NC0020940_Fact Sheet_20200121

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO02094O
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: August 29, 2018
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
L Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Murphy/Murphy Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 130, Murphy, NC 28906
Facility Address:
390 Payne Street, Murphy, NC 28906
Permitted Flow:
1.4 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 98% domestic / 2% industrial
Facility Class:
Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System (WPCS)
Treatment Units:
Bar screen, flow splitter, extended aeration plant (SBR) in parallel, post
equalization basin, effluent chlorination and dechlorination units, flow
measurement, aerobic sludge digestion, sludge drying beds
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y
County:
Cherokee
Region
Asheville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Murphy has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 1.4 MGD for the Murphy WWTP. This facility serves a
population of 3,200 residents. Industrial wastewater is also accepted from 3 categorical SIUs under an
Page 1 of 9

approved pre-treatment program, with one industrial user being non -discharge. Treated wastewater is
discharged into an effluent channel which flows into the Hiwassee River, a class C water in the Hiwassee
River Basin. The facility has a primary Outfall 001.
2. Receivina Waterbob Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 Hiwassee River
Stream Index:
1-(85)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
539
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
96.9
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
113
30Q2 (cfs):
245
Average Flow (cfs):
1205
IWC (% effluent):
2.2%
303(d) listed/parameter:
None
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
04-05-02/060200020705
USGS Topo Quad:
G2SE
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2015 through April 2019.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 00 i
Parameter
i
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit
Limit
Flow
MGD
0.55
1.85
0.22
MA 1.4
BOD5
mg/L
10.3
106
< 2
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N
mg/L
2.23
19.6
0.1
TSS
mg/L
16.9
142
< 5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
Page 2 of 9

pH
SU
7.1
8.7
6.3
6.0 < pH <
9.0
Fecal coliform
#/100 mL
18.3
1200
3
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
TRC
ug/L
< 10
< 10
< 10
DM 28.0
Temperature
° C
18.5
27
5
TN
mg/L
7.2
18.2
1.4
TP
mg/L
1.9
5
0.26
Total Mercury*
ng/L
22.4
122
1.91
AA 47
Total Silver
ug/L
28.8
< 50
5
AA -Annual Average, MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily
Average, QA-Quarterly Average, 'mercury samples reported as 71900 and COMER in DMR
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).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what Instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: Instream monitoring is not a requirement in the permit.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): N
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported one (1)
pH limit violation resulting in an NOV from June of 2015 to June of 2019.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 17 of 17 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as 4 of 4 second
species chronic toxicity tests from March 2015 to March 2019.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in May of 2019 reported that the facility was compliant,
Page 3 of 9

6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The results of the
1987 Level B model indicated that secondary BOD5 limits were adequately protective of the stream. No
changes are proposed.
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/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: Limitations for
TRC are based on the NC water quality standard and have been confirmed in the attached wasteload
allocation (WLA). No changes are proposed.
The permit only requires monitoring for ammonia. The ammonia requirement has been reviewed in the
attached WLA. As the allowable discharge concentration for ammonia at the facility is greater than 35
mg/L in both summer and winter. the monitor only requirement shall be maintained in the permit. No
changes are proposed.
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 %s 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
Page 4 of 9

dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between January 2014
and April 2018. 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: N/A
• 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: Silver
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: NA
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: N/A
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: N/A
o 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:
Beryllium, Arsenic, Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Copper,
Cyanide, Fluoride, Lead, Nickel, Selenium, Zinc
The Town of Murphy reported total silver levels as non -detects < 50 ug/L from 2015 through the start of
2017. While all reported levels were non -detect below either 50 ug/L or 5 ug/L, silver monitoring has
been maintained at a quarterly frequency to better characterize the discharge. The Town shall analyze
total silver using a method sensitive enough to achieve a Practical Quantification Level (PQL) of 1 ug/L.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Page 5 of 9

Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: The permit requires quarterly chronic toxicity testing at
2.2% effluent concentration. No changes are proposed.
Mercoy Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
# of Samples
3
4
4
2
1
Annual Average Conc. n L
8.9
46
20.4
9.1
5.8
Maximum Conc., n L
18
122
25.8
19.6
5.83
TBEL, n
47
WQBEL, n /L
547.9
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since the facility reported one sample
greater than 47 ng/L, an annual average limit of 47 ng/l, shall remain in the permit at a quarterly
frequency. Since the facility is < 2 MGD, no MMP will be required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals if not applicable, delete and ski to Industrials
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/1
BOD5/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BOD5/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond).
Page 6 of 9

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 21-1.0105(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/ND): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: JA
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.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to
submit additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
Page 7 of 9

