NC0020231_Fact Sheet_20210225

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC002023 1
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: September 22, 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 2"d species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Louisburg/Tar River Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)
Applicant Address:
110 West Nash Street, Louisburg, NC 27549
Facility Address:
221 NC Highway 56 East, Louisburg, NC 27549
Permitted Flow:
1.37 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Mechanical bar screen, Aerated grit/grease removal , Anaerobic
selector, Dual oxidation ditches (BioDeniopho Process), Dual
secondary clarifiers, Three cell tertiary filter, Ultraviolet disinfection,
Cascade aeration, Aerobic digester, Ultrasonic flow meter
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Franklin
Region
Raleigh
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Louisburg has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 1.37 MGD for the Tar River WRF. This facility serves a
population of approximately 3500 residents. Treated domestic wastewater is discharged into the Tar
River, a class WS-V;NSW water in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. The facility has a primary Outfall 001.
During the 2016 renewal, the facility was classified as Grade III. However, per 15A NCAC 08G .0302(c)
and (f), the facility has been reclassified as a Grade IV facility.
Page 1 of 11

2. Receiving Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Tar River
Stream Index:
28-(24.7)
Stream Classification:
WS-V;NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
437
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
14
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
30.5
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
460
IWC (% effluent):
13
303(d) listed/parameter:
No
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-03-01/03020101
USGS Topo Quad:
C25SE Louisburg, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of August 2016 through August 2020.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
0.6
3.025
0.1741
MA 1.37
Total Monthly Flow
MG/month
18.3
25.52
14.12
CBOD (summer)
mg/1
2.2
7.4
2
WA 12.0
MA 8.0
CBOD (winter)
mg/1
2.3
7 4
2
WA 24.0
MA 16.0
TSS
mg/1
5.5
25.5
0.5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N (summer)
mg/1
0.19
0.73
0.05
WA 9.0
MA 3.0
NH3N (winter)
mg/1
0.18
0.63
0.04
WA 18.0
MA 6.0
DO
mg/1
8.5
12.91
5.27
DA > 5 mg/1
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
(geomean)
360
1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
Temperature
° C
20
30
6
pH
SU
6.8
7.48
6.1
6.0 < pH < 9.0
TKN
mg/1
1.2
6.14
0.2
NO2+NO3
mg/1
0.6
3.78
0.15
TN
mg/1
1.85
6.68
0.64
TN Load
lb/yr
3,478
4,104
2,786
19,538
TP
mg/1
0.11
6.02
0.02
TP Load
lb/yr
217
431
48
3,531
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average, QA-
Quarterly Average
Page 2 of 11

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/1 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 and temperature
Upstream 100 feet of the outfall and downstream of the outfall at NCSR 1001. The Town is a member of
the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association and their instream requirements are provisionally waived as
long as they maintain membership. As such, data from August 2016 through December 2019 were
observed from TPBA monitoring station 01025000, located upstream of the facility, and station
02000000, located downstream of the facility. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Coalition Data Summary
Parameter
Units
01025000 Upstream
02000000 Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
DO
mg/1
8.5
15.2
5.6
7.9
11.8
5.2
Temperature
° C
18.4
27.8
5.4
19
29.1
5.8
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 did not drop below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
It was concluded that no significant difference between upstream and downstream DO exists.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): Y
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations during the period reviewed.
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 as well as 4 of 4 second species
toxicity tests from March 2016 to June 2020.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in January 2019 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0020231.
Page 3of11

6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for CBOD were placed in the permit in 1995 based on the results of a Level B model. No
changes are proposed.
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 does not set limit for TRC because the facility employs UV disinfection, and does not use chlorine
in its process, including as a backup. There are no proposed changes for TRC.
The current ammonia limits were implemented in 1991 and are based on a Level B model. Ammonia is
currently limited in the summer at a monthly average of 3.0 mg/L and a weekly average of 9.0 mg/L.
Ammonia is currently limited in the winter at a monthly average of 6.0 mg/L and a weekly average of
18.0 mg/L. Ammonia -nitrogen limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be
protective. No changes are proposed to ammonia limits.
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
Page 4 of 11

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 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between August 2016
through August 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: NA
• 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: NA
• 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: Nitrate
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (PPAs from 2015, 2016 and 2017)
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
Arsenic, Total Beryllium, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Phenolic Compounds,
Total Copper, Total Cyanide, Total Lead, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver,
Total Zinc, Total Dissolved Solids
As the facility discharges to WS waters, chlorinated phenolic compounds, total dissolved solids and
nitrate were assessed. All chlorinated phenols were reported as non -detected in the 2015, 2016 and 2017
effluent pollutant scans. Nitrite + Nitrate values were used in conducting a reasonable potential analysis
for nitrate.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
Page 5 of 11

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
13% 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/1.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (1.37 MGD)
2015
2016
2017
# of Samples
1
1
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
5.92
2.0
6.7
Maximum Conc., ng/L
5.92
2.0
6.7
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
91.1
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. Since the facility is < 2 MGD in design capacity, no mercury minimization plan (MMP)
is required. The MMP requirement will be removed from the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit:
History of Nutrient Management Strategy for Point Sources
• On September 12, 1989, the Environmental Managements Commission classified the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). On February 13, 1992, the Commission approved a
revised NSW Implementation Strategy that established the framework for a nutrient reduction trading
program between point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The Strategy also established certain
conditions to be met by an association of dischargers known as the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
(the Association). Those conditions are defined in the Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Implementation Strategy (the "Agreement").
Page 6 of 11

