NC0020044_Fact Sheet_20230720

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. 1vCOO2OO44
Permit Writer / e-mail Contact: Gary Perlmutter / [e-mail]
Date: 7/12/2023
Division / Branch: NC Division of Water Resources / NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
© Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers: EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW): EPA Form 2A, three (3) effluent pollutant scans, four (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
Town - Facility
Town of Williamston — Williamston WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 506, Williamston, NC 27892
Facility Address:
1801 Willow Drive, Williamston, NC 27892
Permitted Flow:
2.0 / 2.4 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class:
Grade III
Treatment Units:
Bar Screen, Fine Screen, Grit Removal, Oxidation Ditch, Clarifiers,
Chlorination, De -chlorination, Re -aeration, Sludge Lagoon, Sludge
Drying Beds
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Martin
Region
Washington
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Williamston has
applied for NPDES permit renewal and submitted a renewal application, received by the Division on
11/15/2021. Review of the application found it incomplete with the Chemical Addendum lacking. In
response to the request, the ORC commented that the facility does not receive any industrial waste, and
therefore does not anticipate any additional pollutants to be reported in the Chemical Addendum. The three

NC0020044
required effluent pollutant scans were run in March 2019, December 2020 and June 2021; the four 2°d
species tests were conducted in September 2020, December 2020, February 2021, and June 2021.
This facility serves a total population of —5525 residents in the Town of Williamston. As stated in the cover
letter to the permit renewal application, the Town had lost its two Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) to
closure, thus ending their industrial user permits (IUPs); however, the Town wishes to keep open its
pretreatment program with a Short -Term Monitoring Plan (STMP) for receipt of future industrial
wastewater.
With the Chemical Addendum response, the ORC notified the following changes to the system component
list:
• Remove the four (4) 100 ft x 30 ft sludge drying beds (surplus) as they are not used, and
• Replace the one (1) 300 kW diesel standby generator with one (1) 48 kW LP gas standby generator.
The above changes were made to the permit.
Sludge management: According to the cover letter to the permit renewal application, sludge is pumped to
a sludge holding lagoon (digester) for stabilization, then the lagoon is emptied by Granville Farms
(contractor) and land -applied under Class B permit WQ0010198.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfall(s) / Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 / Roanoke River
Stream Segment:
23-(49.5)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi):
9060
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
1170
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
1170
30Q2 (cfs):
2600
Average Flow (cfs):
--
IWC (% effluent):
0.27 at 2.0 MGD, 0.32 at 2.4 MGD
2022 303(d) listed / parameter:
None
Subject to TMDL / parameter:
Statewide TMDL / Mercury
Basin / HUC:
Roanoke / 03010107
USGS Topo Quad:
Williamston, NC
The receiving stream, Roanoke River, has no downstream water supply waters before entering the
Albemarle Sound at —33 miles downstream of the outfall.
Page 2 of 12

NCO020044
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data is summarized below for the period October 2018 through March 2023.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit 1
Flow
MGD
0.98
3.59
0.42
MA = 2.0
BOD, summer
mg/L
2.1
6.0
< 2.0
MA = 25.0
WA = 37.5
BOD, winter
mg/L
2.2
5.1
< 2.0
MA = 30.0
WA = 45.0
BOD removal
%
98.2
99.3
98.2
> 85
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
3.9
22.0
2.0
MA = 30.0
(TSS)
WA = 45.0
TSS removal
%
96.6
99.2
73.1
> 85
Ammonia (NH3-N),
mg/L
0.13
2.45
< 0.04
MA = 16.7
summer
WA = 35.0
Ammonia (NH3-N),
mg/L
0.11
0.41
< 0.04
Monitor &
winter
Report
Fecal Coliform
#/100 mL
11.1
435
< 1
MA = 200
WA = 400
Total Residual Chlorine
µg/L
All < 20
DM = 282
(TRC)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
9.1
12.4
6.2
DA > 5.0
Temperature
°C
18.3
28.0
7.2
Monitor &
Report
pH
SU
7.2
8.2
6.3
6.0 - 9.0
TKN
mg/L
1.33
3.10
0.66
Monitor &
Report
mg/L
Monitor &
NO2+NO3
6.92
9.92
3.16
Report
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
8.25
11.32
4.24
Monitor &
Report
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
1.87
5.51
0.23
Monitor &
Report
Total Hardness
m /L
g
52
71
40
Monitor &
(as CaCO3)
Report
Footnotes.
1. MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DA = Daily Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
2. TRC values < 50 µg/L are considered compliant.
The highest annual average effluent flow is 1.12 MGD or 56% of the permitted flow in calendar year
(CY) 2021.
Page 3 of 12

