NC0025445_Fact Sheet_20230809

Page 1 of 12

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0025445
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: August 2, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017

Permitting Action:
☒ 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: City of Randleman/Randleman WWTP
Applicant Address: 204 South Main Street, Randleman, NC 27317
Facility Address: 3475 Applewood Road, Randleman, NC 27317
Permitted Flow: 1.745 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class: Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Grit removal & bar screen, extended aeration basins, secondary
clarifiers, gas chlorination/dechlorination, cascade aerator, traveling
bridge vacuum tertiary filter, aerobic digesters
Pretreatment Program (Y/N) Y; See brief description below
County: Randolph
Region Winston-Salem

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Randleman has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 1.745 MGD for the Randleman WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 4,200 residents. The Randleman WWTP received pretreated wastewater
from 1 non-categorical significant industrial user (SIU), Deep River Dyeing Company, Incorporated, via a
Division-approved pretreatment program until October 25th, 2022 when the SIU ceased operation. The
Industrial User Permit (IUP) for this SIU was terminated on November 30th, 2022. While the only SIU
managed by the City has ceased discharge, the City’s pretreatment program remains active. Treated
domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into the Deep River, a class C waterbody in the Cape
Fear River Basin. Outfall 001 is approximately 47 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-V.

Sludge disposal: Sludge is land applied under WQ0004825.

Page 2 of 12

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 – Deep River
Stream Segment: 17-(10.5b)
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area (mi2): 180
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 5
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 12
30Q2 (cfs): 23
Average Flow (cfs): 171
IWC (% effluent): 35
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Not listed; However, 17-(10.5d1) – 3 miles downstream
below confluence with Hasketts Creek is impaired for
chlorophyll a
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/HUC: Cape Fear River/HUC: 03030003
USGS Topo Quad: D19SE

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of August 2018 through January 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 0.7 2.002 0.0395 MA 1.745
BOD summer mg/l 2.7 36.5 < 2 WA 7.5
MA 5.0
BOD winter mg/l 2.5 23.8 < 2 WA 15.0
MA 10.0
NH3N summer mg/l 0.2 4.86 < 0.1 WA 6.0
MA 2.0
NH3N winter mg/l 0.2 2.79 < 0.1 WA 12.0
MA 4.0
TSS mg/l 2.9 26.6 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
pH SU 6.6 7.3 6 6.0 ≥ pH ≤
9.0
Fecal coliform #/100 ml (geomean)
3.8 2420 1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
DO mg/l 8.3 13.6 5.1 DA ≥5.0
TRC µg/l 32.5 50 15
DM 28.0
(< 50
compliance)
Conductivity µmhos/cm 398 2070 < 1 Monitor &
Report

Page 3 of 12

Temperature ° C 22.9 34 10 Monitor &
Report
TN mg/l 6.4 21.6 1.38 Monitor &
Report
TP mg/l 3.0 6.91 0.079 Monitor &
Report
Total Copper µg/l 15.6 41 5 Monitor &
Report
Total Lead µg/l 11.9 52 < 2 MA 16
DM 381
Total Hardness mg/l 67 113 43.3 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, temperature, and
conductivity upstream at Fox Street and downstream at Worthville Bridge. Per a call with the City on
5/17/2023, the City informed the Division that Fox Street does not have a bridge over the receiving
stream and upstream hardness sampling is currently being conducted at E. Naomi Street. As such, the
permit has been revised to reflect the correct upstream sampling location. Instream monitoring is
conducted three times per week during June, July, August and September, and once per week during the
rest of the year. As the permittee is a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
(UCFRBA) instream monitoring requirements are provisionally waived. The nearest upstream UCFRBA
monitoring station is B4770500, located approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the outfall. The nearest
downstream UCFRBA monitoring station is B4800000, located approximately 0.5 miles downstream of
the outfall. Upstream hardness sampling conducted by the City at a quarterly frequency. Data were
observed from June 2018 to December 2022. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter Units Upstream Downstream
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 19.8 29.3 2.6 19.9 30.1 4.7
DO mg/l 8.3 11.7 6 8.7 16.6 6.54
Conductivity umhos/cm 155 221 96 148 218 91
Total
Hardness mg/l 34.4 40 28.3 - - -
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.
Please note that not all upstream and downstream sampling events were conducted concurrently.
Only concurrent sampling events were used in conducting the statistical analysis.

Page 4 of 12

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 2 occasions during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically
significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Downstream DO was not observed below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period
reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and
downstream DO.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity.
UCFRBA also conducts sampling for ammonia, TKN, NO2+NO3, fecal coliform, total phosphorous, fecal
coliform and turbidity. Data were observed from June 2018 to December 2022. The data has been
summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter Units Upstream Downstream
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Ammonia mg/l 0.07 0.4 0.02 0.06 0.42 0.02
TKN mg/l 0.71 1.9 0.24 0.74 2.12 0.2
NO2+NO3 mg/l 0.18 0.69 0.02 0.26 0.75 0.02
Total
Phosphorous mg/l 0.03 0.068 0.02 0.08 0.228 0.027
Fecal
coliform #/100mL (geomean)
51 2400 3 (geomean)
140 12400 5
Turbidity NTU 6.9 36.4 1.5 12.0 82.9 2.7

Based on discussions with the Division’s Basin Planning Branch, instream monitoring for TP, TKN,
NO2+NO3, and ammonia have been added to the permit at a monthly frequency.
While upstream turbidity was not reported above 50 NTUs, downstream turbidity was reported above 50
NTUs on 3 occasions during the period reviewed [15A NCAC 02B .0211 (21)]. It was concluded that a
statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream turbidity. Instream turbidity
monitoring has been added to the permit at a monthly frequency.
As the receiving stream is neither a class B water nor impaired for fecal coliform, instream monitoring
fecal coliform is not required. Review of available instream data from UCFRBA demonstrated an
observed increase in fecal coliform instream. However, review of concurrent effluent data does not appear
to display a correlation between elevated fecal coliform in the discharge and elevated levels downstream.
As such, fecal coliform instream monitoring has not been added at this time.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported 15 BOD
limit violations, 12 ammonia limit violations, and 3 TSS limit violations resulting in enforcement in 2018.
In 2020, the facility reported 2 BOD limit violations resulting in enforcement. The facility reported one
BOD limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2022.

Page 5 of 12

Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from January 2019 to January 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in February 2023 reported that the facility was compliant. The last pretreatment inspection conducted in
May 2022 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for BOD5 are based on a 1991 Level B Model. No changes have been made.
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/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (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/l) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective. No changes have been made.
The existing limitations for ammonia are based on a 1991 Level B Model. The ammonia limits have been
reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to be protective. No changes have been
made.
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 ½ detection limit for “less than” values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution

Page 6 of 12

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 June 2018 and
October 2022. 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 Lead (MA 16 µg/L, DM 381 µg/L), Total Copper (MA
37.6 µg/L, DM 48.4 µg/L)
• 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: Total
Chromium, Total Nickel
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Cyanide, Total Selenium, Total Silver,
Total Zinc
• 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
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds

The current permit contains total lead limitations (MA 16 µg/L, DM 381 µg/L). Effluent data review in the
RPA demonstrated need for maintenance of total lead limitations. As part of the RPA, total lead
limitations were calculated based on updated hardness data (MA 16.5 µg/L, DM 390.8 µg/L) which are
less stringent than the existing total lead limits. As such, the current total lead limits have been
maintained.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging “complex” wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.

Page 7 of 12

Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 35%
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/l) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/l) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 4. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
# of Samples 1 4 4 4 4
Annual Average Conc. ng/L 3.7 5.1 2.3 14.7 7.7
Maximum Conc., ng/L 3.7 8.8 3.5 45 22.8
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 34.2
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. Since the facility capacity is less than 2.0 MGD no mercury minimization plan (MMP)
special condition is required.
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. The City participated in the 2019
investigative monitoring study for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. As an attachment to the permit application, the
City provided the 2019 investigative monitoring results for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane (see attached). No
additional sampling was conducted. See Monitoring Requirements for more information.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: Yes; Per a phone call with the
City on 5/31/2023, the City has requested a 3-year compliance schedule for total copper limits, to allow
time to conduct collection system investigations, survey any manufacturing in the area, and assess lines in
older parts of the city. As the City does not have any industrial users, they require time to study where the
influent copper is coming from.
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

Page 8 of 12

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
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Effluent temperature is currently monitored at a frequency of 3/week and effluent ammonia is currently
monitored at a frequency of weekly. Per 15A NCAC 02B .0508, water quality limited Class III facilities
shall monitor temperature at a frequency of daily and ammonia at a frequency of 3/week. As such, the
monitoring frequencies for effluent temperature and ammonia have been revised.
In 2019, based on the EPA’s Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule indicating elevated
concentrations of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin, the Division required facilities in
the basin with pretreatment programs conduct investigative monitoring of their influents for PFAS and
1,4-dioxane.

