NC0021555_Fact Sheet_20200121

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO021555
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: February 22, 2019
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 21 species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Newport/Newport Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 1869, Newport, NC 28570
Facility Address:
160 Kirby Lane, Newport, NC 28570
Permitted Flow:
1.2 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class:
Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Influent pump station, headworks including a mechanical bar screen
and grit removal system, influent and effluent flow monitoring and flow
proportional composite systems, dual oxidation ditches approximately
723,000 gallons in size, two secondary clarifiers, dual tertiary disk
filters, chlorine contact basin with dechlorination facility, post aeration
unit, aerobic digester, sludge belt press, sludge drying beds, effluent
pump station
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Carteret
Region
Wilmington
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Newport has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 1.2 MGD for the Newport WWTP. This facility serves a
population of 4,667 residents, with no significant industrial users (SIUs) and no pretreatment program.
Treated wastewater is discharged into the Newport River, a class C water in the White Oak River Basin.
The facility has a primary Outfall 001.
Page 1 of 12

The Newport River has a stream classification of C at the facility's discharge location in the White Oak
River Basin but the river is tidally influenced. Waters with the class C designation have the best usage for
aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. The classification of the river changes to SA HQW approximately 7 miles downstream of the
Newport discharge. The Newport River is on the NC 2016 303 (d) list as exceeding criteria for dissolved
oxygen.
In 2006, Shellfish Sanitation conducted a dye study which concluded that "the maximum flow the Town
can discharge without affecting the current closure line is 1.5 MGD." In 2011, The Town requested the
Division provide speculative effluent limits to reflect an expansion to 1.2 MGD. The Division consulted
with D. Potts of Shellfish Sanitation at the time and determined that the 2006 dye study results are still
applicable for the Newport discharge and the Newport River, and that, as long as the expanded flow is
lower than 1.5 MGD, the shellfish closure line would not be affected. The lower speculative flow of 1.2
MGD would be allowed based on the study results and saltwater limits for fecal coliform and
enterococcus bacteria should be applied. The speculative limits provided in response by the Division for
fecal coliform were applied based on protection of the downstream SA waters. All speculative limits
provided in the Division's response are in the current permit, with the exception of limit and monitoring
requirements for Enterococci.
Originally, the Town's UV system was designed to meet fecal coliform limits of 200/400 per 100 mL and
not the 14/28 limits in the existing permit. In the past, the town submitted the results of the dye study
prepared by Shellfish Sanitation attesting that treatment plant expansion up to 1.5 MGD would not affect
the shellfish closure line even with the less restrictive limits. The Division did not agree to the less
restrictive limits and fecal coliform limits remained at 14/28. The Division, the town, and their engineers
met on March 11, 2008 at the WWTP and discussed the issue of achieving compliance with the fecal
coliform limit. In response, the town added supplemental chlorine disinfection.
In 2013, the Town of Newport received Authorization to Construct Permit 021555A04. The Division
received the Engineer's Certification for this construction in 2015. The completed project did not include
several items from the ATC permit such as: the demolition of the original oxidation ditch, chlorine
contact basin, sludge drying beds, sludge dewatering building and other miscellaneous buildings; the
installation of a screenings compactor, 833 GPM pump and dual 0.17 MG anoxic zone with 5 HP mixer;
the conversion of the 2 existing clarifiers or existing waste activated sludge pumps to sludge transfer, add
a 150 GPM pump, or add other sludge handling/process equipment including relocating existing sludge
dewatering equipment to a new building, lime silos, sludge reactor, covered storage area and other new
buildings. Completion of construction activated the 1.2 MGD tier requirements in NPDES permit
NC0021555. In their 2017 NPDES permit renewal application, the Town noted that the old secondary
clarifiers and the oxidation ditch have been taken out of service and the Town hopes to maintain the
capability to repurpose the tanks as possible equalization and/or sludge handling tanks.
In their 2017 NPDES permit renewal application, the Town of Newport requested revision of their fecal
coliform limits. 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. The facility has demonstrated
capability to consistently achieve the current permit limits.
The Town reported some questionable temperature readings (negative temperature readings, e.g. -10
degrees Celsius) from their effluent temperature gauge throughout the winters of the period reviewed.
This has been reported to the Wilmington Regional Office, who believes the readings are likely due to a
faulty temperature gauge and have agreed to look into it with their next inspection of the facility. For the
sake of DMR summary, those values have been disregarded, as they would very likely skew the data.
Page 2 of 12

2. Receiving, Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - Newport River
Stream Segment:
21-(1)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
46.8
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.4
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.9
30Q2 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
63
IWC (% effluent):
82%
303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes, the segment is listed in the 2018 303(d) as impaired fbl
Dissolved Oxygen
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Sub-basin/HUC:
03-05-03/03020301
USGS Topo Quad:
H31 SE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2015 through January 2019.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
0.51
1.60
0.24
MA 1.2
WA 6.9
BOD summer
mg/l
2.2
6
2
MA 4.6
WA 10.3
BOD winter
mg/l
2.2
20
2
MA 6.9
WA 3.3
NH3N summer
mg/l
0.1 '
3.98
< .04
MA 1.1
WA 7.5
NH3N winter
mg/l
0.13
4.98
< .04
MA 2.5
WA 45.0
TSS
mg/l
2.7
14
2
MA 30.0
pH
SU
7.7
8.88
7
6.0 < pH < 9.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
1.1
600
< 1
WA 28
MA 14
DO
mg/l
9.0
13.8
6.3
DA >6.0
DM 20.0
TRC
µg/l
< 20
-20
< 20
(< 50
compliance)
Temperature
° C
17.9
36
1
TN
mg/l
21.4
28.4
< .04
TP
mg/l
2.3
3.1
1.7
Oil and Grease
mg/l
< 5
< 5
< 5
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximutn, DA=Daily Average
Page 3 of 12

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/1 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: In 1993, a wasteload allocation (WLA) was conducted on the loading to the receiving
stream at the flow of 0.5 MGD. The list of parameters recommended in the WLA for sampling consisted
of dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, temperature and conductivity. The monitoring requirement for
conductivity was removed in the 2003 renewal. Fecal coliform instream monitoring remained in the
permit because the stream was impaired for fecal coliform and a fecal coliform TMDL was being
developed at the time for the White Oak River Basin. The White Oak River Basin Fecal Coliform TMDL
was fmalized in 2010 but did not include the segment of the stream to which Newport WWTP discharges.
Upstream and downstream data ranging from June 2016 to November 2018 was provided by the Town.
An analysis of the data showed that downstream temperature ranged from 2.2 to 30.3 degrees Celsius.
Upstream temperature ranged from 2 to 29.4 degrees Celsius. The downstream temperature did not
exceed 32.2 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)]. The temperature differential did not
exceed 2.8 degrees Celsius. Based on a student's t-test, it was concluded with 95% confidence that no
statistically significant difference (p-value > .05) between upstream and downstream temperature exists.
The stream segment is listed as impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO) in the 2018 303(d) list. Downstream
DO ranged from 0.06 to 12.97 mg/L. The upstream DO ranged from 0.08 to 13.16 mg/L. The downstream
DO daily average dropped below 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] 182 times during the period
reviewed. Downstream DO dropped below 4 mg/L 131 times during the period reviewed. When looking
at the data, low downstream DO correlated with low upstream DO. Additionally, effluent DO remained
above 6.9 mg/L and effluent BOD showed no significant increase on the days when downstream
dissolved oxygen dropped below 5 mg/L. Based on a student's t-test, it was concluded with 95%
confidence that no significant difference (p-value > .05) between upstream and downstream DO exists.
Drops in downstream dissolved oxygen were likely due to background conditions and not due to the
facility's discharge.
The downstream fecal coliform geometric average was 418/100 mL during the period reviewed. The
upstream fecal coliform geometric average was 406/100 mL. The downstream geometric average exceeds
200/100 mL and fecal coliform exceeded 400/100 mL in greater than 20% of the downstream samples
[per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (7)]. When looking at the data, high downstream fecal coliform correlated
with high upstream fecal coliform. Additionally, the effluent fecal coliform geometric average was
1.1/100 mL during the period reviewed. Based on a student's t-test, it was concluded with 95%
confidence that no statistically significant difference exists (p-value > .05) between upstream and
downstream fecal coliform. High fecal coliform is likely due to background conditions and not due to the
facility's discharge.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
Page 4 of 12

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations from January 2015 to January 2019.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past S years): The facility passed 11 of 11 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests between January 2015 and December 2018. The facility reported no flow during 4
of the months reviewed. During this time, the plant was being constructed (per Authorization to Construct
permit 021555A04) and not in full operation. Flow was being treated at the old facility while construction
was being completed.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in August 2017 reported that the facility was well maintained and operated.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HIT); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, W.
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMLY model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed. The current
limitations for BOD were introduced upon expansion to 1.2 MGD and are based on speculative limits
calculated for the 1.2 MGD flow tier provided upon request from the Permittee in 2011. The speculative
BOD limit in summer was calculated by projecting the existing loading at 0.6 MGD onto the expanded
flow of 1.2 MGD. Winter BOD speculative limits were 1.5 times greater than those of summer. No
changes are proposed for BOD.
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/1(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/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Page 5 of 12

Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
limitations for ammonia and -1._ .al residual chlorine (TRC) were introduced upon expansion to 1.2 MGD
and are based on speculative limits calculated for the 1.2 MGD flow tier provided upon request from the
Permittee in 2011. Limits for both ammonia and TRC were reviewed in the attached wasteload allocation
(WLA) review. No changes are proposed for either ammonia or TRC.
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 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.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between April 2016 and
October 2016 from the facilitv's Effluent Pollutant Scans. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with
positive detections and associated water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following
permitting actions are proposed for this permit:
• 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: NA
• 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: NA
• 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: NA
• 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: NA
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: Copper,
Lead, Bromodichloromethane
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: Arsenic,
Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Cyanide, Nickel, Selenium,
Silver, Zinc, Chloroform
Attached are the RPA results and a copy of guidance entitled `NPDESImplementation oflnstream
Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards. "
Page 6 of 12

