NC0023965_Fact Sheet_20180918

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO023965
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: September 18, 2018
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex 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 21 species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) / James A. Loughlin
(Northside) WWTP
Applicant Address:
235 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403
Facility Address:
2311 North 23r' Street, Wilmington NC 28401
Permitted Flow:
16.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR / Municipal: 98.5% Domestic, 1.5% Industrial'
Facility Class:
Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Bar Screens, Grit Removal, Clarifiers, Aeration, Filtration, UV
Disinfection, Anaerobic Digestion, Sludge Dewatering
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
New Hanover
Region
Wilmington
Calculated from actual flows from February 2014 through February 2017 provided by PERCS u�
pretreatment request form. Permitted industrial flow is 0.2476 MGD or 1.5% of total permitted flow.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The CFPUA had submitted a
renewal NPDES permit application dated June 28, 2016 for its Northside WWTP. This application was
received by NC Division of Water Resources on July 6, 2016. The facility serves a population of 92,618
Page 1 of 12

residents and operates a pretreatment program with three (3) Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and three
(3) Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). The SIU's are: Alcami (Pharmaceutical), Corning (optical fiber
manufacturer), and Duke Energy Progress (coal ash landfill). The CIU's are: HMF Express (washing &
coating steel doors & frames), SR&R Environmental (centralized waste treatment), and UniFirst (uniform
rental & laundry service). The facility had completed an upgrade to 16.0 MGD as stated in an Engineer's
Certificate dated November 3, 2014.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfalls 001 and 002' — Cape Fear River
Stream Segment:
18-74-(61)
Stream Classification:
SC-PNA
Drainage Area (mi2):
NA
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
487.78 (modeled)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
30Q2 (cfs):
Tidal
Average Flow (cfs):
Tidal
IWC (% effluent):
4.83 (modeled)
303(d) listed/parameter:
This segment is listed as impaired for Copper (3 µg/L, AL,
SW) on the final 2016 list.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Statewide TMDL for Mercury
Subbasin/HUC:
03-06-17 / 03030005 Lower Cape Fear
USGS Topo Quad:
K 27 NW / Wilmington, NC
'Two outfalls, parallel force mains spaced 400 feet apart, are acknowledged by DWR in the current
permit. However, discharge is designated and regulated as a single outfall (Outfall 001) due to their
proximity to each other and the sampling regime that is conducted prior to flow split. No changes are
proposed.
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data is summarized for the period November 2014 through August 2017 in Table 1. This period
reflects the time at which the facility operates under 16.0 MGD permitted flow.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit 1
Flow
MGD
9.962
29.900
6.573
16.000
BOD5 (Summer: April 1
mg/L
2.9
15.5
< 2.0
MA = 5.0
— October 31)
WA = 7.5
BOD5 (Winter:
mg/L
2.3
8.0
< 2.0
MA = 10.0
November 1 — March 31)
WA = 15.0
Page 2 of 12

BOD5 removal
%
99.0
99.6
97.2
> 85
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
2.6
< 10.2
< 2.5
MA = 30.0
(TSS)
WA = 45.0
TSS removal
%
99.2
99.5
98.9
> 85
NH3-N (Summer: April 1
mg/L
0.36
2.95
< 0.25
MA = 1.0
- October 31)
WA = 3.0
NH3-N (Summer: Winter:
mg/L
0.53
8.32
< 0.25
MA = 2.0
November 1 - March 31)
WA = 6.0
Enterococci
#/100 mL
4.5
178
< 1
MA = 35
(geometric mean)
WA = 276
Temperature
°C
22.7
29.0
13.0
Monitor
only
pH
SU
7.3
8.3
6.8
6.8-8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
8.1
10.2
6.5
DA > 6.0
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
3.33
4.50
0.99
Monitor
only
Total Nitrogen (NO2-N +
mg/L
16.33
2420
2.90
Monitor
NO3-N + TKN)
only
' MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DA = Daily Average.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will beproposedfor this permit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Temperature
from two upstream locations (Ul, U2) and one downstream location (D). These locations are described in
the current permit as Ul: upstream in the NE Cape Fear River at the US Hwy 421 crossing; U2: upstream
at Muddy Point; and D: downstream at the Port Authority. The instream locations correspond to ambient
monitoring stations B9740000 - NE Cape Fear River at NC 133 at Wilmington (Ul); B9050025 - Cape
Fear River downstream RR bridge at Navassa (U2); and B9800000 - Cape Fear River at Channel Marker
61 (D). According to current maps, US Hwy 421 crosses the Cape Fear River downstream of the outfall,
suggesting that either the original site description was in error or became obsolete due to highway changes.
The instream location descriptions will be updated in the renewed permit.
Review of instream data from January 2013 - July 2016 showed values that were similar among all three
stations, suggesting no adverse impact of the effluent for either DO or Temperature. Pairwise comparisons
could not be made due to nonsynchronous sampling events. However, averages and data ranges were similar
among the three locations, and visual patterns suggest that the effluent is not affecting the receiving
waterbody substantially.
Page 3 of 12

15A NCAC 02B .0220 - Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SC Waters states in Section 5 that
DO be "not less than 5.0 mg/l, except that swamp waters, poorly flushed tidally influenced streams or
embayments, or estuarine bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions. "Upstream
DO was < 5.0 mg/L in months May -September at both locations, and downstream DO was < 5.0 mg/L in
months June -August. The Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear River System, 2015 suggests
the low DO to be naturally occurring due to warmer water's lowered DO capacity and its synergistic
increased BOD, especially in summer months. Effluent data revealed that summer minima were above the
permit limit of 6 mg/L, higher than upstream and downstream minima, indicating that the effluent is not
lowering the DO of the receiving Cape Fear River.
15A NCAC 02B .0220(17) states that temperature "shall not be increased above the natural water
temperature by more than 0.8 °C during the months of June, July, and August nor more than 2.2 °C during
other months and in no cases to exceed 32' C due to the discharge ofheated liquids. "Temperature seasonal
maxima were below the standard of 32' C at all locations. Effluent summer temperature maxima appeared
lower than those of up- and downstream locations, further suggesting that effluent is not impacting the
instream water in terms of heat pollution.
Two parameters that are not in the current permit, but are conditionally required per 15A NCAC 02B .0508
are Conductivity and Enterococci. Conductivity is a parameter of concern from industrial discharges.
Because of this concern and that the WWTP has a pretreatment program for industrial users, Conductivity
data were found available and reviewed for possible effluent effects. However, effluent Conductivity
monitoring is not required in the permit and thus no effluent data were available for review. Instream
Conductivity at the three locations averaged 8,797 uS/cm at U1 (range: 93-25697 uS/cm), 2,729 uS/cm at
U2 (range: 47-18,435 uS/cm), and 8,893 at D (range: 59-28,785). Statistical t-tests found no difference
between Ul and D, but U2 Conductivity was tested significantly lower than either Ul (t = 4.45, p < 0.0001)
or D (t = -5.66, p < 0.0001). Therefore, the greatest source of Conductivity appeared upstream of the facility
discharge along the main channel of the Cape Fear River, represented by Ul. As a result, instream
Conductivity monitoring requirements will not be added to the permit.
Fecal Coliform is a parameter of concern for aquatic life and human health in both freshwater and saltwater,
while Enterococci is a parameter of concern in saltwater. Fecal Coliform data were only found available
from the upstream monitoring stations. None of the instream monitoring sites have any data for Enterococci,
which is monitored in the effluent. Considering that Fecal Coliform is used to assess water quality in
freshwater (e.g., Class C waters), and Enterococci is used for saltwater quality (e.g., SC waters), making a
direct comparison is not appropriate. Since the receiving stream is not impaired biologically, and effluent
Enterococci data are meeting permit limits, Fecal Coliform will not be added to the permit instream
monitoring requirements.
Overall, no changes are proposed; instream monitoring is provisionally waived as long as the Permittee is
a member of a monitoring coalition.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/11g: YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP)
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): Since September 2012, three
BOD limit violations have been reported: on July 31, August 20 and 31, 2016. The July exceedance resulted
in a Notice of Deficiency, while the two August violations each resulted in a Notice of Violation.
Page 4 of 12

Additionally, there was one pH value reported below the minimum of 6.8 at 6.7 in April 2018, but no action
was taken based on best professional judgement (BPJ).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The current permit requires quarterly pass/fail chronic toxicity testing using Ceriodaphnia dubia
at 4.8% effluent in February, May, August and November. The facility passed 19 of 19 quarterly C dubia
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests, as well as all four 2nd species toxicity tests, collected on 05/03/2015,
08/02/2015, 12/06/2015, and 03/06/2016.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection
(compliance evaluation), conducted on May 22, 2018, reported that the facility continued to be well
maintained and operated.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 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 CORMLY model results):
Modeling was performed in 2008, resulting in dilution factors of 20.7 for Outfall 001 and 22.7 for Outfall
002. An instream waste concentration (IWC) of 4.83% effluent at 16 MGD was calculated from the more
conservative 20.7 dilution factor and was set for the permit issued in 2012. Since that permit's issuance, the
facility had upgraded from 10 MGD to 16 MGD. No changes are proposed.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
OUgen-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 (DQ) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: BOD limits were set
for the facility's proposed upgrade to 16.0 MGD to protect the receiving water that is a designated primary
nursery area (PNA) per 15A NCAC 03R .0103(19)(a). PNAs are defined as a type of High Quality Water
(HQW); HQW areas receive additional protection via more stringent effluent limits for oxygen -consuming
wastes per 15A NCAC 02B .0224. The stream classification was changed to SC-PNA in the permit's 2012
renewal. No changes will be made to the permit.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for Ammonia `NI 13-N) 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 NH3-N 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 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Page 5 of 12

Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The Northside
WWTP uses UV disinfection, and thus does not have a TRC limit or monitoring requirement in its permit.
Wasteload allocation calculations for NH3-N were run using a modeled 7Q10s of 487.78 cfs. Ammonia
limits from the WLA are higher than those set to protect the receiving water, classified as a PNA. The more
stringent limits to protect the PNA will be maintained. No changes will be made.
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 October 2013
and March 2017. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria: None.
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was > 50% of the allowable concentration: None.
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic,
Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Selenium, Silver, and Zinc.
o Silver will be sampled for pretreatment monitoring using "clean techniques" and analyzed
to the lower reporting level of the procedure. The PQL for Silver is < 1 µg/L.
o Additional metals sampled as part of pretreatment monitoring were evaluated and not
found to demonstrate a reasonable potential of exceeding water quality standards/criteria:
Barium, Aluminum, Antimony, Cobalt, and Tin.
• 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.
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.
Page 6 of 12

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.
Describeproposed toxicity test requirement: Southside WWTP is a Major POTW that discharges complex
wastewater with a chronic WET limit at 4.83% effluent at 16 MGD, to be sampled on a quarterly basis. The
current permit lists "Acute Toxicity" in the Effluent sheet for 16 MGD [Section A. (2.)], but describes
chronic test in the footnote as well as in Section A. (4.). Therefore, wording to "Chronic Toxicity" will be -
corrected in the Effluent Limits and Monitoring sheet. Although the salinity of the receiving water is > 1
%o (January 2013 — July 2016 average = 5.14 %o), the freshwater species Ceriodaphnia dubia is used as the
test organism, allowed by both state (NC DWQ policy memo dated 8/2/1999, p. 3) and federal (EPA 2002:
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms, 5t' ed., p. 28) guidance.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (^-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/L) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value
of 47 ng/L.
Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
No. of Samples
1
7
7
3
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
Maximum Conc., ng/L
0.9
1.21
1.09 1
1.46 1
1.13
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
517
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Review of effluent data from August 2013
— August 2017 revealed that no annual average mercury concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no
individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL (Table 2). Therefore, no limit is required. However, since
the facility is > 2 MGD and quantifiable levels of mercury were present in the effluent, a mercury
minimization plan (MMP) is required. A MMP requirement will be added to the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: There is no Nutrient Management Strategy for the Lower Cape Fear River Sub -basin. Total
Page 7 of 12

Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are monitored monthly per facility size (> 1 MGD) and river sub -basin
(Cape Fear) as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0508. No changes are proposed.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: The receiving stream, the Lower Cape Fear
River, is designated a primary nursery area (PNA) under 15A NCAC 03R .0103(19)(a). To protect this type
of HQW, the following effluent limitations as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0224 for new or expanded
discharges (the facility had expanded to 16 MGD in November 2014) are in the current permit: BODS = 5
mg/L, DO = 6 mg/L and a safety factor of % normal standard is included for individual toxics. TSS limits
were not reduced to the HQW level of 10 mg/L as a special condition is in the current permit to ensure that
the tertiary filters are not taken offline during normal operations [see Section A. (6)]. This condition was
put in place as the facility had already designed for expansion to 16 MGD at the writing of the previous
permit in 2012. Should the facility expand further in the future, TSS limits will be reduced to the HQW
level and the special condition will be modified. No changes are proposed.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals if not a i licable. delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/L
BODs/TSSfor Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BODs/TSSfor Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BODs/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
Page 8 of 12

