NC0024571_Fact Sheet_20230615

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO024571
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco,[e-mail]
Date: May 16,2023
Division/Branch:NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification(Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers,EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements,Engineering Alternatives Analysis,Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW),EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans,4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW),EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: City of Lumberton/Lumberton Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP)
Applicant Address: PO Box 1388, Lumberton,NC 28359
Facility Address: 700 Lafayette Street, Lumberton,NC 28358
Permitted Flow: 20.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 89.8%domestic, 10.2%industrial*
Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Influent pumps, Grit removal,Mechanical bar screen,Parshall flume
and influent flow measurement, Extended aeration basins, Secondary
clarification, Chlorine contact chamber,Aerobic digesters, Sludge
holding tanks, Chlorine contact chamber and dechlorination (sulfur
dioxide),Effluent flow meter
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y; LTMP
County: Robeson
Region Fayetteville
*Based on permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Lumberton has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 20.0 MGD for the Lumberton WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 21,000 residents, as well as 10 significant industrial users(SIUs), including
1 categorical industrial user(CIU). Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged via Outfall
001 into the Lumber River, a class C;Sw waterbody in the Lumber River Basin. Outfall 001 is located
approximately 30 miles upstream of the NC/SC state border line.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is land applied under permit WQ0000672 (Sludge Class B).
Page 1 of 11

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 -Lumber River
Stream Segment: 14-(13)
Stream Classification: C;Sw
Drainage Area(mi2): 713
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 120
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 191
30Q2 (cfs): -
Average Flow(cfs): 853
IWC (%effluent): 21
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Not listed
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- Statewide Mercury TMDL implementation
Basin/HUC: Lumber River/03040203
USGS Topo Quad: I23SW
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of November 2018 through April 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit
Flow MGD 6.7 16.3 2.97 MA 20.0
BOD(summer) mg/l 6.4 36.7 <2 WA 16.5
MA 11.0
BOD(winter) mg/l 8.6 83 <2 WA 27.0
MA 18.0
NH3-N(summer) mg/1 1.6 14.7 <0.1 WA 12.0
MA 4.0
NH3-N(winter) mg/1 2.0 31 <0.1 WA 24.0
MA 8.0
TSS mg/1 13.3 252 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
pH SU 6.9 7.8 3.8 6.0>pH<9.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml (geomean) 5840 < 1 WA 400
11.6 MA 200
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 8.4 15.3 5.6 DA>5.0
DM 28.0
TRC µg/l 11.4 133 <2 (<50
compliance)
Temperature ° C 20.0 28 9 Monitor&
Report
Conductivity µmhos/cm 2643 7120 318 Monitor&
Report
TN mg/l 24 76.8 4.2 Monitor&
Report
Page 2 of 11

TP mg/1 1.0 2.45 0.18 Monitor&
Report
Total Copper µg/L 18 52 6 Monitor&
Report
Total Silver µg/L < 1 < 1 < I Monitor&
Report
Total Hardness mg/1 55.1 72 40 Monitor&
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/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 sampling for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and
temperature 3/week during the months of June, July,August and September andl/week during the
remainder of the year. Upstream sampling is conducted at Chippewa Street Bridge and downstream
sampling is conducted at Highway 72. Additionally,the Permittee samples for total hardness upstream
quarterly. Data from November 2018 through April 2023 has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary -.10
Upstream Downstream
Parameter Units
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 20.1 29 3 20.5 30 4
DO mg/1 7.8 13.8 3.7 7.6 15.3 4.1
Conductivity umhos/cAi 1 54 1 99.2 9.3 119 1008.2 1 38.2
Total mg/1 18.9 40 12 - - -
Hardness
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 greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 37 occasions during the period reviewed. However, it was concluded that no
statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.No change is
proposed to instream temperature requirements at this time.
Average downstream DO was greater than 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period
reviewed. Downstream DO was not observed at levels lower than 4 mg/L during the period reviewed. It
was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
Note: Downstream DO was reported at levels less than 5 mg/L on 45 occasions while upstream DO was
only observed at levels less than 5 mg/L on 11 occasions during the period reviewed. This means that
many of the occasions where downstream DO was less than 5 mg/L,upstream DO met the standard.
While no statistically significant difference was observed, it appears that the effluent may impact
Page 3 of 11

downstream DO on occasion. The facility generally meets its permit limits for oxygen-consuming waste.
However,the facility also reported COD levels in their eDMRs ranging from 45 mg/L to 340 mg/L,with
an average of 135 mg/L.No additional permit requirements are added at this time,but it is recommended
this continue to be tracked. The receiving stream is classified as Swamp waters,which may contribute to
some of these discrepancies.No change is proposed to instream DO requirements at this time.
It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity.No change is proposed to instream conductivity requirements at this time.
As the receiving stream is neither a class B water nor impaired for fecal coliform, instream monitoring
fecal coliform is not required.No change is proposed to instream fecal coliform requirements at this time.
To track effluent influence of ambient total nitrogen levels, instream monitoring for TKN and NO2+NO3
has been added to the permit at a monthly frequency.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring(YIN):NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition:NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported two
ammonia limit violations and one TSS limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2018. In 2019,the
facility reported one pH limit violation resulting in enforcement. The facility reported five pH limit
violations and one TRC limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2020. In 2021,the facility reported two
BOD limit violations and two ammonia limit violations resulting in enforcement. The facility reported
four TSS limit violations resulting in enforcement in 2022.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from February 2019 to
February 2023. The facility passed all 4 second species chronic toxicity tests conducted in May 2018,
August 2019,November 2020, and August 2021.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in May 2022 reported that the facility was compliant with NPDES permit NC0024571. The last
pretreatment inspection conducted in August 2022 reported compliance with the facility's pretreatment
program.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin Zones
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.
Page 4 of 11

If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current permit
limitations for BOD and ammonia are based on a 1987 Streeter Phelps model(Level B) for instream DO
protection. At the time,the facility was only rated for 10.0 MGD.When the City sought expansion in
1993,the limits were revised based on the Lumber River Basin Management Plan,which allowed for
facility expansions as long as loadings were not increased. As such,the limits were revised to reflect what
is in the current permit for the 20.0 MGD flow tier. No changes are proposed for BOD.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l(summer)and 1.8 mg/l(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine(TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life(17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective.No changes are proposed.
Please see Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations above for background on the current ammonia
limitations. Ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been 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%2 detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6,2016,NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10,2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between November
2018 and February 2023. 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: Chromium VI(MA 53.6,ug/L, DM 66.5 µg/L along with
monitoring for Total Chromium), Total Copper(MA 46.3,ug/L, DM 55.2,ug/L)
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium,Total Copper,Total Lead, Total Zinc, Total
Cyanide, Total Lead, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver
Page 5 of 11

• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans (2018,2019, 2020) data
were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set,two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration:None
o The following parameter(s)will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: Chlorides
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable concentration: Total
Beryllium,Total Phenolic Compounds,Chlorodibromomethane,Dichlorobromomethane,
Chloroform,Bromoform
The City reported Total Cadmium at less than detection,with detection levels< 10.0 µg/L,<5.0 µg/L
and< 1.0 µg/L in the Effluent Pollutant Scans and eDMR results. The City's allowable discharge
concentration is 3.3 µg/L for Total Cadmium. DWR's laboratory identifies the target Practical
Quantification Limits(PQLs)for Total Cadmium as 0.5 µg/L. 15A NCAC 2B .0505 (e)(4)requires that
all test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge
requirements and all data generated must be reported to the approved detection level or lower reporting
level of the procedure. If no approved methods are capable of achieving a detection level below the
permit discharge requirement(or allowable discharge concentration)the method with the lowest detection
level must be used. The City should use sufficiently sensitive test methods for all pollutants, including
when performing Effluent Pollutant Scans.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 21%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria(0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year(81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources(^2%of total load),the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs)for point source
control. Municipal facilities>2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury(>1 ng/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/l.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation:
Page 6 of 11

Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
#of Samples 3 2 1 2 1
Annual Average Conc.n /L 0.5 0.9 0.5 1.8 11.8
Maximum Conc.,n /L 0.5 1.3 0.5 2.5 11.8
TBEL,n /L 47
WQBEL,n /L 58.5
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. However, since the facility is>2 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury(> 1
ng/1), a mercury minimization plan(MMP) is necessary. The current permit has an MMP requirement,
which has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated. The list of pollutants may be found in 40 CFR Part 136,which is incorporated by reference.
Additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported are submitted with the NPDES permit
application via the Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table This requirement applies to all
NPDES facilities. The City of Lumberton 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 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: After discussion with the City
regarding the Total Copper and Chromium VI limitations,the City informed the Division that they do not
believe a schedule of compliance is needed(see attached correspondence).
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable,delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO,provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85%removal requirements for BODS/TSS included in the permit? YES; Overall BOD and TSS
removal were>85%. 85%TSS removal was not met in December 2018,March and December 2020,
February 2021 and March and April 2022. This suggests the facility experiences some difficulties
meeting 85%TSS removal in the winter months.
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Page 7 of 11

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:NA
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
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.
As:
• the Lumberton WWTP accepts influent wastewater from several industrial facilities that are
potential sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane via the approved pretreatment program(e.g. landfills
and textiles),
• no additional sampling has been conducted for PFAS or 1,4-dioxane at this facility as identified
in the chemical addendum submitted by the City
• the facility discharges roughly 30 miles above the NC/SC state border line,
• all waters in South Carolina are deemed suitable for drinking water uses with appropriate
treatment,
monitoring requirements for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane have been added to the permit. Monthly effluent
monitoring for 1,4-dioxane as well as a 1,4-dioxane reopener condition have been added to the permit,
active beginning on the effective date of the permit. Quarterly effluent monitoring for PFAS has also been
added to the permit. 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

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.
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 Outfall 001
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 20.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5 MA 11.0 mg/l No change WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
summer WA 16.5 mg/l Lumber River Basin Management Plan—
Monitor and report Daily facility expansion load freeze; Surface
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
BOD5 winter MA 18.0 mg/1 No change WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
WA 27.0 mg/l Lumber River Basin Management Plan—
Monitor and report Daily facility expansion load freeze; Surface
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
NH3-N MA 4.0 mg/1 No change WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
summer WA 12.0 mg/l Lumber River Basin Management Plan—
Monitor and report Daily facility expansion load freeze; 2023
WLA; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
NH3-N winter MA 8.0 mg/l No change WQBEL. 1987 Level B model; 1993
WA 24.0 mg/l Lumber River Basin Management Plan—
Monitor and report Daily facility expansion load freeze;2023
WLA; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
TSS MA 30.0 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
WA 45.0 mg/l CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406; 1992
Monitor and report Daily Level B Model; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
DO DA>5.0 mg/L No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and report Daily 2B .0200
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
WA 400/100ml 2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monitor and report Daily NCAC 2B. 0500
pH 6-9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and report Daily 2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Page 9 of 11

Temperature Monitor and report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500
Total Residual DM 28 ug/L No change WQBEL. 2023 WLA review. Surface
Chlorine Monitor and report Daily Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Conductivity Monitor and report Daily No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500; Pretreatment facility
Total Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Nitrogen Monthly 2B. 0500
TKN No requirement Monitor effluent and For calculation of Total Nitrogen
report Monthly
NO2+NO3 No requirement Monitor effluent and For calculation of Total Nitrogen
report Monthly
Total Monitor and report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Phosphorus Monthly 2B. 0500
Total Silver Monitor and Report Remove monitoring Based on results of RPA; All values non-
Quarterly and Monitoring requirement and detect< 1 ug/L-no monitoring required;
Reopener Condition reopener condition Reopener no longer applicable
Total Copper Monitor and Report MA 46.3 µg/L Based on results of RPA; RP shown-
Quarterly DM 55.2 µg/L apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Monitor and Report
Monthly
Chromium VI No requirement MA 53.6 µg/L Based on results of RPA;Monitor Total
DM 66.5 µg/L Chromium and Chromium VI, along with
Monitor and Report a limit for Chromium VI if any Total
Monthly Chromium sample is >the Chromium VI
Allowable Cw but<the Chromium III
Allowable Cw.
Total No requirement Monitor and Report Based on results of RPA; Monitor Total
Chromium Monthly Chromium and Chromium VI, along with
a limit for Chromium VI if any Total
Chromium sample is >the Chromium VI
Allowable Cw but<the Chromium III
Allowable Cw.
Total Quarterly upstream and No change Hardness-dependent dissolved metals
Hardness effluent monitoring water quality standards approved in 2016
1,4-Dioxane No requirement Monitor and report Based on PT Program—industrial
Monthly and facilities linked to 1,4-dioxane;
reopener condition Discharges above NC/SC border
Add quarterly Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
monitoring with pretreatment facility; Implementation
PFAS No requirement delayed delayed until after EPA certified method
implementation becomes available; Discharges above
NC/SC border
Toxicity Test Chronic limit,2 1% No change WQBEL.No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A
effluent I NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC 213.0500
Page 10 of 11

