NC0046809_Fact Sheet_20220812

FACT SHEET FOR EXPEDITED PERMIT RENEWALS
This form must be completed by Permit Writers for all expedited permits which do not require full Fact
Sheets. Expedited permits are generally simple 100% domestics (e.g., schools, mobile home parks, etc)
that can be administratively renewed with minor changes, but can include facilities with more complex
issues (Special Conditions, 303(d) listed water, toxicity testing, instream monitoring, compliance
concerns).
Basic Information for Expedited Permit Renewals
Permit Writer / Date
Siying Chen 4/13/2022
Permit Number
NC0046809
Facility Name / Facility Class
Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center
WWTP / WW-2
County / Regional Office
Guilford / WSRO
Basin Name / Sub -basin number
Cape Fear / 03-06-01
Receiving Stream / HUC
UT to Benaja Creek / 030300020204
Stream Classification / Stream Segment
WS-V NSW / 16-4
Does permit need Daily Maximum NH3 limits
N/A — They have tox test instead of NH3 limits
Does permit need TRC limits/language?
No — Already present
Does permit have toxicity testing? IWC (%) if so
Yes — Two failed tests since 2016
IWC is 30.69%
Does permit have Special Conditions?
Yes - Chronic toxicity permit limit and nutrient
reopener
Does permit have instream monitoring?
Yes - Dissolved oxygen and temperature
Is the stream impaired (on 303(d) list)?
No
Any obvious compliance concerns?
Nineteen violation and enforcement cases
(including two NODs and fifteen NOVs) during
the permit cycle.
Any permit mods since last permit?
Added WWTP classification
Updated eDMR requirements
Updated chronic toxicity permit limit condition
Updated nutrient reopener condition
Updated outfall map
Removed aquatic toxicity test
New expiration date
4/30/2026
Comments on Draft Permit?
Aquatic toxicity branch and regional office
considered dropping toxicity test for ammonia
limits
Most Commonly Used Expedited Language:
• TRC language for Compliance Level for Cover Letters/Effluent Sheet Footnote: "The
facility shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC certified laboratory including field
certified. However, effluent values below 50 µg/1 will be treated as zero for compliance
purposes.
Fact Sheet for Permit Renewal
April 2022 -- NPDES Permit NC0046809 - Page 1

Section 1. Facility Overview:
This facility is a minor facility (flow < 1 MGD) discharging 100% domestic wastewater with a design
capacity of 0.02 MGD. This WWTP utilizes the following treatment components:
• Splitter box
• Bar screen
• Dual parallel aeration tanks
• Dual parallel clarifiers
• Dual tertiary filters
• Chlorine contact chamber with tablet chlorination
• Tablet dechlorination
• Sludge digester
Section 2. Compliance History (July 2016 — April 2022):
• Four NOVs for aquatic toxicity permit limit violation in February 2017, March 2017, January
2020, and August 2021.
• Four NOVs for fecal coliform limit violation in March 2017, April 2019, June 2021, and August
2021.
• Two NOVs for TSS limit violation in November 2019 and January 2021.
• Two NOVs for ammonia nitrogen monitoring frequency violation in February 2020 and
September 2020.
• One limit violation for TSS and BOD5, and monitoring frequency violation for total
phosphorous and total nitrogen in March 2020.
• One NOD for TSS limit violation in October 2020.
• Three NOVs for oil and grease monitoring frequency violation in December 2020, May 2021,
and June 2021.
• Three NOVs for surfactants (MBAS) monitoring frequency violation in December 2020, May
2021, and June 2021.
• One NOD for ammonia nitrogen monitoring frequency violation in April 2021.
• One NOV for BOD5 limit violation in June 2021.
• One limit violation for fecal coliform, TSS, and BOD5 in July 2021.
• One NOV for operation & maintenance and record keeping violations in February 2022 during
inspection.
Section 3. Changes from previous permit to draft:
• Added facility grade in A. (1)
• Updated eDMR footnote in A. (1) and language in A. (4)
• Updated chronic toxicity permit limit in A. (2)
• Updated nutrient re -opener condition in A. (3)
• Updated outfall map
Fact Sheet for Permit Renewal
April 2022 -- NPDES Permit NC0046809 - Page 2

Section 4. Comments received on draft permit:
• During the comment period, Zach Thomas from aquatic toxicity branch contacted WSRO about
the possibility of dropping toxicity testing for ammonia nitrogen limits. WSRO reached out to
the permittee, the permittee expressed their interest in doing so, but they wanted to know what
the ammonia limits would be like so that they can comply. However, there's no further follow-up
from the permittee.
• According to the EPA Triennial Review Response and the NPDES Implementation of Ammonia
Criteria — Update in 2016, "biological confirmation" for assessment and the "action levels" for
NPDES permitting are not supported by the EPA, the State should adopt separate, more stringent
numeric criteria that are approved by the EPA. The Division can no longer use biological test
like WET testing in lieu of permit limits based on chemical or toxicity criteria, and should
develop effluent limits using the Wasteload Allocation worksheet.
• The new ammonia nitrogen limits were calculated using the wasteload allocation worksheet.
• The monitoring frequency for Ammonia Nitrogen has been updated according to 15A NCAC
02B.0508.
Section 5. Changes from draft to final:
• Removed chronic toxicity and relating footnote from effluent table in Section A. (1).
• Updated ammonia nitrogen effluent limits and monitoring frequency in Section A. (1).
• Removed special condition for chronic toxicity permit limit.
Fact Sheet for Permit Renewal
April 2022 -- NPDES Permit NC0046809 - Page 3

Greensboro News Record
Advertising Affidavit
200 E. Market St
Greensboro, NC. 27401
[phone]
NCDEQ-DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
Account Number
4019534
Date
May 20, 2022
PO Number Order
Category
Description
0000784174 Legal Notices
SASE
SEE
ATTACHED
Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit 1617 Mall
Publisher of the
Greensboro News Record
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by
law to administer oaths, personally appeared the Publisher's Representative who by being
duly sworn deposes and says: that he/she is authorized to snake this affidavit and sworn
statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a copy of which is attached hereto,
was published in the Greensboro News Record on the following dates:
05/20/2022
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper document, or legal advertisement
was published, was at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all
the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the Gener i jtatutes of N
Carolina:
•
Billing Representative
Sworn to and subscribed before me the 20th day of May, 2022.
2Gtprek.atx.
State of i+q `t`Q
County ofiscki
My commission expires: ti'ltyt, a"Y t a-t
(No/aay Pahlic)
PMtiLA
Nofary PubIfr
F. !repel! Counry
js
THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU

Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental Man-
agement Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mali Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES
Wastewater Permit NC0046809 Cor-
nerstone Conference and Resource
Center WWTP, and NC0055255
Crown Mobile Horne Park WWTP
The North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission proposes
to issue a NPDES wastewater dis-
charge permit to the person(s) listed
below. Written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be accept-
ed until 30 days after the publish
date of this notice. The Director of
the NC Division of Water Resources
(DWR) may hold a public hearing
should there be a significant degree
of public interest. Please mail com-
ments and/or information requests
to DWR at the above address. Inter-
ested persons may visit the DWR at
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604 to review information on file.
Additional Information on NPDES
permits and this notice may be
found on our website: http://deq.nc.
gov/abou t/divisio ns/water-
resources/water-resources-
permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater/public-notices,or by
calling [phone]. The Western
NC Conference Center has request-
ed renewal of NPDES permit
NC0046809 for the Cornerstone Con-
ference and Resource Center WWTP
in Guilford County. This permitted
facility discharges treated wastewa-
ter to an unnamed tributary to
BenaJa Creek in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Currently, fecal coiiform and
total residual chlorine are water
quality limited, which may affectfu-
ture allocations of the Cape Fear Riv-
er Basin. Parkins, LLC (P.O. Box
1000, Pittsboro, NC 27312.1000) has
requested renewal of NPDES permit
NC0055255 for the Crown Mobile
Home Park WWTP in Guilford Coun-
ty. This permitted facility currently
discharges treated wastewater Into
an unnamed tributary to Hickory
Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Currently, BOD, ammonia nitrogen,
fecal conform, dissolved oxygen, and
total residual chlorine are water
quality limited. This discharge may
affect future allocations in this por-
tion of the Cape Fear River Basin.

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
MEMORANDUM
To:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
May 18, 2022
Eric Hudson
NC DEQ / DWR / Public Water Supply
Winston-Salem Regional Office
From: Siying Chen
NPDES Compliance and Expedited Permitting
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NC0046809
Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
Guilford County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by
June 20, 2022. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at 919-707-3619 or via
e-mail [[e-mail]].
RESPONSE: (Check one)
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated
effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality
standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
V/ 8/2 Signed � ✓ Date:
DE
NORTH CAROUNA
Department of Environmental Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
PermitNo. NC0046809
Prepared By: Siying Chen
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
0.02
0.07
0.17
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
0.07
0.02
0.031
17.0
0
30.69
55
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)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
3.26 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
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
0.07
0.02
0.031
1.0
0.22
30.69
2.8
0.17
0.02
0.031
1.8
0.22
15.42
10.5
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date: 04/13/22 Page 1 01 4
Permit: nc0046809 MRs Betweei 7 - 2016 and 4 - 2022
Facility Name: % Param Nam( %
Major Minor:
Region: %
County: %
Violation Category:%
Subbasin:%
Program Category: %
Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NC0046809
FACILITY: Western NC Conference Center - Cornerstone
Conference and Resource Center WWTP
COUNTY: Guilford
REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING OUTFACE
REPORT
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
03-2020 001
03-2020 001
03-2020 001
06-2021 001
06-2021 001
06-2021 001
07-2021 001
08-2016 001
10-2019 001
06-2020 001
11-2020 001
12-2020 001
01-2021 001
03-2017 001
04-2019 001
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
03/17/20
03/24/20
03/31/20
06/10/21
06/24/21
06/30/21
07/01/21
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
08/08/16 2 X week
10/15/19 2 X week
06/19/20 2 X week
11/22/20 2 X week
12/08/20 2 X week
01/07/21 2 X week
03/24/17 Weekly
04/05/19 Weekly
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
#/100m1
#/100m1
45 48.5 7.8 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
45 66 46.7 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
30 47.12 57.1 Monthly Average
Exceeded
45 46.9 4.2 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
45 49.7 10.4 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
30 35.28 17.6 Monthly Average
Exceeded
45 51.3 14.0 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 32 14.3 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 48 71.4 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 32 14.3 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 33 17.9 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 33 17.9 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 46 64.3 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
400 600 50 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
400 600 50 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date: 04/13/22 Page 2 of 4
Permit: nc0046809
Facility Name:
Major Minor: %
MRs Betweei 7 - 2016 and 4 - 2022 Region: %
Param Nam( % County: %
Violation Category:%
Subbasin:%
Program Category: %
Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NC0046809
FACILITY: Western NC Conference Center - Cornerstone
Conference and Resource Center WWTP
COUNTY: Guilford
REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL
REPORT
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION UNIT OF
DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
06-2021 001
07-2021 001
07-2021 001
07-2021 001
07-2021 001
08-2021 001
09-2021 001
11-2019 001
03-2020 001
03-2020 001
03-2020 001
10-2020 001
01-2021 001
07-2021 001
Monitoring Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL
REPORT
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
LOCATION
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
Broth, 44.5 C
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
PARAMETER
06/24/21 Weekly
07/01/21 Weekly
07/28/21 Weekly
07/29/21 Weekly
07/31/21 Weekly
08/04/21 Weekly
09/29/21 Weekly
11/06/19 Weekly
03/17/20 Weekly
03/24/20 Weekly
03/31/20 Weekly
10/06/20 Weekly
01/26/21 Weekly
07/01/21 Weekly
#/100m1
#/100m1
#/100m1
#/100m1
#/100m1
#/100m1
#/100m1
mg/1
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/1
mg/I
VIOLATION UNIT OF
DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE
400 600 50 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
400 600 50 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
400 600 50 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
400 600 50 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
200 249.71 24.9 Monthly Geometric Mean
Exceeded
400 520 30 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
400 600 50 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
45 56 24.4 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
45
45
30
45
45
45
LIMIT
46
51
41.25
50
58
66
CALCULATED
VALUE
2.2
13.3
37.5
28.9
46.7
Over
Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Monthly Average
Exceeded
Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Daily Maximum
Exceeded
VIOLATION TYPE
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to NOV
None
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
VIOLATION ACTION

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date: 04/13/22 Page 3 of 4
Permit: nc0046809
Facility Name:
Major Minor: %
MRs Betweei 7 - 2016 and 4 - 2022 Region: %
Param Nam( % County: %
Violation Category:%
Subbasin:%
Program Category: %
Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NC0046809
FACILITY: Western NC Conference Center - Cornerstone
Conference and Resource Center WWTP
COUNTY: Guilford
REGION: Winston-Salem
Monitoring Violation
MONITORING
REPORT OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION UNIT OF
DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
02-2020 001
09-2020 001
04-2021 001
03-2020 001
12-2020 001
05-2021 001
06-2021 001
03-2020 001
12-2020 001
05-2021 001
06-2021 001
Other Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL
REPORT
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
LOCATION
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
Nitrogen, Total -
Concentration
Oil & Grease
Oil & Grease
Oil & Grease
Phosphorus, Total (as P) -
Concentration
Surfactants (MBAS)
Surfactants (MBAS)
Surfactants (MBAS)
PARAMETER
02/29/20 2 X month
09/30/20 2 X month
04/30/21 2 X month
03/31/20 Quarterly
12/31/20 Monthly
05/31/21 Monthly
06/30/21 Monthly
03/31/20 Quarterly
12/31/20 Monthly
05/31/21 Monthly
06/30/21 Monthly
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
VIOLATION UNIT OF
FREQUENCY
DATE MEASURE
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE
Over
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to
Enforcement Case
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
02-2017
03-2017
02-2017
11-2019
02/06/17
03/21/17
03/21/17
01/30/20
Aquatic toxicity permit
limit violation
Aquatic toxicity permit
limit violation
Aquatic toxicity permit
limit violation
Aquatic toxicity permit
limit violation
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date: 04/13/22 Page 4 of 4
Permit: nc004680 MRs Betweei 7 - 2016 and 4 - 2022 Region:
Facility Name: % Param Nam( % County: %
Major Minor: %
Violation Category:%
Subbasin:%
111 Program Category: %
Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NC0046809
FACILITY: Western NC Conference Center - Cornerstone
Conference and Resource Center WWTP
COUNTY: Guilford REGION: Winston-Salem
Other Violation
MONITORING UNIT OF
OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER VIOLATION FREQUENCY
REPORT DATE MEASURE
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE Over
VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
08 - 2021 08/17/21 Aquatic toxicity permit
limit violation
Proceed to NOV

Permit Enforcement History by Permit
Case
Permit:
Region:
NC0046809
Winston-Salem
Facility: Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
County: Guilford
Owner: Western NC Conference Center
Penalty Remission Enforcement EMC Collection Has
Assessment Penalty Enforcement Request Conference Hearing Memo Sent Payment Case
Approved Amount Costs Damages Received Held Held To AGO Total Paid Balance Due Plan Closed
MV-2005-0003 03/08/05
$585.00 $102.00
$687.00
$0.00 No 03/21/05
TX-2011-0006 06/16/11
$3,000.00 $69.26
$3,069.26
$0.00 No 02/27/12
LM-2021-0010 03/23/21
$800.00 $119.11 06/18/21
$919.11 $0.00 No 08/24/21
LV-2021-0365 12/16/21
$500.00 $119.11
$619.11
$0.00 No 03/17/22
Total Cases: 4 $4,885.00 $409.48 $5,294.48 $0.00
Total Penalties: $5,294.48
Total Penalties after
$5,294.48

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
PCS Phosphate Company Inc.-007 NC0003255/007 County: Beaufort Region: WARO Basin: TAR07 SOC JOC:
Fthd48Ac Begin: 3/1/2010 48hr LC50 monthly a NonComp: 7Q10: TIDAL PF: VAR IWC: NA Freq: M
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2016 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100
2017 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100
2018 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 H >100>100 >100 >100
2019 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100
2020 >100
Pembroke WWTP NC0027103/001 County: Robeson Region: FRO Basin: LUM51 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 8/1/2016 chr lim: 1.7% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 120 PF: 1.33 IWC: 1.7 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N
2016 Pass Pass Pass Pass 2017 Pass - - Pass - Pass - Pass
2018 Pass - Pass - Pass - Pass >6.8(P) >6.8(P)
2019 Pass >6.8(P) - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
>6.8(P)
Pender Co -Melinda K. Knoerzer WWTF NC0081736/001 County: Pender Region: WIRO Basin: CPF17 MarJun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Fthd24PF Begin: 12/1/2017 Ac Fthd Lim: 90% @ + NonComp: Single 7Q10: TIDAL PF: 4.0 IWC: NA Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2016 H - - H H - - H
2017 H - H H - Pass
2018 Pass Pass H Pass NR - NR
2019 NR NR Pass Pass H - Pass
PenderCountyWTP NC0088820/001 County: Pender Region: WIRO Basin: CPF17 SOC __IOC:
Fthd24PF Begin: 10/1/2017 Acu PF Monit: 90% Ft NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: A
J F M A M 1 J A S 0 N D
2016 - Pass - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2017 Pass - Pass - - Pass - -
Pentecostal Holiness Chrch-Cornerston NC0046809/001 County: Guilford Region: WSRO
Ceri7dPF Begin: 5/1/2011 chr lim: 31% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.07
J F M A M J
2016 Pass Pass Pass
2017 - Fail 21.9 >100 Pass
2018 - Pass - - Pass
2019 - Pass - - Pass
J
Basin: CPF01
Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
PF: 0.02 IWC: 30.6 Freq: Q
A
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
S O
N
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
D
Pass
Perdue Inc. Lewiston NC0028835/001 County: Bertie Region: WARO Basin: ROA08 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 1/1/2013 chr lim: 5.0 MGD @ 0 NonComp: Single 7Q10: 1102 PF: 3.0 IWC: 0.42 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2016 Pass Pass - Pass Pass -
2017 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - Pass -
2018 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - Pass -
2019 Pass - Pass Pass Pass -
2020 Pass - - - - -
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facility is active). s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 76 of 109

