NC0050342_Fact Sheet_20170728

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0O5O342
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Jennifer Busam, [e-mail]
Date: October 10, 2016
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Compliance and Expedited Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 08Sept2016
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2' 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 Winston-Salem/ Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 2511, Winston-Salem, NC 27102
Facility Address:
4561 Cooper Road
Permitted Flow:
21.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 88% domestic, 12% industrial
Facility Class:
Class IV
Treatment Units:
Bar screens, grit chambers, primary clarification, three aeration basins
with fine bubble diffusers, a hydrated lime silo, secondary clarification,
chlorination, dechlorination, instrumented flow measurement, anaerobic
sludge digesters, a gravity thickener, centrate storage lagoon, a carbon
pellet odor scrubber, two emergency generators, an effluent/flood
control pump station, and solids blending tanks
Page 1 of 14

Note: Sludge storage lagoon has changed to centrate storage lagoon and
belt filter press has been removed from service per Mr. Frank Crump
updates on 11/28/2016.
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Forsyth
Region
Winston-Salem
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Winston-Salem has
applied for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated December 16, 2013. The
City of Winston-Salem has also requested Reduction of Monitoring Frequency for Exceptional
Performers based on NPDES guidance on June 23, 2015. This facility serves a population of 89,555
residents and operates a pretreatment program with 8 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), of which 3 are
Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). As of 2016, Ellwood Advanced Components has been removed.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001- Yadkin River 12-(93.7)
Outfall 002- Muddy Creek 12-94-(0.5)c
Stream Segment:
Outfall 001- 12-(93.7)
Outfall 002- 12-94-(0.5)
Stream Classification:
WS-IV
Drainage Area (mi2):
1967
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
554
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
854
Average Flow (cfs):
1849
IWC (% effluent):
5.5%
303(d) listed/parameter:
No, neither stream segment is on the 303(d) 2014 or draft
2016 list.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
A nutrient reopener condition for High Rock Lake is included
as a permit condition [A. (7)]
Subbasin/HUC:
Yadkin- PeeDee; 03-07-04; (HUC: 03040101)
USGS Topo Quad:
D17NE, Welcome
Page 2 of 14

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data is summarized below for the period August 2011 through August 2016.
Table. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Flow
MGD
15.22
42.02
8.04
BOD summer
mg/1
11.64
42.00
2.00
BOD winter
mg/1
11.94
72.00
2.00
NH3N summer
mg/1
0.97
23.50
0.07
NH3N winter
mg/1
1.04
19.20
0.04
TSS
mg/1
12.65
184.00
2.50
pH
SU
6.85
7.60
6.10
Temperature
°C
20.07
27.00
12.00
DO
mg/1
7.23
9.60
5.20
Conductivity
umhos/cm
592.52
2186.00
310.00
TN
mg/1
25.35
36.40
12.90
TP
mg/1
3.75
7.19
1.14
Fecal Coliform
#/100 ml
67.74
>6000.00
<1.00
4. Instream Data Summary (Revised July 18, 2017)
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 conductivity, temperature, fecal coliform, dissolved
oxygen, CBOD, and NH3-N. Instream monitoring for conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
CBOD, and NH3-N were added in the 1990 permit and listed for instream monitoring on the 1988 WLA.
BOD and NH3-N instream monitoring requirements were specifically addressed in a 1989 letter that
indicates their inclusion in situations where "existing monitoring data are insufficient." See attached
instream monitoring station map for locations of the following stations analyzed: Q2570000 (upstream of
outfall 002 in Salem Creek), Q2600000 (upstream of outfall 002 in Muddy Creek), Q2720000
Page 3 of 14

