NC0077992_Wasteload Allocation_19950509

May 9, 1995
Mr. A. Preston Howard Jr.
State of North Carolina Dept.
of Environmental Health and
Natural Resources.
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Howard.
NAY I I IM
DN OF EWIRONMENTAL MGT
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
3
MAY 12 1995
WATER f''!-!ALITY
SIC i rUiV
We have received our new NPDES permits, #NC0077992 for
Ponzer R/O/ Plant and NCO068233 for Fairfield R/O Plant,
which is still under construction.
We would like to comment on parts of both permits.
NCO077992 Ponzer R/O Plant.
#1. We were pleased to see the removal, if only temporarily
of the whole effluent toxicity test. It was obvious, to us
from our initial test that fresh water organisms cannot
survive in the concentrated naturally occurring mineral and
organics in our reject stream, and we cannot pass the test.
We are pleased that we don't have to waste money on tests;
that prove what is known.
#2 Your cover letter states at the end of paragraph 2 r
"Since information on fluoride in this discharge is limite(31,0
the final permit has been modified to include monitoring � -:_:
only." .n r=�
C9
We understand this to mean, that we must continue to
test for fluoride on a regular basis, but for monitoring
purposes only, yet in the effluent characteristics there is a
daily max limit of 1.8 mg/l. This is the same limit as the
original permit, which we are unable to meet. Our question is
do we have a limit here or not?
NCO068233 Fairfield R/O/ Plant.
#1. This permit contains acute toxicity test performed
quality. We wish you to please consider the following:
A. The raw water quality at the Fairfield site is
considerably worse than Ponzer. This water has a marked
increase in all constituents from iron, hardness, color and
organics. This is very difficult water to treat and make
useful for human consumption. In fact R/O is the only
possible way to treat it. The abundance of naturally
occurring minerals and organics requires us to use a R/O
membrane of 100 molecular weight cut off, the Ponzer Plant
uses a membrane of 200-300 molecular weight cut off.

This tighter membrane was needed to reduce the THM
potential from 700 to less than 25 ug/1 and to reduce TOC in
the finished water.
Due to the nature of the raw water and the extremely
good rejection of the membrane, the concentration of minerals
and organics in the R/O reject stream may be twice as high as
Ponzer Plant, unless fat head minnows are considerably more
hardy than the little fresh water shrimp like creatures that
were purposed for Ponzer, they will not survive. Therefore
we feel, once again, that the toxicity test will only prove
what is already known, and would waste resources that could
be better used elsewhere.
We are required by Federal and State regulations to
produce a pure safe product for citizens to use. We chose
R/O as our treatment for several very important reasons.
Not only does R/O remove the precursors of THM's it also
removes a majority of regulated minerals, Voc's, Soc's, radio
active particles, if present, and provides a barrier against
bacteria and viruses if present. In short R/O produces a
product that contains very little that can be effected by
current and future regulations.
R/O allows us to provide a superior product for our
citizens and stay ahead of drinking water regulations. Sure
we still have to do the required tests, but the chances of
having to retrofit equipment to keep up with regulations has m
virtually been eliminated. o
We decided to spend the extra money to construct an� In
operator R/O, instead of playing catch up to new regulatjzns <
Further we do realize that there is a need to be N
concerned about the reject stream and the possibility of diary
to the environment. �o s
ui
T
It is just difficult for us to understand the following: m
#1. How using fresh water organisms to test water with
concentrated mineral salts and organics will prove anything
but the obvious. We have seen minnows swimming in the ditch,
close to where the reject stream falls into the ditch at
Ponzer. These minnows are either hardier than fresh water
organisms or maybe a salt water species.
#2. Setting a Fluoride daily limit of 1.8 mg/l, when the
State, according to our engineers, was provided possible
reject concentrations based on raw water analysis, before
Ponzer Plant was built, the computer projection for fluoride,
in the reject stream was 3.1 mg/l. We have probably averaged
2.3 mg/l for the last 3 years, we wonder why, if the State
was provided the necessary information, it chose to set a
unattainable limit.

