NC0036196_Fact Sheet_20210604

Page 1 of 11

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0036196

Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: March 18, 2021
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017

Permitting Action:
☒ Renewal
☐ Renewal with Expansion
☐ New Discharge
☐ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)

Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.

Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.

1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: City of Newton/Clark Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address: PO Box 550, Newton, NC 28658
Facility Address: 1407 McKay Road, Newton, NC 28658
Permitted Flow: 5.0 MGD with expanded flow tier 7.5 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 97.8% domestic, 2.2% industrial*
Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Influent pump station, mechanical screen, two aerated grit chambers,
lime addition, two primary clarifiers, four aeration basins, three
secondary clarifiers, two dual media filters, dual chlorine contact basins,
dechlorination, two gravity sludge thickeners, two centrifuge sludge
thickeners, post aeration, standby generator
Pretreatment Program (Y/N) Y; LTMP
County: Catawba
Region Mooresville
*Based on permitted flows

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Newton has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 5.0 MGD for the Clark Creek WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 21,300 residents across the Cities of Newton and Conover, as well as 6
significant industrial users (SIUs), 2 of which being categorical industrial users (CIUs), via an approved
pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into Clark Creek, a class
C water in the Catawba River Basin. The facility has a primary Outfall 001.

Page 2 of 11

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 – Clark Creek
Stream Index: 11-129-5-(0.3)b
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area (mi2): 29.3
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 6.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 10.0
30Q2 (cfs): -
Average Flow (cfs): 35.0
IWC (% effluent): 56% at 5.0 MGD, 66% at 7.5 MGD
2018 303(d) listed/parameter: Yes – exceeding criteria for Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC: 03-08-35/03050102
USGS Topo Quad: E14NW Newton, NC

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of February 2017 through February
2021.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit
Flow MGD 2.7 16.5 0.1 MA 5.0
BOD (summer) mg/l 5.8 26.4 < 1 WA 22.5
MA 15.0
BOD (winter) mg/l 4.4 18.7 1.3 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
TSS mg/l 5.7 830 1.6 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N (summer) mg/l 0.3 6.2 0.1 WA 4.8
MA 1.6
NH3N (winter) mg/l 0.4 11.9 0.1 WA 11.4
MA 3.8
DO mg/l 9.1 12 6 DA ≥ 5.0
Fecal Coliform #/100 ml (geomean)
18.5
>
60,000 < 1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
Temperature ° C 18 28 7 Monitor & Report
pH SU 7.4 9 5.7 6.0 ≤ pH ≤ 9.0
Conductivity µmhos/cm 547 732 236 Monitor & Report
Total Residual Chlorine µg/l 11.8 75 < 1 DM 28
Total Lead µg/l < 10 < 10 < 10 Monitor & Report
Total Hardness mg/l 150 176 132 Monitor & Report
TN mg/l 23 38.2 6.88 Monitor & Report
TP mg/l 0.8 1.72 0.02 Monitor & Report
MA-Monthly Average, WA-Weekly Average, DM-Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average, QA-
Quarterly Average
Page 3 of 11

4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform,
conductivity and temperature upstream at NCSR 2014 and downstream at NCSR 2007. The facility is
also required to report upstream total hardness. Instream data from this facility reported from February
2017 through February 2021 have been summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream Data Summary
Parameter Units Upstream Downstream
Average Max Min Average Max Min
DO mg/l 8.8 12.1 6.7 8.8 14.1 6.2
Fecal Coliform #/100 ml (geomean)
1,294 52,000 91 (geomean)
1,055 44,000 90
Temperature ° C 17.4 24 4 17.1 25 2
Conductivity µmhos/cm 121 1364 43 146 2000 51
Total Hardness mg/l 37 46 18 - - -
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05
The geometric mean for fecal coliform exceeded 200/100mL downstream of the facility [per 15A NCAC
02B .0211 (7).4)] and was reported at levels greater than 400/100ml in more than 20% of samples taken
downstream of the facility during the period reviewed. However, this was also true for upstream fecal
coliform. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream
fecal coliform exists. As effluent fecal coliform was generally lower than that of upstream or downstream,
it does not appear that the effluent is negatively impacting downstream fecal coliform levels.
The downstream temperature did not exceed 29 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] during
the period reviewed. The temperature differential was greater than 2.8 degrees Celsius on one occasion
during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference between upstream
and downstream temperature exists.
Downstream DO did not drop below 5 mg/L during the period reviewed [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)]
during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no significant difference between upstream and
downstream DO exists.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream conductivity
exists. As effluent conductivity was generally higher than that of upstream or downstream, it appears that
the effluent is influencing downstream conductivity levels.
No changes are proposed for instream monitoring.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): N
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
Page 4 of 11

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): In 2018, the facility reported
one TRC limit violation and three TSS limit violations. In 2019, the facility reported 1 one TRC limit
violation and one flow limit violation. The facility reported one TRC limit violation, one pH limit
violation and one TSS limit violation in 2020.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests as well as 4 of 4 second species
toxicity tests from March 2017 to December 2020.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in January 2021 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0036196.

6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA

Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for BOD are based on a 1991 Streeter Phelps model (Level B) conducted upon request by the
City for inclusion of a 7.5 MGD flow tier. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.

Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/l) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
permit sets a daily maximum limit for TRC at 28 ug/L for the 5.0 MGD flow tier and 26 ug/L for the 7.5
Page 5 of 11

MGD flow tier. The limits have been reviewed in the attached 2021 WLA spreadsheets and have been
found to be protective. There are no proposed changes for TRC.
The existing limitations for ammonia were implemented during the 2016 renewal and are based on IWC-
based calculations. The limits have been reviewed in the attached 2021 WLA spreadsheets and have been
found to be protective. There are no proposed changes for ammonia at either the 5.0 MGD or 7.5 MGD
flow tiers.

Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of ½ detection limit for “less than” values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between March 2017
through December 2020 Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated
water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for
this permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Total Aluminum, Total Copper
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: NA
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Cyanide, Total Fluoride,
Total Lead, Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (PPAs from 2017, 2018 and 2019)
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: N/A
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: N/A
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds

Page 6 of 11

If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
The EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria for total aluminum is 87 ug/L for waters with
a pH within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 standard units. While no instream sampling was conducted for pH by
the City, the Division has an Ambient Monitoring Station C4800000, located downstream of the facility
near Lincolnton, NC. Only one other direct discharger (South Fork Industries – Maiden Plant
NC0006190) contributes to the segment of Clark Creek between the Clark Creek WWTP and AMS
C4800000. The geometric mean of the pH reported from this monitoring station from January 2016
through June 2019 was 7.2 standard units, which is within the range for the criteria to apply. Total
aluminum will receive a water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL) since it demonstrated a reasonable
potential to exceed the water quality criteria.

Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging “complex” wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: The permit requires quarterly chronic toxicity testing at
56% effluent concentration at 5.0 MGD permitted flow and 66% effluent concentration at 7.5 MGD
permitted flow. No changes are proposed.

Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA’s mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (~2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/l) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/l) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (5.0 MGD)
2017 2018 2019 2020
# of Samples 4 4 4 4
Annual Average Conc. ng/L 2.3 6.8 2.4 3.72
Maximum Conc., ng/L 2.8 19.9 2.93 7.96
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 21.3

Page 7 of 11

Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. Since the facility is > 2 MGD in design capacity, and reported multiple quantifiable
levels of mercury, a mercury minimization plan (MMP) is required. The existing MMP special condition
has been maintained.

Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA

Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA; The City did not request a
compliance schedule upon notification of proposed limits for total copper and total aluminum.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA

7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES, Overall BOD and TSS
removal was greater than 85%.
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 8 of 11

9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA

10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The existing permit requires effluent conductivity monitoring be conducted on a weekly basis. Per 15A
NCAC 02B .0508, a Grade IV facility shall sample for conductivity at a daily frequency. As the facility is
Grade IV, and review of instream data implied an influence on downstream conductivity levels by the
effluent, the monitoring frequency for effluent conductivity has been increased from weekly to daily.

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.

Page 9 of 11

12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 5.0 MGD with expanded 7.5 MGD flow tier
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 5.0 MGD with
expansion to 7.5
MGD
No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5 @ both flow tiers:
Summer:
MA 15.0 mg/l
WA 22.5 mg/l

Winter:
MA 30.0 mg/l
WA 45.0 mg/l
No change Summer: WQBEL. 1991 Level B
Model. 15A NCAC 2B
Winter: TBEL. 1991 Level B
Model. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406;
NH3-N @ 5.0 MGD:
Summer:
MA 1.6 mg/l
WA 4.8 mg/l
Winter:
MA 3.8 mg/l
11.4 mg/l

@ 7.5 MGD:
Summer:
MA 1.4 mg/l
WA 4.2 mg/l
Winter:
MA 3.2 mg/l
WA 9.6 mg/l
No change

WQBEL. 2020 WLA; 15A NCAC
2B
TSS @ both flow tiers:
MA 30 mg/l
WA 45 mg/l
No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406
Fecal Coliform @ both flow tiers:
MA 200 /100ml
WA 400 /100ml
No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B;
DO @ both flow tiers:
DA ≥ 5 mg/l
No change

WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0224
Temperature @ both flow tiers:
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH @ both flow tiers:
6.0 – 9.0 SU
No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0224
Total Residual Chlorine @ 5.0 MGD:
DM 28 ug/L

@ 7.5 MGD:
DM 26 ug/L
No change WQBEL. 2020 WLA; 15A NCAC
2B
Conductivity @ both flow tiers:
Monitor and
Report Weekly
@ both flow tiers:
Monitor and Report
Daily
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0508 – SIC 4952 Grade
IV facility
Page 10 of 11

Total Lead @ both flow tiers:
Monitor and
Report Quarterly
Remove requirement
from both flow tiers
WQBEL. Based on RPA; No RP,
Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable
Cw - No Monitoring required
Total Copper No requirement @ 5.0 MGD:
MA 46.0 µg/l
DM 67.1 µg/l
Monthly monitoring

@ 7.5 MGD:
MA 42.9 µg/l
DM 63.7 µg/l
Monthly monitoring
WQBEL. Based on RPA; RP
shown - apply Monthly Monitoring
with Limit (No compliance
schedule requested)
Total Aluminum No requirement @ 5.0 MGD:
MA 154.3 µg/l
DM 154.3 µg/l
Monthly monitoring
@ 7.5 MGD:
MA 131.9 µg/l
DM 131.9 µg/l
Monthly monitoring
WQBEL. Based on RPA; RP
shown - apply Monthly Monitoring
with Limit (No compliance
schedule requested)
Total Hardness @ both flow tiers:
Quarterly
monitoring
Upstream and in
Effluent
No change Hardness-dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016; Pretreatment
facility
Total Nitrogen

@ both flow tiers:
Monitor and
Report Monthly
No change

Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Phosphorous @ both flow tiers:
Monitor and
Report Monthly
No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Chronic Toxicity Chronic limit @
56% for 5.0 MGD
tier; Chronic limit
@ 66% for 7.5
MGD tier
No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B
Effluent Pollutant Scan Three times per
permit cycle
No change; conducted
in 2023, 2024, 2025
40 CFR 122
Electronic Reporting Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD – Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA – Weekly Average, DM – Daily Max, QA
– Quarterly Average, DA – Daily Average, AA – Annual Average

13. Public Notice Schedule:

Permit to Public Notice: March 23, 2021
Page 11 of 11

Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.

