NC0088366_Fact Sheet_20230519

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO088366
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco,[e-mail]:
Date: 5/16/2023
Division/Branch:NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification(Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers,EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements,Engineering Alternatives Analysis,Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW),EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans,4 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: Harnett Regional Water/South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Applicant Address: PO Box 1119,Lillington,NC 27546
Facility Address: 3324 Shady Grove Road, Spring Lake,NC 28390
Permitted Flow: 15.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 98%domestic,2%industrial*
Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Headworks including an automatic fine screen with manual bypass,vortex
grit chamber, influent composite sampler, and flow splitter box; Three
intermittent continuous extended aeration systems with each system including
dual 126-ft by 174-ft by 18-ft depth basins providing a total aeration volume
of 17.7 MG,a 3.9 MG surge tank, fine-bubble diffusers, 12 decanter,twelve
25 Hp submersible mixers, and seven 2,300 scfm blowers; Surge tank;Nine
12.5—ft by 52-ft traveling bridge filters; Three channel UV disinfection
system,with each channel capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5 MGD and a
total 37.5 MGD; Cascade aerator with Parshall flume and effluent composite
sampler;A sludge management facility including a 2-meter gravity belt
thickener rated at 900 dry pounds/hour, a 2.2 meter sludge filter press rated at
2,041 dry pounds/day with sludge feed pump, screw conveyers, Class A
residuals heated vessel rated at 2,000 pounds/hour, lime storage silo and
delivery system, and an odor control system; Dual tertiary traveling bridge
filters,with three 12.5-ft by 52-ft units each; A lime addition system
including two 7.5 hp submersible mixers;A 1,000 KW emergency generator
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y
County: Harnett
Region Fayetteville
*Based on permitted flows.
Page 1 of 13

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Harnett Regional Water applied
on May 5,2022 for an NPDES permit renewal at 15.0 MGD for the South Harnett Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant(WWTP),with a request for a proposed expansion tier at 17.5 MGD. On February 1,
2023,Harnett Regional Water notified the Division of the recission of the expansion request.As such,the
NPDES permit renewal process is being handled as a standard renewal with no expansion. This facility
serves a population of approximately 112,000 residents, as well as I significant industrial users (SIU)via
an approved pretreatment program. The primary pretreatment facility identified for the SIU sending flow
to the South Harnett Regional WWTP is the North Harnett Regional WWTP. Please see the attached
pretreatment form for additional information. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged
via Outfall 001 into the Lower Little River, a class C waterbody in the Cape Fear River Basin. Outfall 001
is located approximately 15 miles above waters designated as WS-V.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is currently composted at McGill Composting. Harnett Regional Water has the
ability to send sludge to the Sampson County Landfill.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 Lower Little River
Stream Segment: 18-23-(24)
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area(mi2): 398
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 44.4
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 91.8
30Q2 (cfs): -
Average Flow(cfs): 495.5
IWC (%effluent): 34
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Not listed*
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC: Cape Fear River/03-06-14/HUC: 03030004
USGS Topo Quad: G23NW
The stream segment of the Little River is not listed as impaired for any parameter in the 2022 Integrated
Report.
Page 2 of 13

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of July 2018 through January 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit
Flow MGD 5.5 22.271 3.297 MA 15.0
BOD summer mg/l 2.4 10 <2 WA 7.5
MA 5.0
BOD winter mg/1 2.5 18 <2 WA 15.0
MA 10.0
NH3N summer mg/1 1.0 4.6 0.1 WA 3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter mg/l 1.1 5.8 1 WA 6.0
MA 2.0
TSS mg/l 2.6 10.4 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
0>pH<
pH SU 6.8 7.9 6.1 6. 9.0
(geomean) (geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml 1.1 240 < 1 WA 400
MA 200
DO mg/1 " " 11.8 6.4 DA>5.0
Temperature ° C 29.3 12.3 Monitor&
Report
TKN mg/l 1.6 5.78 0.4 Monitor&
Report
NO2+NO3 mg/l 7.4 20.04 1.37 Monitor&
Report
TN(summer) mg/1 9.0 21.78 2.84 Monitor&
Report
TN(winter) mg/l 9.1 16.46 3.3 Monitor&
Report
TN Load(summer) lb/mo 12,652 21,438 7,173 Monitor&
Report
TN(summer mass)Load lb/season 85,786 104,751 63,660 160,628
TP (summer) mg/1 3.5 6.35 0.79 Monitor&
Report
TP (winter) mg/1 2.8 4.48 1.15 Monitor&
Report
TP Load(summer) lb/mo 4,831 6,566 3,012 Monitor&
Report
TP (summer mass)Load lb/season 32,567 35,261 29,612 53,543
Total Copper ug/l 9.3 32 <2 DM 60.7
MA 45.2
Total Hardness mg/1 110.5 182.5 11.5 Monitor&
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average
Page 3 of 13

4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2)to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3)to provide data for future TMDL; 4)based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee(in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature
upstream at least 50 feet above the discharge and downstream at least 500 feet below the discharge. As
the permittee is a member of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association(MCFRBA) instream
monitoring requirements are provisionally waived. The nearest upstream MCFRBA monitoring station is
B7300000, located approximately 5.5 miles upstream of the outfall. The nearest downstream MCFRBA
monitoring station is B7319100, located approximately 5 miles downstream of the outfall. MCFRBA data
was also available for TKN,NO2+NO3,total phosphorous, conductivity, fecal coliform and turbidity.
Instream data from January 2018 through June 2022 has been summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Upstream Downstream
Parameter Units
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 17.6 27.7 4.2 18.8 27.5 3.4
DO mg/1 8.9 12.9 6.8 8.7 13.6 6.8
Hardness mg/l 8.4 12 4 - - -
TKN mg/1 0.5 0.98 0.2 0.7 4.64 0.2
NO2+NO3 mg/1 0.2 0.93 0.05 0.4 1.56 0.06
TP mg/1 0.03 0.136 0.02 0.13 0.644 0.02
Chlorophyll-a µg/l - - - 1.3 2.91 < 1
Conductivity µmhos/cm 47 55 47 57 118 47
Fecal Coliform #/100ml (geomean) 6200 9 (geomean) 4800 15
100 91
Turbidity NTUs 6.6 29.8 2.3 6.5 26.5 2.1
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 29 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was not greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Downstream DO did not drop below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
As the facility does not discharge to class B waters, fecal coliform is not currently required in the permit.
MCFRBA fecal coliform data was reviewed, and it was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream fecal coliform. While downstream fecal coliform
was observed at levels greater than 400/100mL on occasion,these observances occurred concurrently
with elevated upstream fecal coliform levels greater than 400/100mL. As such, instream fecal coliform
has not been added to the permit.
Page 4 of 13

The facility is not currently required to conduct instream conductivity monitoring. MCFR 3A conductivity
data was reviewed, and it was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream
and downstream conductivity,with downstream conductivity being observed at levels greater than that of
the upstream. As it appears the discharge may be impacting downstream conductivity, and as the facility
receives waste from an industrial user via their approved pretreatment program, instream conductivity
monitoring has been added to the permit.
Downstream turbidity was not greater than 50 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (21)] during the period
reviewed.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TP
and NO2+NO3 with downstream TP and NO2+NO3 consistently higher than that of the upstream. It was
concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TKN.
Based on instream data review and discussions with the Division's Basin Planning Branch,instream
monitoring for TP, TKN,NO2+NO3, and ammonia have been added to the permit at a monthly frequency.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring(YIN): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations during the period reviewed(January 2018 January 2023).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests conducted from January 2019
to October 2022. Additionally,the facility passed 4 of 4 second species chronic toxicity tests conducted
from January 2018 to December 2020.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in March 2021 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MixingZones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206,the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow(acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow(chronic Aquatic
Life;non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow(aesthetics); annual average flow(carcinogen,HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered(e.g., based on CORMIX model results):NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 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 current permit
limitations for BOD are based on the 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan for new and
Page 5 of 13