9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO, but Section A. (9.) was
inserted to the permit modification in September 28, 2012 that allows for less stringent BODs and NH3-N
limits under listed provisions. No changes are proposed.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: Section A. (9.) in the 2012 permit
modification includes provisions for less stringent BODs and NH3-N limits so that anti -backsliding
provisions are not violated. No changes are proposed.
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.
A permit modification was issued on November 19, 2014 with monitoring frequencies reduced to 2/week
for BOD, TSS, NH3-N and Enterococci. Evaluation of the effluent data from October 2014 — September
2017, revealed that the data criteria of 1) three-year mean below 50% of the monthly average limit, and 2)
no more than 15 sampling results greater than 200% of that limit, were met for all parameters except
summer BOD (Table 3). However, per DWQ Guidance Regarding the Reduction .in Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permitsfor Exceptionally Performing Facilities (document, 10/22/2012), data with
seasonal limits must be compared against a weighted average annual limit. The average of all BOD data
calculated to less than 50% of the weighted average annual limit, meeting this criterion. Therefore, reduced
monitoring frequency will be maintained for all parameters.
Table 3. Monitoring Frequency Reduction (MFR) Analysis and Assessment.
Parameter
Three-year Mean
Monthly Average
Limit
percent of Limit
Is Mean < 50%
of Limit?
^-oD, summer
2.9 mg/L
5.0 mg/L
58%
NO
BOD, winter
2.3 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
23%
YES
BOD, combined
2.7 mg/L
7.1 mg/L 1
38%
YES
TSS
2.6 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
9%
YES
NH3-N, summer
0.36 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
36%
YES
NH3-N, winter
0.53 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
26%
YES
Enterococci
(geometric mean)
4.5/100 mL
351100 mL
13%
YES
Page 9 of 12

200% of
Are > 15 'sample
Parameter
Monthly
Number of
results > 200% of
Are MFR Criteria
Average Limit
Occurrences
Limit?
Met?
BOD, summer
10.0 mg/L
1
NO
NO
BOD, winter
20.0 mg/L
0
NO
YES
BOD, combined
14.2 mg/L
1
NO
YES
TSS
60.0 mg/L
0
NO
YES
NH3-N summer
2.0 mg/L
3
NO
YES
NH3-N winter
4.0 mg/L
1
NO
YES
Enterococci
70/100 mL
3
NO
YES
(geometric mean)
'Weighted average annual limit (WtA), calculated as follows:
WtA (# summer months x summer monthly limit) + (# winter months x winter monthly limit)1
12 months
'Greater than 20 results for Enterococci.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
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. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes.
Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Remove with all
Flow
10.0 MGD
associated limits and
Facility upgraded to 16.0 MGD
monitoring
requirements
Flow
16.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 213.0505.
Summer
MA 5.0 mg/L
WQBEL. HQW standard to protect
WA 7g/L
.5 m
the Lower Cape Fear River PNA ,
BODS
Winter
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0224. Monitoring
MA 10.0 mg/L
Frequency Reduction criteria were
WA 15.0 mg/L
met.
Page 10 of 12

Monitor 2/week
TBEL. Tertiary filters not to be
MA 30.0 mg/L
bypassed to address protection of
TSS
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
PNA receiving water. Monitoring
Monitor 2/week
Frequency Reduction criteria were
met.
Summer
MA 1.0 mg/L
WQBEL. HQW standard to protect
WA 3.0 mg/L
the Lower Cape Fear River PNA.
NH3-N
Winter
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0224. Monitoring
MA 2.0 mg/L
Frequency Reduction criteria were
WA 6.0 mg/L
met.
Monitor 2/week
MA 35 /100 mL
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Enterococci
WA 276 /100 mL
No change
NCAC 2B .0220. Monitoring
(geometric mean)
Monitor 2/week
Frequency Reduction criteria were
met.
Temperature
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0508.
pH
6.8 — 8.5 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0220.
WQBEL. HQW standard to protect
Dissolved Oxygen
DA > 6.0 mg/L
No change
the Lower Cape Fear River PNA,
15A NCAC 02B .0224.
Total Nitrogen
Monitor monthly
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Total Phosphorus
Monitor monthly
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Add mercury
Statewide mercury TMDL, based on
Total Mercury
No requirement
minimization plan
plant size (> 2 MGD) and
quantifiable (> 1 ng/L) mercury
(MMP)
effluent data.
"Acute Toxicity" in
Effluent page. Chronic
Replace "Acute
IWC of 4.8% based on 20.7 dilution
Whole Effluent
7-day pass/fail test using
Toxicity" with
factor from modeling by Permittee
'
Toxicity
Ceriodaphnia dubia at
"Chronic Toxicity" in
as reviewed DWR Aquatic
4.8%effluent in
Effluent page.
Toxicity Branch. Wording
footnotes and A. (4.)
correction in Effluent page.
Effluent Pollutant
three times per permit
No change
40 CFR 122
Scan
cycle
Electronic
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
Dissolved Oxygen
Instream monitoring,
No change
Facility a member of a monitoring
provisionally waived
coalition.
Temperature
Instream monitoring,
No change
Facility a member of a monitoring
provisionally waived
coalition.
1 MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DA — Daily Average.
Page 11 of 12

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 08/15/2018
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. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO; no comments
were received.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Completed Pretreatment Information Request Form
• Engineer's Certificate for facility expansion to 16 MGD
• Final 2016 NC 303(d) list, page 26
• Effluent parameter charts and summary tables
• Map depicting Lower Cape Fear River PNA in vicinity of outfall
• Instream summary charts and summary tables
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations sheet: 9/2012 — 7/2018
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring sheet, page 122
• Compliance Evaluation Report, 05/22/2018
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheet
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Instream Dissolved Metals — Saltwater Standards
• Saltwater — Total Recoverable Metal Standards table
• DWQ Policy Memo re: WET tests, 8/2/1999
• EPA 2002: Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms, 5t' ed., p. 28
• Mercury Data Statistics table and data
• DWQ Guidance Regarding the Reduction in Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities, October 22, 2012
Page 12 of 12

NPDES/A uifer Protection Permitti
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
RE
Request6/7/2017
Ga PerlmtJames A. LaiNCO023965Wilmi tonCape Fear
check applicable PERCS staff:
JCHO,
BIRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR - Debc
HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW,
- Monit Hassan (807 63141
Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
Check all that apply
rrom relics:
munid al renewal x
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should b�
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
new industries
(or NOV POTW).
WWTP WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
S eculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
stream reclass.
renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA
outfall relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 than a
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
Facility is rated 16.0 MGD wtih 3 SIUs and 3 CIUs listed in its application.
Alcami Corp (439); HMF Express (433); SR & R (437); Coming; Unifirst;
Waste Management
PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
X 3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV' if program still under development)
X 3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGD Permitted Actual Time period for Actual STMP time frame:
Industrial 0.2476 0.1314 2/2014 - 2/2017 Most recent:
Uncontrollable n/a 8.7086 2/2014 - 2/2017 Next C cle:
J a Parameter of POC due to Required POTW POC STMP LTMP
e Concern (POC) NPDESI Non- Required by POC due
Check List Disch Permit EPA* 503* to SIU*** (Explain Effluent Effluent
S Limit Sludge below)**** Freq Freq
BOD X 4 Q
TSS X 4 Q Q = Quarterly
Arsenic X 4 Q and per NPDES req's
X 4 Q
Cadmium X 4 Q
% Chromium 4 Q
N Copper X 4 Q
C anide X 4 Q !s a!I data Lead on DMRs?
Mercury X 4 Q NO (attach S YE >
Mol bdenum X 4 Q
Nickel
Silver X 4 Q
Selenium X
V Zinc 4 Q
X 4 Total Nitr en Q Is data in readsheet?
* 4 Q YES email to writer X Phosphorus
CBOD 4 Q NO
COD * 4 Q
Oil & Grease 4 Q
TKN * 4 Q
4 Q
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
L(added
ments to'
Writer ex. ex lanation of an POCs info ou have on IU related investi ations into NPDES roblems
sure why this inlcuded. Other POCs. Other POCs due to SIU: Aluminum, barium, boron (added 2015), cobalt (added 2015), fluoride, ti2015).
NCO023965 NPDES_ Pretreatment
Revised: July 24, 2067

I\t-? 1) 9 s F l V ii 5—
Mr. Caldwell
Page 4
En ineer's Certification
is I G-t# 02 3 q? (o5_40 l
1, Anthony W. Boahn , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of
North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction
Of
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTF Expansion
the project, (NPDES PermitNC0023965) New Hanover C_oumy for the
Project Name Location.
Permittee hereby states that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the
observation of the following installations:
• Expansion & modification of the existing 8 MGD treatment plant to accommodate a design
flow of 16 MGD,
• Addition of new screening and grit removal facilities,
• .Addition of two new primary clarifiers (105 ft. diameter) and primary sludge pumps,
• Addition of four aeration tanks (1.55 MG each) with fine bubble diffusers (four blowers at
5000 icfm),
Addition of two new secondary clarifiers (130 ft. diameter); two existing Clarifiers to remain
in place (90 ft. diameter),
• Addition of new secondary sludge pumps/pump station for both the two existing and
two new secondary clarifiers,
• Addition of four deep bed filters (10 fL by 70 ft. each),
• Addition of two backwash tanks and two backwash reclaim tanks (and associated
pumps), two air scour blowers, with diversion of backwash to head of plant,
• Addition of LTV disinfection (four channels, 360 lamps) and associated equipment designed
for 40 MGD peak flow,
• Addition of four pumps and associated piping for in -plant reuse of treated effluent,
• Addition of effluent parshall flume,
• Addition of post aeration (aeration diffusers in effluent sampling area, as well as backwash
tank area),
• Addition of effluent sampling area,
Addition of equal split piping to the existing effluent pump station and the new effluent
pump station,
Refurbishment of existing effluent pump station to add 5 new effluent pumps rated at 5
MGD each (with flow to the existing effluent force main and diffuser to NE Cape Fear
River),
Addition of new effluent pump station with 3 effluent pumps rated at 10 MGD each,
Addition of new parallel effluent force main and diffuser to NE Cape Fear River,
Refurbishment of existing.thidkening facilities (2 refurbished belt filter presses), 2 new belt
filter presses and associated thickening equipment,
• Addition of 2 new, 3m gravity belt thickeners,
Addition of 2 new anaerobic digesters (appm 65 ft. diameter) with heat exchangers, sludge
transfer pumps; refurbishment of 3 existing anaerobic digesters,
• Addition of sludge truck loading station,
Addition of 1 rotary drum thermal dryer and associated equipment,
• Addition of a new generator with automatic transfer switch to accommodate the new
treatment units (and retention of existing generator),
• and all additional chemical feed systems, piping, valves, control equipment and
appurtenances.
• This expansion phase also includes odor control facilities. septage receiving station, supply
building, and waste gas facilities. .
• The existing aeration basin and blower will be retained (not part of the expansion, but
retained for possible future use in some capacity).

Mr. Caldwell
Page 5
Engineer's Certification (continued)
Traditionally, nitrification may require a,greater detention time than what will be used at
the City. As stated below in this Authorization to Construct permit, in the event that the facilities
fail to perform satisfactorily at the increased design flow, the City of Wilmington shall take
corrective action, such as the construction of additional wastewater treatment units.
Once construction under this ATC has been completed and an Engineer's Cerdkate has been
submitted, the pence: is authorized to operate the units Listed above. u;dh permitted [units as
spec led in the Y4PDES permit issued September 22, 2004. This Authorization to Construct
permit only approves treatrnent units to the deslynflow of 16 MGD for the Wilmington Northside
(Jaynes A. ImVI din) VAV7F. The Division of Water Quality approves this project in terms of
compliance with NPDES limits: we defer to the Cape Fear P.U.A. and their consultants for
approval of structural integrity, etc. of the various treatment units. All treatment units shall be
protected from the flood elevation (as specified by I SA NCAC 2H .02190)(4)).
Signature—, Registration No.
Date:
Mail this Certification to the
NPDES Unit
DENR/DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Ic- Final 2016 Category 5 Assessments-303(d) List
Enybmin (d Northeast Cape Fear River Subbasin Cape Fear River Basin
Qwiftr
Assessment Unit Name Assessment Unit Description
Assessment Unit Number Water Quality Classification Length/Area Units
Goshen Swamp From source to Bear Swamp
18-74-19a C;Sw 16.6 FW Miles
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest IR Category
Exceeding Criteria Severe Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Lillington Creek From source to Northeast Cape Fear River
18-74-42 C;Sw 5.0 FW Miles
Long Creek From source to Cypress Creek
18-74-55a C;Sw 7.7 FW Miles
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest IR Category
Exceeding Criteria Severe Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Mill Pond From source to Holly Shelter Creek
18-74-33-5 C;Sw 2.4 FW Miles
Issessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest IR Category
Exceeding Criteria > 10% and >90 conf pH (4.3 su, AL, Sw) 5
Muddy Creek From source to Mortheast Cape Fear River
18-74-25 C;Sw 14.0 FW Miles
Issessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating
Exceeding Criteria Fair
Northeast Cape Fear River
18-74-(61)
Parameter of Interest
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
From mouth of Ness Creek to Cape Fear River
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating
Exceeding Criteria > 10% and < 90% conf
SC;Sw
Parameter of Interest
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW)
Subbasin
IR Category
5
1.0 S Acres
IR Category
5e
Catawba River Basin
3/23/2018 Final 2016 NC Category 5 Assessments Page 26 of 196

a

CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - Flow
Effluent Limit
35
30
25
CC9 20
15
10
5
0
O,y O,h O,� IS"')O,O O,O Is"', O,O
$\-o titi\�\~ \,�\ti y\,�\ti �\,�\ti
CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - BOD
Wk. Avg
Mo. Avg Wk Limit —Ma- limit
16 ,
14
12
J 10
a� 8
•
_ _
E
_
6
•
• • •
4
•�410 M •
• �•� • •
0
\,�ti � \,��ti
\
(SN' -SN' otio Oti,
oti" oti� Oti"
�y\,�ti
CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - TSS
Wk. Avg Mo. Avg Wk Limit Mo. Limit
50
45
40 =
35
30 —
'�b 25
E 20
15
10
5 AL
0 — —
Summary
Statistics
n
1063
Mean
9.934
SD
2.328
Min
6.573
Max
29.900
Percent Limit
Mean 62%
SD 15%
Min 41 %
Max 187%
Summary Statistics
Summer
n
287
Mean
2.9
SD
1.7
Min
< 2.0
Max
15.5
Winter
n
193
Mean
2.3
SD
0.7
Min
< 2.0
Max
8.0
Summary
Statistics
n
457
Mean
2.6
SD
0.5
Min
< 2.5
Max
< 10.2
1 of 3

CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - NH3-N
Wk. Avg Mo. Avg Wk Limit Mo. Limit
7 r
6
5
-J 4
E 3 •
2
1 � ••
%
0
CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - Enterococci
Wk. Avg Mo. Avg Wk Limit Mo. Limit
1000
t
E 100
o f
•
• • • •• • i • • • • • • • ** A•• • •ti • •
• • • N♦ •• • A•.• • ��
oti°` otio' oti`' oti`' otio' otie otio otio otio otio otio oti1
1,P 'bP�ti
CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - Temperature
Effluent
35
30
25
20
u
° 15
10
5
0
-
O,^
611-
O,�
L
I'Sp
Summary Statistics
Summer
n
279
Mean
0.36
SD
0.36
Min
< 0.25
Max
2.95
Winter
n
194
Mean
0.53
SD
0.75
Min
< 0.25
Max
8.32
Summary Statistics
n
307
Mean"
4.6
SD
15.9
Min
< 1
Max
178
*Geometric mean
Summary
Statistics
n
723
Mean
22.7
SD
4.0
Min
13
Max
29
2 of 3

CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - pH
Effluent L. Limit U. Limit
9
8.5
8
•
.
. It
• •
7.5
•��
•
7
•
Ig
6.5
6
5.5
5
O,� O,�
L \\ti
O,h
y\�
OA0
y\�
O,O
0\~
Off^
3\0�ti
O,�
4,114'L
O§'
110,
CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - DO
Effluent Limit
11
10 • �'
9 • .
no 8 • ` ■ • •
7 '•
6 • a
5
O,� O,h O,O O,O OO,A
`0\�0 ,y4",,`\'L 1\yh�ti y\�,y\ti $0, �\6\ti o\�ti\ti bNN
30
25
20 r
'�'B 15
E
10
5
0L
tia
o0ti
O
CFPUA Northside WWTP (NC0023965) - Effluent Nutients
Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus
oti°
oti�'
oti�O
oti�
oti�
ti
oti^
oti00
4T
o\'V
0�1ISP
�\
Summary
Statistics
n
723
Mean
7.3
SD
0.2
Min
6.8
Max
8.3
Summary
Statistics
n
723
Mean
8.1
SD
0.8
Min
6.5
Max
10.2
Summary
Statistics
Total
Nitrogen
n
36
Mean
16.33
SD
3.91
Min
2.90
Max
24.20
Total Phosphorus
n
36
Mean
3.33
SD
0.67
Min
0.99
Max
4.50
3 of 3

Fact Sheet
7
Yt SwaM si
tYtt'e.15i Y 3
Y
5 Z,
gbxn5l tK
E�.JlWt4 St
(.r oq fit
7_' rYr,O:Yr
St
yC
rq
Outfall 001
x
g w,•„� si
W
T Cyxs St
T
„g
11 aft S is$ 17
pAy,u,i v.
Wilmington
#.krdUW'A
r
m
S
l 1 �
A combination of snap layers to aid in permit Fact Sheet development
0.3mi
New Hanover County, State of Forth Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, IiETI/NASA, EPA, USDA

Northside WWTP
Instream Monitoring
NC0023965
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
Standard
9-Jan-13
10.1
9.4
5.0
14-Jan-13
8.9
5.0
5-Feb-13
9.9
5.0
6-Feb-13
10.7
5.0
18-Feb-13
8.8
5.0
19-Mar-13
8.8
9
5.0
02-Apr-13
8.9
5.0
10-Apr-13
8.9
8.6
5.0
30-Apr-13
6.2
5.0
1-May-13
6.6
6.8
5.0
29-May-13
6.1
5.8
5.0
17-Jun-13
3.7
3.7
5.0
27-Jun-13
4.2
4.6
4.2
5.0
8-Jul-13
3.2
3.3
5.0
16-Jul-13
2.6
5.0
22-Jul-13
3
5.0
26-Jul-13
2.9
5.0
5-Aug-13
4.8
4.7
5.0
26-Aug-13
5.2
5.0
27-Aug-13
3.9
5.0
29-Aug-13
4.7
5.0
3-Sep-13
4.2
4.5
5.0
11-Sep-13
3.7
5.0
13-Sep-13
4.3
4.6
5.0
1-Oct-13
5.3
5.7
5.0
24-Oct-13
5.6
5.0
14-Nov-13
7.5
7.4
7.9
5.0
05-Dec-13
7.7
8.4
8.2
5.0
15-Jan-14
9.9
10.1
10.3
5.0
3-Feb-14
12.9
12.5
5.0
25-Feb-14
9.5
5.0
19-Mar-14
9.7
9.6
5.0
20-Mar-14
9.0
5.0
1-Apr-14
9.5
8.1
5.0
24-Apr-14
6.4
5.0
7-May-14
5.2
5.3
5.0
22-May-14
6.3
5.0
29-May-14
4.7
5.3
5.0
17-Jun-14
4.3
5.0
2-Jul-14
4.6
6.5
5.0
17-Jul-14
4.1
5.0
24-Jul-14
4.1
5.0
28-Jul-14
4.1
5.0
06-Aug-14
4.0
5.0
13-Aug-14
3.8
3.7
5.0
Page 1 of 3

Northside WWTP
Instream Monitoring
NC0023965
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
Standard
27-Aug-14
3.9
4.4
5.0
9-Sep-14
3.5
3.9
5.0
10-Sep-14
3.2
5.0
22-Sep-14
4.5
4.5
5.0
1-Oct-14
4.8
4.9
5.0
02-Oct-14
4.4
5.0
05-Nov-14
6.9
6.8
7.3
5.0
4-Dec-14
8.7
8.3
5.0
15-Dec-14
8.2
5.0
6-Jan-15
8.8
5.0
21-Jan-15
9.8
10.5
5.0
26-Feb-15
12.7
11.9
5.0
09-Mar-15
9.8
5.0
17-Mar-15
9.5
8.6
5.0
23-Apr-15
6.6
5.0
24-Apr-15
6.6
6.8
5.0
5-May-15
7
6.6
5.0
21-May-15
4.2
4.4
5.0
28-May-15
4.2
5.0
10-Jun-15
4.6
4.4
5.0
16-Jun-15
4.1
5.0
23-Jun-15
4.2
5.0
25-Jun-15
3.7
5.0
7-Jul-15
4.3
6.5
5.0
22-Jul-15
4.4
5.0
23-Jul-15
4.3
5.0
05-Aug-15
3.3
5.0
6-Aug-15
3.8
4.4
5.0
18-Aug-15
3.7
4.4
5.0
1-Sep-15
4.1
5.1
5.0
16-Sep-15
5.1
5.0
17-Sep-15
3.9
5.0
22-Sep-15
4.3
5.0
15-Oct-15
5.5
4.7
5.0
26-Oct-15
5.2
5.0
4-Nov-15
6.5
6
5.0
05-Nov-15
5.1
5.0
10-Dec-15
7.8
8.7
7.9
5.0
12-Jan-16
8.4
5.0
14-Jan-16
9
8.7
5.0
01-Feb-16
10.3
10.6
10.3
5.0
1-Mar-16
9.6
9.3
5.0
17-Mar-16
6.9
5.0
20-Apr-16
7.6
7.7
5.0
26-Apr-16
6.9
5.0
Page 2 of 3

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO023965
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
Standard
10-May-16
6
6.1
5.0
16-May-16
5.3
5.0
2-Jun-16
5.7
5.2
5.0
20-Jun-16
5
5.0
24-Jun-16
5
5.0
27-Jun-16
4.3
5.0
12-Jul-16
4.6
5.0
13-Jul-16
3.7
5.1
5.0
22-Jul-16
4.2
5.0
26-1ul-16
4.6
5.0
4-Aug-16
4.1
4.4
5.0
17-Aug-16
4.3
5.0
25-Aug-16
4.3
5.0
1-Sep-16
3.5
4.3
5.0
19-Sep-16
3.9
5.0
28-Sep-16
3.8
5.0
19-Oct-16
3.1
2.7
5.0
16-Nov-16
7
7.2
5.0
n
40
64
64
mean
6.2
6.2
6.2
SD
2.3
2.6
2.3
min
2.6
2.9
2.7
max
10.3
12.9
12.5
Northside WWTP Instream - DO
0
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2) Downstream (D) Standard
14.0
12.0
A+
10.0
�"
#1 M
8.0#�
+ A
A �i`
E 6.0
6�
a ♦
i ♦ A
.0
2.0
Ad
0.0
.N
J\
y$�
ova �ti�
y0�
AV"
Page 3 of 3

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring
NC0023965
TEMPERATURE (°C)
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
Standard
9-Jan-13
8.1
9.3
32.0
14-Jan-13
11.4
32.0
5-Feb-13
10.3
32.0
6-Feb-13
8.8
32.0
18-Feb-13
9.9
32.0
19-Mar-13
13.9
14
32.0
02-Apr-13
13.4
32.0
10-Apr-13
15.6
16.9
32.0
30-Apr-13
19.5
32.0
1-May-13
20.1
20.1
32.0
14-May-13
20.4
32.0
29-May-13
22.2
23.9
32.0
17-Jun-13
24.3
25.0
32.0
27-Jun-13
25.9
25.6
26.0
32.0
8-Jul-13
25.2
26.3
32.0
16-Jul-13
26.9
32.0
22-Jul-13
27.5
32.0
26-Jul-13
27.9
32.0
5-Aug-13
27.8
28.7
32.0
26-Aug-13
26.1
32.0
27-Aug-13
25.7
32.0
29-Aug-13
25.0
32.0
3-Sep-13
26.3
27.2
32.0
11-Sep-13
27.7
32.0
13-Sep-13
26.9
28.0
32.0
1-Oct-13
22.9
23.2
32.0
24-Oct-13
20.8
32.0
14-Nov-13
14.5
14.7
14.8
32.0
05-Dec-13
12.2
12.1
12.7
32.0
15-Jan-14
8.9
8.8
9.1
32.0
3-Feb-14
5.4
6.1
32.0
25-Feb-14
10.6
32.0
19-Mar-14
9.3
10.3
32.0
20-Mar-14
10.3
32.0
1-Apr-14
12.7
13.4
32.0
24-Apr-14
16.1
32.0
7-May-14
22.1
22.8
32.0
22-May-14
20.5
32.0
29-May-14
24.8
25.0
32.0
17-Jun-14
28.5
32.0
2-Jul-14
29.0
29.3
32.0
17-Jul-14
28.2
32.0
24-Jul-14
27.8
32.0
28-Jul-14
28.1
32.0
06-Aug-14
25.4
32.0
Page 1 of 3

Northside WWTP
Instream Monitoring
TEMPERATURE
(°C)
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
Standard
13-Aug-14
26.5
26.6
32.0
27-Aug-14
27.1
27.4
32.0
9-Sep-14
27.3
27.5
32.0
10-Sep-14
27.5
32.0
22-Sep-14
23.4
24.0
32.0
1-Oct-14
22.2
23.2
32.0
02-Oct-14
22.9
32.0
05-Nov-14
16.6
16.2
16.7
32.0
4-Dec-14
10.6
12.2
32.0
15-Dec-14
10.3
32.0
6-Jan-15
11.2
32.0
21-Jan-15
7.7
7.3
32.0
26-Feb-15
4.0
4.7
32.0
09-Mar-15
9.8
32.0
17-Mar-15
13.6
14.4
32.0
23-Apr-15
20.8
32.0
24-Apr-15
21.1
21.2
32.0
5-May-15
19.3
20.1
32.0
21-May-15
24.3
25.2
32.0
28-May-15
24.5
32.0
10-Jun-15
25.3
25.5
32.0
16-Jun-15
28.5
32.0
23-Jun-15
29.9
32.0
25-Jun-15
30.4
32.0
7-Jul-15
28.1
29.2
32.0
22-Jul-15
30.3
32.0
23-Jul-15
30.9
32.0
05-Aug-15
29.0
32.0
6-Aug-15
29.1
29.3
32.0
18-Aug-15
28.6
28.7
32.0
1-Sep-15
28.7
29.0
32.0
16-Sep-15
27.1
32.0
17-Sep-15
26.4
32.0
22-Sep-15
26.0
32.0
15-Oct-15
19.6
20.0
32.0
26-Oct-15
19.8
32.0
4-Nov-15
18.5
19.3
32.0
05-Nov-15
19.6
32.0
10-Dec-15
12.7
11.8
13.2
32.0
12-Jan-16
9.7
32.0
14-Jan-16
9.1
9.4
32.0
01-Feb-16
7.2
7.5
8.5
32.0
1-Mar-16
11.0
11.7
32.0
17-Mar-16
18.5
32.0
20-Apr-16
18.1
18.3
32.0
NC0023965
Page 2 of 3

