NC0074268_Fact Sheet_20210630

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO74268
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: April 14, 2021
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2"d species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Gastonia/Crowders Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 1748, Gastonia, NC 28053
Facility Address:
5642 South York Highway, Gastonia, NC 28052
Permitted Flow:
6.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 37.55% domestic, 62.45% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Mechanical bar screen, Grit removal, Influent pump station, Dual
primary clarifiers, Dual basins for biological nutrient removal, Dual
final clarifiers, Two polishing/stabilization ponds, Chlorine contact
chamber (gas), SO2 dechlorination, Static post aerator, Dissolved air
floatation (DAF) unit, Four anaerobic digesters, Gravity sludge
thickener, Filter belt press, Alum and caustic addition
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Gaston
Region
Mooresville
*Based on permitted flows
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Gastonia has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 6.0 MGD for the Crowders Creek WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 28,940 residents across the Cities of Gastonia, Bessemer City, Kings
Mountain, and Clover, SC, as well as 8 significant industrial users (SIUs), including 3 satellite
municipalities and 4 categorical industrial users (CIUs), via an approved pretreatment program. Treated
domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into Crowders Creek, a class C water in the Catawba
River Basin. The facility has a primary Outfall 001.
Page 1 of 14

2. Receiving Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Crowders Creek
Stream Index:
11-135
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
70.4
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
13.3
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
20
30Q2 (cfs):
28
Average Flow (cfs):
82
IWC (% effluent):
42
2018 303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes - exceeding criteria for Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-08-37/03040105
USGS Topo Quad:
S/C14NW Gastonia, 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
3.0
13.762
1.59
MA 6.0
Total Monthly Flow
MG
92
143.01
64.596
Monitor & Report
BOD
mg/1
3.6
16.3
< 2
WA 19.5
MA 13.0
TSS
mg/1
2.8
2.5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N (summer)
mg/1
0.3
< 0.1
WA 6.0
MA 2.0
NH3N (winter)
mg/1
0.,
1
WA 30.0
MA 10.0
DO
mg/1
9.2
6.6
DA > 6.0
Fecal Coliform
#/100 ml
(ge 2 9 an)
9200
< 1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
Temperature
° C
18.8
28
9
Monitor & Report
pH
SU
7.1
7.8
6.4
6.0 < pH < 9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
µg/1
20.5
49
20
DM 28
Total Cyanide
µg/1
10.1
11
< 10
Monitor & Report
Total Hardness
mg/1
62.6
92
44
Monitor & Report
TKN
mg/1
2.0
16.9
< 1
Monitor & Report
NO2+NO3
mg/1
3.4
6.5
< 0.5
Monitor & Report
TN
mg/1
5.3
22
1.4
Monitor & Report
TN Load
lb/mo
4,059
7,025
1,656
Monitor & Report
TN Load summer
lb/season
23,561
25,052
22,547
64,251
Page 2 of 14

TN Load winter
lb/season
26,100
26,769
24,956
90,672
TP
mg/1
0.4
1.5
< 0.1
MA 1 mg/L
TP Load
lb/mo
TP Load
lb/yr
243.8
437
2,941
3,613
141
Monitor & Report
2,220
18,265
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average, QA-
Quarterly Average
Note: Flow data taken as influent samples.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, conductivity and
temperature upstream at Highway 1108 (Crawford Road) and at downstream location D1 at NCSR 2424
(Thompson Road). In addition, the permit requires monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature at
downstream location D2 at SCSR 564 (Kendrick Road, formerly referred to in the permit as Meek Road).
Instream sampling is conducted 3/week during the months June through September, and 1/week during
the remainder of the year. The facility is also required to report upstream total hardness on a quarterly
basis. 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 1
Downstream 2
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
DO
mg/1
8.6
14.3
6.4
8.5
13.7
6.2
8.5
15.4
5.8
Temperature
° C
17.8
27
2
18.2
28
3
18.6
27
3
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
153
226
42
189
337
52
-
-
-
Total
Hardness
mg/1
55
74-
-
-
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05
The downstream temperature did not exceed 29 degrees Celsius at either downstream location [per 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] during the period reviewed. The temperature differential was not greater than 2.8
degrees Celsius at either downstream location during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no
statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream temperature exists at either
downstream location.
Downstream DO did not drop below 5 mg/L at either downstream location during the period reviewed
[per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)]. It was concluded that no significant difference between upstream and
downstream DO exists at either downstream location.
Page 3 of 14

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.
In their 2020 renewal application, the City requested reduced instream monitoring. Based on this data
review, it appears the City is not negatively impacting the receiving stream. Downstream sampling
location 1 is located within the North Carolina State boundary and downstream sampling location 2 is
located within the State of South Carolina. While it is the closer of the two downstream sampling points,
it is proposed that downstream location D1 be removed from the permit. In order to ensure that the
discharge is not impacting surface waters as entering the State of South Carolina, the City shall continue
to monitor upstream at Crawford Road and downstream at Kendrick Road. As conductivity demonstrated
a statistically significant difference, conductivity shall be sampled upstream and downstream at Meek
Road.
Note: Due to South Carolina DOT replacing a bridge at downstream sampling location 2, the City was
unable to conduct sampling at this location from the middle of January 2020 through May 2020. This was
discussed with the Municipal Permitting Unit at the time and the Unit agreed to the City skipping this
sampling.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): N
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations during the period reviewed.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests as well as 4 of 4 second species
toxicity tests conducted from March 2017 to March 2021.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in February 2020 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0074268.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Page 4 of 14

If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for BOD are based on a Qua12E model conducted by the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control. These limits have been confirmed by SCDHEC. 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/1 (summer) and 1.8 mg/1 (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1 (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
permit sets a daily maximum limit for TRC at 28 ug/L. The limit has been reviewed in the attached 2021
WLA spreadsheets and has been found to be protective. There are no proposed changes for TRC.
The existing limitations for ammonia were implemented during the 2017 renewal and are based on IWC-
based calculations. The limits have been reviewed in the attached 2021 WLA spreadsheets. The summer
ammonia limits were found to be protective. However, ammonia limits in the winter are proposed to be
set as monthly average and weekly average limits of 5.2 mg/L and 15.6 mg/L, respectively.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 2017
through January 2021 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 Cyanide (See Permit Condition A.(8.))
• 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
Page 5 of 14

concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Copper, 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
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
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
41% effluent concentration. No changes are proposed.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (6.0 MGD)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
# of Samples
6
4
12
4
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L
1.37
1.33
1.42
0.5
0.5
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
29.2
Page 6 of 14

