NC0021920_Permit (Issuance)_20170321

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNINO COVER :SHEET
NC0021920
Whiteville WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
March 21, 2017
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse side

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 21, 2017
Mr. E.L. Faison, City Manager
City of Whiteville
P.O. Box 607
Whiteville, North Carolina 28472
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Subject: Final NPDES Permit Renewal
Permit NC0021920
Whiteville Water Reclamation Facility
Columbus County
Class IV Facility
Dear Mr. Faison:
Director
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
Following modifications were made to the draft permit of November 29, 2016.
• Footnote 5 in A. (1) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements is modified to clarify
that the lead will be monitored monthly.
• Special condition A. (4) Mercury Minimization Plan was modified and interim date for the plan
was added to the permit.
• Special condition A. (5) Inactive Wastewater Pond was modified and interim dates for the schedule
of compliance were added to the condition.
• Footnote 1 in A. (1) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements is modified to include
mandatory electronic submission of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) on NC DWR's
eDMR application system.
• Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and
program reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective
on December 21, 2015. The requirement to begin reporting discharge monitoring data
electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) interne
application has been added to your final NPDES permit. [See modified special condition A (6)]
For information on eDMR, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please
visit the following web page: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center 1 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

4
For more information on EPA's final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, please visit the
following web site:
http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/final-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-
electronic-reporting-rule.
This final permit contains the following changes from your previous permit:
• The NC 2007-2014 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. The NC
Division of Water Resources NPDES Permitting Unit is required to implement the new dissolved
metal standards in all permits public noticed after April 6, 2016.
The new standards for most metals include acute standards. Further, the freshwater standards for
several metals are expressed as the dissolved form of the metals, and seven metals have hardness -
dependent equations. As a result, the NPDES Permitting Unit will need site -specific effluent
hardness data and instream hardness data, upstream of the discharge, for each facility monitoring
these metals in order to calculate permit limitations. Effluent and upstream hardness have been
added to this permit at a quarterly monitoring frequency. Footnote 5 was added to A. (1) Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring Requirements in Part I to require hardness sampling in conjunction
with metal sampling.
• Lead showed reasonable potential to violate water quality standards. Monthly average and daily
maximum limits and monthly monitoring requirements for lead were added in the permit.
• Quarterly monitoring requirements were added for cadmium and silver according to the Division
Guidance for Water Quality Standards for Hardness Dependent Dissolved Metals. The permittee
is required to report the results at the Practical Quantification Level (PQL) i.e. 0.5 µg/1 for
cadmium and 1.0 µg/1 for Silver. Footnote 6 was added to A. (1) Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements in Part I to report effluent lab test results at PQL level.
• As a result of reasonable potential analysis (RPA), effluent limitation and monitoring
requirements for zinc and toluene were removed from the permit. Discharge of these two
parameters will not violate the State's water quality standards for White Marsh.
• Monthly and weekly average limits and monitoring requirements for oil and grease were removed
from NPDES permit and deferred to pretreatment long term monitoring program (LTMP).
• Mercury limits and monitoring requirements were modified and Mercury Minimization Plan
(MMP) was added to the permit according to the permitting guidance developed for the
implementation of the statewide Mercury TMDL. Mercury Reopener condition was also
removed as Statewide Mercury TMDL approved in September, 2012 was used to evaluate
mercury in this permit.
• Special condition for holding pond and sludge handling basins was removed from the permit and
a new special condition with a schedule of compliance for evaluation and closure of inactive
wastewater pond (referred as holding pond in the expired permit) was added to the permit as per
the recommendation by Wilmington Regional Office.
2

• Monitoring frequencies for BOD5, NH3-N, TSS and fecal coliform were reduced as per
permittee's request. DWR's Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities was used to approve this request.
Permittee's request to remove daily effluent temperature monitoring requirements was not
approved by the Division. The facility will continue to monitor temperature according to 15A
NCAC 02B.0508.
• Effluent monitoring requirement for conductivity was added to the permit as the facility receives
wastewater from one significant industrial user (SIU).
• Instream monitoring of fecal coliform was removed as White Marsh is not impaired for fecal
coliform according to the 303d list published in 2016. The facility will continue instream
monitoring for dissolved oxygen, conductivity and temperature during this permit cycle.
• Sampling frequency for effluent pollutant scan was modified to three times during the permit
cycle. Special condition A.(3) was also modified to include narrative for additional toxicity test
requirements for permit renewal.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable
to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days
following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is
made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Resources or any
other Federal, State, or Local governmental permits that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Trupti Desai at [phone] or
via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
ter'- S. Jay Zimmerman, P.G.
Director, Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Hardcopy: NPDES Files
Central Files
DWR / Wilmington Regional Office / Water Quality / Jim Gregson
Ecopy: US EPA Region 4
DWR/Aquatic Toxicology Branch/Susan Meadows
DWR/PERCS/Monti Hassan
3

Permit NC0021920
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations
promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Whiteville
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Whiteville Water Reclamation Facility
1000 Nolan Avenue
Whiteville, NC
Columbus County
to receiving waters designated as White Marsh in the Lumber River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective May 1, 2017.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on August 31, 2019.
Signed this day March 21, 2017 .
oK S. Jay Zimmerman, P.G., Director
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 11

Permit NC0,021 20
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of this
permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive
authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and
provisions included herein. ,
The City of Whiteville is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 3.00 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of the following:
• Mechanical bar screen
• Influent meter
• Influent composite sampler
• Grit removal / Disposal equipment
• Influent pump station
• Anerobic basin/distribution box
• Two oxidation ditch basins
• Two flow distribution boxes
• Three clarifiers
• Two tertiary discfilters
• Post aeration basin
• Chlorine contact chamber
• Dechlorination
• Effluent flow meter
• Aerobic sludge digester
• Sludge holding tank
• Sludge truck loading station
• Wastewater Pond (Out of Service)
• Standby power
Facility is located at the Whiteville WRF, 1000 Nolan Avenue, Whiteville, Columbus County; and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into White Marsh, classified
C, Sw water in the Lumber River Basin.
Page 2 of 11

1
Permit NC0021920
PART I
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized
to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored) by the Permittee as specified below•
•EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
- I' LIMITS J
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Sample
Location
Monthly
Average
Weekly.:,
Average
Daily ..
Maa imum
Measurement
- Frequency
Sample`;,
Type ..
Flow
3.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
E or I
BOD5 3 (April 1- October 31)
5.0 mg/1
7.5 mg/1
2/Week
Composite
E & I
BOD5 3 (November 1 - March 31)
10.0 mg/1
15.0 mg/1
2/Week
Composite
E & I
Total Suspended Solids 3
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
2/Week
Composite
E & I
NH3-N (April 1- October 31)
1.8 mg/1
5.4 mg/1
2/Week
Composite
E
NH3-N (November 1 - March 31)
4.9 mg/1
14.7 mg/1
2/Week
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
(Geometric Mean)
200/100 ml
400/100m1
2/Week
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Not less than 5 mg/1, daily average
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 S.U.
Daily •
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine 4
28 µg/1
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity, µmho/cm
Daily
Grab
E
Hardness —Total as
[CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)]5 (mg/1)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Hardness —Total as
rCaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)15 (mg/1)
Quarterly
Grab
U
Total Coppers
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Cadmium5,6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Lead5
15.6 µg/1
388 µg/1
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Silver5'6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Mercury5•7
24.0 ng/1
Quarterly
Composite
tri CZ Cy Cri tri tr1 tri tr1
Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N)
Monitor and Report, mg/1
Monthly
Composite
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Monitor and Report, mg/1
Monthly
Composite
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and Report, mg/1
Monthly
Calculated
Total Phosphorus
Monitor and Report, mg/1
Monthly
Composite
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable
Grab
Temperature, °C 8
Variable
Grab
Conductivity 8
Variable
Grab
Chronic Toxicity 9
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Monitor and Report
Footnote 10
Footnote 10
)votes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See
Special Condition A. (6)
2. Sample locations: E - effluent, I - influent, U - Upstream at U.S. 74/76, D - Downstream at railroad crossing.
3. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
4. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 14/1 to be in compliance with the permit. However, the
Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field
certified), even if these values fall below 50µg/1.
5. Sampling for copper, cadmium, silver, lead and mercury shall all coincide with sampling for hardness. Please note that lead will
be monitored monthly, it should coincide with the hardness when hardness is sampled.
6. Total cadmium shall be tested to its lowest reporting level of 0.5 µg/1 and total silver at 1.0 µg/1.
Page 3of11

Permit NC0921 §20
7. This is an annual average limit. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
8. Variable is defined as follows: Samples collected three times per week during June 1 through September 30 and once per
week October 1 through May 31.
9. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 50%; January, April, July, and October. See Special Condition A. (2) of this permit.
10. The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit [See Special Condition A. (3)]
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (2) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
[15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 50%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010, or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised- December 2010) or subsequent
versions. The tests will be performed during the months of January, April, July and October. These months
signify the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this
testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following
months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
December 2010) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWR Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the
end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total
residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection
of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity testing quarter, which
Page 4of11

Permit NC0021920
is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required by this
permit and continues until the final day of the third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid
test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the
month of the initial monitoring.
Page 5 of 11

Permit NC0021920
A. (3) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN (Municipal POTWs) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below. One scan must
be performed in each of the following years: 2017, 2018, and 2019. Analytical methods shall be in accordance with
40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether parameters are present in concentrations
greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples should be collected with one quarterly toxicity test each year,
and must represent seasonal variation [i.e., do not sample in the same quarter every year]. Unless otherwise indicated,
metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N) C0610 1,2-dichbroethane Bis (2-chbroethoxy) methane 34278
Chbrine (total residual, TRC) 50060 Trans-1,2-dichbroethylene Bis (2-chbroethyl) ether 34273
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury (Method 1631E)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrybnitrtle
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chtorobenzene
Chbrodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chioroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1.l-dichloroethane
00300
00620
00615
00625
00556
C0665
70295
00900
01097
01002
01012
01027
01034
01042
01051
COMER
01067
01147
01077
01059
01092
00720
32730
34210
34215
34030
32104
32102
34301
34306
85811
34576
32106
32101
34496
1,1-dichbroethylene
1,2-dichbropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichioroethane
Trichbroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Add -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-creso
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichbrophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachbrophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichtorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
32103
34546
34501
34541
77163
34371
34413
34418
34423
81549
34475
34010
34506
34511
39180
39175
34452
34586
34601
34606
34657
34616
34591
34646
39032
34694
34621
34205
34200
CO220
39120
34526
34247
34230
34521
34242
Bis (2-chbroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chbronaphthatene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichbrobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichbrobenzene
3,3-d chbrobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrototuene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Ftuorene
Hexach!orobenzene
Hexachiorobutadiene
Hexachbrocyclo-pentadtene
Hexachbroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenyiamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4 Vichlorobenzene
34283
39100
34636
34292
34581
34641
34320
39110
34596
34556
34536
34566
34571
34631
34336
34341
34611
C0626
34346
C0376
34381
C0700
39702
34386
34396
34403
34408
34696
34447
34428
34438
34433
34461
34469
34551
Reporting. Test results shall be reported electronically via eDMR or on DWR Form — DMR-PPA-1 (or on a form
approved by the Director) by December 31 St of each designated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the
following address:
NC DEQ / DWR / Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
Page 6 of 11

Permit NC0021920
Additional Toxicity Testing Requirements for Municipal Permit Renewal. Please note that Municipal facilities
that are subject to the Effluent Pollutant Scan requirements listed above are also subject to additional toxicity testing
requirements specified in Federal Regulation 40 CFR 122.21(j)(5) and EPA Municipal Application Form 2A. The US
EPA requires four (4) toxicity tests for a test organism other than the test species currently required in this permit. The
second species tests should be conducted either quarterly for a 12-month period prior to submittal of the permit
renewal application, or four tests performed at least annually in the four and one half year period prior to the
application. The second species tests must be multiple concentration (5 concentrations plus the control). These tests
shall be performed for acute or chronic toxicity, whichever is specified in this permit. POTWs performing NPDES
chronic Ceriodaphnia testing should perform chronic Fathead minnow testing. POTWs performing NPDES acute
Fathead Minnow testing should perform acute Ceriodaphnia testing. POTWs performing NPDES chronic Mysid
shrimp testing should perform chronic Silverside Minnow testing.
The second species toxicity test results shall be filed with the Aquatic Toxicology Branch at the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Contact the Division's Aquatic Toxicology Branch at 919-743-8401 for guidance on conducting the additional toxicity
tests and reporting requirements. Results should also be summarized in Part E (Toxicity Testing Data) of EPA
Municipal Application Form 2A, when submitting the permit renewal application to the NPDES Permitting Unit.
A. (4) MERCURY MINIMIZATION PLAN (MMP) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
The permittee shall develop and implement a mercury minimization plan during this permit term. The MMP shall be
developed by October 28, 2017 and shall be available for inspection on -site. A sample MMP was developed through a
stakeholder review process and has been placed on the Division website for guidance (http://deq.nc.gov/document/nc-
model-mercury-minimization-plan-dwr-npdes-swp-20130801, under NC Model Mercury Minimization Plan). The
MMP should place emphasis on identification of mercury contributors and goals for reduction. Results shall be
summarized and submitted with the next permit renewal. Performance of the Mercury Minimization Plan will meet
the requirements of the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for mercury approved by USEPA on October 12, 2012,
unless and until a Waste Load Allocation specific to this facility is developed and this NPDES permit is amended to
require further actions to address the Waste Load Allocation.
A. (5) INACTIVE WASTEWATER POND IG.S. 143-215.1(b)]
(a) Schedule of Compliance
1. The permittee shall divert all the liquid from the wastewater pond to the headworks of the treatment plant by
October 28, 2017.
2. The permittee shall submit a soil sampling plan for the wastewater pond for approval in accordance with the
Division's June 22, 2012 Closure Guidelines by July 1, 2017. The plan must include sampling locations,
sampling map, parameters to be tested, list of action items and a schedule. Please note that samples should be
taken from the bottom and sides of the pond and analyzed by a North Carolina certified soil testing laboratory.
Soil testing results should be submitted before the closure inspection.
3. The permittee shall submit a written request to the Division's Wilmington Regional Office for a closure
inspection by October 28, 2017. The permittee is responsible for removing vegetation / any obstacles along top
and inner wall prior to inspection request to allow access for visual inspection.
Page 7 of 11

Permit NC0021920
Upon approval of the Soil Sampling Plan by the Division, the plan and actions become an enforceable part of this
permit. Any modification to the schedule shall be requested to the Division at least 30 days before the deadline.
The permittee shall submit all above mentioned documents to :
NCDEQ/ Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
NCDEQ/Division of Water Resources
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
.
(b) Upon closure of the wastewater pond, the permittee shall maintain the water level below 1 foot.
A. (6) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING REPORTS IG.S. 143-215.1(b)]
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program reports. The
final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective on December 21, 2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part 11 of this permit (Standard
Conditions for NPDES Permits):
* Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
* Section D. (2.) Reporting
* Section D. (6.) Records Retention
* Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting Requirements [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)]
The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and submitted
electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter monitoring data and submit DMRs
electronically using the internet. Until such time that the state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -
Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring
data to the state electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the following address:
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility being physically
located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband access, then a temporary waiver from
the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on
paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be
submitted to the mailing address above. See "How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below.
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the
permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge.
Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the following compliance monitoring data and
reports, when applicable:
Page 8 of 11

