NC0023957_Fact Sheet_20230809

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO023957
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Nick Coco, [e-mail]
Date: Augusts 2, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC)/Cross Creek Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 1089, Fayetteville, NC 28302
Facility Address:
601 North Eastern Boulevard, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Permitted Flow:
25.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 93% domestic, 7% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Influent pump station, Mechanical bar screens, Grit removal chambers,
Dual primary clarifiers, Activated sludge system with nitrification,
Secondary clarifiers, Tertiary sand filters, Chlorination with sodium
hypochlorite, Dechlorination with sodium bisulfate, Effluent now
monitoring, Post aeration, Sludge management via belt thickening,
anaerobic digestion, and holding tanks
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Cumberland
Region
Fayetteville
*Based off of permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Fayetteville PWC has applied
for an NPDES permit renewal at 25.0 MGD for the Cross Creek WWTP. This facility serves a population
of approximately 100,500 residents in the City of Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Northern
Cumberland Regional Sewer System (NORCRESS) and Eastover, as well as 8 significant industrial users
(SIUs), including 2 categorical industrial users (CIUs), via a Division -approved pretreatment program.
Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into the Cape Fear River, a class C waterbody in
Page 1 of 12

the Cape Fear River Basin. Outfall 001 is approximately 16 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-
IV.
Sludge disposal: The Cross Creek biosolids management process plan consist of anaerobic digestions for
both primary and waste activated sludges generated during the treatment of wastewater. These sludges are
stabilized in two 1.55 MG mesophilic anaerobic digesters until proper stabilization is confirmed by EPA
503 regulations regarding Class B Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction. After digestion the
biosolids are stored in two 1.55 MG holding tanks for thickening across gravity belt thickeners. Water
plant ferric residuals are blended with the stabilized thickened biosolids and held in a 5 MG storage tank
for final disposal. Beneficial re -use of these thickened biosolids is utilized through a liquid land
application program (via permit WQ0000527) with participating agricultural farms in Cumberland and
surrounding counties.
Inflow and Infiltration (I/IZ In their application, Fayetteville PWC noted an estimated average daily I/I
flow of 6.36 MGD. PWC cleans 20% of sewer lines each year and performs CCTV inspections on 6% of
the lines each year. The FPWC FY22 budget for the collection system rehabilitation program is
$6,000,000. Current trenchless projects include CIPP Lining of gravity sewer mains and manhole
reconstruction with hydrogen sulfide resistant Polymeric Lining systems.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Cape Fear River
Stream Segment:
18-(26)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
4355
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
657
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
761
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
4652
IWC (% effluent):
6
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed*
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/HUC:
Cape Fear River/03030004
USGS Topo Quad:
G23SE
*Per their July 13, 2023 press release, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services is
recommending limits on consumption of certain freshwater fish from the middle and lower Cape Fear
River based on concerns about exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) found in fish sampled
from that area.
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
13.3
26.7
9.6
MA 25.0
WA 10.2
CBOD5 summer
mg/1
3.5
15.3
< 2
MA 6.8
Page 2 of 12

WA 20.4
CBOD5 winter
mg/l
2.6
8.73
< 2
MA 13.6
NH3N summer
mg/l
0.13
5.69
< 0.1
WA 3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter
mg/l
0.12
2.09
< 0.1
WA 6.0
MA 2.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/l
2.9
9.7
2.5
MA 30.0
0 > pH <
6.9.0
pH
SU
6.6
7.5
6.1
(geometric)
(geomean)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
1553
< 1
WA 400
20.6
MA 200
DO
mg/l
8.6
10.8
6.8
DA >5.0
DM 28.0
TRC
µg/l
25.0
32
2.5
(< 50
compliance)
Monitor &
Temperature
° C
21.6
28
15
Report
Monitor &
TN
mg/1
17.3
28.2
3.01
Report
Monitor &
TP
mg/l
2.4
4.72
1.1
Report
Monitor &
Total Hardness
mg/l
81.1
108.9
50.7
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 50 feet above the outfall and downstream at least 500 feet below the
outfall. As the permittee is a member of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)
instream monitoring requirements are provisionally waived. The nearest upstream MCFRBA monitoring
station is B7480000, located approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the outfall. The nearest downstream
MCFRBA monitoring station is B7500000, located approximately 5.5 miles downstream of the outfall.
MCFRBA data was also available for TKN, NO2+NO3, total phosphorous, conductivity, fecal coliform
and turbidity. Instream data from January 2018 through June 2022 has been summarized below in Table
2.
Page 3 of 12

Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
20.9
31.7
4.9
20.9
32.1
4.8
DO
mg/l
7.7
12.5
4.3
7.6
12.4
2.59
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
121.5
217
59
122.8
221
59
Hardness
mg/l
23.3
32
16
-
-
-
TKN
mg/1
0.8
2.07
0.26
0.9
8.57
0.2
NO2+NO3
mg/l
0.5
1.06
0.18
0.6
1.38
0.02
Ammonia
mg/1
0.03
0.18
0.02
0.03
0.15
0.02
TP
mg/1
0.09
0.202
0.04
0.1
0.222
0.051
Chlorophyll -a
µg/1
-
-
-
3.7
12.7
< 1
Fecal Coliform
#/100ml
(geomean)
74
8400
5
(geomean)
87
12000
3
Turbidity
NTUs
19.4
187
2
18.05
116
2.3
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05.
Downstream temperature was greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] on one
occasion during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was not greater than upstream temperature
by more than 2.8 degrees Celsius during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Average downstream DO was above 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
Downstream DO was observed at levels less than 4.0 mg/L on 3 occasions during the period reviewed. It
was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity. While 15A NCAC 02B .0508 requires Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control
Systems to monitor and report for conductivity daily, instream monitoring results do not suggest an
impact on the receiving stream with respect to effluent conductivity. As the data review did not determine
an effluent impact, and as the IWC is only 6% effluent, no effluent conductivity requirements have been
added to the permit at this time.
As the facility does not discharge to class B waters, fecal coliform is not currently required in the permit.
MCFRBA fecal coliform data was reviewed, and it was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream fecal coliform. While downstream fecal coliform
was observed at levels greater than 400/100mL on occasion, these observances occurred concurrently
with elevated upstream fecal coliform levels greater than 400/100mL. As such, instream fecal coliform
has not been added to the permit.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
turbidity. While downstream turbidity was observed at levels greater than 50 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B
.0211 (21)] during the period reviewed (4 occasions), these observances occurred concurrently with
elevated upstream turbidity levels greater than 50 NTUs.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TP
and NO2+NO3 with downstream TP and NO2+NO3 being observed at levels generally higher than that of
Page 4 of 12

