NC0044725_Fact Sheet_20230713

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO044725
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: July 12, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission (LMAC)/LMAC WWTP
Applicant Address:
16701 Airport Road, Maxton, NC 28364
Facility Address:
NCSR 1434 (Airport Road), East of Laurinburg, NC 28364
Permitted Flow:
2.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 83.4% domestic, 16.6% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Influent Pump Station, Mechanical bar screen, Three Aeration Ditches,
Four Secondary Clarifiers, Tertiary filters, Chlorine Contact Chambers,
Dechlorination, Post aeration, Effluent transfer pumps to outfall, Two
Aerobic Sludge Digesters, Four Sludge Drying Beds, Effluent Pump
Station
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; LTMP
County:
Facility in Scotland and Outfall in Robeson
Region
Fayetteville
*Based off of permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Laurinburg Maxton Airport
Commission (LMAC) has applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 2.0 MGD for the LMAC WWTP.
This facility serves a population of approximately 4,275 residents in the LMAC Industrial Park and Town
of Wagram, as well as 4 non -categorical significant industrial users (SIUs) via a Division -approved
pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into the Lumber River, a
class B;Sw;HQW waterbody in the Lumber River Basin. Outfall 001 is approximately 13 miles upstream
of waters designated as WS-IV.
Sludge disposal: LMAC dewaters sludge once per year, after which, the sludge is transported to a site to
be composted.
Page 1 of 12

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Lumber River
Stream Segment:
14-(4.5)
Stream Classification:
B;Sw;HQW
Drainage Area (mi2):
367
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
118
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
148
30Q2 (cfs):
171
Average Flow (cfs):
511
IWC (% effluent):
2.6
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Lumber River/03-07-51/HUC: 03040203
USGS Topo Quad:
H21 SE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of June 2018 through October 2022.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Permit
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit
Flow
MGD
1.05
2.367
0.355
MA 2.0
WA 18.0
BOD summer
mg/l
4.3
60
0.62
MA 12.0
BOD winter
mg/l
5.2
26.8
2
WA 22.5
MA 15.0
WA 24.0
NH3N summer
mg/l
1.2
22
0.047
MA 8.0
WA 30.0
NH3N winter
mg/1
2.0
11
0.1
MA 10.0
WA 22.5
TSS
mg/1
8.7
83.3
< 1
MA 15.0
6.0 > pH <
pH
SU
6.9
7.56
6
9.0
(geometric)
(geomean)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
12000
WA 400
8.6
MA 200
DO
mg/l
7.6
11.14
DA >5.0
DM 28.0
TRC
µg/l
1 i .0
49
(< 50
compliance)
Monitor &
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
220.3
1156
Report
Monitor &
Temperature
° C
20.3
28
7 ,)
Report
Page 2 of 12

Monitor &
TKN
mg/1
3.0
11.8
0.5
Report
NO2+NO3
mg/l
2.7
14.5
0.02
Monitor &
Report
TN
mg/1
5.5
14.5
0.5
Monitor &
Report
TP
mg/1
2.0
8.74
0.004
Monitor &
Report
Total Cadmium
µg/l
< 10
< 10
< 5
Monitor &
Report
Total Silver
µg/l
< 10
< 10
< 5
Monitor &
Report
Total Hardness
mg/l
20.6
26
6
Monitor &
Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
conductivity upstream at Highway 71 and downstream at SR 1303 (Old Red Springs Road). Instream
monitoring is conducted three times per week during June, July, August and September, and once per
week during the rest of the year. Upstream hardness sampling is also required at a quarterly frequency.
Data was observed from June 2018 to October 2022. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
20.5
27.2
3.7
20.5
27.2
3.7
DO
mg/l
7.5
14.08
3.79
7.4
12.46
3.27
Conductivity
umhos/cm
42.6
158
17
54.0
4450
25.2
Total
Hardness
mg/1
21.3
42
14.4
-
-
-
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05.
Downstream temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]
during the period reviewed. Downstream temperature was greater than upstream temperature by more
than 2.8 degrees Celsius on 30 occasions during the period reviewed. Review of concurrent effluent
Page 3 of 12

temperature data showed the potential for effluent to influence instream temperature. However, it was
also concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
temperature. Effluent influence is not observed at levels with statistically significant impact but instream
temperature will continue to be monitored to track influence.
Average downstream DO was not below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period
reviewed. Downstream DO was observed below 4.0 mg/L on 3 occasions during the period reviewed.
Upon further review, observed drops in downstream DO were consistent with drops in upstream DO. It
was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
While effluent conductivity was consistently greater than instream conductivity, it was concluded that no
statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream conductivity.
Fecal coliform instream monitoring was removed during the 2005 permit renewal. However, as the
receiving stream is a class B water, instream monitoring fecal coliform has been added back into the
permit. Per the 2002 Instream Conductivity and Fecal Coliform Monitoring Guidance, Class B waters are
exceptions to fecal coliform instream monitoring removal. No changes are proposed to instream
monitoring requirements for dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity or total hardness.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported one
fecal coliform limit violation and one TSS limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2018. In 2020, the
facility reported one fecal coliform limit violation resulting in enforcement. The facility reported one
BOD limit violation resulting in enforcement in 2022.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 19 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from January 2018 to September 2022.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in August 2019 reported that the facility was compliant. The last pretreatment inspection conducted in
August 2022 reported that the facility was compliant.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin Zg ones
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): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Page 4 of 12

If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The existing
limitations for BOD5, TSS and ammonia are based on a 1994 WLA, which assigned limits for 1.0 MGD
and 4.0 MGD flow tiers. Because of the HQW classification of the receiving stream, the expanded
wasteflow of 4.0 MGD was given the equivalent of the existing 1.0 MGD permitted loading in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0201 Antidegradation Policy. While no permit was ever issued with a
4.0 MGD expansion tier, the Division applied the recommendation of limits equivalent to permitted
loading when the 2.0 MGD expansion request was submitted. No changes are proposed.
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/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC limits have
been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective. No changes are proposed.
See Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations for background on the current ammonia permit limits. The
ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA for toxicity and have been found to be
protective. No changes are proposed.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of % detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between June 2018 and
October 2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
Effluent Limit with Monitoriniz. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: Total Cobalt (MA 31.2 ,ug/L, DM 256.2 ,ug/L), Total Copper
(MA 153.9 ,ug/L, DM 167.7 ,ug/L)
Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: 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
Page 5 of 12

concentration: Total Cadmium, Total Chlorides, Total Chromium, Total Cyanide, Total Lead,
Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc
POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Arsenic, Total Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds
LMAC reported Total Silver at less than detection, with detection levels < 10.0 µg/L and < 5.0 µg/L in
their DMR results. LMAC's allowable discharge concentration is 1.17 µg/L for Total Silver. DWR's
laboratory identifies the target Practical Quantification Limit (PQL) for Total Silver as 1.0 µg/L. 15A
NCAC 2B .0505 (e) (4) requires that all test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that
are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported to the approved
detection level or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are capable of achieving
a detection level below the permit discharge requirement (or allowable discharge concentration) the
method with the lowest detection level must be used. LMAC should use sufficiently sensitive test
methods for all pollutants, including when performing Effluent Pollutant Scans.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
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: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 2.6%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (^ 2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
Page 6 of 12