Instream Monitor and report DO, No change to Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Monitoring conductivity and frequency;Add 2B. 0500; Tracking effluent TN influence
temperature 3/week in monthly TKN and on stream
June,July,August and NO2+NO3
September and I/week
the remainder of the year
Effluent Three times per permit No change; 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan cycle conducted in 2025,
2026,2027
Mercury MMP Special Condition No change;revise WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Minimization wording towards its Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Plan(MMP) maintenance
Electronic Electronic Reporting No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Special Condition Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/xxxx
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice.Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please
contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Evaluation
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• POC Review
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Chemical Addendum
• Correspondence
Page 11 of 11

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number facility Name Outfall Number
NC01043 NC0024571 - City of Lumberton
��� ,...:,x ,Method Ni�mbe wx t"2 211tr3A �s,rz � �"Estimated Coricentra�tl6 (lv
s "�'3'4 t � ,� � a"+� R '''�* ,�
P-.ollgtant(RequiredX trumber; {if.Applica6te)t, Reason,Rb�ly R @ lreved Prese i611,Dis' a e ICrrow ) ,{
No additional sampling was conducted and therefore no additional
parameters were identified.
e
'� cc/3Va3

City of Lumberton Wastewater Treatment Plant
Activated Sludge / Extended Aeration
Plant Capacity 20 mgd
Flow is brought into the plant by 1 of 2-14mgd submersible
pumps or a 54" screw pump. Also in the event of an emergency
a 68hp 5-7mgd bypass pump is in place. Flow then passes
through 2 Infilco Degremont barscreens. From there it passes
through 2 partial flumes for flow measurement. From there
into the grit chamber for grit removal. From there into 1 of 4-
3.5mg aeration basins. Which consist of 6-75hp aerators and 2-
40hp mixers each. From there into 1 of 5 clarifiers that consist
of 3-1mg 120ft. diameter clarifiers or 2-425,OOOgal. 85ft.
diameter clarifiers. From there into the chlorine contact tank
for disinfection. Then onto the sulfur dioxide chamber for
chlorine removal. Then discharged into our receiving stream
the Lumber River. During wasting sludge is sent to 1 of 3-
850,000 gal. digesters for thickening. Once sludge reaches 3%
solids it is transferred into 1 of 2 200,000 gal. holding tanks.
From this point it is transported by tanker to be applied to a
field in our Land Application Program. During the event of
power loss we do have generator power available.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Lumberton WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO024571 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 0.6970 FW 4.0443 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 20.000 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Lumber River Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03040203 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C;SW Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 141.0451 FW 1114.4594 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 120.000 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w (cfs) 191.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 9.5153 FW 13.3046 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 120.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 853.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs) 97.83 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 3.7692 FW 100.4259 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 55.06 mg/L (Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
------------- ----------------------
Upstream Hardness 25 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
-------------7 ----------------------
Combined Hardness Chronic 31.17 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 44.8701 FW 415.5958 pg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 32.23 mg/L r I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Data Source(s) Note: 7Q10s used as conservative estimate for Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL 30Q2; ISTV used for dichlorobromomethane; Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.4589 ug/L
EPANRWQC used for dibromochloromethane,
bromoform and chloroform Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 152.7791 FW 155.9023 ug/L
Par22 Dibromochloromethane Human Health C 21 HH pg/L
Par23 Bromoform Human Health C 120 HH pg/L
Par24 Dichlorobromomethane Human Health C 17 HH pg/L
24571 RPA, input
5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY" Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 11/12/2018 60 60 Std Dev. 8.9539 1 Default 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 2/11/2019 47 47 Mean 55.0556 2 Mean 25.0000
3 5/13/2019 55 55 C.V. 0.1626 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 8/12/2019 44 44 n 18 4 n 1
5 11/11/2019 51 51 10th Per value 46.10 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 2/10/2020 47 47 Average Value 55.06 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 5/11/2020 48 48 Max. Value 72.00 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 8/10/2020 54 54 8
9 11/16/2020 51 51 9
10 2/8/2021 63 63 10
11 5/10/2021 63 63 11
12 8/9/2021 56 56 12
13 11/1/2021 64 64 13
14 2/7/2022 58 58 14
15 5/2/2022 72 72 15
16 8/8/2022 40 40 16
17 11/7/2022 70 70 17
18 2/6/2023 48 48 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
- 1 - 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 11/12/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 5.0823
2 2/11/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 4.2778
3 5/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 1.1881
4 8/12/2019 < 5 2.5 n 18
5 11/11/2019 < 5 2.5
6 2/10/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.79
7 5/11/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 24.0 ug/L
8 8/10/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 43.0 ug/L
9 11/16/2020 < 4 2
10 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5
11 5/10/2021 < 5 2.5
12 8/9/2021 < 2 1
13 11/1/2021 < 10 5
14 2/7/2022 < 10 5
15 5/2/2022 < 10 5
16 8/8/2022 < 10 5
17 11/7/2022 24 24
18 2/6/2023 < 10 5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
24571 RPA, data
-2 - 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values"then"COPY" Cadmium Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/18/2018 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 11/12/2018 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 2.1527
2 9/12/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 2/11/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 2.1111
3 12/16/2020 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 5/13/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 1.0197
4 n 3 4 8/12/2019 < 1 0.5 n 18
5 5 11/11/2019 < 1 0.5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 2/10/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.69
7 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 5/11/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 5.000 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 1.50 ug/L 8 8/10/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 8.450 ug/L
9 9 11/16/2020 < 1 0.5
10 10 2/8/2021 < 1 0.5
11 11 5/10/2021 < 1 0.5
12 12 8/9/2021 < 5 2.5
13 13 11/1/2021 < 10 5
14 14 2/7/2022 < 10 5
15 15 5/2/2022 < 10 5
16 16 8/8/2022 < 10 5
17 17 11/7/2022 < 10 5
18 18 2/6/2023 < 10 5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
-3- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05 Par07
Use"PASTE SPECIAL- Use"PASTE SF
Chlorides Values"then"COPY". Total Phenolic Compounds Values"then
Maximum data points= Maximum<
58 points=5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/18/2018 210 210 Std Dev. 364.8703 1 6/18/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.4434
2 9/12/2019 419 419 Mean 516.3 2 9/12/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 3.3333
3 12/16/2020 920 920 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/16/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.0 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 920.0 mg/L 7 Max. Value 5.0