12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 3. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 1.4 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 1.4 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5
MA 30 mg/L
No change
1987 Level B found secondary standards
WA 45 mg/L
to be protective of stream. TBEL.
Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR
133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406
TSS
MA 30 mg/L
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40
WA 45 mg//l
CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406
NH3-N
Monitor 3/week
No change
2019 WLA review; Allowable discharge
concentration > 35 mg/L
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100m1
NCAC 2B
Temperature
Daily Monitoring
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
pH
6 - 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
Total Residual
DM 28 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Chlorine
NCAC 2B
TN
Semi -Annual
Quarterly
15A NCAC 2B .0508 - Surface Water
Monitoring
Monitoring: Reporting
Total Phosphorus
Semi -Annual
Quarterly
15A NCAC 2B .0508 - Surface Water
Monitoring
Monitoring: Reporting
Total Mercury
AA 0.047 ug/L
Maintain requirement
WQBEL. Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation. 1 value
exceeded 47 ng/L.
Total Silver
Quarterly monitoring
Maintain requirement
Based on reasonable potential analysis
(RPA): No detects, values below PQL of
50 ug/L and 5 ug/L, Permittee shall report
to lowest PQL (< 1 ug/L) - maintain
quarterly monitoring
Whole Effluent
Chronic limit, 2.2%
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
Toxicity
effluent
15A NCAC 2B
Effluent Pollutant
Three times per permit
No change
40 CFR 122
Scan
cycle
Total Hardness
No requirement
Quarterly monitoring
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals
Upstream and in
water quality standards approved in 2016
Effluent
Electronic
Electronic Reporting
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Special Condition
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, QA — Quarterly Average,
DA — Daily Average
Page 8 of 9

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: August 14, 2019
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 questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at nick.coco&cdenr.gov
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below. NA
The draft permit was sent to US EPA Region 4, the Asheville Regional Office, the Division Operator
Certification Program and the Division Aquatic Toxicology Branch. No comments were received from
each of these parties.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• BOD and TSS Removal
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheet
• Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet
• Limit Violations Summary
• Toxicity Summary
• PERCs Summary
• Most Recent Inspection Summary
Page 9 of 9

Permit No. NC0020940
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 Duality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1 Acute SW, µg/l
(Dissolved) (Dissolved)
150 69
6.5 ---
Calculation 40
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
65
36
Beryllium
---
Cadmium
Calculation
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/1
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)) a^{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-[In hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[in 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]-1.7021
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) • e^(1.273[In hardness]-1.460)
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)} • e^{l.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[in hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO020940
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • eA{ 1.72[ln hardness]-6.59]
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^(0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884)
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884)
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
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/WDBELs for Hardness-Denendent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.99s
• 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. NC0020940
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness. g/L) + 1s7O101 cfs *AvL:. Urstream Hardness__m,,_ I. i
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
C t5s = 11
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss(I+a)] [10"6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/l], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7010 + Ow) (Cwgs) — (s7010) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0020940
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in. accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
34.6
Average from Effluent Pollutant
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
Scans December 2014 to June 2016
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
25
Default Value
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
7Q10 summer (cfs)
96.9
NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs)
79.11
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
1.4
NPDES Files
Date: 6 September 2018
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

Permit No. NC0020940
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 OualitN Standards/A atic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1 Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved) ' (Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/I Chronic SW, µg/I
(Dissolved) l (Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69 .36
---
40 8.8
Be Ilium 1
65
6.5
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
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
I Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
I. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 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/l
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)) • e^{0.9151 [in hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* { 1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [1n hardness]-3.6236j
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[1n hardness]-4.445Ij
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 - e^{0.8190[In 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* I1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} - e^{ 1.273[In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER* { 1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)) • eAl 1.273 [In hardness]-4.705 }
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 - e^{0.8460[In hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 - e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NC0020940
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[In 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 Permittin Guidance/W BELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 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 Pennittee 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. NC0020940
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, ingl) + (s7010. cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 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:
Cams- = 1
Ctotal I + { [Kp.] [ss(l+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 = (s7O 10 + Ow) (Cwgs) — (0010)(Cb)
Qom,
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or f6deral criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NCO020940
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
34.6
Average from Effluent Pollutant
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
Scans December 2014 to June 2016
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
25
Default Value
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
96.9
NPDES Files
1 Q 10 (cfs)
79.11
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
1.4
NPDES Files
Date: 6 September 2018
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

ti
I
}
c
M
7
7
7
5
3
3
=L
Z?
7
3
O
�
O
G
Q
1i:
�pOp
LO
V
m
tD
Q
ti
ry
N
N
LO
m
m
�p
CN',
G
�
C
cm
3
3
Q
a
3
3
LL
LL
LL
U.
LL
LL
L1_
LL
Icq
LL
LL
a
cn
OD
RC
r,
W
O
Q
p
OP
W�
O
f+
N
m
N
N
U
U
U
Z
U
Z
47
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
=
V
Y
Sd
u
ti
5t
St
f777»j
Sr
5t
52
N
E
e
�
_
E
c
a
Z
2
U?
c
o
�
U
IL
ItHiml.-FiLvHnoil
a.ILMC
1 1
! i 1
I i 1
I 1
I I
rrli
1 r r
E
_CD
a p
C
O
0
O Q
0
1
tatl
CDV
InW
O (pp
�
O
G
N
E
N P- E O N N
3
U
Z
2
O
p
m p N to
N
N
chi
! 1 1 r
i 1 I i
i I i 1
1 i
1 � �
3
p E c
€ v = m
z c E 3 �� E 00
E �° = Fa rco a
w ao m E.E E
o Cl
zow�iv,�o�Mcaw�c°�cic