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO023965
TEMPERATURE (°C)
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
Standard
26-Apr-16
20.1
32.0
10-May-16
21.7
22.8
32.0
16-May-16
22.3
32.0
2-Jun-16
24.4
25.2
32.0
20-Jun-16
27.9
32.0
24-Jun-16
27.5
32.0
27-Jun-16
27.7
32.0
12-Jul-16
29.8
30.0
32.0
13-Jul-16
29.7
32.0
22-Jul-16
30.0
32.0
26-Jul-16
29.8
32.0
4-Aug-16
30.3
30.5
32.0
17-Aug-16
30.7
32.0
25-Aug-16
29.8
32.0
1-Sep-16
29.6
30.1
32.0
19-Sep-16
27.0
32.0
28-Sep-16
26.5
32.0
19-Oct-16
20.1
21.9
32.0
16-Nov-16
15.8
16.1
32.0
n
41
63
63
mean
19.3
21.1
21.7
SD
7.3
7.6
7.4
min
7.2
4
4.7
max
29.7
30.9
30.7
Northside WWTP Instream - Temperature
35
30
25
Upstream (U1)
r
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D) Standard
r "A
���
�
20
V
A.
•�
15
+
.
t
,
10
5
0
alb
ti`'
ti�
�� ,yti�'
do ,y�•
3ti ti�
Page 3 of 3

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023965
CONDUCTIVITY (VS/cm)
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
9-Jan-13
201
12,291
14-Jan-13
12,738
5-Feb-13
10,495
6-Feb-13
198
18-Feb-13
2,329
19-Mar-13
166
6,796
02-Apr-13
4,682
10-Apr-13
155
3,747
30-Apr-13
9,258
1-May-13
212
9,038
14-May-13
10,162
29-May-13
147
5,340
17-Jun-13
103
122
27-Jun-13
151
131
189
8-Jul-13
73
84
22-Jul-13
124
26-Jul-13
111
5-Aug-13
134
8,822
26-Aug-13
3,083
27-Aug-13
140
29-Aug-13
107
3-Sep-13
131
11,083
11-Sep-13
8,979
13-Sep-13
194
14,687
1-Oct-13
10,592
28,785
24-Oct-13
25,697
14-Nov-13
25,649
9,519
27,405
05-Dec-13
20,021
14,510
20,573
15-Jan-14
1,220
96
1,229
3-Feb-14
4,250
7,701
25-Feb-14
515
19-Mar-14
107
1,862
20-Mar-14
1,867
1-Apr-14
120
633
24-Apr-14
106
7-May-14
102
3,827
22-May-14
99
29-May-14
1,709
3,271
17-Jun-14
16,834
2-Jul-14
12,270
22,658
17-Jul-14
11,638
24-Jul-14
9,533
28-Jul-14
2,870
06-Aug-14
143
13-Aug-14
162
1,036
Page 1 of 6

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023965
CONDUCTIVITY (µS/cm)
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
27-Aug-14
6,174
12,495
9-Sep-14
5,881
16,202
10-Sep-14
13,461
22-Sep-14
590
7,883
1-Oct-14
153
9,678
02-Oct-14
6,802
05-Nov-14
23,031
7,663
23,277
4-Dec-14
527
12,940
15-Dec-14
17,161
6-Jan-15
183
21-Jan-15
137
92
26-Feb-15
121
6,151
09-Mar-15
108
17-Mar-15
127
3,700
23-Apr-15
410
24-Apr-15
128
2,044
5-May-15
136
3,676
21-May-15
135
2,126
28-May-15
7,748
10-Jun-15
155
5,247
16-Jun-15
9,691
23-Jun-15
8,540
25-Jun-15
165
7-Jul-15
204
9,426
16-Jul-15
191079
22-Jul-15
20,329
23-Jul-15
4,080
05-Aug-15
151431
6-Aug-15
11,429
21,239
18-Aug-15
4,770
16,849
1-Sep-15
10,800
16,696
16-Sep-15
15,533
17-Sep-15
20,309
15-Oct-15
111
132
22-Sep-15
8,134
26-Oct-15
171084
4-Nov-15
145
5,571
05-Nov-15
2302
10-Dec-15
71547
131
6,617
12-Jan-16
93
14-Jan-16
93
115
01-Feb-16
115
97
1,048
1-Mar-16
83
94
17-Mar-16
3,785
Page 2 of 6

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023965
CONDUCTIVITY (VS/cm)
Date
Upstream (U1)
Upstream (U2)
Downstream (D)
20-Apr-16
153
13,651
26-Apr-16
9,223
10-May-16
110
3,070
16-May-16
2,888
2-Jun-16
148
10,448
20-Jun-16
15,385
24-Jun-16
5,780
27-Jun-16
18,309
12-Jul-16
138
1,243
13-J u I-16
12,143
22-Jul-16
8,463
26-Jul-16
143
4-Aug-16
6,388
11,440
17-Aug-16
25-Aug-16
4,503
16,232
1-Sep-16
18,435
25,233
19-Sep-16
8,860
28-Sep-16
7,760
19-Oct-16
47
59
16-Nov-16
8,508
17,382
N
41
63
63
Mean
8,797
2,729
8,893
SD
8,059
4,385
7,747
Min
93
47
59
Max
25,697
18,435
28,785
Page 3 of 6

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023965
Northside WWTP Instream - Conductivity
Upstream (U1) Upstream (U2) Downstream (D)
100,000
10,000 *• ��• : • 1 2*W *A■• � ►
100 f 0'r goo 4,0 own# A R IMrM % 0" i
10
1
No
c N '11
aJQi
Iti� ti tip° 3tia Nq oI`S
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
U1
U2
Mean
8797
2689
Variance
64943930
19020901
Observations
41
64
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
55
t Stat
4.453586
P(T<=t) one -tail
2.09E-05
t Critical one -tail
1.673034
P(T<=t) two -tail
4.18E-05
t Critical two -tail
2.004045
Difference highly significant
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal
Variances
U1
D
Mean
8797
8946
Variance
64943930
59247312
Observations
41
64
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
83
t Stat
-0.09406
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.462645
t Critical one -tail
1.66342
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.925289
t Critical two -tail
1.98896
No significant difference
Page 4 of 6

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring
NC0023965
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
U2 D
Mean
2689.016 8946.422
Variance
19020901 59247312
Observations
64 64
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0.05
df
100
t Stat
-5.65842
P(T<=t) one -tail
7.3E-08
t Critical one -tail
1.660234
P(T<=t) two -tail
1.46E-07
t Critical two -tail
1.983972
Difference highly significant
Page 5 of 6

Northside WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO023965
Page 6 of 6

|■
z
w
19
k|
0.
k
k
k
z
§
2
)
k
)
0
)
)
a
(L
2
(--0E-.0
-\/\k0
\ C LU 0 w w £
§. 0 f I /
/ 2
8.
\ k
L6
OD LQ co
L
a
\
°
r ® 2
LU
)�
2 E� CD}
E .
&
§
k
)
k )
LL
q
N
C4 §
S.
w
w
« CD
3
Q
2 k
&
&
/
J¥/
f
a'
m
a
a£a7
k
\r\0\��
0
0
0
co
/
OD
§
§
e
§ § k a)
§
o
0
0 0
\k
k
}�
co
§
Q
o
0 0

p
N M
I I I
N N N ei I
I I I ry
—
N I
LL
I
I
O
0 M 1 1 VI
O
1 v N
O
O
n
m
m
lm
n
N N
N N
N vl N In
m m
a N a
Z I
Z I
2 m m m m
I
z l
m M,Z
2a a
a d a a
c a a o
O
O
O
O
O
O
o 0
VI
D
VI
VI
UI
VI
n n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
aI
�
Oa I
a
o
p l
3
Ln
a
o
z
o�
o
z
N
y
a
OD
a
a
6
m
Q
6
o
N
LL
N
c
LL
m
lL
of
n
C
lL
.�
�
LL
`
N
H N N N
C
^
VVNI
— LL
N
Gm
L
Gi
I I I I
VI
d
y I I I I
f6 I
H LL a m
I
V1
a
H
WD
m
i
C OD a
G.
p
t0
ti
M
N
O
Z
z
p^
a
V
pn
V
n
U
p.
n
V
3
n
p
U
3
n
p
U
3
C
m
a
zI
u
m a rn m
.�
w
a uN vN o
Q
I I � .
Q
Q a N a A d
u
I I I
Q
z
Q
Z
Q m m m n
p
m In
O
CDin
a a a N
C
O
C
N
C
O
`y
a m
a
tV
O
O
C
a
'�
n m
a
m
ll
m
LL
m
Li:
m
Li:
co
LL
m
1.1
a
a
a
a
—
a
a
LL
N
a
fm
N
o
O
ti
N'
o
c
N
O
O
O
O
v �
J
c�O
�'VI
v
Q
t�7
C
N N YI N
C'
��•4
v
�
��Y
(gyp
n a
�
�
��Y
0
d'
�C
G
I I I I
3
n�
m m m m a
3
I I I I I
3
lJ
N 1O y
LL v 00
V
I
cc
y
�
a a a a o
a N N a
0
o
n
o
o
M A
a a 00
0
o
u
tka
m
z
�
m
c
z
s
z
3
a
a
v
�
zSo I
�I
gaaaaa
n n
a,
�
�I
�I
v
�ammmm
p a a a a
m
`m
oo
y
ao
c
m
c
o
+=
,n
in
0O
in
`^
00
V)
N
n
1R
M
m
u
M
3
0
w
o
o
Z
0
c
z
0
—�"
3
0
3
`
z
Q
z
Q I I I
O
Q
0
N I
Q
Q
m
z
z
m
z°
z°
Q
S
c�
+
•u
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
In
U
O
U
U
O
U
V
U
.gym..
OA
'c
0
E
(D
00
0N j
Am
n
E
aCL�
O
m
a M N
m
o�
ZC
II
N
d
C8,
n
o
a
C
o
o
2
o
u
J
o
a
a
ryMj
upi
_£
�
n
,
m
O
r
L
C
L
U5
N
I,
y
00
L
O
—
0
w
v
N
V
c+
m
V
a
am
V'
Ln
a
N
an
en
c
N
E
N
N
H
N
W
N
V
m
O
u
SI
u
CD
Y
u
N N N
z
�I
�I
u
L&-mamm>
u
Li -I
u
U-ammmm
N
C
n
z
z
a ,n a c.
Z
z
z
o a a a a
N
a N
o
ti
p
r
O
o
O
CL
N
O
d
N
N
NA
cl
E
\
\
m
�\•I
m
N
m
N
Ql
Y
CD
N
8
O
I�
.•-.
Ol
c-I
0
L�
r
J
V
Y
C
N
C
on
O
S
oa
C
C
°°
a
C
N
C
'oo
°
..
'ea
c
E
+'
m
I o
4jI
ar
I133
oo
ti
'X
'0
CO
n
CL
m
LL
m
m
min
O
2
.Um..
C
;O
C
E
10
N
a
Y
V
Y
LII
C
c
E
cq r Ln w
3
N M-t In t0
m
C
N M� N w
a+
30
N M� N w
u
N
V
�•
N M In lD
a
N N N
N
J
O
0 0 0 0 0
O
..
0 0 0 0
m
F
N
0
N N N N N
C
N N N N
C
N N N N N
L
N
0
N N N N N
N
C
U
1
t
�0+
~
u
a
=
LL
m
d
m
N
N
a
C
d
C
C
a
a
J
_�
=
t
=_
E
a
E
v
o
O
!.L
U
U
U
LL
U

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 U 2 I5 I 3 NCO023965 Ill 12 18/05/22 17 18 I �.' 19' G I 20 LJ
21I I I I I I I I I I II 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I1 1 1 1 1 1 �6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ------ Reserved-------------
671 f 70 h I 71 I I 72 I N I 731 I 174 75I I I I I I I 110
I LJ LJ I I I
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)
09:30AM 18/05/22
12/09/01
Northside WWTP
2311 N 23rd St
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Wilmington NC 28401
11:40AM 18/05/22
16/12/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)fritles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
///
Geoffrey D Cermak//910-332-6562 /9103326731
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Kenneth L Vogt,235 Government Center Or Wilmington NC 28403/WWTP
No
Supedntendentl910-332-6566/9103326731
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program ■ Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Helen I Perez WIRO WQ//910-796-7387/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Morelia Sanchez -King WIRO WQ//910-796-7218/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NCO023965 11 121— 18/05/22 17 18 ICI
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
A compliance inspection of the Northside WWTP was conducted on 05-22-2018. The plant continues
to be well maintained and operated and is compliant with their permit, NC0023965. Additional
comments are located in the question section of this report.
Page#

