NC0031836_Fact Sheet_20190211

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO031836
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: January 9, 2019
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 21 species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Statesville / Fourth Creek W WTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 1111, Statesville, NC 28687
Facility Address:
693 Bell Farm Road, Statesville, NC 28625
Permitted Flow:
4.0 MGD / 6.0 MGD Expansion
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 96.6% domestic, 3.4% industrial
Facility Class:
Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Influent pump station, perforated panel style bar screen system with a
washer and compactor, aeration basins with mechanical aerators, waste
and return sludge pumps, secondary wet well, three secondary clarifiers,
chlorine disinfection, de -chlorination system using sodium bisulfite,
aerobic sludge digester, gravity belt thickener, sludge filter press, N-viro
soil process residuals stabilization
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Iredell
Region
Mooresville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Statesville has applied
for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated September 16, 2013, received by
the Division on October 11, 2013. This facility serves a population of approximately 24,582 residents and
Page 1 of 13

operates a pretreatment program with four Significant Industrial User (SIUs), three of which are Categorical
Industrial Users (CIUs). The SIUs include ASMO North Carolina (CIU 433: metal finishing), Tube
Specialties (CIU 433: metal finishing), Advanced Tube Technology (CIU 433: metal finishing), Pratt
Industries (non -categorical). The average industrial flow rate was 0.049 MGD for the period of 2014-2016.
Permitted industrial flow is 0.137 MGD or 3.4% of the total permitted flow of 4.0 MGD.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001- Fourth Creek
Stream Segment:
12-108-20
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
46.5
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
7.5
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):
11.3
30Q2 (cfs):
16
Average Flow (cfs):
46.5
IWC (% effluent):
45 at 4 MGD, 55 at 6 MGD
303(d) listed/parameter:
This segment is not listed on the final 2016 303(d) list as
impaired (Category 5) for any parameter.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes, Turbidity (TSS 30 mg /L limit, 1001 lbs/day; allocation
not included in the permit per 2009 US EPA's recognition
that TSS from municipal facilities does not contribute to
ambient turbidity). Fecal Coliform due to non -point sources.
Subbasin/HUC:
Yadkin -Pee Dee 03-07-06 / 03040102
USGS Topo Quad:
D15SE Statesville East
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data is summarized below for the period February 2014 - January 2018.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit'
Flow
MGD
2.2
12.5
1.2
4.0 MGD
BOD5 summer (April 1
mg/L
3.2
173.0
< 2.0
MA = 17.0
through October 31)
WA = 25.5
BOD5 winter (November 1
mg/L
3.5
15.0
< 2.0
MA = 27.0
through March 31)
WA = 40.5
BOD removal
%
98.5
99.7
90.3
> 85
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
3.2
24.7
< 2.5
MA = 30.0
(TSS)
WA = 45.0
Page 2 of 13

TSS removal
%
99.1
99.8
97.8
> 85
NH3-N summer (April 1
through October 31)
mg/L
0.7
10.7
< 0.5
MA = 12.0
WA = 35.0
NH3-N winter (November 1
through March 31)
mg/L
0.7
5.3
< 0.1
MA = 18.0
WA = 35.0
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
8.3
13.6
5.7
DA > 5.0
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
#/100 mL
6
14,000
< 1
MA = 200
WA = 400
Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC)
µg/L
20
22
< 20
DM = 28
Temperature
°C
18
26
6
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
358
753
163
pH
SU
7.0
7.9
6.2
6.0 - 9.0
Total Nitrogen. (TN)
mg/L
7.15
18.93
2.40
Total Phosphorus (TP)
mg/L
1.35
5.56
0.08
Total MercuryMA
ng/L
209
11.8
< 1.0
= 27
DM = 27
'MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum; DA = Daily Average.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this permit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Temperature.
Instream monitoring for these two parameters is provisionally waived in light of the Permittee's
participation in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association (monitoring coalition). Data were available
for review for two instream Monitoring Coalition stations, Q3720000 (upstream) and Q3735000
(downstream), sampled from January 2013 through December 2016.
Dissolved oxygen remains a parameter of concern for aquatic life. The data analyzed for the period specified
above did not show any values below the DO standard of 5.0 mg/L at either instream station. The effluent
DO during this time ranged from 6.1-11.7 mg/L, with summer minima similar to those instream (Upstream
= 6.3 mg/L, Downstream = 7.0 mg/L). It appears that the effluent is not impacting the receiving stream DO.
Temperature remains a parameter of concern for aquatic life. The data analyzed for the period specified
above indicated that the temperature standard of 29°C for mountain and upper piedmont waters was not
exceeded at either instream station. The effluent temperatures ranged from 10-26°C. Upstream and
downstream measurements were not taken concurrently, so differences could not be calculated. However,
visual assessment of the three datasets revealed similar patterns (Fig. 1). Overall, thermal pollution from
the effluent does not appear to be affecting the instream temperature of the receiving stream.
Page 3 of 13

Fourth Creek WWTP - Instream Temperature
■ Upstream • Dnstream ♦ Effluent Standard
35
30
2520
♦• �y�
•
u 15 r� �♦ ♦ ♦►*
aAiP ■
A• 5 •♦* : jet • • • ■
0
�A\soya \yy\�oyti y`�oy� \y�(.\'V
Figure 1. Instream and effluent temperatures for the Fourth Creek WWTP, Iredell County, 2013-2016.
Conductivity is a parameter of concern due to industrial dischargers. Though not a current permit
requirement, conductivity data were available for the upstream and downstream monitoring coalition
stations. The data analysis found the downstream Conductivity values to be on average significantly higher
than those upstream (t = -6.47, p < 0.001). and effluent values were over 2.5 times higher on average than
downstream values. These patterns indicate that the WWTP's effluent is having an impact on the receiving
stream in terns of Conductivity. The facility has a pretreatment program with four industrial dischargers.
which include three metal finishers and one paper products processor. Therefore, instream Conductivity
monitoring has been added to the permit.
Fecal Coliform is a parameter of concern for aquatic life and human health. Though not a current permit
requirement, coliform count data were available for both upstream and downstream monitoring stations.
The data analysis found the downstream geometric mean coliform count to be twice that of the upstream
counts, but the effluent geometric mean was 5% of the upstream geometric mean (Table 2). These patterns
indicate that the WWTP effluent is not impacting the receiving stream in terms of Fecal Coliform. Given
the data and fact that the receiving water is not impaired due to Fecal Coliform, instream monitoring for
Fecal Coliform is not required and was not added to the permit.
Table 2. Descriptive statistic of Instream and Effluent Total Coliform counts (#/100 mL)
from January 2013 — December 2016.
Parameter
Upstream
Downstream
Effluent
Number data points
55
47
94
Geometric mean
123
355
6
Minimum
40
45
< 1
Maximum
4,200
1,800
14,000
From this review, the permit maintains instream monitoring requirements for DO and Temperature, and
Conductivity has been added. The instream monitoring requirements will continue to be waived as long as
the Permittee remains a member of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association (monitoring coalition).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): YES
Page 4 of 13

MGD, but not different than those at 6.0 MGD when rounded to the nearest whole number. The more
stringent limits at 4.0 MGD have been added to the permit (Table 3). No changes are made to the limits at
6.0 MGD.
Table 3. Current and new Ammonia-N Limits (mg/L) at 4.0 MGD.
Season
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Summer, current
12.0
35.0
Summer, new
2.0
6.0
Winter, current
18.0
35.0
Winter, new
4.7
14.1
Review of effluent data from February 2014 through January 2018 found no exceedences of the new weekly
average limits at 4.0 MGD, and only one value reported in May 2015 at 2.7 mg/L was found to exceed the
new monthly summer average limit.
Presentation of the new limits to the Permittee during a site visit was met with a request to consider alternate
limit calculations using the EPA's guidance "Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia —
Freshwater 2013", citing its recent use in another permit. A review of that case showed that the only reason
an alternate calculation was allowed was because the permittee performed a feasibility study and was able
to demonstrate that prohibitive cost upgrades were needed to achieve such limitations. DWR did use EPA's
guidance and criteria in developing the use of 1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter) in wasteload
allocations for all major facilities to protect against ammonia -nitrogen toxicity in North Carolina streams.
Alternative limits will not be considered unless the Permittee can demonstrate a feasibility and cost -
prohibitive hardship.
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 %z 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 December 2014
and September 2017 for the following parameters: arsenic, cadmium, total chromium, copper, cyanide,
lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. 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: Copper at both flow tiers.
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was > 50% of the allowable concentration: None.
• No Limit or Monitorine: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
Page 6 of 13

Name of Monitoring Coalition: Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA)
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility has had two BOD
permit limit violations for the period of January 2013 through March 2018.One, in May 2016, resulted in
a Notice of Deviation (NOD) and the other, in October 2016, resulted in a Notice of Violation (NOV).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 17 of 20 quarterly chronic toxicity tests (with one invalid test), as well as all
four second species chronic toxicity tests, sampled on 8/4/2013, 10/6/2013, 1/6/2014, and 4/6/2014.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection,
conducted on October 26, 2017, reported that overall the facility appeared to be properly maintained and
operated.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen FIR); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, BE).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/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), run in 1994 for instream DO protection. No changes were
made to the BOD limits.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing ammonia chronic criteria 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: The NH3/'TRC
Wasteload Allocation (WLA) spreadsheet was used to calculate limits using the annual 7QIOs of 7.5 cfs
and 7Q10w of 11.3 cfs for both flow tiers. The TRC limit is capped at 28 µg/L at both tiers and has been
maintained in the permit. The spreadsheet calculations resulted in more stringent ammonia limits at 4.0
Page 5 of 13

and the maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic,
Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel,
Selenium, Silver, and Zinc.
o Lead was reported below detection at 10 and 3 µg/L. The PQL for Lead is 2.0 µg/L. This
parameter must be reported to the lower level of the procedure.
o Selenium was reported below detection at 10 and 5 jig/L. The PQL for Selenium is 1.0
µg/L. This parameter must be reported to the lower level of the procedure.
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 Iimit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: NA
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: NA
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 of 45% at
4 MGD flow and 55% at 6 MGD flow, which will continue at the effluent on a quarterly frequency.
Mercu 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 4.0 or 6.0 MGD, and no individual mercury sample exceeded
the TBEL (Table 4), no mercury limit is required, and the limits in the current permit have been removed.
Since the facility is > 2 MGD and has reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L), a Mercury
Minimization Plan (MMP) has been added to the permit.
Page 7 of 13

Table 4. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
# of Samples
11
12
12
12
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
1.8
3.0
1.9
4.4
4.7
Maximum Conc., ng/L
3.6
11.8
3.5
11.7
4.7
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL at 4.0 MGD, ng/L
26.5
WQBEL at 6.0 MGD, ng/L
21.7
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The receiving stream, Fourth Creek, flows via the Yadkin River to High Rock Lake, which is
impaired for Chlorophyll a, pH and Turbidity. Chlorophyll a and pH impairments are associated with algal
blooms that are caused by excessive nutrient loadings to the lake. A nutrient TMDL was planned for High
Rock Lake, and TN and TP monitoring was increased from monthly to weekly in 2001 for its development.
Due to its location, the facility is a potential source of nutrient loadings to High Rock Lake and may be
subject to future limitations resulting from the nutrient strategy once developed and implemented. The
Division is working with the North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan Scientific Advisory
Council to develop criteria for TN, TP or related parameters. A nutrient re -opener special condition has
been added to the permit to allow the Division to insert any limits resulting from a TMDL, management
strategy and/or nutrient criteria once implemented.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or OR99 this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: From discussion with the Permittee,
a two-year compliance schedule has been added to the permit to meet the new Ammonia limits, and a three-
year compliance schedule has been added to meet the new Copper limits.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Munici als if not gpl2licable, delete and ski to Industrials
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg1L
BOD51TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BOD51TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES
Page 8 of 13

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:
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies. NA
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
Page 9 of 13

