NC0086550_Environmental Assessment_19950622

�5�� 8(55n
�A ' Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
290 S.W. Broad Street •Post Office Box 1737 •Southern Pines, NC 28388
z
Minutes to Environmental Assessment Scoping Meeting
Fairmont Wastewater Treatment Plant
Location: Division of Environmental Management I"+ 1
Archdale Building tK0 Py yW�
Raleigh, North Carolina
Date: June 22, 1995
Time: 2:00 p.m.
HUA No.: FR9501
The meeting was attended by representatives of the Town of Fairmont, Hobbs, Upchurch
& Associates, the Division of Environmental Management, various state agencies and Dr.
Jay Carter, III. The purpose of the meeting was to establish guidelines for an environmental
assessment to be prepared for the proposed wastewater discharge into the Lumber River by
the Town of Fairmont.
Items were discussed as follows:
Current discharge problems and need for project:
The Town of Fairmont is currently experiencing toxicity problems. While these problems
are believed to be related to the inability of the existing treatment plant to efficiently remove
ammonia, compliance is aggravated by the zero flow status of the receiving stream. Toxicity
investigations are currently underway. The Town needs more flexibility in its discharge in
order to attract industry and annex existing residential areas.
Limitations of Current Discharge Location:
The zero flow stream into which the Town of Fairmont currently discharges its wastewater
offers no dilution with respect to toxicity testing. In addition, discharge limits, though
currently moderate, would be amended to require a higher degree of treatment. The lack
of dilution could inhibit the Town's ability to attract industry.
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax[phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax[phone]
Myrtle Beach. SC Telephone [phone] Fax[phone]

Discussion of Need for Regional Wastewater Facilities:
Robeson County has been designated as an Enterprise Community and an Empowerment
Zone in an effort to spur economic development of the area. These designations will result
in increased assistance and funding opportunities by government agencies. Many of the
current wastewater discharges in Robeson County are experiencing discharge problems.
Reasonable access to a . municipal wastewater treatment plant could help to eliminate
problematic discharges and consolidate and eliminate some wastewater concerns.
The need for a regional wastewater plan has been discussed for some time. In a recent
discussion held at the Lumbee River Council of Government, these problems were discussed
by members of industry, municipalities and the economic development community. It was
agreed that the regional approach to wastewater treatment should be pursued.
Proposed Location for Discharge
A map of the proposed discharge point was presented. This point is located approximately
one mile from U.S. 74 on N-.C. Secondary Road 2245 adjacent to the Lumber -River. The
proposed plan would .collect and pump wastewater from Fairmont. to this location for
treatment and discharge. The Town of Fairmont has purchased an � option to buy the
property needed for the proposed discharge location. After purchase of the option, the
Town of Fairmont learned that the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Division has
chosen this exact site for a major proposed state park. - This project has progressed through
the master planning stage and has received a finding of No. Significant Impact when
environmentally reviewed through the State Clearinghouse. It is the position of the Parks
and Recreation - Division that the proposed dischargesite is totally incompatible with their.
plans. Among the potential difficulties, the Parks and Recreation Division cites 'limitation
of access to the treatment plant through the controlled access park and basic incompatibility
of land ,use *as their major concerns. There appears to be little or no potential for land
swapping or land negotiations between Fairmont and the Parks and Recreation Division as
they currently have no land acquired
-t - 1 s - ' " ;'4SY . •G[ -' .K ..> j r.: '. Mit 3." ,'3., >
-. .-w ... f `1>. t.:R. `:i +f. ?ti' _x. -. .-1... '}.-=r M•5 v..,y_.• -'lYl i,� r
•I-.,(i:y,. r! 1�• tyy.tw+n 1....ci.v e, - .-A w.%: t `„,y.ati+ } 3 .I. ;Ysl.-?:'ia•. f -! _�7 L
•x.:.'i.-•1• ..! . .t'.7 f•r "xyTi. •iln *w.s t..K.. �'.. -- � Z _ n.�ir .!'. , 'x i _ '^ S � : _ t �t '#.... S i'.y H .Fi�a. ��±-c••.-; j -y . x-
f Representatives of DEM were' uestioned concerningthe poss�'blity`of locating the -discharge #
P q - x
point above ' or below the proposed site""It is currently believed that the site 'could be r
located in `the general area with no additional discharge problems.
The Enviornmental Assessment should contain an alternate plant location for the Lumber
- River discharge alternative. _
f.-
' "F' - +:-4 i '�'-r 2`.`., .{t .Yt r •! i - i i .7S.x' : _i 'i°[' v.. '..>+ 7 `w 3.. r.•;,.. '+y..� s.i '"" i�. ..�._ L.,^.i ..t f. .+._/'x !! e� L,C'1;...!Y4.�,#,.. '�"�. S"�` �'s :rxjSYIN r.,Y.w ..a...1!.•:7:':.1:•
►I %erLa7fiKirs.
:ram +-z:s.�•tj{' � - -r - .. '.
:. r ,.� .V.(�• - r- . .y..ry.n+..r: - y+A'�t.G•..«•s.--.r Y��i-�:+�����: » ti.i rsra.
♦ ri' T � �r_^.+1����.� �/• L - .. y, ` •, 4 . �_v 1 •.� ' .. f.. `Y .. {.. . i _� � t 1i1' . l)
The Lumber River at the proposed discharge 'point is classified_ as C Swamp _Waters. fihe
assunilatzve ca ace of the rover at flue omt. should not be a roblem. Of ma or concern'
is the potential impact on -aquatic species. ..-While the State- has -good background data on

I
benthic invertebrates, they have little information on existing fish populations. Fish and
Wildlife requests that surveys be conducted to identify the fish population in the area Of
special concern is the Redbreast sunfish.
There is also concern about mussels in the area. A survey will, be needed including some
harvesting off the river bottom, depending on the depth of the river at that location. A
concern for the possible negative effects of chlorine on the mussel population was
concerned. Ultraviolet disinfection should be considered.
Because of the proposed location of the state park, the waters could be reclassified as Class
B to allow for body contact. This could affect the need for standby power at the facility.
Other Environmental Issues:
The aesthetics of the discharge are of concern. The discharge should be below the water
level if at all possible. The recreational activities on the river will result in more scrutiny of
the discharge than might normally be expected.
Concern was voiced over the impacts to woodlands in the area. It was requested that the
types of woodlands which might be affected - be classified as to type, productivity, and
acreage. In addition, it was requested that an attempt be made to speculate on secondary
impacts to woodlands which could be brought on by development.
It was requested that the natural communities along the - pipeline corridors and d in
construction areas be characterized for consideration of •possible impacts.
Any wetlands which will be affected by the project must be delineated.
Jt ' , necessary that the alternatives to stream discharge be thoroughly screened in the
environmental assessment. The Permits and Engineering group suggested that a meeting
be held between Hobbs, Upchurch and DEM .regarding current policies on reuse. .
Representatives of the Forest Service suggest . that land .application in wooded areas,
,especially: pine forest -areas, would be `.frowned upon by :their: department.
:.r. •,i� ��. 1 - .._.fir .r.n: :t ,J?, tr M,.t..� -� �.i.n G w.•�%�r� a•.v �:� i..ti:ri±u�i- � :*t-'� ; t l.: s, A—r ;ti'.
�. r �� r t. � a •. �' t J n-..I x + _ .i, y.. .+l:t !� _x �, a:s'•• -��. tL
.Ron Huffy•'P.E.
�.•r.:ry. ,i'�.1. , r f �7 'yu: i;l' .t '.>,r. �1, ! -•ac'a rn. .Y ..'�%. +y •+1 •o`' _>i. ii�.,....
:y,,�w C'li.'.f L�., }t....7•.S.L'G., +U 7.��'♦,z t .+t'; !x. ., �'FZ..a „xAr•s_,�+F..'' _ ...7:5f'
t..W •-t` ,-,WM Buie71 - - - - f mac. r +} t +,,. .L..' J ✓"%s t �.
,�. , . ti Town of Fairmont 7 a,T;t
o;: ;e i 4 a>^ _ "'C ,F .1 ..rn+ar .r1 ..-r 7 s rr r �T+.✓ r _ _... k
-Dr. •J.H.��Carter, III r t 4+
f . � Moil-Swihart
r
,•sr+ t� i-- t.�',•""�Ifi .tY'ff{ .'•,. r k" r `•� b �+rt S a. r'zv i! �.�. rE t.r-" f f •ix ._.... > �a�' -
.� s - '.0 L:��,. ...Pry{�wiV.fyr - -:.-f .'...rT nK .... :.S•^ �._. c_. _.. �' ,✓>..,-.�•, ..♦J: i, .. •_ '<a:.A ...ryti'.. ,�ti;.:• r. —.. :.-�.r.�—..- _ --

,1O
PKOP05ED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
FORGE MAIN

LUMBER
0-0�(-
F�
ll
�O
MILL
72
'C0
74
PROP05ED
WASTEWATER
a�
TREATMENT
PLANT
a 130
a0
-
�FR `
r
r
ORRUM r
PROPOSED
FORGE MAIN
??
PROGTORV I LLE.
0
F
7
r s
aao r
� r N
130 �L6A
SR
41
r
r
5R 2236 N 1a
PROPOSED FORGE MAIN
e
o FAIRMONT u
9
i
130 as
i
� /' rya
SrZ9
�`
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
41
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
a
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROUNA 28387
130
EXI5TINC-7 WASTEWATER
TOWN OF FAIRMONT
"
b
TREATMENT PLANT
RODE50N COUNTY, NORTH C.AROLINA
VICINITY MAP
SEWER 5Y5TEM IMPROVEMENT5

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 24, 1995
Memorandum
To: Monica Swihart
Susan Wilson I
From.
Carla Sanderson
Through: Don Safrit
Ruth Swanek k�
Dave Goodrich
Subject: Fairmont WWTP Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report
NC0021059
Robeson County
The Technical Support Branch (TSB) has reviewed the preliminary engineering report for
the Fairmont WWTP expansion to 1.75 MGD. The following comments are offered for
the Town's further consideration:
Please be aware that in formal application for an NPDES permit, an engineering
alternatives analysis will have to be submitted. As part of this analysis, more detail
will have to be provided with regard to spray irrigation (land application) of the
wastewater. Loading rates and soil analysis should be provided, along with a
detailed cost analysis, as outlined in the Division's .GWdstnce for Evaluation of
Wastewater Alternatives.
In Section VL the selected alternative is a pumping system and the construction of a
new wastewater treatment plant at the Lumber River approximately one' mile south
of U.S. HWY 74. Section VII. discusses the alternate site for the treatment plant at
the Fairmont Industrial Park due to conflicts with the N.C. Department of Parks
and Recreation's plans for a park at the Lumber River site. According to the cost
analysis submitted as part of this report, the site at Fairmont appears to be the most
economically feasible. In light of conflicts with Parks and Recreation' plans and
the outcome of the cost analysis the Technical Support Branch encourages pursuit
of the alternative site at the Fairmont Industrial Park for the wastewater treatment
plant.
If in further evaluation the Fairmont Industrial Park Site is not found to be the most
feasible alternative, the Town should provide more detailed explanation of the
environmental consequences for modifying the existing plant and subsequent
discharge to the Lumber River. Also, the option to locate the plant on land between
Fairmont and the Lumber River (near Ovum) should be further evaluated and
explained in detail.
Please include this information as part of the final engineering report and prior to
application for an NPDES permit.
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Central Files

1j
i
ji
I y ! /2Mm !NI—
'm e�D (—Cq L>
-
e�LArr,^ 4N I-am-gae-- 9/ ✓lfm�L .
r AT
1:
5 7/r�tL-
4�64- F C SM
Moo � i s irA)i'
Fy � cA-
pum
NC1W W All P S�.

MEMO � �?Z
y �� DATE:
TO: 7 SUBJECT:
(Mcy % 1 � � ✓� K(-,r
P /
�Dnn✓� � f r� �
►�1'V
tw Ayfla� -
4Q
aAj4 4ti Svc 1
From.
� (�CvVt�il�P��I 1rr I��,
\�\�,, � / �lL
` , s North CarolinaGbpartment of Environment,
_g Health °a and Natural Resources g� primed on aegied Paper

L'
5 o
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION JUL 26 1995
July 21, 1995
;26
4
M) MORANDUM
TO: Preston Howard, Director
Division of Environmental Management
FROM: Philip K. McKnelly<�?�
SUBJECT: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant at Lumber River
J)N OF ENVIRONMENTAd_ ,MGT
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
ta'•!r �
JUL 33..199
In recent weeks, we have become aware of a:proposal for a wastewater treatment plant which
would seriously conflict with previously approved plans for the Lumber River State Park,
In 1989, following preparation of a feasibility study by- DEHNR and preceded by years of
tremendous public interest and support, the Lumber River was designated as a component of NC
Natural and Scenic Rivers System by the -NC General Assembly. At the same time, the General
Assembly authorized the establishment of the Lumber River State Park in accordance with the
State Parks Act of 1987. In 1990 the Lumber River Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed
by the Secretary of DEHNR to help guide the planning and development of the park. The
committee, raised funds from local citizens and obtained a 540,000 matching grant from Carolina 4
Power & Light Company for the preparation of a master plan for the park. The plan was -,
prepared by N.C. State University and was approved by Secretary Howes in July 1994.
J
During 1993 and 1994, we prepared an Environmental Assessment for the Lumber River Master
Plan. The Environmental Assessment was reviewed by agencies within EHNR, was distributed -
by the State Clearinghouse for review by other deparnnents and the public, and received final
approval from the State Clearinghouse in April 1994.
During this time, our Division applied for and receiveu four grants totalling over $1.6 million
from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund for land acquisi:on at the park; 2,139 acres have been
acquired so far, with several additional tracts pending. In addition, $1,093,000 was allocated
for the Lumber River State Park in the 1993 State Parks Bond referendum. This money is
designated for implementation of Phase I of the master plan, which includes acquisition of the
park's major access area known as Pea Ridge. Appraisals for this acquisition have been
requested from the State Property Office and are unde�vay. We have been working with NC
DOT on the widenin- of US 74 as it crosses the Lumber River near Pea Ridge to ensure that
the roadway design includes a safe access to the park at that location.