the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2015
2016
2018
# of Samples
1
2
2
Annual Average Conc. n /L
1.32
4.4
4
Maximum Conc., n /L
2.32
4.98
4
TBEL, n /L
47
WQBEL, n /L
234.4
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required. Since the facility is a 2.0 MGD facility and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1
ng/1), the mercury minimization plan (MMP) special condition has been maintained. The incorrect
method was used when conducting total mercury analysis during the 2017, 2018 and 2019 effluent
pollutant scans and no additional sampling was reported in 2017 and 2019 for total mercury. EPA method
1631E shall be used when sampling for total mercury, including when conducting effluent pollutant
scans.
Mercury Minimization Plan Summary: LMAC developed and implemented a Mercury Minimization Plan
(MMP) during the past permit period. As a part of this plan, LMAC required all of their SIUs to complete
and submit a mercury survey form. In addition, information about this plan was provided to each of these
facilities. LMAC also continues to monitor mercury on a routine basis (influent and effluent). None of
these sampling events have detected any issues; however, if LMAC sees any indication of increasing
mercury levels, the MMP has specific actions that they will take.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. As an attachment to the permit
application, LMAC informed the Division that no monitoring for additional pollutants has been
conducted (see attached chemical addendum) and therefore no additional pollutants of concern have been
identified.
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; After discussion with the
permittee, LMAC does not believe a compliance schedule is necessary for the newly proposed total
copper and total cobalt limits.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
Page 7 of 12

7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES; overall 85% removal was
achieved for the period reviewed. Instances were observed where 85% TSS removal was not achieved for
a given month. However, upon further review, these instances corresponded with lower levels of influent
TSS were received at the plant.
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: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
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 213.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Effluent temperature is currently monitored at a frequency of 3/week. Per 15A NCAC 02B .0508, water
quality limited Class III facilities shall monitor temperature at a frequency of daily. As such, the
monitoring frequency for effluent temperature has been revised.
LMAC has requested 2/week monitoring for BOD, ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform based on 2012
DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for these parameters have
Page 8 of 12

been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. Based on this review, 2/week
monitoring frequency has been applied for BOD, ammonia, and TSS. Fecal coliform did not meet the
criteria identified in the 2012 guidance; monitoring for Fecal Coliform is maintained at 3/week.
To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
As the LMAC WWTP has a pretreatment program and discharges treated wastewater approximately 13
miles upstream of waters designated as WS-IV, monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the
permit at a frequency of quarterly. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater
is not currently available, the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule
which delays the effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months
after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may
be extended upon request and if there are no NC -certified labs.
The EPA 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria for Bacterial Indicators of Fecal Contamination
recommends states set bacteriological water quality standards for primary recreation freshwaters using
either the Escherichia coli or Enterococcus pathogenic indicators. North Carolina's current recreational
surface water quality standards for Class B (primary recreation) waters use the fecal coliform bacteria
group pathogenic indicator. The Division sent a letter to LMAC on March 8, 2023 requesting
participation in a E. Coli Study being conducted across the state to provide to evaluate the financial
impacts of switching to an E. coli standard for all Class B freshwaters and this data will inform the
Regulatory Fiscal Note a required part of the rulemaking package. The study covers the 2023 Swim
Season, April through August, and requires instream and effluent monitoring and reporting of fecal
coliform, E. coli, turbidity, temperature, DO, conductivity and pH. Additionally, instream sampling
events are to be accompanied by a concurrent precipitation recording.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Chances Outfall 001
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed
Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 2.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5
Summer:
No change to
WQBEL. 1994 WLA limits — equivalent
MA 12.0 mg/1
limits; Monitor
limits applied upon expansion; 2012
WA 18.0 mg/1
and report
DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction
Winter:
2/Week
of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
MA 15.0 mg/l
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
WA 22.5 mg/1
Facilities
Monitor and report 3/Week
NH3-N
Summer:
No change to
WQBEL. 1994 WLA limits — equivalent
MA 8.0 mg/l
limits; Monitor
limits applied upon expansion; verified
WA 24.0 mg/1
with 2022 WLA; 2012 DWR Guidance
Page 9 of 12

Winter:
and report
Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
MA 10.0 mg/l
2/Week
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
WA 30.0 mg/1
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Monitor and report 3/Week
TSS
MA 15.0 mg/l
No change to
WQBEL. 1994 WLA limits — equivalent
WA 22.5 mg/l
limits; Monitor
limits applied upon expansion; 2012
Monitor and report 3/Week
and report
DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction
2/Week
of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing
Facilities
Fecal
MA 200 /100ml
No change to
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
coliform
WA 400 /100ml
effluent
2B .0200; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monitor and report 3/Week
requirements.
NCAC 2B. 0500
Add instream
monitoring.
Temperature
Monitor and Report
Monitor and
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
3/Week
Report Daily
2B. 0508; Class III water quality limited
facility
DO
> 5 mg/1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and Report 3/week
2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC
Monitor and Report 3/week
2B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0500
Conductivity
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
3/Week
2B. 0500
Total
DM 28 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. 2022 WLA. Surface Water
Residual
Monitor and Report 3/week
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Chlorine
TKN
Monitor and Report
No change
For calculation of TN
Monthly
NO2+NO3
Monitor and Report
No change
For calculation of TN
Monthly
Total
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Nitrogen
Monthly
2B. 0500
Total
Monitor and Report
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC
Phosphorus
Monthly
2B. 0500
Total Cobalt
No requirement
MA 22.5 mg/l
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
DM 256.2 mg/l
Analysis (RPA); RP shown - apply
Monitor Monthly
Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Total Copper
No requirement
MA 153.9 mg/l
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
DM 167.7 mg/l
Analysis (RPA); RP shown - apply
Monitor Monthly
Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Total
Monitor and Report
Remove
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
Cadmium
Quarterly
requirement
Analysis (RPA).
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of
Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required
Total Silver
Monitor and Report
Remove
Based on results of Reasonable Potential
Quarterly
requirement
Analysis (RPA).
Page 10 of 12

All values non -detect < 10 ug/L and < 5
ug/L; No monitoring required; Permittee
shall report using PQL < 1 ug/L.
Total
Quarterly monitoring
No changes
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
Hardness
Upstream and in Effluent
water quality standards approved in 2016
Add quarterly
Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
PFAS
No requirement
monitoring with
pretreatment facility; Implementation
delayed
delayed until after EPA certified method
im lementation
becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit, 2.6%
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
effluent
15A NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC
213.0500
Effluent
Three times per permit
No change;
40 CFR 122
Pollutant
cycle
conducted in
Scan
2025, 2026, 2027
Mercury
MMP Special Condition
No change; MMP
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Minimization
maintained
Mercury TMDL Implementation.
Plan (MMP)
Electronic
Electronic Reporting
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Special Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 05/17/2023
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at nick.cocogdeq.nc.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to LMAC, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Fayetteville Regional Office,
Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Operator Certification Program and Pretreatment Unit for review. No
comments were received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• Based on the expiration date of the permit being adjusted to reflect a full 5-year permit cycle, the
effluent pollutant scans shall be collected in 2025, 2026 and 2027 [See Special Condition A.(3.)].
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Page 11 of 12

• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• Monitoring Frequency Reduction Evaluation
• Pretreatment Information Request Form
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• Compliance Inspection Report
• Requested Additional Information
• Application Addendum
• Chemical Addendum
Page 12 of 12

