HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0025577_Draft Fact Sheet_20230519 Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO025577
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco,nick.coco@ncdenr.gov:
Date: April 16,2023
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 Red Springs/Red Springs WWTP
Applicant Address: PO Box 790,Red Springs,NC 28277
Facility Address: 400 Greenhill Drive,Red Springs,NC 28277
Permitted Flow: 2.5 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 100%domestic
Facility Class: Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: bar screen,grit removal, dual oxidation ditches, dual secondary
clarifiers, gas chlorination unit, dual path chlorine contact chamber,
dechlorination,continuous recording effluent flow measurement,
aerobic sludge digester, sludge drying beds,back-up generator
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) N
County: Robeson
Region Fayetteville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Red Springs has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 2.5 MGD for the Red Springs WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 3,500 residents. Treated domestic wastewater is discharged via Outfall 001
into Little Raft Swamp, a class C; Sw waterbody in the Lumber River Basin.
In September of 2015,the facility entered into a Consent Agreement with EPA Region 4. The Consent
Agreement and Final Order addressed effluent discharge violations,which included violations for pH,
copper,mercury, cyanide,and zinc from May 2012 through March 2015. A civil penalty of$50,000 was
determined appropriate to settle the action.
Page 1 of 12
For this renewal,the Town made the following requests:
• monitoring frequency reduction for BOD, ammonia nitrogen, fecal coliform, and TSS (see
section 10. Monitoring Requirements for more information),
• removal of daily effluent temperature monitoring(See Section 10-Monitoring Requirements),
• removal of copper,zinc, and cyanide monitoring(see section 6. Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations-Reasonable Potential Analysis(RPA)for Toxicants),
• reduction of mercury monitoring(see section 6. Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations-
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation), and
• elimination or reduction of instream monitoring requirements(see section 4. Instream Data
Summary).
Sludge disposal: Sludge is dewatered and composted by McGill Composting.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 -Little Raft Swamp
Stream Segment: 14-10-5b
Stream Classification: C; Sw
Drainage Area(mi2): 29.7
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 0.07
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 3.0
30Q2 (cfs): 3.6
Average Flow(cfs): 36.0
IWC (%effluent): 98
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Yes; Exceeding criteria for Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC: Lumber River/03-07-52/HUC: 03040203
USGS Topo Quad: H22SW/Red Springs
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of September 2018 through February
2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 0.867 3.002 0.109 MA 2.5
BOD summer mg/1 2.2 20 0.79 WA 22.5
MA 15.0
BOD winter mg/1 2.4 g 2 WA 27.0
MA 18.0
TSS mg/1 8.8 83.2 0.1 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N summer mg/l 0.2 4.1 <0.1 WA 6.0
MA 2.0
NH3N winter mg/l 0.4 6.5 0.1 WA 21.0
MA 7.0
Page 2 of 12
DO mg/l 9.0 11.75 6.1 DA>5.0
(geomean)
(geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml 2.2 2420 < 1 WA 400
MA 200
Temperature ° C 19.5 28 10 Monitor&
Report
0<pH<
pH SU 6.6 8.7 6 6. 9.0
DM 17.0
TRC µg/l 24.5 65 0.04 (<50
compliance)
TN mg/l 0.3 6.5 <0.2 Monitor&
Report
TP mg/l 0.7 6.5 0.04 Monitor&
Report
Total Copper µg/l 10.2 13 < 10 Monitor&
Report
Total Cyanide µg/l 5.2 9 <5 Monitor&
Report
Total Mercury ng/l 14.5 75 3.07 AA 12.2
Total Zinc µg/l 26.6 47 13 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/l 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(DO) and
temperature. The facility's upstream sampling site is at NCSR 1776(-0.4 miles upstream), and the
downstream sampling site is at NCSR 1505 (-1 mile downstream). Data from September 2018 through
February 2023 are summarized in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Upstream Downstream
Parameter Units
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 20.1 29.5 0.7 20.1 29 0.4
DO mg/l 2.6 12.7 0.03 1 2.8 13 0.1
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
Page 3 of 12
than 2.8 degrees Celsius on one occasion during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Downstream DO dropped below 4 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] on 284 occasions during the
period reviewed. Upon further review, observed drops in downstream DO were consistent with drops in
upstream DO,with upstream DO being observed at levels below 4 mg/L on 293 occasions during the
period reviewed. On no occasion during the period review did downstream DO fall below 4 mg/L without
the concurrent upstream sample being reported as below 4 mg/L. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
The Town requested removal or reduction in frequency of instream monitoring in their renewal
application. Instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature aid in assessment of stream health
and discharge impact and are requirements outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0508. As seasonal flow varies,
with lower flows observed in the summertime,more frequent monitoring in summer is justified.
However, as the instream data review demonstrated no statistically significant difference in upstream
versus downstream dissolved oxygen and temperature, the Town's request for instream monitoring
frequency reduction has been granted. Instream sampling for dissolved oxygen and temperature shall be
conducted 2/week during the months of June,July,August and September and weekly for the remainder
of the year.
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): The facility reported 1
weekly average fecal coliform limit violation that resulted in enforcement action in December 2018.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 18 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from January 2019 to January
2023. The facility failed its chronic toxicity test in October 2021,but followed up with two consecutive
months of passing tests. Additionally,the facility passed all 4 second species chronic toxicity tests
conducted on April 2018, July 2018, October 2018 and January 2019.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in April 2021 reported that the facility was not compliant with permit NC0025577. The report notes,
"Pump#4 at the influent lift station was not being used at the time of inspection due to a faulty belt. The
pump could be operated at low speed if needed. The grit chamber has been inoperable for approximately
1 year. The Division notes that grit causes excessive wear and tear on pumps and other plant equipment
that could lead to expensive repairs and compliance issues. Clarifier#2 was out of operation due to a pipe
blockage. Facility staff had identified the problem as originating from the RAS pump. Two out of three
RAS pumps were working at the time of the inspection. One pump with a blockage was in the process of
being dismantled for servicing. Only half of the digester has been in operation since its construction. The
unused side of the digester is overgrown with vegetation, including sizeable trees.Vegetation must be
removed from the digester.Additionally,the concrete surface may have been compromised due to tree
roots,therefore it should be inspected and repaired."
Page 4 of 12
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
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 existing
limitations for BOD5 are based on the results of a 1985 Level B model. The model recommended summer
BOD5 and ammonia limits of 11 mg/L and 3 mg/L,respectively. The model also recommended winter
BOD5 and ammonia limits of 18 mg/L and 7 mg/L,respectively. After discussion with the Town,the
Division agreed to modify the summer limits to 15 mg/L for BOD5 and 2 mg/L for ammonia. No changes
are proposed for BOD5. See below for assessment of ammonia limitations.
