NC0087840_Fact Sheet_20240216

DEQ / DWR / NPDES
EXPIDITED FACT SHEET FOR PERMIT RENEWAL
NPDES PERMIT NCO087840
Applicant/Facility
Name:
Facility Information
Town of Middlesex - Middlesex Well No.4 WTP
Applicant Address:
Town of Middlesex; P.O. Box 69; Middlesex, NC 27557
Facility Address:
10921 East Finch Street; Middlesex, NC 27557
Permitted Flow:
Maximum monthly average 0.0034 MGD not limited
Type of Waste:
Treated backwash wastewater from greensand filters
Facility/Permit Status:
WPCS Class PC-1 /Active; Renewal
County:
Nash County
Receiving Stream:
iscellaneous
UT to Turkey Creek Stream Class: C; NSW
Subbasin:
03-04-07
Stream Index No:
27-86-3- 1
Drainage Area mil :
—
HUC:
030202030104
Summer 7Q 10 cfs
—
303 d Listed?
No
Winter 7Q 10 cfs :
—
Regional Office:
Raleigh
30 2 cfs :
—
USGSQuad:
Middlesex, NC
Average Flow cfs :
—
Permit Writer:
Joe R. Corporon, P.G.
IWC % : Am
100%
Date:
Re -DRAFT 201762024
BACKGROUND
The Town of Middlesex operates a designed -rate 0.133 MGD potable -water treatment plant
(WTP) to serve its surrounding community. Currently operated by Envirolink, Inc., the WTP
applies greensand filtration technology generating a filer -backwash averaging 0.005 MGD [for
—15 minutes, one day per week]. Backwash wastes discharge to an unnamed tributary (UT) to
Turkey Creek, a waterbody currently classified C; NSW within the Neuse River Basin.
It is however noteworthy that the effluent travels via culverts, and a system of unlined ditches
(providing subsurface infiltration) such that the effluent seldom, if ever, reaches the unnamed
tributary (RRO Inspection Staff Report, 2013).
CURRENT TREATMENT PROCESSES
1. Well water is chlorinated then introduced to two greensand filter units.
2. filtered water continues through air stripper treatment then
3. pumped into the potable water distribution system
4. operator manually backwashes/rinses each sand filter as needed [typ. once (1) per week],
5. process backwash/rinsate passes through a meter, sand filter beds,
6. tablet dechlorinator
7. discharged into a UT to Turkey Creek.
Permittee determines when to remove solids based on their accumulation in drying beds; solids
removed and disposed by licensed contractor, per state regulations.
Fact Sheet Renewal — REDRAFT 201762024
NPDES NCO087840
Page 1 of 7

PERMITTING HISTORY
2008 — Renewal permit issued with no changes to the previous permit [Greensand Filter 2004
WTP Strategy limiting Flow, TSS, TRC, and pH].
2013 — Applied 2009 WTP Strategy for Greensand filter technology and BPJ:
• flow limit removed; monitoring changed to 2/month; footnote added;
• corrected outfall location; IWC corrected to 100%;
• fluoride and zinc monitoring removed (neither used by the [Permittee);
• iron and manganese - reduced monitoring to Quarterly
• added Turbidity monitoring, 2/month (EPA requirement);
• per Neuse River 2013 Nutrient Guidelines, semi-annual monitoring required
for nutrients as Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP)
• TN requires Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) plus Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen.
2018 — Renewal continued 2009 WTP Strategy for Greensand filter technology
1. Updated site map and narrative for Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet.
2. Discontinued monitoring for Total Iron [no standard/no longer a
parameter of concern (POC)].
3. Continued quarterly monitoring for Total Manganese as required for
greensand, but not limited, per WTP strategy [not discharging to WS waters];
4. Total Hardness [for calculating dissolved fraction limits] — Because manganese cannot
be limited (limit applies only to WS), and because manganese is the only remaining
metal POC, Total Hardness monitoring (U&E) is not required;
5. Current Neuse River Guidelines classify this facility as non -nitrogen
producing; however, TN/TP semi-annually monitoring remains in the
permit per strategy; no changes recommended.
6. Because TN/TP monitoring is required [class NSW], this facility is not
eligible for WTP General Permit NCG590000.
COMPLIANCE -- Since 2020 BIMS records no violations / no penalty assessments issued
by the DWR.
PERMITTING STRATEGY -- RATIONALE FOR 2023 RENEWAL
The following will be incorporated into the permit.
1. Updated site map and narrative for Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet.
2. Discontinued monitoring for Total Iron [no standard/no longer a
parameter of concern (POC)].
3. Continued quarterly monitoring for Total Manganese as required for
greensand, but not limited, per WTP strategy [no discharge to WS waters].
4. Total Hardness [to evaluate dissolved -fraction limits l — Because manganese
cannot be limited (applies only in WS waters), and because manganese is the only
remaining metal POC, Total Hardness monitoring (U&E) is not required.
5. Current Neuse River Guidelines classify this facility as non -nitrogen
producing; however, TN/TP semi-annually monitoring remains in the
permit per Neuse River strategy; no changes recommended.
6. Because TN/TP monitoring is required [class NSW], this facility is not
eligible for WTP General Permit NCG590000.
Fact Sheet Renewal — REDRAFT 20Feb2O24
NPDES NCO087840
Page 2 of 7

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Re -Draft to Public Notice: February 20, 2024
[Tentative] Submittal for final signature: March 22, 2024
[Tentative] Permit Issue date: April 26, 2024
[Tentative] Effective date June 1, 2024
Note: permit issuance was delayed due to personnel scheduling and State signatory issues.
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions about any of the above information, or on the attached permit, please email
Joe R. Corporon, P.G. [e-mail]].
( _»
TE: Re -DRAFT 20Feb2O24
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 2. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(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
1 100
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
Fact Sheet Renewal — REDRAFT 20Feb2O24
NPDES NCO087840
Page 3 of 7

Table 2 Notes:
l . FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 3. 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, 1
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness] (0.041838)} e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-
3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout
waters
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)}
3.6236}
e^{0.9151[ln hardness] -
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)}
4.4451 }
e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700)
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^(0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702)
Lead, Acute
WER* { 1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712))
1.460 }
eA{ 1.273[ln hardness]-
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)}
4.705 }
e^{1.273[ln hardness]-
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • eA( 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.
Fact Sheet Renewal - REDRAFT 201762024
NPDES NC0087840
Page 4 of 7

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.
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 IQ10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs)1.1
• 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.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, m ) x (s7010, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ10 flow.
Fact Sheet Renewal — REDRAFT 20Feb2O24
NPDES NCO087840
Page 5 of 7

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.
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 = WOW + Qw (Z Cwgs) — (s70 10) (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
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.
Fact Sheet Renewal — REDRAFT 20Feb2024
NPDES NC0087840
Page 6 of 7

9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Table 4
Parameter
Value
Comments Data Source
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
N/A
No metals monitored
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
N/A
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
N/A
1 Q 10 (cfs)
N/A
Permitted Flow (MGD)
Not limited
Fact Sheet Renewal — REDRAFT 20Feb2024
NPDES NC0087840
Page 7 of 7