NC0023906_Fact Sheet_20210122

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO239O6
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: August 4, 2020
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Wilson/ Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 10, Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Facility Address:
3100 Stantonsburg Road, Wilson, NC 27893
Permitted Flow:
14.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 91.4% domestic, 8.6% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
one (1) mechanical bar screen at influent pump station, one (1)
serpentine conveyor at influent pump station, four (4) influent pumps
with variable frequency drives, two (2) service entrances to provide
power redundancy to influent pump station, two (2) mechanical bar
screens, manual bar screens, screenings compactor, automatic grit
remover, influent ultrasonic flow meter, two (2) flow equalization
basins, three (3) primary clarifiers, one (1) biological phosphorus
removal tank, seven (7) aeration basins for biological nutrient removal,
five (5) secondary clarifiers, polishing ponds (out of service), five (5)
tertiary filters, methanol feed system, chlorine contact/ post aeration
tank, chlorine feed system, dechlorination feed system, effluent
ultrasonic flow meter, anaerobic digesters, digester methane generating
unit, a reclaimed water facility, sludge thickening and dewatering
facility, alkaline sludge stabilization facility, three (3) liquid sludge
holding tanks and, sludge drying beds
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y
County:
Wilson
Region
Raleigh
*Based on permitted flows
Page 1 of 12

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background.- The City of Wilson has applied
for an NPDES permit renewal at 14.0 MGD for the Hominy Creek WRF. This facility serves a population
of 51,794 residents throughout the City of Wilson, Town of Lucama, Town of Black Creek and Town of
Sims. The facility also serves 3 non -categorical significant industrial users (SIUs), and 8 categorical
industrial users (CIUs) with a pretreatment program. Treated wastewater is discharged into Contentnea
Creek, a class C-Sw;NSW water in the Neuse River Basin. The facility has a primary Outfall 001.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Contentnea Creek
Stream Index:
27-86-(7)
Stream Classification:
C-Sw;NSW
Drainage Area (m12):
236
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
2.3
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
4.46
30Q2 (cfs):
23.2
Average Flow (cfs):
230
IWC (% effluent):
90.4
303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes; Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-04-07/03020203
USGS Topo Quad:
E27NW Wilson, NC
Per request by the City of Wilson, USGS provided updated stream statistics on 11/20/2020. The above
table has been revised since the draft permit was submitted for public comment to incorporate the updated
values. These updated values have been applied to the attached reasonable potential analysis, WLA
spreadsheet and mercury TMDL evaluation.
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of February 2016 through July 2020.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Permit
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit
Flow
MGD
9.2
29.98
4.91
MA 14.0
Total Monthly Flow
MG/month
280
454.08
186.16
Page 2 of 12

WA 7.5
BOD summer
mg/l
2.6
13
2
MA 5.0
WA 15.0
BOD winter
mg/l
22
8.1
2
MA 10.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/1
2.55
9.44
2.5
MA 30.0
WA 2.0
NH3N summer
mg/1
0.2
1.04
0.2
MA 1.0
WA 6.0
NH3N winter
mg/l
0.3
3.69
0.2
MA 3.0
DO
mg/1
9.1
11.37
7.47
DA > 7 mg/l
(geometric)
(ge
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
1200
1
WA 400
2.8ean)
MA 200
Temperature
° C
19.3
28.5
10.1
Total Residual Chlorine
ug/1
10
18
10
DM 18
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
498
714
228
pH
SU
7.1
7.86
6.08
6.0 < pH <
9.0
Total Copper
ug/1
1.95
2.9
0.2
Dichlorobromomethane
ug/1
2.8
5
2
TKN
mg/l
0.8
3.07
0.2
NO2+NO3
mg/l
1.3
4.03
0.076
TN
mg/l
2.1
5.18
0.41
TN Load
lb/month
4,873
9,518
2,848
TN Load
lb/year
57,727
65,558
52,347
157,886
TP
mg/l
0.3
2.34
0.05
QA 2.0
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily
Average, QA-Quarterly Average
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, temperature,
conductivity and fecal coliform upstream of the outfall at Old Black Creek Road and downstream at NC
Highway 222. The City is a member of the Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA) and their instream
requirements are provisionally waived as long as they maintain membership. As such, data from January
2015 through December 2019 were observed from LNBA monitoring stations J6765000, upstream of the
facility, and J6890000, downstream at NCSR 1622. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Page 3 of 12

Table 2. Instream Monitoring Coalition Data Summary
Parameter
Units
J6765000 Upstream
J68900000, Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
102
1E'
54
149.5
280
64
Fecal Coliform
#/100 ml
(geomean)
74.4
9000
12
(geomean)
108
6000
'
DO
mg/1
7.42
12.6
2.6
7.3
11.9
4
Temperature
° C
19.8
29.4
2.3
19.6
29.5
1.8
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05.
The downstream temperature did not exceed 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]. The
temperature differential was greater than 2.8 degrees Celsius on no occasion during the period reviewed.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream
temperature exists.
Downstream DO dropped below 5 mg/L on 10 occasions during the period reviewed [per 15A NCAC
02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed. Downstream did not drop below an instantaneous value of 4
mg/L during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no significant difference between upstream and
downstream DO exists. Effluent DO did not drop below 7 mg/L during the period reviewed. Effluent DO
does not appear to be impacting the stream.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream fecal
coliform exists.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream conductivity
exists. Effluent conductivity was consistently greater than both upstream and downstream conductivity
during the period reviewed. The facility's effluent appears to be impacting instream conductivity,
however at this time no permit change is needed since there did not appear to be any other issues.
The draft permit maintains the same instream monitoring requirements as the current permit.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): Y
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA)
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations resulting in enforcement actions from August 2018 to August 2020.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 18 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from February 2016 to May
2020, as well as 4 of 4 second species toxicity tests.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in March 2020 reported that the facility was compliant.
Page 4 of 12

6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with I5A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxvaen-Consumina Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Limitations for
summer and winter BOD5 are based on Best Professional Judgement (tertiary treatment levels). Due to
the swamp -like nature of Contentnea Creek, a steady state one-dimensional model (Level B or Qual2E)
could not be used. No changes are proposed.
In August 1979, an intensive survey of Contentnea Creek was conducted that recommended a dissolved
oxygen limit of no less than 7.0 mg/L.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
permit sets a daily maximum limit of 18 ug/L. TRC limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and
have been found to be consistent with the results. There are no proposed changes for TRC.
Limitations for summer and winter ammonia are based on ammonia toxicity and restrictions on oxygen
consuming waste. The limits were implemented in the 2004 permit renewal and have been broadly
applied to major dischargers across the Neuse River Basin. The current permit sets monthly average and
weekly average limits for ammonia in summer of 1 mg/L and 3 mg/L, respectively. The current permit
sets monthly average and weekly average limits for ammonia in winter of 2 mg/L and 6 mg/L,
respectively. The ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be
consistent with the results. There are no proposed changes for ammonia limits.
Page 5 of 12

Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 213.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between February 2016
through May 2020. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: N/A
• 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: N/A
• 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, Chlorides, Cadmium, Total Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead,
Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Zinc, Bromodichloromethane
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (Scans from 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)
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: N/A
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: N/A
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Phenolic Compounds, Beryllium
The City of Wilson reported Total Silver and Total Lead at less than detection, with a detection level < 5
µg/L and < 10 µg/L, respectively, in their discharge monitoring reports. The City's chronic allowable
discharge concentration is 0.064 µg/L for Total Silver and 5.42 µg/L for Total Lead. DWR's laboratory
identifies the target Practical Quantification Limits (PQL) as 1.0 µg/L for Total Silver and 2.0 µg/L for
Total Lead. 15A NCAC 2B .0505 (e) (4) requires that all test procedures must produce detection and
reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements. If no approved methods are capable of
achieving a detection level below the permit discharge requirement (or allowable concentration) the
method with the lowest detection level must be used. The City should test for Total Silver and Total Lead
down to a PQL below the allowable discharge concentration. While no monitoring requirement has been
added to the permit for Total Silver or Total Lead at this time, the Division can modify the permit and add
a limit or add limits during the next renewal if this regulation is not satisfied.
Page 6 of 12

If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxici . Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: The permit requires quarterly chronic toxicity testing at
90% effluent concentration. No changes are proposed.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (14.0 MGD)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
9 of Samples
4
4
4
4
2
Annual Average Conc. n /L
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.63
3.4
Maximum Conc., n /L
0.5
0.5
0.52
0.763
6.14
TBEL, n /L
47
WQBEL, n /L
13.3
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. Since the facility did not report multiple ( > 1 samples) quantifiable levels of mercury
(> 1 ng/1), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) is not required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TNDDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: The Environmental Management Commission adopted Nutrient Management Strategy
Page 7 of 12

rules in December 1997, classifying the entire Neuse River Basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. The point
source rule (T15A NCAC 2B .0713) sets Total Nitrogen (TN) discharge limits for all point source
dischargers larger than 0.5 MGD.
The rule also allows dischargers to form a group compliance association and work together to reduce
nitrogen; this option allows the association members added flexibility in controlling nitrogen discharges.
At the same time, the association is subject to a group NPDES permit ensuring that the association and its
individual members are accountable if they exceed the applicable nitrogen limits. Under the rule, there are
three types of TN limit in the Neuse:
1. the individual limits in the dischargers' individual permits,
2. the aggregate limit in an association's group NPDES permit, and
3. the individual allocations/limits for each Association member, also in that association permit.
A discharger may be subject to the first type of limit, or to the second and third, but never to all three at
the same time. The discharger is first subject to the TN limit (if any) in its individual NPDES permit. If it
becomes a co-permittee to a compliance association's group NPDES permit, it is then governed by the TN
limits in that permit. If the association complies with its group TN limit in a given year, all members are
deemed to be in compliance with their individual allocations/ limits in the group permit. If the association
exceeds its limit, the members then become subject to their individual allocations/ limits as well.
Regardless of which permit governs a TN discharge, allocations/ limits will likely change over time as the
dischargers purchase, sell, trade, lease, or otherwise transfer nitrogen allocations. The Division will
modify the affected permits as necessary to ensure that the limits are kept up to date and reflect any such
transactions.
This permit includes nutrient limits consistent with the Nutrient Management Strategy rule (T15A NCAC
2B .0713).
Nitrogen. Under this rule, the Hominy Creek WRF received a base TN Load allocation of 157,684 lb/yr, a
calendar year limit.
The City of Wilson is a member of the Neuse River Compliance Association at this time. As long as it
remains a co-Permittee member, it is deemed to be in compliance with the TN limit in this permit, and its
TN discharge is governed instead by the Association's group NPDES permit, modified December 29,
2014.
Phosphorus. The City's 2.0 mg/L Total Phosphorus limit is carried forward in the permit renewal as a
quarterly average limit to conform to the rule.
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/1
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BODS/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Page 8 of 12

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 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 (YESINO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 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.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The City of Wilson was granted monitoring frequency reductions for BOD5, Total Suspended Solids,
NH3-N and Fecal Coliform for their 2015 NPDES permit renewal based on DWR Guidance Regarding
the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. In
their NPDES permit renewal application submitted on December 3, 2018, the City requested the
frequency reductions be maintained. The last three years of the facility's data for these parameters have
been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. The Division has decided to
maintain the 2/week monitoring frequency requirements for BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, NH3-N and
Fecal Coliform.
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
Page 9of12