NCO020044
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will beproposedfor this permit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Total Hardness only, upstream of the outfall,
for calculation of allowable effluent concentrations of hardness -dependent dissolved metals (See Section
6.4 Reasonable Potential Analysis below). The permit does not require instream monitoring of any other
parameters as the discharge accounts for less than 1 % of the receiving stream under low -flow conditions
and has continually met effluent limits for DO and BOD. Because of the low effluent flow relative to
receiving river flow, instream hardness was removed from the permit.
Instream data are available from Division Ambient Monitoring Stations N8550000, located -1.0 mile
upstream of the outfall, and N9250000, located -26 miles downstream of the outfall. Instream data from
2019 - 2022 are summarized below.
Table 2. Instream Data Summary
Parameter, units
Station N8550000
Station N9250000
Water Quality Standard
(upstream)
(downstream)
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Average = 8.7
Average = 7.4
5.0
(5.1-12.3)
(4.8-13.0)
Temperature, °C
Average = 17.6
Average = 20.8
32.0
(6.7 - 29.7)
(5.1 - 30.3)
Specific Conductivity,
Average = 99.9
Average = 94.5
µS/cm
(75 -131)
(73.4 -121)
Fecal Coliform,
Geometric mean = 30
Geometric mean = 17
200/400
cfu/100 mL
(5 -400)
(4 - 51)
Ammonia, mg/L
Average = 0.02
Average = 0.02
(0.02 - 0.07)
(0.02 - 0.03)
NO2+NO3, mg/L
Average = 0.21
Average = 0.13
(0.08 - 0.34)
(0.03 - 0.27)
TKN, mg/L
Average = 0.37
Average = 0.41
(0.30 - 0.48)
(0.30 - 0.51)
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Average = 0.06
Average = 0.06
(0.04 - 0.10)
(0.03 - 0.14)
Downstream values on average were similar or lower than upstream in most parameters, indicating no
impact by the effluent. Based on these patterns and that the effluent's negligible discharge amount relative
to the flow of the Roanoke River, no changes are proposed. The average temperature was higher
downstream, but concurrent sampling was not conducted at both stations, so statistical analysis could not
be conducted to determine whether this was significant.
Page 4 of 12

NC0020044
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): From April 2018 through
March 2023 (past 5 years) one flow limit violation was reported, in February 2021, for which an NOD was
issued.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species chronic
toxicity tests, sampled in September 2020, December 2020, March 2021 and June 2021.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection,
conducted on 12/07/2021, did not report any compliance issues. The most recent pretreatment inspection
was on 04/25/2023, confirming that the Town currently has no SIUs and is keeping its pretreatment program
open for any future SUIs.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
6.1. Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA.
6.2. Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Monthly/weekly
average BOD limits of 25.0/37.5 mg/L summer and 30.0/45.0 mg/L winter are based on secondary
treatment standards for 2.0 MGD flow tier, and the loading was frozen for the 2.4 MGD flow tier in the
current permit to minimized impact on the receiving stream DO. The above limits are maintained.
6.3. Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current permit
limits for Ammonia of 16.7/35.0 mg/L monthly/weekly average in summer and none in winter are based
on 1996 speculative limits for expansion to 2.4 MGD. Because there was no existing ammonia limit in
Page 5 of 12

NC0020044
1996, a value of 20 mg/L was used to determine the load at 2.0 MGD. This load was kept the same and
used to calculate a concentration of 16.7 mg/L at 2.4 MGD flow. Prior to the 2009 NPDES permit renewal,
the facility was operating and meeting ammonia effluent limits at 2.4 MGD, so these same limits (i.e., 16.7
mg/L) were imposed when the facility returned to 2.0 MGD flow by 2009. A WLA was run to compare
toxicity -based allowable concentrations to the current limits, finding the current limits to be the more
protective. The current ammonia -nitrogen limits are maintained.
TRC limits are based on WLA calculations as run for Ammonia. For both 2.0 and 2.4 MGD flows, limits
for TRC were capped at 28 µg/L at both flow tiers, same as those in the current permit. The current limits
are maintained.
6.4. Reasonable Potential Analysis s (EPA) 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 1/2 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.
Permittee-submitted DMR Hardness data averaged 51.9 mg/L in the effluent and 36.9 mg/L instream,
upstream of the discharge. These data were used in the RPA.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between October 2018
through March 2023. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria: None at either flow tier.
• 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 at either
flow tier.
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration: All
parameters analyzed.
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. Only Chloroform was detected, at levels lower than the allowable
discharge concentration.
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 at eitherflow tier.
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 at either
flow tier.
Because of the high dilution of effluent in receiving water of the Roanoke River having negligible effect
on hardness, instream hardness monitoring was removed from the permit.
Page 6 of 12

NC0020044
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.
6.5. 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 with a chronic WET limits at 0.27%
effluent at 2.0 MGD and 0.32% at 2.4 MGD flow tiers, with quarterly monitoring. The current limits are
maintained.
6.6. Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year) and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) will receive
an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a pollutant
of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL
value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/L) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/L.
The current permit does not require a Mercury Minimization Plan. Data are summarized below.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary.
2018
2019
2020
2021
2023
# of Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
0.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
0.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L
0.50
1.00
1.00
3.00
0.50
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L at 2.0 MGD
4,541
WQBEL, ng/L at 2.4 MGD
3,786
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no limits are required.
Despite the facility being 2.0 MGD and quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) were reported, no mercury
minimization plan (MMP) special condition is not needed and was not added to the permit due to the low
effluent to receiving river flow of < 1 %.
6.7. Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The receiving stream currently has no TMDLs or Nutrient Management Strategy. Since the
WWTP discharges to the Roanoke River 33 miles upstream of the Albemarle Sound, it may be subject to
future nutrient criteria whose development is under consideration as part of the Albemarle Sound Nutrient
Criteria Development Plan (Section 4 of North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, v. 2:
Page 7 of 12

NC0020044
hllps://www. deq.nc. govlaboutldivisionslwater-resources/water-sciences/nutrient-criteria-development-
>l lan•)
The current permit has monthly monitoring requirements for Total Nitrogen (TN), its constituents TKN and
NO2+NO3, and Total Phosphorus (TP). No changes were made.
6.8. Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: To address emerging
contaminants, a Chemical Addendum to the application request was sent to the ORC on 5/2/2023. In
response, the ORC stated: "There are no industrial or manufacturing facilities here in the Town of
Williamston so based on that I do not feel that 1, 4-Doxane [1, 4-Dioxane] or the PFAS group of chemicals
would be a concern for us. " No water supply waters lie in the Roanoke River downstream of the discharge
before it empties into the Albemarle Sound —33 miles distant, thus no concerns of emerging contaminants
impacting downstream water supplies are apparent. However, based on the pervasive nature of PFAS
chemicals in North Carolina and beyond, 2/yr monitoring was added to the permit with a delayed
implementation (see Section 10. Monitoring Requirements below).
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA.
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/L
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES.
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES. Review of BOD and TSS data
found no occurrences below 85% BOD removal and 3 occurrences below 85% TSS removal.
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.
Page 8 of 12

