NC0026671_Fact Sheet_20240820

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO026671
Permit Writer/Email Contact:Nick Coco,[e-mail]
Date: July/15/2024
Division/Branch:NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑ Renewal
® Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification(Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers,EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements,Engineering Alternatives Analysis,Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW),EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans,4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW),EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable,enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: Town of Elizabethtown/Elizabethtown Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP)
Applicant Address: PO Box 700,Elizabethtown,NC 28337
Facility Address: 699 Scout Lane,Elizabethtown,NC 28337
Permitted Flow: 1.225 MGD with proposed expansion to 2.75 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class: Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System; Grade IV upon
expansion
Treatment Units: Bar Screen; Grit Removal; Activated Sludge via SBR,Aeration Basins, and
Clarifiers; Chlorine Disinfection and Dechlorination
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Yes; Inactive
County: Bladen
Region Fayetteville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Elizabethtown
applied on December 21, 2023 for an NPDES permit renewal at 1.225 MGD for the Elizabethtown
WWTP,with a request for a proposed expansion tier at 3.55 MGD.After review of State Demographer
residential data and further discussion with the Town, it was determined that a more appropriate
expansion flow tier is 2.75 MGD. The Town officially requested the 2.75 MGD flow tier on June 28,
2024. The newly proposed 2.75 MGD expansion project is receiving funding via the American Rescue
Plan Act(ARPA). An Engineering Alternatives Analysis was submitted with the application. Flow
projections and engineering alternatives are discussed in detail below in Section 8 Antidegradation
Review.
This facility serves a population of approximately 3,400 residents. The facility has an approved
pretreatment program,which is currently inactive. Treated domestic wastewater is discharged via Outfall
001 into the Cape Fear River, a class C waterbody in the Cape Fear River Basin. Outfall 001 is
approximately 11.5 miles above waters designated as WS-V.
Page 1 of 17

Inflow and Infiltration(I/L. In their application,the Town indicated that the facility is experiencing
approximately 0.721 MGD of 1/1. The Town is currently conducting line inspections,has completed an
asset management inventory and is performing service line repairs.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is currently stabilized in an aerobic digester and disposed of via McGill.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 —Cape Fear River
Stream Segment: 18-(26.75)
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area(mi2): 5017
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 4831
Winter 7Q10(cfs): 6221
30Q2 (cfs): 9291
Average Flow(cfs): 43981
IWC (%effluent): 4.6%2 at 1.225 MGD; 100%3 at proposed 2.75 MGD
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: Not listed; Meeting Criteria for all parameters in 2022 Integrated
Report
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State-wide Mercury TMDL implementation
Basin/HUC: Cape Fear River/03030005
Footnotes:
'Based on updated USGS stream statistics provided with January 27, 2020 Speculative Limits (attached).
2Per the 1998 CORMIX model results.
JJanuary 27, 2020 Speculative Limits letter indicated need for remodeling of the Instream Waste
Concentration(IWC)with a CORMIX model or equivalent due to the presence and potential interference
of Lock&Dam 2 below the discharge and reduced critical flows calculated by USGS. The Town has not
conducted any modeling to this point. As a result,the IWC is assumed to be 100%at the expanded flow
tier until the Town provides model results.
Per 15A NCAC IOC .0503(10),the stream segment of the Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam 1
upstream to Buckhorn Dam,which comprises the stream segment to which the Elizabethtown WWTP
discharges, is designated as primary nursery area(PNA)by the Wildlife Resources Commission.
However,this stream segment has not been designated as High Quality Waters (HQW)by the
Environmental Management Commission(EMC). During the 2017-2019 Triennial Review, it was
determined that it was not the EMC's intention to include all PNAs as HQW automatically,but would
have each go through the EMC's rulemaking process to be classified as HQW.
This revision to the rule was approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)
in April 2020,noting, "Within .0224(c)(2)(B),the State revised the reference to Primary Nursery Areas,
or"PNAs,"to now refer to"HQW-classified PNAs."This was clarified in the State's materials as being
modified in order to clarify that HQW-classified PNAs, as opposed to all PNAs,have discharge limits on
effluent concentrations. This is consistent with the expectation that a water must be designated as HQW
in order to the HQW wastewater discharge requirements to apply. This clarification does not change the
underlying intent of this provision. Therefore,the revision is approved as consistent with the CWA and
40 C.F.R. Part 131."
As this stream segment,while PNA,has not gone through the reclassification proceedings and been
classified as HQW, Class C standards have been applied.
Page 2 of 17

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2020 through May 2024.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit
Flow MGD 0.48 1.538 0.172 MA 1.225
BOD summer mg/l 3.4 19 2 WA 18.0
MA 12.0
BOD winter mg/1 3.4 27 2 WA 36.0
MA 24.0
NH3N summer mg/l 0.2 2.92 0.02 WA 6.0
MA 2.0
NH3N winter mg/l 0.2 3.93 0.04 WA 12.0
MA 4.0
TSS mg/l 3.0 48 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
DO mg/l 7.5 10.2 5.1 DA>5.0
pH SU 7.2 8.3 64 6.0>pH<
9.0
eomean
(geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml g 3.3
3100 < 1 WA 400
MA 200
Temperature ° C 19.7 30 7 Monitor&
Report
Total Residual Chlorine ug/1 24.8 49 < 1 DM 28
TN mg/l 7.6 29.8 2.16 Monitor&
Report
TKN mg/l 1.4 9.38 0.72 Monitor&
Report
NO2+NO3 mg/1 ` 28.64 1.12 Monitor&
Report
TP mg/l 2.9 9.2 0.7 Monitor&
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow;2)to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3)to provide data for future TMDL;4)based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee(in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring(Y/N): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Middle Cape Fear Basin Association(MCFBA)
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature
upstream from the riverbank at the Highway 701 Bridge and downstream on the upstream side of Lock
and Dam#2. As the permittee is a member of the MCFBA, instream monitoring requirements are
Page 3 of 17

provisionally waived. The nearest MCFBA stations are co-located with the permit-specified instream
sampling sites upstream at MCFBA station B8320000, located approximately 0.8 miles upstream of the
outfall and downstream at MCFBA station B8339000, located approximately 0.7 miles downstream of the
outfall. In addition to dissolved oxygen and temperature monitoring,MCFBA conducted upstream and
downstream monitoring for ammonia, fecal coliform, TKN,NO2+NO3,TP,pH, conductivity,total
suspended solids and turbidity. Downstream monitoring was conducted for chlorophyll-a and
orthophosphate as well. Instream data from June 2019 through December 2023 have been summarized
below in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter Units
Upstream Downstream
Average Max Min Average Max Min
DO(depth 0.1 m) mg/1 7.4 11.5 5.1 7.5 11.5 5.1
Temperature ° C 21.4 33.4 4.4 21.4 33.0 4.4
pH S.U. 6.8 7.5 6.2 1 6.8 7.8 6.2
Fecal Coliform #/l00mL (geomean) 3200 1 (geomean) 3800 2
27.0 29.2
Conductivity µmhos/cm 118 191 56 118 192 56
TSS mg/1 12.1 136 2.5 14.6 255 2.5
Turbidity NTU 16.3 206 3.2 16.3 218 3.4
Ammonia mg/1 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.02
TKN mg/1 0.8 2.48 0.32 0.8 1.65 0.02
NO2+NO3 mg/1 0.9 1.54 0.02 0.8 1.50 0.41
TP mg/1 0.16 0.36 0.061 0.16 0.347 0.05
Orthophosphate mg/l - - - 0.11 0.223 0.027
Chlorophyll-a mg/1 - - - 4.0 21.4 1
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between upstream
and downstream samples.A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value
result is<0.05.
Average downstream DO was above 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
Downstream DO was not observed at levels less than 4.0 mg/L during the period reviewed. It was
concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
Downstream temperature was greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] on one
occasion during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was greater than upstream temperature by
more than 2.8 degrees Celsius on one occasion during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no
statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature.
Downstream pH was not observed outside of the range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units(s.u.) [per 15A NCAC
02B .0211 (14)] during the period reviewed. Additionally, it was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream pH.
While downstream fecal coliform was observed at levels greater than 400/100mL on three occasions
during the period reviewed, each observance occurred concurrently with elevated upstream fecal coliform
levels greater than 400/100mL.Additionally, it was concluded that no statistically significant difference
exists between upstream and downstream fecal coliform.
Page 4 of 17

It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream TSS.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
turbidity. While downstream turbidity was observed at levels greater than 50 NTUs [per 15A NCAC 02B
.0211 (21)] during the period reviewed on 1 occasion,this observance occurred concurrently with
elevated upstream turbidity levels.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
TKN,NO2+NO3,ammonia or total phosphorous.
Downstream chlorophyll-a was not observed at levels greater than 40 ug/L [per 15A NCAC 02B
.0211(4)] during the period reviewed.
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported two
fecal coliform limit violations, one in 2019 and one in 2020,both resulting in enforcement.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests conducted from March 2020 through December 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in April 2024 reported that the facility was compliant with NPDES permit NC0026671.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
The Division provided speculative limits for an expansion to 2.75 MGD on January 27,2020. The
proposed limits are shown below.
Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitations
Monthly Weekly Daily Maximum
Average Average
Flow 2.75/3.55 MGD
BODs(Apr.-Oct.) 5.0 m L 7.5 m L
BODs Nov.-Mar. 10.0 m 15.0 m
NH3 as N(Apr.-Oct.) 1.0 m L 3.0 m
NH3 as N Nov.-Mar. 2.0 m L 6.0 m L
Dissolved Oxygen minimum 6.0 m
TSS 30 m /L 45 m /L
TRC 28 /L
Fecal coliform(geometric 200/100 nil 400/100 ml
mean)
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail TBD 1%
(Quarterly test)
1. Instream Waste Concentration will need to be remodeled with a CORMIX model or equivalent due to the presence
and potential interference of Lock&Dam 2 below the discharge and reduced critical flows calculated by the USGS
June 4,2019.
Page 5 of 17