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. The City of Gastonia developed and implemented a Mercury Minimization Plan
(MMP) as a requirement for their current NPDES permit (See attached for MMP). As the facility is >2
MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/1) the mercury minimization plan requirement
has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit:
III. LAKE WYLIE TMDL
Background
Due to eutrophic conditions and chlorophyll a water quality violations a TMDL and Nutrient
Management Strategy was developed in 1995 for the North Carolina portion of Lake Wylie and its
tributaries. The Nutrient Management Strategy was approved by the EPA in 1996. The strategy set
individual allocations for existing WWTPs and new/expanding discharges. The Division incorporated
permit limits of 6 mg/1 (summer only) for Total Nitrogen (TN) and 1 mg/1 for Total Phosphorus (TP) in
the Gastonia's Crowders Creek WWTP and Bessemer City WWTP permits that were effective January 1,
2000. TN and TP limits are expressed as average concentrations. TN are summer limits (April -October);
those for TP apply year-round.
During the 2016 permit renewal Gastonia requested to add the allocation from Bessemer City WWTP to
the Crowders Creek permit. In addition, Gastonia requested to have the TN and TP limits expressed as
mass limits. Gastonia and Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities manage wastewater infrastructure in the area
surrounding Lake Wylie. To effectively manage the wastewater needs in this area both entities have
combined or purchased treatment systems creating regional treatment facilities. In order to transfer
nutrient allocations, nutrient limits for the facilities must be expressed as mass loads rather than
concentrations. Therefore, the Division adopted a standard way of expressing TN and TP limits that both
enables nutrient transfers and ensures that any transfers remain consistent with the approved TMDL.
Annual mass limits enable the transfer of allocations among dischargers and are consistent with the
phosphorus allocations set in the TMDL. However, annual limits for nitrogen do not, by themselves,
ensure that summer -season loads satisfy the TMDL: a facility could exceed its allowable summer load
and still meet the annual limit by improving plant performance for the rest of the year. An additional limit
(or other control) is necessary to protect water quality during the summer season.
2016 TMDL Implementation
The Division implemented the Lake Wylie TMDL using the following approach:
• The distribution of nutrient allocations — and any transfer of allocations — must be consistent with
the approved Lake Wylie TMDL.
a. The point source allocations assigned in the TMDL to the lake and its tributaries are valid
only in the original study area and cannot be transferred outside that area except through
modification of the TMDL and the approval of EPA Region 4.
Page 7 of 14

b. Similarly, the tributary allocations identified in the TMDL are only valid within the
assigned subwatersheds and cannot be transferred elsewhere without EPA approval.
• Within each subwatershed, transfers and other changes in allocations cannot result in exceedance
of the tributary allocations in the TMDL. If additional industrial facilities request allocations
based on BAT determinations (none are foreseen at this time), the Division will consider the
request with Region 4.
• Only those allocations that were identified in the TMDL (WWTPs) or authorized (industries with
BAT determinations) are valid. Facilities within the Lake Wylie study area cannot receive credit
for connecting other WWTPs located outside the study area.
• No transfer of allocation will be approved or implemented until the Division is satisfied that the
transfer will not result in localized impacts ("hot spots").
• TN limits will be implemented as follows:
a. Set summer mass TN limits for all affected dischargers based on the summer daily loads
in the TMDL;
b. Set winter limit based on 12 mg/1 or other approved BAT determinations.
c. Add summer -only mass TN limits for affected industries based on the same daily loads as
their annual limits.
• TP limits will be implemented as annual mass limit based on daily loads specified on the TMDL
or approved BAT determination.
The limits for the Crowders Creek permit followed the above strategy. Since both the Crowders Creek
WWTP and the Bessemer City WWTP had allocations in the TMDL and discharge within the same
subwatershed the allocation from Bessemer City can be transferred to Crowders Creek. During the 2016
renewal, the TP concentration limit was maintained but given an expiration date of 12/31/17, while a TP
Load limit was added with an effective date of 1/1/18. Since this date has past, the TP concentration limit
has been removed from the permit.
Table 1. TN Allocations and Limits
Total Nitrogen
Facility
Q
MGD
Summer
Summer
Summer
Status
Winter
mg/1
Winter
lb/d
Winter
lb/season
Status
mg/1
lb/d
lb/season
Crowders
Creek
6.0
6.0
300
64,251
Active
12.0
600
90,672
Active
Bessemer
City
1.5
6.0
75
16,063
Active
12.0
125
22,668
Active
Total Allocation
80,314
113,340
Limits
80,314
113,340
Table 2. TP Limits
Total Phosphorus
Facility
Q
MGD
Annual
mg/1
Annual
Annual
lb/yr
Status
lb/d
Crowders Creek
6.0
1.0
50
18,265
Active
Bessemer City
1.5
1.0
13
4,566
Active
Total Allocation
22,830
Limit
22,830
Page 8 of 14

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 cyanide.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BODS/TSS included in the permit? YES, 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
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
Page 9 of 14

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 granted monitoring frequency reductions for Total Suspended Solids, BOD, NH3-N
and Fecal Coliform based on DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The City requested continuation of this
monitoring frequency reduction as part of their renewal package. The last three years of the facility's data
for these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. The
2/week monitoring frequency requirements for BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, NH3-N and Fecal
Coliform have been maintained.
The Division received a comment from Two Rivers Utilities stating, "Allowing the testing of free cyanide
in place of total cyanide has been proposed by NC DEQ as part of the current triennial review. Two
Rivers Utilities requests wording be added to specify that if testing for free cyanide is approved, it would
be an acceptable method for use in meeting the effluent cyanide permit limit without requiring a permit
modification." As part of the 2020-2021 Triennial Review, the Division's Standards and Classifications
group presented to the Environment Management Commission an update to the current Class C aquatic
life standard for Cyanide to include the option to analyze Cyanide as either free or total Cyanide. This
will align the current Class C standard for total Cyanide with the EPA National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria which recommends analysis as free Cyanide. The EMC approved the Triennial Review
presentation on March 11, 2021. A public hearing for these changes will be held on July 20, 2021.
Language has been added to the Total Cyanide requirement allowing for analysis of Free Cyanide in place
of Total Cyanide, should the update be codified and approved by EPA Region IV.
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 10 of 14

