NC0024201_Fact Sheet_20230206

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO242O1
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Nick Coco, [e-mail]
Date: 2/6/2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District / Roanoke River Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Applicant Address:
PO Box 308, Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Facility Address:
135 Aqueduct Road, Weldon, NC 27890
Permitted Flow:
8.34 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 95.6% domestic, 4.4% industrial (Based on
permitted flows)
Facility Class:
Class IV
Treatment Units:
bar screen and grit chamber, influent equalization, dual primary
clarifiers, dual trickling filters, three aeration basins, dual final
clarifiers, hypochlorite disinfection and dechlorination system, dual
secondary sludge thickeners, three anaerobic digesters, lime
stabilization, sludge storage tanks, sludge drying beds
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Halifax
Region
Raleigh
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background. -
The Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District (RRSD) has applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 8.34 MGD
for its Roanoke River WWTP. This facility serves approximately 17,070 residents within the town of
Gaston, City of Roanoke Rapids, and unincorporated areas, as well as 3 significant industrial users (SIUs)
via an approved pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into
Roanoke River, a class C waterbody in the Roanoke River Basin.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is land applied through the land application permit WQ0001989.
Page 1 of 11

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Roanoke River
Stream Segment:
23-(26)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (m12):
8520
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
1172 (Regulated)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Regulated*
30Q2 (cfs):
Regulated*
Average Flow (cfs):
Regulated*
IWC (% effluent):
1.1%
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed; meeting criteria for all identified parameters
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State-wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Roanoke / 03-02-08 / 03010107
USGS Topo Quad:
B28NE Weldon, NC
*Outfall located downstream of Roanoke Rapids Lake. Virginia/North Carolina Power controls the discharge rate
from Roanoke Rapids Lake to Roanoke River (per 2003 Arcadis Dye Study Field Test Protocol correspondence).
3. Effluent Data Summary
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001 (January 2018 through June 2022)
Permit
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit
Flow
MGD
3.3
12.7
1.8
MA 8.34
Monitor and
Temperature
° C
19.9
27.9
9.6
Report
WA 37.5
CBOD
mg/l
7.8
35.6
2.9
MA 25.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/l
16.6
142.5
4.4
MA 30.0
Monitor and
NH3N
mg/l
2.4
13.4
< 0.1
Report
Monitor and
DO
mg/l
5.9
9.8
2.7
Report
(geometric)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
13.4
792
< 1
WA 400
MA 200
0 < pH <
6.9.0
pH
SU
7.0
7.6
6.1
DM 28.0 (<
TRC
µg/l
10.3
26
< 10
50
compliance)
Monitor and
TN
mg/l
14.4
49.11
4.8
Report
Monitor and
TP
mg/l
1.0
3.5
0.4
Report
Monitor and
Total Hardness
mg/l
78.3
152
36
Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average
Page 2 of 11

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/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature
upstream at 308 Rollingwood Road and downstream at 1090 Rockfish Lane. Instream monitoring is
conducted weekly during June, July, August and September, and twice per month during the rest of the
year. This reduced instream monitoring regimen was implemented in the permit with the 2012 renewal
based on request by the permittee and review of instream temperature and dissolved oxygen data
concluding no observed impact from the effluent. In addition, the current permit requires quarterly
hardness monitoring upstream of the outfall to aid in calculating total metals of hardness -dependent
dissolved metals (See RPA section below). Data was observed from January 2018 to June 2022. The data
has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
20.7
31
1.9
20.6
31.6
1.5
DO
mg/1
8.9
14.4
3.3
9.0
14.9
5.1
Total
Hardness
Mg/L as
CaCO3
31.5
40
24
-
-
-
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05
Downstream temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was not greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Instantaneous downstream DO did not drop below 4 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the
period reviewed. The daily average downstream DO was greater than 5 mg/L for the period reviewed. It
was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
Instream monitoring for fecal coliform and conductivity are not required in the permit. As the receiving
stream is neither class B nor impaired for fecal coliform, no change is proposed for instream fecal
coliform monitoring requirements. Based on the IWC of 1.1%, it is not likely that the effluent
conductivity would have an influence downstream. As such, no change has been proposed for instream
conductivity.
No changes are proposed to instream monitoring requirements.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
Page 3 of 11

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported 4 TSS
limits violations resulting in NOVs in 2021.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 18 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from January 2018 to July 2022.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in December 2021 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0024201.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MixingZones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on 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/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed.- Secondary TBEL
BOD5 limits were established in the permit in 1986 along with a reissuance of the permit at an 8.34 MGD
flow. In 1991, the permittee requested and was granted secondary TBEL limits for CBOD5 to replace
their BOD5 limits. Also at this time, it was identified that the discharge location for the facility was in
fact the Chockoyotte Creek, and not Roanoke River. Speculative limits were requested for relocation of
the discharge to Roanoke River in 1993. The Division developed a field calibrated QUAL2E model in
1995 which verified that the secondary TBEL BOD5 limits were sufficiently protective of a 6 mg/L
instream dissolved oxygen concentration, regardless of the outfall location. Relocation of the discharge
point to the Roanoke River occurred in 2007. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Page 4 of 11

Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The permit does
not currently have ammonia limits. Ammonia requirements have been reviewed in the attached WLA
spreadsheet based on ammonia toxicity. Per the 2016 DWR Ammonia permitting guidance, allowable
concentrations > 35 mg/L do not require a permit limit. As the calculated limitations were greater than 35
mg/L, no limits have been added to the permit and monitoring has been maintained. There are no
proposed changes for ammonia.
The TRC limit took effect in 1999 as 28.0 ug/L. The limit has been reviewed in the attached WLA
spreadsheet and found to be protective. No changes are proposed.
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 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 2019
and July 2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel,
Selenium, Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (2018, 2020, 2021)
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since as part of a limited
data set, they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Silver
Page 5 of 11

Attached are the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals Implementation Fact Sheet for
freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet.
Toxici , Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 1.1%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency during the months of January, April, July, and October.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018
2020
2021
2022
# of Samples
1
4
4
4
Annual Average Conc. n /L
12.8
6.2
7.9
9.2
Maximum Conc., n /L
12.8
8.81
14.2
13.6
TBEL, n /L
47.0
WQBEL, n /L
1 1100.0
Note: 2019 data was non -detect < 200 ng/L and was not included in this summary.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. The permittee submitted their existing Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP) in their
renewal application. As the facility is > 2 MGD in capacity and reported multiple detections of mercury >
1 ng/L, the MMP requirement has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TNDDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: N/A
Page 6 of 11

Other WOBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. As an attachment to the permit
application RRSD informed the Division that no monitoring for additional pollutants has been conducted
(see attached chemical addendum) and therefore no additional pollutants of concern have been identified.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 010 7(c) (2) (B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/1
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for CBODS/TSS included in the permit? YES, Overall CBOD5 and TSS
removal rates were greater than 85% - See attached CBOD/TSS removal rate calculations.
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 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
Page 7 of 11

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 213.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
RRSD was granted 2/week monitoring for CBOD, ammonia, and fecal coliform based on 2012 DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities during their 2018 renewal. The permittee has requested continuation of this
monitoring frequency reduction as part of their renewal application, indicating in their assessment that
TSS does not meet criteria and is not being requested for the monitoring reduction. The last three years of
the facility's data for these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the
guidance. As ammonia is not limited in the permit due to the calculated allowable discharge concentrating
being greater than 35 mg/L, the review for reduction of ammonia monitoring frequency was conducted
considering a 35 mg/L limit. Based on this review, 2/week monitoring frequency has been maintained for
CBOD, ammonia, and fecal coliform. Footnote 4 has been added to Section A.(1.): 2/week sampling must
occur on any two non-consecutive days during the calendar week, per the 2012 guidance.
In their renewal application, RRSD requested the reduction of total nitrogen and total phosphorous
monitoring frequencies from monthly to once per quarter and the reduction of chronic toxicity testing
from quarterly to annually. Per 15A NCAC .02B .0508, facilities discharging into the Roanoke River
Basin at a permitted flow of 1.0 MGD or higher shall monitor for total nitrogen and total phosphorous at a
monitoring frequency of monthly. No change is proposed to total nitrogen or total phosphorous
monitoring. Additionally, per the 1999 Whole Effluent Toxicity Permit Limits and Monitoring
Requirements memorandum (attached) chronic toxicity testing has been maintained at a quarterly
frequency.
Footnote 1 of Section 1 of the existing permit states, "The permittee may discontinue influent, effluent
and/or stream sampling at such times when adverse stream flows or extreme weather conditions pose a
substantial risk of injury or death to persons collecting samples. On such days, written justification for
sample discontinuance shall be specified in that month's discharge monitoring report (DMR). Sampling
and monitoring shall resume at the first safe opportunity." This language is covered in 15A NCAC 02B
.0505(c)(4) and is redundant. In the renewal application, the permittee requested the maintenance of this
footnote language. The language is not considered appropriate as a footnote but has been maintained in
the permit as Special Condition A.(6.) Clarification of Monitoring Requirements.
To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
While not immediately downstream, the Roanoke River does have a WS-IV classified stream segment
approximately 80 miles downstream of the discharge. As the Roanoke River WWTP has a pretreatment
program, monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the permit at a frequency of 2/year. Since an
EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently available, the PFAS
sampling requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule which delays the effective date of this
requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater
method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended upon request and if
there are no NC -certified labs.
Page 8 of 11

11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 8.34 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 8.34 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 213 .0505
Temperature
Monitor Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 02B .0500
CBOD5
MA 25.0 mg/l
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 37.5 mg/l
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor 2/Week
213 .0406; 1995 QUAL2E model.
2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/l
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/l
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor Daily
213 .0406; 1995 QUAL2E model.
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 02B .0500
N113-N
Monitor 2/Week
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 0213.0500; 2012 DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction
of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities; 1995
QUAL2E model and 2022 WLA
review.
DO
Monitor Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 0213.0500; 1995 QUAL2E
model.
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100ml
NCAC 213.0200; 2012 DWR
Monitor 2/Week
Guidance Regarding the Reduction
Page 9 of 11

of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
pH
6.0 — 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor Daily
NCAC 213.0200
TRC
DM 28.0 µg/l
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor Daily
NCAC 2B .0200. Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B .0500
Total Nitrogen
Monitor Monthly
No change
15A NCAC 213.0500
TKN
No requirement
Monitor and Report
Surface Water Monitoring; For
Monthly
calculation of Total Nitrogen
NO2+NO3
No requirement
Monitor and Report
Surface Water Monitoring; For
Monthly
calculation of Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Monitor Monthly
No change
15A NCAC 213.0500.
Total Hardness
Quarterly effluent and
No change
Hardness -dependent dissolved
upstream monitoring
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016; Pretreatment
facility
Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
Add 2/year monitoring
pretreatment facility upstream of
PFAS
No requirement
with delayed
state border; Implementation
implementation
delayed until after EPA certified
method becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 1.1%
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent, conducted
amounts. 15A NCAC 213.0200 and
quarterly
15A NCAC 213.0500
Effluent Pollutant
3 times per permit cycle:
3 times per permit
40 CFR 122
Scan
2018, 2020, 2021
cycle: 2025, 2026,
2027
Instream
Separate footnote in
Consolidated into
Improve clarity of monitoring
Monitoring
Section A.(1.)
Footnote 1 in Section
requirements
A.(1.)
Mercury
Required
No change, revise
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Minimization Plan
language toward
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
(MMP)
maintenance
Electronic
Electronic Reporting
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Special Condition A.(5.)
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
Page 10 of 11