Addition of Nutrient Limits
• In 2009, the U.S. EPA Region 4 offices raised concerns that, although the Agreement set collective
nutrient caps for the members of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association, the members' NPDES permits
lacked nutrient limits and, as a result, EPA had no means to enforce nutrient controls should it
become necessary. As part of the 2009 permit renewals, the Division added the group caps for
nitrogen and phosphorus, along with related special conditions, to the permits of the fifteen TPBA
member facilities. The Division could not add individual N and P limits at that time, because no basis
existed at the time for dividing the available wasteload allocations among the members. Instead, the
Division agreed to work with the Association to determine an appropriate distribution and to then add
individual N and P limits to the permits as part of the 2014 renewals.
• With the consent of the Association, the group caps are distributed among the members in proportion
to their 2014 maximum permitted flows, as follows:
Table 2. TPBA Members and Nutrient Allocations/ Limits
Permit
Owner
Facility
TN Load
(lb/yr)
TP Load
(lb/yr)
NC0030317
City of Rocky Mount
Tar River Regional WWTP
299,491
54,124
NC0023931
Greenville Utilities Commission
GUC WWTP
249,576
45,103
NC0020605
Town of Tarboro
Tarboro WWTP
71,307
12,887
NC0025054
City of Oxford
Oxford WWTP
49,915
9,021
NC0020648
City of Washington
Washington WWTP
52,054
9,407
NC0069311
Franklin County
Franklin County WWTP
42,784
7,732
NC0020834
Town of Warrenton
Warrenton WWTP
28,523
5,155
NC0026042
Town of Robersonville
Robersonville WWTP
25,671
4,639
NC0020231
Town of Louisburg
Louisburg WRF
19,538
3,531
NC0026492
Town of Belhaven
Belhaven WWTP
14,261
2,577
NC0025402
Town of Enfield
Enfield WWTP
14,261
2,577
NC0023337
Town of Scotland Neck
Scotland Neck WWTP
9,626
1,740
NC0020061
Town of Spring Hope
Spring Hope WWTP
5,705
1,031
NC0042269
Town of Bunn
Bunn WWTP
4,278
773
NC0020435
Town of Pinetops
Pinetops WWTP
4,278
773
• Given the size and characteristics of the river basin, transport losses were judged to be somewhat
uniform across the basin and were not considered in these calculations. Thus, nutrient limits equal the
nutrient allocations for each facility, unlike in other nutrient management strategies in the state.
• The draft permit includes new conditions designed to meet the Division's 2009 commitment. The
group caps and related conditions have been deleted and replaced with individual N and P limits and a
new set of related special conditions.
• The nutrient limits are annual mass limits and become effective January 1, 2016. Each members'
limits are equivalent to approximately 4.7 mg/L TN and 0.85 mg/L TP for the member's full
permitted flow.
The special conditions document the N and P allocations assigned to the facility and provide for
consistent calculation of nutrient loads by all members. They also establish how compliance with the N
and P limits will be determined if the Association members apply for and obtain a group NPDES permit
to control their nutrient discharges collectively. The members have indicated they plan to apply for such a
permit, and the Division initiated discussions with the members on that approach in 2012.
The Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Strategy is covered under 15A NCAC 02B .0730.
Page 7 of 11

Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/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
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
Page 8 of 11

10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The Town of Louisburg has requested monitoring frequency reductions for CBOD5, Total Suspended
Solids, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform with their 2019 NPDES renewal application based on DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for these parameters have been reviewed in
accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. 2/week monitoring for CBOD5, Total Suspended
Solids, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform has been granted.
As the Tar River WRF is a Grade IV facility, monitoring frequencies for pH and dissolved oxygen have
been increased from 3/week to daily, per 15A NCAC 02B .0508.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. 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 1.37 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 1.37 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly Flow
Monitor and
Report Monthly
No change
For calculation of TN and TP
Loads
CBOD5
Summer:
MA 8.0 mg/1
WA 12.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 16.0 mg/1
WA 24.0 mg/1
3/week monitoring
No change to limits
2/week monitoring
WQBEL. 1995 Level B model.
15A NCAC 2B; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
NH3-N
Summer:
MA 3.0 mg/1
WA 9.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 6.0 mg/1
WA 18.0 mg/1
3/week monitoring
No change to limits
2/week monitoring
WQBEL. 1991 Level B model.
15A NCAC 2B; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Page 9of11

TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
3/week monitoring
No change to limits
2/week monitoring
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
3/week monitoring
No change to limits
2/week monitoring
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
DO
DA > 5 mg/1
Monitor and
Report 3/week
No change to limits
Increase Monitor and
Report frequency to
daily
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Temperature
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6 - 9 SU
Monitor and
Report 3/week
No change to limits
Increase Monitor and
Report to daily
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
NO2+NO3
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Management
Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
TN Load
Monitor and
Report Monthly
(as lb/mo)
Annual TN mass
limit of 19,538
lb/yr
No change
WQBEL. Tar -Pamlico Nutrient
Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
Total Phosphorous
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Management
Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
TP Load
Monitor and
Report Monthly
(as lb/mo)
Annual TP mass
limit of 3,531 lb/yr
No change
WQBEL. Tar -Pamlico Nutrient
Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit,
13% effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
No change; conducted
in 2022, 2023, 2024
40 CFR 122
Page 10 of 11