14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):

The draft was submitted to the City of Newton, EPA Region IV, and the Division’s Mooresville Regional
Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch and Operator Certification Program for review. The Division received
comments from the City of Newton requesting the limits and monthly monitoring requirements for total
copper and total aluminum be removed from the permit, as the City believes that their reported data
demonstrates that they are already complying with the allowable discharge concentrations for the two
parameters. As the inclusion of limits and monitoring is based on the results of the reasonable potential
analysis showing reasonable potential for excursions above the allowable discharge concentrations for
both parameters, the limits have been maintained. The additional data collected by the City will be used
when conducting the RPA during the next renewal, and the Division will assess the need for continued
limitation and monitoring at that time. No comments were received from any other party.

Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• The expiration date for the permit was modified to more closely fit a 5-year permit cycle.
Accordingly, the specified years for the Effluent Pollutant Scans have been modified (2023, 2024,
2025). See Special Condition A. (4.).

15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summaries
• BOD and TSS Removal
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheets
• Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet
• Pretreatment Summary
• Toxicity Summary
• Renewal Application Addendum
• City of Newton Draft Comments
Public Notice
North Carolina
Environmental
Management
Commission/NPD
ES Unit
1617 Mail Service
Center
Raleigh, NC
27699-1617
Notice of Intent
to Issue a
NPDES Waste-
water Permit
NC0060593
Spinnaker Bay
WWTP and
NC0036196
Clark Creek
WWTP
The North Caroli-
na Environmental
Management
Commission pro-
poses to issue a
NPDES wastewa-
ter discharge per-
mit to the
person(s) listed
below. Written
comments re-
garding the pro-
posed permit will
be accepted until
30 days aftar the
publish date of
this notice. The
Director of the
NC Division of
Water Resources
(DWR) may hold
a t - r,!ic hearing
shoo:'' there be a
sign,icant degree
of F. Olic interest.
Please mail com-
ments and/or in-
formation re-
quests to DWR at
the above ad-
dress. Interested
persons may visit
the DWR at 512
N. Salisbury
Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604 to re-
view information
on file. Additional
information on
NPDES permits
and this notice
may be found on
our website:
http://deq.nc.gov/
abouUdivisions/w
ate r-
resources/water-
resources-per-
mits/wastewater-
branch/npdes-
wastewater/pub-
lic-notices,or by
calling (919) 707-
3601. Aqua North
Carolina, Inc. has
requested renew-
al of NPDES per-
mit NC0060593
for the Spinnaker
Bay Condomini-
ums WWTP in
Catawba County.
This permitted fa-
cility discharges
treated wastewa-
ter to Lake Nor-
man (Mountain
Creek Arm) in the
Catawba River
Ravin C)urranfly
This discharge
may affect future
allocations in this
portion of the wa-
tershed. The City
of Newton [1407
McKay Road,
Newton, NC] has
requested renew-
al of NPDES per-
mit NC0036196
for its Clark
Creek Wastewa-
ter Treatment
Plant, located in
Catawba County.
This permitted fa-
cility discharges
treated municipal
and industrial
wastewater to
Clark Creek, a
class C water in
the Catawba Riv-
er Basin. Current-
ly, BOD, ammo-
nia, fecal coli-
form, dissolved
oxygen, pH, total
residual chlorine,
total copper and
total aluminum
are water quality
limited. This dis-
charge may affect
future allocations
in this segment of
Clark Creek.
Publish: March
27. 2021