Permit NC0021920
* Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;
* Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
* Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports.
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to Request a Waiver from
Electronic Reporting" section below).
2. Electronic Submissions
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9), the permittee must identify the initial recipient at the time of each electronic
submission. The permittee should use the EPA's website resources to identify the initial recipient for the electronic
submission.
Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities means the entity (EPA or the state
authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program) that is the designated entity for receiving electronic NPDES
data [see 40 CFR 127.2(b)].
EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic reporting tool for each type of
electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to access and use the appropriate electronic reporting tool
will be available as well. Information on EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is found at:
http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/final-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-electronic-reporting-
rule.
Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the "Reporting Requirements" section above.
3. How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting
The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To obtain an electronic reporting
waiver, a permittee must first submit an electronic reporting waiver request to the Division. Requests for temporary
electronic reporting waivers must be submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days
prior to the date the facility would be required under this permit to begin submitting monitoring data and reports. The
duration of a temporary waiver shall not exceed 5 years and shall thereupon expire. At such time, monitoring data and
reports shall be submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new
temporary electronic reporting waiver by the Division. Approved electronic reporting waivers are not transferrable.
Only permittees with an approved reporting waiver request may submit monitoring data and reports on paper to the
Division for the period that the approved reporting waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are found on the following web
page:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
4. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)]
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part II, Section B.
(11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and
not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user account and login
credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North Carolina's eDMR system, registering for
eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the following web page:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make the following
certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
Page 9 of 11

Permit NC0021920
"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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
5. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)]
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR submissions. These records
or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the report. This period may be extended
by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR 122.41].
Page 10 of 11

Permit NC0021920
Whiteville WRF — NC0021920
City of Whiteville — Columbus County
Receiving Stream: White Marsh Swamp Stream Class: C, Sw
Drainage Basin: Lumber River Basin Sub -Basin: 03-07-58
Permitted Flow. 3.0 MGD HUC: 03040206
State Grid/USGS Quad: J24SW / VVliteville, N.C.
Facility Location (Not to scale)
-IF
Latitude 34* 19' 44" N Longitude 78* 40' 41W
Page 11 of 11

, Desai, Trupti A
From: Hunkele, Dean
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:15 AM
To: Desai, Trupti A
Cc: Gregson, Jim; Tharrington, Tom
Subject: RE: Whiteville NC0021920 renewal
Importance: High
Trupti,
I talked with Jim Gregson our supervisor and he does not plan to take any further action on missing the current schedule
since so much time has elapsed and prior staff here apparently dropped the ball in closing the issue out along with the
City. So we would like a new schedule in the permit. They have provided disposal records for what was removed and
some soil sampling data, but cannot tell us how or where the samples were collected plus we have never inspected it
empty. They could never provide a plan that was submitted to us nor any correspondence that we
approved/commented on it.
Proposed Action Items:
1. Provide a proposed bottom and side soil sampling plan for approval within 60 days of effective date
2. Drain all the liquid from the structure treating it through the treatment facility and request a closure inspection
within 180 days of effective date
3. Cut vegetation along top and inner wall prior to inspection request to allow access for visual inspection
4. Provide detail how the structure will be permanently prevented from holding no more than 1 foot of liquid
following closure ��011 S j
I think those items above should cover it. 7 j
Dean Hunkele
Senior Environmental Specialist
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
910.796.7215 Reception Desk
910.796.7380 Direct
910.350.2004 Fax
[e-mail]
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
!`/'Nothing Compares—,,
1

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
The goal of the Fast Track sewer permit program is to issue a permit in no more than 30 business days from receipt of a complete application and if
no additional information has to be requested upon full review. Please use the Department's Permit Application Tracker to determine the official
application receipt date to allow you to estimate a date for issuance and find the reviewer's name. Once issued, the record stays on the site for 30
days.
For previously issued sewer permit info or to check on sewer certification receipt status, please use the Division's Sewer Extension Permit
Tracker. Using the Issue Date on top of the Engineer Certification Form is best way to ensure getting what you want especially for multi -version
permits; using today's date only gives info on the latest permit version. Confirmation using this method will replace letters and emails; it is
recommended that confirmation be printed and/or saved.
Links to both trackers can be found on the sewer permitting site here: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
permits/peres/collection-systems,6ermits
Subscribe to Collection Svstefn Updates listserve to receive automatic alerts for changes to applications, policies, regulations, etc.
From: Desai, Trupti A
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 9:26 AM
To: Hunkele, Dean <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whiteville NC002192
Hi Dean,
Just wanted to follow up with you regarding Whiteville WRF. I am done with drafting the permit except lagoon closure
and special condition for compliance schedule. Did the facility submit the documents or the Regional Office issued a
NOV ? Once things are sorted out with the facility, please send me the major points I need to include in the compliance
schedule. This is a priority permit but we have enough time to work on it.
Thanks.
Trupti Desai
Engineer
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6351 (office)
trupti.desai a(�ncdenr.gov
512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
-"Nothing Compares,...
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

Desai, Trupti A
From: Hunkele, Dean
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:11 PM
To: Newlyn McCullen; [e-mail]
Cc: Desai, Trupti A; Gregson, Jim
Subject: RE: NC0021920 WWRF Lagoon closure document
Importance: High
Newlyn,
As we stated in the inspection report we cannot locate in our files the City's submittal of the Plan, any correspondence
from our office (letters or emails) about it acceptance or items needing to be changed and resubmittal with changes, any
progress reports except maybe 1 following an email inquiry from Kipp in 2010, any transmittal of the lab data before
what you recently sent which do not appear to be properly done or not clearly identified as to source of the samples,
nor any formal request from the City asking for a site visit to inspect it and go over the data to consider it closed out (no
inspection report in our database showing anyone did an inspection for it).
If what you have sent me and Trupti is all you have, then we do not consider it properly closed and the City did not meet
its compliance schedule in violation of the permit. Thus, it is still considered a waste structure that you must maintain it
embankments and at least 2 feet of freeboard. You must close the valve or pipe and use a pump to treat the water
through the WWTP to maintain storage.
At this point, we plan issue another compliance schedule in the permit to have the liquid removed & treated through the
WWTP and new soil sampling conducted within some time limit, probably between 120-180 days from the effective
date. It will need to meet the requirements including soil sampling of the current closure policy located here under
Memos: http://deo.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/non-
discharge-permitting-unit/policies
We will be issuing a Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess this week. It will give you a final opportunity to produce all
the identified documentation.
Dean Hunkele
Senior Environmental Specialist
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
910.796.7215 Reception Desk
910.796.7380 Direct
910.350.2004 Fax
[e-mail]
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
%Nothing Compares.
1

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
The goal of the Fast Track sewer permit program is to issue a permit in no more than 30 business days from receipt of a complete application and if
no additional information has to be requested upon full review. Please use the Department's Permit Application Tracker to determine the official
application receipt date to allow you to estimate a date for issuance and find the reviewer's name. Once issued, the record stays on the site for 30
days.
For previously issued sewer permit info or to check on sewer certification receipt status, please use the Division's Sewer Extension Permit
Tracker. Using the Issue Date on top of the Engineer Certification Form is best way to ensure getting what you want especially for multi -version
permits; using today's date only gives info on the latest permit version. Confirmation using this method will replace letters and emails; it is
recommended that confirmation be printed and/or saved.
Links to both trackers can be found on the sewer permitting site here: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
permits/peres/col lection-systems-permits
Subscribe to Collection System Updates listserve to receive automatic alerts for changes to applications, policies, regulations, etc.
From: Newlyn McCullen[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:30 AM
To: Hunkele, Dean <[e-mail]>
Subject: WWRF Lagoon closure document
Dean,
Please see attached WWRF Lagoon closure documents. Let me know what other information you may need.
Thanks,
Newlyn McCullen
City of VVhiteville
WWRF Director
[phone] Work
[phone] Mobile
nmccullen@ci,whiteville.nc.us
P.0 Box 607
Wh itevi I I e, N.C. 28472
United States of America
2

Desai, Trupti A
From: Hunkele, Dean
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Desai, Trupti A; Tharrington, Tom
Subject: FW: WWRF Lagoon closure document
Attachments: Lagoon Closure.pdf
Importance: High
Just got this from the City, but it's the proposed plan which we have nothing to show if we commented on it for changes
or accepted it. I have never reviewed documents as it pertains to closures. It doesn't appear we commented on any
data/results or inspected it once empty as nothing is in file or in BIMS.
I am not certain where to go from here if this is all they can produce. Work to lower it again and do an inspection and
maybe require sampling sometime next late spring/early summer?
This is what we requested from them in the inspection report cover letter:
Our office does not have a copy of the City's approved polishing pond clean -out plan nor any data or records pertaining
to the cleaning including a final site inspection by staff from this office. Please provide our office with a copy of the
approved plan, info on the material removed & its disposal, any sampling results of the liquid and/or soil from bottom,
pictures of the pond empty and dry, and any records of correspondence during or following its cleaning from our office.
Dean Hunkele
Senior Environmental Specialist
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
910.796.7215 Reception Desk
910.796.7380 Direct
910.350.2004 Fax
[e-mail]
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
Nothing Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
The goal of the Fast Track sewer permit program is to issue a permit in no more than 30 business days from receipt of a complete application and if
no additional information has to be requested upon full review. Please use the Department's Permit Application Tracker to determine the official
application receipt date to allow you to estimate a date for issuance and find the reviewer's name. Once issued, the record stays on the site for 30
days.
For previously issued sewer permit info or to check on sewer certification receipt status, please use the Division's Sewer Extension Permit
Tracker. Using the Issue Date on top of the Engineer Certification Form is best way to ensure getting what you want especially for multi -version
1

permits; using today's date only gives info on the latest permit version. Confirmation usinq this method will replace letters and emails; it is
recommended that confirmation be printed and/or saved.
Links to both trackers can be found on the sewer permitting site here: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
permits/peres/collection-systems-permits
Subscribe to Collection System Updates listserve to receive automatic alerts for changes to applications, policies, regulations, etc.
From: Newlyn McCullen [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:30 AM
To: Hunkele, Dean <[e-mail]>
Subject: WWRF Lagoon closure document
Dean,
Please see attached WWRF Lagoon closure documents. Let me know what other information you may need.
Thanks,
Newlyn McCullen
City of Whiteville
WWRF Director
[phone]',Vork
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
P.O Box 607
Whiteville, N.C. 28472
United States of America
2

OW)
SYNAGBO
A Residuals Management Company
July 1, 2010
Mr. Newlyn McCullen
WWRF Superintendent
City of Whiteville
317 South Madison Street
Whiteville, NC 28472
Reference: Wastewater Lagoon Closure
Dear Mr. McCullen,
Synagro Central LLC (Synagro) is pleased to provide you with this proposal for the
closure of a wastewater storage lagoon, located at the wastewater treatment plant in
Whiteville, NC. Synagro is the largest residuals management company in the country
with over 650 municipal and industrial customers and operations in 37 states. Synagro
has won numerous awards for outstanding performance and environmental stewardship
on lagoon projects in the south. Learn more about Synagro at www.synagro.com.
Background:
The City of Whiteville (Whiteville) has requested a proposal from Synagro for turnkey
services associated with the closure of an out of service sludge storage lagoon at the
wastewater treatment plant. Synagro will prepare the closure plan and submit to state
regulators for approval prior to starting operations. Sludge removal operations will be
conducted in accordance with the approved closure plan and all local, state and federal
regulations. It is our understanding that Whiteville desires to convert the sludge lagoon
into an ornamental pond after our work is completed. We have not included any
additional work that may be needed to qualify as an ornamental pond — our scope
includes removal of all sludge and contAminated liner in order to receive approvals from
DWQ. Whiteville is seeking a contractor to provide turnkey service to remove all sludge
in the lagoon in conjunction with regulation set forth by NCDENR and USEPA. The
Scope of Work below describes an operation that we feel best addresses this work in a
cost-effective manner.
Scone of Work:
Synagro's Technical Services Division will prepare the Closure Plan and submit, along
with supporting documents, to NCDENR for approval. Once approvals have been

• Electrical power for Synagro equipment as needed — most all our equipment will
operate off diesel fuel.
iein :
Prepare and Submit Closure Plan $ 8,575.00/all inclusive
This price is contingent upon acceptance of our closure plan as submitted in accordance with standard guidelines set
forth by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for lagoon closures. In the event DWQ requires additional work,
separate fees may apply. This is a lump sum price item.
Mob/Demob $ 4,500.00/all inclusive
Includes mobilizing and demobilizing all necessary equipment and personnel to and from the job site. This is a lump sum
price item.
Sludge Removal/Transportation/Land Application $ 0.035/gallon
This price includes all liquid sludge removal. The final billing will reflect the actual amount of material removed,
hauled and transported offsite, including any ground water infiltration or dilution water added to reconstitute thick
solids. Synagro can manage liquids up to around 5% solid thickness, heavier solids will be thinned with additional
water from an onsite source prior to removaL Based on the dimensions of the lagoon and the estimated average depth
of sludge, we estimate approximately 1.5 million gallons to be removed. This is a unit rate per gallon.
Additional Equipment $ 1,500.00/day
This price covers the additional equipment to be used above that which is part of your standard land application
program. This includes: Tractor/Houle Pump/Lagoon Mixer/Dredge/Dozer/Loader/Excavator. This is a daily rate and
will apply for each day of operations — we estimate 840 clays of operations.
Biosolids/Soil/Clay Mixture — Removal,, Trans, Disposal $ 55.00/ton
This includes removal, loading, transportation, and disposal of contaminated soil bottoms. Typically, there is 3-6" of
"mucky" material (biosolids, clay & sand mixture) that will need to be removed using heavy equipment (dozer/loader).
This material will be removed, hauled, and disposed of properly at an offsite location Any clearing of vegetation
and/or structures required to accomplish this closure, such as trees, fencing, and equalization/valve lines is not included
with this proposal. This is a unit rate by the ton.
Prepare and Submit Closure Documentation $ 3,250.00/all inclusive
After all operations are completed, Synagro will submit a final closure report to NCDENR, with copies to Whiteville
for your record. This is a lump sum item.
Note: The quantities listed above are estimates based on the lagoon dimensions and our experience on similar projects.
Synagro does not guarantee that final volumes will not exceed the estimated quantities. Given these estimates, we
expect the project total to range between S110,000.00 and S140,000.00. Grading, earthwork, compaction and/or
seeding disturbed areas are not included with this proposal. Synagro is not responsible for compaction or integrity of
clay liner or berms after sludge removal operations are completed. In the event contamination and/or underground
structures including but not limited to footings, foundations, cables, conduit, debris, or water are encountered,
destroyed or damaged during the performance of the contract, Synagro, shall not be held responsible.
/Estimated 'Project Timeline: Subsequent to Contract Execution and Notice to Proceed
2-4 weeks Ems.9.AerMidit42
6.8 weeks 1St& to Mand\ pclYettgA
3-5 weeks (Depending on weather and time of year)
12 weeks
1 2 weeks
• Prepare and submit Closure Plan
• State approval of Closure Plan
• Mobilization and Removal Operations
• Demobilization and Cleanup
• Prepare and submit Closure Documents
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at (336)
407-3452. We appreciate the opportunity to bid this work for Whiteville and look
forward to exceeding your expectations.
Sincerely,
Todd/P. Hayden. yden.

