NC0024911_Permit (Modification)_20010202

NPDES DOCUMENT !;CANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024911
MSD Buncombe County WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
'"w+a.. Nuan a. -_v r an'ulua..-y.1MiMawYw'Af :.YAK.. .s.v.r.: ..: •-...
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
February 2, 2001
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
February 2, 2001
42VA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. W.H. Mull
General Manager, Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County
P.O. Box 8969
Asheville, North Carolina 28814
Subject:Modification of NPDES Permit NC0024911
MSD Buncombe County WWTP
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Mull:
On January 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (Division) received your request to modify
permit NC0024911. Correspondingly, we are forwarding herewith the modifications to the subject permit,
which are to be found on the effluent limitations pages. In accordance with your request, the following
changes have been made:
• After discussions with John Kiviniemi of MSD Buncombe County and Max Haner of the
Asheville Regional Office, the upstream sampling location for all monitored parameters has been
changed. You are now required to monitor upstream of the hydroelectric plant as per your
request.
• The reasonable potential analysis for cyanide was performed using data from December 1999
through December 2000. Using this data set, no reasonable potential to exceed the allowable
instream concentration of cyanide was found. You will still be required to monitor twice
monthly for cyanide.
• As per 40CFR 133.101, Division has evaluated the possibility of modifying the secondary
treatment requirement of 85% removal. John Kiviniemi has provided flow and population data
that demonstrates that the MSD facility does not have a problem with inflow and infiltration; it is
precisely these problems that the 85% removal clause is intended to prevent. The requirement in
the 40 CFR 133.101 defines excessive inflow and infiltration as flow exceeding 275 gallons per day
per capita. The average per capita flow over the past three years at MSD is 173 gpd/capita,
thereby justifying an alteration of the percent removal requirement. Your facility is now required
to remove 80% of the influent BOD and TSS.
Please find enclosed the revised permit pages. The revised permit pales should be inserted into your
permit. The old pages may then be discarded. All other terms and conditions contained in the original
permit remain unchanged and in full effect. This permit modification is issued under the requirements of
North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision
shall be final and binding.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Natalie Sierra at telephone number
[phone], extension 551.
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Central Files
Asheville Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NPDES Unit
Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit
Technical Assistance & Certification Unit
EPA Region IV, Roosevelt Childress
Aquatic Toxicology Unit

Permit NC0024911
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT'== .,;;
„.„-.. t..,,,,,,t,,.� ..='Rs:3t:,- .?z'1 c�rr,;(L" 't t ... !y),,,
'.'�C, 'i, f
CHARACTERISTICS ,, f, _
n '2' -, . .
r ,ra i,;:�F� �•. � �'
�
:- - LIMITS' R
" z t ..84 '
">! .�^t' s .e:; s '". '�' s `', < °$'KwZ�
>., ° t ° , . , y , ,
4 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
at% ;r '�' pp ,., {
,4 w; '� ,tT; it✓„.lx,e '7'i t .i'. "§Si^:4 Y ,,n s,:'s..t 8.
1�� $,4r ker T,T. ; R i, c .e;'r',
,Sample
k: Monthly,'
r,
,Average
Weekly.
-t �• ..
Average,'.
,Daily.
{.,� ;,r�
.�;: Maximuma
Measurement
. �
�`. Frequency
. Sample §:
t.�,..�
�-Type; _ .��
Locationt'
�• �•-:;—�,c�.�:,i�..£x=Y;r.
;#:� �.�:«
Flow
40 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
CBOD, 5-day (20°C)2
25.0 mg/L
40.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream &
Downstream
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream &
Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream &
Downstream
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Conductivity
-
Daily
Grab
Effluent, Upstream
& Downstream
Cadmium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Cyanide4
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Chromium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Silver
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
pH5
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Upstream = French Broad River at dam discharge to fish ladder adjacent to intake flume to the
hydroelectric plant (Location is approximately 2700 feet upstream of the hydroelectric plant).
Downstream = French Broad River at Ledges Park. Upstream and downstream samples shall be
grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August
and September then once per week in the remaining months of the year.
2. The monthly average effluent CBODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed
20% of the respective influent value (80% removal) .
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0mg/L.
4. The quantitation limit for cyanide shall be 10 ug/1 (10 ppb). Levels reported at less than 10 ug/1
shall be considered zero for compliance purposes.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
6. Whole effluent toxicity will be monitored using the Pass/Fail Chronic Toxicity test with
Ceriodaphnia at 12%. Samples shall be taken in February, May, August & November; see A. (2.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts

MSD
Metropolitan Sewerage District of
Buncombe County, North Carolina
W.H. Mull, P.E., General Manager
P.O. Box 8969, Asheville, N.C. 28814
Telephone: Area Code [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
William Clarke, General Counsel
January 29, 2001
NC-DENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Attention: Mr. David Goodrich and Ms. Natalie Sierra
FEB - 2 2001
Brady M. Blackburn, Chairman
C. Michael Sobol, Vice -Chairman
Jackie W. Bryson, Secretary/Treasurer
,Steven T. Aceto
[� Barbara A. Field
David Gantt
Elizabeth C. Graham
E. Glenn Kelly
Ben Pace
S. Douglas Spell
W. Donald Venable
DENR - W.7ER O•f!,! ITY
PUNT SO CE E' NCH
Re: Summary notes from January 25, 2001 meeting concerning NPDES permit number
NC0024911 (MSD-Buncombe County, NC)
Mr. Goodrich/Ms. Sierra:
I would like to take this opportunity to offer my gratitude for the time you both afforded me
last Thursday to meet with you to discuss the outstanding concerns related to the recent
issuance of the subject NPDES permit. To summarize our discussion:
1. NC-DENR concurs with MSD's assessment that the described upstream monitoring
location creates specific access and safety concerns and will be relocated. This new
location will be identified by the NC-DENR Asheville Regional Office representative
(Max Haner) and will be communicated to the NC-DENR Raleigh Central Office for
permit modification.
2. NC-DENR concurs with MSD's assessment that the included 85% removal criteria
presents potential site specific concerns (specifically due to fixed film design of WWTP
and low influent concentrations). NC-DENR received the copied sections of 40CFR133
(secondary treatment regulation) with the highlighted sections 40CFR133.101(g),
133.103(d), 133.105(a),(b),(e) and will review these for applicability with regards to
lowering the %-removal criteria. MSD will calculate per capita flow values in
accordance with that described in the 40CFR133 statute for the purposes of "defining"
excessive I/I and will submit these calculations to NC-DENR for review in this regard.
In addition, MSD will also recommend a specific, numeric %-removal value to NC-
DENR as an alternative to the 85% currently incorporated in the subject permit. NC-
DENR also went "on record" of questioning the value of such a regulatory footnote
given the stature of North Carolina's environmental program(s); however commented
that their regulatory latitude was not without its limitations.
Website: www.main.nc.us/MSD

Page -2
3. NC-DENR concurs with MSD's assessment that much of the past "problems" with
respect to cyanide may likely have been rooted in analytical procedural problems. NC-
DENR commented that various other NC utility organizations have experienced similar
problems. NC-DENR received 18+months of recent WWTP effluent cyanide data to
incorporate into a new reasonable potential model and promised to re -run these
calculations within a week. Based on the cursory review of the all but one "non -
detects", NC-DENR commented that removal of the numeric limit was a possibility
(even taking into account the one data point anomaly). Removal of the subject limit and
the subsequent monitoring requirement would be determined by a reasonable potential
model; as the Federal anti -backsliding regulations prohibits removal unless this
evaluation is conducted.
4. NC-DENR concurs with MSD's assessment that a formal written appeal (i.e. Office of
Administrative Hearings) should likely be filed in accordance with the procedures
described in the NPDES issuance letter; as the above described evaluations and
subsequent permit modifications may likely be incomplete by the deadline identified in
the original permit issuance letter (i.e. 30 days after date of receipt). NC-DENR
recognizes and interprets the submittal of this correspondence simply as MSD's
obligation to preserve its legal right to a formal appeal and takes no offense given the
productivity of the recent 1/25/01 meeting.
As requested, I have made the I/I calculations as requested utilizing average monthly flow
figures and per capita figures from MSD's service area; please find the attached
spreadsheet. I look forward to hearing back from you (both) in the near future regarding
all of the above noted issues. If I can be of further assistance in ANY regard, please feel free
to contact me at my office number (828-252-7342 ext.19 or 828-225-8223 my direct-#).
Once again thank you for your time and the professional courtesy extending throughout last
week's meeting.
Sincerely,
John M. Kiviniemi
Director, WWTP & Environmental Services
Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County, NC (MSD)
Asheville, NC

