NC0024112_Fact Sheet_20220224

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO24112
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Cassidy Kurtz/Diana Yitbarek, [e-mail]
Date: February 24, 2022
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version January 9, 2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Thomasville / Hamby Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 368, Thomasville, NC 27361
Facility Address:
110 Optimist Park Road, Thomasville, NC 27360
Permitted Flow:
6.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 97.57% domestic, 2.43% industrial (based on
permitted flows)
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Influent filter screening equipment, Solids classifier grit removal
system, Cannibal® solids reduction system including interchange tanks,
5-stage Bardenpho® oxidation system, 3 fine -bubble aeration basins, 3
secondary clarifiers, 3 disk filters, UV Disinfection, Standby generator
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y- Full program
County:
Davidson
Region
Winston-Salem
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background:
City of Thomasville applied for the renewal of its Hamby Creek WWTP NPDES permit (NC0024112) in
November 2018. This facility serves approximately 34,000 residents within the Cities of Thomasville and
Trinity. The facility has primary Outfall 001, which discharges to Hamby Creek.
This facility maintains a pretreatment program with 5 categorical industrial users [Hazmat Emergency
Response & Remediation (centralized waste treater), Advance Materials Coatings (anodized aluminum
coatings), Brasscraft-Thomasville (plating of plumbing valves and fittings), Finch Industries, Inc. (mirror
manufacturing, glass fabrication, and screen printing), and McIntyre Manufacturing Group (manufacture
of metal display racks)].
Page 1 of 13

2. Receiving Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 (35.847293, -80.113913) - Hamby Creek
Stream Segment:
12-119-7-4b
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
13.3
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.43
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
1.3
30Q2 (cfs):
1.7
Average Flow (cfs):
12
IWC (% effluent):
96% at 6.0 MGD
303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes, the segment is listed in the 2018 303(d) for Benthos,
Copper, and Fecal Coliform impairment
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Yadkin -Pee Dee / Subbasin:03-07-07 / HUC: 03040103
USGS Topo Quad:
D18SE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of May 2016 through October 2020.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit
Limit
Flow
MGD
2.75
12.3
1.68
MA 6.0
BOD summer
mg/1
4.75
832
< 2
WA 6.0
MA 4.0
BOD winter
mg/1
4.52
785
1.82
WA 9.0
MA 3.0
TSS
mg/1
11.86
1596
2
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N summer
mg/1
0.378
14.8
< 0.1
WA 3.0
MA 1.0
NH3N winter
mg/1
0.39
9.14
< 0.1
WA 9.0
MA 3.0
Fecal coliform
#/100ml
2.09
2420
< 1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
DO
mg/1
8.5
10.3
5.2
DA > 6.0
Page 2 of 13

pH
SU
6.9
7.5
6
6.0 < pH <
9.0
Temperature
° C
20.5
27.4
12
Conductivity
umhos/cm
392.4
532
177
TP
mg/1
0.841
3.33
0.02
TP Summer Load
lb/season
See "Other TMDL/Nutrient Management
Strategy Considerations," pg. 8
ST 3 570
'
TP Winter Load
lb/season
See "Other TMDL/Nutrient Management
Strategy Considerations," pg. 8
ST 5 040
'
TN
mg/1
3.58
26
0.87
Total Copper
µg/1
7.8
23
3
Total Zinc
µg/1
32.2
68
13
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average, ST-Seasonal Total
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 temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform,
conductivity, total phosphorus, TKN, nitrate + nitrite, and chlorophyll -a (downstream only). As long as the
facility maintains membership in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA), these
monitoring requirements are waived.
The YPDRBA maintains two stations near the facility: Q5860000 (-0.6 stream miles upstream) and
Q5901000 (-1.5 stream miles downstream). The data summarized in the table below is from these coalition
stations and was collected from May 2016 through June 2020.
Table 2. Instream Data Summary
Upstream (Q5860000)
Downstream (Q5901000)
Parameter
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Minimum
NH3-N (mg/L)
0.07
0.21
0.02
0.15
1.94
0.02
DO (mg/L)
7.94
11.7
5.7
8.07
11.2
6.3
Fecal Coliform
(#/100mL)
460
6900
48
295
6000
39
NO2+NO3 (mg/L)
0.55
1.14
0.07
0.99
4.8
0.28
TKN (mg/L)
0.65
1.95
0.2
0.93
3.4
0.48
pH (s.u.)
6.88
7.9
5.8
7.07
7.6
6.2
Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.09
1.59
0.02
0.55
1.9
0.08
Specific
Conductance
(uS/cm)
154.9
235
69
278.1
421
88
Page 3 of 13

Temperature (°C)
17.7
25.8
3.7
18.2
25.6
6
Turbidity (NTU)
17.5
150
1.1
19.0
160
1.1
A student's t-test was conducted for each parameter at a 95% confidence interval to compare the upstream
and downstream sampling sites. A statistically significant difference exists when the p-value < 0.05.
Ammonia -nitrogen — There was a statistically significant increase observed from the upstream to
downstream sampling sites over the period reviewed. Throughout this time, the facility only exceeded their
permit limits in 2020 (2 weekly average exceedances and 1 monthly average exceedance). On one occasion,
when the downstream site reported the maximum value of 1.94 mg/L (Nov. 2017), the effluent value for
that day was 5.36 mg/L.
Dissolved oxygen — The dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/L [15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] was maintained
instream throughout the period reviewed, and there was not a statistically significant difference between
the upstream and downstream sites.
Fecal Coliform — This segment of Hamby Creek is impaired for fecal coliform, and the instream data is
supportive of this. Upstream fecal exceeded 400 cfu/100mL on 23 out of 50 samples, while downstream
exceeded 400 cfu/100 mL on 16 out of 50 occasions [15A NCAC 02B .0211 (7)]. There was not a
statistically significant difference between the upstream and downstream sites.
Inorganic nitrogen (NO2+NO3) — There was a statistically significant increase observed from the upstream
to downstream sampling sites over the period reviewed. The facility reports effluent total nitrogen.
Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) — There was a statistically significant increase observed from the upstream
to downstream sampling sites over the period reviewed. The facility reports effluent total nitrogen.
pH — There was a statistically significant increase observed from the upstream to downstream sampling
sites over the period reviewed. The upstream sampling site pH dropped below 6.0 S.U. on 2 occasions, and
the downstream sampling site remained above 6.0 S.U. for the period reviewed. Throughout this time, the
facility's effluent was reported within the standard range of 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. [15A NCAC 02B .0211 (14)].
Phosphorus — There was a statistically significant increase observed from the upstream to downstream
sampling sites over the period reviewed. Facility effluent total phosphorus samples were not taken on the
same days as the instream samples. Throughout the period reviewed, the facility's average total phosphorus
discharge concentration was 0.841 mg/1.
Specific conductance — There was a statistically significant increase observed from the upstream to
downstream sampling sites over the period reviewed. The facility reports effluent conductivity in
umhos/cm.
Temperature — On one occasion in November 2019, the downstream temperature was 4.1° C higher than
the upstream temperature, which exceeds the standard of 2.8° C [15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]. However,
the temperature standard of 32° C was maintained throughout the period reviewed. There was not a
statistically significant difference between the upstream and downstream sampling sites.
Turbidity — There was not a statistically significant difference observed between the upstream and
downstream sampling sites over the period reviewed.
This draft permit maintains the same instream monitoring requirements, with the addition of quarterly
upstream hardness monitoring.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES
Page 4 of 13

Name of Monitoring Coalition: Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA)
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): From May 2016 to October
2020, the facility reported limit violations that resulted in enforcement actions as follows:
• BOD — Weekly average exceedances: 3 in 2018, 4 in 2020; Monthly average exceedances: 1 in
2018, 4 in 2020
• Ammonia Nitrogen — Weekly average exceedances: 2 in 2020; Monthly average exceedances: 1
in 2020
• Dissolved Oxygen — Daily minimum not reached: 1 in 2020
• Total Phosphorus — Seasonal Load exceedances: 1 in 2017, 1 in 2018
• Total Suspended Solids — Weekly average exceedances: 4 in 2018, 4 in 2020; Monthly average
exceedances: 3 in 2018, 3 in 2020
•
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 28 of 29 chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species chronic toxicity
tests from January 2016 through August 2020. There was one failed test in November 2018, which was
followed by 3 passing tests; from August 2019-August 2020, the facility conducted monthly toxicity tests.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in January 2020 reported that the facility was generally compliant. The inspection report noted that the
outfall had not been accessible for inspection (regional office recommended the right of way be
maintained), and that the Cannibal system was not in use due to issues with phosphorus reduction.
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
(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: Limitations for
BOD are based on 2005 speculative limits, when the facility expanded from 4.0 MGD to the current 6.0
MGD. During the June 2005 permit modification, the permittee was provided combinations for BOD5 +
NH3 limits that would keep the mass loading of these parameters at 634 lbs/day. The chosen option set the
BOD limits as follows: summer — MA 4.0 mg/1, WA 6.0 mg/1; winter — MA 6.0 mg/1, WA 9.0 mg/1. No
changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.
Page 5 of 13

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: Limitations for
NH3 are based on 2005 speculative limits, when the facility expanded from 4.0 MGD to the current 6.0
MGD. During the June 2005 permit modification, the permittee was provided combinations for BOD5 +
NH3 concentration limits that would keep the mass loading of these parameters at 634 lbs/day. The
chosen option set the NH3 limits as follows: summer — MA 1.0 mg/1, WA 3.0 mg/1; winter — MA 3.0 mg/1,
WA 9.0 mg/1. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.
This facility utilizes UV disinfection, with no chlorine in use as backup, so no TRC limit is included in
the permit. There are no proposed changes.
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 Y2 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 May 2016 and
October 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:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Copper
• 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: Nickel
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Selenium, Silver, Zinc
Page 6 of 13

• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (5 PPAs from 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) Note: 2 PPAs in 2016
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: NA
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: NA
o The following parameter(s) 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
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: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency, during the months of February, May, August, and
November.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Page 7 of 13

Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
# of Samples
3
4
4
7
8
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
100
100
100
100
100
Maximum Conc., ng/L
100
100
100
100
100
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
12.55
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation:
Since all mercury samples from May 2016 through October 2020 were reported as < 200 ng/1, this cannot
show compliance with the WQBEL. The permittee shall sample for low-level mercury using EPA method
1631E (and report to the PQL of 1.0 ng/L) for the effluent pollutant scans and any additional testing. The
mercury minimization plan (MJVIP) will remain in the permit for this renewal.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit:
Total phosphorus seasonal loading limits were added to the permit in 2002 based on a DWQ nutrient
control strategy for the Abbotts Creek and Hamby Creek drainage basins. These mass limits were based
on a concentration of 0.5 mg/L TP at the 5.5 MGD permitted flow at the time, with seasons of 214 days
(April -October) and 151 days (November -March). These limits will remain in the permit. Total nitrogen
will continue to be monitored, but not limited.
The table below shows the phosphorus seasonal totals from May 2016 through October 2020. The facility
exceeded the seasonal load for summer 2018 and winter 2016 (Oct 2016-March 2017) and was issued
Notices of Violations for these exceedances.
Table 4. Seasonal Loads — Total Phosphorus, May 2016-October 2020
Summer (Apr. 1 — Oct. 31)
Winter (Nov. 1 —March 31)
2016
2797
5180
2017
3120
3317
2018
3790
4419
2019
2769
3463
2020
3123
--
There is a TMDL for Fecal Coliform in Hamby Creek (approved April 2004). Point sources are addressed
in the TMDL through the implementation of fecal coliform limits to meet instream water quality
standards. This permit includes limits for fecal coliform.
There is a reopener condition in the permit for copper, so that the Division can reopen the permit when a
copper TMDL is developed to address the impairment in Hamby Creek. See Special Condition A. (9).
Page 8 of 13

Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs:
PFAS: The City of Thomasville, Hamby Creek WWTP receives industrial wastewater likely to contain
PFAS. PFAS sampling results are needed to evaluate. A requirement for PFAS Monitoring was added to
the permit at a frequency of 2/year. See Special Condition A. (11.). The requirement in the permit includes
an effective date, delayed until the first full calendar quarter beginning six months after the EPA has a final
wastewater method in 40 CFR 136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended upon
request and if there are no NC -certified labs.
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 — Facility did not request a
compliance schedule for the new copper limit.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/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 — See attached BOD/TSS
removal rate calculation summary
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:
Page 9 of 13

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.
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. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 6.0 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 6.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5
Summer:
MA 4.0 mg/1
WA 6.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 6.0 mg/1
WA 9.0 mg/1
Monitor Daily
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of DO
standard, 2005 Speculative Limits.
15A NCAC 2B.0200
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/1
WA 45.0 mg/1
Monitor Daily
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
Page 10 of 13

NH3-N
Summer:
MA 1.0 mg/1
WA 3.0 mg/1
Winter:
MA 3.0 mg/1
WA 9.0 mg/1
Monitor Daily
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
State WQ criteria, 2005 Speculative
Limits. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /I00m1
WA 400 /I00m1
Monitor Daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B TMDL for Hamby
.0200,
Creek
DO
> 6.0 mg/1
Monitor Daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
pH
6.0 — 9.0 SU
Monitor Daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Temperature
Monitor Daily
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0500
Conductivity
Monitor Daily
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0500
Total Phosphorus
Monitor Weekly
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0500
Total Phosphorus
Load
Summer:
3,570 lb seasonal total
Winter:
5,040 lb seasonal total
No change
2002 DWR Nutrient Control
Strategy for Abbotts Creek and
Hamby Creek
Total Nitrogen
Monitor Monthly
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Total Copper
Monitor Quarterly
Add limit:
DM 22.31 µg/L
MA 15.76 µg/L
Increase monitoring
frequency to Monthly
Based on Reasonable Potential
Analysis: RP shown — apply
Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Permittee has not requested a
compliance schedule
Total Zinc
Monitor Quarterly
Remove monitoring
Based on Reasonable Potential
Analysis: No RP, Predicted Max <
50% of Allowable Cw — No
monitoring required
Nickel
No requirement
Add quarterly effluent
monitoring
Based on Reasonable Potential
Analysis: No RP, Predicted Max >
50% of Allowable Cw — Apply
quarterly monitoring
PFAS
No requirement
2/year monitoring with
delayed
implementation
Based on industrial activity PFAS
results are needed to evaluate.
Implementation delayed until after
Page 11 of 13

EPA certified method becomes
available.
Total Hardness
No requirement
Add quarterly
upstream and effluent
monitoring
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 90%
effluent, Monitor
Quarterly
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
3/permit cycle: 2015,
2016, 2017
3/permit cycle: 2022,
2023, 2024
40 CFR 122
Mercury
Minimization Plan
(MMP)
Required
Continue MMP
Special Condition
Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Permittee notified to use low-level
method 1631E
Electronic
Reporting
Required
Continue Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
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: 12/22/2020
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
The draft was submitted to the City of Thomasville, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Winston-Salem
Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Ecosystems Branch and Operator Certification Program for
review.
On January 25, 2020, the Division received comment from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
requesting the disclosure of any known discharges of PFAS by the City of Thomasville.
On January 6, 2021, the Facility's Superintendent, reported issues obtaining reasonable access to the
Facility's outfall.
Page 12 of 13

Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• The permit expiration date was updated to 2026; therefore, the Special Condition A. (6.) has been
modified with the specific three years in which the Effluent Pollutant Scan shall be performed
(2023, 2024, and 2025).
• Special Condition A. (6.) was also updated to include language about the additional toxicity
sampling. Samples must represent seasonal variation.
• Based on industrial wastewater likely to contain PFAS, Special Condition A. (11.) to monitor
effluent PFAS chemicals 2/year has been added to the permit, to be effective six (6) months after
EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR 136 published in the Federal Register.
• Permit Map was updated.
15. Fact Sheet Attachments
1. NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
2. BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
3. Mercury TMDL Calculations
4. Pretreatment Form (To update)
5. RPA Sheets (Input Information, Data Analyzed, Results Summary, Dissolved to Total Metal
Calculation)
6. WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
7. Instream Summary
8. Limits Violations Summary
9. NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
10. Water Compliance Inspection Report (Feb. 4, 2020)
11. Application Addendum
o PPAs 2016-2019
o Attachment A — EPA Form
o Mercury Minimization Plan
o Outfall location Map
12. Correspondence
13. PT Summary and POC Review
14. Affidavit
15. Public Comments and Responses
Page 13 of 13

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Hamby Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0024112
Prepared By: Cassidy Kurtz
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 6
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.43
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 1.3
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)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
0.43
6
9.3
17.0
0
95.58
18
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)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.05 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
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
0.43
6
9.3
1.0
0.22
95.58
1.0
1.3
6
9.3
1.8
0.22
87.74
2.0
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Hamby Creek WWTP
NC0024112
cc
cc
s
0
2
c-1 1`, c-I c-1 l0 L!1 L!1 M c-1 O L!1 1s N 1� L!1 L!1 O 00 d O L!1 O 00
M O O c-I M 1� N 00 M N l0 N M L!1 dr M r! O c-I O1 O1 r-I
1-1 N 00 O1 00 O1 O1 O1 N N ci L(1 O 00 l0 O O1 O 00 00 00
N CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) N CT) 00 7 CT) N CT) CT) CT)
November-18
December-18
January-19
CT)
CT) cI
-11 Ol O1 ci
(o —•vi
7 L L (o C E
2 Q 2 Q a
LL a,
October-19
November-19
December-19
O
O O N O
N N O O O p N N
i c N N N N 4
7 L L (o C
CO ro
October-20
November-20
December-20
Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z
it it it it
January-21
February-21
-1
N
t
U
(o
2
N
a
L!1 L!1 00 c-I N N N L!1 N L11 O dr 00 00 1..0 L!1 O 1..0 Ln O dr M O O 00 N 00 01
00 O 00 N d O d- N O M N dr l0 l0 L11 CT) 00 L!1 N N O N
00 O1 00 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 L0 O1 L0 O1
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 00
October-16
November-16
December-16
N
N 71
co
(o 2 L •L i` > E
c
13
((Q Q o
u_
< aJ
N
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
c-I c-I
CT) CT)
ci O
L0 00
00 00 00 00 00
00
00 I
L _�
ro L a 7 on ai
2 27 +J
Q Q a
aJ
Ln
October-18
Overall TSS removal rate
0
cc
cc
s
0
2
c-1 CT) 00 dr CT) N CT) O O dr CT) O 00 L!1 L!1 L!1 N N 00 l0 Cr) CT) CT)
O L!1 dr00 N N L(1 c I L!1 O O1 c I O N O d N N M c-I
CT; O1 00 O1 O1 O1 O1 O O1 L(1 c-I O1 c-I O1 O1 O1
November-18
December-18
January-19
CT)
CT) cI
-11 O1 O1 ci
fo U •L > aJ >. v E
vi
7 L (o
a, 2 Q 2 ' Q Q
LL a1
N
October-19
November-19
December-19
O
O O 0
N N 0 0 0 p N
i N N N N 4
7 L ro
L (o C
(
_aQ 2 +j
ro
a
u_ Q aJ
Ln
October-20
November-20
December-20
Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z
it it it it
January-21
February-21
-1
N
t
U
(o
2
N
a
l0 O Ln l0 O 1-0 dr 111 dr N Cr) Ln N ci c 1 N c-1 N N IS) LC) N N L(1 CT)
l0 L!1 Cr) O Cr) L!1 L!1 N L!1 L(1 l0 M L(1 l0 1-0 1-0 L!1 M c-1 l0 1-1 L!1 O l0 L!1
CT; CT; CT; CT; CT; CT; CT; CT; CT; CT; CT; 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol N N N
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
1 N
1-0l.0 71 'Cl.-) N N c-I c�-I N-1 N-1 N-1 N 71 'Cl.-)
13
(moo c o ro L L .Q CO c E
< a 0 (ro v 2 Q 2 Q a
(n z Q LL cn
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
00
00 00 cI
00 00 00 00 c-1
c-I c-I ci I JD
L L E
(o Q (o Cc = ago +u
Q Q a
a,
Ln
October-18
Overall BOD removal rate

m
0
N
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
Annual Limit 13 ng/L with
Quarterly Monitoring
MMP Required
N
T -1
T -1
J
N
O
C O
U
z
rN-1 >>
a)
II a)
Cu)
U
_C
f6
a) ..
E
co z
z
E
N 'V a)
N d
N
c-I
O O
m o
dr O
0
Permitted Flow =
a)
To
ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
O O
O O
o o
c-1 c-1
ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
O
O
O
-1
V V V
J J J
W W LL
CO CO CO
Cr Cr Cr
ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u)
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I— H H
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
% -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 %• -1 %• -1 %--1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1 % -1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
l0 l0 rN00 OOOOl Ol Ol Ol OLD OOOOOO wwww
i--I c-I \ c-I c-I c-I \ c-I \ \ \ `� `�� \ \ \ \ N
m N co N O\l W n l0 l0 f ----co n co m
c-I O\-I N\ L) 00 c-IN Lfc-I
T-I Li.) 00 T-I n
Ol c-1 c-1 c-1

