NC0023957_Fact Sheet_20230615

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO023957
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco,[e-mail]:
Date: May 26,2023
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: Fayetteville Public Works Commission(PWC)/Cross Creek Water
Reclamation Facility(WRF)
Applicant Address: PO Box 1089,Fayetteville,NC 28302
Facility Address: 601 North Eastern Boulevard,Fayetteville,NC 28301
Permitted Flow: 25.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 93%domestic, 7%industrial*
Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Influent pump station,Mechanical bar screens, Grit removal chambers,
Dual primary clarifiers,Activated sludge system with nitrification,
Secondary clarifiers, Tertiary sand filters, Chlorination with sodium
hypochlorite,Dichlorination with sodium bisulfate,Effluent now
monitoring,Post aeration, Sludge management via belt thickening,
anaerobic digestion, and holding tanks
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y; LTMP
County: Cumberland
Region Fayetteville
*Based off of permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Fayetteville PWC has applied
for an NPDES permit renewal at 25.0 MGD for the Cross Creek WWTP. This facility serves a population
of approximately 100,500 residents in the City of Fayetteville, Cumberland County,NORCRESS and
Eastover, as well as 8 significant industrial users (SIUs),including 2 categorical industrial users(CIUs),
via a Division-approved pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged
Page 1 of 11

into the Cape Fear River, a class C waterbody in the Cape Fear River Basin. Outfall 001 is approximately
16 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-IV.
Sludge disposal: The Cross Creek biosolids management process plan consist of anaerobic digestions for
both primary and waste activated sludges generated during the treatment of wastewater. These sludges are
stabilized in two 1.55 MG mesophilic anaerobic digesters until proper stabilization is confirmed by EPA
503 regulations regarding Class B Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction.After digestion the
biosolids are stored in two 1.55 MG holding tanks for thickening across gravity belt thickeners.Water
plant ferric residuals are blended with the stabilized thickened biosolids and held in a 5 MG storage tank
for final disposal. Beneficial re-use of these thickened biosolids is utilized through a liquid land
application program(via permit WQ0000527)with participating agricultural farms in Cumberland and
surrounding counties.
Inflow and Infiltration(I/IZ In their application,Fayetteville PWC noted an estimated average daily I/I
flow of 6.36 MGD. PWC cleans 20%of sewer lines each year and performs CCTV inspections on 6%of
the lines each year. The FPWC FY22 budget for the collection system rehabilitation program is
$6,000,000. Current trenchless projects include CIPP Lining of gravity sewer mains and manhole
reconstruction with hydrogen sulfide resistant Polymeric Lining systems.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 Cape Fear River
Stream Segment: 18-(26)
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area(mi2): 4355
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 657
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 761
30Q2 (cfs): -
Average Flow(cfs): 4652
IWC (%effluent): 6
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Not listed
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC: Cape Fear River/03-06-15/HUC: 03030004
USGS Topo Quad: G23SE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2019 through March 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 13.3 26.7 9.6 MA 25.0
CBOD summer mg/1 3.5 15.3 <2 WA 10.2
MA 6.8
CBOD winter mg/1 2.6 8.73 <2 WA 20.4
MA 13.6
NH3N summer mg/1 0.13 5.69 <0.1 WA 3.0
MA 1.0
Page 2 of 11

NH3N winter mg/l 0.12 2.09 <0.1 WA 6.0
MA 2.0
TSS mg/l 2.9 9.7 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
0>pH<
pH SU 6.6 7.5 6.1 6. 9.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml (geomean) 1553 < 1 WA 400
20.6 MA 200
DO mg/l 8.6 10.8 6.8 DA>5.0
DM 28.0
TRC µg/l 25.0 32 2.5 (<50
compliance)
Temperature ° C 21.6 28 15 Monitor&
Report
TN mg/l 17.3 28.2 3.01 Monitor&
Report
TP mg/1 2.4 4.72 1.1 Monitor&
Report
Total Hardness mg/l 81.1 108.9 50.7 Monitor&
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow;2)to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3)to provide data for future TMDL; 4)based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee(in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen,temperature, and
conductivity upstream at least 50 feet above the outfall and downstream at least 500 feet below the
outfall. 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 B7480000, located approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the outfall. The nearest downstream
MCFRBA monitoring station is B7500000, located approximately 5.5 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 20.9 31.7 4.9 20.9 32.1 4.8
DO mg/1 7.7 12.5 4.3 7.6 12.4 2.59
Conductivity µmhos/cm 121.5 217 59 122.8 221 59
Page 3 of 11