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 10/08/2022 & 11/10/2022
Per 15A NCAC 21-1.0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to RRSD, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Raleigh Regional Office, Aquatic
Toxicology Branch, and Operator Certification Program for review. RRSD submitted comments on
October 25, 2022. RRSD informed the Division that the permit language regarding instream monitoring
frequency had been reverted to the more frequent monitoring regimen that was once employed at the
plant. This language change was inadvertent, and the reduced monitoring regimen was meant to be
maintained, as noted above in Instream Data Summary.
Were there any changes made since the 1010812022 Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• Based on discussion with the DWR Basin Planning Branch, to support planning efforts, and as
the two parameters are used in calculating TN, monthly monitoring and reporting for TKN and
NO2+NO3 has been added to the permit.
• Footnote 2 has been revised to reflect the correct variable frequency for instream monitoring [See
A.(1.)] .
As some of the changes to the permit are significant, the permit was resubmitted for public comment on
11/10/2023.
The draft was submitted to RRSD, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Raleigh Regional Office, Aquatic
Toxicology Branch, and Operator Certification Program for review. RRSD submitted comments on
December 13, 2022, concurring with the draft permit.
Were there any changes made since the 1111012022 Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• The expiration year has been revised to 2028, to reflect a 5-year permit cycle.
• As the expiration year has been revised, the years specified for conducting the effluent pollutant
scans in Special Condition A.(3.) Additional Monitoring Requirements for Renewal have been
revised.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• CBOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Pretreatment Form
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• Water Compliance Inspection Report
• Application Addendum
• Mercury Minimization Plan Submittal (previously submitted)
• Applicable special correspondences
Page 11 of 11

Public Notice
AFFP North Carolina
Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission?NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Affidavit of Publication Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NP-
DES Wastewater Permit
STATE OF NC } SS
NCO024201 Roanoke River
COUNTY OF }
WWTP The North Carolina En-
vironmental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge
Tia Bedwell, being duly sworn, says:
permit to the person(S) listed
below. Written Comments re -
That she is Editor of the The Daily Herald, a daily
garding the proposed permit
newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in
will be accepted until 30 days
Roanoke Rapids, County, NC; that the publication, a copy
publish date of this no-
ofthe
of which is attached hereto, was published in the said
tice. The Director of the NC Di -
newspaper on the following dates:
vision of Water Resources
November 10, 2022
(DWR) may hold a public hear-
ing should there be a signific-
ant degree of public interest.
Please mail comments and/or
information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested
0N.R...00
�%
persons may visit the DWR at
�` ��-•.<F
That said newspaper was regularldlArr�ulcl
51 2 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604 to review
on those dates. = Q: :Z _
_
the information on file. Addition-
SIGNED: _
Z' PUBLIC V
al information on NPDES per-
mits and this notice may be
0
��iruu�nnm\\\"X\\
found on our website:
Editor
http:/ldeq.nc.govlaboutldivi-
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 10th day of November
sions water-resources/water-re-
2022.
sources -permitslwastewater-
branch npdes-wastewater,lpub-
lic-notices,or by calling (919)
707-3601. Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District (P.O. Box 308,
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870)
Allison R. Coleman, Notary Halifax Co, County, NC
has requested renewal of NP-
DES permit NCO024201 for its
My commission expires: April 29, 2023
Roanoke River Wastewater
Treatment Plant, located in Hal-
ifax County. This permitted fa-
cility discharges treated muni-
cipal and industrial wastewater
00006193 70517526
to the Roanoke River, a class C
water in the Roanoke River
Wren Thedford
Basin. Fecal coliform, pH and
NCDEQ-DWR (RR)
total residual chlorine are wa-
1617 Mail Service Center
ter quality limited. This dis-
Raleigh, NC 27699
charge may affect future alloca-
tions in this segment of the
Roanoke River,
Nov. 10, 2022

P�OICE R9
x
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
92fTgRY D15�4,G
December 8, 2022 CERTIFIED MAIL,
Mr. Nick Coco
NC DEQ, Water Quality, NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1617
P.O. Box 308
1000 Jackson Street
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.rrsd.or�
7005 3110 0001 6339 1367
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RE: Comments NPDES Permit Number NCO024201 Renewal
Roanoke River Wastewater Treatment Plant
135 Aqueduct Road
Halifax County
Dear Mr. Coco,
93ECE6NED
DEC 13 2022
KDEOMR/WDES
The Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District (RRSD) received a draft permit for the referenced facility on
October 11, 2022 (Publication Notice dated 10/8/22). After initial comments were submitted, we
received the second draft permit on November 29, 2022 (Publication Notice dated 11/10/22).
After reviewing the latest draft permit, we concur with DWR's recommendations and findings and
have no further comments.
We request a copy of any comments that are received from the public regarding this permit renewal,
if applicable.
We very much appreciate the time and effort of the NPDES Unit for this permit renewal. Please do
not hesitate to call me (252-537-9137) if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
R. Danieley Brq4n, PE
Chief Executive Officer
CC: James E. Kerr,11, Chairman
Steven Ellis, ORC
Page,
1/1
ETm Bfrn PDES PamMOraftPa r MMLsMd=

Public Notice
AFFP North Carolina
Public Notice Environmental Management
Commission. NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Affidavit of Publication Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NP-
DES Wastewater Permit
NCO024201 Roanoke River
STATE OF NC } ss
WWTP The North Carolina En -
COUNTY OF }
vironmental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge
Tia Bedwell, being duly sworn, says:
permit to the person(s) listed
below. Written comments re -
That she is Editor of the The Daily Herald, a daily
garding the proposed permit
newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in
will be accepted until 30 days
Roanoke Rapids, County, INC; that the publication, a copy
after the publish date of this no -
of which is attached hereto, was published in the said
tice. The Director of the NC Di -
newspaper on the following dates:
vision of Water Resources
October 08, 2022
(DWR) may hold a public hear-
ing should there be a signific-
ant degree of public interest.
Please mail comments and/or
information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested
N�o,,��
''
persons may visit the DWR at
\�� o
That said newspaper was regular• k�ku'ed and cir4 d
512 N. Salisbury Street,
on those dates. NOTARY =
Raleigh, NC 27604 t0 review
the information on file. Addition -
SIGNED: _ =
al information on NPDES per-
�'. PUBLIC _\
mits and this notice may be
found on our website.
Editor '%%,,11111I Co1U`N\�o`�
http:!ldeq.nc.gov?about?
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 8th day of October
division S:'bvater-resources.
water -resources -permits(
2022.
wastewater-branchlnpdes-
-
wastewatertpubiic- notices, or by
"ALU
calling [phone]. Roan-
oke Rapids Sanitary District
[P.O. Box 308, Roanoke Rap -
AI ison R. Coleman, Notary Halifax Co, County, NC
Ids, NC 27870] has requested
renewal of NPDES permit
My commission expires: April 29, 2023
N00024201 for its Roanoke
River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, located in Halifax
County. This permitted facility
discharges treated municipal
00006193 70486703
and industrial wastewater to the
Roanoke River, a class C wa-
Wren Thedford
ter in the Roanoke River Basin.
NCDEQ-DWR (RR)
Fecal coliform, phi and total re -
1617 Mail Service Center
sidual chlorine are water qual-
Raleigh, NC 27699
ity limited. This discharge may
affect future allocations in this
segment of the Roanoke River.
Oct. 8. 2022

Coco, Nick A
From: Coco, Nick A
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 9:48 AM
To: Steven Ellis
Subject: RE: [External] NCO024201
Hi Steven,
You are correct that TN is already defined as TKN and NO2+NO3 in the permit. The additional monitoring requirement
won't change any of the actions RRSD is already taking but ensures that the data makes it into the DMRs for us and the
basin planners to use. This has been requested for just about anyone sampling for TN, since we have run into situations
where only TN was reported and not TKN and NO2+NO3. Since this data is very useful for basin planning, and having the
monitoring requirement saves us from having to reach out and request years and years of TKN and NO2+NO3 data, it is
a good idea to have it as a reporting requirement tied to TN.
I do see your point here, especially considering you have been reporting this data all along, but we are aiming for
consistency in the permits as we move through them.
I've submitted the revised draft permit to our administrative specialist today and should hopefully have a copy to you
today or tomorrow, with a notice in the paper shortly thereafter.
Thanks again for all of your help with this process and please do not hesitate to reach out with any comments or
questions.
Best,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer 111
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
DE
NORTH CAROLINA tj:�)
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Steven Ellis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 9:18 AM

To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] NCO024201
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Isn't TN the sum of TKN and NO2+NO3. We are monitoring those three to report TN already. We just don't have to
report them individually as we report TN. I would request you leave it as is because TN is defined in the permit language
as equal to TKN+NO2+NO3. That's just my thoughts though.
Steven Ellis I Wastewater Treatment Plant ORC
Ph 252.536.4884 1 Fax [phone] Cell 252.885.0166 1 Email Sellis(a)rrsd.org
Delivering safe drinking water while protecting environmental water quality
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
1000 Jackson Street I PO Box 308 1 Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 1 www.rrsd.ora
Please consider the natural environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Steven Ellis <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] NCO024201
Hi Steven,
Would you mind sending me the comments via email? I'm only in the office a couple times per week but hadn't received
anything last week. I've not received comments from any other party, with the exception of the DWR basin planners
requesting NO2+NO3 and TKN be added as monitoring requirements alongside TN.
The notice was published in the Daily Herald on 10/8/2022 (see attached affidavit).
Thanks,
Nick
From: Steven Ellis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] NCO024201
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Nick, a Formal comments letter has been sent. However, there were only the two comments regarding the PFAS
frequency and stream monitoring frequency. We have not found the public notice in the local newspaper yet by the
way. Please let me know if you receive any public comments.

Steven Ellis I Wastewater Treatment Plant ORC
Ph 252.536.4884 1 Fax [phone] Cell 252.885.0166 1 Email Sellis(a)rrsd.ora
Delivering safe drinking water while protecting environmental water quality
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
1000 Jackson Street I PO Box 308 1 Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 1 www.rrsd.ora
Please consider the natural environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:05 PM
To: Steven Ellis <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] NCO024201
Hi Steven,
Due to the nature of my error (considered a major modification to the permit if I go back to the lower frequency), I will
need to submit this draft permit back for public comment, this time with the correct instream monitoring frequencies.
I've also corrected that typo on the cover letter that you will hopefully be seeing this week. I just wanted to give you the
heads up. There were no other comments here, correct?
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer ///
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
DE Q:>
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coco, Nick A
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 8:36 AM
To: Steven Ellis <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] NCO024201

Hi Steven,
No sir. It was intended to be maintained at the variable frequency of weekly during June, July, August, and September
and 2/month during the remainder of the year, like in your current permit. I will need to revise this. Do you know if RRSD
has any other comments regarding the permit?
Thanks,
Nick Coco, PE (he/him/his)
Engineer ///
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
"Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams"
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
its.— D E
NORTH CAROLINA kl;
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Steven Ellis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] NCO024201
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Nick, did you mean to change our stream sampling frequency to more often?
Steven Ellis, WWTP ORC, Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Roanoke River WWTP
IV
NCO024201
001
8.340
Roanoke River
03010107
C
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
1172.00
1172.00
1172.00
1172.00
940.31
Effluent Hardness
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Upstream Hardness
------- I-------
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
Data Source(s)
I _ _ _ _ _ _ 76.97 mg/L (Avg)
- - - - - - -
I _ _ _ _ _ _ _30.8 mg/L (Avg)
-------
I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31.3 mg/L
I _ _ _31.43 mg/L -
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par060
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Was Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.6992
FW
3.9559
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
ng/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
141.5391
FW
1091.5812
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
9.5501
FW
12.9909
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
3.7873
FW
97.6152
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
45.0324
FW
406.7860
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.4393
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
153.3327
FW
152.5925
ug/L
24201 FW RPA, input
9/27/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY".
H2
Upstream Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Par01 & Par02
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
= 58
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Date
Data
1
1 /7/2019
48
48
Std Dev.
27.6275
1
1 /7/2019
32
32
Std Dev.
4.2628
1
1 /7/2019
<
2
2/4/2019
36
36
Mean
76.9697
2
4/8/2019
28
28
Mean
30.8000
2
4/10/2019
<
3
3/6/2019
56
56
C.V.
0.3589
3
7/8/2019
34
34
C.V.
0.1384
3
7/8/2019
<
4
4/10/2019
92
92
n
33
4
10/3/2019
32
32
n
15
4
10/7/2019
<
5
5/6/2019
112
112
10th Per value
48.00 mg/L
5
1/6/2020
32
32
10th Per value
25.60 mg/L
5
1/6/2020
<
6
6/3/2019
128
128
Average Value
76.97 mg/L
6
4/6/2020
24
24
Average Value
30.80 mg/L
6
4/5/2020
<
7
7/8/2019
92
92
Max. Value
152.00 mg/L
7
7/6/2020
32
32
Max. Value
40.00 mg/L
7
4/6/2020
<
8
8/5/2019
100
100
8
10/5/2020
24
24
8
7/6/2020
<
9
9/9/2019
88
88
9
1/4/2021
28
28
9
10/5/2020
<
10
10/7/2019
100
100
10
4/5/2021
28
28
10
1 /4/2021
<
11
11 /4/2019
76
76
11
7/13/2021
36
36
11
1 /11 /2021
<
12
12/2/2019
58
58
12
10/11/2021
40
40
12
4/5/2021
<
13
1/6/2020
60
60
13
1 /11 /2022
28
28
13
7/12/2021
<
14
2/10/2020
44
44
14
4/5/2022
32
32
14
10/11/2021
<
15
3/9/2020
52
52
15
7/12/2022
32
32
15
1/10/2022
<
16
4/5/2020
80
80
16
16
4/11/2022
<
17
4/6/2020
68
68
17
17
7/11/2022
<
18
5/4/2020
52
52
18
18
19
6/8/2020
152
152
19
19
20
7/6/2020
120
120
20
20
21
8/10/2020
102
102
21
21
22
9/7/2020
76
76
22
22
-1-
Arsenic
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
2
1
Mean
2
1
C.V.
2
1
n
2
1
2
1
Mult Factor =
2
1
Max. Value
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
1.2353
0.7854
17
1.58
5.0 ug/L
7.9 ug/L
24201 FW RPA, data
9/27/2022