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Pembroke WWTP NC0027103/001 County: Robeson Region: FRO Basin: LUM51 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC _IOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 8/1/2016 chr lim: 1.7% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 120 PF: 1.33 IWC: 1.7 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2018 Pass Pass - - Pass - - Pass >6.8(P) >6.8(P) >6.8(P)
2019 Pass >6.8(P) - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
Pender Co -Melinda K. Knoerzer WWTF NC0081736/001 County: Pender Region: WIRO Basin: CPF17 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Fthd24PF Begin: 12/1/2017 Ac Fthd Lim: 90% @ + NonComp: Single 7Q10: TIDAL PF: 4.0 IWC: NA Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2018 Pass Pass H Pass NR - NR
2019 NR NR Pass Pass H - Pass
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - LC50>100% Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass >100 (P) - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
Pender County WTP (NCG590022) NC0088820/001 County: Pender Region: WIRO Basin: CPF17 SOC JOC:
Fthd24PF Begin: 10/1/2017 Acu PF Monit: 90% Ft NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: A
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2018 - Pass - - - - -
2019 - - - - Pass - - - - - -
2020 - - - Pass - - - - - -
2021 - - Pass
Pentecostal Holiness Chrch-Cornerston NC0046809/001 County: Guilford Region: WSRO
Ceri7dPF Begin: 5/1/2011 chr lim: 31% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.07
J F M A M J
2018 - Pass - - Pass
2019 - Pass - Pass
2020 >100 Pass - Pass
2021 -
J
Basin: CPF01
Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
PF: 0.02 IWC: 30.6 Freq: Q
A S
Pass -
Pass
Pass
0
N
Pass
Fail
H
43.8
Perdue Inc. Lewiston NC0028835/001 County: Bertie Region: WARO Basin: ROA08 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 6/1/2021 chr lim: 5.0 MGD @ 0 NonComp: Single 7Q10: 1102 PF: 5.0 IWC: 0.42 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2018 Pass Pass - Pass - Pass
2019 Pass - - Pass - Pass - Pass -
2020 Pass - - Pass - Pass - - Pass -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
Perquimans County - Bethel WTP NC0068861/001 County: Perquimans Region: WARO
Fthd24PF Begin: 5/1/2018 monit: 90% NonComp: 7Q10: Tidal
J F M A M J
2018 Fail - Fail
2019 Fail - - Fail 2020 Fail - Pass
2021 Pass - Pass
J
Basin: PAS52
Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
PF: 0.060 IWC: NA Freq: Q
A S
Fail
Fail
Pass
Pass
0
N
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facility is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs
Page 70 of 100

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Josh Powers
Chen, Siyinq; dgaines(a ccrdc.orq
Snider Lon; Graznak, Jenny; Weaver, Charles; Madelyn Mills; Todd Robinson; Ronald Wall
Re: [External] - NPDES Permit Issuance - Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP NC0046809
Friday, August 12, 2022 11:36:22 AM
Outlook-bOhhiOad.pnq
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Received thank you.
Thanks,
Josh Powers
Piedmont/Metrolina Area Manager
Envirolink Inc.
773 Sanford Ave.
Mocksville, NC 27028
[e-mail]
704-775-6128 cell
I NVI. Rs)I INK
From: Chen, Siying <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 11:25 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Josh Powers <[e-mail]>; Snider, Lon <[e-mail]>; Graznak,
Jenny <[e-mail]>; Weaver, Charles <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] - NPDES Permit Issuance - Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
NC0046809
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and
know the content is safe.
Hi Mr. Gaines,
Attached is the final NPDES permit renewal for Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
(NC0046809). The permit will be effective on October 1, 2022.

Please respond to this email confirming that you received the attached document, were able to
open and view the document and have saved/printed a copy for your records.
Thank you!
Siying (Sylvia) Chen (She/Her/Hers)
Environmental Specialist
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Email: siying.chenPncdenr.gov
Phone: [phone] (Office)
ffE
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties

From: Hennessy John
To: Moore, Cindy; Chen, Sivinq; Thomas, Zachary T; Graznak, Jenny; Snider Lon
Subject: Re: Draft NPDES Permit Review - NC0046809 Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 3:47:53 PM
Attachments: image002.pnq
EPA Triennial Review Response Letter 2016.pdf
Ammonia Permitting Guidance 2016.pdf
Hey all,
I wanted to try and clarify this issue for everyone. Back in 2016, as part of our triennial review,
EPA took away all use of action level. As such, we can no longer use tox in lieu of ammonia.
See the two attached documents. One is the EPA letter. The other is the Ammonia policy we
follow since 2016. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
John
John E. Hennessy
Environmental Supervisor II
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources
john.hennessyPncdenr.gov
919-707-3615 (office)
Mailing address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical address: 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Chen, Siying <[e-mail]>; Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>;
Graznak, Jenny <[e-mail]>; Snider, Lon <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hennessy, John <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Draft NPDES Permit Review - NC0046809 Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center
WWTP
I understand John's concern about the EPA but this is not a major permit and I know we have done
this in the past. I just can't recall which facilities have done this. This facility has some months of the
year as a no flow event for tox.

From: Chen, Siying <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:08 PM
To: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Graznak, Jenny
<[e-mail]>; Snider, Lon <[e-mail]>
Cc: Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>; Hennessy, John <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Draft NPDES Permit Review - NC0046809 Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center
WWTP
Hi Zach,
Based on the WLA calculation (attached here), the monthly average limits for ammonia nitrogen
would be 2.8 mg/L in the summer and 10.5 mg/L in the winter, so that would be good place to start.
Also, I discussed with my supervisor John and he mentioned that EPA is not allowing facilities to use
toxicity test to replace ammonia limits anymore, so adding the ammonia limits might need to
happen anyway.
Please let me know what you all think!
Thank you!
Siying (Sylvia) Chen (She/Her/Hers)
Environmental Specialist
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Email: siying.chenPncdenr.gov
Phone: [phone] (Office)
ih
4:))
NP�i't:�
nFi
Derailment al Ernaa.n.aaaa uuaal-
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Thomas, Zachary T <zachary.thomasPncdenr.gov>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:09 PM
To: Graznak, Jenny <[e-mail]>; Snider, Lon <Ion.sniderPncdenr.gov>
Cc: Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>; Chen, Siying <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Draft NPDES Permit Review - NC0046809 Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center
WWTP
Hi Jenny,

I am unsure of what the limit might be, but the permit writer, Siying, might be able to assist with
this.
Siying, would you be able to provide any assistance with our email thread questions below? Mainly
what the NH3 limit might look like if it were added to the newest permit.
Thank you!
Zach Thomas
Environmental Specialist II
Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Compliance and Enforcement Officer
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources — Water Sciences Section
Based on the current guidance to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Department of
Environmental Quality has adjusted operations to protect the health and safety of the staff and
public. Many employees are working remotely or are on staggered shifts. To accommodate these
staffing changes, all DEQ office locations are limiting public access to appointments only. Please
check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your
requests by phone or email. We appreciate your patience as we continue to serve the public during
this challenging time.
919.743.8439 Office
919.743.8517 Fax
[e-mail]
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Submit ATForms electronically to: [e-mail]
E
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Graznak, Jenny
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:05 PM
To: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Snider, Lon <[e-mail]>
Cc: Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Draft NPDES Permit Review - NC0046809 Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center
WWTP
Thank you for bringing this to our attention! We briefly discussed this with the permittee today and
he wanted to know what the NH3 limit would be so he can compare to historical data and make sure
he would be able to comply. Do you have any idea what the limit would be or can we find out?

Jenny Graznak
Assistant Regional Supervisor
Winston Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
336-776-9695 office
336-403-7388 mobile
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Snider, Lon <[e-mail]>; Graznak, Jenny <[e-mail]>
Cc: Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Draft NPDES Permit Review - NC0046809 Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center
WWTP
Good Morning,
ATB wanted to reach out to you both at WSRO to get your thoughts on this draft permit. It appears
that this is a 100% domestic system and currently has a toxicity sampling requirement instead of
NH3. Can you all provide any information about this facility? I know they are a conference center
and I think they may have periods of no flow here and there.
It may be in their benefit to consider requesting dropping tox for NH3 limits, if they meet the criteria
and are essentially working properly.
Please let us know what you think!
Thank you,
Zach Thomas
Environmental Specialist II
Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Compliance and Enforcement Officer
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources — Water Sciences Section

Based on the current guidance to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Department of
Environmental Quality has adjusted operations to protect the health and safety of the staff and
public. Many employees are working remotely or are on staggered shifts. To accommodate these
staffing changes, all DEQ office locations are limiting public access to appointments only. Please
check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your
requests by phone or email. We appreciate your patience as we continue to serve the public during
this challenging time.
919.743.8439 Office
919.743.8517 Fax
[e-mail]
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Submit ATForms electronically to: [e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
nr� mov hP disrInsPd third parties.
From: Chen, Siying
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 12:07 PM
To: Kinney, Maureen <Maureen.KinneyPncdenr.gov>; Snider, Lon <Ion.sniderPncdenr.gov>;
Graznak, Jenny <[e-mail]>; Hudson, Eric <eric.hudsoncncdenr.gov>; Thomas,
Zachary T <[e-mail]>
Cc: Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit Review - NC0046809 Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center
WWTP
Hi all,
Attached is the draft permit for NC0046809 — Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP.
This is a WW-2 facility in Guilford County. It will be submitted for Public Notice on May 17, 2022.
Please review and provide your comments, if any, to me in 30 days.
Thank you for your time and I'm looking forward to hearing back from you.
Siying (Sylvia) Chen (She/Her/Hers)
Environmental Specialist
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Email: siying.chen anncdenr.gov
Phone: [phone] (Office)
i' t Waal ih
Derailment al Ernitonnialal uuia�ly
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties

cED S.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
APR 6 2016
Mr. Jay Zimmerman
Director
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
161.7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has completed its review of the State of North
Carolina's 2007 — 2015 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards (WQS). All of the Triennial
Review revisions were approved for adoption by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission on November 13, 2014, and became effective for state purposes on January 1, 2015. In a
letter dated May 1, 2015, the State of North Carolina Department of Justice certified that the WQS
revisions, Surface Water and Wetland Standards (15A NCAC 02B .0200) had been duly adopted
according to state law. On May 15, 2015, the EPA received the original signed package for review from
the Division of Water Resources.
The EPA's decision on these revisions is detailed in the enclosed document, Decision Document of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Review of North Carolina's 2007 - 2015 Triennial
Review of Changes to Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards 15A NCAC 02B .0200 Under Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act. The approved portion of the new and revised WQS adopted by the State
include upgrades to toxic criteria to meet national recommendations for arsenic, chromium III,
chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc and a scientifically defensible alternative for
cadmium for non -trout waters. The EPA is also approving the removal of a numeric Action Level for
iron and the numeric criterion for manganese (Water Supply waters only). Both parameters will be
controlled through the use of a narrative WQS.
The EPA is disapproving revisions relating to biological confirmation for toxics in assessment and three
revisions relating to the implementation of the hardness based equations for metals under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including the use of action levels, the use of
a low end hardness cap, and the use of the median of the 8-digit hydrologic unit for determining
hardness when developing NPDES permits. These revisions are inconsistent with the requirements of 40
C.F.R. Part 131 and the Clean Water Act (CWA) and therefore, are disapproved. The EPA recommends
that NCDENR remove these provisions during the next rulemaking.
In addition to the EPA's review pursuant to section 303 of the CWA, section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to ensure that their actions are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

modification of designated critical habitat of such species. The EPA's decision to approve the revisions
contained in the enclosed decision document is subject to the results of consultation under section 7 of
the ESA with the USFWS and NMFS office. The EPA will notify NCDENR of the results of the section
7 consultation upon completion of the action.
We would like to commend you and your staff on the completion of this Triennial Review and your
continued efforts in environmental protection for the State of North Carolina. In particular, we would
like to acknowledge the technical expertise and the hard work of Connie Brower shown during the
development of these WQS.
Should you have any questions regarding the EPA's action today, please contact me at [phone]
or have a member of your staff contact Ms. Lisa Perras Gordon at [e-mail] or
[phone].
Sincerely,
7ei;V?/
Heather McTeer Toney
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Connie Brower
NCDWR WQS
Jeff Manning
NCDWR WQS
Tom Belnick
NCDWR NPDES
Jeff Poupart
NCDWR NPDES

s
Decision Document of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Review of North Carolina's 2007-2015 Triennial Review of Changes to
Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards 15A NCAC 02B .0200
Under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act
Introduction
In a letter dated May 4, 2015, from S. Jay Zimmerman, Director, Division of Water Resources (DWR),
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to Heather McTeer Toney, Regional
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Region 4 Office, the DWR submitted
new and revised water quality standards (WQS) for review under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA or Act). In a letter dated May 1, 2015, the State of North Carolina Department of Justice certified
that the WQS revisions, Surface Water and Wetland Standards (15A NCAC 02B .0200) had been duly
adopted according to State law. The revisions addressed in this decision document were approved for
adoption by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on November 13, 2014, and
became effective for state purposes on January 1, 2015. The EPA received the original signed package for
review from DWR on May 15, 2015.
Clean Water Act Requirements
Section 303 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1313, requires states to establish WQS and to submit any new or
revised standards to the EPA for review and approval or disapproval. The EPA's implementing
regulations require states to adopt water quality criteria that protect the designated use. See 40 C.F.R.
131.11(a). Such criteria must be based on a sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient
parameters or constituents to protect the designated use. Id. For waters with multiple use designations, the
criteria shall support the most sensitive use. Id. In addition, the EPA's regulations require that in
establishing criteria, a state shall consider WQS of downstream waters and shall ensure that its WQS
provide for the attainment and maintenance of WQS of downstream waters. See 40 C.F.R. 131.10(b). A
state's submission of water quality criteria must include (1) the methods used and analyses conducted to
support WQS revisions, (2) water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses and (3) a
certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority within the state that the
WQS were duly adopted under state law. See 40 C.F.R. 131.6.
Endangered Species Act Requirements
In addition to the EPA's review under section 303 of the CWA, section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) requires federal agencies, in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of federally listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat of such species. With regard to consultation activities for section 7 of the ESA,
the EPA Region 4 concluded that the WQS the Agency approved, would either have no effect or may
affect, but not likely to adversely affect, threatened and endangered species or their designated critical
habitat. The EPA also concluded that they had no discretion for some provisions of the approved WQS
because they were derived to protect human health and the EPA has no discretion to revise an otherwise
approvable human health criterion to benefit listed species.
1

The EPA's Decision Summary
The EPA commends the DWR for making revisions to its WQS to bring them up-to-date with long
overdue changes. In particular, the State should be commended for adopting the EPA's national
recommended criteria developed under CWA section 304(a) or other scientifically justified criteria for
toxic metals as well as for adopting both acute and chronic values for those metals. The EPA's 304(a)
recommendations provide an extensive technical basis and justification for how the recommended aquatic
life criteria adequately protect aquatic life uses. The methodologies have been subject to public review, as
have the individual criteria guidance documents. The methodologies have also been reviewed by EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB) of external experts. While some of the methodologies that the EPA relied
on in reaching this decision may be 20 years old, based on data and information considered over the years,
EPA considers the science underpinning those recommendations to still be sound.
The goals of the CWA in section 101(a)(3) state that, "it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic
pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited." In the California Toxics Rule (CTR), 65 Fed. Reg. 31,682
(page 31,683) (May 18, 2000), the EPA reaffirmed that in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the
Act, toxic pollutants must be controlled. Adopting scientifically defensible water quality standards for
toxics establishes water quality goals for State and EPA programs, including providing a precise basis for
developing water quality -based effluent limits for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting under section 402 of the Act; monitoring, assessment, development of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs); protecting coastal water quality improvement; protecting aquatic
ecosystems and human health; and providing endpoints for nonpoint source controls and overall
ecological protection. See 65 Fed. Reg. (page 31683). In addition, these standards will be used in other
applications such as the State's authority to review federal permits under section 401 of the Act and
reviews under the section 404(b)(1) guidelines. North Carolina's action fulfills the statutory requirement
under section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA.
In particular, the EPA notes that for the first time, the DWR will have scientifically defensible criteria in
place for all purposes under the Act for copper, hexavalent chromium, silver and zinc. Additionally, the
value for lead, previously almost twenty times higher than recommended, will be consistent with national
recommendations. Similarly, the State will now have updated criteria for cadmium in trout waters and
nickel consistent with national recommendations. ,The EPA also supports the added provision to the
State's new metal criteria to use the dissolved fraction and to allow the inclusion of water effect ratios
directly into the criteria for metals.
The EPA welcomed the opportunity to work with the DWR to address those areas where the State sought
to tailor its WQS to conditions within the state rather than to adopt the EPA Section 304(a) national
recommendations, as allowed under 40 C.F.R. 131.11. Specifically, the EPA is approving DWR's
alternate chronic and acute cadmium criteria for non -trout waters, the removal of iron criteria for aquatic
life protection, and the removal of manganese as an organoleptic criteria for waters designated as water
supply (WS). The EPA notes that protections will remain in place for all parameters through the use of a
narrative water quality standard. Each of these provisions are being approved today as detailed below.
The new and revised WQSs that EPA is approving today are now the applicable water quality standards
for all purposes under the CWA, including but not limited to monitoring, assessment, and NPDES
permitting. Water quality criteria are intended to protect the designated use (40 C.F.R. 131. 2 and 131.11).
Further, 40 C.F.R. 131.2 clarifies that state WQS are to:
2

"...protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the
Clean Water Act (the Act). "Serve the purposes of the Act" (as defined in section 101(a)(2) and
303(c) of the Act) means that water quality standards should, wherever attainable, provide water
quality for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the
water, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes including navigation.
Such standards serve the dual purposes of establishing the water quality goals for a specific water
body and serve as the regulatory basis for the establishment of water -quality -based treatment
controls and strategies beyond the technology -based levels of treatment required by sections
301(b) and 306 of the Act."
Throughout this triennial review, the EPA has repeatedly and clearly articulated to North Carolina, both
verbally and in writing, the Agency's position that certain proposed WQS could not be approved if
submitted to the EPA. Consistent with that position and the EPA's publicly available record, the EPA is
disapproving the sections of the DWR's water quality standards allowing alternative approaches for the
implementation of the newly approved toxics criteria for some purposes under the Act. Specifically, the
"biological confirmation" for assessment and the "action levels" for NPDES permitting are disapproved
for all purposes under the Act. The State has now adopted separate, more stringent numeric criteria that
are approved for all purposes under the CWA and must be implemented in NPDES permits as required by
the EPA's national permitting regulations and monitoring and assessment programs. The State's separate
"biological confirmation" and "action levels" provisions are not protective of the designated uses. In
addition, the EPA communicated its concern with the use of a median instream hardness when calculating
hardness dependent metals criteria, another provision designed to allow an alternative approach in
NPDES permitting for implementing the State's toxics criteria, because median hardness does not protect
designated uses in all waters. EPA also communicated its concern that the State has not demonstrated that
the low end hardness cap provision protects designated uses of waters with a hardness below the cap.
Therefore, the EPA is also disapproving the median hardness and low end hardness cap WQS.
Finally, numerous changes were made to the structure and formatting of the WQS and each of those
changes were reviewed. Where those did not result in substantive changes to the WQS, the EPA is
approving the revisions as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The
EPA notes, however, that its approval of these non -substantive changes does not re -open the EPA's prior
approval of the underlying substantive WQSs. Where the revisions were a substantive change to WQS,
the EPA reviewed and made individual decisions regarding those changes as detailed below. Where the
revisions were not considered changes to WQS, the Agency did not take action, as noted below.
During this triennial, the State also provided an opportunity to accept comments on and conducted a
review of the variances to water quality standards for Evergreen Paper Products, Mount Olive Pickle
Company and Bay Valley Foods. The EPA continues to work with the State on the ongoing review of
these water quality standards variances as noted below.
North Carolinashould be extremely proud of these revisions to its WQS and the technical expertise
demonstrated by its staff and management in the completion of this extended review. Each of the DWR's
WQS revisions is addressed in detail below along with the EPA's analysis and decision.
3

