The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0036196_Permit (Issuance)_20170608NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET NC0036196 Clark Creek WWTP NPDES Permit: Document Type: Permit Issuance Wasteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Correspondence Owner Name Change Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: June 8, 2017 This document is printed on reuse paper - 'more any content on the re'rerse side Water Resources ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secremly S. JAY ZIMMERMAN June 8, 2017 Mr. E.T. Clark, City Manager City of Newton P.O. Box 550 Newton, NC 28658-0550 Subject: Final NPDES Permit Renewal NPDES Permit NC0036196 Clark Creek WWTP Catawba County Class IV Facility SIC code 4952 Dear Mr. Clark: Director Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended). The following addition was made to the final permit and was not in the draft permit sent to you on February 22, 2017: • Effluent data reported for silver was all less than detection at a detection level of less than 5 µg/L. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 all test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements. All data generated must be reported to the approved detection level or lower reporting level of the procedure. Currently, DWR's laboratory identifies the Practical Quantitation Level (PQL) for silver at < 1 µg/L. The allowable discharge concentration for your facility is 0.106 µg/L. Therefore, future sampling for silver as part of the facility's Pretreatment Program and Effluent Pollutant Scan should sample silver down to the lower reporting level of the procedure which is < 1 µg/L. No limits or additional monitoring requirements for silver were added to the permit at this time. • The mercury minimization plan (MMP) in section A. (6) shall be developed by December 28, 2017. • Required units of measurement have been included for all parameters in section A. (1) and A. (2). • The measurement frequency and sample type for the Effluent Pollutant Scan in section A. (1) and A. (2) has changed in format to direct you to Footnote 7. • The Effluent Pollutant Scan has been updated to include the text "Monitor and Report" in section A. (1) and A. (2). State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 807 6300 Page 12 This final permit contains the following changes from your previous permit: • The NC 2007-2014 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC Environmental Management Committee (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016 with some exceptions. The NC Division of Water Resources NPDES Permitting Unit is required to implement the new dissolved metal standards in all permits public noticed after April 6, 2016. The new standards for most metals include acute standards. Further, the freshwater standards for several metals are expressed as the dissolved form of the metals, and seven metals have hardness -dependent equations. As a result, the NPDES Permitting Unit will need site -specific effluent hardness data and instream hardness data, upstream of the discharge, for each facility monitoring these metals in order to calculate permit limitations. Effluent hardness and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, has been added to this permit at a monitoring frequency of quarterly. See Special Conditions A. (1) and A. (2) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements. • Effluent Pollutant Scan frequency has changed from annual to 3 times per permit cycle [see A. (5)]. • Regulatory citations have been added to the permit. • Effluent characteristic codes have been added in section A. (1) and A. (2). • An updated outfall map has been included. • Quarterly monitoring for lead has been included in section A. (1) and A. (2) because the reasonable potential analysis showed that the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable discharge limit. • Monitoring for copper and zinc has been removed from section A. (1) and A. (2) based on no reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards. • Please note that mercury must be sampled using method 1631E as outlined in this and prior versions of your permit [see A. (5)]. • Summer ammonia nitrogen limits for the 5.0 MGD Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements in Section A. (1) have been lowered to 1.6 mg/L monthly average and 4.8 mg/L weekly average. Winter ammonia nitrogen limits for 5.0 MGD have been lowered to 3.8 mg/L monthly average and 11.4 mg/L weekly average based on the ammonia nitrogen waste load allocation calculation to protect for chronic ammonia criteria. A review of effluent data shows that this facility can meet the more stringent ammonia nitrogen standards. • Section A. (6) has been added to require a Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP) based on the statewide mercury TMDL approved by EPA in 2012. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/l) receive an MMP requirement. • Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective on December 21, 2015. The requirement to begin reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application has been added to your final NPDES permit [see Special Condition A. (7)]. Page 13 For information on eDMR, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the following web page: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water- resources/edmr. For more information on EPA's final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, please visit the following web site: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/22/2015- 24954/national-pol lutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-electronic-reporting-rule. Please note that the receiving stream is listed as impaired for benthos on North Carolina's 2014 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Addressing impaired waters is a high priority with the Division, and instream data will continue to be evaluated. If there is noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and the stream impairment can be attributed to your facility, then mitigative measures may be required. If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699- 6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding. Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Resources or any other Federal, State, or Local governmental permits that may be required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Jennifer Busam at (919) 807-6393 or via email at jennifer.busam®ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, y Zimm ector, Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ Hardcopy: NPDES Files Central Files DWR/Mooresville Regional Office/Corey Basinger DWR/ PERCS/Deborah Gore Copies: US EPA Region 4 DWR/Aquatic Toxicology Branch/Susan Meadows City of Newton/ Wastewater Superintendent/Mr. Eric Jones City of Newton/ Public Works Director/Mr. James Wentz Permit NC0036196 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the City of Newton is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the Clark Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 1407 McKay Road Newton, North Carolina Catawba County to receiving waters designated as Clark Creek in the Catawba River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof. This permit shall become effective July 1, 2017. This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2020. Signed this day June 8, 2017. O Zimmerm ector, Division of Water Resources By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Page 1 of 13 Permit NC00361'96 SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein. The City of Newton is hereby authorized to: 1. Continue to operate an existing 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility that includes the following components: • Influent pump station • Mechanical screen • Two aerated grit chambers • Lime addition • Two primary clarifiers • Four aeration basins • Three secondary clarifiers • Two dual media filters • Dual chlorine contact basins • Dechlorination • Two gravity sludge thickeners • Two centrifuge sludge thickeners • Post aeration • Standby generator The facility is located at the Clark Creek WWTP, 1407 McKay Road in Newton, Catawba County. 2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division, expand the wastewater treatment facility to 7.5 MGD. 3. Discharge from said treatment works via Outfall 001 at the location specified on the attached map into Clark Creek, currently classified C waters in the Catawba River Basin. Page 2 of 13 Permit NC0036196 Part I A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (5.0 MGD) [15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 15A NCAC 02B.0500 et seq.] During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above 5.0 MGD or permit expiration, whichever is sooner, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below: i-`: •:7+` ,,: 1�' 1 * i .e^. �� - '2 } ,. r .! 7 L;[7'.' �'C.3`n n1. r .tiy.r.. � J�"'t F �.�'� �L� c AR��leTR�G■�nRi�CTER�S1' CS � }.. -^L : L •J �_ ` Y T /}}/��//�y�� ti�, t■tr •� • nn.1 } �- {• l ...' a:-.'#4 .`,-, -1 . i_- - ^. i'� . .t• Z.. tea. _ •a. �.,i-t--.: l fi sx cx• Ma-: R `. ,3i� am r}r.. -s,rr A 7 �t � Y' '��l`w w-.n. sri:.5.". l ]IK y i• •S' "`. `��.�1E�M�TS x ;:.. . � . 7 .-�. i a iiJ '�'w'd•i .Fr- - M� . #ia�. �S' t f+•a-.1': ! ' ."..: T '-7 S-"^ l ' .' i _ L MON�fid�,�G�QU��R\E � �y{. � s - .- ,`yMogth i f 9p , • �}!�:x- : t :.� Gti. •F.a:+. ,-",1-_.,1 � x� �r;�l Olio-w� rge �� .-n.J-� " j,�� '� o ± �_L 1 ��y � ::MaA ju "i Xv. xr°� .�� ..15 .. Q4`�l� i�� 1 t P �ement ' J' ue r s 1��_,�_T'a. �'7_� _a r�yR � * r e y I y!=, ', i - pt� +-_• Tc � _.ems, ^4 ' S`aTy�ry ,, ;� } 1np e j _ 4 .. �%Q .� ..•3'-3��s�."'.1^',l. Flow 50050 5.0 MGD Continuous Recording Influent or Effluent BOD, 5-day, (20°C) 2 -*Summer C0310 15.0 mg/L 22.5 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent BOD, 5-day, (20°C) 2 - *Winter C0310 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite influent and Effluent Total Suspended Solids 2 C0530 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent NH3 as N — *Summer C0610 1.6 mg/L 4.8 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent NH3 as N — *Winter C0610 3.8 mg/L 11.4 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent Dissolved Oxygen 00300 Daily Average > 5.0 mg/L Daily Grab Effluent Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 00300 Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Fecal Coliform 31616 (geometric mean) 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Daily Grab Effluent Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) (#1100 mL) 31616 Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Total Residual Chlorine 5 50060 28 pg/L Daily Grab Effluent Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN) C0600 (m9/-) Monthly Composite Effluent Total Phosphorus (mg/L) C0665 Monthly Composite Effluent Total Lead 8 (pg/L) 01051 Quarterly Composite Effluent Temperature (°C) 00010 Daily Grab Effluent Temperature (°C) 00010 Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Conductivity (pmhos/cm) 00094 Weekly Grab Effluent Conductivity (pmhos/cm) 00094 Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Chronic Toxicity 6 TGP3B Quarterly Composite Effluent pH 00400 Between 6.0 and 9.0 standard units Daily Grab Effluent Effluent Pollutant Scan NC01 Monitor and Report Footnote 7 Footnote 7 Effluent Hardness- Total as [CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)] (mg/L) 8 00900 Quarterly Composite Effluent Hardness- Total as [CaCO3 ar 00900 (Ca + Mg)] (mg/L) Quarterly Grab Upstream 3 ummer: Aaril 1— October 31 *Winter: November 1— March 31 Page 3 of 13 Permit NC00361'96 Footnotes: 1. The permittee shall submit discharge monitoring reports electronically using the NC DWR's eDMR application system [see A. (7)]. 2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85%) removal. 3. The upstream sampling location is at NCSR 2014 and the downstream location at NCSR 2007. 4. Instream samples shall be collected 3/week June through September and 1/week October through May. 5. The Division shall consider all effluent total residual chlorine values reported below 50 µg/L to be in compliance with the permit. However, the permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/L. 6. Whole effluent toxicity will be evaluated using Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F test at 56% during the months of March, June, September and December. See section A. (3). 7. The permittee shall preform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit [see A. (5)]. 8. Effluent hardness sampling should be performed in conjunction with testing for metals. THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Page 4 of 13 Permit NC0036196 A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (7.5 MGD) [15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 15A NCAC 02B.0500 et seq.] Beginning upon receipt of the Engineer's Certification for completion of the 7.5 MGD expansion and lasting until permit expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Pennittee as specified below: .. . T _A z,v0-7 „%1'L�[• . Ar > ^�. }e ...� 's..r^_11'..^•. +T'�• � .C�'� a....c w ` '-� ="t``� 1"Z`S- _ °�_ �7•' ' tK .. -- .....• v ,, .T )) r��j. ��• .Y;�.,�a2*Li -.ri.. `SLw -I 11�17 _^ �' i�.^�w''F' y. .. F�' t i':i .fir .s.,fA - J.�_ VVi '>' C Yld1Y' mod � T _ t ;� • :- , i . -� i ' 3 . f �1. 365+.i..i •' � '"r :;{1 .:, l IIF �^ .di --:-. "�i; _ , �.- .. ..— t^ •.'. ny� z}i "S[` >l " ilorfhfy %�-'fe. �FSr �4 �i i � i s�YT-i � ;:; e l ,' . rr�' .-t^ Dai t `` y MA•—!!!�.� 1 :r � 'xY-.v, �'+.T:?Y" ' s1irement S.'• - + ue •- _�2 - P Y i }• r. : / „ r- r--.n.--� ' . h ' . : - 1` +t...�.- lT- ...� YN� �+�` tr. Flow 50050 7.5 MGD Continuous Recording Influent or Effluent BOD, 5-day, (20°C) 2 -*Summer C0310 15.0 mg/L 22.5 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent BOD, 5-day, (20°C) 2- *Winter C0310 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent Total Suspended Solids 2 C0530 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent NH3 as N — *Summer C0610 1.4 mg/L 4.2 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent NH3 as N — *Winter C0610 3.2 mg/L 9.6 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent Dissolved Oxygen 00300 Daily Average > 5.0 mg/L Daily Grab Effluent Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 00300 Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Fecal Coliform 31616 (geometric mean) 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Daily Grab Effluent Fecal Coliform 31616 (geometric mean) (#/100mL) Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Total Residual Chlorine 5 50060 26 Ng/L Daily Grab Effluent Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN) C0600 (mg/L) Monthly Composite Effluent Total Phosphorus (mg/L) C0665 Monthly Composite Effluent Total Lead 8 (pg/L) 01051 Quarterly Composite Effluent Temperature (°C) 00010 Daily Grab Effluent Temperature (°C) 00010 Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Conductivity (pmhos/cm) 00094 Weekly Grab Effluent Conductivity (pmhos/cm) 00094 Variable 4 Grab Upstream and Downstream 3 Chronic Toxicity 6 TGP3B Quarterly Composite Effluent pH 00400 Between 6.0 and 9.0 standard units Daily Grab Effluent Effluent Pollutant Scan NC01 . Monitor and Report Footnote 7 Footnote 7 Effluent Hardness- Total as [CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)] (mg/L) $ 00900 • Quarterly Composite Effluent Hardness- Total as [CaCO3 or 00900 (Ca + Mg)] (mg/L) Quarterly Grab Upstream 3 *Summer. April 1— October 31 *Winter: November 1— March 31 Page 5 of 13 Permit NC0036196 7' Footnotes: 1. The permittee shall submit discharge monitoring reports electronically using the NC DWR's eDMR application system [see A. (7)]. 