NC0026514_Fact Sheet_20230915

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO026514
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco,[e-mail]:
Date: September 11, 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: City of Raeford/Raeford Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP)
Applicant Address: 1606 Highway 401 Business,Raeford,NC 28376
Facility Address: 1606 Highway 401 Business,Raeford,NC 28376
Permitted Flow: 3.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 64.7%domestic, 35.3%industrial*
Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: mechanical and manual bar screen with grit removal, influent recording
flow meter,two (2) 65 foot diameter primary clarifiers, four(4) 675,000
gallon extended-air aeration basins, four(4)48 foot diameter secondary
clarifiers,return activated sludge(RAS)tank, four(4)chlorination
units, four(4)effluent recording flow meters,gaseous SO2
dechlorination,two (2) 100,000 gallon aerobic sludge holding tanks,
two (2)belt presses mechanical sludge dewatering with lime
stabilization, sludge Storage,backup generator
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y; LTMP
County: Hoke
Region Fayetteville
*Based off of permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Raeford has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 3.0 MGD for the Raeford WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 4,900 residents in the City of Raeford and Hoke County, as well as 3 non-
categorical significant industrial users (SIUs)via a Division-approved pretreatment program. Treated
domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into Rockfish Creek, a class C waterbody in the Cape
Fear River Basin. Outfall 001 is approximately 5 miles upstream of waters designated as B waters and
approximately 32 miles upstream of WS-IV waters.
Sludge disposal: Dewatered sludge is currently disposed of though a contractor,McGill.
Page 1 of 11

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 -Rockfish Creek
Stream Segment: 18-31-(15)
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area(mi2): 98.5
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 49
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 70
30Q2 (cfs): 72
Average Flow(cfs): 128
IWC (%effluent): 8.67
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: H22NW
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2019 through March 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 1.4 3.71 0.371 MA 3.0
BOD mg/l 11.8 40 1.3 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N summer mg/l 1.2 21.2 <0.1 WA 27.0
MA 9.0
NH3N winter mg/l 0.8 9.8 <0.1 WA 35.0
MA 26.0
TSS mg/1 15.7 49 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
pH SU 6.7 7.8 6.0>pH<
9.0
(geomean)
(geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml 35 950 WA 400
MA 200
DO mg/1 8.1 10.4 5.2 DA>5.0
DM 28.0
TRC µg/l 14.5 28 6 (<50
compliance)
Conductivity µmhos/cm 640 1136 167 Monitor&
Report
Temperature ° C 20.1 28 5 Monitor&
Report
NO2+NO3 mg/l 6.6 33 0.081 Monitor&
Report
Page 2 of 11

TKN mg/I 5.1 56.3 < I Monitor&
Report
TN mg/1 11.2 59.9 < I Monitor&
Report
TIP mg/1 3.8 31 0.11 Monitor&
Report
Total Silver µg/l <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Monitor&
Report
Total Hardness mg/1 16.9 23.2 12.9 Monitor&
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow;2)to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3)to provide data for future TMDL;4)based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee(in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen,temperature, and
conductivity upstream at least 50 feet above the outfall and downstream at least 50 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
B7679300, located approximately 2 miles upstream of the outfall. The nearest downstream MCFR 3A
monitoring station is B7700000, located approximately 5 miles downstream of the outfall. MCFRBA data
was also available for TKN,NO2+NO3,total phosphorous,pH, fecal coliform and turbidity. Instream data
from January 2019 through December 2022 has been summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter Units Upstream B7679300 Downstream B7700000
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 16.7 26.4 5.1 16.7 26.5 4.9
DO mg/l 8.0 11.7 4.6 8.5 11.9 5.8
Conductivity µmhos/cm <47 <47 <47 <47 <47 <47
Hardness mg/l 2.9 4 2 - - -
TKN mg/1 0.4 1.07 0.2 0.5 1.71 0.2
NO2+NO3 mg/l 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.3 0.71 0.08
Ammonia mg/1 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.17 0.02
TP mg/l 0.02 0.037 0.02 0.06 0.208 0.02
pH s.u. 4.8 5.6 3.9 5.4 6 4.3
Fecal Coliform #/100ml (geomean) 3600 10 (geomean) 8400 27
88 199
Turbidity NTUs 5.0 11.4 2.6 5.5 10 2.9
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.
Page 3 of 11

Downstream temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was not greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Average downstream DO was above 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
Downstream DO was not observed at levels less than 4.0 mg/L during the period reviewed. It was
concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
All upstream and downstream conductivity samples were non-detect<47 µmhos/cm. It was concluded
that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream conductivity.
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. Downstream fecal coliform was
observed at levels greater than 400/100mL in 22% of samples reported, and upstream fecal coliform was
observed at levels greater than 400/100mL in 13%of samples reported. While ambient fecal coliform was
observed at elevated levels during the period reviewed, concurrent effluent fecal coliform concentrations
were consistently lower than the instream. As such, it does not appear that the effluent is contributing to
the fecal coliform levels instream and instream fecal coliform monitoring has not been added to the
permit.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
turbidity. Downstream turbidity was not observed at levels greater than 50 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B
.0211 (21)] during the period reviewed.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream pH.
However, downstream pH,which was observed at levels higher on the pH scale than upstream pH,was
consistently closer to the pH range specified in per 15A NCAC 02B .0211(14).
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TP,
TKN and NO2+NO3 with downstream TP, TKN and NO2+NO3 being observed at levels generally higher
than that of the upstream. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between
upstream and downstream ammonia. 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 Basin Association(MCFBA)
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations from June 2018 through June 2023.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from February 2019 to May 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in November 2021 reported that the facility was compliant.
Page 4 of 11

6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206,the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow(acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow(chronic Aquatic
Life;non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow(aesthetics); annual average flow(carcinogen,HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered(e.g., based on CORMIX model results):NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste(e.g.,BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen(DO)water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD=30 mg/l for Municipals)may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for BOD5 are TBELs based on a 1976 Level B model. The model results were verified in
1985 when another Level B model was conducted coupling NBOD and CBOD.No changes were 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/l (summer)and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine(TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life(17 ug/1)and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective.No changes were made.
The existing limitations for ammonia are based on IWC-based calculations for ammonia toxicity. The
ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to be
protective.No changes were 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%detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 213.0206. Effective April 6,2016,NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10,2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 2019
and March 2023. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
Page 5 of 11