Page 9 of 12

The City of Randleman participated in this investigation and found the presence of 1,4-dioxane in 2 of the
3 Randleman WWTP influent samples collected. Influent concentration is anticipated to reflect effluent
concentrations based on existing components at the treatment facility. The Randleman WWTP discharges
approximately 47 miles upstream of the Goldston-Gulf WS-V boundary. The maximum influent sample
collected in 2019 was reported at 18.1 ug/L. Since the 2019 investigation, the City has lost its only SIU.
To further understand any contribution of 1,4-dioxane from this facility, quarterly effluent monitoring has
been added. After a 24-month sampling period, the Permittee may request the Division conduct a review
of submitted data for assessment and approval of a 1,4-dioxane monitoring frequency reduction from
quarterly to annually.
In addition to 1,4-dioxane, the City found the presence of some PFAS compounds in their influent during
each of the three sampling events. As the Randleman WWTP is a major facility discharging above WS-V
waters, 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 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001
Parameter Current Permit Proposed
Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 1.745 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5 Summer:
MA 5.0 mg/l
WA 7.5 mg/l
Winter:
MA 10.0 mg/l
WA 15.0 mg/l
Monitor and report 3/Week
No change WQBEL. 1991 Level B model; Surface
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
NH3-N Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/l
WA 6.0 mg/l
Winter:
MA 4.0 mg/l
WA 12.0 mg/l
Monitor and report Weekly
No change to
limits; Monitor
and report
3/week
WQBEL. 1991 Level B model; verified
with 2022 WLA; Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TSS MA 30.0 mg/l
WA 45.0 mg/l
Monitor and report 3/Week
No change TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406; Surface
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500

Page 10 of 12

Fecal
coliform
MA 200 /100ml
WA 400 /100ml
Monitor and report 3/Week
No change

WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Temperature Monitor and Report
3/Week
Monitor and
Report Daily
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0508; Class III water quality limited
facility
DO > 5 mg/l
Monitor and Report 3/week
No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0500
pH 6 – 9 SU
Monitor and Report 3/week
No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0500
Conductivity Monitor and Report
3/Week
No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500
Total
Residual
Chlorine
DM 28 ug/L
Monitor and Report 3/week
No change

WQBEL. 2022 WLA. Surface Water
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN Monitor and Report
Monthly
No change For calculation of TN
NO2+NO3 Monitor and Report
Monthly
No change For calculation of TN
Total
Nitrogen
Monitor and Report
Monthly
No change

Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500
Total
Phosphorus
Monitor and Report
Monthly
No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
2B. 0500
Total Lead MA 16 mg/l
DM 381 mg/l
Monitor and report
Monthly;
5-year compliance schedule
No change to
limits or
monitoring;
Remove
compliance
schedule
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
Analysis (RPA); RP shown - apply
Monthly Monitoring with Limit;
Antibacksliding; Compliance Schedule
has ended
Total Copper Monitor and Report
quarterly
MA 37.6 mg/l
DM 48.4 mg/l
Monitor and
report Monthly;
3-year
compliance
schedule
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
Analysis (RPA); RP shown - apply
Monthly Monitoring with Limit; Based on
Permittee request for time to assess
sources of total copper
Total
Hardness
Quarterly monitoring
Upstream and in Effluent
No changes Hardness-dependent dissolved metals
water quality standards approved in 2016
Instream
Monitoring
Monitor and report for
temperature, DO and
conductivity
Add ammonia,
TKN, NO2+NO3,
TP, and turbidity;
Upstream
monitoring
location changed
to E. Naomi
Street.
Based on discussions with Basin Planning
Branch and Instream Data Review

Page 11 of 12

1,4-Dioxane No requirement Monitor and
Report quarterly
with potential to
reduce to annual;
Add reopener
condition
Evaluation of 1,4-dioxane contribution:
major discharger above WS-V waters;
2019 investigation
PFAS No requirement
Add quarterly
monitoring with
delayed
implementation
Evaluation of PFAS contribution: major
discharger above WS-V waters;
Implementation delayed until after EPA
certified method becomes available.
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 35% effluent

No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC
2B.0500
Nutrient
Reopener
Special Condition A.(4.)
Cape Fear River Basin
Nutrient Monitoring
Reopener
Remove
condition
The Division may request additional
monitoring for TN and TP if necessary
without need for reopener condition
Effluent
Pollutant
Scan
Three times per permit
cycle
No change;
conducted in
2025, 2026, 2027
40 CFR 122
Electronic
Reporting
Electronic Reporting
Special Condition
No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD – Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA – Weekly Average, DM – Daily Max

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 06/17/2023
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 City of Randleman, EPA Region IV, and the Division’s Winston-Salem
Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Operator Certification Program, Monitoring Coalition
Coordinator and Pretreatment Unit for review. The City of Randleman provided comments to the
Division on July 17, 2023 requesting the monitoring frequencies for temperature and ammonia not be
increased and instead be maintained at 3/week for temperature and weekly for ammonia. As the revisions
to the monitoring frequencies for effluent temperature and ammonia are based on 15A NCAC 02B .0508,
the monitoring requirements have been maintained at daily for temperature and 3/week for ammonia.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA

Page 12 of 12

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
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Chemical Addendum
AFFP
Public Notice North Carolina
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF NC) SS
COUNTY OF )
C-ar)41P i
Brenda Poole, being duly sworn, says:
That she is Classified Rep of the The Courier -Tribune, a
daily newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published in Asheboro, County, NC; that the publication, a
copy of which is attached hereto, was published in the
said newspaper on the following dates:
June 17, 2023
Public Notice
North Carolina
Environmental Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NP-
DES Wastewater Permit
NC0025445 Randleman
WWTP. The North Carolina En-
vironmental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge
permit to the person(s) listed
below. Written comments re-
garding the proposed permit
will be accepted until 30 days
after the publish date of this no-
tice. The Director of the NC Di-
vision of Water Resources
DWR) may hold a public hear-
ing should there be a signific-
ant degree of public interest.
Please mail comments and/or
information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated persons may visit the DWR at
512 N. Salisbury Street, on those dates.
SIGNED: Raleigh, NC 27604 to review
the information on file. Addition-
al information on NPDES per-
mits and this notice may be
Classified Rep found on our website:
Subscribed to and swom to me this 17th day of June https://deq.nc.gov/public-no-
2023. tices-hearings,or by calling
919) 707-3601. The City of
Randleman 1204 South Main
Street, Randleman, NC 273171
has requested renewal of NP-
nise Greenwel , Notary Randolph, County, NC DES permit NC0025445 for its
Randleman Wastewater Treat -
My commission expires: April 12, 2028 ment Plant, located in Ran-
DENISE GREENWELL dolph County. This permitted
facility discharges treated muni- 1 NOTARY PUBLIC ipal and industrial wastewater
zndolph County, North Carolina o the Deep River, a class C700832497069ommissionExpiresApril12, 2028L2kW water in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Currently BOD, ammo -
WREN THEDFORD nia, fecal coliform, DO, pH, total
NCDEQ-DWR-NPDES (ASH) residual chlorine, total lead and
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER total copper are water quality
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617 limited. This discharge may af-
fect future allocations in this
segment of the Deep River -
It: 6/ 17/2023

MAYOR
GARY B. BETTS, SR.

BOARD OF ALDERMEN
RENEE BRYANT
Mayor Pro-Tempore

MELISSA BLALOCK
MIKE DAWKINS
NANCY HENDERSON
(VACANT)

CITY ADMINISTRATION
GREG PATTON
Interim City Manager

STEVEN B. LEONARD
Director of Public Safety / Chief of Police

ELIZABETH H. SECHRIEST
Finance Director

CONNIE PEELER
City Clerk
204 S. MAIN STREET
RANDLEMAN, NC 27317
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
WWW.CITYOFRANDLEMAN.COM

Nick,

Hi Nick, I hope you are well. I’m reaching out to you regarding our draft permit. It indicates that we need to sample
Temperature on a daily basis. We would like to request it be amended that we continue to collect temperature 3
times a week as we always have. I don’t believe that we make any impact on the stream based on temperature.

We would also like to request that an amendment be made to the sampling frequency of Nh3 (Ammonia) to
continue to be once a week. As apposed to 3 times a week. Again, we have had no violations for this nutrient or
readings much above non detect. This will be a huge savings to the city to help offset the cost of the additional
sampling the city will be required to conduct in this new permit cycle.

As always if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at this email address or the contacts below.
Thank you very much for your time and help with this consideration.

Sincerely
Michael Glass
City of Randleman ORC/ Wastewater Director
[e-mail]
336-498-2254
336-460-4164

MAYOR
GARY B. BETTS, SR.

BOARD OF ALDERMEN
RENEE BRYANT
Mayor Pro-Tempore
MELISSA BLALOCK
MIKE DAWKINS
NANCY HENDERSON
(VACANT)

CITY ADMINISTRATION
Greg Patton
City Manager

Elizabeth H. Sechriest
Finance Director

CONNIE CROSS
City Clerk
204 S. MAIN STREET
RANDLEMAN, NC 27317
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
WWW.CITYOFRANDLEMAN.COM

May 30, 2023

Nick Coco, PE
Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting

RE: NC0025445 Permit Renewal Follow Up Items from Email 05/08/23

Dear Mr. Coco,

Regarding your email dated May 8, 2023, requesting additional information for the renewal package for NPDES
permit number NC0025445, the City of Randleman WWTP, I am providing the following information/answers:

• Please see Attachment A for a brief narrative description of the treatment works as requested.
• The City of Randleman is not requesting reduced monitoring at this time.
• The City of Randleman has, to the best of my knowledge, provided all data for pollutants in the discharge
for which there are certified methods. This data was provided with the original application. In 2019, some
additional influent data was collected for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane per NCDEQ requirements for Pretreatment
programs. PFAS was tested using PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with Table B-15 of QSM 5.1 and 1,4
dioxane was tested using EPA 624.1. These results as provided to Ms. Vivien Zong of (formerly PERCS)
NCDEQ on 10/28/2019 are included here as Attachment B.

Should you require any additional information, please contact me at the phone number or email listed below.

