The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0024937_Fact Sheet_20231201 Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NCO024937 Permit Writer/Email Contact:Nick Coco,nick.coco@deq.nc.gov Date: 10/23/2023 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: Charlotte Water/Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) Applicant Address: 5100 Brookshire Blvd.,Charlotte,NC 28216 Facility Address: 5301 Closeburn Road,Charlotte,NC 28210 Permitted Flow: 20.0 MGD(Outfall 001)&8.0 MGD(expansion Outfall 002) Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal;92%domestic,8%industrial* Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System Treatment Units: Mechanical bar screens,grit removal,belt conveyor system,primary clarifiers,aeration basins,fine bubble diffusers,blowers,pH adjustment,secondary clarifiers,RAS/WAS pumping,UV disinfection,deep bed sand filtration,cascade aeration,EQ basins,odor scrubbing Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y,LTMP County: Mecklenburg Region Mooresville *Based on permitted flows. Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Charlotte Water has applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 20.0 MGD for the Sugar Creek WWTP. This facility serves a population of approximately 179,100 residents, as well as 11 significant industrial users (SIUs), including 5 categorical industrial users(CIUs),via an approved pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged via primary Outfall 001 into Little Sugar Creek, a class C waterbody in the Catawba River Basin. Outfall 001 is located approximately 9 miles upstream of the North Carolina-South Carolina border. The facility also has future capacity Outfall 002 into Little Sugar Creek with the same designations as Outfall 001. This future capacity outfall is permitted for 8.0 MGD. Charlotte Water has requested continuation of the future capacity Outfall 002. Upon construction of the 8.0 MGD facility, due to both facilities operating in one permit,the same operator of record shall be responsible for both facilities for eDMR reporting purposes. Page 1 of 16 As noted in the application, Charlotte Water currently has plans for improvements to the UV disinfection system with an estimated construction completion in 2025. Inflow and Infiltration(I/I): Charlotte Water estimates approximately 1.913 MGD of 1/I is experienced at the McAlpine Creek WWMF. Charlotte Water provided a robust collection system maintenance plan that is currently being followed to minimize I/I experienced throughout their system,which includes manhole inspections, smoke testing, CCTV, flow monitoring and pipe rehabilitation/replacement. Sludge disposal: Biosolids residuals are permitted,managed, and disposed under a contract with Synagro. Land application and land filling are the means for ultimate use of the residuals. This is managed under permit WQ0000057. 2. Receiving Waterbody Information: Receiving Waterbody Information Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 Little Sugar Creek, Outfall 002 Little Sugar Creek(not in use) Stream Segment: 11-137-8a Stream Classification: C Drainage Area(mi2): 40.8 Summer 7Q10(cfs) 3.4 Winter 7Q10(cfs): 5.5 30Q2 (cfs): 8.7 Average Flow(cfs): 47 IWC (%effluent): 90% 2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Yes; listed as exceeding criteria for benthos and fish community' Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- Statewide Mercury TMDL implementation; Fecal coliform TMDL for Irwin Creek(DM 1000/10 ml); SC DHEC ongoing development on nutrient TMDL in the Catawba basin Basin/HUC: Catawba River/0305010301 USGS Topo Quad: G15NW 'Little Sugar Creek is also listed in the 2022 Integrated Report as exceeding criteria for both turbidity and fecal coliform. ZPlease see attached for the 2020 SCrEC Lower Catawba River Basin—2020 Nutrient Study. 3. Effluent Data Summary Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of May 2019 through August 2022. Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001 Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit Flow MGD 14.8 34.1 5.3 MA 20.0 CBOD summer mg/I 2.2 10.9 2 WA 7.5 MA 5.0 CBOD winter mg/I 2.7 22.6 2 WA 15.0 MA 10.0 Page 2 of 16 NH3N summer mg/1 0.2 3 0.1 WA 3.0 MA 1.0 NH3N winter mg/1 0.8 12 0.1 WA 6.0 MA 2.0 TSS mg/1 3.2 56.4 2.5 WA 45.0 MA 30.0 PH SU 7.2 7.7 6.1 6.0>pH< 9.0 (geometric) Fecal coliform #/100 ml (geomean) 2350 1 WA 400 2.3 MA 200 DM 1000 DO mg/1 8.7 10.1 7.8 DA>6.0 Conductivity umhos/cm 465 684 217 Monitor& Report Temperature ° C 22.4 28.1 14.8 Monitor& Report TN mg/1 12.1 29.6 5.7 Monitor& Report TP mg/1 1.4 3.4 0.1 Monitor& Report TP Load* lbs/day 403 495.37 288.68 826.0 Total Copper ug/1 3 6 2 Monitor& Report Total Silver ug/1 < 1 < I < I Monitor& Report Total Nickel ug/1 3.5 24 2 Monitor& Report Total Hardness mg/1 72 130 46 Monitor& Report MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average *annual rolling average of combined discharge of 3 WWTPs: Sugar Creek WWTP,Irwin Creek WWTP,and McAlpine Creek WWTP 4. Instream Data Summary Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model predictions when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2)to verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3)to provide data for future TMDL;4)based on other instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee(in which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained). If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for several locations: Irwin Creek, McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek, and Little Sugar Creek. All of these receiving streams are a part of the facility and facility owner's(Charlotte Water) instream monitoring program for Sugar Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP, and McAlpine WWMF(see stream map attached in factsheet attachments). Page 3 of 16 Instream monitoring for all parameters for Irwin Creek WWTP's receiving streams,Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek,will be maintained in McAlpine Creek WWMF's permit(NC0024970). For the Sugar Creek WWTP renewal, instream data for LSC1 (upstream)and LSC3 (downstream)were analyzed for the period of May 2019 through August 2023. Little Sugar Creek stations(LSC1 and LSC3) monitor for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, copper,zinc, and temperature. In addition to the instream monitoring requirements in the permit, Charlotte Water conducted sampling at both stations for multiple parameters that overlap with requirements at other stations. The data has been summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3. Instream Monitoring Data Summary Sugar Creek WWTP Parameter Units Upstream(LSC1) Downstream (LSC3) Average Min Max Average Min Max Temperature ° C 20.3 4.8 26.7 22.0 8 28.5 DO mg/1 8.5 7 12.6 7.8 6.4 11.4 Conductivity µmhos/cm 210 87 444 323 102 507 Total Copper mg/1 3.7 2 14 3.5 2.1 11 Total hardness mg/1 82.4 31 100 79.3 30 110 Total Chromium µg/1 5.2 <5 12 5.0 5 5.7 Total Zinc µg/1 11.6 10 29 20.9 10 33 pH s.u. 7.2 6.3 7.8 7.1 6.6 7.6 NO2+NO3 mg/1 0.8 <0.5 1.1 9.4 5.2 20 TKN mg/1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.3 Ammonia mg/1 - - - <20 <20 <20 TP mg/1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1 0.4 1.6 Orthophosphate mg/1 0.05 <0.05 0.07 0.9 0.29 1.5 Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between upstream and downstream samples.A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is<0.05. Downstream temperature was not greater than 29 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] at either instream monitoring location during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was greater than upstream temperature by more than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 17 occasions during the period reviewed. Review of concurrent effluent temperature for these 17 occasions demonstrated a consistent relationship between elevated effluent temperatures and elevated downstream temperature. Effluent temperature does appear to have the potential to influence instream temperature,particularly during winter months. Additionally,it was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream(LC I) and downstream(LC3)temperature. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream(LC1)and downstream (LC3)DO. However, downstream DO did not drop below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed. Instream pH was between 6.0 and 9.0 standard units [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (14)] at both monitoring locations during the period reviewed. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream conductivity, TKN,NO2+NO3, TP, Orthophosphate and total zinc with downstream concentrations being consistently higher than upstream concentrations. Page 4 of 16 It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream(LSC1)and downstream(LSC3)copper. Additionally,downstream total copper was not observed at levels greater than the standard of 24.2 ug/L(calculated based on average reported upstream hardness of 82.4 mg/L and EPA Default Partition Coefficient of 0.348) during the period reviewed. No changes are proposed to Little Sugar Creek instream monitoring requirements. All instream monitoring for all parameters for the Sugar Creek WWTP's receiving stream,Little Sugar Creek, and the Irwin Creek WWTP's receiving streams,Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek,will be maintained in McAlpine Creek WWMF's permit(NC0024970)along with McAlpine Creek instream monitoring requirements. Please note that,while no changes have been made to the instream monitoring requirements listed in the permit for Little Sugar Creek, instream summaries will be provided for McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek in the applicable permit reviews. Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring(YIN):NO Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA 5. Compliance Summary Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit violations from 8/2018—8/2023. Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past 5 years): The facility passed 18 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species chronic toxicity tests conducted from February 2019 to May 2023. Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted in February 2022 reported that the facility was compliant. 6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) Dilution and Mixin Zones ones 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 permit limitations for CBOD are based on a 1991 agreement with Charlotte Water to upgrade Sugar Creek WWTP,Irwin Creek WWTP, and McAlpine Creek WWMF to meet more restrictive advanced tertiary limits for CBOD, ammonia and TSS in order for Charlotte Water to expand their plants. This agreement was based on the receiving stream having reached its assimilative capacity for some parameters at the time. The limits took effect in 1995.No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits. Page 5 of 16 Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of 1.0 mg/1(summer)and 1.8 mg/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: The permit does not currently set limits or monitoring requirements for TRC due to the facility employing UV treatment for disinfection. However, in the event of an emergency where chlorination is required as a backup or temporary means of disinfection at the facility, a TRC limit and monitoring requirement have been added to the permit based on the review in the attached WLA spreadsheet. Please note that TRC monitoring is only required in the event that chlorine is used at the plant. The current limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of 1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non- Municipals. The ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to be protective.No changes are proposed. Reasonable Potential Analysis(RPA)for Toxicants If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below. The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(d) (i). The NC RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1)95% Confidence Level/95%Probability; 2)assumption of zero background; 3)use of%2 detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6,2016,NC began implementation of dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10,2016. A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between May 2019 and November 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 Monitoriniz. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria: None • Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: None • No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium,Total Copper,Total Cyanide, Total Lead, Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc • POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Four effluent pollutant scans (2020,2021,2022 and 2023)were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern. Page 6 of 16 o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL) with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set,two samples exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None o The following parameter(s)will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable concentration: Total Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds,Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program. Toxici , Testing Limitations Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure. Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90% effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency at both outfalls. 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 4. Mercury Effluent Data Summary 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 #of Samples 8 13 13 13 9 Annual Average Conc. n /L 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.93 0.91 Maximum Conc.,n /L 5.7 1.9 0.9 2.36 1.32 TBEL,n /L 47 WQBEL,n /L 13.3 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>2.0 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury(> 1 ng/1), the mercury minimization plan(MMP) condition has been maintained. Charlotte Water submitted their MMP with their 2022 Pretreatment Annual Report. Page 7 of 16 Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within this permit: A fecal coliform TMDL was established in February 2002 and the permit contains a 1000/100 mL fecal coliform daily maximum.A bubble limit for total phosphorus is included for Irwin Creek WWTP, Sugar Creek WWTP, and McAlpine Creek WWMF. As stipulated by the 2002 Settlement Agreement between Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities(CMU),the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control(SC DHEC) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NC-DWQ), now North Carolina Division of Water Resources, Charlotte Water's McAlpine Creek WWMF, Sugar Creek WWTP and Irwin Creek WWTP must comply with a combined 12 month rolling average limit of 826.0 lbs/day as of February 28,2006. Charlotte Water has asked the Division to revise the Sugar, Irwin, and McAlpine Creek permits to improve the uniformity of their nutrient conditions. As outlined in the 2021 internal Memorandum "Charlotte Water Permits—Proposed Uniform Nutrient Conditions"(attached),changes are proposed to the nutrient language and permit conditions for each of these permits to apply more consistent terminology,units of measure, and parameter codes for the various measures of TP, apply consistent methods for calculation of TN and TP loads and require reporting of interim calculation results,to make it easier to see how the final results were derived. Proposed changes include: • Section A.