Par03
Beryllium
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/5/2020
< 0.5 0.25
Std Dev.
2
1/11/2021
< 0.5 0.25
Mean
3
7/9/2018
< 5 2.5
C.V. (default)
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
use "PASTE Par04 use "PASTE Par07
SPECIAL -Values' SPECIAL -Values" Use "PASTE SPECIAL
then "COPY". Cadmium then "COPY". Total Phenolic Compound Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data Maximum data Maximum data points
58
points = 58 points = 58 -
1.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.50 ug/L
7.50 ug/L
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1 /7/2019
<
2
1
Std Dev.
2
4/10/2019
<
0.15
0.075
Mean
3
7/8/2019
<
0.15
0.075
C.V.
4
10/7/2019
<
0.15
0.075
n
5
1 /6/2020
<
0.15
0.075
6
4/5/2020
<
0.15
0.075
Mult Factor =
7
4/6/2020
<
0.15
0.075
Max. Value
8
7/6/2020
<
0.15
0.075
Max. Pred Cw
9
10/5/2020
<
0.15
0.075
10
1 /4/2021
<
0.15
0.075
11
1/11/2021
<
0.15
0.075
12
4/5/2021
<
0.15
0.075
13
7/12/2021
<
0.15
0.075
14
10/11/2021
<
0.15
0.075
15
1/10/2022
<
0.15
0.075
16
4/11/2022
<
0.15
0.075
17
7/11/2022
<
0.15
0.075
18
19
20
21
22
-2-
0.1294
1.7336
17
2.17
1.000
2.170
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Result
1
4/6/2020
11 11
Std Dev
8.0829
2
1/12/2021
21 21
Mean
12.3333
3
7/9/2018 <
10 5
C.V. (de
0.6000
4
n
3
5
6
Mult Fac
3.00
7
Max. Va
21.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pr(
63.0 ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24201 FW RPA, data
9/27/2022

Par10
Chromium, Total
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1 /7/2019
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
2
4/10/2019
<
2
1
Mean
3
7/8/2019
<
2
1
C.V.
4
10/7/2019
<
2
1
n
5
1 /6/2020
<
2
1
6
4/5/2020
<
2
1
Mult Factor =
7
4/6/2020
<
2
1
Max. Value
8
7/6/2020
<
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
9
10/5/2020
<
2
1
10
1 /4/2021
<
2
1
11
1/11/2021
<
2
1
12
4/5/2021
<
2
1
13
7/12/2021
<
2
1
14
10/11/2021
<
2
1
15
1/10/2022
<
2
1
16
4/11/2022
<
2
1
17
7/11/2022
<
2
1
18
19
20
21
22
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Use "PASTE SPECIAL- Pal Use "PASTE SPECIAL- Par12
Values" then "COPY". Copper Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points Maximum data points
= 58 = 58
1.0882
0.3343
17
1.24
2.5 dig/L
3.1 dig/L
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1 /7/2019
7
7
Std Dev.
2
4/10/2019
3
3
Mean
3
7/8/2019
5
5
C.V.
4
10/7/2019
7
7
n
5
1 /6/2020
3
3
6
4/5/2020
5
5
Mult Factor =
7
4/6/2020
4
4
Max. Value
8
7/6/2020
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
10/5/2020
6
6
10
1 /4/2021
5
5
11
1/11/2021
6
6
12
4/5/2021
6
6
13
7/12/2021
5
5
14
10/11/2021
4
4
15
1/10/2022
4
4
16
4/11/2022
4
4
17
7/11/2022
68
68
18
19
20
21
22
-3-
8.6471
1.7742
17
2.19
68.00 ug/L
148.92 ug/L
Date Data
1
1 /8/2019
<
2
4/11/2019
<
3
7/9/2019
<
4
10/8/2019
<
5
1 /7/2020
<
6
4/6/2020
<
7
4/7/2020
<
8
7/7/2020
<
9
10/6/2020
<
10
1 /5/2021
<
11
1/12/2021
<
12
4/6/2021
<
13
7/13/2021
<
14
10/12/2021
<
15
1/11/2022
<
16
4/12/2022
<
17
7/12/2022
18
19
20
21
22
Cyanide
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 5
Std Dev.
5 5
Mean
5 5
C.V.
5 5
n
5 5
5 5
Mult Factor =
5 5
Max. Value
5 5
Max. Pred Cw
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
8 5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
5.00
0.0000
17
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
24201 FW RPA, data
9/27/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Par16
Par17 & Par18
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Lead
Values" then "COPY".
Molybdenum
Values" then "COPY".
Nickel
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
= 58
= 58
= 58
Date
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1 /7/2019
<
10
5
Std Dev.
1.1573
1
1 /7/2019
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.9274
1
1 /7/2019
< 10
5
Std Dev.
2.4370
2
4/10/2019
<
0.5
0.25
Mean
0.6500
2
4/10/2019
<
2
1
Mean
1.6000
2
4/10/2019
2.3
2.3
Mean
3.1588
3
7/8/2019
0.6
0.6
C.V.
1.7805
3
7/8/2019
<
2
1
C.V.
0.5796
3
7/8/2019
3.5
3.5
C.V.
0.7715
4
10/7/2019
<
0.5
0.25
n
17
4
10/7/2019
4
4
n
16
4
10/7/2019
3.9
3.9
n
17
5
1 /6/2020
1
1
5
1 /6/2020
<
2
1
5
1 /6/2020
1.8
1.8
6
4/5/2020
<
0.5
0.25
Mult Factor =
2.19
6
4/5/2020
<
2
1
Mult Factor =
1.45
6
4/5/2020
1.9
1.9
Mult Factor =
1.57
7
4/6/2020
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Value
5.000 ug/L
7
4/6/2020
<
2
1
Max. Value
4.0 ug/L
7
4/6/2020
2.1
2.1
Max. Value
11.9 Ng/L
8
7/6/2020
<
0.5
0.25
Max. Pred Cw
10.950 ug/L
8
7/6/2020
<
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
5.8 ug/L
8
7/6/2020
3.3
3.3
Max. Pred Cw
18.7 Ng/L
9
10/5/2020
<
0.5
0.25
9
10/5/2020
2
2
9
10/5/2020
3.1
3.1
10
1 /4/2021
<
0.5
0.25
10
1 /4/2021
<
2
1
10
1 /4/2021
1.4
1.4
11
1/11/2021
<
0.5
0.25
11
4/5/2021
2
2
11
1/11/2021
2.2
2.2
12
4/5/2021
<
0.5
0.25
12
7/12/2021
<
2
1
12
4/5/2021
2
2
13
7/12/2021
<
0.5
0.25
13
10/11/2021
<
2
1
13
7/12/2021
3
3
14
10/11/2021
<
0.5
0.25
14
1/10/2022
<
2
1
14
10/11/2021
2.1
2.1
15
1/10/2022
<
0.5
0.25
15
4/11/2022
2
2
15
1/10/2022
1.6
1.6
16
4/11/2022
<
0.5
0.25
16
7/11/2022
3.1
3.1
16
4/11/2022
2.6
2.6
17
7/11/2022
1.2
1.2
17
17
7/11/2022
11.9
11.9
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
24201 FW RPA, data
-4- 9/27/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Par20
Par21
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Selenium
Values" then "COPY".
Silver
Values" then "COPY".
Zinc
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
= 58
= 58
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
1 /7/2019
<
10
5
Std Dev.
1.0914
1
4/5/2020 <
0.5 0.25
Std Dev.
1.2990
1
1 /7/2019
21
21
Std Dev.
29.4389
2
4/10/2019
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.7647
2
1/11/2021 <
0.5 0.25
Mean
1.0000
2
4/10/2019
24
24
Mean
25.3750
3
7/8/2019
<
1
0.5
C.V.
1.4272
3
7/9/2018 <
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
7/8/2019
19
19
C.V.
1.1602
4
10/7/2019
<
1
0.5
n
17
4
n
3
4
10/7/2019
17
17
n
16
5
1 /6/2020
<
1
0.5
5
5
1 /6/2020
15
15
6
4/5/2020
<
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
2.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
4/5/2020
15
20
Mult Factor =
1.83
7
4/6/2020
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
7
4/6/2020
20
25
Max. Value
135.0 ug/L
8
7/6/2020
<
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw
10.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
7.500 ug/L
8
7/6/2020
25
18
Max. Pred Cw
247.1 ug/L
9
10/5/2020
<
1
0.5
9
9
10/5/2020
18
15
10
1 /4/2021
<
1
0.5
10
10
1 /4/2021
15
19
11
1/11/2021
<
1
0.5
11
11
1/11/2021
19
19
12
4/5/2021
<
1
0.5
12
12
4/5/2021
19
18
13
7/12/2021
<
1
0.5
13
13
7/12/2021
18
14
14
10/11/2021
<
1
0.5
14
14
10/11/2021
14
12
15
1/10/2022
<
1
0.5
15
15
1/10/2022
12
15
16
4/11/2022
<
1
0.5
16
16
4/11/2022
15
135
17
7/11/2022
<
1
0.5
17
17
7/11/2022
135
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
24201 FW RPA, data
-5- 9/27/2022

Roanoke River WWTP
NCOO242O1 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
8.3400
WWTP/WTP Class:
IV
1QlOS (cfs) =
940.31
IWC% @ 1QlOS =
1.35611606
7Q10S (cfs) =
1172.00
IWC% @ 7Q10S =
1.09095328
7Q10W (cfs) =
1172.00
IWC% @ 7Q10W =
1.09095328
30Q2 (cfs) =
1172.00
IWC% @ 30Q2 =
1.09095328
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
1172.00
IW%C @ QA =
1.09095328
Receiving Stream:
Roanoke River HUC 03010107
Stream Class:
C
Outfall 001
Qw = 8.34 M G D
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 31.43 mg/L
Chronic = 31.3 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
H
Chronic Standard Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 25,071.6
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q1 Os) 340
ug/L
17 0
7.9
Chronic (FW): 13,749.4
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL10
Monitoring required
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
NO DETECTS
_=
--------------------------------------
Chronic (HH): 916.6
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 4,793.10
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
3 0
7.50
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 595.81
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Monitoring required
Acute: 291.705
Cadmium
NC
0.6992 FW(7QlOs) 3.9559
ug/L
17 0
2.170
Chronic:----- 64.094 -
----------------------------
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 2
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 2
63.0
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 27,498.9
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
1,imited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 80,493.2
Chromium III
NC
141.5391 FW(7QlOs) 1091.5812
µg/L
0 0
N/A
-
----------------------------
Chronic:-----12,973.9
See Total Chromium
Acute: 1,179.8
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7QlOs) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:----- 1,008-3 -
----------------------------
See Total Chromium
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
17 0
3.1
Max reported value = 2.5
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 957.95
Copper
NC
9.5501 FW(7Q1 Os) 12.9909
ug/L
17 17
148.92
Chronic: 875.39
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
24201 FW RPA, rpa
9/27/2022

