NC0021474_Fact Sheet_20231009

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO21474
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]
Date: September 29, 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 Mebane/Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
106 E. Washington Street, Mebane, NC 27302
Facility Address:
635 Corregidor Road, Mebane, NC 27302
Permitted Flow:
2.5 MGD, with expansion flow tiers at 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 93.5% domestic, 6.5% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Influent bar screen, grit chamber, dual aeration basins, three final
clarifiers, cloth media filtration, chlorine contact chamber,
dechlorination, aerobic sludge digestors
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Alamance
Region
Winston-Salem
*Based on total permitted industrial flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Mebane applied
for renewal of NPDES permit NC0021474 for the Mebane WWTP at 2.5 MGD along with permit
modification for the addition of expanded flow tiers at 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD on April 5, 2022.
This facility serves a population of approximately 17,800 residents. The facility also accepts waste from 4
significant industrial users (SIUs) including 2 that are categorical (CIUs) via the City's pretreatment
program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged via Outfall 001 into Moadams Creek,
a class WS-V; NSW water in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Sludge Disposal: Dewatered biosolids are transported by EMA Resources for use in production of
compost by an additional third party.
Page 1 of 20

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001- Moadams Creek (within the Jordan Watershed)
Stream Index:
16-18-7
Stream Classification:
WS-V; NSW
Drainage Area (mi):
0.9
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
0.8
IWC (% effluent):
90% @ 2.5 MGD, 4.0 MGD, and 6.0 MGD
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-06-02/03030002
USGS Topo Quad:
C21 SE
Note: Outfall 001 was relocated approximately 1,000 feet downstream on Moadams Creek in order to
reduce the risk of flooding in the plant during heavy rain events as a 2017 permit modification.
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of April 2018 through September 2022.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
1.6
6.494
0.671
MA 2.5
Total Monthly Flow
MG
48.9
77.0
38.8
Monitor & Report
BOD (summer)
mg/1
3.7
17.9
< 2
WA 7.5
MA 5.0
WA 10.0
BOD (winter)
mg/1
3.5
20.7
< 2
MA 15.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/1
3.0
17.5
2.5
MA 30.0
WA 6.0
NH3N (summer)
mg/1
1.0
10
.05
MA 2.0
NH3N (winter)
mg/1
2.1
16.1
.05
WA 12.0
MA 4.0
DO
mg/l
7.9
11
4.1
DA 6.0
(geometric)
(ge an)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
4 7
2420
< 1
WA 400
MA 200
Temperature
° C
19.0
28
1.4
Monitor & Report
pH
SU
7.3
7.8
6.4
6.0 < pH < 9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
µg/I
15.4
48
< 1
DM 17.0
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
632
885
192
Monitor & Report
TKN
mg/I
2.9
16.3
0.57
Monitor & Report
NO2+NO3
mg/I
1.8
11
0.1
Monitor & Report
TN
mg/I
4.8
17.83
0.95
Monitor & Report
TN Load
lbs/mo
2042
6457
916
Monitor & Report
Page 2 of 20

TN Load
lbs/yr
25,456
32,981
19,672
40,225
TP
mg/l
0.8
9.8
0.07
Monitor & Report
TP Load
lbs/mo
330
957
19
Monitor & Report
TP Load
lbs/yr
3,910
4,799
3,008
5,056
Total Zinc
µg/l
49.3
256
< 5
Monitor & Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, 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).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): Y
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
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, fecal
coliform and conductivity upstream 100 feet above the outfall and downstream at Moadams Creek at
NCSR 1940 (D1), at Back Creek at NCSR 1940 (D2), and at Back Creek at NC Highway 54 (D3).
Instream sampling is conducted three times per week during the months of June, July, August and
September and once per week during the remainder of the year. Sampling at D2 is only required from
June through September. The City is a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
(UCFRBA) and their instream requirements are provisionally waived as long as they maintain
membership. The nearest upstream station is UCFRBA station B 1350000 and the nearest downstream
station is UCFRBA station B 1380000. UCFRBA data are also available for ammonia, TKN, NO2+NO3,
total phosphorous and turbidity. Instream data from January 2017 through December 2022 has been
summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
18.0
27.3
6.3
19.1
27.9
6.8
DO
mg/1
8.1
11.5
5.4
8.5
12.1
6.1
Fecal Coliform
#/100ml
(geomean)
368
9800
31
(geomean)
98
5000
12
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
161
224
47
420
748
119
Ammonia
mg/l
0.04
0.17
< 0.02
0.27
3.62
< 0.02
TKN
mg/l
0.50
1.96
< 0.2
1.12
3.84
0.22
NO2+NO3
mg/l
0.57
1.15
< 0.1
1.35
4.34
0.13
TP
mg/l
0.03
0.239
< 0.02
0.37
3.09
0.065
Turbidity
NTUs
18
139
5
11
57.1
1.9
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 20

Downstream temperature was not greater than 29 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 5 occasions during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Downstream DO did not drop below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
Downstream fecal coliform did not exceed a geomean of 200/100m1 [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (7)(4)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream fecal coliform exceeded 400/100ml in fewer than 20% of
samples during the period reviewed. Upstream fecal coliform exceeded a geomean of 200/100m1 and also
exceeded 400/100ml in more than 20% of samples during the period reviewed. It was concluded that a
statistically significant difference between upstream and downstream fecal coliform exists. However, this
statistically significant difference is likely attributable to elevated fecal coliform levels upstream of the
discharge.
Conductivity is tracked as a parameter associated with industrial discharge. It was concluded that a
statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream conductivity, with
downstream conductivity being observed at levels greater than that of the upstream. Effluent data was
observed at elevated levels during the period reviewed. It appears the discharge may be impacting
downstream conductivity.
Downstream turbidity was greater than 50 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (21)] on one occasion
during the period reviewed. Concurrent upstream turbidity was also observed at a level greater than 50
NTUs. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and
downstream turbidity. However, more often than not, upstream turbidity was observed at levels higher
than downstream turbidity during the period reviewed, likely driving the statistically significant
difference.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
ammonia, TP, TKN and NO2+NO3 with downstream values consistently higher than those of the
upstream. 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 upstream and at D 1 and D2 to capture the impact of the discharger and understand the
influence of the confluence of Moadams Creek with Back Creek. Instream monitoring requirements for
DO, temperature, fecal coliform and conductivity have been maintained. As the facility discharges to a
zero flow stream, upstream hardness sampling has not been added to the permit at this time.
Instream monitoring for 1,4-dioxane downstream at the Haw River at Old Greensboro Road and Old
Bynum Bridge has been added at a monthly frequency. Please see Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
for Toxicants and Other WQBEL Considerations for more information.
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): In 2018, the facility reported
1 BOD limit violation resulting in a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) and 4 ammonia limit violations resulting
in Notices of Violation (NOVs). The facility reported 1 BOD limit violation resulting in an NOD in 2019.
In 2020, the facility reported 2 DO limit violations resulting in NODS.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 24 of 27 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from January 2018 to
September 2022. The facility reported failed toxicity tests in October 2018, July 2019, and July 2022.
Page 4 of 20

Each of these cases were followed by 2 consecutive months of passing tests. In addition, the facility
passed 4 of 4 second species tests from October 2017 to July 2018.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in June 2022 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0021474.
The last pretreatment compliance inspection conducted in August 2021 reported that the facility was
compliant with their pretreatment program.
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/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current BOD
limits are based on 15A NCAC 02B .0206 for discharges to zero -flow streams. While 15A NCAC 02B
.0206 prohibits the introduction of new discharges to zero flow streams, it specifies that existing
dischargers are to be assessed on a case -by -case basis. Cases are assessed alongside an engineering
alternatives analysis (submitted by the City) and the resultant limit is a year-round BOD5 limit of 5 mg/L.
This limit was added to the permit for the expanded 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD flow tiers.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA spreadsheet and have been found to be protective. TRC requirements
have been assessed for the 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD flow tiers and a daily maximum limit of 17 µg/L has
been applied for both expanded flow tiers.
Please see Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations above for background on ammonia limits. The current
ammonia limits are based on 15A NCAC 02B .0206 for discharges to zero -flow streams. Ammonia -
nitrogen limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA. Based on toxicity -based calculations, ammonia
limits of 1.0 mg/L and 1.8 mg/L were calculated for the summer and winter, respectively. These more
restrictive limits are to be implemented upon expansion above 2.5 MGD. An additional 4.0 MGD and 6.0
Page 5 of 20

MGD flow tier has been incorporated in the permit with summer ammonia limits of 1.0 mg/L and 1.8
mg/L based on toxicity -based calculations performed in the attached WLA.
Reasonable Potential AnalysisRPA) 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.
Per Session Law 2012-187 Senate Bill 810 Section 12.1, "Rules adopted by the Environmental
Management Commission pursuant to S.L. 2009-216 and S.L. 2009-486 to implement nutrient
management strategies for the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir and the Falls of the Neuse Reservoir
watersheds shall not be interpreted to apply surface water quality standards set out in 15A NCAC 2B
.0218(3)(e) through (3)(h) to waters designated in the nutrient management rules as WS-V except where:
(i) the designation of WS-V is associated with a water supply intake used by an industry to supply
drinking water for their employees; or (ii) standards set out in 15A NCAC 02B .0218(3)(e) through (3)(h)
are violated at the upstream boundary of waters within those watersheds that are classified as WS-II, WS-
111, or WS-IV. This section shall not be construed to alter the nutrient reduction requirements set out in
15A NCAC 2B .0262(5) or 15A NCAC 2B .0275(3)."
Additionally, per 15A NCAC 02B .0262(6)(b), "For waters designated WS-V in the Jordan Watershed,
the requirements of Rules .0263 through .0273 and .0311 of this Subchapter shall apply. The
requirements of 15A NCAC 02B .0218 shall also apply except for Sub -Items (3)(e) through (3)(h) of that
Rule, which shall only apply where: (i) The designation of WS-V is associated with a water supply intake
used by an industry to supply drinking water for their employees; or (ii) Standards set out in 15A NCAC
02B .0218(3)(e) through (3)(h) are violated at the upstream boundary of waters within those watersheds
that are classified as WS-11, WS-III, or WS-IV. This Sub -Item shall not be construed to alter the nutrient
reduction requirements set out in 15A NCAC 02B .0262(5) or 15A NCAC 2B .0275(3)."
As the receiving stream:
• was designated as WS-V as a result of the implementation of the nutrient management strategy
for the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir; and
• is not associated with a water supply intake used by an industry to supply drinking water for their
employees; and
• standards set out in 15A NCAC 02B .0218(3)(e) through (3)(h) are not violated at the upstream
boundary of the nearest downstream WS-IV water;
surface water quality standards set out in 15A NCAC 2B .0218(3)(e) through (3)(h) have not been applied
to the RPA.
Nitrate+Nitrite data collected at UCFRBA Monitoring Station B2000000 were assessed as a conservative
estimate to track that the nitrate WS standard was not exceeded at the upper boundary of the nearest
downstream WS-IV waters. UCFRBA Monitoring Station B2000000 is located approximately 1.2 miles
upstream of the WS-IV boundary. Based on review of the data reported from January 2018 through
December 2022 demonstrating a maximum reported Nitrate+Nitrite concentration at UCFRBA
Monitoring Station B2000000 of 1.92 mg/L, it appears that the nitrate standard is met at the WS-IV
boundary.
Page 6 of 20

While no data is available for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) at the upper boundary of the nearest
downstream WS-IV waters, the maximum reported TDS datum in the submitted effluent pollutant scans
was 460 mg/L. As the allowable discharge concentration calculated considering the downstream WS-IV
drinking water boundary is approximately 3,600 mg/L based on the 7Q10s of 58.7 cfs, it was concluded
that no violation of the standard downstream would be caused by this discharge. Additionally, Total
Dissolved Solids is not likely to transport in the receiving stream for the duration of stream length
between the discharge point and WS-IV boundary.
To track that the narrative standard for 1,4-dioxane is not violated at the upstream boundary of the
downstream WS-IV waters and at the Pittsboro drinking water intake, instream monitoring for 1,4-
dioxane has been added to the permit downstream in the Haw River at Old Greensboro Road and Old
Bynum Bridge, which are where UCFRBA stations B2000000 and B2100000.
Should representative downstream 1,4-dioxane monitoring not be conducted by the Upper Cape Fear
River Basin Association, downstream 1,4-dioxane monitoring requirements are immediately reinstated
until confirmation of the coalition's activation of such a sampling station is received by the Division.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between April 2018
through September 2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated
water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for
this permit:
• Effluent Limit with 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: N/A
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Copper, Chlorides
• 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 Cyanide, Total Lead,
Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Four 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: N/A
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: N/A
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
The City requests that the total zinc datapoint on 10/24/2019 be excluded from the RPA.
The City provided the following justification: "On 10/21/2019, analysis on Digester #2 solids showed a
pH of <6.0. Aeration was reduced immediately to raise the pH level, and Digester #1 solids with a pH
>7.0 were transferred to Digester #2 (refer to Table 1 - Digester Monitoring Data attached). During this
period, dewatering from Digester #2 was in process. The low pH conditions of Digester #2 had increased
the availability of zinc in the belt press filtrate, which is returned to the plant headworks. Belt press
Page 7 of 20

filtrate samples from 10/21/2019-10/24/2019 were collected and sent for zinc analysis. The results began
at 816 µg/L on 10/21/2019 and decreased to 204 µg/L on 10/24/2019 (refer to Report of Analysis dated
11/8/2019 by Research & Analytical Laboratories attached).
The City analyzes zinc in both influent and effluent at least quarterly. During the 4.5-year RPA period,
the effluent zinc analysis on 10/24/2019 is the only datapoint that was higher than the corresponding
influent zinc analysis on 10/22/2019 (refer to Influent + Effluent Zinc Data chart attached). Definitively,
the elevated effluent zinc datapoint was the result of the temporary upset condition in Digester #2 and,
though that effluent zinc level did not exceed the water quality standard, it is not representative of the
characteristics of our waste stream."
Based on the justification provided by the City, the total zinc datapoint from 10/24/2019 was not included
in the RPA.
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: The permit requires quarterly chronic toxicity testing at
90% effluent concentration at 2.5 MGD. Quarterly chronic toxicity testing at 90% effluent concentration
at 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD has been added to the permit.
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 (2.5 MGD)
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
# of Samples
5
8
12
3
3
Annual Average Conc. n /L
3.2
2.2
2.4
4.6
2.3
Maximum Conc., n /L
6.21
3.61
4.82
10.2
3.38
TBEL, n /L
47
W BEL, n L
12.0 at all flow tiers
Page 8 of 20