NCO020044
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 2B.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
The current permit has reduced monitoring requirements at 2/week for BOD, TSS Fecal Coliform at both
2.0 and 2.4 MGD flow tiers from a modification in 2015, then maintained in the 2019 renewal. The Town
requested reduced monitoring frequencies for BOD, TSS and Fecal Coliform based on the Division's DWQ
Guidance for Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Exceptionally Performing Facilities (DWQ 2012) with
justification on 5/l/2023. Effluent data from the past three years (April 2020 — March 2023) were evaluated
and found all applicable target parameters to meet the criteria. Monitoring for BOD, TSS and Fecal
Coliform are maintained at 2/week at the current 2.0 MGD flow only. Monitoring frequencies for the above
parameters at 2.4 MGD were adjusted to 3/week per 15A NCAC 2B .0508 with the option for the Permittee
to request reduction after six months of monitoring with no violations at the expanded flow tier.
Ammonia was not evaluated for reduced monitoring frequencies as monitoring for that parameter is weekly
in the current permit. However, summer Ammonia has limits in the current permit, which are maintained,
requiring the water quality limited frequency of 3/week. Therefore, monitoring frequency for Ammonia in
summer months will be adjusted to 3/week at both flow tiers. Winter monitoring for Ammonia will be
maintained at weekly since it is not water quality limited (i.e., monitor and report only).
As the Williamston WWTP discharges treated wastewater —33 miles upstream of the Albemarle Sound with
no water supply waters, monitoring of PFAS chemicals was added to the permit at 2/year frequency. 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 to allow laboratories to become NC -certified in the new
method. This date may be extended upon request and if there are no NC -certified labs.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Page 9 of 12

NC0020044
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was fmalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes '° 2
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
2.0 / 2.4 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 213.0505
Summer:
No change in limits or
TBEL. Secondary treatment
MA = 25.0 mg/L
monitoring frequency at
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
WA = 37.5 mg/L
2.0 MGD.
Increase monitoring to
NCAC 2B .0406. State reporting
BODS
Winter:
3/week at 2.4 MGD with
requirements, 15A NCAC 213 .0508.
MA = 30 mg/L
Effluent data meet criteria for
WA = 45 mg/L
option to request
reduced monitoring frequency,
Monitor 2/week
reduction after 6 months
applicable at 2.0 MGD only.
and no violations.
No change in limits or
TBEL. Secondary treatment
monitoring frequency at
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
MA = 30 mg/L
2.0 MGD.
Increase monitoring to
NCAC 213 .0406. State reporting
TSS
WA = 45 mg/L
3/week at 2.4 MGD with
requirements, 15A NCAC 213 .0508.
Monitor 2/week
Effluent data meet criteria for
option to request
reduced monitoring frequency,
reduction after 6 months
applicable at 2.0 MGD only.
and no violations.
Summer:
MA = 16.7 mg/L
No change in limit
WQBEL. Speculative limits for DO
WA — 35.0 mg/L
requirements.
protection at 2.4 MGD. State
NH3-N
Monitor weekly
reporting requirements, 15A NCAC
Winter:
Monitor 3/week
213
Monitor & report
(summer); weekly winter
.0508.
Monitor weekly
No change in limits or
monitoring frequency at
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
MA = 200 /100 mL
2.0 MGD.
NCAC 213.0200.
Fecal Coliform
WA = 400 /100 mL
Increase monitoring to3/week
Effluent data meet criteria for
Monitor 2/week
.
at 24 MGD with
reduced monitoring frequency,
option to request
applicable at 2.0 MGD only.
reduction after 6 months
and no violations.
Page 10 of 12

NC0020044
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Total Residual
DM — 28 µg/L
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Chlorine (TRC)
Monitor 3/week
No change
NCAC 213 .0200. State reporting
requirements, 15A NCAC 213 .0508.
DA > 5 mg/L
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
DO
Monitor 3/week
No change
NCAC 213 .0200. State reporting
requirements, 15A NCAC 213 .0508.
Temperature
Monitor 3/week
No change
State reporting requirements, 15A
NCAC 213.0508.
6 — 9 SU
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
pH
Monitor 3/week
No change
NCAC 213 .0200. State reporting
requirements, 15A NCAC 213 .0508.
TKN
Monitor monthly
No change
To calculate Total Nitrogen
NO2+NO3
Monitor monthly
No change
To calculate Total Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen
Monitor monthly
No change
State reporting requirements, 15A
(TN)
NCAC 2B .0508.
Total Phosphorus
Monitor monthly
No change
State reporting requirements, 15A
(TP)
NCAC 2B .0508.
Monitor quarterly
Required to assess dissolved metal
Total Hardness
effluent and instream,
Remove instream
limitations. Removed instream due
upstream of outfall
monitoring
to ratio of effluent to receiving river
< 1 /o.
Add 2/year monitoring
EPA recommendations (guidance
PFAS
No requirement
with delayed
memo, 12/5/2022).
implementation
Chronic limits 0.27%
effluent at 2.0 MGD /
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Toxicity Test
0.32% at 2.4 MGD
using at 2.4 MGD
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
dubia.
15A NCAC 2B.0500.
Monitor quarterly
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per
Update sampling years:
40 CFR 122
Scan
permit cycle
2025, 2026, 2027.
Electronic
Special Condition
Update language
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Reporting Rule 2015.
Footnote.
1. MGD = Million gallons per day; MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Max; DA = Daily
Average.
13. Public Notice Schedule
Permit to Public Notice: 06/01/2023
Page 11 of 12

