NC0044776_Fact Sheet_20210510

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO044776
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Cassidy Kurtz, [e-mail]
Date: May 10, 2021
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Hamilton / Hamilton WWTP
Applicant Address:
PO Box 249, Hamilton, NC 27840
Facility Address:
North Penco Rd
Permitted Flow:
0.08 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MINOR Municipal
Facility Class:
Class II
Treatment Units:
Bar Screens, EQ Basin, Aeration Basins, Clarifiers, Activated Sludge,
Cascade Aeration
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y — Modified
County:
Martin
Region
Washington
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Town of Hamilton has applied
for an NPDES permit renewal for the Hamilton WWTP at 0.08 MGD; the renewal application was
received by the Division on November 18, 2016. This facility serves 400 residents within the Town and 1
Categorical Industrial User (Penco Products, Inc. Metal fabrication). This facility has primary Outfall
Page 1 of 9

001 in the Roanoke River. Hamilton WWTP transports approximately 160 GPD via truck to
Robersonville WWTP (NPDES permit NC0026042). Since the last permit renewal/modification in 2012,
the Town was granted Authorization to Construct permit number 044776A01 (March 2014) for
modifications at the plant including: installation of 2 new 150 gpm influent pumps, 2 new incline bar
screens, 2 grit collection sumps, one 1200-gallon grit storage tank, one 36,300-gallon EQ basin with air
diffusers, two 95 gpm feed pumps, two 49950-gallon aerated basins with air diffusers, one 18,850-gallon
aerobic sludge digester/storage basin with air diffusers, two 14-ft clarifiers with sludge air lift pumps and
sum removal, three 218 cfm air blowers, one 156 cfm blower and all piping and controls for each
component. The signed Engineer's Certification was received September 2016.
2. Receiving Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Roanoke River
Stream Segment:
23-(26)b2
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
8950 (per USGS StreamStats)
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
1852*
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
*
30Q2 (cfs):
*
Average Flow (cfs):
*
IWC (% effluent):
0.0067% at 0.08 MGD
303(d) listed/parameter:
No, the segment is not listed in the 2018 303(d) list for any
impairments
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Sub-basin/HUC:
Outfall 001: 03-02-09 / HUC: 03010107
USGS Topo Quad:
Hamilton, NC
*Note: The flow through this segment of the Roanoke River is regulated by a dam
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of April 2016 through October 2020.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit Limit
Flow
MGD
0.0358
0.6
0.0001
MA 0.08
BOD
mg/1
8.57
313
<1
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
Page 2 of 9

TSS
mg/1
9.74
525
< 2.5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
(geomean)
13876.27
> 940000
< 1
TRC
µg /1
No values reported — no chlorine used at
facility
DM 500 (<
compliance)
NH3N
mg/1
2.09
29.84
< 0.04
DO
mg/1
4.76
7.7
2.5
Temperature
° C
20.9
31
8.4
TP
mg/1
11.45
23.5
4.68
TN
mg/1
18.57
40.6
4.6
pH
SU
7.29
7.92
2.2
6.0 < pH < 9.0
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/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: Due to the facility's small size, the current permit does not require any instream
monitoring, and there are no proposed changes. The nearest ambient monitoring stations to the facility are
approximately 40 miles upstream and approximately 20 miles downstream, so no instream data was
analyzed during this renewal.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: N/A
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years):
Over the period reviewed (April 2016 — October 2020), the facility reported multiple limit violations
resulting in enforcement actions (all NOVs). These include:
• BOD — Weekly Average exceedance (March 2018); Monthly Average exceedance (March 2018)
• pH — Daily Minimum Not Reached (November 2016)
Page 3 of 9

• TSS — Weekly Average exceedances (December 2016, January 2017, March 2018, April 2018,
and June 2019); Monthly Average exceedances (December 2016, March 2018, April 2018)
On two occasions from April 2016 through October 2020, the facility did not achieve a monthly average
BOD removal rate greater than 85% (January and March 2018). On three occasions from April 2016
through October 2020, the facility did not achieve a monthly average TSS removal rate greater than 85%
(March and April 2018, June 2019).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 19 out of 19 quarterly whole effluent toxicity tests (facility reported no
flow in April and May 2018, but passed the subsequent test in June 2018).
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in January 2019 reported the facility was well -operated, with a minor equipment repair needed for
Clarifier #2. This equipment repair was noted in the July 2018 inspection report, where the facility was
judged non -compliant with NPDES permit NC0044776 due to concerns with this issue, no backup ORC,
and data inconsistent with what was reported on the DMRs.
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: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): N/A
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): N/A
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Limitations for
BOD are based on secondary treatment limits. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.
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/1 (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Page 4 of 9

Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: There are no
limits for ammonia, which was confirmed with the attached WLA. The TRC limit (daily max of 28 ug/L)
only applies if chlorine was used for disinfection at the facility. There are no proposed changes.
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/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 2020. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel,
Selenium, Silver, Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
Page 5 of 9

domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a minor POTW, and an acute WET limit at 90%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency during the months of January, April, July, and October.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (^-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
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
2017
2018
# of Samples
3
2
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
100
100
Maximum Conc., ng/L
100
100
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
179273.8
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since the facility used EPA method
245.1 and reported non -detects at <200 ng/1 for all samples, no monitoring will be required during this
permit term, but the facility will use low-level method 1631E for all future tests (in the effluent pollutant
scans and/or STMP testing) to report to 1.0 ng/1. This will be reevaluated during the next permit cycle.
Additionally, a mercury minimization plan (MMP) has not been added to the permit since the facility is
<2 MGD.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: N/A
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: N/A
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: N/A
Page 6 of 9

If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2) (B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: N/A
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: N/A
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/1
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). N/A
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES - See attached BOD & TSS
Removal Rate Calculation spreadsheet.
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). N/A
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: N/A
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: N/A
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,
Page 7 of 9

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(0) 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.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 3. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 0.08 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 0.08 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5
MA 30.0 mg/1
WA 45.0 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/1
WA 45.0 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
Fecal coliform
Monitor Weekly
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0500; 1999 Fecal
Coliform Policy (Dilution >331:1) -
Monitor only
TRC
DM 28 ug/1
(limit only applies if
chlorine used for
disinfection)
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
State WQ criteria. 15A NCAC
2B.0200
NH3-N
Monitor 2/month
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
DO
Monitor Weekly
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0500
Temperature
Monitor Weekly
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0500
Total Phosphorus
Monitor Quarterly
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500.
Total Nitrogen
Monitor Quarterly
No change
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Page 8 of 9

