NC0020648_Fact Sheet_20210602

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0020648
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: January 14, 2021
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2"d 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 Washington/Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 1988, Washington, NC 27889
Facility Address:
1399 West 2"d Street, Washington, NC 27889
Permitted Flow:
3.65 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 98.8% domestic, 1.2% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Influent metering vault, Mechanical bar screen, Automatic aerated grit
chamber, Splitter box, Aeration basin, Activated sludge oxidation ditch,
Four secondary clarifiers with scum removal and pumped sludge return,
Five cell deep -bed denitrification sand filters with a methanol
storage/feed system, Dual chlorine contact chambers with flow paced
sodium hypochlorite feed, Sodium bisulfite dechlorination, Reaeration
Basin, Lime storage tower, Caustic soda and polymer feed system,
Sludge mixing tank with lime addition, Four sludge thickening lagoons,
Recirculation pump and decant draw off, 60,000 gallon mud well,
Sludge recirculation pump station, Effluent pump station, Effluent
diffuser
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y
County:
Beaufort
Region
Washington
*Based on permitted flows
Page 1 of 12

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Washington has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 3.65 MGD for the Washington WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 14,800 residents across the City of Washington and Town of Chocowinity,
along with 1 significant industrial user (SIU) via a pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial
wastewater is discharged into Fishing Creek, a class C-NSW water in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. The
facility has a primary Outfall 001.
In their 2019 renewal application, the City requested the Division use a 7Q10 of 28.8 MGD when
conducting calculations, as this value has historically been used in the pretreatment headworks analysis.
This value is based on the results of a 1994 CORMIX model. The 1994 model is outdated and not likely
to be accurate. Prior to implementing any diffusion in the RPA and WLA calculations, the Division
requests an updated model be performed. Until such model is conducted, the receiving stream is
considered to be tidally influenced and a 7Q10 of 0 cfs is being used. The pretreatment unit has been
informed of this.
2. Receiving Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Tar River
Stream Index:
28-(102.5)
Stream Classification:
C;NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
Tidal
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Tidal
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
30Q2 (cfs):
Tidal
Average Flow (cfs):
Tidal
IWC (% effluent):
100
2018 303(d) listed/parameter:
No
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-03-07/03020104
USGS Topo Quad:
E30SE Washington, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of September 2016 through September
2020.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
2.48
6.979
1.501
MA 3.65
Total Monthly Flow
MG/month
75.5
113.42
58.705
Monitor & Report
BOD
mg/1
2.0
3
2
WA 19.6
MA 13.1
TSS
mg/1
2.5
4.6
2.5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N
mg/1
0.1
3.38
0.02
WA 10.5
MA 3.5
DO
mg/1
8.3
11.1
6.4
DA > 5 mg/1
Page 2 of 12

Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
(geomean)
1.97
41
1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
Temperature
° C
21.5
30
10
Monitor & Report
pH
SU
7.7
8.7
6.1
6.0<pH<9.0
TRC
µg/1
20.2
30
20
DM 28
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
646
2564
298
Monitor & Report
Total Copper
µg/1
2.3
13
2
Monitor & Report
Total Zinc
µg/1
36.6
59
19
Monitor & Report
TKN
mg/1
0.5
2.31
0.35
Monitor & Report
NO2+NO3
mg/1
1.0
5.97
0.31
Monitor & Report
TN
mg/1
1.5
5.97
0.38
Monitor & Report
TN Load
lb/mo
928
1949
546
Monitor & Report
TN Load
lb/yr
11,391
13,532
8,971
52,054
TP
mg/1
0.7
2.57
0.15
Monitor & Report
TP Load
lb/mo
437
682
153
Monitor & Report
TP Load
lb/yr
5,295
5,923
4,764
9,407
MA -Monthly Average_ WA -Weekly Average DM -Daily Maximum_ DA-Daily Average_ OA-
Quarterly 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 monitoring for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform,
conductivity and temperature upstream at Grimesland Bridge and downstream at NC Highway 17. The
City is a member of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association and their instream requirements are
provisionally waived as long as they maintain membership. The Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association
does not have monitoring stations near the facility, but the Division has an Ambient Monitoring Station
both upstream and downstream of the discharge. As such, data from January 2017 through March 2019
were observed from ambient monitoring station 07300000, located upstream of the facility, and station
07650000, located downstream of the facility. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Ambient Monitoring Station Data Summary
Parameter
Units
07300000 Upstream '
07650000 Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
DO
mg/1
6.3
11.3
2.3
8.6
12.6
4.3
Fecal
Coliform
#/100m1
(geomean)
50.4
680
7
(geomean)
38.2
1400
2
Page 3 of 12

Conductivity
umhos/cm
969.8
1010.9
79.2
1917.6
14027.7
74.0
Temperature
° C
16.9
29.8
5.9
18.0
30.3
8.4
Note: upstream and downstream sampling was conducted on different days. Meaningful statistical
analysis could not be performed.
The downstream temperature did not exceed 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)].
Downstream DO dropped below 5 mg/L on two occasions [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the
period reviewed.
Downstream fecal coliform data did not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100mL during the period
reviewed [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (7)]. Additionally, downstream fecal coliform was greater than
400/100mL in less than 20% of the samples taken during the period reviewed, which meets the instream
standard.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): Y
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations resulting in enforcement during the period reviewed.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 20 of 20 quarterly chronic toxicity tests as well as 4 of 4 second species
toxicity tests from February 2016 to November 2020.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in May 2019 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0020648.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on 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
Page 4 of 12