NC0020044
Per 15A NCAC 21-1.0109 & .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-day 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
Gary Perlmutter at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable)
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): No; no comments were
received by the Permittee, EPA or any other party.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable)
• NPDES Pretreatment POC form
• Monitoring report violations
• WET Summary sheet, p. 113
• Compliance inspection report
• NH3/TRC WLA calculation form
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• Dissolved Metals Fact Sheet Memo
• Mercury TMDL Evaluation
• Chemical Addendum
• Chemical Addendum — Supplemental datasheet
• Monitoring Reduction request by ORC
• Monitoring Reduction spreadsheet
Page 12 of 12

A 13 C D E F I G I H I J K L M
N O 1 P
NPDES/PT POC Review Form
Version: 2022.06.22
2
1. Facility's General Information
3
Data of(draff) Review
5/l/2023-
c. POC review due to:
e. Contact Information
4
Data of(finah Review
Municipal NPDES renewal
❑
Regional Offics(RO) Washington
5
NPDES Permit Writer g-)
Gary Perlmutter
HWA-AT/LTMP Review
ElRO
PT Staff Robert Bullock RO NPDES Staff Robert Tankard
6
Permittee-Facility Name
Town of W illiamston - Williamston W WTP
New Industries
❑
Facility PT Staff, email Gene Reed<aenereed[atownofwilliamslon.com>
7
NPDES Permit Number
NCO020044
WWTP e>q�ansion
❑
f. Receiving Stream
8
NPDES Permit Effective Date
2/1/2019
Stream radassdadjustment
❑
Outfall
9
Chemical Addendum Submittal Data
Outfall relmafronladjustmeat
❑
Receiving Stream:
Roanoke River
CA, cfs:
--
10
NPDES Permit Public Notice Data
7Q10 update
❑
Stream Class
C
7Q10 (S), cfs:
1170
11
eDMR data evaluated from:
to
Other POC review trigger, explain:
Oufall Lat.
35.51.36 N
Curtail Long.
77.01.25 W
12
3
a. W WTP Capacity Summary
Outfall 11
Current Permitted Flow, mgd
2.0 Degagned Fes'' 2.0
Receiving Stream:
CA, cfa:
14
Permitted SIU Flow, mid
0.00
d. IU Summary
Stream Class
7Q10, cfs:
15
b. PT Docs. Summary
#IUs
0
Oufall Let.
Curtail Long.
16
IWS approval date
12/912019
#SIUs
0
Is there a PWS downstream of the Facility's Outfalls? ❑ VES NO
17
3 USTMP approval date:
8/22/2019
# CIUs
0
Comments:
18
9
.E
d HWA approval date
m
0
4/30/2019
# NSCIUs
0
The Town had lost its Iwo SIUs during the 2019 - 2022 NPDES permit cycle, but is keeping its pretreatment open for future SIUs.
#IUs w/Local
Permits or Other
T e
f
20
Z 2. Industrial Users' Information.
21
#
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU Non Conventional Pollutans 8 Toxic Pollutant IUP Effective Date
22
t
23
2
24
s
25
4
26
s
31
comment:
32
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
33
Status of Pretreatment Program check all that apply)
34
❑
1) facility has no SIUs, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
35
❑
2) facility has no SIUs, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
36
❑
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
37
❑
3a) Full Program with LTMP
38
O
31b) Modified Program with STMP
39
❑
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment
attached
or listed
below
40
2
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
41
❑
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according
to § 503.43)
42
43
❑
❑
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill:
8) other
44
45
46
Sludge Disposal Plan:
Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) is pumped to a sludge holding lagoon (digester) for stabilization, then the lagoon is emptied by Granville Farms (contractor) and land -applied.
47
Sludge Permit No:
W00010198
Page 1 20044 POC Review Form

PW: Find L/STMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
a
�
Comment
N�
PQLs review
U
m
New
Previous
%
PQL from
Required PQL
Recomm.
Parameter of Concern
NPDES
NPDES
Required by
POC due to
POC due to
POTW
Removal
L/STMP
NPDES
L/STMP, ug/I
per NPDES
PQL, ug/I
POC Check List
POC
POC
EPA PT 1
Sludge 2
SIU 3
POC 4
Rate
Effluent Freq
Effluent Freq
permit
0
Flow
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
BOD
❑
❑
Elz.o
mg/t
0
TSS
❑
F17
❑
❑
zs mg/L
O
NH3
❑
❑
❑
❑
100.0
n
Arsenic
n
n
n
n
n
2.0
2.0
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to
EPA -PT requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP R listed in sludge permit
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP, R sewage sludge is incinerated
Please use blue fort for the info updated by pw
Please use red font for POC that need to be addedlmodi ied In L/STMP
sampling
plan
Blue shaded cell (D60:H82): Parameters usually included under that POC list
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified In USTMP:
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to USTMP due
to POTWs concerns:
NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC.
Page 2 20044 POC Review Form

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: NCO020044 MRS Betweei 4 - 2018 and 5 - 2023 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 05/02/22 Page 1 of 1
Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO020044 FACILITY: Town of Williamston - Williamston WWTP COUNTY: Martin REGION: Washington
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
02 - 2021 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru 02/28/21 Continuous mgd 2 2.2 9.8 Monthly Average Proceed to NOD
treatment plant Exceeded

