NC0032077_Fact Sheet_20210505

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0032077
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: February 19, 2021
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
▪ Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2"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:
Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District (CMSD)/CMSD
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 477, Grifton, NC 28530
Facility Address:
900 Wiley Gaskins Road, Grifton, NC 28530
Permitted Flow:
3.5 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 98.4% domestic, 1.6% industrial
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Page 1 of 12

Treatment Units:
mechanically cleaned bar screen with manual bypass bar screen, grit
removal system, influent meter, influent composite sampler, influent
distribution box, two (2) 0.65 MG EQ basins, six (6) 0.15 MG
anaerobic tanks with mixers, four (4) 0.65 MG pre -anoxic tanks with
mixers, two (2) 1.8 MG oxidation ditches with aerators, four (4) 0.3 MG
post anoxic tanks with mixers, four (4) 0.1 MG reaeration tanks with
fine bubble diffusers, four (4) 20 HP blowers, clarifier influent
distribution box, two (2) 90 ft diameter clarifiers with scum pump
station with two (2) 150 GPM pumps, filter lift station with four (4)
2,030 GPM filter feed pumps, four (4) denitrification filters systems
with two (2) 3,040 GPM backwash pumps, two (2) 570 GPM mudwell
pumps, and three (3) 100 HP backwash aeration blowers, three (3)
banks UV disinfection system, post aeration tank with 10 HP aerator,
effluent meter, effluent composite sampler, caustic chemical feed
system, methanol storage and chemical feed system, alum addition
system, sludge pump station with two (2) 2,430 GPM circulation pumps
and two (2) 500 GPM waste transfer pumps, 0.375 MG aerated sludge
holding/decant tanks, two (2) 0.345 MG aerated sludge holding/decant
tanks, four (4) 55 ft diameter sludge stabilization tanks with coarse
diffusers, two (2) 0.36 MG sludge storage basins with mixers, three (3)
50 HP blowers, two (2) 300 GM land application transfer pumps, sludge
loading station with 500 GPM pump, two (2) sludge dewatering screw
press with 100 GPM feed pumps, polymer chemical feed system, nine
(9) 20 ft x 96 ft drying beds, 2 with concrete floors, with liquid drain
collection system, backup electrical generator
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y
County:
Pitt
Region
Washington
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Contentnea Metropolitan
Sewerage District (CMSD) has applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 3.5 MGD for the CMSD
WWTP. This facility serves a population of approximately 17,100 residents across the Towns of Ayden,
Grifton and Winterville, as well as 3 significant industrial users (SIUs), including 1 categorical industrial
user (CIU), via a pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into
Contentnea Creek, a class C;Sw;NSW water in the Neuse River Basin. The facility has a primary Outfall
001.
Permit History
2010 — Renewal permit issued: Consisted of two limitation pages for 2.85 MGD, each one specific to the
specific outfall location; compliance date of November 1, 2010 to complete plant upgrades and to relocate
outfall from "zero" flow unnamed tributary to Contentnea Creek.
- Issued a speculative limit letter for 3.5 MGD, 4.0 MGD, and 5.0 MGD as a discharge to Contentnea
Creek.
- Received Engineer Certificates for completion of construction under ATC032077A01 permit which
included completion of upgrades and relocation of the outfall to Contentnea Creek.
- Issued permit modification to remove the retired 2.85 MGD limitation
page with discharges to the unnamed tributary and to add the recently purchased 3,500 pounds estuary —
based total nitrogen to the permit annual allocation.
2011— The US EPA issued an Administrative Order CWA-04-2011-4783 as the result of
NPDES effluent limit violations beginning in January 2008, in 2009, and ending October 2010 for BOD,
TSS, Fecal Coliform, Cyanide, and Flow. The order included a list of repairs/upgrades and construction
Page 2 of 12

activities, on site and in the collection system, with specific milestone and reporting date to bring
this facility into final compliance by March 31, 2014.
2012 - Issued a permit modification to add expansion limitation page for 3.5 MGD.
• Issued ATC032077A02 permit for facility upgrades to comply with the EPA Administrative
Order and for an expansion to 3.5 MGD.
• Received permit renewal application.
2014 - Received Engineer Certificate for completion of construction under ATC032077A02
permit. Permit expansion page for 3.5 MGD was activated.
2. Receiving Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Contentnea Creek
Stream Index:
27-86-(7)
Stream Classification:
C;Sw;NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
1000
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
36
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
72
30Q2 (cfs):
120
Average Flow (cfs):
1090
IWC (% effluent):
13
303(d) listed/parameter:
No
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-04-07/03020203
USGS Topo Quad:
F29SW Grifton, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of February 2017 through December
2020.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
1.93
7.052
0.982
MA 3.5
Total Monthly Flow
MG/month
58.8
101.653
39.007
Monitor & Report
BOD
mg/1
2.2
12
2
WA 22.5
MA 15.0
TSS
mg/1
2.5
6.9
2.5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N (summer)
mg/1
0.13
Ca
0.04
WA 18.0
MA 6.0
NH3N (winter)
mg/1
0.16
2.56
0.04
WA 35.0
MA 12.0
DO
mg/1
8.5
11.12
5.7
DA > 5 mg/1
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
(ge 2 3 an)
mil
1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
Temperature
° C
20.8
28
5
Monitor & Report
pH
SU
6.9
7.96
6
6.0 < pH < 9.0
Page 3 of 12

Conductivity
µmhos/cm
383
610
246
Monitor & Report
TKN
mg/1
0.8
2.89
0.2
Monitor & Report
NO2+NO3
mg/1
0.8
2.54
0.04
Monitor & Report
TN
mg/1
1.7
3.97
0.67
Monitor & Report
TN Load
lb/mo
820
2412
367
Monitor & Report
TN Load
lb/yr
9,835
13,453
8,007
37,100
TP
mg/1
0.65
3.5
0.04
QA 2.0
MA -Monthly Average_ WA -Weekly Average_ DM -Daily Maximum_ DA-Daily Average_ OA-
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/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, conductivity and
temperature Upstream at NCSR 1800 and downstream at Jolly's Old Field Landing. The Town is a
member of the Lower Neuse Basin Association and their instream requirements are provisionally waived
as long as they maintain membership. Two DWR Ambient Monitoring Stations exist closer to the facility,
one upstream of the discharge, and one downstream. As such, data from February 2017 through March
2019 were observed from AMS monitoring station J7810000, located upstream of the facility, and station
J7850000, located downstream of the facility. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream AMS Data Summary
Parameter
Units
J7810000 Upstream
J7850000 Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
DO
mg/1
8.0
10.5
4.2
8.4
10.9
4.5
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
106.8
139.9
74.6
121.8
182.3
75
Temperature
° C
17.2
32.4
6.7
17.0
28.7
6.6
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 [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] on one occasion during the
period reviewed. Concurrent upstream sampling reported dissolved oxygen below 5 mg/L, so the low
level of dissolved oxygen does not appear to be a result of effluent impact. It was concluded that no
significant difference between upstream and downstream DO exists.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream
conductivity exists.
Page 4 of 12

Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): Y
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Lower Neuse Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations resulting in enforcement from January 2017 through October 2020.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests 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 September 2020 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0032077.
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 11H); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen,11H).
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 1SA 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 BOD were placed in the permit in 2012 upon Permittee request for the addition of an
expanded 3.5 MGD flow tier and are based on the NC DWR 1998 Swamp Water Permitting Strategy. 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.
Page 5 of 12

Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: As the facility
uses UV disinfection, and does not employ chlorine as a backup, the current permit does not set TRC
limits. There are no proposed changes for TRC.
The current ammonia limits were implemented in 2012 upon Permittee request for the addition of an
expanded 3.5 MGD flow tier and are a results of IWC-based toxicity calculations for the 3.5 MGD flow
tier. Ammonia -nitrogen limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be
protective. No changes are proposed for ammonia.
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 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between February 2017
through October 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: Arsenic, Cadmium, Total Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (PPAs from 2016, 2017 and 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
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds
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.
Page 6 of 12

Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: 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/l) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (3.5 MGD)
2017
2018
2019
2020
# of Samples
4
4
8
8
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
91.6
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, but reported no quantifiable levels of
mercury (> 1 ng/L), no mercury minimization plan (MMP) is required. The MMP requirement has been
removed from the permit.
Page 7 of 12

Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit:
The Environmental Management Commission adopted Nutrient Management Strategy 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:
• the individual limits in the dischargers' individual permits,
• the aggregate limit in an association's group NPDES permit, and
• 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.
The Permittee is a member of the Neuse River Compliance Association at this time. So 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, issued December 30, 2002.
The Permittee's TN active allocation is 37,100 lb/year at the discharge, equivalent to 25,970 lb/yr at the
estuary. The allocation includes the Permittee's original allocation assigned by rule and supplemental
allocations obtained through purchase from UNIFL LLC.
Table 1. TN Allocations
Source
Discharge Allocation=
(lb/yr)
Assigned by rule
32,100
Purchased from UNIFL LLC- NC0003760
5,000
Total
37,100
PHOSPHORUS
The Permittee's 2.0 mg/L Total Phosphorus limit is carried forward in the new permit.
Page 8 of 12

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
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
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 9 of 12

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.
Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District (CMSD) requested monitoring frequency reductions for
BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform with their 2019 NPDES permit renewal 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 BOD5,
Total Suspended Solids, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform has been granted.
In the 2005 permit renewal, the frequency of effluent conductivity monitoring was reduced from daily to
2/month. As no statistically significant difference was observed between upstream and downstream
conductivity during the review period for this renewal, implying effluent conductivity does not appear to
have a negative impact downstream, no change is proposed to conductivity monitoring.
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 3.5 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 3.5 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly Flow
Monitor and
Report Monthly
No change
For calculation of TN and TP
Loads
BOD5
MA 15.0 mg/1
WA 22.5 mg/1
3/week monitoring
No change to limits
2/week monitoring
WQBEL. 1998 Swamp Water
Permitting Strategy; DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction
of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
NH3-N
Summer:
MA 6.0 mg/1
No change to limits
2/week monitoring
WQBEL. 2012 IWC-based
calculations; 2020 WLA. 15A
Page 10 of 12

WA 18.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 12.0 mg/1
WA 25.0 mg/1
3/week monitoring
NCAC 2B; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
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
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Temperature
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
Conductivity
Monitor and
Report 2/month
No change
BPJ; effluent not appearing to
influence downstream conductivity
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
Neuse River Nutrient Management
Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0713
TN Load
Monitor and
Report Monthly
(as lb/mo)
Annual TN mass
limit of 37,100
lb/yr
No change
WQBEL. Neuse River Nutrient
Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0713
Total Phosphorous
QA 2.0 mg/1
No change
Neuse River Nutrient Management
Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0713
Total Hardness
No requirement
Quarterly Effluent and
Upstream Monitoring
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016; Pretreatment
facility
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit,
13% effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B
Page 11 of 12

Effluent Pollutant Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
No change; conducted
in 2022, 2023, 2024
40 CFR 122
Mercury Minimization
Plan (MMP)
MMP Special
Condition
Remove special
condition
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation
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: March 9, 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 Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District, EPA Region IV, and the
Division's Washington Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Ecosystems Branch and Operator
Certification Program for review. No comments were received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• As the Monitoring Coalition will not be conducting hardness sampling on behalf of the Permittee,
the footnote language in Section A.(1.) 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
• Pretreatment Summary
• Renewal Application Addendum
Page 12 of 12

NORTH CAROLINA
Pitt County
The Daily Reflector - The Daily Advance - The Rocky Mount Telegram
Bertie Ledger - Chowan Herald - Duplin Times - Farmville Enterprise - Perquimans Weekly
Standard Laconic - Tarboro Weekly - Times Leader - Williamston Enterprise
PO Box 1967, Greenville NC 27835
[phone]
Media of Eastern North Carolina
NCDEQ - DIVISON OF WATER RESOURCES
ATTN: WREN THEDFORD
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
Account: 133315 Ticket: 383320
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
PAID VIA
❑Cash ❑ Credit Card
❑Check #
Date Paid
Copy Line: Public Notice
Lines: 47
Total Price: $128.81
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
affirms that he/she is clerk of Daily
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES
North Wastewater Permit NC0032077 The
Greenville,
Reflector, a newspaper published daily at
olina, and that the
advertisement, a true copy of which is hereto attached. entitedrPublic Notice was
published in said Daily Reflector on the following dates:
Sunday, March 14, 2021
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document or legal
advertisement was published, was at the time of each and every publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Chapter 1, Sec-
tion 597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper
within the meaning of Chapter 1, Section 597 of the General Statutes of North
Carolina.
Affirmed and subs 'bed before me this 15th day of March 2021
(Notary PubYrc Printed Name)
My commission expires
Contentnea Sewerage District WWTP
The North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission proposes to
issue a NPDES wastewater discharge
permit to the person(s) listed below.
Written comments regarding the pro-
posed permit will be accepted until 30
days after the publish date of this no-
tice. The Director of the NC pit/ail/1
of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a
public hearing should there be a signif-
icant degree of public interest. Please
mail comments and/or information re-
quests to DWR at the above address.
Interested persons may visit the DWR
at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604 to review information on file.
Additional information on NPDES per-
mits and this notice may be found on
our website http:pdeq.nc,gov/about/
divisions!water-resources/water-re-
sources-permits/wastewater-branch/
npdes-wastewater/public-notices, or by
calling [phone]. The Contentnea
Metropolitan Sewerage District (CMSD)
[900 Wiley Gaskins Road, Grifton, NC
28530J has requested renewal of NPDES
permit NC0032077 for its CMSD WWTP,
located in Pitt County . This permitted
facility discharges treated municipal
and industrial wastewater to Content-
nea Creek, a class C;Sw-NSW water in
the Reuse River Basin. Currently, 80D,
fecal coliform, ammonia nitrogen, pH,
dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen load-
ing and total phosphorous are water
quality limited, This discharge may af-
fect future allocations in this portion of
Contentnea Creek.
3/14/21

