NC0037508_Permit issuance_20101105

*&• L►
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Dennis Brobst
Moore County Public Works Director
P.O. Box 1927
Carthage, North Carolina 28327-1927
Dear Mr. Brobst:
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
November 5, 2010
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Modification and Renewal of
NPDES Permit NCO037508
Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant
Moore County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for modification and renewal of the
subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
This permit modification has the following differences from your current permit:
➢ The Supplement to the Permit Cover Sheet has been revised to include the equipment and processes
used for wastewater treatment. The use of UV light for disinfection has been emphasized.
➢ The TRC footnote has been changed on A.(1) — 6.7 MGD. Because there are interferences sometimes
in measuring low levels of TRC in wastewater, The Division accepts any analysis reported by a
certified laboratory of less than 50'ug/ L to be in compliance with the permit limit.
➢ Monitoring frequency for Total Copper, Total Zinc, and Total Silver have been changed to Quarterly in
accordance with the Division's new permitting Strategy. Monitoring frequency for mercury has been
changed to Monthly.
➢ The mercury limits on A.(1) have been changed to 24.1 ng/ L as a monthly average and a daily
maximum in keeping with EPA requirements.
➢ A new Special Condition A.(2) and A.(5) for 10.0 MGD were created and added to the permit based on
the speculative limits letter dated January 12, 1999 and reaffirmed on October, 2006. Monitoring
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location., 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 NofthCarohna
Internet: tvww.ncwaterquality+.org Xaturially
An Equal Opportunity l At�rmaNve Action Employer

frequencies for a Grade IV classified facility are used. A new mercury limit of 20.1 ng/ L at 10.0 MGD
discharge; 7Q10S flow of 15.2 cis, and a background mercury concentration. of 3.72 ng/ L was set as a,?,
monthly average and a daily max in accordance with EPA requirements. The background mercury data
is from 2005, and is 5 years old. During the coming permit cycle, the facility shall have a minimum of
12 upstream samples analyzed using Low Level Method 1631E and submit the results with the next
permit renewal application.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable
to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt
of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter.150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements
to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division
of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may
be required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Jim McKay at telephone number
[phone].
Sincerely,
oleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
cc: Central Files
Fayetteville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
NPDES Unit
Aquatic Toxicology - via email
EPA Region IV, Atlanta with fact sheet and RPA - via email
Hobbs, Upchurch 8s Associates, P.A./ 8262 Market Street, Suite 201/ Wilmington, NC 28411/ Attn:
Mr. Barry King, P.E.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Ralegh, North Carolina 27604 One
Phone: 91MO7-6300 \ FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 NorthCarohna
Internet: vnaw.ncwaterqua tiNaNaturally. An Equal Opponunity 1 Atfirmalive ve Action Employer

NPDES Permit No. NC0037508
a STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
t. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE '
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES)
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful -standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Moore County
is hereby authorized to discharge treated wastewater from an outfall located at the
Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant
1094 Addor Road
Moore County
to receiving waters designated as Aberdeen Creek located within the Lumber River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitori ng requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective December 1, 2010.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2014.
Signed this day November 5, 2010.
'CvYeen H. Sullins, Director
f Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

NPDES Permit No. NCO037508
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as of this
issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate
and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions described herein.
Moore . County .
is hereby authorized:
1. to continue discharging 6.7 MGD of domestic and industrial wastewater from the existing wastewater
treatment facility consisting of activated sludge wastewater treatment facilities. The treatment system
utilizes:
• pre -aeration
• grit removal
• primary clarification
• first -stage. activated sludge . , •
• intermediate clarification
• second -stage aeration
• final clarification
• chlorination chamber
• dechlorination
• anaerobic sludge digestion
• sludge drying beds
• post -aeration
• and, two back up generators
located at the Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant, 1094 Addor Road, Moore County, and
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division, to construct, and after submitting an
Engineer's Certification, to operate a 10.0 MGD Water Pollution Control Plant having a third processing
train similar to the two existing treatment units with tertiary filtration and UV Light disinfection added to
handle the full 10 MGD flow.
3. To discharge from said treatment facility through Outfall 001 at a specified location (see attached map) into
Aberdeen Creek, a waterbody classified as C waters within the Lumber River Basin.

NPDES Permit No. NCO037508
Upnrenm
MorutoringPoirA
TZ001'! CO1...Iqc
and ir(Appnx
Outfall h-/ `" ��
south)
Dover arnnm MoniL'-gpoint
(atNCSR 1225)
Moore CountyVVAVTP Facility
Location '
Raca91[Stramv Ak.A.Cmk IumbafCw ml b SCGIQ
Lte.de: 35 D4'03"N la>��Mel 79'28'OB"W
SIb.Bamu 03.07-50 %,. t Fh,63110.OMGD NPI)FESPemit NCOOM08
ae., 5g4C,MJU5C50ud1 G219W/RmbIAH.C. sChm C mord1 Moore County

NPDES Permit No. NCO037508
A. (L) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, or expansion above 6.7
MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater through Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETERS . _
EFFLUENT LIMITS
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Monthl Y
,1.Aveirage .
Weekly
; , Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency -
Sample
« ' .Type
Sample
Location.
Flow MGD
6.7
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1— October 31) 2
22.0 mg/L
33.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(Nov. l --March 31)2
30.0 mg/L
-45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids
TSS 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3 as N
(April 1— October 31
2.1 mg/L
6.3 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N
(Nov. 1— March 31
6.2 mg/L
18.6 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
200 / 100 ml
f 400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
IE
Total Residual Chlorine
TRC 3
28 µg/L,
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average > 5.0 m
#L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
_
I
Daily
Grab
E
H
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2-
N + NO3-N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Copper
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Silver
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Mercury 4
24.1 n 4
24.1 n 4
Monthly
Grab
E
Chronic Toxicity 5
Quarterly
Composite
E
Temperature, °C
Variable 6
Grab
U, D
Dissolved'Oxygen
Variable 6
Grab
U, D

NPDES Permit No. NCO037508
Table Footnotes:
1. Sample Locations: E — Effluent; I — Influent; U — approximately 100 feet Upstream of the
outfall; D — Downstream at NCSR 1225.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not
exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (i.e., 85% removal is required).
3. Total Residual Chlorine.(TRC) shall be monitored only if chlorine is used to disinfect. The Division
shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/1 to be in compliance with the permit.
However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina
certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 ug/1.
4. Mercury [see Special Condition A. (3.)]. To facilitate the Lumber River's Phase II TMDL
process for mercury, the Permittee shall report mercury using clean -sample collection
criteria/test methods established by EPA Method 1631E.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 41 %; quarterly during March, June, September,
December; See Special Condition A. (4.)
6. Variable: instream samples shall be collected upstream and downstream 3/week during the
summer months of June, July, August, and September; samples shall be collected weekly
during the rest of the year.
Units:
mg/L = milligrams per liter µg/L = micrograms per liter
ng/L = nanograms per liter lbs/Day = pounds per day
NH3 as N = ammonia as nitrogen ml = milliliter
BOD = biochemical oxygen demand
This permit is subject to additional annual sampling
[See Special Condition A. (6.)].
Effluent shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

NPDES Permit No. NCO037508
n
A.(2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on submittal of an Engineer's Certificate and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater through Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by
the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETERS
EFFLUENT
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average'
Weekly
Average`
Daily
maAmum
Measurement
Frequency
:Sample
Type
Sample
Location
Flow MGD
10.0
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1— October 31) 2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
-
Daily
Composite
I, E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(Nov. 1— March 31) 2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids
TSS 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3 as N
(April 1 — October 31
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N
(Nov. 1— March 31
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
200 ! 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine
TRC 3
28 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average > 6.0 m
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
H
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard
units
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2-
N + NO3-N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Copper
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Silver
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Mercury 4
20.1 n 4
20.1 n 4
Monthly
Grab
E
Chronic Toxicity 5
Quarterly
Composite
E
Temperature, °C
Variable 6
Grab
U, D
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable 6
Grab
U, D
n
11
0

Pemut NCO037508
Table Footnotes:
1. Sample Locations: E — Effluent; I — Influent; U — approximately 100 feet
Upstream of the outfall; D — Downstream at NCSR 1225.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids
concentrations shall not exceed 15 °/ of the respective influent value (i.e., 85%
removal is required).
3. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) shall be monitored only if chlorine is used to disinfect.
The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/l to be in
compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit
all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified),
even if these values fall below 50 ug/l.
4. Mercury [see Special Condition A. (3.)]. Permittee shall report mercury using
clean -sample collection criteria/test methods established by EPA Method
1631E.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 50 %; quarterly during March, June,
September, December; See Special Condition A. (5.)
6. Variable: instream samples shall be collected upstream and downstream
3/week during the summer months of June, July, August, and September;
samples shall be collected weekly during the rest of the year.
Units:
mg/L = milligrams per liter µg/L = micrograms per liter
ng/L = nanograms per liter lbs/Day = pounds per day
NH3 as N = ammonia as nitrogen ml = milliliter
BOD = biochemical oxygen demand
This permit is subject to additional annual sampling
[See Special Condition A. (6)].
Effluent shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO037508
A (3). MERCURY REOPENER.
The Division may re -open this permit to require mercury load limitations, mercury
minimization plans, source water characterization, or other measures following
completion of the Phase 2 Mercury TMDLs for the Lumber and Waccamaw River
watersheds. . 81, ..
A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 41 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent'versions. The testt will be
performed during the months of, March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling
for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all
treatment processes.
If the test procedure,.performed as the first test of any single quarter, results in a failure or
ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months, as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric
mean of the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival
and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival.
The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further
statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity
Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using
the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and TBP3B for the Chronic Value.
Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences
Section no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and

Permit NC0037508
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county,
and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form.
The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, monitoring will be required during the following month. Should any test data from this
monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to
include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document (such as
minimum control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and/or
appropriate environmental controls) shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate f9llow-up testing, to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of initial monitoring.
A. (5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 50 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of, March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling
for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all
treatment processes.
If the test procedure, performed as the first test of any single quarter, results in a failure or
ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months, as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric
mean of the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival
and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival.
The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further
statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity
Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.

