NC0037508_Fact Sheet_20230201

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO037508
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: August 23, 2022
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Moore County/Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 905, Carthage, NC 28327
Facility Address:
1094 Addor Road, Aberdeen, NC 28315
Permitted Flow:
10.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 99.2% domestic, 0.8% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
influent pump station with mechanical screening, two (2) grit removal
systems, influent meter, influent composite sampler, three (3)75 ft
diameter primary clarifiers with WAS pumps, six (6) 70 ft x 30 ft first -
stage aeration basins with blowers, three (3) 90 ft diameter intermediate
clarifiers with WAS/RAS pump station, six (6) 90 ft x 30 ft second -
stage aeration basins with blowers, three (3) 105 ft diameter final
clarifiers with WAS/RAS pump station, six (6) 750 ft2 tertiary sand
filters, dual UV channels, 4 banks each channel, effluent meter, effluent
composite sampler, cascade post -aeration basin, two (2) 60 ft diameter
anaerobic sludge digesters with heaters and gas compressors and
pumps, one (1) 60 ft anaerobic sludge digester/settling tank and pumps,
two (2) dewatering gravity filter presses with polymer addition, dry
sludge storage, three backup generators
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Moore
Region
Fayetteville
*Based on permitted flows.
Page 1 of 13

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background.- Moore County has applied for
an NPDES permit renewal at 10.0 MGD for the Moore County WPCP. This facility serves a population
of approximately 44,830 residents, as well as 3 significant industrial users (SIU) including 1 categorical
industrial user (CIU) via an approved pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater
is discharged into Aberdeen Creek, a class C waterbody in the Lumber River Basin. The facility has a
primary Outfall 001. Outfall 001 is approximately 1.3 miles upstream of waters designated as High
Quality Waters (15A NCAC 02B .0224) and approximately 9 miles upstream of waters designated as
WS-V waters. Please note that, should the facility expand, downstream HQW water uses should be
considered during evaluation of speculative limits.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is land applied through the land application permit WQ32855.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Aberdeen Creek
Stream Segment:
14-2-11-(6)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (m12):
36.3
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
15.2
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
28.7
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
47.2
IWC (% effluent):
50%
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Lumber River/03-07-50/HUC: 03040203
USGS Topo Quad:
G21 SW
Page 2 of 13

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2018 through June 2022.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Permit
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit
Flow
MGD
10.025
2.918
MA 10.0
WA 7.5
BOD summer
mg/l
4.3
44.2
2
MA 5.0
WA 15.0
BOD winter
mg/l
3.3
20
2
MA 10.0
WA 3.0
NH3N summer
mg/l
0.35
10.2
0.1
MA 1.0
WA 6.0
NH3N winter
mg/l
0.41
4.83
0.1
MA 2.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/l
4.8
35.2
2.5
MA 30.0
0 > pH <
6.9.0
pH
SU
7.0
7.8
6
(geomean)
(geometric)
Fecal coliform
9/100 ml
300
1
WA 400
1.4
MA 200
DO
mg/l
8.3
14.51
5.85
DA >6.0
Monitor &
Conductivity
umhos/cm
419
596
279
Report
Monitor &
Temperature
° C
19.6
28
10
Report
Monitor &
TN
mg/l
17.81
27.7
8.81
Report
Monitor &
TP
mg/l
2.7
3.8
0.02
Report
Monitor &
Total Silver
mg/l
0.7
3.8
< 0.5
Report
mg/l as
Monitor &
Total Hardness
93.3
120
68
CaCO3
Re ort
p
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
Page 3 of 13

4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature
upstream approximately 100 feet above the outfall and downstream at NCSR 1225. Instream monitoring
is conducted three times per week during June, July, August and September, and once per week during
the rest of the year. In addition, the current permit requires quarterly hardness monitoring upstream of the
outfall to aid in calculating total metals of hardness -dependent dissolved metals (See RPA section below).
Data was observed from January 2018 to June 2022. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
19.7
28
0
18.9
28
0
DO
mg/1
7.6
14.94
3.96
7.6
15.04
2.39
Total
Hardness
Mg/L as
CaCO3
7.6
12
2
-
-
-
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05
Downstream temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius on one occasion during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Instantaneous downstream DO dropped below 4 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] on 4 occasions
during the period reviewed. Upon further review, observed drops in downstream DO were consistent with
drops in upstream DO. Additionally, the downstream waters are classified as Swamp waters and may be
subject to naturally occurring low DO levels. The daily average downstream DO was greater than 5 mg/L
for the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between
upstream and downstream DO.
No changes are proposed to instream monitoring requirements.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
Page 4 of 13

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported one
BOD limit violation resulting in notice of violation (NOV) in 2018. In 2019, the facility reported 1 BOD
limit violation resulting in NOV and 5 BOD limit violations resulting in notice of deficiency (NOD). The
facility reported 2 BOD limit violations in 2020, 1 resulting in NOV and 1 resulting in NOD. In 2022, the
facility reported 1 BOD limit violation resulting in NOD.
In the facility's eDMRs, the permittee commented that:
'Tor the month of June, Moore County WPCP has exceeded the BOD weekly limit average for week 2 &
week 3 and the monthly average limit.
Week 2 average BOD of 9.30, weekly average limit is 7.5
Week 3 average BOD of 9.38, weekly average limit is 7.5
Monthly average BOD of 6.63, monthly average limit is 5.0
During this Month, the WPCP had an air bleed -off on a primary clarifier pump break, flooding the
basement of the building.
All spill was contained & returned to headworks by in -plant drainage. This situation was halted and
repaired immediately.
Sand filters bay #6 & bay #1 were found to have clogged suction hoods, leading to bay failure. Both were
taken out of service immediately and the issue were resolved.
Adjustments have been made to the MLSS/RAS content of our aeration basins.
Adjustments have been made to our operational cleaning process.
Both WPCP belt presses suffered belt rips, replacements have been ordered and are in transit.
For now, the WPCP has returned to pouring drying beds, to prevent press filtrate from being returned to
plant headworks as condensed plug flow.
WPCP Chief Operator & I have been going through the Facility & process to find any possible reason for
this violation, rectifying any possible causes as we find them.
BOD for week #6 in July was >14 which exceeded the weekly permit limit. Sunday was the only result
that week which is usually high.
WPCP is rescheduling PM and cleaning activities during summer limits to reduce the chance of this re-
occurring.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 18 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from March 2018 to June 2022.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in February 2022 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with I5A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Page 5 of 13

Oxyaen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed.- The Division
provided speculative limits to Moore County for expanded 10.0 MGD and 15.0 MGD flow tiers in 1999.
To develop limitations for the 10.0 MGD flow tier, the Division applied an evaluative water quality
model (type not specified in historic documentation) to predict impacts of oxygen consuming waste on
downstream DO concentrations. The model concluded that there is insufficient assimilative capacity to
maintain DO levels above the State's water quality standards without reducing load. To meet the
minimum water quality standard of 5.0 mg/L, advanced tertiary treatment was required, and summer
BOD5 and ammonia limits of 5.0 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L, respectively, were applied to a 10 MGD expansion.
These model results were reaffirmed in 2006 when the County requested additional speculative limits for
a 12.5 MGD flow tier. While no request was made for the addition of a 12.5 MGD flow tier, a 10.0 MGD
flow tier was implemented in the permit as an expanded flow tier during the 2010 permit renewal and
became the only flow tier during the 2016 permit renewal. No changes are proposed for BOD5.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits and
monitoring requirements were removed from the permit during the 2016 renewal as the facility uses UV
disinfection. However, in the event of an emergency where chlorination is required as a backup or
temporary means of disinfection at the facility, a TRC limit and monitoring requirement have been added
back into the permit based on the review in the attached WLA spreadsheet. Please note that TRC
monitoring is only required in the event that chlorine is used at the plant and as part of the regular
Effluent Pollutant Scans.
Please reference the Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations section for background regarding ammonia
limits. The ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to
be protective. No changes are proposed.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
Page 6 of 13

background; 3) use of detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 2018
and June 2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Total Cyanide (MA 9.9 ug/L and DM 39.8 ug/L)
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: NA
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Lead, Total
Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: NA
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: NA
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: NA
Total silver was reported as detected in the facility's effluent sample on 6/6/2022. After discussing the
sample with the County, the County contacted their laboratory to reanalyze the sample since metals have
a 6-month hold time. The reanalysis, conducted on 8/16/2022, resulted in a non -detection at < 0.5 ug/L.
As such, the reanalysis result was used when conducting the RPA.
As the facility discharges 9 miles upstream of WS-V waters, chlorinated phenolic compounds, nitrate, and
TDS data were reviewed. No chlorinated phenolic compounds were detected in facility's effluent
pollutant scans. TDS was not reported at levels higher than 500 mg/L in the facility's effluent pollutant
scans. While the facility reported nitrate + nitrite levels up to 27.7 mg/L in their eDMRs, the WS-V
designated downstream waterbody is the Lumber River, which experiences a significant increase in 7Q10
flow (117 cfs per NC0005762 historic file). As such, no additional monitoring or limits are proposed for
chlorinated phenolic compounds, nitrate or TDS at this time.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Page 7 of 13

Toxici , Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 50%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
# of Samples
1
4
3
1
1
Annual Average Conc. n /L
2.13
4
3.6
6.1
< 1
Maximum Conc., n /L
2.13
5.93
5.13
6.09
< 1
TBEL, n /L
47
WQBEL, n /L
24.0
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: In their comments to the Division
regarding the draft NPDES permit submitted for public comment on 9/11/2022, Moore County provided
information from their laboratory regarding the total mercury analysis conducted on 9/11/2018 that was
reported as a detection above the TBEL. This information indicated that the sample was likely spiked,
evidenced by the field blank being analyzed as detectable for total mercury at a level of 11 ng/L. The
9/11/2018 sample was removed from the dataset used for the TMDL evaluation, resulting in no annual
average total mercury value exceeding the WQBEL and no individual sample exceeding the TBEL. As
such, the total mercury limitation that was proposed has been removed from the draft permit and the
permit is being submitted for a second public comment. Since the facility is > 2.0 MGD and reported
multiple quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/1), the mercury minimization plan (MMP) requirement has
been maintained in the permit.
Page 8 of 13

Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TNDDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WOBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated. The list of pollutants may be found in 40 CFR Part 136, which is incorporated by reference. If
there are additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported, please submit the Chemical
Addendum to NPDES Application table with your application and, if applicable, list the selected certified
analytical method used. If there are no additional pollutants to report, this form is not required to be
included with your application. This requirement applies to all NPDES facilities. The Chemical
Addendum to NPDES Application will be required for any type of facility with an NPDES permit,
depending on whether those types of pollutants are found in your wastewater. Moore County informed the
Division that no monitoring for additional pollutants has been conducted (see attached chemical
addendum) and therefore no additional pollutants of concern have been identified.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: Upon expansion of the facility, downstream
HQW water uses should be considered when conducting the RPA and mercury TMDL evaluation.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: After discussing the proposed
total cyanide limitations with the Permittee, the Permittee indicated that they do not wish to pursue a
schedule of compliance (see attached correspondence).
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg11
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
Page 9 of 13

must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YESINO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
To identify PFAS concentrations in waters classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
As the Moore County WPCP has a pretreatment program and discharges treated wastewater
approximately 9 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-V, monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be
added to the permit at a frequency of quarterly. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS
in wastewater is not currently available, the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a
compliance schedule which delays the effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar
quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the
Federal Register. This date may be extended upon request and if there are no NC -certified labs.
Based on discussion with the DWR Basin Planning Branch, to support planning efforts, and as the two
parameters are used in calculating TN, monthly monitoring and reporting for TKN and NO2+NO3 has
been added to the permit.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
Page 10 of 13

The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 10.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 213 .0505
BOD5
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 1999 Water Quality
MA 5.0 mg/1
Model; Surface Water Monitoring,
WA 7.5 mg/l
15A NCAC 213. 0500
Winter:
MA 10.0 mg/l
WA 15.0 mg/l
Monitor and report
Dail
N113-N
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 2022 WLA review. 15A
MA 1.0 mg/1
NCAC 213; 1999 Water Quality
WA 3.0 mg/l
Model; Surface Water Monitoring,
Winter:
15A NCAC 213. 0500
MA 2.0 mg/l
WA 6.0 mg/l
Monitor and report
Dail
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/l
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/l
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and report
213 .0406; 15A NCAC 02B .0508
Dail
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100ml
NCAC 213 .0200; Surface Water
Monitor and report
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213. 0500
Dail
DO
DA 6.0 mg/l
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and report
NCAC 213.0200; 1999 Water
Daily
Quality Model; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213. 0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and report
NCAC 213 .0200; Surface Water
Daily
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213. 0500
Total Residual
No requirement
DM 28 ug/L
WQBEL. 2022 WLA. Surface Water
Chlorine
Monitor and report Daily
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213. 0500
(when chlorine is used at
the plant)
Page 11 of 13