H1
1
2
3
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
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
liar. "PASTE SPMAL H2
Effluent Hardness data Upstream Hardness
Dams - 5e
Date
Data BDL=112DL
Results
12/9/2014
30.1 30.1
Std Dev.
3.9686
9/3012015
36.1 36.1
Mean
34.6000
6/2912016
37.6 37.6
C.V. (default)
0.6000
n
3
10th Per value
31.30 mg/L
Average Value
34.60 mg/L
Max. Value
37.60 mg/L
Us* "PASTE SPECIAL
Varies" Men "COPY'
mAaxkm m data
Pokes - 88
Date Data
BDLsi/20L Results
1 DEFAULT 25
25 Std Day. M1IrA
2
Mean
25.0000
3
C.V.
0.0000
4
n
1
5
10th Per value
25.00 m91L
6
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00 mg/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
RPA Murphy, data
1 - 8/512019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01
& Par02
uW. `PASTE 8KCW
Arsenic
VAt"L•u.�ik-Corw
wr„»r�um d,u
Pm Hs = SS
Date
Data
BDL=1120L
Results
1
1219/2014
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
9/30/2015
<
10
5
Mean
5.0000
3
6/29/2016
<
10
5
C.V. (defauR)
0.6000
4
9112/2018
<
10
5
n
6
5
10/19/2018
<
10
5
6
11/8/2018
<
10
5
Mutt Factor =
2.14
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
10.7 ug/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
j 56
57
58
RPA Murphy, data
- 2 - 8/5/2019

Par03
Date Data
1 12/9/2014 <
2 9/30/2015 <
3 6/29/2016 <
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
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Beryllium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 0.5
Std Dev.
1 0.5
Mean
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
flee "PAS,, SPZ,,AL Par04
VeN.ts tM<,•CaPY
ems' U'! tlala
p�:ri„ c 5P
Date Data
0.0000 1 12/9/2014 < 1
0.5000 2 9/30/2015 < 1
0.6000 3 6/29/2016 < 1
3 4 9/12/2018 < 1
5 10/19/2018 < 1
3.00 6 11/8/2018 < 1
0.50 ug/L 7
1.50 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
-3-
Cadmium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
0.5
Std Dev.
0.5
Mean
0.5
C.V.(default)
0.5
n
0.5
0.5
Mutt Factor=
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Uss "PASTE SPECW.
viat the" 'COP
nt,;;T+Jrt 034
0,5000
0.6000
6
2.14
0.500 ug/L
1.070 ug/L
RPA Murphy, data
8/5/2019

Par07
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
vrc �pasi s Par10
61'iC1Al•Values"
Total Phenolic Compounds then "Copy" . I Chromium, Total
Date Data
1 1219/2014 <
2 9/30/2015 <
3 6129/2016 <
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
Puiffts
BDL=112DL
Results
10 5
Std Dev.
a W100
10 5
Mean
5.0000
10 5
C.V.(defauft)
0.6000
n
3
Mutt Factor=
3.00
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
Max. Prod Ow
15.0 ug/L
Date Data
1 12/9/2014 < 5
2 9/30/2015 < 5
3 6129/2016 < 5
4 9112/2018 < 5
5 10/1912018 < 5
6 11/8/2018 < 5
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
BDL=1/2DL
Results
2.5
Std Dev.
2.5
Mean
2.5
C.V.(defauft)
2.5
n
2.5
2.5
Muft Factor=
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Ll" -PASTE 12:Ci
;Pall
Values"tI "COPY"
Mja mum data
Palls - S8
2.5000
0.6000
6
2.14
2.5 Ng1L
5.4 NgrL
RPA Murphy, data
-4- 815/2019
1
2
3
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

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
use' P;,!:TE SFBGp
Copper
v: !� ,* then "COR
i.!Z'.muml dw
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
12/9/2014
< 5
2.5
Std Dev.
3.9727
9/30/2015
< 5
2.5
Mean
5.8667
6/29/2016
9.7
9.7
C.V. (default)
0.6000
9/12/2018
11.3
11.3
n
6
10/19/2018
6.7
6.7
11/8/2018
< 5
2.5
Mutt Factor =
2.14
Max. Value
11.30 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
24.18 ug/L
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 12/912014
< 8
5
Std Dev.
2 9/30/2015
< 8
5
Mean
3 6/29/2016
9.3
5
C.V. (default)
4 9/18/2018
19
19
n
5 10/21/2018
19
19
6 11/8/2018
< 8
5
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
621
u� A241at-
77
Part:
. Wmum data
POW" T .W
9.67
0.6000
6
2.14
19.0 ug/L
40.7 ug/L
1
2
3
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
RPA Murphy, data
8/5/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
3
Li►► "PRS TIE SPE ClA!
Fluoride
vow"" the "C4'�
raaK1mvm data
ymras n m
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
12/9/2014 <
5 2.5
Std Dev.
0 DNA
9/30/2015 <
5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
6/29/2016 <
5 2.5
C.V. (defau@)
0.6000
n
3
Mutt Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 2.5 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 7.5 ug/L
Date
1 12/9/2014 <
2 9/30/2015 <
3 6/29/2016 <
4 9/12/2018 <
5 10/19/2018 <
6 11/8/2018 <
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
-6-
Zhc -'PAS S C SPE CIAL,
Lead
Y aiws" then "COPY'
v.,:,mum u+ta
pants
BDL=112DL
Results
5 2.6
Std Dev.
0.0000
5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
5 2.5
n
6
5 2.5
5 2.5
Mult Factor =
2.14
Max. Value
2.500 ug/L
Max. Fred Cw
5.350 ug/L
1
2
3
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
RPA Murphy, data
8/5/2019