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 > 2 MGD and reported multiple detections (> 1 ng/L), a mercury
minimization plan (MMP) is required. The MMP requirement is maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: The facility lies in the Haw River arm of the Lake Jordan Reservoir. The Haw River
arm is subject to the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy, 15A NCAC 02B .0262, in which are
respective nitrogen and phosphorus TMDL reduction goals are 8 and 5% from 1997-2001 baseline load
levels. To meet these goals, the facility is subject to nitrogen and phosphorus allocations assigned in
accordance with the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Wastewater Discharge Requirements, 15A
NCAC 02B .0270. The assigned allocations are listed in the current permit as load limits of 40,225 lb/yr
total nitrogen (TN) and 5,056 lbs/yr total phosphorus (TP).
Nutrient requirements were originally placed in the permit as a modification to incorporate Jordan Lake
Nutrient Requirements (15A NCAC 02B .0270) on July 9, 2010. The 2010 permit modification included:
monthly and annual TN and TP load monitoring requirements; an annual TP load limit of 5,056 lb/yr,
effective 8/1/2010; and the addition of five special conditions. The added special conditions included: 1)
nutrient allocations, 2) annual TN and TP limits, 3) calculation for TN and TP loads, 4) nitrogen
optimization, and 5) a nutrient monitoring re -opener. A TN load limit of 40,225 lb/yr was added during
the 2014 renewal with an effective date 1/1/2019 in recognition of the extension to implementation per
Session Law 2016-94, H.B. 1030.
Special Condition A.(3.) of the current permit lists TN and TP allocations assigned to the Mebane WWTP
in accordance with the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rule. This special Condition states that for
compliance purposes these allocations do not supersede any nutrient limit elsewhere in the permit or in a
NPDES permit of a compliance association in which the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member. The
allocations are referred to as limits in Special Condition A. (6.) of the current permit. In addition, the TP
allocation is the same as that in the Haw River Nutrient Compliance Association (HRNCA) NPDES
Permit No. NCC000003 (issued December 22, 2016), of which Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member.
Special Condition A.(4.) of the current permit contains a TN reduction schedule for the TN load limit
which concluded in January 2021. As the schedule has concluded, Special Condition A.(4.) Total
Nitrogen Reduction Schedule has been removed from the permit.
Special Condition A.(5.) of the current permit contains requirement that the City follow the nitrogen
optimization plan submitted to the Division on February 5, 2010. As the facility has taken measures to
achieve compliance with total nitrogen limitations and requirements, Special Condition A.(5.) Nutrient
Optimization has been removed from the permit.
Special Condition A.(6.) of the current permit contains a nutrient monitoring reopener. As the Division
may request additional monitoring for TN and TP if necessary, Special Condition A.(6.) Nutrient
Monitoring Reopener has been removed from the permit.
Special Condition A. (9.) of the current permit states that the Permittee shall be in compliance with TN
and TP load limits if the load is less than the limit, or if the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member of a
compliance association. Review of effluent data showed annual TN and TP loads were below their
respective limits for the calendar years 2018 through 2021 (see Table 1). As stated above, Mebane
Page 9 of 20

WWTP is a Co-Permittee Member of HRNCA, which addresses only TP discharges. TP allocations and
effluent limits for Mebane WWTP are the same in the current permit as in the HRNCA permit. Therefore,
compliance is demonstrated.
Special Condition A.(10.) of the current permit contains formulae to calculate monthly and annual
nutrient (TN and TP) loading based on effluent concentrations and flows. To check TN load calculations,
the current permit requires weekly monitoring of effluent TKN, NO2 + NO3 and TN concentrations as
separate parameters. Review of submitted data found TN values (concentrations and loads) as well as TP
loads to be properly calculated.
As conditions have been removed, the numbering of the existing nutrient -related special conditions has
been adjusted.
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 11W, every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated. The City of Mebane informed the Division that no effluent monitoring for additional
pollutants has been conducted (see attached chemical addendum) and therefore no additional pollutants of
concern have been identified in their effluent.
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 Mebane found the presence of 1,4-dioxane in their Mebane WWTP influent
samples. During the 2019 investigative study, the Mebane WWTP's influent ranged from 1.38 µg/L to
1.51 µg/L. Influent concentration is anticipated to reflect effluent concentrations based on existing
components at the treatment facility. As only 3 influent samples from 2019 are available for this
parameter, further investigation into the concentrations of 1,4-dioxane present in the facility's effluent is
required to better characterize the waste.
Per Session Law 2012 —187 Section 12.1 and 15A NCAC 02B .0262(6)(b), the WS-V standards are not
considered at the discharge point. However, the Pittsboro Intake WS-IV boundary exists approximately
21.5 miles downstream of Outfall 001.
Please note that chronic allowable discharge concentrations have been calculated for this facility's three
effluent flow tiers. A comparison of allowable discharge concentrations has been made between the direct
discharge to Moadams Creek under Class C requirements and the downstream Pittsboro Intake WS-IV
boundary.
Calculations for the allowable 1,4-Dioxane discharge concentration considering the downstream Pittsboro
Intake WS-IV boundary are based on a Instream Target Value (ITV) for water supply waters of 80 µg/L
and an annual average flow (AAF) of 0.8 cfs. These calculations resulted in chronic allowable discharge
concentrations of 96.5 µg/L, 90.3 µg/L and 86.8 µg/L for the 2.5 MGD, 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD flow
tiers, respectively.
Calculations for the allowable discharge concentration considering the downstream Pittsboro Intake WS-
IV boundary are based on a 1 X 10-6 risk level Instream Target Value (ITV) for water supply waters of 0.35
Page 10 of 20

µg/L and an AAF of 1,150 cfs. These calculations resulted in chronic allowable discharge concentrations
of 104.2 µg/L, 65.2 µg/L and 43.6 µg/L for the 2.5 MGD, 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD flow tiers,
respectively.
Monthly effluent 1,4-dioxane monitoring and a 1,4-dioxane reopener condition have been added to the
permit at all flow tiers. After 24 months of sampling, the Permittee may request the Division to evaluate
submitted 1,4-dioxane data for approval of 1,4-dioxane monitoring frequency reduction from monthly to
quarterly.
To identify PFAS concentrations 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 Mebane WWTP has a pretreatment program and discharges treated wastewater above waters
designated as WS-IV, and as the City has identified the presence of PFAS in their influent based on the
2019 investigative monitoring for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, 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.
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.0226for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 211.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: The proposed expansion is funded via the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and is not subject to review under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). As all funds ARPA are through the Wastewater Reserve, Drinking Water Reserve and/or the
Viable Utility Reserve, the project is not subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
Page 11 of 20

An Engineer's Alternatives Analysis (EAA) was submitted by McGill Associates, P.A. (McGill), the
consulting firm hired by the City of Mebane, on April 5, 2022. The Division reviewed this EAA and
supporting documentation and submitted an additional information request on October 6, 2022, asking for
further clarification regarding the conclusion of sending the additional flow to a neighboring facility as
infeasible. The City noted that sending the proposed increased flow to any of the neighboring facilities
would require those facilities to expand, pushing them to 80% of their design capacity or greater. After
reviewing the analysis, Division staff concurred with the projected flow justification as well as the
alternatives analysis. Division staff concurred with the projected flow needs based on a 20-year planning
horizon. The Mebane WWTP treats wastewater for a population of approximately 18,000 residents. Based
on the City's 2017 Comprehensive Development Plan and the US 2020 Census, the City of Mebane
experienced an increase in population from 2010 — 2020 of roughly 4.5% per year. The flow projections
provided by McGill incorporate the expected municipal demand based on a linear extrapolation of the
City's population growth rather than the state projection method since the City is experiencing a more
rapid growth pattern than the State. McGill projects demand out to 2061 in their report, with
approximations of roughly 35,000 residents in 2041 and roughly 51,000 residents in 2061. Division staff
concurs with the modelled growth provided by McGill as it is consistent with the 2010 — 2020 North
Carolina Office of State Budget and Management population growth extrapolated out to 2060. Flow
projections consider 70 gallons per day (gpd) for residential use (2.4 MGD by 2041 and 3.6 MGD by
2061), 15 gpd for commercial flow (0.5 MGD by 2041 and 0.77 MGD by 2061) and constant industrial
and institutional flows of 0.24 MGD and 0.08 MGD, respectively. Upon Division request, McGill
provided additional information regarding flow projections and future flow demand on March 10, 2023.
Based on these projections and Division review of Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) data,
the 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD expanded flow tiers are justifiable.
The following alternatives were evaluated for the expanded flow:
Alternative Description
20- ear Net Present Value
Connection to an Existing Public
189,708,000
Sewer System
Land Application
$180,469,000
Public Access Reuse
N/A
Combo of connection to existing
$158,025,000
sewer and land application
Expansion of facility
$95,611,000
Connection to an Existing Public Sewer System: There are three existing municipal WWTPs within a
five -mile radius of the Mebane WWTP: the Graham WWTP, the Burlington Eastside WWTP, and the
Burlington Southside WWTP.
The Graham WWTP currently operates at approximately 54% capacity. With the addition of 3.5 MGD
from the City, the Graham WWTP would exceed its permitted hydraulic capacity of 3.5 MGD. For this
reason, connecting the City's sewer collection system to solely the City of Graham's sewer collection
system was deemed infeasible.
The Burlington Eastside WWTP and Burlington Southside WWTP currently operate at approximately
38% and 67% capacity, respectively. The City of Burlington is under contract to accept a maximum of
5.844 MGD from seven regional municipalities and discharge a maximum of 0.9 MGD to the City of
Greensboro. In 2020, the City of Burlington accepted an average of 2.3605 MGD from the seven
municipalities and discharged an average of 0.1709 MGD to the City of Greensboro. It is not clear how
much flow was accepted and discharged by each WWTP owned by the City of Burlington.
In their initial submittal, McGill deemed the connection to an existing public sewer system infeasible due
to a potential need to expand the subject facility. The Division requested additional justification for this
Page 12 of 20

assumption and further economic assessment of the alternative on October 6, 2022. On March 10, 2023,
McGill provided additional information regarding this alternative.
It is unclear which Burlington WWTP (Eastside or Southside) receives the flows listed above; however,
based on the proximity of these municipalities to the Burlington WWTPs, it was assumed that the
Burlington Eastside WWTP receives flow from the City of Graham, Town of Green Level, Town of Elon,
Town of Gibsonville, and Town of Haw River, while the Burlington Southside WWTP receives flow
from the Town of Swepsonville and the Village of Alamance. Based on these assumptions, the Burlington
Eastside WWTP is contracted to receive a maximum of 4.90 MGD from the surrounding municipalities,
while the Burlington Southside WWTP is contracted to receive a maximum of 0.94 MGD from the
surrounding municipalities.
Discharging wastewater to the Burlington Eastside WWTP was considered because the facility is situated
significantly closer to the Mebane WRRF (than the Burlington Southside WWTP) and discharged less
flow in 2021 (than the Burlington Southside WWTP).
According to the 2021 LWSP, the Burlington Eastside WWTP had an average annual daily discharge of
4.13 MGD and received an average of 2.12 MGD from the surrounding municipalities (assuming the
Burlington Eastside WWTP received flows from the municipalities listed above). This indicates that 2.01
MGD of wastewater received by the Burlington Eastside WWTP was produced by the City of Burlington
itself. Under these assumptions, the City of Burlington's Eastside WWTP has an estimated 5.09 MGD of
available capacity.
The 2041 estimated flows to the Mebane WRRF range from 3.81 to 4.56 MGD, based on the two
population sources, while the 2061 estimated flows range from 5.94 to 7.45 MGD. Considering the
Mebane WRRF is currently permitted to discharge up to 2.5 MGD, and the 90% capacity threshold is
2.25 MGD, the City of Mebane is projected to lack 1.56 to 2.31 MGD of capacity by 2041 and 3.69 to
5.20 MGD of capacity by 2061.
Assuming no growth within the City of Burlington, if the Burlington Eastside WWTP was to receive the
additional 1.56 to 2.31 MGD of flow from the City of Mebane (expected by 2041), the Burlington
Eastside WWTP would operate at approximately 68.5% to 74.7% capacity. However, if the Burlington
Eastside WWTP was to receive the additional 3.69 to 5.20 MGD of flow from the City of Mebane
(expected by 2061), the Burlington Eastside WWTP would operate at approximately 86.2% to 98.8%
capacity. Understanding that zero growth in Burlington is not probable, the City of Burlington would be
forced to begin both the planning and construction phases of its Eastside WWTP much sooner than
anticipated.
The connection of the City of Mebane's sewer collection system to the Burlington Eastside WWTP would
include installing two sanitary sewer lift stations, two screening units, and approximately 33,000 LF of
30-inch DI force main. Due to existing infrastructure, the proposed force main would need to be installed
by bore & jack under several NCDOT roads. Additionally, a horizontal directional drill would be required
to install the force main under the Haw River. There is significant rock in the area of the Haw River, and
costs could increase after geotechnical exploration work.
Land Application: The expansion of the Mebane WRRF under Alternative 2 includes the installation of
a 5-stage BNR process and denitrification filters (without advanced treatment) to treat 6.0 MGD of raw
wastewater. Under this alternative, 2.5 MGD of treated effluent would continue to be discharged to
Moadams Creek, as permitted under the existing Mebane WRRF individual NPDES permit. The
remaining 3.5 MGD would be land applied to adequate farmland in Alamance County with a spray
irrigation system. Assuming that the Mebane WRRF operates at maximum capacity, 24.5 MG of reuse
water would be land applied on a weekly basis. For this analysis, it was assumed that land application
Page 13 of 20