Total Nitrogen
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monthly
NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN
No requirement
Monitor and Report
Surface Water Monitoring; For
Monthly
calculation of Total Nitrogen — per
Basin Planning request
NO2+NO3
No requirement
Monitor and Report
Surface Water Monitoring; For
Monthly
calculation of Total Nitrogen — per
Basin Planning request
Total Phosphorus
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monthly
NCAC 2B. 0500
Conductivity
Monitor and report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Silver
Monitor and report
Remove requirement
Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly
Potential Analysis (RPA); All values
non -detect < 1 ug/L or < 0.5 ug/L.
No monitoring required
Total Cyanide
No requirement
MA 9.9 ug/L
WQBEL. Based on results of
DM 39.8 ug/L
Reasonable Potential Analysis
Monitor and Report
(RPA); RP shown - apply Monthly
Monthly
Monitoring with limit
Total Hardness
Quarterly
No change
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
monitoring
water quality standards approved in
Upstream and in
2016
Effluent
Add quarterly monitoring
Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
PFAS
No requirement
with delayed
pretreatment facility. Implementation
implementation
delayed until after EPA certified
method becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 50%
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent
amounts. 15A NCAC 213.0200 and
15A NCAC 213.0500
Effluent
Three times per
No change; conducted in
40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan
permit cycle
2024, 2025, 2026
Mercury
MMP Special
No change; correct
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Minimization
Condition
language for condition
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Plan (MMP)
maintenance
Electronic
Electronic Reporting
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Special Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA — Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, AA
- Annual Average
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 9/11/2022
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Page 12 of 13

Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the parry filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at nick.cocokncdenr.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable)
The draft was submitted to the Moore County Board of Commissioners, EPA Region IV, and the
Division's Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Basin Planning Branch, and
Operator Certification Program for review. Moore County submitted comments on October 3, 2022.
County comments and Division responses have been attached as an addendum to the fact sheet.
The DWR Basin Planning Branch provided comments requesting the addition of effluent TKN and
NO2+NO3 monitoring and reporting to accompany TN requirements. No comments were received from
any other party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
Based on discussion with the DWR Basin Planning Branch, to support planning efforts, and as
the two parameters are used in calculating TN, monthly monitoring and reporting for TKN and
NO2+NO3 has been added to the permit.
Based on reassessment of total mercury data after removal of the one contaminated sample from
2018 identified by the County in their comments, the limit and monitoring requirement for total
mercury has been removed from the permit [See A.(1.)].
Based on discussion with the County indicating sampling at the initially proposed upstream
sampling location is infeasible, the upstream sampling location has been moved [See A.(1.)].
As some of the changes to the permit are significant, the permit has been resubmitted for public comment.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Pretreatment Information Request Form
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Public Comment/Division Responses
Page 13 of 13

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NORTH CAROLINA
MOORE COUNTY
DAVID WORONOFF, PUBLISHER of The Pilot, LLC, a bi-weekly
newspaper published in Moore County and the State of North Carolina,
being duly sworn, deposes and says: that the attached advertisement:
LEGAL NOTICE
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit
NCO037508 Moore County WPCF The North Carolina En-
vironmental Management Commission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the person(s) listed be-
low. Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be
accepted 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 de-
gree of public interest. Please mail comments and/or informa-
tion requests to DWR at the above address. Interested per-
sons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604 to review information on file. Additional informa-
tion on NPDES permits and this notice may be found on our
website: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/ npdes-
wastewater/public-notices,or by calling [phone].
Moore County Public Utilities [P.O. Box 905, Carthage, NC
28327] has requested renewal of NPDES permit NCO037508
for its Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant, located
in Moore County. This permitted facility discharges treated
municipal and industrial wastewater to Aberdeen Creek, a
class C water in the Lumber River Basin. Currently, BOD5,
ammonia, dissolved oxygen, pH, fecal coliform, total residual
chlorine, total cyanide and total mercury are water quality
limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in this
segment of Aberdeen Creek.
433107 9:11
iasLr rPperm'&
-1wspaper for I consecutive
to issue dated Qm r
dated .S P km bt,,r 11 ,
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this ) a day of !S ,
20
iV1ICHELE BUNGARZ
Notary Public, North Carolina
Moore County
My C0jnmilssiHLfxpires

Pubt1c -works
Water Pottution Control Plant
1o94 .Addor Road
-Aberdeen, NC 28315
�s1 V fps_
rn1 �
4=. n
�ae+rnw`�
County of -A[ oore
Mr. Nick Coco
NC DEQ/NPDES Municipal Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit Renewal Response
Permit NCO037508
Moore County WPCP
Dear Mr. Coco:
After reviewing the draft permit, we have a few comments/questions.
Bullet #2
[phone]- Phone
[phone]- Fax
1. Since an individual sample (taken 9/11/18) exceeded the TBEL, we reviewed the
mercury sample results from Meritech and have determined that the sample was
probably contaminated by either sample collection, transport activities or
environmental impacts. As shown below, the field blank used to determine if samples
have been contaminated was 11.8 ng/L.
Client:
Attention
NPDES N
MERITECH INC.
ENVIRON MENTAL LABORATORIES {p� 71 l� 717
OCT1 � R 7 71Di
Latoratory res iirafion No. 165 �}2018
d{j
Moore County R'PCP
Aberdmn, NC 28315
Connie Flowers
NCO037508
Date Sampled 09111;18
Digmted 09712J18
Analysis Ip.^05:18
Aaaiysl: Summit
EPA 1631 Low Level Mercury Anaf 5is
Me-oM IDY
Is I *—
6IRLKIMS
tikltivdBlank
<OSngi.
OSn.I-
WR121815
Veld Blank
tL8 nNS,
I.0.tO.
M09121816
f. moeal
47.6.t7.
1.0 aa(L
M"121817
Field 111a :6:
5.62 of lL
1.0 w1.
M07121818
Influent
M n8!'L
1.0 nlVL

Pu6Cic "Works rm., [phone]- Thone
Water POCCution ControfTlant [phone]- _Tax
1094 Addor Road
Aberdeen, NC 28315 T. n
County of Moore
2. The total mercury requirement states that it's a composite sample. In the past, the
contract lab has used the "clean hands/dirty hands" technique to collect grab samples
for EPA Method 1631 E.
If mercury remains a testing requirement, should it be a composite or grab sample?
Bullet#5
3. During the upgrade, the channels used for chlorine disinfection were modified for two
UV channels and the remainder of the channels are inoperable. It would take massive
reconstruction to reestablish a contact basin required to achieve the 30-minute contact
time for disinfection and the plumbing of lines required to inject the chlorine and SO2
prior to discharge. The plant is not designed or permitted for chlorine to be used for
backup or as a temporary means of disinfection. The UV channels were designed so that
one channel can provide disinfection for the permitted flow; therefore, the second
channel is the backup.
4. We and our contract lab, Environment 1, are not certified for TRC. If the permit has a
TRC requirement, we will do our best to obtain certification prior to the first pollutant
scan.
Bullet #6
5. Is the chronic value for toxicity (THP313) only required when a test with multiple
concentrations is completed due to toxicity failure? The pass/fail test doesn't report a
ChV.
6. In A. (2.), permit states a multiple -concentration test shall be performed if the pass/fail
test results in a failure. The NC Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure
requires a minimum of 6 treatments as follows. Would you please confirm these
dilutions would be correct?
• 11 treatment requires 0% effluent and 100% dilution water
• 2"d treatment requires 50% effluent which corresponds to the IWC of the WPCP
Two of the treatments must be a lesser concentration than the IWC, with one being
one-half the concentration of the IWC.
• 3`d treatment requires 25% effluent
No concentration should be greater than two times that of the next lower concentration
or less than one half of the next higher concentration.
• 4th treatment could be 35% effluent which would make the
• 5th treatment 70% effluent or two times the 35%
What would be the percent effluent of the 6th treatment? Would 65% effluent be
acceptable?

PubClc works
'Water PoCCution ControCPCant
1094 A"or Road
Aberdeen, WC 28315
County of Moore
Page #3 Footnote 2
[phone]- Phone
[phone]- Fax
7. Upstream sample location is approximately 100 feet from the outfall; however, all
previous upstream samples have been taken at the bridge on Addor Road. On GIS, that's
about 1 mile upstream as shown below. Is this sufficient or do we need to cut a path
through the woods and collect samples 100 feet from the outfall?
We respectfully request your consideration of the above comments and look forward to your
response.
Than o ,
r
Randy G. G ul , PE
Public W r s Direc
Cc: Stephen Morgan, WPCP Superintendent
Connie Flowers, WPCP Laboratory Chemist
1:Publk Works/WPCP/NPDES Permit/Permit Comments 100222

Fact Sheet Addendum
The Division received comments from the Moore County Board of Commissioners on October 3, 2022
and provides the following responses:
1. Comment: Since an individual sample (taken 9/11/18) exceeded the TBEL, we reviewed the mercury sample
results from Meritech and have determined that the sample was probably contaminated by either sample
collection, transport activities or environmental impacts. As shown below, the field blank used to determine if
samples have been contaminated was 11.8 ng/L. [Note: lab sheet provided in comment].
Response: Based on this additional information provided, the 9/11/18 sample has been removed from the
Mercury TMDL Evaluation. Without this individual sample, the County did not demonstrate a need for an
annual average limitation for total mercury. As such, the total mercury limit and monitoring requirement has
been removed, resulting in the draft permit being returned for public comment.
2. Comment: The total mercury requirement states that it's a composite sample. In the past, the contract lab has
used the "clean hands/dirty hands" technique to collect grab samples for EPA Method 1631E. If mercury
remains a testing requirement, should it be a composite or grab sample.
Response: Total mercury sampling should be conducted as grab samples. While the limit and monitoring
requirement has been removed from the permit, please use the proper grab sampling technique when conducting
your effluent pollutant scans.
3. Comment: During the upgrade, the channels used for chlorine disinfection were modified for two UV
channels and the remainder of the channels are inoperable. It would take massive reconstruction to reestablish a
contact basin required to achieve the 30-minute contact time for disinfection and the plumbing of lines required
to inject the chlorine and SOz prior to discharge. The plant is not designed or permitted for chlorine to be used
for backup or as a temporary means of disinfection. The UV channels were designed so that one channel can
provide disinfection for the permitted flow; therefore, the second channel is the backup.
Response: The language for monitoring and limiting TRC is only applicable under emergency scenarios in
which chlorine is introduced into the treatment works. While this is not likely to occur at the plant, the language
has been maintained to provide protection under emergency cases.
4. Comment: We and our contract lab, Environment 1, are not certified for TRC. If the permit has a TRC
requirement, we will do our best to obtain certification prior to the first pollutant scan.
Response: Noted. TRC sampling should be conducted as part of the effluent pollutant scan requirement.
5. Comment: Is the chronic value for toxicity (THP3B) only required when a test with multiple concentrations
is completed due to toxicity failure? The pass/fail test doesn't report a ChV.
Response: That is correct. The pass/fail is a screening test. EPA wanted a more robust way to measure
toxicity. EPA and NC DEQ came to an agreement for NPDES permitting that if a screening test failed then for
the next 2 months at least one full range would be performed in each of the following two months.
6. Comment: In A. (2), permit states a multiple -concentration test shall be performed if the pass/fail test results
in a failure. The NC Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure requires a minimum of 6
treatments as follows. Would you please confirm these
dilutions would be correct?
• 1st treatment requires 0% effluent and 100% dilution water
• 2" d treatment requires 50% effluent which corresponds to the IWC of the WPCP

o Two of the treatments must be a lesser concentration than the IWC, with one being one-half the
concentration of the IWC.
• 3rd treatment requires 25% effluent
o No concentration should be greater than two times that of the next lower concentration or less
than one half of the next higher concentration.
• 4' treatment could be 35% effluent which would make the
• 5t' treatment 70% effluent or two times the 35%
What would be the percent effluent of the 6th treatment? Would 65% effluent be acceptable?
Response: The test is designed to be the control and 5 dilutions. The mid dilution is the IWC. There should be
two dilutions below and two dilutions above with at least one dilution at half the IWC and then one dilution
above at twice the IWC (If possible). Additional guidance can be found in the Chronic Phase 11 NC Method
procedure (page 4).
7. Comment: Upstream sample location is approximately 100 feet from the outfall; however, all previous
upstream samples have been taken at the bridge on Addor Road. On GIS, that's about 1 mile upstream as shown
below. Is this sufficient or do we need to cut a path through the woods and collect samples 100 feet from the
outfall? [Note: map provided with comments.]
Response: After further discussion with the County, it was determined that sampling upstream 100 feet above
the outfall is not feasible. There is no access point closer than the bridge on Addor Road, and the railroad
company owns the property that encompasses the required sampling location. As such, the upstream sampling
location has been updated in the permit to reflect the bridge on Addor Road.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Moore County WPCP
IV
NCO037508
001
10.000
Aberdeen Creek
03040203
C
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
Data Source(s)
15.200
28.70
15.20
47.20
12.57
I 93.33 mg/L (Avg)
I 25 mg/L (Avg)
I 59.5 mg/L
I 62.73 mg/L
7Q10s used as conservative estimate for 30Q2.
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par0611111111
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
1.1359
FW
7.2296
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
ng/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
239.5059
FW
1922.7574
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
16.5329
FW
24.9167
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
7.7423
FW
210.6315
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
77.5347
FW
730.0288
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
1.4425
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
264.2216
FW
274.0927
ug/L
37508 RPA, input
8/16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
3/5/2018
112
112
Std Dev.
2
6/4/2018
108
108
Mean
3
9/10/2018
84
84
C.V.
4
12/3/2018
92
92
n
5
3/4/2019
96
96
10th Per value
6
6/3/2019
94
94
Average Value
7
9/9/2019
108
108
Max. Value
8
12/9/2019
100
100
9
3/2/2020
80
80
10
6/8/2020
100
100
11
9/14/2020
86
86
12
12/7/2020
80
80
13
3/8/2021
80
80
14
6/7/2021
68
68
15
9/13/2021
120
120
16
12/6/2021
92
92
17
3/7/2022
96
96
18
6/6/2022
84
84
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
H2
1
Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Default 25 25 Std Dev.
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
N/A
13.2842
93.3333
2
Mean
25.0000
0.1423
3
C.V.
0.0000
18
4
n
1
80.00 mg/L
5
10th Per value
25.00 mg/L
93.33 mg/L
6
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
120.00 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
37508 RPA, data
- 1 - 8/22/2022

