NC0083321_Fact Sheet_20200512

FACT SHEET FOR EXPEDITED PERMIT RENEWALS
This form must be completed by Permit Writers for all expedited permits which do not require
full Fact Sheets. Expedited permits are generally simple 100% domestics (e.g., schools, mobile
home parks, etc) that can be administratively renewed with minor changes, but can include
facilities with more complex issues (Special Conditions, 303(d) listed water, toxicity testing,
instream monitoring, compliance concerns).
Basic Information for Expedited Permit Renewals
Permit Writer / Date
Brianna Young 5/12/2020
Permit Number
NCO083321
Facility Name / Facility Class
Hubert WTP / PC-1
Basin Name / Sub -basin number
White Oak / 03-05-01
Receiving Stream / HUC
Queen Creek / 030203010301
Stream Classification / Stream Segment
SA; HQW / 19-41-16
Does permit need Daily Maximum NH3
limits?
N/A
Does permit need TRC limits/language?
Alread resent
Does permit have toxicity testing? IWC (%) if
so
Yes; IWC = 90%
Does permit have Special Conditions?
Yes — Discharge alternatives evaluation
Does permit have instream monitoring?
Yes — salinity, conductivity, and pH
Is the stream impair d on 303 d list)?
No
Any obvious compliance concerns?
Yes — failing all toxicity tests
Any permit mods since lastpermit?
None
New expiration date
7/31/2022
Comments on Draft Permit?
Yes See Section 7
Section 1. Facility Overview:
The Hubert WTP operates a greensand and ion exchange WTP designed for a potable
flowrate of 6 MGD. The facility generates wastewater with a continuous discharge. The
maximum, monthly average discharge between January 2017 and December 2019 was
approximately 0.3585 MGD.
Per the permittee (via email 3/31/2020): In response to your inquiry regarding the Hubert
WTP, ONWASA has not yet completed a Discharge Alternatives Evaluation for this
facility. We have, however, negotiated a scope of work and fee for an engineering
consulting firm (W.K. Dickson & Company, Wilmington Office) to partner with an
analytical laboratory (Shealy Consulting, LLC) to identify potential toxicant(s) causing
the Acute Toxicity Test failures. They will then provide recommendations on changes to
operations or other methods necessary to bring the plant into compliance with the
discharge permit requirements. We anticipate starting work around July 1st of this year (at
the start of our next budget cycle) and should have a report for submittal approximately
120 days after that.

Section 2. Compliance History (December 2015 — February 2020):
• 2 CPAs for TSS limit violations
• Failed 12 of last 12 toxicity tests (have failed all tests since March 2016)
Section 3. RPA•
The maximum monthly average flow between January 2017 and December 2019 was
approximately 0.3585 MGD.
• Copper: RP; apply monthly monitoring with limits
o All values were reported as less than detect, but monitoring was not done
down to the PQL
• Lead: RP; apply monthly monitoring with limits; only 2 data points were
available in the time frame reviewed which showed reasonable potential
o Both values were reported as less than detect, but monitoring was not done
down to the PQL
o RPA performed at last permit renewal was done incorrectly as the HQW
box was not checked, therefore data was compared to the wrong standards
• Zinc: RP; apply monthly monitoring with limits
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify
model predictions when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream
standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to
provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream concerns. Instream monitoring
may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions established
in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case
instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is
maintained).
The current permit requires instream monitoring for salinity and conductivity. A review
of instream data from December 2015 to December 2019 for salinity indicates that there
were significant differences between upstream and downstream (ANOVA, p < 0.05). The
average salinity for upstream and downstream were 0.149 ppth and 1.02 ppth,
respectively. A review of instream data from December 2015 to December 2019 for
conductivity indicates that there were significant differences between upstream and
downstream (ANOVA, p < 0.05). The average conductivity for upstream and
downstream were 217 µmhos/cm and 1,165 µmhos/cm, respectively. Instream data is
summarized in tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: Upstream Data (December 2015 — December 2019)
Salinity (ppth)
Conductivity (µmhos/cm)
Average
0.149
217.4
Minimum
0.02
21.76
Maximum
1.13
1659

