NC0044725_Permit Issuance_19981019

NPDE:i DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0044725
LMAC WWTP
Document Type:(rmissnc)e
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
October 19, 1998
This documerit printed on reuse paper -1g zore any
content on the resrerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 19, 1998
Mr. Larry Barnett
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission
P.O. Box 31
Laurinburg, North Carolina 28353
ei7A
NCDENR
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0044725
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport WWTP
Scotland County
Dear Mr. Barnett:
In accordance with the application for discharge permit received on August 25, 1997, the Division
is forwarding herewith the subject state - 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 December 6, 1983.
In accordance with the request from the permittee, the wasteflow has been modified from 1 MGD to
2 MGD. Effluent limitations for BOD5, NH3-N, and TSS were issued as an equivalent loading to the
existing limits per recommendation of the 1994 Lumber River Water Quality Management Plan as well as
requirements for HQW class waters. Monitoring frequencies for BOD5, TSS, NH3-N, dissolved oxygen,
fecal coliforrn, and conductivity were modified to three times per week based on 15A NCAC 2B .0508
measurements for Class III facilities. The mercury and chronic toxicity limits were modified based on the
increase in wasteflow.
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,
Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such a demand is made, this permit
shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be
followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local
governmental permits may be required.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]/FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell at
telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Central Files
Fayetteville Regional Office, Water Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
NPDES Unit, Permit File
Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit

Permit No. NC0044725
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision 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,
Laurinburg - Maxton Airport Commission
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Laurinburg - Maxton Airport Wastewater Treatment Plant
on NCSR 1434
east of Laurinburg
Scotland County
to receiving waters designated as the Lumber River 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 December 1, 1998
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on November 30, 1999
Signed this day October 19, 1998
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0044725
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Laurinburg — Maxton Airport Commission
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 1.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting
of influent mechanical bar screen, comminutor, aerated grit removal, influent
pumps, influent splitter box, dual oxidation ditches, triple clarifiers, aerobic
sludge digester, chlorination, continuous recording effluent flow meter, effluent
pumps and gravity sludge drying beds located at Laurinburg — Maxton Airport
WWTP, on NCSR 1434, east of Laurinburg, Scotland County (See Part III of this
Permit), and
2. Operate, after receiving an Authorization to Construct, a 2.0 MGD wastewater
treatment facility, and
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map
into the Lumber River which is classified C-Sw HQW waters in the Lumber River
Basin.

ti
a •
o
i a d
•
d
alsi.
n
♦
+1�
•
¢
......
, ,
D
1
(
�u
A
^ r .- :tf'r}lY7{:il
a —F
* -_,, ‘ dal-- —
—,``` • „ , mil.0
,,,,....
,.„._ •
._ ...-
...... _.
iFd'ilii
f \
!i
-.1111\i‘
Ni,
/ sire
\. a
♦ Sycamore
.I
0
Oa'
'
��
01.1-
ill
�
/
,:_.Aav"
7
1•
te.i. ..::,0,„r.. \
/ r
e
a +
`_ _ _'�
io0—,� -_ -... _. ,-
_ _ _-..,• .r _ ,-'-
\ .`• -_ - _
---
� _
```
��*
_ /
o
U
'-
�; pis
' . o Alqik
•1 t c : t1t
ar s at. - — ti
N
.., :�.. ,
p... ,..- \•.� -
u r 'mow
. ram' .1
•••-'�,.,•,-.
d
' i5"
a :ter
'
14
a
I \ .... • ... ....,..V.
♦ `\ 4i 'i .
•
• g •prat/ �/%
\ .„..,.......p
• .....71
Q
a 1.�a * :
.�- �.
,
:.4.. .1... cC‘',.k.21'
A.
ti
ti
N..:,
II
tL ,/ /
/
��. 4/1
•
/•.,•
I1 ••• • • i
1
...,... - _ --•r-,•21-7, ...--- • — .....' -
a# 4 V..—: .- t :- `s- ....-... \- • ...:- - .... - .-- - -.-- .
+� a._ - �- _ OD
_:4-- -+.
Andy Grove �l o
• •
s'0 .4 i ,;\ ' *,
•
,; •#,4
; d / 163 Cora
' -
_
+`
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
LIGHT -DUTY ROAD. HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE ' UNIMPROVED ROAD
Latitude 34°45'55" Longitude 79°19'49"
Map # H21SE Sub -basin 3-07-52
Stream Class C-Swamp HQW
Discharge Class 01 55 57
Receiving Stream Lumber River
Design Q 2.0 MGD Permit expires 11/30/99
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport
NC0044725
Robeson County

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — SUMMER (April 1 — October 31)
Permit No. NC0044725
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
fi ;#' :..•�,.k a -, `
,EFFLUENT G ARA. „ 'E IS: CS .
..� ..
„- .1
... ,tip .. .. , _. .3k ,.y,_ e
.. , C .
t,,�� ..�� � ¢,�3 � t
,. .. ��,., t. ... J
`��L�.,:.„�pkd�M.
.►,
',1; ...«;,r. ., .. r.,_r
�
_��.. .,.��... t... t-':!!.i
, ' ,
a:i �. 6. s.
7 ,x
)y,.. �
�5,�,,• ,s�: ,,_..'..
, ?. ..
•,.location
., sp.i�f.r ...A iM .
: a , rF ,: , .:.
41;�. #...7. >~ IMITS
* , . v..,., .. 1 4. ,
! �t .... K. h . �I ..., i. �f�'1
,'...:i" �., 'u . f i'i M
��, ..-. i ... ..I1 , ... .. •,,}.
.1 + ,.;.,.I
... ,.....�il�.. ,.1. :.H•f .. ,...
�.,f
�, ,r �t:
+�.3'.•L. ,.::,�, , •i, I r._i.. i n.,
. 5. ,,,•
;N•.: .... .. ... �.
Sr,.,I
, 1
,��1..,.. a.- �
., �a �MONITQRING;RE UIREME
�. ,. . �i ... .. h... .�,,:rv.� ,�_..!"' i- f 6 „s �:,
,,t I T � >i1... F. t. . i.: ', , rry •i
, ( :�'(�ii}:.r. .i .?' F.. 9' ,(x � 1 t
! 'i. h I ,i+ ��•x I
'r: i'I � 'i �'P, �I z,�� 1 �i., ."►, ,.. i �'.
),r1i, i+r,a,!,h.e ��,.1'f♦<�t.fll�ti'f�it:�pl,l�IIi. S,gfj;•«";.:.'� . •.. dr .?:;
�....1
,_.:�
V�.>..,.Monthe
. ,era ._Average,
..'r �A.Week1Y .
Dall MaxIu_m
,, 1
,Measureme•
.� q . Ys,
:..:::Sm ,
�
' e ' =
,-
-;Sample.t�
Flow
1.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD5 2
24.0 mg/I
36.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E, I
.
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E, I
NH3-N
16.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
pH4
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
2NVeek
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Total Nitrogen
-Total
Monthly
Composite
E
.
Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Chloride
8300Ibs/day
12450 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Sodium
6800 Ibs/day
10200Ibs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Cobalt
3.6 lbs/day
5.4 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Mercury
0.9 ug/l
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at N.C. Highway 71, D - Downstream at NCSR 1303. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples
and shall be collected weekly.
2 The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/I.
4 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5 Monitoring requirement applys only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 1.3%; March, June, September, December; See Special Conditions A(5) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A (2). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — WINTER (November 1 — March 31)
Permit No. NC0044725
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT,CHARACTER.S ,ICES,
:. , .,y .,� .. ,. r ,
b. . „. ,
u t 71.
,.. .. . ...-. .. f, �T ,. �• yF .-�j. . . �.• R� ""i
.a..Ey ..K .,ri' .. ,. �j�...
4..-; g,::. Cs,
� � ?C3 , .". _. �.vE i
i y.�bagg K u.... �'
. � .....� a
- i # ��,,,. .. 5
. ». 2. .t K • :x f.
.w...:. .. �� 3� .. � �• _ ,•.
o,
�
w >. . ' '':
F : , .
/ as
». 3.
.., .:
. . -.
-
t ` '" : ,
f _ xr ,.r
. ,:
. ,,., a
. } ",Y ._ '.��..pp;- ... :
P$ ✓ ...
l.IM1,TS 5
t, k .,
i7 y ,..,
C��.,e. MS,�i, .
- ii ti a. a. `
N... , E 'i„,..
:.: `.. ! �5.-�.
.. _ � .a. .:1.>�.,'�'..:.
01 ,,, r „
q+� r 7 ,, �.,
u .3 �,ya �s.
�3 "SJ FJ 4 §,,..N;,. .a
::a. p
x, 12,• .>..':'i. r s. 3�±?.
yy�. L. ..
R a.7•..... ..x....._.._ ..... . ...
.....3, r • , ; : ,
{., , 17 �, G RE U REMENTS _ ::- .,,
, ,r� . MD . ITORIN ( .» m.. ,.t.,
.i . , . , k. .,9 w , n ,.3 ?,. u kr ,
..H.,.. k.i �, rs'f :%C °4. j� rta
,w L• ...yw,J��,,,-..., �. M1IS• { > ^.''lzi: Y33..
1,.:, S Fa s `, �
.-3•.�.fi•w 99 y;M �L
.. .... J.��11��� .:. s 4 » .,..Y .. �JFi �'K�
.
....
�
e.
��, ��
, Mo thl �
,�.. :
'n .. r. .'�
.e .. . f.
. '�1(e;�kl
,. Y.:
.; .t .. �
�.j... .:
�.. u - -.
Dail �7Maximum
; _.. . Y.
.. _ _,r 7..7 i�.
:� ..:e-�.d$:o 73�� �... .:...:..:.: �
.. :c . i_ , �e:S�.r....... ..:. k
� • .... ......... _....
� ..Measurelrtlent
ar::. ,.. r,. ;7:. ..s .., �,
'3...� :: �5 �_.
C $ . •
ire ueNc �:::
:..,Sa e° '; .
Im I.
,, ... •'a ,.{�'�»�.
! re �.,.. *',�:. �-.i6f0.,,
rixxi A .. v .- t t,.
.. t . e <:_:.�. , >rx
Sam le.:
�T.; »..�
n ,�, � ,
�C, '�..r
�'
-: _:
Flow
1.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
1 or E
BOD5 2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E,I
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/l
45.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E,1
NH3-N
Weekly
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/160 mi
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
pH4
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
2/VVeek
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Chloride
8300 lbs/day
12450 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E .
Sodium
6800 lbs/day
10200 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Cobalt
3.6 Ibs/day
5.41bs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Mercury
0.9 ug/I
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, 1- Influent, U - Upstream at N.C. Highway 71, D - Downstream at NCSR 1303. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples
and shall be collected weekly.
2 The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be Tess than 5 mg/I.
4 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5 Monitoring requirement applys only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 1.3%; March, June, September, December; See Special Conditions A(5) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A (3). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — SUMMER (April 1 — October 31)
Permit No. NC0044725
During the period beginning after expansion and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
2.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD52
12.0 mg/I
18.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E=,1
Total Suspended Solids2
15.0 mg/I
22.5 mg/1
3/Week
Composite
E,1
NH3-N
8.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
3/Week
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 m1
3NVeek
Grab
E,U,D
pH4
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
28 ug/I
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Conductivity
3/Week
Grab
E,U,D
Chloride
8300 lbs/day
12450 Ibs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Sodium
6800 lbs/day
10200 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Cobalt
3.61bs/day
5.4 Ibs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Mercury
0.45 ug/I
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at N.C. Highway 71, D - Downstream at NCSR 1303. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples
and shall be collected weekly.
2 The monthly average BODE and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/I.
4 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
s Monitoring requirement applys only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 2.6%; March, June, September, December; See Special Conditions A (6) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A (4). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — WINTER (November 1 — March 31)
Permit No. NC0044725
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
•. ?.: .. - ;., .: !
EFF . ENT.CHA CTERISTLCS
. -:� T , .
t., r h .._r �..,. ±�'• a
. $. g.,. {. ,"r,J h..e.... e.r -., ....r F.,, 4
.'j ,,.. .::r: •. I..... i�..:..-.,. pp � :...
:: .N .. y�
R:,., ,. . .a7 ..'^t,[/'.... I T ..' ., ,
. >, .., -, .. .: .-1�1 :..5
. .. . • S..'* �,. , � J`7
,r.. ..,.�..�_, �, .: I�, . _. ,.
,;. w �...t5 >i�: �.. i J zrl���,^?
..•. -.B .. .:...!-. � 1•..,r� +�4:'�
,. -_, _ - t�,:� � x ��•
.,.. : .. • .� d i. . �,
.�. T .. - .1.1,.. rsi. �.... JY,
.,. r. +. .. ..:.1,,. ,_t .7 ...�,..-1.31k0L
� ,_.� ..: _ .._ ,
� _.._
..:l:..:,...,...._r..s.�x�,A.,......�....z_L.x�,.._,..u:a..1
i ;. �' .. r.m.:z7A
.:.�
!. .. wi:.� ... . .
-i ,4 f,. .,. .� n.
3< . n .. t.
[ 'iv . ,t l ,A::...3,
{ .. � ..
1 1..{ i .. ..
� .. � i. �s....., .
r ue V .��. x. '! ..
... �._. <.,.
_:.; � ll"'' . !?7•,i ,.._
hl.4. >•�: Ark .:�;:
� M� ,!! ,.. . .,. E .':,...,..
.. _!i..,,l.d .,.._.
��. .�.....: ��;
� �
..r.
tat, ?gyp. el r.:;
...:,. �. ,:' ...
tl. u.�
. ..r� .:. C,e:
{ .. ,
w� ,
. . .1.
.?i: .A .
, �.
u,`d�fi� ._
.lf.
.:. ,
�.. , .w
rr. -. ..
t_ . ... :
, .�� '� .r
'� �
. , .. ...
.c�,....
. I {:,1 �I.r.,! 1 -::. 1
i,l.. ?, ; :. �.:
.�3a t�•a, t?�., V�..n
„ x.. ,..... A. ...E ..r Y+. .r ....,,.
� , ..
1 ,.� ,. .,. ,x:K c3
1. ..1 ... ,: ..�t
t ,
,fj �� .{.. t,.....! .�Fdl
.{.. l. ;: . u...r".:ne
..;1r.��; .. tA�rr,�� .... .. ..,?
.,. .. ?f t.,
..,d?r..:. :.