Par01 & Par02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
3/5/2018
<
2
1
6/4/2018
<
2
1
9/10/2018
<
10
5
12/3/2018
<
10
5
3/4/2019
<
10
5
1 /26/2017
<
5
2.5
4/3/2017
<
1
0.5
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Results
Std Dev.
2.0959
Mean
2.8571
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
7
Mult Factor = 2.01
Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 10.1 ug/L
-2-
37508 RPA, data
8/22/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Par04
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium
Values" then "COPY"
Cadmium
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
3/5/2018
<
0.15
0.075
Std Dev.
0.2978
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
6/4/2018
<
0.15
0.075
Mean
0.8825
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
9/10/2018
<
2
1
C.V.
0.3375
4
n
0
4
12/3/2018
<
2
1
n
20
5
5
3/4/2019
<
2
1
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
6/3/2019
<
2
1
Mult Factor =
1.20
7
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
7
9/9/2019
<
2
1
Max. Value
1.000 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
12/9/2019
<
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
1.200 ug/L
9
9
3/2/2020
<
2
1
10
10
6/8/2020
<
2
1
11
11
9/14/2020
<
2
1
12
12
12/7/2020
<
2
1
13
13
3/8/2021
<
2
1
14
14
6/7/2021
<
2
1
15
15
9/13/2021
<
2
1
16
16
12/6/2021
<
2
1
17
17
3/7/2022
<
2
1
18
18
6/6/2022
<
2
1
19
19
1 /26/2017
<
2
1
20
20
4/3/2017
<
1
0.5
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
37508 RPA, data
-3- 8/22/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Parl0
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
Date Data
1 3/5/2018
2 6/4/2018
3 9/10/2018 <
4 12/3/2018 <
5 3/4/2019 <
6 6/3/2019 <
7 9/9/2019 <
8 12/9/2019 <
9 3/2/2020 <
10 6/8/2020 <
11 9/14/2020 <
12 12/7/2020 <
13 3/8/2021 <
14 6/7/2021 <
15 9/13/2021 <
16 12/6/2021 <
17 3/7/2022 <
18 6/6/2022 <
19 1 /26/2017 <
20 4/3/2017 <
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Chromium, Total
BDL=1/2DL
Results
3
3
Std Dev.
3
3
Mean
5
2.5
C.V.
5
2.5
n
5
2.5
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
5
2.5
Max. Value
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
1
0.5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
2.4500
0.1975
20
1.12
3.0 pg/L
3.4 pg/L
37508 RPA, data
-4- 8/22/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal
Copper
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
3/5/2018
6
6
Std Dev.
2
6/4/2018
4
4
Mean
3
9/10/2018
6
6
C.V.
4
12/3/2018
9
9
n
5
3/4/2019
6
6
6
6/3/2019
6
6
Mult Factor =
7
9/9/2019
6
6
Max. Value
8
12/9/2019
9
9
Max. Pred Cw
9
3/2/2020
10
10
10
6/8/2020
7
7
11
9/14/2020
10
10
12
12/7/2020
9
9
13
3/8/2021
4
4
14
6/7/2021
9
9
15
9/13/2021
9
9
16
12/6/2021
6
6
17
3/7/2022
5
5
18
6/6/2022
8
8
19
1 /26/2017
6
6
20
4/3/2017
5
5
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par12
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
7.0000
0.2781
20
1.17
10.00 ug/L
11.70 ug/L
Date Data
1 3/6/2018 <
2 6/5/2018
3 9/11 /2018 <
4 12/4/2018 <
5 3/5/2019
6 6/4/2019 <
7 9/10/2019 <
8 12/10/2019 <
9 3/3/2020 <
10 6/9/2020 <
11 9/15/2020 <
12 12/8/2020 <
13 3/9/2021
14 6/8/2021
15 9/14/2021 <
16 12/7/2021 <
17 3/8/2022 <
18 6/7/2022 <
19 1 /26/2017 <
20 4/3/2017 <
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Cyanide
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5
5
Std Dev.
7
5
Mean
5
5
C.V.
5
5
n
18
18
5
5
Mult Factor =
5
5
Max. Value
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
11
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
5.95
0.5272
20
1.32
18.0 ug/L
23.8 ug/L
37508 RPA, data
-5- 8/22/2022

Par14
Date
1 3/5/2018 <
2 6/4/2018 <
3 9/10/2018 <
4 12/3/2018 <
5 3/4/2019 <
6 6/3/2019 <
7 9/9/2019 <
8 12/9/2019 <
9 3/2/2020 <
10 6/8/2020 <
11 9/14/2020 <
12 12/7/2020 <
13 3/8/2021 <
14 6/7/2021 <
15 9/13/2021 <
16 12/6/2021 <
17 3/7/2022 <
18 6/6/2022 <
19 1 /26/2017 <
20 4/3/2017 <
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Parl6
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Lead Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL Results
0.5
0.25
Std Dev.
0.5
0.25
Mean
10
5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
5
2.5
1
0.5
4.1750
0.4185
20
1.25
5.000 ug/L
6.250 ug/L
Date Data
1 3/5/2018 <
2 6/4/2018 <
3 9/10/2018 <
4 12/3/2018 <
5 3/4/2019 <
6 1 /26/2017 <
7 4/3/2017
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Molybdenum
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
2 1
Std Dev.
0.8018
2 1
Mean
1.8571
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
5 2.5
n
7
5 2.5
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
2.01
1 1
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
37508 RPA, data
8/22/2022

Par17 & Par18
kiMIM
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
3/5/2018
3.7
3.7
Std Dev.
2
6/4/2018
3.2
3.2
Mean
3
9/10/2018
<
10
5
C.V.
4
12/3/2018
<
10
5
n
5
3/4/2019
<
10
5
6
6/3/2019
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
7
9/9/2019
<
10
5
Max. Value
8
12/9/2019
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
3/2/2020
<
10
5
10
6/8/2020
<
10
5
11
9/14/2020
<
10
5
12
12/7/2020
<
10
5
13
3/8/2021
<
10
5
14
6/7/2021
<
10
5
15
9/13/2021
<
10
5
16
12/6/2021
<
10
5
17
3/7/2022
<
10
5
18
6/6/2022
14
14
19
1 /26/2017
<
5
2.5
20
4/3/2017
2
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE Parl9
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data
1 3/5/2018 <
2 6/4/2018 <
3 9/10/2018 <
4 12/3/2018 <
5 3/4/2019 <
6 1 /26/2017 <
7 4/3/2017 <
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
5.0200
0.4597
20
1.28
14.0 pg/L
17.9 pg/L
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
Selenium
then "COPY".
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
2
1
Std Dev.
2.0959
2
1
Mean
2.8571
10
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
10
5
n
7
10
5
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
2.01
1
0.5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
10.1 ug/L
37508 RPA, data
-7- 8/22/2022

Par20
Date Data
1 3/5/2018 <
2 6/4/2018 <
3 9/10/2018 <
4 12/3/2018 <
5 3/4/2019 <
6 6/3/2019 <
7 9/9/2019 <
8 12/9/2019 <
9 3/2/2020 <
10 6/8/2020 <
11 9/14/2020 <
12 12/7/2020 <
13 3/8/2021 <
14 6/7/2021 <
15 9/13/2021 <
16 12/6/2021 <
17 3/7/2022 <
18 8/19/2022 <
19 1 /26/2017 <
20 4/3/2017 <
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Silver
Values" then "COPY".
Zinc
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data points =
Maximum data
58
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
0.5
0.25
Std Dev.
0.0769
1
3/5/2018
31
31
Std Dev.
12.0048
0.5
0.25
Mean
0.2750
2
6/4/2018
21
21
Mean
46.3000
0.5
0.25
C.V.
0.2798
3
9/10/2018
30
30
C.V.
0.2593
0.5
0.25
n
20
4
12/3/2018
53
53
n
20
0.5
0.25
5
3/4/2019
28
28
0.5
0.25
Mult Factor =
1.17
6
6/3/2019
45
45
Mult Factor =
1.15
0.5
0.25
Max. Value
0.500 ug/L
7
9/9/2019
33
33
Max. Value
67.0 ug/L
0.5
0.25
Max. Pred Cw
0.585 ug/L
8
12/9/2019
50
50
Max. Pred Cw
77.1 ug/L
0.5
0.25
9
3/2/2020
53
53
0.5
0.25
10
6/8/2020
46
46
0.5
0.25
11
9/14/2020
49
49
0.5
0.25
12
12/7/2020
53
53
0.5
0.25
13
3/8/2021
52
52
0.5
0.25
14
6/7/2021
67
67
0.5
0.25
15
9/13/2021
47
47
0.5
0.25
16
12/6/2021
47
47
0.5
0.25
17
3/7/2022
54
54
0.5
0.25
18
6/6/2022
56
56
1
0.5
19
1 /26/2017
47
47
1
0.5
20
4/3/2017
64
64
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
37508 RPA, data
8/22/2022

Moore County WPCP
NCO037508 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
10.0000
WWTP/WTP Class:
IV
1Ql0S (cfs) =
12.57
IWC% @ 1Ql0S =
55.21909512
7Q10S (cfs) =
15.20
IWC% @ 7Q10S =
50.48859935
7QIOW (cfs) =
28.70
IWC% @ 7Q10W =
35.0678733
30Q2 (cfs) =
15.20
IWC% @ 30Q2 =
50.48859935
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
47.20
IW%C @ QA =
24.72089314
Receiving Stream:
Aberdeen Creek HUC 03040203
Stream Class:
C
Outfall 001
Qw = 10 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 62.73 mg/L
Chronic = 59.5 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
co
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
a
Chronic Stapda d Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 615.7
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
ug/L
-------- -_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
7 0
10.1
Chronic (FW): 297.1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
C.V. (default)
M_ax_MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Arsenic
C
10 14H/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
Note: n < 9
NO DETECTS
--------------------------------------
Chronic (HH) 40.5
Limited data set
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 13.093
Cadmium
NC
1.1359 FW(7QlOs) 7.2296
ug/L
20 0
1.200
------ _------------
_ -_-_ _ _ _ _ _ -_ __
Chronic: 2.250
All values non -detect < 2 ug/L < 1 ug/L, or < 0.15
ug/L. Permittee shall report using PQL of at most 1
NO DETECTS'
Max MDL = 2
ug/L - No monitoring required
Acute: 3,482.1
Chromium III
NC
239.5059 FW(7Q10s) 1922.7574
ug/L
0 0
N/A
------ _-----------------------------------------
Chronic: 474.4
Acute: 29.0
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7010s) 16
usz/L
0 0
N/A
___ _ _---__ __-_
--_-_-_-----_-----_-_-_---_
Chronic: 21.8
Allowable Cw
Tot Cr value(s) < 5 and < Cr VI
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
20 2 3.4
Max reported value = 3
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Acute: 45.12
Copper
NC
16.5329 FW(7Q1 Os) 24.9167
ug/L
20 20
11.70
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
Chronic: 32.75
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 39.8
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7QlOs) 22
10
ug/L
20 4
23.8
_ _
-- - - - - ----
-Chronic:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9.9
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
2 values > Allowable Cw
Acute: 381.447
Lead
NC
7.7423 FW(7Q1 Os) 210.6315
ug/L
20 0
6.250
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 15.335
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 1,322.1
Nickel
NC
77.5347 FW(7QlOs) 730.0288
µg/L
20 4
17.9
_ _ _ _____ ____
Chronic (FW) 153.6
___________________________
No value > Allowable _Cw_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Chronic (WS) 49.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
37508 RPA, rpa
8/22/2022

Moore County WPCP
NC00375O8
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 10 MGD
Acute: 101.4
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7QlOs) 56
ug/L
7 0
10.1____
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 9.9
All values non -detect < 10 ug/L, < 5 ug/L, < 2 ug/L or
< 1 ug/L. Permittee shall report using PQL of at most
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
5 ug/L - No monitoring required
Acute: 2.612
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7QlOs) 1.4425
ug/L
20 0
0.585
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 0.119
All values non -detect < 1 ug/L or < 0.5 ug/L. No
monitoring required
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Acute: 496.4
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
264.2216 FW(7QlOs) 274.0927
ug/L
20 20
77.1
Monitoring required
-- - — - — - — -- - -
Chronic:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No value > Allowable Cw
37508 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 8/22/2022