Thank you,

Garry Michael Glass
Operator in Responsible Charge
City of Randleman Wastewater Treatment
[phone]
[e-mail]

NC0025445 RANDLEMAN WWTP BRIEF NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT WORKS
•The City of Randleman WWTP is a Grade III plant permitted to treat 1.745 MGD by preliminary, secondary,
and tertiary means.
•Wastewater enters the headworks offsite at 204 Upton Street via one influent line. The headworks consists
of an automatic barscreen and grit chamber.
•After entering the headworks, the wastewater travels approximately 0.86 miles via force main and gravity to
the main WWTP located on Applewood Road.
•The wastewater then enters a splitter box and is split between 4 treatment basins. The treatment basins
use aeration and center clarification in the secondary treatment portion of the treatment train.
•From there, solids are moved to return activated sludge or waste activated sludge. Waste activated sludge
is diverted to one of three aerobic digesters.
•Wastewater from the four initial treatment basins travels to the chlorine contact chamber for disinfection.
•Following disinfection, the wastewater is filtered across an anthracite/aggregate/sand filter.
•Once filtered, the water is dechlorinated using sulfur dioxide and is then discharged at the approved
effluent point to the Deep River.
•WAS is digested per EPA requirements and hauled to a land application site by a contract land applier
under permit number WQ0004825.
Attachment A: NC0025445 City of
Randleman WWTP Brief Narrative
Description
POTW Name:City of Randleman NPDES #:
CAS Number Analyte Name Acronym 7/24/2019 *8/14/2019 *9/18/2019 *
335-67-1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA 5.7 5.52 7.05
1763-23-1 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFOS 7.54 ND U 14.7
375-22-4 Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA ND U ND U ND U
375-73-5 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBS ND U ND U ND U
335-77-3 Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid PFDS ND U ND U ND U
335-76-2 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA 0.661 ND U 0.375
307-55-1 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA ND U ND U ND U
375-92-8 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS ND U ND U ND U
375-85-9 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA 3.12 2.94 3.79
355-46-4 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS 6.07 ND U ND U
307-24-4 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA 8.36 8.56 9.82
68259-12-1 Perfluorononanesulfonic acid PFNS ND U ND U ND U
375-95-1 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA 1.04 0.846 J 1.5
754-91-6 Perfluorooctanesulfonamide PFOSA ND U ND U ND U
2991-50-6 2-(N-Ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid N-EtFOSAA ND U ND U ND U
2355-31-9 2-(N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid N-MeFOSAA ND U ND U ND U
2706-91-4 Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid PFPeS ND U ND U ND U
2706-90-3 Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA ND U ND U 96 *
376-06-7 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTeA ND U 0.255 J ND U
72629-94-8 Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTriA ND U ND U ND U
2058-94-8 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA ND U ND U ND U
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
Sum of PFOA and PFOS 13.24 5.52 21.75
Total 32.491 18.121 133.235
7/24/2019 *8/26/2019 *9/18/2019 *
1, 4 - Dioxane 18.1 4.94 <4.0
* Please enter applicable lab qualifiers
* See narrative in Enthalpy report. Possible false positive.
J Indicates that an analyte has a concentration below the Reporting Limit (Lowest Point on the Standard Curve)
U The analyte was not detected. The Estimated Detection Limit (EDL) may be reported for this analyte.
Influent Grab (ng/L)
Influent Grab (ug/L)
NC0025445
Enter data ONLY in blue cells!
Attachment B: PFAS and
1,4 Dioxane Influent
Testing NC0025445
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Name WQS Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Randleman WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class III Par02 Arsenic Human Health
Water Supply C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0025445 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 0.9328 FW 5.6430 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD)1.745 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Deep River Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03030003 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 193.4382 FW 1523.5326 ug/L
Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 µg/L
7Q10s (cfs)5.000 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A µg/L
7Q10w (cfs)12.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 13.2298 FW 19.0640 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs)23.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA (cfs)171.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s (cfs)4.17 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 5.7984 FW 153.7690 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 66.91 mg/L (Avg)Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Upstream Hardness 34.44 mg/L (Avg)Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 45.84 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 62.1818 FW 574.0307 µg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 47.22 mg/L Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A µg/L
Data Source(s)Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.8848 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 211.8305 FW 215.4429 ug/L
Par22
Par23
Par24
Follow directions for data entry. In some cases a
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from. Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
To appy a Model IWC %: Once the
"Flow, Qw (MGD)" and and the
"CHRONIC DILUTION FACTOR =
" values are entered, the 7Q10s
(cfs) flow is calculated and
displayed. Enter the calculated
"7Q10s (cfs)" flow value in Table 1.
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
C
CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Apply WS Hardness WQC
25445 RPA, input
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2
Effluent Hardness Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/14/2018 59.7 59.7 Std Dev.13.2719 1 10/16/2018 33.3 33.3 Std Dev.4.0736
2 9/10/2018 63 63 Mean 66.9056 2 1/15/2019 33.1 33.1 Mean 34.4444
3 10/18/2018 58.2 58.2 C.V.0.1984 3 4/9/2019 31.2 31.2 C.V.0.1183
4 11/14/2018 43.3 43.3 n 54 4 7/9/2019 31 31 n 18
5 12/5/2018 50.5 50.5 10th Per value 54.09 mg/L 5 10/8/2019 34.9 34.9 10th Per value 30.08 mg/L
6 1/17/2019 113 113 Average Value =66.91 mg/L 6 1/7/2020 32.6 32.6 Average Value =34.44 mg/L
7 2/13/2019 63.2 63.2 Max. Value 113.00 mg/L 7 4/14/2020 28.3 28.3 Max. Value 40.00 mg/L
8 3/13/2019 54.6 54.6 8 7/21/2020 30.5 30.5
9 4/11/2019 54 54 9 10/6/2020 29.1 29.1
10 5/8/2019 61 61 10 1/26/2021 32 32
11 6/26/2019 59.2 59.2 11 4/13/2021 32 32
12 7/11/2019 60.1 60.1 12 7/13/2021 40 40
13 8/7/2019 61.1 61.1 13 10/5/2021 36 36
14 9/11/2019 61.4 61.4 14 1/4/2022 40 40
15 10/10/2019 54.3 54.3 15 4/19/2022 36 36
16 11/13/2019 62.4 62.4 16 7/14/2022 40 40
17 12/11/2019 57.4 57.4 17 10/4/2022 40 40
18 1/9/2020 53.6 53.6 18 1/10/2023 40 40
19 2/5/2020 55.1 55.1 19
20 3/11/2020 47.8 47.8 20
21 4/17/2020 79.6 79.6 21
22 5/6/2020 65.5 65.5 22
23 6/10/2020 63.4 63.4 23
24 7/24/2020 64.1 64.1 24
25 8/5/2020 64.1 64.1 25
26 9/9/2020 72.4 72.4 26
27 10/9/2020 66.6 66.6 27
28 11/18/2020 63.2 63.2 28
29 12/9/2020 65.1 65.1 29
30 1/28/2021 56 56 30
31 2/17/2021 56 56 31
32 3/10/2021 68 68 32
33 4/15/2021 72 72 33
34 5/5/2021 72 72 34
35 6/9/2021 76 76 35
36 7/15/2021 76 76 36
37 8/11/2021 72 72 37
38 9/8/2021 80 80 38
39 10/7/2021 74 74 39
40 11/3/2021 72 72 40
41 12/8/2021 76 76 41
42 1/6/2022 60 60 42
43 2/9/2022 56 56 43
44 3/9/2022 68 68 44
45 4/21/2022 52 52 45
46 5/11/2022 58 58 46
47 6/8/2022 76 76 47
48 7/14/2022 76 76 48
49 8/10/2022 76 76 49
50 9/28/2022 80 80 50
51 10/6/2022 72 72 51
52 11/9/2022 100 100 52
53 12/14/2022 96 96 53
54 1/12/2023 96 96 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 1 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/18/2018 <5 2.5 Std Dev.1.3982
2 1/17/2019 <5 2.5 Mean 3.5278
3 4/11/2019 <5 2.5 C.V.0.3964
4 7/11/2019 <5 2.5 n 18
5 10/10/2019 <5 2.5
6 1/9/2020 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.27
7 4/17/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 7/24/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 6.4 ug/L
9 10/9/2020 <5 2.5
10 1/28/2021 <10 5
11 4/15/2021 <10 5
12 7/15/2021 <10 5
13 10/7/2021 <10 5
14 1/6/2022 <10 5
15 4/21/2022 <10 5
16 7/14/2022 <10 5
17 10/6/2022 <10 5
18 1/12/2023 <2 1
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
- 2 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Beryllium Cadmium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/10/2019 <1 0.5 Std Dev.0.0000 1 10/18/2018 <2 1 Std Dev.0.2180
2 1/9/2020 <1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 1/17/2019 <2 1 Mean 0.9486
3 7/12/2018 <1 0.5 C.V. (default)0.6000 3 4/11/2019 <2 1 C.V.0.2298
4 n 3 4 7/11/2019 <2 1 n 18
5 5 10/10/2019 <2 1
6 Mult Factor =3.00 6 1/9/2020 <2 1 Mult Factor =1.15
7 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 4/17/2020 <2 1 Max. Value 1.000 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 1.50 ug/L 8 7/24/2020 <2 1 Max. Pred Cw 1.150 ug/L
9 9 10/9/2020 <2 1
10 10 1/28/2021 <2 1
11 11 4/15/2021 <2 1
12 12 7/15/2021 <2 1
13 13 10/7/2021 <2 1
14 14 1/6/2022 <2 1
15 15 4/21/2022 <2 1
16 16 7/14/2022 <2 1
17 17 10/6/2022 <2 1
18 18 1/12/2023 <0.15 0.075
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 3 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07 Par10
Total Phenolic Compounds Chromium, Total
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/12/2018 <5 2.5 Std Dev.0.0000 1 10/18/2018 9 9 Std Dev.5.7679
2 10/10/2019 <5 2.5 Mean 2.5000 2 1/17/2019 <5 2.5 Mean 4.8056
3 1/9/2020 <5 2.5 C.V. (default)0.6000 3 4/11/2019 <5 2.5 C.V.1.2003