Preston Howard
July 21, 1995
Page 2
Recently, the Town of Fairmont in Robeson County has proposed to ICU --ate their new wastewater
treatment plant at Pea Ridge, the location identified in the park master plan for the southern park
headquarters. The master plan calls for a visitor center with office and auditorium, group and
family picnicking, family and canoe camping, maintenance head q-,,arters, staff residences,
parking, and river access facilities at this location.
Tile wastewater treatment plant, proposed for approximately the same spot as the park
campground. would seriously degrade the visitor experience at the park, and would greatly
impair our ability to efficiently manage and operate the site. There «,ould be potential problems
of noise, odor, - aesthetic appearance, -I aid vandalism. There would be continuing
problems of access through the park for wastewater plant operation, .maintenance, construction,
repair and expansion. It would inhibit. 056r.aljil- ty to expand and relocwte park facilities over the
years. We feel very strongly that such• an -.operation in the interior of the park would be highly
detrimental to the park.
At this point, it is our understanding that the Town of Fairmont has not submitted a permit
application, but has begun preparation of -the required environmental cocuments. They have an
option on 25 acres of land at the site.. We have met with the Town anc their consultants, as well
as with representatives from the Division of Environmental Management and other environmental
review agencies. We have informed them of our strong objections to this project, and have
encouraged tilem to select a different location for the treatment plan;.
Issuance of a permit by DEHNR for this project would be in significant conflict with substantial
commitments and investments already made by the department. We urge you to assist the Town
in finding another location for their project before a permit application is submitted.
Thank you eery much for your assistance. Please let us know it yo.. have any questions.
PKM/CAT

�i�Z�i✓ Oh% �v!✓OArrll✓liAl �SS✓v+[vt� -- - --� I�t�!'
_ /din r7ohhins �/� �dre5�_ _— ,,�h'n�l_a✓{�� _. ��- bta rs�
/%r�nlz Mcen /C %✓SG! I+��P_lu n - _
Lewis
-- -M11.).b✓ �ry�/tw, �S /ic;�t/��l>'u�i�yt rs "blio�' ,�[� a� iZh�t�rXj ------
�"r�/Y!F - TAX 7{�c✓ �i /C��I c� �2 J- /�
�_�i�V(� � /SSG � �cr�.nrrn-� U�) SV►�► �.nuwc� �ivw�vl.

,C .
ems/ �rr��/ �yj S�S
rou
- ( U: hy ,
-----_�/_'__v1el �lrc��vj_�Z
f-A
---�fJ_lf_J�ivto,%-_%S /�.�r�0��_!j_� 7_�y G,c�_6�lsGi�'�/Y?l/2j (/!/�7� ---d' - -
I 4_6
Aq e7o
A014e/
7r/Q.Git/ t�-_ �. �4►'�_ (hWi M-- M(41
�b�rl .Gwmlx�' -Sias becn alcuy,�d ,�(6�✓g ��c_ __
%iNjb/_ �liti_ 5�c7id �- is �Zr�xc �.�./ �z'Lc��/�� �c
� _ �u+',E l�u�ly�iusnq w�fk. ��w���n a, �s
__ate._ zr� i��, �5 � �1.�� �
I

vo
3-5,zuZ�ivY, �GvL n%r.C/���x..n�`�"ola9u�stch
_ �✓ ro�ir� l�,�c /7ov.rnc�� st�hc 5��frms�_e% �" �-�l ?�olu�.�.-<�_
1
ho /v Z -�ilr-LC[ i
7D 7iiL T l.fiMf?GY Y
444
-- Qnuo� us �SLi cwJ rnknha/ rnww
✓t� rr �- n s � iih/�� arm
l �'rud Gi •r f reearc rma / Cat . &//z, a
f,
J�
A

_ �n (�+la� - 'wrl� h�.±ww. ybu 9u /0 1v� <d�se
_._ G�ttu��/SP IOm✓viN/r�/-�CS��ryn�0/.�/ ��s �Bt� •d �2'Gcr�^C ----
-- �3rn;�tan_ �� -ifw nuf /vy�,s�_fe_rnuhTi�ls � �.
--- _ few l 5k�e � �✓c,� l _!uk(
�A4
� Go�Ld��t
W)4011�
4c ---
144
4 -A--
h;a

C
LUMBER
}
vvt
k'"�°
k
01 �&tL y � "-
PR0P05ED WA5TEWATER looe
TREATMENT PLANT
R
E MAIN
t
1
r
t
HOBBS. UPCHURCH do ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CONSULMNO ENMEERS
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROUNA 28387
TOWN OF FAIRMONT
RODE50N COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
VICINITY MAP
5EWER 5Y5TEM IMPROVEMENT5

LUM6ER
d■
IN
.11
-JPROPED 05WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
FORGE MAIN
5W AN1P ;
1
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
lw CONSULTING DONEERS
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROUNA 28387
TOWN OF FAIRMONT
RODE50N GOUNTY, NORTH C AROLINA
VICINITY MAP
5EWER 5Y5TEM IMPROVEMENT5

�ginD
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION JUL 26 1995
Cyr l�� July 21, 1995 Ory OF MGT
HIRE IORSMONFICCE
MEMORANDUM
TOr Preston Howard, Director JUL f33 �p3
Division of Environmental Management
ant;, ••.- - ,
FROM: Philip K. McKnelly4� M.
SUBJECT: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant at Lumber River
In recent weeks, we have become aware of a proposal for a wastewater treatment plant which
would seriously conflict with previously approved plans for the Lumber River State Park.
In 1989, following preparation of a feasibility study by DEHNR and preceded by years of
tremendous public interest and support, the Lumber River was designated as a component of NC
Natural and Scenic Rivers System by the NC General Assembly. At the same time, the General
Assembly authorized the establishment of the Lumber River State Park in accordance with the
State Parks Act of 1987. In 1990 the Lumber River Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed
by the Secretary of DEHNR to help guide the planning and development of the park. The
committee raised funds from local citizens and obtained a $40,000 matching grant from Carolina
Power & Light Company for the preparation of a master plan for the park. The plan was
prepared by N.C. State University and was approved by Secretary Howes in July 1994.
During 1993 and 1994, we prepared an Environmental Assessment for the Lumber River Master
Plan. The Environmental Assessment was reviewed by agencies within EHNR, was distributed
by the State Clearinghouse for review by other departments and the public, and received final
approval from the State Clearinghouse in April 1994.
During this time, our Division applied for and received four grants totalling over $1.6 million
from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund for land acquisition at the park; 2,139 acres have been
acquired so far, with several additional tracts pending. In addition, $1,093,000 was allocated
for the Lumber River State Park in the 1993 State Parks Bond referendum. This money is
designated for implementation of Phase I of the master plan, which includes acquisition of the
park's major access area known as Pea Ridge. Appraisals for this acquisition have been
requested from the State Property Office and are underway. We have been working with NC
DOT on the widening of US 74 as it crosses the Lumber River near Pea Ridge to ensure that
the roadway design includes a safe access to the park at that location.

Preston Howard
July 21, 1995
Page 2
Recently, the Town of Fairmont in Robeson County has proposed to locate their new wastewater
treatment plant at Pea Ridge, the location identified in the park master plan for the southern park
headquarters. Tile master plan calls for a visitor center with office and auditorium, group and
family picnicking, family and canoe camping, maintenance headquarters, staff residences,
parking, and river access facilities at this location.
Tile wastewater treatment plant, proposed for approximately the same spot as the park
campground; would seriously degrade the visitor experience at the park, and would greatly
impair our ability to efficiently manage and operate the site. There would be potential problems
of noise, odor, aesthetic appearance, liability, and vandalism. There would be continuing
problems of access through the park for wastewater plant operation, iaintenance, construction,
repair and expansion. It would inhibit our ability to expand and relocate park facilities over the
years. We feel very strongly that such an operation in the interior of the park would be highly
detrimental to the park.
At this point, it is our understanding that the Town of Fairmont has not submitted a permit
application, but has begun preparation of the required environmental documents. They have an
option on 25 acres of land at the site. We have met with the Town and their consultants, as well
as with representatives from the Division of Environmental Management and other environmental
review agencies. We have informed them of our strong objections to this project, and have
encouraged them to select a different location for the treatment plant.
Issuance of a permit by DEHNR for this project would be in significant conflict with substantial
commitments and investments already made by the department. We urge you to assist the Town
in finding another location for their project before a permit application is submitted.
Thank you very much for your assistance. Please let us know if you have any questions.
PKMICAT

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
Minutes to Environmental Assessment Scoping Meeting
Fairmont Wastewater Treatment Plant
Location: Division of Environmental Management
Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
Date: June 22, 1995
Time: 2:00 p.m.
HUA No.: FR95O1
The meeting was attended by representatives of the Town of Fairmont, Hobbs, Upchurch
& Associates, the Division of Environmental Management, various state agencies and Dr.
Jay Carter, III. The purpose of the meeting was to establish guidelines for an environmental
assessment to be prepared for the proposed wastewater discharge into the Lumber River by
the Town of Fairmont.
Items were discussed as follows:
Current discharge problems and need for project:
The Town of Fairmont is currently experiencing toxicity problems. While these problems
are believed to be related to the inability of the existing treatment plant to efficiently remove
ammonia, compliance is aggravated by the zero flow status of the receiving stream. Toxicity
investigations are currently underway. The Town needs more flexibility in its discharge in
order to attract industry and annex existing residential areas.
Limitations of Current Discharge Location:
The zero flow stream into which the Town of Fairmont currently discharges its wastewater
offers no dilution with respect to toxicity testing. In addition, discharge limits, though
currently moderate, would be amended to require a higher degree of treatment. The lack
of dilution could inhibit the Town's ability to attract industry.
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Myrtle Beach, SC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

Discussion of Need for Regional Wastewater Facilities:
Robeson County has been designated as an Enterprise Community and an Empowerment
Zone in an effort to spur economic development of the area. These designations will result
in increased assistance and funding opportunities by government agencies. Many of the
current wastewater discharges in Robeson County are experiencing discharge problems.
Reasonable access to a municipal wastewater treatment plant could help to eliminate
problematic discharges and consolidate and eliminate some wastewater concerns.
The need for a regional wastewater plan has been discussed for some time. In a recent
discussion held at the Lumbee River Council of Government, these problems were discussed
by members of industry, municipalities and the economic development community. It was
agreed that the regional approach to wastewater treatment should be pursued.
Proposed Location for Discharge
A map of the proposed discharge point was presented. This point is located approximately
one mile from U.S. 74 on N.C. Secondary Road 2245 adjacent to the Lumber River. The
proposed plan would collect and pump wastewater from Fairmont to this location for
treatment and discharge.. The Town of Fairmont has purchased an option to buy the
property needed for the proposed discharge location. After purchase of the option, the
Town of Fairmont learned that the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Division has
chosen this exact site for a major proposed state park. This project has progressed through
the master planning stage and has received a finding of No Signiftcant Impact when
environmentally reviewed through the State Clearinghouse. It is the position of the Parks
and Recreation Division that the proposed discharge site is totally incompatible with their
plans. Among the potential difficulties, the Parks and Recreation Division cites limitation
of access to the treatment plant through the controlled access park and basic incompatibility
of land use as their major concerns. There appears to be little or no potential for land
swapping or land negotiations between Fairmont and the Parks and Recreation Division as
they currently have no land acquired.
Representatives of DEM were questioned concerning the possiblity of locating the discharge
point above or below the proposed site. It is currently believed that the site could be
located in the general area with no additional discharge problems.
The Enviornmental Assessment should contain an alternate plant location for the Lumber
River discharge alternative.
Water Quality Issues:
The Lumber River at the proposed discharge point is classified as C-Swamp Waters. The
assimilative capacity of the river at this point should not be a problem. Of major concern
is ' the potential impact on aquatic species. While the State has good background data on

benthic invertebrates, they have little information on existing fish populations. Fish and
Wildlife requests that surveys be conducted to identify the fish population in the area. Of
special concern is the Redbreast sunfish.
There is also concern about mussels in the area. A survey will be needed including some
harvesting off the river bottom, depending on the depth of the river at that location. A
concern for the possible negative effects of chlorine on the mussel population was
concerned. Ultraviolet disinfection should be considered.
Because of the proposed location of the state park, the waters could be reclassified as Class
B to allow for body contact. This could affect the need for standby power at the facility.
Other Environmental Issues:
The aesthetics of the discharge are of concern. The discharge should be below the water
level if at all possible. The recreational activities on the river will result in more scrutiny of
the discharge than might normally be expected.
Concern was voiced over the impacts to woodlands in the area. It was requested that the
types of woodlands which might be affected be classified as to type, productivity, and
acreage. In addition, it was requested that an attempt be made to speculate on secondary
impacts to woodlands which could be brought on by development.
It was requested that the natural communities along the pipeline corridors and in
construction areas be characterized for consideration of possible impacts.
Any wetlands which will be affected by the project must be delineated.
It is necessary that the alternatives to stream discharge be thoroughly screened in the
environmental assessment. The Permits and Engineering group suggested that a meeting
be held between Hobbs, Upchurch and DEM regarding current policies on reuse.
Representatives of the Forest Service suggest that land application in wooded areas,
especially pine forest areas, would be frowned upon by their department.
Ron Huff, P.E.
cc: Will Buie
Town of Fairmont
Dr. J.H. Carter, III
Monica Swihart

