NC0021423_Fact Sheet_20210630

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO21423
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]:
Date: May 4, 2021
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
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 2"d 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 Spruce Pine/ Spruce Pine Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP)
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 189, Spruce Pine, NC 28777
Facility Address:
909 Creed Pitman Road, Spruce Pine, NC 28777
Permitted Flow:
2.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 99% domestic, 1% industrial*
Facility Class:
Grade III Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
Automatic bar screen, Teacup grit removal system, Three ring oxidation
ditch, Final clarification, Chlorination/dechlorination system, Two
aerobic sludge digesters
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Y; Modified STMP
County:
Mitchell
Region
Asheville
*Based on permitted flows.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Spruce Pine has
applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 2.0 MGD for the Spruce Pine WWTP. This facility serves a
population of approximately 3,000 residents, as well as 1 categorical significant industrial user (SIU) via
a modified short-term monitoring program (STMP). Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is
discharged into the North Toe River, a class C;Tr water in the French Broad River Basin. The facility has
a primary Outfall 001.
Page 1 of 9

2. Receiving Waterbodv Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 - North Toe River
Stream Index:
7-2-(27.7)
Stream Classification:
C;Trout
Drainage Area (mi2):
133
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
43.5
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
56
30Q2 (cfs):
81.6
Average Flow (cfs):
266
IWC (% effluent):
6.6
303(d) listed/parameter:
No, not listed in 2018 303d list
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
04-03-06/06010108
USGS Topo Quad:
D10NE Spruce Pine, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of May 2017 through April 2021.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Permit
Limit
Flow
MGD
0.8
3.1
0.353
MA 2.0
BOD
mg/1
2.6
8.8
< 0.5
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
TSS
mg/1
7.8
23
< 1
WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N
(Winter)
mg/1
0.3
3.9
0.1
WA 35.0
MA 30.0
(Summer)
mg/1
0.4
7.4
0.1
MA 12.0
DO
mg/1
7.5
10.7
5.4
Monitor &
Report
Fecal coliform
#/100 ml
(ge 5 4 an)
232
< 1
(geometric)
WA 400
MA 200
Temperature
° C
16.5
25
5
Monitor &
Report
pH
SU
6.5
7
6
6.0 < pH <
9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
ug/1
< 20
< 20
< 20
DM 28
Conductivity
umhos/cm
281
381
168
Monitor &
Report
Total Hardness
mg/1
17
45
30
Monitor &
Report
Page 2 of 9

TN
mg/1
5.4
12.9
1.02
Monitor &
Report
TP
mg/1
1.1
5.2
0.17
Monitor &
Report
MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average DM -Daily Maximum, DA-Daily Average, QA-
Quarterly Average, AA -Annual Average
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
conductivity upstream at least 150 yards above the of the outfall and downstream at least 250 yards below
the outfall. Hardness sampling is also required upstream of the outfall on a quarterly basis. Data was
observed from May 2017 to March 2021. The data has been summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Units
Upstream
Downstream
Parameter
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Temperature
° C
15.9
24
1
16.0
24
1
DO
mg/1
9.3
13.4
7.5
9.2
13.4
7.3
Conductivity
umhos/cm
85
184
43
86
184
43
Hardness
mg/1
24
40
16
-
-
-
itudents t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships b
etween instream
samples. A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is < 0.05
Downstream temperature was greater than 20 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18) — Trout
waters] on 95 occasions during the period reviewed. Upon further analysis, this was found to be
consistent with upstream excursions above 20 degrees Celsius. Downstream temperature was greater than
upstream temperature by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius on 40 occasions during the period reviewed. It
was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
temperature.
Downstream DO did not drop below 6 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] during the period reviewed.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream DO.
It was concluded that no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
conductivity.
No changes are proposed to instream monitoring requirements.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): N
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
Page 3 of 9