could only occur 70% of the year, due to a variety of factors including excessively wet soils, crop
harvesting, poor weather, etc. To account for this period where land application cannot occur, 35 MG of
reuse water were assumed to be handled in an average week. According to the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) Web Soil Survey, the majority of soils within Alamance County are
unsuitable for the disposal of wastewater by irrigation, primarily due to steep slopes, low adsorption rates,
high groundwater tables and flooding issues. A hydraulic loading rate 1-inch per acre per week was used,
resulting in approximately 1,289 acres of land required for this alternative. This alternative would require
the installation of a 17.5 MG side -stream detention pond at the WRRF (for periods when the reuse water
does not meet land application requirements), an effluent pump station that transfers the reuse water from
the WRRF to the proposed land application sites, approximately 79,500 LF of 16-inch diameter reuse
water piping, four (4) booster pump stations, four (4) reuse water storage tanks, and four (4) spray
irrigation systems with irrigation pumps. Storage requirements for each land application site would be
based on a water balance analysis. For the purpose of this EAA, three (3) 3 MG reuse water storage tanks
and one (1) 0.75 MG reuse water storage tank were assumed to be required. Additionally, this alternative
would require the purchase of all 1,486 acres of general farmland previously discussed. Land assessment
values for Alamance County were utilized to determine an approximate cost of each parcel.
Public Access Reuse: Reuse by a select group of customers, including industries and golf courses, was
first investigated. A preliminary review of online information revealed no industries with sufficient space
or need to utilize the reuse water; however, Alamance County is home to several golf courses. Assuming
that 75% of each golf course's land requires irrigation, and that the golf courses already have ponds
capable of storing the reuse water during periods unsuitable for irrigation, approximately 548 acres of
turfgrass could be available for public access reuse. According to a report published by the United States
Golf Association, golf courses in the southeastern United States use an average of 2.4 acre-feet of water
per irrigated turf acre per year. As such, these three golf courses would be capable of utilizing an
estimated 1,174,285 gallons of reuse water each day. A preliminary review of online GIS parcel data
showed various parks and city -owned properties situated within city limits. Assuming that 75% of each
park and city -owned property requires irrigation, approximately 381 acres of land could be available for
public access reuse. Assuming an average of 2.4 acre-feet of water per irrigated turf acre per year, these
parks and city -owned properties would be capable of utilizing an estimated 815,928 gallons of reuse
water each day. From these calculations, the golf courses, parks and city -owned properties could use
approximately 1,990,213 gallons of reuse water each day. Utility -owned properties could use
approximately 1,990,213 gallons of reuse water each day. This alternative fails to utilize all 3.5 MGD of
the reuse water; therefore, a supplemental public access reuse option was explored. An alternative to
reuse by a select group of customers is reuse by residential customers. If the three aforementioned golf
courses and larger users use all 1,990,213 gallons of reuse water each day, a maximum of 1,509,787
gallons of reuse water could be utilized by residential customers. Assuming that the reuse water is used
for home irrigation, a conservative estimate of summer water usage is 0.75 inches of water per acre per
week. With an average irrigation frequency of 70%, and an average lawn size of 0.25 acres,
approximately 2,965 residential customers would be needed to utilize the remaining 1,509,787 gallons of
reuse water. According to the population projections, the population of the City will reach 19,420
individuals by the end of 2022. Assuming that there are 2.48 individuals contributing to each sewer
connection, there will be an estimated 7,830 residential sewer customers by the end of 2022. With the
residential population projected to continually increase, there will be plenty of residential sewer
customers available to utilize the reuse water for residential irrigation. Alternative 3 would require the
construction of a distribution system on the scale of a potable water distribution system and would depend
on a successful public outreach program. Due to the enormity of such a reuse distribution system, and the
subsequent significant capital investment required for construction, Alternative 3 was considered cost
Page 14 of 20

prohibitive to implement, relative to a direct discharge alternative. For this reason, a preliminary estimate
of cost was not prepared for Alternative 3.
Combination of connection to existing sewer and land application: As previously discussed in
Alternative 1, in 2020, the Burlington WWTPs discharged a combined average of 10.4244 MGD to the
Haw River. Additionally, the City of Burlington is contracted to accept a maximum of 5.844 MGD from
seven regional municipalities and discharge a maximum of 0.9 MGD to the City of Greensboro.
Assuming no growth within the City of Burlington and maximum contract limits are met, the Burlington
WWTPs would operate at 15.3684 MGD, or approximately 64% capacity. With the addition of 2 MGD
from the City, the Burlington WWTPs would operate at 17.3684 MGD, or approximately 72% capacity.
This indicates that the City of Burlington could have the capacity to accept 2.0 MGD from the City. Due
to its relatively low current operating capacity (38%), it was assumed that the Burlington Eastside WWTP
would be capable of accepting all 2 MGD from the City.
Approximately 31,000 LF of 12-inch raw wastewater piping would be required to convey wastewater
from the Mebane WRRF to the Burlington Eastside WWTP. Additionally, there would need to be an
administrative effort to develop an interlocal agreement between the City of Mebane and the City of
Burlington. Such negotiation for a wholesale rate for raw sewer would likely be a lengthy process. For the
purpose of this analysis, a capacity allowance of $8,290,000 was assumed based on the existing
Graham/Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant Intergovernmental Agreement. Additionally, the City of
Mebane will pay its usage based on the formula as follows: total MGD sent by the City to the Burlington
Eastside WWTP divided by the total MGD treated at the WWTP times the cost for treatment by MGD.
As previously mentioned, this alternative also includes the land application of 1.5 MGD of reuse water to
farmland within Alamance County. Assuming that the Mebane WRRF continues to discharge 2.5 MGD
of treated effluent to Moadams Creek, that the Mebane WRRF operates at maximum capacity, and that
the City of Burlington accepts the 2 MGD previously discussed, 10.5 MG of reuse water would require
disposal on a weekly basis. Following the same calculation described in Alternative 2, it was assumed
that land application can only occur 70% of the year. Thus, 15 MG of reuse water were assumed to be
handled in an average week. With an estimated 1-inch per acre per week hydraulic loading rate,
approximately 552 acres would be required for disposal by land application. A review of the Alamance
County GIS database revealed two parcels of general farmland with a cumulative area of approximately
585 acres north of the Mebane WRRF.
The expansion of the Mebane WRRF to 4.0 MGD would include expanding the headworks; repurposing
one existing aeration basin as an EQ tank; repurposing one existing aeration basin for sludge storage; and
installing an influent pump station, 5-stage BNR oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, a RAS/WAS
pump station, tertiary filters, a chlorine contact basin with dechlorination and post -aeration chambers,
chemical feed equipment, 16-inch diameter gravity discharge piping, 5-ft. diameter effluent manholes,
yard piping, and all associated electrical equipment. Also, Alternative 4 would require the installation of a
7.5 MG side -stream detention pond at the WRRF, an effluent pump station with multiple sets of pumps,
approximately 40,300 LF of 16-inch reuse water distribution piping, two (2) booster pump stations, two
(2) reuse water storage tanks, and two (2) spray irrigation systems with irrigation pumps. Storage
requirements for each land application site would be based on a water balance analysis. For the purpose of
this EAA, two (2) 0.75 MG reuse water storage tanks were assumed to be required. Additionally, this
alternative would require the purchase of all 585 acres of general farmland previously discussed.
Expansion of Facility: The expansion of the Mebane WRRF to 6.0 MGD would include expanding the
headworks; repurposing one existing aeration basin as an EQ tank; repurposing one existing aeration
basin for sludge storage; and installing an influent pump station, 5-stage BNR oxidation ditches,
secondary clarifiers, a RAS/WAS -pump station, tertiary filters, a chlorine contact basin with
Page 15 of 20

dechlorination and post -aeration chambers, a granular activated carbon treatment train, chemical feed
equipment, yard piping, and all associated electrical equipment.
Alternative 5 would require the construction of approximately 275 LF of 16-inch diameter gravity
discharge piping and three (3) 5-ft. diameter effluent manholes. The proposed gravity discharge pipeline
would transport the treated effluent from the proposed re -aeration chamber to an existing effluent
manhole along Moadams Creek. From the existing manhole, the treated effluent would gravity flow
through approximately 200 LF of existing 36-inch effluent discharge piping, one (1) additional existing
effluent manhole, and one (1) existing Parshall flume before flowing into Moadams Creek. The proposed
gravity discharge pipeline and effluent manholes would be situated on land owned by the City.
Alternative 5 assumes that the expanded WRRF would be capable of meeting its approved NPDES
permits and would comply with the reliability requirements specified in 15A NCAC 2H.0124.
The most economically feasible and chosen option was the expansion of Mebane WWTP. The Division
has reviewed the alternatives and concurs with this decision.
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; However, based on the
reasonable potential analysis (RPA) showing no reasonable potential to violate state water quality
standards, the monitoring requirement for total zinc has been removed from the permit.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The City of Mebane was granted 2/week monitoring for ammonia and TSS during their 2014 renewal and
additionally BOD and fecal coliform via a 2017 modification to their permit based on 2012 DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities. The City has requested continuation of this monitoring frequency reduction. 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, reduced monitoring has been maintained for BOD,
ammonia, fecal coliform and TSS for the 2.5 MGD flow tier. Monitoring frequencies shall be reverted to
daily per 15A NCAC 02B .0508 when the facility is expanded above 2.5 MGD to sufficiently monitor
treatment at the upgraded facility. The City may request modification to their permit at a later date to
demonstrate the upgraded facility meets the 2012 guidance.
Page 16 of 20

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 is proposing to extend this deadline
from December 21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements. The current compliance date will be extended if the
implementation date is extended as a final regulation change in the federal register.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 2.5 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 2.5 MGD
No change to 2.5 MGD
15A NCAC 2B .0505
flow tier; add 4.0 MGD
and 6.0 MGD flow tier
per modification request
Total Monthly
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
For calculation of TN and TP Loads
Flow
Monthly
flow tiers
BOD5
Summer:
No change to 2.5MGD
WQBEL; For 2.5 MGD flow tier - 15A
MA 5.0 mg/1
flow tier;
NCAC 02B .0206; for 4.0 MGD and 6.0
WA 7.5 mg/l
MGD flow tiers - 2023 Speculative
Monitor and Report
@ 4.0 MGD & 6.0 MGD
Limits/Level B model; Surface Water
2/week
flow tiers (year-round):
Monitoring, 2012 DWR Guidance
MA 5.0 mg/l
Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Winter:
MA 10.0 mg/l
WA 7.5 mg/l
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
WA 15.0 mg/1
Monitor and Report Daily
Exceptionally Performing Facilities;
Monitor and Report
Reverts to 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 upon
2/week
expansion
NH3-N
Summer:
No change to 2.5MGD
WQBEL. For 2.5 MGD flow tier - 15A
MA 2.0 mg/l
flow tier;
NCAC 02B .0206; for 4.0 MGD and 6.0
WA 6.0 mg/l
MGD flow tiers - 2023 Speculative
Monitor and Report
@ 4.0 MGD & 6.0 MGD
Limits/Level B model; Surface Water
2/week
flow tiers:
Monitoring, 2012 DWR Guidance
Winter:
Summer:
Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
MA 4.0 mg/l
MA 1.0 mg/l
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
WA 12.0 mg/l
Monitor and Report
WA 3.0 mg/l
Monitor and Report Daily
Exceptionally Performing Facilities;
2/week
Winter:
Reverts to 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 upon
MA 1.8 mg/l
expansion
WA 5.4 mg/l
Monitor and Report Dail
TSS
MA 30 mg/l
No change to 2.5MGD
TBEL. For 2.5 MGD flow tier -
WA 45 mg/l
flow tier;
Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR
Monitor and Report
133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406; for 4.0
2/week
@ 4.0 MGD & 6.0 MGD
MGD and 6.0 MGD flow tiers - 2023
flow tiers:
Speculative Limits/Level B model;
MA 30.0 mg/l
Surface Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR
WA 45.0 mg/l
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Monitor and Report Daily
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Page 17 of 20

Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities; Reverts to 15A NCAC 2B.
0500 upon expansion
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change to 2.5MGD
WQBEL. For 2.5 MGD flow tier - State
WA 400 /100ml
flow tier;
WQ standard, 15A NCAC 213; for 4.0
Monitor and Report
MGD and 6.0 MGD flow tiers — 2023
2/week
@ 4.0 MGD & 6.0 MGD
Speculative Limits/Level B model;
flow tiers:
Surface Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR
MA 200 /100ml
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
WA 400 /100ml
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Daily monitoring
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities; Reverts to 15A NCAC 2B.
0500 upon expansion
DO
DA > 6.0 mg/L
No change; apply to all
WQBEL. For 2.5 MGD flow tier - State
Monitor and Report
flow tiers
WQ standard, 15A NCAC 213; for 4.0
Daily
MGD and 6.0 MGD flow tiers — 2023
Speculative Limits/Level B model;
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500
Temperature
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Daily
flow tiers
2B. 0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change; apply to all
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report
flow tiers
NCAC 2B
Daily
Total Residual
DM 17 ug/L
No change; apply to all
WQBEL. 2022 WLA. Surface Water
Chlorine
Monitor and Report
flow tiers
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Daily
Conductivity
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Daily
flow tiers
2B. 0500
Total
No requirement
All flow tiers:
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
Hardness
Quarterly Effluent
water quality standards approved in
monitoring
2016; no upstream required due to zero
flow stream
TKN
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Weekly
flow tiers
NO2+NO3
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Weekly
flow tiers
Total
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
Surface Water Monitoring, Jordan Lake
Nitrogen
Weekly
flow tiers
Nutrient Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0270
TN Load
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
WQBEL. Jordan Lake Nutrient
Monthly (as lb/mo)
flow tiers
Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0270
Annual TN mass limit
of 40,225 lb/yr
Total
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
Surface Water Monitoring, Jordan Lake
Phosphorous
Monthly
flow tiers
Nutrient Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0270
Page 18 of 20

TP Load
Monitor and Report
No change; apply to all
WQBEL. Jordan Lake Nutrient
Monthly (as lb/mo)
flow tiers
Management Strategy
Annual TP mass limit
T15A NCAC 2B .0270
of 5,0561b/ r
Instream
Monitor and report at
Add TKN, NO2+NO3,
Based on instream data review and
Monitoring
variable frequency for
ammonia, and total
discussions with the Division's Basin
DO, temperature, fecal
phosphorous; Add 1,4-
Planning Branch — NSW; Cape Fear
coliform and
dioxane with no coalition
Basin Strategy; Session Law 2012-187
conductivity
waiver unless coalition
conducts representative
sampling
Total Zinc
Monitor and Report
Remove requirement
Based on RPA results; No RP,
Quarterly
Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
Chlorides
No requirement
All flow tiers:
Based on RPA results; No RP ,
Monitor and Report
Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
Quarterly
- apply Quarterly Monitoring
Total Copper
No requirement
All flow tiers:
Based on RPA results; No RP ,
Monitor and Report
Predicted Max > 50% of Allowable Cw
Quarterly
- apply Quarterly Monitoring
All flow tiers:
PT facility discharging above WS-V
PFAS
No requirement
Add Quarterly
waters; Implementation delayed until
monitoring with delayed
after EPA certified method becomes
implementation
available.
All flow tiers:
Add monthly monitoring
Surface Water Monitoring; Based on
1,4-Dioxane
No requirement
and a reopener condition
2019 Investigation—1,4-dioxane present
with potential to reduce
in influent
to quarterly
Chronic
Chronic limit,
No change; apply to all
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
Toxicity
90% effluent
flow tiers
15A NCAC 2B
Effluent
Three times per permit
No change; conducted in
40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan
cycle
2025, 2026 and 2027
Total
Special Condition
Remove requirement
Requirement expired in 2021
Nitrogen
A.(4.)
Reduction
Schedule
Nitrogen
Special Condition
Remove requirement
Facility achieves consistent compliance
Optimization
A.(5.)
with nutrient requirements and has
demonstrated downward trend in total
nitrogen since 2010.
Nutrient
Special Condition
Remove requirement
Facility is conducting monitoring in
Monitoring
A.(6.)
accordance with Division -set
Reopener
requirements; Division may require
additional monitoring without condition
Mercury
MMP Special
No change
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Minimization
Condition
Mercury TMDL Implementation;
Plan (MMP)
Municipality with Q < 2 MGD
Page 19 of 20