(1.): Added Total Monthly Flow(TMF)reporting, created separate rows for TP concentration and mass, applied new parameter names in the table and footnotes to improve clarity,provided clearer linkage between the limits page, footnotes, and the other TP special conditions. • Special Condition A.(7.): Applied the new parameter names and added linkage to the limits page and calculations condition. • Special Condition A.(8.): Applied the new terminology and described the calculations for each measure of TP used on the limits page. Clarified how the combined TP loads would be calculated and where they would be reported. The changes will not affect the TN and TP limits or monitoring requirements for the facilities. Other WQBEL Considerations If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: The bubble limit for total phosphorus was analyzed for Irwin Creek WWTP, Sugar Creek WWTP, and McAlpine Creek WWMF. There were no compliance concerns for the period analyzed(January 2018-August 2022) and the three facilities stayed below their total phosphorus rolling average bubble limit. 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 1 SA 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 1 SA NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA Page 8 of 16 7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs) Municipals (if not applicable,delete and skip to Industrials) Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l CBODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for CBODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES If NO,provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA Are 85%removal requirements for CBOD51TSS included in the permit? YES If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA 8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge): The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained and protected. If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:NA 9. Antibacksliding Review: Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4)of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l)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(YESNO): NO;however,based on the reasonable potential analysis(RPA) showing no reasonable potential to violate state water quality standards,the monitoring requirements for total silver,total copper and total nickel have 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. Charlotte Water was granted 2/week monitoring for CBOD, ammonia,TSS and fecal coliform based on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities during their 2017 renewal. Charlotte Water has requested continuation of this monitoring frequency reduction as part of their renewal application. The last three Page 9 of 16 years of the facility's data for these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on this review,2/week monitoring frequency has been maintained for CBOD, ammonia,TSS and fecal coliform. 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. While there are no WS waters designated by the Division downstream of the discharge,the discharge point is upstream of the border between North Carolina and South Carolina. Since all waters in South Carolina are deemed suitable for drinking water uses with appropriate treatment, and to ensure PFAS contamination does not cross State lines, and as the Sugar Creek WWTP has a pretreatment program, monitoring of PFAS chemicals has been added to the permit. Currently,EPA Method 1633 is in its 4"' draft form and not yet published in the Federal Register as a final methodology. As the Sugar Creek WWTP accepts influent wastewater from several industrial facilities that are potential sources of PFAS via the approved pretreatment program, and since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently available, influent and post-filtration PFAS monitoring has been added to the permit at a quarterly frequency using the Draft Method 1633. Upon evaluation of laboratory availability and capability to perform the draft analytical method, it was determined that the sampling may be conducted using the 3rd draft method 1633 or more recent. Sampling using the draft method shall take effect the first full calendar quarter following 6 months after the effective date of the permit to provide Charlotte Water time to select a laboratory, develop a contract, and begin collecting samples. Effective 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register, Charlotte Water shall conduct effluent monitoring using the Final Method 1633 and is no longer required to conduct influent and post-filtration monitoring. In addition to monitoring at the wastewater management facility, Charlotte Water shall identify and monitor SIUs suspected of discharging PFAS compounds within 6 months of the permit effective date. Charlotte Water shall update their Industrial Waste Survey- (IWS)to identify indirect dischargers of PFAS contributing to concentrations experienced at the Sugar Creek WWTP. A summary of information learned during this process will be provided as part of the 2024 Pretreatment Annual Report(PAR). Within 6 months of completion of the IWS, Charlotte Water shall begin sampling of indirect dischargers identified as potential PFAS sources. Sampling conducted at SIUs and indirect dischargers shall also be conducted at a quarterly frequency. This is a summary of the PFAS requirements. For a detailed outline of the specific PFAS requirements, see Special Condition A.(8.)PFAS Monitoring Requirements. As the Sugar Creek WWTP accepts influent wastewater from several industrial facilities that are potential sources of 1,4-dioxane via the approved pretreatment program, and as no additional sampling has been conducted for 1,4-dioxane at this facility as identified in the chemical addendum submitted by Charlotte Water,monthly effluent monitoring for 1,4-dioxane as well as a 1,4-dioxane reopener condition have been added to the permit. After a 24-month sampling period,the Permittee may request the Division conduct a review of submitted data for assessment and approval of a 1,4-dioxane monitoring frequency reduction from monthly to quarterly. The statement, "There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts,"was removed during the 2017 renewal. This statement has been standard language in NPDES permits since the program's inception and is still used widely by state and federal permitting authorities. Because it is subjective,it is hardly suitable as the basis for an enforcement action; instead,we would rely on the permittee's monitoring reports to establish and quantify any limits exceedances. Part of its value is that it provides a measure of effluent quality and possible water quality impacts.A DWR inspector who notices such an issue at a discharge can address the matter while on site rather than waiting days or weeks Page 10 of 16 for effluent monitoring to be reported. As such,the statement has been added back into the permit in Section A.(1.). 11. Electronic Reporting Requirements The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21,2015. Effective December 21, 2016,NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December 21,2020,to December 21,2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4,2021,was extended as a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements. 12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions: Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001 Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change Flow MA 20.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 213 .0505 Total Monthly No requirement Monitor and For calculation of TP loadings Flow Report Monthly CBOD5 Summer: No change WQBEL. 1991 agreement with Charlotte MA 5.0 mg/1 Water to upgrade Sugar Creek WWTP, WA 7.5 mg/l Irwin Creek WWTP, and McAlpine Creek Winter: WWMF, Surface Water Monitoring, 2012 MA 10.0 mg/1 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of WA 15.0 mg/1 Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits Monitor and report for Exceptionally Performing Facilities 2/Week NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 2023 WLA review; Surface Water MA 1.0 mg/l Monitoring,2012 DWR Guidance WA 3.0 mg/1 Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Winter: Frequencies in NPDES Permits for MA 2.0 mg/1 Exceptionally Performing Facilities WA 6.0 mg/l Monitor and report 2/Week TSS MA 30.0 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40 WA 45.0 mg/1 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 213 .0406; Surface Monitor and report Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR Guidance 2/Week Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC WA 400/100ml 213 .0200; 2002 TMDL for fecal,results in DM 1000/100ml DM; Surface Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR Monitor and report Guidance Regarding the Reduction of 2/Week Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities DO >6 mg/1 No change WQBEL. 1995 Level B model; Surface Monitor and report Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213. 0500 Daily Page 11 of 16 pH 6-9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC Monitor and report 2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A Daily NCAC 2B. 0500 Conductivity Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. Daily 0500 Temperature Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. Daily 0500 Total Residual No requirement DM 19 ug/L WQBEL. 2023 WLA review and Surface Chlorine Monitor and Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 report Daily Total Nitrogen Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. Monthly 0500 TKN No requirement Monitor and For calculation of Total Nitrogen report Monthly NO3+NO2 No requirement Monitor and For calculation of Total Nitrogen report Monthly Total 826.0 lbs/day bubble No change;Add WQBEL. Required TP nutrient limits per Phosphorus limit for Irwin Creek separate row for 2002 permitting strategy agreement with WWTP (NC0024945), lb/mo and lb/yr Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU),the Sugar Creek WWTP reporting South Carolina Department of Health and (NC0024937), and Environmental Control(SC DHEC) and the McAlpine Creek WWTP North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC0024970) (NC-DWQ); Surface Water Monitoring, Monitor and report 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 Monthly Total Hardness Quarterly monitoring No change Hardness-dependent dissolved metals water Upstream(managed in quality standards approved in 2016 NC0024970 McAlpine Creek WWMF permit) and in Effluent Total Silver Monitor and report Remove Based on results of RPA; All values non- Quarterly requirement detect< 1 ug/L-no monitoring required Total Copper Monitor and report Remove Based on results of RPA;No RP, Predicted Quarterly requirement Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No Monitoring required Total Nickel Monitor and report Remove Based on results of RPA;No RP, Predicted Quarterly requirement Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No Monitoring required Monitor and Report Monthly 1,4-dioxane No requirement and reopener Based on PT Program—industrial facilities condition; 24- linked to 1,4-dioxane month sampling reassessment See Special Evaluation of PFAS contribution: PFAS No requirement Condition A.(8.) pretreatment facility; Discharge above PFAS Monitoring NC/SC border Requirements Page 12 of 16 Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 90% No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A effluent NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC 213.0500 Effluent Three times per permit No change; 40 CFR 122 Pollutant Scan cycle conducted in 2025,2026, 2027 Mercury MMP Special Condition No change;revise WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Statewide Minimization wording towards Mercury TMDL Implementation. Plan(MMP) its maintenance 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 Table 6. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 002 Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change Flow MA 8.0 MGD upon receipt No change 15A NCAC 213 .0505 of engineer's certification for expansion Total Monthly No requirement Monitor and FFor calculation of TN and TP loadings Flow Report Monthly C130D5 Summer: No change to WQBEL. 1991 agreement with MA 5.0 mg/1 limits; Monitor Charlotte Water to upgrade Sugar Creek WA 7.5 mg/l and report daily WWTP,Irwin Creek WWTP, and Winter: with option for McAlpine Creek WWMF, Surface MA 10.0 mg/1 reduction to Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR WA 15.0 mg/1 2/week after 6 Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitor and report 2/Week months of daily Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES sampling and no Permits for Exceptionally Performing limit violations Facilities NH3-N 1 Summer: No change to WQBEL. 2023 WLA review; Surface MA 1.0 mg/1 limits; Monitor Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR WA 3.0 mg/1 and report daily Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Winter: with option for Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES MA 2.0 mg/1 reduction to Permits for Exceptionally Performing WA 6.0 mg/1 2/week after 6 Facilities Monitor and report 2/Week months of daily sampling and no limit violations TSS MA 30.0 mg/1 No change to WQBEL. 1995 Level B model, Surface WA 45.0 mg/1 limits; Monitor Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR Monitor and report 2/Week and report daily Guidance Regarding the Reduction of with option for Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES reduction to Permits for Exceptionally Performing 2/week after 6 Facilities months of daily sampling and no limit violations Page 13 of 16 Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change to WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A WA 400/100ml limits; Monitor NCAC 2B .0200;2002 TMDL for fecal, DM 1000/100ml and report daily results in DM; Surface Water Monitor and report 2/Week with option for Monitoring,2012 DWR Guidance reduction to Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring 2/week after 6 Frequencies in NPDES Permits for months of daily Exceptionally Performing Facilities sampling and no limit violations DO >6 mg/l No change WQBEL. 1995 Level B model; Surface Monitor and report Daily Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 pH 6—9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A Monitor and report Daily NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 Conductivity Monitor and report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 Temperature Monitor and report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 Total Residual No requirement DM 19 ug/L WQBEL. 