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Williamston WWTP
NCO020044/001
County:
Martin
Region:
WARO
Basin:
ROA09
Mar Jun Sep Dec
Ceri7dPF
Begin: 2/1/2019
chr lim: 2.0 MGD @
0
NonComp:
Single
7Q10:
1170
PF: 2.4
IWC:
0.26 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
2019
-
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2020
-
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
>1.08(P) Pass
-
2021
-
- Pass>1.08(P)
-
-
>1.08
(P) Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2022
-
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
2023
-
- Pass
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wilson -Hominy Crk WRF-Contentnea
NCO023906/001
County:
Wilson
Region:
RRO
Basin:
NEU07
Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF
Begin: 3/1/2021
chr lim: 90%
NonComp:
Single
7Q10:
0.5
PF: 14.0
IWC:
97.37 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
2019
-
Pass -
-
>100(P) Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
2020
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
2021
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
2022
- >100 (P) Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
2023
-
Pass -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Windsor WWTP
NCO026751/001
County:
Bertie
Region:
WARO
Basin:
ROA10
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF
Begin: 4/1/2019
Chr Lim: 90%
NonComp:
SINGLE
7Q10:
0.0
PF: 1.15
IWC:
100 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
I
J
A
S
O
2019
Pass
- -
Fail
>100
>100
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2021
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
>100 (P)
Pass
-
-
>100 Pass
2023
>100 Pass
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Winston-Salem Archie
Elledge WWTP
NCO037834/001
County:
Forsyth
Region:
WSRO
Basin:
YAD04
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF
Begin: 8/1/2017
chr lim: 76%
NonComp:
ChV Avg
7Q10:
15.0
PF: 30
IWC:
75.6 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
I
A
S
O
2019
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2020
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
- Pass >96% (P
2021
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2023
Pass
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Winston-Salem Lower Muddy Crk
NCO050342/001
County:
Forsyth
Region:
WSRO
Basin:
YAD04
Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF
Begin: 9/1/2017
chr lim: 5.5%
NonComp:
ChV Avg
7Q10:
554.0
PF: 21.0
IWC:
5.5 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
I
A
S
O
2019
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass >22(P)
-
-
Pass
2020
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
- Pass >22 (P)
2021
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2022
Pass
- -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
2023
Pass
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
Pass
Pass >100 (P)
Pass >100 (P)
Pass
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
>96 (P)
SOC JOC:
N
>22 (P)
D
Pass
0.76 (P) Pass
Pass
Pass
C
G
C
C
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facilitv is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs Page 113 of 115

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 NCO020044 I11 121 21/12/07 I17 18I � I 19 I s I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
701� I 711 L
LJ L -1 I I
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:30AM 21/12/07
19/02/01
Williamston WWTP
1801 Willow Dr
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Williamston NC 27892
11:30AM 21/12/07
22/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Gene Hilary E Reed/ORC/252-661-0770/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Gene Reed,PO Box 506 Williamston NC 278920506/ORC/252-792-4744/2527926449
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar 0 Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review
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
Robert E Bullock DWR/WARO WQ/252-948-3843/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020044 I11 12I 21/12/07 117 18 i c i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The review period for this inspection was October 2019 through October 2021. One Notice of
Deficiency was issued over the review period for exceeding the permitted monthly flow.
Gene Reed is the ORC with Billie Jo Cooper, Todd James and Daniel Brownfield as the backup
ORC's.
The August 2021 DMR was spot checked for accuracy with no discrepancies found.
The facility appeared to be well maintained and operated and was judged to be COMPLIANT with
NPDES permit NC0020044.
Page#

Permit: NCO020044
Inspection Date: 12/07/2021
Owner -Facility: Williamston WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
(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: The current permit is effective until May 31, 2022.
Laboratory
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Comment: The Town of Williamston has its own certified lab with nutrient and hardness samples
sent to Environment 1 for analysis.
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
■
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
❑
Name of individual performing the sampling
❑
Results of analysis and calibration
❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO020044
Inspection Date: 12/07/2021
Record Keeping
Dates of analysis
Owner -Facility: Williamston WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Yes
No
NA
NE
El
El
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Gene Reed is the ORC with Billie Jo Cooper, Todd James and Daniel Brownfield as the
backup ORC's.
The August 2021 DMR was spot checked for accuracy with no discrepancies found.
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Influent sampler is on constant time and constant volume with a sample every 30
minutes.
Sampler temperature was 1 degree on the day of inspection.
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
❑
❑
❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO020044
Inspection Date: 12/07/2021
Bar Screens
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Owner -Facility: Williamston WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility has a manual and a mechanical bar screen. On the day of inspection the
mechanical bar screeen was in operation.
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Oxidation Ditches
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are the aerators operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
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:
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:
Page# 5

Permit: NC0020044 Owner -Facility: Williamston WWTP
Inspection Date: 12/07/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Chemical Feed
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is containment adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfection -Liquid
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO020044 Owner -Facility:
Inspection Date: 12/07/2021 Inspection Type:
Williamston WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Sodium Bisulfate is used for de-chlor
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# 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: The effluent sampler is on constant time and constant volume with a sample
taken
every 30 minutes
Sampler temperature was 4.5 degrees on the day of inspection.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Electric Motor Shop calibrated the flow meter on 9-7-2021
IYMMki[•7►/_9►1:4
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
and sampling location)?
Comment: Quarterly upstream hardness samples are taken at the boat ramp
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0020044
Inspection Date: 12/07/2021
Owner -Facility: Williamston WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power
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: Crossroads Fuel supplies diesel for the generator.
Yes
No
NA
NE
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
Page# 8