AFFP
Public Notice North Carolina E
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF NORTH SS
CAROLINA }
COUNTY OF SCOTLAND)
Christine Johnson, being duly sworn, says:
That she 'is Legal Advertising Representative the The
Laur nbur i Exchange, a daily newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in Laur n ur , Scotland
County, North Carolina; that the publication, a copy of
which is attached hereto, was published in the said
May 17, 2023
W
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated
an those dates.
SIGNED:
Ufz
I
Legal Advertising-R6presentative
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 1 7th day of May 2023.
Amy Jol'
Carolina
son, No
My commission
Pu4fc75cotland County, North
fires: July 29, 2024
22041573 01119567
Wren Thedford
-fE-CAW
1617 it Service Center
Raleigh, NC2
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental mental Management Commission/NPIDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPIDES Wastewater Permit NCO044725 Lau rin b u r
Industrial WWTP The North Carolina Environmental Management ementComm iss on
proposes to issue a NPIDES wastewater discharge permit to the person(s) listed
below. Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted until
days after the publish date of this notice. The Director ctor of the NC Division of Water
Resources s (DWR). may hold a public hearing should there be a si nif i cant degree of
public interest. Please mail comments and/or inform atiori requests to DWR at the
above address. Interested persons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604 to review the information on file. Additional information can
I P IDES permits and this notice may be found on our a bsite:
https://deq.nc.gov/public-notices-hearings,or by calling (19) 707-3601. The
Lauri nburg-Maxton Airport Commission [16701 i rpo rt Road, Maxtor, NC 28354]
has requested renewal of NPIDES permit NCO044725 for its LMAC Wastewater
Treatment Plant' located in Robeson County. This permitted facility discharges
treated mun i i pal a nd i n d ustrial wastewater to th a Lumber Diver, a cla ss ; Ste; H QW
water in the Lumber River Basin. Currently B D, ammonia, TSS,CEO, pH, TI Ca total
cobalt and total copper are water quality limited. This discharge may affect future
allocations in this segment of the Lumber River.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
❑� CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
LMAC WWTP
III
NCO044725
001
2.000
Lumber River
03040203
B;Sw;HQW
ElApply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
118.000
148.00
171.00
511.00
96.21
20.56 mg/L (Avg)
21.24 mg/L (Avg)
25 m /L
25 m /L
—
Data Source(s)
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par060
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.5899
FW
3.2396
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
117.7325
FW
905.0818
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
7.8806
FW
10.4720
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
2.9416
FW
75.4871
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
-,^"
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
37.2313
FW
335.2087
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.2964
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
126.7335
FW
125.7052
ug/L
Cobalt
Aquatic Life
NC
1.6
FW
16
pg/L
44725 RPA, input
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
I Effluent Hardness
Date
1 6/6/2018
2 9/25/2018
3 12/19/2018
4 3/19/2019
5 6/18/2019
6 9/17/2019
7 12/3/2019
8 3/2/2020
9 6/2/2020
10 9/3/2020
11 12/3/2020
12 3/1/2021
13 6/24/2021
14 9/2/2021
15 12/14/2021
16 3/15/2022
17 7/26/2022
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
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
6
6
Std Dev.
20.6
20.6
Mean
20
20
C.V.
20
20
n
20
20
10th Per value
18
18
Average Value
20
20
Max. Value
15
15
24
24
24
24
22
22
24
24
26
26
20
20
24
24
26
26
20
20
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
4.7430 1
20.5647 2 12/19/2018
0.2306 3 3/20/2019
17 4 6/18/2019
16.80 mg/L 5 9/18/2019
20.56 mg/L 6 12/4/2019
26.00 mg/L 7 3/3/2020
8 6/2/2020
9 9/3/2020
10 12/3/2020
11 3/2/2021
12 6/24/2021
13 9/2/2021
14 3/15/2022
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
Upstream Hardness
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
14.4
14.4
Std Dev.
20
20
Mean
20
20
C.V.
26
26
n
16
16
10th Per value
20
20
Average Value
20
20
Max. Value
24
24
34
34
22
22
< 2
1
16
16
22
22
42
42
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
9.3756
21.2429
0.4414
14
14.88 mg/L
21.24 mg/L
42.00 mg/L
44725 RPA, data
- 1 - 11/16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Date Data
1 3/20/2017 <
2 12/21 /2018 <
3 1/14/2019 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
BDL=1/2DL
10 5
10 5
10 5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
15.0 ug/L
-2-
44725 RPA, data
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Date Data
1 3/20/2017 <
2 12/21 /2018 <
3 1/14/2019 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par04
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL Results
Date
Data
2 1 Std Dev.
0.0000
1
6/6/2018
<
2 1 Mean
1.0000
2
6/12/2018
<
2 1 C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
9/26/2018
<
n
3
4
12/18/2018
<
5
3/12/2019
<
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
6/17/2019
<
Max. Value
1.00 ug/L
7
9/17/2019
<
Max. Pred Cw
3.00 ug/L
8
12/3/2019
<
9
3/2/2020
<
10
3/24/2020
<
11
6/2/2020
<
12
12/2/2020
<
13
3/1 /2021
<
14
3/17/2021
<
15
6/23/2021
<
16
9/1/2021
<
17
12/13/2021
<
18
3/1 /2022
<
19
6/13/2022
<
20
9/28/2022
<
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
Cadmium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
0.5
0.25
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
1
0.5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
1.4241
4.5375
0.3139
20
1.19
5.000 ug/L
5.950 ug/L
-3-
44725 RPA, data
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05
Date Data
1 6/11/2018
2 9/26/2018
3 3/12/2019
4 6/17/2019
5 9/17/2019
6 12/3/2019
7 3/2/2020
8 6/2/2020
9 9/28/2020
10 12/2/2020
11 3/17/2021
12 6/23/2021
13 3/1/2022
14 6/13/2022
15 9/28/2022
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE
Par07
Use "PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
SPECIAL -Values"
Chlorides
then "COPY".
Total Phenolic Compounds
then "COPY".
Maximum data
Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
27
27
Std Dev.
12.5369
1
3/21 /2018
< 40 20
Std Dev.
0.0000
14.5
14.5
Mean
27.6
2
12/26/2018
< 40 20
Mean
20.0000
10
10
C.V.
0.4548
3
1/14/2019
< 40 20
C.V. (default)
0.6000
16
16
n
15
4
n
3
46
46
5
31
31
Mult Factor =
1.4
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
24
24
Max. Value
54.0 mg/L
7
Max. Value
20.0 ug/L
24
24
Max. Pred Cw
74.0 mg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
60.0 ug/L
17
17
9
16
16
10
24
24
11
37
37
12
38
38
13
35
35
14
54
54
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
-4-
44725 RPA, data
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Chromium, Total
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Pal
Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
1
6/11/2018
<
10
5
Std Dev.
1.1307
1
6/11/2018
2
9/26/2018
<
2.5
1.25
Mean
4.6591
2
9/26/2018
3
6/17/2019
<
10
5
C.V.
0.2427
3
12/18/2018
<
4
12/3/2019
<
10
5
n
11
4
3/12/2019
<
5
6/2/2020
<
10
5
5
6/17/2019
<
6
12/2/2020
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.25
6
9/17/2019
<
7
6/23/2021
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 pg/L
7
12/3/2019
8
9/1/2021
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
6.3 dig/L
8
6/2/2020
9
12/13/2021
<
10
5
9
9/28/2020
10
3/1/2022
<
10
5
10
12/2/2020
<
11
6/13/2022
<
10
5
11
3/17/2021
12
12
6/23/2021
<
13
13
9/1 /2021
<
14
14
12/13/2021
<
15
15
3/1/2022
<
16
16
6/13/2022
17
17
9/28/2022
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
Copper
BDL=1/2DL Results
89
89
Std Dev.
6.51
6.51
Mean
10
5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
14
14
Max. Value
10
10
Max. Pred Cw
15
15
10
5
10
10
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
37
37
8
8
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
20.9275
13.7947
1.5171
17
2.05
89.00 ug/L
182.45 ug/L
-5-
44725 RPA, data
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Date Data
1 6/11/2018 <
2 9/26/2018 <
3 12/18/2018 <
4 3/13/2019 <
5 6/18/2019 <
6 9/18/2019 <
7 12/4/2019 <
8 3/3/2020 <
9 6/3/2020 <
10 9/29/2020 <
11 12/3/2020
12 3/17/2021 <
13 6/24/2021 <
14 12/14/2021 <
15 3/2/2022 <
16 6/14/2022 <
17 9/29/2022 <
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
Par14
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Cyanide Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5
5
Std Dev.
5
5
Mean
5
5
C.V.
5
5
n
5
5
5
5
Mult Factor =
5
5
Max. Value
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0
5
5.0
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Date
0.0000
1
6/11 /2018
5.00
2
9/26/2018
0.0000
3
12/18/2018
17
4
3/12/2019
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
5 6/17/2019
6 9/17/2019
7 12/3/2019
8 6/2/2020
9 12/2/2020
10 6/23/2021
11 9/1 /2021
12 12/13/2021
13 3/1 /2022
14 6/13/2022
15 9/28/2022
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
Lead
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
10
Std Dev.
5
5
Mean
10
10
C.V.
10
10
n
10
10
10
10
Mult Factor =
10
10
Max. Value
10
10
Max. Pred Cw
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
1.2910
9.6667
0.1336
15
1.10
10.000 ug/L
11.000 ug/L
M
44725 RPA, data
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
use "PASTE
SPECIAL -
Values" then
Par19
"COPY".
Maximum data
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
points = 58
Date
Data
1
6/11 /2018
13
13
Std Dev.
2.1381
1
6/11 /2018
<
2
9/26/2018
<
10
5
Mean
5.5714
2
9/26/2018
<
3
12/18/2018
<
10
5
C.V.
0.3838
3
12/18/2018
<
4
6/17/2019
<
10
5
n
14
4
6/17/2019
<
5
12/3/2019
<
10
5
5
9/17/2019
<
6
3/2/2020
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.33
6
12/3/2019
<
7
6/2/2020
<
10
5
Max. Value
13.0 pg/L
7
6/2/2020
<
8
12/2/2020
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
17.3 pg/L
8
12/2/2020
<
9
6/23/2021
<
10
5
9
6/23/2021
<
10
9/1/2021
<
10
5
10
9/1/2021
<
11
12/13/2021
<
10
5
11
12/13/2021
<
12
3/1/2022
<
10
5
12
3/1/2022
<
13
6/13/2022
<
10
5
13
6/13/2022
<
14
9/28/2022
<
10
5
14
9/28/2022
<
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
Selenium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
10
5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.0000
14
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
-7-
44725 RPA, data
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Date Data
1 6/6/2018 <
2 6/12/2018 <
3 9/26/2018 <
4 12/3/2018 <
5 3/12/2019 <
6 6/17/2019 <
7 9/17/2019 <
8 12/3/2019 <
9 3/2/2020 <
10 6/2/2020 <
11 9/28/2020 <
12 12/2/2020 <
13 3/1/2021 <
14 3/17/2021 <
15 6/23/2021 <
16 9/1/2021 <
17 12/13/2021 <
18 3/1/2022 <
19 6/13/2022 <
20 9/28/2022 <
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Silver Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
5
2.5
C.V.
10
5
n
10
5
10
5
Mult Factor =
10
5
Max. Value
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
0.5590
4.8750
0.1147
20
1.07
5.000 ug/L
5.350 ug/L
Par21
Date
1 6/11/2018
2 9/26/2018
3 12/18/2018
4 6/17/2019
5 12/3/2019
6 6/2/2020
7 12/2/2020
8 6/23/2021
9 9/1/2021
10 12/13/2021
11 3/1 /2022
12 6/13/2022
13 9/28/2022
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
Zinc
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
237
237
Std Dev.
27.2
27.2
Mean
51
51
C.V.
91
91
n
58
58
45
45
Mult Factor =
43
43
Max. Value
147
147
Max. Pred Cw
49
49
80
80
98
98
77
77
64
64
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
55.8711
82.0923
0.6806
13
1.66
237.0 ug/L
393.4 ug/L
44725 RPA, data
11 /16/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par22
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
Cobalt
then "COPY".
Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
6/11/2018
505
505
Std Dev.
114.9939
2
9/26/2018
24.4
24.4
Mean
44.7444
3
12/18/2018
16
16
C.V.
2.5700
4
3/12/2019
14
14
n
18
5
6/17/2019
21
21
6
9/17/2019
30
30
Mult Factor =
2.43
7
12/3/2019
22
22
Max. Value
505.0 tag/L
8
3/2/2020
16
16
Max. Pred Cw
1227.2 tag/L
9
6/2/2020
10
10
10
9/28/2020
21
21
11
12/2/2020
11
11
12
3/17/2021
13
13
13
6/23/2021
15
15
14
9/1/2021
13
13
15
12/13/2021
15
15
16
3/1/2022
25
25
17
6/13/2022
21
21
18
9/28/2022
13
13
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
44725 RPA, data
- 9 - 11/16/2022