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported no limit
violations during the period reviewed.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 22 of 22 quarterly chronic toxicity tests as well as 4 of 4 second species
toxicity tests from February 2017 to February 2021.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in September 2019 reported that the facility was compliant.
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 1SA 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: At 6.6% IWC, the
facility was given secondary treatment limits which were more stringent than limits derived from a 1996
Streeter Phelps model (Level B) for instream DO protection. No changes are proposed from the existing
permit limits.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1 (summer) and 1.8 mg/1 (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1 (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current
permit sets a daily maximum limit for TRC at 28 ug/L. This limit has been reviewed in the attached WLA
and found to be protective. No changes are proposed for TRC.
Page 4 of 9

The current ammonia permit limits were initially set based on a 1996 Level B model conducted when the
Town requested expansion to 2.0 MGD. At this time, only a monthly average limit was applied to
ammonia during the summer. During the 2003 renewal, the Division implemented a weekly average limit
as requested by EPA at a 3:1 weekly average: monthly average ratio. During the 2017 permit renewal,
ammonia limits were again reviewed, and winter ammonia limits were added to the permit. The current
ammonia limits and have been reviewed in the attached WLA and have been found to be protective. 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 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.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between August 2016
through August 2020. 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: NA
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: NA
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable
concentration: NA
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern. (PPAs from 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020)
Note: 2019-2020 Modified STMP data also used in limited dataset review
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: Bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate
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: Total
Arsenic, Total Cyanide, Total Copper, Total Zinc, Total Phenolic Compounds,
Beryllium, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Lead, Total Nickel, Total Selenium,
Total Silver, Total Molybdenum
Page 5 of 9

Note: The permit required effluent pollutant scans in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The Town conducted scans in
2017, 2019 and 2020. While no action has been taken, the Town shall conduct future pollutant scans in
accordance with NPDES permit conditions in 2023, 2024 and 2025.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: The permit requires quarterly chronic toxicity testing at
6.6% effluent concentration. No changes are proposed.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary (2.0 MGD)
2017
2019
2020
# of Samples
1
1
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
2.49
5.22
5.64
Maximum Conc., ng/L
2.49
5.22
5.64
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
180.4
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: As noted in the renewal application, the
Town only conducted 3 of the 7 effluent mercury samples using EPA Method 1631 for low-level
mercury. Only the 3 low-level mercury samples were used in the TMDL evaluation. Since no annual
average mercury concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the
TBEL, no mercury limit is required. Since the facility is not > 2.0 MGD, a mercury minimization plan
(MMP) is not required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: NA
Page 6 of 9

7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
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). 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 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Page 7 of 9

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. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 2.0 MGD
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 2.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
BOD5
MA 30.0 mg/1
WA 45.0 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406; 1996 Level B
Model
NH3-N
(summer)
MA 12.0 mg/L
WA 35.0 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. 2021 WLA review. 15A
NCAC 2B
NH3-N
(winter)
MA 30.0 mg/L
WA 35.0 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. 2021 WLA review. 15A
NCAC 2B
TSS
MA 30.0 mg/1
WA 45.0 mg/1
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100m1
WA 400 /100m1
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
DO
Monitor and
Report 3/Week
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Temperature
Monitor and
Report Daily
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6 - 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
Total Residual Chlorine
DM 28 ug/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
Conductivity
Monitor and
Report 3/Week
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and
Report Quarterly
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Phosphorous
Monitor and
Report Quarterly
No change
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 2B. 0500
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
No requirement
Monitor and Report
Quarterly
Based on results of Reasonable
Potential Analysis (RPA); RP for
limited dataset with no value >
Allowable Cw - apply Quarterly
Monitoring. EPA Nationally
Recommended Water Quality
Criteria
Page 8 of 9

Total Hardness
Quarterly
monitoring
Upstream and in
Effluent
No change
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards
approved in 2016; Pretreatment
facility
Chronic Toxicity
Chronic limit,
6.6% effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
No change; conducted
in 2023, 2024, 2025
40 CFR 122
Electronic Reporting
Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
No change
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, QA
— Quarterly Average, DA — Daily Average, AA — Annual Average
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: May 14, 2021
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to the Town of Spruce Pine, the Town's contractor Veolia North America, EPA
Region IV, and the Division's Asheville Regional Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Operator
Certification Program and Municipal Permitting Unit Pretreatment Coordinator for review. The Aquatic
Toxicology Branch has noted that Section A.(1.)'s chronic toxicity requirement referenced the incorrect
footnote in the draft permit. This has been corrected for the final permit. No comments were received
from any other party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• Language in Section A.(1.) has been corrected to reference the correct footnote for the chronic
toxicity requirement.
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• BOD and TSS Removal
• Monitoring Reduction Frequency Spreadsheet
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Waste Load Allocation Spreadsheet
• Mercury TMDL Spreadsheet
• Limit Violations Summary
• Toxicity Summary
• Pretreatment Summary
Page 9 of 9