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Proiect Information
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Williamston WWTP
Grade III
NCO020044
001
2.400
Roanoke River
03010107
C
1170.00
1170.00
2600.00
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1Q10s (cfs)
938.72
_Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
51.94 mg/L (Avg)
36.88 mg/L (Avg)
I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 36.93 mg/L
I 36.94 mg/L
'Fe rmittee-submitted DMRs and PPAs.
Data Source(s)
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06111111
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Parts
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name WQs Type Chronic ModIer 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
0.7923
FW
4.5555
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
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
162.0571
FW
1246.1553
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
10.9989
FW
15.1288
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
4.5570
FW
116.9824
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
51.7911
FW
466.4211
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
0.5802
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
176.3835
FW
174.9995
ug/L
Chloroform
Aquatic Life
NC
2000
FW
pg/L
20044 FW RPA 2023, input
7/24/2023

H1
1
2
3
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
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values" then "COPY• Upstream Hardness Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data . Maximum data
points = 58 points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
2/12/2019
44
44
5/14/2019
55
55
8/13/2019
52
52
11/12/2019
57
57
2/12/2020
47
47
5/12/2020
46
46
8/11/2020
52
52
11/9/2020
50
50
2/9/2021
53
53
5/11/2021
43
43
8/10/2021
46
46
11/9/2021
53
53
2/8/2022
50
50
5/10/2022
57
57
8/9/2022
71
71
11/8/2022
67
67
2/7/2023
40
40
Results
Std Dev.
8.0659
Mean
51.9412
C.V.
0.1553
n
17
10th Per value
43.60 mg/L
Average Value
51.94 mg/L
Max. Value
71.00 mg/L
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 2/6/2019
24
24
Std Dev.
9.1233
2 5/14/2019
36
36
Mean
36.8824
3 8/13/2019
40
40
C.V.
0.2474
4 11/12/2019
33
33
n
17
5 2/12/2020
40
40
10th Per value
28.60 mg/L
6 5/12/2020
30
30
Average Value
36.88 mg/L
7 8/11/2020
40
40
Max. Value
63.00 mg/L
8 11/9/2020
32
32
9 2/9/2021
37
37
10 5/11/2021
29
29
11 8/10/2021
38
38
12 11/9/2021
38
38
13 2/8/2022
36
36
14 5/10/2022
28
28
15 8/9/2022
63
63
16 11/8/2022
51
51
17 2/7/2023
32
32
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
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-2- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Par03
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic
Values" then "COPY"
Beryllium
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/24/2018
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.7583
1
3/5/2019 <
1 0.5
Std Dev.
0.2598
2
2/15/2023
<
2
1
Mean
1.7000
2
12/10/2020 <
0.1 0.05
Mean
0.3500
3
3/5/2019
<
5
2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
6/16/2021 <
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
12/10/2020
<
3
1.5
n
5
4
n
3
5
6/16/2021
<
2
1
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
7
Max. Value
0.50 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
5.8 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
1.50 ug/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-3- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
ParO5
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/24/2018
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.1369
1
2
2/15/2023
<
0.5
0.25
Mean
0.3500
2
3
3/5/2019
<
1
0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
4
12/10/2020
<
0.5
0.25
n
5
4
5
6/16/2021
<
0.5
0.25
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
7
Max. Value
0.500 ug/L
7
8
Max. Fred Cw
1.160 ug/L
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30 I
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
Chlorides
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Fred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points =
58
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A mg/L
N/A mg/L
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-4- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par06
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
valves" imthenum •copydata
. Max
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
points = 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
3/5/2019
< 5 2.5
Std Dev.
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
2/10/2020
2 2
Mean
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
6/16/2021
< 10 5
C.V. (default)
4
n
0
4
n
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Fred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
3.1667
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
15.0 ug/L
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-5- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par08
Chromium III
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Std Dev.
2
Mean
3
C.V.
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Fred Cw
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
Pdr09
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Chromium VI
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL Results
NO DATA
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
C.V.
0
4
n
5
N/A
6
Mult Factor =
N/A Ng/L
7
Max. Value
N/A Ng/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY'
. Maximum data
points = 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A Ng/L
N/A Ng/L
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-6- 7/24/2023

Par10
Date Data
1 10/24/2018 <
2 2/15/2023 <
3 3/5/2019 <
4 12/10/2020 <
5 6/16/2021 <
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3
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
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pall
Use "PASTE SPECIAL Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Chromium, Total Values" then "COPY" Copper Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data . Maximum data
points = 58 points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
5 2.5
n
5
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
2.32
Max. Value
2.5 Ng/L
Max. Pred Cw
5.8 Ng/L
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/24/2018 <
10
5
Std Dev.
1.1402
2
2/15/2023
3
3
Mean
4.6000
3
3/5/2019 <
10
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
12/10/2020
6
6
n
5
5
6/16/2021
4
4
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
7
Max. Value
6.00 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
13.92 ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-7- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Par13
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Cyanide
Values" then "COPY•
Fluoride
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
3/5/2019 <
5 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
12/10/2020 <
5 5
Mean
5.00
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
6/16/2021 <
5 5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
3
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
15.0 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
N/A ug/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-8- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Pdr15
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Lead
Values" then "COPY"
MerCUr y
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
10/24/2018
< 5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.8216
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
2/15/2023
< 2
1
Mean
1.6000
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
3/5/2019
< 5
2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
12/10/2020
< 2
1
n
5
4
n
0
5
6/16/2021
< 2
1
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
7
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A ng/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
5.800 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
N/A ng/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-9- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16
Par17 & Par18
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Molybdenum
Values" then "COPY"
Nickel
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 10/24/2018 <
10 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
10/24/2018
<
10
5
Std Dev.
1.8574
2 2/15/2023 <
10 5
Mean
5.0000
2
2/15/2023
<
10
5
Mean
3.7000
3
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
3/5/2019
<
10
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
2
4
12/10/2020
<
5
2.5
n
5
5
5
6/16/2021
<
2
1
6
Mult Factor =
3.79
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
5.0 Ng/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
19.0 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
11.6 Ng/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
-10- 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Par20
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Selenium
Values" then "COPY"
Silver
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/24/2018
<
10
5
Std Dev.
1.9170
1
3/5/2019 <
5 2.5
Std Dev.
1.1547
2
2/15/2023
<
3
1.5
Mean
2.9000
2
12/10/2020 <
1 0.5
Mean
1.1667
3
3/5/2019
<
10
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
6/16/2021 <
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
12/10/2020
<
3
1.5
n
5
4
n
3
5
6/16/2021
<
3
1.5
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
11.6 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
7.500 ug/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
11 - 7/24/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Date Data
1 10/24/2018
2 2/15/2023
3 3/5/2019
4 12/10/2020
5 6/16/2021
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3
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
BDL=1/2DL
Results
62
62
Std Dev.
88
88
Mean
54
54
C.V. (default)
148
148
n
83
83
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Fred Cw
Par22
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Chloroform
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
1
Date Data
3/5/2019
BDL=1/2DL
11.3 11.3
Results
Std Dev.
2.6716
36.9188
87.0000
2
12/10/2020
11 11
Mean
9.6100
0.6000
3
6/16/2021
6.53 6.53
C.V. (default)
0.6000
5
4
n
3
5
2.32
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
148.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
11.300000 Ng/L
343.4 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
33.900000 Ng/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-12-
20044 FW RPA 2023, data
7/24/2023

