NC0081370_Fact Sheet_20210503

Final Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0081370
Permit Writer / Email Contact Diana Yitbarek / [e-mail]
Date: 5/3/2021
Division/Unit: NC DEQ Division of Water Resources / NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
Fact Sheet Template: Version 01/09/2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, three effluent pollutant scans, four 2nd species WET tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based on industry
category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter N.A.
1. Basic Facility Information
Table 1. Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Claremont/McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 446, Claremont, NC 28610
Facility Address:
2310 JB Road, Claremont, NC 28610
Permitted Discharge Flow:
0.3/0.8/1 2 million gallons per day (MGD)
Facility Type/Waste:
Minor Municipal/ Domestic
Facility Class:
Class II (0.3 MGD)/Class III (0.8 and 1.2 MGD)
Treatment Units:
Catenary bar screen, influent pump station, digester, aeration basins, tertiary
sandfilters, chlorine contact chamber, dechlorination, aerated sludge holding
tanks, and cascade post -aeration.
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Catawba
Region
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
Permitting Action: The City of Claremont (City) applied for NPDES permit renewal for McLin Creek WWTP
(Facility) in September 2019. The application package included a formal delegation of authority to the City of
Hickory for the preparation of the EPA application form 2A.
Page 1 of 13

The Facility has a design capacity of 0.3 MGD and is currently authorized to discharge 0.3 MGD (and 0.8/1.2
MGD upon request) into McLin Creek, a class WS-IV, CA waters. The class denotes use as water supply and
critical area. The McLin Creek WWTP (Facility) serves about 800 residents within the City. The pretreatment
program is inactive since 2007. Per February 5, 2021, Addendum to the EPA application Form 2A there are
not significant industrial users (SIUs) nor non -significant categorical industrial users (NCCIUs) at the
moment. However, since the facility will expand to include flow from the Claremont North WWTP, we
request conducting an industrial waste survey (IWS) upon consolidation.
Facility Background: The Facility utilizes an Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEAS). Flow enters
the plant and is split into two basins. While in the basins, the influent wastewater goes through aeration, settling and
decant cycles. The effluent is then sent to three tertiary sand filters and finally chlorinated and dechlorinated before
discharge into the receiving waters. The Bio-solids residuals removed as part of the treatment process are
transported to the Regional Compost Facility for processing into Class A-EQ compost.
The Permittee plans to expand and upgrade the Facility to accommodate the flow from the Claremont North
WWTP, consolidating both facilities into one. The Claremont North WWTP is a 0.1 MGD wastewater treatment
system, permitted under NC0032662, that accepts and treats wastewater from locations in the City of Claremont.
Flow from the North WWTP will be diverted to the expanded Facility. Once the first expansion is completed the
North WWTP will be decommissioned.
On August 4, 2015, the City of Claremont submitted a permit modification request to expand the facility in phases,
initially to 0.8 MGD and ultimately to 1.2 MGD. The Division added two effluent limitation and monitoring pages
with flow tiers of 0.8 MGD and 1.2 MGD and required the permittee to submit a justification for the flow increase
to 1.2 MGD, describing projected flows for a 20 year planning period, prior to submitting an Authorization to
Construct for that phase. At the present time this fact sheet assessment is based on a wastewater plant flow of 0.3
MGD.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Table 2. Receiving Waterbodv Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 [35°41'44"N, 81°07'19"W] /McLin Creek
Stream Segment/Assessment
Unit (AU):
11-76-5- (0.7)
Stream Classification:
WS-IV; CA
Drainage Area (mi2):
22.6
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
5.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
9.0
30Q2 (cfs):
11
Average Flow (cfs):
26
Instream Waste Concentration
(IWC) (% effluent):
9 % at 0.3 MGD (7Q10S),
19% at 0.8 MGD (7Q10S), and
27 % at 1.2 MGD (7Q10S)
303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes - For Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes - Mercury Statewide TMDL implemented in 2012
Page 2 of 13

Basin/Sub-basin/ Hydrologic unit
code (HUC):
Catawba River Basin/03-08-32/03050101
USGS Topo Quad/State Grid:
Catawba/E14NE
McLin Creek begins in the City of Conover, flows through the City of Newton and empties into Lyle Creek. The
headwaters of McLin Creek and Long Creek (which flows into McLin) receives industrial stormwater discharge
from the cities of Newton and Claremont. McLin Creek receives stormwater discharge from about 22 industrial
facilities with General Stormwater Discharge permits. The next several miles of the creek flow through
agricultural properties. This creek has resulted in a moderate benthic rating of Good -Fair since 1997; however, in
2007 the rating declined to Fair. See additional information in the 2010 Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan.
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below from May 2016 through November 2020.
Table 3. Effluent Data Summary with permit limits Outfall 001. Parameters listed as in the last permit.
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
0.17
0.60
0.03
MA* 0.3 MGD
BODs (Summer)
mg/1
4.69
56.0
2.0
MA 8.0 mg/I
WA 12.0 mg/I
BOD5 (Winter)
mg/1
4.09
12.0
2.0
MA 16.0 mg/I
WA 24.0 mg/I
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
mg/1
3.04
47.7
2.5
MA 30.0 mg/I
WA 45.0 mg/I
NH3-N (Summer)
mg/1
1.06
35.0
0.10
MA 2.0 mg/I
WA 6.0 mg/I
NH3-N (Winter)
mg/1
0.42
4.08
0.10
MA 4.0 mg/I
WA 12.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
mg/1
12.9
5.5
DA*
DA* >_ 5.0 mg/I
Fecal Coliform
#/100 ml
1.72
(Geomean)
6000.00
MA 200/100m1
WA 400/100m1
Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC)
µgn
20
20
20
DM* 28.00 pg/I
Temperature
°C
17
26
5
-
pH
SU
6.97
8.8
6.0
6.0 < pH < 9.0
Total Nitrogen (TN)
mg/1
12.74
24.00
4.20
-
Total Phosphorus
(TP)
m n
g
3.55
6.10
0.74
-
*MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily 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 D.O. 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 total maximum daily load (TMDL); 4)
Page 3 of 13

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).
Instream data summary and instream monitoring proposed for this permit action:
The current permit requires instream [upstream (U) and downstream (D)] monitoring for dissolved oxygen
and temperature. The figures below summarizes instream and effluent (Eff) data from the analyzed period,
May 2016 —November 2020.
Figure 1. Average, maximum, and minimum instream and effluent data summary
30.00
20.00
10.00
Temperature, C DO, mg/I
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Upstream
Effluent Downstream
Upstream
11.
Effluent Downstream
• Average of Value • Max of Value ' Min of Value • Average of Value • Max of Value • Min of Value
T-tests were run to analyze relationships between T and DO instream sample results. A statistically significant
difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05.
Temperature: The maximum downstream temperature was 24 degrees Celsius, and the maximum
temperature differential between the upstream and downstream samples was three degrees Celsius. Instream
standards for temperature did not consistently meet [15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)].
Upon running the T-test, it was concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between the
upstream and downstream temperatures.
DO: The minimum downstream DO detected was 4.2 mg/1 on 9/7/2016, and the maximum DO differential
between the upstream and downstream samples was 5.3 mg/1.
It was concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream DO.
Hardness: Effluent hardness and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, have been
monitored since July 2016. Effluent hardness and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge,
have been added to the permit for the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for the 1.2 MGD flow
tier, at a monitoring frequency of quarterly, in this permit cycle.
The NC 2007-2014 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Committee (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently approved
the WQS revisions on April6, 2016 with some exceptions. The NC Division of Water Resources NPDES
Permitting Unit was required to implement the new dissolved metal standards in all permits public noticed
after April6, 2016. The new standards for most metals include acute standards. Further, the freshwater
standards for several metals are expressed as the dissolved form of the metals, and seven metals have
hardness -dependent equations. As a result at the 1.2 MGD flow tier, the NPDES Permitting Unit will need
site -specific effluent hardness data and instream hardness data, upstream of the discharge, for each facility
monitoring these metals in order to calculate permit limitations.
Page 4 of 13

Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): NO
5. Compliance Summary
Below find summaries of compliance data from November 2015 to November 2020.
Compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years):
The Facility received a total of two notices of violation (NOVs) for exceeding weekly average (WA) limits
for BOD5. The Facility also received 10 enforcement cases for exceeding WA limits for BOD5, fecal coliform,
and total ammonia. The ARO representative, Wes Bell, is working with the Facility to monitor the Facility's
compliance performance.
• BOD5, WA was exceeded in four periods. The max. WA exceedance was 56 mg/1 on September 2016. (WA
limit: 8 mg/1). BOD5, MA was exceeded in two periods. The max. MA exceedance was 20.82 mg/1 on
September 2016. (MA limit: 12 mg/1).
• Fecal, WA was exceeded one time in March 2016 at 5366#/100 ml. (WA limit: 400#/I00m1)
• Ammonia, WA was exceeded in five periods. The max. WA exceedance was in September 2016 at 35
mg/1. (WA limit: 6 mg/1)
Summary of the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past 5
years):
The Facility passed nineteen of nineteen quarterly chronic toxicity tests from January 2015 to September
2019.
Summary of the results from the most recent compliance inspection:
The last facility inspection conducted in October 2018 reported that the ORC and staff implemented a
comprenhensive process control program with all measurements properly documented and maintained on -site.
At the time of the inspection the grit removal system was not operational; aeration basins, tertiary sand filters
and chlorination/dechlorination system were operational and in service; and it was noted that the back up
generator only powers the influent pump station.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
6.1 Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following stream flows are used for dilution considerations for
development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic Life;
non -carcinogen H.H.); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, H.H.).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Streamflow values were extracted from the 2015 fact sheet as required by the Division.
6.2 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:
Page 5 of 13

