The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0021920_Fact Sheet_20201217Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NCO021920 Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, nick.coco@ncdenr.gov: Date: September 15, 2020 Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex 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: City of Whiteville/Whiteville Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Applicant Address: PO Box 607, Whiteville, NC 28472 Facility Address: 1000 Nolan Avenue, Whiteville, NC 28472 Permitted Flow: 3.0 MGD Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 95.8% domestic, 4.2% industrial Facility Class: Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System Treatment Units: Mechanical bar screen, Influent meter, Influent composite sampler, Grit removal / Disposal equipment, Influent pump station, Anerobic basin/distribution box, Two oxidation ditch basins, Two flow distribution boxes, Three clarifiers, Two tertiary disc filters, Post aeration basin, Chlorine contact chamber, Dechlorination, Effluent flow meter, Aerobic sludge digester, Sludge holding tank, Sludge truck loading station, Standby power Pretreatment Program (Y/N) Y County: Columbus Region Wilmington Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background. The City of Whiteville has applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 3.0 MGD for the Whiteville WRF. This facility serves a population of 7,165 residents across the Towns of Brunswick and Bolton, as well as the City of Whiteville. The City receives industrial wastewater from 2 significant industrial users, 1 of which being a categorical industrial user (CIU), in its pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged into White Marsh, a class C;SW water in the Lumber River Basin. The facility has a primary Outfall 001. Page 1 of 11 In their 2019 renewal application, the City requested removal of Special Condition A.(5.) Inactive Wastewater Pond, since the closure of the wastewater pond had been completed. The condition included language requiring the City maintain the water level in the inactive pond below one foot. The City intends to turn the pond into an architectural feature in the plant site and has disconnected all piping to the pond, preventing wastewater from entering the structure. After discussion with the Wilmington Regional Office, it has been decided that the condition be removed from the permit. 2. Receiving Waterbody Information: Receiving Waterbody Information Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 - White Marsh Stream Index: 15-4 Stream Classification: C-Sw Drainage Area (m12): 201 Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 4.7 Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 9.1 30Q2 (cfs): 10 Average Flow (cfs): 201 IWC (% effluent): 50 303(d) listed/parameter: Yes; Benthos Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation. Subbasin/HUC: 03-07-58/03040206 USGS Topo Quad: J24SW Whiteville, NC 3. Effluent Data Summary Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of August 2016 through August 2020. Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001 Permit Parameter Units Average Max Min Limit Flow MGD 1.4 5 0.32 MA 3.0 WA 7. BOD (summer) mg/1 2.3 6.5 1.4 .5 MA WA 15.0 BOD (winter) mg/1 2.2 6.5 2 MA 10.0 WA 45.0 TSS mg/I 4.2 4-'.-' 2.5 MA 30.0 WA 5.4 NH3N (summer) mg/1 1 4.3 1 MA 1.8 WA 14.7 NH3N (winter) mg/1 1 2.39 MA 4.9 DO mg/1 8.3 13.1 DA > 5 mg/1 (geometric) (ge an) Fecal coliform 9/100 ml 4 1 8701 1 WA 400 MA 200 Temperature ° C 21.8 29.6 11.4 Conductivity umhos/cm 517.7 830 169 Total Residual Chlorine ug/1 23.7 47 3 DM 28 Page 2 of 11 pH SU 7.6 8.2 c,. , 6.0 < pH < 9.0 Total Cadmium ug/1 1.8 5 1 Total Copper ug/1 9.8 10 3 Total Lead ug/1 5 5 2 MA 15.6 DM 388 Total Silver ug/1 2.6 5 1 Total Mercury ng/1 2.2 11.5 1 AA 24 Total Hardness mg/1 93 129 76 T -N mg/I 1.15 3.35 0.6 Nitrate + Nitrite mg/1 6.8 13.72 0.75 TN mg/1 8 15.49 2.42 TP mg/1 1.6 5.33 0.46 MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average, QA- Quarterly 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: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity upstream of the outfall at U.S. 74/76 and downstream at the railroad crossing. Upstream hardness data is also collected at a quarterly frequency. Data was observed from August 2016 to August 2020. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary Parameter Units Upstream Downstream Average Max Min Average Max Min DO mg/1 5.3 21.6 0.1 5.1 19.6 0.2 Temperature ° C 21 28.3 0.8 20.6 28.3 1.1 Conductivity umhos/cm 103 411 31 255 777 32 Hardness mg/1 35 61 25 1 - I- - Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05 The downstream temperature did not exceed 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] during the period reviewed. The temperature differential exceeded 2.8 degrees Celsius on 2 occasions during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature. Page 3 of 11 Downstream DO dropped below 5 mg/L on 206 occasions [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed. Downstream DO dropped below 4 mg/L on 160 occasions during the period reviewed. Upstream DO dropped below 5 mg/L on 187 occasions [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed. Upstream DO dropped below 4 mg/L on 149 occasions during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO. The receiving stream is classified as Swamp waters, a water classification associated with naturally low levels of DO. It was concluded that a statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream conductivity. Effluent conductivity is consistently higher than upstream conductivity and appears to be impacting conductivity downstream. Monitoring will be maintained. Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): N Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA 5. Compliance Summary Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit violations from August 2016 to August 2020. Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past 5 years): The facility passed 19 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests as well as 4 of 4 second species toxicity tests from January 2016 to August 2020. The facility reported no flow in October 2016 but followed up with a passing result in November 2016. Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted in February 2020 reported that the facility was out of compliance with permit NC0021920. The Wilmington Regional Office noted in their report that the facility was not properly disposing of material removed from secondary clarifiers, had issues with either sampler temperatures or the thermometer, a manual bypass screen at the headworks that was plugged with leaves, and that the City had failed to submit Annual Wastewater Performance Reports since CY 2017. 6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) Dilution and Mixing Zones In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH). If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with I5A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA Oxyaen-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 Page 4 of 11 (e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and model results. If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed.- The existing limitations for BOD were placed in the permit in 1994 upon implementation of the Lumber River Basin Management Strategy are based on a 1988 Level B model. They were implemented in 1994 at both the 2.5 MGD flow tier that existed at the time and the 3.0 MGD flow tier. No changes are proposed. Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of 1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals. Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit. Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current permit sets a daily maximum limit of 28 ug/L. TRC limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be consistent with the results. There are no proposed changes for TRC. Seasonal ammonia limits were implemented in the permit with the 2010 renewal and were based on IWC- based calculations. The current permit sets monthly average and weekly average limits for ammonia in the summer of 1.8 mg/L and 5.4 mg/L, respectively. The current permit sets monthly average and weekly average limits for ammonia in the winter of 4.9 mg/L and 14.7 mg/L, respectively. The ammonia limits have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective. There are no proposed changes for ammonia. 