Invoice / Affidavit
The Mitchell News -Journal
Post Office Box 339
Spruce Pine, NC 28777
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MITCHELL
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Personally appeared before the undersigned, Rachel
Hoskins, who having been duly sworn on oath that she is the Regional Publisher
of The Mitchell News -Journal, and the following legal advertisement was
published in The Mitchell News -Journal newspaper, and entered as second class
mail in the Town of Spruce Pine in said county and state; and that she is
authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other
legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in
The Mitchell News -Journal newspaper on the following dates:
Notice of NOTICE OF WASTEWATER
PERMIT NC0021423
MNJ# 640382
Run Dates: 05/19/2021
And that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document or legal
advertisement was published, was at the time of each and every such
publication, a newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications of
Section 1-597 of the General Statues of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of the Section I-597 of the General Statues of
North Carolina.
Signatur/of person making affidav'
Sworn to and subscribed before me the
19th day of May, 2021
4,171.6,i_-z&
Notary Public 19RTT" 9 ,a_ f `G Lti l 'K
My Commission Expires: 2/ lGc 1 o24(
Filed with: NCDENR- DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Address: 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699
Total Cost of Advertisement: $61.28
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
NC0021423 Spruce Pine WWTP
The North Carolina
Environmental Management
Commission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge
permit to the person(s) listed
below, Written comments
regarding the proposed permit
will be accepted until 30 days
after the publish date of this
notice. The Director of the NC
Division of Water Resources
(DWR) may hold a public hearing
should there be a significant
degree of public interest. Please
mail comments and/or
information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested
persons may visit the DWR at
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604 to review information
on file. Additional information on
NPDES permits and this notice
may be found on our website:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/
water-resou rces/wate r-resources-
permits/wastewater-
branch/npdes-wastewater/publ ic-
notices,or by calling (919) 707-
3601. The Town of Spruce Pine
[909 Creed Pitman Road, Spruce
Pine, NC 28777] has requested
renewal of NPDES
permitNC0021423 for its Spruce
Pine Wastewater Treatment
Plant, located in Mitchell County.
This permitted facility discharges
treated municipal and industrial
wastewater to the North Toe
River, a class C-Trout water in
the French Broad River Basin,
Currently, ammonia, fecal
coliform, dissolved oxygen and
pH are water quality limited. This
discharge may affect future
allocations in this segment of the
North Toe River.
640382 05/19/2021.