The current permit limits for BOD are from the 2014 speculative effluent limits based on water quality
modeling to protect the instream DO water quality standard.
6.3 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 N.C. water quality standard for protection of
aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1 (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values reported
below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal:
The current permit sets the same summer and winter MA and WA limits for ammonia for the three flow tiers
(0.3, 0.8, and 1.2 MGD). The MA was exceeded to a maximum of 16.08 mg/1 (MA limit: 2.0 mg/1). The
maximum value of ammonia reported for summer was 35 mg/1 and for winter 4.08 mg/1; The Division
prepared wasteload allocation (WLA) calculations for each in -stream waste concentration (IWC), the different
design flows of 0.3 MGD, and a 7Q10 of 5 cfs. The current limits and monitoring requirements are
appropriate for this renewal for the three flow tiers.
The facility uses chlorination as its primary disinfection. The current permit limits TRC at 28 as a daily
maximum for the three flow tiers. All the reported TRC values remained at 20 ug/L. The facility is considered
compliant with its permit. The TRC limit has been reviewed in the attached WLA and has been found to be
protective. No changes are proposed for TRC.
6.4 Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
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 Y2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) stream flows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, N.C. 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.
The RPAs were conducted for permitted flows of 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD, and 1.2 MGD with a 7Q10S of 5
cubic feet per second (cfs) to obtain the instream waste concentration (IWC) calculation.
Under the current permit, no effluent pollutant scans are required for the 0.3 MGD and 0.8 MGD flow tiers,
and the facility currently does not monitor for any toxicants analyzed in the RPA. The average flow for the
past five years was 0.16 MGD. Therefore, at the moment the Division does not require any additional toxicant
limitations.
• 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
Page 6 of 13

• 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: NA
These compounds will be monitored in the pretreatment program during this permit cycle: NA
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: No effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for additional
pollutants of concern. (Not required)
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: NA
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: NA
Include a printout of the RPA Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a
Pretreatment Program. NA
6.5 Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Minor Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), and
a chronic WET limit will continue on a quarterly frequency at Outfall 001 at 9% at 0.3 MGD using
Ceriodaphnia dubia. For the 0.8 MGD flow tier, a quarterly chronic WET limit would apply at 19% effluent
concentration, using Ceriodaphnia dubia.
For the 1.2 MGD, please note this flow tier is subject to the Effluent Pollutant Scan requirements and also
subject to additional toxicity testing requirements specified in Federal Regulation 40 CFR 122.21(j)(5). For
the 1.2 MGD flow tier, a quarterly chronic WET limit would apply at 27% effluent concentration, using
Ceriodaphnia dubia, as well. The US EPA requires four (4) additional toxicity tests for a test organism other
Ceriodaphnia dubia. The additional species tests should be conducted either quarterly for a 12-month period
prior to submittal of the permit renewal application, or four tests performed at least annually in the four- and
one-half year period prior to the application.
6.6 Mercury Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (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 multiple quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) received an
MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a pollutant of
concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL
value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/1
A mercury evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Permitting Guidance developed for the
implementation of the statewide Mercury TMDL to determine the need for a limit.
Page 7 of 13

Table 4. Mercury Evaluation
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
Mercury Annual Average (ng/l)
-
-
2.09
3.,
Mercury Annual Max (ng/l)
-
-
2.09
3.28
Below find summaries of compliance mercury data from 2016 to 2019. Based on the dataset, the water quality
based effluent limitation (WQBEL) for mercury are 141.1, 60.4, and 44.3 ng/1 for 0.3, 0.8, and 1.2 MGD. The
technology based effluent limit (TBEL) is 47 ng/1.
Table 5. Mercury Effluent Data Summary - 0.3 MGD
2C_8
2019
# of Samples
1
1
Annual Average, ng/L
2.1
3.3
Maximum Value, ng/L
2.09
3.28
TBEL, ng/L
L7
WOBEL, ng/L
_=_ C
Table 6. Mercury Effluent Data Summary - 0.8 MGD
2018
2 019
# of Samples
1
1
AnnualAverage,ng/L
2.1
3.3
Maximum Value, ng/L
2.09
3.28
TBEL, ng/L
=?
WOBEL,ng/L
CC
Table 7. Mercury Effluent Data Summary - 1.2 MGD
2018
2019
# of Sam pl es
=
1
Annual Average, ng/L
2 _
3.3
Maximum Value, ng/L
2 C9
3.28
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
44.3
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: No annual average mercury concentration
exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL. The maximum value reported
in this period was 3.28 ng/1. No mercury limit is required, and since the Facility is <2 MGD a mercury
minimization plan (MMP) is not required.
6.7 Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit:
The permit reflects quarterly nutrient (TP and TN; TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N) monitoring for all flow tiers (0.3
MGD, 0.8 MGD, and 1.2 MGD)
Page 8 of 13

Annual nutrient TN and TP loads: The maximum TN and TP annual loads during the evaluated period, based
on TN and TP quarterly sampling events, were 87,741 lb/yr (2017) and 24,814 lb/yr (2020). The Facility is
currently operating at a flow limit of 0.3 MGD and there is a proposal to increase to 0.8 MGD and 1.2 MGD.
There are not annual load TN and TP limits for the 0.8 MGD and 1.2 MGD flow tier. Annual loads for TN
and TP will be revisited when a final nutrient TMDL for the Catawba River Basin is concluded.
Table 8. TN and TP Annual Load Summary
Parameter
2017
2018
2019
2020
Annual TN load, lb/yr
87,741
58,812
63,126
69,636
Annual TP load, lb/yr
19,128
13,429
19,681
24,814
6.8 Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
The current permit limits for BOD are 2014 speculative effluent limits based on water quality modeling to
protect the instream DO water quality standard.
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
Page 9 of 13

9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations may
be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL limits,
or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Frequency 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 the 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD, and 1.2 MGD flow tiers, the Division will maintain the monitoring frequency
requirements as in the previous permit cycle.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. 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 9. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes for 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD, and 1.2 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit Limits and
Monitoring Frequency
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD,
and 1.2 MGD
Monitor and report
Continuously
No changes
15A NCAC 2B .0505
The average flow for the past five years
was 0.16 MGD
BOD5 (Summer)
Monitor and report
weekly for 0.3 MGD
3/week for 0.8 MGD and
1.2 MGD
MA 8.0 mg/1
WA 12.0 mg/1
No changes
2014 Speculative Effluent Limits. Water
quality based limits based on water
quality model to protect stream DO
standard
Monitoring frequencies for the phased
flows of 0.8 MGD and 1.2 MGD follow
Page 10 of 13

Grade III requirements as specified in
15A NCAC .0508
BOD5 (Winter)
Monitor and report
weekly for 0.3 MGD
3/week for 0.8 MGD and
1.2 MGD
MA 16.0 mg/1
WA 24.0 mg/1
No changes
2014 Speculative Effluent Limits. Water
quality based limits based on water
quality model to protect stream DO
standard
TSS
Monitor and report
weekly for 0.3 MGD
3/week for 0.8 MGD and
1.2 MGD
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
No changes
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B
.0406
NH3-N (Summer)
Monitor and report
weekly for 0.3 MGD
3/week for 0.8 MGD and
1.2 MGD
MA 2.O mg/1
WA 6.O mg/1
No changes
2014 Speculative Effluent Limits. Water
quality based limits based on water
quality model to protect stream DO
standard
NH3-N (Winter)
Monitor and report
weekly for 0.3 MGD
3/week for 0.8 MGD and
1.2 MGD
MA 4.0 mg/1
WA 12.0 mg/1
No changes
2014 Speculative Effluent Limits. Water
quality based limits based on water
quality model to protect stream DO
standard
DO
Monitor and report weekly
for effluent and instream.
DA: Not less than 5 mg/l.
No changes
2014 Speculative Effluent Limits.
Based on the results of the modeling
analysis. The Qual2K model predicted
DO concentrations above the water
quality standard maintaining the current
concentration limits for BOD and
ammonia (2014)
Fecal coliform
(Geometric Mean)
Monitor and report
weekly for 0.3 MGD
3/week for 0.8 MGD and
1.2 MGD
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
No changes
WQBEL. State W.Q. standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
pH
Monitor and report weekly
for All flow tiers
6 - 9 S.U.
No changes
WQBEL. State W.Q. standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
TRC
Monitor and report
weekly for 0.3 MGD
3/week for 0.8 MGD and
1.2 MGD
DM 28.0 µg/1
No changes
WQBEL. State W.Q. standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200. The Division
considers all effluent TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 to be in
compliance with the permit
Temperature
Monitor and report weekly
for effluent and instream
No changes
15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
2B.0500
Page 11 of 13

for 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD,
and 1.2 MGD.
Total Hardness
None
Added quarterly
monitoring upstream
and effluent for 1.2
MGD
If the Pretreatment
program becomes
active, add quarterly
monitoring upstream
and effluent for 0.3
MGD or 0.8 MGD
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
water quality standards approved in
2016
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Monitor and report
quarterly
For 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD,
and 1.2 MGD
No changes
15A NCAC 2B .0500 — Surface Water
Monitoring and Reporting
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Monitor and report
quarterly
For 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD,
and 1.2 MGD
No changes
15A NCAC 2B .0500 — Surface Water
Monitoring and Reporting
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 9 % (0.3
MGD) / 19 % (0.8 MGD) /
27 % (1.2 MGD).
No changes
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
None for 0.3 MGD, 0.8
MGD.
For 1.2 MGD
Three times per permit
cycle.
If applicable, next
scans must be
performed in three
consecutive years
following the increase
to tier 1.2 MGD or if
the Pretreatment
program becomes
active.
40 CFR parts 423 and 122
Electronic Reporting
Electronic reporting
Added language for
new electronic
reporting deadline
December 21, 2025
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015 and Rule -Phase 2
special condition
for 0.3 MGD, 0.8 MGD,
and 1.2 MGD
Extension
* M.A. - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, D.M. — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule
Permit to Public Notice: March 16, 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)
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
Page 12 of 13