See Dilution and Mixing Zones and Toxicity Testing Limitations for more information regarding toxicity
requirements.
Dilution and Mixing
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206,the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow(acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow(chronic Aquatic
Life;non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow(aesthetics); annual average flow(carcinogen,HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered(e.g., based on CORMIX model results): A
CORMIX model was run in 1998 for the facility upgrade from 0.7 to 1.225 MGD flow, completed in
April of that year. Division evaluation of the model(letter dated September 22, 1999)resulted in a 22:1
dilution factor,which would result in an IWC of 4.6%for chronic toxicity testing. The IWC of 4.6%was
added to the permit in a modification in January 2000. In the 2020 Speculative Limits Letter provided by
the Division, it was noted that the Instream Waste Concentration at the expanded flow tier would need to
be remodeled with a CORMIX model or equivalent due to the presence and potential interference of Lock
&Dam 2 below the discharge and reduced critical flows calculated by the USGS June 4,2019. The Town
has not conducted such a model to date. The IWC at the expanded flow tier is assumed to be 100%in the
absence of updated CORMIX information. Per Division policy capping the WET testing requirements at
90%, a chronic WET limit at 90%effluent will has been added at a quarterly frequency to the 2.75 MGD
flow tier.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): In
review of the Permittee's 1998 CORMIX model,DWQ had determined a mixing zone extending no more
than 200 m downstream from the discharge to be appropriate for the protection of aquatic life, in
particular benthic fauna near the shoreline that may be at risk from the riverbank discharge. The mixing
zone assumes a plume of 7.3 m width, 3.0 m depth and 0.06 m/s velocity.
As the facility is pursuing expansion and due to the presence and potential interference of Lock&Dam 2
below the discharge and reduced critical flows calculated by USGS,the 1998 CORMIX model results are
not considered applicable to the 2.75 MGD expansion flow tier. In the absence of an updated CORMIX
model,the IWC is considered to be 100% effluent at the 2.75 MGD flow tier. Per Division policy capping
the WET testing requirements at 90%, a chronic WET limit at 90%effluent will has been added at a
quarterly frequency to the 2.75 MGD flow tier. The Town may conduct an updated CORMIX model or
equivalent to develop an updated IWC and apply for major modification to revise permitting
requirements.
Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste(e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen(DO)water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD=30 mg/1 for Municipals)may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Per the Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan [CFRB WQP,DWQ 1996 and 2000], a field-calibrated QUAL2E
model indicated that assimilative capacity for oxygen-consuming wastes had been reached in the Cape
Fear River from the Town of Erwin to Lock and Dam#3. The Plan recommends that new and expanding
discharges conduct engineering alternatives and economic analyses. If no alternatives were feasible,then
limits would be required as follows:
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges>1 MGD: BOD5= 12 mg/L,NH3-N=2 mg/L.
Page 6 of 17

The permit limits for BOD5 and NH3-N are based on those recommended by the Basin Plan.No changes
are proposed at the current 1.225 MGD flow tier.
The Town is requesting expansion as part of this renewal. The Division provided speculative limits for
expansion to 2.75 MGD on January 27, 2020. These speculative limits are based on freezing the ultimate
BOD loading from the 1.225 MGD tier. The resultant BOD and ammonia limits are displayed above in
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs).
Note that, in the absence of an updated CORMIX model,the IWC is considered to be 100%effluent at
the 2.75 MGD flow tier. Review of toxicity-based ammonia limits at the 2.75 MGD flow tier in the
attached WLA found the proposed limits to be protective.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer)and 1.8 mg/l(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine(TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life(17 ug/1)and capped at 28 ug/l(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
permit limits TRC at a daily maximum of 28 ug/L. This limit has been reviewed in the attached WLA and
found to be protective at the existing 1.225 MGD. Review of TRC limits in the attached WLA for the
proposed 2.75 MGD flow tiers resulted in a daily maximum limit of 17 ug/L,due to the assumption that
the IWC is 100%at this tier.
Monthly average limits for summer and winter Ammonia of 2.0 mg/L and 4.0 mg/L,respectively, are
based on QUAL2E model recommendations for protection from oxygen-consuming wastes. Ammonia
limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and found to be protective at the existing 1.225 MGD
flow tier.No changes are proposed for ammonia at the 1.225 MGD flow tier. See Oxygen-Consuming
Waste Limitations for information regarding ammonia limitations at the 2.75 MGD flow tier.
Reasonable Potential Analysis(RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1)95% Confidence Level/95%Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3)use of detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6,2016,NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10,2016.
Effluent total hardness data were provided in the 3 effluent pollutant scans conducted by the Town.
Upstream total hardness was assumed to be the default value of 25 mg/L in lieu of data. Effluent and
upstream hardness monitoring has been added to the permit for assessment of hardness-dependent metals.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected as part of the facility's
2020,2021 and 2022 Effluent Pollutant Scans. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive
detections and associated water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis,the following
permitting actions are proposed for this permit:
Page 7 of 17

• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit(WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration:None
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set,two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration:
o The following parameter(s)will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: Total
Copper(at 2.75 MGD flow tier only)
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable concentration: Total
Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Cyanide, Total Lead,Total Nickel,
Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc, Total Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds,
Chloroform,Dichlorobromomethane
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance(per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement:
A chronic WET limit at 4.6%effluent,based on the results of a 1998 CORMIX model,will continue on a
quarterly frequency using Ceriodaphnia dubia. The IWC at the expanded flow tier is assumed to be 100%
in the absence of updated CORMIX information. Per Division policy capping the WET testing
requirements at 90%, a chronic WET limit at 90%effluent will has been added at a quarterly frequency to
the 2.75 MGD flow tier.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria(0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year(81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources(^2%of total load),the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs)for point source
Page 8 of 17

control. Municipal facilities>2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury(>1 ng/1)will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value(based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Table 3. Mercu Effluent Data Summa
2021 2022 2024
#of Samples 1 1 1
Annual Average Conc. n /L 1.3 < 1 1.67
Maximum Conc.,n /L 1.3 < 1 1.67
TBEL,n /L 47
WQBEL,n /L 132 1.225 MGD, 12 @ 2.75
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL,no mercury
limit is required. However, since the facility is expanding to a flow>2 MGD and reported quantifiable
levels of mercury(> 1 ng/1), a mercury minimization plan(MMP)has been added to the permit, effective
upon expansion to the 2.75 MGD flow tier.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: DWR sent a letter dated January 10, 2019 to the Permittee requiring additional
nutrient monitoring. For a 21-month period from April 2019—December 2020, effluent Total Phosphorus
(TP), Total Nitrogen(TN),Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen(TKN), and Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen(NO2-N+NO3-
N)were sampled weekly for a study in the middle and upper Cape Fear River sub-basins. A footnote
addressing this monitoring change was added to the current permit during the previous renewal. As the
sampling period has ended,the footnote has been removed and monthly monitoring for Total Phosphorus
(TP), Total Nitrogen(TN), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen(TKN), and Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen(NO2-N+NO3-
N)have been reinstated per 15A NCAC 02B .0508 at the 1.225 MGD flow tier.
The Division is continuing to work towards the development of a nutrient management strategy,
permitting strategy, TMDL, and/or criteria for nutrients in the Cape Fear River Basin. The 2005 Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan recommends a permitting strategy for dischargers into the Cape
Fear River from Buckhorn Dam to Lock and Dam 3,which addresses nutrients and oxygen-demanding
wastewater discharges in this basin, and includes monitoring and reporting of total nitrogen(TN),
monthly mass TN load,total phosphorous (TP) and monthly mass TP load. The strategy proposes the
addition of summer(April-October)TN and TP seasonal load limits in permits for new/expanding
dischargers based on freezing the current loading or based on equivalent allowable concentrations of 6
mg/1 TN and 2 mg/l TP,whichever is greater.
The Division is actively conducting modeling of this segment of the Cape Fear River and is drafting a
2024/2025 Cape Fear River Basin Plan. The model currently being developed for this portion of the basin
will play a critical role in supporting future permitting and management strategies to protect not only this
portion of the basin but also those areas below Lock&Dam#1. In consideration of the ongoing modeling
effort of the Cape Fear River,which incorporates data from 2010 to 2020,the Basin Planning Branch is
recommending that the interim permitting strategy be adjusted to create no net increase in TN and TP
loading from new or expanding dischargers.
To assess limitations based on the 2005 strategy and proposed 2024/2025 interim strategy,Division staff
calculated TN and TP loads for the existing 1.225 MGD flow tier at equivalent TN and TP concentrations
of 6 mg/L and 2 mg/L,respectively,resulting in summer mass limits of 13,118 lbs for TN and 4,373 lbs
Page 9 of 17

for TP. To address nutrients load limits for the expansion to 2.75 MGD,the Division has frozen the
summer TN and TP mass load limits,which results in the equivalent concentration of TN of
approximately 3.0 mg/1 and of TP of approximately 1.0 mg/l. The loading limit has been applied only to
the expanded flow tier.
For calculation of the TN and TP loading limits,total monthly flow reporting has been added to the
permit and monitoring for Total Phosphorus (TP), Total Nitrogen(TN), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen(TKN),
and Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen(NO2-N+NO3-N) shall be conducted weekly at the 2.75 MGD flow tier.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody:NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo:NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable,delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO,provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85%removal requirements for BODS/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: The proposed expansion is funded via the
American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA)and is not subject to review under the National Environmental Policy
Act(NEPA). As all funds ARPA are through the Wastewater Reserve,Drinking Water Reserve and/or the
Viable Utility Reserve,the project is not subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
An Engineering Alternatives Analysis(EAA)was submitted by E.L. Robinson Engineering(E.L.
Robinson),the consulting firm hired by the Town of Elizabethtown, on October 3,2023. In their EAA,
E.L. Robinson notes that the planned expansion of the Elizabethtown WWTP would work as both an
upgrade to address the need for rehabilitation and replacement of aging components and an effort for
regionalization. This regionalization would include connection of wastewater from the Towns of White
Lake, Bladenboro,Baytree and City of Clarkton. The Town of White Lake has expressed interest in
participating in the regionalization of sewer treatment in this project,but currently does not have the
funding to construct the transmission lines and pump stations to make the connection. The cost would be
in excess of$16M according to the Town. The Town of Bladenboro is negotiating an agreement for the
Elizabethtown WWTP to receive up to 1.0 MGD. Elizabethtown has not received commitments for
Page 10 of 17