8 Max. Pred Cw 2,760.0 mg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
-4- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
�ECIAL Part O Pal
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SF
COPY" Chromium' Total values"then"COPY" Copper values"then
tata Maximum data .Maximum<
;8 points=58 points=5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 11/12/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 12.2084 1 11/12/2018 7 7 Std Dev. 12.7259
2 2/11/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 7.8889 2 2/11/2019 8 8 Mean 17.5833
3 5/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 1.5475 3 5/13/2019 7 7 C.V. 0.7237
4 8/12/2019 < 5 2.5 n 18 4 8/12/2019 15 15 n 18
5 11/11/2019 9 9 5 11/11/2019 12 12
6 2/10/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.99 6 2/10/2020 6 6 Mult Factor= 1.50
ug/L 7 5/11/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 55.0 pg/L 7 5/11/2020 6 6 Max. Value 52.00
ug/L 8 8/10/2020 7 7 Max. Pred Cw 109.5 pg/L 8 8/10/2020 14 14 Max. Pred Cw 78.00
9 11/16/2020 < 5 2.5 9 11/16/2020 8.5 8.5
10 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5 10 2/8/2021 13 13
11 5/10/2021 6 6 11 5/10/2021 28 28
12 8/9/2021 13 13 12 8/9/2021 9 9
13 11/1/2021 < 10 5 13 11/1/2021 16 16
14 2/7/2022 < 10 5 14 2/7/2022 30 30
15 5/2/2022 < 10 5 15 5/2/2022 38 38
16 8/8/2022 12 12 16 8/8/2022 22 22
17 11/7/2022 55 55 17 11/7/2022 52 52
18 2/6/2023 < 10 5 18 2/6/2023 25 25
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
- 5- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
�ECIAL Par12 Par14
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SF
COPY" Cy anide Values"then"COPY" Lead Values"then
tata .Maximum data .Maximum<
;8 points=58 points=5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date BDL=1/2DL Results
1 11/13/2018 < 5 5 Std Dev. 3.5737 1 11/12/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.3565
2 2/12/2019 < 5 5 Mean 6.22 2 2/11/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 3.2083
3 5/14/2019 < 5 5 C.V. 0.5743 3 5/13/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.4228
4 8/13/2019 < 5 5 n 18 4 8/12/2019 < 5 2.5 n 18
5 11/12/2019 < 5 5 5 11/11/2019 < 5 2.5
6 2/11/2020 < 5 5 Mult Factor= 1.39 6 2/10/2020 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor= 1.29
ug/L 7 5/11/2020 < 5 5 Max. Value 17.0 ug/L 7 5/11/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 5.000
ug/L 8 8/11/2020 < 5 5 Max. Pred Cw 23.6 ug/L 8 8/10/2020 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 6.450
9 11/17/2020 < 5 5 9 11/16/2020 < 3.5 1.75
10 2/8/2021 < 5 5 10 2/8/2021 < 5 2.5
11 5/11/2021 < 5 5 11 5/10/2021 < 5 2.5
12 8/10/2021 < 5 5 12 8/9/2021 < 2 1
13 11/2/2021 < 5 5 13 11/1/2021 < 10 5
14 2/8/2022 < 5 5 14 2/7/2022 < 10 5
15 5/3/2022 < 10 5 15 5/2/2022 < 10 5
16 8/9/2022 17 17 16 8/8/2022 < 10 5
17 11/8/2022 15 15 17 11/7/2022 < 10 5
18 2/7/2023 < 5 5 18 2/6/2023 < 10 5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
-6- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16 Par17 & Par18 Use"PAS
�ECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL SPECIAL-Va
COPY" Molybdenum Values"then"COPY" Nickel then"COP
tata .Maximum data
Maximum
;8 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=
1 11/12/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.5893 1 11/12/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2.0803
2 2/11/2019 < 10 5 Mean 4.8611 2 2/11/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.1944
3 5/13/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.1212 3 5/13/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.4005
4 8/12/2019 < 10 5 n 18 4 8/12/2019 < 10 5 n 18
5 11/11/2019 < 10 5 5 11/11/2019 < 10 5
6 2/10/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.08 6 2/10/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.27
ug/L 7 5/11/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 5/11/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 13.0
ug/L 8 8/10/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.4 ug/L 8 8/10/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 16.5
9 11/16/2020 < 5 2.5 9 2/8/2021 < 10 5
10 2/8/2021 < 10 5 10 5/10/2021 < 10 5
11 5/10/2021 < 10 5 11 8/9/2021 3 3
12 8/9/2021 < 10 5 12 11/1/2021 < 10 5
13 11/1/2021 < 10 5 13 2/7/2022 < 10 5
14 2/7/2022 < 10 5 14 5/2/2022 < 10 5
15 5/2/2022 < 10 5 15 8/8/2022 < 10 5
16 8/8/2022 < 10 5 16 11/7/2022 13 13
17 11/7/2022 < 10 5 17 2/6/2023 < 10 5
18 2/6/2023 < 10 5 18 11/16/2020 < 5 2.5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
-7- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
;TE Par19 use"PASTE Par20
Use"PASTE
clues" SPECIAL-Values"
'Y". Selenium then"COPY". Silver Values"then
data Maximum data Maximum dat;58
58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 11/12/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 1.1827 1 11/12/2018 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 2/11/2019 < 10 5 Mean 4.6111 2 2/11/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000
3 5/13/2019 < 10 5 C.V. 0.2565 3 5/13/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.0000
4 8/12/2019 < 10 5 n 18 4 8/12/2019 < 1 0.5 n 18
5 11/11/2019 < 10 5 5 11/11/2019 < 1 0.5
6 2/10/2020 < 10 5 Mult Factor= 1.17 6 2/10/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.00
fag/L 7 5/11/2020 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 5/11/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500
fag/L 8 8/10/2020 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.9 ug/L 8 8/10/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.500
9 11/16/2020 < 5 2.5 9 11/16/2020 < 1 0.5
10 2/8/2021 < 10 5 10 2/8/2021 < 1 0.5
11 5/10/2021 < 10 5 11 5/10/2021 < 1 0.5
12 8/9/2021 < 1 0.5 12 8/9/2021 < 1 0.5
13 11/1/2021 < 10 5 13 11/1/2021 < 1 0.5
14 2/7/2022 < 10 5 14 2/7/2022 < 1 0.5
15 5/2/2022 < 10 5 15 5/2/2022 < 1 0.5
16 8/8/2022 < 10 5 16 8/8/2022 < 1 0.5
17 11/7/2022 < 10 5 17 11/7/2022 < 1 0.5
18 2/6/2023 < 10 5 18 2/6/2023 < 1 0.5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
-8- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21 Par22
SPECIAL- Use"PASTE SPECIAL
"Copy.,. Zinc Values"then"COPY" Dibromochloromethane
i points= Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 11/12/2018 61 61 Std Dev. 33.0906 1 6/18/2018 26 26 Std Dev.
2 2/11/2019 40 40 Mean 72.8824 2 9/12/2019 17.2 17.2 Mean
3 5/13/2019 50 50 C.V. 0.4540 3 12/16/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 8/12/2019 50 50 n 17 4 n
5 11/11/2019 64 64 5
6 2/10/2020 44 44 Mult Factor= 1.33 6 Mult Factor=
ug/L 7 5/11/2020 42 42 Max. Value 149.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value
ug/L 8 8/10/2020 64 64 Max. Pred Cw 198.2 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw
9 2/8/2021 87 87 9
10 5/10/2021 80 80 10
11 8/9/2021 134 134 11
12 11/1/2021 62 62 12
13 2/7/2022 149 149 13
14 5/2/2022 67 67 14
15 8/8/2022 44 44 15
16 11/7/2022 123 123 16
17 2/6/2023 78 78 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
-9- 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Use"PASTE Par23 Use"PASTE Par24
SPECIAL-Values" SPECIAL-Values"
then"COPY". Bromoform then"COPY". Dichlorobromomethane
Maximum data points Maximum data
58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
11.8728 1 6/18/2018 13.6 13.6 Std Dev. 5.5812 1 6/18/2018 16.6 16.6 Std Dev.
15.2333 2 9/12/2019 7.03 7.03 Mean 7.7100 2 9/12/2019 14.6 14.6 Mean
0.6000 3 12/16/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/16/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
3 4 n 3 4 n
5 5
3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor=
26.000000 pg/L 7 Max. Value 13.600000 pg/L 7 Max. Value
78.000000 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 40.80000 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
24571 RPA, data
- 10 - 5/17/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par25
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL-
Values"then"COPY" Chloroform Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
7.6291 1 6/18/2018 7.4 7.4 Std Dev. 3.0790
11.2333 2 9/12/2019 8.18 8.18 Mean 6.0267
0.6000 3 12/16/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
3 4 n 3
5
3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
16.600000 pg/L 7 Max. Value 8.180000 pg/L
49.800000 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 24.540000 pg/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
24571 RPA, data
- 11 - 5/17/2023