2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85%) removal. 3. The upstream sampling location is at NCSR 2014 and the downstream location at NCSR 2007. 4. Instream samples shall be collected 3/week June through September and 1/week October through May. 5. The Division shall consider all effluent total residual chlorine values reported below 50 µg/L to be in compliance with the permit. However, the permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/L. 6. Whole effluent toxicity will be evaluated using Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F test at 66% during the months of March, June, September and December. See section A. (4). 7. The permittee shall preform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit [see A. (5)]. 8. Effluent hardness sampling should be performed in conjunction with testing for metals. THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Page 6 of 13 Permit N00036196 • A. (3) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY at 5.0 MGD) [15A NCAC 02B.0200 et seq.] The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 56%. The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the `North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010, or subsequent versions or `North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September and December. These months signify the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes. If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December 2010) or subsequent versions. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWR Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address: Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made. Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited above. Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the final day of the third month. Page 7 of 13 Permit NC0036 f96 Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring. A. (4) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY at 7.5 MGD) [15A NCAC 02B.0200 et seq.] The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 66%. The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September and December. These months signify the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes. If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December 2010) or subsequent versions. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWR Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address: Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made. Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Page 8 of 13 Permit NC0036196 Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited above. Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the final day of the third month. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring. A. (5) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN [NCGS 143-215.1 (b)] The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below. One scan must be performed in each of the following years: 2017, 2018, and 2019. Analytical methods shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether parameters are present in concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples should be collected with one quarterly toxicity test each year, and must represent seasonal variation [i.e., do not sample in the same quarter every year]. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Ammonia (as N) Chlorine (total residual, TRC) Dissolved oxygen Nitrate Nitrite Kjeldahl nitrogen Oil and grease Phosphorus Total dissolved solids Hardness Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury (Method 1631E) C0610 50060 00300 00620 00615 00625 00556 C0665 70295 00900 01097 01002 01012 01027 01034 01042 01051 COMER 1,2-dichloroethane Trans-1,2-dichloroethyiene 1,1-dichloroethylene 1,2-dichloropropane 1,3-dichloropropylene Ethylbenzene Methyl bromide Methyl chloride Methylene chloride 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Toluene 1,1,1-trichloroethane 1,1,2-trichloroethane Trichloroethylene Vinyl chloride Acid -extractable compounds: P-chloro-m-cresol Page 9 of 13 32103 34546 34501 34541 77163 34371 34413 34418 34423 81549 34475 34010 34506 34511 39180 39175 34452 Bis (2-chlaroethoxy) methane Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether Bis (2.chioroisopropyl) ether Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether Butyl benzyl phthalate 2-chloronaphthalene 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1,2-dichbrobenzene 1,3-d€chlorobenzene 1,4-dichlorobenzene 3,3-dichlorobenzidine Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate 34278 34273 34283 39100 34636 34292 34581 34641 34320 39110 34596 34556 34536 34566 34571 34631 34336 34341 Permit NC0036196 Nickel 01067 2-chlorophenol 34586 2,4-dinitrotoluene 34611 Selenium 01147 2,4-dichborophenol 34601 2,6-dinitrotoluene C0626 Silver 01077 2,4-dimethylphenol 34606 1,2-diphenyfhydrazine 34346 Thallium 01059 4,6-dinft o-o-cxesol 34657 Fiuoranthene C0376 Zinc 01092 2,4-dinitrophenol 34616 Fluorene 34381 Cyanide 00720 2-nitrophenol 34591 Hexachiorobenzene C0700 Total phenolic compounds 32730 4-nitrophenol 34646 Hexachlorobutadiene 39702 Volatile organic compounds: Pentachlorophenol 39032 Hexachlorocycio-pentadiene 34386 Acrolein 34210 Phenol 34694 Hexachloroethane 34396 Acrylonitrile 34215 2,4,6-tridtbrophenol 34621 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 34403 Benzene 34030 Base -neutral compounds: Isophorone 34408 Bromoform 32104 Acenaphthene 34205 Naphthalene 34696 Carbon tetrachloride 32102 Acenaphthylene 34200 Nitrobenzene 34447 •Chlorobenzene 34301 Anthracene CO220 N-nttrosodi-n-propylamine 34428 Chtorodibromomethane 34306 Benzidine 39120 N-nitrosodimethyiamine 34438 Chloroethane 85811 Benzo(a)anthracene 34526 N-nttrosodiphenylamine 34433 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether 34576 Benzo(a)pyrene 34247 Phenanthrene 34461 Chloroform 32106 3,4 benzofluoranthene 34230 Pyrene 34469 Bichlorobromomethane 32101 Benzo(ghi)perylene 34521 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 34551 1,1-dich oroethane 34496 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 34242 Reporting. Test results shall be reported electronically via eDMR or on DWR Form — DMR-PPA-1 (or on a form approved by the Director) by December 31 st of each designated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the following address: NC DEQ / DWR / Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617. Additional Toxicity Testing Requirements for Municipal Permit Renewal. Please note that Municipal facilities that are subject to the Effluent Pollutant Scan requirements listed above are also subject to additional toxicity testing requirements specified in Federal Regulation 40 CFR 122.21(j)(5) and EPA Municipal Application Form 2A. The US EPA requires four (4) toxicity tests for a test organism other than the test species currently required in this permit. The second species tests should be conducted either quarterly for a 12-month period prior to submittal of the permit renewal application, or four tests performed at least annually in the four and one half year period prior to the application. The second species tests must be multiple concentration (5 concentrations plus the control). These tests shall be performed for acute or chronic toxicity, whichever is specified in this permit. POTWs performing NPDES chronic Ceriodaphnia testing should perform chronic Fathead minnow testing. POTWs performing NPDES acute Fathead Minnow testing should perform acute Ceriodaphnia testing. POTWs performing NPDES chronic Mysid shrimp testing should perform chronic Silverside Minnow testing. The second species toxicity test results shall be filed with the Aquatic Toxicology Branch at the following address: North Carolina Division of Water Resources Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Contact the Division's Aquatic Toxicology Branch at 919-743-8401 for guidance on conducting the additional toxicity tests and reporting requirements. Results should also be summarized in Part E (Toxicity Testing Data) of EPA Municipal Application Form 2A, when submitting the permit renewal application to the NPDES Permitting Unit. Page 10 of 13 Permit NC0036196 A. (6) MERCURY MINIMIZATION PLAN (MMP) [NCGS 143-215.1 (b)] The permittee shall develop and implement a mercury minimization plan during this permit term. The MMP shall be developed by December 28, 2017, and shall be available for inspection on -site. A sample MMP was developed through a stakeholder review process and has been placed on the Division website for guidance (http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater- branch/npdes-wastewater-permits, under Model Mercury Minimization Plan). The MMP should place emphasis on identification of mercury contributors and goals for reduction. Results shall be summarized and submitted with the next permit renewal. Performance of the Mercury Minimization Plan will meet the requirements of the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for mercury approved by USEPA on October 12, 2012, unless and until a Waste Load Allocation specific to this facility is developed and this NPDES permit is amended to require further actions to address the Waste Load Allocation. A. (7) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING REPORTS [NCGS 143-215.1 (b)] Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective on December 21, 2015. NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part 11 of this permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits): • Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements • Section D. (2.) Reporting • Section D. (6.) Records Retention • Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports 1. Reporting Requirements [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)1 The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application. Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing, signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the following address: • NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section ATTENTION: Central Files 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Page 11 of 13 Permit NC0036196 If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the mailing address above. See "How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below. Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the following compliance monitoring data and reports, when applicable: • Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports; • Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and • Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports. The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below). 2. Electronic Submissions In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9), the permittee must identify the initial recipient at the time of each electronic submission. The permittee should use the EPA's website resources to identify the initial recipient for the electronic submission. Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities means the entity (EPA or the state authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program) that is the designated entity for receiving electronic NPDES data [see 40 CFR 127.2(b)]. EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic reporting tool for each type of electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to access and use the appropriate electronic reporting tool will be available as well. Information on EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is found at: hops://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/22/2015-24954/national- pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-electronic-reporting-rule Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the "Reporting Requirements" section above. 3. How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To obtain an electronic reporting waiver, a permittee must first submit an electronic reporting waiver request to the Division. Requests for temporary electronic reporting waivers must be submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date the facility would be required under this permit to begin submitting monitoring data and reports. The duration of a temporary waiver shall not exceed 5 years and shall thereupon expire. At such time, monitoring data and reports shall be submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new temporary electronic reporting waiver by the Division. Approved electronic reporting waivers are not transferrable. Only permittees with an approved reporting waiver request may submit monitoring data Page 12 of 13 Permit NC0036196 and reports on paper to the Division for the period that the approved reporting waiver request is effective. Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are found on the following web page: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr 4. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)1 All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR reporting purposes. For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the following web page: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED: "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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations." 5. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)1 The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR 122.41]. Page 13 of 13 McKay Road Approximate Facility Location Outfall 001 City of Newton Clark Creek WWTP NPDES Permit NC0036196 Stream Segment: 11-129-5-(0.3) River Basin: Catawba County: Catawba Receiving Stream: Clark Creek Stream Class: C Sub -Basin #: 03-08-35 H UC: 0305010203 A SCALE 1:24,000 Facility Location scale not shown 35.626111°,-81.231944° USGS Quad: Newton 1' // Major Permits- CHECK LIST Facility _Aim J1?J1..{J (xtekM /Z' Permit No. e S6Mjellrikr � n Y 7 NPDES Permit Writer: T k Date Notes / Review Application te1 Get DMRs for evaluation period /Compliancehistory A(C7) / 2�llli Mk be wXx%L 26111-Aa . ,a76 El WET results ceif ' Q.SSity Jl/1CL 4a, iPERCs pretreatment form 1 I / 7i1/ Jj hl A901 60_„ , oy, 1 DMR data entry fo trea , PERCS, or other MC,S Pnim data wuLa 3 ciou.ta LhAect. / 1PA &Oct pawl .3d0 IG,-dte/ ed aIuItop 1 Check for PPAs (3) die ppfs O 2/ZLc/Uij /Check for 2nd Species Tox Tests (4) -e/y, /Ij 0 V/^,., , 9L•U7/l Dld / Fact Sheet: Basic Facility Information iFact Sheet: Receiving Waterbody Information I) --(211 - "(6, 7) - L , °Ct„ t crap/ 2 Fact Sheet: 303(d) Listing? L/t // 4c1 a r Fact Sheet: Effluent Data Summary 2(Fact Sheet: Instream Data Summary (STORET or Aui/ ; D� 1 BIMS) Fact Sheet: WQBELS 1 Fact Sheet: Ammonia and TRC calculation IF �,2, 'i ct Sheet: Reasonable Potential Analysis V,e( r/ t/dfZ 5 � " /`2j? r( y #fft/ PO Se/9f . arle PO? alio/WIC4W11- , or / [ imi ii/J Dissolved Metals Implementation Fact Sheet UU Hardness monitoring requirements /Fact ---, Sheet: Mercury evaluation / /� /� l l IUO �it u ��iyjnp -� r .