Toxicity TestingLimitations
imitations
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: Upon expansion to a 1.2 MGD flow tier in 2015, The
facility became a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 82% effluent shall be applied 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 (>l ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2016
# of Samples
3
Annual Average Conc. n
0.5
Maximum Conc., n L
0.5
TBEL, p1VL
1 47
WQBEL, n
14.6
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 < 2 MGD and reported no quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/1),
a mercury minimization plan (MMP) has not been added to the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strateiy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Other WOBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
Page 7 of 12

If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: The Newport River has a stream classification
of C at the facility's discharge location in the White Oak River Basin but the river is tidally influenced.
The classification of the river changes to SA HQW 7.4 miles downstream of the Newport discharge. In
2011, a monthly geometric average limit of 14/100 mL and weekly geometric average limit of 28/100 mL
were added to the permit based on protection of the downstream SA waters and in accordance with DWR
guidance for effluent fecal coliform monitoring and requirements in SA waters.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H. 010 7(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 '
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg1I
BOD51TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD51TSS 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
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
If any limits are based on best professional judgement (BPJ), describe development: NA
Document any TBELs that are more stringent than WQBELs: NA
Document any TBELs that are less stringent than previous permit: NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:
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
Page 8 of 12

reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4
The Town of Newport applied for monitoring frequency reductions for BODS, Total Suspended Solids,
NH3-N and Fecal Coliform in January 2017. Based on DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities, the Division has
decided to grant the request.
In 1993, a wasteload allocation (WLA) was conducted when the Town of Newport had informed the
Division of their intent to accept and treat transfer station industrial wastewater. As a result of the WLA,
oil and grease monitoring was incorporated into the permit in 1998 on a quarterly frequency. As the Town
no longer accepts industrial wastewater of any kind and has consistently demonstrated no detectable
levels of oil and grease in their effluent, oil and grease monitoring has been removed from the permit.
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. 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 3. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 1.2 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 1.2 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BODS
Summer:
Monitor 2/Week
Limits: WQBEL. Based on protection of DO
MA 4.6 mg/l
No change in limits
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.
WA 6.9 mg/l
Monitoring: Based on DWR Guidance Regarding
Winter:
the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
MA 6.9 mg/1
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing
WA 10.3 mg/l
Facilities
Monitor 3/Week
Page 9 of 12

NH3-N
Summer:
Monitor 2/Week
Limits: WQBEL. WLA review. Based on
MA 1.1 mg/l
No change in limits
protection of State WQ criteria. 15A NCAC 2B.
WA 3.3 mg/1
Monitoring: Based on DWR Guidance Regarding
Winter:
the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in
MA 2.5 mg/1
NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing
WA 7.5 mg/l
Facilities
Monitor 3/Week
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
Monitor 2/Week
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR
WA 45 mg/l
No change in limits
133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406. Based on DWR
Monitor 3/Week
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities
Fecal coliform
MA 14 /100ml
Monitor 2/Week
WQBEL. NPDES Memo Proposed Enterococci
WA 28 /100ml
No change in limits
Bacteria Standard for Coastal Waters; Facility
Monitor 3/Week
discharges to waters 7.4 miles from SA waters;
only fecal applied because discharge is not
saltwater.
Based on DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities
DO
> 6 mg/l
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
TRC
DM 20 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B;
WLA review
Total Nitrogen
Monitor
No change
State Surface Water Monitoring Report, 15A
Quarterly
NCAC 2B .0500
Total Phosphorus
Monitor
No change
State Surface Water Monitoring Report, 15A
Quarterly
NCAC 2B .0500
Oil and Grease
Monitor
Monitoring removed
Facility no longer accepts transfer station
Quarterly
industrial wastewater and has shown no
detectable levels of oil and grease.
Bromodichloromethane
No requirements
Apply quarterly
NC Protective Value. Based on results of
Monitoring
Reasonable Potential Analysis; RP shown
Lead
No requirements
Apply quarterly
State WQS, 15A NCAC 2B .0200. Based on
monitoring
results of Reasonable Potential Analysis; RP
shown
Copper
No requirements
Apply quarterly
State WQS, 15A NCAC 2B .0200. Based on
monitoring
results of Reasonable Potential Analysis
Total Hardness
No requirements
Quarterly monitoring
In accordance with NPDES guidance on
Upstream and in
Implementing Instream Dissolve Metals
Effluent
Standards for Freshwater.
Toxicity Test
Chronic limit,
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A
82% effluent
NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC 2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Three scans per
No change
40 CFR 122
permit cycle
Electronic Reporting
No requirement
Add Electronic
In accordance with EPA Electronic Reporting
Reporting Special
Rule 2015.
Condition
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
Page 10 of 12

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 3/19/2019 & 5/27/2019
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. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
i ne Division received comments from the Town of Newport on May 3, 2019:
Comment: The Town requests that the fecal coliform limits in the permit be changed to reflect the Class C
waters to which their facility discharges instead of the class SA waters that exist approximately 7.4 miles
downstream from the outfall.
Response: In 2006, Shellfish Sanitation conducted a dye study which concluded that "the maximum flow
the Town can discharge without affecting the current closure line is 1.5 MGD." In 2011, The Town
requested the Division provide speculative effluent limits to reflect an expansion to 1.2 MGD. The
Division consulted with D. Potts of Shellfish Sanitation at the time and determined that the 2006 dye
study results are still applicable for the Newport discharge and the Newport River, and that, as long as the
expanded flow is lower than 1.5 MGD, the shellfish closure line would not be affected. The lower
speculative flow of 1.2 MGD would be allowed based on the study results and saltwater limits for fecal
coliform and enterococcus bacteria should be applied. The speculative limits provided in response by the
Division for fecal coliform were applied based on protection of the downstream SA waters. All
speculative limits provided in the Division's response are in the current and proposed permits, with the
exception of limit and monitoring requirements for Enterococci. Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act
prohibits backsliding from existing effluent limitations, with certain exceptions outlined in 402(o)(2) of
the Clean Water Act. As of this response, no outlined exceptions to the rule apply to NPDES permit
NC0021555. However, according to section 402 (o) (2) (B) (i), relaxed limitations may be allowed in the
event that new information (other than revised regulations, guidance, or test methods) is available that
was not available at the time of permit issuance and that would have justified a less stringent effluent
limitation. In the event that the Town of Newport submits new information, such as a fate and transport
model of fecal coliform from the discharge point to the start of the SA waterbody downstream, that would
justify a less stringent limit for fecal coliform, the Town may apply for modification of NPDES permit
NC0021555.
Comment: The Town requests the removal of the monthly limitation for bromodichloromethane and its
inclusion in the Schedule of Compliance, as the facility requires the use of chlorination to reduce fecal
coliform levels, is currently using post -aeration and still getting high results, introduction of
chloramination would not work with the current chlorine contact chamber's designed contact time, and
alternate disinfection methods would not be economically feasible.
Response: In reviewing the results of the reasonable potential analysis, it was found that the evaluation of
reasonable potential for bromodichloromethane was not consistent with Division practice. The initial
evaluation analyzed the parameter as if it had a data set that was greater than 8 samples. Only 3 samples
were provided for bromodichloromethane from the three effluent pollutant scans provided by the
Permittee. Bromodichloromethane has been reevaluated in the attached RPA as part of a limited data set
Page 11 of 12

and, as reasonable potential was found but no individual value exceeded the allowable discharge
concentration, the limit has been removed and the monitoring frequency has been reduced to quarterly. As
such, the schedule of compliance for bromodichloromethane has been removed from the permit.
Comment: The Town requests the removal of the limitation for lead and monitoring requirement for
copper and lead.
Response: In reviewing the results of the reasonable potential analysis, it was found that the evaluation of
reasonable potential for lead was not consistent with Division practice. The initial evaluation analyzed the
parameter as if it had a data set that was greater than 8 samples. Only 3 samples were provided for lead
from the three effluent pollutant scans provided by the Permittee. Lead has been reevaluated in the
attached RPA as part of a limited data set and, as reasonable potential was found but no individual value
exceeded the allowable discharge concentration, the limit has been removed and the monitoring frequency
has been reduced to quarterly. As such, the schedule of compliance for lead has been removed from the
permit. Analysis of total copper was consistent with Division practice and the quarterly monitoring
requirement shall remain in the permit.
As the limits for lead and bromodichloromethane have been removed from the permit, the permit has
been submitted to public notice again on May 13, 2019.
The draft permit was submitted to EPA Region 4, the DWR Wilmington Regional Office, the DWR
Operator Certification Program, the DWR Aquatic Toxicology Branch, the DWR Shellfish Sanitation
Program and the Town of Newport. The DWR Shellfish Sanitation Program concurs with the re -noticed
draft permit. No comments were received from any of the other groups.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (YesNo): No
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• Instream Summary
• BOD and TSS Removal Summary
• WLA review
• Mercury TMDL Evaluation
• Monitoring Reduction Evaluation
• NPDES Compliance Evaluation
• Toxicity Summary
• Second Species Test Results
Page 12 of 12

y.
ROY COOPER
Governor
NUCHAEL S. REGAN
M, Secretaw
Water Resources LINDA CULPEPPER
.Environmental Quality Interim Director
June 26, 2019
MEMORANDUM
To: Andrew Haines
NC DEQ / DMF / Shellfish Sanitation Regional Environmental Health Specialist
Wilmington Regional Office
From: Nick Coco
919-707-3609
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NCO021555
Newport WWTP
Carteret County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by July 26, 2019.
If you have any questions on the draft permit, please feel free to contact me at the telephone number shown above.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
aConcur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated
effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality
standards.
F-1 Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
F-1 Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Signed _ _ ( - --
Nq-thing
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611.
919-707-9000