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
CMSD WWTP
q
Grade IV
NC0032077
001
3.500
Contentnea Creek
03020203
C;Sw;NSW
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q1Ow (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
36.00
72.00
120.00
1090.00
29.60
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
54.09 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L (Avg)
28.81 mg/L
29.5 mg/L
Data Source(s)
❑ 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
0.6567
FW
3.7439
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
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
132.2321
FW
1036.6190
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
8.8959
FW
12.2412
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
3.4503
FW
90.9458
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
41.9770
FW
385.6465
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
0.3941
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
142.9140
FW
144.6508
ug/L
FW RPA, input
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data
2/7/2017
3/6/2017
4/5/2017
5/1 /2017
6/5/2017
7/3/2017
8/1 /2017
9/5/2017
10/2/2017
11/6/2017
12/5/2017
1 /2/2018
2/7/2018
3/6/2018
4/3/2018
5/8/2018
6/4/2018
7/9/2018
8/7/2018
9/5/2018
10/8/2018
11/5/2018
12/5/2018
1 /2/2019
2/4/2019
3/4/2019
4/2/2019
5/7/2019
6/4/2019
7/1 /2019
8/7/2019
9/4/2019
10/7/2019
11/6/2019
12/4/2019
1/7/2020
2/5/2020
3/3/2020
4/6/2020
5/4/2020
6/1/2020
7/6/2020
8/6/2020
9/2/2020
10/6/2020
11/2/2020
12/7/2020
BDL=1/2DL
44
52
56
52
40
60
59
44
51
60
56
68
48
57
53
59
60
60
72
44
65
72
69
47
55
45
52
55
59
50
47
53
56
53
53
52
46
52
48
48
48
51
48
57
54
60
52
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
7.3094
54.0851
0.1351
47
45.60 mg/L
54.09 mg/L
72.00 mg/L
-1-
Date Data
Default
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
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/2/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 5/18/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/6/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 10/24/2017 < 5 2.5 n
5 1/18/2018 < 5 2.5
6 5/2/2018 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor =
7 7/25/2018 < 5 2.5 Max. Value
8 11/6/2018 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 3/13/2019 < 5 2.5
10 5/14/2019 < 5 2.5
11 7/2/2019 < 5 2.5
12 8/20/2019 < 5 2.5
13 9/4/2019 < 5 2.5
14 10/2/2019 < 5 2.5
15 11/7/2019 < 5 2.5
16 12/16/2019 < 5 2.5
17 1/9/2020 < 5 2.5
18 2/18/2020 < 5 2.5
19 3/18/2020 < 5 2.5
20 4/22/2020 < 5 2.5
21 5/14/2020 < 5 2.5
22 6/4/2020 < 5 2.5
23 7/16/2020 < 5 2.5
24 10/14/2020 < 5 2.5
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
0.0000
24
1.00
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
-2-
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
0.5
0.5
0.5
9/9/2016 <
9/21/2017 <
5/6/2018 <
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
Par04
Cadmium
0.0000
0.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
0.50 ug/L
1.50 ug/L
-3-
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
24
1.00
0.500 ug/L
0.500 ug/L
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/9/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 9/21/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 5/6/2018 < 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
Par10
Chromium, Total
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.5 ug/L
7.5 ug/L
-4-
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/2/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 5/18/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/6/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 10/24/2017 < 5 2.5 n
5 1/18/2018 < 5 2.5
6 5/2/2018 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor =
7 7/25/2018 < 5 2.5 Max. Value
8 11/6/2018 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 3/13/2019 < 5 2.5
10 5/14/2019 < 5 2.5
11 7/2/2019 < 5 2.5
12 8/20/2019 < 5 2.5
13 9/4/2019 < 5 2.5
14 10/2/2019 < 5 2.5
15 11/7/2019 < 5 2.5
16 12/16/2019 < 5 2.5
17 1/9/2020 < 5 2.5
18 2/18/2020 < 5 2.5
19 3/18/2020 22 22
20 4/22/2020 < 5 2.5
21 5/14/2020 < 5 2.5
22 6/4/2020 < 5 2.5
23 7/16/2020 < 5 2.5
24 10/14/2020 < 5 2.5
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
3.9804
3.3125
1.2016
24
1.54
22.0 pg/L
33.9 pg/L
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pall
Copper
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2/2/2017 <
5/18/2017 <
9/6/2017 <
10/24/2017
1/18/2018 <
5/2/2018 <
7/25/2018 <
11/6/2018 <
3/13/2019
5/14/2019 <
7/2/2019 <
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019 <
11/7/2019 <
12/16/2019 <
1/9/2020 <
2/18/2020 <
3/18/2020 <
4/22/2020 <
5/14/2020 <
6/4/2020 <
7/16/2020 <
10/14/2020 <
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par12
Cyanide
0.3807
1.1667
0.3263
24
1.16
2.00 ug/L
2.32 ug/L
-5-
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.00
0.0000
24
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
BDL=1/2DL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par16
Molybdenum
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
24
1.00
2.500 ug/L
2.500 ug/L
-6-
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
2.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.5103
4.8958
0.1042
24
1.05
5.0 ug/L
5.3 ug/L
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5 Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par19
Selenium
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
24
1.00
5.0 pg/L
5.0 pg/L
-7-
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
24
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Silver
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par21
Zinc
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
24
1.00
2.500 ug/L
2.500 ug/L
-8-
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
29
36
21
30
21
24
49
22
28
40
40
27
29
25
35
35
27
26
27
27
22
26
24
28
2/2/2017
5/18/2017
9/6/2017
10/24/2017
1 /18/2018
5/2/2018
7/25/2018
11/6/2018
3/13/2019
5/14/2019
7/2/2019
8/20/2019
9/4/2019
10/2/2019
11/7/2019
12/16/2019
1/9/2020
2/18/2020
3/18/2020
4/22/2020
5/14/2020
6/4/2020
7/16/2020
10/14/2020
29
36
21
30
21
24
49
22
28
40
40
27
29
25
35
35
27
26
27
27
22
26
24
28
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
6.8899
29.0833
0.2369
24
1.11
49.0 ug/L
54.4 ug/L
FW RPA, data
2/19/2021