Table 2: Downstream Data (December 2015 — December 2019)
Salinity (ppth)
Conductivity (µmhos/cm)
Average
1.02
1,163.3
Minimum
0.04
4.95
Maximum
5.95
9,448
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring
(YIN): No
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
Section 4. NCG59 General Permit Eligibility:
• They use IE treatment technology in addition to greensand treatment, therefore
they are not eligible
• Conclusion: They are/are not eligible for the NCG59
Section 5. Changes from previous permit to draft:
• Updated eDMR footnote in A(1) and language as A(5)
• Updated outfall map
• Added regulatory citations
• Updated cover sheet to reflect there are applicable conditions in 4 parts
• Updated expiration date on cover sheet to match the proper subbasin — permit is
being short -cycled due to this
• Updated language and receiving stream characteristics on the Supplement to
Permit Cover Sheet
• Updated components list on Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet
• Added facility grade in A(1)
• Added parameter codes in A(1)
• Added parameter units in A(1)
• Monitoring for temperature removed in A(1) per 2012 WTP guidance
• TSS weekly average of 15 mg/L was changed to a daily max in A(1) as weekly
averages are not used in WTPs
o TSS was changed to a weekly average in the 2008 permit along with
implementing new stricter limits, but no explanation was provided for why
• Removed weekly average column in A(1) as there are no longer weekly average
limits
• Moved pH limits in A(1) to effluent table from footnotes and monitoring
increased to 2/month per 2009 WTP guidance
• Added instream pH monitoring in A(1) per 2009 IE WTP strategy
o Previous factsheet said instream monitoring was removed as it is not
typically required in 15A NCAC 02B .0500
o Per the 2009 WTP guidance, for IE WTP's, instream pH samples should
be collected and should not have been removed during the previous permit

renewal; there is no language in 15A NCAC 02B .0500 excluding
instream pH monitoring
• Instream monitoring for salinity and conductivity separated out from effluent
monitoring in A(1)
• Sample type changed to composite for effluent sampling for salinity and
conductivity in A(1) per 2009 IE WTP strategy
o Previous permit was changed to grab in last permit based on permittee
request to "gain parity" in monitoring with another ONWASA facility that
performs the same function and draws from the same source water
o Per the 2009 WTP guidance, for IE WTP's, salinity and conductivity
samples collected at the effluent should be composite samples and should
not have been changed during the previous permit renewal
• Monitoring for TDS reduced from 2/month to monthly and sample type changed
to composite in A(1) per 2009 IE WTP strategy
o Previous permit was changed to grab in last permit based on permittee
request to "gain parity" in monitoring with another ONWASA facility that
performs the same function and draws from the same source water
o Per the 2009 WTP guidance, for IE WTP's, Total Dissolved Solids
collected at the effluent should be a composite sample and should not have
been changed during the previous permit renewal
• Limits added for copper and monitoring increased to monthly in A(1) per RPA
• Limits added for zinc and monitoring increased to monthly in A(1) per RPA
• Monthly monitoring with limits added for lead in A(1) per RPA
o Previous factsheet stated: Effluent lead data from Jan. 2011 through
March 2014 was reported at less than detection levels. With no reasonable
potential to violate state water quality standards, lead monitoring was
removed from the permit.
o The previous permit's RPA did not have the HQW box checked and was
therefore done incorrectly
o As the previous RPA was not run correctly, and based on the current RPA
(two data points from December 2015 and June 2016), monthly
monitoring has been added back into the permit with limits
• Added flow footnote in A(1) to further describe monitoring requirements for
instantaneous sampling per 2012 WTP guidance
• Removed footnote in A(1) that parameters should be sampled in conjunction with
toxicity tests as this is no longer required
• Added condition under A(1) that "All samples collected should be of a
representative discharge" to be in line with other permits
• Updated toxicity language and use of different test organism language in A(2)
o Due to the extended history of failed compliance tests, the toxicity test in
A(2) has been changed from a monitor only test to a limit test
• Updated DAA language in A(3)
o DAA was required in the last permit renewal but was not submitted,
therefore requirement is being kept in the permit
o NOV has been issued for failing to perform the DAA
• Added compliance schedule as A(4) for copper, zinc, and lead limits and added
footnote in A(1)