Effluent hardness was listed in the tables in Sections A.(1.) and A.(2.) and additional language was added to
the Footnote 9 in Sections A.(1.) and A.(2.) to clarify that monitoring for upstream hardness would be
required if effluent pollutant scans are deemed necessary.
15. Fact Sheet Attachments:
1. RPAs Spreadsheets Summary for 0.3, 0.8, and 1.2 MGD. Each sheet contains: input information tab
and results summary tab.
2. BOD and TSS Removal Rate calculations
3. NH3/TRC/Fecal Waste Load Allocation (WLA) Spreadsheet for 0.3, 0.8, and 1.2 MGD
4. Mercury TMDL Calculations for 0.3, 0.8, and 1.2 MGD
5. Toxicity Summary/WET testing
6. Instream data summary and ttest
7. 2018 and draft 2020 303d Lists (two pages)
8. Monitoring Report Violations and Compliance Report
9. Renewal Application Addendum Form 2A
10. Correspondence
11. Comments, questions, and responses from the public notice period
12. Affidavit
13. Public Water Supply memo
Page 13 of 13

Metal Translator
/95% Confidence Usi
95% Probabili
Q
a
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
0
E
0
:.i
0
a
cts
d
a)
V
O
U
co
CI
E
l6
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
J_
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
-I
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
1 O)
J
1 O)
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J_
a)C
J
O)
J
1 O)
J
1 O)
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
0
N-
Ln
O
CO
N/A
0
4.3414
1191.1175
N-
Z
14.3627
N
109.9868
445.1577
z
in
0.5277
167.0095
LL
=
2
LL
LL
LL
Q
Q
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
L.L
2
L.L
>
L.L
L.L
L.L
OO
Oo
inQ
O
0.7563
230
300
154.1018
Z
10.4361
ininO
1,800
4.2544
2000
O
0
V
25.0000
O
O
167.4334
0
0
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
Aquactic Life
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Arsenic
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
E
3
.c
T.)
co
N
>
u
U
c
T
N M W O N. CO W 0 a- N M V W CD N. CO 0) 0 N M er
O O O O O O O O NNNNN
f6 f6 fa fa fa R fa R fa R fa R ORR fa ORR fa R R fa R
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
WWI
McLin Creek VWVTP
Class II (0.3 MGD)/Class III (0.8 and 1.2 MGD)
NC0081370
0
O
o
co
O
McLin Creek
O
0
O
O
0
chh
Facility Name
WWTPIWTP Class
NPDES Permit
0
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
❑✓ Apply WS Hardness WQC
0
O
0
U)
0
0
N
N ? N
1.) u w �)
uto) w
O O N V� O
55Cj
005
48.59 mg/L (Avg)
33.44 mg/L (Avg)
J
0)
E
0)
co
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
N
a)
L
0
R
0
w
0
0
>-
0
0
0
w
0

2
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
NC0081370
ca
R
U
0
Effluent Hard Avg = 48.59 mg/L
Effluent Hard: 0 value > 100 mg/L
1.'
RECOMMENDED ACTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
i
i
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
ri # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 3,389.0
Chronic (FW) 1,762.9
Chronic (HH): 569.1
Acute: 647.90
Chronic: 76.39
Acute: 43.274
Chronic: 8.889
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 7,396.8
Acute: 11,872.8
Chronic: 1,811.1
Acute: 159.5
Chronic: 129.3
knowable Cw
Acute: 143.16
Chronic: 122.65
Acute: 219.3
Chronic: 58.8
a
>
6
z
z
z
z
z
z
9z
z
z
LO
Al
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tot Cr value
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s.Wn
tk
lbd
o
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
vi
o
0.7563 FW(7Q10s) 4.3414
300 A(30Q2)
154.1018 FW(7Q10s) 1191.1175
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
10.4361 FW(7Q10s) 14.3627
N
N
o
-1'a
0
w
0
w
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
m
Cadmium
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
a
N
0
a
a

2
NC0081370
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Acute: 1,096.321
Chronic: 50.001
Acute (FW): 4,437.2
Chronic (FW): 577.8
Chronic (WS): 293.8
Acute: 558.2
Chronic: 58.8
Acute: 5.260
Chronic: 0.705
Acute: 1,664.7
Chronic: 1,967.8
Acute:
Chronic:
Acute:
Chronic:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.2544 FW(7Q10s) 109.9868
49.1670 FW(7Q10s) 445.1577
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
VD
a
w
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.5277
167.4334 FW(7Q10s) 167.0095
z
z z
z
z
z
L
co
J
Y Y
U U
Selenium
G!
�
N
U
C
N

Metal Translator
/95% Confidence Usi
95% Probabili
Q
a
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
0
E
0
:.i
w
a
cts
d
a)
E
l6
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
J_
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
-I
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J_
a)
C
J
O)
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
0
N—
Ln
0
'I"
N/A
CON-
4.5522
1245.3177
Z
15.1171
N
116.8751
466.0973
z
in
0.5793
174.8778
LL
=
2
LL
LL
LL
Q
Q
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
L.L
2
L.L
>
L.L
L.L
L.L
OO
0
(6
0.7845
230
300
160.3287
Z
10.8765
in
1,800
4.4908
2000
51.2206
25.0000
in
CO
O
174.4377
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ0000000000000000000
Aquactic Life
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Arsenic
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
E
3
.c
a)
)
N
>
u)
U
c
N
T
N M W O N. CO CC)0 a—N M V W CDN. CO 0) 0 N M er
O O O O O O O O NNNNN
f6 f6 fa fa fa R fa R fa R fa R ORR fa ORR fa R R fa R
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
WWI
McLin Creek VWVTP
Class II (0.3 MGD)/Class III (0.8 and 1.2 MGD)
NC0081370
0
O
o
co
McLin Creek
O
0
0
O
0
ch
Facility Name
WWTPIWTP Class
NPDES Permit
0
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
❑✓ Apply WS Hardness WQC
0
O
0
0
0
0
Cfl
N
N w N
• w �)
u w
O • O N V� O
oCj
48.59 mg/L (Avg)
33.44 mg/L (Avg)
J
0)
E
Cfl
co
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
N
a)
L
0
co
co

2
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
NC0081370
z
W
U
w
N
d
¢ CO
Z K
0Q
ovj
>a
Q w
= W
7 K
O N
10
Effluent Hard: 0 value > 100 mg/L
Effluent Hard Avg = 48.59 mg/L
Q
U
RECOMMENDED ACTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
ri # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 1,483.4
Chronic (FW): 754.8
Chronic (HH)219.7
Acute: 283.59
Chronic: 32.71
Acute: 19.861
Chronic: 3.948
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 2,961.3
Acute: 5,433.2
Chronic: 806.8
Acute: 69.8
Chronic: 55.4
knowable Cw
Acute: 65.95
Chronic: 54.73
Acute: 96.0
Chronic: 25.2
z
z
z
z
z
a
6
V
z 9z
0
Al
z
z
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
Tot Cr value
0 0
O
0
0
0
Sin
tk
lbd
o
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
v
o
-1'a
0
w
0.7845 FW(7Q10s) 4.5522
300 A(30Q2)
160.3287 FW(7Q10s) 1245.3177
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
10.8765 FW(7Q10s) 15.1171
N
N
o
0
w
V'
U
U
Z
z
z
z
z
z
Z
Z
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
m
Cadmium
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
a
0
a
a

2
NC0081370
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Acute: 509.915
Chronic: 22.599
Acute (FW): 2,033.5
Chronic (FW): 257.8
Chronic (WS): 125.8
Acute: 244.3
Chronic: 25.2
Acute: 2.528
Chronic: 0.302
Acute: 763.0
Chronic: 877.8
Acute:
Chronic:
Acute:
Chronic:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.4908 FW(7Q10s) 116.8751
51.2206 FW(7Q10s) 466.0973
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
VD
a
w
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.5793
174.4377 FW(7Q10s) 174.8778
z
z z
z
z
z
L
co
J
Y Y
U U
Selenium
G!
�
N
U
C
N

Metal Translator
/95% Confidence Usi
95% Probabili
Q
a
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
0
E
0
:.i
w
a
cts
w
a)
co
CI
E
l6
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
J_
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
-I
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J_
a)
C
J
O)
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
0
N-
LO
O
0
COO
N/A
LO
4.6811
co
W
CO
N
Q
Z
15.5799
N
N
121.1284
478.8885
Q
Z
(0
in
0.6121
179.6845
u_
1
2
u
LLL
Q
Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2U_5
U
U
U
O
0
(6
0.8023
230
300
164.2694
Z
11.1556
in
1,800
4.6421
2000
52.5216
25.0000
in
O
O
O
178.8752
0
0
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
Aquactic Life
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Arsenic
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
E
3
.c
T.)
co
N
>
u
U
c
T
N M W O N. CO W 0 a- N M V W CD N. CO 07 0 N M er
O O O O O O O O NNNNN
f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
WWI
McLin Creek VWVTP
Class II (0.3 MGD)/Class III (0.8 and 1.2 MGD)
NC0081370
0
O
0
N
McLin Creek
O
0
O
O
0
ch
Facility Name
WWTPIWTP Class
NPDES Permit
0
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
❑✓ Apply WS Hardness WQC
0
O
0
U)
0
0
N
V) w N
c,) u w c)
uto) w
O O N V� O
c)Cj
48.59 mg/L (Avg)
33.44 mg/L (Avg)
J
0)
E
00
co
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
w
0
0
>-
a
0
0
w
0