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
• MonitoringOnly.nly. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: 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 Molybdenum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set,two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s)will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable concentration: None
evaluated due to lack of detections found for majority of parameters and few reported
detections appearing at levels significantly below the allowable discharge concentrations.
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.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 9%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria(0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year(81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources(-2%of total load),the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs)for point source
control. Municipal facilities>2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury(>1 ng/1)will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
Page 6 of 11

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.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: The City conducted total mercury
sampling as part of Mercury Minimization Plan(data provided in renewal application from February 2016
through February 2022) and Effluent Pollutant Scans using an insufficiently sensitive method(PQL<200
ng/L). Since the City of Raeford conducted no low-level mercury monitoring using EPA Method 1631E,
no data evaluation could be made. To collect data for mercury TMDL evaluation, annual monitoring for
low-level mercury using EPA Method 1631E has been added to the permit. Additionally,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: Currently, a permit reopener condition, Special Condition A.(2.)Permit Re-Opener:
Supplementary Nutrient Monitoring, exists in the permit informing the Permittee that the Director of
DWR may reopen this permit to require supplemental nutrient monitoring of the discharge. As the
Division may request additional monitoring for TN and TP if necessary without need for reopener
condition, Special Condition A.(2.)has been removed from the permit.
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 I LI r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. As an attachment to the permit
application,the City informed the Division that no monitoring for additional pollutants has been
conducted(see attached chemical addendum)and therefore no additional pollutants of concern have been
identified.
In 2019,based on the EPA's Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule indicating elevated
concentrations of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin,the Division required facilities in
the basin with pretreatment programs conduct investigative monitoring of their influents for PFAS and
1,4-dioxane.
The City of Raeford participated in this investigation and found the presence of 1,4-dioxane in 2 of the 3
Raeford WWTP influent samples collected. Influent concentration is anticipated to reflect effluent
concentrations based on existing components at the treatment facility. The Raeford WWTP discharges
approximately 32 miles upstream of the Cape Fear River Smithfield Packing WS-IV boundary. Based on
an AAF of 4676 cfs at the WS-IV boundary and the WS ISTV of 0.35 µg/L,the allowable discharge
concentration for 1,4-dioxane at this facility is 352.3 µg/L. The maximum influent sample collected in
2019 was reported at 11.6 ug/L. To further understand any contribution of 1,4-dioxane from this facility,
quarterly effluent monitoring has been added.After a 24-month sampling period,the Permittee may
request the Division conduct a review of submitted data for assessment and approval of a 1,4-dioxane
monitoring frequency reduction from quarterly to annually.
In addition to 1,4-dioxane,the City found the presence of some PFAS compounds in their influent during
each of the three sampling events. As the Raeford WWTP is a major facility discharging above WS-IV
waters, 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
Page 7 of 11

method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register to allow time for laboratories to attain
certification. This date may be extended upon request and if there are no NC-certified labs.
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 BODS/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4)of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1)prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit,with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed(e.g.,based on new information,increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit(YES/NO): YES
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: Based on the results of the RPA showing
no reasonable potential to violate state water quality standards,the total silver monitoring requirements
have been removed from the permit.
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500;2)
NPDES Guidance,Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances(7/15/2010 Memo); 3)NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance(10/22/2012 Memo); 4)Best
Professional Judgement(BPJ). Per US EPA(Interim Guidance, 1996),monitoring requirements are not
Page 8 of 11

considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o)of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring,refer to Section 4.
The City has requested continuation of 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia,TSS and fecal coliform
based on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits
for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for these parameters
have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on this review,2/week
monitoring frequency has been applied for BOD, ammonia, fecal coliform, and TSS.
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 3.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5 MA 30.0 mg/l No change WQBEL. 1976 and 1985 Level B
WA 45.0 mg/l Models;2012 DWR Guidance
Monitor and report 2/week Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 2023 WLA; 2012 DWR
MA 9.0 mg/l Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
WA 27.0 mg/l Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Winter: Permits for Exceptionally Performing
MA 26.0 mg/l Facilities
WA 35.0 mg/l
Monitor and report 2/week
TSS MA 30 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45 mg/1 standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B
Monitor and report 2/week .0406; 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding
the Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change to WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400/100ml limits; Monitor NCAC 2B .0200; 2012 DWR Guidance
Monitor and report Daily and report 2/Week 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
Page 9 of 11

DO > 5 mg/1 No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
PH 6—9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Daily NCAC 213 .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
Conductivity Monitor and Report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500
Total Residual DM 28 ug/L No change WQBEL. 2023 WLA. Surface Water
Chlorine Monitor and Report Daily Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN Monitor and Report No change For calculation of TN
Monthly
NO2+NO3 Monitor and Report No change For calculation of TN
Monthly
Total Nitrogen Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Monthly 2B. 0500
Total Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Phosphorus Monthly 2B. 0500
Total Silver Monitor and Report Remove Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly requirement Potential Analysis (RPA).No RP,
Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw
-No Monitoring required
Total Mercury No requirement Monitor and No low level mercury data reported
Report Annually during review period—incorrect method
using EPA used. Data required for TMDL
Method 1631 E evaluation.
Total Hardness Quarterly monitoring No changes Hardness-dependent dissolved metals
Upstream and in Effluent water quality standards approved in
2016
1,4-Dioxane No requirement Monitor and Evaluation of 1,4-dioxane contribution:
Report quarterly major discharger above WS-V waters;
with potential to 2019 investigation
reduce to annual;
Add reopener
condition
Add quarterly Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
PFAS No requirement monitoring with pretreatment facility; Implementation
delayed delayed until after EPA certified
implementation method becomes available.
Instream Monitor and Report for Add ammonia, Based on discussions with Basin
Monitoring conductivity,DO and TKN,NO2+NO3, Planning Branch and Instream Data
temperature 3/week during and TP monthly Review; separating instream
June through September requirements for clarity.
and 1/week during Move all instream
remainder of the year monitoring
requirements to its
own condition
Special Condition
A. 2.
Page 10 of 11

Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 9%effluent No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC
213.0500
Effluent Three times per permit No change; 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan cycle conducted in
2025, 2026, 2027
Nutrient Special Condition A.(2.) Remove condition The Division may request additional
Reopener Permit Re-Opener: monitoring for TN and TP if necessary
Supplementary Nutrient without need for reopener condition
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: 7/19/2023
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(919) 707-3609 or via email at nick.cocogdeq.nc.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the City of Raeford,EPA Region IV, and the Division's Fayetteville Regional
Office,Aquatic Toxicology Branch,Monitoring Coalition Coordinator and Operator Certification
Program for review.No comments were received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• Special Condition A.(7.)PFAS Monitoring Requirements has been updated to include reference to
the most recent 4th Draft of EPA Method 1633,released in July 2023.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• POC Review Form
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Chemical Addendum
Page 11 of 11

=rRcn v p 3 NORTH CAROLINA - HOKE COUNTY
_a,_.� Qto � U o o o AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
3 T.-•
(n n % 7 0 � Z
7 a N Z O 7 ?r'r 5 2�2 9 O
ate.E< 3 n Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said Count and
- m 9 Y Y
� a rt w Z w a Z M State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to
3 rn�� r)o`� v�3. '�' ° administer oaths, personally appeared Jessica Hendrix Brown
p ?u= 0 V rD O < rr a G=i
o, rt =rto n'C% rD Uj• who being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that she is Pub-
0)�N�m oQJ o o'=-a rn
i 3 °i � `�°3 rt a-*= `� lisher of BROWN PUBLISHING, LLC, engaged in the publication of
((DD : rtM ko—< ° (n a-°�0 3 o a newspaper known as THE NEWS-JOURNAL, published, issued,
3 �w CDv (D1A— nrtO
, rt rt o 2-o _ °r o o and entered as second class mail in the City of Raeford, in said
W @ w o o Er 5• C County and State; that she is authorized to make this affidavit
Q—M C)= rt o o (D fD °1 and sworn statement; that the notice, legal advertisement or
O n O (MD �afD(D vOi ch C-O
eo o 0 C s 0 o M c rt other advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto,
R o co °1 m o o m N o�� n was published in THE NEWS-JOURNAL on the following dates:
p ' c o'�� �* o va�iv ID
3 �
—(D
�=o� o°1�o °3' !a, 0 JULY 19,2023
=r2� jmxT = 3 n o ..q
cn =77 (D 3,c � -3F�1
n (Dom ' 5• 3 5O
y a d 3 ^' tj
�^ as� ac ='M
U 0 M Z c a o -o and that said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document
to �° a o M2 a p a C m o or legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each
Q Q. 5';0�,n 0) n and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
'-' _o �� o ° �,(DfD o requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General
�o a�,'< �n3, -3 5 3 0
Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within
�M o 0)- gr 5 Z o`0 �^ GT C the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North
s F3 0� ao^� `n 00
0) Carolina.
n fD (DD rt d L O Z=j� a(nD Gi Z
N N (@D ((DD+O rL*i '0 V C 3
y E [D rn (D
rt a (D m This lD day of 2023
Publisher
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this I0 day of
Auqu.)4- , 2023
My Commission expires: 3 Zf- 7 o 26
Notary
CATHARIN SHEPARD
NOTARY PUBLIC
HOKE COUNTY,NC
W Commission Expires 3-21-2026

FtAEF�
Sr.1eo,
CITY OF RAEFORD
John K.McNeill,III,Mayor City Councilmen:
Dennis Baxley,City Manager 315 N.Main Street,Raeford,NC,28376-2629 Charles Allen
Regina Sutherland,City Attorney Telephone[phone],Fax [phone] Robert Conoly
John O.Jordan
Mary Neil King
Wayne Willis
June 21, 2023
NC DEQ/
Division of Water Resources/
Water Quality Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC,27699-1617
RE: Reduction of Monitoring for NPDES permit NCO026514 for BOD,Ammonia, TSS, and Fecal
Attention:Nick Coco,PE.
The city has included monitoring results for 3 consecutive years for your review. Included are results for
BOD,Ammonia,TSS, and fecal.
The facility has no civil penalty assessment for permit limit violations for each target parameter during the
three years.
The permittee nor any of its employees have been convicted of criminal violations of the Clear Water Act
within the previous five years.
The POTW is not currently under a SOC for target parameter effluent limit non-compliance.
The POTW is not on EPA's Quarterly Noncompliance Report for target parameter limit violations.
There have been no non-monthly average limit violations during the previous year.
I ask that you review the results to determine if we are eligible for a reduction in monitoring on the new
permit.
If you need additional data,please ask I will be glad to get it for you.