15A NCAC 02B .0200 Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters
and Wetlands
Throughout the Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands
section .0200, several editorial revisions were made replacing commonly used terms with synonymous
terms. For example, the word "which" was changed to "that." These revisions do not alter the meaning or
intent of the previously approved corresponding provisions as they are considered editorial. A copy of the
revised WQS with these changes highlighted in yellow is provided in Appendix A: Non -Substantive
Word Changes. The EPA approves the non -substantive word change revisions in Appendix A as being
consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its
approval of these non -substantive changes does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying
substantive WQSs.
15A NCAC 02B .0206 Flow Design Criteria for Effluent Limitations
Subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a)(3) was amended to add:
f3) Toxic substance standards to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity shall be protected using
the 1 Q10 flow.
In the EPA's Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation. Book IV: Design
Conditions, Chapter 1 (EPA 1986a), the EPA discusses and recommends two methods for determining
design flows for calculating effluent limits, the hydrologically -based method and the biologically -based
method. Those design flows should be used to calculate both the Criterion Continuous Concentration
(CCC, the 4-day average concentration of a pollutant that should not be exceeded more than once every
three years on the average also known as the `chronic' toxicity) and Criterion Maximum Concentration
(CMC, the one hour average concentration in ambient water that should not be exceeded more than once
every three years on average, also known as the `acute' toxicity). The EPA recommends the use of the
1Q10 flow as the hydrologically -based design flow for the CMC and the 7Q10 as the hydrologically -
based design flow for the CCC. The North Carolina WQS already includes a provision for the 7Q10
design flow for chronic toxicity (15A NCAC 02B .0206 (a)(2)). This revision adds the 1Q10 flow that
will now be applicable for the new acute criteria that are being adopted during this triennial. Note: in this
context the flow values that are listed are solely to be used for the calculation of water quality based
effluent limitations as discussed under 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a). They do not indicate or refer to in any
manner setting actual instream flows.
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the EPA's Guidance, the EPA concludes
that this change to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0206 is consistent with the CWA section 303(c), 40
C.F.R. sections 131.11 and 131.13, and the EPA's guidance on stream design flows that are protective of
aquatic life. This change is protective of the designated use. Therefore, this change is approved by the
EPA under CWA section 303(c).
4

15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
General paragraph and Subparagraphs (1) through (10)
The following revisions were made to the General opening paragraph and subparagraphs (1) through (10)
of Section 15A NCAC 02B .0211.
General. The water quality standards for all fresh surface waters aye shall be the basic standards
applicable to all Class C waters.
and temperature. Water quality standards for temperature and numerical water quality standards
for the protection of human health applicable to all fresh surface waters are in Rule .0208 of this
Section.
The language regarding the reference to Rule .0208 was changed in this paragraph. The applicability of
Rule .0208 to freshwaters of North Carolina has not been changed, nor has the content of Rule .0208 been
changed. The EPA has reviewed this change and determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the
EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations.
The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's
prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
The General paragraph was also modified as follows:
Additional and more stringent standards applicable to other specific freshwater classifications are
specified in Rules. .0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, .0217, .0218, .0219, .0223, .0224 and .0225 of this
Section.
Subparagraph .0217 was repealed with an effective date of January 1, 1988. There are no provisions under
that Rule. Therefore, reference to that Rule has been removed. The EPA has reviewed this change and
determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent
with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this
non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
The following sentence was added as the final sentence to the general paragraph:
Action levels for purposes of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting are specified in Item (22) of this Rule.
The EPA has reviewed this change and determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA
approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The
EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior
approval of the underlying substantive WQSs. For the substantive discussion of the EPA's decision
regarding revisions to action levels in fresh surface waters, see page 28.
The following subparagraphs were renumbered for alphanumeric reordering only:
(1) Best Usage of Waters
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage
(4) Chlorophyll a (corrected)
(6) Dissolved Oxygen
(8) Floating Solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits
5

(10) Gases, total dissolved.
There were no other changes to these standards except for the numbering. The EPA has reviewed these
changes and determined that they are non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves these revisions as
being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that
this approval of these non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying
substantive WQSs.
Subparagraph (3) was amended as follows:
(3) Quality standards applicable tell fresh surface waters:
This sentence came before all of the criteria in the old format prior to the alphabetical reorganization of
the WQS. The State indicated that this sentence was found to be redundant with the information in the
General paragraph. The General paragraph listed just above this states that the WQS "...for all fresh
surface waters are the basic standards applicable to Class C waters." 15A NCAC 02B .0101 General
Procedures provides a definition for Class C waters which includes that "Class C: freshwaters protected
for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. All
freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a minimum. " The EPA has reviewed this change
and determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent
with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this
non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
New subparagraph (3) was created:
f3) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l;
This revision moves chlorine from its previous location at Rule .0211(3)(1)(iv) without revision in order to
alphabetize the criteria. The EPA has reviewed this change and determined that it is non -substantive and
therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing
regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open
the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
New subparagraph (5) was created:
f5) Cyanide, total: 5.0 ug/L;
The new paragraph moves cyanide from its previous location at Rule .0211(3)(1)(vi) and retains the same
numeric value. Therefore, this revision is a non -substantive change to WQSs and the EPA approves the
revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes,
however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the
underlying substantive WQSs.
However, the original cyanide criterion included the following language after the numeric criteria that is
no longer included, "...unless site -specific criteria are developed based upon the aquatic life at the site
utilizing The Recalculation Procedure in Appendix B of Appendix L in the Environmental Protection
Agency's Water Quality Standards Handbook hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent
amendments." That language is struck out in the original location and not carried over to the new
criterion's location.
6

States are not required to utilize the site -specific procedures, therefore the EPA concludes that this change
to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(a)(5) is consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R.
section 131.11. Therefore, this change is approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c). North Carolina
notes that the site -specific criterion for cyanide has never been used since its original adoption. According
to the state, Rule .0226 Exemptions from Surface Water Quality Standards, may be modified in the next
triennial to include reference to the Handbook procedures that will allow the State to develop site -specific
criteria. Until such time, the language allowing the use of the site -specific criteria has been removed and
cannot be used for CWA purposes.
New paragraph (7) was added to move the criteria for fecal coliform into alphabetical order.
(7) Fecal conform:
The fecal coliform criteria was previously Rule .0211(3)(e) and included the language "Organisms of the
conform group:" in front of the criteria. Those introductory words have been replaced with the words
"Fecal coliform:." No other changes were made to the criteria. The EPA has reviewed this change and
determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent
with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this
non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
New paragraph (9) was added to move the criterion for fluorides from Rule .0211(3)(1)(vii) in order to
alphabetize the criteria, as follows:
(9) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l;
The numeric value of the criterion did not change. The EPA has reviewed this change and determined that
it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and
the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive
change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph (11)(a)
A new subparagraph under 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(a) has been added as follows:
(11) Metals:
(a) With the exception of mercury and selenium, freshwater aquatic life standards for metals shall
be based upon measurement of the dissolved fraction of the metal. Mercury and selenium
water quality standards shall be based upon measurement of the total recoverable metal.
The DWR did not adopt updated criteria for mercury or selenium, leaving in place the previous values
which are based on the total recoverable metal. Therefore, the reference to those parameters in the first
sentence is a non -substantive change to standards. The EPA approves the revision as being consistent
with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this
non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
The EPA's most current national recommended water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life include
the recommendation that fresh and salt water criteria for metals (including specifically arsenic, cadmium,,
7

chromium III, chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc) be expressed in terms of the dissolved
metal in the water column (EPA 1993). The EPA further stated in this guidance that "[t]he use of
dissolved metal to set and measure compliance with water quality standards is the recommended
approach, because dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the
water column than does total recoverable metal."
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA
concludes that this change to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(a) is consistent with the CWA section
303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. Therefore, this change is approved by the EPA under CWA section
303(c).
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph (11)(b)
A new subparagraph 11(b) was added as follows that adds and revises criteria for non -hardness dependent
metals and includes the ability to conduct a water effect ratio (WER) as follows:
(11) Metals:
fb) Freshwater metals standards that are not hardness -dependent shall be as follows:
(i) Arsenic, dissolved, acute: WER. 340 ug/l;
(ii) Arsenic, dissolved, chronic: WER. 150 ug/l;
(iii) Beryllium, dissolved, acute: WER. 65 ug/l;
(iv) Beryllium, dissolved chronic: WER. 6.5 ug/l;
(v) Chromium VI, dissolved, acute: WER. 16 ug/l;
(vi) Chromium VI, dissolved_, chronic: WER. 11 ug/1;
(vii) Mercury, total recoverable, chronic: 0.012 ug/l;
(viii) Selenium, total recoverable, chronic: 5 ug/l;
(ix) Silver, dissolved, chronic: WER• 0.06 ug/l;
With the adoption of these criteria under 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b), North Carolina's water quality
criteria for non -hardness dependent metals, listed above, are consistent with the EPA's most current
national recommended water quality criteria or derived using an EPA recommended approach as detailed
below.
Arsenic
In this revision, North Carolina adopted the EPA's most recent national recommendation of 340 ug/1 as an
acute criterion for arsenic in freshwater. This is the first time that North Carolina has had an acute
criterion for arsenic.
The State revised its chronic freshwater criterion for arsenic to adopt the EPA's most current
recommended value of 150 ug/1 replacing the previous State criterion of 50 ug/1 (EPA 1995). The State
noted in its adoption of this value that, "[c]urrent arsenic water quality standards designed for the
protection of human health in all waters of the state remains at 10 ug/1, measured as total recoverable
arsenic. The DWR maintains this protective standard which is equivalent to the current National Drinking
Water standard." 40 C.F.R. section 131.11 states, "[f]or waters with multiple use designations, the criteria
shall support the most sensitive use." In this instance, the human health value of 10 ug/1 would be the
criteria supporting the most sensitive use applicable to all waters of the State.
8

Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the changes to subsections 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b)(i) and (ii) protect North
Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R.
section 131.11. These changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
Beryllium
In this revision, North Carolina adopted an acute criterion for beryllium in freshwater of 65 ug/1. This is
the first time that the State has adopted an acute value for beryllium. In 1980, the EPA concluded that an
acute freshwater criterion could not be calculated due to a limited toxicity data base (EPA 1980a).
Therefore, the EPA does not have an acute water quality recommendation for beryllium. The 1980 EPA
report did note that acute toxicity could occur at concentrations as low as 130 ug/1. North Carolina used
the acute data from the 1980 report and derived its acute freshwater criterion in a manner that is consistent
with the EPA's 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection Of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses ("1985 Guidelines," EPA 1985).
North Carolina's methodology for deriving acute criteria for beryllium is scientifically defensible and
results in values that protect North Carolina's aquatic life use. The EPA concludes that the change to
subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b)(iii) is consistent with the CWA and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11.
Therefore, this change is approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
The State is maintaining its chronic freshwater criterion for beryllium of 6.5 ug/1. For alphabetizing
purposes the chronic beryllium criterion was moved from 15A NCAC 02B .021(3)(1)(ii) to 15A NCAC
02B .0211(11)(b)(iv), which is a non -substantive change to standards and therefore the EPA approves the
revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes,
however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the
underlying substantive WQSs.
Chromium VI
Before these revisions, North Carolina did not have criteria for chromium III or chromium VI, instead
having a single chronic value for total recoverable chromium of 50 ug/1. In this Rule, North Carolina is
adopting the EPA's national recommended criteria for chromium VI of 16 ug/1 (acute) and 11 ug/1
(chronic) (EPA 1995).
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the changes to subsections 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b)(v) and (vi) protect North
Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R.
section 131.11. These changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
Mercury and Selenium
The EPA notes that the numeric values for both mercury and selenium were not changed during this
triennial review. The numeric criterion for mercury was moved from 15A NCAC 02B .021(3)(1)(ix) to
15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b)(vii) for alphabetizing purposes only. The numeric criterion for selenium
was moved from 15A NCAC 02B .021(3)(1)(xiii) to 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b)(viii) for alphabetizing
purposes only. As the numeric value did not change for either of these criteria, the EPA determined that it
is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the
9

EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive
change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
Silver
In this revision, North Carolina is adopting a chronic water quality criterion for silver of 0.06 ug/1 in
subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b)(ix) of this Rule. Currently, the EPA does not have a national
recommended chronic criteria for silver. The State calculated this criterion using the lowest LC50 for total
recoverable silver of 1.2 ug/1 and multiplying it by a safety factor of 0.05. These calculations are
consistent with previously approved procedures for the calculation of toxics criteria for the protection of
aquatic life under subsection 15A NCAC .0208 (a)(1) Standards for Toxic Substances and Temperature.
North Carolina's methodology for deriving chronic criteria for silver is scientifically defensible and
results in values that protect North Carolina's aquatic life use. The EPA concludes that the change to
subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b)(ix) protects North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, is
consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. This change is approved by the
EPA under CWA section 303(c).
The above changes are summarized in the table below for ease of reference.
Metal (all
values are
dissolved)
NCDWR's
Previous
Criteria
(ug/1)
NCDWR
New/Revised
Criteria
(ug/1)
EPA's
Recommended
Criteria
(ug/1)
EPA's
Reference for
Recommended
Criteria
Arsenic (acute)
--
340
340
EPA 1995
Arsenic
(chronic)
50 ug/1
150
150
Beryllium
(acute)
--
65
--
N/A
Beryllium
(chronic)
6.5
6.5
--
Chromium VI
(acute)
--
16
16
EPA 1995
Chromium VI
(chronic)
--
11
11
Silver (chronic)
0.06 Action
Level only
0.06
--
N/A
Water Effect Ratios
The following was added underneath the non -hardness dependent criteria in Subparagraph 11(b):
With the exception of mercury and selenium, acute and chronic freshwater aquatic life
standards for metals listed in this Subparagraph apply to the dissolved form of the metal and
apply as a function of the pollutant's water effect ratio (WER). A WER expresses the
difference between the measures of the toxicity of a substance in laboratory waters and the
toxicity in site water. The WER shall be assigned a value equal to one unless any person
demonstrates to the Division's satisfaction in a permit proceeding that another value is
developed in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition"
10

published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-823-B-12-002), free of charge,
at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook, hereby incorporated by
reference including any subsequent amendments. Alternative site -specific standards may
also be developed when any person submits values that demonstrate to the Commissions'
satisfaction that they were derived in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards
Handbook: Second Edition, Recalculation Procedure or the Resident Species Procedure",
hereby incorporated by reference including subsequent amendments at
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/. This material is available
free of charge.
This provision allows the use of a WER directly for each of the above non -hardness dependent metals
(criteria x WER). The DWR provides the citation for the EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook,
incorporated by reference including any amendments ("WQS Handbook," EPA 2014). Within the WQS
Handbook, Appendix L, Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for Metals
("WER Guidance", EPA 1994a), including the transmittal memo, "Use of the Water -Effect Ratio in
Water Quality Standards (EPA 1994b), provides specific details on the applicability of WERs and how to
develop WERs for site -specific criteria for metals. The WER guidance notes that one of the options under
40 C.F.R. 131.11 (b)(1) allows states to establish criteria based on 304(a) Guidance modified to reflect
site -specific conditions. The WER transmittal memo notes that site -specific criteria are subject to EPA
review and approval/disapproval under section 303(c) of the CWA. The two options allowed for this
review are:
Option 1: A state may derive and submit each individual water -effect ratio determination to EPA for
review and approval.
Option 2: A State can amend its water quality standards to provide a formal procedure with includes
derivation of water -effects ratios, appropriate definition of sites, and enforceable monitoring provisions
to assure that designated uses are protected. Both this procedure and the resulting criteria would be
subject to full public participation requirements. Public review of a site -specific criterion could be
accomplished in conjunction with the public review required for permit reissuance. EPA would review
and approve/disapprove this protocol as a revised standard once. For public information, we recommend
that once a year the State publish a list of site -specific criteria.
By referencing the procedures in the WQS Handbook, which includes the WER Guidance and the WER
transmittal memo, the DWR has chosen to proceed with Option 2, adopting the EPA's protocol and all
associated procedures to conduct WERs. The requirements for public review of a WER will be
incorporated through the permit process. The State has chosen to include a WER of 1 in the WQS, which
the EPA considers a "rebuttable presumption until a site -specific WER is derived." National Toxics Rule
(NTR), 57 Fed. Reg. (page 60,866) (December 22, 1992). The WER Transmittal memo emphasizes that
"... although a water -effect ratio affects permit limits for individual dischargers, it is the State in all cases
that determines if derivation of a site -specific criterion based on the water -effect ratio is allowed and it is
the State that ensures that the calculations and data analysis are done completely and correctly." The EPA
strongly recommends that the first WERs developed by the State are reviewed in the study plan phase by
the EPA to ensure that WERs that are developed meet the required procedures. The EPA looks forward to
working with the State to ensure a quick review of the study plans.
This section also allows for alternative site -specific standards to be developed using the Recalculation
Procedure or the Resident Species Procedure in accordance with the WQS Handbook In deriving site -
specific criteria, the Recalculation Procedure (found at Appendix A of Appendix L of the WQS
11

