NC0030210_Fact Sheet_20241002

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO030210
Permit Writer/Email Contact:Nick Coco,[e-mail]
Date: September 9, 2024
Division/Branch:NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification(Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers,EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements,Engineering Alternatives Analysis,Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW),EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans,4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW),EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable,enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: Charlotte Water/Mallard Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility(WRRF)
Applicant Address: 5100 Brookshire Blvd., Charlotte,NC 28216
Facility Address: 12400 US Hwy 29 North, Charlotte,NC 28262
Permitted Flow: 13.1 MGD& 16.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 98.3%domestic, 1.7%industrial`
Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Influent pump station, storm flow EQ tanks,mechanical bar screens, grit
removal, flow EQ day tank,primary clarification, activated sludge
treatment, final clarification,membrane filtration,UV disinfection,re-
aeration,reclaim water generation and distribution, sludge thickening and
dewatering equipment, sludge drying beds, anaerobic sludge digestion,
backup generators
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y,LTMP
County: Mecklenburg
Region Mooresville
*Based on permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Charlotte Water has applied for
an NPDES permit renewal at 13.1 MGD with maintenance of a 16.0 MGD future expansion flow tier for
the Mallard Creek WRRF.As part of this renewal, Charlotte Water is requesting a facility name change
from Mallard Creek Water Reclamation Facility(WRF)to Mallard Creek Water Resource Recovery
Facility(WRRF). This facility serves a population of approximately 117,000 residents, as well as 3
categorical significant industrial users(CIUs)via an approved pretreatment program. Treated domestic
and industrial wastewater is discharged via Outfall 001 into Mallard Creek, a class C waterbody in the
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. Outfall 001 is located approximately 62 miles upstream of the waters
designated as WS-V.
Page 1 of 13

Engineering Certifications were received by the Division for completion of construction of work covered
under Authorization to Construct permits 030210A02 and 030210A03,resulting in expansion of the
Mallard Creek WRRF to 13.1 MGD. As such,the 12.0 MGD flow tier has been removed from the permit.
Additionally,the current permit includes an intermediate expansion flow tier of 14.9 MGD. Charlotte
Water has informed the Division that they wish to remove this flow tier, as their plan is to go directly
from 13.1 MGD to 16.0 MGD when expanding. As such,the 14.9 MGD flow tier has been removed.
Charlotte Water currently has a 33 MGD (maximum day basis)Interbasin Transfer(IBT)certificate,
issued in 2002. The transfer is based on water withdrawals from Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake
in the source basin(Catawba River Basin). The transfer of the water to the receiving basin(Rocky River
Basin) is via consumptive use in eastern Mecklenburg County and existing discharges at Mallard Creek
WRRF and Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County's [WSACC] Rocky River Regional(RRR)
WWTP. In February 2024, Charlotte Water submitted a notice of intent to the Environmental
Management Commission(EMC)requesting an increase to the IBT certificate from 33 MGD to 63 MGD.
This request is currently under review by the EMC.
Charlotte Water operates and maintains a reclaim water and generation system for up to 4.0 MGD of
reclaimed water under Non-Discharge permit WQ0013252. Additionally, Charlotte Water reuses non-
potable treated effluent for irrigation and dust control on the property of the Mallard Creek WRRF,with
requirements being outlined in Special Condition A.(7.)Reuse of Treatment Plant Effluent. Charlotte
Water requests that this condition remain in NPDES permit NC0030210 to assist Mallard Creek WRRF
staff with minimizing onsite erosion and migration of sediment to Mallard Creek given the ongoing
construction that is occurring at this facility.As such,the condition has been maintained and renumbered
to Special Condition A.(5.).
Sludge disposal: Biosolids residuals are permitted,managed, and disposed under a contract with Synagro.
Land application and land filling are the means for ultimate use of the residuals. This is managed under
permit WQ0000057 (ND0080900 in South Carolina).
Inflow and Infiltration (UI): In their application,Charlotte Water indicated that the Mallard Creek WRRF
experiences approximately 0.318 MGD of 1/1. Charlotte Water uses flow monitoring extensively to
support engineering analyses,to prioritize sewer improvements, and to evaluate capacity issues and 1/1
loadings in the major trunk lines in the system.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 —Mallard Creek
Stream Segment: 13-17-5
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area(mi2): 37.5
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 0.64
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 2.1
30Q2 (cfs): 2.9
Average Flow(cfs): 41
IWC (%effluent): 97 @ 13.1 MGD and 97.5 @ 16.0 MGD
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Yes; listed as exceeding criteria for benthos and fish community*
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation
Basin/HUC: Yadkin Pee-Dee River/03040105
USGS Topo Quad: F15SW
The segment of Mallard Creek to which the facility discharges is no longer listed as impaired for
dissolved copper,per the updated 2022 Integrated Report.
Page 2 of 13

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of March 2020 through July 2024.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 9.8 19.4 6.4 MA 13.1
CBOD summer mg/1 2.4 28.4 2 WA 6.3
MA 4.2
CBOD winter mg/1 2.6 5.8 2 WA 12.5
MA 8.3
NH3N summer mg/l 0.1 2.8 0.06 WA 3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter mg/1 0.2 3.1 0.1 WA 6.0
MA 2.0
TSS mg/l 3.5 85.4 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
0>pH<
PH SU 6.9 7.4 6.5 6. 9.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform 41100 ml (ge 5 an) 230 < 1 WA 400
MA 200
DO mg/l 8.7 9.9 7.6 DA>6.0
None;
Conductivity umhos/cm 516 815 319 Permittee
reported
voluntarily
Temperature ° C 21.9 27.3 15.5 Monitor&
Report
TN mg/1 18.7 24.63 11.9 Monitor&
Report
None;
TKN mg/l 1.1 2.2 0.28 Permittee
reported
voluntarily
None;
NO2+NO3 mg/1 17.5 24 10 Permittee
reported
voluntarily
TP mg/1 3.6 4.9 2.5 Monitor&
Report
Total Hardness mg/l 151 200 94 Monitor&
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average
Page 3 of 13

4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow;2)to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3)to provide data for future TMDL;4)based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee(in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature,
upstream of the discharge at Pavilion Boulevard(U=-1.5 miles above discharge) and downstream of the
discharge at NCSR 1300 [Morehead Road] (D 1 =-2.5 miles below the discharge) and Highway 49 (D2-
-6 miles below the discharge). The current permit also requires quarterly monitoring for total hardness
upstream of the facility for evaluation of dissolved metals standards. In addition to the required instream
parameters, Charlotte Water reported instream monitoring results for conductivity,total copper,total zinc,
TP, TN, TKN, and NO2+NO3. Instream monitoring has been summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary Mallard Creek WRRF
Upstream D1 D2
Parameter Units Average Average Average
(Min-Max) (Min-Max) (Min-Max)
Temperature 0 C 18.5 20.4 19.9
(0.8-25.9) (7.4-26.4) (3.9-27)
DO mg/1 8.3 7.8 8.1
(6.1 - 13.6) (6.2- 11.6) (6- 12.4)
Conductivity µmhos/cm 185 348 273
(84-339) (143 -468) (154-411)
Total Copper µg/L 3.0 3.3 3.8
(2-9.6) (2- 12) (2- 14)
Total Zinc µg/L 10.3 19.3 12.4
(10- 17) (11 -34) (10-25)
TKN mg/1 0.3 0.9 0.6
(0.25-0.69) (0.25-2.6) (0.27- 1)
NO2+NO3 mg/1 0.3 7.9 5.1
(0.05-0.77) (1.3 - 15) (1.7-11)
0.4 8.8 5.7
TN mg/1 (<0.1 - 1.12) (2.17-15.93) (2.58- 11.68)
0.1 1.7 0.8
TP mgll (<0.1 -0.1) (0.4-3.2) (0.3 - 1.6)
Total Hardness mg/1 68 103 80
(36-95) (49- 150) (48- 110)
ANOVA tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between upstream
and downstream samples.A statistically significant difference is determined when the p-value
result is<0.05.
Downstream temperature was not greater than 29 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature at D 1 was greater than upstream temperature by
more than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 82 out of 389 occasions during the period reviewed. Downstream
temperature at D2 was greater than upstream temperature by more than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 9 out of
389 occasions during the period reviewed, indicating that the temperature impact dissipates over time. It
Page 4 of 13

was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
temperature. Review of concurrent effluent temperature data demonstrated effluent temperatures greater
than upstream temperatures by more than 2.8 degrees Celsius on all occasions. It appears that effluent
temperature may influence the instream temperature. Based on discussion with the Division's Biological
Assessment Branch and considering:
• the receiving stream's catchment is already in a highly developed(and still rapidly developing)
watershed,
• benthic invertebrates present below the plant will be highly adapted to the water chemistry and
large fluctuations in temperature and flow,
• the percentage of measurements where large differences in the temps downstream versus
upstream were observed is small
• large differences in the temperatures downstream versus upstream were observed primarily in fall
and winter months and not late spring or summer where you might get some of these animals
approaching their upper thermal tolerance limit,
• instream temperature monitoring is required to be conducted three times per week during June,
July,August and September and once per week during the rest of the year,
no changes are proposed for instream temperature requirements. The Permittee shall continue to monitor
instream and effluent temperature.
While it was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
DO, downstream DO did not drop below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period
reviewed.No changes are proposed.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity,with downstream conductivity being consistently higher than upstream conductivity.
Review of concurrent effluent conductivity data demonstrate effluent levels consistently higher than
instream levels. It appears that the effluent may have an impact on the receiving stream conductivity. In
discussion with Charlotte Water regarding effluent and instream conductivity data, Charlotte Water
indicated that the downstream conductivity increase from the Mallard WRRF's effluent is the result of the
facility's use of Magnesium hydroxide for alkalinity addition to ensure robust treatment of the
wastewater. Magnesium,being a metal,adds a minor amount of conductance to the water. Charlotte
Water has voluntarily conducted this monitoring and reported their findings to this point and is
encouraged to continue monitoring and reporting instream conductivity data.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TKN,
NO2+NO3, TN and TP. To further evaluate the impact of the discharger's loading of TN and TP, instream
monitoring for TKN,NO2+NO3, TN and TP has been added at a monthly frequency.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
copper. The segment of Mallard Creek to which the facility discharges is no longer listed as impaired for
dissolved copper,per updated the 2022 Integrated Report. Additionally,both upstream and downstream
total copper were not observed at levels greater than the standard of 18.5 ug/L(calculated based on
average reported upstream hardness of 68 mg/L and EPA Default Partition Coefficient of 0.348) during
the period reviewed. As such, instream copper monitoring requirements have not been added at this time.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream total
zinc,with downstream total zinc being consistently higher than upstream. However,both upstream and
downstream total zinc were not observed at levels greater than the standard of 293.4 ug/L(calculated
based on average reported upstream hardness of 68 mg/L and EPA Default Partition Coefficient of 0.288)
during the period reviewed. As such, instream zinc monitoring requirements have not been added at this
time.
Page 5 of 13

Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring(YIN):NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported one
weekly average CBOD limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2020.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 19 of 20 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from February 2020 to July 2024. The facility failed a quarterly chronic toxicity test
in August 2021,but provided follow-up tests in September and October 2021 which each resulted in
passing results.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in November 2022 reported that the facility was compliant. The last pretreatment inspection conducted in
February 2023 reported that the program was compliant.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MixingZ ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206,the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow(acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow(chronic Aquatic
Life;non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow(aesthetics); annual average flow(carcinogen,HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered(e.g., based on CORMLYmodel results):NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste(e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen(DO)water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD=30 mg/1 for Municipals)may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: In 1993,DWR
completed a calibrated QUAL2E river model focusing on a 42-mile section towards the upper end of the
Rocky River. Three major municipal discharges were considered in the model: Mooresville WWTP to
Dye Creek,Mallard Creek WWTP to Mallard Creek, and Concord WWTP to Rocky River. The following
set of effluent concentrations were obtained for the Mallard Creek WWTP: DO: 6.0 mg/l,NH3: 1.0 mg/L,
BOD5: 5.0 mg/L (4 mg/L CBOD5), and Flow: 6.0 MGD. At expanded wasteflows,the DO sag is
predicted to occur in the Rocky River. Charlotte Water provided a correlation between BOD5 and
CBOD5 at the plant to determine the CBOD5 limit of 4.2 mg/L. In February 2019, Charlotte Water
applied for expansion of their Mallard Creek WRF to 13.1 MGD, 14.9 MGD and 16.0 MGD flow tiers.
Based on Division review of receiving stream conditions and water quality modeling results, speculative
limits for the proposed expansion to 14.9 MGD and 16.0 MGD have been provided. CBOD speculative
limits are based on a 2018 QUAL2K model. The summer monthly average and weekly average
speculative limits for CBOD are 4.2 mg/L and 6.3 mg/L,respectively, at both the 14.9 MGD and 16.0
MGD flow tiers. The winter monthly average and weekly average speculative limits for CBOD are 8.3
mg/L and 12.5 mg/L,respectively, at both the 14.9 MGD and 16.0 MGD flow tiers. These limits are also
applicable to the 13.1 MGD flow tier.
Page 6 of 13

Updated winter 7Q10 flows were not provided in the initial model report. To apply the winter CBOD
limits,the model was updated with current winter flows from USGS and winter temperatures and
resubmitted to the DWR Modeling Support Branch for approval. The DWR Modeling Support Branch
reviewed and approved the revised modeling files for the winter condition analysis for the Mallard Creek
WRF on 8/6/19. The primary conclusion of the analysis is that the facility's existing winter concentration
limit for CBOD would be fully protective of DO in Mallard Creek and the Rocky River under higher
discharge rates.No changes are proposed to the existing CBOD permit limits for the 13.1 MGD or 16.0
MGD flow tier.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l(summer)and 1.8 mg/l(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine(TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life(17 ug/1)and capped at 28 ug/l(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The permit does
not currently set limits or monitoring requirements for TRC due to the facility employing UV treatment
for disinfection. However, in the event of an emergency where chlorination is required as a backup or
temporary means of disinfection at the facility, a TRC limit and monitoring requirement have been added
to the permit based on the review in the attached WLA spreadsheet. Please note that TRC monitoring is
only required in the event that chlorine is used at the plant and as part of the regular Effluent Pollutant
Scans.
Refer to the Oxygen Consuming Waste section for the description of the model and rationale behind the
ammonia limits. The winter monthly average and weekly average limits for ammonia are 2.0 mg/L and
6.0 mg/L,respectively, at both the 14.9 MGD and 16.0 MGD flow tiers. These limits are also applicable
to the 13.1 MGD flow tier. After the DWR Modeling Support Branch reviewed the revised model with
updated winter 7Q 10 flows,the primary conclusion of the analysis is that the facility's existing winter
concentration limit for ammonia would be fully protective of DO in Mallard Creek and the Rocky River
under higher discharge rates. The ammonia limits at each flow tier have been reviewed in the attached
WLA and have been found to be protective of the stream.
Reasonable Potential Analysis(RPA)for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1)95% Confidence Level/95%Probability; 2)assumption of zero
background; 3)use of%2 detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6,2016,NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10,2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between March 2020
and July 2024. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis,the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
Page 7 of 13

• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit(WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium,Total Copper,Total Cyanide,
Total Lead, Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set,two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s)will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable concentration: Total
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds,Diethyl Phthalate
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
As the RPA conducted for the 16.0 MGD flow tier resulted in no monitoring or limits,no RPA was
conducted for the 13.1 MGD flow tier.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency for all flow tiers.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria(0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year(81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources(-2%of total load),the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs)for point source
control. Municipal facilities>2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury(>1 ng/1)will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
Page 8 of 13

the WQBEL value(based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l
Table 4. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
#of Samples 10 14 12 13 8
Annual Average Conc.n /L 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5
Maximum Conc.,n /L 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.56 0.5
TBEL,n /L 47
WQBEL,n /L 12.38 @ 13.1 MGD& 12.3 @ 16.0 MGD
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL,no mercury
limit is required. The current permit does not require the development or maintenance of a Mercury
Minimization Plan(MMP). While the facility is>2 MGD and quantifiable levels of mercury(> 1 ng/1)
were reported,no MMP requirement has been added to the permit at this time.As EPA promulgated the
Dental Amalgam Rule(40 CFR Part 441)on June 14, 2017 and the facility has consistently reported
effluent mercury values near 1 ng/L, the Division does not believe the plan is necessary.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated. The list of pollutants may be found in 40 CFR Part 136,which is incorporated by
reference. Charlotte Water informed the Division in the cover letter to their application that"no additional
parameters were sampled for, or identified in,Mallard's effluent during this permit cycle that have not
already been reported to NCDWR."
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody:NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
1 SA NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo:NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO,provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85%removal requirements for CBOD51TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
Page 9 of 13

review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4)of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l)prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit,with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed(e.g.,based on new information,increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit(YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated.•NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500;2)
NPDES Guidance,Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances(7/15/2010 Memo); 3)NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance(10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement(BPJ). Per US EPA(Interim Guidance, 1996),monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o)of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring,refer to Section 4.
Charlotte Water was granted 2/week monitoring for CBOD, ammonia,TSS and fecal coliform based on
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities during their 2020 renewal. Charlotte Water has requested
continuation of this monitoring frequency reduction as part of their renewal application. The last three
years of the facility's data for these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria
outlined in the guidance. Based on this review, 2/week monitoring frequency has been maintained for
CBOD, ammonia,TSS and fecal coliform.
To identify PFAS concentrations in waters across the State,monitoring requirements are to be
implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to or above WS waters. As the Mallard
Creek WRRF is a major facility discharging above WS waters and accepts influent wastewater from an
industrial facility that is a potential source of PFAS via the approved pretreatment program, influent and
post-filtration PFAS monitoring has been added to the permit at a quarterly frequency. EPA finalized
Method 1633 in January 2024 but has not yet published the method in the Federal Register as a 40 CFR
136 method.Upon evaluation of laboratory availability and capability to perform the draft analytical
method, it was determined that the sampling may be conducted using the 3rd or more recent Draft Method
1633 or the January 2024 Final Method 1633. Sampling using the draft method or the January 2024 Final
Method 1633 shall take effect the first full calendar quarter following 6 months after the effective date of
the permit to provide Charlotte Water time to select a laboratory, develop a contract, and begin collecting
samples. Effective 6 months after EPA has a wastewater method in 40 CFR 136 published in the Federal
Register, Charlotte Water shall conduct effluent monitoring using the 40 CFR 136 Method 1633 and is no
longer required to conduct influent and post-filtration monitoring.
Page 10 of 13

In addition to monitoring at the wastewater management facility, Charlotte Water shall identify and
monitor SIUs suspected of discharging PFAS compounds within 6 months of the permit effective date.
Charlotte Water shall update their Industrial Waste Survey(IWS)to identify indirect dischargers of PFAS
contributing to concentrations experienced at the Mallard Creek WRRF.A summary of information
learned during this process will be provided as part of the 2024 Pretreatment Annual Report(PAR).
Within 6 months of completion of the IWS, Charlotte Water shall begin sampling of indirect dischargers
identified as potential PFAS sources. Sampling conducted at SIUs and indirect dischargers shall also be
conducted at a quarterly frequency.
This is a summary of the PFAS requirements. For a detailed outline of the specific PFAS requirements,
see Special Condition A.(6.)PFAS Monitoring Requirements.
Charlotte Water conducted sampling for 1,4-dioxane at the Mallard Creek WRRF post LTV and prior to
cascade aeration to investigate the potential for presence in the facility effluent. Charlotte Water
submitted 103 sample results to the Division,with all results being non-detect. As no detections of 1,4-
dioxane were reported,no monitoring has been added to the permit.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21,2015. Effective
December 21, 2016,NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21,2020,to December 21,2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4,2021,was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 12.0 MGD with Remove 12.0 15A NCAC 213 .0505; Engineer's
expansion flow tiers 13.1 MGD and 14.9 Certification received for expansion to
MGD, 14.9 MGD& 16.0 MGD flow tier 13.1 MGD; 14.9 MGD tier requested to
MGD be removed
CBOD5 Summer: No change WQBEL. 2018 Qua12K model, Surface
MA 4.2 mg/I Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR Guidance
WA 6.3 mg/l Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Winter: Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
MA 8.3 mg/1 Exceptionally Performing Facilities
WA 12.5 mg/1
Monitor and report 2/Week
NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 2018 Qua12K model&2024
MA 1.0 mg/1 WLA review; Surface Water Monitoring,
WA 3.0 mg/1 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
Winter: Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
MA 2.0 mg/1 NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
WA 6.0 mg/1 Performing Facilities
Monitor and report 2/Week
TSS MA 30.0 mg/1 No change TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
WA 45.0 mg/1 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 213 .0406, Surface
Monitor and report 2/Week Water Monitoring, 2012 DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Page 11 of 13

Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400/100ml NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitor and report 2/Week Monitoring,2012 DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
DO >6.0 mg/1 No change WQBEL. 2018 Qual2K model; Surface
Monitor and report Daily Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
pH 6—9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and report Daily NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Conductivity No requirement Monitor and Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
report Daily at 2B. 0500
both flow tiers
Temperature Monitor and report Daily at No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
both flow tiers 2B. 0500
Total Residual No requirement DM 18 ug/L @ WQBEL. 2024 WLA review and Surface
Chlorine 13.1 MGD Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
DM 17 ug/L @ —only required if chlorination used
16.0 MGD
Monitor and
report Daily at
both flow tiers
Total Nitrogen Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Monthly at both flow tiers 2B. 0500
TKN No requirement Monitor and For calculation of Total Nitrogen
report Monthly at
both flow tiers
NO3+NO2 No requirement Monitor and For calculation of Total Nitrogen
report Monthly at
both flow tiers
Total Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Phosphorus Monthly at both flow tiers 2B. 0500
Total Hardness Quarterly monitoring No change Hardness-dependent dissolved metals
Upstream and in Effluent at water quality standards approved in 2016
both flow tiers
Instream Upstream and downstream Add instream Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Monitoring monitoring for temperature monitoring for TP, 2B. 0500; instream monitoring review
and DO TN, TKN and
NO3+NO2
See Special Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
PFAS No requirement Condition A.(6.) pretreatment facility; Discharge above
PFAS Monitoring WS waters&pretreatment industries
Requirements linked to PFAS
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 90%effluent No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
at all flow tiers 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
2B.0500
Page 12 of 13

Effluent Three times per permit No change; 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan cycle conducted in
2026,2027,2028
Reuse Special Condition A.(7.) Maintained as Minimizing onsite erosion and migration
A.(5.) of sediment to Mallard Creek
Electronic Electronic Reporting No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Special Condition I Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/xxxx
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice.Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please
contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Pretreatment POC Form
Page 13 of 13

From: molt.Shannon
To: Coco,Nick A
Subject: [External] RE: [EXT]Additional Information Request NCO030210 Mallard Creek WRF
Date: Tuesday,September 17,2024 1:35:19 PM
Attachments: image002.i)ng
CLTWater-Mallard Creek WRRF UV Effluent-1A Dioxane Results.xlsx
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good afternoon Nick,
Per your request, CLTWater is providing 1,4 Dioxane data for Mallard Creek WRRF in the attached
spreadsheet. On our call this morning, I mistakenly told you that I thought Mallard had been
collecting monthly 1,4 Dioxane samples. As you will see in the attached data set, Mallard has been
collecting 2 samples a week for 1,4 Dioxane since the start of FY2024 (July 1, 2023). During this
time, Mallard has collected 103 data points, and all results are all less than detect. These samples
were collected at Mallard's UV effluent immediately upstream of Mallard's cascade aeration,
effluent monitoring location, and discharge to Mallard Creek.
Regarding section/condition A.7, CLTWater requests that this condition remain in Mallard's NPDES
permit to assist Mallard Creek WRRF staff with minimizing onsite erosion and migration of sediment
to Mallard Creek given the ongoing construction that is occurring at this facility.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information related to Mallard's permit
renewal. Just let me know if you need anything else.
Respectfully,
Shannon Sypolt
Water Quality Program Administrator
Environmental Management
CHARLOTTE W6TER
4222 Westmont Drive/Charlotte, NC 28217
P: 704-336-4581 /C: 704-634-6984/ charlottewater.org
From: Sypolt, Shannon
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 10:40 AM
To: Coco, Nick A<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXT]Additional Information Request NCO030210 Mallard Creek WRF
Good morning Nick,
Please see my answers to your questions below in green. Please let me know if you need anything

else. Thank you!
Respectfully,
Shannon Sypolt
Water Quality Program Administrator
Environmental Management
CHARLOTTE W TER
4222 Westmont Drive/Charlotte, INC 28217
P: 704-336-4581 /C: 704-634-6984/ charlottewater.org
From: Coco, Nick A<Nlck.Coco(@deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 3:30 PM
To: Sypolt, Shannon <Shannon.SypoltPcharlottenc.gov>
Subject: [EXT]Additional Information Request NC0030210 Mallard Creek WRF
EXTERNAL EMAIL:This email originated from the Internet.Do not click any images,links or open any attachments unless you recognize
and trust the sender and know the content is safe.Please click the Phish Alert button to forward the email to Bad.Mail.
Hi Shannon,
I hope you're doing well over there.The time has come for me to work on Mallard and I just had
a couple (hopefully) quick requests after doing the application review:
• In section 1.1 of the application, it was noted that the facility name is Mallard Creek
Water Reclamation Facility(WRF), but throughout the context of the application,the
facility is referred to as the Mallard Creek WRRF. Is it the intend of Charlotte Water for
this facility, in the same vein as McAlpine, Sugar and Irwin,to be renamed to Mallard
Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility(WRRF) as part of this renewal process? If so,
please sent me a revision to the application (it can just be that one sheet with a signed
cover letter asking for the revision). CLTWater's request for a name change from WRF to
WRRF was included in the cover letter that was originally submitted with the permit
application. It can be found in the paragraph after the bulleted items.
• In the current permit,we have 12.0, 13.1, 14.9 and 16.0 MGD flow tiers.The Division
received engineering certifications for completion of construction resulting in the
expansion to 13.1 MGD, so the 12.0 MGD will be removed. In the future planning section
(Attachment 7), it is noted that Charlotte Water intends to keep the 16.0 MGD, so I am
maintaining this in the permit. However,there is no reference to the 14.9 MGD flow tier.
Does Charlotte Water wish to maintain the 14.9 MGD flow tier as well? CLWater does