0
N
0
N
00
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
c-I
n
O
O
0
O
O
d
O
00
0
N
O
O
0
O
O
d
O
n
O
N
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
c-I
m
O
O
0
O
O
d
O
n
dr
# of Samples
J
0.0
J
W
CO

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 Pretreatment Staff:
Notify Pretreatment staff if LTMP/STMP data we said
Date of Request
12/2/2020
municipal renewal
x
should be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get
Requestor
Cassidy Kurtz
new industries
it for you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Hamby Creek WWTP
WWTP expansion
- Notify Pretreatment staff if you want us to keep a
Permit Number
NC0024112
Speculative limits
specific POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for
Region
Winston-Salem
stream reclass.
next permit renewal.
- Email Pretreatment staff draft permit, fact sheet,
Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
outfall relocation
RPA.
7Q10 change
- Send Pretreatment paper copy of permit (w/o
other
NPDES boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet.
Email RPA if
other
changes.
check
applicable Pretreatment staff:
Other Comments to Pretreatment STaff:
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
1 non -categorical SIU, 4 ClUs
x
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
PRETREATMENT
STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status
of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has Sills and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
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
0.146
0.06488
2015-2020
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
2.6966
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
V
BOD
x
x
4
Q
V
TSS
x
x
4
Q
Q = Quarterly
V
NH3
x
x
4
Q
M = Monthly
'V
Arsenic
x
4
Q
I
Cadmium
'V
x
4
Q
I
Chromium
'V
x
4
Q
I
Copper
'V
x
4
Q
'V
Cyanide
x
4
Q
Is all data on DMRs?
I
Lead
'V
x
4
Q
YES
x
'V
Mercury
x
4
Q
NO (attach data)
Molybdenum
4
Q
"V
Nickel
'V
x
4
Q
'V
Silver
x
4
Q
'V
Selenium
x
4
Q
'V
Zinc
'V
x
4
Q
Is data in spreadsheet?
Total Nitrogen
4
Q
YES (email to writer)
'V
Phosphorus
x
4
Q
NO
x
4
Q
4
Q
4
Q
4
Q
"Always in the LIMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge and 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 Writer (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
NPDES Pretreatment.request.form.July2020
Revised: July 24, 2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
BDL=1/2DL
Par01 & Par02
O OO CO 000
O O O N 0
O O 0
0 0 0
,— O O
ii U
o 0
a >. 5 m
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
V V V V V VVV V V V VVV V VVV V V V V V V V V
0 0 CO r_ r_ r ro E rn rn rn °� w w w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
NNNNNNQN-Q-QQNNN-QQ-QQNNNNNNNQ
in co co N 5 W co O 7co
▪ N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO
NNNNNNNNNN CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO v
Upstream Hardness
2
a) a) a)
E E E
0 0.— 000
O O
0 0
N 0
_
�o
W B N
K U
O N
J
m
Lai Lai 14-5
N N N
▪ N CO V. CO , W O) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) 0 N CO V. CO , CO D) 0 N CO V. CO , CO
NNNNNNNNNN CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO v
Effluent Hardness
2
a) a) a)
E E E
O O V O of O
of O CO N N V CO O
CO CO CO• V O
'+'CO N N m.o
v v o
N N
0 d m
N N O t N X
>
K (n� U s= Q�
V CO V CO 0 0 0 N CO CO 0 0 0 0 N N 0 CO CO V CO CO 0 CO
O CO 0) V 0) CO CO CO CO N N CO CO CO 0 CO ) 10 CO 0 0) CO 0 0) CO 0)
J
m
V CO V COO O O N of of 0 0 0 0 N N O (O (O V (O (O O CO
CO . V . CO CO CO CO N N CO CO CO 0 CO . . CO . . CO . . CO .
111111
f0
O
O r r of co.
D) D) O) O) O
O O r of O) O) O) O O O O O O O N
O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N O
O\ O\ O\ O\\\ 0 0 0\\\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\
(p N co N N r N r ao co r N N
O M N � � coC coLL� O W LL� r co - -42�r Mco r . Nr
• N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) O N CO V. CO , CO D) 0 N CO V. CO , CO D) 0 N CO V. CO , CO
NNNNNNNNNN CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO v

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
O
R
a
E
m
R
a
0
O O V
0 0 0
MM
•N N
66
ii U
o .
=0 . i>
y"a m>re co. m
N ▪ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
J
O
m
R
A
fE
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
✓ V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
N N N N N N N N
OM 0 MOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N Q N Q Q Q N N N Q Q Q Q N N N N N N N Q
LL� W N LL� W C N. W.- N LL� W O,_ N N M V LL� (O r W
v 0 0 .
N O 0
Min 0
•
JJ
a) a
N O O
N N LL�
„ U
0 3 0
m
LL>d
y"a ce co . m
CINNC M N N
O O O
m
R
fE
A
N NNNN NNNNNM MMMMMMMMMvvvvvvvvvvu�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�
MOO
✓ V V V V
co co rm rn
O O O O O
NNNNN
MN..,
. W W N .
N NNNN NNNNNM MMMMMMMMM V V V V V V V V V V u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
0
U
tE
a
I0 N N (O
▪ O O N
▪ (O N
▪ r u�
v r o
o a
CO00
0 In
N O N
N N
II U
o � o
0 >
A y
i'XX N N
K CO U c
0 � N
J
m
tE
tE
tE
- N
(O(O (Or r,'.... MMM M www 000000 00
N N N N N N N N
E/E/N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
. W.—N. W.—N 'a W.—N. W'aO.—N.—N M V. (O r W
N M V I0 O r oO O O N M V I0 O r oO O O N N N N N O r N O O CO N M V CO
O (O r oO O O cr N M V cr O r oO O) O I0 N M V I0 O r I0
NNNNN NNNNNM mmmmmmmmmvvvvvvvvvvu�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�
Chromium, Total
O
tE
a
(.0
O N N
oO O O)
MOM
▪ N O
a� a�
rn o r
�co r
U
2 o
m
y"a m>. m m
re co
BDL=1/2DL
fE
M N N (O M M M M V V
M N N (O m m M M V V N N N N N N N N N N N N N V N N
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
(O(O (Or r,'.... MMM M www 000000 00
0 _
N N N N N N N N
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N Q N Q Q Q N N N Q Q Q Q N N N N N N N Q
. W.— N. W C N 5 N. W'aO j N N M VCO
- N M V. O r oO O) O.—N M V. (O r oO O) O.—N M V I0 O r oO O) O.—N M V I0 O r oO O) 0.—N M V I0 O r oO O) 0.—N M V I0 O r oO
NNNNN NNNNNM MMCO MCOCO )m V V V V V V V V V V inininininin...
Total Phenolic Compounds
tE
a
0
O) O V O) O oO
rn o I0 0
W O N N LL
W
o
N > N
_ N 6
0 0
LL>a
y a m> m m
re co b c
tE
fE
A
o r O 0
V
(or rorn
O 0 0 0
NNNN
N oO (O r
W W N LL�
- N M V. (O r oO O) O.—N M V. (O r oO O) O.—N M V I0 O r oO O) O.—N M V I0 O r oO O) 0.—N M V I0 O r oO O) 0.—N M V I0 O r oO
NNNNN NNNNNM MMCO MCOCO )m V V V V V V V V V V inininininin...

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
CO 0 CO
CO N
)a . \\\re co
00000000000000007000000000
,,,,,,,,, VVVVVV, ,,,,,,,,
\()(\((()(\\((()\)(\\(\)(\ Mil
0.
/
)a . \\\re co
\\\\(\)(\\/\(\)\§\/\/\/\

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
E
0, CD W CO
N CO LL
O 0 0
I U
o
v-o a• `0i > 5 - m
K n U
BDL=1/2DL
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N LLO N N N
fE
A
O V V VV V VVV VV V VVV V VVVVV V V V V V V
cOCO(Orr_ rr-mrororo rnrnrnw wwwOOOOOOOo
N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000.
N N N N C N NNNQ CV CV CV N N
LLO W N LLO W C N N LLO W N M V LLO CO r
▪ N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO
N N N N N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO V V V V V V V V V V LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO
fE
Par17 & Par18
CO N LL CO
LL O c0
CO O r
m
a) a)
CO O rn
• Co
m v
I U
0 3
v-o a• `0i > 5 - m
J CO N u) O cO v CO r rn CO 0) v CO CO LL) N v CO CO N u) CO LC)
O N N N iyj N cO (O (O LLO V if) r (O (O V if) M
N
J
m
fE
CO r LLO O CO V CO r O) CO O) V CO CO LO N V CO CO N LLO CO LLO
N N N N pO O O LLO V LLO r O O V 6 co
co co(O r_r_ r, co ro roc. rn_rn_rn_°) °)O)O)000000 o.
N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000
0
CV N Q CV N CV Q N Q Q Q N CV N Q Q Q Q CV CV CV CV N N CV Q
LLO W N LLO W N LLO co N LLO W 0) O N N M V LLO O r co
▪ N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO O) O N M V LLO CO r oO
N N N N N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO V V V V V V V V V V LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
BDL=1/2DL
tE
a
O < < <
Z Z Z
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO
N N N N N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO v v v v v v v v v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
N
tE
a
O CO O CO
O O O) N
0 N CO
F N O
CO
m
�0
W t a >
reU
a a
0 O N
7 co co
F co r
J CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO 0 V CO N N CO CO CO 0) V O) V V CO F CO CO N
O F CO CO F V V CO V CO V N CO CO CO CO CO N CO CO N N N CO CO
II
J
O
m
Io
A
0
tE
0
CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO O V CO N N CO CO V V O CO CO N
F CO CO F V V M V CO V N CO CO CO 0V O M M N N N M M
CO CO CO N
co co COr r rim CO CO as a,_ °) CD CD oo oo o0 0O
N N N N N N N N
O O 00 00 cO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c'
co7C. coC co uo o uCcOr •c,Cm C")N C
. O N O N N LLO 0N M V LL� O r CDF
CO
F N CO V 0 CO r O O) O N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO
N N N N N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO V V V V V V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>
0
O
atE
O O O CO
O 0 O
O N O
O O O
o) o)
0 0 0
•• N N
O O
II U
0
-12
0 LL > a
"a m > 5 mre co
O 0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
J
O
m
tE
fE
0
fE
0
00000000000000000000000000
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
co co cO r_r_ rr�rororo rn_rn_rn_°) °)O)O)000000 0O
N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N Q N Q Q Q N N N Q Q Q Q N N N N N N N Q
LL� W� N LL� W C N �� � N . W-c-i,- O � N � N M V LL� (O rco
jimg.
F N CO V 0 CO r CO MO.— N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO O) O F N CO V 0 CO r CO
N N N N N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO V V V V V V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Date: 1/5/2021
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
COMMENTS (identify parameters to PERCS Branch to
a °m
s.
s.
8.
z
Lo
z
2.
Uv
PARAMETER
E
E
U
5
0
a
U
v
E
E
U
E
E
U
E
E
U
U
m
tra-
Z
Z
5
N
N
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
1
E
ble metal standar

Metal Translator
/95% Confidence U
95% Probabili
a
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
E
0
c)
w
.O
0
.71
cts
V
6
LJ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O
E
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O
C
J
O)
7
J
O)
1
J
O)
1
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
J
O)
7
0
O
0
340
Q
Z
O
O
6.3002
1689.6150
LO
Q
Z
21.4739
N
N
O
O
cd
r
638.7819
Q
Z
O
`n
CO
83
0
239.7844
LL1LLLLLLQQLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL=LL5LLLLLL
O
2
O—
O
1.0464
N
300
219.0933
Z
15.0656
in.
1,800
6.8645
2000
70.7186
25.0000
inO
0
240.9596
0
0
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
Aquactic Life
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Arsenic
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
E
•D
c
a)
)
O
N
>
.—
U
c
N
N M l() CD N. CO 0 N M l() CD N. CO 0 N M
O O c'O O O O O NNNNN
f6 f6 ctIttic6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6c6
EL a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Hamby Creek VWVTP
NC0024112
O
O
0
O
O
a)
N
0
E
(6
2
0
O
O
co
O
0
Facility Name
WWTPIWTP Class
NPDES Permit
0
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Apply WS Hardness WQC
co
O
0
N
V!
O
0
54.68 mg/L (Avg)
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
Data Source(s)
CHECK TO APPLY MODEL

O ('
O 2
Al
N
o M
0 - CD
+ o h
(4 CCD
N r- co
c N O
L ac
~_ r) 0
u u u u u
R 3 (-1
c.�o0.
2
d 3a ao
aa,@)
• co h o o c-
= 3F.,c,c,3
p 3 3 3 3 -
c i_
1:3Z
'4- _
o
o a
U a
o
in
a)a
.A p
O X M
a O
o
in Tr
a) O
M
O
U
a =
C
L N
d L)
U
o a
s omm000 E
N O M Tr M h csi as
f0 O O .- 2
N-
U. II II II II II II'
ca
cc3N.
0000.o,
a°Oa"' o.0
w
5
ca
c,
7.7358491
3.661
RECOMMENDED ACTION
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
NA
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
See Total Chromium
See Total Chromium
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.
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
No detects, all samples <5 ug/I
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
ri # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 353.2
Chronic (FW): 156.9
Max MDL=2
Chronic (HH): 22.9
Max MDL = 2
Acute: 6.544
- Chronic: 1 095
Max MDL = 0.5
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 354.8
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 1,755.0
- Chronic: 229.2
Acute: 16.6
Chronic: 11.5
Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but < Cr VI Allowable Cw
26 11 7.7 Max reported value = 6
Acute: 22.31
- Chronic: 15.76
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute: 22.9
- Chronic: 5.2
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 183.754
- Chronic: 7.182
No value > Allowable Cw
1.0
NO DETECTS
0.295
NO DETECTS
51.8
C.V. (default)
z
z
od
N
5.0
NO DETECTS
eN
oc
o
0
N
0
N
4 2
Note: n<_ 9
limited data set
0
0
eN
N
o
N
N
N
SlINf1
a a
'Ea) 'Ea)
a
'Ea)'Ea)'Ea)'Ea)'Ea)'Ea)'Ea)'Ea)
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
1Od
o
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Applied
Chronic Acute
Standard
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
1.0464 FW(7Q10s) 6.3002
N
a
en
0
en
219.0933 FW(7Q10s) 1689.6150
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
15.0656 FW(7Q10s) 21.4739
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
6.8645 FW(7Q10s) 176.9061
w
!
F
U U
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
13
ca
N
O
a

Al
No RP , Predicted Max >- 50% of Allowable Cw
apply Quarterly Monitoring
NA
No detects, all samples <5, <2, and <1 ug/I;
permittee shall continue to sample to the lowest
reporting value (<1 ug/I)
No detects, all samples <0.5 ug/I; permittee shall
continue sampling to lowest reporting level (<1 ug/I)
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 663.5
Chronic (FW): 74.0
No_ value > Allowable Cw
Chronic (WS): 26.2
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute: 58.2
- Chronic: 5.2
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 1.142
- Chronic: 0.063
Max MDL = 0.5
Acute: 249.1
- Chronic: 252.1
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:
- - ------------ Chronic:
Acute:
- - ------------ Chronic:
Acute:
- - ------------ Chronic:
Acute:
- - Chronic:------------
O•
3.1
NO DETECTS
0.250
NO DETECTS
N
z
z
z
z
`N°
`O
N
o
`O
N
o
`O
N
`N°
`O
N
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
a a
a
a
a
70.7186 FW(7Q10s) 638.7819
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 1.0996
240.9596 FW(7Q10s) 239.7844
z z
z
z
z
T.T.
0 U
2 2
Selenium
2
fn
C
N

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
U
0
O
c
0
'00
0)
00
0)
0
X
a
0
x
0
U
NC0026271/001
Taylorsville WWTP
O
0'
0)
00
0
In
E
0
z
chr lim: 8.2%
1 0 d d d 2
n m m
U
0
0
0
na
0
0)
LL
00
00
U
M
0]
v
O
ti
E o
CD ▪ LL
O
0
0
'00
0)
00
O
O
0'
0)
00
0
In
O
O E
• o
l0 U
l7 0
z
0
x
0
U
NC0084662/001
Textron, Inc. GWR WWTP
chr lim: 66%
u-
U
1 d d 0 d
m m
U
O
0
0
U
O
O
U
CO
0
O
O
0
0 o
0
0
'00
0)
00
0
x
0
U
NC0084816/001
Thomasville Furniture
chr lim: 90%
0
0
c-1
c-1
00
0]
O
Q
L
x x x x
2 2 2 2
x x x x I
2 2 2 2 2
m m
U
O
Feb May Aug Nov
0
00
0
0
00
0)
00
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0)
LL
7Q10: 0.43
NonComp: SINGLE
za a LL
O
U
O
U
0
CC
LL
0
a
c
0
00
0)
00
NC0075965/001
Town of Burnsville WTP
0
0'
Ceri48PF Monit. @ 9
0a a a
L
Page 109 of 122
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs

NC0024112 - Hamby Creek WWTP Instream Data
Ammonia -nitrogen Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform
Date Upstream Downstrea Units Date Upstream Downstrea Units Date Upstream Downstrea Units
0.04 0.05 mg/I 2020-06-25 8.2 7.8 mg/I 2020-06-25 136 121 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.05 mg/1 2020-06-10 8.4 8 mg/1 2020-05-07 510 250 cfu/100m1
0.1 0.04 mg/1 2020-05-27 9.4 8.9 mg/1 2020-04-09 1900 179 cfu/100m1
0.07 0.14 mg/1 2020-05-07 10.6 9.4 mg/1 2020-03-12 410 50 cfu/100m1
0.15 0.4 mg/1 2020-04-09 8.2 7.4 mg/1 2020-02-06 6900 3200 cfu/100m1
0.17 0.18 mg/1 2020-03-12 9.2 8.3 mg/1 2020-01-09 250 92 cfu/100m1
0.16 0.15 mg/1 2020-02-06 8.6 8.5 mg/1 2019-12-12 270 128 cfu/100m1
0.11 0.15 mg/1 2020-01-09 11.6 10.7 mg/1 2019-11-14 380 300 cfu/100m1
0.03 0.13 mg/1 2019-12-12 10.7 9.9 mg/1 2019-10-17 3400 3800 cfu/100m1
0.09 0.08 mg/1 2019-11-14 11.7 9.8 mg/1 2019-09-26 86 90 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.11 mg/1 2019-10-17 8.6 7.9 mg/1 2019-08-22 1600 1300 cfu/100m1
0.15 0.7 mg/1 2019-09-26 5.7 6.5 mg/1 2019-07-11 2800 3800 cfu/100m1
0.15 0.16 mg/1 2019-09-03 6.8 7.2 mg/1 2019-06-20 6000 2500 cfu/100m1
0.21 0.19 mg/1 2019-08-22 6.8 6.8 mg/1 2019-05-23 882 800 cfu/100m1
0.05 0.07 mg/1 2019-08-05 7.1 7.4 mg/1 2019-04-11 370 164 cfu/100m1
0.06 0.1 mg/1 2019-07-21 6 6.3 mg/1 2019-03-07 130 80 cfu/100m1
0.07 0.14 mg/1 2019-07-11 6.1 6.8 mg/1 2019-02-07 70 39 cfu/100m1
0.07 0.09 mg/1 2019-06-20 8.1 8.2 mg/1 2019-01-10 380 76 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.06 mg/1 2019-06-04 8.8 7.9 mg/1 2018-12-06 116 68 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.08 mg/1 2019-05-23 8.6 7.4 mg/1 2018-11-08 78 92 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.07 mg/1 2019-05-02 9.1 8.6 mg/1 2018-10-18 270 360 cfu/100m1
0.06 0.07 mg/1 2019-04-11 9.5 9.2 mg/1 2018-09-21 1800 618 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.04 mg/1 2019-03-07 10.3 9.7 mg/1 2018-08-28 1200 420 cfu/100m1
0.02 0.03 mg/1 2019-02-07 8.2 7.6 mg/1 2018-07-17 210 300 cfu/100m1
0.05 0.06 mg/1 2019-01-10 9.8 9.1 mg/1 2018-06-19 600 163 cfu/100m1
0.06 0.06 mg/1 2018-12-06 9.8 8.7 mg/1 2018-05-15 200 84 cfu/100m1
0.03 0.02 mg/1 2018-11-08 9.5 9 mg/1 2018-04-10 480 141 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.05 mg/1 2018-10-18 9.4 8.5 mg/1 2018-03-20 5700 5500 cfu/100m1
0.02 0.03 mg/1 2018-09-30 7.8 7.2 mg/1 2018-02-20 230 148 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.09 mg/1 2018-09-21 7.7 7.2 mg/1 2018-01-23 900 1600 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.53 mg/1 2018-08-28 6.5 6.9 mg/1 2017-12-12 86 56 cfu/100m1
0.02 1.94 mg/1 2018-08-11 7.6 6.7 mg/1 2017-11-14 217 260 cfu/100m1
0.11 0.19 mg/1 2018-07-27 6.5 7 mg/1 2017-10-17 116 42 cfu/100m1
0.07 0.07 mg/1 2018-07-17 6.5 7.2 mg/1 2017-09-19 48 52 cfu/100m1
0.08 0.08 mg/1 2018-06-29 6.3 6.7 mg/1 2017-08-15 3800 1000 cfu/100m1
0.08 0.13 mg/1 2018-06-19 6.5 7 mg/1 2017-07-18 56 270 cfu/100m1
0.09 0.07 mg/1 2018-05-31 6.4 6.5 mg/1 2017-06-20 6000 6000 cfu/100m1
0.05 0.08 mg/1 2018-05-15 6.7 7.2 mg/1 2017-05-09 155 51 cfu/100m1
0.06 0.11 mg/1 2018-04-10 8.4 9.6 mg/1 2017-04-25 2700 4400 cfu/100m1
0.07 0.11 mg/1 2018-03-20 9.4 9.3 mg/1 2017-03-28 6500 2600 cfu/100m1
0.05 0.09 mg/1 2018-02-20 9 9.6 mg/1 2017-02-14 270 270 cfu/100m1
0.05 0.07 mg/1 2018-01-23 9.1 9.7 mg/1 2017-01-18 370 114 cfu/100m1
0.02 0.02 mg/1 2017-12-12 10.4 11.1 mg/1 2016-12-13 1027 143 cfu/100m1
0.02 0.03 mg/1 2017-11-14 9.2 9.7 mg/1 2016-11-15 56 182 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.06 mg/1 2017-10-17 7.1 7.8 mg/1 2016-10-18 70 143 cfu/100m1
0.06 0.08 mg/1 2017-09-29 6.4 6.9 mg/1 2016-09-20 600 310 cfu/100m1
0.04 0.04 mg/1 2017-09-19 6.5 6.8 mg/1 2016-08-16 900 609 cfu/100m1
0.03 0.03 mg/1 2017-08-25 6.3 6.5 mg/1 2016-07-19 410 184 cfu/100m1
0.05 0.06 mg/1 2017-08-15 6.6 7.2 mg/1 2016-06-14 320 745 cfu/100m1
0.1 0.08 mg/1 2017-07-28 6.2 6.5 mg/1 2016-05-16 200 200 cfu/100m1
2020-06-25
2020-05-07
2020-04-09
2020-03-12
2020-02-06
2020-01-09
2019-12-12
2019-11-14
2019-10-17
2019-09-26
2019-08-22
2019-07-11
2019-06-20
2019-05-23
2019-04-11
2019-03-07
2019-02-07
2019-01-10
2018-12-06
2018-11-08
2018-10-18
2018-09-21
2018-08-28
2018-07-17
2018-06-19
2018-05-15
2018-04-10
2018-03-20
2018-02-20
2018-01-23
2017-12-12
2017-11-14
2017-10-17
2017-09-19
2017-08-15
2017-07-18
2017-06-20
2017-05-09
2017-04-25
2017-03-28
2017-02-14
2017-01-18
2016-12-13
2016-11-15
2016-10-18
2016-09-20
2016-08-16
2016-07-19
2016-06-14
2016-05-16
2017-07-18
2017-06-30
2017-06-20
2017-05-30
2017-05-09
2017-04-25
2017-03-28
2017-02-14
2017-01-18
2016-12-13
2016-11-15
2016-10-18
2016-09-30
2016-09-20
2016-08-30
2016-08-16
2016-07-29
2016-07-19
2016-06-28
2016-06-14
2016-05-27
2016-05-16
6.6 6.9 mg/I
6.6 7.2 mg/I
6.7 7 mg/I
6.6 7.2 mg/I
6.9 7.2 mg/I
6.5 6.8 mg/I
8.2 9 mg/I
9.3 10.1 mg/I
9.1 10.3 mg/I
9.4 10.2 mg/I
9.4 10.2 mg/I
7.6 8.1 mg/I
6.5 7 mg/I
6.6 7.1 mg/I
6.4 7.2 mg/I
6.5 6.7 mg/I
6.2 6.4 mg/I
6.5 6.8 mg/I
6.5 6.9 mg/I
6.7 7.5 mg/I
6.9 8.1 mg/I
7.2 8.5 mg/I

NC0024112 - Hamby Creek WWTP
Instream Data
Date
2020-06-25
2020-05-07
2020-04-09
2020-03-12
2020-02-06
2020-01-09
2019-12-12
2019-11-14
2019-10-17
2019-09-26
2019-08-22
2019-07-11
2019-06-20
2019-05-23
2019-04-11
2019-03-07
2019-02-07
2019-01-10
2018-12-06
2018-11-08
2018-10-18
2018-09-21
2018-08-28
2018-07-17
2018-06-19
2018-05-15
2018-04-10
2018-03-20
2018-02-20
2018-01-23
2017-12-12
2017-11-14
2017-10-17
2017-09-19
2017-08-15
2017-07-18
2017-06-20
2017-05-09
2017-04-25
2017-03-28
2017-02-14
2017-01-18
2016-12-13
2016-11-15
2016-10-18
2016-09-20
2016-08-16
2016-07-19
2016-06-14
2016-05-16
Nitrate + Nitrite
Upstream Downstrea U nits
0.86 3 mg/I
0.89 0.97 mg/I
0.48
0.45
0.18
0.79
0.5
0.42
0.41
0.2
0.28
0.58
0.73
0.73
0.4
0.68
0.65
0.73
0.77
0.55
0.72
0.65
0.85
0.47
0.66
0.76
0.39
0.26
0.65
0.5
0.38
0.26
0.07
0.52
0.32
0.66
0.24
0.72
0.41
0.34
0.52
0.49
0.56
0.22
0.77
0.19
0.96
0.63
0.85
1.41
0.42 mg/I
0.9 mg/I
0.31 mg/I
1.67 mg/I
1.51 mg/I
0.98 mg/I
0.85 mg/I
0.44 mg/I
1.52 mg/I
0.47 mg/I
0.65 mg/I
0.53 mg/I
0.42 mg/I
1.25 mg/I
0.81 mg/I
1.25 mg/I
1.85 mg/I
1.21 mg/I
1.47 mg/I
0.56 mg/I
0.84 mg/I
0.52 mg/I
0.39 mg/I
0.51 mg/I
0.42 mg/I
0.29 mg/I
1.04 mg/I
0.83 mg/I
4.26 mg/I
1.35 mg/I
0.52 mg/I
0.78 mg/I
0.37 mg/I
0.65 mg/I
0.28 mg/I
0.68 mg/I
0.58 mg/I
0.29 mg/I
0.5 mg/I
1.19 mg/I
4.8 mg/I
0.68 mg/I
2.28 mg/I
0.48 mg/I
0.63 mg/I
0.45 mg/I
0.51 mg/I
0.6 mg/I
Date
2020-06-25
2020-05-07
2020-04-09
2020-03-12
2020-02-06
2020-01-09
2019-12-12
2019-11-14
2019-10-17
2019-09-26
2019-08-22
2019-07-11
2019-06-20
2019-05-23
2019-04-11
2019-03-07
2019-02-07
2019-01-10
2018-12-06
2018-11-08
2018-10-18
2018-09-21
2018-08-28
2018-07-17
2018-06-19
2018-05-15
2018-04-10
2018-03-20
2018-02-20
2018-01-23
2017-12-12
2017-11-14
2017-10-17
2017-09-19
2017-08-15
2017-07-18
2017-06-20
2017-05-09
2017-04-25
2017-03-28
2017-02-14
2017-01-18
2016-12-13
2016-11-15
2016-10-18
2016-09-20
2016-08-16
2016-07-19
2016-06-14
2016-05-16
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Upstream Downstrea U nits
0.41 0.89 mg/I
0.4 0.51 mg/I
1.21 0.63 mg/I
0.42 0.66 mg/I
1.68 2.05 mg/I
0.55 0.55 mg/I
0.9 0.87 mg/I
0.69 0.94 mg/I
0.95 1.07 mg/I
0.9 1.11 mg/I
1.34 1.45 mg/I
0.76 1.44 mg/I
1.95 3.4 mg/I
0.76 1.22 mg/I
1.85 1.22 mg/I
0.98 1.3 mg/I
0.32 0.49 mg/I
0.57 0.68 mg/I
0.96 1.11 mg/I
0.39 0.57 mg/I
0.51 0.74 mg/I
0.55 0.8 mg/I
0.4 0.82 mg/I
0.46 0.7 mg/I
0.32 0.55 mg/I
0.39 0.6 mg/I
0.59 0.9 mg/I
1.17 1.3 mg/I
0.32 0.49 mg/I
1.05 1.32 mg/I
0.25 1.26 mg/I
0.2 1.94 mg/I
0.42 0.99 mg/I
0.35 0.67 mg/I
0.6 0.77 mg/I
0.44 0.64 mg/I
1.14 1.23 mg/I
0.3 0.57 mg/I
1.1 1.11 mg/I
0.84 0.66 mg/I
0.2 0.51 mg/I
0.45 0.57 mg/I
0.29 0.91 mg/I
0.25 0.64 mg/I
0.22 0.53 mg/I
0.3 0.65 mg/I
0.41 0.56 mg/I
0.26 0.55 mg/I
0.32 0.68 mg/I
0.38 0.48 mg/I
Date
2020-06-25
2020-06-10
2020-05-27
2020-05-07
2020-04-09
2020-03-12
2020-02-06
2020-01-09
2019-12-12
2019-11-14
2019-10-17
2019-09-26
2019-09-03
2019-08-22
2019-08-05
2019-07-21
2019-07-11
2019-06-20
2019-06-04
2019-05-23
2019-05-02
2019-04-11
2019-03-07
2019-02-07
2019-01-10
2018-12-06
2018-11-08
2018-10-18
2018-09-30
2018-09-21
2018-08-28
2018-08-11
2018-07-27
2018-07-17
2018-06-29
2018-06-19
2018-05-31
2018-05-15
2018-04-10
2018-03-20
2018-02-20
2018-01-23
2017-12-12
2017-11-14
2017-10-17
2017-09-29
2017-09-19
2017-08-25
2017-08-15
2017-07-28
2017-07-18
2017-06-30
2017-06-20
2017-05-30
2017-05-09
2017-04-25
2017-03-28
2017-02-14
2017-01-18
2016-12-13
2016-11-15
2016-10-18
2016-09-30
2016-09-20
2016-08-30
2016-08-16
2016-07-29
2016-07-19
2016-06-28
2016-06-14
2016-05-27
2016-05-16
pH
Upstream Downstrea U nits
7.2 7.3 S.U.
7.7 7.5 S.U.
6.9 6.9 S.U.
7.9 7.6 S.U.
6.5 6.7 S.U.
5.9 6.5 S.U.
6.6 6.8 S.U.
6 6.4 S.U.
6.4 6.2 S.U.
5.8 6.2 S.U.
6.4 7 S.U.
6.2 6.7 S.U.
7.5 7.4 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
7.4 7.3 S.U.
7.2 7.2 S.U.
6.8 7.2 S.U.
6.8 7 S.U.
7.5 7.3 S.U.
7.1 7.3 S.U.
7.6 7.3 S.U.
7 6.9 S.U.
7.1 7.2 S.U.
6.7 7 S.U.
6.7 7 S.U.
7.1 7.2 S.U.
6.3 6.6 S.U.
6.6 7.1 S.U.
7.7 7.5 S.U.
7 7.2 S.U.
6.8 7.2 S.U.
7.5 7.4 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7.2 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7 S.U.
6.9 7.3 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7.2 S.U.
6.9 7.3 S.U.
7 7.4 S.U.
6.9 7.3 S.U.
6.8 7 S.U.
6.8 7 S.U.
7 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7 S.U.
6.9 7 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7 S.U.
6.9 7 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.9 6.9 S.U.
6.8 7 S.U.
6.9 7.2 S.U.
6.8 7.1 S.U.
6.8 6.9 S.U.
6.9 7.2 S.U.
6.9 7.1 S.U.
6.8 6.9 S.U.
6.7 7.1 S.U.
6.8 7.1 S.U.
6.9 7 S.U.
6.8 7 S.U.
6.7 7.3 S.U.
6.7 6.9 S.U.
6.7 7.2 S.U.
6.8 7.3 S.U.
6.8 7.1 S.U.

