NC0040797_Fact Sheet_20230711

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO040797
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: June 29, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Hickory/Henry Fork Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 398, Hickory, NC 28602
Facility Address:
4014 River Road, Hickory, NC 28602
Permitted Flow:
9.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 93.6% domestic, 6.4% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Mechanical bar screen, Influent pump station, Influent flow meter, Grit
removal, Flow equalization basin, Two primary clarifiers, Two aeration
basins, Two secondary clarifiers, Chlorine gas disinfection with contact
chamber, Dechlorination, Cascade aeration, Two sludge holding basins,
Alum and polymer feed systems, Odor control system, Two standby
power generators, Effluent diffuser
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Catawba
Region
Mooresville
*Based off of permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Hickory has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 9.0 MGD for the Henry Fork WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 23,000 residents in the City of Hickory and Towns of Brookford and Long
View, as well as 8 non -categorical significant industrial users (SIUs) via a Division -approved
pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into Henry Fork, a class
C waterbody in the Catawba River Basin. Outfall 001 is approximately 4 miles upstream of waters
designated as WS-V.
Sludge disposal: Solids are currently stored in a sludge tank before being loaded into tankers and taken to
the Hickory Regional Compost Facility (Permit WQ004563) in Newton, NC.
Page 1 of 11

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 -Henry Fork
Stream Segment:
11-129-1-(12.5)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
102
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
27
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
39
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
167
IWC (% effluent):
34.07
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/HUC:
Catawba River/HUC: 03050102
USGS Topo Quad:
E13NE
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
Permit
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit
Flow
MGD
2.6
8.8
1.5
MA 9.0
WA 28.5
BOD summer
mg/l
3.8
27
< 2
MA 19.0
BOD winter
mg/l
4.9
19
< 2
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N summer
mg/l
0.2
16.1
< 0.1
WA 7.5
MA 2.5
WA 18.6
NH3N winter
mg/l
0.6
31.4
< 0.1
MA 6.2
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/1
6.4
50.8
2.5
MA 30.0
6.0 > pH <
pH
SU
6.7
9
6
9.0
(geometric)
(geomean)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
6000
< 1
WA 400
6.6
MA 200
DO
mg/l
9.0
19.8
6.2
DA >5.0
DM 28.0
TRC
µg/1
< 20
< 20
< 20
(< 50
compliance)
Monitor &
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
635
1014
133
Report
Monitor &
Temperature
° C
18.9
27
3.6
Report
Page 2 of 11

Monitor &
TN
mg/1
19.7
32.4
g
Report
TP
mg/1
3.1
5.5
0.93
Monitor &
Report
Total Cadmium
µg/l
0.1
0.4
< 0.08
Monitor &
Report
Total Copper
µg/l
8.4
11.9
< I
MA 27.06
DM 34.65
Total Zinc
µg/l
122.6
335
64.3
Monitor &
Report
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
µg/1
4.8
5
4.2
MA 28.5
phthalate
DM 28.5
Total Hardness
mg/l
77
117
49.4
Monitor &
Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
conductivity upstream at least 100 feet above the outfall and downstream at NCSR 1143 (Sandy Ford
Road - approximately 1.6 miles downstream of the outfall). Instream monitoring is conducted three times
per week during June, July, August and September, and once per week during the rest of the year.
Upstream hardness sampling is also required at a quarterly frequency. Data was observed from January
2019 through March 2023. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
16.8
25
0.9
17.4
26
2
DO
mg/l
9.0
21.2
5.5
8.8
17.8
5.2
Conductivity
umhos/cm
41.4
427
1.6
59
425
4.2
Total
Hardness
mg/1
11.5
34.6
7.97
-
-
-
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 greater than upstream temperature by more
Page 3 of 11

than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 18 occasions during the period reviewed. Review of concurrent effluent
temperature data showed the potential for effluent to influence instream temperature. However, it was
also concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
temperature. Effluent influence is not observed at levels with statistically significant impact but instream
temperature will continue to be monitored to track influence.
Downstream DO was not observed below 5.0 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.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity, with downstream conductivity being consistently higher than upstream conductivity.
Effluent conductivity appears to influence downstream conductivity.
As the receiving stream is neither impaired for fecal coliform or a class B waterbody, fecal coliform
instream monitoring was removed during the 2018 permit renewal based on the 2002 Guidance Regarding
Conductivity and Fecal Coliform Monitoring. No changes are proposed for fecal coliform.
No changes are proposed to instream monitoring requirements.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
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 February 2019 to February 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in June 2023 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing
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 CORMLY 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.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for BOD5 are based on a 1992 Level B model. No changes are proposed.
Page 4 of 11

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/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/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 1992 Level B model. 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/z detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 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. nly. 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 Zinc
• 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 Beryllium, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Cyanide,
Total Lead, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Four effluent pollutant scans (2019, 2020, 2021 and
2022) 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
Page 5 of 11

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:
Dichlorobromomethane
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:
Chlorodibromomethane, Total Phenolic Compounds
As the discharge is approximately 4 miles above WS-V waters, WS standards were considered in the
review. No detections of chlorinated phenolic compounds were reported in the submitted effluent
pollutant scans. Total Dissolved Solids were not reported at levels greater than or equal to 500 mg/L in
the submitted effluent pollutant scans. Effluent total hardness was not reported at levels greater than 100
mg/L during the period reviewed. Nitrate + Nitrite data from the submitted effluent pollutant scans were
used to assess the WS nitrate standard. As the RPA shows reasonable potential for an excursion above the
nitrate standard based on a limited dataset, and for calculation of total nitrogen, Nitrate and Nitrite have
been added to the permit, along with TKN, at a monitoring frequency of monthly.
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 with a quarterly chronic WET limit
at 34.07% effluent. The limit has been revised to 34%.
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.
Page 6 of 11

Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2019
2020
2021
2022
# of Samples
1
1
1
1
Annual Average Conc. n /L
1.73
3.02
2.27
2.43
Maximum Conc., n /L
1.73
3.02
2.27
2.43
TBEL, n /L
47
WQBEL, n /L
35.23
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: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table.
As the Henry Fork WWTP discharges 4 miles above WS-V waters, 1,4-dioxane was also considered
during this renewal. The Henry Fork WWTP receives industrial wastewater from one industrial user with
the potential for use of 1,4-dioxane (motor vehicle parts and accessories). Based on an AAF of 167 cfs
and the WS ISTV of 0.35 µg/L, the allowable discharge concentration for 1,4-dioxane at this facility is
4.5 µg/L. As part of their renewal application, the City of Hickory conducted 3 sampling events per week
for a 2-week span, resulting in 6 total Henry Fork WWTP effluent samples. The samples were collected
on May 31, June 1, June 2, June 7, June 8 and June 9, 2023. All samples were reported as non -detect at
< 2 µg/L. As the facility reported no detectable levels of 1,4-dioxane during their 2-week sampling event,
1,4-dioxane requirements have not been added to the permit at this time.
As an attachment to the permit application, the City informed the Division that no other monitoring for
additional pollutants has been conducted (see attached chemical addendum) and therefore no additional
pollutants of concern have been identified.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 211. 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/7
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
Page 7 of 11

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
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): YES
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: Based on the results of the RPA showing
the Predicted Maximum total copper levels > 50% of, but less than, the allowable discharge
concentration, the total copper limits have been removed from the permit and total copper effluent
monitoring has been reduced from monthly to quarterly. Based on the results of the RPA showing no
reasonable potential to violate state water quality standards, the monitoring requirements for total
cadmium and limits and monitoring requirements for Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate have been removed
from the permit
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The City has requested 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform based on 2012
DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for these parameters have
been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on this review, 2/week
monitoring frequency has been applied for BOD, ammonia, fecal coliform, and TSS.
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 Henry Fork WWTP has discharges treated
wastewater approximately 4 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
Page 8 of 11

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.
The permit currently has a color reopener special condition due to historical issues with color as a result
of 2 significant industrial users discharging high levels of color to the Henry Fork WWTP. While one of
those two industries has left this system and the color issues have ceased at this facility, the reopener has
been maintained.
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 9.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5
Summer:
No change to
WQBEL. 1992 Level B Model; 2012
MA 19.0 mg/l
limits; Monitor
DWR Guidance Regarding the
WA 28.5 mg/1
and report
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
Winter:
2/Week
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
MA 30.0 mg/l
Performing Facilities
WA 45.0 mg/l
Monitor and report Dail
NH3-N
Summer:
No change to
WQBEL. 1992 Level B Model; verified
MA 2.5 mg/l
limits; Monitor
with 2022 WLA; 2012 DWR Guidance
WA 7.5 mg/l
and report
Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Winter:
2/Week
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
MA 6.2 mg/l
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
WA 18.6 mg/1
Monitor and report Dail
TSS
MA 30 mg/l
No change to
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
WA 45 mg/l
limits; Monitor
CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406; 2012
Monitor and report Daily
and report
DWR Guidance Regarding the
2/Week
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change to
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100ml
limits; Monitor
NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitor and report Daily
and report
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
2/Week
Temperature
Monitor and Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0508
DO
> 5 mg/l
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily
NCAC 213 .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0500
Page 9 of 11

pH
6-9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily
NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0500
Conductivity
Monitor and Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 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
Nitrate
No requirement
Monitor and
For calculation of TN; Based on RPA —
Report Monthly
RP for limited dataset (considering
downstream WS-V)
Nitrite
No requirement
Monitor and
For calculation of TN
Report Monthly
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Monthly
2B. 0500
Total
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Phosphorus
Monthly
2B. 0500
Bis (2-
MA 28.5 mg/1
Remove limits
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
ethylhexyl)
DM 28.5 mg/1
and monitoring
Analysis (RPA); No RP, Predicted Max
phthalate
Monitor and report
< 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monthly
Monitoring required
Total Copper
MA 153.9 mg/1
Remove limits;
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
DM 167.7 mg/1
Monitor and
Analysis (RPA); No RP, Predicted Max
Monitor and report
report quarterly
> 50% of Allowable Cw - apply
Monthly
Quarterly Monitoring
Total
Monitor and Report
Remove
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
Cadmium
Quarterly
requirement
Analysis (RPA). No RP, Predicted Max
< 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Total Zinc
Monitor and Report
No change
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
Quarterly
Analysis (RPA); No RP , Predicted Max
> 50% of Allowable Cw - apply
iv
Quarterly Monitoring
Dichlorobromo
No requirement
Monitor and
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
-methane
Report Quarterly
Analysis (RPA) for limited data set; RP
shown with fewer than 2 values at levels
> allowable discharge concentration —
Monitor and Report Quarterly
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 method
implementation
becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 34.07%
Chronic limit,
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
effluent
34% effluent
15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
213.0500
Page 10 of 11

