NC0021709_Permit (Issuance)_20110727

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER !;uIEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0021709
Jefferson WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
July 27, 2011
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the resrerse side

trA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Ccleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
July 27, 2011
Mr. Tim Church, Water Resources Director
Town of Jefferson
P.O. Box 97
Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit NC0021709
Jefferson WWTP
Facility Class I j
Ashe County
Dear Mr. Church:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge 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 final permit authorizes the Town of Jefferson to discharge wastewater from the Jefferson WWTP to
Naked Creek, a class C+ water in the New River Basin. The supplemental "+" symbol on the classification
indicates that N'aked Creek is subject to a special management strategy in the Outstanding Resource
Waters rule to protect the downstream South Fork New River. The final permit includes discharge
limitations/or monitoring requirements for flow, BOD5, ammonia nitrogen, total suspended solids (TSS),
dissolved oxygen, total residual chlorine, fecal coliform, copper, zinc, cyanide, lead, cadmium, mercury,
and several other parameters.
The receiving stream, Naked Creek, is also listed as an impaired waterbody on the North Carolina
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
stream impairment can be attributed to your facility, then mitigative measures may be required.
The following procedure has been implemented by DWQ: Total residual chlorine (TRC) compliance
level changed to 50 ug/1 Effective March 1, 2008, the Division received EPA approval to allow a 50ug/1
TRC compliance level. This change is due to analytical difficulties with TRC measurements. Facilities will
still be required to report actual results on their monthly discharge monitoring report (DMR) submittals,
but for compliance purposes, all TRC values below 50 ug/1 will be treated as zero. A footnote regarding
this change has been added to the effluent limitations page in the permit and was included based on the
facility's chlorination system.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Letter to Mr. Church
2
Please note that the following modification has been included in the final permit and differs from
the June 8th draft permit:
• During the review process by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it was the
recommendation of that agency that the existing mercury limit of 40 ng/ 1 must remain in
the permit to uphold the antibacksliding provision of the Clean Water Act. Because of
North Carolina's statewide mercury impairment of all streams, the removal of a mercury
limit from an existing permit is not allowed unless a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to
address the impairment has been developed. Therefore, monthly average and daily
maximum limits of 40 ng/1 for mercury are in the final permit and will be monitored
quarterly. Correspondence from EPA with their rationale and explanation on this matter is
being forwarded to the City of Jefferson.
These modifications listed in the draft permit, remain in the final permit:
• A monthly average limit of 3.4 ug/1 and a daily maximum limit of 22.3 ug/1 for cadmium
have been added to the permit and will be sampled monthly. Results of a reasonable
potential analysis on submitted data indicated there was reasonable potential to exceed the
water quality standard instream.
• A monthly average limit of 8.4 ug/1 and a daily maximum limit of 32.8 ug/1 for cyanide
have been added to the permit and will be sampled monthly. Results of a reasonable
potential analysis on submitted data indicated there was reasonable potential to exceed the
water quality standard instream.
• Total lead will continue to be limited in the permit, and has been modified to a monthly
average of 42.1 ug/1 and a daily maximum of 50.3 ug/1..Lead will be sampled monthly.
Results of a reasonable potential analysis on submitted data indicated there was
reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard instream.
• Monitoring for copper and zinc will remain in the permit based on the results of the
reasonable potential analyses, which indicated potential to exceed the water quality action
level standard instream. Copper and zinc will now be monitored quarterly in conjunction
with the whole effluent toxicity test.
• Monitoring for total silver has been deleted from the permit. Results of a reasonable
potential analysis on submitted data indicated there was no reasonable potential to exceed
the water quality standard in the receiving stream. Silver should continue to be monitored
during the pretreatment program plan.
• Please note that there have been minor language changes and the addition of a new
paragraph regarding data submittal in special condition A.2. Chronic Toxicity permit limit.
(The new paragraph is located second from the end of the condition).
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 a demand is made, this permit
shall be final and binding.

Letter to Mr. Church
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. 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 Quality, or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits may be
required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell at
telephone number [phone] or jackie.noweU ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
44,84,
?4, Coleen H. Sullins
'U
Attachments
cc: NPDES File/NC0021709
EPA Region IV/Attn: Pamala Myers (ecopy)
Winston Salem Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit (ecopy)
PERCS/Attn: Deborah Gore (ecopy)
Central Files

Permit NC0021709
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision 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
Town of Jefferson
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Jefferson WWTP
NC Highway 16 South
East of Jefferson
Ashe County '
to receiving waters designated as Naked Creek in the New 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 September 1, 2011.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2015.
Signed this day July 27, 2011
Colee H. Sullins, Di o
Di ion of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0021709
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit 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 Town of Jefferson is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.600 MGD wastewater treatment system
consisting of the following:
♦ Wet well with automatic bar screen
♦ Raw pump
♦ Flow splitter
♦ Secondary clarifier
♦ Chlorination (disinfection)
♦ Dechlorination
♦ Aerobic digestor
♦ Two traveling bridge filters
♦_ Two sludge holding units
♦ Belt press
♦ Sludge dryer
The facility is located at Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Plant, NC Highw .y 16
• South, east of Jefferson in Ashe County;
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into Naked Creek, classified C+ waters in the New River Basin.

Town of Jefferson
Jefferson WWTP
Latitude: 36° 24' 35" N State Grid: Jefferson
Longitude: 81° 25' 43" W Permitted Flow: 0.6 MGD
Receiving Stream: Naked Creek Drainage Basin: New River Basin
Stream Class: C Sub-Basin/HUC: 05-07-01/05050001
+• ..▪ ,. ref-`y,�, f_.,.- y
! /�'!y•
NPDES Permit No. NC0021709
Ashe County

Permit NC0021709
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Locationl
Flow
0.6 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C)2
(April 1- October 31)
5.0 mglL
7.5 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C)2
(November 1 - March 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
20.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1- October 31)
2.0 mg!L
6.0 mg1L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1- March 31)
4.0 mg!L
12.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3
3/Week
Grab
Effluent, Upstream,
Downstream
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
31Week
Grab
Effluent
pH
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
31Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
28 µg/L4
31Week
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
31Week
Grab
Effluent, Upstream,
Downstream
Total Nitrogen
Semi-annually
Composite
. . Effluent
Total Phosphorus
.
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Cadmium
3.4 µg/L
22.3 µg/L
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Cyanides
8.4 µg/L
32.8 µg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Lead
42.1 µg/L
50.3 µg/L
Monthly
_
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Mercury
40 ngll
40 ngll
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Annual
. Variable
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Upstream samples should be taken just below the Highway 16 bridge (100 feet above discharge)
and downstream samples should be taken 100 yards downstream of discharge, just beyond the
end .of the aerobic digestor.
2. The monthly average effluent BADS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4. The Division shall consider all effluent total residual chlorine values reported below 50 µg/ 1 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/ 1.
5. The quantitation limit for cyanide shall be 10 µg/ L (10 ppb). Levels reported at less than 10 pg/L
shall be considered zero for compliance purposes.
6. Whole effluent toxicity will be monitored using the Pass/Fail Chronic Toxicity test with
Ceriodaphnia at 30%. Samples shall be taken in February, May, August & November; see A. (2.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts

Permit NC002 1709
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly) — 0.6 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 30%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
February, Mau, August and November. Effluent sampling for this testing 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 -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) 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. If reporting
pass/fail results using the parameter code TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below
address. If reporting Chronic Value results using the parameter code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR DWQ / Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental 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 Environmental 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.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, the results of
such monitoring shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR &
all AT Forms submitted.
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.

Permit NC0021709
A. (3.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The Permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the attached table
(using a sufficiently sensitive detection level in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). Samples shall represent
seasonal variations. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total?
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen 1 ,2-dichloropropane Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite 1,3-dichloropropylene 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Kjeldahl nitrogen Ethylbenzene Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease Methyl bromide 2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus Methyl chloride 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids Methylene chloride Chrysene
Hardness 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony Tetrachloroethylene Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic Toluene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium 1,1,1-trichloroethane 1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium 1,1,2-trichloroethane 1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium Trichloroethylene 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper Vinyl chloride 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead Acid -extractable compounds: Diethyl phthalate •
Mercury -(EPA Method 1631 E) P-chloro-m-cresol Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel 2-chlorophenol 2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium 2,4-dichlorophenol 2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver 2,4-dimethylphenol 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol Fluoranthene
Zinc 2,4-dinitrophenol Fluorene
Cyanide 2-nitrophenol Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds 4-nitrophenol • Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic compounds: Pentachlorophenol Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein Phenol Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene Base -neutral compounds: Isophorone
Bromoform Acenaphthene Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride Acenaphthylene Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene Anthracene N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane Benzidine N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane Benzo(a)anthracene N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether Benzo(a)pyrene Phenanthrene
Chloroform 3,4 benzofluoranthene Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane Benzo(ghi)perylene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- A MR-PPA1 or in a form approved
by the Director within 90 days of sampling. The report shall be submitted to the following
address: Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection Section, Central Files, 1617 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

1l (evlevjr/4
DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0021709
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Jefferson WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 67, 303 E. Main St.; Jefferson, NC 28640
Facility Address:
1233 Hwy 16 South; Jefferson, NC 28640
Permitted Flow
0.6 MGD
Type of Waste:
81% Domestic
19% Industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Active, renewal
County:
Ashe
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Naked Creek
C+
303(d) Listed?
Yes (biologically
impaired)
Subbasin/HUC: 050701/0505000102
Drainage Area (mi2): 6.4
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 2.2
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 3.4
30Q2 (cfs) 4.5
Avera . e Flow cfs : 12
1WC (%):
29.7
Regional Office:
Winston-Salem
State Grid / USGS • uad: B 13NW/Jefferson
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
May 11,2011
Lat. 36° 24 37" N Long. 81 ° 25' 45" W
BACKGROUND:
Jefferson WWTP is a 0.6 MGD wastewater treatment plant serving 1,400 customers in the Town
of Jefferson. The plant has completed an expansion and upgrade from 0.3 MGD to 0.6 MGD.
The facility discharges to Naked Creek, which is classified as a C+ waters in the New River
Basin. Because of the supplemental "+" symbol on the classification, Naked Creek is subject to
a special management strategy in 15A NCAC 2B .0225, the Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) rule to protect the downstream waters South Fork New and New Rivers designated
ORW area. The stream is listed on the 2010 North Carolina impaired stream 303(d) list for
degraded ecological/biological integrity within the fish community.
The permit will continue to require the City to implement its pretreatment program. Jefferson has
a pretreatment program with a short term monitoring plan, because it has a permitted flow of less
than 2 MGD and/or less than four (4) significant industrial users (SICs). Significant industrial
users include American Emergency Vehicles and Gates Rubber Company.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS:
The following parameters are monitored through the existing permit: Cd, CN, Cu, Pb, Zn, Hg,
Ag.
The following parameters are monitored through the modified pretreatment program with short
term monitoring program (STMP): As, Cd, Cr, Cu, CN, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn, Ag. In the
STMP, 4 samples are taken in one year, then none for the next four years, then repeat.
Fact Sheet
NPDES N0002I 709 Renewal
Page I