Hardness mg/1 23.3 32 16 - - -
TKN mg/1 0.8 2.07 0.26 0.9 8.57 0.2
NO2+NO3 mg/1 0.5 1.06 0.18 0.6 1.38 0.02
Ammonia mg/1 0.03 0.18 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.02
TP mg/1 0.09 0.202 0.04 0.1 0.222 0.051
Chlorophyll-a µg/1 - - - 3.7 12.7 < 1
Fecal Coliform #/100ml (geomean) 8400 5 (geomean) 12000 3
74 87
Turbidity NTUs 19.4 187 2 18.05 116 2.3
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 greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] on one
occasion 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.
Average downstream DO was above 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
Downstream DO was observed at levels less than 4.0 mg/L on 3 occasions during the period reviewed. It
was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity. While 15A NCAC 02B .0508 requires Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control
Systems to monitor and report for conductivity daily, instream monitoring results do not suggest an
impact on the receiving stream with respect to effluent conductivity. As the data review did not determine
an effluent impact, and as the IWC is only 6%effluent,no effluent conductivity requirements have been
added to the permit at this time.
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.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
turbidity. While downstream turbidity was observed at levels greater than 50 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B
.0211 (21)] during the period reviewed(4 occasions),these observances occurred concurrently with
elevated upstream turbidity levels greater than 50 NTUs.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TP
and NO2+NO3 with downstream TP and NO2+NO3 being observed at levels generally higher than that of
the upstream. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and
downstream ammonia or 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
Page 4 of 11

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations from May 2018 through May 2023.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from January 2019 to January 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in March 2022 reported that the facility was compliant. The last pretreatment inspection conducted in
August 2022 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MixingZ ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206,the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow(acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 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/l for Municipals)may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for CBOD5 are based on a 1996 QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear main stem, and conversion
from BOD limits to CBOD limits.No changes are proposed.
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: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective.No changes are proposed.
The existing limitations for ammonia are based on a 1996 QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear main stem.
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.
Page 5 of 11

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%2 detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 213.0206. Effective April 6,2016,NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10,2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 2019
and March 2023. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis,the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit(WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Copper,Total Cyanide,
Total Lead, Total Nickel,Total Selenium, Total Silver,Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Four effluent pollutant scans (2019, 2020,2021 and
2022) and additional submitted data were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s)will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: 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 Phenolic Compounds, 1,4-dioxane (November 2022—April 2023)
The facility reported one total cyanide sample as detected at 36 µg/L on 1/16/2019. In their renewal
application,Fayetteville PWC informed the Division that the method used for total cyanide at the time,
EPA Method 335.4,had widely inconsistent and false high cyanide readings. Since investigating total
cyanide methods,Fayetteville PWC has contracted with a laboratory that runs SM4500 CN for total
cyanide. Since this switch,the facility has reported consistent non-detects. The RPA predicted a
maximum total cyanide concentration of 52.6 µg/L, >50%of the 89.8 µg/L allowable discharge
concentration with the high data point included. However,the only detected level occurred in January
2019,prior to switching laboratories, at a level<50%of the 89.8 µg/L allowable discharge concentration.
No monitoring has been proposed for 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.
Page 6 of 11

Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 6%
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
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
#of Samples 4 4 4 11 1
Annual Average Conc. n /L 3.2 1.7 3.4 2.51 1.47
Maximum Conc.,n L 4.87 2.3 5.4 5.47 1.47
TBEL,n /L 47
WQBEL,n /L 1 215.5
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
limit is required. Since the facility is a 2.0 MGD facility and reported quantifiable levels of mercury(> 1
ng/1),the mercury minimization plan(MMP) special condition has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: To support water quality modeling efforts within the Cape Fear River Basin,the
Division required the Cross Creek WWTP conduct weekly sampling for total phosphorous,total nitrogen,
TKN and Nitrate+Nitrite from April 1,2019 through December 31, 2020. This increased sampling
regimen concluded at the end of 2020 and reverted to monthly monitoring of total phosphorous and total
nitrogen, in accordance with permit requirements.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. As an attachment to the permit
application,the City informed the Division that additional sampling for 1,4-dioxane had been conducted
(see attached chemical addendum) and data was provided for use in the RPA.
Page 7 of 11

If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody:NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals if not applicable,delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/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 BOD51TSS 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 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 211.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4)of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1)prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit,with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed(e.g.,based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit(YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated:N/A
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.
Fayetteville PWC has requested continuation of 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia,TSS and fecal
coliform based on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for these
Page 8 of 11

parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on this
review, 2/week monitoring frequency has been applied for BOD, ammonia, fecal coliform, and TSS.
To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply(WS)waters,monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
As the Cross Creek WWTP has a pretreatment program and discharges treated wastewater approximately
16 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-IV,monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the
permit at a frequency of quarterly. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater
is not currently available,the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule
which delays the effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months
after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may
be extended upon request and if there are no NC-certified labs.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016,NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21,2020,to December 21,2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4,2021,was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 25.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
CBOD5 Summer: No change WQBEL. 1996 QUAL2E Model;
MA 6.8 mg/l 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
WA 10.2 mg/l Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies
Winter: in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
MA 13.6 mg/l Performing Facilities
WA 20.4 mg/l
Monitor and report 2/week
NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 1996 QUAL2E Model;
MA 1.0 mg/l verified with 2023 WLA; 2012 DWR
WA 3.0 mg/l Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Winter: Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
MA 2.0 mg/l Permits for Exceptionally Performing
WA 6.0 mg/l Facilities
Monitor and report 2/week
TSS MA 30 mg/1 No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45 mg/l standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and report 2/week 2B .0406; 2012 DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400/100ml NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitor and report 2/week Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Page 9 of 11