12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 6.0 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 6.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly
Flow
Monitor and Report
Monthly
No change
For calculation of TN and TP loads
BOD5
MA 13.0 mg/1
WA 19.5 mg/1
Monitor and Report
2/Week
No change
WQBEL. 1988 SCDHEC Qua12E
model; DWR Guidance Regarding
the Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
NH3-N
Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/1
WA 6.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 10.0 mg/1
WA 30.0 mg/1
Monitor and Report
2/Week
No change to
monitoring frequencies
or summer limits.
WQBEL. 2021 WLA; 15A NCAC
2B; DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
Winter:
MA 5.2 mg/1
WA 15.6 mg/1
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
Monitor and Report
2/Week
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
Monitor and Report
2/Week
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
DO
DA > 6 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Temperature
Monitor and Report
Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6.0 - 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0224
Total Residual
Chlorine
DM 28 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. 2021 WLA; 15A NCAC
2B
Total Cyanide
Monitor and Report
Quarterly
MA 12.2 14/1
DM 48.0 µg/1
Monitor and Report
Monthly
Add Condition A.(8.)
for free cyanide
WQBEL. Based on RPA; RP
shown - apply Monthly Monitoring
with Limit; 2020-2022 Triennial
Review
Page 11 of 14

Total Hardness
Quarterly monitoring
Upstream and in
Effluent
No change
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016; Pretreatment
facility
TKN
Monitor and Report
Weekly
No change
For calculation of TN
NO2+NO3
Monitor and Report
Weekly
No change
For calculation of TN
TN
Monitor and Report
Weekly
No change
Lake Wylie TMDL 1995 and 2016
Permitting strategy
TN Load
Monitor and Report
Monthly (as lb/mo)
Summer TN mass limit
of 64,251 lb/yr
Winter TN mass limit of
90,672 lb/yr
No change
Lake Wylie TMDL 1995 and 2016
Permitting strategy
TP
MA 1 mg/L
Monitor and Report
Weekly
(effective through
12/13/17)
Remove limit, maintain
monitor and report
Lake Wylie TMDL 1995 and 2016
Permitting strategy
TP Load
Monitor and Report
Monthly (as lb/mo)
Annual TP mass limit of
18,265 lb/yr
(effective starting
1/1/2018)
No change
Lake Wylie TMDL 1995 and 2016
Permitting strategy
Instream
Monitoring
Conductivity, DO and
temperature conducted
upstream and at
downstream location 1.
DO and temperature
also conducted at
downstream location 2
Remove sampling at
downstream location 1.
Conductivity to be
sampled at downstream
location 2.
BPJ; 2021 Instream Data Review
MMP
MMP Special Condition
No change
2012 mercury TMDL evaluation; >
2 MGD facility with multiple
detections above 1 ng/L
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit,
41% effluent
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
Page 12 of 14

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: May 14, 2021
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the City of Gastonia/Two Rivers Utilities, EPA Region IV, South Carolina
DHEC, and the Division's Mooresville Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Operator
Certification Program and Municipal Permitting Unit Pretreatment Coordinator for review. The Division
received comments from Two Rivers Utilities requesting language be added to the permit to allow for
analysis and limitation of free cyanide instead of total cyanide, should the 2020-2022 Triennial Review
proposal be codified, the correction of condition reference in Section A.(1.) Footnote 1, and the correction
of sample type for effluent total hardness and effluent total cyanide. See Fact Sheet Section 10.
Monitoring Requirements for more information regarding total and free Cyanide. Per 15A NCAC 02B
.0505(c), cyanide sampling shall be conducted as grab samples, and effluent hardness sampling may be
conducted as composite samples. In the draft permit, the sample type for total cyanide was indicated as
composite and the sample type for effluent total hardness was indicated as grab. These have been
corrected in the final permit. Footnote 1 in Section A.(1.) has also been corrected to reference the
appropriate Special Condition. 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:
• Per Permittee request, language has been added to the permit allowing for analysis and limitation
of free Cyanide in place of total Cyanide, should the 2020-2022 Triennial Review standard
update proposal be codified and approved by EPA Region IV [See Special Condition A.(8.) Free
Cyanide Standard Update].
• The sample types for effluent total hardness and effluent total cyanide have been corrected [See
A.(1.)] .
• Footnote 1 in Section A.(1.) has been corrected to reference the appropriate Special Condition
[See A.(1.)].
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• BOD and TSS Removal
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Spreadsheet
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheet
• Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet
• Pretreatment Summary
Page 13 of 14

• Inspection Summary
• Toxicity Summary
• 2018 303d listing
• Renewal Application Addendum
Page 14 of 14

TWO
VERS
UTILITIES
We are TR U to our customers!
June 7, 2021
NCDEQ/DWR
NPDES Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Draft NPDES Permit Renewal
Permit NC0074268 Crowders Creek WWTP
Dear Mr. Coco:
Thank you for sending the draft of Crowders Creek WWTP's renewed NPDES permit which we received May
12, 2021. We have reviewed this draft permit and corresponding fact sheet, and appreciate the work in its
thorough preparation. In accordance with your request, the following comments are submitted for potential
modifications for the final permit:
• Allowing the testing of free cyanide in place of total cyanide has been proposed by NC DEQ as part of the
current triennial review. Two Rivers Utilities requests wording be added to specify that if testing for free
cyanide is approved, it would be an acceptable method for use in meeting the effluent cyanide permit limit
without requiring a permit modification.
• Two Rivers Utilities asks to verify that the cyanide sample for the effluent is intended to be a composite and
the hardness sample for the effluent is intended to be a grab.
• Please review the reference in Part I A.(1.) a. footnote 1. It appears that it should refer to Special Condition
A.(8.).
We appreciate DWR's work on this permit and have no other comments on the draft at this time. If I can be of
assistance, please feel free to contact me at 704-866-6726 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Stephanie Scheringer
Division Manager Wastewater Treatment
Two Rivers Utilities
CC: Charlie Graham - Treatment Plant Supervisor, Crowders WWTP
David Shellenbarger — Asst. WWTD Manager Compliance
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7017 0530 0000 9533 2265