Effluent Toxicity Report Form-Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi-Concentration Test Date 5/242023
Facility Raeford NPDES#NC00 26514 Pipe# 001 County Hoke
Laboratory Meritech. Inc Comments Corrected copy
x
Signature oOperator i ��nsib Charge/Email/Phone Number
x J
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
%1%11. )RIGIN.11_ 10: NAter Sciences Section
Aquatic I oxicolgy Branch
Division of Rater Resources
1623 Mail Ser-.ice('enter
Raleigh,NC 27699-1623
Test Initiation Date/Time 5/9/2023 5 17 PM Avg Wt/Sury Control 0 435 Test Organisms
Eff. Repl. 1 2 3 4 _ Cultured In-House
Control Surviving# 10 10 10 10 0 Survival 100 0 Outside Supplier
Original# 10 10 10 10
Wt/original(mg) 0 406 0 464 0 449 0 420 Avg Wt(mg) 0 435 Hatch Date 5/8/23
2 25 Surviving# 9 9 8 7 %Survival 82 5 Hatch Time 4 00-5 00 pm
Original# 10 10 10 10
WUonginal(mg) 0 394 0 465 0 397 0.326 Avg Wt(mg) 0 396
4 5 Surviving# 8 6 9 9 %Survival 80 0
Original 0 10 10 10 10
WUoriginal(mg) 0.436 0 277 0 299 0 422 Avg Wt(mg).F 6 359
0 Surviving# 8 8 8 9 %Survival 82 5
Original# 10 10 10 10
Wt/original(mg) 0.381 0.535 0 500 0 479 Avg Wt(mg) 0 474
18 Surviving# 10 10 10 6 %Survival 90 0
Original# 10 10 10 10
WUonginal(mg) 0.558 0 498 0 394 0 364 Avg Wt(mg) 0.454
36 Surviving# 10 9 9 10 %Survival 95 0
Original# 10 10 10 10
Wt/original(mg) 0 478 0 461 0 331 0 533 Avg Wt(mg) 0 451
Water Quality Data Day
Control 0 1 2 3 4 s 6
pH(SU)Init/Fin 791 r 760 785 r 771 774 r 762 779 r 7.91 796 r 783 793 r 77 7 70 r 7 62
DO(mg/L) Init/Fin 7.93 r 7.51 805 r 7 72 7 77 r 748 800 r 765 795 r 799 8 19 / 76 821 r 7.23
Temp(C)Init/Fin 246 r 246 24 2 r 240 252 r 24 1 249 r 243 24.6 / 24 3 24 4 r 24 2 1 242 r 246,
High Concentration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
pH(SU)InrVFin 743 r 7.54 757 1 762 760 / 7.60 767 r 792 781 r 787 7 71 / 765 7 77 / 762
DO(mg/L) [nit/Fin 7 79 r 746 794 r 763 815 r 741 799 r 763 797 r 799 789 r 755 8.00 7.08
Temp(C) Init/Fin 247 r 245 246 r 24.1 24.3 r 24 1 249 r 24 4 256 r 248 249 24 1 258 r 240
Sample 1 2 3 Survival Growth Overall Result
Collection Start Date 5/8/2023 5/10/2023 5/11/2023 Normal ChV >36
Grab Hom Var
Composite(Duration) 240 24 0 240 NOEC 36 36
Hardness(mg/L) 16 20 16 LOEC >36 >36
Alkalinity(mg/L) 26 57 65 ChV >36 >36
Conductivity(umhos/cm) 467 581 610 Method Steel's Dunnett's
Chlorine(mg/L) <01 <01 <01
Terrp at Receipt('C) 1 7 1 5 2 4 Stats Survival Growth
Conic. Critical Calculated Critical Calculated
Dilution H2O Batch# 110 111 112 113 225 10 10 241 07787
Hardness(mg/L) 46 a6 44 44 4 5 10 10 241 1 5128
Alkalinity(mg/L) 33 34 32 31 9 10 10 241 -0 7737
Conductivity(umhos/cm) 171 178 169 152 18 10 16 241 0 3720
36 10 14 1 241 -0 3174
DINQ Form AT-5 1104