Temperature Monitor and Report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0508
DO >5 mg/1 No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
PH 6—9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily NCAC 213 .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
Total Residual DM 28 ug/L No change WQBEL. 2022 WLA. Surface Water
Chlorine Monitor and Report Daily Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN No requirement Monitor and For calculation of TN
Report Monthly
NO2+NO3 No requirement Monitor and For calculation of TN
Report Monthly
Total Nitrogen Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monthly NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Phosphorus Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monthly NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Hardness Quarterly monitoring No changes Hardness-dependent dissolved metals
Upstream and in Effluent water quality standards approved in
2016
Add quarterly Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
PFAS No requirement monitoring with pretreatment facility; Implementation
delayed delayed until after EPA certified
implementation method becomes available.
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 6% effluent No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC
213.0500
Effluent Three times per permit No change; 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan cycle conducted in
2025,2026,2027
Instream Monitor and Report for No change to Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monitoring conductivity,DO and frequencies or NCAC 2B. 0508; Instream
temperature 3/week during waiver; add monitoring review and discussions
June through September monthly with Basin Planning Branch
and 1/week during monitoring for
remainder of the year; TKN,NO2+NO3,
MCFRBA waiver ammonia and TP
Nutrient Special Condition A.(5.) Remove condition Division may request additional
Monitoring Permit Re-Opener: nutrient monitoring be conducted
Reopener Supplementary Nutrient without need for a waiver
Monitoring
Mercury MMP Special Condition No change; MMP WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Minimization maintained Statewide Mercury TMDL
Plan(MMP) Implementation.
Electronic Electronic Reporting No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Special Condition Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
Page 10 of 11

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/xxxx
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice.Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please
contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at nick.cocogncdenr.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• POC Review Form
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Chemical Addendum
Page 11 of 11

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY CHECK WQS
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 Cross Creek 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 NCO023957 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 0.6449 FW 3.6688 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 25.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Cape Fear 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 129.6566 FW 1017.1040 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 657.000 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w (cfs) 761.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 8.7152 FW 11.9765 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 657.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 4652.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs) 529.26 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 3.3584 FW 88.6067 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 81.11 mg/L (Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
------------- ----------------------
Upstream Hardness 25 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 28.13 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 41.1328 FW 378.1495 pg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 28.83 mg/L I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Data Source(s) TT-dioxane 7vT ISTV used for consideration of Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL downstream WS waters. Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.3787 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 140.0352 FW 141.8345 ug/L
Par22 1,4-dioxane Water Supply C 0.35 WS pg/L
Par23
Par24
23957 RPA, input
5/26/2023

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 1/15/2019 69 69 Std Dev. 12.2913 1 Default 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 4/8/2019 50.7 50.7 Mean 81.1148 2 Mean 25.0000
3 7/16/2019 66.8 66.8 C.V. 0.1515 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 10/15/2019 72.5 72.5 n 25 4 n 1
5 1/14/2020 77.2 77.2 10th Per value 67.68 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 4/14/2020 79.1 79.1 Average Value 81.11 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 7/14/2020 66.4 66.4 Max. Value 108.90 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 10/15/2020 96 96 8
9 1/13/2021 73.2 73.2 9
10 4/20/2021 72 72 10
11 7/20/2021 82.2 82.2 11
12 10/12/2021 108.9 108.9 12
13 1/11/2022 86.62 86.62 13
14 2/8/2022 81.57 81.57 14
15 3/15/2022 86.66 86.66 15
16 4/19/2022 83.67 83.67 16
17 5/17/2022 84.65 84.65 17
18 6/14/2022 100.8 100.8 18
19 7/19/2022 80 80 19
20 8/23/2022 86.1 86.1 20
21 9/13/2022 76.7 76.7 21
22 10/11/2022 97.3 97.3 22
23 11/8/2022 86 86 23
24 12/20/2022 74.9 74.9 24
25 1/24/2023 88.9 88.9 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
23957 RPA, data
- 1 - 6/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/15/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev. 1.8591
2 4/9/2019 < 10 5 Mean 3.7292
3 7/16/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.4985
4 10/15/2019 < 10 5 n 24
5 1/14/2020 < 10 5
6 4/14/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.24
7 7/14/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 10/15/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 6.2 ug/L
9 1/13/2021 < 2 1
10 4/20/2021 < 10 5
11 7/20/2021 < 5 2.5
12 10/12/2021 < 10 5
13 1/11/2022 < 10 5
14 2/8/2022 < 10 5
15 3/15/2022 < 10 5
16 4/19/2022 < 10 5
17 5/17/2022 < 10 5
18 6/14/2022 < 10 5
19 7/19/2022 < 2 1
20 8/23/2022 < 2 1
21 9/13/2022 < 2 1
22 11/8/2022 < 2 1
23 12/20/2022 < 2 1
24 1/24/2023 < 2 1
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
23957 RPA, data
-2 - 6/5/2023