Data submitted in discharge monitoring reports and PPAs from 2009 through 2010 were
evaluated and a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was done to determine whether effluent
limitations or monitoring should be included in this permit renewal. Because of the C+
classification and the strategy to protect the ORW area downstream, one half the NC standard
was used to develop the allowable concentrations for all metals except for mercury. For mercury,
because of the statewide mercury impairment, the EPA recommended procedure of allowing no
dilution for development of Hg limits was maintained, and therefore the NC standard of 12 ng/1
was applied, instead of halving the Hg standard to 6 ng/l.
The RPA and effluent data is attached to the factsheet and the results are summarized below:
o Monthly average and daily maximum limits for cadmium, cyanide and lead
will be recommended based on the results of the reasonable potential analyses.
The analyses indicated the reasonable potential for these parameters to exceed
the North Carolina water quality standard in the receiving stream. These
parameters will be limited and monitored monthly in accordance with DWQ
guidance.
o The daily maximum limit for mercury will be dropped from the permit based
on the results of the reasonable potential analysis. However, quarterly
monitoring for mercury will remain in the permit, based on the evaluation of
the submitted data.
o Silver monitoring will be dropped from the permit. There was no reasonable
potential shown to exceed the water quality action level standard instream.
All submitted silver data was below the laboratory detection level. Division
guidance recommends that silver monitoring be continued in the pretreatment
monitoring plan.
o Copper and zinc monitoring will remain in the permit based on the results of
the reasonable potential analyses. There was reasonable potential shown to
exceed the water quality action level standard instream. These parameters
will be monitored quarterly in conjunction with the whole effluent toxicity
test.
TOXICITY TESTING:
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass/Fail (Quarterly)
001: Chronic P/F @ 30%
001: Chronic P/F @ 30%
February, May, August, and November
The facility has consistently passed its WET tests during this permit cycle.
the quarterly test has been passed 17 times, with two invalid tests in 2009.
It is recommended that the chronic pass/fail test be renewed in this permit.
Since February 2007,
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
While overall compliance appeared to be good, the Jefferson WWTP did have violations of the
lead limit in 2006, 2007 and 2009. DWQ actions included enforcement cases and notices of
violation because of these violations.
Past compliance evaluations of the facility have found the plant to be compliant with no major
problems, reported.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC002 1 709 Renewal
Page 2

INSTREAM MONITORING:
Upstream: 50 feet upstream
Downstream: 250 feet downstream
Parameters: Temperature and dissolved oxygen
Reviewed instream data from 2008-2010 for the months of June through September. The review
indicated that there were no DO stream standard violations downstream of the discharge for the
past 3 years. Monthly downstream DO values ranged from 7.8 mg/1 to 9.6 mg/1. Recommend
continuation of instream monitoring for temperature and dissolved oxygen.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
• Silver monitoring deleted because of RPA results and will continue to be monitored in
STMP.
• Mercury limit deleted because of RPA results, however quarterly monitoring will remain in
the permit.
• Monitoring for copper and zinc will be modified from 2/monthly to quarterly based on the
results of the RPA and DWQ guidance for metals monitoring.
• Limits for cadmium, lead, and cyanide will be in the permit and the monitoring frequency
will be monthly based on the results of the RPA which indicated potential to exceed the NC
standard instream and DWQ guidance for metals monitoring.
•
Existing permit limits and recommended limits/monitoring are summarized in the table below:
Parameter
Existing Limit
(µto)
Existing
Monitorin
g
Proposed Limit
(µid)
Proposed
Monitoring
Cadmium
none
2/month
3.4 (ma); 22.3 (dm)
Monthly
Lead
34
Weekly
42.1 (ma); 50.3 (dm)
Monthly
Cyanide
none
2/month
8.4 (ma); 32.8 (dm)
Monthly
Mercury
0.04
Weekly
none
Quarterly
Copper
none
2/month
none
Quarterly
Silver
none
2/month
none
none
Zinc
none
2/month
none
Quarterly
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: June 8, 2011
Permit Scheduled to Issue: August 2, 2011 (est.).
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Jackie Nowell at 919-807-6386 or [e-mail]
NAME: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JACQUELYN M. NOWELL DATE: 6/8/2011
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC002 I 709 Renewal
Page 3

Town of Jefferson REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021709
Qw (MGD) = 0.60
IQIOS (cfs) = 1.84
7QIOS (cfs) = 2.20
7Q1OW (cfs)= 3.40
30Q2 (cfs) = 4.50
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 12.00
Receiving Stream: Naked Creek
WWTP/WTP Class
IWC re IQIOS = 33.57%
IWC a 7QIOS = 29.71%
IWC@7QIOW= 21.48%
IWC @ 30Q2 = 17.13%
lWC@QA= 7.19%
Stream Class: C+
Outfal: 001
Qw = 3.6 MGD
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS HOW OR ORW
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
PQL
UNITS
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Applied
Standard
h FAV /
Acute
❑
Max Pred
fi Det. Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
25
5
FW(7QI0s)
FIH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
__
Chronic: 84.1
Chronic: 69.5
Beryllium
NC
3.25
FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A_
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 10.9
--—--—————--—
Cadmium
NC
1
FW(7Q10s)
7.5
ug/l.
49
3
28.3
Acute: 22.3
__ _ —_—__ __—_
Chronic: 3.4
2 Naluc(s)', Allowable Cn
____________________________
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Chlorides (AL)
NC
115
FW(7QI0s)
mg/F.
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ ---- _ ---
Chronic: 387
------------------------- --
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
0.5
A(30Q2)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
----------------------------
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
150
A(30Q2)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ — — _ _ _
Chronic: 875.7
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Chromium
NC
25
FW(7Q10s)
511
tig/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: 1,522.2
Chronic: 84.1
Copper(AL)
NC
4
FW(7Q10s)
4
ttg/L
49
46
28
Acute: 10.9
_—_—_____—_
Chronic: 11.8
6 value(s) % Allowable (:'w
— _ _ _ _ _ _ —_— _ —_—_—_—.
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply Quarterly
Monitoring in conjunction with TOX Test
Cyanide
NC
2.5
i
FW(7Q10s)
II
10
ug/1.
49
17
29.6
Acute: 32.8
__ _ —_—__ __—_
Chronic: 8.4
6 vatueli):- Allowable Cw
—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—.
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Page 1 of 2
21709rpav2.xlsm, rpa
6/6/2011

Town of Jefferson
NC00217O9
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Outfall 001
Qw = 0.6 MGD
Fluoride
NC
900
FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
-_ --- _ _
—---
Chronic: 3,029.3
----------------------------
Lead
NC
12.5
FW(7Q10s)
16.9
ug/L
104
8
120.6
Acute: 50.3
__ _ _____ ____
C'hron ic: 42.1
‘Awls) \11o\ ahlc ( V
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Molybdenum
NC
80
WS(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
__ _ ---- _ _ --
Chronic: 2693
----------------------------
Nickel
NC
12.5
\VS(7Q I0s)
130.5
ug/I.
0
0
N/A
Acute: 388.7
_ _ _
Chronic: 42.I
Selenium
NC
2.5
FW(7QI0s)
28
ug/L
0
0
NIA
Acute: 83.4
_ _ _
Chronic: 8.4
Silver (AL)
NC
0.03
FW(7Q l0s)
0.615
ug/l.
49
0
1.150
Acute: 1.832
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 0.101
49 valuctsl - :\llnwabI ('\c
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
RP but no values >Detect - No Monitoring, only in
STMP
Zinc(AL)
NC
25
FW(7Q10s)
33.5
ug/L
49
48
1,320.0
Acute: 99.8
_ _____ _____
Chronic: 84.1
valuc(s) `- Allowably Cw•
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) apply Quarterly
Monitoring in conjunction with TOX Test
0
0
N/A
Acute:
__ _
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
_
I
0
0
N/A
Acute:
__ _ _
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- -------------------------------------
Chronic:
Page 2 of 2
21709rpav2.xlsm. rpa
6/6/2011

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JUL 2 0 2011
Mr. Jeff Poupart
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Review
Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Plant (TN0021709)
Dear Mr. Poupart:
On June 13, 2011, the above -referenced draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit was received by the United States Environmental Protection Agency via regular mail
from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), complex permitting section. The EPA's concerns with the actions taken in the
draft permit were discussed in depth with the DWQ staff on July 7, 2011, in a telephone conference call.
To document those comments and in accordance with the EPA/North Carolina NPDES Memorandum of
Agreement, we have completed our review of the above draft permit and have the following comments
which should be addressed prior to final issuance:
Background
Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Plant is in the New River basin in the north western part of North
Carolina and is rated a major facility because it has an active industrial pretreatment program. The plant
discharges to Naked Creek which is subject to a special management strategy of the 15A NCAC 2B
.0225 Outstanding Resource Waters rule to protect downstream waters of the South Fork and New
rivers. Naked Creek is listed as impaired on the 2010 North Carolina impaired 303(d) list for degraded
ecological/biological integrity within the fish community and is also 303(d) listed for mercury
impairment based on the "statewide fish consumption advisory," and the state has not yet developed a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Hg, nor has the state adopted the methyl -mercury fish -tissue
criteria. The state water quality standard (WQS) for mercury is 0.012 µg/L (12 ng/L).
Issue
For development of the new draft permit, a reasonable potential analysis was performed and based on
that analysis the permit writer proposes to remove the Hg limit and recommends "monitoring" only and
to reduce the frequency of monitoring to quarterly.
There are no apparent antidegradation issues, i.e., no new sources/dischargers to the facility, etc.,
however, the EPA contends antibacksliding provisions prevail because the previous permit had a Total
Mercury weekly average limit of 0.04 µg/L and there is still no mercury TMDL with wasteload
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

allocations to address the statewide 303(d) listing. It is the antibacksliding provision of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) that prohibits the removal of the previous permit's Total Mercury limit at this time.
Specifically, CWA Section 303(d)(4)(A) prohibits the revision of any effluent limit for the impairing
parameter, unless the "cumulative effect of all such revised effluent limitations" will assure the
attainment of the WQS. Therefore, removal of the limit would only be allowed in the context of a
TMDL or other watershed level analysis. Absent this type of analysis, the removal of the limit would not
meet the 303(d)(4)(A) condition, and would therefore be prohibited under CWA 402(o)(1). Until the
TMDL is developed, the EPA contends that the current end -of -pipe, weekly average limit of 0.04 µg/L
for Total Mercury must remain in the new permit. This comment is consistent on a national basis with
the EPA's implementation of CWA Section 303(d)(4)(A) for discharges into impaired waters prior to a
TMDL. The EPA does not oppose reducing the frequency of monitoring to quarterly for this reissuance.
We request that you address the concerns stated above prior to issuance and forward a copy of the final
permit to the EPA. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Pamala Myers of my staff at (404)
562-9421 or by email at myers.pamala®epa.gov.
Sincere
J
Christopher B. Thomas, Chief
Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division
cc: Mr. Tim Church
Water Resources Director

• Nowell, Jackie
From: Smith, George
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:48 AM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: Jefferson NC0021709
Jackie,
Sorry for the late response. I reviewed the fact sheet and data along with the draft permit. I do not have any comments
Recommend issuance of the permit.
George
George Smith
New email: george.smithc ncdenr.gov
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
•
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
1