CMSD WWTP
NC0032077
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 3.5000
1Q1OS (cfs) = 29.60
7Q1OS (cfs) = 36.00
7Q1OW (cfs) = 72.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 120.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 1090.00
Receiving Stream: Contentnea Creek HUC 03020203
WWTP/WTP Class: Grade IV
IWC% @ 1Q1OS = 15.48893647
IWC% @ 7Q105 = 13.09595655
IWC% @ 7Q1OW = 7.006780756
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 4.325294
IW%C @ QA = 0.495241573
Stream Class: C;Sw;NSW
Outfall 001
Qw = 3.5 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 29.5 mg/L
Chronic = 28.81 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
24 0
2.5
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW): 2,195.1
Chronic (FW):1,145.4
Max MDL = 5
Chronic (HH): 2,019.2
Max MDL = 5
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
1.50
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 419.65
____ _ _ ___________
Chronic: 49.63
Max MDL = 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cadmium
NC
0.6567 FW(7Q10s) 3.7439
ug/L
24 0
0.500
NO DETECTS
Acute: 24.171
Chronic: 5.014
Max MDL = 1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
7.5
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 6,935.9
Max MDL = 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chromium III
NC
132.2321 FW(7Q10s) 1036.6190
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 6,692.6
--_ _ ---- _ _
-Chronic:1,009.7 --
-----------------------------
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 103.3
--_ _ ----- _ _
---------------------------------
Chronic: 84.0
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
Tot Cr value(s)
24 1
> 5 but < Cr VI
33.9
Allowable Cw
Max reported value = 22
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
8.8959 FW(7Q10s) 12.2412
ug/L
24 4
2.32
Acute: 79.03
____ _ _ ___________
Chronic: 67.93
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
24 0
5.0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 142.0
____ _ ______ _____
Chronic: 38.2
Max MDL = 10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
FW RPA, rpa
2/19/2021

CMSD WWTP
NC0032077
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 3.5 MGD
Lead
NC
3.4503
FW(7Q10s)
90.9458
ug/L
24
0
2.500
NO DETECTS
Acute:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic:
Max MDL = 5
587.166
_ _ _ _ _
26.346
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Molybdenum
NC
2000
HH(7Q10s)
ug/L
24
0
5.3
NO DETECTS
Acute:
Chronic:
Max MDL = 10
NO WQS
15,271.9
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Nickel
Nickel
NC
NC
41.9770
25.0000
FW(7Q10s)
WS(7Q10s)
385.6465
µg/L
µg/L
24
0
5.0
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW):
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (FW):
_M_ax_MD_L = 10
Chronic (WS):
Max MDL= 10
2,489.8
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
320.5
190.9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Selenium
NC
5
FW(7Q10s)
56
ug/L
24
0
5.0
NO DETECTS
Acute:
____ _ ______
Chronic:
Max MDL = 10
361.5
_____
38.2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Silver
NC
0.06
FW(7Q10s)
0.3941
ug/L
24
0
2.500
NO DETECTS
Acute:
Chronic:
Max MDL = 5
2.545
0.458
All values non -detect < 5 ug/L; No monitoring
required. Permittee shall report to PQL of 1 ug/L
Zinc
NC
142.9140
FW(7Q10s)
144.6508
ug/L
24
24
54.4
Acute: 933.9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 1,091.3
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 2 of 2
FW RPA, rpa
2/19/2021

Permit No. NC0032077
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, 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. NC0032077
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. NC0032077
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. NC0032077
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)]
54.09
Data provided in DMRs
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Default value used
7Q10 summer (cfs)
36
NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs)
29.6
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
3.5
NPDES Files
Date: 2/23/2020
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

Instream Conductivity Summary NC0032077 CMSD WWTP
Date Upstream [umhos/cm] Downstream [umhos/cm]
2/16/2017 110 131
3/22/2017 95.4 118.6
4/11/2017 97 110
5/11/2017 80.4 93.9
6/12/2017 74.6 100.1
7/20/2017 118.9 145.9
8/28/2017 105.3 145.9
9/20/2017 121.0 182.3
10/25/2017 133.2 170.3
11/20/2017 139.9 174.9
12/14/2017 112.5 117.4
1/25/2018 133.4 155.9
2/5/2018 76.8 107.9
3/26/2018 93.0 103.1
4/16/2018 104.6 134.4
5/10/2018 116.3 119.8
6/19/2018 131.0 154.3
8/29/2018 104.2 87.1
11/1/2018 113.6 103.7
12/12/2018 109.7 86.2
1/28/2019 93 93
2/25/2019 112 90
3/13/2019 80 75
Average 106.8 121.8
Max 139.9 182.3
Min 74.6 75.0
p-value > .05

Instream Dissolved Oxygen Summary NC0032077 CMSD WWTP
Date Upstream [mg/L] Downstream [mg/L]
2/16/2017 9.5 10.1
3/22/2017 9.8 9.7
4/11/2017 7.3 7.7
5/11/2017 6.3 6.5
6/12/2017 5.7 6.3
7/20/2017 6.0 6.2
8/28/2017 5.6 6.3
9/20/2017 5.7 6.8
10/25/2017 7.2 7.4
11/20/2017 9.5 9.6
12/14/2017 10.4 10.6
1/25/2018 10.5 10.9
2/5/2018 9.9 9.8
3/26/2018 10.0 9.8
4/16/2018 7.1 7.4
5/10/2018 6.7 6.7
6/19/2018 5.0 6.0
8/29/2018 4.2 4.5
11/1/2018 8.5 8.6
12/12/2018 10.3 10.5
1/28/2019 10.3 10.8
2/25/2019 9.4 10
3/13/2019 10 10.1
Average 8.0 8.4
Max 10.5 10.9
Min 4.2 4.5
p-value > .05