� I4i1iif /1P , / /' `J �� i F ct Sheet: Check Basin Plan and server for MD or management strategies Fact Sheet: Antidegradation, TBELs, Antibacksliding It12.11110 Version 21NOV2016 a` Fact Sheet: Summary of proposed permitting actions kite ft 7 , it gg/n/j 01 447(1/110 C ,, G" d Special Conditions: eDMR, nutrient re -openers, / etc. r n a h.n ., c.. (�, M>�1 P Tot 5 & 7 . L, Lo /• , , lii Draft permit: Parameter codes M;YU 2.(, 1 Draft permit: footnotes 1 rum U, 9.3 Draft permit: regulatory citations IDraft I\i CV ^� cover letter with proposed changes 1 New Map 0 0 0 0 Notes: Version 21NOV2016 Hickory Daily Record Advertising Affidavit PO Box 968 Hickory, NC 28603 NCDEQ/DWR ATTN: WREN THEDFORD 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617 Account Number 3611028 Date March 02, 2017 Date Category Description Ad Number Ad Size 03/08/2017 Legal Notices Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/ NPDi s Unit 1617 Mall Service Center Raleigh. NC 27699-1617 Notice of Intent to issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposets to Issue a NPDES wastewater dis- charge permit to the person(s) listed below. Written comments regarding the proposed permit will bo accept- ed until 30 days after the publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a public hearing should there be a significant degree of public Interest- Please mall com- ments and/or Information requests to DWR at the above address_ Inter- ested persons may visit the owR at 512 N. Salisbury Street. Raleigh. NC to review Information en file. Addi- tional Information on NP06 permits and thin notice may bo found on our webatte: 1lttna//.jdq ri uav/aybvoustp/in r131ona tnr•r t#7 rces. bJlo- br ne,rzea-aC w t waste a r- brahCn noc a -Was owatet r6 peticea.or by calling <919) 807-6397. The City of NeWten has requested renewal of permit NC0036196 for Clark creek WWTP In Catawba County: this permitted discharge Is treated wastewater to Clark creek in the Catawba River Basin. PUBLISH: Thursday. Marcia 2. 2017 Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management Com 0000322699 Publisher of Hickory Daily Record Catawba County 1 x 39 L Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Catawba County, North Carolina, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, in said County and State; that he/she is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a copy of which is attached hereto, was published in the Hickory Daily Record on the following dates: 03/02/2017 and that the said newspaper in which such notice, or legal advertisement was published, was a newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolin ssistant Bookkeeper Newspaper reference: 0000322699 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this (� day of My Commission expires: ge,401,—,..-'2.‘o ea 0 w�L THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NC0036196 Permit Writer/Email Contact: Jennifer Busam, jennifer.busam@ncdenr.gov Date: December 7, 2016 Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit Fact Sheet Template: Version 08Sept2016 Permitting Action: ® Renewal ❑ Renewal with Expansion ❑ New Discharge O 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 Newton/ Newton Clark Creek WWTP Applicant Address: P.O. Box 550, Newton NC 28658 Facility Address: 1407 McKay Road, Newton NC 28658 Permitted Flow: 5.0 / 7.5 MGD Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 94% domestic, 6% industrial Facility Class: Class 4 Treatment Units: Influent pump station, mechanical screen, two aerated grit chambers, lime addition, two primary clarifiers, four aeration basins, three secondary clarifiers, two dual media filters, dual chlorine contact basins, dechlorination, two gravity sludge thickeners, two centrifuge sludge thickeners, post aeration, standby generator Pretreatment Program (Y/N) Yes County: Catawba Page 1 of 11 Region Mooresville Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Newton has applied for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated January 9, 2015. This facility serves a population of 13,000 residents for the City of Newton and 3,500 residents of the City of Conover. The Clark Creek WWTP has a pretreatment program with 4 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), and all 4 are Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). 2. Receiving Waterbody Information: Receiving Waterbody Information Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Clark Creek Stream Segment: 11-129-5-(0.3)b Stream Classification: C Drainage Area (mi2): 29.30 Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 6 Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 10 Average Flow (cfs): 35 IWC (% effluent): 56% at 5.0 MGD, 66% at 7.5 MGD 303(d) listed/parameter: Yes, this receiving waterbody is impaired for Benthos, Fair rating, 2016 draft 303(d) list Subject to TMDL/parameter: Fecal coliform TMDL for downstream segment 11-129-5- (9.5) Subbasin/HUC: Catawba; 03-08-35; (HUC: 0305010203) USGS Topo Quad: E 14NW, Newton 3. Effluent Data Summary Effluent data is summarized below for the period October 2011 through October 2016. Table. Effluent Data Summary Parameter Units Average Max Min Limits Flow MGD 1.86 11.1 0.5 5 BOD summer mg/1 3.24 24.4 <2.0 MA 15.0 WA 22.5 BOD winter mg/1 2.69 31.8 <2.0 MA 30.0 Page 2 of 11 WA45.0 NH3N summer mg/1 0.11 2.10 <1.0 MA 6.0 WA 18.0 NH3N winter mg/1 0.13 4.1 <1.0 MA 12.0 WA 35.0 TSS mg/1 1.97 62.5 <2.0 MA 30.0 WA 45.0 pH SU 7.54 8.1 6.20 Between 6 and 9 standard units Temperature °C 18.14 27 7.0 DO mg/1 9.15 12.3 6.80 DA > 5.0 Conductivity umhos/cm 584.16 980.0 287.0 TN mg/1 21.92 38.5 2.64 TP mg/1 1.01 2.09 0.34 Fecal Coliform #/100 ml 147.67 >9800 <1.0 MA 200/100 mL WA 400/100 mL 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 conductivity, temperature, fecal coliform, and dissolved oxygen. Review of instream data for Jan 2012 to September 2016 indicates that the dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/1 was maintained, and there were no significant differences between upstream and downstream data. Average DO for the critical summer months of the years analyzed averaged between 8.49 for upstream and 8.39 for downstream. Conductivity remains a parameter of concern since there was clear evidence of an impact from the effluent. The average conductivity over the period analyzed indicated that conductivity was 578.69 µmhos/cm effluent, 114 µmhos/cm upstream, and 150.85 µmhos/cm downstream. Temperature remains a parameter of concern. The average temperature for the period analyzed was 18.03 °C effluent, 15.07°C upstream, and 14.82 °C downstream. There were no significant differences between upstream, and downstream throughout all seasons for temperature. There are no instances for the period analyzed where effluent temperatures contributed to a water quality standard violation, even though the effluent temperatures are higher than both upstream and downstream locations. Fecal coliform remains a parameter of concern. The geometric mean of fecal coliform values for the period analyzed were 618.53/100 mL upstream, 604.68/100 mL downstream, and 25.27/100 mL at the effluent. There appears to be instream impairment but not attributed to the facility's discharge. A fecal coliform TMDL for Clark Creek 11-129-5-(9.5) was approved in 2002 to address non -point sources of fecal coliform. Page 3 of 12 7 This draft permit maintains the same instream monitoring requirements. Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): NO Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA 5. Compliance Summary Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility had two enforcements in the period from October 2011- October 2016 for fecal coliform exceedances. The facility received one violation for exceeding permit limit by 206% for fecal coliform in January 2014 on a weekly geometric mean. And one violation for exceeding permit limit by 112% for fecal coliform in April 2015 on a weekly geometric mean and 14.6% on the monthly geometric mean. Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species chronic toxicity tests. Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted on October 6, 2016 reported that the facility was well maintained and operated. 6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) Dilution and Mixing Zones In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH). If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits (e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and model results. If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Limitations for BOD are based on a Streeter Phelps model (Level B) for instream DO protection. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits. Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations Page4of12 Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of 1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/1 (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals. Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1 (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit. Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: There are proposed changes to decrease the ammonia -nitrogen limit for 5 MGD summer season to 1.6 mg/L monthly average and 4.8 weekly average; and, to decrease the limit for winter season to 3.8 mg/L monthly average and 11.4 mg/L weekly average based on the ammonia -nitrogen waste load allocation calculation to protect for chronic/acute ammonia criteria. 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 'A 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 October 2011 and October 2016 for the following parameters: arsenic, cadmium, total chromium, copper, cyanide, fluoride, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and aluminum. After review of the 3 effluent pollutant scans, the RPA was expanded to include the following parameters: beryllium, total phenolic compounds, and dichlorobromomethane. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this permit: • Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria: NA • Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: lead, Nickel deferred to LTMP based on RPA at 2.5 MGD. • No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total phenolic compounds, total chromium, copper, cyanide, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, fluoride, dichlorobromomethane, and aluminum • Summary of new limits added based on RPA: NA Page 5 of 12 A • Summary of existing limits deleted based on RPA: NA Nickel had a maximum predicted concentration > 50% of the allowable limit. It is deferred to the LTMP. 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. Toxicity Testing Limitations Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure. Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and has a chronic WET limit at 56% for the 5.0 MGD flow phase and 66% for the 7.5 MGD flow phase. Effluent testing will continue on a quarterly frequency. Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/l) will receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/1 Table. Mercury Effluent Data Summary 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 # of Samples 3 4 4 4 3 Annual Average Conc. ng/L 1.9 1.8 1.2 0.7 1.0 Maximum Conc., ng/L 3.39 2.29 1.97 1.18 1.79 TBEL, ng/L 47 WQBEL, ng/L 21.3 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. However, since the facility is >2 MGD and reported quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/1), a mercury minimization plan (MMP) has been added to the permit. Page 6 of 12 Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within this permit: NA Other WQBEL Considerations- Permit Limit Development If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: 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: 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/1 BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/lfor 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 BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES 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 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained and protected. If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: 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). Page 7 of 11 Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA 10. Electronic Reporting Requirements The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements. 1 1.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions: Table. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change Flow Phase 5.0 MGD Flow MA 5.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505 BOD5 Summer: MA 15 mg/L WA 22.5 mg/L Winter MA 30 mg/L WA 45 mg/L No change WQBEL. Based on 1994 WLA and protection of DO standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 TSS MA 30 mg/L WA 45 mg/L No change TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406 NH3-N Summer: MA 6 mg/L WA 18 mg/L Winter: MA 12.0 mg/L WA 35.0 mg/L Summer: MA 1.6 mg/L WA 4.8 mg/L Winter: MA 3.8 mg/L WA 11.4 mg/L WQBEL. Based on protection of WQ criteria. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Effluent compliance history supports facility's ability to meet lower limits. DO DA > 5 mg/1 No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Fecal colifonn MA 200 /100m1 WA 400 /100m1 No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Total lead No requirement Quarterly monitoring 15A NCAC 2B.0200 RPA did not show reasonable potential to violate standards, Page 8 of 11 however, the projected max was > 50% of allowable discharge Total copper Monitoring only Remove monitoring based on no RP 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Total zinc Monitoring only Remove monitoring based on no RP 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Total nickel No requirement LTMP deferred monitoring 15A NCAC 2B.0200 RPA did not show reasonable potential to violate standards Total Residual Chlorine DM 28 }rg/L No change WQBEL.15A NCAC 2B.0200 Total nitrogen Monitor Only No change WQS, 15A NCAC 2B.0200, 15A NCAC 2B.0500 Total Phosphorus Monitor Only No change WQS, 15A NCAC 2B.0200, 15A NCAC 2B.0500 Temperature Monitor Only No change 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Conductivity Monitor Only No change 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Toxicity Test Chronic limit 56 % No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC 2B.0500 pH Between 6 and 9 standard units No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Effluent Pollutant Scan Annual Reduce to three times per permit cycle 40 CFR 122 Total Hardness No requirement Add effluent and upstream monitoring based on the new 2016 dissolved metal standards and the need for hardness to assess limits 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Flow Phase 7.5 MGD e Flow MA 7.5 MGD No chane 15A NCAC 2B .0505 BOD5 Summer: MA 15 mg/L WA 22.5 mg/L Winter MA 30 mg/L WA 45 mg/L No change WQBEL. Based 1994 WLA and protection of DO standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Page 9 of 12 TSS MA 30 mg/L WA 45 mg/L No change TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406 NH3-N Summer: MA 1.4 mg/L WA 4.2 mg/L Winter MA 3.2 mg/L WA 9.6 mg/L No change WQBEL. Based on protection of WQ criteria. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 DO > 5 mg/1 No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Fecal coliform MA 200 /100m1 WA 400 /100m1 No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Total lead No requirement Quarterly monitoring 15A NCAC 2B.0200 RPA did not show reasonable potential to violate standards Total copper Monitoring only Remove monitoring based on no RP 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Total zinc Monitoring only Remove monitoring based on no RP 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Total nickel No requirement LTMP deferred monitoring 15A NCAC 2B.0200 RPA did not show reasonable potential to violate standards, however, the projected max was > 50% of allowable discharge Total Residual Chlorine DM 26 µg/L No change WQBEL. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Total Nitrogen Monitor Only No change WQS, 15A NCAC 2B.0200, 15A NCAC 2B.0500 Total Phosphorus Monitor Only No change WQS, 15A NCAC 2B.0200, 15A NCAC 2B.0500 Temperature Monitor Only No change 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Conductivity Monitor Only No change 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Toxicity Test Chronic limit 66% No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and 15A NCAC 2B.0500 Page 10 of 12 pH Between 6 and 9 standard units No change WQBEL. WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Effluent Pollutant Scan Annual Reduce to three times per permit cycle 40 CFR 122 Total Hardness No requirement Add effluent and upstream monitoring based on the new 2016 dissolved metal standards and the need for hardness to assess limits 15A NCAC 2B.0200 Other Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP) No requirement Add MMP Special Condition Consistent with 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL Implementation. Electronic Reporting No requirement Add Electronic Reporting Special Condition In accordance with EPA Electronic Reporting Rule 2015. MGD - Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA - Weekly Average, DM - Daily Max, DA - Daily Average 12. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable): Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES If Yes, list changes and their basis below: • Effluent data reported for silver was all less than detection at a detection level of less than 5 µg/L. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0500 all test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements. All data generated must be reported to the approved detection level or lower reporting level of the procedure. Currently, DWR's laboratory identifies the Practical Quantitation Level (PQL) for silver at < 1 µg/L. The allowable discharge concentration for your facility is 0.106 µg/L. Therefore, future sampling for silver as part of the facility's Pretreatment Program and Effluent Pollutant Scan should sample silver down to the lower reporting level of the procedure which is < 1 µg/L. No limits or additional monitoring requirements for silver were added to the permit at this time. • The mercury minimization plan (MMP) in section A. (6) shall be developed by December 28, 2017. • Required units of measurement have been included for all parameters in section A. (1) and A. (2). • The measurement frequency and sample type for the Effluent Pollutant Scan in section A. (1) and A. (2) has changed in format to direct you to Footnote 7. • Special Condition A. (5) Effluent Pollutant Scan has been updated to the current version. • The Effluent Pollutant Scan has been updated to include the text "Monitor and Report" in section A. (1) and A. (2). Page 11 of 12 14. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable): • RPA Spreadsheet Summary • Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater or Saltwater Page 12 of 12 Permit No. NC0036196 NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as approved. Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection Parameter Acute FW,: µg/1 (Dissolved) . Chronic FW, µg/1.. (Dissolved) Acute SW, µg/1 (Dissolved) Chronic SW, µg/1 (Dissolved) Arsenic 340 150 69 36 Beryllium 65 6.5 --- --- Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8 Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- --- Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50 Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1 Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1 Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2 Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1 Zinc Calculation : Calculation 90 81 Table 1 Notes: • 1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater 2. _ 4,.:._--cci = Hardness dependent standard 3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC 2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at 1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection). Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d) Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I Cadmium, Acute WER*{1.136672-[In hardnessj(0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485} Cadmium, Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236} Cadmium, Chronic WER*{1.101672-[In 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[In hardness]-1.700} Copper, Chronic WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.702} Lead, Acute WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460} Lead, Chronic WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705} Nickel, Acute WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[In hardness]+2.255} Nickel, Chronic WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[In hardness]+0.0584} Page 1 of 4 Permit No. NC0036196 Silver, Acute WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59} Silver, Chronic Not applicable Zinc, Acute WER*0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} Zinc, Chronic WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge. The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge. Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with established methodology. RPA Permitting Guidance/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 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993 • Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred • Permitted flow • Receiving stream classification 2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream (upstream) hardness values to use in the equations. The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream hardness values, upstream of the discharge. If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively. If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data. Page 2 of 4 Permit No. NC0036196 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: Cdis = 1 Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [SS(t+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 (ie. silver), the dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document. 5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration (permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation: Ca = (s7010 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (s7Q10) (Cb) Qw Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L) Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L) Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L) Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match 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: 1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity Page 3 of 4 Permit No. NC0036196 QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from carcinogens 30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality 6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern. Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991. 7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on 40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements. 8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and chromium VI. 9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset. 10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this hermit included: Date: Parameter Value Comments (Data Source) Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L) [Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)] 148 PPAs and DMRs Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L) [Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)] 33.2 Samples from November and December 2016 from Meritech, Inc. Environmental Laboratory 7Q10 summer (cfs) 6.0 BIMS and project files 1 Q 10 (cfs) 4.99 RPA, calculations memo 2/4/2010 Permitted Flow (MGD) 5/7.5 BIMS and project files D/1/1/014 Permit Writer: 7 Page 4 of 4 Date:02/2017 pb:JDB DMR Data for NPDES Permit NC0036196 Clark Creek WWTP 40 35 30 25 J � 20 15 10 5 0 • NH3-N Weekly Avg • NH3-N Monthly Avg Weekly Avg Limit Monthly Avg Max Limit m m m m m m Cn •Zr d' Cr cr v v v Ln in in in Ln ul In in tfl to Ln ul l0 to lO lD tO l0 tO lO l0 r1 , 1 1 I —I C G0 Q +' > U C-0" T C CO CL +� > U C L T C dD O_ a' > U C .n T C b0 L] QnZQ�ti2 Q2-�acn° z u-2 < —' <cnozp. u_ < -,-av 40 T 35 30 — 25 20 15 10 NH3-N Effluent Evaluation 5 MGD Phase • NH3-N Weekly Avg • NH3-N Monthly Avg Weekly Avg Limit — Monthly Avg Max Limit — — — Proposed Weekly Avg Limit — — — Proposed Month lyAvg Limit 5 a. an -us _-+,r. ,r- 0 J 1 Imo -�-� as error -us air ar-rat 1 r irr r-- ar— m m m m m m m cr v ct d- v cr v v v cr v ct v, v, to v, in Ln Ln u, ir, Ir, Ln Ln 1.0 Up Up c0 (o LO up cD 1, ,I ,I ,1I ,I ,I o C 8 .0 Q°> U C Is 6L T C— 40 a +-' > U C_e L T C 00 Q 4, > U C .O •- '1 T C tl0 O. = .� 7 cu U O N co Q) [4 CI- r0 = 3 N U O N ea N M n. (d n� 3 N U O a) f0 N al Q r4 7 3 0) a(nOzo—'u-2a2-, av-,Ozo—u_2ag au,ozo-,�2a2— av) A307 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Waterbody Location Date Station ID Bioclassification CLARK CR SR 2012 07/14/04 CF7 Poor County Subbasln 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion CATAWBA 35 03050102 35.60861111 -81.23083333 11-129-5-(0.3)b Northern Inner Piedmont Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m) Reference Site 30.8 840 7 0.3 No Visible Landuse (%) Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) 20 0 80 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) NPDES Number Volume (MGD) City of Newton's Clark Creek WWTP (-1.5 miles upstream) NC0036196 7.5 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (pS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity 23.1 7.1 221 6.6 Slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Sample Date 5 14 3 6 1 2 2 9 2 2 47 Sample ID Substrate Site Photograph Sand Species Total NCIBI Bioclassification 07/14/04 2004-119 9 34 Poor Most Abundant Species Species Change Since Last Cycle Data Analysis Redbreast Sunfish Exotic Species None N/A This is the first fish community sample collected at this site. Watershed -- tributary to the South Fork Catawba River; drains portions of the cities of Hickory, Conover, and Newton in central Catawba County; sand dipping operations downstream from the bridge. Habitat — very shallow sandy runs; stick riffles; side deadfalls, snags, roots, and undercuts; cattle with access to stream; cattle exclusion barrier across the channel; urban debris in the stream. 2004 — conductivity elevated; low diversity and very low fish abundance (n = 75) for a stream of its size; intolerant species were absent; only one species of sucker and darter were collected; percentage of tolerant fish (White Sucker, Flat Bullhead, and Redbreast Sunfish) was high; data were also used as part of, a NCSU Urban Fish Study. 2-B.9 • Upper & Lower Clark Creek (030501020302 & 030501020303) Clark Creek fAUs: 11-129-5-(0.3)a, (0.3)b f* (9.5)1: Clark Creek runs a little over 20 miles south from the source near the southeast portion of the City of Hickory to its confluence with the South Fork Catawba River on the west side of the City of Lincolnton. The creek is split into three segments which drain a variety of landscapes including mostly agricultural land with a mixture of residential areas. In August of 2002, a fecal coliform bacteria TMDL was completed for the entire length of Clark Creek and its watershed. This is discussed further in the Section below. 6 Clark Creek [AU: 11-129-5-(0.3)bl: The longest of the three segments of Clark Creek is AU: 11-129-5-(0.3)b (16.6 miles) and has been on the Impaired Waters list since 1998 for biological integrity. The most recent benthic sample, taken in 2001 at station CB166 in Newton, received a Good -Fair rating which suggests improvement. However, the most recent fish community sample, taken in 2004, rated the creek as Poor. This low rating may be a result of both point and nonpoint pollutants. A cattle exclusion fence, which are designed to run parallel with the stream, crosses the channel giving cattle full access. Urban debris is scattered across the banks and channel. USE SUPPORT: IMPAIRED (17 'il 2008 IR Cat. 5 2010 IR Cat. Benthos (CB166) Fish Com (CF7) 5 Good -Fair (2001) Poor (2004) This segment also receives effluent from the Town of Maiden's WWTP (NC0039594) which could be causing the lack of pollution intolerant species due to the high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids found in the WWTP's effluent. The pure oxygen plant had numerous maintenance issues due to problems getting spare parts, issues with operations, and the pretreatment program for industrial users. One of these issues was elevated BOD coming into the plant that could not be treated. Per previous agreements unrelated to Maiden's violations, the high BOD contributor was rerouted to a neighboring WWTP in July 2008. The Town of Maiden had planned for an upgrade but refused to apply for a SOC during construction. New management, operators, and pre-treatment program coordinator were employed and the Town began operation of the new Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Treatment System as of September of 2008. During start-up there were problems setting up the SBR to properly mix, settle, and decant but no violations were generated. There have been no violations issued to the plant since July 2008. The Mooresville Regional Office inspected the plant in February of 2009 and although a few issues were raised relating to influent/effluent sampling and grit removal the facility was found to be in compliance. 