Handbook) takes into account the differences in sensitivities between the species used in the national
dataset in developing the national recommended criteria and the organisms at the site. The Resident
Species Analysis (see Chapter 3.7 - Developing Site -Specific Criteria of the WQS Handbook) accounts
for that difference as well as the difference between the toxicity of the metal in lab water versus site water
similar to a WER. Chapter 3.6 - Policy on Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals was updated to also include
procedures to conduct a Streamlined Water -Effects Ratio Procedure for the Discharge of Copper that may
be used.
The EPA concludes that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b) to add the use of a WER
and to include a WER multiplier in each of the criteria is consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40
C.F.R. section 131.11. Therefore, these changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
The following provision was added at the end of this subparagraph:
Hardness -dependent freshwater metals standards are located in Sub -Item (c) and (d) and in Table A:
Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals;
The EPA has reviewed this change and determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA
approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The
EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior
approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph (11)(c)(i)
A new subsection 11(c)(i) was added as follows:
(11) Metals:
(c) Hardness -dependent freshwater metals standards shall be as follows:
(i)
Hardness -dependent metals standards shall be derived using the equations specked in
Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals. If the
actual instream hardness (expressed as CaCO3 or Ca+Mg) is less than 25
milligrams/liter (mg/l), standards shall be calculated based upon 25 mg/1 hardness. If
the actual instream hardness is greater than 25 mg/1 and less than 400 mg/l, standards
shall be calculated based upon the actual instream hardness. If the instream hardness
is greater than 400 mg/l, the maximum applicable hardness shall be 400 mg/l;
Section 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(c)(i) identifies the hardness value to be used in the newly adopted
hardness based equations found in Table A (located after 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(d) Alternatives). As
stated in the CTR, the EPA has found that "hardness and/or other water quality characteristics that are
usually correlated to hardness can reduce or increase the toxicities of some metals. Hardness is used as a
surrogate for a number of water characteristics which affect the toxicity of metals in a variety of ways."
See 65 Fed. Reg. (page 31692). The relationship between hardness and toxicity is inversely proportional,
that is, as the hardness increases, the toxicity is reduced. Therefore, the EPA's national recommended
criteria for some metals (cadmium, chromium III, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc) are expressed as
hardness based equations in order to most accurately reflect the site -specific toxicity of those metals.
12

As noted in letters' to the DWR, the EPA strongly supports the use of the nationally recommended
hardness based equations for the derivation of criteria for hardness dependent metals. Using these
equations should assure that the water quality standards are not underprotective in low hardness waters
(setting criteria that are too high) or overprotective in high hardness waters (setting criteria that are too
low). It is important that the correct hardness be used in those equations to ensure that the criteria are
derived appropriately. This new section states in part that the hardness dependent standards shall be
derived using the equations and that, "standards shall be calculated based upon the actual instream
hardness." (Emphasis added). The EPA reads this section to state that the hardness to be used in the
equation to derive the standard is based upon the actual instream hardness up to 400. This is consistent
with the EPA's approach, where for instance, in the CTR, the EPA stated that the criteria should be
calculated "using the actual ambient hardness of the surface water."
Low end Hardness Cap
This section also includes a provision that states "If the actual instream hardness (expressed as CaCO3 or
Ca+Mg) is less than 25 milligrams/liter (mg/1), standards shall be calculated based upon 25 mg/1
hardness." This low end hardness "cap" for calculating criteria is not consistent with current EPA
published recommendations. EPA published an update to the national recommended water quality criteria
in 2002 that included the hardness dependent metals (EPA 2002). The EPA did not include a minimum
hardness cutoff. Further, where the EPA has promulgated hardness based equations in the past such as in
the CTR, a low end hardness cap was not included. In that rule, the EPA directly addressed this issue
stating, "[I]n the past, EPA generally recommended that 25 mg/1 as CaCO3 be used as a default hardness
value in deriving freshwater aquatic life criteria for metals when the ambient (or actual) hardness value is
below 25 mg/1 as CaCO3. However, use of the approach results in criteria that may not be fully
protective. Therefore, for waters with a hardness of less than 25 mg/1 as CaCO3, criteria should be
calculated using the actual ambient hardness of the surface water."
North Carolina's 2015 adoption of a low end hardness cap is not consistent with EPA guidance, even with
the State's application of a WER if deemed necessary for additional protection. The State did not provide
adequate scientific justification to support its adoption of the cap as an alternative approach to EPA's
recommendation. In its summary, the State cited EPA's 2002 Guidance stating toxicity data are somewhat
limited below hardness of 25 mg/1, resulting in inconclusive data, and a hardness floor may not be fully
protective. The EPA's Guidance states "Capping hardness at 25 mg/L without additional data or
justification may result in criteria that provide less protection than that intended by EPA's Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
Uses. Therefore, EPA now recommends that hardness not be capped at 25 mg/L, or any other hardness on
the low end." North Carolina is concerned that use of actual ambient hardness in waters where hardness is
below 25 mg/1 may be overly protective. However, the State has not presented additional data or
justification, demonstrating that designated uses would be protected if standards are calculated based upon
25 mg/1 hardness in waters with a hardness less than 25 mg/L. Without such supporting justification,
North Carolina's methodology for deriving a low end hardness cap is not scientifically defensible and the
EPA cannot determine whether the cap would protect designated uses. The EPA concludes that the
changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(c)(i) providing a low end hardness cap are not
consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. sections 131.6 and 131.11, and cannot be approved
I See Appendix B, EPA letters to DWR dated April 30, 2009, August 20, 2010, and January 3, 2014 and emails to DWR on
August 22, 2014 and August 25, 2014.
13

as a protective water quality standard. Therefore, the EPA is disapproving the low end hardness cap
changes under CWA section 303(c). The approved provision reads:
(11) Metals:
(d) Hardness -dependent freshwater metals standards shall be as follows:
(i)
Hardness -dependent metals standards shall be derived using the equations specified in
Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals. If the
actual instream hardness (expressed as CaCO3 or Ca+Mg) is less than 25
milligrams/litcr (mil), standards shall be ealculated wed upon 25 mg/l hardnc,,s. If
less than 400 mg/l, standards
shall be calculated based upon the actual instream hardness. If the instream hardness
is greater than 400 mg/l, the maximum applicable hardness shall be 400 mg/l;
The EPA recommends that the State delete the low end hardness cap language to match the approved
provision above during the next triennial review.
High End Hardness Cap
This section includes the provision, "If the instream hardness is greater than 400 mg/l, the maximum
applicable hardness shall be 400 mg/l", which is consistent with published EPA recommendations that
state, "[a]t high hardness there is an indication that hardness and related inorganic water quality
characteristics do not have as much of an effect on toxicity of metals as they do at lower hardnesses.
Related water quality characteristics do not correlate as well at high hardnesses." The EPA recommends
that for hardness over 400 mg/1 as CaCO3 calculation of a criterion with a default WER of 1.0 should
provide the protection intended in the 1985 Guidelines. See 57 Fed. Reg. (page 60,916). The EPA does
note that "capping hardness at 400 mg/1 might result in a level of protection that is higher than that
intended by the 1985 guidelines, but any such increase in the level of protection can be overcome by use
of the WER procedure." Id. As DWR is adding in the WER procedures in this rulemaking, the state will
have the ability to ensure that the proper level of protection is ensured in waters with high hardness.
The EPA concludes that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(c)(i) providing a high end
hardness cap are consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. Therefore, these
changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph (11)(c)(ii)
A new subsection 11(c)(ii) was added as follows:
(11) Metals:
(c)(ii) Hardness -dependent metals in NPDESpermitting: for NPDESpermitting purposes,
application of the equations in Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent
Metals shall have hardness values (expressed as CaCO3 or Ca+Mg) established using the median
of instream hardness data collected within the local US Geological Survey (USGS) and Natural
Resources Conservation Service INRCS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit (HU). The minimum applicable
instream hardness shall be 25 mg/l and the maximum applicable instream hardness shall be 400
14

mg/l, even when the actual median instream hardness is less than 25 mg/l and greater than 400
mg/l;
As stated above, the EPA approved for all purposes under the CWA the use of the actnal instream
hardness for calculating the appropriate water quality criteria when using the equations in Table A, except
for hardness above 400 mg/1 CaCO3. The newly adopted provision in this subparagraph adds an alternate
method for choosing the hardness value to be used when calculating permit limits for NPDES permits
under Section 402 of the CWA.
The DWR stated that this section was adopted to ensure that a set value was used for deriving permit
limits that did not vary from day-to-day. Use of the median of instream hardness data collected using the
8-digit Hydrologic Unit (HU) where a facility was located was intended to provide a uniform
measurement of hardness both for deriving the permit limit and for determining compliance. The DWR
was concerned that the use of the actual instream hardness could also be unduly influenced by effluent
which could have higher hardness than the receiving waters, resulting in a metal criterion that would not
be protective of downstream waters. North Carolina's evaluation also took into account elevated instream
hardness from stormwater run-off in urban centers, which they state has been found to be inconsistent
with "unimpacted upstream or downstream hardness values."
However, subpart 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(c)(ii), in effect, creates an alternate criteria for permitting
purposes from 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(c)(i). The EPA regulations found at 40 C.F.R. 131.2 states that
water quality standards define "the water quality goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by designating
the use or uses to be made of the water and by setting criteria necessary to protect the uses...and serve the
purposes of the Clean Water Act." Those references goals include all section 101(a)(2) goals, such as
ensuring that waters are fishable/swimmable. 40 C.F.R. 131.2 states that "[s]uch standards serve the dual
purposes of establishing the water quality goals for a specific water body and serve as the regulatory basis
for the establishment of water quality based treatment controls and strategies beyond the tech -based levels
of treatment required by section 301(b) and 306 of the Act" (emphasis added). Section 15A NCAC O2B
.0211(11)(c)(ii) results in alternative metals effluent limitations for purposes of permitting that are
inconsistent with North Carolina's newly established metals criteria and are inconsistent with the water
quality standards regulations.
North Carolina has discussed the challenges associated with determining the proper instream hardness
values, but has not provided a scientifically defensible justification for the use of the median hardness.
Use of the median, by definition, ensures that the hardness value is too high (not protective enough) for
half of the facilities and too low (needlessly overprotective) for half the facilities. The size of the 8-digit
HUs is such that it could cross ecoregions or subecoregions and include a wide range of hardness values,
as demonstrated by the data provided by the State. The purpose of the hardness dependent criteria is to
reflect conditions in waters at or near a facility and derive criteria that protect designated uses in those
waters. North Carolina has not demonstrated that use of the median hardness will protect designated uses.
The EPA NPDES permitting program will work with North Carolina to ensure that the hardness
procedures used for implementation will address North Carolina's concerns. For instance, the EPA
recommends that hardness samples be collected in the receiving stream upstream and away from the
influence of the effluent as discussed in the CTR and those recommendations could be part of the
implementation procedures for permitting. The EPA notes that typically these types of provisions are
considered through NPDES permitting implementation procedures and should not be included as a WQS.
The EPA concludes that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(c)(ii) are not protective of
designated uses and, therefore, are not consistent with the CWA section 303(c) or 40 C.F.R. section
131.11. Therefore, these changes are not approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c). The EPA
15

notes in disapproving this section that provisions for determining hardness to use in the hardness based
equations shall be conducted using the approved provisions under 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(c)(i). The
EPA recommends that the State delete the entire provision for median hardness in NPDES permitting
during the next triennial review.
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph (11)(d)
New subparagraph (11)(d) was added as follows to allow for the use of WERs for the metals listed in
Table A:
(d) Alternatives:
Acute and chronic freshwater aquatic life standards for metals listed in Table A apply to the
dissolved form of the metal and apply as a function of the pollutant's water effect ratio
(WER), which is set forth in Sub -Item (b). Alternative site -specific standards may also be
developed as set forth in Sub -Item (b);
As discussed in the review of the use of WERs under subparagraph .0211(11)(b), the use of WERs is
consistent with the EPA's policy and guidance. The discussion in that section's review are incorporated
into the review of this section by reference. For the same reasons set out in that section, the EPA
concludes that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(d) to add in the use of a WER and to
include a xl multiplier in each of the criteria for the criteria in Table A is consistent with the CWA
section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. Therefore, these changes are approved by the EPA under
CWA section 303(c). The EPA strongly recommends that the first WERs developed by the State are
reviewed in the study plan phase by the EPA to ensure that WERs that are developed meet the required
procedures. The EPA looks forward to working with the State to ensure a quick review of the study plans.
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Table A under .0211(d)
A new table, Table A, was added to this section for new or revised criteria for hardness dependent metals:
Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
Numeric standards calculated at 25 me hardness are listed below for illustrative purposes. The
Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under Sub -Item (d) of this
rule.
Metal
Equations for Hardness -Dependent Freshwater Metals (ug/l)
Standard
at 25 mg/l
hardness
Cadmium, Acute
WER• ff1.136672-fin hardnessl(0.041838)) • e^{0.9151 fin
0.82
hardnessl-3.1485}]
Cadmium, Acute,
WER• ff1.136672-fln hardnessl(0.041838)} • e^(0.9151 fln
0.51
Trout waters
hardnessl-3.6236} 1
Cadmium, Chronic
WER• f1.101672-fin hardnessl(0.041838)} • e^{0.7998fin
0.15
hardness]-4. 4451,1
Chromium III, Acute
WER. [0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}1
180
Chromium III Chronic
WER' [0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}]
24
16

Copper, Acute
WER• [0.960 • e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}]
3.6
Or
NA
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria -Copper
2007 Revision
Copper, Chronic
WER• [0.960 • e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}]
2.7
Or
NA
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria -Copper
2007 Revision
(EPA-822-R-07-001)
Lead,
WER• [{1.46203-fln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln
14
Acute
hardness]-1.460} J
Lead, Chronic
WER• [{1.46203-fln hardnessJ(0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln
0.54
hardness1-4.705)]
Nickel, Acute
WER• [0.998 • e^{0.8460fln hardness]+2.255}Z
140
Nickel, Chronic
WER• [ 0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness)+0.0584}J
16
Silver, Acute
WER• [ 0.85 • e^{.1. 72[ln hardness]-6.59}]
0.30
Zinc, Acute
WER• [0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}]
36
Zinc, Chronic
WER• f 0.986 • e^{0.8473f1n hardness]+0.884}Z
36
Note: For ease of review, this evaluation will be separated into two sections: Cadmium and other metals.
Hardness based equations for all metals except cadmium
The EPA commends the DWR for adopting the hardness based equations for metals to bring them in line
with the EPA's national recommended criteria. Use of the equations, rather than the previously used
default number at a set hardness, aligns North Carolina's criteria with the national recommended criteria.
The equations were developed to most accurately identify the biologically available fraction available for
uptake by organisms and therefore most likely to cause a toxic effect to aquatic life. With the exception
of cadmium, discussed in more detail below, each of the hardness based equations in Table A is consistent
with the national recommended equations and the values for the metal specific variables.
Freshwater Conversion Factors and
Parameters for Calculating Freshwater Dissolved Metals Criteria that Are Hardness -Dependent
Chemical
mA
bA
mC
bC
Freshwater Conversion
Factor: CMC
Freshwater Conversion
Factor: CCC
Cadmium
1.0166
-3.924
0.7409
-4.719
1.136672-
[(lnhardness)(0.04183 8)]
1.101672-
[(lnhardness)(0.04183 8)]
Chromium
III
0.8190
3.7256
0.8190
0.6848
0.316
0.860
Copper
0.9422
-1.700
0.8545
-1.702
0.960
0.960
Lead
1.273
-1.460
1.273
-4.705
1.46203-
[(lnhardness)(0.145712)]
1.46203-
[(lnhardness)(0.145712)]
Nickel
0.8460
2.255
0.8460
0.0584
0.998
0.997
Silver
1.72
-6.59
--
--
0.85
--
Zinc
0.8473
0.884
0.8473
0.884
0.978
0.986
17

Chromium III
Prior to these revisions, North Carolina did not have criteria for chromium III or chromium VI, instead
having a single chronic value for total recoverable chromium of 50 ug/1. In this Rule, North Carolina is
adopting the EPA's national recommended criteria for chromium III which are expressed as hardness
based equations:
Acute: WER• [0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}] = 180 ug/1 when calculated at 25 CaCO3
Chronic: WER• [0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}] = 24 ug/1 when calculated at 25 CaCO3
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) Table A for acute and chronic
chromium III criteria protect North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with the
CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. These changes are approved by the EPA under CWA
section 303(c).
Copper
In this triennial, North Carolina has adopted in Table A the Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality
Criteria —Copper 2007 Revision (EPA 2007) for calculating acute and chronic freshwater copper values
using the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM). The BLM uses receiving water body characteristics to develop
site -specific water quality criteria using the best available science to determine the bioavailability of
copper. The BLM will require ten parameters to be put into the model, including temperature, pH,
dissolved organic carbon, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, sulfate, chloride, and alkalinity rather
than just the hardness required for the hardness based equation.
North Carolina determined that the BLM was not often practical to implement when resources or data
were not available for the collection or use of all ten parameters and therefore caveated the adoption to
note that it will be used where sufficient data are available. On February 16, 2016, the EPA made
available its Draft Technical Support Document: Recommended Estimates for Missing Water Quality
Parameters for Application in EPA's Biotic Ligand Model (EPA 2016). The EPA recommends North
Carolina review the document and consider its use when developing site -specific copper criteria.
When sufficient data are not available, North Carolina has chosen to use the EPA's previously published
hardness based equation for copper in order to ensure state wide implementation of copper criteria. These
EPA equations were derived in EPA's "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria — Correction"
(EPA 1999). The DWR notes that this criteria document is a modification of previously published 304(a)
aquatic life that was issued in the "1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Document for the Protection of
Aquatic Life in Ambient Water" (EPA 1995) adopted and approved by all other Region 4 state water
quality standards programs. North Carolina also notes that the EPA derived these equations using Great
Lakes Initiative Guidelines 60 Fed. Reg. 15,393-15,399, (March 23, 1995); also found in 40 C.F.R. 132,
Appendix A. Both the BLM and the hardness based equation were derived based on the principles in the
1985 Guidelines.
The hardness based equation is as follows:
Acute: WER• [0.960 • e^{0.9422[1n hardness]-1.700}] = 3.6 ug/1 calculated at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
Chronic: WER• [0.960 • e^{0.8545[1n hardness]-1.702}] = 2.7 ug/1 calculated at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
18

Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the acute and chronic copper criteria in subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) Table A
protect North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with section 303(c) of the CWA
and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11(b)(1)(i). These changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section
303(c) for all purposes under the CWA.
Lead
The numeric criterion for lead was moved from 15A NCAC 02B .021(3)(1)(viii) to 15A NCAC 02B
.0211(11)(d) Table A for alphabetizing purposes. The criteria for lead were also significantly revised from
a total recoverable chronic value of 25 ug/1 to the EPA's national recommended hardness based equations
as follows:
Acute: WER• [{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{ 1.273 [ln hardness]-1.460}] = 14 at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
Chronic: WER• [{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}] = 0.54 at 25 mg/1
CaCO3
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) Table A for acute and chronic lead
criteria protect North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with the CWA section
303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. These changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
Nickel
The numeric criterion for nickel was moved from 15A NCAC 02B .0211(3)(1)(x) to 15A NCAC 02B
.0211(11)(d) Table A for alphabetizing purposes. The criteria for nickel were also revised from a total
recoverable chronic value of 88 ug/1 to the EPA's national recommended hardness based equations as
follows:
Acute: WER• [0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}] = 140 ug/1 at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
Chronic: WER• [0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}] = 16 ug/1 at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) Table A for acute and chronic
nickel criteria protect North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with the CWA
section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. These changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section
303(c).
Silver
In this revision, North Carolina is adding an acute criterion for silver that is derived based on the EPA's
national recommended hardness based equation:
Acute: WER• [0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}] = 30 ug/1 at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the change to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) Table A for acute silver criteria
19

protects North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, is consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and
40 C.F.R. section 131.11. Therefore, this change is approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
Zinc
North Carolina has revised its previous water quality standard for zinc from a chronic value of 50 ug/1 to
the dissolved acute and chronic values expressed by the EPA's national recommended hardness
dependent equations:
Acute: WER• [0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}] = 36 ug/1 calculated at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
Chronic: WER• [0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}] = 36 ug/1 calculated at 25 mg/1 CaCO3
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the zinc criteria in subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) Table A protect North Carolina's
aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with section 303(c) of the CWA and 40 C.F.R. section
131.11(b)(1)(i). These changes are approved by the EPA under section 303(c) for all purposes under the
CWA.
Using the equations above for hardness dependent metals (other than cadmium), EPA compared North
Carolina's new metals criteria to the EPA's recommended criteria, calculating all values for a default
hardness of 25 mg CaCO3 to facilitate comparison. Each individual criteria adopted by North Carolina is
at least as stringent as the EPA's national recommendations.'
Comparison of Table A Hardness Dependent Metals with
EPA's National Recommended Criteria
Metal (all values are
dissolved)
NCDWR's
Criteria
calculated
at a
hardness
of
25 (ug/l)
EPA's National
Recommended
criteria
calculated at a
hardness of 25
(ug/1)
EPA's Most Current Published
Update
Chromium III (acute)
180
183.07
EPA 1995
EPA 1999
Chromium III (chronic)
24
23.81
Copper (acute)
3.6
3.6
EPA 2007
EPA 1999
Copper (chronic)
2.7
2.7
Lead (acute)
14
13.88
EPA 1984
Lead (chronic)
0.54
0.54
Nickel (acute)
140
144.92
EPA 1999
Nickel (chronic)
16
16
Silver (acute)
0.30
0.3
EPA 1980
Zinc (acute)
36
36
EPA 1999
Zinc (chronic)
36
36
2 The slight differences in criteria levels shown in the chart is due to how the State and the EPA rounded results of calculations.
20

Hardness Based Equations for Cadmium
Prior to this revision, North Carolina had a chronic value of 0.4 ug/1 for total cadmium in trout waters and
2.0 ug/1 for total cadmium in non -trout waters found at 15A NCAC 02B .0211(3)(1)(iii). The revised water
quality criteria for acute and chronic cadmium have been moved alphabetically into 15A NCAC 02B
.0211 Table A. The new criteria are hardness based equations for the calculation of acute dissolved
cadmium for non -trout and trout waters and a single chronic value for all waters.
The equations that North Carolina adopted did not use the variables that are recommended in the EPA's
most recent recommendations resulting in criteria that differ from the national recommended criteria as
indicated in the Table below.
Comparison of Table A Hardness Dependent Metals with
EPA's National Recommended Criteria for Cadmium
Metal (all values are
dissolved)
Previous
NCDWR
criteria
NCDWR's
Criteria
calculated at a
hardness of 25
(ug/I)
EPA's National
Recommended criteria
calculated at a hardness
of 25 (ug/1)
Most current
EPA National
Recommended
Value
Cadmium (acute)
--
0.82
0.52
EPA 2001
Cadmium (acute,
trout waters)
--
0.51
0.52
Cadmium (chronic)
0.4 ug/1 trout
waters
2.0 ug/1 non -
trout waters.
0.15
0.09
The EPA's national recommended water quality criteria for cadmium were published in 2001 using the
following equations:
CMC (dissolved) = (CF) exp{mA [/n(hardness)] + bA}
CCC (dissolved) = (CF) exp{mc [/n(hardness)] + bc}
The DWR modified those equations to use different variables from the recommended hardness criteria as
shown in table below:
Hardness -based
Equation Variable
MA (acute)
bA (acute)
MC (chronic)
bc (chronic)
EPA Recommended
Variables for
calculating cadmium
criteria
1.0166
-3.924
0.7409
-4.719
Variables used by NC
to calculate criteria
0.9151 (non -trout)
0.9151 (trout)
-3.1485 (non -trout)
3.6236 (trout)
0.7998
-4.4451
21

These modifications result in the following adopted equations for cadmium with the criteria shown
calculated at 25 mg/1 CaCO3.
Acute: WER• [{ 1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}] = 0.82
Acute (trout): WER• [{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.6236}] = 0.51
Chronic: WER• [1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451 }] = 0.15
North Carolina used the option under Section 131.11(b)(ii) that allows states to establish numerical
standards by modifying Section 304(a) Guidance to reflect site -specific conditions. According to the
DWR's justification, the State relied upon a study by Chadwick Ecological Consultants (CEC) that
calculated alternative cold and warm water acute and chronic criteria for cadmium. Those values were
adopted by the State of Colorado (effective date 1/1/2007) and approved by EPA Region 8. In Region 8's
approval of those criteria, Region 8 stated:
EPA has reviewed the technical information supporting the revised table values. The Region notes
that CEC applied the "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and their Uses" (EPA, 1985) in deriving the revised table
values. The Region also notes that the differences between the CEC-derived table values and the
CWA Section 304(a) criteria are partly attributable to CEC's use of a larger, more current
database. Finally, the Region notes that the differences between the CEC-derived table values and
the CWA Section 304(a) criteria are small relative to the uncertainties in both analyses.
Accordingly, the Region has determined that: (I) the revised acute and chronic table value
standards for cadmium were derived using scientifically -defensible methods, (2) the resulting
table values generally are appropriate for the protection of Colorado's aquatic life classifications,
and (3) the revisions are consistent with federal requirements at 40 C.F.R. 131.11. Accordingly,
the revisions are approved today, subject to ESA consultation.
Region 4 has determined that the CEC report relied on by the State represents the latest compilation of
cadmium toxicity data available, consistent with Region 8's determination cited above. Region 4's
findings are consistent with the scientific findings of Region 8 cited above and, additionally, Region 4
finds that the resulting values derived by North Carolina protect the State's aquatic life classifications.
Region 4 concludes that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(d) to add the revised
criteria in Table A for cadmium are consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section
131.11. Therefore, these changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c) for all purposes
under the Act.
15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(e) Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
A new subsection regarding monitoring for metals was added as follows:
(11) Metals:
(e) Compliance with acute instream metals standards shall only be evaluated usinzan average of
two or more samples collected within one hour. Compliance with chronic instream metals
standards shall only be evaluated using- averages ofa minimum of four samples taken on 5
consecutive days, or as a 96-hour average;
22

After review of this new provision, the EPA has concluded that it is not a new or revised water quality
standard and is therefore taking no action on this provision. This provision does not establish or change a
level of protection related to the magnitude, duration, or frequency of water quality criteria nor establish
designated uses or antidegradation requirements. Rather, this provision describes the sufficiency or
reliability of information necessary for the State to decide whether a water attains or does not attain a
water quality standard for purposes of establishing TMDLs under section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Act. As
such, this provision is not a water quality standard but is a methodology under section 303(d) of the Act.
See 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6). While this provision was not reviewed by EPA as a new or revised water
quality standard, it may be considered by the EPA in reviewing lists of impaired waters submitted by the
State under Section 303(d) of the CWA. The decision to not review this provision in no way confers
agreement with the use of the provision for making attainment decisions.
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph (11)(f)
A new subsection relating to biological confirmation for the assessment of metals was added as follows:
(f) Metals criteria shall be used for proactive environmental management. An instream
exceedence of the numeric criterion for metals shall not be considered to have caused an
adverse impact to the instream aquatic community without biological confirmation and a
comparison of all available monitoring data and applicable water quality standards. This
weight of evidence evaluation shall take into account data quality and the overall confidence
in how representative the samplingis of conditions in the waterbody segment before an
assessment of aquatic life use attainment, or non -attainment, shall be made by the Division.
Recognizing the synergistic and antagonistic complexities of other water quality variables on
the actual toxicity of metals, with the exception of mercury and selenium, biological
monitoring will be used to validate, by direct measurement, whether or not the aquatic life use
is supported;
As the EPA has advised the DWR on multiple occasions, including directly addressing this provision in
writing on multiple occasions, the EPA has a long history of not supporting biological confirmation for
toxics assessment.3 The EPA views biological criteria as one component of a comprehensive water quality
standards program that works in concert with — not in place of — the use of water quality criteria for toxics
as detailed further below.
North Carolina is adopting criteria for metals which will bring its water quality standards program in -line
with other Region 4 states and EPA's national recommended criteria. These revisions are significant
because chemical specific numeric criteria are a vital component of the CWA program for protection of
the nation's waters for both assessment and permitting. The EPA has stated that "chemical specific
assessments are ideal for predicting the likelihood of ecological impacts where they may not yet have
occurred because...critical exposure conditions have not yet been experienced by the aquatic
community." It further states that "Basing regulatory and management decisions on chemical assessment
of water quality is an important and proven aspect of water quality assessment and protection" Water
Quality Standards Regulation; Proposed Rule 63 Fed. Reg. (page 36,796) (July 7, 1998). Therefore, once
3 See Appendix B, letters from the EPA to DWR dated August 10th, 2010, and January 3, 2014 and emails to DWR on August
22, 2014 and August 25, 2014.
23

criteria are established, assessment for purposes of listing under section 303(d) of the CWA and for
permitting under the NPDES program must be based on all applicable water quality criteria.
In contrast, the EPA has stated that, "...while biological assessments can provide information in
determining the cumulative effect of past or current impacts from multiple stressors, these assessments
may be limited in their ability to predict, and therefore prevent, impacts" (emphasis added.) In fact, once
biological impairment has been found, by definition, that impact was not prevented and costs for
determining the cause and source and needed restoration can be prohibitive. 63 Fed. Register page 36,795.
The EPA has discussed how results of different tools should be reconciled should they indicate different
outcomes, such as passing a biological assessment while exceeding a chemical criteria. "Where biological
impact is not detected using biological assessment methods, it is possible that impairment that is projected
and plausible, may simply have not yet occurred....EPA's view is that it would be inappropriate to ignore
projected impairment simply because the impairment has not yet been observed in the environment" See
63 Fed. Reg. (page 36,801).
Section 101(a) of the CWA directly states the goal that the biological integrity of the Nation's waters be
maintained, specifically stating the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts
be prohibited in order to maintain biological integrity. To meet that goal, 40 C.F.R. 131.11 provides that
criteria for toxics be established at levels that protect designated uses, that is, at levels that prevent
impairment of waters. It is not protective to defer action until biological impairment has already occurred.
Furthermore, the EPA notes that DWR has adopted as part of this triennial review the use of the dissolved
fraction of the toxics criteria, the hardness based equation for the hardness dependent metals and the BLM
for copper criteria. Each of these provisions were done to more accurately derive and use criteria that are
reflective of the biologically available fraction of the metals.
Finally, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) commented4 on this provision during the public
comment period. In addition to all of the EPA's stated objections, the FWS pointed out an additional flaw
in this provision — the biological monitoring conducted by DWR does not include testing for those species
that are most sensitive to toxic effects, including mussels, cladocerons and snails. Therefore North
Carolina's biological monitoring is not representative of the impacts to all species that may be the most
sensitive to the toxics subject to the new metals criteria adopted by the State during this triennial review.
The EPA has determined that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(f) do not protect
North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are not consistent with the CWA section 303(c) or its
implementing regulations found at 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. Therefore, these changes are disapproved by
the EPA under CWA section 303(c). With today's disapproval of this section, the new water quality
criteria for metals as approved shall be used for all purposes under the Act, including for purposes of
monitoring and assessment. The EPA recommends that the State delete the entire biological confirmation
provision during the next triennial review.
4 See Appendix C. letters from the US FWS to NC DENR dated, January 3, 2014, and August 22, 2014.
24

15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph 13 - 20
The following parameters were moved in order to alphabetize the state water quality criteria:
(13) Pesticides:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(g)
(h)
(i)
r)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(g)-(14) pH:
9.0
Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/1;
Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
Lindane: 0.01 u�•
Methoxychlor • 0.03 ug/l;
Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
Parathion: 0.013 [weld ug/l; and
Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l;
shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and
except. that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural
conditions;
(11}(15) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fishflesh- tainting or impairment
of other best usage;
(16) Polychlorinated biphenyls (total of all PCBs and congeners identified): 0.001 ug/l;
(i)(17) Radioactive substances:
(i).(a) Combined radium-226 and radium-228: the maximum average annual activity level
(based on at least one sample collected per quarter) r am,, es lcct d quartcrly'
for combined radium226 and radium228 shall not exceed five -picoCuries- per liter;
(ii)(b) Alpha Emitters: the average annual gross alpha particle activity (including
radium226, but excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picoCuries- per
liter;
(iii)Cc2 Beta Emitters: the maximum average annual activity level (based on at least one
sample collected per quarter) four samples, collected quarterly) for strontium90
shall not exceed eight picoCuries- per liter; nor shall the average annual gross beta
particle activity (excluding potassium-40 and other naturally occurring
radio nuclides) radionuclides) exceed 50 picoCuries per liter; nor shall the
maximum average annual activity level for tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per
liter;
19)-(18) Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees F) above the natural water
temperature, and in no case to exceed 29 degrees C (84.2 degrees F) for mountain and upper
piedmont waters and 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F) for lower piedmont and coastal plain
Waters; the temperature for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5 degrees C
(0.9 degrees F) due to the discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20 degrees
C (68 degrees F);
(19) Toluene: 11 ug/1 or 0.36 ug/1 in trout classified waters;
(20) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.07 ug/l expressed as tributyltin;
25

(k}(21) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes lakes,
or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout
waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; f turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural
background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. Compliance with
this turbidity standard can be met when land management activities employ Best
Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section] recommended by
the Designated Nonpoint Source Agency [as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section]. BMPs
must —shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation, eperatiern-operation, and maintenance of such BMPs;
The EPA has reviewed the revision and since the numeric values of the above listed criteria did not
change, they are non -substantive. Therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the
CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -
substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
Subparagraph (1)
The following language was removed from previously existing 15A NCAC 02B .0211(3)(1) where it had
served as the introductory language to all metals criteria as well as criteria for other toxics (chlorine,
cyanide flourides, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, toluene and trialkyltin compounds). After
alphabetizing the criteria, the metals and toxics criteria are no longer together in one section, therefore,
the State removed the following introductory language.
protection of human health applicable to all fresh surface •...t . �, in Rule .0208 of this
life applicable to all fresh surface waters:
The "General" paragraph listed at the beginning of 15A NCAC 02B .0211 now serves as the introductory
paragraph to this section which applies to all metals and toxics criteria. The "General" paragraph states
that the WQS "...for all fresh surface waters are the basic standards applicable to Class C waters." 15A
NCAC 02B .0101 General Procedures provides a definition for Class C waters which includes that Class
C waters are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation
and survival, and wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a minimum. " EPA
has reviewed this change and determined that it is non -substantive. The EPA approves the revision as
being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that
its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying
substantive WQSs.
The following sections were removed from this subparagraph as follows:
(i) Arsenic: 50 ug/l;
{ii) Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l;
on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations unless
appropriate studies have been conducted to trate total recoverable
26

metals to a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators
mustt be designed according to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook
Second Edition" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
823 B 94 005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a
Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823 B 96 007) which are hereby
incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments. Thc
Director shall consider conformance to EPA guidance as well as thc
presence of environmental conditions that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the use of metal translators;
(iv) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l;
{v) Chromium, total recoverable: 50 ug/l;
{vi) Cyanide, 5.0 ug/l, unless site specific criteria arc developed based upon the
aquatic life at the site utilizing The Recalculation Procedure in Appendix B
of Appendix L in the Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality
Standards Handbook hereby incorporated by rcfcrencc including any
subsequent amcndmcnts;
(vii) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l;
(viii) Lcad, total recoverable: 25 ug/l, collection of data on sources, transport and
fatc of lead shall be required as part of the toxicity reduction evaluation for
requirements and thc concentration of lead in the effluent is concomitantly
determined to exceed an instream level of 3.1 ug/l from the discharge;
(ix) Mercury: 0.012 ug/l;
(x) Nickel: 88 ug/l, attainment of these water quality standards in surface waters
shall be based on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations
unless appropriate studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable
metals to a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators
must be dcsigncd according to the "W�rtcr Quality Standards Handbook
Second Edition" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
823 B 94 005a) or "Thc Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a
Total Recoverable Permit Limit Freer a Dissolved Criterion" published by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823 B 96 007) which arc hereby
incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments. Thc
Director shall consider conformance to EPA guidance as well as the
presence of environmental eenditions that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the use of metal translators;
(xi) Pesticides:
(A) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(B) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(F) Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/l;
(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
{I) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
(J) Lindanc: 0.01 ug/l;
(K) Mcthoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
27