Permit NC0037508
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using
the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value.
Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences
Section no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit nufnber, pipe number, county,
and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form.
The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, monitoring will be required during the following month. Should any test data from this
monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to
include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document (such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and/or appropriate
environmental controls) shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up
testing, to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of initial
monitoring.

Permit NCO037508
A. (6.) SPECIAL CONDITION -- EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform Effluent Pollutant Scans (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136) for all parameters
listed in the attached table. The Permittee shall sample approximately annually except to provide seasonal
variation to include a minimum of four (4) scans. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total
recoverable."
:Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine, total residual (TRC)
1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
Antimony
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,2-dichlorpbenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
aT��4cid-extra Datable Compounds �.
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile Organi4CompoundsY '_,� ,;;`
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene`
Base aneutralrCampounds� �, ,
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
l,l-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane

Permit NCO037508 - S
r
-s
The Perrnittee shall report test results within 90 days of sample collection to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-
PPAI or in a form approved by the Director. The report shall be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617

DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit NCO037508
INTRODUCTION
Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), herein called Moore County or the permittee,
requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to dispose treated
wastewater to the surface waters of the state. The permittee's 5-year NPDES permit expired July 31,
2009 and they have requested renewal and for a modification to increase permitted flow to 10.0 MGD
from the currently permitted 6.7 MGD from the Division of Water Quality (the Division). Moore
County has received Speculative Effluent Limits from The Division on October 30, 2006. An
Engineering Analysis was submitted to Construction Grants and Loans, a FNSI was issued on
October 28, 2009. This Fact Sheet summarizes background information and rationale used by the
Division's NPDES Unit to determine permit limits and monitoring conditions.
FACILITY RECORDS REVIEW
Facility Description. The Moore County WPCP (Table 1) is a 6.7 MGD publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) utilizing a Grade IV activated sludge wastewater treatment facility to treat domestic
and industrial wastewater. The Moore County treatment system utilizes pre -aeration, grit removal,
primary clarification, first -stage activated sludge, intermediate clarification, second -stage aeration,
final clarification, anaerobic sludge digestion, sludge drying beds, and post -aeration.
Table 1. The Moore County WPCP
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
The Moore County WPCP
Applicant Address:
1094 Addor Road
Facility Address:
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
Permitted Flow (MGD):
6.7 expanding to 10.0
Type of Waste:
Domestic and Industrial 3 SIUs
Related Permit (s):
Land Application W00018081 Anson County)
Facility Grade / Permit Status:
Grade IV, Major / Renewal / Expansion
Drainage Basin:
I Lumber River Basin
County:
Moore County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Aberdeen Creek
Regional Office:
Fayetteville
Stream Classification:
C
State Grid /
USGS To o Quad
G 21 SW /
Pinebluff, NC
303(d) Listed?
No
Permit Writer.
Jim McKay
Subbasin:
03-07-50
Date:
8/12/2010
Drainage Areas . mi.
36.3
AOW
Lat. 350 04' 03" Long. 79° 28' 10"
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
15.2
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
28.7
30Q2 (cfs)
I -
Average Flow (cfs)
47.2
IWC (%)
41 % @ 6.7 MGD, 50% @ 10
MGD
DRAFT Fact Sheet
Renewal/ Expansion-- NPDES Permit NCO037508
Page I

Correspondence
Staff Report. Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO) conducted an annual facility inspection and Dale
Lopez prepared a Staff Report dated March 9, 2009. The FRO staff found the facility in good
condition and in compliance with the permit recommending that the NPDES Unit renew the permit in
accordance with the basin plan.
Division Records and Permittee's Renewal Application. The current permit expired on July 31,
2009, and the Division received a timely request to renew the permit from the permittee (Standard
Form 2A) on January 29, 2009.
Permittee's Expansion Request. The Permittee submitted a request for expansion and upgrade of
the existing plant on May 21, 2010, along with the required EAA. The plan is to repair, replace and
upgrade the existing 6.7 MGD facility as needed, and construct an identical third train to provide 10.0
MGD capacity. A 10.0 MGD tertiary treatment system will be added after the secondary treatment in
order to improve the quality of treated wastewater.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Waste Load Allocation (WLA). The Division prepared the last WLA for the receiving stream in
June 1994 and developed effluent limits and monitoring requirements considering an in -stream waste
concentration (IWC) of 41 % at 6.7 MGD. The Division views these limits and monitoring
requirements appropriate for renewal except as outlined below (see Permitting Approach Summary).
Verifying Existing Stream Conditions. This facility discharges to Aberdeen Creek [Stream Index
No.14- 2-11-(6)], a Class C waterbody within the Lumber River Basin. Aberdeen Creek is not listed
as "impaired" [not 303(d) listed], However, Aberdeen Creek discharges to Downing Creek, one of 11
waters within the Lumber River Basin with fish advisories for mercury.
Concerning Mercury. Beginning in September 2003, the Division required Moore County to
monitor Quarterly for mercury using new EPA method 1631 with no mercury limit. When the permit
was renewed in 2005, a mercury limit of 12 ng/ L was added on the assumption that there was no
dilution allowable. The plant sampled twice a month for 6 months at the upstream sample location,
using Method 1631. The highest instream sample was 3.72 ng/ L, so the County applied to the
Division for a relaxed mercury limit based on 7Q 10 dilution and 3.72 ng/ L background. In 2006 the
permit was modified based on the new background data, and a mercury limit of 24.1 ng/ L was given
as a Weekly Average. For this renewal, the mercury limit has been kept at 24.1 ng/ L, but as a
monthly average and a daily maximum in keeping with EPA requirements. For the expansion to 10
MGD, the mercury limit was calculated again using 10 MGD discharge, 7Q10 dilution, and 3.72 ng/
L background. The new mercury limit is 20.1 ng/ L, given as a Monthly Average .and a Daily
Maximum.
A "re -opener" clause has been retained on the permit to emphasize the need to reevaluate should
compliance questions arise.
DMR Instream and Effluent Data Review. The Division reviewed 24 months of DMRs (January
2008 through December 2009) noting monthly -average flows averaging approximately 4.5 MGD or
about 67% of its permitted capacity. DMRs appear regular, thorough, and complete
DRAFT Fact Sheet
Renewal/ Expansion -- NPDES NCO037508
Page 2

Effluent Total Residual Chlorine (TRC. The TRC footnote has been updated to the new practice of
accepting any reading of less than 50 ug/ L as been compliant with the permit.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing. The Division reviewed Moore County quarterly Whole
Effluent Toxicity records from January 2006 through June 2010 (26 quarterly tests). The Permittee
passed all quarterly toxicity tests during this time period, except June 2006, December 2006 and
September 2009. Retests the next month all passed.
Notices of Violation (NOVs) and Penalty Assessment. Division records for this facility show no
permit limit violations during the time period January 2001 through September 2010.
Toxicant Chronic and Acute Impact — Pollutants of Concern (POCs). To establish POCs, the
Division reviewed the permit application, discharge monitoring reports (Jan. 2008 through Dec. 2009),
pretreatment data, and the Basin Plan. The Division then used the standard Reasonable Potential Analysis
(RPA) to calculate a maximum predicted concentration for each POC. Each maximum was then compared
to the POC's freshwater Chronic Standard (Table 2) and also to its Final Acute Value (%2 FAV) for
freshwater (Table 3).
If by the above method, a POC showed reasonable potential to exceed its %2 FAV, the Division included a
permit limit as a Daily Maximum to protect the receiving stream against acute toxic affects. 1 Q 10 flow
was used to calculate dilution. Similarly, if the maximum exceeded the chronic standard, a Weekly and
Monthly Average limit was added to the permit. Findings and draft permit changes are summarized
below (see Renewal Summary, Table 4).
Table 2. Moore Countv WPCP Chronic RPA Findings and Renewal Action
Pat_ ame�er
�Sampies �
Bits
:Ma�wmum. ;
r �ow,abi� '
= `* E
Qon�e�g�s�h
(n)
(n).'xedicted
1.JConcentration
:
y/n
�enwal Actio�a
Copper
58
58
334.6 µg/L
14 µg/L
Yes
Action Level Standard — no
toxicity problem, therefore no
limit; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
Mercury
123
123
29.61 ng/L
20.1 ng/L
Yes
Upstream data shows 3.27 ng/ L
instream. Limit recalculated for
10.0 MGD flow is 20.1 ng/ L
added as a monthly average and
daily maximum. Change
monitoring to Monthly.
Silver
48
0
2.5 µg/L
.12 µg/L
Yes
Action Level Standard — no
toxicity problem, therefore no
limit; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
Zinc
48
48
116.1 µg/L
99 µg/L
Yes
Action Level Standard — no
toxicity problem, therefore no
limit; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
*RP = "Reasonable Potential" to exceed instream Water Quality Standard.
DRAFT Fact Sheet
Renewal' Expansion -- NPDES NCO037508
Page 3

Table 3. Moore Countv WPCP Acute RPA Findings and Renewal Action
parameter:
'Sames.i'ts
Maximum
Allowable
RP*
comments:/
(n
fin)
predicted.
Concentration
`y/n
Renewa Act 6ri
Copper
58
58
334.6 µg/L
13 µg/L
Yes
Action Level Standard — no
toxicity problem, therefore no
limit; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
Mercury
123
123
29.61ng/L
No acute limit; Standard based
on bio-accumulation
See Table 2).
Silver
48
0
2.5 µg/L
2 µg/L
Yes
Action Level Standard — no
toxicity problem, therefore no
limit; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
Zinc
48
48
116.1 µg/L
121 µg/L
No
Action Level Standard — no
toxicity problem, therefore no
limit; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
*RP = "Reasonable Potential" to exceed instream Water Quality Standard
Pretreatment Compliance. This NPDES permit requires the Permittee to implement a Long
Term Management Plan (LTMP) or pretreatment program, as specified by federal regulations 40 CFR 403
and Title 15A NCAC 2H.0900 of state regulations. The Permittee's LTMP has been approved by the
Division and potential influent parameters were considered during the Reasonable Potential Analysis.
Moore County WWTP currently services domestic wastes from several surrounding communities and 3
Significant Industrial Users (SIU). All 3 are metal finishers. A fourth metal finisher was withdrawn in late
2009. They are permitted at 0.08 MGD, but are currently producing 0.059 MGD of wastewater, or about
0.88% of Moore County's permitted discharge.
Revising Ammonia (NH3 as N) Limits. Ammonia Limits for 10.0 MGD have been adjusted for toxicity
considering IWC of 50%. The previous permit's Monthly Average (Summer) limit has been adjusted to 1.0
mg1L, and a limit of 2.0 mg1L Monthly Average (Winter) has been added to the permit. Per statewide
policy, the Division has added ammonia Weekly Average limits to this permit. Because Moore County is a
major municipal, Weekly Average limits are calculated as "Monthly Average values times three." This
corresponds to new Weekly Averages of 3.0 mg1L (summer), and 6.0 mg1L (Winter).
Although new ammonia limits are notably more stringent, the Division reviewed the permittee's NH3 data
and anticipates no compliance problems with new permit limits. Data for the years 2008 and 2009 indicate
ammonia levels consistently reported below detection at 0.5 mg/L.
DRAFT Fact Sheet
Renewal/ Expansion -- NPDES NCO037508
Page 4