Outfall 001
2
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
NC0081370
4
Effluent Hard: 0 value > 100 mg/L
Effluent Hard Avg = 48.59 mg/L
Q
U
II II II II II cc2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
ri # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 1,102.3
Chronic (FW): 553.2
Chronic (HH): 149.8
Acute: 210.73
Chronic: 23.97
Acute: 15.176
Chronic: 2.959
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 2,074.2
Acute: 4,144.5
Chronic: 605.9
Acute: 51.9
Chronic: 40.6
knowable Cw
Acute: 50.51
Chronic: 41.14
Acute: 71.3
Chronic: 18.4
z
z
z
z
z
a
6
V
z 9z
LO
Al
z
z
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
Tot Cr value
0 0
O
0
0
0
s.Wn
tk
lbd
o
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
v
ocn
-1'a
w
0.8023 FW(7Q10s) 4.6811
300 A(30Q2)
164.2694 FW(7Q10s) 1278.3883
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
11.1556 FW(7Q10s) 15.5799
N
N
o
w
V'
0.
U
U
Z
z
z
z
z
z
Z
Z
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
m
Cadmium
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
a
0
a
a

Outfall 001
2
II
0
L
O
4-
C
E4
L
r
4-
C0
y
0
0
C
0
C
O
U
4-
is
O
L
a
0)
a
cc
L
0
4-
as
N
L
u_
NC0081370
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Acute: 392.690
Chronic: 17.121
Acute (FW): 1,552.5
Chronic (FW): 193.7
Chronic (WS) 92.2
Acute: 181.5
Chronic: 18.4
Acute: 1.984
Chronic: 0.221
Acute: 582.5
Chronic: 659.7
Acute:
Chronic:
Acute:
Chronic:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.6421 FW(7Q10s) 121.1284
52.5216 FW(7Q10s) 478.8885
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
VD
a
w
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.6121
178.8752 FW(7Q10s) 179.6845
z
z z
z
z
z
L
co
J
Y Y
U U
Z Z
Selenium
G!
�
jq
U
C
N

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/5/2016 40.2 40.2 Std Dev.
2 8/1/2016 31.9 31.9 Mean
3 9/7/2016 51.7 51.7 C.V.
4 10/4/2016 57.4 57.4 n
5 11/8/2016 48.5 48.5 10th Per value
6 1/10/2017 43.9 43.9 Average Value
7 4/4/2017 69.8 69.8 Max. Value
8 7/11/2017 60.6 60.6
9 10/2/2017 46.3 46.3
10 1/23/2018 50.8 50.8
11 4/3/2018 47.3 47.3
12 7/10/2018 65.5 65.5
13 10/2/2018 46.9 46.9
14 1/8/2019 52.3 52.3
15 4/2/2019 32.1 32.1
16 7/9/2019 32.7 32.7
17 10/1/2019 67.7 67.7
18 1/7/2020 38.7 38.7
19 4/7/2020 41.3 41.3
20 7/14/2020 38.1 38.1
21 10/6/2020 56.6 56.6
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
H2
Upstream Hardness
11.3610
48.5857
0.2338
21
32.70 mg/L
48.59 mg/L
69.80 mg/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/5/2016 26 26 Std Dev.
2 8/1/2016 29.9 29.9 Mean
3 9/7/2016 31.1 31.1 C.V.
4 11/8/2016 38.9 38.9 n
5 1/10/2017 33 33 10th Per value
6 4/4/2017 24.6 24.6 Average Value
7 7/11/2017 35.8 35.8 Max. Value
8 10/2/2017 32 32
9 1/23/2018 37.9 37.9
10 4/3/2018 31 31
11 7/10/2018 33.8 33.8
12 10/2/2018 28.3 28.3
13 1/8/2019 33.2 33.2
14 4/2/2019 33.6 33.6
15 7/9/2019 54.7 54.7
16 10/1/2019 33.4 33.4
17 1/7/2020 33.3 33.3
18 4/9/2020 34.6 34.6
19 7/14/2020 30.9 30.9
20 10/6/2020 32.8 32.8
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
6.0778
33.4400
0.1818
20
28.07 mg/L
33.44 mg/L
54.70 mg/L
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 1 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev. NO DATA
2 Mean NO DATA
3 C.V. NO DATA
4 n 0
5
6 Mult Factor = N/A
7 Max. Value N/A ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw N/A ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 2 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par04
Cadmium
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 3 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05
Chlorides
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Par06
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then "I
. Maximum c
points = 5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
NO DATA 1 Std Dev. NO DATA
NO DATA 2 Mean NO DATA
NO DATA 3 C.V. NO DATA
0 4 n 0
5
N/A 6 Mult Factor = N/A
N/A mg/L 7 Max. Value N/A
N/A mg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw N/A
9
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 4 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL
COPY"
iota
i8
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
ug/L
ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A ug/L
Max. Pred Cw N/A ug/L
Par08
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then "I
. Maximum c
points = 5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev. NO DATA
2 Mean NO DATA
3 C.V. NO DATA
4 n 0
5
6 Mult Factor = N/A
7 Max. Value N/A
8 Max. Pred Cw N/A
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
Chromium III
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 5 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL
COPY"
iota
i8
Par09
Chromium VI
pg/L
pg/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. 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
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A pg/L
N/A pg/L
Par10
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then "I
. Maximum c
points = 5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev. NO DATA
2 Mean NO DATA
3 C.V. NO DATA
4 n 0
5
6 Mult Factor = N/A
7 Max. Value N/A
8 Max. Pred Cw N/A
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
Chromium, Total
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 6 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL
COPY"
iota
i8
Pall
Copper
pg/L
pg/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. 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
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
Par12
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then "I
. Maximum c
points = 5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev. NO DATA
2 Mean NO DATA
3 C.V. NO DATA
4 n 0
5
6 Mult Factor = N/A
7 Max. Value N/A
8 Max. Pred Cw N/A
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
Cyanide
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 7 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL
COPY"
iota
i8
Par14
Lead
ug/L
ug/L
Date
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
Par15
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then "I
. Maximum c
points = 5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/22/2018 2.09 2.09 Std Dev. 0.8415
2 1/8/2019 3.28 3.28 Mean 2.6850
3 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 2
5
6 Mult Factor = 3.79
7 Max. Value 3.3
8 Max. Pred Cw 12.4
Mercury
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 8 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL
COPY"
iota
i8
Par16
Molybdenum
ng/L
ng/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. 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
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev. NO DATA
2 Mean NO DATA
3 C.V. NO DATA
4 n 0
5
6 Mult Factor = N/A
7 Max. Value N/A
8 Max. Pred Cw N/A
Use "PAS
SPECIAL-Va
then "COP
Maximum
points =
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 9 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
TE
dues
data
58
pg/L
pg/L
Par19
Selenium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Par20
Silver
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A ug/L
Max. Pred Cw N/A ug/L
Use"PASTE f.
Values" then
Maxim um dat:
58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev. NO DATA
2 Mean NO DATA
3 C.V. NO DATA
4 n 0
5
6 Mult Factor = N/A
7 Max. Value N/A
8 Max. Pred Cw N/A
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
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 10 - 2/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
SPECIAL -
"COPY".
points =
Par21
Zinc
ug/L
ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. 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
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
81370 RPA 0.3.xlsm, data
- 11 - 2/10/2021

City of Claremont/McLin Creek WWTP
NC0081370
CC
k
k
# t#_# m m e m»» e t o m e t t= e e m t#_
g N m@ f @ m@ m@ @@ w m@@@ g f g-@
e= e=__= e= e e e== e» e e e e e» e e=
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
November-18
December-18
01
1 . % % % %
a a
\ 2 y '_ / § E
�/ ®/
m
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
0 \ co \ \
y = \ 6 c
/ ®2 ro -, - \
0
/
E
/
m
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
t# e e t t e# t e o# e e= t m e= ale m»# e o= e#»
» e m e o II) m m e e e t e t m m m e e m t e= m t m t e t e
a a a« 4 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
\ \ \ f
/ / § k
/ ® 2 < k
e
m
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
00
00
\%_%e,--1 e/ / c E /K
/ < > 2 Q \ o
® e \
m
Overall TSS removal rate
CC
CC
k
k
o e o e# m e= o t e o e= e e» m» e t# e e
f g g w@ f g g@ e @ e@@ g m@@@ e f 0 g
_ » » m e » e » » e » » » e » e = _ _ » » e e = _
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
November-18
December-18
% % % %
\ 2 / / § > \ E
/ ƒ / ®2 -, -, < 0_
$
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
0 0 0 0 N0 \ 0
/ / § \ E
/ ®2 -, k
e
m
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
\
\
>
q
0_
= e e=» o t e#» e m #met =» e e e e m m t e m m e e
w m f@ g w N e@@@@ f o w m m g f@ w w@ g@@ e o
e » = e = # _ _ _ _ _ » » _ _ » _ _ _ » _ » » _ » _ _ » » _
e e e = e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
\
/ \
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
N \\ fqj
/ \a a
SE E §
/ ® 2 < k
e
m
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
00
\% _ co co %
2/ ®
y '_ / � %\ E aj/ ®2 \k
(1) /
m
Overall CBOD removal rate