2022 WLA review and Chlorine Monitor and Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC report Daily 2B. 0500 Total Nitrogen Monitor and report Monthly No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 TKN No requirement Monitor and For calculation of Total Nitrogen report Monthly NO3+NO2 No requirement Monitor and For calculation of Total Nitrogen report Monthly Total 826.0 lbs/day bubble limit No change;Add WQBEL. Required TP nutrient limits Phosphorus for Irwin Creek WWTP, separate row for per 2002 permitting strategy agreement Sugar Creek WWTP, and lb/mo and lb/yr with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities McAlpine Creek WWTP reporting (CMU),the South Carolina Department Monitor and report Monthly of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NC-DWQ); Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 Total Hardness Quarterly monitoring No change Hardness-dependent dissolved metals Upstream(managed in water quality standards approved in NC0024970 McAlpine 2016 Creek WWMF permit)and in Effluent Total Silver Monitor and report Quarterly Remove Based on results of RPA; All values requirement non-detect< 1 ug/L-no monitoring required Total Copper Monitor and report Quarterly Remove Based on results of RPA;No RP, requirement Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw -No Monitoring required Page 14 of 16 Total Nickel Monitor and report Monthly Remove Based on results of RPA;No RP, requirement Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw -No Monitoring required Monitor and Report Monthly 1,4-dioxane No requirement and reopener Based on PT Program—industrial condition; 24- facilities linked to 1,4-dioxane month sampling reassessment See Special Evaluation of PFAS contribution: PFAS No requirement Condition A.(8.) pretreatment facility; Discharge above PFAS Monitoring NC/SC border Requirements Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 90%effluent No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC 213.0500 Effluent Three times per permit cycle No change; 40 CFR 122 Pollutant Scan conducted in 2025,2026,2027 Mercury MMP Special Condition No change;revise WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Minimization wording towards Statewide Mercury TMDL Plan(MMP) its maintenance Implementation. Electronic Electronic Reporting Special No change In accordance with EPA Electronic Reporting Condition Reporting Rule 2015. MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max 13. Public Notice Schedule: Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/xxxx Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following the publication date of the public notice.Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons why a hearing is warranted. 14. NPDES Division Contact If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at nick.coco@deq.nc.gov. 15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable): Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA 16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable): • RPA Spreadsheet Summary • NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards • NH3/TRC WLA Calculations • BOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations • Mercury TMDL Calculations • WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary Page 15 of 16 • Compliance Inspection Report • 2003 TRC Policy • 2021 Internal Memo Charlotte Water Permits—Proposed Uniform Nutrient Conditions • Requested Additional Information • Email Correspondence related to Outfall 002 Page 16 of 16 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 REQUIRED DATA ENTRY Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern ❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units Facility Name Sugar Creek WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L Water Supply NPDES Permit NCO024937 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.3262 FW 8.2412 ug/L Flow, Qw (MGD) 20.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L Receiving Stream Little Sugar Creek Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L HUC Number 03050103 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 283.3547 FW 2174.5504 ug/L ❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L 7Q10s (cfs) 3.40 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L 7Q10w (cfs) 5.50 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 19.7028 FW 28.7062 ug/L 30Q2 (cfs) 8.70 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L QA(cfs) 47.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L 1Q10s (cfs) 2.84 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 9.7074 FW 248.5312 ug/L Effluent Hardness 72.04 mg/L (Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L -------------Upstream Hardness Hardness 82.38 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L -------------Combined Hardness Hardness Chronic 73.06 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 92.2396 FW 828.9854 pg/L -------------Combined Hardness Hardness Acute 72.9 mg/L Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L --------------- Data Source(s) EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L ❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Criteria used for Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 1.8679 ug/L assessment Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 314.4165 FW 311.3072 ug/L Par22 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate Human Health C 0.37 HH pg/L Par23 Par24 24937 rpa, input 10/23/2023 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 REQUIRED DATA ENTRY Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern ❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units Facility Name Sugar Creek WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L Water Supply NPDES Permit NCO024937 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.3225 FW 8.2182 ug/L Flow, Qw (MGD) 28.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L Receiving Stream Little Sugar Creek Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L HUC Number 03050103 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 282.4935 FW 2168.8591 ug/L ❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L 7Q10s (cfs) 3.40 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L 7Q10w (cfs) 5.50 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 19.6404 FW 28.6198 ug/L 30Q2 (cfs) 8.70 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L QA(cfs) 47.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L 1Q10s (cfs) 2.84 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 9.6679 FW 247.6588 ug/L Effluent Hardness 72.04 mg/L (Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L -------------Upstream Hardness Hardness 82.38 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L -------------Combined Hardness Hardness Chronic 72.79 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 91.9500 FW 826.7443 pg/L -------------Combined Hardness Hardness Acute 72.67 mg/L Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L --------------- Data Source(s) EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L ❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Criteria used for Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 1.8576 ug/L assessment Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 313.4280 FW 310.4643 ug/L Par22 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate Human Health C 0.37 HH pg/L Par23 Par24 24937 rpa, input 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS H1 H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY" Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY" Maximum data .Maximum data points=58 points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/9/2019 71 71 Std Dev. 18.6576 1 5/21/2019 100 100 Std Dev. 15.9129 2 6/7/2019 59 59 Mean 72.0357 2 6/17/2019 83 83 Mean 82.3846 3 7/13/2019 55 55 C.V. 0.2590 3 7/18/2019 91 91 C.V. 0.1932 4 8/11/2019 63 63 n 56 4 8/7/2019 62 62 n 52 5 9/9/2019 53 53 10th Per value 52.50 mg/L 5 9/12/2019 96 96 10th Per value 62.10 mg/L 6 10/8/2019 53 53 Average Value 72.04 mg/L 6 10/8/2019 99 99 Average Value 82.38 mg/L 7 11/6/2019 130 130 Max. Value 130.00 mg/L 7 11/14/2019 63 63 Max. Value 100.00 mg/L 8 12/12/2019 89 89 8 12/19/2019 74 74 9 1/10/2020 74 74 9 1/9/2020 91 91 10 2/8/2020 79 79 10 2/4/2020 89 89 11 3/8/2020 97 97 11 3/16/2020 100 100 12 4/6/2020 110 110 12 4/6/2020 100 100 13 5/6/2020 89 89 13 5/11/2020 92 92 14 5/12/2020 130 130 14 6/1/2020 94 94 15 6/10/2020 67 67 15 7/7/2020 77 77 16 7/16/2020 59 59 16 8/3/2020 84 84 17 8/7/2020 49 49 17 9/15/2020 88 88 18 9/19/2020 72 72 18 10/5/2020 98 98 19 10/11/2020 46 46 19 11/2/2020 50 50 20 11/9/2020 46 46 20 12/8/2020 90 90 21 12/8/2020 70 70 21 1/11/2021 91 91 22 1/13/2021 84 84 22 2/3/2021 90 90 23 2/11/2021 70 70 23 3/8/2021 100 100 24 3/12/2021 66 66 24 4/12/2021 80 80 25 4/10/2021 67 67 25 5/17/2021 94 94 26 5/16/2021 68 68 26 6/14/2021 81 81 27 6/7/2021 72 72 27 7/6/2021 91 91 28 7/13/2021 100 100 28 8/9/2021 81 81 29 8/4/2021 100 100 29 9/7/2021 94 94 30 8/18/2021 84 84 30 10/4/2021 84 84 31 9/16/2021 76 76 31 11/9/2021 84 84 32 10/15/2021 67 67 32 12/14/2021 68 68 33 11/20/2021 64 64 33 1/19/2022 62 62 34 12/19/2021 61 61 34 2/9/2022 68 68 35 1/10/2022 56 56 35 3/2/2022 82 82 36 2/8/2022 84 84 36 4/13/2022 94 94 37 3/9/2022 82 82 37 5/9/2022 87 87 38 4/7/2022 60 60 38 6/1/2022 91 91 39 5/13/2022 65 65 39 7/20/2022 63 63 40 6/11/2022 52 52 40 8/8/2022 41 41 41 7/24/2022 55 55 41 9/7/2022 51 51 42 8/15/2022 67 67 42 10/17/2022 94 94 43 9/13/2022 82 82 43 11/9/2022 78 78 44 10/12/2022 51 51 44 12/12/2022 85 85 45 11/9/2022 54 54 45 1/10/2023 93 93 46 11/17/2022 70 70 46 2/8/2023 95 95 47 12/16/2022 66 66 47 3/8/2023 100 100 48 1/14/2023 62 62 48 4/3/2023 87 87 49 2/12/2023 91 91 49 5/1/2023 65 65 50 2/15/2023 92 92 50 6/20/2023 31 31 51 3/13/2023 87 87 51 7/3/2023 88 88 52 4/18/2023 71 71 52 8/1/2023 70 70 53 5/10/2023 75 75 53 54 6/8/2023 47 47 54 55 7/14/2023 63 63 55 56 8/12/2023 62 62 56 57 57 58 58 24937 rpa, data - 1 - 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par01 & Par02 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Arsenic Values"then"COPY" Maximum data points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/9/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 2 6/7/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 3 7/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000 4 8/11/2019 < 5 2.5 n 56 5 9/9/2019 < 5 2.5 6 10/8/2019 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 7 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 ug/L 9 1/10/2020 < 5 2.5 10 2/8/2020 < 5 2.5 11 3/8/2020 < 5 2.5 12 4/6/2020 < 5 2.5 13 5/6/2020 < 5 2.5 14 5/12/2020 < 5 2.5 15 6/10/2020 < 5 2.5 16 7/16/2020 < 5 2.5 17 8/7/2020 < 5 2.5 18 9/19/2020 < 5 2.5 19 10/11/2020 < 5 2.5 20 11/9/2020 < 5 2.5 21 12/8/2020 < 5 2.5 22 1/13/2021 < 5 2.5 23 2/11/2021 < 5 2.5 24 3/12/2021 < 5 2.5 25 4/10/2021 < 5 2.5 26 5/16/2021 < 5 2.5 27 6/7/2021 < 5 2.5 28 7/13/2021 < 5 2.5 29 8/4/2021 < 5 2.5 30 8/18/2021 < 5 2.5 31 9/16/2021 < 5 2.5 32 10/15/2021 < 5 2.5 33 11/20/2021 < 5 2.5 34 12/19/2021 < 5 2.5 35 1/10/2022 < 5 2.5 36 2/8/2022 < 5 2.5 37 3/9/2022 < 5 2.5 38 4/7/2022 < 5 2.5 39 5/13/2022 < 5 2.5 40 6/11/2022 < 5 2.5 41 7/24/2022 < 5 2.5 42 8/15/2022 < 5 2.5 43 9/13/2022 < 5 2.5 44 10/12/2022 < 5 2.5 45 11/9/2022 < 5 2.5 46 11/17/2022 < 5 2.5 47 12/16/2022 < 5 2.5 48 1/14/2023 < 5 2.5 49 2/12/2023 < 5 2.5 50 2/15/2023 < 5 2.5 51 3/13/2023 < 5 2.5 52 4/18/2023 < 5 2.5 53 5/10/2023 < 5 2.5 54 6/8/2023 < 5 2.5 55 7/14/2023 < 5 2.5 56 8/12/2023 < 5 2.5 57 58 24937 rpa, data -2 - 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par03 Par04 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL Beryllium Values"then"COPY" Cadmium Values"then"COPY" Maximum data .Maximum data points=58 points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/6/2020 < 2 1 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 5/9/2019 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0650 2 8/4/2021 < 2 1 Mean 1.0000 2 6/7/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.2679 3 11/9/2022 < 2 1 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 7/13/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.2425 4 2/15/2023 < 2 1 n 4 4 8/11/2019 < 1 0.5 n 56 5 5 9/9/2019 < 0.5 0.25 6 Mult Factor= 2.59 6 10/8/2019 < 0.5 0.25 Mult Factor= 1.00 7 Max. Value 1.00 ug/L 7 11/6/2019 < 0.5 0.25 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 2.59 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 < 0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw 0.500 ug/L 9 9 1/10/2020 < 0.5 0.25 10 10 2/8/2020 < 0.5 0.25 11 11 3/8/2020 < 0.5 0.25 12 12 4/6/2020 < 0.5 0.25 13 13 5/6/2020 < 0.5 0.25 14 14 5/12/2020 < 0.5 0.25 15 15 6/10/2020 < 0.5 0.25 16 16 7/16/2020 < 0.5 0.25 17 17 8/7/2020 < 0.5 0.25 18 18 9/19/2020 < 0.5 0.25 19 19 10/11/2020 < 0.5 0.25 20 20 11/9/2020 < 0.5 0.25 21 21 12/8/2020 < 0.5 0.25 22 22 1/13/2021 < 0.5 0.25 23 23 2/11/2021 < 0.5 0.25 24 24 3/12/2021 < 0.5 0.25 25 25 4/10/2021 < 0.5 0.25 26 26 5/16/2021 < 0.5 0.25 27 27 6/7/2021 < 0.5 0.25 28 28 7/13/2021 < 0.5 0.25 29 29 8/4/2021 < 0.5 0.25 30 30 8/18/2021 < 0.5 0.25 31 31 9/16/2021 < 0.5 0.25 32 32 10/15/2021 < 0.5 0.25 33 33 11/20/2021 < 0.5 0.25 34 34 12/19/2021 < 0.5 0.25 35 35 1/10/2022 < 0.5 0.25 36 36 2/8/2022 < 0.5 0.25 37 37 3/9/2022 < 0.5 0.25 38 38 4/7/2022 < 0.5 0.25 39 39 5/13/2022 < 0.5 0.25 40 40 6/11/2022 < 0.5 0.25 41 41 7/24/2022 < 0.5 0.25 42 42 8/15/2022 < 0.5 0.25 43 43 9/13/2022 < 0.5 0.25 44 44 10/12/2022 < 0.5 0.25 45 45 11/9/2022 < 0.5 0.25 46 46 11/17/2022 < 0.5 0.25 47 47 12/16/2022 < 0.5 0.25 48 48 1/14/2023 < 0.5 0.25 49 49 2/12/2023 < 0.5 0.25 50 50 2/15/2023 < 0.5 0.25 51 51 3/13/2023 < 0.5 0.25 52 52 4/18/2023 < 0.5 0.25 53 53 5/10/2023 < 0.5 0.25 54 54 6/8/2023 < 0.5 0.25 55 55 7/14/2023 < 0.5 0.25 56 56 8/12/2023 < 0.5 0.25 57 57 58 58 24937 rpa, data -3- 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par07 Part O Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL Total Phenolic Compounds Values"then"COPY" Chromium' Total Values"then"COPY" Maximum data Maximum data points=58 points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/6/2020 < 50 25 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 5/9/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.6147 2 8/4/2021 < 50 25 Mean 25.0000 2 6/7/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5821 3 11/9/2022 < 50 25 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 7/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.2381 4 2/15/2023 < 50 25 n 4 4 8/11/2019 < 5 2.5 n 56 5 5 9/9/2019 < 5 2.5 6 Mult Factor= 2.59 6 10/8/2019 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 7 Max. Value 25.0 ug/L 7 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 7.1 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 64.8 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 7.1 pg/L 9 9 1/10/2020 < 5 2.5 10 10 2/8/2020 < 5 2.5 11 11 3/8/2020 < 5 2.5 12 12 4/6/2020 < 5 2.5 13 13 5/6/2020 < 5 2.5 14 14 5/12/2020 < 5 2.5 15 15 6/10/2020 < 5 2.5 16 16 7/16/2020 7.1 7.1 17 17 8/7/2020 < 5 2.5 18 18 9/19/2020 < 5 2.5 19 19 10/11/2020 < 5 2.5 20 20 11/9/2020 < 5 2.5 21 21 12/8/2020 < 5 2.5 22 22 1/13/2021 < 5 2.5 23 23 2/11/2021 < 5 2.5 24 24 3/12/2021 < 5 2.5 25 