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
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Monitoring
conductivity, DO and
213.0508
temperature 3/week during
June through September
and 1/week during
remainder of the year
Color
Special Condition A.(5.)
No change
Previous history of issues with color in
Reopener
Permit Reopener for Color
effluent from industrial contribution
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
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/xxxx
Per 15A NCAC 211.0109 & .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 [phone] or via email at nick.cocogdeq.nc.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
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• 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
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR DPW WQS
Facility Name Henry Fork WWTP
WWTP/WTP Class IV
NPDES Permit NCO040797
Outfal I 001
Flow, Qw (MGD) 9.000
Receiving Stream Henry Fork
HUC Number 03050102
Stream Class
Q Apply WS Hardness WQC C
7Q10s (cfs)
27.000
7Q10w (cfs)
39.00
30Q2 (cfs)
27.00
167.00
QA (cfs)
2 .
1 Q10s (cfs)
Effluent Hardness
76.85 mg/L (Avg)
Upstream Hardness
-------------
25 mg/L (Avg)
----- ------
Combined Hardness Chronic
42.66 mg/L
Combined Hardness Acute
44.99 mg/L
Data Source(s)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7Q10s used as conservative estimate of 30Q2.
Outfall is —4 miles upstream of WS waters; WS
considered. Average upstream hardness from
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
1/2019 to 3/2023 < 25 ni Default of 25 mg/L
used.
Follow directions for data entry. In some cases a
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from. Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06E
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Par25
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Was Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.8836
FW
5.4100
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
182.3919
FW
1464.3921
1 ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
12.4426
FW
18.2152
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
5.3531
FW
145.7228
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Water Supply
NC
160
WS
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
58.5174
FW
551.0284
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.8142
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
199.3286
FW
206.7967
ug/L
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Water Supply
C
0.32
WS
pg/L
Chlorodibromomethane
Water Supply
C
0.8
WS
pg/L
Dichlorobromomethane
Water Supply
C
0.55
WS
pg/L
Nitrate
Water Supply
NC
10
WS
mg/L
40797 RPA, input
7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
I Effluent Hardness I
Date
1 2/5/2019
2 5/7/2019
3 8/6/2019
4 11 /5/2019
5 2/4/2020
6 5/5/2020
7 8/4/2020
8 11 /10/2020
9 2/15/2021
10 5/5/2021
11 8/11 /2021
12 11 /8/2021
13 2/8/2022
14 5/3/2022
15 8/2/2022
16 11 /8/2022
17 2/7/2023
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
62.2
62.2
Std Dev.
62.4
62.4
Mean
66.5
66.5
C.V.
72.1
72.1
n
71.2
71.2
10th Per value
89.2
89.2
Average Value
49.4
49.4
Max. Value
79.4
79.4
97.7
97.7
61.2
61.2
51.5
51.5
117
117
82.2
82.2
99.1
99.1
72.4
72.4
88.5
88.5
84.5
84.5
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
17.9750 1
76.8529 2
0.2339 3
17 4
57.32 mg/L 5
76.85 mg/L 6
117.00 mg/L 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Default 25 25 Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
N/A
25.0000
0.0000
1
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
40797 RPA, data
- 1 - 7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
1/15/2019
<
10
5
2/5/2019
<
10
5
3/5/2019
<
10
5
4/9/2019
<
10
5
5/7/2019
<
10
5
6/4/2019
<
10
5
7/2/2019
<
10
5
8/6/2019
<
10
5
9/10/2019
<
10
5
10/8/2019
<
10
5
11 /5/2019
<
10
5
12/3/2019
<
10
5
1/14/2020
<
10
5
2/4/2020
<
10
5
3/3/2020
<
10
5
4/14/2020
<
10
5
5/5/2020
<
10
5
6/2/2020
<
10
5
7/14/2020
<
10
5
8/4/2020
<
10
5
9/8/2020
<
10
5
10/13/2020
<
10
5
11/10/2020
<
10
5
12/8/2020
<
10
5
1/12/2021
<
10
5
2/15/2021
<
10
5
3/3/2021
11.9
11.9
4/13/2021
<
10
5
5/5/2021
<
10
5
6/8/2021
<
10
5
7/7/2021
<
10
5
8/11/2021
<
10
5
9/7/2021
<
10
5
10/12/2021
<
10
5
11 /8/2021
<
10
5
12/7/2021
<
10
5
1 /20/2022
<
10
5
2/8/2022
<
10
5
3/8/2022
<
10
5
4/12/2022
<
10
5
5/3/2022
<
10
5
6/7/2022
1
1
7/6/2022
<
10
5
8/2/2022
<
10
5
9/6/2022
<
10
5
10/4/2022
1.4
1.4
11 /8/2022
1.3
1.3
12/6/2022
1.2
1.2
1 /18/2023
1.2
1.2
2/7/2023
1.6
1.6
3/7/2023
1.3
1.3
Results
Std Dev
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
1.6567
4.6255
0.3582
51
1.02
11.9 ug/L
12.1 ug/L
-2-
40797 RPA, data
7/7/2023