Note for Monica Swihart
From: Monica Swihart on Wed, Jun 21, 1995 5:02 PM
Subject: Town of Fairmont
To: Boyd DeVane; Greg Thorpe; Preston Howard; Steve Tedder
Cc: Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Trish MacPherson
FYI, Hobbs Upchurch and staff from the Town of Fairmont met with
staff in the Water Quality Section and others in the Department
(Parks, Wildlife, Melba McGee) today to discuss issues that need
to be addressed in an EA for the construction of a new WWTP that
would discharge into the Lumber River near the Town of Orrum.
Construction of the new discharge would serve to eliminate two
discharges under an SOC (Fairmont's and a school) and the plant
could eventually serve as a subregional WWTP for Robeson
County. The site the Town of Fairmont selected as their best
alternative is also a site on the Division of Parks and
Recreation Master Plan for the Lumber River State Park. The
master plan (500-600 acre park) was approved by our Department
and the EA/FONSI cleared the State Clearinghouse Review in the
spring of 1994. The Town of Fairmont recently acquired an
option to purchase a 20-25 acre tract in the middle of what is
being proposed as a campground in the southern park
headquarters. Parks has money to acquire lands, but they have
not gotten the necessary appraisals to purchase property for the
Park. Melba indicated (to the surprise of many in the room) that
the Department would not -approve the EA with the Town's
preferred alternative site because Parks Master Plan had been
approved by the Secretary. Parks was adamant that they would
object to a EA with a preferred WWTP alternative at this
location. I tried to emphasize that I thought the Town of
Fairmont needed to evaluate whether there were any feasible
alternatives to the preferred site. Fairmont has been trying to
work with Parks on some land swaps in an effort to relocate the
plant, but Parks claims it would take 6 months just to get an
appraisal and Fairmont needs to comply with their SOC by Jan.l,
1996. Michael Wicker asked me to please give SWT and Preston a
heads up about this meeting since this issue is likely to heat
up.
Page: 1

�tiv, ►tovJ- TnF&5tat
7S50.t aL, �qq1'
NAY
m oo�ui%� Swilvyr
T15
cSGesfl/U
l/vf�Son<
Will
arc.
�v• U, Ca4ei-
�Jo�nny
< /!itCN •�oGl�/�
�1�� Fl.Sv�(rns
17d5 A y Z, M; z e.
a— i
UVG Pfw"• WQ fit14Wgt
rJc OEan: W�-EAU Ir?)1.
� A
'�i Cq 2✓ d' /�sde-
=m/vV ,v h/"E -UHSlJ •IK�J
Iowa o� IHirrvw.,'�
19
/ w tJ o f ICi�i tern o N
Tf 00-
33.5o8��k56�
733-G9u�
9io 4c- /S`f/
9 !o GO z !'�
710 -Gys-loo
9iL) - 6a� ac6 f
Flo 6a8-ao6(
9)o-b
/JC � � l-tJ �✓rn;�s CxsS�j
IVCPF#A(li `I/`) - 57/ - y/oD
OF- V,A-7n6�uatvL �/1 - 733-6Z59-3
y/y-ss3-V-/7,p

�oM l�fk
tw.�it�J Muds �o-✓ Pofiaka.l[�_ Yt(aca�.c lliscliwye
�nihaknr� Et+ For_�c p✓e�uY
Sa�Ov�w�a«ayv, Pubk� W+�.k, oac, _� �iirvwuxf
lkolabh
� • C%fVY��"«.1' cHrw�` op b/croo�Nela°_ {a✓_ Pvt�uf _ __ __
-- 7D1uU�(+� _tJvnbluxs � �i�✓.('�Oc�✓ ru+m.
Ca�ah�llhe, o,�l�u1' fa Yrx�,.rc 2m�weu.� era.
_. lit re�w�, ww/ �,cck� NPDF� -ruincP
h'LttJWI hlV�ttN UwS.'p� _
de-._ �._..
'l dtewsw�s �cw 5na
PAtuw;l7*Eal' �i'6�+� bUua%u¢as'ht5�5GGteol � }itsatn�.lc4
( p� �iL f�il�vw.f7.v�.Z s�"5Gl-a.[ WCQ�N Sac.
`�l�,ttu�'(pwwwXArsu.Ar�q, f-�tN.st�.�j
ao
FJnyiea G�uaw�++l� �V�Powsrreml Zeu-
L�+'ow6n �lnt _CO(�5 Ceul��1C��.v� Ih�--

ta*.d 4
40.,, e, AQ
o4woad - lghkc POK wflArz
L k- (4
$00
, T-A
P-a-4 k
`
'---------- '--`---'-
/

ao-asa.�c,_�yak
o� bpw- lace
50D�6oD acrh —
�Gu�, �urdru� 7 QCF�u ,a"h
0vi
rn w
UrbV�(pµte' 9Y[a'�✓�u�(t,Y � i�'��+h /�u*-5 f4wo(Vrd
.PlikuuaYK pu Cw+uufeA�uc � .cls {� U'roc2(c.c� �vaw�
l w,alt CwuAn
�awyo-�,u�e�,
sole
r�-Afi,�c Ytw�✓ �,f' o-�riw� - kf.�K�li� 1�w�,
5u,b5vn�cw- GGsGl�ac� - 8 - i o ` du-�
Gam,

tA
-- / fud13 warms_ �
ro-cXAIJ loca�r- �!h_ Bch•.-s
5dtiut_ic�kivuf ,,w_£id_�rc�Q
Avo'x G�2�GYv�i.fiut
r

Page 1
Note for Susan Wilson
From: Coleen Sullins
Date: Sun, Jun 11, 1995 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Dave Goodrich; Susan Wilson
Susan - I went ahead and put this on meeting maker for us and CC'd you Dave.
I would like Susan and I to have the opportunity to sit down with you for a few minutes and
discuss your conversations with Paul and Carol Tingley - maybe we could plan to right
before the meeting. Coleen
From: Dave Goodrich on Sun, Jun 11, 1995 11:20 AM
Subject: FW: Town of Fairmont
To: Coleen Sullins
Cc: Susan Wilson
I would prefer not to go to this one. With you, Michael, and Paul R. there, I'm sure all we
be handled. I WOULD like Susan W. to go in my place, though. I'll be glad to discuss this
one with both of you (or either of you). I spent about 45 minutes on the phone with Paul
Rawls regarding this. I've also spoken to Carol Tingley (Parks and Rec). Oh, yeah -- also
may be good to get Fairmont to contact Lumberton re: a tie -on. (They did this in the past, but
haven't done it lately.)
From: Monica Swihart on Thu, Jun 8, 1995 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Boyd DeVane; Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ruth Swanek; Trish
MacPherson
Cc: Greg Thorpe
Ok, I've set up the meeting for 2:OOpm in the 9thfl Conference Room on Wednesday, June
21. Michael Wicker and Paul Rawls are planning to attend. We will also invite Parks,
Wildlife, Forest Resources, and Pollution Prevention staff. Apparently the State Parks folks
are upset about this project, because they have a master plan to purchase a 400 acre state park
in the vicinity of where the new plant/discharge would be sited. Fairmont already has an
option to buy the property and met recently with Parks and FmHA who have given Fairmont
an enterprise zone grant for a wastewater regionalization study. I have asked Hobbs
Upchurch to prepare a meeting agenda and will send it out upon receipt. Because of the
political issues, -we will -need -to -set some limits oncope of the meeting. The main
purpose is to focus on the biological and water quality issues that will need to be addressed in
the EA.
From: Dave Goodrich on Wed, Jun 7, 1995 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - The afternoon of the 21 st is open for Coleen and I. The morning is out.
From: Monica Swihart on Wed, Jun 7, 1995 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ruth Swanek; Trish MacPherson

Page 2
How about the 21st? Please advise. Thanks.
From: Ruth Swanek on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - Coleen and I are supposedly headed for the WSRO that day. If Carla can meet, I
do not need to be there, but Coleen may want to attend.
From: Monica Swihart on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 9:46 AM
Subject: FW: Town of Fairmont
To: Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ruth Swanek; Trish MacPherson
Cc: Boyd DeVane
Carla has a conflict on 6/19 & 20. I will be out of town the 22 and perhaps the afternoon of
the 21. How about the 23? Please advise ASAP so I can contact the consultants. THANKS.
From: Carla Sanderson on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
So far - I am free.
From: Monica Swihart on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Carla Sanderson
I don't have access to meeting making. How does Friday the 23rd look?
From: Carla Sanderson on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - I am sorry, but my sister just planned a vacation for the us on the 19th and 20th of
June. I will update my meeting maker.
From: Monica Swihart on Mon, Jun 5, 1995 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ruth Swanek; Trish MacPherson
Cc: Boyd DeVane
- How does the afternoon -of -June 19 or 20 look forthe subject meeting? (Trish would you --
pass on this message to Dave Lenat, FYI Jay Carter's phone # in Southern Pines is
910-695-1043).
From: Dave Goodrich on Mon, May 29, 1995 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - Coleen's out until the week of the 12th. I would prefer to meet the week of the
19th - afternoon?? (I'm really getting picky, now.)
From: Monica Swihart on Wed, May 24, 1995 1:28 PM
Subject: Town of Fairmont

Page 3
To: Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ken Eagleson; Ruth Swanek
Cc: Boyd DeVane; Greg Thorpe
Ron Huff with Hobbs Upchurch and Associates called me this morning. He would like to
set up a meeting in June to discuss a potential new WWTP/discharge on the Lumber River at
Boardman. The plant would likely be a 1-2 MGD facility. The Town of Fairmont apparently
has an eye toward accepting other customers so this facility could serve as a regional plant
down the road. Hobbs Upchurch wants to get some direction for the consulting biologist
(Jay Carter) who will be involved with an EA for this project. Please let me know if your
schedules would allow for a meeting sometime during the week of June 5 or June 12.
Thanks.
cc: FAYRO

-1A "I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 8, 1995
Ms. Helen Locldey, Manager
Town of Fairmont
Post Office Box 248
Fairmont, North Carolina 28340
Affl�.,�VA
IT
E)EHNFi
Subject: Town of Fairmont Waste Water Treatment Plant
NCO021059 Subbasin: 03-07-54
Robeson County
Dear Ms. Locldey:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 23, 1995 requesting speculative limits for a proposed
relocation of the Town of Fairmont's wastewater treatment plant to approximately one (1) mile
downstream from Highway 74. The recommendations made in our previous letter, (dated April 20,
1995) reflected management strategies for the Lumber River Basin, therefore no changes will be
made in the recommendations given in the April, 1995 letter.
Please be advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the Division will issue an
NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into these receiving waters. It should be noted
that a new facility involving an expenditure of public funds or use of public (state) lands and having
c_ a design capacity of 0.5 MGD or greater (or a facility proposing an expansion of 0.5 MGD or
{` greater), or exceeding one-third of the 7Q10 of the receiving stream will require the preparation of
an environmental assessment (EA) by the applicant. DEM will not accept a permit application for a
project requiring an EA until the document has been approved by the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has
been sent to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
-- The EA should contain a clear justification for the proposed facility and an analysis of potential
-- alternatives which should include a thorough evaluation of non -discharge alternatives. In
addition, an EA should show how water reuse, conservation and inflow/infiltration reductions have
been considered. Nondischarge altematives, such as spray irrigation, water conservation, inflow
and infiltration reduction or connection to a regional treatment and disposal system, are
considered to be environmentally preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the
North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the
least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented. If the EA demonstrates
that the project may result in a significant adverse affect on the quality of the environment, an
Environmental Impact Statement would be required. Monica Swihart of the Water Ouality
Planning Branch can provide further information regarding the requirements of the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Errployer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Town of Fairmont WWTP NCO021059
Again, please note that these limits are speculative and are for planning purposes only. The final
NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a formal permit application has been submitted
to the Division of Environmental Management. If there are any additional questions concerning
this matter, please feel free to contact Farrell Keough, (ext. 510) or me, (ext. 519) at (919)
733 - 5083.
Sincerely,
Donald Safrit,
Assistant Chief for Technical Support
Water Quality Section
cc: Dave Goodrich, NPDES Permits Group
Paul Rawls, Fayetteville Regional Office
Central Files