4 n 3 4 7/11/2019 <5 2.5 n 18
5 5 10/10/2019 <5 2.5
6 Mult Factor =3.00 6 1/9/2020 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.80
7 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L 7 4/17/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Value 25.0 µg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 7.5 ug/L 8 7/24/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 45.0 µg/L
9 9 10/9/2020 <5 2.5
10 10 1/28/2021 <5 2.5
11 11 4/15/2021 25 25
12 12 7/15/2021 <5 2.5
13 13 10/7/2021 12 12
14 14 1/6/2022 <5 2.5
15 15 4/21/2022 <5 2.5
16 16 7/14/2022 7 7
17 17 10/6/2022 <5 2.5
18 18 1/12/2023 <2 1
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
- 4 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pa11 Par12
Copper Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/18/2018 41 41 Std Dev.8.8990 1 10/18/2018 <5 5 Std Dev.0.0000
2 1/17/2019 29 29 Mean 15.6111 2 1/17/2019 <5 5 Mean 5.00
3 4/11/2019 11 11 C.V.0.5700 3 4/11/2019 <5 5 C.V.0.0000
4 7/11/2019 16 16 n 18 4 7/11/2019 <5 5 n 18
5 10/10/2019 19 19 5 10/10/2019 <5 5
6 1/9/2020 12 12 Mult Factor =1.39 6 1/9/2020 <5 5 Mult Factor =1.00
7 4/17/2020 27 27 Max. Value 41.00 ug/L 7 4/17/2020 <5 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 7/24/2020 12 12 Max. Pred Cw 56.99 ug/L 8 7/24/2020 <5 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L
9 10/9/2020 15 15 9 10/9/2020 <5.0 5
10 1/28/2021 11 11 10 1/28/2021 <5.0 5
11 4/15/2021 5 5 11 4/15/2021 <5 5
12 7/15/2021 14 14 12 7/15/2021 <5 5
13 10/7/2021 8 8 13 10/7/2021 <5 5
14 1/6/2022 9 9 14 1/6/2022 7 5
15 4/21/2022 10 10 15 4/21/2022 <5 5
16 7/14/2022 12 12 16 7/14/2022 <5 5
17 10/6/2022 10 10 17 10/6/2022 <5 5
18 1/12/2023 20 20 18 1/12/2023 <5 5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 5 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14 Par17 & Par18
Lead Nickel
Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/20/2022 <10 5 Std Dev.5.5581 1 10/18/2018 <5 2.5 Std Dev.#####
2 9/21/2022 <10 5 Mean 7.9172 2 1/17/2019 <5 2.5 Mean 8.8833
3 9/22/2022 5 5 C.V.0.7020 3 4/11/2019 <5 2.5 C.V.2.0628
4 9/27/2022 <10 5 n 58 4 7/11/2019 <5 2.5 n 18
5 9/28/2022 <10 5 5 10/10/2019 <5 2.5
6 9/29/2022 <10 5 Mult Factor =1.00 6 1/9/2020 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =2.23
7 10/4/2022 <10 5 Max. Value 32.000 ug/L 7 4/17/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Value 79.0 µg/L
8 10/5/2022 <10 5 Max. Pred Cw 32.000 ug/L 8 7/24/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 176.2 µg/L
9 10/6/2022 <10 5 9 10/9/2020 <5 2.5
10 10/11/2022 <10 5 10 1/28/2021 <10 5
11 10/12/2022 <10 5 11 4/15/2021 79 79
12 10/13/2022 <10 5 12 7/15/2021 <10 5
13 10/18/2022 4.2 4.2 13 10/7/2021 26 26
14 10/19/2022 <10 5 14 1/6/2022 <10 5
15 10/20/2022 <10 5 15 4/21/2022 <10 5
16 10/25/2022 <10 5 16 7/14/2022 <10 5
17 10/26/2022 <10 5 17 10/6/2022 <10 5
18 10/27/2022 <10 5 18 1/12/2023 2.4 2.4
19 11/1/2022 <10 5 19
20 11/2/2022 <10 5 20
21 11/3/2022 12 12 21
22 11/8/2022 <10 5 22
23 11/9/2022 <10 5 23
24 11/10/2022 <10 5 24
25 11/15/2022 <10 5 25
26 11/16/2022 <10 5 26
27 11/17/2022 <10 5 27
28 11/21/2022 5.3 5.3 28
29 11/22/2022 <10 5 29
30 11/23/2022 <10 5 30
31 11/29/2022 3.8 3.8 31
32 11/30/2022 6.1 6.1 32
33 12/1/2022 3.2 3.2 33
34 12/6/2022 12.4 12.4 34
35 12/7/2022 11.6 11.6 35
36 12/8/2022 8.1 8.1 36
37 12/13/2022 20 20 37
38 12/14/2022 32 32 38
39 12/15/2022 19 19 39
40 12/20/2022 8.7 8.7 40
41 12/21/2022 <10 5 41
42 12/22/2022 <10 5 42
43 12/28/2022 <10 5 43
44 12/29/2022 <10 5 44
45 12/30/2022 14 14 45
46 1/3/2023 13 13 46
47 1/4/2023 17 17 47
48 1/5/2023 <10 5 48
49 1/10/2023 <10 5 49
50 1/11/2023 <10 5 50
51 1/12/2023 6.8 6.8 51
52 1/17/2023 11 11 52
53 1/18/2023 12 12 53
54 1/19/2023 14 14 54
55 1/24/2023 14 14 55
56 1/25/2023 13 13 56
57 1/26/2023 <10 5 57
58 1/31/2023 23 23 58
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL-
Values" then
"COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 6 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19 Par20
Selenium Silver
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/18/2018 <5 2.5 Std Dev.1.4552 1 10/18/2018 <5 2.5 Std Dev.1.0465
2 1/17/2019 <5 2.5 Mean 3.5000 2 1/17/2019 <5 2.5 Mean 1.0550
3 4/11/2019 <5 2.5 C.V.0.4158 3 4/11/2019 <5 2.5 C.V.0.9919
4 7/11/2019 <5 2.5 n 18 4 7/11/2019 <5 2.5 n 30
5 10/10/2019 <5 2.5 5 10/10/2019 <5 2.5
6 1/9/2020 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.28 6 1/9/2020 <5 2.5 Mult Factor =1.32
7 4/17/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 4/17/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
8 7/24/2020 <5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 6.4 ug/L 8 7/24/2020 <1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 3.300 ug/L
9 10/9/2020 <5 2.5 9 10/9/2020 <5 2.5
10 1/28/2021 <10 5 10 1/28/2021 <5 2.5
11 4/15/2021 <10 5 11 4/15/2021 0.6 0.6
12 7/15/2021 <10 5 12 7/15/2021 0.6 0.6
13 10/7/2021 <10 5 13 10/7/2021 <0.5 0.25
14 1/6/2022 <10 5 14 1/6/2022 <5 2.5
15 4/21/2022 <10 5 15 4/21/2022 0.5 0.5
16 7/14/2022 <10 5 16 6/8/2022 <0.5 0.25
17 10/6/2022 <10 5 17 6/21/2022 <0.5 0.25
18 1/12/2023 <1 0.5 18 7/14/2022 0.7 0.7
19 19 7/21/2022 <0.5 0.25
20 20 8/25/2022 <0.5 0.25
21 21 8/30/2022 <0.5 0.25
22 22 9/6/2022 <0.5 0.25
23 23 9/22/2022 <0.5 0.25
24 24 10/6/2022 <0.5 0.25
25 25 10/18/2022 <0.5 0.25
26 26 11/8/2022 <0.5 0.25
27 27 11/21/2022 <0.5 0.25
28 28 12/1/2022 <0.5 0.25
29 29 12/20/2022 <0.5 0.25
30 30 1/12/2023 <0.5 0.25
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
- 7 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/18/2018 85 85 Std Dev.25.5598
2 1/17/2019 79 79 Mean 57.5833
3 4/11/2019 89 89 C.V.0.4439
4 7/11/2019 102 102 n 18
5 10/10/2019 73 73
6 1/9/2020 67 67 Mult Factor =1.30
7 4/17/2020 67 67 Max. Value 102.0 ug/L
8 7/24/2020 3.5 3.5 Max. Pred Cw 132.6 ug/L
9 10/9/2020 52 52
10 1/28/2021 34 34
11 4/15/2021 30 30
12 7/15/2021 47 47
13 10/7/2021 33 33
14 1/6/2022 38 38
15 4/21/2022 41 41
16 7/14/2022 85 85
17 10/6/2022 48 48
18 1/12/2023 63 63
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
- 8 -
25445 RPA, data
5/8/2023
Randleman WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0025445 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1.745 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 1.7450 WWTP/WTP Class:III COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 4.17 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 39.34324885 Acute = 47.22 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 5.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 35.10496771 Chronic = 45.84 mg/L
7Q10W (cfs) = 12.00 IWC% @ 7Q10W = 18.39371632
30Q2 (cfs) = 23.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 10.52237427
171.00 IW%C @ QA = 1.557096165
Receiving Stream:Stream Class:C
PARAMETER RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Applied
Standard Acute n # Det.Max Pred Cw
Acute (FW):864.2
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s)340 ug/L
18 0 6.4 Chronic (FW):427.3
Max MDL = 10
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg)ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH):642.2
Max MDL = 10
Acute:165.21
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s)65 ug/L 3 0 1.50
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:18.52
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 1
Acute:14.343
Cadmium NC 0.9328 FW(7Q10s)5.6430 ug/L 18 0 1.150
Chronic:2.657
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 2
Acute:NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2)ug/L 3 0 7.5
Note: n ≤ 9 C.V. (default)Chronic:2,851.1
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute:3,872.4
Chromium III NC #######FW(7Q10s)########µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:551.0
Acute:40.7
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q10s)16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:31.3
Tot Cr value(s) ≥ 5 but < Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 18 4 45.0
Acute:48.46
Copper NC 13.2298 FW(7Q10s)19.0640 ug/L 18 18 56.99
Chronic:37.69
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:55.9
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s)22 10 ug/L 18 1 5.0 Chronic:14.2
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:390.840
Lead NC 5.7984 FW(7Q10s)153.7690 ug/L 58 24 32.000
Chronic:16.517
5 value(s) > Allowable Cw
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit; Less
stringent than current permit limits - maintain limits
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
Max reported value = 25
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
b: Maintain Total Chromium monitoring or defer to
LMTP if any Total Chromium sample is ≥ 50% of but
< the Chromium VI Allowable Cw.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring requiredPQLUNITSTYPE
Allowable Cw
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTSNC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Deep River HUC 03030003
Page 1 of 2
25445 RPA, rpa
5/8/2023
Randleman WWTP ≥Outfall 001
NC0025445 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1.745 MGD
Acute (FW):1,459.0
Nickel NC 62.1818 FW(7Q10s)574.0307 µg/L
18 3 176.2 Chronic (FW):177.1
No value > Allowable Cw
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s)µg/L Chronic (WS):71.2
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:142.3
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s)56 ug/L 18 0 6.4
Chronic:14.2
NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10
Acute:2.249
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s)0.8848 ug/L 30 4 3.300
Chronic:0.171
30 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute:547.6
Zinc NC #######FW(7Q10s)215.4429 ug/L 18 18 132.6
Chronic:603.4
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP , Predicted Max ≥ 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All values non-detect < 10 ug/L and < 5 ug/L; No
monitoring required; Permittee shall report using PQL
< 1 ug/L.
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 2 of 2
25445 RPA, rpa
5/8/2023
Permit No. NC0025445
Page 1 of 4

NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards – Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(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/l 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/l
Cadmium, Acute WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute WER*0.316 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic WER*0.860 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute WER*0.960 ∙ e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic WER*0.960 ∙ e^{0.8545[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}
Permit No. NC0025445
Page 2 of 4

Silver, Acute WER*0.85 ∙ e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic Not applicable
Zinc, Acute WER*0.978 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic WER*0.986 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}

General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as ‘total recoverable’ metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.

RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification

2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.

The permit writer reviews DMR’s, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.

If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.

If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.

Permit No. NC0025445
Page 3 of 4

The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site-specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.

4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site-specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.

In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA’s criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.

5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:

Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) – (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations

Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
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 1 + { [Kpo] [ss(1+a)] [10-6] }

Where:
ss = in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/l], 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.

Permit No. NC0025445
Page 4 of 4

QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality

6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.

7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.

8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.

9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.

10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter Value Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
66.91 Average from August 2018 to
January 2023 samples
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
34.44 Average from August 2018 to
January 2023 samples
7Q10 summer (cfs) 5 Previous Fact Sheet; historical file
1Q10 (cfs) 4.17 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.745 NPDES Files

Date: _____5/8/2023________________________

Permit Writer: ______Nick Coco________________
NC0025445 Randleman WWTP 5/8/2023
Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)Month RR (%)
August-18 97.85 February-21 96.86 August-18 96.63 February-21 94.75
September-18 98.18 March-21 97.27 September-18 96.56 March-21 96.69
October-18 98.68 April-21 98.12 October-18 96.37 April-21 97.13
November-18 98.23 May-21 98.85 November-18 95.82 May-21 97.17
December-18 98.34 June-21 98.32 December-18 94.48 June-21 97.42
January-19 98.31 July-21 98.28 January-19 96.35 July-21 98.31
February-19 98.38 August-21 98.25 February-19 94.26 August-21 96.55
March-19 98.12 September-21 98.48 March-19 96.45 September-21 97.73
April-19 98.48 October-21 98.58 April-19 95.33 October-21 96.66
May-19 98.59 November-21 98.83 May-19 95.71 November-21 97.99
June-19 98.79 December-21 98.44 June-19 97.22 December-21 97.15
July-19 98.83 January-22 98.24 July-19 97.42 January-22 94.23
August-19 98.74 February-22 98.31 August-19 96.81 February-22 96.79
September-19 98.74 March-22 97.03 September-19 96.92 March-22 96.77
October-19 98.78 April-22 97.93 October-19 96.74 April-22 96.71
November-19 98.82 May-22 98.02 November-19 96.33 May-22 97.17
December-19 98.61 June-22 98.13 December-19 96.78 June-22 97.78
January-20 98.02 July-22 97.34 January-20 95.31 July-22 97.70
February-20 98.18 August-22 98.11 February-20 95.89 August-22 97.40
March-20 98.46 September-22 98.33 March-20 95.86 September-22 97.40
April-20 93.01 October-22 98.63 April-20 91.44 October-22 97.79
May-20 96.92 November-22 98.54 May-20 95.39 November-22 98.32
June-20 98.27 December-22 98.64 June-20 96.72 December-22 97.08
July-20 98.38 January-23 July-20 97.40 January-23
August-20 98.61 February-23 August-20 97.21 February-23
September-20 98.27 March-23 September-20 97.34 March-23
October-20 98.29 April-23 October-20 96.95 April-23
November-20 97.67 May-23 November-20 96.29 May-23
December-20 97.91 June-23 December-20 95.58 June-23
January-21 97.78 July-23 January-21 95.85 July-23
Overall BOD removal rate 98.14 Overall TSS removal rate 96.53
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
5/8/23 WQS = 12 ng/L V:2013-6
Facility Name
/Permit No. :
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 5.000 cfs WQBEL = 34.18 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow = 1.745 47 ng/L
10/17/18 3.71 3.71 3.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
1/16/19 8.84 8.84
4/11/19 4.16 4.16
7/11/19 4.94 4.94
10/10/19 2.48 2.48 5.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
1/9/20 2.61 2.61
4/17/20 3.46 3.46
7/24/20 1.34 1.34
10/9/20 1.81 1.81 2.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
1/28/21 6.92 6.92
4/15/21 <1 0.5
7/15/21 6.22 6.22
10/7/21 45 45 14.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021
1/6/22 1.56 1.56
4/21/22 1.24 1.24
7/14/22 5.28 5.28
10/6/22 22.8 22.8 7.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2022
1/12/23 5.79 5.79 5.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2023
Randleman WWTP/NC0025445 No Limit Required
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
No MMP Required
Randleman WWTP/NC0025445
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
# of Samples 1 4 4 4 4
Annual Average, ng/L 3.7 5.1 2.3 14.66 7.72
Maximum Value, ng/L 3.71 8.84 3.46 45 22.8
TBEL, ng/L
WQBEL, ng/L 34.2
47
NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Randleman WWTP
PermitNo. NC0025445
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):1.745
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):5
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):12
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/l)Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
s7Q10 (CFS)5 s7Q10 (CFS)5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)1.745 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)1.745
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)2.70475 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)2.70475
STREAM STD (UG/L)17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)35.10 IWC (%)35.10
Allowable Conc. (ug/l)48 Allowable Conc. (mg/l)2.4
Cap at 28 ug/L. Consistent with current limit.Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS)12
Monthly Average Limit:200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)1.745
(If DF >331; Monitor)DESIGN FLOW (CFS)2.70475
(If DF<331; Limit)STREAM STD (MG/L)1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)2.85 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)18.39
Allowable Conc. (mg/l)8.8
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, 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)