12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Permit conditions, limits and their proposed changes for 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD expansion flows are
summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 4.0 MGD.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 4.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Summer:
MA 17.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Based on 1995 agreement
BOD5
WA 25.5 mg/L
No change e
with facility to have BOD limits in
Winter:
terms of CBOD5,1991 WLA, and
MA 27.0 mg/L
for protection of DO standard.
WA 40.5 mg/L
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS
WA 45.0 mg/L,
No change
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406.
Summer:
Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Calculation results based
MA 12.0 mg/L
WA 6.0 mg/L
on NC's use of EPA criteria in
NH3-N
WA 35.0 mg/L
Winter:
developing 1.0 mg/L summer and
Winter:
MA 4.7 mg/L
1.8 mg/L winter in wasteload
MA 18.0 mg/L
WA 14.1 mg/L
allocations to protect against NH3-N
WA 35.0 mg/L
Add 2-yr compliance
toxicity. See WLA sheet attached.
schedule
WQBEL. Based on a 1991 WLA
DO
> 5 mg/L
No change
effective in 1995, and State WQ
standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200.
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 A 00 mL
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC
WA 400 /100 mL
2B .0200.
Total Residual
DM 28.0 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
Chlorine
WLA Calculation.
Temperature
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Conductivity
Monitor only
Add instream
15A NCAC 2B.0500; presence of
monitoring
SIUs.
15A NCAC 2B.0500; weekly
Total Nitrogen
Monitor only
No change
monitoring was set in 2001 for
development of nutrient
management strategy.
15A NCAC 2B.0500; weekly
Total Phosphorus
Monitor only
No change
monitoring was set in 2001 for
development of nutrient
management strategy.
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200.
Page 10 of 13

MA 29.0 µg/L
DM 37.0 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
Total Copper
No requirement
Add 3-yr compliance
exceed WQS found, Permittee's
schedule
ability to comply.
MA 27.0 ng/L
Remove limits from
Total Mercury
DM 27.0 ng/L
permit. Add Mercury
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Minimization Plan
Ceriodaphnia dubia
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Chronic Toxicity
Pass/Fail at 45%
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
effluent
15A NCAC 2B.0500.
Effluent Pollutant
Conduct annually
Conduct three times
40 CFR 122
Scan
per permit cycle
Total Hardness
No requirement
Add effluent and
Based on adoption of hardness -
upstream monitoring
dependent metals.
MGD = Million Gallons per Day; MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
Table 6. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 6.0 MGD.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 6.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Summer:
MA 17.0 mg/L
WQBEL. Based on 1995 agreement
BODS
WA 25.5 mg/L
No change
with facility to have BOD limits in
Winter:
terms of CBOD5,1991 WLA, and for
MA 27.0 mg/L
protection of DO standard.
WA 40.5 mg/L
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406.
Summer:
WQBEL. Calculation results based
MA 2.0 mg/L
on NC's use of EPA criteria in
NH3-N
WA 6.0 mg/L
No change a
developing 1.0 mg/L summer and
Winter:
1.8 mg/L winter in wasteload
MA 4.0 mg/L
allocations to protect against NH3-N
WA 12.0 mg/L
toxicity. See WLA sheet attached.
WQBEL. Based on a 1991 WLA
DO
> 5 mg/l
No change
effective in 1995, and State WQ
standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200.
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100 mL
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC
WA 400 /100 mL
2B .0200.
Total Residual
DM 28.0 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
Chlorine
WLA Calculation.
Temperature
Monitor only
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Conductivity
Monitor only
Add instream
15A NCAC 2B.0500; presence of
monitoring
SRJs.
Page 11 of 13

15A NCAC 2B.0500; weekly
Total Nitrogen
Monitor only
No change
monitoring was set in 2001 for
development of nutrient
management strategy.
15A NCAC 2B.0500; weekly
Total Phosphorus
Monitor only
No change
monitoring was set in 2001 for
development of nutrient
management strategy.
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200.
Total Copper
No requirement
MA 23.9 µg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable potential to
DM 31.0 µg/L
exceed WQS found.
MA 22.0 ng/L
Remove from permit.
Total Mercury
DM 22.0 ng/L
Add Mercury
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Minimization Plan
Total Phenols
MA 816 µg/L
Remove limit and
No RP as all data were below
DM 816 µg/L
monitoring
detection.
Ceriodaphnia dubia
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Chronic Toxicity
Pass/Fail at 55%
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
effluent
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Conduct annually
Conduct three times
40 CFR 122
Scan
per permit cycle
Total Hardness
No requirement
Add effluent and
Based on adoption of hardness -
upstream monitoring
dependent metals.
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.
13. Public Notice Schedule
Permit to Public Notice: 11/29/2018
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable)
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO. Only one comment
was received, by Scott Harrell, representing the City of Statesville (Permittee). The comment requested a
site -specific review of Ammonia-N limits based on EPA's 2013 ammonia criteria. The Division in a prior
communication had informed the Permittee that evidence needs to be provided through an in-depth study
that the limits cannot be met. Subsequent communication with Permittee found that the new limits can be
met under current conditions. A compliance schedule was given because the City requested time to evaluate
Page 12 of 13

the plant's capacity to meet the new limits at higher flow rates, to determine what upgrades may be needed,
if necessary.
No comments were received from EPA or the Mooresville Regional Office.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• PERCS Information Request form, completed
• Effluent data summary charts and tables
• Instream data analysis
• Monitoring Report Violations
• WET Test summary
• Compliance Inspection report
• Waste load allocations for TRC and NH3-N: 4 and 6 MGD
• E-mail correspondence regarding alternative NH3 limit calculations
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary and dissolved to total metal calculator: 4 and 6 MGD
• Dissolved Metals Implementation: Freshwater Standards
• Mercury WQBEL/TBEL evaluations: 4 and 6 MGD
• E-mail comments from Permittee and response
Page 13 of 13

VES/A uifer Protection Permitting
Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
tMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form bacl
Check all that apply from PERCS:
_Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should b
Date of R oast 3/7/2018 municipal renewal x on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
R
uestor Ga Perlmutter
you
new industries (or NOV POTW).
Facilit Name Fo11db= ek W WTP W WTP expansion - Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number. 31
eculative limits in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
'R ion Mo svi a
Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
stream neclass. renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
outfall relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 cha a boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other changes.
,k applicable PERCS staff:
BRD, CPF, CTB FRB, TAR - Sarah Bs as807-6310
other
10ther Comments to PERCS: 3 Olt ,1^�U,{ (ai
Facility is rated 6.0 MGD wbhy(IClUs and non -categorical SIUs listed in
its
MHO, HIW LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
application. j (vA d tfs,
- Monit Hassan (807-6314)
��3 r_ _r" � r 1
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
1facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modred Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGD Permitted Actual Time enod for Actual STMP time frame:
Industrial — Most recent:
controllable n/a Next Cycle:
B
iJ d
C
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Required b Required
y
� a«®
POTW POC
STMP
LTMP
7X�
Check List
Disch Permit
Limit
EPA* by 503
Sludge"-
to SIU
I Plain
below)*""
Effluent
Freq
Effluent
Freq
BOD
/
4
Q M
TSS
i NH3
/
4
Q
Q = Quarterly
Arsenic
4
Q M
- Y
r
4
Q M
Cadmium
r
4
Q M
Chromium
i
4
Q M
Copper
/
4
Q M
snide
Lead
4
Q M
Is all data on DMF
Mercury
r
/
4
Q M
Y
Mol bdefium
4
Q M
NO attach de
Nickel
4
Q M
/
4
Q M
Silver
/
4
Q M
i Selenium
4
Q M
Zrnc
Total Nit en
r
4
Q M
Is data innnrParighx
Phosphorus
4
Q M
YES email to writi
4
Q M
IN
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 Dollutant is still of nnnram tn Pr)TW
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.fomi
Revised: July 24, 2007

Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - Flow
• Effluent
Current limit Expansion limit
14
12
10
�
s
6
—=————
— — — — — —� — • —
, i — — — — 7 JT — — — —
4
La,%
1 a a- -t aMM MLMa--'D oft JAA��A�#
0
y\,Logy 3ti\~O'y(D
'L�\�O'y�
y\tip\,Lo��
\tip\,Lo1� \��\,LOAD
��\�O'y(O \�O\~O'y1
'yo\~0,�
4` g\ 1 o�\ p\
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - BOD
Wk Avg ♦ Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
45
40 _
35
30
o� 25
20
15
i
10
♦
5 r. r ■
\,LoAP o\tioti°\,Loti° \tiotiy �otio �otio 6\Toti� Toti� T01�
titi\L\� titi\�\�y ti\31\\tip\ '�\\,y~\\tio\
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - TSS
° Wk Avg • Mo Avg
WA Limit MA Limit
50
45
Y
40
35
30
o� 25
L■RJ.a.
E 20
15
10
0
.
a.
1kLA'.4 Af
AAn,&i ■►IL ��.iw. AAAA
~oyy
ti\
"oy� �01�
\
ti\�=L\T
ti
6\tio\�o1� \��\\ti 3
yti '1 ; ti\
1 \ ti��o11 tio\=Lo��
I , "IN o�\ p\
Summary
Statistics
n
1461
mean
2.2
SD
0.6
Min
1.2
Max
12.6
Summary Statistics
Summer
n
596
mean
3.2
SD
8.3
Min
2
Max
173
Winter
n
406
mean
3.5
SD
1.8
Min
2
Max
15
Summary
Statistics
n
1002
mean
3.2
SD
1.8
Min
2.5
Max
24.7
Page 1 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/8/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - NH3-N
Wk Avg ♦ Mo Avg WA Limit - - - MA Limit
40
35 - - -
30
25
I�J 20
15
10
5
0
o196 600 w oy1 .0
CN
A\"; y\3o Ib\y$\~ \e\ti 41 1.11V
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - DO
• Effluent Limit
16
14
12
•
'
•
•
10
+
•
■ .
•
cub
8
■
■0
6
4p
♦ ■
-
4
_...
2
;
0
\��\�oy�
yy
\yo\yoyA \�A\�oy0
o yti
\yy,�oyy \�y\�oy�o \�o
y w
�\Ib\'V \��`'V
a\yo\^oy�
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - Coliform
Wk Avg ♦ Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
1000
E
10 .�� �...♦ �!c
E♦. gyp. s
■ir t • • ■
1
\�-\�Dy3 \yo\soya \��oya \y�\�oyh `31\Toy(O . \ b\"oy(O 3\141oy1
Summary
Statistics
Summer
n
596
mean
0.7
SD
0.8
Min
0.5
Max
10.7
Winter
n
406
mean
0.7
SD
0.7
Min
0.1
Max
5.26
Summary
Statistics
n
1002
mean
8.3
SD
1.0
Min
5.7
Max
13.6
Summary
Statistics
n
1002
mean
5.8
SD
690.5
Min
1
Max
14000
Page 2 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/8/2018

30
25
20
V 15
10
5
0
O,3
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - Temperature
• Effluent
LO,k
ti0,�
,�0,y
,LO'y�O
°.�1
c�\
��°'y�O
\
\(O\�°'�1
titi
\�
41b
'b\'y
L 9K119
1QV
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - Conductivity
• Effluent
800
700 . •
600 • •
500 • • / •
0 400
E 300
200 •
100
0
Q
CO, Oyb O'y1 OOy6
~ti
�i D\
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) -
pH
• Effluent L. Limit U. Limit
10.0
9.0
8.0
•
�
�, 7.0
_
6.0
5.0
7
4.0
h
~°1 �16 Ty�
IbT �
°y�
\T
°y�
ti
3 \3b\°
'y \
'ti'l
,�0\
Summary
Statistics
n
1002
mean
17.9
SD
5.0
Min
6
Max
26
Summary
—
Statistics
n
1002
mean
357.8
SD
57.3
Min
163
Max
753
Summary
Statistics
n
1002
mean
7.0
SD
0.2
Min
6.2
Max
7.9
Page 3 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/8/2018