(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 14.0 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 14.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly Flow
Monitor and
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Report
loads
BOD5
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. BPJ. 15A NCAC 213;
MA 5.0 mg/1
DWR Guidance Regarding the
WA 7.5 mg/1
Reduction of Monitoring
Winter:
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
MA 10.0 mg/1
Exceptionally Performing
WA 15.0 mg/1
Facilities
Monitor 2/Week
NH3-N
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 2020 WLA review. 15A
MA 1.0 mg/1
NCAC 213; DWR Guidance
WA 3.0 mg/1
Regarding the Reduction of
Winter:
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
MA 2.0 mg/1
Permits for Exceptionally
WA 6.0 mg/1
Performing Facilities
Monitor 2/Week
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45 mg/1
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
Monitor 2/Week
NCAC 213.0406; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100ml
NCAC 213; DWR Guidance
Monitor 2/Week
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
DO
DA > 7 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. 1979 Intensive Survey of
Contentnea Creek.
Temperature
Daily Monitoring
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 213.0508
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
Total Residual Chlorine
DM 18 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. 2020 WLA review.
Page 10 of 12

Conductivity
Monitor and
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Report Daily
NCAC 213.0508
TKN
Monitor and
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Report Weekly
NO2-N + NO3-N
Monitor and
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Report Weekly
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and
No change
Neuse River Basin Nutrient
Report Weekly
Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 213.0713
TN Load
Monitor and
No change
WQBEL. Neuse River Basin
Report Monthly
Nutrient Management Strategy
(as lb/mo)
T15A NCAC 213.0713
Annual TN mass
limit of 157,886
lb/yr
Total Phosphorous
QA 2.0 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. Neuse River Basin
Nutrient Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 213.0713
Total Copper
Quarterly
No monitoring required
Based on results of Reasonable
Monitoring
Potential Analysis (RPA); No RP,
Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable
Cw - No Monitoring required
Dichlorobromomethane
Quarterly
No monitoring required
Based on results of Reasonable
Monitoring
Potential Analysis (RPA); No RP,
Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable
Cw - No Monitoring required
Total Hardness
No requirement
Quarterly monitoring
Hardness -dependent dissolved
Upstream and in
metals water quality standards
Effluent
approved in 2016
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit, 90%
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Three times per
No change; conducted
40 CFR 122
permit cycle
in 2022, 2023, 2024
Electronic Reporting
Electronic
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Special
Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, QA
— Quarterly Average, DA — Daily Average
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: September 1, 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.
Page 11 of 12

14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft permit was submitted to the City of Wilson, EPA Region IV, the Raleigh Regional Office, the
Lower Neuse River Basin Association, and the Division's Operator Certification Program, Aquatic
Toxicology Branch, Ecosystems Branch. The Aquatic Toxicology Branch submitted a comment to correct
the mailing address specified in Special Condition A.(3.). The City of Wilson submitted a comment letter
which has been addressed in the attached fact sheet addendum. No comments were received from any of
the other parties.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• The expiration date of the permit has been revised from May 31, 2024 to May 31, 2025 to more
closely fit a full five-year length.
• Special Condition A.(6.) has been modified to include the specific three years in which the
Effluent Pollutant Scan shall be performed (2022, 2023, and 2024). In addition, at the end of the
Special Condition, 2nd species Toxicity Testing Requirements for municipal permit renewals per
Federal Regulations [40 CFR 122.210)(5)] have been added.
• Per request by the City, the upstream sampling location has been redefined to be Commerce Road
[See A.(1.) Footnote 2].
• The mailing address specified in Special Condition A.(5.) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit
(Quarterly) has been updated.
• Special Condition A.(7.) Electronic Reporting of Discharge Monitoring Reports has been updated
to remove outdated language and to address the Phase 2 deadline extension promulgated by EPA
on November 2, 2020.
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• BOD and TSS Removal
• Monitoring Reduction Frequency Spreadsheet
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheet
• Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet
• Limit Violations Summary
• Toxicity Summary
• Pretreatment Summary
• Instream Monitoring Summary
Page 12 of 12

Fact Sheet Addendum
The Division received comments from the City of Wilson on October 2, 2020 and provides the following
responses:
1. Comment: Request that the permit become effective on the 1st day of the month. This helps prevent any
discrepancies in the monitoring requirements that may not match between the current active permit and the new
one becoming effective.
Response: The permit has been given the effective date March 1, 2021.
2. Comment: Request that the expiration date of the permit be a full five years from the effective date of the
permit.
Response: The expiration date of the permit has been revised from May 31, 2024 to May 31, 2025.
3. Comment: Request the Monthly Average limit for flow be changed from 14.0 MGD to 14 MGD.
Response: Based on the Division's 2015 Precision in Discharge Monitoring Reports guidance, flow is
commonly reported to 2 or 3 significant figures. The average flow measuring device is capable of achieving
greater accuracy than the nearest MGD. As such, no change has been made to the monthly average flow
limitation.
4. Comment: Request that the monitoring frequency for Dissolved Oxygen, Total Residual Chlorine,
Temperature, pH, and Conductivity be changed from "Daily" to "2/week". We recognize that monitoring
requirements for these parameters are established in 15A NCAC 02B .0508, but also within that same section,
per 15A NCAC 02B .0508 (b) (1), such requirements may be waived or modified to the extent that the Director
determines to be appropriate. They City of Wilson has an excellent compliance history with each of these
parameters and daily monitoring should not be required.
Response: The Division has set guidance for monitoring frequency reduction only for BOD5, CBOD5, TSS,
Ammonia, Fecal Coliform and Enterococci. As such, monitoring frequencies have been maintained for DO,
TRC, temperature, pH and conductivity.
5. Comment: Request the Daily Average limit for Dissolved Oxygen be changed from >7.0 mg/L to
> 6.0 mg/L. In the Fact Sheet generated for this permit renewal, the following information was stated: "In
August 1979, an intensive survey of Contentnea Creek was conducted that recommended a dissolved oxygen
limit of no less than 7.0 mg/L." This elevated limit of >7.0 mg/L is determined from a study that was performed
over 41 years ago. It is surely not representative of the current flow conditions of Contentnea Creek. For
instance, in September 1999, during Hurricane Floyd, the newly upgraded Buckhorn Reservoir was
immediately filled to overflowing during this single event. Since September 1999, the minimum release from
Buckhorn Reservoir has continuously been at least 7.6 cfs with the exception of a very brief period during the
drought of 2007-2008 (please reference enclosed letters from NC-DE14NR dated 6/4/1991 & Army Corp of
Engineers dated 2/21/1997). Based on this information, the City of Wilson feels that a modification of the Daily
Average limit for Dissolved Oxygen to >6.0 mg/L is justified.

Response: Dissolved Oxygen limitations are set with consideration of all other dischargers in the basin. As
such, the Division will not apply a less stringent DO limitation without sufficient confirmation that the
discharge would not alter ultimate BOD levels. Without information, such as this, that would justify the
relaxing of the limit and would satisfy exceptions to the Anti -Backsliding rule as outlined in the Clean Water
Act, the Division shall maintain the DO limit. Additionally, the facility has been consistently compliant with the
7.0 mg/L DO limit.
6. Comment: In Footnote 92, we request that "U - Upstream at Old Black Creek Road" be changed to "U -
Upstream at Commerce Road". Commerce Road is a side road off of Old Black Creek Road and is actually
closer to our upstream monitoring point. The upstream sampling location would still be the same, only the
descriptive name would change. Additionally, there is a bridge located on Old Black Creek Road that crosses
Contentnea Creek. That bridge location is downstream of our discharge point. Many years ago, the City of
Wilson did downstream monitoring at the bridge on Old Black Creek Road. We are requesting this change to
hopefully prevent any confusion.
Response: Per request by the City, the upstream sampling location has been redefined to be Commerce Road
[See A.(1.)].
7. Comment: We request the removal of Footnote 3 that states: "The monthly average effluent BODs and TSS
concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal)." The monthly average
limits established in the permit for BODs and TSS make this requirement unnecessary because we would meet
it all the time as long as we are meeting the numerical monthly average limits. Further, the City of Wilson has
an excellent compliance history with each of these parameters and we have no reasonable potential to exceed
the requirement specified in Footnote 3.
Response: The 85% removal requirement for BOD5 and TSS is a federal requirement set forth in 40 CFR
133.102 and will remain in the permit.
8. Comment: We request that in Footnote 11, the 90% dilution value be considered for recalculation based on a
new 7Q 10 value that will be addressed in a later comment.
Response: The IWC percentage has been recalculated based on the updated 2020 USGS 7Q10s and is found to
be consistent with the existing 90% dilution value. No change has been made.
9. Comment: For Item A.(5.), in the first paragraph, we request that the 90% dilution value be considered for
recalculation based on a new 7Q10 value that will be addressed in a later comment.
Response: The IWC percentage has been recalculated based on the updated 2020 USGS 7Q10s and is found to
be consistent with the existing 90% dilution value. No change has been made.
10. Comment: For Item A.(6.)d., please confirm that the address for report submittal of "1621 Mail Service
Center" is correct. In our current active permit and also in Item A.(5.) of this permit, the address is listed as
"1623 Mail Service Center".
Response: After discussing with the Aquatic Toxicology Branch, "1621 Mail Service Center" was confirmed to
be correct.

10. Comment: We request that the following text be removed: "Until such time that the state's eDMR
application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), Permittees
will he required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state electronically using eDMR and will he
required to complete the eDMR submission by printing, signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy
of the computer printed eDMR to the following address:
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617"
This issue has been resolved and we are no longer required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR.
Response: Special Condition A.(7.) Electronic Reporting of Discharge Monitoring Reports has been updated to
address both this comment and the Phase 2 extension.
11. Comment: In Table 2, "Receiving Waterbody Information", the City of Wilson requests that the Summer
7Q10 value of 1.3 cfs be reconsidered and modified. While it is not specifically stated in this Fact Sheet, in the
Fact Sheet generated August 2015 for the prior permit renewal, it was stated: "The flow in Contentnea Creek is
regulated by release from the upstream Wiggins Mill Reservoir. The minimum release is 1.3 cfs and DWR has
used this value as a 7Q 10 flow." The first concern is that the value of 1.3 cfs is incorrect. The absolute
minimum required release is actually 1.4 cfs (please reference enclosed letters from NC-DEHNR dated
6/4/1991 & Army Corp of Engineers dated 2/21/1997). Further, the minimum release of 1.4 cfs would only
occur during the most extreme of drought conditions. Wiggins Mill Reservoir receives a portion of its flow via a
regulated release to Contentnea Creek from Buckhorn Reservoir which is located approximately ten miles
upstream. In addition to the regulated release from Buckhorn Reservoir, the Wiggins Mill Reservoir also
receives flow from all the tributaries to Contentnea Creek that are located between the Buckhorn and Wiggins
Mill Reservoirs. In September 1999, during Hurricane Floyd, the recently upgraded Buckhorn Reservoir was
filled to overflowing. Since September 1999, the minimum release from Buckhorn Reservoir has continuously
been at least 7.6 cfs with the exception of a very brief period during the drought of 2007-2008. North Carolina
experienced the worst documented drought on record during 2007-2008. These records from NOAA date back
more than 125 years to 1895. (Please see enclosed chart titled "North Carolina Palmer Drought Severity Index
(PDSI) "from NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: Statewide Time
Series). This would have to be acknowledged as the ultimate worst case scenario to impact stream flow and
even a 7Q 10 value determined from this time frame would actually be a 7Q 125 value (lowest continuous 7 day
flow in 125 years). During the last 10 years, the City of Wilson has maintained a minimum release from
Buckhorn Reservoir of at least 7.6 cfs. Utilizing the value of 7.6 cfs would still be a very conservative 7Q 10 to
represent minimal flow within Contentnea Creek for the most recent 10 years. Due to the other tributary flow
received by Contentnea Creek above and below the Wiggins Mill Reservoir, the City of Wilson is extremely
confident that the actual 7Q 10 over the past 10 years is significantly greater than the continuous release of 7.6
cfs provided from Buckhorn Reservoir. Based upon the information provided, the City of Wilson requests the
7Q10 be increased from 1.3 cfs to at least 7.6 cfs until additional stream flow studies can be completed in the
future that would indicate an even higher 7Q 10 value is appropriate. Please also utilize the new 7Q10 value to
recalculate any limits issued in this permit that would be impacted by the increase of the 7Q 10 value.
Response: Stream statistics have been updated to reflect the 2020 USGS report and the mercury TMDL
evaluation, reasonable potential analysis and wasteload allocation have been conducted using the updated flows.
No limits changes were concluded.