6 Clark Creek FAU: 11-129-5-(9.5)1: The last segment of Clark Creek is the most downstream segment before it flows into the South Fork Catawba River. It was originally placed on the Impaired Waters list for fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) standard violations in 1998. A TMDL for FCB was completed in August of 2002 as a result of this listing and is discussed below. The same month the TMDL report was published, the segment was biologically sampled and received a Fair benthic rating which caused it to remain on the Impaired Waters list. The impairments continue with a Fair benthic rating in 2007 and physical/chemical standard violations accumulated between 2004 and 2008. USE SUPPORT: IMPAIRED (2 MI) 2008 IR Cat. 5 2010 IR Cat. 5 Benthos (CB165) Fair (2007) AMS Copper - 15% (C4800000) Turbidity - 15% FCB - 51% Ambient monitoring (2004 - 2008) resulted in 51% of samples above the action level for FCB of 400 colonies per 100 ml (details below). The copper standard of 7 pg/1 was exceeded in 15% of samples which is 2% higher than the previous sampling cycle. A copper study was conducted in 2004 to determine the impact of copper on Clark Creek and concluded that the amount of copper in the water column at that time was not significant enough to impair the creek. However, more recent sampling has documented increasing copper exceedances; therefore, Clark Creek has been placed on the 2008 and 2010 Impaired Waters list for copper. Eight percent of lead and zinc samples were exceeding the standard as well. Clark Creek will not be impaired for lead or zinc but the exceedance indicates the creek is being impacted by metal toxicity. This toxicity is believed to be caused by urban land use activities. In July of 2002, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund funded the Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Upper Clark Creek Watershed which analyzed a broad range of data about the watershed to determine the most probable stressors and sources of the impairment. Once three main sources were determined (habitat degradation, toxicity from nonpoint sources and toxicity due to chlorine discharge from the Newton WWTP), the report recommended ten steps to address current sources of impairment and prevent further degradation. These steps are summarized in the 2004 Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Report in Section B, Chapter 6. Recommendations and action plans for Clark Creek are discussed below. NC DWQ CATAWBA RIVER BASIN PLAN: South Fork Catawba River Subbasin HUC 03050102 N 0 0 2.15 0 0 cV NC DWQ CATAWBA RIVER BASIN PLAN: South Fork Catawba River Subbasin HUC 03050102 Watershed Restoration Et Success Stories Middle Henry Fork (030501020102): Henry Fork [AU: 11-129-1-(12.5)a]: This segment was on the 2006 303(d) list for biological impairment. It has seen significant and steady improvement among the benthic community since 2001 when it received a Fair rating. Sampling was initiated here due to a large release of sand and sediment from behind the Henry River Dam in June 2001. The sand and sediment smothered the habitat by several feet shortly after being released causing the Impaired rating. Effects from the release are still being seen; however, it is significantly less than previous years. The site downstream of the dam now has the highest habitat score (84) of the five sites along Henry Fork. JACOBS FORK (0305010202) Protection Priorities Upper Jacobs Fork (030501020201) Jacobs Fork fAU: 11-129-2-(4)1: In May of 2006, biological sampling for a Watershed Stressor Study' was conducted, and Jacobs Fork received a benthic community rating of Excellent. However, ambient samples indicate a decrease in overall pH levels and a slight increase in fecal conform bacteria levels. This section of Jacobs Fork is considered a high priority for protection due to a discovery made by DWQ biologist of the appearance of Baetopus trishae, a rare mayfly known previously in only two locations (both in Jackson County, NC) and only four specimens have been seen in North America. This finding extends the eastern range of this mayfly in North Carolina by more than 90 miles. Biological samples taken further upstream on Jacobs Fork and the Little River show the water quality and habitat are fully supporting aquatic life. For this reason, the entire Upper Jacobs Fork watershed should be actively protected from human impacts. DWQ will continue to monitor the benthic station (CB192) to help further understand the extent of this mayfly's existence and to ensure it continues to have supporting habitat. AO* USE SUPPORT: SUPPORTING (10 MI) 2008 IR Cat. 2 2010 IR Cat. 2 Benthos (CB181) (CB180) Good (2006) Good (2006) USE SUPPORT SUPPORTING (7 ,») 2008 IR Cat. 2 2010 IR Cat. 2 Benthos (CB192) Excellent (2006) AMS (C4370000) No Exceedances CLARK CREEK (0305010203) Restoration Opportunities Maiden Creek (030501020301) Maiden Creek [AU: 11-129-5-7-2-(1)]: Maiden Creek flows southwest for 7.5 miles before merging with Allen Creek around the Town of Maiden and drains mostly agricultural land. In 1993, Maiden Creek's benthic community was rated Good; however the fish community was given Good -Fair. Since than, the creek was sampled once in 2002 and received a benthic rating of Fair. Upstream of the 2002 sampling location, there is one registered impoundment and at least two other agricultural impoundments. During the 2002 sampling biologist noted that the flow of Maiden Creek was reduced by half during the time it took to sample the creek. The benthic community showed signs of severe impact due to inconsistent flow as noted in the 2002 special study2. DWQ will re -sample this site (CB193) during the next sampling cycle, and will work with SWCD and property owners to ensure adequate flow remains in Maiden Creek. USE SUPPORT: IMPAIRED (5 Al) 2008 IR Cat. 5 2010 IR Cat. 5 Benthos (CB193) Good (2002) 1 Results of Biological Sampling from the Watershed Stressor Study in the Catawba River Basin: Burke, Catawba, and Lincoln counties, Subbasin 35 and 36 (BF-20061207). Requests for a copy of this and other special studies must submitted to ESS via phone (919-743-8400) or e-mail (jay. sauber@ncdenr. gov). 2 Biological Monitoring of Maiden Creek (Catawba Subbasin 35), August 2002. (B-20021210). Requests for a copy of this and other special studies must submitted to ESS via phone (919-743-8400) or e-mail (jay.sauber@ncdenr.gov). 2.14 0 0 N NC DWQ CATAWBA RIVER BASIN PLAN: South Fork Catawba River Subbasin HUC 03050102 Protection Priorities Upper Clark Creek (030501020302) Town Creek [AU: 11-129-5-41: Town Creek is just under four miles long and mostly drains dense urban areas from the Town of Newton. This creek was sampled once (2000) and received a benthic rating of Good -Fair. The somewhat low rating likely reflects impacts from toxic urban stormwater runoff and residential nonpoint source pollution. DWQ will re -sample this site during the next sampling cycle. DWQ will also work with the City of Newton to reduce the impacts of stormwater and residential runoff to Town Creek. This creek receives a high priority for protection since it drains into Clark Creek [AU: 11-129-5-(0.3)b] which is on the Impaired Waters List. Watershed Recommendations a Action Plans Clark Creek FCB TMDL: In 2002, a TMDL was developed and approved for Clark Creek to address the excessive fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) levels sampled in the creek. Figure 2-11 shows each sample taken by DWQ between 1997 and 2008. The orange line indicates the approval of the TMDL and the red line roughly indicates the standard of 400 colonies per 100ml in 20% of samples. Potential nonpoint sources of FCB loading and calculated reductions in the watershed include urban development (53%), animal grazing (22%), and failing septic systems (15%). The study called for a total FCB loading reduction of 77% from nonpoint sources. Point sources were noted as contributing less than 5%; therefore, reductions are not recommended for FCB loading from point sources. Clark Creek Action Plan: Local agencies have recommended this watershed as a potential DWQ Use Restoration Watershed due to the amount of urban and nonpoint source FCB issues impacting this creek which DWQ has recently approved. A group of local agencies (Carolina Land 8 Lakes RCftD, Catawba County and City of Hickory) has recently formed to begin developing a Watershed Restoration Plan. Focus will be placed on the headwater portions of the watershed at first, then the group will gradually move downstream. This will ensure activities in the headwaters will not degrade efforts being made downstream. This Watershed Restoration Plan will reconfirm the sources found during the 2002 Biological Assessment Report (as discussed above) as well as design a plan of implementation. The group will use resources already developed to address excessive FCB levels and expand the study range to include other parameters of interest in this watershed. Study will begin in the upper headwaters of the watersheds and work downstream. A more wholistic approach to this watersheds restoration is over all less costly and increases the ability for success. DWQ will assist with this restoration effort and supports the need for funding to develop and implement the Watershed Restoration Plan. For more information and progress on this effort visit the DWQ Use Restoration Watershed webpage. USE SUPPORT: SUPPORTING (4 rail 2008 IR Cat. 2 2010 IR Cat. 2 Benthos (CB204) Good -Fair (2000) FIGURE 2-11: C4800000 FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA SAMPLE RESULTS BETWEEN 1997 Et 2008 (ORANGE LINE INDICATES RELEASE OF TMDL)* 18000 16000 E 14000 0 12000 0- 10000 a) 'E 8000 0 u 6000 U 4000 L 2000o I1 \,96v '1 0 ` The orange line indicates the approval of the TMDL and the red line roughly indicates the standard of 400 colonies per 100m( in 20% of samples. 2.16 IWC Calculations Newton Clark Creek WWTP NC0036196 Prepared By: Jennifer Busam, NPDES Program Enter Design Flow (MGD): Enter s7Q10(cfs): Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 5 6 10 Residual Chlorine Ammonia (NH3 as N) (summer) 7Q10 (cfs) DESIGN FLOW (MGD) DESIGN FLOW (cfs) STREAM STD (ug/L) UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (l IWC (%) Allowable Conc. (ugll) Fecal Limit (If DF >331; Monitor) (If DF <331; Limit) Dilution Factor (DF) NPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC 6 7Q10(CFS) 5 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 7.75 DESIGN FLOW (cfs) 17.0 STREAM STD (mg/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (mg/L) 56.36 IWC (%) 30 Allowable Conc. (mg/I) Ammonia (NH3 as N) (winter) 7Q10 (CFS) 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) DESIGN FLOW (cfs) STREAM STD (mg/L) 1.77 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (mg/L) IWC (%) Allowable Conc. (mgll) 6 5 7.75 1.0 0.22 56.36 1.6 10 5 7.75 1.8 0.22 43.66 3.8 11 /9/2016 IWC Calculations Newton Clark Creek WWTP NC0036196 Prepared By: Jennifer Busam, NPDES Program Enter Design Flow (MGD): Enter s7Q10(cfs): Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 7.5 6 10 Residual Chlorine Ammonia (NH3 as N) (summer) 7Q10 (cfs) DESIGN FLOW (MGD) DESIGN FLOW (cfs) STREAM STD (ug/L) UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (l IWC (%) Allowable Conc. (ug/I) Fecal Limit (If DF >331; Monitor) (If DF <331; Limit) Dilution Factor (DF) NPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC 6 7Q10(CFS) 7.5 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 11.625 DESIGN FLOW (cfs) 17.0 STREAM STD (mg/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (mg/L) 65.96 IWC (%) 26 Allowable Conc. (mg/I) 200/100mI 1.52 Ammonia (NH3 as N) (winter) 7Q10 (CFS) DESIGN FLOW (MGD) DESIGN FLOW (cfs) STREAM STD (mg/L) UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (mg/L) IWC (%) Allowable Conc. (mg/I) 6 7.5 11.625 1.0 0.22 65.96 1.4 10 7.5 11.625 1.8 0.22 53.76 3.2 11/9/2016 11/17/16 WQS = 12 ng/L Facility Name: Newton/Clark Creek WWTP Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L Date Modifier Data Entry Value 1.14 3.39 1.05 1.94 2.29 1.9 1.12 0.5 0.5 1.97 1.92 0.5 0.5 1.18 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.79 1.09 9/14/16 1.14 6/15/16 3.39 3/3/16 1.05 12/10/15 1.94 9/17/15 2.29 6/4/15 1.9 3/4/15 1.12 12/4/14 < 1 9/11/14 < 1 6/11/11 ( (5 OIL -I 1.97 3/6/14 1.92 12/4/13 < 1 9/12/13 < 1 -f; 6f13-lvl51 I3 1.18 3/7/13 < 1 12/6/12 < 1 9/13/12 < 1 6/7/12 1.79 3/8/12 1.09 MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-5 No Limit Required MMP Required 7010s = 6.000 cfs Permitted Flow = 5.000 WQBEL = 21.29 ng/L 47 ng/L 1.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016 1.8 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015 1.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2014 0.7 ng/L - Annual Average for 2013 1.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2012 7;,'ivwol 0t6:4Cu0 Anova: Single Factor ALL SEASONS SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance RD2014-LAQ 57 542.8 9.522807 2.089649 RD 2007 kin 57 544.5 9.552632 2.658609 ANOVA rce of Varim SS Between C 0.025351 Within Gro 265.9025 df MS F P-value F cril 1 0.025351 0.010678 0.917882 3.925834 112 2.374129 Total 265.9278 113 Anova: Single Factor SUMMER SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance RD 2014V) 34 288.7 8.491176 0.468708 RD 2007 4 j (\ 34 285.4 8.394118 0.599358 ANOVA rce of Vark SS df MS F P-value F crit Between C 0.160147 1 0.160147 0.299882 0.585803 3.986269 Within Gro 35.24618 66 0.534033 Total 35.40632 67 Sicini{iuuk:" ktva u upSr' u.m '3 c�imwnsiVum 9,11A u.l1 flj iu. vcati N hcal SllrvtM(r MovINS tarn-IIaV\LUCtrt{'W01- Siohnbu' 1i I e. ((84 FOR ANOVA mm/dd/yy RD 2014-Up RD 2007 -Dw mm/ddlyy RD 2014-Up RD 2007 -Dw Jan-12 11.3 11.6 Apr-12 9.3 9.2 Feb-12 10.7 10.9 May-12 7.9 7.9 Mar-12 9.5 9.5 Jun-12 8.3 8.1 Apr-12 9.3 9.2 Jul-12 7.6 7.3 May-12 7.9 7.9 Aug-12 7.9 7.6 Jun-12 8.3 8.1 Sep-12 8.3 8 Jul-12 7.6 7.3 Oct-12 9.2 9.1 Aug-12 7.9 7.6 Apr-13 9.6 9.7 Sep-12 8.3 8 May-13 8.8 8.7 Oct-12 9.2 9.1 Jun-13 8.1 7.9 Nov-12 11 11.4 Jul-13 7.8 7.6 Dec-12 11.1 11.2 Aug-13 8.2 8 Jan-13 10.7 10.9 Sep-13 8.5 8.4 Feb-13 11.3 11.4 Oct-13 9.4 9.2 Mar-13 11.2 11.5 Apr-14 10 10.3 Apr-13 9.6 9.7 May-14 8.7 8.6 May-13 8.8 8.7 Jun-14 8.3 8.1 Jun-13 8.1 7.9 Jul-14 8.1 7.9 Jul-13 7.8 7.6 Aug-14 8.3 8.1 Aug-13 8.2 8 Sep-14 8.3 8.2 Sep-13 8.5 8.4 Oct-14 9.2 9.1 Oct-13 9.4 9.2 Apr-15 9.7 9.9 Nov-13 11 11.4 May-15 8.8 8.8 Dec-13 11.4 11.8 Jun-15 7.9 7.8 Jan-14 12.6 12.8 Jul-15 7.7 7.7 Feb-14 11.1 11.5 Aug-15 7.8 7.8 Mar-14 11.6 11.9 Sep-15 8.3 8.3 Apr-14 10 10.3 Oct-15 9.3 9.3 May-14 8.7 8.6 Apr-16 9.6 9.6 Jun-14 8.3 8.1 May-16 8.5 8.6 Jul-14 8.1 7.9 Jun-16 7.9 7.8 Aug-14 8.3 8.1 Jul-16 7.6 7.6 Sep-14 8.3 8.2 Aug-16 7.8 7.5 Oct-14 9.2 9.1 Sep-16 8 7.7 Nov-14 10.8 10.8 Dec-14 10.9 11.2 Jan-15 11.8 12.2 Feb-15 12.1 12.5 Mar-15 10.6 10.8 Apr-15 9.7 9.9 May-15 8.8 8.8 Jun-15 7.9 7.8 Jul-15 7.7 7.7 Aug-15 7.8 7.8 Sep-15 8.3 8.3 Oct-15 9.3 9.3 Nov-15 9.5 9.3 Dec-15 10.3 10.2 Jan-16 11.8 12.1 Feb-16 11.5 11.7 Mar-16 10.3 10.5 Apr-16 9.6 9.6 May-16 8.5 8.6 Jun-16 7.9 7.8 Jul-16 7.6 7.6 Aug-16 7.8 7.5 Sep-16 8 7.7 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 C REQUIRED DATA ENTRY Table 1. Project Information Facility Name WWTP/WTP Class NPDES Permit Outfall Flow, Qw (MGD) Receiving Stream HUC Number Stream Class ❑Apply WS Hardness WQC 7Q10s (cfs) 7Q10w (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs) QA (cfs) 1Q10s (cfs) ['CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Newton/ Clark Creek Class 4 NC0036196 001 5.000 Clark Creek 0305010203 6.00 10.00 6.00 :. its 35.00 Effluent Hardness 148 mg/L (Avg) Upstream Hardness 33.2 mg/L (Avg) Combined Hardness Chronic 97.91 mg/L Combined Hardness Acute Data Source(s) ['CHECK TO APPLY MODEL To appy a Model IWC %: Once the 103.04 mg/L Table 2. Parameters of Concern