Mercury Minimization
Plan (MMP)
MMP Special
Condition
Remove special
condition
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation;
Municipality with Q < 2 MGD
Electronic Reporting
Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, QA
— Quarterly Average, DA — Daily Average, AA — Annual Average
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: October 13, 2020; affidavit received on February 12, 2021
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the Town of Louisburg, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Raleigh Regional
Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Ecosystems Branch, Operator Certification Program and Raleigh
Region Public Water Supply Officer for review. The Aquatic Toxicology Branch submitted a comment to
correct the mailing address specified in Special Condition A.(2.). The PWS Raleigh Regional Officer
concurred with the issuance of the permit. The email correspondences are attached to this fact sheet. 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:
• A notation was made concerning the Electronic Reporting Rule — Phase 2 Extension. extended
the Phase 2 deadline from December 21, 2020, to December 21, 2025, effective January 4, 2021.
The current compliance date has been extended to reflect this change.
• The mailing address specified in Special Condition A. (2.) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit
(Quarterly) has been updated.
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
• Toxicity Summary
• Instream Monitoring Summary
• Renewal Application Addendum
Page 11 of 11

The Franklin Times
kcgallidgay
PJeLIC Nona
NORTH CARDLIN A
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSIONI'NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RA L E I GFI. NC 276$9-1 e i T
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A
NF'DES WASTEWATER PERMIT
NC0024251 TAR RIVER WATER
EC LAM A11 ON FACILITY
WWTP
The North Ca ro ins Erw ;onrn enkal
Management DornmI$ai.on pro-
posal b issue a NPDES
wattaw Met discheNs. permit la. the
person(9) Ilebad I I w . Wr tar'
commeai regurtliq the prop ed
permit will be aacepka.d Ur.I XI
day 3 nfl r the pubis data of thle
nolke The I]iraclbr al the NC
Div is iun of Water R eisourc ea
(' +R) may hod a publ hear,rlg
should Chard be a s gr leant dogma
of public inierest Please m a
cornrn enfs aridi?ar rorr 34on
feqUesis D the $bO4
ElthirE15. I1-11E rested pavans thin
v isil the D IYR at 51 a N. l is biur}r
Sleet R elei b, NC 27604 In
fevtEtw Ininrmatlan ara File.
Additional irxformen NPI EE
permit. and 11115 nuke! May !Do
Pound on our webyir
h1ro .''de' . n , aa�r ��ba� dirlsir�ns�
lb' a ter-rv5 Qurce9'vr Eitivreso rces-
arriIr w .2.01041 ate r-bmeic fit' nrxf.s-
w aster aterIpu blt-noi
or by calling i919i 11J7-36t] 1. The
Town of Lou isbury hag requested
kcnew al 4f perrn l N0IJO2OZ31 tar
its Tar N iu c r R uclam aticn
Facility in Franklin County: this
permted disotia rg a is Ira red
rrluryikipal w adatawater 14 010 Tag
Rr.1r. in the Tar- Pamli c RiV r
Basin.
P.O. Box 119, 109 S Bickelt Blvd.
Louisburg, NC 27549
Phone: (1) 466-6- Fax[phone]
l rt il: leggy Oth refrrn kiin.times.c um
AFFIDAVIT
North Caro - Fninklin County.
Y, Garf mod, Publish &f FRAN KLIN
newspaper published at Louisburg,
Franklin Cam* N.C, F hereby certify that the
advertiseirent of,
ID.
Advertiser NCDENRIDWQINPDES
Desciiptiort Public Noce wviar
a copy of which is hereto attached, appeared in tic
NA:lowing issues of saki publicans:
*Franklin Times: 10/20
Tod , )•'s dare: 1012170. 0
Subsc and sworn to befort me this day of
10/22/2020.
Now Pubric
My Cormthsion a was July 1 I* 2024

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Water Pollution Control Systems Operator Certification Commission
Roy Cooper W. Corey Basinger Michael S. Regan
Governor Chairman Secretary
November 5, 2020
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL:
Mayor Karl T. Pernell
Town of Louisburg
110 W. Nash Street
Louisburg, North Carolina 27549
Subject: Re -Classification of Water Pollution Control Collection System to WW-IV
Tar River Water Reclamation Facility WWTP
Permit Number: NC0020231
Franklin County
Dear Mayor Pernell:
In accordance with North Carolina General Statute § 90A-37, the Water Pollution Control System Operators
Certification Commission is required to classify all water pollution control systems.
Upon a review of the subject permit, the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification
Commission has determined that the subject facility is classified as a Grade IV Biological Water Pollution
Control System, effective November 1, 2020.
[15A NCAC 08G .0302(c)&(f)]
This reclassification does not affect the certified operator currently designated as ORC for this facility,
however, Mr. Richard Collins is no longer eligible to be designated as a backup ORC effective 10/31/2020.
[15A NCAC 08G .0201(2)].
The permittee is required to designate a replacement backup ORC within 120 days.
[15A NCAC 08G .0201(3)(b)(i)]
Thank you for your attention to this, if you have any questions concerning this reclassification, please
contact me at 919-707-9038, or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
NC Operators Certification Program
cc: Mr. Billy Faulk, P.O. Box 468, Louisburg, North Carolina 27549
ec: Jimmy Ellington, ORC
DWR, Raleigh Regional Operations
1618 Mail Service Center i Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1618
919 807 6353 i Fax [phone] i http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/operator-certification