Note for Monica Swihart
From: Monica Swihart on Thu, Jun 8, 1995 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Boyd DeVane; Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave
Ruth Swanek; Trish MacPherson
Cc: Greg Thorpe
j� �� Ala • (�°�� 1
Goodrich;
Ok, I've set up the meeting for 2:OOpm in the 9thfl Conference
Room on Wednesday, June 21. Michael Wicker and Paul Rawls are
planning to attend. We will also invite Parks, Wildlife, Forest
Resources, and Pollution Prevention staff. Apparently the State
Parks folks are, upset about this project, because they have a
master plan to purchase a 400 acre state park in the vicinity of
where the new plant/discharge would be sited. Fairmont already
has an option to buy the property and met recently with Parks
and FmHA who have given Fairmont an enterprise zone grant for a
wastewater regionalization study. I have asked Hobbs Upchurch to
prepare a meeting agenda and will send it out upon receipt.
Because of the political issues, we will need to set some limits
on the scope of the meeting. The main purpose is to focus on the
biological and water quality issues that will need to be
addressed in the EA.
From: Dave Goodrich on Wed, Jun 7, 1995 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - The afternoon of the 21st is open for Coleen and I.
The morning is out.
From: Monica Swihart on Wed, Jun 7, 1995 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ruth Swanek;
Trish MacPherson
How about the 21st? Please advise. Thanks.
From: Ruth Swanek on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - Coleen and I are supposedly headed for the WSRO that
day. If Carla can meet, I do not need to be there, but Coleen
may want to attend.
From: Monica Swihart on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 9:46 AM
Subject: FW: Town of Fairmont
To: Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ruth Swanek; Trish MacPherson
Cc: Boyd DeVane
Carla has a conflict on 6/19 & 20. I will be out of town the 22
Page: 1

and perhaps the afternoon of the 21. How about the 23? Please
advise ASAP so I can contact the consultants. THANKS.
From: Carla Sanderson on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
So far - I am free.
From: Monica Swihart on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Carla Sanderson
I don't have access to meeting making. How does Friday the 23rd
look?
From: Carla Sanderson on Tue, Jun 6, 1995 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - I am sorry, but my sister just planned a vacation for
the us on the 19th and 20th of June. I will update my meeting
maker.
From: Monica Swihart on Mon, Jun 5, 1995 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ruth Swanek;
Trish MacPherson
Cc: Boyd DeVane
How does the afternoon of June 19 or 20 look for the subject
meeting? (Trish would you pass on this message to Dave Lenat,
FYI Jay Carter's phone # in Southern Pines is 910-695-1043).
From: Dave Goodrich on Mon, May 29, 1995 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: Town of Fairmont
To: Monica Swihart
Monica - Coleen's out until the week of the 12th. I would
prefer to meet the week of the 19th - afternoon?? (I'm really
getting picky, now.)
From: Monica Swihart on Wed. May 24, 1995 1:28 PM
Subject: Town of Fairmont
To: Carla Sanderson; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Ken
Eagleson; Ruth Swanek
Cc: Boyd DeVane; Greg Thorpe
Ron Huff with Hobbs Upchurch and Associates called me this
morning. He would like to set up a meeting in June to discuss a
potential new WWTP/discharge on the Lumber River at Boardman.
The plant would likely be a 1-2 MGD facility. The Town of
Fairmont apparently has an eye toward accepting other customers
so this facility could serve as a regional plant down the road.
Page: 2

Hobbs Upchurch wants to get some direction for the consulting
biologist (Jay Carter) who will be involved with an EA for this
project. Please let me know if your schedules would allow for a
meeting sometime during the week of June 5 or June 12. Thanks.
cc: FAYRO
Page: 3

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
Fayetteville Regional Office
June 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO : David Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Permits Group
THROUGH : Michael Wicker, P.E.(`L )
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
FROM : Paul Rawl
Fayetteville egional Office
SUBJECT Proposed WWTP, Town of Fairmont
Robeson County
Per our discussion last week concerning the subject project it
appears, based on the attached letter, that the Town will pursue
the Pea Ridge Road (Boardman) site.
The letter does offer some options an indicates that the Town is
willing to work with Parks and Recreations.
I will keep you up to date with this issue as information comes
available.
U

.e • V VyV avacncav a wlnyyrwxy< wo<uu u a s y u u n u yr ul a I.ae
1234559 4E
JM cosuvw%VZ aeaeaeae SNangtn den5.ty unddn...F/ IIIIIIIII be e p Oath dna cl Alsaae ciwol eq n.rl tti 41a >0 'I.i'. I'll :I. >KBletl Cne Sicdli!ra 2.
IIIIIIIII 1234567 AEFIJM OQSUVW ngth density uniformity 111111?I bcjk _
34567 AEFIJM OOSUVWXVZ aeaeaeae str IIIIIIIII bcikpgvwayz 0352bc one lcnp L dna
OOSOVw.'Z aeaeaeae ty annlu do a 0041, 1 c1 aeaeae clwol eg hI1 eg:eSe::. -.
IIIIIIIII 1234567 AEFIJM OQSUVW ngth density uniformity IIIIIIIII bcjk
34567 AEFIJM OOSUVWXVZ aeaeaeae strength density uniformity IIIIIIIII bclkpgvwxyz 0352bc dna Icnp L dna
+.vz o252nc n,a :, v - :, o ",, ona o a>a>ae :'.,
64i VWXYZ aeaeaeae strength
e strength density uniformity IIIIIIIII 235
Reduction n. .,e.w,y,c3h2dddnalcno :naOG4lr MM
VWXYZ aeaeaeae strength Reduction
Scale Scale
LCPNCLHT8KGRD IIIIIIIII 1234567
C-%:-r-BKGRO ^,n,u111 1234567 AEFIJM O
;a__....2 aeaeaeae 70.7%
LCPNCLHTBKGRD IIIIIIIII 1234567
._nToK GPD '.I11111 1234567 AEFIJM O
LCPNCLHTBKGRD 111111111 1234567
_- .__-1-3K.3FD ^.'.c 111 1234567 AEFIJM O
K•Number
Serial Number
,y
Model Number
A Meter
I Meter
Customer
Date
c g If h a
1234 1234 1234 12 34 1 234
I II III'III
y Lop
T All
7.5
I
II
I ,
j
Date
Image
I Loop
y
A Meter
t.- a I Meter
e Date
Developer Code
A Meter
i tv
a I Meter
Toner Code
Temperature
Humidity
ESR
N -L-
--.• i°J ^Haul 12344il -Eg,jm OOSCVAEYZ aeaeaeae s
LCPNCLHTBKGRD 111111111 1234567
7PNCLHTBKGRO IIIIIIIII 1234567 AEFIJM 00
l nns ro urna. -, LIEF-.N OOSuvwxY2'aeee.the
81.5%
94%
100%
IIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxyz 0352bc dna It
gth density uniformity IIII
11111111 bcjkpgvwxyz 0352bc one IC
H , :
gth density uniformity IIII
'1111111 bClkpgowxyZ 0352bc one Ic
- .-„.. pde9c'.
gth density uniformity III[
IIIIIIII odkpgvwryz C352oc dna
gth densit , uniformityI
IIIIIIII ocjkp_q y 0352bc dna
F
gin de at > ity I
7.5
T.E. REF
— C
8.0
gi
n enslty unlfornn
tpc n z •520c a
qth enslty uniformity
cgrwvyz 0352oc dra
qth density uniformity Ill
UNIVERSAL SERVICE
TEST TARGET
TL3394 KP79170 1/90
IIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxyz 03520c dna Ic
J Nth it ILI a<m<ctwt n hill thi l Ci
gth density uniformity IIIII
A II10111 bcjkpgvwxyz 0351 one Ic
0411 dna cl aeuu thi p nm pdegdl m
10.0 gth density uniformity IIIII
IIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxyz 0351 dna Ic
2 with di a aeaew coal ay had pdpel d.
gth density uniformity IIIII
10.5
.00
— 220
200
180
160
150
140
120
100
80
60
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
40%
500/0
60%
700/0
80%
A-4
40 umed d^a a.cabna z
kpqvwxyz 035
a D 04th dna cl a
L-: a <maeva 2
kpqvwxyz 035
a D 04th dna of a
V L%I,.-�1--,llV,,LiI,I1.2 il 1i
kpqvwxyz 035
a D 04th one cl aeaeae c
c;< S!:eled dna sic Z-1 OCKE
kpqvwxyz 0352bc dr
a D 04th dna cl aeaeae c
OMM cm a:ceted dna S=1,1. 2edm OCKE
kpqvwxyz 0352bc dr
a D 04th dna cl aeaeae c
lecerod aea Sloablla 2ed.> nree
nity IIIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxyz 0352b
c dna Icno L dna D 04th dna cl aea
sa 11 null CM ...... 1 dna atcald•a gem

fir; Hobbs, U church 8� Associates it,
Consulting Engineers
�s:;;;; 290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
M. MEMENT 1
F,AyETUIL .E REG. OFFICE)
June 1, 1995
Ms. Carol A. Tingley, Chief
Natural Resources Section
Division of Parks and Recreation
NC DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: Town of Fairmont
WWTP Site
HUA No. FR9501.G
Dear Ms. Tingley:
We appreciated you meeting with us today to discuss possible conflicts between the Town
and the Division of Parks and Recreation. The Town looks forward to working with the
Division to find a compromise that will meet both party's needs. The Town is currently
reevaluating the possibility of locating the plant at a site other than on Pea Ridge Road.
It is our understanding that the Division has prepared a master plan for a park headquarters
in the Pea Ridge area. It is also our understanding that funding for this project has been
secured, however, no property has been purchased.
As indicated during our meeting, the Town has purchased an option for approximately 20-25
acres of land. The reason the Town chose this site is the proximity to the river, elevation
of the site, lack of obvious environmental concerns, etc. There were no other sites in the
general area that appeared suitable.
You had indicated that this site was not acceptable in view of the -Division's Master Plan.
Fairmont is offering the following compromises:
se�,�ks
1. The Town will give the Division all of the wooded area and five additional acres (so
long as the Town retains 15 acres). The plant can be placed anywhere on the land
the Town has an option for. Additionally, the Town must have a 60 foot right-of-way
down to the river. Fairmont will also allow the Division to connect to the sewer
system with no tap fee and the first 2,000 gallons/month free.
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Myrtle Beach, SC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

u nyyvw y do
. < < z , - 1 -I cc 1 0 Oah or. cl aeaeae await eg —iris, reegd iris , s.zred ens secal va 2.
IIIIIIIII 1234567 AEFIJM OQSUVW ngth density uniformity 111111111 bcjk ,
34567 AEFIJM OOSUVVVXYZ aeaeaeae str )IIIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxy2 0352bc Ina long L Ina
...xv2 - ., a :twill •g - r •q: gdl cra so
IIIIIIIII 1234567 AEFIJMIOQSUVW ngth density uniformity IIIIIIIII bcjk
34567 AEFIJM OOSUVWXYZ aeaeaeae strength tltensity uniformity ;IIIIIIII bcjkpgywxyz 0352bc Ina Icnp L Ina
,.. :..I-_.a.:-o_o,a D__-.,,:%..,e -.. ,;-..,p,iaso :e
64� VWXYZ aeaeaeae strength
e strength tlenslty uniformity !IIIIIIII 235
Reduction d-' _ - a' on MM
Scale VWXYZ aeaeaeae strength Reduction
Scale I
LCPNCLHTBKGRD IIIIIIIII 1234567
T3k:3P_D.IIIIIII 1234567 AEFIJM O
:y E=.v c d:.:..rz eeaeae.e 70.7%
LCPNCLHTBKGRD IIIIIIIII 1234567
LnTBKGRO Ili illl 1234567 AEFIJM O
LC?NCLHTBKGRD IIIIIIIII 1234567
...:_;ITBK ]PC) IIIII 1234567 AEFIJM O
r 4. .. . ........ ...-- 77%
K-Number
y Serial Number
Model Number
A Meter
I Meter
Iy Customer
Date
r _
ZP
c q d h a
1234 1234 1234 1234 1234
7.5
' Date
Image
I.W m Loop
y
A Meter
-y
e I Meter
o Date
Developer Code
A Meter
a I Meter
Toner Code
Temperature
Humidity
ESR
N-L-
4Ed'.I- OcsUYYfxyZ see_
e
LCPNCLHTBKGRD IIIIIIIII 1234567
r iCLHTBKGRD IIIIIIIII 1234567 AEFIJM 00
81.5%
94%
6.0
100%
',IIIu11 bckpgvwxyz 03520c Ina Ic
gth density uniformity IIII
IIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxyz 0352bc Iris Ic
gth density uniformity IIII
'.1111111 bckpgvwxy7 0352bc Ina :c
gth density uniformity IIII
„ry
G
.. `or—t,
IIII bclkpq w yz 0352b na
gth density unit mlty
IIIIIIII bit "p "' 352b -
gth density nI rmtty IIII
IIIIII be wx z 0 52bc one
s l
nth dens Iformlty -III.
gt -Ien ty _
T.E. REF
C
8.0
UNIVERSAL SERVICE
TEST TARGET
TL3394 KP79170 1/90
IIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxyz 0352bc dna Ic
J wm an..1 Yom clwol w nit ydegdl d.
gth density uniformity IIII'
A 1110111 bcjkpgvwxyz 0352bc dna Ic
— lam dr. tl.. ... prim (loom
10.0 gth density uniformity IIIII
IIIIIIII bcjkpgvwxyz 0352bc dna to
> ash dm Cl A."" pwdl ep rim pd.gdt do
gth density uniformity IIIII
10.5
.00
220
111
5Wa
200
10%
180
160
150
140
120
100
80
60
15%
200A
dna Icnp i
dna icnp I
01 g ,..
., 25%
dna Ic. o
v0l v
Ina rip I
30%
I -g-
d. a Icnp
a 'cnp
>; 40%
A-4 .
0
7.5
500/0
p
0
60%
p
dna I_-o
dna 'cnp
dna Icrp<I
A-4
40
kpqvwxyz 035
a 0 04ih Ira cl a
red: o-.e,„a2
kpqvwxyz 035
a D 04th one cl a
20
,_ _,ill,-, az
'kpgvwxyz 035
a D 04th dra cl assess c
kpqvwxyz 0352bc dr
a D 04th dna cl aeaeae c
OMM -- -. -.:, OcxE
.kpqvwxyz 0352bc dr
a D 04th dna cl aeaeae c
. s:ceeed dna i¢aq•,a Yy •roc
nity 111111111 bcjkpgvwxyz 0352b
c Ira Icrp L Ina D 04111 Ina of sea