Permit No. NCO021555
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/l
(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
I Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} a^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} a^{0.9151[ln hardness] -3.623 6}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[In hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[1n hardness]-4.445l}
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 a^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702)
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460)
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardnes's]-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. NCO021555
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 a^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[in hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q 10 (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. NCO021555
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mglL) + (s7Q 10, cfs *Ayg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kvo] [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 (le. 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. NC0021555
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be -compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
270.33
Average from April, July and
October 2016 Effluent Pollutant
Scan samples
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
Default
Default Value
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
0.4
NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs)
0.34
1 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
1.2
1 NPDES Files
Date: 03/13/2019
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

d
0
E
s
�1
U
�
�
�
J
•J
J
�
�J
J
_t
J
�
�
br
J
J
�Lr.
�
S-
01
7
cm
7
m
1
01
Z
�
3r,
M
Cl)
co
Cl
coM
r
CDQ
co(O
•y
�.
�p
N
r
co
Do
W
r
Cl)U>
co
N
v.
O
p
IC3
Si
N
r
r
M
M
r
Nto
cq
ti
O)
m
ur'i
CD
CC
0
Pik
co
O
O.
CC)
(M
O
O
n
N
CM
yy
S`7
r
r
N
M
N
l(J
N
C
N
N
I,.if)
N
CO
C_
0
L)
t)
L;
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Li
L7
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
m
1
�
m
J
J
m
x
m
m
i
m
Q
Q
Q
Q
a
QvE
=
Q
Q
EE
Lo
A:
S
=
c
V
L
E
=
y
• c..
~
d
ti
n
C
c
E
E
C
?
O
C."a
U
U
.�
>
c
E
o
C¢
r
L
E
U
L7
J'
Z
Z�
N
V
m
V
f
U
L
U
a
U
U
E
2
t-
N m K &0 a n W
b 12 Q O Q 2 Q Q
a a a. a a a a a a a m m m a am a m a a a am a a a
s
-
i ! 1 lU
! ! 1 IZ
! ! I la
a F-I i I I
c Lon 0 �-OF rn! m
r, o M o 0 0 I I E E -ma
It o U a m
3 M o 0
Z CD
O
o M
0
a
®
`
W
v
v
c
z
IL
d
a
3
C
E
10
c�
3
w
0
w
w
w 0
A
_
ui
W
0
— C�
0
C
®
V
Z
V
E
w
a
Q
0
r
O
r
N �, O
r
LLLL
Z
0 ti
19
x
Vi
❑
r-�
o C
7 !�
CL C
C
N
o0
—
CL 3n
N
Z
a
IL
w

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
H2
_ USL ^PiME SrECIAL
var -corn
Upstream Hardness
vta!mit ta
lLax:rm da
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
33.8575
1
DEFAULT 25 25 Std Dev.
270.3333
2
Mean
0.6000
3
C.V.
3
4
n
248.00 mg/L
5
10th Per value
Effluent Hardness
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
1
4/18/2016
309 309
Std Dev.
2
7111/2016
246 246
Mean
3
10/31/2016
256 256
C.V.(default
4
n
5
10th Per value
6
Average Val
7
Max. Value
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
Ut, -C1
vil"es n•oop
roints = 5
N/A
25.0000
0.0000
1
25.00 mgl
25.00 mgl
25.00 mgl
RPA, data
1 2/27/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Date Data
1 5/2/2016 < 5
2 7/18/2016 < 5
3 11/10/2016 < 5
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
U "PASTE SPEOAL
Arsenic
vaiuw thim -copr
. ✓< p41mom gala
po1n� = 56
BDL=1/2DL
Results
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2.5
Mean
2.5000
2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
7.5 ug/L
2-
RPA, data
2/27/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
ar03
Par04
I1at "PASTE SPMAL
Un "PASTE SPECIA
Beryllium
vxfoev thfr--covr-
Cadmium
vaeu""rnwn'COP)
. Max;r wn 1.r.
_
Na..�rn�rm dad
points = 59
56
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4129/2016
1 1
Std Dev.
0.2887
1
4/28/2016 < 1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
7/14/2016
< 1 0.5
Mean
0.6667
2
7115/2016 < 1
0.5
Mean
0.5000
3
11/4/2016
< 1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
11/3/2016 < 1
0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
4
n
3
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
1.00 ug/L
7
Max. Value
0.500 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
3.00 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
1.500 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
I
57
58
58
RPA, data
-3- 2/27/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date
Data BDL=II2DL
Results
1
5/26/2016
< 5 2.5
Std Dev.
2
7/21/2016
< 5 2.5
Mean
3
11/1912016
< 5 2.5
C.V. (default)
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred 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
U"'PASTE SPECt
Vatues thm'CDP
Mulmron data
points = 5E
2.5000
0.6000
3
3.00
2.5 ug/L
7.5 ug/L
ir10
UM 'PASTE SPECIAL
Chromium, Total
valusa^ then `COPY`
IFaxwwm data
��
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
4/29/2016
< 5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
7/14/2016
< 5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
3
11/4/2016
< 5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
2.5 Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
7.5 pg/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
RPA, data
-4- 2/27/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal
Copper
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/29/2016 12 12 Std Dev.
2 7/14/2016 10 10 Mean
3 11/8/2016 11 11 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred 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
USc —;.=flc 4P£ Par12 tb!'PA$TESPECI
vatu@s rn,:r ' Icy. Cy anide
mrriYa�Jk�" tRen "COP
•Nar�ud.ta _ .Mrr;mumdatO
plMs - 5R i p0int� 9l
11.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
12.00 ug/L
36.00 ug/L
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
4/26/2016 < 5
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
7/12/2016 < 5
5
Mean
5.00
3
10/31/2016 < 5
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
15.0 ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
56
I55
57
58
-5-
RPA, data
2/27/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
.
Lead
we "PASTE SPEC AL
Yahr - emlI "coov—
Par17 & Par18
VON 'PASS
SPECsAL-
Nickel
va3 un;" men
rox,mm aaia
.COPS
Maximum data
Po tits = s8
Date
BDL=112DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Results
Points - 58
1
4/2912016 <
5 2.5
Std Dev.
10.6810
1
4/29/2016 <
10 5
Std Dev.
o75--.ti
2
7/1312016 <
5 2.5
Mean
8.6667
2
7/14/2016 <
10 5
Mean
5.0000
3
11/212016
21 21
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
11/4/2016 <
10 5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
4
n
3
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
21.000 ug/L
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
63.000 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
15.0 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
I
57
58
58
RPA, data
-6- 2/27/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Selenium
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 5/2/2016 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 7/19/2016 < 10 5 Mean
3 11/14/2016 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred C
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"PAST£
SPECtAL•Val,ws"
We,, "COPY'.
•• kax+mumdat2
points = So
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
w 15.0 ug/L
Date Data
1
4/29/2016 < 5
2
7/14/2016 < 5
3
11 /4/2016 < 5
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
1 51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Uee •'PASM SDEDAL
Silver
va!u°a- Me,x "C
Maf;m.n. -.jam
points = St
BDL=112DL
Results
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2.5
Mean
2.5000
2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Mult Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
7.500 ug/L
-7-
RPA, data
2/27/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date Data
1 4/29/2016 33
2 7/14/2017 24
3 11/4/2016 18
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
usa-PASTE
SPF,CIAL-V2Wr7"I
Zinc
then "COPY` -
1W><le=�um pis
vie = 68
BDL=1/2DL
Results
33
Std Dev.
75498
24
Mean
25.0000
18
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
Muit Factor =
3.00
Max. Value
33.0 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
99.0 ug/L
Un •PASTE SPECOL
Chloroform value*' ffa n "COPr-
mimmum date
palnta - So
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Results
L
1
4/25/2016
62.4 62.4
Std Dev.
8.9605
2
7/14/2016
80.2 80.2
Mean
71.9000
3
10/31/2016
73.1 73.1
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
80.200000 Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw 240.600000 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
-8-
RPA, data
212712019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par23
U✓w'PASTE SP£CiAL
Bromodichloromethane
vak*�-' the a' L 0 r Y'
. 6ma¢imuM data
ppin:$ _ So
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
1
4/25/2016
13.6 13.6
Std Dev.
8.5921
2
7/14/2016
29.3 29.3
Mean
19.4333
3
10/31/2016
15.4 15.4
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
29.300000 Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
87.900000 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
RPA, data
9 - 2/27/2019

N
feu
E
lx
IZ I
Iz
IZ
I
I
1�
I
la I
la
Ia
1
P
I W
I
I,�
i la
a
I I
la
I
I
g— R
t o
I
Ia
I Io
°w
I� I
to
I�
I
my
I
I
Im
I I.
w
I� I
I�
I�
I
�a
INS
I v
I�
I lug
�
I� I
��
�c
I
QJ>
I B C
i m
V
I I
1
I
=V
I v�
I W
Im c
I lay
W
IoL
t
Ion
7
I��
I
c
U T
I
I >
I a
Q
Imp
U T
I I -
la �l
la
la
I
o�
o
IaSI
laO
lac
I
one
IaC!
1 m
IJr
I lad
�c�
IZoI
�'C
Iz'�
�'c
IZ2
I
ZEo
wa
I
v
I
��°
Iwo'
o
I Iz
id � m
Z w
z°
m
I I
ry IM I�
w
I
;^ I.�
I
O to
I
I�
C'4
I�
I
cMv la 3
I
o i�
I
� I- 3
I I
�
U
0 I�
� IM
N
I�
°° I�
0 1� U
Ey
N I o
N Ic U
p
e I, I�
N
N
I~ I
I
z i
I
I ,
I
I� R
I I
a
3 j a Ix n
j n
I
I
>
g u
j ¢
j n
j.. ¢
3 j�3 n 13 u
rn
W
¢
� .a � ..a
I AI ^ A
ai •a .a
o I O A
" •a `�
a I A
.3 'c
o I
� "'�
A
"' '� n
5 t o
Y •q 1
I O A
°; '� n
o l BE
1,92
d
�¢
d v
Xv
c
v
Ua
o�
II y
I�Iv
LU
IL
Wm
U
'd
0U
J.
�U
O �N
�U
�U
O
aU
d
O N
�U
C v W
a
h
r� W
'^•bW.
in FWi
�bW
Z
�b W
�'�
�'O W
q'�
�'bW
M
y
W
L1 R
01
I
O� yN
01 yR
01 M
a
vi
R
T yR
CI
C
CI
CI
CI
C
CI
CI b
M
z:a
z.a
z .41
z.4
z a
za
z."a
za
s11Nn
"10d
0
a'
7
U
M
oo h
h
N
N
W
O
d
N
W
a
V
O
N
IL
W
o
.O 'U
y.
a�CY
oo
O
O
(V
o
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
O O
a a
o
�
I...O
U)
O
O
O
0
O
cD
O Cleq
zLU
_
}
V V
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z z
W
0
o
E
>
E
o
•c E
O
U
a
a
v
m
ar m
Y Y
u u
Q
a
4 Q
V
t
C
U
U
J
Z z
a
c�
0
O
a