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/l(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues,all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
ammonia limits are as follows: Summer: MA 2.0 mg/l,WA 6.0 mg/l; Winter: MA 7.0 mg/l, WA 21.0
mg/l. These limits were added to the permit in 2004 based on a new statewide policy(at the time)that
resulted from EPA requirements. Toxicity-based Ammonia was reviewed in the attached Wasteload
Allocation(WLA) sheet using the flow design of 2.5 MGD and receiving stream 7Q 1 Os low flow of 0.07
cfs and 7Q10w low flow of 3.0 cfs. The resulting allowable concentrations were 1.0/3.0 mg/L monthly
average/weekly average for summer, and 3.0/9.0 mg/L monthly average/weekly average for winter.
Because the toxicity-based limits are more stringent,they will be placed in the permit.
Review of DMR data from September 2018 through February 2023 revealed that the facility did not
demonstrate an exceedance of the proposed monthly and weekly winter average during the period
reviewed(Fig. 1). As such, it appears that the Town can consistently meet the new limits and a
compliance schedule is not necessary.
Page 5 of 12
Proposed Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Wk Avg Mo Avg MA Limit WA Limit
10
9
8
7
6
5 -
E
4
•
3 ' 1 --
1 1
2 1 l� 1 � 1 I •1
1 • • •
0
7/29/2018 5/25/2019 3/20/2020 1/14/2021 11/10/2021
Figure 1.Red Springs WWTP effluent monthly average(MA)and weekly average(WA)Ammonia-N
concentrations(mg/L)with their respective proposed limits for potential compliance evaluation.
The TRC limit was reviewed in the attached wasteload allocation. The limit of 17 µg/l is found to be
protective, and there are no proposed changes.
Reasonable Potential Analysis(RPA)for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d)(i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1)95% Confidence Level/95%Probability; 2)assumption of zero
background; 3)use of detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6,2016,NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10,2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between September
2018 and February 2023. 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 Monitoriniz. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit(WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Total Copper
• 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:N/A
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration: Total Cyanide, Total Zinc
Page 6 of 12
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set,two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: 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:None
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
Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds,Total Chromium, Total Lead,
Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver
The Town of Red Springs reported Total Cadmium, Total Selenium, and Total Silver at less than
detection,with detection levels<2.0 µg/L,< 10.0 µg/L, and<5.0 µg/L respectively, in the Effluent
Pollutant Scans. The Town's allowable discharge concentrations are 0.98 µg/L, 5.1 µg/L, and 0.06 µg/L
for Total Cadmium, Total Selenium and Total Silver,respectively. DWR's laboratory identifies the target
Practical Quantification Limits(PQLs) for Total Cadmium, Total Selenium and Total Silver as 0.5 µg/L,
1.0 µg/L, and 1.0 µg/L,respectively. 15A NCAC 2B .0505 (e) (4)requires that all test procedures must
produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data
generated must be reported to the approved detection level or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no
approved methods are capable of achieving a detection level below the permit discharge requirement(or
allowable discharge concentration)the method with the lowest detection level must be used. The Town
should use sufficiently sensitive test methods for all pollutants, including when performing Effluent
Pollutant Scans.
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.
Toxici , Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 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
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
Page 7 of 12
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/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
#of Samples 4 12 12 12 11
Annual Average Conc. n /L 23.0 24.0 16.1 7.77 8.34
Maximum Conc.,n /L 75.0 57.3 45.7 20.3 19.7
TBEL,n L 47
WQBEL,n /L 12.2
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since the 2018, 2019 and 2020 annual
average mercury concentrations exceeded the WQBEL, individual mercury samples exceeded the TBEL
in 2018,2019 and 2020,the annual average mercury limit and monthly monitoring have been maintained.
Since the facility is>2.0 MGD, and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/1),the mercury
minimization plan(MMP)requirement has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: 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 via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. As an attachment to the permit
application,the Town 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. As the facility does not receive industrial wastewater,no additional pollutants of concern
outside of what is monitored as part of the NPDES permit requirements are expected.
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; After discussing the new
total copper limits with the Town on 5/8/2023,the Town does not believe that a schedule of compliance is
necessary to maintain compliance with the new limits.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 1 SA 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/l 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 BODS/TSS included in the permit? YES; Overall BOD and TSS
removal> 85%
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Page 8 of 12
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1)prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit,with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed(e.g.,based on new information,increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit(YES/NO):NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated:NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500;2)
NPDES Guidance,Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances(7/15/2010 Memo); 3)NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance(10/22/2012 Memo);4)Best
Professional Judgement(BPJ). Per US EPA(Interim Guidance, 1996),monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o)of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring,refer to Section 4.
The Town of Red Springs requested continuation of 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and
fecal coliform based on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for
these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on
this review, 2/week monitoring frequency has been added for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform.
Please note that the proposed lower ammonia limitations were used when assessing ammonia criteria.
The Town requested removal of effluent temperature monitoring with their renewal application. Daily
effluent temperature monitoring is identified in 15A NCAC 02B .0508 as a requirement for Grade III
Biological Water Pollution Control Systems.No changes are proposed.
For calculation of Total Nitrogen,monthly monitoring for TKN and NO2+NO3 has been added to the
permit.
Per the 2016 NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards,to build a more robust
hardness dataset, all Municipal and Industrial Permittees,with a discharge to freshwater,required to
sample for hardness-dependent metals shall get quarterly monitoring requirements for effluent hardness
and instream hardness,upstream of the discharge. As the Red Springs WWTP is being limited and
Page 9 of 12
monitored for total copper in its effluent, quarterly monitoring for effluent total hardness has been added
to the permit. As the 7Q 1 Os is<0.1 cfs,no upstream sampling is required.