Ms. Carol A. Tingley
June 1, 1995
Pare 2
2. The Town will swap acre for acre for the property at the entrance of Pea Ridge
Road. The Division must provide the Town with fill or borrow from the NCDOT
pits or from another site along Pea Ridge as the Town will have to fill a protion of
the site. This swap would have to take Place prior to October 15, 1995.
We look forward to working with you on an acceptable solution to this problem. Should you
have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
WatE.
J
LLLe-
Will R. Buie
wager, Tov of
Fairland
Ben Hill, Public 'W&ks, TO i fXairmont
Paul Rawls, DEM �_

1 -4-1- 110
a
!'arc, Cho~
219
Nancy
017
Srzanro
573
Mo Ilona
432 i
Shm
so$
MM Michael
547
Dam Felicia
337
1226
Kofirs The
603
1
Moubs Arthur
1641
400
Bob
233
Chad"
553
Edna Bats
605
Fpi*11
510
Nicholoong Alice
401
gnq§2 Pat
501
304
Elan
Keplor onc
644
Ntdcb, Cam
18tockton,
Eric
611
Anderson BIN
437
jEudy, David
411
, M
538
!►[owe. Jackie
512 1S
Debbie
620
Aadaraa� Tom
324
Evans, Cathwo 111S
OW
Kll Aka
300
MonnellJoyce
511
StriaHazel
211
Arntoon-Meta hurl
410
Ewan a
6i 9
vb
618
O�datte Jennio
OZ
Sulyns . esn
360
AR Tina
603
Eva John
319
Lansrasier. alo rlo
$20
Omens, Namq
t74
_S_
Sufbq
612
Atidneowe Jumb
402
Evan To
694
Fred
1307
311
Gaut
326
8 *" :'
603
BmiloysCarl
422
Fohnsetwk, Torn
681
SRianon
591
Joe
6 2 S 16w1hut,
Umka
6671
Biker fiatie
217
Feltner. Robert
631
Lasater, Rk rd
MkheNe
227
Taber Bob
429
Barbour, k
529
Felton Mlebelio
217
Laa,ker "ff�p
425
PhNim Jeanne i
215 Ileddar,
Stowe
S00
Boiler. Kwwr
212
Jack
406
La
S70
PbMi a. Sher
427
Teadi Bob
610
Bdwl
543
Dana
a23
hno
315
Putnam Donne
203 JFeWngo6
Cathy
206
Ben
571
Fwehngg Lands
326
Lei% Elora
214
Pbbl Ken
416
Scot
S63
BrAnoWn, Steve
506
Go"go, vego
628j
er
328
Poftne, Louis
636
Tho gw�A
SS7
Bilbr Loma
308
Cad , Teas
SJ•4
L He
426
ToeO
622
Tindn, Brian
317
Mg ** Elan
624
Q111noplo, Sandra
Lwas. JM
656
Pow&IL leauWo
637
Turner Prisci0a
303
Ramona
22S
Godwin, Kevin
31
Modde Cod
614
Pdi Rear
424
T Jeff
322
Blow% Bobby
600
Gostm Bernie
426 1
Mont
16
Proctor. Sieve
321
Ulaner Stowe
646
Dana
618
Gooddcb Dove
1
Juan
15
Pa0en 800ter
336
vandefWart Donald
302
Boucbeits Jeff
530
Goodrich David
1
E d
332
Ranee Detnls
62e
Vaught, Mike
430
lee
435
Gr Carrie
20
M oe
622
Rams
433
Wa aer Brien
406
B Hadon
203
GrN An
554
330
607
DWono
Roan
668
664
Wahab AIIon
W KoW
a16
421
ISSO
Bro Rob
623
Gr Ho
Poem Hal
408
Ha David
429
ao Kos
0
Realtor Dort
208
Washburn,Connie
336
Buckler Chic
310
MarcBtt David
669
Ltwoo Mike
32
Robson,Katie
216
Wbi Party
Bush Ted
403
Homo Kenn
431
MICA Tolosa
20
Robson, Susan
551
Iftoph Kant
S21
Budar Laura
312
Hoff 019
616
UcCoMU1.1 n
640
Roderick, Linda
229
W rM Mack
S42
Kwou
240 lHoloingor.
Dave
572
McCullen, Mwdu T.
604
Roller, Jim
313
Wi1burn, Dianne
232
1329
Carroll, Eta
689
Howwd, Preston
203
McGee, Beth
576
RoyaL John
627
W9cox, Betly
409
Cheek, Bob
404
, Bruce
309
Ulan , Tom
334
Safrl% Don
519
Wallets, VAIU m
Alan
670
Jackson Alma
604
ilicLourin Lisa
306
Sanderson Cmia
606
IVARIGM, Carla
524
Clayton,
306
.mar, Bill
417
ll aNno, Bo
639
Scruggs, n
$29
WNlifor Na
601
IS13
Coate, Beverly
536
Johnson, Betsy
S0S
McPherson,Fran
210
Derd"
205
wftout, Cathy
323
Cotten. Franca*
231
Johnson.F. Eu'Gow
629
Nett, Carol
562
Seymour, John
S46
Wesson, Michelle
Cwft Cat
207
Johnson Richard
581
New Ted
423
Shankl Jule
318
Moon, Susan
566
Cox my IR
549
Jones Lando
301
!Middleton. Frank
609
ShoppwcL Jenny
335
Wood, Barbara
326
prof!?Bt1zz
627
Jo Sharon
228
Mi8 Biil
548
Wootton Brien
432
CtOsb. 1Ao ue R
333
us, Rita
434
Wosh, R
436
Yi Charlie
320
Del/a ^ B •
559
Kovowft Liz
616
Mora*, Richard
224
zougay. Steve
S66
Dk"
218
Nomy, Elizabeth
407
DO! Jason
507
~�
_
Vacant -AO
T Closet
314
213

I
t
i
�GNVJ�t �ioc n�rr -
I 7s ( O -ly oE5iy7' /V/%�!oey
/ib SFEL'S 17Da�7/c
%ZeY -4TW6.7 /NDus7�i'
j/mn�auooro tj1(E�
�a � GrM, r s - ,giv5/oN oo7n1 `
c��e�Ns,Da Can zo,>>
-
IX—XW AT A(,kPiArh — i Coyr
luau�y %F�i��
KE/� oGf f•/ � SAyzD
li/ �2 / C , GaG� oN tceiLv
o0 D00 % /kg/7
9 ao �✓ /0w /7' /Do vll - Y.2_
i

i71'` ,�j5 . V / roa17 �LA/r!, NAY _ 4,0dK[ A/S .®— l6dv€_ taa Dlp1
-re?.�r _ 5��✓• _�jttiwv �A.vp_ �1<�Ul5o7loN _ arf /,cc/h��, W�{I SiT�_ Sn,u€
A-5 5rie N�i9'/L �Eip.- �Ro�. tIUQI�S. -----
��na MAf 66-4boV'C— P W
CmNG_ lG ,©2lL_KM /.mGA-71onJ / 4V6
`rS -0 .-/Ape, ? a o(c (- PA-u_ OF %�%J�rL /�/A F we uc-p HWII �1. F
t-r Lr*-r / puc , i7 - yAzp; -/ M)Ayec z
5_ ' Grp
ID CGF42t -

State, of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
JamesB. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary
:M-06
FROM: wkA.iCA'4W j
PHONE: [phone]
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Planning
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
FAX:[phone]
FAX NUMBER: rft [LYE
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 1 /
1
4)
Ron Huff with Hobbs Upchurch and Associates called me this
morning. He would like to set up a meeting in June to discuss a
potential new WWTP/discharge on the Lumber River at Boardman.
The plant would likely be a 1-2 MGD facility. The Town of
Fairmont apparently has an eye toward accepting other customers
so this facility could serve as a regional plant down the road.
Hobbs Upchurch wants to get some direction for the consulting
biologist (Jay Carter) who will be involved with an EA for this
project. Please let me know if your schedules would allow for a
meeting sometime during the week of June 5 or June 12. Thanks.
cc: FAYROI WAY V%At� I�hwuw I�
b-I PAt-�, Ar"
-�kt vwto 6- i Vee0 �

Ms. Helen Lockley,
Town of Fairmont
P.O. Box 248
Fairmont, NC 2834¢
Dear Helen:
n- R'-
�'um��zton Rear "0
a
(Dff«£ cif
9L (2Zty <-A( -ages
Town Manager
May 25, 1995
This is to advise that the Lumberton City Council considered your
request that Lumberton accept and treat the Town of Fairmont's
wastewater and voted to deny the proposal.
The capacity Lumberton would be expected to accept in this project
coupled with the pre-existing demand on the southwest interceptor
would exceed the limits of the line and would ultimately restrict
any future growth in that area. In addition, the City's current
rate structure would result in over $2 million in annual charges to
Fairmont.
The City of Lumberton appreciates your position in the matter;
however, at this time it is felt that the proposal would not be a
feasible alternative for either Fairmont or Lumberton.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if we may be of assistance to
you in other areas in the future.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Hites, Jr.i
City Manager
CC: EENR Chairman Shaw
501 Cast gzC 4 St- 0 f)D. LD. -SOX 739E, _fum9z71ot4 ::vVot9 &wLna 29359 0 919 671-38o6 e '7— gig 671-3814

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Ms. Helen Lockley, Manager
Town of Fairmont
Post Office Box 248
Fairmont, North Carolina 28340
X."Al
�r
�EHNR
April20, 1995
Post -It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
8 of Pages o
Te
From
i
Co.
Co.
Dept.
Phone
Fax ® 1 _
Fax 8
Subject: Town of Fairmont Waste Water Treatment Plant
NCO021059 Subbasin: 03-07-54
Robeson County.._,
Dear Ms. Lockley:
1 am writing in response to your letter requesting speculative limits for a proposed relocation and
expansion of the Town of Fairmonts wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater discharge from
this facility currently flows into the Pitman Mill Branch which is located in the Ashpole Swamp
watershed. The proposed relocation is to the Lumber River mainstem at Highway 74 near the
Boardman gage.
As part of the preparation for the Lumber River Management Plan, the USGS developed a low
flow profile for the Lumber River which includes flow statistics at the Boardman gage. The
following represents those determinations:
Drainage Area: 1,228 miles2
summer 7010: 122 ofs
winter 7010: 250 cfs
Q average: 1,300 cfs
3002: 304 cfs
The recommendations made in this letter reflect management strategies for the Lumber River
Basin. The Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan describes the swamp -like
conditions which exist throughout most of the watershed. A good example is the Lumber River
mainstem downstream from Lumberton where DO concentrations approach 3 mg/I. This is
considerably lower than the rest of the river's mainstem and is well below the state standard of 5
mg/I. It is difficult to determine to what extent these low DO concentrations are natural or should
be attributed to point source discharges of oxygen -demanding wastes located just upstream. At
this time, DEM, (Division of Environmental Management) does not have an adequate tool to
evaluate these swamp systems. To address the uncertainty surrounding the water quality in the
Lumber River and the lack of a modeling tool, a permitting strategy was developed. Therefore,
recommendations for all new dischargers to the Lumber River watershed will receive advanced
secondary limits unless facilities are relocated to an area where more stringent limits are already in
place.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Town of Fairmont WWTP NCO021059
The tentative limits for the Fairmont WWTP expansion from from 0.500 mgd to 2.0 mgd at Highway
74 near the Boardman gage on the Lumber River are as follows:
Flow (mgd): 2.0
BOD5 (mg/l): 15.0
NH3-N (mg/l): 4.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I): 5.0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1): 30
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml): 200
pH (SU): 6-9
Total Phosphorus (mg/1): monitor
Total Nitrogen (mg/l): monitor
Total Residual Chlorine (µg/l): 28
Quarterly Chronic (Ceriodaphnia) Toxicity Test at 2.5 % ;
February, May, August, and November
Please be advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the Division will issue an
NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into these receiving waters. It should be noted
that a new facility involving an expelhditure of public funds or use of public (state) lands and having
a design capacity of 0.5 MGD or greater (or a facility proposing an expansion of 0.5 MGD or
greater), or exceeding one-third of the 7010 of the receiving stream will require the preparation of
an environmental assessment (EA) by the applicant. DEM will not accept a permit application for a
project requiring an EA until the document has been approved by the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has
been sent to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
The EA should contain a clear justification for the proposed facility and an analysis of potential
alternatives which should include a thorough evaluation of non -discharge alternatives. In
addition, an EA should show how water reuse, conservation and inflowrinfittration reductions have
been considered. Nondischarge alternatives, such as spray irrigation, water conservation, inflow
and infiltration reduction or connection to a regional treatment and disposal system, are
considered to be environmentally preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the
North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the
least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented. If the EA demonstrates
that the project may result in a significant adverse affect on the quality of the environment, an
Environmental Impact Statement would be required. Monica Swihart of the Water Quality
Planning Branch can provide further information regarding the requirements of the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act.
Please note that Inflow and Infiltration is still a concern for the existing facility. Contact with our
Regional Office indicates that ongoing efforts to remedy these problems are taking place.
Toxic specific limits have not been reviewed in this speculative analysis. The Technical Support
Branch would recommend coordination between your staff and our Pretreatment Staff to
determine possible toxicants involved in this proposed discharge. Our current .information
indicates that no Significant Industrial Users, (SIU's) are currently tied into your plant. A complete
evaluation of limits and monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will need to be
addressed at the time of a formal NPDES application.
Under current Division of Environmental Management (DEM) procedure, dechlorination and
chlorine limits are recommended for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of
chlorine for disinfection. An acceptable level of residual chlorine in the proposed discharge is
28 µg/I for protection against acute toxicity. The process of chlorination / dechlorination or ultra
violet radiation may allow the facility to comply with the total residual chlorine limit. ,