t
O
Q
d
Z
r
iz
iZ
j
12g
I L
ICi
1c3i
In
W
r 1��
1
I�
I�
!m
II jaz
ۥo
j a.�
j
j
I
E
low"
1 LO
I�
Iv
IC
Icca
Im
I
Ida
I �v
I�'�
I��
lo•�
CD
c
I
I g
la F
Ia. 2
I E;
Im
la$
J L
Ilr
I•o o
c
I z
Iz z
la
z2
a
I
N
I
I
v to
I
UD
a l0
I
07
a IO0
o I�
to
3
I�
3
I?
3
IM
O
O
rn i o
i
i o
i o
i o
A
I2
1
!
? !
!
A
C d IU K
d IU x
d IU >
IU >
d IU >
i
i
i z
i
gb w
C
��
ebb
a,
N%
Gob
= U
U
>
U
U
U
Z
O O
C 9,
O m
d
M k
"m
M O
iC
M
l
a\
VI
VI 9
01
VI
ON
VI
O,
VI b
O d
C 'a0
C d
C
w
C M o •E
a0+
`^ o •E
+�+
`"' c ,E
"' a ,E
w
"' c E
U z :a
z .a
za
za
za
a
a
a
s
a
=L
�A
r+
e0
�
c
L �
N
�
v,
IL
00
o
Cl
0
0
Q a
a
a
a
a
� w
L
w
3CD
o
i
O
N
N
00
m
L
LL
Z
Z
Z
z
V
c
.0
c
>
c
O
O
m
a)
N
_O
U)
t
fi
9
O
LO
U)
E
Q
O
m
r
N
O
O
U
Z
m rn
&�
°a-
�Z25
Z
A
N
N
m
a

NC0021555 Newnort WWTP
Date: 2/27/2019
Date
Downstream
Upstream
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal
Coliform
#/100mL
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal
Coliform
#/100mL
6/1 /2016
23
3.51
3900
21.9
4.28
1700
6/2/2016
22.8
3.53
755
22
4.13
550
6/7/2016
23
5.95
6800
22.6
6.07
6000
6/8/2016
22.7
4.05
2700
22.4
4.42
2000
6/9/2016
21.3
3.96
360
21
4.34
440
6/14/2016
22
4.25
260
21.6
4.64
310
6/15/2016
23.4
3.95
673
22.9
4.55
470
6/16/2016
23.3
3.99
4800
22.9
4.65
4200
6/21 /2016
22.8
4.2
250
21.8
4.72
270
6/22/2016
23.6
4.08
270
23
4.47
370
6/24/2016
25
2.77
300
24.1
3.15
290
6/28/2016
24.8
3.39
280
24.2
4.02
320
6/29/2016
24.9
3.2
360
24.1
3.8
380
6/30/2016
25.5
2.94
200
24.3
3.5
250
7/5/2016
26.9
2.95
280
26.4
2.81
280
7/6/2016
27.5
3.29
3200
26.8
3.28
3200
7/7/2016
27.6
2.97
260
26.7
3.03
260
7/12/2016
25.7
3.15
280
25.3
3.6
280
7/13/2016
26.5
2.98
380
25.8
3.57
380
7/14/2016
27.5
2.69
330
26.6
3.31
330
7/19/2016
28.2
3.18
460
27.3
3.13
460
7/20/2016
27.6
3.46
540
26.6
3.31
540
7/21 /2016
27
3.38
2900
26
3.17
2900
7/26/2016
28
3.09
270
27.1
3.43
270
7/27/2016
28.8
3.14
240
27.8
3.37
240
7/28/2016
29
3.18
r 400
28
3.27
400
8/2/2016
27.4
3.17
520
26.6
3.19
736
8/3/2016
26.5
3.66
3400
25.1
3.93
1900
8/4/2016
25.6
3.63
1800
24.8
4
727
8/9/2016
26.1
4.03
691
25.6
4.25
580
8/10/2016
26.3
4.06
470
25.8
4.26
390
8/11/2016
26.2
4.17
530
25.8
4.44
350
8/16/2016
29.9
2.95
500
28.9
2.77
864
8/17/2016
30.3
3.22
909
29.4
3.07
845
8/18/2016
29.8
3.02
718
29
3.01
791
8/23/2016
26.1
3.72
664
25.2
4.03
580
8/24/2016
24.4
3.78
520
24.1
3.87
510
8/25/2016
24.4
3.9
410
24
4.25
420
8/30/2016
27.3
3.73
540
26.7
2.37
360
8/31 /2016
27.4
3.67
500
26.8
3.26
627
9/1/2016
27
3.67
590
26.1
3.33
500
9/6/2016
21.6
4.41
360
21.4
4.45
350
9/7/2016
22.7
3.88
727
22.5
4.12
370
9/8/2016
23.4
3.71
955
23.2
4.27
1045
9/12/2016
24.5
4.45
410
24.2
4.63
350
9/13/2016
23
4
3400
22.9
4.09
3200
9/15/2016
22.9
4.01
370
22.6
4.29
310
9/19/2016
24.6
3.43
290
24.3
3.53
310
9/20/2016
23.8
3.8
8600
23.5
4.26
6700
9/22/2016
23.7
3.61
320
23.6
3.85
280

Downstream
Upstream
Date
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal Col form
#/100m.L]
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
CFecam
#/100mL
9/26/2016
22.1
3.89
210
21.9
4.21
170
9/27/2016
21.9
4.13
250
21.8
4.06
290
9/29/2016
22.6
3.39
250
22.4
3.77
300
10/3/2016
22.5
4.17
290
22.3
4.4
169;
10/14/2016
18.8
3.66
108
18.5
3.95
167
10/17/2016
18.4
3.15
120
18.2
3.19
240
10/24/2016
15.5
4.52
148
15.4
4.85
139
10/31 /2016
18.1
4.17
154
17.8
3.96
182
11 /7/2016
14.4
4.89
200
13.6
5.52
148
11 /14/2016
12.9
7.11
410
12.8
5.75
370
11 /21 /2016
10.3
6.25
185
10.1
6.59
230
11 /29/2016
11.6
7.73
240
11.6
6.4
164
12/6/2016
12.5
5.58
3300
12.4
5.57
3700
12/13/2016
11.5
7.09
900
11.4
6.33
2000
12/20/2016
9
7.43
220
8.4
7.41
290
12/28/2016
14
6.3
100
13.8
6.56
64
1 /4/2017
13.6
5.67
836
13.6
5.61
636
1 /10/2017
2.6
10.99
220
2.6
11.02
174
1 /17/2017
10.5
7.83
70
10.5
7.68
64
1 /24/2017
10.5
7.83
882
12.2
4.92
1300
2/1 /2017
10
8.75
56
10.2
8.7
64
2/7/2017
9.9
8.34
54
9.8
8.57
46
2/14/2017
11.1
7.74
56
10.7
7.94
40
2/21 /2017
12.7
6.64
90
12.5
7.32
64
2/28/2017
14.8
6.64
25
13.8
6.92
20
3/7/2017
11.6
7.23
84
11.7
8.18
60
3/14/2017
11.8
7.23
1600
11.1
7.03
2200
3/21 /2017
11.7
7.88
146
11.6
7.88
240
3/28/2017
18.4
6.2
171
18.5
6.04
72
4/4/2017
17.9
5.77
48
17.9
5.97
54
4/13/2017
18.3
5.49
118
18
5.63
96
4/19/2017
18.8
4.95
320
18.4
5.31
520
4/25/2017
20
4.01
430
18.5
4.69
5000
5/2/2017
22.4
4.07
490
22
4.69
460
5/8/2017
17.5
6.15
102
17
6.53
96
5/16/2017
21.5
4.42
350
20.6
5.04
490
5/23/2017
25.3
6
500
24.5
3.47
590
5/31 /2017
24.1
2.75
682
23.7
2.66
636
6/1 /2017
24.2
3.28
430
23.7
3.88
360
6/2/2017
24.2
3.03
380
23.4
3.56
500
6/6/2017
26.2
2.79
155
25.2
3.1
400
6/7/2017
25.9
3.27
240
25.2
2.83
210
6/9/2017
2.16
3.75
209
20.8
3.88
220
6/13/2017
25.4
3.7
118
25.2
3.53
161
6/14/2017
25.9
3.73
240
24.6
3.63
280
6/15/2017
26.5
3.92
139
25.3
3.58
136
6/21 /2017
26.7
3.8
182
25.9
3.55
168
6/22/2017
26.7
4.01
390
26
3.46
280
6/23/2017
27.1
4.04
2200
26.4
3.13
190
6/28/2017
24.6
4.06
240
23.4
4.12
360
6/29/2017
23.8
3.87
410
22.8
4.01
470