Coco, Nick A
From: Guyer, Shawn
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 11:59 AM
To: Coco, Nick A
Subject: RE: Draft Permit Tar River WRF, NPDES Permit Number NC0020231
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Nick,
I concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated effluent
limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality standards.
Shawn F. Guyer, P.E.
Regional Engineering Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919 791-4299 direct
919 791-4200 main
Shawn.Guyercncdenr.gov
Physical: 3800 Barrett Drive,
Raleigh NC 27609
Mailing: 1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC, 27699-1628
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Guyer, Shawn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft Permit Tar River WRF, NPDES Permit Number NC0020231
Hey Shawn,
I hope all is well.
Please see the following link to access the draft permit and cover letter for the Tar River WRF. I have also
attached the PWS memo for your approval of the renewal. You have a 30-day period ending on 11/23/2020 to
comment on the draft. Please contact me with any comments you might have.
i

Draft Cover Letter and
Permit: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=1317054&dbid=0&repo=WaterResource
s&cr=1
Thanks and have a nice day.
Nicholas A. Coco, El
Engineer
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but we are available to talk by phone or meet via Microsoft Teams**
`LVO#hlrl COtllp' ilea
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR
1.1
122.21(j)(1)
Email address of facility contact [e-mail]
1.2
Applicant email address [e-mail]
1.3
Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge NA
1.4
Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge NA
1.5
Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)? (Check all that apply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
301(h)) Section 302(b)(2))
X Not applicable
1.6
Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works NA
40 CFR
122.21(j)(6)
1.7
40 CFR
1.8
Indicate the number of SiUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Number of Sills
Number of CIUs
0
122.22(a) and (d)
Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including
violations.
0
were prepared under my direction or supervision in
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that
the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
Name (print or type first and last name)
Karl Pernell
Official title
Mayor
Signet re c��
�
Date signed
f-L9-2-0

Louisburg Water Reclamation Facility
The Town of Louisburg owns and operates the Louisburg Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) located off
NC Hwy. 56 East, southeast of Louisburg, Franklin County. The plant was constructed in 1992 —1993
completely replacing the old facility constructed in 1958. The design flow is 1.5 (MGD), the NPDES
Permit (NC0020231) allows the Town to collect, treat and discharge up to 1.37 (MGD) of wastewater a
day.
The 1.37 MGD treatment facility includes the following components:
- Mechanical bar screen w/manual bypass bar screen
- Aerated grit / grease removal
-Anaerobic selector
- Dual oxidation ditches (BioDenipho Process)
- Dual secondary clarifiers
- Three cell tertiary sand filter
-Ultraviolet disinfection
- Cascade aeration
- Dual aerobic digesters
-Ultrasonic flow meter
The WRF discharges to the Tar River, currently classified as C waters.

8
/ I / //
// / // /�/ //
� 4
/ /2/ /
4//' ////
1 — — 'r r / / r' / //
t a ! � _ 'jti ' ( 1 I
' i? 1 � � :?` wr• [ / ^/ I 1
o r f_
F 1
'1 N ! iI(" -g-
poi
11! Il! / /
!1!
II(/
� 111//�1 � Irlr,
I i II 8
Z i uuEPtlpIC USN1 7/ i
;I,
111 ., 'V i f 1/
Va III /�
�
j
II ,,11rt <' i
Io 1 n • i;fll!
jli
III! s
r
id i'Eiiir
( I r
,,..2
' !I ik
il � :w .,
)klll
00
c a -. OAVFO — ) l i
1 0
1g q ;
_1
3.
�6 S
,. b