YEAR Avg. Flow (MGD) Per Capita Flow
CY88 23.8 190
CY89 27.8 222
CY90 26.8 214
CY91 24.0 192
CY92 22.3 178
CY93 21.9 175
CY94 22.8 182
CY95 22.8 182
CY96 22.6 181
CY97 23.0 184
CY98 24.5 196
CY99 20.6 165
CY00 19.9 159
Note: per capita flow utilizes avg. monthly flow values and MSD customer
base of 125,000; 40CFR133 defines excessive Ill based upon > 275gpd/capita
YEAR Avg. Flow (MGD) Per Capita Flow YEAR Avg. Flow (MGD) Per Capita Flow
Jan-98 29.6 237 Jan-00 19.6 157
Feb-98 33.3 266 Feb-00 20.9 167
Mar-98 28.0 224 Mar-00 22.6 181
Apr-98 30.5 244 Apr-00 23.8 190
May-98 27.0 216 May-00 20.2 162
Jun-98 24.3 194 Jun-00 19.5 156
JuI-98 21.5 172 JuI-00 18.9 151
Aug-98 20.8 166 Aug-00 19.1 153
Sep-98 19.4 155 Sep-00 18.7 150
Oct-98 19.9 159 Oct-00 17.8 142
Nov-98 19.6 157 Nov-00 18.7 150
Dec-98 19.6 157 Dec-00 18.5 148
YEAR Avg. Flow (MGD) Per Capita Flow
Jan-99 22.5 180
Feb-99 23.1 185
Mar-99 22.2 178
Apr-99 21.3 170
May-99 22.0 176
Jun-99 20.3 162
Jul-99 21.3 170
Aug-99 18.7 150
Sep-99 17.7 142
Oct-99 18.6 149
Nov-99 20.3 162
Dec-99 18.6 149

Year Per Capita
Flow (gpd/capita)
Jan-98 237
Feb-98 266
Mar-98 224
Apr-98 244
May-98 216
Jun-98 194
JuI-98 172
Aug-98 166
Sep-98 155
Oct-98 159
Nov-98 157
Dec-98 157
Jan-99 180
Feb-99 185
Mar-99 178
Apr-99 170
May-99 176
Jun-99 162
JuI-99 170
Aug-99 150
Sep-99 142
Oct-99 149
Nov-99 162
Dec-99 149
Jan-00 157
Feb-00 167
Mar-00 181
Apr-00 190
May-00 162
Jun-00 156
Jul-00 151
Aug-00 153
Sep-00 150
Oct-00 142
Nov-00 150
Dec-00 148
AVERAGE 173.0

MSD Upstream Sampling Location
Subject: MSD Upstream Sampling Location
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:11:21 -0500
From: Max Haner <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
To: Natalie Sierra <[e-mail]>
CC: Max Haner <[e-mail]>,
John Kiviniemi <[e-mail]>
Natalie - I've just met with John Kiviniemi and Dennis Lance of MSD
(NC0024911) regarding the permit wording about the upstream sampling
point. Would you please edit the wording on the effluent limits page to
read the following: " Upstream = French Broad River at dam
discharge to fish ladder adjacent to intake flume to the hydroelectric
plant (Location is approximately 2700 feet upstream of the
hydroelectric plant)." This location is the one that MSD has been
using all along and it appears to be representative of the upstream
flow. The downstream sampling point is OK as written.
Thanks, Max
Max Haner - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
DMax.Haner.vcf
Name: Max.Haner.vcf
Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
Encoding: 7bit
Description: Card for Max Haner
1 of 1
2/1/01 5:07 PM