(downstream of outfall 002 in Muddy Creek and upstream of outfall 001), Q2180000 (upstream of outfall
001 in the Yadkin River) and Q2810000 (downstream of outfall 001 in the Yadkin River). Limited data in
STORET was available for the stations previously listed for the period analyzed from January 2013
through September 2016. This permittee is a member of the Yadkin- Pee Dee River Basin Association,
and instream monitoring is provisionally waived in light of their participation.
Dissolved oxygen is a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Review of instream data available from
STORET (January 2013- June 2016) indicates that the dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/1 was
maintained at all stations. The primary discharge is through outfall 001 into the Yadkin River. Upstream
DO values ranged from 6.4 mg/L to 10.8 mg/L with an average of 8.33 mg/L for all seasons at station
Q2180000 for 2013. Downstream values ranged from 5.8 mg/L to 16.1 mg/L with an average of 9.12
mg/L for all seasons at Q2810000.
Temperature remains a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Data compared was only available for
stations Q2600000 and Q2810000 for January 2013-April 2015. There were no significant differences
between the values from these stations; however, these stations are in considerably different receiving
streams and this assumption is based on fewer than 20 inconsistent records.
• Temperatures averaged 17.56 °C (2013) at station Q2180000, 17.87 °C (2013) at station
Q2570000, 16.72 °C (2013-2016) at station Q2600000, 17.42 °C (2013) at station Q2720000, and
17.35 °C at station Q2810000.
Conductivity remains a parameter of concern due to the presence of industrial dischargers. Averages for
each station were 252.55 uS/cm (2013) at station Q2570000, 274.95 uS/cm (2013-2016) at station
Q2600000, 191 uS/cm (2013) at station Q2720000, 115.89 uS/cm (2013) at station Q2180000, and 95.46
uS/cm (2013-2016) at station Q2810000. It appears that averages for conductivity are less downstream
when compared to upstream stations. For 2013, stations Q2180000 and Q2810000 were not statistically
different form one another with respect to conductivity values instream. This suggests that for 2013,
Muddy Creek WWTP was not contributing to increases in instream conductivity.
Fecal coliform remains a parameter of concern for human health. Geometric means were 156.19
cfu/100mL (2013-2014) at station Q2570000, 298.55 cfu/100mL (2013-2016) at station Q2600000, 144
cfu/100mL (2013-2014) at station Q2720000, 83.65 cfu/100mL (2013-2014) at station Q2180000, and
100.96 cfu/100mL (2013-2016) at station Q2810000. It is not known if the facility is contributing to
increased instream fecal coliform due to limited data available, but it is unlikely given the
facility's great compliance record and no violations attributed to fecal coliform effluent
exceedances.
Ammonia -nitrogen remains a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Instream data meets aquatic life
criteria of 1.0 mg/L chronic and 1.8 mg/L acute values at all stations. A maximum value of 0.72 mg/L (on
3/25/2013) was recorded at Q2720000 downstream of outfall 002 in Muddy Creek. This station is
upstream of the primary discharge outfall 001. Outfall 002 is only used during flood events. Stations
averaged 0.098 mg/L (2013-2016) at Q2600000, 0.14 mg/L (2013) at Q2720000, 0.08 mg/L at
Q2180000, and 0.066 mg/L at Q2810000.
CBOD data was not available for review for the period analyzed in the STORET data warehouse from
January 2012- September 30, 2016.
Page 4 of 14

This permit maintains the same instream monitoring requirements.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility has no
enforcements in the period from July 2011- July 2016. However, the facility did receive one violation for
exceeding permit limit by 105% for Total Suspended Solids in October 2014 on a weekly average, and
one violation for exceeding permit limit by 6.9% for Total Suspended Solids in October 2014 on a
monthly average exceedance. CBOD was also exceeded by 8.5% on November 2013 for a weekly
average exceedance.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 23 of 23 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
on February 18, 2016 reported that the facility was well maintained and operated.
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: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Limitations for
BOD are based on a Streeter Phelps model (Level B) for instream DO protection. No changes are
proposed from the previous permit limits.
Page 5 of 14

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/l) 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: There are no
proposed changes.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants (Revised July 18,2017)
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 V2 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 July 2013 and
July 2016 for Outfall 001. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and
associated water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are
proposed for this permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: NA
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: NA
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: arsenic, beryllium, cyanide, cadmium, total phenolic compounds, total
chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, antimony,
thallium, dichlorobromomethane, and chlorodibromomethane
• Summary of new limits added based on RPA: NA
• Summary of existing limits deleted based on RPA: NA
Page 6 of 14