the upstream. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and
downstream ammonia or TKN. Based on instream data review and discussions with the Division's Basin
Planning Branch, instream monitoring for TP, TKN, NO2+NO3, and ammonia have been added to the
permit at a monthly frequency.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations from May 2018 through May 2023.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from January 2019 to January 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in March 2022 reported that the facility was compliant. The last pretreatment inspection conducted in
August 2022 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MixingZones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for CBOD5 are based on a 1996 QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear main stem, and conversion
from BOD5 limits to CBOD5 limits. No changes have been made.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Page 5 of 12

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 have been made.
The existing limitations for ammonia are based on a 1996 QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear main stem.
The ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to be
protective. No changes have been made.
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. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Cyanide,
Total Lead, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Four effluent pollutant scans (2019, 2020, 2021 and
2022) and additional submitted data were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds, 1,4-dioxane (November 2022 — April 2023)
The facility reported one total cyanide sample as detected at 36 µg/L on 1/16/2019. In their renewal
application, Fayetteville PWC informed the Division that the method used for total cyanide at the time,
EPA Method 335.4, had widely inconsistent and false high cyanide readings. Since investigating total
cyanide methods, Fayetteville PWC has contracted with a laboratory that runs SM4500 CN for total
cyanide. Since this switch, the facility has reported consistent non -detects. The RPA predicted a
Page 6 of 12

maximum total cyanide concentration of 52.6 µg/L, > 50% of the 89.8 µg/L allowable discharge
concentration with the high data point included. However, the only detected level occurred in January
2019, prior to switching laboratories, at a level < 50% of the 89.8 µg/L allowable discharge concentration.
No monitoring has been added for total cyanide.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxici , Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 6%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
# of Samples
4
4
4
11
1
Annual Average Conc. n /L
3.2
1.7
3.4
2.51
1.47
Maximum Conc., n L
4.87
2.3
5.4
5.47
1.47
TBEL, n /L
47
WQBEL, n /L
1 215.5
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. Since the facility is a 2.0 MGD facility and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1
ng/1), the mercury minimization plan (MMP) special condition has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: To support water quality modeling efforts within the Cape Fear River Basin, the
Division required the Cross Creek WWTP conduct weekly sampling for total phosphorous, total nitrogen,
TKN and Nitrate + Nitrite from April 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020. This increased sampling
Page 7 of 12

regimen concluded at the end of 2020 and reverted to monthly monitoring of total phosphorous and total
nitrogen, in accordance with permit requirements.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. As an attachment to the permit
application, Fayetteville PWC informed the Division that additional sampling for 1,4-dioxane had been
conducted (see attached chemical addendum) and data was provided for use in the RPA.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: N/A
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Page 8 of 12

Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Fayetteville PWC has requested continuation of 2/week monitoring for CBOD5, 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 CBOD5, ammonia, fecal coliform, and TSS.
To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
As the Cross Creek WWTP has a pretreatment program and discharges treated wastewater approximately
16 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-IV, monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the
permit at a frequency of quarterly. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater
is not currently available, the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule
which delays the effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months
after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may
be extended upon request and if there are no NC -certified labs.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 25.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 213.0505
CBOD5
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 1996 QUAL2E Model;
MA 6.8 mg/l
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
WA 10.2 mg/1
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies
Winter:
in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
MA 13.6 mg/l
Performing Facilities
WA 20.4 mg/1
Monitor and report 2/week
NH3-N
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 1996 QUAL2E Model;
MA 1.0 mg/l
verified with 2023 WLA; 2012 DWR
WA 3.0 mg/1
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Winter:
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
MA 2.0 mg/l
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
WA 6.0 mg/1
Facilities
Monitor and report 2/week
Page 9 of 12

TSS
MA 30 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45 mg/l
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and report 2/week
2B .0406; 2012 DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100ml
NCAC 213.0200; 2012 DWR
Monitor and report 2/week
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
Temperature
Monitor and Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0508
DO
> 5 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily
NCAC 213.0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily
NCAC 213.0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
Total Residual
DM 28 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. 2022 WLA. Surface Water
Chlorine
Monitor and Report Daily
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN
No requirement
Monitor and
For calculation of TN
Report Monthly
NO2+NO3
No requirement
Monitor and
For calculation of TN
Report Monthly
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monthly
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Phosphorus
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monthly
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Hardness
Quarterly monitoring
No changes
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
Upstream and in Effluent
water quality standards approved in
2016
Add quarterly
Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
PFAS
No requirement
monitoring with
pretreatment facility; Implementation
delayed
delayed until after EPA certified
implementation
method becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 6% effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC
2B.0500
Effluent
Three times per permit
No change;
40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan
cycle
conducted in
2025, 2026, 2027
Instream
Monitor and Report for
No change to
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monitoring
conductivity, DO and
frequencies or
NCAC 2B. 0508; Instream
temperature 3/week during
waiver; add
monitoring review and discussions
June through September
monthly
with Basin Planning Branch
Page 10 of 12