SYNAGRO CENTRAL, LLC
7014 EAST BALTIMORE STREET
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
PROJECT: 2059 - WHITEVILLE, NC
6/112011 thru 6130/2011
PLANT: 01 - WHITEMARSH WWTP
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0006-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Type
6/7/2011 18,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/11/2011 62,000.00 G LAGAEL
6/13/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
6/22/2011 12,400.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 186,000.00
Field Total (Gallons): 186,000.00
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0007-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit TYPO
6/8/2011 37,200.00 G LAGAEL
6/10/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
6/11/2011 12,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/14/2011 37,200.00 G LAGAEL
6/17/2011 12,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/20/2011 31,000.00 G LAGAEL
6/23/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
6/24/2011 74,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/30/2011 31,000.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 421,600.00
Field Total (Gallons): 421,600.00
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0008-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Tvpe
6/1/2011 18,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/2/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/8/2011 43,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/9/2011 55,800.00 G LAGAEL
6/20/2011 43,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/21/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
6/22/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 415,400.00
Page 1 of 2
Printed: 7/22/2011
15:54

Field Total (Gallons): 415,400.00
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0009-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Tvpe
6/3/2011 31,000.00 G LAGAEL
6/4/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/6/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/7/2011 68,200.00 G LAGAEL
6/8/2011 12,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/9/2011 12,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/14/2011 12,400.00 G LAGAEL
6/17/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/20/2011 18,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/27/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
6/28/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 570,400.00
Field Total (Gallons): 570,400.00
Plant Total Gallons: 1,593,400.00
Page 2 of 2
Printed: 7/22/2011
15:54

SYNAGRO CENTRAL, LLC
7014 EAST BALTIMORE STREET
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
PROJECT: 2059 - WHITEVILLE, NC
811/2011 thru 8/31/2011
PLANT: 01 - WHITEMARSH WWTP
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0006-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Type
8/16/2011 18,600.00 G LAGAEL
8/17/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
8/18/2011 55,800.00 G LAGAEL
8/19/2011 55,800.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 210,800.00
Field Total (Gallons): 210,800.00
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0010-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Type
8/12/2011 80,600.00 G LAGAEL
8/16/2011 74,400.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 155,000.00
Field Total (Gallons): 155,000.00
Field: NC-CO-00103-0-0003-
Farmer/Site Operator GUILFORD BARNES
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Tym
8/3/2011 24,800.00 G LAGAEL
8/4/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 117,800.00
Field Total (Gallons): 117,800.00
Field: NC-CO-00103-0-0004 ,
Farmer/Site Operator GUILFORD BARNES
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Type
8/9/2011 62,000.00 G LAGAEL
8/10/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
8/11/2011 37,200.00 G LAGAEL
Page 1 of 2
Printed: 9/20/2011
16:29

LAGAEL Gallons: 192,200.00
Field Total (Gallons): 192,200.00.
Plant Total Gallons: 675,800.00
Page 2 of 2
Printed: 9/20/2011
16:29

SYNAGRO CENTRAL, LLC
7014 EAST BALTIMORE STREET
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
PROJECT: 2059 - WHITEVILLE, NC
9/112011 thru 9/3012011
PLANT: 01- WHITEMARSH WWTP
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0006-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Availed Total Applied Unit lym
9/1/2011 93,000.00 G LAGAEL
9/2/2011 6.8,200.00 G LAGAEL
9/10/2011 49,600.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 210,800.00
Field Total (Gallons): 210,800.00
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0007-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit TYPO
9/2/2011 24,800.00 G LAGAEL
9/9/2011 37,200.00 G LAGAEL
9/10/2011 43,400.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 105,400.00
Field Total (Gallons): 105,400.00
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0009-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Avatied
9/14/2011 46.00
9/15/2011 48.00
9/21/2011 45.00
9/23/2011 45.00
LAGAEC WetTons: 182.00
Field Total (WetTons): 182.00
Plant Total Gallons:
Plant Total Wet Tons:
Page 1 of 1
316,200.00
182.00
Unit Tvae
W LAGAEC
W LAGAEC
W LAGAEC
W LAGAEC
Printed: 10/21/2011
14:11

SYNAGRO CENTRAL, LLC
7014 EAST BALTIMORE STREET
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
PROJECT: 2059 - WHITEVILLE, NC
10/1/2011 thru 10/31/2011
PLANT: 01 - WHITEMARSH WWTP
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0009-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied IJA Ty
10/4/2011 68.00 W LAGAEC
10/5/2011 180.00 W LAGAEC
10/6/2011 180.00 W LAGAEC
LAGAEC WetTons: 428.00
10/1/2011 68,200.00 G LAGAEL
LAGAEL Gallons: 68,200.00
Field Total (Gallons): 68,200.00
Field Total (WetTons): 428.00
Field: NC-CO-00026-0-0012-
Farmer/Site Operator KENNY BASS
Date Applied Total Applied Unit Type
10/7/2011 180.00 W LAGAEC
10/8/2011 180.00 W LAGAEC
10/9/2011 157.00 W LAGAEC
LAGAEC WetTons: 517.00
Field Total (WetTons): 617.00
Plant Total Gallons:
Plant Total Wet Tons:
Page 1 of 1
68,200.00
945.00
Printed: 11/18/2011
14:37

NC WW/GW Certificate 854
EPA Lab NC01918 •
Cameron Testing Servicesrinc.
219 S. Steele Str.
Sanford, NC 27330
Project: Whiteville
Client: Synagro
Sampled
Received
Fecal (Set 7) Report
Ref. Methods
CTS Proj.
Regulatory
Std. Meth. 19!' ed.
BY MP
oft, 10/10/11
01 —07
001
By ERP
oats 10/10/11
Requested
Analysis
Coliform Fecal 9222D
< 20 20 42.07% 10/10/11
< 13 13 61.59% 10/10/11
< 31 31 28.91% 10/10/11
< 11 11 57.12% 10/10/11
11 11 58.92% 10/10/11
< 17 17 51.25% 10/10/11
< 14 14 47.34% 10/10/11
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
Geometric Mean
Blank 1 100
Lab Director
11
0 Y 10/10/11 ERP
/o1 /7, r
Date:
Notes:
Rev. 1
Feb. 22, 2010

NC WW/GW Certificate 654
EPA Lab # NC01918
Cameron Testing Services, Inc.
219S. Steele Stt,
Sanford, NC 27330
Project: Whiteville
Client: Synagro
Fecal (Set 7) Report
CTS Proj.
Regulatory
f 1110-018
Y
Sampled
Received
I
Ref. Methods
Std. Meth. 19Th ed.
•
By MP
Date 10/10/11
By ERP
Date 10/10/11
ROW/Bated
na��
Coliform Fecal 9222D
T : Grab
Matrix
GW
Sample ID
Lab ID
< 12 12
< 20 20
< 14 14
< 12 12
< 12 12
12 12
< 14 14
h: % 8.aild;_.
Data
analyst
11 — 17 002
44.57% 10/10/11 ERP
48.47% 10/10/11 ERP
55.30% 10/10/11 ERP
51.15% 10/10/11 ERP
69.81% 10/10/11 ERP
62.95% 10/10/11 ERP
48.11% 10/10/11 ERP
Geometric Mean 12
Blank 2 100 0 Y 10/10/11 ERP
rctii
Lab Director
Date:
Notes:
Rev. 1
Feb. 22, 2010

NC WW/GW Certificate 654
EPA Lab * NC01918
Cameron Testing Services, Inc.
219 S, Steele Str.
Sanford, NC 27330
Project: Whiteville
Client: Synagro
Sampled
By MP
Dale 10/10/11
21 — 27
003
Received
By ERP
Date 10/10/11
Fecal (Set 7) Report
Ref. Methods
Requested
Analysis
CTS Proj.
Regulatory
Std. Meth. 19P1 ed.
Coliform Fecal 9222D
26 26 31.87% 10/10/11
29 15 64.59% 10/10/11
63 21 45.24% 10/10/11
112 11 67.10% 10/10/11
379 13 51.27°% 10/10/11
< 18 18 52.74% 10/10/11
20 20 46.64% 10/10/11
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
Geometric Mean
Blank 3
QC
Blank 4
100
100
100
59
0 Y
1
0
ERP
ERP
Lab Director
ID/ r?iii
Date:
Notes:
Rev. 1
Feb. 22, 2010

Page 1 of 1
Report Number: 11 292-0853
Account Number: 46502
Send To: SYNAGRO CENTRAL LLC/WHITEVILLEbm.Com
Mary Brewer
284 BOGER RD
MOCKSVILLE NC 27028
Date Received: 10/19/2011
Date Of Analysis: 10/20/2011
A&L Eastern Laborato►ies, Inc.
7621 Whltepine Road Richmond, Virginia 23237 [phone] Fax [phone]
Grower:
WHITEVILLE, NC 50-0259
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
Date Of Report: 1021/2011
Submitted By: CLINT WILLIAMS
Farm ID:
Analytical Method(s):
Mehlich 3
Sample ID
Field ID
Lab
Number
Organic Matter
Phosphorus
Potassium
Magnesium
Calcium
Sodium
pH
Acidity
C.EC
ENR
% Rate lbalA
Mehllch 3
ppm Rate
Reserve
ppm Rate
K
ppm Rate
Mg
ppm Rate
Ca
ppm Rate
Na
ppm Rate
Sail
p H
Buffer
Index
H
meq/100g
meq/100g
1
05662
0.1 VL 49
117 VH
NC=97
35 VL
NC=18
50 H
279 M
36 H
6.8
6.92
0.1
2.1
Sample_
FieID
Percent Base Saturation
Nitrate
Sulfur
Zinc
Manganese
Iron
Copper
Boron
Soluble Sans
Chloride
Aluminum
K
%
Mg
%
Ca
%
Na
%
H
%
NO3N
ppm Rate
S
ppm Rate
Zn
ppm Rate
Mn
ppm Rate
Fe
ppm Rate
Cu
ppm Rate
B
ppm Rate
SS
ms/cm Rate
CI
ppm Rate
Al
ppm
1
4.3
19.8
66.4
7.5
2.9
25
7 VL
NC=18
4.7 H
NC = 117.5
4 L
NC = 25
252 VH
0.4 L
NC = 20.0
0.5 L
0.2 VL
Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the
soil. Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium),
H (High), VH (Very High). ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release.
C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity.
Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts per million), Ibs/A
(pounds per acre), ms/cm (milli -mhos per centimeter), meq/1o0g
(milli -equivalent per 100 grams). Conversions: ppm x 2 = Ibe/A,
Soluble Salts ms/cm x 840 = ppm.
This report applies to sample(s) tested. Samples am retained e
ma:dmurn of thirty days after testing.
Analysis prepared by: AML Eastern Laboratories. Inc.
by ?twit. file Otwr
Pauric McGroary

Report Number
11-292-0653 Page: 1 of 2
Account Number
46502
Send To : SYNAGRO CENTRAL LLCIWHITEVILLE
Mary Brewer
284 BOGER RD
MOCKSVILLE , NC 27028
Client : WHITEVILLE, NC 50-0259
Laboratory Number:
Sample Date And Time:
Sample Identification:
Analysis:
Total Arsenic ,ppm
SW 6010C
Total Cadmium ,ppm
SW 6010C
Total Chromium ,ppm
SW 6010C
Total Copper ,ppm
SW 6010C
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ,ppm
SM-4500-NH3C-TKN
Total Lead ,ppm
SW 8010C
Total Mercury ,ppm
SW-7471 B
Total Molybdenum ,ppm
SW 6010C
www.aieastem.com
05662
1
1.0
< 1.0
5
3
220
6
< 0.4
<5
A&L Eastern Laboratories, Inc.
7621 Whitepine Road Rkhinond, Virginia 23237 (804) 7434401 Fax [phone]
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Sample results are reported 'as received and are not moisture corrected unless noted
Submitted By : CLINT WILLIAMS
Purchase Order :
Report Date: 10/21/2011
Date Received :10/19/2011
fir 661e
Pauric McGroary

Report Number
11-292-0653 Page: 2 of 2
Account Number
46502
Send To : SYNAGRO CENTRAL LLCIWHITEVILLE
Mary Brewer
284 BOGER RD
MOCKSVILLE , NC 27028
Client : WHITEVILLE, NC 50-0259
Laboratory Number
Sample Date And Time:
Sample Identification:
Analysis:
Total Nickel ,ppm
SW 6010C
Total Phosphorus ,ppm
SW 6010C
Total Selenium (ppm
SW 6010C
Total Zinc ,ppm
SW 6010C
ww a1esskm com
05662
1
<5
248
< 1.0
5
A&L Eastern Laboratories, Inc.
7821 Whltapine Road Richmond, Virginia 23237 [phone] Fax t804) 2714448
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Method Reference:
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, CA
et al. 1982, pages 1129-1131.
Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region. NCR Research Pub. No. 221
Revised.
Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. 1998
USEPA, SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd Ed. Current
Revision
Sample results are reported 'as received' and are not moisture corrected unless noted
Submitted By : CLINT WILLIAMS
Purchase Order :
Report Date: 10/21/2011
Date Received :10/19/2011
?iwt' tic Cfswr
Pauric McGroary

141°U
mo.
•
•
• " - _.Y�— ''�'� _ �A<7 , ••00116 lire �, �,; ''i �+ • .� s
� � 'fir �1 - IY .r-r � �. r � �f'....• F' ►f y
+,. r • .-"ter j- i•.w+
.. M': vim- _'.�'� --� t t - - _ s'• - '�;„y�.�. .1"• fry��. ++:• •+� •
reirbP
•