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
5/9/2019 <
1 0.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
1/15/2019
<
0.08
0.04
Std Dev.
0.0374
2
2/4/2020 <
1 0.5
Mean
0.5000
2
2/5/2019
<
0.08
0.04
Mean
0.0522
3
8/11/2021 <
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
3/5/2019
<
0.08
0.04
C.V.
0.7171
4
11 /8/2022 <
1 0.5
n
4
4
4/9/2019
<
0.08
0.04
n
51
5
5
5/7/2019
<
0.08
0.04
6
Mult Factor =
2.59
6
6/4/2019
0.18
0.18
Mult Factor =
1.04
7
Max. Value
0.50 ug/L
7
7/2/2019
<
0.4
0.2
Max. Value
0.200 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
1.30 ug/L
8
8/6/2019
<
0.08
0.04
Max. Pred Cw
0.208 ug/L
9
9
9/10/2019
<
0.08
0.04
10
10
10/8/2019
<
0.08
0.04
11
11
11 /5/2019
<
0.08
0.04
12
12
12/3/2019
<
0.08
0.04
13
13
1/14/2020
<
0.08
0.04
14
14
2/4/2020
<
0.08
0.04
15
15
3/3/2020
<
0.08
0.04
16
16
4/14/2020
<
0.08
0.04
17
17
5/5/2020
<
0.08
0.04
18
18
6/2/2020
<
0.08
0.04
19
19
7/14/2020
<
0.08
0.04
20
20
8/4/2020
<
0.08
0.04
21
21
9/8/2020
<
0.08
0.04
22
22
10/13/2020
<
0.08
0.04
23
23
11/10/2020
<
0.08
0.04
24
24
12/8/2020
<
0.08
0.04
25
25
1/12/2021
<
0.08
0.04
26
26
2/15/2021
<
0.08
0.04
27
27
3/3/2021
<
0.2
0.1
28
28
4/13/2021
<
0.2
0.1
29
29
5/5/2021
<
0.08
0.04
30
30
6/8/2021
<
0.08
0.04
31
31
7/7/2021
<
0.08
0.04
32
32
8/11/2021
<
0.08
0.04
33
33
9/7/2021
<
0.08
0.04
34
34
10/12/2021
<
0.08
0.04
35
35
11 /8/2021
<
0.08
0.04
36
36
12/7/2021
<
0.08
0.04
37
37
1 /20/2022
<
0.08
0.04
38
38
2/8/2022
<
0.08
0.04
39
39
3/8/2022
<
0.08
0.04
40
40
4/12/2022
<
0.08
0.04
41
41
5/3/2022
<
0.08
0.04
42
42
6/7/2022
0.19
0.19
43
43
7/6/2022
<
0.08
0.04
44
44
8/2/2022
<
0.08
0.04
45
45
9/6/2022
<
0.08
0.04
46
46
10/4/2022
0.093
0.093
47
47
11 /8/2022
<
0.08
0.04
48
48
12/6/2022
<
0.08
0.04
49
49
1/18/2023
<
0.08
0.04
50
50
2/7/2023
<
0.08
0.04
51
51
3/7/2023
<
0.08
0.04
52
52
<
ERR
53
53
<
ERR
54
54
<
ERR
55
55
<
ERR
56
56
<
ERR
57
57
<
ERR
58
58
<
ERR
40797 RPA, data
-3- 7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data
1 5/9/2019 <
2 2/4/2020 <
3 8/11/2021 <
4 11 /8/2022 <
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
20
10
Std Dev.
20
10
Mean
20
10
C.V. (default)
20
10
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
10.0000
0.6000
4
2.59
10.0 ug/L
25.9 ug/L
Par10
Chromium, Total
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/15/2019
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
2
2/5/2019
<
5
2.5
Mean
3
3/5/2019
<
5
2.5
C.V.
4
4/9/2019
<
5
2.5
n
5
5/7/2019
<
5
2.5
6
6/4/2019
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
7
7/2/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
8
8/6/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
9
9/10/2019
<
5
2.5
10
10/8/2019
<
5
2.5
11
11 /5/2019
<
5
2.5
12
12/3/2019
<
5
2.5
13
1/14/2020
<
5
2.5
14
2/4/2020
<
5
2.5
15
3/3/2020
<
5
2.5
16
4/14/2020
<
5
2.5
17
5/5/2020
<
5
2.5
18
6/2/2020
<
5
2.5
19
7/14/2020
<
5
2.5
20
8/4/2020
<
5
2.5
21
9/8/2020
<
5
2.5
22
10/13/2020
<
5
2.5
23
11/10/2020
<
5
2.5
24
12/8/2020
5.6
5.6
25
1/12/2021
<
5
2.5
26
2/15/2021
<
5
2.5
27
3/3/2021
<
5
2.5
28
4/13/2021
<
5
2.5
29
5/5/2021
<
5
2.5
30
6/8/2021
<
5
2.5
31
7/7/2021
<
5
2.5
32
8/11/2021
<
5
2.5
33
9/7/2021
<
5
2.5
34
10/12/2021
<
5
2.5
35
11 /8/2021
<
5
2.5
36
12/7/2021
<
5
2.5
37
1 /20/2022
<
5
2.5
38
2/8/2022
<
5
2.5
39
3/8/2022
<
5
2.5
40
4/12/2022
<
5
2.5
41
5/3/2022
<
5
2.5
42
6/7/2022
1.7
1.7
43
7/6/2022
5.7
5.7
44
8/2/2022
<
5
2.5
45
9/6/2022
<
5
2.5
46
10/4/2022
<
5
2.5
47
11 /8/2022
<
5
2.5
48
12/6/2022
1.4
1.4
49
1/18/2023
<
5
2.5
50
2/7/2023
<
5
2.5
51
3/7/2023
2
2
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.6581
2.5765
0.2554
51
1.02
5.7 pg/L
5.8 dig/L
40797 RPA, data
-4- 7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Copper
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/15/2019
4
4
Std Dev.
3.1812
2
2/5/2019
6.7
6.7
Mean
8.4490
3
3/5/2019
4.6
4.6
C.V.
0.3765
4
4/9/2019
9.4
9.4
n
51
5
5/7/2019
8.6
8.6
6
6/4/2019
11.5
11.5
Mult Factor =
1.02
7
7/2/2019
11.5
11.5
Max. Value
20.70 ug/L
8
8/6/2019
20.7
20.7
Max. Pred Cw
21.11 ug/L
9
9/10/2019
9.1
9.1
10
10/8/2019
8.6
8.6
11
11/5/2019
13.5
13.5
12
12/3/2019
5.9
5.9
13
1/14/2020
7
7
14
2/4/2020
6.7
6.7
15
3/3/2020
4.5
4.5
16
4/14/2020
11.9
11.9
17
5/5/2020
9.9
9.9
18
6/2/2020
8.6
8.6
19
7/14/2020
11.6
11.6
20
8/4/2020
11.8
11.8
21
9/8/2020
8.6
8.6
22
10/13/2020
4.2
4.2
23
11 /10/2020
10.3
10.3
24
12/8/2020
7.3
7.3
25
1/12/2021
7.4
7.4
26
2/15/2021
6
6
27
3/3/2021
7.1
7.1
28
4/13/2021
8.2
8.2
29
5/5/2021
7
7
30
6/8/2021
8.5
8.5
31
7/7/2021
8.6
8.6
32
8/11/2021
11.3
11.3
33
9/7/2021
14.8
14.8
34
10/12/2021
7.2
7.2
35
11 /8/2021
6.1
6.1
36
12/7/2021
6.9
6.9
37
1 /20/2022
4.4
4.4
38
2/8/2022
3.6
3.6
39
3/8/2022
5
5
40
4/12/2022
11
11
41
5/3/2022
13.3
13.3
42
6/7/2022
10
10
43
7/6/2022
8.9
8.9
44
8/2/2022
9
9
45
9/6/2022
5.2
5.2
46
10/4/2022
9.6
9.6
47
11 /8/2022
7.3
7.3
48
12/6/2022
6.6
6.6
49
1/18/2023
4.5
4.5
50
2/7/2023
9.3
9.3
51
3/7/2023
7.6
7.6
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par12
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Cyanide
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/15/2019
<
5
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
2/5/2019
<
5
5
Mean
5.00
3
3/5/2019
<
5
5
C.V.
0.0000
4
4/9/2019
<
5
5
n
51
5
5/7/2019
<
5
5
6
6/4/2019
<
5
5
Mult Factor =
1.00
7
7/2/2019
<
5
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
8
8/6/2019
6
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
9
9/10/2019
5.0
5
10
10/8/2019
5.0
5
11
11 /5/2019
5
5
12
12/3/2019
<
5
5
13
1/14/2020
<
5
5
14
2/4/2020
9
5
15
3/3/2020
<
5
5
16
4/14/2020
<
5
5
17
5/5/2020
<
5
5
18
6/2/2020
5
5
19
7/14/2020
5
5
20
8/4/2020
<
5
5
21
9/8/2020
<
5
5
22
10/13/2020
<
5
5
23
11/10/2020
<
5
5
24
12/8/2020
<
5
5
25
1/12/2021
<
5
5
26
2/15/2021
6
5
27
3/3/2021
<
5
5
28
4/13/2021
<
5
5
29
5/5/2021
<
5
5
30
6/8/2021
<
5
5
31
7/7/2021
5
5
32
8/11/2021
6
5
33
9/7/2021
<
5
5
34
10/12/2021
<
5
5
35
11 /8/2021
<
5
5
36
12/7/2021
<
8
5
37
1 /20/2022
<
8
5
38
2/8/2022
<
8
5
39
3/8/2022
<
8
5
40
4/12/2022
<
8
5
41
5/3/2022
<
8
5
42
6/7/2022
<
10
5
43
7/6/2022
<
10
5
44
8/2/2022
<
8
5
45
9/6/2022
<
8
5
46
10/4/2022
<
8
5
47
11 /8/2022
<
8
5
48
12/6/2022
<
8
5
49
1/18/2023
<
8
5
50
2/7/2023
<
8
5
51
3/7/2023
<
8
5
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-5-
40797 RPA, data
7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Lead
values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/15/2019
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.6951
2
2/5/2019
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.2255
3
3/5/2019
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.3123
4
4/9/2019
<
5
2.5
n
51
5
5/7/2019
<
5
2.5
6
6/4/2019
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.02
7
7/2/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
8
8/6/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.550 ug/L
9
9/10/2019
<
5
2.5
10
10/8/2019
<
5
2.5
11
11 /5/2019
<
5
2.5
12
12/3/2019
<
5
2.5
13
1/14/2020
<
5
2.5
14
2/4/2020
<
5
2.5
15
3/3/2020
<
5
2.5
16
4/14/2020
<
5
2.5
17
5/5/2020
<
5
2.5
18
6/2/2020
<
5
2.5
19
7/14/2020
<
5
2.5
20
8/4/2020
<
5
2.5
21
9/8/2020
<
5
2.5
22
10/13/2020
<
5
2.5
23
11/10/2020
<
5
2.5
24
12/8/2020
<
5
2.5
25
1/12/2021
<
5
2.5
26
2/15/2021
<
5
2.5
27
3/3/2021
<
5
2.5
28
4/13/2021
<
5
2.5
29
5/5/2021
<
5
2.5
30
6/8/2021
<
5
2.5
31
7/7/2021
<
5
2.5
32
8/11/2021
<
5
2.5
33
9/7/2021
<
5
2.5
34
10/12/2021
<
5
2.5
35
11 /8/2021
<
5
2.5
36
12/7/2021
<
5
2.5
37
1 /20/2022
<
5
2.5
38
2/8/2022
<
5
2.5
39
3/8/2022
<
5
2.5
40
4/12/2022
<
5
2.5
41
5/3/2022
<
5
2.5
42
6/7/2022
<
1
0.5
43
7/6/2022
<
5
2.5
44
8/2/2022
<
5
2.5
45
9/6/2022
<
5
2.5
46
10/4/2022
<
1
0.5
47
11 /8/2022
<
1
0.5
48
12/6/2022
<
1
0.5
49
1/18/2023
<
1
0.5
50
2/7/2023
<
1
0.5
51
3/7/2023
<
1
0.5
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par17 & Par18
use "PASTE
SPECIAL -
Nickel
values" then
"COPY".
Maximum data
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
points = 58
1
1/15/2019
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.8744
2
2/5/2019
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.6549
3
3/5/2019
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.3293
4
4/9/2019
<
5
2.5
n
51
5
5/7/2019
<
5
2.5
6
6/4/2019
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.02
7
7/2/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
8.7 pg/L
8
8/6/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
8.9 pg/L
9
9/10/2019
<
5
2.5
10
10/8/2019
<
5
2.5
11
11 /5/2019
<
5
2.5
12
12/3/2019
<
5
2.5
13
1/14/2020
<
5
2.5
14
2/4/2020
<
5
2.5
15
3/3/2020
<
5
2.5
16
4/14/2020
<
5
2.5
17
5/5/2020
<
5
2.5
18
6/2/2020
<
5
2.5
19
7/14/2020
<
5
2.5
20
8/4/2020
<
5
2.5
21
9/8/2020
<
5
2.5
22
10/13/2020
<
5
2.5
23
11/10/2020
<
5
2.5
24
12/8/2020
<
5
2.5
25
1/12/2021
<
5
2.5
26
2/15/2021
<
5
2.5
27
3/3/2021
<
5
2.5
28
4/13/2021
<
5
2.5
29
5/5/2021
<
5
2.5
30
6/8/2021
<
5
2.5
31
7/7/2021
<
5
2.5
32
8/11/2021
<
5
2.5
33
9/7/2021
<
5
2.5
34
10/12/2021
<
5
2.5
35
11 /8/2021
<
5
2.5
36
12/7/2021
<
5
2.5
37
1 /20/2022
<
5
2.5
38
2/8/2022
<
5
2.5
39
3/8/2022
<
5
2.5
40
4/12/2022
<
5
2.5
41
5/3/2022
<
5
2.5
42
6/7/2022
3.1
3.1
43
7/6/2022
8.7
8.7
44
8/2/2022
<
5
2.5
45
9/6/2022
<
5
2.5
46
10/4/2022
<
5
2.5
47
11 /8/2022
<
5
2.5
48
12/6/2022
2.9
2.9
49
1/18/2023
<
5
2.5
50
2/7/2023
<
5
2.5
51
3/7/2023
3.2
3.2
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
M
40797 RPA, data
7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par20
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Selenium Values" then "COPY' .
Maximum data points
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1/15/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Std Dev.
0.3742
2/5/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Mean
0.5343
3/5/2019
<
0.5
0.25
C.V.
0.7004
4/9/2019
<
0.5
0.25
n
51
5/7/2019
<
0.5
0.25
6/4/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Mult Factor =
1.04
7/2/2019
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Value
1.3 ug/L
8/6/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Pred Cw
1.3 ug/L
9/10/2019
<
0.5
0.25
10/8/2019
<
0.5
0.25
11 /5/2019
<
0.5
0.25
12/3/2019
<
0.5
0.25
1/14/2020
<
0.5
0.25
2/4/2020
<
0.5
0.25
3/3/2020
<
0.5
0.25
4/14/2020
<
0.5
0.25
5/5/2020
<
0.5
0.25
6/2/2020
<
0.5
0.25
7/14/2020
<
0.5
0.25
8/4/2020
<
0.5
0.25
9/8/2020
<
0.5
0.25
10/13/2020
<
0.5
0.25
11/10/2020
<
0.5
0.25
12/8/2020
<
0.5
0.25
1/12/2021
<
0.5
0.25
2/15/2021
<
0.5
0.25
3/3/2021
<
2
1
4/13/2021
<
2
1
5/5/2021
<
2
1
6/8/2021
<
2
1
7/7/2021
<
2
1
8/11/2021
<
2
1
9/7/2021
<
2
1
10/12/2021
<
2
1
11 /8/2021
<
2
1
12/7/2021
<
2
1
1 /20/2022
<
2
1
2/8/2022
<
2
1
3/8/2022
<
2
1
4/12/2022
<
2
1
5/3/2022
<
2
1
6/7/2022
<
2
1
7/6/2022
<
2
1
8/2/2022
<
0.5
0.25
9/6/2022
<
2
1
10/4/2022
<
0.5
0.25
11 /8/2022
<
0.5
0.25
12/6/2022
<
0.5
0.25
1/18/2023
<
0.5
0.25
2/7/2023
<
0.5
0.25
3/7/2023
<
0.5
0.25
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Silver Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/15/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Std Dev.
0.1458
2
2/5/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Mean
0.2441
3
3/5/2019
<
0.5
0.25
C.V.
0.5974
4
4/9/2019
<
0.5
0.25
n
51
5
5/7/2019
<
0.5
0.25
6
6/4/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Mult Factor =
1.04
7
7/2/2019
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Value
1.250 ug/L
8
8/6/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Pred Cw
1.300 ug/L
9
9/10/2019
<
0.5
0.25
10
10/8/2019
<
0.5
0.25
11
11 /5/2019
<
0.5
0.25
12
12/3/2019
<
0.5
0.25
13
1/14/2020
<
0.5
0.25
14
2/4/2020
<
0.5
0.25
15
3/3/2020
<
0.5
0.25
16
4/14/2020
<
0.5
0.25
17
5/5/2020
<
0.5
0.25
18
6/2/2020
<
0.5
0.25
19
7/14/2020
<
0.5
0.25
20
8/4/2020
<
0.5
0.25
21
9/8/2020
<
0.5
0.25
22
10/13/2020
<
0.5
0.25
23
11/10/2020
<
0.4
0.2
24
12/8/2020
<
0.4
0.2
25
1/12/2021
<
0.4
0.2
26
2/15/2021
<
0.4
0.2
27
3/3/2021
<
0.5
0.25
28
4/13/2021
<
0.5
0.25
29
5/5/2021
<
0.4
0.2
30
6/8/2021
<
0.4
0.2
31
7/7/2021
<
0.4
0.2
32
8/11 /2021
<
0.4
0.2
33
9/7/2021
<
0.4
0.2
34
10/12/2021
<
0.4
0.2
35
11 /8/2021
<
0.4
0.2
36
12/7/2021
<
0.4
0.2
37
1 /20/2022
<
0.4
0.2
38
2/8/2022
<
0.4
0.2
39
3/8/2022
<
0.4
0.2
40
4/12/2022
<
0.4
0.2
41
5/3/2022
<
0.4
0.2
42
6/7/2022
<
0.4
0.2
43
7/6/2022
<
0.4
0.2
44
8/2/2022
<
0.5
0.25
45
9/6/2022
<
0.4
0.2
46
10/4/2022
<
0.4
0.2
47
11 /8/2022
<
0.4
0.2
48
12/6/2022
<
0.4
0.2
49
1/18/2023
<
0.4
0.2
50
2/7/2023
<
0.4
0.2
51
3/7/2023
<
0.4
0.2
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-7-
40797 RPA, data
7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Zinc
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1/15/2019
80.9
80.9
Std Dev.
47.9006
2/5/2019
104
104
Mean
122.6333
3/5/2019
79.8
79.8
C.V.
0.3906
4/9/2019
114
114
n
51
5/7/2019
72
72
6/4/2019
91.6
91.6
Mult Factor =
1.02
7/2/2019
69.6
69.6
Max. Value
335.0 ug/L
8/6/2019
64.3
64.3
Max. Pred Cw
341.7 ug/L
9/10/2019
98.5
98.5
10/8/2019
74.4
74.4
11 /5/2019
82.8
82.8
12/3/2019
75
75
1 /14/2020
105
105
2/4/2020
154
154
3/3/2020
98.4
98.4
4/14/2020
172
172
5/5/2020
84.1
84.1
6/2/2020
73.7
73.7
7/14/2020
78.8
78.8
8/4/2020
104
104
9/8/2020
70.7
70.7
10/13/2020
66.4
66.4
11 /10/2020
107
107
12/8/2020
335
335
1 /12/2021
132
132
2/15/2021
82.4
82.4
3/3/2021
140
140
4/13/2021
156
156
5/5/2021
167
167
6/8/2021
111
111
7/7/2021
111
111
8/11 /2021
142
142
9/7/2021
127
127
10/12/2021
103
103
11 /8/2021
135
135
12/7/2021
161
161
1 /20/2022
159
159
2/8/2022
121
121
3/8/2022
140
140
4/12/2022
206
206
5/3/2022
158
158
6/7/2022
138
138
7/6/2022
151
151
8/2/2022
97.6
97.6
9/6/2022
87.3
87.3
10/4/2022
167
167
11 /8/2022
124
124
12/6/2022
157
157
1 /18/2023
186
186
2/7/2023
185
185
3/7/2023
154
154
Par22
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
1
1/15/2019
<
5
2.5
2
2/5/2019
<
4.9
2.45
3
3/5/2019
<
5
2.5
4
4/9/2019
<
5
2.5
5
5/7/2019
<
5
2.5
6
6/4/2019
<
4.9
2.45
7
7/2/2019
<
5
2.5
8
8/6/2019
<
5
2.5
9
9/10/2019
<
5
2.5
10
10/8/2019
<
5
2.5
11
11 /5/2019
<
5
2.5
12
12/3/2019
<
5
2.5
13
1 /14/2020
<
5
2.5
14
2/4/2020
<
5
2.5
15
3/3/2020
<
5
2.5
16
4/14/2020
<
5
2.5
17
5/5/2020
<
5
2.5
18
6/2/2020
<
5
2.5
19
7/14/2020
<
5
2.5
20
8/4/2020
<
5
2.5
21
9/8/2020
<
5
2.5
22
10/6/2020
<
5
2.5
23
11/10/2020
<
5
2.5
24
12/8/2020
<
5
2.5
25
1 /12/2021
<
5
2.5
26
2/8/2021
<
5
2.5
27
3/3/2021
<
5
2.5
28
4/6/2021
<
5
2.5
29
5/5/2021
<
5
2.5
30
6/8/2021
<
5
2.5
31
7/7/2021
<
4.2
2.1
32
8/11 /2021
<
5
2.5
33
9/7/2021
<
4.2
2.1
34
10/12/2021
<
4.3
2.15
35
11 /18/2021
<
5
2.5
36
12/7/2021
<
4.2
2.1
37
1 /20/2022
<
4.5
2.25
38
2/8/2022
<
5
2.5
39
3/8/2022
<
4.2
2.1
40
4/12/2022
<
4.2
2.1
41
5/3/2022
<
5
2.5
42
6/7/2022
<
4.2
2.1
43
7/6/2022
<
4.5
2.25
44
8/2/2022
<
5
2.5
45
9/6/2022
<
5
2.5
46
10/4/2022
<
4.2
2.1
47
11 /8/2022
<
4.2
2.1
48
12/6/2022
<
4.2
2.1
49
1/18/2023
<
4.2
2.1
50
2/7/2023
<
4.2
2.1
51
3/7/2023
<
4.2
2.1
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Results
Std Dev
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Maximum data
points = 58
0.1746
2.3873
0.0731
51
1.00
2.5 pg/L
2.5 pg/L
40797 RPA, data
7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par23
Date Data
1 5/9/2019 <
2 2/4/2020
3 8/11/2021 <
4 11 /8/2022 <
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par24
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Chlorodibromomethane
Values" then "COPY"
Dichlorobromomethane
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
2
1
Std Dev.
0.8500
1
5/9/2019
5.1
5.1
Std Dev.
2.5226
2.7
2.7
Mean
1.4
2
2/4/2020
3.3
3.3
Mean
5.0500
2
1
C.V. (default)
0.6
3
8/11/2021
8.6
8.6
C.V. (default)
0.6000
2
1
n
4
4
11 /8/2022
3.2
3.2
n
4
5
Mult Factor =
2.59
6
Mult Factor =
2.59
Max. Value
3 pg/L
7
Max. Value
8.600000 pg/L
Max. Pred Cw
7 pg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
22.274000 pg/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
40797 RPA, data
-9- 7/7/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par25
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
N itrate
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
5/9/2019
21.9
21.9
Std Dev.
4.3022
2
2/4/2020
22
22
Mean
18.2250
3
8/11/2021
14.6
14.6
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
11 /8/2022
14.4
14.4
n
4
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.59
7
Max. Value
22.000000 mg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
56.980000 mg/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
40797 RPA, data
- 10 - 7/7/2023