and 1/week during
monitoring for
remainder of the year;
TKN, NO2+NO3,
MCFRBA waiver
ammonia and TP
Nutrient
Special Condition A.(5.)
Remove condition
Division may request additional
Monitoring
Permit Re -Opener:
nutrient monitoring be conducted
Reopener
Supplementary Nutrient
without need for a waiver
Monitoring
Mercury
MMP Special Condition
No change; MMP
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Minimization
maintained
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Plan (MMP)
Implementation.
Electronic
Electronic Reporting
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Special Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 06/16/2023
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at nick.cocokdeq.nc.. ov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to Fayetteville PWC, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Fayetteville Regional
Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Operator Certification Program, Monitoring Coalition Coordinator
and Pretreatment Unit for review. The Aquatic Toxicology Branch provided a comment on June 16, 2023
noting that the superscript does not match the referenced footnote in Section A.(1.) for the toxicity
requirement. Fayetteville PWC provided comments to the Division on July 14, 2023 noting an error in the
spelling of the dechlorination with sodium bisulfite in the facility component list and errors in the
superscript numbering of the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements table in Section A.(1.).
Fayetteville PWC also requested removal of the MMP special condition, as the reported levels of total
mercury were consistently lower than both the TBEL and WQBEL and have shown a steady decline since
2019. As the NPDES permitting guidance for Implementation of 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL
indicates that an MMP condition is required for a facility that is > 2 MGD in capacity and with multiple
detections of total mercury above 1 ng/L, the MMP condition has been maintained. The mercury TMDL
guidance has been attached to the fact sheet for reference.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• The superscripts in Section A.(1.) have been revised to accurately reflect the footnotes they
reference.
• A typographical error for the "Dechlorination with sodium bisulfite" in the facility component list
has been corrected.
• As the instream monitoring of ammonia is to be conducted year-round, reference to the summer
months has been removed from the requirement [See A.(1.)].
Page 11 of 12

16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• POC Review Form
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• Chemical Addendum
• Implementation of 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL
Page 12 of 12

LQCALiQ
StarNews I The Dispatch I Times -News
Sun Journal I The Daily News I The Star
The Free Press I Gaston Gazette
The Fayetteville Observer
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Wren Thedford
Nc Division Of Water Quality,Attn: Wren Thedford
1617 Mail Service CTR
Raleigh NC 27699-1600
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
The Fayetteville Observer, a newspaper distributed in the county
of Cumberland, published in the City of Fayetteville, County of
Cumberland, State of North Carolina printed and published and
personal knowledge of the facts herein state and that the notice
hereto annexed was Published in said newspapers in the issues
dated on:
06/16/2023
and that the fees charged are legal. The Fayetteville Observer
was a newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications
prescribed by Sec. No. 1-597 G.S. of N.C.
Sworn to and subscribed before on 06/16/2023
Legal Clerk ,
Notary, State of Wl, County of Bro
ZS Zfo
My commision expires
Publication Cost: $196.20
Order No: 8944873 # of Conies:
Customer No: 745425 1
PO #:
THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE!
Please do not use this form for payment remittance.
MARIAH VERHAGE
Notary Public
State of Wisconsin
PO Box 631697 Cincinnati, OH 45263-1697
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmen-
tol Management Commis-
sion/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
NCO023957 Cross Creek WRF.
The North Carolina Environ-
mental Management
Commission proposes to
issue a NPDES wastewater
discharge permit to the
Person(s) listed below. Writ-
ten comments regarding the
proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after
the publish date of this
notice. The Director of the
NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) may hold
a public hearing should there
be a significant degree of
Public interest. Please mail
comments and/or informa-
tion requests to DWR at the
above address. Interested
persons may visit the DWR
at 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604 to review
the information on file. Addi-
tional information on NPDES
permits and this notice may
be found on our website:
https://deq.nc.gov/public-
notices-hearings,or by call-
ing [phone]. Fayet-
teville Public Works
Commission [PO Box 1089,
Fayetteville, NC 283021 has
requested renewal of NPDES
permit NCO023957 for its
Cross Creek Water Reclama-
tion Facility, located in
Cumberland County. This
permitted facility discharges
treated municipal and indus-
trial wastewater to the Cape
Fear River, a class C water
in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Currently CBOD,
ammonia, fecal coliform,
DO, pH and total residual
chlorine are water quality
limited. This discharge may
affect future allocations in
this segment of the Cape
Fear River.
6/16/23 8944873
Page 1 of 1