Lumberton WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO024571 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 20 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 20.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: IV COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 97.83 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 24.06271831 Acute = 32.23 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 120.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 20.52980132 Chronic= 31.17 mg/L
7Q10W (cfs) = 191.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W= 13.96396396
30Q2 (cfs) = 120.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 20.52980132
Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 853.00 IW%C @ QA= 3.50678733
Receiving Stream: Lumber River HUC 03040203 Stream Class: C;Sw
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
CY
TYPE Chronic Standard Acute n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 1.413.0
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 ug/L _
18 1 43.0 Chronic (FW) 730.6 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
--- -----------------------------
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L Chronic (HH) 285.2
No value >Allowable w
Acute: 270.13
Bervllium NC 6.5 FW(7010s) 65 uLY/L 3 0 1.50
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 31.66 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 16.807
Cadmium NC 0.6970 FW(7Q10s) 4.0443 uiz/L 18 0 8.450
Chronic: 3.395 All values non-detect< 10 ug/L, < 5 ug/L and < 1 ug/L
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 - No monitoring required; Permittee shall used PQL <
0.5 ug/L
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides NC 230 FW(7Ql Os) mg/L 3 3 2,760.0
Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 1,120.3 RP for Limited Dataset (n<8 samples)-apply
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(3002) u4/L 3 0 15.0
Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 1,461.3 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL 10 Monitoring required
Acute: 4,631.5
Chromium III NC 141.0451 FW(7010s) 1114.4594 ua/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic: 687.0
Acute: 66.5
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7010s) 16 ua/L 0 0 N/A
--Chronic: ----- 53.6 --- ---------------------------
Tot Cr value(s)> 5 with 1 Tot Cr value(s) >Cr VI Allowable c: Monitor Total Chromium and Chromium VI, along
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 18 6 109.5 Max reported value = 55 with a limit for Chromium VI if any Total Chromium
sample is > the Chromium VI Allowable Cw but < the
Chromium III Allowable Cw.
Acute: 55.29
Copper NC 9.5153 FW(7Q10s) 13.3046 ug/L 18 18 78.00
--Chronic: -----46.35--- ---------------------------
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
1 values >Allowable Cw
Acute: 91.4
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 22 10 ug/L 18 2 23.6 ___ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Chronic: 24.4 No RP , Predicted Max >_ 50% of Allowable Cw
No value >Allowable Cw apply Quarterly Monitoring
24571 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 5/18/2023

Lumberton WWTP > Outfall 001
NCO024571 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 20 MGD
Acute: 417.351
Lead NC 3.7692 FW(7Q10s) 100.4259 ug/L 18 0 6.450
Chronic: 18.360 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q10s) ug/L 18 0 5.4 ------------------- -----------------------------
I
Chronic: 9,741.9 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 1,727.1
Nickel NC 44.8701 FW(7Q10s) 415.5958 µg/L _ _ _ _____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18 2 16.5 Chronic (FW) 218.6 [Monitoring
o RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
N_o v_alue >Allowable Cw required
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Chronic (WS) 121.8
No value >Allowable Cw
Acute: 232.7
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 18 0 5.9 ------------------- -----------------------------
I
Chronic: 24.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute: 1.907
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q1Os) 0.4589 ug/L 18 0 0.500 ------------------- -----------------------------
I
Chronic: 0.292 All values non-detect < 1 ug/L - No Monitoring
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 required
Acute: 647.9 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Zinc NC 152.7791 FW(7Q1Os) 155.9023 ug/L 17 17 198.2 Monitoring required
-- ----------- ---------------------------
Chronic: 744.2
No value >Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Dibromochloromethane C 21 HH(Qavg) µg/L 3 2 78.00000 ___ _ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 598.839 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Bromoform C 120 HH(Qavg) µg/L 3 2 40.80000
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 3421.93548 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Dichlorobromomethane C 17 HH(Qavg) µg/L 3 2 49.80000
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 484.77 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chloroform C 2000 HH(Qavg) µg/L 3 2 24.54000
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 57032.25806 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
24571 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 5/18/2023