Toxicity Test
Acute P/F limit, 90%
effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
pH
6.0 — 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
3 per permit cycle
No change
40 CFR 122. Permittee shall monitor
in 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Electronic
Reporting
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD - Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA - Weekly Average, DM - Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 11/19/2020
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Contact:
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Cassidy Kurtz at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: N/A
The draft permit was sent to the permittee, EPA Region 4, Washington Regional Office, Operator
Certification Program, and Aquatic Toxicology Branch. No comments were received.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD & TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• PERCS Pretreatment Information Request Form
• RPA Sheets: Input Information; Data Analyzed; Results Summary; Dissolved to Total Metal
Calculation
• WET Testing and Self -Monitoring Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• Water Compliance Inspection Report (1/11/2019 and 7/26/2018)
Page 9 of 9

,_
Media of Eastern North Carolina
The Daily Reflector - The Daily Advance - The Rocky Mount Telegram
Bertie Ledger - Chowan Herald - Duplin Times - Farmville Enterprise - Perquimans Weekly
Standard Laconic - Tarboro Weekly - Times Leader - Williamston Enterprise
PO Box 1967, Greenville NC 27835
[phone]
NCDEQ/DWR
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
Account: 116523 Ticket: 366587
PAID VIA
❑ Cash ❑ Credit Card
['Check #
Date Paid
Copy Line: WASTEWATER PERMIT
Lines: 44
Total Price: $77.00
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
NORTH CAROLINA
Martin County
affirms that he/she is clerk of
Williamston Enterprise, a newspaper published weekly at Williamston, Martin
County, North Carolina, and that the advertisement, a true copy of which is here-
to attached, entitled WASTEWATER PERMIT was published in said Williamston
Enterprise on the following dates:
Thursday, November 19, 2020
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document or legal
advertisement was published, was at the time of each and every publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Chapter 1, Sec-
tion 597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper
within the meaning of Chapter 1, Section 597 of the General Statutes of North
Affirr5 d and subsc ibed before me this 19th day of November 2020
/i��(Notary Public Sl nature)
{{rr r
btary�Public Printed Name)
My commission expires
/I. .. 6i4 .. -4(
70-.53
9 AUGUST 21,
2024
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of intent to Issue a NPDES
Wastewater Permit NC0044776 Hamil-
ton WWTP
The North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission proposes to
issue a NPDES wastewater discharge
permit to the person(s) listed below.
Written comments regarding the pro-
posed permit will be accepted until 30
days after the publish date of this no-
tice. The Director of the NC Division
of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a
public hearing should there be a signif-
icant degree of public interest. Please
mail comments and/or information re-
quests to DWR at the above address.
Interested persons may visit the DWR
at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604 to review information on file.
Additional information on NPDES per-
mits and this notice may be found on
our website: http://deq.nc,gov/about/
d i v is ions/wate r-re so u rces/water-re-
sources-pe rmits/wa stewater-branch/
npdes-wastewater/public-notices ,or by
calling [phone]. Town of Ham-
ilton (PO Box 249, Hamilton, NC 27840)
has requested renewal of permit
NC0044776 for the Hamilton WWTP,
located in Martin County. This permit-
ted facility discharges treated munic-
ipal and industrial wastewater to the
Roanoke River, a class C water in the
Roanoke River Basin. Currently no pa-
rameters are water quality limited. This
discharge may affect future allocations
in this segment of the Roanoke River
Basin.
366587 11/19/2020

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Hamilton WWTP
PermitNo. NC0044776
Prepared By: Cassidy Kurtz
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
0.08
1852
1852
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
1852 s7Q10 (CFS)
0.08 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.124 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
0.01 IWC (%)
253920 Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Not Required
14936.48
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Total RPSidual Chlorines
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
1852
0.08
0.124
1.0
0.22
0.01
11650.7
1852
0.08
0.124
1.8
0.22
0.01
23599.9
Festal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NC0044776 Hamilton WWTP 11/9/2020
BOD monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
April-16
May-16
June-16
July-16
August-16
September-16
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
93.83
90.90
95.48
94.19
96.20
95.08
96.17
96.02
91.11
88.91
88.96
91.70
94.78
96.97
97.13
97.39
98.12
97.82
99.02
92.08
83.68
91.90
14.50
89.46
96.52
93.15
91.83
96.60
96.83
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
Overall BOD removal rate
95.68
93.75
94.73
93.88
95.41
94.97
92.48
90.00
89.07
96.52
96.66
97.27
97.96
97.09
97.11
96.92
96.62
97.38
96.71
92.80
94.38
97.86
97.90
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
93.07
TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
April-16
May-16
June-16
July-16
August-16
September-16
October-16
November-16
December-16
January-17
February-17
March-17
April-17
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
94.80
93.97
94.06
97.52
96.20
94.97
98.09
94.14
91.17
94.83
91.86
89.41
97.44
98.85
97.49
98.93
97.68
98.36
98.06
96.62
93.56
96.97
-23.34
66.83
97.86
97.81
89.21
97.42
96.80
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
Overall TSS removal rate
95.98
95.33
96.04
95.90
95.27
92.16
95.51
93.87
84.51
96.87
96.31
98.13
96.42
94.06
97.87
97.57
97.00
96.55
98.14
96.97
95.39
98.51
98.45
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
92.89

11/9/20 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Hamilton WWTP / NC0044776
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
2/2/17 < 200
3/15/17 < 200
5/24/17 < 200
1/17/18 < 200
3/7/18 < 200
Annual Limit 47 ng/L with
Quarterly Monitoring
No MMP Required
100 > TBEL
100 > TBEL
100 > TBEL
100 > TBEL
100 > TBEL
1852.000
0.080
cfs
WQBEL = 179237.81 ng/L
47 ng/L
100.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
100.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018

Hamilton WWTP / NC0044776
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2017
2018
# of Samples
3
2
Annual Average, ng/L
100.0
100.0
Maximum Value, ng/L
100.00
100.00
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
179237.8