We feel we have done what was the only possible solution
to our problem of providing quality water for Hyde County.
We would like to find a way to resolve any concerns
about our reject streams.
We only ask, that you consider we face increasing
regulations from all sides, and its the citizens of Hyde
County that will ultimately have to pay the bill. So we need
to use our funds in an appropriate way to keep the cost of
water reasonable.
Surely there must be some middle ground, where we can be
not only providers of quality water for our citizens, but
also good stewards of our environment.
Please be assured we are ready and willing to cooperate
with you and your office in the resolutions of any
environmental questions.
We appreciate your help and eagerly await your response.
cc:Roger Thorp
Regional Office
Sincerely,
f /�el
J ck N. Mason Jr.
anager
Hyde County Water System m
8
O
C— 0
Z A
N
O
�O r
C.il T
1'fl
N

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0077992
pERMTI'TEENAME: Hyde County - PoN3ca Ptn„rr
FACILITY NAME: Hyde County Water System
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor -1
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
Domestic (% of Flow): 0 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 100 %
Comments:
Using reverse osmosis treatment process.
RECEIVING STREAM: UT to Pungo lake Canal
Class: C-Swamp NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-03-07
Reference USGS Quad: E 32 SE
County: Hyde
Regional Office: Washington Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 3/31/95 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles: p1
Requested by,
Prepared by:_
Reviewed by:
$[>IN AV
wyrLw
Date: 11/21/94
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
S&P
it zr 9
eo&3
Drainage Area (mi2): 123 Average Streamflow (cfs): 135
s7010 (cfs): 0.0 w7Q10 (cfs): 0.23 3002 (cfs): 1.13
03.0201.0400 1990
Toxicity Limits: Chronic (Ceriodaphnia) P / F 90 %
per Region andESB February, May, August, and November
recommendation
Upstream Location:
not required
Downstream Location:
not required
Parameters:
Daily Maximum
Monthly Average
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.108
TSS (mg/1):
45
30
Settleable Solids (mVL):
0.2
0.1
Turbidity (NTU):
pH (SU):
6-9
Arsenic (µg/I):
monitor
Annual
Cadmium (µg/I):
monitor
Annual
Chromium (µg/I):
monitor
Annual
Copper (µg/I):
monitor
Monthly
Nickel (µg/I):
88
Daily Maximum
Lead (µg/1):
monitor
Annual
Zinc (µgA):
monitor
Monthly
Fluoride (WWI):
1.8
Daily Maximum
Mercury (µgA):
monitor
Annual
Silver (µg/1):
monitor
Monthly
Selenium (µg/1):
monitor
Annual
Chloride (mg/1):
monitor
Monthly
Beryllium (µg/1):
monitor
Annual
Iron (mg/1):
monitor
Monthly
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving water to
exceed 50 NTU. If the turbidity exceeds these levels due to
natural background conditions, the discharge level cannot cause
any increase in the turbidity of the receiving waters.

I
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 8063
Facility Name:
Hyde County Water System - Ponzer R / O Plant
NPDES No.:
NCO077992
Type of Waste:
Industrial - 100%
Facility Status:
Existing
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
unnamed tributary Pungo Lake
Canal
Stream Classification:
C - Swamp NSW
Subbasin:
03-03-07
County:
Hyde
Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office:
Washington
USGS #
Requestor:
Wiggins
Date:
Date of Request:
11 /21 /94
Drainage Area (mi2):
Topo Quad:
E32SE
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
WASHING OINEOFFICF
DEC 0 8 1994
O.EM.
123
0.0
0.23
135
1.13
100 %
Wasteload Allocation Summary Fr&-,, 61W &114 '
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Justification sheet for limits recommendations attached
Per Region recommendation, Toxicity Test will be recommended.
,eLf� Ow cpA/sra�Ur?
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
V IF !1412�( ON /rO P1Sp-Z—gIr I do Nt KNOW Wk't-t
i� 205powd ti -*XW. FK
Recommended by:— Date: za uaxs,tse�t, R9 �I
Farrell Keough
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment,
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineerin
01C
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:

TOXICS/METALS/CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Type of Toxicity Test:
Chronic (Ceriodaphma) P / F
Existing Limit:
nr
Recommended Limit:
90%
Monitoring Schedule:
February, May, August, and November
Existing Limits
Daily Maximum
Monthly Average
Wasteflow (mgd):
0.108
TSS (mg/1):
45
30
Settleable Solids (ml/L):
0.2
0.1
Turbidity (NTC>):
pH (Si):
6-9
Arsenic (µg/1):
50
Cadmium (µg/1):
5.0
Chromium (µg/1):
50
Copper (11g/1):
monitor
Nickel (ligft
88
Lead (µg/1):
25
Zinc (µg/1):
monitor
Fluoride (mg/1):
1.8
Mercury (µg/1):
0.012
Silver (µg/1):
monitor
Selenimn (µg/l):
5.0
Chloride (mg/1):
monitor
Beryllium (µg/l):
monitor
Iron (mg/1):
monitor
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
* Refer below
Recommended Limits
Daily Maximum Monthly Average WQ or EL
Wasteflow (mgd): 0.108
TSS (mg/l): 45 30
Settleable Solids (ml/L): 0.2 0.1
Turbidity (NT[):
pH (Si): 6-9
,Arsenic W): not required
,Cadmium W): not required
Chromium (µg/1): not required
✓Copper(Itg%1): monitor - vxow},LIT
✓Nickel W): 88 IV I r
Lead (µg/1): not required 1 %`L
oZinc (µg/l): monitor - W.
VFuuoride (µg/1): 1.8 ' �Pa, '
Mercury (µg/1): not required,'
4ilver (}tg/1): monitor - (
-/Selenium (µg/1): not required -
✓Chloride (mg/1): monitor - W10N" �
✓Beryllium(µgft not requiredK%
✓Iron (mg/1): monitor - wls
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other ilan trace amounts.
■ The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving water to exceed 50 NTU. If the turbidity exceeds these
levels due to natural background conditions, the discharge level cannot cause any increase in the turbidity of the
receiving waters.
_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of the immediate receiving
water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based effluent limitations for additional dischargers within
this portion of the watershed.

Arsenic:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 5.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
50
not required in NPDES Permit
Cadmium:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 1.0 µg/1
Allowable Cw
2.0
not required in NPDES Permit
Chromium:
Max. Pred Cw
37.5
predicted below allowable- a 9- So.rHt�lAv - ll belvrJ di r¢t-i
Allowable Cw
50
not required in NPDES Permit
Copper:
Max. Pred Cw
117.6
monitor per current SOP
Allowable Cw
7.0
Lead:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 5.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
25
not required in NPDES Permit
Mercury:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 0.2 µg/1
Allowable Cw
0.012
not required in NPDES Permit
Nickel:
Max. Pred Cw
153
Limit per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
88
maximum value 102 µg/1 : May, 1994
Silver:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
12 samples below detection limit of 5.0 µg/I
Allowable Cw
0.06
not required in NPDES Permit
Zinc:
Max. Pred Cw
88.8
monitor per current SOP
Allowable Cw
50
Selenium:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 5.0 9g/1
Allowable Cw
5.0
not required in NPDES Permit
Beryllium:
Max. Prod Cw
0.0
12 samples below detection limit of 1.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
0.1
not required in NPDES Permit
Iron:
Max. Pred Cw
1,144
Action Level - monitor per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
1,000
maximum value 572 µg/1 : December, 1993
Chloride:
Max. Pred Cw
295.4
Action Level- monitor per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
230
all values below Action Level - Predicted value probably due to variation in samples
Fluoride:
Max. Prod Cw
3.5
Limit per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
2.0
21 out of 22 samples exceeded the Limit
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location:
not required
Downstream
Location:
not required
Parameters:
Special instream monitoring locations or
monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS
INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A_dgpuacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities? Yes No —
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysisif modeled at renewal,
and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)

Facility Name Hyde County - Ponzer R 10 Plant Permit # NCO077992 Pipe # 001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is 90 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
aarty monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of Feb., May., Aug.,
and Nov. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT 1(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements. ,
7Q10
0.0 cfs
Permitted Flow
0.110 MGD
IWC
90 %
Basin & Sub -basin
03-07-54
Receiving Stream
ut Pungo Lake Canal
County
Hyde
QCL P/F Version 9191
Recommended
Farrell Keough
Date :a Alesnrang,, l!g L{