Section 6. Changes from draft to flnal:
• Updated toxicity language in A(1) per ATB's comments
Section 7. Comments received on draft permit:
• Andrew Haines (DMF; via email 4/8/2020): We do not have any comments on
this draft permit.
• Hannah Headrick (ATB; via email 4/8/2020): The entry for Whole Effluent
Toxicity Testing in Table A.(1) needs to be changed from Monitor & Report to
Limit, per your proposed changes for this facility detailed in item 20 of the cover
letter and to agree with footnote 7.
o DWR response: The change will be made in the final permit issuance.
• David Mohr (ONWASA, via email 5/8/2020): ONWASA personnel have
completed review of the above -referenced draft permit language and have no
questions/comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review the
draft document.

NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Saltwater
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, metals 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 Stan dards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW,
µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW,
µg/l
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form.
Aquatic life standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total
Recoverable Metals due to bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health
standards for all metals). It is still necessary to evaluate total recoverable aquatic
life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC 213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10
µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at 1.8 mg/L for
aquatic life protection).
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 metal standards requires additional consideration
in order to establish the numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual
discharge. Note that none of the saltwater standards are hardness -dependent.
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 conversion factors

determined by EPA (more on that below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific
translators developed in accordance with established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance — Discharges to Saltwater (Tidal waters)
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 stream dilution. For discharges to
saltwater, no allowance for dilution is given unless a dilution study, such as a CORMIX
model, is performed.
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 using the saltwater dissolved metal standards, the Permit
Writer compiles the following information:
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
• Instream Wastewater Concentration, if a dilution model has been
performed
2. The RPA spreadsheet converts the dissolved numeric standard (SW standards
listed in Table 1.) for each metal of concern to a total recoverable metal, using the
EPA conversion factors published in the June 1996 EPA Translator Guidance
Document. This method presumes that the metal is dissolved to the same extent as
it was during EPA's criteria development for metals.

Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals
Saltwater CIVIC
Saltwater CCC
Metal
(Acute)
(chronic)
Arsenic 1.000
1.000
Cadmium 0.994
0.994
Chromium VI 0.993
0.993
Copper 0.83
0.83
Lead 0.951
0.951
Mercury 0.85
0.85
Nickel 0.990
0.990
Selenium 0.998
0.998
Silver 0.85
—
Zinc 0.946
0.946
From: US EPA website, National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table
https://www.epa. ov/wgc/national-recommended-water-
quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#a
3. The dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA
conversion factor (or site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal
at ambient conditions.
4. If a dilution study was performed on the receiving stream and an Instream
Wastewater Concentration (IWC) determined 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) (Cwgs) — (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 7Q 10 units)
s7Q 10 = summer, critical low flow (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background
concentrations
Assuming no background concentration, this equation can be reduced to:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwgs) or Ca = Cwgs
Qw IWC
Where: IWC = Qw or 1-
Qw + s7Q10 D
and D = modelled dilution factor (unitless)

If no dilution study has been performed Ca, the allowable effluent concentration,
is equal to the Total Recoverable Metal determined at ambient conditions (ie. the
dissolved numeric standard divided by the EPA conversion factor (or site -specific
translator) for the metal of concern). See item # 3 above.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with a hexavalent
chromium standard. 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 VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration
(95th %) for total chromium will be compared against the water quality standard
chromium VI.