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
['CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Spruce Pine WWTP
q
III
NC0021423
001
2.000
North Toe River
06010108
C;Tr
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q10s (cfs)
43.500
56.00
81.60
266.00
35.71
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
37 mg/L (Avg)
24.07 mg/L (Avg) —
25 mg/L
25.1 mg/L
Data Source(s)
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
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
Trout
NC
0.5899
TR
2.0218
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
yTotal Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
117.7325
FW
908.1677
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
7.8806
FW
10.5131
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
2.9416
FW
75.8413
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
37.2313
FW
336.3893
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
0.2985
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
126.7335
FW
126.1486
ug/L
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Human Health
C
0.37
HH
pg/L
21423 RPA, input
5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/1/2017 30 30 Std Dev.
2 11/7/2017 32 32 Mean
3 2/6/2018 36 36 C.V.
4 5/8/2018 34 34 n
5 8/7/2018 38 38 10th Per value
6 11/6/2018 34 34 Average Value
7 2/5/2019 34 34 Max. Value
8 5/14/2019 36 36
9 8/13/2019 40 40
10 11/5/2019 44 44
11 2/11/2020 44 44
12 5/12/2020 45 45
13 8/11/2020 37 37
14 11/3/2020 33 33
15 2/9/2021 38 38
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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
H2
Upstream Hardness
4.5670
37.0000
0.1234
15
32.40 mg/L
37.00 mg/L
45.00 mg/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/1/2017 40 40 Std Dev.
2 11/7/2017 22 22 Mean
3 2/6/2018 26 26 C.V.
4 5/8/2018 22 22 n
5 8/7/2018 20 20 10th Per value
6 11/6/2018 20 20 Average Value
7 2/5/2019 18 18 Max. Value
8 5/14/2019 22 22
9 8/13/2019 30 30
10 11/5/2019 28 28
11 5/12/2020 18 18
12 8/11/2020 27 27
13 11/3/2020 16 16
14 2/9/2021 28 28
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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
6.3058
24.0714
0.2620
14
18.00 mg/L
24.07 mg/L
40.00 mg/L
21423 RPA, data
- 1 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/30/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 11/5/2019 < 10 5 Mean
3 2/11/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 5/12/2020 < 10 5 n
5 5/3/2016 < 10 5
6 8/1/2017 < 10 5 Mult Factor =
7 2/5/2019 < 10 5 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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
7
2.01
5.0 ug/L
10.1 ug/L
21423 RPA, data
- 2 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/3/2016 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 8/1/2017 < 1 0.5 Mean
3 2/5/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default)
4 5/12/2020 < 1 0.5 n
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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par04
Cadmium
0.0000
0.5000
0.6000
4
2.59
0.50 ug/L
1.30 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/2/2017 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.7071
2 9/30/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.7500
3 11/5/2019 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 2/11/2020 < 1 0.5 n 8
5 5/12/2020 < 1 0.5
6 5/3/2016 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.90
7 8/1/2017 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
8 2/5/2019 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 4.750 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
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
21423 RPA, data
- 3 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/3/2016 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 8/1/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 5/12/2020 57 57 n
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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par10
Chromium, Total
27.2500
16.1250
0.6000
4
2.59
57.0 ug/L
147.6 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/30/2019 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 11/5/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 2/11/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default)
4 5/12/2020 < 5 2.5 n
5 5/3/2016 < 5 2.5
6 8/1/2017 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor =
7 2/5/2019 < 5 2.5 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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
7
2.01
2.5 pg/L
5.0 pg/L
21423 RPA, data
- 4 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pall
Copper
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/2/2017 3 3 Std Dev.
2 9/30/2019 5 5 Mean
3 11/5/2019 10 10 C.V. (default)
4 2/11/2020 4 4 n
5 5/12/2020 15 15
6 5/3/2016 3 3 Mult Factor =
7 8/1/2017 5 5 Max. Value
8 2/5/2019 8 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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par12
Cyanide
4.1726
6.6250
0.6000
8
1.90
15.00 ug/L
28.50 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 5/3/2016 5 5 Std Dev.
2 8/1/2017 5 5 Mean
3 2/5/2019 < 5 5 C.V. (default)
4 5/12/2020 < 5 5 n
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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.00
0.6000
4
2.59
5.0 ug/L
13.0 ug/L
21423 RPA, data
- 5 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date
9/30/2019 < 5
11/5/2019 < 5
2/11/2020 < 5
5/12/2020 < 5
5/3/2016 < 5
8/1/2017 < 5
2/5/2019 < 5
BDL=1/2DL Results
2.5 Std Dev.
2.5 Mean
2.5 C.V. (default)
2.5 n
2.5
2.5 Mult Factor =
2.5 Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par16
Molybdenum
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
7
2.01
2.500 ug/L
5.025 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/30/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 11/5/2019 < 10 5 Mean
3 2/11/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 5/12/2020 < 10 5 n
5 8/1/2017 < 10 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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
5
2.32
5.0 ug/L
11.6 ug/L
21423 RPA, data
- 6 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/30/2019 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 11/5/2019 < 10 5 Mean
3 2/11/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 5/12/2020 < 10 5 n
5 5/3/2016 < 10 5
6 8/1/2017 < 10 5 Mult Factor =
7 2/5/2019 < 10 5 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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par19
Selenium
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
7
2.01
5.0 pg/L
10.1 pg/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 2/11/2020 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 5/12/2020 < 10 5 Mean
3 5/3/2016 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 8/1/2017 < 10 5 n
5 2/5/2019 < 10 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 -Values"
then "COPY" .
Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000
5.0000
0.6000
5
2.32
5.0 ug/L
11.6 ug/L
21423 RPA, data
- 7 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Silver
Date Data
2/11/2020
5/12/2020
5/3/2016
8/1/2017
2/5/2019
10
5
5
5
5
BDL=1/2DL
5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par21
Zinc
1.1180
3.0000
0.6000
5
2.32
5.000 ug/L
11.600 ug/L
Date Data
5/2/2017
9/30/2019
11/5/2019
2/11/2020
5/12/2020
5/3/2016
8/1/2017
2/5/2019
77
102
51
71
148
82
90
53
BDL=1/2DL
77
102
51
71
148
82
90
53
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
31.0012
84.2500
0.6000
8
1.90
148.0 ug/L
281.2 ug/L
21423 RPA, data
- 8 - 5/10/2021