5
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Molybdenum
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
9/12/2018
< 5 2.5
Std Dev.
10/19/2018
< 5 2.5
Mean
11/812018
< 5 2.5
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Fred Cw
UEs "PASTE ePEq Par17 8 Par18
Vak, a S" the ". "COPY'
F':zx:rgU•r. Bata
points
a 58
Date Data
0.0000 1 12/9/2014 < 5
2.5000 2 9/30/2015 < 5
0.6000 3 6/2912016 < 5
3 4 9/12/2018 < 5
5 10/19/2018 < 5
3.00 6 11/8/2018 < 5
2.5 ug/L 7
7.5 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
Use "PA5rE
#AE-VaM1G3"
Nickel
—�
Wi[iFIWP'. Ciri
BDL=112DL
Results
Polnes=s!
2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2.5
Mean
2.5000
2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
2.5
n
6
2.5
2.5
Mult Factor =
2.14
Max. Value
2.5 Ng1L
Max. Fred Cw
5.4 Ng/L
RPA Murphy, data
-7- 815/2019
1
2
3
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

a
Date Data
12/9/2014 < 10
911212018 < 10
10/19/2018 < 10
11/8/2018 < 10
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Selenium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5
Std Dev.
5
Mean
5
C.V. (default)
5
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Ilse -PASTE
SPECIAL -Values
rhsn "COPY'
raa=ns+u m data
pauus -Ss
5.0000
0.6000
4
2.59
5.0 ug/L
13.0 ug/L
Date Data
1 3117/2015 < 50
2 6/11/2015 < 50
3 9/24/2015 < 50
4 12/10/2016 < 50
5 3/8/2016 < 50
6 6/29/2016 < 50
7 9/22/2016 < 50
8 12/13/2016 < 50
9 3/2112017 < 50
10 6/1312017 < 5
11 9/19/2017 < 5
12 12/12/2017 < 5
13 3/13/2018 < 5
14 6/21/2018 < 5
15 9/11/2018 < 5
16 12/18/2018 < 5
17 3/5/2019 < 5
18 10119/2018 < 5
19 11/812018 < 5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
8-
Silver
BDL=1/2DL
Results
25
Std Dev.
25
Mean
25
C.V.
25
n
25
25
Mult Factor =
25
Max. Value
25
Max. Pred Cw
25
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
US-- 'PASTE 1varw
y Ft%tA L • VatuaA'
trier _COPY'.
Maximum dais �-
potms = SS
13.1579
0.8772
19
1.56
25.000 ug/L
39.000 ug/L
1
2
3
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
RPA Murphy, data
8/5/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
- i" WASTE..
5PEC�4L-
ZIn6
Y hte ' N;^n
Date
Data
BDL=WDL
Results
parts=se
12/9/2014
37.2
37.2
Std Dev.
13.7083
9/30/2015
54.2
54.2
Mean
57.7333
6/29/2016
49.4
49.4
C.V. (default)
0.6000
9/12/2018
76.1
76.1
n
6
10/19/2018
64.4
64.4
11/8/2018
65.1
65.1
MultFactor=
2.14
Max. Value
76.1 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw
162.9 uq/L
RPA Murphy, data
9 8/5/2019

IL
i iZ
iZ
iZ
iZ
v
iZ
i
iZ
iZ
go
I I
I
la
I�
Q
la
I
I
I
I I$
I$
I,$
I$�
I
I a
I
I$
o
I Iv
I I
Iv
I
iv
Imo;
I
I�
b5
1v
i
iv
iv
Flo
a
L
I la L?
la
la
la
_
g a
m
la HP
I
la
la
':
'
21I�
'
I�
5
-2f
:
a 2�
:
-2
z
:
Io
a I�
r+
o Im
o I�
c I�
I�
I
o I,�
3IN
O Iv
17
' IM
00 IN
O IN
oho I^
I00
N I
a0.. '� u
d
.V. •q .]
7 I O
'� .a
o I O
� I OI
¢ 16
U
d IU
IV IU
I
I
I
I z
I z°
I
I
IP
W
v
nwli
oACy
owls
w W
wtj
oow
w
w[uy
ow W
U z
� z
cS
ti
cif
u
u
c i 2
u
ON
1A
VI
VI
VI
VI
W
M
M
%A 9
pe
pe
p�
pO
O°
pfl
tai
Ofl
� o E
m o fi
�o o .E
�O v E
�O
'a
z
z Z
z
a
z
simn
10d
o
b
N
W
a a
a
o
o
a
a
a
a
3
�
c
cyi
i?
o
°
8
a
C>
a
Z
U
c
ri
C4
W
t,7 V
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
m
E
a
rc
F-
m
m
m
a
E
v G
=
a
O
c
c
w
J
Q Q
00 m
Q
V
C1
IL
I�ur
I
Z
d