2 • t �- f �* V
October 2, 2020
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Nick Coco
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments to Draft NPDES Permit Renewal (NCO023906)
Dear Mr. Coco:
The City of Wilson thanks you for your efforts in renewing our NPDES permit and appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the draft permit you provided to us with your letter dated August 25, 2020.
We received the information by U.S. Mail on September 4, 2020. Overall, we are very pleased with the
permit as drafted. However, after a thorough review of the draft permit, we have identified a few items
that we ask you to consider modifying. I have listed them by page number below.
Page 1: Request that the permit become effective on the I' day of the month. This helps prevent
any discrepancies in the monitoring requirements that may not match between the current
active permit and the new one becoming effective.
Page 1: Request that the expiration date of the permit be a full five years from the effective date
of the permit.
Page 2: Request the Monthly Average limit for flow be changed from 14.0 MGD to 14 MGD.
Page 2: Request that the monitoring frequency for Dissolved Oxygen, Total Residual Chlorine,
Temperature, pH, and Conductivity be changed from "Daily" to "2/week". We recognize
that monitoring requirements for these parameters are established in 15A NCAC 02B
.0508, but also within that same section, per 15A NCAC 02B .0508 (b) (1), such
requirements may be waived or modified to the extent that the Director determines to be
appropriate. They City of Wilson has an excellent compliance history with each of these
parameters and daily monitoring should not be required.
Page 2: Request the Daily Average limit for Dissolved Oxygen be changed from ?7.0 mg/L to
>6.0 mg/L. In the Fact Sheet generated for this permit renewal, the following
information was stated:
CITY OF WILSON Page I of 4
INCORPORATED 1849

Subject. Comments to Draft NPDES Permit Renewal (NC0023906) October 2, 2020
In August 1979, an intensive survey of Contentnea Creek was conducted that
recommended a dissolved oxygen limit of no less than 7 0 mg1L.
This elevated limit of >7.0 mglL is determined from a study that was performed over 41
years ago. It is surely not representative of the current flow conditions of Contentnea
Creek. For instance, in September 1999, during Hurricane Floyd, the newly upgraded
Buckhorn Reservoir was immediately filled to overflowing during this single event.
Since September 1999, the minimum release from Buckhorn Reservoir has continuously
been at least 7.6 cfs with the exception of a very brief period during the drought of 2007-
2008 (please reference enclosed letters from NC-DEB7VR dated 61411991 & Army Corp
of Engineers dated 212111997). Based on this information, the City of Wilson feels that a
modification of the Daily Average limit for Dissolved Oxygen to >6.0 mg1L is justified.
Page 4: In Footnote #2, we request that "U — Upstream at Old Black Creek Road" be changed to
"U — Upstream at Commerce Road". Commerce Road is a side road off of Old Black
Creek Road and is actually closer to our upstream monitoring point. The upstream
sampling location would still be the same, only the descriptive name would change.
Additionally, there is a bridge located on Old Black Creek Road that crosses Contentnea
Creek. That bridge location is downstream of our discharge point. Many years ago, the
City of Wilson did downstream monitoring at the bridge on Old Black Creek Road. We
are requesting this change to hopefully prevent any confusion.
Page 4: We request the removal of Footnote 3 that states:
The monthly average effluent BODs and TSS concentrations shall not exceed
15°%v of the respective influent value (85% removal).
The monthly average limits established in the permit for BOD5 and TSS make this
requirement unnecessary because we would meet it all the time as long as we are meeting
the numerical monthly average limits. Further, the City of Wilson has an excellent
compliance history with each of these parameters and we have no reasonable potential to
exceed the requirement specified in Footnote 3.
Page 4: We request that in Footnote 11, the 90% dilution value be considered for recalculation
based on a new 7Q10 value that will be addressed in a later comment.
Page 7: For Item A.(5.), in the first paragraph, we request that the 90% dilution value be
considered for recalculation based on a new 7Q10 value that will be addressed in a later
comment.
Page 9: For Item A.(6.)d., please confirm that the address for report submittal of "1621 Mail
Service Center" is correct. In our current active permit and also in Item A.(5.) of this
permit, the address is listed as "1623 Mail Service Center".
Page 10: We request that the following text be removed:
Until such time that the state Is eDMR application is compliant with EPA `s
Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), Permittees will be
required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state electronically
using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by
printing, signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the
computer printed eDMR to the following address.
Page 2 of 4

Subject. Comments to Draft NPDES Permit Renewal (NC0023906) October 2, 2020
NC DEQ /Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
This issue has been resolved and we are no longer required to complete the eDMR
submission by printing, signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the
computer printed eDMR.
In addition to the comments provided above for NPDES NC0023906 draft permit, we ask that you also
consider the following comments with regards to the Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit No. NC0023906:
Page 2: In Table 2, "Receiving Waterbody Information", the City of Wilson requests that the
Summer 7Q10 value of 1.3 cfs be reconsidered and modified. While it is not specifically
stated in this Fact Sheet, in the Fact Sheet generated August 2015 for the prior permit
renewal, it was stated:
The flow in Contentnea Creek is regulated by release from the upstream
Wiggins Mill Reservoir. The minimum release is 1.3 cfs and DWR has used
this value as a 7Q10 flow
The first concern is that the value of 13 cfs is incorrect. The absolute minimum required
release is actually 1.4 cfs (please reference enclosed letters from NC-DE117VR dated
61411991 & Army Corp of Engineers dated 212111997). Further, the minimum release of
1.4 cfs would only occur during the most extreme of drought conditions. Wiggins Mill
Reservoir receives a portion of its flow via a regulated release to Contentnea Creek from
Buckhorn Reservoir which is located approximately ten miles upstream. In addition to
the regulated release from Buckhorn Reservoir, the Wiggins Mill Reservoir also receives
flow from all the tributaries to Contentnea Creek that are located between the Buckhom
and Wiggins Mill Reservoirs. In September 1999, during Hurricane Floyd, the recently
upgraded Buckhorn Reservoir was filled to overflowing. Since September 1999, the
minimum release from Buckhorn Reservoir has continuously been at least 7.6 cfs with
the exception of a very brief period during the drought of 2007-2008. North Carolina
experienced the worst documented drought on record during 2007-2008. These records
from NOAA date back more than 125 years to 1895. (Please see enclosed chart titled
"North Carolina Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) "from NOAA National Centers
for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: Statewide Time Series). This would
have to be acknowledged as the ultimate worst case scenario to impact stream flow and
even a 7Q10 value determined from this time frame would actually be a 7Q125 value
(lowest continuous 7 day flow in 125 years). During the last 10 years, the City of Wilson
has maintained a minimum release from Buckhorn Reservoir of at least 7.6 cfs. Utilizing
the value of 7.6 cfs would still be a very conservative 7Q10 to represent minimal flow
within Contentnea Creek for the most recent 10 years. Due to the other tributary flow
received by Contentnea Creek above and below the Wiggins Mill Reservoir, the City of
Wilson is extremely confident that the actual 7Q10 over the past 10 years is significantly
greater than the continuous release of 7.6 cfs provided from Buckhorn Reservoir. Based
upon the information provided, the City of Wilson requests the 7Q10 be increased from
1.3 cfs to at least 7.6 cfs until additional stream flow studies can be completed in the
future that would indicate an even higher 7Q10 value is appropriate. Please also utilize
Page 3 of 4

Subject. Comments to Draft NPDES Permit Renewal (NC0023906) October 2, 2020
the new 7Q 10 value to recalculate any limits issued in this permit that would be impacted
by the increase of the 7Q 10 value.
This City of Wilson greatly appreciates your consideration of these comments and looks forward to
receiving your response. Please contact me at [phone] or via email [e-mail] if
you
you have an uestions or cono'eft or if you need any additional information in regards to this matter.
Sincerely,
A#t
Jimmy INdgen/
Water Reckmition Manager
Eran-y Parks, Director of Water Resources
Paul Calarnita, AquaLaw / NCWQA
Nicholas Eatmon, Operations & Maintenance Supervisor
Laura Pruitt, Water Reclamation Compliance Coordinator
Andrew Mlot, Water Reclamation Chemist
Enclosures: Letter from NC-DEHNR dated 6/4/1991
Letter from Army Corp of Engineers dated 2/21/1997
Chart titled "North Carolina Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSl)"
Page 4 of 4

Coco, Nick A
From: Hill, David A
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 3:47 PM
To: Coco, Nick A
Subject: Fw: USGS response to DWR USGS Low Flows request # 2021-98 (dated 2020110120) for Contentnea
Creek Wilson County ... RE: [EXTERNAL] Low -flow request approval
David Hill
Environmental Specialist II
"Email preferred during this State of Emergency"
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
NPDES Industrial Permitting, Wastewater Branch
919 707 3612 office
919 707 9000 main office
david.hilla-ncdenr.gov
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 3:12 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Barry Parks <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hill, David A <[e-mail]>; Kebede, Adugna <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J
<[e-mail]>; Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>; Weaver, John C
<[e-mail]>
Subject: USGS response to DWR USGS Low Flows request # 2021-98 (dated 2020110120) for Contentnea Creek Wilson
County... RE: [EXTERNAL] Low -flow request approval
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Mr. Pridgen,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for a location on Contentnea Creek
approximately 1,300 feet upstream from U.S. Highway 264 near Wilson in central Wilson County, the following
information is provided:
The point of interest is identified by the lat/long coordinates (35.6775,-77.9138) provided via email dated
10/20/2020 from the DWR USGS Low Flow portal following your request submission. The point of interest is
located approximately 2.2 miles downstream from a discontinued USGS continuous -record streamgage on
Contentnea Creek near Wilson (station id 02090500, NWIS drainage area 236 sgmi, at U.S. Highway 301)
operated from March 1930 through September 1954. This streamgage is located downstream from Wiggins

Mill Reservoir, meaning that low flows in the downstream reach are considered to be affected or "regulated"
by the flow -release characteristics of this impoundment.
The point of interest also is located further downstream from an active USGS continuous -record streamgage
on Contentnea Creek near Lucama (station id 02090380, NWIS drainage area 161 sgmi, upstream from N.C.
Highway 581), with continuous discharge records since September 1964. This streamgage is located
downstream from Buckhorn Reservoir, meaning that low flows in the downstream reach are considered to be
affected or "regulated" by the flow -release characteristics of this impoundment. In 1999, work was
completed on a new dam for Buckhorn Reservoir, resulting in a larger impoundment behind the dam.
No USGS discharge records are known to exist for the point of interest upstream from U.S. Highway 264 near
Wilson.
A basin delineation completed using the online USGS StreamStats application for North Carolina
(https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/) indicates the drainage area for the point of interest (StreamStats adjusted
coordinates 35.67750,-77.91382 NAD83) is 239 sgmi.
For streams in Wilson County, low -flow characteristics published by the USGS are provided in the following
reports:
(1) The first is a statewide report completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, "Low -flow
characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available
at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2403/report.pdf. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data
through 1988) via regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and 400 sgmi and
not considered or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
(2) The second is a basin -wide report for the Neuse River basin published in 1998. It is USGS Water -Resources
Investigations Report 98-4135, "Low -flow characteristics and discharge profiles for selected streams in the Neuse
River basin, North Carolina" (Weaver, 1998). The report is available online at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1998/4135/report.pdf. This report provides low -flow characteristics (based on data
through 1996) for USGS continuous- and partial -record sites in the Neuse River basin where sufficient data was
available for analyses. However, the report does not provide statistical relations for estimating low -flow
characteristics at ungaged locations.
(3) The third is a statewide report published in March 2015. It is USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5001,
"Low -flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics for selected USGS continuous -record streamgaging stations in
North Carolina through 2012" (Weaver, 2015). The report is available online at
http://Pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5001/. The report provides updated low -flow characteristics and flow -duration
statistics for 266 active (as of 2012 water year) and discontinued streamgages across the state where a minimum of
10 climatic years discharge records were available for flow analyses.
Low -flow characteristics estimated for point of interest:
In the (1) absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis as well as (2) absence of
an upstream reservoir, estimates of low -flow characteristics at ungaged locations would be determined by
assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area, or cfsm) at nearby
sites where estimates have previously been determined.