Request # 8063
Facility Name:
Hyde County Water System
NPDES No.:
NCO077992
Type of Waste:
100 % Industrial
Facility Status:
Existing
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
unnamed tributary to Pungo River
Stream Classification:
C - Swamp NSW
Subbasin:
03-03-07
County:
Hyde
Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office:
Washington
USGS #
03.0201.0400
Requestor:
Wiggins
Date:
1990
Date of Request:
11 / 21 / 94
Drainage Area (mi2):
123
Topo Quad:
E 32 SE
Summer 7010 (cfs):
0.0
Winter 7010 (cfs):
0.23
Average Flow (cfs):
135
3002 (cfs):
1.13
WC (%):
100 %
Existing WLA checked: x
Staff Report: x
Topo checked:
USGS Flows confirmed:
WC Spreadsheet: nr
Stream Classification: x
Nutrient Sensitivity: x NSW
Instream Data: toxic s data
1989: no WLA, but Staff Report indicates the proposed facility was for municipal drinking water softening operation w/ softener
regeneration wastewater. The receiving ditch was to be lined with stone and the Region indicated that no adverse affect would
take place from the discharge.
1990: facility was proposed as R/O plant. Virtually all metals were limited, (as well as Action Levels being monitored). This data will
be reviewed for this Permit analysis. No Toxicity Test was recommended since the toxicants were limited.
76XICHY
Per Staff Report, toxicity test recommended - contact with Larry Ausley indicated that 90% chronic would be the correct toxicity test,
(discharge does not flow into impoundment and is considered continuous).
Existing LI^
Monthly Averages Daily Maximum
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.108
TSS (mg/l): 30
45
Settleable Solids (ml/L): 0.1
0.2
Turbidity (NTU):
pH (SU):
6-9
-Arsenic (µg/l):
50
•Cadmium (µgA):
-5.0
• Chromium (µg/l):
50
' Fluoride (µg/l):
1800
-Lead (µg/l):
25
Nickel (µg/l):
88
• Mercury (µg/1):
0.012
• Selenium (µgA):
5.0
Action Level constituents to be monitored:
- Copper; Zinc, Iron,'Chlorides; Silver, Beryllium
* The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving water to exceed 50 NTU. If the
turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background
conditions, the discharge level
cannot cause any Increase in the turbidity of the receiving waters.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Upstream Location: not required
Downstream Location: not required
Parameters:

' Arsenic:
Max. Prod Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 5.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
50
not required in NPDES Permit
YCadmium:
Max. Prod Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 1.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
2.0
not required in NPDES Permit
/Chromium:
Max. Pred Cw
37.5
predicted below allowable
Allowable Cw
50
not required in NPDES Permit
✓Copper:
Max. Pred Cw
117.6
monitor per current SOP
Allowable Cw
7.0
✓Lead:
Max. Prod Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 5.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
25
not required in NPDES Permit
✓Mercury:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 0.2 µg/l
Allowable Cw
0.012
not required in NPDES Permit
✓ Nickel:
Max. Pred Cw
153
Limit per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
88
maximum value 102 NA : May, 1994
Silver:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
12 samples below detection limit of 5.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
0.06
not required in NPDES Permit
✓Zinc:
Max. Pred Cw
88.8
monitor per current SOP
Allowable Cw
50
✓ielenlum:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
22 samples below detection limit of 5.0 µg/l
Allowable Cw
5.0
not required in NPDES Permit
beryllium:
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
12 samples below detection limit of 1.0 µg/I
Allowable Cw
0.1
not required in NPDES Permit
/iron:
Max. Pred Cw
1,144
Action Level - monitor per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
1,000
maximum value 572 µg/I : December,1993
✓Chloride:
Max. Pred Cw
295.4
Action Level - monitor per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
230
all values below Action Level - Predicted value probably due to variation in samples
v'Fluorlde:
Max. Pred Cw
3.5
Limit per NPDES Permit
Allowable Cw
2.0
21 out of 22 samples exceeded the Limit
x Waste Water Treatment Plant NC00