169993 Affidavit of Publication
Jacksonville Daily News
15512172 Jacksonville, NC
Page 1 of 2
Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public of the County of Onslow, State of North Carolina, on this the 10th day of April,
2020
of The Daily News, who being duly sworn, states that the advertisement entitled Wastewater Permit - NCO083321 a true copy
of which is printed herewith, appeared in The Daily News, a newspaper
published
the following city
o :Jacksonville, NC, County of
Onslow, State of North Carolina, 1 day a week for I
April 10, 2020
NORTH CAROLINA
ONSLOW COUNTY
As required by the laws of the State of North Carolina, Jacksonville Daily News meets the requirements of NC statute I-597 as the
newspaper of record for Onslow County.
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 NCO083321 HUBERT WTP
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit
to the person(s) listed below. Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted until 30 days after the
publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a public hearing
should there be a significant degree of public interest. Please mail comments and/or information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested persons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street,Raleigh, NC to review information
on file. Additional information on NPDES permits and this notice may be found on our website:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/
water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater/public-notices,or by calling (91
707-3601. Onslow Water and Sewer Authority requested renewal of NPDES permit NCO083321 for its Hubert Water
Treatment Plant in Onslow County; this permitted discharge is treated filter backwash and reject softener wastewaters
to Queen Creek, White Oak River Basin. This discharge may affect future allocations in this segment of the White Oak
River Basin.
April 10, 2020 (adv)

Draft NPDES 0083321 Review
Onslow County - Hubert WTP
1. The entry for Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing in Table A.(1) needs to be changed from
Monitor & Report to Limit, per your proposed changes for this facility detailed in item
20 of the cover letter and to agree with footnote 7.

Young, Brianna A
From: Haines, Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2020 5:41 PM
To: Young, Brianna A; Jenkins, Shannon; Ethridge, Mark
Subject: RE: Hubert WTP (NC0083321) draft NPDES permit
Thanks Brianna,
We do not have any comments on this draft permit. Enjoy the long weekend!
Andy
Andrew Haines
Environmental Program Supervisor II
Division of Marine Fisheries — Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section
Department of Environmental Quality
252-808-8149 office
andrew.haines(cD-ncdenr.gov
PO Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Young, Brianna A
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:41 AM
To: Jenkins, Shannon <[e-mail]>; Haines, Andrew <[e-mail]>; Ethridge, Mark
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubert WTP (NC0083321) draft NPDES permit
Good morning,
The Hubert WTP (NC0083321) draft NPDES permit has been submitted to public notice. Please provide any comments
on the draft permit by May 8cn
Thank you,
Brianna Young
Environmental Specialist II
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 919-707-3619
Brian na.Young(cDncdenr.gov
Mailing address:
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Young, Brianna A
From: David Mohr <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2020 2:58 PM
To: Young, Brianna A
Cc: James McDonnel
Subject: [External] Draft NPDES Permit NCO083321 Hubert WTP
CAUTION:I email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
nc. ov
Ms. Young,
ONWASA personnel have completed review of the above -referenced draft permit language and have no
questions/comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft document.
0
David M. Mohr, PE
Chief Operations Officer
Onslow Water and Sewer Authority
Ph. 910-937-7521
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.