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 1/18/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.2990 1 1/15/2019 < 0.25 0.125 Std Dev. 0.0299
2 10/22/2020 < 0.5 0.25 Mean 1.0000 2 4/9/2019 < 0.25 0.125 Mean 0.1260
3 1/18/2021 < 0.5 0.25 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 7/16/2019 < 0.25 0.125 C.V. 0.2374
4 n 3 4 10/15/2019 < 0.25 0.125 n 24
5 5 1/14/2020 < 0.25 0.125
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 4/14/2020 < 0.25 0.125 Mult Factor= 1.11
7 Max. Value 2.50 ug/L 7 7/14/2020 0.25 0.25 Max. Value 0.250 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 7.50 ug/L 8 10/15/2020 < 0.25 0.125 Max. Pred Cw 0.278 ug/L
9 9 1/13/2021 < 0.15 0.075
10 10 4/20/2021 < 0.25 0.125
11 11 7/20/2021 < 0.25 0.125
12 12 10/12/2021 < 0.25 0.125
13 13 1/11/2022 < 0.25 0.125
14 14 2/8/2022 < 0.25 0.125
15 15 3/15/2022 < 0.25 0.125
16 16 4/19/2022 < 0.25 0.125
17 17 5/17/2022 < 0.25 0.125
18 18 6/14/2022 < 0.25 0.125
19 19 7/19/2022 < 0.15 0.075
20 20 8/23/2022 < 0.25 0.125
21 21 9/13/2022 < 0.25 0.125
22 22 11/8/2022 < 0.25 0.125
23 23 12/20/2022 < 0.25 0.125
24 24 1/24/2023 < 0.25 0.125
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 < ERR
53 53 < ERR
54 54 < ERR
55 55 < ERR
56 56 < ERR
57 57 < ERR
58 58 < ERR
23957 RPA, data
-3- 6/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07 Part O
Use"PASTE SPECIAL- Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Total Phenolic Compounds
Values"then"COPY". Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data points Chromium, Total .Maximum data
=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/25/2019 16 16 Std Dev. 12.0139 1 1/15/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.4235
2 10/16/2020 < 10 5 Mean 16.6667 2 4/9/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.3750
3 1/21/2021 29 29 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 7/16/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.1783
4 n 3 4 10/15/2019 < 5 2.5 n 24
5 5 1/14/2020 < 5 2.5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 4/14/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.08
7 Max. Value 29.0 ug/L 7 7/14/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 87.0 ug/L 8 10/15/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.7 pg/L
9 9 1/13/2021 < 2 1
10 10 4/20/2021 < 5 2.5
11 11 7/20/2021 < 5 2.5
12 12 10/12/2021 < 5 2.5
13 13 1/11/2022 < 5 2.5
14 14 2/8/2022 < 5 2.5
15 15 3/15/2022 < 5 2.5
16 16 4/19/2022 < 5 2.5
17 17 5/17/2022 < 5 2.5
18 18 6/14/2022 < 5 2.5
19 19 7/19/2022 < 2 1
20 20 8/23/2022 < 5 2.5
21 21 9/13/2022 < 5 2.5
22 22 11/8/2022 < 5 2.5
23 23 12/20/2022 < 5 2.5
24 24 1/24/2023 < 5 2.5
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
23957 RPA, data
-4- 6/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal Par12
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY" Cyanide Values"then"COPY"
pp .Maximum data y .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/15/2019 3.27 3.27 Std Dev. 1.1405 1 1/16/2019 36 36 Std Dev. 6.3278
2 4/9/2019 3.8 3.8 Mean 3.0071 2 4/10/2019 < 5 5 Mean 6.29
3 7/16/2019 3.6 3.6 C.V. 0.3793 3 7/17/2019 < 5 5 C.V. 1.0058
4 10/15/2019 4.3 4.3 n 24 4 10/16/2019 < 5 5 n 24
5 1/14/2020 2.1 2.1 5 1/15/2020 < 5 5
6 4/14/2020 2.6 2.6 Mult Factor= 1.18 6 4/15/2020 < 5 5 Mult Factor= 1.46
7 7/14/2020 6.7 6.7 Max. Value 6.70 ug/L 7 7/14/2020 < 5 5 Max. Value 36.0 ug/L
8 10/15/2020 2.54 2.54 Max. Pred Cw 7.91 ug/L 8 10/15/2020 < 5 5 Max. Pred Cw 52.6 ug/L
9 1/13/2021 2 2 9 1/13/2021 < 5.0 5
10 4/20/2021 3.17 3.17 10 4/20/2021 < 5.0 5
11 7/20/2021 4 4 11 7/20/2021 < 5 5
12 10/12/2021 3.4 3.4 12 10/12/2021 < 5 5
13 1/11/2022 2.31 2.31 13 1/11/2022 < 5 5
14 2/8/2022 2.46 2.46 14 2/8/2022 < 5 5
15 3/15/2022 < 2 1 15 3/15/2022 < 5 5
16 4/19/2022 < 2 1 16 4/19/2022 < 5 5
17 5/17/2022 2.91 2.91 17 5/17/2022 < 5 5
18 6/14/2022 2.8 2.8 18 6/14/2022 < 5 5
19 7/19/2022 3 3 19 7/19/2022 < 5 5
20 8/23/2022 2.64 2.64 20 8/23/2022 < 5 5
21 9/13/2022 3.13 3.13 21 9/13/2022 < 5 5
22 11/8/2022 3.94 3.94 22 11/8/2022 < 5 5
23 12/20/2022 3 3 23 12/20/2022 < 5 5
24 1/24/2023 2.5 2.5 24 1/24/2023 < 5 5
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
23957 RPA, data
- 5- 6/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14 Par17 & Par18 use"PASTE
Use"PASTE SPECIAL SPECIAL-
Values"then"COPY" Values"then
Lead .Maximum data Nickel "Copy.,.
points=58 Maximum data
Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58
1 1/15/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.4904 1 1/15/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.7661
2 4/10/2019 < 2 1 Mean 1.0625 2 4/10/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.7500
3 7/16/2019 < 2 1 C.V. 0.4616 3 7/16/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.2786
4 10/15/2019 < 2 1 n 24 4 10/15/2019 < 5 2.5 n 24
5 1/14/2020 < 2 1 5 1/14/2020 < 5 2.5
6 4/14/2020 < 2 1 Mult Factor= 1.22 6 4/14/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.13
7 7/14/2020 < 2 1 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 7 7/14/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 6.0 pg/L
8 10/15/2020 < 2 1 Max. Pred Cw 3.050 ug/L 8 10/15/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 6.8 pg/L
9 1/13/2021 < 0.5 0.25 9 1/13/2021 3 3
10 4/20/2021 < 2 1 10 4/20/2021 < 5 2.5
11 7/20/2021 < 2 1 11 7/20/2021 < 5 2.5
12 10/12/2021 < 2 1 12 10/12/2021 < 5 2.5
13 1/11/2022 < 2 1 13 1/11/2022 < 5 2.5
14 2/8/2022 < 2 1 14 2/8/2022 < 5 2.5
15 3/15/2022 < 2 1 15 3/15/2022 < 5 2.5
16 4/19/2022 < 5 2.5 16 4/19/2022 < 5 2.5
17 5/17/2022 < 2 1 17 5/17/2022 < 5 2.5
18 6/14/2022 < 2 1 18 6/14/2022 6 6
19 7/19/2022 < 0.5 0.25 19 7/19/2022 3 3
20 8/23/2022 < 2 1 20 8/23/2022 < 5 2.5
21 9/13/2022 < 2 1 21 9/13/2022 4 4
22 11/8/2022 < 2 1 22 11/8/2022 < 5 2.5
23 12/20/2022 < 2 1 23 12/20/2022 < 5 2.5
24 1/24/2023 < 2 1 24 1/24/2023 < 5 2.5
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
23957 RPA, data
-6- 6/5/2023