A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 2014
and July 2016 for Outfall 002. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and
associated water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are
proposed for this permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: NA
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: NA
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total phenolic compounds, total chromium,
copper, cyanide, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, antimony, thallium,
dichlorobromomethane, and chlorodibromomethane
• Summary of new limits added based on RPA: NA
• Summary of existing limits deleted based on RPA: NA
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.
Cyanide at Muddy Creek WWTP has a MDL of 20 µg/L and an allowable effluent concentration of 90.1
µg/L for outfall 001 and 13.4 µg/L for outfall 002. The MDL is based off a 1996 Archie Elledge
WWTP/Muddy Creek WWTP cyanide study and agreement, which was confirmed for the 2017 renewal.
Interference from multiple source wastewater causes detection limit issues at the facility for cyanide. Total
cyanide shall be detected to a reporting level of 20.0 µg/L. Total cyanide levels reported <20.0 µg/L shall
be considered zero for compliance purposes. Data indicates all values are less than 20.0 µg/L and are
considered zero for compliance purposes. Cyanide monitoring is not required at either outfall.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 5.5%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Page 7 of 14

Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation (Revised July 19, 2017 to include 2012 data)
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/l) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/l) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
# of Samples
16
24
24
24
24
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
2.5
3.1
2.3
2.7
2.9
Maximum Conc., ng/L
9.0
9.17
4.90
11.0
14.0
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
216.2
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. However, since the facility is >2 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1
ng/l), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) has been added to the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H. 0107(c) (2) (B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
Page 8 of 14

7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
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: (Revised July 18, 2017)
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): YES
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated:
Mercury limits and monitoring have been removed from this permit renewal based on new data and no
reasonable potential to violate WQS. A statewide mercury TMDL has been implemented and the
permittee is required to develop a mercury minimization plan during this permit cycle and sample using
the low detection method during the three required priority pollutant analyses.
10. Monitoring Requirements (Revised July 18, 2017)
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
Page 9 of 14

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 facility requested reduction in monitoring frequencies on June 23, 2015 for CBOD, TSS, NH3-N and
fecal coliform. All criteria for reduced monitoring were met for each parameter during an analysis
conducted on October 11, 2016. See attachments entitled "DWQ Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities", the data review
summary for the monitoring frequency reduction evaluation, and the original request from the permittee
in the attachments following.
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. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to
submit additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions: (Revised July 18, 2017)
Table. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Outfall 001
Flow
MA 21.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
CBOD
MA 25 mg/1
WA 40 mg/1
Reduction to 2/Week
monitoring at influent
and effluent
WQBEL. Based on 1994 WLA
model and for protection of DO
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200,
Monitoring reduction per 15A
NCAC 2B .0508(b)(1) and
Monitoring Frequency Reduction for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
10/22/2012
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
Reduction to 2/Week
monitoring at influent
and effluent
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406, Monitoring reduction per
15A NCAC 2B .0508(b)(1) and
Monitoring Frequency Reduction for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
10/22/2012
Page 10 of 14

NH3-N
Summer:
MA 14 mg/1
WA 35 mg/1
Winter:
Monitor Only
Reduction to 2/Week
monitoring at influent
and effluent
WQBEL. Based on protection of
WQ criteria. 15A NCAC 2B.0200,
Monitoring reduction per 15A
NCAC 2B .0508(b)(1) and
Monitoring Frequency Reduction for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
10/22/2012
DO
> 5 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
Reduction to 2/Week
monitoring at influent
and effluent
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200, Monitoring
reduction per 15A NCAC 2B
.0508(b)(1) and Monitoring
Frequency Reduction for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
10/22/2012
Total Residual
Chlorine
DA 28 µg/L
DM 28 µg/L
15A NCAC 2B.0200
Total Nitrogen
Monitor Weekly
Monitor Monthly
15A NCAC 2B.0500, weekly
monitoring no longer needed for
the nutrient management strategy
implemented in permit in 1999
Total Phosphorus
Monitor Weekly
Monitor Monthly
15A NCAC 2B.0500, weekly
monitoring no longer needed for
the nutrient management strategy
implemented in permit in 1999
Temperature
Monitor Only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Conductivity
Monitor Only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 5.5%
effluent, quarterly
testing
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Total Mercury
MA 0.2162 µg/L
No limit, no
monitoring
Based on the statewide 2012
TMDL, monitoring conducted
during PPAs
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
Annual
Reduce to three times
per permit cycle
40 CFR 122
Page 11 of 14