not wish to maintain the 14.9 MGD flow tier. We plan to go from the current 13.1 flow
tier directly to 16.0 MGD.
• 1 saw that you included the 2"d species testing as an attachment(Attachment 11)and
very much appreciate it. However, I don't see the pass/fail sheet for the tests. It may be
a scanning issue, but would you mind sending me those via email? We don't get a pass-
fail sheet from our lab but the result can be found on the right hand side of the bottom
third of page 2. 1 have included all the full reports that we send to DWR in this email for
your review. All second species testing for Mallard's last permit cycle were passes.
That's all I have for you on this one. I'll keep plugging away on the drafting process but please
keep me posted on these questions when you get the chance.
Thanks so much for your time and let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Environmental Program Supervisor
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
nick.coco(c-0deq.nc.gov
Physical Address: 512 North SalisburySt.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
E Q
tal ;
NORTH CAROLINA -
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Mallard Creek WRRF Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class Grade IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO030210 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Trout NC 3.8161 TR 10.2572 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 16.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Mallard Creek Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03040105 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 504.7290 FW 3886.8972 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
Lentic or Lotic Lotic Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 0.64 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 35.9853 FW 55.9954 ug/L
7Q10w (cfs) 2.10 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 2.90 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
QA(cfs) 41.00 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 20.8901 FW 537.2975 ug/L
1Q10s (Cfs) 0.54 Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Effluent Hardness 149.9 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
------------- -------------------
Upstream Hardness 68.4 mg/L (Avg) I Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 167.4599 FW 1510.4135 pg/L
Combined Hardness Chronic ——————— 147.85 mg/L ————— I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 W S N/A pg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 148.16 mg/L I Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 3.1 FW 56 ug/L
Data Source(s)Source(s) Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 6.3252 ug/L
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 571.3431 FW 567.7256 ug/L
Par22 Diethyl Phthalate Human Health NC 600 HH pg/L
Par23
Par24
Par25
copy 9595 Final FW RPA W_upstream avg data column_diss to totalmetals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, input
9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY" Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/8/2020 140 140 Std Dev. 21.1243 1 3/2/2020 89 89 Std Dev. 15.4924
2 11/6/2020 130 130 Mean 149.8966 2 4/20/2020 46 46 Mean 68.3962
3 12/5/2020 150 150 C.V. 0.1409 3 5/11/2020 77 77 C.V. 0.2265
4 1/10/2021 130 130 n 58 4 6/8/2020 46 46 n 53
5 2/8/2021 130 130 10th Per value 130.00 mg/L 5 7/7/2020 75 75 10th Per value 46.00 mg/L
6 3/9/2021 150 150 Average Value 149.90 mg/L 6 8/3/2020 88 88 Average Value 68.40 mg/L
7 4/7/2021 140 140 Max. Value 200.00 mg/L 7 9/14/2020 77 77 Max. Value 95.00 mg/L
8 5/5/2021 140 140 8 10/5/2020 78 78
9 5/13/2021 140 140 9 11/2/2020 49 49
10 6/4/2021 150 150 10 12/7/2020 64 64
11 7/10/2021 170 170 11 1/4/2021 67 67
12 8/15/2021 140 140 12 2/4/2021 62 62
13 9/13/2021 170 170 13 3/8/2021 77 77
14 10/12/2021 150 150 14 4/5/2021 78 78
15 11/18/2021 160 160 15 5/3/2021 84 84
16 12/16/2021 180 180 16 6/1/2021 88 88
17 1/7/2022 160 160 17 7/12/2021 66 66
18 2/5/2022 170 170 18 8/2/2021 75 75
19 2/15/2022 140 140 19 9/1/2021 40 40
20 2/16/2022 180 180 20 10/4/2021 76 76
21 2/17/2022 170 170 21 11/8/2021 83 83
22 2/21/2022 180 180 22 12/6/2021 88 88
23 2/23/2022 94 94 23 1/5/2022 55 55
24 2/25/2022 160 160 24 2/7/2022 69 69
25 2/28/2022 170 170 25 3/14/2022 57 57
26 3/2/2022 180 180 26 4/4/2022 71 71
27 3/6/2022 180 180 27 5/2/2022 90 90
28 4/4/2022 160 160 28 6/1/2022 80 80
29 5/10/2022 200 200 29 7/5/2022 40 40
30 6/8/2022 160 160 30 8/1/2022 36 36
31 7/21/2022 140 140 31 9/7/2022 40 40
32 8/3/2022 170 170 32 10/5/2022 46 46
33 8/12/2022 150 150 33 11/7/2022 46 46
34 9/10/2022 170 170 34 12/5/2022 64 64
35 10/9/2022 170 170 35 1/3/2023 71 71
36 11/14/2022 180 180 36 2/6/2023 63 63
37 12/13/2022 150 150 37 3/6/2023 67 67
38 1/18/2023 160 160 38 4/3/2023 79 79
39 2/9/2023 170 170 39 5/1/2023 53 53
40 3/10/2023 160 160 40 6/5/2023 48 48
41 4/15/2023 120 120 41 7/5/2023 80 80
42 5/7/2023 130 130 42 8/1/2023 80 80
43 6/5/2023 130 130 43 9/5/2023 68 68
44 7/11/2023 130 130 44 10/2/2023 84 84
45 8/9/2023 120 120 45 11/6/2023 95 95
46 9/7/2023 120 120 46 12/4/2023 90 90
47 10/13/2023 130 130 47 1/2/2024 64 64
48 11/4/2023 130 130 48 2/5/2024 66 66
49 11/15/2023 130 130 49 3/4/2024 58 58
50 12/3/2023 140 140 50 4/1/2024 75 75
51 1/10/2024 130 130 51 5/1/2024 87 87
52 2/8/2024 150 150 52 6/4/2024 64 64
53 2/14/2024 140 140 53 7/1/2024 66 66
54 3/8/2024 170 170 54
55 4/13/2024 140 140 55
56 5/12/2024 110 110 56
57 6/10/2024 150 150 57
58 7/16/2024 130 130 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
- 1 - 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/5/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 4/3/2020 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 5/9/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000
4 6/7/2020 < 5 2.5 n 57
5 7/13/2020 < 5 2.5
6 8/4/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 9/16/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L
8 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 ug/L
9 11/6/2020 < 5 2.5
10 12/5/2020 < 5 2.5
11 1/10/2021 < 5 2.5
12 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5
13 3/9/2021 < 5 2.5
14 4/7/2021 < 5 2.5
15 5/5/2021 < 5 2.5
16 5/13/2021 < 5 2.5
17 6/4/2021 < 5 2.5
18 7/10/2021 < 5 2.5
19 8/15/2021 < 5 2.5
20 9/13/2021 < 5 2.5
21 10/12/2021 < 5 2.5
22 11/18/2021 < 5 2.5
23 12/16/2021 < 5 2.5
24 1/7/2022 < 5 2.5
25 2/5/2022 < 5 2.5
26 3/6/2022 < 5 2.5
27 4/4/2022 < 5 2.5
28 5/10/2022 < 5 2.5
29 6/8/2022 < 5 2.5
30 7/21/2022 < 5 2.5
31 8/3/2022 < 5 2.5
32 8/12/2022 < 5 2.5
33 9/10/2022 < 5 2.5
34 10/9/2022 < 5 2.5
35 11/14/2022 < 5 2.5
36 12/13/2022 < 5 2.5
37 1/18/2023 < 5 2.5
38 2/9/2023 < 5 2.5
39 3/10/2023 < 5 2.5
40 4/15/2023 < 5 2.5
41 5/7/2023 < 5 2.5
42 6/5/2023 < 5 2.5
43 7/11/2023 < 5 2.5
44 8/9/2023 < 5 2.5
45 9/7/2023 < 5 2.5
46 10/13/2023 < 5 2.5
47 11/4/2023 < 5 2.5
48 11/15/2023 < 5 2.5
49 12/3/2023 < 5 2.5
50 1/10/2024 < 5 2.5
51 2/8/2024 < 5 2.5
52 2/14/2024 < 5 2.5
53 3/8/2024 < 5 2.5
54 4/13/2024 < 5 2.5
55 5/12/2024 < 5 2.5
56 6/10/2024 < 5 2.5
57 7/16/2024 < 5 2.5
58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
-2 - 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values"then"COPY" Cadmium Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/5/2021 < 2 1 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 3/5/2020 < 0.5 0.25 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 8/3/2022 < 2 1 Mean 1.0000 2 4/3/2020 < 0.5 0.25 Mean 0.2500
3 11/15/2023 < 2 1 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 5/9/2020 < 0.5 0.25 C.V. 0.0000
4 2/14/2024 < 2 1 n 4 4 6/7/2020 < 0.5 0.25 n 57
5 5 7/13/2020 < 0.5 0.25
6 Mult Factor= 2.59 6 8/4/2020 < 0.5 0.25 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 Max. Value 1.00 ug/L 7 9/16/2020 < 0.5 0.25 Max. Value 0.250 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 2.59 ug/L 8 10/8/2020 < 0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw 0.250 ug/L
9 9 11/6/2020 < 0.5 0.25
10 10 12/5/2020 < 0.5 0.25
11 11 1/10/2021 < 0.5 0.25
12 12 2/8/2021 < 0.5 0.25
13 13 3/9/2021 < 0.5 0.25
14 14 4/7/2021 < 0.5 0.25
15 15 5/5/2021 < 0.5 0.25
16 16 5/13/2021 < 0.5 0.25
17 17 6/4/2021 < 0.5 0.25
18 18 7/10/2021 < 0.5 0.25
19 19 8/15/2021 < 0.5 0.25
20 20 9/13/2021 < 0.5 0.25
21 21 10/12/2021 < 0.5 0.25
22 22 11/18/2021 < 0.5 0.25
23 23 12/16/2021 < 0.5 0.25
24 24 1/7/2022 < 0.5 0.25
25 25 2/5/2022 < 0.5 0.25
26 26 3/6/2022 < 0.5 0.25
27 27 4/4/2022 < 0.5 0.25
28 28 5/10/2022 < 0.5 0.25
29 29 6/8/2022 < 0.5 0.25
30 30 7/21/2022 < 0.5 0.25
31 31 8/3/2022 < 0.5 0.25
32 32 8/12/2022 < 0.5 0.25
33 33 9/10/2022 < 0.5 0.25
34 34 10/9/2022 < 0.5 0.25
35 35 11/14/2022 < 0.5 0.25
36 36 12/13/2022 < 0.5 0.25
37 37 1/18/2023 < 0.5 0.25
38 38 2/9/2023 < 0.5 0.25
39 39 3/10/2023 < 0.5 0.25
40 40 4/15/2023 < 0.5 0.25
41 41 5/7/2023 < 0.5 0.25
42 42 6/5/2023 < 0.5 0.25
43 43 7/11/2023 < 0.5 0.25
44 44 8/9/2023 < 0.5 0.25
45 45 9/7/2023 < 0.5 0.25
46 46 10/13/2023 < 0.5 0.25
47 47 11/4/2023 < 0.5 0.25
48 48 11/15/2023 < 0.5 0.25
49 49 12/3/2023 < 0.5 0.25
50 50 1/10/2024 < 0.5 0.25
51 51 2/8/2024 < 0.5 0.25
52 52 2/14/2024 < 0.5 0.25
53 53 3/8/2024 < 0.5 0.25
54 54 4/13/2024 < 0.5 0.25
55 55 5/12/2024 < 0.5 0.25
56 56 6/10/2024 < 0.5 0.25
57 57 7/16/2024 < 0.5 0.25
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
-3- 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07 Part O
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Total Phenolic Compounds Values"then"COPY" Chromium' Total Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/5/2021 < 50 25 Std Dev. 57.5000 1 3/5/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 8/3/2022 < 50 25 Mean 53.7500 2 4/3/2020 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 11/15/2023 < 50 25 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 5/9/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000
4 2/14/2024 140 140 n 4 4 6/7/2020 < 5 2.5 n 57
5 5 7/13/2020 < 5 2.5
6 Mult Factor= 2.59 6 8/4/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 Max. Value 140.0 ug/L 7 9/16/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 362.6 ug/L 8 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 pg/L
9 9 11/6/2020 < 5 2.5
10 10 12/5/2020 < 5 2.5
11 11 1/10/2021 < 5 2.5
12 12 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5
13 13 3/9/2021 < 5 2.5
14 14 4/7/2021 < 5 2.5
15 15 5/5/2021 < 5 2.5
16 16 5/13/2021 < 5 2.5
17 17 6/4/2021 < 5 2.5
18 18 7/10/2021 < 5 2.5
19 19 8/15/2021 < 5 2.5
20 20 9/13/2021 < 5 2.5
21 21 10/12/2021 < 5 2.5
22 22 11/18/2021 < 5 2.5
23 23 12/16/2021 < 5 2.5
24 24 1/7/2022 < 5 2.5
25 25 2/5/2022 < 5 2.5
26 26 3/6/2022 < 5 2.5
27 27 4/4/2022 < 5 2.5
28 28 5/10/2022 < 5 2.5
29 29 6/8/2022 < 5 2.5
30 30 7/21/2022 < 5 2.5
31 31 8/3/2022 < 5 2.5
32 32 8/12/2022 < 5 2.5
33 33 9/10/2022 < 5 2.5
34 34 10/9/2022 < 5 2.5
35 35 11/14/2022 < 5 2.5
36 36 12/13/2022 < 5 2.5
37 37 1/18/2023 < 5 2.5
38 38 2/9/2023 < 5 2.5
39 39 3/10/2023 < 5 2.5
40 40 4/15/2023 < 5 2.5
41 41 5/7/2023 < 5 2.5
42 42 6/5/2023 < 5 2.5
43 43 7/11/2023 < 5 2.5
44 44 8/9/2023 < 5 2.5
45 45 9/7/2023 < 5 2.5
46 46 10/13/2023 < 5 2.5
47 47 11/4/2023 < 5 2.5
48 48 11/15/2023 < 5 2.5
49 49 12/3/2023 < 5 2.5
50 50 1/10/2024 < 5 2.5
51 51 2/8/2024 < 5 2.5
52 52 2/14/2024 < 5 2.5
53 53 3/8/2024 < 5 2.5
54 54 4/13/2024 < 5 2.5
55 55 5/12/2024 < 5 2.5
56 56 6/10/2024 < 5 2.5
57 57 7/16/2024 < 5 2.5
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
-4- 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal Par12
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY" Cyanide Values"then"COPY"
pp .Maximum data y .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/5/2020 2 2 Std Dev. 0.9444 1 8/12/2022 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 4/3/2020 2.6 2.6 Mean 2.0509 2 8/17/2022 < 10 5 Mean 5.00
3 5/9/2020 2.3 2.3 C.V. 0.4605 3 9/9/2022 < 10 5 C.V. 0.0000
4 6/7/2020 2.4 2.4 n 57 4 9/10/2022 < 10 5 n 58
5 7/13/2020 3.2 3.2 5 9/21/2022 < 10 5
6 8/4/2020 3.1 3.1 Mult Factor= 1.01 6 10/9/2022 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 9/16/2020 3.2 3.2 Max. Value 5.60 ug/L 7 10/10/2022 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 10/8/2020 2 2 Max. Pred Cw 5.66 ug/L 8 10/19/2022 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L
9 11/6/2020 3.5 3.5 9 11/14/2022 < 10 5
10 12/5/2020 2.4 2.4 10 11/16/2022 < 10 5
11 1/10/2021 < 2 1 11 12/13/2022 < 10 5
12 2/8/2021 < 2 1 12 12/21/2022 < 10 5
13 3/9/2021 2.1 2.1 13 1/18/2023 < 10 5
14 4/7/2021 2.1 2.1 14 1/25/2023 < 10 5
15 5/5/2021 < 2 1 15 2/9/2023 < 10 5
16 5/13/2021 2.2 2.2 16 2/22/2023 < 10 5
17 6/4/2021 3.5 3.5 17 3/10/2023 < 10 5
18 7/10/2021 3.2 3.2 18 3/15/2023 < 10 5
19 8/15/2021 3 3 19 4/14/2023 < 10 5
20 9/13/2021 3.2 3.2 20 4/15/2023 < 10 5
21 10/12/2021 2.3 2.3 21 4/19/2023 < 10 5
22 11/18/2021 2.4 2.4 22 5/7/2023 < 10 5
23 12/16/2021 < 2 1 23 5/8/2023 < 10 5
24 1/7/2022 < 2 1 24 5/17/2023 < 10 5
25 2/5/2022 < 2 1 25 6/5/2023 < 10 5
26 3/6/2022 < 2 1 26 6/21/2023 < 10 5
27 4/4/2022 < 2 1 27 7/11/2023 < 10 5
28 5/10/2022 2.2 2.2 28 7/19/2023 < 10 5
29 6/8/2022 2.2 2.2 29 8/9/2023 < 10 5
30 7/21/2022 2.4 2.4 30 8/23/2023 < 10 5
31 8/3/2022 2.7 2.7 31 9/7/2023 < 10 5
32 8/12/2022 2.8 2.8 32 9/20/2023 < 10 5
33 9/10/2022 2.5 2.5 33 10/13/2023 < 10 5
34 10/9/2022 2.1 2.1 34 10/18/2023 < 10 5
35 11/14/2022 5.6 5.6 35 11/3/2023 < 10 5
36 12/13/2022 < 2 1 36 11/4/2023 < 10 5
37 1/18/2023 < 2 1 37 11/15/2023 < 10 5
38 2/9/2023 < 2 1 38 11/22/2023 < 10 5
39 3/10/2023 < 2 1 39 12/3/2023 < 10 5
40 4/15/2023 2.5 2.5 40 12/4/2023 < 10 5
41 5/7/2023 2.7 2.7 41 12/20/2023 < 10 5
42 6/5/2023 2.1 2.1 42 1/10/2024 < 10 5
43 7/11/2023 2.8 2.8 43 1/17/2024 < 10 5
44 8/9/2023 2.2 2.2 44 2/8/2024 < 10 5
45 9/7/2023 2.3 2.3 45 2/14/2024 < 10 5
46 10/13/2023 2.3 2.3 46 2/20/2024 < 10 5
47 11/4/2023 2.5 2.5 47 3/8/2024 < 10 5
48 11/15/2023 < 2 1 48 3/19/2024 < 10 5
49 12/3/2023 2 2 49 4/12/2024 < 10 5
50 1/10/2024 < 2 1 50 4/13/2024 < 10 5
51 2/8/2024 2.3 2.3 51 4/16/2024 < 10 5
52 2/14/2024 < 2 1 52 5/12/2024 < 10 5
53 3/8/2024 < 2 1 53 5/13/2024 < 10 5
54 4/13/2024 < 2 1 54 5/21/2024 < 10 5
55 5/12/2024 < 2 1 55 6/10/2024 < 10 5
56 6/10/2024 < 2 1 56 6/18/2024 < 10 5
57 7/16/2024 < 2 1 57 7/16/2024 < 10 5
58 58 7/23/2024 < 10 5
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
- 5- 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14 Par16
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Lead Values"then"COPY" Molybdenum Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/5/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 3/5/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.7285
2 4/3/2020 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 2 4/3/2020 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5965
3 5/9/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000 3 5/9/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.2806
4 6/7/2020 < 5 2.5 n 57 4 6/7/2020 < 5 2.5 n 57
5 7/13/2020 < 5 2.5 5 7/13/2020 < 5 2.5
6 8/4/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 8/4/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 9/16/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 7 9/16/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 8.0 ug/L
8 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.500 ug/L 8 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 8.0 ug/L
9 11/6/2020 < 5 2.5 9 11/6/2020 < 5 2.5
10 12/5/2020 < 5 2.5 10 12/5/2020 < 5 2.5
11 1/10/2021 < 5 2.5 11 1/10/2021 < 5 2.5
12 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5 12 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5
13 3/9/2021 < 5 2.5 13 3/9/2021 < 5 2.5
14 4/7/2021 < 5 2.5 14 4/7/2021 < 5 2.5
15 5/5/2021 < 5 2.5 15 5/5/2021 < 5 2.5
16 5/13/2021 < 5 2.5 16 5/13/2021 < 5 2.5
17 6/4/2021 < 5 2.5 17 6/4/2021 < 5 2.5
18 7/10/2021 < 5 2.5 18 7/10/2021 < 5 2.5
19 8/15/2021 < 5 2.5 19 8/15/2021 8 8
20 9/13/2021 < 5 2.5 20 9/13/2021 < 5 2.5
21 10/12/2021 < 5 2.5 21 10/12/2021 < 5 2.5
22 11/18/2021 < 5 2.5 22 11/18/2021 < 5 2.5
23 12/16/2021 < 5 2.5 23 12/16/2021 < 5 2.5
24 1/7/2022 < 5 2.5 24 1/7/2022 < 5 2.5
25 2/5/2022 < 5 2.5 25 2/5/2022 < 5 2.5
26 3/6/2022 < 5 2.5 26 3/6/2022 < 5 2.5
27 4/4/2022 < 5 2.5 27 4/4/2022 < 5 2.5
28 5/10/2022 < 5 2.5 28 5/10/2022 < 5 2.5
29 6/8/2022 < 5 2.5 29 6/8/2022 < 5 2.5
30 7/21/2022 < 5 2.5 30 7/21/2022 < 5 2.5
31 8/3/2022 < 5 2.5 31 8/3/2022 < 5 2.5
32 8/12/2022 < 5 2.5 32 8/12/2022 < 5 2.5
33 9/10/2022 < 5 2.5 33 9/10/2022 < 5 2.5
34 10/9/2022 < 5 2.5 34 10/9/2022 < 5 2.5
35 11/14/2022 < 5 2.5 35 11/14/2022 < 5 2.5
36 12/13/2022 < 5 2.5 36 12/13/2022 < 5 2.5
37 1/18/2023 < 5 2.5 37 1/18/2023 < 5 2.5
38 2/9/2023 < 5 2.5 38 2/9/2023 < 5 2.5
39 3/10/2023 < 5 2.5 39 3/10/2023 < 5 2.5
40 4/15/2023 < 5 2.5 40 4/15/2023 < 5 2.5
41 5/7/2023 < 5 2.5 41 5/7/2023 < 5 2.5
42 6/5/2023 < 5 2.5 42 6/5/2023 < 5 2.5
43 7/11/2023 < 5 2.5 43 7/11/2023 < 5 2.5
44 8/9/2023 < 5 2.5 44 8/9/2023 < 5 2.5
45 9/7/2023 < 5 2.5 45 9/7/2023 < 5 2.5
46 10/13/2023 < 5 2.5 46 10/13/2023 < 5 2.5
47 11/4/2023 < 5 2.5 47 11/4/2023 < 5 2.5
48 11/15/2023 < 5 2.5 48 11/15/2023 < 5 2.5
49 12/3/2023 < 5 2.5 49 12/3/2023 < 5 2.5
50 1/10/2024 < 5 2.5 50 1/10/2024 < 5 2.5
51 2/8/2024 < 5 2.5 51 2/8/2024 < 5 2.5
52 2/14/2024 < 5 2.5 52 2/14/2024 < 5 2.5
53 3/8/2024 < 5 2.5 53 3/8/2024 < 5 2.5
54 4/13/2024 < 5 2.5 54 4/13/2024 < 5 2.5
55 5/12/2024 < 5 2.5 55 5/12/2024 < 5 2.5
56 6/10/2024 < 5 2.5 56 6/10/2024 < 5 2.5
57 7/16/2024 < 5 2.5 57 7/16/2024 < 5 2.5
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
-6- 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18 Par19 use"PASTE
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values"then"COPY" SPECIAL-Values"
Nickel Maximum data Selenium then"COPY".
.
points=58 Maximum data
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58
1 3/5/2020 2.4 2.4 Std Dev. 0.7221 1 3/5/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 4/3/2020 2.6 2.6 Mean 1.7526 2 4/3/2020 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 5/9/2020 < 2 1 C.V. 0.4120 3 5/9/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000
4 6/7/2020 < 2 1 n 57 4 6/7/2020 < 5 2.5 n 57
5 7/13/2020 2.1 2.1 5 7/13/2020 < 5 2.5
6 8/4/2020 2.8 2.8 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 8/4/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 9/16/2020 2.3 2.3 Max. Value 3.0 pg/L 7 9/16/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L
8 10/8/2020 2.4 2.4 Max. Pred Cw 3.0 pg/L 8 10/8/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 ug/L
9 11/6/2020 2.2 2.2 9 11/6/2020 < 5 2.5
10 12/5/2020 2.5 2.5 10 12/5/2020 < 5 2.5
11 1/10/2021 2 2 11 1/10/2021 < 5 2.5
12 2/8/2021 < 2 1 12 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5
13 3/9/2021 2 2 13 3/9/2021 < 5 2.5
14 4/7/2021 2.2 2.2 14 4/7/2021 < 5 2.5
15 5/5/2021 2 2 15 5/5/2021 < 5 2.5
16 5/13/2021 < 2 1 16 5/13/2021 < 5 2.5
17 6/4/2021 2.4 2.4 17 6/4/2021 < 5 2.5
18 7/10/2021 2.7 2.7 18 7/10/2021 < 5 2.5
19 8/15/2021 2.7 2.7 19 8/15/2021 < 5 2.5
20 9/13/2021 3 3 20 9/13/2021 < 5 2.5
21 10/12/2021 2.2 2.2 21 10/12/2021 < 5 2.5
22 11/18/2021 2.6 2.6 22 11/18/2021 < 5 2.5
23 12/16/2021 2.2 2.2 23 12/16/2021 < 5 2.5
24 1/7/2022 2.4 2.4 24 1/7/2022 < 5 2.5
25 2/5/2022 2.7 2.7 25 2/5/2022 < 5 2.5
26 3/6/2022 2.3 2.3 26 3/6/2022 < 5 2.5
27 4/4/2022 2.5 2.5 27 4/4/2022 < 5 2.5
28 5/10/2022 2.7 2.7 28 5/10/2022 < 5 2.5
29 6/8/2022 2.3 2.3 29 6/8/2022 < 5 2.5
30 7/21/2022 2.5 2.5 30 7/21/2022 < 5 2.5
31 8/3/2022 2.6 2.6 31 8/3/2022 < 5 2.5
32 8/12/2022 2.1 2.1 32 8/12/2022 < 5 2.5
33 9/10/2022 < 2 1 33 9/10/2022 < 5 2.5
34 10/9/2022 2.1 2.1 34 10/9/2022 < 5 2.5
35 11/14/2022 < 2 1 35 11/14/2022 < 5 2.5
36 12/13/2022 < 2 1 36 12/13/2022 < 5 2.5
37 1/18/2023 < 2 1 37 1/18/2023 < 5 2.5
38 2/9/2023 2.4 2.4 38 2/9/2023 < 5 2.5
39 3/10/2023 < 2 1 39 3/10/2023 < 5 2.5
40 4/15/2023 2 2 40 4/15/2023 < 5 2.5
41 5/7/2023 < 2 1 41 5/7/2023 < 5 2.5
42 6/5/2023 < 2 1 42 6/5/2023 < 5 2.5
43 7/11/2023 < 2 1 43 7/11/2023 < 5 2.5
44 8/9/2023 < 2 1 44 8/9/2023 < 5 2.5
45 9/7/2023 < 2 1 45 9/7/2023 < 5 2.5
46 10/13/2023 < 2 1 46 10/13/2023 < 5 2.5
47 11/4/2023 < 2 1 47 11/4/2023 < 5 2.5
48 11/15/2023 < 2 1 48 11/15/2023 < 5 2.5
49 12/3/2023 < 2 1 49 12/3/2023 < 5 2.5
50 1/10/2024 < 2 1 50 1/10/2024 < 5 2.5
51 2/8/2024 < 2 1 51 2/8/2024 < 5 2.5
52 2/14/2024 < 2 1 52 2/14/2024 < 5 2.5
53 3/8/2024 < 2 1 53 3/8/2024 < 5 2.5
54 4/13/2024 < 2 1 54 4/13/2024 < 5 2.5
55 5/12/2024 < 2 1 55 5/12/2024 < 5 2.5
56 6/10/2024 < 2 1 56 6/10/2024 < 5 2.5
57 7/16/2024 < 2 1 57 7/16/2024 < 5 2.5
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
-7- 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20 use"PASTE Par21
SPECIAL-Values" Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values"
Silver then"COPY". Zinc then"COPY"
Maximum data
Maximum data points
points=58
=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/5/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 3/5/2020 33 33 Std Dev. 5.6834
2 4/3/2020 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 4/3/2020 35 35 Mean 36.1930
3 5/9/2020 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.0000 3 5/9/2020 30 30 C.V. 0.1570
4 6/7/2020 < 1 0.5 n 57 4 6/7/2020 35 35 n 57
5 7/13/2020 < 1 0.5 5 7/13/2020 47 47
6 8/4/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 8/4/2020 48 48 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 9/16/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L 7 9/16/2020 37 37 Max. Value 49.0 ug/L
8 10/8/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.500 ug/L 8 10/8/2020 37 37 Max. Pred Cw 49.0 ug/L
9 11/6/2020 < 1 0.5 9 11/6/2020 40 40
10 12/5/2020 < 1 0.5 10 12/5/2020 37 37
11 1/10/2021 < 1 0.5 11 1/10/2021 37 37
12 2/8/2021 < 1 0.5 12 2/8/2021 35 35
13 3/9/2021 < 1 0.5 13 3/9/2021 36 36
14 4/7/2021 < 1 0.5 14 4/7/2021 37 37
15 5/5/2021 < 1 0.5 15 5/5/2021 36 36
16 5/13/2021 < 1 0.5 16 5/13/2021 34 34
17 6/4/2021 < 1 0.5 17 6/4/2021 41 41
18 7/10/2021 < 1 0.5 18 7/10/2021 45 45
19 8/15/2021 < 1 0.5 19 8/15/2021 39 39
20 9/13/2021 < 1 0.5 20 9/13/2021 49 49
21 10/12/2021 < 1 0.5 21 10/12/2021 45 45
22 11/18/2021 < 1 0.5 22 11/18/2021 40 40
23 12/16/2021 < 1 0.5 23 12/16/2021 40 40
24 1/7/2022 < 1 0.5 24 1/7/2022 34 34
25 2/5/2022 < 1 0.5 25 2/5/2022 39 39
26 3/6/2022 < 1 0.5 26 3/6/2022 39 39
27 4/4/2022 < 1 0.5 27 4/4/2022 33 33
28 5/10/2022 < 1 0.5 28 5/10/2022 42 42
29 6/8/2022 < 1 0.5 29 6/8/2022 41 41
30 7/21/2022 < 1 0.5 30 7/21/2022 40 40
31 8/3/2022 < 1 0.5 31 8/3/2022 36 36
32 8/12/2022 < 1 0.5 32 8/12/2022 37 37
33 9/10/2022 < 1 0.5 33 9/10/2022 44 44
34 10/9/2022 < 1 0.5 34 10/9/2022 37 37
35 11/14/2022 < 1 0.5 35 11/14/2022 30 30
36 12/13/2022 < 1 0.5 36 12/13/2022 29 29
37 1/18/2023 < 1 0.5 37 1/18/2023 27 27
38 2/9/2023 < 1 0.5 38 2/9/2023 25 25
39 3/10/2023 < 1 0.5 39 3/10/2023 27 27
40 4/15/2023 < 1 0.5 40 4/15/2023 31 31
41 5/7/2023 < 1 0.5 41 5/7/2023 37 37
42 6/5/2023 < 1 0.5 42 6/5/2023 42 42
43 7/11/2023 < 1 0.5 43 7/11/2023 34 34
44 8/9/2023 < 1 0.5 44 8/9/2023 29 29
45 9/7/2023 < 1 0.5 45 9/7/2023 41 41
46 10/13/2023 < 1 0.5 46 10/13/2023 31 31
47 11/4/2023 < 1 0.5 47 11/4/2023 48 48
48 11/15/2023 < 1 0.5 48 11/15/2023 33 33
49 12/3/2023 < 1 0.5 49 12/3/2023 33 33
50 1/10/2024 < 1 0.5 50 1/10/2024 32 32
51 2/8/2024 < 1 0.5 51 2/8/2024 31 31
52 2/14/2024 < 1 0.5 52 2/14/2024 33 33
53 3/8/2024 < 1 0.5 53 3/8/2024 30 30
54 4/13/2024 < 1 0.5 54 4/13/2024 28 28
55 5/12/2024 < 1 0.5 55 5/12/2024 29 29
56 6/10/2024 < 1 0.5 56 6/10/2024 34 34
57 7/16/2024 < 1 0.5 57 7/16/2024 34 34
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_2024_5_24, data
-8- 9/13/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par22
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Diethyl Phthalate values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/5/2021 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 3.7000
2 8/3/2022 9.9 9.9 Mean 4.3500
3 11/15/2023 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 2/14/2024 < 5 2.5 n 4
5
6 Mult Factor= 2.59
7 Max. Value 9.900000 tag/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 25.641000 pg/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_2024524, data
- 9- 9/13/2024