Baytree or Clarkton for connection. In addition to these towns,the Elizabethtown WWTP currently
receives wastewater from the Town of Dublin and has plans for construction of a new development,The
Estuary at Elizabethtown,which will bring 308 additional dwellings to the system, additional housing
along Glenwood and Eastway Drive, and a new hydroponics industry. In their EAA,E.L. Robinson
proposed a need for an expansion to 3.55 MGD.
NC Office of State Budget and Management population growth data was reviewed by Division staff to
evaluate the flow need. Population growth of Elizabethtown,Bladenboro,Dublin as well as the buildout
of The Estuary at Elizabethtown, additional housing along Glenwood and Eastway Drive, and the new
hydroponics industry were considered in this review.Additionally, as the expansion may result in the
connection of White Lake and Clarkton,population growth demands for these two service systems were
evaluated. Based on the existing 1.225 MGD flow tier,the service population increasing by
approximately 4,000 residents by 2040 (primarily driven by connection of other municipalities), a flow
rate of 70 gallons per person per day, an estimated commercial flow rate of 15 gallons per person per day
and industrial flow of 0.06 MGD for thew new hydroponic industry, and a 15%reserve flow for potential
new industrial and commercial users a flow demand of 2.0 MGD was calculated by 2040. Based on this
review, further discussion ensued between the Town and the Division and it was determined that a
permitted capacity of 2.75 MGD is justified. The Town and E.L. Robinson revised the application and
EAA and submitted a formal request for modification to include a 2.75 MGD flow tier instead of a 3.55
MGD flow tier on July 5,2024.
The following alternatives were evaluated for the proposed discharge:
Alternative Description Cost Estimate
No Action Deemed infeasible
Land Application $18,375,000
Wastewater Reuse Deemed infeasible
Surface Discharge NPDES $13,600,000
*Shown costs do not include operation and maintenance costs provided in the analysis.
No Action: The alternative of simply not pursuing expansion was considered during the EAA review.
However, the alternative was deemed infeasible,as the Elizabethtown WWTP is experiencing excessive
corrosion, equipment wear, solids buildup and fouling, and overall operational inefficiency and needs
repairs.Additionally,the regionalization effort would not be feasible without expansion.
Land Application: The alternative of land applying the additional 1.525 MGD was considered. E.L.
Robinson used information from the City of Jacksonville,NC's land treatment facility to develop
estimated equivalent land requirements for this expansion. E.L. Robinson determined that approximately
1,255 acres of land would be required for this alternative. Based on this assessment, a total capital cost of
$18.375 million was estimated for land application,which includes the cost of the required land,pumping
and storage,pine forestation,transmission line, irrigation and heads, and soft costs associated with the
project.
Wastewater Reuse: The alternative of public access reuse of the additional 1.525 MGD was considered.
It was determined that there are no reasonable options for wastewater reuse due to the lack of customers
in the project area. As such,wastewater reuse was deemed infeasible.
Direct Discharge to Surface Waters: The total construction cost to expand the treatment process to 2.75
MGD is $13.6 million including soft costs associated with the project.
Per the EAA provided by E.L. Robinson on behalf of the Town of Elizabethtown, it was determined that
surface water discharge was the most economically achievable option.
Page 11 of 17

Endangered Species: Based upon a review of information available from the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program Online Map Viewer, there are not any Federally Listed threatened or endangered
aquatic species identified within a 5-mile radius of the proposed discharge location. If there are any
identified threatened/endangered species, it is recommended that the applicant discuss the proposed
project with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the proposed discharge location
might impact such species.
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4)of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l)prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit,with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed(e.g.,based on new information,increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit(YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500;2)
NPDES Guidance,Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3)NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance(10/22/2012 Memo); 4)Best
Professional Judgement(BPJ). Per US EPA(Interim Guidance, 1996),monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o)of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring,refer to Section 4.
Upon expansion to 2.75 MGD,the facility shall be classified as Grade IV per 15A NCAC 08G .0302.As
such, Grade IV monitoring frequencies have been applied to the expansion flow tier, as required in 15A
NCAC 02B .0508.
The Town was granted 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform based on 2012
DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities during their 2019 renewal. The Town has requested continuation of
this monitoring frequency reduction as part of their renewal application. The last three years of the
facility's data for these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the
guidance. Based on this review,2/week monitoring frequency has been maintained for BOD, ammonia,
TSS and fecal coliform at the 1.225 MGD flow tier. Review of the monitoring frequency reduction
criteria at the 2.75 MGD flow tier found that the criteria were not met for BOD.As such, influent and
effluent BOD is to be monitored daily at the 2.75 MGD flow tier, in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B
.0508. Additionally,upon expansion to 2.75 MGD,the Town shall conduct daily monitoring for
ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform. After 6 months of daily monitoring, the Town may request a reduction
in the monitoring frequency to twice per week sampling for any of the three parameters(TSS,NH3-N and
Fecal coliform) for which no effluent permit limit violations have occurred. This future change in
monitoring frequency for these parameters would be considered a minor permit modification.
As the facility's pretreatment program is inactive and no industrial wastewater is received, effluent
conductivity monitoring has not been added at this time.
The Division is implementing dissolved metals standards in all permits,per the 2016 revisions to State
water quality standards.As such,the NPDES Permitting Unit will need site-specific effluent hardness
data and instream hardness data,upstream of the discharge, for each facility monitoring these metals in
Page 12 of 17

order to calculate permit limitations. Effluent hardness and instream hardness sampling,upstream of the
discharge,have been added to the permit at a monitoring frequency of quarterly.
To better understand the contribution of PFAS compounds from the Elizabethtown WWTP,which
discharges approximately 11.5 miles above waters designated as WS-V,monitoring of PFAS chemicals
will be added to the permit at a frequency of 2/year. Since a published 40 CFR 136 EPA method for
sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently available,the PFAS sampling requirement in
the Permit includes a compliance schedule which delays the effective date of this requirement until the
first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR 136
published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended upon request and if there are no NC-
certified labs. Should the Town's pretreatment program become active, additional PFAS requirements
may be considered.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016,NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21,2020,to December 21,2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4,2021,was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 1.225 MGD flow tier
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 1.225 MGD Add 2.75 MGD expansion tier 15A NCAC 2B .0505; EAA review
BOD5 Summer: No change. WQBEL. 1998 CORMIX Model.
MA 12.0 mg/l Monitoring,2012 DWR Guidance
WA 18.0 mg/1 Regarding the Reduction of
Winter: Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
MA 24.0 mg/l Permits for Exceptionally
WA 36.0 mg/1 Performing Facilities
Monitor and report
2/Week
NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 1998 CORMIX Model.
MA 2.0 mg/l 2020 Speculative Limits; 2024
WA 6.0 mg/1 WLA;Monitoring, 2012 DWR
Winter: Guidance Regarding the Reduction
MA 4.0 mg/l of Monitoring Frequencies in
WA 12.0 mg/1 NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Monitor and report Performing Facilities
2/Week
TSS MA 30.0 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/1 standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and report 2B .0406•
2/Week
Fecal MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
coliform WA 400/100ml NCAC 2B .0200;Monitoring,2012
Monitor and report DWR Guidance Regarding the
2/Week Reduction of Monitoring
Page 13 of 17

Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
DO DA>5 mg/L No change WQBEL. 1998 CORMIX Model.
Monitor and report Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B .0508
3/Week
PH 6—9 SU No change t WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and report NCAC 213 .0200; Monitoring, 15A
3/Week NCAC 2B. 0508
Temperature Monitor and report No change Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0508
Daily
Total DM 28 ug/L No change WQBEL. 2024 WLA review;
Residual Monitor and report Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0508
Chlorine 3/Week
Total Monitor and report No change Monitoring. 15A NCAC 02B .0508
Nitrogen Monthly
TKN Monitor and report No change For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Monthly
NO3+NO2 Monitor and report No change For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Total Monitor and report No change Monitoring. 15A NCAC 02B .0508
Phosphorus Monthly
Total No requirement Quarterly monitoring Hardness-dependent dissolved
Hardness Upstream and in Effluent metals water quality standards
approved in 2016
Effluent Three times per permit No change; conducted in 2026, 40 CFR 122
Pollutant cycle 2027,2028
Scan
100%domestic facility; Evaluation
Add 2/year monitoring with of PFAS contribution: discharge
PFAS No requirement delayed implementation above WS waters; Implementation
delayed until after EPA certified
method becomes available.
Instream Monitor DO and No change Surface Water Monitoring— 15A
Monitoring temperature 3/Week NCAC 0213 .0508; Based on
during June,July, evaluation of instream monitoring
August and September data
and 1/Week the
remainder of the year;
Provisional waiver of
instream monitoring
due to membership in
MCFRBA
Toxicity Test Chronic limit,4.6% No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent amounts. 15A NCAC 213.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Electronic Electronic Reporting No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Special Condition I Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
Page 14 of 17