To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply(WS)waters,monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
As the Red Springs WWTP has a pretreatment program and discharges treated wastewater approximately
6 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-IV,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.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016,NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21,2020,to December 21,2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4,2021,was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
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 2.5 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5 Summer: No change WQBEL. 1985 Level B Model and
MA 15.0 mg/l agreement with Town; 2012 DWR
WA 22.5 mg/l Guidance Regarding the Reduction
Winter: of Monitoring Frequencies in
MA 18.0 mg/l NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
WA 27.0 mg/l Performing Facilities
Monitor and Report
2/Week
NH3-N Summer: Summer: WQBEL. 2023 WLA review. 15A
MA 2.0 mg/l MA 1.0 mg/l NCAC 2B; 2012 DWR Guidance
WA 6.0 mg/l WA 3.0 mg/1 Regarding the Reduction of
Winter: Winter: Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
MA 7.0 mg/l MA 3.0 mg/l Permits for Exceptionally
WA 21.0 mg/l WA 9.0 mg/1 Performing Facilities
Monitor and Report Monitor and Report 2/Week
2/Week
TSS MA 30.0 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/1 standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and Report 2B .0406; 2012 DWR Guidance
2/Week Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Page 10 of 12
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400/100ml NCAC 2B .0200; 2012 DWR
Monitor and Report Guidance Regarding the Reduction
2/Week of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
DO >5 mg/1 No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report NCAC 213 .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
3/Week .0508
pH 6-9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
3/Week .0508
Temperature Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Residual DM 17 ug/L No change WQBEL. 2023 WLA review. 15A
Chlorine Monitor and Report NCAC 2B
3/Week
Total Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Nitrogen Monthly NCAC 2B. 0500
NO2+NO3 No requirement Monitor and Report Monthly For calculation of TN
TKN No requirement Monitor and Report Monthly For calculation of TN
Total Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Phosphorus Monthly NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Copper Monitor and Report MA 14.0 µg/1 Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly WA 19.6 µg/1 Potential Analysis(RPA); RP shown
Monitor and Report Monthly -apply Monthly Monitoring with
Limit
Total Zinc Monitor and Report Remove monitoring Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly requirement Potential Analysis (RPA);No RP,
Predicted Max< 50%of Allowable
Cw-No Monitoring required
Total Cyanide Monitor and Report Remove monitoring Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly requirement Potential Analysis(RPA); All values
< 10 µg/1 considered non-detect-No
Monitoring required
Total Mercury AA 12.2 ng/L No change Based on Mercury TMDL
Monitor and Report Evaluation; 2018, 2019 and 2020
Monthly annual average mercury
concentrations exceeded the
WQBEL, individual mercury
samples exceeded the TBEL in
2018, 2019 and 2020
PFAS No requirement Evaluation of PFAS contribution to
Add quarterly monitoring downstream WS-IV; Implementation
with delayed implementation delayed until after EPA certified
method becomes available.
Total No requirement Quarterly effluent monitoring Hardness-dependent dissolved
Hardness metals water quality standards
approved in 2016
Page 11 of 12
Instream Monitor and Report Monitor and Report for DO BPJ; Based on instream data review
monitoring for DO and and temperature 2/week in and Permittee request
temperature 3/week in June—September and
June—September and weekly during remainder of
weekly during year
remainder of year
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 90% No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent amounts. 15A NCAC 213.0200 and
15A NCAC 213.0500
Effluent Three times per permit No change; conducted in 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan cycle 2025,2026, 2027
Mercury MMP Special No change WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Minimization Condition Statewide Mercury TMDL
Plan(MMP) Implementation.
Electronic No requirement Electronic Reporting Special 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: xx/xx/xxxx
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 nick.coco@ncdenr.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
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
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Water Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Application Addendum
Page 12 of 12
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 Red Springs WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class III Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO025577 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 0.9656 FW 5.7291 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 2.500 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Little Raft Swamp Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03040203 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C;Sw Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 200.8203 FW 1545.3666 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 0.070 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w (cfs) 3.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 13.7570 FW 19.3787 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 3.60 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 36.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs) 0.06 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 6.1007 FW 156.7658 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 48.4 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 Hardness Chronic 47.98 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 64.6346 FW 582.5305 pg/L
-------------Combined Hardness Hardness Acute 48.04 mg/L I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Data Source(s) Note: Upstream data provided by Town averaged < Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL 25 mg/L. As such, default value of 25 mg/L was Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.9116 ug/L
used.
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 220.1993 FW 218.6379 ug/L
Par22
Par23
Par24
25577 RPA, input
4/10/2023
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 8/13/2018 48 48 Std Dev. 4.6152 1 DEFAULT 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 8/14/2018 43 43 Mean 48.4000 2 Mean 25.0000
3 8/15/2018 54 54 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 8/16/2018 45 45 n 5 4 n 1
5 8/17/2018 52 52 10th Per value 43.80 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 Average Value 48.40 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 Max. Value 54.00 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 8
9 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
25577 RPA, data
- 1 - 4/10/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/9/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 11/18/2016 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 4/14/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3
5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
25577 RPA, data
-2 - 4/10/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04 Par07
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Cadmium Values"then"COPY" Total Phenolic Compounds Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/9/2015 < 2 1 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 7/9/2015 < 40 20 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 11/18/2016 < 2 1 Mean 1.0000 2 11/22/2016 < 40 20 Mean 20.0000
3 4/14/2017 < 2 1 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 4/17/2017 < 40 20 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 1.000 ug/L 7 Max. Value 20.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 3.000 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 60.0 ug/L
9 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
25577 RPA, data
-3- 4/10/2023
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 7/9/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 10/16/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2.0119
2 11/18/2016 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 1/22/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.6190
3 4/14/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 4/23/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.3580
4 n 3 4 7/16/2019 < 10 5 n 21
5 5 10/15/2019 < 10 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 1/14/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.20
7 Max. Value 5.0 pg/L 7 4/14/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 13.00 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 pg/L 8 7/16/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 15.60 ug/L
9 9 10/6/2020 < 10 5
10 10 1/5/2021 < 10 5
11 11 4/6/2021 < 10 5
12 12 7/1/2021 < 10 5
13 13 10/7/2021 < 10 5
14 14 1/6/2022 < 10 5
15 15 4/6/2022 < 10 5
16 16 7/7/2022 13 13
17 17 10/5/2022 < 10 5
18 18 1/24/2023 10 10
19 19 7/9/2015 < 10 5
20 20 11/18/2016 < 10 5
21 21 4/14/2017 < 10 5
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
25577 RPA, data
-4- 4/10/2023
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 1/22/2019 < 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 7/9/2015 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 4/23/2019 < 5 5 Mean 5.00 2 11/18/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 7/16/2019 < 5 5 C.V. 0.0000 3 4/14/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 10/15/2019 < 5 5 n 20 4 n 3
5 1/14/2020 < 5 5 5
6 4/14/2020 < 5 5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 7/16/2020 < 5 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
8 10/6/2020 < 5 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 7.500 ug/L
9 1/5/2021 < 5 5 9
10 4/6/2021 < 5 5 10
11 7/1/2021 < 5 5 11
12 10/7/2021 < 5 5 12
13 1/12/2022 < 5 5 13
14 4/6/2022 < 5 5 14
15 7/7/2022 < 5 5 15
16 10/5/2022 < 5 5 16
17 1/24/2023 9 5 17
18 7/9/2015 < 5 5 18
19 11/28/2016 < 5 5 19
20 4/14/2017 < 5 5 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
25577 RPA, data
- 5- 4/10/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18 Par19 use"PASTE
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values"then"COPY" SPECIAL-Values"
Nickel Maximum data Selenium then"COPY".