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you net this form back
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS
Check all that apply
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should be
Date of Request
2/15/2019
municipal renewal
X
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Requestor
Cassidy Kurtz
new industries
(or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Hamilton WWTP
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0044776
Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Washington
stream reclass.
renewal.
Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
Roanoke
outfall relocation
-
Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS staff:
Other Comments to PERCS:
IBRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
Vivien Zhong (807-6310)
Facility is rated 0.08 MGD wtih 1 CIU listed in its application (Penco
is listed in POTW with
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
Products, Inc. - Metal fabrication), and pretreatment
X
Monti Hassan (807-6314)
spreadsheet.
PERCS
Status
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
k,%
3b) Modified Program with STMP
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual ,
Time period for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
0. 01 -S
ii. Do Lo„
l (ylv�
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
Next Cycle:
POC In LTMPI
STMP
Parameter of
Concem (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required by
EPA*
Required�iU
by 503
Sludge••
dal
to SKr'
—V"
PO TW POC
(Explain
below)***'
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
✓
BOD
,/
( ,t )
Q M
TSS
/
�4 '
Q M
Q = Quarterly V
.bIH3
4
Q M
M = Monthly
/Arsenic
""
4
Q M
4
Cadmium
4
i
4
Q M
-I
Chromium
l
.i
4
Q M
'/
Copper
NI
-
4
Q M
./Qyanide
4
Q M
Is all data on DMRs?
J
Lead
4
./
/
4
Q M
YES
-Mercury
4
Q M
NO (attach data)
_,./fvlolybdenum
,i
4
Q M
J
Nickel
4
/
!
4
Q M
,/
Silver
4
Q M
Selenium
,i
4
Q M
4
Zinc
AI
/
4
Q M
Is data in spreadsheet?
Total Nitrogen
4
Q M
YES (email to writer)
Phosphorus
4
Q M
NO
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
'Always in the LTMP/STMP `. Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
••• Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW •••• Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer (ex., explanation of RgCs' info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems
Tnv
+Ko, rh'I. Hi r\ LA) (,(-P INA A trv/ i-ha-c) pr1°I ' w I On tz I I t1 y f 4--i-a k-1 mi s t» 5
PERC NPDES_Pretreatmenl.request.form.xlsx
Revised July 24, 2007

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
L CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Hamilton WWTP
II
NC0044776
001
0.080
Roanoke River
L Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1Q10s (cfs)
1852.00
1852.00
1852.00
1852.00
'
1481.14
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
40 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L (Avg)
25 mg/L
25 mg/L
Data Source(s)
L CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Name
WEIS Type Chronic Modifier Acute
PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.5899
FW
3.2398
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
yTotal Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
117.7364
FW
905.1190
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
7.8809
FW
10.4725
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
2.9418
FW
75.4914
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
37.2326
FW
335.2229
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.2964
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
126.7378
FW
125.7106
ug/L
44776 - RPA, input
11/9/2020

Hamilton WWTP
NC0044776
Qw (MGD) =
1Q1OS (cfs) =
7Q 1 OS (cfs) =
7Q 1 OW (cfs) =
30Q2 (cfs) =
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
Receiving Stream:
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
WWTP/WTP Class: II
IWC% @ 1Q1OS = 0.00837123
IWC% @ 7Q10S = 0.00669502
IWC% @ 7Q10W = 0.00669502
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 0.00669502
IW%C @ QA = 0.00669502
Stream Class:
0.0800
1481.14
1852.00
1852.00
1852.00
1852.00
Roanoke River
Outfall 001
Qw = 0.08 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 25 mg/L
Chronic = 25 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
J
Cr
a
F
zApplied
=
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Standard Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/I.
ug/L
5 0
Note: n<_ 9
Limited data set
5.8
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW): 4,061,530.3
Chronic (FW): 2,240,472.6
Max MDL = 5
Chronic (HH): 149,364.8
Max MDL = 5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
N/A
Cadmium
NC
0.5899 FW(7Q10s) 3.2398
ug/L
5 0
Note: n <_ 9
Limited data set
1.160
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 38,701.054
Chronic: 8,810.988
Max MDL = 1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chromium III
NC
117.7364 FW(7Q10s) 905.1190
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 10,812,259.8
Chronic: 1,758,568.1
See Total Chromium
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 191,130.8
Chronic: 164,301.3
See Total Chromium
Chromium, Total
NC
ug/L
Tot Cr value(s)
5 2
Note: n <_ 9
Limited data set
? 5 but < Cr VI
16.2
C.V. (default)
Allowable Cw
Max reported value = 7
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Copper
NC
7.8809 FW(7Q10s) 10.4725
ug/L
20 12
42.00
Acute: 125,100.98
Chronic: 117,713.08
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
5 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
11.6
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 262,804.9
Chronic: 74,682.4
Max MDL = 10
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Lead
NC
2.9418 FW(7Q10s) 75.4914
ug/L
20 1
10.160
Acute: 901,795.605
Chronic: 43,939.508
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q10s)
ug/L
4 0
Note: n. 9
Limited data set
13.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 29,872,967.7
Max MDL = 10
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 4,004,465.1
Page 1 of 2
44776 - RPA, rpa
11/9/2020

Hamilton WWTP
NC0044776
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 0.08 MGD
Nickel
Nickel
NC
NC
37.2326 FW(7Q10s) 335.2229
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
µg/L
5 0
Note: n 9
Limited data set
11.6
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Chronic (FW): 556,124.2
Max MDL = 10
Chronic (WS): 373,412.1
Max MDL = 10
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
N/A
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
5 0
Note: n <_ 9
Limited data set
11.6
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 668,957.9
Chronic: 74,682.4
Max MDL = 10
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.2964
ug/L
5 2
Note: n <_ 9
Limited data set
30.160
C.V. (default)
Acute: 3,540.979
Chronic: 896.189
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Zinc
NC
126.7378 FW(7Q10s) 125.7106
ug/L
20 20
330.2
Acute: 1,501,697.8
Chronic: 1,893,016.9
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
0 0
N/A
Acute:
Chronic:
0 0
N/A
Acute:
Chronic:
0 0
N/A
Acute:
Chronic:
0 0
N/A
Acute:
Chronic:
Page 2 of 2
44776 - RPA, rpa
11/9/2020