20
18
16
14
J 12
" 10
8
6
4
2
0
Oy3
y
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - Total Nitrogen
Effluent
O,b
O,b
O,y
O,O
O,b
Ohl
Oyu
O,O
��y�\~
yti�ti�\�
1\I,,.
'y��y\'L
�b�y$`'L
3\�\ti
O��,L\'L
b�y0\"
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - Total Phosphorus
Effluent
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
\�-V\�oy3 \yo\�oyb \��\�oyb \y�\�oyh `3y\�oy� \yam\�ay� �\�\�ay� \��\�oy� b\yIZIP
yy yti y �,
Fourth Creek WWTP (NC0031836) - Total Mercury
—*--Effluent
14
12
10
J 8
OD
6
4
2
0
Q0
Oy'`
Oy'1
��ti
y\~
\
�ti
yy\��\'L
6\y0\'L
1�yy\~
�\y'L
�\b
of\�,L�'L
b\y0\'L
Summary
Statistics
n
210
mean
7.2
SD
3.7
Min
2.4
Max
18.93
Summary
Statistics
n
209
mean
1.35
SD
1.00
Min
0.08
Max
5.56
Summary
Statistics
n
48
mean
2.9
SD
2.3
Min
1.0
Max
11.8
Page 4 GB Perlmutter, rev. 3/8/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Dissolved oxygen
/DO)
!mg/L)
Date
_Upstream Dnstream Effluent
Standard
1/8/2013
12.8
9.5
5.0
1/28/2013
11.4
9.9
5.0
2/12/2013
11
8.1
5.0
2/25/2013
11.6
8.6
5.0
3/7/2013
12
9.9
5.0
3/25/2013
10.9
9.6
5.0
4/4/2013
11.2
9.5
5.0
4/15/2013
8.6
7.8
5.0
5/1/2013
8.4
8.9
5.0
5/7/2013
8.8
6.1
5.0
5/13/2013
8.5
8.4
5.0
6/3/2013
7.5
7.6
5.0
6/11/2013
7.5
7.4
5.0
6/25/2013
7.4
7.3
5.0
7/1/2013
7.2
7.4
5.0
7/8/2013
6.4
7.3
5.0
7/29/2013
6.9
1.7
5.0
8/1/2013
7.2
6.5
5.0
8/12/2013
7.3
7.5
5.0
8/26/2013
7.5
7.5
5.0
9/12/2013
7.6
6.3
5.0
9/25/2013
8.2
6.7
5.0
10/3/2013
7.6
8.2
5.0
10/21/2013
9.1
8.5
5.0
10/30/2013
9.9
8.3
5.0
11/18/2013
8.5
9
5.0
12/9/2013
9.9
8.5
5.0
1/6/2014
10.6
12.8
8.4
5.0
2/5/2014
11.9
9.9
5.0
2/24/2014
10.2
9.4
5.0
3/6/2014
12.5
10
5.0
3/17/2014
10.4
7.8
5.0
4/2/2014
10.9
8
5.0
4/14/2014
9.1
8.7
5.0
5/6/2014
9.1
7.7
5.0
5/13/2014
8.8
7.4
5.0
5/28/2014
8.1
7.7
5.0
6/4/2014
8
7.6
5.0
6/9/2014
7.7
7.3
5.0
6/23/2014
8
7.4
5.0
7/8/2014
7.5
7.3
5.0
7/14/2014
7.5
7.4
5.0
7/21/2014
7.6
7.2
5.0
8/5/2014
7.4
7.4
5.0
8/12/2014
7.3
7.1
5.0
Page 1 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0031836
Dissolved oxyaen
(DO) (ma/L)
Date
Unstream Dnstream Effluent
Standard
8/18/2014
7.5
7.3
5.0
9/4/2014
7.2
7.3
5.0
9/8/2014
7.4
7.1
5.0
9/29/2014
8.5
7.4
5.0
10/9/2014
8.9
7.4
5.0
10/27/2014
8.9
7.9
5.0
11/5/2014
10
8.8
5.0
11/24/2014
9.8
8.7
5.0
12/22/2014
10.8
8.6
5.0
1/12/2015
12
10.9
5.0
1/26/2015
11.2
9.9
5.0
2/5/2015
11.9
10.4
5.0
2/23/2015
11.5
10
5.0
3/16/2015
10.4
9.9
8.8
5.0
4/6/2015
10.9
9.1
5.0
4/27/2015
9.3
8
5.0
5/7/2015
8.7
7.2
5.0
5/11/2015
8.5
7.4
5.0
5/26/2015
7.6
7.7
5.0
6/4/2015
8.3
6.9
5.0
6/8/2015
7.1
7.1
5.0
6/28/2015
7.2
5.0
6/29/2015
9.9
7.5
5.0
7/11/2015
6.6
5.0
7/27/2015
6.9
7.4
5.0
8/5/2015
7
7.3
5.0
8/17/2015
7
7.1
5.0
8/29/2015
7
5.0
9/8/2015
7.8
7.8
5.0
9/9/2015
6.9
7.6
5.0
9/21/2015
7.1
7.9
5.0
10/6/2015
8.5
8.8
5.0
10/19/2015
9.5
8.5
5.0
11/3/2015
8.4
6.6
5.0
11/9/2015
8.5
8.7
5.0
12/2/2015
9.4
9.1
5.0
12/7/2015
10.6
10.1
5.0
1/6/2016
14.8
9
5.0
1/11/2016
11
9.7
5.0
2/2/2016
10.7
9.3
5.0
2/22/2016
10.1
9.5
5.0
.3/3/2016
11.5
9.3
5.0
3/21/2016
9.7
9.8
5.0
4/5/2016
10.4
8.8
5.0
4/18/2016
9.5
11.7
5.0
Page 2 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Dissolved o en LqOj m L
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent Standard
5/16/2016
9.1
8.2
5.0
5/17/2016
8.1
9
5.0
5/27/2016
7.6
7.5
5.0
6/13/2016
7.1
7.7
5.0
6/27/2016
6.9
7.3
5.0
7/18/2016
6.8
7.4
5.0
7/28/2016
6.3
6.3
5.0
8/3/2016
7.3
7
5.0
8/15/2016
7.2
7.1
5.0
8/29/2016
6.8
7.1
5.0
9/7/2016
7.8
7.8
5.0
9/19/2016
6.9
7.5
5.0
9/29/2016
6.8
7.3
5.0
10/11/2016
7.6
5.0
10/17/2016
8.1 •
9.3 .
7.9
5.0
11/8/2016
10.7
8
5.0
11/14/2016
10.2
7.6
5.0
12/7/2016
11.8
8.9
5.0
12/12/2016
10
10.1
5.0
N
68
43
106
Mean
8.5
9.7
8.2
SD
1.5
Min
6.3
7
6.1
Max
11.6
14.8
11.7
Fourth Creek WWTP - Instream Dissolved Oxygen
• Upstream Effluent A. Dnstream Standard
16
14 °
22 ° ° °
° k ♦ °
to
E _
4
2
0
I
I
J
�6N
�oy3
�o'y''
tiQNI
�O'yp
ti�ti�
ti�y�
�oy(0
�oIA
'b\
3��\
Page 3 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Tem erature wester (OC)l
Date
Upstream Downstream
_
Effluent
Standard
1/8/2013
5.7
11
32
1/28/2013
4.3
10
32
2/12/2013
9.7
12
32
2/25/2013
6.3
12
32
3/7/2013
7.9
11
32
3/25/2013
7.3
12
32
4/4/2013
10.1
13
32
4/15/2013
15.3
17
32
5/1/2013
16.4
18
32
5/7/2013
14.7
17
32
5/13/2013
14.6
18
32
6/3/2013
20.6
22
32
6/11/2013
20.7
22
32
6/25/2013
23.3
24
32
7/1/2013
22.7
24
32
7/8/2013
23
24
32
7/29/2013
23
23
32
8/1/2013
22
23
32
8/12/2013
23
25
32
8/26/2013
18.8
22
32
9/5/2013
21.1
22
32
9/12/2013
22.4
24
32
9/25/2013
17.4
20
32
10/3/2013
19.3
20
32
10/21/2013
11.8
18
32
10/30/2013
13.5
17
32
11/18/2013
11.7
18
32
11/25/2013
4.7
13
32
12/9/2013
6.9
13
32
1/6/2014
5.7
6.8
11
32
2/5/2014
7.2
11
32
2/24/2014
7.7
12
32
3/6/2014
6.1
10
32
3/17/2014
6.4
12
32
4/2/2014
14.3
14
32
4/14/2014
15.9
18
32
5/6/2014
18.8
18
32
5/13/2014
21.5
21
32
5/28/2014
19
21
32
6/4/2014
20
21
32
6/9/2014
20.3
23
32
6/23/2014
23.1
24
32
7/8/2014
24.4
23
32
7/14/2014
24.4
25
32
7/21/2014
21
23
32
Page 1 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Temperature_! water /°C)
Date Upstream
Downstream
Effluent
Standard
8/5/2014
22.8
23
32
8/12/2014
21.8
23
32
8/18/2014
21.9
24
32
9/4/2014
23.7
25
32
9/8/2014
22.2
24
32
9/29/2014
18
21
32
10/9/2014
17.4
20
32
10/27/2014
11.7
18
32
11/5/2014
12.1
16
32
11/24/2014
9.8
15
32
12/22/2014
7.4
13
32
1/12/2015
5
10
32
1/26/2015
6.2
11
32
2/5/2015
6.5
14
32
2/23/2015
6
11
32
3/16/2015
8.8
13.9
15
32'
4/6/2015
16.2
15
32
4/27/2015
11.4
15
32
5/7/2015
18.7
19
32
5/11/2015
18.5
21
32
5/26/2015
22.1
21
32
6/4/2015
18.5
20
32
6/8/2015
20.9
22
32
6/28/2015
23.9
32
6/29/2015
23.1
23
32
7/11/2015
25.9
32
7/27/2015
22.6
25
32
8/5/2015
26
25
32
8/17/2015
22.2
24
32
8/29/2015
23.9
32
9/8/2015
22.5
23
32
9/9/2015
24.7
24
32
9/21/2015
19
22
32
10/6/2015
16.7
19
32
10/19/2015
8.6
15
32
11/3/2015
15.2
19
32
11/9/2015
12.3
18
32
12/2/2015
12.2
16
32
12/7/2015
7.1
13
32
1/6/2016
4
11
32
1/11/2016
5.8
10
32
2/2/2016
11.1
13
32
2/22/2016
6.7
14
32
3/3/2016
8.6
12
32
3/21/2016
8.2
13
32
Page 2 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Teml era�;rr� �e�ter 1 °fJ
Date Upstream Downstream Effluent Standard
4/5/2016
15.1
15
32
4/18/2016 12.6
15
32
5/16/2016 13.4
18
32
5/17/2016
16.5
18
32
5/27/2016 20.3
21
32
6/13/2016 21
23
32
6/27%2016 22.2
23
32
7/18/2016 24.8
25
32
7/28/2016 25.9
24
32
8/3/2016
23.7
26
32
8/15/2016 24.3
26
32
8/29/2016 23.3
25
32
9/7/2016
22.5
23
32
9/19/2016 23.3
24
32
9/29/2016 22.7
23
32
10/11/2016
14.9
19
32
10/17/2016 15.8
20
32
11/8/2016
10.4
15
32
11/14/2016 9.7
14
32
12/7/2016
8.8
14
32
12/12/2016 6.7
12
32
N 68
_
45
108 -.
Mean 16.4
15.0
18.4
SD 6.9
6.4
4.9
Min 4.3
4
10
Max 25.9
26
26
Fourth Creek WWTP - Instream Temperature
Upstream
c Downstream
Effluent Standard
35
30
-
25
�.
20 ep-
0
0- f ii�t
"T
k
15
s
L.
241
t
5
s
0 -
— -
ti���g\��y�
Page 3 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO038136
S eci is canductarrce
uS cm
Date
upstream
Dnstream
Effluent
1/8/2013
146
347
1/28/2013
106
335
2/12/2013
124
338
2/25/2013
92
341
3/7/2013
129
389
3/25/2013
104
400
4/4/2013
124
362
4/15/2013
112
315
5/1/2013
106
345
5/7/2013
92
374
5/13/2013
109
393
6/3/2013
96
389
6/11/2013
105
351
6/25/2013
118
427
7/1/2013
147
417
7/8/2013
76
286
7/29/2013
92
250
8/1/2013
104
341
8/12/2013
116
356
8/26/2013
93
363
9/5/2013
135
415
9/12/2013
128
425
9/25/2013
104
420
10/3/2013
156
426
10/21/2013
94
352
10/30/2013
145
411
11/18/2013
129
374
11/25/2013
139
355
12/9/2013
98
302
1/6/2014
78
114
214
2/5/2014
137
334
2/24/2014
102
280
3/6/2014
144
370
3/17/2014
93
297
4/2/2014
124
211
4/14/2014
106
314
5/6/2014
137
341
5/13/2014
122
391
5/28/2014
114
375
6/4/2014
130
366
6/9/2014
109
468
6/23/2014
113
438
7/8/2014
118
392
7/14/2014
153
402
7/21/2014
116
417
Page 1 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO038136
Specific conductance
(uS/cm�
Date
Upstream Dnstream Effluent
8/5/2014
115
-
409
8/12/2014
103
365
8/18/2014
104
370
9/4/2014
176
420
9/8/2014
114
404
9/29/2014
114
362
10/9/2014
174
425
10/27/2014
116
368
11/5/2014
162
389
11/24/2014
79
385
12/22/2014
105
373
1/12/2015
117
326
1/26/2015
99
315
2/5/2015
149
325
2/23/2015
107
327
3/16/2015
100
135
314
4/6/2015
152
268
4/27/2015
134
333
5/7/2015
139
374
5/11/2015
116
396
5/26/2015
121
383
6/4/2015
137
387
6/8/2015
127
407
6/28/2015
104
6/29/2015
187
390
7/11/2015
121
7/27/2015
125
338
8/5/2015
216
324
8/17/2015
137
409
8/29/2015
115
9/8/2015
216
384
9/9/2015
107
404
9/21/2015
122
360
10/6/2015
161
310
10/19/2015
114
346
11/3/2015
104
380
11/9/2015
104
336
12/2/2015
83
322
12/7/2015
112
298
1/6/2016
128
320
1/11/2016
102
370
2/2/2016
142
356
2/22/2016
120
292
3/3/2016
134
250
3/21/2016
120
343
Page 2 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth
Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0038136
S eci is conductance uS cm
Date
Upstream
Dnstream Effluent
4/5/2016
142
349
4/18/2016
105
316
5/16/2016
106
324
5/17/2016
70
339
5/27/2016
98
366
6/13/2016
114
389
6/27/2016
120
334
7/18/2016
118
336
7/28/2016
107
306
8/3/2016
166
431
8/15/2016
110
225
8/29/2016
123
405
9/7/2016
163
334
9/19/2016
129
377
9/29/2016
121
601
10/11/2016
157
367
10/17/2016
109
420
11/8/2016
160
594
11/14/2016
94
332
12/7/2016
124
482
12/12/2016
94
670
N
68
_
45
108
Mean
109.5
139.6
365.4
SD
12.7
29.4
66.2
Min
76
70
211
Max
137
216
670
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream
Dnstream
Mean
109.5
139.6
Variance
160.3433
867.2
Observations
68
45
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
0
df
55
t Stat
-6.47213
P(T<=t) one -tall
1.38E-08
t Critical one -tail
1.673034
P(T<=t) two -tail
2.75E-08
t Critical two -tail
2.004045
Dnstream Conductivity is higher than upstream Conductivity
Page 3 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP Instream Monitoring NCO038136
Sped Iic conductance fuS/cmJ
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
Fourth Creek - Instream Conductivity
Upstream ! Dnstream Effluent
800
700
600
u 500 4
400
100
0
�y'L �,yi oy'3 pyA %V oyh 5V 5V oy1
1�\�,v�ti�\ti �\yy�ti 1\�ti�ti �\1��ti
Page 4 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Fetal soli orm
1�Q m[
Date Upstream
Dnstream
Effluent
1/8/2013
230
_._... 4
1/28/2013
54
9
2/12/2013
110
1
2/25/2013
90
3
3/7/2013
130
2
3/25/2013
94
7
4/4/2013
160
2
4/15/2013
102
6
5/7/2013
1800
21
5/13/2013
110
9
6/3/2013
86
6
6/11/2013
1700
8
7/1/2013
500
7
7/29/2013
141
80
8/1/2013
1500
1
8/26/2013
172
98
9/5/2013
420
2
9/25/2013
76
10
10/3/2013
120
38
10/21/2013
98
3
10/30/2013
130
2
11/18/2013
4200
2
12/9/2013
86
11
1/6/2014
76
310
3
2/5/2014
220
10
2/24/2014
164
9
3/6/2014
110
4
3/17/2014
290
9
4/2/2014
320
28
4/14/2014
220
14
5/6/2014
160
14
5/28/2014
78
10
6/4/2014
440
2
6/9/2014
88
8
7/21/2014
118
6
8/12/2014
1500
18
8/18/2014
110
2
9/4/2014
4
9/8/2014
141
4
9/29/2014
580
7
10/9/2014
160
10
10/27/2014
96
3
11/5/2014
160
6
11/24/2014
250
8
12/2/2014
240
2
Page 1 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/201$