Permit No. NCO024571
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards-Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard(WQS)Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission(EMC)on November 13,2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6,2016,with some exceptions. Therefore,metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6,2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1.NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l Chronic FW, µg/l Acute SW, µg/1 Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW=Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation=Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200(e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2.Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio(WER)is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph(11)(d)
Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium,Acute WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^10.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium,Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361
Cadmium,Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} •e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.445 11
Chromium III,Acute WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III,Chronic WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper,Acute WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper,Chronic WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead,Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead,Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} •e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel,Acute WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel,Chronic WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO024571
Silver,Acute WER*0.85 •e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver,Chronic Not applicable
Zinc,Acute WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc,Chronic WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream(upstream)hardness
and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal(more on that
below),but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals -Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations,based on applicable
standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value(chronic or acute),the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard,which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present(i.e. consistently below
detection level),then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10(the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10=0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs)0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge,the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream)hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's,Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values,upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available,the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L(CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L,respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable
potential,the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO024571
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness(chronic)
_(Permitted Flow,cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness,mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness,mg/L)
(Permitted Flow,cfs+s7Q10,cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal,using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients(DPCs)or site-specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the"Fraction Dissolved"converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in-stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996)and the
equation:
Cdiss - 1
Ctotal I + { [Kpo] [ss('+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss=in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1],minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a=constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness-dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient(or
site-specific translator)to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases,where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist(ie. silver),the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits)for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca=(s7Q 10+Qw)(Cwgs)—(s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca=allowable effluent concentration(µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs=NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria(µg/L or mg/L)
Cb=background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw=permitted effluent flow(cfs,match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10=summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10=used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0024571
QA=used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2=used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application(40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations,the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit(Total allowable
concentration)is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate,permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10,2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure,total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases,the projected maximum concentration(95th%) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling,upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter Value Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness(mg/L) 55.06 Average from 1112018—212023
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] DMR data
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) 25 Average from 1112018—212023
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] DMR data< 25 mg/L;Default
value used
7Q10 summer(cfs) 120 NPDES Files
1Q10(cfs) 97.83 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow(MGD) 20.0 NPDES Files
Date: 5/17/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO024571 Lumberton WWTP 5/17/2023
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
November-18 96.92 May-21 97.61 November-18 89.89 May-21 95.82
December-18 89.72 June-21 98.01 December-18 65.16 June-21 95.48
January-19 97.14 July-21 97.52 January-19 94.98 July-21 95.57
February-19 98.11 August-21 97.66 February-19 96.69 August-21 96.38
March-19 96.59 September-21 97.71 March-19 92.38 September-21 95.77
April-19 98.10 October-21 97.37 April-19 95.41 October-21 93.84
May-19 98.93 November-21 95.35 May-19 98.06 November-21 90.32
June-19 98.77 December-21 94.46 June-19 97.76 December-21 89.73
July-19 99.01 January-22 96.66 July-19 98.76 January-22 92.78
August-19 98.88 February-22 94.74 August-19 98.02 February-22 87.34
September-19 98.69 March-22 95.54 September-19 97.33 March-22 82.87
October-19 98.49 April-22 95.80 October-19 96.12 April-22 83.94
November-19 97.57 May-22 98.13 November-19 90.91 May-22 95.58
December-19 95.69 June-22 97.99 December-19 85.59 June-22 95.29
January-20 94.54 July-22 98.02 January-20 86.28 July-22 96.13
February-20 92.85 August-22 98.33 February-20 87.33 August-22 95.85
March-20 92.64 September-22 97.62 March-20 84.91 September-22 95.96
April-20 94.94 October-22 97.92 April-20 88.57 October-22 95.78
May-20 96.99 November-22 97.63 May-20 95.00 November-22 94.77
June-20 96.55 December-22 96.92 June-20 94.69 December-22 94.25
July-20 97.92 January-23 96.31 July-20 97.25 January-23 91.49
August-20 96.39 February-23 95.38 August-20 95.74 February-23 91.96
September-20 98.02 March-23 95.53 September-20 96.50 March-23 88.60
October-20 97.07 April-23 95.40 October-20 94.10 April-23 92.57
November-20 96.31 May-23 November-20 86.87 May-23
December-20 94.33 June-23 December-20 83.85 June-23
January-21 95.22 July-23 January-21 94.68 July-23
February-21 92.91 August-23 February-21 84.09 August-23
March-21 91.86 September-23 March-21 86.91 September-23
April-21 95.85 October-23 April-21 95.67 October-23
Overall BOD removal rate 96.49 Overall TSSD removal rate 92.09

5/17/23 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name Lumberton WWTP/NC0024571 No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL=0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 120.000 cfs WQBEL= 58.45 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 20.000 47 ng/L
2/12/19 < 1 0.5
8/12/19 < 1 0.5
9/3/19 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2019
2/10/20 < 1 0.5
11/16/20 1.3 1.3 0.9 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020
2/8/21 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
2/8/22 < 5 2.5
8/8/22 1.18 1.18 1.8 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022
2/6/23 11.8 11.8 11.8 ng/L-Annual Average for 2023

Lumberton WWTP/NC0024571
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
#of Samples 3 2 1 2 1
Annual Average, ng/L 0.5 0.9 0.5 1.8 11.8
Maximum Value, ng/L 0.50 1.30 0.50 2.50 11.80
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 58.5