H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
40 Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
10th Per value
Average Value
Max. Value
2/2/2017 40
Use"PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
N/A
40.0000
0.0000
1
40.00 mg/L
40.00 mg/L
40.00 mg/L
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H2
Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
25
Use"PASTE SPEC
Values" then "COP
Maximum data pol
= 58
25 Std Dev. N/A
Mean 25.0000
C.V. 0.0000
n 1
10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
Average Value 25.00 mg/L
Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=I/2DL Results
1 2/2/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 3/15/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 5/24/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 1/17/2018 < 5 2.5 n
5 3/7/2018 < 5 2.5
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
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values"
then "COPY".
Maximum data
points = 58 ji
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
5
2.32
2.5 ug/L
5.8 ug/L
44776 - RPA, data
11/9/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Date Data BDL=I/2DL Results
1 2/2/2017 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 3/15/2017 < 1 0.5 Mean
3 5/24/2017 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default)
4 1/17/2018 < 1 0.5 n
5 3/7/2018 < 1 0.5
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
Use"PASTE
SPECIAL -Values
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
Par10
Chromium, Total
Use"PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
0.0000 1 2/2/2017 5 5 Std Dev. 2.0433
0.5000 2 3/15/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean 3.9000
0.6000 3 5/24/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
5 4 1/17/2018 < 5 2.5 n 5
5 3/7/2018 7 7
2.32 6 Mult Factor = 2.32
0.500 ug/I 7 Max. Value 7.0 pg/L
1.160 ug/I 8 Max. Pred Cw 16.2 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
Pall
Copper
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/2/2017 10 10 Std Dev. 6.6609
2 1/4/2017 < 10 5 Mean 10.1842
3 3/15/2017 < 10 5 C.V. 0.6540
4 4/26/2017 < 10 5 n 19
5 5/24/2017 11 11
6 7/19/2017 11 11 Mult Factor = 1.40
7 10/25/2017 13 13 Max. Value 30.00 ug/L
8 1/17/2018 11 11 Max. Pred Cw 42.00 ug/L
9 1/31/2018 30 30
10 3/7/2018 18 18
11 5/2/2018 14 14
12 8/8/2018 < 10 5
13 10/17/2018 < 10 5
14 1/23/2019 < 10 5
15 5/1/2019 < 10 5
16 8/21/2019 14 14
17 11/20/2019 15 15
18 2/5/2020 11 11
19 5/6/2020 < 1 0.5
20 7/29/2020 27
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
44776 - RPA, data
11/9/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Cyanide
Use"PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/2/2017 < 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 3/15/2017 < 5 5 Mean 5.00
3 5/24/2017 < 5 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 1/17/2018 < 5 5 n 5
5 3/7/2018 < 5 5
6 Mult Factor = 2.32
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 11.6 ug/L
9
i
Par14
Lead
Date
1/4/2017 < 5
2/2/2017 < 5
3/15/2017 < 5
4/26/2017 < 5
5/24/2017 < 5
7/19/2017 < 5
10/25/2017 < 5
1/17/2018 < 5
1/31/2018 < 5
3/7/2018 8
5/2/2018 < 5
8/8/2018 < 5
10/17/2018 < 5
1/23/2019 < 5
5/1/2019 < 5
8/21/2019 < 5
11/20/2019 < 5
2/5/2020 < 5
5/6/2020 < 5
7/29/2020 < 5
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
BDL=1/2DL Results
2.5 Std Dev. 1.2298
2.5 Mean 2.7750
2.5 C.V. 0.4432
2.5 n 20
2.5
2.5 Mult Factor = 1.27
2.5 Max. Value 8.000 ug/L
2.5 Max. Pred Cw 10.160 ug/L
2.5
8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
44776 - RPA, data
11/9/2020

Par16
Molybdenum
Use"PASTE SPEC
Values" then "COP'
Maximum data poll
= 58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
ij
Par19
Selenium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results ] Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/15/2017 < 10 5 Std Dev. 1.2500 1 2/2/2017 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 2/2/2017 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 5/24/2017 < 10 5 Mean 4.3750 2 3/15/2017 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 3/15/2017 < 10 5 Mean
3 1/17/2018 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 5/24/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 5/24/2017 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 3/7/2018 < 10 5 n 4 4 1/17/2018 < 10 5 n 5 4 1/17/2018 < 10 5 n
5 5 3/7/2018 < 10 5 5 3/7/2018 < 5 2.5
6 Mult Factor = 2.59 6 Mult Factor = 2.32 6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value 5.0 pg/L 7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw 13.0 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 11.6 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw
9 9 9
10 10 10
11 11 11
12 12 12
13 13 13
14 14 14
15 15 15
16 16 16
17 17 17
18 18 18
19 19 19
20 20 20
21 21 21
22 22 22
23 23 23
24 24 24
25 25 25
26 26 26
27 27 27
28 28 28
29 29 29
30 30 30
31 31 31
32 32 32
33 33 33
34 34 34
35 35 35
36 36 36
37 37 37
38 38 38
39 39 39
40 40 40
41 41 41
42 42 42
43 43 43
44 44 44
45 45 45
46 46 46
47 47 47
48 48 48
49 49 49
50 50 50
51 51 51
52 52 52
53 53 53
54 54 54
55 55 55
56 56 56
57 57 57
58 58 58
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
1.1180
4.5000
0.6000
5
2.32
5.0 ug/L
11.6 ug/L
44776 - RPA, data
11/9/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Use"PASTE SPECIAL.
Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL.
Par22
Use"PASTE SPECIAL.
Silver
Values" then "COPY" .
ZincValues"
then "COPY" .
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Maximum data points
= 58
Maximum data points
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
IIII
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/2/2017
6
6
Std Dev.
4.5634
1
1/4/2017
70
70
Std Dev.
67.0314
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
3/15/2017
<
5
2.5
Mean 5.3000
2
2/2/2017
146
146
Mean 138.5000
2
Mean NO DATA
3
5/24/2017
13
13
C.V. (default) 0.6000
3
3/15/2017
256
256
C.V. 0.4840
3
C.V. NO DATA
4
1/17/2018
<
5
2.5
n 5
4
4/26/2017
189
189
n 20
4
n 0
5
3/7/2018
<
5
2.5
5
5/24/2017
233
233
5
6
Mult Factor = 2.32
6
7/19/2017
233
233
Mult Factor = 1.29
6
Mult Factor = N/A
7
Max. Value 13.000 ug/L
7
10/25/2017
125
125
Max. Value 256.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value N/A
8
Max. Pred Cw 30.160 ug/L
8
1/17/2018
170
170
Max. Pred Cw 330.2 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw N/A
9
9
1/31/2018
119
119
9
10
10
3/7/2018
253
253
10
11
11
5/2/2018
135
135
11
12
12
8/8/2018
47
47
12
13
13
10/17/2018
93
93
13
14
14
1/23/2019
68
68
14
15
15
5/1/2019
75
75
15
16
16
8/21/2019
72
72
16
17
17
11/20/2019
191
191
17
18
18
2/5/2020
98
98
18
19
19
5/6/2020
87
87
19
20
20
7/29/2020
110
110
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
54
55
55
55
56
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
58
44776 - RPA, data
11/9/2020