LMAC WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO044725 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
2.0000
1Q10S (cfs) =
96.21
7Q10S (cfs) =
118.00
7Q10W (cfs) =
148.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
171.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
511.00
Receiving Stream:
Lumber River HUC 03040203
WWTP/WTP Cla
1WC% @ 1Q10S
IWC% @ 7Q10S
IWC% @ 7Q10W
IWC% @ 30Q2
IW%C @ QA
Stream Cla
is: III
= 3.121538616
= 2.559867878
= 2.051621443
= 1.78058587
= 0.602995526
is: B;Sw;HQW
Qw = 2 MGD
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS HOW OR ORW
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/Q
Acute = 25 mg/L
Chronic = 25 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
Applied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standard
Acute (FW): 5,446.0
Arsenic
C
75 FW(7Q10s) 170
ug/L
3 0
15.0
Chronic (FW): 2,929.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
C.V. (default)
Max MDL_ 10
Monitoring required
Arsenic
C
5 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
Note: n < 9
NO DETECTS
----------------------------------------
Chronic (HH): 829.2
Limited data set
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 1,041.15
Beryllium
NC
3.25 FW(7Q10s) 32.5
ug/L
3 0
3.00
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 126.96
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 2
Monitoring required
Acute: 51.891
Cadmium
NC
0.2949 FW(701 Os) 1.6198
uWL
20 0
5.950
Chronic: 11.522
All non -detects < 10 ug/L, < 1 ug/L and < 0.5 ug/L- No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
115 FW(701 Os)
ma/L
15 15
74.0
Chronic: 4,492.4
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
150 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 0
60.0
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 8,424.2
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 40
Monitoring required
Acute: 14,497.4
Chromium III
NC
58.8663 FW(7Q10s) 452.5409
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic: -----2 299.6 -
----------------------------
Acute: 256.3
Chromium VI
NC
6 FW(7QlOs) 8
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:----- 214.9--
----------------------------
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
11 0
6.3
Max reported value 5
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 167.74
Copper
NC
3.9403 FW(7Q10s) 5.2360
ug/L
17 8
182.45
----------------------------
Chronic:----- 153.93--
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 352.4
Cyanide
NC
2.5 FW(7010s) 11
10
uWL
17 1
5.0
- _--_-_ __-_
_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _
Chronic: 97.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
44725 RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 11 /16/2022