.
points=58 Maximum data
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58
1 7/9/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 7/9/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 11/18/2016 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 11/18/2016 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 4/14/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 4/14/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 5.0 pg/L 7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 ug/L
9 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
25577 RPA, data
-6- 4/10/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20 Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Silver Values"then"COPY" Zinc Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/9/2015 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 1/22/2019 30 30 Std Dev. 8.3362
2 11/18/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 2 4/23/2019 21 21 Mean 26.6471
3 4/14/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 7/16/2019 21 21 C.V. 0.3128
4 n 3 4 10/15/2019 21 21 n 17
5 5 1/14/2020 35 35
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 4/14/2020 34 34 Mult Factor= 1.22
7 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 7 7/16/2020 17 17 Max. Value 47.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 7.500 ug/L 8 10/6/2020 18 18 Max. Pred Cw 57.3 ug/L
9 9 1/5/2021 37 37
10 10 4/6/2021 26 26
11 11 7/1/2021 28 28
12 12 10/7/2021 25 25
13 13 1/6/2022 13 13
14 14 4/6/2022 27 27
15 15 7/7/2022 47 47
16 16 10/5/2022 26 26
17 17 1/24/2023 27 27
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
25577 RPA, data
-7- 4/10/2023
Red Springs WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO025577 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.5 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 2.5000 WWTP/WTP Class: III COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 0.06 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 98.47522236 Acute =48.04 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 0.07 IWC% @ 7QIOS = 98.22560203 Chronic=47.98 mg/L
7QIOW (cfs) = 3.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 56.36363636
30Q2 (cfs) = 3.60 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 51.83946488
Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 36.00 IW%C @ QA= 9.717868339
Receiving Stream: Little Raft Swamp HUC 03040203 Stream Class: C;Sw
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Aplied Chronic Standa d Acute D n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 345.3
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q1Os) 340 ug/L _
3 0 15.0 Chronic (FW) 152.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
C.V. (default) Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
--------- -----------------------------
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L Note: n<9 NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 102.9
Limited data set Max MDL 10
Acute: 5.818
Cadmium NC 0.9656 FW(7Q10s) 5.7291 ug/L 3 0 3.000
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 0.983 All non-detects < 2 ug/L- No Monitoring required; PQL
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 2 of 0.5 ug/L shall be used
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 3 0 60.0 ___ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 578.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=40 Monitoring required
Acute: 1,569.3
Chromium III NC 200.8203 FW(7Q10s) 1545.3666 µg/L 0 0 N/A
------------------- -----------------------------
Chronic: 204.4
Acute: 16.2
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7QIOs) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A - _ _ -----_ _
-Chronic: --- ---------------------------
11.2
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 3 0 15.0 Max reported value 5 All non-detects < 10 ug/L- No Monitoring required;
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) PQL less than Chromium VI Cw
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10
Acute: 19.68
Copper NC 13.7570 FW(7Q10s) 19.3787 ug/L 21 2 15.60 - _ _ ----- 01
No value >Allowable Cw___
- --- ---------------------------
Chronic:
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Acute: 22.3
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7QIOs) 22 10 ug/L 20 1 5.0 - _ _
-Chron ----- - --- ---------------------------
Chronic: 5 1
No value >Allowable Cw
All values < 10 ug/L - No Monitoring required
Acute: 159.193
Lead NC 6.1007 FW(7QIOs) 156.7658 ug/L 3 0 7.500 ___ _ ______ ____ ___________________________
Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 6.211
All non-detects < 5 ug/L - No Monitoring required
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5
25577 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 4/10/2023
Red Springs WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO025577 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.5 MGD
Acute (FW): 591.6
Nickel NC 64.6346 FW(7Q1Os) 582.5305 µg/L _
3 0 15.0 Chronic (FW) 65.8 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(7Q10s) µg/L Limited data set NO DETECTS Chronic (WS) 25.5
Max MDL 10
Acute: 56.9
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 3 0 15.0 ___ _ ___________ ___________________________
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 5.1
All non-detects < 10 ug/L- No Monitoring required;
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 PQL of 1 ug/L shall be used
Acute: 0.926
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7QIOs) 0.9116 ug/L 3 0 7.500
------------------- -----------------------------
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 0.061 All non-detects < 5 ug/L- No Monitoring required; PQL
of 1 ug/L shall be used
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5
Acute: 222.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Zinc NC 220.1993 FW(7Q10s) 218.6379 ug/L 17 17 57.3 Monitoring required
-- ----------- ---------------------------
Chronic: 224.2
No value >Allowable Cw
25577 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 4/10/2023
Permit No. NCO025577
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. NCO025577
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. NCO025577
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. NC0025577
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) 48.4 Average from August 2018 samples
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)]
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) 25.0 Default Used; average of provided
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] data< Default value
7Q 10 summer(cfs) 0.07 Historical file;previous fact sheet
1Q10(cfs) 0.06 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow(MGD) 2.5 NPDES Files
Date: 4/10/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4
4/10/23 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name Annual Limit 12 ng/L with
Red Springs WWTP/NC0025577
/Permit No. : Quarterly Monitoring
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL=0.5 ng/L 7Q10s= 0.070 cfs WQBEL= 12.22 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 2.500 47 ng/L
9/10/18 5.11 5.11
10/16/18 7.87 7.87
11/6/18 4.12 4.12
12/27/18 75 75 >TBEL WQBEL< 23.0 ng/L-Annual Average for 2018
1/22/19 19.3 19.3
2/26/19 23.4 23.4
3/26/19 52.7 52.7 >TBEL
4/23/19 9.24 9.24
S/23/19 9.27 9.27
6/25/19 3.98 3.98
7/23/19 10.5 10.5
8/22/19 6.66 6.66
9/26/19 7.95 7.95
10/29/19 57.3 57.3 >TBEL
11/19/19 32.6 32.6
12/19/19 54.7 54.7 WQBEL< 24.0 ng/L-Annual Average for 2019
1/23/20 45.7 45.7
2/20/20 12.1 12.1
3/17/20 8.77 8.77
4/14/20 24.6 24.6
5/21/20 11.3 11.3
6/23/20 8.33 8.33
7/28/20 8.63 8.63
8/25/20 12 12
9/17/20 6.48 6.48
10/15/20 6.81 6.81
11/3/20 31.7 31.7
12/23/20 16.2 16.2 WQBEL< 16.1 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020
1/21/21 20.3 20.3
2/11/21 7.33 7.33
3/31/21 8.08 8.08
4/27/21 9.36 9.36
5/18/21 3.07 3.07
6/24/21 9.06 9.06
7/27/21 5.91 5.91
8/26/21 4.05 4.05
9/29/21 3.64 3.64
10/19/21 10 10
11/24/21 4.11 4.11
12/16/21 8.35 8.35 7.8 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
1/26/22 4.85 4.85
2/17/22 4.37 4.37
3/24/22 7.16 7.16
4/27/22 19.7 19.7
5/25/22 7.28 7.28
6/29/22 6.12 6.12
7/19/22 8.88 8.88
8/24/22 8.49 8.49
9/22/22 6.54 6.54
10/20/22 7.56 7.56
12/14/22 10.8 10.8 8.3 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022
1/10/23 4.33 4.33
2/7/23 4.29 4.29 4.3 ng/L-Annual Average for 2023
Red Springs WWTP/NC0025577
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
#of Samples 4 12 12 12 11
Annual Average, ng/L 23.0 24.0 16.1 7.77 8.34
Maximum Value, ng/L 75.00 57.30 45.70 20.3 19.7
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 12.2
Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Permit No. NC0025577
Review period (use 3
02/2020 - 02/2023
yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
N
violations
Monthly 3-yr mean #daily #daily
#of non-
Weekly average 50% 200% 200% monthly #civil penalty
Data Review Units average (geo mean < 50%? samples <15? samples < 20? > 2? > 1?