Date: 11/9/2020
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
Do NOT enter any data directly into this spreadsheet.
Enter data onto 'Table 1" under the Input Sheet and enter
"Effluent Hardness" under the Data Sheet.
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.45 (c ), permits are, have and
must be written as total metals.
This calculator has been inserted into the RPA to calculate
Total Metal allowable allocations once Table 1 has been
completed (Input Sheet) and Effluent hardness has been
entered (Data Sheet).
1) Following the spreadsheet from left to right. First
the allowable allocations for the dissolved metals will
appear for all the metals listed once Table 1 is complete
and effluent hardness entered. Use a default value of 25
mg/L if no hardness data is available. Second,
the Dissolved Metal allocations are divided by the
Translators to determine the Total Metals that can be
allocated to the Permittee. These Total Metals values are
automatically inserted into Table 2 and are the allowable
Total Metal allocations determined for the Permittee prior
to allowing for dilution. See Input sheet Table 2. The final
acute and chronic values shown under the RPA sheet are
the Total Metal values listed in Table 2 divided by the acute
and chronic IWC, respectively.
2) The Translators used in the freshwater RPA are the
Partition Coefficients published by US EPA in 1984. They
are TSS dependent equations and can be found listed with
the WQS hardness dependent equations under the sheet
labeled Equations. A fixed TSS value of 10 mg/L is used to
calculate the Translator values.
3) Pretreatment Facilities - PERCS will need a copy of the
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator spreadsheet and the
RPA sheet along with the Final Permit. Pretreatment
Facilities are required to renew their Headwords Analysis
after renewal of their permits. Since all their metal
allocations are likely to change PERCS needs to see any new
metal permit limits and the allowable allocations for the
dissolved metals to assess Maximum Allowable Headworks
Loading (MAHL) numbers for each metal based on the
Combined Hardness values used in the permit writers RPA
calculations.
4) For Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Chromium and Beryllium, if all
the effluent sampling data for the last three to five years
shows the pollutant at concentrations less than the
Practical Quantitative Level (PQL), it is not likely a limit or
monitoring will be put in the permit. However, if the
estimated NPDES permit limit is less than the Practical
Quantitative Limit (particularly, Cadmium and Lead) and
the pollutant is believed to be present, to assess
compliance with the new standards and for future permit
limit development, monitoring for the pollutant will be
required. If the facility is monitoring for the pollutant in its
Pretreatment LTMP, no monitoring is needed in the permit.
5) For monitoring and compliance purposes if Total
Chromium < the Chromium VI chronic Total Metal
FACILITY: Hamilton WWTP Outfall 001
NPDES PERMIT: NC0044776
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
Receiving
Stream
SUMMOr
7010 (CFS)
Receiving
Stream
sum
mer 7010
(MGD)
Rec. Stream
1010
[MGD]
NPDES
Flow Limit
[MGD]
Total Suspended
Solids
-Fixed Value-
(mg/L)
Combined
Hardness
chronic
(mg/L)
Combined
Hardness
Acute
(mg/L)
Instam
Wastewater
Concentration
(Chronic)
Instream
Wastewater
Concentration
(Acute)
Upstream
Hardness
Average (mg/L)
Effluent
Hardness
Average
(mg/L)
852.0000
0.0800
10 25.001 25.001
0.0067
0.0084
25
40
Upstream Hard Avg (mg/L) = 25
EFF Hard Avg (mg/L) = 40
PARAMETER
Cadmium (d)
0.15` n ct
Chromium III (d)(h) 24 183
US EPA Mt
a'
Default Partition
Coefficients Chronic Acute
(streams) lug/I] [ug/I]
Chromium VI (d)
Chromium, Total (t)
Copper (d)(h)
Lead (d)(h)
Nickel (d)(h)
Ni -WSJ
Silver (d)(h,acute)
Zinc (d)(h)
Dissolved Metals Criteria
after applying hardness
equation
Chronic Acute
[ug/I] lug/I]
0.15 0.82
11
2.7
0.54
16
0.06
36
16
3.6
14
145
0.30
36
0.252
0.252
0.202
1.000
0.348
0.184
0.432
1.000
0.288
0.59
3.24
0.59
117.74
11.00
N/A
7.88
2.94
37.23
0.06
126.74
2.01
905.12
16.00
N/A
10.47
75.49
335.22
A
0.30
125.71
Be Ilium
Arsenic (d)
150
1.000
.000
6.5
50
65
340
COMMENTS (Identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMPf
(d) = dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 026.0211 for more information.
(h) = hardness -dependent dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 028 .0211 for more information.
(t) = based upon measurement of total recoveable metal. See 15A NCAC 026.0211 for more information.
The Human Health standard for Nickel in Water Supply Streams is 25 mg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
The Human Health standard for Arsenic is 10 pg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
ACAH 25.00126
ACCH 25.001