LOCALIQ
StarNews 1 The Dispatch
Times -News
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Div.Of Water Quality/Lega
Bill Mills Ext 548
Div.Of Water Quality/Lega
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
Raleigh NC 27699
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF HENDERSON
The Hendersonville Times -News, a newspaper printed and
published in the city of Gastonia, and of general circulation in the
County of Henderson, State of North Carolina, and personal
knowledge of the facts herein state and that the notice hereto
annexed was Published in said newspapers in the issue:
05/14/2021
and that the fees charged are legal.
Sworn to and subscribed before on 05/14/2021
jgAti—
Legal Cler
Notary, State of WY, County of Brown
My commision expires
Publication Cost:
Order No:
Customer No:
PO #:
$136.58
5858765
512937
1617 Mail Service Ce
THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE!
Please do not use this farm for payment remittance.
# of Copies:
1
KATHLEEN ALLEN
Notary Public
State of Wisconsin
PO Box 631245 Cincinnati, OH 45263-1245
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commis-
sionlNPDES Unit
1417 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
NC0069370 Broakdole Hender-
sonville East, NC0076708 River.
wind Mobile Home Park,
NC0066249 Country Acres
Mobile Home Park The North
Carolina Environmental
Management Commission
proposes to issue a NPDES
wastewater discharge permit
to the person(s) listed below.
written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be
accepted until 70 days atter the
publish dote of this notice. The
Director of the NC Division of
Water Resaorces (DWR) may
hold a public hearing should
there be a significant degree of
public interest- Please mon
comments andior information
requests 10 DWR o1 the above
address. interested persons
may visit the DWR at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604 to review information on
Hie. Additional information on
NPDES permits and this notice
may be found on our websifel
bite :flaep.nc.gov/ahoutldivisiors
SMMIer-resa a rreslwa ter-
resau rces-permits/wastewater-
branch/nodes-waste-
w t r pubs c-notices or by call-
ing [phone] Brookaols
Hendersonville East has
requested renewal of its
NPDES permit NC0069370 in
Henderson County. This
permitted facility discharges
treated domestic wastewater to
Clear Creek in the French
Broad River eosin. Currently,
BOD and Total Residual Chlo-
rine ore water quality limited.
Thfs discharge may affect
future allocations inthis
segment of Clear Creek.
JACABB Utilities, LLC applied
to renew permit NC0076708 for
its Riverwind Mobile Horne
Park WWTP, Hendersonville,
Henderson County discharging
treated wastewater to the main
stem French Broad River.
Currently BOD, fecal conform,
Total Suspended Solids (T55)
d Total Residual Chlorine
ITRC1 are water'quaiity
limited. This discharge moo
affect future wastelood alloca-
tions in this portion of the
French Broad River Basin.
John Edmondson (25 Keith
Memorial Drive, Mills River,
NC 28759) requested renewal of
NPDES Permit NC0066249 for
Country Acres Mobile Home
Park WWTP in Henderson
County. This permitted locility
discharges 0.006 MGD treated
wastewater to McDowell Creek
in the French Brood River
Basin. Currently, total residual
chlorine is water quality
limited. This discharge mov
affect future allocations in this
portion
rtiisinn the French Broad
River 5714 5858765
Page 1 of 1