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 1/15/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev. 1.5323 1 1/15/2019 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0720
2 4/10/2019 < 10 5 Mean 4.0000 2 4/10/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.4783
3 7/16/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.3831 3 7/16/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.1506
4 10/15/2019 < 10 5 n 24 4 10/15/2019 < 1 0.5 n 23
5 1/14/2020 < 10 5 5 1/14/2020 < 1 0.5
6 4/14/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.18 6 4/14/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.07
7 7/14/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 7/14/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L
8 10/15/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.9 ug/L 8 1/13/2021 < 0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw 0.535 ug/L
9 1/13/2021 < 1 0.5 9 4/20/2021 < 1 0.5
10 4/20/2021 < 10 5 10 7/20/2021 < 1 0.5
11 7/20/2021 < 5 2.5 11 10/12/2021 < 1 0.5
12 10/12/2021 < 10 5 12 1/11/2022 < 1 0.5
13 1/11/2022 < 10 5 13 2/8/2022 < 1 0.5
14 2/8/2022 < 10 5 14 3/15/2022 < 1 0.5
15 3/15/2022 < 10 5 15 4/19/2022 < 1 0.5
16 4/19/2022 < 10 5 16 5/17/2022 < 1 0.5
17 5/17/2022 < 10 5 17 6/14/2022 < 1 0.5
18 6/14/2022 < 10 5 18 7/19/2022 < 0.5 0.25
19 7/19/2022 < 1 0.5 19 8/23/2022 < 1 0.5
20 8/23/2022 < 5 2.5 20 9/13/2022 < 1 0.5
21 9/13/2022 < 5 2.5 21 11/8/2022 < 1 0.5
22 11/8/2022 < 5 2.5 22 12/20/2022 < 1 0.5
23 12/20/2022 < 5 2.5 23 1/24/2023 < 1 0.5
24 1/24/2023 < 5 2.5 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
23957 RPA, data
- 7- 6/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21 Par22 use"PASTE
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values"then"COPY" SPECIAL-Values"
Zinc Maximum data 1,4-dioxane then"COPY".
.
points=58 Maximum data
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58
1 10/26/2020 173 173 Std Dev. 34.5387 1 11/10/2022 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.2286
2 10/27/2020 199 199 Mean 155.1086 2 12/7/2022 1.06 1.06 Mean 0.5933
3 10/28/2020 198 198 C.V. 0.2227 3 1/17/2023 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 10/29/2020 203 203 n 58 4 2/15/2023 < 1 0.5 n 6
5 10/30/2020 193 193 5 3/15/2023 < 1 0.5
6 10/31/2020 147 147 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 4/20/2023 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 2.14
7 11/1/2020 133 133 Max. Value 231.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value 1.1 pg/L
8 11/2/2020 107 107 Max. Pred Cw 231.0 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 2.3 pg/L
9 11/3/2020 149 149 9
10 11/4/2020 217 217 10
11 11/5/2020 194 194 11
12 11/6/2020 231 231 12
13 11/7/2020 216 216 13
14 11/8/2020 149 149 14
15 11/9/2020 143 143 15
16 11/10/2020 172 172 16
17 11/11/2020 182 182 17
18 11/12/2020 120 120 18
19 11/13/2020 153 153 19
20 11/14/2020 191 191 20
21 11/15/2020 179 179 21
22 11/16/2020 119 119 22
23 11/17/2020 103 103 23
24 11/18/2020 217 217 24
25 11/19/2020 201 201 25
26 11/20/2020 152 152 26
27 11/21/2020 143 143 27
28 11/22/2020 156 156 28
29 11/23/2020 133 133 29
30 11/24/2020 145 145 30
31 11/25/2020 172 172 31
32 11/26/2020 138 138 32
33 11/27/2020 105 105 33
34 11/28/2020 121 121 34
35 11/29/2020 146 146 35
36 11/30/2020 174 174 36
37 12/2/2020 109 109 37
38 12/9/2020 136 136 38
39 12/16/2020 150 150 39
40 12/22/2020 150 150 40
41 12/30/2020 224 224 41
42 1/13/2021 115.3 115.3 42
43 2/8/2021 107.2 107.2 43
44 4/20/2021 128 128 44
45 7/20/2021 83 83 45
46 10/12/2021 135.9 135.9 46
47 1/11/2022 134.3 134.3 47
48 2/8/2022 148.7 148.7 48
49 3/15/2022 138 138 49
50 4/19/2022 139.7 139.7 50
51 5/17/2022 142.9 142.9 51
52 6/14/2022 150.6 150.6 52
53 7/19/2022 111 111 53
54 8/23/2022 136 136 54
55 9/13/2022 172.4 172.4 55
56 11/8/2022 149.1 149.1 56
57 12/20/2022 190.3 190.3 57
58 1/24/2023 170.9 170.9 58
23957 RPA, data
-8- 6/5/2023