WADE R. FOWLER, JR., COMMISSIONER
EVELYN O. SHAW, COMMISSIONER
RONNA ROWE GARRETT, COMMISSIONER
DONALD L. PORTER, COMMISSIONER
MARION J NOLAND, INTERIM CEO/GENERAL MANAGER
r� rJlln [' FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
955 OLD WILMINGTON RD
P.O. BOX 1089
N UT'ILITY FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28302-1089
TELEPHONE (910) 483A401
W W W.FAYPWC.COM
July 14, 2023
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
Attn: Nick Coco, Engineer
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit NC0023957
Cross Creek WRF, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Facility Grade IV Biological WPCS, SIC Code 4952
Dear Mr. Coco,
The following comments are offered regarding the Draft National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES)
permit number NCO023957 and associated permit fact sheet for this 25.0 MGD facility. Fayetteville PWC
is committed to operational excellence and therefore expects to continue its compliance record over the
next permit cycle.
Permit Comment 1: Supplement to permit cover sheet correction
Fayetteville PWC requests that the spelling of the treatment component "Dichlorination with sodium
bisulfate" be changed to "Dechlorination with sodium biSLI Le."
Permit Comment 2: Footnote corrections for A.(1.) Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements
PWC requests that the table
superscript
numbering
scheme under Section
A.(1.) Effluent Limitation and
Monitoring Requirements be
updated to
match the
Footnotes list with the
following:
• Chronic toxicity superscript referring to Footnote 9 be updated to 8
Pollutant scan, measurement frequency, and sample type superscripts referring to Footnote 10
be updated to 9
Hardness superscript referring to Footnote 11 be updated to 10
The current table does not have a superscript 8 and these updates will address that issue.
Permit Comment 3: Monitoring schedule requirements
Fayetteville PWC understands the updated schedule requirements for chronic toxicity testing and will
comply. It is expected that the exceptional track record of passing toxicity testing will continue.
BUILDING COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS SINCE 1905
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Fayetteville PWC also recognizes the quarterly frequency requirement for PFAS monitoring in its effluent
per the timetable related to the publishing of a final PFAS method. Fayetteville PWC remains committed
to gaining a better understanding of PFAS loading into the Cape Fear River,
Permit Comment 4: Mercury Minimization an (MMP) continuance
Fayetteville PWC objects to DWR's continuance of MMP requirements given Fayetteville PWC's track
record of implementation of its MMP and the resulting very low effluent mercury levels. Our average
concentration in 2023 was 1.47 ng/L, showing a steady decline since 2019. This is orders of magnitude
lower than the applicable TBEL of 47 ng/L and WQBEL of 215.5 ng/L determined in part using Cross Creek
WRF's very low IWC of 6%, demonstrating that mercury loading from Fayetteville PWC's service area has
been minimized and further MMP implementation alone would not result in impactfully lower mercury
concentrations and negligible water quality benefit. PWC implemented the Dental Amalgam Rule in a
timely manner, with good results, and therefore this program can remain in place instead of the MMP.
This will focus staff time and resources on the Dental Amalgam Rule program and other, more impactful
programs than continuation of the MMP.
Fact Sheet Comment 1: Reference PWC in Fact Sheet
In the discussion of "Other WQBEL Considerations" beginning on page 7 of the draft fact sheet, the City is
referenced as informing the Division that additional samplingfor 1,4-dioxane has been conducted. Change
City to PWC as PWC provided the data.
Fayetteville PWC appreciates this opportunity to comment on Cross Creek WRF's draft NPDES Permit
NC0023957. Please contact Chuck Baxley at [phone] to discuss comments or if further information
is needed.
Respectfully submitted,
Chuck Baxley
Water Resources Treatment Facilities Manager
Fayetteville PWC
cc: Mick Noland, FPWC
Misty Manning, FPWC
Rhonda Locklear, FPWC
Paul Calamita, Aqua Law
Jaime Robinson, Jacobs

NPDES Permitting for Mercury
Implementation of 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL
Facility Type
Annual Average
Monitoring Frequency
MMP Required (see B)
Limit Required (see A)
(with 1631E analysis)
Major Muni (>1
Yes
Quarterly
Yes(if > 2 MGD)
MGD)
No
3 PPA only
Yes- if multiple detects
above 1 ng/1 and > 2
MGD
Minor Muni (<1 MGD)
Yes
Quarterly
No
No
Once/5 years
No
Industrial
Yes
Quarterly
Yes
No
None in permit. Might
No
be required for EPA
application form.
A.Procedure to Determine if Annual Average Limit Required:
Step 1- WQBEL Evaluation
• Evaluate need for Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL)
• Calculate Allowable mercury concentration using dilution (12 ng/1 x 7Q10 dilution factor)
• Compare Annual effluent concentrations to Allowable Conc. for each of last 5 years
• If any Annual Avg > Allowable Conc., then add Annual Avg WQBEL.
Step 2- TBEL Evaluation
• Evaluate need for Technology Based Effluent Limit (TBEL)
• Compare all individual values to TBEL of 47 ng/1
• If any single value > 47 ng/l, then add Annual Avg TBEL of 47 ng/l.
Step 3- Compare WQBEL to TBEL
• If data triggers need for WQBEL and TBEL, select most stringent of the two limits.
• If data triggers need for only TBEL, add 47 ng/1 annual average limit unless WQBEL < 47 ng/l, in which
case annual avg limit should be set at WQBEL.
• Conclusion: the Annual Avg limit will range from 12 ng/1 to upper cap of 47 ng/l.
Step 4- If NEW limit, delay effective date
• Addition of new limit will become effective in 5' year of permit, with mercury minimization plan
development/implementation required for first 4 years (see MMP below).
B. Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP). If an MMP is required, add the following Special Condition to the
permit:
A(x). Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP). The permittee shall develop and implement a mercury minimization
plan during this permit term. The MMP shall be developed within 180 days of the NPDES Permit Effective Date,
and shall be available for inspection on -site. A sample MMP was developed through a stakeholder review process
and has been placed on the Division website for guidance (htW://portal.ncdenr.orWweb/wq/sM//ps/ppdes, under
Model Mercury Minimization Plan). The MMP should place emphasis on identification of mercury contributors and
goals for reduction. Results shall be summarized and submitted with the next permit renewal. Performance of the
Mercury Minimization Plan will meet the requirements of the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for mercury
approved by USEPA on October 12, 2012, unless and until a Waste Load Allocation specific to this facility is
developed and this NPDES permit is amended to require further actions to address the Waste Load Allocation.
C. New/Expanding Dischargers- will be allowed as long as the overall aggregate point source load allocation is not
exceeded.
D. Special Situations- Additional site -specific information, such as fish tissue and water column data when
available, will be considered in assigning limits and MMP requirements. Also, limits > TBEL may be considered on
case -by -case basis due to extenuating circumstances
Version 01/12/2015 Prepared by: Tom Belnick Approved by Jeff Poupart