Henry Fork WWTP
NCO040797
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
9.0000
1Q10S (cfs) =
22.24
7Q10S (cfs) =
27.00
7Q10W (cfs) =
39.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
27.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
167.00
Receiving Stream:
Henry Fork HUC 03050102
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 38.54655982
IWC% @ 7Q10S = 34.06593407
IWC% @ 7Q 10W = 26.34560907
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 34.06593407
IW%C @ QA = 7.709311965
Stream Class: C
Outfall 001
Qw = 9 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mi!/L)
Acute = 44.99 mg/L
Chronic = 42.66 mg/L
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Effluent Hard: 1 value > 100 mg/L
Effluent Hard Avg = 76.85 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
D
Applied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standard
Acute (FW): 882.1
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
ug/L
51 8
12.1
Chronic (FW): 440.3
No value Allowable Cw
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
-> ----------------------------------
Chronic (HH): 129.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 168.63
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
4 0
1.30
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 19.08
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Monitoring required
Acute: 14.035
Cadmium
NC
0.8836 FW(7Q10s) 5.4100
ug/L
51 3
0.208
Chronic: 2.594
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
4 0
25.9
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 880.6
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 20
Monitoring required
Acute: 3,799.0
Chromium III
NC
182.39 FW(7Q10s) 1464.39
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:----- 535.4--
----------------------------
Acute: 41.5
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:----- 32.3---
----------------------------
Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but < Cr VI Allowable Cw
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
51 5 5.8 Max reported value = 5.7
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Acute: 47.26
Copper
NC
12.4426 FW(7Q10s) 18.2152
ug/L
51 51
21.11
Chronic: 36.53
No RP, Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw -
o value > Allowable Cw
apply Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: 57.1
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(701 Os) 22
10
ua/L
51 10
5.0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[No
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 14.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw --No-,
value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 378.044
Lead
NC
5.3531 FW(7Q10s) 145.7228
up-/L
51 0
2.550
__ _ __-_-__ _ __
Chronic: 15.714
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
I Max MDL = 5
Monitoring required
40797 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 7/7/2023