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Fecal caliform
LcLyLl00 mL
Date
Upstream Dnstream Effluent
12/22/2014
146
16
1/12/2015
1500
4
1/26/2015
166
6
2/5/2015
150
2
2/23/2015
56
3
3/16/2015
118
92
7
4/6/2015
45
4
4/27/2015
82
2
5/7/2015
170
1
5/11/2015
210
1
6/4/2015
1300
6
6/8/2015
260
4
6/29/2015
1300
10
7/27/2015
116
9
8/5/2015
140
2
8/17/2015
106
6
9/8/2015
360
1500
9/21/2015
126
25
10/6/2015
750
4
10/19/2015
40
9
11/3/2015
1500
14000
11/9/2015
143
7
12/2/2015
1500
14
12/7/2015
86
4
1/6/2016
230
1
1/11/2016
96
9
2/2/2016
120
1
2/22/2016
118
7
3/3/2016
120
1
3/21/2016
112
1
4/5/2016
130
3
4/18/2016
98
2
5/16/2016
152
3
5/17/2016
1500
36
6/6/2016
210
8
6/13/2016
94
94
7/6/2016
1500
8
7/18/2016
300
8
8/3/2016
950
1
8/15/2016
114
8
9/7/2016
450
2
9/19/2016
104
900
10/11/2016
300
9
10/17/2016
118
9
11/8/2016
340
2
Page 2 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

Fourth Creek WWTP
Instream Monitoring NCO031836
Fecal cn/i rm e u 1 [10 mL
Date . Upstream Dnstream Effluent
11/14/2016 100
2
12/7/2016
1500
2 v
_12/12/2016 78
9
N 55
47
94
Geomean 123.1
355.4
6.5
Min 40
45
1
Max 4200
1800
14000
Fourth Creek - Instream Fecal Colifo"rm
r,•? Upstream I Dnstream Effluent
100000
E
10000
a
0
1000
100
AA A.
�� �
♦ A V' �,� A A& i ,A,
^A 4.L AA
�i
it $ # �•�
♦ 4
A\'V�'y� �i\ti�'yy S\ti�'y�
A\ti .y\3 �y\� g\
Page 3 G.B. Perlmutter, rev. 3/12/2018

,
§ o >
2
�
§ 7
�
a
R ID
0
�
—
2
� #
�
_.
■
� &
C,
2
co
\ \
0 ƒ�
7
E
> J ■
7
§
/
�
ul
cc-
t
.
a .
CD
co
Cl)
a .
§
\,§ k
/
$
o§
§ Ll E
�
§
be
LU
U. ^ §
It>
$ 2
0
0
(
a
§
-
0
§JAE
E
.
e
0
L�E{e£
3
\ j\/)
f
��aoao
u
6 0
S
Me.
;2
■
.
\
i cu
\
z
_ E
2
§ I
§ §
§
»
)
E
■
c
§
K£ §
LU
`
3
CDG
■.:M
a
k'�
z
4*1
§
CD
@Ii§
§
k
■ /
§■,LA
§ —
■
�
II

w
otD
I g I
o I
o I
QI I
l
tD
oxxx
v
m
z l
u 2
u Z
N N N
N N
u Za a a
N N N
m -
2a a a
N
a 2
O
O
V
y
N N
x O N N
O v a a Oa a a 0. O M
TA
N
O
p
cr
o
O
+
cr
a
m
>
cr
cr
o
Q
D
I
C
�
G
v
? v
y
¢ o•
c c
o
CL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
cn
,
r Q V , r-I
, Q
N N
N C
GJ
^
r r
I
a a
a a a
IN/�
a `m to x x x
@
m
c
y
00
0 �i
LL
a
.,
too
M
m
o
N
v
O
Q
T Q n
TO
c o
a
c a
a
o
c o
o
c o
E c
m tL
m
(Np
•N
a
d
n
a
a
m a
m a
a
1 A A A m
A A d
Io U.
1 4
1L
m m
o
O
_
m
A
^
O
~
d
O
N
p
~
om
C
O
LL V
.••I
VI
�••I
cc
LL
$�
y
3 °�
3 °
v
�I
n
m
O
O
U
m
Cc
O
O
N
ix
t
�
6
d
01
�
a
�
v
m
g $
n^
4
v
a d d a a
a a a
00
as
p
tn
Vi
N
c
`A
C
Ln
a
In
E
c U
a E
°Q¢
v N
oa
Na
Y'ACa
a
E
C
O
u
(V0
d N
A1
Z mp
Q I IL�
Z
"ZZ
Da
Q I I
zE
m>
+
a
_
u
io
•m
m
O
=
t10
C_
0 0
�?
m
Z
p
L
.••1 " O
A S A p
�o S n
p
g I I
N
Cc
�a x s x
z°
O Q5
n A
e-1 y
r1 N
O
�y •y
11
5C
a
E
`
,.`y
0
—
�'�QO~,
m
""
V E
.O�•
m
OD
Ln
rA
GJ
00
m "Ln
csi
u
E
Za z O1
u z m
u I
o
z
O N a
2 ti
o
14.
8
n
z
LL o1p. a s
z a a a mA.
I
z
a
OIO
C
0
fy
O
O
O
'"1
rn
O
t
O
\
`
N
N
N
E
v
c
`._
m$
CL
e
c
m
c
u
v
v A
°u m m
a ti o y' u"i '
m
n
E
'ec
E
m
> �o
n c 1l
m A a a a
v n m m a
m a a
-0 o
o m
w l ..
a ti
X
Y
\-
N
CO
m
v
H
d a ^
N I
0
C
r
U
C
.�A•1 r�•1 .n-1
O N .�.. e�•1 .n-1
'a•1 .IA•1 .�•1 .^-0
L .�•1 e1A•1 .�•1 �n•1
N a N �O n
d a Ln to n
a
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
�^ N N N N
Vf O O O O
N 0 0 0 0
LL
_�
y
N N N N
C N N N N
C
W
y
N
U
0
C �=
V)
in V
Ii V