Fadfityftw- MIde County - Ponzer Rf0 Plant
HPsia NOW77992
aw(11100)a
0.11 m d
m1b (00*
0.00 cfs
iWC (%) -
100.00 %
FINAL RESULTS
Arsenic
Maximum Value
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
50A
Cadmium
Maximum Value
0.5
Max. Prod Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
2.0
Chromium
Maximum Value
15.0
Max. Prod Cw
37.5
Allowable Cw
5070
Copper [AI]
Maximum Value
42.0
Max. Pred Cw
117.6
Allowable Cw
7.0
Cyanide
Maximum Value
0.0
Max. Pred Cw
nr
Allowable Cw
nr
Lead
Maximum Value
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
25A
Mercury Maximum Value
0.1
Max. Prod Cw
0.00
Allowable Cw
0.01
Nickel Maximum Value
10Z0
Max. Prod Cw
153.0
Allowable Cw
88.0
Silver [AL] Maximum Value
2.5
Max. Prod Cw
0.00
Allowable Cw
0.06
Zinc [AL] Maximum Value
24.0
Max. Prod Cw
88.8
Allowable Cw
50.0
Selenium Maximum value
5.0
Max. Prod Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
5.0
Beryllium Maximum Value
0.5
Max. Prod Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
0.1
Iron [AL] Maximum value
572.0
Max. Prod Cw
1144.0
Allowable Cw
1000.0
Chloride [AL] Maximum Value
211.0
Max. Prod Cw
295A
Allowable Cw
230.0
Fluoride Maximum Value
2.7
Max. Prod Cw
3.5
Allowable Cw ii=94
2.0

Wober,1994 through November. IM
ArNnk
n
BDLa12DL
•01213L RESULTS
1
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0
2
2.5
Mean
2.5
3
2.5
C.V.
OA
4
2.5
'
5
2.5
'
6
2.5
AM Fader a
U
7
2.5
Max. Value
2.5
a
2.6
Max. Prod Cr
0.0
9
2.5
Allow" Cr
60A
10
2.5
'
11
2.5
'
12
2.5
'
13
2.5
'
14
2.5
'
15
2.5
'
16
25
'
17
2.5
'
18
25
•
19
25
'
20
26
'
21
2.5
'
22
2.5
'
pramarw. Cedrnium
Sandrd-
2
µ0+1
n
BDLa12DL •6112 DL RESULTS
t
0.5
Std Der. 0.0
2
0.6
Moan 0.5
3
0.5
C.V. 0.0
4
0.5
'
5
0.5
•
6
0.5
Nut Factor- 0A
7
OS
Max. Value 0.5
a
OS
%M Prod Cv 0.0
9
0.5
Allowable Co 20
10
0.5
'
11
0.5
'
12
OS
'
13
0.5
•
14
0.5
'
15
0.5
'
16
0.5
'
17
0.5
'
18
0.5
'
19
0.5
'
20
0.5
'
21
0.5
'
22
0.5
'
po.►,wb - Chromium
&oxford.
50
pqn
n
BDL.1/2DL
•0112 DL RESULTS
1
12
SW Dev.
4.5
2
2.6
• Mean
6.2
3
2.6
C.Y.
0.7
4
2.6
•
5
6
6
2.6
NutFactor a
2.5
7
7
Max Value
1&0 µO
a
9
Max Prod Cr
37.5 IW
9
2.5
' AOowabla CO
60.0 po
10
2.6
•
11
2.5
'
12
26
'
13
25
•
14
6
15
2.5
•
16
2.6
•
17
8
18
e
19
16
Doom* r.13
20
13
Daoam w.13
21
14
°ronw- Copper [AQ
8taww-
7
ppA
n
BDL.I2DL •01/2
DL RESULTS
1
16
Std Dev.
10.8
2
5
Mean
17.6
3
15
C.V.
0.6
4
1s
5
18
6
0.6
NutFactara
2.8
7
28
Max Value
42.0
a
42
Max grad CO
117A
9
12
Aflaowwabl9 Cw
7.0
10
26
11
16
12
21
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
11/23W4

