NC0023965_Fact Sheet_20240112

Page 1 of 12

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0023965
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Nick Coco, [e-mail]
Date: December 29, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017

Permitting Action:
☒ Renewal
☐ Renewal with Expansion
☐ New Discharge
☐ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)

Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.

Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.

1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA)/James A. Loughlin
(Northside) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address: 235 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403
Facility Address: 2311 North 23rd Street, Wilmington NC 28401
Permitted Flow: 16.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR / Municipal: 98.5% Domestic, 1.5% Industrial*
Facility Class: Grade IV
Treatment Units: Bar Screens, Grit Removal, Clarifiers, Aeration, Filtration, UV
Disinfection, Anaerobic Digestion, Sludge Dewatering
Pretreatment Program (Y/N) Yes
County: New Hanover
Region Wilmington
*Based on permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: CFPUA applied for an NPDES
permit renewal at 16.0 MGD for the Northside WWTP on June 7, 2023. This facility serves a population
of approximately 88,000 residents as well as 6 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), including 2 categorical
industrial users (CIUs), via an approved pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial
wastewater is discharged into the Cape Fear River, a class SC; PNA waterbody in the Cape Fear River
Basin. By Authorization to Construct (A to C) for expansion to 16 MGD, the Division approved a new
effluent force main and outfall (Outfall 002 with diffuser) approximately parallel to the existing effluent
force main. The Permittee shall sample final treated effluent upstream of any flow split to effluent pump
stations or discharge force mains. The Division acknowledges separate outfalls, however due to their
proximity and the single sampling regime conducted prior to splitting, the Division shall designate and

Page 2 of 12

regulate this discharge as a single outfall (Outfall 001). The Division may reopen this permit to designate
separate outfalls.

Sludge disposal: Sludge is land applied via WQ0001271.

Inflow and Infiltration (I/I): In their application, CFPUA noted an estimated average daily I/I flow of 1.4
MGD. CFPUA makes ongoing capital investments to identify and prioritize gravity sewer basins subject
to infiltration and inflow and expiring asset life cycles then rehabilitate or replaces gravity sewer mains
and manholes based on those priorities.

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfalls 001 and 0021 –Cape Fear River
Stream Segment: 18-71
Stream Classification: SC;PNA2
Drainage Area (mi2): NA
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 487.78 (modeled)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): Tidal
30Q2 (cfs): Tidal
Average Flow (cfs): Tidal
IWC (% effluent): 4.83 (modeled)
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: This segment is listed as exceeding criteria for DO (5 mg/L)
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Statewide TMDL for Mercury
Basin/HUC: 03-06-17 / 03030005 Lower Cape Fear
USGS Topo Quad: K 27 NW / Wilmington, NC
1Two outfalls, parallel force mains spaced 400 feet apart, are acknowledged by DWR in the current
permit. However, discharge is designated and regulated as a single outfall (Outfall 001) due to their
proximity to each other and the sampling regime that is conducted prior to flow split. No changes are
proposed.
2The receiving waterbody is designated as Primary Nursery Area (PNA) per 15A NCAC 03R
.0103(19)(a).

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of June 2019 through October 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfalls 001 and 002 – considered combined 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 9.9 33.713 5.904 MA 16.0
BOD summer mg/l 2.3 5 < 2 WA 7.5
MA 5.0
BOD winter mg/l 2.4 6 < 2 WA 15.0
MA 10.0
NH3N summer mg/l 0.3 2.97 < 0.1 WA 3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter mg/l 0.3 2.23 0.25 WA 6.0
MA 2.0

Page 3 of 12

TSS mg/l 2.5 8 < 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
pH SU 7.3 8.2 6.7 6.8 ≥ pH ≤
8.5
Enterococci #/100 ml (geomean)
1.7 370 < 1
(geometric)
WA 276
MA 35
DO mg/l 7.7 9.4 6.2 DA ≥6.0
Temperature ° C 23.1 29 15 Monitor &
Report
TN mg/l 18.4 27 11.4 Monitor &
Report
TP mg/l 3.4 4.4 2.25 Monitor &
Report
MA-Monthly Average, WA-Weekly Average, DM-Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP)
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for temperature and dissolved oxygen.
Instream monitoring is conducted upstream in the NE Cape Fear River at the NC Hwy 133 crossing (U1),
upstream in the Cape Fear River downstream of the railroad bridge at Navassa, and downstream at
Channel Marker 61 in the Cape Fear River. As the permittee is a member of the LCFRP, instream
monitoring requirements are provisionally waived. The instream locations correspond to ambient
monitoring system station (AMS) B9740000 – NE Cape Fear River at NC 133 at Wilmington (U1);
LCFRP station B9050025 – Cape Fear River downstream of RR bridge at Navassa (U2); and LCFRP
station B9050025 – Cape Fear River at Channel Marker 61 at Wilmington (D).
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary 2018 - 2022
Parameter Units U1 (B9740000) U2 (B9050025) D (B9800000)
Average Max Min Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 18.3 29.3 7 21.4 31.5 6 21.5 31.1 4
DO mg/l 7.2 11 2.5 6.4 11.2 3.2 6.4 12.1 3.1
Ammonia mg/l 0.07 0.28 0.02 0.07 0.18 0.02 0.11 0.51 0.02
NO2+NO3 mg/l 0.44 0.72 0.26 0.5 1.61 0.02 0.41 0.8 0.02
TKN mg/l 0.73 2.1 0.48 0.9 2.47 0.1 0.9 3.18 0.1
TP mg/l 0.11 0.48 0.06 0.3 2.04 0.02 0.23 2.21 0.03
pH s.u. 6.7 7.5 5.7 6.8 7.6 5.9 7.0 8 5.9