Permit No. NC0037508
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER* 11.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} eA10.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} of 0.9151[In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* {1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.7001
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.7021
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-1.4601
Lead, Chronic
WER* {1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e-10.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO037508
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e-10.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO037508
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + WOW, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, ma/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
_Cdiss - I
Ctotal I + f [Kpo] [ss(i+a)] [10 6]
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (le. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwgs) - (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0037508
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
93.3
Average from January 2018 to May
2022 samples
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Average from January 2018 to May
2022 samples below default;
Default used
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
15.2
USGS 1986 Low Flow Report
1Q10 (cfs)
12.57
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
10.0
NPDES Files
Date: 8/17
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO037508
Moore County WPCP
BOD
monthly removal
rate
Month
RR (%)
Month
RR (%)
January-18
99.40
July-20
96.83
February-18
98.91
August-20
97.72
March-18
99.21
September-20
98.32
April-18
98.75
October-20
98.45
May-18
98.64
November-20
98.22
June-18
97.74
December-20
98.49
July-18
98.55
January-21
97.64
August-18
97.98
February-21
98.69
September-18
95.31
March-21
98.48
October-18
98.14
April-21
97.76
November-18
99.00
May-21
98.49
December-18
98.49
June-21
97.95
January-19
98.30
July-21
98.29
February-19
97.84
August-21
98.23
March-19
98.06
September-21
98.35
April-19
98.13
October-21
98.30
May-19
98.13
November-21
99.04
June-19
97.47
December-21
98.25
July-19
98.10
January-22
98.46
August-19
98.26
February-22
98.42
September-19
98.03
March-22
97.72
October-19
97.97
April-22
98.64
November-19
99.01
May-22
97.74
December-19
99.07
June-22
97.38
January-20
98.67
July-22
February-20
98.57
August-22
March-20
98.41
September-22
April-20
98.00
October-22
May-20
97.26
November-22
June-20
97.49
December-22
Overall BOD removal
rate
98.20
8/16/2022
TSS
monthly
removal rate
Month
RR (%)
Month
RR (%)
January-18
98.27
July-20
97.23
February-18
97.97
August-20
97.75
March-18
98.31
September-20
97.84
April-18
99.00
October-20
97.61
May-18
98.30
November-20
97.11
June-18
97.40
December-20
97.17
July-18
98.17
January-21
96.77
August-18
96.90
February-21
97.48
September-18
95.67
March-21
98.17
October-18
97.02
April-21
96.79
November-18
97.93
May-21
97.65
December-18
97.11
June-21
97.60
January-19
95.58
July-21
98.40
February-19
96.22
August-21
99.07
March-19
97.24
September-21
99.18
April-19
97.92
October-21
98.91
May-19
97.72
November-21
98.71
June-19
97.56
December-21
98.98
July-19
96.61
January-22
98.39
August-19
96.57
February-22
98.91
September-19
98.11
March-22
98.84
October-19
97.72
April-22
98.64
November-19
97.70
May-22
98.98
December-19
97.92
June-22
99.12
January-20
97.35
July-22
February-20
97.56
August-22
March-20
97.52
September-22
April-20
97.52
October-22
May-20
96.65
November-22
June-20
97.34
December-22
Overall TSS removal rate
97.74

10/26/22 WQS
= 12
ng/L
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
V:2013-6
Facility Name
Moore County
WPCP/NC0037508
No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL =
0.5 ng/L
7Q10s = 15.200 cfs WQBEL = 23.77 ng/L
Date Modifier
Data Entry
Value
Permitted Flow = 10.000
47 ng/L
3/8/18
2.13
2.13
6/8/18
5.13
5.13
3.6 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2018
6/13/19
6.09
6.09
6.1 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2019
12/10/20 <
1
0.5
0.5 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2020
12/13/16
2.13
2.13
2.1 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2016
3/21/17
2.32
2.32
6/13/17
5.93
5.93
9/26/17
4.48
4.48
12/20/17
3.27
3.27
4.0 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2017

Moore County WPCP/NC0037508
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018
2019
2020
2016
# of Samples
2
1
1
1
Annual Average, ng/L
3.6
6.1
0.5
2.13
Maximum Value, ng/L
5.13
6.09
0.50
2.13
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
23.8
2017
5.93

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Moore County WPCP
PermitNo. NC0037508
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 10
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 15.2
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 28.7
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
15.2
s7Q10 (CFS)
15.2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
10
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
10
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
15.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
15.5
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
50.49
IWC (%)
50.49
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
34
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.8
Cap at28 ug/L.
Less stringent than current permit limit. Maintain
Facility currently uses UV and has no limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
28.7
Monthly Average Limit:
2001100-
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
10
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
15.5
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.98
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
35.07
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
4.7
Less stringent than current permit limit. Maintain
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/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Instream DO Summary
Date
Upstream
Downstream
Date
Upstream
Downstream
[mg/L]
[mg/L]
[mg/L]
[mg/L]
1 /2/2018
13.54
12.95
8/8/2018
6.69
6.26
1 /8/2018
14.13
13.85
8/10/2018
6.44
6.25
1 /16/2018
12.55
12.33
8/13/2018
6.81
6.14
1 /22/2018
10.48
10.57
8/15/2018
6.29
5.5
1 /29/2018
10.4
9.8
8/17/2018
6.61
5.92
2/5/2018
10.49
10.97
8/20/2018
6.11
6.2
2/12/2018
9.2
9.06
8/23/2018
6.31
5.33
2/19/2018
10.19
10.24
8/24/2018
7.51
6.47
2/26/2018
8.63
8.32
8/27/2018
7.05
6.87
3/5/2018
9.4
9.7
8/29/2018
6.85
6.96
3/12/2018
10.18
10.72
8/31 /2018
6.49
6.38
3/19/2018
8.54
8.7
9/4/2018
5.35
5.67
3/26/2018
9.94
9.9
9/5/2018
6.2
6.37
4/2/2018
9.4
9.47
9/7/2018
6.44
7.1
4/9/2018
9.3
8.7
9/10/2018
5.38
6
4/16/2018
5.92
6.52
9/12/2018
6.01
6.78
4/23/2018
9.04
9
9/19/2018
4.39
2.93
4/30/2018
8.17
8.47
9/20/2018
3.96
4.74
5/7/2018
7.71
7.74
9/21 /2018
4.95
2.39
5/14/2018
7.34
7.48
9/24/2018
6.23
4.01
5/21 /2018
6.08
6
9/26/2018
6.01
4.81
5/29/2018
6.69
6.73
9/28/2018
7.38
4.93
6/1 /2018
5.22
6.79
10/1 /2018
5.85
5.21
6/4/2018
3.98
5.97
10/8/2018
6.4
5.33
6/6/2018
6.01
6.21
10/15/2018
6.81
6.27
6/8/2018
5.66
6.8
10/22/2018
8.23
7.45
6/11 /2018
6.61
6.73
10/29/2018
8.4
8.34
6/13/2018
7.48
7.28
11 /5/2018
8.56
7.04
6/15/2018
5.52
6.32
11 /14/2018
9.56
10.81
6/18/2018
6.38
6.54
11 /19/2018
10.88
8.28
6/20/2018
6.59
6.56
11 /26/2018
8.86
8.32
6/22/2018
5.94
6.59
12/3/2018
7.51
7.36
6/25/2018
6.4
6.43
12/10/2018
11.36
10.25
6/27/2018
6.5
6.46
12/17/2018
9.92
9.38
6/29/2018
5.71
5.38
12/27/2018
11.2
11.26
7/2/2018
6.38
6.25
12/31 /2018
8.76
8.49
7/5/2018
6.59
5.37
1 /7/2019
11.63
11.87
7/6/2018
5.42
6.45
1 /14/2019
10.35
10.69
7/9/2018
6.23
6.94
1 /22/2019
12.46
13.21
7/11 /2018
8.34
7.6
1 /28/2019
11.18
11.32
7/13/2018
6.57
6.14
2/4/2019
11.92
12.16
7/16/2018
7.1
7
2/11 /2019
12.44
10.95
7/18/2018
6.31
5.52
2/18/2019
10.62
10.21
7/20/2018
6.4
6.07
2/25/2019
10.41
11.61
7/23/2018
5.07
6.62
3/4/2019
8.65
8.59
7/25/2018
6.59
6.56
3/11 /2019
9.48
10.1
7/27/2018
5.16
5.59
3/18/2019
8.89
9.72
7/30/2018
6.29
6.2
3/25/2019
9.24
9.36
8/1 /2018
5.68
5.87
4/1 /2019
8.68
9.03
8/3/2018
6.74
6.72
4/8/2019
6.85
7.53
8/6/2018
5.35
5.42
4/15/2019
5.6
6.56
4/22/2019
7.47
7.73
9/20/2019
7.09
7.23

4/29/2019
6.91
14.24
9/23/2019
7.18
7.4
5/6/2019
5.84
5.99
9/25/2019
8.26
8.15
5/13/2019
5.38
5.98
9/27/2019
6.85
6.69
5/20/2019
6.32
7.32
9/30/2019
10.08
8.77
5/28/2019
6.19
6.28
10/1 /2019
6.98
7.03
6/3/2019
8.84
5.8
10/7/2019
7.79
6.93
6/5/2019
7
7.05
10/14/2019
7.32
7.38
6/7/2019
6.47
6.17
10/21 /2019
7.57
6.69
6/10/2019
4.66
5.42
10/28/2019
7.93
7.37
6/12/2019
4.51
5.38
11 /4/2019
9.85
8.84
6/14/2019
6.26
6.78
11 /12/2019
9.74
9.23
6/17/2019
6.48
6.38
11 /18/2019
10.26
10.4
6/19/2019
5.82
6.27
11 /25/2019
9.43
9.56
6/21 /2019
6.49
5.94
12/2/2019
9.68
6.71
6/24/2019
6.82
6.41
12/9/2019
10.94
10.69
6/26/2019
6.63
5.99
12/16/2019
10.97
9.73
6/28/2019
7.08
6.7
12/23/2019
10.57
10.82
7/1 /2019
6.4
6.67
12/30/2019
9.1
6.5
7/3/2019
6.37
6.26
1 /6/2020
9.12
9.23
7/5/2019
6.29
5.52
1 /13/2020
9.15
7.97
7/8/2019
5.47
5.63
1 /21 /2020
11.14
11.3
7/10/2019
5.41
6.03
1 /27/2020
10.23
10.46
7/12/2019
5.32
5.72
2/3/2020
11.54
11.71
7/15/2019
5.1
5.92
2/10/2020
10.32
10.86
7/17/2019
5.67
5.85
2/17/2020
10.63
10.43
7/19/2019
5.91
5.86
2/24/2020
10.34
10.21
7/22/2019
6.1
6.13
3/2/2020
10.32
10.37
7/24/2019
5.04
5.22
3/9/2020
11.34
11.52
7/26/2019
6.54
6.62
3/16/2020
9.29
8.81
7/29/2019
6.46
6.65
3/23/2020
9.29
9.89
7/31 /2019
7.73
7.44
3/30/2020
7.19
6.94
8/2/2019
6.46
6.44
4/6/2020
7.34
7.31
8/5/2019
6.79
7.07
4/13/2020
8.06
8.32
8/7/2019
6.24
6.17
4/20/2020
7.81
7.76
8/9/2019
7.13
7.02
4/27/2020
8.4
7.23
8/12/2019
6.42
6.88
5/4/2020
7.77
7.24
8/14/2019
6.39
6.49
5/11 /2020
7.6
8.65
8/16/2019
6.1
6.32
5/18/2020
7.07
7.19
8/19/2019
6.58
6.62
5/26/2020
6.32
6.44
8/21 /2019
6.1
6.39
6/1 /2020
7.08
6.12
8/23/2019
6.21
6.36
6/3/2020
8.01
7.93
8/26/2019
6.72
4.66
6/5/2020
6.77
5.02
8/28/2019
6.15
6.43
6/8/2020
6.37
6.08
8/30/2019
7.67
6.67
6/10/2020
6.21
6.1
9/3/2019
5.03
6.09
6/12/2020
6.45
6.31
9/4/2019
6.94
6.41
6/15/2020
6.63
6.37
9/6/2019
6.13
6.02
6/17/2020
9.36
10.01
9/9/2019
6.61
6.16
6/19/2020
8.51
8.45
9/10/2019
7.42
6.63
6/22/2020
6.03
6.12
9/11 /2019
5.7
6.07
6/24/2020
8.94
7.35
9/13/2019
7.04
6.39
6/26/2020
7.93
7.64
9/16/2019
6.68
6.73
6/29/2020
5.95
5.62
9/18/2019
7.52
6.94
7/1 /2020
7.39
7.62
7/2/2020
7.51
6.46
1 /4/2021
9.89
10.5
7/6/2020
6.5
6.44
1 /11 /2021
11.72
12.86

