NC0020451_Fact Sheet_20230216

NCO020451
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO020451
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: February 16, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
Fact Sheet Template: Version 08Sept2016
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of West Jefferson / West Jefferson WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 490, West Jefferson, NC 28694
Facility Address:
335 Clearwater Drive, West Jefferson, NC 28694
Permitted Flow:
10.5 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal / 95% domestic; 5% industrial'
Facility Class:
Grade II
Treatment Units:
Mechanical bar screen, grit removal, dual channel oxidation ditch,
secondary clarifiers, tertiary filters, UV disinfection, post aeration
basin, aerobic sludge digester
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes, active
County:
Ashe
Region:
Winston-Salem
Footnote.
1. Based on a total permitted SIU flow of 0.025 MGD.
Page 1 of 14

NCO020451
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of West Jefferson has
applied for NPDES permit renewal and submitted a renewal application dated October 28, 2021. Review
of the application found it incomplete with effluent pollutant scans (PPAs), process narrative, sludge
management plan, and chemical addendum lacking. A total of eight of 2nd species toxicity tests using the
Fathead Minnow plus several quarterly Ceriodaphnia dubia test reports were submitted with the
application. The PPAs and Chemical Addendum were received upon request on 1/31/2023; PPAs were
sampled in October 2018, July 2019 and March 2020. The Chemical Addendum stated that based on the
influent profile (primarily domestic with one cheese manufacturing source), no additional pollutants are
expected.
At the time of application submission, the facility served a population of —1300 residents including the
town of West Jefferson (-755). The Town has an active pretreatment program with a short term monitoring
program (STMP) involving one SIU, Ashe County Cheese.
Sludge management. Biosolids are digested then land applied as a liquid by tanker truck under permit
WQ0003992.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 / UT to Little Buffalo Creek
Stream Segment:
10-2-20-1
Stream Classification
JPIL C; Tr; +'
Drainage Area (mi2):
1.8
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
0.6
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Uk0.9
Average Flow (cfs):
4.0
IWC (% effluent):
56%
2022 NC 303(d) listed/parameter:
Benthos, Fish Community
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Basin/HUC:
New / 05050001
USGS Topo Quad:
Jefferson, NC
Footnote.
1. "+" = subject to special management strategies, specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0225 — "Outstanding Resource Waters"
(ORW) rule, to protect downstream waters designated as ORW. Strategies are specified in Rule .0225(e)(4) for the North
Fork New River ORW Area.
The receiving water is exceeding criteria for Benthos and Fish Community. Benthos was last assessed at
Station K13059, —0.3 miles upstream of the outfall, on 5/29/1985 with a POOR bioclassification, and at
Station K13032, —0.8 miles downstream of the outfall, on 8/28/2013 with a FAIR bioclassification. Fish
Community was last assessed at Station KF21, —2.25 miles downstream of the outfall, on 7/12/2019 with a
FAIR bioclassification. The receiving water lies within the North Fork New River Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) Area.
Page 2 of 14

NCO020451
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data are summarized below for the period June 2018 through December 2022.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary.
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limits'
Flow
MGD
0.30
1.53
0.13
MA = 0.5
BOD
mg/L
2.8
8.5
�< 2.0
(Apr 1-Oct 31)
WA = 7.55
mg/L
2.5
9.0
< 2.0
(NovBOD
1-Mar 31)
WA = 155.0
BOD removal
%
87.1
99.7
33 3
> 85
TSS
mg/L
3.1
19.0
< 2.
MA = 15.0
WA = 1.0
TSS removal
%
96.1
99.9
20.7
> 85
NH3-N
mg/L
0.38
4.48
0.1
MA = 1.6
(Apr 1-Oct 31)
WA = 4.8
N113-N
mg/L
0.50
5.15
< 0.02
MA = 3.6
(Nov 1-Mar 31)
WA = 10.8
DO
mg/L
716
11.58
6.35
> 6.0
pH
SU
6.80
7.62
6.14
6.0-9.0
Temperature
°C
16.6
23.5
7.4
Fecal Coliform
#/100 mLAIR*-
7.2
< 1
MA = 200/100
(geometric mean)
WA = 400/100
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
447
5.12 -r
684
Total Residual
µg/L
All values were < 15
DM 28 Z
Chlorine (TRC)
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
7.12
11.55
2.86
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
1.55
4.02
0.32
Total Hardness
mg/L
86.9
195
28.4
Total Copper
µg/L
10.6
98.0
< 1.0
MA = 37.0
DM = 52.0
Total Selenium
µg/L
19.5
298
< 1
Footnotes.
1. MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
2. Compliance level = 50 µg/L; summary data are from Effluent Pollutant Scans, collected in 10/2018, 7/2019, 3/2020.
The highest annual average flow was 0.35 MGD (69% of the limit) in calendar year (CY) 2020.
Page 3 of 14

NC0020451
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): No.
Name of Monitoring Coalition: N/A.
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will beproposedfor thispermit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Hardness, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) and Conductivity. The upstream location is —50 feet above discharge, and the downstream is located
at the bridge off of Dogget Rd. No water supply watershed lies downstream of the outfall between point of
discharge and the Virginia state line, —30.5 miles from the discharge. Hardness is sampled upstream for
calculation of dissolved to total metals for hardness -dependent metals, including Copper, and is addressed
in Section 6.4 - Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants.
Instream data were collected by the Permittee at the above locations. Data were obtained from the
Permittee-submitted DMRs spanning June 2018 through December 2022 for review. Data were compared
against corresponding instream water quality standards and between stations as well as concurrent effluent
data for assessment of effluent impacts. Averages were compared using Student's t-tests with levels of
significant differences set at p = 0.05. Summary data are in Table 2.
Table 2. Instream monitoring averages and ranges (in parentheses) of permit -required parameters.
*Statistically different from Upstream.
Parameter
Upstream
Downstream
Standard'
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg/L
Avg = 9.20
Avg = 8.52*
DA = 6.0 for
(7.40-13.28)
(6.36-12.95)
Trout waters
Temperature,
_
g
_ *
vg "5
DM = 29.0
3.7-19.4)
(3.9-20.5)
Conductivity, µmho
212.2
248.1 *
(16.8-1,847)
(2.6-1,701)
Total Hardness, mg/L
Avg = 70.3
(35.4-175)
NA
Footnote.
1. DA = Daily Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) — Instream DO remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life.
Reviewed instream DMR data revealed summer lows to be above the stream standard of 6.0 mg/L for Trout
waters [15A NCAC 02B .0211] that this outfall discharges into. A statistically significant difference was
detected between the two station DO averages, with downstream lower. Concurrent effluent DO value
appear lower on average, but with no values below 6.0 mg/L. Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0225(d)(14) for the
North Fork New River ORW refers to rule 15A NCAC 02B .0224 for determining BOD, Ammonia and
DO limits. Rule subsection .0224(c)(2)(A) states: "More stringent limitations shall be set, if necessary, to
Page 4 of 14

NCO020451
ensure that the cumulative pollutant discharge of oxygen -consuming wastes does not cause the DO of the
receiving water to drop more than 0.5 mg/l below background levels, and in no case below the standard."
The downstream DO was lower than the upstream DO by 0.68 mg/L on average with a total of 273 instances
of downstream DO measurements that were > 0.5 mg/L lower than their corresponding upstream values, or
66% of all monitoring events. Concurrent effluent DO was 7.96 mg/L on average, lower than either instream
value and thus appears to be affecting the instream DO. To address this pattern, the effluent DO will be
raised to 7.0 mg/L in the permit.
Temperature - Instream Temperature remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life.
Temperatures in both sites were below the standard of 29°C for upper piedmont and mountain waters. A
statistically significant difference was detected between the two station temperature averages with the
downstream higher. There were two occurrences where the downstream temperature exceeded the water
quality standard of 2.8°C above the natural water temperature when compared to upstream data (Table 3).
In both cases the effluent was higher. Overall, concurrent effluent temperatures were higher on average
with winter lows substantially higher than those instream, suggesting its effect on the instream temperature.
Table 3. Temperatures (°C) on days where downstream increase was higher than the 2.8°C standard.
Date
Upstream
Downstream
Increase
Effluent
1 /22/2019
5.2
9.3
4.1
8.7
10/ 17/2022
13.5
16.4
2.9
16.9
Conductivity — Instream Conductivity remains in the permit as a parameter of concern from industrial
discharges, which are treated by the WWTP through its active pretreatment program. Review of the data
found significant differences between instream averages with the downstream higher. Concurrent effluent
Conductivity is 2X higher on average than either instream average, indicating its impact on the stream
conductivity. A local limits assessment will be required with the permit renewal, and the permittee shall
assess potential sources of conductivity.
Fecal Coliform — Instream Fecal Coliform monitoring is not required since the receiving stream is not listed
as impaired for this parameter, nor is it a Class B waterbody. Effluent geomean fecal coliform is 3.1 cfu/100
mL (range: < 1 — 512 cfu/100 mL), thus not appearing to impact the stream fecal coliform. Therefore,
instream monitoring for Fecal Coliform is not required and will not be added to the permit.
No changes are proposed to the above instream monitoring parameters. However, instream monitoring for
nutrients will be added after finding a trend of increase in at a monitoring coalition station —3 miles
downstream of the discharge (see Section 6.7 — Other TMDL / Nutrient Management Strategy
Considerations).
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): From January 2018 through
December 2022 the facility had reported exceedences in BOD, TSS and Total Copper resulting in various
enforcement actions (Table 4).
Page 5 of 14

NCO020451
Table 4. Effluent monitoring violations summary, January 2018-December 2022.
Weekly
Monthly
Daily
Notices of
Notices of
Enforcement
Parameter
Average
Average
Maximum
Deficiency
Violations
Cases
Exceedences
Exceedences
Exceedences
BOD
1
0
NA
1
0
0
Total Copper
NA
2
3
2
1
2
TSS
2
0
NA
it
1 0
2
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed all 20 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 8 second species chronic
toxicity tests. Second species tests were sampled on February -April 2017, March, July, October 2022, and
January 2021. I
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility compliance
inspection, conducted on 07/03/2019, reported no compliance issues and that the inspection was
satisfactory. Three pretreatment inspections were conducted since the compliance inspection, in March
2020, February and December 2022. None of these inspections reported any compliance issues.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
6.1. Dilution and MixingZones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
6.2. Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: BOD limits were set
by 15A NCAC 02B .0225(d)(14) for waters in the North Fork New River Outstanding Resource (ORW)
area.
6.3 Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Page 6 of 14