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Raeford WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO026514 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 0.5899 FW 3.2396 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 3.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Rockfish Creek Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03030004 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 117.7325 FW 905.0818 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 49.000 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w (cfs) 70.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 7.8806 FW 10.4720 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 72.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 128.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs) 40.20 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 2.9416 FW 75.4871 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 16.87 mg/L (Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
------------- ----------------------
Upstream Hardness 25 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 25 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 37.2313 FW 335.2087 pg/L
------------- ----------------------
Combined Hardness Acute 25 mg/L I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
------------------
Data Source(s) Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.2964 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 126.7335 FW 125.7052 ug/L
Par22
Par23
Par24
26514 RPA, input
6/20/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY" Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/5/2019 13 13 Std Dev. 3.1425 1 Default 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 5/7/2019 13.4 13.4 Mean 16.8722 2 Mean 25.0000
3 8/7/2019 14.5 14.5 C.V. 0.1863 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 11/7/2019 14.5 14.5 n 18 4 n 1
5 2/4/2020 12.9 12.9 10th Per value 12.97 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 5/5/2020 18.3 18.3 Average Value 16.87 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 8/11/2020 15.9 15.9 Max. Value 23.20 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 11/3/2020 15.6 15.6 8
9 2/9/2021 20.8 20.8 9
10 5/4/2021 16.6 16.6 10
11 8/3/2021 21.1 21.1 11
12 11/2/2021 17.7 17.7 12
13 2/1/2022 19 19 13
14 5/3/2022 20.2 20.2 14
15 8/3/2022 18.4 18.4 15
16 11/1/2022 12.9 12.9 16
17 2/7/2023 23.2 23.2 17
18 5/2/2023 15.7 15.7 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26514 RPA, data
- 1 - 6/20/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/5/2019 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.1179
2 5/7/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5278
3 8/7/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.2233
4 11/7/2019 < 1 0.5 n 18
5 2/4/2020 1 1
6 5/5/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.15
7 8/11/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 1.0 ug/L
8 11/3/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 1.2 ug/L
9 2/9/2021 < 1 0.5
10 5/4/2021 < 1 0.5
11 8/3/2021 < 1 0.5
12 11/2/2021 < 1 0.5
13 2/1/2022 < 1 0.5
14 5/3/2022 < 1 0.5
15 8/3/2022 < 1 0.5
16 11/1/2022 < 1 0.5
17 2/7/2023 < 1 0.5
18 5/2/2023 < 1 0.5
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
26514 RPA, data
-2 - 6/20/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04 Part O
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Cadmium Values"then"COPY" Chromium' Total Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/5/2019 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 2/5/2019 6 6 Std Dev. 3.3294
2 5/7/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 5/7/2019 8 8 Mean 7.4444
3 8/7/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.0000 3 8/7/2019 < 4 2 C.V. 0.4472
4 11/7/2019 < 1 0.5 n 18 4 11/7/2019 < 4 2 n 18
5 2/4/2020 < 1 0.5 5 2/4/2020 4 4
6 5/5/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 5/5/2020 < 4 2 Mult Factor= 1.30
7 8/11/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L 7 8/11/2020 7 7 Max. Value 12.0 pg/L
8 11/3/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.500 ug/L 8 11/3/2020 8 8 Max. Pred Cw 15.6 pg/L
9 2/9/2021 < 1 0.5 9 2/9/2021 11 11
10 5/4/2021 < 1 0.5 10 5/4/2021 7 7
11 8/3/2021 < 1 0.5 11 8/3/2021 10 10
12 11/2/2021 < 1 0.5 12 11/2/2021 11 11
13 2/1/2022 < 1 0.5 13 2/1/2022 12 12
14 5/3/2022 < 1 0.5 14 5/3/2022 7 7
15 8/3/2022 < 1 0.5 15 8/3/2022 6 6
16 11/1/2022 < 1 0.5 16 11/1/2022 12 12
17 2/7/2023 < 1 0.5 17 2/7/2023 9 9
18 5/2/2023 < 1 0.5 18 5/2/2023 10 10
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 < ERR 52
53 < ERR 53
54 < ERR 54
55 < ERR 55
56 < ERR 56
57 < ERR 57
58 < ERR 58
26514 RPA, data
-3- 6/20/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal Par12
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY" Cyanide Values"then"COPY"
pp .Maximum data y .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/5/2019 10 10 Std Dev. 4.4721 1 2/5/2019 < 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 5/7/2019 8 8 Mean 11.3333 2 5/7/2019 < 5 5 Mean 5.00
3 8/7/2019 14 14 C.V. 0.3946 3 8/7/2019 < 5 5 C.V. 0.0000
4 11/7/2019 14 14 n 18 4 11/7/2019 < 5 5 n 18
5 2/4/2020 12 12 5 2/4/2020 < 5 5
6 5/5/2020 6 6 Mult Factor= 1.27 6 5/5/2020 < 5 5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 8/11/2020 5 5 Max. Value 19.00 ug/L 7 8/11/2020 < 5 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 11/3/2020 8 8 Max. Pred Cw 24.13 ug/L 8 11/3/2020 < 5 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L
9 2/9/2021 8 8 9 2/9/2021 < 5.0 5
10 5/4/2021 7 7 10 5/4/2021 < 5.0 5
11 8/3/2021 15 15 11 8/3/2021 < 5 5
12 11/2/2021 17 17 12 11/2/2021 < 5 5
13 2/1/2022 11 11 13 2/1/2022 < 5 5
14 5/3/2022 5 5 14 5/3/2022 < 5 5
15 8/3/2022 18 18 15 8/3/2022 < 5 5
16 11/1/2022 12 12 16 11/1/2022 < 5 5
17 2/7/2023 19 19 17 2/7/2023 < 5 5
18 5/2/2023 15 15 18 5/2/2023 < 5 5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26514 RPA, data
-4- 6/20/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14 Par16
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Lead Values"then"COPY" Molybdenum Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/5/2019 < 3 1.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 2/5/2019 9 9 Std Dev. 3.7356
2 5/7/2019 < 3 1.5 Mean 1.5000 2 5/7/2019 6 6 Mean 5.5278
3 8/7/2019 < 3 1.5 C.V. 0.0000 3 8/7/2019 5 5 C.V. 0.6758
4 11/7/2019 < 3 1.5 n 18 4 11/7/2019 5 5 n 18
5 2/4/2020 < 3 1.5 5 2/4/2020 17 17
6 5/5/2020 < 3 1.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 5/5/2020 6 6 Mult Factor= 1.46
7 8/11/2020 < 3 1.5 Max. Value 1.500 ug/L 7 8/11/2020 < 4 2 Max. Value 17.0 ug/L
8 11/3/2020 < 3 1.5 Max. Pred Cw 1.500 ug/L 8 11/3/2020 4 4 Max. Pred Cw 24.8 ug/L
9 2/9/2021 < 3 1.5 9 2/9/2021 8 8
10 5/4/2021 < 3 1.5 10 5/4/2021 8 8
11 8/3/2021 < 3 1.5 11 8/3/2021 8 8
12 11/2/2021 < 3 1.5 12 11/2/2021 5 5
13 2/1/2022 < 3 1.5 13 2/1/2022 6 6
14 5/3/2022 < 3 1.5 14 5/3/2022 < 5 2.5
15 8/3/2022 < 3 1.5 15 8/3/2022 < 4 2
16 11/1/2022 < 3 1.5 16 11/1/2022 < 4 2
17 2/7/2023 < 3 1.5 17 2/7/2023 < 4 2
18 5/2/2023 < 3 1.5 18 5/2/2023 < 4 2
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26514 RPA, data
- 5- 6/20/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18 use"PASTE Par19
SPECIAL- Use"PASTE SPECIAL-
Values"then Values"then"COPY".
Nickel "COPY". Selenium Maximum data points
Maximum data =58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.1179 1 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 5/7/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.4722 2 5/7/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 8/7/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0477 3 8/7/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000
4 11/7/2019 < 5 2.5 n 18 4 11/7/2019 < 5 2.5 n 18
5 2/4/2020 < 5 2.5 5 2/4/2020 < 5 2.5
6 5/5/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.03 6 5/5/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 8/11/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 pg/L 7 8/11/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L
8 11/3/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.6 pg/L 8 11/3/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 ug/L
9 2/9/2021 < 5 2.5 9 2/9/2021 < 5 2.5
10 5/4/2021 < 5 2.5 10 5/4/2021 < 5 2.5
11 8/3/2021 < 5 2.5 11 8/3/2021 < 5 2.5
12 11/2/2021 < 5 2.5 12 11/2/2021 < 5 2.5
13 2/1/2022 2 2 13 2/1/2022 < 5 2.5
14 5/3/2022 < 5 2.5 14 5/3/2022 < 5 2.5
15 8/3/2022 < 5 2.5 15 8/3/2022 < 5 2.5
16 11/1/2022 < 5 2.5 16 11/1/2022 < 5 2.5
17 2/7/2023 < 5 2.5 17 2/7/2023 < 5 2.5
18 5/2/2023 < 5 2.5 18 5/2/2023 < 5 2.5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26514 RPA, data
-6- 6/20/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20 Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL-
Silver Values"then"COPY" Zinc Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/5/2019 < 0.2 0.1 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 2/5/2019 41 41 Std Dev. 8.9166
2 5/7/2019 < 0.2 0.1 Mean 0.1000 2 5/7/2019 33 33 Mean 37.2778
3 8/7/2019 < 0.2 0.1 C.V. 0.0000 3 8/7/2019 31 31 C.V. 0.2392
4 11/7/2019 < 0.2 0.1 n 18 4 11/7/2019 31 31 n 18
5 2/4/2020 < 0.2 0.1 5 2/4/2020 50 50
6 5/5/2020 < 0.2 0.1 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 5/5/2020 42 42 Mult Factor= 1.16
7 8/11/2020 < 0.2 0.1 Max. Value 0.100 ug/L 7 8/11/2020 26 26 Max. Value 54.0 ug/L
8 11/3/2020 < 0.2 0.1 Max. Pred Cw 0.100 ug/L 8 11/3/2020 45 45 Max. Pred Cw 62.6 ug/L
9 2/9/2021 < 0.2 0.1 9 2/9/2021 31 31
10 5/4/2021 < 0.2 0.1 10 5/4/2021 32 32
11 8/3/2021 < 0.2 0.1 11 8/3/2021 54 54
12 11/2/2021 < 0.2 0.1 12 11/2/2021 40 40
13 2/1/2022 < 0.2 0.1 13 2/1/2022 46 46
14 5/3/2022 < 0.2 0.1 14 5/3/2022 42 42
15 8/3/2022 < 0.2 0.1 15 8/3/2022 41 41
16 11/1/2022 < 0.2 0.1 16 11/1/2022 38 38
17 2/7/2023 < 0.2 0.1 17 2/7/2023 29 29
18 5/2/2023 < 0.2 0.1 18 5/2/2023 19 19
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26514 RPA, data
-7- 6/20/2023