Town of Fairmont VW TP NCO021059
Again, please note that these limits are speculative and are for planning purposes only. The final
NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a formal permit application has been submitted
to the Division of Environmental Management. If there are any additional questions concerning
this matter, please feel free to contact Farrell Keough, (ext. 510) or me, (ext. 519) at (919)
733 - 5083.
Sincerely,
Safrit, P. .
Assistant Chief for
So'naldr Technica Support
Water Quality Section
cc: Dave Goodrich, NPDES Permits Group
Paul Rawls, Fayetteville Regional Office
Central Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
,(v Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p E H N F1
\t,►1�^\�A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 31, 1995
Ms. Helen Lockley
Town of Fairmont
�•� �� P. O. Box 248
Fairmont, North Carolina 28340 Y
Subject: Permit Modification
Permit No. NCO021059
Fairmont WWTP
Robeson County
Dear Ms. Lockley:
On January 5, 1995, the Division of Environmental Management received your letter
requesting a permit modification to remove the 85% reduction requirement for BOD5 and
TSS.
After review by the NPDES Group and the Fayetteville Regional Office, the Division is
denying your request. Based upon a population of 2,543, the flow to your treatment plant
often exceeds 275 gallons per capita per day (0.70 MGD). This flow exceeds the criteria
specified in 40 CFR 133.103 (d) (3). Since this flow rate is exceeded, 40 CFR 35.2120 (b)
requires you to rectify the problem. Also, the peak influent flow to the treatment plant occurs
during or immediately after heavy rainfall events which indicates inflow and infiltration
problems. A table comparing the influent flow to data from weather stations in Lumberton
and Whiteville is attached.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Ja ucas, P.E. at
telephone number 919/733-5083 ext. 502.
cc: Central Files
Fayetteville Regional Office, Water
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
A. P,rbston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Fairmont Wastewater Treatment Plant NCO021059
This table compares plant influent flow with rainfall data from Lumberton and Whiteville. Influent flows of over 0.70 MGD are boldfaced.
Day
Influent
MGD
Jun 94
Lumberton
inches
Whiteville
inches
Influent
MGD
Aug 94
Lumberton
inches
Whiteville
inches
Influent
MGD
Sep 94
Lumberton
inches
Whiteville
inches
Influent
MGD
Dec 94
Lumberton
inches
Whiteville
inches
1
0.199
0.08
0.13
0.545
0.05
0.481
0.414
2
0.183
0.422
0.28
0.12
0.508
0.06
0.378
3
0.193
0.388
0.521
1.70
1.50
0.362
4
0.185
0.341
0.716
0.51
0.20
0.377
5
0.200
0.344
0.704
0.07
0.593
0.80
6
0.284
1.40
0.02
0.426
0.99
0.92
0.690
0.489
7
0.531
1.92
0.22
0.391
0.01
0.92
0.664
0.04
0.06
0.444
8
0.440
0.02
0.17
0.363
0.484
0.424
9
0.384
0.310
0.475
0.405
10
0.321
1.65
0.320
0.423
0.391
0.01
11
0.745
3.18
0.95
0.324
0.406
0.01
0.367
0.39
0.75
12
0.618
1.41
0.88
0.447
0.67
0.11
0.411
0.400
0.12
13
0.543
0.01
0.483
0.07
0.13
0.390
0.398
14
0.481
0.381
0.338
0.368
0.03
0.06
15
0.407
0.366
0.01
0.07
0.324
0.348
0.10
0.12
16
0.376
0.558
2.32
1.10
0.319
0.389
17
0.368
0.610
0.45
0.03
0.320
0.359
0.33
0.32
18
0.305
0.40
0.642
0.17
0.35
0.336
0.343
0.01
0.05
19
0.311
0.755
1.41
2.14
0.516
1.91
1.06
0.318
20
0.279
0.941
0.05
0.10
0.393
0.328
21
0.291
0.01
0.11
0.891
0.12
0.376
0.01
0.307
22
0.259
0.770
0.27
0.52
0.323
0.12
0.18
0.287
23
0.319
1.08
0.22
0.689
0.327
0.896
1.32
1.35
24
0.401
0.43
0.00
0.664
0.334
0.737
0.48
0.61
25
0.963
0.04
0.551
0.359
0.67
1.78
0.709
26
0.684
0.01
0.10
0.523
0.443
0.03
0.03
0.670
27
0.667
0.30
0.25
0.523
0.380
0.572
28
0.794
0.60
0.21
0.563
0.89
0.25
0.239
"
0.595
29
0.490
0.32
0.15
0.487
0.216
' .
0.649
30
0.473
0.69
0.50
0.516
0.207
0.629
311
1 0.494
1
0.01
0.423
MGD averse
1 0.517
MGD averse
1 0.421
MGD averse
0.465
MGD average

TOWN OF FAIRMONT t�
P.O. Box 2481rAIRMONT, N.C. 28
. (, O, PHONE [phone]
JAN 61995 �
December 29, 1994 4'
Si.C✓W!V!
Mr. Preston Howard, Jr. P. E. " " rj 1995
Director, N.C. Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 29535 pIV. Ot LF'1`OP ?.nt1iAL MUm
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535 G yu��..YgrQE
Attention: Mr, Jay Luc'
_... r .iAid � � W1
Re: Permit No. NC 0021059
Town of Fairmont, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Howard:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Town of Fairmont.,$ The draft of the above
referenced permit does not allow for a relaxation of the 85% suspended solids
(TSS) and 85% bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal rules. We believe that
the Town treatment system meets the criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 133.103
(d) and that lower percentage removal rates are appropriate. Each criterion
in 40 CFR Part 133.103(d) is restated below, and the basis for our assertion
that the criterion has been met follows that statement:
1) The treatment works is consistently meeting, or will consistently meet,
its permit effluent concentration limits but its percent removal require-
ment cannot be met due to less concentrated influent wastewater.
The attached Table 1 shows the monthly average influent and effluent data
for flow, suspended solids, and BOD at the Fairmont wastewater treatment
plant for the period from January 1992 to November 1994. This data
documents that the Town consistently met the 30 mg/L permit standards for
both effluent TSS and effluent BOD. Influent suspended solids ranged
from 33 to 227 mg/L and average only 93 mg/L, while influent BOD ranged
from 38 to 187 mg/L and average only 116 mg/L. These influent values are
substantially less than the 200 mg/L to 250 mg/L normally associated with
municipal wastewater. Influent and effluent TSS averaged 71 and 17mg/L,
respectively for the 18 months that 85% removal was not obtained. Had the
average influent suspended solids been only 113 mg/L for these months,
the 85% removal level would have been met. The inability to achieve 85%
removal is clearly due to low influent suspended solids. Influent and
effluent BOD averaged 98 and 19 mg/L, respectively for the 12 months that
85% removal was not obtained. Had the average influent HOD been only
127 mg/L for these months, the 85% removal level would have been met.
The inability to achieve 85% removal is clearly due to low influent BOD.

Page 2
2) To meet the percent removal requirements, the treatment works would have
to achieve significantly more stringent limitations than would otherwise
be required by the concentration base standards.
Achieving an 85% removal rate, based on the influent TSS data presented
on the attached Table 1, would require effluent suspended solids in the
6 mg/L to 17 mg/L range, depending on the month selected. Based on the
average for all months that 85% removal was not obtained, the required
average effluent suspended solids level would have to be 11 mg/L.
Similarly, 85% BOD removal can be demonstrated from data given in Table 1
to require effluent in the 6 mg/L to 23 mg/L range, depending on the month
selected. Based on the average for all months that 85% removal was not
obtained, the required average effluent BOD level would have to be 15 mg/L.
The required effluent TSS and BOD concentration levels in many months
would be substantially more stringent than the 30 mg/L concentration
limits given in the permit.
3) The less concentrated influent wastewater is not the result of excessive
infiltration or inflow (III).
The less concentrated influent is not the result of excessive I/I.
As the attached Table 1 data shows, monthly average daily flows have
ranged from as low as 0.130 mgd to as high as 0.517 mgd. When the
average suspended solids and BOD removal are tracked, it is noted that
there is no correlation between flow and removal rates. For instance,
the highest and lowest flows for months in which 85% of BOD removal was
not obtained were 0.517 mgd and 0.160 mgd, respectively. Likewise, the
highest and lowest flows for months in which 85% of BOD removal was obtained
were 0.423 mgd and 0.130 mgd, respectively. The same is true with the
removal of suspended solids. This shows that removal rates do not fluctuate
according to the flow occurring.
While the Town acknowledges that infiltration and inflow occurs, it does
not believe this to be excessive infiltration and inflow in the context
of 40 CFR Part 133.103(d). Excessive infiltration and inflow in this
context is extraneous flow that is more cost-effective to correct than to
treat. The Town has expended great effort to correct infiltration and
inflow. It does not appear to the Town that correcting further flow is
more economical than treatment. While the Town will continue to look for
infiltration and inflow sources and fix them when found, it does not
appear at this time to be more cost-effective to remove the flow than to
treat it. Therefore, even were infiltration and inflow contributing to
the low suspended solids and BOD removal rates, this should not preclude
relaxing the 85% removal requirement.

Page 3
s
It is trusted that this information satisfactorily documents the Town's position.
We ask that the suspended solids and BOD removal percentages permit requirements
be changed to values in the 65% - 70% range.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF FAIRMONT
,/V� J��p �PC,4-
Helen Lockley
Interim Town Manager
HL/sp
cc: The Wooten Company

l� TAB.L1, 1
FAIRMON T WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PERFORMANCE SUN-MMARY
Flow
GODS
DATE
Ayg
Inf
Eff f. %
Inf
k:ff
msd
mg/L
Rem
mg/L
mg/L
Rem
Jan-92
U.18b
85
7 9147b
55
14 '
7.)%
Feb-92
0.163
119
9 92%
6S _
15
78%
Mar-92 •
0.146
116 •_
9 1 '93two
11U
18
84%
Apr-92
0.130
169
13 , 92%
128
17
87%
May-92
0.160
94
1$ i 81 %
53
24
55%
Jun-92
0.166
119
6 95%
166
_ 19
85
Jul-92
0.159
78
9 89%
159
13
92%
Au 92
0.204
14'3
5 97%
104
S
92C/n
Sep-92
0.161
104
6 � 94%
89
10-
89%
Oct-92
0.169
88
5 94%
_ 62
19 '
6900
N,ov-92
0.171
118
�8 93%
109
12I
89%
Dcc-92
0.172
92
18 80%
83
22.
74%
]an-93
0.245
38
10 75%
47
18
15 i
63%v
79%
Feb-93
0.168
80
19 76%
72
w
Mar-91
_
0.170
81
18 78%
90
16
82%
Apr-93
0.163
65
18 1 72%
98
_ 18
81%
May-93
0.158
128
6 95%
109
19
82%
Jun-93
0.164
108
9 91% -
84
15
82%
Jul-93
_
0.176
Y 90
8 91%
76
13
83%
Aug-93
0.176
97 7 93%
80
11
87%
Sep-93
oabti
170
16 ' 9XC/o
120
13
89%
Oct-93
0.168
137
14 93%
227
12
95%
Nov-93
0.169
152
_
15 9017C
123
17
86%
Doc-93
Q.172
140
Z i 83%
106
_ 13
88%
Jan-94
0,180
.
105
__.
17 84%u
72
14
81 %
Feb-94
0.260
190
10 ' 94%
144
19
87%
_
N1ar-94
0.435
140
241 83%
81
8
91%
Apr-94
0.380
145
17 1 89%
42
7 j
85%
May-94
0.257
154�
28 82%
f�2
8
88%
• 4
Jinn 9
0.423
125
19 85%
.. 97
6 .
94%
Jul-94
0.448
123
.. 24 80%
143
11
92%
Aug-94
0,517 1
83
14- 831/o
53
17 (
68%
Sep-94
OA20
77
20 74%c
54
26
51%
Oct-94
0.251
138
17 88%
33
2
_ 93%
Nov-94
0.30,5
- 97
13 86%
57
13
78%
Averages
p.228
116
14
87%
93
14
82%
Min Aygi
0.130
38
5
729
33
2
51%
Max Avgl
0.517
187
28
97%
227
261
95%a
*20 "Cl -A-Mlz$-UWO3 t43.LOOM 3H1 4BV: 6 nH1 *b6-6.z-03a