°Nowell, Jackie
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:03 PM
To: Nowell, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; [e-mail]
Subject: NC0021709, Jefferson WWTP, Ashe County
Attachments: pic32637.gif
Ms Nowell, (Jackie),
Thank you for sending this draft permit for review. I see that this is a smaller facility,
yet has an active pretreatment program and discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
From your Fact Sheet and cover letter I understand that you have removed the previous permit
limit for mercury based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA). (You may wish to discuss
this issue with Sergei, as he and I have been evaluating the removal of mercury limits from
reissued permits affected by the statewide 303(d) listing for mercury impairment and how that
can affect backsliding regulations.)
I refer to criteria referenced at 40 C.F.R. §122.44(1) which triggers the anti -degradation
and anti -backsliding evaluations - because of the
303(d) listing and need for a TMDL. For additional assistance, please refer to chapter 7 of
the revised permit writers' manual for a diagram that can lead you through the determination
process, specifically Exhibit 7-2 (included below for quick reference).
At this time, my comment on this draft permit would be that you review your decision to
remove the numeric limit for mercury from the permit because of the overriding criteria of
anti -backsliding.
I realize this is going to cause some considerable debate, however, please do not hesitate to
call or respond back to this email if you have questions or can add clarifying comments to
this draft permit submittal.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic32637.gif)
Thank you for your time,
Pamala
Pamala Myers
Environmental Engineer and Technical Advisor Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section U.S. EPA, Region 4 Atlanta,
GA 30303
404.562.9421
404.562.8692 (fax)
1

Winston-Salem Journal
Advertising Affidavit
Winston-Salem Journal
P.O Box 3159
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
NCDENR/DWQ/POINT SOURCE BRANCH
ATTN: DINA SPRINKLE
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
Account Number
3376309
Date
June 10, 2011
Date Category
Description
Ad Size
Total Cost
06/10/2011
Legal Notices
PUBLIC NOTICE North Carolina Environment
1 x 34 L
256.00
PUBLIC NOTICE
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Notice off Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission proposes to Issue a NPDES wastewa-
ter discharge permit to the person(s) listed below.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit
will be accepted until 30 days after the publish
date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) may hold a public hearing
should there be a significant degree of public in-
terest. Please mall comments and/or information
requests to DWQ at the above address. Interested
persons may visit the DWQ 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✓/portal
.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ps/npdes/calendar. or
by calling 919) 807-6304.
The Town of Jefferson requested renewal of per-
mit NC0021709 for Jefferson WWTP In Ashe Coun-
ty: this permitted discharge is treated municipal
wastewater to Naked Creek, New River Basin.
WSJ: June 10, 2011
Media General Operations, Inc.
Publisher of the
Winston-Salem Journal
Forsyth County
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Forsyth County, North Carolina, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared S.
A. Bragman, who by being duly sworn deposes and says: that she is the Assistant Controller
of the Winston-Salem Journal, engaged in the publishing of a newspaper known as
Winston-Salem Journal, published, issued and entered as second class mail in the City of
Winston-Salem, in 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 Winston-Salem Journal on the following dates:
06/10/2011
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 10th day of June, 2011
(signature o • erson making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 10th day of June, 201
My Commission expires
KI. ALEY JOHNSON
NOTARY PUBLIC
FORSYTH COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH CAR L /'
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES'4v".
THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JUN 2 3 2011
Mr. Jeff Poupart
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Poupart:
This letter is to notify you that the Environmental Protection Agency will need additional time to
complete its review of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
the Jefferson WWTP (Permit No. NC0021709). This draft permit was received by our office on June 13,
2011. In accordance with the North Carolina/EPA Memorandum of Agreement and provided by 40 Code
of Federal Regulations § 123.44(a), the EPA may use up to the full 90-day review period from the date
of receipt to review this draft NPDES permit. EPA Region 4 will make every effort to provide any
comments or objections before September 11, 2011, when the 90-day review period ends.
If you have any questions, please call me or have your staff contact Ms. Pamala Myers at
[phone].
cc: Mr. Tim Church
Water Resources Director
Christopher B. Thomas, Chief
Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division
,r, is V� -� 10
JUN 2 7 2011 I
D ilk-A/1-;7E QUALITY
BRANCH
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

Nowell, Jackie
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:03 PM
To: Nowell, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; [e-mail]
Subject: NC0021709, Jefferson WWTP, Ashe County
Attachments: pic32637.gif
Ms Nowell, (Jackie),
Thank you for sending this draft permit for review. I see that this is a smaller facility,
yet has an active pretreatment program and discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
From your Fact Sheet and cover letter I understand that you have removed the previous permit
limit for mercury based on the reasonable potential analysis (RPA). (You may wish to discuss
this issue with Sergei, as he and I have been evaluating the removal of mercury limits from
reissued permits affected by the statewide 303(d) listing for mercury impairment and how that
can affect backsliding regulations.)
I refer to criteria referenced at 40 C.F.R. §122.44(1) which triggers the anti -degradation
and anti -backsliding evaluations - because of the
303(d) listing and need for a TMDL. For additional assistance, please refer to chapter 7 of
the revised permit writers' manual for a diagram that can lead you through the determination
process, specifically Exhibit 7-2 (included below for quick reference).
At this time, my comment on this draft permit would be that you review your decision to
remove the numeric limit for mercury from the permit because of the overriding criteria of
anti -backsliding.
I realize this is going to cause some considerable debate, however, please do not hesitate to
call or respond back to this email if you have questions or can add clarifying comments to
this draft permit submittal.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic32637.gif)
Thank you for your time,
Pamala
Pamala Myers
Environmental Engineer and Technical Advisor Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section U.S. EPA, Region 4 Atlanta,
GA 30303
404.562.9421
404.562.8692 (fax)

September 2010
NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
Exhibit 7-2 Application of anti -backsliding requirements
Is effluent limitation based on a state standard?
ikwucriou
Yes
402(o)(1)i303(d)(4)
Are water quality standards attained?
303(d)(4)(8)
Attainment waters
is revision consistent with
antidegradation?
No
Revision
not allowed
or
No
402(0)(2)
Is a listed exception met?
303(d)(4)(A)
Non -Attainment Waters
Is existing limit based on a
TMDL or WLA?
Yes
Is attainment of water
quality standards assured?
(including antidegradation)
No
Yes
402(o)(3)
Does revision comply with effluent
guidelines and water quality standards?
(including antidegradation)
Yes
Revision allowed
Revision not allowed
Yes
0
See existing
regulations
40 CFR 122.44 (I)
Exhibit 7-3 presents some examples of situations when backsliding night be a factor in effluent limitation
development.

40 CFR §122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions
(applicable to State NPDES programs, see §123.25).
In addition to the conditions established under §122.43(a), each NPDES permit shall include
conditions meeting the following requirements when applicable.
(a) Technology -based effluent limitations and standards based on effluent limitations and
standards promulgated under section 301 of CWA or new source performance standards
promulgated under section 306 of CWA, on case -by -case effluent limitations determined under
section 402(a)(1) of CWA, or on a combination of the two, in accordance with §125.3. For new
sources or new dischargers, these technology based limitations and standards are subject to the
provisions of §122.29(d) (protection period).
(b)(1) Other effluent limitations and standards under sections 301, 302, 303, 307, 318 and 405 of
CWA. If any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of
compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is promulgated under section
307(a) of CWA for a toxic pollutant and that standard or prohibition is more stringent than any
limitation on the pollutant in the permit, the Director shall institute proceedings under these
regulations to modify or revoke and reissue the permit to conform to the toxic effluent standard or
prohibition. See also §122.41(a).
(2) Standards for sewage sludge use or disposal under section 405(d) of the CWA unless those
standards have been included in a permit issued under the appropriate provisions of subtitle C of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Part C of Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, or the Clean Air Act, or under State permit programs approved by the
Administrator. When there are no applicable standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, the
permit may include requirements developed on a case -by -case basis to protect public health and
the environment from any adverse effects which may occur from toxic pollutants in sewage
sludge. If any applicable standard for sewage sludge use or disposal is promulgated under
section 405(d) of the CWA and that standard is more stringent than any limitation on the pollutant
or practice in the permit, the Director may initiate proceedings under these regulations to modify
or revoke and reissue the permit to conform to the standard for sewage sludge use or disposal.
(c) Reopener clause: for any discharger within a primary industry category (see appendix A),
requirements under section 307(a)(2) of CWA as follows:
(1) On or before June 30, 1981: (i) If applicable standards or limitations have not yet been
promulgated, the permit shall include a condition stating that, if an applicable standard or
limitation is promulgated under sections 301(b)(2) (C) and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) and that
effluent standard or limitation is more stringent than any effluent limitation in the permit or
controls a pollutant not limited in the permit, the permit shall be promptly modified or revoked and
reissued to conform to that effluent standard or limitation.
(ii) If applicable standards or limitations have been promulgated or approved, the permit shall
include those standards or limitations. (If EPA approves existing effluent limitations or decides
not to develop new effluent limitations, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register that the
limitations are "approved" for the purpose of this regulation.)
(2) On or after the statutory deadline set forth in section 301(b)(2) (A), (C), and (E) of CWA, any
permit issued shall include effluent limitations to meet the requirements of section 301(b)(2) (A),
(C), (D), (E), (F), whether or not applicable effluent limitations guidelines have been promulgated
or approved. These permits need not incorporate the clause required by paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(3) The Director shall promptly modify or revoke and reissue any permit containing the clause
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to incorporate an applicable effluent standard or
limitation under sections 301(b)(2) (C) and (D), 304(b)(2) and 307(a)(2) which is promulgated or
approved after the permit is issued if that effluent standard or limitation is more stringent than any
effluent limitation in the permit, or controls a pollutant not limited in the permit.
(4) For any permit issued to a treatment works treating domestic sewage (including "sludge -only
facilities"), the Director shall include a reopener clause to incorporate any applicable standard for
sewage sludge use or disposal promulgated under section 405(d) of the CWA. The Director may
promptly modify or revoke and reissue any permit containing the reopener clause required by this