expanding POTWs from when the facility expanded to 15.0 MGD in 2017.No changes are proposed from
the previous permit limits.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer)and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine(TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life(17 ug/1)and capped at 28 ug/l(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The permit does
not currently set limits or monitoring requirements for TRC due to the facility employing UV treatment
for disinfection. However, in the event of an emergency where chlorination is required as a backup or
temporary means of disinfection at the facility, a TRC limit and monitoring requirement have been added
to the permit based on the review in the attached WLA spreadsheet. Please note that TRC monitoring is
only required in the event that chlorine is used at the plant and as part of the regular Effluent Pollutant
Scans.
The current permit limitations for ammonia are based on the 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan for new and expanding POTWs from when the facility expanded to 15.0 MGD in 2017. The
ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to be
protective.No changes are proposed.
Reasonable Potential Analysis(RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1)95% Confidence Level/95%Probability; 2)assumption of zero
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 June 2018 and
November 2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis,the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with 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: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was>50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Copper,Total Chromium
• 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
Page 6 of 13

concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Lead, Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel,
Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Five effluent pollutant scans (2017, 2018,2019,2020
and 2021)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
Beryllium, Total Cyanide
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, chronic WET testing at 34%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria(0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year(81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources(-2%of total load),the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs)for point source
control. Municipal facilities>2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury(>1 ng/1)will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value(based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
#of Samples 1 3 4 3 5
Annual Average Conc.n /L 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5
Maximum Conc.,n /L 0.5 0.5 1.34 0.5 0.5
TBEL,n /L 47
WQBEL,n /L 34.9
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL,no mercury
Page 7 of 13

limit is required. Since the facility only reported one detection of low-level mercury(> 1 ng/1),no
mercury minimization plan(MMP)condition is required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: The Division is continuing to work towards the development of a nutrient
management strategy,permitting strategy, TMDL, and/or criteria for nutrients in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Strategies were implemented in the current permit based on the 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan which address nutrients and oxygen-demanding wastewater discharges in this basin,
and included monitoring and reporting of total nitrogen(TN),monthly mass TN load,total phosphorous
(TP)and monthly mass TP load. In addition, summer(April-October)TN and TP seasonal load limits
were calculated and implemented in the current limit based on an allowable TN concentrations of 6 mg/l
and TP concentrations of 2 mg/l,resulting in summer mass limits of 160,628 lbs for TN and 53,543 lbs
for TP. The permit will be reopened if the Division requires additional monitoring or limitations to
support its water quality protection and restoration efforts in the Cape Fear River Basin.
On January 31, 2023,Harnett Regional Water submitted a letter(attached)to the Division requesting a
transfer of 55,582 lbs/summer of total nitrogen loading and 18,525 lbs/summer of total phosphorous
loading from the South Harnett Regional WWTP to the North Harnett Regional WWTP (NC0021636)to
accommodate for the increase in treated flow at the North Harnett Regional WWTP. The proposed
transfer of loading is summarized below in Table 4.
Table 4.Nutrient Transfer Request
TN TP
FLOW % CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED
NORTH 16 5 MGD 52,4% 59,968 LBS 115,550 LBS 19,989 LBS 38317 LBS
SOUTH 15-0 MGD 47.6% 160,628 LBS 10S.046 L85 53,543 LBS 35 015 LBS
TOTAL 31,5 MGD 1.000 220,596 LBS 220,596 LBS 73 S32 LBS 73 32 LBS
The transfer of loading has been included in the permit as effective upon the expansion of the North
Harnett Regional WWTP to the 16.5 MGD flow tier and notification to the Division of this change.
NCO021636 is up for renewal with expansion and will be issued with the same effective date so that the
nutrient loading transfer is completed with this renewal.
Based on review of seasonal total nitrogen and total phosphorous loadings from the South Harnett
Regional WWTP compared to the proposed nutrient loading transfer, it appears that the facility exceeded
the proposed summer total phosphorous loading limit in 2021 and was within 1,000 lbs of the proposed
summer total nitrogen loading limit in 2019. After further communication between Harnett Regional
Water and the Division,Harnett Regional Water provided an assessment of nutrient treatment capability
at the South Harnett Regional WWTP (see attached). This assessment indicates that the South Harnett
Regional WWTP will be able to achieve compliance with the tightened summer nutrient loadings with
some operational optimization and chemical addition for phosphorous control.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody:NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo:NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 1 SA NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
Page 8 of 13

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
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
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:N/A
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): YES
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: Total Copper limits have been removed
with this permit and monitoring has been reduced from monthly to quarterly. After conducting the
reasonable potential analysis,no reasonable potential for total copper excursions above the standard were
found. However,the maximum predicted total copper concentration was still above 50%of the allowable
discharge concentration for total copper. As such,monitoring was maintained,but at a quarterly
frequency.
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.
Harnett Regional Water was granted 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform
based on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
Page 9 of 13

for Exceptionally Performing Facilities during their 2017 renewal. Harnett Regional Water has requested
continuation of this monitoring frequency reduction as part of their renewal application. 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 maintained for
BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform.
The South Harnett Regional WWTP receives wastewater from a significant industrial user.As such, and
in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0508, effluent conductivity monitoring has been added to the permit
at a daily frequency.
To identify PFAS in waters classified as Water Supply(WS)waters,monitoring requirements are to be
implemented in permits that discharge to WS waters. As the South Harnett Regional WWTP has
discharges treated wastewater approximately 15 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-V,
monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the permit at a frequency of quarterly. Since an EPA
method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently available,the PFAS sampling
requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule which delays the effective date of this
requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater
method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended upon request and if
there are no NC-certified labs.
As the South Harnett Regional WWTP discharges 15 miles above WS-V waters, 1,4-dioxane was also
considered during this renewal. As part of their renewal application,Harnett Regional Water conducted 3
sampling events per week for a 2-week span,resulting in 6 total South Harnett Regional WWTP effluent
samples. The samples were collected on April 10,April 12,April 14,April 17,April 19 and April 21,
2023.All samples were reported as non-detect at<2 µg/L. Based on an AAF of 495.5 cfs and the WS
ISTV of 0.35 µg/L,the allowable discharge concentration for 1,4-dioxane at this facility is 7.8 µg/L. The
South Harnett Regional WWTP receives industrial wastewater from one industrial user who is not
considered likely to contribute 1,4-dioxane. As the facility reported no detectable levels of 1,4-dioxane
during their 2-week sampling event and does not have a likely source of 1,4-dioxane entering the WWTP,
1,4-dioxane requirements have not been added to the permit at this time.
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 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 15.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly No requirement Monitor and Report For calculation of TN and TP loadings
Flow Monthly
BOD5 Summer: No change WQBEL. 2010 Basinwide Water Quality
MA 5.0 mg/l Plan, Surface Water Monitoring,2012 DWR
WA 7.5 mg/l Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Page 10 of 13

Winter: Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
MA 10.0 mg/l for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
WA 15.0 mg/l
Monitor and report
2/Week
NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 2010 Basinwide Water Quality
MA 1.0 mg/l Plan, Surface Water Monitoring,2012 DWR
WA 3.0 mg/1 Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Winter: Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
MA 2.0 mg/l for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
WA 6.0 mg/1
Monitor and report
2/Week
TSS MA 30.0 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
WA 45.0 mg/l CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406 2012 DWR
Monitor and report Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
2/Week Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
WA 400/100ml 2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring,2012
Monitor and report DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
2/Week Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
DO >5.0 mg/l No change WQBEL. 2010 Basinwide Water Quality
Monitor and report Plan; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily NCAC 2B. 0500
pH 6—9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and report 2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily NCAC 2B. 0500
Conductivity No requirement Monitor and report Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.
Daily 0500
Temperature Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.
Daily 0500
Total Residual No requirement DM 28 ug/L WQBEL. 2023 WLA review and Surface
Chlorine Monitor and report Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Daily(only when
chlorine is used)
Total Monitor and report No change Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River
Nitrogen Monthly Basin; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
TN Loading Monitor and report No change to monitoring WQBEL.Nutrient protection for Cape Fear
lb/month Monthly requirements; Upon River Basin; Surface Water Monitoring,
Summer mass expansion of North 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
loading 160,628 Harnett Regional
lb/season; Monitor WWTP to 16.5 MGD
and report annually and approval of nutrient
treatment capability
report:
Page 11 of 13

