NC0024244_Fact Sheet_20181025

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO024244
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: October 25, 2018
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
Fact Sheet Template: Version 08Sept2016
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 2' 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:
City of Albemarle / Long Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 190, Albemarle, NC 08002
Facility Address:
1040 Coble Avenue, Albemarle, NC 08001
Permitted Flow:
12 MGD and 16 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 81 % domestic, 19% industrial'
Facility Class:
Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Bar screen, Grit removal, Activated sludge, Secondary clarifiers, Tertiary
filters, Chlorination, Dechlorination, Sludge dewatering, Digesters.
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Stanly
Region
Mooresville
'Percentages calculated from 2015 actual industrial and total average daily flows (1.28 and 6.62 MGD,
respectively). Permitted industrial flow is 2.0 MGD or 16.7% of total current permitted flow (12 MGD).
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background.• The City ofAlbemarle has applied
for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated April 9, 2014. At the time of
application submission, the facility served a population of 17,733 residents and operated a pretreatment
Page 1of19

program with 1 Significant Industrial User (SILT). The average industrial flow rate was 1.28 MGD of the
2.0 MGD permitted industrial flow for 2015. This facility has one SIU, and has a full pretreatment program
with Long Term Monitoring Program (LTMP).
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 / Long Creek
Stream Segment:
13-17-31
Drainage Area (mi2):
64
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
1.6
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
9.5
Average Flow (cfs):
64
IWC (% effluent):
92.08% atl2 MGD and 93.94% atl6 MGD
303(d) listed/parameter:
This segment is listed as impaired for Copper on the final 2016
303(d) list.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Subbasin/HUC:
03-07-13 / 0304010504
USGS Topo Quad:
F18SW Albemarle
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data are summarized below for the period January 2014 through February 2018. The plant was
operating under SOC WQ S10-010 from August 2011 until April 1, 2016, with modified limits in effect
until February 1, 2016. Summary data are in two tables: one under SOC limits (Table 1), and one under
permit limits (Table 2).
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary under SOC-modified limits (January 1, 2014 - January 31, 2016).
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limits '
BOD summer
mg/L
20.9
< 2.0
MA 15.0 mg/L
WA 35.0 mg/L
BOD winter
mg/L
6.6
30.2
< 2.0
MA 25.0 mg/L
WA 35.0 mg/L
BOD removal
%
96.3
99.1
88.6
> 70
TSS
mg/L
19.4
75
4.4
MA 35.0 mg/L
WA 50.0 mg/L
TSS removal
%
83.3
87.2
65.9
> 70
N113-N
mg/L
- 5
0.1
MA 5.0 mg/L
WA 15.0 mg/L
' MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
Page 2 of 19

Table 2. Effluent Data Summary under permit limits post SOC (February 1, 2016 - February 28, 2018).
Parameter
' Units
Average
Max
Min
Limits 1
Flow
MGD
76
__ _ _ _
2.25
12.0 MGD
BOD summer
mg/L
< 2,8
14.0
< 2 0
MA 10.0 mg/L
WA 15.0 mg/L
BOD winter
mg/L
< 7.4
36.0
< 2.0
MA 20.0 mg/L
WA 30.0 mg/L
BOD removal
%
96.2
99.1
83.1
> 85
TSS
mg/L
15.0
108
3.2
MA 30.0 mg/L
WA 45.0 mg/L
TSS removal
%
88.8
94.6
76.9
> 85
NH3-N summer
mg/L
0.6
2.5
n ,
MA 2.0 mg/L
WA 6.0 mg/L
NH3-N winter
mg/L
1.0
7.8
0.2
MA 4.0 mg/L
WA 12.0 mg/L
DO
mg/L
9.0
12.8
6.8
5.0 mg/L
Fecal Coliform
(Geomean)
#/100 mL
19
4200
< 1
MA 200/100 mL
WA 400/100 mL
Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC)
µg/L
23
49
10
DM 18 µg/L
Temperature
°C
18
28
4
Monitor only
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
13.71
33.90
5.68
Monitor only
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
2.0
4.6
0.9
Monitor only
Total Cadmium
µg/L
< 1.1
1.8
0.1
MA 2.2 µg/L
DM 16.0 µg/L
Total Chromium
µg/L
24.5
55.1
8.6
MA 53.5 µg/L
DM 1093 µg/L
Total Lead
µg/L
< 2.55
3.8
< 2.5
Monitor only
Total Mercury
ng/L
7.2
26.6
< 1.0
MA 12.0 ng/L
DM 36.0 ng/L
Total Nickel
µg/L
3.7
9.0
0.006
MA 27.2 µg/L
DM 279 µg/L
Total Selenium
µg/L
4.8
6.2
0.005
MA 5.4 µg/L
DM 59.9 µg/L
Total Copper
µg/L
69.0
135.0
29.5
Monitor only
Total Silver
µg/L
< 2.5
2.8
< 1.9
Monitor only
Total Zinc
µg/L
55.1
110.0
5.2
Monitor only
Page 3 of 19

Color
ADMI
< 50.9
155.7
< 20.0
Monitor only
Between 6 and 9
pH
SU
6.6
7.2
6.0
standard units
1 MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
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), Temperature,
Conductivity, Copper, and Color from one upstream (U) and three downstream (D1, D2 and D3) locations,
all in Long Creek. U is located upstream of the discharge; D1 is located at —2620 ft below the discharge;
D2 is 3.9 mi. downstream at NCSR 1967 Sides Rd; and D3, for Color only, is located —200 ft below the
discharge. D1 was moved from its original location at the end of NCSR 1960 to its current location in a
permit modification in December 2012 due to safety concerns. Instream monitoring data were reviewed
from DMRs with concurrent effluent data for evaluation of potential stream impacts.
Instream DO remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Reviewed instream DMR
data from January 2015 through February 2018 was shown to be above the DO standard of 5.0 mg/L
consistently at all locations, except for U, which had five occurrences below the standard. Overall trends
show seasonal patterns with summer minima and winter maxima; among the data sets, U showed the widest
seasonal variation and effluent showed the least. The DO at D1 was found to be significantly lower than
upstream, D2 and the effluent DO. Further, Effluent DO was significantly higher than that at D2. Averages
over the entire period analyzed were: U = 8.2 mg/L; D I = 7.6 mg/L; and D2 = 8.1 mg/L. During the critical
summer months (April -October), minimum values were: U = 4.4 mg/L; D 1= 5.7 mg/L; and D2 = 6.6 mg/L;
concurrent summer effluent minimal DO was 6.9 mg/L.
Instream Temperature remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Temperature
averages for the period analyzed were: U = 19.2 °C, D1 = 21.1 °C, and D2 = 21.2 °C; and all data were
below the standard of 32°C for lower piedmont and coastal plain waters. There were no significant
differences among the instream locations and the effluent throughout all seasons (one-way ANOVA, F =
2.14, p = 0.09).
Instream Conductivity remains in the permit as a parameter of concern due to an industrial discharger.
There were significant differences between upstream, downstream (DI) and downstream (132) locations.
The average conductivity values for the period analyzed were: U =187, DI = 304, and D2 = 281 µmhos/cm.
The higher downstream conductivity suggests impact from the effluent, which is not currently being
monitored. Because of this, the facility's receiving industrial wastewater, and monitoring requirements in
NCAC 15A 2B .0500, effluent conductivity monitoring will be added to the permit.
Instream Color remains in the permit as a parameter of concern due to the presence of an industrial
discharger. There was clear evidence of an impact from the effluent on instream color as data among the
Page 4of19

effluent, upstream and downstream waters all tested different (one-way ANOVA: F = 3.04, p < 0.0001)
with effluent highest at an average of 53.0 ADMI. Downstream color averaged 42.8 ADMI, significantly
higher than the upstream average of 36.3 ADMI (t-test: t = -2.12, p = 0.017).
Instream Copper remains in the permit as a parameter of concern due to the stream's current listing for
copper impairment on the Final 2016 303(d) list; however, there is no TMDL for copper. Significant
differences were found among the three instream sites and concurrent effluent samples (one-way ANOVA:
F = 90.36, p < 0.0001). The average copper values for the period analyzed were: U = 4.34, D 1= 27.33, and
D2 = 18.53 µg/L; concurrent effluent data averaged 59.9 µg/L. D2 had significantly lower copper
concentrations than did D1 (t-test: t = 2.22, p = 0.03).
The above analysis excluded a set of unusually high instream concentrations (all > 200 µg/L) from March
1, 2017, with the highest value from the upstream sampling location.
Copper loading was analyzed from the 303(d)-listing year of 2008 through 2017. Yearly average loadings
decreased from 3.1 lb/day in 2008 to 2.61b/day in 2009, then increased to a peak of 4.8 lb/day in 2013, then
decreased again to 2.7 lb/d in 2017. See Stream Impairment Analysis Loading of Copper in the Fact Sheet
attachments for data and graphs.
Copper instream monitoring frequencies in the current permit are weekly in summer months (June through
September) and monthly during the rest of the year, less frequent than those under NC 15A NCAC 2B
.0500 (3/week in summer, weekly in winter). These monitoring frequencies have been in the permit dating
back to 1992, and were likely set in a previous permit. A review of permit files dating as far back as 1989
revealed no explanation for the monitoring frequencies, and consultation with regional office personnel
also yielded no explanation.
Copper instream monitoring frequencies will be maintained in the permit due to the receiving stream's
continued impairment, despite a lack of a TMDL for the stream segment. Copper limits are added to the
permit from a reasonable potential analysis, to further address the stream impairment by further reductions
in copper loading.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): From April 2013 through
March 2018 there have been 11 violations reported, including two Notices ofDeficiency (NOD), one Notice
of Violation (NOV), and seven enforcement cases. These violations involved mostly mercury and TSS
exceedences (6 and 4, respectively) and one pH value below the minimum. The facility had been operating
under an SOC since 2011 with modified limits for BOD, TSS, NH3-N, plus BOD and TSS removal rates.
The SOC expired on April 30, 2016 with a compliance date to meet permit limits of February 1, 2016. Since
the compliance date, there was one TSS weekly average exceedance, in January 2018, but no action was
taken.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 20 of 24 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species chronic
Page 5of19

toxicity tests. All subsequent tests following test failures had passed. Second species tests were sampled on
10/6/2013, 11/3/2013, 12/1/2103 and 1/5/2014.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection
(compliance evaluation), conducted on February 18, 2018, found the plant to be compliant. The Long Creek
WWTP SOC expired in April 2016 after construction activities/upgrades were complete. There have been
four technical assistance visits from 2012-2013 for nutrient removal, aeration basins, grit removal, and
influent pump station compliance issues. A compliance evaluation conducted on August 12, 2014 found
issues with influent sampling tubing, corrosion of bar screens, a hole in the drying bed, and with standby
power unable to supply all surface aerators. An evaluation on January 20, 2016 found the facility well
operated and maintained. Repairs had been made to fix the hole in the drying bed found during the previous
inspection.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMLXmodel results):
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Limitations for BOD
are based on a Streeter Phelps model (Level B) for instream DO protection. No changes are proposed from
the previous permit limits.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 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.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: There are proposed
changes to decrease the NH3-N limit for both the 12 MGD flow phase (winter to 2.6 mg/L monthly average
and 7.8 mg/L weekly average; summer to 1.1 mg/L monthly average and 3.3 mg/L weekly average) and
the 16 MGD flow phase (winter to 2.4 mg/L monthly average and 7.2 mg/L weekly average; summer to
1.1 mg/L monthly average and 3.3 mg/L weekly average) based on the ammonia criteria of 1.0/1.8 mg/L
Page 6of19

summer/winter, and the ammonia -nitrogen waste load allocation (WLA) calculation to protect against
ammonia toxicity. The WLA resultant TRC limits will remain at 18 µg/L daily maximum.
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 January 2014
through February 2018 for the current 12 MGD and the 16 MGD expansion flows. 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: Cadmium, Chromium VI, Copper at both the 12 and 16 MGD flow tiers.
o Cadmium will receive more stringent limits than in the current permit at both the 12 and
16 MGD flow tiers, along with a compliance schedule at the 12 MGD tier. Current limits
will be maintained as interim limits for the duration of the compliance schedule.
o Chromium VI and Copper will also receive a compliance schedule with interim monthly
monitoring. Monitoring -only for Copper is in the current permit and will be maintained;
monitoring -only for Chromium VI will be added.
• 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: Total
Chromium and Silver at both flow scenarios.
o Silver will receive a quarterly monitoring requirement since this metal is currently reported
at levels < 2.5 µg/L, which is > the PQL of 1 µg/L and > the Cw of 0.065 µg/L at 12 MGD
and 0.064 µg/L at 16 MGD, with only one detect at 2.8 µg/L. Total Silver should be
sampled using "clean" sampling techniques and shall be analyzed to the lower reporting
level of the procedure.
• 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,
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Cyanide, Nickel, Lead, Molybdenum, Selenium and Zinc
at both flow tiers.
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: Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at 12 MGD and 16 MGD.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o Dichlorobromomethane and Chlorodibromomethane were detected in the pollutant scans.
Neither pollutant will receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not demonstrate
Page 7of19

reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and the maximum
predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration.
As part of the NC 2007-2014 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review the total Chromium NC
WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) Water Quality
Standards. The RPA using the city's Total Chromium effluent data showed reasonable potential to violate
the new hexavalent chromium standard. Total Chromium is made up of hexavalent and trivalent chromium.
Therefore, Total Chromium limits were removed and Cr-VI limits were added to this permit, with Total
Chromium quarterly monitoring maintained as part of the pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Plan.
Sampling for Cr-VI will ascertain if hexavalent chromium is present in the Total Chromium samples and
thus the effluent. If hexavalent chromium is present, the City will be given time to comply with the new
standard per the compliance schedule added to the permit.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90%
effluent will continue with a quarterly monitoring frequency.
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.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL at either the 12 or the 16 MGD flow scenario, and no individual
mercury sample exceeded the TBEL (Table 3), no mercury limit is required. However, since the facility is
> 2 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) has
been added to the permit.
Page 8of19

Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
# of Samples
17
14
12
12
2
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
10.2
7.8
4.8
4.6
6.8
Maximum Conc., ng/L
26.60
14.00
11.00
7.20
8.90
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L at 12 MGD
13.03
WQBEL, ng/L at 16 MGD
12.77
Other TMDL/Nutrient Man ement Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations- Permit Limit Development
The current total chromium limitations were maintained in the interim effluent sheet until hexavalent
chromium levels can be assessed. The reasonable potential analysis using the city's total chromium effluent
data showed reasonable potential to violate the new hexavalent chromium standard. As a result, hexavalent
chromium limitations were added to this permit. Sampling for hexavalent chromium will ascertain if
hexavalent chromium is present in the total chromium samples and thus the effluent.
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: Chromium VI
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 2007Memo: A seven (7) year compliance schedule
has been added to allow time and effort for the Permittee to comply with the new Cadmium, Chromium VI
and Copper limits, resulting from their reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards and/or
implementation of the new dissolved metal standards.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg1L
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification. for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES. A variance to the 85% TSS
removal rate was added to the permit in 2005, with minimum limits of 82% removal in summer (from April
1 through October 31) and 68% in winter (from November 1 through March 31). This variance was carried
over in the 2011 (current) permit without note of its evaluation, nor a request to continue the variance by
the Permittee. In August 2011, an SOC (WQ S10-010) was issued for noncompliance with TSS, BOD and
Page 9of19

NHA-N limits. Interim limits for BOD, TSS and NH3-N less stringent than those in the permit were placed
into the SOC with an initial compliance date of December 1, 2013. This SOC was amended twice with a
final scheduled permit limit compliance date of February 1, 2016, and a final expiration date of April 30,
2016. The permit limit for TSS removal listed in the SOC is 85%, so placed because the SOC writer was
unaware of the variance. No request to continue the variance was found in the current permit renewal
application received in 2014.
Review of effluent TSS data since the SOC's compliance date (from February 2016 through January 2018)
found one exceedance of the weekly average limit in January 2018 (67.0 mg/L) and no exceedances of the
monthly average limit. Compliance with current permit limits (under variance) for TSS removal are also
mostly met with one monthly average of 80.5% removal April 2016. Comparisons with the standard
removal rate of 85% found seasonal noncompliance with one monthly average below in winter months —
substantially fewer than before the SOC expiration.
An evaluation of eligibility for continuation ofthe TSS removal limit variance was made through consulting
40 CFR 133.103(d), which lists the following criteria:
1. The treatment works is consistently meeting, or will consistently meet, its permit effluent
concentration limits but cannot meet its percent removal limitations because of less concentrated
influent wastewater. Not met: Post-SOC effluent TSS concentrations are consistently meeting
limits, as the calculated of 95te percentile of monthly averages is 23.9 mg/L, below the 30.0
mg/L TBEL. Post-SOC effluent TSS removal rates are also consistently meeting the 85%
minimum, as the calculated 951 percentile is 94.5% removal.
2. To meet the percent removal requirements, the treatment works would have to achieve significantly
more stringent limitations than would otherwise be required by the concentration -based standards.
NA. Percent removal requirements are found to be consistently met (see above).
3. The less concentrated influent wastewater is not the result of excessive H. NA. The SOC
addressed problems in the City's collection system, which experienced considerable VI during
rain events.
From this evaluation, the facility does not qualify for a TSS removal limit variance. Therefore, TSS removal
rate limits will be changed to 85%.
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 10 of 19

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 W QBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are anv effluent limitations less .stringent than previous permit (YESINn): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10122/2012 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.
No effluent parameters are sampled at reduced monitoring frequencies
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was fmalized 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:
Current permit conditions and proposed changes are presented in three tables: one for 12 MGD with interim
limits, one for 12 MGD with final limits, and one for 16 MGD expansion flow (Tables 4, 5 and 6). The
12.0 MGD conditions have been split into interim and final tiers to address compliance schedules for
Cadmium, Chromium VI and Copper limits.
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 12 MGD - Interim
Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 12.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Page 11 of 19

Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Summer:
MA 10.0 mg/L
.
WA 150 mg/L
WQBEL. Based on 1993 WLA
BODS
Winter:
No change
model and protection of DO
MA mg/L
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
WA 30 mg/L
Summer:
Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/L
MA 1.1 mg/L
N113-N
WA 6.0 mg/L
WA 3.3 mg/L
WQBEL. WLA results, for
Winter:
Winter:
protection from toxicity.
MA 4.0 mg/L
MA 2.6 mg/L
WA 12.0 mg/L
WA 7.8 mg/L
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
DO
DA > 5.0 mg/L
No change
Based on 1993 WLA and for the
protection of water quality.
MA 30 mg/L
WA 45 mg/L
No change in mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS removal rate 82%
limits;
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
TSS
summer, 68% winter
TSS removal rate
NCAC 2B .0406. Removal rates do
(variance granted in
changed to 85% year-
not meet criteria for limit variance
2005)
round
[40 CFR 133.103(d)].
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
WA 400 /100 mL
No change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
TRC
DM 18 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200;
WLA results
Total Nitrogen
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Total Phosphorus
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Temperature
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Conductivity
Monitor instream only
Add daily effluent
15A NCAC 2B.0500
monitoring
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
MA 2.2 µg/L
Reasonable potential to exceed
Total Cadmium
DM 16.0 µg/L
No change
WQS. Delayed implementation of
lower limits via compliance
schedule.
MA 53.5 µg/L
NPDES permitting guidance for
Total Chromium
DM 1093 µg/L
Remove from permit
dissolved metals; monitoring
maintained
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Reasonable potential to exceed
Chromium VI
No requirement
Monitor monthly
WQS. Delayed implementation of
lower limits via compliance
schedule.
Page 12of19

Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Reasonable potential to exceed
Total Copper
Monitor monthly
No change
WQS. Delayed implementation of
lower limits via compliance
schedule.
Total Lead
Monitor Quarterly
Remove from permit
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Total Mercury
MA 12 ng/L
Remove limits; add
ury minimization
Statewide mercury TMDL, based on
DM 36 ng/L
plan
plant size
Total Nickel
MA 27.2 µg/L
Remove from permit
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
DM 279 µg/L
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Total Selenium
MA 5.4 µg/L
Remove from permit
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
DM 59.9 µg/L
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Add monthly
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Total Silver
Monitor Quarterly
monitoring, report to
RPA results; DWR Dissolved
the lower level of the
Metals guidance. 15A NCAC
procedure
2B.0500
Total Zinc
Monitor Quarterly
Remove from permit
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
WQBEL. EPA Nationally
Recommended WQ Criteria. RPA
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
No requirement
Add quarterly
did not show reasonable potential to
phthalate
monitoring
exceed criteria; the projected max
was > 50% of allowable discharge
concentration
Color (ADMI)
Monitor Instream and
No change
WQBEL. WQ Narrative Criteria.
at the Effluent, 2/month
15A NCAC 2B.0200
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit, 90%
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Test
effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
Total Hardness
No requirement
Add effluent and
Revised WQS and EPA's guidelines
upstream monitoring
on hardness -dependent metals.
Effluent Pollutant
Annual
Reduce to three times
40 CFR 122
Scan
per permit cycle
Color Reopener
and Monitoring
Special condition
No change
NCGS.143-215.66, NCGS 143-
Requirements
215.1 (b)
Electronic
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
Page 13 of 19

'MGD = million gallons per day, MA = monthly average, WA = weekly average, DM = daily maximum,
DA = daily average.
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 12 MGD — Final
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 12.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Summer:
MA 10.0 mg/L
WA 15.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Based on 1993 WLA
BOD5
Winter:
No change
model and protection of DO
MA 20 mg/L
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
WA 30 mg/L
Summer:
MA 1.1 mg/L
N113-N
WA 3.3 mg/L
No change e
WQBEL. WLA results, for
Winter:
protection from toxicity.
MA 2.6 mg/L
WA 7.8 mg/L
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
DO
DA > 5.0 mg/L
No change
Based on 1993 WLA and for the
protection of water quality.
MA 30 mg/L
WA 45 mg/L
No change in mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS removal rate 82%
limits;
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
TSS
summer, 68% winter
TSS removal rate
NCAC 2B .0406. Removal rates do
(variance granted in
changed to 85% year-
not meet criteria for limit variance
2005)
round
[40 CFR 133.103(d)].
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
WA 400 /100 mL
No change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B .0200
TRC
DM 18 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
WLA results
Total Nitrogen
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Total Phosphorus
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Temperature
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Conductivity
Monitor instream only
Add effluent monitoring
15A NCAC 2B.0500
MA 2.2 µg/L
MA 1.12 µg/L
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Total Cadmium
DM 16.0 µg/L
DM 6.62 µg/L
Reasonable potential to exceed
WQS.
Total Chromium
MA 53.5 µg/L
Remove limits;
maintain monthly
NPDES permitting guidance for
DM 1093 µg/L
monitoring
dissolved metals
Page 14 of 19

Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
MA 11.9 µg/L
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Chromium -VI
No requirement
DM 17.2 µg/L
Reasonable potential to exceed
WQS.
MA 16.09 µg/L
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Total Copper
Monitor monthly
DM 22.52 µg/L
Reasonable potential to exceed
WQS.
Total Lead
Monitor Quarterly
Remove from permit
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Total Mercury
MA 12 ng/L
Add mercury
Statewide mercury TMDL, based on
DM 36 ng/L
minimization plan
plant size
Total Nickel
MA 27.2 µg/L
Remove from permit
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
DM 279 µg/L
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Total Selenium
MA 5.4 µg/L
Remove from permit
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
DM 59.9 µg/L
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
No limit, monitor
RPA results; DWR Dissolved
Total Silver
Monitor Quarterly
monthly; report to the
lower level of the
Metals guidance. 15A NCAC
procedure
2B.0500
Total Zinc
Monitor Quarterly
No monitoring
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
WQBEL. EPA Nationally
Recommended WQ Criteria. RPA
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
No requirement
Quarterly monitoring
did not show reasonable potential to
phthalate
exceed criteria; the projected max
was > 50% of allowable discharge
concentration
Color (ADMI)
Monitor Instream and
No change
WQBEL. WQ Narrative Criteria.
at the Effluent
15A NCAC 2B.0200
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit, 90%
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Test
effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200
Added effluent and
Revised water quality standards and
Total Hardness
No requirement
upstream monitoring
EPA's guidelines on hardness
dependent metals.
Effluent Pollutant
Annual
Reduce to three times
40 CFR 122
Scan
per permit cycle
Color Reopener
and Monitoring
Special condition
No change
NCGS.143-215.66, NCGS 143-
Requirements
215.1 (b)
Page 15of19

Electronic
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
'MGD = million gallons per day, MA = monthly average, WA = weekly average, DM = daily maximum,
DA = daily average.
Table 6. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 16 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 16.0 MGD
No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
Summer:
MA 10.0 mg/L
WA 15.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Based on 1993 WLA
BOD5
Winter:
No change model and protection of DO
MA 20 mg/L
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
WA 30 mg/L
Summer:
Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/L
MA 1.1 mg/L
NH3-N
WA 6.0 mg/L
WA 3.3 mg/L WQBEL. WLA results, for
Winter:
Winter: protection from toxicity.
MA 4.0 mg/L
MA 2.4 mg/L
WA 12.0 mg/L
WA 7.2 mg/L
DO
DA > 5.0 mg/L
No change WQBEL. Based on 1993 WLA and
—
for the protection of water quality.
MA 30 mg/L
WA 45 mg/L
No change in mg/L TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS removal rate
limits- standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
TSS
summer, 68%winteter
r
TSS removal rate NCAC 2B .0406. Removal rates do
(variance granted in
changed to 85% year- not meet criteria for limit variance
2005)
round [40 CFR 133.103(d)].
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC
WA 400 /100 mL
2B .0200
TRC
DM 18.0 µg/L
No change WQBEL. WLA results. 15A NCAC
2B.0200
Total Nitrogen
Monitor only
No change 15A NCAC 2B.0500
Total Phosphorus
Monitor only
No change 15A NCAC 2B.0500
Temperature
Monitor only
No change 15A NCAC 2B.0500
Conductivity
Monitor instream only
Add effluent monitoring 15A NCAC 2B.0500
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Total Cadmium
M 15.8 µg/L
DM 6.5 µg/L Reasonable potential to exceed
WQS.
Page 16 of 19

Parameter
Current Permit 1
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Total Chromium
MA 52.6 µg/L
Remove limits;
maintain monthly
NPDES permitting guidance for
DM 1076 µg/L
dissolved metals
monitoring
MA 11.7 µg/L
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Chromium -VI
No monitoring
DM 16.9 µg/L
Reasonable potential to exceed
WQS.
MA 15.78 µg/L
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Total Copper
Monitor monthly
DM 22.15 µg/L
Reasonable potential to exceed
WQS.
Total Lead
Monitor Quarterly
No monitoring
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Total Mercury
MA 12 ng/L
Add mercury
Statewide mercury TMDL, based on
DM 36 ng/L
minimization plan
plant size
Total Nickel
MA 26.6 µg/L
No limit or monitoring
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
DM 275 µg/L
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Total Selenium
MA 5.3 µg/L
No limit or monitoring
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200. No
DM 58.9 µg/L
reasonable potential to exceed WQS.
Monitor only; report to
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Total Silver
Monitor Quarterly
the lower level of the
RPA results and NPDES permitting
procedure
guidance for dissolved metals. 15A
NCAC 2B.0500
Total Zinc
Monitor Quarterly
No monitoring
No reasonable potential to exceed
WQS.
WQBEL. EPA Nationally
Recommended WQ Criteria. RPA
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
No requirement
Add quarterly
did not show reasonable potential to
phthalate
monitoring
exceed criteria; the projected max
was > 50% of allowable discharge
concentration
Color (ADMI)
Monitor Instream and
No change
WQBEL. WQ Narrative Criteria.
at the Effluent
15A NCAC 2B.0200
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit, 90%
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Test
effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200
Add effluent and
Revised water quality standards and
Total Hardness
No requirement
upstream monitoring
EPA's guidelines on hardness
dependent metals.
Effluent Pollutant
Annual
Reduce to three times
40 CFR 122
Scan
per permit cycle
Page 17of19

Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Color Reopener
and Monitoring
Special condition
No change
NCGS.143-215.66, NCGS 143-
Requirements
215.1 (b)
Electronic
requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
accordance with EPA Electronic
InNo
Reporting
Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
' MGD = million gallons per day, MA = monthly average, WA = weekly average, DM = daily maximum,
DA = daily average.
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 03/07/2017, 05/16/2018 (second Public Notice for extended compliance schedules)
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): YES, only after the first
public notice. No comments were received after the second public notice.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: Input was received from the City of Albemarle concerning the
compliance schedule for Cadmium, Copper, and Chromium -VI limits. Their concerns were outlined in a
March 22, 2017 letter. They anticipate that the study phase to identify major contributing sources of target
metals could take up to two years, since they will need to locate and understand SIU usage pattern changes
throughout the year. They will also have to revise pre-treatment agreement(s) and evaluate treatment
systems at SIUs since treatment additions at Long Creek W WTP may not be feasible or effective from both
the cost and treatment perspective. The City anticipates that they will need to work with local industries to
meet pre-treatment goals, and compliance and water quality standards. Thus, additional time will be needed
to secure funding assistance programs to help the SIUs which necessitate the extension of the compliance
schedule to include the requested 24 months (2 years).
The special condition A. (8.) Schedule of Compliance for Cadmium, Copper, and Chromium -VI Limits in
A. (2.) was revised to include a 2-year extension based on anticipated timeline of activities needed to
achieve compliance with the limits contained in the permit. The Permittee shall now achieve compliance
with Chromium -VI, Copper, and Cadmium limits in section A. (2) within 7 years of the effective date of
this permit. As a result of the more relaxed limits via the compliance schedule extension, the draft permit
will have to go to a second Public Notice.
Effluent monitoring for Conductivity has been added to the permit per 15A NCAC 2B .0500. An instream
analysis found higher conductivity downstream, suggesting effluent impact. Further, conductivity is an
indication of industrial sources, and the facility is receiving industrial wastewater.
Page 18of19

TSS removal rates were reverted to the standard 85% from evaluation of the data post-SOC permit
compliance date. These data failed to meet variance criteria in 40 CFR 133.103(d).
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Completed Pretreatment Information Request Form
• Final 2016 NC 303(d) List, page 191
• Effluent Data Analysis — charts
• Instream data analysis
• Instream Impairment Analysis for Copper
• Monitoring Report Violations
• WET Testing Summary, page 1
• Compliance Evaluation Inspection report, February 22, 2018 -
• Waste load allocations for TRC and NH3-N - 12 and 16 MGD
• RPA Spreadsheet Summaries and dissolved to total metal calculator - 12 and 16 MGD
• Dissolved to Total Metals Calculator - 12 and 16 MGD
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Mercury WQBEL/TBEL evaluation - 12 and 16 MGD
Page 19 of 19

Yf- I I u
NPDES/A uifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART: PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you n., th.
Check all that apply Trom rtitc;,:
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should be,
Date of Request 7/28/2016 _ municipal renewal X on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Requestor Ron Be new industries (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name Lo Greek WWTP WWTP expansion - Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number NCO024244 Speculative limits in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Re i.on Mooresville stream reclass. renewal.
Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin Yadkin outfall relocation - Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES I
7Q10 khan a boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA ifother changes.
check applicable PERCS staff: Other Comments to PERCS:
_ ..I BIRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR - Sarah Morrison 163105
X CHO, HIM, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
- Mon -it Hassan (6314)
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
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP Me, Si t t T�/t
3b) Modifies! Program with STMP ) tJ
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGD
Permitted
I
Time period for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
Next C cle:
g a Parameter of
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Required by
Re wired POTIN POC STMP LTMP
POC due
Concern (POC)
y .
Check List
Dlsch Permit
EPA*
by b03 .+*
y to SIU (Explain Effluent Effluent
°a
Limit
Sludge- below)**** Freq Freq
BOD
4 Q M
TSS
4 Q M I
Q = Quarterly
H3
4 Q M :
M = Monthly
Arsenic
4 Q M
�l Cadmium
4 Q M
Chromium
4 Q M
Dpper
4 Q M
Cyanide
4 Q M
Is all data on DMRs?
Lead
,1
4 Q M
YES
ercury
4 Q M I
NC {attach data)
Mol bdenum
4 Q M
Nickel
4 Q M
Silver
4 Q M
Selenium
�/-
4 I Q M
Znc
ti+
4 Q M
Is data in spreadsheet'
Total Nitrogen
4 Q M
YES (emalwie
Phosphorus
4 Q M
NO
4 Q M
4 Q M
4 Q M
4 Q M
*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
PERC NPDESPretreatment.request.form.july2007.xlsx
Revised: July &, 2007

AC_
Final 2016 Category 5 Assessments-303(d) List
Rocky River subbasin Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Assessment Unit Name Assessment Unit Description
Assessment Unit Number
Irish Buffalo Creek
Water Quality Classification Length/Area Units
From Kannapolis Water Supply Dam to Rocky River
13-17-9-(2) C 16.7 FW Miles
sessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest 1R Category
9 rY
Exceeding Criteria > 10% and < 90% conf Copper (7 jig/I, AL, FW) 5e
Lanes Creek From source to Marshville Water Supply Dam (located 0.1 mile
downstream of Beaverdam Creek)
13-17-40-(1)
!Assessment Criteria Status
exceeding Criteria
Lanes Creek
13-17-40-(12)
WS-v
Treason for Rating Parameter of Interest
Fair Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
27.4 FW Miles
IR Category
5
From Marshville Water Supply Dam (located 0.1 mile downstream of
Beaverdam Creek) to Rocky River
C
27.1 FW Miles
sessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest IR Category,
Exceeding Criteria Fair Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Little Richardson Creek (Lake Monr From source to a point 0.6 mile upstream of Buck Branch
13-17-36-4-(0.5) WS-Iv 77.1 FW Acres
Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating
Data Inconclusive > 10% and >90 conf N<10
Parameter of Interest IR Category
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC) 5
Little Richardson Creek (Lake Monr From a point 0.6 mile upstream of Buck Creek to Richardson Creek
13-17-36-4-(2)
WS-IV;CA
Lessment Criteria Status�Reas�and
RatingParameter of Interest iR Cate ol;r rY
Inconclusive 0 conf N�<10Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC) 5
Long Creek From Little Long Creek to Rocky River
13-17-31b
r= —
Hssessment criteria Status Reason for Rating
Exceeding Criteria
> 10% and >90 conf
Parameter of Interest
Copper (7 µg/i, AL, FW)
38 7 FW Acres
2.2 FW Miles
IR Category
3/23/2018 Final 2016 NC Category 5 Assessments Page 191 of 196

City of Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Effluent Data Review
NCO02424
14
12
10
0 ♦��
8
� 6
2
0
oti�
oti°`
1y\ryti\ti
6\1o\ti
W k Avg
Long Creek WWTP - Flow
Mo Avg MA Limit
4A A
AAA .AA
oa pyh p,6 p'y�O p'y� p'y� 01�
`b\tip\� � 9\~�\�
Long Creek WWTP - BOD
Mo. Avg WA Limit
MA Limit
40
35
30
J 25
�
l f
n 20
E
■ f
.
15
10
•
0
91�
�01a � �01y
b �oyo "O,yA
440,
�oy'1
,
'LOy'b
\�o\ titi\y1\ 1\,'�\
y�,�1\ �b\,y`b\
A\,yp\
Long Creek WWTP - BOD Removal
Effluent Limit
110
100
90 t.,r
a 80
70
60 f�
50 L�-
ti� ti°` tia by do y� y1 ti� y�
Ion >o� �e� �J� �a� PJQv lac• 5�Q PQc
Summary Statistics
N
1519
Mean
5.76
SD
2.71
Min
2.25
Max
23.48
Summary Statistics
Summer -
SOC
Post SOC
N
299
297
Mean
3.2
2.8
SD
2.4
1.5
Min
2.0
2.0
Max
20.9
14.0
Winter
SOC
Post SOC
N
218
221
Mean
6.6
7.4
SD
4.5
6.7
Min
2.0
2.0
Max
30.2
36.0
Summary Statistics
_
SOC
Post SOC
N
25
25
Mean
96.3
96.2
SD
2.8
4.2
Min
88.6
83.1
Max
99.1
99.1
Page 1 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