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Hamilton WAIF NC0044776/001 County: Martin Region: WARD Basin: ROA09 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Fthd24PF Begin_ 10/1f 2007 Ac P/F Lim: 90% Fthd MonCom p: 7010: PF: 0.0S IWC: Freq: Q
SOCJOC:
I
MIA Pass
2017 Pass
ZU1E Pass
2019 Pass
2020 Pass
F M
A 1641 1 I A S 0 N 0
Pass Pas Pass
Pass Pass Pass
H H Pass Pass Pass
Pass - - Pass - - Pass Pass sits] Pass
4iamletWWTP NC0047562/001 County: Richmond Region: FRC
Ceri7dPF Begin: 10/1/2015 dirlim:38% NonCamp: Single 7010: 2-5
Basin: YAD16 Jan Apr Jul Oct
PF: 1-0 !WC: 38.27 Freq: Q
SDC JDC:
I F M A M 1 I A S 0 N D
2015 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pus 2017 Pass Pass Pas Pass
Z018 Iswalid4P1 Pass .1071Pj Pass Pass 100{PI .1001Pj Pass
2019 Pass Pass Pass Pass
2020 Pass Pass Pas
Hancock Country Hams NC0084077/001 County: Randolph Region: WSRD Basin: CPF09 Feb May Aug Nov SQC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 10/1/2006 dirkm: 90% NonComp: Single 7010: 0-0 PF: 0.10 IWC: 100 Freq: Q
I
2016
2017
201E
1019
2029
F n} A
H
H
11
11
H
r14
H
H
H
0
H
1 I A S 0 N
H H
H - - H
H H
H H
Harbor Estates
Ceri7dPF
NC0063850/001 County: Mecklenburg Region: MR❑ Basin: CT&34 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Begin: 4/1/2018 Cer7dPF Monit. at90 NonComp: 7010: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
I F h0} A M 1 I A S 0 N D
2017 - - - - Pass Pass
201E Fail Fail :.100 .10] Pass Pass Pass
2019 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass -
2020 Pass Pass Pass
'Harnett County Regional WTP NC0007684/001 County: Harnett Region: FRC Basin: CPF07 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF Begin: 11/1/2017 Chr Montt: 13% NonComp: 7010: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
SDC JDC:
I
1016 Pass
2017 Fa
201E Pass
ZOO Pass
2020 Faa
F M
A 141 1
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
I A S 0 N D
Pass Fail
Pas Pass
Pass Pass
Pass Pass
Pas
Legend: P= Fathead minnow t Pimphales promelasl. Fl=No Flow (facility is activeL s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 52 of 121

Permit No. NC0044776
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/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, 1.1g/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^ {0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* { 1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^ {0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^ {1.273 [In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NC0044776
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, 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. NC0044776
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotai 1 + { [Kpa] [ss(1+0] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (s7Q10) (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:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0044776
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)]
40.0
Effluent pollutant scan
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
25.0
Default value
7Q10 summer (cfs)
1852
Previous Fact Sheet
1Q10 (cfs)
1481.14
RPA calculation
Permitted Flow (MGD)
0.08
Previous permit/Fact Sheet
Date: 11/4//2020
Permit Writer: _ Cassidy Kurtz
Page 4 of 4

ROY COOPER
Governor
iSiiICHAEL S. REGAN
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director
D G Matthews
Town of Hamilton
PO Box 249
Hamilton, NC 27840
NO H CAROLINA
Enviranmental Quality
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection Report
Hamilton WWTP
NPDES WW Permit No. NC0044776
Martin County
Dear Mr. Matthews:
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources conducted an inspection of the Hamilton WWTP on
7/17/2018. This inspection was conducted to verify that the facility is operating in compliance with the
conditions and limitations specified in NPDES WW Permit No. NC0044776. The findings and comments
noted during this inspection are provided in the enclosed copy of the inspection report entitled
"Compliance Inspection Report".
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me with the Water Quality Regional
Operations Section in the Washington Regional Office at 252-946-6481 or via email at
Robert.e.bullockOncdenr.gov. -
ATTACHMENTS
Sincerely,
Robbie Bullock, Environmental Specialist II
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Washington Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Cc: WQS Washington Regional Office
NPDES Compliance/Enforcement Unit
.., DEQ
?)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481

- United States Environmental Protection Agency
E PA ' Washington, D.0 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report -
Form Approved
OMB No 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 �,, j 2 LI 3 I NC0044776 111 12 1 18/07/17 117
Type
18 I Q
Inspector Fac Type •
19 I G I 201 LI
21IIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I III IIII I_I1I1I111IIIII.1111
r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
67I I 701LJ , I 71 ID I 72 I N I
Reserved
731 I I74 751 11 1 111180
I I I
Section B• Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Hamilton VWVTP
NCSR 1429
Hamilton NC 27840
Entry Time/Date
10 OOAM 18/07/17
Permit Effective Date
13/02/01
Exit Time/Date'
11 45AM 18/07/17
Permit Expiration Date
17/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
/// -
Kerry L Spivey/ORC/252-792-1024/
Other Facility Data
•
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
D G Matthews,PO Box 249 Hamilton NC 27840//252-798-2001/
- No
Section C Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit • Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program • 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
/•/ ' 1A-a
Robert E Bullock 1; , / I,. Division of Water Quality//252-948-3924i
Stewart White WARO WQ//252-948-3940/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

