8
28
2018
8/28/2018
64
84
6
8
29
2018
8/29/2018
125
165
285
9
4
2018
9/4/2018
170
195
94
9
5
2018
9/5/2018
155
170
230
9
6
2018
9/6/2018
165
188
320
9
10
2018
9/10/2018
460
580
61
9
11
2018
9/11/2018
480
600
260
9
12
2018
9/12/2018
145
170
290
9
17
2018
9/17/2018
440
520
21
9
18
2018
9/18/2018
215
275
44
9
19
2018
9/19/2018
130
155
300
9
24
2018
9/24/2018
165
208
240
9
25
2018
9/25/2018
125
170
31
Page 5 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
31616 - Coliform, Fecal MF MFC Broth 44.5 C c u 100 mL
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effkuent
9
26
2018
9/26/2018
440
560
290
10
1
2018
10/1/2018
420
500
31
10
8
2018
10/8/2018
145
155
24
10
16
2018
10/16/2018
220
245
12
10
22
2018
10/22/2018
125
160
4
10
31
2018
10/31/2018
145
180
49
11
5
2018
11/5/2018
150
170
6
11
13
2018
11/13/2018
460
580
250
11
19
2018
11/19/2018
130
150
31
11
26
2018
11/26/2018
620
780
220
12
3
2018
12/3/2018
155
195
270
12
12
2018
12/12/2018
480
620
270
12
17
2018
12/17/2018
165
195
2
12
27
2018
12/27/2018
500
620
2
12
31
2018
12/31/2018
155
125
59
1
7
2019
1/7/2019
105
120
6
1
14
2019
1/14/2019
60
88
36
1
22
2019
1/22/2019
110
135
250
1
30
2019
1/30/2019
120
140
300
2
4
2019
2/4/2019
155
195
18
2
11
2019
2/11/2019
125
145
6
2
18
2019
2/18/2019
480
580
210
2
26
2019
2/26/2019
170
52
250
3
4
2019
3/4/2019
48
80
1
3
11
2019
3/11/2019
155
440
210
3
18
2019
3/18/2019
115
160
220
3
25
2019
3/25/2019
110
140
6
4
1
2019
4/1/2019
145
170
1
4
8
2019
4/8/2019
130
155
250
4
15
2019
4/15/2019
225
265
1
4
23
2019
4/23/2019
180
245
310
4
29
2019
4/29/2019
100
110
5
5
6
2019
5/6/2019
110
130
8
5
13
2019
5/13/2019
480
620
22
5
20
2019
5/20/2019
460
520
16
5
28
2019
5/28/2019
145
195
1
6
3
2019
6/3/2019
120
155
1
6
4
2019
6/4/2019
110
160
7
6
5
2019
6/5/2019
140
220
5
6
10
2019
6/10/2019
700
880
310
6
11
2019
6/11/2019
520
660
220
6
12
2019
6/12/2019
328
420
62
6
17
2019
6/17/2019
460
520
16
6
18
2019
6/18/2019
580
680
47
6
19
2019
6/19/2019
165
210
260
Page 6 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

Spindale WWTP Instream Monitoring
NCO020664
31616 - Coliform, Fetal ME MFC Broth. 44.5 C Ief6/100 mL
Month Day
Year
Date
Upstream
Dnstream
Effkuent
6
24
2019
6/24/2019
175
225
8
6
25
2019
6/25/2019
540
680
25
6
26
2019
6/26/2019
130
170
230
7
1
2019
7/1/2019
180
220
7
7
2
2019
7/2/2019
460
520
5
7
3
2019
7/3/2019
440
500
98
7
8
2019
7/8/2019
145
160
7
7
9
2019
7/9/2019
440
580
83
7
10
2019
7/10/2019
140
170
250
7
15
2019
7/15/2019
420
520
66
7
16
2019
7/16/2019
180
205
63
7
17
2019
7/17/2019
135
155
230
7
22
2019
7/22/2019
460
580
34
7
23
2019
7/23/2019
500
660
65
7
24
2019
7/24/2019
130
150
88
7
29
2019
7/29/2019
155
195
86
7
30
2019
7/30/2019
480
580
210
7
31
2019
7/31/2019
125
145
330
n
288
288
287
Geomean
126
159
14
Min
8
12
1
Max
740
880
330
Fecal Coliform
Upstream Effkuent ♦ Dnstream
1,000
100 W;'46
iff S am *071P No A %jimm mn womft
•
is
as ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ Is M ■ ■ IN
61; O,O O1� O,O O,O
Page 7 GB Perlmutter, rev. 9/10/2019

LO
O
N fn
On ui
cc
Z a
C
o c
Q
@ t
U 0
O E io
o
°D o >
0
EL
cc f
N
0
C
a
0
6
O
E
J
O y
LO
a
U �
c
O
0
7
0
C
0
o�
O
N
�7
4
G
a
N
L
�
�
�
o
U
Z
0
F
N
E LO
Z
J
0
m
E
m
F
�
0
fib
O
a
0
c
Z
o
0
Z
0
a�
E
Z
a
°c
g
o
0
Lco
IL
01
t0
0
0
0
U
z
W
6
Z
a_
F a a a a a a a a a m a a a m a m
p m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Q C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c
Z O O _O O_ _O o_ O O_ O O_ O_ O _O O O O
ga a a a a a a a a ¢ a ¢ a a a a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O z z z Z z Z z Z z z z Z z z z z
rn rn E E E E E E E E E E E E E
TQr> •OX %> >X E mE onE d E w E E m E a�m mo�oE@ coD
Z O X•O X.O X"O X'O X X-0 X-0 X 'O X V X X X V
'O $ m d@ a) @ d@ d@ m@ m@@ d@
O XU � X X X >WY X T X , T >WX
'•p W W W W
ID WX LIJ>, O Wr@mm@
Ci
o mo to co ch v, n o co o LO to of
u cm Oj N M M f� N M tM M M C.)N M
w
w
g7 O c0 to O 01 O t0 N -e co O O to O O O
O J d: 06 N N M �t M M M N N N M N M
J � N N
U
N O O co CD 00 OD LD OD 00 co 00 OD GO OD LD
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M N N
J
LL w
O CD
Z w E E E O m 7 7 7 7 7 CD 3 3 7 m O
7 7
7 w
ui
ui
w
w
Q
EL
0
U
O
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
N m
; a) OD 3 N a) a) a) a) d N 01 (D 0) N a7
3 3 3 3 3
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
O O LO O O O LO O O O O O O Lo O O
't �_ O O O O O
O M
cm 0 0 0 a 04 � � 0 0 0 0 0
m m m m CD
5 m m is m m m
U U U vo v v v v v v v v v v
01 ZA y 'y N y y 9 fA y y Vi N y •N
07 C a1 C N C a1 N O) a) a1 N m a) a) 0) N N N
0 m O @ C) co co N @ f0 @ l6 @ @ @ f0 @ @ @
C C C p p O O O O O O O H
v co v O F F-
r
❑ ❑ C c?C a) a7 a) 0) N N N N N N 0) a) a)
O O O C C C C G C C C C C = C C
Ln U U U c •C
0 0 `o o `o L L t t o `o o `o 0 0 0 0
L L L t L L .0 L L
m m m U U U U U U U U U U U U U
C G C C C C C C C@ N y a)
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
n
0
N
L
0
tv
0
N
L
0
ti
s
N
L
0
v
0
N
v
0
N
L
d'
0
N
L
V
0
N
L
•t
0
N
r
v
0
N
v
s
N
V
0
N
Ln
0
N
o
LO
0
N
0
O
0
N
0
O O
0 0
N N
o a

Lo
O
N
N
m
d
�+ C
o c
O) U
2 a
cri co c
0
o E .p
_o
CD $) >
a
ui
m
O
a
C
oc c
'5
O
jr U
C
l6
L
W
Vi
Z m E
Dm z
E
m
O rn T
a
2 r
F-
O
Wa
� U
Z �
E c
O a
Z _ O
2 U.
Z
0.
a am m m m '� � m mm 0. cc p p p c p ee e c c o o
~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
OZ Z Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
> Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z
a
dt
t
w
a E E E E E E E E E E E E E
' g..mm CDv�E(D E E = E(D (Dz EEE E E E E E vxvE w m E (DX .Wx .X'x '�m'�� Mm„W
m o ow ow Qw ow Qw .�w .mw w cow w �w ?w w w :L,-
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a o 0 0
❑
� 2 N N M � N f� � � � h M M n
9 w
`o )' w
t g J v M c0 0) JM Cl)cli
7 M m NNN N cm
c+1
y U
F
2
m F
OD Co co aD CD OD
co Go (7 � N N N N N N N N N co co co N N co co
LL w
O
CD
O � _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 7 co O) 7 0)
_
U
Z
LOU 3 3 3 m °� °' m m (D a)(D(D (D m m m
LL N LO u) LO to LO cn x x N N x X X X X
Z to o to 0
o w T
5o M g r
O
CD
o 0 0 0 o c 0 c O7o 0 0 a
c
'a
y
a1 fN tq N y ' q 'w L ,O= a= j
to
C W
O
to
W W
c
_ c c
C c C C a7 a) a) a1
F L L O O p O O O O
L
J
a
LL
Z
15
O c c
c �
U � FOE_ _ _ > > > > m d m y y
o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
S J
J
D LL
� F
V
� O O
O O O O O O O O O O C. O O O O O O
Z F LO o M N 17 Ip U) U) LO O N O
O O O O O O O _O o l0 t0
> O d N N N N N N N N N N O O O C. O O
Z w N N ) I ) ) N N N N N N
j E f c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p) c 'cli)
o