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Tar River WRF
IV
NC0020231
001
1.370
Tar River
03020101
WS-V; NSW
✓ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
14.000
30.50
30.50
460.00
11.59
41.28 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L (Avg) --
27.14 mg/L
27.52 mg/L
Data Source(s)
Note: All chlorinated phenols reported as non -detect
in 2015, 2016 and 2017 PPAs. Nitrite + Nitrate
values used in RPA for Nitrate. 30Q2 data
unavailable; 7Q10W used for Total Phenolic
Compounds allowable discharge concentration
calculation
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Name
WQS
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
0.6278
FW
3.5231
ug/L
Chlorides
Water Supply
NC
250
WS
ng/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
yTotal Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
125.9380
FW
979.1530
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
8.4545
FW
11.4639
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
3.2270
FW
84.1025
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Water Supply
NC
160
WS
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
39.9148
FW
363.5836
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
0.3496
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
135.8823
FW
136.3630
ug/L
Nitrate
Water Supply
NC
to
WS
mg/L
TDS
Water Supply
NC
500
WS
mg/L
21920 RPA, input
9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data
2/14/2018
2/26/2018
4/9/2018
4/25/2018
5/23/2018
5/30/2018
6/13/2018
6/27/2018
7/11/2018
7/25/2018
8/20/2018
8/27/2018
9/12/2018
9/24/2018
10/15/2018
10/30/2018
11/19/2018
11/26/2018
12/17/2018
12/27/2018
1/14/2019
1/28/2019
2/11/2019
2/25/2019
3/11/2019
3/25/2019
4/15/2019
4/22/2019
5/6/2019
5/20/2019
6/10/2019
6/24/2019
7/16/2019
7/29/2019
8/12/2019
8/27/2019
9/9/2019
9/30/2019
10/14/2019
10/28/2019
11/18/2019
11/25/2019
12/16/2019
12/30/2019
1 /21 /2020
1/27/2020
2/10/2020
2/24/2020
3/9/2020
3/23/2020
4/13/2020
4/27/2020
5/11/2020
5/25/2020
6/8/2020
6/22/2020
7/13/2020
7/27/2020
BDL=1/2DL
44
44
48
40
36
32
40
40
40
44
40
38
36
40
40
36
36
36
30
32
48
40
44
36
40
40
36
36
44
52
40
40
48
48
48
42
44
52
52
48
48
44
40
44
40
40
32
36
40
44
44
44
40
40
40
40
44
44
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
H2
Upstream Hardness
5.0220
41.2759
0.1217
58
36.00 mg/L
41.28 mg/L
52.00 mg/L
-1-
Date Data
Defau It
25
BDL=1/2DL
25
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
N/A
25.0000
0.0000
1
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
21920 RPA, data
9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/17/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 7/5/2016 < 10 5 Mean
3 9/27/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
15.0 ug/L
21920 RPA, data
- 2 - 9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/17/2015 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 7/5/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/27/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par04
Cadmium
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.50 ug/L
7.50 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/17/2015 < 2 1 Std Dev.
2 7/5/2016 < 2 1 Mean
3 9/27/2017 < 2 1 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
1.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
1.000 ug/L
3.000 ug/L
21920 RPA, data
- 3 - 9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/23/2015 204 204 Std Dev.
2 7/7/2016 32 32 Mean
3 9/25/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par10
Chromium, Total
107.9460
80.3333
0.6000
3
3.00
204.0 ug/L
612.0 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/17/2015 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 7/5/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/27/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.5 pg/L
7.5 pg/L
21920 RPA, data
- 4 - 9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pall
Copper
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/17/2015 9 9 Std Dev.
2 7/5/2016 6 6 Mean
3 9/27/2017 7 7 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par12
Cyanide
1.5275
7.3333
0.6000
3
3.00
9.00 ug/L
27.00 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/23/2015 < 5 5 Std Dev.
2 7/1/2016 < 5 5 Mean
3 9/26/2017 < 5 5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.00
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
15.0 ug/L
21920 RPA, data
- 5 - 9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date
3/17/2015 < 10
7/5/2016 < 10
9/27/2017 < 10
BDL=1/2DL Results
5 Std Dev.
5 Mean
5 C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.000 ug/L
15.000 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/17/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 7/5/2016 < 10 5 Mean
3 9/27/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 pg/L
15.0 pg/L
21920 RPA, data
- 6 - 9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Selenium
Date Data
3/17/2015 <
7/5/2016 <
9/27/2017 <
10
10
10
BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Par20
Silver
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
15.0 ug/L
Date Data
3/17/2015 <
7/5/2016 <
9/27/2017 <
5
5
5
BDL=1/2DL
2.5
2.5
2.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.500 ug/L
7.500 ug/L
21920 RPA, data
- 7 - 9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Zinc
Date Data
3/17/2015
7/5/2016
9/27/2017
68
58
74
BDL=1/2DL
68
58
74
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par22
Nitrate
8.0829
66.6667
0.6000
3
3.00
74.0 ug/L
222.0 ug/L
Date Data
6/24/2019
7/1/2019
7/8/2019
7/16/2019
7/22/2019
7/29/2019
8/5/2019
8/12/2019
8/19/2019
8/27/2019
9/3/2019
9/9/2019
9/16/2019
9/23/2019
9/30/2019
10/7/2019
10/14/2019
10/21/2019
10/28/2019
11/4/2019
11/12/2019
11/18/2019
11/25/2019
12/2/2019
12/9/2019
12/16/2019
12/23/2019
12/30/2019
1/6/2020
1/13/2020
1 /21 /2020
1/27/2020
2/3/2020
2/10/2020
2/17/2020
2/24/2020
3/2/2020
3/9/2020
3/16/2020
3/23/2020
3/30/2020
4/6/2020
4/13/2020
4/20/2020
4/27/2020
5/4/2020
5/11/2020
5/18/2020
5/25/2020
6/12/2017
12/18/2017
12/28/2017
1/2/2018
1/8/2018
7/16/2018
9/11/2018
9/24/2018
12/27/2018
0.56
0.57
1.07
0.82
0.7
0.69
0.51
0.87
0.78
1.58
0.71
0.52
0.57
0.57
0.68
1.02
0.93
0.69
0.5
1.44
0.67
0.42
0.4
0.54
0.42
0.24
0.68
0.4
0.24
0.33
0.39
0.28
0.41
0.26
0.74
0.43
0.48
0.63
0.43
0.58
0.43
0.49
0.59
0.43
0.42
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.32
3.78
1.09
1.28
3.13
2.35
1
1.14
1.04
1.15
BDL=1/2DL
0.56
0.57
1.07
0.82
0.7
0.69
0.51
0.87
0.78
1.58
0.71
0.52
0.57
0.57
0.68
1.02
0.93
0.69
0.5
1.44
0.67
0.42
0.4
0.54
0.42
0.24
0.68
0.4
0.24
0.33
0.39
0.28
0.41
0.26
0.74
0.43
0.48
0.63
0.43
0.58
0.43
0.49
0.59
0.43
0.42
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.32
3.78
1.09
1.28
3.13
2.35
1
1.14
1.04
1.15
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.6402
0.7645
0.8374
58
1.00
3.780000 mg/L
3.780000 mg/L
21920 RPA, data
- 8 - 9/23/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par23
TDS
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/13/2015 239 239 Std Dev.
2 7/1/2016 80 80 Mean
3 9/22/2017 407 407 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
163.5206
242.0000
0.6000
3
Mult Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 407.000000 mg/L
Max. Pred Cw ########## mg/L
21920 RPA, data
- 9 - 9/23/2020