NC0024112 - Hamby Creek WWTP
Instream Data
Phosphorus Specific Conductance Temperature Turbidity
Date Upstream Downstrea Units Date Upstream Downstrea Units Date Upstream Downstrea Units Date Upstream Downstrea Units
0.02 1.35 mg/I 2020-06-25 192 290 uS/cm 2020-06-25 20.9 22 deg C 2020-06-25 5.3 8.3 NTU
0.03 0.16 mg/I 2020-06-10 203 255 uS/cm 2020-06-10 22.6 23 deg C 2020-05-07 5.3 6.9 NTU
0.06 0.55 mg/I 2020-05-27 151 175 uS/cm 2020-05-27 18.5 18.7 deg C 2020-04-09 30 5 NTU
0.02 0.28 mg/I 2020-05-07 187 253 uS/cm 2020-05-07 11.9 13.6 deg C 2020-03-12 20 19 NTU
0.27 0.35 mg/I 2020-04-09 156 265 uS/cm 2020-04-09 15.8 16.5 deg C 2020-02-06 140 160 NTU
0.02 0.22 mg/I 2020-03-12 177 256 uS/cm 2020-03-12 12.3 12.9 deg C 2020-01-09 9.1 12 NTU
0.09 0.79 mg/I 2020-02-06 69 88 uS/cm 2020-02-06 13.6 13.5 deg C 2019-12-12 7.3 5.5 NTU
0.02 0.32 mg/I 2020-01-09 153 197 uS/cm 2020-01-09 5.6 7.1 deg C 2019-11-14 12 5.2 NTU
0.06 0.91 mg/I 2019-12-12 174 226 uS/cm 2019-12-12 5.2 7.3 deg C 2019-10-17 17 13 NTU
0.02 0.99 mg/I 2019-11-14 152 276 uS/cm 2019-11-14 3.7 7.8 deg C 2019-09-26 16 3.9 NTU
0.06 0.59 mg/I 2019-10-17 108 237 uS/cm 2019-10-17 13.5 15.3 deg C 2019-08-22 13 16 NTU
0.05 0.83 mg/I 2019-09-26 235 409 uS/cm 2019-09-26 19.2 21.3 deg C 2019-07-11 6.6 4.3 NTU
0.05 0.39 mg/I 2019-09-03 205 362 uS/cm 2019-09-03 21.9 23.7 deg C 2019-06-20 6.9 8.2 NTU
0.03 1.09 mg/I 2019-08-22 117 207 uS/cm 2019-08-22 23.3 24 deg C 2019-05-23 5 5.9 NTU
0.03 0.27 mg/I 2019-08-05 173 294 uS/cm 2019-08-05 22.5 23.8 deg C 2019-04-11 10 9.9 NTU
0.03 0.18 mg/I 2019-07-21 150 234 uS/cm 2019-07-21 24.4 25 deg C 2019-03-07 11 12 NTU
0.02 0.23 mg/I 2019-07-11 181 297 uS/cm 2019-07-11 23.5 24.2 deg C 2019-02-07 4.7 3.2 NTU
0.05 0.16 mg/I 2019-06-20 170 231 uS/cm 2019-06-20 21.6 22 deg C 2019-01-10 8 9.9 NTU
0.02 0.29 mg/I 2019-06-04 191 307 uS/cm 2019-06-04 18.9 20 deg C 2018-12-06 4.4 5.2 NTU
0.02 0.4 mg/I 2019-05-23 203 305 uS/cm 2019-05-23 19.3 20.3 deg C 2018-11-08 7.2 8.1 NTU
0.02 0.58 mg/I 2019-05-02 204 266 uS/cm 2019-05-02 18.8 19.2 deg C 2018-10-18 4.6 4 NTU
0.03 0.19 mg/I 2019-04-11 155 178 uS/cm 2019-04-11 14.3 14.6 deg C 2018-09-21 8.4 5.7 NTU
0.03 0.81 mg/I 2019-03-07 155 185 uS/cm 2019-03-07 5.4 6.5 deg C 2018-08-28 3.8 2.5 NTU
0.04 0.74 mg/I 2019-02-07 187 246 uS/cm 2019-02-07 13.3 13.6 deg C 2018-07-17 2.5 3.2 NTU
0.06 1.59 mg/I 2019-01-10 177 219 uS/cm 2019-01-10 6.1 7.8 deg C 2018-06-19 4.8 3.4 NTU
0.03 0.45 mg/I 2018-12-06 185 248 uS/cm 2018-12-06 5.3 7.7 deg C 2018-05-15 3.8 4 NTU
0.03 0.72 mg/I 2018-11-08 174 215 uS/cm 2018-11-08 14.3 15.3 deg C 2018-04-10 3.8 12 NTU
0.12 0.31 mg/I 2018-10-18 184 282 uS/cm 2018-10-18 15.8 17.4 deg C 2018-03-20 65 110 NTU
0.04 0.58 mg/I 2018-09-30 189 285 uS/cm 2018-09-30 20.8 22.1 deg C 2018-02-20 8.3 7.2 NTU
0.19 0.37 mg/I 2018-09-21 161 235 uS/cm 2018-09-21 22.7 23 deg C 2018-01-23 150 160 NTU
0.03 0.61 mg/I 2018-08-28 137 299 uS/cm 2018-08-28 23.5 23.4 deg C 2017-12-12 17 5.4 NTU
0.05 0.55 mg/I 2018-08-11 130 177 uS/cm 2018-08-11 23.8 24.3 deg C 2017-11-14 11 5.3 NTU
0.09 0.63 mg/I 2018-07-27 155 297 uS/cm 2018-07-27 24.4 24.3 deg C 2017-10-17 1.5 1.1 NTU
0.13 0.43 mg/I 2018-07-17 162 421 uS/cm 2018-07-17 24.7 24.6 deg C 2017-09-19 1.6 1.8 NTU
0.11 0.28 mg/I 2018-06-29 167 311 uS/cm 2018-06-29 24.9 25 deg C 2017-08-15 37 40 NTU
0.05 0.9 mg/I 2018-06-19 149 361 uS/cm 2018-06-19 23.8 23.9 deg C 2017-07-18 2.5 2.6 NTU
0.15 0.36 mg/I 2018-05-31 157 349 uS/cm 2018-05-31 23.5 23.9 deg C 2017-06-20 60 85 NTU
0.03 0.36 mg/I 2018-05-15 155 329 uS/cm 2018-05-15 20.9 20.8 deg C 2017-05-09 4.1 3.5 NTU
0.15 0.34 mg/I 2018-04-10 149 264 uS/cm 2018-04-10 12 12.4 deg C 2017-04-25 40 60 NTU
0.15 0.29 mg/I 2018-03-20 149 227 uS/cm 2018-03-20 12.1 12.8 deg C 2017-03-28 95 34 NTU
0.02 0.76 mg/I 2018-02-20 114 304 uS/cm 2018-02-20 12 12.2 deg C 2017-02-14 2.2 1.4 NTU
0.02 0.66 mg/I 2018-01-23 115 247 uS/cm 2018-01-23 9.6 9.5 deg C 2017-01-18 2.7 1.8 NTU
0.04 1.9 mg/I 2017-12-12 107 283 uS/cm 2017-12-12 5.1 6 deg C 2016-12-13 1.6 1.2 NTU
0.03 0.58 mg/I 2017-11-14 110 289 uS/cm 2017-11-14 11.4 11.6 deg C 2016-11-15 1.1 1.4 NTU
1.59 0.2 mg/I 2017-10-17 132 332 uS/cm 2017-10-17 15.9 16 deg C 2016-10-18 1.6 2.2 NTU
0.09 1.23 mg/I 2017-09-29 140 297 uS/cm 2017-09-29 22.3 22.5 deg C 2016-09-20 2.4 4.2 NTU
0.08 0.29 mg/I 2017-09-19 136 382 uS/cm 2017-09-19 20.9 21.1 deg C 2016-08-16 3.8 3.3 NTU
0.06 0.1 mg/I 2017-08-25 144 308 uS/cm 2017-08-25 23.7 23.5 deg C 2016-07-19 4 3.8 NTU
0.03 0.08 mg/I 2017-08-15 124 273 uS/cm 2017-08-15 24.9 23.8 deg C 2016-06-14 6 9.3 NTU
0.02 0.13 mg/I 2017-07-28 169 239 uS/cm 2017-07-28 25.2 25 deg C 2016-05-16 7.5 3.6 NTU
143 316 uS/cm 2017-07-18 24.3 24.2 deg C
185 364 uS/cm 2017-06-30 22.7 22.8 deg C
124 182 uS/cm 2017-06-20 23.1 23 deg C
132 224 uS/cm 2017-05-30 20.8 20.9 deg C
143 282 uS/cm 2017-05-09 14.8 14.9 deg C
116 211 uS/cm 2017-04-25 15.7 15.5 deg C
107 231 uS/cm 2017-03-28 14.7 14.9 deg C
156 331 uS/cm 2017-02-14 9.4 9.3 deg C
156 318 uS/cm 2017-01-18 9.3 9.1 deg C
139 307 uS/cm 2016-12-13 8.2 8.6 deg C
131 328 uS/cm 2016-11-15 9.6 9.5 deg C
144 312 uS/cm 2016-10-18 15.5 15.9 deg C
168 313 uS/cm 2016-09-30 21.9 22.4 deg C
159 418 uS/cm 2016-09-20 23.3 23.5 deg C
169 351 uS/cm 2016-08-30 23.7 23.4 deg C
138 312 uS/cm 2016-08-16 25.1 25.1 deg C
118 268 uS/cm 2016-07-29 25.8 25.6 deg C
146 363 uS/cm 2016-07-19 24.7 24.6 deg C
162 326 uS/cm 2016-06-28 23.1 23 deg C
163 234 uS/cm 2016-06-14 21 20.9 deg C
174 183 uS/cm 2016-05-27 19.5 20 deg C
158 337 uS/cm 2016-05-16 15.9 17 deg C
2020-06-25
2020-05-07
2020-04-09
2020-03-12
2020-02-06
2020-01-09
2019-12-12
2019-11-14
2019-10-17
2019-09-26
2019-08-22
2019-07-11
2019-06-20
2019-05-23
2019-04-11
2019-03-07
2019-02-07
2019-01-10
2018-12-06
2018-11-08
2018-10-18
2018-09-21
2018-08-28
2018-07-17
2018-06-19
2018-05-15
2018-04-10
2018-03-20
2018-02-20
2018-01-23
2017-12-12
2017-11-14
2017-10-17
2017-09-19
2017-08-15
2017-07-18
2017-06-20
2017-05-09
2017-04-25
2017-03-28
2017-02-14
2017-01-18
2016-12-13
2016-11-15
2016-10-18
2016-09-20
2016-08-16
2016-07-19
2016-06-14
2016-05-16
2017-07-18
2017-06-30
2017-06-20
2017-05-30
2017-05-09
2017-04-25
2017-03-28
2017-02-14
2017-01-18
2016-12-13
2016-11-15
2016-10-18
2016-09-30
2016-09-20
2016-08-30
2016-08-16
2016-07-29
2016-07-19
2016-06-28
2016-06-14
2016-05-27
2016-05-16

O
0
ca
d
0
N
10
N
0
0
0
Q
0
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Violation Action: %
Subbasin: %
Param Nam(
Major Minor:
REGION: Winston-Salem
COUNTY: Davidson
FACILITY: City of Thomasville - Hamby Creek WWTP
NC0024112
F
5
W
a
Limit Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
o >
0
0
w
Q
J
D Q
>
0
U
H
2
J
w
O j
H CO
z
2
}
0
z
w
0
w
CC
V_
z
O w
Q ~
J Q
O 0
PARAMETER
LOCATION
J
J
0 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d d a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
N -6 N -6 N -6 N -6 N -6 -6 12 -6 N -6 N -6 2 -6 N -6 N -6 2 -6 N -6 N -6
> 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0
Q a) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q a)
Y X Y X Y X t X Y X t X t X Y X Y X t X Y X Y X t X Y X Y X
w w w w w w c w w w c w c w w w w w c w w w w w c w w w w w
co
co
N- co (.0 N o)CO 0) V
O N N- co N N- N N m O O N- 0 co (0
N O) (n V N M 00 co
00
00 O m O) V N
N co cri co N ao
(.0 M N M CO 00 (n M I—
(0 (0 (O V 0) (0 V (0 (O V (O (O V M M
0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
(0 N (0 N (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 N
0 co co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N
V N M 00 O) O N M 00 In 00
O N 7 co O N co O N co N co 7
00 O) (7)O N N V (n (n (n N- N- N- NZ N-
o o — — O O O O O O O O O O 0
U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a3 C a) C
N O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N ci 0 O 0 N O 0 N O.co (6 2
o N O N O N O N 0 (6 O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N C E' C E
C C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 w 0 a) E 0 E 0
>. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) >. a) C C
co) co) co) co) co) co) COO COO COO COO COO COO a) 0 E o E o
0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o< 0 < 0
IA 0 IA 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 IA 0 N 0 N 0 c c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rnz 0) a)
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
m m m m m m m m m m m m m
z z
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
a) a) a) 0) 0) 0) c c a) c c c c c c
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — w w w w
w w w w w w w w w w w
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
Q
LL
H
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 CO 00 CO CO 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0
z F
E a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
H d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 w CO 0) 0 0 N N V (n (n (n I— N- N- N- 1---
0 Ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
N N N N N N N N N N N

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
O
N
(i5
U
E
(3
O
d
0
U
0
.(
0
Violation Action: %
Subbasin: %
Param Nam( %
Major Minor:
REGION: Winston-Salem
COUNTY: Davidson
FACILITY: City of Thomasville - Hamby Creek WWTP
NC0024112
F
5
W
a
Limit Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
FREQUENCY
> > > > 0 0 0 > > 0 0 > > > > 0
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o
ts ts ts ts ts ts my my my my my my my my my my
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
o o U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a) o
a) z
- 0
as as 7
< N E €
>, a) 'E m
c W >
o —
g (o
0
Annual Load Exceeded
Annual Load Exceeded
a) a) as as as a) as a) a) a) a) a)
co co co co co co co co co co co co
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
w as Q as Q as Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q a Q as
Y X Y X t X Y X t X Y X t X Y X t X Y X Y X Y X
w W w W c W w W c W w W c W w W c W w W w W as W
O (,•) M M O O N O N O M
co N ari
N (O W 0) 00) O M O M V O cc)
00)
V N N N N 1-
O O O a0 M O M N CO LO
M N
L N CO O) N W a0 I— a0
N of O 1- 00 IN W CO M Otri
In CO- CO N M M N 1- 1 N V
O 0
CO O In In co O (n 0 In 0 (n 0 In In In
71- V CO V CO V CO V M V V V
In VI -
co
0 0
N N
E E N N E E E E E E E E E E E E
-0 -0
Y Y G G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
a a
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
0) 0) u) u) (n (n In (n In (n (n (n (n (n (n In
z
0 O O 1- a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 O O O O O
H F N N N N N N N
a Q V N O ("ii O W O N M O
d❑ co N co co O N co 7 co co O N O N co
I- In M O 00 O) O) O O N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O
PARAMETER
LOCATION
a)
0as 0as 0as 0as 0as 0as 0as 0as 0as 0as sas 0
as
N (p N (p -O -O -O -O -O -O -O -O -O -O -O -O
F .0 (TS C (s C C c C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C,
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a3 N N O__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'E 0 a) a) u) N N N N N N N N N N N N u) N N N O N N N
O O a) O a) 7 7 7 7 7 7 N 7 7 7 7 7 7
E U I- u) I-u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u)
E 0 U ❑ j ._ j ._ U U U U U U U U U U U U
O( O( O( O( O( O( O( O( O( O( O( O c
O c O c 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O 1-O
c a) Q= Q= NU NO NO NO NU NU NO NO NO NU NU NO
a)) Z > tl! a N a 7 7 7 7 -O_ 7 7 -O_ -O_ 7 7 7
t t (7)O O O O O O O O O O O
a a u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u)
Z
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «
a) c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) as as as a)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O I� W W W W W W W W O O O O O
Z H ,-,1N N N N N N
E ce O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
H a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 W 1- co co O a0 as as O O — — N N (n (n (n
0 O O O - O O O '— O O O O O
2

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Violation Action: %
Subbasin: %
Param Nam( %
Major Minor:
REGION: Winston-Salem
COUNTY: Davidson
FACILITY: City of Thomasville - Hamby Creek WWTP
NC0024112
F
5
W
a
Limit Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
Proceed to NOV
a) a) a)
en en 0)
2 -0 2 -0 2 -0
a) () as a) ) (1)
< a) < a) < a)
>•, a) T a) � a)
_
_c x Y x _-c x
c W (1) W c W
a)
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
O coo > 4 a0 0 >
O • M - 0
❑ ❑
W W
J ❑ M (0(O J ❑
• co 4
Q Q
U U
0 L() 0
2 co V co
J J
afx afx
O D - - - 0 D
Za E E E Za
D W D W
FREQUENCY
›-
c.)
Y Y Y z
a) a) a) W
a) a) a) D
3 3 3 W
X X X a
u) u) u) a
Z Z
O O O 0 0
H F N N N H F
d❑ co N co d❑
0 0 0
> 0 0 0 >
PARAMETER
LOCATION
D D D
a) a) D
a)) c aa)) c aa)) c
a) .O o_ .O o_ .O
0 a,= a,0 Tts a,
O• 3 Ts O3 Ts O
F O F O F O
u U• � U 6 U
CO CO CO
c c c
a) a) a)
W • W W
W W W
O - O 0
0 0 0 N 0
O_
N • N N > Z F
O O 0 C E ce
N N N - 0 0
1 1 1 Q 1— a
u) - Z W
O O 0 C O ct
O
PARAMETER
LOCATION
J
a
C F
No Action, BPJ
`o . ▪ `o
` N . ▪ ` d .`
N` d . ▪ ` d = `
Nas WWN Wm WN WCa wU_ U_ U_ U_ U_ U_
0) 0) 0) e 0) _ 0) c
0)
C.- C o c C o c C 0 c C o C C 0 c c
Q • o Q o o < o 0 < O O < o 0 Q o
eL
o c Z o c Z o cc Z o c Z o cc Z o cc
z z z z z z
c c c c c c c c c c c c
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
as as as as as as as as RI RI RI RI
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O_
> > > > > > > > > > > >
O ▪ O ▪ 0 ▪ 0 ▪ 0 0 0 ▪ 0 ▪ 0 0 0 0
C C C C C C C C C C C C
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
CT a a a a a ) a a a a a
E E
-=... -=...E - E O O __ __ __ __
• O O /) N = =
E E s c E E E E N N
E E
7 7
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo L N N Lo L N N
I— O N- O N- O N- O N- O N- 0
N N N N N N
M V M V M V M V M V M V
O O O O O O O O O O O 0
6 CO CO CO CO CO
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N
• as
C.) C.)u_ 0
a) a) o O o O -
• 'Ea 'Ea > E c as Taa 0 E c>
.N... .N... Ts'I-v V O O O a)O (1)N
C U = = E O E O N
>, a) >, a) a) - a)
RI 0 RI 0 ❑ c ❑ C W O W O 0 0 < 0 < 0
N U N U E m E m U U E
`o `o a) a) 0)
z z >,
O 0 .O .O 0 0 x
O 0 U U 0
Z Z
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
c c c c c c c c c c c c
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
W • W • W W W W W W W W W W
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I— O N- O N- O N- O N- O N- 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(0 (0 (0 - (0 (0 N- 0
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0)
0_
0
N
10
N
0
(B
0
O
0
0
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Violation Action: %
Subbasin: %
Param Nam( %
Facility Name: %
Major Minor:
REGION: Winston-Salem
COUNTY: Davidson
FACILITY: City of Thomasville - Hamby Creek WWTP
NC0024112
F
5
W
a
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
FREQUENCY
PARAMETER
LOCATION
J
J
Q
a
C F
O D
0
o_ 0
zF
E 0 0
o I- a
o 0 wa
No Action, BPJ
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
Frequency Violation
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
0
a w
U U 0 a'
CO CO CO CO
7
E E 0 z W
2
}
0
Y Y Y Y z
a) a) a) a) w
0
X X X X a
co co co co a
z
1- o 1- o O
N N H F
O 0 d a OO
`o o 0 0 >
O O 0 0
- - 0) 0)
O - 0 0
c c c c
RI a)
O O) a) O)
f.
F o F o 2 • 0 2 0
N0 N0 a) a)
-0 • E E
— —
� • F F
c c c c
a) a) a) a)
w w w w
W W W W
O O O - 0
0 o O 0
1-
0
N
0
o 1_ o
CVN
O O 0
N N N
O
0 0 0
Other Violation
PARAMETER
LOCATION
Proceed to NOV
co
0

Permit No. NC0024112
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 Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/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* {1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} - e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* { 1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} - e^ {0.9151 [In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[lnhardness](0.041838)}-e^{0.7998[lnhardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 - e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[In hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[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[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. NC0024112
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. NC0024112
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 =
Ctotal
1
1 + { [Kpo] [Ss(l+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 = (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. NC0024112
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)]
54.68
Effluent pollutant scans/DMR data
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25.0
Default value
7Q10 summer (cfs)
0.43
Previous Fact Sheet
1Q10 (cfs)
0.36
RPA calculation
Permitted Flow (MGD)
6.0
Previous permit/Fact Sheet
Date: 12/21/2020
Permit Writer: Cassidy Kurtz
Page 4 of 4

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
Kelly Craver
City of Thomasville
PO Box 368
Thomasville, NC 27361-0368
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
February 4, 2020
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report
NPDES Permit NC0024112
Hamby Creek WWTP, Davidson County
Dear Mr. Craver:
On January 16, 2020, Paul DiMatteo of the Division of Water Resources (Division), Winston-
Salem Regional Office met with Allen Beck, Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC), to conduct
a Compliance Evaluation Inspection of the above referenced wastewater treatment plant.
This inspection consists of (1) a review of the permit and accompanying documentation to
determine compliance with permit conditions, and (2) an on -site inspection of several collection
system components. The attached inspection form notes the areas that were evaluated for the
inspection, with any notable findings outlined as follows.
Item of Concern — The outfall has not been observed for several years due to reported accessibility
issues. Please note that the outfall's right of way should be maintained such that a periodic
inspection of the outfall can be executed.
If you have any questions concerning this report please contact Paul DiMatteo at [phone]
or Lon Snider at [phone].
Enclosures — Inspection Report
CC: WSRO Laserfiche Files
NOR D E
Sincerely,
DocuSiiggned by:
�IM l t�Micr
145B49E225C94EA...
Lon T. Snider, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336.776.9800
a.Paronwm of amwnm.nrai quality