a
tt-
IZ
I IZ
la
1 Fm
la
I m
I
n
is
i is
is
i as
a i
isIL
j
i
cy
a
I
I I
Ix
x I
19�
I 19�
I��
laa°E
j ;a
I�
I I��
la•�
la�
c
I ymc
afl
a-
I� c
ag
I I�'e
Ik -c
ro�8
I v @F_
z el
z°:§
z2
�z2
z'a E
z'2�
Io
M I10
Io^'6
N I M
a I3
o
a�
7 toQ�
I_ lo_Ll5
IF
I o
IF
N¢
IU G
I o `I
Ali;
Iv
T
U
kn 4)
C
u
U
U
h
W
b W
W
a W
>�
•N
tNi
m
a
q
a
c
1 r
C
a W
O+
y
v
za
za
z'a
o>
o
�o
o
a
M
o10
M
M
o
0 0
0
0
0
a
a a
a
a
a
xa
w 3
w
w
w
CaC
L
O
d
L
LL
z
z z
z
z
z
0
m
O m
E
7
V
a
a
2 2
m
m
W
c
N
0
H
O
't
O
N
O
O
ci
Z

al
N
Go
Ina
s
a
L
r�
1F
bzI
M 01 N 00 tC N O M W 0 1* N N RT 0 O ri 00 t0 ri O Ln
O ri n w 00 01 01 O 00 n 00 w Ri 00 Ln � ri 00 F- O tt Rt
00 t0 6 Ih N .4 4 00 M 00 Ln 00 00 t\ cM tC N On N M L"i
00 00 00 n f� 00 t\ Ln LG I,- n M M 01 01 01 01 01 00 01 00 00
n n n 00 00 00
00 co 0O0 O�q d Ol C1 Ch M w N 0J
L L
o> E E E f0 m c> E E E f6 '= c�0 c �' -0
to Q �co� Q � Q O QoaiwO0 wO o w
wE AAZ LL NZ
Z 0
V
t
w — 00 N Ln M w Ln Ln 0 m Ln Ln O m 01 fV M O v w w 00 N in Ln 00 Ln 00 m m
c M 0 ri m m M 01 O M N m m 00 v w Ln M 01 m Ln 1-% O N f` Ln N-* Ln
occ 0 ri 00 N cM 06 4 'i "i Ln -i M Ln M N 'i M ri N LO N N fYf t\ (vi 0i O O N ri
cc 00 01 N 00 M 00 M 01 01 01 M M M 0at 01 M 01 01 M M M 000 00 M M 01 01 M
0
H Ln Ln Ln w Lc
Ln ri Ln ri ri LO l0 ri ri h
t a1 r� Ln Ln riLn
rLni rMi `^ ko
d La Oj '^ v
C GE EL m EdEW O OC.0ai aflS`ac°
cu ^r3
`CCCU LLO LL L Q M QQOQ
Ln Z a Z Ni
C
4 ri N ri ri w N Ln to ri e-I O O m M 0 e-I N� ri Ln
..r M N M M 00 M t\ M cf w M fl- O M G M M ri 0 00 00 O
M Ln N rn M o0 LO 00 01 M a4 1,: h n W 00 00 Ln t0 ci N C1
� 01 Q1 O1 01 01 00 00 00 0 Q) M 01 01 01 01 O1 00 01 00 � 01 0
Go coO 01 M
{�� r^i rn-1 00 00 00 -4 00 r i i O1 (n O 01 01 ri ri
_ ^ i ` ` ri 00 00 00 00 r;i OJ O) OJ �i eMi (n M Oy �, i N 07
c ri n � a`, � � Z � t _' rL rl ,.i � � d � � ga t = a. a, , -0 a)
8 �' aEi E E c° c E E E `0 'c c �- 3 E Q E E
3 0 a m> L Lo Q LSO a O 0 a, � L ca Q �� w N C w w
to O Z 0 U.Ln O Z O LL N O Z C
L
_0 Ln Ln 0 00 N Ln w N ri O tD t0 N N M ri W M N 00 O t` N M 00 N 10 M
O t in ri -W m m 00 Ln N wtD t\ O Ln Ln M Ln O w .4 Ln m ri m I\ t` m 00 ri
Ln Cf O1 O M ri Lf1 n n t LO p Ln 00 la N ri LO Vl Ln M O [V LA Ln ri
� Q1 01 0 01 O� 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Q1 Q1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
0
C Ln Ln Ln O t0 O
m rLni Ln ` ri aO1 rO�i l0 tD tD t0 rOi ri r^i rrq N 1� n
t ' ri ri ri Ln Ln in
C .Q ? 5 t r o 0) N C fa C' = 7 to 0) 01 OJ c f0 .L 7
o f° ra c a 3 E E E = L r-m c = E o E E= 2 L Q M c
a,Ia ¢ Qt c a 02a �,a' ao c v�LL�Q�
LL to Z 0 La. N Z 0
N
Ln
to
01