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20M
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Section A. National Data
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
1 ransacmon Lode NPDES
yr/mo/day
Inspection Type
Inspector Fac Type
1 U 2 U 3 NC00318W 11 12
17/1 o/z6 _j 17
18 i C I
191 G I 201 I
21LL
I I I I I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating
B1 QA
.
Reserved
67 z.0 70 jd 1
LJ
71 I„ t 72 1 N 1
71 1 174
L1J
75
80
} Section B:
FacilityDataLJ
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:20AM 17/10/26 12/08/01
Fourth Creek WWTP
693 Bell Farm Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Statesville NC 28687
01:15PM 17/10/26 14/06/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/ritles(syPhone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Todd Andrew Smith/ORC/704-878-3438/
Name, Address of Responsible OfficialMile/Phone and Fax Number
Joe Hudson,PO Box 1111 Statesville NC 286871111/Water Resources
Director/704-878-3438/7048788655
Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement 0 Operations & Maintenance E Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal a Facility Site Review ■ Effluent/Receiving Waters
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature($) of Inspector(s)
Wes Bell
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer
W. Corey Basinger
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
MRO WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.2192/
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
MIRO WQ//704-235-2194/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Date
Date
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
8 NCOD31836 11 12[ 17/10/26 17 18 i CJ
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO031836
Inspection Date: 10/26/2017
Permit
owner-Faclilty: Fourth CreekWWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment: The Division received the Permit renewal.packaQe on 10/11/13.
Yes No NA N
VE
❑ ❑ ❑
L' ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
WWTP im rovements were completed in the SQnna of 2017.
The City of Statesville implements an approved Industrial Pretreatment Program.
The last compliance evaluation inspection was performed at the facility on 2/5/16 by DWR
staff.
Record Kee in
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 DWO? ❑ ❑ ❑
(if the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator ❑ ❑ ❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
M❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO031836 Owner • Facility. Fourth Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/26/2017 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The records reviewed during the inspection were oEganized and well maintained.
Discha
e
Monitoring Re orts DMRs were reviewed for the 2eriod September 2016 through August
2017. A weekly average effluent BOD violation was reported in October 2016. The Division
has previously addressed this limit violation through the issuance of a NOV.
A revised July 2017 eDMR will be submitted to include the effluent chronic toxicity
result
(Pass).
Laboratory
Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
M, ❑
❑ ❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
❑
❑ . ❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
® ❑
❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑ ❑
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
❑ ❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees?
❑ ❑
❑ IE
Comment: Influent and effluent analyses (including field) are performed under the City's Laborator.
Certification #181. Statesville Analytical. Inc. (selected metalsr etc.) and Meritech Labs. Inc.
(priority pollutants, toxicity, etc.).
Influent Sampllnci
Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
!
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
M
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
al
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Gf.
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The subfect hermit requires BOD and TSS composite samples.
The facility staff were in the process of replacing the sampler tubing and would initiate hourly
rab samples hand composites) during this maintenance activity. A chart depicting sample
amounts according to measured flow was available for staff during the time periods hand
compositing is performed. The facility staff must ensure that a minimum of 100 mis. per
grab sample is collected durin-gthis sampling protocol.
Effluent Sam lin
Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
p`
❑
❑
❑
Page# 4

Penult: NCO031836 owner. Facility: Fourth Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/26/2017 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluentnt Samv@n—ri Yes No NA NE
# 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: The subject Permit requires composite and -grab effluent samples.
This office recommends the repositioning of the effluent com osite sampling location
closer to the flume throat to ensure that the collected samples have been thoroughly mixed
following dechlorination.
U stream / Downstream Sams lina Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and ❑ ❑ ❑
sampling location)?
Comment: The Division has conditionally waived the instream monitcrinq re uirement.9 due to the Citv's
zartich'ation in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association.
Overations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: The wastewater treatment facilit a eared to be ro erl o crated and well maintained
The ORC and staff incorporate a com rehensive orocess control grogram with all
measurements bei property documented and maintained on -site. The facility is equipped
with a SCADA system to assist the wastewater staff in the operation of treatment
rocesses/units.
Bar Screens
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: Screenincs are disposed [via contracted com, any., at the Coumv Landfill.
Pump; Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Page# 5

Permit: NCO031836
Owner- Faciliyr: Fourth Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/26/2017
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent
Yes No NA NE
Are all pumps present?
ir
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑_
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
❑
❑
a
❑
Comment:
Aeration Basins
Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation
Step
feed
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
W
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both aeration basins were operational and in service. Each train is equipped with six
platform aerators. Five of the six aerators were operational in each train.
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/+ of the sidewall depth)
Yes No NA NE
Comment: All three secondary clarifiers were operational;, however, only two clarifiers were in service.
Page# 6

Permit: NCO031836
Owner -Facility. Fourth Creek WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/26/2017
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pum S-RAS-WAS
Yes_ No
NA NE
Are pumps in place?
t_
0
Are pumps operational?
B 1300
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Disinfection -Li uid
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
■
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?0000.
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
110
0
0
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
so
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
no
Comment: All three chlorine contact chamber trains were in service.
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
00ok
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
a
Comment: Aoueous sodium bisulfite is used for dechlorination.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
ir
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement -,Effluent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
El
11
Is the flow meter operational?..
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: The flow meter is calibrated twice er ear and was last calibrated on 9/18/17 by CTS. Inc.
Page# 7

Permit: NCO031836
Inspection Data: 10/26/2017
owner - Facility: Fdurth Creek W WTP
inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Pipe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Comment: The effluent an -.eared clear with trace suspended solids and no foam.
Aerobic Di ester
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Comment: The aerobic diciester is eguk-)oed with_th..ree c latform aerators [all os-erational�.
Solids HandlinR._Er pment
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
Is storage adequate?
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
Yes No _NA. NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑❑❑
ff ❑ 110
❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
V ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
iQ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The belt filter press was operational and in service. Dewatered bio-solids are either land _
applied by a contracted company (Synagro) or locally distributed_tClass A product) following
the lime stabilization process.
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested $, operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ is
❑ ❑ ❑
* ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NC0031836
Inspection Date: 10/26/2017
Standb Power
Owner -Facility: Fourth Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The facility participates in the load management program. _ The backup generator is tested
under load at a minimum eve ten days.
Page#

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Fourth Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NCO031836
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): _ 4
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 7.5
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 11.3
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
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)
7.5
4
6.2
17.0
0
45.26
38
2$1141 � L
200/100m1
2.21
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-NA)
s7Q10 (CFS)
7.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
4
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
6.2
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 6A
45.26
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
9
w7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia ; as NH3-Nj
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
11.3
4
6.2
1.8
0.22
35.43
r1 4.7-
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: Fourth Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NCO031836
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow
Enter s7Q10 (cis): 7.5 !
Enter w7Q10 cfs : 11.3 1
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
C,- P o G?
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(if DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
7.5
6
9.3
17.0
0
55.36
31
200/100ml
1.81
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
7.5
6
9.3
1.0
0.22
55.36
w 4 k 'o
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
w7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
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/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
11.3
6
9.3
1.8
0.22
45.15
�' Lt' 0
0,4 1r
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Perlmutter, Gary
From:
Perlmutter, Gary
Sent:
Tuesday, November 13, 2018 5:01 PM
To:
'Andy Smith'
Cc:
Grzyb, Julie
Subject:
RE: [External) NPDES Permit Renewal Summary
Dear Andy,
l looked into the option of a site -specific ammonia review for Fourth Creek WWTP per your suggestion. To my
knowledge the only Permittee NPDES has allowed the calculation of ammonia limits based on instream data pertaining
,to their receiving stream is Buncombe County — French Broad River WRF. In that case, the Permittee first had a special
condition in its 2011 permit to conduct a four-year study to determine whether the plant could meet ammonia limits
based on NC's implementation of EPA's criteria [ 1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter)) in a feasible and reasonable
manner through optimization of the current system, or if a system upgrade was needed. Included in this condition was a
sampling requirement of 36 downstream monthly sampling events. The study report, submitted to DWR in 2018,
concluded that the criteria -based limits could not be met via optimization of the current treatment system and that a
system upgrade at considerable cost would be needed. Note that since the County has limited room to expand their
facilities the County spent years investigating possible treatment systems that could be installed in their small footprint.
Buncombe County has invested much time and effort in reviewing their options and has made several presentations to
NPDES on this issue. It was only after all this demonstration and effort, did NPDES agree to consider ammonia -nitrogen
limits based on instream data using EPA's guidance document: "Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia — Freshwater 2013." Due to the facility's small footprint and treatment limitations, ammonia limits based on
instream data were placed into the County's permit with a 12-year compliance schedule for the system upgrade.
Following this example, the City of Statesville would need to provide evidence via a similar in-depth study that it cannot
meet the proposed ammonia limits and does not have the capability to install treatment to achieve compliance with
NC's implementation of EPA's criteria. A review of Fourth Creek's submitted effluent ammonia data has shown that the
proposed NC criteria -based limits can be met without much difficulty. Therefore, DWR does not find that ammonia limits
based on instream data are necessary for the Fourth Creek permit: However, a 2-yr compliance schedule, proposed by
the City of Statesville as an alternative, is considered reasonable and will be added to Fourth Creek's permit.
Please let me know if you have any further questions
Gary
Gary B. Perlmutter, M.S.
Environmental Specialist II
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
919 707 3611 office
919 707 9000 main office
garv. Perim utterCa_ncdenr.gov
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Andy Smith <asm ith @statesvillenc. net>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:30 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Grzyb, Julie <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>;
Scott Austin <[e-mail]>; Ron Smith <rsmith @statesvillenc. net>
Subject: RE: [External] NPDES Permit Renewal Summary
Gary, are you going to perform the site specific review for ammonia? I didn't see any mention of it. I apologize for not
responding sooner on this, but I just happened to remember it.
Thanks.
From: Perlmutter, Gary [mailto:gary.perimutter@)ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 9:48 AM
TO: Andy Smith
Cc: Grzyb, Julie;'[e-mail]'; Scott Austin; Ron Smith
Subject: RE: [External] NPDES Permit Renewal Summary
Hi Andy,
Both permits are being reviewed and prepared for Public Notice. I hope to have them out within a few weeks.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Have a good week,
Gary
From: Andy Smith <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 7:43 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Grzyb, Julie<iulie.erzvb()ncdenr.eov>;'[e-mail]' <'oel.whitford me illen ineers.com>;
Scott Austin <saustin statesvillenc.net>; Ron Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] NPDES Permit Renewal Summary
CAUTION:
_Report Spa ni. .
Gary, I am curious as to the status of the permit renewals for V Creek WWTP permit # NCO020591 and 4t" Creek WWTP
permit # NC0031836. Please advise.
Thanks.
From: Perlmutter, Gary [mailto:ga►y.pgrlmutter(abncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:37 PM
To: Andy Smith

CL�
.- N
n
C N
C.
N
b..
I I �
I
! I N
I 1 r
I ! ! P
Ln
N0
�N
O
?� M
o �c > ap
c
N
c
CD
J J
I
U o
c
v
V
o
o
c
U �
o�
�°
N
E a
3 L
►°
E E -'r? coo y
1 1 I
C
i°
.
I 1 I o
,u
1 1 =
l
! 1
I I I
I I I
IEA
6O
to a
I !"I
i Iri
n
E
3
Hlml®Im
o
421
E
m
co
=
y
e`olxixlx
cmi
a
z
a
e
t�
3
v�zo
d
o
3
CL
mi�l�Id
w
v
IL
v
C)
m
a
❑
r
Q
Q�
o �IhIEIE
W 1 1 I
s
=
li
2
O u.
x
fq
tiU'
M
7 o o
a
(]