limit MA MA WA limit asessment
limit for FC) >200% >200%
violations
BOD (Weighted) mg/L 24.375 16.25 8.1 0 Y 32.5 0 Y 0 N 0 N
TSS mg/L 45 30 15 4.1950723 Y 60 1 Y 0 N 0 N
Ammonia (weighted) mg/L 5.5 1.83333 0.9 0.158953 Y 3.67 4 Y 0 N 0 N
Fecal Coliform #/100 400 200 100 1.7721813 Y 800 1 Y 1 N 0 N
NCO025577 Red Springs WWTP 5/9/2023
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
September-18 94.98 March-21 96.95 September-18 85.71 March-21 86.75
October-18 93.34 April-21 95.91 October-18 72.66 April-21 90.98
November-18 90.05 May-21 97.22 November-18 78.92 May-21 97.63
December-18 79.67 June-21 97.74 December-18 61.10 June-21 82.71
January-19 92.98 July-21 97.08 January-19 89.34 July-21 90.33
February-19 95.46 August-21 98.07 February-19 84.55 August-21 97.39
March-19 94.13 September-21 98.34 March-19 82.47 September-21 92.63
April-19 95.20 October-21 97.67 April-19 89.21 October-21 86.98
May-19 97.47 November-21 97.49 May-19 95.64 November-21 92.33
June-19 97.34 December-21 98.14 June-19 96.35 December-21 91.69
July-19 97.83 January-22 98.01 July-19 96.34 January-22 93.54
August-19 97.85 February-22 97.10 August-19 97.86 February-22 90.82
September-19 98.13 March-22 97.47 September-19 96.98 March-22 91.52
October-19 96.22 April-22 96.56 October-19 95.97 April-22 86.50
November-19 98.11 May-22 97.82 November-19 95.15 May-22 83.04
December-19 96.53 June-22 98.53 December-19 90.13 June-22 93.05
January-20 94.73 July-22 97.99 January-20 78.21 July-22 87.56
February-20 95.68 August-22 97.92 February-20 84.87 August-22 84.99
March-20 96.07 September-22 95.17 March-20 92.46 September-22 82.03
April-20 97.87 October-22 96.36 April-20 96.28 October-22 79.31
May-20 96.88 November-22 97.89 May-20 85.67 November-22 86.55
June-20 97.02 December-22 98.57 June-20 92.17 December-22 93.42
July-20 98.14 January-23 97.86 July-20 97.84 January-23 91.92
August-20 97.23 February-23 93.73 August-20 91.05 February-23 86.01
September-20 97.80 March-23 September-20 96.85 March-23
October-20 97.04 April-23 October-20 92.66 April-23
November-20 96.94 May-23 November-20 85.73 May-23
December-20 96.41 June-23 December-20 87.91 June-23
January-21 94.52 July-23 January-21 72.68 July-23
February-21 88.60 August-23 February-21 53.60 August-23
Overall BOD removal rate 96.22 Overall Tss removal rate 88.08
NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Red Springs WWTP
PermitNo. NC0025577
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 2.5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.07
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 3
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 0.07 s7Q10 (CFS) 0.07
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.5 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.875 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.875
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 98.23 IWC (%) 98.23
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 17 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.0
Consistent with current limit. More stringent than current limit.Apply limit.
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 3
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.5
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.875
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 1.02 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 56.36
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 3.0
More stringent than current limit.Apply 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)
Aluent Toxicity Report Form-Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi-Concentration Test
pate:412612018
NPDES#NC00 25577 Pipe#: 001 County: Robeson
;;,iiity: Red Springs "�"��
Comments
Laboratory: Merite�Rs
h Inc
Signature oferator isible Charge
as
x
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
MAIL ORIGINAL TO: Water Sciences Section
Aynatic Toxicology Branch
Division of Water Resources
1621 !Mail Service Center
Raleigh,N.C.27699-1621
5:20 PM
Avg Wt/Surv.Control 0.837 Test Organisms
4/171201$
Test initiation Date/Time .__---- (- Cultured in-House
2 3 4 € Outside Supplier
%Eff. Repl. 1 9 10 8 %Survival 90.0
FControll Surviving# 9
Original# 10
10 10 10 Hatch Date: 4/16118
Wt/original(mg) 0,808 0.645 0,815 0.734 Avg Wt(mg) 0,751
10
10 9
10 %Survival 97.5 Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT
22.5 Surviving# 10 10
Original# 10 10
Wt/original(mg) 0.626 0.655 0.777 0.932 Avg Wt(mg) 0.748
10 10 9 10 °lo Survival 97.5
45 Surviving# 10 10
Original# 10 10 Avg Wt m 0.770
Wt/original(mg) 0.742 0.926 0.752 0.658 9 ( 9)
10 10 10 4 %Survival 85.0
75 Surviving# 10 10
Original# 10 10 m 0.736
Wtloriginal(mg) 0.660 0.793 0.964 0.526 Avg Wt( 9)
