NC0027103_Wasteload Allocation_19940825

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
i•
PERMIT NO.: NC0027103
PERMITTEE NAME:
Town of Pembroke
FACILITY NAME: Pembroke Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major "1
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: 0.82 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
Needs limits for 0.82 MGD and expansion to 1.33 MGD
RECEIVING STREAM: the Lumber River
Class: C-Swamp-HQW
Sub -Basin: 03-07-51
Reference USGS Quad: 122 NW
County: Robeson
Regional Office: Fayetteville Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 8/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: III
Classification changes within three miles:
Class change to WS-III-Sw HOW downstream approximately 2 miles
at NCSR 1003.
Requested by:
Jay Lucas
Date: 1/5/94
Prepared by:c2T]Jkr
Reviewed by: C
-?:0Q13s. 0•0-
Date: 411
Date: da5/9
/.33
F
Modeler
Date Rec.
Cr.AS
1'bketJ.
Drainage Area (mil) La ei
12 1
Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) 1c2..0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC j, %
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters 1�
Upstream P5
Downstream yes
30Q2 (cfs)
Acute/ hronic) L 33 mop
lead Nay , CodoeA
Location Gbn7i2 GIB
Location' V.5 h(,c,%lt%$Z,t}GC �
5 l 55�
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
,i
.6
Recommended Limits;
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/l):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Conductivity
Monthly Average Monthly
0.82 1.33
30 18
nr 12
nr 5
30 20
nr 200
6-9 6-9
nr 28
nr nr
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Average —
—
—
_
Comments: (_y rert4 Jr7 0-in c9-ri 5�il /063
raiA -h ,W-I UtiJ-►') .Brioly 1 c 0 nipakte0
z5 g/
F1297'"D

2000
0
1000
2000
4000
DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION i" = 2000'
USGS QUADRANGLE "PEMBROKE'
is HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROUNA 28387
LOCATION MAP
25 -FEBR UARY- 1992
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEBT
NGVD 1929

1-
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Town of Pembroke
NC0027103
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Renewal/Expansion
Lumber River
C-Swamp-HQW
030751
Robeson
FRO
Jay Lucas
1/6/94
I22NW
Request # 7711
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
USGS low -profile
1993
427 c' —' =r
t CO
120 v'Dr
morn
-s rn
c.73ri
0.82=ffo c
@1.33=4).7%"-
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility will be renewed with existing limits for 0.82 MGD flow and new limits for expansion.
The previous instream location at SR 1554 (0.5 mile downstream) or improved road crossing from
USHWY 74 should be resumed after repairs to the bridge are completed. This location was
changed per letter in Dec. 1992 to SR 1003 which is 1.5 miles downstream. The old location is
necessary since it reflects the discharges impacts to the River. Region please comment on this and
the correct SR numbers. We have several listed on the DMR files. — s Nt, 'ssy sto,lok bc_ 4- L,.«.d •
New Toxicity Testing requirements per correct application of HQW reg.
h, h00�i2-
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
1S S 1rt AS S u�pSMTt�D
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
a/ride/W-e'riDate: /�?/q4/
Instream Assessment: ULU C,
Date: 'i'/W/94
Regional Supervisor: Vt•w�
Permits & Engineering:
•
071,46/7,-
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: A U G
Date: 1- 2y-111
Date: g// y/y
1 8 1994

2
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average Monthly Average
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.82 1.33
BOD5 (mg/1): 30 18
NH3N (mg/1): nr 12
DO (mg/1): nr 5
TSS (mg/1): 30 20
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): nr 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): nr 28
Oil & Grease (mg/1): nr nr
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Conductivity monitor monitor
Toxicity: Chronic P/F @ 3.6 % and Acute P/F @ 90%
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average Monthly Average
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.82 1.33
BOD5 (mg/1): 30 18
NH3N (mg/1): nr 12
DO (mg/1): nr 5
TSS (mg/1): 30 20
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): nr 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): nr 28
Oil & Grease (mg/1): nr nr
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Conductivity monitor monitor
Toxicity: Chronic P/F @ 1.7 %
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in wasteflow BOD5, TSS,
HQW BOD5, TSS, NH3N,
DO, Fecal, Chlorine
Toxicity
_X_ Parameter(s) 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.