Henry Fork WWTP
NCOO4O797
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 9 MGD
Acute (FW): 1,429.5
Nickel
NC
58.5174 FW(7Q10s) 551.0284
µg/L
51 4
8.9
Chronic (FW): 171.8
No value -> Allowable Cw
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7QIOs)
µg/L
----------------------------------
Chronic (WS): 73.4
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 145.3
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q 1 Os) 56
ug/L
51 0
1.3
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 14.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 2.5
Monitoring required
Acute: 2.112
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.8142
ug/L
51 0
1.300
Chronic: 0.176
All values non -detect < 2.5 ug/L, < 0.5 ug/L and < 0.4
ug/L; No monitoring required
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 2.5
Acute: 536.5
No RP, Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw -
Zinc
NC
####### FW(7Q10s) 206.7967
ug/L
51 51
341.7
apply Quarterly Monitoring
----- --
Chronic: 585.1
----------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
C
0.32 WS(Qavg)
µg/L
51 0
2.50000
Chronic: 4.151
All values non -detect < 5.0 ug/L and < 4.2 ug/L; No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
monitoring required
----------------------------
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorodibromomethane
C
0.8 WS(Qavg)
µg/L
4 1
6.99300
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 10.37706
No RP for limited dataset; one detection at 2.7 ug/L
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
No monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Dichlorobromomethane
C
0.55 WS(Qavg)
µg/L
4 4
22.27400
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 7.13423
RP for Limited Dataset (n<8 samples) - apply
Limited data set
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: NO WQS
Nitrate
NC
10 WS(7QIOs)
mg/L
4 4
56.98000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 29.35484
RP for Limited Dataset (n<8 samples) - See Fact
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Sheet explanation
40797 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 7/7/2023

Permit No. NCO040797
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(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^{0.9151 [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)} • eAll .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. NCO040797
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.
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. NCO040797
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 + s7Q 10, 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 + { [Kp.] [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) — (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match 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. NC0040797
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.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
76.85
Average from DMR review for data
from January 2019 — March 2023
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Default used; average from review
period below 25 mg/L.
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
27
Historical file; previous fact sheet
1Q10 (cfs)
22.24
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
9.0
NPDES Files
Date: 5/24/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO040797 Henry Fork WWTP
BOD monthly removal rate
Month
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
RR (%)
97.66
97.48
98.14
98.21
98.17
97.73
98.38
98.46
98.48
98.41
97.82
97.06
97.12
97.36
97.99
98.22
98.09
97.77
98.65
98.18
97.68
97.50
97.99
97.04
96.94
95.31
97.71
98.35
98.58
98.70
Month
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
June-22
July-22
August-22
September-22
October-22
November-22
December-22
January-23
February-23
March-23
April-23
May-23
June-23
July-23
August-23
September-23
October-23
November-23
December-23
Overall BOD removal rate
RR (%)
98.65
98.23
98.37
98.78
98.85
98.94
98.61
97.96
98.22
97.38
97.29
98.47
98.13
97.80
98.60
98.18
98.10
98.04
98.38
97.62
98.36
98.00
5/25/2023
TSS monthly removal rate
Month
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
Apri I-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
RR (%)
97.25
97.35
97.98
97.73
97.79
96.57
97.61
98.03
98.08
97.83
96.81
96.02
94.99
97.07
97.90
98.12
98.13
97.97
98.71
98.07
95.72
95.22
97.36
96.37
96.53
89.29
96.33
97.89
98.41
98.93
Month
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
June-22
July-22
August-22
September-22
October-22
November-22
December-22
January-23
February-23
March-23
April-23
May-23
June-23
July-23
August-23
September-23
October-23
November-23
December-23
Overall TSS removal rate
RR (%)
98.55
98.60
97.27
98.90
97.83
97.96
97.77
97.16
97.36
95.04
91.67
97.78
97.95
95.96
97.70
93.90
94.59
97.21
98.04
97.13
98.12
97.03

5/24/23 WQS
= 12
ng/L
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name
Henry Fork
WWTP/NC0040797
No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL =
0.5 ng/L
7Q10s = 27.000 cfs WQBEL = 35.23 ng/L
Date Modifier
Data Entry
Value
Permitted Flow = 9.000 47 ng/L
5/9/19
1.73
1.73
1.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
2/4/20
3.02
3.02
3.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
8/11/21
2.27
2.27
2.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021
11/8/22
2.43
2.43
2.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2022

Henry Fork WWTP/NC0040797
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2019
2020
2021
2022
# of Samples
1
1
1
1
Annual Average, ng/L
1.7
3.0
2.3
2.43
Maximum Value, ng/L
1.73
3.02
2.27
2.43
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
35.2