Mallard Creek WRRF > Outfall 001
NCO030210 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators QW = 16 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 16.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: Grade IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 0.54 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 97.86898185 Acute = 148.16 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 0.64 IWC% @ 7QIOS = 97.48427673 Chronic= 147.85 mg/L
7QIOW (cfs) = 2.10 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 92.19330855
30Q2 (cfs) = 2.90 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 89.53068592
Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 41.00 IW%C @ QA= 37.6899696
Receiving Stream: Mallard Creek HUC 03040105 Stream Class: C
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Aplied Chronic Standa d Acute D n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 347.4
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 ug/L _____
57 0 2.5 Chronic (FW) 153.9
-Max_MDL= 5_____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 26.5 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Max MDL 5 Monitoring required
Acute: 66.42
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 4 0 2.59
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 6.67 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 2 Monitoring required
Acute: 10.481
Cadmium NC 3.8161 TR(7Q10s) 10.2572 ug/L 57 0 0.250
Chronic: 3.915 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 0.5 Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 4 1 362.6
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 335.1 Limited dataset; one detection reported at value <
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw 50% Cw- no monitoring required
Acute: 3,971.5
Chromium III NC 504.7290 FW(7Q10s) 3886.8972 µg/L 0 0 N/A
--Chronic: -----517.8--- ---------------------------
Acute: 16.3
Chromium VI NC I 1 FW(7Q10s) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
--Chronic: ----- 11.3 --- ---------------------------
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 57 0 2.5 Max reported value = 2.5 a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
NO DETECTS Max MDL 5
Acute: 57.21
Copper NC 35.9853 FW(7Q10s) 55.9954 ug/L 57 37 5.66
Chronic: 36.91 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 22.5
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7QIOs) 22 10 ug/L 58 0 5.0
--Chronic: -----5-1---NO DETECTS Max MDL 10 ---------------------------
All values < 10 ug/L - no monitoring required
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_fulI pred_2024_5_24, rpa
Page 1 of 2 9/13/2024