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Above discharge location
Downstream Location: Approximately 0.5 mile below outfall at 1st bridge (SR 1554 ?)
Parameters:
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies: Region Please comment on
correct SR number for the 1st road crossing (1st bridge) below the discharge. Fr Cou..'r.11111.�
-.S k, 5e_ tss .
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No ✓
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
e
-� fl J
C.on4Jet wc?C•�v+
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name Jn'thI'o/4- W W 7 P
Permit # /(fo0;7/03 Pipe # CO /
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is ).7 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
Quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
.:-Tar), Apr. 7i)1 dvl- . 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, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 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 any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then 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
Environmental Management 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 and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 i d-0 cfs
Permitted Flow /. 33 MGD
iwc 1.7
Basin & Sub -basin 173075 V
Receiving Stream LC
County - ohe50 h
QCL P/F Version 9/91
r t'er 7-fiver

•
gemipaice; AUG;:74
POST OFFICE BOX 866
,.. j .TTEVILI.E R:G. Grr"10E
PEMBROKE, NORTH CAROLINA "
28372
MILTON R. HUNT
MAYOR
McDUFFIE CUMMINGS
MANAGER
JoANN NEVILLE
CLERK
August 1, 1994
Attn: Central Files
Div. of Environmental Management
DEHNR
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Sir:
COUNCILMEN:
LARRY BROOKS
LARRY McNEILL
GREGORY CUMMINGS
HARRY OXENDINE
REF: Downstream Sampling on
SR 1554, incorrect #'s used.
This letter is in regards to an error made on the monthly report in re-
porting the correct SR # for my sampling location downstream. My correct
state road # is 1554. Due to a carry-over error I have been reporting
the wrong #'s. My location for sampling was changed for a short period
of time in June 93 to SR 1003 through December 93 because of a bridge
being repaired. This change was approved by your office by a letter and
I changed the sampling location back to the original location after the
completion of the bridge. Any other road numbers that have been reported
were in error. Please excuse the error.
I have reviewed my reports and the errors occurred on the state road numbers
for the following months in 1993: October, November, December. In 1994:
February, March, April, May, June. I have corrected my copies on the
location errors and will continue to use the correct road number in the
future.
Sorry for the inconvienence.
Sincerely,
n0•DQ
ti
Karen T. Dial,ORC

L'A4
tt
vri
Atbvti<e tucaP
0-51( 1ve56e I
1)14-u a.w�
fl4 m)
I ri.r-1 (9, LO
13.3 Cr"). 4)
)6.5? 9.6 Ceti)
di £i•(D (ci•3)
•
15
I XI v' k, �' -d "Iv;cke 5 F1 i 623
"it>?ywn act
Jew�p ,OD Cj'rrt)
02i 7.g 4)
lq.6 9.7 0.4)
11,3 g.'7 (r). 4)
)o.6
3.4)- 10 Go
n.8 cl. (D (ct-a)
Vq3 I`6.1 (t.5_
I%3 19-5 g a 01)
14-`1 `6.10 1.1)
9/ 43 c;,5.`-1 1-b5 (6.9)
gas 39'4 6).`I (L.J)
c2t 6.3 (5.0
tD143
.6A3
04 Cp.+ ap.3)
oi OD4)
943 1(0.6 9.9 0.3)
3/63 IN S (s C4 -1)
/q3 �_`l q.5 (q.a)
Ci 3 -LP (9- o)
19.5 $.3(Sv)
a5.'7 9.15 asA)
Cr).? c�.3 CG.))
-A __yn I•n Y7AA: v / I hoc 5h-oy l� U,�.� a w� Ci�xoh.ra�rn-
U
irnprdveed /Wadc1- . 0.5 Hwy
O.nn m :Mr; Iya�
c u colt - of 7R. I�.�1-1 ? 13st.�) d71_ceecHol-ri
g3 a4 wank()
&n'IX - Goo 1 _aido /tots 1J-Q Brit it wui.ni & wNed 513 n° deti.
dam- (arrtniiy 660w ' ,i (441 a10 ) 4 105
1 mpa. 5t° olcC c�cL-�.eca�c�y

Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Tom Poe \(Q
Date: Wed, Jul 13, 1994 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Laurinburg-Maxton Airport WWTP
To: Carla Sanderson
Pembroke:
I checked with Paul Rawls & Grady Dobson in FRO
They have a Mobile Home Mfg. Plant
No need for Pretreatment.
LMAC - Laurinburg Maxton Airport
Has effluent monitoring in NPDES indicated any WQ Std violations?
One tox violation in past several years, why do copper, silver, and zinc?
Is Quaterly LTMP monitoring adequate for facilities with no problems?
I called JoAnn Gentry at LMAC for her LTMP and SIU data
Their LTMP should include Influent, Effluent, and Sludge sampling for "everything" done at
a frequency of 1/Qtr.
Their SIUs monitor IUP limited pollutants monthly and "everything else" gets sampled once
a year, just to spot check for and/or identify industrial sources of pollutants without IUP
limits. I expect her data will be here in about a week
LMAC is also taking over the Fieldcrest Cannon WWTP, I don't know the operational details
but the whole basin strategy should know what waste goes where and who is responsible for
treatment and discharge.
From: Carla Sanderson on Wed, Jul 13, 1994 3:48 PM
Subject: FW: Laurinburg-Maxton Airport WWTP
To: T
Tom - In addition to the below inquiry, I would also like to know if the Town of Pembroke
will be initiating a pretreatment program. The last WLA done in 1992 says that there are two
minor industries and industrial % of flow is unknown. The Town is expanding and I am
curious to know if any of the additional flow will be part industrial tie-ons. The new WLA
request says 100% Domestic. Just would like to know if you know anything. Please; let me
know. Thanks!
From: Carla Sanderson on Wed, Jul 13, 1994 10:55 AM
Subject: Laurinburg-Maxton Airport WWTP
To: Tom Poe
NC0044725
Tom - I am reviewing this facility for renewal and expansion of the NPDES Permit.
The facility monitors for cyanide, sodium, chloride, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, nickel, silver and zinc. Do you know of any additional data in the LTMP or additional
parameters that are of concern for this facility (especially considering the increase flow)?
Please let me know if a response will take a while.
Thanks!

tram off' l�rn,brox e
EKis-h`, /t vt-eccxt VIllocb.-Cco-As5y-)
atn'� Zomba/ vv
7-0-y�
0.3075/
c �5, 1 33 w3d C-ga) HOW
Chcy� e3 C-5& Hato wsZL
Ex' &livrc L1n i �s
F&L) rang ci PeriAL 1. 33
PH tpl
tI f-(3/11 l ;
Qb 5
76g 36
eidiav gg
log
I a-kii&c CitktrIAL6 P/F p 3.0)6A
.46oti we @ cio%
Ja i,4-pr. Ivl Dc
kwte heel
,PA'Ads u, /l e44tki /
W i -- M vneitictc-to oti
Tex- , rya ol0�
/emu F/ai,tJ pap /Drn ham, 1 Mows kizi"-P 160 = Sao �✓s
al ?fir 1W/4. 7lc.w _aze_advap c �;� � Z�, �l asP
-v cL T ice= 1. T

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes x No _
If yes, SOC No. _Yi0 91-42 Ad
To: Attention: Jay Lucas
Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
December 20, 1993
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County Robeson
Permit No. NC0027103
PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Town of Pembroke
P.O. Box 866
Pembroke, NC 28372
2. Date of Investigation: December 14, 1993
3. Report Prepared By: Grady Dobson, Environmental Engineer, FRO
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Karen Dial (ORC)
[phone]
5. Directions to Site: From the junction of NC 711 and SR 1339, travel
southeast on SR 1339 to the railroad crossing, then turn right onto the
access road to the treatment plant.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 340 39' 55"
Longitude: 790 12' 00"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: I-22-NW USGS Quad Name: Pembroke
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? 2.0 acres
x Yes No (If no, explain)
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Flat (0 - 2% slope)
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Approximately 500 feet.