Table 5. Proposed Permit Conditions 2.75 MGD flow tier
Parameter Proposed Condition Basis for Condition
Flow MA 2.75 MGD 15A NCAC 2B .0505
TMF Monitor and Report Monthly For calculation of TN and TP loadings
BOD5 Summer: WQBEL. 1998 CORMIX Model and frozen load of
MA 5.0 mg/l oxygen consuming waste in expectation of current
WA 7.5 mg/l modeling efforts,2020 speculative limits;
Winter: Monitoring— 15A NCAC 02B .0508; Don't meet
MA 10.0 mg/l 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
WA 15.0 mg/l Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Monitor and report Daily Exceptionally Performing Facilities criteria;Use
15A NCAC 02B .0508
NH3-N Summer: WQBEL. 1998 CORMIX Model and frozen load of
MA 1.0 mg/l oxygen consuming waste in expectation of current
WA 3.0 mg/l modeling efforts,2020 speculative limits; Surface
Winter: Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B .0508; 2012
MA 2.0 mg/l DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
WA 6.0 mg/l Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Monitor and report 2/Week— Exceptionally Performing Facilities
conditional upon 6 months of daily
monitoring and 100%compliance
TSS MA 30.0 mg/l TBEL. 2020 Speculative Limits - Secondary
WA 45.0 mg/l treatment standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B
Monitor and report 2/Week— .0406•
conditional upon 6 months of daily Monitoring, 2012 DWR Guidance Regarding the
monitoring and 100%compliance Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml WQBEL. 2020 Speculative Limits - State WQ
WA 400/100ml standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200; Surface Water
Monitor and report Daily Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B .0508; 2012 DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Monitor and report 2/Week— Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
conditional upon 6 months of daily performing Facilities
monitoring and 100%compliance
DO >6.0 mg/l WQBEL. 1998 CORMIX Model. 2020 Speculative
Monitor and report Daily Limits; Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B .0508
pH 6—9 SU WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200;
Monitor and report Daily Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0508
Temperature Monitor and report Daily Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0508
Total Residual DM 17 ug/L WQBEL. 2024 WLA review; Monitoring, 15A
Chlorine Monitor and report Daily NCAC 2B. 0508
Total Monitor and report 3/week in summer Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River Basin;
Nitrogen Monitor and report Monthly in winter Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TN Loading Monitor and report lb/month Monthly WQBEL.Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River
Summer mass loading 13,118 lb/season; Basin; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.
Monitor and report seasonally 0500
TKN Monitor and report 3/week in summer; For calculation of Total Nitrogen
monthly in winter
Page 15 of 17

NO3+NO2 Monitor and report 3/week in summer; For calculation of Total Nitrogen
monthly in winter
Total Monitor and report 3/week in summer Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River Basin;
Phosphorous Monitor and report Monthly in winter Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TP Loading Monitor and report lb/month Monthly WQBEL.Nutrient protection for Cape Fear River
Summer mass loading 4,373 lb/season Basin; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.
Monitor and report seasonally 0500
Total Quarterly monitoring Upstream and in Hardness-dependent dissolved metals water quality
Hardness Effluent standards approved in 2016
Total Copper Monitor and Report Quarterly WQBEL. Based on results of RPA: RP for Limited
Dataset(n< 8)but 2 values>Allowable
Cw-apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
100%domestic facility; Evaluation of PFAS
PFAS Add 2/year monitoring with delayed contribution: discharge above WS waters;
implementation Implementation delayed until after EPA certified
method becomes available.
Monitor DO and temperature 3/Week
Instream during June,July,August and
monitoring September and 1/Week the remainder of Surface Water Monitoring— 15A NCAC 02B .0508;
requirements the year; Provisional waiver of instream Based on evaluation of instream monitoring data
monitoring due to membership in
MCFRBA
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 90%effluent WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A NCAC
213.0200 and 15A NCAC 213.0500
Effluent Three times per permit cycle; conducted 40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan in three following years after expansion
occurs
Mercury MMP Special Condition Consistent with 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL
Minimization Implementation.
Plan(MMP)
Electronic Electronic Reporting Special Condition In accordance with EPA Electronic Reporting Rule
Reporting 1 2015.
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/xxxx
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice.Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please
contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at nick.coco(adeq.nc.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA
Page 16 of 17

16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Chemical Addendum
• Requested Additional Information
• Revised EAA Evaluation
Page 17 of 17

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Elizabethtown WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class III Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO026671 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.0370 FW 3.1213 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD) 1.225 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Cape Fear River Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03030005 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 122.2716 FW 947.1025 ug/L
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
Lentic or Lotic Lotic Parl0 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10s (cfs) 39.87 Parl1 Copper Aquatic Life NC 8.1979 FW 11.0332 ug/L
7Q10w (cfs) 39.87 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 39.87 Parl3 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
QA(cfs) 39.87 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 3.0986 FW 80.3455 ug/L
1Q10s (Cfs) 32.76 Parl5 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Effluent Hardness 51 mg/L (Avg) Parl6 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
------------- ---- --------------
Upstream Hardness 25 mg/L (Avg) I Parl7 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 38.7150 FW 351.2968 pg/L
------------- ---------------------
Combined Hardness Chronic 26.18 mg/L Parl8 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
------------- ----------------------
Combined Hardness Acute 26.42 mg/L Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 3.1 FW 56 ug/L
Data Source(s) Freshwater Dissolved Selenium Standard used per Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.3260 ug/L
❑✓ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL the 2020-2022 Surface Water Triennial Review Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 131.7917 FW 131.7478 ug/L
updates. Total selenium data used for analysis as no
Model 7Q10s not entered dissolved selenium data are available. Par22 Chloroform Human Health NC 2000 HH pg/L
,alculated 7Q10s = 39.8738 cf., Par23 Dichlorobromomethane Human Health C 17 HH I pg/L
Par24
To appy a Model IWC%: Once the Par25
26671 RPA 1.225 MGD v2, input
8/14/2024

Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS= 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Elizabethtown WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class III Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO026671 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.7141 FW 5.7777 ug/L
Flow,Qw(MGD) 2.750 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mglL
Receiving Stream Cape Fear River Parts Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 03030005 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 211.0978 FW 1622.8371 ug/L
❑Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
Lentic or Lotic Lotic Par10 Chromium,Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A Ng/L
7Q10s(cfs) 0.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 14.4924 FW 20.5004 ug/L
7Q10w(cfs) 0.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
30Q2(cfs) 0.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
QA(cfs) 0.00 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 6.5276 FW 167.5099 ug/L
1Q10s(cfs) 0.00 Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Effluent Hardness 51 mg/L(Avg) Parts Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Upstream Hardness 25 mg/L(Avg) Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 68.0543 FW 612.7205 pg/L
_Combined Hardness Chronic g/L_I________ 51 m I Par18 Nickel Water supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Combined Hardness Acute I 51 mg/L I Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 3.1 FW 56 ug/L
Data Source(s) Freshwater Dissolved Selenium Standard used per Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 1.0103 ug/L
❑CHECK TO APPLY MODEL the 2020-2022 Surface Water Triennial Review Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 231.8681 FW 229.9868 ug/L
updates.Total selenium data used for analysis as no
dissolved selenium data are available. Par22 Chloroform Human Health NC 2000 HH lag/L
Par23 Dichlorobromomethane Human Health C 17 HH lag/L
Par24
Par25
26671 RPA 2.75 MGD v2,input
8/14/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY" Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 50 50 Std Dev. 7.5498 1 DEFAULT 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 7/25/2021 44 44 Mean 51.0000 2 Mean 25.0000
3 12/29/2022 59 59 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 n 3 4 n 1
5 10th Per value 45.20 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 Average Value 51.00 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 Max. Value 59.00 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26671 RPA, data
- 1 - 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 < 2 1 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 7/25/2021 < 2 1 Mean 1.0000
3 12/29/2022 < 2 1 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3
5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 1.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 3.0 ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
26671 RPA, data
-2 - 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values"then"COPY" Cadmium Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 4/16/2020 < 0.5 0.25 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 7/25/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 7/25/2021 < 0.5 0.25 Mean 0.2500
3 12/29/2022 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2022 < 0.5 0.25 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 Max. Value 0.250 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 1.50 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 0.750 ug/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26671 RPA, data
-3- 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07 Part O
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Total Phenolic Compounds Values"then"COPY" Chromium' Total Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 4/16/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 2.0207
2 7/25/2021 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 7/25/2021 6 6 Mean 3.6667
3 12/29/2022 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2022 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value 6.0 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 18.0 pg/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26671 RPA, data
-4- 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal Par12
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY" Cyanide Values"then"COPY"
pp .Maximum data y .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 9 9 Std Dev. 4.5092 1 4/16/2020 < 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 7/25/2021 14 14 Mean 9.3333 2 7/25/2021 < 5 5 Mean 5.00
3 12/29/2022 5 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2022 < 5 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 14.00 ug/L 7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 42.00 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 ug/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26671 RPA, data
- 5- 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14 Par17 & Par18
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SF
Lead Values"then"COPY" Nickel Values"then"I
Maximum data .Maximum<
points=58 points=5
Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 < 2 1 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 4/16/2020 < 2 1 Std Dev. 1.0408
2 7/25/2021 < 2 1 Mean 1.0000 2 7/25/2021 3 3 Mean 2.1667
3 12/29/2022 < 2 1 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2022 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max. Value 1.000 ug/L 7 Max. Value 3.0
8 Max. Pred Cw 3.000 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 9.0
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26671 RPA, data
-6- 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
)ECIAL Par19 Par20
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SF
:OPY" Selenium Values"then"COPY" Silver Values"then
iata .Maximum data .Maximum<
;8 points=58 points=5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 4/16/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 7/25/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 7/25/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000
3 12/29/2022 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2022 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 3
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
fag/L 7 Max. Value 0.5 ug/L 7 Max. Value 0.500
fag/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 1.5 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 1.500
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26671 RPA, data
-7- 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
)ECIAL Par21 Par22
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SF
:OPY" Zinc Values"then"COPY" Chloroform Values"then"i
iata .Maximum data .Maximum c
;8 points=58 points=5
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 51 51 Std Dev. 5.5678 1 4/16/2020 11.6 11.6 Std Dev. 29.8399
2 7/25/2021 40 40 Mean 45.0000 2 12/29/2022 53.8 53.8 Mean 32.7000
3 12/29/2022 44 44 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 n 2
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 3.79
ug/L 7 Max. Value 51.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value 53.800000
ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 153.0 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 203.902000
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
26671 RPA, data
-8- 6/18/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par23
)ECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
:OPY', Dichlorobromomethane Values"then"COPY"
tata .Maximum data
;8 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/16/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 4.0941
2 12/29/2022 8.29 8.29 Mean 5.3950
3 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 2
5
6 Mult Factor= 3.79
Ng/L 7 Max. Value 8.290000 pg/L
fag/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 31.419100 pg/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
26671 RPA, data
-9- 6/18/2024

