NC0045276_Fact Sheet_20200615

PUBLIC NOTICE
North Carolina
Environmental
Management Commission/
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit
NC0045276 Waccamaw Elementary School WWTP
The North Carolina Environmental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a NPDES wastewater
discharge permit to the person(s) listed below. Writ-
ten comments regarding the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after the publish date of this
notice. The Director of the NC Division of Water Re-
sources (DWR) may hold a public hearing should
there be a significant degree of public interest. Please
mail comments and/or information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested persons may visit the
DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC to review
information on file. Additional information on NPDES
permits and this notice may be found on our website:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/
water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater/public-notices,or by calling (919) 707-
3601. Brunswick County Schools requested renewal
of NC0045276 for Waccamaw Elementary School in
Brunswick County; this permitted discharge is treated
wastewater to an unnamed tributary to Bear Branch,
Lumber River Basin.
RECEIVED
,,,3 0 2020
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and
State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to
administer oaths, personally appeared
Angie Sutton
who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that she is
Publisher
(Owner, partner, publisher, or other officer or employee
authorized to make this affidavit)
of The Brunswick Beacon, a newspaper published, issued,
and entered as periodical mail in the Town of Shallotte in
the said County and State; that she is authorized to make this
affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other legal
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in The Brunswick Beacon on the following date(s):
March 5, 2020
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper
document or legal advertisement was published, was at the time
of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all the
requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper
within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of
North Carolina.
This the 5th day of March, 2020.
ture of person making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of March,
2020.
W AS ,q {
cirr? 0
Qom. PAY Oz
i.PUB'��•• �!�:
-.��r ,, mbet , . OJ
•,,,5'Wl;K G,
(Notary Public)
NCDEQIDWRINPDES

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0045276
Permit Writer/Email Contact Emily Phillips
Date: February 3, 2020
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Brunswick County Schools/Waccamaw Elementary School
Applicant Address:
5901 Waccamaw School Rd, Ash NC 28420
Facility Address:
5901 Waccamaw School Rd, Ash NC 28420
Permitted Flow:
0.0057 MGD [545 people]
Facility Type/Waste:
Minor Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class:
Treatment Units:
• Multiple septic tanks (5)
• 1,000-gallon grease trap
• 10,000-gallon dosing tank with dual dosing pumps
• 3,000-gallon Quadplex effluent
• Quadplex ultraviolet disinfection
• Flow meter
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Brunswick
Page 1 of 10

Region
Wilmington
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: Waccamaw Elementary School
has applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 0.0057 MGD. This facility serves a population of 545
people. The facility has a single Outfall 001.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001— UT to Bear
Creek
Stream Segment:
15-5
Stream Classification:
C-Swamp
303(d) listed/parameter:
N/A
Basin/Sub-basin:
Lumber River/03-07-57
3. Effluent Data Summary
Table. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter Code
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location
Flow
50050
0.0057 MGD
Weekly
Instantaneous
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C) — Summer*
C0310
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C) — Winter*
C0310
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
C0530
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N — Summer*
C0610
2.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N — Winter*
C0610
4.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Page 2 of 10

Dissolved Oxygen
00300
Daily Average > 6.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
31616
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
00010
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
00094
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH
00400
Between 6.0 - 9.0 S.U.
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
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 Flow. Review of instream data for
the past three years indicates that the dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/1 was maintained
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: N/A
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): Limit violations have been
present every year for this facility since 2014.
No major activities or problems with this facility.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): N/A
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: There is no record of any recent
inspection.
Page 3of10

6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following stream flows 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: NA
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1 (summer) and 1.8 mg/1 (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1 (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: There are no
proposed changes.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants NA
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'V2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) stream flows 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 NA. 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:
Page 4of10

• 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: NA
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: NA
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: NA
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: NA
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
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: NA
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Page 5 of 10

NA Table. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
# of Samples
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
Maximum Conc., ng/L
TBEL, ng/L
WQBEL, ng/L
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: NA
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
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/1
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). NA
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? NA
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Industrials (if not applicable, delete and skip to next Section) NA
Describe what this facility produces:
List the federal effluent limitations guideline (ELG) for this facility:
If the ELG is based on production or flow, document how the average production/flow value was
calculated:
Page 6of10

For ELG limits, document the calculations used to develop TBEL limits:
Table. TBEL Development per NA
Pollutant
Daily Maximum
BPT/BAT
(lb/10001b)
Daily Maximum
Limit
(lb /d)
Monthly Average
BPT/BAT
(lb/1000 lb)
Monthly Average
Limit
(lb/d)
If any limits are based on best professional judgement (BPJ), describe development: NA
Document any TBELs that are more stringent than WQBELs: NA
Document any TBELs that are less stringent than previous permit: NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an anti -degradation 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 anti -degradation
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).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
Page 7of10

10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. 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.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
A. Table. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes NA
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
NA
Page 8 of 10

MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
B. Table. it Conditions and Proposed Changes NA
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
NA
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 02/25/2020
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
Page 9of10

15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater or Saltwater
Page 10 of 10