Summer mass loading
105,046 lb/season
TKN No requirement Monitor and report For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Monthly
NO3+NO2 No requirement Monitor and report For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Total Monitor and report No change Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River
Phosphorous Monthly Basin; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
TP Loading Monitor and report No change to monitoring WQBEL.Nutrient protection for Cape Fear
lb/month Monthly requirements; Upon River Basin; Surface Water Monitoring,
Summer mass expansion of North 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
loading 53,543 Harnett Regional
lb/season; Monitor WWTP to 16.5 MGD
and report annually and approval of nutrient
treatment capability
report:
Summer mass loading
35,015 lb/season
Total Quarterly No change Hardness-dependent dissolved metals water
Hardness monitoring quality standards approved in 2016
Upstream and in
Effluent
Total Copper MA 45.2 ug/L Remove limit; Monitor Based on results of RPA;No RP,Predicted
DM 60.7 mg/L and report Quarterly Max >50% of Allowable Cw- apply
Monitor and report Quarterly Monitoring
Monthly
Total No requirement Monitor and report Based on results of RPA; Maintain Total
Chromium Quarterly Chromium monitoring or defer to LMTP if
any Total Chromium sample is>50%of but
<the Chromium VI Allowable Cw.
Add Quarterly PT facility discharging above WS-V waters;
PFAS No requirement monitoring with delayed Implementation delayed until after EPA
implementation certified method becomes available.
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 34% No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A
effluent NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC 213.0500
Effluent Three times per No change; conducted in 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan permit cycle 2024,2025,2026
Electronic Electronic No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Reporting Special Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
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
Page 12 of 13

Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the parry filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please
contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at [e-mail].
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
• MFR summary
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Chemical Addendum
• Nutrient Treatability Report
Page 13 of 13

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 South Harnett Regional WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO088366 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.1475 FW 7.4573 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 15.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Lower Little River Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03030004 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 242.1505 FW 1979.6032 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 44.40 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w (cfs) 91.80 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 16.7234 FW 25.7661 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 44.40 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 495.50 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs) 36.45 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 7.8578 FW 219.0596 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 127.72 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 60.3 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 78.4192 FW 752.3341 pg/L
-------------Combined Hardness Hardness Acute 65 mg/L I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Data Source(s) Note: 7710s used as conservative estimate for Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL 30Q2; MCFRBA data from January 2018 to April Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 1.5335 ug/L
2022 demonstrated upstream hardness < 25 mg/L,
Default hardness of 25 mg/L used in calculations Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 267.2405 FW 282.4804 ug/L
Par22
Par23
Par24
88366 rpa, input
5/9/2023

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 12/13/2021 151.2 151.2 Std Dev. 20.0369 1 Default 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 12/20/2021 126.6 126.6 Mean 127.7224 2 Mean 25.0000
3 12/27/2021 151.1 151.1 C.V. 0.1569 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 1/3/2022 148 148 n 58 4 n 1
5 1/5/2022 142 142 10th Per value 102.13 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 1/10/2022 104 104 Average Value 127.72 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 1/18/2022 124 124 Max. Value 165.40 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 1/24/2022 140 140 8
9 1/31/2022 118 118 9
10 2/7/2022 115 115 10
11 2/14/2022 117.3 117.3 11
12 2/21/2022 159.9 159.9 12
13 2/28/2022 164.4 164.4 13
14 3/7/2022 133.6 133.6 14
15 3/14/2022 136.4 136.4 15
16 3/21/2022 135.6 135.6 16
17 3/28/2022 130.9 130.9 17
18 4/4/2022 79.4 79.4 18
19 4/6/2022 78 78 19
20 4/11/2022 142.3 142.3 20
21 4/18/2022 160 160 21
22 4/25/2022 145.5 145.5 22
23 5/2/2022 142.1 142.1 23
24 5/9/2022 113.4 113.4 24
25 5/16/2022 106.7 106.7 25
26 5/23/2022 125.6 125.6 26
27 5/31/2022 139.6 139.6 27
28 6/6/2022 98.7 98.7 28
29 6/13/2022 134.3 134.3 29
30 6/20/2022 140.2 140.2 30
31 6/27/2022 127.8 127.8 31
32 7/5/2022 106.6 106.6 32
33 7/11/2022 117.2 117.2 33
34 7/13/2022 120 120 34
35 7/18/2022 103.6 103.6 35
36 7/25/2022 119.3 119.3 36
37 8/2/2022 115 115 37
38 8/8/2022 112.4 112.4 38
39 8/15/2022 134.8 134.8 39
40 8/22/2022 130.6 130.6 40
41 8/29/2022 131.4 131.4 41
42 9/6/2022 128.3 128.3 42
43 9/12/2022 147.2 147.2 43
44 9/19/2022 135.3 135.3 44
45 9/26/2022 141 141 45
46 10/3/2022 123.6 123.6 46
47 10/10/2022 85.7 85.7 47
48 10/17/2022 129.2 129.2 48
49 10/24/2022 134.8 134.8 49
50 10/31/2022 138.6 138.6 50
51 11/7/2022 156.7 156.7 51
52 11/14/2022 130.3 130.3 52
53 11/21/2022 165.4 165.4 53
54 11/28/2022 137.2 137.2 54
55 12/5/2022 92 92 55
56 12/12/2022 95.6 95.6 56
57 12/19/2022 116.4 116.4 57
58 12/26/2022 128.1 128.1 58
88366 rpa, data
- 1 - 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/11/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.4730
2 10/4/2018 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.3421
3 1/8/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.2019
4 4/1/2019 < 5 2.5 n 19
5 7/11/2019 < 5 2.5
6 9/30/2019 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.13
7 1/7/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L
8 4/7/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.8 ug/L
9 7/6/2020 < 5 2.5
10 7/8/2020 < 2 1
11 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5
12 1/5/2021 < 5 2.5
13 4/6/2021 < 5 2.5
14 7/6/2021 < 5 2.5
15 10/11/2021 < 2 1
16 1/12/2022 < 5 2.5
17 4/5/2022 < 5 2.5
18 9/8/2022 < 5 2.5
19 10/13/2022 < 5 2.5
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
88366 rpa, data
-2 - 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values"then"COPY" Cadmium Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/8/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 7/11/2018 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0808
2 10/11/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 10/4/2018 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.4722
3 4/11/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 1/8/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.1712
4 10/20/2017 < 1 0.5 n 5 4 7/11/2019 < 1 0.5 n 18
5 1/19/2018 < 1 0.5 5 9/30/2019 < 1 0.5
6 Mult Factor= 2.32 6 1/7/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.11
7 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 4/7/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 1.16 ug/L 8 7/6/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.555 ug/L
9 9 7/8/2020 < 0.5 0.25
10 10 10/8/2020 < 1 0.5
11 11 4/6/2021 < 1 0.5
12 12 7/6/2021 < 1 0.5
13 13 10/11/2021 < 0.5 0.25
14 14 1/12/2022 < 1 0.5
15 15 4/5/2022 < 1 0.5
16 16 9/8/2022 < 1 0.5
17 17 10/13/2022 < 1 0.5
18 18 4/1/2019 < 1 0.5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
88366 rpa, data
-3- 5/9/2023

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 7/11/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 6.5383 1 5/6/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev. 3.8896
2 10/4/2018 < 5 2.5 Mean 4.0000 2 6/3/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.4483
3 7/11/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 1.6346 3 7/1/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.7139
4 9/30/2019 < 5 2.5 n 19 4 7/11/2019 4 4 n 58
5 1/7/2020 < 5 2.5 5 8/5/2019 < 10 5
6 4/7/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.96 6 9/3/2019 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 7/6/2020 31 31 Max. Value 31.0 pg/L 7 9/30/2019 3 3 Max. Value 32.00 ug/L
8 7/8/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 60.8 pg/L 8 10/7/2019 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 32.00 ug/L
9 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5 9 11/4/2019 < 10 5
10 1/5/2021 < 5 2.5 10 12/2/2019 < 10 5
11 4/6/2021 < 5 2.5 11 1/6/2020 < 10 5
12 7/6/2021 < 5 2.5 12 1/7/2020 2 2
13 10/11/2021 < 5 2.5 13 2/3/2020 < 10 5
14 1/12/2022 < 5 2.5 14 3/2/2020 < 10 5
15 4/5/2022 < 5 2.5 15 3/4/2020 < 10 5
16 9/8/2022 < 5 2.5 16 4/7/2020 < 10 5
17 10/13/2022 < 5 2.5 17 5/4/2020 < 10 5
18 1/8/2019 < 5 2.5 18 6/1/2020 < 10 5
19 4/1/2019 < 5 2.5 19 7/6/2020 16 16
20 20 7/8/2020 < 10 5
21 21 8/3/2020 < 10 5
22 22 8/31/2020 < 10 5
23 23 9/30/2020 < 10 5
24 24 10/6/2020 < 10 5
25 25 10/8/2020 4 4
26 26 11/2/2020 < 10 5
27 27 11/30/2020 < 10 5
28 28 12/31/2020 < 10 5
29 29 1/5/2021 < 10 5
30 30 2/1/2021 < 10 5
31 31 3/1/2021 < 10 5
32 32 4/6/2021 < 10 5
33 33 5/3/2021 < 10 5
34 34 6/7/2021 < 10 5
35 35 7/6/2021 < 10 5
36 36 8/2/2021 < 10 5
37 37 9/7/2021 < 10 5
38 38 10/11/2021 3 3
39 39 10/13/2021 < 10 5
40 40 11/8/2021 < 10 5
41 41 12/6/2021 < 10 5
42 42 1/5/2022 < 10 5
43 43 1/12/2022 4 4
44 44 2/21/2022 < 10 5
45 45 3/2/2022 < 10 5
46 46 4/6/2022 < 10 5
47 47 5/2/2022 < 10 5
48 48 6/6/2022 < 10 5
49 49 7/7/2022 < 10 5
50 50 7/13/2022 < 10 5
51 51 8/2/2022 < 10 5
52 52 9/6/2022 < 10 5
53 53 9/26/2022 5 5
54 54 10/3/2022 < 10 5
55 55 10/13/2022 3 3
56 56 11/7/2022 < 10 5
57 57 12/7/2022 < 10 5
58 58 11/5/2018 32 32
88366 rpa, data
-4- 5/9/2023