RENEWAL SUMMARY
Effluent Monitoring
Table 4. Permit Renewal -- Recommended Changes/Additions:
Parametelr
RP*
Comments, f �tenewalAction
Ammonia
Revised Limits: adjusted Summer Monthly Ave. to 1.0 mg/L; Added Summer Weekly Ave.
as
of 3.0 mg/L; added limits Winter Monthly Ave. 2.0 m and Weekly Ave. 6.0
TRC
Updated TRC footnote in accordance with current permitting strategy. TRC readings < 50
u L are considered to be compliant with the permit limits..
Copper
Yes
Action Level Standard, no TOX problem therefore no limits; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
Mercury
Yes
Calculated new limits for 10 MGD discharge using instream background concentration of
3.72 ng/ L and 7Q 10. Limits are monthly average and daily max set as the same value of
20.1 n L. Monitoring by EPA Method 1631 E.
Silver
Yes
Action Level Standard, no TOX problem therefore no limits; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
Zinc
Yes
Action Level Standard, no TOX problem therefore no limits; change monitoring to
Quarterly.
*RP = "Reasonable Potential" to exceed instream Water Quality Standard.
Instream Monitoring
Previous Requirements:
For Renewal:
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Temperature
No changes recommended.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: September, 2010
Permit Scheduled to Issue: November, 2010
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Jim McKay at [phone].
NAME: DATE:
DRAFT Fact Sheet
Renewal/ Expansion -- NPDES NCO037509
Page 5

fI- REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Moore County WWTP
NCO037508
Outfall 001
Qw = 10 MGD
Time Period January 2008 - December 2009
Qw (MGD) 10
WWTP Class IV
Calculation of 1 Q10 based on 7Q10
7010S (cfs) 15.2
IWC (%) @ 7Q10S 50.489
1 Q10 = 0.843 (7Q10)
7Q10W (cfs) 28.7
@ 7Q10W 35.068
SUMMER 1 Q10 =12.6 (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs) 0
@ 3002 NIA
SUMMER 1 Q10 IWC % = 55.22
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 47.2
@ QA 24.721
WINTER 1 Q10 = 23.6 (cfs)
Rec'ving Stream Aberdeen Creek
Stream Class C
WINTER 1 Q10 IWC % = 39.61
STANDARDS &
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
(1)
NC WQS/ Y FAV/
Chronic Acute
n # pet Max Pied CW AUowabie Cw
Acute: 13
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
58 58 334.6
recent WET test No acute limit at this time.
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic 14
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
recent WET test No chronic limit at this time.
Acute: NO WQS
No acute limit
Mercury
NC
12
2.0000
ng/L
123 123
29.61
_ _
Chronic [unit, Monthly Average and daily maximum.
_
Chronic 24
Limit Is 20.1 ngl L based on 3.72 n L background Hg.
Acute: 2
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
48 0
2.5
regent WET test No acute limit at this time.
_ _
Chronic_ 0.12
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed ail but one
recent WET test No chronic limit at this time.
Acute: 121
No acute limit
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
48 48
116.1
_ _
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
_
Chronic 99
recent WET test No chronic limit at this time.
Legend: "Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
RPA 10MGD, rpa
10/20/2010

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Ow (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Sources)
Moore County WWTP
IV
NCO037508
001
10.0
Aberdeen Creek
C
15.2
28.7
47.2
January 2008 December 2009
DMR
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par08
Par1a
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
C
10
ug/L
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
Cadmium
NC
2
15
ug/L
Chromium
NC
50
1022
ug/L
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
Cyanide
NC
5
N
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
NC
1800
ug/L
Lead
NC
25
N
33.8
ug/L
Mercury
NC
12
2.0
ng/L
Molybdenum
A
3500
ug/L
Nickel
NC
88
261
ug/L
Phenols
A
1
N
ug/L
Selenium
NC
5
56
ug/L
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
1.23
ug/L
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
RPA 10MGD, input
10/20/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
I Copper ( Mercury
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL-1/2DL
1
6
6.0
Std Dev.
17.3535
1
5.93
5.9
2
16
16.0
Mean
13.7414
2
3.66
3.7
3
14
14.0
C.V.
1.2629
3
13.60
13.6
4
27
27.0
n
58
4
15.80
15.8
5
11
11.0
5
10.10
10.1
6
9
9,0
Mull Factor =
2.3900
6
6.50
6.5
7
16
16.0
Max. Value
140.0 ug/L
7
7.40
7.4
8
12
12.0
Max. Fred Cw
334.6 ug/L
8
9.66
9.7
9
10
10.0
9
18.40
18.4
10
140
140.0
10
7.06
7.1
11
9
9.0
11
4.92
4.9
12
12
12.0
12
4.78
4.8
13
18
18.0
13
6.40
6.4
14
13
13.0
14
11.40
11.4
15
11
11.0
15
5.99
6.0
16
9
9.0
16
9.51
9.5
17
5
5.0
17
6.76
6.8
18
13
13.0
18
6.50
6.5
19
7
7.0
19
7.48
7.5
20
6
6.0
20
9.02
9.0
21
7
7.0
21
8.15
8.2
22
7
7.0
22
12.40
12.4
23
6
6.0
23
6.83
6.8
24
12
12.0
24
6.61
6.6
25
12
12.0
25
7.97
8.0
26
9
9.0
26
6.72
6.7
27
9
9.0
27
5.94
5.9
28
9
9.0
28
12.60
12.6
29
18
18.0
29
6.30
6.3
30
7
7.0
30
6.13
6.1
31
13
13.0
31
7.48
7.5
32
11
11.0
32
9.76
9.8
33
16
16.0
33
Z82
7.8
34
10
10.0
34
5.34
5.3
35
11
11.0
35
4.71
4.7
36
12
12.0
36
5.45
5.5
37
9
9.0
37
1.38
1.0
38
9
9.0
38
5.27
5.3
39
18
18.0
39
4.05
4.1
40
16
16.0
40
4.39
4.4
41
18
18.0
41
-- 3.64
3.6
42
14
14.0
42
7.99
8.0
43
14
14.0
43
5.47
5.5
44
11
11.0
44
4.29
4.3
45
14
14.0
45
7.68
7.7
46
10
10.0
46
9.94
9.9
47
12
12.0
47
7.42
7.4
48
5
5.0
48
6.35
6.4
49
12
12.0
49
10.30
10.3
50
9
9.0
50
11.70
11.7
51
9
9.0
51
14.80
14.8
52
9
9.0
52
22.60
22.6
53
18
18.0
53
19.10
19.1
54
7
7.0
54
8.63
8.6
55
13
13.0
55
10.80
10.8
56
11
11.0
56
6.13
6.1
57
16
16.0
57
7.82
7.8
58
10
10.0
58
11.70
11.7
59
59
6.89
6.9
60
60
19.50
19.5
199
199
Results
Std Dev.
4.5555
Mean
8.4792
C.V.
0.5373
n
123
Mult Factor =
1.31
Max. Value
22.6
Max. Pred Ow
29.6
_2_
RPA 10MGD, data
10/20/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
1
2
3
4
5
6
ng/L 7
ng/L 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
64
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
Silver I Zinc
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.5000
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.0000
<
5
2.5
n
48
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.0000
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
Z5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
<
5
2.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
34
34.0
39
39.0
37
37.0
35
35.0
36
36.0
32
32.0
37
37.0
27
27.0
28
28.0
43
43.0
28
28.0
31
31.0
56
56.0
31
31.0
37
37.0
33
33.0
35
35.0
38
38.0
66
66.0
35
35.0
28
28.0
30
30.0
6
6.0
12
12.0
-... 68
68.0
45
45.0
44
44.0
33
33.0
- 18
18.0
7
7.0
13
13.0
11
11.0
36
36.0
51
51.0
31
31.0
43
43.0
36
36.0
33
33.0
33
33.0
52
52.0
46
46.0
60
60.0
47
47.0
52
52.0
51
51.0
50
50.0
79
79.0
52
52.0
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mull Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
RPA 10MGD, data
-3- 10/20/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
15.1289
37.6042
0.4023
48
1.4700
79.0 ug/L
116.1 ug/L
,r
-4-
RPA 10MGD, data
10/20/2010

Mc iy, James
`From: Bryant, Shari L.
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:51 PM
To: Mckay, James
Subject: RE: NC0037508; Moore County WWTP
Yes it does. Thank you! I have no further comments.
Shari Bryant
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O. Box 129
Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
336.449.7625
[e-mail]
ncwildlife.ore
Get NC Wildlife Update -- news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more -- delivered to your
inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
From: Mckay, James
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:22 PM
To: Bryant, Shari L.
Subject: RE: NC0037508; Moore County WWTP
Sha ri:
Please see the attached documents and see if this clears up your concerns.
Jim McKay, Environmental Engineer
NC DENR 1 Division of Water Quality Surface Water Protection Section
Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919/807-6404 (work): 919/807-6495 {.fax.)
***Please note, my email address has changed to [e-mail]
F,-mail correspondence to and from this address mciv be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law crud may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Bryant, Shari L.
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 4:11 PM
To: Mckay, James
Subject: RE: NC0037508; Moore County WWTP
Jim. -
Thanks for sending me the draft permit. Please find attached our comments.
Shari Bryant
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O. Box 129

a
Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
336.449.7625
'[e-mail]
Get NC Wildlife Update -- news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more -- delivered to your
Inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
From: Mckay, James
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:36 AM
To: Bryant, Shari L.
Subject: RE: NC0037508; Moore County WWTP
Jinn McKay, Environmental Engineer
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
Point Source Branch
16.17 Mail. Service Center, Raleigh., NC 27699-161.7
919/807-6404 (work); 919/807-6495 (fax)
"Please note, my email address has changed to James.McKay@ ncdenr.gov.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may he subject to the <North Carolina Public Records lair and maj- be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Bryant, Shari L.
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Mckay, James
Subject: NC0037508; Moore County WWTP
James,
Could you please forward to me a copy of the Moore County WWTP (NC0037508) permit for renewal and modification
to increase capacity to 10 mgd? An electronic copy would be great, but if one is not available, my mailing address is
below.
Thank you.
Shari Bryant
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O. Box 129
Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
336.449.7625
shari.bryant ncwildlife.ore
Get NC Wildlife Update -- news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more -- delivered to your
Inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Email .orrespondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.0 Public Records Law and :may be disclosed to third parties.