However, there are two reservoir impoundments located upstream from the point of interest. While historical
discharge records are available at streamgages downstream of each reservoir, the streamgage below Wiggins Mill
(station id 02090500) has discharge records from 1930 through 1954. Given the long period of time elapsed since
end of data collection, these records may or may not be appropriate and reasonable for use in determining an
updated estimate at the point of interest. For the record, the most recent published 7Q10 discharge for this
streamgage is listed at 0.3 cfs (Weaver, 2015).
For the purposes of response, it was judged not to use these discharge records (station id 02090500) as part of the
updated low -flow determination. It was judged to use (part 1) the discharge records at the upstream Lucama
streamgage (station id 02090380) to determine updated low -flow discharges to be added to (part 2) the estimated
low -flow characteristics for the intervening drainage area between this streamgage and the point of
interest. Please note the estimates provided below do not account for the presence of Wiggins Mill Reservoir
located upstream from the point of interest.
(Part 1 of 2) Estimated low -flow characteristics (provisional) at upstream Sta. 02090380 Contentnea Creek near
Lucama (downstream from Buckhorn Reservoir:
Provisional low -flow analyses were completed for the upstream Lucama streamgage (station id 02090380) below
Buckhorn Reservoir using the period of analysis 2000-2019 climatic years. This period was selected on the basis of
completion of new dam for the reservoir that resulted in a larger impoundment behind the structure. Information
received during the analyses indicates the current minimum -release schedule used at Buckhorn Reservoir went
into effect at the time the impoundment was opened in 1999, relative to the release schedule that was in effect for
the smaller Buckhorn Reservoir previous to the expansion. This information is referenced to emails dated October
20, 2020, from Mr. Jimmy Pridgen and dated November 17, 2020, from Mr. Barry Parks (both with City of Wilson
who owns and operates the reservoir).
The period of analysis includes some major drought periods (drought ending in 2002, 2007-08) as well as some
above -normal periods. Analyses indicate some of the highest annual 7-day average streamflows in recent
years, during which the values during 3 climatic years (2013, 2014, and 2018 climatic years) since 2011 (last
climatic year used for most recent published value) are among the top 5 ranked values since the begin period
of analysis.
Provisional low -flow analyses completed for the 2000-2019 climatic years are as follows:
Annual 7Q10
= 2.3 cfs (with 95% confidence intervals between 0.46 and 4.7 cfs)
Annual 30Q2
= 21.2 cfs (with 95% confidence intervals between 12.9 and 29.0 cfs)
Winter 7Q10
= 3.6 cfs (with 95% confidence intervals between 0.5 and 8.6 cfs)
Annual 7Q2 =
12.5 cfs (with 95% confidence intervals between 6.4 and 19.3 cfs)
Annual average discharge = 144 cfs (period of record 01/01/2000 through 11/02/2020 provisional)
Internal notes, for follow-up as needed:
Provisional analyses completed 11-06-2020 using the USGS SW Toolbox (version 1.0.2)
Internal note: Output files available in C: �USGS-SW�data �03020203�Sta 02090380
Note: The climatic year is the standard annual period used in low -flow analyses completed for continuous -
record streamgages. The annual period runs from April 1 through March 31 and is designated by the year in
which the period begins. For example, the 2019 climatic year is from April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020.

(Part 2 of 2) Intervening drainage area between Sta. 02090380 and the point of interest:
The intervening drainage between Sta. 02090380 and the point of interest is computed at 78 sgmi (239 minus 161
sgmi).
Inspection of the above -referenced reports indicates the presence of fourteen (14) nearby
selected USGS partial -record sites (13) and continuous -record streamgages (1) across Wilson County and
adjacent parts of eastern Johnston County and southern Nash County (in the general vicinity of the point of
interest) where low -flow characteristics were published. Among these 14 index sites, the low -flow discharge
yields for the indicated flow statistics are as follows:
Annual 7Q10 low -flow yields ==> from 0 to 0.14 cfsm (average about 0.018 cfsm, median about 0 cfsm) (with zero
flow 7Q10 at 8 of 14 index sites)
Annual 30Q2 low -flow yields ==> from 0 to 0.24 cfsm (average about 0.055 cfsm, median about 0.026 cfsm) (with
zero flow 30Q2 at 3 of 14 index sites)
Winter 7Q10 low -flow yields ==> from 0 to 0.16 cfsm (average about 0.038 cfsm, median about 0.011 cfsm) (with
zero flow W7Q10 at 4 of 14 index sites)
Annual 7Q2 low -flow yields ==> from 0 to 0.19 cfsm (average about 0.036 cfsm, median about 0.0059 cfsm) (with
zero flow 7Q2 at 4 of 14 index sites)
Average annual discharge yields ==> from 1.1 to 1.1 cfsm (both average and median about 1.1 cfsm)
Application of the above range in yields to the intervening drainage area (78 sgmi) for the point of interest
results in the following estimated low -flow discharges:
Annual 7Q10 low -flow discharges ==> from 0 to 10.9 cfs (average about 1.4 cfs, median about 0 cfs)
Annual 30Q2 low -flow discharges ==> from 0 to 18.7 cfs (average about 4.3 cfs, median about 2 cfs)
Winter 7Q10 low -flow discharges ==> from 0 to 12.5 cfs (average about 3 cfs, median about 0.86 cfs)
Annual 7Q2 low -flow discharges ==> from 0 to 14.8 cfs (average about 2.8 cfs, median about 0.46 cfs)
Average annual discharge discharges ==> from 85.8 to 85.8 cfs (both average and median about 85.8 cfs)
SUMMATION for estimated low -flow discharges at the point of interest:
The low -flow characteristics shown below for the point of interest are estimated as the summation of the
provisional low -flow discharges for Sta. 02090380 and the intervening drainage area. As there is a wide range
in low -flow yields for the intervening drainage area (due to the varying number of index sites with zero flow
low -flow statistics), it is judged appropriate and reasonable to apply the median values of low -flow discharges
for the intervening drainage areas. The low -flow discharges for the upstream streamgage (02090380) are
applied without use of the confidence intervals.
Flow statistic
Sta.
02090380
Intervening area (median flow
statistic)
Estimated flow
total
Annual 7Q10 discharge (cfs)
2.3
0
2.3
Annual 30Q2 discharge (cfs)
21.2
2
23.2
Winter 7Q10 discharge (cfs)
3.6
0.86
4.46

Annual 7Q2 discharge (cfs) 12.5 0.46 13.0
Annual average discharge 144 85.8 230
(cfs)
Please note:
(1) Because of the wide range in low -flow yields for the nearby index sites that were used to estimate the low -
flow characteristics for the intervening drainage area, there is a low level of confidence in the above values for
the intervening drainage area. In particular, it should be noted the above average yields are affected by the
high yield values at two of the index sites (partial record site 02090720 and continuous -record streamgage
02090625) relative to the range of the remaining index sites. This accounts for the large differences in the
average and median yields shown above for the intervening drainage area.
(2) There also in uncertainty in the understanding of the effects that Wiggins Mills Reservoir has on low flows
in Contentnea Creek. While recent streamflow data is available for Contentnea Creek downstream from
Buckhorn Reservoir, there has been no discharge records collected for this stream since 1954 downstream of
Wiggins Mill Reservoir. As such, consideration should be given to re -activating the streamgage (station id
02090500) with the goal of re-establishing long-term records. The availability of suitable short-term records
could lend itself towards future low -flow analyses based on partial -record site techniques pending the
collection of sufficient records where techniques applicable to a continuous -record streamgage would be
warranted.
(3) Please also note that additional period of record at the upstream Lucama streamgage could result in lower
estimated low -flow characteristics at the streamgage. As noted above, recent annual minimum streamflows
used in low -flow analyses reflected several years of above -normal conditions. As the period of record
lengthens to include possible normal or below -normal periods, it is likely that future low -flow analyses would
result in lower values than those shown above. Again, this values should be considered provisional pending
further data collections and(or) analyses.
(4) The estimated flows are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
(5) The low -flow yields provided above are rounded to 2 significant figures. Estimated low -flow discharges less
than 1 cfs are rounded to 2 significant figures. If between 1 and 100 cfs, then rounded to 1 decimal place; if
greater than 100, then rounded to the nearest whole number (zero decimal places).
(6) The information provided in this message is based on a preliminary assessment and considered
provisional, subject to revision pending collection of future data and further analyses.
These provisional streamflow statistics are provided via the DWR USGS Low Flows cooperative agreement
between the USGS and the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: [e-mail]
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: httns://www.usas.aov/centers/sa-water

North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone. [phone] // Fax. [phone]
From: Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:34 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>; Hill, David A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Low -flow request approval
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding.
Your request has been approved and will be forwarded to USGS. A response from USGS usually takes 7 - 10 business
days.
Request Flow Statistic Approval
Request ID: 98
Requestor: Jimmy Pridgen - City of Wilson, Water Reclamation Manager
Requestor e-mail: [e-mail]
Requestor Phone: [phone]
Local Government: NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting - NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Public Water Supply:
Consultant:
Contact: Nicholas A. Coco, El
Reason: Permit
River/Stream: Neuse River / Contentnea Creek
Drainage Area (sq. mi.): 236
Latitude: 35.6775
Longitude: 77.9138
Other Information: Coordinates provided above are for Hominy Creek WWTP Effluent discharge. Nearest stream gauge
is located at "USGS 02090500 CONTENTNEA CREEK NEAR WILSON, NC", Latitude 35°41'10", Longitude 77°56'50",
NAD27, Wilson County, North Carolina, Hydrologic Unit 03020203. However, the data is extremely outdated. Would like

consideration of data from "USGS 02090380 CONTENTNEA CREEK NEAR LUCAMA, NC", Latitude 35°41'28", Longitude
78°06'35", NAD83, Wilson County, North Carolina, Hydrologic Unit 03020203. 1 believe the nearest representative
hydrologic unit is: 030202030404.
Statististics: ["7Q10"]
Approved by: Albertin, Klaus P

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARfv1Y - `
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
February 21, 1997
W REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199401973
Mr. Charles W. Pittman
Deputy City Manager
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894
Dear Mr. Pittman:
In accordance with your written request of March 1, 1994, and the ensuing
administrative record, enclosed is a permit to place dredged or fill material
into Contentnea Creek approximately 600 feet downstream of the existing Buckhorn
dam in order to expand the Buckhorn Reservoir from 740 acres to 2303 acres.
If any change in the authorized work is required because of unforeseen or
altered conditions or for any other reason, the plans revised to show the change
must be sent promptly to this office. Such action is necessary, as revised plans
must be reviewed and the permit modified.
Carefully read your permit. The general and special conditions are
important. Your failure to comply with these conditions could result in a
violation of Federal law. Certain significant general conditions require that:
a. You must complete construction before December 31, 2002.
b. You must notify this office in advance as to when you intend to commence
and complete work.
C. You must allow representatives from this office to make periodic visits
to your worksite as deemed necessary to assure compliance with permit plans and
conditions.
The enclosed Notice of Authorization, ENG Form 4336, must be conspicuously
displayed at your worksite.
Sinctotely
Te>;ry )t. YQ1#ngbluth
coloTk4 .,, LT, 5 . Arm
00ineer
Enclosures

- 4-
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses of it because of other
permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses of it because of current or
future Federal activities initiated for the public.
c. Damages to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures
caused by the authorized activity.
d. Design and construction deficiencies associated with the petted
work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or
revocation of this permit.
10. Minimum flow discharges from the dam will be in accordance with the
requirements of the Korth Carolina Division of Water Resources' letter dated
June 4, 1991, to Mr. Robert Berndt (see Draft EIS, Appendix C, page C--17).