Outfall 001
NCO044725
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Qw = 2 MGD
Acute: 1,209.133
Lead
NC
1.4708 FW(7Q10s) 37.7436
ug/L
15 15
11.000
Chronic: 57.457
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 5,369.3
Nickel
NC
18.6157 FW(7Q1 Os) 167.6043
µg/L
14 1
17.3
Chronic (FW): 727.2
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
12.5000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Chronic (WS): 488.3
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 897.0
Selenium
NC
2.5 FW(7Q10s) 28
ug/L
14 0
5.0
Chronic:----- 97.7---
----------------------------
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 4.748
Silver
NC
0.03 FW(7QlOs) 0.1482
ug/L
20 0
5.350
Chronic: 1.172
All values non -detect < 10 ug/L and < 5 ug/L; No
monitoring required; Permittee shall report using PQL
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
< 1 ug/L.
Acute: 2,013.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
63.3667 FW(7Q10s) 62.8526
ug/L
13 13
393.4
Monitoring required
Chronic: - — - — -2,475.4 -
----------------------------
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 256.28387
Cobalt
NC
0.8 FW(7QlOs) 8
µg/L
18 18
1,227.15000
Chronic:----- 31.252 - ----------------------------
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
1 values > Allowable Cw
44725 RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 11 /16/2022

Permit No. NCO044725
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/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (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-[In hardness] (0.04183 8)) • e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*}1.136672-[In hardness] (0.04183 8)) • e^{0.915l[ln hardness] -3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*}1.101672-[In hardness] (0.04183 8)) • e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^}0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*}1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^}1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*}1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^}1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^}0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^}0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO044725
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]+0.8841
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[1n hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO044725
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) + (s7Q 10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
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 — I
Ctotal 1 + { [KPO] [SS(l+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. NC0044725
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Default used; average from review
period below 25 mg/L.
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25
Default used, average from review
period below 25 mg/L.
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
118
USGS 1988 Low Flow Report
1Q10 (cfs)
96.21
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
2.0
NPDES Files
Date: 11/17/2022
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

11/16/22 WQS
= 6
ng/L
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name
LMAC WWTP/NC0044725
No Limit Required
/Permit No.
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL =
0.5 ng/L
7Q10s = 118.000 cfs WQBEL = 234.39 ng/L
Date Modifier
Data Entry
Value
Permitted Flow = 2.000 47 ng/L
8/19/15
1.32
1.32
1.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
3/9/16
3.81
3.81
9/8/16
4.98
4.98
4.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
12/13/18
4
4
12/14/18
3.96
3.96
4.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018

LMAC WWTP/NC0044725
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2015
2016
2018
# of Samples
1
2
2
Annual Average, ng/L
1.3
4.4
4.0
Maximum Value, ng/L
1.32
4.98
4.00
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
234.4

NCO044725 LMAC WWTP
BOD monthly removal
rate
Month
RR (%)
Month
June-18
97.21
December-20
July-18
96.73
January-21
August-18
96.03
February-21
September-18
97.80
March-21
October-18
94.87
April-21
November-18
95.74
May-21
December-18
92.28
June-21
January-19
96.18
July-21
February-19
96.80
August-21
March-19
96.33
September-21
April-19
95.06
October-21
May-19
96.45
November-21
June-19
97.99
December-21
July-19
96.87
January-22
August-19
98.61
February-22
September-19
97.61
March-22
October-19
97.76
April-22
November-19
92.45
May-22
December-19
94.03
June-22
January-20
95.07
July-22
February-20
95.15
August-22
March-20
97.12
September-22
April-20
96.94
October-22
May-20
97.48
November-22
June-20
92.49
December-22
July-20
97.05
January-23
August-20
91.83
February-23
September-20
94.40
March-23
October-20
89.28
April-23
November-20
90.70
May-23
RR (%)
93.85
96.41
94.07
84.75
96.40
92.56
94.72
96.63
96.94
96.25
98.53
97.09
98.04
98.45
98.69
98.01
94.48
97.22
97.38
97.11
97.42
98.66
Overall BOD removal rate 95.73
11/17/2022
TSS
monthly removal
rate
Month
RR (%)
Month
RR (%)
June-18
95.01
December-20
79.66
July-18
94.26
January-21
84.42
August-18
89.04
February-21
89.02
September-18
89.09
March-21
86.41
October-18
70.61
April-21
90.27
November-18
96.54
May-21
88.41
December-18
92.31
June-21
94.45
January-19
95.27
July-21
96.47
February-19
93.92
August-21
97.46
March-19
97.16
September-21
94.02
April-19
96.41
October-21
95.99
May-19
97.61
November-21
89.65
June-19
95.43
December-21
95.93
July-19
93.25
January-22
97.83
August-19
96.02
February-22
94.37
September-19
93.98
March-22
97.94
October-19
95.99
April-22
83.47
November-19
93.54
May-22
90.40
December-19
91.21
June-22
83.93
January-20
92.97
July-22
86.54
February-20
90.99
August-22
83.23
March-20
93.38
September-22
84.18
April-20
93.96
October-22
May-20
94.45
November-22
June-20
78.57
December-22
July-20
91.78
January-23
August-20
81.71
February-23
September-20
85.47
March-23
October-20
84.24
April-23
November-20
77.71
May-23
Overall TSS removal
rate
90.69

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: LMAC WWTP
PermitNo. NC0044725
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 2
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 118
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 148
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
118
s7Q10 (CFS)
118
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.1
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
2.56
IWC (%)
2.56
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
664
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
30.7
Cap at 28 uq/L. Consistent with current limit.
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
148
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
3.1
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
39.06 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
2.05
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
77.2
Less stringent than current limit. Maintain limit.
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
LMAC WWTP
Permit No.
NC0044725
Review period (use 3
9/2019 - 9/2022
yrs)
Approval Criteria: Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
# of non
monthly Monthly
3-yr mean
# daily
# daily
Reduce
Data Review
Units
average
SOo/
(geo mean
< 50%?
200%
samples
<15?
200%
samples
< 207
monthly
> 2?
#civil penalty
> 1?
Frequency?
average limit
limit
MA
for FC)
MA
>200%
WA
>200%
limit
asessment
(Yes/No )
violations
BOD (Weighted)
mg/L
19.875
13.25
6.6
1
Y
26.5
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
5.2421813
Y
60
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (weighted)
mg/L
26.5
8.83
4.4
1.0782402
Y
17.7
1
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
1 #/100
400
1 200
1 1001
6.7875348
Y
iM
1800 1 29 1 N
1 1
1 N
1 0
1 N
N