(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current BOD
limits are based on results of a 1994 CORMIX water quality model conducted prior to the facility's
expansion to the 3.65 MGD flow tier. In 2001, the facility was granted expansion to 3.65 MGD with no
additional pollutant loading. No changes are proposed.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1 (summer) and 1.8 mg/1 (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
permit sets a daily maximum limit for TRC at 28 ug/L. The TRC limit has been reviewed in the attached
WLA. Based on IWC-based calculations, the daily maximum TRC limit has been changed to 17.0 ug/L.
The current ammonia limits are based on results of a 1994 CORMIX water quality model conducted prior
to the facility's expansion to the 3.65 MGD flow tier. In 2001, the facility was granted expansion to 3.65
MGD with no additional pollutant loading. Ammonia -nitrogen limits have been reviewed in the attached
WLA. Based on IWC-based calculations, the ammonia monthly average limit has been changed to 1.0
mg/L. Per an agreement with the EPA, the weekly average limit to monthly average limit ratio is 3:1 for
ammonia. As such, the weekly average limit has been changed to 3.0 mg/L.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
Since the facility discharges into tidal water reasonable potential analysis was conducted assuming an
IWC of 100%.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between September
2016 through September 2020 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:
Page 5 of 12

• 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: NA
• 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: NA
• 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 Chromium, Total Copper, Total Cyanide,
Total Lead, Total Molybdenum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (PPAs from 2017, 2018, 2019)
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: N/A
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: N/A
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
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: The permit requires quarterly acute toxicity testing at 90%
effluent concentration. No changes are proposed.
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
Page 6 of 12

the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (3.65 MGD)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
# of Samples
4
12
12
12
8
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L
1.1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
12.0
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. While the facility is > 2 MGD and reported multiple detected levels of mercury during
the period reviewed, only on one occasion (12/1/16) did the city report a value of mercury greater than 1
ng/L. As the facility's mercury values were consistently non -detect from 2017 to present, no MMP has
been added to the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit:
History of Nutrient Management Strategy for Point Sources
• On September 12, 1989, the Environmental Managements Commission classified the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). On February 13, 1992, the Commission approved a
revised NSW Implementation Strategy that established the framework for a nutrient reduction trading
program between point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The Strategy also established certain
conditions to be met by an association of dischargers known as the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
(the Association). Those conditions are defined in the Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Implementation Strategy (the "Agreement").
Addition of Nutrient Limits
• In 2009, the U.S. EPA Region 4 offices raised concerns that, although the Agreement set collective
nutrient caps for the members of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association, the members' NPDES permits
lacked nutrient limits and, as a result, EPA had no means to enforce nutrient controls should it
become necessary. As part of the 2009 permit renewals, the Division added the group caps for
nitrogen and phosphorus, along with related special conditions, to the permits of the fifteen TPBA
member facilities. The Division could not add individual N and P limits at that time, because no basis
existed at the time for dividing the available wasteload allocations among the members. Instead, the
Division agreed to work with the Association to determine an appropriate distribution and to then add
individual N and P limits to the permits as part of the 2014 renewals.
• With the consent of the Association, the group caps are distributed among the members in proportion
to their 2014 maximum permitted flows, as follows:
Page 7 of 12

TPBA Members and Nutrient Allocations/ Limits
Permit
Owner
Facility
TN Load
(lb/yr)
TP Load
(lb/yr)
NC0030317
City of Rocky Mount
Tar River Regional WWTP
299,491
54,124
NC0023931
Greenville Utilities Commission
GUC WWTP
249,576
45,103
NC0020605
Town of Tarboro
Tarboro WWTP
71,307
12,887
NC0025054
City of Oxford
Oxford WWTP
49,915
9,021
NC0020648
City of Washington
Washington WWTP
52,054
9,407
NC0069311
Franklin County
Franklin County WWTP
42,784
7,732
NC0020834
Town of Warrenton
Warrenton WWTP
28,523
5,155
NC0026042
Town of Robersonville
Robersonville WWTP
25,671
4,639
NC0020231
Town of Louisburg
Louisburg WRF
19,538
3,531
NC0026492
Town of Belhaven
Belhaven WWTP
14,261
2,577
NC0025402
Town of Enfield
Enfield WWTP
14,261
2,577
NC0023337
Town of Scotland Neck
Scotland Neck WWTP
9,626
1,740
NC0020061
Town of Spring Hope
Spring Hope WWTP
5,705
1,031
NC0042269
Town of Bunn
Bunn WWTP
4,278
773
NC0020435
Town of Pinetops
Pinetops WWTP
4,278
773
• Given the size and characteristics of the river basin, transport losses were judged to be somewhat
uniform across the basin and were not considered in these calculations. Thus, nutrient limits equal the
nutrient allocations for each facility, unlike in other nutrient management strategies in the state.
• The draft permit includes new conditions designed to meet the Division's 2009 commitment. The
group caps and related conditions have been deleted and replaced with individual N and P limits and a
new set of related special conditions.
• The nutrient limits are annual mass limits and become effective January 1, 2016. Each members'
limits are equivalent to approximately 4.7 mg/L TN and 0.85 mg/L TP for the member's full
permitted flow.
The special conditions document the N and P allocations assigned to the facility and provide for
consistent calculation of nutrient loads by all members. They also establish how compliance with the N
and P limits will be determined if the Association members apply for and obtain a group NPDES permit
to control their nutrient discharges collectively. The members have indicated they plan to apply for such a
permit, and the Division initiated discussions with the members on that approach in 2012.
The Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Strategy is covered under 15A NCAC 02B .0730.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: 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: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
Page 8 of 12