City of Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Effluent Data Review
NC002424-
Long Creek WWTP - TSS
Wk Avg • Mo. Avg WA Limit MA Limit
80
70
60
J 50
— "■
zoUAA
o s �s
10 j1r
0
ro
A
O,y
O
oy�
OArv\
O
O,�
Long Creek WWTP - TSS Removal
-+-Effluent Limit
100
95 -
90
85 r
80 y V
9 75
70
65
60
55
50
y3 I,'4b
off. p ���, • ,J� lac �,$ �`a� �Q PQ�
Long Creek WWTP - NH3-N
a Wk Avg Mo. Avg WA Limit MA Limit
16
14
12
J 10
0 8
E 6
— - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
2
0
'1\y111
y\p \�y\�Oti(O \1�\�Oti(O 41 J\ 011 \ry�\1 cNIP
0 NVy
Summary Statistics
SOC Post-SOC
N 517 526
Mean 19.4 15.0
SD 8.7 9.2
Min 4.4 3.2
Max 75.0 108.0
Summa Statistics
SOC Post-SOC
N
25
25
Mean
83.3
88.8
SD
4.4
5.2
Min
65.9
76.9
Max
87.2
94.6
Summar-; Statistics
SOC
N
_
T 517
Mean
0.6
SD
0.5
Min
0.1
Max
7.7
Post SOC
Summer Winter
N
297
222
Mean
0.6
1.0
SD
0.2
1.2
Min
0.1
0.2
Max
2.5
7.8
Page 2 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

City of Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Effluent Data Review
NCO02424
Long Creek WWTP - DO
Effluent Limit
14
12
10
8
no
E 6
4
2
0
O,3 Oda rJN 6N
\y�\1 titi\~�\~\yh\�
y\3ti\ti 44' _IX 4"p,ti a\1o\ti
Long Creek WWTP - Fecal Coliform
Wk Avg Mo. Avg WA Limit MA Limit
1000
♦ Ems"'► « �• Q ,ff
c, 10 4 ��%*4� +ate � � � �tiR`� ,r *f � t! o'� i
1 •
013 o1a 5V o1h 010 010 011 011 01�
400\T\�~\ry\141
Long Creek WWTP - TRC
Effluent Daily Max Compliant
60
50
40 t
30
r A114%
20 •
10
0
010 010 O,y'1 011
1\01\�\13\O\T \��\� 10\,
of t
Summary
Statistics
N
1037
Mean
9.03
SD
1.34
Min
6.8
Max
12.8
Summa Statistics
N 1032
Geometric Mean 19
Min 1
Max 4200
Summary Statistics
N
1037
Mean
23
SD
8
Min
10
Max _ _
_ _49
Page 3 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

City of Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Effluent Data Review
NCO02424
30
25
u 20
Icu � 15
CLO
10
5
0
Long Creek WWTP - Temperature
Effluent
O(0
O,b
O,A
OyA
Oyu
-Ot
y\'b
`b\y�\'L
oi\"�\'L
txyp
Long Creek WWTP - Total Nitrogen
Effluent
40
35
30
J 25
to 20
E 15
10
5
0
O,3 Oyu O,� Oyy O,� Oyu ON ON
6\yo�ti y�\\yy�ti y\\y��ti �\��ti 9\�ti�ti\yo�ti
Long Creek WWTP - Total Phosphorus
Effluent
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
to 2.5
E 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
00
\~Oy'S
'y
\y0\�OyD
ti���\�O,yA
y
1�y�\~O,yh
y\�y\�O,y�o
\yam\�Oy�o
3`O\"O,y'1
\��\�Oy'1
°�
b�y0\~O,y'b
Summary Statistics
N
1037
Mean
18
SD
6
Min
4
Max
28
Summ?iaLptatistics
N
50
Mean
13.71
SD
5.32
Min
5.68
Max
33.90
Summary Statistics
N
50
Mean
2.0
SD
0.9
Min
0.9
Max
4.6
Page 4 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

City of Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Effluent Data Review
Long Creek WWTP - Total Cadmium
Effluent MA Limit
2.5
J 1.5
= 1
0.5
0
01� Q)
01; 5V QN. 01A 0100
1\�1\1 \1�\� �\o\ti o\31 a\10\~
Long Creek WWTP - Total Chromium
Effluent MA Limit
60
50 f
40
w 30
20
10
0
A\01° oti`'
ti
O,O O,� O,A O,^ ONE
y\�ti�ti 4\�1�ti �\o\ti o\,V U\1oKti
Long Creek WWTP - Total Mercury
Effluent MA Limit DM Limit
40 r
35 _
30
25
�tkb 20
15
10 -
5
0
01
01�
O,A
O,a
O,y
O,O
O,�
01A
rill.-
L
yy\�,L�'L
O\10�ti
1�\ry,`�'L
\1y�'L
1\�ti�'ti
\y��'L
3\O�'L
\���'L
D\.'9
Summary Statistics
N
50
Mean
1.1
SD
0.3
Min
0.1
Max
1.8
Summary Statistics
N
54
Mean
24.5
SD
10.9
Min
8.6
Max
55.1
Summary Statistics
N
57
Mean
7.2
SD
4.5
Min
1.0
Max
26.6
NC002424,
Page 5 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

City of Albermarie / Long Creek WWTP Effluent Data Review
NCO02424
Long Creek WWTP - Total Nickel
Effluent MA Limit
30
25
Summary Statistics
20
N
50
J
15
Mean
3.7
10
SD
1.8
Min
0.0
5
Max
9.0
0
y\~~\~Oyu
7,
to\y�\�Oya \~�\�Oy� \yy\�Oyh \1y\~Oy6 \�~\�Oy1 \y�\~Oyu
yti 1 y 4� A
Long Creek WWTP - Total Copper
Effluent
160
140
120
100
J
n 80
60
40
20
0
�
oy°
Oyu
4SP
Oyu
C)
oy10
Oy^
oy00
yti\�
1\y�\'L
y\�y\'L
\y�\'L
'bx
\~O,
a\yO\'L
Long Creek WWTP - Total Zinc
Effluent
120
100
80
J
own 60
40
20
0
O,6
yy\0, ' IO\yO\`y y�\ry,`\� 1\yy \�\'L KII,L\'L I.K1O\'L
Summary Statistics
N
51
Mean
69.0
SD
24.6
Min
29.5
Max
135.0
Summary Statistics
N
50
Mean
55.1
SD
19.5
Min
5.2
Max
110.0
Page 6 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

City of Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Effluent Data Review
NC002424-
180
160
140
Y 120
100
80
ra
60
40
20
0
Long Creek WWTP - Color
Effluent
Summary Statistics
N
100
Mean
50.9
SD
24.1
Min
20.0
Max
155.7
(I\N titi\~A\T '�\y�\~ ti\3y\� `�\1�\� -O\�\� 9\�~\~ a\1�\�
Page 7 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

Albermarle / Long Cr WWTP Dissolved Oxygen (DO) NCO024244
001
001 A
Month
Day
Year Date
Effluent
Upstream
Dnstream
Dnstream
Standard
D1
D2
1
6
2015 1 /6/2015
10.8
11.3
10.9
10.9
5.0
1
21
2015 1/21/2015
10.7
11.5
5.0
2
4
2015 2/4/2015
11.5
12.8
11.9
11.8
5.0
2
18
2015 2/18/2015
11.8
11.8
5.0
3
2
2015 3/2/2015
11.4
12.1
11.9
11.5
5.0
3
17
2015 3/17/2015
9.9
9.6
5.0
4
1
2015 4/1 /2015
9.8
10.9
10
10.4
5.0
4
21
2015 4/21 /2015
8.8
8.8
5.0
5.
4
2015 514/201.5
9.2
8.4
7.9
8.9
5.0
5
19
2015 ' 5/19/2015
8.2
6.8
5.0
6
2
2015 6/21201.5
7.7
5.7
6.2
7.7
5.0
6
11
2015 6/11/2015
7.6
5.8
6.1
7.1
5.0
6
16
2015 6/16/2015
7.5
4.4
6.5
.6.7
5.0
6
23
2015 6/23/2015
7.4
4.7
6.2
6.6
5.0
6
29
2015 6/29/2015
7.8
4.7
6.4
7.1
5.0
7
7
2015 7/7/2015
7.4
6.4
6
7.4
5.0
7
14
2015 7/14/2015
7.6
5.6
6.3
7.4
5.0
7
22
2015 7/22/2015
7.3
5.7
6.2
7.6
5.0
7
29
2015 7/29/2015
7.3
5.2
6.2
7.1
5.0
8
5
2015 8/5/2015
T3
4.5
6.5
7
5.0
8
12
2015 8/12/2015
7.3
5.7
6.4
7.1
5.0
.8
19
2015 8/19/2015
7.6
6.4
6.5
7.2
5.0
8
26
2015 8/26/2015
7.6
5.6
6.4
7.4
5.0
9
2
2015 9/2/2015
7.5
6.5
6.4
7.2
5.0
9
8
2015 9/8/2015
7.7
5.6
6.4
7.3
5.0
9
16
2015 9/16/2015
8.4
5.9
7.5
8.7
5.0
9
23
2015 9/23/2015
7.9
5.8
7
7.8
5.0
10
7
2015 10/7/2015
8.1
8.5
8.2
8.4
5.0
10
20
2015 10/20/2015
9.9
10.2
5.0
11
.5
2015 11 /5/2015
8.9
8.8
8.7
8.5
5.0
11
16
2015 11 /16/2015
10.6
10.9
5.0
12
3
2015 12/3/2015
9.5
11.5
10.9
10.8
5.0
12
15
2015 12/15/2015
9.7
10.3
5.0
1
6
2016 1 /6/2016
11.4
12.1
11.8
11.9
5.0
1
20
2016 1 /20/2016
11.2
12
5.0
2
2
2016 2/2/2016
9.9
13.2
11.4
11.5
5.0
2
18
2016 2/18/2016
10.9
12.3
5.0
3
1
2016 3/1/2016
10.2
11.7
10.7
10.7
5.0
3
15
2016 3/15/2016
8.5
9.2
5.0
4
4
201.6 4/4/2016
9.9
9.8
8.8
6.6
5.0
4
18
2016 4/18/2016
9.9
9.4
5.0
5
3
2016 5/3/2016
8.6
7.6 ,
7.3
7.5
5.0
5
17
2016 5/17/2016
8.8
7.9
5.0
6
.2
2016 6/2/2016
7.7
6.8
6.8
7.4
5.0
6
8
2016 6/8/2016
7.8
7.1
6.6
7.5
5.0
6
15
2016 6/15/2016
7.6
7.5
7.1
7.5
5.0
.6
22
2016 6/22/2016
7.6
6.8
6.6
7.5
5.0
6
29
2016 6/29/2016
7.5
5.4
6.4
7.1
5.0
7
5
2016 7/5/2016
7.0
7.9
5.7
7.2
5.0
7
12
2016 7/12/2016
7.4
7.0
6.6
7.0
5.0
7
20
2016 7/20/2016
7.2
6,3
6.1
7,2
5.0
7
28
2016 7/28/2016
6.9
6.1
5.9
6.7
5.0
Page 39 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

Albermarle / Long Cr WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
NCO024244
8
4
2016
8/4/2016
7.2
5.7
6.5
7.1
5.0
8
10
2016
8/10/2016
7.3
7.1
6.6
7.4
5.0
8
17
2016
8/17/201.6
7.1
6.6
63
6.9
5.0
8
24
2016
8/24/2016
7.6
7.3
6.7
7.6
5.0
8
30
2016
8/30/2016
7.5
6.5
6.4
7.3
5.0
9
6
2016
9/6/2016
8.0
7.5
6.7
8.2
5.0
9
13
2016
9/13/2016
7.6
7.1
6.7
7.7
5.0
9
22
2016
9/2212016
7.8
4.8
6.8
7.4
5.0
9
28
2016
9/28/2016
8.0
7.7
7.6
7.9
5.0
10
3
2016
10/3/2016
8.4
7.8
7.4
8.5
5.0
10
18
2016
10/18/2016
8.6
8.6
5.0
11
2
2016
11 /2/2016
8.9
7.5
7.4
8.3
5.0
11
16
2016
11/16/2016
9.7
9.3
5.0
12
1
2016
12/1 /2016
8.7
7.2
7.3
7.8
5.0
12
14
2016
12/14/2016
10.0
10.0
5.0
1
5
2017
1 /512017
10.5
11.8
11.0
10.6
5.0
1
18
2017
1 /18/2017
9.4
10.3
'5.0
2
2
2017
2/2/2017
10.2
10.9
10.2
10.5
5.0
2
14
2017
2/14/2017
9.7
11.6
5.0
3
1
2017
3/1/2017
8.9
12.0
9.2
10.0
5.0
3
20
2017
3/20/2017
10.4
10.8
5.0
4
3
2017
.4/3/2017
9.1.
10.6
8.5
9.2
5.0
4
17
2017
4/17/2017
8.5
7.4
5.0
5
3
.2017
5/3/2017
8.3
7.9
7.2
8.1
5.0
5
15
2017
5/15/2017
8.6
7.9
5.0
6
8
2017
6/8/2017
8.4
7.9
7.4
8.0
5.0
6
14
2017
6/14/2017
7.7
7.1
7.0
7.9
5.0
6
21
2017
6/21 /2017
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.8
5.0
6
27
2017
6/27/2017
7.7
7.2
7.0
8.3
5.0
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
7.5
7.0
6.9
7.3
5.0
7
11
2017
7/11/2017
7.5
6.9
6.5
7.3
5.0
7.
18
2017
7/18/2017
7.2
6.7
6.4
7.4
5.0
7
25
2017
7/25/2017
7.3
6.6
6.4
7.3
5.0
8
1
2017
8/1 /2017
7.5
7.3
6.7
7.5
5.0
8
9
2017
8/9/2017
7.8
5.0
7.0
7.7
5.0
8
15
2017
8/15/2017
7.3
6.3
6.4
7.1
5.0
8
23
2017
8/23/2017
7.1
5.6
6.3
7.1
5.0
8
30
2017
8/30/2017
8.0
7.4
7.4
8.2
5.0
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
8.2
8.0
7.5
8.3
5.0
9
13
2017
9/13/2017
8.3
8.2
7.8
8.5
5.0
9
•19
2017
9/19/2017
8.0
7.3
6.9
8.0
5.0
9
- 26
2017
9/26/2017
7.8
6.1
6.8
7.4
5.0
10
5
2017
10/5/2017
8.4
6.4
7.7
8.0
5.0
10
17
2017
10/17/2017
8.5
6.1
5.0
11
1
2017
11/1/2017
9.4
9.0
8.5
9.6
5.0
11
14
2017 11/14/2017
9.8
9.4
5.0
12
4
2017
12/4/2017
10.2
9.6
9.8
12.0
5.0
12
19
2017 12/19/2017
10.4
10.9
5.0
1
9
2018
1 /9/2018
12.5
12.8
11.1
11.7
5.0
1
22
2018
1 /22/2018
11.3
12.8
5.0
2
6
2018
2/6/2018
10.6
11.8
11.2
11.1
5.0
2
20
2018 _
2/20/2018
9.4
10.4
5.0
Page 40 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

Albermarle / Long Cr WWTP Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
NCO024244
Statistic Effluent Upstream Dnstream Dnstream
D1 D2
N - 104 104 78 78
Mean 8.7 8.2 7.6 8.2
SD 1.3 2.3 1.7 1.5
Min 6.9 4.4 5.7 6.6
Max 12.5 13.2 11.9 12.0
Long Creek WWTP - Instream DO
Effluent Upstream Dnstream DI A Dnstream D2
14
12
10
8 t
E 6 !
4 4
2
0
Standard
y�
\�
ti~\�01�
6\yO\�O1b
�
,ti
�1�\~O1y
'1
�3
ti
��
C
yo\�oy�
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Amerage
Variance
Effluent
104
901.6
8.6692308
1.780403
Upstream
104
853.9
8.2105769
5.409693
Dnstream 1
78
592.1
7.5910256
2.872516
Dnstream 1
78
642.9
8.2423077
2.189745
ANOVA
rce of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 51.88674 3 17.29558 5.508273 0.001042 2.6297069
Within Groups 1130.374 360 3.139928
Total 1182.261 363
Page 41 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