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary June 4, 1991
Mr. Robert A. Berndt, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 Westchase Blvd., Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Berndt:
John N. Morris
Director
We have reviewed your plans for the operation of the
proposed Buckhorn Reservoir expansion to provide additional water
supply storage for the City of Wilson. One of the primary
concerns of this Division is the operation of the proposed
project and its effects on do:wnstream flows and the related uses
of these flows.
We have no objections to the project if its operating
criteria are similar to those described in your May 22, 1990
letter to me. Project operations should include the following
conditions:
1. Stage one: An instantaneous minimum flow of
7.6.cfs (4.9 MGD) is released from the dam as
long as reservoir storage is greater than
70 percent of full capacity.
2. State two: An instantaneous minimum flow of
5.3 cfs (3.4 MGD) is released from.the dam when
reservoir storage is less than or equal to
70 percent of full capacity.
3. State three: An instantaneous minimum flow -of
1.4 cfs (0.9 MGD), the estimated 7Q10, is released
from the reservoir when reservoir storage is at or
below 50 percent of full capacity.
4. The minimum flows released from Buckhorn Reservoir
will be passed through Wiggins Mill Reservoir such
that the instantaneous minimum release from Wiggins
Mill will be the same or greater than the release
from Buckhorn Reservoir.
C-17
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7697 Telephone [phone]
An Equal OPportunity Affirmative Action Employer

5. The locations of the staff gages and their ratings
or gage heights corresponding to the minimum
release values shoulr?. be provided to the Division
of Water Resources. The gages should be calibrated
at least every two years with calibration details
provided to this Division.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) should include the
actual elevations of the 70 and 50 percent full reservoir
capacity "trigger points." Provisions for monitoring the minimum
flow and reservoir level with staff gages should also be
described in the EA. Staff gages should be placed immediately
downstream of Buckhorn and Wiggins Mill Reservoirs and reservoir
levels recorded for Buckhorn. The document should include the
City of Wilson's water conservation plan. This plan should
describe the wat,r�r conservation measures the City will implement
a- each s'-age of the operating plan as defined above.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
Steven E. Reed
Environmental Supervisor
SER/va
cc: John Wray, DWR
Woody Yonts, DWR
William P. Bartlett, City of Wilson
Don Cordell, Hazen & Sawyer
C-18

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/31/pdsi/all/1/1895-
2020?base prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&filter=true&filterTvpe=binomial
North Carolina Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDS0
6.00
4.00
0.00
-2.00
rr
-6,00 -1—
Jan 1895
Sep 1911 May 1929 Jan 1945 Sep 1961 May 1978 Jan 1995
Binomial Filter
4.00
# it
ADD I
—1-5, D6
Aug 2020
• NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: Statewide Time Series, published September 2020,
retrieved on October 1, 2020 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

TheWilsonTimesCo.
126 Nash St. NE * PO Box 2447
Wilson, North Carolina
27893
State of North Carolina } SS
COUNTY OF WILSON
Y
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission/NP-
DES unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276MI617
Notice of Intent to issue a NP-
DES Wastewater Permit
NCO023906 Wilson WWTP
The North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission pro-
poses to issue a NPDES wastewa-
ter discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below. Written
comments regarding the proposed
permit will be accepted until 30
days after the publish date of this
notice. The Director of the NC Divi-
sion of Water Resources (DWR)
may hold a public hearing should
there be a significant degree of
public interest. Please mail com-
ments and/or information requests
to DWR at the above address. in-
terested persons may visit the
DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC to review information
on file. Additional information on
NPDES permits and this notice
may be found on our website
http:/ldeq. nc.gov/about/divisionsAv
ater-resources/water-resources-
permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater/public-notices,or by
calling [phone]. The City of
Wilson requested renewal of per-
mit NCO023906 for its Hominy
Creek Water Reclamation
Facility/Wilson County. Facility
discharges to Contentnea
Creek/Meuse River Basin. Cur-
rently BOD, fecal coliform, total re-
sidual chlorine, ammonia nitrogen
d total nitrogen are water qual-
ity limited.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State,
duty commissioned, qualified, and authorized bylaw to administer oaths,
personally appeared
,., /! , Cn n ` , SJ f%� , who being first duly
sworn, deposes and says: that he (she) is
15 P
(Publisher, Associate Publisher, or f er Officer or Employle Authorized to Make This Affidavit)
of The Wilson Times Co. Inc., engaged in the publication of a newspaper
known as The Wilson Times pu.b➢ished, issued, and entered as second class
mail in the City of Wilson, NC, in said County and State; that he (she) is
authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other
legal advertisements, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in
The Wilson Times on the following dates:
l,
a d:haf tlkc .. a ...:TE�•:.i .. ia w h-ch.ot. c i ¢t'Yi,
advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every such
publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of
Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of section 1-597 of the General Statutes of
North Carolina. _
This day of lrk_-2-( 26 tllairF�a
- (sigma ure Fd person taking affZ a o rq +-
+ � 4
(No j Public) C� 1
My commission expires: _ i - a3 a 3 +'•R 4 COUVI
��r�Ifill%%%

Permit No. NC0023906
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/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* 11.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} eA10.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} of 0.9151[In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* {1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.7001
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.7021
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-1.4601
Lead, Chronic
WER* {1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e-10.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO023906
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e-10.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO023906
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 - I
Ctotal I + f [Kpo] [ss(i+a)] [10 6]
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (le. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwgs) - (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQIO = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0023906
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
42.21
Average from DAM data 2016 -
2020
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
19.79
Average from DAM data 2016 -
2020
7Q10 summer (cfs)
2.30
NPDES Files, 2020 USGS data
1Q10 (cfs)
1.93
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
14.0
NPDES Files
Date
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Hominy Creek WRF
PermitNo. NC0023906
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 14
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 2.3
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 4.46
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
2.3
s7Q10 (CFS)
2.3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
14
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
14
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
21.7
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
21.7
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
90.42
IWC (%)
90.42
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
19
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.1
Less stringent than current permit limit.
Maintain limit.
Consistent with current permit limit. Maintain
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
4.46
Monthly Average Limit:
2001100-
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
14
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
21.7
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.11
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
82.95
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.1
Consistent with current permit limit. Maintain
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

12/10/20 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name
Hominy Creek WRF/NC0023906
/Permit No.
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
No Limit Required
No MMP Required
7Q10s = 2.300 cfs WQBEL = 13.27 ng/L
Permitted Flow = 14.000 47 ng/L
2/2/16
<
0.5
0.5
5/9/16
<
0.5
0.5
8/9/16
<
0.5
0.5
11/1/16
<
0.5
0.5
0.5 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2016
2/6/17
<
0.5
0.5
5/16/17
<
0.5
0.5
8/1/17
<
0.5
0.5
10/31/17
<
0.5
0.5
0.5 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2017
2/7/18
0.52
0.52
5/9/18
<
0.5
0.5
8/6/18
<
0.5
0.5
11/6/18
<
0.5
0.5
0.5 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2018
2/5/19
0.569
0.569
5/9/19
0.763
0.763
8/5/19
0.705
0.705
11/12/19
<
0.5
0.5
0.6 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2019
2/4/20
0.647
0.647
5/12/20
6.14
6.14
3.4 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2020

Hominy Creek WRF/NC0023906
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
4
4
4
4
Annual Average, ng/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.63
Maximum Value, ng/L
0.50
0.50
0.52
0.763
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
13.3
2020
3.3935
6.14