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par22
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 8/1/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 2/5/2019 19.8 19.8 Mean
3 5/12/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 n
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.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
9.3504
9.1000
0.6000
3
3.00
19.800000 pg/L
59.400000 pg/L
21423 RPA, data
- 9 - 5/10/2021

Spruce Pine WWTP
NC0021423
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 2.0000
1Q10S (cfs) = 35.71
7Q1OS (cfs) = 43.50
7Q1OW (cfs) = 56.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 81.60
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 266.00
Receiving Stream: North Toe River HUC 06010108
WWTP/WTP Class: III
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 7.987632054
IWC% @ 7Q1OS = 6.652360515
IWC% @ 7Q1OW = 5.24534687
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 3.659976387
IW%C @ QA = 1.151988109
Stream Class: C;Tr
Outfall 001
Qw = 2 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 25.1 mg/L
Chronic = 25 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
_1
n
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Stapda d AcuteoCi
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
7 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
10.1
C.V.(default)
NO DETECTS
Acute (FW): 4,256.6
_ _ _ _ -_ _ -------------------------------
Chronic(FW)--2,254.8
Max MDL =10 ______________________________________
Chronic (HH): 868.1
Max MDL = 10
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
1.30
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 813.76
____ _ ______ _____
Chronic: 97.71
Max MDL = 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cadmium
NC
0.5899 TR(7Q10s) 2.0218
ug/L
8 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4.750
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 25.312
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 8.867
Max MDL = 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
All values reported non -detect < 5 ug/L and < 1 ug/L
No monitoring required.
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
4 1
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
147.6
C.V. (default)
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 8,196.8
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chromium III
NC
117.7325 FW(7Q10s) 908.1677
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 11,369.7
--_ _ ---- _ _
---
Chronic: 1,769.8
-----------------------------
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 200.3
--_ _ ----_ _
--165.4--------------------------------
Chronic:
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
7 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
5.0
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Max reported value = 2.5
Max MDL = 5
a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Copper
NC
7.8806 FW(7Q10s) 10.5131
ug/L
8 8
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
28.50
C.V. (default)
Acute: 131.62
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 118.46
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
4 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
13.0
C.V. (default)
Acute: 275.4
____ _ ______ _____
Chronic: 75.2
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
21423 RPA, rpa
5/10/2021

Spruce Pine WWTP
NC0021423
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Outfall 001
Qw = 2 MGD
Lead
NC
2.9416 FW(7Q10s) 75.8413
ug/L
7 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
5.025
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Acute: 949.484
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 44.219
Max MDL = 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 4,211.4
Nickel
NC
37.2313 FW(7Q10s) 336.3893
µg/L
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 0
10.1
Chronic (FW):559.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Max MDL= 10
Monitoring required
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
µg/L
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Chronic (WS): 375.8
Max MDL= 10
Acute: 701.1
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
5 0
11.6
_ _ ______ ____
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 75.2
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Max MDL = 10
Monitoring required
Acute: 3.737
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.2985
ug/L
5 0
11.600
Note• n < 9
'
Limited data set
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
Chronic: 0.902
Max MDL = 10
All values reported non -detect < 10 ug/L and < 5 ug/L
No monitoring required. Permittee shall report to PQL
of 1 ug/L.
Acute: 1,579.3
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Zinc
NC
126.7335 FW(7Q10s) 126.1486
ug/L
8 8
281.2
Monitoring required
Note: n < 9
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 1,905.1
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
C
0.37 HH(Qavg)
µg/L
3 1
59.40000
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
C.V. (default)
Chronic: 32.118
No value > Allowable Cw
RP for limited dataset with no value > Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
Page 2 of 2
21423 RPA, rpa
5/10/2021