(L) Mircx: 0.001 ug/l;
(M) Parathion: 0.013 ug/l;
(N) Toxaphcnc: 0.0002 ug/l;
(xii) Polychlorinated biphenyls: (tonal of all PCBs and congeners identified}
0.001 ug/l;
(xiii) Selenium: 5 ug/l;
(xiv) Toluene: H ug/1 er 0.36 ug/l in trout waters;
(xv) Trialkyltin eempounds: 0.07 ug/1 expressed as tributyltin;
The struck provisions for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel have been replaced by
new criteria as noted above. The remaining numeric values in this section were moved to other sections as
previously noted. As the criteria are not changed, the EPA determined that these changes are non -
substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the
EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive
change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
15A NCAC 02B .0211(22) Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
North Carolina has had a provision in place to allow the use of action levels for copper, iron, silver, zinc
and chloride rather than using water quality criteria for all purposes under the CWA. Under North
Carolina's WQS, action levels are numerical water quality standards except for NPDES permitting. For
NPDES permitting purposes, a facility would need reasonable potential to exceed a water quality criteria
(or in this case, the action level), and must fail a Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) test prior to receiving a
limit in its NPDES permit. If a facility had reasonable potential for a parameter, such as copper or zinc,
but passed a WET test, the facility would not be required to limit or control the parameter in its permit.
Therefore, a facility may cause or contribute to an exceedance of an action level parameter and pass a
WET test thereby not controlling for the action level parameters in its permit.
A subsection relating to action levels was revised to change the values for copper, silver and zinc, remove
iron and remove the language that states that action levels are considered water quality standards. Each of
the revisions are addressed individually below:
(4)(22) Action Levels for Toxic Substances: Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits:
(a) Copper: 7 ug/1; Copper, dissolved, chronic: 2.7 ug/1;
(b) Iron: 1.0 mg/l;
(c) Silver: Silver, dissolved, chronic: 0.06 ug/1;
(d) Zinc -:-Zinc, dissolved, chronic: 50 ug/l; afug/l,] ug/1; and
(e) Chloride: 230 mg/l;
The hardness -dependent freshwater action levels for Copper and Zinc, copper and zinc,
provided here for illustrative purposes, corresponds to a hardness of 25 mg/l. Copper and
[] zinc action level values for other instream hardness values shall be calculated per
the chronic equations specified in Item (11) of this Rule and in Table A: Dissolved
Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals. If the Action Levels action levels for
any of the substances listed in this StragraphItem (which are generally not
bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to aquatic life because of chemical form,
solubility, stream characteristics or associated waste characteristics) are determined by the
waste load allocation to be exceeded in a receiving water by a discharge under the specified
low -flow 7010 criterion for toxic substances (Rule .0206 in this Section* substances, the
discharger shall monitor the chemical or biological effects of the discharge; efforts shall be
28

made by all dischargers to reduce or eliminate these substances from their effluents. Those
substances for which Action Levels action levels are listed in this Subparagraphltem shall
be limited as appropriate in the NPDES permit based on the Action Levels listed in this
Subparagraph if sufficient information (to be determined for metals by measurements of that
portion of the dissolved instream concentration of the Action Levels action levels parameter
attributable to a specific NPDES permitted discharge) exists to indicate that any of those
substances may be a causative factor resulting in toxicity of the effluent. NPDES permit
limits may be based on translation of the toxic form to tetal recoverable metals. Studies
used to determine the toxic form er translators must be designed according to "Water
Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823 B 94 005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total
Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental
including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to EPA
guidance as well as the presence of envirenmcntal conditions that limit the applicability of
translators in approving thc use of metal translators.
For purposes other than consideraien of ANPDES permitting of point source discharges as
described in this Subparagraph, thc Action Levels in this Rule, as measured by an
appropriate analytical technique, per 15A NCAC 02B .0103(a), shall be considered as
numerical instream water quality standards.
Removal of the Action Level for Iron
North Carolina has removed the action level for iron and has not replaced that value with a new or revised
numeric water quality criterion. DWR proposed this revision and worked with the EPA in the scientific
review and development of a justification that demonstrates that iron occurs at naturally high levels in
some areas of the state, often above the value of 1 mg/1 that is being removed. The EPA Region 4
conducted an independent evaluation of the State's findings and supports the removal of the iron criterion
because iron occurs at naturally high levels. DWR has agreed that in order to protect the designated use
for any potential impairment determined to be caused by iron (for instance, from mining operations or
increased iron in the tailwaters below dams), the State will rely upon the existing narrative WQS at 15A
NCAC .0211(12), "[o]ils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not
render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or
adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses."
The EPA has determined that the change to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(22) to remove the iron
criterion protects North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, is consistent with the CWA section
303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. The change is approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c) for
all purposes under the Act.
Revision to Copper, Silver and Zinc as an Action Level
As the EPA has advised the DWR on multiple occasions, the EPA does not support North Carolina's
continued use of action levels, and directly addressed this provision in multiple letters to DWR.5 The EPA
reiterates its previous comments. The EPA's section 304(a) criteria were developed to take into account
site specific factors such as solubility and chemical form in determining the biologically available fraction
5 See Appendix B. EPA letters to DWR dated April 30, 2009, August 20, 2010, and January 3, 2014 and emails to DWR on
August 22, 2014 and August 25, 2014.
29

available for uptake by biological organisms and, therefore, the fraction most likely to cause a toxic
effect. The use of the dissolved fraction and the use of the hardness -based equations for hardness
dependent metals, such as copper and zinc, further addressed variability caused by stream characteristics.
Hardness is used as a surrogate for a number of water quality characteristics, which affect the toxicity of
metals in a variety of ways. See 65 Fed. Reg. (page 31,692). North Carolina's adoption of the hardness
dependent equations negates the need for the continued use of action levels as the criteria equations
address issues related to protection of downstream waters and brings North Carolina in -line with the
criteria used in surrounding states. This is particularly true as North Carolina is adopting the procedures
for the use of the Biotic Ligand Model for copper as well as including a reference for EPA approved site -
specific criteria development, such as WERs, under 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(b).
North Carolina's action level requirements, set forth above, provide that NPDES limits shall be set for
metals if information exists to indicate that a particular substance may be a causative factor resulting in
the toxicity of the effluent. 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(i) states that limits must be put in place to control
pollutants which may be discharged at a level "which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard." This regulation does not indicate that
the effluent must be the sole cause of toxicity before the parameter should be limited. The provision states
that the pollutant should be limited under NPDES if it could cause or if it could contribute to a water
quality standards excursion. This requirement is significant because there may often be multiple sources
of pollutants in receiving waters, from non -point source run-off, from point sources and from storm water.
No one facility or source may be the sole cause of the impairment, but rather multiple discharges
contribute to the toxicity and excursion of water quality standards. That is, a facility could contribute to an
impairment while also passing a WET test. Therefore, when a point source discharges zinc levels with a
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedance of the State's zinc criteria, the permit must
include effluent limitations as stringent as necessary to achieve the WQS.
The Region recognizes that North Carolina has a strong WET testing program. WET testing can be
"effective for controlling discharges containing multiple pollutants. It can also provide a method for
addressing synergistic and antagonistic effects on aquatic life" from multiple pollutants. See 63 Fed. Reg.
(page 36,768). However, where criteria exist to directly control toxic pollutants, those criteria should be
used to limit the discharge of pollutants. WET should be used to address those instances where criteria
may not be available to limit toxicity. The EPA has explained that states can reconcile biological data,
such as WET, with `reasonable potential' analysis and concludes "EPA would not support a radical shift
away from chemical criteria and limits or toxicity criteria and limits. Those tools are simply too important
as proven tools for assessing potential impact to surface waters and improving water quality." See 63 Fed.
Reg. (page 36,802). If needed, an effort should be made to refine the applicable criteria, through WERs
and other tools, to ensure that appropriate criteria be developed for each facility. It is not protective,
however, and is not consistent with EPA's permitting regulations, to defer permit limitations once there is
reasonable potential to exceed a water quality criteria.
The State now has approved copper, silver and zinc criteria applicable for all purposes under the CWA in
15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) in place of the action levels, which were applicable only for NPDES
permitting. The EPA concludes that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(22) do not protect
North Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are not consistent with the CWA section 303(c) or its
implementing regulations found at 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. The changes to (22)(a), (c), and (d) and the
added language to the narrative following (22)(e) are disapproved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
The deletions of the narrative language below (22)(e) at the end of the provision are approved by the EPA
under CWA section 303(c) as consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. The
EPA notes in disapproving this section that no new standards are required to be promulgated in its place
30

and the new water quality criteria for metals as approved in 15A NCAC 02B .0211(11) shall be used for
all purposes under the Act.
The EPA's disapproval of the revisions to the action level provision means that the previously approved
action levels are applicable WQS under the CWA, per the Alaska Rule.6 However, the State's newly
adopted and approved metals criteria are also applicable WQS under the CWA and, therefore, must also
be implemented in all CWA programs, including the NPDES permitting program. The EPA's permitting
regulations at 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(A) require that effluent limitations be derived from and comply
with all applicable water quality standards. Where the State has two applicable water quality standards
addressing the same or similar parameters, permit limitations based on those WQS must protect the more
stringent criteria. Based on EPA's understanding of the permitting provisions in North Carolina's action
level section, effluent limitations derived to comply with the new metals criteria in 15A NCAC 02B
.0211(11) will likely be more stringent than limitations derived to comply with the action level provision.
The EPA recommends that the State delete the entire action level section during the next triennial review.
Action Level for Chloride
Chloride remains the only parameter in the action levels provision for which there is not an associated
criterion in Table A or elsewhere in the State water quality standards. Prior to this revision, the following
language applied to the action levels,
"For purposes other than consideration of NPDES permitting of point source discharges as
described in this Subparagraph, the Action Levels in this Rule, as measured by an appropriate
analytical technique, per 15A NCAC 02B .0103(a), shall be considered as numerical instream
water quality standards."
This language, which was removed from the revised action level provision, was previously added by the
State to clarify that the State intended the action level values to be standards for all other CWA purposes
besides permitting. In this triennial review, the State adopted numeric water quality criteria for all
purposes under the CWA, as water quality standards. The adoption of numeric criteria for all other action
level parameters clarifies their use as WQS. The numeric value for chloride still remains and the EPA
anticipates that the State will continue using the chloride action level as a WQS for all other purposes
under the CWA. The EPA's position is that the chloride action level is still a WQS for all other purposes
than permitting even with the sentence above deleted. The EPA notes that with this section 303(c)
decision, the only remaining action level is chloride. Therefore, the EPA strongly recommends that North
Carolina adopt chloride as a numeric water quality criterion for all purposes under the CWA and remove
the Action Level section from the water quality standards.
6 The Alaska Rule states that water quality standards adopted by states and authorized tribes on or after May 30, 2000 must be
approved by the EPA before they can be used as the basis for actions, such as establishing water quality -based effluent
limitations or TMDLs, under the CWA.
31

15A NCAC 02B .0212 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-I Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0214 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-II Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0215 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-III Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0216 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-IV Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0218 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-V Waters
Section (h) of each of the five WS designated use classifications was revised as follows:
(h) Toxic and other deleterious substances:
(i) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect human
health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for
noncarcinogens- in Class WS-V waters:
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l;
(B) Chloride: 250 mg/l;
(C) Manganese: 200 ug/l;
(D)[Q Nickel: 25 ug/l;
(),(DDT Nitrate nitrogen: 10 mg/l;
(F)g2 2, 4-D: 100 ug/l; 70 ug/l;
Manganese
The DWR conducted a review of the effects of manganese on human health and taste and odor
(organoleptic effects) in WS waters. As part of that evaluation, the State reviewed stream and
groundwater data on how often manganese occurs in State waters. The DWR initiated this review
because the State's monitoring data often showed levels of manganese that were higher than the State's
criterion of 200 ug/1. The results of the review found studies that show high concentrations of naturally
occurring manganese in both state surface water and groundwater. For example, a United States
Geological Survey (USGS 1992) study indicated concentrations of manganese ranged from "less than 10
to 380 ug/1..." and that "...many mean concentrations of total manganese in stream water exceeded
recommended limits..." A second USGS paper found a range of 30-640 ug/1 manganese in the French
Broad River and noted that the "geology of the region is the primary cause for these high...manganese
concentrations." (USGS 1982)
In considering whether or not to remove the ambient water quality criterion for manganese from WS
waters, the State reviewed the EPA recommendations both under the CWA and the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). The EPA's currently recommended criterion for manganese under the CWA in freshwater
is 50 ug/L. This value is not based on toxic effects, but rather is intended to minimize objectionable
quality such as laundry stains and objectionable tastes in beverages (EPA 1986a). North Carolina's WS
designated waters are considered safe for drinking, culinary, and food -processing purposes "following
treatment required by. the Division of Environmental Health" and "shall meet the Maximum Contaminant
Level concentrations...which are specified in the national drinking water regulations and in the North
Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500." There is currently no
recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for manganese in treated drinking water under the
SDWA, however, there is a Secondary MCL of 50 ug/L, established as a guideline for public water
systems in managing drinking water systems for taste and odor. The DWR's review concluded that the
Secondary MCL, "could be used by water suppliers, if ever warranted, to protect users from objectionable
taste and/or staining of laundry." The EPA notes that a health advisory was published for manganese in
drinking water of 50 mg/L, as well, which should also be evaluated by North Carolina (EPA 2004). The
EPA has noted that it may update the currently recommended ambient water quality criterion for
32

freshwater manganese at some time in the future. NC has stated that they will review and consider the
new recommendations once published.
After reviewing the EPA's recommendations under the CWA and the SDWA and its own data on
manganese, the State concluded that there was "no evidence to conclude that discharges of manganese
will impact any designed uses of NC's waters." In addition, the DWR has indicated that existing
narrative criteria will be used to protect water supplies from any deleterious effects from manganese. The
applicable criterion at 15A NCAC 02B .0211(12) states,
"Oils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the
waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the water for any designated uses..."
The EPA has determined that North Carolina's WS uses will continue to be protected considering the
changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0212(h), 15A NCAC 02B .0214(h), 15A NCAC 02B .0215(h),
15A NCAC 02B .0216(h) and 15A NCAC 02B .0218(h) to remove the numeric criteria for manganese,
since the State has committed to use the narrative criterion at 15A NCAC 02B .0211(12) as needed to
address deleterious impacts of manganese. Therefore, these changes are consistent with the CWA section
303(c) and the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. section 131.11 and are approved by the EPA under
CWA section 303(c).
2, 4 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4 D)
The DWR revised its 2, 4 D criterion for WS uses to update it with the most recently published reference
dose information from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. This resulted in a revision of the
criterion from 100 ug/1 to 70 ug/1.
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0212(h), 15A NCAC 02B .0214(h), 15A
NCAC 02B .0215(h), 15A NCAC 02B .0216(h) and 15A NCAC 02B .0218(h) to update the criterion for
2, 4 D will protect North Carolina's WS uses and, therefore, are consistent with the CWA section 303(c)
and the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. These changes are approved by the EPA
under CWA section 303(c).
Many portions of this section were also modified for clarification, grammar, and reorganization. The EPA
has reviewed these revisions and determined that they are non -substantive and, therefore, the EPA
approves the revisions as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The
EPA notes, however, that its approval of these non -substantive changes does not re -open the EPA's prior
approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
15A NCAC 02B .0220 Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SC Waters
General paragraph and Subparagraphs (1) through (6)
The following revisions were made to the General opening paragraph and Sections (1) through (9) of
Section 15A NCAC 02B .0220.
General. The water quality standards for all tidal salt waters shall be the basic standards
applicable to Class SC waters. Additional and more stringent standards applicable to other
specific tidal salt water classifications are specified in Rules .0221 and .0222 of this Section.
33

Action Levels, for purposes of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting, are specified in Item (20) of this Rule.
The new sentence added as the final sentence to the general paragraph references the use of action levels.
The EPA has reviewed this change and determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA
approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The
EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior
approval of the underlying substantive WQSs. For the substantive discussion of the EPA's decision
regarding revisions to action levels in tidal salt waters, see page 42.
The following subparagraphs were renumbered for alphanumeric reordering only:
(3) Chlorophyll a
(5) Dissolved oxygen
(7) Floating solids, settleable solids or sludge deposits
(8) Gases, total dissolved
(12) pH
(13) Phenolic compounds
(15) Radioactive substances
(16) Salinity
(17) Temperature
The EPA has reviewed these changes and determined that they are non -substantive and therefore, the EPA
approves these revisions as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The
EPA notes, however, that this approval of these non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior
approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
The following sentence came before all of the criteria in the old format prior to the alphabetical
reorganization of the WQS.
The State indicated that this sentence was found to be redundant with the information in the General
paragraph of this rule. The General paragraph listed just above this states that "The water quality
standards for all tidal salt waters shall be the basic standards applicable to Class SC waters." 15A
NCAC 02B .0101 General Procedures provides a defmition for Class SC waters which includes that
"Class SC: saltwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and
survival, and wildlife. All saliwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a minimum. " The removal
of this sentence does not change or revise the state WQS. The EPA has reviewed this change and
determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent
with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this
non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
New subparagraph (4) was created:
(4) Cyanide: 1 ug/l;
The new paragraph moves cyanide from its previous location at Rule .0220(m)(iv) and retains the same
numeric value. Therefore, this revision is a non -substantive change to WQSs and the EPA approves the
34

revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes,
however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the
underlying substantive WQSs.
New subparagraph (6) was created to move the bacteria criteria into alphabetical order. This section also
includes the strike -out as noted below. The state indicated that this language was found to be redundant
and not needed. The EPA concurs that all provisions in these Rules are in accordance with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and that the specific reference in this paragraph is not a substantive change to
the criteria. The EPA has reviewed this change and determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the
EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations.
The EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's
prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
(6) Enterococcus, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus
avium and Enterococcus gallinarium: not to exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci
per 100 ml based upon a minimum of five samples within any consecutive 30 days. [I
accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1313 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) for]Forpurposes
of beach monitoring and notification, "Coastal Recreational Waters Monitoring,
Evaluation and Notification" regulations (15A NCAC 18A .3400), available free of charge
at: http://www.ncoah.com/, are hereby incorporated by reference including any
subsequent amendments;
(c) Entcrococcus, including Enterococcus faccalis, Enterococcus faecium, Entcrococcus
accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1313 (Federal Watcr Pollution Control Act) for purposes of
and Notification" regulations (15A NCAC 18A .3100) are hereby incorporated by
reference including any subsequent amendments;
15A NCAC 02B .0220 Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SC Waters
Subparagraphs (9)
19) Metals:
(a) With the exception of mercury and selenium, tidal salt water quality standards for
metals shall be based upon measurement of the dissolved fraction of the metals.
Mercury and selenium shall be based upon measurement of the total recoverable
metal;
The EPA's most current national recommended water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life
includes the recommendation that fresh and salt water criteria for metals (including specifically arsenic,
cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc) be expressed in terms of the
dissolved metal in the water column. In 1993, the EPA provided additional guidance on the use of the
dissolved fraction of metals stating that, "[t]he use of dissolved metal to set and measure compliance with
water quality standards is the recommended approach, because dissolved metal more closely
approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal"
(EPA 1993).
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that this change to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0220(9)(a) protects North Carolina's aquatic
35

life use and, therefore, is consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. This
change is approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).
The DWR is not currently adopting updated salt water criteria for mercury or selenium, leaving in place
the previous values which are based on the total recoverable metal in the second sentence of paragraph
(a). Therefore, the reference to those parameters is a non -substantive change to standards and the EPA
approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The
EPA notes, however, that its approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior
approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
The following new provision was added in subparagraph (9)(b):
(b) Compliance with acute instream metals standards shall only be evaluated using an average of
two or more samples collected within one hour. Compliance with chronic instream metals
standards shall only be evaluated using averages of a minimum of four samples taken on
consecutive days, or as a 96-hour average;
After review of this new provision, the EPA has concluded that it is not a new or revised water quality
standard and is therefore taking no action on this provision. This provision does not establish or change a
level of protection related to the magnitude, duration, or frequency of water quality criteria nor establish
designated uses. Rather, this provision describes the sufficiency or reliability of information necessary for
the State to decide whether a water attains or does not attain a water quality standard for purposes of
establishing TMDLs under section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Act. As such, this provision is not a water quality
standard but is a methodology under section 303(d) of the Act. See 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6). While the
provision was not reviewed by EPA as a new or revised water quality standard, it may be considered by
EPA in reviewing lists of impaired waters submitted by the State under Section 303(d) of the CWA. The
decision to not review this provision in no way confers agreement with the use of the provision for
making attainment decisions.
The following new subparagraph was added under (9)(c).
(c)
Metals criteria shall be used for proactive environmental management. An instream
exceedence of the numeric criterion for metals shall not be considered to have caused an
adverse impact to the aquatic community without biological confirmation and a comparison of
all available monitoring data and applicable water quality standards. This weight of evidence
evaluation shall take into account data quality and the overall confidence in how
representative the sampling is of conditions in the waterbody segment before an assessment of
aquatic life use attainment, or non -attainment, is made by the Division. Recognizing the
synergistic and antagonistic complexities of other water quality variables on the actual
toxicity of metals, with the exception of mercury and selenium, biological monitoring shall be
used to validate, by direct measurement, whether or not the aquatic life use is supported.
As detailed more fully under the disapproval of similar language for freshwater under 15A NCAC .02B
.0211(0, the EPA has advised the DWR on multiple occasions, including directly addressing this
provision in writing on multiple occasions that the EPA does not support biological confirmation for
36