9.L. CITY OF NEWTON Waste Water Treatment Plant
W.@ >T 4 ire
1 af'„,y a= P.O.Box 550 • Newton,N.C.28658 • phone [phone] • fax [phone]
6 INOEM S,c,?
855,
NCDEQ/DWR
NPDES Permitting Branch\1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 RECEIVED
APR 22Z021
Subject: draft NPDES Permit Renewal NCDEQIDWRINPDES
Permit NC0036196
Clark Creek WWTP
Catawba County
Grade IV Biological WPCS
SIC Code 4952
Dear Mr. Coco,
The City of Newton reviewed the draft permit. There are two changes that the City of Newton believes is
too excessive. Total aluminum limits with monthly monitoring and total copper limits with monthly
monitoring. We currently test for aluminum and copper quarterly when preforming toxicity test. Data in
the past four years for both aluminum and copper, shows the City of Newton has not came close to the
proposed daily or monthly maximum limits. (See Attached Graph)
City of Newton did have a copper limit in the past.It was removed by the State,because years of testing
proved that set limits were not exceeded, or even come close. Furthermore,there were no violations for
exceeding the copper limits,thus the State removed copper limits.
Extra testing for aluminum and copper will add cost,which otherwise could be redirected to operations.
The City request that the extra testing for aluminum and copper be omitted from the draft permit. The
City intends continuing testing for aluminum and copper during quarterly toxicity test. If we do see
changes, then we will notify the State and would not object to increasing the testing and having a limit
set.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Si
7)),,t)Y 4 fEricJWasteerTreatmentPlantSuperintendent
City of Newton
PO Box 550
Newton NC 28658
828-695-4328
[e-mail]
Month Zinc(mg/L) Copper(mg/L) Copper(ug/L) Aluminum (mg/L) Aluminum (ug/L)
March 0.047 0.006 6.00 0.019 19.00
June 0.035 0.010 10.00 0.050 50.00
O September 0.013 0.005 5.00 0.083 83.00
N
December 0.037 0.006 6.00 0.050 50.00
March 0.044 0.006 6.00 0.050 50.00
00
r-I June 0.042 0.007 7.00 0.087 87.00
O September 0.020 0.011 11.00 0.056 56.00
N
December 0.138 0.035 35.00 0.056 56.00
March 0.040 0.008 8.00 0.119 119.00
0I-I June 0.038 0.009 9.00 0.092 92.00
O September 0.024 0.009 9.00 0.073 73.00
N
December 0.022 0.006 6.00. 0.052 52.00
March 0.040 0.009 9.00 0.067 67.00
0
N June 0.018 0.014 14.00 0.006 6.00
0 September 0.012 0.008 8.00 0.057 57.00
N
March 0.030 0.005 5.00 0.058 58.00
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Name WQS Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Clark Creek WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health
Water Supply C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0036196 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.6925 FW 11.4190 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD)5.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Clark Creek Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03050102 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 369.2831 FW 2954.9405 ug/L
Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 µg/L
7Q10s (cfs)6.000 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A µg/L
7Q10w (cfs)10.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 25.9743 FW 40.8497 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs)6.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA (cfs)35.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs)4.99 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 13.8269 FW 374.2090 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 150.38 mg/L (Avg)Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Upstream Hardness 37.12 mg/L (Avg)Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 100.95 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 121.2658 FW 1137.9329 µg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 106.01 mg/L Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A µg/L
Data Source(s)Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 3.5567 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 413.5321 FW 427.5337 ug/L
Par22 Aluminum Aquatic Life NC 87 FW µg/L
Par23
Par24
Follow directions for data entry. In some cases a
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from. Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
To appy a Model IWC %: Once the
"Flow, Qw (MGD)" and and the
"CHRONIC DILUTION FACTOR =
" values are entered, the 7Q10s
(cfs) flow is calculated and
displayed. Enter the calculated
"7Q10s (cfs)" flow value in Table 1.
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality
Criteria for Aluminum = 87 ug/L at pH of 6.5 - 9.0
C
CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Apply WS Hardness WQC
36196 RPA, input
3/18/2021
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Name WQS Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Clark Creek WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health
Water Supply C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0036196 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.8281 FW 12.3832 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD)7.500 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Clark Creek Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03050102 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 401.5308 FW 3189.1072 ug/L
Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 µg/L
7Q10s (cfs)6.000 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A µg/L
7Q10w (cfs)10.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 28.3452 FW 44.5956 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs)6.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA (cfs)35.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs)4.99 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 15.4514 FW 413.9976 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 150.38 mg/L (Avg)Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Upstream Hardness 37.12 mg/L (Avg)Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 111.82 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 132.2198 FW 1231.2009 µg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 116.36 mg/L Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A µg/L
Data Source(s)Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 4.1745 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 450.9465 FW 462.6315 ug/L
Par22 Aluminum Aquatic Life NC 87 FW µg/L
Par23
Par24
Follow directions for data entry. In some cases a
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from. Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
To appy a Model IWC %: Once the
"Flow, Qw (MGD)" and and the
"CHRONIC DILUTION FACTOR =
" values are entered, the 7Q10s
(cfs) flow is calculated and
displayed. Enter the calculated
"7Q10s (cfs)" flow value in Table 1.
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality
Criteria for Aluminum = 87 ug/L at pH of 6.5 - 9.0
C
CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Apply WS Hardness WQC
36196 RPA, input
3/18/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2
Effluent Hardness Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/11/2017 140 140 Std Dev.13.3310 1 7/5/2017 36 36 Std Dev.6.4796
2 9/14/2017 138 138 Mean 150.3750 2 11/2/2017 46 46 Mean 37.1176
3 10/17/2017 152 152 C.V.0.0887 3 2/8/2018 32 32 C.V.0.1746
4 12/13/2017 156 156 n 16 4 3/5/2018 42 42 n 34
5 3/15/2018 148 148 10th Per value 134.00 mg/L 5 4/3/2018 46 46 10th Per value 29.20 mg/L
6 6/14/2018 148 148 Average Value =150.38 mg/L 6 5/2/2018 36 36 Average Value =37.12 mg/L
7 9/11/2018 132 132 Max. Value 176.00 mg/L 7 6/5/2018 18 18 Max. Value 46.00 mg/L
8 12/4/2018 132 132 8 8/1/2018 20 20
9 3/21/2019 176 176 9 9/4/2018 44 44
10 6/20/2019 156 156 10 1/2/2019 32 32
11 9/12/2019 176 176 11 2/6/2019 40 40
12 12/12/2019 160 160 12 3/6/2019 36 36
13 3/11/2020 156 156 13 4/3/2019 36 36
14 6/11/2020 148 148 14 5/1/2019 36 36
15 9/24/2020 152 152 15 6/4/2019 44 44
16 12/9/2020 136 136 16 7/2/2019 42 42
17 17 8/6/2019 40 40
18 18 9/3/2019 40 40
19 19 10/2/2019 44 44
20 20 11/6/2019 36 36
21 21 12/5/2019 40 40
22 22 1/2/2020 40 40
23 23 2/12/2020 28 28
24 24 3/4/2020 36 36
25 25 4/1/2020 40 40
26 26 5/6/2020 40 40
27 27 6/2/2020 36 36
28 28 7/1/2020 40 40
29 29 8/5/2020 32 32
30 30 9/2/2020 28 28
31 31 10/6/2020 40 40
32 32 11/5/2020 44 44
33 33 12/2/2020 36 36
34 34 1/13/2021 36 36
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 1 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/9/2017 <10 5 Std Dev.0.0000
2 6/8/2017 <10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 9/14/2017 <10 5 C.V.0.0000
4 12/13/2017 <10 5 n 16
5 3/15/2018 <10 5
6 6/14/2018 <10 5 Mult Factor =1.00
7 9/11/2018 <10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 12/4/2018 <10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L
9 3/21/2019 <10 5
10 6/20/2019 <10 5
11 9/12/2019 <10 5
12 12/12/2019 <10 5
13 3/11/2020 <10 5
14 6/11/2020 <10 5
15 9/24/2020 <10 5
16 12/9/2020 <10 5
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
- 2 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Beryllium Cadmium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/14/2017 <5 2.5 Std Dev.0.0000 1 3/9/2017 <2 1 Std Dev.0.0000
2 9/11/2018 <5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 2 6/8/2017 <2 1 Mean 1.0000
3 3/21/2019 <5 2.5 C.V. (default)0.6000 3 9/14/2017 <2 1 C.V.0.0000
4 n 3 4 12/13/2017 <2 1 n 16
5 5 3/15/2018 <2 1
6 Mult Factor =3.00 6 6/14/2018 <2 1 Mult Factor =1.00
7 Max. Value 2.50 ug/L 7 9/11/2018 <2 1 Max. Value 1.000 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 7.50 ug/L 8 12/4/2018 <2 1 Max. Pred Cw 1.000 ug/L
9 9 3/21/2019 <2 1
10 10 6/20/2019 <2 1
11 11 9/12/2019 <2 1
12 12 12/12/2019 <2 1
13 13 3/11/2020 <2 1
14 14 6/11/2020 <2 1
15 15 9/24/2020 <2 1
16 16 12/9/2020 <2 1
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 3 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07 Par10
Total Phenolic Compounds Chromium, Total
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/14/2017 27 27 Std Dev.12.7017 1 3/9/2017 <5 2.5 Std Dev.0.0000
2 9/11/2018 <10 5 Mean 12.3333 2 6/8/2017 <5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 3/21/2019 <10 5 C.V. (default)0.6000 3 9/14/2017 <5 2.5 C.V.0.0000
4 n 3 4 12/13/2017 <5 2.5 n 16
5 5 3/15/2018 <5 2.5
6 Mult Factor =3.00 6 6/14/2018 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.00
7 Max. Value 27.0 ug/L 7 9/11/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 µg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 81.0 ug/L 8 12/4/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 µg/L
9 9 3/21/2019 <5 2.5
10 10 6/20/2019 <5 2.5
11 11 9/12/2019 <5 2.5
12 12 12/12/2019 <5 2.5
13 13 3/11/2020 <5 2.5
14 14 6/11/2020 <5 2.5
15 15 9/24/2020 <5 2.5
16 16 12/9/2020 <5 2.5
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 4 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pa11 Par12
Copper Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/9/2017 6 6 Std Dev.6.7758 1 3/9/2017 <5 5 Std Dev.0.0000
2 6/8/2017 10 10 Mean 9.5000 2 6/7/2017 <5 5 Mean 5.00
3 9/14/2017 5 5 C.V.0.7132 3 9/14/2017 <5 5 C.V.0.0000
4 12/14/2017 6 6 n 18 4 12/13/2017 <5 5 n 16
5 3/15/2018 6 6 5 3/15/2018 <5 5
6 9/11/2018 10 10 Mult Factor =1.49 6 6/14/2018 <5 5 Mult Factor =1.00
7 3/21/2019 7 7 Max. Value 35.00 ug/L 7 9/11/2018 <5 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 6/1/2018 7 7 Max. Pred Cw 52.15 ug/L 8 12/4/2018 <5 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L
9 9/1/2018 11 11 9 3/21/2019 <5 5
10 12/1/2018 35 35 10 6/20/2019 <5 5
11 3/1/2019 8 8 11 9/12/2019 <5 5
12 6/1/2019 9 9 12 12/12/2019 <5 5
13 9/1/2019 9 9 13 3/11/2020 <5 5
14 12/1/2019 6 6 14 6/11/2020 <5 5
15 3/1/2020 9 9 15 9/24/2020 <5 5
16 6/1/2020 14 14 16 12/9/2020 <5 5
17 9/1/2020 8 8 17
18 12/1/2020 5 5 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 5 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par13 Par14
Fluoride Lead
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/9/2017 186 186 Std Dev.117.1754 1 3/9/2017 <10 5 Std Dev.0.0000
2 6/8/2017 530 530 Mean 371.2500 2 6/8/2017 <10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 9/14/2017 498 498 C.V.0.3156 3 9/14/2017 <10 5 C.V.0.0000
4 12/13/2017 400 400 n 16 4 12/13/2017 <10 5 n 16
5 3/15/2018 250 250 5 3/15/2018 <10 5
6 6/14/2018 380 380 Mult Factor =1.24 6 6/14/2018 <10 5 Mult Factor =1.00
7 9/11/2018 576 576 Max. Value 576.0 ug/L 7 9/11/2018 <10 5 Max. Value 5.000 ug/L
8 12/4/2018 340 340 Max. Pred Cw 714.2 ug/L 8 12/4/2018 <10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.000 ug/L
9 3/21/2019 460 460 9 3/21/2019 <10 5