Date
Downstream
Upstream
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal
Coliform
#/100mL
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal
Coliform
#/100mL
6/30/2017
24.5
3.94
290
23.5
4.23
220
7/5/2017
27.4
3.41
250
26.3
3.57
340
7/6/2017
26
2.91
3400
25.4
3.54
3700
7/7/2017
27.3
3.43
918
26.3
4.18
600
7/11/2017
26
4.01
2400
24.9
4.34
3000
7/12/2017
26.3
3.85
809
25.5
4.06
845
7/13/2017
27
3.83
330
26.2
4.15
500
7/18/2017
24.6
4.3
410
24.3
4.84
470
7/19/2017
24.7
4.26
260
24.2
4.85
280
7/20/2017
26
3.88
210
25
4.56
370
7/25/2017
29.3
3.64
184
28.2
3.49
310
7/26/2017
28.5
3.53
165
27.4
3.45
165
7/27/2017
27.1
3.78
78
26
3.6
172
8/1 /2017
24.3
3.78
220
23.6
3.73
320
8/3/2017
25.1
3.91
82
24.4
3.84
250
8/4/2017
25.8
4.09
96
25.4
3.91
300
8/9/2017
24.4
4.35
370
23.9
5.61
500
8/10/2017
23.7
4.25
480
23.1
4.72
470
8/11 /2017
23.8
4.34
370
23.4
4.67
510
8/15/2017
25.1
3.98
380
25.1
4.02
330
8/16/2017
25.5
4
139
25.3
3.98
118
8/17/2017
25.5
3.9
380
25.2
4.05
370
8/22/2017
24.9
3.65
196
25.1
3.9
152
8/23/2017
26
3.62
320
25.5
3.98
320
8/24/2017
24.8
4.03
6000
24.6
4.09
3600
8/30/2017
22.4
3.78
745
22.2
4.15
755
8/31 /2017
22.8
3.77
300
22.7
4.14
200
9/1 /2017
23.5
3.99
102
23.5
4.06
151
9/6/2017
23.8
3.49
106
23.5
4.08
102
9/7/2017
22.4
3.79
310
.21.9
4.06
320
9/8/2017
20.8
4.17
280
20.2
3.7
157
9111 /2017
19.9
4.72
86
19.8
4.9
152
9/12/2017
20.8
4.13
220
20.9
4.49
310
9/13/2017
21.8
4.24
84
21.7
4.62
78
9/19/2017
22.7
3.13
98
22.5
4
78
9/20/2017
22.3
3.21
173
22
3.81
270
9/21 /2017
23.2
3.02
688
22.7
3.25
230
9/26/2017
23
3.05
280
22.9
3.42
290
9/27/2017
23.4
2.93
153
23.4
3.44
154
9/28/2017
23.6
2.59
210
23.4
2.23
200
10/3/2017
20.2
3.54
141
19.5
3.84
200
10/10/2017
24.3
2.51
174
24
3.23
280
10/17/2017
21.3
3.75
380
20.7
2.99
200
10/25/2017
19.3
3.98
6700
18.8
4.01
5200
10/31 /2017
13.1
6.58
460
13
6.86
673
11 /7/2017
18.9
4.16
450
18.6
4.4
430
11 /15/2017
12.2
6.45
192
12
6.39
310
11 /20/2017
12.4
6.32
280
12.4
5.98
330
11 /27/2017
10.9
6.74
74
11.1
6.45
160
12/5/2017
12.9
6.44
184
13
5.74
250
12/12/2017
7.5
8.51
682
7.8
8.85
664

Downstream
Upstream
Date
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal
Coliform
#/100mL
_
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal
Coliform
#/100mLj
12/19/2017
10.4
8.07
60
10.3
7.88
164
12/28/2017
6.5
9.34
162
6.5
9.91
147
1 /2/2018
2.2
9.73
260
2
9.64
72
1 /9/2018
3.2
12.97
86
3.5
13.16
74
1/16/2018
5.4
9.91
200
4.9
10.02
159
1 /23/2018
9.4
10.34
50
9.8
10.31
84
1 /29/2018
12.1
8.34
718
11.9
8.15
2500
2/6/2018
8.3
10.04
141
7.5
9.17
200
2/13/2018
12.5
7.74
490
11.6
8.41
280
2/20/2018
15.1
7.99
120
14.6
8.2
110
2/26/2018
18.6
6.67
390
18.1
7.09
270
3/7/2018
10.1
7.97
490
10.3
8.33
360
3/13/2018
9
8.47
280
8.7
8.76
380
3/22/2018
10.5
7.26
310
10.2
7.09
250
3/27/2018
10.2
8.4
270
10.1
8.51
180
4/3/2018
16.7
5.88
197
16.1
6.01
173
4/11 /2018
12
7.39
290
11.8
7.7
191
4/17/2018
15.3
5.93
2900
17.9
6.02
1700
4/26/2018
17.5
5.59
360
16.9
7.09
290
5/1 /2018
16.5
6.04
184
16.1
6.24
184
5/8/2018
17.7
5.82
570
17.4
6.01
627
5/15/2018
23.7
4.2
591
22.5
3.89
580
5/22/2018
22.6
4.68
550
22.5
4.78
340
5/29/2018
22.4
4.32
7900
22.2
4.45
3200
5/30/2018
22.9
4.29
873
22.7
4.37
2400
5/31 /2018
23.2
3.32
673
23.1
3.42
420
6/5/2018
23.3
3.94
1400
23
4.29
1800
6/6/2018
22.7
4.21
360
22.6
4.4
300
6/7/2018
22.9
4.08
330
22.8
4.28
420
6/11/2018
23.6
3.96
570
23.1
4.56
420
6/12/2018
22.4
3.97
2400
22.2
4.22
6400
6/13/2018
22.6
4.23
827
22.5
4.52
827
6/19/2018
24.2
3.94
270
24.1
4.44
136
6/20/2018
25.3
3.69
500
25
3.86
600
6/21 /2018
25.3
3.78
290
25.1
3.86
270
6/26/2018
25.7
4.07
530
24.9
4.47
360
6/27/2018
24.1
3.97
3000
23.5
4.11
4000
6/28/2018
24.4
3.82
470
24.2
4.07
360
7/2/2018
25.9
3.82
280
25.1
3.76
330
7/3/2018
25.8
3.72
330
25.2
3.89
260
7/5/2018
25.7
3.71
360
25.4
3.68
230
7/10/2018
24.1
3.6
550
23.2
3.94
691
7/11 /2018
25.1
3.39
380
24.1
3.61
200
7/12/2018
26.5
3.15
360
25.6
3.17
340
7/17/2018
24.8
3.93
520
24.5
4.07
370
7/18/2018
24.8
3.54
900
24.8
4.17
251
7/19/2018
24.7
3.99
7600
24.5
4.15
6800
7/24/2018
24.1
5.64
4500
24
5.43
3400
7/25/2018
23.7
4.35
2700
23.6
4.53
2100
7/26/2018
24
4
2400
23.8
4.32
520
7/31 /2018
24.4
4.21
560
24.4
5.71
590

Date
Downstream
Temperature DO CFecal
[degC] [mg/L] r#/100mL
Upstream
Temperature
[degC]
DO
[mg/L]
Fecal
Coliform
#/100mL
8/1 /2018
25.2
3.64
200
25.1
3.94
112
8/2/2018
25.4
3.52
370
25.3
3.59
600
8/7/2018
25.5
3.6
360
25.4
3.68
208
8/8/2018
25.5
3.55
320
25.5
3.53
290
8/9/2018
25.8
3.33
360
25.2
3.77
230
8/14/2018
25.1
3.32
1800
24.6
3.5
809
8/15/2018
25
3.8
510
24.5
3.83
646
8/16/2018
25.2
3.85
250
25.1
4.12
340
8/21 /2018
26.5
3.14
560
25.9
3.83
570
8/22/2018
26.6
3.18
6300
26.1
3.96
6200
8/23/2018
27
2.97
400
26
3.51
500
8/28/2018
26.1
3.32
746
25.7
3.38
590
8/29/2018
26.8
3.21
7900
25.7
3.38
3200
8/30/2018
27.1
3.2
230
25.9
3.65
340
9/4/2018
26.3
3.35
570
25.4
3.73
627
9/5/2018
26.8
3.15
440
25.8
3.27
460
9/6/2018
26.8
3.09
664
25.9
3.12
500
9/10/2018
27.1
3.36
570
26.2
2.81
550
9/11/2018
26.8
3.24
1300
26
3.31
2300
9/12/2018
26.1
2.94
1900
25.2
3.04
6000
9/19/2018
26
0.06
3900
25.9
0.08
1500
9/20/2018
25.6
0.12
2900
25.5
0.21
2100
9/21 /2018
24.6
0.48
2900
24.6
0.12
2300
9/25/2018
24.1
0.07
1300
24.4
0.62
809
9/26/2018
24.6
0.1
6000
25
0.36
6000
9/27/2018
25.5
0.22
200
25.6
0.26
590
10/2/2018
22.8
0.8
138
22.8
0.87
115
10/10/2018
25
0.29
290
24.6
0.17
370
10/16/2018
22.1
1.65
290
22.3
1.96
151
10/23/2018
16.4
4.93
570
15.4
4.71
420
10/30/2018
14.7
4.96
480
14.2
4.45
270
11 /6/2018
19.4
4.6
2600
19.3
4.79
1200
11 /13/2018
17.4
6.24
1000
17.2
5.91
600
11/19/2018
12.9
7.02
195
12.6
7.35
350
11 /27/2018
11.8
5.45
88
11.3
5.9
78
Notes:
Instream Data provided by the Permittee
Data spans from 6/1/2016 to 11/27/2018
Summary
Location
Parameter
Max
Min
Mean
Geomean
Upstream
Temp.
L
29.4
2
21.2
NA
DO
13.16
0.08
4.59
NA
Fecal Coliform
6800
20
NA
406
Downstream
Temp.
30.3
2.16
21.54
NA
DO
12.97
0.06
4.44
NA
Fecal Coliform
8600
25
NA
418

o Ln w w N w m Ln 00 rI O �4 Ln Ln m w m O
e 4 w-q N m M N m r, r` Ln O w Ln -t M-5
M 00 01 01 Ol 01 n n n f` Ln n l0 01 l0 00 N
� � 01 01 01 01 01 a1 Ol 01 01 l71 G1 Q1 C11 a1 C1 01
Q1 ^ n N 00 00 00 0) M 01
�. 07 ^ n e� l 00 � 00 00 r11 00 ri r1 01 0) IT . -i IT � -1 e-I
n a�i o aEi aEi `° 75 °�° a�i ° aEi a�i CL m c 3 m °�' >
u o v m a�i�¢���Q n' c aui m �2¢2��Q Q. aJ a�
N £ N z G LL N z p LL N 0 Z w
L
t
C ?.� tl1 t0 m on O m t\ r` 00 w ri N m W Ln Ln M M n e-1 O ri M t0 O oo t\ Ln N N
.1��o�oo�f�MO�OO�O�o�o0o0o�rnrnoonLnMooO�Go01�rn�DO�
0 00 O 4 o1 6 G1 C1 6 01 01 ai 6 Q1 01 G1 6 G1 6 6 Gl l6 n n al l0 00 lD Ln o0 W-
m cc
rn rn ai m m rn of rn rn rn rn m cn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn Qi ai rn rn rn rn rn rn
LA
Ln ~ '^�Ln LnriLn i q �����nn
2 c m o. m 3 5 do a o y w= M CL m°�° w° m a�i o .Q c
c.J
00 N Ln O M 00 M r 4 m N 00 Cf N 00 N N
r.r n lD 00 r1 lD n Ln -! l0 t\ Gl CO Cl �t N Cn tt
p� o0 00 0o O1 00 oc oti oti ac o0 f` N n oG o� oG oc co
a oc rn rn rn rn rn o, rn rn rn on rn rn rn rn rn rn cn
r- n 00 00 00 rn rn m
r1 r` .1 ri w 00 00 00 V4 00 V4 .1 cn rOf Q1 -4 (n ri r-1
i a1 al i � 0000 0000 a000 00 ri cu i v a! I 'i M 0) cn cn .- 1
m cc
5 ba o i a m 5 m w o L m a m 5 bo o f 10
y G -' Q C O o 0) ¢ _' Q a p o aui LL ¢ r CL p o amui
z E Ln z In z 0 Ln Z E
r o
W w Ln O Ln r l O N m N O w O ri n Ln W 00 M M N O N N m r 00 1-1 O O M m
O? N Ln 44� N w ri w w N N w 00 00 N w-1 N a1 %t to w M n M Ln wO
00 16 (` 00 Gl 6 6 00 6 6 6 O 6 Ol Ol 01 01 6 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O 6 i
r OG m G1 cn (n CE G1 cn 01 01 m m Q1 0 m 0 m m m m CA M 0) (n CA G1 cn cn cn cn CA
Q O
Ln O Ln Ln Ln tD t0 tD
� m `� i..1 Ln In Ln to ri (L- `� i 'd �> e l i..1 tD lD tD
C �, e 1 r1 � r-1 � 1 C1 L t a l rl 0`J )
C s p- m C to (u O a�i v m p m r 5 tw N O N m cuLo o c
z U. Ln O z 0 _' '1 Ln 0 zo o LL-