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: City of Claremont/McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
PermitNo. NC0081370
Prepared By: Diana Yitbarek
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
0.3
5
9
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)
Maintain DM limit at 28 ug/I
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Maintain MA limit at 200/100 ml
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
5 s7Q10 (CFS)
0.3 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.465 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
8.51 IWC (%)
200 Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Maximum MA ammonia (summer): 16.08 mg/I (2016)
Daily Max 35 mg/I (2016)
Current summer MA limit: 2.0 mg/I
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
11.75 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Maximum MA ammonia (winter): 1.2 mg/I (2018)
Daily Max 4.08 mg/I
Current winter MA limit: 4.0 mg/I
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
5
0.3
0.465
1.0
0.22
8.51
9.4
9
0.3
0.465
1.8
0.22
4.91
32.4
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: City of Claremont/McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
PermitNo. NC0081370
Prepared By: Diana Yitbarek
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
0.8
5
9
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)
Maintain DM limit at 28 ug/I
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Maintain MA limit at 200/100 ml
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
5 s7Q10 (CFS)
0.8 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.24 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
19.87 IWC (%)
86 Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Maximum MA ammonia (summer): 16.08 mg/I (2016)
Daily Max 35 mg/I (2016)
Current summer MA limit: 2.0 mg/I
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
5.03 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Maximum MA ammonia (winter): 1.2 mg/I (2018)
Daily Max 4.08 mg/I
Current winter MA limit: 4.0 mg/I
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
5
0.8
1.24
1.0
0.22
19.87
4.1
9
0.8
1.24
1.8
0.22
12.11
13.3
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: City of Claremont/McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
PermitNo. NC0081370
Prepared By: Diana Yitbarek
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
1.2
5
9
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)
Maintain DM limit at 28 ug/I
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Maintain MA limit at 200/100 ml
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
5 s7Q10 (CFS)
1.2 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.86 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
27.11 IWC (%)
63 Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Maximum MA ammonia (summer): 16.08 mg/I (2016)
Daily Max 35 mg/I (2016)
Current summer MA limit: 2.0 mg/I
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
3.69 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Maximum MA ammonia (winter): 1.2 mg/I (2018)
Daily Max 4.08 mg/I
Current winter MA limit: 4.0 mg/I
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
5
1.2
1.86
1.0
0.22
27.11
3.1
9
1.2
1.86
1.8
0.22
17.13
9.4
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

McLin Creek WWTP/NC0081370
N
Cr)
0
N
m
m
00
N
cr.)
00
O
N
# of Samples
J
0.0
J
W
CO
J
00
J
W
CO

McLin Creek WWTP/NC0081370
N
Cr)
0
N
m
m
00
N
cr.)
00
O
N
# of Samples
J
0.0
J
W
CO
J
00
J
W
CO

McLin Creek WWTP/NC0081370
N
Cr)
0
N
m
m
00
N
cr.)
00
O
N
# of Samples
J
0.0
J
W
CO
J
00
J
W
CO

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
0
Jan Apr Jul Oct
o
}
0
cc
cc
O
NC0088200/001
City of Thomasville WTP
C
O
cf
0
cc
cO
C
C
O
cc
Mecklenburg
NC0089885/002
CK 525 South Tryon TIC, LLC
2 2
2 2
2 2
V
O
VI
0
Jan Apr Jul Oct
V
V
O
cc
C
7
C
N Qc
G
U O
cu
2 C
Z Q a a a a
NC0089206/001
Claire Sprayway Site Remediation
O
E
V
O
N
V
O
VI
0
Jan Apr Jul Oct
V
0
•
ro
NC0081370/001
Claremont - McLin Creek WWTP
NonComp: Single
chr lim: 9% @ 0.3MG
VD
©
O
N
Q a a a a a
14L
C
hp 1
m a a a a a
V
O
VI
0
Jan Apr Jul Oct
V
0
•
ro
NC0032662/001
Claremont North WWTP
NonComp: Single
chr lim: 13%
C
hp
m a a a a a
Page 20 of 122
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs

Instream Data Summary
Data
Parameter
Location
00010 - Temperature, Water Deg. Centigrade Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
00300 - Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Average of Value Max of Value Min of Value
14.69 25 0
17.52 26 5.4
14.82 24 0.1
00900 - Hardness, Total (as CaCO3)
Graphs
Upstream
Effluent
9.11 15.5 4.9
8.77 12.9 5.5
8.72 16.1 4.2
33,440.00 54700 24600
48,585.71 69800 31900
Parameter
Location
Average of Value
Max of Value
Min of Value
00010 - Temperature, Water Deg. Centigrade
Upstream
14.69
25
0
Effluent
17.52
26
5.4
Downstream
14.82
24
0.1
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Temperature, C
1
Upstream Effluent Downstream
00010 - Temperature, Water Deg. Centigrade
• Average of Value • Max of Value • Min of Value

Parameter
Location
Average of Value
Max of Value
Min of Value
00300 - Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
Upstream
9.11
15.5
4.9
Effluent
8.77
12.9
5.5
Downstream
8.72
16.1
4.2
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
1
Upstream
DO, mg/I
1
1
Effluent Downstream
■ Average of Value ■ Max of Value ■ Min of Value
Parameter
Location
Average of Value
Max of Value
Min of Value
00900 - Hardness, Total (as CaCO3)
Upstream
33.44
54.7
24.6
Effluent
48.59
69.8
31.9
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
1
Hardness, mg/I
Average of Value Max of Value
■ 00900 - Hardness, Total (as CaCO3) Upstream
■ 00900 - Hardness, Total (as CaCO3) Effluent
Min of Value

Average of Value
Years
201E
201
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Parameter Location
00300 - Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
Day Downstrea Upstream
2
9
13
22
27
5
11
19
25
1
8
15
22
29
7
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
31
8
14
23
28
5
12
19
27
3
10
17
23
30
6
13
20
27
6
13
20
27
4
10
17
24
6.7 7.2
8 8
8.4 8.3
7 6.7
7 6.2
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.4
6.2
6.4
9.3
6.4
6.2
6.3
5.3
6.7
5.7
6.3
5.8
5.7
5.9
5.7
4.2
5.2
6.2
5.9
6.7
5.9
6.9
5.8
5 6.2
6.4 6.4
5.2 4.9
6 6
9.5 8.4
9.9
11.8
8.3
10.4
10.1
10.7
10.4
9.8
11.4
7.8
9.7
9.4
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.2
10.4
5.3
5.8
6.2
5.9
8.9
5.3
6.1
6.2
5.9
5.3
9.3
10.6
11
5.3
8.4
9.5
11.2
9.6 9.5
9.8 12.2
10.9 11.1
9 7.1
5.3
5.7
5.2
9.5
5.2
5.8
5.2
9.1
7.5 7.6
F-Test Two -Sample for Variances
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 8.717446809 9.107234043
Variance 4.362044735 4.116485907
Observations 235 235
df 234 234
F 1.059652537
P(F<=f) one -tail 0.329005929
F Critical one -tail 1.240472658
Comment: The variance of Variable 1 is higher than the va
We accept the null hypothesis. The variances of the two si
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 8.717446809 9.107234043
Variance 4.362044735 4.116485907
Observations 235 235
Pooled Variance 4.239265321
Hypothesized Mea 0
df 468
t Stat -2.052112877
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.020357226
t Critical one -tail 1.648116038
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.040714452
t Critical two -tail 1.965045852
We look at the p-value, two tail. Since we set alpha value
Conclusion:
There is statistically a significant difference between the
upstream and downstream DO

2017 M
201E
ay
Ma
8
15
22
30
5
12
21
26
3
10
17
24
31
7
14
21
31
7
11
22
28
2
9
16
23
30
6
13
21
28
6
12
22
29
4
9
16
23
30
8
15
21
28
7
14
21
28
3
11
16
26
1
11
17
9.7 8.9
7.7 7.3
7.6 8.5
9.3 9
8.1 9.7
8.3 8.5
7 7.8
7.4 8.1
6.9 7
7.2 7.3
6.1 7.7
6.6 7.2
5.8 8
6.3 7.1
7.3 6.1
6.7 7.3
6.4 6.9
8.4 8.9
8.6 8.8
5.5 8.3
6.2 7.2
7.5 8.9
7.3 7.5
5.6 7.7
8.6 8.9
10.2 11.6
9.3 9.3
11.5 11.4
9.6 10.9
11 12.5
8.5 9.6
12.7 12.4
11.1 11.5
16.1 15.5
9 14.3
15.8 15.1
15.3 14.1
9.8 10.8
11 11.8
12.2 11.5
9.3 10.3
9 10.2
10.1 9.1
11 11.1
10.2 11.1
11.7 10.2
10 10.5
11.1 10.9
10 11.8
9.7 8.1
9.3 9.5
9.7 9.1
10 8.6
7.6 7.9

201 f May 23
30
Jun
7
15
21
28
Jul
6
10
17
26
Aug
2
9
13
20
27
Sep
3
10
17
24
Oct
2
8
15
22
29
Nov
5
12
19
26
Dec
4
13
17
28
31
201c
Jan
8
17
22
28
Feb
8
11
18
25
Mar
4
11
19
25
Apr
2
8
16
23
30
May
6
13
20
28
7.6 8
8.3 7.8
8.8 8.8
7.6 8.6
8.2 8.4
6.4 6.3
6.3 6.1
6.5 6.9
6.4 6.5
6.1 6.3
6.5 6.2
6.5 6.8
6.2 7.8
6.7 7.5
7.1 7.3
7.2 8.5
7.5 7.9
7.8 7.7
6.6 7.4
7.2 8.1
7 8
9.7 10
11.1 12
8.8 9.2
11.3 11.3
12.2 12.1
10.8 11.7
9.5 10.4
11.1 11.3
11.8 11.9
10.9 11.2
12.2 11.9
10.1 10.3
9.6 10.5
11.6 11.7
12.1 12.4
11.5 11.2
11 11.2
10.8 10.4
11.5 11.7
11.3 11.6
9.8 10.7
10.7 10.7
11.2 11.9
10.5 10.9
11.1 11.2
9.9 9.9
9.7 9.9
9.2 9.6
9.5 9.2
8.5 9.4
7.4 7.4
8.3 8.8
7.8 8i