Williamston WWTP I Outfall 001
NCO020044 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.4 MGD
MAXIMUM
Qw (MGD) =
2.4000
1Q10S (cfs) =
938.72
7Q10S (cfs) =
1170.00
7Q10W (cfs) =
1170.00
30Q2 (cfs) =
2600.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
NO QA DATA
Receiving Stream: Roanoke River HUC 03010107
DATA POINTS = 58
WWTP/WTP Class:
Grade III
IWC% @ 1Q10S =
0.394720088
IWC% @ 7Q10S =
0.316941008
IWC% @ 7Q10W =
0.316941008
IWC% @ 30Q2 =
0.142872505
rW%C @ QA =
N/A
Stream Class:
C
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 36.94 mg/L
Chronic = 36.93 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPEApplied
D
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standard
Acute (FW): 86,137.0
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
ug/L
5 0
5.8
Chronic (FW): 47,327.4
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
C.V. (default)
Max MDL = 5
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
Note: n < 9
NO DETECTS
Chronic (HH): IWC?
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 16,467.37
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
3 0
1.50
Note: n 5 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 2,050.85
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Acute: 1,154.106
Cadmium
NC
0.7923 FW(7Q10s) 4.5555
ug/L
5 0
1.160
Note: n 5 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 249.982
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
230 FW(7Q10s)
mg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:- — - — 72,568.7
- — - — - —
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
1 A(30Q2)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:----- 699.9------------------------------
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 1
15.0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n 5 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 209,977.4
No RP for limited dataset (n<8 samples). No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring or limits required
Acute: 315,706.1
Chromium III
NC
162.0571 FW(7Q10s) 1246.1553
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:----51,131.6
------
Acute: 4,053.5
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:---- 3,470.7
------
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
5 0
5.8
Max reported value = 2.5
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Note: n 5 9
C.V. (default)
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
20044 FW RPA 2023, rpa
Page 13 of 14 7/24/2023

Williamston WWTP - Outfall 001
NCO020044 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.4 MGD
Acute: 3,832.80
Copper
NC
10.9989 FW(7QlOs) 15.1288
ug/L
5 3
13.92
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 3,470.32
No RP for limited dataset (n<8 samples). No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring or limits required
Acute: 5,573.6
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7QlOs) 22
10
ug/L
3 0
15.0
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 1,577.6
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: NO WQS
Fluoride
NC
1800 FW(7QlOs)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Chronic:--- 567,929.0 ----------------------------
Acute: 29,636.796
Lead
NC
4.5570 FW(7QIOs) 116.9824
ug/L
5 0
5.800
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 1,437.814
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Acute: NO WQS
Mercury
NC
12 FW(7QlOs)
0.5
ng/L
0 0
N/A
-------------------------
Chronic:---- 3,786.2--
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7QlOs)
ug/L
2 0
19.0
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 631,032.3
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute (FW): 118,165.5
Nickel
NC
51.7911 FW(7QlOs) 466.4211
µg/L
5 0
11.6
Chronic (FW): 16,340.9
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Note: n 5 9
C.V. (default)
Max MDL_= 10
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Chronic (WS): 7,887.9
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 14,187.3
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7QlOs) 56
ug/L
5 0
11.6
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
_
Chronic: 1,577.6
laxMDL=-10-
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Acute: 146.981
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7QlOs) 0.5802
ug/L
3 0
7.500
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 18.931
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 5
Acute: 44,335.1
Zinc
NC
176.3835 FW(7QIOs) 174.9995
ug/L
5 5
343.4
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 55,651.9
No RP for limited dataset (n<8 samples). No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring or limits required
Acute: NO WQS
Chloroform
NC
2000 FW(7QlOs)
µg/L
3 3
33.90000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 631032.25806
No RP for limited dataset (n<8 samples). No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring or limits required
Acute:
0 0
N/A
Chronic:--------------------------------------
20044 FW RPA 2023, rpa
Page 14 of 14 7/24/2023

