NC0056863_Fact Sheet_20230405

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO056863
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco,[e-mail]:
Date: April 5,2023
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: Town of Rose Hill/Rose Hill Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP)
Applicant Address: PO Box 8,Rose Hill,NC 28458
Facility Address: 287 Charlie Teachey Road, Rose Hill,NC 28458
Permitted Flow: 0.45 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MINOR Municipal; 81.2%domestic, 18.8%industrial*
Facility Class: Grade 11 Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Bar Screen, Oxidation Ditch, Clarifiers,Aerated Sludge holding tank,
Sludge drying beds, Chlorination/Dechlorination,Post aeration basin
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y, STMP
County: Duplin
Region Wilmington
*Based on permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Rose Hill has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 0.45 MGD for the Rose Hill WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 1,600 residents, as well as 2 categorical significant industrial users (CIUs)
via an approved pretreatment program. The 2 CIUs direct flow to the Rose Hill WWTP only periodically.
Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged via Outfall 001 into Reedy Branch, a class C;
Sw waterbody in the Cape Fear River Basin. Outfall 001 is located approximately 9 miles upstream of
waters designated as HQW.
Historical Note: This facility discharges into a stream with an estimated 7Q 10 flow of 0.0 cfs and an
estimated 30Q2 flow of 0.0 cfs. Based on the receiving stream flow,the Rose Hill will not be allowed to
expand at this current discharge site (per 15A NCAC 02B .0206(d)(2)). The facility requested speculative
limits for expansion in December 2011 and February 2018, and DEQ responded to both requests that an
Page 1 of 12

increase in flow would not be allowed. It was recommended that Rose Hill review other options as non-
discharge,beneficial reuse or discharge to a stream with a positive 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows(DWQ
correspondence to Rose Hill were in January 2, 2008 and March, 14,2018).
Sludge disposal: The Town's drying beds and sludge removal are contracted out to Triple S Farms of
Kenansville,NC and are cleaned our within a period of every 24 months.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 Reedy Branch(Island Creek)
Stream Segment: 18-74-27
Stream Classification: C; Sw
Drainage Area(mi2): 0.12
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 0.0
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 0.0
30Q2 (cfs): 0.0
Average Flow(cfs): 0.2
IWC (%effluent): 100% (capped at 90%for toxicity testing)
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Not listed
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC: NE Cape Fear River/03-06-22/HUC: 03030005
USGS Topo Quad: H26SE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2018 through August 2022.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 0.22 1.41 0.02 MA 0.45
BOD summer mg/1 2.8 17.1 2 WA 15.0
MA 10.0
BOD winter mg/1 2.4 9 2 WA 27.0
MA 18.0
NH3-N summer mg/1 0.4 6.51 0.2 WA 6.0
MA 2.0
NH3-N winter mg/1 0.3 4.2 0.2 WA 12.0
MA 4.0
TSS mg/1 3.7 17.1 2 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
0>pH<
pH SU 6.8 9.23 6.37 6. 9.0
(geomean)
(geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml 1.4 5500 < 1 WA 400
MA 200
DO mg/l 8.3 14.01 6.01 DA>6.0
Page 2 of 12

DM 17.0
TRC µg/1 3.4 21 1 (<50
compliance)
Temperature ° C 21.1 29.9 10 Monitor&
Report
TN mg/l 23.2 33.7 11.1 Monitor&
Report
TP mg/l 1.9 2.62 1.12 Monitor&
Report
Total Cadmium ug/l < 1 < I < I Monitor&
Report
Total Zinc ug/l 30.6 42 17 Monitor&
Report
Total Copper ug/l 10.3 13 g Monitor&
Report
Total Hardness mg/l 148 260 100 Monitor&
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average
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 100 feet above the outfall and downstream at the NCSR 1933 bridge. As the facility is Grade 11,
instream sampling is conducted weekly. Data were analyzed for the period of June 2018 through
September 2022. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below. As the facility discharges to a zero-
flow stream,upstream hardness sampling is not required.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Upstream Downstream
Parameter Units
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 17.2 28.3 5.8 18.1 29.4 3.8
DO mg/l 8.3 15.7 1.5 5.7 14.51 0.47
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 30 occasions during the period reviewed. Review of concurrent effluent
temperature demonstrated effluent temperatures consistently higher than instream temperatures. While it
Page 3 of 12

was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
temperature, it does appear that the effluent has the potential to influence instream temperature. No
changes are proposed for instream temperature monitoring requirements at this time.
Downstream DO dropped below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] on 119 occasions and below 4
mg/L on 98 occasions,while upstream DO only dropped below 5 mg/L on 16 occasions and below 4
mg/L on 14 occasions during the period reviewed. The majority of the drops in downstream DO were
observed during the summer months. Review of concurrent DO and oxygen-consuming waste(BOD and
ammonia)data for the review period did not indicate an influence from the facility's effluent on the
downstream DO. Effluent BOD, ammonia and DO were compliant with permit requirements during the
review period. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and
downstream DO.
Instream DO Summary - Rose Hill WWTP
18
16
14 •
12 • • S
`W 10 •
X • • Upstream
8 'IN
• • �� • • Downstream
14 6
Standard
0 4 • �
2 do
0 I •
4/10/2018 2/4/2019 12/1/2019 9/26/2020 7/23/2021 5/19/2022
Date
I
A site visitation was conducted on December 20, 2022. During this visit, Central Office and Wilmington
Regional Office staff accompanied the ORC for the Rose Hill WWTP to see the upstream and
downstream sampling locations. Based on this visit, it is evident that the effluent is not the primary cause
for concern for the DO issues downstream of the plant. The stream was completely still due to existing
low flow conditions exacerbated by beaver dams and excessive littering. After the site visit,the
Wilmington Regional Office relayed this information to the 401 Buffer program and noted intent to
contact the US Army Corps of Engineers to investigate what can be done to remedy the situation. No
changes are proposed for instream dissolved oxygen monitoring requirements at this time.
Instream monitoring for fecal coliform and conductivity is not required at this time. While the stream is
not classified B waters,the outfall is located approximately 9 miles above waters designated as HQW.
Additionally,insufficient data was available to determine fecal coliform impairment in the receiving
stream during the 2022 Integrated Report. As such, fecal coliform instream monitoring requirements have
been added to the permit.
As the facility receives wastewater from 2 CIUs, instream conductivity monitoring has been added to the
permit. Flow from the 2 industrial users is not constantly received throughout the year, and conductivity
may vary seasonally. As such,the instream conductivity monitoring requirement may be subject to
reassessment at the next permit renewal.
Page 4 of 12

Per discussions with the DWR Basin Planning Branch regarding the in-development Cape Fear River
Basin Permitting Strategy, a need for instream TKN,NO2+NO3 and TP data has been identified. As such,
quarterly instream monitoring for TKN,NO2+NO3 and TP has been proposed.
Relocation of the downstream sampling location was suggested by the Permittee due to the nature of the
stream and outside variables previously identified that have influenced the downstream dissolved oxygen
levels. After review of the historical file for reasoning behind the selection of the downstream sampling
location, it was determined that the location was selected based on the DO sag point indicated during the
1988 Level B modeling effort conducted as part of the Wasteload Allocation process. The model indicates
that DO sag occurs 2.4 to 2.8 miles downstream of the facility. Downstream sampling is currently
conducted at NCSR 1933 (Harrell Road),which is only 1.6 miles downstream of the discharge. However,
it was noted in the 1988 Wasteload Allocation that the confluence with Island Creek,which is at least the
size of Reedy Branch, occurs prior to the modeled sag point,making sampling below it not representative.
As such,the downstream monitoring location has been maintained.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring(YIN):NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): In 2018,the facility reported
one fecal coliform limit violation resulting in a notice of violation. The facility reported one BOD limit
violation, one ammonia limit violation,and one fecal coliform limit violation in 2019, each resulting in
enforcement cases. In 2021,the facility reported a flow limit violation resulting in an enforcement case.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from January 2018 to July
2022. The failed tests occurred in June 2019 and June 2021. The facility passed all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests conducted in April 2019, October 2021,December 2021 and April 2022.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in February 2022 reported that the facility was not compliant with NPDES permit NC0056863. Some
highlighted non-compliance is outlined below. Please see the attached inspection report for more
information.
• The five-drying beds that are on-site have not had solids removed from them since sometime
around 2017 according to ORC
• The three-secondary clarifiers were observed to have a large amount of ashing,pinfloc, &grease
on the surface.
• Use of a constant time/constant volume versus flow proportional sampling methodology was
identified by the ORC,but approval from the Director was not documented.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin Zones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206,the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow(acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow(chronic Aquatic
Life;non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow(aesthetics); annual average flow(carcinogen,HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered(e.g., based on CORMIX model results):NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Page 5 of 12

Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste(e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen(DO)water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD=30 mg/1 for Municipals)may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current permit
limitations for BOD are based on a 1985 Streeter Phelps model(Level B) for instream DO protection.No
changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1 (summer)and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine(TRC)are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life(17 ug/1)and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective.No changes are proposed.
The current ammonia limits were based on results of a 1985 Level B Model. The ammonia limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity. Based on the 2010 Interim Ammonia Limits internal
guidance, as this facility is a minor treatment works,Best Available Technology(BAT) monthly average
limits of 2 mg/L for summer and 4 mg/L for winter are applied. This is consistent with the 1984 model
results and the current limits have been maintained. These limits may be subject to change after the
ammonia criteria are finalized and addressed through the Triennial Review process.
Reasonable Potential Analysis(RPA)for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95%Confidence Level/95%Probability; 2)assumption of zero
background; 3)use of%detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 213.0206. 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 June 2018 and
July 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: None
• 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: None
• 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
Page 6 of 12

standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration: Total Cadmium, Total Copper, Total Lead, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans (2 PPAs from 2020 and 1
from 2021) and STMP data 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: None
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: Total
Cyanide
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable concentration: Total
Beryllium,Total Arsenic, Total Chromium, Total Lead, Total Molybdenum,Total
Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver
The Town of Rose Hill reported Total Beryllium and Total Silver at less than detection,with a detection
level< 10 µg/L for each parameter in their effluent pollutant scans and STMP data. The Town's chronic
allowable discharge concentrations are 6.5 µg/L and 0.06 µg/L for Total Beryllium and Total Silver,
respectively. DWR's laboratory identifies the target Practical Quantification Limits(PQL) as 5.0 µg/L for
Total Beryllium and 1.0 µg/L for Total Silver. 15A NCAC 2B .0505 (e) (4)requires that all test
procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements.
If no approved methods are capable of achieving a detection level below the permit discharge requirement
(or allowable concentration)the method with the lowest detection level must be used. The Town shall test
for Total Beryllium and Total Silver down to a PQL below the allowable discharge concentration. The
PQLs have been identified in the permit requirements.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Minor POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90%
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
Page 7 of 12

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
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Low level mercury testing was only
conducted during one of the three effluent pollutant scans(2/6/2020 LL mercury detected at 1.85 ng/L).
The WQBEL calculated for this facility is 12.0 ng/L and the TBEL is 47.0 ng/L.As such, a limit has not
been applied at this time. However, due to the lack of low-level mercury data available, quarterly
monitoring for low level mercury using EPA Method 1631E has added to the permit. While the facility is
<2.0 MGD, in the absence of low level mercury data and to ensure minimization practices are
implemented, a Mercury Minimization Plan requirement has been added to the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: 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.
Additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported are submitted with the NPDES permit
application via the Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table This requirement applies to all
NPDES facilities. The Town of Rose Hill 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:NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo:NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable,delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/Z for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO,provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85%removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES; Overall BOD and TSS
removal rates> 85%.No month reported at<85%during the period reviewed.
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
Page 8 of 12

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(l)prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit,with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed(e.g.,based on new information,increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit(YES/NO):NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated:NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500;2)
NPDES Guidance,Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances(7/15/2010 Memo); 3)NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance(10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement(BPJ). Per US EPA(Interim Guidance, 1996),monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o)of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring,refer to Section 4.
In 2019,based on the EPA's Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule indicating elevated
concentrations of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin,the Division required facilities in
the basin with pretreatment programs conduct investigative monitoring of their influents for PFAS and
1,4-dioxane. The Town of Rose Hill participated in this investigation and found the presence of PFAS in
their influent samples. As such,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.
1,4-dioxane was sampled for and analyzed as part of the 2019 investigation. While the facility reported no
detections during the investigation, a insufficiently sensitive test method was used. However, as the
facility's SIUs are not considered associated with the discharge,use,or manufacture of 1,4-dioxane,no
1,4-dioxane monitoring requirements have been added at this time.
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.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016,NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
Page 9 of 12

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 0.45 MGD No change 15A NCAC 213 .0505
BOD5 Summer: No change WQBEL. 1985 Level B model;
MA 10.0 mg/l Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
WA 15.0 mg/1 NCAC 213. 0500
Winter:
MA 18.0 mg/l
WA 27.0 mg/1
Monitor and report Weekly
NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 1985 Level B model,2022
MA 2.0 mg/1 WLA review and 2010 ammonia
WA 6.0 mg/l criteria guidance; Surface Water
Winter: Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
MA 4.0 mg/1
WA 12.0 mg/l
Monitor and report Weekly
TSS All flow tiers: No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
MA 30.0 mg/l standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
WA 45.0 mg/1 213 .0406; 1985 Level B Model;
Monitor and report Weekly Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 213. 0500
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change to WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400/100ml effluent; NCAC 213 .0200; Surface Water
Monitor and report Weekly Add instream fecal Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213. 0500;
coliform monitoring Upstream of HQW; Insufficient
weekly stream data to determine stream
impairment
DO >6.0 mg/l No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and report Weekly NCAC 213 .0200; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213. 0500
pH 6—9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and report Weekly NCAC 213 .0200; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Temperature Monitor and report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 213. 0500
Conductivity No requirement Add instream Facility receives wastewater from 2
conductivity industrial users;track stream impact
monitoring weekly
Total Residual DM 17 ug/L No change WQBEL. 2022 WLA review.
Chlorine Monitor and report 2/Week Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 213. 0500
Page 10 of 12

Total Copper Monitor and report Quarterly Remove Based on results of Reasonable
requirements Potential Analysis(RPA);No RP,
Predicted Max< 50%of Allowable
Cw-No Monitoring required
Total Cadmium Monitor and report Quarterly Remove Based on results of Reasonable
requirements Potential Analysis (RPA);No RP,
Predicted Max< 50%of Allowable
Cw-No Monitoring required
Total Zinc Monitor and report Quarterly Remove Based on results of Reasonable
requirements Potential Analysis(RPA);No RP,
Predicted Max< 50%of Allowable
Cw-No Monitoring required
Total Cyanide No requirement Monitor and Report Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly Potential Analysis(RPA); RP for
Limited Dataset(n<8 samples) -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
Total Nitrogen Monitor and report Quarterly No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN No requirement Monitor effluent For calculation of Total Nitrogen;
and report Quarterly Based on discussion with DWR
Add Quarterly Basin Planning regarding Cape Fear
instream monitoring River Basin Permitting Strategy
and reporting
NO2+NO3 No requirement Monitor effluent For calculation of Total Nitrogen;
and report Quarterly Based on discussion with DWR
Add Quarterly Basin Planning regarding Cape Fear
instream monitoring River Basin Permitting Strategy
and reporting
Total Monitor and report Quarterly No change to Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Phosphorus effluent;Add NCAC 2B. 0500; Based on
Quarterly instream discussion with DWR Basin
monitoring and Planning regarding Cape Fear River
reporting Basin Permitting Strategy
Total Mercury No requirement Monitor and Report Insufficient data available—not
Quarterly included in all PPA scans per
requirement
Total Hardness Quarterly effluent monitoring No change Hardness-dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016;upstream not
required due to zero flow stream
Add Quarterly Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
monitoring with Pretreatment facility;
PFAS No requirement delayed Implementation delayed until after
implementation EPA certified method becomes
available.
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 90%effluent No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Page 11 of 12

Mercury No requirement Add MMP Special WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Minimization Condition Statewide Mercury TMDL
Plan(MMP) Implementation.
Effluent Three times per permit cycle No change; 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan conducted in 2025,
2026, 2027
Electronic Electronic Reporting Special No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Condition Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 02/16/2023
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice.Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please
contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the Town of Rose Hill, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Wilmington
Regional Office,Aquatic Toxicology Branch, and Operator Certification Program for review.No
comments were received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA
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
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• POC Review Form
• Requested Additional Information
• Chemical Addendum
Page 12 of 12

I
s
i
The Daily Reflector-The Daily Advance-The Rocky Mount Telegram I
Bertie Ledger-Chowan Herald-Duplin Tines-Farmville Enterprise-Perquimans Weekly
Standard Laconic-Tarboro Weekly-Times Leader.Williamston Enterprise ff
PO Box 1967,Green0le NC 27835 f
_ [phone] t
PAID
' i
Medial of Eastern North"rolina
❑Cash ❑Credit Card ,
I
r
❑Check #
Date Paid 4
NCDEQ - DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
ATTN: WREN THEDFORD Copy Line: public notice
Lines: 42
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER Total Price: $84.00
RALEIGH NC 27699
Account 133315 Ticket: 439129
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
NORTH CAROLINA Public Notice
Duplin County North Carolina Environmental
P 4y Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
affirms that he/she is clerk of The Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES
Wastewater Permit NC0056863 Rose I
Duplin Times,a newspaper published weekly at Kenansville, Duplin County, Hill WTP The North Carolina Environ-
mentalNorth Carolina,and that the advertisement, a true co Of which Is hereto at- Management Commission pro-
North poses to issue a NPDES wastewater du- �
tached,entitled public notice was published in said The Duplin Times on the charge permit to the person(s) listed
following dates: the oproposed permi w. Written t will bents raccepted #
until 30 days after the publish date of
Thursday, February 16,2023 this notice.The Director of the NC Di-
vision of Water Resources(DWR)may
hold a public hearing should there be
a significant degree of public interest.
and that the said newspaper in which such notice,paper,document or legal Please mail comments and/orthe moor- ,
P P 9 mation requests to DWR at the above
advertisement was published,was at the time of each and every publication,a address. Interested persons may vis.
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Chapter 1,Sec- i[the DWR at 04 N.Salisbury Street,
9 q q P Raleigh,NC 27604 to review the infor-
tion 597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper mation on file. Additional informa-
within the meaning of Chapter 1,Section 597 of the General Statutes of North lion on NPDES permits and this notice
may be found on our website:httpsJ1
o Ina. deq.nc.gov/public-notices-hearings,or
_ J by calling(919)707-3601. The Town
�\ ?O of Rose Hill[P.O.Box 8,Rose Hill, NC t
284581 has requested renewal of NP-
DES permit NCO056863 for Its Rose Hill
Wastewater Treatment Plant, located
A i ed and subscribed Malf March 2023 in Duplin County.This permitted(acid
ity discharges treated municipal and in-
dustrial wastewater to Reedy Branch,a
class C;Sw water In the Cape Fear River
( Otary Public Signature) Basin. BOD, ammonia, fecal coiiform, s
dissolved oxygen,pH and total residual
Y 1 Q J chlorine are water quality limited.This
i�Sew discharge may affect future allocations
(Notary Public Printed Name) in this segment of Reedy Branch.
+L„`r(' � 439129 2/162023
My commission expires +l k
LAURA VALENTINE
NOTARY PUBLIC
Pitt County
North Carolina
My Commission Expires 06/15/2027 I
I
r
i
i