25 4/10/2021 < 5 2.5 26 26 5/16/2021 < 5 2.5 27 27 6/7/2021 < 5 2.5 28 28 7/13/2021 < 5 2.5 29 29 8/4/2021 < 5 2.5 30 30 8/18/2021 < 5 2.5 31 31 9/16/2021 < 5 2.5 32 32 10/15/2021 < 5 2.5 33 33 11/20/2021 < 5 2.5 34 34 12/19/2021 < 5 2.5 35 35 1/10/2022 < 5 2.5 36 36 2/8/2022 < 5 2.5 37 37 3/9/2022 < 5 2.5 38 38 4/7/2022 < 5 2.5 39 39 5/13/2022 < 5 2.5 40 40 6/11/2022 < 5 2.5 41 41 7/24/2022 < 5 2.5 42 42 8/15/2022 < 5 2.5 43 43 9/13/2022 < 5 2.5 44 44 10/12/2022 < 5 2.5 45 45 11/9/2022 < 5 2.5 46 46 11/17/2022 < 5 2.5 47 47 12/16/2022 < 5 2.5 48 48 1/14/2023 < 5 2.5 49 49 2/12/2023 < 5 2.5 50 50 2/15/2023 < 5 2.5 51 51 3/13/2023 < 5 2.5 52 52 4/18/2023 < 5 2.5 53 53 5/10/2023 < 5 2.5 54 54 6/8/2023 < 5 2.5 55 55 7/14/2023 < 5 2.5 56 56 8/12/2023 < 5 2.5 57 57 58 58 24937 rpa, data -4- 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Pal Par12 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL Copper Values"then"COPY" Cyanide Values"then"COPY" pp .Maximum data y .Maximum data points=58 points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/9/2019 3.1 3.1 Std Dev. 0.9454 1 5/9/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 2 6/7/2019 2.3 2.3 Mean 2.9071 2 6/7/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.00 3 7/13/2019 3.2 3.2 C.V. 0.3252 3 7/12/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.0000 4 8/11/2019 3.8 3.8 n 56 4 8/12/2019 < 10 5 n 56 5 9/9/2019 3.6 3.6 5 9/9/2019 < 10 5 6 10/8/2019 3.3 3.3 Mult Factor= 1.01 6 10/8/2019 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.00 7 11/6/2019 2.9 2.9 Max. Value 6.00 ug/L 7 11/6/2019 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 2.4 2.4 Max. Pred Cw 6.06 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L 9 1/10/2020 3.9 3.9 9 1/10/2020 < 10 5 10 2/8/2020 2.9 2.9 10 2/7/2020 < 10 5 11 3/8/2020 2.4 2.4 11 3/9/2020 < 10 5 12 4/6/2020 3.6 3.6 12 4/6/2020 < 10 5 13 5/6/2020 4.3 4.3 13 5/6/2020 < 10 5 14 5/12/2020 3.8 3.8 14 5/12/2020 < 10 5 15 6/10/2020 4.1 4.1 15 6/11/2020 < 10 5 16 7/16/2020 2.6 2.6 16 7/16/2020 < 10 5 17 8/7/2020 2.5 2.5 17 8/7/2020 < 10 5 18 9/19/2020 2.2 2.2 18 9/18/2020 < 10 5 19 10/11/2020 2.8 2.8 19 10/12/2020 < 10 5 20 11/9/2020 2.9 2.9 20 11/9/2020 < 10 5 21 12/8/2020 2.6 2.6 21 12/8/2020 < 10 5 22 1/13/2021 2.9 2.9 22 1/13/2021 < 10 5 23 2/11/2021 3.1 3.1 23 2/11/2021 < 10 5 24 3/12/2021 2.4 2.4 24 3/12/2021 < 10 5 25 4/10/2021 2.7 2.7 25 4/9/2021 < 10 5 26 5/16/2021 3 3 26 5/17/2021 < 10 5 27 6/7/2021 3.5 3.5 27 6/7/2021 < 10 5 28 7/13/2021 2.4 2.4 28 7/13/2021 < 10 5 29 8/4/2021 3.8 3.8 29 8/4/2021 < 10 5 30 8/18/2021 3.2 3.2 30 8/18/2021 < 10 5 31 9/16/2021 2.5 2.5 31 9/16/2021 < 10 5 32 10/15/2021 2.5 2.5 32 10/15/2021 < 10 5 33 11/20/2021 3 3 33 11/19/2021 < 10 5 34 12/19/2021 < 2 1 34 12/20/2021 < 10 5 35 1/10/2022 3.1 3.1 35 1/10/2022 < 10 5 36 2/8/2022 < 2 1 36 2/8/2022 < 10 5 37 3/9/2022 3.2 3.2 37 3/9/2022 < 10 5 38 4/7/2022 2.8 2.8 38 4/7/2022 < 10 5 39 5/13/2022 2.7 2.7 39 5/13/2022 < 10 5 40 6/11/2022 3.9 3.9 40 6/10/2022 < 10 5 41 7/24/2022 4.6 4.6 41 7/25/2022 < 10 5 42 8/15/2022 3.1 3.1 42 8/15/2022 < 10 5 43 9/13/2022 3.2 3.2 43 9/13/2022 < 10 5 44 10/12/2022 2.7 2.7 44 10/12/2022 < 10 5 45 11/9/2022 3.4 3.4 45 11/9/2022 < 10 5 46 11/17/2022 < 2 1 46 11/17/2022 < 10 5 47 12/16/2022 < 2 1 47 12/16/2022 < 10 5 48 1/14/2023 < 2 1 48 1/13/2023 < 10 5 49 2/12/2023 2.4 2.4 49 2/13/2023 < 10 5 50 2/15/2023 2.8 2.8 50 2/15/2023 < 10 5 51 3/13/2023 2.3 2.3 51 3/13/2023 < 10 5 52 4/18/2023 < 2 1 52 4/18/2023 < 10 5 53 5/10/2023 4.1 4.1 53 5/10/2023 < 10 5 54 6/8/2023 3.3 3.3 54 6/8/2023 < 10 5 55 7/14/2023 3 3 55 7/14/2023 < 10 5 56 8/12/2023 6 6 56 8/11/2023 < 10 5 57 57 58 58 24937 rpa, data - 5- 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par14 Par16 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL Lead Values"then"COPY" Molybdenum Values"then"COPY" Maximum data .Maximum data points=58 points=58 Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/9/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 5/9/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.6949 2 6/7/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 2 6/7/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5929 3 7/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000 3 7/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.2680 4 8/11/2019 < 5 2.5 n 56 4 8/11/2019 < 5 2.5 n 56 5 9/9/2019 < 5 2.5 5 9/9/2019 < 5 2.5 6 10/8/2019 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 10/8/2019 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.01 7 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 7 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 7.7 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.500 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 7.8 ug/L 9 1/10/2020 < 5 2.5 9 1/10/2020 < 5 2.5 10 2/8/2020 < 5 2.5 10 2/8/2020 < 5 2.5 11 3/8/2020 < 5 2.5 11 3/8/2020 < 5 2.5 12 4/6/2020 < 5 2.5 12 4/6/2020 < 5 2.5 13 5/6/2020 < 5 2.5 13 5/6/2020 < 5 2.5 14 5/12/2020 < 5 2.5 14 5/12/2020 < 5 2.5 15 6/10/2020 < 5 2.5 15 6/10/2020 < 5 2.5 16 7/16/2020 < 5 2.5 16 7/16/2020 < 5 2.5 17 8/7/2020 < 5 2.5 17 8/7/2020 < 5 2.5 18 9/19/2020 < 5 2.5 18 9/19/2020 7.7 7.7 19 10/11/2020 < 5 2.5 19 10/11/2020 < 5 2.5 20 11/9/2020 < 5 2.5 20 11/9/2020 < 5 2.5 21 12/8/2020 < 5 2.5 21 12/8/2020 < 5 2.5 22 1/13/2021 < 5 2.5 22 1/13/2021 < 5 2.5 23 2/11/2021 < 5 2.5 23 2/11/2021 < 5 2.5 24 3/12/2021 < 5 2.5 24 3/12/2021 < 5 2.5 25 4/10/2021 < 5 2.5 25 4/10/2021 < 5 2.5 26 5/16/2021 < 5 2.5 26 5/16/2021 < 5 2.5 27 6/7/2021 < 5 2.5 27 6/7/2021 < 5 2.5 28 7/13/2021 < 5 2.5 28 7/13/2021 < 5 2.5 29 8/4/2021 < 5 2.5 29 8/4/2021 < 5 2.5 30 8/18/2021 < 5 2.5 30 8/18/2021 < 5 2.5 31 9/16/2021 < 5 2.5 31 9/16/2021 < 5 2.5 32 10/15/2021 < 5 2.5 32 10/15/2021 < 5 2.5 33 11/20/2021 < 5 2.5 33 11/20/2021 < 5 2.5 34 12/19/2021 < 5 2.5 34 12/19/2021 < 5 2.5 35 1/10/2022 < 5 2.5 35 1/10/2022 < 5 2.5 36 2/8/2022 < 5 2.5 36 2/8/2022 < 5 2.5 37 3/9/2022 < 5 2.5 37 3/9/2022 < 5 2.5 38 4/7/2022 < 5 2.5 38 4/7/2022 < 5 2.5 39 5/13/2022 < 5 2.5 39 5/13/2022 < 5 2.5 40 6/11/2022 < 5 2.5 40 6/11/2022 < 5 2.5 41 7/24/2022 < 5 2.5 41 7/24/2022 < 5 2.5 42 8/15/2022 < 5 2.5 42 8/15/2022 < 5 2.5 43 9/13/2022 < 5 2.5 43 9/13/2022 < 5 2.5 44 10/12/2022 < 5 2.5 44 10/12/2022 < 5 2.5 45 11/9/2022 < 5 2.5 45 11/9/2022 < 5 2.5 46 11/17/2022 < 5 2.5 46 11/17/2022 < 5 2.5 47 12/16/2022 < 5 2.5 47 12/16/2022 < 5 2.5 48 1/14/2023 < 5 2.5 48 1/14/2023 < 5 2.5 49 2/12/2023 < 5 2.5 49 2/12/2023 < 5 2.5 50 2/15/2023 < 5 2.5 50 2/15/2023 < 5 2.5 51 3/13/2023 < 5 2.5 51 3/13/2023 < 5 2.5 52 4/18/2023 < 5 2.5 52 4/18/2023 < 5 2.5 53 5/10/2023 < 5 2.5 53 5/10/2023 < 5 2.5 54 6/8/2023 < 5 2.5 54 6/8/2023 < 5 2.5 55 7/14/2023 < 5 2.5 55 7/14/2023 < 5 2.5 56 8/12/2023 < 5 2.5 56 8/12/2023 < 5 2.5 57 57 58 58 24937 rpa, data -6- 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par17 & Par18 Par19 use"PASTE Use"PASTE SPECIAL Values"then"COPY" SPECIAL-Values" Nickel Maximum data Selenium then"COPY". . points=58 Maximum data Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58 1 5/9/2019 3.1 3.1 Std Dev. 3.1672 1 5/9/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 2 6/7/2019 2.8 2.8 Mean 3.4054 2 6/7/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 3 7/13/2019 2.5 2.5 C.V. 0.9301 3 7/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000 4 8/11/2019 3.4 3.4 n 56 4 8/11/2019 < 5 2.5 n 56 5 9/9/2019 < 2 1 5 9/9/2019 < 5 2.5 6 10/8/2019 2.9 2.9 Mult Factor= 1.02 6 10/8/2019 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 7 11/6/2019 3 3 Max. Value 24.0 pg/L 7 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 2.6 2.6 Max. Pred Cw 24.5 pg/L 8 12/12/2019 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 ug/L 9 1/10/2020 2.2 2.2 9 1/10/2020 < 5 2.5 10 2/8/2020 3.7 3.7 10 2/8/2020 < 5 2.5 11 3/8/2020 2.7 2.7 11 3/8/2020 < 5 2.5 12 4/6/2020 2.5 2.5 12 4/6/2020 < 5 2.5 13 5/6/2020 24 24 13 5/6/2020 < 5 2.5 14 5/12/2020 4.5 4.5 14 5/12/2020 < 5 2.5 15 6/10/2020 3.2 3.2 15 6/10/2020 < 5 2.5 16 7/16/2020 6.9 6.9 16 7/16/2020 < 5 2.5 17 8/7/2020 3 3 17 8/7/2020 < 5 2.5 18 9/19/2020 3 3 18 9/19/2020 < 5 2.5 19 10/11/2020 2.8 2.8 19 10/11/2020 < 5 2.5 20 11/9/2020 2.3 2.3 20 11/9/2020 < 5 2.5 21 12/8/2020 2.3 2.3 21 12/8/2020 < 5 2.5 22 1/13/2021 < 2 1 22 1/13/2021 < 5 2.5 23 2/11/2021 2.8 2.8 23 2/11/2021 < 5 2.5 24 3/12/2021 2.6 2.6 24 3/12/2021 < 5 2.5 25 4/10/2021 3.8 3.8 25 4/10/2021 < 5 2.5 26 5/16/2021 3.4 3.4 26 5/16/2021 < 5 2.5 27 6/7/2021 3.3 3.3 27 6/7/2021 < 5 2.5 28 7/13/2021 5.4 5.4 28 7/13/2021 < 5 2.5 29 8/4/2021 11 11 29 8/4/2021 < 5 2.5 30 8/18/2021 4.5 4.5 30 8/18/2021 < 5 2.5 31 9/16/2021 4 4 31 9/16/2021 < 5 2.5 32 10/15/2021 2.9 2.9 32 10/15/2021 < 5 2.5 33 11/20/2021 2 2 33 11/20/2021 < 5 2.5 34 12/19/2021 3 3 34 12/19/2021 < 5 2.5 35 1/10/2022 2.8 2.8 35 1/10/2022 < 5 2.5 36 2/8/2022 < 2 1 36 2/8/2022 < 5 2.5 37 3/9/2022 3.4 3.4 37 3/9/2022 < 5 2.5 38 4/7/2022 2.6 2.6 38 4/7/2022 < 5 2.5 39 5/13/2022 3 3 39 5/13/2022 < 5 2.5 40 6/11/2022 2.9 2.9 40 6/11/2022 < 5 2.5 41 7/24/2022 3.6 3.6 41 7/24/2022 < 5 2.5 42 8/15/2022 2.1 2.1 42 8/15/2022 < 5 2.5 43 9/13/2022 2.4 2.4 43 9/13/2022 < 5 2.5 44 10/12/2022 < 2 1 44 10/12/2022 < 5 2.5 45 11/9/2022 2.6 2.6 45 11/9/2022 < 5 2.5 46 11/17/2022 2.6 2.6 46 11/17/2022 < 5 2.5 47 12/16/2022 < 2 1 47 12/16/2022 < 5 2.5 48 1/14/2023 2.1 2.1 48 1/14/2023 < 5 2.5 49 2/12/2023 2.5 2.5 49 2/12/2023 < 5 2.5 50 2/15/2023 2.7 2.7 50 2/15/2023 < 5 2.5 51 3/13/2023 2.7 2.7 51 3/13/2023 < 5 2.5 52 4/18/2023 2.5 2.5 52 4/18/2023 < 5 2.5 53 5/10/2023 3 3 53 5/10/2023 < 5 2.5 54 6/8/2023 3.3 3.3 54 6/8/2023 < 5 2.5 55 7/14/2023 3.2 3.2 55 7/14/2023 < 5 2.5 56 8/12/2023 3.6 3.6 56 8/12/2023 < 5 2.5 57 57 58 58 24937 rpa, data -7- 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par20 Par21 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL Silver Values"then"COPY" Zinc Values"then"COPY" Maximum data .Maximum data points=58 points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/9/2019 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 5/9/2019 43 43 Std Dev. 8.5033 2 6/7/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 6/7/2019 35 35 Mean 39.3571 3 7/13/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.0000 3 7/13/2019 46 46 C.V. 0.2161 4 8/11/2019 < 1 0.5 n 56 4 8/11/2019 49 49 n 56 5 9/9/2019 < 1 0.5 5 9/9/2019 34 34 6 10/8/2019 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 10/8/2019 34 34 Mult Factor= 1.00 7 11/6/2019 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L 7 11/6/2019 37 37 Max. Value 57.0 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.500 ug/L 8 12/12/2019 39 39 Max. Pred Cw 57.0 ug/L 9 1/10/2020 < 1 0.5 9 1/10/2020 46 46 10 2/8/2020 < 1 0.5 10 2/8/2020 32 32 11 3/8/2020 < 1 0.5 11 3/8/2020 39 39 12 4/6/2020 < 1 0.5 12 4/6/2020 34 34 13 5/6/2020 < 1 0.5 13 5/6/2020 27 27 14 5/12/2020 < 1 0.5 14 5/12/2020 31 31 15 6/10/2020 < 1 0.5 15 6/10/2020 39 39 16 7/16/2020 < 1 0.5 16 7/16/2020 57 57 17 8/7/2020 < 1 0.5 17 8/7/2020 52 52 18 9/19/2020 < 1 0.5 18 9/19/2020 37 37 19 10/11/2020 < 1 0.5 19 10/11/2020 42 42 20 11/9/2020 < 1 0.5 20 11/9/2020 51 51 21 12/8/2020 < 1 0.5 21 12/8/2020 38 38 22 1/13/2021 < 1 0.5 22 1/13/2021 44 44 23 2/11/2021 < 1 0.5 23 2/11/2021 49 49 24 3/12/2021 < 1 0.5 24 3/12/2021 49 49 25 4/10/2021 < 1 0.5 25 4/10/2021 44 44 26 5/16/2021 < 1 0.5 26 5/16/2021 48 48 27 6/7/2021 < 1 0.5 27 6/7/2021 33 33 28 7/13/2021 < 1 0.5 28 7/13/2021 32 32 29 8/4/2021 < 1 0.5 29 8/4/2021 44 44 30 8/18/2021 < 1 0.5 30 8/18/2021 33 33 31 9/16/2021 < 1 0.5 31 9/16/2021 36 36 32 10/15/2021 < 1 0.5 32 10/15/2021 46 46 33 11/20/2021 < 1 0.5 33 11/20/2021 48 48 34 12/19/2021 < 1 0.5 34 12/19/2021 47 47 35 1/10/2022 < 1 0.5 35 1/10/2022 48 48 36 2/8/2022 < 1 0.5 36 2/8/2022 23 23 37 3/9/2022 < 1 0.5 37 3/9/2022 48 48 38 4/7/2022 < 1 0.5 38 4/7/2022 35 35 39 5/13/2022 < 1 0.5 39 5/13/2022 41 41 40 6/11/2022 < 1 0.5 40 6/11/2022 48 48 41 7/24/2022 < 1 0.5 41 7/24/2022 47 47 42 8/15/2022 < 1 0.5 42 8/15/2022 38 38 43 9/13/2022 < 1 0.5 43 9/13/2022 35 35 44 10/12/2022 < 1 0.5 44 10/12/2022 46 46 45 11/9/2022 < 1 0.5 45 11/9/2022 47 47 46 11/17/2022 < 1 0.5 46 11/17/2022 34 34 47 12/16/2022 < 1 0.5 47 12/16/2022 26 26 48 1/14/2023 < 1 0.5 48 1/14/2023 25 25 49 2/12/2023 < 1 0.5 49 2/12/2023 26 26 50 2/15/2023 < 1 0.5 50 2/15/2023 30 30 51 3/13/2023 < 1 0.5 51 3/13/2023 27 27 52 4/18/2023 < 1 0.5 52 4/18/2023 17 17 53 5/10/2023 < 1 0.5 53 5/10/2023 41 41 54 6/8/2023 < 1 0.5 54 6/8/2023 38 38 55 7/14/2023 < 1 0.5 55 7/14/2023 49 49 56 8/12/2023 < 1 0.5 56 8/12/2023 40 40 57 57 58 58 24937 rpa, data -8- 10/23/2023 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par22 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate values"then"COPY' Maximum data points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 5/6/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 2 8/4/2021 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 3 11/9/2022 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 4 2/15/2023 < 5 2.5 n 4 5 6 Mult Factor= 2.59 7 Max. Value 2.500000 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 6.475000 pg/L 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 24937 rpa, data -9- 10/23/2023 Sugar Creek WWTP Outfall 001 NCO024937 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 28 MGD MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 Qw (MGD) = 28.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L) 1Q10S (cfs) = 2.84 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 93.85813149 Acute = 72.67 mg/L 7Q10S (cfs) = 3.40 IWC% @ 7QIOS = 92.73504274 Chronic= 72.79 mg/L 7QIOW (cfs) = 5.50 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 88.75255624 30Q2 (cfs) = 8.70 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 83.30134357 Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 47.00 IW%C @ QA= 48.00884956 Receiving Stream: Little Sugar Creek HUC 03050103 Stream Class: C PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION TYPE Aplied Chronic Standa d Acute D n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw Acute (FW): 362.2 Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q 1 Os) 340 ug/L _ 56 0 2.5 Chronic (FW) 161.8 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required ---------- ----------------------------- Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 20.8 Max MDL 5 Acute: 69.25 Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 4 0 2.59 Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 7.01 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 2 Monitoring required Acute: 8.756 Cadmium NC 1.3225 FW(7Q10s) 8.2182 ug/L 56 0 0.500 Chronic: 1.426 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No NO DETECTS Max MDL 1 Monitoring required Acute: NO WQS Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 4 0 64.8 Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 360.1 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 50 Monitoring required Acute: 2,310.8 Chromium III NC 282.4935 FW(7Q10s) 2168.8591 µg/L 0 0 N/A --Chronic: -----304.E--- --------------------------- Acute: 17.0 Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q10s) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A --Chronic: ----- 11.9 --- --------------------------- Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but< Cr VI Allowable Cw Chromium, Total NC µg/L 56 1 7.1 Max reported value = 7.1 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: 30.49 Copper NC 19.6404 FW(7Q10s) 28.6198 ug/L 56 50 6.06 Chronic: 21.18 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value > Allowable Cw [All onitoring required Acute: 23.4 Cyanide NC 5 FW(7QIOs) 22 10 ug/L 56 0 5.0 Chronic: 5.4 values non-detect< 10 ug/L- no monitoring NO DETECTS Max MDL 10 required 24937 rpa, rpa Page 1 of 2 10/23/2023 Sugar Creek WWTP Outfall 001 NCO024937 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 28 MGD Acute: 263.865 Lead NC 9.6679 FW(7Q1Os) 247.6588 ug/L 56 0 2.500 Chronic: 10.425 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required Acute: NO WQS Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q10s) ug/L 56 1 7.8 Chronic: 2,156.