O t7
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
z
�
O 3
e
a
i i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
o
CY
w
I I
I
I
I
e
e
I
I e
1
I
a
a
E
I
I Y3
I
I
x
A
w
I I£
I
I -
I
I
I -
9
f
E
�
IU
C U
I t o
I I
I�
I
t o
I
I
I
I
I
t o
I
I
{
I
I
c
o
U¢ U
I I Z
I I
I Z
I Z
I
I
I Z
I
I
W
�o
Iv,
I
;
I
IO
co
O
I
IN
O
I
I
un
O
I
I�!
I
Io
I
I
M
3
b
IM lo,
t0+1I�
00
O
IM
O
IO
I�
M IN
to
p
et�nw
y
°
3
13�I1I!rx!�.! a
�'.
1�
-W
10
N h h N O
MLoLo�n
y
v
AI A
•a .7
I,� A
ate+•
I A
N
•�
I
y
I
d
..7
I
Igo°
N .
Ia
C
?�' m ry Nv
I���
¢
IU
IU
d
IU
IU
Q
IU
i
3vvMN: 0
a
�
R
,
IU
I
~
z
IU�IU�
II II II II II y
Uc�cddU
F
a
U
v
h
mVLU
U
J�
a@,a��
m
`�
`D
It
z
z
z
z
�U
Z
c
o
j a
n
`
ci v
P. V e o VJ
= LyL
A
O O
O
O
0,O
r
W
O
O
N
c
VI 9
=O
IL
Q
M
E
d
o
o
enO
o
o
U
z�
SIINn
10d
_G
g
h
�
p @
�
U
O>
CD
CI)W
.� 'O
O
y
iV. O
y
O
y
O
N
N
o
0
a
CD
=
O'
0
d
U
a
a
_
w
rr
gym.
Z
OMOMON
Z
00
ONIn IC to O
`
�
tp h r r 10 LL
II
a
V V Z Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z I
o
W
a
a
E
c
O
C
Ix
CL
_
r u
u
E
E
m
u
c
W c
?
°
a
0E
E
om
L
L
o
Q
Q E
c)
a
m
cLi t
U
c
m
M
c
F.
_o
L
6
m
a

w
n o
o a
w =r
w 0
w�
q
m z
z
C
�c
;
m
r
T
c
n
�e
n
C
7 x
x
a
3
3
z
c>
z
t�
z z
z
0
z
0
z
c�
z
�
z
�
z
n
z
n
T
N
O
O
N
O
n
co
N
O
1
��
CC
CC
ca
cc
cC
Rc]
cc
V
v
v r]
J
J
J
J
v
J
J
O
OCA
C C
O
O
C
O
O
C
O
CA
e
�O
00
U
W
1
w
�
O,
00
a
C
00
N
QAi
A
O
O1
Q
O
�
O
� N
y
r
r
r
0
O
�+
a
w
O O
N
O
O W
b
O
O
O
O
00
C
lam.
to
00
a a
w
o
a
o
y
p
g
n
n
n
n
d
I I
ni a ni
c I
a ; ni
I
a ni
I
ni
a>1Ei
c No cal
ai�i
a o I
G ni
a
I
nl
a
I
nl
a
I
�I
I
a " �1
I
a nl
a n
1
I
1 ` o
" I
ir
n co e
�•
rn^ �•
Fo
EY.
c,
Fo"
`- p
o•
Fo
i7 o•
to
n
C,
to
G.
o
c^o
E.
0
['T
ty.l
o
io f'•
y o
��-►
O
�•
•I •I
�•
a •I
� •I
n •I
yyly�l
�a •I
•I
•1
•I
a •I
� •I
H
_
o I
I I
I I
a 1
n o+l
I
I
I
I
to
n Nln WI
AI
�I
NI
0,
�1
�I
$
I I
NI
v
4'I
A
I
�' I "I
al
`
O
I
GG
A
ool
GG
n O'
`� ^I
O
N
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
0 0 l
o f
o f
t o o l
o o I
I
o I
I
D I
v I
I I
7 M
ovl
O I
o f
7, A
lo�l
7;u
S�1
I
O I
I
I
� I
I I
,3•°
mil
i
z l
I
to I
= 1
I
CE
�
a CL
1
l
1
0 l
l
I
I
o f
I
I e3 I
0
a
I I
JCL
-1
-1
I�al
CL
3,
3
CL
1 I
AI
I
m I
I l
g
of
I
I
I
o l
I
i i
o1
a i
n i
i 1
0l
i
a i
i
o f
& i
A 0
I I
DI
I
I
I rl
2:
I
I
I
A I
I
�1
I 1
CD
I
I
I ml
WI
I
I
I
I
I
I II
I
I
II
2 I
I
I
1
a l
3. I
I I
ozl
I
I
I ozl
a l
1
I
I
I
I
v 0

N
'a
II II �
C� 07
Q c
'E 'Q c
_ = E
E LL
l6 LL u
w c
to Lu
M m
7 02
O
6 p
ro
'O
2
p�
J
n co M O Q I- O N a M co Ln O
vv wo v oo cocr) cv a
u� ri 00 CO co co co� C G
o$ T r- O N 1La 0
r p¢
0 p K m
A F
0 0 N .- Cl) O _O L L d
o> r cp o o = E
a�
N
o w N
o m E
r A N N N U
• N N N O Cl O N CDO E m U y
y� N
[ rm r�Eo00 000 �o U z E o
>maU 0z�` y
E in r
Q
-
co w O f0 V M O 77 N N v L
N cl cc o� cpNv co co wv
co m m
❑ o o m ^
III EN C Q 7 C U
G Z Y aGi
c0 co f— to U1 O y E Z
10 2 c O O M O N C W (C I[) y 9$ -0 2
' E
A� E. c c
v
c v
ry L
F � ,p
_ O E v a c e
w 9 3 �
E O E E E 'C !lz
EnEvaa " ° 2° �i0��cizinq M ���

A
3
O
O O
M a
E
L
12 w
U
iJ ❑
pf L O �Ol tl C7� `L'i
�+ �Ln rn Cn Of Of
�
1 1
M
1 3
�
A
�
L
=i
a
r
N
a
to¢
p
v
N
c
eD
to
r
z
c0
O
z
4
O
to
e}
"t
<'
CO
LO
O
r
N
G7
¢
LL
LL
LL
LL
I�s
LL
U-
LL
LLLi-
�L
LL
tL
x
LL
p
�U
y�
LO
N
[�
�
C7 to
r
Z
p
d•
N
u7
G
p
LO
0)r
q
p
O
O
(O
O
M
I,O
ry
M
01
r
C
r
O tC7
N
O
r
rM-
fN0
N
�}�tz
U
z
U
U
z
UU
z z
U
z
U
z
U
z
U
a
U
U
a
U
a
z
z
x;'
••�
5-a
d
3
m'
J
J
w
] J
fu
J
..J
w
J
�:
mT
J
ff-4
a
¢
Q
8
E�
o
`-'E
E
~
E
5
U
� tY
a
4
ECG'
_
ViD>
C_
4J
L
2
Z
Z
N
�
t
C
U
Q F
E.}
Q
Q
co
Q
E
a
^
Q
co
LO0
rIL
r-
Q'
o
w m a
a
a
a
as IL
IL
a
a
a
d
d a
a
a
d a
a
a a a a
1 i I 1
I Im
1 I i fy
1 I I l
i I 1 0
IL
i i f
,�
rnl rnl ( 0D v
Y > C2
O
d
c
Ro
O
¢I¢Ia,la,N
M
(j 3 0 0
COD
r-
CD
V
���
Lo
E E m a
E'allo°rnp L N
c z�
'o
Cl
NIrIWILi
LL
nt 1�1� E
,01
I I I 1Ea
i 1 to a
1 ill
I Ivic¢'
�
u
CY
3
I la,iw
wI of mi m
w
o
m U ' a 2 , .
§
cl-I olAl�a
_
mlxlxlx
<
T a. 3 c E V
3
,� x' El m1 m� 9
a N —_ Ci Z E>
W
a
v= e o
w 3 ai m �ldiQ W
x
c�
a 3 cmi U ®
a
.v►
- f3 U1 Ei E�
r- r- Q d W
_
U. Z O ii OC S NI❑
M �3SCIIV C❑
7 T
C O
•- N
C
O N
NI
O
0
f0
¢
d
Of
m
p
m

,-
(,7
I I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
v
vr2
W
I I
I
I t
t
I
1
I
I
F= E
w
I I
I
I L
I
I
I L
I
I
��
�a
a
a�20
I I!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s o>
x EC-4
01
f
1
I E
I
I
I
I
I
I°
A
W
v
0 3
W
I I
x
I
I g
I
I
I
I
I
f=
I`
!
I
I
I
= m
g la
O cais
E
E
zEo
UdU
I I Z
I
I Z
I
I
I z
I
!
�aEm
I I
I
r O
I
oo
I
I
a i
I
a i..
oo
I
i�
1
i a.
en
N
IN I�
O I�
I °
Iv
C IN
loo
00
ri
IM
N
I I
I
I z
I
z I
z I
I
I
Vi
L
m h OD I,
mco a Ne^Mm
f2
J
R
�
••
I .. OI
.�
i ii II i II
I II
I
I
I
M aim
o.-mmm
y
d
v
a . a Si a s
IV I�AS
a .] a�i
d
ai a
:; a
;;
c
«3 a
"K
nt
h m m
w
IoA oa
¢ d
IoA a
d
to
a I
V
d
a I A a
V V
d d
to
a to
V ti
d
C
co n to
46
d
I a x�l
IU
Iv
IU
I
I
lu
Icy
o
i
LO Le) i � c�
z
I U I U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
~
(�
h II II II II II yy�
.9 ryj y N Q
�o dU
F
°
b
w
U
a
v
d
d
c aEi FW
d
V v,
Df
C� tJd @egg o
i
O
O
C
O
II
33..
= v'
A
O
O O
O
O
CDO
C)N
d
a
c z
-
VI
O O
d
�
�
M O E �,
O
O
M O •�
O
O
�
v
z�
z�
slirin
Q
Q
a
a
x
i
a.
lod
ii S
G
Q
a�.r
O
ti
ILL
CM
a
e
C.)
I♦7 �
�
C.
a
W
•0
O
m
O O
O
N
N
O
O
Q
ix
..
d
o
a
a
`
Z
Q
00
3
0
y
U
�
o
o
M
o
o
.,
okn
O C* CD M O III =
ONto co O
Z
V
C
C
N
M
V
m tG I: � r LL
LL
u II II II II II
-a o a4 b
w
°
z
z
z
z
z
z
z z
0
Vl V] N Q,' <W
od.9
d d d d M
U
v
vA
2
O
w
a
a
E
O
z
a
�
u
n
E
E
m
c
E
E
m
m
E
o
m
u
E
E
Y
Q
¢
WO
ci
c=i
a
e°
m
1?
C
Q E
c Q
a
m
C
v
ci
L
M
c
(�
Cp
c
o
t
M
c=i
CD
O
V
IL
Z
E' o
cn
O

Z O
c �
w :r
w�
fA
Z
Z
IC
z
<
°
a
'c
10,
a
a
a
m
3
3
W
i
z
n
z
0
z
n
z
n
z
n
z
0
z
n
z
A
z
A
z
0
z
C9
9
1
C
th
N
w
T
O
Zn
CD
00tA
O
DD
C
N
O
'A
O
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z,
N
O
to
A
o
0
0
kA
tj
N
o
O
A)
w
cr
O
in
O
N
I
�
T
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
n
a
O
O
O
O
CD
a
y
00
0o
a
wkA�^
o
C.
a
I I
c I
I
I
c c�lo �I
m o 14 0 l
a o I
e d nl
I
nl
I- I
x �I
I
c�I
toI
�1
I
=!
I
rA
a
01 �I
y
G
a
F
°pl
a
F
a"
C
',
a
a
dlI
ei' •c;"
•I •I
�I
e�'
•I
�'
Fi' I
'rf'
Oil pl
io'
(D
,,I
i�'
N - o'
(D
pl
Fi'
al
R - n'
FC
o'
O
I 1
y
� I
•I
V' I
u
� I
�vl��l
� •'I� 'I
�a••I
� I
•I
1
n •I
� I
•I
I
n •I
� I
•I
� I
�
N
I I
w!
w
o!
I
Ic I
WI
Z
I
z
I
N
WI
Z
I
I
I I
inl
o
ooI
O
WI
91
0
�I
�°I
O
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
'o
1
I
a l
I
,O
I
I
I I
OOI
O I
I
1001
OOI
I
o
I I
o vl
I
o f
15v1
0 �l
I
O I
I
p1 I
I
z l
I
A I
? I
I I
�o.'
I
o f
oSD
f
3n'
Ic_�!
tan'
c II
I
o f
1
0 l
I
I I
o•I
I
I
ICI
o,l
I
1
1
I
I
I I
XI
3.
w l
I
II
xl
I
3
I
I
I
I
I I
11
I of
of
I
I
I
g l
I
I II
I I
C2.
I
I
n l
I
iI
o f
I
n
A O
DI
I al
DI
I
I
I
to I
I
I I
z I
I
I
I I
o I
I
I
I
I
I
G p
o
oz
a
v .�

N N
c
@
F
� II II
J
N C9 J
m '� E
Y
®�
:�
7 a QQ
dog
lE6 l'26
m
E
aWi 3 °'� 22
c °
o
w E LL
LL'J W W
> C
0
c
U
CV L1
c
m
p
L
N
ym
L _
w
o
O
LL
E
LD
_V
N
0
w
a
uii
ip
a
'd
ate+
C
$
v
L
9 lb
!0
FO-
E E
E
t�0
r
C
78
NVM,�O ¢ � N O� c`ro, Wo
m
w
�
o. J
Y7 M fO 0D O _o
�--
p
> o
z
M N
2
E
..
��
Cn CAco m mOaN CO �LV O�
��n
��
c o ,
��
VVY1ii�
_
C
w E o
W
u
�Z
C OOMi,- MtocN0 C'
c " E
u
8
e`
N
E 3
iiz
LL
—
o p� 4m+
E
F
•q
E >
r' O
NM
•(D
E g O ry N
cli(uliY�y
��
p
O
C
O°
E
lv o O �i
y—
R m? E
w d •u m
N N N O (I O N
G7 d O C O O O
O
E CJ Z E F
Q Q
N
L7
a
wia mL
0
E Z Nv"it
q N
L Q y >> V
7
F
W LO f- M 'd•
'LJ• ',t
to O
.•� v .'9 y �
c h a
E
p
T
m
O CN CO CC`
6 M
M N O
Zo '7
CON
1
_p
g
O
LLa�
O. t0
r
C Iwi O
m
m a ?
W
N N M O N O 0
iA Lis
az
'O O p o
C.)a)
ao
m
s E U Q
�mEo ui
> c-
d Q0
0 0 CD
o 072-2
JC C+7
C
w N Q
6
5i � 9 '�`Q,
CM,
Or-
n
O
c
in
w
to
y v
A n d d
U. R'
C
W
y IG
p o m m
ui IL
7 3 799'C
> v 0
N
�yt
7F-
0
7 0
o.E S S
N W d
V D
a
6
v 0 0 0 CIL m_
m
E- E-,Q
LLZ
m s t s o c
C) C1C)0 C>J220►,
d
ma
_"
Eg

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent
Hardness
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
6/26/2017
44
44
Std Dev.
2
6/27/2017
46
46
Mean
3
6/28/2017
45
45
C.V.
4
6/29/2017
48
48
n
5
6/30/2017
47
47
10th Per value
6
7110/2017
42
42
Average Value
7
7111/2017
49
49
Max. Value
8
7/12/2017
52
52
9
7/13/2017
51
51
10
7/14/2017
48
48
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
�w rases s cwi H2
"m G°Bata
Upstream Hardness
L4axYmu
pcitfRs 5E
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
3.0840
1
6/26/2017
30
30
Std Dev.
47.2000
2
6/27/2017
40
40
Mean
0.0653
3
6/28/2017
44
44
C.V.
10
4
6/29/2017
41
41
n
43.80 mg/L
5
6/30/2017
42
42
10th Per value
47.20 mg/L
6
7/10/2017
50
50
Average Value
52.00 mg/L
7
7/11/2017
44
44
Max. Value
8
7/12/2017
45
45
9
7/13/2017
49
49
10
7/14/2017
56
56
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
6120'PASTE SPECI
Vatufs" teen "COF
J mS rnum data
pvlms - 56
44.1000
0.1569
10
39.00 mg/I
44.10 mg/1
56.00 mg/i
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
1 2/7/2019

Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
12/8/2014
<
10
5
Std Dev.
2
3/9/2015
<
5
2.5
Mean
3
6/8/2015
<
5
2.5
C.V.
4
9/14/2015
<
5
2.5
n
5
12/14/2015
<
6.8
3.4
6
3/7/2016
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
7
6/6/2016
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
8
9/12/2016
<
5
2.5
Max. Fred Cw
9
12/12/2016
<
5
2.5
10
3/13/2017
<
5
2.5
11
4/11/2017
<
10
5
12
6/12/2017
<
5
2.5
13
9/11/2017
<
5
2.5
14
12/11/2017
<
2.5
1.25
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
U" "PABTE SPECL
Values"thin "Gap
M mmu�n Casa
painm . 5r
2.8321
0.3575
14
1.31
5.0 ug/L
6.6 ug/L
Date Data
1 4/9/2013 <
2 4/8/2014 <
3 4/7/2015 <
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
Ilia "pILSM SpEC{I}I,
Beryllium
ut'uV" [r.Qr "C(WC
. M10mi m Unt d�1i1
pWnto • 58
BDL=112DL
Results
1 0.5
Std Dev.
0.003D
1 0.5
Mean
0.5000
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
0.50 ug/L
Max. Fred Cw
1.50 ug/L
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
-2- 2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Par05
uw BAST£ spar.
Cadmium
"'�"°` """
Chlorides
. lRaximVm dALI
pWnts � 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
❑Ats Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
12/82014
<
2
1
Std Dev.
0.27iiF.
1
Std Dev.
2
3/92015
<
0.4
0.2
Mean
0.3143
2
Mean
3
6/8/2015
<
0.4
0.2
C.V.
0.9243
3
C.V.
4
9/142015
<
0.4
0.2
n
14
4
n
5
12/14/2015
<
0.4
0.2
5
6
3/7/2016
<
0.4
0.2
Mult Factor =
1.84
6
Mull Factor =
7
6/6/2016
<
0.4
0.2
Max. Value
1.000 ug/L
7
Max. Value
8
9/122016
<
0.4
0.2
Max. Pred Cw
1.840 ug/L
8
Max. Prod Cw
9
12/12/2016
<
0.4
0.2
9
10
3/132017
<
0.4
0.2
10
11
4/112017
<
2
1
11
12
6/122017
<
0.4
0.2
12
13
9/112017
<
0.4
0.2
13
14
12/112017
<
0.4
0.2
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A mg/L
N/A mg/L
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
-3- 2/7/2019

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
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Y°'""' f"'" ~cop'
wmmum defy
pc4ntff a Sri
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mull Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
N/A ug
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
Par07
j Total Phenolic Compounds
/L
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1
4/3/2012
< 10 5
Std Dev.
2
4/9/2013
< 50 25
Mean
3
4/7/2015
< 50 25
C.V. (default)
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
usw -PPZTE SKVAL
vB6e0.' rnon'CCVY-
mg."llum Cwty
swing • M
11 547D
18.3333
0.6000
3
3.00
25.0 ug/L
75.0 ug/L
-4-
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par08
Par09
0" -PASTE SPMAL
^PASza SPECWL
Chromium III
Yaldap" tnnn "Cf)PY"
Chromium VI
Valwa" Iherr "GUP}"'
Marlmum data
Mhxrmum data
"In[a • °x
lolnth = 31
Date
Data BDL=112DL Results
Date
Data BDL=112DL Results
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
0
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mull Factor =
N/A
7
Max. Value
N/A Ng/L
7
Max. Value
N/A Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A Ng/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
5- 2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Parl0
Pall
UM -PASTE eeEcatu
use ,pasrE�W
Chromium, Total
vnitnrs'then ^coar�
Copper
values" ChM "COPY
M2.4"MM tlata
lNn�nzwn dot►
points - 91
yclnet • 66
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/8/2014
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0 71 t g
1
12/8/2014
<
2
1
Std Dev.
33.1; 5J
2
3/9/2015
<
2
1
Mean
1.3929
2
3/9/2015
<
100
50
Mean
33.5071
3
6/8/2015
<
2
1
C.V.
0.5111
3
61812015
<
100
50
C.V.
0.9902
4
9/14/2015
<
2
1
n
14
4
9/14/2015
<
100
50
n
14
5
12/14/2015
1.5
1.6
5
12/14/2015
<
100
50
6
3/7/2016
<
2
1
Mult Factor =
1.45
6
3/7/2016
7
7
Mult Factor =
1.90
7
6/6/2016
<
2
1
Max. Value
3.0 Ng/L
7
6WO16
64
64
Max. Value
110.00 ug/L
8
9/12/2016
<
2
1
Max. Fred Cw
4.4 Ng/L
8
9/12/2016
60
60
Max. Pred Cw
209.00 ug/L
9
12/12/2016
<
2
1
9
12/12/2016
9
9
10
3/13/2017
<
2
1
10
3/13/2017
110
110
11
4/11/2017
<
5
2.5
11
4/11/2017
7
7
12
6/12/2017
<
2
1
12
6/12/2017
<
2
1
13
9/11/2017
3
3
13
9/11/2017
5.6
5.6
14
12/11/2017
c
2
1
14
12/11/2017
4.5
4.5
15
15
16
'16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
58
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
-6- 2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Parl3
�tlsa "PASTE SPECIAL
Cyanide
``owt "I"-C°Pr
"
Fluoride
Mrxlmun, amm
—�
Roln# * 5•u
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
12/8/2014
<
10
5
Std Dev.
O.00Ol7
1
Std Dev.
2
3/9/2015
<
10
5
Mean
5.00
2
Mean
3
6/8/2015
<
10
5
C.V.
0.0000
3
C.V.
4
9/14/2015
<
10
5
n
14
4
n
5
12/14/2015
<
10
5
5
6
3/7/2016
<
10
5
MuR Factor =
1.00
6
Mult Factor =
7
6/6/2016
<
10
5
Max. Value
6.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
8
9/12/2016
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
12/12/2016
<
10
5
9
10
3/13/2017
<
10
5
10
11
4/11/2017
<
10
5
11
12
6/12/2017
<
10
5
12
13
9111/2017
<
10
5
13
14
12/11/2017
<
5
5
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
68
58
Um -PASTE SPEW
VYiune" h" "COP)
J4MWIni LIM Cdjl
FOIA[S r 51
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
-7- 2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
—
- -
llss-PASTE SPECIAL+
�Par15
-PASTE
Lead
vawsa~mefi -GOP r-
Mercury
kalan"tngn-1
M■xlmum Om1a
paints. 3E
Maximum duty
palm = M
F23/912015
Date
BDL=112DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=112DL Results
12/812014
< 10
5
Std Dev.
'. 710
1
Std Dev.
�, j oA TA
< 3
1.5
Mean
2.0000
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
6/8/2015
< 3
1.5
C.V.
0.6355
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
9/14/2015
< 3
1.5
n
14
4
n
0
5
12/14/2015
< 3
1.6
5
6
3/7/2016
< 3
1.5
Mult Factor =
1.57
6
Mull Factor =
N/A
7
6/6/2016
< 3
1.5
Max. Value
5.000 ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A ng/L
8
9/12/2016
< 3
1.5
Max. Pred Cw
7.850 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ng/L
9
12/12/2016
< 3
1.5
9
10
3/13/2017
< 3
1.5
10
11
4/11/2017
< 10
5
11
12
6/12/2017
< 3
1.5
12
13
9/11/2017
< 3
1.5
13
14
12/11/2017
< 3
1.5
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
I 53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
I
58
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
8- 2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
6
Molybdenum
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Resuts
1
12/8/2014 <
100
50
Std Dev.
2
3/9/2015
4.85
4.85
Mean
3
6/8/2015
5.18
5.18
C.V.
4
9/14/2015
6.7
6.7
n
5
12M4/2015
7.12
7.12
6
3/7/2016
2.8
2.8
Mult Factor=
7
6/6/2016
2.7
2.7
Max. Value
8
9/12/2016 <
2.5
1.25
Max. Fred Cw
9
12/12/2016 '
8
8
10
3/13/2017 <
5
2.5
11
6/12/2017
3.12
3.12
12
9/11/2017
2.69
2.69
13
12/11/2017 <
2.5
1.25
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
uw'PASTE 5Pec1n v Par17 & Par18
Vat�ias" e17�n.^Li]Pr
. MFximvmdals
pglnu - M
Date Data
1 4/9/2013
2 4/8/2014
3 12/8/2014 <
4 3/9/2015 <
5 4/7/2015
6 6/8/2015
/L 7 9/14/2015
1L 9 12/14/2015
9 3/7/2016
10 6/6/2016
11 9/12/2016
12 12/12/2016
13 3/13/2017
14 4/11/2017 <
15 6/12/2017
16 9/11/2017
17 2/112017 <
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
7.5508
1.7141
13
2.62
50.0 ug
131.0 ug
Nickel
BDL=112DL
Results
2
2
Std Dev.
2.5
2.5
Mean
10
5
C.V.
2
1
n
2.6
2.6
3.876
3.876
Mult Factor =
9.031
9.031
Max. Value
4.745
4.745
Max. Fred Cw
2.107
2.107
4.739
4.739
4.43
4.43
2.86
2.86
2.57
2.57
10
5
3.17
3.17
2
2
2
1
Vfjj Val3�CS' i.�,t 'G'fl�
M-AX UM dnpoli
3.4487
0.5674
17
1.41
9.0 Ng/L
12.7 Ng/L
-9-
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Par2O
u"-PASTE.SFECLAE
Lw'PAM spec I
Selenium
Vow"- lean -SOP
SIIY@f
V alu"- then "COPY
Math = am
►A-Fmilm a:u
P1wMS - 53
pdn4 ' SP
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
12/82014
<
10
5
Std Dev.
1.0641
1
1282014
<
5
2.5
SW Dev.
081,71
2
3/9/2015
<
5
2.5
Mean
3.0357
2
3/92015
<
0.5
0.25
Mean
0.5714
3
6/8/2015
<
10
5
C.V.
0.3507
3
6/82015
<
0.5
0.25
C.V.
1.4299
4
9/142015
<
5
2.5
n
14
4
9/142016
<
0.5
0.25
n
14
5
12/14/2015
<
5
2.5
5
12/142015
<
0.5
0.25
6
3/7/2016
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.30
6
3172016
<
0.5
0.25
Mult Factor =
2.27
7
6/612016
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
6/6/2016
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
8
9/122016
<
5
2.6
Max. Pred Cw
6.5 ug/L
8
9/122016
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Fred Cw
5.675 uglL
9
12/12I2016
<
5
2.5
9
12/122016
<
0.5
0.25
10
3/132017
<
5
2.5
10
3/132017
<
0.5
0.25
11
4/112017
<
10
5
11
4/112017
<
5
2.5
12
6/122017
<
5
2.5
12
6/122017
<
0.5
0.25
13
9/112017
<
5
2.5
13
9/112017
<
0.5
0.25
14
12/112017
<
5
2.5
14
12/11/2017
<
0.5
0.25
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
I
58
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
10 2/7/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par2l
Date D
1 4/9/2013
2 4/8/2014
3 12/8/2014 <
4 3/9/2015 <
5 4/7/2015
6 6/812015 <
7 9/14/2015 <
8 12/1412015' <
9 3/7/2016
10 6/6/2016
11 9/12/2016
12 12/12/2016
13 3/13/2017
14 4/11/2017
15 6/12/2017
16 9/11/2017
17 12/11/2017
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
Zinc
ate
BDL=112DL
Results
72
72
Sid Dev.
48
48
Mean
10
5
C.V.
100
50
n
60
60
100
50
Mult Factor =
100
50
Max. Value
100
50
Max. Prod Cw
56
56
46
46
45
45
40
40
60
60
46
46
63
63
45
45
97
97
"PASTE SPECIAL
— --
Us 'PASTE SPECIAL
m- ViE i'CCPVY"
0
vAIuaa- liken "rapN,
Mgznnum dal"
M")Mum dma
004nls = 58
palnm • 53
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DA T A
51.9412
2
Mean
NO DATA
0.3486
3
C.V.
NO DATA
17
4
n
0
5
1.25
6
MultFactor=
NIA
97.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A
121.3 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
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
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
11 2/7/2019