REGIONAL
11RPORl' WTHORITY
April 11, 2023
Via E-mail
[e-mail]
Mr. Nick Coco, PE
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting/NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: LMAC WWTP NPDES Permit Renewal NCO044725
Request for Reduction in Monitoring Frequencies for BOD and NH
Scotland County
Dear Mr. Coco:
N
This letter is to request a reduction in monitoring frequencies for BOD and. H3-N based on the
exceptional performance of the LMAC wastewater treatment plant (WWTI I) over the past three
(3) years. The attached compiled data demonstrates that the sampling resultsE, for these parameters
meet the approval criteria. Specifically, the three-year arithmetic mean of, the effluent data for
2020, 2021 and 2022 is less than 50% of the monthly average permit limit for I ese parameters and
there are no more than 15 daily samples during this same period that are above 200% of the
monthly average permit limit. The table below summarizes these results.
BOD (mg/1)
NH3-PJ (mg/1)
April -Oct Arithmetic Mean
4.04
0.82
April -Oct 50% Monthly Avg Limit
6
4
April -Oct 200% Monthly Avg Limit
24
16
No. >200%
0
0
Nov - Mar Arithmetic Mean
4.20
0.69
Nov -Mar 50% Monthly Avg Limit
7.5
5
Nov -Mar 200% Monthly Avg Limit
30
_
20
No. >200%
1
0
16701 AIRPORT ROAD - MAXTON, N.C. 28364
[phone] www.lmairport.com

In addition, the following criteria have also been met for these parameters:
• This WWTP has not had any civil penalties assessed for permit violations during this
three-year period.
• Neither LMAC nor its employees have been convicted of criminal violations of the Clean
Water Act within the last five (5) years.
• The facility is not currently under an SOC for target parameter effluent limit
noncompliance.
• This WWTP is not on EPA's Quarterly Noncompliance Report for target parameter limit
violations.
• Sampling results do not show more than 2 non -monthly average limit violations for
BOD and NH3-N.
• This reduced effluent monitoring will not impair assessment of sensitive downstream
uses.
TSS and fecal coliform parameters were also analyzed in the attached compiled data; however,
all criteria for reduced monitoring was not met for those. 11
Thank you for your consideration of this request and please let us know if you have any questions
or need additional information. ,
Sincerely,
S (9,9-
ki&a
Seth Hatchell, NCAP - Executive Director
Lauri nburg-Maxton Airport
Southeast Regional Airport Authority
cc: Angie Mettlen, Vice President - WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
NPDES APPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEWS
FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
NPDES APPLICATIONS AND PROGRAM UPDATES RULE
On February 12, 2019, the EPA finalized revisions to the application requirements at 40 CFR 122.21 in the NPDES
Applications and Program Updates Rule. The final rule became effective on June 12, 2019. On and after this
date, applicants for EPA -issued permits are required to meet the new application requirements through
completion of updated application forms that conform to the final rule.
During the transition to the updated forms, the EPA anticipates that applicants may inadvertently complete and
submit applications using the older outdated forms for a period after the June 12, 2019 effective date. If this
occurs, applications submitted using the outdated Forms 1 and 2A will not conform to the regulatory
requirements for applications at 40 CFR 122.21 and should be deemed incomplete by the EPA Regions. (Note
that the final rule did not include regulatory changes pertaining to the form requirements for Forms 213, 20, 2D,
2E, and 2F; therefore, submission of the outdated forms may be deemed complete at the EPA Regions'
discretion.)
Requiring applicants to transfer information from the outdated forms and resubmit the new updated forms may
be time-consuming and costly. In lieu of transferring the information and resubmitting the updated forms, EPA
Regions may consider issuing a "Notice of Incomplete Application" to the applicant requesting only the missing
information. Any information provided by the applicant in response to the notice must include the certification
statement from 40 CFR 122.22(d) and be signed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22(a).
The EPA Regions have the discretion to determine the period of time for which they will allow applicants to
submit the outdated forms along with the missing information to accommodate applicants that may have begun
the permit application process prior to the availability of the updated forms; however, it is expected that this
practice will only be allowed for a short period of time (perhaps six months), after which the EPA Regions should
require that all applications be submitted using the updated forms.
Permittees to which the aforementioned transition period applies may complete and submit the tables
provided on Attachment A to the North Carolina DEVs Division of Water Resources as an addendum to their
NPDES renewal applications.
These addenda only apply to facilities submitting Forms 1 and/or 2A:
Applicants submitting a renewal application addendum for Form 1 (Non-POTW, private facilities)
should fill out Table 1, found on page 2 of this document & sign and submit document.
Applicants submitting a renewal application addendum for Form 2A (Municipal & POTW's) should fill
out Table 2, found on page 3 of this document & sign and submit document.
Submit completed files to the following address:
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources/Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
1 The final rule clarified that existing data may be used, if available, in lieu of sampling done solely for the purpose of the
application, provided that sampling was performed, collected, and analyzed no more than 4.5 years prior to submission,

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 1. EPA Application Form 1 Missing Information
1.1 Email address of facility contact i-gon![[e-mail]
Imairport.com
1.2 NAICS Codes} Description (optional)
221320 Sewage treatment plants or facilities
1.3 1 Email address of operator ]corkela7fmairport.com 1 moxendine(a.lmairaort.com
1.4 Does your facility use cooling water?
❑ Yes X No + SKIP to Item 1.6
1.5 1Identify the source of cooling water. (Note that facilities that use a cooling water intake structure as described at 40 CFR 125,
Subparts I and J may have additional application requirements at 40 CFR 122,21(r). Consult with your NPDES permitting
authority to determine what specific information needs to be submitted and when.)
1.6 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(m)? (Check all that apply. Consult with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
❑ Fundamentally different factors (CWA
Section 301(n))
❑ Non -conventional pollutants (CWA
Section 301(c) and (g))
X Not applicable
1.7 1 Certification Statement
❑ Water quality related effluent limitations (CWA Section
302(b)(2))
❑ Thermal discharges (CWA Section 316(a))
l certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. l am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting fals
violations. e information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
Name (print or type first and last name) Official title
Jo Ann Gentry
Executive Director
b I Sig ure Date sinned

Attachment A —Request for Missing Information
Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
1.1 Email address of facility contact icorke Imair ort.com 1 moxendine Imai ort.com
1.2 Applicant email address ' ent Imair ort.com
1.3 Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge NA
1.4 Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge NA
1.5 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)? (Check all that a)ply. Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA
301(h)) Section 302(b)(2))
X Not applicable
6 Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works NA
Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that dischar a to the POTW.
Number of SIUs Number of
1.81 Certification Statement
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. / am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name (print or type first and last name) Official title
Jo Ann Gentry I Executive Director
Date signed