31
NPDES yr/molday
NC0044776 111 121 18/07/17
117
Inspection Type
18 lid
(Cont.)
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The review period for this inspection was June 2015 through March 2018. Six Notice of Violations and
One Notice of Deficiency was issued over the review period.
The description of the permit needs to be updated on the next permit renewal with the following
treatment components: Influent pump station, 2 aeration basins, 2 Clarifiers and a(Generator.
Kerry Spivey is the ORC with no backup ORC. A backup ORC needs to be added within 30 days.
The facility has 2 Clarifiers with #1 Clarifier online on the day of inspection. #2 Clarifier was offline.
When the drive unit on the #2 Clarifier was turned on the breaker tripped immediately. The Clarifier Arm
on the #2 Clarifier has to be repaired. When the Clarifier Arm has been repaired pleasecontact Robbie
Bullock at 252-948-3843.
A toxicity sample was taken during this inspection and sent to Aquatic Toxicology Branch for analysis.
The toxicity test passed and a copy of the results are attached to the inspection.
The facility was judged to be Non -Compliant with NPDES permit NC0044776.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0044776
Inspection Date: 07/17/2018
Owner - Facility: Hamilton VWVfP
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Laboratory
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab'?
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0 2 degrees'?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
II ❑ ❑ ❑
111 ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
IN ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ • ❑
Comment: Town of Hamilton is field parameter certified for PH, Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen.
Field Parameter certification #5121. All other samples are sent to Environment 1 for analysis
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application'?
Is the facility as described in the permit'?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Yes No NA NE
11 ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ 11 ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
IN ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The description of the permit needs to be updated on the next permit renewal with the
following treatment components: Influent pump station, 2aeration basins, 2 Clarifiers and a
Generator.
A renewal application has been submitted and the existing permit will remain effective until a
new permit is issued.
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current'?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Yes No NA NE
MOOD
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ MI ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0044776
Owner - Facility: Hamilton VVWTP
Inspection Date: 07/17/2018 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Record Keeping
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete do they include all permit parameters'?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Yes No NA NE
El
0
0
0
0
II ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Comment Kerry Spivey is the ORC with no backup ORC. A backup ORC needs to be added within 30
days.
The May 24, 2017 eDMR has Zinc reported in kg/day with the sample result reported in uq/I
The May 2017 eDMR needs to be revised and resubmitted to Raleigh.
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present'?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Bar Screens
. Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
11000
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Yes No NA NE
•
o
Page# 4

Permit: NC0044776
Owner - Facility: Hamilton WWTP
Inspection Date: 07/17/2018 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Bar Screens
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?
Comment'
Grit Removal
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
Yes No NA NE
-M ❑ El 'El
NI ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
D
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
II ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? 1 ❑ • ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? • ❑ 0 0
Is proper volume collected? sidoo
Is the tubing clean? • ❑ 0 0
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6 0 degrees • ❑ 0 ❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit? • 0 0 0
Comment. Sampler is on constant time and constant volume with a sample taken every hour for 24
hours. Sampler temperature on the day of inspection was 4.5 degrees
Equalization Basins
Is the basin aerated?
Is the basin -free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable'?
Are float controls operable'?
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•• ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
in ❑•❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0044776
Inspection Date: 07/17/2018
Owner -Facility:
Hamilton VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Equalization Basins
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots? • 0 ❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational? 0 0 • ❑
Are the diffusers operational? - 11 0 ❑ 0
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? • 0 -❑ 0
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? 0 0 0
Is the DO level acceptable? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3 0 mg/I) 0 0 0 IN
Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? e 0 0 ❑
Are pumps operational? • ❑ ❑ 0
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site'? ❑ ❑ � ❑
Comment: RAS-WAS pumps are airlift pumps
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate'? • ❑ 0 0
Is the mixing adequate? • ❑ 0 0
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank'? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the odor acceptable'? • 0 0 0
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge'? • 0 0 0
Comment: Sludge is taken to the Town of Robersonville for disposal.
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?
Yes No NA NE
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0044776 Owner -Facility: Hamilton WWTP
Inspection Date: 07/17/2018
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance'
Secondary Clarifier
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc'?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ III
Comment: The facility has 2 Clarifiers with #1 Clarifier online on the day of inspection. #2 Clarifier was
offline. When the drive unit on the #2 Clarifier was turned on the breaker would trip
immediately. The Clarifier Arm on the #2 Clarifier has to be repaired. When the Clarifier Arm
has been repaired please contact Robbie Bullock at 252-948-3843.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for `eporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: The effluent flow meter was calibrated by Chadwich Instruments on 1-26-2018.
Effluent Sampling
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)?
Yes No NA NE
1111 ❑ ❑ ❑
MI ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ II ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
IN ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Effluent sampler is on constant time and constant volume. Teh sampler temperature on the
day of inspection was 3.1 degrees.
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Yes No NA NE
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0044776 Owner - Facility: Hamilton WWTP
Inspection Date: 07/17/2018
Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection'?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Comment
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Division of Water Resources
July 26, 2018
MEMORANDUM
To: David May
Water Quality Regional Operations, WaRO
Through: Cindy A. Moore CPA -
Supervisor, Aquatic Toxicology Branch (ATB)
From: Carol Hollenkamp (.11`\
Quality Assurance Officer, Aquatic Toxicology Branch (ATB)
Subject: Whole effluent toxicity test results
Hamilton WWTP
NPDES Permit # NC0044776/001
Martin County
The aquatic toxicity test using a flow proportional composite sample of effluent discharged from
the Hamilton WWTP has been completed. Hamilton WWTP has a permitted effluent discharge
of 0.08 million gallons per day (MGD) entering the Roanoke River. Whole effluent samples were
collected on July 17 by Robbie Bullock for use in an acute Pimephales prome/as pass -fail toxicity
test. The test using this sample resulted in a pass. Toxicity test information follows.
Test Type Acute 24-hour Pimephales promelas pass -fail
Test Concentration 90%
Test Result Pass
Control Survival 100%
Test Treatment Survival 100%
Sample pH 7.88 SU
Sample Conductivity 950 micromhos/cm
Sample Total Residual Chlorine <0.1 mg/L
Test results for the above sample indicate that the effluent would not be predicted to have water
quality impacts on receiving water. Please contact us if you have any questions or if further effluent
toxicity monitoring is desired. We may be reached at [phone].
Basin: Roanoke
cc: Robbie Bullock (WaRO)

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ® NPDES Unit ❑ Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: NC0044776
Attn: Emily DelDuco Facility name: Hamilton WWTP
From: Scott Vinson
Washington Regional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -
discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: January 11, 2019
b. Site visit conducted by: Scott Vinson & Robbie Bullock
c. Inspection report attached? ® Yes or ❑ No
d. Person contacted: Kerry Spivey and their contact information: (252) 792 - 1024 ext.
e. Driving directions: Take NC Hwy. 903 south of Hamilton and turn left (east) onto Westpoint Rd. and go to the
end to find the WWTP.
2. Discharge Point(s): Please note that the BIMS coordinates are a little off.
Latitude: 35.938547 Longitude: -77.198043
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Roanoke River
Classification: C
River Basin and Subbasin No.: Roanoke River Basin, 03-02-09
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Index No.: 23-(26), This receiving
stream is used for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Although the river is
primarily surrounded by woods and wetlands, it has the potential for wading, boating and other uses
involving human body contact with water in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS n/a
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Kerry Spivey Certificate #: 987264 Backup ORC: Milton Rouse Certificate #:14400
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or n No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities: (The new facility permitted under AtoC No. 044776A01 has been constructed to
replace the old plant) A new influent pump station with two (2) 150 gpm influent pumps; two (2) incline bar
screens, two (2) grit collection sumps, one (1) 1,200 gallon grit storage tank, one (1) 36,300 gallon equalization
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 3