NC0020451
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current permit
limits for both TRC and NH3-N are based on a wasteload allocation (WLA) analyses. The WLA was
performed again for both parameters, yielding results that are no different than the previous WLA results.
No changes are proposed for either parameter.
6.4. Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of '/2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
Effluent and instream (upstream) Hardness monitoring is required in the current permit. Permittee-
submitted DMR Hardness data were used in the RPA for hardness -dependent metals. Two outlier data,
Selenium of 298 µg/L and Copper of 53 µg/L, both from samples collected on 4/15/2020, were removed
from the RPA after consulting with the ORC, who confirmed the lab results are accurate, but does not
believe they are accurate. The facility switched labs after these results.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between June 2018
through December 2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated
water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for
this permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria:
Total Copper — MA = 18.8 µg/L; DM = 26.1 µg/L
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was > 50% of the allowable concentration: None.
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Cyanide, Lead, Nickel, Selenium
and Zinc.
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. Samples for the pollutant scans were collected in October 2018,
July 2019, and March 2020. Only one parameter was detected, Toluene at 21.3 µg/L in the 2019
scan.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None.
Page 7 of 14

NC0020451
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: Toluene.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
6.5. Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Minor POTW at a design flow of < 1 MGD, with a
chronic WET limit at 56% effluent and a quarterly monitoring frequency. No changes are proposed.
6.6. Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/L) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value
of 47 ng/L.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: The current permit requires mercury to
be monitored via the three effluent pollutant scans. Results from submitted DMRs are below:
Table 5. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018
'"J9
0,)n
No. of Samples
3
1
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
0.6
0.5
0.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L
0.69
0.50
0.50
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
10.6
Because no result was higher than either the TBEL or WQBEL, no limits are required. Because the facility
is < 2 MGD, no MMP is required. No changes were made to the permit; mercury monitoring will continue
via the three effluent pollutant scans.
Page 8 of 14

NCO020451
6.7. Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The New River Basin has neither any TMDLs nor a Nutrient Management Strategy. The nearest
instream monitoring station with nutrient data is K6400000, —3.3 miles downstream of the outfall in Buffalo
Cr. This station was monitored by the New River Basin Coalition (NRBC), of which West Jefferson was a
member from 2011-2016. NRBC stopped sampling in 2018 due to a reduction in members and funding
issues. Available data from K6400000 show an increase in Total Nitrogen from 2015 to 2018, but no overall
change in Total Phosphorus (Fig. 1). Effluent Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are currently monitored
semi-annually per facility size (< 1 MGD) and river sub -basin (New) as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Based on these trends, effluent monitoring for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) will be increased to
quarterly, and the Total Nitrogen components Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Nitrate -Nitrite Nitrogen
(NO3-N + NO2-N) will be added. To track the effluent's impact on instream nutrients, quarterly monitoring
for the nutrient parameters above will also be added, at a quarterly frequency both up- and downstream of
the outfall.
Instream Nitrogen
Instream Phosphorus
■ TO
■ NO3tNO2 ■ TN ..••.•.
- Linnr(TN)
! TP •,••••,•• Linear(TP)
1.80
OX
•
1R0
120
■ ■ ...............
OAS
........................................
E 0.80 ......r....�.....
* •
E obi
OAO
i
020 !
` t
■ A r • •
A,■ ■
0A1
0A0
o.oa
'>��y�
e
At
Fig. 1. Instream nutrient data collected in Buffalo Creek at Station K6400000 by NRBC, 2015 — 2018.
6.8. Other WQBEL Considerations - Permit Limit Development
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: Emerging contaminants
PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane were considered when the facility submitted its Chemical Addendum on 1/31/2023,
in which the Town responded: "Based on influent makeup of mostly domestic with one industrial user that
makes cheese, we do not anticipate additional pollutants entering the stream. " The receiving stream does
not enter any water supply waters before crossing the Virginia state line —30.5 miles downstream of the
discharge.
Based on the location of the discharge with no downstream water supply waters and the industrial input
profile (a cheese factory), PFAS monitoring will be added to the permit at a 2/year frequency. Until the
final method is approved, as it may involve changes to the parameter list, the proposed 2/year PFAS
sampling requirement will include a compliance schedule which delays the effective date of this
requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater method
in 40 CFR 136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended upon request and if there are
no NC -certified labs.
No potential source of 1,4-Dioxane is reported, so no requirements are needed and none will be added to
the permit for 1,4-Dioxane.
Page 9 of 14

NC0020451
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2K0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: A three-year compliance schedule
with a WER option will be added to the permit for the revised, more stringent Total Copper limits.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg1L
BOD51TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BOD51TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES. Reviewed data found 2
occurrences below 85% BOD removal and 7 occurrences below 85% TSS removal from December 2018 —
November 2022. All occurrences involved low concentrations in the influent, suggesting Inflow and
Infiltration (I&I) issues, likely during storm events. ,
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge)
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA.
Page 10 of 14

NC0020451
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
All effluent parameters are monitored in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0500 and NPDES Guidance
document on monitoring frequency for toxic substances (7/15/20 0).
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.sh
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions
Table 6. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change'
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA = 0.5 MGD
Monitor continuously
No change
15A NCAC 213.0505
Summer
MA = 5.0 mg/L
WQBEL. BAT limits to protect
WA = 7.5 mg/L
downstream ORW per 15A NCAC
BODS
Winter
No change
02B .0225. Monitoring frequency
MA — 10 mg/L
based on 15A NCAC 02B
WA — 15 mg/L
.0500.
Monthly weekly
MA = 30 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
TSS
WA = 45 mg/L
No change
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
Monitor weekly
NCAC 2B .0406, .0500.
Summer
MA = 1.6 mg/L
WQBEL. Wasteload Allocation to
WA = 4.8 mg/L
NH3-N
Winter
No change
protect against ammonia toxicity.
MA — 3.6 mg/L
Monitoring frequency based on 15A
WA = 10.8 mg/L
NCAC 02 B.0500.
Monitor weekly
Page 11 of 14

NC0020451
Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
WQBEL. BAT limits to protect
DA > 6.0 mg/L
DA > 7.0 mg/L
downstream ORW per 15A NCAC
DO
02B .0225 in light of instream data
Monitor weekly
No change in
showing decreases > 0.5 mg/L DO.
monitoring frequency
Monitoring frequency based on 15A
NCAC 02B .0500.
Fecal Coliform
MA = 200 /100 mL
WA = 400 /100 mL
No change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 213 .0200,
Monitor weekly
.0500.
TRC
DM = 28 µg/L
Add to monitor when
using chlorination for
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 213 .0200,
Monitor 2/week
disinfection in footnote.
0500; WLA results.
pH
Between 6 and 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 213 .0200,
Monitor weekly
.0500
Temperature
Monitor weekly
No change
15A NCAC 213.0500
Conductivity
Monitor weekly
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0500
Increase to quarterly.
Increasing trends found instream; to
Total Nitrogen
Monitor 2/year
Add quarterly instream
better understand effluent nutrient
monitoring.
patterns for future evaluation.
Total Kjeldahl
Add quarterly effluent
To better understand effluent
Nitrogen (TKN)
No requirement
and instream
nutrient patterns for future
monitoring
evaluation.
Nitrate -Nitrite
Add quarterly effluent
To better understand effluent
Nitrogen
No requirement
and instream
nutrient patterns for future
(NO3+NO2)
monitoring
evaluation.
Increase to quarterly.
To better understand effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monitor 2/year
Add quarterly instream
nutrient patterns for future
monitoring.
evaluation.
Monitor effluent and
Revised WQS and EPA's guidelines
Total Hardness
instream (upstream)
No change
on hardness -dependent metals.
quarterly
MA = 18.8 µg/L
DM = 26.1 µg/L
MA = 37.0 µg/L
Add 3-yr compliance
Total Copper
DM = 52.0 µg/L
schedule with WER
WQBEL. 15A NCAC 213.0200. RP
option; retain current
found, using updated Hardness data.
Monitor monthly
limits as interim.
No change in
monitoring frequency.
Page 12 of 14

NC0020451
Parameter
Current Permit'
Proposed Change'
Basis for Condition/Change
Total Selenium
Monitor quarterly
Remove from permit
No reasonable potential to violate
stream WQ standard in RPA.
Add quarterly
One result exceeded Allowable
Toluene
No requirement
monitoring
Concentration in limited dataset
RPA.
EPA recommendations (memo,
HAS
No requirement
Add 2/year monitoring
12/5/2022), to gather data for
evaluation
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit, 56%
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Test
effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 213 .0200,
Monitor quarterly
.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per permit
Update sample years:
40 CFR 122
Scan
cycle
2025, 2026, 2027.
Electronic
Special condition
Update special
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
Footnote.
1. MGD = million gallons per day, MA = monthly average, WA = weekly average, DM = daily maximum.
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/2023
Per 15A NCAC 21-1.0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Gary Perlmutter at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
Page 13 of 14

NC0020451
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Three Effluent Scans from 2018, 2019, 2020
• Process Narrative
• Sludge Management Plan
• NPDES Pretreatment POC review form
• 2022 303(d) list, p. 92
• Benthos Site Details, KB059 (upstream)
• Benthos Site Details K13032 (downstream)
• Fish Community KF21_2018
• Monitoring Report Violations report
• WET Testing Summary, page 114
• Inspection reports: 1 compliance, 3 pretreatment
• Waste load allocations for TRC and NH3-N
• RPA Spreadsheet Summaries and dissolved to total metal calculator
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Mercury WQBEL/TBEL evaluation
• Chemical Addendum
1
Page 14of14