Date Data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
—0--- —
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Lk" ��f sPECLAL aaa
V,fu1}f" dice "Copy..
IAay�mum dp!3.
tie; n ie
i
R_ DA`A 1
NO DATA 2
NO DATA 3
0 4
5
N/A 6
N/A 7
N/A 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
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
I"" iAvn' c0p1-j
Waxlmum dntn ,
OCA"m • $R
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
_12_
31836 RPA 4MGD_2018, data
2/7/2019

Permit No. NCO031836
NPDES Implementation 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 Oualiti• Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter';
Acute FV�, µgli
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW,. µg/1-
(Dissolved)
.I;; Acute SW µ9/1
1,,(bisso�Ned)
Chronic SW; µg/F
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation .
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation.
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg1l 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-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^10.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.1366.72-[In hardness](0.041838)) • e^{0.915l[In hardness]-3.6236)
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[In hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[In 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[ln hardness]+0.6848)
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^(0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700)
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702)
WER*{i.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460)
Lead, Acute
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203=[In hardness](0.145712)) e^{LM[In hardness]-4.705}
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Acute
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 . e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584)
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO031836
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis A
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/WOBELs for Hardness-Del)endent 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 (s7Q10, cfs) "I
• 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 fast 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.
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.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO031836
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= , Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness. m L) + (s7Q10 cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness. melt)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 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.m-stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in Tlie Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
PermitLimitfrom a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007 -June 1996) and the
equation:
Cd,ss - 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kp.1 [sail,11[10�] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 16 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 + Qw) (Cwgs)(s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
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:
1 Q 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0031836
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
6. 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.
8. 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 IlI 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
Value
47.2
Comments.(Data Source)
Provided by Permittee upon request
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
(Total as CaCO3)
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
44.1
Provided by Permittee upon request
(Total as CaCO3)
7Q10 summer (cfs)
7.50
Previous Fact Sheet
1 Q 10 (cfs)
6.23
Calculated via RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
4.0 / 6.0
Permit application
Date: November 2 2018
Permit Writer: Gary Perlmutter
Page 4 of 4

13/9/18 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Fourth Creek WWTP/ NC0031836
/Permit No.:
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date
Modifier Data Entry
Value
2/6/14
3.6
3.6
3/5/14
2.9
2.9
4/3/14
1.9
1.9
5/7/14
1.5
1.5
6/11/14
2
2
7/9/14
1
0.5
8/7/14
1
0.5
9/3/14
1.4
1.4
10/3/14
2.8
2.8
11/7/14
1.7
1.7
12/5/14
1.3
1.3
1/9/15
1.6
1.6
2/13/15
1.5
1.5
3/6/15
5.4
5.4
4/2/15
11.8
11.8
5/8/15
2.1
2.1
6/12/15
1
0.5
7/10/15
1.3
1.3
8/7/15
°. 1
0.5
9/4/15
2.5
2.5
10/7/15
3.4
3.4
11/6/15
3.6
3.6
12/4/15
2.3
2.3
y./8/16
2.5
2.5
2/4/16
3.5
3.5
3/4/16
3.5
3.5
4/1/16
1.6
1.6
5/16/16
1.4
1.4
6/3/16
1
0.5
7/1/16
1.3
1.3
8/12/16
1.9
1.9
9/1/16
1
0.5
10/6/16
2.18
2.18
11/4/16
2.37
2.37
12/2/16
1.81
1.81
1/6/17
11.7
11.7
2/10/17
4.54
4.54
3/3/17
4.79-
4.79
4/7/17
1.99
1.99
5/10/17
1.74
1.74
6/2/17
6.76
6.76
7/7/17
4.65
4.65
8/3/17
2.01
2.01
9/5/17
5.32
5.32
10/6/17
3.55
3.55
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
No Limit Required
MMP Required
7Q10s = 7.500 cfs WQBEL =
Permitted Flow = 4.000
6 ,d 1.\69 00 (-k-
V:2013-6
I
26.52 'ng/L
47 ng/L
1,8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2014
3.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
1.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016

11/3/17 2.35 2.35
12/4/17 2.97 2.97 4.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
1/5/18 4.7 4.7 4.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018

Fourth Creek WWTP/ NCO031836
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631 E)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
# of Samples
11
12
12
12
1
Annual Average, ng/L
1.8
3.0
1.9
4.4
4.7
Maximum Value, ng/L
3.60
11.80
3.50
11.70
4.70
TBEL; ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L 4. d rh6 q
26.5
CtO tA6() 'J, %

Perlmutter, Gary
From: Perlmutter, Gary
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 2:58 PM
To: 'Scott Harrell'
Cc: Andy Smith; [e-mail]; Ron Smith; Grzyb, Julie
Subject: RE: [External] Fourth Creek WWTP NPDES Renewal (NC0031836)
Dear Mr. Harrell,
As previously communicated to Andy Smith, DWR had reviewed the City's request for a site -specific review of NH3-N
limits based on EPA's 2013 criteria. DWR determined, based on the previous example at a Buncombe County plant, that
the Permittee needs to demonstrate that the proposed limits cannot be met in a feasible and reasonable manner
following an extensive study of NH3-N concentrations, treatment optimization and options, and cost analysis of
treatment options (optimization or system upgrade) before such a review of alternate limits can be made. Further, in
prior communications, the City had agreed to a 2-year compliance schedule to meet the proposed NH3-N limits, which
DWR placed in the draft permit. Therefore, DWR does not find it necessary to review alternative limits without
demonstration that the proposed limits cannot be reasonably met.
Since receiving your e-mail, I had called Mr. Smith to discuss the proposed limits, and he said that outside of two
unusual occasions, the proposed limits can be met under normal conditions. Therefore, the proposed NH3-N limits will
be maintained in the permit.
Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.
Happy 2019,
Gary Perlmutter
Gary B. Perlmutter, M.S.
Environmental Specialist II
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
919 707 3611 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604 Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Scott Harrell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 3:09 PM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>

Cc: Andy Smith <asm ith @statesvillenc. net>; [e-mail]; Ron Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Fourth Creek WWTP NPDES Renewal (NC0031836)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Mr. Perlmutter:
As requested in previous meetings and correspondence, the City of Statesville requests a site -specific review of
ammonia -nitrogen (NH3-N) limits based on EPA's 2013 ammonia criteria before effluent limits are finalized. EPA has
established that its 2013 criteria is the most appropriate method for setting NH3-N limits via a site -specific
determination. Lower limits may be more restrictive than necessary to protect water quality, with no additional
protection of aquatic life from ammonia toxicity below the plant discharge.
DWR's stance is that effluent ammonia data shows that the Fourth Creek WWTP can meet the proposed NC criteria -
based limits, therefore "DWR does not find that ammonia limits based on instream data are necessary." However, the
City has already been optimizing ammonia -nitrogen reduction at the plant over the years based on actual flows. The
City has stated several times that actual flow rates are less than half of the plant capacity, and the City cannot guarantee
future compliance as plant flows increase.
The City of Statesville will provide the necessary upstream pH, temperature, and ammonia -nitrogen data for DWR's
review.
Please feel free to contact me to discuss this process moving forward; we look forward to working together to
determine the appropriate ammonia -nitrogen limits for Fourth Creek.
Scott Harrell, PE
Executive Director of Public Works / City Engineer City of Statesville
301 S. Center Street
P.O. Box 1111
Statesville, NC 28687
Pursuant to NCGS Chapter 132, Public Records, this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto, as well as any
electronic mail messages that may be sent in response to it may be considered public record and as such are subject to
request and review by anyone at any time. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete this
message and inform the sender.