Oclobor.1994 through November.1993
PWWSW.
Lead
pmwraw
-
mwcury
pmwmw
Nickel
- S11v*r [ILL]
StanaWd.
25
µO
Stwxw.
0.012
µO
50rldard-
88
Iw+r
Standard•
0.06
qgA
n
BDL.1/20L
•01/2 DL RESULTS
n
BDLe1/2DL
•a 1/2 DL RESULTS
n
8DL•1/2DL
'M 1/2 OL RESULTS
n
BDLet/2DL 'It 1/2 DL RESULTS
1
2.5
SW Dev.
0.0
1
0.1
Sid Dev. 0.0
t
51
SW Dev. 14.7
1
2.5
Sad Dev.
0.0
2
2.5
Mean
2.5
2
0.1
Mean 0.1
2
42
Mean 57.0
2
2.6
Mean
2.5
3
2.5
C.V.
0.0
3
0.1
G.V. 0.0
3
44
C.V. 0.3
3
2.5
Qv.
0.0
4
2.5
4
0.1
4
45
4
2.5
'
5
2.5
5
0.1
5
44
5
2.5
•
6
2.5
Yu2Feotare
0.0
6
0.1
UU#Fadore 0.0
6
50
MutFedor e 1.5
6
2.5
UU&Fade.
0.0
7
2.5
• Max Value
26 µO
7
0.1
' Max Value 0.1
µO
7
59
Max. Value 102.0 µpA
7
2.5
' Max. Value
2.6 pyA
e
2.5
Max Prod Or
0.0 µo
8
0.1
Max Prod Ov 0.00
µyl
8
42
Max Prod Cv 153.0 µpA
8
2.5
Wax Prod Cv
0.0 µyl
9
2.5
Allowable ON
2E.0 µo
9
0.1
Allowable Or► 0.01
µyA
9
39
Allowable CN 86.0 µyl
9
2.5
Allowable Crti
0.1 µyr
10
2.5
10
0.1
'
10
50
10
2.6
'
11
2.5
'
11
0.1
•
11
102
may. 14
11
2.5
12
2.5
12
0.1
12
67
12
2.5
'
13
21
'
13
0.1
'
13
57
13
14
2.5
14
0.1
'
14
86
14
15
2.5
15
0.1
'
15
50
15
18
2.5
1s
0.1
16
55
is
17
2.5
'
17
0.1
17
52
17
16
2.5
to
0.1
16
50
is
19
2.5
19
0.1
'
19
50
19
20
2.5
'
20
0.1
'
20
57
20
21
2.5
21
0.1
21
63
21
22
2.5
22
0.1
•
22
77
22

October,1994 through November,1993
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1s
17
1s
19
2D
21
22
Eno [AL]
50
KA
BDL-1/2DL
'0112 DL RESULTS
5
SW Dev.
8.3
12
Mean
8.2
S
C.V.
OA
5
'
5
•
5
bullF&Mr.
3.7
24
Max. Value
24.0
pqA
5
Max Prod Ca
611.0
pqA
5
Mowable OM
60.0
pqA
17
5
•
5
'
% watr-
Selentum
sanalyd-
S
pqA
n
SDLAWL
•01/2 DL RESULTS
1
5
std Dev.
0.0
2
5
Mean
&0
3
5
C.V.
OA
4
5
•
5
5
'
6
5
MultFadar-
OA
7
5
Max Value
6A
pqA
8
5
' Max Prod Ca
U
p9A
9
S
' Alowablo CN
5.0
AA
10
5
'
11
5
•
12
5
•
13
5
'
14
5
'
16
S
'
17
5
'
18
5
•
19
5
'
20
5
'
21
5
•
22
5
•
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
2D
21
Beryglum
0.117
PO
BDL-1/2DL ViRDL RESULTS
0.5
std Dev.
0.0
0.5
Mean
0.5
0.5
C.V.
0.0
0.5
'
0.5
'
0.5
IA R Fedor.
0.0
0.5
' Max. Value
0.5 po
0.5
Max Prod Ow
0.0 po
0.5
Allowable CM
0.1 10
0.5
'
0.5
•
0.6
'
pawwa►- Iron [AL]
sbnaird-
1000
µo
n
SDL-1/2DL *11/2 DL RESULTS
1
294
Sid Dev.
132.4
2
430
Mean
352.8
3
383
MV.
OA
4
387
5
442
8
289
AW Factor-
2A
7
532
Max. Value
SMO
8
204
Max Prod Co
1144.0
9
181
Atlmad able CM
1000
10
169
11
�70
DeowAw.93
12
391
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
�lT

October,1994 through November,1993
'A •
Plowww- Chloride [AL]
pool
aar-
Fluoride
Stindard-
230 m911
8tandaro-
1.8
M9A
n
BDL.I2M *1112 DL RESULTS
n
BDL.I2DL *912 DL RESULTS
1
147
Std Dev. 26.2
1
2.2
Std Dev.
0.4
2
146
Mean 158.4
2
2.5
Moan
2.3
3
180
C.V. 0.2
3
2.6
C.V.
0.2
4
190
4
2.4
5
172
5
2.4
6
211
Mull Factor. IA
6
2.3
Mutt Factor.
1.3
7
1"
Max. Valor 211.0 m9A
7
2.7
Max. Value
2.7
6
131
Max. Prod Or 205A m9A
6
2.5
Max. Prod Cv
3.5
0
139
Allowable CM 230.0 nW
9
2,2
Allowable Ca
1.8
10
135
10
0.4
11
174
11
2.2
12
132
Q
2.4
13
13
2.4
14
14
2.6
15
15
2.5
16
16
2.2
17
17
2.3
to
16
2.1
to
19
2.1
2D
2D
2.4
21
21
2.3
. 31