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Henry Fork WWTP
Permit No.
NC0040797
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
violations
N
# of non
monthly Monthly
3-yr mean
# daily
# daily
Reduce
Data Review
Units
average
SOo/
(geo mean
< 50%?
200%
samples
<15?
200%
samples
< 207
monthly
> 2?
#civil penalty
> 1?
Frequency?
average limit
limit
MA
for FC)
MA
>200%
WA
>200%
limit
asessment
(Yes/No )
violations
BOD (Weighted)
mg/L
35.375
23.5833
12
0
Y
47.2
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
6.2745729
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (weighted)
mg/L
12.125
4.04167
2
0.2146368
Y
8.08
1
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
1 #/100
400
1 200
1 1001
7.9032223
Y
800 7 Y
0
N
0
N
Y

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Henry Fork WWTP
PermitNo. NC0040797
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 9
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 27
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 39
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
27
s7Q10 (CFS)
27
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
13.95
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
13.95
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
34.07
IWC (%)
34.07
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
50
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.5
Cap at 28 uq/L. Consistent with current limit.
Consistent with current limit. Maintain limit.
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
39
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
13.95
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
2.94 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
26.35
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
6.2
Consistent with current limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, 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
Henderson Nutbush Cr WWTP
NCO020559/001
County: Vance
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
8/1/2019 chr lim: 90%
NonComp: Single
J
F M
A
M
2019
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2020
Pass
- -
Pass>100(P)
-
2021
Fail
>100 63.6
Pass
-
2022
Pass >100(P)
- -
Pass
-
2023
Pass
- -
-
-
Hendersonville WTP
NCO042277/001
County: Henderson
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
6/1/2021 Chr Monit: 90%
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2019
-
Fail -
-
Fail
2020
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2021
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2022
-
Fail -
-
Pass
2023
-
Pass -
-
-
Region: RRO
Basin: ROA06
Jan Apr Jul Oct
SOC JOC:
7Q10:
0.20
PF: 4.14 IWC:
97 Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
N
-
Pass
-
- Pass
>100(P)
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass >100(P)
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Fail
>100
Region: ARO
Basin: FRB03
Feb May Aug Nov
SOC JOC:
7Q10:
PF: IWC:
Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
N
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Fail
Hendersonville WWTP
NCO025534/001 County:
Henderson
Region: ARO
Basin:
FRB02
Feb May Aug Nov
SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin:
1/1/2018
chr lim 18% @ 4.8M
NonComp: Single
7Q10: 17
PF: 4.8
IWC: 22
Freq: Q
J
F M
A M
I
J
A
S
O
N
2019 -
Pass -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020 -
Pass -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021 -
Pass -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022 -
Pass -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2023 -
Pass -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hickory WTP (NCG590036)
NCO044121/001 County:
Catawba
Region: MRO
Basin:
CTB32
Mar Jun Sep Dec
SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin:
8/1/2021
ANNUAL (NCG59003
NonComp:
7Q10:
PF:
IWC:
Freq: A
J
F M
A M
J
I
A
S
O
N
2019 Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2020 Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2021 Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
-
-
2022 Pass
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
2023 Pass
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hickory -Henry Fork WWTP
NCO040797/001 County:
Catawba
Region: MRO
Basin:
CTB35
Feb May Aug Nov
SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin:
2/1/2011
chr lim: 34%
NonComp: Single
7Q10: 27
PF: 9.0
IWC: 34
Freq: Q
J
F M
A M
J
J
A
S
O
N
2019 -
Pass -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020 -
Pass -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021 -
Pass >100 (P) -
- Pass 82.5 (P)
-
-
Pass>100 (P)
-
-
Pass >100 (P)
2022 -
Pass -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2023 -
Pass -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
C
>100
C
G
C
C
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facility is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs Page 49 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 NCO040797 I11 121 23/06/07 I17 18I � I 19 I s 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
2.0 701d I 71 I„ I 72 I r., I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
L—I ty L-1 I I
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)
09:20AM 23/06/07
18/09/01
Henry Fork WWTP
4014 River Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Hickory NC 28602
11:20AM 23/06/07
22/07/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Robert P Shave r/ORC/828-294-0861/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Warren Wood,PO Box 398 Hickory NC 286010398//828-323-7412/
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
Wes Bell DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699 Ext.2192/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Andrew Pitner DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699 Ext.2180/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO040797 I11 12I 23/06/07 117 18 i c i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO040797 Owner -Facility: HenryFork WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
0
❑
❑
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Construction activities are onqoinq for the new bio-solids processing facility. The
projected completion date for the construction activities is Spring of 2025.
The City implements a Division -approved Industrial Pretreatment Program.
The Division received the City's permit renewal package on 6/28/2022.
The last compliance evaluation inspection at this facility was performed by DWR staff
on 2/17/2021.
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO040797
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023
Record Keeping
Owner -Facility: HenryFork WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The records reviewed during the inspection were organized and well maintained.
Discharge Monitoring Reports (eDMRs) were reviewed for the period April 2022
through March 2023. No limit and/or monitoring violations were reported.
Laboratory
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
❑
❑
0
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Influent and effluent (including field) analyses are performed under the City's certified
laboratory certification #203. Pace Analytical Services, Statesville Analytical
and ETT
Environmental (chronic toxicity) have all been contracted to provide analytical support.
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The subject permit requires influent BOD and TSS composite samples.
The composite
sampler is checked daily including aliquot verifications and the sampler
is calibrated
monthly (at a minimum).
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?
N
❑
❑
❑
# 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
0
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Page# 4

Permit: NCO040797
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023
Effluent Sampling
Owner -Facility: HenryFork WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The subject permit requires composite and grab effluent samples. The composite
sampler is checked daily including aliquot verifications and the sampler is calibrated
monthly (at a minimum).
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:
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: The wastewater treatment facility appeared to be properly operated and well
maintained. The facility staff incorporate a comprehensive process control program
with all measurements beinq documented and maintained on -site. Detailed operation
& maintenance records are also maintained on -site.
The facility is also equipped with a SCADA system to assist the wastewater staff in
treatment plant operations.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both bar screens were operational.
Pump Station - Influent
Yes
No
NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO040797 Owner -Facility: HenryFork WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The grit removal system is in the process of being
repaired. Screenings and grit are
disposed at the County Landfill.
Equalization Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the basin aerated?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
❑
❑
■
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
❑
■
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
❑
❑
0
❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The equalization basin is equipped with six floating aerators. One of the aerators is in
the process of being repaired. The equalization basin effluent flows by
gravity to the
Primary clarifiers.
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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO040797
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023
Owner -Facility: HenryFork WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifier Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the drive unit operational? 0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? E
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One of the two primaries was not in service due to repairs on the clarifier drive
assembly.
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both aeration basin treatment trains were operation; however, only one train was in
service due to low influent flows. Magnesium hydroxide is added on an as -needed
basis to maintain appropriate alkalinity/pH levels.
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
■
❑
❑
❑
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 return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both secondaries were in service.
Page# 7

Permit: NCO040797
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023
Owner -Facility: HenryFork WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are pumps in place?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment:
Disinfection -Gas
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No.
❑
❑
❑
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: One of the two chlorine contact chamber trains was in service due to low flows.
Piedmont Chlorinator has been contracted to service the chlorination and
dechlorination equipment annually. The equipment was last service in June 2022.
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of system ?
Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NCO040797 Owner -Facility:
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023 Inspection Type:
HenryFork WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes
No
NA
NE
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: The flow meter is calibrated twice per year and was last calibrated on 1/11/2023 b
Diversified Integration, Inc.
Effluent Pipe
Yes
No
NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The effluent appeared clear with no floatable solids or foam.
Solids Handling Equipment
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?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility is equipped with two aerated sludge holding tanks (1-primary sludge and
1-waste activated sludge). The facility was combining the primary sludge with the
waste activated sludge during the ongoing construction activities. All sludge is
transported to the Regional Compost facility (via City personnel) for continued
processing/treatment (Class A product).
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
■
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
❑
❑
■
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
0
❑
❑
❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 9

Permit: NC0040797
Inspection Date: 06/07/2023
Standby Power
Owner -Facility: HenryFork WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The facility is equipped with two backup generators. Both generators are placed under
load monthly. Power Generation & Control, Inc. has been contracted to service the
generators annually. City staff perform the routine maintenance activities.
Page# 10

Coco, Nick A
From: David Cox <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Coco, Nick A
Cc: Robert Shaver; Bell, Wes
Subject: [External] RE: Additional Information Request NCO040797 Henry Fork WWTP
Attachments: Chemical -Addendum-to-NPDES-application - Henry Fork NC0040797.xlsx
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good afternoon Nick,
• Here is a brief narrative of the treatment process:
The Henry Fork Wastewater Treatment Facility (NC0040797) is a 9MGD wastewater treatment system consisting
of the following components:
Influent Sampler, mechanical barscreen, influent pump station, grit removal system, equalization basin, two
primary clarifiers, two aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, chlorine gas disinfection with two contact
chambers, sulfur dioxide dechlorination, cascade aeration, effluent sampler, and effluent diffuser. The plant is
equipped with a chemical/polymer feed system, one primary sludge holding tank, two waste activated sludge
holding tanks, sludge truck loading station and two emergency power generators. The facility is located south of
Hickory on NCSR 1144 approximately 1.5 miles from NCSR 1008 in Catawba County.
• 1 have attached the Chemical Addendum Form for your reference. There were no additional pollutants
monitored.
• Below are the links for the 2019 and 2021 effluent pollutant scans. They are on DECt s Laserfiche.
2019 - NCO040797 Data Monitoring Reports 20190509
2021 - NCO040797 Annual Monitoring & Pollutant Scan 20211012
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. Thank you,
David R. Cox
Environmental Manager— Public Utilities
dcox .hickorync.gov
City of Hickory
[phone]
www.hickorync.gov