Mckay, James
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:46 PM
To: Mckay, James
Subject: one comment re NC0037508, Moore Co. WPCP expansion
In Part A.1, footnote 4, recommend changing analytical method to "EPA Method 1631E".
EPA has no other comments on this draft permit.
1

NORTH GAROLINA
Cumberland County
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Public Notice
North Carolina Eaviron-
mcntal Man�a �crn�cat
Commission) S' Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolhua Envlron -
menial Management Corn -
mission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater dis-
charge permlt to the
peraen(s)listcd below.
Written comments reg:,,Un
the permit will be
accepted rats) 30 nays after
the publish date of this no-
tice. The Director of the NC
Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) may hold a publk
hearing should there be a
gMsiant degree of public
Ptnw mail cam -
meats and/or information re -
to DWQ at the
d. ove
Interested persoas
sayrasallsvisit
Strr.� �1g6 2NC
to review Information on isle.
Additional informatlon on
NPDES permits and this no -
tiou may be found on our
websity www ncwatcrquall -
ttyy or by calling (919)
$07 04.
Morro County Public Utilities
(bloom County WWTP.
NC0037568) has applied for
renewal and modification to
Increase capacity to 10 MOD
for its ptzmrt discharging In-
to Aberdeen Crrck located
within the Ixsmber River Ba-
sin.
Notice of latent to Issue a
NPDES wastewater Permit
9/4 2749583
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and state, duly
commissioned and authorized to administer oaths, affirmations, etc.,
personally appeared. CINDY L. OROZCO
Who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to law, doth depose and say
that he/she is LEGAL SECRETARY
of THE FAYETTEVILLE PUBLISHING COMPANY, a corporation organized
and doing business under the Laws of the State of North Carolina, and
publishing a newspaper known as the FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER, in the
City of Fayetteville, County and State aforesaid, and that as such he/she
makes this affidavit; that he/she is familiar with the books, files and
business of said Corporation and by reference to the files of said publication
the attached advertisement of CL Legal Line
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A NPDES WASTEW
of NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper in space, and on dates as follows:
9/4/2010
and at the time of such publication The Fayetteville Observer was a
newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications prescribed by
Sec. No. 1-597 G.S. of N.C.
The above is correctly copied from the books and files of the aforesaid
corporation and publication. A
(�. cA D4.-S—
Title
Cumberland County, North Carolina
�Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me, this 6 day
of October, A.D., 2010.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal, the day and yea( afgye*d.
rsten E Speer,
Public •`�c�� �`''%
My commission expires 12th day of September,
MAIL TO: NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-00001617
N
�iARY s
201'E V
�. . PUB1.tGND
,'�lflllllll\��\
0002749583

c
' REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Moore County WWTP
NCO037508
Outfall 001
Qw=6.7MGD
Time Period January 2008 - December 2009
Qw, (MGD) 6.7
WWTP Class IV
Calculation of 1 Q10 based on 7Q10
7Q10S (cis) 15.2
1WC (%) @ 7010S 40.59
IQ10 = 0.843 (7Q10)
7Q10W (cfs) 28.7
@ 7010W 26.57
SUMMER 1Q10 = 12.6 (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs) 0
@ 3002 NIA
SUMMER 1Q10 IWC % = 45.24
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 47.2
@ QA 18.034
WINTER 1Q10 = 23.6 (cfs)
Rec'ving Stream Aberdeen Creek
Stream Class C
WINTER 1Q10 IWC % = 30.53
STANDARDS S
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
(1)
NC WQS / % FAV/
Chronic Acute
n # Det !ilex Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute: 16
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
58 58
334.6
recent WET test No acute Umft at this time.
_
Chronic 17
Action Level Parameter.,Facility has passed all but one
recent WET test No chronic limit at this time.
Acute: NO WQS
No acute limit
Mercury
NC
12
2.0000
ng/L
123 123
29.61
_ _ __ __
Chronic 30
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______
Chronic limit, "Monthly Average.and dailymax.
24.1 ng/ L based on 3.72 L instream H .
Acute: 3
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
48 0
2.5
No acute [unit
_ _
Chronic _ 0.15
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
recent WET. test No chronic limit at thls'time.
Acute: 148
No acute limit
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
48 48
116.1
Chronic 123
lNo
chronic limit
*Legend. "Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A=Aesthet1c
RPA 6.7MGD, rpa
8/30/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper I Mercury
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=112DL
1
6
6.0
Sul Dev.
17.3535
1
5.93
5.9
2
16
16.0
Mean
13.7414
2
3.66
3.7
3
14
14.0
C.V.
1.2629
3
13.60
13.6
4
27
27.0
n
58
4
15.80
15.8
5
11
11.0
5
10.10
10.1
6
9
9.0
Mult Factor =
2.3900
6
6.50
6.5
7
16
16.0
Max. Value
140.0 ug/L
7
7.40
7.4
8
12
12.0
Max. Pred Cw
334.6 ug1L
8
9.66
9.7
9
10
10.0
9
18A0
18.4
10
140
140.0
10
Z06
7.1
11
9
9.0
11
4.92
4.9
12
12
12.0
12
4.78
4.8
13
18
18.0
13
6A0
6.4
14
13
13.0
14
11.40
11.4
15
11
11.0
15
5.99
6.0
16
9
9.0
16
9.51
9.5
17
5
5.0
17
6.75
6.8
18
13
13.0
18
6.50
6.5
19
7
7.0
19
7.48
7.5
20
6
6.0
20
9.02
9.0
21
7
7.0
21
8.15
8.2
22
7
7.0
22
12.40
12.4
23
6
6.0
23
6.83
6.8
24
-
12'
t2,0
24
6.61
6.6
25
12
12.0
25
7.97
8.0
26
9
9.0
26
6.72
6.7
27
9
9.0
27
5.94
5.9
28
9
9.0
28
12.60
12.6
29
18
18.0
29
6.30
6.3
30
7
7.0
30
6.13
6.1
31
13
13.0
31
7.48
7.5
32
11
11.0
32
9.76
9.8
33
16
16.0
33
7.82
7.8
34
10
10.0
34
5.34
5.3
35
11
11.0
35
4.71
4.7
36
12
12.0
36
5.45
5.5
37
9
9.0
37
1.38
1.0
38
9
9.0
38
5.27
5.3
39
18
18.0
39
4.05
4.1
40
16
16.0
40
4.39
4.4
41
18
18.0
41
3.64
3.6
42
14
14.0
42
7.99
8.0
43
14
14.0
43
5.47
5.5
44
11
11.0
44
4.29
4.3
45
14
14.0
45
7.68
7.7
46
10
10.0
46
9.94
9.9
47
12
12.0
47
7.42
7.4
48
5
5.0
48
6.35
6.4
49
12
12.0
49
10.30
10.3
50
9
9.0
50
11.70
11.7
51
9
9.0
61
14.80
14.8
52
9
9.0
52
22.60
22.6
53
18
18.0
53
19.10
19.1
54
7
7.0
54
8.63
8.6
55
13
13.0
55
10.80
10.8
56
11
11.0
56
6.13
6.1
57
16
16.0
57
7.82
7.8
58
10
10.0
58
11.70
11.7
59
59
',. 6.89
8.9
60
60
19.50
19.5
199
199
Results
Std Dev.
4.5555
Mean
8.4792
C.V.
0.5373
n
123
Mult Factor =
1.31
Max. Value
22.6
Max. Pred Cw
29.6
RPA 6.7MGD, data
2- 8/30/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Silver
Zinc
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
<
5
2.5
Sid Dev.
0.0000
1
34
34.0
Std Dev.
2
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.5000
2
39
39.0
Mean
3
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.0000
3
37
37.0
C.V.
4
<
5
2.5
n
48
4
35
35.0
n
5
<
5
2.5
5
36
36.0
6
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.0000
6
32
32.0
Mull Factor=
ng/L
7
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
7
37
37.0
Max. Value
ng/L
8
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.5 ug/L
8
27
27.0
Max. Pred Cw
9
<
5
2.5
9
28
28.0
10
<
5
2.5
10
43
43.0
11
<
5
2.5
11
28
28.0
12
<
5
2.5
12
31
31.0
13
<
5
2.5
13
56
56.0
14
<
5
2.5
14
31
31.0
15
<
5
2.5
15
37
37.0
16
<
5
2.5
16
33
33.0
17
<
5
2.5
17
35
35.0
18
<
5
2.5
18
38
38.0
19
<
5
2.5
19
66
66.0
20
<.
5
2.5
20
35
35.0
21
<
5
2.5
21
28
28.0
22
<
5
2.5
22
30
30.0
23
<.
5
2.5
23
6
6.0
24
<
5
2.5
24
12
12.0
25
<
5
2.5
25
68
68.0
26
<
5
2.5
26
45
45.0
27
<
5
2.5
27
44
44.0
28
<
5
2.5
28
33
33.0
29
<.
5
2.5
29
18
18.0
30
<
5
2.5
30
7
7.0
31
<
5
2.5
31
13
13.0
32
<
5
2.5
32
11
11.0
33
<
5
2.5
33
36
36.0
34
<
5
2.5
34
51
51.0
35
<;
5
2.5
35
- 31
31.0
36
<
5
2.5
36
43
43.0
37
<
5
2.5
37
36
36.0
38
<,
5
2.5
38
33
33.0
39
<
5
2.5
39
33
33.0
40
<
5
2.5
40
52
52.0
41
<
5
2.5
41
46
46.0
42
<
5
2.5
42
60
00.0
43
<
5
2.5
43
47
47.0
44
<
5
2.6
44
52
52.0
45
<
5
2.5
45
51
51.0
46
<
5
2.5
46
50
50.0
47
<
5
2.5
47
79
79.0
48
5
2.5
48
52
52.0
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
199
199
200
200
RPA 6.7MGD, data
-3- 8/30/2010