Permit No. N-'OO 2 of Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
��
Outfall 001
Facility Name: Town of West Jefferson ORC :
Date of sampling: 10/ 16, 11/27/ 18 Phone
Analytical laboratory : Blue Ridge Labs
Month Ocl-. Nov.
Year 7-04
Brandon Patrick
828-898-6277
Parameter
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Ammonia (as N)
Composite
ammonia
0.2
<0.20
mg/l
1
Dissolved oxygen
Grab
SM19 450OG
0.1
7.31
mg/l
1
Nitrate/Nitrite
Composite
SM19 450ON
0.08
3.27
mg/l
1
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Composite
SM19 450ON
0.5
5.88
mg/l
1
Total Phosphorus
Composite
EPA 365.2
0.5
0.142
mg/l
1
Total dissolved solids
Composite
SM19 2540C
1
226
mg/l
1
Hardness
Composite
SM19 2340B
0.662
36.8
mg/1
1
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Grab
SM19 450OG
0.015
mg/1
1
Oil and grease
Grab
SM19 5520B
5
<5
mg/l
1
Metals (total recoverable), cyanide and total phenols
Antimony
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.025
*
mg/l
1
Arsenic
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
*
mg/l
1
Beryllium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
*
mg/l
1
Cadmium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
*
mg/l
1
Chromium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
*
mg/l
1
Copper
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.002
0.036
mg/l
1
Lead
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
*
mg/l
1
Mercury
Composite
EPA 245.1
0.0001
*
mg/l
1
Nickel
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
*
mg/l
1
Selenium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
mg/l
1
Silver
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.005
*
mg/l
1
Thallium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.02
*
mg/l
1
Zinc
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
*
mg/l
1
Cyanide
Grab
SM19 4500CI
0.005
*
mg/l
1
Total phenolic compounds
Grab
EPA 420.1
0.01
mg/l
1
Volatile organic compounds
Acrolein
Grab
EPA 624
50
*
ug/1
1
Acrylonitrile
Grab
EPA 624
10
*
ug/l
1
Benzene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Bromoform
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/l
1
Carbon tetrachloride
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/l
1
Chlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Chlorodibromomethane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/l
1
Chloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
ug/l
1
2-chloroethylvinylether
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
ug/1
1
Chloroform
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Dichlorobromomethane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
1,1-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
1,2-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NL00 2 o Nam( Month 9 e_ �- 0 NOV
Outfall o c> I year Z O J k
Parameter
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Volatile organic compounds (Cont.)
1, 1 -dichloroethylene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
1,2-dichloropropane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
1,3-dichloropropylene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Ethylbenzene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Methyl bromide
Grab
EPA 624
5
'
ug/l
1
Methyl chloride
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/l
1
Methylene chloride
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
ug/1
1
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Tetrachloroethylene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Toluene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/1
1
Trichloroethylene
Grab
EPA 624
1
*
ug/l
1
Vinyl chloride
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
ug/I
1
Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-creso
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
2-chlorophenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/I
1
2,4-dichlorophenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
2,4-dimethylphenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
2,4-dinitrophenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
2-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
4-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Pentachlorophenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Phenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Base -neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Acenaphthylene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Anthracene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Benzidine
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Benzo(a)anthracene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Benzo(a)pyrene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/I
1
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/I
1
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
2-chloronaphthalene
Grab I
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. <✓t 00 Z Ot1,f1 Month A/Oy.
Outfall nol Year 2 O/J
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Parameter
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Base -neutral compounds (coat.)
Chrysene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
10
ug/1
1
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
10
'
ug/1
1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
10
ug/I
1
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Grab
EPA 625
10
ug/1
1
Diethyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Dimethyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Grab
EPA 625
10
ug/1
1
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Fluoranthene
Grab
EPA 625
10
ug/1
1
Fluorene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Hexachlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Hexachlorobutadiene
Grab
EPA 625
10
ug/1
1
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Hexachloroethane
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Isophorone
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Naphthalene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Nitrobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/1
1
Phenanthrene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
Pyrene
Grab
EPA 625
10
*
ug/l
1
1,2,4,-tichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
10
ug/1
1
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified perdonnel properly
gather and evaluat the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
manage the system, or those persons directly responsibel for gathering the information, the
information submitted is , to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
G,,r rse^ho�.
/Authorized Representative name
i-S g urreq
I -r� 1
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No: NC0020451 Month: July
Ou tfall: 001 Year: 2019
Facility Name Town of West Jefferson ORC Brandon Patrick
Date of sampling 7 10 19 Phone [phone]
Analytical Laboratory Blue Ridge Labs
Ammonia as N
Composite
f
ammonia
0.5
4.48
mg/1
1
Dissolved oxygen
Grab
SM19 450OG
0.1
7.03
mg/1
1
Nitrate Nitrite
composite
SM19 450ON
0.08
2.01
mg/1
1
Total K'eldahl nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Composite
Composite
SM19 450ON
EPA 365.2
0.5
0.02
6.44
1.64
mg/1
m 1
1
1
Total dissolved solids
Composite
SM19 2540C
1
gg
m l
1
Hardness
Com Composite
SM19 2340B
0.03
62
mg/1
1
Chlorine total residual, TRC
Grab
SM19 450OG
0.015
1
Oil and ease
Grab
SM19 5520B
1
*
mg/1
1
Antimony
Co
d,
0.01
m 1
1
Arsenic
0.01
m 1
1
Beryllium
0.001
m 1
1
Cadmium
composite
EPA 200.7
0.0002
*
mg/1
1
Chromium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
mg/1
1
Copper
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
0.04
mg/1
1
Lead
composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
mg/1
1
Mercury
Composite
EPA 245.1
0.0001
m L
1
Nickel
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
*
mg/1
1
Selenium
Composite.
EPA 200.7
0.01
mg/1
1
Silver
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
m 1
1
Thallium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
mg/1
1
Zinc
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
0.028
mg/1
1
Cyanide
Grab
SM19 4500C
0.005
mg/1
1
Total henolic com ounds
Grab
EPA 420.1
0.01
mg/1
1
Acrolein
Grab
EPA 624
50
u 1
1
Acrylonitrile
Grab
EPA 624
50
u 1
1
Benzene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Bromoform
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
u 1
1
Carbon tetrachloride
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Chlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
u 1
1
Chlorodibromomethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
u 1
1
Chloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
10
u 1
1
2-chloroeth loin 1 ether
Grab
EPA 624
10
u 1
1
Chloroform
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
u 1
1
Dichlorobromomethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1, 1 -dichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1,2-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Trans 1,2-dichloroeth lene
x �
1,1-dichloroeth lene
Grab
Grab
EPA 624
A
EPA 624
5
5
*
u 1
1
*
u 1
1
1,2-dichloro ro ane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1,3-dichloro ropylene
Grab
EPA 624
5
*
u 1
1
Eth lbenzene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Methyl bromide
Grab
EPA 624
101
u 1
1
Methyl chloride
Grab
EPA 624
101
u 1
1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No: NC0020451 Month: July
Outfall: 001 Year: 2019
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No: NC0020451 Month: July
Outfall: 001 Year: 2019
Hexachlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
Hexachlorobutadiene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
*
mg/1
1
Hexachloroc clo- entadiene
Grab
EPA 625
0.06
m 1
1
Hexachloroethane
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
Indeno 1,2,3-cd rene
Grab
EPA 625
0.014
m 1
1
Iso horone
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
Naphthalene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Nitrobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m 1
1
N-nitrosodi-n- ro lamine
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m 1
1
N-nitrosodimeth lamine
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
N-nitrosodi hen lamine
Grab 1
EPA 625
1 0.005
Mg/1
1
Phenanthrene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
rene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m 1 I1
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified perdonnel properly
gather and evaluat the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
manage the system, or those persons directly responsibel for gathering the information, the
information submitted is , to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
13ratl&n 14r k-
Authorized Representative n
i�
Date
T�.
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No: NCO020451 Month: March
Outfall: 001 Year: 2020
Facility Name
Date of sampling
Analytical Laboratory
Town of West Jefferson ORC Brandon Patrick
3 10 20 Phone [phone]
Blue Ridge Labs
Parameter
Sample Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Ammonia as N
Composite
ammonia
0.5
2.94
m /l
1
Dissolved oxygen
Grab
SM19 450OG
0.1
8.99
Mg/1
1
Nitrate Nitrite
Composite
SM19 450ON
0.08
3.51
m /l
1
Total K'eldahl nitrogen
Composite
SM19 450ON
0.5
7.14
Mg/1
1
Total Phosphorus
Composite
EPA 365.2
0.02
2.53
Mg/1
1
Total dissolved solids
Composite
SM19 2540C
1
117
mg/1
1
Hardness
Composite
SM19 2340B
0.03
103.9
Mg/1
1
Chlorine total residual, TRC
Grab
ISM19 450OG
0.015
1
Oil and grease
Grab
I SM19 5520B
1
1.8
m /l
1
Metals total recoverable), cyanide and total phenols
Antimony
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
*
mg/1
1
Arsenic
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
mg/1
1
Beryllium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
mg/1
1
Cadmium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.0002
mg/1
1
Chromium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
*
mg/1
1
Copper
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
mg/1
1
Lead
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
mg/1
1
Mercury
Composite
EPA 245.1
0.0001
m L
1
Nickel
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
mg/1
1
Selenium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.01
mg/1
1
Silver
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
mg/1
1
Thallium
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
mg/1
1
Zinc
Composite
EPA 200.7
0.001
0.068
mg/1
1
Cyanide
Grab
SM19 4500C
0.005
mg/1
1
Total phenolic compounds
Grab
I EPA 420.1
0.01
mg/1
1
Volatile organic compounds
Acrolein
Grab
EPA 624
50
u 1
1
Acrylonitrile
Grab
EPA 624
50
u 1
1
Benzene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Bromoform
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Carbon tetrachloride
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Chlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u /l
1
Chlorodibromomethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Chloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
10
u /l
1
2-chloroeth loin 1 ether
Grab
EPA 624
10
u l
1
Chloroform
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Dichlorobromomethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1, 1 -dichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1,2-dichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Trans- l,2-dichloroeth lene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Parameter
Sample a
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Units of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Volatile organic compounds Cont.
1,1-dichloroeth lene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1,2-dichloro ro ane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1,3-dichloropropylene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Eth lbenzene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Meth 1 bromide
Grab
I EPA 624
101
i a /l
1
Methyl chloride
1 Grab
I EPA 624
1 101
1 u 1
1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No: NC0020451 Month: March
Outfall: 001 Year: 2020
Methylene chloride
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Tetrachloroeth lene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Toluene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Trichloroeth lene
Grab
EPA 624
5
u 1
1
Vinyl chloride
Grab
EPA 624
2
u l
1
Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-creso
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
2-chloro henol
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
2,4-dichloro henol
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m 1
1
2,4-dimeth 1 henol
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m 1
1
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Grab
EPA 625
0.07
mg/1
1
2,4-dinitro henol
Grab
EPA 625
0.08
Mg/1
1
2-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
ME/1
1
4-nitrophenol
Grab
EPA 625
0.04
Mg/1
1
Pentachloro henol
Grab
EPA 625
0.025
Mg/1
1
Phenol
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/I.
1
2,4,6-trichloro henol
Grab
I EPA 625
1 0.005
Mg/1
I1
Base -neutral compounds
Acena hthene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m 1
1
Acena hth lene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Anthracene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Benzidine
Grab
EPA 625
0.085
mg/1
1
Benzo a anthracene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
*
m 1
1
Benzo a rene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Grab
EPA 625
0.01
mg/1
1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Grab
EPA 625
0.015
mg/1
1
Benzo k fluoranthene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Bis 2-chloroetho methane
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Bis 2-chloroeth 1 ether
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Bis 2-chloroiso ro 1 ether
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Bis 2-eth the 1phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
0.08
*
m 1
1
4-bromo hen 1 phenyl ether
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
0.01
mg/1
1
2-chlorona hthalene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
4-chloro hen 1 phenyl ether
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m l
1
Parameter
Sample Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Number of
samples
Base -neutral compounds cont.
Chrysene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
0.03
mg/1
1
Dibenzo a,h anthracene
Grab
EPA 625
0.05
m 1
1
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Grab
EPA 625
0.06
Mg/1
1
Dieth 1 phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
Dimeth 1 phthalate
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
*
m 1
1
1,2-di hen lh drazine
Grab
EPA 625
0.02
Mg/1
1
Fluoranthene
Grab
I EPA 625
1 0.005
mg/1
1
Fluorene
Grab
I EPA 625
1 0.005
mg/1
1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No: NC0020451 Month: March
Outfall: 001 Year: 2020
Hexachlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
Hexachlorobutadiene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Hexachloroc clo- entadiene
Grab
EPA 625
0.06
mg/1
1
Hexachloroethane
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
*
mg/1
1
Indeno 1,2,3-cd rene
Grab
EPA 625
0.014
mg/1
1
Iso horone
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
Naphthalene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
mg/1
1
Nitrobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
N-nitrosodi-n-propylaniine
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
N-nitrosodimeth lamine
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
N-nitrosodi hen lamine
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1
Phenanthrene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
*
Mg/1
1
P rene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
m 1
1
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
Grab
EPA 625
0.005
Mg/1
1 1
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified perdonnel properly
gather and evaluat the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
manage the system, or those persons directly responsibel for gathering the information, the
information submitted is , to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Authorized Representative name
Signature
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