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
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
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 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The City of Washington was granted monitoring frequency reductions for BOD5, Total Suspended Solids,
NH3-N and Fecal Coliform with their 2016 NPDES permit renewal based on DWR Guidance Regarding
the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The
Town has requested continuation of this monitoring frequency reduction in their 2019 NPDES renewal
Page 9 of 12

application. The last three years of the facility's data for these parameters have been reviewed in
accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. 2/week monitoring for BOD5, Total Suspended
Solids, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform has been maintained.
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 3.65 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 3.65 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly Flow
Monitor and
Report Monthly
No change
For calculation of TN and TP
Loads
BOD5
MA 13.1 mg/1
WA 19.6 mg/1
2/week monitoring
No change
WQBEL. WQ model. 15A NCAC
2B; DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
NH3-N
MA 3.5 mg/1
WA 10.5 mg/1
2/week monitoring
MA 1.0 mg/1
WA 3.0 mg/1
WQBEL. 2021 WLA review. 15A
NCAC 2B; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
WA 45 mg/1
2/week monitoring
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
2/week monitoring
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B; DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
DO
DA > 5 mg/1
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Page 10 of 12

Temperature
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TRC
DM 28.0 ug/L
Monitor and
Report Daily
DM 17.0 ug/L
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 2021
WLA review; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Conductivity
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Copper
Monitor and
Report Monthly
Remove requirement
Based on RPA results; No RP,
Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable
Cw - No Monitoring required
Total Zinc
Monitor and
Report Monthly
Remove requirement
Based on RPA results; No RP,
Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable
Cw - No Monitoring required
TKN
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
NO2+NO3
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Management
Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
TN Load
Monitor and
Report Monthly
(as lb/mo)
Annual TN mass
limit of 52,054
lb/yr
No change
WQBEL. Tar -Pamlico Nutrient
Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
Total Phosphorous
Monitor and
Report Weekly
No change
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Management
Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
TP Load
Monitor and
Report Monthly
(as lb/mo)
Annual TP mass
limit of 9,407 lb/yr
No change
WQBEL. Tar -Pamlico Nutrient
Management Strategy
T15A NCAC 2B .0730
Total Hardness
No requirement
Quarterly Effluent
Monitoring
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016; pretreatment
facility discharging to tidally
influenced waters
Acute Toxicity
Acute limit,
90% effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
No change; conducted
in 2022, 2023, 2024
40 CFR 122
Page 11 of 12

Electronic Reporting
Electronic
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Special
Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, QA
— Quarterly Average, DA — Daily Average, AA — Annual Average
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: February 23, 2021
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the City of Washington, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Washington
Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Ecosystems Branch and Operator Certification Program for
review. No comments were received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• As the receiving stream is tidally influenced, and upstream hardness would not influence
allowable discharge concentrations for hardness -dependent metals for tidally influenced waters,
upstream hardness monitoring has been removed from the permit [See A.(1.)].
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• BOD and TSS Removal
• Monitoring Reduction Frequency Spreadsheet
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheet
• Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet
• Toxicity Summary
• Inspection Report
• Pretreatment Summary
• Renewal Application Addendum
Page 12 of 12

Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT & HYDE COUNTIES
Ashley Vansant, being duly sworn, says:
That he is Publisher of the Washington Daily News,
a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published in Washington, Beaufort & Hyde Coun-
ties, North Carolina; that the publication, a copy of
which is attached hereto, was published in the said
newspaper on the following dates:
02/27/21
That said newspaper was regularly issued and
circulated on those dates.
The sum charged by the Newspaper for said publi-
cation does not exceed the lowest rate paid by com-
mercial customers for an advertisement of similar
size and frequency in the same newspaper in which
the public notice appeared.
There are no agreements between the Washington
Daily News and the officer or attorney charged with
the duty of placing the attached legal advertising
notices whereby any advantage, gain or profit ac-
crued to said officer or attorney.
SIGNED:
Ashley Vansant, Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
27th Day of February, 2021
IrcH
Mary Jo Eskridge, Notary Public
State of Alabama at Large
My commission expires 03-05-2022
Account # 223446
Ad # 1198590
NCDENR
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
"lp ESKR�p.
'NOTARY ,Qr
y-` PUBLIC/4
PUBLIC NOTICE
North Carolina
Environmental Management
CommissionlNPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue
NPDES Wastewater Permit
NC0020648 Washington
WWTP
The North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge
permit to the person(s) listed
below. Written comments re-
garding the proposed permit will
be accepted until 30 days after
the publish date of this notice.
The Director of the NC Division
of Water Resources (DWR) may
hold a public hearing should
there be a significant degree
of public interest. Please mail
comments and/or information
requests to DWR at the above
address. Interested persons
may visit the DWR at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604 to review information on
file. Additional information on
NPDES permits and this no-
tice may be found on our web-
site:http tldeq.nc.govlaboutl
divisions/water-resources/
water -resources -permits/
wastewater-branchlnpdes-
wastewater/public-notices, or
by calling [phone]. The
City of Washington (P.O. Box
1988, Washington, NC 27889)
has requested renewal of NP-
DES Permit NC0020648 for its
Washington Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant, located in Beaufort
County. This permitted facility
discharges treated municipal
and industrial wastewater to the
Tar River, a class C-NSW water
in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin.
Currently, BOD, ammonia, fecal
coltform, DO. pH, Total Nitrogen
Load, Total Phosphorus Load,
and total residual chlorine are
water quality limited. This dis-
charge may affect future allo-
cations in this portion of the Tar
River.
Washington Daily News:
Feb. 27, 2021
NC0020648

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR 122.21 ' 1
1.1
1.2
Email address of facility contact [e-mail]
Applicant email address [e-mail]
1.3
Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge N/A
1.4
1.5
Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge N/A
Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)? (Check all that apply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section
301(h))
Not applicable
1.6
Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
Section 302(b)(2))
Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works N/A
40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)
1.7
Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Number of SIUs
1
Number of ClUs
0
40 CFR 122.22(a) and (d)
1.8
Certification Statement
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name (print or type first and last name) Hope J Woolard
Official title Water Resources Superintendent
Signature
Date signed 1/21/2021