Permit: NCO023965 Owner - Facility: Northside WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/2212018 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?
M
❑
❑
❑
# 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?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The renewal permit apalication was submitted July of 2016 and is currently under review.
The facility continues to meet the conditions for exceptional compliance monitoring
freguengy reduction from daily monitoring to 2/week for BOD TSS NH3-N and
Enterococci.
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
Yes No NA NE
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Two of the three mechanical bar screens were in oijeration during
inspection and well
maintained. W
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
Yes No NA NE
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Two of the three cyclonic Eutek Systems Slurrycup
grit units were in op eration and
appeared to be well maintained.
Influent Sampling Yes No. NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO023965 Owner - Facility: Northside WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/22/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Influent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
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: There are two influent autosam lers one to collect a flow proportional sample from the city
influent and one for the county influent. Both are combined at the central lab into a
e . resentative sample based on flow. Both autosam lers were r at 5 degrees Celsius. Tubing
was clean and in ciood condition and chan ed on a preventative maintenance schedule of
weekly/monthl as needed.
Aeration Basins
Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑ ❑
❑
S
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?
❑ ❑
❑
E
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
❑
❑
❑
Comment: There are dissolved oxygen urobes at set locations alonci the four aeration basin treatment
trains for continuous DO monitoring. Currently.
the inlet section of the basin is anoxic and
DO is increased as it flows through the basins
to a DO of about 4.0 m /I at the outlet of the
basin. MLSS is —2000 mq/I.
Anaerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Floating cover
Is the capacity adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is gas stored on site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
❑
❑
❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO023965
Inspection Date: 05/22/2018
Anaerobic Digester
Owner - Facility: Northside WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The facility is currently using three of the five anaerobic digesters. The digesters are
receiving solids directly from the two primary clarifers and solids from the secondary
clarifiers after it is processed through the gravity belt thickeners. Solids flow from digester 4.
to digester 2, to digester 3 and then stored in sludge storage tanks until further processing.
The floating covers of the digesters are in the process of being recoated/repainted.
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
M
❑
❑
❑
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The gravity belt thickeners and belt presses are operated and maintained by Synagro Inc.
Once solids are digested, they are processed through the belt
presses and tranworted
to a
covered storage pad at the Southside WWTP before being land applied under their
non -discharge land application permit, W00001271.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Down flow
Is the filter media present?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
❑ ❑
M
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
❑ ❑M
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: There are four high -rate sand filters that are backwashed_with plant effluent a,.�Jroximatelr
one filter per hour. The outfall discharges to a segment of the Cape Fear River classified as
a primary nursery area (PNA). To minimize TSS concentrations in the lower Cape Fear
Riverthe current permit states that at no time shall the effluent bypass the tertiary filters.
Disinfection - UV
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
Are UV bulbs clean?
Is UV intensity adequate?
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Page# 5

Permit: NCO023965
Inspection Date: 05/22/2018
Owner - Facility: Northside WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE
Is there a backup system on site? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is effluent clear and free of solids? N ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: There are four UV channels. Extra bulbs are on site and each channel of bulbs are cleaned
approximately once a month.
Effluent Saml,linci
Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: One flow proportional autosam ler was in use at a temperature of 5 de2rees
Celsius. A
second autosam ler is available when larger quantities of effluent is needed such as durinG_
Long Term Monitoring or toxicity sampling.
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The generator is tested weekly and tested under load eves v 3rd Thursdav of the month.
Duke Enerczy will occasionally request the plant to run on generator oower during
peak
loading times.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The effluent and influent flow meters were calibrated on 03-12-2018.
Page# 6

Permit: NCO023965
Inspection Date: 05/22/2018
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Owner -Facility: NorthsideWWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: Operations staff analyze numerous process control parameters for monitoring to include
TSS TVSS NH3-N settleable solids and microbiology. The results are recorded on the
Operator 10 databases stem where a daily report is generated. The central CFPUA lab
also analyzes some process control parameters as well as all the compliance parameters
and has access to the Operator 10 database for input.
Record Keeping
Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
M
❑
❑
❑
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?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
M
❑
❑
❑
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Records are organized and complete. A log book is available for operators to record all
activites at the plant. Maximo is used to generate and track workorders for any
maintenance
needed.
Page# 7

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
PermitNo. NC0023965
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 16
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 487.78
Enter w7Q10 cfs): 487.78
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
487.78
s7Q10 (CFS)
487.78
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
16
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
16
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
24.8
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
24.8
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
4.84
IWC (%)
4.84
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
351
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
16.3
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
487.78
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
16
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
24.8
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
20.67 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
4.84
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
32.9
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N]
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/l
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)
c A tj C,/,o C, 0 L Q F 0 I;Ltf )

J
Q
a
3
d
E
2
rn
�L
rn
rn
0
0
co
cm
rn�
m
a
m
m
m
3
7
7
7
7
7
3
O
O
C
7
O
7
7
E
i
I
7.
7.
O
O
p
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
CA
cli
cq
(D
CDZ
Ln
N
ti
NLO
r
N
fn
2
!n
fA
N
U
Cn
fn
to
Z
[/y
CIS
fq
fA
(n
S
2
S
2
co
L'7
O
CS
Q
Q
LO
LU
N
O
M
.-
ram.
r
O
CO
LO
N�co
O
O
W
cc
Z
fM
W
N
cO
LO
U
U
U
L]
U
U
U
U
U
L]
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
F
J
J
J
N
m
N
Ln
C
`
7
Ij
U
>
I-dv
N
N
E
V
•
a
' c
a
m
U
a
a_Od
>a�
o
EO
Q
Q
cc
J3
C
ZU)
N
mE3
Co
Um
o
H
(
a
O
i
(
¢
4
V2O
a
U
j
m
0
W W W W W W W W l0 W {0 W W W W W F W W W W
IL a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
It
ao
C
C N
O
ti O
U
Q
c,
N `-
r
la
d
c
fY
a
w
�
Q
N
J
d
U)
O
U
O
co
M
N04
O
O
N
Z
E o
fti c
ca
�E
E
to
(n C
co
y
N .
CD
7 N
U�
(O a)
� O
m �
U `O
2
V F_
. Q
y�
Lts �
c
w
U)m
L uJ
� I/J
CLi 0
O
Z N
N
N
a
G
W
r�
G7
o
61
a
:3
d
I� Q
Q3
`o
n
a
U
o
[]
a
a m
U
V
V
m w
O
IL
LL
LL
LL
LL
Lf
FE U)
LLJ U
0)
O
N
Q O
d 7
A
7
Q
7
O
3
Q
7
O Co
O
.-" ? a M �.
h
'� R
N
d
Q
00
O
0 LL
U
U
U
ON E
Z
Q
_U
•C
2
G
C
C
C
N
c; 2
ip O U rT5 y O
y
ca
o
❑
❑
v
❑
N
m
U
U
U
U
U
2
E •Op
�° •o v o? ��
+
aai
a?
�
_�
U
� 2
^c ^ •Cj
�
❑
a
of
v E
2
a
M
M
C.4 s
a
11
O
rJ
a G U
zu
E
O
�Oi �� u
La
p
R
V
m
IL
to �
m
w
w
U
z 0! Y? L1
IL
>
E
In
3' w
C
3
7 O
d
d«
m
o
Cl
— a g o
Q
fi
fl
z
0 a
rn
M ('1

i
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Arsenic
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/5/2013
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
2
5/8/2013
<
1
0.5
Mean
3
8/6/2013
1
1
C.V.
4
11/6/2013
1
1
n
5
2/5/2014
<
1
0.5
6
5/7/2014
<
5
2.5
Mull Factor =
7
8/6/2014
<
3
1.5
Max. Value
8
11/5/2014
<
3
1.5
Max. Pred Cw
9
2/10/2015
<
3
1.5
10
4/7/2015
<
3
1.5
11
5/5/2015
<
3
1.5
12
8/4/2015
<
3
1.5
13
11/3/2015
<
3
1.5
14
2/9/2016
<
1.4
0.7
15
5/3/2016
<
3
1.5
16
7/12/2016
<
3
1.5
17
8/2/2016
<
3
1.5
18
11/8/2016
<
3
1.5
19
2/7/2017
<
3
5
20
5/2/2017
<
3
.5
21
8/8/2017
<
10
5
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
j
51
52
33l
53
54
55
56
57
58
ValUea" than "COPY"
. i!A%mmen (&ata
pahrta - 54
1.4857
0.6275
21
1.3600
5.0 ug/L
6.8 ug/L
Cadmium
values" than -COP"'
. maximum CW4
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/5/2013
<
0.1
0.05
Std Dev.
0. •1
2
5/8/2013
<
0.1
0.05
Mean
0.7048
3
8/6/2013
<
0.1
0.05
C.V.
0.6213
4
11/6/2013
<
0.1
0.05
n
21
5
2/5/2014
<
0.1
0.05
6
5/7/2014
<
2
1
Mull Factor =
1.3600
7
8/6/2014
<
2
1
Max. Value
1.00 ug/L
8
11/5/2014
<
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS ug/L
9
2/10/2015
<
2
1
10
4/7/2015
<
2
1
11
5/5/2015
<
2
1
12
8/4/2015
<
2
1
13
11/3/2015
<
2
1
14
2/9/2016
<
0.1
0.05
15
5/3/2016
<
2
1
16
7/12/2016
<
2
1
17
8/2/2016
<
2
1
18
11/8/2016
<
2
1
19
2/7/2017
<
2
1
20
5/2/2017
<
2
1
21
8/8/2017
<
1
0.5
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
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date)

Total Phenolic Compounds
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
1
8/5/2013
12 12
Std Dev.
2
5/6/2014
32 32
Mean
3
2/9/2015
< 10 5
C.V. (default)
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred Cw
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
Valuaa'Ihan'Cr•
Chromium VI
Maxtmrwin data
points - Sa
1
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
14.0119
16.3333
2
Mean
0.6000
3
C.V.
3
4
n
5
3.0000
6
Mult Factor =
32.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
96.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
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
Valaos- inpn "CGFY"
Maximum data Point%=
58
NO DATA
NO DATA
0.0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
NC0023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date)

Date Data
1 2/5/2013 <
2 5/8/2013 <
3 8/6/2013 <
4 11/6/2013 <
5 2/5/2014 <
6 5/7/2014 <
7 8/6/2014 <
8 11/5/2014 <
9 2/10/2015 <
10 4/7/2015 <
11 5/5/2015 <
12 8/4/2015 <
13 11 /3/2015 <
14 2/9/2016 <
15 5/3/2016 <
16 7/12/2016 <
17 8/2/2016 <
18 11/8/2016 <
19 2/7/2017 <
20 5/2/2017 <
21 8/8/2017 <
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
i
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Chromium, Total ���� �" lnnn -e
. Ma:Imam tlls0F
ll
pefnis a 58
BDL=1126L
Results
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.9258
1
0.5
Mean
1.9286
1
0.5
C.V.
0.4801
1
0.5
n
21
1
0.5
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.2700
5�
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
5%
2.5
Max. Pred Cw O
DETECTS ug/L
5,
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
51
2.5
5-
2.5
1
0.5
5-
2.5
5 "
2.5
5
2.5
5
2.5
5-
2.5
5-
2.5
5'
2.5
Date Data
1 2/5/2013
2 5/8/2013
3 8/6/2013
4 11/6/2013
5 2/5/2014
6 5/7/2014
7 8/6/2014
8 11/5/2014
9 2/10/2015
10 4/7/2015
11 5/5/2015
12 11/3/2015
13 2/9/2016
14 5/3/2016
15 7/12/2016
16 8/2/2016
17 11/8/2016
18 2/7/2017
19 5/2/2017 <
20 8/8/2017 <
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
Copper
Vaivae than "COPY-
BDL=112DL
Results
6
6
Std Dev.
20081
3
3
Mean
3.9100
1.8
1.8
C.V.
0.5136
1.9
1.9
n
20
4.8
4.8
6
6
Mult Factor =
1.3100
3
3
Max. Value
9.00 ug/L
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
11.79 ug/L
9
9
4
4
5
5
6
6
3.2
3.2
6
6
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
5
2.5
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date}

i
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS r DATA
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results 1
1
2/4/2013
6
5
Std Dev.
2
5/7/2013
<
5
5
Mean
3
8/5/2013
<
5
5
C.V.
4
11/5/2013
<
5
5
n
5
2/4/2014
<
5
5
6
5/6/2014
<
5
5
Mult Factor =
7
8/5/2014
<
5
5
Max. Value
8
11/4/2014
<
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
2/9/2015
<
8
5
10
4/6/2015
<
8
5
11
5/4/2015
<
8
5
12
8/3/2015
<
8
5
13
11/2/2015
<
8
5
14
2/8/2016
<
8
5
15
5/2/2016
<
8
5
16
7/11/2016
<
8
5
17
8/1/2016
<
8
5
18
11M2016
<
8
5
19
2/6/2017
<
8
5
20
5/1/2017
<
8
5
21
8/7/2017
<
8
5
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
V alum" Ilit n "COPY"
. Max llnum dales
rmines = 58
5.0000
0.0000
21
1.0000
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
dead
Ivaluw m'm -copy'
. Maximum data
pGIn LS = 58
Date
Data
BD(=1/2DL
Results
1
2/5/2013
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.8194
2
5/8/2013
2.7
2.7
Mean
2.0333
3
8/6/2013
<
1
0.5
C.V.
0.4325
4
11/6/2013
<
1
0.5
n
21
5
2/5/2014
<
1
0.5
6
5/7/2014
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.25
7
8/6/2014
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.70 ug/L
8
11/5/2014
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
3.38 ug/L
9
2/10/2015
<
5
2.5
10
4/7/2015
<
5
2.5
11
5/5/2015
<
5
2.5
12
8/4/2015
<
5
2.5
13
11/3/2015
<
5
2.5
14
2/9/2016
<
1
0.5
15
5/3/2016
<
5
2.5
16
7/12/2016
<
5
2.5
17
8/2/2016
<
5
2.5
18
11/8/2016
<
5
2.5
19
2/7/2017
<
5
2.5
20
5/2/2017
<
5
2.5
21
8/8/2017
<
5
2.5
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
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date)