a o
O
w
N N
o E
a Z
J m
O N
j a
Co
a a
c7
LU
Z o 0
Z E O
c
z
O d a O
Z lm
2
a
0
Z
a
a
d
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
Co
0-
m
a
to
a
m
a
m
a
m
F
m
m
m
m
In
m
m
m
m
Q
C
C
0
C
O_
C
O
C
O
c
O_
C
O_
C
O_
C
O_
C
O
C
O
C
O
_
C
O
C
O
Z
0
O_
O
U
0
_
.7
_
<
Q
Q <
Q
Q <U
C7
Q
Q
<
U
Q
U
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
<
Q
Q
Q
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
"'
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
7
IL3
v
3
v
3
v
3
v
3
v
3
v
7
v
3
v
7
v
E
3
v
E
7
v
E
7
v
E
3
v
E
7
E
3
v
E d
v
E m
E d
'x 'O
E o
'x 'O
E d
v
E m
'x v
E m
'x 'O
E d
K v
E a)
'x v
E d
'x 'o
d
'x v
m
'X 'O
o
'x v
o
'x v
m
'x 'O
d
'x 'O
X "O
'X 'D
ZO
d
4)
x
m 4)
m(D
an d
m
16 �
0
0
g
g
an
m
y
U
U
�
�
>, X
U
T X
�. X
w�
U
X
W@
T X
W�
X
W@
�., X
W�
T X
W@
�, X
W
X
W�
T X
W@
�., X
WI
T X
W@
X
W�
�, X
Wu
T X
W
O
.� W�
W�
m
o
c0
N
cn
N
co
C
N
W
N
O
M
O
n
O
O
c9
N
M
N
N
N
N
O
u1
O
w
w
O
0)
1.-LO
M
I--v
m
M
w
V)
M
in
RI
CC
M
N
M
v
co
in
co
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
O
W
V a
N
cM
J �
Q
U
~
co
co
o
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
ao
N
co
N
o
N
co
N
co
N
00
N
O
N
J
N
N
N
N
LL w
O w
—
_00
—
—
al
C
O)
C
O)
O1
Ol
Of
Cl
D7
C
O)
—
C>
C
Ol
C
O)
C
O)
C
O)
F co
Z<
3
0)
3
7
7
3
7
3
3
7
3
7
3
7
3
7
3
7
w
}
U
Z
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
be
Y
0
Y
d
Y
N
Y
d
Y
d
Y
N
Y
N
At
N
j
m
N
G7
N
4)
m
3
N
3
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LL
In
(n
to
(n
(n
(n
1n
(n
(n
to
(n
in
(n
(n
c0
(n
Z
w
V1
O
of
cO
co
co
c0
o
c0
o
c0
c0
(0
cO
cD
o
0
N
$
N
N
N
cD
o
O
j
o
N
C�
Cl)
m
ch
N
mch
c0
O
c0
W
o
to
0
cD
0
c0
0
cO
0
0
0
o
O
o
0
o
O
7
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
3
7
v
7
a
O
V
M
L
v
N
Z
N
N
N
N
N
C7
Vi
N
Q'
N
d'
N
C1
0:
N
N
N
N
41
N
N
N
w
W
Q'
l0
Q'
(0
p[
i
Q:
l0
Q'
O
0'
f0
f0
l0
O
f
l0
O
{6
O
(0
O
O
to
O
co
O
IO
O
O
F
O
F
O
O
O
O
O
H
H
F-
H-
H
F
Q
4
O
O
O
O
O
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
`a
o
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Z
O
C
C
C
C
N
01
N
N
G1
N
N
G1
~
3
3
7
7
7
7
3
7
3
3RE
7
7
7
7
3
7
o
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
J
LL
0
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
z�
�
CD
co
co
CC)W
CD
w
CDto
a� o
s
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
o
N
s
N
o
N
b
N
CD0
N
N
n
N
D a
N
N
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z w N
1
N
1
c7
c'7
co
Cl)
cn
It
0
0
0
o
co
O
w
0
O
O
cD
o
O
0
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O

LO
O
qct 9
ai co
w
a 0
Z+ c
o
mV3
Q
m
U o
c E .'
o
rn $' >
0
a
ai
f6
O
a
C
0
m
�+ C
m �
� a
c
0
O
>
V
w
U)
N
QO z
..i m E
O m �
a
G r
O
a
lu
a v
t9 E o
Q. c
O am Z
0
• O
O
2 LL
3
N
O
U
z
ui
W
}
z
z
W
w
Of
LL
z
O w
g~
O
a 'a a_ IL
'a caa 'a a a a a' 'a a'
m m m to m m m m m m m m m m m m
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
o_ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
< < < < ts
<
¢ a a a a ¢ ¢ a a ¢ ¢ a a ¢ a a
z ° ° ° zzzz z° z z° z° z° z° z° z° z z° z°
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E m m E EE m m m 9 m E d E d E m E d E m E m E m E m v v
'x v 'x v 'x 'o 'x p 'x v 'x a 'x v 'x a 'x v 'x v 'x m .x v
i o 2 2 m o Of m m m CD m m m m m V m m m m m
c� n c� xox o c� 2 0 c� g g x g m
• W .� W .�-O W •� W .@ W .� W W .s W W W W .�' W T W T W T W a W
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO n M - M
N ti C T nj 't N LO to n tO 0 n O)
M M n N N ci fM O^ r
LO o
M M M M m M M cn M M m M N M M N
m o o m co N N N N N N N N co co N co N co N CO. co Go
N
7 7 7 7 3 7D 7 7 j j O m m
7 3 7 7
N N d m m m y N W N G7 N Y Y Y Y
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X
in LO in Ln LO Ln Ln Un LO Ln LO U') Ln Ln LO 0
co
►� n n n n n n n n n n n n
N CC'_' N O O p p O iB of O M
S o 0 0 0� o S o 0 0 0
0
a a v v v v v v v v v v >
a' .O N d N Ny H N N N (p y O m
ui
F itIx 12
QW°
R' O O
F- 1-
N y
a c c c_ c c c c c m a� d m m ai ti ti C O O CO ,C C C C C C C C C
O O O O O '� '0 '� 'O •o •O •o .O
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
z
O
Q
U
0
J
c c c c C C C C C C C C C C C C
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
n
CD
N N
O O
n
N
O
n
N
O
n
N
Cl)
n
N
n
N
1�
n
N
A
n
N
°D
n
N
M
n
N
07
n
N
0)
n
N
CD
n
N
n °o
N N
1
CV
CV O

n
/
.. $
(L IL
z a
�
<
» §
E a
o
k E>
a.
2
c
k
0
$
»
\ m
0 /
v CO
§
I
>
0
� o
c
\
/
k
\
.. 04
zc e
o s E
a
E
z
k 2
> § a
■
� 7
L
■ z @ @
2 .. E ..
B a.k
# b
m U. 2
u,
B
8
m
2
�
Z
0
IL
R
(
ca
m
z
§
-0
§
/(
§
7
2
2
o
z
z
>
LU
za
k
fa§ok0
2R°
§
£ §
2 §
f k
w
/
)
w
w
= w
>
o
o
o
c
o
@/to
/Ci
8
§
■
■
clin
7
]�
0
\
cm °
m
Go
04
©
b§
_
�
§
�
k
}
k
k
�
^
LO
§ U�e
Go
00
/
A
{
\
\
>
a
§
§
(
)
a)
)
§
§
ƒ
f
ƒ
$
$
£
0
0
0
k
)
t
G
t
(
E
§
E
B
§
8
a
8
co Cl)
kGo
a
§

a H
m
m m
Q a Q a a O^ n N n O O N
a �c
U
z a a d a
u
2
2
Z a a a d
Z x x x x
u
I
I
0
p
O
U
UI
UI
UI
O'
� d
o d
o d
d
z d
a v
m g
V1
v�
y
Z
3
3 O
LL
I C LL
C LL
A
cm LL
T LL
9
in
@
N N 1'nIf
L, m m m m
C a a a
lO
Ln a m
n
G
,
LL
C a
H
in ,
C
n
LL
LL
�
T
�
M
N
3
�'—
U
3
�-�
0
3
C
o
} fn
N
Q a a a a
Z
Q , . ,
m
. . , , ,
U
rj
n M N
m
FF
^i
o
Q
Q y M^ a
c
c o
kD
o
o
C fn
N
C
A m
C C
N
H
c4
C
m
m
a
m
m Li:
m
m a
N
m a
h
m
a
I
O
c
~
o
N
O
=
d
0 o
o
CD
p
o
Q ^
O
O
cf
a a 0- a a
1 n a n
O
c
o
p
C
o
c
tlow
�
Fo
0
m m
cc m m
G C C C C 0-y
C
cc,
c
2= x
G
N
g a a a a am
C= 2
C
OA
T VI
O N
C in
M U
m O
L O
E o
u E
o
u
Q
u
at C
UC
o
C
Q
O
Z
Q' , , , ,
Z
C
Z
T
T
>
C
C
C
O
T
C
3
O
u
O
u
O
o
J
Ln
u
U
OD
p
rn
m m m m m
n to � m
,F,
C LL C C C
�a
n m y n
mirl
^
-';
G
N
E_
\
\ E
\ O
G
N�••I
�
_E
—
.
I�
U
too u
00
aO L
n L
v
O
p
N U
M u
NU
00
0
Z
LL.n N N h H
m. C m C C
U
LL . ,
O
U
LL . ,
O
'� '^ N
O
C
Grl
Z
Z
Z
m m
d d H a a l
Z
LL x x 2 2 2
dA
O
M
p
M
C
ti
a
ti
C
N
\
c
O
�"'
u
O 0� 1
•00
1
C
C
an
C
m
m
m
t
x
.�
m
in
0
O
41
p
a
C
vi to N w m
'-I '•I e-1 ei '-1
a
N l0 P 00 M
0 0� ti �
0 0 0 0 0
C
to l0 n W O1
�� '+ a I
In l0 I, M Ol
ti� ti
a
F2
ui � n o0 rn
O
N N N N N
�
N
0 0
N N N N N
ry N N N ry
0 `~
0
N N N ON N
W
K d
Y
C
a
m 1CL
LL
a LL
'�
C t
O_
in U
m
C
` 1�
V u
'n v
�^
LnCL u
Ln
N
w
O
aj
tw
a

r PO Box 7565
* Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
*ETS
E-mail: [e-mail]
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. Date: June 23, 2014
I
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Facility: S iindale WWTP NPDES #: NC 0020664 Pipe #: 001 County: Rutherford
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.Comments:
Signature of Operator in Responsible Char e:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor: Pmiect 9842
Samples: 140602.03, 140604.31, 340606.24
I Mail Original To: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mad Service CenterI Stare data: End date: Stert time: End time:
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 06-M-14 06-10-14 j 1130 1056
Replicate number
1
2 3
4
Control
S ' ' number ofl"M
1 10
1 10 1 10
10
Organisms
I OrWnalnumber of larvae
1 10
10 10
10
Weight/mi 'nil m )
1 0.684
0.755 0,721
0.653
%Effluent
ISurviving number of larvae
10
10 10
10
4.75%
0righ ai number of larvae
10
10 10
10
Weight/original (ra0arvaw
, 0.846
1 0.724 1 0.775 1
0.733
% Effluent
94%
ISurvivingnumberoflarvae
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
10riginal number of larvae
I ' 10
1 10
1 10
I0
w ' on '
0.696
1 0.675
10.731
1 0.892
Survival (%)
100.0
Average wt (mg)
0.703
Average wt /
0.703
surviving (m8)
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) =
Survival(%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.749
Test Organisms
Outside supplier.
i Agnmx, Inc.
Hatch date: 06-02-14
Hatch time: 1600-1700
% Effluent
Surviving number oflarvae
10
10
10 1
10
19%
Original number of larvae
10
survival (%)
F 100.0
w4h uodginal ( e)
0.981
0.807
0.789 1
0.868
Average wi (mg)
0.861
% Effluent
Surviving number of larvae
10
10
10
10
38%
OdF. na: numberoflarvm
10
10
10
10
Survival (%)
F 100.o
weit/o' inn1 (mg/larvae)
0.781 1
0.965
f 0.863
0.961
Average wt (mg)
0.893
% Effluent
Survi ' number oflarvae
10.
10
10
10
76%
ftinelmariberoflarvae
1 10 110
10
10
Survival (%)
loo.o
W ' u ' final(sngllarvas)
1 0.900 1
0.899
1 0.893 j
0.981
Average wt (mg)
1 0.918
Water Quality Data
D o
Day 1
1i1a
2
Day
3 Ra, 4 Dar 5 D 6
Initial Final
Initial Fmmal
Initial Final
Initial,
Final Initial
Final Initial Final Initial Final
Control
7.85
7.84
7.99
7.56
7.66
7.52
7.61
7.56
7.71
7.46
7.79
7.48
7.55
7.43
7.8
8.1
8.2
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.6
6.9
7.9
6.7
7.6
7.2
7.6
7.0
24.8
24.5
24.8
24.3
24.7
24.2
24.8
24.7
24.8
24.2
24.9
24.7
24.8
24.6
pH (SU):
DO (mg/L):
Temp. MY
High Concentration
pH (SU):
DO (mg/L):
Temp. M:
8.22
8.21 8.38
7.94
8.08
7.90
8.11 7.95
9.14
7.75
8.15 8.00 8.07 7.60
8.0
8.0 8.1
7.6
7.6
7.1
7.6 6.9
7.7
6.6
7.7 7.2 7.9 7.1
24.9
24.3 24.7
24 3
24.9
24.d,
25.0 24.6
25.0
24,3
25.0 24,4 24.9 24.4
Sample Information
Collection start date:
Grab:
Composite duration:
Allcalinity (mg/L CaCO3):
Hardness (mg/L CaCO3):
Conductivity (µmhos/em).
Total residual chlorine (mg/L):
Sample Temp, at Recaipt (°C):
Overall Analysis:
Analyses
Survival
Orowth
Normal:
Yes
Yes
Hom. Var.
Yes
yes
NO;;
769A
760%.
LOEC:
>76%
>76%
ChV:
>76%
>76%
Method:
Visual
Dunnelt's
Survival
GrowB,
1-%Effluenti
Critical
Calculated
Critical
Calculated
4.75%
2.410
-1.287
9.5*/a
2.410
4.879
19%
2.410
-3.070
38%
2.410
-3.677
76%
2.410
-4.173
Result:. PASS LOEC: >76% NOEC: 76% ChV: >76%
DWQ form AT-5 ("3)