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 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 August 2016 through August 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: NA Page 5 of 11 Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: NA No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total Arsenic, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Cyanide, Total Lead, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for additional pollutants of concern. (PPAs from 2017, 2018 and 2019) 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: N/A 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: N/A o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total Phenolic Compounds, Beryllium, Total Cadmium, Bromodichloromethane, Chloroform 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. Toxici . Testing Limitations Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure. Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: The permit requires quarterly chronic toxicity testing at 50% effluent concentration. No changes are proposed. 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. Page 6 of 11 Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (3.0 MGD) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 # of Samples 22 21 5 4 3 Annual Average Conc. n /L 1.9 1.6 3.1 5 1.07 Maximum Conc., n /L 4.1 4.2 7.5 11.5 1.4 TBEL, n /L 47 WQBEL, n /L 24.1 Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury limit is required. A mercury minimization plan (MMP) was implemented in the current permit. Since the facility is > 2 MGD in design capacity and reported multiple quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/1), the mercury minimization plan (MMP) will remain in the permit. Other TMDL/Nutrient Manaaement Strateav Considerations If applicable, describe any other TNDDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within this permit: NA Other WQBEL Considerations If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143- 215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA 7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs) Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials) Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/7 BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA Are 85% removal requirements for BODS/TSS included in the permit? YES; Overall BOD and TSS removal rates > 85%. If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA 8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge): The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all Page 7 of 11 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: NA 9. Antibacksliding Review: Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution). Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YESINO): NO If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA 10. Monitoring Requirements Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2) NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti - backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies. For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4. The City of Whiteville was granted monitoring frequency reductions for BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform with their 2017 NPDES permit renewal based on DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities. The last three years of the facility's data for these parameters have been reviewed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the guidance. 2/week monitoring for BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform has been maintained. 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. Page 8 of 11 12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions: Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 3.0 MGD Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change Flow MA 3.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 213 .0505 BOD5 Summer: No change WQBEL. 1988 Level B model. MA 5.0 mg/l 15A NCAC 213; DWR Guidance WA 7.5 mg/l Regarding the Reduction of Winter: Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES MA 10.0 mg/l Permits for Exceptionally WA 15.0 mg/l Performing Facilities 2/week monitoring NH3-N Summer: No change WQBEL. 2020 WLA review. 15A MA 1.8 mg/l NCAC 213; DWR Guidance WA 5.4 mg/l Regarding the Reduction of Winter: Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES MA 4.9 mg/l Permits for Exceptionally WA 14.7 mg/l Performing Facilities 2/week monitoring TSS MA 30 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment WA 45 mg/1 standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A 2/week monitoring NCAC 2B .0406; DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities Fecal coliform MA 200 /100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A WA 400 /100ml NCAC 213; DWR Guidance 2/week monitoring Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities DO DA > 5 mg/l No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 213.0200 Temperature Monitor and No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A Report Daily NCAC 213. 0500 pn 6 — 9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B Conductivity Monitor and No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A Report Daily NCAC 213. 0500 Total Residual Chlorine DM 28 ug/L No change WQBEL. 2020 WLA review. TKN Monitor and No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A Report Monthly NCAC 213. 0500 NO2+NO3 Monitor and No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A Report Monthly NCAC 213. 0500 Total Nitrogen Monitor and No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A Report Monthly NCAC 213. 0500 Page 9 of 11 Total Phosphorous Monitor and No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A Report Monthly NCAC 2B. 0500 Total Copper Monitor and Remove requirement Based on results of Reasonable Report Quarterly Potential Analysis (RPA); No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Total Cadmium Monitor and Remove requirement Based on results of Reasonable Report Quarterly Potential Analysis (RPA); No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Total Lead MA 15.6 ug/1 Remove requirement Based on results of Reasonable DM 388 ug/1 Potential Analysis (RPA); No RP, Monthly Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable monitoring Cw - No Monitoring required Total Silver Monitor and Remove requirement Based on results of Reasonable Report Quarterly Potential Analysis (RPA); No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Total Mercury AA 24 ng/L Remove requirement WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL Implementation; individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL Total Hardness Quarterly No change Hardness -dependent dissolved monitoring metals water quality standards Upstream and in approved in 2016 Effluent Chronic Toxicity Chronic limit, No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic 50% effluent amounts. 15A NCAC 2B Effluent Pollutant Scan Three times per No change; conducted 40 CFR 122 permit cycle in 2022, 2023, 2024 Mercury Minimization MMP Special No change WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Plan (MMP) Condition Statewide Mercury TMDL Implementation; Municipality with Q > 2 MGD and with multiple detects > I ng/L Inactive Wastewater Special Condition Condition removed and Inactive Pond Closure completed Pond A.(5.) pond removed from and inspected. components list Electronic Reporting Electronic No change In accordance with EPA Electronic Reporting Special Reporting Rule 2015. Condition MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, QA — Quarterly Average, DA — Daily Average, AA — Annual Average Page 10 of 11 13. Public Notice Schedule: Permit to Public Notice: September 29, 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. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable) The draft permit was submitted to the City of Whiteville, EPA Region IV, the Wilmington Regional Office, and the Division's Operator Certification Program and Aquatic Toxicology Branch. The Aquatic Toxicology Branch submitted a comment to correct the mailing address specified in Special Condition A.(2.). No comments were received from any of the other parties. Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES If Yes, list changes and their basis below: • A notation was made concerning the Electronic Reporting Rule — Phase 2 Extension. extended the Phase 2 deadline from December 21, 2020, to December 21, 2025, effective January 4, 2021. The current compliance date has been extended to reflect this change. • The expiration date has been extended from 2024 to 2025 to more closely fit a five-year permit term. • The Effluent Pollutant Scan sampling years have been adjusted to 2022, 2023 and 2024 to better fit the extended permit term [See A. (3.)]. • The mailing address specified in Special Condition A. (2.) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (Quarterly) has been updated. 