Off.ice of the State Climatologist
March 8, 1995
Jay Lucas
Water Quality Section, DEM
Dear Mr. Lucas:
I apologize for the delay with your request for precipitation
information for the Fairmont, NC area. You had requested data from June
'94 through January '95, and I was holding back in hopes that my data
archive would be further updated after the beginning of the month.
I was counting primarily on the Lumberton station to fill your
request. Unfortunately, we only have precipitation values through
December 1994 for Lumberton, but I have included these for you. Happily,
though, the Whiteville surface station has data for the time you need.
I had not originally planned to use this station, but closer inspection
revealed that this observing site, located northwest of Whiteville, is
about as close to Fairmont as is the Lumberton station, which is
northwest of Lumberton. So, I believe we have something that will fill
your needs.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or need further
explanation. A 'Om' entry indicates that the data is missing. Thanks
for your patience!
Sincerely,
Thomas Keever
Assistant State Climatologist

Session lame: climate.nrrc.ncsu.edu
Page I
Station: (315177) LUMBERTON 6 NW,NC
Year: 1994
Element: Precipitation (in)
Day
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1
0
0
0
.17
0
.08
0
0
0
0
.02
0
2
1.31
0
1.25
0
.08
0
0
.28
.06
0
0
0
3
0
0
.66
0
0
0
0
0
1.70
.08
0
0
4
.38
0
0
0
1.40
0
0
0
.51
.38
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
.14
0
.35
0
.07
0
0
.80
6
0
.21
0
.01
0
1.40
0
.99
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
.05
0
1.92
0
.01
.04
0
0
0
8
.04
0
.03
0
0
.02
.11
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
.08
0
0
.17
0
.14
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
11
0
.29
.24
0
0
3.18
0
0
.01
.06
0
.39
12
1.03
.43
0
0
0
1.41
.37
.67
0
0
.01
.12
13
.10
.01
0
.05
0
.01
.37
.07
0
.30
0
0
14
.02
.01
.28
.27
0
0
0
0
0
2.82
0
.03
15
.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
0
.53
0
.10
16
0
0
0
1.63
.15
0
.05
2.32
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.45
0
0
.88
.33
18
.72
0
0
0
0
.40
0
.17
0
0
.01
.01
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
.23
1.41
1.91
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
.01
0
0
.01
1.80
0
0
.20
.01
0
22
0
0
.02
0
.07
0
.74
.27
.12
0
.64
0
23
0
.04
0
0
0
1.08
.06
0
0
.09
0
1.32
24
0
.76
0
0
0
.43
.66
0
0
0
0
.48
25
0
0
.46
0
0
.04
0
0
.67
0
0
0
26
.01
0
.01
0
0
.01
.11
0
.03
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
.91
.30
0
0
0
0
.11
0
28
.12
0
.02
0
.01
.60
1.10
.89
0
0
.57
0
29
1.10
1.07
0
0
.32
.48
0
0
0
.12
0
30
.16
0
0
0
.69
0
0
0
.17
.47
0
31
.29
.15
.07
0
0
.49
.01
Sum 5.31 1.83 4.33 2.18 3.00 11.90 6.57 7.59 5.12 5.12 2.84 3.60
Data values are for 24 hours ending at 8:00 am

Session Name: climate.nrrc.ncsu.edu
Page 1
Station: (319357) WHITEVILLE 7 NW,NC
Year: 1994
Element: Precipitation (in)
Day
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1
0
0
0
0
0
.13
0
.05
0
0
0
0
2
1.26
0
1.82
0
.38
0
0
.12
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
.56
0
0
0
0
0
1.50
.11
0
0
4
.30
0
0
0
1.52
0
0
0
.20
.27
0
0
5
0
.02
0
0
.05
0
.05
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
.20
0
.15
0
.02
1.46
.92
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
.15
0
.22
.29
.92
.06
0
0
0
8
.14
0
0
0
.30
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
.02
.18
0
0
1.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
.64
.10
0
0
.95
0
0
0
.13
.13
.75
12
1.29
.42
0
0
0
.88
0
.11
0
0
0
0
13
0
.02
0
0
0
0
.02
.13
0
.32
0
0
14
.18
0
.11
.33
0
0
0
0
0
3.54
0
.06
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.07
0
.20
0
.12
16
0
0
0
1.55
.11
0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.03
0
0
.80
.32
18
.90
0
0
0
0
0
0
.35
0
0
.01
.05
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
2.14
1.06
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
.10
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
.11
1.95
.12
.01
.09
0
0
22
0
0
.05
0
.15
0
0
.52
.18
0
.22
0
23
0
0
0
.13
0
.22
.05
0
0
.28
0
1.35
24
0
.35
0
0
0
0
.62
0
0
0
0
.61
25
0
0
.40
0
0
0
0
0
1.78
0
0
0
26
0
0
.02
0
0
.10
0
0
.03
0
0
0
27
.01
0
0
0
1.75
.25
0
0
0
0
.62
0
28
.10
0
0
0
0
.21
.97
.25
0
0
.02
0
29
.61
.77
0
0
.15
.44
0
0
0
.07
0
30
.35
0
0
0
.50
.08
0
0
.12
.48
0
31
.22
.25
.33
.07
0
.28
0
Sum 5.36 1.82 4.26 2.31 4.59 5.56 6.20 6.93 4.82 5.34 2.35 3.26
Data values are for 24 hours ending at 8:00 am

Session Name: climate.nrrc.ncsu.edu
Page 1
Station: (319357) WHITEVILLE 7 NW,NC
Year: 1995
Element: Precipitation (in)
Day
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1
.28
0
1.07
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
2
0
Om
.18
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
3
0
Om
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
4
0
.30
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
5
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
6
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
7
2.40
0
.07
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
8
2.40
.10
.21
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
9
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
10
0
.03
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
11
Om
1.34
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
12
0
.36
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
13
0
.03
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
14
.18
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
15
1.75
.07
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
16
0
.35
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
17
0
.54
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
18
0
1.53
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
19
.02
.06
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
20
.28
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
21
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
22
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
23
.05
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
24
.45
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
25
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
26
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
27
0
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
28
.10
0
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
29
.56
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
30
.02
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
31
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
0
Sum
8.49
4.71
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Data values are for 24 hours ending at 7:00 am

Page 1
Note for Jay Lucas
From: Tom Poe
Date: Thu, Mar 23,1995 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: Fairmont in Robeson County
To: Jay Lucas
NO INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGED TO POTW
Their industries are dry / domestic only
NO PRETREATMENT NEEDED
This info. confirmed by Paul Rawls FRO 3/22/95 who has inspected the Town and
industries there. The SOC and tox problems are ammonia based and result of discharging to
small zero? flow stream.
Hope this helps, tsp
From: Jay Lucas on Mon, Mar 20, 1995 12:56 PM
Subject: Fairmont in Robeson County
To: Tom Poe
Please let me know if this town has any industries connected to their WWTP. (NC0021059)
Thanks.
.r

MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, Permits and Engineering Unit
TO: Michael Wicker, FRO
FROM: Jay Lucas kWTP,
� -
SUBJECT: Fairmont NC0021059
DATE: January 20, 1995
The Town of Fairmont is requesting that we reduce the 85% removal
condition in their permit.
Please let me know your comments and call me if you have any questions.
cc: Project File

TELEPHONE LOG
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, Permits and Engineering Unit
TO: Jay Lucas
FROM. Michael Wicker, FRO
SUBJECT: NC0021059, Fairmont WVVTP
DATE: January 27, 1995
Michael Wicker called to give me comments about Fairmont's request
for relaxation of the 85% removal requirement in their permit for
BOD and TSS. He said the requirement may be an EPA regulation
which cannot be changed. If this is the case, the permit should not
be modified.

§35.2005 40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-94 Ed81on) I Environmental Protection Agency
ties associated with alternatives to
conventional treatment works in small
communities.
(11) Combined sewer. A sewer that is
designed as a sanitary sewer and a
storm sewer.
(12) Complete waste treatment system. A
complete waste treatment system con-
sists of all the treatment works nec-
essary to meet the requirements of
title III of the Act, involving: (i) The
transport of wastewater from Individ-
ual homes or buildings to a plant or fa-
cility where treatment of the
wastewater is accomplished; (ii) the
treatment of the wastewater to remove
pollutants; and (III) the ultimate dis-
posal, including recycling or reuse, of
the treated wastewater and residues
which result from the treatment proc-
ess.
(13) Construction. Any one or more of
the following: Preliminary planning to
determine the feasibility of treatment
works, engineering, architectural,
legal, fiscal, or economic investiga-
tions or studies, surveys, designs,
plans, working drawings, specifica-
tions, procedures, field testing of inno-
vative or alternative wastewater treat-
ment processes and techniques (exclud-
ing operation and maintenance) meet-
ing guidelines promulgated under sec-
tion 304(d)(3) of the Act, or other nec-
essary actions, erection, building, ac-
quisition, alteration, remodeling, im-
provement, or extension of treatment
works, or the inspection or supervision
of any of the foregoing items.
(14) Conventional technology.
Wastewater treatment processes and
techniques involving the treatment of
wastewater at a centralized treatment
plant by means of biological or phys-
ical/chemical unit processes followed
by direct point source discharge to sur-
face waters.
(15) Enforceable requirements of the
Act. Those conditions or limitations of
section 402 or 404 permits which, if vio-
lated, could result in the issuance of a
compliance order or initiation of a
civil or criminal action under section
309 of the Act or applicable State laws.
If a permit has not been issued, the
term shall include any requirement
which, in the Regional Administrator's
judgment, would be included in the per-
mit when issued. Where no permit ap-
plies, the term shall include any re-
quirement which the Regional Admin-
istrator determines is necessary for the
best practicable waste treatment tech-
nology to meet applicable criteria.
(16) Excessive infiltration/inflow. The
quantities of Infiltration/inflow which
can be economically eliminated from a
sewer system as determined in a cost-
effectiveness analysis that compares
the costs for correcting the infiltra-
tion/inflow conditions to the total
costs for transportation and treatment
of the Infiltrationtinflow. (See
H 35.2005(b) (28) and (29) and 35.2120.)
(17) Field testing. Practical and gen-
erally small-scale testing of innovative
or alternative technologies directed to
verifying performance and/or refining
design parameters not sufficiently test-
ed to resolve technical uncertainties
which prevent the funding of a promis-
ing improvement in innovative or al-
ternative treatment technology.
(18) Individual systems. Privately
owned alternative wastewater treat-
ment works (including dual waterlessl
gray water systems) serving one or
more principal residences, or small
commercial establishments. Normally
these are onsite systems with localized
treatment and disposal of wastewater,
but may be systems utilizing small di-
ameter gravity, pressure or vacuum
sewers conveying treated or partially
treated wastewater. These systems can
also include small diameter gravity
sewers carrying raw wastewater to
cluster systems.
(19) Industrial user. Any nongovern-
mental, nonresidential user of a pub-
licly owned treatment works which is
identified in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, 1972, Office of
Management and Budget, as amended
and supplemented, under one of the fol-
lowing divisions:
Division A. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fish-
ing
Division B. Mining
Division D. Manufacturing
Division E. Transportation, Communications,
Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services
Division I. Services
(20) Infiltration. Water other than
wastewater that enters a sewer system
(including sewer service connections
and foundation drains) from the ground
through such means as defective pipes,
586
pipe joints, connections, or manholes.
Infiltration does not include, and is
distinguished from, inflow.
(21) Inflow. Water other than
wastewater that enters a sewer system
(including sewer service connections)
from sources such as, but not limited
to, roof leaders, cellar drains, yard
drains, area drains, drains from springs
and swampy areas, manhole covers,
cross connections between storm sew-
ers and sanitary sewers, catch basins,
cooling towers, storm waters, surface
runoff, street wash waters, or drainage.
Inflow does not include, and is distin-
guished from, infiltration.
(22) Initiation of operation. The date
specified by the grantee on which use
of the project begins for the purpose for
which it was planned, designed, and
built.
(23) Innovative technology. Developed
wastewater treatment processes and
techniques which have not been fully
proven under the circumstances of
their contemplated use and which rep-
resent a significant advancement over
the state of the art in terms of slgnifl-
cant reduction in life cycle cost or sig-
nificant environmental benefits
through the reclaiming and reuse of
water, otherwise eliminating the dis-
charge of pollutants, utilizing recy-
cling techniques such as land treat-
ment, more efficient use of energy and
resources, improved or new methods of
waste treatment management for com-
bined municipal and industrial sys-
tems, or the confined disposal of pol-
lutants so that they will not migrate
to cause water or other environmental
pollution.
(24) Interceptor sewer. A sewer which
is designed for one or more of the fol-
lowing purposes:
(I) To intercept wastewater from a
final point in a collector sewer and
convey such wastes directly to a treat-
ment facility or another interceptor.
(11) To replace an existing wastewater
treatment facility and transport the
wastes to an adjoining collector sewer
or interceptor sewer for conveyance to
a treatment plant.
(III) To transport wastewater from
one or more municipal collector sewers
to another municipality or to a re-
gional plant for treatment.