•
PO Box 7565
•
Asheville, NC 28802
411
Phone: [phone]
'
Fax: [phone]
-TS
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
E-mail: [e-mail]
Date: October 02 2015
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Facility: Spindale W WTP NPDES #: NC- 0020664 Pipe #: 001 County: Rutherford
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. _ Comments:
Signature of Operator in Responsible Charge:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor: r _ Froiect•. 10990
�l Samples: 15D914.01, 15D916.16, 150918.09
Mail Original To: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Sciences Branch
1623 Mail Service Center I Stan date: End deft: Start time: Fnd time:
Raleigh, NC 276.99-1623 1 09-15-15 09-22-15 1200 1 1104
Replicate number
1
2
3
4
Control
Surviving number of larvae
10
1 D
10
9
Organisms
Original number of larvae
10
10
10
10
Wei v el trust)
0.567
0.538
0.571
0.487
% Effluent
Surviving number of larvae
10
1 10
1 10
10
4.75%
JQWsllriumberoflarv..
10
1 10
1 10
10
Weight/original ( mm)
1 0.531
1 0.549
1 0.556
1 0.631
% Effluent
9.5-/
% Effluent
19%
% Effluent
38%
Survi,6Z number oflarvae
10
1 10
1 10
110
' insl number of larvae
10
1 10
1 10
1 0
Waightl ' 'ned (o44armj
0.486
0.596
1 0.665
1 0.555
Surviving number of larvae
10
1 10
1 10
1 10
lOnginal number of larvae
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 0
lWeigWoriginal ( ae
0.583
0.594
0.553
0.713
Surviving number of larvae
9
10
1 10
1 10
Original number of larvae
1 10
10
j 10
] 0
Weighvoriginal (mg/larvae)
0.596
0.625
0.618
0.583
survived (%)
975
Average tat (mg)
O.541
Average wt /
rOS54
surviving (rap)
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 1 0.567
Survival (-/o) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 1 0.576
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.611
Survival (-/o) 97.5
Average wt (mg) 0.606
Test Organisms
Outside suvolier:
I AAquatM Inc.
Hatch date: 1 09-14-15
Hatch tune: 1600-1700 ET
% Effluent
Surviving number of larvae
9
1 10
9 1
10
76 %
Orighadmanberoflarvae
1 10
1 10
10 110
Survival (%)
95.0
wei voriginal [ arvae)
1 0.561
1 0.601
1 0.655 1
0.692 Average wt (mg)
1 0.627
Water Quality Data
Day 0
Day 1 Da 2
Day 3
4 Day 5 Day 6
Initial I Final
Initial I Final Initial I Final
Initial I Final Initial I
Final Initial I Final I Initial I Final
Control
pH (SU):
DO (mg/L.):
Tarp. (°C):
High Concentration
pH (Su):
DO (mg/L):
Temp. (°C):
7.48 6.88
6.95
7.02
7.40
7.09
7.47
6.75
7.30
6.97
7.17
7.24
7.22 7.05
7.8 9.0
8.0
6.8
8.0
7.1
9.0
6.7
8.0
7.8
8.0
8.1
9.0 8.0
24.7 24.4
24.6
24.5
24.8
24.4
24.7
24.5
14.7
24.2
24.7
24A
24.8 24.6
8.12
7.70 7.71 7.82
8.03
7.72.
8.09
7.66
8.00
7,69 7.98 7.92
1.98 7.78
8.0
8.0 8.0 7.1
8.2.
7.7
3.0
6.5
8.0
7.9 7.8 8.1
8.0 8.1
24.8
24.4 24.7 24.6
25.0
24.4
24.8
24.6
24.9
24.3 24.8 24.5
24.9 24:6
Sample Information
Collection start date:
Grab:
Composite duration:
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3):
Hardness (mg/L C-CO3):
Conductivity (pmhos/cm):
Total residual chlorine (mg/L):
Sample Temp. at Receipt (°C):
Overall Analysis:
Analyses
Normal:
Hom. Var.
NOEL:
LOEC:
Chv:
Method:
Survival
Growth
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
76%
76%
>76%
>76%
>76%
>76%
Visual Insp.
DunneWs
Survival
Growtu
%Effluent
Critical I Calculated
Critical
Calculated
4.75%
2.410
-0.676
9.5%
2.410
-0.904
190A
2.410
-1.821
38%
2.410
-1.694
76%
2.410
-2.250
Result: PASS LOEC: >76% NOEC: 76% ChV: >76%
DWQform AT-S (8103)

tD PO Box7565
0 Asheville, NC 288028802
1� Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
Date: January 03, 2017
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Facility: S indale WWTP NPDES #: NC-0020664 Pipe#: 001 County: Rutherford
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. Comments:
Signature of Operator in Responsible Charge: 1(3l>i'
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor: AL 50 in
Project. 11947
Samples; 161206.01, 161207.30, 161209.13
Mail Original To: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Start date: End date; Start time: End time:
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 12-06-16 12.13-16 1 0839 0753
Control
Organisms
% Effluent
4.75%
% Effluent
9.S%
% Effluent
19%
Replicate number
� z
Surviving number of larvae
1 10 10
1 10
1 10
O ' • i nal number of larvae
10 10
10
10
Wei ht/original(mg/larvae)
1 0.720 0.698
10,709
0.744
[Surviving number of larvae ---
F___j0__j
10
1 10
10
Original number of larvae
10 j
10
1 10
10
[Weigh dori5nal (mg/larvae)
1 0.502
1 0.637 1
0 739
1 0.630
Surviving number of larvae
1 10
1 10
10
1 10
Original number of larvae
10
10
10
10
e
Wht/orifinal rm • larvaej
0.683
0.626
0.637
0.628
Surviving number of larvae
1 10 1 10
1 10
10
Original number of larvae
10 10
101
10
Wei t/original(m larvae)
1 0.622 J 0.567
1 0.688
1 0.771
survival (%) 1 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.718
Average wt / 0.718
surviving (mg)
Survival (%) 1.00.0
Average wt (mg) 1 0.627
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.644
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.662
Effluent
Isurviving number of larvae1
10 1
10
1 10
10
[Ell
Original number of larvae
10 1
10 j
10
1 10
Survival (%)
100.0
Weightloriginal (mg/larvae)
0.635
0,689
0.627
0.751 1
Average wt (mg)
0.676
% Effluent
76
Surviving number of larvae
10
10
1 10
1 10
Original number of larvae
] 0
10
10
10
Wei ht/o ' inal ( -larvae)
0.797
1 0.834
1 0.713
1 0.709
Water Quality Data
Control
PH (SU): 7.26
DO (mg/L): 7.9
Temp. (°C): 24,7
High Concentration
PH (SU): F24.5
DO (mg/L):
Temp. (°C):
Sample Information
Collection start date:
Grab:
Composite duration:
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3);
Hardness (mg/L CaCO3):
Conductivity (pmhos/cm):
Total residual chlorine (mg/L):
Sample Temp. at Receipt (°C):
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.763
Analyses
Normal:
Rom. Var.
NOEC:
LOEC:
Chv:
Method:
Test Organisms
Outside su liar:
In-house Culture
Begin hatch: 12-05-16 1600
End hatch: 12-06-16 0600
Survival
Growth
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
76%
76%
>76%
>76%
>76%
>76%
visual ln
Dunnett's
Survival
Growth
%Effluent
Critical
Calculated
Critical
Calculated
4.75%
2.410
1.972
9.5%
2.410
1.613
19%
2.410
1.211
38%
76%
2.410
2.410
0.918
-0.989
Overall Analysis:
Result: PASS LOEC: >76% NOEC: 76% ChV:
>76%
DWQ form AT-S (8/03)

Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
. PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi-ConcenDate: Janu,
02 2019
tration Test
Facility: S indale WWII'
NPDES #:
NC- 0020664 Pipe #: 001 County: Rutherford
y' Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc.
Signature of
gn Operator in Responsible Charge:
Comments:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor:
�)
Project: 13792
Samples: 181203.01, 181205.27, ]81207.2q
Mail Original To: North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Sciences
Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Start date: End date: Starttime: End time:
12-04-19 12-11-18 0830 0758
Replicate number
1
Control Surviving numberoflarvae 10
2 3
10 10
4
10
Test Organisms
Organisms Original number of larvae 10
10 10
10
Source:
Survival (%)Wfl
Weighdorigina! (mg/larvae) 0.655
0.748 0.623.
0.684
Average wt (mg) In-house Culture
Average wt /
Effluent Surviving number of larvae 10
10
10
10
surviving (mg) Begin hatch:
12-03-18 1658
4.75 % Or ginal number of larvae 10
10
10
10
End hatch:
12-04-18 0605
Weight/original (rng/larvae) 0.593
0.620
0.622
0.564
Survival (%) 100.0
Average w[ (mg) 1 0 600
Effluent
9.5 %
Surviving number oflarvae
Original
10
10
number of'larvae
10
10
�478
Survival (%) 100.0
WeighUodginal (mg/larvae)
0.570
0590
Average wt (mg) 0.529
% Effluent Surviving number of larvae 10
] 9% Original
10
10
10
nwnber of larvae 10
10
10
10
Survival / 100.0
WeighUoriginal (mg/larvae) 0.454
0.470
0.483
0.460
Average wt (ng) 0.467
%Effluent Surviving numberoflarvae 9
9 9
38% Original number oFlarvae 10
10 10
Survival (%) 92,$
Weight/on nal (mg/larvae) 0.295
0.311 0.349J�jj
Average wt (mg) 0.320
% Effluent Surviving numberoflarvae 5
6
5
7
76 % Original number of larvae 10
10
10
10
Survival (%) 57.5
WeighUori (mg/larvae) 0.166
0.174
0.172
0.225
Average vn (mg) 0.184
Water Quality Data
Day
Initial Final Initialnay Final
Initial ay Final
initial ay Fine! Initial ay
ay ay
Control
Final
Initial Final Initial Final
pH (SU): 7.68 7.60 7.80 7.57
DO (mg/L); 7.9 Z6 8.0
7.75 7.42
7.79
7.36 7.76 7.31 7.79 7.51 7.80 7.71
. .7
7.4
TAP (°C): 24.8 24.7 24.7 24.5
8.1 7.3
24.7 24.5
8.0
24.7
7.2 8.4 6.4 7.8 75
24.6 24.8
0
7 6
High Concentration
24.5 24.8 24.4
240
PH (SU): 7.78
DO (rng/L): 8.0
7.94
6.4
8.15 8.00
8.1
8.15 7.85
8.22
7.78
8.14 7.76 8.18 7.89 8.22 8.10
Temp. (°C): 25.0
24.6
7.3
24.8 24.5
8.2 7.2
24.9 24.5
8.1 !
24.9
6.D
8.0 6.0 7.6 7.2
8.0 7.6
24.5
24.9 24.6 25.0 2d 7
�s n on
Sample Information
Collection start date:
Grab:
Composite duration:
Alkalinity (mg(L CaCO3):
Hardness (ni CaCO;):
Conductivity (µmhos/cm):
Total residual chlorine (mg/L):
Sample Temp. at Receipt (°C):
Overall Analysis:
Result: FAIL LOEC: 9.5% NOEC: 4.75% ChV:
Analyses
wthNormal:esHorn.
Var.
sNOEC:
H-Dou
%LOEC:
%ChV:
%Method:
ett-s
Survival
Growth
%Effluent Critical
Calculated
Critical Calculated
4.75% 10.000
18.000
2.360 2.774
9.5% 10.000
18.000
2.360 5.315
19% 10.000
18.000
2.360 7.518
38% 10,000
12.000
2.360 17.762
76% 10.000
W000
6.7%
- - - -- . - -
DW® form AT-S (8/03)

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NCO020664 I1 12 19/06/1 17 18 ICI
_J
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Inspector Mikal Willmer, with the Asheville Regional Office, conducted a compliance evaluation
inspection of the Spindale WWTP on June 11, 2019. This inspection was conducted to determine
whether the facility is being operated and maintained in compliance with NPDES Permit No.
NC0020664. Robert Lipscomb, back-up ORC, was present and assisted in the inspection.
Overall the facility is being well operated and maintained. Spindale's WWTP has been undergoing
upgrades for over a year and the new basins were recently placed into service. The last few upgrades
are currently being finalized (EQ basin mixers, pumps and wiring). Mr. Lipscomb reports the influent
composite sampler will be replaced soon due to issues with the old sampler. DMRs since the last
inspection in 2017 were reviewed for any violations. No recurring violations or issues noted during the
review. Some monitoring and one limit violation due to flow changes during construction.
It was noted, at the time of the inspection, the new basins appear to have "dead" spots along the
sloped edge. Debris collects along this side and has to be skimmed off by the operators. Currently this
does not appear to be affecting treatment. There appears to be adequate mixing and aeration by the
fine -bubble diffusers. The DO meters in the basin were reading from 0.8 to 2 mg/L. Operators are
slowly regaining a healthy biota within the facility. Some floating solids were noted in the clarifiers, but
did not appear to be flowing over the weir.
Mr. Lipscomb states the effluent sampler was set to flow proportional by their calibration company.
Recommend Spindale staff go over the process for setting the sampler to flow proportional with the
calibration firm during their next visit.
As a reminder, Spindale should continue to actively seek a Grade IV ORC replacement. Currently the
only full-time Spindale operational staff are a Grade III and Grade I.
Page#

Permit: NCO020664 Owner - Facility: Spindale WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/1112019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? it ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: Facilitv staff monitor DO H chlorine residual and utilize a sludge iud a as part of their
process control.
Permit
Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑ ❑
■
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0 ❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
! ❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
M ❑
❑
❑
Comment: Spindale's permit expired July 31, 2018. The renewal application was
submitted on January
26, 2018 The Permit is currently under review in central office. Facility
is in the process of
finalizing upgrades Upgrades were added to the permit in 2015. Facility was required to
develop a mercury minimization plan within 180 days of the previous
permit issuance.
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
(if units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment: Influent flow meter was reading approximately 1 MGD at the time of the inspection. The
influent flow meter is used for permit compliance.
Influent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Mr. Lipscomb indicated a new composite sampler would be installed at the
headworks.
Influent sampling is time composite.
Page# 3

Permit: NC0020664
Inspection Date: 06/11/2019
Owner -Facility: SpindalewwTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens
Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
e
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
El❑
El
Comment: Grit removals stem was ul2graded
and appears to handle increased flows better than the
previous system.
Equalization Basins
Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated?
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
0
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
■
❑
Are float controls operable?
El
0
❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
El
❑
0
❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
0
❑
❑
Comment: EQ basin was recently used during heavy rains,• however, the basin's aerators and pumps
are in the I}rocess of be![wired. EQ basin equipment is not fully
operational. but will be
soon.
Aeration Basins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Yes No NA NE
Ext. Air
Diffused
Page# 4

Permit: NCO020664
Inspection Date: 06/11/2019
Aeration Basins
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
Owner - Facility: Spindale WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Currently only Basin 2 is in use. Diffusers ap
pear to be operating ro erl and DOs a ear
adequate for the treatment process (0.8 to 2.3 mg/L). There were dead shots noted alon_q_
the far wall due to the sloped sides. There is sta nation and collection of ass -through
debris which the operators skim off. It currently does not appear to be adversely affecting
treatment.
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/< of the sidewall depth)
Yes No NA NE
■
❑
1111
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
M
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
M
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Clarifiers 1 &2 are in operation. Number 3 clarifier is not currently in use. ORC reports
there
are very little solids in the facility and they are slowly reestablishing biology. Sludge
blankets
are only a foot in either clarifier. Some floating solids were noted in the clarifier, but did not
appear to be flowing over the weir.
Aerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
M ❑
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO020664
Inspection Date: 06/11/2019
Owner - Facility: Spindale WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? t ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: S indale holds a Class Bland application Permit (WQ00019531 and contracts Southern Soil
Builders for land application events. There appears to be adequate storage to properly waste
when needed. Facility staff indicated they currently do not have high enough sludge blankets
to waste.
Disinfection -Gas
Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
M❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
❑
❑
❑
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
❑
❑
0
❑
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
❑
❑
0
❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: Chlorine gas is used on -site. S indale may eventually
move to another means of
disinfection. Mr. Lipscomb reports they test residuals
prior to dechlorination. No issues
resorted.
De -chlorination
Yes
No NA NE
Type of system ?
Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
❑
❑
E
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑
❑
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
❑
E
❑
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: Manual feeds stem currently. S indale is looking to Change this to flow proportion_a_ I. Facility
has not had issues maintaining adequate chlorine feed for disinfection.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO020664 Owner - Facility: Spindale WWTp
Inspection Date: 06/11/2019
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement -Effluent z
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Yes No NA NE
Is the flow meter operational?
■
❑
❑ ❑
(if units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
■
❑
❑ ❑
Comment: S indale reports influent flow measurements. New effluent meter was calibrated b
manufacturer and recent) installed as art of the u rades.
Effluent Sam lin
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Yes No NA NE
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
•
❑
❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)?
❑
❑ ❑
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Sampling is )ccurri ig as require J by permit- Com osite sam lin is flow oronnrtinnni.
Calibration com an ro rams the auto-sam ler. Recommend facilit staff o throu h the
ro Mail in with the com an durin the next calibration.
U stream /Downstream Sam P lin
Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Standb Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Yes No NA NE
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
■
❑
El
Is the generator tested under load?
■
El
El
El
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
■
❑
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-upEl
power?
❑
.
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
�
❑
❑
❑
Comment: New enerator tests automaticall i and is maintained b cam electric.
Page# 7

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 L��, � 2 15 I 3 NCO020664 11 12 19/06/11 17 18 L o J 19 us2OI
21111l f l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 f 1 1 l I f
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
671 70 I I 71 72
lJ Section B: Facility Data LJ
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Spindale WWTP
Ecology St
Spindale NC 28160
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(syPhone and Fax Number(s)
///
Robert Eugene Lipscomb/ORC/828-286-3407/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Robert Eugene Lipscomb,132 Wilkins St Forest City NC 28043//828-286-3407/ No
■ Pretreatment
-----Reserved--
73L U74 75 1 1 1 1 80
Entry Time/Date I Permit Effective Date
02:30PM 19/06/11 1 15/10/01
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
04:40PI 19/06/11 18/07/31
Other Facility Data
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
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)
Mikal Willmar
Vivian Zhong
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
DWR/Division of Water Quality/828-296-4686/
DWR/Pretreatment Unit/919-807-6310/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
Date
Date
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day
Inspection Type
3 NC0020664 11 12 19/06/11 17 18
P
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Mikal Willmer, with the Asheville Re ' I
g.lona Office, and vlvlen Zhong, with the Central Office, conducted
a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection of the Town of Spindale's Pretreatment Program under Permit
No. NC0020664. The inspection was conducted to determine whether the program is being managed
and maintained in compliance with all Pretreatment regulations. Robert Lipscomb (Backup ORC) was
present and assisted in the inspection.
Overall the program appeared to be well maintained and all sampling is being reported on Monthly
DMRs. SIUs are sampling in accordance with their IUPs. Refer to the attached PCI Report for
additional information.
Page#

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Spindale WWTP
PermitNo. NCO020664
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 3
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 20
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 26
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
20
s7Q10 (CFS)
20
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
3
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
4.65
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
4.65
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
18.86
IWC (%)
18.86
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
90
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
4.4
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
26
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
3
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
4.65
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
5.30 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
15.17
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
10.6
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); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