Par01 Par02 Par03 Par04 Par05 Par06 Par07 Par08 Par09 Par10 Par11 Par12 Par13 Par14 Par15 Par16 Par17 Par1B Par19 Par20 Par21 Par22 Par23 Par24 Name wos 'type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L Arsenic Human Hearth Water Supply C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.6539 FW 11.1391 ug/L Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L il 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 360.1260 FW 2886.7559 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 Lite NC 25.3027 FW 39.7672 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 13.3729 FW 362.7893 ug/L Mercury Aquatic Lire NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L Molybdenum Human I lc Ith NC 2000 HH ug/L Nickel Aquatic Life NC 118.1610 FW 1110.8201 pg/L Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L Selenium Aquatic Lite NC 5 FW 56 ug/L Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 3.3865 ug/L Zinc Aquatic Life NC 402.9280 FW 417.3316 ug/L Aluminum Human Health NC 8000 HH pg/L Dichlorobromomethane Human Health C 17 HH pg/L 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_822_5MGD_01112017, input 1/12/2017 Date: 1/12/2017 FACILITY: Newton/ Clark Creek Outfall 001 NPDES PERMIT: NC0036196 Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c) Receiving Stream summer 7Q10 (CFS) Receiving Stream summer 7010 (MGD) Rec. Stream 1010 [MGD) NPDES Flow Limit [MGD Total Suspended Solids -Fixed Value- mgA () Combined Hardness chronic (mg/L) Combined Hardness Acute (rng/L) Instream Wastewater Concentration (Chronic) Instream Wastewater Concentration (Acute) Upstream Up Hardness Averago (mglL) ' Effluent Hardness Average (mg/L) 6.0000 3.8710 3.2194 5.0000 10 97.905 103.035 56.3636 60.8320 1 33.2 I 148 Upstream Hard Avg (mg/L) = 33.2 EFF Hard Avg (mg/L) = 148 PARAMETER Dissolved Metals Chronic Acute Cadmium (d) Cd -Trout streams Chromium III (d)(h) Chromium VI (d) Chromium, Total (t) Copper (d)(h) Lead (d)(h) Nickel (d)(h) NI - WS streams (t) Silver (d)(h,acute) Zinc (d)(h) [ug/9 0.42 0.42 73 11 8.8 2.46 51 [ug/I] 2.81 1.75 584 16 US EPA Maximum Allowable Effluent Concentration COMMENTS (identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP): Translators- using (MAEC) as a Total Metal Nickel Default Partition rDlssotved Metal+ Translator Coefficients (streams) 13.8 67 480 0.06 3.39 116 120 0.252 0.252 0.202 1.000 0.348 0.184 0.432 1.000 0.288 Beryllium Arsenic (d) 6.5 150 65 1.000 340 1.000 Chronic Acute [ugh] [ug0] 1.65 11.14. 1.65 360.13 11.00 N/A 6.93 2886.76 16.00 N/A 25.30 39.77 13.37 362.79 118.16 1110.82 11111.=1.11- N/A 0.06 3.39 402.93 417.33 6.5 150 65 340 (d) = dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more Information. (h) = hardness -dependent dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information. (t) = based upon measurement of total recoveable metal. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information. The Human Health standard for Nickel in Water Supply Streams is 25 mg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard. The Human Health standard for Arsenic is 10 pg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard. Newton/ Clark Creek NC0036196 a Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 Qw (MGD) = 5.00 IQ10S (cfs) = 4.99 7QIOS (cfs) = 6.00 7QIOW (cfs)= 10.00 30Q2 (cfs) = 6.00 Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 35.00 Receiving Stream: Clark Creek HUC 0305010203 WWTP/WTP Class: Class 4 IWC% @ IQ10S = 60.83202512 IWC% @ 7QIOS = 56.36363636 IWC% @ 7Q t OW = 43.66197183 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 56.36363636 IW%C @ QA = 18.12865497 Stream Class: C Outf?II 001 Qw=5MGD COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L) Acute = 103.04 mg/L Chronic = 97.91 mg/L PARAMETER TYPE (1) NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA O f- REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION Chronic StandApls d Acute d° n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw Arsenic Arsenic C C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/1. ug/L 19 0 NO DETECTS Acute (FW): 558.9 __ _ _ _ _-_ _ ___-_________________________ Chronic (FW): 266.1 Max MDL =10 _ _ _ _ Chronic (HH): 55.2 Max MDL = 10 No detects No detects _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No detects Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 3 0 Note: n <_ 9 Limited data set NODETEC7S Acute: 106.85 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y Chronic: 11.53 Max MDL = 5 No detects -_______-_-_______________ No detects Cadmium NC 1.6539 FW(7Q10s) 11.1391 ug/L 20 0 NO DETECTS Acute: 18.311 __ _ _ _____ _ ___ Chronic: 2.934 Max MDL = 5 No detects _____________-------- ______, No detects Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 3 3 Note: n < 9 Limited data set 87.0 Default C.V. Acute: NO WQS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chronic: 532.3 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Chromium III NC 360.1260 FW(7Q10s) 2886.7559 ttg/I. 0 0 N/A Acute: 4,745.5 Chronic: 638.9 Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7Q 10s) 16 ug/L 0 0 N/A Acute: 26.3 Chronic: 19.5 Chromium, Total NC µg/l. Tot Cr value(s 19 1 < 50 and < Cr VI 2.6 Allowable Cw Max reported value = 2.5 a. No Monitoring required if all Total Chromium samples are < the Chromium VI Allowable Cw Copper NC 25.3027 FW(7Q10s) 39.7672 ug/l. 21 20 15.47 Acute: 65.37 _ _ _ _ _ Chronic: 44.89 No value > Allowable Cw No RP, Predicted Max < 50%, of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 22 10 ug'L 19 0 NO DETECTS Acute: 362 __ _ _ _______ __J__________________________ Chronic: 8.9 Max MDL= 10 No detects No detects Page 1 of 2 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_622_5MGD_01112017, rpa 1 /12/2017 Newton/ Clark Creek Outfall 001 NC0036196 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 5 MGD , Fluoride NC 1800 FW(7Q10s) ug/L 19 19 920.4 Acute: NO WQS __ _ _ _____ _ ___ Chronic: 3,193.5 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Lead NC 13.3729 FW(7Q10s) 362.7893 ug/L 19 1 20.700 Acute: 596.379 __ _ _ _____ _ ___ Chronic: 23.726 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP , Predicted Max a 50% of Allowable Cw - apply Quarterly Monitoring Molybdenum NC 2000 HH(7Q10s) ug/L 19 1 2.6 Acute: NO WQS Chronic:3,548.4 No value > Allowable Cw No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Nickel Nickel NC NC 118.1610 FW(7Q10s) 1110.8201 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L pg/L 19 4 21.6 Acute (FW): 1,826.0 Chronic (FW): 209.6 -- No value_> Allowable C_w _ _ Chronic (WS): 44.4 No value > Allowable Cw ---------------------- — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP , Predicted Max a 50% of Allowable Cw - deferto LTMP Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 19 0 NO DETECTS Acute: 92.1 __ _ _ — — _ _ Chronic: 8.9 ~No Max MDL = 10 No detects _ _ _ — — — — — — — — — — detects Silver NC 0.06 FW(7QIOs) 3.3865 ug/L 19 0 NO DETECTS Acute: 5.567 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chronic 0.106 Max MDL = 5 No detects _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No detects Zinc NC 402.9280 FW(7Q10s) 417.3316 ug/L 21 21 125.4 Acute: 686.0 Chronic 714.9 No value > Allowable Cw No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Aluminum NC 8000 HH(7Q10s) ug/L 22 9 617.90000 Acute: NO WQS __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Chronic: 14193.54839 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Dichlorobromomethane C 17 1-I1-1(Qavg) µg/L 3 l Note: n << 9 Limited data set 6.12000 Default C.V. Acute: NO WQS _ 73 _ _Chronic:7_74_9 -{ No value > Allowable Cw No_ RP_, Predicted_ Ma_x < 5_0%_ of A_llow_ab_Cw_ - N_o Monitoring required 0 0 N/A Acute: --Chronic: ---------- --------------------------- 0 0 N/A Acute: --Chronic:------------------------------------- Page 2 of 2 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_822_5MGD_01112017, rpa 1/12/2017 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 e REQUIRED DATA ENTRY Table 1. Project Information Facility Name WWTP/WTP Class NPDES Permit Outfall Flow, Qw (MGD) Receiving Stream HUC Number Stream Class EApply WS Hardness WQC 7Q10s (cfs) 7Q10w (cfs) 3002 (cfs) QA (cfs) 1Q10s (cfs) ❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Newton/ Clark Creek Class 4 NC0036196 001 7.500 Clark Creek 0305010203 6.00 10.00 kTO,1 OCcic 6.00 - 7la /G ; 35,00 Table 2. Parameters of Concern Par01 Par02 Par03 Par04 C Par05 Par06 Par07 ParOB Par09 Alp Par10 Par11 ri Par12 Par13 Par14 Par15 Par16 Par17 Par18 Par19 Par20 Par21 Par22 Par23 Par24 Effluent Hardness Upstream Hardness Combined Hardness Chronic Combined Hardness Acute Data Source(s) CHECK TO APPLY MODEL To appy a Model !WC %: Once the 148 tng/L (Avg) 33.2 mg/L (Avg) 108.92 mg/L 113.52 mg/L Name was Type Chronic 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 1.7922 FW 12.1199 ug/L Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L 4 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 392.9814 FW 3125.2553 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 27.7158 FW 43.5699 ug/L Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L Fiuoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L Lead Aquatic Life NC 15.0169 FW 403.0628 ug/L Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L Nickel Aquatic Life NC 129.3128 FW 1205.7457 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 4.0009 ug/L Zinc Aquatic Life NC 441.0169 FW 453.0520 ug/L Aluminum Human Health NC Boca HH pg/L Dichlorobromomethane Human Health C 17 HH pg/L 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_822_7_5MGD_01112017, input 1/12/2017 Date: 1 /12/2017 FACILITY: Newton/ Clark Creek Outfall 001 NPDES PERMIT: NC0036196 Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c) Receiving Stream summer 7010 (CFS) Receiving Stream summer 7010 (MGD) Rec. Stream 1Q10 (MGD) NPDES Flow Limit MGD] Total Suspended Solids -Fixed Value- (mg/L) Combined Hardness chronic (mg/L) Combined Hardness Acute (mg/L) Instream Wastewater Concentration Chronic) Instream Wastewater Concentration (Acute) Upstream Hardness Average (mg/L) Effluent Hardness Average (mg/L) 6.0000 3.8710 3.2194 7.5000 10 108.919 113.522 65.9574 69.9669 33.2 148 PARAMETER Dissolved Metals Chronic Acute Upstream Hard Avg (mg/L) = 33.2 EFF Hard Avg (mg/L) = 148 [ugA] [ugil] U PA Translators- using Default Partition Coefficients (streams) mum •1 eN: i e ent (MAEC) as a Total Metal Disaolvibci Metat+ Translator Chronic Acute (ug/q [tr9/ll Cadmium (d) Cd -Trout streams Chromium III (d)(h) Chromium VI (d) Chromium, Total (t) Copper (d)Qh) Lead (d)(h) Nickel (d)(h) NI - WS streams (t) Silver (d)(h,acute) Zinc (d)(h) 0.45 3.06 0.45 1.90 79 632 11 16 0.252 0252 0.202 1.000 9.6 2.76 56 0.06 127 15.1 74 521 0.348 0.184 0.432 4.00 130 1.000 0.288 1.79 12.12 1.79 7.54 392.98 3125.26 16.00 Beryllium Arsenic (d) 6.5 150 1.000 340 1.000 6.5 150 65 340 COMMENTS (identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP): Nickel (d) = dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information. (h) = hardness -dependent dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more Information. (t) = based upon measurement of total recoveable metal. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more Information. The Human Health standard for Nickel in Water Supply Streams is 25 mg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard. The Human Health standard for Arsenic is 10 µg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard. 11.00 N/A NIA 27.72 43.57 15.02 403.06 129.31 ^ 1205.75 25 NIA 0.06 4.00 441.02 453.05 Newton/ Clark Creek NC0036196 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58 Qw (MGD) = 7.50 IQIOS(cfs)= 4.99 7Q 10S (cfs) = 6.00 7QIOW (cfs) = 10.00 30Q2 (cfs) = 6.00 Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 35.00 Receiving Stream: Clark Creek HUC 0305010203 WWTP/WTP Class: Class 4 IWC% @ IQIOS = 69.96689738 IWC% @ 7Q I OS = 65.95744681 IWC% @ 7QIOW = 53.75722543 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 65.95744681 IW%C @ QA = 24.93297587 Stream Class: C OutftII 001 Qw = 7.5 MGD COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L) Acute = 113.52 mg/L Chronic = 108.92 mg/L PARAMETER TYPE (1) NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA PQL UNITS REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION Chronic Applied Acute Standard n hi Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw Arsenic Arsenic C C 150 FW(7Q10s) 340 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L ug/l. 19 0 NO DETECTS Acute (FW): 485.9 __ _ _ _ ___ _ __-_-_-_-_---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Chronic (FW): 227.4 Max MDL=10__ _ _ _ _ Chronic (HH): 40.1 Max MDL= 10 No detects No detects _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No detects Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65 ug/L 3 0 Note: n < 9 Limited data set NODETEC7S Acute: 92.90 _ _ _ - - _ _ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Chronic: 9.85 Max MDL= 5 No detects - -_- -_- - Na detects Cadmium NC 1.7922 FW(7Q10s) 12.1199 ug/L 20 0 NODETEC7S Acute: 17.322 Chronic: 2.717 Max MDL=5 No detects No detects Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 3 3 Note: n < 9 I.imited data set 87.0 Default C.V. Acute: NO WQS Chronic: 454.8 No value > Allowable Cw No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Chromium ill NC 392.9814 FW(7QIOs) 3125.2553 µg/L 0 0 N/A Acute: 4,466.8 Chronic: 595.8 Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7QIOs) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A Acute: 22.9 - - - - - - - - - Chronic: 16.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chromium, Total NC µg/I_ Tot Cr value(s 19 1 < 50 and < Cr VI 2.6 Allowable Cw Max reported value = 2.5 a. No Monitoring required if all Total Chromium samples are < the Chromium VI Allowable Cw Copper NC 27.7158 FW(7Q 10s) 43.5699 ug/L 21 20 15.47 Acute: 62.27 Chronic: 42.02 No value > Allowable Cw No RP, Predicted Max <50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required - No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 22 10 ug/L 19 0 NO DETECTS_ Acute: 31.4 Chronic: 7.6 Max MDI.= 10 No detects ------------- No detects Page 1 of 2 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_822_7_5MGD_01112017, rpa 1 /12/2017 Newton. / Clark Creek Outfall 001 NC0036196 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 7.5 MGD • Fluoride NC 1800 FW(7QI0s) ug/L 19 19 920.4 Acute: NO WQS __ _ _ _____ _ ___ Chronic: 2,729.0 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Lead NC 15.0169 FW(7Q10s) 403.0628 ug/L 19 1 20.700 Acute: 576.076 __ _ _ ____ _ ___ Chronic: 22.768 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP , Predicted Max a 50% of Allowable Cw - apply Quarterly Monitoring Molybdenum NC 2000 I1H(7QIOs) ug/L 19 1 2.6 Acute: NO WQS Chronic_ 3,032.3 1No No value > Allowable Cw RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Nickel Nickel NC NC 129.3128 25.0000 FW(7Q10s) WS(7Q10s) 1205.7457 µg/L µg/L 19 4 21.6 Acute (FW): 1,723.3 __ _ _ _ ——_------------------------- Chronic(FW): 196.1 No value > Allowable Cw__ Chronic (NV):37.9 1No No value > Allowable Cw — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RP , Predicted Max a 50% of Allowable Cw- defer to LTMP Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 19 0 NO DETECTS Acute: 80.0 — _ _ _ Chronic: — — 7.6 — —No Max MDL= 10 No detects _ _ _ detects — — — — — — — — — — Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 4.0009 ug/1. 