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, QA — Quarterly Average,
DA — Daily Average, AA — Annual Average
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: August 17, 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.coco(kdeq.nc.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the City of Mebane, EPA Region IV, the Division of Water Resources'
Winston-Salem Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Monitoring Coalition Coordinator,
Pretreatment Unit, Public Water Supply Section and Operator Certification Program, and the Division of
Water Infrastructure 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.(11.) 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
• BOD and TSS Removal
• Monitoring Reduction Frequency Spreadsheet
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheet
• Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet
• Toxicity Summary
• Instream Monitoring Summary
• Renewal Application Addendum
• Total Zinc Exemption Justification
Page 20 of 20

Public Notice
AFFP
North Carolina
Environmental Management
CommissionlNPDES Unit
Public Notice North Carolina
Mail Service Center
Ral
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NP-
Affidavit of Publication
DES Wastewater Permit
NG 021474 Mebane WWTP
The North Carolina Environ-
s mental Management Commis-
sion proposes to issue a NP-
DES wastewater discharge per-
mit to the person(s) listed be-
low. Written comments regard-
STATE OF NC } SS
ing the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after the
COUNTY OF
publish date of this notice. The
}
Director of the NC Division of
/`�
Water Resources (DWR) may
(r/4tamanol—
hold a public hearing should
there be a significant degree of
public interest. Please mail
Brenda Poole, being duly sworn, Says:
comments and/or information
requests to DWR at the above
address. Interested persons
That she is Classified Rep of the The Times News, a daily
may visit the DWR at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
news a er of general circulation, printed and published in
P P 9 p p
to review the informa-
Lion on
lion on life. Additional informa-
Burlington, County, NC; that the publication, a copy of
tion on NPDES permits and this
notice may be found on our
which is attached hereto, was published in the said
website: https:lideq.nc.gov,'pub-
newspaper on the following dates:
licnotices-hearings,or by call -
ing [phone]. The City of
Mebane (106 E. Washington
August 17, 2023
Street. Mebane, NC 273021 has
requested renewal with modific-
ation of NPDES permit
NCO021474 for expansion of its
Mebane Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant, located in Ala-
mance County. This permitted
facility discharges treated muni-
cipal and industrial wastewater
to Moadams Creek, a class
WS-V,NSW water in the Cape
Fear River Basin. Currently
BOD5, ammonia. fecal coliform,
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated
o, pH. total residual chlorine,
t
fatal nitrogen toad, total phos-
on those dates.
phorous load are water quality
SIGNED:
limited. This discharge may af-
feet future allocations in this
segment of Moadams Creek.
The North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Commis-
sion proposes to issue a NP-
e
Classified Rep
DES wastewater discharge per -
mit to the person(s) listed be-
low. Written comments regard-
to and sworn to me this 17th dayof August
g
the proposed permit will be
ingSubscribed
acccepted until 30 days after the
2023.
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 information
requests to DWR at the above
address. interested persons
Denise Greenwe , Notary Rando ph, County, NC
may visit the DWR at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604 to review the informa-
tion on file. Additional informa-
tionM commission expires: April 12, 2028 notice
mayNPIDbe
permits and this
Y p p notice may be found an our
website: https:/Ideq.nc.gov/
OENISE GREENWELL
hearings,.301
ccallllingn(919) The
NOTARY PUBLIC
City of Mebane [106 E. Wash -
Randolph County, North Carolina
Mebane,
2 302}
My Commission Expires April 12, 2028
atserequested
70097056 70747600
permitnNCO0211474 for exDES
pan-
sion of its Mebane Wastewater
Treatment Plant, located in Ala -
BURL
mance County. This permitted
facility discharges treated muni-
N.C. DEQ Air Quality
cipal and industrial wastewater
1641 Mail Service Center
to Moadams Creek, a class
WS-V:NSW water in the Cape
Ralel h, NC 27699-1641
g
Fear River Basin. Currently
BOD5, ammonia, fecal coliform,
DO. pH, total residual chlorine,
total nitrogen load. total phos-
phorous load are water quality
limited. This discharge may af-
fect future allocations in this
segment of Moadams Creek.
1t: 8117i2023

Coco, Nick A
From:
Kirby, Ben
Sent:
Thursday, August 17, 2023 2:13 PM
To:
Coco, Nick A
Cc:
Fox, Shawn
Subject:
RE: Draft Permit Mebane WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0021474, SIC Code 4952
Nick,
The Public Water Supply Section concurs with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and
maintained properly, the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the
designated water quality standards.
Thanks,
Ben Kirby (he/him/his)
Assistant Regional Engineer, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, Public Water Supply Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone] 1 Cell: [phone]
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
ben. kirby(a)deg.nc.gov
NORTH CAROLINAD_ E Q H
Department of Environmental Quality
f
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 8:43 AM
To: Dennis Hodge <[e-mail]>
Cc: Joel Whitford <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>;
Hudson, Eric <[e-mail]>; Kirby, Ben <[e-mail]>; Kinney, Maureen
<[e-mail]>; Snider, Lon <[e-mail]>; Graznak, Jenny <[e-mail]>;
Vander Borgh, Mark <[e-mail]>; Mcgee, Keyes <[e-mail]>; Byrd, Julia
<[e-mail]>; Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>; Nicholson, Molly <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft Permit Mebane WWTP, NPDES Permit Number NC0021474, SIC Code 4952
Hi Dennis,
I hope all is well.
Please see the following links to review the draft permit and cover letter and draft fact sheet for NPDES permit
NCO021474 for the Mebane WWTP. I have also provided a link to the NPDES Standard Conditions for your reference. The
City has a 30-day period ending on 9/18/2023 to comment, ask questions, or request an extension to review this draft
permit. Please contact me with any comments you might have.

Draft Permit: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2916917&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
NPDES Standard Conditions: https://bit.ly/3k5NFaL
Draft Fact Sheet: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2920290&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
A physical copy of the draft permit is also being mailed to you. Thanks, and have a nice day.
Best,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer ///
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
D- E
�
NORTH CAROLINA7d� Q
kJ/)
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.

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
Mebane WWTP
WWTP/WTP Class
IV
NPDES Permit
NCO021474
Outfall
001
Flow, Qw (MGD)
6.000
Receiving Stream
Moadams Creek
HUC Number
03030002
Stream Class
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
WS-V; NSW
7Q10s (cfs)
0.00
7Q10w (cfs)
0.00
30Q2 (cfs)
0.00
QA (cfs)
0.80
1 Q10s (cfs)
0.00
Effluent Hardness
71.2 mg/L (Avg)
Upstream Hardness
25 mg/L (Avg)
Combined Hardness Chronic
71.2 mg/L
Combined Hardness Acute
71.2 mg/L
Data Source(s)
7Q10s used as conservative estimate for 30Q2. Per
Session Law 2012-187 Section 12.1 - WS standards
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
not applied at direct discharge
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06 E
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name wQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
1.3007
FW
8.0733
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
277.4452
FW
2132.8905
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
19.2743
FW
28.0745
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
9.4367
FW
242.1615
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
-1^1'
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
90.2531
FW
812.5854
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
1.7935
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
307.6352
FW
305.1392
ug/L
21474 RPA, input
8/14/2023