HICKORY
1
Nbrkh ��rolina .
Life_ Well Dafted.
From: Robert Shaver <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 10:58 AM
To: David Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Additional Information Request NC0040797 Henry Fork WWTP
FYI
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 10:55 AM
To: Robert Shaver <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bell, Wes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional Information Request NC0040797 Henry Fork WWTP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Hi Robert,
I hope all is well.
I've begun reviewing the application for NC0040797 and preparing draft documents and was hoping you could provide
the following:
• Please provide a brief narrative description of the treatment works to satisfy item 2.4 of the application. This will
also help me make sure the component list in the permit is accurate.
• As required by Session Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall now submit
documentation of any additional pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if
their discharge is anticipated. The list of pollutants may be found in 40 CFR Part 136, which is incorporated by
reference. If there are additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported, please submit the Chemical
Addendum to NPDES Application table with your application and, if applicable, list the selected certified
analytical method used. If no additional sampling was conducted and/or there are no additional pollutants to
report, please note as much on the form itself. This requirement applies to all NPDES facilities. The Chemical
Addendum to NPDES Application will be required for any type of facility with an NPDES permit, depending on
whether those types of pollutants are found in your wastewater. Please fill out, sign and submit the Chemical
Addendum to NPDES Application.
• Please provide the effluent pollutant scan results from 2019 and 2021. 1 have effluent pollutant scan results from
2020 and 2022.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting

Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
D-.E
ocPbrimnri a vial Owlrtl'
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
arof na Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
110064595175 NC0040797 City of Hickory - Henry Fork 001
Method Number Estimated Concentration (If
Pollutant (Required) CAS number (if Applicable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
NONE

55ceAnalyficale
www.0ecclabs.com
June 01. 2023
Ms. Paula Prestwood
City of Hickory
Regional Laboratory
310 Cloninger Mill Rd
Hickory, NC 28601
RE: Project: HENRY FORK POTW
Pace Project No,: 92670326
Dear Ms. Prestwood:
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Enclosed are the analytical results for samples) received by the laboratory on June 02, 2023. The results relate only to the
samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the applicable TNI Standards and the
laboratory's Quality Manual, where applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the report.
The test
results provided
in this final report were
generaTed
by
each of the following laboratories within the Pace Network:
•
Pace Analytical
Services -Charlotte
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel Free to contact me.
Sincerely,
net
S Fitzgerald
arie Lfitzgerald@pacela bs. com
[phone]
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Morgan Bowers, City of Hickory
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This repon shall not he reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Paco Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 1 of 9

laceAnalytical"
www.pecolehe<om
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Hunlersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: HENRY FORK
Pace Project No.: 92670326
POTW
Sample: HFE
Lab ID: 92670326001
Collected:
05/3112307:42
Received: 06102/2310:40 Matrix:
Water
Parameters
Results Units
Report Limit
DF
Prepared Analyzed
CAS No. Qual
624 Volatlles by SIM
Analytical Method: EPA 624 By SIM
Pace Analytical Services
- Charlotte
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
ND ug/L
2.0
1
06/05/23 11:37
123-91-1
Surrogates
Toluene-d8 (S)
90 %
70-130
1
06/05/23 11:37
2037-26-5
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
89 %
70-130
1
06/05/23 11,37
17060-07-0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except m Full,
Date: 06/07/202311:59 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 4 of 9

a
A
z
n
n
n
a
n
o
0
n
O p
3
„ s
_
L
go
o^sCc
a
a
n
3
w
O
"
N
i91
6
opa
-Ni
IR
L P
g'o�
0
3
O
o
10�4'
�°
s
3
'° 3
d
='
n
d.
m
o
ib
c
3 3 �
o
i9 L- h (024
3
o
o
ti
3
dv
a
5
o
'•'��3
8
yAA 3
3
9
m
i
co
y
=9
d
2
c
n
aim
9
.j1
O
=
..
T
5
3
a
o
m 3
t
=
3
o w
CD
p
a
—A
I—
—
—
—
—�-�u,-a---m n ai- R io h
z
„
1p
Q
3F
�
.Nry
3 A
9.
o
yr
om
�`
iC�aM. Ipif 9®KKK
O Z
2�����LLLLL C&
5p
Z
g2 y5 y2 52 ym�Y{�,g5
yRy', a
R n �+
N.3
N
. Page 8of9

laceAnalyficale
WWW.09t01atfixo111
June 01, 2023
Ms. Paula Prestwood
City of Hickory
Regional Laboratory
310 Cloninger Mill Rd
Hickory, NC 28601
RE: Project: HENRY FORK POTW
Pace Project No.: 92670327
Dear Ms. Prestwood:
Paco Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Hunlersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Enclosed are the analytical results for samples) received by [he laboratory on June 02, 2023. The results relate only to the
samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the applicable TNIlNELAC Standards and the
laboratory's Quality Manual, where applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the report.
The test
results provided
in this final report were
generated
by each
of the following laboratories within the Pace Network:
•
Pace Analytical
Services -Charlotte
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ariel S Fitzgerald
a riel.fitzgerald@pacelabs. com
[phone]
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Morgan Bowers, Cily of Hickory
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall no[ be reproduced, except in full,
out the written consent or Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 1 of 9

2aceAnalXical e
wWw.pacelshf<orn
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Hunlersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: HENRY FORK
Pace Project No.: 92670327
POTW
Sample: HFE
Lab ID: 92670327001 Collected: 06101/2307:24 Received:
06/02/2310:40
Matrix: Water
Parameters
Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared
Analyzed
CAS No. Qual
624 Volatiles by SIM
Analytical Method: EPA 624 By SIM
Pace Analytical Services - Charlotte
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
ND ug/L 2.0 1
06/05/23 11:56
123-91-1
Surrogates
Toluene-d6 (S)
91 % 70-130 1
06/05/23 11:56
2037-26-5
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
93 % 70-130 1
06/05/23 11:56
17060-07-0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 06/07/2023 12:00 PM
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 4 of 9

m
^
^
i
—
O
O
c
o
m
D
n
'4
oa
—
3
.
OF
..
.mcd:
0
F10
\
FdA
OF
OFF.O.
Alm
OFF
3
3
^
-
Cd
�. a
3OddW
m
N
_Odd
OFF
^
o
3
.
OFF
Rd
FOX
UF
FU
Rd
—
'
D o
Z
zFdo
3
3�j
3
n.
^1_
F
3
-Gp
=a
cz
11
IF
as
S
—
O
OFF
8$'OFFIIF
�
D
Odd
�
oOF
c
2
3
F OFF,
l
n
N
D
0 0
i
Odd
` �''g'
OFFe
a
OFF
FM
G
<
- a
OFF
$
El
1°
3
=
3
y
—
3
.—.
�
FFS
'a
z
3
O
C'1 '`'
FCCc
'�..
-L
g
on
=
i
FT
Odd
zFOOd
�tt
zOFF
n
3 3 v
3
o
X
I l��o �L�IA (oW
a
F0
~
FOOd
J�
�a
FOO"dO
`
Q
o
3
m�.t'.
.. m.
��_
9ry
p
A-_
o
co
—
o
§N'
m 3
3
2
gym?
c
OF)
a p
w \
c.ti
CY
4
m
^
�� 0
z
"��;��p 0 00Fdd
--------
�
N
a
cnnti-�c
6
m
rv22 �nn'�.. na'�a xnn mom
6mm
..
S-
rar
1�
�p�
K
.n
r
3 i
--_
—
V
t-—
J A � IC
µ
a3
a
m
nNN EeY
3
OFF'...
V q� 0�� Xmry b
3 a
O(a.
3.
�t1
N
J
3 v.
m
1.
�'
n7 ..
1. C, m� p
FIGd
�oS'..
.0
v <�
kq � kkilkk k
..2FOP
2 Z�'Z .wz5
2EE
Z
y2.� ,�pp2
y✓Yy Y ....
¢5¢ 52S zzz
4p 2q
0
Page 8 of 9

ace Analytical
www.prtelebs.cnw
June 07. 2023
Ms. Paula Prestwood
City of Hickory
Regional Laboratory
310 Cloninger Mill Rd
Hickory, INC 28601
RE: Project: HENRY FORK POTW
Pace Project No.: 92670325
Dear Ms. Prestwood:
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersvllle, NC 28078
(704)B75-9092
Enclosed are the analytical results for samples) received by the laboratory on June 02, 2023. The results relate only to the
samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the applicable TNI/NELAC Standards and the
laboratory's Quality Manual, where applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the report.
The test
results provided
in this final report were
generated
by
each of the following laboratories within the Pace Network:
•
Pace Analytical
Services -Charlotte
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
O-A�Zwcjj5
Ariel S Fitzgerald
ari el.fi tzg erald@ pacelabs. com
[phone]
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Morgan Bowers, City of Hickory
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
out the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page t of 9

laceAnaljdicalo
www.pacelabo,com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: HENRY FORK
Pace Project No.: 92670325
POTW
Sample: HFE
Lab ID: 92670325001
Collected: 06/0212307:25
Received: 06102/2310:40
Matrix: Water
Parameters
Results Units
Report Limit
DF
Prepared Analyzed
CAS No. Qual
624 Volatiles by SIM
Analytical Method: EPA 624 By SIM
Pace Analytical Services -
Charlotte
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
ND ug/L
2.0
1
06/05/23
12:15
123-91-1
Surrogates
Toluene-d8(S)
91 %
70-130
1
06/05/23
12:15
2037-26-5
1,2-Dichloroelhane-d4 (S)
94 %
70-130
1
06/05/23
12:15
17060-07-0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall no[ be reproduced, except in Tull,
Date: 06/07/2023 11:59 AM without the wntten consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 4 of 9