7/8/2020
7.17
5.69
1 /19/2021
12.43
13.3
7/10/2020
6.79
6.99
1 /25/2021
9.77
10.16
7/13/2020
5.47
4.9
2/1 /2021
9.81
9.95
7/15/2020
5.54
5.45
2/8/2021
14.94
15.04
7/17/2020
5.82
6.13
2/15/2021
11.81
12.46
7/20/2020
6.58
6.37
2/22/2021
10.97
11.76
7/22/2020
6.62
6.1
3/1 /2021
9.15
9.25
7/24/2020
5.41
5.37
3/8/2021
11.3
11.32
7/27/2020
7.29
6.09
3/15/2021
10.97
11.05
7/29/2020
5.69
5.58
3/22/2021
9.74
10.96
7/31 /2020
6.65
5.92
3/29/2021
7.94
8.64
8/3/2020
5.97
6.18
4/5/2021
10.09
10.57
8/6/2020
5.92
5.19
4/12/2021
8.22
6.79
8/7/2020
6.49
6.32
4/19/2021
7.11
7.14
8/10/2020
4.98
2.67
4/26/2021
12.38
12.31
8/12/2020
6.55
6.31
5/3/2021
7.88
8.1
8/14/2020
6.16
5.19
5/10/2021
7.9
8.19
8/17/2020
4.98
5.93
5/17/2021
7.92
8.08
8/19/2020
5.93
4.96
5/24/2021
7.44
7.63
8/21 /2020
5.28
6.21
6/1 /2021
7.53
8.14
8/24/2020
5.56
4.84
6/2/2021
7.24
7.97
8/26/2020
6.49
6.32
6/4/2021
6.53
6.32
8/28/2020
6.26
5.77
6/7/2021
6.71
6.69
8/31 /2020
6.38
6.42
6/9/2021
6.42
6.31
9/2/2020
4.46
5.48
6/11 /2021
6.44
6.29
9/4/2020
6.56
6.8
6/14/2021
6.24
5.93
9/8/2020
6.96
6.75
6/16/2021
6.84
6.71
9/9/2020
7.25
7.1
6/18/2021
6.38
6.89
9/11 /2020
6.95
6.55
6/21 /2021
5.2
5.56
9/14/2020
6.64
6.05
6/23/2021
6.79
6.68
9/16/2020
6.95
6.06
6/25/2021
6.08
6.3
9/18/2020
5.03
5.99
6/28/2021
6.61
5.555
9/21 /2020
7.48
6.88
6/30/2021
6.73
6.97
9/23/2020
8.05
8.08
7/2/2021
6.78
6.37
9/25/2020
7.81
7.31
7/6/2021
5.62
5.68
9/28/2020
6.45
6.2
7/7/2021
6.69
6.99
9/30/2020
5.46
5.73
7/9/2021
5.27
6.28
10/1 /2020
6.45
5.84
7/12/2021
6.34
6.09
10/5/2020
7.57
7.36
7/14/2021
6.23
6.26
10/12/2020
6.13
6.28
7/16/2021
6.3
6.45
10/19/2020
7.81
7.58
7/19/2021
5.88
6.39
10/26/2020
7.95
7.18
7/22/2021
6.56
7.24
11 /2/2020
8.41
8.09
7/23/2021
6.31
6.51
11 /9/2020
8.26
8.76
7/26/2021
6.43
6.89
11 /16/2020
7.14
6.99
7/28/2021
5.61
5.66
11 /23/2020
8.87
8.9
7/30/2021
6.29
6.07
11 /30/2020
8.05
8.48
8/2/2021
5.24
5.29
12/1 /2020
7.63
7.86
8/4/2021
6.73
6.74
12/7/2020
10.01
10.13
8/6/2021
6.65
7.09
12/14/2020
9.3
9.24
8/9/2021
6.51
6.96
12/22/2020
7.6
7.4
8/11 /2021
5.16
5.57
12/29/2020
5.3
5
8/13/2021
4.23
5.69
8/16/2021
6.33
6.42
1 /3/2022
7.3
7.07
8/18/2021
6.07
5.46
1 /10/2022
9.8
10.07
8/20/2021
6.06
6.02
1 /18/2022
12.01
12.49

8/23/2021
6.33
5.97
1 /24/2022
11.68
12.97
8/25/2021
6.03
5.96
1 /31 /2022
12.73
13.14
8/27/2021
5.79
3.66
2/7/2022
11.3
11.38
8/30/2021
6.25
6.41
2/14/2022
10.99
11.19
9/1 /2021
6.35
6.37
2/21 /2022
10.82
10.62
9/3/2021
7.96
7.58
2/28/2022
10.98
10.34
9/7/2021
6.58
6.86
3/7/2022
9.9
10.04
9/8/2021
6.55
7.01
3/14/2022
11.83
12.11
9/10/2021
6.55
7.09
3/21 /2022
10.25
10.21
9/13/2021
7.23
7.82
3/28/2022
10.94
9.9
9/15/2021
6.86
7.27
4/4/2022
8.53
8.38
9/17/2021
6.41
7.32
4/11 /2022
9.28
9.53
9/20/2021
6.82
7.14
4/18/2022
7.51
7.26
9/22/2021
6.34
6.51
4/25/2022
9.33
9.86
9/24/2021
5.2
5.85
5/2/2022
7.71
7.63
9/27/2021
7.58
7.64
5/9/2022
9.12
8.49
9/29/2021
7.23
7.31
5/16/2022
8.7
8.25
9/30/2021
7.23
7.43
5/24/2022
8.26
7.66
10/1 /2021
7.36
7.51
5/31 /2022
8.64
8.95
10/4/2021
6.72
7.31
6/1 /2022
8.97
7.54
10/11 /2021
6.25
6.41
6/3/2022
6.09
6.84
10/18/2021
7.96
7.76
6/6/2022
7.17
7.56
10/25/2021
8.32
8.44
6/8/2022
6.91
6.69
11 /1 /2021
8.27
8.09
6/10/2022
7.31
7.44
11 /8/2021
9.91
10.09
6/13/2022
6.98
6.88
11 /15/2021
10.07
10.4
6/15/2022
8.14
8.38
11 /22/2021
12.16
13.58
6/17/2022
6.35
5.98
11 /29/2021
10.52
10.73
6/20/2022
7.9
7.09
12/6/2021
10.31
10.24
6/22/2022
7.62
7.37
12/13/2021
10.25
9.71
6/24/2022
8.19
8.31
12/20/2021
9.5
9.54
6/27/2022
6.01
5.35
12/28/2021
10.61
10.11
6/29/2022
8.11
8.06

NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Instream Temperature Summary
Date
Upstream
Downstream
Date
Upstream Downstream
[degC]
[degC]
[degC] [degC]
1 /2/2018
2
2
8/8/2018
22
24
1 /8/2018
0
0
8/10/2018
26
24
1 /16/2018
4
3
8/13/2018
24
24
1 /22/2018
5
5
8/15/2018
26
23
1 /29/2018
10
10
8/17/2018
26
25
2/5/2018
8
7
8/20/2018
25
25
2/12/2018
13
13
8/23/2018
24
24
2/19/2018
15
12
8/24/2018
21
22
2/26/2018
16
17
8/27/2018
24
22
3/5/2018
10
9
8/29/2018
25
24
3/12/2018
10
9
8/31 /2018
25
24
3/19/2018
12
12
9/4/2018
26
24
3/26/2018
10
9
9/5/2018
26
24
4/2/2018
15
14
9/7/2018
25
24
4/9/2018
13
12
9/10/2018
25
24
4/16/2018
16
16
9/12/2018
26
25
4/23/2018
16
15
9/19/2018
24
24
4/30/2018
15
15
9/20/2018
24
23
5/7/2018
21
20
9/21 /2018
24
28
5/14/2018
22
21
9/24/2018
24
23
5/21 /2018
23
22
9/26/2018
24
23
5/29/2018
22
22
9/28/2018
24
23
6/1 /2018
24
23
10/1 /2018
22
22
6/4/2018
23
23
10/8/2018
24
23
6/6/2018
22
21
10/15/2018
19
18
6/8/2018
23
22
10/22/2018
14
13
6/11 /2018
24
23
10/29/2018
14
13
6/13/2018
23
22
11 /5/2018
16
15
6/15/2018
24
23
11 /14/2018
12
12
6/18/2018
26
25
11 /19/2018
11
10
6/20/2018
25
24
11 /26/2018
11
10
6/22/2018
27
25
12/3/2018
14
13
6/25/2018
26
25
12/10/2018
6
6
6/27/2018
24
24
12/17/2018
9
9
6/29/2018
25
24
12/27/2018
7
8
7/2/2018
26
25
12/31 /2018
12
12
7/5/2018
26
25
1 /7/2019
10
11
7/6/2018
27
26
1 /14/2019
7
6
7/9/2018
24
22
1 /22/2019
4
3
7/11 /2018
24
23
1 /28/2019
7
6
7/13/2018
25
24
2/4/2019
8
6
7/16/2018
25
25
2/11 /2019
10
8
7/18/2018
25
24
2/18/2019
9
9
7/20/2018
24
23
2/25/2019
9
10
7/23/2018
26
24
3/4/2019
11
11
7/25/2018
26
25
3/11 /2019
13
12
7/27/2018
26
24
3/18/2019
11
9
7/30/2018
25
24
3/25/2019
14
12
8/1 /2018
26
24
4/1 /2019
14
12
8/3/2018
25
25
4/8/2019
16
17
8/6/2018
26
24
4/15/2019
20
19
4/22/2019
16
15
9/20/2019
20
20

4/29/2019
20
18
9/23/2019
21
20
5/6/2019
21
20
9/25/2019
21
21
5/13/2019
21
20
9/27/2019
24
23
5/20/2019
24
22
9/30/2019
25
24
5/28/2019
25
24
10/1 /2019
24
24
6/3/2019
22
23
10/7/2019
21
21
6/5/2019
23
22
10/14/2019
20
19
6/7/2019
24
23
10/21 /2019
17
16
6/10/2019
23
22
10/28/2019
19
18
6/12/2019
22
21
11 /4/2019
12
12
6/14/2019
22
20
11 /12/2019
13
11
6/17/2019
24
23
11 /18/2019
10
9
6/19/2019
25
24
11 /25/2019
10
10
6/21 /2019
25
25
12/2/2019
12
10
6/24/2019
23
23
12/9/2019
9
8
6/26/2019
24
24
12/16/2019
9
9
6/28/2019
24
23
12/23/2019
8
7
7/1 /2019
25
25
12/30/2019
15
15
7/3/2019
25
24
1 /6/2020
9
8
7/5/2019
26
25
1 /13/2020
15
15
7/8/2019
27
25
1 /21 /2020
6
6
7/10/2019
27
26
1 /27/2020
8
8
7/12/2019
26
25
2/3/2020
8
8
7/15/2019
26
26
2/10/2020
9
8
7/17/2019
27
26
2/17/2020
10
9
7/19/2019
28
27
2/24/2020
10
8
7/22/2019
27
26
3/2/2020
9
8
7/24/2019
24
23
3/9/2020
10
11
7/26/2019
25
23
3/16/2020
14
14
7/29/2019
25
24
3/23/2020
15
15
7/31 /2019
24
23
3/30/2020
21
20
8/2/2019
25
25
4/6/2020
17
16
8/5/2019
25
24
4/13/2020
18
16
8/7/2019
26
24
4/20/2020
16
15
8/9/2019
26
24
4/27/2020
17
16
8/12/2019
26
24
5/4/2020
19
18
8/14/2019
26
25
5/11 /2020
16
15
8/16/2019
25
25
5/18/2020
21
20
8/19/2019
27
26
5/26/2020
22
21
8/21 /2019
26
26
6/1 /2020
21
20
8/23/2019
26
25
6/3/2020
22
21
8/26/2019
23
22
6/5/2020
24
23
8/28/2019
24
23
6/8/2020
25
24
8/30/2019
22
22
6/10/2020
23
23
9/3/2019
25
24
6/12/2020
25
24
9/4/2019
25
24
6/15/2020
22
20
9/6/2019
23
23
6/17/2020
19
18
9/9/2019
26
25
6/19/2020
21
21
9/10/2019
26
25
6/22/2020
24
22
9/11 /2019
25
24
6/24/2020
25
25
9/13/2019
26
25
6/26/2020
24
23
9/16/2019
24
24
6/29/2020
26
25
9/18/2019
23
23
7/1 /2020
26
24
7/2/2020
25
24
1 /4/2021
11
11
7/6/2020
25
24
1 /11 /2021
6
5

7/8/2020
25
24
1 /19/2021
6
4
7/10/2020
26
24
1 /25/2021
8
7
7/13/2020
26
25
2/1 /2021
6
6
7/15/2020
26
25
2/8/2021
6
5
7/17/2020
26
24
2/15/2021
6
6
7/20/2020
27
26
2/22/2021
6
6
7/22/2020
28
28
3/1 /2021
14
13
7/24/2020
26
25
3/8/2021
9
7
7/27/2020
26
26
3/15/2021
15
14
7/29/2020
25
25
3/22/2021
12
12
7/31 /2020
26
25
3/29/2021
16
16
8/3/2020
27
26
4/5/2021
14
12
8/6/2020
26
24
4/12/2021
18
18
8/7/2020
26
24
4/19/2021
17
16
8/10/2020
25
24
4/26/2021
17
16
8/12/2020
26
24
5/3/2021
20
19
8/14/2020
26
25
5/10/2021
19
18
8/17/2020
23
22
5/17/2021
18
16
8/19/2020
24
23
5/24/2021
21
20
8/21 /2020
24
23
6/1 /2021
19
18
8/24/2020
25
24
6/2/2021
21
19
8/26/2020
25
24
6/4/2021
22
21
8/28/2020
26
25
6/7/2021
23
22
8/31 /2020
26
25
6/9/2021
24
22
9/2/2020
26
25
6/11 /2021
24
23
9/4/2020
26
26
6/14/2021
24
23
9/8/2020
22
21
6/16/2021
24
23
9/9/2020
24
23
6/18/2021
22
21
9/11 /2020
24
23
6/21 /2021
24
23
9/14/2020
24
23
6/23/2021
23
23
9/16/2020
22
21
6/25/2021
22
21
9/18/2020
22
22
6/28/2021
24
22
9/21 /2020
18
17
6/30/2021
24
23
9/23/2020
17
16
7/2/2021
25
24
9/25/2020
19
18
7/6/2021
24
23
9/28/2020
20
20
7/7/2021
24
23
9/30/2020
19
19
7/9/2021
24
23
10/1 /2020
18
18
7/12/2021
26
24
10/5/2020
17
16
7/14/2021
25
24
10/12/2020
20
20
7/16/2021
26
24
10/19/2020
17
15
7/19/2021
24
24
10/26/2020
18
17
7/22/2021
25
25
11 /2/2020
14
14
7/23/2021
25
24
11 /9/2020
17
16
7/26/2021
25
24
11 /16/2020
16
15
7/28/2021
25
25
11 /23/2020
13
12
7/30/2021
26
25
11 /30/2020
14
14
8/2/2021
25
25
12/1 /2020
12
11
8/4/2021
23
23
12/7/2020
10
8
8/6/2021
23
22
12/14/2020
12
11
8/9/2021
24
23
12/22/2020
11
12
8/11 /2021
26
25
12/29/2020
13
13
8/13/2021
26
25
8/16/2021
26
24
2/7/2022
8
7
8/18/2021
25
24
2/14/2022
7
7
8/20/2021
26
25
2/21 /2022
9
8