Mallard Creek WRRF > Outfall 001
NCO030210 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 16 MGD
Acute: 548.997
Lead NC 20.8901 FW(7Q10s) 537.2975 ug/L 57 0 2.500
Chronic: 21.429 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q1 Os) ug/L 57 1 8.0
Chronic: 2,051.6 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 1,543.3
Nickel NC 167.4599 FW(7Q 1 Os) 1510.4135 µg/L _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
57 31 3.0 Chronic (FW) 171.8 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
--- -----------------------------
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Chronic (WS) 25.6
No value >Allowable Cw
Acute: 57.2
Selenium NC 3.1 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 57 0 2.5
Chronic: 3.2 All values non-detect< 1 ug/L - no monitoring
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 required. Permittee shall use PQL < 1 ug/L.
Acute: 6.463
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 6.3252 ug/L 57 0 0.500
Chronic: 0.062 All values non-detect < 1 ug/L - no monitoring
NO DETECTS Max MDL 1 required.
Acute: 580.1 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Zinc NC 571.3431 FW(7QIOs) 567.7256 ug/L 57 57 49.0 Monitoring required
-- ------- --- ---------------------------
Chronic:
No value >Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Diethyl Phthalate NC 600 HH(7Q10s) µg/L 4 1 25.64100
Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 615.48387 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_fulI pred_2024_5_24, rpa
Page 2 of 2 9/13/2024