J
IL
Q
0
C
L
d
V
ti
c0
Q
V
V
O
y
L
O
�
�
�
3
N
cc
�a
IL
L
~
N
r..
d
�
DI
z
i
3
0
w
0
a
2
U
W
U
fT
a)
01
CD✓�
`Cr]
m
01
CA
dI
•7
t71
Ol
`i,3)
70
7
7
C.3
7
7
7.
7.
7
7
7
7
M.11
O
o
N
O
M
1�
0
M
co
O
Q
i7
p
O
Cp
Q
Cy
ti
�
Q
O
COO
M
O
M
Z
O
CO
O
'"'
Z
N
O
LQ
Z
N'
Cl?
co
CISC
co
C
M
co
LL
=
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
U-
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL=
LL
LL
LL
LL
2
n
cs
N
O
O
O
CD
LO LO
Q
CI)Q
N
S
O
O
O
r
o
CD
CMO
N
M
�
Z
Iq
O
(b
M
'-
CC3
N
O
O
O
N
0p
M
N
Ui
co
m
N
U
U
Z
Z
Z
.�'
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
U
u
0
u
Y
o
u
y
g
.2
o
0
2
o
y
u
�
u
2
P
Jj
❑
N i
L
N
7
f0
7
M
l0
7
f0
7
N
7
l0
7
P,
4
>
lo
7
>
m
3
r
cc
•m
7
c;
•m
7
•m
7
C
N
E
i
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
C
rr
2
=
}�
Q
Q
=
CL
c
E
6
L)
o
E
E
.0
o
E
m
a�
E
c
o
c
3
E
a
E
a
m
u
e
°e
o
0
o
c°
E
E?
a,
o
m
U
o
9
>_
E
Q
Q
L
E
U
V
J
O
Z
Z
N
U
U
d.
j
L
CO
Q
d
U
U
t
z
U
_
e
L
U
0 0 o o• o 0 o r `� m a� o w� a
a a a a m m a a d a a a a a a a as a as a s m cc co
IL a s
3
�
o
O
U �
N
p
C
m O
m
CDCoM
L
COU
Z
CD
n
U
PA p R
E a E U)
z a 3 = E t�
w a w— > z E
a CO
0 CD v
LL Z O LL OC 2 fM
U
•
i 1
t ! !
I=LD
1 ! !
{aN 3
1 1 1
IcEoo�
! !
IvNiaLo vi
'�!o
I I 1
1S3o@
mt a,l i
¢ial0,lmlS
It
c;
O
O
O
C.
- I J I E I E
I&� j y
O
N
COLO
N M
N
CO
EIo,1�INIy
E V*-
2- —m
E�
ojINININh
N 7 N
aE_>
Igo.=_ N
Ea
I I I
I10 (5- `
1 I
12S
1 1 1
lom50
i lol°=
1 tsl�
U
I
J
3
to U)
MI U) ml m
LU
O
P
w c) ci C
cll `m)
V
= H
�`a
'1=t=ix
� =I Eldld
3
ZI
.+
S
0
Q CDO N
cy
0 „I `Im m
0ICL EIE
w
:?
u
U
Q
C! d M c9 C3
O O
wj>10,V
!o
0
❑
7CL
W
O
•— N
Q O
� O
3
L
N
LL
Co
CO
O
N

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL,
Effluent Hardness
then "COPY"
6laximum data
_
dvalaes"
points = 5E
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
5/29/2014
39
39
Std Dev.
4.� r 4
1
2
8/27/2015
38.4
38.4
Mean
39.7375
2
3
11/8/2016
50.5
50.5
C.V.(default)
0.6000
3
4
9/17/2019
35
35
n
8
4
5
9/18/2019
39
39
10th Per value
37.10 mg/L
5
6
9/19/2019
38
38
Average Value
39.74 mg/L
6
7
9/20/2019
39
39
Max. Value
50.50 mg/L
7
8
9/21 /2019
39
39
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
1
58
Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
25 25 Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
.hnt "PASTE SPECL
Values" then "COP
. Maximum data
prints = 51
25.0000
0.0000
1
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
-1 10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
9/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
11 /8/2016
<
2.5
1.25
12/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
3/14/2017
<
2.5
1.25
6/6/2017
<
2.5
1.25
12/5/2017
<
2.5
1.25
3/6/2018
<
2.5
1.25
6/5/2018
<
2.5
1.25
9/11/2018
<
2.5
1.25
12/27/2018
<
2.5
1.25
3/5/2019
<
2.5
1.25
6/4/2019
<
2.5
1.25
_
UW "PASTE 5PEG
vaf u us- m on "c OF
_
WA-Imum amr
pgln� 5aJ
Results
Std Dev,
0.0000
Mean
1.2500
C.V.
0.0000
n
12
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 1.3 ug/L
Max. Fred Cw 1.3 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
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
2- 10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
9/6/2016
<
0.5
0.25
Std Dev.
2
11/8/2016
<
2
1
Mean
3
12/6/2016
<
0.5
0.25
C.V.
4
3/14/2017
<
0.5
0.25
n
5
6/6/2017
<
0.5
0.25
6
12/5/2017
<
0.5
0.25
Mult Factor =
7
3/6/2018
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Value
8
6/5/2018
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Pred Cw
9
9/11/2018
<
1
0.5
10
12/27/2018
<
0.5
0.25
11
3/5/2019
<
0.25
0.125
12
6/4/2019
<
0.5
0.25
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 SPED
Vsl+ue," then "car
Maximum data
points . 58
0.2290
0.3229
0.7091
12
1.75
1.000 ug/
1.750 ug/
Par05
Chlorides
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/1/2015
215
215
Std Dev.
2
3/8/2016
180
180
Mean
3
6/7/2016
285
285
C.V.
4
9/6/2016
210
210
n
5
12/6/2016
230
230
6
3/14/2017
168
168
Mult Factor =
7
6/6/2017
170
170
Max. Value
8
9/27/2017
385
385
Max. Pred Cw
9
12/5/2017
106
106
10
3/6/2018
180
180
11'
6/5/2018
103
103
12
9/11/2018
155
155
13
12/27/2018
80
80
14
3/5/2019
148
148
15
6/4/2019
41.5
41.5
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
Use " PAS t'E 5PPCIAI
val"c", tne.I "COPY"
MOIIDItIm eJata p�vts
84.5277
177.1
0.4773
15
1.4
385.0 mg/L
535.2 mg/L
-3-
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par06
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
uw'PASTE BPECIA
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
valuui tha"-ccPry
M&-mum data
PWrn5 = 5&
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NC, C7,4T.A
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
Pare7
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data
1 5/29/2014 <
2 8/27/2015 <
3 11/9/2016 <
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
BDL=112DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
5 2.5
Mean
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
ur. "PASTE RPM
Values' U140 —COF
MaAini nr data
pal nls - So
2.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.5 ug/L
7.5 ug/L
4-
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par08
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
_I
Use "PASTE SPFQA
Chromium III
vane,"then "Cow
. Miximum data
points = 5E
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 Ng/L
Max. Fired Cw
N/A Ng/L
Par09
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
-5-
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Chromium. Total
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
9/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
Std Dev.
2
11/8/2016
<
5
2.5
Mean
3
12/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
C.V.
4
3/14/2017
<
2.5
1.25
n
5
6/6/2017
<
2.5
1.25
6
12/5/2017
<
2.5
1.25
Mult Factor =
7
3/6/2018
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Value
8
6/5/2018
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Pred Cw
9
9/11/2018
<
2.5
1.25
10
12/27/2018
2.6
2.6
11
3/5/2019
<
2.5
1.25
12
6/4/2019
<
2.5
1.25
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 SPECM
vWUSS" then "COPY'
. M"Mam data
paints - H
i
1.4667
0.3453
12
1.34
2.6 pg/L
3.5 pg/L
Pall
Copper
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
9/15/2015
34
34
Std Dev.
2
12/1/2015
44
44
Mean
3
3/8/2016
65
65
C.V.
4
6/7/2016
Z.,
27
n
5
9/6/2016
28
28
6
11/8/2016
54
54
Mult Factor =
7
9
Max. Value
8
3/14/2017
36
36
Max. Pred Cw
9
6/6/2017
10
10
10
9/27/2017
21
21
11
12/5/2017
17
17
12
3/6/2018
42
42
13
6/5/2018
33
33
14
9/11/2018
57
57
15
12/27/2018
20
20
16
3/5/2019
38
38
17
6/4/2019
38
38
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
thu "PASTE SPEGW.
Val c,-' then-Cof-Y"
. Marlmum data
POW to a So
16.6828
37.2353
0.4480
17
1.32
69.00 ug/L
91.08 ug/L
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
6 - 10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Date Data
1 9/6/2016 <
2 11/8/2016 <
3 12/6/2016 <
4 3/14/2017 <
5 6/6/2017 <
6 12/5/2017 <
7 3/6/2018 <
8 6/5/2018 <
9 9/11/2018 <
10 12/27/2018 <
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
Cyanide
BDL=112DL
Results
5 5
Std Dev.
5 5
Mean
5 5
C.V.
5 5
n
5 5
5 5
Mult Factor =
5 5
Max. Value
5 5
Max. Fred Cw
5 5
5 5
Use"PASTE SPECAL
Values" then "COPY'
Maximum dai,
points s. 58
0.00v0
5.00
0.0000
10
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
Par14
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Lead Value ", n ",OP,-
. rAaxinrom Masi
points = 1*4
4
J
Date
BDL=112DL
Results
1
9/6/2016
< 2.5
1.25
Std Dev.
0.4418
2
11/8/2016
< 5
2.5
Mean
1.3045
3
12/6/2016
< 2.5
1.25
C.V.
0.3387
4
3/14/2017
< 2.5
1.25
n
11
5
6/6/2017
< 2.5
1.25
6
12/5/2017
< 2.5
1.25
Mult Factor =
1.36
7
3/6/2018
< 2.5
1.25
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
8
6/5/2018
< 2.5
1.25
Max. Pred Cw
3.400 ug/L
9
9/11/2018
< 2.5
1.25
10
12/27/2018
< 2.5
1.25
11
3/5/2019
< 1.2
0.6
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
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
-7- 10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
6
Date Data
1 9/6/2016
2 12/6/2016 <
3 3/14/2017 <
4 6/6/2017
5 12/5/2017 <
6 3/6/2018 <
7 6/5/2018 <
8 9/11/2018 <
9 12/27/2018 <
10 3/5/2019 <
11 6/4/2019 <
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
Um `PASTE SPECIA
Molybdenum
vAI"`5� then ^GORY
Maximum data
p0 n15=58
BDL=112DL
Results
3
3
Std Dev.
0.7079
2.5
1.25
Mean
1.5682
2.5
1.25
C.V.
0.4514
3
3
n
11
2.5
1.25
2.5
1.25
Mult Factor =
1.50
2.5
1.25
Max. Value
3.0 ug/L
2.5
1.25
Max. Pred Cw
4.5 ug/L
2.5
1.25
2.5
1.25
2.5
1.25
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1 9/6/2016
10
10
Std Dev.
2 11/8/2016
7
7
Mean
3 12/6/2016
6
6
C.V.
4 3/14/2017
13
13
n
5 6/6/2017
10
10
6 12/5/2017
6
6
Mult Factor =
7 3/612018
8
8
Max. Value
8 6/512018
7
7
Max. Pred Cw
9 9/11/2018
9
9
10 12/27/2018
2.9
2.9
11 3/5/2019
4
4
12 6/4/2019
6
6
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
dim "PASTE SPECL
Valaw dlen "COP
Maximum data
P07n25 -!-a
7.4083
0.3770
12
1.38
13.0 Ng/L
17.9 Ng/L
-8-
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
10/18/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Selenium
Date
Data
BDL=l/2DL
Results
1
8/27/2015
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
2
9/15/2015
<
2.5
1.25
Mean
3
12/1/2015
<
2.5
1.25
C.V.
4
3/8/2016
<
2.5
1.25
n
5
6/7/2016
<
2.5
1.25
6
9/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
Mult Factor =
7
11/8/2016
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
8
12/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Pred Cw
9
3/14/2017
<
2.5
1.25
10
6/6/2017
<
2.5
1.25
11
9/27/2017
<
2.5
1.25
12
12/5/2017
<
2.5
1.25
13
3/6/2018
<
2.5
1.25
14
6/5/2018
2.5
2.5
15
9/11/2018
<
2.5
1.25
16
12/27/2018
<
2.5
1.25
17
3/5/2019
<
2.5
1.25
18
6/4/2019
<
2.5
1.25
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL Parcel
Values" then "COPY'
Muimam data
pnints - 58
1.4583
0.3287
18
1.22
2.5 ug/L
3.1 ug/L
Silver
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
9/15/2015
<
2.5
1.25
Std Dev.
2
12/1/2015
<
2.5
1.25
Mean
3
3/8/2016
<
2.5
1.25
C.V.
4
6/7/2016
<
2.5
1.25
n
5
9/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
6
11/8/2016
<
5
2.5
MultFactor=
7
12/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Value
3/
1.25
Max. Pred Cw
9
6/6/2017
<
2.5
1.25
10
9/27/2017
(D3_
3
11
12/5/2017
<
2.5
1.25
12
3/6/2018
2..
2.5
13
6/5/2018
<
5
1.25
14
9/11/2018
<
2.5
1.25
15
12/27/2018
<
2.5
1.25
16
3/5/2019
<
2.5
1.25
17
6/4/2019
<
2.5
1.25
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 SPECI
Vainc; ' theo'COO
Maximum data
points - 58
1.5000
0.3773
17
1.27
3.000 ug/L
3.810 ug/L
-9-
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
10118/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Zinc
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
9/15/2015
107
107
Std Dev.
2
12/1/2015
84
84
Mean
3
3/8/2016
121
121
C.V.
4
6/7/2016
87
87
n
5
9/6/2016
126
126
6
11/8/2016
76
76
MultFactor=
7
12/6/2016
76
76
Max. Value
8
3/14/2017
72
72
Max. Pred Cw
9
6/6/2017
36
36
10
9/27/2017
27
27
11
12/5/2017
48
48
12
3/6/2018
196
196
13
6/5/2018
79
79
14
9/11/2018
88
88
15
12/27/2018
90
90
16
3/5/2019
218
218
17
6/4/2019
178
178
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
J" "PASTE SPECIAL
Yatuae" than "COPY"
Maximum (lass
pants = SS
Par22
1
Date Data
5/29/2014
Antimony
BDL=1/2DL
52 52
v!
Results
Std Dev.
ua� "aa8re SPECIAL
Ij Value" Ivan -copy,.
. rA „nUm aasa
Qw nta = 58
+; •�
�j : I: t. i
100.5294
2
8/27/2019
53 53
Mean
39.1667
0.5308
3
11/9/2016 <
25 12.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
17
4
n
3
5
1.39
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
218.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
53.000000 Ng/L
303.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw 159.000000 Ng/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
58
20664 Freshwater RPA, data
-10- 10/18/2019