Feb 121999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Feb 16 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Feb 221999
Plant Effluent
10.60
Feb 231999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 1 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 2 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 8 1999
Plant Effluent
20.70
Mar 9 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 15 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 18 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 22 1999
Plant Effluent
20.90
Mar 25 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 29 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Apr 1 1999
Plant Effluent
12.90
Apr 51999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Apr 14 1999
Plant Effluent
12.60
Apr 19 1999
Plant Effluent
13.00
Apr 22 1999
Plant Effluent
47.60
Apr 281999
Plant Effluent
26.30
May 51999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
May 121999
Plant Effluent
25.90
May 191999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
May 261999
Plant Effluent
37.80
10.001
Jun 21999
Plant Effluent
<
Jun 91999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jun 151999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jun 231999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jun 301999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jul 7 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jul 141999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jul 21 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jul 281999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 41999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 11 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 181999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 251999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 1 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 8 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 15 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 22 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 29 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Oct 61999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Oct 12 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Oct 201999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Oct 271999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 3 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 10 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 18 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 24 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00

Nov 29 1999
Plant Effluent
<
. A•
Dec 2 1999
Plant Effluent
55r70
Dec 8 1999
Plant Effluent
<.00
Dec 15 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 22 1999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 281999
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jan 5 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jan 12 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
10.00
Jan 20 2000
Plant Effluent
<
Jan 26 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Feb 2 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Feb 9 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Feb 16 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Feb 23 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 1 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 8 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 15 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 22 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Mar 29 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Apr 5 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Apr 12 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Apr 19 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Apr 26 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
May 2 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
-6.00
May 10 2000
Plant Effluent
May 17 2000
Plant Effluent
4.00
May 25 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
May 31 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jun 7 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jun 14 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jun 21 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jun 26 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
10.00
Jun 29 2000
Plant Effluent
<
Jul 6 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jul 12 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jul 19 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jul 25 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 2 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 9 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 16 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 23 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Aug 30 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 6 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 13 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 20 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Sep 27 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Oct 4 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Oct 11 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Oct 18 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
(Pace)
(Pace)

Oct 25 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 1 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 8 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 15 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 21 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Nov 29 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 4 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 5 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 6 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 7 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 8 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 13 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 19 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Dec 28 2000
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jan 3 2001
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jan 8 2001
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jan 9 2001
Plant Effluent
<
10.00
Jan 10 2001
Jan 11 2001
Jan 12 2001
Jan 17 2001
Plant Effluent
< 10.00
< 10.00
< 10.00
< 10.00
Plant Effluent
Plant Effluent
Plant Effluent

Jan 291999
Plant Influent
<
10.00
Apr 191999
Plant Influent
<
10.00
Apr 221999
Dec 21999
Jun 26 2000
Jun 29 2000
Dec 4 2000
Dec 5 2000
Dec 6 2000
Dec 7 2000
Dec 8 2000
Jan 8 2001
Jan 9 2001
Jan 10 2001
Jan 11 2001
Jan 12 2001
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
Plant Influent
<
<
<
<
<
<
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00