toxics assessment. The EPA views biological criteria as one component of a comprehensive water quality
standards program that works in concert with — not in place of — the use of water quality criteria for toxics
as detailed further below. The EPA incorporates by reference all of the discussion in the disapproval
under 15A NCAC .02B .0211(f).
The EPA has determined that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0220 (9)(c) do not protect North
Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are not consistent with the CWA section 303(c) or its
implementing regulations found at 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. Therefore, these changes are disapproved by
the EPA under CWA section 303(c). With today's disapproval of this section, the new water quality
criteria for metals in salt water as approved shall be used for all purposes under the Act. The EPA
recommends that the State delete the biological confirmation provision during the next triennial review.
North Carolina adopted updated acute and chronic metals values under 15A NCAC 02B .0220 (9)(d) for
salt water as follows:
(d) Acute and chronic tidal salt water quality metals standards are as follows:
(i) Arsenic, acute: WER• 69 ug/l;
(ii) Arsenic, chronic: WER. 36 ug/l;
(iii) Cadmium, acute: WER. 40 ug/l;
(iv) Cadmium, chronic: WER. 8.8 ug/l;
(v) Chromium VI, acute: WER. 1100 ug/l;
(vi) Chromium VI, chronic: WER. 50 ug/l;
(vii) Copper, acute: WER. 4.8 ug/l;
(viii) Copper, chronic: WER. 3.1 ug/l;
(ix) Lead, acute: WER• 210 ug/l;
(x) Lead, chronic: WER. 8.1 ug/l;
(xi) Mercury, total recoverable, chronic: 0.025 ug/l;
(xii) Nickel, acute: WER. 74 ug/l;
(xiii) Nickel, chronic: WER. 8.2 ug/l;
(xiv) Selenium, total recoverable, chronic: 71 ug/l;
[xv) Silver, acute: WER• 1.9 ug/l;
(xvi) Silver, chronic: WER. 0.1 ug/l;
(xvii) Zinc, acute: WER• 90 [ug/l;Jug/l; and
(xviii) Zinc, chronic: WER. 81 ug/l;
With the exception of mercury and selenium, acute and chronic tidal saltwater
quality aquatic life standards for metals listed above apply to the dissolved form of
the metal and apply as a function of the pollutant's water effect ratio (WER). A
WER expresses the difference between the measures of the toxicity of a substance in
laboratory waters and the toxicity in site water. The WER fiiJshall be assigned a
value equal to one unless any person demonstrates to the Division's satisfaction in
a permit proceeding that another value is developed in accordance with the Water
Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition published by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA-823-B-12-002), free of charge, at
http://water.epa.gov/.scitechlswguidance/standards/handbook/, hereby incorporated
See Appendix B. EPA letters to DWR dated April 30, 2009, August loth, 2010, and January 3, 2014 and emails to DWR on
August 22, 2014 and August 25, 2014.
37

by reference including any subsequent amendments. Alternative site -specific
standards may also be developed when any person submits values that demonstrate
to the Commissions' satisfaction that they were derived in accordance with the
Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, Recalculation Procedure or
the Resident Species Procedure", hereby incorporated by reference including
subsequent amendments at
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbookl.
This material is available free of charge;
The EPA notes that the DWR is not currently adopting updated criteria for mercury or selenium, leaving
in place the previous values which are based on the total recoverable metal. Those metals have been
reordered for alphabetizing purposes only. As the numeric value did not change for either of these criteria,
the EPA determined that it is non -substantive and therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being
consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations. The EPA notes, however, that its
approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the EPA's prior approval of the underlying
substantive WQSs.
For comparison purposes, all other salt water metals are listed in the chart below alongside the EPA's
current national recommended criteria.
Metal (all values are
dissolved)
NCDWR's
Criteria
(all values ug/1)
EPA's National
Recommended criteria
(all values ug/1)
Arsenic (acute)
69
69
Arsenic (chronic)
36
36
Cadmium (acute)
40
40
Cadmium (chronic)
8.8
8.8
Chromium VI (acute)
1100
1100
Chromium VI (chronic)
50
50
Copper (acute)
4.8
4.8
Copper (chronic)
3.1
3.1
Lead (acute)
210
210
Lead (chronic)
8.1
8.1
Nickel (acute)
74
' 74
Nickel (chronic)
8.2
8.2
Silver (acute)
1.9
1.9
Silver (chronic)
0.1
--
Zinc (acute)
90
90
Zinc (chronic)
81
81
With the exception of the chronic value for silver, the DWR is directly adopting the EPA's national
recommended values for saltwater acute and chronic criteria for metals in saltwater.
The EPA initially published a national recommended criteria for silver in 1980 (EPA 1980). In that
document, the EPA recommended that the total recoverable acute silver criteria should not exceed 2.3 ug/
at any time. However, data were not available to develop chronic criteria for salt water. In 1990, the EPA
published draft chronic criteria for silver, but after public comment determined that more research was
38

needed. In a 1992 memo, the EPA addressed how to review chronic silver salt water criteria from states
(EPA 1992b). That memo noted that, "States which choose, of their own accord, to take an approach
which generates chronic standards, either from data in the 1980 final document, the 1990 draft or other
sources, are taking an approach more stringent than EPA criteria, and these standards are approvable." In
order to develop its chronic silver criterion, the DWR stated that it they applied a safety factor of 0.05 to
the 2.3 ug/1 acute criterion from EPA's 1980 publication generating a chronic value of 0.1 ug/l.
As discussed in the approval of the freshwater metals criteria, the EPA's most current national
recommended water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life includes the recommendation that fresh
and salt water criteria for metals (including specifically arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI,
copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc) be expressed in terms of the dissolved metal in the water column. In
1993, the EPA provided additional guidance on the use of the dissolved fraction of metals stating that,
"[t]he use of dissolved metal to set and measure compliance with water quality standards is the
recommended approach, because dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of
metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal" (EPA 1993).
As discussed in the review of the use of WERs under subparagraph .0211(11)(b), the use of WERs is
consistent with the EPA's policy and guidance. The discussion in that section's review are incorporated
into the review of this section by reference. The EPA concludes that the changes to subsection 15A
NCAC 02B .0220(9)(d) to add in the use of a WER and to include a xl multiplier in each of the criteria
for the criteria in Table A is consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11.
Therefore, these changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c).The EPA strongly
recommends that the first WERs developed by the State are reviewed in the study plan phase by the EPA
to ensure that WERs that are developed meet the required procedures. The EPA looks forward to working
with the State to ensure a quick review of the study plans so that the WERs may be used for CWA
purposes once completed.
This section also allows for alternative site -specific standards to be developed using the Recalculation
Procedure or the Resident Species Procedure in accordance with the Water Quality Standards Handbook:
Second Edition, referenced as http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/. In deriving
site -specific criteria, the Recalculation Procedure (found at Appendix A of Appendix L of the WQS
Handbook) takes into account the differences between the sensitivity of the species used in the national
dataset in developing the national recommended criteria, and the organisms at the site. The Resident
Species Analysis (see Chapter 3.7 - Developing Site -Specific Criteria of the WQS Handbook) accounts
for that difference as well as the difference between the toxicity of the metal in lab water versus site water
similar to a WER. Chapter 3.6 - Policy on Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals was updated to also include
procedures to conduct a Streamlined Water -Effects Ratio Procedure for the Discharge of Copper that may
also be used.
Considering the scientific and technical information supporting the 304(a) recommendations, the EPA has
determined that all of the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0220(9)(d) protect North Carolina's
aquatic life use and, therefore, are consistent with the CWA section 303(c) and 40 C.F.R. section 131.11.
These changes are approved by the EPA under CWA section 303(c) for all purposes under the Act.
15A NCAC 02B .0220 Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SC Waters
Subparagraphs (10) through (19)
-69(10) Oils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not
render the waters injurious to public health, secondary -recreation, aquatic life, and wildlife or
39

adversely affect the palatability offish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated
uses. For the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious substances, colored, or other
wastes shall include substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of
the water or adjoining shorelines under 40 C.F.R. 110.3;
(11) Pesticides:
(a) Aldrin: 0.003 ug/l;
(b) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
(c) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(d) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(e) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
f Endosulfan: 0.009 ug/l;
(g) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(h) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(i) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
0) Lindane: 0.004 ug/l;
(lc) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
(l) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(m) Parathion: 0.178 fug/l;Jug/l; and
(n) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l;
fg4(12) pH:: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.8
and 8.5 8.5, except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of
natural conditions;
{11)(13) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fishflesh- tainting or
impairment of other best usage;
(14) Polychlorinated biphenvls: (total of all PCBs and congeners identified) 0.001 ug/l;
{)(15) Radioactive substances:
(i4Cal Combined radium-226 and radium-228: The maximum average annual activity
level (based on at least one sample collected per quarter)o�' •� lcctcd
for combined radium226, and radium228 shall not exceed
five -picoCuries- per liter;
(ii).02 Alpha Emitters. The average annual gross alpha particle activity (including
radium226, but excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picoCuries- per
liter;
(iii)(c) Beta Emitters. The average annual activity level (based on at least one
sample collected per quarter) ur .,ampl , le tcd �• rtcry' for strontium90
shall not exceed eight picoCuries- per liter; nor shall the average annual gross
beta particle activity (excluding potassium-40 and other naturally occurring
r -n clicks) radionuclides exceed 50 picoCuries per liter; nor shall the
maximum average annual activity level for tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per
liter;
64(16) Salinity: changes in salinity due to hydrological modifications shall not result in removal
of the functions of a PNA. Projects that are determined by the Director to result in
modifications of salinity such that functions of a PNA are impaired shall be required
to employ water management practices to mitigate salinity impacts;
{10(17) Temperature: shall not be increased above the natural water temperature by more than
0.8 degrees C (1.44 degrees F) during the months of June, July, and August nor more than
2.2 degrees C (3.96 degrees F) during other months and in no cases to exceed 32 degrees
C (89.6 degrees F) due to the discharge of heated liquids;
40

(18) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.007 ug/l expressed as tributyltin;
{14(19) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 25 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU); NTU; if turbidity exceeds this level due to natural background conditions,
the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. Compliance with this turbidity standard
can be met when land management activities employ Best Management Practices (BMPs)
[as defined by Rule . 0202 of this Section] recommended by the Designated Nonpoint
Source Agency (as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section). BMPs must shall be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation
operation, and maintenance of such BMPs;
levels) to protect aquatic life applicable to all tidal saltwaters:
(i) Arsenic, total recoverable: 50 ug/l;
{ii) Cadmium: 5.0 ug/l; attainment of these water quality standards in surface
waters shall bc based on measurement of total recovcrablc metals
concentrations unless appropriate studies have been conducted to translate
total recoverable metals to a toxic form. Studies uscd to determine the toxic
form or translators must be designed according to the "Water Quality
Standards Handbook Second Edition" publish"published y the Envir ".ment l
Prot,-tion Ageney iEA 823 o,, 005aTranslator:
Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a
Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA 823 B 96 007) which arc hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to
EPA guidance as well as thc presence of environmental conditions that limit
the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal translators;
(iii) Chromium, total: 20 ug/l;
(iv) Cyanide: 1.0 ug/l;
(v) Mercury: 0.025 ug/l;
{vi) Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l; collection of data on sources, transport
and fate of lewd shall bc required as part of the toxicity reduction
evaluation for dischargers that are out of compliance with whole effluent
toxicity testing requirements and the concentration of lead in thc effluent is
concomitantly determined to exceed an instream level of 3.1 ug/l from thc
discharge;
(vii) Nickel: 8.3 ug/l; attainment of these water quality standards in surface
waters shall be based on measurement of total recoverable metals
concentrations unless appropriate studies have been conducted to translate
total recoverable metals to a toxic form. Studies uscd to determine the toxic
form or translators must be designed according to the "Water Quality
Protection Agency (EPA 823 B 91 005a) or "The Metals Translator:
Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a
Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental Protection Agency
{EPA 823 B 96 007) which are hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to
EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmental conditions that limit
the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal translators;
41

(viii) Pesticides;
Aldrin: 0.003 ug/l;
Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
Dicldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(F) Endosulfan: 0.009 ug/l;
Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(1) Heptachlor: 4.004 ug/l;
Lindane: 0.004 ug/l;
{K) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
hlirex: 0.001 ug/l;
Parathion: 0.178 ug/l;
Toxaphcnc: 0.0002 ug/l;
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
{G)
(H)
{.I)
(L)
(M1)
(N)
(ix) Polychlorinated biphenyls: (total of all PCBs and cengencrs identified)
0.001 ug/l;
(x) Selenium: 71 ug/l;
{x;)T iarr ,tin , n s•n 007- u,.n c l as tributyltin.
The struck provisions for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel are replaced by new criteria as
described in detail above. The criteria for the remaining criteria were moved into alphabetical order. As
the numeric value did not change for these criteria, the EPA determined that it is non -substantive and
therefore, the EPA approves the revision as being consistent with the CWA and the EPA's implementing
regulations. The EPA notes, however, that is approval of this non -substantive change does not re -open the
EPA's prior approval of the underlying substantive WQSs.
15A NCAC 02B .0220 Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SC Waters
Subparagraph (20)
{4)(20) Action Levels for Toxic Substanccs:Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits:
(a) Copper: Copper, dissolved, chronic: 3 ug/l; 3.1 ug/l;
(b) Silver: Silver, dissolved, chronic: 0.1 ug/l;
(c) Zinc: Zinc, dissolved, chronic: 86 ug/l; 81 ug/l
If the [ehr onie] Action Levels action levels for any of the substances listed in this
Subpawagraehltem (which are generally not bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to
aquatic life because of chemical form, solubility, stream characteristics characteristics, or
associated waste characteristics) ape -shall be determined by the waste load allocation to
be exceeded in a receiving water by a discharge under the spec f n 1ow7Q10 flow
criterion for toxic subtanccsin.a„ 0206 in thin Soction',substances, the discharger shall
be required to monitor the chemical or biological effects of the discharge; efforts shall be
made by all dischargers to reduce or eliminate these substances from their effluents.
Those substances for which Action Levels action levels are listed in this arag tltem
,mayshall be limited as appropriate in the NPDES permit if sufficient information (to be
determined for metals by measurements of that portion of the dissolved instream
concentration of the Action Level action level parameter attributable to a specific NPDES
permitted discharge) exists to indicate that any of those substances may be a causative
factor resulting in toxicity of the effluent. NPDES permit limits may be based on
translation of the toxic forts to dal recoverable metals. Studies used te-determine the
42

Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by -the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823 B 96 007) which arc hereby incorporated by reference including any
subsequent amendments. The Direeter shall consider conformance to EPA guidance as
Revision to Copper, Silver and Zinc as an Action Level
As the EPA has advised the DWR on multiple occasions, including directly addressing this provision in
multiple letters,8 the EPA does not support the maintenance of action levels. The EPA reiterates its
previous comments. The EPA's Section 304(a) criteria were developed to take into account specific
factors such as solubility and chemical form in determining the biologically available fraction available
for uptake by biological organisms and, therefore, the fraction most likely to cause a toxic effect.
North Carolina's action level requirements, stated above, indicate that NPDES limits must be set for
metals if information exists to indicate that a particular substance may be a causative factor resulting in
the toxicity of the effluent. 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(i) states that limits must be put in place to control
pollutants which may be discharged at a level "which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard." This regulation does not indicate that
the effluent must be the sole cause of toxicity before the parameter should be limited. The provision states
that the pollutant should be limited under NPDES if it could cause or even if it could contribute to a water
quality standards excursion.
This requirement is significant because there may often be multiple sources of pollutants in receiving
waters, from non -point source run-off, from point sources and from storm water. No one facility or source
may be the sole cause of the impairment, but rather multiple discharges contribute to the toxicity and
excursion of water quality standards. Therefore, when a point source discharges zinc levels with a
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedence of water quality standards, that discharge must
be limited. Surrounding states have limited zinc and copper in permits where there is reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to the excursion of a water quality standard.
The Region recognizes that North Carolina has a strong WET testing program. WET testing can be
"effective for controlling discharges containing multiple pollutants. It can also provide a method for
addressing synergistic and antagonistic effects on aquatic life" from multiple pollutants. See 63 Fed. Reg.
(page 36,768). However, where criteria existto directly control toxic pollutants, those criteria should be
used to limit the discharge of pollutants. WET should be used to address those instances where criteria
may not be available to limit toxicity. The EPA's discussion of reconciling biological data, such as WET,
with `reasonable potential' analysis concludes "EPA would not support a radical shift away from
chemical criteria and limits or toxicity criteria and limits. Those tools are simply too important as proven
tools for assessing potential impact to surface waters and improving water quality." If needed, an effort
should be made to refine the applicable criteria, through WERs and other tools, to ensure that appropriate
criteria be developed for each facility. It is not protective, however, and is not consistent with EPA's
permitting regulations, to defer permit limitations once there is reasonable potential to exceed the water
8 See Appendix B. EPA letters to DWR dated April 30, 2009, August 20, 2010, and January 3, 2014 and emails to DWR on
August 22, 2014 and August 25, 2014.
43

quality criteria for toxics.
The EPA has determined that the changes to subsection 15A NCAC 02B .0211(20) do not protect North
Carolina's aquatic life use and, therefore, are not consistent with the CWA section 303(c) or its
implementing regulations found at 40 C.F.R. section 131.11. These changes are disapproved by the EPA
under CWA section 303(c). With today's disapproval of this section, the new water quality criteria for
metals as approved shall be used for all purposes under the Act. For more discussion on the implications
of the EPA's disapproval, see pages 30-31.
Review of Water Quality Standards Variances
Under 40 C.F.R. section 131.20, each state is required, at least once every three years, to re-examine any
water body segment with water quality standards which do not include the uses specified in section
101(a)(2) of the CWA to determine if any new information has become available to indicate the uses are
now attainable. North Carolina has three variances from water quality standards in the State, which are
subject to this triennial evaluation requirement. During the triennial, the State provided a notice of an
opportunity to comment on and conducted a review of each of the variances to water quality standards.
Evergreen Packaging (formerly Blue Ridge Paper Products, NPDES Permit No. NC0000272) has a water
quality standards variance for color. The most recent permit reissuance and variance renewal was issued
by the State on July 21, 2010. The EPA reviewed and approved the variance on December 21, 2010. A
comprehensive review and evaluation of the status of the variance is ongoing concurrent with the
facility's permit reissuance process, which will include public hearings and opportunity for comments.
Comments received by the State during the triennial will be considered during the permit and variance
review as well.
Both Mount Olive Pickle Company (NPDES Permit No. NC0001074) and Bay Valley Foods (formerly
Dean Pickle Products, NPDES Permit No. NC0001970) have excess sodium chloride from pickle
processing. Limited technology exists for removal of sodium chloride from the waste stream. New
variances were issued by the State on March 29, 2011. The EPA approved those variances on September
27, 2011. The information collected during this triennial review will be used for the next scheduled permit
and variance review.
APR 6 2016
gykavr-7-
Date Heather McTeer Toney
Regional Administrator
44