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Crowders Creek WWTP
IV
NC0036196
001
6.000
G
Crowders Creek WWTP
03040105
C
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
13.300
G
20.00
G
28.00
G
82.00
G
11.01
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
62.63 mg/L (Avg)
55.19 mg/L (Avg)
58.25 mg/L
58.6 mg/L
Data Source(s)
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Name
WQS
Type Chronic Modifier
Acute
PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
1.1179
FW
6.8122
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
yTotal Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
235.3779
FW
1818.2760
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
16.2357
FW
23.3656
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
7.5628
FW
195.3462
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
76.1547
FW
689.0891
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
1.2828
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
259.5117
FW
258.6987
ug/L
Chlorodibromomethane
Human Health
C
21
HH
pg/L
Dichlorobromomethane
Human Health
C
27
HH
pg/L
74268 RPA, input
4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data
4/7/2017
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1/5/2018
3/9/2018
4/6/2018
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
4/5/2019
7/5/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021
92
55
69
54
44
64
59
50
63
62
76
58
66
66
50
68
70
66
58
BDL=1/2DL
92
55
69
54
44
64
59
50
63
62
76
58
66
66
50
68
70
66
58
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
H2
Upstream Hardness
10.6886
62.6316
0.1707
19
50.00 mg/L
62.63 mg/L
92.00 mg/L
-1-
Date Data
4/5/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1/2/2018
4/6/2018
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
4/5/2019
7/5/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021
74
24
46
53
55
50
64
51
64
50
72
46
60
60
56
58
BDL=1/2DL
74
24
46
53
55
50
64
51
64
50
72
46
60
60
56
58
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
11.7315
55.1875
0.2126
16
46.00 mg/L
55.19 mg/L
74.00 mg/L
74268 RPA, data
4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/6/2017 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 4/7/2017 < 2 1 Mean
3 6/6/2017 2.8 2.8 C.V.
4 7/7/2017 < 2 1 n
5 10/6/2017 < 2 1
6 1/5/2018 < 2 1 Mult Factor =
7 3/9/2018 1.3 1.3 Max. Value
8 4/6/2018 < 2 1 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/6/2018 < 1 0.5
10 10/5/2018 < 1 0.5
11 1/4/2019 < 1 0.5
12 1/18/2019 < 1 0.5
13 2/1/2019 < 1 0.5
14 2/15/2019 < 1 0.5
15 3/1/2019 < 1 0.5
16 3/15/2019 < 1 0.5
17 4/5/2019 < 1 0.5
18 5/3/2019 1 1
19 6/7/2019 < 1 0.5
20 7/5/2019 < 1 0.5
21 8/2/2019 < 1 0.5
22 9/13/2019 < 1 0.5
23 10/4/2019 < 1 0.5
24 1/3/2020 < 1 0.5
25 4/3/2020 1 1
26 7/10/2020 < 1 0.5
27 10/2/2020 < 1 0.5
28 1/15/2021 < 2 1
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.4765
0.7536
0.6323
28
1.24
2.8 ug/L
3.5 ug/L
74268 RPA, data
- 2 - 4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data
6/6/2017 <
3/9/2018 <
9/13/2019 <
BDL=1/2DL
0.5
0.5
0.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par04
Cadmium
0.0000
0.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
0.50 ug/L
1.50 ug/L
Date Data
1/6/2017
4/7/2017
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1/5/2018
3/9/2018
4/6/2018
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
1/18/2019
2/1/2019
2/15/2019
3/1/2019
3/15/2019
4/5/2019
5/3/2019
6/7/2019
7/5/2019
8/2/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021
0.1
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
BDL=1/2DL
0.05
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0774
0.2607
0.2969
28
1.11
0.500 ug/L
0.555 ug/L
74268 RPA, data
- 3 - 4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/6/2017 9.4 9.4 Std Dev.
2 3/9/2018 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par10
Chromium, Total
3.9837
4.8000
0.6000
3
3.00
9.4 ug/L
28.2 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/6/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 4/7/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 6/6/2017 2 2 C.V.
4 7/7/2017 < 1 0.5 n
5 10/6/2017 < 5 2.5
6 1/5/2018 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor =
7 3/9/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Value
8 4/6/2018 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/6/2018 < 1 0.5
10 10/5/2018 < 1 0.5
11 1/4/2019 < 1 0.5
12 1/18/2019 < 1 0.5
13 2/1/2019 < 1 0.5
14 2/15/2019 < 1 0.5
15 3/1/2019 < 1 0.5
16 3/15/2019 < 1 0.5
17 4/5/2019 < 1 0.5
18 5/3/2019 < 1 0.5
19 6/7/2019 < 1 0.5
20 7/5/2019 1.2 1.2
21 8/2/2019 < 1 0.5
22 9/13/2019 < 1 0.5
23 10/4/2019 < 1 0.5
24 1/3/2020 < 1 0.5
25 4/3/2020 < 1 0.5
26 7/10/2020 1 1
27 10/2/2020 < 1 0.5
28 1/15/2021 < 5 2.5
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.8449
1.0250
0.8243
28
1.31
2.5 pg/L
3.3 pg/L
74268 RPA, data
- 4 - 4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pall
Copper
Date Data
1/6/2017
4/7/2017 <
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017 <
1/5/2018 <
3/9/2018
4/6/2018 <
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
1/18/2019
2/1/2019
2/15/2019
3/1/2019
3/15/2019
4/5/2019
5/3/2019
6/7/2019
7/5/2019
8/2/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021 <
1.4
5
3
1.4
5
5
1.7
5
2
2.9
2.1
1.8
3
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.4
2
1.8
2.3
2.3
1.7
1.4
2
BDL=1/2DL
1.4
2.5
3
1.4
2.5
2.5
1.7
2.5
2
2.9
2.1
1.8
3
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.4
2
1.8
2.3
2.3
1.7
1.4
1
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par12
Cyanide
0.5029
2.0571
0.2445
28
1.09
3.00 ug/L
3.27 ug/L
-5-
Date Data
1/6/2017
4/7/2017
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1/5/2018
3/9/2018
4/6/2018
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
1/17/2019
2/1/2019
2/15/2019
3/1/2019
3/15/2019
4/5/2019
5/3/2019
6/7/2019
7/5/2019
8/2/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
10
11
10
10
10
11
10
10
10
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
5
11
10
5
5
11
5
5
5
5
11
5
5
5
5
5
5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
2.2687
6.04
0.3759
28
1.14
11.0 ug/L
12.5 ug/L
74268 RPA, data
4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date
1/6/2017 < 1
4/7/2017 < 1
6/6/2017 < 1
7/7/2017 < 1
10/6/2017 < 1
1/5/2018 < 1
3/9/2018 < 1
4/6/2018 < 1
7/6/2018 < 1
10/5/2018 < 1
1/4/2019 < 1
1/18/2019 < 1
2/1/2019 < 1
2/15/2019 < 1
3/1/2019 < 1
3/15/2019 < 1
4/5/2019 < 1
5/3/2019 < 1
6/7/2019 < 1
7/5/2019 < 1
8/2/2019 < 1
9/13/2019 < 1
10/4/2019 < 1
1/3/2020 < 1
4/3/2020 < 1
7/10/2020 1.9
10/2/2020 < 1
1/15/2021 < 2
BDL=1/2DL Results
0.5 Std Dev.
0.5 Mean
0.5 C.V.
0.5 n
0.5
0.5 Mult Factor =
0.5 Max. Value
0.5 Max. Pred Cw
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.9
0.5
1
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par16
Molybdenum
0.2776
0.5679
0.4889
28
1.19
1.900 ug/L
2.261 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/6/2017 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 4/7/2017 < 10 5 Mean
3 7/7/2017 1.4 1.4 C.V.
4 10/6/2017 < 10 5 n
5 1/5/2018 < 10 5
6 4/6/2018 < 10 5 Mult Factor =
7 7/6/2018 2.2 2.2 Max. Value
8 10/5/2018 2.4 2.4 Max. Pred Cw
9 1/4/2019 1.4 1.4
10 1/18/2019 1.3 1.3
11 2/1/2019 1.8 1.8
12 2/15/2019 1.6 1.6
13 3/1/2019 1.7 1.7
14 3/15/2019 1.2 1.2
15 4/5/2019 1.2 1.2
16 5/3/2019 1.8 1.8
17 6/7/2019 2.3 2.3
18 7/5/2019 2 2
19 8/2/2019 2.2 2.2
20 9/13/2019 2.6 2.6
21 10/4/2019 2.6 2.6
22 1/3/2020 < 1 0.5
23 4/3/2020 1.8 1.8
24 7/10/2020 1.8 1.8
25 10/2/2020 1.4 1.4
26 1/15/2021 < 10 5
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
1.4678
2.5077
0.5853
26
1.25
5.0 ug/L
6.3 ug/L
74268 RPA, data
- 6 - 4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
Date Data
1/6/2017 <
4/7/2017 <
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1 /5/2018
3/9/2018
4/6/2018 <
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1 /4/2019
1/18/2019
2/1 /2019
2/15/2019
3/1 /2019
3/15/2019
4/5/2019
5/3/2019
6/7/2019
7/5/2019
8/2/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1 /15/2021 <
5
5
5.3
3.8
5.9
9.5
3.4
5
2.4
1.4
1.9
2.3
4.7
3.8
2.2
3.2
3.2
2.6
2.9
2
2.8
3.4
2.5
1.6
1.8
2.4
2.5
2
BDL=1/2DL
2.5
2.5
5.3
3.8
5.9
9.5
3.4
2.5
2.4
1.4
1.9
2.3
4.7
3.8
2.2
3.2
3.2
2.6
2.9
2
2.8
3.4
2.5
1.6
1.8
2.4
2.5
1
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Par19
Selenium
1.6762
3.0714
0.5457
28
1.21
9.5 pg/L
11.5 pg/L
Date Data
1 /6/2017
4/7/2017
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1/5/2018
3/9/2018
4/6/2018
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
1/18/2019
2/1/2019
2/15/2019
3/1/2019
3/15/2019
4/5/2019
5/3/2019
6/7/2019
7/5/2019
8/2/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021
1
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1.9
1.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
BDL=1/2DL
0.5
2.5
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.5
2.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.9
1.2
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
0.8408
1.0214
0.8232
28
1.31
2.5 ug/L
3.3 ug/L
74268 RPA, data
- 7 - 4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Silver
Date Data
1/6/2017
4/7/2017
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1/5/2018
3/9/2018
4/6/2018
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
1/18/2019
2/1/2019
2/15/2019
3/1/2019
3/15/2019
4/5/2019
5/3/2019
6/7/2019
7/5/2019
8/2/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021
BDL=1/2DL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
Par21
Zinc
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
28
1.00
0.500 ug/L
0.500 ug/L
Date Data
1/6/2017
4/7/2017
6/6/2017
7/7/2017
10/6/2017
1/5/2018
3/9/2018
4/6/2018
7/6/2018
10/5/2018
1/4/2019
1/18/2019
2/1/2019
2/15/2019
3/1/2019
3/15/2019
4/5/2019
5/3/2019
6/7/2019
7/5/2019
8/2/2019
9/13/2019
10/4/2019
1/3/2020
4/3/2020
7/10/2020
10/2/2020
1/15/2021
35
31
36.8
22.4
23
54
50.2
34
24.2
30.4
40.2
32.8
60.4
47
41
31.2
33
27.7
41.3
28.6
18.5
30.6
31.2
43.2
47.2
28.7
33.6
51
BDL=1/2DL
35
31
36.8
22.4
23
54
50.2
34
24.2
30.4
40.2
32.8
60.4
47
41
31.2
33
27.7
41.3
28.6
18.5
30.6
31.2
43.2
47.2
28.7
33.6
51
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
10.2806
36.0071
0.2855
28
1.11
60.4 ug/L
67.0 ug/L
74268 RPA, data
- 8 - 4/30/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par22
Chlorodibromomethane
Date Data
6/6/2017 6.4
3/9/2018 < 1
9/13/2019 < 1
BDL=1/2DL
6.4
0.5
0.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Par23
Dichlorobromomethane
3.4064
2.4667
0.6000
3
3.00
6.40 pg/L
19.20 pg/L
Date Data
6/6/2017
3/9/2018
9/13/2019
12
2.2
4.7
BDL=1/2DL
12
2.2
4.7
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
5.0922
6.3000
0.6000
3
3.00
12.000000 pg/L
36.000000 pg/L
74268 RPA, data
- 9 - 4/30/2021