Roanoke River WWTP
NCOO242O1
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 8.34 M G D
Acute: 1,622.3
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7QlOs) 22
10
ug/L
17 1
5.0
Chronic: 458.3
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 7,198.142
Lead
NC
3.7873 FW(7Q1 Os) 97.6152
ug/L
17 3
10.950
Chronic: 347.156
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 29,996.4
Nickel
NC
45.0324 FW(7Q1 Os) 406.7860
µg/L
17 16
18.7
Chronic (FW): 4,127.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
--------------------------------
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Chronic (WS): 2,291.6
NA
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 4,129.4
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q1 Os) 56
ug/L
17 0
10.0
Chronic: 458.3
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 32.394
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.4393
ug/L
3 0
7.500_INo
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 5.500
detects; all reported values < 5 ug/I and < 0.5
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
ug/L - No monitoring required
Acute: 11,252.2
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
153.3327 FW(7QlOs) 152.5925
ug/L
17 17
247.1
Monitoring required
Chronic: 14,054.9
No value > Allowable Cw
24201 FW RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 9/27/2022

NCO024201
CBOD monthly
Month
RR (%)
January-18
97.20
February-18
98.07
March-18
98.07
April-18
96.85
May-18
97.10
June-18
98.26
July-18
95.95
August-18
96.68
September-18
97.01
October-18
97.01
November-18
94.74
December-18
94.38
January-19
93.17
February-19
93.21
March-19
95.49
April-19
95.58
May-19
96.79
June-19
96.89
July-19
97.33
August-19
97.46
September-19
97.97
October-19
97.86
November-19
97.57
December-19
96.22
January-20
96.50
February-20
92.93
March-20
96.10
April-20
96.36
May-20
96.97
June-20
95.67
Roanoke River WWTP
removal rate
Month
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
June-22
July-22
August-22
September-22
October-22
November-22
December-22
RR (%)
97.60
96.51
96.58
98.09
95.49
95.80
94.34
91.08
94.74
96.11
96.93
97.96
96.84
97.54
97.69
97.42
97.86
97.81
94.22
95.11
94.19
95.74
97.27
98.02
97.38
97.79
Overall CBOD removal rate 96.38
10/3/2022
TSS
monthly
removal rate
Month
RR (%)
Month
RR (%)
January-18
94.18
July-20
95.14
February-18
94.11
August-20
91.79
March-18
89.13
September-20
91.88
April-18
88.13
October-20
93.34
May-18
93.17
November-20
88.31
June-18
93.13
December-20
90.70
July-18
88.11
January-21
88.60
August-18
86.40
February-21
73.51
September-18
90.92
March-21
85.05
October-18
91.03
April-21
91.66
November-18
86.93
May-21
93.27
December-18
85.94
June-21
93.24
January-19
86.22
July-21
93.56
February-19
86.95
August-21
90.83
March-19
88.33
September-21
93.77
April-19
90.44
October-21
93.16
May-19
93.72
November-21
94.18
June-19
92.88
December-21
94.42
July-19
92.56
January-22
87.06
August-19
92.34
February-22
89.16
September-19
92.33
March-22
86.68
October-19
92.28
April-22
88.84
November-19
92.40
May-22
93.26
December-19
90.63
June-22
91.69
January-20
90.62
July-22
92.44
February-20
85.99
August-22
93.38
March-20
92.47
September-22
April-20
94.02
October-22
May-20
93.27
November-22
June-20
91.39
December-22
Overall TSS removal rate
90.61

NC0024201 Roanoke River WWTP Instream DO Summary
Date
Upstream [mg/L]
Downstream [mg/L]
Date
Upstream [mg/L]
Downstream [mg/L]
1 /8/2018
14.1
14.8
7/29/2019
5.9
6.7
1 /22/2018
14.4
14.9
8/7/2019
6.8
7.3
2/5/2018
13
13.6
8/14/2019
6.3
7.5
2/20/2018
11
11.6
8/22/2019
6.6
6.4
3/7/2018
12
12.3
8/26/2019
7
7.1
3/22/2018
13.8
12.8
9/3/2019
7.5
8.2
4/2/2018
12.2
12.3
9/10/2019
6.8
7.2
4/18/2018
10.5
10.7
9/19/2019
7.7
7.7
5/1 /2018
9.6
9.4
9/25/2019
6.6
7.7
5/15/2018
10.2
10.8
10/3/2019
8.5
10.5
6/1 /2018
6.4
6.1
10/17/2019
10.2
8.8
6/4/2018
7.5
7.5
11 /7/2019
10.3
10.4
6/13/2018
8.4
10
11 /19/2019
10
10.6
6/19/2018
7.9
8
12/2/2019
10.9
11.1
6/25/2018
9.4
7.5
12/18/2019
11.9
11.8
7/5/2018
6.7
7.3
1 /6/2020
12
12
7/9/2018
7.2
8.3
1 /23/2020
12.7
13.5
7/17/2018
8
9.4
2/14/2020
13.3
12.9
7/23/2018
7.8
7.2
2/24/2020
13
12.4
7/30/2018
3.3
6.2
3/9/2020
10.9
11.4
8/6/2018
7.9
7.6
3/24/2020
10.5
10.5
8/14/2018
7.6
7.7
4/6/2020
10.2
10.6
8/21 /2018
5.4
6.3
4/21 /2020
9.6
9.9
8/27/2018
7.6
9
5/6/2020
9.2
9
9/5/2018
5.5
7.7
5/18/2020
9
9.2
9/10/2018
5.5
6.4
6/1 /2020
8.7
7.5
9/20/2018
6.4
6.2
6/8/2020
6.8
9.4
9/27/2018
5.6
5.3
6/17/2020
7.3
6.8
10/9/2018
5.2
5.1
6/24/2020
7.8
7.4
10/23/2018
6.6
5.6
7/1 /2020
6.5
6.7
11 /6/2018
7.8
7.8
7/6/2020
6.5
6.2
11 /20/2018
9.4
8.6
7/14/2020
6.2
6.4
12/4/2018
9.8
10.2
7/22/2020
6.5
7
12/18/2018
11.3
11.1
7/30/2020
5.7
6.5
1 /7/2019
11.6
11.4
8/6/2020
5.6
5.3
1 /24/2019
12.1
12.2
8/13/2020
5.3
5.3
2/13/2019
12.4
12.2
8/20/2020
6.2
6.9
2/26/2019
13.4
13.1
8/25/2020
7
6.1
3/12/2019
11.9
12.1
9/3/2020
5.5
5.2
3/26/2019
12.2
12.1
9/10/2020
5
5.4
4/8/2019
11.4
11.6
9/18/2020
6.7
6.8
4/22/2019
9.6
9.7
9/25/2020
6.5
6.4
5/8/2019
8.6
9.3
10/1 /2020
7.8
7.7
5/22/2019
8.5
9.2
10/22/2020
9
8
6/6/2019
7.2
8.2
11 /2/2020
8.8
7.8
6/12/2019
6.8
7.7
11 /16/2020
9.5
8.5
6/17/2019
7.7
7.6
12/3/2020
10.9
10.8
6/27/2019
7.1
6.5
12/17/2020
12
11.2
7/1 /2019
8.4
8.9
1 /4/2021
13
12.3
7/8/2019
5.2
6.1
1 /21 /2021
11.9
12.4
7/15/2019
7.6
7.7
2/4/2021
13.2
12.8
7/23/2019
6.3
6.5
2/16/2021
13.2
13.3
3/2/20211
12.2
121
11 /23/2021
11.2
11.6

3/18/2021
11.2
11.1
12/7/2021
11.2
11.4
4/5/2021
11.1
11.1
12/21 /2021
11.2
11
4/21 /2021
9.9
9.9
1 /4/2022
10.5
10.6
5/4/2021
9.7
9.9
1 /18/2022
12.3
12.5
5/19/2021
10.2
10.3
2/1 /2022
14
14.2
6/4/2021
8.8
8.7
2/15/2022
13.2
13.3
6/9/2021
8
8.4
3/1 /2022
12.4
12.4
6/17/2021
7.6
7.7
3/15/2022
11.9
11.4
6/25/2021
8.5
9
3/29/2022
11.2
10.8
6/29/2021
7.7
8.2
4/12/2022
10.5
10.4
7/9/2021
8.2
8
4/26/2022
10.3
9.7
7/13/2021
7.9
7
5/10/2022
9.1
9.2
7/20/2021
7
7.4
5/25/2022
7.8
8.5
7/27/2021
6.1
6.8
6/2/2022
8.6
9.2
8/3/2021
6.5
7
6/7/2022
7.9
8.4
8/12/2021
8.3
8.8
6/14/2022
7.3
7.2
8/17/2021
6.5
7.4
6/21 /2022
8.6
8.8
8/24/2021
6.5
7.8
6/27/2022
9
9.4
8/31 /2021
7.2
7.1
7/5/2022
9
8.8
9/7/2021
7.2
7.6
7/12/2022
8.3
7.1
9/14/2021
7.1
7.6
7/18/2022
8.7
7.8
9/21 /2021
8.2
7.8
7/28/2022
9.1
8.7
9/28/2021
7.4
7.8
8/1 /2022
6.9
7.1
10/11 /2021
7.9
8.4
8/9/2022
6.2
6.4
10/27/2021
9.5
9.8
8/16/2022
8.8
7.8
11 /9/2021
9.81
9.7
8/23/20221
7.11
7.4
8/30/20221
8.21
7.6

NCO024201 Roanoke River WWTP Instream Temperature Summar
Date
Upstream [degC]
Downstream [degC]
Date
Upstream [degC]
Downstream [degC]
1 /8/2018
1.9
1.5
7/29/2019
29.4
29.5
1 /22/2018
7.6
6.1
8/7/2019
29.6
29.4
2/5/2018
7.9
6.3
8/14/2019
30.3
30.9
2/20/2018
10.6
10.1
8/22/2019
29.5
29.1
3/7/2018
10.2
10.4
8/26/2019
27.9
27.5
3/22/2018
12.2
9.9
9/3/2019
28.4
28.8
4/2/2018
12.5
12.6
9/10/2019
26.4
26.4
4/18/2018
15.2
15.1
9/19/2019
26.1
25.1
5/1 /2018
17.1
17.5
9/25/2019
26.4
26.5
5/15/2018
23
22.8
10/3/2019
26.7
26.7
6/1 /2018
22.9
23.3
10/17/2019
21.6
20.7
6/4/2018
23.6
23.4
11 /7/2019
18.4
18.5
6/13/2018
25.5
25.4
11 /19/2019
12.8
12.7
6/19/2018
26
25.6
12/2/2019
12
11.8
6/25/2018
28.6
28.3
12/18/2019
10.4
10.2
7/5/2018
28.3
28.1
1 /6/2020
9.8
9.6
7/9/2018
29.4
28.4
1 /23/2020
8.3
8.4
7/17/2018
29.4
29.1
2/14/2020
9.2
9.3
7/23/2018
26.4
26.6
2/24/2020
8.4
9.6
7/30/2018
25.9
26.7
3/9/2020
10.4
9.9
8/6/2018
28.3
28.3
3/24/2020
13.6
13.3
8/14/2018
28.6
28
4/6/2020
15.5
15.7
8/21 /2018
27.9
27.8
4/21 /2020
16.1
16.9
8/27/2018
29.6
28.8
5/6/2020
17.9
18
9/5/2018
28.3
28.7
5/18/2020
20.1
20
9/10/2018
27.7
27.9
6/1 /2020
20.6
23.3
9/20/2018
27.2
27.5
6/8/2020
21.3
22.4
9/27/2018
26.3
26.4
6/17/2020
20.4
21
10/9/2018
25.5
25.6
6/24/2020
22.6
22.9
10/23/2018
19.8
19.5
7/1 /2020
23.8
25.3
11 /6/2018
17.6
17.6
7/6/2020
24.5
24.6
11 /20/2018
13
13.4
7/14/2020
26.4
26.1
12/4/2018
10.2
11.2
7/22/2020
30.1
30.7
12/18/2018
8.1
8.3
7/30/2020
30.5
30.5
1 /7/2019
8.5
8.5
8/6/2020
28
27.8
1 /24/2019
7.1
7.2
8/13/2020
27.6
27.3
2/13/2019
8.2
8.1
8/20/2020
27
26.3
2/26/2019
8
8.3
8/25/2020
27.8
27.2
3/12/2019
8.4
9.6
9/3/2020
28
28.1
3/26/2019
11.8
12
9/10/2020
27.2
27.3
4/8/2019
14.7
14.6
9/18/2020
25
24.3
4/22/2019
16.9
17.2
9/25/2020
22.5
22.5
5/8/2019
21.4
21.5
10/1 /2020
22.2
21.6
5/22/2019
23.4
23.7
10/22/2020
21.3
21.5
6/6/2019
27.9
27.8
11 /2/2020
18.2
18.1
6/12/2019
24.9
25.1
11 /16/2020
17.7
18.2
6/17/2019
25
25.4
12/3/2020
13.2
13.4
6/27/2019
25.9
25.8
12/17/2020
10.3
10.2
7/1 /2019
28
28.3
1 /4/2021
8.4
10.1
7/8/2019
27
27
1 /21 /2021
7.3
7.2
7/15/2019
29.1
29.3
2/4/2021
5.6
6.5
7/23/2019
29.9
29.9
2/16/2021
5.7
6
3/2/2021
7.1
8.1
10/11 /2021
22.6
22.4