10 6/20/2019 320 320 10 6/20/2019 <10 5
11 9/12/2019 540 540 11 9/12/2019 <10 5
12 12/12/2019 290 290 12 12/12/2019 <10 5
13 3/11/2020 320 320 13 3/11/2020 <10 5
14 6/11/2020 300 300 14 6/11/2020 <10 5
15 9/24/2020 270 270 15 9/24/2020 <10 5
16 12/9/2020 280 280 16 12/9/2020 <10 5
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 6 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16 Par17 & Par18
Molybdenum Nickel
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/9/2017 <5 2.5 Std Dev.1.3750 1 3/9/2017 <10 5 Std Dev.2.0000
2 6/8/2017 <5 2.5 Mean 2.8438 2 6/8/2017 <10 5 Mean 5.5000
3 9/14/2017 <5 2.5 C.V.0.4835 3 9/14/2017 <10 5 C.V.0.3636
4 12/13/2017 <5 2.5 n 16 4 12/13/2017 <10 5 n 16
5 3/15/2018 <5 2.5 5 3/15/2018 <10 5
6 6/14/2018 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.37 6 6/14/2018 13 13 Mult Factor =1.28
7 9/11/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Value 8.0 ug/L 7 9/11/2018 <10 5 Max. Value 13.0 µg/L
8 12/4/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 11.0 ug/L 8 12/4/2018 <10 5 Max. Pred Cw 16.6 µg/L
9 3/21/2019 8 8 9 3/21/2019 <10 5
10 6/20/2019 <5 2.5 10 6/20/2019 <10 5
11 9/12/2019 <5 2.5 11 9/12/2019 <10 5
12 12/12/2019 <5 2.5 12 12/12/2019 <10 5
13 3/11/2020 <5 2.5 13 3/11/2020 <10 5
14 6/11/2020 <5 2.5 14 6/11/2020 <10 5
15 9/24/2020 <5 2.5 15 9/24/2020 <10 5
16 12/9/2020 <5 2.5 16 12/9/2020 <10 5
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
- 7 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19 Par20
Selenium Silver
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/9/2017 <10 5 Std Dev.1.1250 1 3/9/2017 <5 2.5 Std Dev.0.0000
2 6/8/2017 <10 5 Mean 4.7188 2 6/8/2017 <5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 9/14/2017 <10 5 C.V.0.2384 3 9/14/2017 <5 2.5 C.V.0.0000
4 12/13/2017 <10 5 n 16 4 12/13/2017 <5 2.5 n 16
5 3/15/2018 <10 5 5 3/15/2018 <5 2.5
6 6/14/2018 <10 5 Mult Factor =1.18 6 6/14/2018 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.00
7 9/11/2018 <10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 9/11/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
8 12/4/2018 <10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.9 ug/L 8 12/4/2018 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.500 ug/L
9 3/21/2019 <1 0.5 9 3/21/2019 <5 2.5
10 6/20/2019 <10 5 10 6/20/2019 <5 2.5
11 9/12/2019 <10 5 11 9/12/2019 <5 2.5
12 12/12/2019 <10 5 12 12/12/2019 <5 2.5
13 3/11/2020 <10 5 13 3/11/2020 <5 2.5
14 6/11/2020 <10 5 14 6/11/2020 <5 2.5
15 9/24/2020 <10 5 15 9/24/2020 <5 2.5
16 12/9/2020 <10 5 16 12/9/2020 <5 2.5
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
- 8 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21 Par22
Zinc Aluminum
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/9/2017 47 47 Std Dev.27.6246 1 3/9/2017 19 19 Std Dev.31.6791
2 6/8/2017 35 35 Mean 38.3529 2 6/8/2017 <50 25 Mean 54.3125
3 12/14/2017 37 37 C.V.0.7203 3 9/14/2017 83 83 C.V.0.5833
4 9/11/2018 26 26 n 17 4 12/13/2017 <50 25 n 16
5 3/21/2019 39 39 5 3/15/2018 <50 25
6 3/1/2018 44 44 Mult Factor =1.53 6 6/14/2018 87 87 Mult Factor =1.46
7 6/1/2018 42 42 Max. Value 138.0 ug/L 7 9/11/2018 <50 25 Max. Value 119.000000 µg/L
8 9/1/2018 20 20 Max. Pred Cw 211.1 ug/L 8 12/4/2018 56 56 Max. Pred Cw 173.740000 µg/L
9 12/1/2018 138 138 9 3/21/2019 119 119
10 3/1/2019 40 40 10 6/20/2019 92 92
11 6/1/2019 38 38 11 9/12/2019 73 73
12 9/1/2019 24 24 12 12/12/2019 52 52
13 12/1/2019 22 22 13 3/11/2020 67 67
14 3/1/2020 40 40 14 6/11/2020 6 6
15 6/1/2020 18 18 15 9/24/2020 57 57
16 9/1/2020 12 12 16 12/9/2020 58 58
17 12/1/2020 30 30 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 9 -
36196 RPA, data
3/22/2021
Clark Creek WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0036196 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 5 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 5.0000 WWTP/WTP Class:IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 4.99 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 60.83202512 Acute = 106.01 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 6.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 56.36363636 Chronic = 100.95 mg/L
7Q10W (cfs) = 10.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W = 43.66197183
30Q2 (cfs) = 6.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 56.36363636
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 35.00 IW%C @ QA = 18.12865497
Receiving Stream:Stream Class:C
PARAMETER RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Applied
Standard Acute n # Det.Max Pred Cw
Acute (FW):558.9
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s)340 ug/L
16 0 5.0 Chronic (FW):266.1
Max MDL = 10
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg)ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH):55.2
Max MDL = 10
Acute:106.85
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s)65 ug/L 3 0 7.50
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:11.53
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:18.771
Cadmium NC 1.6925 FW(7Q10s)11.4190 ug/L 16 0 1.000
Chronic:3.003
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 2
Acute:NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2)ug/L 3 1 81.0
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:532.3
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:4,857.5
Chromium III NC 369.2831 FW(7Q10s)2954.9405 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:655.2
Acute:26.3
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q10s)16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:19.5
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 16 0 2.5
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:67.15
Copper NC 25.9743 FW(7Q10s)40.8497 ug/L 18 18 52.15
Chronic:46.08
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:36.2
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s)22 10 ug/L 16 0 5.0
Chronic:8.9
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10PQLUNITSTYPE
Allowable Cw
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTSNC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Clark Creek HUC 03050102
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All values reported < 5 ug/L - No monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All values reported < 5 ug/L - No monitoring required
Max reported value = 2.5
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 µg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Page 1 of 2
36196 RPA, rpa
3/22/2021
Clark Creek WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0036196 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 5 MGD
Acute:NO WQS
Fluoride NC 1800 FW(7Q10s)ug/L 16 16 714.2
Chronic:3,193.5
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:615.151
Lead NC 13.8269 FW(7Q10s)374.2090 ug/L 16 0 5.000
Chronic:24.532
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10
Acute:NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q10s)ug/L 16 1 11.0
Chronic:3,548.4
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute (FW):1,870.6
Nickel NC 121.2658 FW(7Q10s)1137.9329 µg/L
16 1 16.6 Chronic (FW):215.1
No value > Allowable Cw
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s)µg/L Chronic (WS):44.4
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:92.1
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s)56 ug/L 16 0 5.9
Chronic:8.9
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10
Acute:5.847
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s)3.5567 ug/L 16 0 2.500
Chronic:0.106
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:702.8
Zinc NC 413.5321 FW(7Q10s)427.5337 ug/L 17 17 211.1
Chronic:733.7
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Aluminum NC 87 FW(7Q10s)µg/L 16 12 173.74000
Chronic:154.355
No value > Allowable Cw
All values reported non-detect < 10 ug/L and < 1 ug/L -
No monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL
of 1 ug/L.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All values reported non-detect < 5 ug/L - No
monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL of
1 ug/L.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 2 of 2
36196 RPA, rpa
3/22/2021
Clark Creek WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0036196 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 7.5 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 7.5000 WWTP/WTP Class:IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 4.99 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 69.96689738 Acute = 116.36 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 6.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 65.95744681 Chronic = 111.82 mg/L
7Q10W (cfs) = 10.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W = 53.75722543
30Q2 (cfs) = 6.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 65.95744681
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 35.00 IW%C @ QA = 24.93297587
Receiving Stream:Stream Class:C
PARAMETER RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Applied
Standard Acute n # Det.Max Pred Cw
Acute (FW):485.9
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s)340 ug/L
16 0 5.0 Chronic (FW):227.4
Max MDL = 10
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg)ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH):40.1
Max MDL = 10
Acute:92.90
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s)65 ug/L 3 0 7.50
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:9.85
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:17.699
Cadmium NC 1.8281 FW(7Q10s)12.3832 ug/L 16 0 1.000
Chronic:2.772
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 2
Acute:NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2)ug/L 3 1 81.0
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:454.8
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:4,558.0
Chromium III NC 401.5308 FW(7Q10s)3189.1072 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:608.8
Acute:22.9
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q10s)16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:16.7
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 16 0 2.5
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:63.74
Copper NC 28.3452 FW(7Q10s)44.5956 ug/L 18 18 52.15
Chronic:42.97
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:31.4
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s)22 10 ug/L 16 0 5.0
Chronic:7.6
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10PQLUNITSTYPE
Allowable Cw
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTSNC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Clark Creek HUC 03050102
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All values reported < 5 ug/L - No monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All values reported < 5 ug/L - No monitoring required
Max reported value = 2.5
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 µg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Page 1 of 2
36196 RPA, rpa
3/22/2021
Clark Creek WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0036196 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 7.5 MGD
Acute:NO WQS
Fluoride NC 1800 FW(7Q10s)ug/L 16 16 714.2
Chronic:2,729.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:591.705
Lead NC 15.4514 FW(7Q10s)413.9976 ug/L 16 0 5.000
Chronic:23.426
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10
Acute:NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q10s)ug/L 16 1 11.0
Chronic:3,032.3
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute (FW):1,759.7
Nickel NC 132.2198 FW(7Q10s)1231.2009 µg/L
16 1 16.6 Chronic (FW):200.5
No value > Allowable Cw
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s)µg/L Chronic (WS):37.9
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:80.0
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s)56 ug/L 16 0 5.9
Chronic:7.6
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10
Acute:5.966
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s)4.1745 ug/L 16 0 2.500
Chronic:0.091
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:661.2
Zinc NC 450.9465 FW(7Q10s)462.6315 ug/L 17 17 211.1
Chronic:683.7
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Aluminum NC 87 FW(7Q10s)µg/L 16 12 173.74000
Chronic:131.903
No value > Allowable Cw
All values reported non-detect < 10 ug/L and < 1 ug/L -
No monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL
of 1 ug/L.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All values reported non-detect < 5 ug/L - No
monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL of
1 ug/L.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 2 of 2
36196 RPA, rpa
3/22/2021
Permit No. NC0036196
Page 1 of 4

NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards – Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)

Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81

Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).

Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)

Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/l
Cadmium, Acute WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute WER*0.316 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic WER*0.860 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute WER*0.960 ∙ e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic WER*0.960 ∙ e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute WER*0.998 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic WER*0.997 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Permit No. NC0036196
Page 2 of 4

Silver, Acute WER*0.85 ∙ e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic Not applicable
Zinc, Acute WER*0.978 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic WER*0.986 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}

General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as ‘total recoverable’ metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.

RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification

2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.

The permit writer reviews DMR’s, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.

If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.

If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.

Permit No. NC0036196
Page 3 of 4

The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site-specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.

4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site-specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.

In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA’s criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.

5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:

Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) – (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations

Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
EPA default partition coefficients or the “Fraction Dissolved” converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in-stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:

_Cdiss__ = _______1_______________
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss(1+a)] [10-6] }

Where:
ss = in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/l], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness-dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.

Permit No. NC0036196
Page 4 of 4

QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality

6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.

7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.

8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.

9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.

10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter Value Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
150.38 Data provided in DMRs
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
37.12 Data provided in DMRs
7Q10 summer (cfs) 6.0 NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs) 4.99 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.0 NPDES Files

Date: _____3/18/2020________________________

Permit Writer: ______Nick Coco________________
3/18/21 WQS = 12 ng/L V:2013-6
Facility Name
/Permit No. :
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 6.000 cfs WQBEL = 21.29 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow = 5.000 47 ng/L
3/8/17 1.09 1.09
6/7/17 2.5 2.5
9/14/17 2.8 2.8
12/13/17 2.8 2.8 2.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
3/15/18 <1 0.5
6/14/18 3.44 3.44
9/12/18 19.9 19.9
12/5/18 3.39 3.39 6.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
3/20/19 2.5 2.5
6/27/19 2.75 2.75
9/12/19 2.93 2.93
12/12/19 1.57 1.57 2.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
3/11/20 7.96 7.96
6/11/20 4.49 4.49
9/17/20 1.94 1.94
12/9/20 <1 0.5 3.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
Clark Creek WWTP/NC0036196 No Limit Required
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
MMP Required
Clark Creek WWTP/NC0036196
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2017 2018 2019 2020
# of Samples 4 4 4 4
Annual Average, ng/L 2.3 6.8 2.4 3.72
Maximum Value, ng/L 2.80 19.90 2.93 7.96
TBEL, ng/L
WQBEL, ng/L 21.3
47
NC0036196 Clark Creek WWTP 3/18/2021
Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)
February-17 98.84 August-19 98.22 February-17 99.47 August-19 98.92
March-17 99.17 September-19 97.72 March-17 99.52 September-19 99.24
April-17 96.58 October-19 98.65 April-17 98.76 October-19 99.23
May-17 97.67 November-19 99.06 May-17 99.31 November-19 98.86
June-17 97.63 December-19 97.57 June-17 99.46 December-19 98.62
July-17 95.96 January-20 98.39 July-17 99.07 January-20 98.89
August-17 98.89 February-20 97.34 August-17 99.42 February-20 97.53
September-17 98.78 March-20 98.68 September-17 99.46 March-20 99.51
October-17 98.51 April-20 98.57 October-17 99.06 April-20 98.86
November-17 99.35 May-20 96.43 November-17 99.46 May-20 94.03
December-17 99.32 June-20 97.53 December-17 99.10 June-20 98.09
January-18 99.23 July-20 98.03 January-18 99.11 July-20 99.30
February-18 98.33 August-20 97.11 February-18 89.85 August-20 97.86
March-18 98.82 September-20 98.68 March-18 99.44 September-20 99.18
April-18 97.74 October-20 97.96 April-18 98.77 October-20 99.13
May-18 97.81 November-20 98.38 May-18 99.24 November-20 99.01
June-18 97.74 December-20 98.57 June-18 99.36 December-20 98.86
July-18 98.10 January-21 98.62 July-18 99.47 January-21
August-18 98.44 February-21 August-18 99.00 February-21
September-18 98.05 March-21 September-18 98.88 March-21
October-18 98.41 April-21 October-18 99.06 April-21
November-18 98.13 May-21 November-18 98.50 May-21
December-18 98.44 June-21 December-18 98.66 June-21
January-19 97.93 July-21 January-19 98.08 July-21
February-19 97.11 August-21 February-19 97.25 August-21
March-19 97.38 September-21 March-19 99.00 September-21
April-19 96.02 October-21 April-19 95.46 October-21
May-19 97.53 November-21 May-19 98.88 November-21
June-19 98.71 December-21 June-19 99.33 December-21
July-19 95.98 January-22 July-19 98.73 January-22
Overall BOD removal rate 98.04 Overall TSSD removal rate 98.58
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Clark Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0036196
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):6
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):10
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/l)Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
s7Q10 (CFS)6 s7Q10 (CFS)6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)5 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)7.75 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)7.75
STREAM STD (UG/L)17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)56.36 IWC (%)56.36
Allowable Conc. (ug/l)30 Allowable Conc. (mg/l)1.6
Capped at 28 ug/L. Same as current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Same as current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS)10
Monthly Average Limit:200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)5
(If DF >331; Monitor)DESIGN FLOW (CFS)7.75
(If DF<331; Limit)STREAM STD (MG/L)1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)1.77 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)43.66
Allowable Conc. (mg/l)3.8
Same as current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Clark Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0036196
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):7.5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):6
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):10
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/l)Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
s7Q10 (CFS)6 s7Q10 (CFS)6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)7.5 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)7.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)11.625 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)11.625
STREAM STD (UG/L)17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)65.96 IWC (%)65.96
Allowable Conc. (ug/l)26 Allowable Conc. (mg/l)1.4
Same as current permit limit. Maintain limit.Same as current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS)10
Monthly Average Limit:200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)7.5
(If DF >331; Monitor)DESIGN FLOW (CFS)11.625
(If DF<331; Limit)STREAM STD (MG/L)1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)1.52 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)53.76
Allowable Conc. (mg/l)3.2
Same as current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR 122.21(j)(1)
ne(0 or n c •
1.1
Email address of facility contact
e ones
1.2
�vv
Applicant emai g.ddress
GIN' kOneu1ivnne. V V
1.3
Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge
1.4
Email address of the or��
ion receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge
1.5
Do you intend to request or renew
with your NPDES permitting authority
Discharges into
one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)? (Check all that apply. Consult
to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
marine waters (CWA Section Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
Section 302(b)(2))
•
301(h))
Er Not applicable
1.6
40 CFR
Email a ddress of contractor respo
ie
122.21(j)(6)
sible fo operational or maint•nance aspect of the treatment wor<s
/ I f &. C; k ' Ih /t a I
NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
' a l I 2 _ •
1.7 `
Indicate the number of SIUs and
Number of SIUs Number of CIUs
2
40 CFR
this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. ! am aware that
for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
122.22(a) and (d)
1.8
Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that
accordance with a system designed
Based on my inquiry of the person
information, the information submitted
there are significant penalties
violations.
Name (print or type first and last name)
\ITgAtes V oh e t
Official title
14/ 4177' .!cd)0-&) 4 /40.1-Qj
SigntUre
Date signed /

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Eric Jones
Client: Newton, City of
PO Box 550
Newton, NC 28658
Report Date:
Date Sample Rcvd:
1/3/2018
12/14/2017
Meritech Work Order # 12141739
Parameters
Total Dissolved Solids
Fluoride
TKN
Nitrate/Nitrite, Nitrogen
Nitrogen, total
Antimony, total
Aluminum, total
Arsenic, total
Beryllium, total
Cadmium, total
Chromium, total
Copper, total
Lead, total
Molybdenum, total
Nickel, total
Phosphorus, total
Selenium, total
Silver, total
Titanium, total
Zinc, total
Hardness (titration)
EPA 625 BNA
Sample: Effluent Composite
Results
436 mg/L
0.4 mg/L
<0.20 mg/L
28.3 mg/L
28.3 mg/L
<0.025 mg/L
<0.050 mg/L
<0.010 mg/L
<0.005 mg/L
<0.002 mg/L
<0.005 mg/L
0.006 mg/L
<0.010 mg/L
<0.005 mg/L
<0.010 mg/L
<0.020 mg/L
<0.010 mg/L
<0.005 mg/L
<0.0u5 mg/L
0.037 mg/L
160 mg/L
Attached
Anal y;sis Date Reporting Limit
12/15/17
12/18/17
12/18/17
12/15/17
12/19/17
12/29/17
12/20/17
12/29/17
12/20/17
12/20/17
12/20/17
12/20/17
12/29/17
12/20/17
12/20/17
12/20/17
12/29/17
12/20/17
12/20/17
12/29/17
12/21/17
12/26/17
12/13-14/17
Method
10.0 mg/L SM 2540C
0.1 mg/L SM 4500FC
0.20 mg/L EPA 351.1
0.10 mg/L EPA 353.2
0.20 mg/L EPA 353.2
0.025 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.050 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.020 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
1 mg/L SM 2340C
625
Meritech Work Order # 12141740
Parameters
Cyanide, total
Oil & Grease (HEM)
Phenols, total
EPA 624 + AA
Sample: Effluent Grab
Results Analysis Date
<0.005 mg/L 12/15/17
<5 mg/L 12/18/17
0.027 mg/L 12/18/17
Attached 12/19/17
Reporting Limit
0.005 mg/L
5 mg/L
0.010 mg/L
12/13/17
Method
EPA 335.4
EPA 1664B
EPA 420.1
624
1 hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve this data.
(t
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
Parameter
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
l,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3, 3'-D ichl orobenzidin e
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
MERITECH, INC.
Newton
625
Effluent
12/13-14/17
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certificate #165
Meritech ID#: 12141739
Analysis: 12/26/17
Extraction: 12/20/17
Analyst: CWL
Dilution Factor: 1
EPA 625 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
Result
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L,
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
< 10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 qg/L.
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
Parameter
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-N itrosodi-n-propylami ne
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
I hereby certify that 1 have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 IV—
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
171
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] Ph * [phone] Fax

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERITECH, INC.
City of Newton
624
Effluent
12/13/17
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
EPA 624 VOLATILE
Parameter
Benzene
Dich lorobrom o metha ne
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Bromoform
Methyl Bromide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Methyl Chloride
Chlorodibromomethane
l,2-Dibromoethane
1,l-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
l,1-Dichloroethylene
trans- l ,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene
trans 1,3 Dichlorop_ ,ykn
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tri chlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride
Additional Compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Meritech ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor: 1
Report Date: 12/21/17
ORGANICS
Result
< 1.00 ug/L
1.06 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
1.32 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
<50.0 ug/L
<10.0 ug/L
12141740
12/19/17
VWV
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] Ph * [phone] Fax

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Eric Jones
Client: Newton, City of
PO Box 550
Newton, NC 28658
Report Date: 9/26/2018
Date Sample Rcvd: 9/11/2018
Meritech Work Order # 09111830
Parameters
Total Dissolved Solids
Fluoride
TKN
Nitrate/Nitrite, Nitrogen
Nitrogen, total
Antimony, total
Aluminum, total
Arsenic, total
Beryllium, total
Cadmium, total
Chromium, total
Copper, total
Lead, total
Molybdenum, total
Nickel, total
Phosphorus, total
Selenium, total
Silver, total
Titanium, total
Zinc, total
Hardness (titration)
EPA 625 BNA
Sample: Effluent Composite 9/10-11/18
Results Analysis Date 1Zeporiirag Limit Method
368 mg/L 9/13/18 10.0 mg/L SM 2540C
0.576 mg/L 9/17/18 0.1 mg/L SM 4500FC
<0.20 mg/L 9/17/18 0.20 mg/L EPA 351.1
21.3 mg/L 9/14/18 0.10 mg/L EPA 353.2
21.3 mg/L 9/18/18 0.20 mg/L EPA 353.2
<0.025 mg/L 9/13/18 0.025 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.050 mg/L 9/13/18 0.050 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.010 mg/L 9/13/18 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.005 mg/L 9/13/18 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.002 mg/L 9/13/18 0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.005 mg/L 9/13/18 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L 9/13/18 0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.010 mg/L 9/19/18 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.005 mg/L 9/13/18 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.010 mg/L 9/13/18 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
1.68 mg/L 9/13/18 0.020 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.010 mg/L 9/13/18 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.005 mg/L 9/19/18 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
<0.005 mg/L 9/13/18 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.026 mg/L 9/13/18 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
132 mg/L 9/13/18 1 mg/L SM 2340C
Attached 9/20/18 625
Meritech Work Order # 09111831
Parameters
Cyanide, total
Oil & Grease (HEM)
Phenols, total
EPA 624 + AA
Sample: Effluent Grab
Results Analysis Date
<0.005 mg/L 9/13/18
6 mg/L 9/18/18
<0.010 9/17/18
Attached 9/20/18
9/11/18
Reporting Limit Method
0.005 mg/L EPA 335.4
5 mg/L EPA 1664B
0.010 mg/L EPA 420.1
624
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve this data.
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