Albermarle / Long Cr WWTP Dissolved Oxygen (DO) NC0024244
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variancf
Upstream D1
Mean
8.210577 7.5910256
Variance
5.409693 2.8725158
Observations
104 78
Hypoth. Mean Differen
0
df
180
t Stat
2.07857
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.019538
t Critical one -tail
1.653363
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.039075
t Critical two -tail
1.973231
Conclusion: Upstream DO is higher than D1 DO
Upstream D2
Mean
8.2105769 8.242308
Variance
5.4096929 2.189745
Observations
104 78
Hypothesized Mean
Difl 0
df
176
t Stat
-0.112122
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.4554271
t Critical one -tail
1.6535574
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.9108543
t Critical two -tail
1.9735344
Conclusion: no difference between U and D2 DC
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variancf
Effluent DJ
Effluent D2
Mean
8.669231 7.591026
Mean 8.6692308 8.2423077
Variance
1.780403 2.872516
Variance 1.7804033 2.1897453
Observatio
104 78
Observatior 104 78
Hypothesiz
0
Hypothesize 0
df
142
df 156
t Stat
4.642161
t Stat 2.0082345
P(T<=t) on,
3.89E-06
P(T<=t) one 0.0231721
t Critical or
1.655655
t Critical on, 1.65468
P(T<=t) twc
7.77E-06
P(T<=t) twc 0.0463442
t Critical tw
1.976811
t Critical twr 1.9752875 _
_
Conclusion: Effluent DO is higher than D1 DO
Conclusion: Effluent DO is higher than D2 DO
Page 42 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/16/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP
Temperature
NCO024244
001
001 A
Day Year Date
Effluent
Upstream
Dnstream
Dnstream
U-DI Diff
U-D2 Diff
Std
D1
D2
6 2015 1 /6/2015
12
9
10
9
1
0
32
21 2015 1/21/2015
11
7
32
4 2015 2/4/2015
9
6
8
7
2
1
32
18 2015 2/18/2015
7
4
32
2 2015 3/2/2015
9
9
10
9
1
0
32
17 2015 3/17/2015
13
11
32
1 2015 4/1 /2015
14
15
17
16
2
1
32
21 2015 4/21 /2015
18
16
32
4 2015 5/4/2015
17
20
22
20
2
0
32
19 2015 5/19/2015
23
23
32
2 2015 6/2/2015
24
24
25
24
1
0
32
11 2015 6/11/2015
25
25
27
25
2
0
32
16 2015 6/16/2015
26
25
26
26
1
1
32
23 2015 6/23/2015
26
27
27
27
0
0
32
29 2015 6/29/2015
24
23
24
23
1
0
32
7 2015 7/7/2015
26
28
28
27
0
-1
32
14 2015 7/14/2015
26
26
26
25
0
-1
32
22 2015 7/22/2015
27
26
26
26
0
0
32
29 2015 7/29/2015
27
26
26
26
0
0
32
5 2015 8/5/2015
27
27
28
27
1
0
32
12 2015 8/12/2015
26
26
27
25
1
-1
32
19 2015 8/19/2015
26
25
25
25
0
0
32
26 2015 8/26/2015
25
23
25
24
2
1
32
2 2015 9/2/2015
25
27
28
25
1
-2
32
8 2015 9/8/2015
25
26
26
26
0
0
32
16 2015 9/16/2015
21
19
20
18
1
-1
32
23 2015 9/23/2015
22
20
22
20
2
0
32
30 2015 9/30/2015
24
23
24
23
1
0
32
7 2015 10/7/2015
19
16
19
18.5
32
20 2015 10/20/2015
14
9
32
5 2015 11 /5/2015
20
19
20
19
1
0
32
16 2015 11 /16/2015
12
12
32
3 2015 12/3/2015
16
11
12
12
1
1
32
15 2015 12/1512015
17
14
32
6 2016 1/6/2016
10
7
7
7
0
0
32
20 2016 1 /20/2016
9
5
32
2 2016 2/2/2016
13
12
13
12
1
0
32
18 2016 2/18/2016
10
8
32
1 2016 3/1 /2016
13
13
15
13
2
0
32
15 2016 3/15/2016
18
18
32
4 2016 4/4/2016
14
17
17
16
0
-1
32
18 2016 4/18/2016
14
14
32
3 2016 5/3/2016
22
22
22
22
0
0
.32
17 2016 5/17/2016
19
18
32
2 2016 6/2/2016
24
24
24
24
0
0
32
8 2016 6/8/2016
24
26
26
25
0
-1
32
15 2016 6/15/2016
25
27
28
26
1
-1
32
22 2016 6/22/2016
24
24
25
24
1
0
32
29 2016 6/29/2016
25
24
25
24
1
0
32
5 2016 7/5/2016
27
29
29
28
0
-1
32
12 2016 7/12/2016
26
28
28
26
0
-2
32
20 2016 7/20/2016
27
26
26
26
0
0
32
Page 39 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP
Temperature
NCO024244
28 2016
7/28/2016
28
27
28
27
1
0
32
4 2016
8/4/2016
27
25
26
26
1
1
32
10 2016
8/10/2016
27
28
28
27
0
-1
32
17 2016
8/17/2016
28
27
27
27
0
0
32
24 2016
8/24/2016
25
25
25
24
0
-1
32
30 2016
8/30/2016
26
26
26
25
0
-1
32
6 2016
9/6/2016
23
25
25
23
0
-2
32
13 2016
9/13/2016
25
25
26
25
1
0
32
22 2016
9/22/2016
25
23
23
23
0
0
32
28 2016
9/28/2016
24
25
25
25
0
0
32
3 2016
10/3/2016
21
21
22
21
1
0
32
18 2016
10/18/2016
20
19
32
2 2016
11/2/2016
19
19
18
17
-1
-2
32
16 2016
11 /16/2016
14
9
11
2
32
1 2016
12/l /2016
18
14
15
14
1
0
32
14 2016
12/14/2016
12
8
9
1
32
5 2017
1 /5/2017
13
8
9
9
1
1
32
18 2017
1 /18/2017
15
13
14
1
32
2 2017
2/2/2017
13
11
12
10
1
-1
32
14 2017
2/14/2017
13
10
10
0
32
1 2017
3/l/2017
17
17
18
17
1
0
32
20 2017
3/20/2017
12
11
32
3 2017
4/3/2017
18
18
19
18
1
0
32
17 2017
4/17/2017
20
19
19
0
32
3 2017
5/3/2017
21
21
23
23
2
2
32
15 2017
5/15/2017
20
21
21
0
32
8 2017
6/8/2017
22
21
24
22
1
32
14 2017
6/14/2017
24
24
24
26
0
2
32
21 2017
6/21/2017
25
25
25
25
0
0
32
27 2017
6/27/2017
24
25
24
-1
32
28 2017
6/28/2017
23
26
32
5 2017
7/5/2017
26
27
27
27
0
0
32
11 2017
7/11/2017
26
29
30
28
1
-1
32
25 2017
7/25/2017
27
28
28
28
0
0
32
1 2017
8/l/2017
24
25
26
25
1
0
32
9 2017
8/9/2017
25
23
24
24
1
1
32
15 2017
8/15/2017
27
26
26
26
0
0
32
23 2017
8/23/2017
27
29
29
27
0
-2
32
30 2017
8/30/2017
23
24
24
23
0
-1
32
5 2017
9/5/2017
23
24
25
24
1
0
32
13 2017
9/13/2017
22
22
22
21
0
-1
32
19 2017
9/19/2017
23
24
25
23
1
-1
32
26 2017
9/26/2017
24
25
25
23
0
-2
32
5 2017
10/5/2017
20
20
22
19
2
-1
32
17 2017
10/17/2017
19
16
18
2
32
1 2017
11 /l /2017
15
14
17
13
-1
32
14 2017
11 /14/2017
14
10
12
2
32
4 2017
12/4/2017
13
11
13
11
2
0
32
19 2017
12/19/2017
11
8
10
2
32
9 2018
1 /9/2018
5
4
7
4
0
32
22 2018
1 /22/2018
8
6
8
2
32
6 2018
2/6/2018
10
8
9
7
1
-1
32
20 2018
2/20/2018
14
13
14
1
32
Page 40 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Temperature NCO024244
Statistic
Effluent
Upstream
Dnstream
Dnstream
U-D1 Diff
U-D2 Diff
DI
N
105
104
89
78
88
78
Mean
20.0
19.2
21.1
21.2
0.9
(0.2)
SD
6.1
7.2
6.5
6.2
0.9
0.9
Min
5.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
(1.0)
(2.0)
Max -
_ 28.0 _
^ _ 29.0_
30.0
28.0
3.0
2.5
Long Creek WWTP - Instream Temperatures
Effluent Upstream Dnstream D1 ♦ Dnstream D2 Std
35
30
u 25
w 20
NOD
aa, 15
10
5 ♦ ® __ !!
0
'y4\�016
'l1\"�
,�0\��y�
�y1\��1�
\tit\�01t'\~O1�
3\�°\T01�
O\
1 '
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
3ros
-YE-- -
Effluent
Upstream
Dnstream D1
Dnstream D2
ANOVA
of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Count
105
104
89
78
Sum_
Average
Variance
2095
19.952381
36.815018
1995
19.182692
52.364358
1882
21.146067
42.603422
1656.5
21.237179
38.400808
df MS F P-value F crit
274.68677 3 91.562257 2.1384114 0.0949714 2.628903
15928.254 372 42.817887
16202.941 375
Page 41 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Instream Conductivity
NCO024244
00094 - Conductivity
(umhos/cmil
Month
Day
Year Date
Upstream
D1
D2
1
6
2015 1/6/2015
203
234
218
2
4
2015 2/4/2015
168.9
227
226
3
2
2015 3/2/2015
154
163.6
158.4
4
1
2015 4/l /2015
161.7
227
201
5
4
2015 5/4/2015
149.3
227
192.3
6
2
2015 6/2/2015
134.8
258
285
6
11
2015 6/11/2015
155.6
329
263
6
16
2015 6/16/2015
177.3
377
359
6
23
2015 6/23/2015
141.5
356
267
6
29
2015 6/29/2015
155
396
425
7
7
2015 7/7/2015
128.7
297
236
7
14
2015 7/14/2015
72.3
220
297
7
22
2015 7/22/2015
130.3
328
247
7
29
2015 7/29/2015
107.3
274
295
8
5
2015 8/5/2015
167.5
421
399
8
12
2015 8/12/2015
145.1
448
407
8
19
2015 8/19/2015
76.5
226
467
8
26
2015 8/26/2015
148.2
435
425
9
2
2015 9/2/2015
160.5
456
442
9
8
2015 9/8/2015
107.7
433
304
9
16
2015 9/16/2015
162.5
501
482
9
23
2015 9/23/2015
190
537
522
9
30
2015 9/30/2015
152
436
364
10
7
2015 10/7/2015
168
243
211
11
5
2015 11 /5/2015
145.1
166.7
152.2
12
3
2015 12/3/2015
185.9
222
199
1
6
2016 1 /6/2016
149.7
165.4
221
2
2
2016 2/2/2016
159.9
192.4
182.5
3
1
2016 3/l /2016
124.7
162.7
165.8
4
4
2016 4/4/2016
145.2
186
167.3
5
3
2016 5/3/2016
169.2
224
213
6
2
2016 6/2/2016
186.3
259
253
6
8
2016 6/8/2016
189.7
250
255
6
15
2016 6/15/2016
216
324
307
6
22
2016 6/22/2016
220
314
301
6
29
2016 6/29/2016
198
363
362
7
5
2016 7/5/2016
184.8
352
286
7
12
2016 7/12/2016
212
236
113
7
20
2016 7/20/2016
225
293
276
7
28
2016 7/28/2016
232
380
329
8
4
2016 8/4/2016
152.9
315
182.6
8
10
2016 8/10/2016
286
314
298
8
17
2016 8/17/2016
243
370
344
8
24
2016 8/24/2016
253
382
384
8
30
2016 8/30/2016
211
361
224
9
6
2016 9/6/2016
256
323
253
9
13
2016 9/13/2016
252
406
389
9
22
2016 9/22/2016
269
405
382
9
28
2016 9/28/2016
320
316
281
10
3
2016 10/3/2016
307
321
.285
11
2
2016 11/2/2016
237
353
335
12
1
2016 12/l/2016
268
332
354
1
5
2017 1 /5/2017
212
217
201
Page 1
G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Instream Conductivity
NCO024244
2
2
2017
2/2/2017
161
223
199
3
1
2017
3/l /2017
206
275
281
4
3
2017
4/3/2017
232
276
258
5
3
2017
5/3/2017
134.1
177.8
162
6
8
2017
6/8/2017
135.2
174.5
154.4
6
14
2017
6/14/2017
137.4
181.2
181
6
21
2017
6/21 /2017
167.6
183.1
146.4
6
27
2017
6/27/2017
197.7
251
219
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
204
227
214
7
11
2017
7/11/2017
215
254
235
7
18
2017
7/18/2017
214
292
235
7
25
2017
7/25/2017
223
358
324
8
1
2017
8/l /2017
239
436
417
8
9
2017
8/9/2017
116.1
297
364
8
15
2017
8/15/2017
157.9
300
333
8
23
2017
8/23/2017
154.9
436
239
8
30
2017
8/30/2017
177
353
284
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
176
261
217
9
13
2017
9/13/2017
152
208
161
9
19
2017
9/19/2017
177
285
238
9
26
2017
9/26/2017
190
380
392
10
5
2017
10/5/2017
204
380
356
11
1
2017
11 /l /2017
213
366
331
12
4
2017
12/4/2017
338
361
367
1
9
2018
1 /9/2018
368
381
359
2
6
2018
2/6/2018
158
168
164
600
500
u 400
o 300
L
E 200
100
0
,yb
`o\yO\,y0
Statistic
Upstream
Dnstream
Dnstream
D1
D2
N 79
79
T 79
Mean
187.0
304.3
281.3
SD
55.2
89.4
90.5
Min
72.3
162.7
113.0
Max
368.0
537.0
522.0
Long Creek WWTP - Instream Conductivity
Upstream D1 D2
O,yA
oyh
cj
5V
'ON
cjA
0§1
-Ox
titi���\�
1�1y\ry
4",
��1�\�
.10,
0\1,P
Page 2 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Instream Conductivity
NCO024244
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups _Count
Average
Variance
Upstream 79
_Sum
14776
187.038
3043.827
D1 79
24039.4
304.2962
7998.668
D2 79
22218.9
281.2519
8194.181
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 609795.6 2 304897.8 47.54945 4.69E-18 3.034414
Within Groups 1500461 234 6412.225
Total 2110256 236
Differences detected among sites.
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream D1
Mean
187.038 304.2962
Variance
3043.827 7998.6675
Observations
79 79
Pearson Correlation
0.290284
Hypothesized Mean Di
0
df
78
t Stat
-11.5249
P(T<=t) one -tail
8.12E-19
t Critical one -tail
1.664625
P(T<=t) two -tail
1.62E-18
t Critical two -tail
1.990847
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
r
D1 D2
Mean
304.2962 281.2519
Variance
7998.668 8194.1812
Observations
79 79
Pearson Correlation
0.828971
Hypothesized Mean Di
0
df
78
t Stat
3.891382
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.000104
t Critical one -tail
1.664625
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.000209
t Critical two -tail
1.990847
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream �D2
....._. _... _
Mean 187,038 281.2519
Variance 3043.827 8194.181
Observations 79 79
Pearson Correlation 0.198995
Hypothesized Mean Di 0
df 78
t Stat-8.7066
P(T<=t) one -tail 2E-13
t Critical one -tail 1.664625
P(T<=t) two -tail 4E-13
t Critical two -tail 1.990847
Page 3
G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Color
NCO024244
Month
Day
Year
Date
Effluent
1
6
2015
1/6/2015
1
7
2015
1/7/2015
27.9
1
21
2015
1/21/2015
1
22
2015
1 /22/2015
40.5
2
4
2015
2/4/2015
2
5
2015
2/5/2015
42.7
2
18
2015
2/18/2015
2
19
2015
2/19/2015
33.2
3
2
2015
3/2/2015
26.3
3
17
2015
3/17/2015
3
18
2015
3/18/2015
40.5
4
1
2015
4/1 /2015
4
2
2015
4/2/2015
34.51
4
21
2015
4/21/2015
4
22
2015
4/22/2015
46.39
5
4
2015
5/4/2015
5
5
2015
5/5/2015
46.81
5
19
2016
5/19/2015
5
20
2015
5/20/2015
68.68
6
2
2015
6/2/2015
6
3
2015
6/3/2015
66.6
6
16
2015
6/16/2015
6
17
2015
6/17/2015
78.6
7
7
2015
7/7/2015
7
8
2015
7/8/2015
59.84
7
22
2015
7/22/2015
7
23
2015
7/23/2015
78.81
8
5
2015
8/5/2015
8
6
2015
8/6/2015
100.29
8
19
2015
8/19/2015
8
20
2015
8/20/2015
67.96
9
2
2015
9/2/2015
9
3
2015
9/3/2015
103.47
9
16
2015
9/16/2615
9
17
2015
9/17/2015
74.76
10
7
2015
10/7/2015
10
8
2015
10/8/2015
63.5
10
20
2015
10/20/2015
10
21
2015
10/21 /2015
112
11
5
2015
11 /5/2015
155.71
11
16
2015
11 /16/2015
27.36
12
3
2015
12/3/2015
12
4
2015
12/4/2015
33.7
12
15
2016
12/15/2016
12
16
2016
12/16/2016
49.3
1
6
2016
1/6/2016
1
7
2016
1 /7/2016
20.25
1
20
2016
1 /20/2016
1
21
2016
1/21/2016
154
2
2
2016
2/2/2016
2
3
2016
2/3/2016
110.61
2
18
2016
2/18/2016
2
19
2016
2/19/2016
57.52
Upstream Dnstream (D3)
41.8
32.07
36.63
34.16
27.14
35.42
17.44
33.39
41.01
35.69
30.81
23.02
34.1
34.66
60.34
51.7
30.17
35.52
41.8
51.38
47.1
62.38
41.29
66.85
47.65
53.23
41.44
60.93
33.69
97.64
45.53
52.96
27.11
93.59
32.59
69.38
61.94
49.82
25.2
89.6
138
49.5
142.1
39.8
21.22
31.15
25.2
27.11
27.03
25.13
56.8
64.98
38.1
66.49
Page 9 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Color NCO024244
3
1
2016
3/1 /2016
53.65
26.8
45.3
3
15
2016
3/15/2016
47.76
26.64
24.3
4
4
2016
4/4/2016
30.07
32.7
4
5
2016
4/5/2016
44.7
4
18
2016
4/18/2016
20
34.7
4
19
2016
4/19/2016
36.5
5
3
2016
5/3/2016
36.31
49.84
5
4
2016
5/4/2016
70
5
17
2016
5/17/2016
34.34
45.06
5
18
2016
5/18/2016
58.4
6
2
2016
6/2/2016
54.02
35.38
38.13
6
15
2016
6/15/2016
82.06
38.96
78.36
7
5
2016
7/5/2016
20
43.82
7
6
2016
7/6/2016
65.2
7
20
2016
7/20/2016
20
24.28
7
21
2016
7/21 /2016
58.7
8
4
2016
8/4/2016
80.97
45.45
54.79
8
17
2016
8/17/2016
26.59
43.19
8
18
2016
8/18/2016
56.5
9
6
2016
9/6/2016
31.1
35.16
9
12
2016
9/12/2016
48.1
9
22
2016
9/22/2016
22.56
61.28
9
23
2016
9/23/2016
66.9
10
3
2016
10/3/2016
20
32.24
10
4
2016
10/4/2016
35.23
10
18
2016
10/18/2016
41.08
39.5
10
19
2016
10/19/2016
45.17
11
2
2016
11 /212016
22.43
53.82
11
3
2016
11 /3/2016
67.57
11
16
2016
11 /16/2016
20
20
11
17
2016
11/17/2016
30.08
12
1
2016
12/1/2016
32.4
35.31
12
2
2016
12/2/2016
47.74
12
14
2016
12/14/2016
20.73
24.5
12
15
2016
12/15/2016
42.13
1
5
2017
1/5/2017
54.34
47.01
1
6
2017
1 /6/2017
26.22
1
18
2017
1 /18/2017
20
20
1
19
2017
1 /19/2017
26.65
2
2
2017
2/2/2017
37.88
32.91
2
3
2017
2/3/2017
29.05
2
14
2017
2/14/2017
20
20
2
15
2017
2/15/2017
22.56
3
1
2017
3/1/2017
20
31.38
3
2
2017
3/2/2017
55.75
3
20
2017
3/20/2017
26.31
20.84
3
21
2017
3/21 /2017
37.87
4
3
2017
4/3/2017
20
20
4
4
2017
4/4/2017
35.81
4
17
2017
4/17/2017
20.73
35.09
4
18
2017
4/18/2017
36.6
5
3
2017
5/3/2017
35.16
39.16
5
4
2017
5/4/2017
36.43
5
15
2017
5/15/2017
34.37
37.47
5
16
2017
5/16/2017
35.98
Page 10 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Color NCO024244
6
8
2017
6/8/2017
71.44
51.99
6
9
2017
6/9/2017
36.31
6
21
2017
6/21 /2017
39.42
37.17
6
22
2017
6/22/2017
28.01
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
33.44
24.68
7
6
2017
7/6/2017
30.37
7
18
2017
7/18/2017
28.81
34.96
7
19
2017
7/19/2017
48.84
8
1
2017
8/1/2017
28.33
63.1
8
2
2017
8/2/2017
50.49
8
15
2017
8/15/2017
27.68
36.36
8
16
2017
8/16/2017
49.58
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
34.29
31.32
9
6
2017
9/6/2017
45.06
9
19
2017
9/19/2017
45
48
9
20
2017
9/20/2017
45
10
5
2017
10/5/2017
26.47
43.73
10
6
2017
10/6/2017
45.36
10
17
2017
10/17/2017
42.01
49.67
10
18
2017
10/18/2017
40.07
11
1
2017
11/1/2017
49.6
39.97
11
2
2017
11 /2/2017
42.34
11
14
2017
11/14/2017
33.82
44.5
11
15
2017
11 /15/2017
49.17
12
4
2017
12/4/2017
25.26
38.12
12
5
2017
12/5/2017
56.64
12
19
2017
12/19/2017
20.84
23.42
12
20
2017
12/20/2017
31.29
1
9
2018
1 /9/2018
20
35.24
1
10
2018
1 /10/2018
49.2
1
22
2018
1 /22/2018
32.92
41.5
1
23
2018
1 /23/2018
37.13
2
6
2018
2/6/2018
51.48
38.94
2
7
2018
2/7/2018
21.68
2
20
2018
2/20/2018
35.75
38.79
2
21
2018
2/21 /2018
61.43
Statistic
Effluent
U stream
D3
N
44
44
44
Mean
45.9
31.9
38.7
SD
14.8
11.3
12.5
Min
21.7
20.0
20.0
Max
82.1
71.4
78.4
Page 11 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Color
NC0024244
Long Creek WWTP - Instream Color
Effluent Upstream A, Dnstream (D3)
180
160
140
120
g 100 a
8060
•a��'!
4X
0
20�1�F��
i !
0
-b
O,yR
O,yR
D.yh
�.yro
oye
oyA
oyA
O,y
y�\ry,`K
1�1y`~
1`�4V
�\1��1.
�\b�ti
0�~�V
R�yO`�
yoo,'1.
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Effluent 76
4024.04
52.95
688.69
Upstream 75
2719.42
36.26
428.53
Dnstream ( 75
3209.15
42.79
281.57
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value _F crit
Between Groups 10688.96 2 5344.4782 11.43782 1.87E-05 3.036339
Within Groups 104199.8 223 467.26365
Total 114888.7 225 r
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream (D3)
Mean
36.25893 42.78866667
Variance
428.5349 281.573682
Observations
75 75
Hypothesized Mean Di
0
df
142
t Stat
-2.12209
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.017783
t Critical one -tail
1.655655
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.035566
t Critical two -tail
1.976811
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variai
Effluent
astr+eam ID:
_
Mean
52.94789
42.78867
Variance
688.6901
281.5737
Observations
76
75
Hypothesized Mean Di
0
df
128
t Stat
2.837814
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.002642
t Critical one -tail
1.656845
P(T<=t) two -tail
0.005284
t Critical two -tail
1.978671
Page 12 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/17/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Instream Copper NCO02424
01042 - Copper, Total (as Cu)
001
001A
Month
Day
Year Date
Effluent
Upstream
D1
D2
1
6
2015 1 /6/2015
2
16.9
11
1
20
2015 1/20/2015
57.8
2
3
2015 2/3/2015
66.2
2
4
2015 2/4/2015
2.5
12
10
3
2
2015 3/2/2015
2.8
8.9
5.8
3
10
2015 3/10/2015
52.1
4
1
2015 4/l /2015
2
19
13
4
7
2015 4/7/2015
72.3
5
4
2015 5/4/2015
3.3
32
16
5
5
2015 5/5/2015
83.5
6
2
2015 6/2/2015
5
46
41
6
4
2015 6/4/2015
88.8
7
7
2015 7/7/2015
91.4
2.9
54
21
8
4
2015 8/4/2015
83.9
8
5
2015 8/5/2015
2.8
73
43
9
1
2015 9/1 /2015
105
9
2
2015 9/2/2015
3.1
83
51
10
7
2015 10/7/2015
4
21
13
10
8
2015 10/8/2015
63
11
5
2015 11 /5/2015
5.3
12.2
9.3
11
17
2015 11/17/2015
35.1
12
3
2015 12/3/2015
2.4
12
8.5
12
8
2015 12/8/2015
52
1
6
2016 1 /6/2016
38.6
3.38
9.77
8.3
2
2
2016 2/2/2016
59.7
2.4
17
13
3
1
2016 3/1 /2016
32.6
3.6
8.6
8
4
4
2016 4/4/2016
2.8
14
10
4
7
2016 4/7/2016
64.4
5
3
2016 5/3/2016
51.7
13
9.5
6.3
6
2
2016 6/2/2016
2.8
24
14
6
9
2016 6/9/2016
67
7
5
2016 7/5/2016
2.8
44
25
7
12
2016 7/12/2016
62.8
8
2
2016 8/2/2016
47.5
8
4
2016 8/4/2016
2.7
33
11
9
6
2016 9/6/2016
2.57
30.2
13.7
9
13
2016 9/13/2016
66
10
3
2016 10/3/2016
3
22
17
10
4
2016 10/4/2016
56.4
11
1
2016 11/1/2016
62.5
11
2
2016 11 /212016
3
49
45
12
1
2016 12/1 /2016
2.5
28
28
12
8
2016 12/8/2016
72.6
1
5
2017 1 /5/2017
3.3
13
11
1
12
2017 1/12/2017
50.1
2
2
2017 2/2/2017
3.7
21
20
2
9
2017 2/9/2017
73
3
1
2017 3/1 /2017
250
225
204
3
7
2017 3/7/2017
59.6
4
3
2017 4/3/2017
11
21.5
19
4
5
2017 4/5/2017
52.8
5
3
2017 5/3/2017
39.1
3
20
13
6
8
2017 6/8/2017
29.5
5
14
9
Pagel
G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/18/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Instream Copper NCO02424
7
5
2017
7/5/2017
2
4
4.7
7
6
2017
7/6/2017
35.9
8
1
2017
8/1 /2017
2
62
31
8
3
2017
8/3/2017
55.1
9
5
2017
9/5/2017
2.5
75
14
9
7
2017
9/7/2017
86.8
10
3
2017
10/3/2017
55.6
10
5
2017
10/5/2017
3.3
5.8
30
11
1
2017
11/1/2017
3.3
47
19
11
2
2017
11 /2/2017
48
12
4
2017
12/4/2017
2
25
22
12
5
2017
1 2/5/2017
66
1
9
2018
1 /9/2018
32
15
43
1
11
2018
1/11/2018
59
2
6
2018
2/6/2018
5
9
8
2
7
2018
2/7/2018
33
*Data excluded from statistical analysis as outliers.
Dnstream
Statistic
Effluent
Upstream
Dnstream
D1
D2
N
22
_
22
22
22
Mean
55.9
16.4
36.2
27.6
SD
13.9
52.6
46.0
40.9
Min
29.5
2.0
4.0
4.7
Max
86.8
250.0 _
_ 225.0
204.0
Long Creek WWTP - Instream Copper
Effluent Upstream D1 D2
300
250
200
J
o�0 150
100
50 A. A,
A
Page 2 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/18/2018