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
Cross Creek WWTP
WWTP/WTP Class
IV
NPDES Permit
NCO023957
Outfall
001
Flow, Qw (MGD)
25.000
Receiving Stream
Cape Fear River
HUC Number
03030004
Stream Class
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
C
7Q10s (cfs)
657.000
7Q10w (cfs)
761.00
30Q2 (cfs)
657.00
QA (cfs)
4652.00
1 Q10s (cfs)
529.26
Effluent Hardness
81.11 mg/L (Avg)
Upstream Hardness
25 mg/L (Avg)
Combined Hardness Chronic
28.13 mg/L
Combined Hardness Acute
28.83 mg/L
1,4-dioxane WS ISTV used for consideration of
downstream WS waters.
Data Source(s)
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY CHECK WQS
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par060
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
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
0.6449
FW
3.6688
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
129.6566
FW
1017.1040
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
8.7152
FW
11.9765
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
3.3584
FW
88.6067
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
-,^"
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
41.1328
FW
378.1495
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
0.3787
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
140.0352
FW
141.8345
ug/L
1,4-dioxane
Water Supply
C
0.35
WS
pg/L
23957 RPA, input
5/26/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
I Effluent Hardness
Date
1 1/15/2019
2 4/8/2019
3 7/16/2019
4 10/15/2019
5 1 /14/2020
6 4/14/2020
7 7/14/2020
8 10/15/2020
9 1 /13/2021
10 4/20/2021
11 7/20/2021
12 10/12/2021
13 1 /11 /2022
14 2/8/2022
15 3/15/2022
16 4/19/2022
17 5/17/2022
18 6/14/2022
19 7/19/2022
20 8/23/2022
21 9/ 13/2022
22 10/11 /2022
23 11 /8/2022
24 12/20/2022
25 1 /24/2023
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
69
69
Std Dev.
50.7
50.7
Mean
66.8
66.8
C.V.
72.5
72.5
n
77.2
77.2
10th Per value
79.1
79.1
Average Value
66.4
66.4
Max. Value
96
96
73.2
73.2
72
72
82.2
82.2
108.9
108.9
86.62
86.62
81.57
81.57
86.66
86.66
83.67
83.67
84.65
84.65
100.8
100.8
80
80
86.1
86.1
76.7
76.7
97.3
97.3
86
86
74.9
74.9
88.9
88.9
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
12.2913
81.1148
0.1515
25
67.68 mg/L
81.11 mg/L
108.90 mg/L
H2
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
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
23957 RPA, data
- 1 - 6/5/2023

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

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Date Data
1 1/18/2019 <
2 10/22/2020 <
3 1/18/2021 <
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
P a r04
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
1.2990
0.5 0.25
Mean
1.0000
0.5 0.25
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
2.50 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
7.50 ug/L
Cadmium
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1/15/2019
<
0.25
0.125
Std Dev.
2
4/9/2019
<
0.25
0.125
Mean
3
7/16/2019
<
0.25
0.125
C.V.
4
10/15/2019
<
0.25
0.125
n
5
1/14/2020
<
0.25
0.125
6
4/14/2020
<
0.25
0.125
Mult Factor =
7
7/14/2020
0.25
0.25
Max. Value
8
10/15/2020
<
0.25
0.125
Max. Pred Cw
9
1/13/2021
<
0.15
0.075
10
4/20/2021
<
0.25
0.125
11
7/20/2021
<
0.25
0.125
12
10/12/2021
<
0.25
0.125
13
1 /11 /2022
<
0.25
0.125
14
2/8/2022
<
0.25
0.125
15
3/15/2022
<
0.25
0.125
16
4/19/2022
<
0.25
0.125
17
5/17/2022
<
0.25
0.125
18
6/14/2022
<
0.25
0.125
19
7/19/2022
<
0.15
0.075
20
8/23/2022
<
0.25
0.125
21
9/13/2022
<
0.25
0.125
22
11 /8/2022
<
0.25
0.125
23
12/20/2022
<
0.25
0.125
24
1 /24/2023
<
0.25
0.125
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
<
ERR
53
<
ERR
54
<
ERR
55
<
ERR
56
<
ERR
57
<
ERR
58
<
ERR
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0299
0.1260
0.2374
24
1.11
0.250 ug/L
0.278 ug/L
-3-
23957 RPA, data
6/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data
1 1 /25/2019
2 10/16/2020 <
3 1/21/2021
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
Par10
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
16 16
Std Dev.
12.0139
10 5
Mean
16.6667
29 29
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
29.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
87.0 ug/L
Date Data
1 1/15/2019 <
2 4/9/2019 <
3 7/16/2019 <
4 10/15/2019 <
5 1/14/2020 <
6 4/14/2020 <
7 7/14/2020 <
8 10/15/2020 <
9 1/13/2021 <
10 4/20/2021 <
11 7/20/2021 <
12 10/12/2021 <
13 1 /11 /2022 <
14 2/8/2022 <
15 3/15/2022 <
16 4/19/2022 <
17 5/17/2022 <
18 6/14/2022 <
19 7/19/2022 <
20 8/23/2022 <
21 9/13/2022 <
22 11 /8/2022 <
23 12/20/2022 <
24 1 /24/2023 <
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
Chromium, Total
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
5 2.5
Mean
5 2.5
C.V.
5 2.5
n
5 2.5
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
5 2.5
Max. Value
5 2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2 1
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
2 1
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.4235
2.3750
0.1783
24
1.08
2.5 pg/L
2.7 pg/L
23957 RPA, data
-4- 6/5/2023