g 10 7 9 %Survival 87.5
i
90 Surviving# 10 10
Original# 10 10
Wt/original(mg)
0.951 0.818 0.673 0,739 Avg Wt(mg) 0.795
8 10 10 %Survival 92.5
100 Surviving# 9 10 10
Original# 10 10 0.863 Avg Wt(mg)F 0.842
Wt/original(mg) 0.799 0.844 0.861
Water Quality Data Day 3 4 g 6
Control 6 1 2
pH(SU)InitlFin T81 1 7,70 6.17 t 7.77 8.15 / 7.87 8.12 / 8.01 8.34 ! 7.75 8.17 1 7.90 8.16 1 7.79
DO(mg1L) InitfFin 7.75 t 6.37 7.55 ! 7.14 7,87 t 7.18 8.05 / 7.93 8.19 ! 6.90 8,05 / 7.20 7.58 7.30
Temp(C)init/Fin 24.8 1 25.2 25.8 / 24.3 24.8 t 24.8 24.2 / 25.9 24.5 ! 24.5 25.6 t 24.4 24.7 t 24.4
High Concentration o 2
3 4 5 6
pH(SU)init)Fin 7.00 / 7.23 7.13 / 7.20 7,18 / 7,20 7.30 1 7.49 7.39 1 7.18 7.19 17.30 7,22 1 7.14
DO(mg/L) Init/Fin 8.19 1 6.72 7.95 / 6.89 8.30 1 6.87 8,07 1 7,90 8.21 1 7.35 8.35 / 7.38 8.27 / 6.97
Temp(C)Init/Fin 25.6 1 24.1 25.8 / 24.3 24.7 / 24.8 24.8 1 25.5 24.8 125.1 25.2 1 24.3 25.2 1 24.3
Survival Growth Overall Result
Sample 1 2 3 ChV >100
Normal �`"( �`''1
Collection Start Date 4/16/2018 4/18l2018 4/19/2018 Nor l Yes {
Grab NOEC 100 100
Composite(Duration) 24.0 24.0 24.0 >100
44 LOEC >100
Hardness(mgiL) 42 44 >100
Alkalinity(mgiL) 20
16 15 ChV >
� 332 339 345 Method Steel's Dun�ett^s
Conductivity(urnhos/cm) <0 1 345
Chlorine(mg/L) <0.1 Survival Growth
Temp.at Receipt(°C) 1.5
1.0 1.1 Slats
Conc. Critical Calculated Critical Calculate
22.5 10 22.5 2.41 0.0349
Dilution H2O Batch# 1260 1261 1262 1263 45 10 22.5 2.41 0.2211
Hardness(mgiL) 42 44 46 42 ��75 10 20 5 2.41 0.1717
Alkalinity(mglL) 50 55 51 50 0 14 17.5 2.4i 0.5209
Conductivity(umhoslcm) 154 205 186 175 100 10 19.5 2.41 1.0621
effluent Toxicity Report Form-Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi-Concentration Test Date:7/2512018
•acility: Red Springs NPDES#NC00 25577 Pipe* 001 County: Robeson
Laboratory: Meritech, Inc. Camments�`
x G� ..
Signature of Operator i,VRespon ibie Charge
`
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
iiAIL.ORIGINAL TO: Water Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
Division of Water Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,N.C.27699-1621
Test Initiation DatefTime 7/17/2018 5:50 PM Avg Wt/Surv.Controf 0.683 Test Organisms
%Eff. Repl. 1 2 3 4 Cultured in-House
Control Surviving# ffO.17020
10 10 9 %Survival 97.5 Outside Supplier
Original# 10 10 10
Wtfonginal(mg) 0.728 0.594 0.621 Avg Wt(mg) 0.666 Hatch Date: 7116/18
22.5 Sure"wing# 10 10 10 9 %Survival 97.5 Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT
Original# 10 10 10 10
Wt/original(mg) 0.748 0.773 0.674 0.565 Avg Wt(mg) 0.690
45 Surviving# 10 14 10 9 %Survival 97.5
Original# 10 10 10 10
Wt/original(mg) 0.665 0.675 0.735 0.606 Avg Wt(mg)F 0.670
?5 Surviving# 9 10 10 10 %Survival 97.5
Original# 10 10 10 10
WUorigsnal(mg) 0.683 0.692 0.724 0.725 Avg Wt(mg)F 0.706
F-9-0-7 Surviving# 10 10 10 10 %Surviva! 100.0
Original# 10 10 10 10
VV Lcry n a I(.mg) 0.710 0.680 0.701 0.759 Avg Wt(mg) 0.713
100 S-.rs�iving# 10 10 10 8 %Survival 95.0
Orginal# 10 10 10 10
Ii Yr c:-at(mg) 0.676 0.609 0.651 0.783 Avg Wt(mg)r 0.680
`Water Quakry Data _ Day
Control 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
;-i SU,init/Fin 8.09 / T 2 8.11 / 7.79 8.30 1 7.83 8.31 / 8.23 8.13 / 8A 8.20 / 7.97 8.23 / 7.92
DO;,:^g,'L Init/Fin 7.53 1 7.28 7.69 1 6.53 8.04 1 6.60 7.52 / 7.47 8.05 1 7.60 8.01 / 7.18 7.65 1 7.16
"err.-{C`.:IniUFin 24.3 / 25.1 24.3 1 24.3 25.7 1 24A 24.2 1 24.4 24.3 / 24.1 24.3 1 24.6 24.1 / 24.1
High Concentration 0 1 2 3 4 5 s
c- :SU)Init/Fin 6.95 t 7.20 7.11 i 7.32 7.04 / 7.18 7.94 / 7.47 7.51 1 7.57 7.55 / 7.29 7.26 / 7.32
C0;-,gig L) Init/Fin 7.86 1 7.35 7.72 / 6.73 7.91 1 7.00 7.85 / 7.33 8.10 ! 7.74 7.82 1 6.92 7.71 1 7.17
'e^c Cl Init/Fin 24.8 124.7 24.7 1 24.5 24.3 t 24.5 25.1 / 24.7 24.8 / 24.1 25.9 / 24.1 24.1 1 24.1
Sample 1 2 3 Survival Growth Overall Result
Start Date 7/16/2018 7/18/2018 7/19/2018 Normal j'f FI ChV F >100
Grab Horn.Var. F1 17o4
;Duration) 24.0 24.0 24.0 NOEO 100 100
_^__ess(mg/L) 68 72 76 LOEC >100 >100
M�"a =1ty(mg/L) 16 16 18 ChV >100 >100
Cc-.:-�. . :. .;mhos/cm) 430 456 458 Method Steers Dunnett's
^nine{mg/L) <0.1 <0.} <0.1
-n a:Receipt(°G} 0.9 1.4 1.3 Stats Survival Growth
Cone. Critical Calculated Critical Calculated
I3`wtc H2O Batch# 1290 1291 1292 22.5 10 18 2.41 -0.5509
s :aess(mg1Q 44 46 44 45 10 18 2.41 -0.1022
a'pity(mg/L) 54 52 51 75 10 18 2.41 -0.9144
umhos/cm) 190 223 182 90 10 20 2.41 -1.0621
100 10 17.5 2.41 -0.3181
EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Fac�Sprnm
Outfall Number
NC002S577 Town of RW WTP 1
Method Number Estimated concentration (If
Pollutant(Required) CAS number (if Applicable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
Nick as per your request.