Tar River WRF
NC0020231
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 1.3700
1Q1OS (cfs) = 11.59
7Q1OS (cfs) = 14.00
7Q1OW (cfs) = 30.50
30Q2 (cfs) = 30.50
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 460.00
Receiving Stream: Tar River HUC 03020101
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Q1OS = 15.48474131
IWC% @ 7Q1OS = 13.17021738
IWC% @ 7Q1OW = 6.50911153
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 6.50911153
IW%C @ QA = 0.4595092
Stream Class: WS-V;NSW
Outfall 001
Qw = 1.37 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 27.52 mg/L
Chronic = 27.14 mg/L
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Effluent Hard: 0 value > 100 mg/L
Effluent Hard Avg = 41.28 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
_1
n
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Stapda d AcuteoCi
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
15.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW): 2,195.7
________________________________________________
Chronic (FW): 1,138.9
Max MDL= 10 _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (HH): 2,176.2
Max MDL = 10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
7.50
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 419.77
____ _ _ ___________
Chronic: 49.35
Max MDL = 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cadmium
NC
0.6278 FW(7Q10s) 3.5231
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
3.000
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 22.752
____ _ ______ _____
Chronic: 4.766
Max MDL = 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____
All values reported non -detect < 2 ug/L - No
monitoring required.
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
612.0
C.V. (default)
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 4,608.9
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chromium III
NC
125.9380 FW(7Q10s) 979.1530
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 6,323.3
--_ _ ----_ _
--956.2--------------------------------
Chronic:
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 103.3
--_ _ ----- _ _
---------------------------------
Chronic: 83.5
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
7.5
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Max reported value = 2.5
Max MDL = 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.
Copper
NC
8.4545 FW(7Q10s) 11.4639
ug/L
3 3
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
27.00
C.V. (default)
Acute: 74.03
____ _ ____________
Chronic: 64.19
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
15.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 142.1
____ _ ______ _____
Chronic: 38.0
Max MDL = 10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
21920 RPA, rpa
9/23/2020

Tar River WRF
NC0020231
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 1.37 MGD
Lead
NC
3.2270 FW(7Q10s) 84.1025
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
15.000
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 543.131
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 24.502
Max MDL = 10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
All values reported non -detect < 10 ug/L - No
monitoring required.
Acute (FW): 2,348.0
Nickel
NC
39.9148 FW(7Q10s) 363.5836
µg/L
__ _ _ ______________________________________
3 0
15.0
Chronic (FW) 303.1
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Max MDL = 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Chronic (WS): 189.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 361.6
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
3 0
15.0
____ _ _______________________________________
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 38.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 2.258
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.3496
ug/L
3 0
7.500
Note: n < 9
'
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 0.456
All values reported non -detect < 5 ug/L - No
monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL of
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
1 ug/L.
Acute: 880.6
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
135.8823 FW(7Q10s) 136.3630
ug/L
3 3
222.0
Monitoring required
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 1,031.7
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Nitrate
NC
10 WS(7Q10s)
mg/L
58 58
3.78000
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 75.929
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
TDS
NC
500 WS(7Q10s)
mg/L
3 3
1,221.00000
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 3796.44455
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Page 2 of 2
21920 RPA, rpa
9/23/2020

Permit No. NC0020231
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 April6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.1366724ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* { 1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[In hardness]-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.462034ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NC0020231
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]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs 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 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NC0020231
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [SS(1
+1 [10 6]
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (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:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0020231
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
41.28
Data provided in DMRs
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Default value used
7Q10 summer (cfs)
14
NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs)
11.59
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
1.37
NPDES Files
Date: 9/23/2020
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Tar River WRF
Permit No.
NC0020231
Review period (use
3 yrs)
8/2017 8/2020
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
Data Review
Units
Weekly
average
limit
Monthly
average
limit
50%
MA
3-yr mean
(geo mean
for FC)
< 50%?
200%
MA
# daily
samples
>200%
<15?
200%
WA
# daily
samples
>200%
< 20?
# of non -
monthly
limit
violations
> 2?
# civil penalty
asessment
> 1?
Reduce
Frequency?
(Yes/No)
CBOD (summer)
mg/L
12
8
4
1.3454513
Y
16
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
CBOD (winter)
mg/L
24
16
8
1.5163158
Y
32
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
5.7111349
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (summer)
mg/L
9
3
1.5
0.1809747
Y
6
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (winter)
mg/L
18
6
3
0.1852105
Y
12
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
FecalColiform
#/100
400
200
100
11.784804
Y
800
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y

Tar River WRF/NC0020231
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2015
2016
2017
# of Samples
1
1
1
Annual Average, ng/L
5.9
2.0
6.7
Maximum Value, ng/L
5.92
1.99
6.70
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
91.1

9/23/20 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Tar River WRF/NC0020231
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
4/9/15 5.92
7/12/16 1.99
9/27/17 6.7
No Limit Required
No MMP Required
5.92
1.99
6.7
14.000
1.370
cfs
WQBEL = 91.11 ng/L
47 ng/L
5.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
2.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
6.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017

NC0020231 Tar River WRF 9/23/2020
CBOD monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
August-16
September-16
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
99.01
99.03
99.06
99.36
98.60
98.96
99.04
98.97
98.84
98.93
98.98
99.06
98.99
98.97
98.93
98.97
98.83
99.00
98.85
98.90
98.72
98.92
98.66
98.56
98.66
98.77
98.69
98.87
98.81
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
Overall CBOD removal rate
98.60
98.77
98.76
99.13
98.70
98.68
98.59
98.97
98.94
98.97
98.87
98.81
98.93
98.93
98.86
98.72
98.91
98.95
98.87
TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
August-16
September-16
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
97.47
98.45
95.16
98.20
97.62
97.54
98.60
98.75
98.90
98.47
98.38
99.04
98.96
98.91
99.10
98.78
98.66
97.96
98.20
97.81
98.24
98.53
98.98
99.01
98.73
96.65
96.80
95.96
98.11
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
January-19 97.91 July-21
Overall TSS removal rate
98.01
98.47
98.34
98.17
98.76
98.38
98.82
98.79
96.45
94.45
93.44
96.58
96.63
97.42
96.86
97.58
96.97
97.23
97.82