a
y tnmvrnto
V e9 M A to co
N P.
00 CO
� �
d' O N to
ul)a �r-n
t-I tiN<o
o!ao.-r P-
�aoui—
� 'vi II II II II II �
w CioO_oau
P.
co
C �
a Z
0 a
� Q
_A G
E.
o
O
In
to Q
0
Q
=
Y
L
r
V
=
T
o0000t
ontoSC!C ,
N
`
CD tG W) N to
V;N Nco cc
LL
II II II II II II �
Qi o0
3~2�oa.
w
b
�u
d
co
I I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
m m
I Iy
I
to
o
Iz
I
I
I
I
m3
I�
I�
I
I
I
I
Ew
E `°
I I�
I
I�
I�
I
E
? v
E 2
Z
I I`
Iw
c
IE
to
I.
o
Iw
I
I
i�
a
I I
I
o
Iz
I¢
I
IE
I
I
m o
w
o
j jo
o
jE
lob,
to
I
IE
I
I
o F-
F
z
I I�
i°
ILo
ILo
v
I
Iz
f
I I
IJ
04
I �v
Ix
I
IJ
1
I
dD
I IN
I�
INa
Ion
I
7
i�
I
I
cr
as
I I�
Iv
Iv=
IDg
I
I�
I�oa
la`s
I
I�
I
I
E?U
a)
11.2I
I
E Lo
g o
I IZ ro
Iz d
IZ.£
Iz
I
Iz
I
I
z° my
I
I
I
N
I I
IN Ir oo
I
I�
I
li- a
I
Imo! O
I
I
CY
I'" �
lo` Iv
IM D
IM O
IN 30
leo
I
I�
r
1v00
v
3
jam" N
z
z
I
z
IN
I
I
'>
v
j
I
1
I�
N
p
I 4I �n
I
I
I c
I
I
1
O N
13`1III��,,� II
to
w
w
h
h w
�'
W)
Q
Q
M
m
M
O
VNI
o
W
tY
O
�t
CI
d\ �
CI
za
zSIM
a
a
a
10d
en
M
o
C
_o
w
w
F-
Q
M
O
U
w
a
o
o
O
a
O
a
a
°
a
a
a
G
2�.
to
U
O
ON
oo
m
M
�--
O
e+1
••-�
z
QQ
U
�C
IO
o
N
m
oo
w
yo.
F
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
v
o
a
'D
c
E
0
c
1°
F
>
y
!�
0
O
E
E
" "
>
v
o
E
c
a
r
L
o
a
c=i
d
m
c
a
A
�
o
o
L
U
0
d
CD

a
to
I
�
I?
iZ
I E
J
I.
M
to
Ic
I� I
la
O
I?
I
i •y
i0
i.'
i€
i�
a
io i
m
io
i •�
g
j3 d
o Ia
I I I
I I i
°
io
z
I°
a
Io I
a
10
I
10 IN
I i
I O
I O
I
Ia
Ide I
I o
�� I
I
I I
iz
ILj
I
I I
ILo
I
i
I I
t`i
N
I�
a
�
110
I `
o
I m
IIV
I
I
Im
I-
�U�
a
lyjlInd
I�
m
1=
I�0i7
ma
I
I��
la
la�l
la
lam
I m
IDa I„E
m` E a
I I
i H
�
Iv o
Iz.o
�I
I� �I
la iP
is
I
I t
la I m
iOct iI o
I I
I
I of
ro
IZd
oaf
IZoI
1pO
I a
Io`o 0o
Iz
z�
zm E
I I I
v,
t� 3 •,
I
IN
oi
M
I°�°
I�
�
IN
ICU$
I I
Im Ih oo
I
c
,.
Im 3
�v
o w
Iv 3m I� 3
I�.UMUvJ
�,
:a°
I N
�D°
I o
I A �; IU
m1
3
I
I 3
I A N IM
I I I
O`"d
IAA
�
AI� °'
I�
I�
I� �¢ I� ¢
I I I
R
tlJ
¢
I adI°
o
Io �
I� �
I�
I� °d
.3
� N
? °
A n w
��
y
I
ca
8
I�
F
I
II
zIU
ti
M
M
z
�
�
•y
"Vv
U
cV
N
VI "o
4.
LCJ
a
°
ab
x
r+'
o
10
0
�
M
h
y
O
I
w
li
n
N
vni
`o
In
Ic
M
M
p
oo
M
O
cpl
.Mi
�c
O
a
O
a
p
a
O
a
O
a
O O
a a
O
a
O
a
O
w
xxo
+
d
3
c
M
M
o
t*-:
p v
o
o
y
0O
M
N
C,
N
O
M
L
Z
z
Z
z
z
z Z
2
Z
2
E
m
o
o
U
W
U
m
J
a
�`
C
iY7
Z
tY.1 C
Z m
m
>
—
N
C
N
o
E
c
I
m rn
EL o
d�
�o
tL
CD
co

Permit No. NCO020664
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/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
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/l 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)} a^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1. 136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} a^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 a^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 a^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) a^{1.273[In hardness]-4.705)
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255)
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584)
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO020664
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85. • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 a^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis PA
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permittin Guidance/W BELs for Hardness -De endent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 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. NCO020664
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss(i+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwgs) — (s7010) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
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 s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0020664
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
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)
39.74
Data from five samplings by
(Total as, CaCO3)
Permittee per Division request
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
Default value as sampled upstream
(Total as, CaCO3)
25.00
data were below the minimum
(range: 16-17 mg/L).
Likely calculated by USGSfor
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
41.60
outfall relocation to Catheys Creek
in 1998.
IQ 10 (cfs)
16.51
Calculated in RPA spreadsheet
Permitted Flow (MGD)
3.0
Facility design flow
Date: October 18, 2019
Permit Writer: Gary Perlmutter
Page 4 of 4

i
Post Office Box 1056 • Granite Falls, North Carolina 28630
Phone [phone] • Email: [e-mail]
SEPTEMBER 30.2019
TOWN OF SPINDALE WWTP
SUMMARY: HARDNESS ANALYSIS STUDY
RESULTS: TOTAL HARDNESS IN rng/L
EFF 9/17/19
35.0
UP 9/17/19
16.0
39.0
EFF 9/18/19
UP 9/18/19
16.0
38.0
EFF 9/19/19
UP 9/19/19
15.0
EFF 9/20/19
39.0
UP 9/20/19
17.0
EFF 9/23/19
39.0
UP 9/23/19
16.0
ANALYZED AND REPORTED BY,
i
TONY GRAGG , }

T*, id
t.iA� kz I
Post Office Box 1056 Granite.Falls, North Caroling 28630
Phone [phone] EMAIL: [e-mail]
OCTOBER 17, 2010
TOWN OF SPINDALE WWTP
SUMMARY; HARDINESS ANALYSIS STUDY
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED UPSTREAM
10/0712010
17.0 MG/L
10/08/2019
16.0 MG/L
10109/2019
16.0. MG/L
10/10?2019
16.0 MG/L
10/1112019
16.0 MG/L
ANALYSIS BEGIN: 10/11/2D191400
ANALYSIS END: 10111/20191500
ANALYZED AND REPORTED BY,
TONY GRAGG