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Newport WWTP
PermitNo. NCO021555
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 1.2
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.4
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 0.9
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0.4
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.2
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.86
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
IWC (%)
82.30
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
21
Less stringent than in current permit;
no changes proposed
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
200/100ml
1.22
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0.4
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.2
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.86
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
82.30
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.2
Less stringent than in current permit; no changes proposed
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
w7Q10 (CFS)
0.9
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.2
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.86
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
67.39
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.6
Less stringent than in current permit; no changes proposed
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 = 28/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit

O
J J
N
N
Cu0
00
4
>
LO
7
II
C
�
J
LJ
Q
m
y
y
C
Cr
6
LQ
z
4r
a
o
J
U
~
D
O
Z
O
Z
O O
Q
� O
L>L�
O r4
J
LU
co
�
II II
LU
3
q O
m
u.
cr41
a
E
U
�
�
a
d
:3
Ln
Ln
Ln
O
O
O
\
LM
j
Uo
LA
C
Ln
r-I
O
U
rtii
Z
w
ri
e-1
a-i
M
a
~
c
%
�
Q,
u
a�
Cf
-a
v
v
v
w
z
E o
co
Z Z
a
Lo
Lo
Lo
'v
C
I�
f0
N
F-

Ln
Ln
Ln
rq
N
O
O
U
Z
0
0-
0
Q
G1
Z
0
•U N
O
M
O
Lnn
O
rn
0
o
J
o
+�-
C
C
00
_3
A
(D
o
ELn
Q'°°�
X
rn
4-
u
Q
2
LU
co
H
Cf

00
4
O
Ln N
,n \
n
N ,
d LM
rq
U
ai
N
Q O
zCL o
a-
v 3 "'
a ai
M1•
}
}
}
}
}
}
N
V
O
N
Ln
O
4v £ V
t0
Lo
L6
r�
V
`
n
00
n
`
Ln
en
l0
0)
00
M
i 01 w
M
Li
'
n
'
-!-1
O
-!-1
O
n
O
¢m
c
Ln
Ln
LnLn
Ln
Ln
N
tt
N
n
N
M
O
.4
N
T y
C fd0
US
Im
O
ri
V1
v
t
O
00
tw
00
00
00
a--1
E
E
E
E
E
d
�
o
m
O
p
c
m
®
m
o
m
Q
E
E
E,i
E

United Stales 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 2 16 I 3 N00021555 11 12 17/08/23 117 18 1=J i � I 19 i G l i 201LJ
� LJ LJ �
21I 111 1 1 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 11 1 I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA - Reserved I
67 70 [Q j 71 I 72 ti j 73I I 174 751
I I I I I I I80
LJ Section B: Facility Data L_I 1 I I
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) 110:30AM 17/08/23 13/04/01
Newport WATP — - "-
160 Kirby Ln Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Newport NC 28570 12:10PM 17/08/23 17/07/31
- --_ - - — - _L -- - -- ---
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)lritles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Scotty Gerald Rollins/ORC/252-223-44181
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Scotty G Rollins,PO Box 1869 Newport NC 285701869/1.1tilities Director/252-223-4418/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit E Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program 0 Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review 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
Tom Tharrington WIRO WQ///
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Morelia Sanchez -King WIRO WQ//910-796-7218/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES . yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NCO021555 li i 121 17/08/23 1 7 18 ICI
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The facility was very clean and appeared well maintained. The site ORC and staff members perform
numerous process control tests in addition to those required by the permit. The operational staff
perform field parameter testing analysis and process controls, a contract lab (Environment One)
perform all additional testing. All flowmeters had last been calibrated on June 30, 2017 by Instrulogic
Corp.
All additional comments are noted in the questions section of this report.
Page#

Permit: NCO021555
Inspection Date: 08/23/2017
Owner - Facility: Newport ywVrP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit •
Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
M
❑
❑
❑
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?
LE
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The permit includes provisions for notification of any by-pass of partially treated or untreated
wastewater to NC Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water quality Section.
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? F ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: The facility staff perform, Influent settleable solids, MLSS settleometer, PH. BOD. TSS.
TRC and dissolved Oxygen on a daily basis. The results are maintained in a logbook and
computer spreadsheets.
Influent Samplinp
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
a
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
a
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Staff analyze the influent sample everyday for BOD and TSS levels to maintain
process
control. Required influent sam-pling for the NPDES ermit is Tues-Wed-Thurs.
Bar Screens
Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
IP
❑
❑
❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO021555
Inspection mate: 08/23/2017
Bar Screens
Owner - Facility: Newport WKrP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The headworks consists of a new mechanical screenina unit with manual b_y amass bar
screen and grit removal unit.
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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: No comment
Oxidation Ditches
Yes No NA NE
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/I)
■
❑
❑
❑
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The oxidation ditch was operating at 3.78 mg/I dissolved oxygen at the time of the _
inspection. Settleometer results were 480 after 30 mins. MLSS levels were 4,268 mg/I.
Oxidation ditch color and foam levels were normal.
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Yes No NA NE
■❑❑❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO021555 owner - Facility: Newport WWrp
Inspection Date: 08/23/2017
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
�-
Yes
No NA NE
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
■
O
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
.
1:1
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/ of the sidewall depth)
El
El
0
Comment: Sludge blanket t icall o erates 4-5 ft de endin on seasonal needs.
PUMPS- S-WAS
Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? El ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment: No comment
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of operation:
Is the filter media present?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
❑
❑ ❑
Is the filter free of growth?
❑
❑ ❑
Is the air scour operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
O
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
ID
1:1 El
Comment: Dual H1,drotech disc filter are used for tertia
filtration current) onli one unit is on-line at a
time because of lower flows
Chemical Feed
Yes No NA NE
Is containment adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
. ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
. ❑
❑
❑
Comment: HviDochlorite, solution and dechorination chemicals are stored and dosed from a chemical
storage buildin with seconda containment.
Disinfection -Liquid
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? ❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
1:1 El El
Page# 5

Permit: NC0021555
Inspection Date: 08/23/2017
Owner - Facility: Newport wwrP
Inspection Type: compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Disinfection -Li uid
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Comment: Effluent dosage of chlorine is tracked dail on the da of ins ection the T al Cl2 level w s
5.01 m /l with a Free Cl2 level of 3.82 m A. Chlorine Residual of the effluent was 5.0
Yes No NA NE
De -chlorination
Liquid
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Comment: No comment
❑
❑
■
❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment: No comment
Yes No NA NE
Effluent Sam lin
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: Effluent autosam ler refri erator com artmen was at 4.0°
Solids Handling E ui ment
Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
❑
❑
Page#
6

Permit: NC0021555
Inspection Date: 08/23/2017
Solids Handling E ui ment
Owner - Facility: Newport WWrP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake? ❑ ❑ ❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The sludge press is tyoically operated 1 week per month when digested solids are
transferred. Pressed residuals are then transferred to one of 4 sand drying beds for further
d in . Dried residuals are transferred from the sand drying beds to a covered residual
storage building for longer term storage. The site produces Class B residuals which are land
amlied to the Cove City Farm by Craven Agricultural Services.
Aerobic Diaester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
❑
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The aerobic digester was beinct decanted during
the inspection and all conditions appeared
normal.
Drvinta Beds
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
IF
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
F
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
[
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
P
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑
Fa
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The site has 5 sand drying beds with one bed currently used to store grit and solids
removed during collection system maintenance. Another drying
bed is used as a staging .
area for filter press cake which is then transferred to one of the 3 remaining beds as
needed.
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
5 ❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
W ❑
❑
❑
Page# 7

Permit: NCO021555
Inspection Date: 08/23/2017
Owner • Facility: Newport WWiP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The 450 KV generator auto -tests each Monday at noon under load. The unit has 2 weeks of
operational fuel capacity_
Page# 8