Table 1
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
Data Source(s)
Saltwater RPA 95% Probablity/95% Confidence
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
JREQUIRED DATA ENTRY
ect Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Hubert WTP
PC-1
NCO083321
001
0.359
Queen Creek
SA; HQW
Tidal, IWC = 100%
Tidal, IWC = 100%
Tidal, IWC = 100%
Tidal, IWC = 100%
Tidal, IWC = 100%
Saltwater streams are tidal resulting in all IWC % = 100%.
If an approved model is conducted then a chronic dilution
factor is determined and can be applied to a discharge to
calculate its IWC % . If a stream is classified as a SA or
ORIN then its is also classified as a HQW. The appropriate
IWC % must be defined to properly calculate WQS-based
limits.
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
13 Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquatic Life
C
36
SW
69
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
C
10
HH
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
8.9
SW
40.2
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
10
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
50.4
SW
1107.8
ug/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
SW
N/A
ug/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
3.7
SW
5.8
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
1
SW
1
10
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
8.5
SW
220.8
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
25
SW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2.0
HH
mg/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
8.3
SW
74.7
ug/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
71
SW
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.1
SW
2.2
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
85.6
SW
95.1
ug/L
NOTE: The aquatic life chronic and acute WQS for several metals are calculated based on EPA conversi
see "Diss. SW stds. As TM" for more details and summary of calculated WQS..
NCO083321 Saltwater RPA,input
5/12/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Copper
Values" then "COPY"
Lead
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/8/2015
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
12/8/2015 < 10 5 Std Dev.
0.0000
2 3/8/2016
<
10
5
Mean
5.0000
2
6/7/2016 < 10 5 Mean
5.0000
3 6/7/2016
<
10
5
C.V.
0.0000
3
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4 9/13/2016
<
10
5
n
17
4
n
2
5 12/6/2016
<
10
5
5
6 3/7/2017
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.0000
6
Mult Factor =
3.79
7 6/6/2017
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.00 ug/L
7
Max. Value
5.00 ug/L
8 9/6/2017
<
10
5
Max. Fred Cw
5.00 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
18.95 ug/L
9 12/5/2017
<
10
5
9
10 3/6/2018
<
10
5
10
11 6/5/2018
<
10
5
11
12 9/11/2018
<
10
5
12
13 12/4/2018
<
10
5
13
14 3/5/2019
<
10
5
14
15 6/4/2019
<
10
5
15
16 9/17/2019
<
10
5
16
17 12/3/2019
<
10
5
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
NCO083321 Saltwater RPA,data
Date}

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Zinc
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
12/8/2015 <
10
5
3/8/2016
16
16
6/7/2016
32
32
9/13/2016 <
10
5
12/6/2016
35
35
3/7/2017
18
18
6/6/2017
18
18
9/6/2017
13
13
12/5/2017
19
19
3/6/2018
12
12
6/5/2018
22
22
9/11/2018
23
23
12/4/2018
39
39
3/5/2019
19
19
6/4/2019
22
22
9/17/2019
23
23
12/3/2019
14
14
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Results
Std Dev.
9.2855
Mean
19.7059
C.V.
0.4712
n
17
Mult Factor = 1.3400
Max. Value 39.0 ug/L
Max. Fred Cw 52.3 ug/L
NCO083321 Saltwater RPA,data
Date}

Hubert WTP
NCO083321
Outfall 001
Saltwater RPA 95% Probablity/95% Confidence Qw = 0.3585 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 0.36 WWTP/WTP Class: PC-1
1Q10S (cfs) = Tidal, IWC = 100% IWC% @ 1Q10S = 100
7Q10S (cfs) = Tidal, IWC = 100% IWC% @ 7Q10S = 100
7Q10W (cfs) = Tidal, IWC = 100% IWC% @ 7Q10W = 100
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
30Q2 (cfs) = Tidal, IWC = 100% 1WC% @ 30Q2 = 100
STREAM AS HOW OR ORW.
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = Tidal, IWC = 100% 1WC% @ QA = 100
Receiving Stream: Queen Creek Stream Class: SA; HQW
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
cn
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
TYPE
a0
z
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Applied
Chronic Acute
D
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standard
Acute: 2.90
RP - Apply monthly monitoring with limit
Copper
NC
1.85 SW(7Q10s) 2.9
ug/L
17 0
5.00
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 1.85
RP - Apply monthly monitoring with limit
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 110.40
Lead
NC
4.25 SW(7Q10s) 110.4
ug/L
2 0
19.0
Note: n 5 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 4.25
RP -Apply monthly monitoring with limit
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL =10
Acute: 47.6
RP - Apply monthly monitoring with limit
Zinc
NC
42.8 SW(7Q10s) 47.55
ug/L
17 15
52.26
----------------
Chronic: 42.8
Apply monthly monitoring with limit
No value > Allowable Cw
NCO083321 Saltwater RPA,rpa
Page 4 of 28 5/12/2020