Permit No. NC0021423
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 April6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, 14/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
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
2B.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/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.1366724ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[ln 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*{1.462034ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[In 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. NC0021423
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.
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 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, 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. NC0021423
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) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(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:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [SS(1
+1 [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 = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (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 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. NC0021423
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)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
37
Default value used
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
24.07
Default value used
7Q10 summer (cfs)
43.5
NPDES Files
1Q10 (cfs)
35.71
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
2.0
NPDES Files
Date: 5/5/2021
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

NC0021423 Spruce Pine WWTP 5/5/2021
BOD monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
99.00
98.80
99.07
98.97
98.95
98.43
98.45
99.10
98.87
99.03
99.22
98.56
97.97
98.16
98.73
98.64
98.78
97.86
97.22
98.38
98.83
97.34
98.04
97.39
98.69
98.25
98.76
98.80
99.14
98.70
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
Overall BOD removal rate
98.34
98.95
98.59
97.72
97.92
98.64
98.26
98.26
99.13
98.75
98.80
98.30
99.01
98.06
99.12
98.96
98.27
98.54
TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR (%) Month RR (%)
May-17
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
97.60
98.06
98.42
97.36
97.99
97.72
96.88
98.35
98.22
98.28
98.52
97.86
97.93
97.88
96.81
96.55
97.71
95.39
94.89
97.05
98.21
94.98
94.59
94.54
98.06
97.53
98.47
98.01
98.65
97.50
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
Overall TSSD removal rate
96.81
97.82
97.02
96.26
96.24
97.59
95.87
93.85
97.66
98.07
96.75
95.50
94.76
91.78
97.41
98.28
98.80
97.03

5/10/21 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name
Spruce Pine WWTP/NC0021423
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
8/1/17 2.49
2/5/19 5.22
5/12/20 5.64
No Limit Required
No MMP Required
2.49
5.22
5.64
43.500
2.000
cfs
WQBEL = 180.39 ng/L
47 ng/L
2.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
5.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
5.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020

Spruce Pine WWTP/NC0021423
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2017
2019
2020
# of Samples
1
1
1
Annual Average, ng/L
2.5
5.2
5.6
Maximum Value, ng/L
2.49
5.22
5.64
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
180.4

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Spruce Pine WWTP
PermitNo. NC0021423
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
2
43.5
56
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Cap at 28 ug/L. Consistent with existing limit.
Maintain limit.
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
43.5
2
3.1
17.0
0
6.65
256
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS) 43.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.1
STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I) 0.22
IWC (%) 6.65
Allowable Conc. (mg/I) 11.9
Consistent with current limit. Maintain limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS) 56
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.1
STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
15.03 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I) 0.22
IWC (%) 5.25
Allowable Conc. (mg/I) 30.3
Consistent with current limit. Maintain limit.
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)
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)

United States Environmental Protection Agency
E PA 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
1 IN 2 I5 �-I 3 I NC0021423 111 121 19/09/10 117
Type
18 [ =
Iiiiiiiiiii
Inspector Fac Type
19 G I 201
21111111i illiiiiii II iiilili i l Iiiii
Reserved
1 751
166
I I I I I I 180
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
671I 70I I 711I 72 I N I 73I I 174
L�
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Spruce Pine WWTP
909 Creed Pitman Rd
Spruce Pine NC 28777
Entry Time/Date
10:15AM 19/09/10
Permit Effective Date
17/07/01
Exit Time/Date
01:OOPM 19/09/10
Permit Expiration Date
21/02/28
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Richard Canipe,PO Box 189 Spruce Pine NC 287770189//704-765-3000/
Yes
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran Sludge Handling Dispos Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
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
Linda S Wiggs DWR/ARO WQ/828-296-4500 Ext.4653/
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