19 0 NO DETECTS Acute: 5.718 _ _ _ --Chronic:-------No 0.091 Max MDL = 5 Na detects _ _ _ detects ---------------------• Zinc NC 441.0169 FW(7Q10s) 453.0520 ug/L 21 21 125.4 Acute: 647.5 Chronic: 668.6 No value > Allowable Cw No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Aluminum NC 8000 I-IH(7Q1Os) µg/L 22 9 617.90000 Acute: NO WQS __ _ _ __ _ _ _ Chronic: 12129.03226 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required Dlchlorobromomethane C 17 HH(Qavg) pg/L 3 1 Note: n << 9 Limited data set 6.12000 Default C.V. Acute: NO WQS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chronic: 68.18280 No value > Allowable Cw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No Monitoring required 0 0 N/A Acute: -_ _ —Ch------------------- Chronic: --------------- -- 0 0 N/A Acute: -- _ _ ---------- Chronic: ---------------------------• Page 2 of 2 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_822_7_5MGD_01112017, rpa 1 /12/2017 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS H1 Effluent Hardness Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 3/5/2014 152 152 Std Dev. 2 6/5/2013 140 140 Mean 3 9/12/2012 160 160 C.V. (default) 4 9/14/2016 140 140 n 5 10th Per value 6 Average Value 7 Max. Value 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Use "PASTE SPECIAL. Values" then "COPY . Maximum dale points = 58 9.7980 148.0000 0.6000 4 140.00 mg/L 148.00 mg/L 160.00 mg/L H2 Upstream Hardness Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 11/21/2016 36 36 Std Dev. 2 11/28/2016 36 36 Mean 3 12/5/2016 20 20 C.V. (default) 4 1177/2016 38 38 n 5 11/14/2016 36 36 10th Per value 6 Average Value 7 Max. Value 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Use"PASTE SPEC Values"then "COPY'= . Maximum data polnte = 58 Par01 & Par02 7.4297 33.2000 0.6000 5 26.40 mg/L 33.20 mg/L 38.00 mg/L Arsenic Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 9/15/2016 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2 6/15/2016 < 10 5 Mean 3 3/3/2016 < 10 5 C.V. 4 12/10/2015 < 10 5 n 5 9/17/2015 < 10 5 6 6/4/2015 < 10 5 Mult Factor = 1.12 7 3/5/2015 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 8 12/4/2014 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L 9 9/11/2014 < 10 5 10 6/5/2014 < 10 5 11 3/6/2014 < 10 5 12 12/5/2013 < 10 5 13 9/12/2013 < 10 5 14 6/6/2013 < 10 5 15 377/2013 < 10 5 16 12/6/2012 < 10 5 17 9/13/2012 < 10 5 18 6/7/2012 < 10 5 19 3/8/2012 < 2 1 "PASTE SPECIAL ues" then "COPY" . Maximum data Points = 58 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 0.9177 4.7895 0.1916 19 -1- 36196 Final FW RPAv2016 822 5MGD 01112017, data 1/12/2017 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Par03 Beryllium Date Data BDL=112DL Results 1 3/6/2014 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 2 6/6/2013 < 5 2.5 Mean 3 9/13/2012 < 5 2.5 C.V. 4 n 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 Us*"PASTE SPECIAL Values" than "COPY" . Maximum data points . 58 0.0000 2.5000 0.0000 3 Mutt Factor = 1.00 Max. Value 2.50 uglL Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L Par04 Cadmium Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 9/14/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 2 9/15/2016 < 2 1 Mean 3 6/16/2016 < 2 1 C.V. 4 3/3/2016 < 2 1 n 5 12/10/2015 < 2 1 6 9/17/2015 < 2 1 7 6/4/2015 < 2 1 8 3/5/2015 < 2 1 9 12/4/2014 < 2 1 10 9/11/2014 < 2 1 11 6/5/2014 < 2 1 12 3/6/2014 < 2 1 13 12/5/2013 < 2 1 14 9/12/2013 < 2 1 15 6/6/2013 < 2 1 16 3/7/2013 < 2 1 17 12/6/2012 < 0.2 0.1 18 9/13/2012 < 2 1 19 6/7/2012 < 2 1 20 3/8/2012 < 0.15 0.075 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 SPECIP46 P8I07 Valves" than "COPYwil . Maximum data pohtta a 58 D.4537 0.9838 0.4612 20 Mult Factor = 1.28 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L Total Phenolic Compounds Usa "PASTE SPEC! Values" than "COP' . Maximum data pomta • 58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results iralk,+i 1 3/5/2014 17 17 Std Dev. 6.2450 2 6/5/2013 29 29 Mean 24.0000 3 9/12/2013 26 26 C.V. (default) 0.6000 4 n 3 5 Par10 Mult Factor = 3.00 Max. Value 29.0 ug/L Max. Pred Cw 87.0 ug/L Date 1 9/15/2016 2 6/16/2016 3 3/3/2016 4 12/10/2015 5 9/17/2015 6 6/4/2015 7 3/5/2015 8 12/4/2014 9 9/11/2014 10 6/5/2014 11 3/6/2014 12 12/5/2013 13 9/12/2013 14 6/6/2013 15 3/7/2013 16 12/6/2012 17 9/13/2012 18 6/7/2012 19 3/8/2012 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 -2- 36196 Final FW RPAv2016 822 SMGD 01112017, data 1/12/2017 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Chromium, Total Use "PASTE SPECIAL. Values" Then "COPY" . Maximum data pohtta a 58 Data BDL=112DL Results < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.1 147 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.4737 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0464 < 5 2.5 n 19 < 5 2.5 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.03 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 pg/L < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.6 pg/L < 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 2 Pall Copper Date Data BDL=112DL Results 1 6/16/2016 13 13 Std Dev. 2 3/3/2016 7 7 Mean 3 12/10/2015 6 6 C.V. 4 9/17/2015 8 8 n 5 6/4/2015 11 11 6 3/5/2015 7 7 Mutt Factor = 7 12/4/2014 6 6 Max. Value 8 9/11/2014 9 9 Max. Pred Cw 9 6/5/2014 9 9 10 3/6/2014 8 8 11 12/5/2013 5 5 12 9/12/2013 8 8 13 6/6/2013 9 9 14 3/7/2013 6 6 15 12/6/2012 9 9 16 9/13/2012 < 10 5 17 6/7/2012 5 5 18 3/8/2012 6 6 19 12/15/2011 4 4 20 9/15/2011 5 5 21 9/15/2016 13 13 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Use "PASTE SPECIAL Values" than "COPY" , Maximum data points a 58 Par12 Cyanide (ha "PASTE EPECIAt Valuaa" than 'COPY" . Maximum dale Points : 58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 2.5411 1 9/14/2016 < 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 7.5714 2 6/15/2016 < 5 5 Mean 5.00 0.3356 3 3/2/2016 < 5 5 C.V. 0.0000 21 4 12/9/2015 < 5 5 n 19 5 9/16/2015 < 5 5 1.19 6 6/3/2015 < 5 5 Mult Factor = 1.00 13.00 ug/L 7 3/4/2015 < 5 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 15.47 ug/L 8 12/3/2014 < 5 5 Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L 9 9/10/2014 < 5 5 10 6/4/2014 < 5 5 11 3/6/2014 < 5 5 12 12/4/2013 < 5 5 13 9/11/2013 < 5 5 14 6/6/2013 < 5 5 15 3/6/2013 < 5 5 16 12/6/2012 < 5 5 17 9/13/2012 < 5 5 18 6/7/2012 < 5 5 19 3R/2012 < 5 5 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 Par13 Date Data 1 9/15/2016 624 2 6/15/2016 558 3 3/3/2016 400 4 12/10/2015 307 5 9/16/2015 780 6 6/4/2015 690 7 3/5/2015 780 8 12/4/2014 420 9 9/11/2014 310 10 6/5/2014 390 11 3/6/2014 300 12 12/5/2013 600 13 9/12/2013 600 14 6/6/2013 500 15 3/7/2013 500 16 12/6/2012 700 17 9/13/2012 700 18 6/7/2012 600 19 3/8/2012 600 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 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_822_5MGD_01112017, data - 3 - 1/12/2017 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Fluoride BDL=1/2DL Results 624 Std Dev. 558 Mean 400 C.V. 307 n 780 690 Mult Factor = 780 Max. Value 420 Max. Pred Cw 310 390 300 600 600 500 500 700 700 600 600 Use **PASTE SPE Par14 Values" than "CO . Maximum data paints = 513 155.3943 545.2105 0.2850 19 1.18 780.0 ug/L 920.4 ug/L Use `PASTE SPECIAL Lead Values" then "COPY" . Maximum data Date BDL=112DL Results 1 9/15/2016 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2.8979 2 6/16/2016 < 10 5 Mean 4.8947 3 3/3/2016 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.5921 4 12/10/2015 < 0.5 0.25 n 19 5 9/17/2015 < 10 5 6 6/4/2015 < 10 5 Mult Factor = 1.38 7 3/5/2015 < 10 5 Max. Value 15.000 ug/L 8 12/4/2014 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 20.700 ug/L 9 9/11/2014 15 15 10 6/5/2014 < 10 5 11 3/6/2014 < 10 5 12 12/5/2013 < 10 5 13 9/12/2013 < 10 5 14 6/6/2013 < 10 5 15 3/7/2013 < 10 5 16 12/6/2012 < 10 5 17 9/13/2012 < 10 5 18 6/7/2012 < 10 5 19 3/8/2012 < 0.5 0.25 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 Par16 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Molybdenum Values" then "COPY" y:asYulmum data.. Ines a 58 Date Data BDL=1l2DL Results 1 9/15/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.1147 2 6/16/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.4737 3 3/3/2016 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.0464 4 12/10/2015 < 5 2.5 n 19 5 9/17/2015 < 5 2.5 6 6/4/2015 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.03 7 3/5/2015 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.5 ug/L 8 12/4/2014 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 2.6 ug/L 9 9/11/2014 < 5 2.5 10 6/5/2014 < 5 2.5 11 3/6/2014 < 5 2.5 12 12/5/2013 < 5 2.5 13 9/12/2013 < 5 2.5 14 6/6/2013 < 5 2.5 15 3/7/2013 < 5 2.5 16 12/6/2012 < 5 2.5 17 9/13/2012 < 5 2.5 18 6/7/2012 < 5 2.5 19 3/8/2012 2 2 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 Par17 & Par18 Nickel Date Data BDL=1/2DL 1 9/15/2016 18 16 2 6/16/2016 14 14 3 3/3/2016 < 10 5 4 12/10/2015 < 10 5 5 9/17/2015 < 10 5 6 6/4/2015 12 12 7 3/5/2015 < 10 5 8 12/4/2014 < 10 5 9 9/11/2014 < 10 5 10 6/5/2014 < 10 5 11 3/6/2014 < 10 5 12 12/5/2013 < 10 5 13 9/12/2013 < 10 5 14 6/6/2013 < 10 5 15 3/7/2013 < 10 5 16 12/6/2012 < 10 5 17 9/13/2012 < 10 5 18 6/7/2012 < 10 5 19 3/8/2012 4 4 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 -4- 36196 Final FW RPAv2016_822_SMGD_01112017, data 1/12/2017 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Results Std Dev. Mean C.V. n Mult Factor = Max. Value Max. Pred Cw Use "PASTE SPECIM Values" than "COMM . Maximum data points a 58 Par19 Selenium 3..675 6.3684 0.5445 19 1.35 16.0 pg/L 21.6 pg/L Date Data BDL=112DL Results 1 9/15/2016 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2 6/16/2016 < 10 5 Mean 3 3/3/2016 < 10 5 C.V. 4 12/10/2015 < 10 5 n 5 9/17/2015 < 10 5 6 6/4/2015 < 10 5 7 3/5/2015 < 10 5 8 12/4/2014 < 10 5 9 9/11/2014 < 10 5 10 6/5/2014 < 10 5 11 3/6/2014 < 10 5 12 12/5/2013 < 10 5 13 9/12/2013 < 10 5 14 6/6/2013 < 10 5 15 3/7/2013 < 10 5 16 12/6/2012 < 10 5 17 9/13/2012 < 10 5 18 6/7/2012 < 10 5 19 3/8/2012 < 2 1 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 SPC Values" than "COPri . Maximum data points a 50 Par20 Silver 0.9177 4.7895 0.1916 19 Mult Factor = 1.12 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 9/15/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.5162 2 6/16/2016 < 5 2.5 Mean 2.3816 3 3/3/2016 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.2167 4 12/10/2015 < 5 2.5 n 19 5 9/17/2015 < 5 2.5 6 6/4/2015 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.13 7 3/5/2015 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 8 12/4/2014 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L 9 9/11/2014 < 5 2.5 10 6/5/2014 < 5 2.5 11 3/6/2014 < 5 2.5 12 12/5/2013 < 5 2.5 13 9/12/2013 < 5 2.5 14 6/6/2013 < . 5 2.5 15 3/7/2013 < 5 2.5 16 12/6/2012 < 5 2.5 17 9/13/2012 < 5 2.5 18 6/7/2012 < 5 2.5 19 3/8/2012 < 0.5 0.25 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Use PASTE SPECIAL Valves" Then 'COPY" Maximum data • points a 58 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 Par21 Zinc Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 6/16/2016 68 68 Std Dev. 2 3/3/2016 62 62 Mean 3 12/10/2015 42 42 C.V. 4 9/17/2015 36 36 n 5 6/4/2015 85 85 6 3/5/2015 98 98 Mult Factor = 7 12/4/2014 43 43 Max. Value 8 9/11/2014 33 33 Max. Pred Cw 9 6/5/2014 43 43 10 3/6/2014 92 92 11 12/5/2013 34 34 12 9/12/2013 32 32 13 6/6/2013 38 38 14 3/7/2013 80 80 15 12/6/2012 55 55 16 9/13/2012 32 32 17 6/7/2012 26 26 18 3/8/2012 52 52 19 1215/2011 22 22 20 9/15/2011 20 20 21 9/15/2016 20 20 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 36196 Final FW RPAv2016 822 SMGD 01112017, data -5- - 1/12/2017 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Use 'PASTE SPE Values" than "C Maximum d points = 58 23.9581 48.2381 0.4967 21 1.28 98.0 ug/L 125.4 ug/L Par22 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Aluminum Values" then "COPY" . Maximum data points = 58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results (.- 1 3/5/2014 32 32 Std Dev. 99.7038 2 6/6/2013 128 128 Mean 74.7727 3 9/12/2012 < 50 25 C.V. 1.3334 4 9/15/2016 < 50 25 n 22 5 6/16/2016 208 208 6 3/3/2016 370 370 MuIt Factor = 1.67 7 12/10/2015 < 50 25 Max. Value 370.000000 pg/L 8 9/17/2015 67 67 Max. Pred Cw 617.900000 pg/L 9 6/4/2015 < 50 25 10 3/5/2015 < 50 25 11 12/4/2014 < 50 25 12 9/11/2014 < 50 25 13 6/5/2014 < 50 25 14 3/6/2014 320 320 15 12/5/2013 < 50 25 16 9/12/2013 < 50 25 17 6/6/2013 128 128 18 3/7/2013 50 50 19 12/6/2012 < 50 25 20 9/13/2012 < 50 25 21 6/7/2012 < 50 25 22 3/8/2012 17 17 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 Par23 Dichlorobromomethane Use"PASTE SPECIAL Values" than 'COPY" . Maximum data points a 58 Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results ,_� ., . 1 9/12/2012 2.04 2.04 Std Dev. 0.8891 2 6/20/2013 < 1 0.5 Mean 1.0133 3 3/18/2014 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 4 n 3 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 Mult Factor = 3.00 Max. Value 2.040000 pg/L Max. Pred Cw 6.120000 pg/L Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results 1 Std Dev. NO DATA 2 Mean NO DATA 3 C.V. NO DATA 4 n 0 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 Mult Factor = N/A Max. Value N/A Max. Pred Cw N/A -6- 36196 Final FW RPAv2016 822 SMGD 01112017, data 1/12/2017 Berry, Ron Subject: Clark Creek WWTP (City of Newton)) Start Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 Due Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 Status: Percent Complete: Total Work: Actual Work: Deferred 0% 0 hours 0 hours Owner: Berry, Ron Categories: Renewal Permit: NC0036196 4/19/16: Set up efile and task file; copied active permit, active fact sheet, draft cov let template, fact sheet template, and PERCS request form to efile. Preliminary review, permit has Copper and Zinc monitoring and active pretreatment program at last renewal and indicated in app. Prepared and emailed PERCS request form to Sarah B. Checked application, have four 2nd species toxicity test and PPAs summarized in app but not copies of PPAs. Noted mercury shown as measured by 1631E as required in permit. Checked DMR files, only found one PPA (June 2013). Discovered the application contact Danny Sigmon has retired. Eric Jones (828) 695-4370 replaced. Mr. Sigmon, made notation on app. Need to contact Mr. Jones about PPAs. NOTE CANNOT DO RPA UNTIL FINAL EPA APPROVAL ON NEW WQS OBTAINED 4/20/16: Left vm for Mr. Jones to return my call. 5/9/16: Called and talked to Mr. Jones, requested copies of PPAs other than June 2013. Gave him my email so he could email me copies. 8/4/16: Called and left vm with Eric Jones, still looking for PPAs. Pulled data from BIMS for DMR, violations, enforcement. Worked on DMR data evaluation, printed out charts. Pulled NPDES file. 8/5/16: Pulled DMR files from Central Files, added data to spreadsheet. Prepared instream impact, printed out chart. 