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Washington WWTP
IV
NC0020648
001
3.650 C
Tar River
03020104
C;NSW
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q1Ow (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1Q10s (cfs)
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
116.7 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L (Avg)
116.7 mg/L
116.7 mg/L
Receiving stream is tidally influenced, so 100% IWC
is assumed.
Data Source(s)
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Name
WQS
Type Chronic Modifier
Acute
PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
1.8878
FW
12.4143
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
yTotal Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
415.8162
FW
3196.6327
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
29.3981
FW
44.7166
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
16.1833
FW
415.2904
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
137.0818
FW
1234.2021
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
4.1952
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
467.5545
FW
463.7609
ug/L
20648 RPA, input
2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
127
136
132
128
132
132
128
135
115
100
94
105
103
114
108
110
114
120
115
108
116
104
108
2/5/2019
3/4/2019
3/5/2019
3/6/2019
3/7/2019
3/8/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
127
136
132
128
132
132
128
135
115
100
94
105
103
114
108
110
114
120
115
108
116
104
108
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
H2
Upstream Hardness
12.3488
116.6957
0.1058
23
103.20 mg/L
116.70 mg/L
136.00 mg/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
Defau It
25
Results
25 Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
Use "PASTE SPECIAL•
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
N/A
25.0000
0.0000
1
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
20648 RPA, data
- 1 - 2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/8/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 10/6/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 11/1/2016 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 12/1/2016 < 5 2.5 n
5 1/10/2017 < 5 2.5
6 2/7/2017 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor =
7 3/9/2017 < 5 2.5 Max. Value
8 4/4/2017 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 5/2/2017 < 5 2.5
10 6/1/2017 < 5 2.5
11 7/5/2017 < 5 2.5
12 8/8/2017 < 5 2.5
13 9/7/2017 < 5 2.5
14 10/3/2017 < 5 2.5
15 11/8/2017 < 5 2.5
16 12/5/2017 < 5 2.5
17 1 /11 /2018 < 5 2.5
18 2/6/2018 < 5 2.5
19 3/8/2018 < 5 2.5
20 4/4/2018 < 5 2.5
21 5/8/2018 < 5 2.5
22 6/7/2018 < 5 2.5
23 7/10/2018 < 5 2.5
24 8/7/2018 < 5 2.5
25 9/6/2018 < 5 2.5
26 10/18/2018 < 5 2.5
27 11/6/2018 < 5 2.5
28 12/6/2018 < 5 2.5
29 1/8/2019 < 5 2.5
30 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5
31 3/5/2019 < 5 2.5
32 4/10/2019 < 5 2.5
33 5/7/2019 < 5 2.5
34 6/6/2019 < 5 2.5
35 7/9/2019 < 5 2.5
36 8/6/2019 < 5 2.5
37 9/12/2019 < 5 2.5
38 10/10/2019 < 5 2.5
39 11/5/2019 < 5 2.5
40 12/5/2019 < 5 2.5
41 1/9/2020 < 5 2.5
42 2/4/2020 < 5 2.5
43 3/3/2020 < 5 2.5
44 4/7/2020 < 5 2.5
45 5/5/2020 < 5 2.5
46 6/4/2020 < 5 2.5
47 7/14/2020 < 5 2.5
48 8/11/2020 < 5 2.5
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
48
1.00
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
20648 RPA, data
- 2 - 2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
0.5
0.5
0.5
8/8/2017 <
5/8/2018 <
2/5/2019 <
1
1
1
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par04
Cadmium
0.0000
0.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
0.50 ug/L
1.50 ug/L
Date Data
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016
12/1/2016
1/10/2017
2/7/2017
3/9/2017
4/4/2017
5/2/2017
6/1/2017
7/5/2017
8/8/2017
9/7/2017
10/3/2017
11/8/2017
12/5/2017
1/11/2018
2/6/2018
3/8/2018
4/4/2018
5/8/2018
6/7/2018
7/10/2018
8/7/2018
9/6/2018
10/18/2018
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
BDL=1/2DL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
48
1.00
0.500 ug/L
0.500 ug/L
20648 RPA, data
- 3 - 2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/8/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 5/8/2018 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par10
Chromium, Total
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.5 ug/L
7.5 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/8/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 10/6/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.5000
3 11 /1 /2016 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0000
4 12/1/2016 < 5 2.5 n 48
5 1/10/2017 < 5 2.5
6 2/7/2017 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.00
7 3/9/2017 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 pg/L
8 4/4/2017 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.5 pg/L
9 5/2/2017 < 5 2.5
10 6/1/2017 < 5 2.5
11 7/5/2017 < 5 2.5
12 8/8/2017 < 5 2.5
13 9/7/2017 < 5 2.5
14 10/3/2017 < 5 2.5
15 11/8/2017 < 5 2.5
16 12/5/2017 < 5 2.5
17 1 /11 /2018 < 5 2.5
18 2/6/2018 < 5 2.5
19 3/8/2018 < 5 2.5
20 4/4/2018 < 5 2.5
21 5/8/2018 < 5 2.5
22 6/7/2018 < 5 2.5
23 7/10/2018 < 5 2.5
24 8/7/2018 < 5 2.5
25 9/6/2018 < 5 2.5
26 10/18/2018 < 5 2.5
27 11/6/2018 < 5 2.5
28 12/6/2018 < 5 2.5
29 1/8/2019 < 5 2.5
30 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5
31 3/5/2019 < 5 2.5
32 4/10/2019 < 5 2.5
33 5/7/2019 < 5 2.5
34 6/6/2019 < 5 2.5
35 7/9/2019 < 5 2.5
36 8/6/2019 < 5 2.5
37 9/12/2019 < 5 2.5
38 10/10/2019 < 5 2.5
39 11/5/2019 < 5 2.5
40 12/5/2019 < 5 2.5
41 1/9/2020 < 5 2.5
42 2/4/2020 < 5 2.5
43 3/3/2020 < 5 2.5
44 4/7/2020 < 5 2.5
45 5/5/2020 < 5 2.5
46 6/4/2020 < 5 2.5
47 7/14/2020 < 5 2.5
48 8/11/2020 < 5 2.5
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL•
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
20648 RPA, data
- 4 - 2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pall
Copper
Date Data
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016 <
12/1/2016
1/10/2017 <
2/7/2017 <
3/9/2017 <
4/4/2017 <
5/2/2017 <
6/1/2017 <
7/5/2017 <
8/8/2017 <
9/7/2017 <
10/3/2017 <
11/8/2017 <
12/5/2017 <
1/11/2018
<
2/6/2018 <
3/8/2018 <
4/4/2018 <
5/8/2018 <
6/7/2018 <
7/10/2018 <
8/7/2018 <
9/6/2018
10/18/2018 <
11/6/2018 <
12/6/2018 <
1/8/2019 <
2/5/2019 <
3/5/2019 <
4/10/2019 <
5/7/2019 <
6/6/2019
7/9/2019 <
8/6/2019 <
9/12/2019
10/10/2019 <
11/5/2019
12/5/2019 <
1/9/2020 <
2/4/2020 <
3/3/2020 <
4/7/2020
5/5/2020 <
6/4/2020 <
7/14/2020 <
8/11/2020 <
BDL=1/2DL Results
3 3 Std Dev.
4 4 Mean
2 1 C.V.
2 2 n
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 2
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 2
2 1
2 1
13 13
2 1
3 3
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 2
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par12
Cyanide
1.8100
1.4792
1.2237
48
1.09
13.00 ug/L
14.17 ug/L
-5-
Date Data
1 9/8/2016
2 10/6/2016
3 11/1/2016
4 12/1/2016
5 1/10/2017
6 2/7/2017
7 3/9/2017
8 4/4/2017
9 5/2/2017
10 6/1/2017
11 7/5/2017
12 8/8/2017
13 9/7/2017
14 10/3/2017
15 11/8/2017
16 12/5/2017
17 1/11/2018
18 2/6/2018
19 3/8/2018
20 4/4/2018
21 5/8/2018
22 6/7/2018
23 7/10/2018
24 8/7/2018
25 9/6/2018
26 10/18/2018
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
36 8/6/2019
37 9/12/2019
38 10/10/2019
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
BDL=1/2DL Results
5 Std Dev.
5 Mean
5 C.V.
5 n
5
5 Mult Factor =
5 Max. Value
5 Max. Pred Cw
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.00
0.0000
48
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
20648 RPA, data
2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016
12/1/2016
1/10/2017
2/7/2017
3/9/2017
4/4/2017
5/2/2017
6/1/2017
7/5/2017
8/8/2017
9/7/2017
10/3/2017
11/8/2017
12/5/2017
1/11/2018
2/6/2018
3/8/2018
4/4/2018
5/8/2018
6/7/2018
7/10/2018
8/7/2018
9/6/2018
10/18/2018
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
BDL=1/2DL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par16
Molybdenum
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
48
1.00
2.500 ug/L
2.500 ug/L
-6-
Date Data
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016
12/1/2016
1/10/2017
2/7/2017
3/9/2017
4/4/2017
5/2/2017
6/1/2017
7/5/2017
8/8/2017
9/7/2017
10/3/2017
11/8/2017
12/5/2017
1/11/2018
2/6/2018
3/8/2018
4/4/2018
5/8/2018
6/7/2018
7/10/2018
8/7/2018
9/6/2018
10/18/2018
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL•
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
48
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
20648 RPA, data
2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
Date Data
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016
12/1/2016
1/10/2017
2/7/2017
3/9/2017
4/4/2017
5/2/2017
6/1/2017
7/5/2017
8/8/2017
9/7/2017
10/3/2017
11/8/2017
12/5/2017
1/11/2018
2/6/2018
3/8/2018
4/4/2018
5/8/2018
6/7/2018
7/10/2018
8/7/2018
9/6/2018
10/18/2018
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Par19
Selenium
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
48
1.00
5.0 pg/L
5.0 pg/L
-7-
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016
12/1/2016
1/10/2017
2/7/2017
3/9/2017
4/4/2017
5/2/2017
6/1/2017
7/5/2017
8/8/2017
9/7/2017
10/3/2017
11/8/2017
12/5/2017
1/11/2018
2/6/2018
3/8/2018
4/4/2018
5/8/2018
6/7/2018
7/10/2018
8/7/2018
9/6/2018
10/18/2018
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
48
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
20648 RPA, data
2/17/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Silver
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016
12/1/2016
1/10/2017
2/7/2017
3/9/2017
4/4/2017
5/2/2017
6/1/2017
7/5/2017
8/8/2017
9/7/2017
10/3/2017
11/8/2017
12/5/2017
1/11/2018
2/6/2018
3/8/2018
4/4/2018
5/8/2018
6/7/2018
7/10/2018
8/7/2018
9/6/2018
10/18/2018
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
Par21
Zinc
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
48
1.00
2.500 ug/L
2.500 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
32 Std Dev.
19 Mean
28 C.V.
32 n
27
50 Mult Factor =
48 Max. Value
51 Max. Pred Cw
30
33
32
38
28
39
39
56
39
33
30
32
33
31
34
35
47
30
37
35
29
31
26
32
37
43
37
41
40
45
59
58
41
41
28
31
30
36
37
39
9/8/2016
10/6/2016
11/1/2016
12/1/2016
1/10/2017
2/7/2017
3/9/2017
4/4/2017
5/2/2017
6/1/2017
7/5/2017
8/8/2017
9/7/2017
10/3/2017
11/8/2017
12/5/2017
1/11/2018
2/6/2018
3/8/2018
4/4/2018
5/8/2018
6/7/2018
7/10/2018
8/7/2018
9/6/2018
10/18/2018
11/6/2018
12/6/2018
1/8/2019
2/5/2019
3/5/2019
4/10/2019
5/7/2019
6/6/2019
7/9/2019
8/6/2019
9/12/2019
10/10/2019
11/5/2019
12/5/2019
1/9/2020
2/4/2020
3/3/2020
4/7/2020
5/5/2020
6/4/2020
7/14/2020
8/11/2020
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
8.4890
36.6458
0.2317
48
1.02
59.0 ug/L
60.2 ug/L
20648 RPA, data
- 8 - 2/17/2021