References
Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. "U.S. EPA Cadmium Water Quality Criteria Document—
Technical Review and Criteria Update." Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. Littleton, CO (September
2004)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/9-76-023. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (July 1976)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980a. Ambient water quality criteria for beryllium. EPA 440 5-
80-024. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (October 1980)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. Ambient Water Quality for Silver. EPA 440/5-80-071.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC (October 1980)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984 Ambient Water Quality for Lead —1984. EPA/440-5-84-
027; Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (January 1985)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. PB85-227049 (formerly published as
EPA 822/R-85-100). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development Environmental Research Laboratories, Duluth, Minnesota, Narragansett, Rhode Island,
Corvallis, Oregon. (1985)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986a. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload
Allocation. Book IV: Design Conditions — Chapter 1: Stream Design Flow for Steady -State Modeling.
EPA440/4/86-014 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1986)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986b. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington, DC (May 1, 1986)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992a. Water Quality Standards: Establishment of Numeric
Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliance Final Rule. 57 FR 60848. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (December 22, 1992)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. Water Quality Standards for Silver. Memo from Tudor T.
Davies, Director, Office of Science and Technology, US Environmental Protection Agency to Water
Management Division Directors, Regions I-X (June 30, 1992)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on
Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria. Martha Prothro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. (October 1, 1993)
45

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -
Effect Ratios for Metals (Appendix L of the Water Quality Standards Handbook). EPA 823-B-94-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994b. Transmittal memo for the Interim Guidance of
Determination and Use of Water Effect Ratios for Metals, "Use of the Water -Effect Ratio in Water
Quality Standards" Tudor Davies, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
(Feb. 22, 1994)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the
Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water. EPA 820-B-96-001. Office of Water, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. (September 1996)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Water Quality Standards Regulation; Proposed Rule.
Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking. 63 Fed. Reg. 36742. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. July 7, 1998)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria —
Correction. EPA 822-Z-99-001. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. (April 1999)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric
Criteria for Priority Pollutants for the State of California. 65 FR 31,682. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC (May 18, 2000)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Cadmium. EPA-822-R-01-001.Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. (April 2001)
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002.
EPA-822-R-02-047. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC (November 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Manganese. EPA-
822-R-04-003. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC (January 2004)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria —
Copper 2007 Revision. EPA-822-R-07-001. Office of Water. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC (February 2007)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Standards
Handbook. Formerly EPA-823-B-12-002. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Draft Technical Support Document: Recommended
Estimates for Missing Water Quality Parameters for Application in EPA's Biotic Ligand Model. EPA-
HQ-OW-2015-0469. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
46

U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. Daniel, C.C., III, Wilder, H.B., and Weiner, M.S., Water quality of the
French Broad River, North Carolina — An analysis of data collected at Marshall, 1958-77, in Water
Quality of North Carolina streams; United States Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2185-C, p. C1-
C28.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1992. Selected water -quality and biological characteristics of streams in some
forested basins of North Carolina, 1985-88. Water -Resources Investigations Report 92-4129. United
States Geological Survey.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Mebane, C.A., Cadmium Risks to Freshwater Life: Derivation and
Validation of Low -Effect Criteria Values using Laboratory and Field Studies. Scientific Investigations
Report 2006-5245, 130 p. Version 1.1, United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological
Survey. December 2006.
47

A

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
•
NPDES Complex Unit
Tom Belnick
July 20, 2016
NPDES Permitting Guidance
NPDES Implementation of Ammonia Criteria- Update
secretmry
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
NC has still not adopted an ammonia standard, though it is on our WQS Triennial List for next
round.. NC did establish ammonia chronic criteria for use in NPDES permitting back in 1989/90,
which was based on EPA's 1986 criteria development document that factored in pH/Temp across
three regions of the State (see attached) This evaluation resulted in ammonia chronic criteria of
1.0 mg/1 NH3-N (summei) and 1.8 mg/1 NH3-N (winter) foi use in permitting purposes. NC
implements these chronic criteria as Monthly Averages limits utilizing instream dilution. In
2002, NC developed procedures for complimentary acute permit limits (discussed below).
The current ammonia permitting procedures should be as follows:
• The NH3/TRC Wasteload Allocation (WLA) spreadsheet automatically calculates
appropriate ammonia Monthly Average limits for summer and winter. The spreadsheet
assumes a background ammonia concentration of 0.22 mg/1.
• For any permit (new/renewal), always run the NH3/TRC WLA spreadsheet to verify
appropriate Monthly Average Ammonia Limits for protection of aquatic life.
• If the allowable ammonia concentration is greater than 35 mg/1, no limit should be
imposed.
• If the allowable concentration is less than 35 mg/1, then the allowable limit is needed and
the spreadsheet will automatically calculate it.
• For Municipal facilities, the acute limit will be expressed as a Weekly Average, and is
based on multiplying the Monthly Average limit by a factor of 3.
• For non -Municipal facilities, the acute limit will be expressed as a Daily Maximum, and
is based on multiplying the Monthly Average limit by a factor of 5
If a new more stringent ammonia limit is required, discuss the need for a Compliance
Schedule with senior staff and then with the Permittee
• There is no RPA procedure used for ammonia; it is implemented strictly based on WLA
spreadsheet results (similar to TRC).
•
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 707 9000

Page 12
• A sample NH3/TRC WLA is attached In this example, the spreadsheet indicates that
Monthly Average ammonia limits of 3.2 mg/1 and 12.7 mg/1 should be imposed for
summer and winter, respectively, in order to protect for NC's chronic ammonia criteria.
Some additional considerations*
• This guidance will need to be revisited after NC formally adopts an ammonia standard for
both chronic and acute aquatic life protection
• In the past, some ammonia limits were based strictly on protection of our DO standard
rather than ammonia toxicity, and that is why the permit writer should always verify the
conect ammonia limit with any permit renewal using the WLA spreadsheet.
• In the past, some practices allowed foi maintaining a less stringent ammonia limit if the
facility was consistently passing the WET test (i.e., biology trumps chemistry). This is
no longer a valid approach and EPA would object In Apii12016 EPA expressly stated
that NC cannot use biology to override chemical results. EPA also disallowed the use of
Action Levels in permitting, in which toxicity test results (if passing) were used to
override the need for permit limits for copper/zinc/silver/iron/chloride.

` 1n
0
•
•
I. •
•
AMMONIA CRXTERTA TABLES (NH3 as N)
Based on EPA recommended 4-day maximum average concentration criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
and Trout 'Waters
pH
TEMPERATURE
12°C 23°C .
•
6.8
7.5
Freshwaters
pH
1 8084 1.0028
l• 8084 1.0111
MPE
oak .:00/44
►44
•
TEMPERATURE
14°C 26°C
6.8
7.5 •
1 8084 1.1344
1 8084 1.1541
•
x\k,
Total Ammonia
(mg/I NH3 as N)
Total Ammonia
(mg/1 NH3 as N)
•
Coastal Plain and Sandhills Freshwaters
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*PH
TEMPERATURE
16°C 28°C
•
6 8
7 5
it
1 7920 0.9700
1 7920 0.9864
I•
•
Total Ammonia
(mg/1 •NH3 as N)
• 10/19/89
loom o-A <®0
•
•
•
S
•

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Anywhere USA
NC00
Prepared By: Tom Belnick
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enterw7Q10 (cfs):
0.03
0.13
0.32
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit.
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331 * Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
0.13
0.03
0.0465
170
0
26.35
65
200/100m 1
3.80
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)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
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
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
0.13
0.03
0.0465
1.0
0.22
26.35
3.2
0.32
0.03
0.0465
1.8
0.22
12.69
127
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretory
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
November 10, 2020
Western Conference & Resource Center
Attn: Darrell Gaines
PO Box 150
Browns Summit, NC 27214-0150
Subject: Permit Renewal
Application No. NC0046809
Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
Guilford County
Dear Applicant:
The Water Quality Permitting Section acknowledges the October 28, 2020 receipt of your permit renewal application and
supporting documentation. Your application will be assigned to a permit writer within the Section's NPDES WW permitting
branch. Per G.S. 150B-3 your current permit does not expire until permit decision on the application is made.
Continuation of the current permit is contingent on timely and sufficient application for renewal of the current permit. The
permit writer will contact you if additional information is required to complete your permit renewal. Please respond in a
timely manner to requests for additional information necessary to allow a complete review of the application and renewal
of the permit.
Information regarding the status of your renewal application can be found online using the Department of Environmental
Quality's Environmental Application Tracker at:
https://dea.nc.gov/permits-regulations/permit-guidance/environmental-application-tracker
If you have any additional questions about the permit, please contact the primary reviewer of the application using the
links available within the Application Tracker.
cc: Joshua Powers, Envirolink, Inc.
ec: WQPS Laserfiche File w/application
GQE
Sincerely,
Wren Thedford
Administrative Assistant
Water Quality Permitting Section
North Caro4naDepartment ofEnv ronmenta'QuaIty I DnnsionofWater Resources
W rstonSa+ern Retorts rOfffoe 145D. West wares Kt Road, S+®te30D 1 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336 776-9800

NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
For privately -owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. DENR / Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit
NC0046809
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name Darrell Gaines
Facility Name Cornerstone Conference Center
Mailing Address PO Box 150
City Browns Summit
State / Zip Code NC 27214-0150
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number (N/A)
e-mail Address dgaines®ccrdc.org
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same address as above D
Street Address or State Road
City
State / Zip Code
County
7545 US HWY 29 N
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 '020
NCDMMAIwr4PDES
Browns Summit
NC 27214
Guilford
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, public organization or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not
referring to the Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail Address
Envirolink, Inc.
4700 Homewood Court, Ste. 108
Raleigh
NC 27609
[phone]
(N/A)
(N/A)
1 of 3 Form-D 11/12

NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
For privately -owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
4. Description of wastewater:
Facility Generating Wastewater (check all that apply):
Industrial ❑ Number of Employees
Commercial ❑x Number of Employees 11
Residential ❑ Number of Homes
School ❑ Number of Students/Staff
Other ❑ Explain:
Describe the source(s) of wastewater (example: subdivision, mobile home park, shopping centers,
restaurants, etc.):
Employees, members of the church, and visitors of the conference space.
Number of persons served: 500 on average, 1400 at maximum capacity
5. Type of collection system
0 Separate (sanitary sewer only) ❑ Combined (storm sewer and sanitary sewer)
6. Outfall Information:
Number of separate discharge points 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
Is the outfall equipped with a diffuser? ❑ Yes
® No
7. Name of receiving stream(s) (NEW applicants: Provide a map showing the exact location of each
outfall):
Unnamed tributary to Benaja Creek. Subbasin 03-06-01 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
8. Frequency of Discharge: ❑X Continuous ❑ Intermittent
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: Duration: _
9. Describe the treatment system
List all installed components, including capacities, provide design removal for BOD, TSS, nitrogen and
phosphorus. If the space provided is not sufficient, attach the description of the treatment system in a
separate sheet of paper.
This is a Grade II activated sludge plant featuring an aeration tank, clarifier, chlorine
and dechlor tablet feeders, and diffused air.
2 of 3 Form-D 11/12

NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
For privately -owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
10. Flow Information:
Treatment Plant Design flow 0.02 MGD
Annual Average daily flow 0.0012 MGD (for the previous 3 years)
Maximum daily flow 0.009 MGD (for the previous 3 years)
11. Is this facility located on Indian country?
❑ Yes II No
12. Effluent Data
NEW APPLICANTS: Provide data for the parameters listed. Fecal Coliform, Temperature and pH shall be grab
samples, for all other parameters 24-hour composite sampling shall be used. If more than one analysis is reported,
report daily maximum and monthly average. If only one analysis is reported, report as daily maximum.
RENEWAL APPLICANTS: Provide the highest single reading (Daily Maximum) and Monthly Average
over the past 36 months for parameters currently in our permit. Mark other parameters "N/A".
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Units of
Measurement
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
66
6.994
mg/L
Fecal Coliform
600
1.354
ml
Total Suspended Solids
56
10.246
mg/L
Temperature (Summer)
28
18.402
Celsius
Temperature (Winter)
(not seasonal)
pH
8.22
7.19
su
13. List all permits, construction approvals and/or applications:
Type
Hazardous Waste (RCRA)
UIC (SDWA)
NPDES
PSD (CAA)
Non -attainment program (CAA)
Permit Number Type
NESHAPS (CAA)
Ocean Dumping (MPRSA)
NC0046809 Dredge or fill (Section 404 or CWA)
Other
14. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am familiar with the information
best of my knov}clelge and belief such information
Printed name of P- on 'igning
Permit Number
contained in the application and that to the
is true, complete, and accurate.
of App scant Date
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) states: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement representation, or certification in any
application, record, report, plan, or other document files or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management
Commission implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method
required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001
provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both, for a similar offense.)
(eo, 6 lai-ocs(
Title
R5/90
3 of 3
Form-D 11/12

Permit NC0046809
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Western North Carolina Conference Center
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP
7545 U. S. Highway 29 North
Browns Summit
Guilford County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Benaja Creek in subbasin
03-06-01 of the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV
hereof.
This permit shall become effective July 1, 2016.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2021.
Signed this day May 24, 2016
S. Jay Zimmerman, P.G., Director
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 7

Permit NC0046809
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The Western North Carolina Conference Center is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.02 MGD wastewater treatment facility with the
following components:
• Splitter box
• Bar screen
• Dual parallel aeration tanks
• Dual parallel clarifiers
• Dual tertiary filters
• Chlorine contact chamber with tablet chlorination
• Tablet dechlorination
• Sludge digester
This facility is located off U.S. Highway 29 North northeast of Browns Summit at
the Cornerstone Conference and Resource Center WWTP in Guilford County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map
into an unnamed tributary to Benaja Creek, currently classified WS-V NSW waters
in hydrologic unit 03030002 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
Page 2 of 7

Permit NC0046809
Part I
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
[15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 15A NCAC 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as
specified below:
PARAMETER
[PCS Code]
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample Location2
Flow
[50050]
0.02 MGD
Weekly
Instantaneous
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C)
[C0310]
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
[C0530]
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N
[C0610]
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
[00300]
WeeklyGrab
Effluent,
U & D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
[31616]
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)3
[50060]
28 µg/L
2/week
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
[00010]
WeeklyGrab
Effluent,
U & D
Oil and Grease
[00556]
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
MBAS
[38260]
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
[C0600]
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
[C0665]
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
pH
[00400]
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
— —
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity4
[TGP3B]
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. No later than December 21, 2016, the permittee shall begin submitting discharge monitoring
reports electronically using the Division's eDMR system [see A. (4)].
2. U: at least 100 feet upstream from the outfall. D: at least 100 feet downstream from the outfall.
3. The Permittee shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC -certified laboratory [including
field -certified]. Effluent values below 50 µg/L will be treated as zero for compliance purposes.
4. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 31%: February, May, August & November (see A. (2.)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 7

Permit NC0046809
A. (2) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
[15A NCAC 02B.0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 31%
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
December 2010, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of February, May, August, and November. These months
signify the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility.
Effluent sampling for this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge
and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a
failure or ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be
performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North
Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December
2010) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed,
using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value.
Additionally, DWR Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DEQ / DWR /WSS /Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical
measurements and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory
supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent
toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the
waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number,
county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area
of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is
based on the toxicity testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on
the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues
until the final day of the third month.
Page 4 of 7

Permit NC0046809
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the Division
indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as
minimum control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and
appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following
the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (3) NUTRIENT REOPENER CONDITION
[NCGS 143-215.1 (b)]
Pursuant to N.C. General Statutes Section 143-215.1 and the implementing rules found in
the North Carolina Administrative Code at 15A NCAC 2H.0112 (b) (1) and 2H.0114 (a) and
Part II sections B-12 and B-13 of this permit, the Director may reopen this permit to require
supplemental nutrient monitoring of the discharge. The purpose of the additional monitoring
will be to support water quality modeling efforts within the Cape Fear River Basin and shall
be consistent with a monitoring plan developed jointly by the Division and affected
stakeholders. In addition, the results of water quality modeling may require that limits for
total nitrogen and total phosphorus be imposed in this permit upon renewal.
A (4) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING DATA
[NCGS 143-215.1 (b)]
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
and program. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective
on December 21, 2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II
of this permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.)
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D. (6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Signatory Requirements
Reporting
Records Retention
Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting Requirements [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)1
Effective December 21, 2016, the permittee shall report discharge monitoring data
electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR)
internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each
month and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted
facilities to enter monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet.
Until such time that the state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media
Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all
Page 5 of 7

Permit NC0046809
discharge monitoring data to the state electronically using eDMR and will be required to
complete the eDMR submission by printing, signing, and submitting one signed original
and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the following address:
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due
to the facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the
households have broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic
reporting requirements may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted
on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director.
Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the mailing address above. See "How to
Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below.
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month
following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the
month following the commencement of discharge.
Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the following
compliance monitoring data and reports, when applicable:
• Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;
• Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports.
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to
Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below).
2. How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting
The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To
obtain an electronic reporting waiver, a permittee must first submit an electronic
reporting waiver request to the Division. Requests for temporary electronic reporting
waivers must be submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty
(60) days prior to the date the facility would be required under this permit to begin
submitting monitoring data and reports. The duration of a temporary waiver shall not
exceed 5 years and shall thereupon expire. At such time, monitoring data and reports
shall be submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is
granted a new temporary electronic reporting waiver by the Division. Approved electronic
reporting waivers are not transferrable. Only permittees with an approved reporting
waiver request may submit monitoring data and reports on paper to the Division for the
period that the approved reporting waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are
found on the following web page:
http: / /deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/ edmr
Page 6 of 7

Permit NC0046809
3. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes Section B.
(11.) (d)1
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person
described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that
person as described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be
delegated signatory authority for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an
eDMR user account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more
information on North Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an
eDMR user account, please visit the following web page:
http: / / deq.nc.gov/ about/ divisions /water -resources / edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system
shall make the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF
CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and
imprisonment for knowing violations."
4. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)1
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years
from the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any
time [40 CFR 122.41].
Page 7 of 7