Cross Creek WWTP > Outfall 001
NCOO23957 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 25 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 25.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 529.26 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 6.822062992 Acute =28.83 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 657.00 IWC% @ 7QIOS = 5.569529285 Chronic =28.13 mg/L
7Ql0W (cfs) = 761.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 4.845264145 YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
30Q2 (cfs) = 657.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 5.569529285 STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 4652.00 IW%C @ QA= 0.826093908 Effluent Hard: 2 value > 100 mg/L
Receiving Stream: Cape Fear River HUC 03030004 Stream Class: C Effluent Hard Avg = 81.11 mg/L
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J CO) REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Chronic Standard Acute a. D n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 4,983.8
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 ug/L
24 0 6.2 Chronic (FW): 2,693.2 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Max MDL_= 10 Monitoring required
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH): 1,210.5
Max MDL 10
Acute: 952.79
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 3 0 7.50
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 116.71 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required
Acute: 53.779
Cadmium NC 0.6449 FW(7QIOs) 3.6688 ug/L 24 1 0.278
Chronic: 11.578 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 3 2 87.0 _
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic 5,386.5 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 14,909.0
Chromium III NC 129.66 FW(7QIOs) 1017.10 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic: 2,328.0
Acute: 234.5
Chromium VI NC I FW(7QIOs) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic: 197.5
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 24 0 2.7 Max reported value =2.5 samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr Vl.
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5
Acute: 175.56
Copper NC 8.7152 FW(7QIOs) 11.9765 ug/L 24 22 7.91 Chronic:
156.48 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 322.5
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7010s) 22 10 uWL 24 1 52.6 _
-----------------------------
No RP, All values non-detect except 1 detection at
No value >Allowable Cw 36 ug/L, < 50% of the allowable Cw- No Monitoring
required
23957 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 6/5/2023

Cross Creek WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO023957 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 25 MGD
Acute: 1,298.825
Lead NC 3.3584 FW(7Q10s) 88.6067 ug/L 24 0 3.050 Chronic:
60.300 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 5,543.0
Nickel NC 41.1328 FW(7Q10s) 378.1495 µg/L
24 4 6.8 [Chronic (FW): 738.5 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): 448.9
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute: 820.9
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 24 0 5.9 Chronic:
89.8 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute: 5.551
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.3787 ug/L 23 0 0.535
Chronic: 1.077 All values non-detect< 1 ug/L and < 0.5 ug/L ; No
monitoring required
NO DETECTS Max MDL= l
Acute: 2,079.1 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Zinc NC 140.0352 FW(7Q10s) 141.8345 ug/L 58 58 231.0 Monitoring required
---- --- - -----------------------------Chronic: 2,
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
1,4-dioxane C 0.35 WS(Qavg) µg/L 6 1 2.26840
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 42.368 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required
-----------------------------
23957 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 6/5/2023