'S
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
15.1289
37.6042
0.4023
48
1.4700
79.0 ug/L
116.1 ug/L
-4-
RPA 6.7MGD, data
8/30/2010

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Ow (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Source(s)
Moore County WWTP
IV
NC0037508
001
6.7
Abe deep Creek
C
15.2
28.7
r
( 47.2
January.2008 -December 2009
DMR
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
C
10
ug/L
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
Cadmium
NC
2
15
ug/L
Chromium
NC
50
1022
ug/L
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
Cyanide
NC
5
N
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
NC
1800
ug/L
Lead
NC
25
N
33.8
ug/L
Mercury
NC
12
2.0
ng/L
golybdenum
A
3500
ug/L
Nickel
NC
88
261
ug/L
Phenols
A
1
N
ug/L
Selenium
NC
5
56
ug/L
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
1.23
ug/L
Zinc
NC
50
AL J
67 1
ug/L
RPA 6.7MGD, input
8/30/2010

' REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Moore County WWTP
NCO037508
Outfall 001
Qw = 10 MGD
Time Period January 2008 - December 2009
Qw, (MGD) 10
WWTP Class IV
Calculation of 1Q10 based on 7Q10
7Q10S (cfs) 15.2
IWC (%) @ 7Q10S 50.489
1Q10 = 0.843 (7Q10) 090
701OW (cfs) 28.7
@ 7Q10W 35.068
SUMMER 1Q10 =12.6 (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs) 0
@ 3OQ2 NIA
SUMMER 1Q10 IWC % = 55.22
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 47.2
@ QA 24.721
WINTER 1Q10 = 23.6 (cfs)
Rec'ving Stream Aberdeen Creek
Stream Class C
WINTER 1Q10 IWC % = 39.61
STANDARDS 8
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS/ '/, FAV/
Chmnk Acute
n 0 Dot Atax Prod Cw Atkwable Cw
(1)
Acute: 13
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
58 58
334.6
_ _
recent WET test. No acute limit at this time.
Chronic_ 14
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
recent WET test. No chronic limitat this time.
Acute: NO WQS
No acute limit
Mercury
NC
12
2.0000
ng/L
123 123
29.61
_ _nic _
Chro24
Chronic Omit. Monthly Average and daily maximum.
Limit Is 20.1 ng/ L based on3.72 ngl L background Hg.
Acute: 2
Action Level Parameter. Faci[ttyhas passed all but one
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
48 0
2.5
_ _ _ _
recentWET test No acute,limit at this time.
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
Chro_ 0.12
nic_
recent WET test No chronic limit at this time.
Acute: 121
No acute limit
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
48 48
116.1
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 99
IrecentWETtest,
Action Level Parameter. Facility has passed all but one
No chronic limit at this time.
Legend. "Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non-caminogenlc
A = Aesthetic
RPA 10MGD, rpa
8/30/2010

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q1Os (cfs)
7Q1Ow (cfs)
3002 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Source(s)
Moore County WWTP
IV
NCO037508
001
10.0
Aberdeen Creek
C
15.2
28.7
47.2
January 2008 - December 2009
DMR
Par01
ParO2
ParO3
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par1U
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
C
10
ug/L
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
Cadmium
NC
2
15
ug/L
Chromium
NC
50
1022
ug/L
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
Cyanide
NC
5
N
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
NC
1800
ug/L
Lead
NC
25
N
33.8
ug/L
Mercury
NC
12
2.0
ng/L
Molybdenum
A
3500
ug/L
Nickel
NC
88
261
ug/L
Phenols
A
1
N
ug/L
Selenium
NC
5
56
ug/L
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
1.23
ug/L
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
RPA, input
8/25/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper IMercury
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
1
6
6.0
Std Dev.
17.3535
1
5,93
5.9
2
16
16.0
Mean
13.7414
2
3.66
3.7
3
14
14.0
C.V.
1.2629
3
13.60
13.6
4
27
27.0
n
58
4
15.80
15.8
5
11
11.0
5
10.10
10.1
6
9
9.0
Mult Factor =
2.3900
6
6.50
6.5
7
16
16.0
Max. Value
140.0 ug/L
7
7.40
7.4
8
12
12.0
Max. Pred Cw
334.6 ug/L
8
9.66
9.7
9
10
10.0
9
18.40
18.4
10
140
140.0
10
7.06
7.1
11
9
9.0
11
11
4.92
4.9
12
12
12.0
12
(
4.78
4.8
13
18
18.0
13
[
6.40
6.4
14
13
13.0
14
G
11.40
11.4
15
11
11.0
15
5.99
6.0
16
9
9.0
16
N
9.51
9.5
17
5
5.0
17
6.75
6.8
18
13
13.0
18
6.50
6.5
19
7
7.0
19
7.48
7.5
20
6
6.0
20
9.02
9.0
21
7
7.0
21
8.15
8.2
22
7
7.0
22
G
12.40
12.4
23
6
6.0
23
- -
6.83
6.8
24
12
12.0
24
6,61
6.6
25
12
12.0
25
I
7.97
8.0
26
9
9.0
26
`
6.72
6.7
27
9
9.0
27
5.94
5.9
28
9
9.0
28
12.60
12.6
29
18
18.0
29
(F
6.30
6.3
30
7
7.0
30
6.13
6.1
31
13
13.0
31
7.48
7.5
32
11
11.0
32
"
9.76
9.8
33
16
16.0
33
7.82
7.8
34
10
10.0
34
5.34
5.3
35
11
11.0
35
4.71
4.7
36
12
12.0
36
5.45
5.5
37
9
9.0
37
�',
1.38
1.0
38
9
9.0
38
5.27
5.3
39
18
18.0
39
4.05
4.1
40
16
16.0
40
4.39
4.4
41
18
18.0
41
3.64
3.6
42
14
14.0
42
7.99
8.0
43
14
14.0
43
5.47
5.5
44
11
11.0
44
4.29
4.3
45
14
14.0
45
Z68
7.7
46
10
10.0
46
9.94
9.9
47
12
12.0
47
Z42
7.4
48
5
5.0
48
6.35
6.4
49
12
12.0
49
10.30
10.3
50
9
9.0
50
11.70
11.7
51
9
9.0
51
14,80
14.8
52
9
9.0
52
22.60
22.6
63
18
18.0
53
19.10
19.1
54
7
7.0
54
8.63
8.6
55
13
13.0
55
10,80
10.8
56
11
11.0
56
6.13
6.1
57
16
16.0
57
7.82
7.8
58
10
10.0
58
11.70
11.7
69
59
6S9
6.9
60
60
19.50
19.5
199
199
Results
Std Dev.
4,5555
Mean
8.4792
C.V.
0.5373
n
123
Mull Factor = 1.31
Max. Value 22.6
Max. Prod Cw 29.6
RPA, data
.2- 8/25/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
ng/L
ng/L
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
2
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.5000
2
3
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.0000
3
4
<
5
2.5
n
48
4
5
<
5
2.5
5
6
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.0000
6
7
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
7
8
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.5 ug/L
8
9
<
5
2.5
9
10
<
5
2.5
10
11
<
5
2.5
11
12
<
5
2.5
12
13
<
5
2.5
13
14
<
5
2.5
14
15
<
5
2.5
15
16
<
5
2.5
16
17
<
5
2.5
17
18
<
5
2.5
18
19
<
5
2.5
19
20
<
5
2.5
20
21
<
5
2.5
21
22
<
5
25
22
23
<
5
2.5
23
24
<
5
2.5
24
25
<
5
2.5
25
26
<
5
2.5
26
27
<
5
2.5
27
28
<
5
2.5
28
29
<
5
2.5
29
30
<
5
2.5
30
31
<
5
2.5
31
32
<
5
2.5
32
33
<
5
2.5
33
34
<
5
2.5
34
35
<
5
2.5
35
36
<
5
2.5
36
37
<
5
2.5
37
38
<
5
2.5
38
39
<
5
2.5
39
40
<
5
2.5
40
41
<
5
2.5
41
42
<
5
2.5
42
43
<
5
2.5
43
44
<
5
2.5
44
45
<
5
2.5
45
46
<
5
2.5
46
47
<
5
2.5
47
48
<
5
2.5
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
64
55
55
66
56
57
57
58
58
59`
--
59
60
60
199
199
Zinc
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
34
34.0
Std Dev.
39
39.0
Mean
37
37.0
C.V.
35
35.0
n
36
36.0
32
32.0
Mult Factor =
37
37.0
Max. Value
27
27.0
Max. Pred Cw
28
28.0
43
43.0
28
28.0
31
31.0
56
56.0
31
31.0
37
37.0
33
33.0
35
35.0
38
38.0
66
66.0
35
35.0
28
28.0
30
30.0
6
6.0
12
12.0
68
68.0
45
45A
44
44.0
33
33A
18
18.0
7
7.0
13
13.0
11
11.0
36
36.0
51
51.0
31
31.0
43
43.0
36
36.0
33
33.0
33
33.0
52
52.0
46
46.0
60
60.0
47
47.0
52
52.0
51
51.0
50
50.0
79
79.0
52
52.0
-3-
RPA, data
8/25/2010

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
15.1289
37.6042
0.4023
48
1.4700
79.0 ug/L
116.1 ug/L
-4-
RPA, data
8/25/2010

v
DNISION OF WATER QU - ;
RECV--,
March 9, 2009
MEMORANDUM
DENR - "7ER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
TO: Dina Sprinkle
Point Source Branch
FROM: Dale Lopez, Environmental Specialist
THROUGH: Belinda S. Henson, Regional Supervisor Surface Wat�ion $�ec� FRO
RO
SUBJECT: Application for NPDES Permit NCO037508
Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant
1094 Adder Road
Aberdeen, NC 28315
Moore County
Please find enclosed a staff report and recommendations from the Fayetteville Regional
Office concerning the application for a new NPDES Permit.
If you have any questions or require any further information, please advise.
/DL
Enclosures

d
To: Permit and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Dina Sprinkle
Date: March 9, 2009
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY: Moore
Permit No.: NCO037508
PART 1— GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant
1094 Addor Road
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
2. Date of Investigation: February 5, 2009
3. Report Prepared by: Dale Lopez, Environmental Specialist FRO
4. Person Contacted and Telephone Number:
Brant Sikes, System Superintendent [phone]
5. Directions to Site:
From Fayetteville, travel on Hwy 401, turn right onto Hwy 211 North, turn left at Army
Road, travel straight and cross Hwy 151501, turn right onto Addor Road, and turn left at
the entrance to the Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
atitude: 35°04'04" N Longitude: 78°28'07"
Attach a U.S.G.S. map extract and indicate the treatment facility site and the discharge point on
the map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. G21S
U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Pinebluff, N.C.