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required Acute (FW): 880.8 Nickel NC 91.9500 FW(7Q 1 Os) 826.7443 µg/L _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 56 51 24.5 Chronic (FW) 99.2 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required --- ----------------------------- Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Chronic (WS) 27.0 No value >Allowable Cw Acute: 59.7 Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 56 0 2.5 Chronic: 5.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required Acute: 1.979 Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 1.8576 ug/L 56 0 0.500 Chronic: 0.065 All values non-detect < 1 ug/L - no monitoring NO DETECTS Max MDL 1 required Acute: 330.8 Zinc NC 313.4280 FW(7Q10s) 310.4643 ug/L 56 56 57.0 Chronic: 338.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required Acute: NO WQS Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate C 0.37 HH(Qavg) µg/L 4 0 6.47500 Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 0.77069 All values non-detect< 5 ug/L - No monitoring Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL 5 required 24937 rpa, rpa Page 2 of 2 10/23/2023 Sugar Creek WWTP Outfall 001 NCO024937 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 20 MGD MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 Qw (MGD) = 20.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L) 1Q10S (cfs) = 2.84 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 91.60756501 Acute = 72.9 mg/L 7Q10S (cfs) = 3.40 IWC% @ 7QIOS = 90.11627907 Chronic= 73.06 mg/L 7QIOW (cfs) = 5.50 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 84.93150685 30Q2 (cfs) = 8.70 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 78.08564232 Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 47.00 IW%C @ QA= 39.74358974 Receiving Stream: Little Sugar Creek HUC 03050103 Stream Class: C PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION TYPE Aplied Chronic Standa d Acute D n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw Acute (FW): 371.1 Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q 1 Os) 340 ug/L _ 56 0 2.5 Chronic (FW) 166.5 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required ---------- ----------------------------- Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 25.2 Max MDL 5 Acute: 70.95 Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 4 0 2.59 Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 7.21 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 2 Monitoring required Acute: 8.996 Cadmium NC 1.3262 FW(7Q10s) 8.2412 ug/L 56 0 0.500 Chronic: 1.472 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No NO DETECTS Max MDL 1 Monitoring required Acute: NO WQS Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 4 0 64.8 Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 384.2 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 50 Monitoring required Acute: 2,373.8 Chromium III NC 283.3547 FW(7Q10s) 2174.5504 µg/L 0 0 N/A --Chronic: -----314.4--- --------------------------- Acute: 17.5 Chromium VI NC I 1 FW(7Q10s) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A --Chronic: ----- 12.2 --- --------------------------- Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but< Cr VI Allowable Cw Chromium, Total NC µg/L 56 1 7.1 Max reported value = 7.1 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: 31.34 Copper NC 19.7028 FW(7Q10s) 28.7062 ug/L 56 50 6.06 Chronic: 21.86 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value > Allowable Cw [All onitoring required Acute: 24.0 Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 22 10 ug/L 56 0 5.0 ____ Chronic: 5.5 values non-detect< 10 ug/L- no monitoring NO DETECTS Max MDL 10 required 24937 rpa, rpa Page 1 of 2 10/23/2023 Sugar Creek WWTP Outfall 001 NCO024937 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 20 MGD Acute: 271.300 Lead NC 9.7074 FW(7Q1Os) 248.5312 ug/L 56 0 2.500 Chronic: 10.772 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required Acute: NO WQS Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q10s) ug/L 56 1 7.8 Chronic: 2,219.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required Acute (FW): 904.9 Nickel NC 92.2396 FW(7Q10s) 828.9854 µg/L _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 56 51 24.5 Chronic (FW) 102.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required --- ----------------------------- Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Chronic (WS) 27.7 No value >Allowable Cw Acute: 61.1 Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 56 0 2.5 Chronic: 5.5 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required Acute: 2.039 Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 1.8679 ug/L 56 0 0.500 Chronic: 0.067 All values non-detect < 1 ug/L - no monitoring NO DETECTS Max MDL 1 required Acute: 339.8 Zinc NC 314.4165 FW(7Q10s) 311.3072 ug/L 56 56 57.0 Chronic: 348.9 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required Acute: NO WQS Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate C 0.37 HH(Qavg) µg/L 4 0 6.47500 Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 0.93097 All values non-detect< 5 ug/L - No monitoring Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL 5 required 24937 rpa, rpa Page 2 of 2 10/23/2023 Permit No. NCO024937 NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards-Freshwater Standards The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard(WQS)Triennial Review was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission(EMC)on November 13,2014. The US EPA subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6,2016,with some exceptions. Therefore,metal limits in draft permits out to public notice after April 6,2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as approved. Table 1.NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection Parameter Acute FW, µg/l Chronic FW, µg/l Acute SW, µg/1 Chronic SW, µg/1 (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) Arsenic 340 150 69 36 Beryllium 65 6.5 --- --- Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8 Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- --- Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50 Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1 Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1 Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2 Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1 Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81 Table 1 Notes: 1. FW=Freshwater, SW= Saltwater 2. Calculation=Hardness dependent standard 3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC 2B.0200(e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at 1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection). Table 2.Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals The Water Effects Ratio(WER)is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph(11)(d) Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I Cadmium,Acute WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485} Cadmium,Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361 Cadmium,Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} •e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.445 11 Chromium III,Acute WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256} Chromium III,Chronic WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848} Copper,Acute WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700} Copper,Chronic WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702} Lead,Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460} Lead,Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)] • e All.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. NCO024937 Silver,Acute WER*0.85 •e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59} Silver,Chronic Not applicable Zinc,Acute WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} Zinc,Chronic WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge. The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream(upstream)hardness and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge. Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal(more on that below),but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with established methodology. RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals -Freshwater The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern, based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations,based on applicable standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream. If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value(chronic or acute),the discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard,which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present(i.e. consistently below detection level),then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit. 1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the following information: • Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10(the spreadsheet automatically calculates the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10=0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs)0.993 • Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred • Permitted flow • Receiving stream classification 2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for each individual discharge,the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream (upstream)hardness values to use in the equations. The permit writer reviews DMR's,Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream hardness values,upstream of the discharge. If no hardness data is available,the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a default hardness of 25 mg/L(CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L,respectively. If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable potential,the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data. Page 2 of 4 Permit No. NCO024937 The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows: Combined Hardness(chronic) _(Permitted Flow,cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness,mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness,mg/L) (Permitted Flow,cfs+s7Q10,cfs) The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow. 3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable metal,using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients(DPCs)or site-specific translators, if any have been developed using federally approved methodology. EPA default partition coefficients or the"Fraction Dissolved"converts the value for dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in-stream ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996)and the equation: Cdiss - 1 Ctotal I + { [Kpo] [ss('+a)] [10-6] } Where: ss=in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1],minimum of 10 mg/L used, and Kpo and a=constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness-dependent metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs. 4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient(or site-specific translator)to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. In some cases,where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist(ie. silver),the dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document. 5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration (permit limits)for each pollutant using the following equation: Ca=(s7Q 10+Qw)(Cwgs)—(s7Q 10) (Cb) Qw Where: Ca=allowable effluent concentration(µg/L or mg/L) Cwqs=NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria(µg/L or mg/L) Cb=background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L) Qw=permitted effluent flow(cfs,match s7Q 10) s7Q 10=summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs) * Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable: IQ 10=used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity Page 3 of 4 Permit No. NC0024937 QA=used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from carcinogens 30Q2=used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality 6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern. Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit application(40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations,the discharge is considered to show reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit(Total allowable concentration)is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991. 7. When appropriate,permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10,2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on 40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements. 