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Rose Hill WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class II Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO056863 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 2.2540 FW 15.2365 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 0.450 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Reedy Branch Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 18-74-27 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C; Sw Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 504.2269 FW 3876.2993 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 0.000 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w (cfs) 0.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 35.9479 FW 55.8198 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 0.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 0.20 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs) 0.00 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 20.8628 FW 535.3763 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 147.67 mg/L (Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
------------- ----------------------
Upstream Hardness 25 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
------------- ----------------------
Combined Hardness Chronic 147.67 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 167.2878 FW 1506.1596 pg/L
------------- ----------------------
Combined Hardness Acute 147.67 mg/L I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Data Source(s) Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 6.2890 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 570.7551 FW 566.1242 ug/L
Par22
Par23
Par24
56863 RPA, input
12/13/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY" Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/28/2019 159 159 Std Dev. 40.7723 1 Default 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 6/12/2019 215 215 Mean 147.6667 2 Mean 25.0000
3 9/25/2019 126 126 C.V. 0.2761 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 12/11/2019 130 130 n 15 4 n 1
5 3/19/2020 109 109 10th Per value 112.60 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 4/30/2020 134 134 Average Value 147.67 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 7/21/2020 136 136 Max. Value 260.00 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 10/20/2020 144 144 8
9 3/17/2021 260 260 9
10 5/5/2021 158 158 10
11 7/22/2021 118 118 11
12 12/15/2021 146 146 12
13 3/16/2022 140 140 13
14 5/4/2022 140 140 14
15 7/12/2022 100 100 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
56863 RPA, data
- 1 - 2/6/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/19/2019 10 10 Std Dev. 3.7333
2 4/30/2019 10 10 Mean 5.6667
3 3/19/2020 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 4/30/2020 10 10 n 9
5 7/21/2020 < 1 0.5
6 10/20/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.81
7 7/21/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 10.0 ug/L
8 2/6/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 18.1 ug/L
9 9/30/2021 < 10 5
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
56863 RPA, data
-2 - 2/6/2023

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 6/26/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 3/19/2019 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0589
2 8/22/2018 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 3/28/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.4861
3 11/1/2018 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 4/30/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.1212
4 9/30/2021 < 10 5 n 6 4 6/12/2019 < 1 0.5 n 18
5 2/6/2020 < 10 5 5 9/25/2019 < 1 0.5
6 7/21/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 2.14 6 12/11/2019 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.08
7 Max. Value 5.00 ug/L 7 3/19/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 10.70 ug/L 8 4/30/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.540 ug/L
9 9 7/21/2020 < 1 0.5
10 10 10/20/2020 < 1 0.5
11 11 3/17/2021 < 1 0.5
12 12 5/5/2021 < 1 0.5
13 13 7/22/2021 < 1 0.5
14 14 12/15/2021 < 1 0.5
15 15 3/16/2022 < 0.5 0.25
16 16 5/4/2022 < 1 0.5
17 17 7/12/2022 < 1 0.5
18 18 10/20/2020 < 1 0.5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
56863 RPA, data
-3- 2/6/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10 Pal
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Chromium, Total Values"then"COPY" Copper Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/26/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 6/26/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2.9795
2 8/22/2018 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 8/22/2018 10 10 Mean 7.1053
3 11/1/2018 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 11/1/2018 < 10 5 C.V. 0.4193
4 7/21/2020 < 10 5 n 6 4 3/28/2019 < 10 5 n 19
5 2/6/2020 < 10 5 5 4/30/2019 11 11
6 9/30/2021 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 2.14 6 6/12/2019 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.27
7 Max. Value 5.0 pg/L 7 9/25/2019 < 10 5 Max. Value 13.00 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 10.7 pg/L 8 12/11/2019 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 16.51 ug/L
9 9 3/19/2020 12 12
10 10 4/30/2020 11 11
11 11 7/21/2020 < 10 5
12 12 10/20/2020 < 10 5
13 13 3/17/2021 < 10 5
14 14 5/5/2021 10 10
15 15 7/22/2021 < 10 5
16 16 12/15/2021 8 8
17 17 3/16/2022 < 10 5
18 18 5/4/2022 13 13
19 19 7/12/2022 < 10 5
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
56863 RPA, data
-4- 2/6/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12 Par14
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Cyanide Values"then"COPY" Lead Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/20/2020 < 5 5 Std Dev. 3.5000 1 3/19/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 7/21/2020 < 5 5 Mean 6.75 2 4/30/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 2/6/2020 < 5 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 3/19/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 9/30/2021 12 12 n 4 4 4/30/2020 < 10 5 n 9
5 5 7/21/2020 < 10 5
6 Mult Factor= 2.59 6 10/20/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.81
7 Max. Value 12.0 ug/L 7 7/21/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.000 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 31.1 ug/L 8 2/6/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 9.050 ug/L
9 9 9/30/2021 < 10 5
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
56863 RPA, data
- 5- 2/6/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par17 & Par18 use"PASTE
Values"then"COPY" SPECIAL-Values"
Molybdenum
.Maximum data Nickel hen"COPY".
points=58 Maximum data
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58
1 3/19/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 3/19/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 4/30/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 4/30/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 3/19/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 3/19/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 4/30/2020 < 10 5 n 6 4 4/30/2020 < 10 5 n 9
5 7/21/2020 < 10 5 5 7/21/2020 < 10 5
6 10/20/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 2.14 6 10/20/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.81
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 9/30/2021 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 tag/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 10.7 ug/L 8 2/6/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 9.1 tag/L
9 9 7/21/2020 < 10 5
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
56863 RPA, data
-6- 2/6/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19 Par20
Use"PASTE SPECIAL- Use"PASTE SPECIAL-
Selenium Values"then"COPY". Silver Values"then"COPY".
Maximum data points= Maximum data points=
58 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/19/2019 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 6/26/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 4/30/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 8/22/2018 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 3/19/2020 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 11/1/2018 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 4/30/2020 < 1 0.5 n 9 4 2/6/2020 < 10 5 n 6
5 7/21/2020 < 1 0.5 5 7/21/2020 < 10 5
6 10/20/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.81 6 9/30/2021 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 2.14
7 7/26/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.5 ug/L 7 Max. Value 5.000 ug/L
8 2/6/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.9 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 10.700 ug/L
9 9/30/2021 < 1 0.5 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
56863 RPA, data
-7- 2/6/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Zinc Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/26/2018 32 32 Std Dev. 5.7511
2 8/22/2018 26 26 Mean 30.6111
3 11/1/2018 32 32 C.V. 0.1879
4 3/28/2019 31 31 n 18
5 6/12/2019 30 30
6 9/25/2019 27 27 Mult Factor= 1.12
7 12/11/2019 26 26 Max. Value 42.0 ug/L
8 3/19/2020 30 30 Max. Pred Cw 47.0 ug/L
9 4/30/2020 33 33
10 7/21/2020 32 32
11 10/20/2020 29 29
12 3/17/2021 25 25
13 5/5/2021 39 39
14 7/22/2021 32 32
15 12/15/2021 42 42
16 3/16/2022 29 29
17 5/4/2022 39 39
18 7/12/2022 17 17
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
56863 RPA, data
-8- 2/6/2023

Rose Hill WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO056863 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 0.45 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw(MGD) = 0.4500 WWTP/WTP Class: II COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 0.00 1WC% @ 1Q10S = 100 Acute= 147.67 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 0.00 1WC% @ 7Q10S = 100 Chronic = 147.67 mg/L
7Q10W(cfs) = 0.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 100
30Q2 (cfs) = 0.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 100
Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 0.20 IW%C @ QA= 77.71587744
Receiving Stream: Reedy Branch HUC 18-74-27 Stream Class: C; Sw
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Applied Chronic Standard Acute M n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 340.0
Arsenic C 150 FW 340 ug/L
9 3 18.1 Chronic (FW): 150.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
C.V. (default) No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
--- -----------------------------
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS ug/L Note: n < 9 Chronic (HH) 12.9
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw
Acute: 65.00
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L 6 0 10.70
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 6.50 All values non-detect< 10 ug/L; No monitoring added;
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Permittee shall use PQL < 5 ug/L
Acute: 15.236
Cadmium NC 2.2540 FW 15.2365 uR/L 18 0 0.540
Chronic: 2.254 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 3,876.3
Chromium III NC 504.2269 FW 3876.2993 uv-/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic: 504.2
Acute: 16.0
Chromium VI NC 11 FW 16 uLY/L 0 0 N/A ___ _ _______ ____ ___________________________
Chronic: 11.0
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 6 0 10.7 Max reported value = 5 samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Acute: 55.82
Copper NC 35.9479 FW 55.8198 ug/L 19 7 16.51
Chronic: 35.95 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 22.0
Cyanide NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L 4 1 31.1
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 5.0 RP for Limited Dataset (n<8 samples)-apply
Limited data set 1 values >Allowable Cw Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: 535.376
Lead NC 20.8628 FW 535.3763 uiz/L 9 0 9.050 __
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 20.863 [apply
o RP , Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 2000 HH ug/L 6 0 10.7
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 2,000.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
56863 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 2/6/2023