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Tar River WRF
PermitNo. NC0020231
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 1.37
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 14
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 30.5
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
14
1.37
2.1235
17.0
0
13.17
129
UV used at plant, no limit applied.
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
14
1.37
2.1235
1.0
0.22
13.17
6.1
Less stringent than current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
7.59 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
30.5
1.37
2.1235
1.8
0.22
6.51
24.5
Less stringent than current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Instream Temperature Summary NC0020231
Date
Upstream
[degC]
Downstream
[degC]
Date
Upstream
[degC]
Downstream
[degC]
8/11/2016
26.5
27
6/18/2018
26.4
27.2
8/22/2016
26.5
27.3
7/2/2018
27.6
28.5
9/12/2016
26.1
26.4
7/25/2018
24.7
25.4
9/29/2016
22.3
22.4
8/7/2018
26.8
26.8
10/24/2016
13.9
15.4
8/27/2018
24.7
24.7
11/28/2016
6.4
7.7
9/17/2018
23.7
24.3
12/19/2016
7.1
7.1
9/27/2018
23.4
24.2
1/23/2017
11.1
11.2
10/29/2018
12.4
12.6
2/27/2017
11.1
12.2
11/29/2018
5.4
5.8
3/27/2017
16.6
16.7
12/19/2018
6
6.5
4/27/2017
16.9
16.3
1/28/2019
5.6
5.9
5/8/2017
16.8
17.3
2/18/2019
7.5
8
5/26/2017
18.7
19.3
3/27/2019
11.2
12.3
6/14/2017
25
25.9
4/22/2019
15.8
16.4
6/26/2017
24.2
24.8
5/7/2019
21.1
21.7
7/12/2017
27.4
28.2
5/30/2019
25.3
26.3
7/31/2017
23.5
23.8
6/11/2019
23.6
24.1
8/18/2017
26.2
25.7
6/24/2019
23.4
23.9
8/31/2017
23.2
23.8
7/16/2019
27.8
29.1
9/11/2017
18.3
19.2
7/29/2019
25.6
26.2
9/22/2017
22.9
23.4
8/15/2019
26.9
26.8
10/23/2017
15.8
16.9
8/27/2019
22.8
23.5
11/27/2017
5.7
7.2
9/12/2019
26
26.3
12/7/2017
8.5
9.6
9/25/2019
23
23.1
1/29/2018
8.9
9.5
10/30/2019
17.5
18.1
2/26/2018
15.7
16.2
11 /21 /2019
7.5
8.6
3/26/2018
8.2
8.4
12/16/2019
7.1
7.7
4/12/2018
13.3
13.7
Average
18.4
19
5/9/2018
19.5
19.7
Max
27.8
29.1
5/22/2018
21.6
22.1
Min
5.4
5.8
6/5/2018
23.3
23.6
p-value
> .05

Instream Dissolved Oxygen Summary NC0020231
Date
Upstream
[mg/L]
Downstream
[mg/L]
Date
Upstream
[mg/L]
Downstream
[mg/L]
8/11/2016
5.6
5.2
6/18/2018
6.6
5.7
8/22/2016
6.7
6.3
7/2/2018
6.3
5.8
9/12/2016
7.6
5.8
7/25/2018
7
5.7
9/29/2016
9.2
9.3
8/7/2018
5.9
6.2
10/24/2016
9.2
8.6
8/27/2018
6.3
5.8
11/28/2016
12.2
11.3
9/17/2018
7.3
6.3
12/19/2016
11.2
10.8
9/27/2018
6.5
6.4
1/23/2017
10.2
10.1
10/29/2018
9.2
8.7
2/27/2017
11.1
10.3
11/29/2018
10.9
10.6
3/27/2017
9.7
9.4
12/19/2018
10.8
11.7
4/27/2017
6.6
7.2
1/28/2019
11.8
11.7
5/8/2017
8.5
8
2/18/2019
15.2
11.8
5/26/2017
7.4
7.2
3/27/2019
10.1
9.6
6/14/2017
7.8
6.5
4/22/2019
9
8.6
6/26/2017
6.3
6.1
5/7/2019
7.5
8.1
7/12/2017
6.4
6.1
5/30/2019
7
6.3
7/31/2017
7.6
6.8
6/11/2019
7.3
6.4
8/18/2017
6.3
5.4
6/24/2019
7.2
6.9
8/31/2017
6.8
6.2
7/16/2019
6.7
6.4
9/11/2017
8.1
7.5
7/29/2019
7.3
6.4
9/22/2017
6.6
6.4
8/15/2019
6.6
5.8
10/23/2017
8.8
7.9
8/27/2019
7.4
7.1
11/27/2017
12.8
10.9
9/12/2019
6.7
5.7
12/7/2017
12
11
9/25/2019
7.7
5.4
1/29/2018
9.9
9.6
10/30/2019
7.5
7
2/26/2018
7.9
7.5
11 /21 /2019
10.9
10.7
3/26/2018
11.3
11.2
12/16/2019
11.4
11.5
4/12/2018
9.8
10
Average
8.5
7.9
5/9/2018
8
7.6
Max
15.2
11.8
5/22/2018
6.7
6.5
Min
5.6
5.2
6/5/2018
8.1
6.6
p-value
> .05