Elizabethtown WWTP Outfall 001
NCO026671 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1 .225 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 1.2250 WWTP/WTP Class: III COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Q10S (cfs) = 32.76 USING MODEL IWC% @ 1Q10S = 5.478414542 Acute = 26.42 mg/L
7Q10S (cfs) = 39.87 USING MODEL IWC% @ 7Q10S = 4.545449105 Chronic= 26.18 mg/L
7Q10W (cfs) = 39.87 USING MODEL IWC% @ 7Q10W= 4.545449105
30Q2 (cfs) = 39.87 USING MODEL IWC% @ 30Q2 = 4.545449105
Avg. Stream Flow, QA(cfs) = 39.87 USING MODEL IW%C @ QA= 4.545449105
Receiving Stream: Cape Fear River HUC 03030005 Stream Class: C
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
CY
TYPE Aplied Chronic Standa d Acute D n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 6,206.2
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 ug/L ___
3 0 3.0 Chronic (FW) 3,300.0
C.V. (default) -Max MDL= 2_____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L Note: n<_9 NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 220.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set Max MDL 2 Monitoring required
Acute: 1,186.47
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 3 0 1.50
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 143.00 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 56.974
Cadmium NC 1.0370 FW(7Q10s) 3.1213 ug/L 3 0 0.750
Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 22.814 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 0.5 Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 3 0 15.0
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 6,600.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute: 17,287.9
Chromium III NC 122.2716 FW(7Q10s) 947.1025 µg/L 0 0 N/A
--Chronic: ----2,690.0 -- ---------------------------
Acute: 292.1
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q10s) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
--Chronic: -----242.0--- ---------------------------
Tot Cr value(s) > 5 but< Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 3 1 18.0 Max reported value - 6 a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Limited data set
Acute: 201.39
Copper NC 8.1979 FW(7010s) 11.0332 uii/L 3 3 42.00
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 180.35 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 401.6
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 22 10 ug/L 3 0 15.0
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 110.0 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
26671 RPA 1.225 MGD v2, rpa
Page 1 of 2 8/14/2024

Elizabethtown WWTP Outfall 001
NCO026671 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1 .225 MGD
Acute: 1,466.584
Lead NC 3.0986 FW(7Q1Os) 80.3455 ug/L 3 0 3.000
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 68.170 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=2 Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 6,412.4
Nickel NC 38.7150 FW(7Q10s) 351.2968 µg/L _
3 1 9.0 Chronic (FW) 851.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
--- -----------------------------
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Limited data set Chronic (WS) 550.0
No value >Allowable Cw
Acute: 1,022.2
Selenium NC 3.1 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 3 0 1.5
Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 68.2 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 5.951
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.3260 ug/L 3 0 1.500
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 1.320 All values non-detect< 1 ug/L - No Monitoring
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 1 required
Acute: 2,404.9
Zinc NC 131.7917 FW(7Q10s) 131.7478 ug/L 3 3 153.0
Note: n<_9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 2,899.4 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chloroform NC 2000 HH(7Q10s) µg/L 2 2 203.90200
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 44000.05267 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value >Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Dichlorobromomethane C 17 HH(Qavg) µg/L 2 1 31.41910
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 374.00045 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
26671 RPA 1.225 MGD v2, rpa
Page 2 of 2 8/14/2024

Elizabethtown WWTP Outfall 001
NCO026671 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.75 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw(MGD)= 2.7500 WWTP/WTP Class: III COMBINED HARDNESS(mg/L)
1Q10S(cfs)= 0.00 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 100 Acute=51 mg/L
7Q10S(cfs)= 0.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S= 100 Chronic=51 mg/L
7Q10W(cfs)= 0.00 IWC%@ 7Q10W= 100
30Q2(cfs)= 0.00 IWC%@ 30Q2= 100
Avg.Stream Flow,QA(cfs)= 0.00 IW%C @ QA= 100
Receiving Stream: Cape Fear River HUC 03030005 Stream Class: C
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Applied a- Z Chronic Acute
Standard n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute(FW): 340.0
Arsenic C 150 FW 340 ug/L
3 0 3.0 Chronic(FW):---150.0
C.V.(default) Max MDL_=2
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS ug/L Note:n<9 NO DETECTS Chronic(HH): 10.0 All values non-detect<2 ug/L-No Monitoring
Limited data set Max MDL=2 required
Acute: 65.00
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L 3 0 1.50
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 6.50 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=1 Monitoring required
Acute: 5.778
Cadmium NC 1.7141 Fw' 5.7777 ug/L 3 0 0.750
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 1.714 All values non-detect<0.5 ug/L-No Monitoring
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=0.5 required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A ug/L 3 0 15.0
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 300.0 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=10 Monitoring required
Acute: 1,622.8
Chromium III NC 211.0978 FW 1622.8371 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:-----211.1------------------------------
Acute: 16.0
Chromium VI NC 11 FW 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic:----- 11.0------------------------------
Tot Cr value(s)>_5 but<Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium,Total NC µg/L 3 1 18.0 Max reported value=6 One detection at concentration<Cw for Chromium VI
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) -no monitoring required.
Limited data set
Acute: 20.50
Copper NC 14.4924 FW 20.5004 ug/L 3 3 42.00
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 14.49 RP for Limited Dataset(n<8 samples)-apply
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: 22.0
Cyanide NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L 3 0 15.0
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 5.0 All values non-detect<5 ug/L-No Monitoring
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=10 required
26671 RPA 2.75 MGD v2,rpa
Page 1 of 2 8/14/2024

Elizabethtown WWTP Outfall 001
NCO026671 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.75 MGD
Acute: 167.510
Lead NC 6.5276 FW 1675099 ug/L 3 0 3.000
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 6.528 All values non-detect<2 ug/L-No Monitoring
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=2 required
Acute(FW): 612.7
Nickel NC 68.0543 FW 612.7205 µg/L
3 1 9.0 Chronic(FW): 68.1 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Note:n 5 9 C.V.(default) No value>Allowable_Cw Monitoring required
_
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS µg/L Limited data set Chronic(WS): 25.0
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute: 56.0
Selenium NC 3.1 FW 56 ug/L 3 0 1.5
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 3.1 All values non-detect<1 ug/L-No Monitoring
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=1 required
Acute: 1.010
Silver NC 0.06 FW 1.0103 ug/L 3 0 1.500
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 0.060 All values non-detect<1 ug/L-No Monitoring
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=1 required
Acute: 230.0
Zinc NC 231.8681 FW 229.9868 ug/L 3 3 153.0
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 231.9 Limited Dataset;All values<50%of Cw,-no
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw monitoring required.
Acute: NO WQS
Chloroform NC 2000 HH µg/L 2 2 203.90200
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 2000.00000 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Dichlorobromomethane C 17 HH µg/L 2 1 31.41910
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 17.00000 Limited Dataset;All values<50%of Cw-no
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw monitoring required.
26671 RPA 2.75 MGD v2,rpa
Page 2 of 2 8/14/2024

Permit No. NCO026671
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards-Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard(WQS)Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission(EMC)on November 13,2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6,2016,with some exceptions. Therefore,metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6,2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1.NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l Chronic FW, µg/l Acute SW, µg/1 Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW=Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation=Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200(e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio(WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph(11)(d)
Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium,Acute WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9789 [ln hardness]-3.443}
Cadmium,Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9789[ln hardness]-3.866}
Cadmium,Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} •e^{0.7977[ln hardness]-3.909}
Chromium III,Acute WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III,Chronic WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper,Acute WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper,Chronic WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead,Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead,Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} •e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705)
Nickel,Acute WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel,Chronic WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO026671
Silver,Acute WER*0.85 •e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver,Chronic Not applicable
Zinc,Acute WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc,Chronic WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream(upstream)hardness
and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal(more on that
below),but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals -Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations,based on applicable
standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value(chronic or acute),the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard,which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present(i.e. consistently below
detection level),then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10(the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10=0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs)0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge,the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream)hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's,Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values,upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available,the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L(CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L,respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable
potential,the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO026671
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness(chronic)
_(Permitted Flow,cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness,mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness,mg/L)
(Permitted Flow,cfs+s7Q10,cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal,using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients(DPCs)or site-specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the"Fraction Dissolved"converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in-stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996)and the
equation:
Cdiss - 1
Ctotal I + { [Kpo] [ss('+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss=in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1],minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a=constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness-dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient(or
site-specific translator)to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases,where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist(ie. silver),the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits)for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca=(s7Q 10+Qw)(Cwgs)—(s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca=allowable effluent concentration(µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs=NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria(µg/L or mg/L)
Cb=background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw=permitted effluent flow(cfs,match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10=summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10=used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0026671
QA=used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2=used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application(40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations,the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit(Total allowable
concentration)is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate,permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10,2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure,total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases,the projected maximum concentration(95th%) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling,upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter Value Comments(Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L) Effluent pollutant scans—2020,
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] S1 2021, 2022
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] 25.0 Default value
7Q10 summer(cfs) 39.87 Baes on 1998 CORMIX model
1Q10(cfs) 32.76 RPA calculation
Permitted Flow(MGD) 1.225 Previous permit/Fact Sheet
Date: July/8/2024
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NCO026671 Elizabethtown WWTP 7/10/2024
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR (%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
January-20 98.17 July-22 98.39 January-20 97.85 July-22 98.50
February-20 98.54 August-22 99.04 February-20 96.91 August-22 99.62
March-20 98.36 September-22 98.82 March-20 97.19 September-22 99.18
April-20 98.72 October-22 98.55 April-20 97.74 October-22 98.97
May-20 98.66 November-22 98.94 May-20 97.83 November-22 99.02
June-20 98.31 December-22 98.84 June-20 97.15 December-22 98.91
July-20 98.56 January-23 98.64 July-20 97.35 January-23 99.23
August-20 98.35 February-23 97.49 August-20 96.57 February-23 98.92
September-20 98.49 March-23 98.97 September-20 97.36 March-23 99.42
October-20 98.87 April-23 98.80 October-20 97.53 April-23 99.47
November-20 98.56 May-23 98.75 November-20 97.09 May-23 99.51
December-20 98.82 June-23 96.75 December-20 97.34 June-23 99.21
January-21 98.48 July-23 98.37 January-21 94.91 July-23 98.75
February-21 98.55 August-23 97.69 February-21 96.88 August-23 99.01
March-21 98.65 September-23 98.70 March-21 96.30 September-23 99.31
April-21 98.67 October-23 98.40 April-21 98.06 October-23 99.38
May-21 99.08 November-23 98.54 May-21 98.38 November-23 99.14
June-21 98.93 December-23 98.53 June-21 98.45 December-23 98.87
July-21 98.82 January-24 98.28 July-21 98.16 January-24 98.87
August-21 98.68 February-24 98.23 August-21 97.75 February-24 99.21
September-21 98.82 March-24 98.36 September-21 98.02 March-24 96.74
October-21 99.08 April-24 98.49 October-21 98.43 April-24 99.27
November-21 99.25 May-24 97.40 November-21 98.49 May-24 99.30
December-21 98.99 June-24 December-21 98.30 June-24
January-22 99.24 July-24 January-22 98.21 July-24
February-22 98.81 August-24 February-22 97.67 August-24
March-22 98.52 September-24 March-22 98.19 September-24
April-22 98.40 October-24 April-22 98.02 October-24
May-22 97.51 November-24 May-22 98.26 November-24
June-22 98.61 December-24 June-22 98.56 December-24
Overall BOD removal rate 98.54 Overall TSS removal rate 98.18