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Randleman Lake WTP-Piedmont Triad NC0087866
Chr Monit: 90%Ceri7dPF Begin:10/1/2017 Freq:Q
Jan Apr Jul Oct
NonComp:
County:Randolph Region:WSRO Basin:CPF08
7Q10:IWC:
SOC_JOC:
PF:1.5
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2020 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2021 Pass --Pass --Fail Fail --Fail - -
2022 Fail --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2023 Pass ---------- -
Randleman WWTP NC0025445/001
chr lim: 35%Ceri7dPF Begin:8/1/2017 Freq:Q
Jan Apr Jul Oct
NonComp:Single
County:Randolph Region:WSRO Basin:CPF08
7Q10:5.0 IWC:35
SOC_JOC:
PF:1.745
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2020 Pass --Pass >70(P)--Pass >70(P)--Pass >70(P)- -
2021 Pass >100(P)-Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2022 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2023 Pass ---------- -
Red Hill Quartz Processing Plant (Sibelco NC0085839/001
chr lim: 3.3% @ 2 MCeri7dPFBegin:7/1/2018 Freq:Q
Jan Apr Jul Oct
NonComp:Single
County:Mitchell Region:ARO Basin:FRB06
7Q10:90.7 IWC:1.2
SOC_JOC:
PF:2
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2020 Fail 4.7 2.3 8.086 (P) Pass --4.7 --4.7 9.3 - -
2021 >13.2 >13.2 --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2022 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2023 Pass ---------- -
Red Springs WWTP NC0025577/001
chr lim: 90%Ceri7dPF Begin:6/1/2015 Freq:Q
Jan Apr Jul Oct
NonComp:Single
County:Robeson Region:FRO Basin:LUM52
7Q10:0.07 IWC:98
SOC_JOC:
PF:2.5
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 Pass >100(P) --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2020 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2021 Pass --Pass --Pass --Fail >100 >100
2022 Pass --Pass --Pass --Pass - -
2023 Pass ---------- -
Reddies River WTP NC0083291/001
Ac P/F Monit: 90% FtFthd24PFBegin:3/1/2014 Freq:Q
Mar Jun Sep Dec
NonComp:
County:Wilkes Region:WSRO Basin:YAD01
7Q10:IWC:
SOC_JOC:
PF:0.063
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019 - -H --H --H -- H
2020 - -H -------- -
Page 80 of 106Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
MRs Between and Violation Category:Program Category:
Param Name County:Subbasin:%Violation Action:
Major Minor:%
Permit:
Facility Name:
Region:--NC0025445
%%
%
%
Limit Violation %
%
3 2018 3 2023
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:03/16/23Report Date:1Page:of 34
PERMIT:NC0025445 FACILITY:City of Randleman - Randleman WWTP COUNTY:Randolph REGION:Winston-Salem
%
Over
UNIT OF
MEASURE VIOLATION ACTIONVIOLATION TYPECALCULATED
VALUELIMITFREQUENCYVIOLATION
DATEPARAMETERLOCATIONMONITORING
REPORT
Limit Violation
OUTFALL
04 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
04/07/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV7.57.5mg/l 0.1
04 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
04/14/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV26.27.5mg/l 249.3
04 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
04/21/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV14.17.5mg/l 88
04 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
04/28/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV31.037.5mg/l 313.8
04 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
04/30/18 3 X week Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV18.015mg/l 260.2
05 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
05/05/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV8.677.5mg/l 15.6
05 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
05/12/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV10.137.5mg/l 35.0
05 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
05/26/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV9.157.5mg/l 22
05 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
05/31/18 3 X week Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV9.575mg/l 91.5
06 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
06/02/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV12.147.5mg/l 61.8
06 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
06/09/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV10.827.5mg/l 44.3
06 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
06/16/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV10.657.5mg/l 42
06 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
06/23/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV9.717.5mg/l 29.4
06 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
06/30/18 3 X week Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV9.565mg/l 91.3
07 - 2018 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
07/14/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV8.497.5mg/l 13.2
MRs Between and Violation Category:Program Category:
Param Name County:Subbasin:%Violation Action:
Major Minor:%
Permit:
Facility Name:
Region:--NC0025445
%%
%
%
Limit Violation %
%
3 2018 3 2023
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:03/16/23Report Date:2Page:of 34
PERMIT:NC0025445 FACILITY:City of Randleman - Randleman WWTP COUNTY:Randolph REGION:Winston-Salem
%
Over
UNIT OF
MEASURE VIOLATION ACTIONVIOLATION TYPECALCULATED
VALUELIMITFREQUENCYVIOLATION
DATEPARAMETERLOCATIONMONITORING
REPORT
Limit Violation
OUTFALL
04 - 2020 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
04/30/20 3 X week Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV6.425mg/l 28.3
05 - 2020 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
05/02/20 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV27.377.5mg/l 264.9
07 - 2022 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
Concentration
07/16/22 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOD9.037.5mg/l 20.4
03 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 03/05/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4028ug/l 42.9
03 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 03/12/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4128ug/l 46.4
03 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 03/15/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4528ug/l 60.7
03 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 03/19/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4028ug/l 42.9
03 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 03/28/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3728ug/l 32.1
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/02/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4528ug/l 60.7
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/04/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4228ug/l 50
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/10/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3628ug/l 28.6
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/11/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4028ug/l 42.9
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/12/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4428ug/l 57.1
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/16/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4228ug/l 50
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/18/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3828ug/l 35.7
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 04/19/18 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3028ug/l 7.1
MRs Between and Violation Category:Program Category:
Param Name County:Subbasin:%Violation Action:
Major Minor:%
Permit:
Facility Name:
Region:--NC0025445
%%
%
%
Limit Violation %
%
3 2018 3 2023
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:03/16/23Report Date:33Page:of 34
PERMIT:NC0025445 FACILITY:City of Randleman - Randleman WWTP COUNTY:Randolph REGION:Winston-Salem
%
Over
UNIT OF
MEASURE VIOLATION ACTIONVIOLATION TYPECALCULATED
VALUELIMITFREQUENCYVIOLATION
DATEPARAMETERLOCATIONMONITORING
REPORT
Limit Violation
OUTFALL
12 - 2022 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 12/01/22 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3028ug/l 7.1
12 - 2022 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 12/06/22 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3628ug/l 28.6
12 - 2022 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 12/13/22 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4828ug/l 71.4
12 - 2022 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 12/14/22 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3028ug/l 7.1
12 - 2022 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 12/21/22 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4228ug/l 50
12 - 2022 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 12/28/22 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4628ug/l 64.3
12 - 2022 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 12/29/22 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4728ug/l 67.9
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/03/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ4728ug/l 67.9
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/10/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3228ug/l 14.3
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/12/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ2928ug/l 3.6
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/17/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3728ug/l 32.1
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/18/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3328ug/l 17.9
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/19/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3628ug/l 28.6
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/25/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3228ug/l 14.3
01 - 2023 001 Effluent Chlorine, Total Residual 01/26/23 3 X week Daily Maximum
Exceeded
No Action, BPJ3128ug/l 10.7
03 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
03/10/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV1312mg/l 8.3
MRs Between and Violation Category:Program Category:
Param Name County:Subbasin:%Violation Action:
Major Minor:%
Permit:
Facility Name:
Region:--NC0025445
%%
%
%
Limit Violation %
%
3 2018 3 2023
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:03/16/23Report Date:34Page:of 34
PERMIT:NC0025445 FACILITY:City of Randleman - Randleman WWTP COUNTY:Randolph REGION:Winston-Salem
%
Over
UNIT OF
MEASURE VIOLATION ACTIONVIOLATION TYPECALCULATED
VALUELIMITFREQUENCYVIOLATION
DATEPARAMETERLOCATIONMONITORING
REPORT
Limit Violation
OUTFALL
03 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
03/31/18 Weekly Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV6.34mg/l 57.4
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
04/07/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV7.46mg/l 23.3
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
04/14/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV7.686mg/l 28
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
04/21/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV7.546mg/l 25.7
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
04/30/18 Weekly Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV6.262mg/l 213.1
05 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
05/05/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV10.16mg/l 68.3
05 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
05/12/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV9.956mg/l 65.8
05 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
05/19/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV96mg/l 49.9
05 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
05/31/18 Weekly Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV5.382mg/l 169.0
06 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
06/09/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV10.46mg/l 73.3
06 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
06/23/18 Weekly Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV10.46mg/l 73.3
06 - 2018 001 Effluent Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
06/30/18 Weekly Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV3.722mg/l 86.0
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
04/14/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV60.7345mg/l 35.0
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
04/28/18 3 X week Weekly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV71.0745mg/l 57.9
04 - 2018 001 Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
04/30/18 3 X week Monthly Average
Exceeded
Proceed to NOV39.5430mg/l 31.8
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 52 NC0025445 23/02/03 C S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Randleman WWTP
3475 Applewood Rd
Randleman NC 27317
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
09:30AM 23/02/03 17/08/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Garry Michael Glass/ORC/336-498-2254/
Other Facility Data
11:30AM 23/02/03 21/08/31
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Nick Holcomb,204 S Main St Randleman NC 273171814//336-495-7500/Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Jesse Barnes DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9701/
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#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
23/02/03
Inspection Type
C3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Jesse Barnes, of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR), Winston-Salem Regional
Office (WSRO), conducted a compliance evaluation inspection of the Randleman WWTP on February
3, 2023. Garry Michael Glass, Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC), was present for the
inspection. The facility was found to be compliant with the subject permit. Inspection findings are
detailed in the attached Water Compliance Inspection Report.
NPDES permit NC0025445 was issued August 1, 2017 and expired August 31, 2021. A permit renewal
application has been submitted. Pursuant to subject permit section B.10, the permittee is
automatically authorized to discharge past the permit expiration date if the permittee has submitted
such information, forms, and fees as are required by the issuing agency. Permit NC0025445 has a
special condition for a schedule of compliance with total lead limits at outfall 001. The facility was as
described in the permit. The facility is restricted to the general public by a metal chain link fence and
access gate. The inspector was granted access to all areas for inspection.
All permit-required records were on site, well organized, and available for review. The DMR and
associated data logs/COCs for October 2022 were reviewed for consistency and no errors were
found. Staff at this facility maintain recordkeeping as required by the permit.
Part I, section A. 5. of permit NC0025445 enumerates a schedule of compliance for total lead limits at
outfall 001, which ended August 31, 2022. The permittee is now required to maintain compliance with
the total lead limits specified in Section A. (1.) of the subject permit.
Flow, TRC, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH have been performed on site under field