Sec.
133.100
133.101
133.102
133.103
133.104
133.105
PART 133-SECONDARY
TREATMENT REGULATION
Purpose.
Definitions.
Secondary treatment.
Special considerations.
Sampling and test procedures.
Treatment equivalent to secondary treatment.
Aunioarrv: Secs. 301(bXI)(13), 304(d)(l), 304(dX4),
308, and 501 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981; 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(I)(B), 1314(d)
(1) and (4), 1318, and 1361; 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-
500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217; 95 Stat. 1623, Pub.
L. 97-117.
SOURCE: 49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984, unless other-
wise noted.
§ 133.100 Purpose.
This part provides information on the level of
effluent quality attainable through the application
of secondary or equivalent treatment.
§ 133.101 Definitions.
Terms used in this part are defined as follows:
(a) 7-day average. The arithmetic mean of pol-
lutant parameter values for samples collected in a
period of 7 consecutive days.
(b) 30-day average. The arithmetic mean of pol-
lutant parameter values of samples collected in a
period of 30 consecutive days.
(c) Act. The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq., as amended).
(d) BOD. The five day measure of the pollutant
parameter biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
(e) CBOD5. The five day measure of the pollut-
ant parameter carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD5).
(f) Effluent concentrations consistently achiev-
able through proper operation and maintenance.
(1) For a given pollutant parameter, the 95th per-
centile value for the 30-day average effluent qual-
ity achieved by a treatment works in a period of
at least two years, excluding values attributable to
upsets, bypasses, operational errors, or other un-
usual conditions, and (2) a 7-day average value
equal to 1.5 times the value derived under para-
graph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) Facilities eligible for treatment equivalent to
secondary treatment. Treatment works shall be eli-
gible for consideration for effluent limitations de-
scribed for treatment equivalent to secondary treat-
ment (§ 133.105), if:
(1) The BOD5 'and SS effluent concentrations
consistently achievable through proper operation
and maintenance (§ 133.101(1)) of the treatment
works exceed the minimum level of the effluent
quality set forth in §§ I33.102(a) and I33.102(b),
(2) A trickling filter or waste stabilization pond
is used as the principal process, and
(3) The treatment works provide significant bio-
logical treatment of municipal wastewater.
(h) mg/1. Milligrams per liter.
(i) NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System.
(j) Percent removal. A percentage expression of
the removal efficiency across a treatment plant for
a given pollutant parameter, as determined from
the 30-day average values of the raw wastewater
influent pollutant concentrations to the facility and
the 30-day average values of the effluent pollutant
concentrations for a given time period.
(k) Significant biological treatment. The use of
an aerobic or anaerobic biological treatment proc-
ess in a treatment works to consistently achieve a
30-day average of a least 65 percent removal of
BOD5.
(I) SS. The pollutant parameter total suspended
solids.
(m) Significantly more stringent limitation
means BOD5 and SS limitations necessary to meet
the percent removal requirements of at least 5 mg/
1 more stringent than the otherwise applicable con-
centration -based limitations (e.g., less than 25 mg/
1 in the case of the secondary treatment limits for
BOD5 and SS), or the percent removal (imitations
in §§ 133.102 and 133.105, if such limits would,
by themselves, force significant construction or
other significant capital expenditure.
(n) State Director means the chief administra-
tive officer of any State or interstate agency oper-
ating an "approved program," or the delegated
representative of the State Director.
[49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984; 49 FR 40405, Oct. 16,
1984, as amended at 50 FR 23387, June 3, 1985]
§ 133.102 Secondary treatment.
The following paragraphs describe the minimum
level of effluent quality attainable by secondary
treatment in terms of the parameters—BOD5, SS
and pH. All requirements for each parameter shall
be achieved except as provided for in §§ 133.103
and 133.105.
(a) BOD5.
(1) The 30-day average shall not exceed 30 mg/
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 45 mg/
(3) The 30-day average percent removal shall
not be Tess than 85 percent.
(4) At the option of the NPDES permitting au-
thority, in lieu of the parameter BOD5 and the lev-
els of the effluent quality specified in paragraphs