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
Mebane WWTP
WWTP/WTP Class
IV
NPDES Permit
NCO021474
Outfall
001
Flow, Qw (MGD)
2.500
Receiving Stream
Moadams Creek
HUC Number
03030002
Stream Class
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
WS-V; NSW
7Q10s (cfs)
0.00
7Q10w (cfs)
0.00
30Q2 (cfs)
0.00
QA (cfs)
0.80
1 Q10s (cfs)
0.00
Effluent Hardness
71.2 mg/L (Avg)
Upstream Hardness
25 mg/L (Avg)
Combined Hardness Chronic
71.2 mg/L
Combined Hardness Acute
71.2 mg/L
Data Source(s)
7Q10s used as conservative estimate for 30Q2. Per
Session Law 2012-187 Section 12.1 - WS standards
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
not applied at direct discharge
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06 E
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name wQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
1.3007
FW
8.0733
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
277.4452
FW
2132.8905
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
19.2743
FW
28.0745
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
9.4367
FW
242.1615
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
-,^"
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
90.2531
FW
812.5854
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
1.7935
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
307.6352
FW
305.1392
ug/L
21474 RPA, input
8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
I Effluent Hardness I
Date
1 4/5/2018
2 5/10/2018
3 6/12/2018
4 7/19/2018
5 8/14/2018
6 9/27/2018
7 10/11/2018
8 11 /29/2018
9 12/13/2018
10 1/10/2019
11 2/14/2019
12 3/21 /2019
13 4/11 /2019
14 5/16/2019
15 6/18/2019
16 7/9/2019
17 7/11/2019
18 8/15/2019
19 9/12/2019
20 10/24/2019
21 11/21/2019
22 1 /16/2020
23 2/27/2020
24 3/19/2020
25 4/16/2020
26 5/14/2020
27 6/11 /2020
28 7/23/2020
29 8/20/2020
30 9/10/2020
31 10/29/2020
32 11 /17/2020
33 12/10/2020
34 1 /14/2021
35 4/8/2021
36 7/15/2021
37 10/7/2021
38 1 /13/2022
39 4/21 /2022
40 7/21 /2022
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Data
BDL=1/2DL
71.4
71.4
62.2
62.2
65.9
65.9
78
78
65.9
65.9
68.6
68.6
64.5
64.5
52.5
52.5
48.9
48.9
196
196
65.3
65.3
66
66
63
63
61.1
61.1
77.6
77.6
58.2
58.2
69.8
69.8
67.9
67.9
65.3
65.3
75.3
75.3
77.2
77.2
62.1
62.1
65.4
65.4
73.8
73.8
78.5
78.5
66.8
66.8
61.4
61.4
67.2
67.2
62.8
62.8
81.9
81.9
71.6
71.6
64
64
60
60
60
60
64
64
72
72
96
96
72
72
88
88
60
60
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
22.1130
71.2025
0.3106
40
60.00 mg/L
71.20 mg/L
196.00 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
21474 RPA, data
- 1 - 8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
4/5/2018
<
5
2.5
7/19/2018
<
5
2.5
10/11/2018
<
5
2.5
11 /29/2018
<
5
2.5
12/13/2018
<
5
2.5
1/10/2019
<
5
2.5
4/11 /2019
<
5
2.5
7/9/2019
<
5
2.5
7/11/2019
<
5
2.5
8/15/2019
<
5
2.5
9/12/2019
<
5
2.5
10/24/2019
<
5
2.5
11 /21 /2019
<
5
2.5
1/16/2020
<
5
2.5
2/27/2020
<
5
2.5
3/19/2020
<
5
2.5
4/16/2020
<
5
2.5
5/14/2020
<
5
2.5
6/11/2020
<
5
2.5
7/23/2020
<
5
2.5
8/20/2020
<
5
2.5
9/10/2020
<
5
2.5
10/29/2020
<
5
2.5
11/17/2020
<
2
1
12/10/2020
<
2
1
1/14/2021
<
2
1
4/8/2021
<
2
1
7/15/2021
<
2
1
10/7/2021
<
2
1
1/13/2022
<
2
1
4/21 /2022
<
2
1
7/21 /2022
<
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
0.6852
2.0781
0.3297
32
1.10
2.5 ug/L
2.8 ug/L
-2-
21474 RPA, data
8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Par04
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium
Values" then "COPY"
Cadmium
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/21 /2022
<
0.5 0.25
Std Dev.
0.1250
1
4/5/2018
<
2
1
Std Dev.
0.4107
2
1/25/2017
<
1 0.5
Mean
0.4375
2
7/19/2018
<
2
1
Mean
0.7313
3
7/13/2016
<
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
10/11/2018
<
2
1
C.V.
0.5616
4
4/15/2015
<
1 0.5
n
4
4
11/29/2018
<
2
1
n
32
5
5
12/13/2018
<
2
1
6
Mult Factor =
2.59
6
1/10/2019
<
2
1
Mult Factor =
1.17
7
Max. Value
0.50 ug/L
7
4/11/2019
<
2
1
Max. Value
1.000 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
1.30 ug/L
8
7/9/2019
<
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
1.170 ug/L
9
9
7/11/2019
<
2
1
10
10
8/15/2019
<
2
1
11
11
9/12/2019
<
2
1
12
12
10/24/2019
<
2
1
13
13
11 /21 /2019
<
2
1
14
14
1/16/2020
<
2
1
15
15
2/27/2020
<
2
1
16
16
3/19/2020
<
2
1
17
17
4/16/2020
<
2
1
18
18
5/14/2020
<
2
1
19
19
6/11/2020
<
2
1
20
20
7/23/2020
<
2
1
21
21
8/20/2020
<
2
1
22
22
9/10/2020
<
2
1
23
23
10/29/2020
<
1
0.5
24
24
11/17/2020
<
0.2
0.1
25
25
12/10/2020
<
0.2
0.1
26
26
1/14/2021
<
0.2
0.1
27
27
4/8/2021
<
0.2
0.1
28
28
7/15/2021
<
0.2
0.1
29
29
10/7/2021
<
0.2
0.1
30
30
1/13/2022
<
0.2
0.1
31
31
4/21 /2022
<
0.2
0.1
32
32
7/21 /2022
<
0.2
0.1
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
21474 RPA, data
-3- 8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05
Date
1 4/5/2018
2 7/19/2018
3 10/11/2018
4 11 /29/2018
5 12/13/2018
6 1/10/2019
7 4/11 /2019
8 7/9/2019
9 7/11/2019
10 8/15/2019
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
Chlorides
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
105
105
Std Dev.
106
106
Mean
99.8
99.8
C.V.
80.7
80.7
n
90.5
90.5
83.3
83.3
Mult Factor =
57.5
57.5
Max. Value
73.2
73.2
Max. Pred Cw
102
102
115
115
use "PASTE Par07
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Maximum data
points = 58
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data
17.6360
1
4/21 /2022
91.3
2
1 /25/2017 <
0.1932
3
7/13/2016 <
10
4
4/15/2015 <
5
1.2
6
115.0 mg/L
7
139.2 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
12
12
Std Dev.
5
2.5
Mean
5
2.5
C.V. (default)
5
2.5
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Maximum data
points = 58
4.7500
4.8750
0.6000
4
2.59
12.0 ug/L
31.1 ug/L
-4-
21474 RPA, data
8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Date Data
1 4/5/2018 <
2 7/19/2018 <
3 10/11/2018 <
4 11 /29/2018 <
5 12/13/2018
6 1/10/2019 <
7 4/11 /2019 <
8 7/9/2019 <
9 7/11/2019 <
10 8/15/2019 <
11 9/12/2019 <
12 10/24/2019 <
13 11 /21 /2019 <
14 1/16/2020 <
15 2/27/2020 <
16 3/19/2020 <
17 4/16/2020 <
18 5/14/2020 <
19 6/11/2020 <
20 7/23/2020 <
21 8/20/2020 <
22 9/10/2020 <
23 10/29/2020 <
24 11/17/2020 <
25 12/10/2020 <
26 1/14/2021 <
27 4/8/2021 <
28 7/15/2021 <
29 10/7/2021 <
30 1/13/2022 <
31 4/21 /2022 <
32 7/21 /2022 <
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
7 7
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
5 2.5
Max. Value
5 2.5
Max. Pred Cw
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
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
1.1067
2.2188
0.4988
32
1.15
7.0 pg/L
8.1 dig/L
Pal
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Copper
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/5/2018
1
1
Std Dev.
2.3480
2
7/19/2018
4
4
Mean
2.3469
3
10/11/2018
3
3
C.V.
1.0005
4
11 /29/2018
5
5
n
32
5
12/13/2018
1
1
6
1/10/2019
1
1
Mult Factor =
1.28
7
4/11/2019
2
2
Max. Value
11.90 ug/L
8
7/9/2019
4
4
Max. Pred Cw
15.23 ug/L
9
7/11/2019
1
1
10
8/15/2019
8
8
11
9/12/2019
2
2
12
10/24/2019
2
2
13
11 /21 /2019
<
1
0.5
14
1/16/2020
2
2
15
2/27/2020
2
2
16
3/19/2020
4
4
17
4/16/2020
2
2
18
5/14/2020
<
2
1
19
6/11/2020
<
2
1
20
7/23/2020
<
2
1
21
8/20/2020
<
2
1
22
9/10/2020
<
2
1
23
10/29/2020
11.9
11.9
24
11/17/2020
<
2
1
25
12/10/2020
<
2
1
26
1/14/2021
<
2
1
27
4/8/2021
3
3
28
7/15/2021
<
2
1
29
10/7/2021
<
2
1
30
1/13/2022
2.7
2.7
31
4/21 /2022
2
2
32
7/21 /2022
<
2
1
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
21474 RPA, data
-5- 8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Date Data
1 4/5/2018 <
2 7/19/2018 <
3 10/11/2018 <
4 11 /29/2018 <
5 12/13/2018 <
6 1/10/2019 <
7 4/11 /2019 <
8 7/11/2019 <
9 8/15/2019 <
10 9/12/2019 <
11 10/24/2019 <
12 11 /21 /2019 <
13 1/16/2020 <
14 2/27/2020 <
15 3/19/2020 <
16 4/16/2020 <
17 5/14/2020 <
18 6/11/2020 <
19 7/23/2020 <
20 8/20/2020 <
21 9/10/2020 <
22 10/29/2020 <
23 11/17/2020 <
24 12/10/2020 <
25 1/14/2021 <
26 4/8/2021 <
27 7/15/2021 <
28 10/7/2021 <
29 1/13/2022 <
30 4/21 /2022 <
31 7/21 /2022 <
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
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 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
5 5
5 5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Results
Std Dev.
0.0000
Mean
5.00
C.V.
0.0000
n
31
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L
Par14
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Lead
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/5/2018
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
1.0042
2
7/19/2018
<
5
2.5
Mean
1.8844
3
10/11/2018
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.5329
4
11 /29/2018
<
5
2.5
n
32
5
12/13/2018
<
5
2.5
6
1/10/2019
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.16
7
4/11/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
8
7/9/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.900 ug/L
9
7/11/2019
<
5
2.5
10
8/15/2019
<
5
2.5
11
9/12/2019
<
5
2.5
12
10/24/2019
<
5
2.5
13
11 /21 /2019
<
5
2.5
14
1/16/2020
<
5
2.5
15
2/27/2020
<
5
2.5
16
3/19/2020
<
5
2.5
17
4/16/2020
<
5
2.5
18
5/14/2020
<
5
2.5
19
6/11/2020
<
5
2.5
20
7/23/2020
<
5
2.5
21
8/20/2020
<
5
2.5
22
9/10/2020
<
5
2.5
23
10/29/2020
<
5
2.5
24
11/17/2020
<
0.5
0.25
25
12/10/2020
<
0.5
0.25
26
1/14/2021
<
0.5
0.25
27
4/8/2021
<
0.5
0.25
28
7/15/2021
<
0.5
0.25
29
10/7/2021
<
0.5
0.25
30
1/13/2022
0.8
0.8
31
4/21 /2022
<
0.5
0.25
32
7/21 /2022
<
0.5
0.25
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
M
21474 RPA, data
8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16
Date
1 4/5/2018
2 7/19/2018
3 10/11/2018
4 11 /29/2018
5 12/13/2018
6 1/10/2019
7 4/11 /2019
8 7/9/2019
9 7/11/2019
10 8/15/2019
11 9/12/2019
12 10/24/2019
13 11/21/2019
14 1 /16/2020
15 2/27/2020
16 3/19/2020
17 4/16/2020
18 5/14/2020
19 6/11/2020
20 7/23/2020
21 8/20/2020
22 9/10/2020
23 10/29/2020
24 11 /17/2020
25 12/10/2020
26 1 /14/2021
27 4/8/2021
28 7/15/2021
29 10/7/2021
30 1 /13/2022
31 4/21 /2022
32 7/21 /2022
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
Molybdenum
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
37
37
Std Dev.
80.1608
40
40
Mean
65.2813
431
431
C.V.
1.2279
39
39
n
32
37
37
30
30
Mult Factor =
1.33
53
53
Max. Value
431.0 ug/L
131
131
Max. Pred Cw
573.2 ug/L
123
123
95
95
109
109
112
112
24
24
21
21
14
14
21
21
8
8
24
24
85
85
21
21
81
81
89
89
26
26
30
30
40
40
26
26
22
22
37
37
205
205
17
17
21
21
40
40
Par17 & Par18
use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
Nickel
then "COPY".
Maximum data
Points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/5/2018
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
1.6199
2
7/19/2018
<
5
2.5
Mean
3.4281
3
10/11/2018
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.4725
4
11 /29/2018
7
7
n
32
5
12/13/2018
<
5
2.5
6
1/10/2019
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.14
7
4/11/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
8.0 tag/L
8
7/9/2019
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
9.1 tag/L
9
7/11/2019
6
6
10
8/15/2019
<
5
2.5
11
9/12/2019
<
5
2.5
12
10/24/2019
<
5
2.5
13
11 /21 /2019
<
5
2.5
14
1/16/2020
<
5
2.5
15
2/27/2020
<
5
2.5
16
3/19/2020
<
5
2.5
17
4/16/2020
<
5
2.5
18
5/14/2020
<
5
2.5
19
6/11/2020
<
5
2.5
20
7/23/2020
<
5
2.5
21
8/20/2020
<
5
2.5
22
9/10/2020
<
5
2.5
23
10/29/2020
<
5
2.5
24
11/17/2020
3.6
3.6
25
12/10/2020
2.5
2.5
26
1/14/2021
5.6
5.6
27
4/8/2021
6
6
28
7/15/2021
6.3
6.3
29
10/7/2021
4.9
4.9
30
1/13/2022
4
4
31
4/21 /2022
3.3
3.3
32
7/21 /2022
8
8
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
-7-
21474 RPA, data
8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Date Data
1 4/5/2018 <
2 7/19/2018 <
3 10/11/2018 <
4 11 /29/2018 <
5 12/13/2018 <
6 1/10/2019 <
7 4/11 /2019 <
8 7/9/2019 <
9 7/11/2019 <
10 8/15/2019 <
11 9/12/2019 <
12 10/24/2019 <
13 11 /21 /2019 <
14 1/16/2020 <
15 2/27/2020 <
16 3/19/2020 <
17 4/16/2020 <
18 5/14/2020 <
19 6/11/2020 <
20 7/23/2020 <
21 8/20/2020 <
22 9/10/2020 <
23 10/29/2020 <
24 11/17/2020 <
25 12/10/2020 <
26 1/14/2021 <
27 4/8/2021 <
28 7/15/2021 <
29 10/7/2021 <
30 1/13/2022 <
31 4/21 /2022 <
32 7/21 /2022 <
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
Par20
SPECIAL -Values"
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Selenium
then "COPY".
Silver
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data
Maximum data points =
points = 58
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.9136
1
4/5/2018
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.1142
5 2.5
Mean
1.9375
2
7/19/2018
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.4297
5 2.5
C.V.
0.4715
3
10/11/2018
<
1
0.5
C.V.
0.2658
5 2.5
n
32
4
11 /29/2018
<
1
0.5
n
32
5 2.5
5
12/13/2018
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
1.14
6
1/10/2019
<
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1.08
5 2.5
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
7
4/11/2019
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
0.500 ug/L
5 2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.9 ug/L
8
7/9/2019
<
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
0.540 ug/L
5 2.5
9
7/11/2019
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
10
8/15/2019
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
11
9/12/2019
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
12
10/24/2019
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
13
11 /21 /2019
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
14
1/16/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
15
2/27/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
16
3/19/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
17
4/16/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
18
5/14/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
19
6/11/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
20
7/23/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
21
8/20/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
22
9/10/2020
<
1
0.5
5 2.5
23
10/29/2020
<
1
0.5
1 0.5
24
11/17/2020
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
25
12/10/2020
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
26
1/14/2021
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
27
4/8/2021
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
28
7/15/2021
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
29
10/7/2021
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
30
1/13/2022
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
31
4/21 /2022
<
0.5
0.25
1 0.5
32
7/21 /2022
<
0.5
0.25
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
21474 RPA, data
8/14/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Zinc
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/5/2018
66
66
Std Dev.
17.6786
2
7/19/2018
50
50
Mean
42.5355
3
10/11/2018
70
70
C.V.
0.4156
4
11 /29/2018
14
14
n
31
5
12/13/2018
31
31
6
1/10/2019
62
62
Mult Factor =
1.13
7
4/11/2019
50
50
Max. Value
81.0 ug/L
8
7/9/2019
58
58
Max. Pred Cw
91.5 ug/L
9
7/11/2019
81
81
10
8/15/2019
50
50
11
9/12/2019
68
68
12
11 /21 /2019
61
61
13
1/16/2020
48
48
14
2/27/2020
40
40
15
3/19/2020
50
50
16
4/16/2020
22
22
17
5/14/2020
53
53
18
6/11/2020
28
28
19
7/23/2020
41
41
20
8/20/2020
36
36
21
9/10/2020
38
38
22
10/29/2020
35.1
35.1
23
11/17/2020
24
24
24
12/10/2020
21
21
25
1 /14/2021
31
31
26
4/8/2021
48
48
27
7/15/2021
26
26
28
10/7/2021
39
39
29
1/13/2022
39
39
30
4/21 /2022
< 5
2.5
31
7/21 /2022
36
36
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
21474 RPA, data
- 9 - 8/14/2023

Mebane WWTP >
Outfall 001
NCO021474 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
2.5000
1Q10S (cfs) =
0.00
7Q10S (cfs) =
0.00
7Q10W (cfs) =
0.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
0.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
0.80
Receiving Stream: Moadams Creek HUC 03030002
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Q10S =
100
IWC% @ 7Q10S =
100
IWC% @ 7Q10W =
100
IWC% @ 30Q2 =
100
IW%C @ QA =
82.88770053
Stream Class:
WS-V; NSW
Qw=2.5 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 71.2 mg/L
Chronic = 71.2 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
D
Aplied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standa d
Acute (FW): 340.0
Arsenic
C
150 FW 340
ug/L
32 0
2.8
Chronic (FW)----150.0---
---------------------------
Max
axMDL=5_____
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS
ug/L
NO DETECTS
__ ____
Chronic (HH) 12.1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL 5
Monitoring required
Acute: 65.00
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW 65
ug/L
4 0
1.30
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 6.50
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Monitoring required
Acute: 8.073
Cadmium
NC
1.3007 FW 8.0733
ug/L
32 0
1.170
Chronic: 1.301
All values non -detect < 2 ug/L, < 1 ug/L and < 0.2
NO DETECTS
Max MDL - 2
ug/L; No monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
230 FW
mg/L
10 10
139.2
Chronic: 230.0
_
No RP, Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
No value > Allowable Cw
pply Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: NO WQS
[No
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A
ug/L
4 1
31.1
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 300.0
RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 2,132.9
Chromium III
NC
277.4452 FW 2132.8905
µg/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic:-----277.4---
---------------------------
Acute: 16.0
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic: ----- 11.0 ---
---------------------------
Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but < Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
32 1 8.1 Max reported value 7
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Acute: 28.07
Copper
NC
19.2743 FW 28.0745
ug/L
32 20
15.23
Chronic: 19.27
_ _
No RP, Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
No value > Allowable Cw
defer to LTMP
21474 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 8/14/2023

►yi M PT-WILYTITiT 0
Outfall 001
NCO021474
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Qw=2.5 MGD
Acute: 22.0
Cyanide
NC
5 FW 22
10
ug/L
31 0
5.0
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 5.0
All values non -detect < 5ug/L ; No monitoring required
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 242.161
Lead
NC
9.4367 FW 242.1615
ug/L
32 1
2.900
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 9.437
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH
ug/L
32 32
573.2
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 2,000.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 812.6
Nickel
NC
90.2531 FW 812.5854
µg/L
32 11
9.1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (FW) 90.3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value >_ Allowable
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS
µg/L
_Cw
--------------------------------
Chronic (WS) 25.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 56.0
Selenium
NC
5 FW 56
ug/L
32 0
2.9
Chronic: 5.0
All values non -detect < 5ug/L and < 1 ug/L; No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL 5
monitoring required
Acute: 1.794
Silver
NC
0.06 FW 1.7935
ug/L
I
32 0
0.540
Chronic: 0.060
------------------------------------------------
All values non -detect < 1 ug/L and < 0.5 ug/L; No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
monitoring required
Acute: 305.1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
307.6352 FW 305.1392
ug/L
31 30
91.5
Monitoring required
--Chronic: -----307.E---
---------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
21474 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 8/14/2023

Mebane WWTP >
Outfall 001
NCO021474 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
6.0000
1Q10S (cfs) =
0.00
7Q10S (cfs) =
0.00
7Q10W (cfs) =
0.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
0.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
0.80
Receiving Stream: Moadams Creek HUC 03030002
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Q10S =
100
IWC% @ 7Q10S =
100
IWC% @ 7Q10W =
100
IWC% @ 30Q2 =
100
IW%C @ QA =
92.07920792
Stream Class: WS-V; NSW
Qw = 6 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 71.2 mg/L
Chronic = 71.2 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
D
Aplied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standa d
Acute (FW): 340.0
Arsenic
C
150 FW 340
ug/L
32 0
2.8
Chronic (FW)----150.0---
---------------------------
Max
axMDL=5_____
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS
ug/L
NO DETECTS
__ ____
Chronic (HH) 10.9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL 5
Monitoring required
Acute: 65.00
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW 65
ug/L
4 0
1.30
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 6.50
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Monitoring required
Acute: 8.073
Cadmium
NC
1.3007 FW 8.0733
ug/L
32 0
1.170
Chronic: 1.301
All values non -detect < 2 ug/L, < 1 ug/L and < 0.2
NO DETECTS
Max MDL - 2
ug/L; No monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
230 FW
mg/L
10 10
139.2
Chronic: 230.0
_
No RP, Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
No value > Allowable Cw
pply Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: NO WQS
[No
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A
ug/L
4 1
31.1
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 300.0
RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 2,132.9
Chromium III
NC
277.4452 FW 2132.8905
µg/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic:-----277.4---
---------------------------
Acute: 16.0
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic: ----- 11.0 ---
---------------------------
Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but < Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
32 1 8.1 Max reported value 7
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Acute: 28.07
Copper
NC
19.2743 FW 28.0745
ug/L
32 20
15.23
Chronic: 19.27
_ _
No RP, Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
No value > Allowable Cw
defer to LTMP
21474 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 8/14/2023