201 c
202C
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
3 8.2 8.5
10 8.1 8.2
17 8 8.3
24 8 8.4
5 7.9 7.9
9 5.7 6.4
15 7.6 7.7
24 8 8.2
30 7 7.7
6 7 8.2
12 5.8 7.6
19 6.3 7.4
26 8 8.2
3 7 7.3
9 6.7 7.9
16 7.1 7.2
23 6.6 7.7
1 7.7 7.7
8 7.2 7.6
18 10 10.3
21 9.5 9.7
1 8.5 9.4
6 10.2 10.5
11 9.9 10.8
19 10.5 11
25 10.1 11.1
5 11.4 12.7
10 11 10.7
16 11.7 12
27 10.9 11.9
31 11.2 11.9
7 10.3 10.3
16 9.3 10.3
21 8.4 11.7
28 11.1 11.4
3 10.9 10.8
10 10.9 11
17 10.7 11.9
24I 12 12.1
2 9.9 11.5
9 12.7 12.7
16 11.2 11.3
24 11.3 11.3
30 10.1 10.5
9 9.3 9.2
14 9.2 9.9
22 11.7 11.8
28 10.3 10.4
5 7.3 9
11 10.5 10.4
18 9 9.2
26 7.7 9.8
1 7.1 8.4
8 7.2 7.6

Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
7
14
20
27
4
11
17
24
2
9
14
22
28
6
15
19
26
3
10
16
23
10.2
7.6
9.1
9.21
8.5
10.J
8.9
7.8
7.5
7.7
8.5
8.5
8.2
7.7
7.9
8.6
7.6
6.9
8.6
9.2
8.9
8.8
7.2 7.4
7.4 8.5
8 7.5
10.1 10.6
7.6 8.9
9.9
8.6
9.8
8.6
10.3
9.3
11.2
9.1
9.8 10.2
9 9.6
9.9 10
10 10.5

Average of Value
Parameter Location
00010 - Temperature, Water Deg. Centigrade
Years
Date
Day
Downstrear Upstream
2016
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2017
Jan
Feb
2 19 19
9 17 17
13 21 21
22 22 21
27 22 22
5 24 23
11 23 23
19 22 20
25 24 25
1 23 23
8 23 23
15 24 24
22 22 25
29 22 22
7 20 19
12 22 21
19 22 21
26 22 21
3 18 17
10 17 17
17 18 17
24 18 18
31 15 14
8 8.7 8.4
14 7.5 7.8
23 5.4 4.9
28 5.8 6
5 8.1 8
12 5.4 6.2
19 8.1 7.8
27 11 11
3 9.1 9.3
10 1.2 1.2
17 5.7 6.3
23 10 9.9
30 6.3 6.7
6 4.2 4.5
13 11 9.5
20 8.1 7.8
27 7.1 6.7
Mar
Apr
May
6
13
20
27
4
10
17
24
1
7.7 7.7
6.2 5.3
7.5 6.8
14 14
12 12
12 13
16 17
13 13
19 19
F-Test Two -Sample for Variances
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
P(F<=f) one-tai
F Critical one-t,
Variable 1
14.82382979
37.85088271
235
234
1.048915582
0.357607091
1.240472658
Variable 2
14.69361702
36.08572831
235
234
F > F Critical one -tail, we reject the null hypothesi
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variance:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized P
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tai
t Critical one-ta
P(T<=t) two-tai
t Critical two-ta
Variable 1
14.82382979
37.85088271
235
0
468
0.23214414
0.408263769
1.648116038
0.816527539
1.965045852
Variable 2
14.69361702
36.08572831
235
Conclusion:
There is not statistically a significant difference
between the upstream and downstream T

2017
May 8
15
22
30
Jun
2018
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
5
12
21
26
3
10
17
24
31
7
14
21
31
7
11
22
28
2
9
16
23
30
6
13
21
28
6
12
22
29
4
9
16
23
30
8
15
21
28
7
14
21
28
3
11
16
26
12 12
16 15
18 18
19 20
20 20
20 20
21 21
19 19
17 16
21 20
22 21
22 22
19 18
22 21
22 22
22 22
21 20
16 15
20 18
19 19
20 19
14 13
21 21
19 19
16 16
9.1 8.8
15 15
9.4 10
6.1 6.6
5 4.7
11
4.4
8.8
1.3
11
4.8
8.7
1.9
0.1 0
0.2 1.6
0.7 1
9.2 11
5.8 5.5
7.4 7.1
12 12
13 13
11 9.8
8.3 8.6
6.3 5.9
8.8 8.6
10 10
13 14
11 12
12 13
14 14
11 11
17 20
20 19

2018
May
23
30
19 20
20 20
Jun
7
15
21
28
19 19
20 20
22 23
21 21
Jul
6
10
17
26
23 23
22 21
24 24
22 22
Aug
2
9
13
20
27
22 23
22 22
22 22
23 21
21 19
Sep
3
10
17
24
22 22
21 21
22 22
20 20
Oct
2
8
15
22
29
19 19
20 20
16 16
10 10
12 12
Nov
5
13 13
12
8.7 8.8
19
8.6 8.9
26
11.3 11
Dec
4
8.6 8.7
13
5.1 5.4
17
7.4 7.9
28
7 7.1
31
11 11
2019
Jan
8
11 11
17
5.8 5.5
22
2.7 2.9
28
5.7 511
Feb
8
8.5 8.4
11
7.4 7.5
18
7.3 7.1
25
7.4 7.4
Mar
4
8.9 8.9
11
9.9 9.8
19
7 7
25
12 12
Apr
2
8.1 8
8
17 17
16
12 12
23
14 13
30
15 15
May
6
17 17
13
18 18
20
20 19
28
20 20

2019
Jun
3
10
17
24
18 18
20 20
19 19
21 21
Jul
5
9
15
24
30
21 22
23 22
22 22
21 20
20 20
Aug
6
12
19
26
21 20
21 21
22 22
19 18
Sep
3
9
16
23
22 22
22 21
20 20
18 18
Oct
1
8
18
21
22 22
18 18
12 12
15 15
Nov
1
6
11
19
25
14 13
12 12
9.6 9.5
10 10
7 7.7
Dec
5
10
16
27
31
7.2 7.5
10 11
8.3 9
6.8 7.2
8.5 8.8
2020
Jan
7
16
21
28
7.7 7.7
13 13
7.4 5
7.9 8.8
Feb
3
10
17
24
9.1 9.9
7.9 8.3
7.5 7.7
9 9.3
Mar
2
9
16
24
30
9.2 9.1
7.1 7.7
11 11
13 12
16 15
Apr
9
14
22
28
15 15
14 14
15 15
15 14
May
5
16 16
11
12 12
18
18 17
26
18 18
Jun
1
18 18
8
21 21

2020
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
15 19 18
22 20 19
29 21 20
7
14
20
27
4
11
17
24
2
9
14
22
28
6
15
19
26
3
10
16
23
22 21
22 21
23 22
22 22
22 21
22 21
21 20
21 20
22 22
20 20
21 21
13 13
19 18
14 14
15 15
12 12
15 15
10 9.4
17 17
12 12
12 12

Lower Little River
11-69-(0.5)b
From Lambert Fork to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth of Stirewalt Creek
11-69-(0.5)
Previous AU Number
2
ID
Length or Area
U
Classification
Parameter of Interest
VI
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)
L
LL
McGalliard Creek
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth to Rhodhiss Lake, Catawba River
Previous AU Number
4 )
2
0
E
D
Length or Area
Classification
16
be
CD
4-,
L
0
c
4-
0
IC)
CD
E
c0
L
co
c0
cc
L
r 0
ra
CD
CC
10
co
to
co
'L
a)
t,
C
CD
E
0
0
a)
v)
Q
ifl
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)
0
0
a
Exceeding Criteria
Previous AU Number
rn
a)
2
0
E
D
M
Length or Area
0
Classification
L
0
OA
a)
(0
u
VI
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
L
ra
LL
Exceeding Criteria
From a point 0.2 mile upstream of Catawba County SR 1722 to Lyle Creek
Previous AU Number
l
CD
2
0
E
D
a -I
Length or Area
Classification
16
be
CD
4-,
meter of Interes
co
ra
cc
L
c
0
in
ra
CD
CC
sessmentateria Status
ifl
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
L
ra
LL
Exceeding Criteria
From source to SR 1409
Previous AU Number
N
E
D
r.
Length or Area
U
Classification
Parameter of Interest
if)
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
L
ra
LL
Exceeding Criteria
Page 45 of 262
2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Approved by EPA May 22,2019