Page 4 of 12

TSS mg/l 12.3 22 8 12.9 45.2 2.9 11.5 35.4 4.4
Fecal
Coliform
#/100
ml
(geomean)
53.1 370 14 (geomean)
33.9
230 2 (geomean)
47.1*
470* 12*
Turbidity NTUs 8.7 17 2.3 11.6 30.2 1.2 8.3 30.3 2.5
*AMS Station B9800000 data used for fecal coliform comparisons. No LCFRP data were available.
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05.
Downstream temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0220 (17)] at any
station during the period reviewed. As sampling events at each of the monitoring stations did not occur
concurrently between U1 and D, an assessment of temperature increase could not be made. However,
sampling occurred concurrently between U2 and D. It was observed that downstream temperature was
greater than upstream (U2) temperature by more than 0.8 degrees Celsius during the months of June, July
and August on 4 occasions during the period reviewed. It was concluded that while a statistically
significant difference exists between U1 and D temperature, no statistically significant difference exists
between U2 and D temperature. Monitoring has been maintained.
Average downstream DO was above 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0220 (5)] during the period reviewed.
Downstream DO was observed at levels less than 4.0 mg/L on 1 occasion during the period reviewed.
However, upstream DO was observed at levels less than 4.0 mg/L more frequently at both upstream
locations during the period reviewed. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists
between U1 and downstream DO, with upstream DO being slightly higher than downstream DO on
average. However, it was also concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between U2 and
downstream DO. Monitoring has been maintained.
Fecal coliform was monitored by the AMS system and monitoring coalition. It was concluded that no
statistically significant difference exists between either upstream station and downstream fecal coliform.
While ambient pH was observed outside the range of 6.8 to 8.5 standard units [per 15A NCAC 02B .0220
(12)] at all stations during the period reviewed, concurrent effluent data were consistently within the
range of 6.0 and 9.0 standard units. As such, it does not appear that the effluent is influencing downstream
pH. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between both upstream stations and
downstream pH, with downstream pH being generally higher. Based on this review, instream monitoring
for pH has been added at a monthly frequency.
Ambient turbidity was observed at levels greater than 25 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B .0220 (19)] on one
occasion downstream and on 3 occasions at U2 during the period reviewed. On no occasion during the
period reviewed was turbidity observed at a level greater than 25 NTUs at U1. It was concluded that no
statistically significant difference exists between U1 and D turbidity. It was concluded that a statistically
significant difference exists between both upstream stations and downstream turbidity, with downstream
turbidity being generally lower.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were monitored by the AMS system and monitoring coalition. It was
concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between either upstream station and
downstream TSS.
Ammonia, NO2+NO3, TKN, and TP were monitored by the AMS system and monitoring coalition. It was
concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between either upstream station and
downstream TKN. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between U1 and
downstream TP, with upstream TP being slightly higher than downstream DO on average. However, it
was also concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between U2 and downstream TP.

Page 5 of 12

Conversely, it was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between U2 and downstream
NO2+NO3, with downstream NO2+NO3 being slightly higher than downstream NO2+NO3 on average.
while no statistically significant difference exists between U1 and downstream NO2+NO3. It was
concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between both upstream stations and downstream
ammonia, with downstream ammonia being generally higher. Based on this review, instream monitoring
for ammonia, NO2+NO3, TKN, and TP has been added to the permit at a monthly frequency. This
requirement is provisionally waived while the Permittee is a member of LCFRP.
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations from October 2018 through October 2023.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 19 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from February 2019 to August 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in April 2023 reported that the facility was compliant. The last pretreatment inspection conducted in June
2022 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results):
Modeling was performed in 2008, resulting in dilution factors of 20.7 for Outfall 001 and 22.7 for Outfall
002. An instream waste concentration (IWC) of 4.83% effluent at 16 MGD was calculated from the more
conservative 20.7 dilution factor and was set for the permit issued in 2012. No changes are proposed.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: BOD and ammonia
limits are based on protection of the receiving water that is a designated primary nursery area (PNA) per
15A NCAC 03R .0103(19)(a). PNAs are defined as a type of High Quality Water (HQW); HQW areas
receive additional protection via more stringent effluent limits for oxygen-consuming wastes per 15A
NCAC 02B .0224. No changes are proposed.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.

Page 6 of 12

Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/l) 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 chosen and used 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. This does not imply that
chlorination is the expected backup disinfection means and should not be interpreted as a requirement for
chlorination.
See Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations for background information regarding the existing ammonia
limitations. 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 ½ 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 August 2019
and August 2023. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Cyanide,
Total Lead, Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc, Cobalt,
Strontium, Tin
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans (2020, 2021 and 2022)
were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None

Page 7 of 12

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
Phenolic Compounds

If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging “complex” wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency at both flow tiers (12.8 MGD & 16.0 MGD).
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/l) 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/l) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
# of Samples 3 6 4 4 3
Annual Average Conc. ng/L 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.25 0.89
Maximum Conc., ng/L 2.01 1.91 0.93 1.67 1.24
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 258.4
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. However, since the facility is >2 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1
ng/l), the mercury minimization plan (MMP) has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA

Page 8 of 12

Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table.

In their application, CFPUA provided the chemical addendum and informed the Division that additional
sampling for 1,4-dioxane had been conducted. 1,4-dioxane was not detected during the sampling event.
As such, no monitoring requirements for 1,4-dioxane have been added.

In addition to the chemical addendum, CFPUA informed the Division of proactive sampling efforts they
have conducted for analytes without EPA-certified methodologies, including PFAS compounds. CFPUA
reported the presence of some PFAS compounds in their application. The North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) issued a fish consumption advisory for PFOS and PFOA in the
freshwater portion of the Cape Fear River above the discharge and intends to investigate the saltwater
portions further for determination of need for a health advisory.

As the facility has identified PFAS compounds in its effluent and NCDHHS has identified a fish
consumption health advisory for two PFAS compounds near the discharge, and since a finalized EPA
method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently available, influent and effluent
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 CFPUA 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, CFPUA shall conduct effluent monitoring using the Final Method 1633 and is no
longer required to conduct influent and effluent monitoring.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: The receiving stream, the Lower Cape Fear
River, is designated a primary nursery area (PNA) under 15A NCAC 03R .0103(19)(a). To protect this
type of HQW, the following effluent limitations as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0224 for new or
expanded discharges (the facility expanded to 16 MGD in November 2014) are in the current permit:
BOD5 = 5 mg/L, DO = 6 mg/L and a safety factor of ½ normal standard is included for individual toxics.
TSS limits were not reduced to the HQW level of 20 mg/L (for non-trout HQW waters) as a special
condition is in the current permit to ensure that the tertiary filters are not taken offline during normal
operations [see Section A.(7.)]. This condition was put in place as the facility had already designed for
expansion to 16 MGD at the writing of the expansion permit in 2012. The previous fact sheet indicated
that, should the facility expand further in the future, TSS limits will be reduced to the HQW level and the
special condition will be modified. However, a comparison of effluent TSS data to the HQW level
indicate consistent compliance with the more protective limit [See Figure 1 below]. As such, TSS limits
have been revised to reflect requirements for HQW waters outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0224.

Page 9 of 12

Figure 1. Comparison of Effluent TSS to HQW Requirement

The current permit contains a special condition Filter Bypass Prohibition in a Primary Nursery Area
(PNA), which has been maintained.
The current permit contains a special condition stating “the Division recognizes that prior to issuance of
the permit, the James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP was permitted to discharge with secondary limits
of 30.0 mg/L BOD5, 30.0 mg/L TSS, and no limit for NH3 as N. At the permitted flow of 8.0 MGD, these
limits translate approximately to mass loads of 365 tons per year (tpy) BOD5, 365 tpy TSS, and 244 tpy
NH3 as N (assuming 20 mg/L). The mass loads described in this paragraph will be one factor the Division
considers when developing future wasteload allocations resulting from the TMDL process or when
considering future expansion requests for the James A. Loughlin WWTP.” This condition is no longer
relevant, considering the receiving stream is PNA waters and more restrictive limitations for BOD5, TSS
and NH3 as N are required under 15A NCAC 02B .0224. As such, the special condition has been removed
from the permit.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
0
5
10
15
20
25
9/7/2018 7/4/2019 4/29/2020 2/23/2021 12/20/2021 10/16/2022 8/12/2023 6/7/2024
TSS Monthly Average [mg/L]Date
TSS Comparison
TSS MAs TSS Proposed MA Limit