Permit No. NCO023957
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. NCO023957
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. NCO023957
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. NC0023957
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) 81.11 Average from DMR review for data
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] from January 2019—March 2023
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) 25 Default used; average from review
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] period below 25 mg/L.
7Q 10 summer(cfs) 657 Historical file;previous fact sheet
1Q10(cfs) 529.26 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow(MGD) 25.0 NPDES Files
Date: 5/26/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO023957 Cross Creek WWTP 5/26/2023
CBOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
January-19 98.18 July-21 96.95 January-19 97.84 July-21 98.58
February-19 98.39 August-21 96.72 February-19 98.66 August-21 98.61
March-19 98.71 September-21 97.64 March-19 98.99 September-21 98.83
April-19 98.12 October-21 98.65 April-19 98.81 October-21 98.86
May-19 97.87 November-21 99.08 May-19 98.47 November-21 98.92
June-19 97.79 December-21 98.90 June-19 98.36 December-21 98.93
July-19 98.65 January-22 98.63 July-19 98.85 January-22 98.38
August-19 98.87 February-22 98.67 August-19 99.03 February-22 98.32
September-19 98.43 March-22 98.86 September-19 98.87 March-22 98.89
October-19 98.88 April-22 98.65 October-19 98.93 April-22 98.76
November-19 99.03 May-22 98.17 November-19 99.07 May-22 98.74
December-19 99.09 June-22 98.16 December-19 99.07 June-22 98.65
January-20 99.41 July-22 98.36 January-20 99.32 July-22 98.48
February-20 98.85 August-22 98.48 February-20 98.79 August-22 98.83
March-20 98.94 September-22 98.58 March-20 99.07 September-22 98.93
April-20 98.60 October-22 98.77 April-20 98.78 October-22 98.99
May-20 98.27 November-22 98.95 May-20 98.73 November-22 98.81
June-20 98.09 December-22 99.04 June-20 98.62 December-22 98.96
July-20 98.15 January-23 99.08 July-20 98.61 January-23 99.03
August-20 97.93 February-23 98.62 August-20 98.83 February-23 98.57
September-20 97.45 March-23 98.80 September-20 98.26 March-23 98.32
October-20 98.04 April-23 October-20 98.73 April-23
November-20 98.61 May-23 November-20 98.81 May-23
December-20 98.91 June-23 December-20 98.95 June-23
January-21 98.90 July-23 January-21 98.92 July-23
February-21 97.91 August-23 February-21 97.89 August-23
March-21 97.68 September-23 March-21 98.55 September-23
April-21 97.31 October-23 April-21 98.93 October-23
May-21 97.30 November-23 May-21 98.40 November-23
June-21 97.20 December-23 June-21 98.18 December-23
Overall BOD removal rate 98.38 Overall TSS removal rate 98.72

5/26/23 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name
Cross CreekWWTP/NC0023957 No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL=0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 657.000 cfs WQBEL= 215.46 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 25.000 47 ng/L
1/17/19 4.87 4.87
4/12/19 1.68 1.68
8/20/19 3.37 3.37
10/17/19 2.77 2.77 3.2 ng/L-Annual Average for 2019
1/16/20 2.19 2.19
4/16/20 < 1 0.5
7/16/20 1.99 1.99
10/15/20 2.3 2.3 1.7 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020
1/14/21 1.95 1.95
4/22/21 1.37 1.37
7/20/21 5.07 5.07
10/14/21 5.4 5.4 3.4 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
1/13/22 3.95 3.95
2/10/22 2.23 2.23
3/17/22 2.35 2.35
4/21/22 1.44 1.44
5/19/22 1.53 1.53
6/16/22 2.37 2.37
7/21/22 1.1 1.1
8/25/22 5.47 5.47
9/15/22 2.26 2.26
11/10/22 2.22 2.22
12/22/22 2.71 2.71 2.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022
1/26/23 1.47 1.47 1.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2023

Cross CreekWWTP/NC0023957
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
#of Samples 4 4 4 11 1
Annual Average, ng/L 3.2 1.7 3.4 2.51 1.47
Maximum Value, ng/L 4.87 2.30 5.40 5.47 1.47
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 215.5

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Permit No. NC0023957
Review period(use 3 3/2020-3/2023
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
CBOD(Weighted) mg/L 14.45 9.63333 4.8 0 Y 19.3 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
TSS mg/L 45 30 15 2.1413929 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Ammonia(weighted) mg/L 4.25 1 1.416671 0.7 1 0.0820726 1 Y 1 2.83 1 0 1 Y 0 1 N 1 0 1 N I Y
Fecal Coliform #/100 400 1 200 1 1001 20.049467 1 Y 800 1 3 Y 0 1 N 1 0 1 N I Y