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NORTH CAROLINA
Cumberland County
NUR. Hutht
Notjt Carolina Enviltnanclaal
bfaro mnont CmuolsutdNPDGS Unit
1617 Mill Service Ccnlcr
Raleigh, KC 27699-1617
Nwlo: of Inkni w Italie a
NPDES Waacwo r Perm!
The North Caathtu Evuonrtsental Man.
a)1trtnvnl COlaallit(l11, )ltliXllL1 In ISVIL• a
NPDES au t000icr ilvdagc p nnil to
We Ixrtto(s) betel telaw. \Valton tom -
Metal rcgut1ing tic proposed ptrortit trill
Ix accepted until Al days p1 r the pthlih
dale tfilia Inaiw. Tho Dirc Iur Lf the NC
Div Lab. of Water IhNour •. (DWR) mi)
bold a public hearing dlould t6ac bo n
sigrdfianl derive of rubric botit.,L Pkase
Illall t'Unllla'tas mnlhn inrtr,natiou ra-
gUenit to DV\R at Ile odaxr mh)mst. Iratx-
naturl porstrrtt tnay} viol din DIVA at 512 N.
Satiter)• Stltth. I1okieh, t C to srvicw in.
(urination on tilt. Aaditionnl Information
on NPDES pauiils and ihii notice tray
found rai our ttrh,itc. l,Ujltln).nr.nuvf
ahuul/divisiurlalwamr•reauurcestwatcr-
rol:uurcca•pcnnita/wostoWilet-
hranc Wopdro-wa slcwu1ur/public-uu ricea,
ur l,y eel liar [phone].
The City of M,itevilc r}t(ustcd ret.vral of
Pperrt ail ,)C(021920 for at \Vhdtevilk WRF Ir,
Ctthrrobes Gaily. This permitted rhs
tharge h healed domestic and i,nlutVul
w�llrt of lu White 51o1:51, Swamp la the
Lanka RhorUadn.
The Tunn of Whin Lake rvyursk l rcncw-
nd or pcnnit N0007_33S5 fur While Lake
WWII' Watley Co ,nyi thin ptrrnbmd
diSchL1•,e in Wand doe o tic o131n1o,er
to an Urnanhd tributary a Cdly CNA,
oopo Fear RIVer nato
(L5 a£53f72
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and state, duly
commissioned and authorized to administer oaths, affirmations, etc.,
personally appeared. CINDY O. MCNAIR
Who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to law, doth depose and say
that he/she is a LEGAL SECRETARY of DB North Carolina Holdings, Inc., a
corporation organized and doing business under the Laws of the State of
Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as the FAYETTEVILLE
OBSERVER, in the City of Fayetteville, County and State aforesaid, and
That as such he/she makes this affidavit; that he/she is familiar with the
books, files and business of said Corporation and by reference to the files
of said publication the attached advertisement of CL Legal Line
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
of NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper in space, and on dates as follows:
1/25/2017
and at the time of such publication The Fayetteville Observer was a
newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications prescribed by
Sec. No. 1-597 G.S. of N.C.
The above is correctly copied from the books and files of the aforesaid
corporation and publication.
LEGAL SECRETARY
Title
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me, this 8 day
of March, A.D., 2017.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal, the day and year aforesaid.
t-:
1 I ' I , I
Pamela H. Walters, Notary Public
My commission expires 5th day of December, 2020.
MAIL TO: NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-00001617
t 'f •I �\
II
0004853872

Darren Currie
Ciq.Alanager
317S. Madison Street
PO Box 607
Whileville, NC 28472
NCDEQ/Division of Water Resources
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn. Trupti Desai
City of WhiteviCCe
October 17, 2016
Subject: Sludge Holding Basins & Fine Settling Pond Decommission Action Plan
Terry L. Mann
Manor
Jimmy Clarida
Alavor Pro-Tem
Tim Blackmon
Council Alember
Robert Leder
Council Alember
Vickie Pail
Council Alenrber
Sara B. Thompson
Council Member
Harold G. Troy, Sr.
Council Member
Please find listed below an item for item description of the Action Plan for the Decommissioning of the Sludge
Holding basins & Fine Settling Pond per requirements of the City of Whiteville's NPDES Permit.
1 As of May 14, 2010, sludge contained in all 4 sludge holding beds has been removed and Land Applied
by Synagro in compliance with all land application permit requirements. The waste sludge line to the
beds has been decommissioned and capped to prevent the possibility of sludge ever being wasted to all
4 beds.
2. Holes have been bored in the cement bottom of 4 beds for drainage and the 4 beds have been completely
filled with top soil.
3. Synagro Central is being contracted for the complete decommissioning of the Treatment Plants Fine
Settling Pond. Synagro's Technical Services Division will be preparing a turnkey Closure Plan and
submitting along with supporting documents to NCDENR/DWQ for final approval.
4. Synagro Central began removing liquid sludge from the WWTP's fine settling pond on June 1si- October
9th, 2011 totaling 2.653 MG.
5. 3-6 inches of contaminated soil was removed and disposed from the clay liner of the lagoon on October
10th and soil samples were collected and analyzed by A&L Eastem Laboratories.
6. A 6" drain line was inserted into the berm of the lagoon for draining storm water
7. The influent line entering the lagoon from the WWTP's clarifiers was decommissioned and' capped to
prevent the possibility of sludge ever being wasted to the lagoon.
8. All documentation of the decommission activities were submitted to the Wilmington Regional office.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Thanks for all the guidance you have provided.
Sincerely,
Newlyn McCullen
WWRF Director

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRIONMENTAL QUALITY / DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
City of Whiteville — Whiteville Water Reclamation Facility
NC0021920
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Whiteville / Whiteville Water Reclamation Facility
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 607, Whiteville, NC 28472
Facility Address:
1000 Nolan Avenue, Whiteville NC 28472
Permitted Flow:
3.0 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic and Industrial
Classification:
IV
Permit Status:
Renewal
County
Columbus
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
White Marsh
Drainage Basin
Lumber
Stream Classification:
C, Sw
Sub -basin:
03-07-58
303(d) Listed?
No
HUC:
03040206
Drainage Area (mi2):
201
State Grid / USGS Quad:
J24SW / Whiteville, N.C.
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
4.7
Latitude:
34° 19' 44" N
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
9.1
Longitude:
78° 40' 41" W
30Q2 (cfs)
10
Regional Office:
Wilmington
Trupti Desai
Average Flow (cfs):
201
Permit Writer:
IWC (%):
50%
Date:
11/29/2016
I. SUMMARY
The City of Whiteville operates a 3.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility to treat domestic and industrial
wastewater generated from the City of Whiteville, Town of Brunswick and Town of Bolton. The plant is
serving approximately 7215 people. The annual average daily flow rate varied from 1.2 MGD in 2012 to
1.23 MGD in 2014. The city has a separate sewer system. The facility provides advanced treatment to the
wastewater before discharging it to White Marsh. The plant consists of bar screen, grit removal system,
oxidation ditch basins, clarifiers, disc filters, chlorination/dechlorination system, post aeration basin,
sludge digester and sludge holding tank. The facility had completely decommissioned four sludge handling
basins during previous permit period. An inactive wastewater pond at the facility will be evaluated and
decommissioned during this permit period.
The facility has a full pretreatment program and a Long Term Monitoring Program (LMTP). It receives
flow from one Significant Industrial User (SIU) — Columbus Regional Healthcare. The permitted
industrial flow is 0.11 MGD and the actual flow was 0.065 MGD in 2015. The facility will continue to
implement the pretreatment program in the next permitting cycle.
II. RECEIVING STREAM
The receiving stream is White Marsh which is classified as C, Sw at the discharge point in Waccamaw
watershed in the Lumber River Basin. White Marsh in sub basin 03-07-58 is not listed in 2016 303d
impaired streams list.
Page 1 of 7

III. DATA REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. DMR Review
DMRs were reviewed for the period of February, 2010 till August, 2016. The effluent data are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Data Summa
Parameter
Units .
Average
Max
Min
Flow
MGD
1.29
4.75
0.41
BOD
mg/1
2.60
20
< 2
NH3N
mg/1
1
3
< 1
TSS
mg/1
6.10
67.5
0.2
pH
S.U.
7.66
9
6.4
Temperature
°C
21.3
30.1
9.1
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/1
8.24
10.7
5.6
TRC
Aga
20
25
< 1
TN
mg/1
6.28
12.41
1.42
TP
mg/1
1.83
4.06
0.58
Fecal Coliform
#/100 ml
65
> 8200
< 1
Oil & Grease
mg/1
5.01
11
< 5
Toluene
µg/1
1.07
4
< 1
Total Mercury
ng/1
3.09
117
< 1
Total Copper
µg/1
10.75
22
< 5
Total Zinc
µg/1
35.59
88
10
Total Silver
µg/1
< 5
< 5
< 5
Cyanide
µg/1
< 5
< 5
< 5
B. Compliance History
The compliance history from January, 2010 to August, 2016 was reviewed. The facility had
received two NOVs violating monitoring frequency for mercury and flow during this period. No
actions were taken after the facility submitted updated DMRs. The Division took enforcement
actions against the facility in 2012 for exceeding daily maximum and monthly average limits for
mercury. The facility paid $1911.00 as a civil penalty for noncompliance with the NPDES permit.
The facility had investigated the sources of mercury in the wastewater and required the dental
offices to install mercury traps.
The Wilmington Regional Office had conducted three compliance evaluation inspections during the
previous permit period. The facility was found noncompliant with the requirements of the NPDES
permits in 2012. There were issues with influent sampling, secondary clarifier, post aeration basin,
outfall, disinfection chamber at the facility. The Regional Office staff also observed OSHA related issues
during the inspection. The facility was served a notice of violation for these issues and recommendations
were given to resolve them. The facility passed two compliance evaluation inspections in 2014 and 2016.
C. Mercury Evaluation
The facility had a stringent mercury limit i.e. 12 ng/1 based on pre-TMDL mercury permitting guidance. A
mercury evaluation was conducted to in accordance with the permitting guidance developed for the
Page 2 of 7

implementation of the statewide Mercury TMDL to re-evaluate the mercury limit and/or need for Mercury
Minimization Plan (MMP). Table 2 summarizes the available mercury data used to determine permit limit.
Table 2. Mercury Evaluation
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
# of Samples
51
52
52
52
52
35
Annual Average, ng/L
2.6
3.7
5.8
2.1
2.4
1.3
Maximum Value, ng/L
40.00
13.30
117.00
11.00
12.00
5.4
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
24.1
Based on the implementation guidance for TMDL, the water quality based effluent limitation
(WQBEL) for mercury is 24.1 ng/1 and the technology based effluent limit (TBEL) is 47 ng/1.
None of the annual averages exceeds the WQBEL or TBEL. However, the mercury evaluation
and TMDL guidance recommend WQBEL for the facility with quarterly monitoring since one
value was greater than TBEL. The City of Whiteville is also required to implement Mercury
Minimization Plan (MMP) during this permit cycle as majority of the mercury sample results were
above 1 ng/1 during previous permit period and Whiteville WRF is a major municipal facility with
the permitted flow above 2 MGD.
D. Priority Pollutant Analysis (PPA)
The facility had included results of three priority pollutant analyses (2011-2013) in the permit renewal
application. In addition, a PPA conducted in April, 2016 was also reviewed to investigate the presence of
priority pollutants in the effluent. Copper, mercury, zinc, chloroform and dichlorobromomethane were
detected in these PPAs. Mercury analysis in all the PPAs was conducted using the wrong analytical
method. The permittee was notified and asked to use 1631 E mercury analysis method in future. A
reasonable potential analysis was conducted for other parameters. None of these parameters had a
potential to violate the state's water quality standards. (See RPA results).
E. Reasonable Potential Analysis
With the approval of Triennial Review (2007-2014) of the NC Water Quality Standard (WQS) by
the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in 2014 and US -EPA (with some
exclusions) on April 6, 2016, NPDES Permitting Unit of the NC Division of Water Resources is
required to implement the new dissolved metal standards in all permits public noticed after April
6, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis using the updated NC WQS was conducted on effluent toxicant data
collected between February, 2010 and August, 2016. Based on this analysis, the following permitting
actions are proposed for this permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring: Lead will receive a water quality -based effluent limit
(WQBEL) since it demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria.
• Monitoring Only: Copper will receive a monitor -only requirement since it did not demonstrate
reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but the maximum
predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration.
Page3of7

Quarterly monitoring requirements for cadmium and silver were added at their PQL i.e. 0.5 gg/1
and 1 µg/1 respectively as the permittee reported these metals at levels less than 1 µg/1 and 5
gg/1 during the previous permit period.
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
their concentration was below detection level or their maximum predicted concentration was
<50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic, Beryllium, Chloroform, Chromium, Cyanide,
Dichlorobromomethane, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium and Toluene. The facility will continue
monitoring heavy metals under pretreatment LTMP. (See attached spreadsheet with RPA results)
RPA results were also used to address the permittee's request to remove copper, zinc, silver and toluene
monitoring from this permit. Monitoring requirements for toluene and zinc monitoring were removed from
the permit. Monitoring requirements for other requested metals were not removed from the permit
according to guidance for implementation of dissolved metal standards.
F. Aquatic Toxicity Testing
Permit holder is required to perform quarterly Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests using Ceroidaphnia
Dubia at an effluent concentration of 50%. Total 26 WET tests were performed from February, 2010 to
August, 2016. The facility passed all the toxicity tests. The permit renewal application included four
second species toxicity tests with passing results.
G. Instream Monitoring
Upstream monitoring station is located at U.S. 74/76 and downstream station is at railroad crossing on
White Marsh (See Map in the permit). The permittee monitored temperature, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity and fecal coliform at both stations. It was observed that except conductivity all the
parameter values did not change significantly in upstream and downstream samples. The instream data
showed that the dissolved oxygen level in White Marsh goes below 5 mg/1 during summer. Fecal coliform
level in the downstream samples was slightly higher than the upstream samples. The facility never
violated fecal coliform limit during previous permit cycle therefore it might not be responsible for the
higher downstream count. The discharge from the facility is not responsible any impairment in White
Marsh.
The permittee requested to remove instream monitoring in this permit cycle. Instream monitoring of
fecal coliform was removed from the permit as the receiving stream i.e. White Marsh is not impaired for
fecal coliform according to 2016 303d list. The permittee is required to monitor dissolved oxygen,
temperature and conductivity upstream and downstream of the discharge point in this permit cycle
according to 15A NCAC 02B.0508. The permittee is also required to collect upstream hardness data on
quarterly basis to calculate the permit limitations for hardness dependent dissolved metals.
H. Monitoring Frequency Reduction
The permittee requested to reduce the frequency of monitoring for BOD5, TSS, NH3-N and fecal coliform
in the permit renewal application. DWR (DWQ then) Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities was used to approve this request.
Whiteville WRF met all criteria listed in the above mentioned guidance. As a result, it will monitor these
four parameter twice a week during next permit cycle. Table 3 shows the analysis results used to
determine monitoring frequency reduction.
The permittee also requested to remove effluent temperature monitoring from the permit due to the
fact the facility mainly treats domestic water and the wastewater is not subject to any unexpected
temperature fluctuations. It is also not affecting the temperature of the receiving waters. The
Page 4 of 7

did not approve this request and the permittee will continue monitoring effluent temperature according
to 15A NCAC 02B.0508.
Table — 3 Monitoring Frequency Reduction Analysis
Permit Limit
Parameter
BODs
NIim-N
TSS3
Fecal
Coliform3'4'5
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Monthly Average
5.0 mg/1
10 mg/1
1.8 mg/1
4.9 mg/1
30 mg/1
200/100m1
Weekly Average
7.5 mg/1
15 mg/1
5.4 mg/1
14.7 mg/1
45 mg/1
400/100m1
3 Year Average
1.56 mg/1
1.80 mg/1
0.02 mg/1
0 mg/1
3.81 mg/1
15/100m1
50% of Monthly Average
Permit Limit
2.5 mg/1
5.0 mg/1
0.9 mg/1
2.45 mg/1
15 mg/1
100/100m1
Number of Daily Values Above
200% of Monthly Average
0
0
0
0
0
1*
Notes:
1. No civil penalty assessment for violating permit limits for any of these parameters.
2. Facility is not currently under an SOC for any of these parameters.
3. Year around permit limits
4. Geometric mean values
* Number of Daily Values Above 200% of Weekly Average.
I. Inactive Wastewater Pond
During the permit period starting from September 1, 2004 and ending on August 31, 2009, the permittee
removed two operational structures from service following the treatment plant upgrade. They are : (a)
Sludge Holding Pond (Referred as Wastewater Pond in this permit); and (b) Four Sludge Handing Basins.
These structures were potential sources of surface water contamination and had contributed to permit
violations. During last permit cycle, a special condition was added to the permit for complete
decommissioning of these two structures. The DWR's Wilmington Regional Office monitored and
inspected the closure of four sludge handling basins during the last permit period. The permittee closed
the inactive wastewater pond but the Regional Office was not requested to inspect the pond and approve
its closure. Since, the closure requirements and actions listed in the previous NPDES permit and the
Division's Closure Guidelines were not followed by the permittee, the Regional Office requested NPDES
Complex Permitting Unit to add a special condition in this permit for Inactive Wastewater Pond closure
(See A.(5) in the permit).
IV. LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Current conditions, as well as the basis for the limits are summarized in Table 4.
itions and Proposed Changes
Parameter
Current Limit/Condition
' Change from
Previous Permit
"
Basis for Condition/Change
M00ddy
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow
3.0 MGD
No Change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BODs (Apr. 1— Oct. 31)
5.0 mg/1
7.5 mg/1
No Change in
limits,
Reduced effluent
monitoring
frequency
Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitation
DWR's Criteria for Reduction of
Monitoring for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
BODs (Nov. 1 — Mar. 31)
10 mg/1
15 mg/1
TSS
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
No Change in
limits,
Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR
133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406
Page 5 of 7