Crowders Creek WWTP
NC0036196
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 6.0000
1Q10S (cfs) = 11.01
7Q1OS (cfs) = 13.30
7Q1OW (cfs) = 20.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 28.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 82.00
Receiving Stream: Crowders Creek WWTP HUC 03040105
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 45.79025111
IWC% @ 7Q1OS = 41.15044248
IWC% @ 7Q1OW = 31.74061433
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 24.93297587
IW%C @ QA = 10.18619934
Stream Class: C
Outfall 001
Qw = 6 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 58.6 mg/L
Chronic = 58.25 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
_1
n
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Stapda d AcuteoCi
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
28 4
3.5
Acute (FW): 742.5
________________________________________________
Chronic (FW): 364.5
No value > Allow_a_bl_e_Cw
Chronic (HH): 98.2
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
1.50
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 141.95
____ _ ____________
Chronic: 15.80
Max MDL = 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cadmium
NC
1.1179 FW(7Q10s) 6.8122
ug/L
28 0
0.555
NO DETECTS
Acute: 14.877
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 2.717
Max MDL = 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 1
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
28.2
C.V. (default)
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 1,203.2
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chromium III
NC
235.3779 FW(7Q10s) 1818.2760
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 3,970.9
--_ _ ----_ _
--572.0--------------------------------
Chronic:
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 34.9
--_ _ ----- _ _
---------------------------------
Chronic: 26.7
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
Tot Cr value(s)
28 3
< 5 and < Cr VI
3.3
Allowable Cw
Max reported value = 2.5
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Copper
NC
16.2357 FW(7Q10s) 23.3656
ug/L
28 23
3.27
Acute: 51.03
Chronic: 39.45
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
28 5
12.5
Acute: 48.0
--_ _ ----- _ _
12.2 --------------------------------
Chronic: -RP
No value > Allowable Cw
shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Page 1 of 2
74268 RPA, rpa
4/30/2021

Crowders Creek WWTP
NC0036196
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 6 MGD
Lead
NC
7.5628 FW(7Q10s) 195.3462
ug/L
28 1
2.261
Acute: 426.611
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 18.378
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q10s)
ug/L
26 19
6.3
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 4,860.2
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Nickel
Nickel
NC
NC
76.1547 FW(7Q10s) 689.0891
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
µg/L
28 24
11.5
Acute (FW): 1,504.9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (FW): 185.1
No value > Allowable Cw
Chronic (WS): 60.8
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
28 3
3.3
Acute: 122.3
--_ _ ----- _ _
---------------------------------
Chronic: 12.2
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 1.2828
ug/L
28 0
0.500
NO DETECTS
Acute: 2.801
Chronic: 0.146
Max MDL = 1
All values reported non -detect < 1 ug/L - No
monitoring required.
Zinc
NC
259.5117 FW(7Q10s) 258.6987
ug/L
28 28
67.0
Acute: 565.0
--- -------------------------------------
Chronic: 630.6
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chlorodibromomethane
C
21 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 1
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
19.20000
C.V. (default)
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 206.161
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Dichlorobromomethane
C
27 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 3
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
36.00000
C.V. (default)
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 265.06452
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 2 of 2
74268 RPA, rpa
4/30/2021

Permit No. NC0074268
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.1366724ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* { 1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[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*{1.462034ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NC0074268
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NC0074268
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [SS(1
+1 [10 6]
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0074268
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)]
62.63
Data provided in DMRs
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
55.19
Data provided in DMRs
7Q10 summer (cfs)
13.3
NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs)
11.01
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
6.0
NPDES Files
Date: 5/4/2021
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Crowders Creek WWTP
Permit No.
NC0074268
Review period (use
3 yrs)
1/2018 1/2021
Approval Criteria:
Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOS
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance
report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
Data Review
Units
Weekly200%
average limit
MonthlyMonthly
average
limit
50%
MA
3-yr mean
(geo mean
for FC)
< 50%?
MA
# daily
samples
>200%
<15?
200%
WA
# daily
samples
>200%
< 20?
# of non-
monthly
limit
violations
> 2?
# civil penalty
asessment
> 1?
Reduce
Frequency?
(Yes/No)
BOD
mg/L
19.5
13
6.5
3.3700787
Y
26
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
1.6932308
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (summer)
mg/L
6
2
1
0.2044974
Y
4
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (winter)
mg/L
15.6
5.2
2.6
0.4164286
Y
10.4
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400
200
100
2.6122819
Y
800
2
Y
0
N
0
N
Y