Page 10 of 12

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 (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: N/A
The current permit contains a special condition outlining the exceptions to the Antibacksliding rule. This
condition has been removed, as the rule exceptions are outlined in Section 402(o)(2) of the Clean Water
Act.
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.
CFPUA has requested continuation of 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and enterococci based
on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility’s data for these parameters have
been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on this review, 2/week
monitoring frequency has been applied for BOD, ammonia, enterococci, and TSS.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Combined Outfall 001
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 16.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5 Summer:
MA 5.0 mg/l
WA 7.5 mg/l
Winter:
MA 10.0 mg/l
WA 15.0 mg/l
Monitor and report 2/week
No change WQBEL. 15A NCAC 02B .0224;
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies
in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities

Page 11 of 12

NH3-N Summer:
MA 1.0 mg/l
WA 3.0 mg/l
Winter:
MA 2.0 mg/l
WA 6.0 mg/l
Monitor and report 2/week
No change WQBEL. 15A NCAC 02B .0224;
verified with 2023 WLA; 2012 DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
TSS MA 30 mg/l
WA 45 mg/l
Monitor and report 2/week
MA 20 mg/l
WA 30 mg/l
Monitor and report
2/week
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 02B .0224.
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies
in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Enterococci MA 35 /100ml
WA 276 /100ml
Monitor and report 2/week
No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Temperature Monitor and Report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0508
DO > 6 mg/l
Monitor and Report Daily
No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
pH 6.8 – 8.5 SU
Monitor and Report Daily
No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
.0500
Total
Residual
Chlorine
No requirement DM 28 ug/L
Monitor and Report
Daily
WQBEL. 2023 WLA. Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 –
active if chlorination is used
TKN Monitor and Report Monthly No change For calculation of TN
NO2+NO3 Monitor and Report Monthly No change For calculation of TN
Total
Nitrogen
Monitor and Report Monthly No change

Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total
Phosphorus
Monitor and Report Monthly No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
PFAS No requirement
See Special
Condition A.(5.)
PFAS Monitoring
Requirements
Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
discharging above WS waters;
Identified presence and DHHS
advisory
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 4.8% effluent No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
2B.0500
Effluent
Pollutant
Scan
Three times per permit cycle No change;
conducted in 2025,
2026, 2027
40 CFR 122
Instream
Monitoring
Monitor and Report for
temperature and dissolved
oxygen at U1, U2, and D;
3/week during June through
September and 1/week
during remainder of the
year; LCFRP waiver
Add monthly
instream monitoring
for ammonia, TKN,
NOx, TP and pH at
U1, U2 and D
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0508; Instream
monitoring review

Page 12 of 12

Mercury
Minimization
Plan (MMP)
MMP Special Condition No change Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation –
multiple detections during review
Stipulation
of Parallel
Force Mains
Special Condition A.(3.) Condition
maintained;
rearranged to
Special Condition
A.(6.)
Division approved effluent force main
and outfall (Outfall 002 with diffuser)
approximately parallel to the existing
effluent force main. Division shall
designate and regulate this discharge
as a single outfall (Outfall 001).
Filter Bypass
Prohibition
in PNA
Special Condition A.(4.) Condition
maintained;
rearranged to
Special Condition
A.(7.)
Protection of PNA waters
Historical
Permit
Limits
Special Condition A.(7.) Remove condition Facility subject to PNA protections
under 15A NCAC 02B .0224
Anti-
Backsliding
Special Condition A.(8.) Remove condition Condition reiterates Section 402(o)(2)
of the Clean Water Act; not necessary
as a special condition.
Electronic
Reporting
Electronic Reporting Special
Condition
No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
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 [phone] or via email at [e-mail].