8/23/2021
26
25
8/25/2021
26
25
8/27/2021
26
24
8/30/2021
25
24
9/1 /2021
26
25
9/3/2021
22
22
9/7/2021
23
21
9/8/2021
24
22
9/10/2021
22
21
9/13/2021
22
20
9/15/2021
23
22
9/17/2021
24
23
9/20/2021
23
22
9/22/2021
24
23
9/24/2021
20
20
9/27/2021
19
18
9/29/2021
20
19
9/30/2021
21
20
10/1 /2021
20
20
10/4/2021
21
20
10/11 /2021
21
20
10/18/2021
16
16
10/25/2021
17
16
11 /1 /2021
15
14
11 /8/2021
10
10
11 /15/2021
10
10
11 /22/2021
12
10
11 /29/2021
8
8
12/6/2021
11
10
12/13/2021
9
9
12/20/2021
10
10
12/28/2021
12
12
1 /3/2022
16
16
1 /10/2022
10
9
1 /18/2022
5
4
1 /24/2022
4
2
1 /31 /2022
4
3
2/28/2022
11
11
3/7/2022
16
15
3/14/2022
10
8
3/21 /2022
14
12
3/28/2022
12
11
4/4/2022
14
13
4/11 /2022
14
13
4/18/2022
18
18
4/25/2022
18
19
5/2/2022
20
19
5/9/2022
17
15
5/16/2022
21
20
5/24/2022
22
21
5/31 /2022
24
23
6/1 /2022
24
23
6/3/2022
24
23
6/6/2022
21
21
6/8/2022
23
22
6/10/2022
23
22
6/13/2022
24
22
6/15/2022
25
24
6/17/2022
24
24
6/20/2022
21
21
6/22/2022
22
21
6/24/2022
25
24
6/27/2022
25
24
6/29/2022
24
23

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO037508 MRS Betweel 8 - 2017 and 8 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name:% Param Name% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 08/15/22 Page 1 of 2
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin:% Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO037508
FACILITY: Moore County -Moore County WPCF
COUNTY: Moore
REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
04 -2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04/30/18
5 X week
mg/I
5
5.62
12.4
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
09-2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
09/22/18
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
11.98
59.7
Weekly Average
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
Exceeded
09 -2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
09/30/18
5 X week
mg/I
5
5.91
18.1
Monthly Average
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
Exceeded
04 -2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04/20/19
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
8.02
7
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
04 -2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04/30/19
5 X week
mg/I
5
5.33
6.6
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
06 -2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
06/30/19
5 X week
mg/I
5
5.58
11.6
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
07 -2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
07/06/19
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
8.23
9.7
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
09 -2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
09/28/19
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
7.6
1.3
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
10-2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
10/05/19
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
8.06
7.5
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
05 -2020
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
05/31/20
5 X week
mg/I
5
5.17
3.4
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
07 -2020
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
07/31/20
5 X week
mg/I
5
5.9
17.9
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
05 -2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
05/31/22
5 X week
mg/I
5
5.17
3.5
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
06 -2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
06/04/22
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
13.23
76.3
Weekly Average
None
Concentration
Exceeded
06-2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
06/11/22
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
9.3
24
Weekly Average
None
Concentration
Exceeded
06 -2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
06/18/22
5 X week
mg/I
7.5
9.38
25.1
Weekly Average
None
Concentration
Exceeded

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO037508 MRS Betweel 8 - 2017 and 8 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name:% Param Name% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 08/15/22 Page 2 of 2
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin:% Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO037508 FACILITY: Moore County -Moore County WPCF COUNTY: Moore REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
06 -2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
06/30/22
5 X week
mg/I
Concentration
09-2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
09/22/18
5 X week
mg/I
N) - Concentration
09-2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
09/30/18
5 X week
mg/I
N) - Concentration
09-2018
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
09/20/18
5 X week
mg/I
5 6.63
32.5
Monthly Average
None
Exceeded
3 5.18
72.8
Weekly Average
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
1 1.22
21.9
Monthly Average
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
6 5.85
2.5
Daily Minimum Not
No Action, BPJ
Reached

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 15 I 3 I NCO037508 I11 121 22/02/15 I17 18 I C I 19 I G I 201
21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 f6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 131 CA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 71 1N j 72 I n, I 73LLI74 71 I I I I I I I80
70Iu —
IData LJ
Section B: Facility
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:OOAM 22/02/15
16/11/01
Moore County WPCF
1094 Adder Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Aberdeen NC 28315
01:30PM 22/02/15
21/10/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Stephen Glenn Morgan/ORC/910-947-4345/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Stephen Glenn Morgan,425 Edward Rd Star NC 27356//910-281-3146/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.)
31 NCO037508 I11 12I 22/02/15 117 18 1 S
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The Moore Co. WPCF is a 10MGD, grade 4 facility. The facility's grounds and laboratory were
well -maintained. Stephen Morgan and Connie Flowers accompanied DEQ staff during the inspection.
Records were available for review and were found to be accurate. The facility submitted a permit
renewal application on 3/29/2021. We note that staff make a copy of each newly completed page of
the ORC log on a monthly basis. A bound book is another option for a ORC log. Back-up ORC
Jeremy Monroe will be removed and replaced with James Newman (Grade 4 WW). DMRs for Aug. and
Feb. 2021 were reviewed. Reports were free of errors and records were complete. The facility
contracts with Meritech Labs but will switch to Environment One in June.
Three out of four influent pumps are operational. One pump is currently being repaired. Headworks
alarm testing records are stored in the ORC's office. The facility has three back-up generators.
Testing is conducted regularly. Records are stored in the ORC's office. Influent sampling occurs for
process control only and is time -based. Copious biofilm was observed in the sampler tubing. The
temperature inside the refrigerated sampler cabinet at the influent and effluent was approximately
0°C. Contents of the debris dumpster are disposed of once per day. Grit dumpsters are emptied
every 1-2 days.
One primary clarifier was out of service for the season. Sludge blanket was approximately 1 ft. Sludge
blanket was approximately 4 in. in the secondary and tertiary clarifier. DO levels in both aeration
basins averaged —2.0 mg/l. Lime slurry is added to the second stage basin to adjust pH. One
chamber in the second stage basin was offline for valve replacement. Flow meters are calibrated
twice annually. The last calibration occurred on 8/4/21 and is scheduled for 2/16/22. There are six
total sand filters. One filter was down for media replacement at the time of the inspection.
Transmittance in the UV disinfection array was —65%. Replacement bulbs are kept in a secure
storage shed next to the UV array.
Sludge is hauled to the Anson Co. landfill. Drying beds are only used in emergencies.
Samples for permit compliance were collected at Outfall 001 from Moore Co. WPCF's 24-hour
composite equipment on February 15th, 2022. Parameters sampled were BOD, TSS, fecal coliform,
and nutrients (ammonia, NO2/NO3, TKN, and TP). These samples were submitted to the Division of
Water Resources Laboratory in Raleigh, NC.
Table 1. Laboratory results from compliance inspection testing on February 15th, 2022.
Parameter Result Unit
BOD1 3.1 mg/I
TSS4 6.25 mg/I
Feca12 6 CFU/100ml
Ammonia 0.02 mg/I as N
NO2+NO33 12 mg/I as N
Total Phosphorus3 2.4 mg/I as P
1 The glucose/glutamic acid standard exceeded the range of 198 t 30.5 mg/l.
2 Sample exceeded holding time prior to receipt at lab.
3 Elevated PQL due to matrix interference and/or sample dilution
4 Indicates that the analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the reported practical
quantitation limit.
Page#

Permit: NCO037508
Inspection Date: 02/15/2022
Owner -Facility: Moore County WPCF
Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Yes
No
NA
NE
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The facility submitted a permit renewal application on 3/29/2021. A bound book is ideal
for use as an ORC log. We note that staff make a copy of each newly completed page
of the ORC log on a monthly basis. Back-up ORC Jeremy Monroe will be removed and
replaced with James Newman (Grade 4 WW). DMRs for Aug. and Feb. 2021 were
reviewed. Reports were free of errors and records were complete.
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO037508 Owner -Facility: Moore County WPCF
Inspection Date: 02/15/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Laboratory
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other pa ra mete rs(exclud ing field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The facility contracts with Meritech Labs but will switch to Environment One in June.
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment: Three out of four influent pumps are operational. One pump is currently being
repaired. Headworks alarm testing records are stored in the ORC's office.
IY4M. kr•7k rim k1:4
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
0
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
0
❑
❑
❑
power?
Page# 4

Permit: NCO037508
Inspection Date: 02/15/2022
Standby Power
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Owner -Facility: Moore County WPCF
Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility has three back-up generators. Testing is conducted regularly. Records are
stored in the ORC's office.
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
❑
0
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Influent sampling occurs for process control only and is time -based. Copious
biofilm
was observed in the sampler tubing. Temperature inside the refrigerated sampler
cabinet was approximately 0°C.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Contents of the debris dumpster are disposed of once per day.
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Contents of the grit dumpster are disposed of every 1-2 days.
Page# 5

Permit: NCO037508 Owner - Facility: Moore County WPCF
Inspection Date: 02/15/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Primary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One primary clarifier was out of service for the season. Sludge blanket was
approximately 1 ft.
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sludge blanket was approximately 4 in.
Aeration Basins
Yes No
NA
NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO037508 Owner -Facility: Moore County WPCF
Inspection Date: 02/15/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Aeration Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: DO levels in both aeration basins averaged —2.0 mg/l. Lime slurry
is added to the
second stage basin to adjust PH. One chamber in the second stage
basin was offline
for valve replacement.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
IY4M. ill r•7ill rim ill I:I
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Flow meters are calibrated twice annually. The last calibration occurred on 8/4/21 and
is scheduled for 2/16/22.
Sand Filters (Low rate)
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If pumps are used) Is an audible and visible alarm Present and operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the distribution box level and watertight?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sand filter free of ponding?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sand filter effluent re -circulated at a valid ratio?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sand filter surface free of algae or excessive vegetation?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sand filter effluent re -circulated at a valid ratio? (Approximately 3 to 1)
❑
❑
❑
Comment: There are six total sand filters. One filter was down for media replacement at the time
of the inspection.
Disinfection - UV
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are UV bulbs clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is UV intensity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there a backup system on site?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is effluent clear and free of solids?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Transmittance was at 65%. Replacement bulbs are kept in a secure storage shed next
to the UV array.
Page# 7

Permit: NC0037508
Inspection Date: 02/15/2022
Owner - Facility: Moore County WPCF
Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Anaerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Floating cover
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is gas stored on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
0
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Drying Beds
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
❑
0
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Sludge is hauled to the Anson Co. landfill. Drying beds are only
used in emergencies.
Effluent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
Page# 8

Permit: NCO037508 Owner - Facility: Moore County WPCF
Inspection Date: 02/15/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: Temperature inside the refrigerated sampler cabinet was approximately 0°C.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Page# 9

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Moore County WWTP NCO037508/001 County: Moore
Ceri7dPF Begin: 12/1/2010 chr lim: 41% or 50% NonComp: Single
J F M A M
2018 - - Pass - -
2019 - - Pass - -
2020 - - Pass - -
2021 - - Pass >100(P) - -
2022 - - Pass - -
Region: FRO Basin: LUM50 Mar Jun Sep Dec
7Q10: 15.2 PF: 6.7 IWC: 40.54 Freq: Q
J J A S O
Pass >100(P) - - Pass -
Pass - - Pass -
Pass - - >100(P) Pass -
Pass - - Pass -
Pass
SOC JOC:
N D
Pass
- Pass >100(P)
Pass
Pass
Mooresville -Rocky River WWTP
NCO046728/001 County: Iredell
Region: MRO
Basin: YAD11 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin:
4/1/2014 chr lim: <5.5 MGD @ NonComp:
Single 7Q10: 0.5
PF: 5.5 IWC: 94.15 Freq: Q
J
F M A
M J J
A S O N D
2018 -
Pass - -
Pass - -
Pass - - Pass -
2019 -
Pass - -
Pass - -
Pass - - Pass -
2020 -
Pass - -
Pass - -
Pass - - Pass -
2021 -
Pass - -
Pass - -
Pass - - Pass >100 (P) -
2022 -
Pass >100 (P) - -
Pass 76.5 (P) - -
- - - - -
Morehead City WWTP
NCO026611/001 County:
Carteret
Mysd24PF
Begin: 4/1/2013
24hr p/f ac lim: 90% +
NonComp:
Single
J
F M
A
M
2018
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2019
>100(P) Pass >100(P) -
-
Pass
2020
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2021
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2022
-
Pass -
-
Pass
Morganton -Catawba R.PCF
NCO026573/001 County:
Burke
Ceri7dPF
Begin: 5/1/2016
chr lim: 9% @ 8MGD;
NonComp:
Single
J
F M
A
M
2018
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2019
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2020
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2021
Pass
>36 (P) >36 (P) >36 (P) Pass
>36 if
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
Motiva Enterprises -
South Charlotte Ter
NCO046892/001 County:
Mecklenburg
Ceri24PF
Begin: 4/1/2021
Cerio24PF Lim: 90%
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2018
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2019
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2020
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2021
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
Region:
WIRO
Basin:
WOK03
Feb May Aug Nov
SOC JOC:
7Q10: TIDAL
PF: 1.7
IWC:
NA Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
N
-
-
Pass
-
-
>100(P) >100
-
-
Pass >100(P)
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
Region:
ARO
Basin:
CTB31
Jan Apr Jul Oct
SOC JOC:
7Q10: 126
PF:
IWC:
8.96 Freq: Q
l
J
A
S
O
N
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Region:
MRO
Basin:
CTB34
Jan Apr Jul Oct
SOC JOC:
7Q10: 0.0
PF: NA
IWC:
100 Freq: Q
l
J
A
S
O
N
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
D
>100(P)
C
C
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 73 of 117