15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable): • RPA Spreadsheet Summary • BOD and TSS Removal • Monitoring Reduction Frequency Spreadsheet • Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater • Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheet • Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet • Limit Violations Summary • Toxicity Summary • PERCs Summary • Instream Monitoring Summary Page 11 of 11 Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/NP- DES Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit NCO021920 Whiteville WRF The North Carolina Environmen- tal Management Commission proposes to issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the person(s) listed below. Writ- ten comments regarding the proposed permit will be accept- ed until 30 days after the publish date of this notice. The Direc- tor of the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a public hearing should there be a significant degree of public inter- est. 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.g ov/about/d ivi- sions/water-resources/water- resou rces-perm its/wastewater- bran ch/npdes-wastewater/ public-notices,or by calling (9119) 707-5661. The City of Whiteville has requested renewal of per- mit NCO021920 for its Whiteville Water Reclamation Facility in Columbus County. This permit- ted discharge is treated domes- tic and industrial wastewater to White Marsh Swamp, in the Lumber River Basin. Sept. 29, 2020 NORTH CAROLINA, COLUMBUS COUNTY: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared ...... R" gin ............... who being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is the ...emp &.)t--_ .. - _ owner, publisher or employee authorized to make this affidavit) of The News Reporter Co., Inc. engaged in the publication of a newspaper known as THE NEWS REPORTER, published, issued and entered as second class mail in the CITY of Whiteville, in said County and State; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in the News Reporter on the following dates: - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ........................Si .� 1,..2a2o._........_...._........... ; and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. This ........ Z1......... day of ------ 41�A...................... 20.E .............. ....... ......... (Signature Of Person aking Affidavit.) Sworn to and subscribed before me, this ... _ _ day of rnr 2a )r ._...-•-•....._.scor ........................... - � � I Notary Public MyCommission expires ....__C�..-•................. . 20 SARAH E CRUTCHFIELD Notary Public Co€embus County, N. C. My Commission Expires 1019/2024 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 Table 1. Project Information ❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Facility Name WWTP/WTP Class NPDES Permit Outfall Flow, Qw (MGD) Receiving Stream HUC Number Stream Class Whiteville WRF IV NCO021920 001 3.000 13 White Marsh 03040206 C-Sw ❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC 7Q10s (cfs) 7Q10w (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs) QA (cfs) 1 Q10s (cfs) 4.700 9.10 10.00 201.00 3.92 Effluent Hardness Upstream Hardness Combined Hardness Chronic Combined Hardness Acute 92.96 mg/L (Avg) 34.93 mg/L (Avg) 63.79 m /L 66.42 m /L Data Source(s) ❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL REQUIRED DATA ENTRY Par01 Par02 Par03 Par04 Par05 Par06E Par07 Par08 Par09 Par10 Par11 Par12 Par13 Par14 Par15 Par16 Par17 Par18 Par19 Par20 Par21 Par22 Par23 Par24 Table 2. Parameters of Concern Name was 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 1.1972 FW 7.5985 ug/L Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 253.5647 FW 2014.7991 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 17.5467 FW 26.2938 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 8.3610 FW 224.3163 ug/L Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L Nickel Aquatic Life NC 82.2404 FW 766.1551 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 1.5913 ug/L Zinc Aquatic Life NC 280.2830 FW 287.6778 ug/L Bromodichloromethane Human Health C 27 HH pg/L Chloroform Human Health NC 2000 HH pg/L j 21920 RPA, input 9/16/2020 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS H1 I Effluent Hardness I Date 1 3/30/2017 2 5/2/2017 3 7/6/2017 4 10/3/2017 5 1 /2/2018 6 2/12/2018 7 4/3/2018 8 6/18/2018 9 7/3/2018 10 8/14/2018 11 10/2/2018 12 11/13/2018 13 1 /8/2019 14 2/11 /2019 15 4/2/2019 16 6/10/2019 17 7/2/2019 18 8/12/2019 19 10/1/2019 20 11 /11 /2019 21 1 /7/2020 22 2/11 /2020 23 2/25/2020 24 4/7/2020 25 6/15/2020 26 7/7/2020 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 Data BDL=1/2DL Results 100 100 Std Dev. 88 88 Mean 80 80 C.V. 96 96 n 100 100 10th Per value 94 94 Average Value 97 97 Max. Value 114 114 100 100 84 84 97 97 100 100 82 82 94 94 82 82 112 112 129 129 96 96 94 94 92 92 86 86 76 76 79 79 85 85 77 77 83 83 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Values" then "COPY" . Maximum data F points = 58 12.3595 92.9615 0.1330 26 79.50 mg/L 92.96 mg/L 129.00 mg/L Date Data 1 5/2/2017 2 7/6/2017 3 10/3/2017 4 1 /2/2018 5 4/3/2018 6 7/3/2018 7 10/2/2018 8 1 /8/2019 9 4/2/2019 10 7/2/2019 11 8/6/2019 12 10/1/2019 13 2/4/2020 14 4/6/2020 15 7/7/2020 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 Upstream Hardness BDL=1/2DL 28 28 28 28 36 36 40 40 61 61 36 36 32 32 31 31 39 39 31 31 40 40 37 37 25 25 30 30 30 30 Results Std Dev. Mean C.V. n 10th Per value Average Value Max. Value Use "PASTE SPECIAL Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 8.6062 34.9333 0.2464 15 28.00 mg/L 34.93 mg/L 61.00 mg/L 21920 RPA, data - 1 - 9/16/2020 Par01 & Par02 Date Data 1 11 /28/2016 < 2 2/13/2017 < 3 3/30/2017 < 4 6/12/2017 < 5 8/14/2017 < 6 11 /13/2017 < 7 2/12/2018 < 8 6/18/2018 < 9 11 /13/2018 < 10 2/11 /2019 < 11 6/10/2019 < 12 8/12/2019 < 13 11/11/2019 < 14 2/11 /2020 < 15 2/25/2020 < 16 6/15/2020 < 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 Arsenic BDL=1/2DL 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 2 1 5 2.5 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Results Std Dev Mean C.V. n Mult Factor = Max. Value Max. Pred Cw Use "PASTE SPECIAL Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 0.3750 2.4063 0.1558 16 1.11 2.5 ug/L 2.8 ug/L -2- 21920 RPA, data 9/16/2020 Par03 Date Data 1 3/30/2017 < 2 2/25/2020 < 3 1 /23/2018 < 4 1 /15/2019 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par04 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Use "PASTE SPECIAL Beryllium Values" then "COPY" Cadmium Values" then "COPY" Maximum data . Maximum data points = 58 points = 58 BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 8/8/2016 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.7559 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 11/28/2016 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.7857 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 2/13/2017 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 1 0.5 n 4 4 3/30/2017 < 1 0.5 n 7 5 8/14/2017 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 2.59 6 1/23/2018 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor = 2.01 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 1/15/2019 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L Max. Pred Cw 1.30 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 5.025 ug/L 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 -3- 21920 RPA, data 9/16/2020 Par07 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Total Phenolic Compounds Date Data 1 3/30/2017 < 2 2/25/2020 < 3 1 /23/2018 < 4 1 /15/2019 < 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 BDL=1/2DL Results 5 2.5 Std Dev. 10 5 Mean 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 5 2.5 n Mult Factor = Max. Value Max. Pred Cw Parl0 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 Date Data 1.2500 1 8/8/2016 < 3.1250 2 11 /28/2016 < 0.6000 3 2/13/2017 < 4 4 3/30/2017 < 5 6/12/2017 < 2.59 6 8/14/2017 < 5.0 ug/L 7 11 /13/2017 < 13.0 ug/L 8 2/12/2018 < 9 6/18/2018 < 10 8/14/2018 < 11 2/11 /2019 < 12 8/12/2019 < 13 11/11/2019 < 14 2/11 /2020 < 15 2/25/2020 < 16 6/15/2020 < 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 Chromium, Total BDL=1/2DL Results 5 2.5 Std Dev. 5 2.5 Mean 5 2.5 C.V. 5 2.5 n 5 2.5 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 5 2.5 Max. Value 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 0.0000 2.5000 0.0000 16 1.00 2.5 pg/L 2.5 pg/L 21920 RPA, data -4- 9/16/2020 Pal Date Data 1 8/8/2016 < 2 10/4/2016 < 3 11 /28/2016 < 4 1 /5/2017 < 5 2/13/2017 < 6 3/30/2017 < 7 4/4/2017 < 8 5/2/2017 < 9 6/12/2017 < 10 7/6/2017 < 11 8/14/2017 < 12 11 /13/2017 < 13 1 /2/2018 < 14 2/12/2018 < 15 4/3/2018 < 16 6/18/2018 < 17 7/3/2018 < 18 8/14/2018 < 19 10/2/2018 < 20 11 /13/2018 < 21 1 /8/2019 < 22 2/11 /2019 < 23 4/2/2019 < 24 6/10/2019 < 25 7/2/2019 < 26 8/12/2019 < 27 10/1 /2019 28 11 /11 /2019 < 29 1 /7/2020 < 30 2/11 /2020 < 31 2/25/2020 32 4/7/2020 < 33 6/15/2020 < 34 7/7/2020 < 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par12 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Copper Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 BDL=1/2DL Results 10 5 Std Dev. 10 5 Mean 10 5 C.V. 10 5 n 10 5 10 5 Mult Factor = 10 5 Max. Value 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 10 10 5 10 5 10 5 3 3 10 5 10 5 10 5 0.9331 5.0882 0.1834 34 1.05 10.00 ug/L 10.50 ug/L -5- Date Data 1 8/8/2016 < 2 11 /28/2016 < 3 2/13/2017 < 4 3/30/2017 < 5 6/12/2017 < 6 8/14/2017 < 7 11 /13/2017 < 8 2/12/2018 < 9 6/18/2018 < 10 8/14/2018 < 11 11 /13/2018 < 12 2/11 /2019 < 13 6/10/2019 < 14 8/12/2019 < 15 11/11/2019 < 16 2/11 /2020 < 17 2/25/2020 < 18 6/15/2020 < 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 Cyanide Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 BDL=1/2DL Results 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 5 5 Mean 5.00 5 5 C.V. 0.0000 5 5 n 18 5 5 5 5 Mult Factor = 1.00 5 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 5 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 ug/L 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 21920 RPA, data 9/16/2020 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par14 Par17 & Par18 use "PASTE Use "PASTE SPECIAL SPECIAL -Values" Lead Values" then "COPY" Nickel then "COPY". . Maximum data Maximum data points = 58 points = 58 Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 8/8/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.1987 1 8/8/2016 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.7276 2 11/28/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.4737 2 11/28/2016 < 10 5 Mean 4.8235 3 2/13/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0803 3 2/13/2017 < 10 5 C.V. 0.1508 4 3/30/2017 < 5 2.5 n 57 4 3/30/2017 < 10 5 n 17 5 5/2/2017 < 5 2.5 5 6/12/2017 < 10 5 6 6/6/2017 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.00 6 8/14/2017 < 10 5 Mult Factor = 1.10 7 6/12/2017 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 7 11/13/2017 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 pg/L 8 7/6/2017 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.500 ug/L 8 2/12/2018 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 5.5 pg/L 9 8/1 /2017 < 5 2.5 9 6/18/2018 < 10 5 10 8/14/2017 < 5 2.5 10 8/14/2018 < 10 5 11 9/5/2017 < 5 2.5 11 11 /13/2018 < 10 5 12 10/3/2017 < 5 2.5 12 2/11 /2019 < 10 5 13 11 /7/2017 < 5 2.5 13 6/10/2019 < 10 5 14 11 /13/2017 < 5 2.5 14 8/12/2019 < 10 5 15 12/5/2017 < 5 2.5 15 11 /11 /2019 < 10 5 16 1 /2/2018 < 5 2.5 16 2/11 /2020 < 10 5 17 2/6/2018 < 5 2.5 17 2/25/2020 2 2 18 2/12/2018 < 5 2.5 18 19 3/6/2018 < 5 2.5 19 20 4/3/2018 < 5 2.5 20 21 5/8/2018 < 5 2.5 21 22 6/5/2018 < 5 2.5 22 23 6/18/2018 < 5 2.5 23 24 7/3/2018 < 5 2.5 24 25 8/7/2018 < 5 2.5 25 26 8/14/2018 < 5 2.5 26 27 9/4/2018 < 5 2.5 27 28 10/2/2018 < 5 2.5 28 29 11 /6/2018 < 5 2.5 29 30 11 /13/2018 < 5 2.5 30 31 12/4/2018 < 5 2.5 31 32 1 /8/2019 < 5 2.5 32 33 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5 33 34 2/11 /2019 < 5 2.5 34 35 3/5/2019 < 5 2.5 35 36 4/2/2019 < 5 2.5 36 37 5/7/2019 < 5 2.5 37 38 6/4/2019 < 5 2.5 38 39 6/10/2019 < 5 2.5 39 40 7/2/2019 < 5 2.5 40 41 8/6/2019 < 5 2.5 41 42 8/12/2019 < 5 2.5 42 43 9/3/2019 < 5 2.5 43 44 10/1 /2019 < 5 2.5 44 45 11 /5/2019 < 5 2.5 45 46 11 /11 /2019 < 5 2.5 46 47 12/3/2019 < 5 2.5 47 48 1 /7/2020 < 5 2.5 48 49 2/4/2020 < 5 2.5 49 50 2/11 /2020 < 5 2.5 50 51 2/25/2020 < 2 1 51 52 3/3/2020 < 5 2.5 52 53 4/7/2020 < 5 2.5 53 54 5/5/2020 < 5 2.5 54 55 6/9/2020 < 5 2.5 55 56 6/15/2020 < 5 2.5 56 57 7/7/2020 < 5 2.5 57 58 58 21920 RPA, data -6- 9/16/2020 Parl9 Date Data 1 8/8/2016 < 2 11 /28/2016 < 3 2/13/2017 < 4 3/30/2017 < 5 6/12/2017 < 6 8/14/2017 < 7 11 /13/2017 < 8 2/25/2020 < 9 1 /23/2018 < 10 1 /15/2019 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Use "PASTE Par20 SPECIAL -Values" Use "PASTE SPECIAL - Selenium then "COPY". Silver Values" then "COPY". Maximum data Maximum data points = points = 58 58 BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 10 5 Std Dev. 1.4230 1 8/8/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.0000 10 5 Mean 4.5500 2 10/4/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean 1.3000 10 5 C.V. 0.3128 3 11/28/2016 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.7692 10 5 n 10 4 1 /5/2017 < 5 2.5 n 25 10 5 5 2/13/2017 < 5 2.5 10 5 Mult Factor = 1.36 6 3/30/2017 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.34 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 4/4/2017 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 6.8 ug/L 8 5/2/2017 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 3.350 ug/L 10 5 9 6/12/2017 < 5 2.5 10 5 10 7/6/2017 < 1 0.5 11 8/14/2017 < 5 2.5 12 10/3/2017 < 1 0.5 13 11 /13/2017 < 5 2.5 14 1 /2/2018 < 1 0.5 15 4/3/2018 < 1 0.5 16 7/3/2018 < 1 0.5 17 10/2/2018 < 1 0.5 18 1 /8/2019 < 1 0.5 19 4/2/2019 < 1 0.5 20 7/2/2019 < 1 0.5 21 10/1 /2019 < 1 0.5 22 1 /7/2020 < 1 0.5 23 2/25/2020 < 1 0.5 24 4/7/2020 < 1 0.5 25 7/7/2020 < 1 0.5 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 -7- 21920 RPA, data 9/16/2020 Par21 Date 1 8/2/2016 2 8/8/2016 3 8/9/2016 4 8/16/2016 5 8/23/2016 6 8/30/2016 7 9/6/2016 8 9/13/2016 9 9/20/2016 10 9/27/2016 11 10/4/2016 12 10/13/2016 13 10/20/2016 14 10/27/2016 15 11/1/2016 16 11 /8/2016 17 11/15/2016 18 11 /22/2016 19 11 /28/2016 20 11 /29/2016 21 12/6/2016 22 12/13/2016 23 12/22/2016 24 12/29/2016 25 1 /5/2017 26 1 /10/2017 27 1 /17/2017 28 1 /24/2017 29 1 /31 /2017 30 2/1 /2017 31 2/7/2017 32 2/13/2017 33 2/14/2017 34 2/21 /2017 35 2/28/2017 36 3/7/2017 37 3/14/2017 38 3/21 /2017 39 3/28/2017 40 3/30/2017 41 4/4/2017 42 4/11 /2017 43 4/18/2017 44 4/27/2017 45 6/12/2017 46 8/14/2017 47 11 /13/2017 48 2/12/2018 49 6/18/2018 50 8/14/2018 51 11/13/2018 52 2/11 /2019 53 6/10/2019 54 8/12/2019 55 11 /11 /2019 56 2/25/2020 57 58 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par22 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Zinc Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 Data BDL=1/2DL Results 22 22 Std Dev. 18 18 Mean 20 20 C.V. 23 23 n 23 23 25 25 Mult Factor = 22 22 Max. Value 25 25 Max. Pred Cw 25 25 24 24 34 34 19 19 32 32 34 34 23 23 21 21 24 24 26 26 28 28 33 33 32 32 30 30 25 25 23 23 29 29 30 30 24 24 49 49 29 29 29 29 27 27 27 27 31 31 25 25 25 25 26 26 36 36 25 25 26 26 28 28 26 26 28 28 22 22 23 23 22 22 23 23 32 32 30 30 27 27 25 25 24 24 31 31 32 32 25 25 36 36 17 17 5.3145 26.7857 0.1984 56 1.00 49.0 ug/L 49.0 ug/L Bromodichloromethane Date Data 1 3/30/2017 2 1 /23/2018 3 1 /15/2019 < 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 BDL=1/2DL Results 5.7 5.7 Std Dev. 6.7 6.7 Mean 5 2.5 C.V. (default) n Mult Factor = Max. Value Max. Pred Cw Use "PASTE SPECIAL Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 2.1939 4.9667 0.6000 3 3.00 6.700000 pg/L 20.100000 pg/L 21920 RPA, data 9/16/2020 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par23 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Chloroform Values" then "COPY" Maximum data points = 58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 3/30/2017 14.2 14.2 Std Dev. 5.8518 2 1/23/2018 8.1 8.1 Mean 8.2667 3 1/15/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 4 n 3 5 6 Mult Factor = 3.00 7 Max. Value 14.200000 pg/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 42.600000 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 21920 RPA, data - 9 - 9/16/2020 Whiteville WRF NCO021920 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 Qw (MGD) = 3.0000 WWTP/WTP Class: IV 1Ql0S (cfs) = 3.92 IWC% @ 1Ql0S = 54.25904317 7Q10S (cfs) = 4.70 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 49.73262032 7QIOW (cfs) = 9.10 IWC% @ 7Q10W = 33.81818182 30Q2 (cfs) = 10.