United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA 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
1 IN I 2 IL
211
I I I I
I
I I I
NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
3 I NC0024112 111 121 20/01/16 117
Type
18 L c I
I I I I I
Inspector Fac Type
19 I S I 201
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
66
I I I I I 1
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved
671 I 70I I 711I 72 I -I n, 1 I 73I I 174751
1 1 1 1 1 1 180
Section B: Facility DataI—I—
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Hamby Creek WWTP
110 Optimist Park Rd
Thomasville NC 27360
Entry Time/Date
10:15AM 20/01/16
Permit Effective Date
14/10/01
Exit Time/Date
12:30PM 20/01/16
Permit Expiration Date
19/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Allen R Beck/ORC/336-475-4246/
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Kelly Craver,PO Box 368 Thomasville NC 273610368/Assistant City
Manager/336-475-4220/3364754283 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s)
Paul DiMatteo
of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
DocuSigned by: DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9691/
( 9a:M 44. 2/4/2020
F1OC7C2E5BB34D4...
Signature of Management Q
A ReviewerAgency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
ilDocuSigned by:
o, T .5mAr 2/4/2020
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NC0024112 111 121 20/01/16 117
18
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page# 2

Permit: NC0024112
Inspection Date: 01/16/2020
Owner - Facility: Hamby Creek WWTP
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: Note that the Cannibal system is not is use due to problems with phosphorus reduction.
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 operator
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0024112
Inspection Date: 01/16/2020
Owner - Facility: Hamby Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Flow is recorded on SCADA.
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
2 ft Parshall flume with ultrasonic level sensor. In response to the previous inspection the
ultrasonic sensor was moved to a more appropriate location. The flow meter was calibrated
on 3/7/2019.
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: The influent sampler is set to take 100 ml every 50,000 gallons.
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:
Grit Removal
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Page# 4

Permit: NC0024112
Inspection Date: 01/16/2020
Owner - Facility: Hamby Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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:
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)
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Comment: 5 stage Bardenpho process takes place in oxidation ditch. Mr. Beck said his targets for DO
are <0.5 in the anaerobic zone, —0.5 in the anoxic zone and >0.5 in the oxic zone.
Nutrient Removal
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
Type
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
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?
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Biological
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0024112
Inspection Date: 01/16/2020
Owner - Facility: Hamby Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
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 IA of the sidewall depth)
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Clarifiers are approximately 15 feet deep. Mr. Beck said they try to keep it to 2-3 feet in the
winter, but it's higher now due to recent rain. Operator records indicated the blanket was
about 6 feet during the inspection.
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Type of operation:
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 - UV
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
Are UV bulbs clean?
Is UV intensity adequate?
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
Is there a backup system on site?
Is effluent clear and free of solids?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Cross flow
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0024112
Inspection Date: 01/16/2020
Owner - Facility: Hamby Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE
Comment: There are 3 UV trains, each capable of treating 5 MGD flow rate. A spare set of bulbs is kept
at the facility.
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?
Comment:
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)?
Yes No NA NE
❑ •❑ ❑
•
•
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑•❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The effluent sampler is set to take 150 ml every 25 pulses. Mrs. Conder said she thought 1
pulse equated to 1000 gallons. An aliquot measured 185 ml with a graduated cylinder.
Effluent Pipe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Comment: Effluent pipe hasn't been observed in many years.
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?
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑•
Yes No NA NE
•
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
MD DE
Page# 7

Permit: NC0024112
Inspection Date: 01/16/2020
Owner - Facility: Hamby Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Page# 8

w
•
r
LLEI
x
rti
a
•
E
0
a j
Nifty x
a} V
f2 qC 6
U
m
vy
�gp 61rnpEwtlel Rd Cb
II
HwrrbmHMld.Pd
04,
PY�ap 7P0
x
•
1
s

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
NPDES APPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEWS
FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
NPDES APPLICATIONS AND PROGRAM UPDATES RULE
On February 12, 2019, the EPA finalized revisions to the application requirements at 40 CFR 122.21 in the NPDES
Applications and Program Updates Rule. The final rule became effective on June 12, 2019. On and after this
date, applicants for EPA -issued permits are required to meet the new application requirements through
completion of updated application forms that conform to the final rule.
During the transition to the updated forms, the EPA anticipates that applicants may inadvertently complete and
submit applications using the older outdated forms for a period after the June 12, 2019 effective date. If this
occurs, applications submitted using the outdated Forms 1 and 2A will not conform to the regulatory
requirements for applications at 40 CFR 122.21 and should be deemed incomplete by the EPA Regions. (Note
that the final rule did not include regulatory changes pertaining to the form requirements for Forms 2B, 2C1, 2D,
2E, and 2F; therefore, submission of the outdated forms may be deemed complete at the EPA Regions'
discretion.)
Requiring applicants to transfer information from the outdated forms and resubmit the new updated forms may
be time-consuming and costly. In lieu of transferring the information and resubmitting the updated forms, EPA
Regions may consider issuing a "Notice of Incomplete Application" to the applicant requesting only the missing
information. Any information provided by the applicant in response to the notice must include the certification
statement from 40 CFR 122.22(d) and be signed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22(a).
The EPA Regions have the discretion to determine the period of time for which they will allow applicants to
submit the outdated forms along with the missing information to accommodate applicants that may have begun
the permit application process prior to the availability of the updated forms; however, it is expected that this
practice will only be allowed for a short period of time (perhaps six months), after which the EPA Regions should
require that all applications be submitted using the updated forms.
Permittees to which the aforementioned transition period applies may complete and submit the tables
provided on Attachment A to the North Carolina DEQ's Division of Water Resources as an addendum to their
NPDES renewal applications.
These addenda only apply to facilities submitting Forms 1 and/or 2A:
Applicants submitting a renewal application addendum for Form 1 (Non-POTW, private facilities)
should fill out Table 1, found on page 2 of this document & sign and submit document.
Applicants submitting a renewal application addendum for Form 2A (Municipal & POTW's) should fill
out Table 2, found on page 3 of this document & sign and submit document.
Submit completed files to the following address:
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
1The final rule clarified that existing data may be used, if available, in lieu of sampling done solely for the purpose of the
application, provided that sampling was performed, collected, and analyzed no more than 4.5 years prior to submission.

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 1. EPA Application Form 1 Missing Information
40 CFR 122.21(f)(2)
1.1
Email address of facility contact
40 CFR 122.21(f)(3)
1.2
NAICS Code(s)
Description (optional)
40 CFR 122.21(f)(4)
1.3
Email address of operator
40 CFR 122.21(f)(9)
1.4
1.5
Does your facility use cooling water?
❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Item 1.6
Identify the source of cooling water. (Note that facilities that use a cooling water intake structure as described at 40 CFR 125,
Subparts I and J may have additional application requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(r). Consult with your NPDES permitting
authority to determine what specific information needs to be submitted and when.)
40 CFR 122.21(f)(10)
1.6
Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(m)? (Check all that apply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
❑ Fundamentally different factors (CWA
Section 301(n))
❑ Non -conventional pollutants (CWA
Section 301(c) and (g))
❑ Not applicable
❑ Water quality related effluent limitations (CWA Section
302(b)(2))
❑ Thermal discharges (CWA Section 316(a))
40 CFR 122.22(a) and (d)
1.7
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)
Signature
Official title
Date signed

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
40 CFR 122.21(j)(1)
1.1
Email address of facility contact [e-mail]
1.2
Applicant email address [e-mail]
1.3
Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge Not Applicable
1.4
Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge Not Applicable
1.5
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.)
El
Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
301(h)) 1-1 Section 302(b)(2))
Not applicable
1.6
Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works Not Applicable
40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)
1.7
Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Number of SIUs
Number of ClUs
4
40 CFR 122.22(a) and (d)
1.8
Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who 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)
Allen Beck
Signature _v./
_47„Z
Official title
Plant Superintendent (ORC)
Date signed
/Z iv — zC)

Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP Treatment Process Summary
The Hamby Creek WWTP operates a 6 MGD Bardenpho process treatment facility. The treatment
equipment includes an automated influent filter screen, grit removal system, 5 stage Bardenpho oxidation
system, two fine bubble aeration tanks, two secondary clarifiers, three disk filters, three UV disinfection
units, and a final static aerator. Average daily flow rates are about 2.5 MGD.
Waste enters the facility through two main directions, force mains from the north and south sides of town.
It enters the preliminary treatment where metering occurs. Wastes are screened and grit is removed with
the screenings and grit disposed of at the Davidson County Landfill. The solids separation and
interchange tank system that was designed to help remove phosphorus was determined to be ineffective
and was shut down. Wastes now proceed into the 5 stage Bardenpho oxidation ditch for treatment and on
into two fine bubble aeration tanks. From there the water moves into two final clarifiers for settling of
solids. The clear water then passes through fine mesh disk filters and UV disinfection. Final aeration
occurs at a static aerator prior to discharge to the creek. A portion of the treated water is sent back through
the plant as reuse water for cleaning equipment.
Solids from the final clarifier are either returned to the head of the oxidation ditch or wasted from the
system. Wasted solids are transported to one of four holding tanks (former digesters), and then dewatered
through a belt press. The solids are disposed of at Uwharrie Landfill. Press liquids are returned to the
head of the oxidation ditches.
Average daily flow as measured at the influent meter is about 2.5 MGD. Return rates are set at 30% and
wasting is about 35,000 gallons a day. Flow from the press liquids is not metered.

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Facility Name City of Thomasville Hamb , Creek WWTP . ORC Allen Beck
Date of sampling 5/3/16 and 5/27/16 Phone [phone]
Analytical Laboratory Thomasville. Hamby Creek WWTP Labil), Meritech Inc.R21
Parameter
Ammonia (as N)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Oil and grease
Metals (totalrenoderablej,.
Sample ' Analytical Quantibalan Sample
TO! Method Level Rest
Composite EPA350.1
Grab
Composite
Composite
SM4500-0 G
EPA353.2
EPA351.1
Composite EPA200.7
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
cyanide 9224451.41,p
Antony Composite
Arsenic Composite
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile o rganic compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Parameter
VoLtlalle organic compounds (Co*
1, 1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1, 3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
SM2540C
SM2340C
EPA1664A
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.7
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
Composite J EPA200.8
Composite JEPA245.1
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.7
EPA200.8
EPA335.4
EPA420.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.05
10
1
5
0.5
2.0
5.0
0.15
2.0
2.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.0
0.5
20.0
5
5
10
0.139
9.0
0.51
1.02
0.074
274
64
NA
5.40
<0.5
<2
<5
<0.15
3
7
<0.5
<0.2
26
<2
<0.5
<20
13
<5
<10
1
Month May
Year 2016
Unitas of
Yaat
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug(L
ug/L
ng/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
r
Nutuber or
samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Lab
ID
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
Grab EPA624
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
Sample Analytical
TYPO- 040400.
Grab rEPA624
Grab EPA624
Grab
EPA624
Grab EPA624
Grab EPA624
Grab EPA624
50.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Quantitatlon
Lei
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
<50
<10
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<5
<5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Sample
Smuit
<1
<1
<1
<1
<5
<5
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ilslits f
i leasurenteut
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3 2
3 2
N mber o! Lib
samples , iD
3
3
3
3
3
3
Page
2
2
2
2
2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
0utfall 001
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
kid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA624
EPA624
1.00
1.00
<1
<1
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA624
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<50
<10
4-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
-0nar-n utta3'DO:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
50.00
10.00
10.00
<50
<10
<10
Month May
Year 2016
ug/L 3
ug/L
ug/I.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3 2
3
2
ug/L_
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3 2
3 2
3
3
2
2
3 2
3
2
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
<10
<10
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyI phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Paramete!
Rase-:aCIMM9,111146.1
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo{a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
_1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
Grab (EPA625
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
.13amp1e Analytical
Type Method
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Quantitation
Pevel
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/ L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
2
Sample IIngta of
Result Mcasamment
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
2
3 2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3 2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3 2
3
2
3 2
3 2
3
2
3 2
Number of Lab 11
samples 3D
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3 2
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
lsophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
50.00
10.00
<10
<50
<10
N-nitrosodi-n-propylanune
N-nitrosodimethylarnine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1, 2,4,-trichlorobenzene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Month May
Year 2016
ug/L 3 2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Allen Beck
Authorized Representative name
Signature
Date
2
2
2
2
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Facility Name City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP ORC Allen Beck
Date of sampling 8/2/16 Phone [phone]
Analytical Laboratory Thomasville; Hamby Creek WWTP Lab111, Meritech Inc.12}
Month August
Year 2016
Parameter
Sample
lope
Analytical
Method
Quautitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units. of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Leh
ID
Ammonia (as N)
Composite
EPA350.1
0.1
<0.1
mg/L
1
1
Dissolved oxygen
Grab
SM4500-O G
1.0
8.3
mg/L
1
1
Nitrate/Nitrite
Composite
i EPA353.2
0.1
0.64
mg/L
1
2
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Composite
EPA351.1
0.2
0.84
m/L
1
2
Total Phosphorus
Composite
EPA200.7
0.05
0.631
mp/L
I
1
Total dissolved solids
Composite
SM2540C
10
92
mg/L
1
2
Hardness
Composite
SM2340C
1
44
mg/L
1
2 1
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Grab
_
NA
ug/L
Oil and grease
Grab
EPA1664A
5
<0.5
mg/L
1 2
Metals (total recoverable), cyanide and total phenols 1`^
Antimony
Comlosite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
1 2
Arsenic
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
<2
ugJL
1 2
Beryllium
Composite
EPA200.8
5.0
<5
ug/L
1 2
Cadmium
Composite
EPA200.8
0.15
<0.15
ugJL
1 2
Chromium
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
2
ug/L
1 2
Copper
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
11
ug/ L
1 2
Lead
Composite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
1 2
Mercury
Composite
EPA245.1
0.2
<0.2
ug/L
1 2
Nickel
Composite
EPA200.8
0.2
11
ug/L
1 2
Selenium
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
<2
ug/L
1 2
Silver
Composite _
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
1 2
Thallium
Composite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
_
1 2
Zinc
Composite
EPA200.8
5
18
ug/L
1 2
Cyanide
Grab
EPA335.4
5
<5
ug/L
1 2
Total phenolic compounds
Composite
EPA420.1
10
<10
ug/L
1 2
Volatile organic compounds
Acrolein
Grab
EPA624
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Acrylonitrile
Grab
EPA624
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Benzene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Bromoform
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Carbon tetrachloride
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Chlorobenzene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Chlorodibromomethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Chloroethane
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
2-chloroethylviny] ether
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
Chloroform
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Dichlorobromomethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,1-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,2-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Parameter
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Lab
ID
Volatile organic compounds lCont.
1,1-dichloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,2-dichloropropane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,3-dichloropropylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ugJL
3
2
Ethylbenzene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Methyl bromide
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
Methyl chloride
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Month August
Year 2016
Methylene chloride
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Tetrachloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Toluene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ugJL
3
2
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ugJL
3
2
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Trichloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Vinyl chloride
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ups/L
3
2
Acid -extractable compounds + ^ ' 1
P-chloro-m-cresol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2-chlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2,4-dichlorophcnol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2,4-dimethylphenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
2,4-dinitrophenol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
4 2
2-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ugJL
3
2
4-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Pentachlorophenol
Grab
EPA625_
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Phenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
uc,/L
3
2
ase-neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Acenaphthylene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Anthracene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ugJL
3
Benzidine
Grab
EPA625
_ 50.00
<50
ug/L
3
Benzo(a[anthracene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Benzo(ajpyrene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Benzo(phi)perylene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ugJL
3
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
_
ugjL
3
Bis (2-ethylhexv.1) phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
u_g/L
3
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2-chloronaphthalene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
1
Parameter
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Number of lab
samples ID
Base -neutral compounds leant.) :.,sa. -
Chr,sene
Grab
EPA62
10.00
<10
T ug/L
3 2
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
Dibenzo(a,hjanthracene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ugJL
3 2
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3 2
Diethyl phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
Dimethyl phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ugJL
3 2
Fluoranthene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
Fluorene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
,Hexachlorobenzene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3 2
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Month August
Year 2016
Hexachlorobutadiene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Hexachloroethane
Grab _
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Isophorone
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Naphthalene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug,/L
3
2
Nitrobenzene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Grab
EPA625 _
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Phenanthrene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Pyrene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA625
_ 10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Facility Name City of Thomasville Hamb Creek WWTP ORC Allen Beck
Date of sampling 8/8/17, 8/6/17 Phone [phone]
Analytical Laboratory Thomasville. Hamby Creek WWTP Lab(1j, Meritech Inc.[21
Month August
Year 2017
- - -
meter
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
` Quantitation
Level
Sample
Units of
went
Humber of
Ammonia (as N)
Composite
EPA350.1
0.1
<0.1
mg/L
1
1
Dissolved oxygen
Grab
SM4500-0 G
1.0
8.1
mg/L
1
1
Nitrate/Nitrite
Composite
EPA353.2 _
0.1
0.54
mg/L
1
2
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Composite
EPA351.1
0.2
0.7
mg/L
1
2
Total Phosphorus
Composite
EPA200.7
0.05
0.167
mg/L
1
1
Total dissolved solids
Composite
SM2540C
10
404
mg/L
1
2
Hardness
Composite
SM2340C
1
60
mg/L
1
2
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Grab
NA
ug/L
Oil and grease
Grab
EPA1664A
5
mg/L
1 2
Metals (total recoverable), cyanide and total phenols
Antimony
Composite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
1
2
Arsenic
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
<2
ug/L
1
2
Beryllium
Composite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
r
ug/L
1
2
Cadmium
Composite
EPA200.8
0.15
<0.15
ug/L
A
1
2
Chromium
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
-
3
ug/L
1
2
Copper
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
3
ug/L
1
2
Lead
Composite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
1
2
Mercury
Composite
EPA245.1
0.2
<0.2
ug/L
1
2
Nickel
Composite
EPA200.8
0.2
5.8
ug/L
1
2
Selenium
Composite
EPA200.8
2.0
<2
ug/L
1
2
Silver
Composite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
1
2
Thallium
Composite
EPA200.8
0.5
<0.5
ug/L
1
2
Zinc
Composite
EPA200.8
5
18
ug/L
1 J 2
Cyanide
Grab
EPA335.4
5
<5
ug/L
1
2
Total phenolic compounds
Composite
EPA420.1
10
17
ug/L
1
2
Volatile orb compounds
Acrolein
Grab
EPA624
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Acrylonitrile
Grab
EPA624
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Benzene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Bromoform
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Carbon tetrachloride
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Chlorobenzene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Chlorodibromomethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Chloroethane
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
r
Chloroform
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Dichlorobromomethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,1-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,2-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 1