Reduced effluent
monitoring
frequency
DWR's Criteria for Reduction of
Monitoring for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
NH3-N (Apr. 1 — Oct. 31)
1.8 mg/1
5.4 mg/1
No Change in
limits,
Reduced effluent
monitoring
frequency
Based on a water quality model
DWR's Criteria for Reduction of
Monitoring for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
NH3-N (Nov. 1 — Mar. 31)
4.9 mg/1
14.7 mg/l
Fecal coliform
.
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
No change in
limits,
Reduced effluent
monitoring
frequency,
Instream
monitoring
removed
State WQ standards, 15A NCAC 2B
.0200
DWR's Criteria for Reduction of
Monitoring for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Stream is not impaired for fecal
coliform
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 S.U.
No Change
State WQ standards, 15A NCAC 2B
.0200
Conductivity
No Effluent Monitoring
Instream Monitoring
Added effluent
monitoring and
no change in
instream
monitoring
Facility treats domestic and industrial
wastewater
15A NCAC 02B.0508
DO, Temperature
Effluent and Instream Monitoring
No Change
15A NCAC 02B.0508
Total residual chlorine
28.0 µg/l
No Change
Daily Max limit to protect for acute
toxicity
Hardness —Total as
[CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)]
No Monitoring
Added quarterly
monitoring for
effluent and
upstream
hardness
Revised water quality standards and
EPA's guidelines on hardness
dependent metals
Oil & Grease
30 mg/1
60 mg/1
Removed limit
and monitoring
Deferred to LTMP
Total Nitrogen / Total
Phosphorus / TKN /
Nitrate + Nitrite
Monitoring only
No Change
15A NCAC 02B .0508
Toluene
Limit and Monitoring
Removed limit
and monitoring
Based on RPA results
Total Cadmium
No Monitoring
Added quarterly
monitoring at
PQL
NPDES permitting guidance for
Dissolved Metals
Total Copper
Monitoring only
No Change
Based on RPA results and revised water
quality standards
Total Lead
No Limit and Monitoring
Added limit and
monitoring
Based on RPA results and revised water
quality standards
Total Silver
Monitoring only
Requires to
monitor
quarterly at PQL
NPDES permitting guidance for
Dissolved Metals
Total Zinc
Limit and Monitoring
Removed limit
and monitoring
Based on RPA results and revised water
quality standards
Total Mercury
Mercury Limit and Monitoring
Limit and
Monitoring
frequency
changed
DWR Mercury TMDL permitting
implementation guidance
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Annual
3 Times during
the permit cycle
40 CFR 122
Page 6 of 7

V. OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES
• To meet new federal regulations for electronic reporting Special Condition A. (5) has been
added describing requirements for submittal of electronic DMRs.
• Special Condition A. (5) Inactive Wastewater Pond has been added.
• Removed Mercury Reopener condition from the previous permit.
VI. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 11/29/2016
Permit Scheduled to Issue (tentative): 01/23/2017
VII. STATE CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Trupti Desai at [phone] or [e-mail].
Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit development:
• Draft permit
• RPA analysis
• Mercury analysis
• Hardness Dependent Metals Implementation Fact Sheet
Page 7 of 7

Permit No.NC0021920
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, 1.tg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, 1.tg/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/1
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [ln 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-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[1n hardness]-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER* { 1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^ {1.273 [In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER* { 1.46203-[ln hardness] (0.145712) } • e^ {1.273 [ln hardness]-4.705 }
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No.NC0021920
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 • e1'{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (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.NC0021920
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) x (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotai 1 + { [Kpo] [ss('+a'] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Ow) (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.NC0021920
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 hermit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source) -
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
94.6 mg/L
Average of 5 Effluent Pollutant
Scans
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25.0 mg/L
Default Value
7Q10 summer (cfs)
4.7
1 Q 10 (cfs)
3.92
Permitted Flow (MGD)
3.0
Date: 11/29/2016
Permit Writer: Trupti Desai
Page 4 of 4

City of Whiteville
NC0021920
Qw (MGD) = 3.00
1Q10S (cfs) = 3.92
7Q10S (cfs) = 4.70
7QIOW (cfs) = 9.10
30Q2 (cfs) = 10.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 201.00
Receiving Stream: White Marsh
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
WWTP/WFP Class:
IWC% ® 1QIOS =
IWC% @ 7Q1OS =
IWC% ® 7Q1OW =
IWC% [Q 30Q2 =
IW%C Q QA =
Stream Class:
HUC 03040206
Translators
Whiteville WRF 1 IV
54.25904317
49.73262032
33.81818182
31.74061433
2.261123268
C, Sw
Outfall. 001
Qw = 3 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (me/L)
Acute = 62.76 mg/L
Chronic = 59.61 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
J
C/
a
crt F
Z
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
n # DaMax Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Chronic Applied
Standard ACIllC
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ire I
ug 1.
16 0
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW): 626.6
_ _ _ - _ _ -
Chronic (FW) 301.6
Max MDL =5___ _ _ _
Chronic (HH) 442.3
Max MDL = 5
No detects
-_-_---_--- -------
-------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Beryllium
NC
t,.: FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
6 0
Note: n <- 9
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Acute: 119.80
___ _ ______ _________________________________
Chronic: 13.07
Max MDL - t
No detects
Cadmium
NC
1.1375 FW(7Q10s) 7.2327
ug/L
18 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 13.330
_ _ _ _____ _________-___-___________________
Chronic: 2.287
Max MDL = I
Monitoring at PQL
Chromium III
NC
239.8796 FW(7Q10s) 1923.5418
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 3,545.1
Chronic: 482.3
Chromium VI
NC
1 I FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/I.
0 0
N/A
Acute: 29.5
Chronic: 22.1
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
Tot Cr value(s)
18 1
< 50 and < Cr VI
2.9
Allowable Cw
Max reported value = 2.5
a No Monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < the Chromium VI Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
ii 1598 FW(7Q10s) 24.928-1
uc I
47 10
23.32
Acute: 45.94
___ _ _ _ -
Chroni-- -- c: 33.30
No value> Allowable Cw
No RP , Predicted Max a 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring_ _ _ - - - -
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
18 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 40.5
-__ ______ _ __-_
Chronic: 10.1
Max MDL = 10
No detects
_________ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
Lead
NC
,.7586 FW(7Q10s) 21(.7.372
i :I
Is 2
19.500
Acute: 388.409
-__ _ -----_ _ _ -
Chronic: 15.601
No value > Allowable Cw
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
- - - - ------------ __----
Page 1 of 2
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, rpa
11/9/2016

City of Whiteville
NC0021920
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw=3MGD
Molybdenum
NC
2000 11H(7Q10s)
ug/L
14 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: NO WQS
—hron_ — — _ —
Cic: 4,021.5
Max MDL= 10
No detects
__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- - - - - —
Nickel
Nickel
NC
NC
77.6596 FW(7Q10s) 730.3364
25.0000 WS(7QI0s)
µg/L.
PO-
19 0
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW): 1,346.0
_ _ _—__ __—_
Chronic (FW)_156.2
Max MDL = 10 _
Chronic(WS): — —50.3— —
Max MDL = 10
No detects
---- —_—_-------- —___________
— — — — —�— — — — — — — — —
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7QI0s) 56
ug/L
18 0
NODETECTS
Acute: 103.2
Chronic: 10.1
Max MDL= 10
No detects
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 1.4437
u
47 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 2.661
Chronic: 0.121
Max MDL = 5
Monitoring at PQL
Zinc
NC
264.6481 FW(7Q10s) 274.2083
ug/L
58 57
88.0
Acute: 505.4
—_ _ _ — — _ —
Chronic: 532.1
No value> Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required _ — — _ _ _ — —
Tolune
NC
I I FW(7Q10s)
µ
58 1
1.22000
Acute: NO WQS
—g/L _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ —
Chronic: 22.11828
No value> Allowable Cw
1-r,�
1- NJ O (2'.
'efikx-
—
Chloroform
C
2000 NH(Qavg)
µg/l.
3 2
Note: n < 9
1,imited data set
114.60000
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
___ _ _—_
Chronic: 88451.61290
No value> Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required — _ — _ _ _ _ ---
Dichlorobromomethane
C
27 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
I.imited data set
56.70000
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
_
Chronic: 1194.09677
No value> Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required _ — — — — — — —
Page 2 of 2
NCD021920 RPA 10102016, pa
11/9/2016