NC0074268 Crowders Creek WWTP 5/4/2021
BOD monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
97.69
98.55
97.98
97.79
98.35
98.52
98.01
98.30
98.37
98.03
98.04
96.81
97.01
96.81
97.89
98.00
98.27
97.19
98.06
98.03
98.33
98.41
97.50
97.84
98.00
97.13
98.11
98.16
98.76
98.61
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
Overall BOD removal rate
98.42
97.83
98.88
98.99
98.98
98.79
98.36
97.65
97.82
98.01
97.74
98.40
98.05
98.25
98.64
98.28
98.25
98.47
98.46
98.10
TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
98.22
98.73
98.75
98.32
98.62
98.83
98.68
98.74
98.70
98.35
98.30
97.86
97.99
97.88
98.51
98.51
98.84
98.77
98.75
98.61
98.46
98.72
98.07
98.07
98.14
98.27
97.99
98.26
98.66
98.53
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
Overall TSSD removal rate
98.73
98.66
98.62
98.72
98.76
98.60
98.66
98.61
98.67
98.48
98.38
98.88
98.58
98.87
98.80
98.79
98.85
98.52
98.57
98.53

Crowders Creek WWTP/NC0074268
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2017
2018
2019
2020
# of Samples
6
4
12
4
Annual Average, ng/L
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.50
Maximum Value, ng/L
1.37
1.33
1.42
0.5
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
29.2
2021
1
0.5
0.5

4/30/21 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name
Crowders Creek WWTP/NC0074268
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
1/25/17
2/24/17 <
3/8/17 <
6/9/17 <
9/26/17 <
12/12/17 <
3/9/18
6/28/18 <
9/28/18 <
12/18/18 <
2/1/19
2/26/19 <
3/28/19
4/4/19
4/25/19
5/23/19
5/30/19 <
7/18/19 <
8/9/19
8/16/19 <
9/13/19 <
10/29/19 <
1/10/20 <
6/25/20 <
8/3/20 <
10/16/20 <
1/22/21 <
1.37
1
1
1
1
1
1.33
1
1
1
1.34
1
1.42
1.03
1.02
1.24
1
1
1.02
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No Limit Required
MMP Required
1.37
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.33
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.34
0.5
1.42
1.03
1.02
1.24
0.5
0.5
1.02
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
13.300
6.000
cfs
WQBEL =
29.16 ng/L
47 ng/L
Note: MMP not added.
See Fact Sheet for more information.
0.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
0.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
0.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Crowders Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0074268
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
6
13.3
20
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
13.3
6
9.3
17.0
0
41.15
41
Cap at 28 ug/L.
Same as current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
13.3
6
9.3
1.0
0.22
41.15
2.1
Consistent with current permit limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
2.43 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
20
6
9.3
1.8
0.22
31.74
5.2
More stringent than current permit limit. Apply limit.
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Final
Catawba River Basin
11-135a
Upper Catawba Subbasin
03050101
D_E
1Crowders Creek
From source to SR 1118
Classification
C
Length or Area
2
Units
FW Miles
Previous AU Number
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating
Parameter of Interest
Category
Exceeding Criteria
Exceeding Criteria
Fair
Poor
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)
5
5
11-135c
Crowders Creek
From State Route 1122 to State Route 1131
Classification
C
Length or Area
3
Units
FW Miles
Previous AU Number
Assessment Criteria Stateason for Rating
Parameter of Interest
Category
Exceeding Criteria
Poor
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)
5
Crowders
From State Route 1108 To NC 321
Classification
C
Length or Area
2
Units
FW Miles
Previous AU Number
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating
Parameter of Interest
Category
Exceeding Criteria
Fair
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5
11-135f
Crowders Creek
From State Route 321 to State Route 2424
Classification
C
Length or Area
1
Units
FW Miles
Previous AU Number
Assessment CritelliStatus Reason for Rating
Parameter of Interest
Category
Exceeding Criteria
Fair
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
5
6/3/2019 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Approved by EPA May 22,2019
Page 40 of 262

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Furniture Illustrators, Inc. NC0084786/001
Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2009 chr lim: 90%
County: Randolph
NonComp: Single
Region: WSRO
7Q10: 0.0
Basin: YADO9 Jan Apr Jul Oct
PF: 0.001 IWC: 100 Freq: Q
SOC_JOC:
2017
2018
2019
2020
J
H
H
H
H
F
M A M J
- H -
H
H
H
J A 5 0 N D
H - - H -
H - - H -
H - - H -
H - - H -
Gastonia - Alum Sludge Dewatering WTP NC0040070/001 County: Gaston Region: MRO Basin: CTB36 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri48PF Begin: 6/1/2019 Acu Monit: 90% NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
2017 H - - H - - H - - H -
2018 H - - H - - H - - H -
2019 H - - H - - H - - H -
2020 H - - H - - H - - H -
Gastonia-Crowders Creek NC0074268/001
Ceri7dPF Begin: 5/1/2011 chr lim: 41%
County: Gaston
NonComp: Single
Region: MRO
7Q10: 13.3
Basin: CTB37 Mar Jun Sep Dec
PF: 6.0 IWC: 41 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M 1 J A S 0 N D
2017 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2019 - - Pass >100(P) - - Pass - - Pass >100 - - Pass >100
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass - - - - - -
Gastonia -Long Cr. WWTP NC0020184/001
Ceri7dPF Begin: 11/1/2005 chr lim: 19%
County: Gaston
NonComp: Single
Region: MRO
7Q10: 109
Basin: CTB36 MarJun Sep Dec
PF: 16.0 IWC: 19 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
2017 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass >76(P) - - Pass >76(P)
2019 - - Pass >76(P) - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass - - - - - -
Glenda Drive WTP- Town of Beaufort NC0072702/001 County: Carteret Region: WIRO Basin: WOK04 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Mysd24PF Begin: 3/1/2018 Ac P/F Monit: 90% M NonComp: 7Q10: NA PF: NA IWC: Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
2017 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2018 Pass - - Fail - - Fail - - Fail -
2019 Fail - - H - - H - - H -
2020 H - - H - - - - -
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 46 of 117