§ 133.103
(a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), the parameter CBOD5
may be substituted with the following levels of the
CBOD5 effluent quality provided:
(i) The 30-day average shall not exceed 25 mg/
1.
(ii) The 7-day average shall not exceed 40 mg/
1.
(iii) The 30-day average percent removal shall
not be less than 85 percent.
(b) SS. (1) The 30-day average shall not exceed
30 mg/1.
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 45 mg/
(3) The 30-day average percent removal shall
not be less than 85 percent.
(c) pH. The effluent values for pH shall be
maintained within the limits of 6.0 to 9.0 unless
the publicly owned treatment works demonstrates
that: (1) Inorganic chemicals are not added to the
waste stream as part of the treatment process; and
(2) contributions from industrial sources do not
cause the pH of the effluent to be less than 6.0 or
greater than 9.0.
[49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984: 49 FR 40405, Oct. 16,
1984]
§ 133.103 Special considerations.
(a) Combined sewers. Treatment works subject
to this part may not be capable of meeting the per-
centage removal requirements established under
§§ I33.102(a)(3) and 133.102(b)(3), or
§§ 133.105(a)(3) and 133.105(b)(3) during wet
weather where the treatment works receive flows
from combined sewers (i.e., sewers which are de-
signed to transport both storm water and sanitary
sewage). For such treatment works, the decision
must be made on a case -by -case basis as to wheth-
er any attainable percentage removal level can be
defined, and if so, what the level should be.
(b) Industrial wastes. For certain industrial
categories, the discharge to navigable waters of
BOD5 and SS permitted under sections
301(b)(I)(A)(i), (b)(2)(E) or 306 of the Act may
be less stringent than the values given in
§§ 133.102(a)(1), 133.102(a)(4Xi), 133.102(b)(1),
133.105(a)(1), 133.105(b)(1) and 133.105(e)(I)(i).
In cases when wastes would be introduced from
such an industrial category into a publicly owned
treatment works, the values for BOD5 and SS in
§§ 133.102(a)(1), 133.102(a)(4)(i), 133.102(6)(1)
, 133.105(a)(1), 133.105(b)(1), and
133.105(e)(I)(i) may be adjusted upwards pro-
vided that: (1) The permitted discharge of such
pollutants, attributable to the industrial category,
would not be greater than that which would be
permitted under sections 301(b)(I)(A)(i),
301(b)(2)(E) or 306 of the Act if such industrial
category were to discharge directly into the navi-
2
gable waters, and (2) the Flow or loading of such
pollutants introduced by the industrial category ex-
ceeds 10 percent of the design flow or loading of
the publicly owned treatment works. When such
an adjustment is made, the values for BOD5 or SS
in
§§ 133.102(a)(2), 133.102(ax4)(ii), § 133.102(b)
(2), I33.105(a)(2), 133.105(b)(2), and
133.105(e)(1)(ii) should be adjusted proportion-
ately.
(c) Waste stabilization ponds. The Regional Ad-
ministrator, or, if appropriate, State Director sub-
ject to EPA approval, is authorized to adjust the
minimum levels of effluent quality set forth in
§ 133.105 (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) for treatment
works subject to this part, to conform to the SS
concentrations achievable with waste stabilization
ponds, provided that: (1) Waste stablization ponds
are the principal process used for secondary treat-
ment; and (2) operation and maintenance data in-
dicate that the SS values specified in § 133.105
(b)(I), (b)(2), and (b)(3) cannot be achieved. The
term "SS concentrations achievable with waste
stabilization ponds" means a SS value, determined
by the Regional Administrator, or, if appropriate,
State Director subject to EPA approval, which is
equal to the effluent concentration achieved 90
percent of the time within a State or appropriate
contiguous geographical area by waste stabiliza-
tion ponds that are achieving the levels of effluent
quality for BOD5 specified in § 133.105(a)(I). [cf.
43 FR 55279].
(d) Less concentrated influent wastewater for
separate sewers. The Regional Administrator or, if
appropriate, State Director is authorized to
substitute either a lower percent removal require-
ment or a mass loading limit for the percent re-
moval requirements set forth in §§ I33.102(a)(3),
133.102(a)(4)(iii), 133.102(b)(3), 102.I05(a)(3)
, I33.105(b)(3) and I33.105(e)(1)(iii) provided
that the permittee satisfactorily demonstrates that:
(1) The treatment works is consistently meeting, or
will consistently meet, its permit effluent con-
centration limits but its percent removal require-
ments cannot be met due to less concentrated in-
fluent wastewater, (2) to meet the percent removal
requirements, the treatment works would have to
achieve significantly more stringent limitations
than would otherwise be required by the con-
centration -based standards, and (3) the less con-
centrated influent wastewater is not the result of
excessive Ill. The determination of whether the
less concentrated wastewater is the result of exces-
sive I/1 will use the definition of excessive I/I in
40 CFR 35.2005(b)(16) plus the additional cri-
terion that inflow is nonexcessive if the total flow
to the POTW (i.e., wastewater plus inflow plus in-
filtration) is less than 275 gallons per capita per
day.

