NC0025577_Fact Sheet_20230717

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO025577
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: July 14, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Red Springs/Red Springs WWTP
Applicant Address:
PO Box 790, Red Springs, NC 28277
Facility Address:
400 Greenhill Drive, Red Springs, NC 28277
Permitted Flow:
2.5 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class:
Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
bar screen, grit removal, dual oxidation ditches, dual secondary
clarifiers, gas chlorination unit, dual path chlorine contact chamber,
dechlorination, continuous recording effluent flow measurement,
aerobic sludge digester, sludge drying beds, back-up generator
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Robeson
Region
Fayetteville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Red Springs has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 2.5 MGD for the Red Springs WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 3,500 residents. Treated domestic wastewater is discharged via Outfall 001
into Little Raft Swamp, a class C; Sw waterbody in the Lumber River Basin. Outfall 001 is located
approximately 6 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-IV;Sw.
In September of 2015, the facility entered into a Consent Agreement with EPA Region 4. The Consent
Agreement and Final Order addressed effluent discharge violations, which included violations for pH,
Page 1 of 13

copper, mercury, cyanide, and zinc from May 2012 through March 2015. A civil penalty of $50,000 was
determined appropriate to settle the action.
For this renewal, the Town made the following requests:
• monitoring frequency reduction for BOD, ammonia nitrogen, fecal coliform, and TSS (see
section 10. Monitoring Requirements for more information),
• removal of daily effluent temperature monitoring (See Section 10 - Monitoring Requirements),
• removal of copper, zinc, and cyanide monitoring (see section 6. Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations - Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants),
• reduction of mercury monitoring (see section 6. Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations -
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation), and
• elimination or reduction of instream monitoring requirements (see section 4. Instream Data
Summary).
Sludge disposal: Sludge is dewatered and composted by McGill Composting.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Little Raft Swamp
Stream Segment:
14-10-5b
Stream Classification:
C; Sw
Drainage Area (mi2):
29.7
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.07
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
3.0
30Q2 (cfs):
3.6
Average Flow (cfs):
36.0
IWC (% effluent):
98
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes; Exceeding criteria for Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Lumber River/03-07-52/HUC: 03040203
USGS Topo Quad:
H22SW / Red Springs
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of September 2018 through February
2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Permit
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit
Flow
MGD
0.867
3.002
0.109
MA 2.5
WA 22.5
BOD summer
mg/l
2.2
20
0.79
MA 15.0
WA 27.0
BOD winter
mg/l
2.4
g
2
MA 18.0
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/1
8.8
83.2
0.1
MA 30.0
WA 6.0
NH3N summer
mg/l
0.2
4.1
< 0.1
MA 2.0
Page 2 of 13

NH3N winter
mg/l
0.4
6.5
0.1
WA 21.0
MA 7.0
DO
mg/l
9.0
11.75
6.1
DA > 5.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
(geomean)
2420
< 1
WA 400
2.2
MA 200
Monitor &
Temperature
° C
19.5
28
10
Report
6.0 < pH <9.0
pH
SU
6.6
8.7
6
DM 17.0
TRC
µg/l
24.5
65
0.04
(< 50
compliance)
TN
mg/l
0.3
6.5
< 0.2
Monitor &
Report
TP
mg/l
0.7
6.5
0.04
Monitor &
Report
Total Copper
µg/l
10.2
13
< 10
Monitor &
Report
Total Cyanide
µg/1
5.2
9
< 5
Monitor &
Report
Total Mercury
ng/l
14.5
75
3.07
AA 12.2
Total Zinc
µg/l
26.6
47
13
Monitor &
Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen (DO) and
temperature. The facility's upstream sampling site is at NCSR 1776 (-0.4 miles upstream), and the
downstream sampling site is at NCSR 1505 (-1 mile downstream). Data from September 2018 through
February 2023 are summarized in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
20.1
29.5
0.7
20.1
29
0.4
DO
mg/l
2.6
12.7
0.03
2.8
13
0.1
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05
Page 3 of 13

Downstream temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius on one occasion during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Downstream DO dropped below 4 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] on 284 occasions during the
period reviewed. Upon further review, observed drops in downstream DO were consistent with drops in
upstream DO, with upstream DO being observed at levels below 4 mg/L on 293 occasions during the
period reviewed. On no occasion during the period review did downstream DO fall below 4 mg/L without
the concurrent upstream sample being reported as below 4 mg/L. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO. As the receiving stream is classified
Swamp waters, low DO is anticipated.
The Town requested removal or reduction in frequency of instream monitoring in their renewal
application. Instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature aid in assessment of stream health
and discharge impact and are requirements outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0508. As seasonal flow varies,
with lower flows observed in the summertime, more frequent monitoring in summer is justified.
However, as the instream data review demonstrated no statistically significant difference in upstream
versus downstream dissolved oxygen and temperature, the Town's request for instream monitoring
frequency reduction has been granted. Instream sampling for dissolved oxygen and temperature shall be
conducted 2/week during the months of June, July, August and September and weekly for the remainder
of the year.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported 1
weekly average fecal coliform limit violation that resulted in enforcement action in December 2018.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 18 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from January 2019 to January
2023. The facility failed its chronic toxicity test in October 2021, but followed up with two consecutive
months of passing tests. Additionally, the facility passed all 4 second species chronic toxicity tests
conducted on April 2018, July 2018, October 2018 and January 2019.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in April 2021 reported that the facility was not compliant with permit NC0025577. The report notes,
"Pump #4 at the influent lift station was not being used at the time of inspection due to a faulty belt. The
pump could be operated at low speed if needed. The grit chamber has been inoperable for approximately
1 year. The Division notes that grit causes excessive wear and tear on pumps and other plant equipment
that could lead to expensive repairs and compliance issues. Clarifier #2 was out of operation due to a pipe
blockage. Facility staff had identified the problem as originating from the RAS pump. Two out of three
RAS pumps were working at the time of the inspection. One pump with a blockage was in the process of
being dismantled for servicing. Only half of the digester has been in operation since its construction. The
unused side of the digester is overgrown with vegetation, including sizeable trees. Vegetation must be
removed from the digester. Additionally, the concrete surface may have been compromised due to tree
roots, therefore it should be inspected and repaired." These compliance issues have been resolved.
Page 4 of 13