paragraph if the standard for sewage sludge use or disposal is more stringent than any
requirements for sludge use or disposal in the permit, or controls a pollutant or practice not
limited in the permit.
(d) Water quality standards and State requirements: any requirements in addition to or more
stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards under sections 301, 304,
306, 307, 318 and 405 of CWA necessary to:
(1) Achieve water quality standards established under section 303 of the CWA, including State
narrative criteria for water quality.
(i) Limitations must control all pollutants or pollutant parameters (either conventional,
nonconventional, or toxic pollutants) which the Director determines are or may be discharged at a
level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion
above any State water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality.
(ii) When determining whether a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an in -stream excursion above a narrative or numeric criteria within a State water
quality standard, the permitting authority shall use procedures which account for existing
controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the variability of the pollutant or pollutant
parameter in the effluent, the sensitivity of the species to toxicity testing (when evaluating whole
effluent toxicity), and where appropriate, the dilution of the effluent in the receiving water.
(iii) When the permitting authority determines, using the procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section, that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in -
stream excursion above the allowable ambient concentration of a State numeric criteria within a
State water quality standard for an individual pollutant, the permit must contain effluent limits for
that pollutant.
(iv) When the permitting authority determines, using the procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section, that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in -
stream excursion above the numeric criterion for whole effluent toxicity, the permit must contain
effluent limits for whole effluent toxicity.
(v) Except as provided in this subparagraph, when the permitting authority determines, using the
procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, toxicity testing data, or other information, that a
discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in -stream excursion
above a narrative criterion within an applicable State water quality standard, the permit must
contain effluent limits for whole effluent toxicity. Limits on whole effluent toxicity are not
necessary where the permitting authority demonstrates in the fact sheet or statement of basis of
the NPDES permit, using the procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, that chemical -
specific limits for the effluent are sufficient to attain and maintain applicable numeric and
narrative State water quality standards.
(vi) Where a State has not established a water quality criterion for a specific chemical pollutant
that is present in an effluent at a concentration that causes, has the reasonable potential to cause,
or contributes to an excursion above a narrative criterion within an applicable State water quality
standard, the permitting authority must establish effluent limits using one or more of the following
options:
(A) Establish effluent limits using a calculated numeric water quality criterion for the pollutant
which the permitting authority demonstrates will attain and maintain applicable narrative water
quality criteria and will fully protect the designated use. Such a criterion may be derived using a
proposed State criterion, or an explicit State policy or regulation interpreting its narrative water
quality criterion, supplemented with other relevant information which may include: EPA's Water
Quality Standards Handbook, October 1983, risk assessment data, exposure data, information
about the pollutant from the Food and Drug Administration, and current EPA criteria documents;
or
(B) Establish effluent limits on a case -by -case basis, using EPA's water quality criteria, published
under section 307(a) of the CWA, supplemented where necessary by other relevant information; or
(C) Establish effluent limitations on an indicator parameter for the pollutant of concern, provided:
(1) The permit identifies which pollutants are intended to be controlled by the use of the effluent
limitation;
(2) The fact sheet required by §124.56 sets forth the basis for the limit, including a finding that
compliance with the effluent limit on the indicator parameter will result in controls on the pollutant

of concern which are sufficient to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards;
(3) The permit requires all effluent and ambient monitoring necessary to show that during the term
of the permit the limit on the indicator parameter continues to attain and maintain applicable water
quality standards; and
(4) The permit contains a reopener clause allowing the permitting authority to modify or revoke
and reissue the permit if the limits on the indicator parameter no longer attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards.
(vii) When developing water quality -based effluent limits under this paragraph the permitting
authority shall ensure that:
(A) The level of water quality to be achieved by limits on point sources established under this
paragraph is derived from, and complies with all applicable water quality standards; and
(B) Effluent limits developed to protect a narrative water quality a numeric water quality criterion,
or both, are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload
allocation for the discharge prepared by the State and approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7.
(2) Attain or maintain a specified water quality through water quality related effluent limits
established under section 302 of CWA;
(3) Conform to the conditions to a State certification under section 401 of the CWA that meets the
requirements of §124.53 when EPA is the permitting authority. If a State certification is stayed by a
court of competent jurisdiction or an appropriate State board or agency, EPA shall notify the State
that the Agency will deem certification waived unless a finally effective State certification is
received within sixty days from the date of the notice. If the State does not forward a finally
effective certification within the sixty day period, EPA shall include conditions in the permit that
may be necessary to meet EPA's obligation under section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA;
(4) Conform to applicable water quality requirements under section 401(a)(2) of CWA when the
discharge affects a State other than the certifying State;
(5) Incorporate any more stringent limitations, treatment standards, or schedule of compliance
requirements established under Federal or State law or regulations in accordance with section
301(b)(1)(C) of CWA;
(6) Ensure consistency with the requirements of a Water Quality Management plan approved by
EPA under section 208(b) of CWA;
(7) Incorporate section 403(c) criteria under Part 125, subpart M, for ocean discharges;
(8) Incorporate alternative effluent limitations or standards where warranted by "fundamentally
different factors," under 40 CFR Part 125, subpart D;
(9) Incorporate any other appropriate requirements, conditions, or (other than effluent limitations)
into a new source permit to the extent allowed by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq. and section 511 of the CWA, when EPA is the permit issuing authority. (See
§122.29(c)).
(e) Technology -based controls for toxic pollutants. Limitations established under paragraphs (a),
(b), or (d) of this section, to control pollutants meeting the criteria listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section. Limitations will be established in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section. An
explanation of the development of these limitations shall be included in the fact sheet under
§124.56(b)(1)(i).
(1) Limitations must control all toxic pollutants which the Director determines (based on
information reported in a permit application under §122.21(g)(7) or (10) or in a notification under
§122.42(a)(1) or on other information) are or may be discharged at a level greater than the level
which can be achieved by the technology -based treatment requirements appropriate to the
permittee under §125.3(c); or
(2) The requirement that the limitations control the pollutants meeting the criteria of paragraph
(e)(1) of this section will be satisfied by:
(i) Limitations on those pollutants; or
(ii) Limitations on other pollutants which, in the judgment of the Director, will provide treatment of
the pollutants under paragraph (e)(1) of this section to the levels required by §125.3(c).
(f) Notification level. A "notification level" which exceeds the notification level of §§122.42(a)(1)(i),
(ii) or (iii), upon a petition from the permittee or on the Director's initiative. This new notification
level may not exceed the level which can be achieved by the technology -based treatment
requirements appropriate to the permittee under §125.3(c)

(g) Twenty-four hour reporting. Pollutants for which the permittee must report violations of
maximum daily discharge limitations under §122.41(1)(6)(ii)(C) (24-hour reporting) shall be listed
in the permit. This list shall include any toxic pollutant or hazardous substance, or any pollutant
specifically identified as the method to control a toxic pollutant or hazardous substance.
(h) Durations for permits, as set forth in §122.46.
(i) Monitoring requirements. In addition to §122.48, the following monitoring requirements:
(1) To assure compliance with permit limitations, requirements to monitor:
(i) The mass (or other measurement specified in the permit) for each pollutant limited in the
permit;
(ii) The volume of effluent discharged from each outfall;
(iii) Other measurements as appropriate including pollutants in internal waste streams under
122.45(i); pollutants in intake water for net limitations under §122.45(f); frequency, rate of
discharge, etc., for noncontinuous discharges under §122.45(e); pollutants subject to notification
requirements under §122.42(a); and pollutants in sewage sludge or other monitoring as specified
in 40 CFR Part 503; or as determined to be necessary on a case -by -case basis pursuant to section
405(d)(4) of the CWA.