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
ad REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTPMTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Hominy Creek WRF
IV
NCO023906
001
14.000
Hominy Creek
03020203
C-Sw; N S W
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
2.300
4.46
23.20
230.00
1.93
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness _ _ _
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
42.21 mg/L (Avg)
_ _ _ _ _ _ 19.79 mg/L (Avg)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40_06 mg/L
40_38 mg/L
Data Source(s)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Bromodichloromethane based on EPA Nationally
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWCA).
Note: While chloroform was detected in the effluent
pollutant scans submitted by the Permittee, reported
levels were significantly less than the EPA NRWCA
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par060
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name was Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.8426
FW
4.9236
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
173.2392
FW
1340.4302
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
11.7919
FW
16.4529
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
4.9909
FW
129.2075
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
55.4866
FW
502.9148
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.6762
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
188.9894
FW
188.7136
ug/L
Bromodichloromethane
Human Health
C
27
HH
pg/L
23906 RPA, input
12/10/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
H2
Par01 & Par02
Par03
Effluent Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY". Maximum data
Upstream Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY". Maximum data
Arsenic
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -Values" then
"COPY"
Beryllium
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -Values" then
"COPY"
points = 58
points = 58
. Maximum data points = 58
. Maximum data points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/2/2016
45
45
Std Dev.
2.7294
1
2/2/2016
20
20
Std Dev.
2.7241
1
2/2/2016
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
11/17/2015 <
0.1
0.05
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
8/9/2016
44
44
Mean
42.2133
2
5/5/2016
21.6
21.6
Mean
19.7933
2
5/3/2016
<
10
5
Mean
5.0000
2
8/9/2016 <
0.1
0.05
Mean
0.0500
3
11/1/2016
42
42
C.V.
0.0647
3
8/9/2016
25
25
C.V.
0.1376
3
8/9/2016
<
10
5
C.V.
0.0000
3
5/15/2017 <
0.1
0.05
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
2/7/2017
39
39
n
15
4
11 /1 /2016
26
26
n
15
4
11 /1 /2016
<
10
5
n
19
4
2/6/2018 <
0.1
0.05
n
4
5
5/16/2017
41
41
10th Per value
38.88 mg/L
5
2/7/2017
17
17
10th Per value
17.36 mg/L
5
2/7/2017
<
10
5
5
6
2/6/2018
38.8
38.8
Average Value
42.21 mg/L
6
5/16/2017
18
18
Average Value
19.79 mg/L
6
5/16/2017
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
Mult Factor =
2.59
7
8/7/2018
41.9
41.9
Max. Value
46.60 mg/L
7
2/6/2018
18.2
18.2
Max. Value
26.00 mg/L
7
8/1/2017
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
0.05 ug/L
8
11/6/2018
43.6
43.6
8
8/7/2018
19.5
19.5
8
11/30/2017
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
0.13 ug/L
9
2/5/2019
38.1
38.1
9
11 /6/2018
18.2
18.2
9
2/6/2018
<
10
5
9
10
5/9/2019
39.4
39.4
10
2/4/2019
17.9
17.9
10
5/8/2018
<
10
5
10
11
6/25/2019
46.6
46.6
11
6/25/2019
21.1
21.1
11
8/7/2018
<
10
5
11
12
8/6/2019
46.5
46.5
12
8/6/2019
16.6
16.6
12
11 /6/2018
<
10
5
12
13
11/12/2019
43.9
43.9
13
11/12/2019
18.1
18.1
13
2/5/2019
<
10
5
13
14
2/4/2020
40.7
40.7
14
2/4/2020
20.3
20.3
14
5/9/2019
<
10
5
14
15
5/12/2020
42.7
42.7
15
5/12/2020
19.4
19.4
15
6/24/2019
<
10
5
15
16
16
16
8/6/2019
<
10
5
16
17
17
17
11/12/2019
<
10
5
17
18
18
18
2/4/2020
<
10
5
18
19
19
19
5/12/2020
<
10
5
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
23906 RPA, data
- 1 - 8/11/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Par05
Par07
Par10
Cadmium
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -Values" then
"COPY"
Chlorides
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -Values" then
"COPY".
Total Phenolic Compounds
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY" . Maximum data
Chromium, Total
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
. Maximum data points = 58
Maximum data points = 58
points = 58
Maximum data points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/2/2016
<
0.2
0.1
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
2/2/2016
40
40
Std Dev.
10.2544
1
11/17/2015 28
28
Std Dev.
9.7767
1
2/2/2016
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
5/3/2016
<
0.2
0.1
Mean
0.1000
2
5/3/2016
42
42
Mean
47.7
2
8/9/2016 13
13
Mean
14.2500
2
5/3/2016
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.5000
3
8/9/2016
<
0.2
0.1
C.V.
0.0000
3
8/9/2016
56
56
C.V.
0.2149
3
5/15/2017 < 10
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
8/9/2016
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.0000
4
11/1/2016
<
0.2
0.1
n
19
4
11/1/2016
46
46
n
18
4
2/6/2018 11
11
n
4
4
11/1/2016
<
5
2.5
n
19
5
2/7/2017
<
0.2
0.1
5
2/7/2017
47
47
5
5
2/7/2017
<
5
2.5
6
5/16/2017
<
0.2
0.1
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
5/16/2017
38
38
Mult Factor =
1.1
6
Mult Factor =
2.59
6
5/16/2017
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.00
7
8/1/2017
<
0.2
0.1
Max. Value
0.100 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
44
44
Max. Value
75.0 mg/L
7
Max. Value
28.0 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 pg/L
8
11/30/2017
<
0.2
0.1
Max. Pred Cw
0.100 ug/L
8
10/31/2017
55
55
Max. Pred Cw
85.5 mg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
72.5 ug/L
8
11/30/2017
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.5 pg/L
9
2/6/2018
<
0.2
0.1
9
2/6/2018
28
28
9
9
2/6/2018
<
5
2.5
10
5/8/2018
<
0.2
0.1
10
5/8/2018
51
51
10
10
5/8/2018
<
5
2.5
11
8/7/2018
<
0.2
0.1
11
8/7/2018
40
40
11
11
8/7/2018
<
5
2.5
12
11 /6/2018
<
0.2
0.1
12
11 /6/2018
75
75
12
12
11 /6/2018
<
5
2.5
13
2/5/2019
<
0.2
0.1
13
2/5/2019
43
43
13
13
2/5/2019
<
5
2.5
14
5/9/2019
<
0.2
0.1
14
5/6/2019
49
49
14
14
5/9/2019
<
5
2.5
15
6/24/2019
<
0.2
0.1
15
8/6/2019
53
53
15
15
6/24/2019
<
5
2.5
16
8/6/2019
<
0.2
0.1
16
11/15/2019
60
60
16
16
8/6/2019
<
5
2.5
17
11/12/2019
<
0.2
0.1
17
2/4/2020
41
41
17
17
11/12/2019
<
5
2.5
18
2/4/2020
<
0.2
0.1
18
5/12/2020
51
51
18
18
2/4/2020
<
5
2.5
19
5/12/2020
<
0.2
0.1
19
19
19
5/12/2020
<
5
2.5
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
23906 RPA, data
-2- 8/11/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal 1
Use "PASTE
Par12
Par14
Use "PASTE
Parl6
Use "PASTE
Par17 & Par18
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
SPECIAL -Values"
SPECIAL -Values"
SPECIAL -Values"
Copper
then "COPY" .
Cyanide
Values" then "COPY"
Lead
then "COPY" .
Molybdenum
then "COPY" .
Nickel
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
. Maximum data
Maximum data
Maximum data
Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
points = 58
points = 58
points = 58
Date
Data BDL=1/2D1
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
2/2/2016
<
2
1
Std Dev.
0.5748
1
2/2/2016
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
2/2/2016
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
2/2/2016
< 1
0.5
Std Dev.
1.4337
1
2/2/2016
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
5/3/2016
<
2
1
Mean
1.1579
2
5/3/2016
<
10
5
Mean
5.00
2
5/3/2016
<
10
5
Mean
5.0000
2
5/3/2016
4
4
Mean
2.3389
2
5/3/2016
<
10
5
Mean
5.0000
3
8/9/2016
<
2
1
C.V.
0.4964
3
8/9/2016
<
10
5
C.V.
0.0000
3
8/9/2016
<
10
5
C.V.
0.0000
3
8/9/2016
6
6
C.V.
0.6130
3
8/9/2016
<
10
5
C.V.
0.0000
4
11/1/2016
2
2
n
19
4
11/1/2016
<
10
5
n
19
4
11/1/2016
<
10
5
n
19
4
11/1/2016
3
3
n
18
4
11/1/2016
<
10
5
n
19
5
2/7/2017
<
2
1
5
2/7/2017
<
10
5
5
2/7/2017
<
10
5
5
2/7/2017
< 1
0.5
5
2/7/2017
<
10
5
6
5/16/2017
2
2
Mult Factor =
1.32
6
5/16/2017
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
5/16/2017
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
5/16/2017
1
1
Mult Factor =
1.42
6
5/16/2017
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.00
7
8/1/2017
<
2
1
Max. Value
2.90 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.000 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
2
2
Max. Value
6.0 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 pg/L
8
11/30/2017
<
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
3.83 ug/L
8
10/31/2017
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
8
11/30/2017
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.000 ug/L
8
10/31/2017
2
2
Max. Pred Cw
8.5 ug/L
8
11/30/2017
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 pg/L
9
2/6/2018
<
2
1
9
2/6/2018
<
10
5
9
2/6/2018
<
10
5
9
2/6/2018
1
1
9
2/6/2018
<
10
5
10
5/8/2018
<
2
1
10
5/8/2018
<
10
5
10
5/8/2018
<
10
5
10
5/8/2018
3
3
10
5/8/2018
<
10
5
11
8/7/2018
<
2
1
11
8/7/2018
<
10
5
11
8/7/2018
<
10
5
11
8/7/2018
2.4
2.4
11
8/7/2018
<
10
5
12
11 /6/2018
<
2
1
12
11 /6/2018
<
10
5
12
11 /6/2018
<
10
5
12
11 /6/2018
4.4
4.4
12
11 /6/2018
<
10
5
13
2/5/2019
<
2
1
13
2/5/2019
<
10
5
13
2/5/2019
<
10
5
13
2/5/2019
1.1
1.1
13
2/5/2019
<
10
5
14
5/9/2019
<
2
1
14
5/9/2019
<
10
5
14
5/9/2019
<
10
5
14
6/24/2019
2.2
2.2
14
5/9/2019
<
10
5
15
6/24/2019
<
2
1
15
6/24/2019
<
10
5
15
6/24/2019
<
10
5
15
8/6/2019
2.7
2.7
15
6/24/2019
<
10
5
16
8/6/2019
2.9
2.9
16
8/6/2019
<
10
5
16
8/6/2019
<
10
5
16
11/12/2019
2.6
2.6
16
8/6/2019
<
10
5
17
11/12/2019
<
2
1
17
11/12/2019
<
10
5
17
11/12/2019
<
10
5
17
2/4/2020
1.2
1.2
17
11/12/2019
<
10
5
18
2/4/2020
<
2
1
18
2/4/2020
<
10
5
18
2/4/2020
<
10
5
18
5/12/2020
2.5
2.5
18
2/4/2020
<
10
5
19
5/12/2020
<
0.2
0.1
19
5/12/2020
<
5
5
19
5/12/2020
<
10
5
19
19
5/12/2020
<
10
5
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
58
23906 RPA, data
-3- 8/11/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Parl9
use "PASTE
Par20
Par21
Par22
SPECIAL -Values"
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Selenium
then "COPY" .
Silver
Values" then "COPY" .
Zinc
Values" then "COPY"
Bromodichloromethane
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
= 58
= 58
points = 58
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/2/2016
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
2/2/2016
<
5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
2/2/2016
11
11
Std Dev.
5.8440
1
2/2/2016
<
2
1
Std Dev.
1.3365
2
5/3/2016
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.5000
2
5/3/2016
<
5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
2
5/3/2016
15
15
Mean
16.6053
2
5/3/2016
3.4
3.4
Mean
2.3833
3
8/9/2016
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.0000
3
8/9/2016
<
5 2.5
C.V.
0.0000
3
8/9/2016
23
23
C.V.
0.3519
3
8/9/2016
2.7
2.7
C.V.
0.5608
4
11/1/2016
<
5
2.5
n
19
4
11/1/2016
<
5 2.5
n
19
4
11/1/2016
19
19
n
19
4
11/1/2016
<
2
1
n
18
5
2/7/2017
<
5
2.5
5
2/7/2017
<
5 2.5
5
2/7/2017
16
16
5
2/7/2017
3.7
3.7
6
5/16/2017
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
5/16/2017
<
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
5/16/2017
16
16
Mult Factor =
1.22
6
5/16/2017
3.1
3.1
Mult Factor =
1.38
7
8/1/2017
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
<
5 2.5
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
17
17
Max. Value
26.9 ug/L
7
8/1/2017
2.4
2.4
Max. Value
5.000000 pg/L
8
11/30/2017
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.5 ug/L
8
11/30/2017
<
5 2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.500 ug/L
8
11/30/2017
19
19
Max. Pred Cw
32.8 ug/L
8
10/31/2017
3
3
Max. Pred Cw
6.900000 pg/L
9
2/6/2018
<
5
2.5
9
2/6/2018
<
5 2.5
9
2/6/2018
25
25
9
2/6/2018
<
2
1
10
5/8/2018
<
5
2.5
10
5/8/2018
<
5 2.5
10
5/8/2018
13
13
10
5/8/2018
<
2
1
11
8/7/2018
<
5
2.5
11
8/7/2018
<
5 2.5
11
8/7/2018
13
13
11
8/7/2018
<
2
1
12
11 /6/2018
<
5
2.5
12
11 /6/2018
<
5 2.5
12
11 /6/2018
18.4
18.4
12
11 /6/2018
<
2
1
13
2/5/2019
<
5
2.5
13
2/5/2019
<
5 2.5
13
2/5/2019
16.3
16.3
13
2/5/2019
3.1
3.1
14
5/9/2019
<
5
2.5
14
5/9/2019
<
5 2.5
14
5/9/2019
16
16
14
5/28/2019
4.8
4.8
15
6/24/2019
<
5 2.5
15
6/24/2019
<
5 2.5
15
6/24/2019
26.9
26.9
15
8/6/2019
5
5
16
8/6/2019
<
5 2.5
16
8/6/2019
<
5 2.5
16
8/6/2019
17.1
17.1
16
11/12/2019
2.4
2.4
17
11/12/2019
<
5 2.5
17
11/12/2019
<
5 2.5
17
11/12/2019
23.8
23.8
17
2/4/2020
<
2
1
18
2/4/2020
<
5 2.5
18
2/4/2020
<
5 2.5
18
2/4/2020
< 10
5
18
5/12/2020
2.3
2.3
19
5/12/2020
<
5 2.5
19
5/12/2020
<
5 2.5
19
5/12/2020
< 10
5
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
23906 RPA, data
-4- 8/11/2020