Date: Jo Ann Gentry Executive Director 'Q Ilk

Ow
W
zpoa
FUO
OJU
p W
WWo
�m<
omw
"Om
a yp
FNO
'w
OZw
-o
dz
Zip
z
$om
Wy:j
_U Q
LLpx
OYw
c o h
0
zwa
ow,
ooz
¢w6,
aka
wgQ
°C3z
>o¢
w.a
¢xp
wr_z
w Q
x
°Cry_
mQo
0
Ft
(7zw
Y
Qmm
Om
w
?r
=w
:3s
Oz8)
U - U
Zzc
W
41m2
UpLL
po0
Y y z Q
©o
3�3
0
l zw
for
E�o
ON
ooO
0 WK
0 DICKSON
[communitvinfrastructure consultants
Q
162 SEVEN FARMS DRIVE
SUITE 210
I�J�J CHARLESTON, SC 29492
KEY (f)843-416-5563
(INFLUENT) WWW.WKDICKSON.COM
LI
= PUMP
O= AERATOR
L�
= PROCESS FLOW
= VALVE p
EFFLUENT GOES TO RIVER UNLESS
PUMPS SHUT OFF AN OVERFLOW LOCATED OFF SITE
VALVE WILL SEND EFFLUENT BACK
TO THE INFLUENT PUMP STATION CLARIFIER
I� I AERATION BASIN
INFLUENT I
14 F SPLITTER BOX
I INFLUENT I
PUMP STATION CLARIFIER
L SPLITTER BOX
SPLITTER BOX
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
m
CLARIFIER
CHLORINE
CONTACT CHAMBER
AERATION BASIN
SPLITTER BOX
D
Z
CLARIFIER SPLITTER BOX O
EFFLUENT*
(TO RIVER) U
Z) L7
Li
)z
w °
Lf o-
FILTERS Z l7 U
O � w
CU w
cr
O
LL
O
z
o RAS PUMP � Q
N
STATION SPLITTER BOX
ce
Lq FUTURE \w z
3
a
m
s AERATION BASIN
3
O
RAS / WAS RAS LL
U
v
U
m
a
U
C6
Q
2
2i
Lu
TL
~ U
s cn
> 1^
M > L J
w
DIGESTER 2 f0 U
o 00 In
CV U d
Z
12
a`
mJ
3o ms
R
0
J
3
LLJ J
DRYING BEDS Z
0
s THE ELECTRONIC FILES PROVIDED BY W.K. DICKSON & CO., INC. (WKD) TO RECEIVING PARTIES p uZ
J
ARE FOR COORDINATION PURPOSES ONLY. THE RECEIVING PARTY AGREES NOT TO USE 0 0
THESE DRAWINGS AND DATA, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE
t REFERENCED PROJECT. THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA IS FURNISHED WITHOUT GUARANTEE OF DIGESTER p
N COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RECEIVING PARTY'S SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE, AND WKD'S SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA IS TO FURNISH A REPLACEMENT FOR DEFECTIVE u
DISKS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER DELIVERY TO THE RECEIVING PARTY. USE OF THESE
MATERIALS FOR MODIFICATION, EXTENSION OR EXPANSION OF THIS PROJECT OR ON ANY PROD. MGR.: AM
OTHER PROJECT, UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WKD SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO DESIGN BY: AM
s WKD AND WKD'S SUBCONSULTANTS. BECAUSE DATA STORED IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA FORM
CAN BE ALTERED, EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY, BY TRANSCRIPTION, MACHINE DRAWN BY: WJW
ERROR, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, OR BY OPERATORS, IT IS AGREED THAT THE RECEIVING PROJ. DATE: 11-01-2017
PARTY SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, SAVE HARMLESS WKD, WKD'S SUBCONSULTANTS, AND THE
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF ANY OF THEM FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DRAWING NUMBER:
LIABILITIES, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO COSTS OF o
DEFENSE, ARISING OUT OF CHANGE OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DATA IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
FORM IN THE RECEIVING PARTY'S POSSESSION OR RELEASED TO OTHERS BY THE RECEIVING 1 OF2
PARTY AND FOR ANY USE OF THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND PRINTED HARD COPY DRAWINGS a
AND SPECIFICATIONS OUTSIDE THE LICENSE GRANTED BY THIS PROVISION. SHOULD THE
RECEIVING PARTY DISAGREE WITH STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN, PLEASE ADVISE US IN p�' WKD PROJ. NO.:
s WRITING WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE DATA OR THIS DISCLAIMER STANDS
AS WRITTEN. Q
20170303.00.CH
o
LL

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO044725 MRS Betweel 0 - 2017 and10 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 11/15/22 Page 1 of 9
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO044725
FACILITY: Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission - Laurinburg
Industrial WWTP
COUNTY: Scotland
REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
04 - 2022
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04/09/22
3 X week
mg/I
18
20.67
14.8
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
10-2017
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/11/17
3 Xweek
ug/I
28
32
14.3
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10-2017
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/17/17
3 X week
ug/I
28
49
75
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10-2017
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/18/17
3 X week
ug/I
28
42
50
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10-2017
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/19/17
3 X week
ug/I
28
35
25
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/04/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
32
14.3
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/18/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
38
35.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
01 -2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
01/24/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
35
25
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/19/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
31
10.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/28/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
30
7.1
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/05/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
47
67.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/07/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
40
42.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/08/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
36
28.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/12/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
38
35.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
03-2018
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
03/14/18
3 X week
ug/I
28
47
67.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO044725 MRS Betweel 0 - 2017 and10 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 11/15/22 Page 8 of 9
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO044725
FACILITY: Laurin burg-Maxton Airport Commission - Laurinburg
Industrial WWTP
COUNTY: Scotland
REGION: Fayetteville
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
02-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/01/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
46
64.3
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/02/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
31
10.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02 - 2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/09/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
33
17.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/10/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
31
10.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
02-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
02/16/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
45
60.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
04-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
04/19/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
41
46.4
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
04-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
04/27/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
31
10.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
06/13/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
40
42.9
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
06-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
06/23/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
43
53.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
07-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
07/27/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
38
35.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/22/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
31
10.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
08-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
08/24/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
29
3.6
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
09/07/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
38
35.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
09-2022
001
Effluent
Chlorine, Total Residual
09/08/22
3 X week
ug/I
28
31
10.7
Daily Maximum
No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
10-2018
001
Effluent
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
10/27/18
3 X week
#/100ml
400
1,821.95
355.5
Weekly Geometric Mean
Proceed to
Broth, 44.5 C
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
08-2020
001
Effluent
Coliform, Fecal MF, MFC
08/15/20
3 X week
#/100ml
400
461
15.2
Weekly Geometric Mean
Proceed to NOV
Broth, 44.5 C
Exceeded

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO044725 MRS Betweel 0 - 2017 and10 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 11/15/22 Page 9 of 9
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category: %
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO044725 FACILITY: Laurin burg-Maxton Airport Commission - Laurinburg COUNTY: Scotland REGION: Fayetteville
Industrial WWTP
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
11 -2017
001
Effluent
Flow, in conduit or thru
11/30/17
Continuous
mgd
treatment plant
01 -2018
001
Effluent
pH
01/30/18
3 X week
su
11 -2018
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
11/03/18
3 X week
mg/I
Concentration
09-2022
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
09/30/22
3 X week
mg/I
Concentration
2
19.32
866.2
Monthly Average
None
Exceeded
6
0
100
Daily Minimum Not
None
Reached
22.5
31.43
39.7
Weekly Average
Proceed to
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
15
15.43
2.8
Monthly Average
None
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 NCO044725 111 121 19/08/28 I17 18 LC] I 19 I s I 201
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 131 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
70I I 71 I LL -1 I I
LJ
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:45AM 19/08/28
16/11/01
Laurinburg Industrial WWTP
16701 Airport Rd
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Maxton NC 283646899
01:30PM 19/08/28
19/07/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
James Thomas Croke/ORC/910-318-8282/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Jo Ann Gentry,16701 Airport Rd Maxton NC 283646899/Executive
Director/910-844-5081 /9108449681 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#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NC0044725 I11 12I 19/08/28 117 18 i c i
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
All records and log books appeared to be complete and well organized. A copy of the NPDES permit
was available for review. The ORC visitation log appeared to be complete and current. Calibration
records appeared to be properly documented. Laboratory data was reviewed and all data appeared
to be correct, as reported on the DMR's. It was noted during the inspection that there was a
significant amount of solids buildup in the center well of both clarifiers. This needs to be removed.
Overall, the facility appeared to be operated properly.
Page#