Tom Hartman, Mayor
Brantley Price, Town Manager
Bradley Jordan, Chief of Police
John B. "Jak" Reeves, Town Attorney
Town Of Nest Jefferson
Esta6Cished 191 S
"Prosperity, Growth, Achievement"
Process Narrative
Russell W. Barr, III, Alderman
Calvin Green, Alderman
Crystal C. Miller, Alderman
John K. Reeves, Alderman
Stephen Shoemaker, Alderman
Influent enters the headworks in front of a mechanical bar screen, which compacts the
screenings to be put in a dumpster. Next, a chain and bucket grit collector captures and dumps
grit which is emptied into a dumpster. The influent gravity feeds to a wet well monitored by
SCADA, where three vertical influent pumps, all vfd and controlled by SCADA, pump to the
outer channel of the oxidation ditch. There are two floating aerators on the outer channel and
two floating aerators on the inner channel. From the inner channel, mixed liquor gravity flows
to a tank which divides it between two secondary clarifiers. The clarifiers are operated with
two horizontal pumps with vfds controlled by SCADA. The two horizontal pumps act as return
and wasting pumps. To waste, valves are used to divert the flow to one of three digesters.
Normally, the pumps are returning to the oxidation ditch. The water from he clarifiers flow to a
mixing box, before entering the tertiary filters. Water is divided between two traveling bridge
sand filters before flowing through the UV disinfecting channel. After disinfection, the effluent
is aerated before being ultrasonically measured for flow as it flows to the outfall. Flow is
recorded via SCADA.
Post Office Box 490 01 S. Jefferson Ave.
Phone: 336-246-
Fax: [phone]
This institution is an equal opportunity provider andemployer.
West Jefferson, NC 28694
3551
www.townofwinc.com

Tom Hartman, Mayor
Brantley Price, Town Manager
Bradley Jordan, Chief of Police
John B. "Jak" Reeves, Town Attorney
Town Of Nest Jefferson
rEsta6Cuhed 1915
"ftosperity, Growth, Achievement"
Sludge Management Plan
Russell W. Barr, III, Alderman
Calvin Green, Alderman
Crystal C. Miller, Alderman
John K. Reeves, Alderman
Stephen Shoemaker, Alderman
The Town of West Jefferson has three aerobic digesters that are used for storage and
assimilation. Total storage ability is approximately 250,000 gallons. Thorough aeration and
mixing occur within the digesters using coarse air diffusers.
Measurement of PH is performed using an Orion pH meter. An activity log is kept
documenting dates of land application. We are using the 30 day bench scale, SOUR, and fecal
coliform tests to satisfy PSRP and vector attraction reduction criteria. Samples are analyzed on
the sludge per 503 regulations and soil samples are taken on the application sites annually.
Once the contents of the digester meet PSRP and vector attraction criteria, the sludge is
removed from the digesters and land applied by surface method. Sludge can be transferred from
any other digester to prepare it for surface application.
Post Office Box 490 of S. Jefferson Ave.
Phone: 336-246-
Fax: [phone](is institution is an equa(opportunity provider andenployer.
West Jefferson, NC 28694
3551
www.townofwinc.com

A
B C D E F I G I H I I I J K L M
N O 1 P
1
NPDES/PT POC Review Form
Version:2022.06.22
2
1. Facility's General Information
3
Date of (draft) Review
1/24/2023 - date
c. POC review due to:
e. Contact Information
4
Date of (final) Review
Municipal NPDES renewal
0
Regional Office (RO)
Winston-Salem
5
NPDES Permit Writer (pw)
Gary Perlmutter
HWA-AT/LTMP Review
❑
RO PT Staff
Jenny Graznak, Tricia Lowery
RO NPDES Staff
Lon Snider
6
Perm ittee- Facility Name
Town of West Jeffffe�TnP- West Jefferson
New Industries
E]
Facility PT Staff, email
1 —7
Brandon Patrick <wwtpCcDtownofwl.com>
7
NPDES Permit Number
NCO020451
WWTP expansion
❑
f. Receiving Stream
8
NPDES Permit Effective Date
4/1/2018
Stream reclass./adjustment
❑
Outfall
9
Chemical Addendum Submittal Date
Outfall relocation/adjustment
ElReceiving
Stream:
UT to Little Buffalo
QA, cfs:
4
10
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date
7Q10 update
❑
Stream Class
C-Tr +
7Q10 (S), cfs:
0.6
11
eDMR data evaluated from:
to
Other POC review trigger, explain:
Oufall Lat.
36.24.35 N
Outfall Long.
80.29.26 W
12
a. WWTP Capacity Summary
Outfall II
13
Current Permitted Flow, mgd
0.5
Designed Flow,
m d
C
Receiving Stream:
QA, cfs:
14
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
0.03
d. IU Summary
Stream Class
7Q10, cfs:
15
b. PT Docs. Summary
# IUs
Oufall Lat.
Outfall Long.
16
L
IWS approval date
7/11/2019
# SIUs
1
Is there a PWS downstream of the Facility's Outfalls?
❑ YES 0 NO
17
N
I--L/STMP
approval date:
7/11/2019
# CIUs
0
Comments:
18
E
a
U)
W
HWA approval date
3/4/2019
I
# NSCIUs
The receiving stream enters no public water supply watershed before crossing into Virginia, -31 miles downstream of the outfall.
19
# lus w/Local
Permits or Other
ITypes
20
Z
2. Industrial Users' Information.
21
#
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU Non Conventional Pollutans & Toxic Pollutant
IUP Effective Date
22
1
Ashe County Cheese
Food
NH3-N, O&G, Zn, Pb, CN, Cu, Ag
7/12/2019
23
2
24
3
25
4
26
5
31
Comment:
32
3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
33
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
34
❑
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 SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
35
❑
36
p
37
❑
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to § 503.43)
38
0
39
❑
40
❑
41
❑
42
❑
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill:
43
❑
8) other
44
Sludge Disposal Plan:
45
46
47
1 Sludge Permit No:
WQ0003417
Page 1 20451 POC Review Form