6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MixinL Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for BOD5 are based on the results of a 1985 Level B model. The model recommended summer
BOD5 and ammonia limits of 11 mg/L and 3 mg/L, respectively. The model also recommended winter
BOD5 and ammonia limits of 18 mg/L and 7 mg/L, respectively. After discussion with the Town, the
Division agreed to modify the summer limits to 15 mg/L for BOD5 and 2 mg/L for ammonia. No changes
are proposed for BOD5. See below for assessment of ammonia limitations.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1 (summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
ammonia limits are as follows: Summer: MA 2.0 mg/l, WA 6.0 mg/l; Winter: MA 7.0 mg/l, WA 21.0
mg/l. These limits were added to the permit in 2004 based on a new statewide policy (at the time) that
resulted from EPA requirements. Toxicity -based Ammonia was reviewed in the attached Wasteload
Allocation (WLA) sheet using the flow design of 2.5 MGD and receiving stream 7Q 1 Os low flow of 0.07
cfs and 7Q10w low flow of 3.0 cfs. The resulting allowable concentrations were 1.0/3.0 mg/L monthly
average/weekly average for summer, and 3.0/9.0 mg/L monthly average/weekly average for winter.
Because the toxicity -based limits are more stringent, they will be placed in the permit.
Review of DMR data from September 2018 through February 2023 revealed that the facility did not
demonstrate an exceedance of the proposed monthly and weekly winter average during the period
reviewed (Fig. 1). As such, it appears that the Town can consistently meet the new limits and a
compliance schedule is not necessary.
Page 5 of 13

10
9
8
7
J
5
E
0
7/29/2018
Proposed Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Wk Avg Mo Avg MA Limit WA Limit
5/25/2019 3/20/2020 1/14/2021 11/10/2021
Figure 1. Red Springs WWTP effluent monthly average (MA) and weekly average (WA) Ammonia-N
concentrations (mg/L) with their respective proposed limits for potential compliance evaluation.
The TRC limit was reviewed in the attached wasteload allocation. The limit of 17 µg/l is found to be
protective, and there are no proposed changes.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between September
2018 and February 2023. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated
water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for
this permit:
Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Total Copper
Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: N/A
No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Cyanide, Total Zinc
Page 6 of 13

POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Total Lead,
Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver
The Town of Red Springs reported Total Cadmium, Total Selenium, and Total Silver at less than
detection, with detection levels < 2.0 µg/L, < 10.0 µg/L, and < 5.0 µg/L respectively, in the Effluent
Pollutant Scans. The Town's allowable discharge concentrations are 0.98 µg/L, 5.1 µg/L, and 0.06 µg/L
for Total Cadmium, Total Selenium and Total Silver, respectively. DWR's laboratory identifies the target
Practical Quantification Limits (PQLs) for Total Cadmium, Total Selenium and Total Silver as 0.5 µg/L,
1.0 µg/L, and 1.0 µg/L, respectively. 15A NCAC 2B .0505 (e) (4) requires that all test procedures must
produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data
generated must be reported to the approved detection level or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no
approved methods are capable of achieving a detection level below the permit discharge requirement (or
allowable discharge concentration) the method with the lowest detection level must be used. The Town
should use sufficiently sensitive test methods for all pollutants, including when performing Effluent
Pollutant Scans.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxici , Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 90%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
Page 7 of 13

the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
# of Samples
4
12
12
12
11
Annual Average Conc. n /L
23.0
24.0
16.1
7.77
8.34
Maximum Conc., n /L
75.0
57.3
45.7
20.3
19.7
TBEL, n L
47
WQBEL, n /L
12.2
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since the 2018, 2019 and 2020 annual
average mercury concentrations exceeded the WQBEL, individual mercury samples exceeded the TBEL
in 2018, 2019 and 2020, the annual average mercury limit and monthly monitoring have been maintained.
Since the facility is > 2.0 MGD, and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/1), the mercury
minimization plan (MMP) requirement has been maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. As an attachment to the permit
application, the Town informed the Division that no monitoring for additional pollutants has been
conducted (see attached chemical addendum) and therefore no additional pollutants of concern have been
identified. As the facility does not receive industrial wastewater, no additional pollutants of concern
outside of what is monitored as part of the NPDES permit requirements are expected.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
1 SA NCAC 2H. 0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA; After discussing the new
total copper limits with the Town on 5/8/2023, the Town does not believe that a schedule of compliance is
necessary to maintain compliance with the new limits.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals(if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES; Overall BOD and TSS
removal > 85%
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Page 8 of 13

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO; however, monitoring
requirements for total cyanide and total zinc have been removed.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: Based on the reasonable potential
analysis (RPA) showing no reasonable potential to violate state water quality standards, the monitoring
requirement for total cyanide and total zinc has been removed from the permit.
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The Town of Red Springs requested continuation of 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and
fecal coliform based on 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for
these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on
this review, 2/week monitoring frequency has been added for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform.
Please note that the proposed lower ammonia limitations were used when assessing ammonia criteria.
The Town requested removal of effluent temperature monitoring with their renewal application. Daily
effluent temperature monitoring is identified in 15A NCAC 02B .0508 as a requirement for Grade III
Biological Water Pollution Control Systems. No changes are proposed.
For calculation of Total Nitrogen, monthly monitoring for TKN and NO2+NO3 has been added to the
permit.
Page 9 of 13

Per the 2016 NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, to build a more robust
hardness dataset, all Municipal and Industrial Permittees, with a discharge to freshwater, required to
sample for hardness -dependent metals shall get quarterly monitoring requirements for effluent hardness
and instream hardness, upstream of the discharge. As the Red Springs WWTP is being limited and
monitored for total copper in its effluent, quarterly monitoring for effluent total hardness has been added
to the permit. As the 7Q 1 Os is < 0.1 cfs, no upstream sampling is required.
To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
As the Red Springs WWTP discharges treated wastewater approximately 6 miles upstream of waters
designated as WS-IV, monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the permit at a frequency of
quarterly. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently
available, the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule which delays the
effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a
final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended
upon request and if there are no NC -certified labs.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 2.5 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 213 .0505
BOD5
Summer:
No change
WQBEL. 1985 Level B Model and
MA 15.0 mg/1
agreement with Town; 2012 DWR
WA 22.5 mg/1
Guidance Regarding the Reduction
Winter:
of Monitoring Frequencies in
MA 18.0 mg/l
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
WA 27.0 mg/1
Performing Facilities
Monitor and Report
2/Week
NH3-N
Summer:
Summer:
WQBEL. 2023 WLA review. 15A
MA 2.0 mg/1
MA 1.0 mg/1
NCAC 213; 2012 DWR Guidance
WA 6.0 mg/1
WA 3.0 mg/1
Regarding the Reduction of
Winter:
Winter:
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
MA 7.0 mg/1
MA 3.0 mg/1
Permits for Exceptionally
WA 21.0 mg/1
WA 9.0 mg/1
Performing Facilities
Monitor and Report
Monitor and Report 2/Week
2/Week
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/1
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and Report
213 .0406; 2012 DWR Guidance
2/Week
Regarding the Reduction of
Page 10 of 13

Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100ml
NCAC 2B .0200; 2012 DWR
Monitor and Report
Guidance Regarding the Reduction
2/Week
of Monitoring Frequencies in
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities
DO
> 5 mg/l
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report
NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
3/Week
.0508
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report
NCAC 2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B
3/Week
.0508
Temperature
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Residual
DM 17 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. 2023 WLA review. 15A
Chlorine
Monitor and Report
NCAC 2B
3/Week
Total
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Nitrogen
Monthly
NCAC 2B. 0500
NO2+NO3
No requirement
Monitor and Report
For calculation of TN
Monthly
TKN
No requirement
Monitor and Report
For calculation of TN
Monthly
Total
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Phosphorus
Monthly
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Copper
Monitor and Report
MA 14.0 µg/l
Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly
WA 19.6 µg/l
Potential Analysis (RPA); RP shown
Monitor and Report
- apply Monthly Monitoring with
Monthly
Limit
Total Zinc
Monitor and Report
Remove monitoring
Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly
requirement
Potential Analysis (RPA); No RP,
Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable
Cw - No Monitoring required
Total Cyanide
Monitor and Report
Remove monitoring
Based on results of Reasonable
Quarterly
requirement
Potential Analysis (RPA); All values
< 10 µg/l considered non -detect- No
Monitoring required
Total Mercury
AA 12.2 ng/L
No change
Based on Mercury TMDL
Monitor and Report
Evaluation; 2018, 2019 and 2020
Monthly
annual average mercury
concentrations exceeded the
WQBEL, individual mercury
samples exceeded the TBEL in
2018, 2019 and 2020
Page 11 of 13

PFAS
No requirement
Add quarterly monitoring
Evaluation of PFAS contribution to
with delayed
downstream WS-IV; Implementation
implementation
delayed until after EPA certified
method becomes available.
Total
No requirement
Quarterly effluent
Hardness -dependent dissolved
Hardness
monitoring
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016
Instream
Monitor and Report for
Monitor and Report for DO
BPJ; Based on instream data review
monitoring
DO and temperature
and temperature 2/week in
and Permittee request
3/week in June —
June — September and
September and weekly
weekly during remainder of
during remainder of
year
year
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 90%
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 213.0500
Effluent
Three times per permit
No change; conducted in
40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan
cycle
2025, 2026, 2027
Mercury
MMP Special
No change
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012
Minimization
Condition
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Plan (MMP)
Implementation.
Electronic
No requirement
Electronic Reporting
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Special Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 5/20/2023
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the Town of Red Springs, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Fayetteville
Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch and Operator Certification Program for review. No
comments were received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
Page 12 of 13

• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• Water Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Application Addendum
Page 13 of 13

AFFP
Public Notice North Carolina E
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF NORTH SS
CAROLINA }
COUNTY OF ROBESON }
Linda Currie, being duly sworn, says:
That she is Customer Service Clerk of the Robesonian, a
daily newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published in Lumberton, Robeson County, North Carolina;
that the publication, a copy of which is attached hereto,
was published in the said newspaper on the following
May 20, 2023
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated
on th se dates.
SIG E
Customer Service Clerk
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 26th day of May 2023.
Clarissa Jackson, Notary P lic, Robeson County, North
Carolina
My commission expires: July 23, 2026
20152554 01119949
Attn: Wren Thedford
190-NCDENR-Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, NC 27699
Public Notice
North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit NCO025577 Red Springs
WWTP The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to
issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the person(s) listed below. Written
comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted until 30 days after the
publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division of Water Resources
(DWR) may hold a public hearing should there be a significant degree of public
interest. Please mail comments and/or information requests to DWR at the above
address. Interested persons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604 to review the information on file. Additional information on NPDES permits
and this notice may be found on our website:
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/public-notices-hearings,or by calling [phone]. The Town of
Red Springs [P.O. Box 790, Red Springs, NC 28277] has requested renewal of
NPDES permit NCO025577 for its Red Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant, located
in Robeson County. This permitted facility discharges treated municipal wastewater
to Little Raft Swamp, a class C;Sw water in the Lumber River Basin. Currently BOD,
ammonia, fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, pH, total residual chlorine, total copper
and total mercury are water quality limited. This discharge may affect future
allocations in this segment of Little Raft Swamp.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
Red Springs WWTP
WWTP/WTP Class
III
NPDES Permit
NCO025577
Outfall
001
Flow, Qw (MGD)
2.500
Receiving Stream
Little Raft Swamp
HUC Number
03040203
Stream Class
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
C;Sw
7Q10s (cfs)
0.070
7Q10w (cfs)
3.00
3.60
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
36.00
1 Q10s (cfs)
0.06
Effluent Hardness
48.4 mg/L (Avg)
Upstream Hardness
25 mg/L (Avg)
Combined Hardness Chronic
47.98 mg/L
Combined Hardness Acute
48.04 mg/L
Data Source(s)
Note: Upstream data provided by Town averaged <
25 mg/L. As such, default value of 25 mg/L was
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
used.
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06 E
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name wQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.9656
FW
5.7291
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
200.8203
FW
1545.3666
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
13.7570
FW
19.3787
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
6.1007
FW
156.7658
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
-,^"
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
64.6346
FW
582.5305
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.9116
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
220.1993
FW
218.6379
ug/L
25577 RPA, input
4/10/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
I Effluent Hardness I
Date Data
1 8/13/2018
2 8/14/2018
3 8/15/2018
4 8/16/2018
5 8/17/2018
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
48
48
Std Dev.
43
43
Mean
54
54
C.V. (default)
45
45
n
52
52
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
4.6152
48.4000
0.6000
5
43.80 mg/L
48.40 mg/L
54.00 mg/L
Upstream Hardness
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1 DEFAULT
25 25 Std Dev.
2
Mean
3
C.V.
4
n
5
10th Per value
6
Average Value
7
Max. Value
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
N/A
25.0000
0.0000
1
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
25.00 mg/L
25577 RPA, data
- 1 - 4/10/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Date Data
1 7/9/2015 <
2 11/18/2016 <
3 4/14/2017 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
BDL=1/2DL
10 5
10 5
10 5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
15.0 ug/L
-2-
25577 RPA, data
4/10/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Date Data
1 7/9/2015 <
2 11/18/2016 <
3 4/14/2017 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par07
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Cadmium Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Total Phenolic Compounds
BDL=1/2DL Results
Date Data
2 1 Std Dev.
0.0000
1
7/9/2015 <
2 1 Mean
1.0000
2
11/22/2016 <
2 1 C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
4/17/2017 <
n
3
4
5
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Max. Value
1.000 ug/L
7
Max. Pred Cw
3.000 ug/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
40 20
Std Dev.
40 20
Mean
40 20
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
20.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
20.0 ug/L
60.0 ug/L
-3-
25577 RPA, data
4/10/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Date Data
1 7/9/2015 <
2 11/18/2016 <
3 4/14/2017 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Chromium, Total
Pal
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
10 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
10/16/2018
<
10 5
Mean
5.0000
2
1 /22/2019
<
10 5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
4/23/2019
<
n
3
4
7/16/2019
<
5
10/15/2019
<
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
1/14/2020
<
Max. Value
5.0 pg/L
7
4/14/2020
<
Max. Pred Cw
15.0 pg/L
8
7/16/2020
<
9
10/6/2020
<
10
1 /5/2021
<
11
4/6/2021
<
12
7/1/2021
<
13
10/7/2021
<
14
1 /6/2022
<
15
4/6/2022
<
16
7/7/2022
17
10/5/2022
<
18
1 /24/2023
19
7/9/2015
<
20
11/18/2016
<
21
4/14/2017
<
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Copper
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
10
5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
13
13
10
5
10
10
10
5
10
5
10
5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
2.0119
5.6190
0.3580
21
1.20
13.00 ug/L
15.60 ug/L
25577 RPA, data
-4- 4/10/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Date Data
1 1 /22/2019 <
2 4/23/2019 <
3 7/16/2019 <
4 10/15/2019 <
5 1/14/2020 <
6 4/14/2020 <
7 7/16/2020 <
8 10/6/2020 <
9 1 /5/2021 <
10 4/6/2021 <
11 7/1/2021 <
12 10/7/2021 <
13 1/12/2022 <
14 4/6/2022 <
15 7/7/2022 <
16 10/5/2022 <
17 1 /24/2023
18 7/9/2015 <
19 11 /28/2016 <
20 4/14/2017 <
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par14
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Cyanide
Values" then "COPY"
Lead
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
7/9/2015 <
5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
5 5
Mean
5.00
2
11/18/2016 <
5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
5 5
C.V.
0.0000
3
4/14/2017 <
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
5 5
n
20
4
n
3
5 5
5
5 5
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
5 5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
5 5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
7.500 ug/L
5 5
9
5 5
10
5 5
11
5 5
12
5 5
13
5 5
14
5 5
15
5 5
16
9 5
17
5 5
18
5 5
19
5 5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
25577 RPA, data
-5- 4/10/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Date Data
1 7/9/2015 <
2 11/18/2016 <
3 4/14/2017 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par19
use "PASTE
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
SPECIAL -Values"
Nickel
Values" then "COPY"
Selenium
then "COPY".
. Maximum data
Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
7/9/2015 <
10 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
10 5
Mean
5.0000
2
11/18/2016 <
10 5
Mean
5.0000
10 5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
4/14/2017 <
10 5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
4
n
3
5
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
5.0 pg/L
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
15.0 fag/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
15.0 ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
25577 RPA, data
-6- 4/10/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Date Data
1 7/9/2015 <
2 11/18/2016 <
3 4/14/2017 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par21
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Silver
Values" then "COPY"
Zinc
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
1 /22/2019
30
30
Std Dev.
8.3362
5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
2
4/23/2019
21
21
Mean
26.6471
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
7/16/2019
21
21
C.V.
0.3128
n
3
4
10/15/2019
21
21
n
17
5
1/14/2020
35
35
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
4/14/2020
34
34
Mult Factor =
1.22
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
7
7/16/2020
17
17
Max. Value
47.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
7.500 ug/L
8
10/6/2020
18
18
Max. Pred Cw
57.3 ug/L
9
1 /5/2021
37
37
10
4/6/2021
26
26
11
7/1/2021
28
28
12
10/7/2021
25
25
13
1 /6/2022
13
13
14
4/6/2022
27
27
15
7/7/2022
47
47
16
10/5/2022
26
26
17
1 /24/2023
27
27
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
25577 RPA, data
-7- 4/10/2023