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Hubert WTP
PermitNo. NC0083321
Prepared By: Brianna Young
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.3585
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0
Enter w7Q10 cfs : 0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3585
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3585
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.555675
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.55568
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
17
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.0
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3585
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.55568
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.00
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.8
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Hillsborough WWTP
NCO026433/001
County:
Orange
Region:
RRO
Basin:
NEU01
Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
9/1/2013
chr lim: 90%
NonComp:
Single
701.10: 0.18
PF: 3.0
IWC:
96 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S O
2016
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
Pass >100(P) -
2017
-
Pass >100(P) -
-
Pass >100(P)
-
-
Pass
- -
2018
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
2019
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
Hoke County WWTP
NCO089176/001
County:
Hoke
Region:
FRO
Basin:
CPF15
Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
2/1/2013
Chr Lim: 2.9%
NonComp:
7Q10:
PF: 1.5
IWC:
Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S O
2016
-
Pass -
-
Pass >11.6(P)
>11.6(P)
>11.6(P)
Pass >11.6(P)
- -
2017
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
2018
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
2019
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
Holly Springs WWTP-Utley Crk
NCO063096/001
County:
Wake
Region:
RRO
Basin:
CPF07
Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
11/1/2017 chr lim: 90% (at 6 or
NonComp:
Single
7Q10: 0.11
PF: 8
IWC:
95 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S O
2016
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
2017
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
2018
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
2019
-
Pass -
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
- -
Hospira, Inc.
NC0001589/003
County:
Nash
Region:
RRO
Basin:
TAR02
Mar Jun Sep Dec
Fthd24PF
Begin:
5/1/2010
Ac P/F Monit: 90% Ft
NonComp:
7Q10:
PF:
IWC:
Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S O
2016
-
- H
-
-
H
-
-
H -
2017
-
- H
-
-
H
-
-
H -
2018
-
- H
-
-
H
-
-
H H
2019
H
- H
H
-
H
-
-
H -
House of Raeford - Wallace
Division
NC0003344/001
County:
Duplin
Region:
WIRO
Basin:
CPF22
Mar Jun Sep Dec
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
3/1/2019
chr lim: 44% @ 0.9M
NonComp:
Single
7Q10: 1.77
PF: 1.5
IWC:
57 Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S O
2016
>88
>88 Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass -
2017
-
- Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass -
2018
-
- H
-
-
H
-
-
H -
2019
-
- Fail
>88
>88
Pass
-
-
Pass -
Hubert WTP
NCO083321/001
County:
Onslow
Region:
WIRO
Basin:
WOK01
Mar Jun Sep Dec
Mysd24PF
Begin:
2/1/2015
Ac P/F Monit: 90%
NonComp:
7Q10:
PF: 0.518 IWC:
Freq: Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S O
2016
-
- Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
Fail -
2017
-
- Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
Fail -
2018
-
- Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
Fail -
2019
-
- Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
Fail -
SOC JOC:
N
Pass >100(P)
Pass
Pass
Pass
C
SOC JOC:
N D
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
SOC JOC:
N
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass>100
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
C
D
H
H
H
H
D
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
D
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facilitv is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs
Page 50 of 109

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: nc0083321 MRs Between 12 - 2015 and 2 - 2020 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Name % County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 02/19/20 Page: 1 of 1
Violation Category% Program Category:
Subbasin:%41 Violation Action: %
■
PERMIT: NCO083321
FACILITY: Onslow Water and Sewer Authority -Hubert WTP
COUNTY: Onslow
REGION: Wilmington
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT OUTFALL
LOCATION PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
08 -2016 001
Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
08/20/16
2 X month
mg/I
15
19.8
32
Weekly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
08 -2016 001
Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
08/31/16
2 X month
mg/I
10
12.13
21.3
Monthly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
Reporting Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT WELL
LOCATION PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
04-2017
06/30/17
Late/MissingGW-59
None
04-2018
06/30/18
Late/MissingGW-59
None
04-2019
06/30/19
Late/MissingGW-59
None