AlB
I C D I E I F I G I H I I I J I K I L I M I N 1 O 1 P
48
4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
49
PW: Find L/STMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
50
a
�Comment
V)
U
a -
Parameter of Concern
(POC) Check List
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES
POC
Required by
EPA PT(1)
POC due to
Sludge (2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC (4)
%
Removal
Rate
STMP Effluent
Freq
NPDES
Effluent Freq
PQLs review
51
PQL from
STMP, ug/l
Required PQL
per NPDES
permit
Recomm.
PQL, ug/I
52
0
Flow
❑
p
p
❑
53
❑r
BOD
❑✓
0
❑
99.43
Quarterly
2 mg/L
54
❑r
TSS
❑
0
0
❑
98.61
Quarterly
2.5 mg/L
55
0
NH3
❑
❑r
❑r
❑
99.22
Quarterly
0.1 mg/L
56
0
Arsenic
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
45
Quarterly
10.0
-
Report to lower recommended PQL
57
❑
Barium
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
58
❑
Beryllium(5)
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
59
p
Cadmium(1)
❑
❑
0
0
❑
❑
67
Quarterly
2.0
0.5
Report to lower recommended PQL
60
p
Chromium(1)
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
82
Quarterly
5.0
10.0
Report to lower recommended PQL
61
p
Copper(1)
❑
0
0
p
❑
❑
76.52
Quarterly
2.0
2.0
62
p
Cyanide
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
69
Quarterly
10.0
63
p
Lead(1)
❑
❑
❑r
❑r
❑
❑
61
Quarterly
10.0
2.0
Report to lower recommended PQL
64
p
Mercury(5)
❑
❑
p
❑
❑
99.57
Quarterly
0.001
0.001
65
0
Molybdenum
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
33
Quarterly
100.0
10.0
Report to lower recommended PQL
66
p
Nickel(1)
❑
❑
0
❑✓
❑
❑
42
Quarterly
10.0
5.0
Report to lower recommended PQL
67
p
Selenium
❑
0
0
❑
❑
50
Quarterly
10.0
68
❑
Silver
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
75
Quarterly
1.0
69
p
Zinc(1)
❑
❑
0
❑�
0
❑
61.41
Quarterly
10.0
10.0
70
p
Sludge Flow to Disposal
p
❑
❑
Quarterly
71
p
% Solids to Disposal
p
❑
❑
Quarterly
72
p
Oil & Grease
0
❑
80.51
Quarterly
5.0
73
❑
TN
❑
❑
❑
❑
74
❑
T P
❑
❑
❑
❑
75
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
76
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
77
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
78
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
79
❑
❑
❑
1
❑
❑
80
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
81
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
82
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA -PT requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
Please use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
F1,-.- ..-n -na f^nf -1 c+r;4
Blue shaded cell (D60:1-182): Parameters usually included under that POC list
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
5. Comments
93
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in L/STMP:
94
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
95
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
Datasheet:
96
Additional pollutants added to L/STMP due
to POTWs concerns:
97
NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
98
6. Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
99
NPDES Permit Effective Date
1180 days after effective (date):
7Permit writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Page 2 20451 POC Review Form

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 303(D) LIST
Upper New New River Basin
AU Name
AU Number
Classification AU_LengthArea
AU —Units
AU ID Description
New River Basin
05050001
Upper New
South Fork New River
10-1-(3.5)a
C:+ 0.3
FW Miles
45 From Winkler Creek to 0.1 miles downstream of Hunting
Lane
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2008
Cobb Creek
10-1-10-3
C;Tr:+ 2.7
FW Miles
54 From source to Meat Camp Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity (10 NTU, AL, Tr) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Legacy RAMS Assessments
2012
Middle Fork South Fork New River (Chetola Lake)
10-1-2-(1)a
WS-IV:+ 3.9
FW Miles
13376i iFrom source to Sumpter Cabin Branch
PARA IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
2012
East Fork South Fork New River 1 40-1-3-(1) WS-IV;Tr:+ 2.3 FW Miles
58I (From source to Watauga County SR 1524
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008
Little Buffalo Creek
10-2-20-1
C;Tr:+ 4.4 FW Miles
234 From source to Buffalo Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2016
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2020
Little River
10-9-(6)b
C 1.1 FW Miles
13989 From Bursh Creek to NC 18 (Blevins
Crossroads)
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2020
Brush Creek
10-9-10
C;Tr 27.8 FW Miles
290 From source to Little River
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2020
6/7/2022 NC 2022 303d List- Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 92 of 192

1/30/23, 2:35 PM NCDEQ-DWR :: Benthos Site Details
NC Division of Water Resources 10,
Benthos Site Details
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
L BUFFALO CR US 221 KB059 29 May 1985 Poor
County 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft)
Ashe 05050001 36.410278-81.485000 2965
Level IV Ecoregion Drainage Area (mil) Stream Width (m) Stream Depth (m)
New River Plateau 0.8 2.0 0.1
Landuse Percentages
Forest Developed Impervious Cultivation Grass / Shrub Wetland Water Barren
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Quality Parameters
1985
Temperature (°C)
0.0
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L)
0.0
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
0.0
pH (s.u.)
0.0
Substrate Percentages
1985
Boulder
10
Cobble
30
Gravel
30
Sand
20
Silt
10
Other
Habitat Assessment Scores (max score) 0
Water Clarity
Sample Date Sample ID Method ST
29 May 1985 3457 Full Scale 24
�L
EPT
BI EPT BI Bioclassification
4
7.53 3.62 Poor
a
https://www.ncwater.org/?page=672&SitelD=KBO59 1/1

1/30/23, 2:44 PM
NCDEQ-DWR :: Benthos Site Details
NC Division of Water Resources
FBenthos Site Details
Waterbody
Location
Station ID
Date
Bioclassification
L BUFFALO CR
OFF SR 1153
KB032
28 Aug 2013
Fair
County
Ashe
8 digit HUC
05050001
Latitude
6.420480
Longitude Elevation (ft)
-81.493220 2860
Level IV Ecoregion Drainage Area (mil)
Stream Width (m) 1 Stream Depth (m)
New River Plateau 3.0
5.0 0.3
Landuse Percentages
Forest Developed I Impervious
Cultivation
Grass / Shrub
Wetland
Water Barren
51.2 32.7 8.3
11.8
1.9/2.2
0.0
0.0 0.3
Water Quality Parameters
2013
2008
2003
1998
1993
Temperature (°C)
0.0
18.1
16.0
17.2
0.0
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L)
0.0
8.7
8.4
8.7
0.0
Specific Conductance (uS/cm)
0.0
276.0
200.0
160.0
0.0
pH (s.u.)
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
Substrate Percentages
2013 2008
2003 1998
1993
Boulder
20 30
30
35
25
Cobble
20 25
30
35
35
Gravel
40 30
15
20
30
Sand
10 15
25
10
10
Silt
10
0
0
0
Other
Habitat Assessment Scores (max score)
50
Water Clarity Clear
Sample Date
Sample ID
Method
ST EPT
BI
EPT BI
Bioclassification
28 Aug 2013
11650
Full Scale
52 14
5.67
4.09
Fair
21 Aug 2008
10543
Full Scale
63 13
5.69
4.67
Fair
2003
9228
Full Scale
22 6
6.63
4.14
Poor
FA.2A
1998
7713
Full Scale
39 14
6.63
4.01
Fair
13 Jul 1993
6265
Full Scale
24 0
18.28
Poor
https://www.ncwater.org/?page=672&SitelD=KBO32 1/1

FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
11111rWaterbody
Location
Station ID
Date
Bioclassification
BUFFALO CR
NC 88/194
KF21
07/12/18
Not Rated (Fair)
County
8 digit HUC
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation (ft)
Reference Site
ASHE
05050001
36.433146
-81.511071
2776
No
Level IV Ecoregion
Drainage Area (mi2)
Stream Width (m)
Stream Depth (m)
Amphibolite Mountains
12.6
5
0.4
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>_ 1 MGD or < 1 MGD and within 1 mile) NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None
Landuse (%)
Forest
Developed
Impervious
Cultivation
Grass/Herb/Shrub
Wetland
Water
Barren
1992
94.8
0.2
no data
4.8
no data
0.0
0.0
0.2
2001
86.3
2.1
0.1
8.5
2.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
2006
86.5
2.1
0.1
8.4
2.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
2011
86.3
2.3
0.1
8.1
3.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
Water Quality Parameters
2008
2013
2018
Temperature (°C)
17.0
17.2
17.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
9.3
9.0
9.2
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
62
64
64
pH (s.u.)
6.9
7.1
7.3
Habitat Assessment Scores (max score)
2018
Channel Modification (5)
5
Instream Habitat (20)
18
Bottom Substrate (15)
13
Pool Variety (10)
6
Riffle Habitat (16)
16
Bank Erosion (7)
7
Bank Vegetation (7)
5
Light Penetration (10)
8
Left Riparian Score (5)
4
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
E87]
Water Clarity JClear. Substrates JCobble, boulder, rip/rap, gravel, and sand.
Sample Date
Sample ID
Species Total
NCIBI Score
NCIBI Rating
07/12/18
2018-42
13
38
Not Rated (Fair)
06/27/13
2013-46
14
44
Good -Fair
05/19/08
2008-42
15
40
Good -Fair
Data Analysis
Watershed - Drains central Ashe County and is a tributary to the North Fork New River. Site is located about 3.6 miles upstream from the creek's confluence
with the river. Habitat - Fairly good riparian (mix of trees, shrubs, and grasses), and canopy shading here, given that the sample reach is bordered for most of
it's length by Buffalo Road on the left. Some boulder and rip rap armoring of the steep left bank where the road is nearest to the creek. Instream habitats
include swift cobble/boulder riffles and runs, with fast chutes, and boulder pools of various sizes. 2018 fish community - A slight increase in abundance since
the 2013 assessment (n=622 in 2018 vs. 521 in 2013), yet the total taxa count decreased by 1 in 2018. The trophic structure also shifted slightly to a higher
percentage of insectivores (42% decline in Bluehead Chub, intermediately tolerant omnivore). However, had just 1 specimen of the intolerant Kanawha
Minnow been collected again (Phenacobius teretulus, state listed - Special Concern), the 2018 NCIBI score would have retained 2 points, and the site would
have rated Good -Fair for a third time. For this reason, and since the overall taxa list (as well as species abundance proportions) remained nearly unchanged,
the site is Not Rated for 2018. This site is managed as NCWRC Hatchery Supported Trout Waters, yet only wild specimens of Brown and Rainbow Trout were
collected in 2018. Species with young -of -year in 2018 - Brown Trout (n=12), Bluehead Chub (n=1), and Western Blacknose Dace (n=7). 2008-2018 - The slight
decline in NCIBI score and change in rating does not accurately reflect the seemingly unchanged water quality in this catchment. Rather, this high gradient,
moderately diverse site exists on the margin between Good -Fair and Fair ratings, and may also be on the fringe of ratability with the NCIBI. Overall, these fish
community data (and water quality parameters) continue to suggest no substantial changes in water quality in this mostly forested watershed. This site may be
resampled to confirm its 2018 rating.
Most Abundant Sp. Mottled Sculpin (n=270, 43%), and Fantail Darter Non -Native Sp. Mountain Redbelly Dace (n=1), Rainbow Trout
(n=218, 35%). (n=1), and Brown Trout (n=6).
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Species gained since 2013 - Creek Chub (n=1, new record). Species lost since 2013 - White Sucker (1 collected in 2013), and Kanawha Minnow (1
collected in 2013, state listed - Special Concern). Saffron Shiner were collected in 2008 (n=25), but not in 2013 or 2018.