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0023957
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 25
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 657
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 761
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 657 s7Q10 (CFS) 657
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 25 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 25
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 38.75 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 38.75
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 5.57 IWC (%) 5.57
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 305 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 14.2
Cap at 28 uq/L.Consistent with current limit. Less stringent than current limit.Maintain limit.
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 761
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 25
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 38.75
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 17.95 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 4.85
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 32.8
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)

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Fayetteville-Cross Creek WWTP NCO023957/001 County: Cumberland Region: FRO Basin: CPF15 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 1/1/2018 chr lim:6% NonComp: Single 70,10: 657.0 PF: 25.0 IWC: 6.0 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass - - Pass>24(P) - - Pass>24(P) - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - - Pass>24(P) - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass>24(P) - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Feldspar Corp. NC0000353/001 County: Mitchell Region: ARO Basin: FRB06 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 6/1/2012 chr lim:11% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 43 PF: IWC: 11.18 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 - - Pass - - - - - - - -
First Craven Sanitary District WTP NCO060321/001 County: Craven Region: WARO Basin: NEU10 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Mysd7dPF Begin: 11/1/2017 Chr Monit: 90%* NonComp: 7Q10: PF: 0.120 IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M I J A S O N D
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - INVALID Pass - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - >90 - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Flint Hills Resources,LP(New Hanover NCO076732/001 County: New Hanover Region: WIRO Basin: CPF17 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Mysd24PF Begin: 1/1/2017 Acu Mysid 24hr Lim: + NonComp: Single 7Q10: Tidal PF: 0.1 IWC: NA Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 H - - H - - H - - H - -
2020 H - - H - - H - - H - -
2021 H - - H - - H - - H - -
2022 H - - H - - H - - H - -
2023 H - - - - - - - - - - -
Forest City WWTP NCO025984/001 County: Rutherford Region: ARO Basin: BRD02 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 12/1/2021 chr lim:18% NonComp: Single 70,10: 34.8 PF: 4.95 IWC: 18.0 Freq: Q
J F M A M J I A S O N D
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - >72(P)Pass - -
2020 50.9(P)Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - >72(P)Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - >72(P)Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(PimDhales oromelas).H=No Flow(facility is active).s=Split test between Certified Labs Page 41 of 115

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 NCO023957 I11 121 22/03/29 I17 18I e I 19 I G I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 J 71 Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 08:OOAM 22/03/29 18/01/01
Cross Creek WWTP
601 N Eastern Blvd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Fayetteville NC 283015265 11:15AM 22/03/29 22/10/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Michael Scott McCoy/ORC/910-223-4757/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Mick J Noland,PO Box 1089 Fayetteville NC 283021089//910-223-4733/
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
Hughie White DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.708/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NCO023957 I11 12I 22/03/29 117 18 i s i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
All records and log books were very well organized and maintained and appeared to be properly
documented. A copy of the current NPDES permit and the most current annual report were both
available for review. Calibration records for equipment appeared to be properly documented.
Laboratory data was reviewed and all data that was reviewed appeared to be correct, as reported on
the DMR's. Overall, the facility was very neat and clean in appearance and all treatment units
appeared to be in very good working condition. At the time of this inspection, the effluent was very
clear and free of any visible solids.
Also, as part of the inspection, effluent samples were collected and sent to the Division of Water
Resources laboratory for analysis. The results of the samples are listed below:
Fecal coliform: 80 CFU/100ml
BOD: 4.0 mg/L
NH3: 0.03 mg/L
NO2+NO3: 14 mg/L
Total Phosphorus: 1.9 mg/L
TKN: 1.5 mg/L
Total Suspended Residue: 2.8 mg/L
Page# 2

Permit: NCO023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chain-of-custody complete? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 M ❑ ❑ ❑
classification?
Page# 3

Permit: NC0023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Page# 4

Permit: NCO023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are the diffusers operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Comment:
Disinfection-Liquid Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: The flow meter was last calibrated on 3-28-22.
Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Fixed cover
Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is gas stored on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the digester(s)free of tilting covers? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the gas burner operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the digester heated? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Chemical Feed Yes No NA NE
Is containment adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are backup pumps available? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the site free of excessive leaking? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Page# 7

Permit: NCO023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The generator was not tested during this inspection.
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Page# 8

Permit: NC0023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment: This facility is a memeber of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association.
Page# 9

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 2 u 3 I NC0023957 I11 121 22/08/09 I17 18 j ] 19I G I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 J 71 Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:OOAM 22/08/09 18/01/01
Cross Creek WWTP
601 N Eastern Blvd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Fayetteville NC 283015265 05:OOPM 22/08/09 22/10/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Mick J Noland,PO Box 1089 Fayetteville NC 283021089//910-223-4733/
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Other
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 1
31 NCO023957 I11 12I 22/08/09 117 18 I G I
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page# 2

Permit: NCO023957 Owner-Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 08/09/2022 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Audit
Other Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Page# 3