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REEGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
Edward Caron
Onslow Water and Sewer Authority
228 Georgetown Rd
Jacksonville, NC 28540
Subject: Permit Renewal
Application No. NCO083321
Hubert WTP
Onslow County
Dear Applicant:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
July 18, 2019
The Water Quality Permitting Section acknowledges the May 30, 2019 receipt of your permit renewal application and
supporting documentation. Your application will be assigned to a permit writer within the Section's NPDES WW permitting
branch. Per G.S. 150E-3 your current permit does not expire until permit decision on the application is made.
Continuation of the current permit is contingent on timely and sufficient application for renewal of the current permit. The
permit writer will contact you if additional information is required to complete your permit renewal. Please respond in a
timely manner to requests for additional information necessary to allow a complete review of the application and renewal
of the permit.
Information regarding the status of your renewal application can be found online using the Department of Environmental
Quality's Environmental Application Tracker at:
https://deg.nc.gov/permits-regulations/permit-guidance/environmental-application-tracker
If you have any additional questions about the permit, please contact the primary reviewer of the application using the
links available within the Application Tracker.
SAi((ncerely,
o—Aw"C�
Wren Thedford
Administrative Assistant
Water Quality Permitting Section
ec: WQPS Laserfiche File w/application
North. Carolina Department of Environmental Quaifty I DhAsian of Water Resources
rEQ' Wilmington Regional Moe 1 127 Cardinal Dr,ve Extensbn I Volmington, North Csrouns 23405
310 79S-7215

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Mail the complete application to: tr4MDiN009Q/1)WR
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit MAY 3 0 2019
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Water Quality
Permitting Seolion
NPDES Permit Number INCO083321
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
Facility Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail Address
Onslow Water and Sewer Authority
Hubert Water Treatment Plant
222 Georgetown Road
Jacksonville
NC 28546
[phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same as above ❑
Street Address or State Road
City
State / Zip Code
County
374 Hubert Boulevard
Hubert
NC 28539
Onslow
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, consultant or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not referring to the
Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name Onslow Water Sewer Authority
Mailing Address 222 Georgetown Road
City Jacksonville
State / Zip Code NC 28
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
4. Ownership Status:
Federal ❑ State ❑ Private ❑ Public
Page 1 of 4 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
S. Type of treatment plant:
® Conventional (Includes coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, usually followed by
filtration and disinfection)
® Ion Exchange (Sodium Cycle Cationic ion exchange)
® Green Sand Filter (No sodium recharge)
❑ Membrane Technology (RO, nanofiltration)
Check here if the treatment process also uses a water softener N
6. Description of source water(s) (i.e. groundwater, surface water)
Ground Water
7. Describe the treatment process(es) for the raw water:
• Raw water goes thru aeration to remove sulfur.
• Thru the Greensand filter to remove Iron and Manganese.
• Thru the Ion Exchange softeners to remove calcium and Magnesium.
• Hypochlorite is used for disinfection.
• Fluoridation.
• Phosphate for corrosion control.
8. Describe the wastewater and the treatment process(es) for wastewater generated by the
facility:
• The waste from the Greensand filters, ion exchange softeners is discharged to a
series (four) sedimentation lagoons, supernatant is discharged to the receiving
stream.
9. Number of separate discharge points: 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
10. Frequency of discharge: Continuous ® Intermittent ❑
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: Duration:
11. Plant design potable flowrate 6 MGD
Backwash or reject flow .30 MGD Average flow
12. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall, including
latitude and longitude):
Queen Creek, classified SA-HQW waters in the White Oak River Basin
13. Please list all water treatment additives, including cleaning chemicals or disinfection
treatments, that have the potential to be discharged.
Page 2 of 4 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Alum / aluminum sulfate Yes No X
Iron sulfate / ferrous sulfate Yes No X
Fluoride Yes X No
Ammonia nitrogen / Chloramines Yes No X
Zinc -orthophosphate or sweetwater CP1236 Yes X No
List any other additives below:
KMn04
Household Cleaners
14. Is this facility located on Indian country? (check one)
Yes ❑ No
15. Additional Information:
➢ Provide a schematic of flow through the facility, include flow volumes at all points in
the water treatment process. The plan should show the point[s] of addition for
chemicals and all discharges routed to an outfall [including stormwater].
➢ Solids Handling Plan
➢ The plan is to clean a lagoon every three years
16. NEW Applicants
Information needed in addition to items 1-15:
➢ New applicants are highly encouraged to contact a permit coordinator with the
NCDENR Customer Service Center.
Was the Customer Service Center contacted? ❑ Yes ❑ No
➢ Analyses of source water collected
➢ Engineering Alternative Analysis
➢ Discharges from Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis plants shall be evaluated using a
water quality model.
17. Applicant Certification
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
Printed name of
Signature of
Page 3 of 4
Suberintendent Wastewater
Title
Dates
Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that. Any person who knowingly makes any false statement representation, or certification in any application,
record, report, plan, or other document files or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that
Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21
or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by
imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both (18 U S C Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or impnsonment not more than 5
years, or both, for a similar offense )
Page 4 of 4 Version 5/2012