1
Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Parameter
Volatile organic compounds (Cont.)
Sample
LPG
Analytical
Method
r
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Month August
Year 2017
Units of
Measurement
1,1-dichloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,2-dichloropropane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,3-dichloropropylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Ethylbenzene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Methyl bromide
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
Methyl chloride
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
Methylene chloride
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Tetrachloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Toluene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Trichloroethylene
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
3
2
Vinyl chloride
Grab
EPA624
5.00
<5
ug/L
3
2
Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-cresol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2-chlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2,4-dichlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2,4-dimethylphenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
2,4-dinitrophenol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
2-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
4-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Pentachlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Phenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Base -neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
a
<10
_
ug/L
3
2
Acenaphthylene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Anthracene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Benzidine
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
ug/L
3
2
Benzo(a)anthracene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Benzo(a)pyrene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
2-chloronaphthalene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
3
2
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Month August
Year 2017
Parameter
Base -neutral compounds [cont
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1, 2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1, 2, 4,-trichlorobenzene
Sample
'lope
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Analytical
Method
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
Qu ntitation
Level
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Sample
Result
<10
<10
<10
<10
<1
<1
<1
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Units of
Measurement
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Number of
samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Lab
ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Allen Beck
Authorized Representative n
Signature
9 -25/7
Date
2
2
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Facility Name City of Thomasville
Date of sampling 2/6/18, 2/8/16
Analytical Laboratory Thomasville.
Ammonia
(as
Nj
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Oil and grease
*Hal
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Co .per
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total . henolic com . ounds
Acrolein
arcade
Hamby Creek WWTP ORC Allen Beck
Phone [phone]
Hamby Creek WWTP Labili. Meritech Inc.I2)
Composite EPA350.1
Grab 3M4500-0 G
Composite EPA353.2
Composite EPA351.1
Composite EPA200.7
Composite SM2540C
Composite 8M2340C
Grab
Grab EPA1664A
vela
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA245.1
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite EPA200.8
Composite
Composite
Grab
Com . • site
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA335.4
EPA420.1
Quiatttat
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.05
10
1
0.5
0.15
2.0
2.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.0
0.5
0.5
*ample
Raman
<0.1
10.2
5.85
1.29
0.918
40
60
NA
<5
<0.5
<0.15
3
7
<0.5
<0.2
16
<5
<0.5
<0.5
43
<5
20
Month February
Year 2018
Units of
Y,iru aaeo t
mg/L
mg/L
ma/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
m• L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/ L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
u L
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Grab IEPA624
50.00
<50
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Grab IEPA624
Grab IEPA624
Grab IEPA624
10.00
1.00
<10
<1
1.00
Grab (EPA624
1.00
<1
ug/L
u L
ug/L
ug/L
lfumbsr of
samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Lab
ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
<1
Chlorodibromomethane
Grab IEPA624
1.00
<1
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethan
1,1-dichloroethane
Grab IEPA624
Grab EEPA624
Grab IEPA624
Grab IEPA624
Grab IEPA624
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
<1
<5
<5
<1
<1
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Grab JEPA624
Grab JEPA624
Grab I EPA624
1.00
<1
Sample ParameterIta aJ
Method
Volatile orplde manatends Wont.) _
1,1-dichloroethylene T Grab EPA624
1,2-dichloropropane _ Grab EPA624
1,3-dichloropropylene Grab EPA624
Ethylbenzene Grab EPA624
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Grab
EPA624
1.00
1.00
<1
<1
Quandt-H Simple
Lard Result Measursmt _ samplss
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ut./L
u8/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
Units of limber of Lab
Grab
EPA624
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
<1
<1
<1
<1
<5
<5
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3 2
3 2
3
Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethan
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vin chloride
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Grab EPA624 1.00
Grab EPA624 1.00
Grab EPA624 1.00
Grab EPA624 1.00
Grab EPA624 1.00
Grab EPA624 1.00
Grab EPA624 1.00
Grab EPA624 5.00
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
-neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
AcenaphthyIene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
Grab EPA625
Grab JEPA625
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Month February
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Year 2018
3
3
3
3
ug/L 3
ug/L 3
ug/L 3
<5 u-L
10.00 <10 ug/L
10.00 <10 ug/L 3 2
10.00 <10 ug/L 3 2
10.00 <10 ug/L 3 2
50.00 <50 ug/L
50.00 <50 ug/L
10.00 <10 u$/L
50.00 <50 ug/L
50.00 , <50 ug/L 3 2
10.00 <10 ug/L 3 2
10.00 <10 ug/L 3 2
2
10.00
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Grab JEPA625
Grab JEPA625
Grab JEPA625
Grab JEPA625
Grab JEPA625
Grab JEPA625
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxv) methane
Bis (2-chloroethr•1) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropvlj ether
Bis (2-ethylhexylj phthalate
4-bromophen51 phenyl ether
Butyl benzvl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Basa-noutral compounds JooIt•
Chrysene
Grab (EPA625
Grab (EPA625
Grab JEPA625
Grab (EPA625
Grab (EPA625
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Sample
1.71m
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
Analytical
Method
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
¢uatftatioa
Leal
<10
ug/L
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
3 2
3 2
3 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
ug/L 3 2
ug/L 3
Uaita of Number of Lab
idasummoloaat aaxnplea e_ ID
Grab
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl 'phthalate
Dibenzo[a,hjanthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Grab
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenvlhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
<10
<10
<10
<10
<1
<1
<1
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 2
3
Hexachlorobenzene
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Hexachlorobutadiene
HexachIor. clo-. ntadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno{ 1,2,3-cdjpyrene
Iso . horone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimeth Iamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4; trichlorobenzene
Grab EPA625
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
Grab EPA625
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
I0.00
10.00
10.00
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Month February
Year 2018
ugJL �
u: L
ug/L
ug/L
11
u;JL
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
u• L
ug/L
ug/L
3
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Allen Beck
Autho Representative nai,. e
ignature
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Facility Name Cii', of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP ORC Allen Beck
Date of sampling 5/7/19, 5/11/19 Phone [phone]
Analytical Laboratory Thomasville, Hamby Creek WWTP Labil], Meritech Inc.121
Parammter
Ammonia ias N)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total Phos • horns
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Sample
_
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Com . osite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Oil and grease Grab
Aglaia (total recoverable j, cyanide end total
Antimony Composite
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
volatile organic compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Parameter
Volatile organic compounds Cont.1)
1,1-dichloroethylene _
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
LA_Li_salytical Quentitatioa
Method Level
EPA350.
SM4500-0 G
EPA353.2
, EPA351.1
EPA200.7
SM2540C
SM2340C
EPA1664A
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA245.1
EPA200.8
Composite
Composite EPA200.8
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA335.4
EPA420.1
EPA624
Grab ,EPA624
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Sample
Type
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.05
10
1
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.15
2.0
2.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.5
5
5
10
50.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Analytical Quantitation
Method Level
Grab EPA624
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
Month May
Year 2019
Sample
Result
0.123
8.7
0.44
1.07
0.376
210
60
NA
<0.5
<2
<0.5
<0.15
<2
3
<0.5
<0.2
4
<1
<0.5
<0.5
22
<5
<10
<50
<10
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<5
<5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Sample
Result
<1
<1
<1
<1
<5
<5
Units of
Measurement
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug1L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Unita of
Measurement
ug/ L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Number of Lab
samples 1 ID
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1
1
2
2
1 2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3 2
3
3
2
2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3
2
3 2
Number of Lab
samples ID
3
2
2
3 2
3
2
3 2
3 2
Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethan
Grab
Grab
EPA624
EPA624
1.00
1.00
<1
<1
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Grab
Grab
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
EPA624
EPA624
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA624
1.00
<1
<1
<1
Month Mac
Year 2019
ug/L 3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
<1
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Grab
Grab
EPA624
EPA624
1.00
5.00
<1
<5
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m--cresol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
2-chlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<10
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
Grab (EPA625
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
<10
<10
<50
<50
<10
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Grab
EPA625
50.00
<50
Grab
EPA625
50.00
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
!ase-neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
<50
ug/ L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
2
3
3
3
ug/L 3
ug/L 3
ug/L 3
ug/L 3
ug/L 3
2
<10
<10
Grab
EPA625
10.00
ug/L 3
ugJ L
<10
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(ajanthracene
Benzo(aipyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzof ghijerylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhex4,41 phthalate
�4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Parameter
llase-neutral compounds
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-oct F1 phthalate
Dibenzo(a,hj anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
ooatj
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
<10
<10
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
ug/L
u/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Sample
TYPe
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
Analytical
Method
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Quantitation
Level
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
<10
Sample
Result
ug/L
Units of
Measurement
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
lumbar of
samples
Lab
ID
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3, 3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1, 2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
<10 + ug/L
<10 [ ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 1 ug/L
<1 ug/L
<1
<1
ug/L
ug/L
3 2
3 2
3
3 2
3
Hexachlorobenzene
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Grab
EPA625
10.00
<50 ug/L
<10 ug/L
<10 f ug/L
<10 J ug/L
<10 J ug/L
<10 1 ug/L
<10 1 ug/L
<10 g/L
<10 j ug/L
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Page
2
2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0024112
Outfall 001
'Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
EPA625
10.00 1 <10
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Month Mav
Year 2019
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Allen Beck
Authorize Representative name
SignateXt/3-c--ee''#
Z57-/,
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 3

Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP
Mercury Minimization Plan
Effective Date: February 1, 2015
SECTION I - PURPOSE
The purpose of this Mercury Minimization Plan ("MMP") is to describe best management practices
through which the City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP will -seek to reduce the amount of mercury
discharged into its system and, ultimately, to the environment. The MMP compiles mercury reduction -
related efforts to -date and potential future action items. It is designed to be a working document to help
guide the City of Thomasville in its efforts to control mercury loadings discharged into its Publicly -
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) by users of the sewer system. Such a reduction in loadings to the
sewer system should translate to a reduction in the amount of mercury which is discharged from the
treatment plant. The management practices summarized below may also help control some of the
mercury reaching our storm sewer system as well.
SECTION II — FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The City of Thomasville operates a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), including a collection
system and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), that serves Thomasville, North Carolina.
The Hamby Creek WWTP operates a 6MGD Bardenpho process treatment facility. The treatment
equipment includes an automated influent filter screen, grit removal system, 5 stage Bardenpho oxidation
system, fine bubble aeration tanks, two secondary clarifiers, three disk filters, three UV disinfection units,
and a final static aerator. Average daily flow rates are about 2.5 MGD.
Most municipal treatment plants are not designed to remove mercury and it is exceedingly expensive to
do so to very low levels. Incidental mercury removal occurs through typical municipal treatment with
trace levels of mercury (and other metals) ending up in solids removed from the raw wastewater.
Mercury is not used in the treatment processes at the WWTP. Mercury may be introduced into the sewer
system through a variety of sources, such as from industrial users, laboratories, and other businesses.
Residual deposits of mercury are also possible in the sewer system from historic practices. Finally, trace
amounts from household products and atmospheric deposition (both wet and dry) contribute to sewer
system mercury loadings.
While there is typically some mercury contributed to public sewer systems statewide, it is usually in
minute quantities and comprises a tiny portion of the already insignificant statewide loading for all point
sources - just two percent of the annual mercury loadings to all State waters.

SECTION III — PROGRAM PLAN
A. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL NON -DOMESTIC SOURCES CONTRIBUTING
MERCURY TO TILE POTW
Within 24 months from the NPDES required 180-day period for development of an MMP, the City of
Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP will evaluate available information to assess the potential for non -
domestic users of the sewer system to contribute mercury to the system. The information to be reviewed
may include: (1) POTW influent and effluent mercury data and trends; (2) industrial user permits and
associated mercury monitoring data; (3) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); (4) state hazardous site registry
and the National Priority List relating to mercury contamination; and (5) historical records of industrial
sites which may have contributed mercury loadings to the sewer system.
The City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP will also survey and evaluate the following common
sources of mercury in its service area: (1) dentist offices; (2) hospitals; (3) laboratories; (4) auto recyclers;
and (5) other potential sources of mercury based on existing information.
The City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP will request that industrial users review mercury
concentrations in high -volume process chemicals and demonstrate that the mercury concentrations are
below industry average. The City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP will request that alternative
sources for chemicals be explored if the mercury levels are determined to be significantly higher than
would normally be expected.
The evaluation of potential non -domestic sources of mercury to the sewer system will be updated every
five years, as warranted by prior sampling results and any additional new potentially significant sources to
the system.
B. ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES
This MMP identifies reasonable and cost-effective control measures to minimize mercury being
discharged into the POTW. Below is a listing of initial BMPs for this POTW.
Pollution Prevention
Substances used at the WWTP will be evaluated to determine if they contain mercury or mercury -based
compounds. Any such chemicals will be evaluated for substitution with non -mercury -containing
substances. This includes removal of mercury thermometers in the plant and lab, excluding the single
certification thermometer used by the laboratory. It also includes not performing any laboratory tests that
require mercury chemicals in the analysis. Such tests are contracted out to outside laboratories.
Housekeeping, Spill Control and Collection, and Education
The City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP will develop procedures to minimize the possibility of
any spill or release at the WWTP involving mercury containing substances. The City of Thomasville
Hamby Creek WWTP will add mercury identification and proper disposal to ongoing and future operator
training procedures.

Laboratory Practice
The City of Thomasville operates a laboratory for purposes of complying with state and federal
monitoring and sampling requirements. The laboratory is a potential source of small quantities of
mercury -containing compounds. Laboratory employees will be trained in the proper handling and
disposal of these materials. The laboratories have also replaced mercury thermometers with non -mercury
thermometers, whenever practical.
No laboratory tests are performed that require mercury chemicals in the analysis. Such tests are contracted
out to outside laboratories.
C. TRACKING AND MONITORING
In order to assess the implementation of the control measures, the City of Thomasville proposes to
undertake the following evaluations beginning after the first full year that this MMP is implemented:
1. Monitor influent mercury at least annually. Analyze each significant industrial user for
mercury at least once a year and
2. Measure effluent mercury as required by the NPDES permit.
These efforts will allow the City of Thomasville to establish a baseline of influent and effluent mercury
levels to assist in identifying any trends in mercury contributions from domestic and non -domestic users
of the sewer system. This baseline will be tracked annually.
SECTION IV — IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL MEASURES
The City of Thomasville made the decision to not perform any analytical testing in the laboratory that
utilized mercury or mercury compounds in the analysis. All such required analyses are contracted out to
an outside certified laboratory. Most mercury thermometers have been replaced. There has also been at
least one waste chemical disposal contracted out to remove any old mercury compounds from the
laboratory.
The City operates a Pretreatment Program for Significant Industrial Users. All SIU's are checked at least
once a year for mercury in their discharge. None have had any record to date for such discharge.
The City of Thomasville will implement the control measures summarized in Section III over the permit
term and will update this MMP as warranted.
SECTION V - REPORTING
A summary of the MMP activities will be submitted as part of the NPDES permit renewal process.
October 2020 Update
The City of Thomasville Pretreatment Program has implemented the Dental Amalgam Rule — 40-CFR
441 and obtained compliance reports from area dentists.

[External] RE: Hamby Creek WWTP (24112) _ City of Thomasville
Beck, Allen <[e-mail]>
Fri 1/28/2022 09:52
To: Yitbarek, Diana <[e-mail]>
2 attachments (156 KB)
Hamby Creek Outfall.pdf; Upstream -Downstream Sampling Points.pdf;
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment
to Report Spam.
Diana,
I have attached the sampling point maps. The upstream/downstream coordinates are at
the top of the maps and the actual plant outfall is denoted with text and coordinates.
Our sludge disposal plan is to belt press on site for final disposal at an environmental
landfill which is currently and primarily Uwharrie Environmental in Troy NC.
Hopefully this fulfills your request but should you need additional information or
clarifications please let me know.
Thanks,
Allen
From: Yitbarek, Diana [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 11:11 AM
To: Beck, Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hamby Creek WWTP (24112) _ City of Thomasville
***CAUTION*** This email originated from outside of The City of Thomasville organization. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!
Good morning, Allen
I am the assigned permit writer for this facility. I will be your contact person moving forward.
I'm aware that the permit was public noticed on December 22, 2020, and the Division has been
assessing the path forward. Please submit the following NPDES application addendums (feel free to
forward previous communication if this was already provided):
• Provide coordinates of the outfall, upstream, and downstream location points (approximate
coordinates to the actual location from an online map would suffice)
• If there are additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported, please complete and
submit this Chemical Addendum
• If you have collected samples of pollutants without certified methods, please use the attached
Supplemental Datasheet
• Sludge Disposal Plan
•

If there are any changes in the facility, please let me know to update the permit accordingly before
its issuance.
Lastly, if there are any previous communications that you think I should consider in the permit
issuance process, please forward them to me.
Thank you,
Diana Yitbarek (she/her)
Engineer
T: 919-707-9130
[e-mail]
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality) Division of Water Resources
Mailing: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical: 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
*Please check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your requests by phone or email.
We can also be available via Microsoft Teams or other web -based calling services if requested. Thanks for your patience and stay safe.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132, Public Records, this e-mail and any attachments, as well as any e-mail
messages(s) that may be sent in response to it, may be considered public records and therefore are subject to public records requests for
review and copying.

Hamby Creek Permit renewal
Yitbarek, Diana <[e-mail]>
Thu 1/27/2022 09:48
To: Conder, Misty <[e-mail]>
Cc: Beck, Allen <[e-mail]>
Bcc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Good morning, Misty
The Chemical Addendum is only for additional pollutants with certified methods (additional to what
is required by the Annual Priority Pollutant scan). Therefore, there is no need to list what was
already submitted with the Annual Priority Pollutant scan.
For the Supplemental DataSheet. If the Facility does not have any sample results for additional
pollutants without certified methods, you do not need to fill out that form either.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Diana Yitbarek (she/her)
Engineer II
T: 919-707-9130
[e-mail]
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality) Division of Water Resources
Mailing: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical: 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
*Please check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your requests by phone or email.
We can also be available via Microsoft Teams or other web -based calling services if requested. Thanks for your patience and stay safe.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Conder, Misty <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 08:37
To: Yitbarek, Diana <[e-mail]>
Cc: Beck, Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Hamby Creek Permit renewal
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment
to Report Spam.
Ms. Yitbarek,
I need a bit of clarification on your data request. The only organics testing that Thomasville does is our required
Annual Priority Pollutant scan, currently analyzed by Meritech Inc using certified methods. Those have always

been completely negative as best as I can remember. Do you need me to list each of those on your Chemical
Addendum form? Also of all the chemicals listed in the Supplemental Datasheet that was included, none of those
are included in the Priority Pollutants list (at least on first scan with double checking for alternate names). So, am
I correct in assuming I don't need to fill out anything on that form?
Thank you,
Misty
Misty Conder I Laboratory Supervisor — Pretreatment Coordinator
P 336-475-4246 ext 2
City of Thomasville
Hamby Creek WWTP, 110 Optimist Park Rd, Thomasville, NC 27360
P.O. Box 368, Thomasville, NC 27361-0368
fcrnasviRe
NUR1N CAROlIBh
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Click here for COVID-19 information
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132, Public Records, this e-mail and any attachments, as well as any e-mail
messages(s) that may be sent in response to it, may be considered public records and therefore are subject to public records requests for
review and copying.
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132, Public Records, this e-mail and any attachments, as well as any e-mail
messages(s) that may be sent in response to it, may be considered public records and therefore are subject to public records requests for
review and copying.