Red Springs WWTP
NCO025577
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
2.5000
1Q10S (cfs) =
0.06
7Q10S (cfs) =
0.07
7QIOW (cfs) =
3.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
3.60
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
36.00
Receiving Stream: Little Raft Swamp HUC 03040203
WWTP/WTP Class: III
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 98.47522236
IWC% @ 7Q I OS = 98.22560203
IWC% @ 7Q10W = 56.36363636
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 51.83946488
IW%C @ QA = 9.717868339
Stream Class: C;Sw
Outfall 001
Qw=2.5 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 48.04 mg/L
Chronic = 47.98 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
CO)REASONABLE
POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
D
Aplied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standa d
Acute (FW): 345.3
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q I Os) 340
ug/L
3 0
15.0
_
Chronic (FW) 152.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
C.V. (default)
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
Note: n < 9
NO DETECTS
___
Chronic (HH) 102.9
Limited data set
Max MDL 10
Acute: 5.818
Cadmium
NC
0.9656 FW(7Q10s) 5.7291
ug/L
3 0
3.000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 0.983
All non -detects < 2 ug/L- No Monitoring required; PQL
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 2
of 0.5 ug/L shall be used
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 0
60.0
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 578.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 40
Monitoring required
Acute: 1,569.3
Chromium III
NC
200.8203 FW(7Q10s) 1545.3666
µg/L
0 0
N/A
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 204.4
Acute: 16.2
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7QIOs) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
-_ _ ----- _ _
-Chronic: ---
11.2
---------------------------
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
3 0
15.0
Max reported value 5
All non -detects < 10 ug/L- No Monitoring required;
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
PQL less than Chromium VI Cw
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 19.68
Copper
NC
13.7570 FW(7Q10s) 19.3787
ug/L
21 2
15.60
-_ _ _ _
-Chronic: -----
---------------------------
_
01---
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 22.3
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7QIOs) 22
10
ug/L
20 1
5.0
-_ _ ----- _ _
-Chronic: ---
---------------------------
S.I
All values < 10 ug/L - No Monitoring required
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 159.193
Lead
NC
6.1007 FW(7Q10s) 156.7658
ug/L
3 0
7.500
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 6.211
All non -detects < 5 ug/L - No Monitoring required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
25577 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 4/10/2023

Red Springs WWTP
NCO025577
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw=2.5 MGD
Acute (FW): 591.6
Nickel
NC
64.6346 FW(7Q1Os) 582.5305
µg/L
3 0
15.0
_
Chronic (FW) 65.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Max = 10
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
_MD_L
--------------------------------------
Chronic (WS) 25.5
Max MDL 10
Acute: 56.9
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
3 0
15.0
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 5.1
All non -detects < 10 ug/L- No Monitoring required;
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
PQL of 1 ug/L shall be used
Acute: 0.926
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.9116
ug/L
3 0
7.500
------------------------------------------------
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 0.061
All non -detects < 5 ug/L- No Monitoring required; PQL
of 1 ug/L shall be used
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 222.0
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
220.1993 FW(7Q10s) 218.6379
ug/L
17 17
57.3
Monitoring required
--Chronic: -----------
224.2
---------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
25577 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 4/10/2023

Permit No. NCO025577
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER* {1. 136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^10.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1. 136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.62361
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[ln hardness] -4.445 11
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO025577
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e"O.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO025577
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal I + { [Kp.] [ss('+a)] [10 6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q 10 + Qw) (Cwgs) — (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0025577
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
48.4
Average from August 2018 samples
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25.0
Default Used; average of provided
data < Default value
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
0.07
Historical file; previous fact sheet
1Q10 (cfs)
0.06
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
2.5
NPDES Files
Date: 4/10/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