31
NPDES yr/mo/day
NC0021423 111 121 19/09/10
117
Inspection Type
18 [j
(Cont.)
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The Inspector, Linda Wiggs, met with Russell Lankford, Darrell Graham, Steve Taylor and Melvin
Gardner.
A new bar screen was installed in May. This has yielded improvements throughout the plant and
removed the safety hazards the staff was having to deal with at the old bar screen. Staff have been
able to complete pertinent maintenance tasks at the facility since the bar screen installation; notably at
clarifier #1 & 2. Previous issues with the RAS-WAS pumps has also been remediated. Influent
pumps and controls are scheduled in the coming weeks.
A PCI was also conducted. We discussed the STMP and HWA, specifically related to the WWTP and
getting more accurate information on influent due to the missed sidestreams. An extension was
granted for further review by Regional and PERCS staff of STMP and IWS; due date 10/18/2019.
Effluent flow proportional sampling was not running at the time of the inspection. Staff stated they were
not getting enough water in the bottle for sampling recently and had issues. Since the inspection staff
had KDT out to work on the flow/sampling system. Veolia staff worked on it as well. The Hach
equipment will have to be sent to Hach for evaluation/repair. Veolia staff has set up a portable samplinc
in the interim; it is running flow proportional.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0021423
Inspection Date: 09/10/2019
Owner - Facility: Spruce Pine VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Improvement observed due to new bar screen. Process controls conducted; D.O.,
settleability, sludge judge.
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?
Comment: Permit expiration date is 2/28/2021.
Bar Screens
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?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment: New bar screen installed.
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADAtelemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment: In 2-3 weeks new pumps and controls are scheduled.
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0021423
Inspection Date: 09/10/2019
Owner - Facility: Spruce Pine VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent
Influent Sampling
# 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?
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Volume is 300m1, 45 minutes.
Side streams not captured include Shannon PS, belt press, scum trough, grit can, digester
decant.
We discuss other means of sampling some of these sidestreams for more accurate influent
numbers. See summary.
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment:
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/I)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: DO slighly elevated - 4.5 mg/I. Settelometer 400m1, 30 minutes. No foam present.
Page# 4

Permit: NC0021423
Inspection Date: 09/10/2019
Owner - Facility: Spruce Pine VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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)
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: #1 online, #2 & 3 offline. #3 to be used for surge flows. #1 & 2 have been cleaned since bar
screen installation. They will alternate use between #1 & 2 and use those not in use for
surge flows.
Blanket at 2'/11'.
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment: Pump leak has been fixed.
Disinfection -Gas
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: Blanket 1.5'/8', final chamber had no blanket.
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0021423
Inspection Date: 09/10/2019
Owner - Facility: Spruce Pine VVVVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Comment: Sulfur Dioxide used.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
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)?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Comment: The sampler is a fairly new Hach system. It was set for Timed (470 ml, 45 minutes) during
the inspection.
Since the inspection staff had KDT out to work on system. Hach will have to resolve the
sampler issue. Veolia staff have set up a portable sampling in the interim; it is running flow
proportional. See summary.
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Comment: Chart 36/meter 56, staff stated there is an adjustment to compensate for weir. Calibrated
10/18.
KDT Technologies visited the site since the inspection to work on the flow meter and
composite sampler. See summary.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Page# 6

Permit: NC0021423
Inspection Date: 09/10/2019
Owner - Facility: Spruce Pine VVVVfP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Upstream / Downstream Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, anc
sampling location)?
Comment:
Effluent Pipe
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:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Page# 7