a..
intends to serve the special district's
facility or the surrounding community.
(28) Nonexcessive infiltration. The
quantity of flow which Is less than 120
gallons per capita per day (domestic
base now and infiltration) or the quan-
tity of infiltration which cannot be
economically and effectively 011mi-
nated from a sewer system as deter-
mined in a cost-effectiveness analysis.
(See §§ 352005(b)(16) and 35.2120.)
(29) Nonexcessive inflow. The maxi-
mum total flow rate during storm
events which does not result in chronic
operational problems related to hy-
draulic overloading of the treatment
works or which does not result 1n a
total now of more than 275 gallons per
capita per day (domestic base flow plus
infiltration plus inflow). Chronic oper-
ational problems may include sur-
charging, backups, bypasses, and over-
flows. (See §§35.2005(b)(16) and 35.2120).
(30) Operation and Maintenance. Ac-
tivities required to assure the depend-
able and economical function of treat-
ment works.
(i) Maintenance: Preservation of func-
tional integrity and efficiency of equip-
ment and structures. This includes Pre-
ventive maintenance, corrective main-
tenance and replacement of equipment
(See §35.2005(b)(36)) as needed.)
(ii) Operation: Control of the unit
processes and equipment which make
up the treatment works. This includes
financial and personnel management;
records, laboratory control, process
control, safety and emergency oper-
ation planning.
(31) Principal residence. For the pur-
poses of §35.2034, the habitation of a
family or household for at least 51 per-
cent of the year. Second homes, vaca-
tion or recreation residences are not
included in this definition.
(32) Project. The activities or tasks
the Regional Administrator identifies
in the grant agreement for which the
grantee may expend, obligate or com-
mit funds.
(33) Project performance standards. The
performance and operations require-
ments applicable to a project including
the enforceable requirements of the
Act and the specifications, Including
the quantity of excessive infiltration
and inflow proposed to be eliminated,
which the project is planned and de-
signed to meet.
(34) Priority water quality areas. For
the purposes of §35.2016, specific stream
segments or bodies of water, as deter-
mined by the State, where municipal
discharges have resulted in the impair-
ment of a designated use or significant
public health risks, and where the re-
duction of pollution from such dis-
charges will substantially restore sur-
face or groundwater uses.
(36) Project schedule. A timetable
specifying the dates of key project
events including public notices of
proposed procurement actions, sub -
agreement awards, issuance of notice
to proceed with building, key mile-
stones in the building schedule,
completion of building, initiation of
operation and certification of the
project.
(36) Replacement. Obtaining and in-
stalling equipment, accessories, or ap-
purtenances which are necessary dur-
ing the design or useful life, whichever
is longer, of the treatment works to
maintain the capacity and performance
for which such works were designed
and constructed.
(37) Sanitary sewer. A conduit in-
tended to carry liquid and water -car-
ried wastes from residences, commer-
cial buildings, industrial plants and in-
stitutions together with minor quan-
tities of ground, storm and surface wa-
ters that are not admitted inten-
tionally.
(38) Services. A contractor's labor,
time or efforts which do not involve
the delivery of a specific end item,
other than documents (e.g., reports, de-
sign drawings, specifications). This
term does not include employment
agreements or collective bargaining
agreements.
(39) Small commercial establishments.
For purposes of §35.2034 private estab-
lishments such as restaurants, hotels,
stores, filling stations, or recreational
facilities and private, nonprofit enti-
ties such as churches, schools, hos-
pitals, or charitable organizations with
dry weather wastewater flows less than
25,000 gallons per day.
(40) Small Community. For purposes of
§§35.2020(b) and 35.2032. any municipal-
ity with a population of 3,500 or less or
highly dispersed sections of larger mu-
588
Envir0nMGntG1 Protection Agency
nicipalitles, as determined by the Re-
gional Administrator.
(41) State. A State, the District of Co-
lumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Amer-
ican Samoa, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Marianas. For the pur-
poses of applying for a grant under sec-
tion
ltState
(in-
cluding its agencies) is subject to the
limitations vial districts contained n
ti-
ties and ape
§35.2005(b)(27)(fi). (42) State agency.lye State agency
designated by the Governor having re-
sponsibility for administration Ofthe
construction grants program
sec-
tion under 205(g) of the Act.
(43) Step 1. Facilities
�ilitie Planing -
of design
(44) Step
drawings and specifications.
(45) Step 3. Building of a treatment
works and related services and sup-
pl(46) Step 2+3. Design and building of a
treatment works and building related
services and supplies.
(47) Step 7. Design building of treat'
ment works wherein a grantee awards
a single contract for designing an<
building certain treatment works.
(48) Storm sewer. A sewer designed to
carry only storm waters, surface run
off, street wash waters, and drainage.
(49) Treatment works. Any devices an
systems for the storage, treatment, re
cycling, and reclamation o m nid ie
sewage, domestic sewage,
dustrlal wastes used to implement Be,
tion 201 of the Act, or necessary
cycle or reuse water at the most ec'
comical cost over the design life of t]
works. These include gong Be'
era, outfall sewers, swage
systems, individual systems. pumpin
power, and other equipment and the
appurtenances; extensions. improN
meat, remodeling, additions,
00ns, and al
to
ations thereof;
al
provide a reliable recycled supply so
as ts and elf
well facilities and any works, Well
jag acquisition of the land that will
an integral part of the treatment pr
sea or is used for ultimate disposal
residues resulting
tm
(including stooragfoe of such compost I
temporary storage

§ 35.2120 40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-94 Editon)
Environmental Protection Agency
or an option for the purchase of eligible
land or advance building on minor por-
tions of treatment works) after com-
pletion of the environmental review as
required by § 35.2113.
(2) If the Regional Administrator ap-
proves preliminary Step 3 work, such
approval is not an actual or implied
commitment of grant assistance and
the applicant proceeds at its own risk.
(b) Any procurement is subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 33, and In
the case of acquisition of eligible real
property, 40 CFR part 4.
(Approved by the office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
[49 FR 6234. Feb. 17. 1984, as amended at 55
FR 27097. June 29, 19901
§ 35.2120 Inflltration/fnflow.
(a) General. The applicant shall dem-
onstrate to the Regional Administra-
tor's satisfaction that each sewer sys-
tem discharging into the proposed
treatment works project is not or will
not be subject to excessive infiltration/
inflow. For combined sewers, inflow is
not considered excessive in any event.
(b) Inflow. If the rainfall induced
peak inflow rate results or will result
in chronic operational problems during
storm events, or the rainfall -induced
total flow rate exceeds 275 geed during
storm events, the applicant shall per-
form a study of the sewer system to de-
termine the quantity of excessive in-
flow and to propose a rehabilitation
program to eliminate the excessive in-
flow. All cases in which facilities are
planned for the specific storage and/or
treatment of inflow shall be subject to
a cost-effectiveness analysis.
(c) Infiltration. (1) If the flow rate at
the existing treatment facility is 120
gallons per capita per day or less dur-
ing periods of high groundwater, the
applicant shall build the project in-
cluding sufficient capacity to transport
and treat any existing infiltration.
However, if the applicant believes any
specific portion of its sewer system is
subject to excessive infiltration, the
applicant may confirm its belief In a
cost-effectiveness analysts and propose
a sewer rehabilitation program to
eliminate that specific excessive infil-
tration.
(2) If the flow rate at the existing
treatment facility 1s more than 120 gal-
lons per capita per day during period,
of high groundwater, the applicant
shall either:
(i) Perform a study of the sewer sys•
tem to determine the quantity of ex-
cessive infiltration and to proposes
sewer rehabilitation program to elimi.
nate the excessive infiltration; or
(if) If the flow rate is not signin.
cantly more than 120 gallons per capita
per day, request the Regional Adminis.
trator to determine that he may pro•
teed without further study, in which
case the allowable project cost will be
limited to the cost of a project with a
capacity of 120 gallons per capita per
day under Appendix A.G.2.a.
(Approved by the office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
(49 FR 6234, Feb. 17, 1984, as amended at 50
FR 45895, Nov. 4, 1985]
§35.2122 Approval of user charge syo
tem and proposed sewer use ordl.
nance.
If the project is for Step 3 grant as.
sistance, unless it is solely for acquisi.
tion of eligible land, the applicant
must obtain the Regional Administra.
tor's approval of its user charge system
(05.2140) and proposed (or existing)
sewer use ordinance §35.2130). If the ap•
plicant has a sewer use ordinance or
user charge system in affect, the appli-
cant shall demonstrate to the Regional
Administrator's satisfaction that they
meet the requirements of this part and
are being enforced.
(Approved by the office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
135.2123 Reserve capacity.
EPA will limit grant assistance for
reserve capacity as follows:
(a) If EPA awarded a grant for a Step
3 interceptor segment before December
29. 1981, EPA may award grants for re-
maining interceptor segments included
in the facilities plan with reserve ca-
pacity as planned, up to 40 years.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(a) of this section, if EPA awards a
grant for a Step 3 or Step 3 segment of
a primary, secondary, or advanced
treatment facility or its interceptor$
included in the facilities plan before
October 1, 1984, the grant for that Step
3 or Step 3 segment, and any remaining
604
segments, may include 20 Years reserve
capacity.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, after September 30,
1984, no grant shall be made to provide
reserve capacity for a project for sec-
ondarY treatment or more stringent
treatment or new Interceptors and ap-
purtenances. Grants for such projects
sball be based on capacity necessary to
serve existing needs (including existing
needs of residential, commercial, in-
dustrial, and other users) as deter-
mined on the date of the approval of
the Step 3 grant. Grant assistance
awarded after September 30, 1990 shall
be limited to the needs existing on Sep-
tember 30, 1990.
(d) For any application with capacity
in excess of that provided by this sec-
tion:
(1) All incremental costs shall be
paid by the applicant. Incremental
costs include all costs which would not
have been incurred but for the addi-
tional excess capacity, i.e., any cost in
addition to the most cost-effective al-
temative with eligible reserve capacity
described under paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section.
(2) It must be determined that the ac-
tual treatment works to be built meets
the requirements of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act and all applies,
his laws and regulations.
(3) The Regional Administrator shall
approve the plans, specifications and
estimates for the actual treatment
works.
(4) The grantee shall assure the Re-
gional Administrator satisfactorily
that it has assessed the costs and fi-
nancial impacts of the actual treat-
ment works and has the capability to
finance and manage their construction
and operation.
(5) The grantee must implement a
user charge system which applies to
the entire service area of the grantee.
(6) The grantee shall execute appro-
priate grant conditions or releases pro-
tecting the Federal Government from
any claim for any of the costs of con-
struction due to the additional capac-
ity.

r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
North Carolina
Department of Administration
April 5, 1994
Mr. Marshall Ellis
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ellis:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Re: SCH File #94-E-4300-0572; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact - Proposed Construction of
Park Facilities at Lumber River State Park and State River
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. No comments were
made by any state/local agencies in the course of this review.
Therefore, no further environmental review action on your part is
required for the compliance with the Act.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
LO
�, =71 i
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
CB:jf
cc: Regions N & 0
116 West ]ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 5W1-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

YORKSHIRE CNTR-NC PARK Fax:[phone]
DIVISION OF PARKS .AID
M -Zb 194
MEMaRANDUM
TO: Jonathan B. Howes, Secretar. ;
THROUGH: Joan LL W ista�at Seezetary
cKne�Il :j j •,.:�I
FROM: Phil 11 y
SUBJECT: Lumber River State Park NSas';Pn
Attached for your review and approv is;:icvpy of't
Park.
The draft leas undergope both a public a S
received through the Clearinghouse review:; Both owl: s
of the public hearing. 1 A summary ofgu�c + ;.
'
is also attached. No szgn�cM changes to •tl�ie':. t' °p
Jun 20 ' 95 1 2A 7 P. 02 rr`0 r
draft master plan for Lumber Raver State
�earinghous�' review. No comments were
written comments were received as a part
Division responses to those comments
be made as a result of public comments.
Opposition to the plan bas come almost enwei _fr0M.... !family that lives and farms on some of the
d for the main + acl h' J ` The Pea i�e site is the only good site
land at Pea Ridge needs p ..
downstream from Lumberton for location ;ti main' ' k headquarters. Because it is by far the
U
best site, and because -a majority of. Pea 'R ge :lido are cooperative, we recommend that Pea
Pea Ride bas excellent road
Ridge remain in the plan as the locats ;tom, park gaartess. g
access and lies between Division -owned Net Rojo and Princess Ann. Both the
� . •� 'a�:,Y:��
Lumber River Park Advisory Committee, of Palrks, Recreation, and Tourism
Ma
endorse ;the draft plan.
, ;� � .. • � ::� :'y
Pending your approval of the draft, NCS00ir,proceec !kith printing the final plan. The fmal plan
Will contain photographs and color maps,.." g it a h more professional look than the draft.
The edfor 1 without changes.
draft master plan is appro�' p , 8
� noted. �..
The draft master plan is approved writii.��•tlie ' ;1
•. I .
Vdie • il• y• '1 I'.
� I' •I. i .I• Il •
PKWnch
Attachments
i •, ! . 1 ;, 1.

LUMBER RIVER STATE RIVER
AND STATE PARK
FROM SR 1412 (SCOTLAND CO.)
TO S. C. STATE UNE
PHASE I
74 `•, SR 2121
PINEY ISLAND i ✓ '
CANOE CAMP I'�
PEA RIDGE
ACCESS AREA.13 i
}
5
PRINCESS ANNE
ACCESS AREA
FAIR BLUFF
LEGEND
-- MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY
0 RIVER ACCESS ONLY
Q LAND ACCESS
ow. BOAT RAMP ACCESS
76
Figure -

v
u• �. a , •
e
Figure 10
e4AT brCGa s5
VI S IT4V� CSN TSV.
90416 I CAMPC�Etot��t0
�N�taAl
At?+4 tmAeATsvZ
JOaT Azcess
faslvsA4=
K I L?&E
ESS