LIMITS
. .. !,. .. t,.:
n •1 .... 7....,,
? .: , '� � I i .
,-..3 fit.,, t.t ..
, i I
...> .. .. .. 1 t. " ,..
l � .. ,.A 11 :.1.. .5.
.�..d.!'� .. �:.:r �-
_..-.:. �' I,.. p� . ,.,,
� 1 . ?�� f
.::.-.: -..s
.. ¢ ..
.. .. ... -F ., . . ,.y �.:.
,. , S:
1 k I, ,.: ,;, . .• ?,
,..F , •;.....:, ,',,
'. .. ,. .. :..i .:.. ...
...,.: ,,. u..fU . ... :.. ...
...,. ..- -.1 .C^,. .. ..
... _ ,. �E;..'.
.,,{.� _: .YI
:`. :- ;,. ...:
: :.. I V. ,.:.::;:: :
:�.I
I�, 1 A';. i. �
I, , I , • �, Via; is>t e 3 .
, ,, � „ I „'•. , ?.__ i.,.:�. . �„ ,. i ll• !. I-�',,
. 1'1:9 1 .M. ...
I I V !:{' i!. : i�' ,
11. : ,5 IF M : ..J.'.
,. 1 :'� L. �.
., ,1 :! ,�., `.i� F, ,1 4 7 . ,r.i•
iO �;.... ' .: ,..H ... .. ..�H...,... .. ..a._
r:
11►, Mont I .,•�
I4'l.... ... i
VYC,it. �•�... �'� ..
3'
. � Ave a e:
r �
.rn 1. ,. ...:. /{yam .. ..
,....'I;f}`Fv ... ..rs�,r�:s.V,wr,..,�„rS�.
� .,.. :,� �
><r :..Week) . .,
.. .: . ,.,i t.
.. ....I ...R.. /? ., j!.+:.,,:
;-�;:Av a
� _. er e� .-:
.... ... .... ..
r,..4r . .... r. .......V. ,n... ..
, .
� Da�i maximum.
.-.8.,.(.. ,�:. ...,
!a,r 7, _A
�..,
:.:.� , w.: ,t., t ,. �..
: .. .... _. ... .. ., ....
... ... Yt.__,.-, ... .,.. -. _... ..e .
'�: Measurement ,
..
.�- Fret � uenc
i V
y .n, w.r� :...r _ ..J -.: .L ...
rr Sam le 1 1
-?<'< � ` r5 .
T e .,
> %_: V 1• ��!
.�.o l: �:.. f„N:1, ... r...
.,.;:.
Sam le
Location
-
Flow
2.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD52
15.0 mg/I
22.5 mg/l
3/Week
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Solids2
15.0 mg/l
22.5 mg/l
3/Week
Composite
E, I
NH3-N
10.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
3/Week
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/16U ml
3/Week
Grab
E,U,D
pH4
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
28 ug/I
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Conductivity
3/Week
Grab
E,U,D
Chloride
8300Ibs/day
12450 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Sodium
6800 lbs/day
10200 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Cobalt
3.6 Ibs/day
5.4 Ibs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Mercury
0.45 ug/l
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at N.C. Highway 71, D - Downstream at NCSR 1303. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples
and shall be collected weekly.
2 The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/I.
4 The pH shall not be Tess than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
Monitoring requirement applys only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 2.6%; March, June, September, December; See Special Conditions A (6) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Part I Permit NC004472,5
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (5.) Chronic Toxicity Test for 1.0 MGD
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or
subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 1.3% (defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit
holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the
permit condition. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September and
December. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical
measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data.
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 Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, monthly monitoring
will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test
requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon
passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality 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.
A. (6.) Chronic Toxicity Test for 2.0 MGD
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or
subsequent versions.

Part 1 Permit NC0044725
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 2.6% (defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit
holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the
permit condition. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September and
December. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical
measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data.
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 Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, monthly monitoring
will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test
requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon
passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality 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.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No.
NC0044725
RECEIVED
F E B 1 8 1998
FAYETTEVILLE
REG. OFFICE
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
itiatitinbnroMaxforEColiaff
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 31
Facility Address:
SR1434
Permitted Flow
1.0 MGD / 2.0 MGD
Type of Waste:
Industrial - 95%
Domestic - 5%
Facility/Permit Status:
Existing/Modification
County:
Scotland
Stream Characteristics
Receiving Stream
Lumber River
•
Stream Classification
C-Swamp HQW
Subbasin
03-07-51
Drainage Area (mi2):
367
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
118
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
-
IWC @ 2.0 mgd (%):
2.5
Miscellaneous
ayetteyillew
USGS Topo Quad:
H21SE
Wasteload Allocation Summary
**See attached notes.
**Regional Office recommendation for requirements for standby power and
dechlorination for the protection of High Quality Water designation will be
included in the final permit.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: March 1998
Permit Scheduled to Issue: May 1998

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0044725
State Contact
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Jacquelyn M. Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit
development:
• Reasonable potential analysis
• Existing permit effluent sheets with changes noted
• Draft permit
NPDES Recommendation by:
Regional Office Comments
Regional Recommendation by:
Reviewed By:
Regional Supervisor:
Date:
k f Date: q S
Date: (o - l - 5$
NPDES Unit: Date:

•
Summary
NC0044725
Laurinburg /Maxton Airport Commission (LMAC) is requesting a permit
modification for expansion of existing facility from 1 MGD to 2 MGD. The
discharge is primarily industrial wastewater. LMAC discharges into the
Lumber River that is classified as C Sw HQW.
The most recent WLA in 8/94 . assigned limits for 1 MGD and 4 MGD.
Because of the HQW classification, the expanded wasteflow of 4 MGD was
given the equivalent of existing permitted loading in accordance with
2B.0201 Antidegradation Policy. No permit was issued at 4 MGD, although
an EA was completed for this expansion. The same recommendation of
limits equivalent to permitted loading will be applied for the
modification to 2 MGD.
Recommended oxygen consuming limits @ 2 MGD:
Summer Winter
BODS =12 mg/1 BODS =15 mg/1
NH3=8mg/1 NH3 =10mg/1
TSS =15 mg/1 TSS =15 mg/1
Per 1994 Lumber River Basinwide Management Plan: DEM
recommends a conservative management approach which limits further
BOD waste loading to the river in order to maintain water quality standards
and uses, but which provides for some expansion of existing facilities and
construction of new discharge facilities. Since facilities discharging to the
upper Lumber River have a management strategy in place, DEM
recommends that existing wastewater treatment facilities in the Lumber
River mainstem below Lumberton receive limits as follows:
Existing Discharges with no expansion => Renew with Same Limits
Expanding Discharges => Recommend Equivalent Loading
For new discharger/expansions in the mainstem below Lumberton, the
permitting strategy should be handled on a case -by -case basis, but DEM will
not recommend limits less stringent than 15 mg/1 BOD5 and 4 mg/1 NH3-N
for a new discharge in these waters. In addition, new discharges may
receive more stringent limits based on interactions with surrounding

Page 2
discharges and /or the possibility of a proposed discharge locating to waters
that have documented substandard dissolved oxygen values.
Metals and toxicants limits/monitoring
Existing monitoring for Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, and Cn.
See attached reasonable potential analysis.
Limits for:
• Chlorides - 8300 lbs/day (Wk. Avg); 12450 lbs/day (Da. Max.)
• Sodium - 6800 lbs/day (Wk. Avg); 10200 lbs/day (Da. Max.)
• Cobalt - 3.6 lbs/day (Wk. Avg); 5.4 lbs/day (Da. Max.)
Have been given historically
There are several industrial contributors to LMAC:
- Carolmet- produces cobalt ore through processing, discharges cobalt,
sodium, and chloride, per Melanie Bryson of Pretreatment, makes
powder for batteries, powder contains cobalt. May also have lithium in
the future, lithium is very treatable. It is a Pollutant Of Concem for that
industry. Cobalt is not very treatable. Cobalt is also not very toxic,
numbers very high for toxicity and health. Carolmet has pretreatment
limit of 6.O lbs/day from headworks analysis.
- Railroad Friction- the assembly of railroad brake shoes also discharges
chloride, sodium and cobalt.
- Charles Craft- a textile mills that uses cotton discharges chloride and
sodium,
- Woodard- aluminum assembly, chloride and sodium,
- Scotland Manufacturing- chloride and sodium.
A Toxicology evaluation was done in September 1985 for LMAC. To
provide baseline toxicity data on the WWTP in order to evaluate the effects
of proposed industrial contributors to the facility. Past compliance
inspections had recorded permit violations in TSS, sodium, cobalt and pH.

Page 3
There was formerly a NC water quality standard for cobalt of 1000 ug/l.
(3/13/86 memo to George Everett) Current chloride standard of 250 mg/1 in
WS waters, action level of 230 mg/1 in fresh waters.
One recommendation of the evaluation: Toxicity abatement procedures and
pretreatment programs should continue to strive for moderation in the
influent levels of zinc, copper and cobalt.
2/21/86 Memo to George Everett from John Dorney, visited two hazardous
waste facilities in NY. Findings relevant to the GSX proposed facility near
Laurinburg. One facility had design similar to proposed GSX. Implications
for GSX: 1) would release volatile organic chemicals, 2) expected to have
low levels of metals except for nickel, 3) effluent would expect to be
nontoxic (acutely) to rainbow trout and fathead minnows, 4) effluent would
likely be acutely toxic to Daphnia magna, unclear whether this is caused
by toxicants (especially nickel) or the relative high salt content.
5)Activated carbon treatment is essential for every batch of effluent to
ensure acceptable water quality.
DEM drafted a permit in 9/15/86 and limits were derived to protect the C
class at the discharge point and WSIII as the Lumber River is a drinking
water source for Lumberton. The following limits were recommended for
chloride and sodium:
Chloride 1451 lb./day (mo. avg.) 1814 lb./day (weekly avg.)
Sodium 1451 lb./day (mo. avg.) 1669 lb./day (weekly avg.)
No cobalt limits were included on this draft. However, in WLA requested in
3/87, LMAC requested increase in monthly avg. limit for chloride to 8300
lbs/day and sodium to 6800 lbs/day and a Cobalt limit of 3.6 lb./day (mo.
avg.) was listed as an existing limit by JDV.
In 1992, WLA recommended the following limits for these same parameters,
based on the existing limits in the permit, however there were no
calculations or documentation as to how these were derived:
Chloride 8300 lbs/day (mo. avg) 12450 lbs/day (weekly avg.)
Sodium 6800 lbs/day (mo. avg) 10200 lbs/day (weekly avg.)
Cobalt 3.6 lbs/day (mo. avg) 5.4 lbs/day (weekly avg.)

Page 4
1/5/98 Telecon with Melanie Bryson - LMAC has a long term monitoring
plan (LTMP) and monitors quarterly for 13 constituents. These will be
renewed in the LTMP. There is the possibility of the future inclusion of
lithium monitoring in the pretreatment permit because the Carolmet industry
may start using lithium. Diane Reid provided a WQ standard of 9.3 mg/1 for
lithium to Melanie. Whether a monitoring requirement for lithium is in the
pretreatment permits is still being evaluated.
The reasonable potential analysis indicated that all metals could be dropped
with the exception of the addition of a limit for mercury of 0.47 ug/1 at 2
MGD, (0.9 ug/1 at 1 MGD). Will also renew existing limits for cobalt,
chlorides, and sodium.

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
NPDES #
Ow (MGD)
7010s (cfs)
!WC (%)
'eying Stream
Stream Class
LMAC
NC0044725
2
118
2.56
LUMBER RIVER
C SW HQW
Pb
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Ag
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Cd
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Cr
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Cu
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Ni
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Zn
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Cn
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
As
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
Se
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Value
FINAL RESULTS
700
976.6
140
43.5
2.3
5
11
78.1
2.5
26.1
1953.2
9
115.5
273.5
55
47.6
3437.7
14
486.2
1953.2
221
43.5
195.3
15
15
1953.2
5
15
195.3
5
1
ug/I (A
ug/I 1✓�'
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
,t,d),;-
Tfry
1%
Ry
o/y
ug/I Orr
ugll � U
11/20/97

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
NPDES S
O#(MIGD)
7010s (ds)
M V(%)
rd1in9 Stream
Stream Class
!MAC
NC0044725
2
110
2.56
LUMBER RIVER
CSWHOW
RNAL RESULTS
Pb
Max. Prod Cw
Alowable Cw
Max. Value
Ag
Max. Red Cw 43.5
Alawable Ow 2.3
Max. Value 5
Cd .
Max. Red Cw 11
Alowable Cw 78.1
Max. Value 2.5
Cr
Max. Red Ow 26.1
Alowable Cw 1953.2
Max. Value 9
Cu
Max. Red Cw 115.5
Alowable Ow 273.5
Max. Value 55
HI
Max. Prod Ow 47.6
Alowable Cw 3437.7
Max. Value 14
2n
Max. Prod Ow 488.2
Alowabte Cw 1953.2
Mar. Value 221
en
Max. Red Ow 43.5
Allowable Cw 195.3
Max. Value 15
As
Max. Rod Cw 15
Allowable Cw 1953.2
Max. Value 5
Ng
Max. Red Cw 2.94
Allowable Ow 0.5
Max. Value 0.8
Se
Max. Red Cw 15
Alowable Cw 195.3
Max. Value 5
11/20/97
700
976.6
140
Parameter-
Standard- 25 PO
ugA
u9A
ugA
ugA
ugA
On
ugA
ugA
ugA
ugA
ugA
ugA
ugA
ugA
ugA
ugA
usin
ugA
Pb
Parameter- Ag
Standard -1 0.061pgf
n BDL-1/20Letual Data RESULTS
1 5 <10 Std Der 25.60662927
2 6 <10 Mean 12.17096774
3 6 <10 C.V. 2.1039107
4 6 <10
5 6 <10
6 5 <10 Mull Fa--•
7 6 <10 Max. Value
8 6 <10 Max. Prod
9 5 <10 Alowable C
10 6 <10
11 6 <10
12 6 <10
13 4 4
14 140 140
15 6 <10
18 6 <10
17 66 56
18 5 <10
19 10 10
20 5 <10
21 5 <10
22 17 17
23 6 <10
24 5 <10
25 6 <10
28 10 10
27 5 <10
28 0.3 0.3
20 10 10
30 19 19
31 6 6
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
48
9A 47
9A 48
49
140 pg/I
700 P9A
976.61 pg/I
Parameter- Cd
Standard- © tgll
Parameter- Cr P.