NORTH CAROLINA 2020 DRAFT 303(D) LIST
AU Name
AU ID
Description
Upper Catawba
Drowning Creek
1146
AU Number
11-52-(1)
Catawba River Basin
Classification AU_LengthArea AU_Units
WS-IV
9.1
FW Miles
From source to a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2020
Horseford Creek
1148
11-54-(0.5)
WS-IV
0.4
FW Miles
From Frye Creek to a point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2006
Horseford Creek
1149
11-54-(3)
WS-IV;CA
0.7
FW Miles
From a point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth to Lake Hickory, Catawba River
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2006
Gunpowder Creek (Old Mill Pond)
1153
11-55-(1.5 )
WS-IV
13.4
FW Miles
From a point 0.5 mile downstream of Caldwell County SR 1127 to a point 0.8 mile downstream of Billy
Branch
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2010
Isaac Creek
1175
11-59-(2)
WS-IV,B;CA
0.6
FW Miles
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth to Lake Hickory, Catawba River
pH (6 su, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Legacy RAMS Assessments
2012
Falling Creek
1178
11-60
4.0
FW Miles
From source to Lake Hickory, Catawba River
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2010
Lower Little River
13612
11-69-(0.5) b
6.2
FW Miles
From Lambert Fork to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth of Stirewalt Creek
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2014
Muddy Fork
1204
11-69-4
6.8
FW Miles
From source to SR 1409
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2010
McLin Creek
1254
11-76-5-(3)
WS-IV;CA
0.7
FW Miles
From a point 0.2 mile upstream of Catawba County SR 1722 to Lyle Creek
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5 jIExceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
1 2010
Catawba River Basin
0305010 South Fork Catawba
1/29/2021 NC 2020 DRAFT 303d List
Page 29 of 161

N
0
N
O
0
0
0
Q
N
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
O
O
is
0
E
(a
a)
O
d
Violation Action:
Subbasin:
Param Nam(
Major Minor: %
REGION: Mooresville
COUNTY: Catawba
FACILITY: City of Claremont - McLin Creek WWTP
NC0081370
F
5
W
a
Limit Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
PARAMETER
LOCATION
J
J
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
N N fa/) N N N N N N N
as as as as
O 0 O U O U O U O U O 0 O U O 0 O U O 0
-O C -O C -O C -O C -O C -O C -O C -O C -O C -O C
a) a) N N N N N N N N a) a) N N a) W N W N W
0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E ow E 0 E ow E 0 E ow E
2 O O O O 2 O 2 O 2
d `o d `o d `o d `o d `o d `o d `o d `o d `o d o
c c c c c c c c c c
w w w w w w w w w w
as
a)
as a) a) as as as 2 as as as as as
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
'i
> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0N -O > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0
Q a) Q a) Q as Q a°si Q a) Q a) o a) Q a) Q a) Q as Q as Q a)
Y X - X - X _c X Y X -C X X Y X - X - X _c X Y X
a)W a)W a)W cW a)W cW w a)w a)w a)w cw a)w
as
as
I-- co �,.) (0 co M M
O
Lo OMNa O VCO CO ri W V co N CO CD
O
co co
N- a0 co co O) CO co co O O O
O O O co N- co co 00
N
Ln
CO CO O CO CO CO N CO
V
E
os rn rn rn rn rn oo rn rn rn rn rn
E E E E E E E E E E E
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) a) a) a)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
Cfl ( ( Cfl Cfl Cfl Cfl
v o 0 0) o) o v o
C. N 7 CO N CO 7 7 7 N CO C.
CO 00 0) O) O O co as as O) O) O
C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C.
0 CO CO CO as as
U U 0 0 0 0 W
o c c c c o c
a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i (i U F 'o F 'o F 'E F 'o F 'o
o 'O 0 'O 0 'O 0 'O 0 'O 0 'O 2 in O (6 O (6 O (6 O (6 O (6
o io o io o io o io o io o m c c c c c
m y o a1) O a1) O a1) O a1) O a1)
c c c c c c 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0
m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 U_ Eg E o E o E o E o
a o a o a o a o a o a o °< U < U < U < U < U
6 U 6 U N U N U N UE N 0 m c c c c c
0 CD— rnZ rnZ o) rnZ
O O 0 0 0 0 (7. 2 2 2 2 2
m m m m m m 0
Z Z Z Z z
c c c c c c c c c c c c
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
w w w w w w w w w w w w
W W W W W W W W W W W W
Q
LL
H
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z
O O O O O O O O O O O O
E ceO O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 C C C C C C C C C C C C
a
2 W CO CO Cr) Cr) O O CO Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) O
O CtO O O O O O O O O
2

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR 122.210)(1)
1.1 .
Email address of facility contact
Robert Shaver, [e-mail]
1 2
Applicant email address
Shawn Pennell, [e-mail]
1.3 ,
Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge
City of Hickory, Robert Shaver, [e-mail]
14
Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge
City of Hickory Regional Compost Facility, Paul Spencer, [e-mail]
1,6 "
Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information
Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section
301(h))
authorized at 40 CFR 122,21(n)? (Check all that apply. Consult
needs to be submitted and when.)
Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
Section 302(b)(2))
© Not applicable
16 '
Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works
Andrew Foy, afoy@hicko nc.gov
40 CFR
122.21(j)(6)
17 `
Indicate the number of SlUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Number of Sills
Number of Ms
0
0
40 CFR
122.22(a) and (d)
•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. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
1 $
Name (print or type first and last name)
Jason Brown
Official title
City Manager — City of Claremont
Sign
2-,"---
Date signed

Re: [External] RE: (public notice) NC0081370 - McLin Creek WWTP
Yitbarek, Diana <[e-mail]>
Wed 3/31/2021 09:20
To: Bynum, Caleb M <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Good morning, Caleb
Thank you for your comments on the McLin Creek WWTP draft permit. Please find our responses
below in the body of your email.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss.
-Diana
Diana Yitbarek
Engineer
T: [phone]
[e-mail]
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality/ Division of Water Resources
Mailing: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Rm. 925T, Raleigh, NC 27604-1170
10,05)
2vOM i i oAsocom
aeparlimaMN et al F� learan QuaHNarl
*Please check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your requests by phone or email. We can
also be available via Microsoft Teams if requested. Thanks for your patience and stay safe.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Caleb Bynum <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 08:44
To: Yitbarek, Diana <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: (public notice) NC0081370 - McLin Creek WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment
to Report Spam.
Good morning, Diana.
We have had time to review the draft permit for the McLin Creek WWTP, and had a few comments.
1. We do not see the need for an industrial waste survey required by proposed section A.(9.) after
the flow from the North WWTP is turned over to the McLin Creek WWTP. When the city of
Hickory first started operating Claremont's waste water facilities we identified the 7 major
industries in Claremont's service area, and had them complete a long -form IWS. We sampled
each of the facilities on a quarterly basis for 6 years (2 for 8 years) and submitted the monitoring
results to MRO on the quarter. It was agreed upon that none of the industries met the requirements

of an SIU, so we discontinued monitoring. There have been no new industries located within
Claremont's service area, so we believe the proposed IWS is unnecessary.
Response: Thank you for providing background information about the major industrial users (IU)
in the service area and the work the City conducted to monitor the industrial wastewater. When
was the last time industrial samples were collected? The receiving stream, McLin Creek, is
currently listed in the 303 (d) list. It is our responsibility to monitor potential sources of pollution.
After listing the current industries in Claremont, at least 10 industries appear to have SIC codes
that belong to the CFR 429/433/467 lists. We do not have any recent industrial waste data in file
that provides additional information sufficient to determine that an industrial waste survey (IWS)
is not required. A future IWS that accounts for any potential future changes in industrial users in
the service area and provides additional information about current IUs is deemed necessary. At
this point, we are not requesting sampling data, that would be determined based on the results of
the IWS.
2. In section A.(1.) Footnote 9, we would like to clarify that monitoring for upstream hardness
would also only be required if effluent hardness becomes a requirement due to the necessity of
effluent pollutant scans. Currently only the upstream hardness is listed. We would like to see the
effluent hardness listed in a separate row since it is a composite sample and at a different
sampling location. It is listed that way in section A.(3) and we would like to see it included in a
similar fashion in section A.(1) and A.(2) with a reference to footnote 9.
Response: You are correct. Additional language will be added to the Footnote 9 in Sections A.(1.)
and A.(2.) to clarify that monitoring for upstream hardness would also be required if effluent
pollutant scans are needed. Also, as requested, effluent hardness will be listed in the tables in in
Sections A.(1.) and A.(2.). Thanks for suggestions.
3. Also in section A.(1.) Footnote 9, it mentions that effluent hardness shall be performed in
conjunction with testing for hardness -dependent metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn). Should these
metals be listed in the chart separately with a reference to footnote 9? Otherwise, we feel there
may have to be too many assumptions made, such as sample type, location, and frequency.
Response: Per the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) results, McLin creek WWTP is not
required to sample hardness dependent metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn) on a regular basis. Those
metals will need to be sampled only when/if performing the effluent pollutant scans. The footnote
was added as a reminder to sample effluent hardness in conjunction with the hardness dependent
metals. There is no need to list the metals in the chart.
Let me know if you have any questions, or if you would like to discuss.
Thanks,
Caleb Bynum, El
Utilities Engineer
City of Hickory Public Utilities
[e-mail]
[phone]
HICKORY
is+a. WeitCri t i
From: Yitbarek, Diana [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 2:15 PM
To: Brown, Jason A <[e-mail]>; Caleb Bynum <[e-mail]>; Shawn Pennell
<[e-mail]>
Subject: (public notice) NC0081370 - McLin Creek WWTP