United States Environmental Protection Agency
E PA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 IN 2 I5 �-I 3 I NC0020231 111 121 19/01/15 117
Type
18 [ =
Illiiiiiiii
73I I 174
L�
Inspector Fac Type
19 G I 201
21111111i illliliiiIIiiillliilIliii
Reserved
1 751
166
I I I I I I 180
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
671I 7° I I 711I 72 I N I
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Tar River Water Reclamation Facility WWTP
Treatment Plant Rd Off Hwy 56
Louisburg NC 27549
Entry Time/Date
09:30AM 19/01/15
Permit Effective Date
16/03/01
Exit Time/Date
11:45AM 19/01/15
Permit Expiration Date
19/09/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Jimmy Wayne Ellington/ORC/919-496-5101/
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Billy Faulk,PO Box 468 Louisburg NC 27549//919-496-3236/
Yes
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Erin M Deck DWR/RRO WQ/919-791-4200/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day
31 NC0020231 111 121 19/01/15
117
Inspection Type
18 [j
(Cont.)
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
1. The facility is permitted to discharge at a rate of 1.37 MGD and consists of: mechanical bar screen,
aerated grit/grease removal, anaerobic selector, dual oxidation ditches (BioDeniopho Process) dual
secondary clarifiers, tertiary filters, UV disinfection, cascade aeration and ultrasonic flow meter. The
current permit became effective March 1, 2016 and expires September 30, 2019. A request for a
permit renewal should be submitted at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the current permit.
2. Since the last Compliance evaluation inspection conducted by DWR, a new SCADA system has
been installed, and the facility has developed, and implemented, a mercury minimization plan. A copy
of the plan has been provided to DWR by Mr. Ellington. The plant is currently upgrading the influent
pump station and has a bypass system set up. The day of the inspection, the plant was not bypassing
the influent pump station.
3. Record Review: ORC Log Book is filled out and maintained as required. Discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs) for May and August 2018 were checked with bench sheets and no discrepancies were
noted. Chain of custody forms are completed and kept on site.
4. Meritech, Inc. performs CBOD, Nitrogen and Total phosphorus for the facility. The onsite
laboratory processes the remaining analytes as well as collects the following field parameters
(Certification no. 439): pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and conductivity.
5. The temperature of the effluent 24-hour composite sampler was in the appropriate range. The flow
meter was last calibrated on 12/20/2018.
6. The facility discharges to the Tar River. Due to the stage of the Tar river at the time of the
inspection, the discharge point was inaccessible.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0020231
Inspection Date: 01/15/2019
Owner - Facility: Tar River Water Reclamation Facility WW
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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?
Comment: Permit expires 09/30/2019- Discussed submitting the renewal atleast 180
expiration.
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operatc
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Comment:
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
days prior to
Yes No NA NE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0020231
Inspection Date: 01/15/2019
Owner - Facility: Tar River Water Reclamation Facility WW
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADAtelemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Mr. Ellington contacted DWR staff on 06/01/2018 to notify that the influent pumpstation was
being rehabbed and the station would be bypassed during this time. During the inspeciton, i
was not being bypassed.
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Type Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process? ❑ • ❑ ❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: No chemicals are used.
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0020231
Inspection Date: 01/15/2019
Owner - Facility: Tar River Water Reclamation Facility WW
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Comment: Weirs are covered.
Disinfection - UV
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
Are UV bulbs clean?
Is UV intensity adequate?
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
Is there a backup system on site?
Is effluent clear and free of solids?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Last calibrated 12/20/2018
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Lincolnton WWTP NC0025496/001 County: Lincoln Region: MRO Basin: CTB35 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 11/1/2016 chr lim: 6% (3.5MGD) NonComp: Single 7Q10: 77.0 PF: 6.0 IWC: 11.0 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2016 - >22(P) Pass Invalid >22(P) >22(P) Pass - - Pass - - Pass >22(P)
2017 - Pass - Pass - - Pass >100(P) - - Pass
2018 - Pass >12(P) - Pass - - Pass Pass - - Pass
2019 - Pass - Pass >12(P) - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - Pass - Pass - - - -
Linville Resorts, Inc. NC0039446/001 County: Avery Region: ARO Basin: CTB30 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2015 Chr Lim: 10% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 2.1 PF: 0.15 IWC: 10.0 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2016 Pass Pass - Pass - Pass -
2017 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2018 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - - - -
Lithium Corp NC0005177/001 County: Gaston Region: MRO Basin: CTB37 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Cer7dChV Begin: 9/1/2018 Chr Lim: 78% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.27 PF: 0.615 IWC: 78 Freq: Q
J F M A M J 1 A S 0 N D
2016 >100 >100 - H H H >100 -
2017 >100 - >100 - - H H >100 -
2018 H - H >100 - - H - >100 >100 -
2019 >100 - - >100 - - >100 - - H -
2020 >100 - - >100 - - >100 - - -
Louisburg WWTP NC0020231/001 County: Franklin Region: RRO Basin: TAR01 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2016 chr lim: 13% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 14.0 PF: 1.37 IWC: 13 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2016 Pass Pass - Pass - - Pass
2017 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - - Pass >52(P) - - Pass >52(P) - - Pass >52(P) - - Pass >52(P)
2019 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - - -
Lowell WWTP NC0025861/001 County: Gaston Region: MRO Basin: CTB36 Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2015 chr lim: 0.74% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 124.0 PF: 0.6 IWC: 0.74 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0
2016 Pass Pass - - Pass - -
2017 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2018 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2019 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 - Pass - - Pass - - - -
SOC_JOC:
N
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
D
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 69 of 122