►yi M PT-WILYTITiT 0
Outfall 001
NCO021474
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Qw = 6 MGD
Acute: 22.0
Cyanide
NC
5 FW 22
10
ug/L
31 0
5.0
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 5.0
All values non -detect < 5ug/L ; No monitoring required
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 242.161
Lead
NC
9.4367 FW 242.1615
ug/L
32 1
2.900
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 9.437
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH
ug/L
32 32
573.2
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 2,000.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 812.6
Nickel
NC
90.2531 FW 812.5854
µg/L
32 11
9.1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (FW) 90.3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value >_ Allowable
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS
µg/L
_Cw
--------------------------------
Chronic (WS) 25.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 56.0
Selenium
NC
5 FW 56
ug/L
32 0
2.9
Chronic: 5.0
All values non -detect < 5ug/L and < 1 ug/L; No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL 5
monitoring required
Acute: 1.794
Silver
NC
0.06 FW 1.7935
ug/L
I
32 0
0.540
Chronic: 0.060
------------------------------------------------
All values non -detect < 1 ug/L and < 0.5 ug/L; No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
monitoring required
Acute: 305.1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
307.6352 FW 305.1392
ug/L
31 30
91.5
Monitoring required
--Chronic: -----307.E---
---------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
21474 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 8/14/2023

Permit No. NCO021474
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. NCO021474
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. NCO021474
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. NC0021474
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)
71.2
Average from April 2018 to
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
September 2022 samples
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
25
Default used
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
0
Previous Fact Sheet; historical file
1Q10 (cfs)
0
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
2.5, with
NPDES Files; 2022 Modification
expansions at
Request
4.0 and 6.0
Date: 11/23/2022
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Mebane WWTP
PermitNo. NC0021474
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 2.5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.875
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.875
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
17
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.0
Consistent with current permit
limit. Maintain limit.
More stringent than current permit limit. Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100mI
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2.5
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.875
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.00
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.8
More stringent than current permit limit. Apply 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)

11/22/22 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name
Mebane WWTP/NC0021474
/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 = 0.000 cfs WQBEL = 12.00 ng/L
Permitted Flow = 2.500 47 ng/L
4/5/18 <
1
0.5
7/19/18
1.06
1.06
10/12/18
4.46
4.46
11/29/18
6.21
6.21
12/13/18
3.99
3.99
3.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
1/10/19
1.96
1.96
4/11/19
1.57
1.57
7/11/19
3.61
3.61
8/15/19
2.9
2.9
9/12/19
2.2
2.2
10/24/19
2.81
2.81
11/21/19
1.32
1.32
12/5/19
1.47
1.47
2.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
1/16/20
1.55
1.55
2/27/20
1.91
1.91
3/19/20
1.4
1.4
4/16/20
1.85
1.85
5/15/20
1.36
1.36
6/11/20
4.82
4.82
7/23/20
3.56
3.56
8/20/20
2.69
2.69
9/10/20
4
4
10/29/20
4.04
4.04
11/17/20 <
1
0.5
12/10/20
1.16
1.16
2.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
1/14/21
1.94
1.94
4/8/21
1.63
1.63

7/15/21
10.2 10.2 4.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021
1/13/22
1.77 1.77
4/21/22
1.64 1.64
7/21/22
3.38 3.38 2.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2022

Mebane WWTP/NC0021474
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018
2019
2020
2021
# of Samples
5
8
12
3
Annual Average, ng/L
3.2
2.2
2.4
4.59
Maximum Value, ng/L
6.21
3.61
4.82
10.2
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
12.0
2022
2.263333
3.38

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO021474 MRS Betweei 11 - 2017 and11 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 11/10/22 Page 1 of 4
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO021474
FACILITY: City of Mebane - Mebane WWTP
COUNTY: Alamance
REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
08 - 2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
08/31 /18
2 X week
mg/I
5
5.16
3.1
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
09 - 2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
09/22/18
2 X week
mg/I
7.5
7.9
5.3
Weekly Average
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
Exceeded
09 - 2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
09/30/18
2 X week
mg/I
5
5.23
4.7
Monthly Average
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
Exceeded
04 - 2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04/13/19
2 X week
mg/I
7.5
8.95
19.3
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
08 - 2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
08/13/22
2 X week
mg/I
7.5
253.2
3,276
Weekly Average
None
Concentration
Exceeded
08 - 2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
08/31/22
2 X week
mg/I
5
77.89
1,457.8
Monthly Average
None
Concentration
Exceeded
01 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/09/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
44
158.8
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/29/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
48
182.4
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/30/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
30
76.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/13/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
43
152.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
04-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
04/11/18
5Xweek
ug/I
17
33
94.1
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/13/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
46
170.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/23/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
34
100
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/29/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
29
70.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
09/06/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
47
176.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
09/20/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
45
164.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO021474 MRS Betweei 11 - 2017 and11 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 11/10/22 Page 2 of 4
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO021474
FACILITY: City of Mebane - Mebane WWTP
COUNTY: Alamance
REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
10 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/04/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
33
94.1
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/05/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
48
182.4
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10 - 2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/22/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
41
141.2
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
11/13/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
46
170.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
11/16/18
5 X week
ug/I
17
28
64.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01 -2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/23/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
47
176.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/19/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
44
158.8
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
04 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
04/30/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
46
170.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
06/17/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
37
117.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
07 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
07/03/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
30
76.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
07 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
07/29/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
46
170.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/06/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
30
76.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
09/23/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
46
170.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/25/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
18
5.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
12 - 2019
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
12/23/19
5 X week
ug/I
17
40
135.3
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01 -2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/14/20
5 X week
ug/I
17
36
111.8
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO021474 MRS Betweei 11 - 2017 and11 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 11/10/22 Page 3 of 4
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO021474
FACILITY: City of Mebane - Mebane WWTP
COUNTY: Alamance
REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
01 -2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/24/20
5 X week
ug/I
17
44
158.8
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03 - 2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/10/20
5 X week
ug/I
17
39
129.4
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03 - 2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/19/20
5 X week
ug/I
17
36
111.8
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
05-2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
05/11/20
5Xweek
ug/I
17
43
152.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06 - 2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
06/02/20
5 X week
ug/I
17
24
41.2
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11 -2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
11/30/20
5 X week
ug/I
17
37
117.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
12 - 2020
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
12/17/20
5 X week
ug/I
17
20
17.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03 - 2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/17/22
5 X week
ug/I
17
21
23.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/23/22
5 X week
ug/I
17
39
129.4
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08 - 2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/22/22
5 X week
ug/I
17
32
88.2
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08 - 2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/25/22
5 X week
ug/I
17
47
176.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02 - 2021
001
Effluent
Flow, in conduit or thru
02/28/21
Continuous
mgd
2.5
2.75
10.0
Monthly Average
No Action, BPJ
treatment plant
Exceeded
11 -2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
11/30/18
2 X week
mg/I
4
5.49
37.3
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOV
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
12 -2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
12/01/18
2 X week
mg/I
12
13.55
12.9
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOV
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
12 - 2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
12/15/18
2 X week
mg/I
12
12.37
3.1
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOV
N) - Concentration
Exceeded
12 - 2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
12/29/18
2 X week
mg/I
12
12.65
5.4
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOV
N) - Concentration
Exceeded

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO021474 MRS Betweei 11 - 2017 and11 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 11/10/22 Page 4 of 4
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO021474 FACILITY: City of Mebane - Mebane WWTP COUNTY: Alamance REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
12-2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as 12/31/18 2 X week
mg/I
N) - Concentration
02 - 2020 001 Effluent Oxygen, Dissolved (DO) 02/06/20 5 X week
mg/I
11 -2020 001 Effluent Oxygen, Dissolved (DO) 11/12/20 5 X week
mg/I
4 10.94 173.4 Monthly Average Proceed to NOV
Exceeded
6 5.8 3.3 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOD
Reached
6 4.1 31.7 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOD
Reached

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 NC0021474 111 121 21/08/19 I17 18 L D I 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)
10:OOAM 21/08/19
14/07/01
Mebane WWTP
635 Corregidor Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Mebane NC 27302
01:OOPM 21/08/19
19/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Amy H Varinoski/ORC/919-304-9217/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Linda R Holt,106 E Washington St Mebane NC 27302H919-563-6141/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Records/Reports Compliance Schedules 0 Pretreatment
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
Jim J Gonsiewski DWR/Division of Water Qua Iity/336-776-9704/
Patricia Lowery DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9691/
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
NCO021474 I11 12I 21/08/19 117 18 i p i
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On August 19. 2021 a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) was performed by Tricia Lowery and
Jim Gonsiewski of the Winston-Salem Regional Office. Ms. Amy Varinoski was present for the
inspection. The purpose of this inspection was to determine the effectiveness of the Town's
pretreatment program, which includes reviewing the files, POTW plant performance, industry
monitoring data, and adherence to the enforcement response plan (ERP).
This is a 2.5 MGD permitted facility. The City has five (5) Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), three (3)
of which are categorical. The publicly owned treatment works (POTW) had a limit violation of DO in
November 2020 and a flow limit violation in February 2021. Both of these violations were due to a
heavy rain event.
There are no plant problems related to pretreatment issues and, other than the DO and flow limit
violations previously stated. Ms. Varinoski stated changes were coming to the pretreatment
program (and POTW it serves) in the future that will include dropping 3 SIU's from the program.
These three SIU's: Liggett, Synergy and Sandvit, will be directed to the City of Graham POTW. Ms.
Varinoski will inform the DEQ-DWR of the specific dates when these SIU's will be diverted to Graham.
The facility is very well operated.
The Headworks Analysis (HWA) renewal was submitted on March 26, 2021. The HWA is currently
being reviewed for approval.
The last Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) was submitted on November 23, 2020. The IWS was
approved on January 13, 2021. The next IWS is due on January 10, 2026.
The Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO) was approved on December 10, 2012.
The Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) was submitted on February 5, 2021 and approved on
February 13, 2020.
The Long -Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) was submitted on June 20, 2019 and approved on July 18,
2019.
The Long -Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) is being conducted at the proper locations and frequencies.
Industrial User Permit (IUP) File Review
A review of the file for PPG Coating Services (#0133) revealed that the monitoring data was well
organized and compliant.
A review of the file for Sandvit. (#0118) revealed that the monitoring data was well organized and
compliant.
A review of the file for Liggett (#0132) revealed that the monitoring data was well organized and
compliant.
The slug control plan for PPG Coating Services (#0133) was in good order.
The slug control plan for Sandvit. (#0118) was in good order.
The slug control plan for Liggett (#0132) was in good order.
Upcoming changes: Liggett, Synergy and Sandvit will be directed to the City of Graham POTW. Ms.
Varinoski will inform the DEQ-DWR of the specific dates when these SIU's will be diverted to Graham.
Page#

Permit: NC0021474
Inspection Date: 08/19/2021
Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
The pretreatment program is considered satisfactory. Ms. Varinoski runs an excellent pretreatment
program.
Page#

Permit: NC0021474
Inspection Date: 08/19/2021
Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment: none
Compliance Schedules
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
Comment: none
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

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 NC0021474 I11 121 22/06/24 I17 18I � I 19 I s I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
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)
10:OOAM 22/06/24
14/07/01
Mebane WWTP
635 Corregidor Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Mebane NC 27302
12:OOPM 22/06/24
19/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Amanda Catharine Hill/ORC/919-563-6141/
Antony Jerome Bowes/ORC/919-304-9216/
Dennis James Hodge/ORC/336-906-5583/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Linda R Holt,106 E Washington St Mebane NC 27302//919-563-6141/
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
Ron Boone DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9690/
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
NCO021474 I11 12I 22/06/24 117 18 i c i
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Ron Boone, of the Winston-Salem Regional Office of the NC Division of Water Resources, conducted
a compliance evaluation inspection of the Mebane WWTP on 6/24/22. The assistance and
cooperation of Dennis Hodge, Tony Bowes, and Amanda Hill was greatly appreciated. Inspection
findings are detailed below and in the accompanying checklist.
Records Review:
Operational records were reviewed and found to be complete, current, and compliant. This includes
operator visitation logs, operations logs, maintenance logs, and other pertinent records that the
operators provided during the inspection. Records are kept for at least 3 years.
Analytical records are complete, current, and compliant. The permittee uses Meritech labs for BOD,
nitrogen, metals, oil & grease, and cyanide. Field parameters are completed in house. Chains of
custody, lab reports, etc, were all available for review. All analytical records are kept for at least 5
years. No discrepancies in reporting lab results were noted.
The current permit is maintained onsite.
Plant Inspection:
The bar screen is operational and in good condition. The aeration basins (AB) appear to be in good
condition and the mixed liquor appears healthy. The basins used floating aerators and not all run at
the same time, which creates oxic and anoxic zones to aid in nutrient management.
The clarifiers also appear in good condition and operating properly. The weirs appear to be
level and no short circuiting was noticed in the clarifiers.
The plant uses liquid sodium hypochlorite for disinfection and liquid sodium bisulfite for
dechlorination. Backups for all pumps are kept on hand.
The effluent flow meter is used for reporting and it was last calibrated in June of 2022. It reports both
a constant flow rate as well as the total flow. The meter is calibrated quarterly so it is due again in
September 2022.
The plant's generators supply power for the whole facility.
The effluent appeared excellent. It was very clear and there is no odor. Fish were seen in the
immediate area of the outfall.
The inspector has the following recommendations:
Keep up the good work!
No permit deficiencies or violations were noted during the inspection.
Page#

Permit: NCO021474 Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
Yes
No
NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑
❑
■
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
■
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
■
Name of individual performing the sampling
■
Results of analysis and calibration
■
Dates of analysis
■
Name of person performing analyses
■
Transported COCs
■
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
■
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
■
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
❑
■
❑
❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
■
❑
❑
❑
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO021474 Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
❑
❑
❑
■
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment: None
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
■
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: None
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment: Not required due to participation in the river basin association.
Page# 4