Standard-1 SOlPg/1 1
n 3DL-112D Au! Data RESULTS n 3Dtr1/2Dletusl Dat RESULTS n BDL-1/2Dllatual Dab RESULTS
1 0.6 <1 Std Dev. 1.42302 1 0.5 <1 Std Dev. 0.603 1 2.5 <6 Std Dev. 2.28938
2 0.5 <1 Mean 0.95 2 0.5 <1 Mean 0.6818 2 2.6 <5 Mean 3.5
3 0.6 <1 C.V. 1.49792 3 0.6 <1 C.V. 0.8844 3 2.5 <5 C.V. 0.64839
4 0.5<1 4 0.5 el 4 2.6<5
5 0.5<1 5 0.6<1 5 9 9
6 0.5 <1 Mtuit Facterr1 8 0.6 <1 Melt Facto 4.41 6 2.5 <5 Mutt F
7 0.5 <1 Max. Value 5 NgA 7 0.5 <1 Max. Wu 2.5 Ng/1 7 2.5 <5 Max. Value 9 PO
8 0.6 <1 Max. Pred C 43.5 pg/I 8 0.6 <1 Max. Pred C 11 pg/I 8 7 7 Max. Prod C 26.1 pg/I
9 6 <10 Alowable C 2.34 pgil 9 0.5 <1 Alowable C 78.13 pg/I 9 2.5 <5 Alowable C 1953.23 pg/I
10 0.6<1 10 0.6<1 10 2.6<5
11 11 2.5<6 11 2.6<5
12 12 12
13 13 13
14 14 14
15 15 15
16 18 16
17 17 17
18 18 18
19 19 19
20 20 20
21 21 21
22 22 22
23 23 23
24 24 24
25 26 25
28 26 26
27 27 27
28 28 28
29 29 29
30 30 30
31 31 31
32 32 32
33 33 33
34 34 34
35 35 35
36 36 36
37 37 37
38 38 38
39 39 39
40 40 40
41 41 41
42 42 42
43 43 43
44 44 44
45 45 45
46 46 46
47 47 47
48 48 48
49 49 49

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
aramete►- Cu Parameter- M Penmstar- In Parameter_ Cn Parameter- As
Standard_ p9A standard- A6A pg4 Standard 5o'standard-( 511pA Standard- . pg/l
n 1DL.1/201etual Data RESULTS
1 48 48 8td Dov. 15.849
2 15 15 Mean 21.455
n IOL.1I20Actual Data RESULTS n3DL-1/21)/etual 0ata RESULTS
1 7 7 Sid Day. 4.013047 1 109 109 Std Dar. 52.4418
2 2.5 <5 Mean 5.636364 2 63 53 Moan 74.1719
3 25 25 C.V. 0.7387 3 8 8 C.V. 0.711992 3 18 18 C.V. 0.70703
4 63 63 4 2.5 <5 4 30 30
5 23 23 5 10 10 5 40 40
6 13 13 Mull Facts{ 2.11 6 2.6 <5 Mull Factor: 3.41 6 77 77 Mutt Factaj 2.21
7 9 9 Max. Value 55 pptl 7 2.5 <5 Max. Value 14 p9A 7 116 116 Max. Value 221 pgll
8 7 7 Max. Pratt 115.5 pgA 8 8 8 Max. Prod 1 47.6 p9A 8 90 90 Max. Prod C 486.2 pgA
9 12 12 Movable C 273.45 p91 9 2.5 <5 Allowable C 3437.88 pgA 9 157 157 Alowable C 1953.23 pgll
10 9 9 10 2.6 <5 10 97 97
11 8 8 11 14 14 11 118 118
12 37 37 12 12 48 48
13 37 37 13 13 126 126
14 50 50 14 14 78 78
15 6 6 15 15 10 10
16 24 24 16 16 10 10
•17 11 11 17 17 51 61
18 16 16 18 18 60 60
19 5 5 19 19 48 48
20 9 9 20 20 64 84
21 8 8 21 21 189 189
22 21 21 22 22 60 60
23 44 44 23 23 117 117
24 47 47 24 24 221 221
25 17 17 25 25 32 32
26 5 5 28 28 137 137
27 25 25 27 27 55 55
28 16 16 28 28 51 51
20 55 65 29 29 33 33
30 20 20 30 30 2.5 <5
31 21 21 31 31 37 37
32 10 10 32 32 39 39
33 2 2 33 33
34 34 34
35 35 35
36 36 36
37 37 37
33 38 38
39 39 39
40 40 40
41 • 41 41
42 42 42
43 43 43
44 44 44
45 45 45
46 46 46
47 47 47
46 48 48
43 49 49
n SOL.1120L%etusl Data RESULTS
1 15 16 8td Day. 4.8924
2 3 <6 Moan 7.2273
n3DL.1/2D%dua1 Data RESULTS
1 1.5 <3 Std DOV. 1.1726
2 1.5 <3 Moan
2
3 14 14 C.V. 0.6493 3 1.5 <3 C.V. 0.5863
4 11 11 4 1.5 <3
5 6 6 5 1.5 <3
6 2.5 <5 Mull Factor' 2.91 6 1.5 <3 Mutt Fa - •
7 10 10 Max. Value 15 p9A 7 1.5 <3 Max. Value
8 2.5 <5 Max. Prod C 43.5 pip 8 5 <10 Max. Prod t
9 2.6 <5 Alowable C 195.32 p9A 9 2.5 <5 Movable C
10 8 8 10
11 6 <10 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
18 16
17 17
18 1e
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
38 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
48 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
5
15
1953.23

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Parameter - t(g
Standard -I 0.012f11gf
n 3DL-1/20 ctw! Data RESULTS
1 0.1 <0.2 Sid Day. 0.18028
2 0.6 0.6 Mean 0.2
3 0.1 <0.2 C.V. 0.90139
4 0.1 <0.2
5 0.1 40.2
6 0.1 <02 Mutt Fa-••
pg/! 7 0.2 0.2 Mu. Value
pg/l 8 0.4 0.4 Max. Pred
pgll 9 0.1 <0.2 Allowable C
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
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 48
49 49
Parameter- 8o
Standard -I 511.1911
0.6 pgll
2.94 pg/l
0.47 pgil
n 3DL.112D>tctual Data RESULTS
1 1.5 <3 8td Dar. 1.1726
2 1.5 <3 Moan 2
3 1.5 <3 C.V. 0.5863
4 1.5 <3
5 1.5 <3
6 1.5 43 Mutt F
7 1.5 43 Max. Value
8 5 <10 Max. Prod 1
9 2.5 <5 Alm/able C
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
5 p9"
15 pgA
195.32 pg/l

Laurinburg Maxton Airport Commission Effluent Data
Parameter
Chloride
Sodium
Cobalt
Weekly Avg. Limit
Daily Maximum Limit
8300 Ibs/day
12450 Ibs/day
6800 Ibs/day 3.6 Ibs/day
10200 Ibs/day 5.4 Ibs/day
Date
Jul-97
Jun-97
May-97
Apr-97
Mar-97
Feb-97
Jan-97
3804
2908
1719
1846
1853
2475
1596
2409
1007
2352
1484
1834
2083
1170
2926
2021
1666
1699
1861
2639
2446
1707
4139
1075
2190
1197
1330
2084
1000
0.865
2.15
0.750
0.432
0.635
1.360
0.397
0.246
0.241
0.255
0.179
0.631
0.364
0.312
0.286
Dec-96
Nov-96
Oct-96
Sep-96
Aug-96
JuI-96
Jun-96
May-96
Apr-96
Mar-96
Feb-96
Jan-96
Maximum
Minimum
1458
2776
1710
1406
2079
2620
1143
2469
2742
2848
1069
2785
4594
3714
3115
5305
3081
5246
2085
2646
967
1863
1.86
922
2268
5305
1.86
9.42
1376
2925
1301
1387
1814
2504
1026
1734
1834
2187
91
2436
3981
3693
2379
2439
961
4060
547
2125
963
1624
1242
0.790
0.891
5.500
25370
2294
25370
9.42
0.270
0.398
0.514
0.106
1.580
2.200
0.528
0.146
0.036
0.487
0.410
0.560
0.420
1.290
1.840
0.034
1.290
1.050
1.870
0.548
0.150
2.100
5.5
0.034

Permit No. NC0044725
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision 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,
Laurinburg - Maxton Airport Commission
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Laurinburg - Maxton Airport Wastewater Treatment Plant
on NCSR 1434
east of Laurinburg
Scotland County
to receiving waters designated as the Lumber River 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
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on November 30, 1999
Signed this day
DRAFT
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — SUMMER (April 1 — October 31)
Permit No. NC0044725
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 1.0 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Flow
BOD5
MAonthly
Average'
1.0 MGD
24.0 mg/I
Weekly
Average:
36.0 mg/I
ally Maximum!:
1easur :i...:
real rticy
Continuous
Weekly
Sample
Type;;
Recording
Composite
I or E
E in�L�c
Total Suspended Solids
NH3-N
30.0 m g/l
16.0 mg/l
45.0 m /I
Weekly
Weekly
Composite
Composite
E
E
Dissolved Oxygen2
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Weekly
Grab
Grab
E,U,D
E,U,D
pH3
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Conductivity
Chloride
Sodium
Cobalt
Mercury
8300 Ibs/day
6800 Ibs/day
3.6 Ibs/ day
12450 Ibs/day
10200 Ibs/day
5.4 Ibs/day
0.9 ug/I
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
2/month
2/month
2/month
Monthly
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
E,U,D
E
E
E,U,D
E
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Notes:
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at N.C. Highway 71, D - Downstream at NCSR 1303. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab
samples and shall be collected weekly.
2 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/I.
3 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4 Monitoring requirement applys only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 1.3%; March, June, September, December; See Special Conditions A(5) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — SUMMER (April 1 — October 31)
Permit No. NC0044725
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 1.0 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Flow
BOD5
Total Suspended Solids
NH3-N
..........................
1.0 MGD
24.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
16.0 mg/I
36.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
MONITORING EQUI'REMI
..................................
.............................................
...Measurement
rement
Frequency:
Continuous
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
I or E
E „uj.,02
Dissolved Oxygen2
Fecal Coliform
pH3
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Weekly
3/Week
Grab
Grab
Grab
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
Total Residual Chlorines
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Conductivity
Chloride
Sodium
Cobalt
Mercury
Chronic Toxicity5
8300 lbs/day
6800 Ibs/day
3.6 lbs/day
12450 Ibs/day
10200 Ibs/day
5.4 lbs/day
0.9 ug/I
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
2/month
2/month
2/month
Monthly
Quarterly
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
E,U,D
E
E
E,U,D
E
Notes:
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at N.C. Highway 71, D - Downstream at NCSR 1303. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab
samples and shall be collected weekly.
2 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/I.
3 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4 Monitoring requirement applys only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 1.3%; March, June, September, December; See Special Conditions A(5) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A (3). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - SUMMER (April 1 - October 31)
Permit No. NC0044725
During the period beginning after expansion above 1.0 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
;. . .
•
:{:•.Y.{rr. tl• J Y .}} r}�L`{l:
:4 • : {.�{•l:•{ti`{r• }} Y '}4r •.i.Y :• {{::.11•`f� {• •
f ' A • {• :'�y�f.•y:•:4.
• 4
. • 1 1.ti'A f•.'{} ' .. 4 • }AY{. :.•.'.. • /
'X}'.� .•r A`L. 1{4:rr{Y1 r '{. �•yy.{f '•:{• J. A% •�{:.}.1•{{f . S
•:S•h ' '}}:4r•.Y.A. }N:{'4: A ''• .�:•• .{.7
• •} j} ..•: 4 .; Y:.f • M1 rA .• . '••. • ii44 HJ4r4I4h.V.
•{; .r . � `. •A{.y•{.}r Y ArJ:4 rfi rV•'f
Y•}.{.'•JN•Nl,.W{.ti�}.Y{.},SrV{:},•'}: 71•J %QL'. .. }. ..4..•}:{•
•r 4 { 4•j�rY':{.•J •}:y}} • :}:v .. .,rrrrrr r •
L• : {.:. 1 • I: • •}�'{•{:� ..; : { .
4 • .f{., :{ }j y { .$[: } 7Y. . A A A{.:{
}x{ ff R•.r{................................................4�}y{•••r4•'14,5•}:{•T}:'] :•.{At1 •.. :{44:•:::. l:.
'¢
. r.•J
.•!fr
�M1
••
•
. }'
• !
ti{•::'N.
.: }rY.
'X! '•:•: '{{{•Y.{. ..{,..
{5{
4 .l.•'4 •
} '{y M1 "'. {M1,
{_'\'. .{ r
A.V{:... '4:. 4{.}.. .
.;;.;...�{.
••r••
.
` L M1. ••l•
•' '�1f1 •}'
':'' �y�1{}t'j
ryl. \rirYf },:r 'r
1•}}1.'.. J
.�. µ{ •:•:�{4.4A4••
} Yip --¢ 1•• {
• . r Yf �,j •f •?.
•�•••1�e4�}{i'L*•
•.% .:4 A 4V r J.
'f}'•4•••},Yf •6
�C' •'• ,
:��
.}�}.. .�4 Yhv�.f•4{.:
.: •. .. .... ••
b.
Y - • S' • •lit.•4:;:X.•M1
••.•{ ••!.
f44 •}
: ! j
�J}. V�l��.{`• 4 t
•i4 {{.. M11
1l'
]PJ ~
r
Yl .. .
d. r.'f{ }•
•.{•JL....
•4
••�'r
Al
A..f •l.L
' F
•.• .�; •' �• �r�
.r {... �'�".','��{
{ ��1:.}• . J}. .{� •
•.
'.{rV.{
•JrA'r::'.4�f.l
.J
A•"
A r 4{
f�• J.••{
4{:
..�.• }•:}•!. A r}:. .
} • {{..,...in.:,.,,,,
ff 4�.�' .V ••
$} ,[ 1 .•♦ •.•k'V.
• Y •��•'� 4.. �..
♦
. 4V • ...
¢ } {�(' �.
{ }.. }7.•]f•. �.. :{•.Y, }:
.•r•}}Jt'...:{{.}:•}f}}}}
• • � ,:{. }'.r}�G'.. � •
4''{i• • • ..•::. V: J •
•• •• • • A;{.�. • 4:
} [ V •M1 :
��V�.�:{'}'M1.,' {•!'}4'{}.••
{•. r• : {': V '.}'r:'r Y.