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

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

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Date Data
1 1/15/2019 <
2 4/10/2019 <
3 7/16/2019 <
4 10/15/2019 <
5 1/14/2020 <
6 4/14/2020 <
7 7/14/2020 <
8 10/15/2020 <
9 1/13/2021 <
10 4/20/2021 <
11 7/20/2021 <
12 10/12/2021 <
13 1 /11 /2022 <
14 2/8/2022 <
15 3/15/2022 <
16 4/19/2022 <
17 5/17/2022 <
18 6/14/2022 <
19 7/19/2022 <
20 8/23/2022 <
21 9/13/2022 <
22 11 /8/2022 <
23 12/20/2022 <
24 1 /24/2023 <
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
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
10
5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
1
0.5
10
5
5
2.5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
1
0.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
1.5323
4.0000
0.3831
24
1.18
5.0 ug/L
5.9 ug/L
Date Data
1 1/15/2019 <
2 4/10/2019 <
3 7/16/2019 <
4 10/15/2019 <
5 1/14/2020 <
6 4/14/2020 <
7 7/14/2020 <
8 1/13/2021 <
9 4/20/2021 <
10 7/20/2021 <
11 10/12/2021 <
12 1/11/2022 <
13 2/8/2022 <
14 3/15/2022 <
15 4/19/2022 <
16 5/17/2022 <
17 6/14/2022 <
18 7/19/2022 <
19 8/23/2022 <
20 9/13/2022 <
21 11 /8/2022 <
22 12/20/2022 <
23 1 /24/2023 <
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
Silver Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
0.5
Std Dev.
1
0.5
Mean
1
0.5
C.V.
1
0.5
n
1
0.5
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1
0.5
Max. Value
0.5
0.25
Max. Pred Cw
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.0720
0.4783
0.1506
23
1.07
0.500 ug/L
0.535 ug/L
-7-
23957 RPA, data
6/5/2023

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

Cross Creek WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO023957 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
25.0000
1Q10S (cfs) =
529.26
7QIOS (cfs) =
657.00
7Q10W (cfs) =
761.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
657.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
4652.00
Receiving Stream:
Cape Fear River HUC 03030004
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Q10S =
6.822062992
IWC% @ 7Q10S =
5.569529285
IWC% @ 7Q10W =
4.845264145
IWC% @ 30Q2 =
5.569529285
IW%C @ QA =
0.826093908
Stream Class: C
Qw = 25 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mi!/L)
Acute = 28.83 mg/L
Chronic = 28.13 mg/L
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Effluent Hard: 2 value > 100 mg/L
Effluent Hard Avg = 81.11 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
CO)REASONABLE
POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
CY
a
D
Applied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standard
Acute (FW): 4,983.8
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
ug/L
24 0
6.2
Chronic (FW): 2,693.2
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL10
Monitoring required
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
NO DETECTS
_=
Chronic (HH): 1,210.5
Max MDL 10
Acute: 952.79
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
3 0
7.50
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
_
Chronic 116.71
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Monitoring required
Acute: 53.779
Cadmium
NC
0.6449 FW(7Q10s) 3.6688
ug/L
24 1
0.278
_ _
Chronic: 11.578
_
No RP, Predicted Max -< 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 2
87.0
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
_
Chronic 5,386.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 14,909.0
Chromium III
NC
129.66 FW(7Q10s) 1017.10
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic: 2,328.0
Acute: 234.5
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic: 197.5
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
24 0
2.7
Max reported value = 2.5
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 175.56
Copper
NC
8.7152 FW(7Q10s) 11.9765
ug/L
24 22
7.91
_
Chronic 156.48
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 322.5
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
uWL
24 1
52.6
_ --
-----------------------------
Chronic------89.8
No RP, All values non -detect except 1 detection at
No value > Allowable Cw
36 ug/L, < 50% of the allowable Cw - No Monitoring
required
23957 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 6/5/2023

Cross Creek WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO023957
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Qw = 25 MGD
Acute: 1,298.825
Lead
NC
3.3584 FW(7Q10s) 88.6067
ug/L
24 0
3.050
Chronic: 60.300
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 5,543.0
Nickel
NC
41.1328 FW(7Q10s) 378.1495
µg/L
[Chronic
24 4
6.8
(FW): 738.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Chronic (WS): 448.9
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 820.9
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
24 0
5.9
Chronic:89.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 5.551
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.3787
ug/L
23 0
0.535
Chronic: 1.077
All values non -detect < 1 ug/L and < 0.5 ug/L ; No
monitoring required
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = l
Acute: 2,079.1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
140.0352 FW(7Q10s) 141.8345
ug/L
58 58
231.0
Monitoring required
---- --- -
Chronic: 2,
-----------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
1,4-dioxane
C
0.35 WS(Qavg)
µg/L
6 1
2.26840
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 42.368
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
-----------------------------
23957 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 6/5/2023

Permit No. NCO023957
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(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^10.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1. 136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[ln hardness] -4.445 11
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO023957
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e"O.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. NCO023957
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + 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. NC0023957
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
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)]
81.11
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)
657
Historical file; previous fact sheet
IQIO (cfs)
529.26
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
25.0
NPDES Files
Date: 5/26/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO023957 Cross Creek WWTP
CBOD 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 (%)
98.18
98.39
98.71
98.12
97.87
97.79
98.65
98.87
98.43
98.88
99.03
99.09
99.41
98.85
98.94
98.60
98.27
98.09
98.15
97.93
97.45
98.04
98.61
98.91
98.90
97.91
97.68
97.31
97.30
97.20
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 (%)
96.95
96.72
97.64
98.65
99.08
98.90
98.63
98.67
98.86
98.65
98.17
98.16
98.36
98.48
98.58
98.77
98.95
99.04
99.08
98.62
98.80
98.38
5/26/2023
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 (%)
97.84
98.66
98.99
98.81
98.47
98.36
98.85
99.03
98.87
98.93
99.07
99.07
99.32
98.79
99.07
98.78
98.73
98.62
98.61
98.83
98.26
98.73
98.81
98.95
98.92
97.89
98.55
98.93
98.40
98.18
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 (%)
98.58
98.61
98.83
98.86
98.92
98.93
98.38
98.32
98.89
98.76
98.74
98.65
98.48
98.83
98.93
98.99
98.81
98.96
99.03
98.57
98.32
98.72