NPDES/Aquifer
Protection
Permitting Unit
Pretreatment Information
Request
Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES
THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check
all
that
apply
from PERCS:
Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data
Date of Request
4/14/2021
municipal renewal
X
- we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
Requestor
Nicholas Coco
new industries
you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Crowders Creek WWTP
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0074268
Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Mooresville
stream reclass.
renewal.
Email PERCS draft fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
Catawba
outfall relocation
permit,
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS
staff:
Other Comments to
PERCS:
Ni
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB,
TAR
Facility is rated 6.0 MGD
with 8 SlUsincluding 4 ClUs and 3 satellite
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM,
NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
municipalities, listed in
its application.
PERCS
Status
PRETREATMENT
of Pretreatment
STAFF COMPLETES THIS
Program (check all that apply)
PART:
1) facility has no SIU's,
does have Division approved
Pretreatment Program that
is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's,
does not have Division approved
Pretreatment Program
-I
3) facility has SIUs
and DWQ approved Pretreatment
Program (list "DEV" if program
still under development)
-I
3a) Full Program
with LTMP
3b) Modified Program
with STMP
4) additional conditions
regarding Pretreatment attached
or listed below
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time period for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
3.747
2.0051
2019
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
1.2859
2024
Next Cycle:
POC in LTMP/
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required by EPA*
Required
by 503
Sludge**
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
Al
BO D
Al
Al
Q
Al
TSS
Al
Al
Q
Q = Quarterly
Al
NH3
Al
Al
Q
M = Monthly
Al
Arsenic
Al
Al
Q
Al
Cadmium
Al
Al
Al
Q
Al
Chromium
Al
Al
Q
Ai
Copper
Al
Al
Al
Q
Al
Cyanide
-I
Al
Q
Is all data on DMRs?
Al
Lead
Al
Al
Al
Q
YES
-I
Al
Mercury
Al
Q
NO (attach data)
Al
Molybdenum
Al
Q
Al
Nickel
Al
Al
Al
Q
Al
Silver
Al
Q
Al
Selenium
Al
Q
Al
Zinc
Al
Al
Al
Q
Is data in spreadsheet?
Al
Total Nitrogen
-I
Al
Q
YES (email to writer)
Al
Phosphorus
-I
Al
Q
NO
-I
AI
TKN
Al
Al
Q
Al
Nox
Al
Al
Q
Al
Oil and Grease
Al
Q
Al
Organic Nitrogen
Al
Q
Al
Chloride
Al
Q
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit W riter (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.form.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007

United States Environmental Protection Agency
E PA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 i�I i 2 IS I 3 I NC0074268 111 12 I 20/02/11 117
Type
18 i,- i
IIIIIIIIIII
73I I I74
L�
Inspector Fac Type
19 i G i 201
2111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Reserved
7511
166
I I I I I I 180
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
6711.0 1 7° I4 1 711N72 I N I
1
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Crowders Creek WWTP
5642 S York Rd
Gastonia NC 28052
Entry Time/Date
01:10PM 20/02/11
Permit Effective Date
17/04/01
Exit Time/Date
03:20PM 20/02/11
Permit Expiration Date
20/08/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Mourice Kenith Brothers/ORC/704-214-9121/
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Kevin M Graves,PO Box 1748 Gastonia NC 280531748/Senior Plant
Operator/704-854-6655/7048669405 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Maria Schutte DWR/Division of Water Quality/704-663-1699/
Ori A Tuvia DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699/
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
31 NC0074268 111 121 20/02/11
117
Inspection Type
18 [j
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page# 2

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment: The subject permit expires on 8/31/2020.
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operatc
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The records reviewed during the inspection were organized and well maintained. DMRs,
COCs, ORC logs, Calibration logs and Bench sheets were reviewed for the period Janaury
2019 through December 2019.
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Page# 3

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Comment: Influent and effluent analyses (includinq field) are performed under the on -site laboratory
certification #210. Meritech Labs Inc, (#165) and Shealy (#329) have been contracted to
provide analytical support.
Influent Sampling
# 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?
Comment: The subiect permit requires composite BOD and TSS influent samplinq.
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
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 the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment: The subiect permit requires composite and qrab effluent samplinq.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, anc
sampling location)?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The wastewater facility appeared to be properly operated and well maintained. The ORC
and staff incorporate a comprehensive process control program (including Chem -Scan Unit)
with all measurements being properly documented and maintained on-site.The facility is
equipped with a SCADA system to assist the staff with the operation of the treatment
units/processes. Selected plant alarms are also connected to a plant -wide audible system
to notify operators out in the plant of alarm conditions.
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated on 1/2/2020 by Expert Services.
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
•
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Grit Removal
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ • ❑
Comment: The grit removal treatment unit was not in service at the time of the inspection. During high
rain event few days prior to the inspection the influent wet well was at high level which
caused the grit pump to be underwater. The facility was at the process of repairing the pump
at the time of the inspection.
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADAtelemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment: Three of the four pumps or operational at the time of the inspection.
Primary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Comment: Both primaries were operational and in service.
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Type Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Nutrient Removal
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The subject permit requires a total phosphorus and total nitrogen seasonal effluent loading.
Glycerin is added as a carbon source (anoxic basin).
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Are the diffusers operational? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? • ❑ ❑ ❑
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/I) • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Both secondaries were operational and in service. At the time of the inspection both
clarifiers had a large area of sludge at the top of the surface of the clarifiers, over half the
surface area. The ORC indicated that it was due to high rain event few days prior to the
inspection, which caused the solids to float to the surface. At the time of the inspection no
sludge was observed going over the weir and no downstream treatment units seemed to be
negatively affected.
Page# 7

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Lagoons
Type of lagoons?
# Number of lagoons in operation at time of visit?
Are lagoons operated in?
# Is a re -circulation line present?
Is lagoon free of excessive floating materials?
# Are baffles between ponds or effluent baffles adjustable?
Are dike slopes clear of woody vegetation?
Are weeds controlled around the edge of the lagoon?
Are dikes free of seepage?
Are dikes free of erosion?
Are dikes free of burrowing animals?
# Has the sludge blanket in the lagoon (s) been measured periodically in multiple
locations?
# If excessive algae is present, has barley straw been used to help control the growth?
Is the lagoon surface free of weeds?
Is the lagoon free of short circuiting?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
1
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility is equipped with two polishing ponds (both lined and operational); however, only
one pond was in service.
Disinfection -Gas
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 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Page# 8

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection -Gas
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: The chlorination and dechlorination systems are serviced annually.
Yes No NA NE
100000067321
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? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated on 1/2/2020 by Expert Services.
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Comment: Did not examine at the time of the inspection.
Anaerobic Digester
Type of operation:
Is the capacity adequate?
# Is gas stored on site?
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
Yes No NA NE
Floating cover
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 9

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Anaerobic Digester
Is the gas burner operational?
Is the digester heated?
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
•
Yes
•
•
•
No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility is equipped with four digesters (1-primary, 1-secondary, 2-holding tanks).
Bio-solids are land applied under Permit WQ0001793.
Solids Handling Equipment
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
Is storage adequate?
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Two DAF units. The DAF units are used to thicken the WAS prior to digestion. The DAF
supernate is returned to the head of the biological/nutrient removal treatment processes.
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
Is storage adequate?
Are backup pumps available?
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Comment:
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 10

Permit: NC0074268
Inspection Date: 02/11/2020
Owner - Facility: Crowders Creek VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Comment: All three standby generators were operational. The generators are tested monthly under
load and are serviced annually by a contracted company (CAT)
Page# 11