NCO030210 Mallard Creek WWTP 9/13/2024
CBOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
March-20 99.06 September-22 99.26 March-20 98.55 September-22 98.90
April-20 99.20 October-22 99.27 April-20 98.72 October-22 98.83
May-20 98.83 November-22 99.26 May-20 98.55 November-22 98.78
June-20 99.13 December-22 98.75 June-20 98.75 December-22 98.01
July-20 99.26 January-23 98.51 July-20 98.81 January-23 97.77
August-20 99.25 February-23 98.81 August-20 98.81 February-23 98.63
September-20 99.21 March-23 98.98 September-20 98.68 March-23 98.69
October-20 98.29 April-23 98.63 October-20 95.38 April-23 98.45
November-20 99.07 May-23 98.90 November-20 98.67 May-23 98.83
December-20 98.98 June-23 99.08 December-20 98.23 June-23 98.90
January-21 99.02 July-23 99.02 January-21 98.21 July-23 98.50
February-21 98.68 August-23 99.19 February-21 97.62 August-23 98.87
March-21 98.48 September-23 99.21 March-21 97.36 September-23 98.69
April-21 98.78 October-23 99.32 April-21 97.68 October-23 98.89
May-21 99.25 November-23 99.25 May-21 98.70 November-23 98.65
June-21 99.04 December-23 98.91 June-21 98.63 December-23 98.38
July-21 99.09 January-24 98.86 July-21 98.35 January-24 98.51
August-21 99.07 February-24 99.15 August-21 98.37 February-24 98.78
September-21 99.27 March-24 98.93 September-21 98.84 March-24 98.39
October-21 99.25 April-24 99.21 October-21 98.67 April-24 98.92
November-21 99.23 May-24 98.83 November-21 98.24 May-24 98.50
December-21 99.22 June-24 99.15 December-21 98.44 June-24 98.73
January-22 99.03 July-24 99.11 January-22 98.10 July-24 98.77
February-22 98.89 August-24 - February-22 97.80 August-24 -
March-22 98.85 September-24 - March-22 98.03 September-24 -
April-22 98.70 October-24 - April-22 97.44 October-24 -
May-22 99.17 November-24 - May-22 98.50 November-24 -
June-22 99.23 December-24 - June-22 98.76 December-24 -
July-22 99.21 January-25 - July-22 98.84 January-25 -
August-22 99.27 February-25 - August-22 98.85 February-25 -
Overall CBOD removal rate 99.03 Overall TSS removal rate 98.43

9/11/24 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name
Mallard Creek WRRF/NC0030210 No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL=0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 0.640 cfs WQBEL= 12.31 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 16.000 47 ng/L
3/4/20 0.9 0.9
4/2/20 0.9 0.9
5/8/20 1 1
6/6/20 0.7 0.7
7/12/20 0.8 0.8
8/3/20 < 0.5 0.5
9/15/20 1.1 1.1
10/7/20 0.6 0.6
11/5/20 0.8 0.8
12/4/20 0.5 0.5 0.8 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020
1/9/21 0.9 0.9
2/7/21 < 0.5 0.5
3/8/21 0.9 0.9
4/6/21 0.6 0.6
5/4/21 < 0.5 0.5
5/12/21 < 0.5 0.5
6/3/21 0.52 0.52
6/18/21 0.66 0.66
7/9/21 0.78 0.78
8/14/21 1.4 1.4
9/12/21 0.63 0.63
10/11/21 < 0.5 0.5
11/17/21 0.55 0.55
12/15/21 < 0.5 0.5 0.7 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
1/6/22 0.8 0.8
2/4/22 0.81 0.81
3/5/22 0.83 0.83

4/3/22 0.71 0.71
5/9/22 0.7 0.7
6/7/22 0.5 0.5
7/20/22 0.58 0.58
8/2/22 0.74 0.74
9/9/22 1 1
10/8/22 < 0.5 0.5
11/13/22 0.62 0.62
12/12/22 0.59 0.59 0.7 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022
1/17/23 0.73 0.73
2/8/23 0.7 0.7
3/9/23 0.84 0.84
4/14/23 0.67 0.67
5/6/23 0.91 0.91
6/4/23 0.51 0.51
7/10/23 1.23 1.23
8/8/23 0.7 0.7
9/6/23 1.56 1.56
10/12/23 0.58 0.58
11/3/23 < 1 0.5
11/14/23 < 1 0.5
12/2/23 < 1 0.5 0.8 ng/L-Annual Average for 2023
1/9/24 < 1 0.5
2/7/24 < 1 0.5
2/13/24 < 1 0.5
3/7/24 < 1 0.5
4/12/24 < 1 0.5
5/11/24 < 1 0.5
6/9/24 < 1 0.5
7/15/24 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2024

Mallard Creek WRRF/NC0030210
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
#of Samples 10 14 12 13 8
Annual Average, ng/L 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.76 0.5
Maximum Value, ng/L 1.10 1.40 1.00 1.56 0.5
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 12.3

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility: Mallard Creek WRRF
Permit No. NC0030210
Review period(use 3 7/2021-7/2024
yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report Y
3.Facility or employees convicted of CWA N
violations
Weekly Monthly 50% 3-yr mean 200% #daily 200% #daily #of non penalty Reduce
#civil enalt
Data Review Units average limit MA MA WA asessment average (geo mean <50%? samples <15? samples <20? monthly limit >2? >1? Frequency?
limit for FC) >200% >200% violations (Yes/No)
BOD(Weighted) mg/L 8.883333333 5.90833 3 2.1246106 Y 11.8 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
TSS mg/L 45 30 15 1.6389619 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Ammonia(weighted) mg/L 4.25 1 1.416671 0.7 1 0.1689316 1 Y 1 2.83 1 1 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Fecal Coliform #/100 400 1 200 1 1001 1.10879 1 Y 800 1 0 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0030210
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 13.1
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.64
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 2.1
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 0.64 s7Q10 (CFS) 0.64
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 13.1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 13.1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 20.305 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 20.305
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 96.94 IWC (%) 96.94
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 18 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.0
No current limit. Consistent with current limit.Maintain limit.
Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 2.1
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 13.1
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 20.305
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 1.03 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 90.63
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 2.0
Consistent with current limit.Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0030210
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 16
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.64
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 2.1
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 0.64 s7Q10 (CFS) 0.64
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 16 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 16
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 24.8 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 24.8
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 97.48 IWC (%) 97.48
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 17 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.0
No current limit. Consistent with current limit.Maintain limit.
Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 2.1
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 16
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 24.8
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 1.03 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 92.19
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.9
Consistent with current limit.Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 09/09/24 Page 1 of 1
Permit: NCO030210 MRS Betweei 9 - 2019 and 9 - 2024 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO030210 FACILITY: Charlotte Water-Mallard Creek WWTP COUNTY: Mecklenburg REGION: Mooresville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
10-2020 001 Effluent BOD,Carbonaceous 05 Day, 10/17/20 2 X week mg/I 6.3 6.54 3.8 Weekly Average Proceed to NOD
20 C Exceeded

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO030210 I11 121 22/11/10 I17 181�I 19 I G I 201 I
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 2.0 70L 71 I„ I 72 73 LJ74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:20AM 22/11/10 20/02/01
Mallard Creek WWTP
12400 US Hwy 29 N Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Charlotte NC 28262 02:OOPM 22/11/10 24/11/30
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Henry Harrison Eudy/ORC/980-214-5977/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Angela D Charles,5100 Brookshire Blvd Charlotte NC 282163371//704-336-5911/
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations&Maintenar Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Wes Bell DWR/MRO WQ/704-235-2192/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Andrew Pitner DWR/MRO WQ/704-663-1699 Ext.2180/
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type 1
31 NCO030210 I11 12I 22/11/10 117 18 i c i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On-site Representatives:
The following Charlotte Water staff were in attendance during the inspection: Mr. Joseph Lockler, Mr.
Darrell DeWitt, Mr. Henry Eudy, Mr. William Williams, Mr. Shannon Sypolt, Mr. Doug Wise, and Mr.
Mike Christiansen.
Page# 2

Permit: NCO030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Charlotte Water implements a Division approved Industrial Pretreatment Program.
The disc filters,dual UV channels and cascade aeration system have been installed per
Division-approved Authorization to Construct (AtQ dated 7/26/2019. Charlotte Water
has also initiated construction activities (ground clearing)for the new equalization
basins (5.3 MG and 14.7 MG) per Division-approved AtC dated 8/19/2022. The
additional treatment equipment included in the 8/19/2022 AtC have not been installed
to date.
The last compliance evaluation inspection at this facility was performed by DWR staff
on 11/17/2020.
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chain-of-custody complete? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Dates, times and location of sampling ■
Name of individual performing the sampling ■
Results of analysis and calibration ■
Dates of analysis ■
Name of person performing analyses ■
Transported COCs ■
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(If the facility is = or> 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Comment: The records reviewed during the inspection were organized and well maintained.
Discharge Monitoring Reports (eDMRs)were reviewed from October 2021 through
September 2022. No limit and/or monitoring violations were noted during the review
period.
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: Influent and effluent analyses are performed by Charlotte Water Environmental
Services Laboratory (Certification #192). ETT Environmental and ETS have been
contracted to perform effluent chronic toxicity tests.
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The subject permit requires influent BOD and TSS composite samples. The composite
samplers are calibrated weekly and checked (for proper operation) every shift.
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Page# 4

Permit: NCO030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type ❑ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Comment: The subject permit requires composite and grab effluent samples. The composite
samplers are calibrated weekly and checked (for proper operation) every shift.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, E ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: The wastewater treatment facility appeared to be properly operated and well
maintained. Facility staff incorporate a comprehensive process control program with all
measurements being properly documented and maintained on-site. In-depth
operation and maintenance records are also maintained on-site. Approximately nine
(9) SCADA stations are located throughout the treatment plant site.
The facility's SCADA system was operational and in service.
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? E ❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Screenings and grit are disposed at the Republic Services/CMS Landfill located in
Cabarrus County.
Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility is equipped with two day tanks (1 MG total) and a 5 MG equalization basin.
The equalization basins are connected to the on-site SCADA system.
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the drive unit operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: All five primaries were operational: however, three were in service.
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the diffusers operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Two of the three aeration basin trains were in service. Each train is equipped with an
anoxic basin with mixing. Magnesium hydroxide is added prior to the aeration basins to
maintain appropriate alkalinity/pH levels.
Chemical Feed Yes No NA NE
Is containment adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are backup pumps available? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the drive unit operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: All four secondaries were in service.
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Cross flow
Is the filter media present? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the filter free of growth? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the air scour operational? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is the scouring acceptable? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: All four disc filter treatment units were operational.
Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE
Are extra UV bulbs available on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are UV bulbs clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is UV intensity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is transmittance at or above designed level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there a backup system on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is effluent clear and free of solids? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: All UV treatment units were operational.
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NCO030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
Is flow meter calibrated annually? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: The flow meters are calibrated twice per year and the effluent flow meter(new mag
meter)was last calibrated on 6/29/2022 by CITI, LLC.
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: The effluent appeared clear with no floatable solids or foam. The receiving stream did
not appear to be negatively impacted.
Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Fixed cover
Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is gas stored on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the digester(s)free of tilting covers? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the gas burner operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the digester heated? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility is equipped with four primary anaerobic digesters and one storage tank
(floating cover). Three primary digesters were currently in service.
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 9