The Town of Red Springs has not sampled for any chemicals _
that arnt regulated by our permit. _
Plant ORC(Brian sSeph-tans
Attachment A—Example Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
i
1.1 Email address of facility contact redHringsah mail.com ,hstephens anelizabethtownnc.org
1.2 Applicant email address townmanager@redsprings.org
1.3 Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge NIA
1.4 Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge N/A
1.5 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)?(Check all that apply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
Discharges into marine waters(CWA Section Water quality related effluent limitation(CWA
301(h)) Section 302(b)(2))
- Not applicable
1.6 Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works
1.7 Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Number of SIUs Number of CIUs
0 0
1.8 Certification Statement
1 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. 1 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
David Ashburn Town Manager
Signature a Date signed
3
(TYP)
F
GRIT WASHER
J
.i SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
f ti.r IT INFLUENT MAIN PUMP �.
GRIT PUMPS STATION
GRIT
y� CHAMBER-
��
I
I LUENT r
STRUCTURE. FWV8 PWV12
Yl �.....PWV3._v�..�` ----------�_ _.--�-7PY1V9^a �FWVtO �PWVtt
G
gUUHLE C}IECK I ! p 1 ADV3
I VALVE VAULT I CHLORINE I
I ti I DOCK I I
I � U3,,;,e
CHLORINE�� CONTACT SASIN
I \ OPERATIONS I
BUILDING I x AEROBIC
DIGESTER
I I
I f
,.-YARD HYDRANT (TYR.)
�S'I (3t?c 6,.;11 `, , _ I CLARIFIER
l PWvl I 140, 2
FROM TO►•IN WATER i I �• 3 cj�,l,
s
SUPPLY SYSTEM .�'. •,
OXIDATION DITCH i ; •. "A + DY.IDATION DITCH
NO. 1 ..++,,, N 2
RETURN
SCUM .41• SLUDGE
I.C1 N} PUMPS X..;7 Q• PUMPS
WASTEWATER PIPING CLARIFIER
SLUDGE AND..................... �. N0, I f +
SCUM PIPING !761113`jti s
^.5'A,r as wt�t
WATER PIPING-------- + SBG BG2'
SPLITTER BOX
Coco, Nick A
From: aaron huggins <redspringsah@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Coco, Nick A
Subject: Re: [External] Town Of Red Springs
Attachments: I M G_20220830_0003.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Wastewater enters Red Springs WWTP at the Head Works. Influent water then flows through the automatic bar screen
where inorganic materials are removed.The influent water continues to flow through the grit removal system where
most of the sand and more inorganic materials are removed. Influent water then enters the wet well. In the next step
the influent water is pumped directly to the splitter box where raw influent water is mixed with sludge. The influent
mixture is then gravity fed into the oxidation ditches. Each of the 2 oxidation ditches consist of 2 rotors that provide
oxygen to the ditches. In this process raw influent water will mix with sludge and the biological process will begin.The
activated sludge will then flow over the ditch wier and into one of the 2 clarifiers which hold around 176,243 gallons
each. In the clarifier the sludge will proceed to settle the bottom of the clarifier.After the settling process, sludge from
the bottom of the clarifiers is recycled with the RAS pumps back the the splitter box to be reintroduced with raw influent
water.The top surface of water from the clarifiers flow over the clarifier wier and is gravity fed downhill into the
chlorine contact basin. In the chlorine contact basin chlorine gas is mixed with potable water and introduced to kill
bacteria and microorganism that could be harmful to the receiving streams. After a 30 minute contact period with
chlorine, Sodium Dioxide is introduced to neutralize the chlorine. The final step is for the flow of treated wastewater to
be calculated and logged.
On Tue,Aug 30, 2022 at 12:22 PM aaron huggins<redspringsah@gmail.com>wrote:
1.Table 2 2A addendum
On Wed,Aug 24, 2022 at 9:19 AM Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.Rov>wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for getting back to me about this.
1.Sounds good. I appreciate you digging this all up. We didn't end up having it on our end, and after talking with
the folks in our Aquatic Toxicology branch,they had mentioned only receiving the 2nd species aquatic tox tests
for 2 of the 4 tests (10/2018 and 1/2019), so getting the last 2 additional species tests will be helpful all
around.
2.1 actually do need that chemical addendum signed and sent back to me, even if you just put a note in the sheet
that says "no additional sampling was conducted and no additional pollutants were identified." I apologize
about this; I had initially thought an email back was sufficient but I am supposed to be viewing this as an
actual part of the application process, so I'd need the form.
3.Thank you again for digging this up. For this,we also need a narrative description of the process at the plant.
4.That's correct. You only need that Table 2 as the addendum to the 2A form.
i
Again, I appreciate all of your work on this. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need clarification
on anything.
Thanks,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
nick.coco@ncdenr.gov
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as
we try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
0- -
comwes•-%..
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2
From: aaron huggins<redspringsah@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 24, 2022 9:07 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: Re: [External] Town Of Red Springs
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 A,
Regarding the information that you have requested. #1 1 found the permit Renewal Package in an old file cabinet. I
will email you the 3 pollutant scan results and the 4 species toxicity results that we have on file for the review period..
#2 There are no additional pollutants to report so I don't think that form is required.... #3 1 have on hand the process
flow schematic and will email that today as well.... #4 is asking for me to fill out the missing information on Table 2 in
the attachment?
if you feel I'm missing something please let me know.... I will send you all the information I have today..Thanks for
your time.
On Tue,Aug 16, 2022 at 1:58 PM Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov>wrote:
Hi Aaron,
No worries at all. I, myself, have been working remotely the past couple of days and have not been near my work
phone. We can reconvene at a later date and have our call.
I hope all is alright.Take care.
-Nick
3
From: aaron huggins<redspringsah@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:46 PM
To: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: Re: [External] Town Of Red Springs
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hey Nick..Aaron from Red Springs here.Just touching base with you... I had some personal stuff come up and I will
not be at work the rest of the week. But like I said I have most of the information ready,just a few questions on some
parts. Sorry for the delay and inconvenience .Thanks
On Fri,Aug 12, 2022 at 4:31 PM Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov>wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Thank you for reaching out and providing this update. Sounds good to me—we can talk more Monday. Have a great
weekend!
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
i
nick.coco@ncdenr.gov
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
4
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient
as we try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
—'111' othtrxj Croer"m��.•
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: aaron huggins<redspringsah@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: [External] Town Of Red Springs
M
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment
to Report Spam.
Hey I'm Aaron Huggins ORC at Red Springs WWTP. I received an email from Tim Maudlin about additional
information needed. I am reaching out to you to let you know that I am working on your request. Some information
I have on hand but some stuff I'm not sure about. I became ORC about 6 months ago and I am learning somethings
as I go. On the job training I guess. I will be giving you a call on Monday about some of the questions I have. Thanks
for your time!