Washington WWTP
NC0020648
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 3.6500
1Q10S (cfs) = 0.00
7Q1OS (cfs) = 0.00
7Q1OW (cfs) = 0.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 0.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 0.00
Receiving Stream: Tar River HUC 03020104
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 100
IWC% @ 7Q1OS = 100
IWC% @ 7Q1OW = 100
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 100
IW%C @ QA = 100
Stream Class: C;NSW
Outfall 001
Qw = 3.65 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 116.7 mg/L
Chronic = 116.7 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
_1
n
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Stapda d AcuteoCi
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW 340
10 HH/WS
ug/L
ug/L
48 0
2.5
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW): 340.0
________________________________________________
Chronic (FW): 150.0
Max MDL = 5 _____
Chronic (HH): 10.0
Max MDL = 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW 65
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
1.50
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 65.00
____ _ _______________________________________
Chronic: 6.50
Max MDL = 1
Cadmium
NC
1.8878 FW 12.4143
ug/L
48 0
0.500
NO DETECTS
Acute: 12.414
____ _ ______ _____
Chronic: 1.888
Max MDL = 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
7.5
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: NO WQS
____ _ _______________________________________
Chronic: 300.0
Max MDL = 5
Chromium III
NC
415.8162 FW 3196.6327
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 3,196.6
--_ _ ----_ _
--415.8--------------------------------
Chronic:
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 16.0
--_ _ ----- _ _
---------------------------------
Chronic: 11.0
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
48 0
2.5
NO DETECTS
Max reported value = 2.5
Max MDL = 5
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Copper
NC
29.3981 FW 44.7166
ug/L
48 8
14.17
Acute: 44.72
Chronic: 29.40
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW 22
10
ug/L
48 0
5.0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 22.0
____ _ ____________
Chronic: 5.0
Max MDL = 10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____
All values reported non -detect < 5 ug/L - No
monitoring required.
Page 1 of 2
20648 RPA, rpa
2/17/2021