Raeford WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO026514 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 3 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 3.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1QIOS (cfs) = 40.20 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 10.36789298 Acute =25 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 49.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 8.667287978 Chronic =25 mg/L
7Q10W (cfs) = 70.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 6.229068989
30Q2 (cfs) = 72.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 6.066536204
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 128.00 IW%C @ QA= 3.505465511
Receiving Stream: Rockfish Creek HUC 03030004 Stream Class: C
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Applied 'Chronic Standard Acute a n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 3,279.4
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 ug/L
18 1 1.2 Chronic (FW): --- 1,730.E - -----------------�-�-�-�-�-�
No_value >Allowable Cw----------------------------------
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L Chronic (HH): 285.3 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 31.247
Cadmium NC 0.5899 FW(7Q10s) 3.2396 ug/L 18 0 0.500
Chronic: 6.806 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 8,729.7
Chromium III NC 117.73 FW(7Q10s) 905.08 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:----- 1 358.4 - ----------------------------
Acute: 154.3
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q10s) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic: 126.9
Tot Cr value(s) >_ 5 but< Cr VI Allowable Cw a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 18 15 15.6 Max reported value= 12 samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Acute: 101.00
Copper NC 7.8806 FW(7Q10s) 10.4720 ug/L 18 18 24.13
Chronic: 90.92 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 212.2
Cyanide NC 5 FW(701 Os) 22 10 u�/L 18 0 5.0 __ _ ______ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 57.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute: 728.085
Lead NC 2.9416 FW(7Q 1 Os) 75.4871 ug/L 18 0 1.500
Chronic: 33.939 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 3 Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 3,233.1
Nickel NC 37.2313 FW(7QIOs) 335.2087 µg/L
18 1 2.6 Chronic (FW): 429.6
No_value >Allowable Cw----------------------------------
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Chronic (WS): 288.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
26514 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 6/20/2023

Raeford WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO026514 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 3 MGD
Acute: 540.1
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 18 0 2.5
Chronic: 57.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required
Acute: 2.859
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.2964 ug/L 18 0 0.100
Chronic: 0.692 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Monitoring required
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 0.2
Acute: 1,212.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Zinc NC ####### FW(7Q1Os) 125.7052 ug/L 18 18 62.6 Monitoring required
----- - ----------------------------
Chronic: 1,462.2
No value > Allowable Cw
26514 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 6/20/2023

Permit No. NCO026514
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards-Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard(WQS)Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission(EMC)on November 13,2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6,2016,with some exceptions. Therefore,metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6,2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1.NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l Chronic FW, µg/l Acute SW, µg/1 Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW=Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation=Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200(e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2.Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio(WER)is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph(11)(d)
Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium,Acute WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^10.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium,Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361
Cadmium,Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} •e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.445 11
Chromium III,Acute WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III,Chronic WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper,Acute WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper,Chronic WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead,Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead,Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} •e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel,Acute WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel,Chronic WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO026514
Silver,Acute WER*0.85 •e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver,Chronic Not applicable
Zinc,Acute WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc,Chronic WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream(upstream)hardness
and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal(more on that
below),but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals -Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations,based on applicable
standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value(chronic or acute),the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard,which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present(i.e. consistently below
detection level),then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10(the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10=0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs)0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge,the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream)hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's,Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values,upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available,the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L(CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L,respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable
potential,the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO026514
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness(chronic)
_(Permitted Flow,cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness,mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness,mg/L)
(Permitted Flow,cfs+s7Q10,cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal,using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients(DPCs)or site-specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the"Fraction Dissolved"converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in-stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996)and the
equation:
Cdiss - 1
Ctotal I + { [Kpo] [ss('+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss=in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1],minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a=constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness-dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient(or
site-specific translator)to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases,where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist(ie. silver),the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits)for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca=(s7Q 10+Qw)(Cwgs)—(s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca=allowable effluent concentration(µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs=NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria(µg/L or mg/L)
Cb=background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw=permitted effluent flow(cfs,match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10=summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10=used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0026514
QA=used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2=used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application(40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations,the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit(Total allowable
concentration)is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate,permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10,2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure,total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases,the projected maximum concentration(95th%) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling,upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter Value Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness(mg/L) 16.87 Average from DMR review for data
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] from January 2019—March 2023
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) 25 Default used; average from review
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] period below 25 mg/L.
7Q 10 summer(cfs) 49.0 Historical file;previous fact sheet
1Q10(cfs) 40.2 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow(MGD) 3.0 NPDES Files
Date: 7/7/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO026514 Raeford WWTP 6/20/2023
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
January-19 87.92 July-21 99.23 January-19 88.68 July-21 98.11
February-19 91.81 August-21 98.75 February-19 94.25 August-21 97.94
March-19 92.31 September-21 97.39 March-19 94.09 September-21 93.91
April-19 91.46 October-21 98.50 April-19 92.16 October-21 95.69
May-19 96.24 November-21 96.48 May-19 96.33 November-21 93.50
June-19 93.51 December-21 97.81 June-19 96.87 December-21 92.97
July-19 95.28 January-22 97.66 July-19 95.56 January-22 97.59
August-19 94.84 February-22 96.48 August-19 96.58 February-22 93.18
September-19 93.73 March-22 96.22 September-19 96.26 March-22 98.15
October-19 96.20 April-22 97.79 October-19 97.62 April-22 97.51
November-19 96.13 May-22 96.53 November-19 94.20 May-22 98.38
December-19 95.34 June-22 94.66 December-19 91.62 June-22 98.73
January-20 94.24 July-22 96.26 January-20 89.27 July-22 94.01
February-20 97.27 August-22 97.55 February-20 89.96 August-22 98.47
March-20 97.50 September-22 92.99 March-20 92.32 September-22 90.39
April-20 98.18 October-22 96.63 April-20 98.06 October-22 95.34
May-20 95.19 November-22 92.03 May-20 97.30 November-22 97.38
June-20 98.72 December-22 97.08 June-20 97.41 December-22 95.48
July-20 98.49 January-23 92.77 July-20 98.18 January-23 94.75
August-20 97.24 February-23 96.67 August-20 96.61 February-23 95.44
September-20 97.62 March-23 96.19 September-20 96.65 March-23 95.99
October-20 98.06 April-23 94.88 October-20 96.81 April-23 93.25
November-20 98.38 May-23 96.19 November-20 96.45 May-23 95.41
December-20 97.60 June-23 December-20 94.35 June-23
January-21 97.07 July-23 January-21 97.30 July-23
February-21 96.65 August-23 February-21 95.50 August-23
March-21 98.48 September-23 March-21 98.21 September-23
April-21 98.75 October-23 April-21 98.06 October-23
May-21 98.89 November-23 May-21 98.06 November-23
June-21 98.90 December-23 June-21 98.14 December-23
Overall BOD removal rate 96.20 Overall TSS removal rate 95.56