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 7/8/2020 < 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 7/11/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.3441
2 10/11/2021 < 5 5 Mean 5.00 2 10/4/2018 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.4211
3 10/11/2017 < 5 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 1/8/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.1421
4 1/17/2018 < 5 5 n 5 4 7/11/2019 < 5 2.5 n 19
5 4/5/2019 < 5 5 5 9/30/2019 < 5 2.5
6 Mult Factor= 2.32 6 1/7/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.09
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 4/7/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 11.6 ug/L 8 7/6/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.725 ug/L
9 9 7/8/2020 < 2 1
10 10 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5
11 11 1/5/2021 < 5 2.5
12 12 4/6/2021 < 5 2.5
13 13 7/6/2021 < 5 2.5
14 14 10/11/2021 < 5 2.5
15 15 1/12/2022 < 5 2.5
16 16 4/5/2022 < 5 2.5
17 17 9/8/2022 < 5 2.5
18 18 10/13/2022 < 5 2.5
19 19 4/1/2019 < 5 2.5
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
88366 rpa, data
- 5- 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16 use"PASTE Par17 & Par18 use"PASTE
SPECIAL-Values" SPECIAL-Values"
Molybdenum then"COPY". Nickel then"COPY".
Maximum data Maximum data
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58
1 7/11/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 7/11/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.8057
2 10/4/2018 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 10/4/2018 < 10 5 Mean 4.7368
3 1/8/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.0000 3 1/8/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.1701
4 4/1/2019 < 10 5 n 17 4 7/11/2019 < 10 5 n 19
5 7/11/2019 < 10 5 5 9/30/2019 < 10 5
6 9/30/2019 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 1/7/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.11
7 1/7/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 4/7/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 pg/L
8 4/7/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L 8 7/6/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.6 pg/L
9 7/6/2020 < 10 5 9 7/8/2020 2 2
10 10/8/2020 < 10 5 10 10/8/2020 < 10 5
11 1/5/2021 < 10 5 11 1/5/2021 < 10 5
12 4/6/2021 < 10 5 12 4/6/2021 < 10 5
13 7/6/2021 < 10 5 13 7/6/2021 < 10 5
14 1/12/2022 < 10 5 14 10/11/2021 3 3
15 4/5/2022 < 10 5 15 1/12/2022 < 10 5
16 9/8/2022 < 10 5 16 4/5/2022 < 10 5
17 10/13/2022 < 10 5 17 9/8/2022 < 10 5
18 18 10/13/2022 < 10 5
19 19 4/1/2019 < 10 5
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
88366 rpa, data
-6- 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19 Par20
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values"then"COPY". Values"then"COPY"
Selenium Maximum data points Silver .Maximum data
=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/11/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 1.4189 1 7/11/2018 10 10 Std Dev. 3.7697
2 10/4/2018 < 10 5 Mean 4.5263 2 10/4/2018 10 10 Mean 2.8947
3 1/8/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.3135 3 1/8/2019 1 1 C.V. 1.3023
4 7/11/2019 < 10 5 n 19 4 4/1/2019 1 1 n 19
5 9/30/2019 < 10 5 5 7/11/2019 1 1
6 1/7/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.20 6 9/30/2019 10 10 Mult Factor= 1.80
7 4/7/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 1/7/2020 10 10 Max. Value 10.000 ug/L
8 7/6/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 6.0 ug/L 8 4/7/2020 1 1 Max. Pred Cw 18.000 ug/L
9 7/8/2020 < 1 0.5 9 7/6/2020 1 1
10 10/8/2020 < 10 5 10 7/8/2020 1 1
11 1/5/2021 < 10 5 11 10/8/2020 1 1
12 4/6/2021 < 10 5 12 1/5/2021 1 1
13 7/6/2021 < 10 5 13 4/6/2021 1 1
14 10/11/2021 < 1 0.5 14 7/6/2021 1 1
15 1/12/2022 < 10 5 15 10/11/2021 1 1
16 4/5/2022 < 10 5 16 1/12/2022 1 1
17 9/8/2022 < 10 5 17 4/5/2022 1 1
18 10/13/2022 < 10 5 18 9/8/2022 1 1
19 4/1/2019 < 10 5 19 10/13/2022 1 1
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
88366 rpa, data
-7- 5/9/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Zinc Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/11/2018 80 80 Std Dev. 9.8933
2 10/4/2018 93 93 Mean 75.1053
3 1/8/2019 74 74 C.V. 0.1317
4 7/11/2019 72 72 n 19
5 9/30/2019 70 70
6 1/7/2020 76 76 Mult Factor= 1.08
7 4/7/2020 79 79 Max. Value 93.0 ug/L
8 7/6/2020 70 70 Max. Pred Cw 100.4 ug/L
9 7/8/2020 68 68
10 10/8/2020 55 55
11 1/5/2021 75 75
12 4/6/2021 87 87
13 7/6/2021 57 57
14 10/11/2021 74 74
15 1/12/2022 83 83
16 4/5/2022 67 67
17 9/8/2022 74 74
18 10/13/2022 90 90
19 4/1/2019 83 83
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
88366 rpa, data
-8- 5/9/2023

South Harnett Regional WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO088366 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 15 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 15.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 36.45 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 38.94472362 Acute = 65 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 44.40 IWC% @ 7QIOS = 34.36807095 Chronic= 60.3 mg/L
7QIOW (cfs) = 91.80 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 20.20860495
30Q2 (cfs) = 44.40 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 34.36807095
Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 495.50 IW%C @ QA= 4.481927711
Receiving Stream: Lower Little River HUC 03030004 Stream Class: C
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): 873.0
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q 1 Os) 340 ug/L _
19 0 2.8 Chronic (FW) 436.5 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required
---------- -----------------------------
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 223.1
Max MDL 5
Acute: 166.90
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 5 0 1.16
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 18.91 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 19.148
Cadmium NC 1.1475 FW(7Q10s) 7.4573 ug/L 18 0 0.555
Chronic: 3.339 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 5,083.1
Chromium III NC 242.1505 FW(7QIOs) 1979.6032 µg/L 0 0 N/A
--Chronic: -----704.E--- ---------------------------
Acute: 41.1
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q10s) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
--Chronic: ----- 32.0 --- ---------------------------
Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but< Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 19 1 60.8 Max reported value 31 b: Maintain Total Chromium monitoring or defer to
LMTP if any Total Chromium sample is >_ 50% of but
< the Chromium VI Allowable Cw.
Acute: 66.16
Copper NC 16.7234 FW(7Q10s) 25.7661 ug/L 58 10 32.00 __
Chronic: 48.66 No RP , Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
No value >Allowable Cw apply Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: 56.5
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 22 10 ug/L 5 0 11.6
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 14.5 All values non-detect< 5 ug/L - no monitoring
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 required
Acute: 562.489
Lead NC 7.8578 FW(7Q10s) 219.0596 ug/L 19 0 2.725
Chronic: 22.864 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL 5 Monitoring required
88366 rpa, rpa
Page 1 of 2 5/9/2023