Town of Jefferson
NC0021709
Qw (MGD) = 0.60
I Q I OS (cfs) = 0.00
7Q I OS (cfs) = 0.00
7Q 10W (cfs) = 0.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 0.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 0.00
Receiving Stream: Naked Creek
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
WWTP/WTP Class Aril"
IWC @ IQIOS = 100.00%
IWC @ 7QI0S = 100.00%
IWC @ 7QIOW = 100.00%
IWC @ 30Q2 = 100.00%
IWC @ QA = 100.00%
Stream Class: C+
Outfali 001
Qw = 0.6 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
PQL
UNITS
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTIN
NC WQS / Applied 1. FAV /
Chronic Standard Acute
Max Pred
tl if Det. Cw Allowable Cw
Mercury
NC
12 FW(7QI0s)
0.5
ng/L
104 43
9.4
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ ___ ____
Chronic: 12.0
No value > Allowable t' ti
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____
No RP , Predicted Max a 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
0 0
N/A
Acute:
--------------------------------------
Chronic:
0 0
N/A
Acute:
-- _ ---------------------------------
Chronic:
-----
0 0
N/A
Acute:
-------------------------------------
Chronic:
0 0
N/A
Acute:
-- _ --- —----------------------------------
Chronic:
Page 1 of 1
21709rpaHgonly.xlsm, rpa
6/6/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
4
Cadmium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/1/2009 < 0.2 0.1 Std Dev.
2 < 0.2 0.1 Mean
3 1. 1 C.V.
4 < 0.2 0.1 n
5 < 0.2 0.1
6 < 0.2 0.1 Mull Factor =
7 < 0.2 0.1 Max. Value
8 < 0.2 0.1 Max. Pred Cw
9 < 0.2 0.1
10 < 0.2 0.1
11 6/1/2009 6. 6
12 6/1/2009 . 6. 6
13 < 0.2 0.1
14 < 0.2 0.1
15 < 0.2 0.1
16 < 0.2 0.1
17 < 0.2 0.1
18 < 0.2 0.1
19 < 0.2 0.1
20 < 0.2 0.1
21 < 0.2 0.1
22 < 0.2 0.1
23 < 0.2 0.1
24 < 0.2 0.1
25 < 0.2 0.1
26 < 0.2 0.1
27 < 0.2 0.1
28 < 0.2 0.1
29 < 0.2 0.1
30 < 0.2 0.1
31 < 0.2 0.1
32 < 0.2 0.1
33 < 0.2 0.1
34 < 0.2 0.1
35 < 0.2 0.1
36 < 0.2 0.1
37 < 0.2 0.1
38 < 0.2 0.1
39 < 0.2 0.1
40 < 0.2 0.1
41 < 0.2 0.1
42 < 0.2 0.1
43 < 0.2 0.1
44 < 0.2 0.1
45 < 0.2 0.1
46 < 0.2 0.1
47 < 0.2 0.1
48 < 0.2 0.1
49 12/1/2009 < 0.2 0.1
50
51
52
53
9
1.1827
0.3592
3.2927
49
4.71
6.0 ug/L
28.3 ug/L
Copper (AL)
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12. 12 Std Dev.
2 7. 7 Mean
3 3. 3 C.V.
4 10. 10 n
5 7. 7
6 9. 9 Mult Factor =
7 8. 8 Max. Value
8 8. 8 Max. Pred Cw
9 8. 8
10 8. 8
11 4. 4
12 5. 5
13 < 1. 0.5
14 < 1. 0.5
15 8. 8
16 15. 15
17 11. 11
18 10. 10
19 9. 9
20 6. 6
21 7. 7
22 10. 10
23 11. 11
24 16. 16
25 7. 7
26 8. 8
27 8. 8
28 9. 9
29 4. 4
30 6. 6
31 9. 9
32 6. 6
33 6. 6
34 < 1. 0.5
35 3. 3
36 4. 4
37 5. 5
38 9. 9
39 9. 9
40 8. 8
41 6. 6
42 8. 8
43 7. 7
-4 18. 18
45 12. 12
46 12. 12
47 10. 10
48 6. 6
49 6. 6
50
51
52
53
3.5811
7.7449
0.4624
49
1.54
18.0 ug/L
27.7 ug/L
-1-
21709rpav2.xlsm, data
6/3/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
10
Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/1/2009 8. 5 Std Dev. 2.8394
2 < 5. 5 Mean 5.98
3 < 5. 5 C.V. 0.4748
4 < 5. 5 n 49
5 6. 5
6 < 5. 5 Mult Factor = 1.56
7 6. 5 Max. Value 19.0 ug/L
8 < 5. 5 Max. Pred Cw 29.6 ug/L
9 < 5. 5
10 < 5. 5
11 < 5. 5
12 < 5. 5
13 8. 5
14 6. 5
15 < 5. 5
16 5. 5
17 < 5. 5
18 11. 11
19 5. 5
20 < 5. 5
21 < 5. 5
22 < 5. 5
23 < 5. 5
24 < 5. 5
25 < 5. 5
26 < 5. 5
27 < 5. 5
28 5. 5
29 9. 5
30 < 5. 5
31 < 5. 5
32 13. 13
33 12. 12
34 < 5. 5
35 10. 10
36 6/1/2010 19. 19
37 13. 13
38 < 5. 5
39 < 5. 5
40 < 5. 5
41 < 5. 5
42 < 5. 5
43 < 5. 5
44 6. 5
45 5. 5
46 < 5. 5
47 < 5. 5
48 < 5. 5
49 12/1/2010 < 5. 5
50
51
52
53
-2-
21709rpav2.xlsm, data
6/3/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
12
Lead
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 < 10. 5 Std Dev.
2 < 10. 5 Mean
3 < 10. 5 C.V.
4 < 10. 5 n
5 13. 13
6 10. 10 Mult Factor =
7 < 10. 5 Max. Value
8 < 10. 5 Max. Pred Cw
9 < 10. 5
10 < 10. 5
11 < 10. 5
12 < 10. 5
13 < 10. 5
14 < 10. 5
15 < 10. 5
16 < 10. 5
17 < 10. 5
18 < 10. 5
19 < 10. 5
20 < 10. 5
21 67. 67
22 45. 45
23 46. 46
24 < 10. 5
25 < 10. 5
26 < 10. 5
27 < 10. 5
28 < 10. 5
29 < 10. 5
30 < 10. 5
31 < 10. 5
32 < 10. 5
33 < 10. 5
34 < 10. 5
35 < 10. 5
36 < 10. 5
37 < 10. 5
38 < 10. 5
39 < 10. 5
40 < 10. 5
41 < 10. 5
42 < 10. 5
43 < 10. 5
44 < 10. 5
45 < 10. 5
46 < 10. 5
47 12. 12
48 12. 12
49 12. 12
50 < 10. 5
51 < 10. 5
52 < 10. 5
53 < 10. 5
54 < 10. 5
55 < 10. 5
56 < 10. 5
57 < 10. 5
58 < 10. 5
59 < 10. 5
60 < 10. 5
61 < 10 5
62 < 10. 5
63 < 10. 5
64 < 10. 5
65 < 10. 5
66 < 10. 5
67 < 10. 5
68 < 10. 5
69 < 10. 5
13
Mercury
8.2790
6.7019
1.2353
104
1.80
67.0 ug/L
120.6 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 < 1.00 0.5 Std Dev.
2 1.00 1 Mean
3 1.80 1.8 C.V.
4 < 1.00 0.5 n
5 2.10 2.1
6 1.50 1.5 Mult Factor =
7 1.10 1.1 Max. Value
8 1.30 1.3 Max. Pred Cw
9 1.30 1.3
10 1.00 1
11 < 1.00 0.5
12 1.10 1.1
13 < 1.00 0.5
14 1.10 1.1
15 < 1.00 0.5
16 1.10 1.1
17 < 1.00 0.5
18 < 1.00 0.5
19 < 1.00 0.5
20 1.60 1.6
21 2.80 2.8
22 1.70 1.7
23 1.00 1
24 < 1.00 0.5
25 1.10 1.1
26 < 1.00 0.5
27 1.10 1.1
28 < 1.00 0.5
29 1.00 1
30 < 1.00 0.5
31 < 1.00 0.5
32 < 1.00 0.5
33 1.20 1.2
34 < 1.00 0.5
35 < 1.00 0.5
36 1.10 1.1
37 2.40 2.4
38 < 1.00 0.5
39 < 1.00 0.5
40 < 1.00 0.5
41 < 1.00 0.5
42 < 1.00 0.5
43 < 1.00 0.5
44 < 1.00 0.5
45 1.10 1.1
46 < 1.00 0.5
47 1.10 1.1
48 1.30 1.3
49 < 1.00 0.5
50 1.10 1.1
51 3.10 3.1
52 3.10 3.1
53 1.40 1.4
54 1.20 1.2
55 2.50 2.5
56 3.80 3.8
57 2.40 2.4
58 2.30 2.3
59 1.50 1.5
60 1.50 1.5
61 1.50 1.5
62 < 1.00 0.5
63 < 1.00 0.5
64 2.00 2
65 < 1.00 0.5
66 < 1.00 0.5
67 < 1.00 0.5
68 < 1.00 0.5
69 < 1.00 0.5
0.8443
0.9837
0.8583
104
1.57
6.0 ng/L
9.4 ng/L
-1-
21709rpav2.xlsm, data
6/3/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
70 < 10. 5
71 < 10. 5
72 < 10. 5
73 < 10. 5
74 < 10. 5
75 < 10. 5
76 < 10. 5
77 < 10. 5
78 < 10. 5
79 < 10. 5
80 < 10. 5
81 < 10. 5
82 < 10. 5
83 < 10. 5
84 < 10. 5
85 < 10. 5
86 < 10. 5
87 < 10. 5
88 < 10. 5
89 < 10. 5
90 < 10. 5
91 < 10. 5
92 < 10. 5
93 < 10. 5
94 < 10. 5
95 < 10. 5
96 < 10. 5
97 < 10. 5
98 < 10. 5
99 < 10. 5
100 < 10. 5
101 < 10. 5
102 < 10. 5
103 < 10. 5
104 < 10. 5
105
106
107
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
< 1.00 0.5
1.30 1.3
1.20 1.2
< 1.00 0.5
6.00 6
1.00 1
1.00 1
1.00 1
-2-
21709rpav2.xlsm, data
6/3/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
17
18
Silver (AL)
Zinc (AL)
Date Data
1 1/1/2010 < +.
2
3 < +.
4
5 < +.
6 < 2.
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 12/1/2010 <
50
1.
1.
BDL=1/2DL Results
0.5 Std Dev. 0.0714
0.5 Mean 0.5102
0.5 C.V. 0.1400
0.5 n 49
0.5
1 Mult Factor = 1.15
0.5 Max. Value 1.000 ug/L
0.5 Max. Pred Cw 1.150 ug/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
USE ONLY
'PASTS'
SPECIAL -
Values" WITH
"COPY!' _--
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results _
1 1/1/2009 33. 33 Std Dev. 69.1252
2 25. 25 Mean 54.0102
3 9. 9 C.V. 1.2799
4 51. 51 n 49
5 27. 27
6 50. 50 Mult Factor = 2.64
7 36. 36 Max. Value 500.0 ug/L
8 31. 31 Max. Pred Cw 1320.0 ug/L
9 27. 27
10 26. 26
11 29. 29
12 35. 35
13 < 1. 0.5
14 39. 39
15 25. 25
16 33. 33
17 36. 36
18 42. 42
19 36. 36
20 55. 55
21 43. 43
22 38. 38
23 37. 37
24 37. 37
25 39. 39
26 45. 45
27 43. 43
28 45. 45
29 21. 21
30 42. 42
31 153. 153
32 57. 57
33 37. 37
34 55. 55
35 45. 45
36 34. 34
37 45. 45
38 57. 57
39 57. 57
40 75. 75
41 94. 94
42 500. 500
43 71. 71
44 78. 78
45 74. 74
46 66. 66
47 50. 50
48 29. 29
49 12/1/2010 34. 34
50
-1-
21709rpav2.xlsm, data
6/3/2011

acti/h
Z�✓ ze1,�
7/zdio e false
2#4 x7 jte
'7hA/ Ads zi f/
dievo ke,v, y/e
f -•0
1
di/A-10(9/7(#)veel, SF R f
4/641 a464- FV1AV fi/u76 C- 7C Ak) c4/

s � /(414
T D
Oa& La,3 /0,o
000 g
/9,9
2/,7
zo, S
2,6
9s�
9, y
.;d
zo, 7 9 S'
zd,Y 7,&'
ZZ,
z/,
9./
#1/Loo 9 /9, q
?, 7
40/26 Q, /9, Y 1 /1, 7 9, z
--7404/47
8/74/0 /7,r 1,,
7/io i o 20, s— 9, 3
z
04/
zo,9 9./
9A y /9, 9. 4
.J /74 /Ew�,4

1)-1 Et-4,
NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form
b
back from PERCS:
Check all that apply
Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should
Date of Request
2/4/2011
municipal renewal
x
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
Requestor
Jackie Nowell
new industries
you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Jefferson
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific
Permit Number
NC0021709
Speculative limits
POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next
renewal.
Region
WSRO
stream reclass.
permit
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
New
stream relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA
other
if changes.
other
check applicable
PERCS staff:
Other Comments
to
PERCS:
x
CTB, CHO, LUM, NEW, ROA - Dana Folley (523)
HIW, LTN, NEU, YAD - Monti Hassan (371)
BRD, CPF, FRB, TAR - Sarah Morrison (208)
Ci
n -t= 1---(.:
- I �L ; ET C�,
\
S
-)^(3Cti
it tQ jai
iv\ �� Cpa 1,1 Si Oki
PERCS
Status of
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Pretreatment Program (check all that apply) -
I
0vt_
`
� A; Lk .
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment
Program
that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment
Program
3) facility has Sills and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
(list "DEV"
if program still under development)
vs"
(3b) Modified Program with STIal")
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed
below
STMP time frame:
Most recent:
2.0 O ,
/
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time period for Actual
Next Cycle:
aoo I
Industrial
0,17-!
0 I b -3
a,o0�,
.
l
Uncontrollable
n/a
O , a��7-
BOO(-,
POC in
LIMP/
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required
by EPA'
Required
by 503
Sludge"
POC due
to Sill***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
%
Eff(u nt
F q
(( ��
v ))
Ni
.
r
✓
BOD
✓
✓
4 \M
,'.`
C
�/
TSS
V
V
4
Q= ?ue.rterly
'/
NH3
✓
4
4
M= thly
Arsenic
�/
4 I
!1��-1�
4�
.1
Cadmium
0*
J
✓
V
4
l
\
d
Chromium
/
v
4 •
4
Copper
40
I
✓
v
4 ;
E
C.2iM
✓
Cyanide
(
-
4 \
SLlyl-
all data on DMRs?
d
Lead
V4
v
v
4 IM
YES
v
Mercury
V1/`
4 I
NO, fch data)
V.
Molybdenum
V
I 4 I
63-4A
_.-'-__—
d
Nickel
d
v
✓
4 i
VSilver
V
1 4 '
M
V
Selenium
V
j 4 j
Zinc
/
4
V
V
4J
c_Q M,,
data in spreadsheet?
Total Nitrogen
'
-M
YES (email to writer)
Phosphorus
Q-1�1•
NO
v
o-t-G
Y
14
"a"M
\ i`
`9
'Always in the LTMP/STMP " Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge and app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
—Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW --Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
( 45aIVnPleS IA DI1Q t eb.f j-rinelA
jeffersanpirf
Revised: July 24, 2007
�� �1 �t r vPre

NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due tostatewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
AU Number AU_Name AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
Category Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
New River Basin
New River Basin
New River Basin
North Fork New River Watershed 0505000101
Upper New River Subbasin
05050001
North Fork New River Watershed 0505
® 10-2-20-1 Little Buffalo Creek From source to Buffalo Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
4.4 FW Mile C; Tr:+
•
2008 2000
New River Basin
® 10-1-3-(1) East Fork South Fork
New River
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
South Fork New River Watershed 0505000102
From source to Watauga County SR 1524 2.3 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2003 2008
Q 10-1-35-4 Little Peak Creek
4s EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos
From source to Peak Creek
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2.8 FW Miles B;Tr:+
2008 2000
® 10-1-32b Naked Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to 2.5 FW Miles C:+
South Fork New River
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2008 2010
Q 10-1-35-3 Ore Knob Branch
4s EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos
From source to Peak Creek
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
0.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+
2003 2000
Q 10-1-35-(2)b Peak Creek
4s EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos
From Ore Knob Branch to South Fork New 2.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+
River
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2008 2006
Q 10-1-(3.5)a South Fork New River From Winkler Creek to 0.1 miles
downstream of Hunting Lane
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
0.3 FW Miles C:+
2003 2008
Q 10-1-(3.5)b South Fork New River From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to
US Hwy.221/421
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
5.1 FW Miles C:+
2008 2008
New River Basin
® 10-9-12 Crab Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Little River -New River Watershed 0505000104
From source to Little River 7.8 FW Miles C;Tr
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2008 2010
NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 201 9/20/2010 Page 71 of 145

Town of Jefferson REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021 709
Qw (MOD) = 0.60
IQIOS(cfs)= 1.84
7Q I OS (cfs) = 2.20
7Q I OW (cfs) = 3.40
30Q2 (cfs) = 4.50
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 12.00
Receiving Stream: Naked Creek
WWTP/WTP Class: III
IWC @ 1Q1OS = 33.57%
IWC @7QI0S= 29.71%
IWC @ 7Q1OW = 21.48%
IWC @ 30Q2 = 17.13%
IWC @ QA = 7.19%
Stream Class: C+
Outfall 001
Qw=0.6 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
.J
a
in
1_
Z
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Applied
Standard
%2 FAV /
Acute
n
# Det. Max Pred Allowable Cw
Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
50
10
FW(7Q10s)
HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ _____ _ __
Chronic: 168.3
Chronic: 139.1
_-_________________________•
Beryllium
NC
6.5
FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ _____ ____
Chronic: 21.9
___________________________.
Cadmium
NC
2
FW(7Q10s)
15
ug/L
49
3
28.3
Acute: 44.7
_ __ _____ ____
Chronic: 6.7
No value > Allowable Cw
_________________________
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Chlorides(AL)
NC
230
FW(7Q10s)
mg/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ ___- ____
Chronic: 774
_____-_______-_____________.
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
1
A(30Q2)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _- _____ ____
Chronic: 5.8
___________________________.
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300
A(30Q2)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ C__ _____ __
hronic: 1,751.3
_________________-___-_-___
Chromium
NC
50
FW(7Q10s)
1022
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: 3,044.4
_ __ ______ _ __
Chronic: 168.3
_____-_____-________________
Copper(AL)
NC
7
FW(7Q10s)
7
ug/L
49
46
28
Acute: 21.7
Chronic: 23.6
No value > Allowable Cw
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply Quarterly
Monitoring in conjunction with TOX Test
Cyanide
NC
5
FW(7Q10s)
22
10
ug/L
49
17
29.6
Acute: 65.5
_ __ _____ ____
Chronic: 16.8
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
_ ___________________-_____.
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Page 1 of 2
21709rpacorrected2011.xlsm, rpa
6/7/2011

Town of Jefferson
NC0021709
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Outfall 001
Qw = 0.6 MGD
Fluoride
NC
1800
FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ —_—__ _ __
Chronic: 6,058.6
__—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—
Lead
NC
25
FW(7Q10s)
33.8
ug/L
104
8
120.6
Acute: 100.7
_ __ —_—__ __—_
Chronic: 84.1
No value > Allowable Cw
__—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Mercury
NC
12
FW(7Q10s)
0.5
ng/L
104
43
9.4
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ —_-- __—_
Chronic: 40.4
Ni value > Allowable Cw
__—_---_—_---_—_---------__
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Molybdenum
NC
160
WS(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ —_—__ _ __
Chronic: 538.5
__—_—_—_—___—___—_—_—_—_—_—.
Nickel
NC
25
WS(7Q10s)
261
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: 777.5
_ __ _—_—_ __—_
Chronic: 84.1
__—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—____--_---.
Selenium
NC
5
FW(7Q10s)
56
ug/L
_
0
0
N/A
Acute: 166.8
_ __ —_—__ __—_
Chronic: 16.8
______—_---_—_—_—_—_—_--_—.
Silver(AL)
NC
0.06
FW(7Q10s)
1.23
ug/L
49
0
1.150__—_—_—_—_---_—_-------_—_—
Acute: 3.664
Chronic: 0.202
49 value(s) > Allowable Cw
RP but no values >Detect - No Monitoring, only in
STMP
Zinc(AL)
NC
50
FW(7Q10s)
67
ug/L
49
48
1,320.0
Acute: 199.6
_ ___ —_—__ _ —_
Chronic: 168.3
1 value(s) > Allowable Cw
__— —_—_—_—_—___—_—_—_—_---
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply Quarterly
Monitoring in conjunction with TOX Test
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - --------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
_ _ _ --- -------
Chronic:
----------------------------
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - --------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- ---------------------------------------
Chronic:
Page 2 of 2
21709rpacorrected2011.xlsm,'1pa
6/7/2011

Town of Jefferson REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021709
Qw (MGD) = 0.60
1QIOS (cfs) = 92.97
7Q I OS (cfs) = 114.00
7QIOW (cfs)= 143.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 209.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 361.00
Receiving Stream: South Fork New River
WWTP/WTP Class: III
IWC@ IQ1OS = 0.99%-
IWC @7Q105= 0.81% Jj('L /,ireZ'
IWC ga 7Q10W = 0.65%
1WC @ 30Q2 = 0.44%
IWC@QA= 0.26%
Stream Class: B ORW
OutfaUU 001
Qw=0.6MGD
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS HOW OR ORW
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
PQL I
cn F
2
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Applied
Standard
IA FAV /
Acute
n
Max Pred
# Det. Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
25
5
FW(7Q10s)
HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ ---_ _ _ -------------------
Chronic: -3,086,4
Chronic: 1,923.1
---------
Beryl! urn
NC
3.25
FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _
Chronic:----_ _ 401.2 --
----------------------------
Cadmium
NC
1
FW(7Q10s)
7.5
ug/L
49
3
28.3
Acute: 757.6
_ _____ _ __
Chronic: 123.5
No value> Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Chlorides (AL)
NC
115
FW(7Q10s)
ing/L
0
i1
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
Ch_ronic:---- 14,I98--
--- — — — — — — — — — ------
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
0.5
A(30Q2)
ug/l.
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _
Chronic:---- 113_.6---------------
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
150
A(30Q2)
ug/1.
0
0
N/A__
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 34,090.9
Chromium
NC
25
FW(7Q10s)
511
ugil..
0
0
N/A
Acute: 51,616.2
_ __ _ _
--_------------------------- Chronic:---�3,086.4
Copper(AL)
NC
4
FW(7Q10s)
4
ug/L
49
46
28
Acute: 368.7
_ _ _____ _ ___
Chronic: 432.1
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply Quarterly
Monitoring In conjunction with TOX Test
Cyanide
NC
2.5
FW(7Q10s)
11
l0
ug/I..
49
17
29.6
Acute: 1,111.1
_ _ _____ _ ___
Chronic: 308.E
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Page 1 of 2
21709rpacorrected2011.xlsm, rpa
6/7/2011

Town of Jefferson
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Outfall 001
Qw=0.6MGD
Fluoride
NC
900
FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ ___ _ _ __
Chronic: 111,111.1
_____________--- __ ______
Lead
NC
12.5
FW(7Q10s)
16.9
ug/L
104
8
120.6
Acute: 1,707.1
_ ___ _____ _ _____________________________.
Chronic: 1,543.2
No value > Allowable Cw
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
Mercury
NC
6
FW(7Q10s)
0.5
ng/L
104
43
9.4
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ _____ _ __
Chronic: 740.7
No value > Allowable Cw
•
________________—____-_____•
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Molybdenum
NC
80
WS(7Q10s)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ --- --- ____ _ _
Chronic: 9,876.5
__________—__--- ---------- _
Nickel
NC
12.5
WS(7Q10s)
130.5
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: 13,181.8
_ __ ______ _ _
Chronic: 1,543.2
.
—_________________________.
Selenium
NC
2.5
FW(7Q10s)
28
ug/L
0
0
N/A
Acute: 2,828.3
_ __ _____ _ _______________-____________.
Chronic: 308.6
Silver(AL)
•
NC
0.03
FW(7Q10s)
0.615
ug/L
49
0
1.150
Acute: 62.121
Chronic: 3.704
No value > Allowable Cw
RP but no values >Detect - No Monitofng, only in
STMP
Zinc(AL)
NC
25
FW(7Q10s)
33.5
ug/L
49
48
1,320.0
Acute: 3,383.8
Chronic: 3,086.4
No value > Allowable Cw
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply Quarterly
Monitoring in conjunction with TOX Test
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - --------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - --------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- --------------------------------------•
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - --------------------------------------
Chronic:
r
Page 2 of 2
21709rpacorrected2011.xlsm, T a
6Rl2011

The envelope containing the petition shall clearly bear the notation: RULE -MAKING PETITION FOR -ORW
CLASSIFICATION.
(e) Listing of Waters Classified ORW with Specific Actions Waters classified as ORW with specific actions to protect
exceptional resource values are listed as follows:
(1) Roosevelt Natural Area [White Oak River Basin, Index Nos. 20-36-9.5-(1) and 20-36-9.5-(2)] including all
fresh and saline waters within the property boundaries of the natural area shall have only new development
which complies with the low density option in the stormwater rules as specified in 15A NCAC 2H
.1005(2)(a) within 575 feet of the Roosevelt Natural Area (if the development site naturally drains to the
Roosevelt Natural Area).
(2) Chattooga River ORW Area (Little Tennessee River Basin and Savannah River Drainage Area): the
following undesignated waterbodies that are tributary to ORW designated segments shall comply with
Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect the designated waters as per Rule .0203 of this Section.
However, expansions of existing discharges to these segments shall be allowed if there is no increase in
pollutant loading:
(A) North and South Fowler Creeks;
(B) Green and Norton Mill Creeks;
(C) Cane Creek;
(D) Ammons Branch;
(E) Glade Creek; and
(F) Associated tributaries.
(3) Henry Fork ORW Area (Catawba River Basin): the following undesignated waterbodies that are tributary to
ORW designated segments shall comply with Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect the designated
waters as per Rule .0203 of this Section:
(A) Ivy Creek;
(B) Rock Creek; and
(C) Associated tributaries.
(4) South Fork New and New Rivers ORW Area [New River Basin (Index Nos. 10-1-33.5 and 10)]: the
following management strategies, in addition to the discharge requirements specified in Subparagraph
(c)(I) of this Rule, shall be applied to protect the designated ORW areas:
(A) Stormwater controls described in Subparagraph (c)(1) of this Rule shall apply to land within one
mile of and that drains to the designated ORW areas;
(B) New or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of the designated
ORW shall be permitted such that the following water quality standards are maintained in the
ORW segment:
(i) the total volume of treated wastewater for all upstream discharges combined shall not
exceed 50 percent of the total instream flow in the designated ORW under 7Q10
conditions, which are defined in Rule .0206(a)(1) of this Section;
(ii) a safety factor shall be applied to any chemical allocation such that the effl, Rent limitation
for a specific chemical cQnstitsient shal a the more stringent of eithei fhe limitation
allocated under design conditions(Aur$upt to 15A NCAC 02B .0206) for the normal
standard at the point of discharge, ohe1imitation allocated under design conditions for
one-half the normal standard . the ungream border of the ORW segment;
(iii) a safety factor shall be applied to any discharge of complex wastewater (those containing
or potentially containing toxicants) to protect for chronic toxicity in the ORW segment by
setting the whole effluent toxicity limitation at the higher (more stringent) percentage
effluent determined under design conditions (pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0206) for
either the instream effluent concentration at the point of discharge or twice the effluent
concentration calculated as if the discharge were at the upstream border of the ORW
segment;
(C) New or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of the designated
ORW shall comply with the following:
(i) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD= 5 mg/1, and
NH3-N = 2 mg/1;
(ii) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be limited to
effluent concentrations of 10 mg/1 for trout waters and to 20 mg/1 for all other waters;
NORTH CAROLINAADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eft: May 1, 2007 Page 45