Total Hardness
No requirement
Add effluent and
upstream monitoring
Outfall 002
Revised water quality
standards and EPA's guidelines
on hardness dependent metals.
Flow
Monitor Only
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
CBOD5
MA 25 mg/1
WA 40 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. Based on 1994 WLA
model and for protection of DO
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
NH3-N
Summer:
MA 14 mg/1
WA 35 mg/1
Winter:
Monitor Only
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
State WQ criteria. 15A NCAC
2B.0200
DO
> 5 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Total Residual
Chlorine
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0200
Total Nitrogen
Monitor Weekly
Monitor Monthly
15A NCAC 2B.0500, weekly
monitoring no longer needed for
the nutrient management strategy
implemented in permit in 1999
Total Phosphorus
Monitor Weekly
Monitor Monthly
15A NCAC 2B.0500, weekly
monitoring no longer needed for
the nutrient management strategy
implemented in permit in 1999
Temperature
Monitor Only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Conductivity
Monitor Only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Other
Potential Instream
Sampling Exemption
Special Condition
No change
15A NCGS 143-215.1 (b)
Page 12 of 14

Mercury
Minimization Plan
No requirement
Added MMP Special
Condition
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
(MMP)
Electronic Reporting
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
Nutrient Reopener
for High Rock Lake
No requirement
Add special condition
15A NCGS 143-215.1 (b)
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
• Footnote 2 section A. (1) changed to "Twice per week monitoring for CBOD5 and TSS
for influent and effluent samples and effluent samples for fecal coliform and NH3-N
must occur on any two non-consecutive days during the calendar week (Sunday through
Saturday)."
• MMP special condition A. (6) updated to latest template that included accurate webpage
link and a due date of February 28, 2018.
• Electronic Reporting special condition A. (8) updated to reflect latest template
• Effluent Pollutant Scan A. (4) updated to latest template
• Technical correction to Footnote 1 in A. (1) to reflect current eDMR language since the
December 21, 2016 date has passed
• Technical corrections to A. (1) and A. (2) to include the correct parameter code for Total
Phosphorus and CBOD
• Technical corrections to A. (1) and A. (2) to include units of measurement requirements
• Technical correction to `Annual Pollutant Scan' to `Effluent Pollutant Scan' due to
changes in measurement frequency in A. (1) and A. (2)
• Technical correction, Monitoring requirements for the `Effluent Pollutant Scan' directs to
a new Footnote 9 in A. (1) and states `Monitor & Report' under the limits column to
reflect current template formatting
• Technical correction, Sub -basin number removed from page 1 of 12 to reflect current
permit formatting
• Technical correction, pH changed to > 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units in A. (1) and A. (2).
• The years identified for the Effluent Pollutant Scan in A. (4) have changed from 2017,
2018, and 2019 to 2017, 2019, ad 2021 due to the permit expiration change to June 30,
2022. Section A. (4) has been updated to the current version.
• Section A. (1) footnotes 5 and 6 have been updated to reflect the location of effluent
sampling identified in the permit renewal application. The footnote `Effluent samples
shall be taken prior to entering the 5 mile outfall line' has been removed since those
Page 13 of 14

parameters are sampled at the parshall flume immediately below the chlorine injection
point [see A. (1) footnote 5].
• The expiration date has been extended from June 30, 2019 to June 30, 2022.
• Footnotes corrected in A. (2) for effluent sampling locations.
• The monitoring frequency for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus has changed in
Section A. (1) and A. (2) from weekly to monthly per 15A NCAC 2B .0500. Weekly
samples are no longer needed for the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin nutrient management
strategy.
NOTE: Mr. Frank Crump, MPA, Superintendent of Wastewater for the City of Winston-
Salem has agreed to shorter permit cycles in the future and has chosen a 5-year cycle for
the 2017 permit renewal. The extended expiration of 5 years takes Muddy Creek WWTP
off schedule with its basin. Muddy Creek WWTP shall return to schedule with an
expiration date of June 30, 2029 at a future renewal. Shorter permit cycles, less than 5
years, for future renewals will be required to meet this goal.
14. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary and dissolved to total metal calculator
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater or Saltwater
• Waste load allocation for TRC and NH3-N
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• Effluent Data Analysis
• Monitoring Report Violations
• 2nd Species tests
• Instream data analysis
• Mercury WQBEL/TBEL evaluation
Page 14 of 14