n
n
a
a
m
m
=
m
o
>oa
=
=3o
c
o
m
a
a
a
fi
a
S
n
Cb
3
3
o
m7u
z
3
W
C4
oq
-
s v
#ci,
>
-
d
)
c
c 3
z
a p
o
p
-
3
fv
3
8
n
3
'�
n
m F
o z
o?
1
3
c
A
3
On 7
l
c
m2
2
'
m
<
>
rD
mp
J
m
o
,� 3
3
.�i•
y O
l
u
z
z-
_.
rt
II.
3
w
so
1 �l� �t 2,q
3 2
10
m
m
m
N 3
a'
n
3 r
Q
C
D00
=
CD
m
3iT
'
3
4
3
m
'8
R
K
oa
®
0.m
zea
p
DR
Q
Fa
on
p �
m
$
3
G u s m m
J•% m
h^ Q'.�
a
3
O
9' "
:z
0
�n°
WEB.
N m fin:
3v
n
om
3.
3 22
c
"00
_
& a
A a
o
n •p o
�C KvW W'�LR§JK K �C
Q
3 2
f! Z
Z 5-zy0y1 k
Sy�z
�Z 5a gz Zz
�yZ�
Page 8 of 9'

I
OAna1j&al e
www.0atle0rAam
Laboratory Report
Ms. Paula Prestwood
City of Hickory
Regional Laboratory
310 Cloninger Mill Rd
Hickory, NC 28601
Project: HENRY FORK POTW
Pace Project No.: 92671686
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Hunlersviile, NC 28078
[phone]
Page 1 of 1
Report Date: 06/16I2023
Date Received: 06/09/2023
Sample:
HFE
Lab ID: 92671686001 Collected: O6/07/2307:45
Matrix:
Water
Method
Parameters
Results Units
Report Limit
Analyzed
EPA 624
By SIM
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
ND uglL
2.0
06M3/23 20:35
Reviewed by:
Ariel S Fitzgerald
[phone]
[e-mail]
Pace Analytical Services Charlotte
South Carolina Laboratory ID: 99006
9800 Kincey Ave. Ste 100, Hunlersville, NC 28078
North Carolina Drinking Water Certification M 37706
North Carolina Field Services Certification M 5342
North Carolina Wastewater Certification M 12
South Carolina Laboratory ID: 99006
South Carolina Certification #: 99006001
South Carolina Drinking Water Cert. #: 99006003
Florida/NELAP Certification M E87627
Kentucky UST Certification M 84
Louisiana DoH Drinking Water#: LA029
Virginia/VELAP Certification #: 460221
Qualifiers
Page 1 of 2

IF
0
a
'
-
3
$
_
_
a�am
MIMI
...
3
3
°
C7
CD
3
3
0
3Femme
A
3
c
m
G
m E
n
G
ti
u w
nI
mot)
1
F O
D
OFI
w—
FIFFIFFIFFIF
MINE
a
3
10
#
•1
�3
no
^ 0
z
FICv
v
`
met
3\
3
3
z.
v
o\
m F
D a^
e
3
=
w O
Fee3
'
°
3 _
H ci
d
—
_
3
3
W
at
F
4'41-'
>
c
3
a
o
2
,
3
�
me
R
,2
a.
n
3
v F
_
3
F F
s
-
n
3
G
A
3
9
M
ail
N
Vi
mew
at
J33m
IF&
w
n
FIme
of
o
oa
o
3n
mememememe
OL
F
—
q�
— 3
5
3
3 m
ft
1
p
T b
mR
-si
s
s
v
m
�
om
N w•
N
3
Cr
n
4
U4
Co
me w
m—
Femme
I;;I
to
m'CD
3
3�
m
_
� d
FI+3
IN
re'
13 T
UI
o
w
z
o
s
p:.
u 6
�y y n9 yN
00
`�
av3mG'N
Immi
di so
Fee
oA3v#��If
'
3 C1.
K
$ d
A vrI+ <°
w w wnw�,i�^to�k]w '
j-u
�ol°I�°
r�xm x z`Yx3 zxmxzz]
,z
\00 "vvoa�'
n
Page 2 of 2

aceAnalytical
WWW.Oatalabc.caa
Laboratory Report
Ms. Paula Prestwood
City of Hickory
Regional Laboratory
310 Cloninger Mill Rd
Hickory, NC 28601
Project: HENRY FORK POTW
Pace Project No.: 92671684
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Page 1 of 1
Repolt Date: 06116/2023
Date Received: 06/09/2023
Sample: HFE Lab ID: 92671884001 Collected: 06/OB/23 00:00 Matrix: Water
Method
Parameters
Results Units
Report
Limit
Analyzed
EPA 624 By SIM
1,4-Dioxane
(p-Dioxane)
ND ug/L
2.0
06/13/23 22:43
Reviewed by:
Ariel S Fitzgerald
[phone]
[e-mail]
Pace Analytical Services Charlotte
South Carolina Laboratory ID: 99006
9800 Kincey Ave. Ste 100, Huntersville, NC 28078
North Carolina Drinking Water Certification #: 37706
North Carolina Field Services Certification #: 5342
North Carolina Wastewater Certification #: 12
South Carolina Laboratory ID: 99006
South Carolina Certification #: 99006001
South Carolina Drinking Water Cert. #: 99006003
Florida/NELAP Certification #: E87627
Kentucky UST Certification #: 84
Louisiana DoH Drinking Water#: LA029
Virginia/VELAP Certification #: 460221
Qualifiers
Page 1 of 2

qq¢¢CC
�225z
N
Z5Y�Z�
�"
�0
z Z L Z Z Z �.yz Z
'
n o
LtF
��
Imo
m'r
"m e..um
FL
m
uyF•w
E E€ t
pp
2
c to
5
EN>
5 E
a
G
` 58
rF8
y8a5��.°�u°l
z}
m
aMRVP
.
y y E
�Yy
Y
wy�
WInW9 'oN
w
I
I
I
I
z
w
5
�
s
N
ID�2
LOim
_
E
LO
p
d
00
C\'Is
3 =
a
'$
E a
u
IR
E
El
E
TF
-
-
3p
Q
u�RCM
aZ
O
c �p
_
Is
=
No u
0`
em
B m
F
U I
vra
h
s
_
,
r
M
Is
a
3
E
K c
>
6
3
M
S
E
a`
>
N
a
z
In
C o
f
o
3
o&
,.
E.
*123
a
�
O
Z v t
o
eai
E re re
E
E�
E
"
u
-
B
m
o
'a
v
t
1
o�
LL
o a
3_
o0
zm
u
3
0IT
Y
is
-dM
v3
In
7�11
E
am
V
.
z
N
E
Y o
n
E5
S
Q
iy
E
w
Is
U-
E
m g'Q 9«
E
E
ti
r=
_
Ymi
Ym,
.g
�e2
c
c
v
>
?
_
E o
_
9
rw
_
�`
_
c�2
u'

laceAnalj&Z
w .pecelehe.cam
Laboratory Report
Ms. Paula Prestwood
City of Hickory
Regional Laboratory
310 Cloninger Mill Rd
Hickory, NC 28601
Project: HENRY FORK POTW
Pace Project No.: 92671678
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Page 1 of 1
Report Date: 06/16/2023
Date Received: 06/09/2023
Sample: HFE Lab ID: 92671878001 Collected: O6/09/23 00:00 Matrix: Water
Method
Parameters
Results Units
Report
Limit
Analyzed Qualifiers
EPA 6246y SIM
1,4-Dioxane(p-Dioxane)
ND ug/L
2,0
06/13/2322:21
Reviewed by:
Ariel S Fitzgerald
[phone]
[e-mail]
Pace Analytical Services Charlotte
South Carolina Laboratory ID: 99006
9800 Kincey Ave. Ste 100, Huntersville, NC 28078
North Carolina Drinking Water Certification M 37706
North Carolina Field Services Certification #: 5342
North Carolina Wastewater Certification M 12
South Carolina Laboratory ID: 99006
South Carolina Certification #: 99006001
South Carolina Drinking Water Cert. #: 99006003
Florida/NELAP Certification #: E87627
Kentucky UST Certification #: 84
Louisiana DoH Drinking Water#: LA029
Virginia/VELAP Certification #: 460221
Page 1 of 2

fD
z
°
c
—_ o
o
e
A
D
^
c
o
p
u
l
3
3
\
3
C'
'
n
o�
3
si
LA
0
c2
d
V
4
3
6
o
9£
=
0 a
n
_
°-
�g
0
@_
- a
5�
_-y
-
e�
v�
3
o
o f
z o
i n
O
-
z:.
z
(D
`^
1
7
�
3 °
c
C
D
N
OEp_
ti D
w
oT
O�
m
=
N
D
O
zCD
p
r
s
q ryf, n' OR ��
Na00
z
v. 9 �P2� �^ A�
�'P'l °'
a3
3
_E
o 3
�kN m m amd p
n
3
➢°
g.
N
3
mm
00
MO
o
v
2 K w�22.2222'2
S
vK
�l
Y �
z
YYb no
➢
R.
n n
Page 2of2