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
Permit No. NC0026671
Review period(use 3 5/2021-5/2024 1.225 MGD Flow Tier
yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report Y
3.Facility or employees convicted of CWA N
violations
Weekly Monthly 50% 3-yr mean 200% #daily 200% #daily #of non penalty Reduce
#civil enalt
Data Review Units average limit MA MA WA asessment average (geo mean <50%? samples <15? samples <20? monthly limit >2? >1? Frequency?
limit for FC) >200% >200% violations (Yes/No)
BOD(Weighted) mg/L 25.5 17 8.5 4.0841615 Y 34 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
TSS mg/L 45 30 15 0.9526938 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Ammonia(weighted) mg/L 8.5 12.83333 1 1.41 0.1540385 1 Y 1 5.67 1 0 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Fecal Coliform #/100 400 1 200 1 1001 2.6738202 1 Y 800 1 2 1 Y 1 0 1 N 1 0 1 N I Y

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
Permit No. NC0026671
Review period(use 3
5/2021-5/2024 2.75 MG Flow Tier
yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report Y
3.Facility or employees convicted of CWA N
violations
Weekly Monthly 50% 3-yr mean 200% #daily 200% #daily #of non penalty Reduce
#civil enalt
Data Review Units average limit MA MA WA asessment average (geo mean <50%? samples <15? samples <20? monthly limit >2? >1? Frequency?
limit for FC) >200% >200% violations (Yes/No)
BOD(Weighted) mg/L 10.625 7.08333 3.5 4.0841615 N 14.2 4 Y 0 N 0 N N
TSS mg/L 45 30 15 0.9526938 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Ammonia(weighted) mg/L 4.25 1 1.416671 0.7 1 0.1540385 1 Y 1 2.83 1 2 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y
Fecal Coliform #/100 400 1 200 1 1001 2.6738202 1 Y 800 1 2 1 Y 1 0 1 N 1 0 1 N I Y

8/14/24 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name Elizabethtown WWTP/NC0026671 No Limit Required
/Permit No.
No MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL=0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 39.870 cfs WQBEL= 263.98 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 1.225 47 ng/L
7/1/21 1.3 1.3 1.3 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
12/13/22 < 1 0.5 0.5 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022
6/19/24 1.67 1.67 1.7 ng/L-Annual Average for 2024

Elizabethtown WWTP/NC0026671
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2021 2022 2024
#of Samples 1 1 1
Annual Average, ng/L 1.3 0.5 1.7
Maximum Value, ng/L 1.30 0.50 1.67
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 132.0

�!STATE(f
ROY COOPER -
Governor
MICHAEL S.REGAN ,� I
Secretary `
LINDA CULPEPPER NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
January 27, 2020
Eddie Madden
Town Manager
Town of Elizabethtown
PO Box 716
Elizabethtown,North Carolina 28337
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
Elizabethtown WWTP
Permit No.NCO026671
Bladen County
Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Madden:
This letter provides speculative effluent limits for 2.75 MGD and 3.55 MGD at the Elizabethtown WWTP.
The Division received the speculative limits request in a letter dated November 4,2019 from Eddie Madden,
Town Manager. Please recognize that speculative limits may change based on future water quality
initiatives,and it is highly recommended that the applicant verify the speculative limits with the Division's
NPDES Unit prior to any engineering design work.
Receiving Stream. The Cape Fear River is located within the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear River
has a stream classification of C, and waters with this classification have a best usage for aquatic life
propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The
Cape Fear River has a summer 7Q10 flow of 483 cubic feet per second (cfs), a winter 7Q10 flow of 622
CA, a 30Q2 flow of 929 cfs,and an annual average flow of 4,398 cfs.
The Cape Fear River at this point is currently not listed as an impaired waterbody on the 2018 North
Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List. However, there are downstream impairments of the river which
may impact future permit limits for this facility including nutrient limits. It is recommended that future
planning include the availability of space for additional treatment units.
Based upon a review of information available from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Online
Map Viewer,there are not any Federally Listed threatened or endangered aquatic species identified within
a 5-mile radius of the proposed discharge location. If there are any identified threatened/endangered
species, it is recommended that the applicant discuss the proposed project with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service to determine whether the proposed discharge location might impact such species.
Speculative Effluent Limits. Based on Division review of receiving stream conditions and water quality
modeling results, speculative limits for the proposed expansion to 2.75 MGD and 3.55 MGD are presented
in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring requirements for metals and other
toxicants,as well as potential instream monitoring requirements,will be addressed upon receipt of a formal
NPDES permit application. Some features of the speculative limit development include the following:
Q J� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
4��PD_E 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh.North Carolina 27699-1617
w,xirH cnaourvn -
D"—of E;.—Ni /`� 919.707.9000

• BOD/NH3 Limits. At 2.75 MGD these speculative limits are based on freezing current
permitted BOD ultimate loading (i.e., facility will not be allowed to discharge oxygen-
consuming waste above what is currently permitted). At 3.55 MGD the speculative limits are
based on freezing current BOD ultimate loading and assuming the flow and mass-loading from
the White Lake WWTP based on the regionalization mentioned in the request letter,and further
discussion with Pat DeVane, Elizabethtown Assistant Town Manager. The resultant limits at
expanded flows are considered technologically-feasible.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for City of Elizabethtown WWTP
Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitations
Monthly Weekly Daily Maximum
Average Average
Flow 2.75/3.55 MGD
BOD5 (Apr.-Oct.) 5.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L
BOD5(Nov.-Mar.) 10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L
NH3 as N(Apr.-Oct.) 1.0 mg/L 3.0 mg/L
NH3 as N(Nov.-Mar.) 2.0 mg/L 6.0 m
Dissolved Oxygen(minimum) 6.0 mg/L
TSS 30 m 45 mg/L
TRC 28 µg/L
Fecal coliform(geometric 200/100 ml 400/100 ml
mean)
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail TBD '%
(Quarterly test)
I. Instream Waste Concentration will need to be remodeled with a CORMIX model or equivalent due to the presence
and potential interference of Lock&Dam 2 below the discharge and reduced critical flows calculated by the USGS
June 4,2019.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis(EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES
permit for a new or expanding discharge will be issued with these speculative limits. Final decisions can
only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the new/expanded
discharge. In accordance with North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c), the most
environmentally sound alternative should be selected from all reasonably cost effective options. Therefore,
as a component of all NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering
alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an
analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. A copy of the Division guidance for preparing EAA
documents can be found at: https:Hdeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
permit-guidance/npdes-industrial-stormwater/npdes-guidance
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document may be
required for projects that: 1) involve $10 Million or more of state funds; or 2) will significantly and
permanently impact 10 or more acres of public lands. Please check with the DWR SEPA coordinator
(David Wainwright,919-707-9045)as to whether your project requires SEPA review. For projects that are
subject to SEPA,the EAA requirements discussed above will need to be folded into the SEPA document.
Additionally, if subject to SEPA, the NPDES Unit will not accept an NPDES permit application for a
new/expanding discharge until the Division has approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding of No
Significant Impact(FONSI)to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment.
Page 2 of 3

Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please
feel free to contact David Hill at(919) 707-3612.
Respectfully,
Jlie Grzy
pervisor,NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Hardcopy:
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
Electronic Copy:
NC WRC,Inland Fisheries, [e-mail]
US Fish and Wildlife Service, [e-mail]
DWR/Water Quality Regional Operations/Fayetteville
DWR/SEPA,David Wainwright
DWR/Modeling and Assessment Branch
DWRBasinwide Planning,Ian McMillan
DWR/NPDES Server>Specs
a
a
1
Page 3 of 3

et`r`STATE�Fti ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S.BISER
Secretary *fnf QUAM'V11
SHADI ESKAF NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
February 10, 2022
Dane Rideout, Town Manager
Town of Elizabethtown
805 W. Broad Street
Elizabethtown NC 29337
Subject: Letter of Intent to Fund
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
American Rescue Plan-Earmark
Project No.: SRP-W-ARP-0008
Dear Mr. Rideout:
The Division of Water Infrastructure has reviewed your Request for Funding, and
determined your project is eligible to receive American Rescue Plan(ARP) funding from the
State Fiscal Recovery Fund established in S.L. 2021-180. Projects funded from the State Fiscal
Recovery Fund must meet applicable federal law and guidance for the ARP funds. The ARP
Project Grant will be one hundred percent of eligible project costs up to a maximum of
$13,600,000.
The first milestone is the submittal of a Bid and Design Package by August 1, 2022.
Please note that this intent to fund is contingent on meeting all of the following milestones:
Milestone Date
Apply for all Necessary Permits* ASAP
Bid and Design Package Submittal obtain allpen-nits) August 1, 2022
Bid and Design Package Approval December 1, 2022
Advertise Project, Receive Bids, Submit Bid Information, April 3, 2023
and Receive Authority To Award
Execute Construction Contracts May 1, 2023
Receive last reimbursement- Statutory December 31, 2026
*An engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) may be required on certain projects. See:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/npdes-
wastewater/permitting-process
Failure to meet any milestone may result in the forfeiture of funding for the proposed
project.
D �� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Infrastructure
E Q
_ 512 N.Salisbury Street 1 1633 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1633
NORiH CAROLINA
Wp.m .�eoi�a��m.�taio�W /� 919.707.9160

Dane Rideout, Town Manager
February 10, 2022
Page 2 of 2
Note that the Division will make no reimbursements of ARP funds after December 31, 2026
The State Environmental Policy Act exempts projects funded by the State Reserve (such
as this project) from state-mandated environmental review. Federal requirements may still apply.
[NCGS 113A-12(2)h.]
Upon detailed review of the project during the funding process, it may be determined that
portions of your project are not eligible for funding.
US Treasury Requirements
Projects with an expected total cost of ten million dollars or more must meet US Treasury
requirements for prevailing wage rates, project labor agreements, and related requirements.
Recipients can either certify meeting the requirements or provide plans and reports as the SLFRF
Compliance and Reporting Guidance Update 2.1 final (treasur.gov) specifies.
If you have any questions,please contact Trupti Desai, PE,by phone at(919) 707-9166
or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon Risgaard, Chief
State Revolving Fund Section
CC: David K. Brandes, EL Robinsons Engineering, Columbia, SC
Ken Pohlig, PE (DWI, via email)
Trupti Desai, PE (DWI, via email)
Mark Hubbard, PE (DWI, via email)
ARP Project File (COM_LOIF)

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
110018816290 NCO026671 Elizabethtown WWTP OMB No.2040-0004
1.7 Provide the collections stem information requested below for the treatment works.
Municipality Population Collection System Type Ownership Status
Served Served indicate percentage)
-a Elizabethtown 3132 100 %separate sanitary sewer 0 Own ❑ Maintain
W %combined storm and sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
100 %separate sanitary sewer 0 Own El Maintain
o Dublin 265 %combined storm and sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
.R
❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
a %separate sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
%combined storm and sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
%separate sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
rn %combined storm and sanitary sewer ElOwn ElMaintain
c ❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
Total 3397
Population
0 Served
Separate Sanitary Sewer System Combined Storm and
Sanitary Sewer
Total percentage of each type of /o
o 0
sewer line in miles) 100 /o
1.8 Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
'o ❑ Yes El No
U
1.9 Does the facility discharge to a receiving water that flows through Indian Country?
❑ Yes El No
1.10 Provide design and actual flow rates in the designated spaces. Design Flow Rate
1.225 mgd
= Annual Average Flow Rates Actual
Two Years Ago Last Year This Year
0 0.488 mgd 0.401 mgd 0.507 mgd
U" Maximum Daily Flow Rates Actual
Two Years Ago Last Year This Year
1.472 mgd .808 mgd .539 rngd
1.11 Provide the total number of effluent discharge points to waters of the United States by type.
o Total Number of Effluent Discharge Points by Type
T Combined Sewer Constructed
R a Treated Effluent Untreated Effluent Overflows Bypasses Emergency
Overflows
y
G 1 0 0 0 0
EPA Form 3510-2A(Revised 3-19) Page 2

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
110018816290 NCO026671 Elizabethtown WWTP OMB No.2040-0004
1.7 Provide the collections stem information requested below for the treatment works.
Municipality Population Collection System Type Ownership Status
Served Served indicate percentage)
-a Elizabethtown 3132 100 %separate sanitary sewer 0 Own ❑ Maintain
W %combined storm and sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
100 %separate sanitary sewer 0 Own El Maintain
o Dublin 265 %combined storm and sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
.R
❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
a %separate sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
%combined storm and sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
%separate sanitary sewer ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
rn %combined storm and sanitary sewer ElOwn ElMaintain
c ❑ Unknown ❑ Own ❑ Maintain
Total 3397
Population
0 Served
Separate Sanitary Sewer System Combined Storm and
Sanitary Sewer
Total percentage of each type of /o
o 0
sewer line in miles) 100 /o
1.8 Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
'o ❑ Yes El No
U
1.9 Does the facility discharge to a receiving water that flows through Indian Country?
❑ Yes El No
1.10 Provide design and actual flow rates in the designated spaces. Design Flow Rate
2.75 mgd
= Annual Average Flow Rates Actual
Two Years Ago Last Year This Year
0 0.488 mgd 0.401 mgd 0.507 mgd
U" Maximum Daily Flow Rates Actual
Two Years Ago Last Year This Year
1.472 mgd .808 mgd .539 rngd
1.11 Provide the total number of effluent discharge points to waters of the United States by type.
o Total Number of Effluent Discharge Points by Type
T Combined Sewer Constructed
R a Treated Effluent Untreated Effluent Overflows Bypasses Emergency
Overflows
y
G 1 0 0 0 0
EPA Form 3510-2A(Revised 3-19) Page 2

F"I�'-- —77 Environmental Chemists, Inc.
envirochem 6602 Windmill Way,Wilmington,NC 28405 • 910.392.0223 Lab • 910.392.4424 Fax
710 Bowsertown Road,Manteo,NC 27954 • 252.473.5702 Lab/Fax
'SM 255-A Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville,NC 28540 • 910.347.5843 Lab/Fax
ANALYTICAL&CONSULTING CHEMISTS [e-mail]
Town of Elizabethtown Date of Report: Jul 03, 2024
PO Box 700 Customer PO#:
Elizabethtown NC 28337 Customer ID: 15040010
Attention: Report#: 2024-14095
Project ID: WWTP
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
24-34438 Site: Effluent 6/19/2024 10:30 AM Water jcb/envirochem
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
LL Mercury EPA 1631e 1.67 ng/L 06/29/2024
Lab ID Sample ID: Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
24-34439 Site: Field Blank 6/19/2024 10:25 AM Water jcb/envirochem
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
LL Mercury EPA 1631e < 0.5 ng/L 06/29/2024
Comment:
Reviewed by:
Report#.: 2024-14095 Page 1 of 1

Client:Pace Analytical Services,LLC Laboratory ID:ZF22003-009
Description:24-34438 Matrix:Aqueous
Date Sampled:06/19/2024 1030 Project Name:ILL Mercury
Date Received:06/20/2024 Project Number:92738011
Run Prep Method Analytical Method Dilution Analysis Date Analyst Prep Date Batch
1 1631 E 1 06/29/2024 1324 KAJ 06/28/2024 2125 13830
CAS Analytical
Parameter Number Method Result Q LOQ DL Units Run
Mercury(CVAFS) 7439-97-6 1631E 1.67 0.500 0.200 ng/L 1
LOQ=Limit of Quantitation B=Detected in the method blank E=Quanlitalion of compound exceeded the calibration range DL=Detection Limit Q=Surrogate failure
ND=Not detected at or above the DL N=Recovery is out of criteria P=The RPD between two GC columns exceeds 40% J=Estimated result<LOQ and>DL L=LCS/LCSD failure
H=Out of holding time W=Reported on wet weight basis S=MS/MSD failure
Pace Analytical Services,LLC (formerly Shealy Environmental Services,Inc.)
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia,SC 29172 [phone] Fax[phone] www.pacelabs.com
Page 16 of 23
Page 13 of 20

Client:Pace Analytical Services,LLC Laboratory ID:ZF22003-010
Description:24-34439 Matrix:Aqueous
Date Sampled:06/19/2024 1025 Project Name:ILL Mercury
Date Received:06/20/2024 Project Number:92738011
Run Prep Method Analytical Method Dilution Analysis Date Analyst Prep Date Batch
1 1631E 1 06/29/2024 1330 KAJ 06/28/2024 2125 13830
CAS Analytical
Parameter Number Method Result Q LOQ DL Units Run
Mercury(CVAFS) 7439-97-6 1631E 0.343 J 0.500 0.200 ng/L 1
LOQ=Limit of Quantitalion B=Detected in the method blank E=Quantilation of compound exceeded the calibration range DL=Detection Limit Q=Surrogate failure
ND=Not detected at or above the DL N=Recovery is out of criteria P=The RPD between two GC columns exceeds 40% J=Estimated result<LOQ and>DL L=LCS/LCSD failure
H=Out of holding time W=Reported on wet weight basis S=MS/MSD failure
Pace Analytical Services,LLC (formerly Shealy Environmental Services,Inc.)
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia,SC 29172 [phone] Fax[phone] www.pacelabs.com
Page 17 of 23
Page 14 of 20