5
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 04/06/22 Page 35 of 35
Permit: NCO025577 MRS Betweel 4 - 2018 and 4 - 2023 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO025577 FACILITY: Town of Red Springs-Red Springs WWTP COUNTY: Robeson REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
02-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 02/09/23 3 X week ug/I 17 39 129.4 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 02/14/23 3 X week ug/I 17 38 123.5 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 02/15/23 3 X week ug/I 17 28 64.7 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 02/23/23 3 X week ug/I 17 22 29.4 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
12-2018 001 Effluent Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC 12/15/18 2 X week #/100ml 400 1,697.06 324.3 Weekly Geometric Mean Proceed to
Broth,44.5 C Exceeded Enforcement Case
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Red Springs WWTP NCO025577/001 County: Robeson Region: FRO Basin: LUM52 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 6/1/2015 chr lim:90% NonComp: Single 70,10: 0.07 PF: 2.5 IWC: 98 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass>100(P) - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Fail >100 >100
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Reddies River WTP NCO083291/001 County: Wilkes Region: WSRO Basin: YAD01 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Fthd24PF Begin: 3/1/2014 Ac P/F Monit:90%Ft NonComp: 7Q10: PF: 0.063 IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M l J A S O N D
2019 - - H - - H - - H - - H
2020 - - H - - - - - - - - -
Reidsville WTP(Outfall 002) NC0046345/001 County: Rockingham Region: WSRO Basin: CPF01 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 7/1/2017 Chr Lim: 90% NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M J I A S O N D
2019 Fail - Pass Pass - - Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail
2020 Pass - - Fail Fail Pass Fail - - Pass - -
2021 Fail - - Fail - - Fail - - Fail - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - H - Fail
2023 94.9 >100 - - - - - - - - - -
Reidsville WWTP NCO024881/001 County: Rockingham Region: WSRO Basin: CPF01 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 6/1/2013 chr lim:61% NonComp: Single 70,10: 7.4 PF: 7.5 IWC: 61 Freq: Q
J F M A M l J A S O N D
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Fail 21.6(NC) >100 Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
REXAM,Inc. NCO087874/001 County: Guilford Region: WSRO Basin: CPF02 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 12/1/2004 chr lim 90% NonComp: 7Q10: 0 PF: 0.001 IWC: 100 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 - H - - H - - H - - H -
2020 - H - - H - - - - - - -
Richland Township WTP NCO084808/001 County: Beaufort Region: WARO Basin: TAR07 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Mysd24PF Begin: 1/1/2015 Ac P/F Monit:90%M NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Fail - - Fail - - Fail - - Fail - -
2020 Pass - - Fail - - - - - Pass - -
2021 Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(Pimohales oromelas).H=No Flow(facility is active).s=Split test between Certified Labs Page 85 of 112
United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NC0025577 I11 121 21/04/23 117 181 R I 19 I G I 20L
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 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) 10:OOAM 21/04/23 15/06/01
Red Springs WWTP
NC Hwy 71 Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Red Springs NC 28377 02:OOPM 21/04/23 19/07/31
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
Contacted
Tony White,517 S Main St Red Springs NC 28377H910-843-5241/
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations&Maintenar Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
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
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
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 (Cont.) 1
31 NCO025577 I11 12I 21/04/23 117 18 1 B
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The facility grounds and laboratory were well-maintained and orderly. Otherwise noted, all records
including an ORC log were available at the time of the review and complete. The facility submitted an
application for permit renewal in 2019 that is still pending approval. Records reviewed by DWR
revealed multiple discrepancies. Some laboratory records were missing dates and the name of the
analyst. White-out was used for corrections. The Division notes that mistakes should be corrected by
striking through the error and initialing.
Split samples were collected for chronic bioassay testing at Outfall 001 from Red Springs WWTP's
composite equipment on April 20th and 22nd, 2021. The Division notes that the facility sends
samples to TBL. TBL contracts with Meritech Labs for toxicity testing. The facility passed the chromic
Ceriodaphnia dubia test performed by the DEQ Aquatic Toxicology Lab.
Pump #4 at the influent lift station was not being used at the time of inspection due to a faulty belt.
The pump could be operated at low speed if needed. The grit chamber has been inoperable for
approximately 1 year. The Division notes that grit causes excessive wear and tear on pumps and
other plant equipment that could lead to expensive repairs and compliance issues. Clarifier#2 was
out of operation due to a pipe blockage. Facility staff had identified the problem as originating from
the RAS pump. Two out of three RAS pumps were working at the time of the inspection. One pump
with a blockage was in the process of being dismantled for servicing.
Only half of the digester has been in operation since its construction. The unused side of the digester
is overgrown with vegetation, including sizeable trees. Vegetation must be removed from the digester.
Additionally, the concrete surface may have been compromised due to tree roots, therefore it should
be inspected and repaired. Effluent sampling is flow proportional in accordance with permit
guidelines. Effluent was clear with no apparent pin floc at the time of the inspection.
Page# 2
Permit: NCO025577 Owner-Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: MLSS, PH, DO
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chain-of-custody complete? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Dates, times and location of sampling ■
Name of individual performing the sampling ❑
Results of analysis and calibration ❑
Dates of analysis ■
Name of person performing analyses ■
Transported COCs ■
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(If the facility is = or> 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Records reviewed by DWR revealed multiple discrepancies. Some records were
missing dates and the name of the analyst. White-out was used for corrections. The
Division notes that mistakes should be corrected bV striking through the error and
initialing.
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
application?
Page# 3
Permit: NCO025577 Owner-Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Permit Yes No NA NE
Is the facility as described in the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Facility submitted an application for permit renewal in 2019.
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The generator is tested under load every Wednesday at noon.
Flow Measurement - Influent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The flow meter was last calibrated June 2020 by J.S. Dismuke.
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Influent sampling is time-based.
Page# 4
Permit: NCO025577 Owner-Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
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? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: Pump #4 was not being used at the time of inspection due to a faulty belt. The pump
could be operated at low speed if needed.
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The grit chamber has been inoperable for approximately 1 year. The Division notes
that grit causes excessive wear and tear on pumps and other plant equipment that
could lead to expensive repairs and compliance issues.
Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE
Are the aerators operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5
Permit: NCO025577 Owner-Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes) ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
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? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
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) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Clarifier#2 was out of operation due to a pipe blockage. Staff had identified the
problem as originating from the RAS pump.
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Two out of three pumps were working at the time of the inspection. One pump with a
blockage was in the process of being dismantled for servicing.
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the mixing adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6
Permit: NCO025577 Owner-Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
# Is the odor acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Only half of the digester has been in operation since its construction. The unused side
of the digester is overgrown with vegetation, including sizeable trees. Vegetation must
be removed from the digester. Additionally, the concrete may have been compromised
due to tree roots, therefore it should be inspected and repaired.
Disinfection-Gas Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment:
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7
Permit: NCO025577 Owner-Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is sample collected below all treatment units? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type ❑ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Comment: Effluent sampling is flow proportional in accordance with permit guidelines.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Page# 8