1D
1,0
r-
00
rn
M
c-I
ri
r-I
i 1
ri
O
O
O
O
O
`
N
N
N
N
NCLOO
O
O
O
�
OOU
OOA
000
bo
R
cu
�
Q
o
Q
c
c
c
c
II
J
Q
Q
Q
Q
LJJ
CIO
ct
Cko
OD
OD
0)
cr
m
cr
i
Ln
w
O
N
O
N
Al
ri
ri
ri
ri
z
E
O
Q
O
z
00
J
O
Q
O O
W
c; M
J
L LI
m
\
II II
N
w
coV
��./O
LL
0J
}
1Y
E
D
>`
V
�
�
a
O)
O
lD
ri
tD
p
M
N
(Tl
N
00
LA
to
>
Oi
NO
LM
r i
r�-1
r�-1
r�-1
eV -I
rNi
CUD
c
LO
CO
O
N
N
U
z
w
1.0
r-1
t D
M
N
0)
N
00
In
Ln
\
J
O�
N
Ln
rNi
er-1
ri
ri
rri
rN-1
a
to
c
a
p
LQ
II
O
L
V
cyf
OJ
f0
II
JN
w
E
v
-0
c
a-O
O
Ln
W
ri
N..
E
M
tm
o
as
+_+
�+
a
00
N
00
LO
1,
1n
�
L
O
Lni1
N
Ln
M11
ri
rNI
LO
O\l
rN-I
M
0\1
M
ri
++
\
01
O
H

Ln
d
q
-
00
kD
_
kD
C 0�en
�o t
2
k
� 2
~
"
o
o
/ co
�
S 2
Z cdGn
E
E
®
%
2
©
E
b
b
/
/
)
EL
L 2
*
«
/
Cf

PO Box 186. 125 Reveley Street . Spindale, NC 28160
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
November 26, 2019
NCDEQ/DWR RECEIVED
NPDES Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center DEC U 2 2019
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 NCDEQ/DWRINPDES
Re: Town of Spindale
NPDES No. NCO020664
Preliminary comments and request for time extension
To whom it may concern:
The Town of Spindale is in receipt of the draft NPDES permit which was issued on October 28 and received
on October 29, 2019. According to the transmittal letter, our comments on the draft permit are due within
30 days of receipt of the draft permit. However, the Fact Sheet states that State regulations provide that the
comment period ends 30 days from publication in the local newspaper. As of the date of this letter, the
Town of Spindale nor our consultants are aware of the publication of the public notice. Therefore, we are
not aware of the actual comment deadline, but it appears to be later than the November 29 date indicated in
the transmittal letter. This letter provides preliminary comments and a request for additional time to provide
formal comments along with additional relevant data should that deadline occur within the next 3 weeks.
The draft permit proposes to impose stringent new effluent limits for copper and silver. Unfortunately, the
Fact Sheet did not accompany the draft permit as required by 40 CFR sections 124.8(a) and 124.56
(applicable to state programs under 123.25 (a) 27 and 32). As a result, we were unable to begin to review
the basis for the new limits until that document was supplied at our request on November 21, 2019.
On review of the Fact Sheet, it appears that the limits calculations for copper and silver may have been
based in part on faulty or incomplete data. On review of the data submitted for the last four years, our
consultants have advised us that our effluent sampling was not done using EPA method 1669 ("clean
sampling techniques"), which may have resulted in inaccurate effluent concentrations reported to the
Department. In regard to the copper limit, copper is a common contaminant of environmental samples.
Using "clean sampling techniques" would likely provide a more accurate (and lower) measure of the
effluent copper concentration. The silver data used were mostly "non -detect" at 2.5 µg/L, with a single
value of 3 µg/L reported. Based on comments from our consultants, additional testing for silver using "clean
sampling" and with minimum detection limits as close as possible (consistent with proper laboratory
protocols) to the proposed 0.3 µg/L limit needs to be performed.
The Town is currently obtaining additional effluent samples for copper and silver using "clean sampling
techniques." The lab will be requested to perform the analyses using the most sensitive methods available
for wastewater, which we believe will produce more reliable effluent data for these constituents to be used

in the RPA. Because obtaining these data will require some time, we respectfully request that the department
not proceed to issue a final permit until the Town can collect and present the additional data and the
department has had a chance to consider these new data and revisit the RPA. The Town will provide the
additional sampling data along with our "formal" comments within the regulatory comment period if
possible, and in any case within the next 3 weeks, i.e., by December 17, 2019. If the 30-day regulatory
comment period ends prior to that date, we request that the Department agree to accept and review the data
and our comments anyway.
The Town has identified other issues with the draft permit that will be addressed in more detail in our
"formal" comment letter, which we will submit along with the additional copper and silver data discussed
above. These issues include:
• The RPA methodology used by DEQ appears to compare the calculated monthly average WQBEL
with the single highest daily effluent result times a multiplier of approximately 1.3. A more valid
comparison would compare the monthly average WQBEL with the highest expected monthly
average effluent concentration using monthly average discharge data.
• The permit proposes to impose stringent new effluent limits immediately upon issuance. This
deprives the Town of the ability to develop relevant monthly average data to be used in the
calculation of Reasonable Potential and also deprives the Town of the opportunity to identify
possible sources of the pollutants and take effective action (if needed) to reduce them at the source.
In light of the above concerns, in our formal comments we will be requesting a schedule in the final issued
permit to provide a "grace period" of at least 6 months where the copper and silver effluent limits are not
in effect. During that time the Town will: (1) generate valid monthly average Cu and Ag data of at least 4
samples a month (always using clean techniques, of course), and (2) investigate possible sources of these
pollutants, including both SIUs and possible commercial sources.
An additional preliminary comment is with regard to the proposed moving of the upstream sample point.
The draft permit moves the sample point to the confluence of Cathey's Creek and Hollands Creek under
the NCSR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) bridge. This location is not accessible, except from the bridge itself. This is
a heavily used bridge with a narrow shoulder, which presents a safety hazard to the staff. Additionally,
sampling under bridges is an unacceptable method as it has a high probability of introducing contaminants
from the bridge itself into the samples. I have included photographs taken from the proposed sample point
to illustrate this. In our final "official" comments we will propose a sampling
point that is safe and which allows for obtaining valid stream quality data.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide relevant and important information for your use in drafting a final
NPDES permit. We look forward to hearing that you will allow us to submit data and other comments on
or before December 17.
Very Truly Yours,
Scott Webber
Manager
Cc: Kurt Wright, P.E.
Maurice Walsh, P.E.
Randall G. Hurst, P.E.

View from Hudlow Bridge of the streams convergence

Perlmutter, Gary
From: Perlmutter, Gary
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 4:53 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Spindale draft permit comment response
Attachments: 20664 public notice affidavit.pdf
Dear Mr. Webber
The Division has received your comments to the draft permit for the Spindale WWTP (NC0020664), public noticed on
November 2, 2019. To clarify the comment deadline, the public comment period is 30 days from public notice
date. Attached is a copy of the public notice affidavit [pdf to be attached].
The Division will allow until December 17, 2019, as the Town has proposed, to receive additional effluent Total Copper
and Total Silver sample results for consideration in the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA). Please note that in
accordance with 15A NCAC 213 .0505 (e)(4), "All test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that
are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported to the approved
detection level or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are determined capable of
achieving detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the approved method
with the lowest detection and reporting level must be used."
The RPA methodology used by DEQ is in accordance with federal and state regulations. Please review USEPA
NPDES Permit Writers' Manual (available online: https:llww pa.govZnpdes/npdes-permit-writers-manual) and
the USEPA Technical Support Document For Water Quality -based Toxics Control (available online:
htt s: www3.epa.,g.,vi,ipucai puuaZowm0264.pdf) for more information.
The Town was asked if they need a compliance schedule to meet the new Copper and Silver limits, but no request was
received. However, if the Town would like a compliance schedule to meet the new limits, please include a request with
your sampling results.
Lastly, the Division understands the safety concerns with the proposed relocation of the upstream monitoring site.
Please propose an alternate location that is safely accessible and representative of the receiving stream.
I look forward to your response and additional sampling results. If you have any questions, please contact me via e-mail
or at 919-707-3611.
Sincerely,
Gary Perlmutter, Environmental Specialist II
NC Division of Water Resources
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
919-707-3611
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604

PO Box 186. 125 Reveley Street • Spindale, NC 28160
Phone: [phone] . Fax: [phone]
January 9, 2020
NCDEQ/DWR
NPDES Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn: Gary Perlmutter
Re: Town of Spindale
NPDES No. NCO020664
Comments and request for time extension
Dear Mr. Perlmutter,
The Town of Spindale is in receipt of your email dated December 19, 2019 in response to our comment
letter dated November 26, 2019. Thank you for providing the public notice affidavit and for your
comments and clarifications. I am attaching metal testing that has been conducted on the influent and
effluent of the plant. As can be seen, the silver was non -detect and the copper was 28.6 µg/L. I wanted to
point out that the test limits for silver were 0.5 µg1L, which is above the proposed effluent limit of 0.3
µg/L. This is the lowest detection level that the Town of Spindale has access to. Based on the regulation
you specified in your email, 15A NCAC 2B .0505, we would presume that a non -detect for silver in this
case would be considered in compliance with the proposed permit limits. We are in the process of taking
additional samples to gauge the pollutant concentration levels. The results of these test will provide
monthly average discharge data that the NC DEQ can use to update the RPA. The test procedures
currently being used have minimum detection limits that align with the proposed silver and copper limits
in question. This testing will also determine if compliance is possible and to identify the sources of
pollutants to allow us to take actions to reduce the pollutant concentration levels if necessary. The Town
is requesting a six month period to perform the additional influent and effluent testing. We will provide
the test results to NC DEQ for the purpose of updating the RPA and reassessing the potential for
contamination.
We have identified potential sources of the pollutants in our sewer shed and are in the process of testing
samples taken from the respective SIU's and or commercial users. We are performing a mass balance
analysis with the results to determine the primary sources of the containments. One of the SIU's that we
have identified as a potential principal source of the pollutants has shared with us that its silver and
copper discharge change with the staffing and manufacturing processes and that these fluctuate during the
year, especially in the four quarter. Namely, the current SIU sampling is expected to yield lower
concentration levels due to a reduction in production at this time of year. We are requesting an additional
six month time period following the six month intensive data collection period and re-evaluation of the
RPA to investigate methods of pollutant reduction if the study finds that to be necessary.