Rose Hill WWTP Outfall 001
NCO056863 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 0.45 MGD
Acute (FW): 1,506.2
Nickel NC 167.2878 FW 1506.1596 µg/L _
9 0 9.1 Chronic (FW) 167.3 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
--------- -----------------------------
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS µg/L Limited data set NO DETECTS Chronic (WS) 25.0
Max MDL= 10
Acute: 56.0
Selenium NC 5 FW 56 ug/L 9 0 0.9 ___ _ ___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 5.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 6.289
Silver NC 0.06 FW 6.2890 ug/L 6 0 10.700
Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 0.060 All values non-detect< 10 ug/L; No monitoring added;
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Permittee shall use PQL < 1 ug/L
Acute: 566.1 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Zinc NC 570.7551 FW 566.1242 ug/L 18 18 47.0 Monitoring required
-- ----------- ---------------------------
Chronic: 570.8
No value>Allowable Cw
56863 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 2/6/2023

Permit No. NCO056863
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 Chronic FW, µg/l Acute SW, µg/1 Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW=Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation=Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200(e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2.Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio(WER)is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph(11)(d)
Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium,Acute WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^10.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium,Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361
Cadmium,Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} •e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.445 11
Chromium III,Acute WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III,Chronic WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper,Acute WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper,Chronic WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead,Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead,Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} •e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel,Acute WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel,Chronic WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO056863
Silver,Acute WER*0.85 •e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver,Chronic Not applicable
Zinc,Acute WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc,Chronic WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream(upstream)hardness
and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal(more on that
below),but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/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
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge,the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream)hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's,Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values,upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available,the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L(CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L,respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable
potential,the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO056863
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness(chronic)
_(Permitted Flow,cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness,mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness,mg/L)
(Permitted Flow,cfs+s7Q10,cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal,using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients(DPCs)or site-specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the"Fraction Dissolved"converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in-stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996)and the
equation:
Cdiss - 1
Ctotal I + { [Kpo] [ss('+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(ie. silver),the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits)for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca=(s7Q 10+Qw)(Cwgs)—(s7Q 10) (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 s7Q 10)
s7Q 10=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 s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10=used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0056863
QA=used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2=used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application(40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations,the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit(Total allowable
concentration)is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate,permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10,2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure,total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases,the projected maximum concentration(95th%) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling,upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter Value Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness(mg/L) 147.67 Average from 2019-2022 DMR
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] data
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) 25 Default value used;zero flow
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] stream
7Q10 summer(cfs) 0.0 NPDES Files
1Q10(cfs) 0.0 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow(MGD) 0.45 NPDES Files
Date: 12/13/2022
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP 12/13/2022
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
June-18 99.84 December-20 91.53 June-18 99.90 December-20 93.83
July-18 99.93 January-21 92.04 July-18 99.93 January-21 96.42
August-18 99.00 February-21 92.92 August-18 99.29 February-21 92.78
September-18 98.78 March-21 96.81 September-18 99.48 March-21 98.91
October-18 96.77 April-21 93.27 October-18 97.65 April-21 97.49
November-18 96.23 May-21 94.56 November-18 94.92 May-21 97.44
December-18 95.63 June-21 95.02 December-18 92.22 June-21 98.67
January-19 96.49 July-21 95.03 January-19 95.29 July-21 98.01
February-19 96.34 August-21 85.53 February-19 95.92 August-21 96.23
March-19 97.08 September-21 93.05 March-19 96.58 September-21 98.48
April-19 95.82 October-21 98.41 April-19 96.01 October-21 98.34
May-19 95.27 November-21 98.20 May-19 98.27 November-21 98.97
June-19 97.05 December-21 92.13 June-19 97.65 December-21 90.51
July-19 97.48 January-22 97.13 July-19 97.56 January-22 96.62
August-19 96.62 February-22 96.82 August-19 97.22 February-22 97.42
September-19 96.81 March-22 97.76 September-19 97.34 March-22 98.50
October-19 97.70 April-22 97.42 October-19 98.14 April-22 97.56
November-19 96.59 May-22 97.86 November-19 98.27 May-22 98.06
December-19 94.47 June-22 99.02 December-19 96.69 June-22 99.59
January-20 96.75 July-22 99.19 January-20 97.95 July-22 99.73
February-20 96.32 August-22 97.20 February-20 97.49 August-22 95.99
March-20 98.06 September-22 99.11 March-20 98.18 September-22 99.17
April-20 97.46 October-22 April-20 97.79 October-22
May-20 97.13 November-22 May-20 98.84 November-22
June-20 97.64 December-22 June-20 98.76 December-22
July-20 98.42 January-23 July-20 99.50 January-23
August-20 97.59 February-23 August-20 98.78 February-23
September-20 98.21 March-23 September-20 99.17 March-23
October-20 97.57 April-23 October-20 98.90 April-23
November-20 95.67 May-23 November-20 97.98 May-23
Overall BOD removal rate 96.44 Overall TSS removal rate 97.51

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
PermitNo. NCO056863
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.45
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 0 s7Q10 (CFS) 0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.45 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.45
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.6975 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.6975
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 100.00 IWC (%) 100.00
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 17 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.0
Consistent with current permit limit.Maintain limit. Cap at 2.0 mg/L for MINOR facility;maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 0
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.45
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.6975
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 100.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.8
Cap at 4.0 mg/L for MINOR facility;maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 12/08/22 Page 1 of 1
Permit: NCO056863 MRS Betweei 2 - 2017 and12 - 2022 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO056863 FACILITY: Town of Rose Hill-Rose Hill WWTP COUNTY: Duplin REGION: Wilmington
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
05-2019 001 Effluent BOD,5-Day(20 Deg.C)- 05/18/19 Weekly mg/I 15 17.1 14 Weekly Average Proceed to
Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
05-2019 001 Effluent BOD,5-Day(20 Deg.C)- 05/31/19 Weekly mg/I 10 10.22 2.2 Monthly Average No Action, BPJ
Concentration Exceeded
06-2019 001 Effluent BOD,5-Day(20 Deg.C)- 06/08/19 Weekly mg/I 15 15.2 1.3 Weekly Average No Action, BPJ
Concentration Exceeded
03-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 03/14/18 2 X week ug/I 17 18 5.9 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
04-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 04/17/18 2 X week ug/I 17 23 35.3 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
05-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 05/25/18 2 X week ug/I 17 24 41.2 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 06/07/18 2 X week ug/I 17 21 23.5 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 09/19/18 2 X week ug/I 17 21 23.5 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01-2018 001 Effluent Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC 01/27/18 Weekly #/100ml 400 470 17.5 Weekly Geometric Mean Proceed to NOV
Broth,44.5 C Exceeded
07-2019 001 Effluent Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC 07/13/19 Weekly #/100ml 400 1,426.53 256.6 Weekly Geometric Mean Proceed to
Broth,44.5 C Exceeded Enforcement Case
02-2021 001 Effluent Flow,in conduit or thru 02/28/21 Continuous mgd 0.45 0.503 11.8 Monthly Average Proceed to
treatment plant Exceeded Enforcement Case
05-2019 001 Effluent Nitrogen,Ammonia Total(as 05/31/19 Weekly mg/I 2 3.03 51.7 Monthly Average Proceed to
N)-Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
12-2018 001 Effluent pH 12/20/18 Weekly su 9 9.23 2.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Rockingham WWTP NCO020427/001 County: Richmond Region: FRO Basin: YAD16 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 11/1/2020 chr lim:8% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 153 PF: 9.0 IWC: 8.0 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 - Fail >32(P) >32(P) Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2021 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass>32(P) -
2022 - Pass - - Pass - - - - - - -
Rocky Mount/Tar River Regional WWTP NCO030317/001 County: Edgecombe Region: RRO Basin: TAR02 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 4/1/2022 chr lim:35% NonComp: Single 70,10: 60 PF: 21.0 IWC: 35 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2018 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - >100(P)Pass - -
2019 Pass>100(P) - - >100(P)Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass>100(P) - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - - - -
Rocky River Regional WWTP NCO036269/001 County: Cabarrus Region: MRO Basin: YAD12 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Cer7dChV Begin: 11/1/2021 chr lim:66.5%@26.5 NonComp: Single 7Q10: 25.2 PF: 26.5 IWC: 59.62 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2018 >100(s) >100(s) >100(s) - >100(s)
2019 - H >70.9(s)>90(s) - 71(s)<31(s) - - >100(s) - - >100(s) -
2020 - >100(s) - - >100(s) - - >100(s) - - >100(s)>100(s) -
2021 >100(s)>100(s) >100(s)>100(s) >100(s)>100(s) >100(s)>100(s)
2022 - 74.3(S)INVALID(S) - - >100(s)>100(S) - - - - - - -
Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo(RO)WTP NCO083909/001 County: Dare Region: WARD Basin: PAS55 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Mysd24PF Begin: 2/1/2018 24hr ac p/f monit 90 NonComp: 7Q10: Tidal PF: IWC: NA Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2018 Fail - - Fail - - Pass - - Pass - -
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Fail - - Fail - -
2020 Fail - - Pass - - Fail - - Pass - -
2021 Fail - - Fail - - Fail - - Fail - -
2022 Fail - - Fail - - Fail - - - - -
Rose Hill WWTP NCO056863/001 County: Duplin Region: WIRO Basin: CPF22 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 1/1/2019 chr lim:90% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.0 PF: 0.45 IWC: 100 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2018 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Fail - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Fail >100 94.9 Pass>100(P) - 58.1(P)
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - - - -
Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(Pimohales oromelas).H=No Flow(facilitv is active).s=Split test between Certified Labs Page 92 of 117