UD
In
W
Pn
00
M
M
ri
N
-4
N
O
\
tkD
V1
00
N
L.
N
L.
m
%-
fbO
L
m
L
et
>
>
>
>
>
a
a
a
a
s
m
m
m
m
m
J
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
r
m
3
C
J ._
o
W
C
C
c
cr
cc
M
O
ri
00
z >
o0
L6ON
Cn
V1
0 J W
2
y -
QM M
O
Cr
a Q
O
W
WJ
m
J
II II
O 3
J
W
CD
P LL
cy
A
OC
E
U
�
W
2
M
-4
Ln
M
W
N-i
N
N
M't 00
00
tO M
w
M
m
O 00
m
tD
N
00
�"�
e�i
N
ri e 4
ri
r i
m
Ln LA
C
CA
N
Co
O
C
C4
Ln
Ln
M
%0
N
N
M 00
�'
00
%R f /'f
lQ
G1
-M0
O 0ro
0
U6
N
00
ri
a-1
e q
N
a q e 4
e q
a l
m
to Ul
f0
0
l/'1
n
N
3 cf
II
a
N
o
L
..
E o
en
tO
mw
eMi
ir-4
=
ew•I
eWi .^i
.^-�
r^-I \
0�0
0�0
0�0
co
\ cn
•-
y
m
o
c
o\o
m
e\.I �
m
rn 1
c i
-1
00
•U 0)
N
M
�
00
\
M
N
ei
N \ N
rq
ri \
�4
M
N
P Ln
r-4
LPL \
Q\1
m
�
rrq q
O\1
l\O
0\0-1M
\
f0
0\0
F-

�
���N|rq
� |.1 1\1�
�
W
ƒ q
0
k
O
Im
co
E
d
k �
0
�
�r
z a
c
a
2
a
m
d
m
\
CL
f
&
/
\ (
Ln
2
+
m

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Murphy WWTP
PermitNo. NC0020940
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 1.4
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 96.9
Enter w7Q10 (cfsl: 113
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
96.9
s7Q10 (CFS)
96.9
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.4
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.4
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
2.17
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
2.17
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
2.19
IWC (%)
2.19
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
776
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
35.8
Capped at 28 ug/L
> 35 mgA;
no limit imposed
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
113
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100-1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1.4
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
2.17
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
45.65 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
1.88
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
84.1
> 35 mg/L;
no limit imposed
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l 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)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

p p pa
a
Z 2 2 S LL I
2 1 I I CIR
O
O
A
O
O
O
u
O
ul
ON
a
O
ul
O
ul
O
a
N N N N
N
O I= I
O I ib
O I I
O a a a a l
O= a
n
0
Z
cr
U
p
t7
p
0
crcl
°0
Q.
E
a
O
O
yj
�
LL
C
1L
C
LL
tL
V
1L
H 2
m
N N N I
H d a d CL
Ln 2 2 S 2
Q
I I I I I
Q
co
3
0
3
3
—
Qa LL x x
x
¢
u
Q
W
z
Q
IL
u
a
Q
c
o
•m
•N
m
m
a
•mm
m
a
cl
a
m
a
c
a
CL as CL CL l
a a a
m
to
Q
m
F
c
O
O
N
o
C
o�
O
oti
a
cr
a
cr
3
nC1
cy
13
SSxx
CL a a a
0
0
0
0
0
.ami
a
a
ami
ami
ae
�
ac
oc
rc
mm m =
ga a as
m
I I I
g
I I I I I
g
I CL
c
�
C
O
S
Y
2E
a
C
a
W
O.
L
CL
WE
N
u
QI
3
7
0
t:ry
p
tg
N N V�
L
0
N v�
C
C
U•
C
N
, I I
u
C
N N
V
C
x 2
Z
Q I I I I I
Z
Q , I I I
Z
Q. a
Z
Q a a a a a
Z
Q a C CL
C
C
C
C
C
p7p
7
p�p
7
7
j u
U
U
U
.3
1
C7
D
�
g= I
a
14
mm��
�
gLL2xxx
fi
g.
g I I
j
m
G. a CL a CL
0
�
.1
is
C
E
,�
C
gc
m
!!
g
O
p
V
N
m
N
14
U
-cr
!
GLu
p
s Z
x S S 2 2
LL I I I I I
LL I I , I I
u
LL I I I I
(>
LL
Z
Z
Z
Z
�
ti
ti
N
0
N
N
O
i Er'
v
n
! V
a
•
a0
a
°m
m`
y
m m m m m
y
x x x x
i t
�'
I
v
m
I
ac
m
m
a a a a a
y
Co
m
a
C m
A
C
&
3 =
O
N
N
c
a
p
�
j m
Ln to n
w rn m m
Ln %o n ao m
Ln 4o n co m
N N N N
ov o 0
N N N N N
y
N N N N N
0 0 o
N N N N N
L
6
o 0 0 0 0
N N N N N
iN
v
O
CL
n
U of
n
EL
C
z
u
>
u
a
i
u
m
8
z
c01i
z
z
u
LA
N
ei
0
n
a
v
C