Albermarle / Long Creek WWTP Instream Copper NC002424
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Effluent
38
2276.4
59.905263
312.8681
Upstream
37
160.75
4.3445946
26.79766
D1
37
1011.37
27.334324
430.1705
D2
37
685.6
18.52973
153.1599
ANOVA
Me of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 62711.48 3 20903.83 90.36938 5.01E-33 2.667006
Within Groups 33540.73 145 231.3154
Total 96252.21 148
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream D2
Mean
4.344595 18.52973
Variance
26.79766 153.15992
Observations
37 37
Hypothesized Mean Di
0
df
48
t Stat
-6.43205
P(T<=t) one -tail
2.73E-08
t Critical one -tail
1.677224
P(T<=t) two -tail
5.47E-08
t Critical two -tail
2.010635
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
D1 D2
Mean
27.33432 18.52973
Variance
430.1705 153.1599
Observations
37 37
Hypothesized Mean Di
0
df
59
t Stat
2.217445
P(T<=t) one -tail
0.015229
t Critical one -tail
1.671093
P(T<rt) two -tail
0.030457
t Critical two -tail
2.000995
Page 3
G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 4/18/2018

Stream Impairment Analysis Loading of Copper
Long Creek WWTP
Copper Copper
monthly monthly
average Value average value
Date ug/L mg/L
Jan-08
Feb-08
Mar-08
Apr-08
May-08
Jun-08
Jul-08
Aug-08
Sep-08
Oct-08
Nov-08
Dec-08
MY- -
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Jul-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
'AVERAGE
uJan-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
AVERAGE _
Jan-11
Feb-11
Mar-11
Apr-11
May-11
Jun-11
Jul-11
113.333 0.113333333
Ibs/day=
Long Creek rhgrijF,�` ,
WWTP AVGaverag�
monthly Flow Ibs�d---
85.000
0.085 6.30862069['r
,,4472
62.667
0.062666667 7.087096774".
66.000
0.066 7.666333333V
:42199
45.000
0.045
5.867419355 ':
" 2 2620
65.000
0.065
4.067 - 22047°
50.000
0.05
3.847096774 ; =`
. '1.6042
70.000
0.07
4.779032258,
-2.7900"
50.000
0.05
5.4473333331..;:
;,. '--2.2-715.
85.000
0.085
4.656451613'`'=
:3 3610
61.333
0.061333333
4.884333333;'.
"; k. 2:4984
55.500
0.0555
5.878387097 `
-2,3209
67 4(i3�„=Q 057402778 i 5 5 4873617E 5 1057
10.000
0.01
5.796774194'q' ; ` OASIS
90.000
0.09
5.260714286!
` .39487
58.200
0.0582
9.093548387;€
.:.4:413S:
56.900
0.0569
6.123333333
2.9058
49.233
0.049233333
5.606451613! " ''
2.3020
17.400
0.0174
4.486666667 f'
0,6511
35.000
0.035
4.887096774' .
3.4265,
21.500
0.0215
5.061290323`
0.9075
52.000
0.052
5.844666667
15347
101.000
0.101
4.8383870971,
4.0756
80.000
0.08
7.081333333
'.4J247
50.000
0.05
8.824193548
3.6797
51.7 0 U.51769444
6.0_75371352, j Z 6231,
60.000
0.06
8.113225806 �
4.0599
55.000
0.055
9.527142857
4.3701
55.000
0.055
7.697666667:
3.5309
60.000
0.06
5.506333333 i , .
•2.7554
68.500
0.0685
5.168387097,
269526,
50.000
0.05
6.007666667,
2,5052
44.500
0.0445
4.557096774
1.6913
47.500
0.0475
4.966774194
1.9676
61.500
0.0615
4.583333333: , .
2.3508
50.000
0.05
4.214516129
1.7575
77.500
0.0775
3.981333333.
2.5738
93.667 0.093666667
4.123225806.
3*2132
' 60 264 0 Q602_63889
-`f 5 7U30_585 _
2; 8664:
126.500
0.1265
_
4.692580645
4.9507
144.500
0.1445
5.813571429 -' _
7.0061
98.333 0.098333333
7.113548387
5:8338
77.500
0.0775
6.227:
.4.0248
88.667 0.088666667
5.030967742
3.7203
50.000
0.05
4.898
2.0425
57.000
0.057 4.711290323
` 2:2397
Monthly Flow(MGD))*8.34
2008
K110":
2010

Aug-11
67.000
0.067
4.547096774FI-1 � r2 54d�1
Sep-11
113.000
0.113
4:547666667r. y 2$
Oct-11
180.000
0.18
5.163870968 ` .-2'
Nov-11
75.000
0.075
5.290666667 �,�'
Dec,11
121.000
0.121
5.2358064521k i 5 2837
Jan-12
134.600
0.1346
6.340322581 j
71� 74
Feb-12
47.250
0.04725
6.042413793
Mar-12
106.909
0.106909091
6.1754838711 ': 5 5062
Apr-12
101.000
0.101
4.737333333
3 9064°
May-12
91.091
0.091090909
4.783870968 i - ,, r
- 36343.
Jun-12
137.814
0.137814286
3.744 t :!' = ...
4 3Q32.
Jul-12
157.905
0.157904762
3.894516129
` 5A289
Aug-12
149.857
0.149857143
5.0674193554
` 6 33-33
Sep-12
93.000
0.093
5.838666667 . �... ;o,: 4:5286
Oct-12
105.739
0.10573913
5.316129032t'+
4:6881
Nov-12
130.000
0.13
3.814333333'
4.11355,
Dec-12
86.000
0.086
4.081290323 z
2:9273
111;7i 011"76779 4986314549
Jars-13
_
97,500
0.0975
5.509032258'
4.4797
Feb-13
108.000
0.108
6.918571429
6.2317
Mar-13
67.200
0.0672
7.038064516
3.9445
Apr-13
61.900
0.0619
6.751666667;
3.4855
May-13
50.000
0.05
6.082903226
2.5366
Jun-13
65.700
0.0657
9,087
4.9791
Jul-13
25.000
0,025
10.09
2.1038
Aug-13
76.000
0.076
5,268064516
3,3391
Sep-13
138.000
0.138
4.241666667
4.8818
Oct-13
160,000
0.16
3.953548387
5.2756
Nov-13
148.000
0.148
4.243666667'
5.2380
Dec-13
118.000
0,118
6.267741935
6,1682
AVERAGE
92.942-
0.092941667
6.287660522
4.8739
Jan-14
50.100
0.0501
7.581612903
3.1679
Feb-14
110.000
0.11
8.713214286
7.9935
Mar-14
89.800
0.0898
8.832580645
6.6150
Apr-14
96.300
0.0963
9.077
7.2901
May-14
90.800
0.0908
5.470967742.
4.1430
Jun-14
102.000
0.102
4.264.
9.6239
Jul-14
104.000
0.104
4.485483871
3.18905
Aug-14
69.400
0.0694
4.932903226;
2.8551
Sep-14
111.000
0.111
4.732333333 �
4.3809
Oct-14
135.000
0.135
4.007741935 '
4.5123
Nov-14
110.000
0.11
4.938
4S301
Dec-14
63.900
0.0639
5.789354839i
3.0853
AVERAGE
94,3 0 094358 :33
6 068432732x
4 7755:
_ y
r.._ _ ...__
Jan-15
57.800
0.0578
7.276451613:..,
3.5076
Feb-15
66.200
0.0662
7.257142857;
4:0067
Mar-15
52.100
0.0521
8.018064516
3.4840•
Apr-15
72.300
0.0723
6.741
40647
May-15
83.500
0.0835
4.602580645,
31052
Jun-15
88.800
0.0888
4.804333333,
3.5581
2011
2012
2013
2014

Jul-15
91.400
0.0914
4.32483871:
Aug-15
83.900
0.0839
4.058064516 _ ;2 839
Sep-15
105.000
0.105
4
4.308333333 r, ;:Pi 3 7728
Oct-15
63.000
0.063
7.252580645 t'
3 81D
Nov-15
35.100
0.0351
10 165 �,:
2 9756
Dec 15
52 000
0 052
10 65645161 •�
4 6215
6 62?-0 �1. 8.9'
Jan-16
38.600
0.0386
7.959677419
2 5624
Feb-16
59.700
0.0597
8.550689655
4.2574
Mar-16
32.600
0.0326
6.352580645
4-7272
Apr-16
64.400
0.0644
5.547666667
2.9796
May-16
51.700
0.0517
5.030322581
2:1690
Jun-16
67.000
0.067
4.159333333
23242
Jul-16
62.800
0.0628
4.341612903 r=
12739
Aug-16
47.600
0.0476
4.937419355 "`
`,:. 1.9601
Sep-16
66.000
0.066
4.602666667 i
25335:
Oct-16
56.400
0.0564
4.82516129 -
- 2.2696
Nov-16
62.500
0.0625
3.87' _
2.6112
Dec-16
72.600
0.0726
4.603870968.
;. 47876
(AVERAGE
_, ��.
56 825 0 05fi825
5 39841_679 1-2 5584=
Jan-17
50.100
0.0501 - 7.324193548-1 3.0603
Feb-17
91.500
0.0915
5.305357143 '
4:0486
Mar-17
59.600
0.0596
5.191612903'
z.5806
Apr-17
52.800
0.0528
6.322333333
17841
May-17
39.100
0.0391
6.052
1.9735
Jun-17
29.500
0.0295
5.962666667'
1.4670
;AUfRAGE
53 767
0053766667
6026360599
Zr7023,
_
*If the value was <PQL, 1/2 the PQL was used for analysis
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR COPPER FOR 2008 COLLECTION YEAR, 2008 303(d) listing year, and present
2015
2016
2017