Instream Temperature Summary NC0032077 CMSD WWTP
Date Upstream [degC] Downstream [degC]
2/16/2017 11.4 11.4
3/22/2017 13.3 13.5
4/11/2017 19.7 21.2
5/11/2017 21.0 21.9
6/12/2017 24.0 25.9
7/20/2017 32.4 28.7
8/28/2017 27.0 26.0
9/20/2017 27.6 24.6
10/25/2017 19.8 20.0
11/20/2017 12.0 11.9
12/14/2017 8.1 9.1
1/25/2018 8.1 8.3
2/5/2018 9.7 10.6
3/26/2018 10.2 10.0
4/16/2018 20.4 19.3
5/10/2018 20.0 19.9
6/19/2018 32.4 28.4
8/29/2018 27.2 26.0
11/1/2018 14.3 14.2
12/12/2018 6.7 6.6
1/28/2019 7.4 7.6
2/25/2019 10.4 9.8
3/13/2019 13.3 15
Average 17.2 17.0
Max 32.4 28.7
Min 6.7 6.6
p-value > .05

NC0032077 CMSD WWTP 2/19/2021
BOD monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
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
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
98.13
98.17
98.49
98.31
97.98
98.12
98.11
98.09
97.75
97.88
98.17
97.14
97.63
97.53
97.65
97.69
97.60
97.57
96.09
97.37
97.42
97.62
96.72
97.00
98.42
98.19
98.39
98.39
98.79
98.53
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
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
Overall BOD removal rate
98.75
98.82
98.84
99.01
99.04
98.83
98.49
98.63
98.54
98.72
98.16
98.53
98.13
98.65
98.73
98.76
98.72
98.13
TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
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
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
98.09
98.29
98.12
98.45
97.97
98.47
97.32
97.46
95.89
96.14
96.53
97.30
95.98
95.37
96.60
96.35
95.32
97.45
95.82
97.07
96.87
97.61
97.15
95.78
98.30
98.48
98.43
98.84
98.86
98.67
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
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
Overall TSS removal rate
99.07
98.92
98.88
99.10
99.26
98.43
98.89
98.85
98.88
99.04
98.43
98.62
98.69
98.93
99.02
98.97
98.94
97.87

2/19/21 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name CMSD WWTP
/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 =
2/2/17 < 1
6/22/17 < 1
9/20/17 < 1
10/25/17 < 1
1/25/18 < 1
5/2/18 < 1
7/25/18 < 1
11/6/18 < 1
3/13/19 < 1
5/14/19 < 1
7/2/19 < 1
8/20/19 < 1
9/4/19 < 1
10/2/19 < 1
11/7/19 < 1
12/16/19 < 1
1/9/20 < 1
2/18/20 < 1
3/18/20 < 1
4/22/20 < 1
5/14/20 < 1
6/4/20 < 1
7/16/20 < 1
10/14/20 < 1
No Limit Required
No MMP Required
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
36.000
3.500
cfs
WQBEL = 91.63
47
ng/L
ng/L
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020

CMSD WWTP
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2017
2018
2019
2020
# of Samples
4
4
8
8
Annual Average, ng/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.50
Maximum Value, ng/L
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.5
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
91.6

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: CMSD WWTP
PermitNo. NC0032077
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
3.5
36
72
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)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
36
3.5
5.425
17.0
0
13.10
130
UV used. No TRC limit applied.
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)
36
3.5
5.425
1.0
0.22
13.10
6.2
Consistent with existing 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)
7.64 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
72
3.5
5.425
1.8
0.22
7.01
22.8
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)

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
CMSD WWTP
Permit No.
NC0032077
Review period (use
3 yrs)
12/2017 - 12/2020
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)
BOD
mg/L
22.5
15
7.5
1.3390013
Y
30
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
1.2944809
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (summer)
mg/L
18
6
3
0.086991
Y
12
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (winter)
mg/L
12
35
18
0.1063009
Y
70
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400
200
100
1.5482561
Y
800
1
Y
0
N
0
N
Y

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Columbia WTP NC0007510/001 County: Tyrrell Region: WARO Basin: PAS53 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Mysd24PF Begin: 4/1/2018 Ac Monit 90% NonComp: 7Q10: Tidal PF: 0.02 IWC: NA Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2017 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2018 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Fail -
2019 Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Fail -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Fail - - Fail -
Columbus WWTP NC0021369/001 County: Polk Region: ARO Basin: BRD02 Mar Jun Sep Dec
Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2014 chr lim: 37% NonComp: Single 7010: 2.1 PF: 0.8 IWC: 37.08 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2017 >100 >100 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2019 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
Concord Rocky River WWTP NC0036269/001 County: Cabarrus Region: MRO Basin: YAD12 Feb May Aug Nov
Cer7dChV Begin: 12/1/2013 chr lim: 26.5MGD @ NonComp: Single 7Q10: 25.2 PF: 24.0 IWC: 59.62 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F
2017 - >100(s) 90(s) >100(P)
2018 - >100(s)
2019 - H
2020 - >100(s)
M
>70.9(s) >90(s)
A M J J A
- >100 >100(P) - - >100(s) >100(P)
- >100(s) - - >100(s)
- 71(s) <31(s) - - >100(s)
- >100(s) - - >100(P)
S
O N
- >100(s) >100(P)
>100(s)
>100(s)
- >100 (5) >100 (5)
Conover NE WWTP NC0024252/001 County: Catawba Region: MRO Basin: CTB32 Mar Jun Sep Dec
Ceri7dPF Begin: 9/1/2005 chr lim: 32% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 5.0 PF: 1.5 IWC: 32.0 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2017 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2019 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
Conover SE WWTP NC0024279/001 County: Catawba Region: MRO Basin: CTB32 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF Begin: 9/1/2012 chr lim: 48% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.5 PF: 0.30 IWC: 48 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
2017
2018
2019
2020
J F M A M J
H
H
H
H
H
H
J A S 0 N D
H - - H -
H - - H -
H - - H
Contentnea MSD WWTP NC0032077/001 County: Pitt Region: WARO Basin: NEU07 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF Begin: 12/1/2014 chr lim 2.85MGD @1 NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.0 PF: 2.85 IWC: 100 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J
2017 Pass
2018 Pass
2019 Pass >52(P)
2020 Pass
F
M A M J J A S 0 N D
- Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
- Pass - - Pass - - Pass >52(P) -
- Pass >52(P) >52(P) - - Pass - - Pass -
- Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 23 of 104