Hubert WTP Water treatment Process
372 Hubert BLVD Aerators Avg
1233 GPM each
Hubert NC, 28539 O Det #3
NPDES #NC0083321 3 KMN04 Injected
Raw Water in at Detention tanks
Flow AVG 2O Det # 2
3850 GPM Detention tanks
Train 1
After fi
Train 2
After F
Train 3
After fi
Ion Exchange Softeners
Softeners 1-2 AVG flow 440 GPM
;�—
1 Train 1 Soft. Bypass AVG 250 GPM
Softener Bypass r-
© MPON
Softeners 3-8 Avg 300 GPM
Trains 2-3 Soft. Bypass Avg 350gpm
So ener Regeneration 1200 Gal. of Saturated Brine is
Process waste to lagoon, applied per Softener
Approx 18000 Gal per regeneration.
Regen
Plant Floor Drains and Storm Drains
Treated Flow
AVG Total
3700 GPM
Floor Drains flowing to Lagoon:
Chemical Feed
Lab/Office Floor & Lab Sink
Bathroom Floor
HFS room floor
CL2 and CL2 storage Room Floor
Blower Rm Floor
CL2 feed Rm Floor
Train Bay Floor Drains
luHDet #1
Greensand Filters
Avg Flow Per filter Approximately 350 GPM
Filter Pumps Train 1
Chemical
Injection vault
1. HFS (fluoride) Finished Water
2. PO4 (orthophosphate) to Clearwells
3. CL2 (Sodium hypochlorite)I�
*To Waste Lagoon
There are Four
24" x 24" Storm
Drains Located
inside the plant.
* To Retention Pond Behind Plant
Train 2
Train 3
Backwash Waste to lagoons
Approximated Avg 15000gal waste
per backwash process per train.
High Service Pumps
0 HSPs
1-4 to
O System
Please note that this schematic is a general representation of the
Hubert WTP process only and is NOT depicting orientation or scale of
the different components within or around the WTP facility.

Discharge to stream
7r,,"No !,��Lagoon43
Tertiary
11
Influent
Current floor drain di ;chi
location.
372 Hubert Blvd. Hubert NC 28539
NPDES # NCO083321
-Each lagoon holds 0.75 MG
-There is no chemical addition.
-Max influent flow is 1300 GPM as a batch
feed.
-Effluent vault has an 80gpm & a 350gpm
pump.
There are three alternate influent points
Alternate Influent

Solids Handling Plan
Hubert Water Treatment Plant
A pump and haul method of removing solids from the four (4) lagoons at Hubert
WTP will be utilized. Solids will be dewatered to pass the paint test and
transported by truck to the Onslow County Landfill. The lagoons will be pumped
every three (3) years so as not to allow solids accumulation to interfere with
detention time.