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 – Saltwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• Additional information Requested
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• PFAS Monitoring Data
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Name WQS Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Northside WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquatic Life C 36 SW 69 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class Grade IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0023965 Par03 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 7.9 SW 33.2 ug/L
Outfall 001 + 002 (Combined 001)Par04 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A 10 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD)16.000 Par05 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 50.4 SW 1107.8 ug/L
Receiving Stream Northeast Cape Fear River Par06 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A SW N/A ug/L
Stream Class Par07 Copper Aquatic Life NC 3.7 SW 5.8 ug/L
7Q10s (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par08 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 1 SW 1 10 ug/L
7Q10w (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par09 Lead Aquatic Life NC 8.5 SW 220.8 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par10 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 25 SW 0.5 ng/L
QA (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par11 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2.0 HH mg/L
1Q10s (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par12 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 8.3 SW 74.7 ug/L
CHRONIC IWC% = 4.83 Par13 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 71 SW ug/L
CHRONIC DILUITION FACTOR =20.7000 Par14 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.1 SW 2.2 ug/L
Data Source(s)Par15 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 85.6 SW 95.1 ug/L
Par16 Cobalt Human Health NC 4 HH µg/L
Par17 Strontium Human Health NC 40000 HH µg/L
Par18 Tin Human Health NC 800 HH µg/L
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Saltwater RPA 95% Probablity/95% Confidence
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Saltwater streams are tidal resulting in all IWC % = 100%. If
an approved model is conducted then a chronic dilution
factor is determined and can be applied to a discharge to
calculate its IWC % . If a stream is classified as a SA or
ORW then its is also classified as a HQW. The appropriate
IWC % must be defined to properly calculate WQS-based
limits.
To apply a Model IWC%: Enter
the "Flow, Qw, (MGD)" and the
"CHRONIC DILUTION FACTOR
=" values and the CHRONIC
IWC% is calculated and
displayed. The CHRONIC IWC%
is automatically applied to
calculate the parameter's
Allowable Cw values both chronic
and acute.
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
NOTE: The aquatic life chronic and acute WQS for several metals are calculated based on EPA conversion factors,
see "Diss. SW stds. As TM" for more details and summary of calculated WQS..
CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,input
1/8/2024
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Arsenic Cadmium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/6/2019 1.3 1.3 Std Dev.0.7661 1 8/6/2019 <0.1 0.05 Std Dev.0.1049
2 11/5/2019 1.2 1.2 Mean 1.3388 2 11/5/2019 <0.1 0.05 Mean 0.1541
3 2/4/2020 <1 0.5 C.V.0.5723 3 2/4/2020 <0.1 0.05 C.V.0.6805
4 5/5/2020 1.2 1.2 n 17 4 5/5/2020 <0.1 0.05 n 17
5 8/11/2020 1.1 1.1 5 8/11/2020 <0.1 0.05
6 11/3/2020 1.1 1.1 Mult Factor =1.4200 6 11/3/2020 <0.08 0.04 Mult Factor =1.5000
7 2/2/2021 0.8 0.8 Max. Value 3.2 ug/L 7 2/2/2021 <0.08 0.04 Max. Value 0.25 ug/L
8 5/4/2021 1.2 1.2 Max. Pred Cw 4.5 ug/L 8 5/4/2021 <0.08 0.04 Max. Pred Cw 0.38 ug/L
9 8/3/2021 1.13 1.13 9 8/3/2021 <0.5 0.25
10 11/2/2021 2.47 2.47 10 11/2/2021 <0.5 0.25
11 2/8/2022 2.01 2.01 11 2/8/2022 <0.5 0.25
12 5/10/2022 2.08 2.08 12 5/10/2022 <0.5 0.25
13 8/2/2022 2 2 13 8/2/2022 <0.5 0.25
14 11/8/2022 3.17 3.17 14 11/8/2022 <0.5 0.25
15 2/7/2023 <1 0.5 15 2/7/2023 <0.5 0.25
16 5/2/2023 <1 0.5 16 5/2/2023 <0.5 0.25
17 8/1/2023 <1 0.5 17 8/1/2023 <0.5 0.25
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Total Phenolic Compounds Chromium, Total
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/3/2020 11.7 11.7 Std Dev.3.8682 1 8/6/2019 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.4016
2 5/3/2021 <5 5 Mean 7.2333 2 11/5/2019 <1 0.5 Mean 0.7629
3 8/1/2022 <5 5 C.V. (default)0.6000 3 2/4/2020 <1 0.5 C.V.0.5264
4 n 3 4 5/5/2020 <1 0.5 n 17
5 5 8/11/2020 1.1 1.1
6 Mult Factor =3.0000 6 11/3/2020 0.58 0.58 Mult Factor =1.3800
7 Max. Value 11.7 ug/L 7 2/2/2021 <0.5 0.25 Max. Value 1.5 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 35.1 ug/L 8 5/4/2021 1.5 1.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.1 ug/L
9 9 8/3/2021 <1 0.5
10 10 11/2/2021 1.16 1.16
11 11 2/8/2022 1.26 1.26
12 12 5/10/2022 1.34 1.34
13 13 8/2/2022 <1 0.5
14 14 11/8/2022 1.28 1.28
15 15 2/7/2023 <1 0.5
16 16 5/2/2023 <1 0.5
17 17 8/1/2023 <1 0.5
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Copper Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/6/2019 2 2 Std Dev.0.6611 1 8/5/2019 <8 5 Std Dev.0.0000
2 11/5/2019 3 3 Mean 2.5488 2 11/4/2019 <8 5 Mean 5.0000
3 2/4/2020 3 3 C.V.0.2594 3 2/3/2020 <5 5 C.V.0.0000
4 5/5/2020 2 2 n 17 4 5/4/2020 <8 5 n 17
5 8/11/2020 1.6 1.6 5 8/10/2020 <8 5
6 11/3/2020 1.8 1.8 Mult Factor =1.1800 6 11/2/2020 <8 5 Mult Factor =1.0000
7 2/2/2021 2.7 2.7 Max. Value 4.12 ug/L 7 2/1/2021 <8 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 5/4/2021 2.7 2.7 Max. Pred Cw 4.86 ug/L 8 5/3/2021 <5 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L
9 8/3/2021 2.35 2.35 9 8/2/2021 <10 5
10 11/2/2021 2.83 2.83 10 11/1/2021 <10 5
11 2/8/2022 3.44 3.44 11 2/7/2022 <10 5
12 5/10/2022 4.12 4.12 12 5/9/2022 <10 5
13 8/2/2022 1.84 1.84 13 8/1/2022 <10 5
14 11/8/2022 2.46 2.46 14 11/7/2022 <10 5
15 2/7/2023 2.75 2.75 15 2/6/2023 <10 5
16 5/2/2023 2.86 2.86 16 5/1/2023 <10 5
17 8/1/2023 1.88 1.88 17 8/1/2023 <10 5
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Lead Molybdenum
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/6/2019 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.1777 1 8/6/2019 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.7880
2 11/5/2019 <1 0.5 Mean 0.1918 2 11/5/2019 1.8 1.8 Mean 1.0824
3 2/4/2020 <1 0.5 C.V.0.9268 3 2/4/2020 3.3 3.3 C.V.0.7280
4 5/5/2020 <1 0.5 n 17 4 5/5/2020 <1 0.5 n 17
5 8/11/2020 <0.1 0.05 5 8/11/2020 0.65 0.65
6 11/3/2020 0.1 0.1 Mult Factor =1.68 6 11/3/2020 0.65 0.65 Mult Factor =1.5300
7 2/2/2021 <0.1 0.05 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 2/2/2021 <0.5 0.25 Max. Value 3.3 mg/L
8 5/4/2021 0.16 0.16 Max. Pred Cw 0.84 ug/L 8 5/4/2021 <0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 mg/L
9 8/3/2021 <0.2 0.1 9 8/3/2021 <5 2.5
10 11/2/2021 <0.2 0.1 10 11/2/2021 <2 1
11 2/8/2022 <0.2 0.1 11 2/8/2022 <2 1
12 5/10/2022 <0.2 0.1 12 5/10/2022 <2 1
13 8/2/2022 <0.2 0.1 13 8/2/2022 <2 1
14 11/8/2022 <0.2 0.1 14 11/8/2022 <2 1
15 2/7/2023 <0.2 0.1 15 2/7/2023 <2 1
16 5/2/2023 <0.2 0.1 16 5/2/2023 <2 1
17 8/1/2023 <0.2 0.1 17 8/1/2023 <2 1