•.4,p.•. !A• •}:}•::�:.•}.'.; �..�4{Y:
::?:A:'i'A 7..V�r'r e A.4.{ J
•f `r•}:•} A{•••i}:{•.' jtif
• • •
{r4'' ' 4
{ • •
}..� 4 ��}. }
: rf• •}J• 5 . . iM , '•Y
r4:�y'{{. {r
...... ...
y.11'•µ '4:{{{{•}:{•V!•.{V tlr4 !
Y
l �. ••
�•{ �. �.f�,•
.. . ' • : 1:
4 .{Y�• 4'{'•h�
�:•45. •:4
• •r •4 W. •. }
.4.•• ,;4�.�¢� :. 4 : �•J'.�:•.�:Y.
.4.:'}:':Viri r r. . r..�•}.Y :•.4•A ..4.. A
•
. ..V
' •r. • .•
�!� :
.;�VNk�7� 1 �pry7�}
� f. �•
4� y !!
' } ft - • R 4� L,} ,
� .t 4•�4'.;
}.. .4.3.• r.YA.4 •5
Flow
2.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD5
12.0 mg/I
24.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Suspended Solids
15.0 mg/I
22.5 mg/i
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3-N
8.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen2
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
pH3
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
r
' •
28 ug/I
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
' Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Total Nitrogen
'Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Chloride
8300 Ibs/day
12450 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Sodium
6800 lbs/day
10200 lbs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Cobalt
3.6 lbs/day
5.4 Ibs/day
2/month
Composite
E
Mercury
0.47 ug/I
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
2
3
4
5
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at N.C. Highway 71, D - Downstream at NCSR 1303. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab
samples and shall be collected weekly.
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/I.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
Monitoring requirement applys only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 2.6%; March, June, September, December; See Special Conditions A (6) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
POST OFFICE
BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NORTH
CAROLINA
27626-0535
NOTIFICATION OF J
INTENT TO ISSUE A 1
STATE NPDES ":.
PERMIT
On the basis of thorough
staff review and
application of Article 21
of Chapter 143, General
Statutes of North Carolina,
Public Law 92-500 and
other lawful standards
and regulations, the North
Carolina Environmental
Management Commission
proposes to issue a permit
to discharge to the persons
listed below effective
8/31/98 and subject to
special conditions. Persons 'wishing. to
comment upon or object
to the proposed
determinations are invited
to submit same in writing
to the above address no
later than 8/21/98. All
comments received prior
to -the date will be
considered in the
formulation of final
determinations regarding
the proposed permit. A
public meeting may be
held where the director of
the Division .of
Environmental •
Management finds a
significant degree of
public interest in a
proposed permit.
A copy of the draft permit
— is available by writing or
calling the Division of
Environmental .
Management, P.O. Box
29535, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27626-0535,
[phone].
Laurinburg, North Carolina
THE LA URINB URG
EXCHANGE
PUBLISHED MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY
LAURINBURG, NORTH CAROLINA 28353-0459
ESTABLISHED 1882 P. O. BOX 459
Division of Water Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
7
c)
rn
cn
vn
1.11
AFFADAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NORTH CAROLINA
SCOTLAND COUNTY
Jane L. Hinson
he/she is Bookkeeper
being duly sworn, deposes and says that
of THE LAURINBURG EXCHANGE,
a daily newspaper published at Laurinburg in the State of North Carolina and
county of Scotland, and that the advertisement:
Notification of Intent to issue a State NPDES Permit
a true copy of
which is annexed hereto, was published in THE LAURINBURG EXCHANGE in
the following issues: July 22,1998
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
TI-L- day of IA 1964
• I %' -9-1. ' .) . Notary Public
f � •�I �:ss r `..pies May 7, 2000
The application and other
information may be
o a+,� ,,.,..,t;,...

(9199) 733-7015.
The application and other
information may be
inspected at these locations
during normal office
hours. Copies of the
information on file ary
available upon request
and payment of the costs
of reproduction. All such
comments or requests
regarding a proposed
permit should make
reference to the NPDES
permit number listed
below.
Date: July 17, 1998
A. Preston Howard, Jr.,
P.E. Director
Division of Environmental
Management
Public notice of intent to
issue a State NPDES
permit to the following:
1. NPDES No.
NC0044725. Laurinburg-
Maxton Airport
Commission, Post Office
Box 31, Laurinburg, NC
28352 has applied for a
permit modification for a
facility located at
Laurinburg-Maxton
Airport W W'IP, on NCSR
1434,. east of Laurinburg,
scotiand County. The
facility will discharge 2.0
MGD of treated domestic
and industrial wastewater
from one outfall into the
Lumber River, a Class
C-Saw HQW stream in
the Lumber River Basin
which has a 7Q10 flow of
118 cfs. BOD5, NH3-N
and dissolved oxygen are
water quality limited. For
some parameters, the
available load capacity
of the immediate receiving
water will be consumed.
This may affect future
water quality based
effluent limitations for
additional dischargers
within this portion of the
watershed.
Publication Date: July
22, 1998.

MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jacquelyn Nowell
NPDES Permit Unit
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
May 13, 1998
FROM: Kitty Kramer jr k/(/— 1�
Fayetteville Regional Office
SUBJECT: Draft NPDES Permit
LMAC - NC0044725
Scotland County
The following comments are offered concerning subject draft permit:
1. Please include INFLUENT monitoring requirements for SOD and TSS on
all monitoring pages since this facility is a POTW.
2. Monitoring pages Part A(3) and (4) - the frequencies should be
increased to a Class III facility. This facility is constructing f7
additional treatment units to expand to a 2.0 MGD.
3. It is the request of the Fayetteville Regional Office that the words
"above 1.0 MGD" in the paragraph at the top of the page on all Part
A pages be removed. The difference in the monitoring in subject
permit relate to treatment plant expansion and not to flow increase.
This Office has had compliance problems relating to the use of words
addressing flow when that is not the issue of the limitation change
in permits and with the new enforcement strategy it becomes very
important that there not be any room for ambiguity in the language
used in our permits.
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please
not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
AKK/akk
PONT SOURCE BRANCH

Division of Water Quality
MEMO From: i//./Anr4-"- Date: /9�y8
To: ��� 2/(14C f O cu
Subject: n�� +If,-IT
/0: y".r a.yt
0) 6,4 ✓;f / 4../ 4
�'�,�,��►-� , (�,�%sue 1.,
/72- �fC/ /1✓vyf�N 1�� /EvivvJ te//vs1i�
ici�y /i f�iv"/lc., l / d E 1fyvk :.�4 �a
v4J�/ct ! '
l/
6ciS.y�
��£ X'..AvSi41.,
i u ) l �c
Xtl /f✓ zch
) L (J-
fea
//tfG 2;'' hc-t
r "l+ / ,j
sy,lf�w /? L ( V
Sit? r �
NCDENR
S 7 z 9 art'`
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PO Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 / Phone: [phone]

LAURINBURG-MAXTON AIRPORT COMM.
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (ug
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 38.1 :1
118
2
3.1
17.0
0
2.56
664.10
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (IT
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (IT
118
2
3.1
1.0
0.22
2.56
30.69
118
2
3.1
1.8
0.22
2.56
61.94

Parameter
Chloride Sodium Cobalt
Weekly Avg. Limit
Daily Maximum Limit
8300 Ibs/day 6800 Ibs/day 3.6 Ibs/day
12450 Ibs/day 10200 Ibs/day 5.4 lbs/day
Date
JuI-97
Jun-97
May-97
Apr-97
Mar-97
Feb-97
Jan-97
3804 2926
2908 2021
1719 1666
1846 1699
1853 1861
2475 2639
1596 2446
2409 1707
4139
1007 1075
2352 2190
1484 1197
1834 1330
2083 2084
1170 1000
0.865
2.15
0.750
0.432
0.635
1.360
0.397
0.246
0.241
0.255
0.179
0.631
0.364
0.312
0.286
Dec-96
Nov-96
Oct-96
Sep-96
Aug-96
JuI-96
Jun-96
May-96
Apr-96
Mar-96
Feb-96
Jan-96
Maximum
Minimum
1458
2776
1710
1406
2079
2620
1143
2469
2742
2848
1069
2785
4594
3714
3115
5305
3081
5246
2085
2646
967
1863
1.86
922
2268
5305
1.86
9.42
1376
2925
1301
1387
1814
2504
1026
1734
1834
2187
91
2436
3981
3693
2379
2439
961
4060
547
2125
963
1624
1242
0.790
0.891
5.500
25370
2294
25370
9.42
0.270
0.398
0.514
0.106
1.580
2.200
0.528
0.146
0.036
0.487
0.410
0.560
0.420
1.290
1.840
0.034
1.290
1.050
1.870
0.548
0.150
2.100
5.5
0.034

////9/97
Likyoh,-,5 4424 AiAA/i." e iSs ,7741
Zuk,t4 ,Zvt ku I/q(A)
ev(j/7t
155
fseaa
30 36
2oa
2ov
6-9
251,15 /J * 1. 3Y )6- / )4622 -Zoo - /6 A-1
/6 /e_ te 8, 3 y e /AfGj — /33, %/ //ij /
7
/33, (/4 a 3'/ z AWL
3a tic le 8, 3 `f 7r / 4f6/..I ' 02 '0. Z /ti-4/r-�
-2sa , Z =d, - 2 -ter
Abaft
pit+, 36 i A g- 1,3 I /11Gd - aso, Z
•2 of (rz2 .252) �. 3 f ; Z N7
3, = 4t i t1' 3 `' * / /f GP- = !“ ,
c / 6, 8 i 3s` - 2 ,if�1

41
L,9urr Sr i %A 4tf d....-
JJ
3,5 /z �ao/t ism � d
/0
1-5-1 nig
�d/1
i.� f.
33w 14V.4 �z yip,c�✓r E l _ le, -34,14
c
gum (80-6 G�l r'f /no o�/�, k+,y�

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Fayetteville Regional Office
October 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO :Jacquelyn M. Nowell
Environmental Modeler
NPDES Unit
THROUGH
FROM
SUBJECT
: Grady Dobson
Environmental Engineer II
: Paul Rawl
Environment F Specialist
: NPDES Permit Staff Report and Recommendations
Expansion, Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0044725
Scotland County
Please find attached staff report and recommendations for the subject expanded permit.
Also attached is a "PRELIMINARY" rating sheet based on information obtained from the facility
ORC during the onsite visit and regional recommendations.
It is the opinion of this office that the subject permit should be granted in keeping with the
Lumber River Basinwide and HQW strategies.
If you have questions or require further information please do not hesitate to contact me at (910)
486-1541.
Enclosure/Attachment
cc: Technical Support Branch
Kitty Kramer, FRO

SOC Priority Project: Yes No X
To: NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Jacquelyn Nowel].
Date 10/13/97
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Count: Scotland
NPDES Permit No. NC0044725
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission WWTP
Post Office Box 31
Laurinburg, North Carolina 28352
2. Date of Investigation: 10/9/97
3. Report Prepared by: Paul E. Rawls
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Gary Arnett,ORC
[phone] (WWTP), [phone] (LMAC Office)
5. Directions to Site: In Scotland County from the
intersection of US HWY 74 and SR 1436 travel North on
SR 1436 approximately one mile to SR 1435. From the
intersection of SR 1436 and SR 1435 turn left onto SR
1435 taking and immediate right onto SR 1434. Travel
North on SR 1434 approximately 1.2 miles to the
Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission wastewater
treatment facility.
6. Discharge Point,
Latitude: 34° 46' 20" Longitude : 7 9° 20' 05"
USGS map extract indicating treatment facility site and
discharge point attached.
USGS Quad No. H21SE USGS Quad Name Wakulla, NC
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with
application?
Expansion area was not noted in application.
LMAC has 8 to 10 acres within the plant site available
for upgrade and is considered sufficient for proposed
expansion.

8. Topography: Site is generally flat and is not located
within a flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: The nearest and only
dwelling in reasonable proximity to the WWTP is that
owned by LMAC an is occupied by the ORC. The home is
>500 feet from the WWTP.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Lumber River
a. Classification: C-Swamp, High Quality Waters
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 030752
c. Describe receiving stream features and
pertinent downstream uses: The Lumber River
has been designated as Natural And Scenic, is
used for swimming, canoeing and fishing. The
river also offers habitat for fish and
wildlife propagation.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 2.0 MGD
MGD(Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? 1.0 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? 1.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorization to Construct issued in the previous two
years: NONE

e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment
facilities:
The existing facility consists of influent
mechanical bar screen device (this unit has been out of
service for some time),comminutor (this unit has been
out of service for some time), aerated grit removal
(this unit has been out of service for some time),
influent pumps, influent splitter box, two 0.5 MGD
oxidation ditches, one 42 foot diameter and two, 30
foot diameter clarifiers, aerobic sludge digester,
sludge drying beds, chlorine gas effluent disinfection,
continuous recording effluent flow meter, effluent
pumps that pump the discharge 2.95 miles to the Lumber
River.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities:
The permittee has not submitted plans and
specifications for the upgrade but based on comments
from Mr. Arnett, ORC the proposed facilities will
consist additional units similar to those already
onsite.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
The application indicates various metals, sodium,
algicides, phenols, cobalt as well as chlorine to be
present. It is not the opinion of this office that
these compounds have had or are expected to have a
toxic impact on surface water as long as current
effluent loadings are maintained. The facility has a
good track history in regards to effluent toxicity
testing and maintains a pretreatment program.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved XXX
should be required not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ
permit no. WQ0002525
Residual Contractor
Telephone No.
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP XXX
PFRP Other
c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):

3. Treatment plant classification (Completed rating sheet
attached):
Class III (This is a change from class II)
The attached classification sheet is "Preliminary" or
"Speculative". As of the date of this report the writer
was unaware of any formal application to the Division
indicating design of upgraded facilities. It should be
noted that the rating is based on the comments of the
ORC and current basin wide policy.
4. SIC Code (s) :
Primary _01 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 1 0 0 0 3
III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. YES
LMAC has applied for and indicates that funds will be
available from EDA and CBDG sources.
2. Special monitoring or limitations requests:
Chlorine limit and monitoring is requested upon upgrade if
chlorine will be utilized for disinfection purposes.
Current discharge loadings to the Lumber River should be
maintained per HQW strategy.