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 2 u 3 I NC0056863 111 121 21/05/06 I17 18 I D I 19 I G I 20U
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70LJ 71Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
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) 10:30AM 21/05/06 19/01/01
Rose Hill WWTP
287 Charlie Teachey Rd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Rose Hill NC 28458 12:OOPM 21/05/06 22/01/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Carl Wheeler, /ORC/910-289-4498/ Contacted
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
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
Helen I Perez DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7387/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type 1
31 NCO056863 I11 12I 21/05/06 117 18 I D
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Conducted a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection of the Rose Hill program with Carl Wheeler,
Pretreatment Coordinator.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/06/2021 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Yes No NA NE
Page# 3

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 I 2 u 3 I NCO056863 I11 121 22/02/10 I17 18I� I 19 I G I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II J
6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70LJ 71 [pty 72 L-] 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
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) 11:30AM 22/02/10 19/01/01
Rose Hill WWTP
287 Charlie Teachey Rd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Rose Hill NC 28458 02:OOPM 22/02/10 22/01/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Carl Wheel e0/910-289-4498/
William Carl Wheeler/ORC/910-271-4199/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Carl Wheeler, /ORC/910-289-4498/ Contacted
Yes
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 Dispo: Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Effluent/Receiving Wate 0 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
Dean Hunkele DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7215/
Tyler G Benson DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7336/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Morella Sanchez-King DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7218/
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NCO056863 I11 12I 22/02/10 117 18 i c i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Tyler Benson and Dean Hunkele from DWR conducted a compliance evaluation inspection for the
Rose Hill WWTP, Permit No. NC0056863. Mr. Carl Wheeler (ORC)was on-site during this and his
time is very much appreciated.
The facility is a 0.45 MGD operation that ultimately discharges treated effluent into the C;swamp
waters of Reedy Branch in the Cape Fear River Basin. The findings during the inspection are mostly
in compliance with Permit No. NC0056863, however, there are some things that need to be
addressed in the near future:
• According to the ORC, the current sampling method is utilizing a constant time/constant volume
methodology versus flow proportional. However, in order to utilize this method, prior approval from the
Director is required. Please provide this approval or detail which of the other three composite
sampling methodologies will be used moving forward that does not require approval. These can be
found on Page 15 of the permit. The ORC should confirm with its flow meter contractor if this is the
case or not because following an inspection where proportional sampling was not being conducted in
3-2010, the system was reportedly fixed to do so using the effluent flow meter to signal both samplers
to sample at the same time which was supposedly in place in 2-2012.
• The five-drying beds that are on-site have not had solids removed from them since sometime
around 2017 according to ORC. According to the EPA sludge rules, these biosolids are only
permitted to stay on the site for up to 2 years after which it is considered land application which is not
approved on-site for this facility. Please have the solids hauler under contract remove these solids
from the facility as soon as possible. ORC should document when each bed is filled to determine
when it must be removed by.
• The three-secondary clarifiers were observed to have a large amount of ashing, pinfloc, & grease
on the surface. ORC thought grease to be the result of a fats, oil, and grease issue within collection
system. The ORC is aware of the issue and is addressing the source of the problem as soon as
possible. FOG control is and has been required to have already been in place per the Town's
collection system permit, WQCS00198, originally issued in 2005. It requires the Town to have and
inspect/enforce its grease ordinance for all commercial users that may generate such including all
food services, car washes, etc.
• The Total Residual Chlorine values that are being submitted on the monthly DMR are expressed
in exact values less than 10 ug/L. Since the Town's true TRC limit is 17 ug/L, then its meter's annual
calibration should measure down to 10 ug/L with all meter readings less than reported as <10 and
readings 10 or above reported as the reading. Please contact DWR's Lab Certification group if you
need assistance or further guidance.
• DWR has no record of receiving the Town's annual wastewater performance reports for the last 2
-3 years.
Due to the following summary of violations, the facility has not been compliant for the 3-year review
period:
• On September 14, 2021, an NOV was issued for the toxicity limitation violation in July of 2021.
• On February 28, 2021, an NOV was issued for exceeding the permit limits for the monthly
average flow.
• On February 5, 2020, an NOD was issued for failing to conduct the 2019 Annual Pollutant Scan.
• On January 13, 2020, an NOV was issued due to the Town's Pretreatment Program filing to meet
the minimum requirements specified in 15A NCAC 2H .0905, NPDES permit conditions Part IV, D3 and
40 CFR 403.8(f).
• On November 5, 2019, an NOV and Assessment of Civil Penalty was issued for exceeding the
permit limits for fecal coliform (weekly geometric mean) in July 2019.
Page# 2

Permit: NCO056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
• On October 4, 2019, an NOV was issued for the toxicity limitation violation in July of 2019.
• On September 20, 2019, an NOV and Assessment of Civil Penalty was issued for exceeding the
permit limits of BOD5 (weekly average) and Total Ammonia (monthly average) in May 2019.
Page# 3

Permit: NCO056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chain-of-custody complete? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
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? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
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? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: DWR has no record of receiving the Town's annual wastewater performance reports for
the last 2-3 years which is required for both the WWTP permit and also one for its
collection system permit WQCS00198.
Page# 4

Permit: NCO056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all other parameters(excluding 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 Town of Rose Hill WWTP is Field Lab Certified under Certificaton Number 5317.
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
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: See Summary
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The influent pump station consists of two archimedes screws with an emergency
back-up submersible pump. However, one of the screws was offline due to the
drive-unit being replaced. This part is said to be on order at the time of the inspection.
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Facility would probably benefit from a better headworks with enhanced screening as
well as grit removal to prevent its entry into the oxidation ditch and on to downstream
treatment units.
Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE
Are the aerators operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# 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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes) ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Currently one of the aerators is not being used due to a coupling being damaged. This
part is said to be on order and arriving within the week. In addition, the aerators are
sitting on flotation devices that were not originally installed/approved for the facility.
DWR has no documentation authorizing the Town's use of these new rotors, thus
please provide a copy of such approval.
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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Page# 6

Permit: NCO056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Comment: The three secondary clarifiers at the facility are showing large amounts of grease,
ashing, & pin floc located on the surface. However per ORC, this seems to be an
on-going grease issue from sewer system and is taking measurers to address the
source of the issue. Reviewing previous CEI reports, this seems to be an ongoing issue
and needs to be addressed. Scum arm is letting material to pass around it and thus it
isn't being removed -- likely need to replace the rubber squeggee end(s) of arm.
Disinfection-Gas Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: The contact chamber had solids accumulated on the bottom and needs to be better
maintained/cleaned to avoid excessive solids loss to the receiving stream or allowing
bacterial regrowth within the back-end of the chamber.
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: The chlorination system utilizes gas chlorine and liquid de-chlorination.
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NCO056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is sample collected below all treatment units? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Comment: See Summary
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: Uses datalogger
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the mixing adequate? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the odor acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Need to have equal air distribution throughout the tank.
Dryinq Beds Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate drying bed space? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
# Is the sludge land applied? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NCO056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Drying Beds Yes No NA NE
Comment: The five-drying beds that are on-site have not had solids removed from then since
sometime around 2017. Please have these solids removed by the contract handler as
soon as possible. Referencing the 2012 CEI report, two of the drying beds were full
with solids at the time of inspection as well. Please be aware that under 40 CFR 503,
these solids are to be removed from the facility within 2-years after being placed on the
drying beds.
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? M ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
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:
Compliance Schedules Yes No NA NE
Page# 9

Permit: NC0056863 Owner-Facility: Rose Hill WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Compliance Schedules Yes No NA NE
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: See Summary
Page# 10

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
TN-, •F Rat AW
Cv rP ® / 1°1G1zozz
Method Number Estimated Concentration (If
Pollutant(Required) CAS number (if Applicable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
No '.+� 47

Coco, Nick A
From: Carl Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 10:38 AM
To: Coco, Nick A
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Attachments: ROSE HILL-HEADWORKS3-19-20.pdf, ROSE HILL-HEADWORKS4-30-20.PDF
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Nick,
Attached are the data sheets you requested. I've also revised the 3/19/2019,4/30/2019, 3/19/2020 and 4/30/2020 with
the correct coding. Hopefully this is it but if there is anything else I will take care of it to the best of my ability.
Thanks
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Thanks so much, Carl. I believe that the free cyanide was throwing me off.
When you have a moment, please send me the lab sheets for the total lead samples you are changing.This will be
attached to the fact sheet as notice of why the DMR values were updated.
Best,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
D- E-
NORTH CAROLINA 7..� Q
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
i