South Harnett Regional WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO088366 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 15 MGD
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q10s) ug/L 17 0 5.0
Chronic: 5,819.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 1,931.8
Nickel NC 78.4192 FW(7Q10s) 752.3341 µg/L _
19 2 5.6 Chronic (FW) 228.2 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
--- -----------------------------
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Chronic (WS) 72.7
No value >Allowable Cw
Acute: 143.8
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 19 0 6.0
Chronic: 14.5 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL 10 Monitoring required
Acute: 3.938
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 1.5335 ug/L 19 19 18.000
Chronic: 0.175 All values non-detect< 10 ug/L or< 1 ug/L- no
19 values >Allowable Cw monitoring required; Use lowest PQL (1 ug/L)
Acute: 725.3
Zinc NC 267.2405 FW(7Ql Os) 282.4804 ug/L 19 19 100.4
Chronic: 777.6 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
88366 rpa, rpa
Page 2 of 2 5/9/2023

Permit No. NCO088366
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. NCO088366
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. NCO088366
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. NC0088366
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) 127.72 Average from December 2021 to
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] December 2022 DMR data
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) 25 January 2018 to April 2022
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] MCFRBA data< 25 mg/L;Default
value of 25 mg/L used
7Q10 summer(cfs) 44.4 Historical from previous fact sheet
1Q10(cfs) 36.5 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow(MGD) 15.0 NPDES Files
Date: 3/3/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO088366 South Harnett Regional WWTP 3/1/2023
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
July-18 98.35 January-21 98.40 July-18 98.27 January-21 98.31
August-18 98.03 February-21 98.49 August-18 98.64 February-21 98.19
September-18 97.36 March-21 98.11 September-18 98.47 March-21 98.26
October-18 98.30 April-21 98.45 October-18 98.41 April-21 98.64
November-18 95.45 May-21 97.69 November-18 98.01 May-21 98.63
December-18 95.98 June-21 98.79 December-18 98.58 June-21 98.67
January-19 98.19 July-21 98.49 January-19 98.26 July-21 98.64
February-19 98.29 August-21 98.62 February-19 98.41 August-21 98.58
March-19 96.69 September-21 98.51 March-19 97.03 September-21 98.18
April-19 97.96 October-21 98.68 April-19 98.41 October-21 98.51
May-19 98.34 November-21 98.92 May-19 98.65 November-21 98.90
June-19 96.26 December-21 99.06 June-19 98.48 December-21 99.07
July-19 98.27 January-22 99.21 July-19 98.47 January-22 99.18
August-19 98.50 February-22 99.71 August-19 98.38 February-22 99.13
September-19 98.70 March-22 99.44 September-19 98.75 March-22 99.03
October-19 98.67 April-22 99.03 October-19 98.89 April-22 98.95
November-19 98.63 May-22 99.29 November-19 98.53 May-22 98.92
December-19 98.94 June-22 98.47 December-19 98.81 June-22 98.61
January-20 98.65 July-22 98.24 January-20 98.97 July-22 98.55
February-20 98.57 August-22 99.12 February-20 98.56 August-22 98.98
March-20 98.55 September-22 97.30 March-20 98.34 September-22 98.66
April-20 98.23 October-22 98.67 April-20 98.08 October-22 98.69
May-20 98.54 November-22 98.96 May-20 98.02 November-22 98.93
June-20 98.40 December-22 98.88 June-20 97.75 December-22 99.04
July-20 98.03 January-23 - July-20 98.16 January-23 -
August-20 97.80 February-23 - August-20 97.87 February-23 -
September-20 98.33 March-23 - September-20 98.53 March-23 -
October-20 98.69 April-23 - October-20 98.74 April-23 -
November-20 98.63 May-23 - November-20 98.60 May-23 -
December-20 98.49 June-23 - December-20 98.36 June-23 -
Overall BOD removal rate 98.34 Overall TSS removal rate 98.53

3/1/23 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name South Harnett Regional WWTP/NC0088366 No Limit Required
/Permit No.
No MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL=0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 44.400 cfs WQBEL= 34.92 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 15.000 47 ng/L
7/11/18 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2018
1/8/19 < 1 0.5
4/1/19 < 1 0.5
7/11/19 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2019
1/7/20 < 1 0.5
4/7/20 < 1 0.5
7/6/20 1.34 1.34
10/8/20 < 1 0.5 0.7 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020
1/5/21 < 1 0.5
4/6/21 < 1 0.5
10/11/21 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
1/12/22 < 1 0.5
4/5/22 < 1 0.5
7/13/22 < 1 0.5
10/13/22 < 1 0.5
12/14/22 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022

South Harnett Regional WWTP/NC0088366
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
#of Samples 1 3 4 3 5
Annual Average, ng/L 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.50 0.5
Maximum Value, ng/L 0.50 0.50 1.34 0.5 0.5
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 34.9

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
PermitNo. NC0088366
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 15
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 44.4
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 91.8
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 44.4 s7Q10 (CFS) 44.4
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 15 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 15
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 23.25 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 23.25
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 34.37 IWC (%) 34.37
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 49 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 2.5
Cap at 28 ug/L. Less stringent than current limit.Maintain limit.
Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 91.8
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 15
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 23.25
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 2.91 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 20.21
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 8.0
Less stringent than current limit.Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

Reduction in Frequency Evaluation
South Harnett Regional
Facility: WWTP
Permit No. NC0088366
Review period(use 3 1/2020-1/2023
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
Weekly Monthly 500/ 200% 200/ monthly #civil penalty 3-yr mean #daily #daily #of non-
p Reduce
Data Review Units average (geo mean <50%? samples <15? samples <20? >2? >1? Frequency?
average limit limit MA for FC) MA >200% WA >200% limit asessment (Yes/No)
violations
BOD(Weighted) mg/L 10.625 7.08333 3.5 0.5565217 Y 14.2 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
TSS mg/L 45 30 15 0.5304731 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Ammonia(weighted) mg/L 4.25 1.41667 0.7 0.2278841 Y 2.83 3 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Fecal Coliform #/100 400 200 100 0.5099602 Y 800 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y

r ■ HARN ETT
REGIONAL
rWATER www.harnettwater.org
PO Box 1119
700 McKinney Parkway
Lillington, NC 27546
January 31, 2023 ph: 910-893-7575
fax: [phone]
Ms. Kristen Litzenberger
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
RE: Harnett Regional Water
North Regional WWTP NPDES No. NCO021636
South Regional WWTP NPDES No. NCO088366
Nutrient Sharing Request
Dear Ms. Litzenberger:
The North Regional WWTP and South Regional WWTP NPDES permits include seasonal nutrient limits in
total pounds during the winter months. The North Regional WWTP currently has a discharge volume of
7.5 MGD and the permit includes 59,968 lbs. of TN and 19,989 lbs. of TP for the period between April 1
through October 31 of each year. The South Regional WWTP permit has a discharge volume of 15 MGD
and the permit includes 160,629 lbs. of TN and 54,543 lbs. of TP for the same period of April 1 through
October 31. HRW has recently submitted a request to expand the North Regional WWTP permit from 7.5
MGD to 16.5 MGD.The speculative limits that were provided to HRW included the same poundage for TN
and TP as is currently listed in the NPDES permit.
In May 2022, HRW requested that the South Regional WWTP NPDES permit be expanded from 15 MGD
to 17.5 MGD but HRW recently withdrew that request and now requests that the permit be renewed for
a discharge volume of 15 MGD.
HRW is requesting that a nutrient sharing agreement be established between the two facilities where the
facilities have the ability to share a total of 220,596 lbs.TN and 75,532 of TP as a seasonal total poundage
limit for the two facilities.
Alternatives for sharing the nutrient load between the two facilities have been discussed with NCDEQ.
While the initial request would be for the ability to completely share between the two facilities, if that is
not possible at this time, HRW requests that a portion of the South Regional WWTP nutrient allocation be
transferred to the North Regional WWTP NPDES permit.The allocation would be based on the percentage
of flow as shown in the table below.

HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
NORTH REGIONAL WWTP NPDES NO.NC 0021636
SOUTH REGIONAL WWTP NPDES NO.NC 0088366
NUTRIENT TRANSFER REQUEST
TN TP
FLOW % CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED
NORTH 16.5 MGD 52.4% 59,968 LBS 115,550 LBS 19,989 LBS 38,517 LBS
SOUTH 15.0 MGD 47.69/c 160,628 LBS 105,046 LBS 53,543 LBS 35,015 LBS
TOTAL 31.5 MGD 1.000t 220,596 LBS 220,596 LBS 73,532 LBS 73,532 LBS
HRW requests that 55,582 lbs. of TN and 18,525 lbs.of TP be transferred from the South Regional WWTP
NPDES permit to the North Regional WWTP NPDES permit.
HRW appreciates the assistance from NCDEQ on this project. If we can provide any additional information,
please contact me at this office.
Sincerely,
J
Steve Ward
Director
cc: Michael Montebello, NCDEQ
Ken Pohlig, NCDEQ
Joe McGougan, MBD

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number FacilityName�OutfallNC 0088366 S.Hamett Reg.W
Method Number Estimated Concentration (If
Pollutant Re ulred) CAS(lumber if Applicable) Reason Potlutant Believed Present to Discharge Known)
No Additional Pollutants Sampled
Signed:
Kenneth W.Fail,W istewater Su rintendent,Hari eft Regional Water

r ■ HARN ETT
REGIONAL
rWATER www.harnettwater.org
PO Box 1119
700 McKinney Parkway
Lillington, NC 27546
ph: 910-893-7575
March 16, 2023 tax: 910-893-6643
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Permitting Section—NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attention: Nick Coco
Re: NPDES NCO088366
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Request to continue Reduced Monitoring
Mr.Coco,
Harnett Regional Water respectfully requests to continue reduced monitoring as part of the ongoing
renewal process. I have included a copy of the original DWQ correspondence granting the permit
modification from back in 2015.Also,with the help of Mark Brantley(FRO) I am sending you the data
from 2017 through 2022 taken directly from the EDMR database for your review.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this application or needs for
additional information.
Respectfully,
Kenneth W. Fail
Wastewater Supt.
Harnett Regional Water
910-814-6470(office)
[e-mail]

Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way,Wilmington,NC 28405 - 910.392.0223 Lab - 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road,Manteo,NC 27954 - 252,473.5702 Lab/Fax
Ski 255-A Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville,NC 28540 - 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
ANALYTICAL&CONSULTING CHEMISTS info,a environmentalchemist&com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St. Customer PO#:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report#: 2023-07205
Project ID: 2304-0086
Lab ID Sample ID: 2304-0086-01 Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-18317 Site: 2304-0086-01 4/10/2023 9:00 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 8260D <2 Ng/L 04/19/2023
Comment, t
Reviewed by:
Report#:: 2023-07205 Page 1 of 4

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab#94 6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: Date: Z Report Number: 23 w y��`-'�
Receipt of sample: Echem Pick up Client Delivery ❑ UPS ❑ FedEx ❑ Other❑
❑ YES O NO N/Al 11. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES 10 NO JKJ N/Al 12. If custody seals were present,were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt "C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank A Against Bottles
IR Gun ID:Thomas Traceable S/N 192511657 IR Gun Correction Factor°C: 0.0
❑ YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6'C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received)followed?
YES ❑ NO 5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES ❑ NO 7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
YES ❑ NO 10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
91 YES ❑ NO 11. Was adequate sample volume available?'
YES ❑ NO 12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES ❑ NO 13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of<2?
❑ YES ❑ NO 14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES ❑ NO 15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES ❑ NO 16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES ❑ NO 17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L?
❑ YES ❑ NO 18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding(circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HC1 NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note:Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer.Who was notified,date and tame _
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC.QA.002 Rev 1

0 0 - N © 0 0 > n
\ D \ cn
k 0 k z ƒ
M E M d
®CL
% © z n \ <k
cu
(D
m a/ a
I o 0 (
D /
@ m 5
n / ■ \
� � 2 }
o @ CA 9
a � E
® n $
� o
k ƒ 0
/ M
§ Z
> k § I
M X
n
% / mmA 2@ -u 0 R /
0 2 M z
Composite q 0 q =
0 n o 0 o e o n o O@ 0 O n c n o o or ¢ -i 2 §
�© § ' > 2 ®
1-1 c 2 O @ o o O o O % Container / 2
( % E @ Q 2
Chlorine / ? §
* mg1L L 2
% k E 0
° _ §
\ -n Bo % �
NUMBER nqr b q..
NONE M
v O )
«` \ k 2
m � ■ 3 ca
H2SO4 � § *
M it` ;0H�, W j
m
#m °
Q §
J mo k / = 0 m
f � OTHERM .. X
_
@
c » z
0
i
@
3 > ° k � E
, >
} — k §
% c
v § m a §
§ 2 g ice §
�
_ x 5
° j % / j \
° o ® & z
n
§ { �
■
k a

F117— Environmental Chemists, Inc.
envirochem 6602 Windmill Way,Wilmington,NC 28405 • 910.392.0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road,Manteo,NC 27954 • 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville,NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
ANALYTICAL&CONSULTING CHEMISTS [e-mail]
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St. Customer PO#:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report#: 2023-07208
Project ID: 2304-0097
Lab ID Sample ID: 2304-0097-01 Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-18319 Site: 2304-0097-01 4/12/2023 8:25 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 8260D <2 ug/L 04/18/2023
Comment-
Reviewed by: KaIL' &'
Report#:: 2023-07208 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab#94 6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392,0223
Sample Receipt Checklist
.r
Client: ahq 0 Date: Report Number: 23 ~ d-� 20
Receipt of sample: Echem Pick up Client Delivery ❑ UPS ❑ Fed Ex ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES ❑ NO n N/Al 1. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES 10 NO N/A 2. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank X Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 192511657 IR Gun Correction Factor°C: 0.0
❑ YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
YES ❑ NO 5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES ❑ NO 7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
PQ YES ❑ NO 10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES ❑ NO 11. Was adequate sample volume available?'
YES ❑ NO 12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES ❑ NO 13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of<2?
❑ YES ❑ NO 14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES ❑ NO 15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES ❑ NO 16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/E? **
❑ YES ❑ NO 17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L?
❑ YES ❑ NO 18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatites are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HC NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer Who was notified,date and time
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC.0 A.002 Rev 1

? M N © @ @ » n
' k / to
v 0 k z >
2 C> CL M -
# Q ® \ E CL 2 % 0 k
03 § 6 0 ' (
■ ` � � � � 2 ®
/ ƒ � kCA
° CA
0M 0 /
M C
k
2 0
o @ @ ■
/ �
n ■
w 0
00
¢ 0
¢ M
¥ § Z
D k § m <
°
■
Q / Sample Type 'u 0 r- \
m 0 % r- M0 z
2. Composite q n 0 q
M ic
O o c o 0 0 0 0 0 A O n G O 0 0 O o a > w ® ?5
CL Grab ■ 9 I O >
2
n
O o % 0 0 0 Q o o o Container M z k
pO $ / � >2 Chlorine
�_ \ C.) _k
a Q �% m
r� 2 } k
coo LN
CBE 2 � /
/ NUMBER 0 7 M
If q
m#
O ?-) �
HCL -0 §
m § cnH2SO4 � 2
r m
m nm X -4
° > / m z
E «» :
O cn
0
J >q OL B = O IT!
m
a_® § $ 0 0
k � - D 2
$ o 0k k
k « § k
P > 0 Cj
� & E
M _ a � _
r �
\ ® V) 261<
° § § � CA }
% § o 3 eD
I 2 © E
22 � 7 ( � P
§
k
a

Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way,Wilmington,NC 28405 - 910.392.0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road,Manteo,NC 27954 - 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
'y 255-A Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville,NC 28540 - 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
ANALYTICAL&CONSULTING CHEMISTS info(Q environmentalchemists com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St. Customer PO #:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report#: 2023-07484
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-19038 Site: 2304-0141-01 4/14/2023 8 07 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 8260D <2 pg/L 04/19/2023
Comment:
Reviewed by: �.
Report# 2023-07484 Page 1 of i