Washington WWTP
NC0020648
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 3.65 MGD
Lead
NC
16.1833
FW
415.2904
ug/L
48
0
2.500
NO DETECTS
Acute:
____ _ ____
Chronic:
Max MDL = 5
415.290
_ _ ___
16.183
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Acute:
NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
48
0
5.0
Chronic:
2,000.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute (FW):
1,234.2
Nickel
NC
137.0818
FW
1234.2021
µg/L
48
0
5.0
_ _ _ _ --
Chronic (FW)—
_ _ --------------------------------
-137.1
Max MDL = 10 ____
_____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Nickel
NC
25.0000
WS
µg/L
NO DETECTS
Chronic (WS):
25.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute:
56.0
Selenium
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
48
0
5.0
--- _ _Chronic: -----
--------------------------------
5.0-
All values reported non -detect < 10 ug/L - No
monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL of
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
1 ug/L.
Acute:
4.195
Silver
NC
0.06
FW
4.1952
ug/L
48
0
2.500
Chronic:
0.060
All values reported non -detect < 5 ug/L - No
monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL of
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
1 ug/L.
Acute:
463.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
467.5545
FW
463.7609
ug/L
48
48
60.2
--- -------------------------------------
Monitoring required
Chronic:
467.6
No value > Allowable Cw
Page 2 of 2
20648 RPA, rpa
2/17/2021

Permit No. NC0020648
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 April6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(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*{1.1366724ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* { 1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[In hardness]-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.462034ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In 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. NC0020648
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/WQBELs 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 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, 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. NC0020648
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 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [SS(1
+1 [10 6]
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0020648
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)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
116.7
Data provided in DMRs
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Default value used
7Q10 summer (cfs)
0
Tidally influenced waters
1Q10 (cfs)
0
Tidally influenced waters
Permitted Flow (MGD)
3.65
NPDES Files
Date: 1/22/2021
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

2/17/21 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Washington WWTP/NC0020648
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
9/8/16
10/6/16 <
11/1/16 <
12/1/16
1/10/17 <
2/7/17 <
3/9/17 <
4/4/17
5/2/17 <
6/1/17 <
7/5/17 <
8/8/17 <
9/7/17 <
10/3/17 <
11/8/17 <
12/5/17 <
1/11/18 <
2/6/18 <
3/8/18 <
4/4/18 <
5/8/18 <
6/7/18 <
7/10/18 <
8/7/18 <
9/6/18 <
10/18/18 <
11/6/18 <
1
1
1
1.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No Limit Required
MMP Required
1
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.000
3.650
cfs
WQBEL =
12.00 ng/L
47 ng/L
Note: No MMP added to permit;
Only 1 value reported greater than 1 ng/L.
0.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017

12/6/18 < 1
1/8/19 < 1
2/5/19 < 1
3/5/19 < 1
4/10/19 < 1
5/7/19 < 1
6/6/19 < 1
7/9/19 < 1
8/6/19 < 1
9/12/19 < 1
10/10/19 < 1
11/5/19 < 1
12/5/19 < 1
1/9/20 < 1
2/4/20 < 1
3/3/20 < 1
4/7/20 < 1
5/5/20 < 1
6/4/20 < 1
7/14/20 < 1
8/11/20 < 1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020