MERITECH, INC.
Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
Report Date:
Parameter
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
B i s(2-chloroethyl)ether
B is(2-ch loroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
? 2-Dichlorohenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certificate #165
City of Newton
625
Effluent
09/11/18
09/24/18
Meritech ID#: 09111830
Analysis: 09/20/18
Extraction: 09/17/18
Analyst: PM
Dilution Factor: 1
EPA 625.1 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
Result
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
Parameter
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chlcropheno!
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

MERITECH, INC.
Client: City of Newton
Project: 624.1
Client Sample ID: Effluent
Sample Collection: 09/11/18
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
Meritech ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor: 1
Report Date: 09/24/18
EPA 624.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
Benzene
Dichlorobromomethane
Bromofortn
Methyl Bromide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Methyl Chloride
Chlorod ib rom omethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene
trams-1,3-Dichloropropyle ne
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trich l oro flux rom ethan e.
Vinyl chloride
Additional Compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
< 1.00 ug/L
2.18 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
3.44 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
<50.0 ug/L
<10.0 ug/L
09111831
09/20/18
VWV
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Eric Jones
Client: Newton, City of
PO Box 550
Newton, NC 28658
Report Date: 4/8/2019
Date Sample Rcvd: 3/21/2019
Meritech Work Order #
Parameters
Total Dissolved Solids
Fluoride
TKN
Nitrate/Nitrite, Nitrogen
Nitrogen, total
Antimony, total
Aluminum, total
Arsenic, total.
Beryllium, total
Cadmium, total
Chromium, total
Copper, total
Lead, total
Molybdenum, total
Nickel, total
Phosphorus, total
Selenium, total
Silver, total
Titanium, total
Zinc, total
Hardness (titration)
EPA 625 BNA
032119145 Sample: Effluent Composite
Results Analysis Date
339 mg/L 3/25/19
0.50 mg/L 3/29/19
1.06 mg/L 3/27/19
6.29 mg/L 3/26/19
7.35 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.025 mg/L 3/28/19
0.121 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.010 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.005 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.002 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.005 mg/L 3/28/19
0.007 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.010 mg/L 3/28/19
0.008 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.010 mg/L 3/28/19
0.403 mg/L 4/3/19
<0.010 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.005 mg/L 3/28/19
<0.005 mg/L 3/28/19
0.039 mg/L 3/28/19
176 mg/L 4/4/19
Attached 4/1/19
3/20-21/19
Reporting Limit Method
10.0 mg/L SM 2540C
0.1 mg/L SM 4500FC
0.20 mg/L EPA 351.1
0.10 mg/L EPA 353.2
0.20 'mg/L EPA 353.2
0.025 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.050 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.020 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
1 mg/L SM 2340C
625
Meritech Work Order # 032119146 Sample: Effluent Grab
Parameters
Cyanide, total
Oil & Grease (HEM)
Phenols, total
EPA 624 + AA
Results
<0.005 mg/L
<5 mg/L
<0.010 mg/L
Attached
Analysis Date
3/26/19
3/26/19
3/26/19
3/27/19
Reporting Limit
0.005 mg/L
5 mg/L
0. L
3/21/19
Method
EPA 335.4
EPA 1664B
EPA 420.1
624
I hereby certify that 1 have reviewed and approve this data.
Lab rat. Repre ' •ntative
642 Tainco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
Report Date:
Parameter
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ben zo(b )fl uoranthen e
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
B i s(2-ch l oro ethy t) eth er
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
B i s(2-ethylhexyl)phth al ate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
MERITECH, INC.
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certificate #165
City of Newton
625.1
Effluent
03/21/19
04/05/19
Meritech ID#: 032119145
Analysis: 04/01 / 19
Extraction: 03/25/19
Analyst: PM
Dilution Factor: 1
EPA 625.1 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
Result
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
Parameter
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-N itrosodimethylami ne
N-Nitroso di-n-propyl amine
N-N itrosod i phenyl amine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4-Ch l oro-3-m ethyl ph en o l
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methyl pheno l
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 nail.
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERITECH, INC.
City of Newton
624.1
Effluent
03/21/19
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
Meritech ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor: 1
Report Date: 04/01/19
EPA 624.1. VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
Benzene
Dichlorobromomethane
Bromoform
Methyl Bromide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Methyl Chloride
Chlorod ibrom omethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene
'trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tri chl orofluorom ethane
Vinyl chloride
Additional Compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
< 1.00 ug/L
1.49 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
1.54 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
<1.00 ug/L
<1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
<1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
<1.00 ug/L
<1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
<1.00 ug/L
,1.00tie_
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
1.47 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
<1.00 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
< 5.00 ug/L
<50.0 ug/L
<10.0 ug/L
032119146
03/27/19
VWV
ve
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

The flow enters the plant from the City of Newton Collection system. It goes through 2 mechanical bar -
screens where larger debris is eliminated and then pumped up hill by 1 of 3 influent pumps. It enters the
grit removal channels where lime is added to help settle out any inorganic debris. The lime also helps
with solids settling out in the 2 primary clarifiers. Solids that does settle out here is pumped to the 4
thickeners that we have and are used to get the primary discharge and waste solids ready for bio-
removal. After leaving the primary clarifiers the flow continues to the aeration basins. We have 4 but
most of the time we only use 2. This is where the biological activity takes place. Flow leaves the aeration
basins and goes to the secondary clarifiers, we have 3. Solids are also removed here and can either be
returned to the aeration basin or wasted to the thickeners. It's recycled back to the basins to provide
more food for the biological activity or it's wasted from the plant. This waste goes to the thickeners
where it is prepped and readied to be hauled out by a contracted company and taken to local farmers
who are on the land application program and applied to their fields. The flow that leaves the
secondaries then goes to a tertiary filter for the final solids removal and then to the CL2 contact basin.
As it goes through the contact basin CL2 is added at the head of the basin and SO2 is added before it
goes to the creek to remove the CL2 impact on the streams.

INFLUENT
7.5 MGD
DUAL MEDIA
FILTERS
CHLORINE CONTACT
BASINS AND
DECHLORINATION
i
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
AND BAR SCREEN
AERATED GRIT CHAMBERS
LIME ADDITION
• • REACTOR CLARIFIERS
DISCHARGE TO
CLARK CREEK 001
AERATION BASINS
1
1
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
, _BIOLOGICAL
SLUDGE
RECYCLE PUMP STATION
L
I 1 1
L I I
'�� //�� I 1 l 1
THICKENER `./ T Ic) LT
CENTRIFUGES
AND PUMP STATION
TO REGIONAL
COMPOST FACILITY
OR LAND APPLICATION
PUMP STATION
SOS ENGINEERS
CITY OF NEWTON
CLARK CREEK WWTP
FLOW SCHEMATIC
JANUARY 2005
NO 1949.037 i
SCALE 1

Month
Zinc (mg/L)
Copper (mg/L)
Aluminum (mg/L)
Aluminum (ug/L)
nei
0
N
March
0.047
0.006
0.019
19.00
June
0.035
0.010
<0.050
<50.00
September
0.013
0.005
0.083
83.00
December
0.037
0.006
<0.050
<50.00
0ei
0
N
March
0.044
0.006
<0.050
<50.00
June
0.042
0.007
0.087
87.00
September
0.020
0.011
0.056
56.00
December
0.138
0.035
0.056
56.00
01
r-I
0
N
March
0.040
0.008
0.119
119.00
June
0.038
0.009
0.092
92.00
September
0.024
0.009
0.073
73.00
December
0.022
0.006
0.052
52.00
0
N
0
N
March
0.040
0.009
0.067
67.00
June
0.018
0.014
0.006
6.00
September
0.012
0.008
0.057
57.00
March
0.030
0.005
0.058
58.00

INFLUENT
7.5 MCD
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
AND BAR SCREEN
1
AERATED GRIT CHAMBERS
LIME ADDITION
REACTOR CLARIFIERS
AERATION BASINS
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
�--- -L-,>-DOLOGICAL
/ SLUDGE
DUAL MEDIA
FILTERS
CHLORINE CONTACT
BASINS AND
DECHLORINATION
DISCHARGE TO
CLARK CREEK 001
UdiS ENGINEERS
0
THICKENER T -I
CENTRIFUGES
AND PUMP STATION
fiteAsiveV-7-low
j » Oil
9-kb,
RECYCLE RECYCLE PUMP STATION
L
I
L I 1 I I
1 dTb
TO REGIONAL
COMPOST FACILITY
OR LAND APPLICATION
CITY OF NEWTON
CLARK CREEK WWTP
FLOW SCHEMATIC
PUMP STATION
JANUARY 2005
NO
SCALE
949.037
1