8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure,total chromium data results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium III or VI. In these cases,the projected maximum concentration(95th%) for total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and chromium VI. 9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling,upstream of the discharge, are inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset. 10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included: Parameter Value Comments (Data Source) Average Effluent Hardness(mg/L) 77.53 Average from June 2018 to [Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] November 2022 samples Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) 83.81 Average from June 2018 to [Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] November 2022 samples 7Q10 summer(cfs) 3.4 Historical;Previous Fact Sheet 1Q10(cfs) 2.84 Calculated in RPA Permitted Flow(MGD) 20.0 NPDES Files Date: 1/13/2023 Permit Writer: Nick Coco Page 4 of 4 NCO024937 Sugar Creek WWTP 10/23/2023 CBOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) May-19 99.32 November-21 99.39 May-19 99.08 November-21 99.17 June-19 99.29 December-21 99.42 June-19 98.59 December-21 99.18 July-19 99.28 January-22 99.36 July-19 98.98 January-22 99.03 August-19 99.08 February-22 99.36 August-19 98.62 February-22 99.05 September-19 99.07 March-22 99.27 September-19 98.40 March-22 99.05 October-19 99.34 April-22 99.27 October-19 99.12 April-22 99.08 November-19 99.35 May-22 99.29 November-19 99.11 May-22 99.13 December-19 99.24 June-22 99.36 December-19 98.92 June-22 99.08 January-20 99.27 July-22 99.32 January-20 99.03 July-22 99.09 February-20 96.67 August-22 99.34 February-20 94.76 August-22 99.07 March-20 99.21 September-22 99.34 March-20 99.01 September-22 99.09 April-20 99.19 October-22 99.37 April-20 99.03 October-22 99.14 May-20 99.03 November-22 99.39 May-20 98.78 November-22 99.10 June-20 99.21 December-22 98.76 June-20 98.95 December-22 99.03 July-20 99.26 January-23 98.47 July-20 98.91 January-23 98.66 August-20 99.26 February-23 99.12 August-20 98.95 February-23 99.08 September-20 99.19 March-23 99.13 September-20 99.00 March-23 98.71 October-20 99.03 April-23 98.77 October-20 97.71 April-23 96.53 November-20 98.83 May-23 99.38 November-20 97.86 May-23 99.21 December-20 99.26 June-23 99.34 December-20 99.02 June-23 99.16 January-21 99.13 July-23 99.34 January-21 98.78 July-23 99.01 February-21 99.01 August-23 99.32 February-21 98.68 August-23 99.00 March-21 99.04 September-23 March-21 98.86 September-23 April-21 99.18 October-23 - April-21 98.87 October-23 - May-21 99.33 November-23 - May-21 99.10 November-23 - June-21 99.33 December-23 - June-21 99.13 December-23 - July-21 99.32 January-24 - July-21 99.19 January-24 - August-21 99.35 February-24 - August-21 99.14 February-24 - September-21 99.36 March-24 - September-21 98.95 March-24 - October-21 99.34 April-24 - October-21 99.07 April-24 - Overall CBOD removal rate 99.17 Overall TSS removal rate 98.81 Coco, Nick A From: Sypolt, Shannon <Shannon.Sypolt@charlottenc.gov> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:08 PM To: Coco, Nick A Cc: Montebello, Michael J; Macomber, Maggie; Lockler,Joseph Subject: RE: [EXT]RE: [External] RE:Additional Information Request: Irwin &Sugar Creek NPDES Permit Renewal Applications Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam. Hi Nick, Per you request below and pertaining to confirmation that our application remains accurate,to the best of our knowledge, no additional parameters have been sampled for since our original application was submitted. Therefore no additional parameters have been identified in the effluent and no chemical addendum sheets are necessary. Thank you. Shannon Sypolt Water Quality Program Administrator Environmental Management CHARLOTTE WLTER 4222 Westmont Drive/Charlotte, NC 28217 P: 704-336-4581 /C: 704-634-6984/ charlottewater.org From: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:59 PM To:Sypolt, Shannon <Shannon.Sypolt@charlottenc.gov> Cc: Montebello, Michael J <Michael.Montebello@ncdenr.gov>; Macomber, Maggie <Maggie.Macomber@charlottenc.gov>; Lockler,Joseph <Joseph.Lockler@charlottenc.gov> Subject: [EXT]RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request: Irwin &Sugar Creek NPDES Permit Renewal Applications Hi Shannon, Thank you for getting this to us and thank you for the call last week to discuss the status of these permits. To justify that the application remains accurate with regard to which parameters have been sampled for at each of these facilities, please verify that no additional parameters have been sampled for, before or after the application was submitted, and therefore no additional parameters have been identified in the effluents of each plant and no chemical addendum sheets are necessary. Thanks again, 1 Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) Engineer 111 NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting Office: (919) 707-3609 nick.coco@ncdenr.gov "Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams" Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617 tr.��D7 E NORTH CAROLINA :.� Q 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: Sypolt, Shannon <Shannon.Sypolt@charlottenc.gov> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 4:57 PM To: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Montebello, Michael J <Michael.Montebello@ncdenr.goy>; Macomber, Maggie <Maggie.Macomber@charlottenc.gov>; Lockler,Joseph <Joseph.Lockler@charlottenc.gov> Subject: [External] RE:Additional Information Request: Irwin &Sugar Creek NPDES Permit Renewal Applications CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam. Hi Nick, Per your request below please see the following additional information: 1) Please see the attached monitoring frequency reduction request summary for Irwin and Sugar Creek 2) 1 have confirmed with our Pretreatment Program Supervisor that no SIU's in our Pretreatment Program have been sampled for 1,4 Dioxane. Additionally, we have not collected any 1,4 Dioxane samples from Irwin, Sugar, or McAlpine. 3) Regarding the chemical addendum submission, Charlotte Water believes we have met the requirement needed to properly submit this information as outlined on NCDWR's website and we have previously certified our application as being true, accurate, and complete. Please see the information below that we are referring to: z )ES Individual Permit Applice X I SL 2018-5(SB 99) X I + C Q deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/npdes-wastewater/npdes-permitting-process/npdes-indiv Manuracruring,waxer I reatmenr Fiants,etc.). IT you are apptying ror a NFUt.)kieneral click the link found on side bar to the right. Please make sure your application is comr submission. Please submit 1 original and 2 copies of your application package to the following mai Division of Water Resources Water Quality Permitting Section - NPDES 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 EPA Updates-All EPA applications below have been updated.As of February 1,2020, P any previous versions and use the updated forms below.Tips for filling out the new ap can be found here. If you completed an application prior to Feburary 1,2020, please cc and attach it as an addendum to your application. Chemical Addendum Form-As required by Session Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Sectio applicant shall now submit documentation of any additional pollutants for which ther methods with the permit application if their discharge is anticipated.The list of pollut< found in 40 CFR Part 136,which is incorporated by reference. If there are additional po certified methods to be reported, please submit the Chemical Addendum to NPDES AF with your application and, if applicable, list the selected certified analytical method u! no additional pollutants to report,this form is not required to be included with your al requirement applies to all NPDES facilities. The Chemical Addendum to NPDES Appli( required for any type of facility with an NPDES permit,depending on whether those ty are found in your wastewater. 3 6.2 Certification Statement 1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,and complete. l am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Name(print or type first and last name) Official title --i'gc E121ZL DL-Pv1XI IJ� YZG-Cty .. Signature Date signed - 30 Z,-A If you have any questions concerning the information contained in this email, or if you need any further information,just let me know. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional information. Happy Friday!!! Respectfully, Shannon Sypolt Water Quality Program Administrator Environmental Management CHARLOTTE W` TER 4222 Westmont Drive/Charlotte, NC 28217 P: 704-336-4581 /C: 704-634-6984/ charlottewater.org From: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Friday,January 13, 2023 1:50 PM To:Sypolt, Shannon <Shannon.Sypolt@charlottenc.gov> Cc: Montebello, Michael J <Michael.Montebello@ncdenr.gov> Subject: [EXT]RE: [External] RE: [EXT]Additional Information Request: NCO024970 McAlpine Creek NPDES Permit Application Hi Shannon, I hope all is well. I'm making good progress on the 3 renewals for McAlpine Creek WWMF, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek WWTP. I was hoping you could just provide me with the monitoring frequency reduction request and criteria check for the Irwin and Sugar Creek plants. I also wanted to clarify the chemical addendum. We will need the addendum for each of these facilities. I know that you had mentioned that the addendum was not necessary since no additional monitoring had been conducted, but we will need that written on the chemical addendum form and signed (anywhere on the form will do). If no additional sampling was conducted,you can just note that no additional sampling was conducted and therefore no additional parameters were identified. 4 One last question I have is related to 1,4-dioxane. Has Charlotte Water conducted any monitoring of 1,4-dioxane at these 3 plants? It appears that each facility has at least one industry type linked to use of 1,4-dioxane in their pretreatment programs. Thanks in advance for your time and help on this, Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) Engineer 111 NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting Office: (919) 707-3609 nick.coco@ncdenr.gov "Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams" Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617 D- E NORTH CAROLINA7d� Q kl ; 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: Sypolt, Shannon <Shannon.Sypolt@charlottenc.gov> Sent:Tuesday, October 4, 2022 10:00 AM To: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Macomber, Maggie<Maggie.Macomber@charlottenc.gov>; Lockler,Joseph <Joseph.Lockler@charlottenc.gov>; Montebello, Michael J <Michael.Montebello@ncdenr.gov>;Jarrell,Jackie<Jackie.Jarrell@charlottenc.gov>; Smith, Reid <Terrell.Smith@charlottenc.gov> Subject: [External] RE: [EXT]Additional Information Request: NCO024970 McAlpine Creek NPDES Permit Application CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam. Good morning Nick, Please see the following responses, and their associated attached documents,for the information that you have requested in your email below: 1. Please see the five attached PPA's that were completed since McAlpine's last permit renewal. Although McAlpine's permit only required three PPA's be performed during the last permit cycle, CLTWater conducts PPA's annually at all of our facilities. 2. Our biosolids permit number is WQ0000057. 3. The estimated average daily volume of I&I is 4.176 MGD. 4. McAlpine WWMF would like to continue reduced monitoring frequencies (2x/week)for conventional parameters. Please see the attached spreadsheet that demonstrates McAlpine WWMF has met all the requirements for reduced monitoring frequencies as an "Exceptionally Performing Facility". 5 5. To the best of our knowledge, all samples collected at McAlpine WWMF that are covered under a method listed in 40 CFR Part 136 and run by a state certified lab, have been reported to NCDWR on our monthly DMR's. No additional pollutants with methods listed in 40 CFR Part 136 have been analyzed,therefore,the Chemical Addendum form was not submitted in our application. 6. Per your request, please see the attached CLTWater Mercury Minimization Plan. 7. The treatment unit components list submitted in our permit application is accurate and represents all permanent treatment units currently present at McAlpine. If you have any questions concerning the information contained in this email, or if you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me directly. Thank you for your assistance with the renewal of McAlpine's NPDES permit. Respectfully, Shannon Sypolt Water Quality Program Administrator Environmental Management CHARLOTTE WLTER 4222 Westmont Drive/Charlotte, NC 28217 P: 704-336-4581 /C: 704-634-6984/ charlottewater.org From: Coco, Nick A<Nick.Coco@ncdenr.gov> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:47 AM To: kneels@charlottenc.gov Cc:Jarrell,Jackie<Jackie.Jarrell@charlottenc.gov>; Montebello, Michael J <Michael.Montebello@ncdenr.gov> Subject: [EXT]Additional Information Request: NCO024970 McAlpine Creek NPDES Permit Application Hi Kim, I hope all is well on your end. I have begun reviewing the NPDES renewal application for NCO024970 McAlpine Creek WWTP and have the following comments: 1. Please provide the 3 effluent pollutant scans taken during this permit period. 2. Please provide the permit number associated with Charlotte Water's sludge disposal agreement with Synagro. 3. Please provide the estimated average daily volume of I&I. It appears this wasn't noted on the attachment or in the application. 4. Charlotte Water was granted 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia,TSS and fecal coliform based on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities.The renewal application does not include a request for continuation of this monitoring frequency reduction. If this is a mistake, and Charlotte Water would like to continue 2/week monitoring for these parameters, please submit a request to continue this requirement and include confirmation of the approval criteria outlined in the attached guidance document. 5. As required by Session Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall now submit documentation of any additional pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is anticipated.The list of pollutants may be found in 40 CFR Part 136,which is incorporated by reference. If there are additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported, please submit the Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table with your application and, if applicable, list the selected certified analytical method used. If there are no additional pollutants to report, this form is not required to be included with your application. This requirement applies to all NPDES facilities.The Chemical Addendum to NPDES 6 Application will be required for any type of facility with an NPDES permit, depending on whether those types of pollutants are found in your wastewater. Please fill out, sign and submit the Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application. 6. Please provide a copy of the Mercury Minimization Plan prepared for this facility, per Special Condition A.(10) of the current permit. 7. Please verify the accuracy of this component list for the McAlpine Creek WWTP: • Elena equalisation • Scrocuing • Grit mmoval • Primary clanfirn • Aeration hasinc • Secondary clarifiers • Liiological and chemical phosphorus removal • Alkulinc addition for nitrificiihon • Chlurinatiun • Dechlonnation • Anaerobic sludge digestion • Centrifuges and gravity sludge thickeners • Rapid sand filtern Thank you in advance for all of your help with this. If you have any questions for me along the way, please do not hesitate to reach out. Best, Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his) Engineer 111 NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting Office: (919) 707-3609 nick.coco@ncdenr.gov "Email is preferred but 1 am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams" Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617 ka ;NORTH CAROLINA 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. 