3/18/2021
13.7
12.2
10/27/2021
20.7
20
4/5/2021
13.3
13.5
11 /9/2021
15.7
15.5
4/21 /2021
17.5
17.8
11 /23/2021
13.2
12.2
5/4/2021
20.9
21.2
12/7/2021
11.8
11.8
5/19/2021
21
21.1
12/21 /2021
11
11.2
6/4/2021
23.6
23.6
1 /4/2022
11.5
11.5
6/9/2021
26.5
26.8
1 /18/2022
7.4
7
6/17/2021
25.4
24.4
2/1 /2022
6.6
6.6
6/25/2021
25.9
26
2/15/2022
8
7.9
6/29/2021
25.4
25.4
3/1 /2022
8.6
8.5
7/9/2021
28.2
28.1
3/15/2022
10.3
11.5
7/13/2021
27.3
27.4
3/29/2022
11.8
12
7/20/2021
26.1
26.2
4/12/2022
14.8
15
7/27/2021
26.8
26.9
4/26/2022
19.3
18.8
8/3/2021
26.8
26.4
5/10/2022
18.3
18
8/12/2021
28.6
28.2
5/25/2022
22.4
22.3
8/17/2021
28.4
27.8
6/2/2022
25.6
25.6
8/24/2021
28.6
28.7
6/7/2022
23.8
24.5
8/31 /2021
29.5
28.8
6/14/2022
25.6
25.1
9/7/2021
26.8
26.4
6/21 /2022
25
24.8
9/14/2021
25.7
24.8
6/27/2022
26.2
26.5
9/21/20211
26.91
26.2
7/5/2022
26.7
26.6
9/28/20211
24.81
24.8
7/12/2022
27.2
26.2
7/18/2022
27.3
26.9
7/28/2022
31
31.6
8/1 /2022
28.3
27.7
8/9/2022
29.6
29.2
8/16/2022
27.3
26.8
8/23/2022
27.1
26.6
8/30/2022
28.8
27.7

9/27/22 WQS
= 12
ng/L
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
V:2013-6
Facility Name
Roanoke
River WWTP/NC0024201
No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL =
0.5 ng/L
7Q10s = 1172.000 cfs WQBEL = 1099.96 ng/L
Date Modifier
Data Entry
Value
Permitted Flow = 8.340
47 ng/L
1/9/20
4.33
4.33
4/6/20
3.96
3.96
7/9/20
8.81
8.81
10/5/20
7.55
7.55
6.2 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2020
1/12/21
4.12
4.12
4/7/21
4.95
4.95
7/15/21
14.2
14.2
10/13/21
8.26
8.26
7.9 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2021
1/13/22
6.1
6.1
4/13/22
7.9
7.9
7/13/22
13.6
13.6
9.2 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2022
7/9/18
12.8
12.8
12.8 ng/L
- Annual Average for 2018

Roanoke River WWTP/NC0024201
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2020
2021
2022
2018
# of Samples
4
4
3
1
Annual Average, ng/L
6.2
7.9
9.2
12.80
Maximum Value, ng/L
8.81
14.20
13.60
12.8
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
1 1100.0

Reduction in Frequency Evaluation
Facility:
Roanoke River WWTP
Permit No.
NC0024201
Review period (use
8/2019 - 8/2022
3 yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOS
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
Note: 35 mg/L used as threshold for ammonia review, as ammonia is not limited.
# of non -
Monthly
3-yr mean
# daily
# daily
Reduce
Weekly average
50/
200%
200/
monthly
# civil penalty
Data Review
Units
average
(geo mean
< 50%?
samples
<15?
samples
< 20?
> 2?
> 1?
Frequency?
limit
limit
MA
for FC)
MA
>200%
WA
>200%
limit
asessment
(Yes/No)
violations
CBOD
mg/L
37.5
25
13
5.6579065
Y
50
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia
mg/L
35
35
1 18
1 2.2064486
1 Y
1 70
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
1 400
1 200
11001
15.706605
1 Y
1
800 F 10 Y
0
N
0
N
Y

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Roanoke River WWTP
PermitNo. NC0024201
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 8.34
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 1172
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 1172
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
1172
s7Q10 (CFS)
1172
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
8.34
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
8.34
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
12.927
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
12.927
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
1.09
IWC (%)
1.09
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
1558
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
71.7
Capped at 28 ug/L.
> 35 mg/L, Monitor
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
1172
Monthly Average Limit:
2001100-1
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
8.34
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
12.927
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
91.66
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
1.09
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
145.0
> 35 mg/L, Monitor
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
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
Far-ni ('nlifnrm
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Page 1
NPDES/PT POCs Review Form
Version:2021.10.20
I. Facility's General Information and Permit Writer (pw)'s checklist
Date of Review
10/3/2022
POCs review due to
permit writer, please check if/when completed
Permit Writer
Nick Coco
Municipal renewal
0
1. Notify Permittee and cc PT staff in regional office if effluent LTMP/STMP data that should be on
DMRs is not really there/ Request DMR update
❑ NA ❑
Facility Name
Roanoke River WWTP
New Industries
❑
2. Notify PT staff in comment section below the NPDES POCs that need to be maintained/added
in LTMP/STMP and HWA/AT
❑
Permit Number
NCO024201
WWTP expansion
❑
3. Review PQLs used in L/STMP vs 2017 recommended PQLs (See tab 2017 PQLs tab) & All
POCs per section IV
❑
Permitted Flow, mgd
8.34
Designed
Flow, mgd
8.34
Speculative limits
❑
3. Email PT staff in central office, regional office, and Facility: draft permit package. PDF this form
and include it in attachments
❑
Permitted SIU Flow,
mgd
0.365
Stream reclass.
❑
4. Email this excel form to PT staff in central office, regional office, and the permittee add it to the
respective SharePoint PT —Town Folder (04. PT_Towns> NCOOXXXXX>NPDES Permit)
❑
Region
Raleigh
Outfall relocation
❑
5. Email PT staff in central office, regional office, and Facility: final permit package. (Note effective
date and 180 days after, at the bottom of this form). Email the final excel form to PT staff in
central office and regional office and add it to the respective SharePoint NPDES Folder (NPDES
Permit Files>NCOOXXXXX) and SharePoint PT —Town Folder
❑
Regional PT Staff
Mitch Hayes, [e-mail]
7Q10 update
❑
6. Notify PT Permittee about new parameters with monitoring/limit (share ICIS parameters file to
ensure they use the right parameter code in the eDMR) and whether PQLs need to be adjusted.
❑
Facility PT Staff, email
Dan Brown, [e-mail]
Other, explain in comments
❑
8. For inactive or not developed PT Programs:
Central Office
NPDES/PT Staff
Keyes McGee
# SIUS
8.1 Review POCs/last IWS/check industryselect.com to check industrial activity in town and
compare with last approved IWS and POCs that are present in DMR and PPA.
8.2 If you deem necessary, follow-up with Permittee regarding IU and POCs and determine if
special condition in NPDES permit requiring a Full IWS submittal is deemed neccessary.
9. Thank you
❑ NA
❑ NA 0
IWS approval date
1/18/2018
# CIUs
L/STMP, approval date:
2/11/2020
# NSCIUs
Basin - Stream Class.
Roanoke River- C
# IUs w/Local
Permits
#
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU POCs
IUP Renewal Effective Date
1
Kennametal Inc.
Cutting and
machine tool
accessory
manufacturing
Flow, CBOD, TSS, temperature, pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, FOG, lead, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, zinc
6/1/2022
2
Dominion Rosemary Power Station
Power Generatior
Flow, CBOD, TSS, temperature, pH, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, O&G, 126 priority pollutants,
chromium zinc
10/1/2022
3
Reser's Fine Foods
Food processing
Flow, CBOD, TSS, temperature, pH, ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, chloride, chromium, copper, cyanide,
lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, O&G, selenium, sodium, zinc
6/1/2022
4
5
6
7
8
II. Comments from NPDES pw
Facility Summary and NPDES regulatory action:
Comments from NPDES pw to PT staff (Central, RO, Facility):
The Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District applied for NPDES permit renewal for
its Roanoke River WWTP in February 2021. The Facility has a permitted
capacity of 8.34 MGD.
III. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
Status
❑
of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEW if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium sampling)
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill
8) other
❑
p
p
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
24201 NPDES PT POCs review

Page 2
IV. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
PW: Find S/LTMP document, HWA spreadsheet, and DMR, previous and new NPDES
permit for next section.
a
Cn
S
U
as
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES/
Non-Disch
POC
Required by
EPA (1)
Required by
503 Sludge
(2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC
(4)
% RR
L/STMP
Effluent Freq
PQL Review
PQL from
S/LTMP
Unit
Recomended
PQL (DWR Lab)
Comment
p
Flow
0
0
0
Q
0
CBOD
0
0
99
Q
mg/L
2.0 mg/L
0
TSS
p
p
99
Q
mg/L
❑
NH3
❑
❑
99
Q
❑p
Arsenic
0
p
45
Q
0.002
mg/1
2.0 ug/L
❑
iervllium(=
Q
p
Cadmium(1)
❑p
0
0
67
Q
0.0005
mg/L
0.5 ug/L
0
Chromium(1)
0
❑
0
64
Q
0.005
mg/L
5.0 ug/L
0
Copper(1)
❑
❑
0
p
0
70
Q
0.002
mg/L
2.0 ug/L
0
Cyanide
❑
p
69
Q
0.005
mg/L
0.02 mg/L
❑
Fluoride
❑
❑
❑
0
Lead(1)
0
0
0
Q
0.002
mg/L
2.0 ug/L
❑p
Mercury(5)
❑
❑p
0
97
Q
1
ng/L
1.0 ng/L
p
Molybdenum
p
p
10.3
Q
0.005
mg/L
10 ug/L
p
Nickel(1)
p
p
p
51
Q
0.002
mg/L
2.0 ug/L
❑
Silver
❑
❑
p
75
Q
❑
Selenium
❑p
p
50
Q
0.001
mg/L
1.0 ug/L
0
Zinc(1)
71
Q
0.01
mg/L
10 ug/L
0
Sludge (Flow to Disposal
p
Q
0
% Solids to Disposal
p
Q
❑
Oil & Grease
❑
❑
MBAs
❑
❑
1,4-Dioxane
❑
❑
❑
TN
❑
❑
❑
TP
❑
❑
Total Phenols
❑
❑
❑
Antimony
❑
❑
Aluminum
❑
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or compost (dif POCs for incinerators)
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP if sewage sludge is incinerated (Be and Hg according to § 503.43)
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
Please use red font/cell filling for POCs that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
Please use orange font for POCs that may be removed from L/STMP POC list/sampling plan
Blue shaded cell: Parameters usually included
1. Is all effluent data required on L/STMP on DMRs?
Yes 1 0 1 No
■❑
I1.1 If not, request submittal and cc PT staff central office (Date of request. I"/A
24201 NPDES PT POCs review