3. Important SOC, JOB or Compliance Schedule dates: Nat
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation:
Spray Irrigation:
Connection to Regional Sewer System: This facility is
currently being utilized as a hub for industrial
development in the area and has recently extended the
collection system to accommodate Butler Manufacturing
eliminating a NPDES permitted discharge.
Subsurface: Not practical due to volume.
LMAC was issued a FONSI 1/7/1997. The findings were for
phased increases up to 4 MGD in a manner that will allow for
adequate reserve at the LMAC facility. All issues noted
above were addressed in the EA process.

5. Other Special Items: The current application does not
specify Maxton Meat Processors as a major industrial source
of wastewater. This office has been informed that the
facility is a SIU and will be issued a IUP soon. LMAC should
include a Standard Form A -Municipal Section IV form for
Maxton Meat Processors.
Item 10 of the permit application "Municipalities or Areas
Served" indicates that LMAC serves a population of 3,500
people. Please be advised that the population served is only
in respect to the workforce of the industries served by the
WWTP. There are only about 12 nonindustrial users of the
system.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current LMAC facility has several operational units that are
either out of service or in need of repair, as previously noted.
It is the opinion of this office that the facility should address
these items concurrent with any upgrades or expansion. It is
recommended that standby power and dechiorination be required at
this facility to protect High Quality Waters.
Based on a review of the facilities compliance track record and
current industrial loadings it is recommended that a NPDES permit
be issued for 2 MGD in keeping with basin wide strategies.
Signature of report preparer
Water'Qualityi Regional Supervisor
October 13, 1997
Date

4•14•
4 . I ' 4' I _ 4.
If..1
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission
Wastewater Treatment Facility
NPDES Permit No. NC0044725
DISCHARGE POINT

PRELIMINARY RATING: THE FOLLOWING RATING IS BASED ON COMMENTS FROM THE.
FACILITY ORC AND REGIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. NO FORMAL AtoC REQUEST HAS BEEN SUBMITTED
,TO THE DIVISION AS OF THE DATE OF THE RATING.
RATING SCALE FOR CLASSIFICATION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Name of Facility: Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission Wastewater
Owner or Contact Person: Larry Barnett, Executive Director; Gary Averitte, ORC
Laurinburg, NC 28353
Mailing Address: PO Box 31,
County: Scotland
Present Classification: II New Facility
NPDES Per. No. NC00 44725 Nondisc. Per. No.WQ
Rated by: Paul Rawl�r'
Telephone: [phone]
Existing Facility X
Health Dept.Per No.
Telephone: [phone] Date: 10 13 97
Reviewed by: Health Dept.
Kerr T. Stevens Regional Office
Central Office
ORC: Gary Arnett Grade: III
Check Classification(s): Subsurface
Wastewater Classification: (Circle One) 1
I i
Spra Irrigation
® IV
Telephone:
Telephone: [phone]
Telephone:
Telephone: [phone]
Land Application
Total Points: 56
II -PLANT PROCESSES AND RELATED CONTROL EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED WASTE TREATMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLASSIFICATION. ALSO SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS CONSISTING ONLY OF SEPTIC TAW
AND GRAVITY NITRIFICATION LINES ARE EXEMPT FROM CLASSIFICATION,
SUBSURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(check all units that apply)
1. septic tanks
2. pump tanks
3. siphon or pump -dosing systems
4. sand filters
5. grease trap/interceptor
6. oil/water separators
7. gravity subsurface treatment and disposal:
8. pressure subsurface treatment and disposal:
SPRAY IRRIGATION CI.ASSLF)CATION
(check all units that apply)
1. preliminary treatment (definition no. 32 )
2. lagoons
3. septic tanks
4.pump tanks
5. pumps
6. sand filters
7grease trap/interceptor
8. oil/water separators
9. disinfection
10. chemical addition for nutrient/algae control
11. spray irrigation of wastewater
In addition to the above classifications, pretreatment of wastewater In excess of these components shrill
be rated using the point rating system and will require an operator with an appropriate dual certification.
LAND APPLICATION/RESIDUALS CLASSIFICATION (Applies only to permit holder)
1. Land application of biosolids, residuals or contaminated soils on a designated site.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CLASSIFICATION
The following systems shall be assigned a Class I classification, unless the flow is of a significant quantity or the technology is unusually
complex, to require consideration by the Commission on a case -by -case basis: (Check if Appropriate)
1. OVVwater Separator Systems consisting only of physical separation, pumps and disposal;
2. Septic Tank/Sand Fitter Systems consisting only of septic tanks, dosing apparatus, pumps,sand filters, disinfection
and direct discharge;
3. Lagoon Systems consisting only of preliminary treatment, lagoons, pumps, disinfection, necessary chemical treatment for
algae or nutrient control, and direct discharge;
4. Closed -loop Recycle Systems;
5. Groundwater Remediation Systems consisting only of oil/water separators, pumps, air -stripping, carbon adsorption, disinfection
and disposal;
6. Aquaculture operations with discharge to surface waters;
7 Water Plant sludge handling and back -wash water treatment;
8. Seafood processing consisting of screening and disposal.
9. Single-family discharging systems, with the exception of Aerobic Treatment Units, will be dassified if permitted after July 1,
1993 or if upon inspection by the Division, it is found that the system is not being adequately operated or maintained. Such
systems will be notified of the classification or reclassification by the Commission, in writing.

The following scale is used for rating wastewater treatment facilities: (circle appropriate points)
ITEM POINTS
Industrial Pretreatment Units or Industrial Pretreatment Program (see definition No. 33)
DESIGN FLOW OF PLANT IN gpd (not applicable to non -contaminated cooling waters. sludge handling facilities for
water purification plants. totally closed cycle systems(see definition No. 11). and facilities consisting only of hem
(4)(d) or items (4)(d) and (11)(d))
0 - 20,000 1
20,001 - 50.000 2
50.001 - 100,000 .3
100,001 - 250,000 .4
250.001 - 500,000
500.001 - 1.000.000
1,000.001 - 2.000.000 10
2.000.001 (and up) rate 1 point additional for each 200.003 gpd capacity up to a maximum of 30
Design Flow (gpd) a, cx.`aq eoo
(3) PRELIMINARY UNiTS/PROCESSES (see definition No.32)
(a) Bar Screens 1
or
(b) Mechanical Screens. Static Screens or Comminuting Devices (�j
(c) Grit Removal `�
or
(d) Mechanical or Aerated Grit Removal
(0) Flow Measuring Device 1
)
Or
(f) instrumented Flow Measurement
(g) Preaeratlon 2
(h) influent Flow Equalization 2
(t) Grease or 011 Separators - Gravity 2
Mechanical .3
Dissolved Air Flotation
(J) Prechtorination .5
(4) PRIMARYTREATMENT UNITS/PROCESSES 5
(a) Septic Tank (see definition No. 43) 2
(b) Imhoff Tank. .5
(c) Primary Clarifiers .5
(d) Settling Ponds or Settling Tanks for Inorganic Non -toxic Materials (sludge handling facilities for water
purification plants. sand, gravel. stone, and other mining operations except recreational activities such as gem
or gold mining) 2
(5) SECONDARY TREATMENT UNITS/PROCESSES
(a) Carbonaceous Stage
(I) Aeration -High Purity Oxygen System .20
Diffused Air System Mechanical Air System (fixed. floating or rotor).....„..... ...................................................1
�
(II) TSeparate
Fla Sludge Reaeration
r
High Rate 7
Standard Rate .5
Packed Tower 5
(ill) Biological Aerated Fitter or Aerated Biological Filter 10
(iv) Aerated Lagoons 10
(v) Rotating Biological Contactors 10
(vi) Sand Filters -intermittent biological 2
Recirculating biological 3
(v11) Stabilization Lagoons 5
(vill) Ciarifier 5
(ix) Single stage system for combined carbonaceous removal of BOD and nitrogenous removal b
nitrification (see deiinitlon No. 12)(Points for this hem have to be in addition to items
(5)(a)(1) through (5)(a)(viil).
utilizing the extended aeration process (see definition No.3a) U
utilizing other than the extended aeration process. 8
(x) Nutrient additions to enhance BOD removal .5
(xi) Biological Culture ('Super 8ugs')addition 5
(b) Nitrogenous Stage
(I) Aeration - High Purity Oxygen System .2 0
Diffused Air System 10
Mechanical AIr System (fixed. floating or rotor) .8
Separate Studge Reaeration 3
(1I) Trickling Filter -High Rate 7
Standard Rate 5
Packed Tower 5
(111) Biological Aerated Filter or Aerated Biological Fitter 10
(iv) Rotating Biological Contactors 10
(v) Sand Fitter - intermittent biological 2
Recirculating biological 3
(6) TERTIARY OR ADVANCED TREATMENT UN1TSIPROCSSES .5
E
(a) Activated Carbon Beds -
without carbon regeneration. 5
with carbon regeneration 15
(b) Powdered or Granular Activated Carbon Feed -
without carbon regeneration 5
with carbon regeneration 15
(c) Air stripping.
.5
(d) Denitrificatlon Process
10
(0) Electrodlalysis
5
(1) Foam Separation
5 (g) ton Exchange
5
(h) Land Application of Treated Efffuert (see definition No. 22b) (not applicable for sand. gravel. stone
and other similar mining operations) by high rate Infiltration. ..... ---....-........-........-........-.........- ........ A
(1) Microscreens
(J) Phosphorous Removal by Biological Processes (See definition No. 26) 20
(k) Polishing Ponds - without aeration 2
with aeration 5
O

(7)
(8)
(I) Post Aeration - cascade 0
diffused or mechanical 2
Reverse Osmosis
Sand or Mixed -Media Fitters - tow rate 5
high rate 2
(o) Treatment processes for removal of metal or cyanide 15
( P ) treatment processes for removal of toxic materials other than metal or cyanide 15
SLUDGE TREATMENT
(a) Sludge Digestion Tank - Heated (anaerobic) 10
Aerobic 8
Unheated (anaerobic) (b) Sludge Stabilization (chemical or thermal) 3
(c) Sludge Drying Beds • Gravity .5
Vacuum Assisted
(d) Sludge Etutrtation (e) Sludge Conditioner (chemical or thermal) 55
(f) Sludge Thickener (gravity) .5
(9) Dissolved Air Flotation Unit (not applicable to a
(h) Sludge Gas Utilization (including gas storage)
m)
n)
Sludge Holding Tank - Aerated
Non -aerated
(I) Sludge Incinerator (not Including activated carbon regeneration)
(k) Vacuum Fitter. Centrifuge. or Filter Press or other similar dewatering devices
RESIDUALS UTILIZATION/DISPOSAL (including incinerated ash)
2
5
2
10
10
(a) Lagoons 2
(b) Land Application (surface and subsurface) (see definition 22a)
by contracting to a land application operator or landfill operator who holds the land application permit
or landfill permit
(c) Dedicated Landfilt(burial) by the permtttee of the wastewater treatment facility
(a) Chlorination
(b) Dechtortnation
(c) Ozone
(d) Radiation
CHEMICAL ADDITION SYSTEM(S) ( see definition No. 9) [not applicable to chemical additions rated as hem (3)(0,
(5)(a)(xl), (6)(a), (6)(b), (7)(b), (7)(e), (9a), (9)(b) or (9)(c) 5 points each:
List
(11) MISCELLANEOUS UNITS/PROCESSES
(a) Holding Ponds, Holding Tanks or Settling Ponds for Organic or Toxic Materials including wastes from mining
operations containing nitrogen or phosphorus compounds to amounts significantly greater than Is common
for domestic wastewater
(b) 4
Effluent Flow Equalization (not applicable to storage basins which are inherent in land application systems) 2
(c) Stage Discharge (not applicable to storage basins inherent in land application systems) 5
(d) Pumps
(0) Stand -By Power Supply
(1) Thermal Potiutbn Control Device
2
.5
.5
5
5
5
5
TOTAL POINTS .... 5,'3
CL ASSMATICN
Class I
Class II 5-25 Points
Class (0 26-50 Points
Class 1V 51 65 Points
6-Up Points
Facilities having a rating of one through four points, Inclusive, do not require a certified operator.
Facilities having an activated sludge process will be assigned a minimum classification of Class iI.
Facilities having treatment processes for the removal of metal or cyanide will be assigned a minimum classification of Class II.
Facilities having treatment processes for the biological removal of phosphorus will be assigned a minimum classification of Class IiI.
.0004 DEFINITIONS
The following definition shall apply throughout this Subchapter.
(1) Activated Carbon Beds. A physlcaVchemical method for reducing soluble organic material from wastewater effluent; The column -type beds used in this
method will have a flow rate varying from two to eight gallons per minute per square foot and 'may be ehher upflow or downflow carbon beds. Carbon may or
may not be regenerated on the wastewater treatment plant site;
(2) Aerated Lagoons. A basin in which all solids are maintained in suspension and by which biological oxidation or organic matter Is reduced through artificially
accelerated transfer of oxygen on a flow -through basis;
(3) Aeration. A process of bringing about Intimate contact between air or high purity oxygen in a liquid by spraying, agitation or dlffuston;(3a) Extended
Aeration. An activated sludge process utilizing a minimum hydraulic detention time of 18 hours.
(4) Agriculturally managed site. Any site on which a crop Is produced, managed, and harvested (Crop includes grasses, grains. trees, etc.);
(5) Air Stripping. A process by which the ammonium Ion is first converted to dissolved ammonia (pH adjustment) with the ammonia then released to the
atmosphere by physical means; or other similar processes which remove petroleum products such as benzene. toluene. and xytene;
(6) Carbon Regeneration. The regeneration of exhausted carbon by the use of a furnace to provide extremely high temperatures which volatilize and oxidize the
absorbed impurities;
(7) Carbonaceous Stage. A sage of wastewater treatment designed to achieve 'secondary effluent limits;
(8) Centrifuge. A mechanical device in which centrifugal force Is used to separate solids from liquids or to separate liquids of different densr.Ias;
(9) Chemical Addition Systems- The addition of chemical(s) to wastewater at an application point for purposes of improving solids removal. pH adjustment,
alkalinity control, etc.; the capability to experiment with different chemicals and different application points to achieve a specific result will be considered one
system; the capability to add chemical(s) to dual units will be rated as ones system;
capability to add a chemical at a different application points for different
purposes will result In the systems being rated as separate systems;
(10) Chemical Sludge Conditioning. The addition of a chemical compound such as time. ferric chloride. or a polymer to wet sludge to coalesce the mass prior to
Its application to a dewatertng device;
(11) Closed Cycle Systems. Use of holding ponds or holding tanks for containment of wastewater containing Inorganic. non -toxic materials from sand, gravel.
crushed stone or other similar operations. Such systems shall carry a maximum of two points regardless of pumping facilities or any other appurtenances;
(12) Combined Removal of Carbonaceous BOD and Nitrogenous Removal by Nttrificatbn- A single stage system required to achieve pemit effluent omits on BOD
and ammonia nitrogen within the same biological reactor.