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 31.74061433 Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 201.00 IW%C @ QA = 2.261123268 Receiving Stream: White Marsh HUC 03040206 Stream Class: C-Sw Outfall 001 Qw = 3 MGD COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L) Acute = 66.42 mg/L Chronic = 63.79 mg/L PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION TYPE J Chronic Standard Acute n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw Acute (FW): 626.6 Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 ug/L ----------------------------------------------- 16 0 2.8 Chronic (FW): 301.6 M_ax_MDL =5 Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 442.3 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Max MDL = 5 Monitoring required Acute: 119.80 Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q1 Os) 65 ug/L 4 0 1.30 Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) _ _ Chronic: 13.07 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 1 Monitoring required Acute: 14.004 Cadmium NC 1.1972 FW(7Q1 Os) 7.5985 ug/L 7 0 5.025 Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chronic: 2.407 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ All values reported non -detect < 5 ug/L and < 1 ug/L - No monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL Limited data set NO DETECTS' Max MDL = 5 of 1 ug/L. Acute: NO WQS Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 4 0 13.0 Note: n G 9 C.V. (default) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chronic: 945.2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10 Monitoring required Acute: 3,713.3 Chromium III NC 253.5647 FW(7QlOs) 2014.7991 µg/L 0 0 N/A --Chronic:-----509.9--- --------------------------- Acute: 29.5 Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7QlOs) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A --Chronic: ----- 22.1 --- --------------------------- Chromium, Total NC µg/L 16 0 2.5 Max reported value = 2.5 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. NO DETECTS' Max MDL = 5 Acute: 48.46 Copper NC 17.5467 FW(7Q1 Os) 26.2938 ug/L 34 2 10.50 Chronic: 35.28 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required Acute: 40.5 Cyanide NC 5 FW(7QlOs) 22 10 ug/L 18 0 5.0 Chronic: 10.1 All values reported < 5 ug/L - No monitoring required NO DETECTS' Max MDL = 10 Page 1 of 2 21920 RPA, rpa 9/16/2020 Whiteville WRF NCOO2192O Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Outfall 001 Qw = 3 MGD Acute: 413.417 Lead NC 8.3610 FW(7Q1 Os) 224.3163 ug/L 57 0 2.500 Chronic: 16.812 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5 Monitoring required Acute (FW): 1,412.0 Nickel NC 82.2404 FW(7QlOs) 766.1551 µg/L 17 1 5.5 _ _ _ _____ ____ Chronic (FW) 165.4 ___________________________ No -value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Chronic (WS) 50.3 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required Acute: 103.2 Selenium NC 5 FW(7QlOs) 56 ug/L 10 0 6.8 --Chronic: ----- 10.1 --- --------------------------- All values non -detect < 10 ug/L and < 1 ug/L - No NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10 monitoring required. Acute: 2.933 Silver NC 0.06 FW(7QlOs) 1.5913 ug/L 25 0 3.350 Chronic: 0.121 All values reported non -detect < 5 ug/L and < 1 ug/L - No monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5 of 1 ug/L. Acute: 530.2 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Zinc NC 280.2830 FW(7Q10s) 287.6778 ug/L 56 56 49.0 Monitoring required --Chronic: -----563.E--- --------------------------- No value > Allowable Cw Acute: NO WQS Bromodichloromethane C 27 HH(Qavg) µg/L 3 2 20.10000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note: n < 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 1194.097 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required Acute: NO WQS Chloroform NC 2000 HH(7Q 1 Os) µg/L 3 2 42.60000 Note: n G 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 4021.50538 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required 21920 RPA, rpa Page 2 of 2 9/16/2020 Permit No. NC0021920 NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as approved. Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection Parameter Acute FW, µg/l (Dissolved) Chronic FW, µg/1 (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: FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater Calculation = Hardness dependent standard 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). 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* 11.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} eA10.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485} Cadmium, Acute Trout waters WER* {1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} of 0.9151[In 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]-1.7001 Copper, Chronic WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.7021 Lead, Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-1.4601 Lead, Chronic WER* {1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 • of 1.273[ln hardness]-4.705} Nickel, Acute WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255} Nickel, Chronic WER*0.997 e-10.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584} Page 1 of 4 Permit No. NCO021920 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]+0.8841 Zinc, Chronic WER*0.986 e-10.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841 General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge. The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge. Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with established methodology. RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern, based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream. If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit. 1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the following information: • Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993 • Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred • Permitted flow • Receiving stream classification 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. NCO021920 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 - I Ctotal I + f [Kpo] [ss(i+a)] [10 6] Where: ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used, and Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs. 4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (le. silver), the dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document. 5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration (permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation: Ca = (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 s7Q10) s7Q10 = 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 s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable: IQIO = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity Page 3 of 4 Permit No. NC0021920 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 The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern. Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991. 7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on 40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and chromium VI. 9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset. 10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included: Parameter Value Comments (Data Source) Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L) [Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)] 92.96 Data provided in DMRs Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) [Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)] 34.93 Data provided in DMRs 7Q 10 summer (cfs) 4.7 NPDES Files 1Q10 (cfs) 3.92 Calculated in RPA Permitted Flow (MGD) 3.0 NPDES Files Date: 9/17/2020 Permit Writer: Nick Coco Page 4 of 4 Reduction in Frequency Evalaution Facility: Whiteville WRF Permit No. NC0021920 Review period (use 8/2017 - 8/2020 3 yrs) Approval Criteria: Y/N? 1. Not currently under SOS Y 2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report Y 3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA violations N # of non - Weekly Monthly 3-yr mean # daily # daily Reduce 50% 200% 200% monthly # civil penalty Data Review Units average average (geo mean < 50%? samples <15? samples < 20? limit > 2? > 1? Frequency? limit limit MA for FC) MA >200% WA >200% asessment (Yes/No) violations BOD (summer) mg/L 7.5 5 2.5 1.6918919 Y 10 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y BOD (winter) mg/L 15 10 5 1.4 Y 20 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y TSS mg/L 45 30 15 4.1235669 Y 60 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y Ammonia (summer) mg/L 5.4 1.8 0.9 0.5447568 Y 3.6 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y Ammonia (winter) mg/L 14.7 4.9 2.5 0.5289922 Y 9.8 0 Y 0 N 0 N Y Fecal Coliform #/100 400 200 100 6.163015 Y 1 800 1 Y 0 N 0 N Y Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary Whiteville-Whitemarsh WWTP NCO021920/001 County: Columbus Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2010 chr lim: 50% NonComp: Single J F M A M 2016 Pass - - Pass - 2017 Pass - - Pass - 2018 Pass - - Pass - 2019 Pass >100(P) - - Pass >100(P) - 2020 Pass - - Pass - Wildwood Green NCO063614/001 County: Wake Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2018 chr lim: 72% NonComp: Single J F M A M 2016 - Pass - - Pass 2017 - Pass - - Pass 2018 - Pass - - Pass 2019 - Pass - - Pass 2020 - Pass - - Pass Wilkesboro Cub Creek WWTP NCO021717/001 County: Wilkes Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2016 chr lim: 3.7%; if PF 6. NonComp: Single J F M A M 2016 - - Pass >14.8(P) - - 2017 - - Pass - - 2018 - - Pass - - 2019 - - >14.8(P)Pass - - 2020 - - Pass - - Williams Terminals Holdings, L.P. NCO074705/001 County: Mecklenburg Fthd24Ac Begin: 9/1/2015 24hr LC50 ac monit a NonComp: J F M A M 2016 >100 - - - - 2017 - - - - >100 