•t
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with the application?
es.
8. Topography (relationship to the flood plain): Not evaluate
9. Location of the nearest dwelling: INot evaluate
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
a. Classification: Little River Class
b. River Basin No. umber River 03-07-5 and Sub basin No.: LUMS
C. Describe receiving stream features and the pertinent downstream uses:
The discharge from the Moore County Water Pollution Control wastewater
treatment facility flows to Aberdeen Creek, at a point with a 7Q 10 of 15.2 cfs
flow (as according to the Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring
Summary --- see attachment). It is classified as Class C waters, which promotes
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
PART II - DISCRIPTION OF WASTES AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted:
6.7 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater Treatment facility?
6.7 MG
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)?
6.7 MG
d. Please provide a description of the existing or substantially constructed
wastewater treatment facility:
Raw wastewater flow enters the headworks of the plant through an influent pump
station with four dry pit submersible pumps and two mechanical bar screens.
The flow is pumped to the grit removal unit. The settled grit is pumped from the
bottom of each chamber by two grit pumps, and into the grit washer. The grit
slurry is then dewatered. A screw conveyor carries the grit to a container located
outside the grit unit. The grit that is collected is sent to the landfill. Wastewater
from the grit unit flows over a wier into the effluent line ensuring a grit free
discharge to the two primary clarifiers (each 75 feet in diameter). Settled solids
from the primary clarifiers are mechanically collected for pumping to the
anaerobic digesters. In the primary clarifier, a skimmer attached to the arm
collects scum from the surface and drops it into a scum box that drains outside the
tank wall. Pumps located in the grit unit pump the primary sludge from the
primary clarifier directly to the anaerobic digesters. The primary clarifier effluent
flows to the First Stage Aeration Basins (separated into four rectangular
compartments with diffused air). The mixed liquor is continuously transferred to
the two Intermediate Clarifier (each 90 feet in diameter) for gravity separation and

r�
N&
is returned to the First Stage aeration basins with the excess going to the
anaerobic digesters. The wastewater from the Intermediate Clarifiers enters the
Second Stage Aeration Basins, and later flows to the Final Clarifiers. The settled
sludge in the Final Clarifiers is returned to the Second Stage Aeration Basins,
with excess going to the anaerobic digesters. Effluent from the Final Clarifiers
flows to the Chlorine Contact Basin. This is followed by dechlorination, and
finally the Cascade Step Aeration. The sludge from the two anaerobic digesters
is annlied to thirtv-six drvine beds for comnostinu by McGill Environmental.
e. Possible toxic impacts to the surface waters:
on
2. Residuals handling and utilizing/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify the DWQ Permit No. N/A
Residual Contractor: ®/
Telephone:
b. Residual stabilization: 9/�
C. Landfill:
f. Other disposal/utilization scheme (specify):
he sludge from the two anaerobic di esters is applied to thirty-six drying b
for composting by McGill Environmental.
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge
options available: Please provide the regional perspective for each of the options that
were evaluated.
Connection to Regional Sewer System:
Land Application: one evaluatedl
Water Reuse: Inone evaluate

C,
V
PART IV — EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The applicant is not requesting modification of the facility or increasing flow at this time.
2. A review of the compliance data did not reveal any significant violations. In June 2006
and December 2006 this facility experienced Whole Effluent Toxicity failures. Upon
investigation by this Office, the failures appeared to have been caused by the location of
the dechlorination injection point too close to, and in the immediate flow path of, the 24-
hour composite sample intake. That is to say, the 24-hour composite samples for the
Whole Effluent Toxicity analysis contained too much dechlorination and was not
representing the true dilution of the Effluent 001 wastewater with the dechlorination
agent.
3. Based upon the previous Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) that was conducted on
February 5, 2009, all units were in service, and "this facility continues to maintain a very
high standard for wastewater treatment".
4. This Office recommends continuation of the Special Conditions for the Whole Effluent
Toxicity monitoring and the Pretreatment Program.
5. Based upon the above information, this Office recommends reissuance of the said permit
for the continued operation of an existing 6.7 MGD wastewater treatment facility
consisting of influent pumps, mechanical bar screen, grit removal, primary clarification,
first -stage activated sludge, intermediate clarification, second -stage aeration, final
clarification, anaerobic sludge digestion, sludge drying beds, and a post aeration cascade
aerator, also two anaerobic sludge digesters located at the Moore County Water Pollution
Control Plant on Addor Road, south of Aberdeen in Moore County.

Flla E&
yyew Ft.. lock MFb
_ _....
yr Bask . ti . 'jj � � I '�, xmN � GJFermros '.3'nMa -j'I 'a,�• g% � [�
4QNms ISM
Mtp.11mepscar-.4fY]nE9eX4uYV/0.WJIrcm9M1ZNVYYNYmYY�GVbIJYYYtWy11JDNadClrvlt$GcurtiiryjNMya5C013.1IQtal[prfQy)fdL1LR1YWd'IOfcllrMpJln� (a IFki w'
Basiwe.... Veaple Calleclipns LecaUons Web
_.-IMM.
{�ys wekpme ®Directions colleuionzw _
q
,Je.
nD.
Location result for Addor Rd, Aberdeen, NC 28315 M91r[YSLIIGb
Share prir
C.
I] E.
❑L..
QN.
O p.
I]F.
❑5.
L1 s.
Y
07.
❑w
dG'
4aw)
OMA
02009 Miaosok Friva9Y I Lc9al
Advcrtise Webmas[cr Oertlppers I Hclp I Feedback
Dare
F F F r smemet ,q

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
February 12, 2009
County of .Moore
Public Works
-Wastewater Treatment Plant
1094 .Addor Road
.Aberdeen North Carolina 28315
:,. n �!
�0fxe�o,.
Mrs. Dina Sprinkle
NC DENR/DWQ/Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: NPDES Permit NCO037508 -
Dear Mrs. Sprinkle,
www.moorecountync.gov
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Pursuant to conversation with Dale Lopez Environmental Specialist, DWQ/FRO on
February 5" 2009, the following item is submitted in triplicate and enclosed with this
correspondence:
• Plant Process Narrative
o The narrative contains a brief overview of the Moore County Water
Pollution Control Plant and descriptions of each individual process unit.
The narrative serves as an amendment to the permit renewal application
submitted on January 30, 2009.
Please amend your copies of the permit renewal application to include the narrative. If
you have any questions or require more information, feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
f
J. Brant Sikes, Superintendent
Moore County Water Pollution Control Pant
Enclosures

Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant Process Narrative
Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant is an activated sludge treatment facility with two
stages of aeration and three stages of sedimentation. Anaerobic digestion is utilized to reduce the
volume of sludge which is subsequently spread to the drying beds.
Raw sewage enters the wet well of the Raw Sewage Pump Station by gravity and is screened and
pumped to the Grit Removal Unit where grit is separated from the raw flow. The sewage then
flows to the primary clarifiers (two) from which the primary sludge flows to the digesters. Flow
is then into the First Stage Aeration Basin where diffused aeration is employed is employed to
reduce the BOD of the wastewater. The Intermediate Clarifiers (two) receive the flow, and the
settled sludge is returned to the aeration basin with excess going to the digester. The wastewater
then enters the Second Stage Aeration Basin where diffused aeration further reduces the BOD
and also accomplishes nitrification. The Final Clarifiers (two) then provide final sedimentation
of the activated sludge which is returned to the aeration basin with excess to the digesters. The
liquid flowing over the wier of the Final Clarifier is then allowed to flow into the Chlorine
Contact Basin where chlorination is accomplished. The flow is de -chlorinated, at the end of the
Chlorine Contact Basin, using Sulfur Dioxide. The final step in treatment is the Cascade Aerator
to allow the remaining elevation to be employed to increase the oxygen content of the treated
effluent.
The primary sludge and the waste activated sludge from the Intermediate Clarifiers and the Final
Clarifiers is pumped to the Anaerobic Digesters. Digested sludge is withdrawn from the digesters
and spread on the Sludge Drying Beds to allow for final disposition at either a landfill or
composting facility.
The following section provides a brief description of each process unit.
Raw Sewage Pump Station
The Raw Sewage Pumping Station wet well receives the raw flow and the in -plant waste flow
through a mechanically cleaned bar screen. The purpose of these units is to remove rags, sticks,
and other debris that may interfere with the equipment and treatment units that follow. Bar
screening is also done at the pump stations ahead of the pumps. The screenings are landfilled.
The wet well has a small volume to prevent septicity of the sewage during low flow. Four dry pit
submersible pumps take suction from the wet well and maintain the wet well level in a narrow
range as the inflow varies.
Grit Removal Unit
The effluent from the Raw Sewage Pump Station enters the parshall flume at the Grit Unit where
the total waste flow measurement is made. The discharge from the parshall flume is routed
through control gates to two grit chambers where sand and other heavy particulate matter settle
from the wastewater.