(e) Less concentrated influent wastewater for
combined sewers during dry weather. The Re-
gional Administrator or, if appropriate, the State
Director is authorized to substitute either a lower
percent removal requirement or a mass loading
limit for the percent removal requirements set
forth in §§ 133.102(a)(3),
133.102(a)(4)(iii), 133.102(b)(3), I33.105(a)(3),
133.105(b)(3) and 133.105(e)(I)(iii) provided that
the permittee satisfactorily demonstrates that: (1)
The treatment works is consistently meeting, or
will consistently meet, its permit effluent con-
centration limits, but the percent removal require-
ments cannot be met due to less concentrated in-
fluent wastewater, (2) to meet the percent removal
requirements, the treatment works would have to
achieve significantly more stringent effluent con-
centrations than would otherwise be required by
the concentration -based standards; and (3) the less
concentrated influent wastewater does not result
from either excessive infiltration or clear water in-
dustrial discharges during dry weather periods.
The determination of whether the less concentrated
wastewater results from excessive infiltration is
discussed in 40 CFR 35.2005(b)(28), plus the ad-
ditional criterion that either 40 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd) or 1500 gallons per inch diameter
per mile of sewer (gpdim) may be used as the
threshold value for that portion of the dry weather
base flow attributed to infiltration. If the less con-
centrated influent wastewater is the result of clear
water industrial discharges, then the treatment
works must control such discharges pursuant to 40
CFR part 403.
[49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984, as amended at 50 FR
23387, June 3, 1985; 50 FR 36880, Sept. 10, 1985; 54
FR 4228, Jan. 27, 1989]
§ 133.104 Sampling and test proce-
dures.
(a) Sampling and test procedures for pollutants
listed in this part shall be in accordance with
guidelines promulgated by the Administrator in 40
CFR part 136.
(b) Chemical oxygen demand (COD) or total or-
ganic carbon (TOC) may be substituted for BOD5
when a long-term BOD:COD or BOD:TOC cor-
relation has been demonstrated.
§ 133.105 Treatment equivalent to sec-
ondary treatment.
This section describes the minimum level of ef-
fluent quality attainable by facilities eligible for
treatment equivalent to secondary treatment
(§ 133.101(g)) in terms of the parameters—BOD5,
SS and pH. All requirements for the specified pa-
rameters in paragraphs (a),.(b) and (c) of this sec-
tion shall be achieved except as provided for in
3
§ 133.105
§ 133.103, or paragraphs (d), (e) or (f) of this sec-
tion.
(a) BOD5. (1) The 30-day average shall not ex-
ceed 45 mg/l.
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 65 mg/
I.
(3) The 30-day average percent removal shall
not be less than 65 percent.
(b) SS. Except where SS values have been ad-
justed in accordance with § I33.103(c):
(1) The 30-day average shall not exceed 45 mg/
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 65 mg/
(3) The 30-day average percent removal shall
not be Tess than 65 percent.
(c) pH. The requirements of § 133.102(c) shall
be met.
(d) Alternative State requirements. Except as
limited by paragraph (f) of this section, and after
notice and opportunity for public comment, the
Regional Administrator, or, if appropriate, State
Director subject to EPA approval, is authorized to
adjust the minimum levels of effluent quality set
forth in paragraphs (a)(I), (a)(2), (b)(I) and (b)(2)
of this section for trickling filter facilities and in
paragraphs (a)(I) and (a)(2) of this section for
waste stabilization pond facilities, to conform to
the BOD5 and SS effluent concentrations consist-
ently achievable through proper operation and
maintenance (§ 133.101(0) by the median (50th
percentile) facility in a representative sample of
facilities within a State or appropriate contiguous
geographical area that meet the definition of facili-
ties eligible for treatment equivalent to secondary
treatment (§ 133.10I(g)).
(The information collection requirements contained in this
rule have been approved by OMB and assigned control
number 2040-0051.)
(e) CBOD5 limitations:
(1) Where data are available to establish
CBOD5 limitations for a treatment works subject
to this section, the NPDES permitting authority
may substitute the parameter CBOD5 for the pa-
rameter BOD5 In §§ 133.105(a)(1), 133.105(a)(2)
and I33.105(a)(3), on a case -by -case basis pro-
vided that the levels of CBOD5 effluent quality
are not less stringent than the following:
(i) The 30-day average shall not exceed 40 mg/
I.
(ii) The 7-days average shall not exceed 60 mg/
1.
(iii) The 30-day average percent removal shall
not be less than 65 percent.
(2) Where data are available, the parameter
CBOD5 may be used for effluent quality limita-
tions established under paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion. Where concurrent BOD effluent data are
available, they must be submitted with the CBOD