2018 - - - - >100 2019 - - - - >100 Williamston WWTP NCO020044/001 County: Martin Ceri7dPF Begin: 2/1/2019 chr lim: 2.0 MGD @ 0 NonComp: Single J F M A M 2016 - - Pass >1.08(P) - - 2017 - - Pass - - 2018 - - Pass - - 2019 - - Pass - - 2020 - - Pass - - Region: W IRO Basin: LUM58 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC: 7Q10: 4.7 PF: 3.0 IWC: 50 Freq: Q J J A 5 O N - Pass - - H Pass - Pass >100(P) - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass >100(P) - - Pass - - Pass - Pass - Region: RRO Basin: NEU01 Feb May Aug Nov SOC JOC: 7Q10: 0.06 PF: 0.1 IWC: 72 Freq: Q J J A 5 O N - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass Region: WSRO Basin: YAD01 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC: 7Q10: 196 PF: 4.9 IWC: 3.72 Freq: Q J J A 5 O N Fail >14.8(P) >7.4 >7.4 Pass >14.8(P) - - Invalid Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass >14.8(P) - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 SOC—JOC: 7Q10: 0 PF: 0 IWC: 100 Freq: A J J A 5 O N Region: WARO Basin: ROA09 Mar Jun Sep Dec 70,10: 1170 PF: 2.4 IWC: 0.26 Freq: Q J J A 5 O Pass>1.08(P) - - Pass>1.08(P) - Pass - - Pass - Pass - - Pass - Pass - - Pass - Pass 0 0 D Pass >14.8(P) Pass Pass>14.2(P) Pass 0 SOC JOC: N D Pass Pass Pass Pass Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs Page 119 of 122 NCO021920 Whiteville WRF BOD monthly removal rate Month RR (%) Month RR (%) August-16 96.63 February-19 96.65 September-16 96.02 March-19 97.15 October-16 94.62 April-19 95.70 November-16 98.17 May-19 96.79 December-16 97.84 June-19 97.71 January-17 97.13 July-19 97.05 February-17 97.20 August-19 97.61 March-17 97.87 September-19 98.02 April-17 96.82 October-19 98.05 May-17 97.82 November-19 98.23 June-17 97.92 December-19 97.47 July-17 98.24 January-20 97.14 August-17 97.46 February-20 95.87 September-17 98.09 March-20 97.00 October-17 97.96 April-20 94.83 November-17 98.01 May-20 97.88 December-17 98.27 June-20 95.36 January-18 97.33 July-20 96.51 February-18 97.79 August-20 March-18 97.97 September-20 April-18 97.55 October-20 May-18 97.61 November-20 June-18 96.87 December-20 July-18 95.98 January-21 August-18 96.48 February-21 September-18 96.57 March-21 October-18 98.32 April-21 November-18 96.55 May-21 December-18 96.34 June-21 January-19 96.40 July-21 Overall BOD removal rate 97.14 9/16/2020 TSS monthly removal rate Month RR (%) Month RR (%) August-16 96.92 February-19 90.57 September-16 96.32 March-19 95.35 October-16 90.63 April-19 94.87 November-16 96.68 May-19 90.41 December-16 93.63 June-19 98.34 January-17 92.06 July-19 96.17 February-17 96.87 August-19 97.67 March-17 97.66 September-19 96.56 April-17 95.90 October-19 95.90 May-17 98.96 November-19 91.99 June-17 98.42 December-19 95.81 July-17 98.71 January-20 95.87 August-17 96.88 February-20 94.29 September-17 95.75 March-20 98.08 October-17 97.15 April-20 93.97 November-17 94.93 May-20 98.20 December-17 96.63 June-20 93.93 January-18 94.13 July-20 96.14 February-18 93.59 August-20 March-18 94.33 September-20 April-18 95.43 October-20 May-18 92.23 November-20 June-18 87.92 December-20 July-18 86.65 January-21 August-18 90.84 February-21 September-18 84.06 March-21 October-18 93.35 April-21 November-18 90.08 May-21 December-18 89.71 June-21 January-19 88.75 July-21 Overall TSSD removal rate 94.36 9/16/20 WQS = 12 ng/L Facility Name Whiteville WRF/NC0021920 /Permit No. : Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L Date Modifier Data Entry Value 8/2/16 < 1 0.5 8/9/16 < 1 0.5 8/16/16 < 1 0.5 8/23/16 < 1 0.5 8/30/16 < 1 0.5 9/6/16 1.9 1.9 9/13/16 1.4 1.4 9/20/16 < 1 0.5 9/27/16 2 2 10/6/16 1.9 1.9 10/13/16 3.5 3.5 10/20/16 2.3 2.3 10/27/16 3.6 3.6 11/1/16 4.1 4.1 11/8/16 1.7 1.7 11/15/16 1.3 1.3 11/22/16 1.8 1.8 11/29/16 3.5 3.5 12/6/16 3.8 3.8 12/13/16 2.5 2.5 12/22/16 2.5 2.5 12/29/16 < 1 0.5 1/5/17 2.3 2.3 1/10/17 1.2 1.2 1/17/17 2.1 2.1 1/24/17 2.6 2.6 1/31/17 4.2 4.2 MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION No Limit Required MMP Required 7Q10s = 4.700 cfs WQBEL = Permitted Flow = 3.000 V:2013-6 24.13 ng/L 47 ng/L 1.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016 2/1/17 4.2 4.2 2/7/17 2.2 2.2 2/14/17 1.1 1.1 2/21/17 < 1 0.5 2/28/17 < 1 0.5 3/7/17 < 1 0.5 3/14/17 < 1 0.5 3/21/17 < 1 0.5 3/28/17 < 1 0.5 4/4/17 2.5 2.5 4/11/17 1.5 1.5 4/18/17 < 1 0.5 4/27/17 1.2 1.2 5/2/17 < 1 0.5 7/6/17 1.6 1.6 10/3/17 1.9 1.9 1.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017 1/2/18 1.8 1.8 1/31/18 1.8 1.8 4/3/18 1.1 1.1 7/3/18 7.5 7.5 10/9/18 3.4 3.4 3.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018 1/8/19 11.5 11.5 4/9/19 4.2 4.2 7/2/19 1.6 1.6 10/1/19 2.7 2.7 5.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019 1/7/20 1.3 1.3 4/28/20 < 1 0.5 7/7/20 1.4 1.4 1.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020 Whiteville WRF/NC0021920 Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E) 2016 2017 2018 2019 # of Samples 22 21 5 4 Annual Average, ng/L 1.9 1.6 3.1 5.00 Maximum Value, ng/L 4.10 4.20 7.50 11.5 TBEL, ng/L 47 WQBEL, ng/L 24.1 2020 1.066667 1.4 NH3/TRC WLA Calculations Facility: Whiteville WRF PermitNo. NC0021920 Prepared By: Nick Coco Enter Design Flow (MGD): 3 Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 4.7 Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 9.1 Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) s7Q10 (CFS) 4.7 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 3 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.65 STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 IWC (%) 49.73 Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 34 Capped at 28 ug/L. Maintain limit. Ammonia (Summer) Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1) s7Q10 (CFS) 4.7 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 3 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.65 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22 IWC (%) 49.73 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 1.8 Same as current permit limit. Maintain Ammonia (Winter) Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1) Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 9.1 Monthly Average Limit: 2001100- DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 3 (If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 4.65 (If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8 Dilution Factor (DF) 2.01 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22 IWC (%) 33.82 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 4.9 Same as current permit limit. Maintain 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/l, 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) 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Final 15-2-6-3 Lumber River Basin Friar Swamp (Council Millpond) D_E Waccamaw Subbasin 03040206— From source to Big Creek Classification QSw:+ Length or Area 12 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number 4ssessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Inter Category Exceeding Criteria Severe Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 15-17-1-(1) IGrissett Swamp (Lake Tabor) From source to dam at Lake Tabor Classification B;Sw Length or Area 3 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number 4ssessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating �rameter of Interest Category Exceeding Criteria Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC) 5 15-17-1-11 1 (Juniper Swamp From North Carolina -South Carolina State Line to Grissett Swamp Classification C;Sw Length or Area 7 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating - Parameter of Inter Category Exceeding Criteria Severe Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) � I ite Marsh From Richardson Swamp to Waccamaw River Classification C;Sw Length or Area 13 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number hKessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest Category Exceeding Criteria Severe Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Coastal Carolina Subbasin 03040208 6/3/2019 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Approved by EPA May 22,2019 Page 69 of 262 Effluent Toxicity Report Form -Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test Date:4/18/2019 Fad lil :- .T,;ieviIle NPDES # NC00 21920 Pipe #: 001 County: Columbus Laboratory: Meritech, Inc. Comments Signature of Op4rator in Res�onsibl%Charge �� lU Signature of Laboratory Supervisor MAIL ORIGINAL TO: Water Sciences Section Aquatic Toxicology Branch Division of Water Resources 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621 Pest Initiation Date/Time 4/9/2019 6:42 PM Avg Wt/Surv. Control 0.530 % Eff. Repl. 1 2 3 4 Control Surviving # % Survival 100.0 Original # Wt/original (mg) Avg Wt (mg) 0.530 12.5 Surviving # % Survival 100.0 Original # Wt/original (mg) Avg Wt (mg) 0.573 25 Surviving # % Survival 100.0 Original # El WUoriginal (mg)Avg Wt (mg) 0.573 50 Surviving # % Survival 100.0 Original # Wt/original (mg) Avg Wt (mg) 0.624 75 Surviving # % Survival 000.0 Original # Wt/original (mg) Avg Wt (mg) 0.581 100 Surviving # % Survival 100.0 Original # Wt/original (mg) Avg Wt (mg) 0.627 later Quality Data Day 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.534 0.527 0.560 0.500 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.525 0.514 0.644 0.608 10 10 10 ffO. 10 10 10 5 0.540 0.577 0.579 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.757 0.526 0.720 0.491 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.626 0.554 0.464 0.681 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.650 0.621 0.599 0.639 Test Organisms Ir Cultured In -House � Outside Supplier Hatch Date: 4/8/19 Hatch Time: 3:00 pm CT Control 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 pH (SU) Init/Fin Temp (C) Init/Fin High Concentration o 1 z 3 4 5 s pH (SU) Init/Fin Sample 1 2 3 Survival Growth Collection Start Date Grab Composite (Duration) Hardness (mg/L) Alkalinity (mg/L) onductivity (umhos/cm) Chlorine(mg/L) Temp. at Receipt (°C) 8.09 / 7.90 8.19 / 8.08 8.18 / 7.84 8.16 / 8.17 8.22 / 8.08 8.33 ! 