The settled grit is pumped from the bottom of each chamber by two grit pumps discharging into
the grit washer where the grit slurry is dewatered. A screw conveyor carries the grit to a
container located outside the Grit Unit. The grit thus collected is landfilled.
Wastewater in the Grit Unit flows over a wier into the effluent line ensuring a grit free discharge
to the Primary Clarifiers.
Primary Clarifiers
Two 75.0 ft. diameter settling tanks receive the wastewater from the Grit Unit. Settled solids
(sludge) from the clarifiers are mechanically collected for pumping to the anaerobic digesters.
Sewage enters the clarifier at the center and flows through ports in the top of the central vertical
pipe, then radially to a peripheral effluent wier. A very slowly rotating collector arm plows
settled solids to the sludge draw off pit at the center of the tank. A skimmer attached to the arm
collects scum from the surface and drops it into a scum box that drains outside the tank wall.
Both primary sludge and scum are allowed to flow into a pit located beside the clarifier. This
primary sludge in the pit is then pumped directly to the anaerobic digesters by pumps located in
the Grit Unit.
First Stage Aeration Basin
The First Stage Aeration Basin is separated into four rectangular compartments with diffused air.
The effluent from the Primary Clarifiers flows into each compartment at three points for a step
feed process. Return activated sludge from the Intermediate Clarifiers is pumped into each
compartment at three locations further enhancing nutrient equalization.
Wastewater flowing onto the First Stage Aeration Basin contains organic matter (BOD) as a food
supply. Bacteria metabolize the waste solids, producing new growth while taking in dissolved
oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. Protozoa graze on bacteria for energy to reproduce. Some
of the new microbial growth dies releasing cell contents to solution for re -synthesis. After the
addition of a large population of microorganisms, aerating raw wastewater for a few hours
removes organic matter from solution by synthesis into microbial cells. Mixed liquor is
continuously transferred to the Intermediate Clarifier for gravity separation of the biological floc.
Settled floc (activated sludge) is returned continuously from the sludge hoppers at the
Intermediate Clarifiers to the First Stage Aeration Basin for mixing with entering wastewater.
Intermediate Clarifiers
Two 90 ft. diameter settling tanks receive the flow of mixed liquor from the First Stage Aeration
Basin. The purpose of the Intermediate Clarifiers is gravity separation of the biological growth
suspended in the mixed liquor effluent from the aeration basin.
The liquid flow pattern is the same as that of the Primary Clarifiers except that the sludge is
collected with suction tubes that pick up sludge several radii in the tank. The sludge collection

system provides rapid withdrawal of sludge across the entire bottom of the tank. The retention
time of solids that settle near the tank periphery is not greater than those that land near the center,
thus, aging of the biological floc and subsequent floating solids due to gas production is
eliminated.
Settling sludge flows by gravity into the wet well in the Return Activated Pump Station 41 where
it is then pumped into the First Stage Aeration Basin. Excess sludge is wasted to the Solid
Handling Unit.
Second Stage Aeration Basin
The Second Stage Aeration Basin provides carbonaceous BOD removal and nitrification. The
basin is subdivided into four compartments with baffles for plug flow. Each compartment is
aerated with diffused air. The influent is split in control structure #4 and flows to the head of
each of the four compartments. Activated sludge from the Final Clarifier is returned to the head
of each compartment.
The process of nitrification involves oxidation of ammonia to nitrate. The important parameters
in bacterial nitrification kinetics are temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen concentration.
Reaction rate is decreased markedly at reduced temperatures with about 807 being the
minimum reasonable value. Optimum pH in near 8.4 s.u. and the dissolved oxygen level should
be greater than 1.0 mg/1. The system requires a long sludge retention time to prevent excessive
loss of viable nitrifying bacteria.
Since biological nitrification destroys alkalinity, lime slurry is added to the Second Stage
Aeration Basin to raise the pH to the optimum level.
In order to enhance solid separation in the Final Clarifiers polymer is added to the Second Stage
Aeration Basin.
Final Clarifiers
Two 105 ft. diameter settling tanks receive the flow of mixed liquor from the Second Stage
Aeration Basin. The purpose of the Final Clarifier is gravity separation of the biological growths
suspended in the mixed liquor effluent from the aeration basin. Sludge is collected and returned
to the aeration basin to maintain a supply of nitrifying organisms.
The Final Clarifiers are, except for a greater volume, identical to the intermediate clarifier.
Chlorine Contact Basin and De -chlorination Process
Flow from the Final Clarifiers enters the Chlorine Basin where chlorine is added and mixed with
a rapid mixer. The detention time at average flow is 30 minutes.
Chlorine is used for disinfection to destroy pathogens and control nuisance microorganisms.
Following chlorination, the flow is de -chlorinated using sulfur dioxide

4-
Cascade Aerator
The treated wastewater leaves the chlorine contact basin and then flows over the Cascade
Aerator. Water turbulence caused by the slats and steps increase the dissolved oxygen content of
the water entering the receiving streams.
Primary Anaerobic Dig ester
The Primary Anaerobic Digester functions to reduce the volume of sludge by providing an
oxygen free environment for sludge digestion and gas formation. The purpose of sludge
digestion is to convert bulky, odorous, raw sludge to a relatively inert material that can be rapidly
dewatered in the absence of obnoxious odors.
The bacterial process consists of two successive processes that occur simultaneously in digesting
sludge. The first stage consists of breaking down large organic compounds and converting them
to organic acids along with gaseous by-products of carbon dioxide, methane and trace amounts
of hydrogen sulfide. In order for digestion to occur, second stage gasification is needed to
convert the organic acids to methane and carbon dioxide. This stage is very sensitive to
environmental conditions of temperature and pH.
The primary Anaerobic Digester is completely mixed by a gas compressor that forces the sludge
gas collected under the floating cover down to the bottom of the digestion tank. The rising gas
bubbles provide complete mixing of the digested contents.
Two sludge heaters are provided to maintain the temperature at an optimum 95°F for best
digestion.
The gas collected in the digester is used to fuel the sludge heaters and heat the Solid Handling
Unit. Excess gas is allowed to burn in the waste gas burner.
Secondary Anaerobic Digester
Since the contents of the Primary Anaerobic Digester are completely mixed, no sludge
thickening is possible in this unit. The purpose of the Secondary Digester is to provide an
environment where anaerobic digestion can continue under minimum hydraulic disturbances
which result in a dense sludge at the bottom of the digester and a clear supernate above the
sludge.
The sludge and supernate are periodically withdrawn and allowed to flow to the sludge drying
beds for air drying.

Department of Public Works
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1094 Addor Road
Aberdeen, NC 28315
14 /
January 29, 2009
Re: NPDES Permit Application
NPDES Permit No. NC0037508
Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant
Mrs. Dina Sprinkle
NC DENR/DWQ/ Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mrs. Sprinkle:
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
DENR - WATEI OUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Moore County's NPDES Permit expires July 31, 2009. In compliance with Federal (40
CFR 122) and State (15A NCAC 2H.0105 (e)) regulations, we are required to submit a
Permit Renewal Application at least 180 days prior to the expiration date. The Permit
Renewal Application is enclosed, in triplicate, with correspondence.
The County of Moore requests that their existing Permit be renewed as is, without any
modifications.
The following are changes made at the facility since the last issuance of the permit:
1. A liquid lime system was installed and use of the bulk hydrated lime was
discontinued.
2. The raw sewage pump station was upgraded from a capacity of 6.7mgd to
1 Omgd in preparation for the plant upgrade.
If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me at (910) 281-
3146.
Sincerely,
Brant Sikes, System Superintendent
JBS/jls
Enclosures
Cc: Ms. Belinda Henson, Fayetteville Regional Office, Director
Mr. Cary McSwain, County of Moore, Manager
Mr. Dennis Brobs4 County of Moore, Public Utilities Director

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Moore County Water Pollution Control,
Renewal
Lumber
NCO037508
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant Industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject to, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SlUs. 0
b. Number of CIUs. 4
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Info... on for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Infomtation requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User IMormatlon. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Erice Inc
Mailing Address: 188 Carolina Road
Aberdeen NC 28315
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Electroplating of grounding rods with cooper and nickel
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Materlal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Grounding Rods
Raw material(s): Steel rod and coil
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
12186.4 gpd (100 % continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards M Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433- Electroplating and Metal Finishing

FACNJTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Moore County Water Pollution Control,
NC0037508
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Lumber
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU mused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by buck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes ® No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIAT10N/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remedlation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) ® No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLAIRCRAlor other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE

Additional information, if provided, will appear on the following pages.
Y
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Moore County Water Pollution Control,
NC0037508
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Lumber
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following info ... w on for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User intomration. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Meridian Klosks
Mailing Address: 312 South Pine Street
Aberdeen NC 28315
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Degreasing and Phosphorus wash of metal
F.S. Principal Products) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Kiosk machines
Raw malerial(s): Steel
F.6. Flow Rate.
C. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
157 gpd ( contnuous or 100 % intermittent)
d. Nan -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits N Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards N Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433- Electroplating and Metal Finishing
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes N No If yes, describe each episode.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Moore County Water Pollution Control,
NC0037508
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Lumber
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. H more than okra SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Infomkation. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Pinnacle Furnishings Inc
Mailing Address: 10570 NC Hwy 211 East
Aberdeen NC 28315
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe ali the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Electroplating and anodizing of aluminum metal
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Materlal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Furniture for hotels casinos and restaurants
Raw material(s): Aluminum metal
F.6. Flow Rate.
e. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average dairy volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
1550 god ( con8nuousor 100% intermittent)
I. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433- Electroplating and Metal Finishing
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Moore County Water Pollution Control,
NC0037508
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Lumber
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. U more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Thermal Metal Treating, Inc
Mailing Address: PO Box 367
Aberdeen NC 28315
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Electroplating and metal heat treating
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Residential and commercial door hardware industrial tools and automotive components
Raw material(s): Brass steel and nickel parts
F.6. Flow Rate.
g. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
540 gpd ( continuousor 100% intermittent)
h. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or Intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433- Electroplating and Metal Finishing
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