Permit: NCO030210 Owner-Facility: Mallard Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/10/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Comment: The facility is equipped with four centrifuges (2-thickening and 2-dewatering). One of
the thickening centrifuges was not in service due to preventive maintenance activities.
The sludge cake was free of excessive moisture.
Dewatered bio-solids are land applied by a contract company (Svangro) under the
authority of Permit No. WQ0000057.
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The backup generator is tested under load monthly and serviced quarterly by Carolina
CAT.
Charlotte has constructed a new generator building with two new backup generators.
The generators have not been placed into service.
Page# 10

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
CMUD-Mallard Cr.WWTP NCO030210/001 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: YAD11 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 1/1/2014 chr lim:90% NonComp: ChV Avg 7Q10: 0.64 PF: 12.0 IWC: 94.0 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 - Pass(s) - - Pass(s) - - Pass ChV>100%Pass - - Pass -
2021 - Pass - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Fail >100 Pass >100(S)>100(S) >100(P)Pass(S)Pass(S) -
2022 - Pass>100(P) - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass -
2023 - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass>100 - - Pass - - Pass Pass -
2024 - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass - - - - - - -
CMUD-McAlpine WWTP NCO024970/001 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 10/1/2017 chr lim:90% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.3 PF: 64.0 IWC: 99.35 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 - - Pass(s) - - Pass(s) - - >100(P)Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass - - Pass(S) - - Pass(S)Pass(s) - - Pass>100(P)
2022 - - Pass(S)Pass(S)>100(F - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass
2023 - - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass Pass - - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass
2024 - - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass - - - - - -
CMUD-McDowell Cr.WWTP NCO036277/001 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB33 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 1/1/2014 chr lim.: 90% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 1.80 PF: 12.0 IWC: 85 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 Pass(s) - - Pass(s) - - 97.5 Pass Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass(s)Pass(s) - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - >100(P)Pass(S)Pass -
2022 Pass(5)Pass(S)>100(P) - - Pass(s)Pass(s) - - Pass(5)Pass(S) - - Pass Pass - -
2023 Pass Pass - - >100 Pass - - Pass Pass - - Pass Pass - -
2024 Pass Pass - - Pass Pass - - - - - - - -
Coats American-Sevier Plant NC0004243/001 County: McDowell Region: ARO Basin: CTB30 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 12/1/2017 chr lim:15% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 18.0 PF: 2.0 IWC: 14.7 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2021 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2022 - Fail 5.3(NC) 21.2 10.6(NC) >60 >60 Pass - - Pass -
2023 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2024 - Pass - - Pass - - - - - - -
Coddle Creek WTP NCO083119/001 County: Cabarrus Region: MRO Basin: YAD11 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 12/1/2013 90%chr mont NonComp: 70,10: PF: 0.30 IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M J I A S O N D
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Fail Pass - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2024 Pass - - Pass - - - - - - - -
Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(Pimohales oromelas).H=No Flow(facilitv is active).s=Solit test between Certified Labs Page 24 of 114

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
Mallard Creek 13-17-5a C 13.1 FW Miles
2397 From source to mouth of Stoney Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Copper Dissolved Chronic (Calcuated, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Zinc Dissolved Chronic (81 jig/I, AL, SW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Lead Dissolved Chronic (8.1, AL, SW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Mallard Creek 13-17-5b C 4.8 FW Miles
2396 From Stoney Creek to Rocky River
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Copper Dissolved Acute (4.8 µg/I, AL, SW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Coddle Creek 13-17-6-(0.5) WS-II;HQW 7.6 FW Miles
2403 From source to a point 0.5 mile downstream of East Coddle Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1320 of 1346

AFD
CD E F G H J K L M N O P
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form Version:2022.09.28
21.Facility's General Information
3 9/13/2024 c.POC review due to: e.Contact Information
Municipal NPDES renewal ❑+ Regional Office(RO) Mooresville
45 r(pw) Nick Coco HWA-AT/LTMP Review ❑ RO PT Staff Was Bell RO NPDES Staff Was Bell
6
Permiltee-Facility Name Charlotte Water-Mallard Creek W RRF New Industries ❑ Facility PT Staff,email Bill Gintert,boIntertCdci.chariode.nc.us
7 NPDES Permit Number NCO030210 W WTP expansion f.Receiving Stream
B NPDES Permit Effective Date Stream reclass./adjustment OUffall
9 Chemical Addendum Submittal Date 6/3/2024 Outfall relocation/adjustment ❑ Receiving Stream: Mallard Creek OA,cfs: 41
10 NPDES Permit Public Notice Date 7Q10 update ❑ Stream Class C 7Q10(S),cfs: 0.64
11
eDMR data evaluated from: 3l1/202e to 7/31/262a Other POC review trigger,explain: Oufall Lat. 35.19.53 N Ou6all Long. I.-
054W
12 a.WWTP Capacity Summary Outfall ll
13 Current Permitted Flaw,mgd 1 12.0 m iigned Flow, 12.0 Receiving Stream: QA,cfs:
14 Permitted SIU Flow,mgd 1.800 d.IU Summary Stream Class 7Q10,cfs:
15 b.PT Docs.Summary #IUs 3 Oufall Let. Derrell Long.
16
IW S approval date 10/19/2020 #SIUs 3 Is there a PW S intake downstream of the Facility's Ouffalll 0 YES ❑ NO
17 -JSTMP approval date: 7/6/2018 #Clue 3 Comments:
18 #NSCIUs 0
HWA-AT approval date received by DW R 5/26/2023 #IUs w/Local 3 jA
Permits or Other
19 Types
20 3 2. Industrial Users'Information.
21 =# Industrial User(IU)Name IU Activity IU Non Conventional Polluters&Toxic Pollutant IUP Effective Dale
1 Avago Technologies Wireless(USA) Metal Finisher flow,ammonia,COD,cadmium,chromium,copper,cyanide,lead,nickel,silver,TSS,TO,zinc,TP,pH 12/1/2020
22 a
23 to 2 Carrier Corporation Metal Finisher flow,pH,cyanide,O&G,ammonia,COD,TP,TSS,cadmium,chromium,copper,molybdenum,nickel,lead,silver,zinc,TTO 7/1/2024
W
a a Mallard Creek Polymers,LLC OCPSF flow,ammonia,CBOD,COD,nickel,TSS,zinc,pH 2/6/2024
24 Z
4
25
26 5
6
27
7
28
e
29
9
30
1b
31
n
32
Comment: Recommend adding 1,4-dioxane monitoring to all metal finishers,PFAS for all SIU,
37
38 3.Status of Pretreatment Program(check all that apply)
39 Status of Pretreatment Program(check all that apply)
40 1)facility has no SIU's,does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
41 2)facility has no SIU's,does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
42 3)facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
43 O 3a)Full Program with LTMP
44 ❑ 3b)Modified Program with STMP
45 4)additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
46 5)facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
187 6)facility's sludge is incinerated(add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to§503.43)
7)facility's sludge is taken to a landfill,if yes which landfill:
8)otherSludge Disposal Plan: Biosolids residuals are permitted,managed,and disposed under a contract with Synagro.Land application and land filling are the means for ultimate use of the residuals
53 Sludge Permit No: WQ0000057
54 4.LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
55 PW:Find L/STMP document,HWA spreadsheet,DMR,previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
a Parameter of Concern New Previous Required by POC due to POC due to POTW % L/STMP NPDES Comment
N (POC)Check List NPDES NPDES EPA PT(1) Sludge(2) SIU(3) POC (4)Removal Effluent Freq. Effluent Freq.
POC POC Rate PQLs review
56 U
a PQL from Required PQL Recomm.
L/STMP,ugll per NPDES PQL,ug/I
57 permit
58 0 Flow ❑ ❑p ❑2 ❑
59 0 CBOD Li o o ❑
60 0 TSS ❑ 0 0 ❑
61 0 NH3 ❑ 0 0 ❑
62 0 Arsenic ❑ ❑ ❑, ❑ ❑ 2.0
63 ❑ Barium ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
64 ❑ Beryllium(5) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
65 O Cadmiuni ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 0.5
66 O Chromium(1) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 5.0
67 O Copper(1) ❑ ❑ o 0 0 ❑ 2.0
68 0 Cyanide ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0
69 0 Leal ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑, ❑ 2.0
70 O Mercury(5) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0.001
71 t7 Molybdenum ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 10.0
72 O Nickel(1) ❑ ❑ o 0 0 ❑
73 0 Selenium ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 1.0
74 0 Silver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, ❑ 1.0
75 2 Zirl ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 10.0
76 ❑ Sludge Flow to Disposal 0 ❑ ❑
77 ❑ %Solids to Disposal ❑2 ❑ ❑
78 0 Oil&Grease ❑ ❑
79 O TN ❑ ❑+ ❑' ❑
80 O TP ❑ 0 0 ❑
81 ❑ PFAS1633 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
82 ❑ 1,4 Dioxane ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
83 0 COD ❑ ❑ ❑, ❑
84 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
85 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
86 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
87 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
88 Footnotes:
89 (1)Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA-PT requirement
90 (2)Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
91 (3)Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
92 (4)Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW
93 (5)In LTMP/STMP,if sewage sludge is incinerated
94 Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
95 Please use red font for POC that need to be addedimodified in L/STMP sampling plan
96 orange foot and air Ivethrough for POC that may be man
97 Blue shaded cell(D60:H81): Parameters usually included under that POC list
98 Commen
Is
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/moded in L/STMP:
99
Page 1 POC Review Form(1)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
100
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
101 Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to USTMP due
102 to POTWs concerns:
103 NPDES pals comments on IU/POC:
104 6.Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
105 NPDES Permit Effective Date 1180 days after effective(date): Permit writer,please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Page 2 POC Review Form(1)