From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 11:56 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NC0056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Nick,
For total cyanide for 2/6/2020 and 7/21/2020 both lab results are<0.005 mg/L on the Effluent Pollutant scan data
sheets.
Thanks
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 11:45 AM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NC0056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Hey Carl,
Any time. I'm here to help and understand that things happen which get in the way. I'm happy to hear that the
parameter code PDF might be useful. If you ever have any questions about this stuff, please give me a ring and I'll do my
best to assist.
I'll proceed with the renewal process with the total lead being non-detect and the total cyanide being detected at 12
ug/L. Did we ever determine if the the 7/21/2020 detection for total cyanide of 10 ug/L was verified and not a typo? I
believe once I have that answer, I can pretty much finish up this process.
Thanks again,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
2

ki ;NORTH CAROLINA 7.9� Q
Department of Environmental Duality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 11:32 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Nick,
I really appreciate your help and patience with this stuff. Between Covid, employee position changes with us and in
Raleigh I haven't been able to find anyone that is knowledgeable on the subject enough that would mind pointing me in
the proper direction. Most just asked me why it wasn't accurate in the beginning. I can promise once we get this permit
cycle behind us it will go much smoother next time.
Also,Thank you for the parameter code PDF file. It will help me in the future.
Yes,That is correct for the total lead being non-detect for all. I will revise the eDMR reports accurately now that I have
the correct coding.
The total cyanide: 0.012 mg/L, is documented on the Effluent Pollutant Scan Lab data for 9/30/21 using EPA 335.4, Rev
1.0, 1993.
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday,January 31, 2023 3:03 PM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Hi Carl,
I'm glad you were able to figure it all out. Yes, please go ahead and revise the DMRs and let me know when you do so,
plus what changes end up being made in the end. I've attached a parameter code file I was able to scrounge up that
might be helpful for you. For total lead the code is 01051 and for total cyanide the code is 00720.Just so I'm
understanding you correctly, all of the total lead samples were non-detect, correct? Did we ever figure out whether that
9/30/2021 total cyanide sample was verified?
As for the total mercury sampling, we will likely add a quarterly monitoring requirement so we can get sufficient data for
the next renewal and identify if any further actions are necessary.
Thanks for looking into all of this. Please keep me updated and we can keep moving through this process.
3

Best,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Q:>
NOR-rH OAHOI INA 7..�
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday,January 30, 2023 10:19 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
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 Nick,
Hope the holidays and New Year find you well also,
I believe I figured out the issue with the previous dates you requested the corrections on.This information is for one,
keyed in under the wrong coding parameter, which should be total lead.The biggest issue I found was most definitely on
my behalf, is during the time all of this was coming down on me the headworks analysis testing was actually done in
2020 not 2019 with the same dates... 3/19/2020, 4/30/2020.
1 do know on 3/19/2020 the data is correct but coding needs to be changed to total Lead instead of what it's on. I will
revise them if you can give me the correct coding to put in for total lead.
For 4/30/2020 1 need to change coding and add a (<) sign for the data to be correct. Once I saw it I realized the issue was
that I entered it into the wrong year of 2019, re-entered it for 2020 then was called away from the office and completely
forgot about revising the 2019 data back to original until now just seeing it.
I never heard anything back from EnviroChem on my low level Mercury lab results unfortunately. With that being said
I'm going to assume the lab didn't run the analysis which is why I didn't get the data entered. Whatever I have to do in
the future to prevent this from happening again I will make sure it's addressed so there won't be any farther mistakes
made on my end for data entry or what is required for future lab testing.
4

Thanks and I apologize,
Carl
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday,January 27, 2023 1:43 PM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Hi Carl,
I hope the start of the new year hasn't been too busy for you and all is well on your end.
When you get the chance, please give me an update on the data/additional information request we discussed during the
site visit.
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
kl ;NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 8:31 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Nick,
Sorry for the delay!
I will look back at the data sheets to verify the parameter coding or to make sure they are accurate. I feel like during
that time I was asked to enter some new parameters into the eDMR that aren't set automatically and I may have set the
5

wrong code due to not having a sheet to explain ALL coding for the parameter types. I don't know all of the codes so it's
possible I entered it wrong at that time for Total Lead and Free Cyanide. As soon as I can verify, I will get back to you
with the information. Hopefully by that time I can also speak with my lab to verify the low level mercury testing.
Thanks
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 10:28 AM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
I'm working on conducting a reasonable potential analysis to assess potential for certain parameters to exceed surface
water standards and I have the following questions:
1. Total Lead was reported in the eDMRs for 3/19/2019, 4/30/2019 and 4/30/2020 as detected at 10 ug/L. Please
verify that these were detections and not a situation where the modifier was not reported.
2. Was Free cyanide also sampled? It is listed in the eDMRs and I just want to make sure that it isn't supposed to be
total cyanide.
3. More of a note,Total Beryllium and Total Zinc were both analyzed using a Practical Quantitation Level (PQL) of
10 ug/L. Due to how low the parameters' allowable discharge concentrations are,total beryllium should be
sampled using a PQL of at most 5 ug/L and total silver should be sampled using a PQL of at most 1 ug/L. Please
inform your lab that this should be done moving forward for any effluent analysis of these two parameters,
including the PPAs.
Sorry to bombard you with all of these emails. Stuff always ends up coming up during these reviews where I just need
additional information or clarification.
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
D i4e r-��� t'
��
NORTH CAROLINA -
Department of Environmental Duality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
6

From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 10:09 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Yes, a visit will be fine when the time comes
Sorry for the inconvenience.This is honestly my first time having to deal with this process so in depth. As far as the
Low Level Mercury lab results for the Effluent Pollutant scans I have just contacted my lab to ask them to send me the
results because I didn't know they weren't on the sheets.As soon as they contact me back and send the info I will get it
to you. If not today, possibly Monday. If They don't have the low level mercury results what can be done to resolve this?
Thanks
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 9:39 AM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Hi Carl,
Yes, I think a visit would be nice to get more familiarity with the site, meet and discuss the permit,though I'm not quite
done with the first review. I did want to ask, would you send me the results from your low level mercury testing? I only
have a result from 2018 and one from the 2/2020 PPA. I don't see it on the other 2 PPAs you sent me.
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
z:���D- E-
klp�
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
7

From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 10:51 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NC0056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
You're very welcome,
Thank you for working with me on this matter.Also you're welcome to see what I'm referring to in person if you're ever
in the area to get a better understanding.
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NC0056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Thanks for providing that background here. I'm trying to wrap my head around it and understand the stream a bit more.
Like you said,the effluent numbers look good, only a couple violations in 2019. 1 appreciate your help with all of this.
From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 10:40 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NC0056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
That is correct on the COD data. The upstream is typically always higher than the downstream for whatever reason,
maybe due to shade, shallow depth of water at the location, etc... It's more like a ditch at the upstream monitoring
point.The downstream data varies because it is a few miles from my facility. Sometimes it is significantly lower than the
effluent of my facility. I am required to check it once a week as is which I typically do during my weekly sampling dates.
It's not on the Town of Rose Hill's property. I don't know who to speak with about it but it honestly doesn't flow rapidly
or efficiently due to debris, beaver dams, limbs, duck weed, etc. I have mentioned it several times throughout my
employment here. I know that doesn't help any but it also varies during farming season as well which I've noticed over
the years. I have been told I am responsible for the D.O. for my facility maintaining it between (6.0-9.0) which I do. I
unfortunately can't control what the specific D.O. is at an offsite location but was told to document the results when I
check it due to monitoring requirements.
Thanks
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 10:22 AM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NC0056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Understood. So I take it that there are not many data points available for it?
8

As an aside, would you mind verifying that the upstream and downstream dissolved oxygen reported in the DMRs are
not accidentally flipped? Based on instream data review, it appears that the reported downstream DO is significantly
lower than that of the upstream.
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
D E-
kj /
NORTH CAROLINA -
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 10:06 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Nick,
Glad to hear.
I do see it as far as Pretreatment but you are the first person to ever ask me for COD lab results for my facility. Since I
have been here roughly 7 years, and long before I came here BOD was monitored for the facility and not COD. If it's
something that needs to be done in the future I will make proper arrangements to do so but as of this time I don't recall
it ever being done without a special request.
Thanks
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:59 AM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Hi Carl,
9

I'm hanging in there.
And yup! I am referring to Chemical Oxygen Demand. Seems like it's part of the pretreatment monitoring plan, and I'm
just looking into what types of numbers we are seeing in the effluent.
Thanks again for your time,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
From: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:56:59 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Nick,
All is well on my end, hope the same for you...
Not trying to sound stupid but as far as COD are you referring to Chemical Oxygen Demand?
Thanks
From: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:43 AM
To: Carl Wheeler<[e-mail]>
Subject:Additional Information Request: NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP
Hi Carl,
10

I hope all is well on your end.
I wanted to check in with you regarding COD data for the Rose Hill WWTP. It looks like the only data point for the
effluent was reported on 10/20/2020. Would you please send me any additional COD data you may have at your earliest
convenience? I'm only reviewing a data period from 2018—present.
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
�
NORTH CAROLINA Ai_
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
11

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
110006674223 NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP OMB No.2040-0004
3.19 Has the POTW conducted either(1)minimum of four quarterly WET tests for one year preceding this permit application
or(2)at least four annual WET tests in the past 4.5 years?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 Complete tests and Table E and SKIP to
Item 3.26.
3.20 Have you previously submitted the results of the above tests to your NPDES permitting authority?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 3 Provide results in Table E and SKIP to
Item 3.26.
3.21 Indicate the dates the data were submitted to your NPDES permitting authority and provide a summary of the results.
Date(s)Submitted Summary of Results
MM/DDNYYY ry
During this permit period,toxicity testing was conducted quarterly. The
test was a"Fail' in July 2019. The follow-up test was a"Pass"as well as
'a 01/01/2019 all other toxicity testing.
a�
0
c
c
0
w 3.22 Regardless of how you provided your WET testing data to the NPDES permitting authority,did any of the tests result in
o toxicity?
tM
✓❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Item 3.26.
3.23 Describe the cause(s)of the toxicity:
One"Fail'.A long force main had been out of service for a long while and was not flushed out. The force main served an
old school that was utilized during hurricane aftermath for cooking,bathing,and staging of emergency workers. The old
w settled debris in the force main,once it was put back in use,caused the plant to be upset.
3.24 Has the treatment works conducted a toxicity reduction evaluation?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Item 3.26.
3.25 Provide details of any toxicity reduction evaluations conducted.
3.26 Have you completed Table E for all applicable outfalls and attached the results to the application package?
❑ Yes ❑✓ Not applicable because previously submitted
information to the NPDES ermittin authorit .
SECTION - .-r• 1
4.1 Does the POTW receive discharges from SIUs or NSCIUs?
❑✓ Yes El 4 SKIP to Item 4.7.
w 4.2 Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Number of SIUs Number of NSCIUs
m 2
3
0
4.3 Does the POTW have an approved pretreatment program?
N
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
x
a
4.4 Have you submitted either of the following to the NPDES permitting authority that contains information substantially
identical to that required in Table F:(1)a pretreatment program annual report submitted within one year of the
tM
s application or(2)a pretreatment program?
H ❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Item 4.6.
0
R 4.5 Identify the title and date of the annual report or pretreatment program referenced in Item 4.4.SKIP to Item 4.7.
Rose Hill WVVTP Annual Pretreatment Annual Report 03/01/2021
a
c
4.6 Have you completed and attached Table F to this application package?
❑ Yes ❑ No
EPA Form 3510-2A(Revised 3-19) Page 9