4/10/23 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name
Red Springs WWTP/NC0025577
/Permit No.:
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Annual Limit 12 ng/L with
Quarterly Monitoring
MMP Required
7Q10s = 0.070 cfs WQBEL = 12.22 ng/L
Permitted Flow = 2.500 47 ng/L
9/10/18
5.11
5.11
10/16/18
7.87
7.87
11/6/18
4.12
4.12
12/27/18
75
75
> TBEL
WQBEL< 23.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
1/22/19
19.3
19.3
2/26/19
23.4
23.4
3/26/19
52.7
52.7
> TBEL
4/23/19
9.24
9.24
5/23/19
9.27
9.27
6/25/19
3.98
3.98
7/23/19
10.5
10.5
8/22/19
6.66
6.66
9/26/19
7.95
7.95
10/29/19
57.3
57.3
> TBEL
11/19/19
32.6
32.6
12/19/19
54.7
54.7
WQBEL< 24.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
1/23/20
45.7
45.7
2/20/20
12.1
12.1
3/17/20
8.77
8.77
4/14/20
24.6
24.6
5/21/20
11.3
11.3
6/23/20
8.33
8.33
7/28/20
8.63
8.63
8/25/20
12
12
9/17/20
6.48
6.48
10/15/20
6.81
6.81
11/3/20
31.7
31.7

12/23/20
16.2
16.2
WQBEL< 16.1
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2020
1/21/21
20.3
20.3
2/11/21
7.33
7.33
3/31/21
8.08
8.08
4/27/21
9.36
9.36
5/18/21
3.07
3.07
6/24/21
9.06
9.06
7/27/21
5.91
5.91
8/26/21
4.05
4.05
9/29/21
3.64
3.64
10/19/21
10
10
11/24/21
4.11
4.11
12/16/21
8.35
8.35
7.8
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2021
1/26/22
4.85
4.85
2/17/22
4.37
4.37
3/24/22
7.16
7.16
4/27/22
19.7
19.7
5/25/22
7.28
7.28
6/29/22
6.12
6.12
7/19/22
8.88
8.88
8/24/22
8.49
8.49
9/22/22
6.54
6.54
10/20/22
7.56
7.56
12/14/22
10.8
10.8
8.3
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2022
1/10/23
4.33
4.33
2/7/23
4.29
4.29
4.3
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2023

Red Springs WWTP/NC0025577
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
# of Samples
4
12
12
12
11
Annual Average, ng/L
23.0
24.0
16.1
7.77
8.34
Maximum Value, ng/L
75.00
57.30
45.70
20.3
19.7
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
12.2

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Red Springs WWTP
Permit No.
NC0025577
Review period (use 3
02/2020 - 02/2023
yrs)
Approval Criteria:
Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
# of non -
Monthly
3-yr mean
# daily
# daily
Weekly average
50%
200%
200%
monthly
# civil penalty
Data Review
Units
average
(geo mean
< 50%?
samples
<15?
samples
< 20?
> 2?
> 1?
limit
MA
MA
WA
limit
asessment
limit
for FC)
>200%
>200%
violations
BOD (Weighted)
mg/L
24.375
16.25
8.1
0
Y
32.5
0
Y
0
N
0
N
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
4.1950723
Y
60
1
Y
0
N
0
N
Ammonia (weighted)
mg/L
5.5
1.83333
0.9
0.158953
Y
3.67
4
Y
0
N
0
N
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400
200
100
1.7721813
Y
800
1
Y
1
N
0
N

NCO025577 Red Springs WWTP
BOD monthly removal rate
Month
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
RR (%)
94.98
93.34
90.05
79.67
92.98
95.46
94.13
95.20
97.47
97.34
97.83
97.85
98.13
96.22
98.11
96.53
94.73
95.68
96.07
97.87
96.88
97.02
98.14
97.23
97.80
97.04
96.94
96.41
94.52
88.60
Month
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
June-22
July-22
August-22
September-22
October-22
November-22
December-22
January-23
February-23
March-23
April-23
May-23
June-23
July-23
August-23
Overall BOD removal rate
RR (%)
96.95
95.91
97.22
97.74
97.08
98.07
98.34
97.67
97.49
98.14
98.01
97.10
97.47
96.56
97.82
98.53
97.99
97.92
95.17
96.36
97.89
98.57
97.86
93.73
96.22
5/9/2023
TSS monthly removal rate
Month
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
RR (%)
85.71
72.66
78.92
61.10
89.34
84.55
82.47
89.21
95.64
96.35
96.34
97.86
96.98
95.97
95.15
90.13
78.21
84.87
92.46
96.28
85.67
92.17
97.84
91.05
96.85
92.66
85.73
87.91
72.68
53.60
Month
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
June-22
July-22
August-22
September-22
October-22
November-22
December-22
January-23
February-23
March-23
April-23
May-23
June-23
July-23
August-23
Overall TSS removal rate
RR (%)
86.75
90.98
97.63
82.71
90.33
97.39
92.63
86.98
92.33
91.69
93.54
90.82
91.52
86.50
83.04
93.05
87.56
84.99
82.03
79.31
86.55
93.42
91.92
86.01
88.08

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Red Springs WWTP
PermitNo. NC0025577
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 2.5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.07
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 3
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
0.07
2.5
3.875
17.0
0
98.23
17
Consistent with current limit.
Maintain limit.
200/100m I
1.02
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0.07
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.875
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
98.23
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.0
More stringent than current limit. Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
w7Q10 (CFS)
3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.875
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
56.36
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
3.0
More stringent than current limit. Apply limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