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

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

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Cross Creek WWTP
Permit No.
NC0023957
Review period (use 3
3/2020 - 3/2023
yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
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
CBOD (Weighted)
mg/L
14.45
9.63333
4.8
0
Y
19.3
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
2.1413929
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (weighted)
mg/L
4.25
1.41667
0.7
0.0820726
Y
2.83
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400
200
100
20.049467
Y
800 1 3 1 Y
1 0
1 N
1 0
1 N
Y

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0023957
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 25
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 657
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 761
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
657
s7Q10 (CFS)
657
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
25
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
25
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
38.75
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
38.75
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
5.57
IWC (%)
5.57
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
305
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
14.2
Cap at 28 uq/L. Consistent with current limit.
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
761
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
25
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
38.75
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
17.95 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
4.85
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
32.8
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/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
Fayetteville -Cross Creek WWTP
NCO023957/001
County: Cumberland
Region:
FRO
Basin:
CPF15
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
1/1/2018
chr lim: 6%
NonComp: Single
7Q10: 657.0
PF: 25.0
IWC:
6.0 Freq: Q
J
F M
A M
J
J
A
S
O
2019
Pass
- -
Pass >24(P) -
-
Pass >24(P)
-
-
Pass
2020
Pass
- -
Pass >24 (P) -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass >24(P)
-
-
Pass
2022
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2023
Pass
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
Feldspar Corp.
NC0000353/001
County: Mitchell
Region:
ARO
Basin:
FRB06
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
6/1/2012
chr lim: 11%
NonComp: Single
7Q10: 43
PF:
IWC:
11.18 Freq: Q
J
F M
A M
J
J
A
S
O
2019
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2023
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
-
-
-
-
First Craven Sanitary District WTP
NCO060321/001
County: Craven
Region:
WARO
Basin:
NEU10
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Mysd7dPF
Begin:
11/1/2017 Chr Monit: 90% *
NonComp:
7Q10:
PF: 0.120
IWC:
Freq: Q
J
F M
A M
I
J
A
S
O
2019
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
INVALID
Pass
-
Pass
2022
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
>90
2023
Pass
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
Flint Hills Resources,
LP (New Hanover
NCO076732/001
County: New Hanover
Region:
WIRO
Basin:
CPF17
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Mysd24PF
Begin:
1/1/2017
Acu Mysid 24hr Lim:
+ NonComp: Single
7Q10: Tidal
PF: 0.1
IWC:
NA Freq: Q
J
F M
A M
J
J
A
S
O
2019
H
- -
H -
-
H
-
-
H
2020
H
- -
H -
-
H
-
-
H
2021
H
- -
H -
-
H
-
-
H
2022
H
- -
H -
-
H
-
-
H
2023
H
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
Forest City WWTP
NCO025984/001
County: Rutherford
Region:
ARO
Basin:
BRD02
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
12/1/2021 chr lim: 18%
NonComp: Single
7Q10: 34.8
PF: 4.95
IWC:
18.0 Freq: Q
J
F M
A M
J
I
A
S
O
2019
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
>72(P) Pass
2020
50.9(P) Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021
Pass
- -
>72(P) Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022
Pass
- -
>72(P) Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2023
Pass
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
C
C
G
C
C
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facility is active). s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 41 of 115

A
B C D E I F I G I H I I I J K L M
N O P
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form
Version:2022.09.28
1
2
1. Facility's General Information
3
Date of (draft) Review
5/31/2023
c. POC review due to:
e. Contact Information
4
Date of (final) Review
8/8/2023
Municipal NPDES renewal
❑J
Regional Office (RO)
Fayetteville
5
NPDES Permit Writer (pw)
Nick Coco
HWA-AT/LTMP Review
❑
RO PT Staff
Stephanie Zorio
RO NPDES Staff
Mark Brantley
6
Perm ittee-Facility Name
Cross Creek WWTP
New Industries
❑
Facility PT Staff, email
Rhonda Locklear, rhonda.locklear(a)faVpwc.com
7
NPDES Permit Number
NCO023957
WWTP expansion
❑
f. Receiving Stream
8
NPDES Permit Effective Date
11/1/2023
Stream reclass./adjustment
❑
Outfall
Chemical Addendum Submittal
Outfall relocation/adjustment
❑
Receiving Stream:
Cape Fear River
QA, cfs:
4652
9
Date
10
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date
6/16/2023
7Q10 update
❑
Stream Class
C
7Q10 (S), cfs:
657
11
eDMR data evaluated from:
1/1/2019
to
3/30/2023
Other POC review trigger, explain:
Oufall Lat.
35.03.43
Outfall Long.
78.51.22
12
a. WWTP Capacity Summary
Outfall II
13
Current Permitted Flow, mgd
Designed Flow,
Receiving Stream:
QA, cfs:
g
14
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
J
d. IU Summary
Stream Class
7Q10, cfs:
15
b. PT Docs. Summary
# IUs
8
Oufall Lat.
Outfall Long.
16
IWS approval date
10/4/2018
# SIUs
8
Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfall(s)?
0 YES ❑ NO
17
L/STMP approval date:
3/19/2021
# CIUs
2
Comments:
18
HWA-AT approval date
7/12/2018
# NSCIUs
0
The nearest downstream water supply (WS-IV) boundary is located approximately 16 miles downstream of the outfall
# IUs w/Local
8
Permits or Other
19
-Types
20
1
2. Industrial Users' Information.
21
#
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU Non Conventional Pollutans & Toxic Pollutant
IUP Effective Date
a"
1
Darling Ingredients, Inc.
Rendering
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
8/1/2022
22
silver, TP, zinc
2
Cargil
40 CFR 406
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
1/1/2019
23
silver, TP, zinc
iv
3
Dana Companies
40 CFR 442
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, non -polar material, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum,
1/1/2019
24
0-
nickel, selenium, silver, TP, zinc
Lu
4
Hexion Inc.
40 CFR 414
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
1/1/2023
25
d
silver, TP, zinc, priority pollutants
z
5
Goodyear
40 CFR 428
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
9/1/2019
26
silver, TP, zinc
6
Martin's Pork Products
311611
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
8/1/2021
27
silver, TP, zinc
7
Cumberland County Landfill
landfill
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
1/1/2019
28
silver, TP, zinc, priority pollutants
8
M+H Purolator Filters NA, LLC
MFG
flow, CBOD, TSS, TKN, pH, ammonia, O&G, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
1/1/2023
29
silver, TP, zinc
9
30
10
31
11
32
12
33
13
34
14
35
Comment:
Waiting for Division approval of HWA before updating and renewing IUPs. Recommend PFAS monitoring for filter and rubber manufacturing, landfill and OCPSF.
40
41
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
42
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
43
❑
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that
is INACTIVE
44
❑
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
45
❑
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
46
p
3a) Full Program with LTMP
47
❑
3b) Modified Program with STMP
48
❑
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
49
p
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
50
❑
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to § 503.43)
51
❑
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill,
if yes which landfill:
52
❑
8) other
53
Sludge Disposal Plan:
Liquid land application program
54
55
Sludge Permit No:
WQ0000527
56
Page 1 POC Review Form