411 gvoulE Z v c -7?y 7
fwG`V, r
0 U /U
j�l. ()Aidg/
(„,,
.ems
go /0 r3a c
31,101
V 1�Qt CA
f( (
N 44-'44,4 / c/v cl
(xyh---)
lav
IP A 4?)r 6dar,4 Glh� Qu) (I I,
Q4=,Z33.
36(,�
?(p/v - /Y3
3oL y6)13

Town of Jefferson Water 12e cr rc,
P.O. Box 67 1233 Highway 16 South Jefferson, NC 28640 [phone]
"Pratect%n the/1Ve v 12iNor dc.%vv'
Cathy Howell, Town Manager
December 31, 2010
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
ATTN: Dina Sprinkle
SUBJECT: Request for Modification of NPDES No. NC0021709
Town of Jefferson WWTP, Ashe County
Dear Ms. Sprinkle;
Tim Church, Director
The Town of Jefferson has completed a permit renewal application for NPDES
NC0021709 which is being reviewed by the NPDES Unit for the discharge of the
Jefferson WWTP.
I am requesting the following modification be taken under consideration during the
renewal process. The Jefferson WWTP has monitored weekly for the previous four years
for low level mercury using method 1631 E. In that period no mercury violations have
occurred. In fact most of the data compiled is below detection level. For example,
through November, 2010 forty seven samples were analyzed for mercury. Thirty seven
were below detection level. The remaining ten were at detection level or only 0.002 ug/1
above detection. During this permit cycle all chronic toxicity analyses have passed.
Method 1631 is quite expensive at over $140 per analysis. I feel this is an unnecessary
burden upon the Town of Jefferson and the continuation of sampling at a weekly
frequency is not justified in light of the data we have collected. Therefore I am requesting
that NPDES # NC0021709 be modified to indicate low level mercury sampling at a
frequency of once per quarter.
In addition, I have attached results for ceriodaphnia and pimephales promelas chronic
toxicity monitoring that were conducted in November subsequent to the submission of
our permit renewal application. Thank you for your consideration of this modification
request. I can be reached for questions or comments at [phone] or by e-mail at
jefiwns c ,centurvlink.net.
Respectfully,
Tim Church
Water Resources Director
[e-mail]

-
Town of Jefferson
Water 'Re/sowrce
1233 Highway 16 P.O. Box 67 Jefferson, NC 28640 [phone]
September 30, 2010
Mrs. Dina Sprinkle
NC DENR / DWQ /NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJECT: Application for Renewal of NPDES Permit NC0021709
Town of Jefferson Water Resources WWTP
Ashe County
Dear Mrs. Sprinkle:
Enclosed please find the completed renewal application package for the Town of Jefferson
WWTP NPDES Permit NC0021709. The checklists supplied by Mr. Charles H. Weaver of the
NPDES Unit have been implemented in the completion of this document. I can be contacted at
[phone] or at the e-mail address at the bottom of this page.
Thank you for your assistance in helping the Town of Jefferson Water Resources efficiently
provide clean water for the New River Basin.
Respectfully,
Tim Church
Water Resources Director
[e-mail]

X '6
EEIS XSTNG WHITE GRAVEL
LANDSCAPING AROUND EXISTING
PLANT SITE TO BE RESTORED
AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
PLAN
SCALE: I'm 20'
ABANDONED DEOILORINATION
VAULT AND RN DISNEG7ON
CHANNEL TO BE REMOVED
AND DISPOSED OF OFF-SF1E
INSTALL 12• UP LJ C N
PLACE OF UV OWINE _
DIMING CHEW= CONTACT
BARN TO BE CONVERTED
GECNLORNATION/POST
AERATIOJ TAN(
PROPOSED
CONECT TOJOCED 1Y L®
YIN TZA1rd• TEE.
Y PUJG VALK
— 27m — — — PAD. SEE
PROPOSED
6. OP TO REUSE PLAN STAIKM
PROPOSED rXrxr TEE.
CONNECT TO EXISTINGC=ERNE 2-�• COTE VALVES
CONTACT BASIN WDLIr DIPAeo Box6
- - NAKED
PROPOSED - _ __ _
9AE+FSE 0T__. ...
PROPOSED
1 1/2• SNORE
LINE TO CHLORINE
MEDIC
YAw Nm0*01 , I : ,:IS,yR ILM_ L.'T<%n'
NN
• ILX FRINGE T(iN - •� H \� } tR.bS`%�i
71
MFe PRIVACY NETIIFG r�� �•LCL CL
'�///`WiY/
IV LSf' , PROPOSED
16" DP TO BAR SCREEN
I .
PROPOSED I I
INSTALL 18• TEE AND 2-18•IPU1C
VALVES N DOSING SEWER 4FIE I 14
REPLACE CASING 6• VCP PUNT DRAM
1. SEE "COSTING STE PLAN' RIR NOTIONAL DETAILS W/ 1Y D►. CONECT TO
REGARDING EAST= PIPING AND STRUCTURES. FOR CLARITY. YAMMER (SEE =ET C3FOR
ALL UNDERGROUND PO NG FAY NOT BE = N N DOS I
'PROPOSED STIR MAN'. REFER TO THE TASTING SITE MAK. y PVC 0.5TER 11Er I .
NOTES:
2. LOCATIONS OF IN0E GROUND mints ARE
APPROOUAIE OILY. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY
LOCATIONS AND SEES OF ALL (RDERCRO2FD UTIU1FS
PROPOSED
3. MESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL YARD PPNG 3• AND CONNECT NEW 2• PVC WATER UNE
LARGER 10 BE 350 DUCTILE R011 PPE 7D DOSING 6• CANTER UNE MTH I Ej ..A
SA=OLE AND r COTE VALVE 1
4. ALL PPNG LESS DWI 3• STALL BE PVC S0R 13.5. I E_b IS
PROPOSED
a SCC 'PROPOSED 511E CRA06NG me MANAGE' SHEET TO
COS O 6 r PVC WATER La♦IE l _�.�__
FOR DETAILS REGFIm81F PAVNC, GRADING AND MANAGE TO 0051NG 6• CONTRA lWE tom j--I}
WP1100 1T14. SAOME NO I• COTE VALVE I 1 . H:
PIPING NOTES:NE)
0 CONNECT NEW L' RETURN SLUDGE UNE TO EXISTING G RETRN SLUDGE UNE WTI rand• PR 1
TEE. 2-6• PLUG VALICS.
PROPOSED
ASPHALT OVER Y
© CONNECT TO DISTBIG 16• DP. PLUG OUSTING 16• DP FROM EIOSTNC AFRAION BASH.
3Q CONECI taw 0• SWDCE FEUD UNE 70 00STNG r SLUDGE UNE 1RCM GASSIER PLUM
COSTING Er UNE TO CITRIC BEDS
0 INSTAL 4• DP SLUDGE TRANSFER UNE OVER WALL OF COSTING DIGESTER TANK ATTACH TO
EXTERIOR OF W0 . *ITN ALUWILIAI PIPE SUPPORTS EVERY 5'. MEND LINE GOOF MI1EUOR
TANK WALL 2'. PRTMDE RTTINGS AS RECLINED.
6 CONSTRIUCT TM. (2) 6• DP DECANT LINES AT um. SLOPE OF IL INVERT ELEVATIONS AT
NOIDNG TANKS TO BE 2716.a NKRT ELEVATIONS AT CONNECTION TO COSTING
10780.E TO BE 2717.3 CORE ORLI. ODS11NG CONOLE1E TAIIEWALL AND SEAL WATERTIGHT.
CCORE DR L =RC CCNCESLUDGE PIM IE SLGE P STANCH RET E L AND COOCCT NCR 8• DIP
w' LRE FROM NEW CLAMEL INVERT ELEVATE( AT KNEEL CONNECTION TO BE 2711.0
0 INSTALL 4• Alt 5' DP RTER BACKWASH LINES AT 06Z NM. ROPE. N5TAU 1' FA.'A.1T
AS SHOW. CONNECT TO PROPOSED MANHOLE
© POSSIBLE LOCATION OF EXISTING MANHOLE WON PAWNS OVER COVER. REMOVE DOSING
UANIME P NECESSARY INSTALL NEW 5-1YA MANHOLE. (1011-C)
70P Of MANHOLE 2725603 (FIER)
IY NV CUT 2716.10
6• INV N (E) 272280
r NV N (1ME) 2722.00
C. PM EC=ED ♦P MANGLE (LIT-D)
1LIP OF HANDLE 272a02 (FLIJSI)
8. 6/V MET 2719.25
6• NV N (E) 2719.30 (FILTER BACKWASH)
6• NV IN (NE) 2710.30 (0400.1101 DITCH GRAN)
6• WV N 2719S0 (RESIDUALS DRAMS)
® CONNECT PRCFOSED 6 OP WASTE SUOCE UNE TO 00S1N0 6• UNE W7/1 TEE AND 6-
PLO VALVE CONNECT NEW 8• SLUDGE UNE TO EXISTING AERATION TANK. CORE DRILL WALL
AND SE/OPWA12IAM. SEE SHEET 1114.
11 RAISE OP6?NG ELECTRICAL VAULTS TO N691 G AOE AS RECORDS
EASING Y WATER UNE AND YARD HYDRANTS 10 RERAN.
® CONNECT PROPOSED 3• A66NE TO OOSONG 10• AN URLE MIN 10•A10•N• TEL 5A3•
MERCER. 3• BUTRRRY VALVE ND BOW.
PROPOSED 1 ,,.CCrN-
rxrx2" TEE.TO GATE V4K—r - �
me sox. r WATER
I L I - ROOMED)
5.O40A REF. T�2 REDUCER. Y
GATE VALVE Mb B¢IL Y WATER
UNE PITO BLLIVNG. INSTALL rx2
REDUCER, r RATER1UNE TO YARD
HYDRANTS
1
71 .1
.. I PROPOSED MANHOLE 2A-
1 10 1 (2) 6' NV. N EL. 27264
1 4. NV. N EL 272431
Y NV, OUT EL 2724p, -
'0
NANO.
PROPOSED
I I/2• ASPHALT 0VERAT
aw¢wTAR
(REPS= POPS)
r`= —
1
NOTE: 100 YEAR FLOOD
ELEVATION 2722.24'
1Y DIP FROM
EASTMG CUJ
12• As BEND
To FLIER N0. 1'\
Y PLUG VALVE •
IYd2 TEE
12• PLUG VALK
TO RYER NO. 2
DETAIL 'A'
• CREEK
PROPOSED ___..__..______-
r REUSE WAN. TO
\ SAItAr W6GATIOE
\\� 1
PRCPWEDY:111_ ..__rzi_*._____naDSH__,___.
PRONSSII
TRAWLING BRIDGE FLIERS
SED
IY.TBE. Ira" REMOLD. K RUG VALVE
(TYR EKEI R1ER 06OUBOE LAC)
12DP TEA BYPASS UNE MN
lr PUAI VALK (NORMALLY CLOSED)
PRCPOSIED
12' DP CLARNER EFFLUENT
PROPOSED
112. DP OMIRER NFWENT
YARD 111I3RGNT
PROPOSED
FLOW SPUTTER BOX
PROPOSED
I DIP RETURN SLUDGE
PROPOSED
5TAp5 (1YP)
11/02
MUFF
R(1SDII5 PER STATE RENEW
DATE
BY
REASON OESCRP1ON
plommul
• mm4 E.
c^
U L
Vco
oz
G
4
co E.
ASHE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET
C2