fluent Toxicity Report Form -Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
pate:4/2612018
; ility: Red Springs
NPDES # NC00 25577 Pipe #: 001 County: Robeson
r`nmmentS
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
MAIL ORIGINAL TO: Water Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxico►ogY Branch
Division of Water Itesources
1621 !Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Test initiation Date/Time
% Eff. Repl.
f-c,ntroil Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
22.5 1 Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
45 Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
75 Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
96 Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
100Surviving #
Original #
Wt/original (mg)
Water Quality Data
Control
pH (SU) InitlFin
DO (mglL) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
High Concentration
pH (Su) Init/Fin
DO (mg/L) Init/Fin
Temp (C) Init/Fin
4l17/201$ 5:20 PM
- Avg Wt/Surv. Control[ 0.837 t est urgaznbilizi
------ I- Cultured in -House
2 3 4 � Outside Supplier
9
1 9 10 8 % Survival 90.0
10 10 10 10 Hatch Date: 4/16118
0.808 0.645 0.815 0.734 Avg Wt (mg) 0,751
°I Survival 77.5 Hatch Time: 3:00 prn CT
10
9
10
10
°
10
10
10
10
Avg Wt (mg) 0.748
0.626
0.655
0.777
0.932
10
% Survival 97.5
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
Avg Wt (mg) 0.770
0.742
0.926
0.752
0.658
4
% Survival 85.0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Avg Wt (mg)0.736
0.660
0.793
0.964
0.526
9
°!° Survival 87.5
g
10
7
10
10
10
10
Avg Wt (mg) 0.795
0.951
0.818
0.673
0.739
10
% Survival 92.5
9
8
10
10
10
10
10
Avg Wt (mg)F 0.842
0.799
0.844
0.861
0.863
Day
0
7.81 1 7.70
1
6.17 t 7.77
2
8.15 / 7.87
3
8.12 1 8.01
4 5
8.34 r 7.75 8.17 / 7.90 8P124A
6
7.797.75
16.37
7.55 ! 7.14
7.87 t 7.18
8.05 / 7.93
8.19 ! 6.90 8.05 / 7.20 7
25.6 t 24.4 2
24.8 1 25.2
25.8 t 24.3
24.8 1 24.8
24.2 / 25.9
24.5 1 24.5
0
7.23
1
7.13 / 7.20
2
7.18 1 7.20
3
7.30 1 7.49
4 5
7.39 1 7.18 7.19 1 7.30 7.22
6
1 7. 14
7.00 t
7.95 / 6.89
6.30 1 6.87
8.07 1 7.90
8.21 1 7.35 8.35 7 7.38 8.27
/ 6.97
8.19 16.72
256 1 24.1
25.8 / 24.3
24.7 124.8
24.8 t 25.5
24.8 125.1 25.2 t 24.3 25.2
t 24.3
sample
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mglL)
Alkalinity (mg1L)
Conductivity (urnhos/crn)
Chlorine(mg/L)
Temp. at Receipt (°C)
Dilution H2O Batch #
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mglL)
Conductivity (umhoslcm)
1 2 3
24.0
42
20
<0.1
1.5
N
91.1
1260 1261 1262 1263
42 44 46 42
50 55 51 50
154 205 L 186 175
Survival
Growth
Normal
F,I
FI
Hom. Var.
Yes"
{
NOEC
100
100
LOEC
>100 -
>100
ChV
>100
>100
Method
Steel's
punnetfss
Stats
Survival
_ _--
Cone.
Critical
Calculated
22.5
10
22.5
45
10
22.5
75
10
20.5
90
10
17.5
100
10
19.5
Overall Result
ChV F, >100
tical Calculated
2.41
0.0349
2.41
0.2211
2.41
0.1717
2.41
-0.5209
2.41
-1.0621

effluent Toxicity Report Form -Chronic Fathead Minnow Mufti -Concentration Test
•acility: Red Springs NPDES # NC00 25577 Pipe* 001
Laborstorv: Meritech, Inc. _ Cammen'
x
Signature of operator i Nespon ibie Charge
X�
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor
iiAIL. ORIGINAL TO: Water Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
Division of Water Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-I62I
Test Initiation Date/Time
% Eff. Repl.
fc-o-ni-r-o-ij Surviving #
Original #
Wtloriginal (mg)
-22-.-57 Surviving #
Original #
Wt/onginai (mg)
F--4-57 Surviving #
original #
Wt/original (mg)
r-757-1 Surviving #
Original #
WuCrig:nal (mg)
F-9-7-1 Surviving #
Original #
VIA"original (Mg)
Fi-N_7 Surviving #
Original #
V141onginai (mg)
Qualirr Data
Control
i 5U, init/Fin
DO ;,:^ g,'L; Init/Fin
T? r• {C`.: IniUFin
High Concentration
c- ;SU) Init/Fin
DC r, j Init/Fin
-e--v ;C,, Init/Fin
Sample
Stan Date
Grab
;Duration)
_ __ess (mg/L)
(mg/L)
C - .;mhos/cm)
z)rine(mg/L)
- 3: Receipt IT)
7/17/2018 5:50 PM Avg Wt/Surv. Control 0.683
1 2 3 4
10
10
90
9
10
10
10
10
0.720
0.728
0.594
0.621
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
0.748
0.773
0.674
0.565
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
0.665
0.675
0.735
0.606
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.683
0.692
0.724
0.725
Day
% Survival 97.5
Avg Wt (mg) 0.666
7-1
% Survival 97 5
Avg Wt (mg) 0.690
% Survival97.5
Avg Wt (mg) F 0.670
Survival 97.5
Avg Wt (m
g).F 0.706
% Survival100.0
Avg Wt (mg) 0.713
% Survival 95.0
Avg Wt (mg) 0.680
a a 5 6
Date:7/25/2018
County: Robeson
Test Organisms
i Cultured in -House
l✓ Outside Supplier
Hatch Date: 7/16/18
Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT
8.09 1 T 2
8.11 / 7.79
8.30 1 7.83
8.31 / 8.23
8.13 1 8.11
8.20 t 7.97
8.23 t 7.92
7.53 1 7.28
7.69 1 6.53
8.04 1 6.60
7.52 / 7.47
8.05 ! 7.60
8.01 / 7.18
7.65 / 7.16
24.3 1 25.1
24.3 1 24.3
25.7 / 24A
24.2 1 24.4
24.3 124.1
24.3 1 24.6
24.1 / 24.1
6.95 1 7.20
7.11 / 7.32
7.04 17.18
7.94 / 7.47
7.51 / 7.57
7.86 1 7.35
7.72 / 6.73
7.91 1 7.00
7.85 / 7.33
8.10 1 T74
7.82 1 6.92
7.71 / 7.17
24.8 124.7
24.7 / 24.5
24.3 ! 24.5
25.1 / 24.7
24.8 / 24.1
25.9 / 24.1
24.1 / 24.1
1 2 3
7/16/2018
7/18/2018
7/19/2018
24.0
24.0
24.0
68
72
76
16
16
18
430
456
458
<0.1
<0.1
1 <0.1
0.9
1.4
1 1.3
l i4aitan H2O Batch # 1290 1291 12
2
44a ^^ass (mgJL) Ed
46 4dr nity (mg/L) 52 51
223 182Cort:,.hos'cm)
Survival
Growth
Normal
ri
FI
Horn. Var.
F1
17o4
NOEC
100
100
LOEC
>100
>100
ChV
>100
>100
Method
Steel's
Dunnett's
Overall Result
ChV >100
Stats
Survival
Growth
Cone.
Critical Calculated
Critical Calculated
22.5
10 18
2.41-0.5509
45
10 18
10 18
2.41-0.1022
2.41-0.9144
75
90
10 - 20
2 41-1.0621
100
10 17.5
2.41-0.3181

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NC002S577 Town of Red Sprin s W WTP 1
Method Number Estimated concentration (If
Pollutant (Required) JCAS number (if Applicable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
Nick as per your request.
The Town of Red Springs has not sampled for any chemicals _
that arnt regulated by our permit.
Plant ORC( Brian SSaph-ebbs

Attachment A -- Example Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
1.1
Email address of facility contact redsprinasaft ag_mail.cgm , bst�hens@elizabethtownnc,ofci
1..2
Applicant email address [e-mail]
1.3
Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge NIA
1.4
Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge NIA
1.5
Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)? (Check all that apply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
301(h)) Section 302(b)(2))
Not applicable
1.6
Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works
.7
Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW.
Humber of. SIUs Number of CIUs
0 0
d (d
1.8
Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that this document and ali attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name (print or type first and last name)
Official title
David Ashburn
Town Manager
Signature a" :.
Date signed