Washington WWTP/NC0020648
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
4
12
12
12
Annual Average, ng/L
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.50
Maximum Value, ng/L
1.10
1.00
0.50
0.5
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
12.0
2020
8
0.5
0.5

NC0020648 Washington WWTP 2/17/2021
BOD monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
September-16
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
97.52
97.25
98.38
98.63
98.33
98.83
98.61
98.46
98.18
98.13
98.16
98.32
98.05
98.27
98.67
98.55
98.29
98.22
98.25
98.15
98.42
98.28
98.40
97.52
97.79
98.44
98.73
97.73
98.07
98.18
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
Overall BOD removal rate
98.55
98.71
98.70
98.68
98.64
98.67
98.63
98.59
98.86
98.74
98.63
98.19
98.34
98.41
98.64
98.09
98.35
97.95
98.34
TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
September-16
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
97.20
96.62
97.75
98.00
97.68
98.13
97.83
97.69
97.25
97.78
97.24
97.74
97.67
97.81
99.21
98.31
98.03
97.70
97.54
97.33
97.96
97.49
98.02
97.16
97.74
97.88
99.33
97.01
97.69
97.89
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
Overall TSS removal rate
98.92
98.45
98.41
98.21
98.21
98.15
98.09
98.05
98.54
98.31
98.20
97.47
97.84
97.86
97.48
97.11
97.42
97.05
97.84

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Washington WWTP
Permit No.
NC0020834
Review period (use
3 yrs)
8/2017 8/2020
Approval Criteria:
Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOS
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance
report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
Data Review
Units
Weekly200%
average limit
Monthly
average
limit
50%
MA
3-yr mean
(geo mean
for FC)
< 50%?
MA
# daily
samples
>200%
<15?
200%
WA
# daily
samples
>200%
< 20?
# of non -
monthly
limit
violations
> 2?
# civil penalty
asessment
> 1?
Reduce
Frequency?
(Yes/No)
BOD
mg/L
19.6
13.1
6.6
1.0590062
Y
26.2
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
1.253882
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia
mg/L
1
3
1.5
0.0712733
Y
6
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400
200
100
0.8509873
Y
800
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Washington WWTP
PermitNo. NC0020648
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
3.65
0
0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
0
3.65
5.6575
17.0
0
100.00
17
More stringent than current permit limit. Apply limit.
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
0
3.65
5.6575
1.0
0.22
100.00
1.0
More stringent than current permit limit. Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
0
3.65
5.6575
1.8
0.22
100.00
1.8
Year-round ammonia limit. Apply summer ammonia.
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
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: 10/07/2C Page 1 of 1
Permit: NC0020648 MRs Betweel 9 - 2016 and 9 - 2020
Facility Name: % Param Name%
Major Minor: %
Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NC0020648
FACILITY: City of Washington -Washington WWTP
COUNTY: Beaufort REGION: Washington
Limit Violation
MONITORING UNIT OF
OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER VIOLATION FREQUENCY
REPORT DATE MEASURE
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE
ok
Over
VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
01-2017 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/06/17 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
04-2017 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/12/17 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06-2017 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 06/30/17 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08-2017 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 08/18/17 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 09/14/18 5 X week ug/I 28 30 7.1 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10-2016 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru 10/31/16 Continuous mgd 3.65 3.659 0.2 Monthly Average No Action, BPJ
treatment plant Exceeded

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Washington Regional WTP NC0081191/001 County: Beaufort Region: WARO Basin: TAR07 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Mysd24PF Begin: 12/1/2014 Ac Monit: 90% NonComp: 7Q10: Tidal PF: 0.42 IWC: NA Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
2017 Pass - - Pass - - Fail - - Fail -
2018 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - - - -
Washington WWTP NC0020648/001 County: Beaufort Region: WARO Basin: TAR07 Feb May Aug Nov
Fthd24PF Begin: 4/1/2005 24hr ac p/f lim: 90%f + NonComp: Single 7Q10: Tidal PF: 3.65 IWC: NA Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
F
Pass
Pass
Pass >100(P)
Pass
Pass
M A M J J A 5 0 N
- - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
- - Pass >100(P) - - >100(P) Pass - - >100(P)
- - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
- - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
Wayne Farms -Dobson Plant NC0006548/001
Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2014 chr lim: 4.5%
County: Surry
NonComp: Single
Region: WSRO
7Q10: 23
Basin: YADO2 Jan Apr Jul Oct
PF: 0.70 IWC: 4.5 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
2017 Pass - - Pass Pass - - Pass -
2018 Pass - - Fail >18.4 >18.4 Pass - - Pass -
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - - - -
Waynesville WTP NC0049409/001 County: Haywood Region: ARO Basin: FRB05 Mar Jun Sep Dec
Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2021 Chr Monit: 4.82% NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2017 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - - Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2019 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass - - - - - -
Waynesville WWTP NC0025321/001 County: Haywood Region: ARO Basin: FRB05 Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2011 chr lim: 9% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 95.0 PF: 6.0 IWC: 8.91 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N
2017 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass Pass
2019 - Pass - - 6.4(F) Pass - - 3.2(F) Fail 6.4(F) >36 >36(P) Pass
2020 - >12.7(P) Pass - - Pass - - Pass - Pass
2021 - Pass - - - - -
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 114 of 119