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Nickel Selenium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/6/2019 1.9 1.9 Std Dev.0.2580 1 8/6/2019 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.1742
2 11/5/2019 1.7 1.7 Mean 1.4994 2 11/5/2019 <1 0.5 Mean 0.4706
3 2/4/2020 1.4 1.4 C.V.0.1721 3 2/4/2020 <1 0.5 C.V.0.3701
4 5/5/2020 1.2 1.2 n 17 4 5/5/2020 <2 1 n 17
5 8/11/2020 1.3 1.3 5 8/11/2020 <0.5 0.25
6 11/3/2020 1.7 1.7 Mult Factor =1.1200 6 11/3/2020 <0.5 0.25 Mult Factor =1.2700
7 2/2/2021 1.2 1.2 Max. Value 1.93 ug/L 7 2/2/2021 <0.5 0.25 Max. Value 1.0 ug/L
8 5/4/2021 1.4 1.4 Max. Pred Cw 2.16 ug/L 8 5/4/2021 <0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw 1.3 ug/L
9 8/3/2021 1.85 1.85 9 8/3/2021 <1 0.5
10 11/2/2021 1.35 1.35 10 11/2/2021 <1 0.5
11 2/8/2022 1.5 1.5 11 2/8/2022 <1 0.5
12 5/10/2022 1.93 1.93 12 5/10/2022 <1 0.5
13 8/2/2022 1.48 1.48 13 8/2/2022 <1 0.5
14 11/8/2022 1.78 1.78 14 11/8/2022 <1 0.5
15 2/7/2023 1.28 1.28 15 2/7/2023 <1 0.5
16 5/2/2023 1.34 1.34 16 5/2/2023 <1 0.5
17 8/1/2023 1.18 1.18 17 8/1/2023 <1 0.5
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Silver Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/6/2019 <0.1 0.05 Std Dev.0.0664 1 8/6/2019 32 32 Std Dev.5.5293
2 11/5/2019 <0.1 0.05 Mean 0.0735 2 11/5/2019 38 38 Mean 28.8529
3 2/4/2020 <0.1 0.05 C.V.0.9033 3 2/4/2020 28.1 28.1 C.V.0.1916
4 5/5/2020 <0.5 0.25 n 17 4 5/5/2020 31 31 n 17
5 8/11/2020 <0.5 0.25 5 8/11/2020 26.9 26.9
6 11/3/2020 <0.1 0.05 Mult Factor =1.6600 6 11/3/2020 24.7 24.7 Mult Factor =1.1300
7 2/2/2021 <0.1 0.05 Max. Value 0.25 ug/L 7 2/2/2021 24.2 24.2 Max. Value 38.0 ug/L
8 5/4/2021 <0.1 0.05 Max. Pred Cw 0.42 ug/L 8 5/4/2021 37.9 37.9 Max. Pred Cw 42.9 ug/L
9 8/3/2021 <0.1 0.05 9 8/3/2021 21.5 21.5
10 11/2/2021 <0.1 0.05 10 11/2/2021 26.4 26.4
11 2/8/2022 <0.1 0.05 11 2/8/2022 34.5 34.5
12 5/10/2022 <0.1 0.05 12 5/10/2022 36 36
13 8/2/2022 <0.1 0.05 13 8/2/2022 26.7 26.7
14 11/8/2022 <0.1 0.05 14 11/8/2022 32.4 32.4
15 2/7/2023 <0.1 0.05 15 2/7/2023 26.4 26.4
16 5/2/2023 <0.1 0.05 16 5/2/2023 20.7 20.7
17 8/1/2023 <0.1 0.05 17 8/1/2023 23.1 23.1
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Cobalt Strontium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/6/2019 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.8575 1 8/6/2019 316 316 Std Dev.50.1920
2 11/5/2019 <1 0.5 Mean 1.2224 2 43774 198 198 Mean 165.8824
3 2/4/2020 <1 0.5 C.V.0.7015 3 43865 197 197 C.V.0.3026
4 5/5/2020 <1 0.5 n 17 4 43956 224 224 n 17
5 8/11/2020 <0.5 0.25 5 44054 196 196
6 11/3/2020 0.15 0.15 Mult Factor =1.5200 6 44138 171 171 Mult Factor =1.2100
7 2/2/2021 0.13 0.13 Max. Value 2.00000 µg/L 7 44229 128 128 Max. Value 316.00000 µg/L
8 5/4/2021 <0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw 3.04000 µg/L 8 44320 141 141 Max. Pred Cw 382.36000 µg/L
9 8/3/2021 <4 2 9 44411 149 149
10 11/2/2021 <4 2 10 44502 147 147
11 2/8/2022 <4 2 11 44600 151 151
12 5/10/2022 <4 2 12 44691 166 166
13 8/2/2022 <4 2 13 44775 146 146
14 11/8/2022 <4 2 14 44873 112 112
15 2/7/2023 <4 2 15 44964 113 113
16 5/2/2023 <4 2 16 45048 122 122
17 8/1/2023 <4 2 17 45139 143 143
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Tin
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/6/2019 51.7 51.7 Std Dev.59.3891
2 11/5/2019 42.7 42.7 Mean 52.0888
3 2/4/2020 34.9 34.9 C.V.1.1402
4 5/5/2020 26.6 26.6 n 17
5 8/11/2020 101 101
6 11/3/2020 33.7 33.7 Mult Factor =1.8200
7 2/2/2021 23.8 23.8 Max. Value 248.00000 µg/L
8 5/4/2021 82 82 Max. Pred Cw 451.36000 µg/L
9 8/3/2021 81.8 81.8
10 11/2/2021 42.8 42.8
11 2/8/2022 31.5 31.5
12 5/10/2022 80.5 80.5
13 8/2/2022 248 248
14 11/8/2022 3.01 3.01
15 2/7/2023 <1 0.5
16 5/2/2023 <1 0.5
17 8/1/2023 <1 0.5
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,data
Date}
Northside WWTP Outfall 001 + 002 (Combined 001)
NC0023965 Saltwater RPA 95% Probablity/95% Confidence Qw = 16 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 16.00 WWTP/WTP Class:Grade IV
1Q10S (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 1Q10S = 5.916208042
7Q10S (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 7Q10S = 4.830917874
7Q10W (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 7Q10W = 4.830917874
30Q2 (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 30Q2 = 4.830917874
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ QA = 4.830917874
Receiving Stream:Northeast Cape Fear River Stream Class:
PARAMETER
Chronic Applied
Standard Acute n # Det.Max Pred Cw
Acute (SW):583.1
Arsenic C 18 SW(7Q10s)34.5 ug/L
17 13 4.5 Chronic (SW):372.6
No value > Allowable Cw
Arsenic C 5 HH(Qavg)ug/L Chronic (HH):103.5
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:280.58
Cadmium NC 3.97384306 SW(7Q10s)16.5995976 ug/L 17 0 0.4
Chronic:82.26
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 0.5
Acute:NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 150 A(30Q2)10.0 ug/L 3 1 35.1
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:3,105.0
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:9,362.0
Chromium VI NC 25.1762336 SW(7Q10s)553.87714 ug/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:521.1
Chromium, Total NC ug/L 17 7 2.1 Maximum reported value = 1.5
Acute:48.88
Copper NC 1.86746988 SW(7Q10s)2.89156627 ug/L 17 17 4.86
Chronic:38.66
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:8.5
Cyanide NC 0.5 SW(7Q10s)0.5 10.0 ug/L 17 0 5.0
Chronic:10.4
NO DETECTS
Acute:1,866.23
Lead NC 4.25867508 SW(7Q10s)110.410095 ug/L 17 2 0.8
Chronic:88.15
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 1 HH(7Q10s)mg/L 17 4 5.0
Chronic:20.7
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:631.72
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS HQW OR ORW.
CHRONIC TEST CONCENTRATION = DEFAULT %
= 90 %
RECOMMENDED ACTIONTYPE
(1)PQLUNITSNo RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
Allowable Cw
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
a. No Monitoring required if all Total
Chromium samples are < the Chromium VI
Allowable Cw
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,rpa
1/8/2024
Northside WWTP Outfall 001 + 002 (Combined 001)
NC0023965 Saltwater RPA 95% Probablity/95% Confidence Qw = 16 MGD
Nickel NC 4.14141414 SW(7Q10s)37.3737374 ug/L 17 17 2.2
Chronic:85.73
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Selenium NC 35.5 SW(7Q10s)ug/L 17 0 1.27
Chronic:734.9
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 2
Acute:18.89
Silver NC 0.05 SW(7Q10s)1.11764706 ug/L 17 0 0.4
Chronic:1.04
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 0.5
Acute:804.0
Zinc NC 42.8118393 SW(7Q10s)47.5687104 ug/L 17 17 42.94
Chronic:886.2
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Cobalt NC 2 HH(7Q10s)µg/L 17 2 3.04
Chronic:41.4
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Strontium NC 20000 HH(7Q10s)µg/L 17 17 382.36
Chronic:414000
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Tin NC 400 HH(7Q10s)µg/L 17 14 451.36
Chronic:8280
No value > Allowable Cw
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
No RPA, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw
- No Monitoring required
Page 2 of 2
9595 Final Saltwater RPA 2023,rpa
1/8/2024
Permit No. NC0023965
Page 1 of 3

NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards – Saltwater 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, metals 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 Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(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/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).

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 metal standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the numeric standard
for each metal of concern of each individual discharge. Note that none of the saltwater standards are
hardness-dependent.
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 conversion factors determined by EPA (more on that below), but it
is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with established
methodology.

RPA Permitting Guidance – Discharges to Saltwater (Tidal waters)
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 stream dilution. For discharges to saltwater, no allowance for dilution is given unless a
dilution study, such as a CORMIX model, is performed.
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.
Permit No. NC0023965
Page 2 of 3

1. To perform a RPA using the saltwater dissolved metal standards, the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
• Instream Wastewater Concentration, if a dilution model has been performed

2. The RPA spreadsheet converts the dissolved numeric standard (SW standards listed in Table 1.)
for each metal of concern to a total recoverable metal, using the EPA conversion factors
published in the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document. This method presumes that the
metal is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA’s criteria development for metals.

3. The dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion
factor (or site-specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.

4. If a dilution study was performed on the receiving stream and an Instream Wastewater
Concentration (IWC) determined the RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine
the total allowable concentration (permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:

Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) – (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match 7Q10 units)
s7Q10 = summer, critical low flow (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations

Assuming no background concentration, this equation can be reduced to:

Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) or Ca = Cwqs
Qw IWC
Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals
Metal Saltwater CMC
(Acute)
Saltwater CCC
(chronic)
Arsenic 1.000 1.000
Cadmium 0.994 0.994
Chromium VI 0.993 0.993
Copper 0.83 0.83
Lead 0.951 0.951
Mercury 0.85 0.85
Nickel 0.990 0.990
Selenium 0.998 0.998
Silver 0.85 —
Zinc 0.946 0.946

From: US EPA website, National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-
quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#a

Permit No. NC0023965
Page 3 of 3

Where: IWC = Qw __ or __1__
Qw + s7Q10 D

and D = modelled dilution factor (unitless)

If no dilution study has been performed Ca, the allowable effluent concentration, is equal to the
Total Recoverable Metal determined at ambient conditions (ie. the dissolved numeric standard
divided by the EPA conversion factor (or site-specific translator) for the metal of concern). See
item # 3 above.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with a hexavalent chromium standard.
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 VI. In these cases, the projected
maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be compared against the water quality
standard chromium VI.
NC0023965 Northside WWTP 12/19/2023
Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)
June-19 99.23 December-21 99.08 June-19 99.04 December-21 98.72
July-19 99.34 January-22 98.91 July-19 99.24 January-22 98.81
August-19 99.27 February-22 98.90 August-19 99.10 February-22 98.85
September-19 99.21 March-22 98.83 September-19 99.06 March-22 98.89
October-19 99.17 April-22 98.79 October-19 98.98 April-22 98.87
November-19 99.05 May-22 99.07 November-19 98.43 May-22 98.89
December-19 98.96 June-22 98.80 December-19 98.70 June-22 98.87
January-20 98.63 July-22 98.90 January-20 98.70 July-22 98.52
February-20 98.97 August-22 98.82 February-20 98.66 August-22 98.66
March-20 98.97 September-22 99.04 March-20 98.60 September-22 98.68
April-20 98.90 October-22 99.09 April-20 98.72 October-22 98.74
May-20 98.91 November-22 99.18 May-20 98.66 November-22 98.71
June-20 98.93 December-22 99.16 June-20 98.73 December-22 98.78
July-20 98.93 January-23 99.20 July-20 98.69 January-23 98.83
August-20 99.34 February-23 99.14 August-20 98.58 February-23 98.93
September-20 98.95 March-23 99.00 September-20 98.82 March-23 98.88
October-20 98.96 April-23 99.05 October-20 98.78 April-23 98.83
November-20 98.93 May-23 98.87 November-20 98.77 May-23 98.84
December-20 99.07 June-23 98.80 December-20 98.62 June-23 98.77
January-21 99.07 July-23 98.76 January-21 98.88 July-23 98.82
February-21 98.98 August-23 98.88 February-21 98.69 August-23 98.74
March-21 98.56 September-23 98.98 March-21 99.01 September-23 98.81
April-21 98.98 October-23 99.17 April-21 98.87 October-23 99.03
May-21 99.05 November-23 May-21 98.94 November-23
June-21 99.09 December-23 June-21 98.85 December-23
July-21 98.90 January-24 July-21 98.82 January-24
August-21 98.71 February-24 August-21 98.62 February-24
September-21 98.82 March-24 September-21 98.76 March-24
October-21 98.98 April-24 October-21 98.74 April-24
November-21 99.03 May-24 November-21 98.69 May-24
Overall BOD removal rate 98.99 Overall TSS removal rate 98.79
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Northside WWTP
Permit No. NC0023965
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):16
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):487.78
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):487.78
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/l)Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
s7Q10 (CFS)487.78 s7Q10 (CFS)487.78
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)16 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)16
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)24.8 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)24.8
STREAM STD (UG/L)17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)4.84 IWC (%)4.84
Allowable Conc. (ug/l)351 Allowable Conc. (mg/l)16.3
Cap at 28 ug/L. Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Add conditional limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS)487.78
Monthly Average Limit:200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)16
(If DF >331; Monitor)DESIGN FLOW (CFS)24.8
(If DF<331; Limit)STREAM STD (MG/L)1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)20.67 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)4.84
Allowable Conc. (mg/l)32.9
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)