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
O utfa l l
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
['Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
Data Source(s)
❑CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
City of Whiteville
Whiteville WRF / IV
NC0021920
001
3.000
White Marsh
03040206
C, SW
4.70
9.10
10.00
201.00
3.92
94.6 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L (Avg)
59.61 mg/L
62.76 mg/L
Follow directions for data entry. In some cases a
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from. Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Part0
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Par25
Name
was
Type Chronic "cdd'gr
Acute
PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
uglL
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
1.1375
FW
7.2327
uglL
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
nail.
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
239.8796
FW
1923.5418
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
16.5598
FW
24.9284
uglL
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ugrL
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
7.7586
FW
210.7472
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
77.6596
FW
730.3364
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
1.4437
uglL
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
264.6481
FW
274.2083
uglL
Tolune
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
pg/L
Chloroform
I luman Health
C
2000
HH
pg/L
Dichlorobromomethane
Human Health
C
-7
Hl-i
pg/L
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, input
11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL•
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/23/2011 93 93 Std Dev. 3.7815
2 5/31/2012 101 101 Mean 94.6000
3 4/16/2013 92 92 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 7/11/2013 92 92 n 5
5 4/7/2016 95 95 10th Per value 92.00 mg/L
6 Average Value 94.60 mg/L
7 Max. Value 101.00 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
H2
Upstream Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/7/2016 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 Mean 25.0000
3 C.V. 0.0000
4 n 1
5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
NC0021920 RPA 10102016. data
- 1 - 11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/10/2011 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 7/18/2011 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/22/2011 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 6/11/2012 < 5 2.5 n
5 9/17/2012 < 5 2.5
6 11/26/2012 < 5 2.5
7 2/18/2013 < 5 2.5
8 4/11/2013 < 5 2.5
9 8/12/2013 < 5 2.5
10 2/18/2014 < 5 2.5
11 5/13/2014 < 5 2.5
12 8/24/2014 < 5 2.5
13 6/10/2014 < 5 2.5
14 6/15/2015 < 5 2.5
15 6/20/2016 < 5 2.5
16 7/8/2016 < 5 2.5
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Par03
Beryllium
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
16
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 2.5 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
Date Data
9/23/2011 < 1
5/29/2012 < 1
4/11/2013 < 1
8/24/2014 < 1
6/15/2015 < 1
4/7/2016 < 1
BDL=1I2DL Results
0.5 Std Dev.
0.5 Mean
0.5 C.V.
0.5 n
0.5
0.5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
6
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 0.50 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw O DETECTS ug/L
-2-
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Date
1 1/10/2011
2 7/18/2011
3 9/22/2011
4 6/11/2012
5 9/17/2012
6 11/26/2012
7 2/18/2013
8 4/11/2013
9 8/12/2013
10 2/18/2014
11 5/13/2014
12 6/10/2014
13 8/24/2014
14 6/15/2015
15 4/7/2016
16 6/20/2016
17 7/8/2016
18 8/8/2016
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Data
BDL=1!2DL Results
1 0.5 Std Dev.
1 0.5 Mean
1 0.5 C.V.
1 0.5 n
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL•
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
18
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 0.500 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
Par10
Chromium, Total
Date Data BDL=1/20L Results
1 1/10/2011 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 7/18/2011 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/22/2011 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 6/11/2012 < 5 2.5 n
5 9/17/2012 < 5 2.5
6 11/26/2012 < 5 2.5 MultFactor =
7 2/18/2013 < 5 2.5 Max. Value
8 4/11/2013 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 8/12/2013 < 5 2.5
10 2/18/2014 0.11 0.11
11 5/13/2014 < 5 2.5
12 6/10/2014 < 5 2.5
13 8/24/2014 < 5 2.5
14 6/15/2015 < 5 2.5
15 4/7/2016 < 5 2.5
16 6/20/2016 < 5 2.5
17 7/8/2016 < 5 2.5
18 8/8/2016 < 5 2.5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.5633
2.3672
0.2380
18
1.16
2.5 Ng/L
2.9 pg/L
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
- 3 - 11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pall
Copper
Date Data
2/2/2010 < 10
4/6/2010 17
6/14/2010 17
7/6/2010 < 10
8/9/2010 < 10
10/5/2010 < 10
1/4/2011 14
1/10/2011 < 10
4/5/2011 11
7/5/2011 12
7/18/2011 22
9/22/2011 11
10/4/2011 12
1/3/2012 < 10
1/30/2012 < 10
4/24/2012 < 10
6/11/2012 < 10
7/3/2012 < 10
9/17/2012 11
10/2/2012 < 10
11/26/2012 < 5
1/8/2013 < 10
2/18/2013 < 10
4/2/2013 < 10
4/11/2013 < 10
7/1/2013 < 10
8/12/2013 < 10
10/1/2013 13
1/7/2014 < 10
2/17/2014 < 10
4/1/2014 < 10
5/13/2014 < 10
6/10/2014 < 10
7/8/2014 < 10
8/24/2014 < 10
10/7/2014 < 10
1/6/2015 < 10
4/7/2015 < 10
6/15/2015 < 10
7/9/2015 < 10
10/8/2015 < 10
4/5/2016 < 10
4/7/2016 < 10
6/20/2016 < 10
7/5/2016 < 10
7/8/2016 < 10
8/8/2016 < 10
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL Results
5 Std Dev. 4.0949
17 Mean 6.8617
17 C.V. 0.5968
5 n 47
5
5 Mult Factor = 1.06
14 Max. Value 22.00 ug/L
5 Max. Pred Cw 23.32 ug/L
11
12
22
11
12
5
5
5
5
5
11
5
2.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Par12
Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/10/2011 < 5 5 Std Dev.
2 7/18/2011 < 5 5 Mean
3 9/22/2011 < 5 5 C.V.
4 6/11/2012 < 5 5 n
5 9/17/2012 < 5 5
6 11/26/2012 < 5 5
7 2/18/2013 < 5 5
8 4/11/2013 < 5 5
9 8/12/2013 < 5 5
10 2/18/2014 < 5 5
11 5/13/2014 < 5 5
12 6/10/2014 < 5 5
13 8/24/2014 < 5 5
14 6/15/2015 < 5 5
15 4/7/2016 < 5 5
16 6/20/2016 < 5 5
17 7/8/2016 < 5 5
18 8/8/2016 < 5 5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.00
0.0000
18
Mutt Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw O DETECTS ug/L
-4-
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/10/2011 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 7/18/2011 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 9/22/2011 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 6/11/2012 < 5 2.5 n
5 9/17/2012 13 13
6 11/26/2012 7 7 Mult Factor =
7 2/18/2013 < 5 2.5 Max. Value
8 4/11/2013 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 8/12/2013 < 5 2.5
10 2/18/2014 < 5 2.5
11 5/13/2014 < 5 2.5
12 6/10/2014 < 5 2.5
13 8/24/2014 < 5 2.5
14 6/15/2015 < 5 2.5
15 4/7/2016 < 6 3
16 6/20/2016 < 7 3.5
17 7/8/2016 < 8 4
18 8/8/2016 < 9 4.5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par16
Molybdenum
2.6097
3.6111
0.7227
18
1.50
13.000 ug/L
19.500 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/10/2011 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 7/18/2011 < 10 5 Mean
3 6/11/2012 < 10 5 C.V.
4 9/17/2012 < 10 5 n
5 11/26/2012 < 10 5
6 2/18/2013 < 10 5
7 8/12/2013 < 10 5
8 2/19/2014 < 10 5
9 6/10/2014 < 10 5
10 8/24/2014 < 10 5
11 6/15/2015 < 10 5
12 6/20/2016 < 10 5
13 7/8/2016 < 10 5
14 8/8/2016 < 10 5
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
14
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
- 5 - 11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 1/10/2011 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 7/18/2011 < 10 5 Mean
3 9/22/2011 < 10 5 C.V.
4 6/11/2012 < 10 5 n
5 9/17/2012 < 10 5
6 11/26/2012 < 10 5 Mult Factor =
7 2/18/2013 < 10 5 Max. Value
8 4/11/2013 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw
9 8/12/2013 < 10 5
10 2/18/2014 < 10 5
11 5/13/2014 < 10 5
12 6/10/2014 < 10 5
13 8/24/2014 < 10 5
14 8/24/2014 < 10 5
15 6/15/2015 < 10 5
16 4/7/2016 < 10 5
17 6/20/2016 < 10 5
18 7/8/2016 < 10 5
19 8/8/2016 < 10 5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par19
Selenium
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
19
1.00
5.0 pg/L
0 DETECTS pg/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/10/2011 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 7/18/2011 < 10 5 Mean
3 9/22/2011 < 10 5 C.V.
4 6/11/2012 < 10 5 n
5 9/17/2012 < 10 5
6 11/26/2012 < 10 5
7 2/18/2013 < 10 5
8 4/11/2013 < 10 5
9 8/13/2013 < 10 5
10 2/18/2014 < 10 5
11 5/13/2014 < 10 5
12 6/10/2014 < 10 5
13 8/24/2014 < 10 5
14 6/15/2015 < 10 5
15 4/7/2016 < 10 5
16 6/20/2016 < 10 5
17 7/8/2016 < 10 5
18 8/8/2016 < 10 5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
18
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Silver
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/2/2010 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 4/6/2010 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 6/14/2010 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 7/6/2010 < 5 2.5 n
5 8/9/2010 < 5 2.5
6 10/5/2010 < 5 2.5
7 1/4/2011 < 5 2.5
8 1/10/2011 < 5 2.5
9 4/5/2011 < 5 2.5
10 7/5/2011 < 5 2.5
11 7/18/2011 < 5 2.5
12 9/22/2011 < 5 2.5
13 10/4/2011 < 5 2.5
14 1/3/2012 < 5 2.5
15 1/30/2012 < 5 2.5
16 4/24/2012 < 5 2.5
17 6/11/2012 < 5 2.5
18 7/3/2012 < 5 2.5
19 9/17/2012 < 5 2.5
20 10/2/2012 < 5 2.5
21 11 /26/2012 < 5 2.5
22 1/8/2013 < 5 2.5
23 2/18/2013 < 5 2.5
24 4/2/2013 < 5 2.5
25 4/11/2013 < 5 2.5
26 7/1/2013 < 5 2.5
27 8/12/2013 < 5 2.5
28 10/1/2013 < 5 2.5
29 1/7/2014 < 5 2.5
30 2/17/2014 < 5 2.5
31 4/1/2014 < 5 2.5
32 5/13/2014 < 5 2.5
33 6/10/2014 < 5 2.5
34 7/8/2014 < 5 2.5
35 8/24/2014 < 5 2.5
36 10/7/2014 < 5 2.5
37 1/6/2015 < 5 2.5
38 4/7/2015 < 5 2.5
39 6/15/2015 < 5 2.5
40 7/9/2015 < 5 2.5
41 10/8/2015 < 5 2.5
42 1/12/2016 < 5 2.5
43 4/5/2016 < 5 2.5
44 4/7/2016 < 5 2.5
45 6/20/2016 < 5 2.5
46 7/5/2016 < 5 2.5
47 7/8/2016 < 5 2.5
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par21
Zinc
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
47
Mult Factor = 1.00
Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Date
8/25/2015
9/1/2015
9/10/2015
9/15/2015
9/22/2015
10/2/2015
10/8/2015
10/15/2015
10/20/2015
10/29/2015
11/5/2015
11/12/2015
11/19/2015
11/24/2015
12/1/2015
12/10/2015
12/15/2015
12/22/2015
12/31/2015
1/8/2016
1/12/2016
1/19/2016
1/26/2016
2/4/2016
2/11/2016
2/16/2016
2/23/2016
3/1/2016
3/8/2016
3/15/2016
3/24/2016
3/29/2016
4/5/2016
4/7/2016
4/12/2016
4/19/2016
4/26/2016
5/5/2016
5/10/2016
5/17/2016
5/24/2016
5/31/2016
6/9/2016
6/14/2016
6/20/2016
6/23/2016
6/28/2016
7/5/2016
7/8/2016
7/12/2016
7/19/2016
7/26/2016
8/2/2016
8/8/2016
8/9/2016
8/16/2016
8/23/2016
8/30/2016
Data
39
41
< 10
35
59
88
32
34
37
20
14
41
59
47
46
31
37
30
32
34
33
32
25
26
36
24
24
29
25
25
22
21
20
22
20
22
17
23
24
19
22
18
32
21
37
29
25
28
18
28
21
22
22
18
20
23
23
25
BDL=112DL Results
39 Std Dev.
41 Mean
5 C.V.
35 n
59
88 Mult Factor =
32 Max. Value
34 Max. Pred Cw
37
20
14
41
59
47
46
31
37
30
32
34
33
32
25
26
36
24
24
29
25
25
22
21
20
22
20
22
17
23
24
19
22
18
32
21
37
29
25
28
18
28
21
22
22
18
20
23
23
25
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
12.6754
29.0000
0.4371
58
1.00
88.0 ug/L
88.0 ug/L
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
- 7 - 11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par22
Tolune
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/1/2014 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 4/15/2014 < 1 0.5 Mean
3 5/6/2014 < 1 0.5 C.V.
4 5/20/2014 < 1 0.5 n
5 6/3/2014 < 1 0.5
6 6/17/2014 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor =
7 7/8/2014 < 1 0.5 Max. Value
8 7/22/2014 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 8/5/2014 < 1 0.5
10 8/19/2014 < 1 0.5
11 9/2/2014 < 1 0.5
12 9/16/2014 < 1 0.5
13 10/7/2014 < 1 0.5
14 10/21/2014 < 1 0.5
15 11/4/2014 < 1 0.5
16 11/18/2014 < 1 0.5
17 12/2/2014 < 1 0.5
18 12/16/2014 < 1 0.5
19 1/6/2015 < 1 0.5
20 1/20/2015 < 1 0.5
21 2/3/2015 < 1 0.5
22 2/17/2015 < 1 0.5
23 3/3/2015 < 1 0.5
24 3/17/2015 < 1 0.5
25 4/7/2015 < 1 0.5
26 4/21/2015 < 1 0.5
27 5/5/2015 < 1 0.5
28 5/19/2015 < 1 0.5
29 6/2/2015 < 1 0.5
30 6/16/2015 < 1 0.5
31 7/9/2015 < 1 0.5
32 7/21/2015 < 1 0.5
33 8/4/2015 < 1 0.5
34 8/18/2015 < 1 0.5
35 9/1/2015 < 1 0.5
36 9/15/2015 < 1 0.5
37 10/8/2015 < 1 0.5
38 10/20/2015 < 1 0.5
39 11/5/2015 < 1 0.5
40 11/19/2015 < 1 0.5
41 12/1/2015 < 1 0.5
42 12/15/2015 < 1 0.5
43 1/12/2016 < 1 0.5
44 1/19/2016 < 1 0.5
45 2/4/2016 < 1 0.5
46 2/16/2016 < 1 0.5
47 3/1/2016 < 1 0.5
48 3/15/2016 < 1 0.5
49 4/5/2016 < 1 0.5
50 4/19/2016 1.22 1.22
51 5/5/2016 < 1 0.5
52 5/17/2016 < 1 0.5
53 6/9/2016 < 1 0.5
54 6/23/2016 < 1 0.5
55 7/5/2016 < 1 0.5
56 7/19/2016 < 1 0.5
57 8/2/2016 < 1 0.5
58 8/16/2016 < 1 0.5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL•
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par23
Chloroform
0.0945
0.5124
0.1845
58
1.00
1.220000 ug/L
1.220000 Ng/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/22/2011 14.0 14.5 Std Dev.
2 5/29/2012 38.2 38.2 Mean
3 4/11/2013 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
18.1667
18.4000
0.6000
3
Mult Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 38.200000 Ng/L
Max. Pred Cw 114.600000 pglL
-8-
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
11/9/2016

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par24
Dichlorobromomethane
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 9/22/2011 6.5 6.5 Std Dev. 8.5510
2 5/29/2012 18.9 18.9 Mean 9.3000
3 4/11/2013 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3
5
6 Mult Factor = 3.00
7 Max. Value 18.900000 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 56.700000 pgfL
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
NC0021920 RPA 10102016, data
11/9/2016

11/9/16 WQS = 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-5
Facility Name: City of Whiteville-Whitemarsh WWTP
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
2.5
2.4
3.2
2.7
5
2.5
0.5
6.5
9
7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2/4/10 2.5
2/9/10 2.4
2/16/10 3.2
2/25/10 2.7
3/2/10 5
3/9/10 2.5
3/16/10 < 1
3/25/10 6.5
4/1/10 9
4/6/10 7
4/15/10 < 1
4/20/10 < 1
4/27/10 < 1
5/4/10 < 1
5/11/10 < 1
5/18/10 < 1
5/25/10 < 1
6/1/10 < 1
6/8/10 < 1
6/15/10 < 1
6/22/10 < 1
6/29/10 < 1
7/8/10 < 1
7/13/10 < 1
7/20/10 < 1
7/27/10 < 1
8/3/10 < 1
Annual Limit 24 ng/L with
Quarterly Monitoring
MMP Required
4.700
3.000
cfs
WQBEL = 24.13 ng/L
47 ng/L

8/12/10
8/17/10
8/24/10
8/31/10
9/7/10
9/14/10
9/21/10
9/28/10
10/7/10
10/14/10
10/19/10
10/26/10
11/2/10
11/9/10
11/17/10
11/23/10
11/30/10
12/7/10
12/14/10
12/21/10
12/30/10
1/13/11
1/18/11
1/27/11
2/1/11
2/10/11
2/15/11
2/22/11
3/1/11
3/10/11
3/15/11
3/22/11
3/29/11
4/5/11
<
<
<
2.5
3.5
1.2
1.9
1.5
1
5.8
1.4
40
1.8
1
1
1
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.4
1
1
1
1.2
3.3
1.7
2.5
1.2
2.9
6.3
3.1
1.9
1.4
2.1
2.1
3.9
2.8
2.5
3.5
1.2
1.9
1.5
0.5
5.8
1.4
40
1.8
0.5
0.5
1
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.4
1
0.5
0.5
1.2
3.3
1.7
2.5
1.2
2.9
6.3
3.1
1.9
1.4
2.1
2.1
3.9
2.8
2.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2010

4/12/11
4/19/11
4/26/11
5/3/11
5/10/11
5/17/11
5/24/11
5/31/11
6/7/11
6/14/11
6/21/11
6/28/11
7/5/11
7/14/11
7/21/11
7/26/11
8/2/11
8/11/11
8/16/11
8/23/11
8/30/11
9/8/11
9/13/11
9/20/11
9/29/11
10/4/11
10/13/11
10/18/11
10/25/11
11/1/11
11/10/11
11/15/11
11/22/11
11/30/11
<
4
2.1
1
2.9
1.9
13.3
2.3
3.5
2.1
7.1
2.4
3.4
6.7
13
4.2
6.1
5.1
2
3
2.3
3.7
2.9
6
1.7
9.8
5.2
2
1.4
2.2
2
3.4
1.5
6.8
5.6
4
2.1
0.5
2.9
1.9
13.3
2.3
3.5
2.1
7.1
2.4
3.4
6.7
13
4.2
6.1
5.1
2
3
2.3
3.7
2.9
6
1.7
9.8
5.2
2
1.4
2.2
2
3.4
1.5
6.8
5.6

12/6/11
12/13/11
12/20/11
12/29/11
1/3/12
1/10/12
1/17/12
1/24/12
1/31/12
2/7/12
2/14/12
2/21/12
2/29/12
3/8/12
3/15/12
3/20/12
3/27/12
4/3/12
4/10/12
4/17/12
4/24/12
5/1/12
5/8/12
5/15/12
5/22/12
5/29/12
6/5/12
6/12/12
6/19/12
6/26/12
7/3/12
7/10/12
7/17/12
7/24/12
2.8
3.5
1.5
2.9
1.4
2.2
9.9
4.8
1
3.1
2.2
4.9
3.9
117
6
8.4
4.6
5.5
5.4
7.2
1.7
9.7
1.9
1.1
1.8
5.4
1.9
2.4
1.9
4.2
1.8
2.3
2.2
1.9
2.8
3.5
1.5
2.9
1.4
2.2
9.9
4.8
0.5
3.1
2.2
4.9
3.9
117
6
8.4
4.6
5.5
5.4
7.2
1.7
9.7
1.9
1.1
1.8
5.4
1.9
2.4
1.9
4.2
1.8
2.3
2.2
1.9
> TBEL
3.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2011

8/2/12 2.7
8/7/12 2.2
8/14/12 1.1
8/21/12 1.8
8/28/12 2.5
9/4/12 5.3
9/13/12 3.4
9/20/12 2.3
9/25/12 11
10/2/12 2.8
10/9/12 < 1
10/16/12 5.6
10/23/12 7.4
10/30/12 2.2
11/6/12 2
11/13/12 2.9
11/20/12 3.8
11/27/12 6.2
12/4/12 4.1
12/13/12 2.1
12/18/12 1.5
12/28/12 1.6
1/3/13 1.3
1/8/13 < 1
1/17/13 1
1/22/13 1.6
1/29/13 < 1
2/5/13 1.6
2/12/13 < 1
2/21/13 < 1
2/26/13 < 1
3/5/13 2.3
3/14/13 1.2
3/19/13 < 1
2.7
2.2
1.1
1.8
2.5
5.3
3.4
2.3
11
2.8
0.5
5.6
7.4
2.2
2
2.9
3.8
6.2
4.1
2.1
1.5
1.6
1.3
0.5
1
1.6
0.5
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.3
1.2
0.5
5.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2012