POP�`O�I` OA
�
h�'Q � Q►�per{ .
5
GRIT I I I I
DISPOSAL 4--PRIMARY SLUDGE — — — — — — — ---�
I �
I �
t ♦ _tWASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE ` J
I
I
L _
SLUDGE ANAEROBIC
THICKENER DIGESTER
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
Drainage to
Raw Sewage Influent
�`�Q, �pc, p�`01►
G
Discharge
001
6.7 mgd
• Sludge composted
FIGURE 3 -1 PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC

r4
A.'
ADDENDUM 2
NPDES PERMIT #NC0037508
REQUEST FOR RENEWAL
January 12, 2009
Whole Effluent Toxicity:
Moore County Water Pollution Control Plant has had failed toxicity tests since the
issuance of the current permit. The following is the explanation of the events and what
has been done to correct problems and prevent further toxic events.
In June 2006, chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia testing showed toxicity of the plant effluent
resulting in a fail. The test was run concurrent with the Long Term Monitoring sampling
which did not show any abnormal results. A toxicity test was conducted in July 2006
which also resulted in a fail (chronic value=14.5%). Additional tests were conducted
during the month of July including tests for pesticides and herbicides (EPA 8081 A and
EPA 8141 A). Results from these tests were all below detection limit (see attached). We
continued to look into what was happening on the plant to cause the toxicity. We
reviewed effluent results in toxicity vs. non -toxicity months, influent flow to the plant,
chlorination and dechlorination, odor reduction additives in the collection system (see
attached MSDS), metals in drinking water influent, septic hauler loads and Porto John
chemical use. Toxicity was conducted in August which resulted in a chronic value of
>100%, a pass. Annual PPA testing was conducted in August. The result for the quarter
was a pass with an average of 57%.
Quarterly testing was conducted in September which resulted in a pass.
Quarterly testing was conducted in December which resulted in a fail. We discussed the
test with our commercial lab and tried to determine what time during the test the toxicity
started (see attached), investigated metals levels in the aeration basins (two stages) for the
previous four years, looked into the scheduled cleaning of clarifiers and basins on the
plant by our operations staff, tested Sulfur levels (see attached), and planned a split
sample with the Fayetteville DWQ office for January as part of our annual plant
inspection. January's split sample test resulted in a chronic value of 29% from Meritech,
our commercial lab, but due to the irregularities in the testing and paperwork, the Aquatic
Testing Unit invalidated the result (we do not have a copy of the ATU toxicity report).
The ATU noted that there were `indigenous organisms in the sample which were
removed due, to possible interference' with the test. Meritech did not note the same
organisms. Other items noted in the report from the ATU (see attached) were improper
procedures in splitting the sample between the two labs, irregularities in the chains -of -
custody, and cleaning procedures for containers and tubing. We were advised to make up
for the invalidated test in April 2007. The following items were changed following the
ATU report and discussion with our Fayetteville Regional DWQ Office representative:

A
Cleaning procedures for tubing are to be performed prior to the first use of the
tubing and every toxicity collection day following.
Procedures for pouring samples into containers now allow proper mixing and
allow split samples to be split properly.
The location of toxicity sample collection is now at the effluent composite sample
location at the bottom of the cascade. Previously, it was just after the
dechlorination mixing site.
Chains -of -custody are to be filled out properly with all signatures needed and
anyone who assisted in the sample collection or handling is to be noted.
Any plant process changes during the week prior and the week of toxicity testing
are to be made only by the ORC.
There is now no cleaning of clarifiers or basins during the week prior to and the
week of toxicity testing.
The use of the odor reduction additive into the collection system has been
discontinued.
Following these changes, in February we passed with 58%. In March 2007, we conducted
our regular quarterly testing. We split the sample between Meritech (our normal
commercial lab) and R&A Lab, both with resulted in a pass. In April, we conducted the
make up test for the invalidated January test and split the sample between Meritech and
R&A Lab again with results of >100% and 90.55% respectively.
Since January 2007, we have had no toxic events. In 2008 we conducted Fathead
Minnow testing during each quarter along with our normal Ceriodaphnia tests. All results
were passes.
Attached are all toxicity test results for the years of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and the
documents noted above.
If you have any questions concerning our past toxicity results, please do not hesitate to
contact J. Brant Sikes at [phone].

OF NN A 9
-0 QG
� r
O �
fm TC Michael F. Easley, Governor
�y William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
14AR Ul" ina partment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
-- Division of Water Quality
Mr. James D. Frye, Superintendent
Moore County WWTP
1094 Addor Road
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
March 7, 2007
Subject: January 24, 2007-Toxicity Test
Moore County WWTP
NPDES No. NCO037508
Moore County
Mr. Frye,
Thank you for submitting the supporting information requested for the January 24, 2007 effluent toxicity
test result for the Moore County WWTP. All relevant information has been reviewed by Aquatic
Toxicology Unit staff. A result of "invalid" has been for recorded for the January 24, 2007 test.
To investigate the apparent difference in results obtained from the tests, we examined documentation
concerning sampling, testing, and lab procedures. Water quality parameters of the control waters for the
tests were similar. All quality assurance documentation from both labs was in order. However, in a phone
conversation Ms. Janna Scherer had with a member of our staff, Mr. Lance Ferrell, it was determined that
the 1/25/07-1/26/07 sample that the Aquatic Toxicology Unit received was not split with the sample for
Meritech, Inc. It is our understanding that the courier from Meritech, Inc. arrived at your facility prior to
Mr. Dale Lopez, a staff member from the DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office, and received their sample.
Later when Mr. Dale Lopez arrived, the sample collector poured up a second sample from the retraining
effluent in the sample container, and gave it to him to be shipped to the Aquatic Toxicology Unit
laboratory. However, the Aquatic Toxicology Unit's second sample was not split with Meritech, Inc. The
sample should have been well mixed, then poured into each laboratory's separate containers at the same
time.
Also noted, were irregularities between the chain -of -custody forms submitted. Specifically, two separate
sample collection times and two different sample collectors were recorded for the 1/23/07 and 1/26/07
samples. The chain -of -custody form for the Meritech, Inc. laboratory records a collection time of 0958
hours for the 1/23/07 sample, while the one completed for Aquatic Toxicology Unit records a time of
1000. The sample collector for the Meritech, Inc. laboratory was Mr. Jeff Corder while the collector for
the Aquatic Toxicology Unit was Mr. Dale Lopez. This scenario was repeated for the I/26/07 sample, with
Mr. Jeff Corder the collector for Meritech, Inc. with a collection time of 1018, and Mr. Dale Lopez the
collector for Aquatic Toxicology Unit with a collection time of 1000.
Maintaining accurate sample documentation (chain -of -custody) is important to insure that the sample was
properly handled from collection to test set-up. The sample collector is responsible for documenting in the
designated area found on each respective laboratory's chain -of -custody form the sample collector's
signature with thedate/time of the collection. If the sample collector transfers custody to another facility
staff member (e.g. for a sample split or preparation for shipment) both the collector and the transferee
,o�t�`t NIiCarolina-
Environmental Sciences Section 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Phone[phone] Customer Service ,NMWAY
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27609 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Alfimrative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

should sign with a date and time for the relinquishing and receipt of the sample. If two individuals are
involved in collection of the sample, as could be the case if one individual were to pour the sample into the
shipping containers while the other individual held the containers, then both individuals would be taking
part in the collection process. In this scenario both individuals were in possession of the sample and should
sign the chain -of -custody form. However, if the second individual was simply observing and not actually
handling the sample in any way, then that individual would not need to sign the chain -of -custody form.
Proper documentation of samples must be an integral portion of a monitoring program, and is the only way
we can properly evaluate potential differences in split samples.
It was also noted that the 1/23/07 and 1/26/07 Aquatic Toxicology Unit samples contained indigenous
organisms (i.e. daphnids), which if left in the test solutions may attack, compete for food, or be confused
with the test organism Ceriodaphnia duhia. The indigenous daphnids were removed from the Aquatic
Toxicology Unit's test cups when found. When Mr. Ferrell inquired about these organisms with Mr.
Michael Reed of Meritech, Inc., he indicated they had not noticed these organisms in any of the samples
they received.
Mr. Ferrell also discussed with Ms. Scherer the bioassay cleaning of the sample collection container. This
should be performed in order to avoid any potential toxicity carry over. I have enclosed a copy of the
recommended procedure for the bioassay cleaning of sample containers. If you or your staff should have
any questions regarding this procedure please contact me or Mr. Ferrell at 919-733-2136.
Due to the irregularities associated with the splitting of the composite sample collected 1/25/07-
1/26/07, it is our best professional judgment that neither sample was representative of the discharge. It
is the decision of this office to invalidate both laboratory test results. If a chronic value of 29% test
result was submitted, we remind you that the Moore County WWTP monthly monitoring reports
(DMR) submitted to the Division's Central Files must be amended. The effluent DMR facility
information must be completely filled out (at the top of the sheet), and the form should have
"CORRECTED COPY" written or typed at the top.
,.Sincerely,
OVI
L
I/
Cindy Mo re, Supervisor
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
cc: Dale Lopez -FRO
Michael Reed-Meritech, Inc.
Central Files
Lance Ferrell
Enclosure

Page 1 of 1
Scherer, Janna
From: Mike Reed [[e-mail]]
Sent:
Monday, January 08, 2007 11:23 AM
To:
Scherer, Janna
Cc:
Frank Pasztor
Subject: RE: January Tox
Janna,
Unfortunately, there is no way to pinpoint the time of the problem. It seems to me that the toxic effect had
been occuring throughout the test and seemed to have an additive effect as the test neared its completion. The
overall health and reproduction of the organisms deteriorated over the seven day testing period.
The average control first brood was 3.8. The average Moore Co. treatment first brood was 3.
The average control second brood was 7.42. The average Moore Co. Treatment second brood was 6.58.
The average control third brood was 9.5. The average Moore Co. treatment third brood was 5.83.
The control had 100% of the bugs having a third brood. The Moore Co. treatment had 83.3% of the bugs
having a third brood.
In all instances, the 41 % treatment of Moore Co effluent did not meet the control standards. Over the course
of seven days, and three broods later, these small variations in brood size culminated into a statistically marked
difference in the control average reproduction (20.75) and that of Moore Co. (15.67). There was a percent
reduction of 25.5%. Unfortunately anything above a 20% reduction is considered a failure.
Mike Reed
Meritech, Bioassay Dept.
1-336-342-4748
-----Original Message -----
From: Scherer, Janna[[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:25 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: January Tox
Mike,
I spoke to Dale Lopez with DWQ and he confirmed that we do need to run a multiple dilution on the
January and February Toxicity tests.
Also, Dale and Delmo Frye, our superintendent, would like to know if the sample was fine until the second
addition, or if the problems started with the first sample. We wanted to see if we could pinpoint the time of
the week the sample started to fail, and what was occurring at that time.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Janna
Janna Scherer
Lab Supervisor/ Pretreatment Coordinator
Moore County WWTP
910-281-3146
1 /8/2007