AlB
I C D I E I F I G I H I I I J I K I L I M I N 1 O 1 P
57
4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
58
PW: Find L/STMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
59
a
NConcern
co
c
U
a
Parameter of
(POC)
Check List
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES
POC
Required by
EPA PT(1)
POC due to
Sludge (2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC (4)
%
Removal
Rate
L/STMP
Effluent Freq.
NPDES
Effluent Freq.
PQLs review
Comment
60
PQL from
L/STMP, ug/I
Required PQL
per NPDES
permit
Recomm.
PQL, ug/I
0
Flow
El
El
El61
62
0
ICBOD
Li
0
0
❑
63
0
I TSS
❑
p
❑
p
❑
64
0
NH3
❑
El
0
El
❑
65
❑
Arsenic
❑
❑
0
0
❑
2.0
66
❑
Barium
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
67
❑
Beryllium(5)
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
68
p
Cadmium(1)
❑
❑
p
0
ID
❑
0.5
69
0
Chromium(1)
❑
❑
0
p
p
❑
5.0
70
0
I Copper(1)
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
2.0
71
p
jCyanide
❑
❑
❑
p
❑
72
p
Lead(1)
❑
❑
p
p
1Z
❑
2.0
73
❑
Mercury(5)
❑
❑
p
p
❑
0.001
74
❑
Molybdenum
❑
❑
p
D
❑
10.0
75
(Z
Nickel(1)
❑
❑
0
0
0
❑
76
0
Selenium
❑
❑
p
p
❑
1.0
77
0
Silver
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
1.0
78
p
Zinc(1)
❑
p
0
p
p
❑
10.0
79
0
Sludge Flow to Disposal
p
❑
❑
80
0
% Solids to Disposal
p
❑
❑
81
❑
10il & Grease
❑
❑
82
0
TN
❑
0
p
El
❑
83
0
T P
❑
❑J
0
0
❑
84
0
Sodium
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
85
0
Magnesium
❑
❑
El
❑
❑
86
0
Calcium
❑
❑
El
❑
❑
87
0
Potassium
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
88
p
Aluminum
❑
❑
FEI
❑
❑
89
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
90
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
91
Footnotes:
92
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA -PT requirement
93
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
94
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
95
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW
96
(5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated
97
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
98
J
Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in USTMP sampling plan
5. Comments
99
Please font for POC that be from USTIVIP POC listisampling
use orange and strikethrough may removed plan-
100
Blue shaded cell (D60: H81): I Parameters usually included under that POC list
Wim
101
102
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in L/STMP:
Owl
103
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
71
104
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
Datasheet:
105
Additional pollutants added to L/STMP due
to POTW s concerns:
106
NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
Recommend PFAS monitoring for filter and rubber manufacturing, landfill and OCPSF.
107
6. Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
108
NPDES Permit Effective Date
11/1/2023
180 days after effective (date):
4/29/2024
Permit writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Page 2 POC Review Form

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO023957 I11 121 22/03/29 I17 18I e I 19 I 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
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
70I I 71 I LL -1 I I
LJ
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
08:OOAM 22/03/29
18/01/01
Cross Creek WWTP
601 N Eastern Blvd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Fayetteville NC 283015265
11:15AM 22/03/29
22/10/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Michael Scott McCoy/ORC/910-223-4757/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Mick J Noland,PO Box 1089 Fayetteville NC 283021089//910-223-4733/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Hughie White DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.708/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

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

Permit: NCO023957
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022
Owner -Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑
❑
0
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
❑
❑
❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
❑
❑
❑
classification?
Page# 3

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

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

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

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

Permit: NCO023957 Owner -Facility: Cross Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/29/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
0
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
❑
❑
❑
■
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The generator was not tested during this inspection.
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?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
■
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Page#
8

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 2 u 3 I NC0023957 111 121 22/08/09 I17 18 L�] 19 I s I 201
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 73 � I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
70 I I 71 I LL -1 I I
LJ
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:OOAM 22/08/09
18/01/01
Cross Creek WWTP
601 N Eastern Blvd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Fayetteville NC 283015265
05:OOPM 22/08/09
22/10/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Mick J Noland,PO Box 1089 Fayetteville NC 283021089//910-223-4733/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Other
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO023957 I11 12I 22/08/09 117 18 1,1
IUI
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

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