To:
Date:
Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
November 16, 1994
7 �994 1
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NOV
Hyde County
?f
Permit No. NC0077992 4! !;
j.
PART I --GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
Hyde County Water System--Ponzer Plant
P. O. Box 66
Swan Quarter, NC 27885
2. Date of Investigation: March 25, 1994
3. Report Prepared by: Kevin H. Miller
4. Person(s) Contacted and Telephone Number(s):
Jack Mason, Jr. (Hyde Co. Utilities Director); (919) 926-
8861
5. Directions to Site:
From Swan Quarter follow US 264 west approximately 19 miles
to NC 45, turn right. Follow NC 45 north approximately 5.6
miles to NCSR 1338 (just past bridge over Pungo Lake Canal,
locally known as Hyde Park Canal); site is located on the
north side of NC 45 approximately 0.15 miles past bridge.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 37' 20" N
Longitude: 760 33' 44" W
Attach USGS map extract; indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No. USGS Quad Name: Belhaven,
NC

To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
7. Size (land available for expansion and upgrading):
4 acres
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included)
flat; site elevation is slightly higher than surrounding
field; estimated site elevation is 8 feet above MSL
9. Location of nearest dwelling:
approximately 600 feet ESE of site (at NW corner of
intersection of NC 45 and NCSR 1338)
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
unnamed tributary (2-foot wide man-made drainage ditch) of
an unnamed tributary (20-foot wide man-made drainage canal)
of the Pungo Lake Canal
a. Classification: C Sw NSW
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-03-07
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses:
actual receiving stream (2-foot wide ditch) is a
(usually) dry ditch used for drainage; the 20-foot
wide drainage canal is fed by smaller ditches and is
primarily used for drainage, but it usually has water
in it and may support fish and other wildlife
(reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates); the Pungo
Lake Canal supports fish propagation and provides
habitat for other wildlife and is used for fishing and
other secondary recreation
PART II --DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. Type of wastewater: 0% Domestic
100% Industrial
a. Volume of Wastewater: 0.108 MGD (Design Capacity)
b. Types and quantities of industrial wastewater:
raw water concentrate (reject) from reverse osmosis
water treatment process only; no domestic
wastewater

C. Prevalent toxic constituents in wastewater:
1. toxic substances for which there is a water quality
standard: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, fluoride,
lead, mercury, nickel, selenium
2. toxic substances for which there is an action
level: chloride, copper, iron, zinc
d. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
In development Approved
Should be required Not needed_
2. Production rates (industrial discharges only) in pounds per day:
a. Highest month in the past 12 months: N/A
lbs/day
b. Highest year in the past 5 years: N/A lbs/day
3. Description of industrial process (industries only); applicable
CFR Part and Subpart:
Not applicable
4. Type of treatment (specify whether proposed or existing):
None
5. Sludge handling and disposal scheme:
None
6. Treatment plant classification: (<5 points --no rating;
include
rating sheet if appropriate)
None (Class 0)
7. SIC Code(s): 4941
Wastewater Code(s): Primary 22 Secondary

PART III --OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds
(municipals only)?
No
2. Special monitoring requests:
Because of the potential for toxic metals, chloride, and
fluoride in the wastewater as a result of concentration
from groundwater by the reverse osmosis process, quarterly
whole effluent toxicity testing.should be required.
10 °/a C-� Roojc, peer
3. Additional effluent limits requested:
4. Other:
None
PART IV --EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main concern about this discharge is related to toxicity, as
described in Part II, lc, and Part III. As long as the effluent
levels of toxic constituents can be controlled so as not to
cause violations of numerical stream standards or aquatic
toxicity problems, this discharge should not have any
deleterious effects on water quality. Such control may be
achieved by varying the percent of reject, which will vary the
concentration factor for these compounds. It is recommended
that this permit be reissued to coincide with the basin -wide
permitting schedule for the Tar -Pamlico River basin.
Signature of report preparer
Watee Quality R gional Supervisor
Date