NPDES/Aquifer
Protection
Permitting Unit
Pretreatment Information
Request
Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES
THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check
all
that
apply
from PERCS:
Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data
Date of Request
2/19/2021
municipal renewal
X
- we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
Requestor
Nicholas Coco
new industries
you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
CMSD WWTP
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0032077
Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Washington
stream reclass.
renewal.
PERCS draft fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
Neuse
outfall relocation
=mail permit,
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS
staff:
Other Comments to
PERCS:
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB,
TAR
Facility is rated 3.5 MGD
wtih 3 SIUs, including 1 CIU, listed in its
i
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM,
NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
application.
PERCS
Status
PRETREATMENT
of Pretreatment
STAFF COMPLETES THIS
Program (check all that apply)
PART:
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
-I
3) facility has SIUs
and DWQ approved Pretreatment
Program (list "DEV" if program
still under development)
-I
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
0.055
0.0254
2019
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
1.9406
2019
Next Cycle:
POC in LTMP/
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required by EPA*
Required
by 503
Sludge**
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
BOD
-I
-I
Q
TSS
-I
-I
Q
Q = Quarterly
NH3
-I
-I
Q
M = Monthly
Arsenic
Al
Q
Al
Cadmium
Al
Al
Al
Q
Al
Chromium
Al
Al
Q
Ai
Copper
Al
Al
Al
Q
Cyanide
Al
Q
Is all data on DMRs?
Al
Lead
Al
Al
Al
Q
YES
-I
Mercury
Al
Q
NO (attach data)
Molybdenum
Al
Q
Al
Nickel
Al
Al
Al
Q
Silver
-I
Q
Selenium
Al
Q
Al
Zinc
-I
Al
-I
Al
Q
Is data in spreadsheet?
Total Phosphorus
-I
-I
Q
YES (email to writer)
Total Nitrogen
-I
-I
Q
NO
-I
*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 W riter (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.form.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007

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 ICI J 2 IS I 3 I NC0032077 111 121 20/09/04 117
Type
18 [
IIIIIIIIIII
73I I 174
L�
Inspector Fac Type
19 G I 201
2111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
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)
Contentnea Sewerage District WWTP
900 Wiley Gaskins Rd
Grifton NC 28530
Entry Time/Date
09:10AM 20/09/04
Permit Effective Date
14/12/01
Exit Time/Date
10:40AM 20/09/04
Permit Expiration Date
19/11/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Charles M. Smithwick/ORC/252-524-5584/
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Charles M. Smithwick,PO Box 477 Grifton NC 285300477/District
Manager/252-524-5584/2525243491 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate Other
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
Sarah A Toppen DWR/WARO WQ/252-946-6481/
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

31
NPDES yr/mo/day
NC0032077 111 121 20/09/04
117
Inspection Type
18ILI
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On September 4, 2020, Sarah Toppen and Victoria Herdt with NCDWR was on -site to conduct a
compliance inspection. Chuck Smithwick, ORC was present for the facility.
The facility was complaint the day of the inspection. Please review the entire inspection report for more
details.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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: A spot check of July 2019 EDMRs were conducted.
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?
Yes No NA NE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The permit says there is four 0.1 MG reaeration tanks with fine bubble diffusers but there arE
only two.
Other Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a. Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a. Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
# 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: Influent flow is reported when the effluent meter is not working.
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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:
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Oxidation Ditches
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ •
Comment: The MLSS is running around 2100 and the DO was .44 mg/L the day of inspection.
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Type Chemical
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The sludge blanket was observed at 1 foot. The weirs are covered but the ORC lifted up one
of the sections. The top lifted up and the weirs appear level.
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Comment: Granville Farms pumps sludge as needed.
Solids Handling Equipment
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
Is storage adequate?
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility was not operating the equipment the day of the inspection. They were in the
process of cleaning the equipent for the weekend.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Down flow
Page# 6

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 ICI J 2 IS I 3 I NC0032077 111 121 20/09/04 117
Type
18 [
IIIIIIIIIII
73I I 174
L�
Inspector Fac Type
19 G I 201
2111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
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)
Contentnea Sewerage District WWTP
900 Wiley Gaskins Rd
Grifton NC 28530
Entry Time/Date
09:10AM 20/09/04
Permit Effective Date
14/12/01
Exit Time/Date
10:40AM 20/09/04
Permit Expiration Date
19/11/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Charles M. Smithwick/ORC/252-524-5584/
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Charles M. Smithwick,PO Box 477 Grifton NC 285300477/District
Manager/252-524-5584/2525243491 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate Other
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
Sarah A Toppen DWR/WARO WQ/252-946-6481/
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

31
NPDES yr/mo/day
NC0032077 111 121 20/09/04
117
Inspection Type
18ILI
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On September 4, 2020, Sarah Toppen and Victoria Herdt with NCDWR was on -site to conduct a
compliance inspection. Chuck Smithwick, ORC was present for the facility.
The facility was complaint the day of the inspection. Please review the entire inspection report for more
details.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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: A spot check of July 2019 EDMRs were conducted.
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?
Yes No NA NE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The permit says there is four 0.1 MG reaeration tanks with fine bubble diffusers but there arE
only two.
Other Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a. Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a. Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
# 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: Influent flow is reported when the effluent meter is not working.
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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:
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Oxidation Ditches
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ •
Comment: The MLSS is running around 2100 and the DO was .44 mg/L the day of inspection.
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Type Chemical
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Is the filter media present?
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Is the filter free of growth?
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
Comment: ORC said the filter is backwashed once a week.
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:
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility has 3 generators present and 1,000 gallons of extra fuel available on site.
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?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0032077
Inspection Date: 09/04/2020
Owner - Facility: Contentnea Sewerage District VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Is the filter media present?
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Is the filter free of growth?
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
Comment: ORC said the filter is backwashed once a week.
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:
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility has 3 generators present and 1,000 gallons of extra fuel available on site.
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?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 1. EPA Application Form 1 Missing Information
40 CFR 122.21(f)(2)
1.1 Email address of facility contact [e-mail]
40 CFR 122.21(f)(3)
1,2
NAIC.SCod.e(s)
Description (optional)'
40 CFR 122.21(f)(4)
1.3
Email address of operator [e-mail]
40 CFR 122.21(f)(9)
14 Does your facility use cooling water?
❑ Yes El No 4 SKIP to Item 1.6
1.5 Identify the source of cooling water. (Note that facilities that use a cooling water intake structure as described at 40 CFR 125,
Subparts I and J may have additional application requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(r). Consult with your NPDES permitting
authority to determine what specific information needs to be submitted and when.)
40 CFR 122.21(f)(10)
1.6 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(m)? (Check all that apply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
Fundamentally different factors (CWA ❑ Water quality related effluent limitations (CWA Section
Section 301(n)) 302(b)(2))
Non -conventional pollutants (CWA
Section 301(c) and (g))
❑ Not applicable
40 CFR 122.22(a) and (d)
❑ Thermal discharges (CWA Section 316(a))
Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. lam aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name (print or type first and last name)
Charles M. Smithwick, Jr
Official title
District Manager, CMSD
Date signed
2-23-2021