Environmental Chemist, Inc., Wilmington, NC Lab#94 6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
910.392.0223
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client:—tA0abAyAr0VVV1 1_ Date: Report Number:_ 2024- I y q
Receipt of sample: ECHEM Pickup Client Delivery❑ UPS ❑ FedEx ❑ Other❑
❑ YES I0 NO 0 N/A 1. Were custody seals present on the cooler?
❑ YES ❑ NO 0 N/A 2. If custody seals were present, were they intact/unbroken?
Original temperature upon receipt °C Corrected temperature upon receipt °C
How temperature taken: ❑ Temperature Blank 0 Against Bottles
IR Gun ID:Thomas Traceable S/N 210886869 IR Gun Correction Factor°C: 0.0
0 YES ❑ NO 3. If temperature of cooler exceeded 6°C, was Project Mgr./QA notified?
0 YES ❑ NO 4. Were proper custody procedures (relinquished/received)followed?
0 YES ❑ NO 5. Were sample ID's listed on the COC?
0 YES ❑ NO 6. Were samples ID's listed on sample containers?
0 YES ❑ NO 7. Were collection date and time listed on the COC?
0 YES ❑ NO 8. Were tests to be performed listed on the COC?
0 YES ❑ NO 9. Did samples arrive in proper containers for each test?
0 YES ❑ NO 10. Did samples arrive in good condition for each test?
0 YES ❑ NO 11. Was adequate sample volume available?'
0 YES ❑ NO 12. Were samples received within proper holding time for requested tests?
❑ YES ❑ NO 13. Were acid preserved samples received at a pH of<2?
❑ YES ❑ NO 14. Were cyanide samples received at a pH >12?
❑ YES ❑ NO 15. Were sulfide samples received at a pH >9?
❑ YES ❑ NO 16. Were NH3/TKN/Phenol received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L? **
❑ YES ❑ NO Ef Were Sulfide/Cyanide received at a chlorine residual of<0.5 m/L?
❑ YES ❑ NO 118. Were orthophosphate samples filtered in the field within 15 minutes?
* TOC/Volatiles are pH checked at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
** Bacteria samples are checked for Chlorine at time of analysis and recorded on the benchsheet.
Sample Preservation: (Must be completed for any sample(s) incorrectly preserved or with headspace)
Sample(s) were received incorrectly preserved and were adjusted accordingly
by adding (circle one): H2SO4 HNO3 HCI NaOH
Time of preservation: If more than one preservative is needed, notate in comments below
Note:Notify customer service immediately for incorrectly preserved samples.Obtain a new sample or
notify the state lab if directed to analyzed by the customer.Who was notified,date and time:
Volatiles Sample(s) were received with headspace
COMMENTS:
DOC. QA.002 Rev 1

o ° � N d o 0
v
3 • 3 v) M
3 r y
CD
to W d \ W \O o
OEn
; r
M 3 E°
(7
a M 3 1 _1
V4 ^� N
~ M
° C
I o rn
zZ
a v
m
W a z �TT
n n M ( n N
Sample Type 0 M O
,� O
CD M o m `O r;' M m A Z
M
n '� '� or Grab In O O n
T
CCL ontainer y O0> m
(P or G) m Z O Z
mD z
Chlorine 0 Z
mg/L m O A D
Z
It Ma o
3' pH of bottle D = ^
0 w M N
O v
�.
L A- LAB ID - z cn m
a
✓� NUMBER m �+ C m
m
h NONE r O
HCL M
H2SO4 ;0 .. <
z cn
HNO3 M w
n NAOH < N Z
tD D _
< THIO 0 tD -0 -0 ;0
fD M O � 3 = O m
M 0)) W FILTERED Z �. O Z
3 Z O O
C. CSD OTHER M M X
X — T
Z : 3 Z 5, O
O o c
� ( p ^ N
C ID u l= m
CA :5• a
z 3
a z o
Ln
CA �_
v m c 1 m m 3
fD m �D � y � o
m 3 N z
n
A o
N

July 3, 2024
Nick Coco, PE
Environmental Engineer III
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Water Quality
Permitting Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury., Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Via Email: [e-mail]
RE: NPDES Permit NC 0026671
Elizabethtown Wastewater Treatment Plant—Regionalization Effort
Dear Nick:
Elizabethtown is requesting a reduction in the monitoring. Elizabethtown meets all the
criteria below for requesting the reduced monitoring frequency:
1. The facility has no more than one civil penalty assessment for permit limit violations
for each target parameter during the previous three years.
2. Neither the permittee nor any of its employees have been convicted of criminal
violations of the Clean Water Act within the previous five years.
3. The facility is not currently under an SOC for target parameter effluent limit
noncompliance.
4. The facility is not on EPA's Quarterly Noncompliance Report for target parameter
Limit violations.
5. For BODS, CBOD5,TSS, NH3-N and TSS, the three year arithmetic mean of effluent
data must be less than fifty percent of the monthly average permit limit. For fecal
coliform or enterococci, the three year geometric mean must be less than 50
percent of the monthly average permit limit. For parameters with summer and
winter limits, an annual arithmetic mean of the seasonal limits may be used in the
calculation.
6. With the exception of fecal coliform or enterococci, no more than 15 daily sampling
results over the 3-year review period can be over 200% of the monthly average Limit
for BODS, CBODS,TSS, or NH3-N . Values associated with documented impacts of
extreme weather or events beyond the control of the permittee will not be included.

7. For fecal coliform or enterococci, no more than 20 daily sampling results may be
over 200% of the weekly average limit.Values associated with documented impacts
of extreme weather or events beyond the control of the permittee will not be
included.
8. For the four target parameters, sampling results shall not show more than two non-
monthly average limit violations during the previous year.
9. Reduced effluent monitoring must not impair assessment of sensitive downstream
uses, such as endangered species.
Sincerely,
Hugh Bledsoe
WWTP ORC
Elizabethtown
806 West Broad Street
Elizabethtown, RC 28337
CC: David Brandes, PE
Don Chamblee, PE

MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 02/09/24 Page 17 of 17
Permit: NCO026671 MRS Betweel 1 - 2019 and 1 - 2024 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Facility Name:% Param Nam(% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO026671 FACILITY: Town of Elizabethtown-Elizabethtown WWTP COUNTY: Bladen REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
05-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 05/30/23 3 X week ug/I 28 30 7.1 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 09/13/23 3 X week ug/I 28 33 17.9 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
11-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 11/07/23 3 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
12-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 12/06/23 3 X week ug/I 28 32 14.3 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
12-2023 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 12/12/23 3 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
07-2019 001 Effluent Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC 07/13/19 2 X week #/100ml 400 542 35.5 Weekly Geometric Mean Proceed to
Broth,44.5 C Exceeded Enforcement Case
07-2020 001 Effluent Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC 07/11/20 2 X week #/100ml 400 405.34 1.3 Weekly Geometric Mean Proceed to NOD
Broth,44.5 C Exceeded

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO026671 I11 121 22/04/26 I17 18I e I 19 I G I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 J 71 Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:30AM 22/04/26 19/08/01
Elizabethtown WWTP
699 Scout Ln Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Elizabethtown NC 28337 12:30PM 22/04/26 23/10/31
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
John Brian Stephens/ORC/910-740-3632/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Hugh Bledsoe,PO Box 700 Elizabethtown NC 28337H910-874-1961/9108622612
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations&Maintenar Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Hughie White DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.708/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mark Brantley DWR/FRO WQ/910-433-3300 Ext.727/
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NCO026671 I11 12I 22/04/26 117 18 i s i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
All records and log books were very well organized and maintained. A copy of the current NPDES
permit and the most current annual report were available for review. The ORC visitation log
appeared complete and current. Maintenance records and calibration records for equipment
appeared to be properly documented. Laboratory data was reviewed and all data that was reviewed
appeared to be correct, as reported on the DMR's. This facility appeared to be operated and
maintained satisfactorily. At the time of this inspection, the effluent appeared to be very clear with no
visible solids present.
As part of the inspection, effluent samples were collected and sent to the Division of Water
Resources laboratory for analysis. The results of the analysis are listed below:
Fecal Coliform: 1 CFU/100ml
BOD: 8.1 mg/L
Total Suspened Residue: 2.9 mg/L
NHI 0.06 mg/L
Total Phosphorus: 4.0 mg/L
TKN: 1.2 mg/L
NO2+NO3: 2.1 mg/L
Page# 2

Permit: NCO026671 Owner-Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/26/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chain-of-custody complete? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ? ❑ ❑ ❑
(If the facility is = or> 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified ❑ ❑ ❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility M ❑ ❑ ❑
classification?
Page# 3

Permit: NC0026671 Owner-Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/26/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Sequencing Batch Reactors Yes No NA NE
Type of operation: Duplex
Is the reactor effluent free of solids? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does minimum fill time correspond to the peak hour flow rate of the facility? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is aeration and mixing cycled on and off during fill? ❑ ❑ ❑
The operator understands and can explain the process? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Page# 4

Permit: NCO026671 Owner-Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/26/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Type of aeration system Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the diffusers operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Disinfection-Liquid Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Page# 5

Permit: NCO026671 Owner-Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/26/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the mixing adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the odor acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean? M ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO026671 Owner-Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/26/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Sampling
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Comment: Samples are collected at timed intervals
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type ❑ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Comment: Samples are collected at timed intervals.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment: This facility is a member of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association.
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Generator was not tested during this inspection.
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:
Page# 7

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
PermitNo. NC0026671
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 1.225
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 39.87 Note: Based on 1998 CORMIX Model
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 39.87
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 39.87 s7Q10 (CFS) 39.87
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 1.225 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 1.225
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 1.89875 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 1.89875
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 4.55 IWC (%) 4.55
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 374 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 17.4
Cap at 28 ug/L. Less stringent than current limits. Maintain limits.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 39.87
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 1.225
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 1.89875
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 22.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 4.55
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 35.0
Less stringent than current limits. Maintain limits.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Elizabethtown WWTP
PermitNo. NC0026671
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 2.75
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0 Note: assumed 100% IWC until updated model
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I) Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS) 0 s7Q10 (CFS) 0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.75 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.75
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.2625 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.2625
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 100.00 IWC (%) 100.00
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 17 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.0
More stringent than Speculative Limit. Consistent with Speculative limits. Maintain limits.
Apply Limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit(mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 0
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.75
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.2625
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 100.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.8
Consistent with Speculative limits. Maintain limits.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit(Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 =400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)