(13) Dechiortnation. The partial or complete reduction of residual chlorine in a liquid by any chemical or physical process;
(14) Denitrficatton Process. The conversion of nitrate -nitrogen to nitrogen gas;

r.
• ' (15) Electrodlalysis. Process for removing Ionized salts from water through the use of ton -selective lon-exchange membranes;
(16) Filter Press. A process operated mechanically for partially dewatering sludge;
(17) Foam Separation. The planned frothing of wastewater or wastewater effluent as a means of removing excessive amounts of detergent materials through
the introduction of air in the form of fine bubbles; also called foam fractionation;
(18) Grit Removal. The process of removing grit and other heavy mineral matter from wastewater;
(19) Imhoff Tank. A deep two story wastewater tank consisting of an upper sedimentation chamber and a lower sludge digestion chamber.
(20) Instrumented Flow Measurement. A device which indicates and records rate of flow;
(21) ion Exchange. A chemical process in which tons from two different molecules are exchanged;
(22) Land application:
(a) Sludge Disposal. A final sludge disposal method by which wet sludge may be applied to land either by spraying on the surface or by subsurface injection
(i.e.. chisel plow); (not applicable for types of sludge described In (11) of this Rule);
(b) Treated Effluent. The process of spraying treated wastewater onto a land area or other methods of application of wastewater onto a land area as a
means of final disposal or treatment;
(23) Microscreen. A tow speed. continuously back -washed, rotating drum fitter operating under gravity conditions as a polishing method for removing
suspended solids from effluent;
(24) Nitrification Process. The biochemical conversion of unoxidized nitrogen (ammonia and organic nitrogen) to oxidized nitrogen (usually nitrate);
(25) Nitrogenous Stage. A separate stage of wastewater treatment designed for the specific purpose of convening ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen;
(26) Phosphate Removal, Biological. The removal of phosphorus from wastewater by an oxicianoxic process designed to enhance luxury uptake of phosphorus
by the microorganisms;
(27) Polishing Pond. A holding pond following secondary treatment with sufficient detention time to allow settling of finely suspended solids;
(28) Post Aeration. Aeration following conventional secondary treatment units to Increase effluent D.O. or for any other purpose;
(29) Post Aeration. (Cascade) A polishing method by which dissolved oxygen is added to the effluent by a nonmechanical. gravity means of flowing down a
series of steps or weirs; The flow occurring across the steps or weirs moves in a fairly thin layer and the operation of the cascade requires no operator
adjustment; thus. zero points are assigned even though this is an essential step to meeting the limits of the discharge permit;
(30) Powdered to Granular Activated Carbon Feed. A biophysical carbon process that utilizes biological activity and organic absorption by using powdered or
granular activated carbon; Virgin or regenerated carbon is feed controlled into the system;
(31) Preaeration. A tank constructed to provide aeration prior to primary treatment;
(32) Preliminary Units. Unit operations In the treatment process. such as screening and comminution, that prepare the liquor for subsequent major operations;
(33) Industrial Pretreatment.
(a) Pre-treatment Unit, Industrial. The conditioning of a waste at its source before discharge, to remove or to neutralize substances injurious to sewers and
treatment processes or to effect a partial reduction in load on the treatment process which is operated by the same governing body as the wastewater
treatment plant being rated;
b) Pre-treatment Program. industrial - must be a State or EPA required program to receive points on the rating sheet;
(34) Primary Clarifiers. The first settling tanks through which wastewater is passed in a treatment works for the purpose of removing settleable and suspended
solids and BOD which Is associated with the solids;
(35) Pumps. All influent. effluent and in -plant pumps;
(36) Radiation. Disinfection or sterilization process utilizing devices emitting uttraviolet or gamma rays;
(37) Reverse Osmosis. A treatment process in which a heavy contaminated liquid is pressurized through a membrane forming nearly pure liquid free from
suspended solids;
(38) Rotating Biological Contractors. A fixed biological growth process in which wastewater flows through tanks In which a series of partially submerged circular
surfaces are rotated;
(39) Sand Filters:
(a) Intermittent Biological. Filtration of effluent following septic tanks. lagoons. or some other treatment process in which further biodecomposttlon is
expected to produce desired effluents; Hydraulic loading rates on these filters are computed In gpd/ac and have a resulting low gpm/sf (less than one);
b) Recirculating biological - the same type of sand fitter as defined in Subparagraph (39) (a) of this Rule with the added capability to recycle effluent back
through the sand fitter.
(40) Sand or Mixed -Media Filters. A polishing process by which effluent limits are achieved through a further reduction of suspended solids;
(a) tow rate — gravity, hydraulically loaded filter with loading rates In the one to three gpm/sf range;
(b) high rate — a pressure. hydraulically loaded filter with loading rates In the five gpm/s1 range; At any rate. the loading rate will exceed three gprn/sf;
(41) Secondary Clarifiers. A tank which follows the biological unit of treatment plant and which has the purpose of removing sludges associated with the
biological treatment units;
(42) Separate Sludge Reaeration. A part of the contact stabilization process where the activated sludge Is transferred to a tank and aerated before returning tt
to the contact basin;
(43) Septic Tank. A single -story settling tank in which settled sludge is In contact with the wastewater flowing through the tank; shall not be applicable for
septic tank systems serving single family residences having capacity of 2.000 gallons or less which discharge to a nitrification field;
(44) Sludge Digestion. The process by which organic or volatile matter and sludge is gasified. liquefied. mineralized or converted into more stable organic matter
through the activity of living organisms, which Includes aerated holding tanks;
(45) Sludge Drying Beds. An area comprising natural or artHicial layers of porous materials upon which digested sewage sludge Is dried by drainage and
evaporation;
(4.6) Sludge Elutriation. A process of sludge conditioning In which certain constttuents are removed by successive washings with fresh water or plant effluent;
(47) Sludge Gas Utilization. The process of using sewage gas for the purpose of heating buildings. driving engines. etc.;
(48) Sludge Holding Tank (Aerated and Nonaerated). A tank utilized for small wastewater treatment plants not containing a digester In which sludge may be
kept fresh, and supernatant wlthdrawn prior to a drying method (i.e. sludge drying beds); Thls may be done by adding a small amount of air simply to keep the
sludge fresh, but not necessarily an amount that would be required to achieve stabilization of organic manor. A nonaerated tank would simply be used to
decant sludge prior to dewatering and would not allow long periods (several days of detention) without resulting odor problems;
(49) Sludge Incinerators. A furnace designed to bum sludge and to remove all moisture and combustible materials and reduce the sludge to a sterile ash;
(50) Sludge Stabilization (Chemical or Thermal). A process to make treated sludge less odorous and putrescrble, and to reduce the pathogenic organism
content; This may be done by pH adjustment, chlorine dosing. or by heat treatment;
(51) Sludge Thickener. A type of sedimentation tank In which the sludge is permitted to settle and thicken through agitation and gravity;
(52) Stabilization Lagoon. A type of oxidation lagoon in which biological oxidation of organic matter Is effected by natural transfer of oxygen to the water from
air (not a polishing pond);
(53) Stand -By Power Supply. On site or portable electrical generating equipment;
(54) Static Screens. A stationary screen designed to remove solids. including non -biodegradable particulate (fioatabte solids, suspended solids and BOD
reduction) from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems;
(55) Tertiary Treatment. A stage of treatment following secondary which is prtmarity for the purpose of effluent polishing; A settling lagoon or sand or coal filter
might be employed for this purpose;
(56) Thermal Pollution Control Device. A device providing for the transfer of heat from a fluid flowing In tubes to another fluid outside the tubes. or vice versa;
or other means of regulating liquid temperatures;
(57) Thermal Sludge Conditioner. A conditioning process by which heat Is added for a protracted period of time to Improve the dewatorabillty of sludge by the
solubilizing and hydraulizing of the smatter and more highly hydrated sludge particles;
(58) Toxlc Materials. Those wastes or combinations of wastes. Including disease -causing agents which after discharge and upon exposure. Ingestion, inhalation
or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or Indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will cause death. disease. behavioral
abnormalities, cancer. genetic mutations. physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions In reproduction) or physical deformations. to such organisms or their
offspring; Toxic materials Include. by way of Illustration and not limitation: lead, cadmium. chromium. mercury, vanadium, arsenic, zinc, ortho-nitro-chiorobenzene
(ONCE). polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dichtorodiphenyl trtchloroethane (DDT); and any other materials that have or may hereafter be determined to have
toxic properties;
(59) Trickling Fitter. A biological treatment unit consisting of a material such as broken stone or rock over which wastewater is distributed; A high rate trickling
filter Is one which operated at between 10 and 30 mgd per acre. A low rate trickling fitter Is one which is designed to operate at one to four mgd per acre;
(60) Trickling Filter (Packed Tower). A plug flow type of operation In which wastewater flows down through successive layers of media or filtrate material; Organic
material is removed continually by the active biological fixed growth in each successive layer. This method may produce 'secondary' quality effluent, or may be
adapted to produce a Ntrlfled effluent;
(61) Vacuum Fitter, Centrifuges. or Filter Presses. Devices which are designed to remove excess water from either digested or undigested sludge prior to disposal
or further treatment.

J
LMAC Site Visit — October 7,1997
Jackie Nowell
Paul Clark
Paul Rawls, Fa Ro
Gary Arnett, ORC
Notes
• The average Qw for LMAC is 600,000 GPD. The justification for the upgrade . New
industries (trucking lines, equipment, etc.) are coming in. EDA Grant application has
been requested. LMAC is at their capacity now. Have allocated out with all
pretreatment. 85-90% allocated out. BOD5 and sodium has overallocated the LMAC
plant.
• Maxton Meat Packing which averages 90,000 GPD is now an SIU, and should be
added as an industrial page on the application.
• They are expecting any time to receive a Block grant. CBG for $1.2 million has been
approved. EDA grant for $1.5 M has been sent to Atlanta.
• Plans for upgrade include: another train, plans for drying beds (not recommended by
P. Rawls)
• Compliance problems in the last 6 months. TSS (clarifiers bad), Fecal problems
(ORC believes there are lab problems), BOD5 also.
• Based on the headworks, LMAC may be overallocated because of Maxton Meat
Packing.
• Use industry wastestream as carrier, for other industries waste.
8 to 10 acres available for expansion., 2 influent pumps. Dual 1/2 acres oxidation ditches.
3 clarifiers, 142 ft. diameter, 2 30 ft diameter,
Currently Class II facility will go to Class III. LMAC owns LMAC plant, air base.
LMAC- Laurel Hill separate plants, separate outfalls.

Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Carla Sanderson
Date: Fri, May 9, 1997 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Laurinburg-Maxton Airport WWTP
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Michelle- I have been looking through the files again and trying to jog my memory on this. I
noticed that we responded to the the original EA which also had the different wasteflows (2
MGD and 3 MGD). In my response I said that the limits included in the EA are still
speculative until a a formal application identifying the wasteflow is submitted to the Division.
This response was to the 1995 EA and unfortunately did not get into the 1996 revision (as the
comments from all agencies usually do). So - they have had these flows and limits in each
EA, although our concern is still the same - we have not received a request for a permit for
these flows (and consequently there is not an EA reflecting a facility built to these lower
flows). I talked to Ron Huff again and told him this again and that we need to determine
how to proceed from here and I would probably be calling him back on Monday. I need to
check with Dave on some protocol issues and I have not been able to locate him this
afternoon.
Sony I drew such a blank on this one today. Hopefully we will get things cleared up by next
week. Thanks.

Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Date: Fri, May 9, 1997 1:27 PM
Subject: Laurinburg-Maxton Airport VVWTP
To: Carla Sanderson
cc: Alan Clark; Dave Goodrich
Carla - I received a phone call from Ron Huff, Hobbs Upchurch & Assoc., regarding the
status of the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport WWTP project. They are still desiring to amend
their project to a 1 to 2 mgd expansion, although they received an approved EA and FONSI
not that long ago for a 1 to 4 mgd expansion. The reason for this is that they cannot afford to
upgrade to the more stringent 4 mgd limits now, when they only need a little bit of capacity
now to attract industries. They realize that they may need to amend the EA, even though Ron
does not think he needs to do any amended EA at all. At the minimum he should have asked
you folks for a new waste load allocation before now. I encouraged Ron to talk to you about
this ASAP.
The problem now is that Ron wants me (or someone in DWQ - he even said he would
approach ST or Preston if he had to since he is upset and thinks that DWQ got him in this
situationto begin with) to write a letter to the Airport Commission indicating that, "although
an amended EA may be necessary for the revised project, DWQ does not foresee any
significant environmental issues to be brought up in this amended EA that were not already
addressed in the original EA. And, DWQ does not forsee anything holding up the project as
amended in this new proposal." He wants this written correspondence from us to make the
funding agency (federal Economic Development Administration) satisfied and comfortable
with the amended project to guarantee funding. According to Ron, my memo dated April 4
(the one you reviewed on e-mail) brought up enough concern from EDA to make them
question providing funding for the project.
I am a little concerned with the precidence of putting in writing a sign -off of the EA
(amendment or new) before ever seeing it. I also feel that since this issue hinges on the
differences in the anticipated direct water quality impacts predicted from the original proposal
to this new proposal, that it was essential that you folks are consulted before I would make
such a broad statement. At the minimum they need a new waste load allocation to even begin
discussing this (correct?).
With less capacity, the secondary impacts actually might be reduced. Yet, if the treatment
limits are less stringent under the new proposal (but the overall flow would be less), would
the bottom -line amount of total pollutants delivered to the system be more or less?
I told Ron that I needed to speak with Alan and you regarding this before I wrote such a
letter. Alan wanted me to touch bases with you and Dave about this issue to see if there can
be some sort of compromise established. Please let me know what you think ASAP. Maybe
the four of us need to sit down and talk about what to do about this. I told Ron I would try
to call him back this afternoon.