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Mercury
vail,e,•ph'm •Capr
hSa.iMJM ri:.[a
Molybdenum
PY-
❑onus = 58
E��
Date Data
BDL=112DL Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
2/5/2013
<
0.1
0.05
Std Dev.
0:3000
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
5/8/2013
<
0.1
0.05
Mean
0.0500
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
8/6/2013
<
0.1
0.05
C.V.
0.0000
4
n
0
4
11/6/2013
<
0:1
0.05
n
21
5
5
2/5/2014
<
0:1
0.05
6
Mu t Factor =
N/A
6
5/7/2014
<
0.1
0.05
Mult Factor =
1.0000
7
Max,. Value
N/A ng/L
7
8/6/2014
<
0.1
0.05
Max. Value
0.1 mg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ng/L
8
11/5/2014
<
0.1
0.05
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS mg/L
9
1
9
2/10/2015
<
0.1
0.05
10
10
4/7/2015
<
0.1
0.05
11
; I
11
5/5/2015
<
0.1
0.05
12
12
8/4/2015
<
0.1
0.05
13
13
11/3/2015
<
0.1
0.05
14
14
2/9/2016
<
0.1
0.05
15
15
5/3/2016
<
0.1
0.05
16
16
7/12/2016
<
0.1
0.05
17
17
8/2/2016
<
0.1
0.05
18
18
11/8/2016
<
0.1
0.05
19
19
2/7/2017
<
0.1
0.05
20
20
5/2/2017
<
0.1
0.05
21
21
8/8/2017
<
0.1
0.05
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
I
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date}

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Nickel
Data
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
2/5/2013
2
2
Std Dev.
2
5/8/2013
1.4
1.4
Mean
3
8/6/2013
1.6
1.6
C.V.
4
11 /6/2013
1.5
1.5
n
5
2/5/2014
1.5
1.5
6
5/7/2014
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
7
8/6/2014
<
10
5
Max. Value
8
11/5/2014
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
2/10/2015
<
10
5
10
4/7/2015
<
10
5
11
5/5/2015
<
10
5
12
8/4/2015
<
10
5
13
11 /312015
<
10
5
14
2/9/2016
<
1
0.5
15
5/3/2016
<
10
5
16
7/12/2016
<
10
5
17
8/2/2016
<
10
5
18
11/8/2016
<
10
5
19
2/7/2017
<
10
5
20
5/2/2017
<
5
2.5
21
8/8/2017
<
0.5
0.25
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
Vxkms,' uinn'COPY-
palms - 58
1.8401
3.6310
0.5068
21
1.2900
5.00 ug/L
6.45 ug/L
Date Data
1 2/5/2013 <
2 5/8/2013 <
3 8/6/2013 <
4 11/6/2013 <
5 2/5/2014 <
6 5/7/2014 <
7 8/6/2014 <
8 11 /5/2014 <
9 2/10/2015 <
10 4/7/2015 <
11 5/5/2015 <
12 8/4/2015 <
13 11/3/2015 <
14 2/9/2016 <
15 5/3/2016 <
16 7/12/2016 <
17 8/2/2016 <
18 11/8/2016 <
19 2/7/2017 <
20 5/2/2017 <
21 8/8/2017 <
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
Selenium
valurs` ,,,,,,,copy,
. 1Aacirtwm curia
poHrts = so
BDL=112DL
Results
I -
0.5
Std Dev.
2.0P3 i
-1
0.5
Mean
3.7143
-1-
0.5
C.V.
0.5608
1
0.5
n
21
-1'
' 0.5
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.3200
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS ug/L
10
5,
10
51
10
5
10
16
10
5
1
0.5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10,
5
10'
5
�JC0023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date}

Date Data
1 2/5/2013 <
2 5/8/2013 <
3 8/6/2013 <
4 11/6/2013 <
5 2/5/2014 <
6 5/7/2014 <
7 8/6/2014 <
8 11/5/2014 <
9 2/10/2015 <
10 4/7/2015 <
11 5/512015 <
12 8/4/2015 <
13 11/3/2015 <
14 2/9/2016 <
15 5/3/2016 <
16 7/12/2016 <
17 8/2/2016 <
18 11 /8/2016 <
19 2/7/2017 <
20 5/2/2017 <
21 8/8/2017 <
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 i
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Silver
VaWW thon 'COPr
. Maximum data
ppin is = SB
BDL=112DL
Results
i
0.1
0.05
Std Dev.
0.5810
0.1
0.05
Mean
0.8024
0.2
0.1
C.V.
0.7242
0.1
0.05
n
21
0.1
0.05
2
1
Mult Factor =
1.4100
2
1
Max. Value
2.50 ug/L
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
JO DETECtS ug/L
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
0.1
0.05
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
2i5
Zinc
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/5/2013
36
36
Std Dev.
2
5/8/2013
33
33
Mean
3
8/6/2013
34
34
C.V.
4
11/6/2013
36
36
n
5
2/5/2014
40
40
6
5/7/2014
36
36
Mult Factor =
7
8/6/2014
27
27
Max. Value
8
11/5/2014
35
35
Max. Pred Cw
9
2/10/2015
40
40
10
4/7/2015
38
38
11
5/5/2015
36
36
12
8/4/2015
40
40
13
11/3/2015
34
34
14
2/9/2016
21.7
21.7
15
5/3/2016
32
32
16
7/12/2016
35
35
17
8/2/2016
37
37
18
11/8/2016
29
29
19
2/7/2017
32
32
20
5/2/2017
50.8
50.8
21
8/8/2017
29.2
29.2
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
VahjW then -COPY'
. Maximum data
pointy = 5a
5.8123
34.8429
0.1668
21
1.0900
60.8 ug/L
55.4 ug/L
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date}

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/5/2014
0.0062
0.005
Std Dev.
2
5/7/2014
0.01
0.01
Mean
3
8/6/2014
0.016
0.016
C.V.
4
11/5/2014
0.011
0.011
n
5
2/10/2015
0.01
0.01
6
4/7/2015
< 0.01
0.005
Mult Factor =
7
5/5/2015
< 0.01
0.005
Max. Value
8
8/4/2015
0.01
0.01
Max. Pred Cw
9
11/3/2015
0.012
0.012
10
2/9/2016
0.0106
0.0106
11
5/3/2015
0.012
0.012
12
7/12/2016
0.014
0.014
13
8/2/2016
0.016
0.016
14
11/8/2016
0.016
0.016
15
2/7/2017
0.013
0.013
16
5/2/2017
0.015
0.015
17
8/8/2017
0.0116
0.0116
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
Values" 11101 "C 0 F Y
Yaa1111n11t1l7td
pWnts = 5$
0.6113
0.3249
17
1.2300
0.01600 mg/L
0.01968 mg/L
Date
Data BDL=1/2QL
Results
1
2/5/2014
0.0404
0.025
Std Dev.
2
5/7/2014
0.031
0 -�25
Mean .
3
8/6/2014
0.019
0. 25
C.V.
4
11 /5/2014
0.064
0.064
n
5
2/10/2015
0.025
0.025
6
4/7/2015
0.022
0.025
Mult Factor =
7
5/5/2015
0.021
0.025
Max. Value
8
8/4/2015
0.016
0.025
Max. Pred Cw
9
11/3/2015
0.015
0.025
10
2/9/2016
0.0326
0.025
11
5/3/2015
0.016
0.025
12
7/12/2016
0.011
0.025
13
8/2/2016
0.011
0.025
14
11/8/2016
0.016
0.025
15
2/7/2017
0.02
0.025
16
5/2/2017
< 0.1
0.05
17
8/8/2017
< 0.1
0.05
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
Values" the "COPY"
. FAixlm4m "a
pods is = i8
0.01,10
0.0302
0.3970
17
1.2900
0.06400 mg/L
0.08256 mg/L
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date}

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Date Data
1 2/9/2016 <
2 5/3/2016 <
3 11/8/2016 <
4 12/13/2016 <
5 1/9/2017 <
6 2/7/2017 <
7 5/2/2017 <
8 8/8/2017 <
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
Antimony
V,izves" then "COPY"
µ4-w"M data
points = 50
BDL=112DL
Results
1
5
S�d Dev. 1.1573
1
;;5
Mean 5.6260
15
7.5
C.V. (default) 0.6000
5
5
n 8
5
5
15
7.5
K. ult Factor = 1.9000
5
Max. Value 7.50000 Ng/L
5
5
M•ex. Pred Cw O DETECTS Ng/L
Cobalt
I vaaae■-u�-cDPV-
. Maxlmurn data
pdnta = M
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/10/2015 <
10
25
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
4/7/2015 <
10
25
Mean
25.0000
3
5/5/2015 <
10
25
C.V.
0.0000
4
8/4/2015 <
10
25
n
13
5
1113/2015 <
10
25
6
2/9/2016 <
1
25
Mult Factor =
1.0000
7
5/3/2016 <
10
25
Max. Value
25.00000 Ng/L
8
7/12/2016 <
10
25
Max. Pred Ow
O DETECTS Ng/L
9
8/2/2016 <
10
25
10
11/812016 <
10
25
11
2/7/2017 <
10
25
12
5/2/2017 <
IV
25
13
8/8/2017 <
5
25
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
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date)

i
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS DATA
T
Tin
valtj� !"rn' etsPr
NO DEFINED PARMETER
Va+ueV emn'COP!"
. Mmlmum datl
. M,X,Zu dsla
{winSs � 58
polnlE = 5!1
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Results
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/10/2015 <
56
25
Std Dev.
__.—
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2 4/7/2015 <
50
25
Mean
24.1462
2
Mean
NO DATA
3 5/5/2015 <
166.
25
C.V.
0.2591
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4 8/4/2015 <
50 ,
25
n
13
4
n
0
5 11/3/2015 <
50
25
5
6 2/9/2016 <
50,
25
Mult Factor =
1.2300
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
7 5/3/2016 <
50
25
Max. Value
33.90000 Ng/L
7
Max. Value
N/A
8 7/12/2016 <
50
25
Max. Pred Cw
41.69700 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
NIA
9 812/2016 <
50
25
9
0 11/8/2016 <
50
25
10
1 2/7/2017 <
50
25
11
2 5/2/2017 <
5
5
12
3 8/8/2017
33.9
33.9
13
4
14
5
15
6
16
7
17
8
18
9
19
.0
20
A
21
2
22
3
23
.4
24
5
25
6
26
7
27
8
28
9
29
0
30
1
31
2
32
3
33
4
34
5
35
6
36
7
37
8
38
9
39
0
40
1
41
2
42
3
43
4
44
5
45
6
46
7
47
8
48
9
49
D
50
1
51
2
52
3
53
4
54
5
55
5
56
7
57
B
58
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date}

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
56
Na DEFINED PARMETER
Vain vwn'CGPY'
. Mmmum data
point! = S�
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
SA{td Dev.
NO DATA
'-ean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
nII',
0
C
ult Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
N/A
naax. Pred Cw
N/A
NCO023965 SALTWATER RPA 2017,data
Date}

*7
m
m
0
N
0
c� v
z n O
a c a o a aD a
c p1 3 c. ci 3 > ; 3
Z a ra 3 0 3 m
v A
N O
w
n 0 n n n n n n n n "m
o
in rii 00 N O to N 'a U11
z
v
z
O O O O O � O O p. A. m
y Z, " v
a
M
z
~ O N cV1ii O A0 A
in m D
c o POL
q° ILQ- q° ILQ- UNITS
r r r r r r r r r r
O o O 3 A w bj C3
A O
CL [A #
m o
W N O N d
rD
m
a
O o o W 0
CD z_ w ° z_ E b w a
Y A Y n c O0 p, r
m
0
I o I o` I o I m I o I d I o No nl y
k (] < n k �' ' co w a
�• I o I °' b I °' I- i9 r
0 0 o p o e o a d o p � o d o o ii o x
V �.I V I V.I co r �•I co V �•I co r I Fo V�V rnI v
Y tmn
j Y j N' I a xla �l
I w
NI p oo
00I �I (i OI o0 ooI c a, OI GG !�I n �In NI w f
Coy 10' O F Ai N O' N OBI N �,
A I I I
U O\
zo1 O I zol o.n I zo1 O I zo1
I of °p l of d I of g l of
oz
i IGQ i I m
r m
II I a`I 0O I ail I o.`I o
I
A, A, �' A A, A, m
G of I cl � I of I cl o
FL I
j aj j ai FL i �i i �i $
gI I oI
I �I I �I �• I �I I �I
0
0
N
W
t0
N
I'll
aq
2 F o '0 -j
> CA �
o 0
5 u ii n n n n
d o o o o o
a ac.ao.ao
m�soW��CD
T W N N N ID
d L CL a a a
�C,)O=3s N cc o 0 0 0 0
7 7 3 3 3
vvovv �
c c c c c (D
0 0 0 0 0 0 �
d d d d d
O O O O O
CL CLMMCL C
7 a a a 3
MM ICL C
D Q
a�
0 as
FOL
Z to
(A
CO) Za
n c'Cano
Fn wo o b Q
Q�0,p�o�0 (D
> ;n 3
• /
0 A A A A N A (D
0 co co co co co
W W W W J
O O O O m
Z to w w w N
'D > > J J Q
V V V V CO
4 v V co A
A A A A N
m C
aD
3�
ym
AN
0Z
on
z�
0v
1
x
y
m
n
m
G
z
Q
L