Ea A4AIA
GRIT WASHER
PLANT INFLUENT MAIN PUMP
GRIT PUMPS STATION
GRIT � I
.., ...... . ... .... ......
s
ITYPsv,);
iiRYING ! BEDS
0
n
%i
i l'Jtl.IU�IY!
STRUrf
CT1URE, FWVR PWV12
I PHA V2 PWY3 -----1'ViVg�� •.•�PWV10PWVl I;
DQU2LE CHECK , 1 I I L ADV3
I VALVE VAULT N. I CHLORINE
0 \\ k DOCK I L
I i CHLORINE I Coe
1 CONTACT BASIN 1
I \ OPERATIONS
I BUILDING AEROBIC
DIGESTER
I �
I I a
I r -tea
.YARD HYDRANT (TYR)
.. I CLARIFIER
Pwvl I NO, 2
FROM TOWN WATER
SUPPLY SYSTEM I /}'•.fi
OXIDATION DITCH I � •"�f 'I � ,.bXIDATION DITCH
NO, I EY 2
y. o RETURN
i . ( ! SCUM,. SLUDGE
PUMPS je.. ., PUMPS' ( p+r1
6.
WASTEWATER PIPING CLARIFIER
SLUDGEAND ................... I d
SCUM PIPING 1
Q,9 Me. u.� • A
WATER PIPING.....— •— — PAI SB62+
SPLITTER BOXY.- P't S 0
OX .-P'tS0 i ��J)

Coco, Nick A
From: aaron huggins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Coco, Nick A
Subject: Re: [External] Town Of Red Springs
Attachments: I M G_20220830_0003.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Wastewater enters Red Springs WWTP at the Head Works. Influent water then flows through the automatic bar screen
where inorganic materials are removed. The influent water continues to flow through the grit removal system where
most of the sand and more inorganic materials are removed. Influent water then enters the wet well. In the next step
the influent water is pumped directly to the splitter box where raw influent water is mixed with sludge. The influent
mixture is then gravity fed into the oxidation ditches. Each of the 2 oxidation ditches consist of 2 rotors that provide
oxygen to the ditches. In this process raw influent water will mix with sludge and the biological process will begin. The
activated sludge will then flow over the ditch wier and into one of the 2 clarifiers which hold around 176,243 gallons
each. In the clarifier the sludge will proceed to settle the bottom of the clarifier. After the settling process, sludge from
the bottom of the clarifiers is recycled with the RAS pumps back the the splitter box to be reintroduced with raw influent
water. The top surface of water from the clarifiers flow over the clarifier wier and is gravity fed downhill into the
chlorine contact basin. In the chlorine contact basin chlorine gas is mixed with potable water and introduced to kill
bacteria and microorganism that could be harmful to the receiving streams. After a 30 minute contact period with
chlorine, Sodium Dioxide is introduced to neutralize the chlorine. The final step is for the flow of treated wastewater to
be calculated and logged.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:22 PM aaron huggins <[e-mail]> wrote:
1. Table 2 2A addendum
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 9:19 AM Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for getting back to me about this.
1.Sounds good. I appreciate you digging this all up. We didn't end up having it on our end, and after talking with
the folks in our Aquatic Toxicology branch, they had mentioned only receiving the 2nd species aquatic tox tests
for 2 of the 4 tests (10/2018 and 1/2019), so getting the last 2 additional species tests will be helpful all
around.
2.1 actually do need that chemical addendum signed and sent back to me, even if you just put a note in the sheet
that says "no additional sampling was conducted and no additional pollutants were identified." I apologize
about this; I had initially thought an email back was sufficient but I am supposed to be viewing this as an
actual part of the application process, so I'd need the form.
3.Thank you again for digging this up. For this, we also need a narrative description of the process at the plant.
4.That's correct. You only need that Table 2 as the addendum to the 2A form.

Again, I appreciate all of your work on this. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need clarification
on anything.
Thanks,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient as
we try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
h0-- Caff Pam
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: aaron huggins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 9:07 AM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] Town Of Red Springs
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Nick A,
Regarding the information that you have requested. #1 1 found the permit Renewal Package in an old file cabinet. I
will email you the 3 pollutant scan results and the 4 species toxicity results that we have on file for the review period..
#2 There are no additional pollutants to report so I don't think that form is required.... #3 1 have on hand the process
flow schematic and will email that today as well.... #4 is asking for me to fill out the missing information on Table 2 in
the attachment?
if you feel I'm missing something please let me know.... I will send you all the information I have today.. Thanks for
your time.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:58 PM Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Aaron,
No worries at all. I, myself, have been working remotely the past couple of days and have not been near my work
phone. We can reconvene at a later date and have our call.
I hope all is alright. Take care.
-Nick

From: aaron huggins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:46 PM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] Town Of Red Springs
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hey Nick.. Aaron from Red Springs here. Just touching base with you... I had some personal stuff come up and I will
not be at work the rest of the week. But like I said I have most of the information ready, just a few questions on some
parts. Sorry for the delay and inconvenience . Thanks
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 4:31 PM Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Thank you for reaching out and providing this update. Sounds good to me — we can talk more Monday. Have a great
weekend!
Best,
Nicholas A. Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
919 707-3609 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
4

I'm working at home due to the State of Emergency and DWR policy for Covid-19. Thanks for being patient
as we try to stay safe.
**Email is preferred but I am available to talk by via Microsoft Teams**
"[+�athlrrg �.ra�erlp�sres �,.�.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: aaron huggins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Coco, Nick A <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Town Of Red Springs
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment
to Report Spam.
Hey I'm Aaron Huggins ORC at Red Springs WWTP. I received an email from Tim Maudlin about additional
information needed. I am reaching out to you to let you know that I am working on your request. Some information
I have on hand but some stuff I'm not sure about. I became ORC about 6 months ago and I am learning somethings
as I go. On the job training I guess. I will be giving you a call on Monday about some of the questions I have. Thanks
for your time!

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO025577 MRS Betweel 4 - 2018 and 4 - 2023 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 04/06/2� Page 35 of 35
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO025577
FACILITY: Town of Red Springs - Red Springs WWTP
COUNTY: Robeson
REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
02-2023
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/09/23
3 X week
ug/I
17
39
129.4
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2023
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/14/23
3 X week
ug/I
17
38
123.5
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2023
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/15/23
3 X week
ug/I
17
28
64.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2023
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/23/23
3 X week
ug/I
17
22
29.4
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
12-2018
001
Effluent
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
12/15/18
2 X week
#/100ml
400
1,697.06
324.3
Weekly Geometric Mean
Proceed to
Broth, 44.5 C
Exceeded
Enforcement Case