Page 1
NPDES/PT POCs Review Form
Version:2021.10.20
I. Facility's General Information and Permit Writer (pw)'s checklist
Date of Review
8/22/2022
POCs review due to
permit writer, please check if/when completed
Permit Writer
Nick Coco
Municipal renewal
❑
1. Notify Permittee and cc PT staff in regional office if effluent LTMP/STMP data that should be on
DMRs is not really there/ Request DMR update
❑ NA ❑
Facility Name
Moore County WPCP
New Industries
❑
2. Notify PT staff in comment section below the NPDES POCs that need to be maintained/added
in LTMP/STMP and HWA/AT
❑
Permit Number
NCO037508
WWTP expansion
❑
3. Review PQLs used in L/STMP vs 2017 recommended PQLs (See tab 2017 PQLs tab) & All
POCs per section IV
❑
Permitted Flow, mgd
10.00
Designed
Flow, mgd
Speculative limits
❑
3. Email PT staff in central office, regional office, and Facility: draft permit package. PDF this form
and include it in attachments
❑
Permitted SIU Flow,
mgd
0.08
Stream reclass.
❑
4. Email this excel form to PT staff in central office, regional office, and the permittee add it to the
respective SharePoint PT —Town Folder (04. PT_Towns> NCOOXXXXX>NPDES Permit)
❑
Region
Fayetteville
Outfall relocation
❑
5. Email PT staff in central office, regional office, and Facility: final permit package. (Note effective
date and 180 days after, at the bottom of this form). Email the final excel form to PT staff in
central office and regional office and add it to the respective SharePoint NPDES Folder (NPDES
Permit Files>NCO OXXXXX) and SharePoint PT Town Folder
❑
Regional PT Staff
Stephanie Zorio
7Q10 update
❑
6. Notify PT Permittee about new parameters with monitoring/limit (share ICIS parameters file to
ensure they use the right parameter code in the eDMR) and whether PQLs need to be adjusted.
❑
Facility PT Staff, email
Connie Flowers,
[e-mail]
Other, explain in comments
❑
8. For inactive or not developed PT Programs:
Central Office
NPDES/PT Staff
Keyes McGee
# SIUs
8.1 Review POCs/last IWS/check industryselect.com to check industrial activity in town and ❑ NA
compare with last approved IWS and POCs that are present in DMR and PPA.
8.2 If you deem necessary, follow-up with Permittee regarding IU and POCs and determine if a
special condition in NPDES permit requiring a Full IWS submittal is deemed neccessary. ❑ NA 0
9. Thank you
IWS approval date
9/7/2018
# CIUs
L/STMP, approval date:
12/16/2019
# NSCIUs
Basin - Stream Class.
Lumber River- C
# IUs w/Local
Permits
#
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU POCs
IUP Renewal Effective Date
1
Erico, Inc
Electroplating
Flow, pH, BOD, COD, TSS, O&G, NH3, TTO, Cd, Cn, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ag, Ni, Zn, Hg
6/1/2020
2
Thermal Metal Treating
Electroplating
Flow, pH, BOD, COD, TSS, O&G, NH3, TTO, Cd, Cn, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ag, Ni, Zn, Hg
3/1/2021
3
Southeastern Tool & Die
Powder coat
paintings
Flow, pH, BOD, COD, TSS, O&G, NH3, TTO, Cd, Cn, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ag, Ni, Zn, Hg
7/1/2020
4
5
6
7
8
II. Comments from NPDES pw
Facility Summary and NPDES regulatory action:
Comments from NPDES pw to PT staff (Central, RO, Facility):
Moore County applied for NPDES permit renewal for its Moore County
WPCP in March 2021. The Facility has a permitted capacity of 10.0 MGD.
, .�Aity discharges approximately 1.3 mile:., upstream of waters designated as High Quality Waters (15A
NCAC 02B .0224) and approximately 9 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-V waters. Based on
RPA review, total silver and total cyanide limits are proposed. Based on mercury TMDL evaluation, an
annual average mercury limit is proposed.
III. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
Status
❑
of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEW if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium sampling)
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill
8) other
❑
❑
p
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
37508 NPDES PT POCs review

Page 2
IV. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
PW: Find S/LTMP document, HWA spreadsheet, and DMR, previous and new NPDES
permit for next section.
a
Cn
S
U
as
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES/
Non-Disch
POC
Required by
EPA (1)
Required by
503 Sludge
(2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC
(4)
% RR
L/STMP
Effluent Freq
PQL Review
PQL from
S/LTMP
Unit
Recomended
PQL (DWR Lab)
Comment
0
Flow
0
0
Q
0
BOD
0
0
99
Q
_
mg/L
2.0 mg/L
0
TSS
0
0
99
Q
5
mg/L
0
NH3
0
❑
0
99
Q
0.1
mg/L
0.02 mg/L
❑p
Arsenic
0
❑
45
Q
2.0 ug/L
❑
Beryllium(5)
Q
0
Cadmium(1)
❑p
0
0
67
Q
0.002
mg/L
0.5 ug/L
0
Chromium(1)
0
❑p
0
64
Q
0.005
mg/L
5.0 ug/L
0
Copper(1)
❑
0
0
0
70
Q
0.002
mg/L
2.0 ug/L
0
Cyanide
0
❑
0
69
Q
0.01
mg/L
0.02 mg/L
❑
Fluoride
❑
❑
❑
0.1
mg/L
0.40 mg/L
0
Lead(1)
0
0
0
Q
` - -
mg/L
2.0 ug/L
❑p
Mercury(5)
0
❑
0
❑
97
Q
amp
1.0 ng/L
0
Molybdenum
0
10.3
Q
10 ug/L
0
Nickel(1)
0
0
❑p
51
Q
0.01
mg/L
2.0 ug/L
0
Silver
0
❑
❑
0
75
Q
0.001
mg/L
1.0 ug/L
0
Selenium
❑p
❑
50
Q
1.0 ug/L
0
Zinc(1)
71
Q
"
mg/1
10 ug/L
0
Sludge (Flow to Disposal
0
Q
0
% Solids to Disposal
0
Q
0
Oil & Grease
❑
0
5.0 mg/L
❑
MBAs
❑
❑
1,4-Dioxane
❑
❑
❑
TN
❑
❑
❑
TP
❑
❑
Total Phenols
❑
❑
❑
Antimony
❑
❑
Aluminum
❑
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or compost (dif POCs for incinerators)
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP if sewage sludge is incinerated (Be and Hg according to § 503.43)
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
Please use red font/cell filling for POCs that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
Please use orange font for POCs that may be removed from L/STMP POC list/sampling plan
Blue shaded cell: Parameters usually included
1. Is all effluent data required on L/STMP on DMRs?
Yes 1 0 1 No
■❑
11.1 If not, request submittal and cc PT staff central office I Date of request:
37508 NPDES PT POCs review

Page 3
V. NPDES pw completes this section when issuing NPDES permit:
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date:
Effective date:
NPDES PERMIT WRITER (PW) eDMR and PQLs Notification email to Permittee
Date
Date
VI. Central Office PT Staff Completes this section:
Comments from PT Central Office ((ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems)
Checklist
1. Updated FileMaker with NPDES pw comments on FileMaker PT summary
p
2. Updated ProTrac with the following datelines
0
2.1
Schedule of compliance for POC was added (Y/N)
Which POC?
Dateline for
2.2
180 days after pw is effective is added
0
2.3
IWS submittal is required by NPDES permit
Dateline
3. Is all data required on L/STMP in spreadsheets with HWA/AT submittal?
Yes
No
''
a. LTMP required
From
to
b. STMP required
From
to
3.1 If not, require submittal and
update HWAs file
4. All PQLs used in submittal follow the 2017 PQL recommendatio and all NPDES permit PQL requirement?
IYes
I
INo
p
VI. Regional Office PT Staff Completes this Section (optional):
Comments from PT RO Staff (ex. updates on the actions required above, issues noted missed above/general feedback/questions and send the form to NPDES pw and PT staff Central Office
37508 NPDES PT POCs review

Coco, Nick A
From: Coco, Nick A
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:07 AM
To: Stephen Morgan; Connie Flowers
Cc: Montebello, Michael J
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Ah ok, thank you very much for clarifying this. I will go ahead and remove the compliance schedule and proceed with the
cyanide requirements.
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 10:33 AM
To: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>; Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning
Based on our review of available data, we wish to remove the compliance schedule (for cyanide) and proceed with limits
and monitoring only.

Thankyou
From: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>; Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Hi,
The cyanide samples can't be verified because they only have a hold time of 14 days.
Sincerely,
Connie Ft6wers
Chemist / Pretreatment Coordinator
wloore County -WPCP
Direct .Number: (910) -947-4332
WPCP Main Number: [phone]
Fax: [phone]'
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:58 AM
To: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>; Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for reaching out to me about this. Please note that, with regard to cyanide, there were two reported
detections above 10 ug/L: As you mentioned, the 3/5/19 result of 18 ug/L and a detection of 11 ug/L on 6/8/2021.
Would you please verify both of these samples and have the lab explain why they are not valid results? Should the lab
provide sufficient explanation as to why these reported detections are invalid, I can remove them from our RPA. If not,
we would still be putting a limit and monitoring in the permit. If this ends up being the case, would you still like to
remove the compliance schedule from the draft and just proceed with limits and monitoring?
I just want to make sure I understand the request and that we are both on the same page before making any changes to
the draft.
Thanks,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604

Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
A.0 -:X'tMh11g "msraw
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:47 AM
To: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>; Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning
Total cyanide results for 3/5/19 revealed <0.005 mg/L for influent & 0.018 mg/L for effluent. We feel it is the same
situation as with the total silver. Our current lab received influent / effluent samples today 8/23/2022 to test for total
cyanide. We will provide results once received.
We request to remove the compliance schedule for total cyanide, monthly testing to remain if required.
Thankyou
From: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 7:17 AM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>; Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Good morning,
I will forward it as soon as I receive it.
Thank you,
Connie _'Cowers
Chemist / Pretreatment Coordinator
Moore County -WPCP
Direct .Number: [phone]
WPCP Main Number: [phone]
Fax: [phone]'

Coco, Nick A
From:
Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:29 AM
To:
Coco, Nick A
Cc:
Montebello, Michael J; Connie Flowers
Subject:
RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning
Yes, please set us up on a compliance schedule for silver & total cyanide.
Any advance clarification on the subject would be appreciated.
Thankyou
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 4:36 PM
To: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J<[e-mail]>; Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP
Hi Stephen,
I was only asking because the review of the metals data in the reasonable potential analysis (RPA) showed that the
individual detection for silver ends up demonstrating reasonable potential for excursions above state surface water
standards for total silver. The background information with regard to industrial contribution would help provide context
to the detection. As it stands, the RPA review has resulted in the proposed addition of limits and monthly monitoring for
total silver and total cyanide. I've summarized the analysis below.
Regarding the proposed limit, upon request and justification, Permittees may be granted Schedules of Compliance for
newly added limits in their permits. I bring this up because the Moore County WPCP did report nitrate samples detected
at levels near or above the parameter's allowable discharge concentrations. If you wish to have a compliance schedule,
please let me know. If you believe that you will be able to achieve compliance with your permit limits upon the effective
date of the permit, we can skip the compliance schedule.
Summary of data
Parameter
Maximum Reported
Maximum Predicted
Allowable
RPA Analysis Decision
Concentration
Concentration
Discharge
Concentration
Total Silver
3.8 ug/L
7.372 ug/L
MA 0.11 ug/L
RP shown - apply Monthly
(6/6/2022)
DM 2.6 ug/L
Monitoring with Limit
Total Cyanide
18.0 ug/L
23.8 ug/L
MA 9.9 ug/L
RP shown - apply Monthly
(3/5/2019)
DM 39.8 ug/L
Monitoring with Limit
Let me know if you would like to have a compliance schedule for total silver and/or total cyanide whenever you get the
chance.

Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 3:37 PM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J<[e-mail]>; Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good afternoon
Meritech ran the sample in question, but we did not ask them to rerun it to verify.
We have had no notification of silver from our industries.
None of our industries were sampled for silver in June.
Do you wish us to have 6/6/2022's silver sample reanalyzed?
Thank you
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP

Hi Stephen,
I havejust finished my review of the eDMR metals data and wanted to ask a quick couple of follow-up questions
regarding the 6/6/2022 total silver data point:
• Has this data point been verified by the lab as a valid detection?
• Do you have any notification from your pretreatment team regarding influent silver levels received from the
SIUs contributing to the plant's wastewater? If so, was any action taken regarding total silver for this event?
Thanks in advance for your time.
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Coco, Nick A
From: Coco, Nick A
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:52 PM
To: Connie Flowers; Stephen Morgan
Cc: Montebello, Michael J
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Hi Connie,
I appreciate you following up with the lab to get this reanalyzed. Based on the new result, we would not be putting a
silver limit or monitoring requirement in the permit, as all samples would have been non -detect. I am revising the draft
permit now to remove the silver requirements, adjusting the compliance schedule to remove silver, and making a note
in the fact sheet explaining the situation. When the lab give an official explanation as to why they achieved a different
result, please forward a copy my way for inclusion in the file as supporting documentation.
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
A0' `[ Fr g Coe 4NMv -%.'
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>; Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good afternoon Mr. Coco,

Since metals have a 6-month hold time, we requested Meritech to reanalyze the June effluent sample for silver and the
result was <0.0005 mg/L. I've attached the results for your review. I've also requested an explanation for the difference
in results. I will forward it to you once received.
Since silver was not a true detection in June, will the new permit still require a monthly silver testing requirement with
limits and a compliance schedule?
Thank you,
Connie Ft6wers
Chemist / Pretreatment Coordinator
wloore County NPCP
Direct .Number: [phone]
NPCP Main Number: [phone]
Fax: [phone]'
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:55 AM
To: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Good morning Stephen,
Thank you very much for providing this. I should have a draft permit ready for comment soon.
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
A.0 `NO#h1ng Ca llVsres -,L.-
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:09 AM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning
Please find attached file.
Thankyou
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:20 PM
To: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Hi Stephen,
I hope all is well on your end.
I have been informed during the internal review of the upcoming draft permit that I actually need to get the chemical
addendum sheet from you and it just needs to be signed off. In the sheet, since you don't have any additional pollutants
for which you sample, you can just note that no additional monitoring is conducted and therefore no additional
pollutants have been identified. Sorry for the confusion on this. When you get the chance, please send me a signed copy
of the attached form.
Please don't hesitate to reach back out if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**

N-C -,02*�hllng Coffpmms -%.-
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coco, Nick A
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for letting us know. I'm hoping to wrap up the renewal soon and have something prepped for your review. I
will reach out with additional questions, should something come up.
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
A0-- 1MW2 COfV01 .%�
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:32 PM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Connie Flowers <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: NCO037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good afternoon
To our knowledge there are no additional pollutants which we should be testing for.
Thankyou
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:36 PM
To: Stephen Morgan <[e-mail]>
Subject: NC0037508 Moore County WPCP Additional Information Request
Hi Stephen,
I hope all is well on your end.
I've begun reviewing the renewal application for NC0037508 Moore County WPCP and the application looks to be
complete. I just need the Chemical Addendum. For background, as required by Session Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99,
Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall now submit documentation of any additional pollutants for which there are
certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is anticipated. The list of pollutants may be found in 40
CFR Part 136, which is incorporated by reference. If there are additional pollutants with certified methods to be
reported, please submit the Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table with your application and, if applicable, list
the selected certified analytical method used. If there are no additional pollutants to report, this form is not required to
be included with your application. This requirement applies to all NPDES facilities. The Chemical Addendum to NPDES
Application will be required for any type of facility with an NPDES permit, depending on whether those types of
pollutants are found in your wastewater. Please fill out and submit the Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application, when
you get the chance. You can just email it to me and I'll stick it in the file.
Thank you in advance for your time and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions.
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as we
try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
h.0 - �''�h1ng Caff sres -,L.-

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Contact: Connie Flowers
Client: Moore County WPCP
1094 Addor Rd
Aberdeen, NC 28315
Meritech Work Order # 060722277
Parameters
COD
Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Results
424 mg/L
Page 1
Revised Report Date:
811912O22
Report Date:
6/28/2022
NPDES#:
NC0037508
P.O. #:
18000149-00
Date Sample Rcvd:
6/7/2022
Sample: Landfill MS-1: OS27183 Grab
Analysis Date
6/14/22
Reporting Limit
Meritech Work Order # 060722278 Sample: Landfill MS-3: 0527184 Grab
Parameters
COD
15 mg/L
5/27/22
Method
EPA 410.4
5/27/22
Results Analysis Date Reporting Limit Method
118 mg/L 6/14/22 15 mg/L EPA 410.4
Meritech Work Order # 060722279
Parameters Results
Hardness (titration) 6 mg/L
Sample: Upstream: 0606029 Grab
Analysis Date Reporting Limit
6/7/22 1 mg/L
6/6/22
Method
SM 2340C
Meritech Work Order # 060722280
Sample: Influent: 0607030 Composite
6/6-7/22
Parameters
Results
Analysis Date
eporting Limit
Method
COD
467 mg/L
6/21/22
15 mg/L
EPA 410.4
TKN
33.2 mg/L
6/18/22
0.20 mg/L
EPA 351.1
Nitrate/Nitrite, Nitrogen
2.34 mg/L
6/14/22
0.10 mg/L
EPA 353.2
Nitrogen, total
35.5 mg/L
6/20/22
0.20 mg/L
EPA 353.2
Cadmium, total
<0.002 mg/L
6/10/22
0.002 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Chromium, total
<0.005 mg/L
6/10/22
0.005 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Copper, total
0.022 mg/L
6/10/22
0.002 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Lead, total
<0.010 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Nickel, total
0.022 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Phosphorus, total
4.34 mg/L
6/10/22
0.02 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Silver, total
<O,OOOS mg/L
6/22/22
0.0005 mg/L
EPA 200.8
Zinc, total
0.188 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No.165
Page 2
Revised Report Date: 811912022
Contact: Connie Flowers Report Date: 6/28/2022
Client: Moore County WPCP NPDES#: NCO037508
1094 Addor Rd P.O. #: 18000149-00
Aberdeen, NC 28315 Date Sample Rcvd: 6/7/2022
Meritech Work Order # 060722281
Parameters
Cyanide, total
Oil & Grease (HEM)
Results
<0.005 mg/L
<5.0 mg/L
Sample: Influent: 0607037-38 Grab
Analysis Date
6/14/22
6/13/22
Reporting Limit
0.005 mg/L
5 mg/L
6/7/22
Method
EPA 335.4
EPA1664B
Meritech Work Order # 060722282
Sample: Raw Sludge: 0607039 Grab
6/7/22
Parameters
Results
Analysis Date
Reporting Limit
Method
% Total Solids
3.79 %
6/21/22
0-100 %
SM 2540B
Cadmium, total
0.580 mg/kg
6/13/22
0.200 mg/kg
EPA 200.7
Chromium, total
39.6 mg/kg
6/13/22
0.250 mg/kg
EPA 200.7
Copper, total
325 mg/kg
6/13/22
1.00 mg/kg
EPA 200.7
Lead, total
10.5 mg/kg
6/13/22
0.500 mg/kg
EPA 200.7
Nickel, total
84.2 mg/kg
6/13/22
2.0 mg/kg
EPA 200.7
Silver, total
0.950 mg/kg
6/13/22
1.0 mg/kg
EPA 200.7
Zinc, total
1020 mg/kg
6/13/22
0.500 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Cyanide, total
<1.32 mg/kg
6/14/22
1.3 mg/kg
EPA 335.4
Meritech Work Order # 060722283
Sample: FSAB Waste Sludge: 0607040 Grab
6/7/22
Parameters
Results
Analysis Date
Re nporting Limit
Method
Cadmium, total
0.004 mg/L
6/10/22
0.002 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Chromium, total
0.040 mg/L
6/10/22
0.005 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Copper, total
1.35 mg/L
6/10/22
0.002 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Lead, total
0.036 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Nickel, total
0.092 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Silver, total
0.0040 mg/L
6/21/22
0.0005 mg/L
EPA 200.8
Zinc, total
3.62 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Cyanide, total
0.005 mg/L
6/14/22
0.050 mg/L
EPA 335.4
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Page 3
Revised Report Date: 811912022
Contact: Connie Flowers Report Date: 6/28/2022
Client: Moore County WPCP NPDES#: NCO037508
1094 Addor Rd P.O. #: 18000149-00
Aberdeen, NC 28315 Date Sample Rcvd: 6/7/2022
Meritech Work Order # 060722284 Sample: SSAB Waste Sludge: 0607041 Grab 6/7/22
Parameters Results Analysis Date Reporting Limit Method
Cadmium, total 0.003 mg/L 6/10/22 0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
Chromium, total 0.052 mg/L 6/10/22 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
Copper, total 0.977 mg/L 6/10/22 0.002 mg/L EPA 200.7
Lead, total 0.036 mg/L 6/10/22 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
Nickel, total 0.095 mg/L 6/10/22 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
Silver, total 0.0046 mg/L 6/21/22 0.0005 mg/L EPA 200.8
Zinc, total 2.44 mg/L 6/10/22 0.010 mg/L EPA 200.7
Cyanide, total 0.016 mg/L 6/14/22 0.050 mg/L EPA 335.4
Meritech Work Order # 060722285 Sample: Effluent: 0607031 Composite 6/6-7/22
Parameters Results Analysis Date Reporting Limit Method
COD
34 mg/L
6/21/22
15 mg/L
EPA 410.4
TKN
<0.20 mg/L
6/18/22
0.20 mg/L
EPA 351.1
Nitrate/Nitrite, Nitrogen
27.7 mg/L
6/14/22
0.10 mg/L
EPA 353.2
Nitrogen, total
27.7 mg/L
6/20/22
0.20 mg/L
EPA 353.2
Cadmium, total
<0.002 mg/L
6/10/22
0.002 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Chromium, total
<0.005 mg/L
6/10/22
0.005 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Copper, total
0.008 mg/L
6/10/22
0.002 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Lead, total
<0.010 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Nickel, total
0.014 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Phosphorus, total
3.66 mg/L
6/24/22
0.02 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Silver, total
<0.0005 mg/L
8119122
0.0005 mg/L
EPA 200.8
Zinc, total
0.056 mg/L
6/10/22
0.010 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Hardness Ctitration)
84 mg/L
6/9/22
1 mg/L
SM 2340C
Meritech Work Order # 060722286
Parameters
Cyanide, total
Results
<0.005 mg/L
Sample: Effluent: 0607042 Grab
Analysis Date
6/14/22
Reporting Limit
0.005 mg/L
6/7/22
Method
EPA 335.4
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data. AMP iQ
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

❑ X❑❑
-7
,:�o
{,n
77
m
m
U7
C
r
r
�.
(D
C
C
co Co
C
C
C
-
Q
Q
-V
=3
M
�
m
=
rD
-0
-0
O
rn
r*
O�,
O
rn
O
(nm
° n
ro
DQ
..
O
rn
0
O
0
rn
o
C.
1
o
low
V0
0
�, cn
0
0
a)
W
F-
a
o
o uj
Q CL
o
0
0
0
a)
0
0
0
pq m
rD fD
-i
O
w
V
O
O
N
N
V
V
n
Q
6
3
CL
0- D
O a00
4m m
O O
co
W
CL
O
a
rp
*
V v
O O
C
tv
d
rD
p
3t
(D
m
z
C
3
z
o
=
m
CA
1+
m
N
o
CD
n
V
Q
0
Z
O
CL
J
O
0
N
N
(,`j
r
O
O
R7
rD
ro
A
A
N
,fir
v
Z
M
Q
R
n�
O
:.
_
�
X
S
r
o
(D
COO
o
n
-�
�°
o
rD
n
=
o
O
A
rD
v
0
s
a)
W
W
o
n
cn
0LM
CL
n
O
O
.I m ro
v
\\
\
1
V
V
r��
Q°
N
"-'
C
n
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
�n
-4
m
�m
mCL
3
00
P+.
C
0
Oo
C
00
0 0
0
0
V
0
V
0
V
0
00
C
to
0
1p
CD
_{
="
rD
N
O
O
V
W W
w V
W
C31
O
W
O
N
O
O
41.
0
1.-
m
O
m
3
m
N
m
l°
Z
o
O
G�
k
D
Qa ro
�
fDrbCL
o
v+❑h
�^
4�
3
rV N
F-i
F-x
W
F-1
°
a
0 =
fD
(D
H
�'
y
O
ro
C
n-0
n
D
n n
a.
n
n
p
32o
n�
O°
n
O
O'
o
CD
a
rb
n n
n
M
d
v
o
o
D
_�_
(
(7
D n
Cl- O
p
rD
o
Q
D a
_
n n
n
ID
-1
o
v
a a
o
N
00
0:3
p
:3
cra
c
CL
-�
OC
rr
a
I
�- s
rD
O
3
Ln
-
ro
-
°
Z
Z
O
�'
C-+
a
Q n
m
LA
rD
EL
I
D
C
—
a
OC UQ
U4
_
��
+�
CL)
a
ff+
rD rD
v
o
O
N IV
r,4
p
°
n n
n
(p
lu N
L
v a a
n
x
E
3
a
0
rD rD
rD
h '
Y
_
:k
rD
x
O
fD
m
do
H
0
O
0-0XW
C)
LA
O
Li
QJLA
Lq
-
o
Uri
ro
c„
=
n
O
C)
o
C)
V W
o
00
'
O
r
u' 0=
n
U�1
`
rD rD dG
p
d
J c
z
cr
H
O o
7
C
w
\�
❑
0
C
J
orD
7
m
rf
o
0
0
o
r(<ol
N

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number facility Name Outfall Number
1.1004E+11 NC0037508 Moore County WPCP i
Method Number Estimated Concentration (if
Pollutant (Required) CAS number (ifA licable) Reason.PolFutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
Noassitional monitoring is conducte
no additional pollutants have been identified