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94 6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
011).3C2 C2-13
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client:0"Ak��lJ Tb�7 N6-- Date: lc�-R-Report Number: _ 2023-
Receipt of sample: ECHEM Pickup`V Client De very El JUPS ❑ Fed Ex ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES ❑ NO ® N/A 1. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES ❑ NO N/A 12. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor°C: 0.0
YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
O. YES ❑ NO S. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
�d YES ❑ NO 6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES ❑ NO 7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
IX YES ❑ NO 10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES ❑ NO 11. Was adequate sample volume availableT
YES ❑ NO 12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES ❑ NO 13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of<2?
❑ YES ❑ NO 14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES ❑ NO 15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES ❑ NO 16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES ❑ NO 17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L?
❑ YES 113 NO 18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation: (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HCl NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note:Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples. Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer.Who was notified,date and time: _
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC. QA.002 Rev 1

C-)
M N w w D C3
3 v r
3 (D m a 3 -a o ;u z D
CD v_ a m -�
N W 1 --IA M C. Z f7 x
,C M3 o C Gon '
�+ CD INC N IQ 3
� CD ~ ' O o
W to
�7 r+ (/J c —
M Q .+ co r
7'
RL A v
fD
IQ
N
n
00 O
(D tD
4 tD
M
H n
Z
z C
X
o Q Sample Type "a O O O
o `m m 0M Z
Composite C 0
G) 0 G) 0 G) n G) 0 C) n G) (7 G) C) G) 0 G) C7 or D � n ic
CL Grad 3 O Z 0 i m
ram- 3 Z O Z
n
oC
G7 G) G) G) G) � G7 � G) � G) � � Container m ? Ir1 Z � ...�
u O m n n 0 z
a) M 74�- Chlorine — 2 0
CD
to m9lL II y D =
n _ 3 - Z to 0Q = O
c
C' 0 LAB ID 3 3 O
D (`� NUMBER - (� n M
M C m
u N -4
NONE _v o n
HCL b tD O �
X O 'w
H2SO4 w tD u V
M II w
HNO3 X 4
D a0
NAOH —I ' ^
to CD O
W TMO Z u 2 0 m
�c to
z .sue OTHER � � o °�
D
O �}N O X O - o
C t II T N
Z o Q m
0 D
r � w
tD A V1 II 3 N
l c au N :
p X m a w
NITI N 7
w Z
N 0
0 N
N t7
A ar

Environmental Chemists, Inc.
envirochem 6602 Windmill Way,Wilmington,NC 28405 • 910.392.0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road,Manteo,NC 27954 • 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville,NC 28W • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
ANALYTICAL&CONSULTING CHEMISTS info(a environmentalchemists com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St. Customer PO#:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report#: 2023-07486
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-19042 Site: 2304-0146-01 4/17/2023 8 15 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 8260D <2 pg/L 04/19/2023
Comment:
Reviewed by:
ul�dn' akih&
Report#:: 2023-07486 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab#94 6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.391-.n-,?
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client� ?Q ►J _ - 1 Date: Report Number:_2023-
Receipt of sample: ECHEM PickupAJ Client De 'very O 1UPS ❑ FeclEx ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES 10 NO ® N/A 11. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES ILI NO I 1p N/A 12. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor°C: 0.0
YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
YES ❑ NO 5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES ❑ NO 7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
10 YES ❑ NO 9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
IR YES ❑ NO 10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES ❑ NO 11. Was adequate sample volume availableT
YES ❑ NO 12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
O YES ❑ NO 13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of<2?
D YES ❑ NO 14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES 17 NO 15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES ❑ NO 16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L? **
CI YES ❑ NO 17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L?
D YES ❑ NO 18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation: (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HCl NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note:Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples.Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer.Who was notified,date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC. QA.002 Rev 1

° 2 � ~ v r
\ � / 2 ƒ 2 z }
m \ §
� �� � & � £ �
g a Q / 0) ® 2 ¥ n &
.. = 6 F 0
_ = d 0
2 J § @ 0
— CA ®
° o' $ 2
J $ 7 0
< E
C o @ (h }
\ v ) F
0
� nco �
E
c ƒ
2 / M
§ Z
» k § m <
� \ 7 n
0
Sample Type 7 X 0 \ 0
0 % m q ic
D Com@s q a n d
CD 0 00 0 O n O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D 0 or > w ® F
CL Grab 2 >
r & 0
o G o o G@ % O O Container z 2
mo m E @ O
� >
2 u Chlorine / X \
(D' Q mg' 2 k ¢ %
r¢ ƒ O o
LABmCA M
;
0 0 NUMBER n 0
�. k §
NONE § v O � CD
HCL mu \ §
w
H2SO4 � *
m W _
.m3 4
» & z
m . NAm
O § 0
J � mo 2 / 0 q
@
cOTHER J Z 0 0
I � 2 p 7 w
§ \ E °
0 © 0 2 ] k
i
CL
o k § 2
9 _I
g < r , §
■ » 1• , I
2A -
a 2 E g
§ 2 U3
% § 0 � �
M 0
' Q §
� �
�
k §

Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way,Wilmington,NC 28405 • 910-392.0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road,Manteo,NC 27954 • 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
ism 255-A Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville,NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
ANALYTICAL 8 CONSULTING CHEMISTS infoitzienvironmentaichemists com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St. Customer PO #:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention: Report#: 2023-08065
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
23-20423 Site: 2304-0175 4/19/2023 9 30 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 82600 <2 Ng/L 04/25/2023
Comment:
Reviewed by:
Report#:: 2023.08065 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab #94 6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: N) Iv 6— Date: , eport Number: _ 2023-
Receipt of sample: ECHEM Pickup Client De very O JUPS ❑ FedEx ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES ❑ NO ® N/A Ti-. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES I❑ NO N/A 2. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt 43 °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
IR Gun ID: Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor °C: 0.0
[� YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C, was Project Mgr./CLA notified?
�l YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
[� YES ❑ NO 5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
d YES ❑ NO 6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES ❑ NO 7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
IR YES ❑ NO 10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
CR YES ❑ NO 11. Was adequate sample volume available?'
4a YES ❑ NO 12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES ❑ NO 13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of<2?
❑ YES ❑ NO 14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES ❑ NO 15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES ❑ NO 16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES ❑ NO 17, Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L?
❑ YES ❑ NO 18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation: (Must be completed for any samples) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding(circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HCI NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note:Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples.Obtain a new sample or
notify the state iab if directed to analyzed by the customer.Who was notified,date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC. Cl,A.002 Rev 1

o 0 - ©
0 r
3 / J 7 � z »
q i � !
7 r / a E CL 2 (A n w
( $ n . %
i 7 ' � n
CO) w �
) / CA
0
( E 2 g
�
) g
/ ° 2
n U)
� o
k
_ ® �
22 2 M
i z
D 936 ] m
) � � �
m$ a2 o k 0
Sample Type r
0 L. m cm) z
c�_b q 0 n
M 0 0 0 n G 0 0 0 O n g 0 0 Q o n O o or > ® -
m Grab f O E O /
2 z
Container M ? m D z
O Q % O 2 0 O % o O 2 c % o - Z -
Q (P or G) 'u \ O 2
LP w Chlorine - § ? ( ra
¢ mgIL " ■ 3 > I
■ ƒ % § 2 § 0
\ R / AID 2 k [ M
NUMBER M q nn
� q
.»E 9 O
«L � § =
B coHaa M _
. w
©® 4
CD m
° NAO --IQ § 0 @
JCL
_o k / 10 M
2
2 \ OTHER § O k
2 ] 7
0 � a q / 0 k §
§ ■ r § k
�r @
° � E
_ > 17,
@ 2 § t
/ � " / ƒ
cn 0
\ 2 Q | § § k
� g § 2 9 > I
G o 7X (a
2 d / i2 \
® & z
§ to
V� k
4. a

Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way,Wilmington,NC 28405 - 910.392.0223 Lab - 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road,Manteo,NC 27954 - 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
255-A Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville,NC 28540 - 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
ANALYTICAL&CONSULTING CHEMISTS infoia�environmentalchemists com
Cameron Testing Services, Inc. Date of Report: May 02, 2023
219 South Steele St_ Customer PO#:
Sanford NC 27330 Customer ID: 12090010
Attention. Report#: 2023-08067
Project ID: S Central WWTP
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect DatelTime Matrix Sampled by
23-20425 Site: 2304-0194 4/21/2023 7:30 AM Water Client
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
1,4-Dioxane SW-846 Method 8260D <2 Ng/L 04/25/2023
Comment:
Reviewed by:
Report#:: 2023-08067 Page 1 of 1