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
110006674223 NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP OMB No.2040-0004
4.7 Does the POTW receive,or has it been notified that it will receive, by truck,rail,or dedicated pipe,any wastes that are
regulated as RCRA hazardous wastes pursuant to 40 CFR 261?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Item 4.9.
4.8 If yes,provide the following information:
Annual
Hazardous Waste Waste Transport Method Amount of Units
Number (check all that apply) Waste
Received
❑ Truck ❑ Rail
❑ Dedicated pipe ❑ Other(specify)
w
0
c.�
w ❑ Truck ❑ Rail
❑ Dedicated pipe ❑ Other(specify)
N
7
O
'O
❑ Truck ❑ Rail
x-o ❑ Dedicated pipe ❑ Other(specify)
R
N
d
L4.9 Does the POTW receive,or has it been notified that it will receive, wastewaters that originate from remedial activities,
h including those undertaken pursuant to CERCIA and Sections 3004(7)or 3008(h)of RCRA?
0
R ❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Section 5.
3 4.10 Does the POTW receive(or expect to receive)less than 15 kilograms per month of non-acute hazardous wastes as
specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d)and 261.33(e)?
❑✓ Yes 4 SKIP to Section 5. ❑ No
4.11 Have you reported the following information in an attachment to this application: identification and description of the
site(s)or facility(ies)at which the wastewater originates;the identities of the wastewater's hazardous constituents;and
the extent of treatment,if any,the wastewater receives or will receive before entering the POTW?
❑ Yes ❑ No
SECTION • OVERFLOWS(40
E 5.1 Does the treatment works have a combined sewer system?
R ❑ Yes ❑ No 4SKIP to Section 6.
5.2 Have you attached a CSO system map to this application?(See instructions for map requirements.)
1° ❑ Yes
M ❑ No
5.3 Have you attached a CSO system diagram to this application?(See instructions for diagram requirements.)
0
0 ❑ Yes ❑ No
EPA Form 3510-2A(Revised 3-19) Page 10

EPtnb
NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP OMB No.2040-0004
h CSO outfall,provide the followinginformation. Attach additional sheets as necessary.)
CSO Outfall Number_ CSO Outfall Number CSO Outfall Number
wn0
� d ZIP code
U)
N/
o County
= Latitude "
0
0
Longitude
Distance from shore ft. ft. ft.
Depth below surface ft. ft. ft.
5.5 Did the POTW monitor any of the following items in the past year for its CSO outfalls?
CSO Outfall Number` CSO Outfall Number CSO Outfall Number
Rainfall ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
rn
o CSO flow volume ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
o CSO pollutant
M ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑No
0 concentrations
Receiving water quality ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
CSO frequency ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
-T
Number of storm events ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No
5.6 Provide the following information for each of your CSO outfalls.
CSO Outfall Number_ CSO Outfall Number_ CSO Outfall Number_
} Number of CSO events in events events events
N the past year
R
Average duration per hours hours hours
event ❑Actual or❑ Estimated ❑Actual or❑Estimated ❑Actual or❑Estimated
w
0 Average volume per event million gallons million gallons million gallons
❑Actual or❑ Estimated ❑Actual or❑Estimated ❑Actual or❑Estimated
Minimum rainfall causing inches of rainfall inches of rainfall inches of rainfall
a CSO event in last year ❑Actual or❑ Estimated ❑Actual or❑Estimated 1 ❑Actual or❑Estimated
EPA Form 3510-2A(Revised 3-19) Page 11

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
110006674223 NCO056863 Rose Hill WWTP OMB No.2040-0004
5.7 Provide the information in the table below for each of your CSO outfalls.
CSO Outfall Number_ CSO Outfall Number_ CSO Outfall Number_
Receiving water name
Name of watershed/
y streams stem
w U.S.Soil Conservation ❑Unknown ❑Unknown ❑ Unknown
Service 14-digit
watershed code
> if known
Name of state
mana emenUriver basin
NU.S.Geological Survey ❑Unknown ❑Unknown ❑ Unknown
8-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Code if known
Description of known
water quality impacts on
receiving stream by CSO
(see instructions for
exam les
SECTION • CHECKLIST AND • 1
6.1 In Column 1 below,mark the sections of Form 2A that you have completed and are submitting with your application. For
each section,specify in Column 2 any attachments that you are enclosing to alert the permitting authority. Note that not
all applicants are required to provide attachments.
Column 1 Column 2
Section 1: Basic Application
ElInformation for All A licants w/variance requests) ❑ w/additional attachments
❑ Section 2:Additional ✓❑ w/topographic map ❑✓ w/process flow diagram
Information
❑ w/additional attachments
❑ w/Table A ❑ w/Table D
❑ Section 3: Information on ❑ w/Table B ❑ w/Table E
Effluent Discharges
E ❑ w/Table C ❑ w/additional attachments
w Section 4: Industrial ❑ w/SIU and NSCIU attachments ✓❑ w/Table F
�' ❑✓ Discharges and Hazardous
Wastes ❑ w/additional attachments
ElSection 5:Combined Sewer El w/CSO map ❑ w/additional attachments
Overflows
� ❑ w/CSO system diagram
a Section 6:Checklist and
cc Certification Statement ❑ w/attachments
Y 6.2 Certification Statement
d
v !certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible
for gathering the information,the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,accurate, and
complete.I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name(print or type first and last name) Official title
John Bauer Town Manager
Signature Date signed
13 04��
EPA Form 3510-2A(Revised 3-19) Page 12

Town of Rose Hill WWTP
NCO056863
Plant Narrative
The Rose Hill WWTP is a 0.45 mgd conventional activated sludge treatment plant. The major
unit processes consists of:
• Influent lift station
• Bar screen
• Oxidation ditch(446,875 gallons)
• Three clarifiers (47,350 gallons each)
• Aerobic sludge holding tank
• Sludge drying beds
• Disinfection
• Post aeration
• Flow measurement
Wastewater flow enters the headworks of the WWTP via gravity sewer from the Town of Rose
Hill collection system. The influent is conveyed by the influent lift station to a set of barscreens
which removes a majority of the larger rags, grease and debris from the wastestream before it
enters the oxidation ditch. Secondary treatment occurs in the oxidation ditch through the activated
sludge process in which two rotors provide proper aeration/mixing of the wastewater. The
wastestream continues to a splitter box which routes flow to three clarifiers acting in parallel.
Clarifier effluent is conveyed to the chlorine contact basin where disinfection occurs via
chlorination. At the end of the contact basin, dechlorination of the effluent occurs as it travels to
a post-aeration basin. Effluent is oxygenated through a single aerator before its final discharge to
outfall 001.
Sludge from the clarifiers is either returned to the headworks of the WWTP as return activated
sludge (RAS) or wastes to an on-site lift station as waste activated sludge (WAS). From the lift
station, the WAS can be discharge to a sludge holding tank or to the sludge drying beds. Any
supernatant from the sludge holding tank or that which is filtered by the sludge drying beds is
returned by gravity to the headworks of the plant.

�2CD
-
CD
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
25 O J MOOMOMOOMOMMOMOM J 0 J O J 0 J 0
CD o J ca
Cl
> 0 >` N c-I c-I c-I c-I ci .--I 1-1 1-1 Ln -4 ci ci .-i c-I Ln Ln O Ln Ln Ln
2 z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
am J O O O O O O 6 6 O O O O 6 O O
Q O O O O O
E
`o
LL
V I, n 00 Il n N n LU n 00 n n N zT
V O O O O O O O O -1 O O O O O L!1 O N N N N
+= O O O O O O O O LD O O O O O m N Lp Lp Lp ip
>>t m N N N N N N N N N N N N m �
R N N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a a m a
C a m m m am m a a m d a d d m Lai Lai Lai Lai
Q N Lai LU LU LU L.I LU LU w LU LU LU LU LU LU LU
O tl/
NCL
a)
m N N N N N N N N -1 N N N N N N N N N N N
7 lQ
cn
E Z
= ci
Z O
O N
O �
c.)
to
0
T (A J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
•� •� w w OD bA OD bA bA OD 0\D OD W bD 0D 0D w OD to to to to
Q E E E E E E E E c E E E E E E E 7 7 7 7
d
c
ca
Q
N
>d
a) O n
z a) c, 0 0 0 0 0 0 `^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0
> _ > � oo z z z z z z 0r z z z z oo z z z z z z
U
LL
0
N N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
O 0A to to 0A to oD to to pp to to 0A to 0A oD to bA bA bA Op
t E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 3 3 3 =3
c.)
w
d 0
E • >,
E
ca
z 00 0
� E
o
CL 0
w z x 3 0 Ln 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0
z > oo Z Z Z Z Z Z 00 Z Z Z Z oo Z Z Z Z Z Z
• N
O
C
t a) a)
N
a a) m m Cl) Ln
0QU oo Uc=m 2 oE c _o_ EiEs
a) o nQ QE m O co
U U > U U > ` O 2 E cz a) o U O 0 o > U U > 0a) a) o 0 aU a) E O -
a>
roM>
a R cE O C6 0 U
f2 2 Of� O o o c a)ao E cc E N E
c �o �c � o �� o os .E oO
Q p E
W 4) a) L) > O N O L O , E c m O a
Q Q 2 Z n cn � " o�
Q Q m 00
�■ r R Q
^2 w