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Lumberton WWTP
PermitNo. NC0024571
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 20
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 120
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 191
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 120 s7Q10 (CFS) 120
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 20.53 IWC (%) 20.53
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 83 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 4.0
Cap at 28 ug/L. Maintain limit. Same as current limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 191
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 4.87 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 13.96
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 11.5
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 05/16/22 Page 1 of 2
Permit: NCO024571 MRS Betweei 5 - 2018 and 5 - 2023 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO024571 FACILITY: City of Lumberton-Lumberton WWTP COUNTY: Robeson REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
04-2021 001 Effluent BOD,5-Day(20 Deg.C)- 04/30/21 5 X week mg/I 11 12.45 13.2 Monthly Average Proceed to
Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
05-2021 001 Effluent BOD,5-Day(20 Deg.C)- 05/01/21 5 X week mg/I 16.5 18.68 13.2 Weekly Average Proceed to NOV
Concentration Exceeded
04-2023 001 Effluent BOD,5-Day(20 Deg.C)- 04/30/23 5 X week mg/I 11 11.61 5.5 Monthly Average None
Concentration Exceeded
02-2020 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 02/07/20 5 X week ug/I 28 133 375 Daily Maximum Proceed to NOV
Exceeded
04-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 04/10/23 5 X week ug/I 28 39 39.3 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC 09/29/18 5 X week #/100ml 400 878.65 119.7 Weekly Geometric Mean No Action, BPJ
Broth,44.5 C Exceeded
10-2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen,Ammonia Total(as 10/13/18 5 X week mg/I 12 12.14 1.2 Weekly Average Proceed to NOD
N)-Concentration Exceeded
10-2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen,Ammonia Total(as 10/31/18 5 X week mg/I 4 4.15 3.6 Monthly Average Proceed to NOD
N)-Concentration Exceeded
04-2021 001 Effluent Nitrogen,Ammonia Total(as 04/30/21 5 X week mg/I 4 5 25.0 Monthly Average Proceed to
N)-Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
09-2021 001 Effluent Nitrogen,Ammonia Total(as 09/30/21 5 X week mg/I 4 4.33 8.2 Monthly Average Proceed to NOD
N)-Concentration Exceeded
04-2023 001 Effluent Nitrogen,Ammonia Total(as 04/30/23 5 X week mg/I 4 4.9 22.6 Monthly Average None
N)-Concentration Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Oxygen, Dissolved(DO) 09/19/18 5 X week mg/I 5 4.5 10 Daily Minimum Not No Action, BPJ
Reached
09-2018 001 Effluent Oxygen, Dissolved(DO) 09/20/18 5 X week mg/I 5 3.2 36 Daily Minimum Not No Action, BPJ
Reached
09-2018 001 Effluent pH 09/19/18 5 X week su 6 5.2 13.3 Daily Minimum Not No Action, BPJ
Reached
09-2018 001 Effluent pH 09/20/18 5 X week su 6 5.6 6.7 Daily Minimum Not No Action, BPJ
Reached

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 05/16/22 Page 2 of 2
Permit: NCO024571 MRS Betweel 5 - 2018 and 5 - 2023 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO024571 FACILITY: City of Lumberton-Lumberton WWTP COUNTY: Robeson REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
09-2018 001 Effluent pH 09/21/18 5 X week su 6 5.8 3.3 Daily Minimum Not No Action, BPJ
Reached
12-2019 001 Effluent pH 12/05/19 5 X week su 6 5.9 1.7 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOD
Reached
11-2020 001 Effluent pH 11/23/20 5 X week su 6 3.8 36.7 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOV
Reached
11-2020 001 Effluent pH 11/24/20 5 X week su 6 4.6 23.3 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOV
Reached
11-2020 001 Effluent pH 11/25/20 5 X week su 6 4.6 23.3 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOV
Reached
11-2020 001 Effluent pH 11/30/20 5 X week su 6 4.5 25 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOV
Reached
12-2020 001 Effluent pH 12/01/20 5 X week su 6 5.1 15 Daily Minimum Not Proceed to NOV
Reached
12-2018 001 Effluent Solids,Total Suspended- 12/15/18 5 X week mg/I 45 66.22 47.2 Weekly Average Proceed to
Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
03-2022 001 Effluent Solids,Total Suspended- 03/31/22 5 X week mg/I 30 38.2 27.3 Monthly Average Proceed to
Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
04-2022 001 Effluent Solids,Total Suspended- 04/09/22 5 X week mg/I 45 57.22 27.2 Weekly Average Proceed to
Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
04-2022 001 Effluent Solids,Total Suspended- 04/16/22 5 X week mg/I 45 50.38 11.9 Weekly Average Proceed to
Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case
04-2022 001 Effluent Solids,Total Suspended- 04/30/22 5 X week mg/I 30 34.74 15.8 Monthly Average Proceed to
Concentration Exceeded Enforcement Case

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO024571 I11 121 22/05/16 I17 18I�I 19 I G I 20U
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 J 71 Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:OOAM 22/05/16 17/08/01
Lumberton WWTP
700 Lafayette St Extension Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Lumberton NC 28359 12:45PM 22/05/16 22/07/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Henry Byron Harper/ORC/910-671-3859/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Harold Walton,PO Drawer 1388 Lumberton NC 283591388/ORC/910-671-3859/
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations&Maintenar Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Hughie White DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.708/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NCO024571 I11 12I 22/05/16 117 18 i s i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
A copy of the current NPDES permit and a copy of the most recent annual report were available for
review. All records and logbooks were very well organized and maintained. The ORC visitation log
appeared to be complete and current. Calibration records for equipment appeared to be properly
documented. Laboratory data was reviewed during this inspetion and all data that was reviewed
appeared to be correct, as reported on the DMR's. All treatment units appeared to be properly
operated and maintained. At the time of this inspection, the effluent appeared to be clear with no
visible solids present.
Also, as part of this inspection, effluent samples were collected and sent to the NC Division of Water
Resources laboratory for analysis. The results of the analysis are listed below:
Fecal Coliform: 1200 CFU/100ml
BOD: 19 mg/L
Suspended Residue: 6.25 mg/L
NH3: 0.11 mg/L
NO2+NO3: 40 mg/L
Total Phosphorus: 1.6 mg/L
TKN: 3.0 mg/L
Page# 2

Permit: NCO024571 Owner-Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
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)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
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 M ❑ ❑ ❑
classification?
Page# 3

Permit: NC0024571 Owner-Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
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:
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? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? 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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Page# 4

Permit: NCO024571 Owner-Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational? 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:
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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
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) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Disinfection-Gas Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO024571 Owner-Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Disinfection-Gas Yes No NA NE
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site? E ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated? 08/06/2020
Comment:
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? E ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the mixing adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO024571 Owner-Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
# Is the odor acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: This flow meter was calibrated on 5/11/22.
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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
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:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units? 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 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Page# 7

Permit: NC0024571 Owner-Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 05/16/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Comment:
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent 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: The effluent flow meter is used for reporting. The meter was last calibrated on 5/11/22.
Page# 8

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 2 u 3 I NCO024571 111 121 22/08/31 117 18 L D] 19 I G I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70LJ 71Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:OOAM 22/08/31 17/08/01
Lumberton WWTP
700 Lafayette St Extension Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Lumberton NC 28359 01:30PM 22/08/31 22/07/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Harold Walton,PO Drawer 1388 Lumberton NC 283591388/ORC/910-671-3859/
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Other
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
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
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 1
31 NCO024571 I11 12I 22/08/31 117 18 I D
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page# 2

Permit: NCO024571 Owner-Facility: Lumberton WWTP
Inspection Date: 08/31/2022 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Other Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Page# 3