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date:
04/25/22 Page
1 of 2
Permit:
nc0020451
MRS Betweei 1 - 2018 and12 - 2022
Region:
%
Violation Category:%
Program Category:
Facility Name: %
Param Nam(%
County:
%
Subbasin: %
Violation Action: %
Major Minor:
%
PERMIT: NCO020451
FACILITY: Town of West Jefferson -West Jefferson WWTP
COUNTY: Ashe
REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
08 - 2020
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
08/22/20
Weekly
mg/I
7.5
8.5
13.3
Weekly Average
Proceed to NOD
Concentration
Exceeded
10-2018
001
Effluent
Copper, Total (as Cu)
10/02/18
Monthly
ug/I
52
61
17.3
Daily Maximum
Proceed to NOD
Exceeded
10-2018
001
Effluent
Copper, Total (as Cu)
10/31/18
Monthly
ug/I
37
48.5
31.1
Monthly Average
Proceed to NOD
Exceeded
10-2019
001
Effluent
Copper, Total (as Cu)
10/02/19
Monthly
ug/I
52
98
88.5
Daily Maximum
Proceed to NOV
Exceeded
04-2020
001
Effluent
Copper, Total (as Cu)
04/15/20
Monthly
ug/I
52
53
1.9
Daily Maximum
Proceed to
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
04 - 2020
001
Effluent
Copper, Total (as Cu)
04/30/20
Monthly
ug/I
37
53
43.2
Monthly Average
Proceed to
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
04-2020
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
04/18/20
Weekly
mg/I
15
19
26.7
Weekly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
04-2020
001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
04/25/20
Weekly
mg/I
15
16
6.7
Weekly Average
Proceed to
Concentration
Exceeded
Enforcement Case
Monitoring Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
12-2018
001
Effluent
Annual Pollutant Scan [126
12/31/18
Annually
yes=1 no=0
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
parameters]
12-2019
001
Effluent
Annual Pollutant Scan [126
12/31/19
Annually
yes=1 no=0
Frequency Violation
No Action, Facility
parameters]
Reporting Error
Reporting Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
DATE
FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
05-2018
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
05/31/18
Quarterly
pass/fail
Parameter reported with
None
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
invalid Unit of Measure
07-2018
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
07/31/18
Quarterly
pass/fail
Parameter reported with
None
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
invalid Unit of Measure

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Permit: nc0020451 MRS Betweel 1 - 2018 and12 - 2022 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam(% County: %
Major Minor: %
Report Date: 04/25/2� Page 2 of 2
Violation Category:% Program Category: %
Subbasin: % Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NCO020451 FACILITY: Town of West Jefferson -West Jefferson WWTP COUNTY: Ashe REGION: Winston-Salem
Reporting Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
09-2018
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
09/30/18
Quarterly
pass/fail
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
12-2018
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
12/31/18
Quarterly
pass/fail
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
01 -2019
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
01/31/19
Quarterly
pass/fail
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
03-2019
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
03/31/19
Quarterly
pass/fail
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
04-2019
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
04/30/19
Quarterly
pass/fail
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
05-2019
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
05/31/19
Quarterly
pass/fail
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
Parameter reported with
None
invalid Unit of Measure
Parameter reported with
None
invalid Unit of Measure
Parameter reported with
No Action, BPJ
invalid Unit of Measure
Parameter reported with
No Action, BPJ
invalid Unit of Measure
Parameter reported with
No Action, BPJ
invalid Unit of Measure
Parameter reported with
No Action, BPJ
invalid Unit of Measure

Q Q
O O
�I �I
V v
O O
0 0
O
n
T
C) i i
- A
a
a
Zo
C
�
u
O
7
a a
7
a
? LL
fa
LL
9
VS
A
a)
LL
�b
�
l"I
�
01
c-I
o0
O
U
0a
U
0
Q
co
=
�
Qa — a
a LL
Q
C m
C
`4
N
f0
m
N
m LL
m
Li:
0
0
ui
D1
0
c-I
O
O
w O
z
O
0
0
toW
a)
z
w
z
c�
0
O O
3 E
m U
Z
Q .
C
7
O
V
O
� �
E
� N
M
L
L
N
V
O
U
LL
3 Z
a
a s
3
ei
0
n
A
�
ti
C
1
N
m
i
d
OD Ol
O
N
N o
0
0 0
3
a)
a
N
) f6
U
c ,
C
ba
c
V)
x O.
0 E
w O
2 C
Z
Q a a
a a
a
C
7 t
O
U
0
O
C) N
o Q
N
n
N N
N
O
u
LL .
Z
aN-I
0
00
00
E
m1
6 a
a a
a
aL
a m
o
N
j
O
O
N N
N
c LL
C CL
O V
-� N
a) L
LL
O
�I
v
O
IN
Q
z
U
O_
VI
O
V)
Q
z
U
O_
VI
O
N
a"
O
O
O
u
u
O
O
as
V)
a
d
6
o
C
u
LL
LL
N
M
a
a
Z
Z
Lr)
0
uo
a
O
w
w
U
Q
V
Q
Z
Q
00
O
Ln
>
O
O
f6
la
f0
m
LL
a
m
LL
at
[a
LL
a
Ln
m
N
'O
LD
r-I
H
O
O
OCf
O
O
O
I
�a
a a d
c
c
c
0
0
0
t
on
v
a)
a)
0
c
o
C
C
C
N
C
O
C
ba
t
c
7
L
.n
C
Y E
y
E
a
E
V
_
o.
U
c
o
m
U
U
C
a
U
C
o
O
Z
Q
n
V
e
O
Z
Q a a
a a
a
O
Z
Q a n
a
a a
T
T
T
a
C
C
C
7
7
7
O
U
O
U
O
V
C)
41
LL
�a
LL a
LL d
O
E
0
ei o-
e-I
N
ei
O
O
O
Ln
IDM
N
L
Ln
N L
V
V
L
W U
n
N
ON
u
u
u
u
LL .
Z
a
Z
Z
c)rIjO
n
00
\
'\
4
c
N O1
M
U
ei
T
ba ..
C ba
1
ba
1
b0
1
a
w a)
N m
m
a a
a n
n
a)
m
a a
O
a a
Y
7
�
n
0
�
Y
C
mN
-
- O
N
N N
CO O1
O
N N
N
N
CO O1
O
N
N N
m
O
N N
N O
O O
O N
N o
O O
O
NOi NOi
O
ba
y
LL
ti
a
LL
aL
LL
LL CL
[6
U
V
N
CL
U
2i
a
U

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NC0020451 111 121 19/07/03 I17 18 LC] I 19 I s I 20L]
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
701 I 71 I LL -1 I I
LJ
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
11:OOAM 19/07/03
18/04/01
West Jefferson WWTP
US Hwy 221
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
West Jefferson NC 28694
12:OOPM 19/07/03
22/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Brandon Lee Patrick/ORC/336-246-3558/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Brantley Price, /Town Manager//
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran 0 Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Kelli A Park DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9689/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020451 I11 12I 19/07/03 117 18 i c i
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On July 2, 2019, Kelli Park and Mike Turner of this office, met with Brandon Patrick, Operator in
Responsible Charge (ORC), to perform a Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the West Jefferson
wastewater treatment plant. This type of inspection consists of two basic parts: an in -office file review
and an on -site inspection of the treatment facility. The attached EPA inspection form details the areas
that were evaluated during this inspection.
The inspection of the facility was satisfactory. If you have any questions regarding the inspection or
this report, please contact Kelli Park or me at [phone] or by email at [e-mail] or
[e-mail].
Page#

Permit: NCO020451
Inspection Date: 07/03/2019
Owner -Facility: West Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑
❑
0
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
❑
❑
■
❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
❑
❑
❑
classification?
Page# 3

Permit: NCO020451 Owner -Facility:
Inspection Date: 07/03/2019 Inspection Type:
West Jefferson WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: ORC is a Grade 4, BORC is a Grade 1
Laboratory
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment: Field Lab certification number 5284
Water Quality Labs is the contract lab.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Page# 4

Permit: NCO020451
Inspection Date: 07/03/2019
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Owner -Facility: West Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Comment: 200 mL are sampled per 9900 gallons of flow.
Oxidation Ditches
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO020451 Owner -Facility:
Inspection Date: 07/03/2019 Inspection Type:
West Jefferson WWTP
Compliance Evaluation
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Down flow
Is the filter media present?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfection - UV
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are UV bulbs clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is UV intensity adequate?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is there a backup system on site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is effluent clear and free of solids?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Pipe
Yes
No
NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
■
❑
❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
■
❑
❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑
❑
■ ❑
Comment: Effluent was clear the day of inspection
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
■
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
■
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Page# 6

Permit: NCO020451
Inspection Date: 07/03/2019
Effluent Sampling
Owner -Facility: West Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Comment: 200 mL are sampled per 9900 gallons of flow.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: SCADA used for continuous recording.
Meter was calibrated 11/19/2019
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Yes No NA NE
Yes
No
NA
NE
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The generator is used to power the influent pipes, aerators in the oxidation ditch, and
LIV lights.
Tested once a month.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type,
and sampling location)?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO020451 I11 121 20/03/24 I17 18I D I 19 I s I 20L]
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
701 I 71 I LL -1 I I
LJ
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:30AM 20/03/24
18/04/01
West Jefferson WWTP
US Hwy 221
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
West Jefferson NC 28694
11:30AM 20/03/24
22/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Brandon Lee Patrick/ORC/336-246-3558/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Brantley Price, /Town Manager//
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Paul DiMatteo DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9691/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020451 I11 12I 20/03/24 117 18 1 p I
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NC0020451
Inspection Date: 03/24/2020
Owner -Facility: West Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Yes No NA NE
Page#