Hominy Creek WRF
NCO023906 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
14.0000
WWTP/WTP Class:
IV
1Ql0S (cfs) =
1.93
IWC% @ 1Ql0S =
91.83241642
7Q10S (cfs) =
2.30
IWC% @ 7Q10S =
90.41666667
7QIOW (cfs) =
4.46
IWC% @ 7Q10W =
82.95107034
30Q2 (cfs) =
23.20
1WC% @ 30Q2 =
48.32962138
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
230.00
IW%C @ QA =
8.621374652
Receiving Stream:
Hominy Creek HUC 03020203
Stream Class:
C-Sw;NSW
Outfall 001
Qw = 14 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 40.38 mg/L
Chronic = 40.06 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
co
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
Chronic Standard Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 370.2
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
ug/L
-----------------------------------------------
19 0
5.0
Chronic (FW): 165.9
Max _MDL = 10
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
NO DETECTS
Chronic (HH) 116.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 70.78
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q1 Os) 65
ug/L
4 0
0.13
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 7.19
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 0.1
Monitoring required
Acute: 5.361
Cadmium
NC
0.8426 FW(7Q10s) 4.9236
ug/L
19 0
0.100
___ _ --------------------------------------
Chronic: 0.932
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS'
Max MDL = 0.2
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
230 FW(7Q1 Os)
mg/L
18 18
85.5
Chronic: 254.4
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
4 3
72.5
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 620.7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 1,459.6
Chromium III
NC
173.2392 FW(7QlOs) 1340.4302
µg/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic: -----191.E---
---------------------------
Acute: 17.4
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7QlOs) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic: ----- 12.2 ---
---------------------------
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
19 0
2.5
Max reported value = 2.5
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
NO DETECTS'
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 17.92
Copper
NC
11.7919 FW(7Q1 Os) 16.4529
ug/L
19 3
3.83
Chronic: 13.04
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
23906 RPA, rpa
12/10/2020

Hominy Creek WRF
NCOO239O6
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 14 MGD
Acute: 24.0
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7QlOs) 22
10
ug/L
19 0
5.0____
Chronic: 5.5
No RP; All values < 10 ug/L - No Monitoring required
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 140.699
Lead
NC
4.9909 FW(7QlOs) 129.2075
ug/L
19 0
5.000
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 5.520
All values < 10 ug/L - No Monitoring required;
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Permittee shall report to PQL of at most 5 ug/L.
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q1 Os)
ug/L
18 16
8.5
Chronic: 2,212.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 547.6
Nickel
NC
55.4866 FW(7QlOs) 502.9148
µg/L
19 0
5.0
_ _ _ _____ ____
Chronic (FW) 61.4
___________________________
Max = 10
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
NO DETECTS
_MDL
Chronic (WS) 27.6
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 61.0
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q1 Os) 56
ug/L
19 0
2.5
Chronic: 5.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Monitoring required
Acute: 0.736
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7QlOs) 0.6762
ug/L
19 0
2.500
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 0.066
All values < 5 ug/L - No Monitoring required;
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Permittee shall report to PQL of at most 1 ug/L.
Acute: 205.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
188.9894 FW(7QlOs) 188.7136
ug/L
19 17
32.8
Monitoring required
--Chronic: - — - — - — - — - — -
209.0
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
No value > Allowable Cw
23906 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 12/10/2020

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Hominy Creek WRF
Permit No.
NC0023906
Review period (use
6/2017 - 6/2020
3 yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOS
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance
report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
# of non -
Weekly
Monthly
3-yr mean
# daily
# daily
Reduce
50%
200%
200%
monthly
# civil penalty
Data Review
Units
average
average
(geo mean
< 50%?
samples
<15?
samples
< 20?
limit
> 2?
> 1?
Frequency?
limit
limit
MA
for FC)
MA
>200%
WA
>200%
asessment
(Yes/No)
violations
BOD (summer)
mg/L
7.5
5
2.5
1.9720682
Y
10
2
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
BOD (winter)
mg/L
15
10
5
1.2376947
Y
20
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
0.5805653
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (summer)
mg/L
3
1
0.5
0.0504888
Y
2
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (winter)
mg/L
6
2
1
0.0764486
Y
4
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400
200
100
2.0747976
Y
800 2 Y
0
N
0
N
Y

NCO023906
Hominy Creek WRF
8/11/2020
BOD
monthly removal rate
TSS
monthly
removal rate
Month
RR (%)
Month
RR (%)
Month
RR (%)
Month
RR (%)
February-16
98.14
August-18
98.68
February-16
98.59
August-18
99.11
March-16
98.75
September-18
98.66
March-16
98.95
September-18
98.54
April-16
98.68
October-18
98.91
April-16
98.78
October-18
98.98
May-16
97.89
November-18
99.00
May-16
98.70
November-18
99.06
June-16
98.32
December-18
98.70
June-16
98.80
December-18
98.64
July-16
98.34
January-19
98.55
July-16
98.59
January-19
98.59
August-16
98.74
February-19
98.53
August-16
98.76
February-19
98.43
September-16
98.88
March-19
98.75
September-16
98.61
March-19
98.38
October-16
98.75
April-19
98.44
October-16
98.44
April-19
98.60
November-16
99.16
May-19
98.86
November-16
99.10
May-19
99.16
December-16
99.14
June-19
98.62
December-16
98.90
June-19
99.07
January-17
98.30
July-19
98.58
January-17
98.55
July-19
99.20
February-17
99.17
August-19
99.10
February-17
99.03
August-19
99.15
March-17
98.69
September-19
98.72
March-17
98.87
September-19
98.84
April-17
98.24
October-19
99.22
April-17
98.37
October-19
99.19
May-17
98.50
November-19
99.20
May-17
98.69
November-19
98.95
June-17
98.61
December-19
99.10
June-17
98.92
December-19
99.18
July-17
99.17
January-20
98.89
July-17
99.09
January-20
98.69
August-17
99.19
February-20
98.60
August-17
99.12
February-20
98.64
September-17
99.03
March-20
98.75
September-17
99.18
March-20
99.07
October-17
99.15
April-20
97.95
October-17
99.28
April-20
98.92
November-17
99.25
May-20
98.63
November-17
99.14
May-20
99.19
December-17
99.18
June-20
98.86
December-17
99.19
June-20
98.91
January-18
99.05
July-20
January-18
99.27
July-20
February-18
98.93
August-20
February-18
99.05
August-20
March-18
99.01
September-20
March-18
98.95
September-20
April-18
99.03
October-20
April-18
99.06
October-20
May-18
99.08
November-20
May-18
99.13
November-20
June-18
98.74
December-20
June-18
98.93
December-20
July-18
99.24
January-21
July-18
99.12
January-21
Overall BOD removal rate
98.79
Overall TSSD removal rate
98.90

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO023906 MRS Betweel 8 - 2015 and 8 - 2020 Region: %
Facility Name:% Param Name% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 08/04/2C Page 1 of 1
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin:% Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO023906 FACILITY: City of Wilson -Wilson WWTP COUNTY: Wilson REGION: Raleigh
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
02 -2016 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru 02/29/16 Continuous mgd 14 15.66 11.8 Monthly Average No Action, BPJ
treatment plant Exceeded

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
from PERCS:
Check all that apply
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should
Date of Request
8/17/2020
municipal renewal
X
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
you (or NOV POTW).
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Requestor
Nicholas Coco
new industries
Facility Name
Hominy Creek WRF
WWTP expansion
Permit Number
NCO023906
Speculative limits
renewal.
ReRegion
g
Raleigh
g
stream reclass.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
Basin
Neuse River
outfall relocation
7Q10 change
changes.
other
r- otheri
—I
check applicable PERCS staff:
Other Comments to PERCS:
Facility is rated 14.0 MGD wtih 4 non -categorical SIUs and 8 CIU listed in
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
its application.
�I
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
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 period for Actual STMP time frame:
Industrial 1.12 0.528 2018-2019 Most recent:
Uncontrollable n/a 8.6 2018-2019 Next Cycle:
a POC due to
a Parameter of Required POTW POC STMP LTMP
NPDES/ Non- Required by POC due
Concern (POC) by 503 (Explain Effluent Effluent
Cn Disch Permit EPA* to SIU***
Check List Sludge** below)**** Freq Freq
O Limit
a
BO D Q
TSS Q Q = Quarterly
NH3 Q M = Monthly
Arsenic Q
�l Cadmium Q
�l Chromium Q
Copper Q
Cyanide
Q
Is all data on DMRs?
�l
Lead
Q
YES
�I
Mercury
Q
NO (attach data)
Molybdenum
Q
�l
Nickel
Q
Silver
Q
Selenium
Q
�l
Zinc
Q
Is data in spreadsheet?
solids
Q
YES (email to writer)
Total Phosphorus
Q
NO
NO2+NO3 Q
TKN Q
Total Nitrogen Q
Q
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (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): The
City of Wilson has 7 Categorical Industries in its Pretreatment Program, but one industry has two permitted categorical discharges.
PERC NPDES_ Pretreatment. request.form.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretory
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Mr. Jimmy Pridgen
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Dear Mr. Pridgen:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 26, 2020
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Wilson -Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO023906
Wilson County
On March 19, 2020, Josh Brigham of the Raleigh Regional Office (PRO) conducted an inspection at the
subject facility. The cooperation of Nick Eatmon, Andrew Mlot, and yourself was greatly appreciated.
Findings during the inspection were as follows:
1. The current NPDES permit was issued effective October 1, 2015 and expired May 31, 2019. The
division received your Permit Renewal Request December, 3' 2018 and it is currently under
review. Please continue to operate under the last issued permit.
2. The 14 MGD WRF plant consists of the following units: Influent pump station with four (4) VFD
pumps; three (3) mechanical bar screens; one (1) manual bar screen; two (2) vortex grit
collectors; two (2) grit classifiers; screenings compactor; influent ultrasonic flow meter; two (2)
equalization basins; one (1) biological phosphorus removal tank; three (3) primary clarifiers;
seven (7) aeration basins; five (5) secondary clarifiers; methanol feed facility; five (5) deep bed
denitrification filters; sodium hypochlorite disinfection tank; reaeration basin with sodium
bisulfate dechlorination; effluent ultrasonic flow meter; one (1) reuse water basin; a reclaim water
facility; one (1) plastic lined reclaimed water pond; four (4) anaerobic digesters heated by natural
gas or methane generated from digesters; a sludge thickening and dewatering building with two
(2) gravity belt thickeners (GBT), two (2) belt filter presses (BFP), three (3) return waste
activated sludge pump stations; a ten -ton per day alkaline sludge stabilization facility capable of
producing Class A and Class B dewatered sludge; three (3) liquid sludge holding tanks; sludge
drying beds; and a septage receiving station.
3. A review of discharge monitoring report (DMR) data for the period of March 2018 through
March 2020 showed one monitoring report violation for March 2018, however this has since been
resolved. All other required monitoring was performed and the facility complied with all permit
limits.
4. A cursory review of laboratory and DMR data for November 2019 showed consistent reporting of
results.
QNorth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1 Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office 13800 Banrtt Drive I Raleigh. North Carolina 27609
�0"d\ 919.791.4200