Copper Yearly
Averagelbs/day Year
3.1057 2008
2.6231 2009 j
2.8664 Zulu
4.3919 2011
4.6478 2012
4.8738 2013
4.7755 2014 i
3.9171 2015
D.0000 ....... __ .... ..:. ... _._._ ,. ._.._.. _._.. .._ .. _ _....... ...__.._._.
2.5584 2016 2008 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2.7023 2017
Year
Month
20M
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
January
5.491002
0.483451
4.059858
4.95072
7.117417877
4.47967
3.167856
3.507628
2.562411
3.060297087
February
4.472181
3.948692
4.3701
7.006109
2.381103791
6.231696
7.993503
4.006727
4.257371
4.048571089
March
3.7D4
4.413899
3.53092
5.833821
5.506296257
3.944469
6.615002
3.483961
1.727165
2.580563876
April
4.219857
2.905903
2.755369
4.024821
3.99044536
3.485521
7.29012
4.064702
2.97963
2.784052128
May
2.202042
2.302043
2.952648
3.7203
3.634298076
2.536571
4.143011
3.205191
2.168964
1.973520898
June
2.204721
0.651087
2.505197
2.042466
4.303245559
4.979213
3.623897
3.558051
2.324152
1.46699488
July
1.604239
1.426544
1.691275
2.239653
5.128788435
2.103765
3.890529
3.296721
2.273928 -
AuBust
2.789999
0.90754
1.967588
2.540827
6.333304145
3.33911
2.855145
2.839533
1.960D76 -
September
2.271538
2.534715
2.350938
4.285812
4.52858664
4.881819
4.38091
3.772808
2.533492 -
October
3.300959
4.075567
1.757453
7.752003
4.688104662
5.275615
4.512317
3.810651
2.26964 -
November
2.498434
4.724666
2.573335
3.309312
4.1355002
5.238043
4.530121
2.975641
2.017238 -
December
2.720929
3.679689
3.22317
5.283662
2.927264671
6.16821
3.085298
4.62249
2.78757 -
Anova: Single Factor
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
2008
12
37.4799
3.123325
1.307791
2009
12
32.0537
2,671141
2.328338
2010
12
33.72775
2.810646
0.739133
2011
12
52.98951
4.415792
3.331974
2012
12
54.67426
4.556188
1.796534
2013
12
52.6636
4.388633
1.767031
2014
12
56.08771
4.673976
2.896599
2015
12
43.1431
3.595259
0.248957
2016
12
29.86164
2.48847
0.433732
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS
Between Groups 75.50586
Within Groups 163.351
f Ms F
8 9.438232 5.720107
99 1.65001
Total 238.8568 107
Month
2008
- 2016
January
5.491002
2.562411
February
4.472181
4.257371
March
3.704
1.727165
April
4.219957
2.97963
May
2.202042
2.168964
June
2.204721
2.324152
July
1.604239
2.273928
August
2.789999
1.960076
September
2.271538
2.533492
October
3.300959
2.26964
November
2.498434
2.017238
December
2.720929
2.78757
303(d) Listing Year Collection Year
P-value F crit
5.56111E-06 2.033295
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
2008 12 37.4799 3.123325 1.307791
2016 12 29.86164 2.48847 0.433732
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df Ms F P-value F crit
Between Groups 2.418247 1 2.418247 2.7771641 0.109793038 4.30095
Within Groups 19.15675 22 0.870761
Total 21.575 23

0
ui
rn
Qf
IL
a0+
G
W
0
7
a
0
i
Ig m
U
U z>
zUo
m
U"
0�
O
go;
-0 c
$
g
c
E
O
c g
pg
�
II
v c
E
c
E
c
0c
E
Q
o°
Q
a
a
e£
a
a
a e
Zo
z
z
g
42
g
Q
Q
-CO3
S
W
We
W`
W`
a
a
W`
We
w
E E i& a & a & a Z m m o m
E m E m $ m IR'S m m m 0 � E E 0 m 0 m m
z m m Q Q Q y my Q Q Q m E u Q m Q m Q II q
Y £ C1 p
O o u'S Q W p pul
p W 0 C T m o W
N i, M q N m n A r M W a
N r M 10 M N 10 m m C4 a
w
3
O N
O
C
h
r
N
co
I^O
fr
O
O1
O
7
N
N
;
pp
7
m
�
ui
ri
^
W
A
U
i
J
F
$FFFj
N
cli
Of
C%j
r
to
o
N
vi
M
Sri
M
ui
O
LL w
0
(
J
7 C
a >
C
>
j
C
c
C
c
C
c
C
C
C
z w
c
c
c
w
E
E
E
E
E
z
m
d
cwy 3
3
t
L
LL w X
X
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
N
IA
N
N
In
1D
10
O
H lU
Gom
Cl)M
m
M
st
T
M
�
W
g QO
wi
o
_z
'
O
o
m
�
O
O
O
tJ
i
r
O
r
O
O
O
•-
O
O
II
x
CD
x
x
x
a
=
II
II
m
II
II
L
r
v y
v A
vgo
=
v
v O
v
p
m
a p
a F
CL
tu CDm
i
�°
E
m
.'O-
'�
o m
0
�°
SOS.
a�
2 O
O
* O C
_A
O O
O O
O O
O c
O 5
►-
F
F-
F-
h e
F c
r$
o$
Gi
a c
z
O
t 0
2
Z� o
2 0
6 o
O
►- O
o
F o
O
O
U
� U
>
> U
U
U
U
N
U
UJ
U
U
,q
-0
_0
g
�i
v
v
0
,v_
II
U
U
-6
to'
N
{
0 C
C
C
c
c
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
7
3
7
3g0)
7
7
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
.
O
W
W
W
W
W
J
v'
A
F d
O
0
O
0
O
,o
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
a
O
o
O
0
m m
N N
0 0
M M M p_M st v Cl) Cl) M Cl) m
! N N N N N N N N N N N
rn o r. v o� rn
CDr o r o 0 o r o

a
`o
N N N N N N N
N
d Q d d
6 O d da
da d w
Q LL a a
a
N N N N
U Z ITa a a
—
l.1 ' ti
' z r r r
r Z. r
r r ,
,
N r r
p
O
O
Ch Z m
DO
pu
Oy
un
O
p
p
0
m
co IY
c
A
p
O
p
p
O
O n
IN
to
V
I
p
p
> LL
O LL
COL,
H d a
a
I d
w Q
w
in
vdi
inG
O
N
r r A
C
Q •A
N N
LL
N
C li
N
C li
e-I
VI r
d
i
of LL LL
. N N N N N
Vi C d A 6 V1 ' d y c
;
LL " In
ti
^
d d da
LL d d 6'
dto
O
O
N
N d
N
fIf
OI
1� V
cn In U
3
rl V
$ 3
'i U
�'-
ri U
3
d N w v H
a
In
In '-
c
Off
c
d
Q�
-' Q
Y
m
C p
m A
a
N
Q
In
Q In
o
O
fO LL
d
m LL
a.d
N
m LL
an
A
0
d
m�
°° a
a
r r r r r
1 LL LL '
OO r r r
1
r i r
1
r
r i i Li r
A
A
Ln
O
N
_0 .may.
'p�
z C 1 d
Q
C
O
p
p i
a
3 n
w d —
LL ^ i LL
o N g N
n ei r
�'"
LL n N N N
�.
LL n N N N
c
2 0 N N N
}
1 A d N d
1 d as a
1 d 1 1 d a s �i a•
d
C
O a a
<
0
<
0
0
G
U
cc
z
z
w
oc
w
w
N N N .N/1to
�
d
A
O N
Z
c
75
fC0 a
G
C
C
'n
n
E
d E
Ea
O a
a o.
y a
�
o
E
O
NZ
C
CO
= d
C
C
O C
N C
>N
M
Z
Z ' ' r
ZQ
Z ¢
ZEd
i r
c
O
C
C
O
Y
j
V
G
V
V
7
to
V
V
U
m
bjD
N
3
_C
•L
paR
r r r r r
LL rr
d C E
a
N N N
A O m
aR C N N 'n
O 10 f0 N
N N N N
�C
N N N
N0
o
LL
N
N R d > d
Ol G
d d d
A N 10
N d d d d
0 0 A
d a a a
O
Z
Y
ni
11
I —
M t
In
of V
~ J
N t
W J
_
Off
—
y
a�
o
aQ'o Q
m
o u
u
r
E
kCL
OO
U
Z i as c a
Z k r LL LL
k
Z 4 r
LL r
z ti
to
N
o
CD
N
p
��y
to.c
a
\
N
N
E
41
Vl
\
\
O
,•,
e\•1
r1
e•7
N
N
.d..
w ti
w�,LLLL
w�
y
.� �co
E
E
x
m
m
m
d m
m
m
O
F-
. /
o
o
>
«y A a
y A
m
ar
c
°
m
c
m o 0 0 0 o
u .°Oi
d '� ti .�-
r
s In N ti
r
m N LM W�
chi
= v LA
a
N N N N N
N N N
N N N N
J N N N
j O O O O
N
/nC
N N N 'V
C
LU
1.1 LL
aN�r
LL
N N N
�11
d
d
N
Gl d
1.1 d
LL
m LL `
III CL
r
O
a
N 1_
E
m 'O
E ^_
E 'OYj
n
r
� y
V
r
¢-S
o
Q
10 w
f0 .a
I
a
�?
tJ
Q V
4 V
a 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 Fee Type
1 IN 2 15 1 3 NCO024244 111 12 18/02/22 117 18 UC 19 i I 201 I
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 OA — --- Reserved I
67 70 [ I 71 I I 72 L ti j 731 I 174 75I I I I I I I 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Long Creek WWTP
1040 Coble Ave Extension
Albemarle NC 28002
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(sy itles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Brandon Wesley Plyler/ORC/704-984-9630/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Tide/Phone and Fax Number
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
10:23AM 18/02/22 1 13/01/01
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
12:20PM 18/02/22 1 14/02/28
Other Facility Data
Michael Fertis,190 PO Box Albemarle NC 28002/City Contacted
Manager/704-984-9410/7049849406 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance 0 Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review t Effluent/Receiving Waters
Laboratory
I Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) I
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Roberto Schaller MRO WO//252-946-6481/
Signature of Management O A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and' Fax Numbers Date
W. Corey Basinger MRO WQ/a704-235-2194/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO0242" �11 12L 18/02/22 17 18 I C I
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO024244
Inspection Date: 0212PJ2018
Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
®
❑
❑
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Permit expired February 28. 2014 with draft permit sent out for review.
Record Keeping
Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
❑
❑
❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
110
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
®
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Records were current and available for review. Facility has in house lab for
rocess control
and conducts field analyses under certification #5648. All other analyses are
performed b
Statesville Analytical Inc.. ETS Inc., Environmental 1.
Operations & Maintenance
Yes No NA NE
Page# 3

Permit: NCO024244 Owner -Facility: Long Creek W WTP
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable IR ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: Treatment processes appeared to be well operated.
Bar Screens
Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Facilty is fitted with mechanical and manual by -Gass bar screens
Grit Removal
Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Grit removal appeared to be operating properly at time of inspection.
Influent Sarrtollntt
Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Ir
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees+
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
�l
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Influent samples collected at headworks of treatment oplant. Influent._s� was noted at 3
decrees Celsius at time of inspection.
Page# 4

Permit: NCO024244
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018
Pum Station -Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Owner -Facility: Long CreekWWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes .No NA NE
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
0111111
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ N ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: Influent is pumped over to aeration basins b use of influent screw Pumps. One of the four
screw gumps did not apoera to be in good condition but was re ooed as operational,
Aeration Basins
Yes. No NA NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑ ❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑ ❑
t
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑ ❑
❑.
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
❑ ❑
❑
Comment: Aeration basins have the abilitv to steD feed influent. It was noted that 2 of the 4 aeration_
basins had white foam on the surface as if basins were in start-up.
Secondary Clarifier
Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
E❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
E❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
E❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
a❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
2
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
E
❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO024244
Inspection Date: 02/22/2018
Owner -Facility: Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately Y4 of the sidewall depth) ff ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Secondar , clarifiers anheared to be in 000d operational condition. D_ urina_ inspection it was
noted that weirs on secondary clarifiers were exceptionally clean.
Pum#xs-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Cross
flow
Is the filter media present?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
t
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
❑
❑
❑
a
Is the scouring acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
❑
❑
F
❑
Comment: Review of Total Suspended Solids TSS data reported on DMR's for the year 2017
indicated that TSS is unusually high for this facility._ It is therefore recommended that tertiary_
filters be inspected for damage and repaired as necessary. It was noted at time of
inspection that new replacement filter material has been received at WWTP.
Disinfection -Gas
Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
❑
❑
❑
a
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
❑
❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- -_)
1000-0012-3092
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
10/14/2013
Comment:
Page# 6

Permit: NC0024244 Owner - Facility:
Long Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/2212018 Inspection Type:
Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection -Gas
Yes No NA NE
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
[loom
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑ ❑
a
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
a ❑
❑
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑ ❑
❑
Comment: Facility is using Sodium Bisulfite for dechlorination.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
❑ ❑
❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Drying Beds
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
❑
❑
2
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
❑
❑
F
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
ir:
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Drying beds are being used to dry alum sludge from water treatment plant.
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?
❑
a
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Generators are maintained by Kraft Power Equipment.
Page#
7

Permit: NCO024244
Inspection Date: 02l2=018
Standby- Power
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Owner - Facility: Long Creek W WTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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: It was noted at time of inspection that effluent sampler was 1 degree Celsius.
Flow Measurement - Influent
# 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: Flaw meter was last calibrated on January 16. 2018.
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
L-MMMMMEl
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Albermarle - Long Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NCO024244
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): _ 12
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 1.6
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 9.5 I
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-NA)
1.6
s7Q10 (CFS)
1.6
12
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12
18.6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
18.6
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
92.08
IWC (%)
92.08
18
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.1
t.i1 A
7313
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
w7Q10 (CFS)
9.5
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
18.6
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
1.09
Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)
0.22
IWC (%)
66.19
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.6
P1 A
_31
OA
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/I
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Albermarle - Long Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NCO024244
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 16
Enter s7010 (cfs): 1.6
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 9.5
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/i)
1.6
s7Q10 (CFS)
1.6
16
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
16
24.8
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
24.8
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
93.94
IWC (%)
93.94
18
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.1
M,4
3.3
0A
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
w7Q10 (CFS)
9.5
200/100m1
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
16
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
24.8
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
1.06
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
72.30
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.4
tAA
1,1
►,JA
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N1
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, 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/I
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

L
�i
C
�d
V
0
d
m
LV
if
N
_0
73
m
H
I
f
C 47
O
co co
co � m r- O Z •� N N
r pp O
m
1-11
N tG r lj.
r w N
��cq
FX
O
O
N
r Z
�~fJ•
N
C7
r
N
ate-
Qp
f0
N
O N
f} i]
C�.
Z
2
Z
Z Z
Z?
2
Z
Z 2
Z
Z
2 Z U 00
4ICD
L.j J
ca
cr
x x x x
0
E
ni
m
o Q
a
1
E (�
t}3
U
C} R: e
`
�
U
_.
t
a
ra _
U
c .
f0 c c
m
tz r
aEE
IDE o
Z Z W N a 2 d
s 2v
V o 0
v U L
m
N el 1 a0 O E N 2 � r- - s v T O - O
e- s �i
m a m w a es $ ee `ed m m m W m W w 8 a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
I I I I Q
t ! I cOa
o C,y
I ! I 1 N
C
v
aaci
o
O
N
N r0
O N
1
O U
C.
—
O
J �
E E
(81d
47
p O
N Old
U
q to
r 01
X:
�,C'�
MN�
2
O
Z
O
o
_
M I M u� iA m
r0
LY.,
w
of
J
rl�l 1 o
U
o
! t [
.ID
1 1 ! Io=
P
w
E
d
3
t tales
�t�lmlm
w
o
_
N
w x
_
�cull 1=
ID
a
z
®
a
c
3
R
V 3
ast=
a
=1 E! �i I m
3
a
W_
m
Z
E a
o
a c
m11,QI�
'
QQ
U
�co
ao
C N

W
102
r�r
rn
C
i
F
m
2
:7
N N N CO r
I° o W r W
W n O - OD
W
W N r M r
W Oa N W co
�h0Ol Nr
N O r CD q
� a CID ti N C
m II II II II II
Uo oocy
a
Ha°F- R
e
U U U U
I I I I I i I m I I
I I I I I I I I I
Z I I t I I J 1 E' is t I�
�EWNW
a I I 1 ! I I I to la
w I I I I I 1 I ��� o f I�
z I I I I0 I I t q= AID I�
t I I I I 1 I N Q N
I I I
0 I0 I�
E E a l CL Ira
i i i i i i i o EcD
I e t 1 I orb I
z to
c a z ��a °'a a �zv
rn '
vI � °� � of b I `c O t o U a � °° °i I "'• N l o, ,� ,^'„ U �o
�~ la N
i0oo
en
1 i
00
I o L1� o A 5 I.dP � a i�
U
IO P
z
O o 0
11 z o
W
IX 3
OD
N O O h h M
lJ
s11Nn o i .5 � a
'IOd
In IS, a O
N
7 \O
H q d M �
V
a
d N to N V�J fA V�i VJ
W � '� O � O O r^y O O O O
re ° a a a a a a a
0
Z
W A O O O N n
O N N W)
Z U M ~
N
LU
rIL
U V Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
F v
CL
v
O
K E
y~j C •L 7 7 U E ECL
E E E _� n
Q a Q CDV c Q P E c°� U
a r cti v C
a
A
O
d
a

0
iZ iZ i ig i i iZ i i� iZ +
iid i ii�cm iIs imm
c L0
T- i0i1 1
O Na
i� i� i i� i i i� i° i� i16 i
g2
1$ 1 f Z. 8 t8 I� 1$ I$ 1
i i 0 9 i9 iAl
i1 i i
i2 2i2
ieg
a IZ°�° IZ° I t$ z° $��zO° Iz°° Iz°° Iz
a I 00 t `" o I I I I 3 I I�
oro v 3 d ri 3"' Mc� �Uo N 3a ,a 3a
lt,
�iN � `c �' d O 3 �z IO1
tJ O 7y ^,� U U- , O O O O U
tN chi Ia � � la � 43 I'a y " Ik � � I•'a � 23 i'� u � 1•i3
CQ l�Q Ij>� I aI�Q I�� Iv-egoQ I�� Q
I- I z 1 z Q !� z1U z ! ! a ! z I z 1 z 1 z
> >
r. �" N r N N d
�C4 1
a
m i
,A M h Vl h M G M C E M O O
O - - N
o
N _
IE n v n
oo OIn
O NI
r O V) N N
a W O
.fir M
m b N
a a a a a a a a a a a
L
•., r a O
r O 00
cq
O
.i. N 00 N O M N
N
L
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z V U U
m
A m m
m m m
IL E E n E E
m m m ? m E E
?T Z m h a a
O fq T
u
N
O i
0
Z 1

ymi
3
L
a
a
Q
m
L
d
a
e
0 5
O m
H
L �
.Fr
d
O
L �
a
C4
m
ti
x
n
W
3
C
m
W
a`m
W w` a
a
a
a
n
o
a
d
a
�3
a
as
a
o.
a 0. IL
a a a 0. a a a a a a
I ! ! �a
! ! ! O Cc',
t 1 !
! I i �
IL
cax
€
ae
�
�Y
v
Q R = = LLd
0
w
0
c
a�
Cc,�=
O
o
O
m rn N
E E
dN
N
C4
N
E;O
O
co
U
g
U
e-
P?
er
CD `
O� O T
E C�7 [�,� N a
.=LL»
ci,
U
Z
r
r-
O
J
M
O
�i�m rnlui m N
l 7
10
Y
C
r
C
v
I l i IE
d❑
•Q
I l t y
I t 1 +�
FQ=
1
i i
T
I 1 i
LU
w
3
al m1 m1 m
mI c1
o
}
6I�
�121 `m1
a
z
a
d
3
v�
c
d
V
i
3
in
�`oMIMI=
=I Ems!
cam+
a
N—
fl
y
z
E
Q'
,n
3
-- ao
cl c
m E i !
o
m
W
c
o
'a
d
a
r
�r g� r
r.M el E.
ILL
z
0
ti
dl ❑
r-
%
co c7
W 5 o l o
G❑