\
M
@ CL
/�
<
$ d §
k §�
C� 2
0-
M
0
�
§
.
�
E .
0
� \
#
�
�
k
¥
6
\
2
% LU
k S
■ \
>
,7
B
M )
kID
■ 2
E
ƒkxk
%L uj
Q a
■
G
§g
L)/
o
V)
§ `
t
)
%
$ CD
� k
\§
-
■ -
)
z
w
CL
6
\
§ §
/
8
§ k
2
kI
/ƒ
§�
§

NPDES/A uifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS -AFTER you not this form back
Check all that apply
from PERCS:
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP dale we said should be
Date of Request 9/2/2018 municipal renewal X
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Requestor Nicholas Coco new industries
(or NOV POTW).
Facility Name Murphy WWTP WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number NCO020940 Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
renewal.
Region ARO stream reclass.
Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Basin HlWassee River oulfall relocation
Send PERCS paper copy of permit (wlo NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
otherl
changes.
other
check applicable PERCS staff: other Commel]lj to
PERCS:
BRD CPF CTB FRB TAR - Vivien Zhong 807-6310}
_
Faculty is rated 1.4 MGD wtih 3 CIUs listed in Its application.
CHO. HIW LTN LUM, NES NEW ROA, YAD_ _
- Monti Hassan 807-6314)
'
PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
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 (list "DEV' if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time period for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrialrjti
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
N Cycle:
^a
d
Parameter of
Concern
POC due to
NPDES/ Non- Required by
Required
by 608
POC due
POTW POC
(Explain
STMP
Effluent
LTMP
Effluent
Check List
List
Disch Permit' EPA`
SI e"
to SIV,,,
.
below)*...
Freq
Freq
Limit
Q =Quarterly
-
OD
4
Q M
TSS
4
Q M
NH3
4
Q M
Arsenic
4
Q M
Cadmium
4
Q M
Chromium
4
Q M
4
Q M
Cyanide
4
Q M
/s all data on DMRs?
Lead:
4
Q M
YESI
le
Mercu
4
Q M
NO attach data
Mol Wenum
4
Q M
lckel
4
Q M
w"iS11ver
-4
Q M
Selenium
4
Q M
One
4
Q M
is data inspreadsheet?
Total Nit an
4
Q M
YES email to v fitar
Phosphorus
4
Q M
NO
4 Q M
4 Q M
4 Q M
4 Q M
•ANvays In the LTMP/STMP "' Only in LTMPISTMP If sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for Incinerators)
"• Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW "" Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer lox explanation of any POC s: Info you have on IU related
I ntinadons Into NPDES problems)=W('Q-jjV
runji SIM" Q� (N\ cH F kw), tiv- 16G
vv-7 ►,- 6)1_� LW-yC)t V t k M tr
PERC NPDES Pmtreatmentmquestfwmma)2016.x1sx
Revised: July 24, 2007

United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
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 i LJ 2 L15 JI 3 N00020940 11 12 19/05/03 117 18 LJ 19 cJ 20LJ
211 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t r r 1 r 1661
I- -Minn AAIAe M1 .. C-:1;1.. O.W 11I..n;L A. C0-1..
67 70LI 71 I 72
73I 74 751 I I I I I 80
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 19/05/03 13112JOl
Murphy WWTP
Payne St
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Murphy NC 28906
11:15PM 19/05/03 17/08/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)lritles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Tyler B White/ORC/828-837-5035/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/ritle/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Tyler White,PO Box 130 Murphy NC 2890601301/828-837-5035/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program E Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
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
Mikal Willmar Division of Water Quality//828-296-4686i
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# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020940 11 121 19/05/03 J 17 18 ICI
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Inspector Mikal Willmer, with the Asheville Regional Office, conducted a compliance evaluation
inspection of the Town of Murphy's WWTP. This inspection was conducted to determine whether the
facility is being operated and maintained in compliance with NPDES Permit No. NC0020940. Tyler
White, ORC, was present and assisted in the inspection.
Overall the facility is being operated and maintained in compliance.
Records were organized and up to date. Staff are performing routine maintenance and general
housekeeping around the facility. There were only a few items noted during the inspection that should
be considered for further review.
Annual Calibration: If not already being provided, the Town needs to request a calibration report from
Carolina Technical Services. This report verifies the flow measuring device is reading within 10% of the
true value.
Headworks: Staff have attempted to contain debris from the mechanical bar screen as best as
possible; however, debris is still leaving the concrete pad directly under the screen and dumpster. This
needs to be addressed in future budgets to prevent the generation of nuisance conditions and to help
staff more easily dispose of debris.
Hypochlorite: The bulk hypochlorite tank sits on a concrete pad; however, there is no additional means
of containment should the tank rupture or a leak occur. Recommend secondary containment to prevent
a significant spill to the ground or surface waters.
Drying Bed: Recommend an alternative backup solids storage solution during future upgrades, if
additional solids storage is needed for the facility. The current bed does not appear to be easily
maintainable.
Page#