NPDES/Aquifer
Protection
Permitting Unit
Pretreatment Information
Request
Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES
THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check
all
that
apply
from PERCS:
Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data
Date of Request
2/17/2021
municipal renewal
X
- we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
Requestor
Nicholas Coco
new industries
you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Washington WWTP
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0020648
Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Washington
stream reclass.
renewal.
PERCS draft fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
Tar -Pamlico
outfall relocation
=mail permit,
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS
staff:
Other Comments to
PERCS:
Ni
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB,
TAR
Facility is rated 3.65
MGD wtih 1 SIU listed in its application.
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM,
NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
PERCS
Status
PRETREATMENT
of Pretreatment
STAFF COMPLETES THIS
Program (check all that apply)
PART:
1) facility has no SIU's,
does have Division approved
Pretreatment Program that
is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's,
does not have Division approved
Pretreatment Program
-I
3) facility has SIUs
and DWQ approved Pretreatment
Program (list "DEV" if program
still under development)
-I
3a) Full Program
with LTMP
3b) Modified Program
with STMP
4) additional conditions
regarding Pretreatment attached
or listed below
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time
period for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
0.045
0.01605
2019
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
1.8525
2019
Next Cycle:
POC in LTMP/
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required by EPA*
Required
by 503
Sludge**
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
BOD
-I
Q
TSS
-I
Q
Q = Quarterly
NH3
-I
Q
M = Monthly
Arsenic
Al
Q
Al
Cadmium
Al
Al
Al
Q
Al
Chromium
Al
Al
Q
Ai
Copper
Al
Al
Al
Q
Cyanide
Al
Q
Is all data on DMRs?
Al
Lead
Al
Al
Al
Q
YES
-I
Mercury
Al
Q
NO (attach data)
Molybdenum
Al
Q
Al
Nickel
Al
Al
Al
Q
Silver
Al
Q
Selenium
Al
Q
Al
Zinc
-I
Al
-I
Al
Q
Is data in spreadsheet?
solids
-I
Q
YES (email to writer)
Total Phosphorus
-I
Q
NO
-I
Total Nitrogen
-I
Q
NO2+NO3
-I
Q
TKN
-I
Q
Q
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit W riter (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.form.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007

United States Environmental Protection Agency
E PA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 IN 2 I5 �-I 3 I NC0020648 I11 12 I 19/05/16 117
Type
18 [ =
Iiiiiiiiiii
Inspector Fac Type
19 G I 201
21111111i illiiiiii II iiilili i l Iiiii
Reserved
1 751
166
I I I I I I 180
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
671I 70I3 I 711I 72 I N I 73I I 174
L�
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Washington WWTP
1399 W Second St
Washington NC 27889
Entry Time/Date
09:OOAM 19/05/16
Permit Effective Date
16/08/01
Exit Time/Date
10:30AM 19/05/16
Permit Expiration Date
19/11/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Hope Jones Woolard/ORC/252-975-9310/
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Jonathan Russell,PO Box 1988 Washington NC 278891988//252-975-9319/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Robert E Bullock DWR/Division of Water Quality/252-948-3924/
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# 1

31
NPDES yr/mo/day
NC0020648 I11 121 19/05/16
117
Inspection Type
18ILI
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The review period for this inspection was November 2016 through January 2019.
The current permit expires on November 30, 2019. The facility stated that they will mail the renewal
application to the Division by the end of the May.
The facility appeared to be well maintained and operated and was judged to be COMPLIANT with
NPDES permit NC0020648.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0020648
Inspection Date: 05/16/2019
Owner - Facility: Washington VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The current permit expires on November 30, 2019. The facility stated that they will mail the
renewal application to Raleiqh by the end of the May.
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operatc
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
El
El
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0020648
Inspection Date: 05/16/2019
Owner - Facility: Washington VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Hope Woolard is the ORC with Adam Waters and Lonnie Woolard as backup ORC's.
The October 2018 DMR was spot checked for accuracy with no discrepancies found.
Laboratory
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Comment: The City of Washington's lab is certified to analyze wastewater samples. Metal samples are
sent to Environment 1 for analysis.
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment: Screenings are disposed of in the landfill.
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment: Grit is disposed of in the landfill
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0020648
Inspection Date: 05/16/2019
Owner - Facility: Washington VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Comment: Influent sampler is on constant time and constant volume.
The sampler temperature was 3.5 degrees on the day of inspection.
Oxidation Ditches
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
Comment:
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: On the day of inspection the air was off to allow the solids to settle so the facility can draw
off the supernate.
Lagoons
Type of lagoons?
# Number of lagoons in operation at time of visit?
Are lagoons operated in?
Yes No NA NE
Page# 5

Permit: NC0020648
Inspection Date: 05/16/2019
Owner - Facility: Washington WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Lagoons Yes No NA NE
# Is a re -circulation line present? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Is lagoon free of excessive floating materials? ❑ ❑ • ❑
# Are baffles between ponds or effluent baffles adjustable? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Are dike slopes clear of woody vegetation? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weeds controlled around the edge of the lagoon? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are dikes free of seepage? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are dikes free of erosion? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are dikes free of burrowing animals? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Has the sludge blanket in the lagoon (s) been measured periodically in multiple ❑ ❑ • ❑
locations?
# If excessive algae is present, has barley straw been used to help control the growth? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Is the lagoon surface free of weeds? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the lagoon free of short circuiting? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Comment: Sludge from the sludge thickener is pumped to the lagoons for storage until the sludge is
land applied.
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
Is storage adequate?
Are backup pumps available?
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Type Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process? ❑ • ❑ ❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Alum is added to help with Phosphorus removal
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0020648
Inspection Date: 05/16/2019
Owner - Facility: Washington VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Down flow
Is the filter media present? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the filter free of growth? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the air scour operational? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Is the scouring acceptable? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Disinfection -Liquid
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0020648
Inspection Date: 05/16/2019
Owner - Facility: Washington VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection -Liquid
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Comment:
De -chlorination
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Comment: Sodium Bisulfite is used for dechlor
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Liquid
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Instrument Services Inc. calibrated the effluent flow meter on April 4, 2019.
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment: The effluent sampler is on constant time and constant volume.
The sampler temperature was 4 degrees on the day of inspection.
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NC0020648
Inspection Date: 05/16/2019
Owner - Facility: Washington VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Effluent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADAtelemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Comment: Country Mart supplies fuel for the generators.
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 9