12/14/23 WQS = 12.5 ng/L V:2013-6
Facility Name
/Permit No. :
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 487.780 cfs WQBEL = 258.36 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow = 16.000 47 ng/L
8/5/19 1.46 1.46
11/4/19 1.32 1.32
12/18/19 2.01 2.01 1.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
2/3/20 1.91 1.91
2/28/20 1.27 1.27
5/4/20 1.45 1.45
8/10/20 0.837 0.837
11/2/20 <0.5 0.5
12/3/20 0.994 0.994 1.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
2/1/21 0.676 0.676
5/3/21 0.931 0.931
8/2/21 0.519 0.519
11/1/21 0.856 0.856 0.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021
2/7/22 1.51 1.51
5/9/22 0.938 0.938
8/1/22 0.891 0.891
11/7/22 1.67 1.67 1.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2022
2/6/23 1.24 1.24
5/1/23 0.937 0.937
8/1/23 <0.5 0.5 0.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2023
Northside WWTP/NC0023965 No Limit Required
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
MMP Required
Northside WWTP/NC0023965
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
# of Samples 3 6 4 4 3
Annual Average, ng/L 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.25 0.892333
Maximum Value, ng/L 2.01 1.91 0.93 1.67 1.24
TBEL, ng/L
WQBEL, ng/L 258.4
47
Review period (use 3 yrs)Approval Criteria:Y/N?YYNData Review UnitsWeekly average limitMonthly average limit50% MA3‐yr mean (geo mean for FC)< 50%?200% MA# daily samples >200%<15?200% WA# daily samples >200%< 20?# of non‐monthly limit violations> 2?# civil penalty asessment> 1?Reduce Frequency? (Yes/No)BOD (Weighted) mg/L 10.625 7.08333 3.5 1.8411215 Y 14.2 0 Y 0 N 0 N YTSS mg/L 30 20 10 0.5917214 Y 40 0 Y 0 N 0 N YAmmonia (weighted) mg/L 4.25 1.41667 0.7 0.109359 Y 2.83 1 Y 0 N 0 N YEnterococci #/100 276 35 18 0.8557325 Y 552 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y1. Not currently under SOC2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA violations10/2020 ‐10/2023
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
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 N 52 NC0023965 23/04/20 C S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Northside WWTP
2311 N 23rd St
Wilmington NC 28401
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
10:00AM 23/04/20 18/12/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Geoffrey D Cermak/ORC/910-332-6562/
Other Facility Data
01:00PM 23/04/20 23/11/30
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Geoffrey D Cermak,235 Govenment Ctr Dr Wilmington NC
28403/ORC/910-332-6562/9103326731
Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
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
Jennifer C Ryan DWR/Non Discharge Compliance Unit/910-796-7387/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
23/04/20
Inspection Type
C3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
A compliance inspection of Northside WWTP was conducted on 4/20/2023. The plant is well
maintained, clean, and compliant with their permit. Additional comments are located in the question
section of this report.
NC0023965 17
Page#2
Permit:NC0023965
Inspection Date:04/20/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Northside WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Operations staff analyze numerous process control parameters for monitoring
including: TSS. TVSS, NH3-N, settleable solids, and microbiology. The on site lab was
shown to inspectors as well as the different equipment used.
Comment:
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?
The permit expires this coming November 2023, and the application has been
submitted. The facility has a reduced monitoring schedule due to producing high
quality effluent.
Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
The mechanical bar screens were observed during inspectionand appear to be
operational and well maintained
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?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Page#3
Permit:NC0023965
Inspection Date:04/20/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Northside WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Two of the three grit units were operational and well maintained. 2 are normally run, all
3 will run if needed.
Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
The proper temperature for sample storage was observed at about 3 degrees. The
headworks have 2 lines - from the county and the city influent. Both are combined into
a representative sample based on flow. The tubing was clean and in good condition.
They are changed on a preventative maintenance schedule of weekly/monthly as
needed.
Comment:
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin’s surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l)
There are 4 basins total, with 3 running at a time. An annual inspection is conducted
for leaks, dead spots, etc with the basins on a rotating schedule. The DO level was
acceptable at 3.27, which is averaged out by basin. Each section has 2000 diffusers.
Maintenance is done thorugh CFPUA.
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Is the filter media present?
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Is the filter free of growth?
Page#4
Permit:NC0023965
Inspection Date:04/20/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Northside WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
There are 4 high rate sand filters that are backwashed with plant effluent approximately
one filter per hour. The outfall discharges to a segment of the Cape Fear River.
Comment:
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?
There are 4 UV channels, with each module having 8 lamps. There are extra bulbs
kept on site and each channel is cleaned approximately once a month.
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
One flow proportional autosampler was in use at a temperature of 4 degrees. A second
autosampler is available when needed. Effluent sampling consists of parameters such
as turbidity, pH, DO, etc.
Comment:
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?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Page#5
Permit:NC0023965
Inspection Date:04/20/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Northside WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
During the inspection, the generator was being tested and was running the facility.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?
Observed effluent pumps. The flow meters are calibrated every 6 months.Comment:
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?
Page#6
Permit:NC0023965
Inspection Date:04/20/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Northside WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Records are very organized and complete. There is an interactive computer screen
that has running counts of all parameters. The operations office stores 1 year of
records. Records are held onto for 7 years. A log book is available for operators to
record all activities. DMRs matched up to facility records.
Comment:
Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Is the capacity adequate?
# Is gas stored on site?
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
Is the gas burner operational?
Is the digester heated?
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
The digesters receive solids from the two primary clarifiers and from the secondary
clarifiers. The solids flow through the tanks and then are stored in sludge storage
tanks. The gas goes to a gas drawing facility where some is used and the rest is flared
off. The inspectors observed the digesters, transfer pumps between the disgesters,
and the return pumps. Synagro will do the next cleaning
Comment:
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
Is storage adequate?
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
The gravity belt thickeners and belt presses are operated and maintained by CFPUA.
After digestion, the solids are pressed through the belt system and are then
transported to the landfill. Because the solids go to the landfill, there is no sludge
management plan.
Comment:
Page#7
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
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 N 52 NC0023965 22/06/29 P S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
5 N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Northside WWTP
2311 N 23rd St
Wilmington NC 28401
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
10:00AM 22/06/29 18/12/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Other Facility Data
11:00AM 22/06/29 23/11/30
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Geoffrey D Cermak,235 Govenment Ctr Dr Wilmington NC