m o �2
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
D O J O J Cl J D J O J Cl J O J Cl J D J O J O J D J Cl J Cl J O J Cl J D J O J Cl J O J Cl J D J D
c,o J m
CN
> o L, Ln L, L, L, L, L, L, Ln L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, to L, L, L,
o z 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a CD J
Q O
ZZ—
tL
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
T C lD lD lD �D lD O l0 lD lD tD lD tD tD lD CD lD lD lD lD ko lD ko
a a a a Q a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
CL 01 tl d Cl- 0_ d d 0_ d 0_ d d C1 01 CL CL 01 CL CL 0_ d
Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
O to
L d
d
-0 � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
3 to
E Z N
Z O
O d
0 ca
O L
U
m
0
UD UO =3 0 to CD= =3 D D q0 to p U l�A A UU UO UU OD UA to UA to UA
a>
c3>
to
a>
a
a
z o o M o o N o o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a z z o z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
w
U
m N
LL 0
O
!a C 00 to l]A l]p GO UO to t10 hA GA h0 to Gi0 l7p tut l7p l7p Uq to tiCl h0 tiD
N 0
� • T
Z � Q
E
IL
o
CO u
0 Z K 3 0 N coOMi 0 0 0 O 0 0
z z z o z z t,� z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
a> m
c �
ca
w
a> a> a>
to co c a> CD m a�i a> a> co
Z N a) � L a
O O CL 0-
0 N N
w CLi N O O O O 0O O O O LO :E p
a L L CV L L L N - U 2 N U U p
O O O O U U U U U N U C
O O O O :Ea "� a a "a L N CiCD CV
w Ca :E :E :E �; :EU _ CV O _ CV M G> G> N _CL N O _ _ E
U U U U N U W I- H ii
..
CL
w

m o �!?
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
D O J J D J O J J O J D J O J O J J O J J O J D J J O J O J O J O J D J D m
c,o J Lo
CN
o O a Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N N N N N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O Ln Ln Ln
Z O O O
Qm J 2
a O M C
E
6
LL
U 'a Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
T io �D w LO kO ko LO w LO w w LO w Lo LO 1.0 LO w LO 1.0
a s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Q � w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
O w
L N
d
-0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
3 cc
E Z N
Z O
O d
O L
c.�
N
0
T r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
bD OA UD UD OD OD UD UD OD OD OD OD OD bAmo
D D D OD OD D
a>
cc
c
a>
a'
a
co
z o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a = z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
w
U
LL
O
!Q C 00 00 OD M bA 00 OD 00 OD 00 00 110 00 110 h.0 bA M bA M bA
V
N 0
� • T
Z 00 Q
E
IL
Ln
CO Z
O_ R Z Z Z z z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z
y
� C
� 7 tl1 O rn
r..' C. _ _ _ O C N co
N CE _ O O _ O C CD
C .�... )
CD
O cn C O O C L C. N N N �
_o N _� O C..U
c� Ed S NN a)C -O >+LO O L)O_ Cd j
C T aa
c O CDp N L O L O O O O O L C ID C6 d O N
(' 0 a o O O � cc CO
' o
a L m on�w �_ x v v co v aci Z L) L) c aci aci aci E
H LY O CV CV CV fV CV v a CV y a a a co m m c'> Li
�■ � Q
C1 R
Q m W

rn v o
CD
O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J N
25 O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J 0
�,5 o J m
Cli
> O L N Ln Ln V1 Ln Ln V1 Ln Ln V1 Ln Ln Ln Ln V1 Ln V1 Ln O Ln Ln Ln Ln
o Z 0 -0 -1
am J O
a O
E
`O
W
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln Ln
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
A� lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD
•r a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
R a) a d d a d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d a a d
C � w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
Q
O fp
L N
� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
7 lQ
Cn
E Z
= _I
Z O
O N
O �
c.�
O
0
T y J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
•� O to CD CD CD OA OA OA UD UD OD h.0 OD CD CD CD OA OD qD CD CD =3 bD
d
C
O
L
d
Q
d
>d
m3: = o o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 coca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> > z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z z z
U
a
W 0
O
r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
O qD UD OD OD OD UD UD OD 00 OD OD OD CD OD OD UD UD OD
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 =3 OD OD OD
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
V
N 0
E • T
Ca
Z 00 0C
Ln Ln C
O
w Z x
•x 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z C Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
I
CO N a) O a)
a) a) a)
a) E
E Z a) m CO
rq m a)xO CD NN a) O NN -o N (a O N N
0 � 7 i C L O >' L a3 -51 Cu m C C C C C N CO = N >
O O O O_ _O O_ L O � O ""' ^ Fu :S O O
� a > n ca-m o 0 0 0 o 0
`-`- O O O O >+ L c c Q N fl' aS O O O O L O_ O O N
E N U N U U U U j, C C
W W a) LnO Ln U U c .2 N M � M a) �_ � CO
m m m m M M V m CV ',I- U 'O 'O M N CV
LL
u Q
d
W

O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J N
D O J J O J D J O J O J J O J J J O J J O J O J O J O J D J D
c,o J
CN
od a N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln o
z o cn
E o v a>
o F=
LL
co
U_
ca
ci Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
T 0 t0 t0 t0 t0 tO t0 t0 to t0 t0 t0 t0 tD t0 t0 tO t0 Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
a a a a a d a a a a a a a d d a a o
Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N
C
co
O
O_
O
w N
O t// Cf)
d
-0 Q" N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
GJ ca m
E Z L
ry
Z O
m O a)
0) 1 CD
�
O !Q L
U �
vl LL
0 U
r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Q
•� CD bA D CD m tlD D tn D CD m qD UD bap OD OD =3 UD
a> a
c c
cc :3
CL
a' o
CL
C�
E �, cn`° o o 0 o 0 Coco 0 o o 0 Coco a a>
Z = > z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z Z � N
m
N
U N_
O
ALL
cn U
L o
a a
N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O f6
R C GD to qD CD qD OD OD CD 110 qD qD 0 :3 CD 0 7 7 7 7 0 rn
GD fl- O
3 3 7 3 7 7 7 � � 3 3 7 7 � O
U aJ U
_N O
N 0 > y
E
Z • O
Z cc
� Q N
Ln E T
IL o 3 O
<n U E N U O
w Z o o
z is Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z
• >
• o n
co
rn-i-C U
CU
O (n
a
= a)o a) n
a� a� m
N C N C co
a) Q O T Q N (6 N c Q. a
Z N w a) a C O• O T T O O L N
o ^ o c - U m a O_ Z � U U
a) 7 >1 � U N aJ N O () ai
N O O O O Cl) a) C C Q O a�a
c O N L CDO o O O 00 N O O O L U a) N
N O L C C L L L :EN O N cn N Cl) a
a Q ai a) U U U U O O O O +� co
a a o o x x x x (D n n v c a
Lys N 7 7 Q) a) N N a O cC �_' L T N Q O E
.■ L.L LL = = 2 2 c y Z Z Z I Z Z CL d E -� ti
CO
N a
Eli— W

E E _
\CD
\ IL
2z p $
CL co
E0LL
❑ ❑
2
m ƒ ƒ
❑ ❑
\ R R &
\ 0 / °
7 � $ p
ƒ ❑ ❑
ƒ
� \ {
& $ $ S }
m \ ± / \ 2 # ƒ ƒ
J J \ t \
) ` a) / r
/ / ) j o /
/ / CL
7 = _ cm
5 0 0 0
% / y
bD 2 2
% § -
E \ J > � \
/ \ j - ® ) ƒ ƒ
2 m \Ln § \ { f
CL 0 k \ u J \ ©
m u @ � R z 2 /
§ a ± 2 / /
z 7 4 $ e
\ \ ) co�
/ \ f /
o
/ cn
\ \ _ _
/ \ / k E E co
e § E � _ _
' \ 2 G § � E \ � % / /
\ § . 2 / \ k \ \ � d0 » \
/ J f & o cu ° « z \/ \ § \ m
I f kf \ a \ s 8 /
\ 0 Ln ® @ / \ � \ &® \ ) \ \ f \
j . m � %/ k 2 2
LU ® $ ck ./ \ / _ 0 \ 0 \ n c \
\ ® 2 a / / » 2 � = 55 55 0 / r
C \ 2my / o / 3 E 7 7 }
2 0 2 2 / /_
� 2 \ 7 a) cn e / 03 03 - i
a 2 e 0 o � =_ e w = w 3 \

CD
\\ IL
j) k
ƒ/ El
2
m ƒ
❑
k
LL
ƒ
�
\ u
± } ro
LL
/ 2 /
cc ( /
u >
3
7
70-
\ S
_ / 2
\ Ln
u
/ \
\ E
} § \ § \ ƒ
2
\ % \
> \ \
\ 9
/0 / G
3 / CL
k § �/
J
\ / �3
) r n � 2 £
\ } ; 2 _\
o �\ f
x = ._ ƒ
{ § '{ / 0 2 t
} _� / f / k
\ ® / E /\ \$ o _ e
\ b $ £ ƒ / & 2
' / / $ = \ > t- i