laboratory certification # 5112. All other permit-required parameters have been analyzed by certified
laboratory # 165, Meritech Inc. The on-site laboratory refrigerator for sample storage has been
checked daily for temperature compliance and was observed to be 2 degrees Celsius during the
inspection.
The influent pump station is off site from the main treatment facility. The inspector was granted
access to the influent pump station. The influent pump station appeared to be well maintained. Float
controls and telemetry system were observed to be operational and have been monitored via mobile
application. Audible and visual alarms were present but the inspector did not request a test.
The influent composite sampler is programmed to pull constant volume/constant time aliquots,
therefore influent composite sampling is not flow proportional as required by Part II, Section A of the
subject permit.
Grit removal was not evaluated.
The mechanical bar screen system is located off site at the influent pump station. The bar screen
system appeared to be operating properly and well maintained.
The facility utilizes four circular extended diffused aeration basins, each of which encircles a
secondary clarifier. All aeration basins and diffusers appeared to be operating properly. Any surface
foam present was the proper color, not excessive, and covered less than 25% of the basins'
surfaces.
Each of the four secondary clarifiers are located in the center of each aeration basin. Wastewater in
the clarifiers appeared to have appropriate clarity and color. Because the clarifiers and totally
encircled by aeration basins, they are difficult to safely access and inspect. Some buildup of solids
along the inner walls and weirs of the clarifier was noted during the inspection.
The facility maintains two 1-ton cylinders of chlorine gas on sitefor disinfection. The cylinders were
NC0025445 17 (Cont.)
Page#2
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
stored indoors in the same room as sulfur dioxide gas cylinders and operate with an automatic
switch-over system. The chlorine contact chamber is split into two channels with several baffles in
each channel to provide contact time. One side/channel of the contact chamber appeared to be twice
the length of the other side. Although the chlorine contact chamber is asymmetrical, the facility has
not had compliance issues related to disinfection. Some vegetative growth along the inner walls and
baffles of the chlorine contact chamber was noted during the inspection.
The facility uses a sulfur dioxide gas feed system for de-chlorination. Five 150 lb cylinders of sulfur
dioxide gas were maintained on site. The sulfur dioxide was stored in the same room as chlorine gas.
The facility utilizes a traveling bridge vacuum tertiary filter. The filter and its entire backwashing
process operates automatically and recirculates backwash wastewater to the beginning of the
treatment process. Corrosion was observed on the walls and other metal surfaces of the filter
structure. ORC, Mr. Glass, indicated that the facility plans to replace the filter in the near future.
The aerobic digesters and RAS/WAS pumps were not evaluated.
The automatic whole-plant generator is tested automatically on a schedule. During testing, the
primary power source is interrupted and the generator is tested under load.
The effluent flow meter has been calibrated annually and was observed to be operational during the
inspection. The effluent flow meter measures flow at a point between the chlorine contact chamber
and the cascade aerator.
The effluent composite sampler is programmed to draw aliquots at constant volume and variable
timing, dependent on flow. Effluent samples are collected after all treatment units but before the point
at which effluent waters enter the receiving stream.
A path to the effluent pipe was present, but access is challenging due to steep grades and mud. No
foam or other debris were observed in the receiving stream. The outfall point of the effluent pipe was
observed to be fully submerged in the stream and Mr. Glass indicated the pipe is typically
submerged. With the outfall submerged, the quality of effluent water was difficult to assess visually.
The subject permit lists the upstream sampling site as "Fox Street". Fox street becomes East Naomi
Street at their intersection, and the street name is East Naomi Street at the bridge crossing sampling
point. This is where upstream samples are collected. The downstream sampling location was not
evaluated.
Page#3
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
NPDES permit NC0025445 was issued August 1, 2017 and expired August 31, 2021.
The permittee has submitted a permit renewal application and is awaiting review. The
facility is as described in the permit. Permit NC0025445 has a special condition for a
schedule of compliance with total lead limits at outfall 001. Access to the facility is
restricted to the general public with a fence and gated entrace. The inspector was
granted access to all areas for the inspection.
Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
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?
Page#4
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
All permit-required records were on site, well organized, and available for review. The
DMR and associated data logs/COCs for October 2022 were reviewed for consistency
and no errors were found. Staff at this facility maintain recordkeeping as required by
the permit.
Comment:
Compliance Schedules Yes No NA NE
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
Part I, section A. 5. of permit NC0025445 enumerates a schedule of compliance for
total lead limits at outfall 001, which ended August 31, 2022. The permittee is now
required to maintain compliance with the total lead limits specified in Section A. (1.) of
the subject permit.
Comment:
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
Flow, TRC, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH have been performed on site under
field laboratory certification # 5112. All other permit-required parameters have been
analyzed by certified laboratory # 165, Meritech Inc. The on-site laboratory
refridgerator for sample storage is checked daily for temperature compliance and was
observed to be 2 degrees Celsius during the inspection.
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
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?
Page#5
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
The influent pump station is located near 240 Upton St, Randleman, NC 27317, off site
from the main treatment facility. The inspector was granted access to the influent pump
station. The influent pump station appeared to be well maintained and was secure from
public access via a locked and gated chain link fence. Float controls and the telemetry
system were observed to be operational via mobile application. Audible and visual
alarms were present but the inspector did not request a test.
Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# 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?
The influent composite sampler is programmed to pull constant volume/constant time
aliquots, therefore influent composite sampling is not flow proportional as required by
part II, section A of the subject permit.
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Grit removal was not evaluated.Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Page#6
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
The mechanical bar screen system is located off site at the influent pump station near
240 Upton St, Randleman, NC 27317. Screened materials were being collected into
garbage disposal bins. The bar screen appeared to be operating properly and well
maintained.
Comment:
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin’s surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l)
The facility utilizes four circular extended diffused aeration basins, each of which
encircles a secondary clarifier. All aeration basins and diffusers appeared to be
operating properly. Any surface foam present was the proper color, not excessive, and
covered less than 25% of the basins' surfaces.
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately ¼ of the sidewall depth)
Each of the four secondary clarifiers are located in the center of each aeration basin.
Wastewater in the clarifiers appeared to have appropriate clarity and color. Because
the clarifiers and totally encircled by aeration basins, they are difficult to safely access
and inspect. Some buildup of solids along the inner walls and weirs of the clarifier was
noted during the inspection.
Comment:
Page#7
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection-Gas Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination?
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 lbs of Chlorine (CAS No.
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-____-____)
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
The facility maintains two 1-ton cylinders of chlorine gas on site for disinfection. The
cylinders were stored indoors in the same room as sulfur dioxide gas cylinders and
operate with an automatic switch-over system. The chlorine contact chamber is split
into two channels with several baffles in each channel to provide contact time. One
side/channel of the contact chamber appeared to be twice the length of the other side.
Although the chlorine contact chamber is asymmetrical, the facility has not had
compliance issues related to disinfection. Some vegetative growth along the inner walls
and baffles of the chlorine contact chamber was noted during the inspection.
Comment:
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
The facility uses a sulfur dioxide gas feed system for de-chlorination. Five 150 lb
cylinders of sulfur dioxide gas were being maintained on site. The sulfur dioxide was
stored in the same room as chlorine gas.
Comment:
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:Down flow
Is the filter media present?
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Page#8
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Is the filter free of growth?
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
The facility utilizes a traveling bridge vacuum tertiary filter. The filter and its entire
backwashing process operates automatically and recirculates backwash wastewater to
the beginning of the treatment process. Corrosion was observed on the walls and other
metal surfaces of the filter structure. Mr. Glass, ORC, indicated that the facility plans to
replace the filter in the near future.
Comment:
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
The aerobic digesters were not evaluated.Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
RAS/WAS pumps were not evaluated.Comment:
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
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?
Page#9
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
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?
The automatic whole-plant generator is tested automatically on a schedule. During
testing, the primary power source is interrupted and the generator is tested under load.
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# 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?
The effluent flow meter has been calibrated annually and was observed to be
operational during the inspection. The effluent flow meter measures flow at a point
between the chlorine contact chamber and the cascade aerator.
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
The effluent composite sampler is programmed to draw aliquots at constant volume
and variable timing, dependent on flow. Effluent samples are collected after all
treatment units but before the point at which effluent waters enter the receiving stream.
Comment:
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
A path to the effluent pipe was present, but access is challenging due to steep grades
and mud. No foam or other debris were observed in the recieving stream. The outfall
point of the effluent pipe was observed to be fully submerged in the stream and Mr.
Glass indicated the pipe is typically submerged. With the outfall submerged, the quality
of effluent water was difficult to assess visually.
Comment:
Page#10
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type,
and sampling location)?
The subject permit lists the upstream sampling site as "Fox Street". Fox street becomes
East Naomi Street at their intersection, and the street name is East Naomi Street at the
bridge crossing sampling point. This is where upstream samples are collected. The
downstream sampling location was not evaluated.
Comment:
Page#11
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 52 NC0025445 22/05/13 P S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
5 N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Randleman WWTP
3475 Applewood Rd
Randleman NC 27317
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
10:40AM 22/05/13 17/08/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Garry Michael Glass/ORC/336-498-2254/
Other Facility Data
12:10PM 22/05/13 21/08/31
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Nick Holcomb,204 S Main St Randleman NC 273171814//336-495-7500/Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
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
Jim J Gonsiewski DWR/Division of Water Quality/336-776-9704/
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#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
22/05/13
Inspection Type
P3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On May 13, 2022 a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) was performed by Jim Gonsiewski of
the Winston-Salem Regional Office. Ms. Lisa Osthues was present for the inspection. The purpose of
this inspection was to determine the effectiveness of the Town's pretreatment program, which
includes reviewing the files, POTW plant performance, industry monitoring data, and adherence to
the enforcement response plan (ERP).
Background
This is a 1.745 MGD permitted facility. The Town has one (1) Significant Industrial User (SIU) which is
not categorical. The publicly owned treatment works (POTW) had a spill of 20,000 gallons of sludge
from the digester on April 4, 2022.
POTW Interview
There are no plant problems related to pretreatment issues and, other than the digester spill, there
are no NPDES permit limit or monitoring violations recorded from May 2021 through May 2022. The
facility is very well operated.
Action Items
No action items were noted.
NC0025445 17 (Cont.)
Page#2
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:05/13/2022
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Pretreatment Compliance
Yes No NA NE
Page#3
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 52 NC0025445 23/02/03 C S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Randleman WWTP
3475 Applewood Rd
Randleman NC 27317
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
09:30AM 23/02/03 17/08/01