NPDES/Aquifer
Protection
Permitting Unit
Pretreatment Information
Request
Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES
THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check
all
that
apply
from PERCS:
Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data
Date of Request
5/10/2021
municipal renewal
X
- we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
Requestor
Nicholas Coco
new industries
you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Spruce
Pine WWTP
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0021423
Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Asheville
stream reclass.
renewal.
Email PERCS draft fact sheet, RPA.
Basin
French Broad
outfall relocation
permit,
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS
staff:
Other Comments to
PERCS:
Ni
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB,
TAR
Facility is rated 2.0 MGD
with 1 SIU listed in its application.
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM,
NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
PERCS
Status
PRETREATMENT
of Pretreatment
STAFF COMPLETES THIS
Program (check all that apply)
PART:
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
-I
3) facility has SIUs
and DWQ approved Pretreatment
Program (list "DEV" if program
still under development)
3a) Full Program
with LTMP
-I
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:
Industrial
0.13
0.0385
Most recent:
2019-2020
Uncontrollable
n/a
0.6955
Next Cycle:
2025
POC in LTMP/
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required by EPA*
Required
by 503
Sludge**
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
Al
BO D
Al
Al
4
Q
Al
TSS
Al
Al
4
Q
Q = Quarterly
Al
NH3
Al
Al
4
Q
M = Monthly
Al
Arsenic
Al
4
Q
Al
Cadmium
Al
Al
Al
4
Q
Al
Chromium
Al
Al
4
Q
Ai
Copper
Al
Al
Al
4
Q
Al
Cyanide
Al
4
Q
Is all data on DMRs?
Al
Lead
Al
Al
Al
4
Q
YES
-I
Al
Mercury
Al
Al
4
Q
NO (attach data)
Al
Molybdenum
Al
4
Q
Al
Nickel
Al
Al
Al
4
Q
Al
Silver
Al
4
Q
Al
Selenium
Al
Al
4
Q
Al
Zinc
Al
Al
Al
4
Q
Is data in spreadsheet?
YES (email to writer)
NO
-I
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP 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 W riter (ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.form.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Spindale WWTP NC0020664/001 County: Rutherford Region: ARO Basin: BRD02 Mar Jun Sep Dec
Ceri7dPF Begin: 11/1/2013 Chr lim: 19% (3 tier)( NonComp: SINGLE 7Q10: 20 PF: 3.0 IWC: 19 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2017 - - 26.9 - - Pass - - >76 - - 26.9
2018 - - >76 - - >76 - - Pass - - 6.7(F) Pass
2019 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass - - - - - -
Spring Lake WWTP NC0030970/001 County: Cumberland Region: FRO Basin: CPF14 Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF Begin: 9/1/2017 chr lim: 5.5% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 40.0 PF: 1.5 IWC: 5.5 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N
2017 - Pass>22(P) >22(P) - Pass - - Pass>22(P) - - Pass
2018 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2019 - Pass - - >22(P) Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass >22(P) - - Pass
2021 - Pass - - - - - -
Spruce Pine WTP NC0082767/001 County: Mitchell Region: ARO Basin: FRB06 Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF Begin: 8/1/2016 Chr Monit: 90% NonComp: 7Q10: PF: 0.040 IWC: Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N
2017 - H - - H - - H - - H
2018 - H - - H - - H - - H
2019 - H - - H - - H - - H
2020 - H - - H - - - - - -
Spruce Pine WWTP NC0021423/001 County: Mitchell Region: ARO Basin: FRB06 Feb May Aug Nov
Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2011 chr lim: 6.6% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 44.0 PF: 2.0 IWC: 6.6 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N
2017 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2018 - Pass - - >26.4(P) Pass - - >26.4(P) Pass - - Pass >26.4(P)
2019 - >26.4(P) Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2020 - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2021 - Pass - - - - - -
Star WWTP NC0058548/001 County: Montgomery Region: FRO Basin: CPF10 Jan Apr Jul Oct
Ceri7dPF Begin: 4/1/2013 chr lim: 90% + NonComp: Single 7Q10: 0.0 PF: 0.60 IWC: 100 Freq: Q
SOC JOC:
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
2017 Fail 94.9 >100 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2018 Fail 58.1 82.2 Pass Pass Fail >100 >100
2019 Pass Fail >100 >100 Fail >100 82.2(F) Pass
2020 Pass - - Pass Pass Pass - -
2021 Pass - - - -
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
Page 103 of 119