IWs�
V
W Zm r M
O
m01
l0
Wo►
IH 0 O N
R C9 N P O!
�Re090mN
C
W M O Of
aOa COS 9
CI ti N V
CD
M
Q
O
�
V
x
x
m
♦�.+
IS
V
®
m m1®A
3J O
�
II II II II II II �
rA
Gn C/l N
_O O O Oa O'•S
o, cy a
t o
w
�
a
G7
/�
ii
b0
Y
d
N
V
N
p�
O
O
00
Z
E I E
:3
I
p
1 I
I
I
1
I
I
a
N8
I:3
1 1 3
l a
I
"-�.5
l i
la
w
I I
I
I
1
I
I
=g>
I
15
a
I I
I
l a
21
1
I I
I
I
1
I�
N=
Cut
! .2
I�
I I
I
2.1
I C
1
I
I
E€q
n I
Ida
I I
I N
t
I
I
ICD
_E
r�"
I
1CL-j
I I
1
I
1
I
I
E4
3g0�
c
I
Ias
I l 0
z
1 -00
z
l a
( -0I
z
I
=
r�A.Ua
a l
X Ir
lot
zo
in i
i
iN a
rn
�
3�
OM
en
3
III1
I1
II-
3 z
d)N
y
I 001 00
w
d
r✓
a x a
I�AIo
ni
5
a 5i
l�A 5
y
1 m�
a
IAA 5
1°0
5
to
..
m g
o n
Al
d I
W
F
d
d
U N
e� o
z
O
N
G.
O
h
N
O
O
7
h
'• OD
h M
s1M
a
n
00
�o
N
a
O
W
0
0
0
0
o
�p '�
a
a
;
a
a
N
o
C)
a
a
0
a a
a
z
a
_
O
N
eq
N
>a r
F
U
U
z
Z
z
z
Z
Z
Z z
LU
H
V
7
O
C
7
CL
_
A
2
d
7
�
�
Li
.2E
O
'CL
E
7
O
U
R'
0.
a
a
m
V
C
s
U
C=f
t
V
a
�
0
r
O
m
a

O
IZ
1
iZ
1 1
I IZ
1
I
1
I Z IZ
I
1
IZ
1
IZ
I
I�
la
1 I�
I
I is
is
I�
lym
a
I
�t
IQ
la
I I
i8
IQ
fa
I
0CY
I�
I��p
e`E
e`e
1
O eT 1 3R
$ I14i
I
1�
1
Ilgi
Ili
1
1
I
t tAt
W
I
_g
f 1g
l9
v
19
i
1
f
I
! 1
1
�IEL
i
Ia E
Ia
! Ia�g
I
1
1 a la
la
IQc�
I
la
la
1
I
d'
IzO�
It
1 Iz
v
I
' N QQ 1 �p
1
a' L`
Izom
I QQs
Iz2
I
!Z
Z
K Zg!Z�
!Zg
m la a s
ic` U 3
!� a
I- U
v
Iale a O
oq
IN UI a U o
IM
Ivi o
! IN a
to a> 1� U
!� to a
In U I00 U a
I�
Ivy, U
I
� �O y Q
fl z
.d.
IN �,
b
� v N v1
I of a
I
O a N N a>• Q
I `d I z
� d
In 7,
Q d Q z
I$ a z
11p 9d
lv
1
tu
iu;�
n!t A g
a .a ry
a�
i.Q�,
:3 i•p a�
i•p
i.Q,
a
z
IU z°IU z
I
I I z
I z
I z
I z
I
A N
00 R
n
O
N 4
O z
N
d
en
ON
ON
en
v
eq
e
Oen
h
In 7
IOf1
M C
M C -�
en O
V
za
z�
=
O
a,
t-
a
O
�
'°
N
hN
o
0
0
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
3a
d
o
N
m
00
�p
o
-n
N
O
,000
M
N
N
V
L
2
Z
Z
Z
2
Z
Z
V
V
V
I
I
CL E
_
c
R V
J d
C4
V N
O
O
0
Z
0 u c ? rc
Y Y =
z z m N
U)
2
f
_
I V
N
G
Ci
m
N
0
N

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Effluent Hardness
"PASTE SPECl/LL�
ifs' then'COPY",
aMjWMUn% data
Po istp ='SS.
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/4/2014
53
53
Sid Dev.
5.3979
2
12/8/2015
62
62
Mean
51.3329
3
7/29/2016
51.25
51.25
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
8/1/2016
46.28
46.28
n
7
5
8/2/2016
52.1
52.1
10th Per value
46.65 mgA
6
8/3/2016
46.9
46.9
Average Value
51.33 mg/I
7
8/4/2016
47.8
47.8
Max. Value
62.00 mg/I
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
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Upstream Hardness
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
7/29/2016
70.65
70.65
Std Dev.
2
8/1/2016
62.63
62.63
Mean
3
8/2/2016
62.2
62.2
C.V. (default)
4
8/3/2016
25.6
25.6
n
5
8/4/2016
35.5
35.5
10th Per value
6
Average Value
7
Max. Value
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use 'PASTE SP"
vj lt'", dun'Cdf
. WA-JM em Ebtx
51.3160
0.6000
5
29.56 mg/
51.32 rnW
70.65 mg/I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
'tilt
24244 RPA 12MGD, data
4/18/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
1 & Par02 U" 'PASTE SPEri4L 1
Arsenic v&W*X- mfn •C❑p,-I
Msr�m4+n only
y4PLs=5!
a
D D t3DL- /
te ata -12DL
6/34014 < 5 2.5
7/1/2014 < 5 2.5
8/6/2014 < 5 2.5
9/4/2014 < 5 2.5
1017/2014 < 5 2.5
11/4/2014 < 5 2.5
12/2/2014 < 5 2.5
12/4/2014 < 5.4 2.7
1/20/2015 < 5 2.5
3/10/2015 < 5 2.5
4/7/2015 < 5 2.5
5/5/2015 < 5 2.5
6/4/2015 < 5 2.5
7/7/2015 < 5 2.5
8/4/2015 < 5 2.5
9/1/2015 < 5 2.5
10/812015 < 5 2.6
11 /17/2015 < 5 2.5
12/8/2015 < 6.8 3.4
12/8/2015 < 5 2.5
1/6/2016 < 6.8 3.4
2/2/2016 < 5 2.5
3/1/2016 < 5 2.5
4/7/2016 < 5 2.5
5/3/2016 < 5 2.5
6/9/2016 < 5 2.5
7/12/2016 < 5 2.5
8/2/2016 < 5 2.5
9/13/2016 < 6.8 3.4
10/4/2016 < 5 2.5
11/1/2016 < 5 2.5
12/8/2016 < 5 2.5
8/3/2017 < 5 2.5
9/7/2017 < 5 2.5
16/312017 < 2.5 1.25
11/212017 < 2.5 1.25
12/5/2017 < 2.5 1.25
1/11/2018 < 2.5 1.25
2/7/2018 < 2.5 1.25
Results
Results
Std Dev.
0.6'2t
Mean
2.4141
C.V.
0.2124
n
39
Mult Factor = 1.04
Max. Value 3.4 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw O DETECTS ug/L
24244 RPA-12MGD, data
2 - 4/18/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/8/2015 < 0.1 0.05 Std Dev.
2 12/4/2014 < 0.1 0.05 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5.
Par04
uaa'PAS tF $pECiai
va!uvb" ti,an'COPI
. ,V asrmum a�fa
Date Data
0.009-1
1
1/14/2014
0.0500
2
2/5/2014
0.0000
3
W412014 <
2
4I
4/2/2014 <
5
5/6/2014 <
6
Mu@ Factor = 1.00
6
6/3/2014
<
7
Max. Value 0.05 ug/L
7
7/1/2014
8
Max. Pred Ow 0 DETECTS ug/L
8 L
8/612014
<
9
9
9/4/2014
10
10
10/7/2014
<
11
11 `
11/4/2014
<
12
12'
1212/2014
<
13
13
1/20/2015
<
14
14
2/312016
15
15
3/10/2015
<
16
16
4/7/2015
<
17
17
5/5/2015
<
18
18
6/4/2015
<
19
19
7/7/2015
<
20.
20
8/4/2015
<
21
21
9/1/2015
22
22
10/8/2015
<
23
23,
11/17/2015
<
24
24
12/8/2015
25
25
1/6/2016
<
26
26
2/212016
<
27
27
3/1/2016
<
28
28
4l7/2016
<
29
29
5/3/2016
<
30
30
6/9/2016
<
31
31
7/12/2016
<
32
32
8/2/2016
<
33
33
9/13/2016
<
34
34
10/4/2016
35
35
11/1/2016
<
36
36
12/8/2016
<
37
37
1/12/2017
38
38
2/9/2017
39
39
317/2017
40
40
4/5/2017
41
41
5/3/2017
42
42
6/8/2017
43
43
7/6/2017
44
44
8/3/2017
45
45
9/7/2017
46
46
10/3/2017
<
47
47
11/2/2017
<
48
48
12/5/2017
49
49
1/11/2018
<
50
50
2/7/2018
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Cadmium
0.36
BDL=112DL
Results
1
1
Std Dev.
1.4
1.4
Mean
1
0.5
C.V.
1
0.5
n
1
0.5
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1.1
1.1
Max. Value
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
1_2
1.2
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1.4
1.4
1
0.5
1
0.5
1.8
1.8
0.36
0.18
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.18
1.6
1.6
1
0.5
1
0.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1
1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1
0.5
1
0.5
1.2
1.2
1
0.5
1.2
1.2
- � Urr 'PA ZTE SPECMFParO:
.
varuas' nn+f,'Copv-
pans = % I�
0.7592
0.5533
50
1.04
1.800 ug/L
1.872 ug/L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
24244 RPA_12MGD, data
- 3 4/18/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Total Phenolic Compounds I
IJ"'PA,STE WE
Valuaa" Shan `Cei
. Yar}m"m data
µUITAN a "
Date Data BDL=112DL Results L _ v
12/8/2015 < 30 15 Std Dev. O.�bG0
12/4/2014 < 30 15 Mean 15.0000
C.V. 0.0000
n 2
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 15.0 ug/l
Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/l
usa 'PASIE SPECIAL
Chromium, Total Valol1 fto G°r
MaxNuM data
jw tbts ,� .%
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
1
1/1412614
21.7
21.7
2;
2/5/2014
28
28
3
3/412014
13.6
13.6
4
4/2/2014
21.8
21.8
5
5/6/2014
20.4
20.4
6
6/312014
22.5
22.5
7
7/1/2014
25.8
25.8
8
8/6/2014
20.8
20.8
9
9/4/2014
27
27
10
10/7/2014
36.3
36.3
W
11/4/2014
45.1
45.1
12
12/2/2014
20.9
20.9
13
1/20/2015
12.5
12.5
14
2/3/2015
21.5
21.5
15
3/10/2015
13.9
13.9
16
4/7/2015
22.6
22.6
17
5/5/2015
30.7
30.7
18
6/4/2015
27.2
27.2
19
7/7/2015
36.4
36.4
20
8/4/2D15
43
43
21
9/1/2015
5&1
55.1
22
9/14/2015
40
40
23
9/29/2015
43.7
43.7
24
9/30/2015
47.4
47.4
25
10/8/2015
27
27
26
11/17/2015
20.1
20.1
27
12/8/2015
19.8
19.8
28
1/6/2016
14.9
14.9
29
2/2/2016
24.6
24.6
30
3/1/2016
13.8
13.8
31
4/7/2016
55
55
32
4/27/2016
23.5
23.5
33
5/3/2016
21.3
21.3
34
6/9/2016
26.4
26.4
35
7/12/2016
19.2
19.2
36
8/2/2016
20
20
37
9/13/2016
26.1
26.1
38
10/4/2016
22.8
22.8
39
11/1/2016
23.2
23.2
40
12/8/2016
31.1
31.1
41
1/12/2017
18.7
18.7
42
2/9/2017
21.1
21.1
43
3/7/2017
15.8
15.8
44
4/5/2017
20
20
45
5/3/2017
12.6
12.6
46
6/8/2017
15
15
47
7/6/2017
11.1
11.1
48
8/3/2017
17.4
17.4
49
9/7/2017
11.3
11.3
50
10/3/2017
12.2
12.2
51
11/2/2017
18
18
52
12/5/2017
20
20
53
1/11/2018
35
35
54
2/7/2018
8.6
8.6
55
56
57
58
Results
Std Dev.
10.8905
Mean
24.5093
C.V.
0.4443
n
54
Mull Factor = 1.02
Max. Value 55.1 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 56.2 vg/L
Date Da
1 1114/2014
2 2/5/2014
3 3/4/2014
44/2/2014
5 5/6/2014
6 6/3/2014
7 7/1/2014
8 8/6/2014
9 9/4/2014
10 10/7/2014
11 11/4/2014
12 12/2/2014
13 1/20/2015
14 2/312015
15 3/10/2015
16 4/7/2015
17 5/5/2015
18 6/4/2015
19 71712015,
20 8/4/2015
21, 9/1/2015
22 10/8/2015
23 11/17/2015
24 12/8/2015
25 1/6/2016
26 2/212016
27 3/1/2016
28 4/7/2016
29 5/312016
30 6/9/2016
31 7/12/2016
32 8/2/2016
33 9/13/2016
34 10/4/2016
35 11/1/2016
36 12/8/2016
37 1/12/2017
38 219/2017
39 2/15/2017
40 37/2017
41 4/5/2017
42 513/2017
43 6/8/2017
44 7/6/2017
45 8/3/2017
46 9/7/2017
47 10/3/2017
48 11 /2/2017
49 12/5/2017
50 1 /11 /2018
51 2/7/2018
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
24244 RPA_12MGD, data
- 4 - 4/18/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
to
BDL=1/2DL
Results
50.1
50.1
Std Dev.
110
110
Mean
89.8
89.8
C.V.
96.3
96.3
n
90.8
90.8
102
102
Mult Factor=
104
104
Max. Value
69A
69.4
Max. Pred Cw
111
111
135
135
110
110
63.9
63.9
57.8
57.8
66.2
66.2
52.1
52.1
72.3
72.3
83.5
83.5
88.8
88.8
91.4
91.4
83.9
83.9
105
105
63
63
35.1
35.1
52
52
38.6
38.6
59.7
59.7
32.6
32.6
64.4
64.4
51.7
51.7
67
67
62.8
62.8
47.6
47.6
66
66
56.4
56.4
62.5
62.5
72.6
72.6
50.1
50.1
73
73
110
110
59.6
59.6
52.8
52.8
39.1
39.1
29.5
29.5
35.9
35.9
55.1
55.1
86.8
86.8
55.6
55.6
48
48
66
66
59
59
33
33
live *PASTE Spsct
Valune than •COP
ML in+um data
paints = 56
68.9961
0.3564
51
1.02
135.00 ug/L
137.70 ug/L
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
6/3/2014
<
5
5
Sid Dev.
2
7/1/2014
<
5
5
Mean
3
8/6/2014
<
5
5
C.V.
4
9/4/2014
<
5
5
n
5
10/7/2014
<
5
5
6
11/4/2014
<
5
5
Mult Factor =
7
12/2/2014
<
5
5
Max. Value
8
12/4/2014
<
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
1/20/2015
<
5
5
10
2/3/2015
<
5
5
11
3/10/2015
<
5
5
12
4/7/2015
<
5
5
13
5/5/2015
<
5
5
14
6/4/2015
<
5
5
15
7/7/2015
<
5
5
16
8/4/2015
<
5
5
17
9/1/2015
<
5
5
18
10/8/2015
<
5
5
19
11/1712015
<
5
5
20
12/8/2015
<
5
5
21
12/8/2015
<
5
5
22
1/6/2016
<
5
5
23
2/2/2016
<
5
5
24
3/1/2016
<
5
5
25
4/7/2016
<
5
5
26
5/3/2016
<
5
5
27
6/9/2016
<
5
5
28
7/12/2016
<
5
5
29
8/2/2016
<
5
5
30
9/13/2016
<
5
5
31
10/4/2016
<
5
5
32
11/1/2016
<
5
5
33
12/8/2016
<
5
5
34
3/7/2017
<
5
5
35
4/5/2017
<
5
5
36
6/8/2017
<
5
5
37
1/11/2018
9
5
38
2/7/2018
<
5
5
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
We 'BASTE $P f CI
VdutV thtn "COP
maxinum dmta
pain1a - 59
5.00
0.0000
38
Date
1
1/14/2014 <
2
2/5/2014 <
3
3/4/2014 <
4
4/2/2014 <
5
5/6/2014 <
1.00
6
6/3/2014
<
5.0 ug/L
7
7/1/2014
<
5.0 ug/L
8
8/6/2014
<
9
9/4/2014
<
10
10/7/2014
<
11
11/4/2014
<
12
12/2/2014
<
13
1 /20/2015
<
14
2/3/2015
<
15
3/10/2015
<
16
4/7/2015
<
17
5/5/2015
<
18
6/4/2015
<
19
7/7/2015
20
8/4/2015
<
21
9/1/2015
<
22
10/8/2015
<
23
11/17/2015
<
24
12/8/2015
<
25
1 /6/2016
26
2/2/2016
<
27
3/1/2016
<
28
4/7/2016
<
29
5/3/2016
<
30
6/912016
<
31
7/12/2016
<
32
8/2/2016
<
33
9/13/2016
34
10/4/2016
<
35
11 /1 /2016
<
36
12/8/2016
<
37
1/12/2017
<
38
2/9/2017
<
39
3/7/2017
<
40
4/5/2017
<
41
513/2017
<
42
6/8/2017
<
43
7/6/2017
<
44
8/3/2017
<
45
9/7/2017
<
46
10/3/2017
<
47
11 /2/2017
<
48
12/5/2017
<
49
1/11/2018
<
50
2/7/2018
<
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2Z
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
-5-
24244 RPA_12MGD, data
4/18/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Lead
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1.25
Std Dev.
1.25
Mean
1.25
C.V.
1.25
n
1.25
1.25
Mu14Factor =
1.25
Max. Value
1.25
Max. Pred Ow
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
3.8
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
3.1
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
3.1
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.26
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Par16
usr -PASTE SPEWL
vImu.I- ui.n •car'v`
Molybdenum
J/aalmum oat&
aema = ae
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
_
0.5064
1
6/3/2014
<
2.5
1.25
Std Dev.
1.3750
2
7/1/2014
<
5
2.5
Mean
0.3683
3
816/2014
<
2.5
1.25
C.V.
50
4
9/4/2014
<
2.5
1.25
n
5
10/712014
<
2.5
1.25
1.03
6
11/4/2014
<
2.5
1.25
Mult Factor =
3.800 ug/L
7
12/2/2014
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Value
3.914 ug/L
8
1/20/2015
<
2.5
1.25
Max. Pred Cw
9
2/3/2015
<
2.5
1.25
10
3/10/2015
<
2.5
1.25
11
4/7/2015
<
2.5
1.25
12
5/5/2015
<
2.5
1.25
13
6/4/2015
2.7
2.7
14
7/7/2015
<
2.5
1.25
15
8/4/2015
2.9
2.9
16
9/1/2015
2.8
2.8
IT
10/8/2015
<
2.5
1.25
18
11/17/2015
<
2.5
1.25
19
12/8/2015
<
2.5
1.25
20
1/6/2016
<
2.5
1.25
21
2/2/2016
<
2.5
1.25
22
3/1/2016
<
2.5
1.25
23
4/7/2016
<
2.5
1.25
24
5/3/2016
<
2.5
1.25
25
6/9/2016
<
2.5
1.25
26
7/12/2016
<
2.5
1.25
27
8/2/2016
<
2.5
1.25
28
9/13/2016
<
2.5
1.25
29
10/4/2016
<
2.5
1.25
30
11/1/2016
<
2.5
1.25
31
1/12/2017
<
2.5
1.25
32
2/9/2017
<
2.5
1.25
33
7/6/2017
<
2.5
1.25
34
8/3/2017
<
2.5
1.25
35
1/11/2018
.<
2.5
1.25
36
2/7/2018
<
2.5
1.25
37
38
39
1
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Ws 'PRSYV SPEC
vai"I"V-4Et";0
*��fft�h,JA.0
;�Mu.66
OAT20
1.4139
0.3344
36
1.08
2.9 ug/L
3.1 ug/L
L Par17 8 Par18
Nickel
Date
Data
BDL=l/2DL
1
1/14/2014
4
4
2
2/5/2014
4.5
4.5
3
3/4/2014
4.3
4.3
4
4/2/2014
7.8
7.8
5
5/612014
5.9
5.9
6
6/3/2014
3.2
3.2
7
7/1/2014
8.6
8.6
8
8/6/2014
2.8
2.8
9
9/4/2014
4
4
10
10/7/2014
5
5
11
11/4/2014
3.6
3.6
12
12/2/2014
2.6
2.6
13
1/20/2015
0.1
0.1
14
2/3/2015
0.4
DA
15
3/10/2015
3.5
3.5
16
4/7/2015
5.3
5.3
17
5/5/2015
6.5
6.5
18
6/4/2016
6.1
6.1
19
7/7/2015
5
5
20
8/4/2015
6.1
6.1
21
9/1/2015
5.2
5.2
22
10/8/2015
3.4
3.4
23
11/17/2015 <
2.5
1.25
24
12/8/2015
3.5
3.5
25
1/6/2016 <
1.8
0.9
26
2/2/2016
2.9
2.9
27
3/1/2016
2.8
2.8
28
4/7/2016
2.6
2.6
29
5/3/2016 <
2.5
1.25
30
6/9/2016 <
2.5
1.25
31
7/12/2016 <
2.5
1.25
32
8/2/2016 <
2.5
1.25
33
9/13/2016
2.3
2.3
34
10/412016
3.5
3.5
35
11/1/2016
2.6
2.6
36
12/8/2016
2.7
2.7
37
1/12/2017 <
2.5
1.25
38
2/9/2017
3
3
39
3/7/2017 <
2.5
1.25
40
4/5/2017 <
2.5
1.25
41
5/3/2017
3.5
3.5
42
6/8/2017 <
2.5
1.25
43
7/6/2017 <
2.5
1.25
44
8/3/2017
3.1
&1
45
9/7/2017
3.2
3.2
46
10/3/2017
5.3
5.3
47
11/2/2017
4.6
4.6
48
12/5/2017
3.1
3.1
49
1/11/2018
9
9
50
2/7/2018
2.6
2.6
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-6-
24244 RPA 12MGD, data
4/18/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
u.c 'PA$TE SPC0
Va+uea' man'ClDf
Maxlmym dela
mints s 5.,
Parl9
Selenium
Results
'
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Std Dev.
2.0504
1
1/14/2014
<
5
2.5
Mean
3.4320
2
2/5/2014
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.5974
3
314/2014
<
5
2.5
n
50
4
4/2/2014
<
5
2.5
5
5/6/2014
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.04
6
6/3J2014
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
9.0 ug/L
7
1/1/2014
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
9.4 Ng/L
8'
802014
<
5
2.5
9
9/4/2014
<
5
2.5
W
10/7/2014
<
5
2.5
11
- 11l4l2014
<
5
2.5
12
12/2/2014
<
5
2.5
13
1/20/2015
<
0.1
0.05
14
213/2015
<
0.5
0.25
15
3/10/2015
<
5
2.5
16;
417/2015
<
5
2.5
17
5/5/2015
<
5
2.5
18
6/4/2015
<
5
2.5
19
7/7/2015
<
5
2.5
20
8/4/2015
<
5
2.5
21
9/1/2015
<
5
2.5
22
10/8/2015
<
5
2.5
23
11/17/2015
<
5
2.5
24
12/8/2015
<
5
2.5
25
1/6/2016
<
5
2.5
26
2/2/2016
<
5
2.5
27
3/1/2016
<
5
2.5
28
4/7/2016
<
5
2.5
29
5/3/2016
<
5
2.5
30
6/9/2016
<
5
2.5
31
7/12/2016
<
5
2.5
32
8/2/2016
<
5
2.5
33
9/13/2016
<
6.2
3.1
34
10/4/2016
<
5
2.5
35
11l1/2016
<
5
2.5
36
12/8/2016
<
5
2.5
37
1/12/2017
<
5
2.5
38
219/2017
<
5
2.5
39
3/7/2017
<
5
2.5
40
4/5/2017
<
5
2.5
41
5/312017
<
5
2.5
42
6/8/2017
<
5
2.5
43
7/6/2017
<
5
2.5
44
8/3/2017
<
5
2.5
45
917/2017
<
5
2.5
46
10/3/2017
<
5
2.5
47
11/2/2017
<
5
2.5
48
12/5/2017
<
5
2.5
49
1/11/2018
<
5
2.5
50
217/2018
<
5
2.5
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Results
SW Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
use "PASTE aPECtALII Par20
Vl71M!' thrd 'COPY-
MasRhU�uau Silver
Crtsilih = 5K
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
0.4757
1
1/14/2014 <
2.4180
2
5/6/2014 <
0.1967
3
61312014 <
50
4`
7/1/2014 <
5
8/6/2014 <
Mult Factor = 1.01 6 9/4/2014 <
Max. Value 3.1 ug/L 7 10R/2014 <
Max. Pred Cw O DETECTS ug/L 8 12/2/2014 <
9 1/20/2015 <
10 3/10/2015 <
11
5/5/2015
<
12
6/4/2015
13
7/7/2015
<
14
8/4/2015
<
15
9/1/2015
<
16
10/8/2015
<
17
11/17/2015
<
18
1/6/2016
<
19
2/2/2016
<
20
3/112016
<
21
4/7/2016
<
22,
5/3/2016
<
23
6/9/2016
<
24
7/12/2016
<
25
8/2/2016
<
26
11/1/2016
<
27
12/8/2016
<
28
1/12/2017
<
29
2/9/2017
<
30
3/7/2017
<
31
5/3/2017
<
32
6/8/2017
<
33
7/6/2017
<
34
8/3/2017
<
35
9/7/2017
<
36
10/3/2017
<
37
11/2/2017
<
38
12/5/2017
<
39
1/11/2018
<
40.
2/7/2018
<
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
4 56
1 57
58
1.9 0.95
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.8 2.8
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
1,9 0.95
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
2.5 1.25
-7-
24244 RPA_12MGD, data
4/18/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Uw -PASTE SPECIAL-'
"'',ql' c�rr
Zinc
stnrmum wts
pni.+ts • 56
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
_
0.2=:C==
1
1/14/2014
<
50
25
Std Dev.
1.2738
2,
2/5/2014
70
70
Mean
0.2011
3
3/4/2014
<
50
25
C.V.
40
4
4/2/2014
70
70
n
5
516/2014
110
110
1.04
6;
6/3/2014
90
90
Mult Factor =
2.800 ug/L
7
7/1/2014
70
70
Max. Value
2.912 ug/L
8
8/6/2014
35
35
Max. Pred Cw
9
9/4/2014
70
70
10
10/7/2014
77
77
11:
11/4/2014
5.2
5.2
12
12/2/2014
50
50
13
1/2012015
<
50
25
14
2/3/2015
c
50
25
15
3/10/2015
58
58
16
417/2015
60
60
17
5/5/2015
79.3
79.3
18
6/4/2015
93.1
93.1
19
7/7/2015
71.6
71.6
20
8/4/2015
50
50
21
9/1/2015
<
50
25
22
10/8/2015
<
50
25
23
11/17/2015
<
50
25
24
12/8/2015
<
50
25
25
1/6/2016
29.9
29.9
26
2/2/2016
55
55
27
3/1/2016
40
40
28
4/7/2016
50
50
29
5/3/2016
53
53
30
6/9/2016
34
34
31
7/12/2016
50
50
32
8/2/2016
<
50
25
33
9/13/2016
33.9
33.9
34
10/4/2016
•
50
25
35
11/1/2016
<
50
25
36
12/8/2016
40
40
37
1/12/2017
50
50
38
2/9/2017
70
70
39
3/7/2017
72
72
40
4/5/2017
50
50
41
5/3/2017
40
40
42
6/8/2017
25
25
43 _
7/6/2017
50
50
44
8/3/2017
41
41
45
9/7/2017
100
100
46
10/3/2017
60
60
47
11/2/2017
38
38
48
12/5/2017
70
70
49
1/11/2018
65
65
50
2/7/2018
27
27
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
u04 -PATE S-PECIA�.�Par22
valuet'tnrn'Cdpri
Ells (2-ethyihexyQ phthalate
Mnknum pip
ownn = sa
i
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
23.3493
1
12/8/2015 < 1.7 0.85
Std Dev.
49.5600
2
12/4/2014 < 1.7 0.85
Mean
0.4711
3
9/18/2013 2.6 2.6
C.V. (default)
50
4
n
5
1.03
6
Mult Factor =
110.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
113.3 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
-8-
24244 RPA_12MGD, data
4/1812018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Um 'PASTE 5PUCAL�ar23
use "PAS Tr spEcua1 Par24
v■ruraa' thy" ^cdrv- Dichlorobromomethane va uea' darn -Copy
. Maxrmum da>'a . WA11friu n data
points = SE I pWnta • 58
Date Data
1 12/8/2015 <
1.4333 I 2 12/4/2014
0.6000 + 3 9/18/2013
3 4.
5
3.00 6
2.600000 Ng/L 7
7.800000 Ng/L 8'
9
10
11
12
13
14!
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
0.17 0.085
Std Dev.
2.0317
1.1 1.1
Mean
1.72.
4 4
E.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mutt Factor =
3.00
Max. Value 4.000000 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 12.000000 pg/L
1
2-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
`PASTE Sc
Chlorodibromomethane '•" " '
_ IAlfifnurn R
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
12/8/2015
1.1 1.1
Std Dev.
17
12/4/2014 <
0.17 0.085
Mean
1.7283
9/18/2013
4 4
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
4.000000
Max. Pred Cw
12.000000
-9-
24244 RPA_12MGD, data
4/1812018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par25
res' "n 'C 4
{sprnts = 58
I -
Date Data
1
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3'
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
0
5
6
Mull Factor =
NIA
pg/L
7
Max. Value
N/A
yg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
NIA
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
24244 RPA_12MGD, data
- 10 - 4/18/2018