N N N N v N N N
pa a s p l p l p m m a p m m x p
a 0-
0
O
O
O
O
O
u�
u�
u�
u�
u�
v
O
O
O
O
O
OtA
L
a
o
_
O I LL I m
Q m m m m
O= A N
d
I I I I
0
I I . .
0
N N N N
m m
d
a a a d
N 6
a a a a
N
m
cr
O
a
0)
O
O
0
u
O
N
Q
O
Q
O
Q
Q
O
O
aai
(cl D
d
C
IL
LL
IL
C
IL
C
LL
LL
to
N N
a
G
d
+
yy�I N
a
0!
�a LL a x
4.1 I
y 1
N N N N
�a
N
�_ x m a
m
y l
g
a a a
CL
O
N
fA
O
z
N
to
ILO
ILA
LL
3
LL
3
Y
3
3
3
0
3
O
m
C
LL
$
I
¢
L
o
m
fn
N
o
.,
m
Io
c
o
c
c
c
u+
c
o
c
'+
m
N
m
N
N
N
1
1
m
d
m
1
m
6
m
1
^�
N N N N
N N N N
m m m m
1 d a d d
N N N
N N N
m m m
� a a a
� I I I
� I I
N N N N
N N N N
� a a s a
J
p
0
Ln
1-
Z
O
t0
L
N
K19
N
C
N
�
.Oi
0
C
O
_
may.
rG.�{{
O
O
3
CJ
cr
O
cr
N
L
Q
n
n
m
1
3
n
1
3
n
1
n
N ur;
~
3
n
x x A x
LL
I I. I
~
d d d a
6 d d 1
d
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
U
'a
'�
'�
'w
•�
•�
c
d
v
M
�
C
�
_
CD
C
_
C
C
>
O
in
>
O
in
in
in
Q
L
m
a
xm
a
a
a
.On
a
a
E
E
dQ
E
a
E
�
E
c
E
N N
z
3
d
C
G
N
•
z
C
— d N N
'm
`i
C
O
O N N
U
C
O
O
C
O
=
=
N N d
z
•
¢ d ,
z
¢ LL N a s
z
¢ x A d d
z
I I I I
¢
z
. . . I
¢
O
z
¢ a a 6 a
N
E
C
C
1
C
N
2r
0IO
�+
7
t
7
7
F
a
+
A
•v
E
O
u
O
u
O
O
n
u°
43
Go
JT
tto
IO
o
C
N N _ N.Nr
N
L
U.
a a LL a
C
NIL
1 d 1
.4
U
m
.-i
O
a -I
co
ti
L
ti
CA
C
O
O
2
O
O
L
.-I
m
a
n
M
�
E
E
m
u
E
w
N
00
Q
N
U
m
V
N
¢
N
L
"
O
N
(
O
O
O
p
-a
U
U. I I I .
pO
{,
lL I I I I
OO
V
I•l . . I I
U
La- . . . I
V
�. I
pOo
U
U-
C
Z
z
z
z
z
z
m
G
.mi
N
.L-i
N
.m-L
N
O
eQ-I
N
\
E
jr
I` -I
m
z�i
N
\
y
Q:
a
j
N
a
eN-I
a
•~-�
O
d
CL
i—
LL
d
In
d
1 a
C
3
v
a
v
~ m m m
x x$ m
°
m
l
u°
m
m
n n m m
u
m
r
m
a a a a
a°pi
m
N a
m
A
m
m
N a d
m
X
0
j
N
3
A
N
m m
O
c
C
m
d
W
m
C
d a
r
m
J
I
LL
41
V
7
p
L
`
pp
W
a11
l•l0 n 00
L tD n lD
D 1� L
.N•Y .N•i .•i a -I
."1 .••I r'1 .-1
" " H 14
14
0
N
O
NNN
NNN
u
NNN N
N N NN
C
N
NNNN
Lu
m
i
m
a
t
o
c
a
IA
az
A
LL
OOwl
N
x
N
x^
°a
c
c
y
C
a
r
a
J
3
v
3
3
�=
�3
t
c
t
.00
z
LL
z
'
°'
z
u
z
v
z°
u
z°
u

_-�
n
LJ
Ent t IT stl Sol tlons Inc
PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
v ronmen a e ng u Date: A)iril 22, 2016
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Facility: Newport WWTP NPDES#: NC-0021555 Pipe#:.001 County: Carteret
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. Comments:
Signature of Operator in Responsible Charge:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor: project: 11331
Samples: 160405.04, 160407.04, 160409.04
Mail Original To: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ1 Environmental Sciences Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Stan
date:
End
date:
Stan time: End,.mc:
Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
04-05-16
04-12-16
1140 1058
Replicate number
1
2 3
4
Test Organisms
Control ISurvivingmanbcroflarvae
1 ] 0
1 10
] 0
] 0
Survival (°!)
F 100.0 1
Outside supplier:
Organisms joriginal number of larvae
1 10
1 10
10
10 j
Average wt (mg)
0.610
In-house Culture
WeighVoriginal (mgllamae) -1
0.634
1 0.634 j
0.572 1
O.
Average +vt /
1 0.610
sun•iving (mg)
Begin hatch:
04-04-16 1600
% Effluent
E05il
s ivi5 number oflarvac
10 1 10
10
1 10
10riginal number of larvae
1 10 1 10
1 10
1 10
15'eightforiginal (mgliarvae)
1 0.590 1 0.701
1 0.757
1 0.677
End hatch: 04-05-16 0615
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.681
% Effluent ISurvivingnumberoflampe 10 1 10 10 1 10
41 % Original number of larvae -1 10 1 10 10 1 10 Survival
Weiphtlorieinat (mglarvae) 1 0.639 1 0.760 1 0.703 1 0.661 1 Average wt (mg) 1 0.691
% Effluent
82
% Effluent
91%
% Effluent
100 %
Survivim_ number of larvae 10
10
10
1 10
Original number or larvae 10
10
1 10
10
Weightforiginal (m •'larvae) 1 0.660
1 0.699 1
0.628 1
0.678
Surviving number of larvae
9 10
10
1 10
Original number of larvae
1 10 10
1 10 1
10
Wei htlori •final (mtularvae)
1 0.654 1 0.668
1 0.708 1
0.687
Survivin • number of larvae
10
1 10
10
10
Original number of larvae
1 10
1 10
10
10
Wei lktlori :final (mclarvae)
1 0.729
1 0.722
1 0.672
1 0.688
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt(mg) 1 0.666
Survival (%) 97S
Average wt (mg) 1 0.679
Survival (%) 100 -
Average ++t (mg) 0.703
Water Quality Data
Da 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial j Final
Control
PH (SU):
DO (mglL):
Temp. (°C):
High Concentration
PH (SU):
DO (mg;L):
Temp. (°C):
7.12
7.33
7.32
7.34
7.27
7.06
7.17
7.08
7.81
6.95 7.34
7.02 7.28
7.20
7.9
8.0
7.7
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.9
7.9 7.8
7.9 7.9
7.8
24.8
24.6
24.8
24.2
24.8
24.8
24.7
24.2
24.6
24.3 24.8
24.2 24.8
24.3
7.64
7.97
7.96
7.87
7.63
7.59
7.74
7.60
7.54
7.52
7.90
7.54
7.79 7.68
8.3
7.8
8.1
7.9
9.0
7.9
9.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.0 8.0
25.0
24.7
25.0
1 24.5
25.0
1 24.7
25.0
24.7
1 24.8 1
24.3
25.0
24.6
25.0 21.6
Sample Information
Collection start date:
Grab:
Composite duration:
Alkalinity (mglL CaCO,):
Hardness (mg/L CaCO,):
Conductivity (pmhos/cm):
Total residual chlorine (mrlL):
Sample Temp. err Receipt (°C):
Sample I
Sample 2
Sample 3
Control
04-03-16
04-05-t6
04-07-16
24-h
24-h
24-h
94
100
96
30-34
200
220
210
36.38
1090
1230
1250
113-161
70.10
<0.10
<0.10
1.0
0.3
1 0.3
Analyses
Normal:
Hom. Var.
NOEC:
LOEC:
ChV:
Method:
Overall Analysis:
Result: PASS LOEC: >100% NOEC: 100% ChV: >100%
DIVQ jor+n AT-5 (8103)
Survival
Growth
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
Visual Imp.
Dunnetes
Survival
Growth
% Effluent
Critical
Calculated
Critical
Calculated
20.5%
2.410
-2.395
41%
2.410
-2.712
82%
2.410
-1.994
9196
3.410
-2.328
100%
2.410
-3.113

PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
Fait: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. Date: September 30, 2016
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Facility- NewportWWTP NPDES#: NC-0021555 Pipe#: 001 County: Carteret
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. Comments:
Signature of Operator in Responsible Charge:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor: Protect: 11740
Samples: 160913.04, 160915.05, 160917.04
Mail Original To: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Start date: End date: Start time: End time:
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 09-13-16 09-20-16 1220 1140
Replicate number
1
2
3
4
Test Organisms
Control
Survival (%)
100.0
Outside supplier.
Organisms
Average wt (mg)
0.533
In-house Culmrc
Average wt /
0.533
surviving (mg)
Begin hatch: 09-12-16 1450
% Effluent
End hatch: 09.13-16 0610
20.5%
Survival (%)
100.0
Average wt (mg)
0.573
% Effluent
Survivine numberoflarvae
10
10
10
10
4t%
Original numberoflarvae
10
10
10
10
Survival (%)
100.0
Weightforiginal (rn arvae)
0.618
0.626
0.678
0.611
Average wt (mg)
0.633
% Effluent
82%
Survival (%)
100.0
Average wt (mg)
0.638
% Effluent
91%
% Effluent
10096
Survivin•numberoflanae
10
1D ]0
10
Original number of larvae
l0
10 10
10
Weight/original (mg/larvae)
0.553
0.477 0.575
0.527
Survivin •numberoflarvae
10
10 10
]0
'•iaalnumberoflarvac
10
10 l0
10
H'eigitt�original(mgllarvac)
0.581
0.544 0.578
0.585
Surviving number of larvae
10
10
I0
10
Original number of larvae
10
]0
10
]0
Weight/original (mgllarvae)
0.608
0.641
0.649
0.654
Surviving number of larvae
10
10
] 0
] 0
Original number of larvae
10
10
10
10
WeighUoriginal(mg/larvae)
0.690
0.636
0.702
0.661
Surviving number of Itwac
10
10
10
] 0
Original number of larvae
10
10
10
] 0
Weight/original (mg/larvae)
0.727
0.662
0.666
0.724
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 1 0.672
Survival (%) 100.0
Avemge wt (mg) 0.645
R'alcr Quality Data
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
Control
PH (SU):
DO (mglL):
Tapp. (°C):
High Concentration
PH (SU):
DO (mg/l-):
Temp. (°C):
7.66
7.57
7.61
7.27
7.60
7.41
7.47
7.17 7,75
7.?�
7.52
7.45
7.44
7.25
7.9
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.9
7.6
7.9
6.5 7.6
6.7
7.9
7.3
7.9
7.8
2a.7
24.3
24.6
24.2
24.7
24.3
24.7
24.4 24.8
24.5
24.7
24.5
24.7
24.4
7.82
8.09
8.09
7.99
7.76
7.86
7.98 7.68
7.90 7.78
8.07
7.92
8.02 7.89
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.8
8.1
7.8
7.9 6.9
8.0 7.0
7.7
7.5
7.8 8.0
24.9
24.7
24.7
24.5
25.0
24.3
24.6 24.4
25.0 24.6
24.9
24.3
24.9 24
Sample I
Sample 2
Sample 3
Control
Sample Information
Analyses
Collection start dart:
Normal:
Grab: Hom. Var.
Composite duration: 24-h 24-h 24-h NOEC:
Alkalinity (mE/L CaCOy):
LOEC:
Hardness (mglL CaCO:):
ChV:
Conductivity (µmhos<cm): 1410 150-160 Method:
Total residual chlorine (mglL):
Sample Temp. at Receipt ("C):
Survival
Survival
Growth
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%>100%
>I00%
>100%
>I00%
Visuallnsp.
Dunnelt's
Survival
Growth
%Efflurnt
Critical
Calculated
Critical
Calculated
20.5%
2.410
-1.872
41%
2.410
Y1.662
82%
2.410
4.883
91%
2.410
-6.475
100%
2.410
-7.521
Overall Analysis:
Result: PASS LOEC: >100% NOEC: 100% ChV: >100%
DWQ jornt AT-S (8/03)