Thanks!
Michelle

a
Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Date: Thu, Apr 3,1997 12:39 PM
subject: Larinburg-Maxton
To: Carla Sanderson
Carla -
Please review the draft memo below and make changes as you see fit.
Thanks!
MICHELLE
******************************
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe
THROUGH: Alan Clark
RE: Comments on DEHNR # 97-0577; DWQ#11543
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport EDA Grant
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion from 1 mgd to 2 mgd
Maxton, Robeson & Scotland Counties
This project is a proposed funding request for the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission
for their wastewater treatment facility to be expanded from 1 million gallons per day (mgd) to
2 mgd for servicing a new industry and a new prison in the area. The Airport Commission
recently completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the North Carolina (State)
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for an expansion of this facility to 4 mgd. A Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by our Division in October 1996. This completed
EA indicated that the Commission proposed to implement their 4 mgd expansion in
increments. It is unclear if the proposed request for funding is for an incremental increase (as
part of the total 4 mgd) or if this represents an amendment to the project, with a new
expansion request to only 2 mgd.
The EA also stated that once the permit to 4 mgd was granted, they anticipated asking for an
immediate expansion from 1 to 1.5 mgd. According to our latest permit files, this facility is
still permitted for 1.0 mgd. The Airport Commission has completed all the work required to
allow them to have a permit for 4 mgd, including a waste load allocation for 4 mgd in 1994.
As of April 1,1997, however, no permit application has been received in DWQ for any
expansion request.
The Division of Water Quality is concerned with the proposed funding request for a 1 to 2
mgd expansion at this time. It is unclear if the facility is planning to meet the waste limits for
the 4 mgd expansion (as was proposed in the EA) for the proposed funding request
expansion to 2 mgd. If they are going to ask for a permit for 2 mgd (consistent with this
funding request), the Commission needs to request a new waste load allocation from our

Page 2
agency for 2 mgd. Waste limits will change for the project if its capacity is amended from 4
mgd to 2 mgd (due to the North Carolina High Quality Water regulations). If the project has
indeed changed from a 4 mgd to a 2 mgd expansion, this new project may require the
preparation of an amended Environmental Assessment or a supplement to the original EA
under SEPA.

Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
MVO - Water Duality Section
//9/ 3 4/ 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Env. Sciences B ranch
* Wetlands'
❑ John Dorney � �--C>
❑ Lii.. Gsl. wi, (Dtt)
❑ Greg Price (airports, coE)
❑ Steve Kroeger (utilities)
0
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
❑ Trish MacPherson
❑ Kathy Herring (forestloRw/HQW)
* Toxicology
❑ Larry Auslev
0
Planninr7 Branch
Technical Support Branch
Coleen Sullins, P&E
❑ Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
❑ Carolyn McCasidll, P&F, State
❑ Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
l( Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
E Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.®
Operations Branch
CI
❑ Tom Poe, Pretreatment
❑ Lisa Martin, Water S upply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
• Asheville 0 Mooresville 0 Washington
❑ Fayetteville 0 Raleigh 0 Wilmington
❑ Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle S�uver1 abbe, Planning Branch
(
RE: i 1 j A.,V cn V'' ' 1 A1. it' 0TP
Attached is a copy of the above document. ubject to the requirements of the No_.` Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.. you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your wtitzen comments, if
any, by the dare indicated.
RESPONSE ,DEADLINE: g / 1 /
0 NO COMIYIENt 0 COMMENTS A'1'T:AL -IED
DaLZ:.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
1 vt- — 2 -
a
c
d n ! 51, `
l.�^ 'mot e�'9
I� c� D /
You can reach me at: (J
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
c::=erao.dce

s
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
❑ Project located in 7th floor library
(15y3
Project Number:
Cr) 7
County;
Date:
3 I2\R
i
Date Response D
(firm deadline):
3
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone
Regional Office Area
In -House Review
❑ Asheville
Fayetteville
❑ Mooresville
❑ Raleigh
❑ Washington
❑ Wilmington
❑ Winston-Salem
0 Soil and Water
❑ Coastal Management
❑Water Resources
Wildlife
❑ Marine Fisheries
❑Water Planning
Environmental Health
❑ Solid Waste Management
C Radiation Protection
❑ David Foster
❑ Other (specify)
■ All R/O Areas
Air
Water
P9 Groundwater
'Land Quality Engineer
• Forest Resources
0 Land Resources
.Parks and Recreation
,Environmental Management
Monica Swihart
• Recreational Consultant
❑ Coastal Management Consultant
❑ Others
PWg
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Date:
In -House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In -House Reviewer complete individual response.
❑ No objection to project as proposed
❑ No Comment
❑ Insufficient information to complete review
0 Approve
❑ Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
❑ Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
❑ Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
0 Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
❑ Applicant has been contacted
❑ Applicant has not been contacted
0 Project Controversial (comments attached)
0 Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
❑ Consistency Statement not needed •
❑ Full ES must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
❑ Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS 104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
1. TYPE OF sUSEVSSCN:
Application
O Construction
p Namn-Ca-s: --• cn
P'e2CP'iZati0n
® COnS;:UC.10:1
Non- r.r..-:c:inn
FIGURE 1
Standard Form 424
Z. DATE SUE1141TTED
3. pris RECJYED BY STATE
4. r ll •'M EY
APO= Arise:
mse AxEczion Iden fier
Feral
5. APPL1C.a.k- 1}.r'7• rou-noN ra
1.,O+e: Lauri nburg/Maxton Airport Commi ss i di U:>w
8. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Z3 Nse.i O Cot ".==1 Q Rev-acn
g
\OD
A. t.-rare %-tea= B.
Ar<.-C
D. Dec. erse ? ^► C -. per 1= '..�' :
C. hce.re flsaxr+
10. CATALOG OF F-.�E.; L. DCAES 1C ASSZS 1J'C hu LEr1:
111111
SSED - FRAN
12. A-REAS .t c-r D BY P ROJEEC'i (C . C � S.:s. etc.):
Robeson and Scotland Counties, NC
11. F � PROJECT
i t. C:X GRFSSCRAL rahc S OF
15. E!TIMAT D i�t�DJ4G:
1,500,000
1,200,000
464,70o
OMB A ; -aval No. =1 S-0043
Nz:e a d teie'X :s-^rxt of pe =n = 9e c= on rra.'fe•s irrrrrr"a :is
n (g;'..na rN)
Larry Barnett, LMAC Director 910/844-5081
Ellen Gause, District 910/862 9 5
7. TYP=--
OF APPU^..'J 1: (t•frxr 2P•'r.xeae a r. X- )
H. tic ,aent
1. Sae C: ^^.�f►e_' on of K tta"'=+;
J. Pri a-Z U rr f
K L-:=;rce
L
>� Prof.t Cr - '
N. one (S*'Y)
9. ti.A3.1E OF FE-DEAL!. « ,4C- :
Economic Development Administration
Atlanta Regional Office
11. D- E IT E OF r.F? UO'r-.tiTS P R Or-rc;:
Expansion of wastewater treatment plant
operated by Lauri nburg /oaxton MGDAirport
Commission from 1 MGD
to serve
industry in new shell building and new
ri son
7th and 8th
16. 5 APPi...C..•T3'CT
1Y-72P^ ?
TN'S PiLAPPUCA s'APP'►.::%++ W S A r'
a YES. Tc WINE C,;,;ER 12;%2 PFC-S
TO The STATE
OR
;�'VEW ON:
17.5 T1-E APP UC%-'i'T D-�-" X:X T oM ANY �' `T
0 Yc
r.
s.TOAL I s 3,164,700 HAS
Pu�:T.ora ARE Tue ,� (�Rr,Ec?, �D�� r THE
:8. 70 T Z ==57 0'" 31''! K?tOWLz7 = AHD EELi . �- DATA iK C.L APPU^ , PLY `lYiTr{ 7iC- ATTACHED
EE�i DUL': A:J7NCFu' �.:� BY Try C.0 a BOOT T*4 t. PUCAh? !.}.� ire= APPUCLKT W1L•. COu
5 AWARD-W. G T ."ocse Fire
•T� g1o/844-5081
y Ty e h'-afr�a d A a than ►•rar "'` e Chairman
Jim McClanat�•0��'�
d. <<.nat:sa c: 1.4...::sort-:cC Fie 'WI
eS..rrie
to Loa1 14.v0e loc.o n
Par= (.:c1C£.

L8f8Z PN170WJ HPJON S3Nld Nd3HlfOS
S!l33N10N3 ON! 1fSNO3
-trcl 1S31 t7l00SSte 5' H inHOdf 'S880H
II Ng I
1.14 x11
31Y3S 3IN4Y 1D
vrincuivo I • ,
dVW 31.13
10 CO id vGd
NOISSIWWOO 1EOdd1d NO1XWW Jdfl8NldflV1
r
.71.0.7)
140:31 v
4JO551 0 Y11� M3•tu f
rift YS
Knoccoca
,1N3t1v7.1
1131VM31SVM 9►0151.3
113M21V31') 17NY �QJ11 ?131l1.5
CN99g"1
1'

.
Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 1997 12:39 PM
Subject: Larinburg-Maxton
To: Carla Sanderson
Carla -
Please review the draft memo below and make changes as you see fit.
Thanks!
MIC:HELLE
******************************
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe
THROUGH: Alan Clark
RE: Comments on DEHNR # 97-0577; DWQ#11543
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport EDA Grant
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion from 1 mgd to 2 mgd
Maxton, Robeson & Scotland Counties
This project is a proposed funding request for the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission
for their wastewater treatment facility to be expanded from 1 million gallons per day (mgd) to
2 mgd for servicing a new industry and a new prison in the area. The Airport Commission
recently completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the North Carolina (State)
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for an expansion of this facility to 4 mgd. A Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by our Division in October 1996. This completed
EA indicated that the Commission proposed to implement their 4 mgd expansion in
increments. It is unclear if the proposed request for funding is for an incremental increase (as
part of the total 4 mgd) or if this represents an amendment to the project, with a new
expansion request to only 2 mgd.
The EA also stated that once the permit to 4 mgd was granted, they anticipated asking for an
immediate expansion from 1 to 1.5 mgd. According to our latest permit files, this facility is
still permitted for 1.0 mgd. The Airport Commission has completed all the work required to
allow them to have a permit for 4 mgd, including a waste load allocation for 4 mgd in 1994.
As of April 1, 1997, however, no permit application has been received in DWQ for any
expansion request.
The Division of Water Quality is concerned with the proposed funding request for a 1 to 2
mgd expansion at this time. It is unclear if the facility is planning to meet the waste limits for
the 4 mgd expansion (as was proposed in the EA) for the proposed funding request
expansion to 2 mgd. If they are going to ask for a permit for 2 mgd (consistent with this
funding request), the Commission needs to request a new waste load allocation from our

Page 2
agency for 2 mgd. Waste limits will change for the project if its capacity is amended from 4
mgd to 2 mgd (due to the North Carolina High Quality Water regulations). If the project has
indeed changed from a 4 mgd to a 2 mgd expansion, this new project may require the
preparation of an amended Environmental Assessment or a supplement to the original EA
under SEPA.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH: Alan Clark, Supervisor
RE:
DEHNRAro ;*;,A
October 18, 1996
Jeanette Furney, State Clearinghouse
Michelle Suverkrubbe, WQ Planning Branch
EA/FONSI for Clearinghouse Review
NPDES Permit No. NC0044725
Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission WWTP EA
(DEHNR Project # 722); Scotland County
The Division of Water Quality is submitting the enclosed 6 copies of the above FONSI
and Environmental Assessment for State Clearinghouse review. This document has been
reviewed at both the Division level and through DEHNR and has been amended to satisfy any in-
house concerns. Please publish this project and circulate it in the Environmental Bulletin on
October 25, 1996 for a 30 working day review to end Dec. 11, 1996.
If you should have any questions, please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567.
enclosures
cc: Mr. Alton Cox, Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates (w/FONSI)
Mr. Larry Barnett, LMAC, PO Box 31, Laurinburg, NC 28353 (w/FONSI)
Mike Wicker, DWQ - Fayetteville Regional Office (w/FONSI)
Dave Goodrich, DWQ - NPDES Permits Group (w/FONSI)
Carla Sanderson, DWQ - Instream Assessment Unit (w/FONSI)
mls:\sc722mem.doc
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Assessment for the
Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission
Wastewater Treatment Plant (VVWTP) Expansion
LaurinburglMaxton Airport Commission
Laurinburg, Scotland County
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, for a proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion for the
Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission (LMAC) in Scotland County. The project is located
between the Lumber River and Shoeheel Creek outside of Maxton, in eastem Scotland County.
Portions of the Airport property drain to the Little Pee Dee basin. The wastewater treatment plant
is located on Shoeheel Creek, but discharges treated wastewater to the Lumber River, which is
located within the Lumber River Basin. The Lumber River is a State Wild and Scenic River
(SWSR) and has been classified as High Quality Waters (HQW).
The project would involve an expansion of the permitted LMAC treatment capacity from 1 MGD
(million gallons per day) to 4 MGD. It is predicted that this upgrade would occur in increments
as needed to provide adequate reserve to lure prospective industries to the Commission property.
Once the proposed permit is granted, an immediate expansion in flow up to 1.5 MGD could be
anticipated to serve a prospective industry. Other activities involved with expanding the plant's
capacity beyond 1.5 MGD would occur in the future at unspecified times. Construction activities
on the Airport property will be required for any additional expansion to the existing 1 MGD
facility, and would include:
1) An additional 0.5 MGD oxidation ditch with all appurtenances, including clarification,
tertiary filtration, dechlorination, sludge handling facilities, and standby generation.
2) Land clearing at the plant site with a potential for construction adjacent to the existing
facility.
The proposed work is being done in order to accommodate the future wastewater treatment needs
of this industrial park. The LMAC treatment facility currently serves 15 industries, both inside and
outside the formal airport boundaries. If no expansion were planned, the industrial park could not
attract or serve additional industries. Therefore, an increase in industrial development on the
LMAC lands would occur as a direct result of the increase in wastewater treatment plant capacity.
Impacts from this industrial growth are therefore considered secondary impacts of the proposed
treatment plant expansion, and have been discussed and mitigated adequately in the document.
Due to the classification of the Lumber River as HQW and SWSR, and to protect the assimilative
capacity of the River, the NPDES permit for this project will require that the total amount of
pollutants discharged for the expanded treatment plant be maintained at current levels. In
addition to this specific water quality protection measure, other mitigation measures have been
included in the planning of the industrial park to reduce the potential secondary impacts of the
industrial development on the human environment. These measures are discussed on page 32 of
the document.