basin with air diffusers, one (1) 80,000 gallon equalization basin with air diffusers (this 80, 000ga1. tank was part
of the old plant and put to use as an extra EQ basin), and two (2) 95 gpm feed pumps and one (1) splitter box,
two (2) 49,950 gallon aerated basins with air diffusers, one (1) 18,850 gallon aerobic sludge digester/storage basin
with air diffusers, two (2) 14 ft. diameter clarifiers with sludge air lift pumps and scum removal, new air blowers
consisting of three (3) 218 cfm blowers and one (1) 156 cfm blower, a backup power generator and all piping and
controls associated with this recently constructed new plant. The facility has also kept the existing flow
measurement device along with the existing cascade aeration structure located running down the bank of and to
the Roanoke River.
Proposed flow: 0.08 MGD
Current permitted flow: 0.08 MGD
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be important
for the permit writer to know (i.e., equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in facility ownership,
etc.) The facility kept and rehabbed the old existing aeration tanks and will be using them as an 80,000 gallon EQ
basin along with the newly built 36,300 gallon EQ basin.
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or ❑ No
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ® Yes or ❑ No
If yes, please explain: The facility has constructed a new plant in accordance with the Authorization to Construct
permit No. 044776A01 issued on March 24, 2014 and certified on September 27, 2016.
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ❑ Yes or ❑ No ® N/A
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ['Yes ❑ No ® N/A
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ['Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑ Yes or ® No
If no, please explain: New plant constructed, see new description given above.
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? n Yes ❑ No ® N/A
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ® Yes or ❑ No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: There have been 7 months over this last permit cycle
that have had TSS and/or BOD limit violations noted on the DMRs.
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? n Yes or ® No
14. Check all that apply:
❑ No compliance issues Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
® Notice(s) of violation
n Currently under SOC
❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle, please explain the status. Has the RO been
working with the Permittee? Yes Is a solution underway or in place? There have been 5 NOVs and 1 NOD
issued to the facility for TSS and/or BOD limit violations occurring from September 2016 to April 2018. The
new plant was constructed and brought on-line in September of 2016 and it seems to have taken the facility a little
while to work out these issues which mainly have stemmed from excessively high flows from storm events and
I&I. These are more of a collection system I&I issue rather than a WWTP issue. There was an NOV-2017-LV-
0146 issued for low pH limit exceedance occurring in November of 2016 when a pretreatment industry (Penco)
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 3

dumped a large amount of acid to the plant. As of right now the RO does not propose any changes to the permit
to help address any compliance issues.
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ® Yes ❑ No n N/A
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑Yes®No❑N/A
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: None that WaRO is aware of.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Hamilton has a pretreatment program with one (1) industrial discharger,
Penco Products, Inc. that is a categorical user (433.17) that manufactures metal goods, primarily lockers. In
November of 2016, Penco discharged an excessive amount of acid to Hamilton's WWTP which caused an
upset of the facility and low pH wastewater to be discharged to the Roanoke River. Hamilton issued Penco a
NOV and associated fine for this limit exceedance. DWR performed a Pretreatment Audit Inspection on
Hamilton and Penco on May 8, 2017. The facility was found to be in compliance with their permit.
IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item
Reason
None
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
None
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
None
5. Recommendation: n Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
® Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
n Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
n Issue
Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 1/30/2019
Ra(, 4044 444
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
None.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 3 of 3

United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 IN I 2 IF I 3 I NC0044776 111 121 19/01/11 117
Type
18 1 p I
I I I I I
Inspector Fac Type
19 I S I 201 I
211 I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I II
66
I I I I I 1
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved
67I I 70I I 711 I 72 r., I I 73I I I74 75�
I�
I I I 1 1 1 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Hamilton WWTP
NCSR 1429
Hamilton NC 27840
Entry Time/Date
10:OOAM 19/01/11
Permit Effective Date
13/02/01
Exit Time/Date
11:15AM 19/01/11
Permit Expiration Date
17/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
D G Matthews,PO Box 249 Hamilton NC 27840//252-798-2001/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Facility Site Review
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Robert E Bullock Division of Water Quality//252-948-39244
Scott A Vinson WARO WQ//252-946-6481 Ext.208/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NC0044776 111 121 19/01/11 117 18 II:
(Cont.)
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On January 11, 2019 Scott Vinson and Robbie Bullock met with ORC Kerry Spivey to discuss the new
plant, the permit and its renewal. The facility built a new plant that is not yet fully described in the
current NPDES permit which was placed in operation in September of 2016 under an Authorization to
Construct Permit No. 044776A01. The old plant was rehabbed to allow for the existing aeration tanks
to now be used as a secondary 80,000 gallon EQ basin in addtion to the more recently built (2016)
36,300gal EQ basin. The new plant appeared to have been built in accordance with the AtoC issued
and certified by C.T. Clayton, Jr., PE back in September 27, 2016. The facility was still using the
existing flow measurement device and cascading final aeration system prior to entering the Roanoke
River.
Half of the new plant is not currently needed for daily operation and Clarifier #2 (which has not been
needed for operation since startup) currently has problems with the rotation arm tripping the breaker
immediately after it was turned on for testing. This was addressed in the July 17, 2018 compliance
inspection report and is still in need of repair.
Other than this minor equipment repair needed, the facility looks good and is well operated.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0044776
Inspection Date: 01/11/2019
Owner - Facility: Hamilton WWTP
Inspection Type: Reconnaissance
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility built a new plant that is not yet fully described in the current NPDES permit which
was placed in operation in September of 2016 under an Authorization to Construct Permit
No. 044776A01. The old plant was rehabbed to allow for the existing aeration tank to now be
used an a secondary 80,000 gallon EQ basin in addtion to the more recently built (2016)
36,300ga1 EQ basin.
Page# 3