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form Version: 2022.09.28
2 1. Facility's General Information
3 Date of(draft) Review 5/17/2023 c. POC review due to: e. Contact Information
4
Date of(final) Review Municipal NPDES renewal ❑J Regional Office(RO) Fayetteville
5 NPDES Permit Writer(pw) Nick Coco HWA-AT/LTMP Review ❑ RO PT Staff Stephanie Zorio RO NPDES Staff Hughie White
6
Perm ittee-Facility Name Lumberton WWTP New Industries ❑ Facility PT Staff, email Beverly Allen, ballen(aDci.lumberton.nc.us
7 NPDES Permit Number NCO024571 WWTP expansion ❑ f. Receiving Stream
8 NPDES Permit Effective Date Stream reclass./adjustment ❑ Outfall 1
9 Chemical Addendum Submittal Date Outfall relocation/adjustment ❑ Receiving Stream: Lumber River QA, cfs:
10 NPDES Permit Public Notice Date 7Q10 update ❑ Stream Class C;Sw 7Q10(S), cfs: I
20
11
eDMR data evaluated from: 11/1/2018 to 4/30/2023 Other POC review trigger, explain: Oufall Lat. 34.36.10 Outfall Long. 78.59.37
12 a. WWTP Capacity Summary Outfall II
13 Current Permitted Flow, mgd 20.0 Deggned Flow, 20.0 Receiving Stream: QA, cfs:
14 Permitted SIU Flow, mgd 2.040 d. IU Summary Stream Class 7Q10, cfs:
15 b. PT Docs. Summary #IUs 10 Oufall Lat. Outfall Long.
16
IWS approval date 1/21/2021 #SIUs 1 Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfall(s)? YES ❑ NO
17 L/STMP approval date: 5/4/2017 #CIUs 1 Comments:
18 #NSCIUs
HWA-AT approval date 12/31/2019 #IUs w/Local The facility discharges approximately 30 miles upstream of the NC/SC border
Permits or Other
19 -Types
20 2. Industrial Users' Information.
21 # Industrial User(IU) Name IU Activity IU Non Conventional Pollutans&Toxic Pollutant IUP Effective Date
L
22 1 Elkay Southern Corp. Metal-Sinks flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, zinc 4/1/2023
2 International Paper Company 430-Paper flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, copper, zinc 4/1/2023
23
24 E 3 Kansas City Sausage Company Food flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, phosphorous, TKN 4/1/2023
25 a 4 Kayser Roth Corporation, Inc. Textile flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, chromium, copper,zinc 4/1/2023
5 BFT Lumberton Ops Corp. Textile flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS 4/1/2023
26 Lu
d 6 Robeson County Landfill Landfill flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc 4/1/2023
27 Z
7 Trinity Manufacturing, Inc. 455-Chlorpicrin flow, pH,temperature, cyanide, lead, 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,2- 4/1/2023
dichloropropane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,3-dichloropropene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, bromodichloromethane, bromomethane,
chlorobenzene, chloromethane, dibromochloromethane, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene, napthalene, tetrachloroethylene, tetrachloromethane,
28 toluene, tribromomethane, trichloromethane
8 Sampson County Landfill Landfill flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc, cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel 4/3/2023
29
9 Red Rock Disposal Landfill flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc, cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel 4/1/2023
30
10 GFL Environmental Inc. (Wake County Landfill) Landfill flow, pH, temperature, BOD, TSS, ammonia, arsenic, TKN, zinc, cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel 4/1/2023
31
11
32
12
33
13
34
14
35
Comment: recommend investigating landfills for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, textiles for PFAS
40
41 3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
42 Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
43 ❑ 1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
44 ❑ 2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
45 ❑ 3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
46 p I 3a) Full Program with LTMP
47 E]J 3b) Modified Program with STMP
----- -----
48 ❑ 4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
49 p 5)facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
50 ❑ 6)facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to §503.43)
51 ❑ 7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill:
52 ❑ 8) other
53 Sludge Disposal Plan: Land application
54
55
56 Sludge Permit No: WQ0000672
Page 1 POC Review Form

A B C D E F G H I I J I K I L M N O P
57 4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
58 PW: Find USTMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
a Parameter of Concern New Previous Required by POC due to POC due to POTW % USTMP NPDES Comment
(POC) Check List NPDES NPDES EPA PT(1) Sludge (2) SIU (3) POC (4) Removal Effluent Freq. Effluent Freq.
U) POC POC Rate PQLs review
c
59 U
a PQL from Required PQL Recomm.
USTMP, ug/1 per NPDES PQL, ug/1
60 permit
p Flow ❑ 0 ❑ El61
62 F,� BOD 0 0 ❑ 2000.0
63 P1 TSS ❑ 0 El ❑ 2500.0
64 0 JNH3 ❑ p ❑ ❑ 100.0
65 0 jArsenic ❑ ❑ 121 ❑ ❑ 5.0 2.0
66 ❑ Barium ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
67 ❑ Beryllium(5) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
68 p Cadmium(1) ❑ ❑ p 0 ❑ ❑ 1.0 0.5
69 r:�j Chromium(1) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ El ❑ 5.0 5.0
70 0 Copper(l) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 1-12.0 2.0
J
71 p Cyanide ❑ ❑ ❑ p ❑ 5.0
72 p Lead(1) ❑ ❑ p p 0 ❑ 5.0 2.0
73 p Mercury(5) ❑ p p ❑ ❑ 1 ng/L 0.001
74 0 Molybdenum ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 10.0 10.0
75 0 Nickel(1) ❑ ❑ p 0 ❑ ❑ 10.0
76 0 Selenium ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 10.0 1.0
77 ❑ Silver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 1.0
78 [2] Zinc(1) 1 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 10.0 10.0
79 0 Sludge Flow to Disposal p ❑ ❑
80 p % Solids to Disposal p ❑ ❑
81 ❑ Oil & Grease ❑ ❑
82 ❑ TN ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
83 ❑ TP ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
84 ❑ Chloride ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
85 ❑ Cobalt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
86 ❑ Sodium ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
87 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
88 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
89 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
90 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
91 Footnotes:
92 (1)Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA-PT requirement
93 (2)Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
94 (3)Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
95 (4)Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW
96 (5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated
97 Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
98 Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in USTMP sampling plan
99 Please use orange font and strikethrough for POC that may be removed from LISTIMIP POC listis
-- -------------- -------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------------
100 Blue shaded cell (D60:1-181): Parameters usually included under that POC list
101 RP 5. Comments
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in USTMP:
102
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
103
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
104 Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to USTMP due
105 to POTW s concerns:
106 NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
107 6. Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
108 NPDES Permit Effective Date 180 days after effective(date): Permit writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Page 2 POC Review Form