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NC0020451 I11 121 21/02/23 I17 18I D I 19 I s I 201 I
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
701 I 71 I LL -1 I I
LJ
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:50AM 21/02/23
18/04/01
West Jefferson WWTP
US Hwy 221
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
West Jefferson NC 28694
10:50AM 21/02/23
22/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Brandon Lee Patrick/ORC/336-246-3558/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Brantley Price, /Town Manager//
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Records/Reports 0 Self -Monitoring Progran
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Alex Lowe DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9689/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020451 I11 12I 21/02/23 117 18 1 p I
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On February 23, 2021, WSRO DWR inspector Alex Lowe conducted a Pretreatment Compliance
Inspection at West Jefferson WWTP (permit no. NC0020451). ORC Brandon Patrick was present.
The review of the POTW demonstrated a well -organized pretreatment program, with consistent
communication between the one SIU (Ashe County Cheese) and the POTW. This program
demonstrates compliance with all expectations and requirements of the associated DWR permit.
Page#

Permit: NCO020451 Owner -Facility: West Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/23/2021 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Permit
Yes
No
NA
NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑
❑
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0
❑
❑
❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
❑
❑
❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO020451 Owner -Facility: West Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Date: 02/23/2021 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified
❑
❑
❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility
❑
❑
❑
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:
Page# 4

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 2 u 3 I NC0020451 111 121 21/12/06 I17 18 L D I 19 I s I 201
211IIIII 111111III II III III1 I I IIIII IIIIIIIII II r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
67
I 72 I n, I 71 I 74 79 I I I I I I I80
70I� I 711 L
LJ L -1 I I
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:OOAM 21/12/06
18/04/01
West Jefferson WWTP
US Hwy 221
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
West Jefferson NC 28694
10:45AM 21/12/06
22/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Brandon Lee Patrick/ORC/336-246-3558/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Brantley Price, /Town Manager//
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Alex Lowe DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9689/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020451 I11 12I 21/12/06 117 18 i p i
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On Monday, December 6, 2021, Alex Lowe of the Winston-Salem Regional Office conducted a
routine Pretreatment Compliance Inspection at the Town of West Jefferson WWTP. ORC Brandon
Patrick was present for the inspection.
Lowe reviewed the pretreatment program elements and found all were up to date and properly
documented with letters from the DWR. See table (item number 28 on PCI Report) for dates of latest
element approvals and dates of required renewal.
Afile review of the only SIU in the program, Ashe County Cheese, was conducted. This SIU is a
non -categorical industrial user which passes cheese production wash water onto the POTW. Mr.
Patrick stated that the SIU has maintained satisfactory communication and delivers permit -required
data in a timely manner. Lowe confirmed that all data appears to have been collected and reported
properly, both by the SIU and by the POTW. This SIU has received notice of violation in the last
semi-annual period for limit exceedances of BOD, TSS, silver, and cyanide. This violation did not
result in the user being placed in SNC per the ERP.
Mr. Patrick was particularly helpful in accessing and sharing this information with Mr. Lowe. No areas
of concern were uncovered during this inspection, and the program should be considered
satisfactory.
Page#

Permit: NC0020451
Inspection Date: 12/06/2021
Owner -Facility: West Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Yes No NA NE
Page#

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
West Jefferson WWTP
PermitNo. NCO020451
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.6
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 0.9
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0.6
s7Q10 (CFS)
0.6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
56.36
IWC (%)
56.36
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
30
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.6
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0.9
Monthly Average Limit:
200/900ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.77 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
46.27
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
3.6
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Table 1. Project Information
❑� CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
West Jefferson WWTP
WWTP/WTP Class
Grade II
NPDES Permit
NCO020451
Outfal I
001
Flow, Qw (MGD)
0.500
Receiving Stream
UT to Litle Buffalo Creek
HUC Number
05050001
Stream Class
ElApply WS Hardness WQC
C; Tr; +
7Q10s (cfs)
0.60
7Q10w (cfs)
0.90
30Q2 (cfs)
4.00
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
86.93 mg/L (Avg)
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
70.35 mg/L (Avg)
Combined Hardness Chronic
79.7 mg/L
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
Combined Hardness Acute
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
80.35 mg/L
Data Source(s)
Data from submited DMRs and PPAs.
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par0611111111
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
1.4161
FW
8.9699
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
304.2698
FW
2354.8346
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
21.2226
FW
31.4608
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
10.6795
FW
276.5232
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
99.2808
FW
900.0739
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
2.2080
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
338.4562
FW
338.0456
ug/L
Toluene
Trout
NC
0.36
TR
pg/L
20451 RPA, input
4/25/2023

20451 RPA, input
4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Effluent Hardness
Values" then "COPY".
Upstream
Hardness
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
= 58
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
7/5/2018
71.8
71.8
Std Dev.
40.2496
1
7/5/2018
45.5
45.5
Std Dev.
34.5789
2
10/2/2018
106
106
Mean
86.9333
2
10/2/2018
108
108
Mean
70.3471
3
1/2/2019
56.1
56.1
C.V.
0.4630
3
1/2/2019
38.7
38.7
C.V.
0.4915
4
2/2/2019
56.1
56.1
n
21
4
4/2/2019
175
175
n
17
5
4/2/2019
170
170
10th Per value
45.70 mg/L
5
7/1 /2019
35.4
35.4
10th Per value
42.72 mg/L
6
7/1/2019
69.3
69.3
Average Value
86.93 mg/L
6
10/15/2019
45.9
45.9
Average Value
70.35 mg/L
7
7/10/2019
62
62
Max. Value
195.00 mg/L
7
1/29/2020
74.3
74.3
Max. Value
175.00 mg/L
8
10/15/2019
107
107
8
7/7/2020
45.4
45.4
9
1 /29/2020
82.4
82.4
9
10/6/2020
102.6
102.6
10
3/10/2020
103.9
103.9
10
1 /5/2021
48
48
11
4/15/2020
74.1
74.1
11
4/6/2021
54.2
54.2
12
7/7/2020
28.4
28.4
12
7/8/2021
62.5
62.5
13
10/6/2020
34.6
34.6
13
10/5/2021
65.3
65.3
14
1 /5/2021
66.4
66.4
14
1 /31 /2022
70.3
70.3
15
4/6/2021
90.4
90.4
15
4/5/2022
52.8
52.8
16
7/8/2021
96.8
96.8
16
7/6/2022
86
86
17
10/5/2021
91.6
91.6
17
10/10/2022
86
86
18
1 /31 /2022
195
195
18
19
4/5/2022
45.7
45.7
19
20
7/6/2022
101
101
20
21
10/10/2022
117
117
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
20451 RPA, data
-3- 4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Par03
Maximum data points
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
1
6/13/2018
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1 7/10/2019 <
2
8/7/2018
<
10
5
Mean
5.0000
2 3/10/2020 <
3
10/2/2018
<
10
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
4
7/10/2019
<
10
5
n
5
4
5
3/10/2020
<
10
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
8
Max. Pred Cw
11.6 ug/L
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Beryllium
BDL=1/2DL Results
1 0.5 Std Dev.
1 0.5 Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
0.0000
0.5000
0.6000
2
3.79
0.50 ug/L
1.90 ug/L
-4-
20451 RPA, data
4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Par05
Maximum data points
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
6/13/2018
<
0.2
0.1
Std Dev.
0.4025
1
2
8/7/2018
<
0.2
0.1
Mean
0.2800
2
3
10/2/2018
<
0.2
0.1
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
4
7/10/2019
<
2
1
n
5
4
5
3/10/2020
<
0.2
0.1
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
7
Max. Value
1.000 ug/L
7
8
Max. Pred Cw
2.320 ug/L
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Date Data
Chlorides
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points = 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A mg/L
N/A mg/L
-5-
20451 RPA, data
4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par06
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Par07
Maximum data points
= 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
4
n
0
4
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
7
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
7
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
20451 RPA, data
4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
-7-
20451 RPA, data
4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Date Data
1 6/13/2018 <
2 8/7/2018
3 10/2/2018 <
4 7/10/2019 <
5 3/10/2020 <
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Pall
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Chromium, Total
Values" then "COPY".
Copper
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
= 58
= 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.2236
1
1 /7/2020
22
22
Std Dev.
4.5303
1
1
Mean
0.6000
2
2/4/2020
<
1
0.5
Mean
6.4829
1
0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
3/10/2020
<
1
0.5
C.V.
0.6988
1
0.5
n
5
4
4/15/2020
n
35
1
0.5
5
5/4/2020
5
5
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
6/2/2020
<
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
1.17
Max. Value
1.0 dig/L
7
7/7/2020
<
1
0.5
Max. Value
22.00 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
2.3 dig/L
8
8/3/2020
9
9
Max. Pred Cw
25.74 ug/L
9
9/1 /2020
8
8
10
10/6/2020
4.7
4.7
11
11 /2/2020
9
9
12
12/7/2020
8
8
13
1 /5/2021
7
7
14
2/3/2021
7.9
7.9
15
3/1 /2021
7
7
16
4/6/2021
9
9
17
5/3/2021
14
14
18
6/1 /2021
12
12
19
7/8/2021
4.3
4.3
20
8/18/2021
5.4
5.4
21
9/13/2021
9.2
9.2
22
10/11 /2021
4.4
4.4
23
11 /1 /2021
7
7
24
12/8/2021
12
12
25
1/10/2022
3.8
3.8
26
2/23/2022
7.9
7.9
27
3/7/2022
4.7
4.7
28
4/5/2022
2.1
2.1
29
5/2/2022
2.5
2.5
30
6/6/2022
<
2
1
31
7/6/2022
4
4
32
8/22/2022
6
6
33
9/7/2022
<
2
1
34
10/4/2022
10
10
35
11 /7/2022
11
11
36
12/5/2022
6
6
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
20451 RPA, data
-8- 4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
6/13/2018
<
5
5
Std Dev.
2
8/7/2018
<
5
5
Mean
3
10/2/2018
<
5
5
C.V. (default)
4
7/10/2019
<
5
5
n
5
3/10/2020
<
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Par13
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
0.0000 1
5.00 2
0.6000 3
5 4
5
2.32 6
5.0 ug/L 7
11.6 ug/L 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Fluoride
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
20451 RPA, data
-9- 4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Date
1 6/13/2018 <
2 8/7/2018 <
3 10/2/2018 <
4 7/10/2019 <
5 3/10/2020 <
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Lead
BDL=1/2DL
Results
10
5
Std Dev.
10
5
Mean
10
5
C.V. (default)
10
5
n
10
5
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Par15
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
0.0000 1
5.0000 2
0.6000 3
5 4
5
2.32 6
5.000 ug/L 7
11.600 ug/L 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Mercury
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ng/L
N/A ng/L
-10-
20451 RPA, data
4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16
Date Data
1 6/13/2018 <
2 8/7/2018 <
3 10/2/2018 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Par17 & Par18
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Molybdenum
Values" then "COPY".
Nickel
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
= 58
= 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 0.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
6/13/2018
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1 0.5
Mean
0.5000
2
8/7/2018
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.5000
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
10/2/2018
<
1
0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
4
7/10/2019
<
1
0.5
n
5
5
3/10/2020
<
1
0.5
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
Max. Value
0.5 ug/L
7
Max. Value
0.5 Ng/L
Max. Pred Cw
1.5 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
1.2 Ng/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
20451 RPA, data
- 11 - 4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Selenium
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Par20
Maximum data points
= 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
1
6/13/2018
<
10
5
Std Dev.
2.2299
1
6/13/2018
<
2
8/7/2018
<
10
5
Mean
3.1190
2
8/7/2018
<
3
10/2/2018
<
10
5
C.V.
0.7149
3
10/2/2018
<
4
1/2/2019
<
10
5
n
21
4
7/10/2019
<
5
2/2/2019
<
10
5
5
3/10/2020
<
6
4/2/2019
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.41
6
7
7/1/2019
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
8
7/10/2019
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
7.1 ug/L
8
9
10/2/2019
<
10
5
9
10
1 /7/2020
<
10
5
10
11
3/10/2020
<
10
5
11
12
4/15/2020
12
13
7/7/2020
<
10
5
13
14
10/6/2020
<
1
0.5
14
15
1 /5/2021
<
2
1
15
16
4/6/2021
<
1
0.5
16
17
7/8/2021
<
1
0.5
17
18
10/11 /2021
<
1
0.5
18
19
1 /10/2022
<
2
1
19
20
4/5/2022
<
1
0.5
20
21
7/6/2022
<
1
0.5
21
22
10/4/2022
<
1
0.5
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
Silver
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 0.5
Std Dev.
1 0.5
Mean
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
1 0.5
n
1 0.5
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
= 58
0.0000
0.5000
0.6000
5
2.32
0.500 ug/L
1.160 ug/L
-12-
20451 RPA, data
4/25/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Par22
Use "PASTE SPECIAL-
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
SPECIAL -
Zinc
Values" then "COPY".
Toluene
Values" then "COPY".
Maximum data points
Maximum data points
= 58
= 58
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
6/13/2018
23
23
Std Dev.
26.7498
1
10/1 /2018 <
1 0.5
Std Dev.
11.4752
2
8/7/2018 <
1
0.5
Mean
24.9000
2
7/1/2019
21.3 21.3
Mean
8.1000
3
10/2/2018
5
5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
3/1/2020 <
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
7/10/2019
28
28
n
5
4
n
3
5
3/10/2020
68
68
5
6
Mult Factor =
2.32
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
68.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
21.300000 pg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
157.8 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
63.900000 pg/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
20451 RPA, data
-13- 4/25/2023