i
.
:
$
This EA and Fording of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are prerequisites for the issuance of an
NPDES permit for the wastewater treatment plan expansion by the Division of Water Quality.
The subject EA addresses a wide array of potential primary and secondary impacts associated
with plant construction, operation and secondary growth development. Based on the findings of
the EA and on the impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained therein, including strict
effluent discharge limitations, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant
impacts to the environment. Pending approval by the State Clearinghouse, the environmental
review for this project will be concluded. An environmental impact statement will not be prepared
for this project.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(Formerly Division of Environmental Management)
October 18,1996

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Alton Cox
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Dear Mr. Cox:
�s
1731EHNFi
October 7, 1996
Subject: Environmental Assessment Revisions
NPDES Permit NC0044725
Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission WWTP
Scotland County
Modifications to the Environmental Assessment (EA) were received on September 5, 1996. The following
revisions are necessary prior to final approval:
• Maximum Allowable Hydraulic Loading - Utilization of Soil Conservation Service maps is acceptable
for assessing soil characteristics. However, in the absence of soil sampling information, a hydraulic
loading rate lower than the lowest value determined from the water balance calculation is not allowed.
Therefore, the lowest hydraulic loading rate that can be used in calculating land requirements is 14.9
in/month. All costs for the spray irrigation piping, land costs, etc. must be revised using this higher
application rate.
• Storage Lagoon and Pump Station - Based on the water balance a 46-day storage capacity seems
excessive. This cost figure should be revised for a lagoon with a 15-day storage capacity.
• Flow Justification - The discussion of possible tenants for the LMAC facility adequately justifies the 4.0
MGD flow request. In order to fulfill the engineering alternatives requirement (NCAC 2H .0105(c)(2))
for a permitted flow increase to 4.0 MGD, a cost comparison similar to the one for 1.5 MGD should be
performed for this maximum anticipated flow limit.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Greg Nizich at 919-733-5083,
ext. 541.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Permits Group
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office, Water Quality
Mr. Larry Barnett, LMAC, P.O. Box 31, Laurinburg, NC 28353
Instream Assessment Unit, Carla Sanderson
Public Coordinator/Implementation Group, Michelle Suverkrubbe
Permit File
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 7, 1997
Mr. Larry Barnett
Laurinburg/ Maxton Airport Commission
P.O. Box 31
Laurinburg, NC 28353
Re: SCH File #97-E-4300-0288; EA-FONSI
NPDES No. 0044725
Laurinburg/Maxton WWTP
Scotland County
Dear Mr. Barnett:
7:7A
1E3EHNI=1
On December 12, 1996 the State Clearinghouse deemed the NCEPA review on the
above project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse). It is now acceptable to
proceed with your permit applications through the Division of Water Quality for the
components of the proposed project. No further actions on the EA are required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at
[phone], ext. 567.
Sincerely,
ichelle L. Subbe, AICP
Environmental Specialist
enclosures
mis:\L,MAC'clrnghs complete ltr 1/7/97
cc: Alton Cox, Hobbs, Upchurch & Assoc. (w/ enclosures)
Coleen Sullins, Permits and Engineering (w/ enclosures)
Dave Goodrich, NPDES Group (w/ enclosures)
Melba McGee, DEHNR (w/ enclosures)
Mike Wicker, DWQ-FRO (w/ enclosures)
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
December 12,1996
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe
N.C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Dear Ms. Suverkrubbe:
Re: SCH File #97-E-4300-0288; EA/FONSI - Proposed Laurinburg/Maxton Airport
Commission Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Because of
the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review
action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
am,- AiPr
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
CB/j f
Attachments
cc: Region N
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51.01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

NORTH CAROL TNA ST4TE'CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT nc ADMINISTRATION
TNTE GOV'RMM ENTAL REVIEW
REVt W DTSTRTa'JT ?M
DEPT OF CUL RES^UR''ES
DEPT OF EHNR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPT OF CCEPS - NErD
STATE PLANNING R^ aT'7M N
STATE NUMBER 07-E-4300-0781
')ATE RECEIVED 10 18 96
STATE AGENCY RESPONSE DU= 12 09 96
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE 1' 08 96
REVIEW CLOSED 1? 11 oh
PROJECT
APPL: N.C. ' P!. ,nr: 'HNR
CFDAt: 00001
DESC: EA/FCNST - LA!JRTNRUR1/MAXT M AIRPORT COMMISSI'N WASTE'4aT7R
TPFATmc\!' "L4'1T tr-X2AMST7M+ cX''.A!!7' FROM 1 MGD ' 4 r„
CROSS-RcFER-',JCE N! JMR R :
H0;'
RFV!EW TH7 ATTA! H7D nR' JECT. SU'MTT VOU' RESPONSE Rv &R7V7 TNDICAT=D
DATE. IE ArYYTTT'W R7VIEW TTM7 TS NEEt ) C?NTArT THIS ^-c1C _ •
AS A 0P(!ULT r7 -,,,7s 77Vr:t,/ TH . FO1_I ^WING TS SUBMTTT=n
9 &dz.- uf 10/a(-1.r
Q w e v -reca (,&/ Q. L/€1471,5-
mkpi b e pa�7' o71
ig"'ocesS, !` HAR �-
plawfs s cS
be a le 40 rovi d 60d._
STATE CLEARING .
( ) M r7+,.+,4ENT
NOV 2 5 1996

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 28, 1996
Mr. Ron Huff
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
AIM
...... .....
EDEa--INFl
(0' c'c 3
V o
Subject: Environmental Assessment
NPDES Permit NC0044725
Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission WWTP
Scotland County
Dear Mr. Huff:
This is in response to your letter of February 19, 1996 requesting additional guidance on finalizing the
environmental assessment (EA). The following information is required to complete the EA:
• Cost analysis for land application - Provide a breakdown of the costs arriving at the $8.4 M total.
Computation of the storage lagoon size and irrigation site should be included with these figures. If the
initial wastewater flow increase is to 1.5 MGD, then the alternative evaluated should be for 0.5 MGD
since the existing 1.0 MGD is already handled via discharge.
• Provide justification for a flow increase to 4.0 MGD . The EA currently bases this figure on the land
area available for treatment plant expansion and discharge force main capacity, not flow generation. A
figure based on estimated tenant flow -generation should be provided.
At this time, because wastestream characteristics are unknown, the Division can only base modified permit
limits assuming a domestic -type wastestream. Changes in wastewater characteristics could necessitate a
permit modification and/or a modified EA. A permit modification could take six months to complete. It is
possible that permit limits could become more stringent if the wastestream necessitated such measures to
protect water quality.
Once a FONSI has been issued, the only additional information required to process the corresponding
permit modification would be a residuals management plan in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0138(b)(8).
Upon resolution of the above comments, and agency comments sent by Ms. Monica Swihart on June 21,
1995, six copies of a revised EA should be submitted to Mr. Alan Clark in the Division's Planning Branch.
If you have any questions regarding these issues, please contact Mr. Greg Nizich at 919-733-5083, ext.
541.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Permits Group
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office, Water Quality
Mr. Larry Barnett, LMAC, P.O. Box 31, Laurinburg, NC 28353
Instream Assessment Unit, Carla Sanderson
Public Coordinator/implementation Group, Alan Clark
Permit File
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southem Pines, NC 28388
February 19, 1996
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NC Department of Environment, Health
arid Natural ULResources
Permits and Engineering
Division of Environmental Management
P O Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27604-7687
RE: Environmental Assessment and Permit Request
to Expand the Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission
Wastewater Treatment Plant to 4 mgd
HUA No. LM9301 - LM9203
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
'FEB 2 3 ,i9°
:l
if
On December 5, 1995 a meeting was held at the Archdale Building to discuss what further
information would be required of the Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission (LMAC) in order to
obtain a FONSI and/or a Discharge Permit to allow the discharge of up to 4 mgd into the adjacent
Lumber River from the wastewater plant. I have been working in conjunction with LMAC for
several years gathering environmental data and preparing the Environmental Assessment for the
project. This was undertaken so that LMAC could be in a position to rapidly expand the wastewater
treatment plant as an attraction for industry.
Of special concern was the request by the regional office of DEM to supply detailed planning work
with regards to the alternative of land application. A detailed analysis requires additional work by a
soil scientist and by Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
After discussion of the subject at the meeting, it was decided that DEM would formulate a written
reply to LMAC providing guidance. More specifically, DEM was to determine what will be
required to receive a FONSI and what, if any, additional information will be needed to grant a
permit.
Southem Pines, NC • Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC • Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Myrtle Beach, SC • Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

Mr. Dave Goodrich
February 19, 1996
Page 2
We understand that this is an unusual situation, however, we must bring our efforts to a conclusion
in order to give LMAC the industrial recruiting tool which they require. We had expected the
written reply from DEM by now and look forward to receiving it in the near future. Please give me
a call to update me on the status of our request.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
IC ork l44 {.
Ron S. Huff, P.E.
RSH/ej j
cc: Mr. Larry Barnett, LMAC
Mr. Michael Wicker, Fayetteville Regional DEM
Ms. Carla Sanderson, Raleigh DEM
Mr. Greg Nizich, Raleigh DEM

jLrilizt 0-5 -q5
Sx 0 5► trn I.o 4614
\r,/. bi�� cJ®-h.�� /. D 2ci-i c , Y)0+ ev\oof i ko-p644i4itki
mavut a►s cti- ?),.10e\A_
t s-40±Q ac)ad-; 6-Y%
ry cL 4-eAtA Imo.
.ovo a v6 Co r\q1) abcgclt tO 00V ' LIU rk(/
-c-OV Jkl\t4G-t vv,) U1/4.A.G tv‘oob.{^
Coo0 -p46.b fit4 c_ ca-vts. w •\---
h , bo + u 1, A o ppYov,ed
‘(--t c s k21 tt\CI
'14 Q oo i-f pes o-( lw: Q C o wCt u
C\Oe_3k-S
PJmoo. `-i-a tok x-L YID `ttd)
V
o LAYP , 2U v -4 6 V Q.0 giocW- afss o v -�; -

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
June 6, 1995
****************#************************************************
*****************************************************************
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
•
.
•
.
MONICA SWIHART, PLANNING BRANCH
WATER QUALITY SECTION
KERR T. STEVE
Regional Supervisor
SUBJECT ; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LAURINBURG/MAXTON AIRPORT COMMISSION WWTP EXPANSION
NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0044725
SCOTLAND COUNTY
The staff of the Fayetteville Regional Office have reviewed the
subject EA and each section offer the following comments:
WATER QUALITY
The subject EA appears to address the concerns raised during our
review of the Draft EA submitted to you August 26, 1994. Our
concerns regarding industrial pretreatment requirements and metals
limits, wetland impacts, development densities and stormwater
runoff, sludge production and land application of residuals, and
color monitoring were addressed and will be resolved through
additional permitting procedures.
The alternative analysis section was expanded to address non -
discharge options. The analysis continues to support the discharge
alternative. The consultant should be cautioned that this analysis
will be a requirement of the NPDES permit modification application
and that a more detailed submittal will be required. The basis for
the cost of land prices used, the cost of the proposed treatment
facilities at the WWTP, the cost of the spray irrigation system,

the 0 & M costs for each should be included after conversion to
present worth, the complete soils analysis, the calculations for
the required acreage of a spray system, the loading rates used and
the basis for this rate. Because this discharge is to HQW waters
this will be a requirement prior to any modifications to the
permit. The EA does address this matter; however, the details to
support this analysis have not been provided at this time and will
be a necessary part of the permit modification process.
The consultant's :statement that industrial wastes are site limiting
in land application' projects is true; however, these wastes will
also be pretreated in the same manner as the discharging WWTP. Any
constituents which would limit the site life would certainly be
limited more stringently in the discharge option so the same
precautions apply to each option.
The EA also implies secondary treatment prior to land application.
Normally primary treatment in facultative lagoons and a storage
lagoon is the preliminary treatment required prior to land
application.
The EA is correct in that the opportunity costs of the land
involved in the project should be taken into account. The basis of
this cost must be documented by appraisal or comparable means.
GROUNDWATER
The expansion of the wastewater treatment system does not present
any concerns relating to the groundwater resources. However, the
increase in water production from on -site wells will need to be
thoroughly planned.
The fact that contaminated groundwater exists at various locations
within this tract will limit the locations and usage of groundwater
production wells. Aquifer testing for quality and yield should be
conducted during the planning stage of this project. A
determination of the best production well sites and the
volume these proposed wells could pump without influencing areas
of impacted groundwater will enable the planners to be aware of the
water supply limitations this site may have.
AIR QUALITY
No other comments were deemed necessary from our previous review.
This completes our review of this document. Should you have any
further questions about this matter please contact our staff at
910 ) 486-1541.
MCW:mcw:lmacea2

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
May 30, 1995
Memorandum
To: Monica Swihart
From: Carla Sandersonl�!
Through: Ruth Swanek
Subject: Laurinburg/Maxton Airport Commission WWTP
Amended Environmental Assessment Review
NPDES No. NC0044725
Scotland County
I have reviewed the amended EA for the LMAC WWTP proposed expansion from 1.0
MGD to 4.0 MGD. The limits included in this amended document reflect the proposed
recommended limit requirements for the expansion. Although, at this time the
recommended limits are still speculative until a formal application identifying the wasteflow
is submitted to the Division for a NPDES permit.
The Environmental Assessment has not identified the sources of industrial flow to connect
to the facility as part of the proposed expansion. The Instream Assessment Unit is
concerned with the unknown industrial sources. Some types of industrial waste have a
high percentage of refractory BOD which decays very slowly. According to the Lumber
River management strategy, pollutant loads will remain the same for expansions. If the
BOD from the industrial sources is more refractory than normal, then the ultimate load to
the river will need to be determined based on knowledge of the industry.
The HQW regulation also requires expanding facilities to maintain existing loads. The
LMAC discharges into HQW portion of the Lumber River. Therefore, careful
consideration will be given to new chemicals, toxics, metals and possibly color from the
industrial flow entering this facility.
These comments are from the Instream Assessment Unit of the Technical Support Branch.
The Permit and Engineering Unit has not had a chance to comment on the alternatives and
justification for flow section of the EA.
Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter.
cc: Permits and Engineering