Narrative for Process Flow Diagram
Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Plant
NC0021709
Influent flows enters the facility at the automatic bar screen. The headworks includes a manual screen as
well to accommodate a by-pass of the unit in the event of repairs. Four influent pumps are located in the
basement of the process building and are controlled by a float system in the wet well.
Influent is pumped to the Oxidation Ditch where about 60 % of the flow enters the outside ring of the ditch
and the remaining flow goes to the second ring. The oxidation ditch has two sets of rotors in each ring.
One rotor operates continuously in each ring and the two are manually rotated as necessary to avoid
excessive wear. Adjustment of flow and aeration to the first ring results in conditions that enhance nutrient
removal.
From the Oxidation ditch, flow enters the splitter box through which it may be directed and rate controlled
to each clarifyer. A third compartment exists to accommodate a third clarifyer in the future. It is at this
point where samples are taken for measuring settleability and MLSS.
Two circular clarifyers operate in a parallel design. Return sludge from each enters the pump station
located between clarifyer #1 and the circular digester. The pump station is valved to allow RAS to flow
back to the Oxidation Ditch or it may be wasted to the twin sludge basins or the circular digester.
After leaving the clarifyers, flow enters the dual tertiary filters, operating in parallel sequence. Backwash
water from the filters flows by gravity back to the influent wet well.
Disinfection is accomplished using chlorine gas fed to the front end of the chlorine contact chamber. This
unit has around the end baffling for maximum contact time. At the end of the chlorine contact chamber a
sodium thiosulfate solution is fed as a dechlorinating agent. This area also features a post aeration basin
just prior to the outfall to the receiving stream.
(Also attached to this narrative is the "Sludge Management Plan which should be helpful in interpreting
the flow diagram.)

Town of Jefferson Water Resources
Sludge Manaiement Plan for Jefferson WWTP
I. Sludge Storage Capacity
Two sludge storage basins retrofitted with new headers and diffusers in 2004. 115,000 gallons
Round digester 65,000 gallons
Loading station 25,000 gallons
Total sludge storage capacity 205,000 gallons
II. Sludge Transfer through the Facility
Sludge collected from the two clarifyers enters a pump station. Wasting is accomplished by
diverting return activated sludge flow to the dual sludge storage basins. When the basins are
filled, the aerators are turned off and the solids settle, allowing clear supernatant to be decanted
using telescopic valves in each basin. The supernatant flows by gravity to the influent
headworks of the WWTP At the completion of the dewatering procedure aeration is resumed
and the thickened sludge is transferred to the round digester using a submersible pump located in
each basin. The round digester has the same dewatering capability. Upon dewatering the round
digester, thickened sludge is transferred by gravity flow to the loading station. Supernatant from
the round digester enters the sludge pump station where it is transferred to the oxidation ditch.
The thickened sludge from the round digester is transferred by gravity to the truck loading station
for disposal to land application sites or to the belt press and sludge dryer.
This plan allows a 2% total solids value for the sludge and results in a maximum detention time.
M. Class B Liquid Sludge
Permit WQ 0004166 regulates Class B liquid sludge disposal. Jefferson has forty two acres
permitted for liquid sludge disposal. All the acreage is located within a two mile radius of the
WWTP. The facility uses a military style ten wheel drive truck fitted with a tank capacity of
1800 gallons. Sludge leaves the tank through a spreader bar six feet in length, controlled by a
pneumatic valve operated from the cab of the truck.
Procedures to Significantly Reduce Pathogens is demonstrated by analysis of seven annual
sludge samples for coliform bacteria, having a geometric mean < 2,000,000 MPN. Vector
Attraction Reduction is demonstrated by volatile solids analysis of sludge in a thirty day bench
scale shown to produce <15% volatile solids reduction.
IV. Class A Dry Sludge
Permit WQ 0022155 regulates Class A dry sludge production. This facility operates a Phoenix
belt press with a capacity of 35 gpm. The cake from the belt press is augered to a Fenton sludge
dryer. This unit generates a granular product with total solids > 90% and coliform bacteria are
eliminated. This sludge is distributed on hay fields using an "eezee flow" drop spreader. (see
the back of this page for details regarding Class A compliance under the 503 rules)

Fenton Environmental Technologies, Inc.
RK Series Municipal Biosolids Dehydrator,
1(800) 777-1371
Class A Compliance Under the 503 Rules
The SludgeMASTER RK series automatic batch style biosolids dehydrator is uniquely suited to
insure compliance with the 40 CFR 503 regulations pertaining to achieving Class "A" biosolids.
The RK dehydration chamber is loaded automatically with a predetermined amount of dewatered
biosolids which starts the batch cycle.
The total sludge load is subjected to a minimum temperature of 212 degrees F for a minimum of
two and one-half hours which exceeds the time and temperature requirements of the 503
regulations pertaining to pathogen reduction. This compliancy is shown as follows using Regime
A under Alternative 1 which requires that solids be heated at 50 degrees C or higher for 20
minutes or longer.
Time (in days) = 131.700,000
10A 0.14 (temperature) Qr, for the RK dehydrator at 212 degrees F (=100 C)
Time= 131.700.000 gr Time= 131.700.00Q Qr Time = less than 1.3/10^6 day.
104 0.14(100) 10' 14
The time required in the RK for pathogen reduction would be less than 1 minute. Therefore, the
minimum time requirement of 20 minutes specified in the 503 Rules must be followed. Following
the 20-minute requirement, the RK dehydrator exceeds the time requirement by about 700%.
Total cycle time is determined by achieving the desired sludge dryness. We normally recommend a
minimum of 90 % dry solids for a finished product to qualify under 503.33 "Option-8" regarding
vector attraction reduction. (Fully digested sludges need be dried to 75%- 503.33 "Option 7".)
The SludgeMASTER RK patented process automatically adjusts the time and temperature regime
foi the varying incoming wet sludge solids content. This feature is very important since dewatering
operations will vary from time to time in solids consistency yet we must maintain consistent Class
A biosolids at all times. Conversely, automatic flow through systems cannot adjust to varying
conditions without disrupting their normal operation and compromising the finished Product
Class "A" parameters.
Please refer to 40 CFR 503.32 Pathogens - (a) (3) (ii) (9) for pathogen reduction requirements and
to 40 CFR 503.33 (b) (7) and (8) for vector attraction reduction requirements.
Fenton Environmental Technologies, Inc. guarantees Class A compliance on a continued basis
with each SludgeMASTER RK Dehydration System.
In choosing Class A biosolids thermal dehydration fit' i ' g SludgeMASTER RK technology, your
utility will be assured of an environmentally correct sludge handling solution for many years in the
future.

FACILITY
ii-Ferscr
NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
NC002,I 70i
PERMIT
ACTION REQUESTED:
Rehewod
RIVER BASIN:
Re,J
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?
Yes No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs.
b. Number of CIUs. 2.1
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.
as necessary.
Name: Aran earl
Mailing Address: ltoSs Arflef
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the
e sk akuminul`� cAlo.udance
wn
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s).
discharge.
Principal product(s): EmPx
Provide the name
EhTt �y Ve.hlt.
ICor W A
industrial processes
Describe all of
er Ve
and
that
bodies
the
ieees
address
[es
v e
affect or
principal
I
of each SIU
erson ,
contribute to
} e-Fcl�
processes and
discharging to the treatment works.
NC zg ('-IO
the SIU's discharge.
in prepa a- o
raw materials that affect or contribute
Submit additional pages
f p+ng -
to the SIU's
Raw material(s): !' k1Um)nulh
)C6kie.S
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.
gobGPD ( continuous or V intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater
in gallons per day
flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
(GPD) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
15U) GPD ( continuous or t/ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards.
a. Local limits
b. Categorical
If subject to categorical
40 CFRi433._(
pretreatment
pretreatment
Indicate
standards
_
whether the SIU is subject to the following:
/yes No
1/Yes No
standards, which category and subcategory?
7
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT
S son NCOOI7Oa
NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renew
RIVER
BASIN:
few
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 tt}e treatment works in the past three years?
Yes V 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? at
Yes 'Y 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 noted that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) /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 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
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
SeiTersort. NC002I70q
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewoi
RIVER BASIN:
Re,w
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
from significant Industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA,
treatment works have, or Is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the
treatment works.
or other remedial wastes must
number of each of the following types of
.
copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the
'Yes •_ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial
industrial users that discharge to the
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs.
b. Number of CIUs.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER
Supply the following Information for each
provide the Information requested for
! i
INFORMATION:
SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works,
each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information
as necessary.
Name: GATES
Mailing Address: 1 O 1
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all
A &Still Iy of power
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s).
discharge.
Principal produd(s):
Provide the name and address of each SIU
RUBBER COMPANY
GUv s I . Se iso r NC
the industrial processes that affect or contribute
iiM5m1ssioh DYiVe.
Describe all of the principal processes
give. be s (a .k . a)
discharging to the
20616
to the SIU's discharge.
1e+s
and raw materials that
-6 beli-s
treatment works. Submit additional pages
affect or contribute to the SIU's
1
Raw material(s): Rubber
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge
day (GPD) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
- /0i GPD ( continuous or I/ intermittent)
into the collection system in gallons per
flow discharged into the collection system
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume
in gallons per day (GPD) OM(GPD) and whether the discharge is continuous
/2VGPD ( ✓ continuous
of non -process
or intermittent.
or
No
• No
wastewater
intermittent)
�
F.T. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits .1/ es
b. Categorical pretreatment standards V Yes
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
0 CFR q22 G
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

FACIIJTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
s>1 ►\ir
O2J7cQ
PERMIT
ACTION REQUESTED:
Re,neem 4New
RIVER
BASIN:
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 JL 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 1/No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
Truck - Rail 7. 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.) 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?
71 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
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information