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Garry Michael Glass/ORC/336-498-2254/
Other Facility Data
11:30AM 23/02/03 21/08/31
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Nick Holcomb,204 S Main St Randleman NC 273171814//336-495-7500/Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Jesse Barnes DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9701/
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#1
NPDES yr/mo/day
23/02/03
Inspection Type
C3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Jesse Barnes, of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR), Winston-Salem Regional
Office (WSRO), conducted a compliance evaluation inspection of the Randleman WWTP on February
3, 2023. Garry Michael Glass, Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC), was present for the
inspection. The facility was found to be compliant with the subject permit. Inspection findings are
detailed in the attached Water Compliance Inspection Report.
NPDES permit NC0025445 was issued August 1, 2017 and expired August 31, 2021. A permit renewal
application has been submitted. Pursuant to subject permit section B.10, the permittee is
automatically authorized to discharge past the permit expiration date if the permittee has submitted
such information, forms, and fees as are required by the issuing agency. Permit NC0025445 has a
special condition for a schedule of compliance with total lead limits at outfall 001. The facility was as
described in the permit. The facility is restricted to the general public by a metal chain link fence and
access gate. The inspector was granted access to all areas for inspection.
All permit-required records were on site, well organized, and available for review. The DMR and
associated data logs/COCs for October 2022 were reviewed for consistency and no errors were
found. Staff at this facility maintain recordkeeping as required by the permit.
Part I, section A. 5. of permit NC0025445 enumerates a schedule of compliance for total lead limits at
outfall 001, which ended August 31, 2022. The permittee is now required to maintain compliance with
the total lead limits specified in Section A. (1.) of the subject permit.
Flow, TRC, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH have been performed on site under field
laboratory certification # 5112. All other permit-required parameters have been analyzed by certified
laboratory # 165, Meritech Inc. The on-site laboratory refrigerator for sample storage has been
checked daily for temperature compliance and was observed to be 2 degrees Celsius during the
inspection.
The influent pump station is off site from the main treatment facility. The inspector was granted
access to the influent pump station. The influent pump station appeared to be well maintained. Float
controls and telemetry system were observed to be operational and have been monitored via mobile
application. Audible and visual alarms were present but the inspector did not request a test.
The influent composite sampler is programmed to pull constant volume/constant time aliquots,
therefore influent composite sampling is not flow proportional as required by Part II, Section A of the
subject permit.
Grit removal was not evaluated.
The mechanical bar screen system is located off site at the influent pump station. The bar screen
system appeared to be operating properly and well maintained.
The facility utilizes four circular extended diffused aeration basins, each of which encircles a
secondary clarifier. All aeration basins and diffusers appeared to be operating properly. Any surface
foam present was the proper color, not excessive, and covered less than 25% of the basins'
surfaces.
Each of the four secondary clarifiers are located in the center of each aeration basin. Wastewater in
the clarifiers appeared to have appropriate clarity and color. Because the clarifiers and totally
encircled by aeration basins, they are difficult to safely access and inspect. Some buildup of solids
along the inner walls and weirs of the clarifier was noted during the inspection.
The facility maintains two 1-ton cylinders of chlorine gas on sitefor disinfection. The cylinders were
NC0025445 17 (Cont.)
Page#2
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
stored indoors in the same room as sulfur dioxide gas cylinders and operate with an automatic
switch-over system. The chlorine contact chamber is split into two channels with several baffles in
each channel to provide contact time. One side/channel of the contact chamber appeared to be twice
the length of the other side. Although the chlorine contact chamber is asymmetrical, the facility has
not had compliance issues related to disinfection. Some vegetative growth along the inner walls and
baffles of the chlorine contact chamber was noted during the inspection.
The facility uses a sulfur dioxide gas feed system for de-chlorination. Five 150 lb cylinders of sulfur
dioxide gas were maintained on site. The sulfur dioxide was stored in the same room as chlorine gas.
The facility utilizes a traveling bridge vacuum tertiary filter. The filter and its entire backwashing
process operates automatically and recirculates backwash wastewater to the beginning of the
treatment process. Corrosion was observed on the walls and other metal surfaces of the filter
structure. ORC, Mr. Glass, indicated that the facility plans to replace the filter in the near future.
The aerobic digesters and RAS/WAS pumps were not evaluated.
The automatic whole-plant generator is tested automatically on a schedule. During testing, the
primary power source is interrupted and the generator is tested under load.
The effluent flow meter has been calibrated annually and was observed to be operational during the
inspection. The effluent flow meter measures flow at a point between the chlorine contact chamber
and the cascade aerator.
The effluent composite sampler is programmed to draw aliquots at constant volume and variable
timing, dependent on flow. Effluent samples are collected after all treatment units but before the point
at which effluent waters enter the receiving stream.
A path to the effluent pipe was present, but access is challenging due to steep grades and mud. No
foam or other debris were observed in the receiving stream. The outfall point of the effluent pipe was
observed to be fully submerged in the stream and Mr. Glass indicated the pipe is typically
submerged. With the outfall submerged, the quality of effluent water was difficult to assess visually.
The subject permit lists the upstream sampling site as "Fox Street". Fox street becomes East Naomi
Street at their intersection, and the street name is East Naomi Street at the bridge crossing sampling
point. This is where upstream samples are collected. The downstream sampling location was not
evaluated.
Page#3
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
NPDES permit NC0025445 was issued August 1, 2017 and expired August 31, 2021.
The permittee has submitted a permit renewal application and is awaiting review. The
facility is as described in the permit. Permit NC0025445 has a special condition for a
schedule of compliance with total lead limits at outfall 001. Access to the facility is
restricted to the general public with a fence and gated entrace. The inspector was
granted access to all areas for the inspection.
Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
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?
Page#4
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
All permit-required records were on site, well organized, and available for review. The
DMR and associated data logs/COCs for October 2022 were reviewed for consistency
and no errors were found. Staff at this facility maintain recordkeeping as required by
the permit.
Comment:
Compliance Schedules Yes No NA NE
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
Part I, section A. 5. of permit NC0025445 enumerates a schedule of compliance for
total lead limits at outfall 001, which ended August 31, 2022. The permittee is now
required to maintain compliance with the total lead limits specified in Section A. (1.) of
the subject permit.
Comment:
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
Flow, TRC, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH have been performed on site under
field laboratory certification # 5112. All other permit-required parameters have been
analyzed by certified laboratory # 165, Meritech Inc. The on-site laboratory
refridgerator for sample storage is checked daily for temperature compliance and was
observed to be 2 degrees Celsius during the inspection.
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
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?
Page#5
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
The influent pump station is located near 240 Upton St, Randleman, NC 27317, off site
from the main treatment facility. The inspector was granted access to the influent pump
station. The influent pump station appeared to be well maintained and was secure from
public access via a locked and gated chain link fence. Float controls and the telemetry
system were observed to be operational via mobile application. Audible and visual
alarms were present but the inspector did not request a test.
Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# 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?
The influent composite sampler is programmed to pull constant volume/constant time
aliquots, therefore influent composite sampling is not flow proportional as required by
part II, section A of the subject permit.
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Grit removal was not evaluated.Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Page#6
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
The mechanical bar screen system is located off site at the influent pump station near
240 Upton St, Randleman, NC 27317. Screened materials were being collected into
garbage disposal bins. The bar screen appeared to be operating properly and well
maintained.
Comment:
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin’s surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l)
The facility utilizes four circular extended diffused aeration basins, each of which
encircles a secondary clarifier. All aeration basins and diffusers appeared to be
operating properly. Any surface foam present was the proper color, not excessive, and
covered less than 25% of the basins' surfaces.
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately ¼ of the sidewall depth)
Each of the four secondary clarifiers are located in the center of each aeration basin.
Wastewater in the clarifiers appeared to have appropriate clarity and color. Because
the clarifiers and totally encircled by aeration basins, they are difficult to safely access
and inspect. Some buildup of solids along the inner walls and weirs of the clarifier was
noted during the inspection.
Comment:
Page#7
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection-Gas Yes No NA NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination?
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 lbs of Chlorine (CAS No.
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-____-____)
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
The facility maintains two 1-ton cylinders of chlorine gas on site for disinfection. The
cylinders were stored indoors in the same room as sulfur dioxide gas cylinders and
operate with an automatic switch-over system. The chlorine contact chamber is split
into two channels with several baffles in each channel to provide contact time. One
side/channel of the contact chamber appeared to be twice the length of the other side.
Although the chlorine contact chamber is asymmetrical, the facility has not had
compliance issues related to disinfection. Some vegetative growth along the inner walls
and baffles of the chlorine contact chamber was noted during the inspection.
Comment:
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
The facility uses a sulfur dioxide gas feed system for de-chlorination. Five 150 lb
cylinders of sulfur dioxide gas were being maintained on site. The sulfur dioxide was
stored in the same room as chlorine gas.
Comment:
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:Down flow
Is the filter media present?
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Page#8
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)Yes No NA NE
Is the filter free of growth?
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
The facility utilizes a traveling bridge vacuum tertiary filter. The filter and its entire
backwashing process operates automatically and recirculates backwash wastewater to
the beginning of the treatment process. Corrosion was observed on the walls and other
metal surfaces of the filter structure. Mr. Glass, ORC, indicated that the facility plans to
replace the filter in the near future.
Comment:
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
The aerobic digesters were not evaluated.Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
RAS/WAS pumps were not evaluated.Comment:
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
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?
Page#9
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
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?
The automatic whole-plant generator is tested automatically on a schedule. During
testing, the primary power source is interrupted and the generator is tested under load.
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# 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?
The effluent flow meter has been calibrated annually and was observed to be
operational during the inspection. The effluent flow meter measures flow at a point
between the chlorine contact chamber and the cascade aerator.
Comment:
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
The effluent composite sampler is programmed to draw aliquots at constant volume
and variable timing, dependent on flow. Effluent samples are collected after all
treatment units but before the point at which effluent waters enter the receiving stream.
Comment:
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
A path to the effluent pipe was present, but access is challenging due to steep grades
and mud. No foam or other debris were observed in the recieving stream. The outfall
point of the effluent pipe was observed to be fully submerged in the stream and Mr.
Glass indicated the pipe is typically submerged. With the outfall submerged, the quality
of effluent water was difficult to assess visually.
Comment:
Page#10
Permit:NC0025445
Inspection Date:02/03/2023
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
Randleman WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type,
and sampling location)?
The subject permit lists the upstream sampling site as "Fox Street". Fox street becomes
East Naomi Street at their intersection, and the street name is East Naomi Street at the
bridge crossing sampling point. This is where upstream samples are collected. The
downstream sampling location was not evaluated.
Comment:
Page#11