3/28/13 < 1.1
4/2/13 < 1
4/9/13 < 1
4/16/13 < 1
4/23/13 4.1
4/30/13 < 1
5/14/13 3.1
5/21/13 1.5
5/28/13 1.1
6/6/13 1.1
6/13/13 2.3
6/20/13 4.6
6/25/13 1.2
7/2/13 11
7/9/13 3.8
7/16/13 3.1
7/23/13 3
8/1/13 5.1
8/6/13 1.5
8/13/13 1.9
8/20/13 1.5
8/27/13 3
9/3/13 2.5
9/10/13 1.8
9/17/13 1.6
9/24/13 1
10/1/13 1
10/8/13 2
10/15/13 < 1
10/22/13 1.3
10/29/13 1.8
11/5/13 2
11/12/13 < 1
11/19/13 4.3
0.55
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.1
0.5
3.1
1.5
1.1
1.1
2.3
4.6
1.2
11
3.8
3.1
3
5.1
1.5
1.9
1.5
3
2.5
1.8
1.6
1
1
2
0.5
1.3
1.8
2
0.5
4.3

11/26/13
12/3/13
12/10/13
12/17/13
12/26/13
12/31/13
1/7/14
1/14/14
1/21/14
1/28/14
2/4/14
2/11/14
2/18/14
2/25/14
3/4/14
3/11/14
3/18/14
3/25/14
4/1/14
4/8/14
4/15/14
4/22/14
4/29/14
5/6/14
5/13/14
5/20/14
5/27/14
6/3/14
6/10/14
6/17/14
6/24/14
7/1/14
7/8/14
7/15/14
<
<
1
4.8
4.4
2.6
5
2.2
5.1
2.7
2.7
1.6
1.5
1
1
4.2
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.1
2.4
4
1
1.5
1.9
1.5
4.6
4
1.9
4.3
2.8
1.7
1.3
1.3
1
0.5
4.8
4.4
2.6
5
2.2
5.1
2.7
2.7
1.6
1.5
0.5
0.5
4.2
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.1
2.4
4
0.5
1.5
1.9
1.5
4.6
4
1.9
4.3
2.8
1.7
1.3
1.3
0.5
2.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2013

7/22/14 < 1
7/29/14 1.1
8/5/14 1.3
8/12/14 1.6
8/19/14 2.8
8/26/14 8.8
9/2/14 3.2
9/9/14 2.7
9/16/14 4.2
9/25/14 1.2
9/30/14 1
10/7/14 < 1
10/14/14 < 1
10/21/14 1.2
10/28/14 2.1
11/4/14 7
11/12/14 3
11/18/14 4
11/25/14 11
12/2/14 1.4
12/9/14 3
12/16/14 1.2
12/23/14 1.3
12/30/14 4.5
1/6/15 1.9
1/15/15 1.7
1/20/15 < 1
1/27/15 1.5
2/3/15 < 1
2/10/15 < 1
2/17/15 4.1
2/27/15 1.9
3/3/15 1.6
3/10/15 < 1
0.5
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.8
8.8
3.2
2.7
4.2
1.2
1
0.5
0.5
1.2
2.1
7
3
4
11
1.4
3
1.2
1.3
4.5
1.9
1.7
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
4.1
1.9
1.6
0.5
2.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2014

3/17/15 < 1
3/24/15 < 1
3/31/15 1.4
4/7/15 1.6
4/14/15 < 1
4/21/15 2.3
4/28/15 1.3
5/5/15 1.6
5/14/15 < 1
5/19/15 1
5/26/15 1.1
6/2/15 2.1
6/9/15 < 1
6/16/15 < 1
6/25/15 < 1
7/2/15 < 1
7/9/15 2.1
7/14/15 1.1
7/21/15 1.1
7/28/15 1.7
8/4/15 1
8/11/15 1.6
8/18/15 1.6
8/25/15 1.1
9/3/15 5.5
9/10/15 3.1
9/15/15 3.6
9/22/15 2.4
10/1/15 4.2
10/8/15 8.5
10/15/15 12
10/20/15 9.1
10/29/15 11
11/5/15 < 1
0.5
0.5
1.4
1.6
0.5
2.3
1.3
1.6
0.5
1
1.1
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.1
1.1
1.1
1.7
1
1.6
1.6
1.1
5.5
3.1
3.6
2.4
4.2
8.5
12
9.1
11
0.5

11/12/15 9.8
11/19/15 1.4
11/24/15 1.2
12/1/15 < 1
12/10/15 1.8
12/15/15 1.5
12/22/15 2.4
12/31/15 2.9
1/7/16 4.4
1/12/16 2.5
1/19/16 2.6
1/26/16 1.4
2/4/16 < 1
2/11/16 2.1
2/16/16 2.2
2/23/16 1
3/1/16 < 1
3/8/16 1.3
3/15/16 1.6
3/24/16 2
3/29/16 1.1
4/5/16 1.3
4/12/16 < 1
4/19/16 1
4/26/16 1.3
5/5/16 5.4
5/10/16 < 1
5/17/16 < 1
5/24/16 < 1
5/31/16 < 1
6/9/16 1.5
6/14/16 < 1
6/23/16 1
6/28/16 2.6
9.8
1.4
1.2
0.5
1.8
1.5
2.4
2.9
4.4
2.5
2.6
1.4
0.5
2.1
2.2
1
0.5
1.3
1.6
2
1.1
1.3
0.5
1
1.3
5.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1
2.6
2.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015

7/5/16 < 1
7/12/16 < 1
7/19/16 < 1
7/26/16 < 1
8/2/16 < 1
8/9/16 < 1
8/16/16 < 1
8/23/16 < 1
8/30/16 < 1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016

IWC Calculations
Facility: Whiteville WRF
NC0021920
Prepared By: Trupti Desai
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 3
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 4.7
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 9.1
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)
4.7
3
4.65
17.0
0
49.73
34
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
2.01 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); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/I (summer) and 4 mg/I (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/I (year-round)
4.7
3
4.65
1.0
0.22
49.73
1.8
9.1
3
4.65
1.8
0.22
33.82
4.9
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)
NPDES Server/Current Versions/WLA; TB 1/16/2009
1

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check that
f
from PERCS:
all apply
Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data be
Date of Request
7/20/2016
municipal renewal
we said should
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Requestor
Trupti Desai
new industries
(or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Whiteville WRF
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0021920
Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Wilmington
stream reclass.
renewal.
-Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
Lumber
outfall relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS staff:
Other Comments to PERCS:
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR - Sarah Morrison (807-6310)
X
CHO, HIW, LUM, LTN, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD - Monti
Hassan (807-6314)
PERCS
Status
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
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 Pretreatm nt Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP -- I S ( U 14 I ti,ly-6A p j h-1,„LJ -1,4
3b) Modified Program with STMP "-- I .q,)
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGD
Permittedi
Actyal
Time period fo Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
0 I 1
0 * is b1
'� 1
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
Next Cycle:
POC In LTMPI
STMP
Parameter of
(POC)
Check List
POC due to
Non -Concern
D schSPermit
Limit
Re uired EPA* by
Required
by 503
Sludge**
to SIU"e
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
✓
BOD
V
1Z
4
(1M
✓
TSS
V
t�
4
M
Q = Quarterly VNH3
�/
4
Q M
M = Monthly
✓
Arsenic
�/f
4
Q M
-4
Cadmium
4
V
4
Q M
41
Chromium
-/
4
Q M
,I
Copper
,f
✓
4
Q M
Cyanide
4
Q M
Is all data on DMRs?
/
4
Lead
-4
� `
V
4
Q M
YES
V
Mercury
V
if,
4
Q M
NO (attach data)
Molybdenum
4
Q M
4
Nickel
41
✓
4
Q M
Silver
4
Q M
V
Selenium
4
Q M
Zinc
V
iv
4
Q M
Is data in spreadsheet?
Total Nitrogen
4
Q M
YES (email to writer)
Phosphorus
/
4
Q M
NO
✓I"
a+(t/tgl.t
✓
�
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when 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):
NCD021920 Pretreatmet Info Request Form.xlsx
Revised: July 24, 2007

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Division of Water Resources Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: ® NPDES Unit ❑ Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: NC0021920
Regional Login No.: Whiteville WRF
Attn: (Charles Weaver)
From: (Tom Tharrington)
Choose an item. Wilmington Regional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -
discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or 0 No
a. Date of site visit: 03/26/2014
b. Site visit conducted by: Tom Tharrington Water Quality
Permitting Section
c. Inspection report attached? El Yes or El No
d. Person contacted: Newlyn McCullen and their contact information: (910) 642 - 5818 ext.
e. Driving directions: Take US Highway 74/76 West from the Wilmington Regional Office, take the Highway
74/76 Business exit towards Whiteville and turn left on Tram Road. Travel for 0.6 miles then turn left on
Nolan Ave, the treatment plant is located at the end of the road.
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: 34°19'44"N Longitude: 78°40'41.3"W
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: White Marsh
Classification: C;Sw
River Basin and Subbasin No. Lumber, 03-07-58
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Low velocity swamp waters, possible
fishing and secondary recreation.
RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
SEP - 5 2014
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES FOR NEW AND MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: WW 4 (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow: 3.0 MGD
Current permitted flow: 3.0 MGD
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ® Ycs or ❑ No
If no, explain:
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc) consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Ycs n No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site (property lines, wells, etc.)? 0 Yes n No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page I of 6

S. As the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? ElYes • ' �� StVED/DENRJD R
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? El Yes ❑ No El N/A SEP Qual5 20 14
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
Water ity
9. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? El Yes ❑ No ®NIA Permitting Section
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions (Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme: Waste residuals are generated from an extended aeration
oxidation ditch system and are first delivered to an 182,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester after treatment in this
unit it is transferred to an 843,000 gallon sludge storage tank. The waste residuals are removed from the site by
tanker truck via an unloading station and applied as an agricultural supplement by Synagro under contract with
the Town of Whiteville.
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: chlorine and ammonia impacts possible
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): The last inspection of the Pretreatment Program was conducted by Deborah
Gore and Tom Tharrington on October 18, 2013. At that time there were some minor issues noted with Sewer Use
Ordinance (SUO) paperwork and an Industrial Data Summary Form (IDSF) for Columbus Regional Healthcare
had not been received.
III. EXISTING FACILITIES FOR MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes 0 No 0 N/A
ORC: Newlyn L. McCullen Certificate #:987833 Backup ORC: Daniel C. Ward Certificate #:994032
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities:
The influent flow to the wastewater treatment plant enters the headworks by passing through a '/2" mechanical
barscreen and circular grit chamber, screening removed by the bar screen along with the separated grit are moved
by a conveyor to a dumpster for disposal. The primary treated wastewater moves to the influent wetwell where
three 60 hp influent pumps lift the wastewater into the Oxidation Ditch. These influent pumps are controlled by a
SCADA system and are equipped with variable frequency drives (VFD) that control pump speed. Influent
sampling also occurs at this point and currently an Isco® 4700 sampler is in place.
The influent enters into the Eimco® Oxidation Ditch at the anaerobic selector, this chamber receives influent
wastewater and RAS which encourages the growth of PAO organisms for enhanced phosphorus uptake.
Wastewater then moves into the anoxic sections for nitrate removal, wastewater moves repeated through the oxic
and anoxic sections before exiting the oxidation ditch system at the outlet weirs. The oxidation ditch uses four 100
hp VFD motors and gearboxes to control aeration and mixing rates within the ditch. Mixed liquor leaves the ditch
and travels to a distribution box where the flow is evenly split to 3 conventional center fed clarifiers. Settled
sludge travels to a distribution box where it can be returned to the process as RAS or wasted to digestion. Wasted
sludge is transferred to an aerobic digester and storage tank for disposal.
Clarifier effluent travels to a pair of Kruger Hydrotech® discfilters and then to a post aeration basin. The water
is then chlorinated for disinfection as it enters the chlorine contact chamber and dechlorinated with calcium
thiosulfate as it enters the final effluent channel. At the end of the chlorine contact chamber, instruments for
measuring flow, pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature are in place and linked to the SCADA system. Treated
effluent passes from the effluent channel by gravity to the receiving stream, it is sampled as it leaves the channel
by another Isco® 4700 refrigerated sampler.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 6

Component List
• Mechanical bar screen
• Influent meter
• Influent composite sampler
• Grit Removal/Disposal equipment
• Influent pump station with three (3) 60 hp VFD pumps 12"
• Anaerobic Basin/distribution box
• Two(2) 1.5 MGD Oxidation Ditch basins
• Two (2) flow distribution boxes
• Three (3) clarifiers
• Two (2) tertiary discfilters
• Post aeration basin
• Chlorination dosing equipment and contact chamber
• Dechlorination dosing equipment
• Effluent flowmeter
• Effluent composite sampler
• One (1) 182,000 gal aerobic sludge digester
• One (1) 843,000 gallon sludge holding tank
• Truck loading station for Residuals disposal
• Standby Power
Proposed flow: 3.0 MGD
Current permitted flow: 3.0 MGD
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be important
for the permit writer to know (i.e., equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in facility ownership,
etc.) Note: The four sludge holding basins/drying beds permitted in the last cycle have been removed from
the site.
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑ Yes or ® No
If no, please explain: The four (4) sludge holding basins/drying beds have been removed from this site.
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? 0 Yes 0 No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
SEP - 5 2014
Water Quality
Permitting Section
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 6

11: Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, ulease complete the following ex and table if necessarv):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
0 ,
If
se
0 ,
„
0 ,
N
0 ,
„
0 ,
fJ
0 ,
„
0 ,
„
0 ,
„
0 ,
„
0 ,
„
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ® Yes or ❑ No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: Over the last 5 years the majority of issues have been
with mercury sampling but none have been reported since March of 2012. In March -June 2011 issues with fecal
coliform levels related to inadequate chlorine dosage occurred, a flow paced dosing system has eliminated these
problems. The last Enforcement case was LV-2012-0113 and was related to noncompliant mercury levels.
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
14. Check all that apply:
❑ No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
Notice(s) of violation ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.)
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑Yes ®No❑N/A
If yes, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 6

IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request.
Item
Reason
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
5. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
❑ Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
® Issue
❑ Deny (Please state reasons:
6. Signature of report preparer: �.
Signature f re ional,/supervisor:
Date: Oq J0 �, �-4 ly
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
Attached are 1). Permit Enforcement History, 2). Monitoring Report Violations 3). Last Site Inspection Report(s) 4).
Photographs of WWTP.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 5 of 6

Grit Removal
Anoxic Basins
111111Kr.vms;
Oxic Basins

Kruger Hydrotech Discfilters

Receiving Stream
White Marsh

Whiteville Water Reclamation Facility
The Headworks Facility was put into operation in April, 2004 & consist of a Vulcan barscreen with 1/2
inch spacing. A Jones& Attwood grit chamber, grit pump & Classifier and a conveyer put all the waste
into a 4 yard container and the hauled to the landfill. (EIMCo Water Technologies has bought out Jones
& Attwood) The influent pumps consist of three 60 Hp Twelve inch Flygt pumps with VFD's controlled
by a SCADA System installed by Dorsett Technologies and this system usually maintains a water level of
about 5 feet in the wet well.
The aeration basins are designed for and use the aerators from EIMCO Water Technologies with their
BNR process. Four 100 HP Motors and gear boxes with VFD controlled by the SCADA system
monitoring the DO from a DO Probe in each basin. The flow going over the weirs from the aeration
basins go to distribution box # 1 and is split to the Three clarifiers. The return sludge from the clarifiers
go to distribution box # 2 where sludge can be wasted to the Digester/Holding tanks or returned back to
the Influent wet Well. (Headworks Facility) Clarifier equipment by EIMCo Water Technologies.
The effluent from the Clarifiers go on through the Kruger Disk Filters and is chlorinated on the way to
the post aeration basin. Post aeration has one twenty HP floating aerator with the flow going on into
the Contact Chambers. The weir is at the end of the contact Chamber with flow measuring , PH, Do and
Temp. measuring devises being recorded by the SCADA system with flow also on a chart recorder. The
Effluent goes on over into the effluent channel where it is dechlorinated using Calcium thiosulfate .
(Captor) The Chlorination and Dechlorination units are controlled by the SCADA system monitoring the
flow meter. The Effluent flow from the channel through a pipe into the Whitemarsh, pipe 001. The
Motor Control Center for all the WWRF is in the Maintenance Building , except the Headworks Facility.
The Sludge digester has two (2) each forty Hp blowers and the Sludge Holding tank has two (2) two
Hundred HP Blowers with diaphragm fine bubble defuses. These units are not on the Standby
Generator when the Electrical Power goes out.