Environmental Chemist, Inc.,Wilmington, NC Lab#94 6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: ti 7��1 N(3— Date: 'f'LS/SR_:JBeport Number: 2023- o�0(,o
Receipt of sample: ECHEM Pickup Client De very ❑ 1UPS ❑ FeclEx ❑ Other ❑
❑ YES ❑ NO ® N/A L2.
ere custody seals present on the cooler?
ID YES ❑ NO N/A custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank ® Against Bottles
iR Gun ID:Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor°C:0.0
r1l YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C,was Project Mgr./QA notified?
YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received) followed?
YES ❑ NO 5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
YES ❑ NO 6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
YES ❑ NO 7. Were collection date and time listed on the COU
YES ❑ NO 8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
�) YES ❑ NO 9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
L$ YES ❑ NO 10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
YES ❑ NO 11. Was adequate sample volume availableT
4l YES ❑ NO 12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES C] NO 13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of<2?
❑ YES ❑ NO 14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES ❑ NO 15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES ❑ NO 16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES ❑ NO 17. Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L?
❑ YES ❑ NO 18. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation: (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): HZSOI HNO3 HCl NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note:Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples.Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer.who was notified,date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC, QA.002 Rev 1

o 0 - e
v r
2' 2 k § o m
9 ° (D / ] 'D 0 m 2 >
q rL
m g
c / 2 ®_ CL 2 0 0 k
1< m 0 ' \
2 W 2
/ / ' §
/ (n CID _
k � /
m
Q @ (o \
$ � q ,
a E
CA) n $
o
k CD
� 2 § M
% ® 0
> a k m
( \ _
n
\ Sample Type 2 0 3 0
0 � rn � z
Composite 1 0 n =! E
� O e o 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 O Q n O o or ® ® � M
� Grab - > Z �
z r 0 9 8
0 o % c O @ o O G O Container�r 2 M.0 0
O T n
g Chlorine - § � ? \
IM mg/L L
§ (a0
-
�RLAB o g % n F
NUMBER n §
" E q
NONE2 0 /
6L § 9
e CAH2SO4 � 2 _
meAID
2
;u n © §
C�o ® NAm -
Q § cn
a J mm k / 0 M
ch
| OTHER § q
0 7 qk
O
> 0
> � { § i
2 A °
§ g
/ FA @ ] 6 ,<
0 § q a J §
a) O Q - - §
§ o � �
3 w E
CD
w z
§ 40� 2
[
b 01

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 NCO088366 I11 121 21/03/11 I17 18I�I 19 I G I 20U
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70LJ 71 [L I 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) 09:30AM 21/03/11 18/02/01
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Shady Grove Rd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Spring Lake NC 28390 01:30PM 21/03/11 22/10/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Juan Gabriel Gutierrez/ORC/919-552-1414/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Kenneth Wayne Fail,PO Box 1119 Lillington NC 275461119H910-897-5022/
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
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NCO088366 I11 12I 21/03/11 117 18 i c i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The facility's grounds and laboratory were well-maintained. Staff were very knowledgeable about how
the plant functions. Records were available for review at the time of the inspection and were found to
be accurate. The facility's current permit is active until Oct. 31, 2021. Please submit your permit
renewal application by May 4, 2021. One backup operator is overdue for operator license renewal.
Please submit a payment as soon as possible if certification is to be maintained.
The refrigeration unit on the influent sampler was inoperable at the time of the inspection. Internal
temperature was approximately 10C. Repairs should be made as soon as possible. In the interim, the
Division recommends chilling the cabinet with ice. The backup generator is tested regularly via an
automated process. The Division encourages the plant to occasionally manually test the generator
under load. Other facilities have reported issues where automated testing indicated that proper
function, yet the generator failed during an emergency. Two reactors were not being used. Reactor
#3 is temporarily down, having recently had a blow out in an arm of the aerator array. Reactor#4 has
been out of use for some time and will likely require raking to remove plant matter that has grown on
top of a thick algae mat. As noted in a previous inspection, the facility has no back-up system to UV
disinfection.
The effluent sampler was functioning properly. The Division recommends changing the tubing that
leads into the sample container as accumulated biofilm could potentially skew water chemistry results.
Staff said the tubing would be changed before the next round of toxicity sampling.
Page# 2

Permit: NCO088366 Owner-Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The permit lists a total of 15 filters, but the facility has 9 filters.
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:
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO088366 Owner-Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
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 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The backup generator is tested regularly via an automated process. The Division
encourages the plant to occasionally manually test the generator under load. Other
facilities have reported issues where automated testing indicated that proper function,
Vet the generator failed during an emergency.
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? 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 sampling performed according to the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The refrigeration unit on the influent sampler was inoperable at the time of the
inspection. Internal temperature was approximately 10C. Repairs should be made as
soon as possible. In the interim, the Division recommends chillinq the cabinet with ice.
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0088366 Owner-Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
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:
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the mixing adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the odor acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Sequencing Batch Reactors Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Duplex
Is the reactor effluent free of solids? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Does minimum fill time correspond to the peak hour flow rate of the facility? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is aeration and mixing cycled on and off during fill? ❑ ❑ ❑
The operator understands and can explain the process? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility uses a constant flow system.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Down flow
Is the filter media present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0088366 Owner-Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE
Is the filter free of growth? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the air scour operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the scouring acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE
Are extra UV bulbs available on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are UV bulbs clean? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is UV intensity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is transmittance at or above designed level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there a backup system on site? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Is effluent clear and free of solids? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: As noted in a previous inspection, the facility has no back-up system to UV disinfection.
Flow Measurement - Effluent 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? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Page# 6

Permit: NCO088366 Owner-Facility: South Harnett Regional WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units? 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 the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type ❑ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Comment: The Division recommends changing the tubing that leads into the sample container as
accumulated biofilm could potentially skew water chemistry results. Staff said the tubing
would be changed before the next round of toxicity sampling.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment: The WWTP is a member of the Middle Cape Fear River Bason Association. Per the
permit, while the facility is a member the upstream and downstream sampling
requirement is waived.
Page# 7

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
South Durham WRF NCO047597/001 County: Durham Region: RRO Basin: CPF05 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 11/1/2011 chr lim:90% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.15 PF: 20.0 IWC: 99.5 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
South Fork-(formerly Delta Apparel) NC0006190/001 County: Catawba Region: MRO Basin: CTB35 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Cer7dChV Begin: 2/1/2019 chr lim:12%**A(4) NonComp: Single 7Q10: 12 PF: 1.1 IWC: 11 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 - - 16.97 - - 33.94 - - Pass - - 17
2020 - - 16.97 - - Pass - - >48 - - 4.2
2021 4.2 <3 <3 8.5 >48 33.9 - - >48 - - 4.2(NC)
2022 <3(NC) 4.2 INC) 8.5(NC) 17 17 17 33.9 - 69.3 - - 33.9
South Harnett County Regional WWTP NCO088366/001 County: Harnett Region: FRO Basin: CPF14 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2018 Chr Lim:15%@ 5 M NonComp: 70.10: 45.46 PF: 5.0 IWC: 15 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass - >100(P) Pass>100(P) - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 >100(P)Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 INVALID Pass - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
South Mills Water Association WTP NC0007978 County: Camden Region: WARD Basin: Pas50 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 8/1/2014 Chr monit:90% NonComp: 7Q10: N/A PF: 0.045 IWC: N/A Freq: 1x/Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Fail - - Fail - - Fail - - Fail - -
2020 Fail - - Fail - - Fail - - Fail - -
2021 Fail - - Pass - - Fail - - Fail - -
2022 Fail - - Fail - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Southern Outer Banks(RO)WTP NCO087670/001 County: Currituck Region: WARO Basin: PAS54 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
MVsd24PF Begin: 4/1/2018 Chr Monit 24hr PF:0. NonComp: 7Q10: Tidal PF: 0.6 IWC: NA Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 - Pass - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - >0.67 - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Southern Piedmont Wood Co NCO087572/002 County: Chatham Region: RRO Basin: CPF10 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri48PF Begin: 12/1/2011 Ac Monit: 0.22% NonComp: 70.10: 22 PF: 0.42 IWC: Freq: W*
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 - H - - - - - H - - H -
2020 - H - - - - - - - - - -
Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(Pimohales oromelas).H=No Flow(facility is active).s=Split test between Certified Labs Page 90 of 106