Permit No. NC0020044
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-[1n hardness] (0. 04183 8)) • e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485)
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[ln hardness] -3.623 6)
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4A45l)
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. NCO020044
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • eA0.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO020044
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avfz. Effluent Hardness, mg/L)+s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1 Q 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss('+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q 10 + Qw) (Cwgs)(s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1 Q 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0020044
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
51.94
Permittee submitted DMRs
(Total as CaCO3)
Average Upstream Hardness, mg/L
36.88
Permittee submitted DMRs
(Total as CaCO3)
7Q10 summer (cfs)
1170
Reported in previous permit Fact
Sheet
1 Q 10 (cfs)
938.72
Calculated in RPA spreadsheet
Permitted Flow (MGD)
2.0
Design flow
Date: May 5, 2023
Permit Writer: Gary Perlmutter
Page 4 of 4

7/24/23 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Williamston WWTP - NC0020044
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
No Limit Required
MMP Required
V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry
Value
7Q10s = 1170.000 cfs
Permitted Flow = 2.000
WQBEL = 4541.03 ng/L
47 ng/L
11/13/18
< 1
0.5
0.5
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2018
3/5/19
1
1
1.0
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2019
12/10/20
1
1
1.0
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2020
6/16/21
3
3
3.0
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2021
2/15/23
< 1
0.5
0.5
ng/L
- Annual Average for 2023

From:
Gene Reed
To:
Perlmutter, Gary
Subject:
[External] Re: Chemical Addendum request
Date:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:49:20 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Mr. Perlmutter,
There are no industrial or manufacturing facilities here in the Town of Williamston so based on
that I do not feel that 1,4-Doxane or the PFAS group of chemicals would be a concern for us.
Would you please remove the Four 100 ft x 30 ft sludge drying beds (surplus) from our NPDES
permit component list. These beds have not been used for over 24 years and are not
necessary for our current wastewater treatment operations.
Also, on the component list we no longer have a 300 KW diesel standby generator as it was no
longer feasible to continue repairing it. It was a 1977 model. We replaced it with a new 48 KW
LP gas standby generator that needs to be added.
If have questions please contact me.
Thank you for your help.
Gene Reed
[e-mail]
252-661-0770
From: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:36 AM
To: Gene Reed <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical Addendum request
Dear Hilary,
I am working on the permit renewal for Williamston WWTP and having reviewed your application,
need the attached forms completed as your assessment of any potential chemical pollutants that
may be in your wastestream (e.g., 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS group of chemicals) as an addendum to
your permit application. The Chemical Addendum sheet is for those parameters that have an EPA -
approved method (e.g., 1,4-Dioxane) and the supplemental datasheet is for those that do not have
such a method (e.g., PFAS chemicals). More information can be found here:
httos://www.deo.nc.L-ov/about/divisions/water-resources/DermittinR/nodes-wastewater/nDdes-
permitting-process/npdes-individual-permit-applications. Feel free to contact me if you have any

questions.
Thank you,
Gary Perlmutter
Gary Perlmutter, MSc, Environmental Specialist II
NCDEQ / Division of Water Resources
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
919-707-3611 Office
919-306-1017 Cell
gary_perlmutter(@ncdenr.gov
Physical Address: 512 N Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
DEQ is updating its email addreses to @deq.nc.gov in phases from May 1st to June 9th
Employee email addresses may look different, but email performance will not be impacted.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
The Town of Williamston is an equal opportunity provider.
The Town of Williamston is an equal opportunity provider.

Town Of Williamston
Wastewater Treatment Plant
P.O. Box 506
US 13 & 17 Bypass, 1801 Willow Drive
Williamston, NC 27892
Tel. [phone] Fax [phone]
ORC Cell # 252-661-0770
ORC e-mail genereed@,townofwilliamston.com
5/11/2023
To: NC DEQ/DWR/NPDES Permitting Unit
Attn: Mr. Gary Perlmutter
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification Request
Sampling Reduction Request
Town of Williamston
NPDES Permit # NC 0020044
Martin county
Mr. Perlmutter,
The Town of Williamston is requesting a minor permit modification of NPDES permit #
NC 0020044 for a reduction in sampling. We request that monitoring for BOD5, TSS and
Fecal Coliform be reduced under the "exceptionally performing facilities" criteria to two
times per week. The data summarized in the accompanying documents indicates that the
WWTP effluent has greatly exceeded the minimum criteria for reduced monitoring, The
most restrictive summer limit was used in calculating BOD5 removal rates. In addition to
the test results, the Town of Williamston is in compliance with all of the criteria listed in
Section B Approval Criteria of the October 22, 2012 guidance document regarding
reduction of monitoring frequencies. Data used in these calculations and analysis is from
the 2020, 2021 & 2022 calendar years.
The Town of Williamston appreciates the Division's effort to reduce the regulatory and
monetary burden on systems that strive to consistently provide exceptional wastewater
treatment to it's citizens. We thank you for your consideration in these matters.
If you have questions or comments please call Gene Reed @ 252-661-0770.
Syerely,
Eric Pearson, own Administrator
Town of Williamston

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Jefferson WWTP
Permit No.
NC0021709
Review period (use 3
6/2020 - 5/2023
yrs)
Approval Criteria:
Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
# of non -
Monthly
3-yr mean
# daily
# daily
Reduce
Weekly
50%
200%
200%
monthly
#civil penalty
Data Review
Units
average
(geo mean
< 50%7
samples
<15?
samples
< 20?
> 2?
> 1?
Frequency?
average limit
limit
MA
for FC)
MA
>200%
WA
>200%
limit
asessment
(Yes/No)
violations
BOD (Weighted)
mg/L
8.50
5.67
2.8
2.43
Y
11.33
11
Y
3
Y
0
N
N
TSS
mg/L
45.00
30.00
15
1.86
Y
60.00
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (weighted)
mg/L
8.50
2.83
1.4
0.06
Y
5.67
0
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400.00
1 200.00
1 100
17.65
1 Y
800
21
N
0
N
0
N
N