City of WhiteviCCe
E.L. Faison
City Manager
317 S. !Madison Street
PO Box 607
Whiteville. NC28472
February 21, 2014
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Permitting Unit:
Terri' L. Mann
:1 Maur
Harold G. Troy. Sr.
,14oyor Pro -Tenn
Tint Blackmon
C'O,(+Kii :? 1Cmher
Jinnttp C'laridu
Comteit Member
Robert Leder
Council Member
Y'ickie Pail
Council Member
Sara B. Thompson
Council Member
0@ENCE.1)
FEB 21 2014
L
DEHR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Subject: NPDES Permit Renewal
City of Whiteville
NPDES Permit #NC00219L0
Columbus County
The City of Whiteville is submitting the renewal application for NPDES permit #NC0021920.
The permit application consists of:
Cover letter
Form 2A — NPDES Application for Permit Renewal
Supplemental Application Information — Parts D & E
Pollutant Analysis results for the years of: 2013, 2012, and 2011
Topographic Map
Process Flow Schematic and Narrative
Sludge Management Plan
3-year data summary for "exceptional compliance"
Two copies of "Application for Permit Renewal"
The City was unaware that second species toxicity testing was required for the permit renewal.
Once we were told of this requirement, we made arrangements to conduct the tests. Four (4)
second species toxicity tests will be scheduled to be completed prior to the expiration of the
permit and the results submitted to NC DWR as required.

The City would like to request that the following modifications be made to the permit:
The current permit has a limit and monitoring requirement for Toluene. This parameter was
added to the current permit and has been less than the detection level since then. We
request that this parameter be removed from the permit.
The permit has limit and monitoring requirements for Oil and Grease. In the local
pretreatment program, the hospital is the only SIU that has a limit for Oil and Grease.
Their O&G is from on -site food preparation and is also covered by the City's Grease
Ordinance. The effluent test results for Oil and Grease have been below detection levels.
We request that this parameter be removed from the permit.
The permit has a monitoring requirement for Silver. This was once a pollutant of concern
from a manufacturing facility that closed several years ago. Effluent test results show that
silver is below detection levels. We request that this parameter be removed from the
permit.
The City has passed all toxicity testing for this permit period. Since copper and zinc
monitoring/limits are usually added due to toxicity failures, we request that these
parameters be removed from the permit. Additionally, the majority of the effluent copper
results have been below detection levels. The effluent zinc levels have been pretty
consistent for the permit term with no noticeable effects on the receiving stream.
It is requested that upstream/downstream monitoring be eliminated. Monitoring
upstream/downstream for Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, and
Conductivity give no indication of the quality of the effluent discharge. Permit limits have
been established for the City that are for the protection of the receiving stream. The City
has consistently met or exceeded these limits. The receiving waters are designated as a
swamp, and as such, are subject to many influences not associated with the discharge.
These influences include: stormwater runoff, decaying vegetation, fecal matter from
wildlife, sluggish flow, etc We feel that testing for the required parameters serve no
useful purpose as to determining discharge impacts upon the receiving stream.
It's requested that oily effluent monitoring for temperature be removed. Temperature of the
effluent is an uncontrollable parameter and has no bearing on the receiving waters. The
flow into the treatment facility is domestic in nature and is not subject to any unexpected
fluctuations.
If second species monitoring is to be continued to be required for permit renewal, we request
that one per year be included in the permit.
We request that monitoring for BOD, TSS, Ammonia Nitrogen and Fecal Coliform be
reduced under the "exceptionally performing facilities" criteria. The attached data
(summarized in the following table) indicates that the WWTP effluent has exceeded the
minimum criteria for reduced monitoring. The most restrictive limits were used for BOD

and Ammonia Nitrogen. The majority of the high fecal counts were during March — June
in 2011. The plant was experiencing problems with the chlorine feed because the pump
was not flow proportional and the feed system has since been updated. In addition to the
monitoring results, the plant meets the other listed criteria in the guidelines.
Analysis of testing results for the past three years:
Percent of Monthly Average Limit
Parameter
Monthly Limit
3-Year Average
% of Limit
BOD
5.0 mg/1
1.8 mg/1
36%
TSS
30.0 mg/L
6.2 mg/L
21%
Ammonia N
2.0 mg/L
0.06 mg/L
4%
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
2.7colonies/100 ml
1%
Number of Samples Over 200% of Monthly Average Limit
Parameter
200% of Monthly Limit
Number of Samples Over
BOD
10 mg/1
1
TSS
60 mg/L
0
Ammonia N
4.0 mg/L
1
Eighteen (18) Fecal
Coliforms exceeded 200% of
the weekly average limit
We thank you for your consideration in these matters. If you have any additional questions or
comments, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
McCukbpr--
Newlynlyn McCullen, Utility Superintendent
City of Whiteville

Three Year Data Summary -Whiteville NC0021920
2013 BOD Ave BOD Max TSS Ave TSS Max FC Ave FC Max NH3 Ave NH3 Max
January 1.3 9.8 3.6 11.4 1 2 0 0
February 0.9 3.2 3.4 10.3 2 220 0 0
March 2 6.2 5.6 27.3 1 70 0 0
April 2.7 5 3.1 10.9 1 10 0 0
May 1.6 4 2.6 4.4 1 6 0 0
June 2.9 9.8 4.9 16.3 3 80 0 0
July 1.9 3.8 6.9 32.5 4 88 0 0
August 1.7 3.4 3 5.9 2 29 0 0
September 1.2 3.6 2.7 5.8 3 51 0 0
October 1.8 3.7 2.6 4.3 2 900 0 0
November 1.2 2.7 3.7 18.5 1 3 0 0
December 1 6.5 5.7 9.7 2 14 0 0
2012 BOD Ave BOD Max TSS Ave TSS Max FC Ave FC Max NH3 Ave NH3 Max
January 2.4 4.6 11.6 16.4 10 90 0 0
February 1.8 4.3 7.5 12.6 2 32 0 0
March 3.4 8.2 17.1 40.3 15 1200 0 1.6
April 2.3 4 6.9 14.4 2 2300 0 0
May 2.4 7.7 10.9 38.9 2 757 0 0
June 1.9 5.7 11.5 32.2 2 27 0 1.2
July 1.5 5.2 3.5 8.9 1 56 0 0
August 1.5 5.2 6.8 18.2 2 25 0 0
September 1.6 7 4.6 10.1 1 21 0 0
October 1.2 6.7 8.8 15.7 1 4 0 0
November 0.6 4.2 5.2 14.1 1 40 0 0
December 0.7 2.6 3 5.6 1 25 0 0
2011 BOD Ave BOD Max TSS Ave TSS Max FC Ave FC Max NH3 Ave NH3 Max
January 0.8 3.2 2 6.8 1 9 0 0
February 3.4 12.2 7.7 23.6 1 50 0 12.2
March 2.2 4.9 6.3 14.6 10 3500 0 0
April 2.6 3.7 6.3 11 13 2500 0 0
May 2.1 4.8 7.8 18.4 7 4400 0 0
June 2.4 4 4.5 7.8 8 4000 0 0
July 3.4 8.6 11.1 29.6 14 3000 1.1 1.7
August 0.9 3.2 3.2 7.7 11 500 0 0
September 0.9 3.6 5 13 3 400 1.1 2.4
October 0.4 6.8 2.8 4.4 3 55 0 0
November 0.9 4.6 8.9 23 16 400 0 0
December 1.5 6.2 10.9 19.8 6 800 0 0
3-Year Average 1.8 6.2 2.7 0.06
Permit Limit 5.0 30.0 200 1.8
% of Limit 36% 21% 1% 4%

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Whiteville WRF, NC0021920
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Lumber
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (ClUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs.
1
b. Number of ClUs.
0
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works,
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the
as necessary.
copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
treatment works. Submit additional pages
Name: Columbus Re ional Healthcare S stem
Mailing Address: 500 Jefferson St.
Whiteville NC 28472
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
None Domestic
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
ais�harge.
Principal product(s): N/A
Raw material(s): N/A
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
F.6. Flow Rate.
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater Indicate
discharge a rige daily voluus or intof er non -process
cess wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the
66 000 gpd (
X continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards 0 Yes
El No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Whiteville WRF, NC0021 920
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Lumber
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes H No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes H No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION!CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) H No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to originate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
0 Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

aP i
• TY
[\ /
� sa•l�i
IS
Siw,1-LYf
rnia. SS.
1J
n lac]
arr
/
a
:Ii i.. w:3:::r'•. t
SA Is
M,V.rARD RLW
l
a
1<
ha'
MAN PP°cc v.rrc
u
1
L CLARENCE ST.1
1
T Pew.
`IT•
1
MR1 .AI,L.R[ S CP.
—SW Nu, a-11=-..^S — �r.IIllf ^.3
{ 1...
r III
no A 3 1%1
Irr
111
rVLRrmw Sr
lair
8
LLi - 14-11. wL
\L
L,L
—
Neva VA Ir..
UALRMD GOMM.[ .ALL.Da
— —p11 tIMT-t4tC
lulAf.
I w'B'srl.• v
III
11
111
11I
r11
rr
11l / y!
111 /
IDES
BEARINGS HEREON ARC BASED EN THE NORTH CAROLINA
GRID COORDINATE SYSTEM. DISTANCES SAWN ARE
HORIIDITAL CROWD DISTANCES
BOWNRT ESTABLISHED FROM AM ACTUAL FIELD
TRAVERSE. INACCESSIBLE LINES ARE COMPUTED
rROM FIELD TRAVERSE
ROARS D SIREEIS, OTHER THAN THOSE TRAVERSED
ARE PLOTTED IT SCALE FROM EXISTING MAPS AND
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.
ID- INDICATES PLACEMENT OF EXTRA -TERRITORIAL
LIMIT IOIMIDMT MARRLP. ALL HARRERT LOCATED OH
S>Q.ILCR Or ROAD OPPOSITE POINTS IN (. AS SNOVH
OH MAP.
CIIT LIMIT LINES TAKEN FROM EXISTING MAPS AND
DESCRIPTIONS AND NOT SURVEYED THIS DATE.
POSYI3L BBL 11101
had •Itart ✓NW
wmi Du: m! 'e rrrr.
fY( r. Ulf
ItNIL :a•11•11':11•
VINIMA III Do'
MN= SaTG.� ,• Al
�1.411•111.it YiS .Mr.�
,11sJ.G1Y.i•1111111111E,
:11 21, a. ale.M
IIMM3>1!I a7•': AS1
a ICI:•1 !. ai
Is4. Al
•.... +•11DO 'a
1 •7,�ar�.T:
al�11f"v
.aa�l: !�
11.siLezi Wit; I•a
f1 11/11MICrnf ..+s3. 1/1=
SL�:nI-.iillt:a
aT.'Ca.a•Bscl{s
= .1iY.af'T 1um
IMIN1IS175 1AOM
•
.���aa-t3a
m-Nrilat.s.vmeatp AIM
11•111t1 :i:Gii,l[i I.S a
aILSWI:J 1>alLINIMMIMMIll1.1
•le iC.4.11111111
IDDDDD[Tl;a
mms:qy waw.�
a '�J• ilZliCil! AWN
Nar/ ra�r 7•.a,a
lomr:I lY{[111177,7,14 :ME
atl� D`Y aa.:T.i
!mil-TI`YIaa�I (1�
atTM'RYlaWW1
Ytstra7EL B1
wua1a1
EMILY .1ti V:L.s MA NI
=Ii: i1Y TS,SM= C'S�
alIINIMMOOG is aRAIi
a4 "dSli D1•
s\ttk;♦ 3[1.1•i
'f.L.a.aSID.R1
�i,fiaflnvf••••
111:�a,BRta �i: >a
VMEN
MIMI I>af .71,.1a1..�
trr—.n
�T �:rn,a
,L . . p1:a
ImmtenarrIm
aSirL[S'Ta
atiGali>:raio.1:,.�
aR.la�C[. LI.11aa{tAI.1.11
11iRA.'•A—r' Ir
4�n.Ta-'I' IIT`a
�frvi11�i�iIJR1
i1
af.•I.'YI'r fa anL T�
= .1•11•Ill.LSJilia I Si
t litmGiiimmor�J>ona
� a�*� FYi� 1iSIi a
IMOm- 1= :�:vi='1i�111•01

Sample
Pelt 3
Head works Baulk Noll 1
Sludge
l < < oewalenag
> > >
Dist.
v Box1
Dist.
Box2
Backwash Return
Disc Filter No.
4.
Clarifier No.1
Clarifier No.2
Clarifier No.3
Deg F
111111111
4_rim_
Chlorine
Contact Basins mai
Dorsett's, Inc.
Sample PAR'
Sludge 4
Holding II xi MG
T i
Aerobic
Digester
0 4 I 1-4
400kw
■ Utility
Transformer
PPM
i
^Sludge
Holding
Basins
A
ti
P.O. BOX 133$ 100 YYOODLYN DRIVE YADKINVILLE NORTH CAM INA 17

Voi
City of «'hiteville
Water Reclamation Facility
NC0021920
Residual Management Program
The City of W1 itesille operates a 3.0 MGD activated sludge treatment plant. The facility has the
following solids handling tanks:
• One 182, 000 gallon aerobic sludge digester
• One 843, 000 gallon sludge holding tank
• A sludge truck loading station
Thickened wastewater treatment residuals are wasted from the secondary clarifiers to the sludge
digester. In the digester, the solids are stabilized and thickened. The solids are then transferred
to the sludge holding tank. There it is further stabilized and stored prior to being pumped to
sludge transport vehicle for land application by a certified land application contractor.
At the current flows, sludge holding capacity is greater than two years.