§ 133.105
data as a part of the approval process outlined in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(0 Permit adjustments. Any permit adjustment
made pursuant to this part may not be any less
stringent than the limitations required pursuant to
§ 133.I05(a)—{e). Furthermore, permitting authori-
ties shall require more stringent.limitations when
adjusting permits if: (1)'For existing facilities the
permitting authority determines that the 30-day av-
erage and 7-day average BOD5 and SS effluent
values that could be achievable through proper op-
eration and maintenance of the treatment works,
based on an analysis of the past performance of
the treatment works, would enable the treatment
works to achieve more stringent limitations, or
(2) For new facilities, the permitting authority
determines that the 30-day average and 7-day av-
erage BOD5 and SS effluent values that could be
achievable through proper operation and mainte-
nance of the treatment works, considering the de-
sign capability of the treatment process and geo-
graphical and climatic conditions, would enable
the treatment works to achieve more stringent lim-
itations.
[49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984; 49 FR 40405, Oct. 16,
1984]

Permit NC0024911
wtrtax
SeuPq oc.
*4100 `s e .
2.
3.
4.
►6ucat-
Ctt3)
f0^Ds"A
Vflo
ICY
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location1
Flow
40 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
CBOD, 5-day (20°C)2
25.0 mg/L
40.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream &
Downstream
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream &
Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream &
Downstream _
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Conductivity
�-
Daily
Grab
Effluent, Upstream
& Downstream
Cadmium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Cyanide4
22 pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chromium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Silver
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
pH5
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity&
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Footnotes:
Upstream = French Broad River, approximately 300 feet upstream of the hydroelectric plant.
Downstream = French Broad River at Ledges Park. Upstream and downstream samples shall be
grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August
and September then once per week in the remaining months of the year.[Instream monitoring is
not required during times when the hydroelectric plant is not operating or during severe or
hazardous weather,]-Ealtcai %,-AparkA) CAA-4-4►.4.% A 1-1,A.P•
The monthly average effluent CLODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent value (85% removal). -4 ;Y�r- "``"�° (�
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be ess than mg/
The quantitation limit for cyanide shall be 10 ug/1 (10 ppb). Levels reported at less than 10 ug/1
shall be considered zero for compliance purposes.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
6. Whole effluent toxicity will be monitored using the Pass/Fail Chronic Toxicity test with
Ceriodaphnia at 12%. Samples shall be taken in February, May, August & November; see A. (2.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
g710 amounts
tOI L OLQ 'TAue--- M4D iS�J- ka t011�41