NPDES Staff Report and Recommendations
Page 2
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
�k&a CIZ ��ve-1
a. Classification: "C-Swamp HQW"
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 030751
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
Fishing, boating, and wildlife propagation
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 1.33 MGD (Ultimate Design
Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater Treatment
facility? .82 MGD (with SOC 1.0 MGD) (existing)
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design
capacity). 1.33 MGD (under construction)
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two (2) years.
May 21, 1993 (currently under construction)
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities. See below (1).
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: See below (2).
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
In development Approved
Should be required Not needed x
(1) Type of treatment (Existing): The existing .82 MGD extended
aeration wastewater treatment plant consists of communitor, three
(3) bar screens set up in series, grit chamber, aeration basin,
clarifier, post chlorination, and sludge drying beds.
(2) Type of treatment (Expansion Proposed): The expanded wastewater
treatment plant will be a 1.33 MGD plant consisting of screening,
grit removal, pump station, dual oxidation ditches, dual
clarification, chlorine contact, dechlorination, cascade post
aeration, and sludge digestion.

NPDES Staff Report and Recommendations
Page 3
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Land application.
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM Permit
No.
Residuals for Pembroke are applied under Permit No. WQ0002217.
Residual Contractor Brian's Waste Handling
Telephone No. [phone]
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP x PFRP Other
c. Landfill: N/A
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): N/A
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
Grade III (See attached)
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Primary 01 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code:
0 1
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grants Funds or are
any public monies involved (municipals only)? Yes.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: N/A
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates (please indicate):
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications 8/1/92 (MET)
Begin Construction 9/1/93 (MET)
Complete Construction 9/1/94
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the
nondischarge options available. Please provide regional perspective for
each option evaluated. N/A - This is a permit renewal.
Spray Irrigation:
Connection to Regional Sewer System:
Subsurface:

NPDES Staff Report and Recommendations
Page 4
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of this office that the subject application be
processed and the appropriate permit be issued.
The existing Class III facility is currently being upgraded to 1.33 mgd.
The previous NPDES permit was written for Class II monitoring requirements.
This should be revised to Class III monitoring for both the existing .82 mgd
until expansion is complete and the 1.33 mgd after expansion until expiration.
The total N & P should be monthly not quarterly as in existing permit for
expanded flow of 1.33 mgd and other parameters, such as toxicity should be
continued for a maior facility. The renewal should be in accordance with the
draft. Lumber River Basin wide permitting strategy.
LiZ
Signature 9.f Report Preparer
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
1� Zi -c
Date