Permit: NCO020940
Inspection Date: 05/03/2019
Operations & Maintenance
Owner - Facility: Murphy VVWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: Setteable Solids and DO are monitored.
Permit
(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?
Yes No NA NE
■❑❑❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ r ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
' ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Permit ex;,ired August 31, 2017 and is currently under review in Ralekh. A staff re; ort will be
+generated for reference and made available to the permit writers.
Record Keeping
Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
❑
❑
❑
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?
a
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
❑
❑
W
❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
V
❑
❑
❑
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?
LE
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
LF
❑
❑
❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO020940 Owner - Facility: Murphy VWVTP
Inspection Date: 05/03/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Annual report is posted on the Town's website and is available at Town Hall.
Influent Samplina
Yes No NA NE
# is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
5
❑
❑
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: influent sam;)linu is set to time composite.
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? ❑ N ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit in good condition? ❑ "❑ ❑
Comment: The mechanical screen keeps most of the debris out of the SBRs_ however, there is no
additional -grit chamber and the screened debris is difficult to transfer to the dumpster with
the current setup. The ORC. Tyler White, reports issues with excessive rags from the jail. A
significant amount of debris is still making it on the around. Staff have attempted to create an
easier conveyance for the debris. but it does not completely contain all items -
Sequencing Batch Reactors
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Duplex
Is the reactor effluent free of solids?
i ❑
❑
❑
Does minimum fill time correspond to the peak hour flow rate of the facility?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is aeration and mixing cycled on and off during fill?
■ ❑
❑
❑
The operator understands and can explain the process?
❑
❑
❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO020940
Inspection Date: 05/03/2019
Sequencing Batch Reactors
Owner - Facility: Murphy WVVrP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Comment: SBRs mix/fill. react -settle and decant. One fills while the other settles. SBRs contain mixers
and diffusers for aeration. A batch is approximately 6 hours. Diffusers have not been
replaced/repaired since system was installed. Town is budgeting to rebuild/replace
diffusers. Transducers with float back-ups are used as high-level alarms. No remote
notification. operators erators must manually check PLC. Significant grease noted in SBRs at the
time of the inspection. The Town is starting a FOGs program to help reduce O&G. Several
restaurants may need to pump grease traps more frequently
Pumins-RAS-WAS
Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
®
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Staff waste from SBRs about once a day
Aerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0 ❑
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Do not have to press solids very often. When needed, solids are
pressed and sent to the.
landfill.
Equalization Basins
Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated?
❑
E
❑
❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
®
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
❑
❑
N
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
❑
❑
N
❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
®
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Two basins -gravity feed to chlorine contact chamber. If level rises both basins are
connected to handle overflow.
Disinfection -Liquid Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO020940 Owner - Facility: Murphy VNNTP
Inspection Date: 05/03/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection-Liauld
Yes
No NA NE
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
❑
N
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
❑
❑
❑
0
Comment: Liquid chlorine feed is flow proportional. Recommend additional containment around the
heochlorite bulk storage container to prevent major leak/spill to the
ground or surface
waters. Tank sits approximately 100' from the Hiwassee.
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
❑ ❑
E
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑ ❑
0
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: System is flow proportional. Sodium bisulfite has containment in the event of a leak.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes No
NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
E
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Meter was last calibrated on 5/2/2018 by Mr. Kruchkow with Carolina Technical Services.
ORC reports they are scheduled to come out to recalibrate this month. If not already done
so the Town needs to obtain a calibration report from Carolina Technical for their records.
This helps to demonstrate the meter is recordinq
measurements within 10% of the true
value.
Effluent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
E ❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
IF ❑
❑
❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO020940 Owner - Facility: Murphy VVVVTP
Inspection Date: 05/03/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No NA NE
Is the tubing clean?
Wb
❑
❑
❑
# 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
III
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: Environmental Inc. is collecting samples for the Town of Murphy. The fridge was reading 0.5
degrees Celsius at the time of the inspection.
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? ❑ ❑ E ❑
Comment: Effluent pipe is located under water; however. access down to the river bank is maintained.
Drying Beds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
# Is the sludge land applied?
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ N ❑
❑ ❑ W ❑
❑ 130
❑❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ , ❑
Comment: One of the original drying beds was closed out durinq upgrades, but the other was kept
o en. Doesn't a ear new sludge has been placed within the bed. Recommend finding an
alternative solution to the daring bed during future upgrades if additional solids storage
capacity is needed. The bed has debris and weeds growing in it and doesn't appear easily
maintainable.
Page# 7