T
N
O
y
Z
0
0
N
N
cn
d
w
D
V N
� O
N V
o ;a
ao m
c
c
r
c
C
C
C
0
2-
c
3
N
U1
-
m
Z
3
3
cr
�,
3
?
c
3
c
3
C
a
3
O
O
N
O
i•/�
pp
U
i.h
U
'I
Ccon
ccV
O
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
O
C.
O
1
J
v
in
U
w
U
//
V
U
�
C
C
O
O
O
p
1
QQ
c
O O
w
�.,
r z
�. A
�]
�]
t2
.N-
�2
�2
!2
>3
04
rL
m I�
O
CD
vA
O
v
a
O
O
p
O
G
O
z z
CD
o
N„
O
b
a
tG
a a
N
`"
n
n
n
�
n
n
n
cD
I I
n n
o I
< n
I
x ni
I
n
o I
<a
o I
o I
I
I
o I
I
aG d
O.KVO.
'
�
O.'
O
'
w<I
On' l
?.I
p
/
Vi
0^
VG.
i
.n.iGG.iC..
iaUo
I
F I
I
NI
i„
I
00 _ I _
w I
oo I o,
I
N
z
O
I I
nil
NI GnNI
�nO°
i final
91
i
rw
cn
cn
I I
owl
001
(3�DGi?:
o�l
�I
�I�o
SI°o
5INo3'�I
I I
o �
o^ Ico
o l o
I
I
I
o r"I
� Ic CD
r"�
•roI
� I�
I I
I�
I��
I�w�•II
�$Ibly�
II
I
ID
11
Iro
�
I I
I
I
loal
f
oON
I
14
� I
F6 l
i i
i t
i?
i
al
al
v_I
A
CD
9
a_1
°I
i
s
CA
I I
I I
I a
I
I a
I
I
I
I
I
0I
Q o
I
I
2:I
L-

Permit No.
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards —Saltwater Standards o ;,�L3 qG
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metals limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water uality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69 1
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L, and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis RPM
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved metal standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the numeric standard
for each metal of concern of each individual discharge. Note that none of the saltwater standards are
hardness -dependent.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on conversion factors determined by EPA (more on that below), but it
is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with established
methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance — Discharges to Saltwater Tidal waters
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the stream dilution. For discharges to saltwater, no allowance for dilution is given unless a
dilution study, such as a CORMIX model, is performed.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
Page 1 of 3

J_ v0C)
Permit No. Z 3 016
1. To perform a RPA using the saltwater dissolved metal standards, the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
• Instream Wastewater Concentration, if a dilution model has been performed
2. The RPA spreadsheet converts the dissolved numeric standard (SW standards listed in Table 1.)
for each metal of concern to a total recoverable metal, using the EPA conversion factors
published in the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document. This method presumes that the
metal is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals.
Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals
Saltwater CMC
Saltwater CCC
Metal
(Acute)
(chronic)
Arsenic 1.000 1.000
Cadmium 0.994 0.994
Chromium VI 0.993 0.993
Copper 0.83 0.83
Lead 0.951 0.951
Mercury 0.85 0.85
Nickel 0.990 0.990
Selenium 0.998 0.998
Silver 0.85 —
Zinc 0.946 0.946
From: US EPA website, National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table
https://www.epa.govlwgc/national-recommended-water-
up ality-criteria-aouatic-life-criteria-table#a
3. The dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion
factor (or site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
4. If a dilution study was performed on the receiving stream and an Instream Wastewater
Concentration (IWC) determined the RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine
the total allowable concentration (permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7O10 + Qw) (Cwgs) — (s7010) (Cb)
. Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match 7Q10 units)
s7Q10 = summer, critical low flow (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Assuming no background concentration, this equation can be reduced to:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwgs) or Ca = Cwgs
Qw IWC
Page 2 of 3

Permit No.
0C-ob2396
Where: IWC = Ow or 1
Qw + s7Q 10 D
and D = modelled dilution factor (unitless)
If no dilution study has been performed Ca, the allowable effluent concentration, is equal to the
Total Recoverable Metal determined at ambient conditions (ie. the dissolved numeric standard
divided by the EPA conversion factor (or site -specific translator) for the metal of concern). See
item # 3 above.
The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
6. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
7. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with a hexavalent chromium standard.
As a cost savings measure, total chromium data results may be used as a conservative surrogate in
cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium VI. In these cases, the projected
maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be compared against the water quality
standard chromium VI.
Page 3 of 3

W
a�
0
N
cn
M
`Fi
a
M
v
n
Ln
M
U
M
00
N
M
00
00
Ln
U
Y
N
N
00
00
Cn
w
uj
N
^
nj
0L1
U
Q
u
L-
U u
I
`o
b s
o
0
0
0
0
0
u
LL
CA
as
u
O
O CA
V W
v
M
M
m
Ln
%D
U in
N w
�
O%
O,
rn
M
o
to
',,
ci
V-
� a
o
Cl
Cl
ci
A
Ln
Vi
\�p
M
00
00
O
.--i
M
00
00
O
00
U
3
�
CDo
w
o
C
o
Uv
5
lulu
�I
z
vi
N
R

U
Division of Water Quality
f" August ?, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Regional Supervisors
Bill Reid
Jimmie Overton
From: Coleen Sullins
Subject: Whole -Effluent Toxicity
Permit Limits and Monitoring Requirements
This communication clarifies the Water Quality Section's positions concerning, the
application of whole effluent toxicity (WET) limits in NPDES permits.
All NPDES permits issued to "Major" facilities or any facility discharging
wastewater (contains anything other than domestic,waste) will contain appropriate whole
effluent toxicity limits and monitoring requirements. Minor discharges that fall into the
following categories will not routinely be assigned whole effluent toxicity limits unless
toxicity screening tests predict a toxic effect under critical design conditions:
- 100 percent domestic wastewater with only chlorine as an additive
- Non -contact cooling water
- Swimming pool filter backwash
- Water filtration backwash
Mine dewatering
- Sand dredgina
- Seafood packing
- Laundromats
- Car Washes
Aquaculture facilities
- Rock quarries and gem mines
These facilities will be examined on a case -by -case basis by the Environmental Sciences
Branch, Point Source Branch, Mode llinJTMDL Unit, Regional Offices, or the Section
Chief where necessary, prior to the establishment of an NPDES permit requirement.
These exclusions are made as a matter of regulatory evaluation resources and do not
inherently preclude assessment of any facility's compliance with water quality standards
for toxic substances.
Facilities discharging only non -contact coding water must complete biocide worksheets
for any biocides employed and submit these to the NPDES Unit of the Point Source
Branch. This worksheet incorporates facility flow data, receiving stream flow data,
aquatic toxicity and half-life data of the biocides and amounts of the biocides used to
determine potential impacts to the receiving stream. If an impact is predicted, the facility
may adjust its application'of current biocides, choose to employ a less toxic biocide, or
perform toxicity testing to document the absence of toxicity. Aquatic Toxicology Unit
personnel review each submitted worksheet for numerical accuracy and appropriateness
of all input data.

Whole effluent toxicity limitations and monitoring requirements will be based upon the
instream waste concentration (IWC) during conditions of maximum permitted effluent
flow and 7Q10 receiving stream flow. The IWC will be calculated using the following
formula:
IWC (%) _ (Qw / (Qw + Qu)) * 100
where: Qw = NPDES maximum permitted wasteflow
Qu = Upstream stream flow during 7Q 10 conditions
The use of maximum permitted wasteflow for the term Qw assumes the facility has the
right to discharge this volume of waste under the permit at any time.
All calculated 1WC values should be rounded to the nearest percent except where the
IWC is <5%. For IWC values between 1 and 5 percent, round to the nearest tenth of one
percent, and for IWC. values <1%, round to the nearest one hundredth of one percent. If it
is known that the discharge has a water supply -intake upstream of the outfall, then the
IWC should be calculated as : Qw / Qu, to avoid underestimation. —
The objective of whole effluent toxicity limits placed in NPDES permits is to prevent
discharge of toxic substances in amounts likely to cause chronic or acute toxicity to
wildlife in the receiving stream and represents the only feasible method of evaluating the
combined effects of constituents of complex waste streams. EPA has indicated that
chemical -specific limitations do not consider all toxicants present and that interactions of
mixtures are not accounted for [1]. Participants of the 1995 SETAC Pellston WET
workshop support that indication by recognizing that chemical monitoring alone does not
predict or measure biological effects in receiving water bodies [2], and does not cover all
toxicants and mixtures threatening biotic integrity [3]. The type of test employed to meet
this objective is based upon the magnitude of the facility's IWC. In general, the following
criteria are followed:
1) If the facility's IWC is greater than or equal to 0.25 percent, the facility will
perform the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay
Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina
Phase H Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure," (Revised.February
1998) or subsequent versions on a quarterly basis. The limit will be stated as
"shall at no.time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality" at the effluent concentration equivalent to the facility's IWC. The
maximum permit limit will be 90%.
2) If the facility's IW_C-is-less than 0.25 percent, a 24-hour fathead minnow acute
"No Significant Mortality" limit will be applied. The procedure employed will be
"Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute Toxicity In A Single Effluent
Concentration," Revised July 1992.
3) If the facility discharge is episodic and/or only occurs in response to storm
events, acute toxicity monitoring is required for the first five discharge events
during the first year following permit issuance, with an annual monitoring
requirement thereafter. This requirement will be a 24 hour fathead minnow acute
test employing the procedure defined as "definitive" in Methods forMeasicring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth
Edition. EPA/600/4-90/027 September 1991. Upon permit renewal, if five tests
have been performed, an annual monitoring requirement will be applied unless

t
the previous monitoring has indicated potential toxic impts to the receiving a limit or
stream. These situations will be examined on a case -by -case monitoring requirement placed in the permit based.on the best professional
judgment of the Environmental Sciences Branch, Pointe urc
of where Jre necessary
Modelling/TMDL Unit, Regional Offices, or Section
4) If the discharge is to a tidally influenced receiving water, the same criteria as
mate of 7Q10 flow into the discharge zone.
above should be applied using the esti
If no 7Q10 flow estimate is available, a 24 hour acute "No
where #low Mo i elite"
a
limit will be applied. This requirement may also be pp
are available, if in the best professional judgment orld.'t If thhe e tidal zonent Source ranch
well
these estimates are not applicable to the
flushed, the fathead minnow should be employed
used.the test organism, otherwise,
in a poorly flushed zone, a Daphnid should
5) If the discharge is to a lake or lake arm where 7Q10 estimates are not
meaningful, a 24 hour acute "No Significant Mortality" limit will be applied with
the fathead minnow as the test organism.
as "High
6) If a facility discharges to a receiving stream cis SiO2eB 0201(d),Qanylity who eaters"
as per North Carolina Administratjve Code T
effluent chronic toxicity limit will be established at an effluent concentration
equal to twice the IWC. If the IWC is greater than
equa
will have a� ut �� limits ofronic "No
limit will be 90%. All dischargers to such waters
or
Significant Mortality" as determined by the "Pass/Fail Methodology For
Determining Acute Toxicity In A Single Effluent Concentration."
Freshwater organisms may be substituted in permit requirementsmo dischargers by Aquatic
estuarine and salt receiving waters where an evaluation has be
Toxicology Unit staff that the freshwater organism provides the same level of protection
as saltwater organisms. the
Generally; twenty-four hour composite sampling a on be
eof exposured sampling s,i�rabd
for whole effluent toxicity monitoring. Depending the best
samples or other special sampling regi Waterayuahty and Poinbe appropriate Sourcebased npersonnel.
professional judgment of the Regiona] Q
g regimes other than grabs would be based on time of occurrence and
Appropriate sampling
duration of predictable intermittent discharge events.
Pernuttees with acute toxicity requirements mayation the the alternate t st or arequest the use of a test rs m ether
than that specified by the permit upon documen
c substances'in the facility's discharge. Such
would be a more sensitive indicator of toxi
documentation would consist of: vailable
1) A deinoiistration that viable and standardizedmetodColoture aiesrhavelques are a
been developed and r
that organism and standardized testinb meth
validated. This demonstration should meet guidance provided by EPA.
rnate
2) Three consecutive "side-by-side'�ot the facilits with y
eeffluent. Each test seriests indicating that the would
organism is as or more sensitive Y
consist of two separate toxicity tests conducted on the same sample of effluent
with the length of exposure specified by the permit, the only difference between
tests being the organism used.
3