7.80 8.27 / 7.84 7.63 18.14 7.90 / 8.30 7.72 / 8.09 7.73 1 8.38 8.18 / 8.37 8.31 18.29 7.98 18.31 4/8/2019 4/10/2019 4/11/2019 23.9 23.8 24.8 60 84 82 103 103 109 354 381 385 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 1.3 1.8 Dilution H2O Batch # 1387 1389 1390 Hardness (mglL) 46 46 44 Alkalinity (mg/L) 56 55 54 onductivity (umhos/cm) 222 206 206 Normal rl F I Hom. Var. (-1 rl NOEC 100 100 LOEC >100 >100 ChV >100 >100 Method Steel's Dunnett's Overall Result ChV >100 Stats Survival Growth Cone. Critical Calculated Critical Calculated 12.5 10 18 2.41-0.8161 25 10 18 10 18 10 18 10 18 2.41-0.8161 2.41-1.7906 2.41-0.9793 2.41-1.8626 50 75 1 DO DWQ Form AT-5 (1/04) INPDES/Aauifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form I (PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART: Date of Request 9/17/2020 Requestor Nicholas Coco Facility Name Whiteville WRF Permit Number NCO021920 Reaion I Wilminaton Basin I Lumber (check aaalicable PERCS staff: PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back Check all that apply from PERCS: municipal renewal new industries WWTP expansion Speculative limits stream reclass. outfall relocation 7Q10 change BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR I � ICHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD (PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART: other other - Notify PERCS If LTMP/STMP data we said should X be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you (or NOV POTW). - Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit renewal. - Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA. - Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if changes. Other Comments to PERCS: Facility is rated 3.0 MGD wtih 1 CIUs listed in its application. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply) 1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE 2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program �I 3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development) 3a) Full Program with LTMP 3b) Modified Program with STMP 4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below Flow, MGD Industrial Uncontrollable Permitted Actual Time period for Actual STMP time frame: 0.125 0.09 2015 - 2019 Most recent: n/a 1.174 2015 - 2019 Next Cycle: a _ a Cn O a Parameter of Concern (POC) Check List POC due to NPDES/ Non- Disch Permit Limit Required by EPA* Required by 503 Sludge** POC due to SIU*** POTW POC (Explain below)**** STMP Effluent Freq LTMP Effluent Freq BO D Q TSS Q NH3 Q Arsenic Q �l Cadmium Q �l Chromium Q �l Copper Q Cyanide Q �l Lead Q Mercury Q Molybdenum Q �l Nickel Q Silver Q Selenium Q Zinc Q % solids Q Oil and Grease Q Cobalt Q Tin Q Q Q Q = Quarterly M = Monthly Is all data on DMRs? YES NO (attach data Is data in sareadsheet? YES (email to writer) NO *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 W riter (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems): The City added another industry to their pretreatment program, totaling 2 industrial users. PERC NPDES_ Pretreatment. request.form.may2016 Revised: July 24, 2007 United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 OMB No. 2040-0057 Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98 Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS) Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type 1 IN 1 2 IS I 3 I NCO021920 I11 121 20/02/18 I17 18 n 191 G I 201 21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 f6 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 CA ---------------------- Reserved ------------------- 67 701LJ s I 71 Ip tyI 72 I Ln, I 73LLI74 71 I I I I I I I80 J Section B: Facility Data Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 10:OOAM 20/02/18 17/05/01 Whiteville WRF 1000 Nolan Ave Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date Whiteville NC 28472 11:45AM 20/02/18 19/08/31 Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Clint Ward//910-642-5818 ext 7001/9106423094 Daniel Clinton Ward/ORC/910-654-4148/ Newlyn L McCullen//910-642-5818 /9106423094 Newlyn Lee McCullen/ORC/910-642-5818/ Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Contacted Brandon S Rich,1000 Nolan Ave Whiteville NC 28472/Pretreatment Coordinator/910-642-5818/9106423094 Yes Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules Effluent/Receiving Wate 0 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 Bryan Lievre DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7215/ Dean Hunkele DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7215/ Tyler G Benson DWR/WIRO WQ/910-796-7336/ Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date Tom Tharrington DWR/WIRO WQ/ - - / EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page# NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 31 NCO021920 I11 12I 20/02/18 117 18 U Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) Overall the facility is operated and maintained well. However, a few issues were noted that should be addressed: 1. Material removed from secondary clarifiers not disposed of properly. 2. Sampler temps or thermometer issues need to be addressed. 3. Manual bypass screen at headworks was plugged with leaves from last high flow event. This needs to be kept clean & ready for use. 4. Need to ensure the facility's Annual Wastewater Performance Reports are submitted and received by the Division; checking the Division's Laserfiche portal can confirm receipt. Last documented report located was for collection system permit for CY 2017. A Notice of Deficiency will be issued for the above. Page# Permit: NCO021920 Owner - Facility: Whiteville WRF Inspection Date: 02/18/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Permit Yes No NA NE (If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ application? Is the facility as described in the permit? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ # Are there any special conditions for the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Permit expired at end of 8-2019 and renewal app submitted in 2-2019; draftinq and issuance likely months away. Currrent permit indicates that it has an influent flow meter, but it does not; the effluent meter is being used to signal influent sampler to sample. Old polishinq ponc special condition A(5) met. Compliance Schedules Yes No NA NE Is there a compliance schedule for this facility? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Condition A(5) had a schedule -- project complete. No violations since last CEI in June 2018. 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? 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 operatc 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? Yes No NA NE ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page# 3 Permit: NCO021920 Owner - Facility: Whiteville WRF Inspection Date: 02/18/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification' 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Reviewed reports & data from 3-2019 and 9-2019 finding no issues. No recent Annual WW Performance Reports could be located on DWR's laserfiche site nor in regional office files; City needs to be sure these are being filed with DWR for the WWTP and the collection system permits. Last report located was for CY 2017 and was only for collection system. Laboratory Yes No NA NE Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the facility using a contract lab? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ # 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Facility has in-house lab that handles some of the primary parameters like bacti and TSS with rest done by Environment 1 in Greenville NC. Bar Screens Type of bar screen a.Manual b.Mechanical Are the bars adequately screening debris? Is the screen free of excessive debris? Is disposal of screening in compliance? Is the unit in good condition? Yes No NA NE ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Automatic barscreen design could be better in that a qood portion of collected debris drops back down during the cleaning cycle. The manual bypass screen was completely plugged by leaves from the last apparent very hiqh flow event -- this needs to be kept clean for when its needed. Grit Removal Type of grit removal a.Manual b.Mechanical Yes No NA NE Page# 4 Permit: NCO021920 Inspection Date: 02/18/2020 Grit Removal Is the grit free of excessive organic matter? Is the grit free of excessive odor? # Is disposal of grit in compliance? Comment: Influent Sampling # Is composite sampling flow proportional? Is sample collected above side streams? Owner - Facility: Whiteville WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Is proper volume collected? Is the tubing clean? # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? Is sampling performed according to the permit? Yes No NA NE ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No NA NE ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The sampler is connected via wireless transmitter with the effluent flow meter to determine when samplinq occurs. The thermometer inside the sampler read -8C, but sample wasn't frozen; the thermometer was either placed inside the unit or had its last annual calibration check durinq 2018. Clearly, something wasn't correct or accurate between the unit's settinq/thermometer and the one placed inside. 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? Yes No NA NE • ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Comment: Triplex station with a temporary bypass connection; new pump on order for it. Connection was used during Florence when on -site generator failed from flooding. Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE Are the aerators operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up? ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the DO level acceptable? ❑ ❑ ❑ Page# 5 Permit: NCO021920 Owner - Facility: Whiteville WRF Inspection Date: 02/18/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1) ❑ ❑ ❑ Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes) ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Color and consistency of mixed liquor looked very qood with little to no foam. The ditch system is a BNR design with anoxic & anaerobic basins upfront. Secondary Clarifier Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? Are weirs level? Is the site free of weir blockage? Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? Is scum removal adequate? Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? Is the drive unit operational? Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth) Yes No NA NE ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Comment: Weirs/baffles were a little dirtier than expected, but not bad. However, piles of previously removed debris were observed laying on the ground beside at least 2 of the units; this should be diposed of properly once removed, but definitely within 1-2 days. Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Type of operation: Is the filter media present? Is the filter surface free of clogging? Is the filter free of growth? Is the air scour operational? Is the scouring acceptable? Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? Comment: Disinfection -Liquid Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? Yes No NA NE Cross flow ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No NA NE ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Page# 6 Permit: NCO021920 Owner - Facility: Whiteville WRF Inspection Date: 02/18/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Disinfection -Liquid Yes No NA NE (Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Facility is currrently usinq small totes to dose as the main tank replaced after Florence developed a leak. Leak has been fixed and must waitinq on new chemical delivery. De -chlorination Type of system ? Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? Is storage appropriate for cylinders? # Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? Comment: Are the tablets the proper size and type? Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? Number of tubes in use? Comment: VMM. ill r•7ill rim ill I:I Liquid ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the flow meter operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Meter transmits signal to influent sampler to collect its sample. Last calibration done on 5-16-2019. Effluent Sam plinq Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected below all treatment units? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Celsius)? Page# 7 Permit: NCO021920 Owner - Facility: Whiteville WRF Inspection Date: 02/18/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ representative)? Comment: Thermometer inside cabinet read 8C, but marked same as one inside influent sampler from 2018. Need to check these and write down temp when sampler is set up for the day and when samples removed next day. Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ❑ ❑ ❑ If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Comment: Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, an( 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ sampling location)? Comment: Standby Power Yes No NA NE Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested under load? ❑ ❑ ❑ Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator fuel level monitored? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Generator was exercising during the visit Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑ Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable? Comment: Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Is the capacity adequate? ❑ ❑ ❑ Page# 8 Permit: NC0021920 Inspection Date: 02/18/2020 Aerobic Digester Is the mixing adequate? Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? # Is the odor acceptable? # Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? Comment: Owner - Facility: Whiteville WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Yes No NA NE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page# 9 Attachment A —Request for Missing Information Table 2. EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information 1.1 Email address of facility contact , rn=k i\ co :• W �1("�Vi ��a f1L.Ll 1.2 Applicant email,address : d c_.c�r 1 e- e— b, w j I le, rica u 1.3 Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge 1.4 Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge 1.5 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(n)? (Check all that apply. Consult with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.) ❑ Discharges into marine waters (CWA Section ❑ Water quality related effluent limitation (CWA 301(h)) Section 302(b)(2)) Not applicable 1.6 Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works i 1.7 Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge to the POTW. Number of SIUs Number of CIUs 1 1 8 Certification Statement 1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Name (print or type first and last name) Official title Signature Date signe August 5, 2019 Wastewater Branch Water Quality Permitting Section Division of Water Resources 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Subject: Delegation of Signature Authority WHITEVILLE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY NPDES Permit Number NCO021920 To Whom It May Concern: By notice of this letter, I hereby delegate signatory authority to each of the following individuals for all permit applications, discharge monitoring reports, and other information relating to the operations at the subject facility as required by all applicable federal, state, and local environmental agencies specifically with the requirements for signatory authority as specified in 15A NCAC 2B.0506. Individual #1 Name: Newlyn Mccullen Title: Wwrf Director Mailing Address: Po Box 607 Whiteville, NC 28472 Physical Address: (f different) 1000 Nolan Ave. Whiteville, Nc 28472 Email Address: nmccullen@ci.whiteville.nc.us Office Phone: 910 - 642 - 5818 Mobile Phone: 910 - 499 - 2197 Individual #2 (rf applicable) If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at dcurrie@ci.whiteville.ne.us/910-642-8046. Sincerely, Darren Currie City Manager PO Box 607 Whiteville, NC 28472 Dcurrie@Ci. W h itev it le.Nc.Us 910-642-8046 910-770-3754 cc: Wilmington Regional Office, Water Quality Permitting Section