A B I C I D I E I F I G I H I I I J I K I L I M
N I 0 I P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
8
19
20
NPDES/PT POCs Review Form
1. Facility's General Information
version 20220215
Dale of (draft) Review
c. POCs review due to:
e. Contact Information
Dale of(final) Review
2/21/2022
Municipal NPDES renewal
f]
Regional Office (RO) IWSRO
NPDES Permit Writer
Cassidy KurblDiana Yitbarek
New Industries
❑
RO PT Staff
I Tricia Lowery
I RO NPDES Staff
I Alex Lowe
Penn inee-Facility Name
Gty of Thomasville/ Hamby Creek WWTP
WWTP expanslon
❑
Facility Pr Staff, email Imisty.conder(dthomasville-nc.00v
NPDES Permit Number
NC0024112
Stream reclass_/adjustment
❑
f. Receiving Stream
NPDES Permit Effective Date
4/1/2022
Outfall relocation/adjustment
❑
Outfall I
NPDES Permit Renewal
Application Date
11/8/2018
1Q10 update
❑
Receiving Stream_
Hamby Creek
QA, cfs_
12
NPDES Permit Public Notice
Dale
Other, explain below
El12/22/2020
Stream Class
t,
7010 (S), cfs_
0.43
eDMR data evaluated from:
5112016
1 to
101112020
Comment:
Oufall Lat.
35 847293
Outfall Long.
-80.113913
a.WWTP Capacity Summary
P Y rY
me city applied for an NPDES permit renewal in
November 2018.
Outfall II
Current Pennifletl Flow, mgd
6.0
09�9netl Fes'
6.0
Receiving Stream_
'IA
CIA, cfs_
NA
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
0.15
d. IU Summary
Stream Class
7010, cfs_
NA
b. PT Docs. Summary
# IUs
Odell Let.
NA
Duffel! Log.
NA
NVS approval dale
9/11/2015
# Sills
Can menis_ Facility has issues accessing the outtall
L/STM P approval date_
10/27/2014
# Gills5
# NSCIUs
HWAs approval date
In house
# IUs w/Local
Permits or Other
Types
=
1.1.
Industrial Users' POC Info.
21
22
23
24
25
26
31
32
33
34
—
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU Can
entlonal Pollutants
IU Nan Canvenlional Pollutans 8 Toxic Pollutant
IUP Effective Date
1
`v
Advanced Materials Coatings
433 - Plating
BOO, TSS,
pH, Oil 8 Grease
Ctl, Cr, Cu, Cn, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn, TTO, PFAS
2/1/2022
d 2
Brasscrafl -Thomasville
433 - Plating
BOO, TSS,
pH, Oil 8 Grease
As, Ctl, Cr, Cu, Cn, Pb, Ni, Se, Ag, Zn, TTO, PFAS
2/1/2022
di 3
a
Finch Industries
433 - Plating
BOD, TSS,
pH, 018 Grease
Ctl, Cr, Cu, Cn, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn, TTO, PFAS
2/1/2022
Z 4
McIntyre Manufacturing Group
433 - Power
Coat
B00, TSS,
pH, Oil 8 Grease
Ctl, Cr, Cu, Cn, Pb, Ni, Se, Ag, Zn, TTO, PFAS
7/1/2017
5
Hazmat Emergency Response 8 Remediatin
437 - CWT
B00, TSS,
pH, Oil 8 Grease
Ammonia, Sb, As, Ctl, Cr, Co, Cu, Cn, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, Sn, Ti, TN, TP, V, Zn, Bis (2
elhylhexyl) phthalate, carbazole, o-cresol, p-cresol, n-decane, fluranthene, n-octatlecane, 2,4,6
lnchIamphenol, PFAS, 1,4 Doxane
12/1/2021
Comment: Consider updating individual IU
Facility Summary and NPDES regulatory action:
Ps to include IU monitoring
for new PO
Cs (delayed)
-, ents from NPDES
Comments from NPDES pw to PT staff (Central, RO, Facility):
This facility serves approximately 34,000 residents within the Cities
Thomasville and Trinity. The facility has primary Outfall 001, which
of
discharges to
Please maintain the following POCs-NPDES
required pollutants_
All POCs marked from Cell B60 to B99 (Please revise POC due to sludge)
Hamby Creek.
POCs that need to be added/modified in
L/STMP sampling plan:
Bis (2 elhylharyl) phthalate, carbazole, ocresol, peresml, nAecene, fluranthene, n-xctadecane, 2,4 6lrichlorophenol, (ako revise sludge permit PO C)
POCs that may be removed from L/STMP
sampling plan_
NA
ORC's comments on IU/POCs_
Up to 2021, Thomasville test organics per the required Annual Priority Pollutant scan, currently analyzed by Moloch Inc using certified methods_
Therefore, Chemical Addendum form and Supplemental Datasheet are em ply_
Additional pollutants added to USTMP due
to POTWs concerns_
NA
NPDES is on IUs
pw's comments
Consider updating individual IUPs to include IU monitoring for all the identified POC
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
0
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment
Program that
is INACTIVE
0
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment
Program
❑
3) facility has Sills and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
0
3a) Full Program with LTMP
❑
3b) Modified Program with STMP
❑
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
❑
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted i
❑
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling accord
ng to § 503.43)
❑
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill:
Uwhame Environmental in Troy NC
❑
8) other ',
i
i
Sludge Disposal Plan:
Residual biosolids are belt pressed on site for final disposal at an environmental landfill which is currently and primarily Uwharrie Environmental in Troy NC.
55
Sludge Permit No
Page 1
24112 POC review

A B 1 C ID)ID15151 G I H I I I J I K I L I M I N 0 P
56
57
58
-
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
4. LIMP/STMP and HWA Review
PW: Find S/LTMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
a
wConcern
c
O
Parameter of
(POC)
Check List
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES
POC
Required by
EPA PT(1)
POC due to
Sludge
permit
(Landfill 40
CFR261)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC (4)
%
Removal
Rate
L/STMP
Effluent Freq
NPDES
Effluent Freq
PQLs review
Comment
a
PQL from
S/LTMP, ug/I
Required PQL
per NPDES
permit
Recomm.
PQL, ug/I
0
Flow
ID0
0
❑
Conti nous
0
BOD
0
0
0
❑
98.69
Q
2/week
2000.0
0
TSB
0
i]
0
❑
97.14
Q
2/week
5000.0
0
NH3
0
0
0
❑
9662
Q
2/week
100.0
0
Arsenic
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
45
Q
2.0
2.0
❑
Barium
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
Beryllium(5)
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
Cadmium(1)
❑
0
0
0
0
❑
67
Q
2.0
0.5
Update PQL to 0.5 ug/L
f]
Chromium(1)
❑
❑
0
❑
0
0
7808
Q
5.0
10.0
0
Copper(1)
0
0
0
0
❑
73.94
Q
Q
5.0
2.0
0
Cyanide
❑
❑
0
❑
69
Q
10.0
0
Lead(1)
❑
0
0
❑
0
❑
61
Q
M
10.0
2.0
Update PQL to 2.0 ug/L
0
Merculy(5)
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
98 81
Q
0.200
0.001
Update PQL to 0.001 ug/I and method to 1631E
❑
Molybdenum
❑
❑
0
0
4402
Q
100.0
10.0
0
Nickel(1)
0
❑
0
0
❑
34.56
Q
10.0
5.0
O
Selenium
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
0
Q
10.0
0
Silver
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
75
Q
5.0
1.0
1.0
Update PQL to 1.0 ug/L
0
Zinc(1)
0
0
0
0
❑
80.8
Q
10.0
10.0
O
Sludge Flow to Disposal
0
❑
0
❑
Include in LTMP
O
% Solids to Disposal
❑
❑
❑
❑
Include in LTMP
f]
Oil & Grease
❑
0
0
0
Antimony
❑
❑
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
Tin
0
❑
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
TN
0
0
0
0
92.62
Q
W
100.0
0
TP
0
0
0
❑
97.53
Q
W
50.0
0
Vanadium
❑
❑
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
Bis (2 ethylhexyl) phthtadte
❑
0
0
Include in LTMP
0
Carbazole
0
0
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
o-cresol
0
0
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
p-cresol
❑
❑
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
n-decane
0
0
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
fluoranthene
❑
0
0
0
Include in LTMP
0
n-octndecane
❑
0
0
❑
Include in LTMP
f]
2.4,6 trichlorophenol
❑
❑
0
❑
Include in LTMP
❑
PFAS 1633
❑
0
0
❑
Include in LTMP (delayed)
0
1,4 Dioxane
❑
0
0
❑
Include in LTMP
0
Benzene
❑
0
0
❑
Add POC identify it in landfill permit
❑
Carbon Tetrachloride ❑
❑
n
❑
❑
Chlordane
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
Chlorobenzene
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA -PT requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or compost (di POCs for incinerators)
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated (Follow instructions for Be and Hg acco ding to § 503.43)
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
Please use red font for POCs that need to be added/modified int./STRIP sampling plan
Blue shaded cell: ''!Parameters usually included under that POC list
V. Pretreatment updates in r-
NPDES Permit Effective Date 4/1/20221S0 days after effective (date): 9/28/2022
Permit
mat renewal
writer, please add list of needed PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Page 2
24112 POC review

Pretreatment Program Info Database
for Program Name Thomasville
WWTP Name Hamby Creek
Program Approval Date
Pretreatment Status
Region
County
NPDES Number
NPDES Effective Date
NPDES Expire Date
POTW is Primary WWTP
Design Flow mgd
WWTP SIU's
WWTP CIU's 5
5
date Inactive
08/26/1983
Full
WSRO
Davidson
NC0024112
10/01/2014
04/30/2019
TRUE
6.0000
Program SIUs
Program ClUs
printed on: 2/23/2022
Stream Information
7Q10 Flow cfs / mgd
1Q10 Flow cfs / mgd
Stream Classification
IWC % at 7Q10 95.58
0.43 / 0.28
0.36 / 0.24
C
Basin Number YADO7
Receiving Stream Name HAMBY CREEK
Last PAR Rec 03/02/2021 PAR Due Date03/01/2022
Current Fiscal 01/21/2021
Year PCI Done
Last Audit on 05/10/2017
Design mgd is SIU permitted
Is I
5
Date Next Due
Date Received by DWR
Date Approved
Adopt Date Required
Date Adopted
2.52
Audit Year Nex121/22
Permitted SIU flow (mgd) [Pt_SIU) 151
mercury
1631
required
yes
HWA ' LTDAI:IP411 IWS SUO
11 /01 /2020 J
09/19/2014
10/27/2014
02/28/2022
07/03/2015
09/11/2015
01/31/2013
L 03/25/2013
ERP
02/11/2020
02/14/2020
� 1
Info in this Box from Pt Contacts
PT_Pro
g.Prime
Formal Name
Phonel
ext
Fax
Date Date Date
Attended Attended Attended
HWA Wksp IUP Wksp PAR Wksp
Mr. Kelly Craver I 11(336) 475-4220
I 1336-472-4283 II 4/27/2000 I I
I
[e-mail]
Assistant City Manager PO Box 368
27361
Ms. Misty Conder (Prim 11(336) 475-4246
1 1336-476-0130 II 5/6/2010 19/27/2011 11/24/2006
[e-mail]
Laboratory Supervisor PO Box 368
27361
Mr. Morgan Huffman I 11336-475-4246
1 I II 1/19/2006 I I
I
J
JPretreatment Related NOVs from DWQ
4/10/1997
11/4/1997
4-11-1998
9/1/1998
NOD -failure to get required TOMPs
PCI Inspection-tomps not done
PAR in bad shape
Audit -NOD -assume failure to enforce2222222 -check this
DWR Central Office Contact
DWR Regional Contact
McGee & Miller
ITricia Lowery

Ir
42008346 J000671454
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DAVIDSON COUNTY
I, Lynn Bowers OF THE DISPATCH, A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN THE CITY OF LEXINGTON, COUNTY AND STATE
AFORESAID, BEING DULY SWORN, SAYS THE FOREGOING LEGAL OF WHICH THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE COPY,
WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPER ONCE, BEGINNING THE 24th DAY OF December, 2020.
PUBLICATION FEE: $ 110.45
(jai 0.(,0-(RA (SEAL)
LEXINGTON, NC December 24, 2020
SW TO AND SUBSCRJBF� BEFORE ME, THIS a4/DAY OF 0c26
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES /6, acal
Ad Copy:
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
NC0024112 Hamby Creek
WWTP
The North Carolina
Environmental Management
Commission proposes tc issue
a NPDES wastewater
discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below. Written
comments regarding 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 notice
may be found on our website:
http://deg. nc.gov/about/division
s/water-resources/water-
resou rces-permits/wastewater-
branch/npdes-
wastewater/public-notices, or
by calling [phone]. The
City of Thomasville (P.O. Box
368, Thomasville, NC 27361)
has applied for a renewal of its
NPDES wastewater permit
NC0024112 for the Hamby
Creek WWTP. This permitted
facility discharges treated
municipal and industrial
wastewater into Hamby Creek,
a Class C water in the Yadkin -
Pee Dee River Basin. Currently
BOD, ammonia nitrogen, and
total residual chlorine are water
quality limited. This discharge
may affect future allocations in
this portion of the Yadkin Pee -
Dee River Basin.
December 24, 2020
0,0N
�v., Nl1 utr 6?////
Notary Public
=
Davidson County s=
My Cf 4 io — .1

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone]
Via U.S. e-mail
Cassidy Kurtz
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
January 25, 2020
RE: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on NPDES Wastewater
Permit NC0024112 — Hamby Creek WWTP
Dear Ms. Kurtz:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments on Draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit NC0024112, released by
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") for the Hamby Creek
WWTP. The permit allows the City of Thomasville to discharge wastewater from the Hamby
Creek wastewater treatment plant ("WWTP") into Hamby Creek and downstream drinking water
supplies, including the Tuckertown Reservoir and Badin Lake. These drinking water supplies
serve communities in Denton; Davidson, Montgomery, and Randolph counties; Albemarle
County; the City of Concord; Stanly County; Oakboro; and the Town of Stanfield. Because the
Hamby Creek WWTP receives industrial wastewater from multiple industries that may use
and/or discharge per- and polyfluoroakyl substances ("PFAS"), we urge DEQ to take a close
look at the treatment plant's wastewater. DEQ must require the disclosure of any PFAS in the
plant's discharge. If the plant is discharging PFAS, DEQ must include limits in Thomasville's
permit.
A. The Hamby Creek wastewater treatment plant receives industrial wastewater
that is likely to contain PFAS, which could cause the plant to discharge PFAS.
The Hamby Creek WWTP receives wastewater from five significant industrial users.1
Several of these significant industrial users appear to be types of industry that use PFAS in their
manufacturing processes and, therefore, might discharge PFAS into the treatment plant. Because
the treatment plant is not equipped to remove PFAS, it is possible that Thomasville is releasing
PFAS into Hamby Creek and the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
PFAS are widely used in the plating industry, and many plating facilities have been found
to be sources of PFAS contamination into groundwater and surface waters. Plating, which
involves covering a surface with a thin layer of metal, is used "for corrosion inhibition and
radiation shielding; to harden, reduce friction, alter conductivity, and decorate objects; and to
1 Hamby Creek WWTP, Permit Renewal, Application No. NC0024112 ("Permit Application"), 48, Nov. 13, 2018.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

improve wearability, paint adhesion, infrared (IR) reflectivity, and solderability"2 The plating
industry uses PFAS for "corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, aesthetic
enhancement," and as a "surfactant, wetting agent/fume suppressant for chrome, copper, nickel
and tin electroplating, and postplating cleaner."3
As a result of the plating industry's broad use of PFAS, PFAS contamination of surface
water and groundwater is often found near plating facilities. For instance, Michigan, which has
done extensive PFAS sampling throughout the state, has linked PFAS pollution to plating
facilities in several instances.4 The state found one type of PFAS—perfluorooctane sulfonate
("PFOS")—at levels of 19,000 parts per trillion ("ppt") in the wastewater from Lapeer Plating &
Plastics, a chrome finishing company.5 Similarly, the state has found elevated levels of PFAS in
or around:
• the Washetenaw Industrial Facility in Saline, a former plating site;
• the Ford Motor Company Saline Plant, which formerly did chrome plating;
• a former General Motors Plant 3 plating facility in Lansing;
• the Adams Plating Superfund site in Lansing;
• the Michner Plating shop in Jackson;
• the Diamond Chrome Plating facility in Howell;
• an old Lacks Enterprises plating shop in Cascade Township;
• Electro Chemical Finishing in Wyoming, which discharged plating wastewater;
• a former Lacks Enterprises plating shop in Saranac;
• the former Production Plated Plastics site in Richland;
• the MAHLE Engine Components USA former Harvey Street plant in
Muskegon, which previously used plating in the production of engine parts;
• the Peerless Plating facility in Muskegon Heights; and
• the former Manistee Plating shop.6
The Hamby Creek WWTP receives wastewater from the following industries that may use
and/or discharge PFAS, including:
• Advanced Materials Coatings, which produces anodized aluminum parts for the
motorsport industry. Its industrial processes include "anodized aluminum
z Hayley & Aldrich, PFAS Technical Update, available at https://www.haleyaldrich.com/Portals/0/Downloads/HA-
Technical-Update-PFAS-in-the-plating-industry.pdf (last visited May 20, 2020).
3 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
("ITRC Fact Sheet"), 5 (2020), available at https://pfas-
1 .itrcweb.org/fact sheets_page/PFAS_Fact_Sheet_History_and_Use_Apri12020.pdf (last visited May 20, 2020); see
also National Association for Surface Finishing, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, PFAS — Background
Information, available at https://nasf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Background-Information-on-PFAS.pdf (last
visited May 20, 2020); Fath, et al., Electrochemical decomposition of fluorinated wetting agents in plating industry
waste water, 73 WATER SCI TECHNOL 7, 1659-66 (2016), available at https://iwaponline com/wst/article-
lookup/doi/10.2166/wst.2015.650 (last visited May 20, 2020).
4 Garret Ellison, All Known PFAS Sites in Michigan, MLrvE, Sept. 19, 2019, available at
https://www.mlive.com/news/erry-2018/07/00699c24a57658/michigan_pfas_sites.html (last visited May 20, 2020).
5 Id.
6 Id.
2

coatings...of small parts along with some dyeing of parts," and its raw materials
include the coating of pre -manufactured parts.
• Brasscraft — Thomasville, which produces plumbing valves and fittings. Its industrial
processes include "plating of plumbing valves and fittings," and its raw materials
include brass, copper, nickel, and chrome plating.
• Custom Drum Services, which produces reconditioned steel and plastic drums and
totes. Its industrial processes include "recondition[ing] [of] steel and plastic drums
and totes by chemical treating and washing them out.
• McIntyre Manufacturing Group, which produces metal displays from wire, tube, and
sheet metal. Its raw materials include steel, aluminum, powder coatings, and cleaning
materials.7
Furthermore, the treatment plant likely receives wastewater from other industrial facilities that
are not listed in the City's permit application —industries that are potentially discharging PFAS.
B. PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment.
PFAS are a threat to human health and the environment. Two of the most commonly
studied PFAS—perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS")—
have been found to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney and testicular
cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, lower birth weight
and size, obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels, and delayed
puberty.8 EPA established a lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion ("ppt") for the
combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.9
Since then, in June 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released
an updated Draft Toxicological Profile for PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS—suggesting that many
of the chemicals are much more harmful than previously thought. For instance, the minimum
risk levels, or the amount of a chemical a person can eat, drink, or breathe each day without a
detectable risk to health, was determined to be only 11 ppt for PFOA, and 7 ppt for PFOS.1°
Epidemiological studies show that many of these same health outcomes result from exposure to
other PFAS.11 Given these harms, states like Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, and Vermont have acknowledged the dangers of these compounds and have either
proposed or finalized drinking water standards for various PFAS at 20 ppt and lower.12
7 Permit Application at 48-52.
s Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENVTL. HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES 5, A 107 (2015); U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet: PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories, 2.
9 EPA, Fact Sheet: PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories at 2.
1° Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), CFPUA Statement on Recently Released DHHS Report (June 21,
2018); see also ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment (June 2018) ("Draft
2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls").
11 Draft 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls at 5-6, 25-26.
12 Press Release, Mich. Dep't of Env't, Great Lakes, and Energy, Michigan moves forward on PFAS in drinking
water rules (June 27, 2019), available at https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3308_3323-500772--
,00.html (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); New York to set limits for industrial chemicals in water, AP, July 8, 2019,
available at https://apnews.com/63bffd42efaf49d08d114ea4443491f0 (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Annie Ropeik,
NH. Approves Unprecedented Limits for PFAS Chemicals in Drinking Water, NHPR, July 18, 2019, available at
https://apnews.com/63bffd42efaf49d08d114ea4443491f0 (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Press Release, Vt. Agency of
3