Permit: NCO021474 Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
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?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
Aeration Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑
0
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Surface aerators are alternated and not all are in operation at all times to create oxic
and anoxic zones.
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? E ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0021474
Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4
of the sidewall depth)
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are pumps in place?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of operation:
Is the filter media present?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO021474 Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
Comment: Meter is calibrated quarterly. Last calibrated in June 2022.
Disinfection -Liquid
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sodium hypochlorite
De -Chlorination
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
EIN
❑
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑
❑
0
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Sodium Bisulfite
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
❑
❑
■
❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment: None
Pump Station - Effluent
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
0
❑
❑
❑
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: None
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NCO021474
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022
Effluent Pipe
Owner -Facility: Mebane WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Comment: None
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Comment: None
Operations & Maintenance
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
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 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: None
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
0
❑
❑
❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: None
Page# 8

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Mebane WWTP
NCO021474/001 County:
Alamance
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
7/1/2014
chr lim: 90%
NonComp: Single
J
F M
A
M
2018
Pass>100(P)
- - Pass>100(P)
-
2019
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2020
Pass(s)
- -
Pass
-
2021
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
Millpond WTP -
Bayboro
NCO088340/001 County:
Pamlico
Mysd24PF
Begin:
11/1/2018 Ac P/F Monit: 90% M
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2018
-
- Pass
-
-
2019
-
- Pass
-
-
2020
-
- Pass
-
-
2021
-
- Pass
-
-
2022
-
- Fail
-
-
Mills River WTP
(NCG590034)
NCO085511/001 County:
Henderson
Fthd24PF
Begin:
4/1/2016
ANNUAL (NCG50003
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2018
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2019
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2020
-
Pass -
-
Pass
2021
-
- -
Pass
-
2022
M'Kean Maffitt
(Southside) WWTP
NCO023973/001 County:
New Hanover
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
3/1/2018
Cerio7dPF lim: 3% @
NonComp: Single
J
F M
A
M
2018
-
- Pass
-
-
2019
-
- >12(P) Pass
-
-
2020
-
- >12(P) Pass
-
-
2021
-
- Pass>12(P)
-
-
2022
-
- Pass
-
-
Mocksville WTP
(Hugh Lagle WTP)
NCO089290/001 County:
Davie
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
12/1/2013 Chr Cerio PF Monit: 9
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2018
-
- Pass
-
-
2019
-
- Pass
-
-
2020
-
- Pass
-
-
2021
-
- Fail
-
-
2022
-
- Pass
-
-
Region: WSRO
Basin:
CPF02
Jan Apr Jul Oct
7Q10: 0.0
PF: 2.5
IWC:
100 Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
-
Pass>100(P)
-
-
Fail
-
Fail
>100
>100
<22.5
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Fail
>100
>100
-
Region: WARO
Basin:
NEU13
Mar Jun Sep Dec
7Q10: NA
PF:
IWC:
NA Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
Pass
-
-
H
Pass
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Fail
-
-
Pass
-
Fail
SOC JOC:
N D
82.2 >100
>100(s) >100(s)
SOC JOC:
N
Region: ARO Basin: FRB02 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: A
J J A S O N
Pass - - Pass
Pass - - Fail Pass
- Pass - - Pass
Pass
Region: WIRO Basin: CPF17 Mar Jun Sep Dec
7Q10: Tidal PF: 12.0 IWC: NA Freq: Q
J J A S O
Pass - - H Pass
Pass - - Pass -
Pass - - Pass -
Pass - - Pass -
Pass - - >12 Pass -
Region: WSRO Basin: YAD06 Mar Jun Sep Dec
7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
J J A S O
Pass - - Pass -
Pass - - Fail -
Pass - - Pass -
Pass - - Fail -
Pass - - Fail -
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
D
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
G
D
>100(P) Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
D
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
LeEend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facilitv is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs Page 72 of 118

A B I C 1 D 1 E F G H I I I J K L I M N 1 O 1 P
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form Vera1- 2022.09.28
2
1. Facility's General Information am 166-
3
Dale of (draft) Review
8/9/2023
c. POC review due to:
e. Contact Information
4
Date of (final) Review
10/3/2023
Municipal NPDES renewal
❑
Regional Office (RO) Winston-Salem
5
NPDES Permit Writer (by,)
Nick Coco
HWA-AT/LTMP Review
❑
RO PT Staff Jenny Graznak RO NPDES Staff Jenny .—I
6
Permittee-Facility Name
City of Mebane- Mebane W WTP
New Industries
I I
Facility PT Staff, email Amv Vadni ay,rino.kiOCityofineban..wm
7
NPDES Permit Number
NC0021474
W WTP expansion MGD GD & 6.0
❑
f. Receiving Stream
8
NPDES Permit Effective Date
11/1/2023
Stream reclass./adjusanenl
I I
Outall
9
Chemical Addendum Submittal Date
10/27/2022
Caudell relocation/adjustment
❑
Receiving Stream:
Moadams Creek
CIA, cfs:
0.8
10
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date
8/17/2023
7010 update
❑
Stream Class
WS-V; NSW
7010 (S), cis:
0
11
eDMR data evaluated from:
4/1/z018 1 10 1 .11.022
Other POC review Iriggee explain:
Oufall Lat.
36.08743 N
I Caudell Long.
79.28844 W
12
3
a. W WTP Capacity Summary
Ouffall II
Current Permitted Floc, mgd
1 2.5 D-i ned Flaw, 2 5
Receiving Stream
CIA, cfs:
14
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
0.163
d. IU Summary
Stream Class
7010, ors:
15
b. PT Does. Summary
# lus
Corel Lat.
Oulfall Long.
16
IW S approval date
1/13/2021
# SIUs
5
Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfaim)? 0 YES ❑ NO
17
IJSTMP approval date:
�
7/18/201;
#c1Us
3
Comments:
18
19
20
t HWA-AT approval date
E
d
w
Rec'd 3/26/2021
low2.
# NSCIUs
2
Facility discharges to Ws waters
Users' Information.
#IUs w/Local
Permits or Other
Types
5
Industrial
21
°a p
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU Non Conventional Pollutans & Toxic Pollutant
UP Effective Date
22
Z 1
Industrial Connections & Solutions
433
fil pH, fluoride, TP, cadmium, chm—,, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury, cyanide, silver, TTO
7/1/202
23
2
Liggett Group, LLC
403
fil pH, BOD, TSS, fluoride, TP, ammonia, zinc, mercury
111/201
24
3
MetoKote PPG Coating Services
433
fiaw, pH, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, cyanide, TTO, mercury, fiuoride, TP
711/201
25
4
Novo Health Services
403
fimw, pH, COD, O&G, TP, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury, fluoride
7/1/2021
26
5
Sandvik Machining Solutions US LLC
433
fil pH, flupride, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury, selenium, silver, cyanide, TTO
7/1/2022
27
6
28
7
33
comment:
3q
35
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
Status of Pretreatment Program check all that apply)
36
❑
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
37
❑
2 facilit has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
38
❑
3 facilit has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
39
❑
3a) Full Program with LTMP
aO
❑
3b) Modified Program with STMP
41
❑
4 additional conditions re ardin Pretreatment
attached
or listed below
az
❑
5 facilit 's stud a is bein land a lied or composted
7
❑
6 facility's sludge is incinerated add Beryllium and Marcia ry sam ing according
l0 503,43
44
a5
❑
❑
7 facilit 's sludge is taken to a landfill,
8 other
if yes which landfill:
46
47
48
Sludge Disposal Plan:
Dewatered biosolids are transported by EMA Resources for use in production of compost by an additional third party.
49
Sludge Permit No:
50
4. LTMP/STMP and NWA Review
51
PW: Find L/STMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
52
53
n
N(POC)
c
U
yPQL
Parameter of Concern
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
from
L/STMP, ug/I
Required PQL
per NPDES
permit
Recommit.
PQL, ug/I
54
Flow
M
I+1
I I
55
71
BOD
ICI
I+I
❑
56
❑'
TSS
ICI
ICI
57
E
NH3
-1ICI
ICI
El
58
E
Arsenic
El
El
2.0
59
E
Barium
❑
El
60
Beryllium(5)
❑
❑
11
❑
61
�
Cadmium(1)
❑
ICI
El
E
❑
0.5
62
E
Chromium(1)
-1
1 1
ICI-1
❑
❑
5.0
63
�
Copper(1)
I
I'I
I'I-1
E
❑
2.0
64
Cyanide
-1
❑
❑
65
�
Lead(1)
-1
ICI
ICI
❑
❑
2.0
66
Mercury(5)
❑
❑
❑
❑
O.W1
67
E
Molybdenum
❑-1
❑
❑
10.0
68
�
Nickel(1)
❑
ICI-1-1
❑
❑
69
❑
Selenium
❑-1
11
❑
1.0
70
❑
Silver
I
ICI
❑
❑
❑
1.0
71
❑
Zirl
❑
A
❑
11
❑
10.0
72
❑
Sludge Flow to Disposal-1
73
❑
% Solids to Disposal-1
❑
❑
7q
❑
Oil & Grease
75
p
TN
❑
M
❑
76
RI
TP
I -I
❑
❑
77
7
PFAS 1633
II
11
11
❑
78
1 1
1,4 Dioxane
❑
❑
❑
79
l+l
COD
I+I
80
❑
❑
❑
❑
81
11
❑
II
❑
II
82
❑
II
11
❑
II
7
❑
❑
❑
84
Footnotes:
85
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to
EPA -PT requirement
16
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
87
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to
POTW
18
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when po"Want is of concern to POTW
89
(5) In LTMP/STMP, ff Sewage sludge is incinerated
90
Please use blue font for the info updated by P.
91
Please use rad font for POC that need to be added/nni in L/STMP
sampling
plan
92
"r,� ora^-- f-- and stFilieth—gh for POC that—y4ae—oved from iiSTMP-P96aisUsampi
me plan
93
Blue shaded cell (D60:H81): Parameters usually included under that POC list
94
5. Comments
or
95
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in IJSTMP:
Recommend addition of 1,4-dloxane where appropriate based on NPDES requirements
96
g7
gg
99
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
Wr
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to L/STMP due
to POTW, concerns:
NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
100
6. Pretreatment updates in response
to NPDES permit renewal
101
NPDES Permit Effective Date 1 11/1/2023 180 days after effective (date): 4/29/202i Perm It writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Page 1 POC Review Form (1)

Coco, Nick A
From: Perlmutter, Gary
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Coco, Nick A
Subject: Fw: USGS response to DWR USGS Low Flows request # 2021-148 (dated 2021/08/26) for Haw River
Alamance County... RE: [EXTERNAL] Low -flow request approval
See fwd. The 7Q10 is 58.1 cfs
Gary Perlmutter, MSc, Environmental Specialist II
NCDEQ / Division of Water Resources
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
919-707-3611 Office
919-306-1017 Cell
ga ry. pe rl m utter@deg. nc.gov
Physical Address: 512 N Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
DEQ is updating its email addreses to @deq.nc.gov in phases from May 151 to June 9t". Employee email
addresses may look different, but email performance will not be impacted.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:31 PM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hill, David A <[e-mail]>; Kebede, Adugna <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J
<[e-mail]>; Dowden, Doug <[e-mail]>; Albertin, Klaus P
<[e-mail]>; Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Subject: USGS response to DWR USGS Low Flows request # 2021-148 (dated 2021/08/26) for Haw River Alamance
County... RE: [EXTERNAL] Low -flow request approval
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Gary,
Note: This is part 2 of 2 of a response to two low -flow requests for the Haw River received from this requestor on the
same date.

In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for a location on the Haw River near Eli Whitley
downstream from the mouth of Cane Creek in southeastern Alamance County and immediately upstream from the
confluence of the Alamance/Orange/Chatham County boundaries, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC, Raleigh office) indicates
low -flow estimates previously determined for a location on the Haw River upstream from the point of interest, identified
by the lat/long coordinates (35.877771,-79.25006) associated with the email dated 08/26/2021 from the DWR USGS
Low Flow portal following your request submission. Completed in May 1973, the low -flow characteristics for Haw River
near Eli Whitney (station id 02096879, drainage area 1,083 sqmi, upstream from Cane Creek) were estimated based on
transfer of flow characteristics (by drainage -area proration) from two nearby continuous -record streamgages on the
Haw River in vicinity of the point of interest.
No USGS discharge records are known to exist for the point of interest.
In the absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis, estimates of low -flow characteristics at
ungaged locations would be determined by assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square
mile drainage area, or cfsm) at nearby sites where estimates have previously been determined.
A basin delineation completed using the online USGS StreamStats application for North Carolina
(https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/) indicates the drainage area for the point of interest (StreamStats adjusted
coordinates 35.87780,-79.24989 NAD83) is 1,150 sqmi, which confirms the drainage area submitted as part of the
request information.
For streams in Alamance County, low -flow characteristics published by the USGS are provided in the following
reports:
(1) The first is a statewide report completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, "Low -flow
characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available at
http://Pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2403/report.pdf. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through
1988) via regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and 400 sqmi and not considered
or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
(2) The second is a basin -wide report for the Cape Fear River basin published in 2001. It is USGS Water -Resources
Investigations Report 01-4094, "Low -flow characteristics and discharge profiles for selected streams in the Cape Fear
River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998 " (Weaver and Pope, 2001). An online version of the report is available
through http://nc.water.usgs.gov/reports/wri014O94/. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data
through 1998) for continuous -record gaging stations and partial -record sites within the Cape Fear River basin. The
report also provides low -flow discharge profiles (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, and 7Q2) for the Cape Fear River and
selected tributaries within the basin.
(3) The third is a statewide report published in March 2015. It is USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5001, "Low -
flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics for selected USGS continuous -record streamgaging stations in North
Carolina through 2012" (Weaver, 2015). The report is available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5001/. The
report provides updated low -flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics for 266 active (as of 2012 water year) and
discontinued streamgages across the state where a minimum of 10 climatic years discharge records were available for
flow analyses.
Low -flow characteristics estimated for point of interest:
For the record: Confidence levels in the low -flow characteristics provided below are considered to be very low. The
reach of the Haw River upstream and downstream from this point of interest is known or considered to be cumulatively
affected by effects of flow regulation from multiple impoundments located within several large sub -basins, minor

regulation by small dams scattered along the river, and multiple flow diversions within the basin (including major
municipal diversions within the Buffalo Creek sub -basins across Guilford County).
Below is a table showing the presence of two actively operated continuous -record streamgages on the Haw River in
vicinity of the point of interest. The upstream site is Haw River at Haw River in Alamance County (station id 02096500,
drainage area 606 sqmi) with period of record from the 1929 water year through current (September 2021). The
downstream site is Haw River near Bynum in Chatham County (station id 02096960, drainage area 1,275 sqmi) with
period of record from the 1974 water year through current.
Using the published low -flow characteristics (Weaver, 2015) at the Haw River and Bynum streamgages, the equivalent
low -flow yields (cfsm) were determined for these two streamgages. The unit low -flow yields for the point of interest
were then pro -rated on the basis of drainage area between the low -flow yields at the Haw River and Bynum
streamgages. The pro -rated results for the winter 7Q10 discharge and annual 7Q2 discharge were not within the range
of the published low -flow statistics for the two reference streamgages. Therefore, it was judged that these statistics
cannot be provided at this time for the point of interest.
While pro -rated results for the annual 7Q10 and 30Q2 discharges were within ranges of the published low -flow statistics
for the two reference streamgages, the pattern of low -flow yields between the two reference sites does not result in any
acceptable level of confidence in the computed values. Future streamflow records need to be collected at or near this
point of interest to provide for a higher level of confidence in low flow characteristics along this reach of the Haw River.
For the purposes of completing this response, it was judged to "heavily round" both the estimated 7Q10 and 30Q2
discharges as indicated below.
Annual 7Q10 discharge = 55 cfs (rounded)
Annual 30Q2 discharge = 150 cfs (rounded)
Winter 7Q10 discharge = not determined
Annual 7Q10 discharge = not determined
USGS station
Drainage area
(sqmi)
7Q10
(cfs) 7Q10 (cfsm)
30Q2 30Q2
(cfs) (cfsm)
W7Q10 W7Q10
(cfs) (cfsm)
02096500
606
60 0.0990
114 0.1881
100 0.1650
Point of interest
1150
58.7 0.0510
154.8 0.1346
4ig.3 8.1029
02096960
1275
51 0.0400
156 0.1224
113 0.0886
For the average annual discharge, an average unit flow was determined for the mean daily discharges published in Table
5 on page 76 of USGS SIR 2015-5001 for the two reference streamgages (02096500, 02096960). The average unit flow
was computed to be nearly 1.0 cfs per sqmi drainage area.
Average annual discharge = 1,150 cfs (equivalent to 1.0 cfs per sqmi)
Please note:
(1) The estimated flows are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).