7 10/23/23 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6 Facility Name Sugar Creek WWTP/NC0024937 No Limit Required /Permit No. MMP Required Total Mercury 1631E PQL=0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 3.400 cfs WQBEL= 13.32 ng/L Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 20.000 47 ng/L 5/8/19 < 1 0.5 6/6/19 2.2 2.2 7/12/19 5.7 5.7 8/10/19 1.6 1.6 9/8/19 0.7 0.7 10/7/19 0.9 0.9 11/5/19 1 1 12/11/19 0.9 0.9 1.7 ng/L-Annual Average for 2019 1/9/20 0.7 0.7 2/7/20 1.9 1.9 3/7/20 0.6 0.6 4/5/20 0.8 0.8 5/5/20 0.9 0.9 5/11/20 0.9 0.9 6/9/20 0.9 0.9 7/15/20 0.6 0.6 8/2/20 < 0.5 0.5 9/18/20 0.6 0.6 10/10/20 0.8 0.8 11/8/20 0.7 0.7 12/7/20 0.5 0.5 0.8 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020 1/12/21 0.9 0.9 2/10/21 < 0.5 0.5 3/11/21 0.6 0.6 4/9/21 0.9 0.9 5/15/21 < 0.5 0.5 6/6/21 0.9 0.9 7/12/21 0.64 0.64 8/3/21 0.59 0.59 8/17/21 < 0.5 0.5 9/16/21 0.6 0.6 10/14/21 0.7 0.7 11/19/21 0.76 0.76 12/30/21 < 0.5 0.5 0.7 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021 1/9/22 0.6 0.6 2/7/22 0.62 0.62 3/8/22 0.86 0.86 4/6/22 1.23 1.23 5/12/22 1.06 1.06 6/10/22 1.06 1.06 7/23/22 0.76 0.76 8/14/22 < 0.5 0.5 9/12/22 0.82 0.82 10/11/22 0.8 0.8 11/8/22 2.36 2.36 11/16/22 0.67 0.67 12/15/22 0.69 0.69 0.9 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022 1/13/23 1.11 1.11 2/11/23 0.74 0.74 2/14/23 0.72 0.72 3/12/23 0.93 0.93 4/17/23 0.65 0.65 5/9/23 0.76 0.76 6/7/23 0.99 0.99 7/13/23 1.32 1.32 8/11/23 0.97 0.97 0.9 ng/L-Annual Average for 2023 Sugar Creek WWTP/NC0024937 Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 #of Samples 8 13 13 13 9 Annual Average, ng/L 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.93 0.91 Maximum Value, ng/L 5.70 1.90 0.90 2.36 1.32 TBEL, ng/L 47 WQBEL, ng/L 13.3 Reduction in Frequency Evaluation Facility: Sugar Creek WWTP Permit No. NC0024937 Review period(use 3 8/2020-8/2023 yrs) Approval Criteria: Y/N? 1. Not currently under SOC Y 2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report Y 3.Facility or employees convicted of CWA N violations Weekly Monthly 500/ 200% 200/ monthly #civil penalty 3-yr mean #daily #daily #of non- p Reduce Data Review Units average (geo mean <50%? samples <15? samples <20? >2? >1? Frequency? average limit limit MA for FC) MA >200% WA >200% limit asessment (Yes/No) violations CBOD(Weighted) mg/L 10.625 7.08333 3.5 0.9495389 Y 14.2 3 Y 0 N 0 N Y TSS mg/L 45 30 15 1.2443495 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y Ammonia(weighted) mg/L 4.25 1 1.416671 0.7 0.3374835 1 Y 1 2.83 1 13 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y Fecal Coliform #/100 400 1 200 1 100 1 1.8979033 1 Y 800 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y NH3/TRC WLA Calculations Facility: Sugar Creek WWTP PermitNo. NC0024937 Prepared By: Nick Coco Enter Design Flow (MGD): 20 Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 3.4 Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 5.5 Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer) Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1) s7Q10 (CFS) 3.4 s7Q10 (CFS) 3.4 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31 STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0 Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22 IWC (%) 90.12 IWC (%) 90.12 Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 19 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.1 More stringent than current limit. Less stringent than current limit.Maintain limit. Apply limit. Ammonia (Winter) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1) Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 5.5 Monthly Average Limit: 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20 (If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31 (If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8 Dilution Factor(DF) 1.11 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22 IWC (%) 84.93 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 2.1 Less stringent than current limit.Maintain limit. Total Residual Chlorine 1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity Ammonia (as NH3-N) 1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only 2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) 3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis) If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed Fecal Coliform 1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni) MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 12/19/22 Page 1 of 1 Permit: NC002493 MRs Betweei 2 - 2017 and12 - 2022 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:% Major Minor: % PERMIT: NCO024937 FACILITY: Charlotte Water-Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP COUNTY: Mecklenburg REGION: Mooresville Limit Violation MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED % REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION 02-2020 001 Effluent BOD,Carbonaceous 05 Day, 02/15/20 2 X week mg/I 15 19.75 31.7 Weekly Average Proceed to NOD 20 C Exceeded 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 NCO024937 111 121 22/02/22 I17 18 LC]I 19 I G I 201 I 21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I 1166 Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved------------------- 67 2.0 70L 71 I„ I 72 73 LJ74 79 I I I I 80 Section B: Facility Data Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:10AM 22/02/22 17/10/01 Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP 5301 Closeburn Rd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date Charlotte NC 28217 12:55PM 22/02/22 22/05/31 Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data William McDonald Allen/ORC/704-553-2121/ Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Contacted Angela D Charles,5100 Brookshire Blvd Charlotte NC 282163371/Di rector/704-336-5911/ No Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations&Maintenar Records/Reports Self-Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate Laboratory Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) (See attachment summary) Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date Wes Bell DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699 Ext.2192/ Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date Andrew Pitner DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699 Ext.2180/ EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete. Page# 1 NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type 1 31 NC0024937 I11 12I 22/02/22 117 18 i c i Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) On-site Representatives: The following Charlotte Water personnel were in attendance during the inspection: Mr. Billy Allen, Ms. Donna Slachciak and Mr. Doug Wise. Page# 2 Permit: NCO024937 Owner-Facility: Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP Inspection Date: 02/22/2022 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: Charlotte Water implements a Division approved Industrial Pretreatment Program. The Division received Charlotte Water's renewal package on 12/1/21. The last compliance inspection (bio-monitoring) at this facility was performed by DWR staff on 9/1/20. 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: The records reviewed during the inspection were organized and well maintained. Discharge monitoring reports (eDMRs)were reviewed for the period January 2021 through December 2021. No limit and/or monitoring violations were reported. Page# 3 Permit: NCO024937 Owner-Facility: Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP Inspection Date: 02/22/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Laboratory Yes No NA NE Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the facility using a contract lab? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ degrees Celsius)? Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Influent and effluent analyses (including field) are performed under Charlotte Water's Environmental Services Laboratory Certification #192. ETT and ETS (chronic toxicity) have also been contracted to provide analytical support. Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE # Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected above side streams? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ degrees Celsius)? Is sampling performed according to the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The subject permit requires influent BOD and TSS composite samples. Facility staff perform weekly (at a minimum) aliquot verifications on the sampler. Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected below all treatment units? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ degrees Celsius)? Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type ❑ ❑ ❑ representative)? Comment: The subject permit requires composite and grab effluent samples. Facility staff perform weekly (at a minimum) aliquot verifications on the sampler. Page# 4 Permit: NCO024937 Owner-Facility: Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP Inspection Date: 02/22/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ and sampling location)? Comment: Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑ Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable? Comment: The wastewater treatment facility appeared to be properly operated and well maintained. Facility staff incorporate a comprehensive process control program with all measurements being properly documented and maintained on-site. In-depth operation and maintenance records are also maintained on-site. Approximately eleven (11) SCADA stations are located throughout the treatment plant site. Bar Screens Yes No NA NE Type of bar screen a.Manual ❑ b.Mechanical Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the screen free of excessive debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is disposal of screening in compliance? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the unit in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Grit Removal Yes No NA NE Type of grit removal a.Manual ❑ b.Mechanical Is the grit free of excessive organic matter? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the grit free of excessive odor? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is disposal of grit in compliance? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Screenings and grit are disposed at a permitted landfill. Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Page# 5 Permit: NCO024937 Owner-Facility: Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP Inspection Date: 02/22/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE Is the wet well free of excessive grease? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all pumps present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all pumps operable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are float controls operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Comment: Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE Is the basin aerated? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the basin free of excessive grease? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all pumps present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all pumps operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are float controls operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are audible and visual alarms operable? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ # Is basin size/volume adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The facility is equipped with two twenty (20) million gallon (MG) equalization basins. Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are weirs level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is scum removal adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the drive unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Three of four primary clarifiers were in service. Chemical Feed Yes No NA NE Page# 6 Permit: NCO024937 Owner-Facility: Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP Inspection Date: 02/22/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Chemical Feed Yes No NA NE Is containment adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is storage adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are backup pumps available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive leaking? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE Mode of operation Ext. Air Type of aeration system Diffused Is the basin free of dead spots? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are surface aerators and mixers operational? E ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the diffusers operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Is the DO level acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Each aeration basin is equipped with an anoxic zone (with mixing) and oxic recycle system to reduce nutrient levels. Magnesium hydroxide is added to maintain appropriate alkalinity/pH levels. The foam was greater than 25% of the basin's surface; however, no foam carryover was observed in the final clarifiers. Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are weirs level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is scum removal adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the drive unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: All six final clarifiers were in service. Page# 7 Permit: NC0024937 Owner-Facility: Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP Inspection Date: 02/22/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are pumps operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Down flow 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: All ten tertiary filters were in service. Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE Are extra UV bulbs available on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are UV bulbs clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is UV intensity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is transmittance at or above designed level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there a backup system on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is effluent clear and free of solids? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the flow meter operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: The flow meter is calibrated twice per year and was last calibrated on 1/24/22 by CITI, LLC Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Page# 8 Permit: NCO024937 Owner-Facility: Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP Inspection Date: 02/22/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Comment: The effluent appeared clear with no floatable solids and foam (entrained air). The foam dissipated less than fifty yards downstream of the discharge outfall. The receiving stream did not appear to be negatively impacted. Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE Is the equipment operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the chemical feed equipment operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is storage adequate? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ The facility has an approved sludge management plan? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The primary sludge and waste activated sludge are pumped separately to the Charlotte Water/McAlpine Creek WWTP for continued treatment and disposal. The bio-solids are land applied under the authority of Permit No. WQ0000057. Standby Power Yes No NA NE Is automatically activated standby power available? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested under load? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ power? Is the generator fuel level monitored? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The facility is equipped with three backup generators. The generators are serviced on a quarterly basis by a contracted company (Carolina CAT). Page# 9 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary Charlotte-Douglas Airport-003 NCO083887/003 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 SOC JOC: Ceri24PF Begin: 8/1/2006 24hr LC50 ac monit a NonComp: 70,10: NA PF: NA IWC: NA Freq: A J F M A M J J A S O N D 2019 - - - Pass - - - - - - - - 2020 - Pass - - - - - - - - - - 2021 Pass - - - - - - - - - - - 2022 Pass Pass Fail - - - - - - - - - - - Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP NCO024937/001 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC: Ceri7dPF Begin: 10/1/2017 chr lim:90% NonComp: Single 70,10: 3.4 PF: 20.0 IWC: 90 Freq: Q J F M A M J J A S O N D 2019 - Pass(s) - - >92.5(P)Pass(s) - - Pass(s) - - Pass(s) - 2020 - Pass(s) - - Pass - - Pass 92.5(P)Pass Pass - - Pass - 2021 - Pass - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Pass(S)Pass(5) - - Pass(S)Pass(5)>100(P) - 2022 - Pass>100(P) - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Pass Pass - - Pass Fail - 2023 - Pass Pass - - Pass>100 - - - - - - - Chemical Specialties,Inc.(Venator) NC0006351/001 County: Cabarrus Region: MRO Basin: YAD11 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC: Ceri7dPF Begin: 5/1/2014 Perm chr lim:0.96% NonComp: Single 70.10: 4.0 PF: 0.025 IWC: 0.96 Freq: Q J F M A M J J A S O N D 2019 Invalid Invalid 2.72 2.72 - - H - - H - - 2020 Invalid >3.84 - H - >3.84 >3.84 - - H - - 2021 H - >3.84 >3.84 - - H - - H - - 2022 - - - H H H H H H H H H 2023 H H H H H H - - - - - - Chemours-Fayetteville Works(OUTFALL NC0003573/001 County: Bladen Region: FRO Basin: CPF16 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC: Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2012 chr lim:3.3% NonComp: Single 70.10: 791.0 PF: 17 IWC: 3.3 Freq: Q J F M A M J J A S O N D 2019 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2020 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2021 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2022 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2023 - Pass - - INVALID Pass - - - - - - Chemours Company-Fayetteville Works NCO089915/003 County: Bladen Region: FRO Basin: Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC: Ceri7dPF Begin: 9/30/2020 chr lim:12.5% NonComp: 70.10: PF: 1.58 IWC: Freq: Q J F M A M J J A S O N D 2020 - - - - - - - - - - Pass - 2021 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2022 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2023 - Pass - - Pass - - - - - - - Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(Pimohales oromelas).H=No Flow(facilitv is active).s=Split test between Certified Labs Page 18 of 115 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary Charlotte-Douglas Airport-002 NCO083887/002 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 SOC JOC: Ceri24PF Begin: 8/1/2006 24hr LC50 ac monit a NonComp: 7Q10: NA PF: NA IWC: NA Freq: 50WD/A J F M A M J J A S O N D 2018 Pass - - - - - - - - - - Pass 2019 - - - Pass - - - - - - - - 2020 - Pass - - - - - - - - - - 2021 Pass - - - - - - - - - - - 2022 Pass Pass - - - - - - - - - - - Charlotte-Douglas Airport-003 NCO083887/003 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 SOC JOC: Ceri24PF Begin: 8/1/2006 24hr LC50 ac monit a NonComp: 7Q10: NA PF: NA IWC: NA Freq: A J F M A M J J A S O N D 2018 Pass - - - - - - - - - - Pass 2019 - - - Pass - - - - - - - - 2020 - Pass - - - - - - - - - - 2021 Pass - - - - - - - - - - - 2022 Pass Pass Fail - - - - - - - - - - - Charlotte-Sugar Creek WWTP NCO024937/001 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC: Cer17dPF Begin: 10/1/2017 chr lim:90% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 3.4 PF: 20.0 IWC: 90 Freq: Q J F M A M I J A S O N D 2018 - Pass>100(P) - - Pass(s) - - Pass - - Pass - 2019 - Pass(s) - - >92.5(P)Pass(s) - - Pass(s) - - Pass(s) - 2020 - Pass(s) - - Pass - - Pass 92.5(P)Pass Pass - - Pass - 2021 - Pass - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Pass(S)Pass(S) - - Pass(5)Pass(S)>100(P) - 2022 - Pass>100(P) - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Pass Pass - - - - Chemical Specialties,Inc.(Venator) NC0006351/001 County: Cabarrus Region: MRO Basin: YAD11 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC: Ceri7dPF Begin: 5/1/2014 Perm chr lim:0.96% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 4.0 PF: 0.025 IWC: 0.96 Freq: Q J F M A M J J A S O N D 2018 - H H H H H H H H H >0.96 - 2019 Invalid Invalid 2.72 2.72 - - H - - H - - 2020 Invalid >3.84 - H - >3.84 >3.84 - - H - - 2021 H - >3.84 >3.84 - - H - - H - - 2022 - - - H H H H H H - - - Chemours-Fayetteville Works(OUTFAL NC0003573/001 County: Bladen Region: FRO Basin: CPF16 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC: Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2012 chr lim:3.3% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 791.0 PF: 17 IWC: 3.3 Freq: Q J F M A M J J A S O N D 2018 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2019 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2020 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2021 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - 2022 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - - - Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(Pimohales oromelas).H=No Flow(facilitv is active).s=Solit test between Certified Labs Page 19 of 118 AFD D E F G H J K L M N O P Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form Version:2022.09.28 21.Facility's General Information 3 1/13/2023 c.POC review due to: e.Contact Information Municipal NPDES renewal ❑+ Regional Office(RO) Mooresville45r(pw) Nick Coco HWA-AT/LTMP Review, ❑ RO PT Staff Was Bell RO NPDES Staff Was Bell 6 Permittes-Facility Name Charlotte Water-Sugar Creek WWTP New Industries ❑ Facility PT Staff,email Bill Gintert,bointert0)ci.chadoUe.nc.us 7 NPDES Permit Number NCO024937 WWTP expansion f.Receiving Stream 8 NPDES Permit Effective Date Stream reclass./adjustment Outfall 9 Chemical Addendum Submittal Date Outfall relocation/adjustment -1Receiving Stream: Little Sugar Creek OA,cfs: 47 10 NPDES Permit Public Notice Date 7Q10 update ❑ Stream Class C 7Q10(S),cfs: 3.4 11 eDMR data evaluated from: e1112016 to ivallz0z. Other POC review trigger,explain: Oufall Lat. 33.09.08 N Outfall Long. 80.51.19W 12 a.WWTP Capacity Summary Outfall ll 13 Current Permitted Flaw,mgd 1 20.0 m tligned Flow, 20.0 Receiving Stream: OA,cfs: 14 Permitted SIU Flow,mgd 1.592 d.IU Summary Stream Class 7Q10,cfs: 15 b.PT Docs.Summary #IUs 11 Oufall Let. Derrell Long. 16 IW S approval date 10/19/2020 #SIUs 6 Is there a PW S intake downstream of the Facility's Outfalll 0 YES ❑ NO 17 LJSTMP approval date: 7/6/2018 #Clue 5 Comments: #NSCIUs B 18 Facility is approximately 9 miles HWA-AT approval date 7/13/2018 #IUs w/Local upstream of the SC/NC border;Treating this trader as W S bm,d,ry;Addite-Ily,the Sugar Creek WWTP has a future capacity Outfell 002 permitl fo tter 11 Permits or Other 8.0 MGD. 19 Types 20 ? IL 2. Industrial Users'Information. 21 2i# Industrial Lear(IU)Name IU Activity IU Non Conventional Pollutans&Toxic Pollutant IUP Effective Date '€ 1 Allied Metal Finising,Inc. Metal Finisher Flow,ammonia,COD,cadmium,chromium,copper,cyanide,lead,nickel,silver,phosphorous,TSS,TTO,zinc,pH 4/1/2022 22 d 23 U) 2 ALSCO,Inc. Laundry Flow,ammonia,CBOD,COD,cyanide,copper,max flow rate,nickel,oil&grease,phosphorous,TSS,TTO,zinc,pH 12/1/2022 w 8 A.O.Smith Corporation Metal Finisher Flow,ammonia,silver,COD,cadmium,chromium,copper,cyanide,nickel,oil&grease,lead,phosphorous,TSS,TTO,zinc,pH 7/1/2019 24 a Z 4 Barnhardt MFG. Textile Flow,ammonia,CBOD,COD,copper,nickel,phosphorous,oil&grease,TSS,zinc,pH 8/1/2020 25 s Cargill,Inc. Veg.Oil Flow,ammonia,CBOD,chromium,COD,nickel,oil&grease,phosphorous,TSS,zinc,pH 1/1/2022 26 Refinery a Charleston Spar,Inc. Metal Finisher Flow,ammonia,COD,cadmium,chromium,copper,cyanide,lead,nickel,silver,phosphorous,TSS,TTO,zinc,pH 12/1/2021 27 7 Hardcoatings,Inc. Metal Finisher Flow,ammonia,COD,cadmium,chromium,copper,cyanide,lead,nickel,silver,oil&grease,TSS,TTO,zinc,pH 8/1/2021 28 8 Haz-Mat Environmental Services,LLC CWT Flow,ammonia,CBOD,cadmium,chromium,copper,COD,cyanide,lead,molybdenum,nickel,oil&grease,phosphorous,TSS,zinc,pH,tin, 6/1/2020 barium,cobalt,antimony,bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,carbazole,n-decane,flucranthene,n-octadecane,benzene,ethylbenzene,toluene,xylene, 29 TTO 9 IN olk Southern Railway Company-Charlotte Roadway Maint.Facility Flow,ammonia,COD,cadmium,chromium,copper,lead,molybdenum,oil&grease,phosphorous,TSS,zinc,pH 5/1/2022 30 Sho 10 Orbit Energy Charlotte LLC Food Waste Flow,ammonia,CBOD,COD,chromium,copper,mercury,cyanide,oil&grease,nickel,nitrogen,silver,TSS,molybdenum,selenium,zinc,pH, 9/27/2021 31 1 Recycler phosphorous,PCB,TTO 11 �Unifirst Corporation Indust.Laundry Flow,ammonia,CBOD,cadmium,COD,chromium,cyanide,lead,molybdenum,nickel,oil&grease,phosphorous,TSS,TTO,zinc,pH 4/1/2018 32 Comment: Recommend adding 1,4-dioxane monitoring to all metal finishers 37 38 3.Status of Pretreatment Program(check all that apply) 39 Status of Pretreatment Program(check all that apply) 40 1)facility has no SIU's,does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE 41 2)facility has no SIU's,does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program 42 ❑3)facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program 43 p 3a)Full Program with LTMP 44 ❑ 3b)Modified Program with STMP 45 4)additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below 46 5)facility's sludge is being land applied or composted 47 6)facility's sludge is incinerated(add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to §503.43) 48 7)facility's sludge is taken to a landfill,if yes which landfill: JL 49 8)other 50 Sludge Disposal Plan: Biosolids residuals are permitted,managed,and disposed under a contract with Synagro.Land application and land filling are the means for ultimate use of the residuals 51 52 53 Sludge Permit No: W00000057 Sq IF 4.LTMP/STMP and HWA Review 55 PW:Find L/STMP document,HWA spreadsheet,DMR,previous and new NPDES permit for next section. a Parameter of Concern New Previous Required by POC due to POC due to POTW % USTMP NPDES Comment (POC)Check List NPDES NPDES EPA PT(1) Sludge(2) SIU(3) POC (4)Removal Effluent Freq. Effluent Freq. m POC POC Rate PQLs review J 56 U IL PQL from Required PQL Recomm. LISTMP,ugll per NPDES PQL,ugll 57 permit 58 0 Flow ❑ ❑p ❑ ❑ 59 2 BOD Li o o ❑ 60 f] TSS ❑ (] ❑2 ❑ 61 ❑p NH3 ❑ ❑p p ❑ 62 ❑� Arsenic ❑ ❑ ❑, ❑ ❑ 2.0 63 ❑ Barium ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 64 ❑ Berylliurl ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ 65 O Cadmium(1) ❑ ❑ p 17 0 ❑ 0.5 66 Chromium(1) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑, ❑ 5.0 67 Copper(1) ❑ ❑v O ❑' ❑' ❑ 2.0 68 [Z Cyanide ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 69 Lead(1) ❑ ❑ o o p ❑ 2.0 70 O Mercury(5) ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ 0.001 71 0 Molybdenum ❑ ❑ p 0 ❑ 10.0 72 p Nickel(1) ❑ p o 0 0 ❑ 73 p Selenium ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ 1.0 74 ❑+ silver ❑ o ❑ ❑' ❑ 1.0 75 (] Zinc(l) ❑ ❑ ❑o 17 ❑+ ❑ 10.0 76 ❑ Sludge Flow to Disposal ❑� 1111 77 ❑ %Solids to Disposal ❑2 ❑ ❑ 78 p Oil&Grease ❑ ❑ 79 f7 TN ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ 80 O TP ❑ ❑+ ❑+ ❑ 81 ❑ PFAS 1633 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 82 11,4 Dioxane ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 83 p COD ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 84 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 85 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 86 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 87 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 88 Footnotes: 89 (1)Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA-PT requirement 90 (2)Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit 91 (3)Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW 92 (4)Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW 93 (5)In LTMP/STMP,if sewage sludge is incinerated 94 Please use blue font for the info updated by pw 95 Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modUled In USTMP sampling plan 96 POC 97 Blue shaded cell(D60:H81): I Parameters usually included undo that POC list 98 5.Commen Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action: POC to be added/modified in USTMP: 99 Page 1 POC Review Form(1) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P ORC's comments on IU/POC: 100 POC submitted through Chemical Addendum or Supplemental Chemical 101 Datasheet: Additional pollutants added to USTMP due 102 to POTWs concerns: 103 NPDES pals comments on IU/POC: 104 6.Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal 105 NPDES Permit Effective Date 1180 days after effective(date): Permit writer,please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter. Page 2 POC Review Form(1) Coco, Nick A From: Sypolt, Shannon <Shannon.Sypolt@charlottenc.gov> Sent: Monday,July 3, 2023 9:44 AM To: Coco, Nick A Subject: [External] Sugar Creek WWTP (NC0024937) - CLTWater Response to NCDWR's Request for Additional Information Regarding Outfall #002 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Good morning Nick, Please see the information that you requested regarding Sugar's Outfall #002 for the completion of the Sugar WWTP NPDES permit renewal package: Charlotte Water is requesting that the authorization to discharge from Outfall #002 remain in the Sugar Creek WWTP (Sugar Creek) NPDES permit. This is to address the approaching need for expanding the facility that will likely occur within the authorization period of the next permit cycle. In 2007, Charlotte Water began an expansion study and design that would increase the capacity of Sugar Creek to 28 MGD. This expansion would allow CLTWater to eliminate or minimize future flow transfers from Sugar Creek to McAlpine Creek WWMF. The design of the expansion to 28 MGD was stopped at the 90 percent milestone in 2009 due to the downturn in the economy and slowed growth in the flows to Sugar Creek during that time. Since then,flows have steadily increased. The Sugar Creek expansion report identified the need for the following facilities to be constructed on the west side of Sugar Creek: two (2) Primary Clarifiers, Additional Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities,four(4)Aeriation Basins, blower building, two (2)final clarifiers, effluent filter structure, UV Disinfection Structure, Reclaimed Water Facility, and Cascade Aeration. Charlotte Water's Wastewater System Master plan was completed in December of 2022 and identified the need for Charlotte Water to resume planning for the expansion of Sugar Creek. The current and existing facility will continue to operate as Charlotte Water constructs additional facilities on the western side of Sugar Creek's plant property to increase total capacity to 28 MGD. Respectfully, Shannon Sypolt Water Quality Program Administrator Environmental Management CHARLOTTE ftTER 4222 Westmont Drive/Charlotte, NC 28217 P: 704-336-4581 /C: 704-634-6984/ charlottewater.org 1