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
C ill 06 qeLa6Yl GO D6L9 101 Lo°
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
R ,Ioet ctj
RIVER BASIN:
atta, t iocu
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
XYes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial sers (ClUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works. b 1c1 21
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 'V 1
b. Number of CIUs. '
1
31 21
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging
as necessary. c h �/� ( n
Name: C > ��1(�Jk IV ►C/ii1 t IIJ ����AL 1
to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
f1 r
Jrocturkss
Mailing Address: '�ll \ C3uxy' S ITV
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe
pros t i wn o-c
all the industrial processes that
hit tt ►� is ke�l (ta d
affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
(Si-a,�4'i \ esS J&,1 d;
�I9 ,pL cf �OGc '
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Wterial(s).
discharge.
Principal product(s): ICtt
Describe all of the principal processes and raw
(n� n `/� �' "" ► ( �y
I ai Jd 1' 1 I �11 Y C-oo
materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
) n ( `M1 Jn i J !
d ele-C-t�)cl�,J P-'CI ,
/ /�
) kV l,r'C
1l�
1e,1 f 1 �S l
I'�')c--. wire VQ r j ou s -c1 fixes and COYY)pou nd.� •
Raw
material(s): -
I
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whetherththe discharge is continuous or intermittent.
ZI 9 b f) gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate
a. Local limits
b. Categorical pretreatment standards
If subject to categorical pretreatment
if-1
whether the SIU is subject to the following:
4 Yes 0 No
At Yes 0 No
standards, which category and subcategory?
1. 36
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

spec �tl Mir\
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: Ci 1 t\ 1 ,�
e i G N � 1JV
PERMIT
�jAC/T�ION REQUESTED:
rw 1ewa
RIVER j BAAfS]IN: / ,
Nvl"` 1,L
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ' No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes ( No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which he CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous 0 Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT
C r` 0-(-
�
NUMBER:
lv
I\) n 0 u�j to igLs)
(�
n
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Re new-
RIVER BASIN:
Ca fa 1� bat
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an
[Yes 0 No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (Sills) and Categorical Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works. {—�
c. Number of non -categorical Sills.l
approved pretreatment program?
Users (ClUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
d. Number of ClUs. 2,
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary. �(� �(��(�
Name: J\JO r2� (Frmev19ifr1')
Mailing Address: P' 0. g)D r 31 0 -1 0 `" ca—,i
P Si
r +
Netu+
r, �1c 2.B1o66
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial
Pyvaey et) a-h ►1
processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
s a �;� �.r�cl r i& lid lirand�R
F.S. Principal Product(s) MMaterial
discharge. ,/�
Principal S
( s .
,
Describe all of the pr cipal processes
CaY}S anct yy'paev
and raw materials that affect or contribute to the
latk Vara\ Y» tvAlp ,
product(s): IO pPi
cc rD V 0 vy,1
Raw U�'eL�1 � 1 G ��� 0 ►' (�1
f ar LS+-ee J
I
material(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater
day (gpd) and whether
30
flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
3 gpd ( 1/ continuous or intermittent)
149
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits [es 0 No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ftle<es ❑ No
If subject to categorical preheatment standards, which category and subcategory?
1.133.11
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME
(.i of'
AND PERMIT NUMBER:
4evohn' w, on io t° in
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Qsnewa,l
RIVER BASIN:
aa-hAwha-
F.8. Problems
upsets,
❑
at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
Yes iVt/No If yes, describe each episode.
HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
RCRA
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes @Y1Vo (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
Waste Number Amount Units
EPA Hazardous
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
WASTEWATER,
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) I+d' No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
0 Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITYNAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
C I jY] PiN �vo ((0Ic
PERMIT ACTION
Reilik,./1
REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Ctot/v-2
SUPPLEMEN AL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
Yes 0 No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
Number of non -categorical SlUs. //
c.
d. Number of CIUs. 2-
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: R___
Mailing Address:
[
[(QY3
` 1 Ah en_ C
f.
/
v 6),,V
--ofi /A, 1S6)9O
F.4. Industrial Processes.
M ,x ra
/
Describe a the in ustria rocesses tha)
i t • . r m V.JI
affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge I
Olt , q vas 'WOW 1 O V�'1� b
J
a
F.5. Principal Produc
discharge.
Principal
(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of
b vea o( and
the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
by le)
product(s):
flour, (3DL, v)
I La,s+
Rawmaterial(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
13 52_ 11 gpd ( ✓ continuous or intermittent)
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd (__ continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits V Yes 0 No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes VII No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
OA' f /- n
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
brio,/
RIVER BASIN:
604 Eohou
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at theemtreatment works in the past three years?
0 Yes L No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes iiNo (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or ha it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) 1 o
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY
aH
NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
0�vim
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
SUPPLEMENTAL
APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
('Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SlUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (ClUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
c. Number of non -categorical Sills. 4
d. Number of Gills.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary. 'j� y ��p /�/ �7 v1 % �/
Name: • 1 LTll,�rr(d4 1 �, /ws 1
-
Mailing Address: 16 M'—• 0 ( (' k ` gel ,
_a
/\I- DT1, roc 2 7(oGg
F.4. Industrial Processes Desc ibe all the du rial rocess s that a ect or co ibute to the SIU' disch
ins f �� n�►s �crc� ��V�rzli.i
ge.
-. per
F.5. Principal r du s n
discharge.
Principal
aJv Mates . esc ibe
,
of he 1Tcld2goce"sse6
and raw materials
that affect or contribute to the 's
product(s):
Raw
1�
"'
'1u Y
material(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater flow rate.
day (gpd) and whether the
1 3 0 o
k
Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or t/ intermittent)
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F,7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU issubject to the following:
a. Local limits [� Yes ❑,, Nob. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes LXNo
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME
AND PERMIT NUMBER:
ofJAi)/m1
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
PMPAA&I
RIVER BASIN:
ackia AA,
F.8. ( Problems
upsets,
at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
interference) atthee treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes Ly'No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes [U,Ao (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
Waste Number Amount Units
EPA Hazardous
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or haste�it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) AYNo
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a.Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY
G f .f
NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
u �f / f Oi //
00 3(0
1 �f (o
PERMIT
ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
(?fa
J 17a
Y
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION
INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES
AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from
complete part F.
significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment
•,Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users
industrial users that discharge to the treatment
c. Number of non -categorical Sills.
works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
(SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (Gills). Provide the number of each of the following types of
works.
Li
d. Number of CIUs.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each
provide the information requested for each
SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information.
as necessary.
Name: S-Kkil_e_a_.'
Provide
the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
Mailing Address:
102 5
:16 (ti iRV'
.C-,
F.4. Industrial
Processes. Describe all the industrial
` irLait -o
processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
rx Il -
F.5. Principal
discharge.
Principal
t _4
Product(s) and Raw aterial(s).
MenAf ta4threi
Describe alh6f the principal processes
c- D S}y i bw,
and raw materials
neydALtd
that affect or contribute to the SIU's
d vius, Oon 5un'OJ PS
product(s):
Raw material(s):
f
I I't(JI) 4 rC f ch
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
2 to 0 gpd ( / continuous or intermittent)
f
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or _____ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ,[,1 Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards D Yes V No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY
NAME
ANDfPERMIT NUMBER:
�G�IV
PERMIT ACTION REQ%UE�STED:
RIVEER/�BAASSIINN:: % /,�
F.8. Problems
upsets,
1 U , ,
at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes o If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste
❑ Yes Llylvo (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck 0 Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
Waste Number Amount Units
by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
EPA Hazardous
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) 2' No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS 1
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY
C Oki
NAME AND
of
PERMIT
KI-e.Khrn
NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
kt re wa 4
RIVER BASIN:
Octifa Wha,
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F,1. Pretreatme t program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (Sills) and Categorical Industrial Users (Gills). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
c. Number of non -categorical SlUs. 4
d. Number of Gills. r
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary. Name: £4VOhY)& C t its
Mailing Address: 2- ` + 6IA id WO / A
V e ,
c 22(Q5 Y
F.4. Industrial Processes.
w r •s
Describe all the industrial processes
I owhAtty.e_
that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
kn - Ie �o r sy t_ a . i v
F.S. Principal Pro�u�t s a Ra JICfai�
discharge. Q �`
Principal I �/!
i (�sj'
`
.. §escribe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
p p
I,'
1 _, rabr_i_S
product(s):
n / J
Raw material(s): ) ,I ` ley^0V, ► rn aAi Co vn U *a rG h V � fL `f'
CC
F.6. Flow Rate. J U-(�,I')ers
c. Process wastewater flow rate.
day (gpd) and whether the
2100
�y00
1 V 1 G
Indicate the average
discharge is continuous
gpd ( V
, I ,
�'a n it_ CI qes
daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
or intermittent.
socontinuous or intermittent)
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU issubjectto the following:
-
a. Local limits L� Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes [Jo
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
F.8.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
R- avaA
Problems a the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU.
upsets, interference) at
the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes If yes, describe each episode.
RIVER BASIN:
ewt-a wb�
Has the SIU caused o contributed to any problems (e.g.,
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes IX (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
0 Truck
❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount
Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has i been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.)
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW
IE MUST 1) TO COMPLETEDETRINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
FORM
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