In light of the above findings, we would like to request that a one year "grace period" before the copper
and silver effluent limits are put into effect to complete the two tasks discussed above. During that time
the Town will: (1) generate valid monthly average Cu and Ag data of at least 4 samples a month (always
using clean techniques, of course), (2) investigate possible sources of these pollutants, including both
SIUs and possible commercial sources, and (3) investigate methods of pollutant reduction if necessary.
We would also ask that the permit allow that the copper and silver limits could revert to "monitor only" if
the sampling and updated RPA demonstrate that they are not necessary.
In response to your comments on the proposed sampling point, I am attaching a pdf taken from Google
Earth showing the current and proposed sampling points. From this aerial view, as well as from
discussions with the town staff, the current sampling point is the closest to the actual discharge point with
safe access. We would request that the new permit would allow the current discharge point to remain as
the designated NPDES upstream sample location. I realize that this is upstream of the convergence of
Hollands Creek and Cathey's Creek. Unfortunately the effluent line coming from the WWTP parallels
Hollands Creek and discharges at the convergence of the two creeks. This and the issues related to the
sampling from the bridge, as mentioned in the previous letter, make a pristine sample point unavailable.
To summarize our request in conclusion, we are requesting a one year delay in the implementation of the
proposed silver and copper limits. During this time, the town will engage in 4 tests a month for the first
six months to determine influent and effluent pollutant concentrations. These tests will be conducted
using sampling and testing procedures with minimum detection limits that correspond to the proposed
NPDES limits. This data can be used by NCDEQ to reassess the RPA and to reassess the proposed
NPDES limits. If the reassessed RPA validates the proposed silver and copper limits, we are requesting
an additional six month period to investigate methods of pollutant reduction.
Very Truly Yours,
J c
Scott Webber
Town Manager

(� acMnalyUa e
tuwaincelabs c m
Mr. Tony Gragg
Water Tech labs
PO Box 1056
Granite Falls, NC 28630
Project: TOWN OF SPINDALE
Pace Project No.: 92456M
Sample: SPINDALE INFLUENT
Method Parameters
- - - EPA 200.8
Arsenic .
EPA200.8
Cadmium .
EPA200.8
Chromium'
EPA200.8
Copper :.
EPA200.8
Lead
EPA20D.8
Molybdenum
EPA200.8
Nickel
EPA200.8
Selenium
EPA200.8
Silver
EPA200.8
Zinc
EPA 245.1 Rev 3.01994
Mercury
Sample:.SPINDALE EFFLUENT
Method
Parameters
EPA200.8
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
Cadmium
EPA200.8
Chrornlum .
EPA200.8
Copper
EPA200.8
Lead
EPA200.8
Molybdenum
EPA200.8
Nickel
EPA200.8
Selenium
EPA200.8
Silver
EPA200.8
Zinc
Reviewed by.
Chris Derouen for
Lorri Patton
1(828)254-7176
lord.patbon@pacelabs,com
Pace Analytical3eMces Minneapolis
A21A Certification #: 2926.01
Alabama Certification #: 40770
Alaska Contaminated Sites Certification # 174009
Alaska DW Certification #: MN00064
Arizona Certification #: AZ0014
Arkansas DW Certification #: MN00064
Arkansas WW Certification #: 88-0680
Callfomia Certification #: 2929
CNMI Saipan Certification #: MP0003
Colorado Certification A MN00064
Laboratory Report
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
6701 Conference Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Page 1 of 2
Report Date: 12/18/2019
Date Received: 12/06/2019
Lab ID: 92456380001 Collected: 12/03/19 09:00 Matrix: Water
Results
Units
Report Limit
Analyzed
ND
ug/L
0.50
12/1711915:30
0.21
ug/L
0.080
121111191&30
35.2
uglL
0.50
1211711916:30
33.5
uglL
1.0
12/1711916:30
2.8
ugll-
0.10
12/17/1915:30
5.3
ugll-
0.60
12/1711915:30
5.9
ug/L
0.50
1211711915:30
ND
ug/L
0.60
12/17/1915:30
ND
ug/L
0.50
12117/1915:30
189
ug/L
5.0
12117/1915:30
ND
ug/L
0.20
12112/1912:28
Lab ID: 92455380002 Collected: 12103119 09:07 Matfix: Water
Results
Units
Report Limit
Analyzed
ND
uglL
0.50
12/13119 01:32
ND
ug1L
0.080
12113/19 01:32
11 A
ugf L
0.50
12113/19 01:32
28.0
ug/L
1.0
12/13/19 01:32
0.43
ug/L
0.10
12113/19 01:32
.1.1
ug/L
0.50
12113/19 01:32
2.2
ug/L
0.60
12113/19 01:32
ND
ug/L
0.50
12113/1901:32
N❑
ug/L
0.60
12113/19 01:32
92.8
ugli-
25.0
12113/19 20:14
Connecticut certification #: PH-0256
EPA Region 8+Wyoming DW Certification P. via MN 027-
053-137
Florida Certification #: E87605
Georgia Certification M. 959
Guam EPA Certification #: MN00064
Hawaii Certification #: MN00D04
Idaho Certification #: MN00064
Illinois Certification #: 200011
Indiana Certification #: C-MN-01
Qualifiers
Qualifiers
Page 1 of 5

-< Z
0
CL
a�
CL
r
C C:)
co O
_ U) a
C �
a m
Q. CL
E
co
c� Q
}
ar
r
J
4
r .. J i1►,
�r
. A• �•

PO Box 186. 125 Reveley Street . Spindale, NC 28160
Plione: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
February 17, 2020
NCDEQ/DWR
NPDES Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn: Gary Perlmutter
Re: Town of Spindale
NPDES No. NCO020664
Comments and Clarifications
Dear Mr. Perlmutter,
The Town of Spindale is in receipt of the draft NPDES permit, dated January 29, 2020. We have
reviewed the draft permit and want to make some additional comments and also request clarifications on a
number of items in the permit.
• In section A1, the BOD parameter includes the dates (Apr 1 —.Oct 31)'. The superscript
references footnote 3 on the following page and indicates 85% BOD removal. Does the BOD
limit only apply between those dates or does the 85% removal only apply between those dates?
Please confirm the intent of the dates in the BOD parameter.
• The first page of the permit indicate an effective date in the 2019 year, we are assuming the
effective date will be in the 2020 year. Please confirm.
• Section A3 indicates the pollutant scan should "determine whether parameters are present in
concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria". Please provide a reference to the
applicable standards and criteria?
• The proposed monthly average silver limit is 0.3µg/L. The minimum reporting limit for the
testing procedure available is 0.5µg/L. Please confirm that a non -detect or "< 0.5µg/L" will meet
the proposed limit.
• In section A3, the effluent pollutant scan can be submitted electronically or mailed, can the
second species toxicity test also be submitted to the Aquatic Toxicology Branch electronically?
• In section A6, it states that the monitoring reports should be submitted through eDMR and printed
and mailed to DWR. Currently the monitoring reports are submitted through eDMR and
submitted via email to DWR. We would ask that section 6 be modified to allow for the
transmission of the monitoring reports through eDMR and mail or email.
• In Section A4, the schedule of compliance includes completing an action plan within one year of
the permit, taking action within 2 years of the permit, and being compliant within 3 years of the
permit. Further, the approved action plan would become an enforceable part of the permit. At

the same time, draft permit allows for the Permittee to apply for a permit modification based on
an RPA with at least 24 data points of copper and silver concentrations. We would propose that
the action plan would be due 2 years following the permit, with the actions taken in year 3, and
compliance in year 4. This would allow for 24 monthly samples to be acquired and submitted as
part of the action plan. The additional testing might necessitate a change in the action plan based
on the results of the reasonable potential analysis.
Very Truly Yours, /
Scott Webber
City Manager

3rd Draft Fact Sheet Addendum
The Permittee provided comments for the Spindale WWTP (NC0020664) 2"d draft permit, public noticed
on January 29, 2020. Comments by Scott Webber, Town of Spindale (Permittee) with DWR responses
are as follows:
Comment: "In section Al, the BOD parameter includes the dates (Apr 1— Oct 31)3. The superscript
references footnote 3 on the following page and indicates 85% BOD removal. Does the BOD limit only
apply between those dates or does the 85% removal only apply between those dates? Please confirm
the intent of the dates in the BOD parameter."
Response: The dates were removed as they were inserted in error. The revised draft permit does not
have dates associated with the BOD limits, indicating that these are year-round limits subject to the 85%
removal requirement.
Comment: "The first page of the permit indicate an effective date in the 2019 year, we are assuming the
effective date will be in the 2020 year. Please confirm."
Response: The effective date will be in 2020.
Comment: "Section A3 indicates the pollutant scan should 'determine whether parameters are present
in concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria'. Please provide a reference to
applicable standards and criteria?"
Response: Applicable standards and criteria include those in 15A NCAC 026 .0211— Fresh Surface Water
Quality Standards for Class C Waters. A link to the NC water quality standards table
(https://deg.nc.p,ovZdocuments/nc-stdstable-06102019) was sent to the Permittee and ORC via e-mail
on March 19, 2020.
Comment: "The proposed monthly average silver limit is 0.3 µg/L. The minimum reporting limit of the
testing procedure available is 0.5 µg/L. Please confirm that a non -detect or'< 0.5 µg/L' will meet the
proposed limit.
Response: Non -detect results of the lower reporting limit of the procedure will indicate compliance for a
limit that is below detection. This was communicated to the Permittee and ORC via teleconference on
March 16, 2020.
Comment: "in section A3, the effluent pollutant scan can be submitted electronically or mailed, can the
second species toxicity test also be submitted to the Aquatic Toxicity Branch electronically?"
Response: 2"d sp. toxicity reports can be submitted electronically to [e-mail]. The PPA
Special Condition was modified to allow for 2"d sp. toxicity tests to be electronically submitted. Section
A.3 was modified to include electronic submittal.
Comment: "In section A6, it states that the monitoring reports should be submitted through eDMR and
printed and mailed to DWR. Currently the monitoring reports are submitted through eDMR and
submitted via email to DWR. We would ask that section 6 be modified to allow for the transmission of
the monitoring reports through eDMR and mail or email."
Response: Section A6 follows the Electronic Reporting Rule adopted by the Division in 2016. Therefore,
the section cannot be modified. This was communicated to the Permittee and ORC via teleconference
on March 16, 2020.
Page 1 of 2

3Id Draft Fact Sheet Addendum
Comment: "In Section A4, the schedule of compliance includes completing an action plan within one
year of the permit, taking action within 2 years of the permit, and being compliant within 3 years of the
permit. Further, the approved action plan would become an enforceable part of the permit. At the same
time, draft permit allows for the Permittee to apply for a permit modification based on an RPA with at
least 24 data points of copper and silver concentrations. We would propose that the action plan would
be due 2 years following the permit, with the actions taken in year 3, and compliance in year 4. This
would allow for 24 monthly samples to be acquired and submitted as part of the action plan. The
additional testing might necessitate a change in the action plan based on the results of the reasonable
potential analysis."
Response: The compliance schedule has been modified to be extended to four years, with the first two
years requiring the Permittee to submit a summary of actions taken to reduce Copper and Silver
concentrations toward permit limits; the third year requiring the Permittee submit a Corrective Action
Plan; and limits becoming effective by the fourth year. The paragraph that refers to applying for a
permit modification to reassess reasonable potential of Copper and Silver to exceed water quality
standards was removed from the permit. These changes were discussed and agreed -upon with the
Permittee, ORC and consultant via a webmeeting on March 19, 2020.
Please note, the Permittee can submit sampling data for review and a permit modification at anytime.
At least 24 samples should be submitted for a rerun of a reasonable potential anaylsis. Sampling does
not constitute actions towards compliance with permit limitations; however, actions such as submitting
a revised Headworks Analysis (based on the new limitations), reissuance of SIU permits that implement
the new limits, and collection system sampling to assess and identify sources of silver and copper are all
acceptable.
Page 2 of 2