RATING SCALE FOR CLASSIFICATION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Name of Facility:
Owner or Contact Person:
Mailing Address: 20 96.9
County: j7,,,4a- — Telephone: 9i/) — - 7-96'f
Present Classification: New Facility Existing Facility
NPDES Per. No. NCO() 77i0 3 Nondisc. Per. No.WQ Health Dept.Per No.
Rated by: (:;,o,i„ i�,6s,,�,
i
Reviewed by:
Fotro-tea,. ,,/.11
Telephone: '7/0
Health Dept.
Regional Office
Central Office
ORC: P,, 1 Grade:
Check Classification(s): Subsurface !„rrigation
Wastewater Classification: (Circle One)
4 96-'»i Date: I , -. - 9
Telephone:
Telephone:
Telephone:
Telephone:
Land Application
Total Points:
1N-PLANT PROCESSES AND RELATED CONTROL EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDUSTRIAL ,PROD1 JCTiON SHAI t NOT RF
CONSIDERED WASTE TREATMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLASSIFICATION. ALSO SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS CONSISTING ONLY OF SEPTIC TANK
AND GRAVITY NETRIFICLINES 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:
In addition to the above
be rated using the point
SPRAY IRRIGATION CLASSIFICATION
(check all units that apply)
1. preliminary treatment (definition no. 32 )
2. lagoons
3. septic tanks
4. pump tanks
5. pumps
6. sand filters
7. grease trap/interceptor
8. oil/water separators
9. disinfection
10. chemical addition for nutrienUaigae control
11. spray irrigation of wastewater
classifications, pretreatment of wastewater In excess of these
rating system and will require an operator with an appropriate
LAND APPLICATION/RESIDUALS CLASSIFICATION (Applies only to permit holder)
1. _ Land application of biosolids, residuals or contaminated soils on a designated site.
components shnll
dual certification.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILJTY CLASSIFICATION
The following systems shall be assigned a Class I classification 1lnless 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. OiUwater Separator Systems consisting only of physical separation, pumps and disposal:
2. Septic Tank/Sand Filter Systems consisting only of septic tanks, dosing apparatus, pumps,sand fitters, 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 oitfwater separators, pumps, air -stripping, carbon adsorption, disinfection
and disposal;
6. Aquacutture 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 classified 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
(1) Industrial Pretreatment Units or Industrial Pretreatment Program (see definition No. 33) 4
(2) 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 Item
(4)(d) or Items (4)(d) and (11)(d)] 1
0 - 20,000 -
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
2,000,001 (and up) rate 1 In ._._
additional for each 200,000 gpd capacity up to a maximum of ...._. .30
Design Flow (gpd) 1) 3_3 U, 01,0
PRELIMINARY UNITS/PROCESSES (see definition No.32)
(a) Bar Screens 1
or
(b) Mechanical Screens. Static Screens or Comminuting Devices ID
(c) Grt Rerrmal 1
or
(d) Mechanical or Aerated Grt Removal •••-••••••••••••••••••••-.—....... 2
(a) Flow Measuring Device »» 1
or ��
(I) Instrumented Flow Measurement » •• » E 2
(9) Preaeratlon --•• ---»-- ee
(h) influent Flow Equalization a.
(I) Grease or Oil Separators • Gravity......».. ...»..._...»......_...._..._..._....»............__......._...»..._...._..._�T
Mechanical (,�
Dissolved Air Flotation » .8
:- (I) Prechbrinatbn ... »..... »...........»........ »...
(4) PRIfvt&4Y TREATMENT WITS/PROCESSES
(a) Septic Tank (see definition No. 43)...._»_................»..•••W»_...---»..•••----•»•---------•----•-•-•-•••-••-------• — 2
(b) Imhoff Tank •» .5
(c) Primary Clarifiers
(3)
S
8
(d) Settling Ponds or Settling Tanks for Inorganic Non -toxic Materials (sludge handling facilities for water
purification plans, sand. gravel. stone. and other mining operations except recreational activities such as gem
or gold mining) 2
(5) SECONDARY TREATMENT UNITS/PROCESSES i .
(a) Carbonaceous Stage
(I) Aeration -High Purity Oxygen System -•--•-.... ..... ••20
Diffused Air System »..»...».». - -
Mechanical AIr System (fixed, floating or rotor)....._...»........_..._»._..._..._.»_» ..._..._.1
Separate Sludge Reaeratlon ---- •» » a:.)
(II) Trickling Flier
High Rate........ .»....»..-...
7
Standard Rate •».5
Packed Tower •••••••••••_...5
(ill) Biological Aerated Fitter or Aerated Biological Filter»_.»»_.»»...»».___..._.____-._,»».__.1 0
(iv) Aerated Lagoons ,..._._....... 10
(v) Rotating Biological Contactors ... .»._....... ».10
(v1) Sand Filters -Intermittent biological ... 2
Recirculating biological .3
(v1) Stabilization Lagoons --••-••• .5
(Ail) Clarifier 5
(Ix) Single stage system for combined carbonaceous removal of BOD and nitrogenous removal by
nitrification (see definition No. 12)(Points for this item have to be in addition to Items
(5)(a)(i) through (5)(a)(vill),
utilizing the extended aeration process (see definition No.3a)...»..... »..».-».......».,-»2
utilizing other than the extended aeration process »•-•-•-.8
(x) Nutrient additions to enhance BOD removal ..... .5
(xi) Biological Culture (-Super Bugs•}addtIon 5
(b) Nitrogenous Stage
(I) Aeration - High Purity Oxygen System ....._»...»....._.........._...._...._... .»»...._...._..20
Diffused Air System »--».............10
Mechanical Air System (fixed, floating or rotor)_........_...».,.8
Separate Sludge Reaerallon 3
(II) Trickling Fllter-High Rate »• . 7
Standard Rate 5
Packed Tower •-. 5
(Ill) Biological Aerated Filter or Aerated Biological Fllter...»...................._..._._--__.__.__..._._.10
(Iv) Rotating Biological Contactors ». - 10
(v) Sand Filter - Intermitter biological •••»»••.......... 2
Recirculating biological » .3
(v1) Clarifier • . •5
TERTIARY OR ADVANCED TREATMENT UJITSSPROCESSES
(a) ActNated Carbon Beds -
without carbon regeneration .5
wish carbon regeneration » 15
(b) Powdered or Granular Activated Carbon Feed -
without .5 carbon regeneration »
with carbon regeneration 15
(c) AIr stripping •- ••• 5
(d) Denitrhicatbn Process » 10
(e) Electrodlalysls ...•»,_ •-• 5
(1) Foam Separation »......._»..». »» ».„ ................5
(0) Ion Exchange
(h) Land Application of Treated Effluent (see definition No. 22b) (not applicable for sand, gravel, atone
and other similar mining operations) by high rate Infiltration .........._..»»...»...»...»...»...».»_....__._ _..._...A
(I) Microscreens » •5
(I) Phosphorous Removal by Biological Processes (See definition No. 26) 20
(k) Polishing Ponds - without aeration ••••••_,.,.......... 2
with aeration ....-,..- .•» 5
(6)
37