kk
�§
,\
/f
Iƒ
UP
2I
ELL
U-
§w
!
2
_k
a
0
k� C,
kU
u ..
/Lu
o %a
�2
Q IL
LLZ
/
cv
2^048
$$R
8;
QCD0
R°
.f)a
22
CDa0
//»
�...
2 §
d `
mm2�
0
&-o
� kf�e

r

w
�0
I$ I
A
o go
..
LU
E 2
� ju- z
�2$�s
I�
;
SRC4°�
,
§C,C4o
§§
■�,E
_ ■
ME
Ell�
e Lna t°\2
2IZ;I$I Iq
Rl§R IkI©
§)f)
a-ff/
/ k
�j(k
k§§k/
`mlt�
j\k\/
§/
e■kk
§$I§e
§k�5)
21{2a
/)=J7
)
,13
I[§22
■§|�§
2 o 21
§�
k
��§§
=7
-=//r
m
R@\

Permit No. NCO024244
NPDES Im lementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Onality Standards/An»Atir T.ifa Prntartinn
Parameter
Acute FW,'µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic-FW, µg/l Acute SW, µg11
(Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150 69
36
Be Ilium
65
6.5 ---
---
Cadmium
Calculation'.-.
" Calculation . 40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation ---
---
Chromium VI
16
11 1100
50
Co er
Calculation
Calculation 4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation 210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation 74 18.2
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/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)) e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485)
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)) a"{0.9151[In hardness]-3.6236)
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[In h4rdness](0.041838)) a^{0:7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256)
Chromium III,. Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[In hardness]+0.6848)
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[In hardness]-1.700)
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 - eNO.8545[ln hardness]-1.702)
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) • e^{1.213[ln hardness]-1.460)
Lead, Chronic
WER* I 1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) • e^{1.273[In hardness]4.7051
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 - e^{0.8460[In hardness]+2.255)
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NC0024244
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/W BELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs)1.11
Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO024244
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= Permitted Flow. cfs *Av . Effluent Hardness m rI + (s7Q 10 cfs *Av . U stream Hardness m
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator.. Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation;
Sdiss= 1.
Ctotal 1 + { [W.[sst1+e>] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Ow) (Cwgs) — (s7010) (Cb)
Qv,
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 s7Q10)
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0024244
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
7Q10 summer (cfs)
1 Q 10 (cfs)
Permitted Flow (MGD)
Date:
Permit Writer: & .A (L I If(",, 11- -'-I ' ��
Value
Comments (Data Source)
51.33
PPAs, DMRs, and Samples from July
and August 2016 from Statesville
Analytical services
51.32
Samples from July and August 2016
from Statesville Analytical services
1.6
BIMS and projectfiles
1.34
RPA, calculations mem2/4/2010
12/16
BIMS and project files
Page 4 of 4

Long Creek WWTP/ NCO024244
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631 E)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
# of Samples
17
14
12
12
2
Annual Average, ng/L
10.2
7.8
4.8
4.6
6.8
Maximum Value, ng/L
26.60
14.00
11.00
7.20
8.90
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L r 1 r1 G 9
13.0

4/18/18 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Long Creek WWTP/ NC0024244
/Permit No.:
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date
Modifier Data Entry
Value
1/22/14
6.78
6.78
2/6/14
8.92
8.92
3/5/14
5.83
5.83
4/2/14
7.81
7.81
5/1/14
5.33
5.33
6/3/14
11.4
11.4
7/1/14
13
13
7/21/14
22
22
7/25/14
12
12
7/31/14
11.4
11.4
8/6/14
4.94
4.94
9/4/14
8.45
8.45
10/7/14
10
10
11/4/14
26.6
26.6
11/21/14
4.7
4.7
11/30/14
6.4
6.4
12/15/14
7.4
7.4
1/20/15
1.25
1.25
2/10/15
6.2
6.2
3/9/15
4.8
4.8
4/6/15
11.6
11.6
5/5/15
13
13
5/29/15
5.2
5.2
6/4/15
6.2
6.2
7/1/15
8.5
8.5
8/4/15
12
12
9/1/15
14
14
9/30/15
6.4
6.4
10/8/15
6.8
6.8
11/17/15
5.4
5.4
12/8/15
8.2
8.2
1/7/16
4.9
4.9
2/2/16
5.5
5.5
3/1/16
4.6
4.6
4/6/16
6
6
5/3/16
4.3
4.3
6/9/16
1
0.5
7/7/16
5.4
5.4
8/2/16
5.2
5.2
9/8/16
3.2
3.2
10/4/16
11
11
11/1/16
3.5
3.5
12/12/16
3.8
3.8
1/19/17
5.2
5.2
2/10/17
5.4
5.4
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
No Limit Required
MMP Required
7Q10s = 1.600 cfs WQBEL =
Permitted Flow = 12.000
V:2013-6
13.03 ng/L
47 ne/L
10.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2014
7.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
4.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016

3/7/17
5.9
5.9
4/5/17
3.5
3.5
5/3/17
2.8
2.8
6/8/17
3
3
7/6/17
4.28
4.28
8/3/17
2.4
2.4
9/7/17
2.9
2.9
10/3/17
5
6
11/2/17
7.2
7.2
12/12/17
6.1
6.1 4.6
1/11/18
8.9
8.9
2/7/18
4.7
4.7 6.8
ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
ng/L - Annual Average for 2018