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR 122.21(j)(1)
1.1
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
1.4 '
Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge
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))
0 Not applicable
1.6
Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works
40 CFR
122.210)(6)
1,7
Indicate the number of Sills and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
40 CFR
1.8 '`
Number of SlUs
Number of CIUs
3
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.
!
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)
Charles M. Smithwick, Jr
Official title
District Manager, CMSD
Signature
,....1
-�"` �i'lC6
'7
Date signed
2-23-2021

Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District
-Influent wastewater is received at the WWTP and passes through a mechanically cleaned bar
screen with a manual bypass bar screen.
- The water then passes through a grit removal process before being measured by the influent
flow meter (parshall flume)
-RAS (Return Activated Sludge) is introduced at the influent distribution box to allow for mixing
and then enters the Oxidation Ditch (Five -Stage Bardenpho System). Please see attachment.
-The wastewater leaves that Oxidation Ditch and enters the clarifier influent distribution box
and is distributed into two (2) 90 ft. diameter clarifiers. RAS (Return Activated Sludge) is
returned to the head of the plant and the clarifier effluent is introduced to four (4)
denitrification filters via four (4) 2,030 gpm filter feed pumps.
-Methanol is dosed before entering the filters to aid in nitrate removal. After passing through
the filters, the wastewater then passes through three (3) banks of UV disinfection.
- The wastewater passes through a post aerator tank (10 hp aerator) and 1,800 ft. of 36" ductile
iron pipe before being introduced to the receiving waters (Contentnea Creek).
- Sludge is dewatered by the use of two (2) sludge dewatering screw presses (100 gpm feed
pumps).

The Five -Stage Bardenpho System is an advanced secondary wastewater treatment process
designed for BOD removal and biological nutrient removal. This system is a staged, activated
sludge process which uses the BOD of the wastewater to accomplish nitrogen and phosphorus
removal without chemicals. A schematic of the process, shown on Figure 1-1, shows that the
Five -Stage Bardenpho consists of the following five stages:
Anaerobic (Fermentation) Stage
First Anoxic Stage
Carrousel System (Aerobic Stage for BOD removal and nitrification)
Second Anoxic Stage
Re -Aeration Stage
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT _^
RA▪ S
INFLUENT
RAS
ANAEROBIC
ZONE
FOSNAiAEPA00N
IONE
POSTAINVIC
ZONE
SLAM
IOST•ANOXIC
1011E
FIRST
ANOMC
ZONE
{1PST
OE IC
Z00E
stun Ireti •
AE0oazc
ZONE
• no
PROBE
C ZONE
ZONE
CARROUSEL BASIN
CNAt1NEt
ZOIIE
CENINEL
0011E
AEROBIC
ZONE
ANAEROBIC
EFFLUENT
9RST
AN0)CC
ZONE
FIRST
ANDRIC
BONE
OFRf1RIFiUTO
AEROBIC
ZONE
CHANNEL
ZONE
OOS Z
zO4E
CARROUSEL BASIN
CNNNIA
ZONE
*It
AEROBIC
ZONE
ZONE
ZONE
Eid
700E
OO
M•m1l fast• Nonnd • P0.O8E
POSFAERATI07I
ZONE
POST+V10#C
ZONE
f
SIAS
POST-01110G
ZONE ZO
i
Figure 1-1
FIVE -STAGE BARDENPHO SYSTEM LAYOUT
(The following provides a more specific description of each of the Five -Stage Bardenpho System stages.)

1. ANAEROBIC (FERMENTATION) STAGE
In order for efficient phosphorus removal to occur, the microorganisms in the activated sludge
must be conditioned environmentally to rapidly release phosphorus under anaerobic conditions
and absorb phosphorus under aerobic conditions. In the Bardenpho System, anaerobic
conditions are developed in the anaerobic, or fermentation, basins.
The anaerobic condition requires that neither dissolved oxygen or nitrate -nitrogen are present.
When either DO or nitrate -nitrogen are present in sufficient quantities, the environment
becomes either anoxic or aerobic and the microorganisms that would release phosphorus in an
anaerobic environment will likely not be triggered to do so.
In the anaerobic, or fermentation, basins, the return activated sludge is contacted and mixed
with the incoming sewage under anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic condition represents a
stressed condition to the microorganisms. Under such stressed conditions, microorganisms
release stored phosphorus. Yes, this seems like the opposite of what you want to do —however,
the stressed condition, and consequent release of stored phosphorus, results in the development
of biological populations that have the capability of storing greater than normal amounts of
phosphorus when they are exposed to aerobic conditions in the nitrification stage.
2, FIRST ANOXIC STAGE
The first anoxic stage of the Five -Stage Bardenpho System is designed to achieve efficient
denitrification, or nitrate removal. Denitrification can only occur in an anoxic environment. An
anoxic environment does NOT contain dissolved oxygen, but does contain nitrate, NO3-N. In
this environment, facultative bacteria present in the mixed liquor use the nitrates as a metabolic
replacement for oxygen. The nitrates are reduced by these bacteria to nitrogen gas, N2, in the
process known as denitrification. The nitrogen gas is subsequently stripped into the atmosphere
resulting in removal of nitrate from the wastewater. The bacteria simultaneously use BOD to
fuel cell growth and energy needs. BOD, or some other carbon source, is critical to the
denitrification process.
Bringing together the bacteria, the BOD and the nitrate is the key to successful denitrification.
The bacteria are naturally present -- they typically thrive in the mixed liquor. Influent flow,
which contains the - BOD, and return activated sludge (RAS) enter the first anoxic zone.
Recycled mixed liquor from the Carrousel basin, called internal recycle, is also delivered to the
first anoxic zone (see Figure 1-1) and provides nitrates that have been produced in the
nitrification stage. Thus, all the key elements are delivered to the first anoxic zone where
denitrification occurs. Chapter 13 describes this process in more detail.
3. CARROUSEL SYSTEM (AEROBIC AND NITRIFICATION STAGE)
Your Carrousel basin, the heart of the Five -Stage Bardenpho System, comprises the aerobic
stage where BOD removal and nitrification occur. The surface aerators in the Carrousel basin
transfer dissolved oxygen into the water. This dissolved oxygen is used to remove BOD and to
—2