(m) Reverse Osmosis VV V �y ,u S
(n) Sand or Mixed -Media Filters - low rate ..... »....». 2
• high rate 5
(o) Treatment processes for removal of metal or cyanide 15
(p) treatment processes for removal of toxic materials other than metal or cyanide.....»......_ 15
et 1 BY1E TREATMENT
(a) Sludge Digestion Tank - Heated (anaerobic)
Aerobic
Unheated (anaerobic)
(b) Sludge Stabilization (chemical or thermal)
(c) Sludge Drying Beds - Gravity
Vacuum Assisted
(d) Sludge Elutriation .5
(e) Sludge Conditioner (chemical or thermal) _ 5
(1) Sludge Thickener (gravity) 5
(g) Dissolved Air Flotation Unit (not applicable to a unit rated as (3)(i)) 8
(h) Sludge Gas Utilization (including gas storage) — 2
(1) Sludge Holding Tank - Aerated --- 5
Non -aerated 2
(I) Sludge incinerator (not including activated carbon regeneration)
(k) Vacuum Fitter, Centrifuge. or Filter Press or other similar dewatering devices..»».._...._...»....»..»10
RESIDUALS UTILIZATION/DISPOSAL ('inducting incinerated ash)
(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 Landllll(burial) by the permtttee of the wastewater treatment tacillty .5
DISTFECii N
(a) Chlorination i.5'�Y{
(b) Dechlorination ».
(c) Ozone 5
(d) Radiation 5
CHEMICAL ADDITION SYSTEM(S) ( see definition No. 9) [not applicable to chemical additions rated as Item (3)(),
(5)(a)(xi). (6)(a), (6)(b), (7)(b). (7)(e), (9a). (9)(b) or (9)(c) 5 points each:
List
10
5
(7)
(8)
5
.5
.5
.5
(1 1) MISCELLANEOUS (N ITS/PROCFSC -
(a) Holding Ponds, Holding Tanks or Settling Ponds for Organic or Toxic Materials Including wastes from mining
operations containing nitrogen or phosphorus compounds In amounts significantly greater than is common
for domestic wastewater .4
(b) Effluent Flow Equalization (not applicable to storage basins which are inherent In land application systemns).._2
(c) Stage Discharge (not applicable to storage basins Inherent in land application systems) -
(d) Pumps .».» --• i
(e) Stand -By Power Supply »...--.-
(f) Thermal Pollution Control Device .3 '_1:3-,
TOTAL POINTS 51
CXASSIFICATICN
Class I 5-25 Points
Class II _Points
Class II
Class IV ... 66-Up Poird
Facilities having a rating of one through four points, Inclusive, do not require a certified operator.
Facilities having an activated sludge process wit be assigned a minimum classification of Class 11.
Facilities having treatment processes for the removal of metal or cyanide will be assigned a minimum classification of Class II.
Faclltties having treatment processes for the biological removal of phosphorus will be assigned a minimum classification of Class 111.
.0004 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Subchapter.
(1) Actvated Carbon Beds. A physicaVchemical 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 toot and may De either upflow or downtlow 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 ditlusion;(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 convened 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 xylene;
(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 impuritlea;
(7) Carbonaceous Stage. A stage o1 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 densl: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 one system; capability 10 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 lime, ferric chloride. or a polymer to wet sludge to coalesce the mass prior to
tts 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 c4 pumping facilities or any other appurtenances;
(12) Combined Removal of Carbonaceous BOD and Nitrogenous Removal by Nitrification- A single stage system required to achieve permit effluent limps on BOD
and ammonia nitrogen within the same biological reactor,
(13) Dechlorinatlon. The partial or complete reduction of residual chlorine In a liquid by any chemical or physical process;
(14) Denttritication Process. The conversion of nitrate -nitrogen to nitrogen gas;