PFAS are also harmful to the environment. PFAS have been shown to cause damaging
effects in fish,13 amphibians,14 mollusks,15 and other aquatic invertebrates 16—resulting in
developmental and reproductive impacts, behavioral changes, adverse effects to livers, disruption
to endocrine systems, and weakened immune systems.17 Moreover, PFAS are extremely
resistant to breaking down in the environment, can travel long distances, and bio-accumulate in
organisms.18
Nat. Res., Agency Of Natural Resources Initiates Rulemaking Process To Adopt Maximum Contaminant Level For
PFAS Compounds, available at https://anr.vermont.gov/content/agency-natural-resources-initiates-rulemaking-
process-adopt-maximum-contaminant-level-pfas (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); James M. O'Neill, NJ proposes strict
new drinking water standards for cancer -linked chemicals, NORTH JERSEY RECORD, Apr. 1, 2019, available at
https://www.northj ersey.com/story/news/environment/2019/04/01 /nj -sets-stringent-drinking-water-standard-cancer-
linked-chemicals-pfoa-pfos-pfas/3334281002/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Interstate Tech. Regulatory Council,
PFAS Fact Sheets, Section 4 Tables (Aug. 2019).
13 Huang, et al., Toxicity, uptake kinetics and behavior assessment in zebrafish embryos following exposure to
perfluorooctanesulphonicacid (PFOS), 98 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 139-147 (2010); Jantzen, et al., PFOS, PFNA,
and PFOA sub -lethal exposure to embryonic zebrafish have different toxicity profiles in terms of morphometrics,
behavior and gene expression, 175 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 160-170 (2016); Hagenaars, et al., Structure —activity
relationship assessment of four perfluorinated chemicals using a prolonged zebrafish early life stage test, 82
CHEMOSPHERE 764-772 (2011); Du, et al., Chronic effects of water -borne PFOS exposure on growth, survival and
hepatotoxicity in zebrafish: A partial life -cycle test, 74 CHEMOSPHERE 723-729 (2009); Rotondo, et al.,
Environmental doses ofperfluorooctanoic acid change the expression of genes in target tissues of common carp, 37
ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 942-948 (2018); Liu, et al., The thyroid -disrupting effects of long-term
perfluorononanoate exposure on zebrafish (Danio rerio), 20 ECOTOXICOLOGY 47-55 (2011); Chen, et al.,
Multigenerational Disruption of the Thyroid Endocrine System in Marine Medaka after a Life -Cycle Exposure to
Perfluorobutanesulfonate, 52 ENVIRON. SCL & TECH. 4432-4439 (2018); Chen, et al., Perfluorobutanesulfonate
Exposure Causes Durable and Transgenerational Dysbiosis of Gut Microbiota in Marine Medaka, 5 ENVIRON. SCI.
& TECH. LETTERS 731-738 (2018); Chen, et al., Accumulation ofperfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) and impairment
of visual function in the eyes of marine medaka after a life -cycle exposure, 201 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1-10 (2018).
14 Ankley, et al., Partial Life -Cycle Toxicity And Bioconcentration Modeling of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in the
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens), 23 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2745 (2004); Cheng, et al., Thyroid
disruption effects of environmental level perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS) in Xenopus laevis, 20 ECOTOXICOLOGY
2069-2078 (2011); Lou, et al., Effects of perfluorooctanesulfonate and perfluorobutanesulfonate on the growth and
sexual development of Xenopus laevis, 22 ECOTOXICOLOGY 1133-1144 (2013).
15 Liu, et al., Oxidative toxicity ofperfluorinated chemicals in green mussel and bioaccumulation factor dependent
quantitative structure -activity relationship, 33 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2323-2332 (2014); Liu, et al.,
Immunotoxicity in green mussels underperfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) exposure: Reversible response and
response model development, 37 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 1138-1145 (2018).
16 Ji, et al., Oxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Perfluorooctanoic Acid on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates
(Daphnia Magna and Moina Macrocopa) and Fish (Oryzias Latipes), 27 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2159
(2008); Houde, et al, Endocrine -disruption potential ofperfluoroethylcyclohexane sulfonate (PFECHS) in
chronically exposed Daphnia magna, 218 ENVIRON. POLLUTION 950-956 (2016); Liang, et al., Effects of
Perfluorooctane sulfonate on immobilization, heartbeat, reproductive and biochemical performance of Daphnia
magna, 168 Chemosphere 1613-1618 (2017); MacDonald, et al., Toxicity Of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid to Chironomus Tentans, 23 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2116 (2004).
17 See supra notes 21-24.
18 Draft 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls at 2, 534; see also EPA, Technical Fact Sheet -
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), 1, 3 (Nov. 2017).
4

C. DEQ must require the City of Thomasville to disclose any PFAS that the City is
discharging from its treatment plant.
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant, including PFAS, without a
NPDES permit. The discharge of a specific pollutant (or group of pollutants) cannot be
permitted if it is not disclosed in a NPDES permit application. As discussed, it is likely that the
industries that discharge to the Hamby Creek WWTP treatment plant use PFAS, and, therefore,
possible that the City is releasing PFAS into Hamby Creek. If so, DEQ must require the City to
disclose its discharge of PFAS in the Thomasville's NPDES permit application.
DEQ has acknowledged that disclosure of toxic pollutants, including PFAS, is required
by the Clean Water Act and state water quality laws. In its enforcement action against The
Chemours Company, LLC for the company's discharge of GenX and other PFAS into the Cape
Fear River, the agency stated:
Part of the permit applicant's burden in this regard is to disclose all relevant
information, such as the presence of known constituents in a discharge that pose a
potential risk to human health. The permit applicant is required to disclose "all
known toxic components that can be reasonably expected to be in the discharge,
including but not limited to those contained in a priority pollutant analysis." 15A
N.C.A.C. 2H .0105(j) (emphasis added). [...] These disclosure obligations are
critical, in part, because they define the scope of the Clean Water Act's "permit
shield." While compliance with the express terms of an NPDES permit generally
"shields" the permittee from liability for violations of 33 U.S.C. § 1311, the
permit does not shield the permittee from liability where the pollutant being
discharged was not within the "reasonable contemplation" of the permitting
agency when it issued the permit due to nondisclosure by the permittee.19
The agency further acknowledged that the company had violated its NPDES permit and
state water quality laws by "failing to fully disclose all known toxic components reasonably
expected to be in [the company's] discharge."20
DEQ's position in the Chemours enforcement case was correct. The Clean Water Act
generally prohibits discharges to streams and rivers.21 The NPDES permitting program is a
limited exception to that prohibition,22 and discharges under the program cannot be approved
unless they are adequately disclosed.23 The Environmental Protection Agency has stressed the
need for disclosure of pollutants during the permitting process:
19 Amended Complaint, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Chemours, 17 CVS 580, 6-7 (N.C. Super. 2018)
(hereinafter "N.C. DEQ Amended Complaint") (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k), Piney Run Pres. Ass 'n v. Cty. Comm'rs
of Carroll Cty., MD, 268 F.3d 255, 265 (4th Cir. 2001)).
20 Id. at 33.
21 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
22 Nat'l Ass 'n of Home Builders v. Def. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 650 (2007).
23 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998); Piney Run Pres. Ass 'n v. Cty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cty.,
Maryland, 268 F.3d. 255 (4th Cir. 2001); Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d
560 (4th Cir. 2014).
5

[D]ischargers have a duty to be aware of any significant pollutant levels in their
discharge. [...] Most important, [the disclosure requirements] provide the
information which the permit writers need to determine what pollutants are likely
to be discharged in significant amounts and to set appropriate permit limits. [...]
[P]ermit writers need to know what pollutants are present in an effluent to
determine approval permit limits in the absence of applicable effluent
guidelines.24
The EPA Environmental Appeals Board's decision in In re: Ketchikan Pulp Company
further emphasized the importance of disclosure,25 and this decision has been adopted by the
Fourth Circuit. In Piney Run Pres. Ass 'n v. Cty. Comm 'rs of Carroll Cty., Maryland, the Fourth
Circuit stated:
The Ketchikan decision therefore made clear that a permit holder is in compliance
with the [Clean Water Act] even if it discharges pollutants that are not listed in its
permit, as long as it only discharges pollutants that have been adequately
disclosed to the permitting authority. [...] To the extent that a permit holder
discharges a pollutant that it did not disclose, it violates the NPDES permit
and the [Clean Water Act].26
Moreover, municipalities that own and operate wastewater treatment plants are
required to "fully and effectively exercise[] and implement[]" their authority to
"[i]dentify the character and volume of pollutants contributed to the [publicly owned
treatment works]" by Industrial Users.27
If Thomasville were to discharge PFAS from its Hamby WWTP and fail to
disclose it in its NPDES permit application, it would violate the Clean Water Act.
Moreover, DEQ would not have the information it needs to make a fully informed
decision to issue the permit,28 and the public would not have adequate information to
meaningfully comment on it. DEQ must require Thomasville to disclose any discharges
of PFAS in the City's permit application.
D. If the Hamby Creek WWTP is discharging PFAS, DEQ must analyze
appropriate effluent limits.
If the Hamby Creek WWTP is discharging PFAS, DEQ must consider what permit limits
are appropriate. The City can then comply with any PFAS limits in its permit by properly
regulating its industrial users —for instance, by requiring industries to use alternative chemicals,
or to install treatment technology to remove PFAS from their wastewater before sending it to the
Hamby Creek WWTP.
24 Consolidated Permit Application Forms for EPA Programs, 45 Fed. Reg. 33,526-31 (May 19, 1980).
25 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998).
26 Piney Run, 268 F.3d. at 268 (emphasis added).
27Id. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B).
28 See Southern Appalachian, 758 F.3d at 566.
6

The Clean Water Act requires permitting agencies to, at the very least, incorporate,
technology -based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.29 Technology -based
effluent limits are "the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit."30 If the
Hamby Creek WWTP is discharging PFAS, DEQ must consider the feasibility of industrial users
installing effective treatment technology, such as granular activated carbon. North Carolina
water quality laws further state that municipalities must be treated like an industrial discharger if
an industry "significantly impact[s]" a municipal treatment system.31 In this situation, the
agency must consider technology -based effluent limits for the municipality, even if effluent
limits and guidelines have not been published and adopted.32
In addition to including technology -based effluent limits in the permit, DEQ must ensure
that water quality standards will not be violated. If there is a "reasonable potential" that water
quality standards will be exceeded, DEQ must include water quality -based effluent limits in the
permit as we11.33 PFAS are known to harm human health, and their discharge threatens to violate
multiple water quality standards. For instance, the state toxic substances standard requires that:
the concentration of toxic substances, either alone or in combination with other
wastes, in surface waters shall not render waters injurious to aquatic life or
wildlife, recreational activities, public health, or impair the waters for any
designated uses.34
North Carolina defines toxic substances as:
any substance or combination of substances [...], which after discharge and upon
exposure [...], either directly from the environment or indirectly [...], has the
potential to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions or suppression in
reproduction or growth) or physical deformities in [...] organisms or their
offspring.35
PFAS certainly have the potential to cause adverse health effects, and qualify as toxic
substances under state law. DEQ itself has stated in its lawsuit against Chemours that PFAS
"meet the definition of `toxic substance' under North Carolina rules.36
29 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311.
3° 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) (emphasis added).
31 15A N.C. Admin Code 02B .0406 (a), (e).
32 15A N.C. Admin Code 02B .0406 (a), (e).
33 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(i), see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); (1)(i); 15A N.C. Admin Code 2H.0112(c) (stating
that DWR must "reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations.").
34 15A N.C. Admin Code 2B.0208(a).
35 15A N.C. Admin Code 2B.0202(64) (emphasis added).
36 N.C. DEQ Amended Complaint at 32 (stating that "the process wastewater from [Chemours']
Fluoromonomers/Nafion® Membrane Manufacturing Area contains and has contained substances or combinations
of substances which meet the defmition of "toxic substance" set forth in 15A N.C.A.C. 2B .0202," referring to
GenX and other PFAS).
7

DEQ must also reasonably ensure compliance with North Carolina's prohibition against
allowing "[o]ils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes" in waters classified as Class C
waters —which include Hamby Creek, which receives the treatment plant's discharge —"to
render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife,
or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any
designated uses."37
Once appropriate limits are included in a wastewater treatment plant's NPDES permit,
the municipality that runs the treatment plant is required to regulate its industrial users so that
industries do not cause the treatment plant to violate its own NPDES permit.38 This is how the
Clean Water Act "assures the public that [industrial] dischargers cannot contravene the [Clean
Water Act's] objectives of eliminating or at least minimizing discharges of toxic and other
pollutants simply by discharging indirectly through [wastewater treatment plants] rather than
directly to receiving waters."39 As is appropriate, the pretreatment program is intended to place
the burden of treating polluted discharges on the entity that creates the pollution, rather than on
the taxpayers that support municipally owned treatment plants. Moreover, municipalities that
own and operate wastewater treatment plants are required to "immediately and effectively to halt
or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the [publicly owned treatment works] which reasonably
appears to present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare of persons."40 Together,
these laws ensure that municipally owned treatment plants do not become dumping grounds for
uncontrolled industrial waste.
Thomasville cannot allow industries to cause its treatment plant to violate the City's own
NPDES permit.41 If DEQ includes strict PFAS limits in the permit for the Hamby WWTP,
therefore, Thomasville is required to "fully and effectively exercise[] and implement[]" its
authority to meet those limits by properly regulating any industrial users that release PFAS into
its treatment plant.42 The City could prevent violations of its permit by requiring industries to
use alternative chemicals, or to install treatment technology to remove PFAS from their
wastewater before sending wastewater to the treatment plant. In Michigan, for instance,
municipalities have been effectively reducing their PFAS discharges by requiring industrial users
to install treatment technology. Municipalities in Michigan had discovered that industries, such
as metal finishers, paper manufacturers, and fabric/leather treaters, were sending PFAS-
contaminated wastewater to their treatment plants.43 After industrial users installed granular -
activated carbon to remove PFAS, PFOS levels in the discharges of several treatment plants were
reduced by up to 99 percent.44 By including appropriate limits for PFAS in Thomasville's—and
37 15A N.C. Admin Code 02B .0211(12) ("[o]ils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes shall not render
the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the
palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses").
38 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1).
39 General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources, 52 Fed. Reg. 1586, 1590 (Jan. 14, 1987)
(codified at 40 C.F.R. § 403).
40 Id. § 403.8(f)(2)(ii).
4140 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1).
42
Id.
43 Michigan.gov, Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, Wastewater Treatment Plants/Industrial Pretreatment
Program, available at https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/0,9038,7-365-88059_91299---,00.html (last visited
May 4, 2020).
44 Id.
8

other municipalities' NPDES permits, therefore, DEQ can put the burden of cleaning up toxic
PFAS pollution on the industries that create it.
In summary, DEQ must require Thomasville to disclose any discharges of PFAS from the
Hamby WWTP so that DEQ can evaluate whether technology -based effluent limits or water
quality -based effluent limits are required in the City's permit. Otherwise, the agency puts
downstream communities at risk of drinking contaminated water. Thank you for considering
these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or [e-mail] if you have any
questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Jean Zhuang
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-967-1450
9

The Division received comments for the City of Thomasville/Hamby Creek wastewater treatment
plant draft NPDES permit NC0024112 (See full comments in fact sheet attachments) and provides the
following responses:
Comments from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on January 25, 2020, by Jean Zhuang
I. Comments on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") in the City's discharge
A. The Hamby Creek wastewater treatment plant receives industrial wastewater that is likely to
contain PFAS, which could cause the plant to discharge PFAS.
B. PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment.
C. DEQ must require the City of Thomasville to disclose any PFAS that the City is discharging from its
treatment plant.
D. If the Hamby Creek WWTP is discharging PFAS, DEQ must analyze appropriate effluent limits.
Response:
The Division has already begun identifying sources of PFAS compounds. Upon consideration and review
of the status of upcoming PFAS 40 CFR 136 Methods and regulations, the Division has added a PFAS-
related requirement to this NPDES permit.
Since, to this date, there is no approved 40 CFR 136 sampling final Method for PFAS compounds in
wastewater (draft Method was issued on August 2021), a PFAS requirement was added to the NPDES
Permit as a Special Condition. The requirement will take effect six months after the final Method is
published in the Federal Register.
The Division is working to ensure consistency in decisions between the Pretreatment Program and NPDES
program and update and develop new tools to keep better track of emerging compounds. The Pollutants
of Concern (POC) Review Form is being updated to cross-reference POCs from industrial user permits and
other pretreatment elements when drafting an NPDES permit. Also, 180 days after the permit's effective
date, the Standard Conditions of the permit require an update to the local limits, which typically includes
an update to the industrial waste survey.
Comments from the Facility on January 6, 2021, by Allen Beck
A. We have no access to the discharge point referenced in this section. Any previous access to that point
was disturbed by the construction of 1-85 and NCDOT has declined to allow the city any type of
reasonable access from 1-85, and there is no deeded access easement via the surrounding private
properties that the easement crosses to reach the final discharge point. In fact, most, if not all, of the
deeds of easement for the installation and maintenance of the discharge line state very particularly
that the city does not have the right to access any other part of the properties than the easement
itself. To access the easement where the easement crosses 1-85 would literally require removing a
section of guard rail at the peak of about a 45-degree drop into the creek below. 1 have iterated this
before when we have had our annual WWTP inspection from DENR/WSRO, so it is already part of our
public record.
Response:
The Facility needs to have access to the outfall location and that can be addressed as part of the study
plan. The Permit specifies requirements for demonstration of representative sampling under Special
Condition A. (10.).