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization
Good afternoon,
Please find attached the draft permit renewal package for NC0081370 McLin Creek WWTP.
Please let me know if you have any questions/comments/concerns by April 9, 2021.
Thanks,
-Diana
Diana Yitbarek
Engineer
T: [phone]
[e-mail]
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality/ Division of Water Resources
Mailing: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Rm. 925T, Raleigh, NC 27604-1170
-170:E
•,r,
Bui),..i. �I^;i1 el Fnrironmc+rls1 Cleallty
*Please check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your requests by phone or email. We can
also be available via Microsoft Teams if requested Thanks for your patience and stay safe.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Caleb Bynum <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 15:41
To: Yitbarek, Diana <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: NPDES permit application review - NC0081370, McLin Creek WWTP, City of Claremont,
Catawba County, MRO
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Good afternoon, Diana.
I have been able to gather the information that you requested to help complete the McLin Creek WWTP permit
renewal. I will address each of your requests using the numbering you established below.
1. The City of Claremont would like to maintain the flexibility of having the three flow tiers as outlined on
the last permit. A preliminary engineering report and assessment have already been conducted for a
potential future expansion.
2. Outfall Coordinates: Latitude 35°41'44"N, Longitude 81°07'19"W (This was the coordinates used in the
last permit.)
Upstream Sampling Point: Bethany Church Rd. at Mclin Creek (35.697679, -81.145571)
Downstream Sampling Point: Old Catawba Rd. at Mclin Creek (35.710651, -81.096363)
3. Attached to this email you will find the request for missing information. As a municipal treatment facility,
Table 2 has been completed as instructed.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks,
Caleb Bynum, El
Utilities Engineer
City of Hickory Public Utilities
[e-mail]
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNmOTIxZjdhLTEyMWYtNDEzMS1 iOGNILTkxNmZhYWJmZThIMAAQAJtwcp2ZUDVLsZZVEXzXIT... 2/4

2/10/2021 Mail - Yitbarek, Diana - Outlook
[phone]
-HICKORY
Lille. WeltCraite.d
From: Yitbarek, Diana [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 9:53 AM
To: Caleb Bynum <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brown, Jason A <[e-mail]>; Shawn Pennell <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPDES permit application review - NC0081370, McLin Creek WWTP, City of Claremont, Catawba County,
M RO
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization
Dear Caleb Bynum,
I hope this message finds you well. I am the assigned permit writer for the subject WWTP. I recently
started reviewing the NPDES permit application for renewal submitted by the City of Claremont on
September 23, 2019, and have a couple of requests:
1. I noted the permit has three flow tiers (0.3, 0.8, and 1.2 MGD). The 2019 application
indicated a design flow of 0.3 MGD, and the annual average daily flow rate for the last five
years has not exceeded 0.20 MGD. Are there any updates on the plant capacity and future
flow needs since the City submitted the permit application?
2. Please provide coordinates for the upstream and downstream location points and confirm the
outfall coordinate provided in the permit application.
3. Please complete this short form to meet the new application requirements for the updated
application form 2A.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNmOTIxZjdhLTEyMWYtNDEzMS1 iOGNiLTkxNmZhYWJmZThIMAAQAJtwcp2ZUDVLsZZVEXzXIT... 3/4

2/10/2021 Mail - Yitbarek, Diana - Outlook
If you provide this information within the next three weeks, that would be appreciated. Thanks for
your continued cooperation with the NPDES program and your work protecting public health and the
environment.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
-Diana
Diana Yitbarek
Engineer
T: [phone]
[e-mail]
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality) Division of Water Resources
Mailing: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Rm. 925T, Raleigh, NC 27604-1170
fFmaE
Nom, c.'
LiBrailmenta gal
*Please check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your requests by phone or email. We
can also be available via Microsoft Teams if requested. Thanks for your patience and stay safe.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNmOTIxZjdhLTEyMWYtNDEzMS1 iOGNiLTkxNmZhYWJmZThIMAAQAJtwcp2ZUDVLsZZVEXzXIT... 4/4

The Division received comments/questions from the McLin WWTP through the public comment
period, March 16, 2021— April 16, 2021, and provided the following responses:
1. Comment: We do not see the need for an industrial waste survey required by proposed section A.(9.)
after the flow from the North WWTP is turned over to the McLin Creek WWTP. When the city of
Hickory first started operating Claremont's wastewater facilities we identified the 7 major industries
in Claremont's service area, and had them complete a long -form IWS. We sampled each of the
facilities on a quarterly basis for 6 years (2 for 8 years) and submitted the monitoring results to MRO
on the quarter. It was agreed upon that none of the industries met the requirements of an SIU, so we
discontinued monitoring. There have been no new industries located within Claremont's service area,
so we believe the proposed IWS is unnecessary. (March 23, 2021, City of Hickory's email)
Response: Thank you for providing background information about the major industrial users (IU) in
the service area and the work the City conducted to monitor the industrial wastewater. When was the
last time industrial samples were collected? The receiving stream, McLin Creek, is currently listed in
the 303 (d) list. It is our responsibility to monitor potential sources of pollution. After listing the
current industries in Claremont, at least 10 industries appear to have SIC codes that belong to the
CFR 429/433/467 lists. We do not have any recent industrial waste data in file that provides
additional information sufficient to determine that an industrial waste survey (IWS) is not required. A
future IWS that accounts for any potential future changes in industrial users in the service area and
provides additional information about current IUs is deemed necessary. At this point, we are not
requesting sampling data, that would be determined based on the results of the IWS.
2. Comment: In section A.(1.) Footnote 9, we would like to clarify that monitoring for upstream
hardness would also only be required if effluent hardness becomes a requirement due to the necessity
of effluent pollutant scans. Currently only the upstream hardness is listed. We would like to see the
effluent hardness listed in a separate row since it is a composite sample and at a different sampling
location. It is listed that way in section A.(3) and we would like to see it included in a similar fashion
in section A.(1) and A.(2) with a reference to footnote 9.
Response: You are correct. Additional language will be added to the Footnote 9 in Sections A.(1.)
and A.(2.) to clarify that monitoring for upstream hardness would also be required if effluent pollutant
scans are needed. Also, as requested, effluent hardness will be listed in the tables in in Sections A.(1.)
and A.(2.). Thanks for your suggestions.
3. Comment: Also in section A.(1.) Footnote 9, it mentions that effluent hardness shall be performed in
conjunction with testing for hardness -dependent metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn). Should these
metals be listed in the chart separately with a reference to footnote 9? Otherwise, we feel there may
have to be too many assumptions made, such as sample type, location, and frequency.
Response: Per the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) results, McLin creek WWTP is not required to
sample hardness dependent metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn) on a regular basis. Those metals will
need to be sampled only when/if performing the effluent pollutant scans. The footnote was added as a
reminder to sample effluent hardness in conjunction with the hardness dependent metals. There is no
need to list the metals in the chart.

Hickory Daily Record
Advertising Affidavit
PO Box 968
Hickory, NC 28603
NCDEQIDWR
ATTN: WREN THEDFORD
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
Account Number
3611028
Date
March 16, 2021
Date
Category Description
Ad Number Ad Size
03/16/2021
Legal Notices
Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management Comi 0000707585
Publisher of
Hickory Daily Record
Catawba County
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified,
and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared the
Publisher's Representative who by being duly sworn deposes and says:
that he/she is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement: that
the notice or other legal advertisement, a copy of which is attached hereto,
was published in the Daily Record on the following dates:
03/16/2021
2 x 29 L
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper document, or
legal advertisement was published, was at the time of each and every such
publication, a newspaper meeting al] the requirements and qualifications
of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
Billing Representative
Newspaper reference: 0000707585
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 16th day of March, 2021.
,Notary Public
State of Virginia
County of Hanover
My commission expires:
Kimberly Kay Harris
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commonwealth of Virginia
Reg. No. 356753
L_,ommibion Exp. Jan. 31, 2025
THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU

Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit NC0081370 McLin
Creek 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 proposed permit will be accepted until
30 days after the publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Divi-
sion of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a public hearing should there be
a significant degree of public interest Please mail comments and/or infor-
mation requests to DWR at the above address. interested persons may vis-
it the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604 to review infor-
mation on file. Additional information on NPDES permits and this notice
may be found on our website• httpJLdeq.nc.go /about/divisions/water-re
sources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater/Dubuc-notiees or by calling [phone]. The City of Clar-
emont (P.O. Box 446, Claremont, NC 28610) has requested renewal of
NPDES Permit NC0081370 for its MCLin Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, located in Catawba County. This permitted facility discharges treat-
ed domestic wastewater to McLin Creek in the Catawba River Basin. Cur-
rently, flow, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, total suspend-
ed solids, fecal conform, pH, ammonia, and total residual chlorine, are wa-
ter quality limited parameters in the permit. This discharge may affect fu-
ture allocations in this segment of McLin Creek.
Publish: March 16, 2021.

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
MEMORANDUM
To:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 9, 2021
Clinton Cook
NC DEQ / DWR / Public Water Supply
Mooresville Regional Office
From: Diana Yitbarek
NC DEQ / DWR / Municipal Permitting Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NC0081370
McLin Creek WWTP
Catawba County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by
April 9, 2021. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at 919-707-9130 or via
e-mail [diana.yitbarek(a�ncdenr.gov].
RESPONSE: (Check one)
x
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly,
the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the
designated water quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, :
r WAVE .l© ttT'('t'-6GIAr3LE ExraFt,se. IN mart-orIENTAT1oN or lie CaxArt tovATErz AGr'
RC -AU f& rc ANv 1 k+/E 1.409ep.rA IQ pi Ner or Tt{E t,JFp t4ner4 Provc'EP.
As A Pg':°'' �kV 140 l cc(5 Forz. b('P tr�s rga
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Signature: K2,1
13).E
NORTH CAROLINA
D9VLim6nt al Environmental WNU;
Date: 3 2 l2Q 2 /
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707,9000