Page 3
V. NPDES pw completes this section when issuing NPDES permit:
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date:
Effective date:
NPDES PERMIT WRITER (PW) eDMR and PQLs Notification email to Permittee
Date
Date
VI. Central Office PT Staff Completes this section:
Comments from PT Central Office ((ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems)
Checklist
1. Updated FileMaker with NPDES pw comments on FileMaker PT summary
p
2. Updated ProTrac with the following datelines
0
2.1
Schedule of compliance for POC was added (Y/N)
Which POC?
Dateline for
2.2
180 days after pw is effective is added
0
2.3
IWS submittal is required by NPDES permit
Dateline
3. Is all data required on L/STMP in spreadsheets with HWA/AT submittal?
Yes
No
''
a. LTMP required
From
to
b. STMP required
From
to
3.1 If not, require submittal and
update HWAs file
4. All PQLs used in submittal follow the 2017 PQL recommendatio and all NPDES permit PQL requirement?
IYes
I
INo
p
VI. Regional Office PT Staff Completes this Section (optional):
Comments from PT RO Staff (ex. updates on the actions required above, issues noted missed above/general feedback/questions and send the form to NPDES pw and PT staff Central Office
24201 NPDES PT POCs review

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 15 1 3 I NCO024201 I11 121 21/12/16 I17 18 n 19 L G j 201
2111111�-1111111111111111111111111111111111111 f6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 CA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
70 �� LJ � 71 I tyI 72 L Ln, � 73LLI74 71
J 1 1 1 1 L L j80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:OOAM 21/12/16
18/12/01
Roanoke River WWTP
135 Aqueduct Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Weldon NC 27890
11:15AM 21/12/16
22/03/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Steven L Ellis//252-536-4884 /2525364885
Steven Lee Ellis/ORC/252-536-4884/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Steven L EIIis,PO Box 308 Ronok Rpd Afs NC 27870//252-536-4884/2525364885
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mitchell S Hayes DWR/RRO WQ/919-791-4200/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.)
31 NCO024201 I11 12I 21/12/16 117 18IC
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The current permit was reissued October 19, 2018, became effective December 1, 2018 and will
expire March 31, 2022. A renewal application was received February 2, 2021 and is currently under
review.
The 8.34 MGD consists of the following units: Huber Rotomat cylindrical screen, manual bar screen;
Vortex grit removal; influent pump station with four pumps; two (2) primary clarifiers; two (2) trickling
filters; two (2) 2 MG rectangle secondary clarifiers with traveling bridge; three (3) 0.5 MG aeration
basins; two chlorine contact basins; two (2) RAS pump stations; three (3) anaerobic digesters with
heat exchangers; one (1) WAS pump station; two (2) gravity settling tanks with gravity belt thickener
and lime stabilization; one (1) 1 MG solids storage tank; effluent pump station; fourteen (14) sludge
drying beds; two (2) on site generators for back-up power source.
At the time of inspection, one aeration basin, one trickling filter, one primary clarifier, one secondary
clarifier, one chlorine contact chamber was on line due to low influent. Two anaerobic digesters were
being operated. One sludge bed was being used. Effluent appeared clear in the chlorine contact
tank.
Discharge Monitoring Reports for the review period December 2019 through December 2021 were
checked for compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. TSS weekly and monthly
average limit violation was noted for February 2021 and March 2021. There were no other violations
for the review period.
Commercial lab results, chain of custody records, and bench sheets were compared with data
submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) for October 2021. No discrepancies were
noted.
The laboratory was checked in a cursory manner. All pH buffers were within expiration date. All
calibrations of instruments and temperatures of refrigerators and other equipment are recorded daily
in a log book.
Page#

Permit: NCO024201
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021
Owner - Facility: Roanoke River WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
0
❑
❑
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Permit expires March 31, 2022
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
(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?
Page# 3

Permit: NCO024201 Owner - Facility:
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021 Inspection Type:
Roanoke River WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Pipe
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Effluent appeared clear in the reaeration zone.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Flow meter calibrated 10.13.2021
Anaerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Floating cover
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is gas stored on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the digester heated?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Three primary anaerobic digesters in operation
Drying Beds
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO024201 Owner - Facility:
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021 Inspection Type:
Roanoke River WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Drying Beds
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: One out of 14 drying beds was in use
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the equipment operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
❑
❑
0
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Belt filter presses was not in operation at the time of inspection.
Chemical Feed
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is containment adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Pump Station - Effluent
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Page# 5

Permit: NC0024201
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021
Owner - Facility: Roanoke River WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Grit removal is not being operated.
Equalization Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the basin aerated?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
■
❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO024201
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021
Owner - Facility: Roanoke River WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Equalization Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are all pumps operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
❑
❑
0
❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Two - 375,000 gallons EQ basins.
Used for high flow situations.
Primary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One out of two in operation.
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: SB was two feet with a 14 feet sidewall depth
Page# 7

Permit: NCO024201 Owner - Facility: Roanoke River WWTP
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Trickling Filter
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the filter free of ponding?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both tricklinq filters were in operation.
Aeration Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One out of three basins were in use
De -chlorination
Yes No
NA
NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑ ❑
■
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Page# 8

Permit: NCO024201
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021
Owner - Facility: Roanoke River WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are pumps in place?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfection -Liquid
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Laboratory
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Environment 1 in Greenville is contract laborato
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: No influent flow meter
Page# 9

Permit: NC0024201
Inspection Date: 12/16/2021
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Owner - Facility: Roanoke River WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Page# 10

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO024201 MRS Betweel 9 - 2017 and 9 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name:% Param Name% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 09/21/22 Page 1 of 1
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin:% Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO024201
FACILITY: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District - Roanoke River
WWTP
COUNTY: Halifax
REGION: Raleigh
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
02 -2021
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
02/20/21
5 X week
mg/I
45
48.16
7.0
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
02 -2021
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
02/28/21
5 X week
mg/I
30
30.6
2.0
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
03 -2021
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
03/06/21
5 X week
mg/I
45
45.6
1.3
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
03-2021
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
03/31/21
5 X week
mg/I
30
31.76
5.9
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Ridgeview Acres Mobile Home Park
NCO060283/001
County:
Buncombe
Region:
ARO
Basin:
FRB02
Feb May Aug Nov
SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2016
chr lim: 90%
NonComp:
Single
7Q10:
0.0
PF: 0.007 IWC:
100 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
l
J
A
S
O
N
D
2018 -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2019 -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2020 -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2021 -
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Fail
<45 (NC)
<45(N C)
Fail
<45(N C)
2022 <45(N C)
Fail <2.75(NC)
>90
Pass
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
River Bend WTP 001
NCO086797/001
County:
Craven
Region:
WARO
Basin:
NEU11
Mar Jun Sep Dec
SOC JOC:
Mysd24PF Begin: 8/1/2018
Mysid 24hr PF Monit:
NonComp:
70,10:
PF:
IWC:
Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
l
J
A
S
O
N
D
2018 -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2019 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
-
-
-
-
River Bend WTP 002
NCO086797/002
County:
Craven
Region:
WARO
Basin:
NEU11
Mar Jun Sep Dec
SOC JOC:
Mysd24PF Begin: 8/1/2018
Mysid 24hr PF Monit:
NonComp:
70,10:
PF:
IWC:
Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2018 -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pass
2019 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
-
-
-
-
Roanoke Rapids Mill WWTP (WestRock/
NC0000752/001
County:
Halifax
Region:
RRO
Basin:
ROA08
Mar Jun Sep Dec
SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 6/1/2012
chr lim:3.7%
NonComp:
Single
7Q10:
1120
PF: 28.0
IWC:
3.7 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
l
A
S
O
N
D
2018 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
H
Pass
-
Pass
2019 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022 -
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
-
-
-
-
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District WWTP
NCO024201/001
County:
Halifax
Region:
RRO
Basin:
ROA08
Jan Apr Jul Oct
SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 7/1/2007
chr lim: 1.1%
NonComp:
Single
7Q10:
1172
PF: 8.34 IWC:
1.3 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
l
J
A
S
O
N
D
2018 Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass >4.4(P)
-
-
Pass
-
-
2019 Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
- >4.4(P)
Pass
-
-
2020 Pass
- -
>4.4(P) Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
2021 Pass
- -
Pass >4.4(P)
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
2022 Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
-
-
-
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs Page 90 of 117

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NCO024201 Month April
Outfall 001 Year 2020
Facility Name Roanoke River Wastewater Treatment Plant ORC Steven L. Ellis
Date of sampling 4/5-6/2020 Phone [phone]
Analytical Laboratory Meritech, Inc.
Parameter
Parameter
Code
Sample-Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
C0610
Composite
EPA 350.1
0.1
1.7
<10
mg/L
50060
Grab
HACH 10014
10
ug/L
Dissolved Oxygen
00300
_ Grab
SM 45000 G
0.5
6.1
mg/L
Nitrite plus Nitrate Total (as N)
00630
Composite
EPA 353.2
0.1
11.3
mg/L
Total Kjcldahl Nitrogen
00625
Composite
EPA 351.1
0.2
2.75
to /L
Oil and Grease
00556
Grab
EPA 1664B
5
<5
mg/L
Total Phosphorus
C0665
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.02
0.474
mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids
r70295
Corn osite
$M 2540C
10
239
mg/L
Hardness
0900
Composite
SM 2340C
1
80
mg/L
Metals (total recoverable), cyanide and total phenols
Antimony
Arsenic
01097
01002
Composite
EPA 200.7
0,0005
<0.0005
mg/ L
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
<0.002
mg/L
B=ilium
01012
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
<0.0005
mg/L
Cadmium
01027
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.00015
<0.00015
mg/L
Chromium
01034
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
<0.002
mg/L
Copper _
01042
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
0.005
m L
Lead
01051
Composite
_EPA 200.7
0.0005
<0.0005
mg/L
Mercu L(M: thod 1631E)
COMER
Composite
EPA 1631E
1
3.96
ng L
Nickel
01067
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
0.0019
mg/L
Selenium
01147
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
<0.001
mg/L
Silver
01077
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
<.0005
m L
Thallium a
01059
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
<.0005
mg/L
Zinc
01092
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
0.015
1 mg/L
Cyanide
00720
Grab
EPA 335.4
0.005
<0.005
mg/L
Total phenolic compounds
_ -Grab32730
EPA 420.1
0.01
0.011
mg/L
volatile organic compounds
A_c_rolein
34210
Grab
EPA 624 1
50
<50
u L
_
Acrylonitrile
34215
Grab
EPA 624
10
<10
u L
Benzene
34030
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
Sromoform
32104
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
Carbon
32102
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
_Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
34301
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
Chlorodibromomethane
34306
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
Chioroethane
_
85811
Grab
EPA 624
5
<5
u L
2-chlaroethyl vinyl ether
34576
Grab
EPA 624
5
<5
u L
32106
Grab
EPA 624
1
_._ <1
urZ L
_Chloroform
Diehlorobromomethane
32101
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
uL
1,1-dichloroethane
34496
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
1,2-dichloroethane
32103
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
ug L
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene _
34546
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
ug L
1, 1 -dichloroethylene
34501
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
1 2-dichloroProPane
34541
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
1,3-dichioropropylerie
77163
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
Ethxlbenzene
34371
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
u L
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
34413
34418
34423
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA 624
EPA 624
EPA 624
5
5
1
<5
<1 _
u L
u L
_
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
81549
Grab
EPA 624
1
<1
ug L
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

- Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024201 Month April
Outfall 001 Year 2020
Parameter
Tetrachloroetliylene
Toluene
Parameter
Code
34475
Sample Type
Grab
Analytical .
Method
Quantitation
Level
1
Sample
Result
<1 _
Units of
Measurement
EPA 624
EPA 624
u L
34010
Grab
1
1 _
_1
1�
5
< 1
< 1
4.<1
< 1
<5
u L
1,1,1-triehloroethane
34506
Grab
EPA 624
u L
1,1,2-trichloroethane
f'ichloroethylene
34511
Grab
EPA 624
u L
39180
Grab
EPA 624
u L
Vinyl Chloride
39175
Grab
EPA 624
u L
[Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-creso
2-chlorophenol
34452
Composite
EPA 625
10
10
< 10
< 10
ug L
u L
34586
Composite
EPA 625
2,4-diclalorophenol
34601
Composite
_EPA 625_
_
10
� <10
2,4-dimethylp
34606
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10henol
u L
��.
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
34657
Composite
EPA 625
50
_ <50
_u_gLL.—
2,4-dinitrophenol
34616
Composite
EPA 625
50
<50
2-nitrophenol
34591
Composite
EPA 625
10 -
<10
_ ug/
4-nitro2henol
34646
Com osite
EPA 625
SO
Pentachlorophenol
39032
Composite
EPA 625
50
<50
u L
Phenol
34694
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
34621
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
Base -neutral compounds,
Acenaphthene
34205
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
ug L -
Acenaphthylene
34200
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
ug L
Anthracene
CO220
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
Benzidine
39120
Composite
EPA 625
50
-<50
ug L
Benzo(a)anthracene
�... 34526
Composite
EPA 625
10 _
<100
L
Benno a pyrene
34247
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
3,4 benzofluoranthene
34230
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
Benzo(ghi)perylene
34521
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
Benzo(ic)fluoranthene
34242
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-chloroethoxyl methane
34278
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
ug_/L
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
34273
Com osite
EPA 625
10
<10
_ u L
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis 2-ethylheEl phthalate
4-brop op enyl henyl ether
34283
39100
34636
Composite
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
10
<10
<10
<10
—lig L
u L
Butyl benzyl phthalate
34292
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
2-chloronaphthalene
34581
Cam osite
EPA 625
10
<10
—ug/L
4-chloro hen 1 phcayl ether
34641
Composite
EPA 625
10 _
_ <10
u L
Chrysene
Din-butyl phthalate
34320
39110
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
<10
<10
u L
u
Di-n-octvl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
34596
34556
34536
34566
34571 __
34631
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
.. _ _
10
10
10
50
<10
<10
._ 1
<10
<10
<10_
_<50
u L
u _
u L
u L
ug T,
uglL
Diethyl hthalate
34336
Composite
_EPA 625
10
<10
u L _
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
34341
34611
C0626
Composite
Co m osite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
�10
10
<10
_ <10
_. __...•
<10
R9- L —
u L
ug- L
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
34346
C0376
Com osite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
<10
<10
u L
u L
Fluorene
34381
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
Hexachlorobenzen_e
C0700
Composite
EPA 625
<10Hexachlorobutadiene
39702
Cojl��10
<10
u L
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan.
Permit No. NCO024201 Month April
Dutfall 001 Year 2020
Parameter
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Parameter
Code
Sample Type
Analytical
Method
EPA 625
Quantitation
Level
50
Sample
Result
<50
Units of
Measurement
u L
34386
Composite
Hexachloroethane
34396
Composite
EPA 625
10
_ <10
u L
Indeno(I .2,3-cd)pyrene
_
34403
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
ugZL
Iso horcne
34408
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
Naphthalene
34696
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
uL
Nitrobenzene
34447
Com osite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
N-nitros_odi-n-propylamine
34428
Corn osite
EPA 625
10
<10
Li L
N-nitrosodimeth lamine
34438
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
ug L
N-nitrosodiphen lamine
34433
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Phe_nant_hr_ene
34_461
Com osite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
Pyrene
34469
Composite
EPA 625
10
<10
u L
i,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
34551
Com osite
EPA 625
lQ
<10
u L
Sampling should be conducted as specified in 40 CFR Part 136.
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision: in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry
of the person or persons who managed the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Authorized Representative name
Signature j
5-/ ;!r `Z-a zo
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NCO024201 Month ; July
Outfall 001 Year :2018
Facility Name: Roanoke River Wastewater Treatment Plant ORC : Steven L. Ellis
Date of sampling :_7/9/ 18 - 7/ 10/ 17 Phone : [phone]
Analytical Laboratory : Meritech Inc. Lab No. 165
Parameter
Parameter
Code
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Ammonia (as N)
C0610
Composite
EPA 350.1
0.1
5.2
<10.0
4.6
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
50060
Grab
HACH 10014
10.0
0.5
Dissolved Oxygen
00300
Grab
SM 45000 G
Nitrite plus Nitrate Total (as N)
00630
Composite
EPA 353.2
0.10
10.6
mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00625
Composite
EPA351.1
0.20
5.23
mg/L
Oil and Grease
00556
Grab
EPA 1664B
5
<5
mg/L
Total Phosphorus
Total Dissolved Solids
Hardness
C0665
70295
00900
Composite
Composite
Composite
EPA 200.7
SM 2540C
SM 2340C
0.020
10.0
1
1.86
362
120
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Metals (total recoverable}, cyanide
and total
phenols
Antimony
01097
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.025
<0.025
mg/L
Arsenic
01002
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.010
<0.010
mg/L
Beryllium
01012
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
<0.005
mg/L
Cadmium
01027
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
<0.002
mg/L
Chromium
01034
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
<0,005
mg/L
Copper
01042
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
0.008
mg/L
Lead
01051
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.010
<0.010
mg/L
Mercury (Method 1631 E)
COMER
Composite
EPA 1631E
1.0
ng/ L
Nickel
Selenium
01067
01147
Composite
Composite
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
0.010
0.010
Al2.8
mg/L
mg/L
Silver
01077
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
mg/L
Thallium
01059
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.020
<0.020
mg/L
Zinc
01092
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.010
0.016
mg/L
Cyanide
00720
32730
Grab
Grab
EPA 335.4
EPA 420.1
0.005
0.010
0.005
<0.010
mg/L
mg
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
34210
34215
34030
Grab
Grab
A 624
A 624
50.0
10.0
<50.0
<10.0
ug/L
ugh
Benzene
Grab
624
1.00
<1.00
ug/J,
Bromoform
32104
Grab
jEPA
A 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
Carbon Tetrachloride
32102
Grab
A 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
Chlorobenzene
34301
Grab
A 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
Chlorodibromomethane
34306
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
Chloroethane
85811
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5.00
ug/L
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
34576
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5.00
ug/L
Chloroform
32106
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
1.11
ug/ L
Dichlorobromomethane
32101
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/ L
1,1-dichloroethane
34496
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
1,2-dichloroethane
32103
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
34546
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NCO024201 Month: July
Outfall 001 Year :2018
Parameter
.....
1, 1 -dichloroethylene
Parameter
Code
.rvnl....
34501
Sample
Type
..... ..
Grab
Analytical
Method
EPA 624
Quantitation
Level
1.00
Sample
Result
<1.00
Units of
Measurement
ug/L
1,2-dichloropropane
34541
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
1,3-dichloropropylene
77163
34371
34413
34418
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Bromide
Grab
Grab
EPA 624
EPA 624
1.00
5.00
<1.00
<5.00
ug/L
ug/L
Methyl Chloride
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5.00
ug/L
Methylene Chloride
34423
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA 624
EPA 624
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
81549
1.00
1.00
<1.00
<1.00
ug/L
ug/L
Tetrachloroethylene
34475
Toluene
34010
EPA 624
1.00
<1.00
ug/L
1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane
34506
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
< 1.00
ug/L
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
34511
39180
39175
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA 624
EPA 624
EPA 624
1.00
1.00
5.00
<1.00
<1.00
<5.00
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-creso
34452
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2-chlorophenol
34586
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,4-dichlorophenol
34601
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,4-dimethylphenol
34606
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
34657
34616
34591
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
50
50
10
<50
<50
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
4-nitrophenol
34646
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Pentachlorophenol
39032
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
34694
34621
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
Base -neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
34205
34200
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/ L
Anthracene
CO220
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Benzidine
39120
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Benzo(a)anthracene
34526
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Benzo(a)pyrene
34247
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
3,4 benzofluoranthene
34230
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Benzo(ghi)perylene
34521
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
34242
34278
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
34273
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
34283
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
39100
Grab
625
1.0
<10
ug/L
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
34636
Grab
A 625
10
<10
ug/L
Butyl benzyl phthalate
34292
Grab
!!EPA
A 62510
<10
ug/L
2-chloronaphthalene
34581
Grab
625
10
<10
ug/L
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
34641
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Chrysene
34320
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NCO024201 Month: July
Outfall 001 Year :2018
Parameter
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Parameter
Code
39110
Sample
Type
Grab
Analytical
Method
EPA 625
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
<10
Units of
Measurement
10
ug/ L
Di-n-octyl phthalate
34596
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
34556
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,2-dichlorobenzene
34536
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,3-dichlorobenzene
34566
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,4-dichlorobenzene
34571
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
34631
34336
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
50
10
<50
<10
ug/L
ug/L
Dimethyl phthalate
34341
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,4-dinitrotoluene
34611
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
C0626
34346
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
C0376
34381
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
Hexachlorobenzene
C0700
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Hexachlorobutadiene
39702
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
34386
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Hexachloroethane
34396
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
34403
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Isophorone
34408
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Naphthalene
34696
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
34447
34428
34438
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
10
<10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
34433
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Phenanthrene
34461
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Pyrene
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
34469
34551
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
<10
<10
ug/ L
ug/L
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who managed the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Authorized Representative name
Signature
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024201 Month :January
Outfall 001 Year :2021
Facility Name: Roanoke River Wastewater Treatment Plant ORC : Steven L. Ellis
Date of sampling: l/11-12/2021 Phone: [phone]
Analytical Laboratory: _Meritech, Inc.. Lab No. 165
Parameter
Parameter
Code
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Ammonia (as N)
C0610
Composite
EPA 350.1
0.1
1.2
mg/L
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
50060
Grab
HACH 10014
10.0
<10
ug/L
Dissolved Oxygen
Nitrite plus Nitrate Total (as N)
00300
Grab
SM 45000 G
0.5
7.2
mg/L
00630
Composite
EPA 353.2
0.10
7.82
mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
00625
Composite
EPA351.1
0.20
3.92
mg/L
Oil and Grease
00556
Grab
EPA 1664B
5
<5
mg/L
Total Phosphorus
C0665
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.020
0.527
mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids
70295
Composite
Composite
SM 2540C
SM 2340C
10.0
200
mg/L
Hardness
00900
1
64
mg/L
Metals (total recoverable), cyanide
and total phenols
Antimony
01097
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
0.0005
mg/L
Arsenic
01002
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
<0.002
mg/L
Beryllium
01012
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
<0.0005
mg/L
Cadmium
01027
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.00015
<0.00015
mg/L
Chromium
01034
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
<0.002
mg/L
Copper
01042
Composite
EPA 200.7
0,002
0,006
mg/L
Lead
01051
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
<0.0005
mg/L
Mercury (Method 1631E)
COMER
Composite
EPA 1631E
1.0
4.12
ng/L
Nickel
01067
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
0.0022
mg/L
Selenium
01147
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
<0.001
mg/L
Silver
01077
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
<0.0005
mg/L
Thallium
01059
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0005
<0.0005
mg/L
Zinc
01092
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
0.019
mg/L
Cyanide
00720
32730
Grab
EPA 335.41
0.005
<0.005
mg/L
Total phenolic compounds
Grab
EPA 420.1
0.010
0.021
mg/L
Volatile organic compounds
Acrolein
34210
Grab
EPA 624
EPA 624
50.0
<50
ug/L
Acrylonitrile
34215
Grab
10.0
< 10
ug/ L
Benzene
34030
Grab
EPA24 6
1.00
<1
ug/L
Bromoform
32104
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Carbon Tetrachloride
32102
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Chlorobenzene
34301
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Chlorodibromomethane
34306
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Chloroethane
85811
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5
ug/L
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
34576
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5
ug/L
Chloroform
32106
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
1.22
ug/L
Dichlorobromomethane
32101
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
1,1-dichloroethane
34496
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
1,2-dichloroethane
32103
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
1 <1
ug/L
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
34546
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NCO024201 Month ;January
Outfall 001 Year ;2021
Parameter
1,1-dichloroethylene
Parameter
Code
34501
Sample
Type
Grab
Grab
Grab
Analytical
Method
EPA 624
Quantitation
Level
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sample
Result
<1
<1
<1
Units of
Measurement
ug/L
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
34541
77163
EPA 624
EPA 624
ug/L
ug/L
Ethylbenzene
34371
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/ L
Methyl Bromide
34413
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5
ug/L
Methyl Chloride
34418
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5
ug/L
Methylene Chloride
34423
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
81549
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Tetrachloroethylene
34475
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Toluene
34010
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/ L
1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane
34506
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
1,1,2-trichloroethane
34511
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/ L
Trichloroethylene
39180
Grab
EPA 624
1.00
<1
ug/L
Vinyl Chloride
39175
Grab
EPA 624
5.00
<5
ug/L
Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-creso
34452
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2-chlorophenol
34586
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,4-dichlorophenol
34601
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
A-dimethylphenol
34606
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
34657
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/ L
2,4-dinitrophenol
34616
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/ L
2-nitrophenol
34591
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
4-nitrophenol
34646
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Pentachlorophenol
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Phenol
L39032
34694
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
34621
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Base -neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
34205
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Acenaphthylene
34200
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Anthracene
CO220
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Benzidine
39120
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Benzo(a)anthracene
34526
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Benzo(a)pyrene
34247
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
3,4 benzofluoranthene
34230
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Benzo(ghi)perylene
34521
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
34242
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
34278
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
34273
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
34283
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
39100
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
34636
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Butyl benzyl phthalate
34292
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
2-chloronaphthalene
34581
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
34641
Grab
Grab
EPA 625
EFA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Chrysene
34320
10
< 10
ug/ L
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NCO024201 Month :January
Outfall 001 Year :2021
Parameter
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Parameter
Code
39110
Sample
Type
Grab
Analytical
Method
EPA 625
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
<10
Units of
Measurement
10
ug/L
Di-n-octyl phthalate
34596
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
34556
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,2-dichlorobenzene
34536
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,3-dichlorobenzene
34566
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,4-dichlorobenzene
34571
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
34631
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Diethyl phthalate
34336
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Dimethyl phthalate
34341
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,4-dinitrotoluene
34611
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
2,6-dinitrotoluene
C0626
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
34346
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Fluoranthene
C0376
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Fluorene
34381
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Hexachlorobenzene
C0700
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Hexachlorobutadiene
39702
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
34386
Grab
EPA 625
50
<50
ug/L
Hexachloroethane
34396
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
34403
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Isophorone
34408
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Naphthalene
34696
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/ L
Nitrobenzene
34447
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
34428
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
N-nitrosodimethylamine
34438
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
34433
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Phenanthrene
34461
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
Pyrene
34469
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
34551
Grab
EPA 625
10
<10
ug/L
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who managed the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Authorized Representative name
Signature
C? Z 7,17-
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