8/15/16: Returned NPDES file to file room, added notes to file. Rau-0a Ctu_ �rd2z 4 CITY OF "THE HEART OF C.ATAWBA CO[NTY" 01/07/2015 NCDENR/DWQ Attn: NPDES Unit 1617 Mail service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 P.O. Box 550 • Newton, NC 28658 • (828) 465-7400 • Fax (828) 465-7419 Subject: City of Newton Clark Creek WWTP NPDES Permit NC0036196 Renewal To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR JAN - 9 201 Water Quality Permitting Sectior The City of Newton requests the renewal of permit NC0036196 based on the enclosed application. Included in this application are the WWTP topographic map, WWTP flow schematic, testing data results, biosolids management plan and the toxicity testing summary. The City of Newton requests that the permit be issued with 5.0 and 7.5 MGD limits as contained in the present permit. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 828.695.4346. Sincerely, rat Danny Sigmon City of Newton WWTP Superintendent r p..-- / D j F ( i ; y -...•••••••••••••\ RaaI / i i .tip .k.._; oT0�r�.- • : i ;. . A �'. am } 1 rIJ• I aaoltir`• rt �. may, v4✓. ' �r ' ♦ !� • it Vulilis ENGINEERS I . • t• /;�` • few CITY OF NEWTON CLARK CREEK WWTP i( JANUARY 2005 — 2000' 949.037 2 INFLUENT 7.5 MGD 1 INFLUENT PUMP STATION AND BAR SCREEN DUAL MEDIA FILTERS CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS AND DECHLORINATION DISCHARGE TO CLARK CREEK 001 uvillis ENGINEERS AERATED GRIT CHAMBERS LIME ADDITION REACTOR CLARIFIERS AERATION BASINS SECONDARY CLARIFIERS ., BIOLOGI CAL SLUDGE THICKENER CENTRIFUGES AND PUMP STATION L T rI-- RECYCLE PUMP STATION L TO REGIONAL COMPOST FACILITY OR LAND APPLICATION CITY OF NEWTON CLARK CREEK WWTP FLOW SCHEMATIC 1 Tb PUMP STATION JAN UARY 2005 NO SCALE % Toxicity Summary Week of Results % Method 2/15/2010 >100 2 3/5/2010 pass 1 6/11/2010 pass 1 9/17/2010 pass 1 12/10/2010 pass 1 3/11/2011 >100 2 3/24/2011 pass 1 6/9/2011 pass 1 9/15/2011 pass 1 12/14/2011 pass 1 3/8/2012 pass 1 6/7/2012 pass 1 9/13/2012 pass 1 12/5/2012 pass 1 12/3/2012 >100 2 3/7/2013 pass 1 6/6/2013 pass 1 9/12/2013 pass 1 9/9/2013 >100 2 12/5/2013 pass 1 3/6/2014 pass 1 6/5/2014 pass 1 6/2/2014 >100 2 9/11/2014 pass 1 Method 1 is North carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Pass/Fail Reproduction Toxicity Test with 56% effluent Method 2 is Chronic Fathead Minnow Multi -Concentration Test FACILITY NAMErAND PERMIT NUMBER: /Ve. �yi(D / 9' , e/./t/ 0 r Aieta -IonY l/✓ PEERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: K[i7Fc ,t ( RIVER BASIN: / az/aec>h2 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES All treatment works receiving discharges complete part F. GENERAL INFORMATION: F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment R Yes ❑ No F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users industrial users that discharge to the a. Number of non -categorical Sills. b. Number of CIUs. SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program? (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (Gills). Provide the number treatment works. 6 of each of the following types of questions F.3 through F.8 and 1' INFORMATION: to the treatment works, copy Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges provide the information requested for each SIU. F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages as necessary. � Name: , pecrttfie 1e1Q.(S icJe/cl1nj Pr4ducis (rnpanr( Mailing Address: MO / 73urrLS -Road AIPw/o&) Are ,zss6 F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. YfGc1ae/10A) 0-f h(SJ nrck?J Crfic( aia [ f b.)e[di /s prrd cf$ F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. /� / J Principal product(s): //iCke ( a ad file ,cf ( a//oy CoCoalede/ec7% C/%Q6-, tpe/d//is Lille and 7 / g Rawmaterial(s): IAJ(%e Vatr,du.S f[ctxtS C.fncl (Om /. arid.< r F.6. Flow Rate. a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. 6,560 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent) the collection system in gallons per discharged into the collection system b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. gpd ( continuous or intermittent) F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following: a. Local limits $1 Yes ❑ No b. Categorical pretreatment standards g Yes ❑ No If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory? Li 71, 3C- EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 18 of 22 Spec is ( Me-/ IS FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: woo 3 , / q 0 ill PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN: / / F d co F.8. ( Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e,g„ upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years? ❑ Yes $, No If yes, describe each episode. RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE: F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste ❑ Yes g No (go to F.12) F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply): 0 Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units). EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units by truck, rail or dedicated pipe? CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER: F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities? ❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) t5k No F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate In the next five years). F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known. (Attach additional sheets iif necessary.) F.15. Waste Treatment. a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency): b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent? ❑ Continuous 0 Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule. END OF PART F. REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 19 of 22 FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: /J((}( 36 I (me 01.1y D /l((°kJ70 /1 ' t/ PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: /)NCc)2 ( L'" RIVER BASIN: ectf4W.1Jq SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA!CERCLA WASTES All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must complete part F. GENERAL INFORMATION: F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program? K Yes ❑ No F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (ClUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of industrial users that discharge to the treatment works. a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. di b. Number of CIUs. d SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION: Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and provide the Information requested for each SIU. F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages as necessary. I Name: /CCi7/1ibilt I/n r I P S7t 1 Mailing Address: -Pa BOX 3 i ra 6 6 s-1 ree-! blew-lan,, MC ,,4 5-8 F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. 10 de £ 65a i 0,3 a 1 ci inn /uJ f�lquiAs 6 p s Cctd fajic[ ial t al / r1O"/i4,5 equip/nor' F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU' discharge. (( I Principalproduct(s): riOrf5 ana /nnlei // (nn(11,,ts equfp..n'i1 `�)/-Appi/1i Raw material(s): SIPP ( Wife4 la be and Tia-I 5 /fe F.6. Flow Rate. a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. ,2 rQ, 700 gpd ( ><,_ continuous or intermittent) b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. gpd ( continuous or intermittent) F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following: a. Local limits ISI Yes ❑ No b. Categorical pretreatment standards t4 Yes 0 No If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory? 1/33,i7 EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 18 of 22 rFACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: 4.,rod3 to / q, ei i y o -( ,(f evi i `---- PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: /eid r l l--_ RIVER BASIN: `---(7S4 wbec. F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years? ❑ Yes 6k No If yes, describe each episode. RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE: F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe? ❑ Yes f4 No (go to F.12) F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply): ❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units). EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER: F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities? ❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) 14 No F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in the next five years). F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) F.15. Waste Treatment. a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency): b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent? ❑ Continuous 11 Intermittent If Intermittent, describe discharge schedule. END OF PARTF. REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 19 of 22 FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: Ax1O0,j (c J q 6 ei/ti 6 I MC'lJr0/0 PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: �C'�IC�cJ4 � �` RIVER BASIN: �a7acohq SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES All treatment works receiving discharges complete part F. GENERAL INFORMATION: F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment K Yes ❑ No F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users industrial users that discharge to the a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. b. Number of ClUs. SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program? (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (ClUs). Provide the number treatment works. t of each of the following types of !y INFORMATION: discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU provide the information requested for each SIU. F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages as necessary. r Name: Cl1Sif)ePreC( Cod( 0i.s Mailing Address: cif/ L_t uI f Q.1 :1Jfi a P I ( ouer, Ale I3 P29 F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe al! the industrial processes that affect LP s'aS— [ (-pia! or "an. k c!ure( or contribute to the Stirs discharge. F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. Principal product(s): ,L P Sots res'a Ia/v j Raw material(s): pre — 'nac4 r r) ° ( Tqul a iorS F.6. Flow Rate. a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. !/U gpd (_ 1/ continuous volume following: IX subcategory? of process wastewater discharge into or intermittent) the collection system in gallons per discharged into the collection system b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous gpd (_ continuous of non -process wastewater flow or intermittent. or intermittent) _ F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the a. Local limits ❑ Yes b. Categorical pretreatment standards IfQ Yes If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and L 33. l7 No ❑ No EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 18 of 22 C1;IL Pr ec ( ( 7 6JS FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: /l3(Ai 3 6/ c/G Cy of AIPwfDiJ PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: Zn(0),)'- d RIVER BASIN: Cala ,bct F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years? ❑ Yes K No If yes, describe each episode. RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE: F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste ❑ Yes No (go to F.12) F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply): ❑ Truck 0 Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units). EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units by truck, rail or dedicated pipe? CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER: F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities? ❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) Q No F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in the next five years). F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) F.15. Waste Treatment. a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, describe the treatment (provide Information about the removal efficiency): b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent? LI Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule. END OF PART F. REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 19 of 22 • FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: 10(063 / q 0 PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN: SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES AU treatment works receiving discharges complete part F. GENERAL INFORMATION: F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment K. Yes ❑ No F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users industrial users that discharge to the a. Number of non -categorical Sills. b. Number of ClUs. SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program? (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number treatment works. 0 of each of the following types of .4 INFORMATION: to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges provide the information requested for each SIU. F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages as necessary. / Name: //1C rinSSl Mis. CO /Wife /�c /o5V plant Mailing Address: /1/ riff rl PS/pet .ST (6 fiO rE r, NC 46 / 3 F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge Mann {a_cJ (c bed cfi,u a2c( raLaad d re Coil Spas _ F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. Principal product(s): (76 1 / Spfr/)SS Raw material(s): Sloe To woe( CJ ;re F.6. Flow Rate. a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume day (gpd) and whether the discharge Is continuous or intermittent. I Q on gpd ( v continuous of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per or intermittent) volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system or intermittent. or intermittent) following: ❑ No ❑ No subcategory? , b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous gpd ( continuous F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the a. Local limits ❑ Yes b. Categorical pretreatment standards gl Yes If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and L133, /7 EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 18 of 22 l/leir(i Spr;,ls .0 r FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: /W0036 / Q 6, i?l y o f Alec() o j `' PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: .0('5 . ( RIVER BASIN: 6.7 t.„,6 F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years? ❑ Yes K No If yes, describe each episode. RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE: F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe? ❑ Yes Ej No (go to F.12) F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply): ❑ Truck ❑ Rail 0 Dedicated Pipe F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units). EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER: F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities? ❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) jEt No F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in the next five years). F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) F.15. Waste Treatment. a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency): b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent? ❑ Continuous 0 Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule. END OF PART F. REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS OF FORM 2AYOU MUST COMPLETE EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 19 of 22