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility: Raeford WWTP
Permit No. NC0026514
Review period(use 3 5/2020-5/2023
yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report Y
3.Facility or employees convicted of CWA N
violations
Weekly Monthly 500/ 200% 200/ monthly #civil penalty 3-yr mean #daily #daily #of non-
p Reduce
Data Review Units average (geo mean <50%? samples <15? samples <20? >2? >1? Frequency?
average limit limit MA for FC) MA >200% WA >200% limit asessment (Yes/No)
violations
BOD(Weighted) mg/L 45 30 15 0 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
TSS mg/L 45 30 15 6.5165572 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Ammonia(weighted) mg/L 30.33333333 16.0833 8 0.6289088 1 Y 1 32.2 1 0 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Fecal Coliform #/100 400 1 200 1 100 136.524487 1 Y 800 6 Y 0 N 0 N Y

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Raeford WWTP
PermitNo. NC0026514
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 3
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 49
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 70
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 49 s7Q10 (CFS) 49
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 3 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 3
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.65 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.65
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 8.67 IWC (%) 8.67
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 196 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 9.2
Cap at 28 uq/L.Consistent with current limit. Consistent with current limit.Maintain limit.
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 70
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 3
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.65
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 11.54 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 6.23
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 25.6
Consistent with current limit.Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 06/19/22 Page 1 of 2
Permit: NCO026514 MRS Betweei 6 - 2018 and 6 - 2023 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO026514 FACILITY: City of Raeford-Raeford WWTP COUNTY: Hoke REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
06-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 06/06/18 5 X week ug/I 28 41.5 48.2 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 06/11/18 5Xweek ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 06/21/18 5Xweek ug/I 28 42 50 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 06/26/18 5 X week ug/I 28 33 17.9 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
07-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 07/11/18 5 X week ug/I 28 29.5 5.4 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
07-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 07/17/18 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
07-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 07/25/18 5 X week ug/I 28 40 42.9 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 08/07/18 5 X week ug/I 28 30 7.1 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 08/31/18 5Xweek ug/I 28 41 46.4 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 09/04/18 5 X week ug/I 28 37.5 33.9 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 09/10/18 5 X week ug/I 28 45 60.7 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 09/17/18 5 X week ug/I 28 29.5 5.4 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 09/18/18 5 X week ug/I 28 37 32.1 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 09/19/18 5 X week ug/I 28 46 64.3 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 11/02/18 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 11/05/18 5 X week ug/I 28 32.5 16.1 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded

MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 06/19/22 Page 2 of 2
Permit: NCO026514 MRS Betweel 6 - 2018 and 6 - 2023 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO026514 FACILITY: City of Raeford-Raeford WWTP COUNTY: Hoke REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
11-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 11/14/18 5 X week ug/I 28 44.5 58.9 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 11/15/18 5 X week ug/I 28 46 64.3 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 11/16/18 5 X week ug/I 28 46.5 66.1 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 11/30/18 5 X week ug/I 28 47 67.9 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
12-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 12/06/18 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Radiator Specialty Company NCO088838/001 County: Union Region: MRO Basin: YAD12 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 7/1/2018 Chr Lim: 90% NonComp: 7Q10: 0 PF: 0.09 IWC: 100 Freq: Q
J F M A M l J A S O N D
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - H - H
2020 H Pass - H - Pass Pass - - H - -
2021 H - - H - - H - - H - -
2022 H - - H - - no flow - - H - -
2023 H - - H - - - - - - - -
Raeford WWTP NCO026514/001 County: Hoke Region: FRO Basin: CPF15 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 4/1/2013 chr lim:9% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 49.0 PF: 3.0 IWC: 8.67 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 - Pass - - Pass>36(P) - - Pass - - Pass -
2020 - Pass - - P 25.5(P) - - Pass - - Pass -
2021 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass>36(P) - - Pass -
2022 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2023 - Pass - - - - - - - - - -
Raemon Well WTP NCO086894/001 County: Robeson Region: FRO Basin: LUM55 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 9/1/2014 Chr Cer PF Monit:90 NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M I J A S O N D
2019 Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Fail - -
2020 Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Fail - -
2022 Fail - - Pass - - Fail - - Fail - -
2023 Fail - - Fail - - - - - - - -
Raleigh-Neuse River RRF NCO029033/001 County: Wake Region: RRO Basin: NEU02 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 8/1/2020 chr lim:49%@ 60 M NonComp: Single 70.10: 98.7 PF: 60.0 IWC: 49.0 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 >100(s) >100(s) - >100 - >100(s)
2020 >100(s) >100(s) >100(P) >100(S)>100(s)
2021 63.6(5)>100(s)>100(I >100(s)>100(s) >100(S)>100(s) >100(s)>100(s)
2022 - >100 is)>100 is) - - Pass(S)Pass(S)>100 IF - - >100 invalid - - >100 -
2023 - >100 - - >100 - - - - - - -
Raleigh Convention Center NCO088137/001 County: Wake Region: RRO Basin: NEU02 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 11/1/2017 Chr Lim:90% NonComp: 7Q10: 0 PF: VAR IWC: 100 Freq: Q
J F M A M J I A S O N D
2019 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2020 - Pass - - Pass - Pass Pass - - Pass -
2021 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Fail INVALID INVALID
2022 >100 >100 INVALID Pass - - Fail >100 >100 Pass - - Fail >100
2023 <22.5 Fail >100 >100 Pass - - - - - - -
Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(PimDhales oromelas).H=No Flow(facility is active).s=Split test between Certified Labs Page 85 of 115