Permit: NCO044725
Inspection Date: 08/28/2019
Owner - Facility: Laurinburg Industrial WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
■
❑
❑
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
■
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
■
Name of individual performing the sampling
■
Results of analysis and calibration
■
Dates of analysis
■
Name of person performing analyses
■
Transported COCs
■
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
■
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
■
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
❑
❑
■
❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
■
❑
❑
❑
classification?
Page# 3

Permit: NC0044725 Owner - Facility:
Inspection Date: 08/28/2019 Inspection Type:
Laurinburg Industrial WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
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:
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:
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Pump Station - Influent
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO044725
Inspection Date: 08/28/2019
Owner - Facility: Laurinburg Industrial WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑
■
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: It was noted during the inspection that the center well of both clarifiers that are in use
had a significant amount of sludege buildup. These center wells need to be cleaned.
Sludge level was approx. 2 ft.
Disinfection -Gas
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
❑
❑
❑
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No.
❑
❑
0
❑
7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
❑
❑
0
❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment:
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of system ?
Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
0
❑
❑ ❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Comment:
Page# 5

Permit: NC0044725
Inspection Date: 08/28/2019
Owner - Facility: Laurinburg Industrial WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Aerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the capacity adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are pumps in place?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Drying Beds
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
❑
❑
■
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO044725 Owner - Facility: Laurinburg Industrial WWTP
Inspection Date: 08/28/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
■
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
■
❑
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
■
❑
❑
❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
■
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment:
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Page# 7

Permit: NCO044725
Inspection Date: 08/28/2019
Oxidation Ditches
Owner - Facility: Laurinburg Industrial WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
Comment: The DO level was 1.2
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Page# 8

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Laurinburg WTP, City of
NCO036773/001 County:
Scotland
Ceri7dPF Begin:
11/1/2014 Ceri7dPF Monit @ 90
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2018 -
Pass -
-
Fail
2019 -
Pass -
-
Pass
2020 -
Pass -
-
Pass
2021 -
Pass -
-
Fail
2022 -
Fail -
-
Pass
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport (LMAQ
WW NCO044725/001 County:
Scotland
Ceri7dPF Begin:
11/1/2016 chr lim: 2.6%
NonComp: Single
J
F M
A
M
2018 -
- Pass
-
-
2019 >10.4(P)
>10.4(P) >10.4(P) Pass
-
-
2020 -
- Pass
-
-
2021 -
- Pass
-
-
2022 -
- Pass
-
-
Lawrence Sprinkle-Weaverville
WTP NCO085154/001 County:
Buncombe
Ceri7dPF Begin:
1/2/2021 Chr Monit: 90%
NonComp:
J
F M
A
M
2018 Pass
- -
Pass
-
2019 Pass
- -
Pass
-
2020 Pass
- -
Pass
-
2021 Pass
- -
Pass
-
2022 Pass
- -
Pass
-
LCP Plastics, Inc.
NCO036366/001
County: Guilford
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
3/1/2003 fathead 24h LC50 ac
+ NonComp: Single
J
F M
A M
2018
H
H
2019
H
H
2020
H
H
Lear Corporation WWTP
NC0002305/001
County: Duplin
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
10/1/2018 chr lim: 27%
NonComp: Single
J
F M
A M
2018
>100
>100
2019
>100
- -
>100 -
2020
>100
- -
H -
2021
>100
- -
>100 -
2022
19.1 INC)
9.5 INC) 38.2 38.2
19.1(NC) 19.1(
Region: FRO
Basin:
LUM55
Feb May Aug Nov
SOC JOC:
7Q10:
PF:
IWC:
Freq: Q
J J
A
S O
N
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Fail
Pass
-
Region: FRO
Basin:
LUM51
Mar Jun Sep Dec
SOC JOC:
7Q10: 111.0
PF: 2.0
IWC:
1.3 Freq: Q
J J
A
S O
N
Pass -
-
Pass -
>10.4(P)
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Region: ARO
Basin:
FRB04
Jan Apr Jul Oct
7Q10:
PF:
IWC:
Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
Region: WSRO
Basin:
CPF08
Feb May Aug Nov
7Q10: 0.00
PF: NA
IWC:
100 Freq: Q P/F
J
J
A
S
O
H
H
Region: WIRO
Basin:
CPF22
Jan Apr Jul Oct
7Q10: 6.5
PF: 1.5
IWC:
27 Freq: Q
J
J
A
S
O
>100
>100
-
>100
-
-
Pass
-
>100
-
-
>73.5
-
>100
-
-
73.5
>100
>100
-
-
>100
SOC JOC:
N
C
D
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
G
SOC JOC:
N D
H
H
SOC JOC:
N D
LeEend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facilitv is active). s = Split test between Certified Labs Page 63 of 118

PROCESSES AT THE LAURINBURG INDUSTRIAL WWTP
LAURINBURG-MAXTON AIRPORT COMMISSION (LMAQ
SCOTLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Wastewater Treatment Process Description
The existing wastewater treatment facility is permitted under NPDES No. NC0044725 and has a
treatment capacity of 2.0 MGD. The average daily flow (2018 data) to the facility is 0.977 MGD.
The following is a list of the treatment process components:
1. Mechanical Bar Screen: Physical contaminants/larger solid objects in the wastewater are
removed by the mechanical bar screen.
2. Influent Pump Station with Flow Meter and Composite Sampler: Influent Pump Station
to pump wastewater to the splitter box, measure flow and collect wastewater samples.
3. Flow Splitter Box: Splits 1MGD of flow to Oxidation Ditches 1 and 2 and 1MGD of flow
to Oxidation Ditch 3.
4. Three Oxidation Ditches: Oxidation ditches are modified activated sludge biological
treatment process that utilizes long solids retention times to remove biodegradable
organics. Wastewater to the oxidation ditch is aerated using Aeration Basins. Oxidation
Ditches 1 and 2 have 0.5 MGD capacity each and Oxidation Ditch 3 has a capacity of
1MGD.
5. Four Secondary Clarifiers: Suspended solids/activated sludge in the effluent from the
Oxidation Ditches are settled in the clarifiers. The tanks are built with a mechanism for
continuous removal of suspended solids from the treated wastewater by settling. There
are two (2) 30' clarifiers, one (1) 42' clarifier, and one (1) 60' clarifier.
6. Tertiary Filtration: Clarified water enters the filters to remove nutrients, suspended
solids, and organic materials. This process raises the effluent quality.
7. Chlorine Contact Chambers: Chlorine is fed into the treated wastewater to kill
pathogenic bacteria and to reduce odor.
8. Dechlorination: Removal of excess chlorine.
9. Post Aeration: Aeration of treated effluent to meet dissolved oxygen limits before
discharging to the river.
10. Effluent Collection Sump with Transfer Pumps, Flow Meter and Composite Sampler:
The resulting treated effluent is then discharged into the outfall (Lumber River).
11. Two Aerobic Sludge Digesters, Four Sludge Drying Beds: The sludge treatment
components provide a minimum of 40 days of digestion time and 200 days of storage for
dewatering between application events. The sludge treatment process used by the WWTP
includes aerobic digestion followed by drying beds as the sludge stabilization method.
The existing facilities have been designed to allow flexible solids handling. Sludge can be
pumped between the sludge digesters as needed. For further digestion the sludge can be
decanted to allow thickening. The structures are designed for an excess of 40 days of
pg. 1

storage. After sufficient detention time and thickening in the digesters the sludge can be
collected for disposal at the land application site or discharged to drying beds. The drying
beds have sufficient area to allow for 200 days of drying time at plant capacity.
12. Backup Generators: Supply power to critical processes.
pg. 2