MRs Between and Violation Category:Program Category:
Param Name County:Subbasin:%Violation Action:
Major Minor:%
Permit:
Facility Name:
Region:--NC0036196
%%
%
%
Limit Violation %
%
2 2017 2 2021
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:03/18/21Report Date:1Page:of 2
PERMIT:NC0036196 FACILITY:City of Newton - Clark Creek WWTP COUNTY:Catawba REGION:Mooresville
%
Over
UNIT OF
MEASURE VIOLATION ACTIONVIOLATION TYPECALCULATED
VALUELIMITFREQUENCYVIOLATION
DATEPARAMETERLOCATIONMONITORING
REPORT
Limit Violation
OUTFALL
06 - 2017 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 06/16/17 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3128ug/l 10.7
08 - 2017 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 08/31/17 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3628ug/l 28.6
02 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 02/16/18 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4528ug/l 60.7
09 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 09/24/18 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3228ug/l 14.3
09 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 09/26/18 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ2928ug/l 3.6
10 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 10/08/18 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4428ug/l 57.1
10 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 10/09/18 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Proceed to NOD7328ug/l 160.7
10 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 10/10/18 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3828ug/l 35.7
04 - 2019 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/12/19 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Proceed to NOD6028ug/l 114.3
11 - 2019 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 11/04/19 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3928ug/l 39.3
04 - 2020 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/13/20 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3028ug/l 7.1
05 - 2020 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 05/21/20 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3928ug/l 39.3
06 - 2020 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 06/17/20 5 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV7528ug/l 167.9
02 - 2019 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru
treatment plant
02/28/19 Continuous Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV7.145mgd 42.9
11 - 2020 001 Effluent pH 11/03/20 5 X week Daily Minimum Not
Reached
Proceed to NOD5.76su 5
02 - 2018 001 Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
02/10/18 5 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
16645mg/l 268.9
MRs Between and Violation Category:Program Category:
Param Name County:Subbasin:%Violation Action:
Major Minor:%
Permit:
Facility Name:
Region:--NC0036196
%%
%
%
Limit Violation %
%
2 2017 2 2021
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:03/18/21Report Date:2Page:of 2
PERMIT:NC0036196 FACILITY:City of Newton - Clark Creek WWTP COUNTY:Catawba REGION:Mooresville
%
Over
UNIT OF
MEASURE VIOLATION ACTIONVIOLATION TYPECALCULATED
VALUELIMITFREQUENCYVIOLATION
DATEPARAMETERLOCATIONMONITORING
REPORT
Limit Violation
OUTFALL
02 - 2018 001 Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
02/28/18 5 X week Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
42.7830mg/l 42.6
05 - 2020 001 Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
05/23/20 5 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
60.9845mg/l 35.5
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 52 NC0036196 21/01/06 C S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
2.0 4 N N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Clark Creek WWTP
1407 McKay Rd
Newton NC 28658
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
09:15AM 21/01/06 17/07/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
James Eric Jones/ORC/828-695-4370/
Stacy E Rowe//828-695-4344 /
Other Facility Data
02:30PM 21/01/06 20/07/31
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
James Dusty Wentz,PO Box 550 Newton NC 286584321/Public Works
Director/828-695-4310/8284657422
Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Wes Bell DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699 Ext.2192/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Andrew Pitner DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699 Ext.2180/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
21/01/06
Inspection Type
C3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
RECORD KEEPING SECTION cont'd:
The incorrect compliance status was designated on the May 2020 and November 2020 eDMRs. The
permittee and ORC must ensure that the non-compliance box is checked when any violations (limit
and/or monitoring) occur during the month. The ORC and staff must ensure the following: all effluent
TRC values are reported down to the correct detection level; second species effluent chronic toxicity
testing results are put on the applicable eDMRs and the results of the priority pollutant analyses (PPA)
are reported on the Division-approved form (PPA-1) and emailed to the designated link (previously
emailed to the ORC).
NC0036196 17 (Cont.)
Page#2
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
The Division received the facility’s permit renewal application on 1/29/2020.
The City implements a Division-approved Industrial Pretreatment Program.
The last compliance evaluation inspection at this facility was performed by DWR staff on
11/28/2018.
Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain-of-custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Page#3
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
The records reviewed during the inspection were organized and well maintained. Discharge
Monitoring Reports (eDMRs) were reviewed for the period December 2019 through
November 2020. Discharge Monitoring Reports (eDMRs) were reviewed for the period
December 2019 through November 2020. A weekly average effluent TSS violation was
reported in May 2020. Daily maximum effluent total residual chlorine (TRC) and pH
violations were reported in June 2020 (TRC) and November 2020 (pH). These violations will
be separately address by the Division through the issuances of a Notice of Deficiency
(NOD), Notice of Violations (NOVs) or civil penalty assessments. See "Summary" Section
for additional comments.
Comment:
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
Influent and effluent analyses are performed under the City of Newton’s municipal laboratory
certification #143. Meritech, Inc. and R&A Labs (now Pace Analytical) have been contracted
to provide analytical support. The City will use ETT Environmental (toxicity) instead of Pace
Analytical in the future.
Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
The subject permit requires influent BOD and TSS composite samples.
The ORC and staff must ensure that the minimum volume (100 ml./aliquot) is collected by
the sampler at all times.
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Page#4
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
The subject permit requires composite and grab effluent samples.Comment:
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and
sampling location)?
Comment:
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
The wastewater treatment facility appeared to be properly operated and well maintained.
The facility staff incorporate a comprehensive process control program with all
measurements being properly documented and maintained on-site. In-depth operation and
maintenance records were also being maintained on-site.
The wastewater debris (paper products, etc.) from the cleaning of tanks, wet wells, etc. is
disposed into a dedicated dumpster. The ORC and staff must ensure that any wastewater
debris spilled onto the ground (around the dumpster) is properly remediated.
Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Page#5
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Screenings and grit are disposed at the County Landfill by a contracted company.Comment:
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately ¼ of the sidewall depth)
Both primary clarifiers were in service. Aqueous lime is added to the primary clarifier
influent to maintain appropriate alkalinity/pH levels.
Comment:
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Page#6
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin’s surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l)
Three of the four aeration basins were in service.Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately ¼ of the sidewall depth)
Two of three secondary clarifiers were in service. The sludge blankets in both secondaries
were at or above five feet due to the inability to land apply sludge. The City may have to
investigate an alternative disposal method (portable dewatering unit/landfill, etc.) if the solids
inventory cannot be properly maintained.
Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:Down flow
Is the filter media present?
Page#7
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Is the filter free of growth?
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
Comment:
Disinfection-Gas Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination?
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 lbs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-____-____)
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment:
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
The chlorination and dechlorination cylinders are stored outside under a covered shelter.Comment:
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Page#8
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
The flow meters (one per chlorine contact chamber train) are calibrated annually and were
last calibrated on 4/15/2020 by Clearwater, Inc. The ORC must ensure that the contracted
company performs an instantaneous check on the flow meter (during the on-site calibration)
to ensure the meter reads within 10% of the true discharge volume.
Comment:
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
The effluent appeared clear with trace suspended solids and no foam. The receiving stream
did not appear to be negatively impacted.
Comment:
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
Is storage adequate?
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
The facility is equipped with four gravity sludge thickeners. One of the thickeners is
dedicated to the City of Conover who transports approximately four loads per week to the
Regional Compost Facility for continued treatment/processing. The sludge in the remaining
three gravity sludge thickeners is lime stabilized prior to land application by Synagro under
the authority of Permit No. WQ0003902.
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Page#9
Permit:NC0036196
Inspection Date:01/06/2021
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Clark Creek WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
The backup generator is tested under load monthly (by City staff) and serviced quarterly by a
contracted company (Carolina CAT). The ORC and staff should maintain a copy of all
generator service records for review during inspections.
Comment:
Page#10
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary New Hanover County WTP (CFPUA‐NanNC0088307/001Ac P/F Monit: 90% MMysd24PFBegin:2/1/2018Freq:QJan Apr Jul OctNonComp:County:New HanoverRegion:WIROBasin:CPF247Q10:N/AIWC:SOC_JOC:PF:1.38JFMAMJJASOND2017 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2018 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2019 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2020 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2021 Pass‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Newport WWTP┬NC0021555/001Chr Lim:  82%Ceri7dPFBegin:4/1/2013Freq:QJan Apr Jul OctNonComp:County:CarteretRegion:WIROBasin:WOK037Q10:0.4IWC:66.0SOC_JOC:PF:1.2JFMAMJJASOND2017 Pass >100(P)‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2018 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2019 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2020 Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2021 Pass‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Newton ‐ Clark Creek WWTPNC0036196/001chr lim: 56%; upon exCeri7dPFBegin:12/1/2010Freq:QMar Jun Sep DecNonComp:SingleCounty:CatawbaRegion:MROBasin:CTB357Q10:6.0IWC:56.32SOC_JOC:PF:5.0JFMAMJJASOND2017‐‐Pass(s)‐‐Pass(s)‐‐Pass(s)‐‐Pass2018‐‐Pass(s)‐‐Pass(s)‐‐Pass(s)‐‐Pass(s)2019‐‐Pass(s)‐‐Pass(s) >100(P)‐‐Pass >100‐‐Pass(s) >100(P)2020‐‐Pass(s)‐>100(P)Pass‐‐Pass >100(P)‐‐PassNorfolk Southern Railway Co.‐LinwoodNC0029246/011Acu lim:  90%Ceri24PFBegin:6/1/2014Freq:QMar Jun Sep DecNonComp:SingleCounty:DavidsonRegion:WSROBasin:YAD047Q10:1.2IWC:29.0SOC_JOC:PF:0.317JFMAMJJASOND2017‐‐H‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐H2018‐‐H‐‐H‐‐Pass‐‐Fail2019 Pass‐H‐‐Pass‐‐H‐‐H2020‐‐H‐‐‐‐‐Pass‐‐H2021 Pass‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐North Harnett Regional WWTP+NC0021636/001chr lim 1.6% @ 5.6MCeri7dPFBegin:11/1/2017Freq:QJan Apr Jul OctNonComp:SingleCounty:HarnettRegion:FROBasin:CPF077Q10:550.0IWC:1.6SOC_JOC:PF:1.6JFMAMJJASOND2017 Pass‐‐Pass 2.3(P)‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2018 Pass‐‐>8.4(P) Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2019 Pass‐‐Pass >8.4(P)‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2020 >8.4(P) Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐Pass‐‐2021 >8.4 (P) Pass‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Page 76 of 114Legend:  P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Final
South Fork Catawba SubbasinCatawba River Basin 03050102
Clark Creek11-129-5-(9.5)
From a point 0.9 mile upstream of Walker Creek to South Fork Catawba R.
Classification WS-IV Length or Area 2 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest Category
Exceeding Criteria Copper Dissolved Chronic (varies, AL, FW)5
Exceeding Criteria Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles)5
Clark Creek (Shooks Lake)11-129-5-(0.3)b
From Miller Branch to 0.9 mile upstream of Walker Creek
Classification C Length or Area 17 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest Category
Exceeding Criteria Fair Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)5
Dallas Branch11-129-16-7b
From Dallas WWTP to Long Creek
Classification C Length or Area 1 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest Category
Exceeding Criteria Fair Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)5
Indian Creek11-129-8-(6.5)
From a point 0.3 mile upstream of Lincoln County SR 1169 to South Fork Catawba River
Classification WS-IV Length or Area 6 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest Category
Exceeding Criteria Fair Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)5
Page 48 of 2626/3/2019 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Approved by EPA May 22,2019