5. A cursory review of calibration logs and lab instrumentation showed acceptable calibration for
the on -site parameters. Calibration standards and reagents were all within expiration dates.
6. Mr. Pridgen stated their sludge is Class B. It is stored under a shelter and was taking up
approximately 50% of the floor during the inspection. Granville Farms hauls their Class B sludge
as needed and it is either composted or land applied.
7. Solids handling equipment was observed and found to be operating normally.
8. The influent headworks was found to be operating normally.
9. Both equalization basins were nearly empty at the time of the inspection.
10. The influent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019.
11. The influent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 140 ml every 30
pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
12. All primary clarifiers were inspected and the weirs were level. A sludge judge showed clarifier
one to have a sludge depth of 5.5 feet, and clarifier two to have a sludge depth of 4 feet. Clarifier
three was not in use at the time of inspection
13. The seven aeration basins appeared to be operating satisfactorily. There was foam on
approximately 30% of the surface of each basin. This did not appear to be affecting the treatment
efficiency of the units and Mr. Pridgen stated the amount of foam is typical for the plant.
14. The five secondary clarifier weirs are covered. Clarifier one had a sludge depth of 7.5 feet,
clarifier two 4 feet, clarifier three 4 feet, clarifier four 4.5 feet, and clarifier five 2.5 feet. Sludge
was collecting in the center well of the clarifiers, however a sprayer is used to resolve this.
15. The tertiary sand filters appeared to be operating satisfactorily. The filtered effluent appeared
clear and free of solids.
16. The secondary effluent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 200 ml
every 48 pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
17. The effluent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019. The effluent was clear
and free of solids.
18. Examination of chemical storage for disinfection and dechlorination liquids showed no problems.
19. The influent pump station had one pump out, but was running satisfactorily with the other pumps.
20. Mr. Pridgen stated the onsite generator is tested daily and can power the entire treatment plant.
The generator is also tested right before a storm and under load twice a year.
21. The operators log was found to be up to date with satisfactory documentation.
22. The effluent discharge appeared free of excess solids and foam. No detrimental impacts to
Contentnea Creek were observed.

If you have questions concerning this report please contact 919-791-4251 or
Lua. bri gham@ncdenr. aov.
Sincerely,
Scott Vinson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Raleigh Regional Office, Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
ATTACHMENTS
EPA Water Compliance Inspection Report
Cc: RRO Files
Laserfiche

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D,C, 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A, National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yrlmolday Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 15 1 3 NCO023906 Ill 12 20/03/19 17 18 ICI 191 s 1 20u
� _ , tL—JI
21 6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 OA-------------Reserved
67 70 U 71 L I 72 I ti I 73 � 74 7 80
LJ
Section B. Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09AOAM 20/03/19 15/10/01
Wilson WWfP
3100 Stanlonsburg Rd Exit Time/Dale Permit Expiration Date
Wison NC 27893 01:OOPM 20/03/19 19/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)Mlles(s)1Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Ill
Name, Address of Responsible OfficialMtle/Phone and Fax Number
Russell P Brice,PO Box 10 Wilson NC 2789400101Plant Manager1252-399-24911 Contacted
No
Section C- Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit E Flow Measurement N Operations & Maintenar E Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: E Facility Site Review 0 Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of FindinglComments (Attach additional sheets or narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) AgencylOfilcelPhone and Fax Numbers Date
Joshua S Brigham DWR/RRO WQ1919-79142001
f;, , .4 — ,e--L, 312 262v
Signature of Mana ement Q A Reviewer AgencylO ice/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
3%4/20z2
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yrlmolday inspection Type (Cont.)
31 NCoa23906 " 1 20103119 17 18 1 � I
Section D: Summary of FindinglComments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
1. The current NPDES permit was issued effective October 1, 2015 and expired May 31, 2019. The
division received your Permit Renewal Request December, 3rd 2018 and it is currently under review.
Please continue to operate under the last issued permit.
2. The 14 MGD WRF plant consists of the following units: Influent pump station with four (4) VFD
pumps; three (3) mechanical bar screens; one (1) manual bar screen; two (2) vortex grit collectors;
two (2) grit classifiers; screenings compactor; influent ultrasonic flow meter; two (2) equalization
basins; one (1) biological phosphorus removal tank; three (3) primary clarifiers; seven (7) aeration
basins; five (5) secondary clarifiers; methanol feed facility; five (5) deep bed denitrification filters;
sodium hypochlorite disinfection tank; reaeration basin with sodium bisulfate dechlorination; effluent
ultrasonic flow meter, one (1) reuse water basin; a reclaim water facility; one (1) plastic lined reclaimed
water pond; four (4) anaerobic digesters heated by natural gas or methane generated from digesters; a
sludge thickening and dewatering building with two (2) gravity belt thickeners (GBT), two (2) belt filter
presses (BFP), three (3) return waste activated sludge pump stations; a ten -ton per day alkaline sludge
stabilization facility capable of producing Class A and Class B dewatered sludge; three (3) liquid sludge
holding tanks; sludge drying beds; and a septage receiving station.
3. A review of discharge monitoring report (DMR) data for the period of March 2018 through March
2020 showed one monitoring report violation for March 2018, however this has since been resolved. Al
other required monitoring was performed and the facility complied with all permit limits.
4. A cursory review of laboratory and DMR data for November 2019 showed consistent reporting of
results.
5. A cursory review of calibration logs and lab instrumentation showed acceptable calibration for the
on -site parameters. Calibration standards and reagents were all within expiration dates.
6. Mr. Pridgen stated their sludge is Class B. It is stored under a shelter and was taking up
approximately 50% of the floor during the inspection. Granville Farms hauls their Class B sludge as
needed and it is either composted or land applied.
7. Solids handling equipment was observed and found to be operating normally.
8. The influent headworks was found to be operating normally.
9. Both equalization basins were nearly empty at the time of the inspection.
10. The influent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019.
11. The influent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 140 ml every 30
pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
12. All primary clarifiers were inspected and the weirs were level. A sludge judge showed clarifier one
to have a sludge depth of 5.5 feet, and clarifier two to have a sludge depth of 4 feet. Clarifier three was
not in use at the time of inspection
13. The seven aeration basins appeared to be operating satisfactorily. There was foam on
approximately 30% of the surface of each basin. This did not appear to be affecting the treatment
efficiency of the units and Mr. Pridgen stated the amount of foam is typical for the plant.
Page#

Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility: Wilson VVVVTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
14. The five secondary clarifier weirs are covered. Clarifier one had a sludge depth of 7.5 feet, clarifier
two 4 feet, clarifier three 4 feet, clarifier four 4.5 feet, and clarifier five 2.5 feet. Sludge was collecting in
the center well of the clarifiers, however a sprayer is used to resolve this.
15. The tertiary sand filters appeared to be operating satisfactorily. The filtered effluent appeared clear
and free of solids.
16. The secondary effluent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 200 ml
every 48 pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
17. The effluent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019. The effluent was clear and
free of solids.
18. Examination of chemical storage for disinfection and dechlorination liquids showed no problems.
19. The influent pump station had one pump out, but was running satisfactorily with the other pumps.
20. Mr. Pridgen stated the onsite generator is tested daily and can power the entire treatment plant. Thi
generator is also tested right before a storm and under load twice a year.
21. The operators log was found to be up to date with satisfactory documentation.
22. The effluent discharge appeared free of excess solids and foam. No detrimental impacts to
Contentnea Creek were observed.
Page#

Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility. Wilson VOMP
Inspection Date: 03119/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
(if the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ Cl ❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The division received your Permit Renewal Request December, 3rd 2018 and it is currently
under review.
Record Keeping
Yes
No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
■
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWO?
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 2417 with a certified operato
❑
❑
❑
on each shift?
is the ORC visitation log available and current?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
M
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page#
4

Permit: NCO023906
Inspection pate: 03/19/2020
Record Keepina
Owner -Facility: WilsonVWViP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Comment:
Effluent Pipe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Yes No NA NE
M ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes
No
NA NE
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: The effluent discharge a eared free of excess solids and foam. No detrimental im acts to
Contentnea Creek were observed.
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes
No
NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
❑
M
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated on 10.24.19. linked to Scada
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes
No
NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
M
❑
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated 10.24.19
Anaerobic Di ester
Yes
No NA NE
Type of operation:
Floating cover
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is gas stored on site?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
page# 5

Permit: NCO023906 Owner- Facility: Wilson WVVTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Comment: All di esters were operational at time of inspection.
Drying Beds
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
N
Cl
❑
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
❑
■
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: 16 total d[ying beds 11 in use. Sludge goes to Sampson Co. Not land apDlied
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes
No
NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
❑
❑
❑
is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
M
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Two GBT and 2 BFP were in operation. Class B biosolids took up approximately 50% of the
floor which are stored under shelter.
Chemical Feed
Yes No NA NE
Is containment adequate?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
N
❑
❑
❑
Comment: MicroC 3000 is used in the aeration basins.
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility: Wilson VVWTP
Inspection Date: 0311912020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
❑
❑
110
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
0
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Pump one was out of service during inspection.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
N
11011
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One mechanical bar screen was being operated.
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?
0
❑
❑ ❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Comment: One vortex cirit collector and one rit classifier were being operated.
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 7

Permit: NCO023906
owner- Facility: Wilson VWVfP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Equalization Basins
Yes No NA NE
Are float controls operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
❑
❑
■
❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both EQ basins were nearly empty.
Primary Clarifier
Yes No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
❑
■
❑
❑
Comment: Two primary clarifiers were currently,in use. A sludge 'ud a showed clarifier one to have a
sludge depth of 5.5 feet and clarifier two to have a sludge depth of 4 feet. Both had a side
wall depth of 10.5ft
Secondary Clarifier
Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
M
❑
❑
❑
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)
❑
■
❑
❑
Comment: Weirs are covered preventing inspection. Clarifier one had a sludge depth of 7.5 feet 16ft
wall clarifier two 4 feet 0 Oft wall clarifier three 4 feet 1 Oft wall clarifier four 4.5 feet 12ft
wall), and clarifier five 2.5 feet 02ft wall).
Page# 8

Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility: Wilson 0ANTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Aeration Basins
Yes
No NA NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Diffused
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?
E
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mgll)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Foam covered 30-40% of the surface, which is normal for this plant.
Nutrient Removal
Yes
No
NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
N
❑
❑
❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
0
❑
❑
❑
Type
Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑
N
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: MicroC 3000 is used to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen levels.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes
No NA NE
Type of operation:
Down flow
Is the filter media present?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
0
❑
❑
Cl
Is the air scour operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
N
❑
❑
Cl
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
E
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Effluent appeared clear in wet well.
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Page# 9

Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility.
Wilson WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020 Inspection Type:
Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑
❑
M
❑
# is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? 0000
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
M
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Tested under load two times a year.
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Laboratory_
Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters (excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +1- 1.0 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 10

Permit: NCO023906 Owner -Facility: Wlson 1MNCP
Inspection [late: 03/1912020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory
Yes No NA NE
Comment: ETS is used for toxicity. pace is used for metals. Cn, oil and grease. Pace in Charlotte is
used for low level Fig, and „PPS.
Disinfection -Liquid
Yes
No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
■
❑
❑
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
N❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes
No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
0
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sampler temperature was 0.5 degrees C.
Effluent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
M
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: Samplier temperature was 4 degrees C.
Page# 11