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 2 u 3 I NC0026514 111 121 21/06/01 117 18 L D] 19 I G I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70LJ 71Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:30AM 21/06/01 18/12/01
Raeford WWTP
US Hwy 401 Business Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Raeford NC 28376 12:OOPM 21/06/01 22/10/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Trudy Bullard McVicker/ORC/910-875-4931/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Dennis Baxley,423 E Central Ave Raeford NC 28376//910-875-6704/9109041640
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Other
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type 1
31 NCO026514 I11 12I 21/06/01 117 18 I D
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page# 2

Permit: NCO026514 Owner-Facility: Raeford WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/01/2021 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Other Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Page# 3

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form Version: 2022.09.28
2 1. Facility's General Information
3 Date of(draft) Review 7/6/2023 c. POC review due to: e. Contact Information
4
Date of(final) Review 9/15/2023 Municipal NPDES renewal 0 Regional Office(RO) Fayetteville
5 NPDES Permit Writer(pw) Nick Coco HWA-AT/LTMP Review ❑ RO PT Staff Stephanie Zorio RO NPDES Staff Stephanie Zorio
6
Perm ittee-Facility Name Raeford WWTP New Industries ❑ Facility PT Staff, email Trudy McVicker, tmcvicker(a_raefordnc.org
7 NPDES Permit Number NCO026514 WWTP expansion ❑ f. Receiving Stream
8 NPDES Permit Effective Date 11/1/2023 Stream reclass./adjustment ❑ Outfall
Chemical Addendum Submittal 3/20/2023 Outfall relocation/adjustment ❑ Receiving Stream: Rockfish Creek QA, cfs: 128
9 Date
10 NPDES Permit Public Notice Date 7/19/2023 7Q10 update ❑ Stream Class C 7Q10 (S), cfs: 49
11
eDMR data evaluated from: 5/1/2019 to 5/30/2023 Other POC review trigger, explain: Oufall Lat. 34.58.37 Outfall Long. 79.11.43
12 a. WWTP Capacity Summary Outfall II
13 Current Permitted Flow, mgd Designed Flow, 3.0 Receiving Stream: QA, cfs:
9
14 Permitted SIU Flow, mgd .--J0 d. IU Summary Stream Class 7Q10, cfs:
15 b. PT Docs. Summary # IUs Oufall Lat. Outfall Long.
16
IWS approval date 7/5/2022 #SIUs Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfall(s)? YES ❑ NO
17
L/STMP approval date: 6/11/2010 #CIUs Comments:
18 #NSCIUs
HWA-AT approval date submitted to DWR 4/19/2021 # IUs w/Local The nearest downstream water supply (WS-IV) boundary is located approximately 32 miles downstream of the outfall
Permits or Other
19 ITypes
20 2. Industrial Users' Information.
21 # Industrial User(IU) Name IU Activity IU Non Conventional Pollutans &Toxic Pollutant IUP Effective Date
22 1 Burlington Industries Fabric Dyeing flow, BOD, TSS, temperature, pH, COD, hexavalent chromium, total chromium, total zinc, ammonia 7/1/2020
23 2 Butterball Poultry flow, BOD, TSS, temperature, pH, COD, total zinc, ammonia 7/1/2020
3 Unilever Perfumes, flow, BOD, TSS,temperature, pH, COD, total zinc, total silver, ammonia 7/1/2020
24 d cosmetics
25 w 4
Q 5
26 z
s
27
7
28
a
29
9
30
10
31
11
32
12
33
13
34
14
35
Comment:
40
41 3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
42 Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
43 ❑ 19 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 0 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: Dewatered sludge is handled by contractor, McGill.
54
55
56 Sludge Permit No:
Page 1 POC Review Form

A B C D E F G H I I J I K I L M N O P
57 4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
58 PW: Find USTMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
o- Parameter of New Previous Required by POC due to POC due to POTW % L/STMP NPDES Comment
NConcern (POC) NPDES NPDES EPA PT(1) Sludge (2) SIU (3) POC (4) Removal Effluent Freq. Effluent Freq.
Check List POC POC Rate PQLs review
c
59 U
a PQL from Required PQL Recomm.
L/STMP, ug/I per NPDES PQL, ug/I
60 permit
61
0 Flow ❑ ❑� ❑� ❑ Q continuous
62 ❑� BOD ❑� ❑� ❑ Q 2/week
63 0 TSS ❑ ❑� ❑� ❑ Q 2/week
64 ❑� NH3 ❑ ❑� ❑� ❑ Q 2/week
65 ❑ Arsenic ❑ ❑ 121 0 ❑ Q 2.0
66 ❑ Barium ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
67 ❑ Beryllium(5) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
68 0 Cadmium(1) ❑ ❑ p 0 ❑ ❑ Q 0.5
69 0 Chromium(l) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ p ❑ Q 5.0
70 0 Copper(1) ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ Q 2.0
71 0 Cyanide ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
72 0 Lead(1) ❑ ❑ p p ❑ ❑ Q 2.0
73 ❑ Mercury(5) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Q 0.001
74 ❑ Molybdenum ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Q 10.0
75 0 Nickel(1) ❑ ❑ p p ❑ ❑ Q
76 0 Selenium ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ Q 1.0
77 0 Silver ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1.0
78 EZ Zinc(1) ❑ ❑ El 0 0 ❑ Q 10.0
79 0 Sludge Flow to Disposal p ❑ ❑ Q
80 p % Solids to Disposal p ❑ ❑ Q
81 0 Chromium VI 0 ❑ Q
82 ❑ TN ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
83 ❑ ITP ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
84 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
85 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
86 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
87 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
88 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
89 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
90 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EL
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 Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
99 Please use orange font and strikethrough for POC that may be removed from LJSTIVIP POC listisampling pl[aw
100 Blue shaded cell (D60:H81): Parameters usually included under that POC list
101 5. Comments
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in L/STMP:
102
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
103
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
104 Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to L/STMP due
105 to POTW s concerns:
E106 NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
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