convert ammonia nitrogen (NH3 N) to nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N). The Carrousel basin is capable
of oxidizing the influent ammonia to less than 1.0 mg/l. Again, Chapter 13 describes this
process in more detail.
4. SECOND ANOXIC STAGE
The nitrate produced in the aerobic stage is directed to both the first anoxic stage (via internal
recycle) and the second anoxic stage. The first anoxic stage can seldom accomplish 100
percent removal of nitrate; this is because internal recycle only delivers a finite amount of
nitrate to this stage. Thus, the second anoxic stage is used to reduce the remaining nitrate. The
endogenous respiration rate of the bacteria in the second anoxic stage is the source of carbon, or
the driving force responsible for reducing the nitrates to very low levels.
5. RE -AERATION STAGE
The re -aeration stage oxidizes any traces of ammonia and "strips" nitrogen gas (generated by
denitrification in the second anoxic stage) prior to final clarification and effluent discharge.
Re -aeration assures that nitrification and subsequent denitrification will not occur in the
secondary clarifier and cause floating sludge problems.

CONTENTNEA METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MERCURY MINIMIZATION PLAN
MARCH 12, 2015
SECTION I — PURPOSE
The purpose of this Mercury Minimization Plan ("MMP") is to describe best management practices
through which the Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District (Contentnea MSD) will seek to reduce
the amount of mercury discharged into its system and, ultimately, to the environment. The MMP
compiles mercury reduction -related efforts to -date and potential future action items. It is designed to
be a working document to help guide Contentnea MSD in its efforts to control mercury loadings
discharged into it Publicly -Owned Treatment Works (POTW) by users of the sewer system. Such a
reduction in loadings to the sewer system should translate to a reduction in the amount of mercury
which is discharged from the treatment plant.
SECTION II — FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The Contentnea MSD operates a publicly owned treatment works (POTW); including a collection system
and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that serves the municipalities of Winterville, Ayden, and
Grifton, North Carolina.
The Contentnea MSD Collection System consists of six (6) miles of 14 inch ductile iron force main from
Winterville; 10,700 feet of 30 to 36 inch gravity interceptor that collects wastewater from Winterville
and Ayden into the Highway 11 lift station; 8 miles of 20 to 24 inch ductile iron force main that carries
wastewater to the WWTP; and four (4) outlying lift stations; one in Winterville, one in Ayden, and one in
Grifton. The fourth lift station is Highway 11 and is a combination of all flows from Winterville and
Ayden. Each of the three municipalities is responsible for and maintains their own individually permitted
collection system.
The wastewater treatment plant consists of two, parallel five stage biological nutrient removal oxidation
ditches followed by two clarifiers, denitrification filters, ultra -violet light disinfection, and post aeration.
The oxidation ditches came online in December, 2013.
Most municipal treatment plants are not designed to remove mercury and it is exceedingly expensive to
do so to very low levels. Incidental mercury removal occurs through typical municipal treatment with
trace levels of mercury (and other metals) ending up in solids removed from the raw wastewater, The
Mercury content in the sludge has been minute.
SECTION III — PROGRAM PLAN
A. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL NON -DOMESTIC SOURCES CONTRIBUTING MERCURY TO THE POTW

Within 24 months from the NPDES required 180-day period for development of a MMP, the Contentnea
MSD will evaluate available information to assess the potential for non -domestic users of the sewer
system to contribute mercury to the system. The information to be reviewed may include: (1) POTW
influent and effluent mercury data and trends; (2) industrial user permits and associated mercury
monitoring data; (3) Toxics Release Inventory (Till); (4) state hazardous site registry and the National
Priority List relating to mercury contamination; and (5) historical records of industrial sites which may
have contributed mercury loadings to the sewer system.
The Contentnea MSD may also survey and evaluate the following common sources of mercury in its
service area: (1) dentist offices; (2) hospitals; (3) laboratories; (4) auto recyclers; and (5) other potential
sources of mercury based on existing information.
The evaluation of potential non -domestic sources of mercury to the sewer system will be updated every
five years, as warranted by prior sampling results and any additional new potentially significant sources
to the system.
B. ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES
Pollution Prevention
Substances used at the WWTP will be evaluated to determine if they contain mercury or mercury -based
compounds. Any such chemicals will be evaluated for substitution with non -mercury -containing
substances.
The fluorescent bulbs used for lighting at the WWTP will be properly disposed of at the Pitt County
Landfill.
The ultraviolet bulbs used for disinfection at the WWTP will be properly disposed of in a manner that
meets all Federal and State Regulations.
Laboratory Practice
The Contentnea MSD operates a laboratory for purposes of complying with state and federal monitoring
and sampling requirements. The laboratory is a potential source of small quantities of mercury -
containing compounds. Substances used in the laboratory will be evaluated to determine if they contain
mercury or mercury -based compounds. Any such substances will be evaluated for substitution with non -
mercury -containing substances. The laboratory has replaced mercury thermometers with non -mercury
thermometers, whenever practical.
C. TRACKING AND MONITORING
In order to assess the implementation of the control measures the Contentnea MSD proposes to
undertake the following evaluations beginning after the first full year that this MMP is implemented:
1. Survey annually at least ten percent (10%) of any non -domestic users identified as possible
significant sources of mercury to the POTW;
2. Monitor influent mercury at least quarterly. Monitor significant non -domestic sources for
mercury at feast annually.

3. Monitor mercury at least once per six months in each participating municipality for the
uncontrollable loading for the Headworks Analysis.
4. Measure effluent mercury at least quarterly as required by the NPDES permit.
These efforts will allow the Contentnea MSD to establish a baseline of influent and effluent mercury
levels to assist in identifying any trends in mercury contributions from domestic and non -domestic users
of the sewer system. This baseline will be tracked annually.
SECTION IV — IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL MEASURES
The Contentnea MSD will implement the control measures summarized in Section III over the permit
term and will update this MMP as warranted.
SECTION V — REPORTING
A summary of the MMP activities will be submitted as part of the NPDES permit renewal process.