(2) The information provided in this message is based on a preliminary assessment and considered provisional, subject
to revision pending collection of future data and further analyses.
These provisional streamflow statistics are provided via the DWR USGS Low Flows cooperative agreement between
the USGS and the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email. kweaver0usas.aov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: httns://www.usos.goy/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
From: Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:45 PM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Albertin, Klaus P <[e-mail]>; Hill, David A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Dowden, Doug
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Low -flow request approval
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding.
Your request has been approved and will be forwarded to USGS. A response from USGS usually takes 7 - 10 business
days.
Request Flow Statistic Approval
Request ID: 148
Requestor: Gary Perlmutter
Requestor e-mail: [e-mail]
Requestor Phone: [phone]
Local Government:
Public Water Supply:
Consultant:

Contact:
Reason: Pollutant mass load allocation
River/Stream: Haw River
Drainage Area (sq. mi.): 1150
Latitude: 35.877771
Longitude:-79.25006
Other Information:
Statististics: ["7Q10","7Q10 - Winter","30Q2","Average Annual"]
Approved by: Albertin, Klaus P
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NC0021474 Mebane WWTP 1
Method Number Estimated Concentration (If
Pollutant (Required) CAS number I (if Applicable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
No additional effluent analyses by any certified method have been conducted. All effluent analyses conducted by a certified method have
been reported on each month's DMR.

DIGESTER #1
DIGESTER #2
DATE
TIME
INITIALS
pH
ALKALINI
TY
50mis
0.02N
H2SO4
NH3-N
NO3
DO
TEMP
pH
ALKALINI
TY
50mis
0.02N
H2SO4
NH3-N
NO3
DO
TEMP
COMMENTS
Operating
Ran es`
7.0-7.6
>500
<20
<20
0.4-0.8
15-30
7.0-7.6
>500
<20
<20
0.4-0.8
15-30
`NOTIFY ORC IF RESULTS ARE OUTSIDE OF
OPERATING RANGES
10721 2019
9:01
AV/DD
7.22
>500
6.06
1
3.13
0.23
16.7
5.75
360
4
20.88
0.73
15.7
10/22/2019
8:16
AV/DD
7.11
>500
6.19
160
2.51
0.21
18.7
5.79
400
2
16.8
1.18
17.8
DIG1
10/23/2019
8:04
DO
7.09
>500
150
2.77
0.24
16.2
6.61
>500
60
2.15
-
0.27
15.6
Mall running u i en o ay,
alternate pumps each day
7.
>5
6.17
.8
>5
9.34
7
5
7.
>5
6.09
160
.6
7.02
>5
5.5
2.17
5.5

Coco, Nick A
From: Byrd, Julia
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Coco, Nick A
Subject: City of Mebane / DWI Project No. SRP-W-ARP-0177 / Water Resource Recovery Facility Expansion
Project / ARPA-Earmarked Project / Letter of Intent to Fund
Attachments: Mebane_SRP-WARP-0177_LOIF_220928.pdf
Please see attached. Also, the note in the LOIF below
The State Environmental Policy Act exempts projects funded by the State Reserve (such as this
project) from state -mandated environmental review. Federal requirements may still apply. [North Carolina
General Statute (N.C.G.S.) 113A-12(2)h.]
Julia Byrd (she/he )
Environmental Engineer Il, Division of Water Infrastructure
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Mobile: [phone]
**PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW**
Current: [e-mail]
Old: [e-mail]
4: � D E Q'� 7' `
NORTH CAROLINA 1W /�
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Newhouse, Doug <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 10:26 AM
To: Hubbard, Mark <[e-mail]>; Byrd, Julia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: City of Mebane / DWI Project No. SRP-W-ARP-0177 / Water Resource Recovery Facility Expansion Project /
ARPA-Earmarked Project / Letter of Intent to Fund
Get Outlook for 10S
From: Newhouse, Doug <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 18:27
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Joel Whitford <[e-mail]>; Pohlig, Ken <[e-mail]>
Subject: City of Mebane / DWI Project No. SRP-W-ARP-0177 / Water Resource Recovery Facility Expansion
Project / ARPA-Earmarked Project / Letter of Intent to Fund

Good Evening, Mr. Rollins --
Appended to this e-mail, please find enclosed a signed,
PDF copy of the Letter of Intent to Fund for the
subject project. Should you require further assistance,
please contact us at your convenience.
Best Regards,
-- Doug N.
Mebane SRP-W ARP-0177 LOIF 220928.pdf
Doug Newhouse
Engineer / Reviewer
SRF Section / Wastewater Unit
Division of Water Infrastructure
Dept of Environmental Quality
919.707.9053 I doug.newhouse()ncdenr.gov
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.
ra

Effluent Hardness (mg/L) Effluent Zinc (µg/L)
4/1/2018-9/30/2022 4/1/2018-9/30/2022
4/5/2018
71.4
4/5/2018
66
5/10/2018
62.2
6/12/2018
65.9
7/19/2018
78
7/19/2018
50
8/14/2018
65.9
9/27/2018
68.6
10/11/2018
64.5
10/11/2018
70
11/29/2018
52.5
11/29/2018
14
12/13/2018
48.9
12/13/2018
31
1/10/2019
196
1/10/2019
62
2/14/2019
65.3
3/21/2019
66
4/11/2019
63
4/11/2019
50
5/16/2019
61.1
6/18/2019
77.6
7/9/2019
58.2
7/9/2019
58
7/11/2019
69.8
7/11/2019
81
8/15/2019
67.9
8/15/2019
50
9/12/2019
65.3
9/12/2019
68
10/24/2019
75.3
10/24/2019
256
11/21/2019
77.2
11/21/2019
61
1/16/2020
62.1
1/16/2019
48
2/27/2020
65.4
2/27/2020
40
3/19/2020
73.8
3/19/2020
50
4/16/2020
78.5
4/16/2020
22
5/14/2020
66.8
5/14/2020
53
6/11/2020
61.4
6/11/2020
28
7/23/2020
67.2
7/23/2020
41
8/20/2020
62.8
8/20/2020
36
9/10/2020
81.9
9/10/2020
38
10/29/2020
71.6
10/29/2020
35.1
11/17/2020
64
11/17/2020
24
12/10/2020
60
12/10/2020
21
1/14/2021
60
1/14/2021
31
4/8/2021
64
4/8/2021
48
7/5/2021
72
7/15/2021
26
10/7/2021
96
10/7/2021
39
1/13/2022
72
1/13/2022
39
4/21/2022
88
4/21/2022
2.5 *result BDL; DL=5
7/21/2022
60
7/21/2022
36
Average
Average
Including 10/24/19
71.2025
49.20625
MIN
MIN
48.9
2.5
MAX
MAX
196
256
Average
Excluding 10/24/19
41.0619
MIN
2.5
MAX
81

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
SHADI ESKAF
Director
Mr. Chris Rollins, Manager
City of Mebane
106 East Washington Street
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
Dear Mr. Rollins:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
September 28, 2022
Subject: Letter of Intent to Fund
Water Resource Recovery Facility Expansion Project
American Rescue Plan — Earmark
ProjectNo.: SRP-W-ARP-0177
The Division of Water Infrastructure (Division) has reviewed your Requestfor Funding and
determined your project is eligible to receive American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding from the State
Fiscal Recovery Fund (SFRF), established in Session Law (S.L.) 2022-74. Projects funded from the SFRF
must meet applicable federal law and guidance for the ARPA funds. The ARPA Project Grant will be one -
hundred percent (100%) of eligible project costs, up to a maximum of $11,925,000.
The first milestone is the submittal ofa bid-and-desizn package by February 1, 2023. Please note
that this intent to fund is contingent on meeting all of the following milestones:
Milestone
Date
Apply for all Necessary Permits*
ASAP
Bid -and -Design Package Submittal obtain allpermits)
February 1, 2023
Bid -and -Design Package Approval
June 1, 2023
Advertise Project, Receive Bids, Submit Bid Information, and Receive
Authority to Award
October 2, 2023
Execute Construction Contracts
November 1, 2023
Receive Last Reimbursement - Statutory
December 31, 2026
.An engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) may be required on certain projects.
See: httys://deci.nc.2ov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-civality-i)ermittiniz/nodes-wastewaterPoermitting-process
Failure to meet any milestone may result in the forfeiture of funding for the proposed project.
Note the Division will make no reimbursements of ARPA funds after December 31, 2026.
The State Environmental Policy Act exempts projects funded by the State Reserve (such as this
project) from state -mandated environmental review. Federal requirements may still apply. [North Carolina
General Statute (N.C.G.S.) 113A-12(2)h.]
E Q��
Department of Emlmnm l dual
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Infrastructure
512 N. Salisbury Street f 1633 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
919.707.9160

Mr. Rollins
City of Mebane
September 28, 2022
Page 2 of 2
Upon detailed review of the project during the funding process, it may be determined that portions of
your project are not eligible for funding.
US Treasury Requirements
Projects with an expected total cost of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or more must meet US
Treasury requirements for prevailing -wage rates, project labor agreements, and related requirements.
Recipients can either certify meeting the requirements or provide plans and reports as the SLFRF
Compliance and Reporting Guidance (treasury.gov) specifies.
We are offering a free, permit -assistance service to address any questions you have about potential
permitting requirements, pitfalls, fees, and timelines. If interested, please complete our online form at
https://deg .nc.gov/permits-rules/permit-assistance-and-guidance/permit-assistance-request-form and a
regional environmental coordinator will contact you. When applying for a permit, attach a copy of this letter
to your permit application. We find this helpful to identify ARPA projects to get your permit to you faster, to
assist with meeting the federal expenditure deadline of December 31, 2026.
If you have any questions, please contact Julia Byrd by phone at 828.772.1475 or by e-mail at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
A� fxk; " r—
Jon Risgaard, Chief
State Revolving Fund Section
cc: Joel Whitford, P.E., McGill Associates, P.A., Consulting Engineer (Hickory NC office)
Ken Pohlig, P.E. (DWI, via e-mail)
Julia Byrd (DWI, via e-mail)
Mark Hubbard, P.E. (DWI, via e-mail)
ARPA Project File (COM_LOIF)

October 20, 2022
Mr. Nick Coco
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Request to Continue Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies
NPDES Permit No. NCO021474
Mebane WWTP
Facility Class IV
Alamance County
Mr. Coco,
The above referenced NPDES permit authorizes discharge of treated wastewater from a designated
effluent Outfall and establishes monitoring requirements. In response to your comments regarding the
City of Mebane's permit renewal application submitted November 30, 2018, please find enclosed
Mebane's request for continuation of reduction of monitoring frequencies.
DWO Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Consistent with the approval criteria listed in the guidance issued by the Division on October 22, 2012, I
would like to request a continuation of reduction in the monitoring frequencies of "Twice per Week" for
Biochemical Oxygen Demand [BOD5], Fecal Coliform, Total Suspended Solids [TSS], and Ammonia -
Nitrogen [NH3-N].
Overall:
o Neither the City of Mebane nor any of its employees have been convicted of criminal
violations of the Clean Water Act within the previous five years.
o The City of Mebane WWTP is not currently under an SOC for any effluent limit
noncompliance.
o The City of Mebane WWTP is not on EPA's Quarterly Noncompliance Report for any
limit violations.
o Reduced effluent monitoring has not impaired assessment of sensitive downstream uses,
such as endangered species.
o Three-year review period — January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017
Biochemical Oxygen Demand [BOD51:
o The facility has had zero civil penalty assessments for BOD permit limit violations
during the previous three years.
o Effluent BOD three year arithmetic mean = 2.62mg/L (<50% of 7.5mg/L annual
arithmetic mean of seasonal Monthly Average BOD5 Permit Limits)
o Number of daily BOD5 sampling results >200% of monthly average limit during three
year review period = 3
o Number of non -monthly average limit violations during the previous year = 2
• Fecal Coliform:
o The facility has had zero civil penalty assessments for fecal coliform permit limit
violations during the previous three years.

o Effluent fecal coliform three year geometric mean = 6.5/100mL (<50% of 200/100mL
Monthly Average Fecal Coliform Permit Limit)
o Number of daily fecal coliform sampling results >200% of weekly average limit during
three year review period = 16
o Number of non -monthly average limit violations during the previous year = 0
Total Suspended Solids [TSSI:
o The facility has had zero civil penalty assessments for TSS permit limit violations during
the previous three years.
o Effluent TSS three year arithmetic mean = 1.33mg/L (<50% of 30.Omg/L Monthly
Average TSS Permit Limit)
o Number of daily TSS sampling results >200% of monthly average limit during three year
review period = 0
o Number of non -monthly average limit violations during the previous year = 0
Ammonia -Nitrogen [NH3-NI:
o The facility has had zero civil penalty assessments for NH3-N permit limit violations
during the previous three years.
o Effluent NH3-N three year arithmetic mean = 0.93mg/L (<50% of 3.Omg/L annual
arithmetic mean of seasonal Monthly Average NH3-N Permit Limit)
o Number of daily NH3-N sampling results >200% of monthly average limit during three
year review period = 1
o Number of non -monthly average limit violations during the previous year = 0
If you need any additional information please feel free to contact the undersigned. Thanks for your
consideration and assistance in the renewal of this permit.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Hodge
Water Resources Director
Attachment(s): MebaneReducedMonitoringData.xlsx