a
Any facility which has been assigned a chronic. limit with Ceriodaphnia dubia as the test
organism may request a permit modification that specifies the EPA full range chronic
methodology. Major differences between this methodology and the "North Carolina
Phase 11 Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" are the use of a minimum of
three samples instead of two and daily test solution changes as opposed to two changes
over the seven day test period.
�( Minor facilities which discharge only domestic waste applying for renewal of their
permits may be given an option of a new lower ammonia limit based on a mass balance
calculation or performing a whole effluent toxicity test.
Should a quarterly toxicity limit be waived in favor of a "monitoring only" requirement
as in the case of a special order, it is recommended that the frequency of the analysis be
increased to monthly. In the case of a pass/fail limit, the use of a multiple concentration
test for the monitoring requirement in a special order will allow tracking of toxicity
reductions.
All whole effluent toxicity tests performed to meet NPDES monitoring must be
conducted by laboratories certified to perform the specific analysis required as specified
by Administrative Code Section: 15 NCAC 2H .1100, Biological Laboratory
Certification.
Toxicity testing results will be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made. The results`
will be recorded on the monthly monitoring report form MR-1. Facilities will also be
required to complete one of the three toxicity test report forms, AT-1, AT-2, or AT-3, and
submit these to the Environmental Sciences Branch. No test result will be considered
valid until reviewed by Aquatic Toxicology Unit personnel.
All permits that specify quarterly evaluation of acute toxicity will be written to require
monthly monitoring upon any single failure to meet specified limits, until such time as
those limits are met. Additionally, if a test result is determined to be invalid for any
reason, monthly monitoring will be required until the limit is met. All permits that specify
quarterly evaluation of chronic toxicity will be written to require monitoring at least once
during each of the two months following a noncompliance. The facility may perform as
much additional monitoring as it desires.
Any single failure to meet established limitations will be considered a non -compliant
event. Following this initial non-compliance, each subsequent single failure will be
considered an additional non -compliant event.
The following is offered as information concerning the quality assurance of
submitted toxicity data: y
1) No effluent sample shall be over 72 hours old at the time of its use to initiate a
chronic toxicity test or renew solutions of a chronic toxicity test. No effluent
sample shall be over 36 hours old at the time of its use to initiate an acute
toxicity test. Sample ages will be calculated beginning from the sampling time of
a grab sample or from the time of the last sub -sample of a composite sample.
"Use" is defined as placement of organisms into the test solutions.
2) Composite samples shall be cooled during collection and all samples iced during
shipment such that they arrive at the laboratory at temperature between 0 and 4
4

N
degrees Celsius. The only exception shall be that of a grab sample used for
testing within four hours of collection. Again, "use" will be defined as
introduction of the organisms to the test solutions.
3) At times, facilities "split" effluent toxicity monitoring samples between two or
more laboratories. If such analyses produce differing results, a "paper trail'
investigation of 611 of the analyses by the Aquatic Toxicology Unit will ensue.
Critical components of such an investigation will include sample chain -of -
custody, sample preparation, test protocols, and health of the organism cultures
of the subject laboratories at the time of the analyses.
Appropriate standardized permit language is attached. If there are any.questions
concerning any of the above policies or issues, please contact Matt Matthews or Kevin
Bowden at 733-2136.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document For Water Quality -Based
Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC, p. 21.
2. Dorn, Philip B. 1996. An Industrial Perspective on Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing. In DR Grothe, KL
Dickson, and DK Reed-Judkins, eds., Whole Effluenr Toxicity Testing: An Evaluarion of Methods and
Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. SETAC Pellston Workshop on Whole Effluent Toxicity; 1995
Sep 16-25. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, USA, p. 16.
3. Heber, Margarete A., Donna K. keed-Judkins, and Tudor T. Davies. 1996. USEPA's Whole
Effluent Toxicity Testing Pro -ram: A National Regulatory Perspective. In DR Grothe. KL Dickson, and
DK Reed-Judkins, eds., Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of
Receiving Systenz Impacts. SETAC Pellston Workshop on Whole Effluent Toxicity; 1995 Sep 16-25.
SETAC Press, Pensacola. FL, USA, p. 10.
Attachments
cc: Matt Matthews
Kevin Bowden
Kristie Robeson
David Goodrich
Shannon Langley

6.1.6 Where states have developed culturing and testing methods for indigenous species other than those
recommended in this manual, data comparing the sensitivity of the substitute species and one or more of the
recommended species must be obtained in side -by -side toxicity tests with reference toxicants and/or effluents, to
ensure that the species selected are at least as sensitive as the recommended species. These data must be submitted
to the permitting authority (State or Region) if required. EPA acknowledges that reference toxicants prepared from
pure chemicals may not always be representative of effluents. However, because of the observed and/or potential
variability in the quality and toxicity of effluents, it is not possible to specify a representative effluent.
6.1.7 Guidance for the selection of test organisms where the salinity of the effluent and/or receiving water requires
special consideration is provided in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Tgxics Control
(USEPA, 1991c).
1. Where the salinity of the receiving water is <191o, freshwater organisms are used regardless of the
salinity of the effluent.
2. Where the salinity of the receiving water is >_ 1%o, the choice of organisms depends on state water
quality standards and/or permit requirements.
6.2 SOURCES OF TEST ORGANISMS
6.2.1 INHOUSE CULTURES
6.2.1.1 Inhouse cultures should be established wherever it is cost effective. If inhouse cultures cannot be
maintained, test organisms should be purchased from experienced commercial suppliers (see Appendix for sources).
6.2.2 COMMERCIAL SUPPLIERS
6.2.2.1 All of the principal test organisms listed in Subsection 6.1.2 are available from commercial suppliers.
6.2.3 FERAL (NATURAL OCCURRING, WILD CAUGHT) ORGANISMS
6.2.3.1 The use of test organisms taken from the receiving water has strong appeal, and would seem to be the
logical approach. However, it is impractical for the following reasons:
1. Sensitive organisms may not be present in the receiving water because of previous exposure to the
effluent or other pollutants.
2. It is often difficult to collect organisms of the required age and quality from the receiving water;
3. Most states require collection permits, which may be difficult to obtain. Therefore, it is usually more
cost effective to culture the organisms in the laboratory or obtain them from private, state, or Federal
sources. Fish such as fathead minnows, sheepshead minnows, and silversides, and invertebrates such
as daphnids and mysids, are easily reared in the laboratory or purchased.
4. The required QA/QC records, such as the single laboratory precision data, would not be available.
5. Since it is mandatory that the identity of test organisms is known to the species level, it would
necessary to examine each organism caught in the wild to confirm its identity, which would usually be
impractical or, at the least, very stressful to the organisms.
6. Test organisms obtained from the wild must be observed in the laboratory for a minimum of one week
prior to use, to assure that they are free of signs of parasitic or bacterial infections and other adverse
effects. Fish captured by electroshocking must not be used in toxicity testing.
6.2.3.2 Guidelines for collection of feral organisms are provided in USEPA, 1973; USEPA 1990a.
6.2.4 Regardless of their source, test organisms should be carefully observed to ensure that they are free of signs of
stress and disease, and in good physical condition. Some species of test organisms, such as trout, can be obtained
from stocks certified as "disease -free."
28
Adminsitrative Record
Page 37388

T
Ln
�
�
' co
�
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
J
J
(V
OD
a
bn
a
L
w
L
0
L
L
L
>
m
m
L
>
L
>
L
>
L
>
L
>
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
L,
-Fa
co
c
c
c
c
c
II
J
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
W
,,,m..o
\
\
\
\
\
M
>=
C
s=
OD
CLO
L
Cr
d)
N
0)
N
Ch
O
O
+
oC
O
r4
O
r4
r4
Z
E
O
_,
Z
O
D
a
00
o
w
ri
J
W
m
II
N
II
W
r-IO
o
mNN
C
LL
N
}
E� C
Qi
�
�
a
LU
m
N
O
O
U
Z
1Z
H
cl,
N
O
O
O
N
O
n
n
oq
oho
^
00
00)
00
dam'
00)
00
o``-'00000r'orlo`-'`-'oor'�j'i>f
''
t
0
Z
w
0
r4
C)
N-1
H to
00
O�
O1
k
M
00
r^
l0
00
��
m
Ql
L
N
00
N
O1
(n
00
n
00
O
0
N
00
Ct'
O
Ol
00
c-i
0
O
I .
O
r-I
r-I
0
0
o
o
6
r-I
O
ri
Orl
L
00
0\D
c
c�0
p
O
O
Ln
II
J
OCA
L
Q
II
J
N
a
CO
C
m
W
E
m
O
m Z
Z
>
Ln
Ln
�
Ln
Ln
w
Lo
to
w�
LO
w
r-
}'
O
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
0
0
cu
m
Ln
(0
0)
\\\
N
N\
N
\\\\\\\\\\
N
N
N
r4
N
N
N
N
N\\
rI
n
u a
\
00
\
Ln
\
N
�n
r-iri
H
co
N
N
\
w
\
\
u1
\
00
r-I
L \
LL
m
\\\\
f�
O1
Ol
l i
N
r-I
\\\\\\
r l
N
m
I�
r-I
r-I
N
\
++
ri
e--I
O
f'-

NI
MO eM-I
r-I
N I^ I O I Rt
r4
� O
M N
en
N
O W
N
Z cn
rr
O
O N
O
O
d
N �
� U
Z
00
C
on
On y
E
a
d
N
U
V1
j
W
ca
0
cm
w
+�
�$
Q

( DWQ Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
October 22, 2012
A. Purpose
In its efforts to reduce the regulatory burden upon permittees while maintaining adequate compliance
oversight over point source discharges, DWQ has developed the following guidance for the reduction
of monitoring frequencies in NPDES permits for specific target parameters. Standard minimum
NPDES monitoring frequencies are established in 15A NCAC 2B .0508 for discharges from facilities
with specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories. However, 213.0508(b)(1) states: "If it
is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that any of the tests and measurements, sampling
points, or frequency of sampling requirements, as required in this Rule for a particular SIC group, are
not applicable to the discharge of a particular water pollution control facility, or if it can be
demonstrated that the objectives of this Section can be achieved by other acceptable means then
such requirements may be waived or modified to the extent that the Director determines to be
appropriate." This document identifies criteria to be used by DWQ that satisfies the regulatory
standard for the allowance of reduced monitoring frequencies for facilities included in SIC 4952.
This guidance applies to facilities with outstanding NPDES program compliance histories, exhibiting
effluent discharges that are excellent in both quality and consistency. Such performance will
demonstrate that compliance for particular parameters can be adequately evaluated with less
monitoring. Facilities demonstrating consistent, long-term treatment performance at levels far below
effluent limitations (<50%) may be considered for a reduction in monitoring from existing permit
frequencies to a 2/week minimum frequency for the parameters BODS, CBOD5 TSS, NH3-N and fecal
coliform/enterococci (the "target parameters").
B. Approval Criteria
Individual NPDES facilities shall submit a written request to modify their NPDES permit specifying
which parameters are to be considered for reduced monitoring . Permit holders must include with
their requests sufficient data, statistical analyses, and other information to support the justification for
reduced monitoring. NPDES permit staff shall review the application and supporting information.
Approval of reduced monitoring frequency shall be granted -if all the criteria below are met:
• The facility has no more than one civil penalty assessment for permit limit violations for each
target parameter during the previous three years.
• Neither the permittee nor any of its employees have been convicted of criminal violations of the
Clean Water Act within the previous five years.
• The facility is not currently under an SOC for target parameter effluent limit noncompliance.
• The facility is not on EPA's Quarterly Noncompliance Report for target parameter limit violations.
• For BOD5, CBOD5i TSS, NH3-N and TSS, the three year arithmetic mean of effluent data must be
less than fifty percent of the monthly average permit limit. For fecal coliform or enterococci, the

three year geometric mean must be less than 50 percent of the monthly average permit limit. For i
parameters with summer and winter limits, an annual arithmetic mean of the seasonal limits may
be used in the calculation.
• With the exception of fecal coliform or enterococci, no more than 15 daily sampling results over
the 3-year review period can be over 200% of the monthly average limit for BOD5, CBOD5, TSS,
or NH3-N. Values associated with documented impacts of extreme weather or events beyond the
control of the permittee will not be included.
• For fecal coliform or enterococci, no more than 20 daily sampling results may be over 200% of the
weekly average limit. Values associated with documented impacts of extreme weather or events
beyond the control of the permittee will not be included.
• For the four target parameters, sampling results shall not show more than two non -monthly
average limit violations during the previous year.
• Reduced effluent monitoring must not impair assessment of sensitive downstream uses, such as
endangered species.
C. Implementation
After DWQ review and approval, the facility's NPDES permit will be reissued with reduced monitoring
frequencies for qualified parameters. Additional NPDES permit requirements will include;
• Eligible facilities may be granted a reduction from existing permit monitoring frequencies to a
2/week minimum frequency for the four target parameters. Reductions will be made for both
effluent and influent sampling.
• Where monitoring is reduced to twice per week, it must occur on any two non-consecutive days
during the calendar week (Sunday through Saturday).
• Required monitoring frequency reductions establish new permit minimums for monitoring. As
always, facilities may monitor more often than required in the permit.
• If a -reportable event, as defined by the permit [e.g., Part II (E) (6 & 9)] occurs, any facility granted
reduced monitoring frequencies will be encouraged to monitor on a daily basis until the episode is
resolved.
Monitoring frequency reduction from the minimum frequencies reductions established by the rules are
based upon consistent, exceptional performance. DWQ may revoke on a case -by -case basis these
reductions if the facility begins to perform in noncompliance with permit limits. If a facility's monitoring
reduction for a specific parameter is removed through permit modification, reconsideration of
monitoring frequency reduction will only occur three years following the revocation/permit modification
action, or at the next permit renewal.