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Red Springs WWTP
NCO025577/001 County:
Robeson
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
6/1/2015
chr lim: 90%
NonComp: Single
J
F M
A
M
2019
Pass >100(P)
- -
Pass
-
2020
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2021
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2023
Pass
- -
-
-
Reddies River WTP
NCO083291/001 County:
Wilkes
Fthd24PF
Begin:
3/1/2014
Ac P/F Monit: 90% Ft
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2019
H
2020
-
H
Reidsville WTP (Outfall 002)
NCO046345/001 County:
Rockingham
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
7/1/2017
Chr Lim: 90%
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2019
Fail
- Pass
Pass
-
2020
Pass
- -
Fail
Fail
2021
Fail
- -
Fail
-
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2023
94.9
>100 -
-
-
Reidsville WWTP
NCO024881/001 County:
Rockingham
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
6/1/2013
chr lim: 61%
NonComp: Single
J
F M
A
M
2019
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2020
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2021
Pass
- -
Pass
-
2022
Pass
- -
Fail
21.6 (f
2023
Pass
- -
-
-
Region:
FRO
7Q10: 0.07
J
-
-
-
-
J
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Basin:
PF: 2.5
LUM52
IWC:
A
-
-
-
-
Jan Apr Jul Oct
98 Freq: Q
S
-
-
-
-
O
Pass
Pass
Fail
Pass
SOC JOC:
N
-
-
>100
-
D
-
-
>100
-
Region:
WSRO
Basin:
YAD01
Mar Jun Sep Dec
SOC JOC:
7Q10:
PF: 0.063 IWC:
Freq: Q
l
J
A
S
O
N
D
H
H
H
Region:
WSRO
Basin:
CPF01
Jan Apr Jul Oct
SOC JOC:
7Q10:
PF:
IWC:
Freq: Q
J
I
A
S
O
N
D
-
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
-
-
Pass
-
-
-
Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
-
Pass
-
-
H
-
Fail
Region:
WSRO
Basin:
CPF01
Jan Apr Jul Oct
SOC JOC:
7Q10: 7.4
PF: 7.5
IWC:
61 Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
>100
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
REXAM, Inc.
NCO087874/001 County:
Guilford
Region: WSRO
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
12/1/2004 chr lim 90%
NonComp:
7Q10: I
J
F M
A
M J
2019
-
H -
-
H -
2020
-
H -
-
H -
Richland Township WTP
NCO084808/001 County:
Beaufort
Region: WARO
Mysd24PF
Begin:
1/1/2015 Ac P/F Monit: 90% M
NonComp:
7Q10:
J
F M
A
M J
2019
Fail
- -
Fail
- -
2020
Pass
- -
Fail
- -
2021
Fail
- -
Pass
- -
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
- -
2023
Pass
- -
-
- -
Basin: CPF02
Feb May Aug Nov
SOC JOC:
PF: 0.001 IWC:
100 Freq: Q
J
A
S
O N D
H
H
Basin: TAR07
Jan Apr Jul Oct
SOC JOC:
PF: IWC:
Freq: Q
J
A
S
O N D
Fail
-
-
Fail -
Pass
Pass
-
-
Pass -
Pass
-
-
Pass -
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facility is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs
Page 85 of 112

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NC0025577 I11 121 21/04/23 I17 181 R I 19 I s I 20L]
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
701LJ � I 71 [n LI 72 I Ln, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
-1 I I
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:OOAM 21/04/23
15/06/01
Red Springs WWTP
NC Hwy 71
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Red Springs NC 28377
02:OOPM 21/04/23
19/07/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Tony White,517 S Main St Red Springs NC 28377H910-843-5241/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
Stephanie Zorio DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3322/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO025577 I11 12I 21/04/23 117 18 IBI
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The facility grounds and laboratory were well -maintained and orderly. Otherwise noted, all records
including an ORC log were available at the time of the review and complete. The facility submitted an
application for permit renewal in 2019 that is still pending approval. Records reviewed by DWR
revealed multiple discrepancies. Some laboratory records were missing dates and the name of the
analyst. White -out was used for corrections. The Division notes that mistakes should be corrected by
striking through the error and initialing.
Split samples were collected for chronic bioassay testing at Outfall 001 from Red Springs WWTP's
composite equipment on April 20th and 22nd, 2021. The Division notes that the facility sends
samples to TBL. TBL contracts with Meritech Labs for toxicity testing. The facility passed the chromic
Ceriodaphnia dubia test performed by the DEQ Aquatic Toxicology Lab.
Pump #4 at the influent lift station was not being used at the time of inspection due to a faulty belt.
The pump could be operated at low speed if needed. The grit chamber has been inoperable for
approximately 1 year. The Division notes that grit causes excessive wear and tear on pumps and
other plant equipment that could lead to expensive repairs and compliance issues. Clarifier #2 was
out of operation due to a pipe blockage. Facility staff had identified the problem as originating from
the RAS pump. Two out of three RAS pumps were working at the time of the inspection. One pump
with a blockage was in the process of being dismantled for servicing.
Only half of the digester has been in operation since its construction. The unused side of the digester
is overgrown with vegetation, including sizeable trees. Vegetation must be removed from the digester.
Additionally, the concrete surface may have been compromised due to tree roots, therefore it should
be inspected and repaired. Effluent sampling is flow proportional in accordance with permit
guidelines. Effluent was clear with no apparent pin floc at the time of the inspection.
Page#

Permit: NCO025577
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021
Owner -Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: MLSS, pH, DO
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Records reviewed by DWR revealed multiple discrepancies. Some records were
missing dates and the name of the analyst. White -out was used for corrections. The
Division notes that mistakes should be corrected by striking through the error and
initialing.
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO025577
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021
Permit
Owner -Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment: Facility submitted an application for permit renewal in 2019.
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Comment: The generator is tested under load every Wednesday at noon.
Flow Measurement - Influent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: The flow meter was last calibrated June 2020 by J.S. Dismuke.
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Comment: Influent sampling is time -based.
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Yes
No
NA
NE
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO025577
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Owner - Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Yes
No
NA
NE
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: Pump #4 was not being used at the time of inspection due to a faulty belt. The pump
could be operated at low speed if needed.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0 ❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment: The grit chamber has been inoperable for approximately
1 year. The Division notes
that grit causes excessive wear and tear on pumps and other plant equipment that
could lead to exDensive reDairs and comDliance issues.
Oxidation Ditches
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
Yes
No
NA
NE
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO025577 Owner -Facility:
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021 Inspection Type:
Red Springs WWTP
Bioassay Compliance
Oxidation Ditches
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
0
❑
❑
❑
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Clarifier #2 was out of operation due to a pipe blockage. Staff had identified the
problem as originating from the RAS pump.
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are pumps in place?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Two out of three pumps were workinq at the time of the inspection. One pump with a
blockage was in the process of being dismantled for servicing.
Aerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO025577
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021
Owner -Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
# Is the odor acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Only half of the digester has been in operation since its construction. The unused side
of the digester is overgrown with vegetation, including sizeable trees. Vegetation must
be removed from the digester. Additionally, the concrete may have been compromised
due to tree roots, therefore it should be inspected and repaired.
Disinfection -Gas
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No.
❑
❑
0
❑
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
❑
❑
0
❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment:
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of system ?
Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
0
❑
❑ ❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NCO025577
Inspection Date: 04/23/2021
Effluent Sampling
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Owner -Facility: Red Springs WWTP
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment: Effluent sampling is flow proportional in accordance with permit guidelines.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type,
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8