E0 1_ T� PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
- _ .1 j Phone: [phone]
� j .. ; Fax: [phone]
n
i-� E-mail: [e-mail]
etsnclab.com
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc Date: October 21, 2016
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test
Facility: Newport WWTP NPDES #: NC-0021555 Pipe #: 001 County: Carteret
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. Comments:
Signature of Operator in Responsible Charge:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor: project: 11794
Samples: 161004.05, 161006.05, 161009.03
Mail Original To: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Stan date: I End date: I Start time: End tune:
Raleigh, NC 27699-162] to-04-16 to-n-16 u2o 1140
Control
Organisms
% Effluent
20.5 %
% Effluent
41%
Replicate number
2 3 4
Surviving number of larvae
10
10 10
10
!Original number.flarvac
10
10 10
10
weightloriginal (mg/larvae)
0.608
0.578 0.646
0.716
lSurvivinE, number of larvae
10
10
10 10
Original number of larvae
10
10
10 10
SV ci httati inal(mg/larvae)
1 0.574
1 0.621
1 0.727 1 0.651
Survivin . number of larvae
10
10
I 10
1 10
Original numberoflarvae
1 10
'10
1 10
1 10
wei tort inal (m arvae)
1 0.633
1 0.599
1 0.600 1
0.647
Test Organisms
Survival (%)
I00.0
Outside supplier:
Average wt (mg)
O.G37
In-house Culture
Average wt /
1 0.637
surviving (mg)
Begin hatch:
1 10-03-16 1703
Survival (*%) F 100.0
Average vvt (mg) O.G43
Survival (%) r 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.620
% Effluent Surviving numberoflarvae 10 10 10 10
82 % Original number of larvae 10 10 10 10 Survival (%) 100.0
weight/original (mg/larvne) 0.613 0.650 0.663 0.667 1 Average wt (mg) 1 0.648
% Effluent
91%
% Effluent
100 %
ISurviving numberoflarvae
10 10
10
1 10
Ori inalnumberofIarvnc
1 10 10
1 10
1 10
weigbdoriginal (mg/larvae)
1 0.765 1 0.652
1 0.659
1 0.690
Survivin • number of larvae
10
1 10
10
10
Original number of larvae
10
1 10 1
10
10
Weightloriginal (ingnarvae)
0.655
1 0.696 1
0.760
0.725
Survival (%) 100.0
Avemge wt (mg) 1 0.691
Survival (%) 100.0
Average wt (mg) 0.709
End hatch: 1 10-04-16 0600
Water Quality Data
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final Initial I Final I Initial Final
Control
PH (SU):
DO (mg/L):
Temp. (°C):
High Concentration
PH
I
SM):
DO (mg/L):
Temp. (°C):
7.82
7.38
7.34
7.21
7.85
7.77
7.55
7.05
7.49
7.32
7.65
7.40
7.44
7.26
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.3
7.8
7.3
7.9
7.2
&0
7.1
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.8
24.7
24.4
24.7
24.5
24.7
24.5
24.7
24.4
24.7
24.3
24.8
24.6
24.72
7.93 7.81 7.83
7.72 7.92
7.78
7.99
7.66
7.69
7.74
8.09
7.96
8.00
7.85
8.3
7.3
8.0
7.3
3.2
7.1
8.0
7.7
8.0
8.0
24.9 24-5 24.6
24.6 25.0
24.2
24.8
24.5
24.8
24.3
25.0
1 24.3 1
24.9
24.4
Sample Information
Collection start date:
Grab:
Composite duration:
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3):
Hardness (mg/L CaCQ,):
Conductivity (prnhos/cm):
Total residual chlorine (mglL):
Sample Temp. at Receipt ("C):
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Connol
10.02-16
10-04-16
10-06-16
24-h
24-h
24-h
110
110
110
30-32
230
220
200
40-44
988
1100
t..0
152-166
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.5
1.8 1
1.1
Analyses
Normal:
Hom. Var.
NOEC:
LOEC:
ChV:
Method:
Overall Analysis:
Result: PASS LOEC: >100% NOEC: 100% ChV: >100%
DWQ fort AT-5 (8103)
Survival
Growth
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100Qo
Visuallnsp.
Dunnen's
Survival
Growth
%Efauent
Critical
Calculated
Critical
Calculated
20.5%
2.410
.0.201
41%
2.410
0.499
82%
2.410
-0.350
91%
2.410
-1.640
100%
2.410
2.162

PO Box 7565
Asheville. NC 29802
Phone: [phone]
Fax. [phone]
E-mail: Jim l elsaclabxom
Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc, Dalc; January 27. 7-017
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Fathead Minnms Multi -Concentration Test
Facility: Newport 1V«7P NPDES d: NC-0021555 Pipc R: 001 Countv: Carteret
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testing Solutions. Inc. _ Comments:
Signature of Operator in Responsible Charge:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor pro+ecc 13085
Samples. 170112.04. 110114 02. 170117.01
Mail Original To: North Carolina Derlanment of-wironment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Scicn,-�
cs Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Stan
date. End
date:
Stan time:
Fad Ursa:
Raleigh. TIC 27699-1621
01.12-17 01-19.17
1220
1120
It ltlreah
number
Control
Sanntngnumimoffana
(C
IO
10
10
100.0
Q..cs:dow•phu
Organisms
(ki irol nu!ubcr or lam3e
]0
10
10
10
l+erase x1(ntL)
0.7J8
Ir,-Itwtse CvHwe
weightiori- nal (m :Lvvw)
0.104
0.722
U.78U
0.747
Ave:.ge ++t •
0.738
sunie:ng(mg)
Begin hatch
1 01-11-171620
% Effluent
Sit ixing number or lama: 10
10 1
JO 1
10
End hatch
L 01-12.17 (1615
5-05"111
OriginalnumlxrorL.,. 10
10 1
IO 1
10
Sunualt°e;
100.0
R-ut•lwmp_y?)(mA,larvae} 1 0.797
0.762 1
0.753 1
0.831
.--rage%,I mg)
L0.786
% Effluent
4t94
% Effluent
a2
Suniciacnurnbcaatlarvw
10
10
10
l0
Ori •nal number orlarrac
1 10
10
1
1 10
10
We) original ( ar) 1
0.862
0.849
1 0.699
0.872
Sul Mns namlxrvfImw
10
10
1 10
1 10
Original mmnbn vflavac
10
1()
1 lfl
1 10
wci t/eri roof fm iw: scl
1 0.714
1 0,767
1 0.341
1 0.748
ser+na) iav) 100.0
A%emp +u img} F 0.821
SL",31 t°o) E]OOA
-t+aage ++tang) 1 0.768
A Effluent 154rvivinrviwnberoflava- 10 1 10 1 9 1 10
415G Original numberor(arvx- ll_ I :0 I to .I F 97.5
vl.r Tins_ ;* 08 88 :.169 9Q5 r. 0 810
% Effluent
10054
SmMq nwnber of lary
l o
10
8
chiginalnwuberorta
1(1
1
10
IO
10
1Vtht/ariginal (m};_clnrvar}
0.790
OR751
0.709
1 0.929
Water Quality Data
Da j 0 Day I Day 2 Dv 3 nor 4 Day S Dev 6
Initial I FirW Inhial I final Initial Final Initial I Final initial Final Initial I Final Initial Fires!
Control
PI I (SU)- 7.51
DO (tnpl) 7.9
Temp. CC). 24.7
High Concentration
ptl (SU)
DO (mg+L):
Tamp CC)
ts.9S
7 00
7,70
7.79
7.95
7J2
7.72
7.74
8.04
7.86
7 89
7.80
7.73
7.90
$.05
7.88
8.0
7.6
77
7-3
9.0
7.0
7.6
7.4
7.9
7 5
8.1
7 e
$.0
7,8
25.0
24.6
24.9
24.6
1 25.0
24,3
24.8
24.3
247
24.6 J25.0
1
24.4
1 24.9
34-5
Sample Information
Collection start date.
Grab:
Composite duration
AlWinity (ml;,L CaCOJ.
1(andneo IrnrA. Caco,)
Conductivity (Pndwsictn)
Totpl midital ch(ornne (m$rL)
Sarnp)e Temp at Receipt CC).
Sample I
Sam Ie 1
Sam 19 3
Control
01-10-17
0[-12-17
of-IS-17
24-h
24-h
24-11
120
Ila
120
31.33
210
200
240
40 10
1070
110
(280
Is2-157,
<0.10
<0.10
<010
0.1
0 3
0.4
Analyses
V onnal
tlom Var
NVic
LIDEC.
rhl'.
Method
Overall Analysis:
Result: PASS LOEC: >100% NOEC: 100% ChV: >100%
D1GQjor7n ,4T-S (8103)
survml
Grovrth
Yes
Yes
Yes
Vcs
100%
1031%
>IrsO?.
-100%
�Irc(ip.
�IOM,.
Vinud lnsp.
Durasetds
Sunrval
Gronlh
4b Cmeeni
Critical
Calculated
Critical
Cateu(aud
205%
2,410
-1.019
4 it';
82%
- - -
2.410
- 3 410 _
2.110
.1?57
_ �_ _
-D.b32
-1.534
91%
too''.
2,10
.1.869