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
January 22, 1993
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning��and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart!;�Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Town of Pembroke Environmental Assessment,
Project Review Number 93-0561
The Division's Water Quality Section reviewed an Engineering
Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) on the subject project in
September, 1992. I have attached our comments for your reference.
The most recent EA circulated for EHNR review (dated December 7,
1992) lacks the detailed information included in the September 1992
EA. The attached correspondence documents the Section's
recommended NPDES permit limits for the proposed expansion of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant from .82 MGD to 1.33 MGD.
As noted in the attached correspondence, the Pembroke WWTP
discharges into a segment of the Lumber River which is classified
as High Quality Waters (HQW) by the Environmental Management
Commission. As part of the State's antidegradation policy, no
increase in pollutant loading to stream segments designated as HQW
is allowed which would degrade the water quality negessary to
maintain existing and anticipated uses of those waters.,:',
7903er.mem
cc: Carla Sanderson
FF r
IECHN1CP.L Stireer r..RP CH
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Memorandum
To:
From:
Through: Mike Scoviller93 t/
Trevor Clements,"
Monica Swihart
aria' 'S"a aerson()
September 28, 1992
Subject: The Town of Pembroke WWTP Engineering Report and
Environmental Assessment Review
I have reviewed the facility engineering report and environmental assessment and
have the following comments:
In Section V. of the Engineering Report (page 10), the limit for BOD5 is
incorrect. The correct limit is 18 mg/1 BOD5. Also, this list of effluent
limits should include a dissolved oxygen limit of 5 mg/1, pH limit of 6-9 SU, a
chronic toxicity test at 3.6 % effluent and an acute toxicity test at 90%
effluent.
In Section VII. (page 15), the second and third paragraphs have stated
incorrect recommendations for discharge limits set by DEM. The proposed limits
set by DEM and mentioned here should be as follows:
BOD5 = 18 mg/1
NH3N - 12 mg/1
Chlorine = 28 ug/1
The TSS limit of 20 mg/1 is correct.
In Section II. B. of the Environmental Assessment (page 2), the estimated
number of miles from the Pembroke WWTP to the Lumberton WTP is approximately 27
miles, not 13 miles. The approximate time of travel from Pembroke WWTP to the
Lumberton WTP intake during 7Q10 flow conditions is 61 hours (not 22.4 hours)
and during average flow is 42 hours (not 7.1 hours). The limits that the
technical services branch has recommended are mentioned incorrectly in this
section (page 3). Below I will list the final recommended limits for the
increased flow from 0.82 MGD to 1.33 MGD:
Wasteflow (MGD) 1.33
BOD5 (mg/1) 18
NH3N (mg/1) 12
DO (mg/1) 5
TSS (mg/1) 20
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) 200
pH (SU) 6-9
Chlorine (ug/1) 28
Toxicity 3.6% chronic and 90% acute