West Jefferson WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO020451 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
0.5000
1Q10S (cfs) =
0.51
7Q10S (cfs) =
0.60
7QIOW (cfs) =
0.90
30Q2 (cfs) =
NO 30Q2 DATA
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
4.00
Receiving Stream: UT to Litle Buffalo Creek HUC 05050001
WWTP/WTP Class: Grade II
IWC% @ 1 Q l OS = 60.31128405
IWC% @ 7Q 1 OS = 56.36363636
IWC% @ 7Q10W = 46.26865672
IWC% @ 30Q2 = N/A
IW%C @ QA = 16.23036649
Stream Class: C; Tr; +
Qw = 0.5 MGD
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS HQW OR ORW
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 8 0.3 5 mg/L
Chronic = 79.7 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
U)
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
z
Applied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standard
Acute (FW): 281.9
Arsenic
C
75 FW(7Q10s) 170
ug/L
5 0
11.6
_____
Chronic (FW) 133.1
C.V. (default)
Max MDL = 10
Arsenic
C
5 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
Note: n < 9
NO DETECTS
Chronic (HH) 30.8
_
No detects no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
Max MDL 10
Acute: 53.89
Beryllium
NC
3.25 FW(7Q10s) 32.5
ug/L
2 0
1.90
___ _ ______ ____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 5.77
_
No detects no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Acute: 7.436
Cadmium
NC
0.7081 FW(7Q10s) 4.4850
ug/L
5 0
2.320
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
___ _ __ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 1.256
___________________________
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 2
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
115 FW(7Q10s)
mg/L
0 0
N/A
-_ _ ----- —_ -- _
----
Chronic:
---------------------------
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
0.5 A(30Q2)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic: ----IWC?---
---------------------------
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
150 A(30Q2)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
-_ _ ---- _ _
----
Chronic: IWC?
---------------------------
Acute: 1,952.2
Chromium III
NC
152.1349 FW(7Q10s) 1177.4173
µg/L
0 0
N/A
--Chronic:-----269.9---
---------------------------
Acute: 13.3
Chromium VI
NC
6 FW(7Q10s) 8
µg/L
0 0
N/A
-_ _
-Ch----- -g ---
Chronic: 9
---------------------------
Tot Cr value(s) < 5 and < Cr VI Allowable Cw
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
5 1 2.3 Max reported value 1
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
Note • n < 9 C.V. default
• — (default)
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Limited data set
20451 RPA, rpa
Page 14 of 15 4/25/2023

West Jefferson WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO020451
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Qw = 0.5 MGD
Acute: 26.08
Copper
NC
10.6113 FW(7Q10s) 15.7304
ug/L
35 29
25.74
------------------------------------------------
Chronic: 18.83
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
1 values > Allowable Cw
Acute: 18.2
Cyanide
NC
2.5 FW(7Q10s) 11
10
ug/L
5 0
11.6
___ _ ___________
___________________________
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 4.4
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: NO WQS
Fluoride
NC
900 FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
-_ _ ---- _ _
-Ch--
Chronic: 1,596.8
---------------------------
Acute: 229.247
Lead
NC
5.3398 FW(7Q10s) 138.2616
ug/L
5 0
11.600
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
______ ____
Chronic: 9.474
___________________________
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: NO WQS
Mercury
NC
6 FW(7Q10s)
0.5
ng/L
0 0
N/A
-_ _ ----- _ _
-Ch---
---------------------------
Chronic: 10.6
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
1000 HH(7Q1Os)
ug/L
3 0
1.5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 1,774.2
_
No detects no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL 1
Acute (FW): 746.2
Nickel
NC
49.6404 FW(7Q10s) 450.0369
µg/L
5 0
1.2
_ _ _ --- _ - _ ---
Chronic (FW)-
---------------------------
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Max = 1
Nickel
NC
12.5000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
_MDL
Chronic (WS) 22.2
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Max MDL = 1
Acute: 46.4
Selenium
NC
2.5 FW(7Q10s) 28
ug/L
21 0
7.1
-_ _
-Chronic: ----- 4-4 ---
---------------------------
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 1.830
Silver
NC
0.03 FW(7Q10s) 1.1040
ug/L
5 0
1.160
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
___ _ __ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 0.053
__________________________
No detects - no monitoring or limits required
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 1
Acute: 280.3
Zinc
NC
169.2281 FW(7Q10s) 169.0228
ug/L
5 4
157.8
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 300.2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP (limited dataset) - no monitoring or limits
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
required
Acute: NO WQS
Toluene
NC
0.18 TR(7Q10s)
µg/L
3 1
63.90000
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 0.31935
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One detection at 21.3 ug/L and 2 nondetects at < 1 &
Limited data set
3 values > Allowable Cw
< 5 ug/L. Apply quarterly monitoring.
Acute:
0 0
N/A
-----------------
Chronic:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20451 RPA, rpa
Page 15 of 15 4/25/2023

Permit No. NC0020451
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485{
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.4601
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO020451
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59)
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884)
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884)
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q 10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO020451
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q 10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss(I+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q 10 + Qw) (Cwgs)-(s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1 Q 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0020451
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness, mg/L
86.9
Permittee submitted DMRs
(Total as CaCO3)
Average Upstream Hardness, mg/L
70.3
Permittee submitted DMRs
(Total as CaCO3)
7Q10 summer (cfs)
0.6
Reported in previous permit Fact
Sheet
1Q10 (cfs)
0.51
Calculated in RPA spreadsheet
Permitted Flow (MGD)
0.5
Design flow
Date: February 1, 2023
Permit Writer: Gary Perlmutter
Page 4 of 4

4/25/23 WQS = 6 ng/L
Facility Name West Jefferson WWTP / NC0020451
/Permit No. :
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date
Modifier Data Entry
Value
6/13/18
0.687
0.687
8/7/18
0.585
0.585
10/2/18
< 0.5
0.5
7/10/19
< 1
0.5
3/10/20
< 1
0.5
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
No Limit Required
No MMP Required
7Q10s = 0.600 cfs WQBEL = 10.65 ng/L
Permitted Flow = 0.500 47 ng/L
0.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NCO20451 Town of West Jefferson 1
Method Number Estimated Concentration (If
Pollutant (Required) CAS number (if Applicable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
Based on influent makeup of mostly domestic with one industrial user
that makes cheese, we do not anticipate additional pollutants
entering the stream.