0541
Eta
0
0
\
ƒ
2
z
J
D
\
=
2
\
ƒ
�
f
>
\
/
a
E
2
§
/
z
/
/
2
M
a
c
> »
2
5
\
2
/
/ ƒ
e
F
/
/
\
\
\
F
2
o
=
} \
J
\
\
z
\
}
}
,
�
/
/
\
2
/
.
FD
41
C
j
J
/
0
\
/
/
\
/
\
/
ai
\
\
}
\ Z3
F
_

Division of Water Quality
August 2, 1999
NIEMORANDUNI
To: Regional Supervisors
Bill Reid
Jimmie Overton
From: Coleen Sullins
Subject: Whole Effluent Toxicity
Permit Limits and Monitoring Requirements
C!
This communication clarifies the Water Quality Section's positions concerning the
application of whole effluent toxicity (WET) limits in NPIDES permits.
All NPIDES permits issued to "Major" facilities or any facility discharging "complex
wastewater (contains anything other than domestic waste) will contain appropriate whole
effluent toxicity limits and monitoring requirements. Minor discharges that fall into the
following categories will not routinely be assigned whole effluent toxicity limits unless
toxicity screening tests predict a toxic effect under critical design conditions:
1.� C,
- 100 percent domestic wastewater with only chlorine as an additive
- Non -contact cooliric, water
C
- Swimming pool filter backwash
- Water filtration back -wash
- Mine dewatering
- Sand dred(Y' in-
- Seafood packing
- Laundromats
- Car Washes
- Aquaculture facilities
- Rock quarries and gem mines
These facilities will be examined on a case -by -case basis by the Environmental Sciences
Branch, Point Source Branch, Model ling/TMDL Unit, Regional Offices, or the Section
Chief where necessary, prior to the establishment of an N_PDES permit requirement.
These exclusions are made as a matter of regulatory evaluation resources and do not
inherently preclude assessment of any facility's compliance with water quality standards
for toxic substances.
Facilities discharging only non -contact cooling water must complete biocide worksheets
for any biocides employed and submit these to the NPIDES Unit of the Point Source
Branch. This worksheet incorporates facility flow data, receiving stream flow data,
aquatic toxicity and half-life data of the biocides and amounts of the biocides used to
determine potential impacts to the receiving stream. If an impact is predicted, the facility
may adjust its application of current biocides, choose to employ a less toxic biocide, or
perform toxicity testing to document the absence of toxicity. Aquatic Toxicology Unit
C
personnel review each submitted worksheet for numerical accuracy and appropriateness
of all input data.

Whole effluent toxicity limitations and monitoring requirements will be based upon the
instream waste concentration (IWC) during conditions of maximum permitted effluent
C)
flow and 7Q10 receiving stream flow, The IWC will be calculated using the following
formula:
IWC (%) = (Qw / Qw + Qu)) * 100
where: Qw = NPDES maximum permitted wasteflow
Qu = Upstream stream flow during, 7Q10 conditions
The use of maximum permitted wasteflow for the term Qw assumes the facility has the
right to any discharge this volume of waste under the permit at time.
0 1
All calculated IWC values should be rounded to the nearest percent except where the
IWC is <5%. For IWC values between I and 5 percent., round to the nearest tenth of one
percent, and for IWC values <1%, round to the nearest one hundredth of one percent. If it
is known that the discharge has a water supply intake upstream of the outfall, then the
IWC should be calculated as : Qw / Qu, to avoid underestimation.
The objective of whole effluent toxicity limits placed in NPDES permits is to prevent
discharge of toxic substances in amounts likely to cause chronic or acute toxicity to
wildlife in the receiving stream and represents the only feasible method of evaluating the
combined effects of constituents of complex waste streams. EPA has indicated that
chemical -specific limitations do not consider all toxicants present and that interactions of
mixtures are not accounted for [1]. Participants of the 1995 SETAC Pcllston WET
workshop support that indication by recognizing that chemical alone does not
Z� 0 monitoring
predict or measure biological effects in receiving water bodies [2], and does not cover all
toxicants and mixtures threatening biotic integrity [3]. The type of test employed to meet
Z�integrity
this objective is based upon the magnitude of the facility's IWC. In general, the following
criteria are followed:
1) If the facility's IWC is greater than or equal to 0.25 percent, the facility will
perform the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay
Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina
Phase 11 Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure," (Revised February
1998) or subsequent versions on a quarterly basis. The limit will be stated as
"Shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality" at the effluent concentration equivalent to the facility's IWC. The
maximum permit limit will be 90%.
2) If the facility's IWC is less than 0.25 percent, a 24-hour fathead minnow acute
"No Significant Mortality" limit will be applied. The procedure employed will be
"PassiFall Methodology For Determining Acute Toxicity In A Single Effluent
Concentration," Revised July 1992,
3) If the facility discharge is episodic and/or only occurs in response to stoma
events, acute toxicity monitoring is required for the first five discharge events
during the first year following permit issuance, with an annual monitoring
requirement thereafter. This requirement will be a 24 hour fathead minnow acute
test employing the procedure defined as "definitive" in Methods for Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Ef, flitents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth
Edition. EPA/600/4-90/027 September 1991. Upon permit renewal, if five tests
I
have been performed, an annual monitoring requirement will be applied unless
C:
2

the previous monitoring has indicated potential toxic impacts to the receiving
stream. These situations will be examined on a case -by -case basis and a limit or
monitoring requirement placed in the permit based on the best professional
judgment ud-ment of the Environmental Sciences Branch, Point Source Branch,
Z7
Modelling/TNIDL Unit, Regional Offices, or Section Chief where necessary
4) If the discharge is to a tidally influenced receiving water, the same criteria as
1.
above should be applied using the estimate of 7QI0 flow into the discharge zone.
C,
If no 7QI0 flow estimate is available, a 24 hour acute "No Significant Mortality"
C7
limit will be applied. This requirement may also be applied where flow estimates
available, if in the best professional jud
gment of the Point Source Branch
these estimates are not applicable in the "real world." If the tidal zone is well
flushed, the fathead minnow should be employed as the test organism, otherwise,
In
in a poorly flushed zone, a Daphnid should be used.
5) If the discharge is to a lake or lake arm where 7QIO estimates are not
I — meaningful, a 24 hour acute "No Significant Mortality" limit will be applied with
the fathead minnow as the test organism.
6) If a facility discharges to a receiving stream classified as "High Quality Waters"
as per North Carolina Administrative Code T 15: 02B .020 1 (d), any whole
effluent chronic toxicity limit will be established at an effluent concentration
equal to twice the IWC. If the IWC is 'greater than or equal to 45%, the chronic
limit will be 90111. All dischargers to such waters will have acute limits of "No
Significant Mortality" as determined by the "Pass/Fail Methodology For
Determining Acute Toxicity In A Sin -ale Effluent Concentration."
Freshwater organisms may be substituted in permit requirements for dischargers to
estuarine and salt receiving waters where an evaluation has been made by Aquatic
Toxicology Unit staff that the freshwater organism provides the same level of protection
as saltwater organisms.
Z:
Generally', twenty-four hour composite sampling will be the preferred sampling method
Z:1 -
for whole effluent toxicity monitoring. Depending on consideration of exposures, --rab
samples or other special sampling regimes may be appropriate based on the best
ID I=
professional judgment of the Regional Water Quality and Point Source personnel.
0 C�
Appropriate sampling regimes other than grabs would be based on time of occurrence and
duration of predictable intermittent discharge events.
Permittees with acute toxicity requirements may request the use of a test organism other
than that specified by the permit upon documentation that the alternate test organism
would be a more sensitive indicator of toxic substances in the facility's discharge. Such
documentation would consist of:
1) A demonstration that viable and standardized culture techniques are available for
that organism and standardized testing methodologies have been developed and
I -- -- I
validated. This demonstration should meet guidance provided by EPA.
2) Three consecutive "side -by -side" tests with results indicating that the alternate
organism is as or more sensitive to the facility's effluent. Each test series would
consist of two separate toxicity tests conducted on the same sample of effluent
with the length of exposure specified by the permit, the only difference between
tests being a the organism used.
Z-"
3

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

degrees Celsius, The only exception shall be that of a grab sample used for
testing within four hours of collection. Again, "use" will be defined as
introduction of the organisms to the test solutions.
3) At times, facilities "split" effluent toxicity monitoring samples between two or
more laboratories. If such analyses produce differing results, a "paper trail"
investigation of all of the analyses by the Aquatic Toxicology Unit will ensue.
Critical components of such an investigation will include sample chain -of -
custody, sample preparation, test protocols, and health of the organism cultures
of the subject laboratories at the time of the analyses.
Appropriate standardized permit language is attached. If there are any questions
concerning any of the above policies or issues, please contact Matt Matthews or Kevin
Bowden at 733-2136.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document For Water Quality -Based
Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-00 1. Office of Water, Washington, DC, p. 2 L
C,
Dorn, Philip B. 1996. An Industrial Perspective on Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing. In DR Grothe. KL
Dickson, and DK Reed-Judkins, eds., Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and
Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. SETAC Pellston Workshop on Whole Effluent Toxicity; 1995
Sep 16-25. SETAC Press. Pensacola, FL, USA, p. 1.6.
Heber, Nlargarete A., Donna K. Reed-Judkins, and Tudor T. Davies. 1996. USEPA's Whole
Effluent Toxicitv Testina Program: A National Regulatory Perspective. In DR Grothe. KL Dickson, and
DK Reed-Judkins, eds., Whole Effhtent Toxicin, Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of
Receiving System Impacts. SETAC Pellston Workshop on Whole Effluent Toxicitv; 1995 Sep 16-25.
SETAC Press, Pensacola. FL, USA, p. 10.
Attachments
cc: Matt Matthews
Kevin Bowden
K.ristle Robeson
David Goodrich
Shannon Langley