As part of the antidegradation regulation, no increase in pollutant loading to
HQW is allowed. Since the Pembroke WWTP discharges to a segment of Lumber River
which is designated HQW, the wasteload allocation analysis performed by
Technical Support, determined the loadings at existing limits and gave the same
loads and corresponding concentrations for any increased flow. Therefore, the
loadings for BOD5 and NH3N remain the same. Since the engineers that prepared
this report believed the limits to be different than originally recommended, the
loadings to the river are considered less in this report (see page 14). I
believe the limits in this report were taken from the recommendations for
proposed increase in wasteflow to 1.55 MGD.
cc: Mick Noland
Central Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary December 30, 1992 Acting Director
Ms. Karen T. Dial, ORC
Town of Pembroke WWTP
P.O. Box 866
Pembroke, North Carolina 28372
Subject: Town of Pembroke WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0027103
Instream Monitoring Location
Dear Ms. Dial,
Your letter concerning a new instream monitoring location has been referred to
the Technical Support Branch of the Water Quality Section. Your request to
relocate downstream monitoring from SR 1554 to SR 1003 is granted provided the
original location (SR 1554) is resumed after the repairs to the Bridge at SR 1554
are completed.
The downstream monitoring location was determined considering the possible
impacts to the receiving waters. Since the Lumber River provides a significant
amount of dilution, the impacts from the Town's wastewater should be not!ced
closer to the outfall location. Therefore, the initial downstream location is
important for data collection. Please contact me at [phone] if you have
any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Carla Sanderson
Environmental Supervisor
cc: Charles Lowe
Tommy Stevens
Central Files
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

gem/wale&
POST OFFICE BOX 866
PEMBROKE, NORTH CAROLINA
28372
MILTON R. HUNT
MAYOR
McDUFFIE CUMMINGS
MANAGER
JOANN NEVILLE
CLERK
November 25, 1992
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of NRCD
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Sir:
COUNCILMEN:
LARRY BROOKS
LARRY MCNEILL
GREGORY CUMMINGS
HARRY OXENDINE
The Town of Pembroke Wastewater Treatment Plant, NC0027103
Permit Number, is requesting a sample point change for the
downstream location from SR 1554, third bridge to SR 1003
which would be the next available location. Request is being
made because the area assigned is now inaccessible due to the
bridge being out of use for repairs.
We will be collecting samples from this location for the dur-
ation of the repairs unless otherwise notified.
Sincerely,
ctubt*a.cts_)
Karen T. Dial, ORC
Town of Pembroke WTP

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 28, 1992
Memorandum
To: Monica Swihart
From: Carla Sandersonr
Through: Mike Scoville 65 L/
Trevor Clements"
Subject: The Town of Pembroke WWTP Engineering Report and
Environmental Assessment Review
I have reviewed the facility engineering report and environmental assessment and
have the following comments:
In Section V. of the Engineering Report (page 10), the limit for BOD5 is
incorrect. The correct limit is 18 mg/1 BOD5. Also, this list of effluent
limits should include a dissolved oxygen limit of 5 mg/1, pH limit of 6-9 SU, a
chronic toxicity test at 3.6 % effluent and an acute toxicity test at 90%
effluent.
In Section VII. (page 15), the second and third paragraphs have stated
incorrect recommendations for discharge limits set by DEM. The proposed limits
set by DEM and mentioned here should be as follows:
BOD5 = 18 mg/1
NH3N = 12 mg/1
Chlorine = 28 ug/1
The TSS limit of 20 mg/1 is correct.
In Section II. B. of the Environmental Assessment (page 2), the estimated
number of miles from the Pembroke WWTP to the Lumberton WTP is approximately 27
miles, not 13 miles. The approximate time of travel from Pembroke WWTP to the
Lumberton WTP intake during 7Q10 flow conditions is 61 hours (not 22.4 hours)
and during average flow is 42 hours (not 7.1 hours). The limits that the
technical services branch has recommended are mentioned incorrectly in this
section (page 3). Below I will list the final recommended limits for the
increased flow from 0.82 MGD to 1.33 MGD:
Wasteflow (MGD) 1.33
BOD5 (mg/1) 18
NH3N (mg/1) 12
DO (mg/1) 5
TSS (mg/1) 20
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) 200
pH (SU) 6-9
Chlorine (ug/1) 28
Toxicity 3.6% chronic and 90% acute

As part of the antidegradation regulation, no increase in pollutant loading to
HQW is allowed. Since the Pembroke WWTP discharges to a segment of Lumber River
which is designated HQW, the wasteload allocation analysis performed by
Technical Support, determined the loadings at existing limits and gave the same
loads and corresponding concentrations for any increased flow. Therefore, the
loadings for BODS and NH3N remain the same. Since the engineers that prepared
this report believed the limits to be different than originally recommended, the
loadings to the river are considered less in this report (see page 14). I
believe the limits in this report were taken from the recommendations for
proposed increase in wasteflow to 1.55 MGD.
cc: Mick Noland
Central Files