28403/ORC/910-332-6562/9103326731
Contacted
Yes
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
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
Helen I Perez DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7387/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
22/06/29
Inspection Type
P3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
A required Pretreatment compliance inspection of the CFPUA Pretreatment Program was conducted
and found to be compliant.
NC0023965 17
Page#2
Permit:NC0023965
Inspection Date:06/29/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Northside WWTP
Pretreatment Compliance
Yes No NA NE
Page#3
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Jacksonville Nano-filtration WTP NC0088455/001
Chr Lim: 10% (MonitoMysd7dPFBegin:10/1/2017 Freq:Q
Mar Jun Sep Dec
NonComp:
County:Onslow Region:WIRO Basin:WOK02
7Q10:NA IWC:
SOC_JOC:
PF:2.7
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 - -Pass --Pass --Pass -- -
2020 Pass -Pass --Pass --Pass -- Pass
2021 - -Pass --INVALID INVALID Pass Pass -- INVALID
2022 Pass -Pass --Pass -->10 -- INVALID
2023 Pass -Pass --Pass --Pass -- -
James A. Loughlin WWTP (Northside)
+
NC0023965/001
Chr Lim: 4.8%Ceri7dPF Begin:12/1/2018 Freq:Q
Feb May Aug Nov
NonComp:Single
County:New Hanover Region:WIRO Basin:CPF17
7Q10:Tidal IWC:NA
SOC_JOC:
PF:10.0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 - >19.2(P) Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass -
2020 - Pass -->19.2(P) Pass --Pass --Pass -
2021 - Pass >19.2 (P)--Pass --Pass --Pass -
2022 - Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass -
2023 - Pass --Pass --Pass --- -
Jefferson WTP NC0083470/001
Chr Monit: 11%Ceri7dPF Begin:1/1/2017 Freq:Q
Jan Apr Jul Oct
NonComp:
County:Ashe Region:WSRO Basin:NEW01
7Q10:IWC:
SOC_JOC:
PF:
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2020 Pass --Fail --Pass --Pass - -
2021 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2022 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2023 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
Jefferson WWTP NC0021709/001
chr lim: 30% @ 0.6 MCeri7dPFBegin:2/1/2018 Freq:Q
Feb May Aug Nov
NonComp:Single
County:Ashe Region:WSRO Basin:NEW01
7Q10:2.2 IWC:29.7
SOC_JOC:
PF:0.6
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 >100 >100 Pass 77.5 --Pass --- -
John Glenn WTP NC0080381/001
Chr Monit: 90%Ceri7dPF Begin:4/1/2014 Freq:Q
Jan Apr Jul Oct
NonComp:
County:Union Region:MRO Basin:YAD14
7Q10:IWC:
SOC_JOC:
PF:0.898
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 --Pass --Pass --INVALID - -
Page 54 of 115Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Kevin Fowler
Permittee-Facility Name
NPDES Permit Number WWTP expansion
Stream reclass./adjustment
Outfall relocation/adjustment Cape Fear River Tidal
SC;PNA 487.78 (modeled)
6/1/2019 to 10/31/2023 34.14.27 77.57.10
16.0 Designed Flow,
mgd 16.0 Cape Fear River Tidal
SC;PNA 487.78 (modeled)
# IUs 34.14.22 77.57.07
# SIUs
# CIUs
# NSCIUs
# IUs w/Local
Permits or Other
Types
#IU Activity
1 40 CFR 439.46
2 glass, ceramics
3 medical waste
4 leachate
5 laundry
6 WM + recycle
7 landfill
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to § 503.43)
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill:
8) other
Waste Management flow, pH, BOD, TSS, temperature, aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, CBOD, cadmium, chloride, chromium, COD, copper, cyanide, iron,
lead, mercury, nickel, O&G, phosphorus, silver, TKN, total solids, molybdenum, selenium, zinc, fluoride, boron
7/1/2020
7/1/2020
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
IUP Effective Date
7/1/2020
UnIfirst Corp
Corning, Inc.
New Hanover Regional Medical Center
7/1/2020
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
flow, pH, BOD, TSS, temperature, aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, CBOD, cadmium, chloride, chromium, COD, copper, cyanide, iron,
lead, mercury, nickel, O&G, phosphorus, silver, TKN, total solids, molybdenum, selenium, zinc, fluoride, acetone, methylene chloride, n-amyl
acetate, ethyl acetate, isopropyl acetate
flow, pH, BOD, TSS, temperature, aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, CBOD, cadmium, chloride, chromium, COD, copper, cyanide, iron,
lead, mercury, nickel, O&G, phosphorus, silver, TKN, total solids, molybdenum, selenium, zinc, fluoride
Outfalls 001 and 002 treated together as Combined Outfall 001
Comments:
Current Permitted Flow, mgd
6
2L/STMP approval date:11/19/2019
2. Industrial Users' Information.
QA, cfs:
7Q10, cfs:
Outfall Long.
0.3113
Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfall(s)?
Facility PT Staff, email
Receiving Stream:
Stream Class
Oufall Lat.
Receiving Stream:
Stream Class
Oufall Lat. NPDES Permit Writer0
6
Industrial User (IU) Name
Comment:
J.A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
NC0023965
New Industries
Raleigh
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date
Other POC review trigger, explain:
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form
c. POC review due to:12/28/2023
QA, cfs:
7Q10 (S), cfs:
Nick Coco
1. Facility's General Information
Date of (draft) Review
NPDES Permit Writer (pw)HWA-AT/LTMP Review
e. Contact Information
Date of (final) Review Municipal NPDES renewal Regional Office (RO)
Donald Johnson, [e-mail]
Version: 2022.09.28
RO PT Staff Cheng Zhang RO NPDES Staff
f. Receiving Stream
7Q10 update
Alcami
Chemical Addendum Submittal
Date 6/7/2023
IWS approval date 4/5/2019
HWA-AT approval date 6/24/2019
eDMR data evaluated from:
NPDES Permit Effective Date
Outfall II
Outfall I
7/1/2020
d. IU Summary
6
Outfall Long.
a. WWTP Capacity Summary
b. PT Docs. Summary
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
IU Non Conventional Pollutans & Toxic Pollutant
YES NO
Sludge Disposal Plan:Sludge is land applied
flow, pH, BOD, TSS, temperature, aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, CBOD, cadmium, chloride, chromium, COD, copper, cyanide, iron,
lead, mercury, nickel, O&G, phosphorus, silver, TKN, total solids, molybdenum, selenium, zinc
flow, pH, BOD, TSS, temperature, aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, CBOD, cadmium, chloride, chromium, COD, copper, cyanide, iron,
lead, mercury, nickel, O&G, phosphorus, silver, TKN, total solids, molybdenum, selenium, zinc, fluoride
New Hanover County Landfill flow, pH, BOD, TSS, temperature, aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, CBOD, cadmium, chloride, chromium, COD, copper, cyanide, iron,
lead, mercury, nickel, O&G, phosphorus, silver, TKN, total solids, molybdenum, selenium, zinc, fluoride
SR&R flow, pH, BOD, TSS, temperature, aluminum, ammonia, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chloride, chromium, COD, cobalt, copper, fluoride,
iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, O&G, phosphorus, selenium, silver, tin, titanium, TKN, total solids, vanadium, zinc, bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, carbazole, o-Cresol, p-Cresol, n-Decane, flupranthene, n-Octadecane, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
8/7/2023
1/1/2024
WQ0001271Sludge Permit No:
Page 1 POC Review Form
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
%
Removal
Rate
PQL from
L/STMP, ug/l
Required PQL
per NPDES
permit
Recomm.
PQL, ug/l
Flow
BOD
TSS
NH3
Arsenic 2.0
Barium
Beryllium(5)
Cadmium(1)0.5
Chromium(1)5.0
Copper(1)2.0
Cyanide
Lead(1)2.0
Mercury(5)0.001
Molybdenum 10.0
Nickel(1)
Selenium 1.0
Silver 1.0
Zinc(1)10.0
Sludge Flow to Disposal
% Solids to Disposal
Oil & Grease
TN
TP
TKN
NO2+NO3
Aluminum
Iron
Fluoride
Total Solids
COD
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA-PT requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
Please use orange font and strikethrough for POC that may be removed from L/STMP POC list/sampling plan
Blue shaded cell (D60:H81):Parameters usually included under that POC list
180 days after effective (date):NPDES Permit Effective Date
4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
PW: Find L/STMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
5. Comments
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in L/STMP:
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to L/STMP due
to POTWs concerns:
NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
Permit writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES
POC
Required by
EPA PT(1)
POC due to
Sludge (2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC (4)
6. Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
L/STMP
Effluent Freq.
PQLs review
Comment
POC in L/STMPParameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
NPDES
Effluent Freq.
Page 2 POC Review Form